T29n1562_阿毗達磨順正理論
大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
No. 1562
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之一
諸一切種諸冥滅 拔眾生出生死泥 敬禮如是如理師 對法藏論我當說
論曰。諸欲造論。必有宗承。于所奉尊。理先歸敬。所以經主觀諸世間。皆為邪師異論所惑。自師永離一切諸冥。立教不虛。處大師位。成就尊勝不共功德。為緣引發殷凈信心。欲正流通彼所立教。故先贊禮佛薄伽梵自利利他圓滿功德。用標嘉瑞。許發論端。此中世尊智斷二德皆具足故。自利圓滿。恩德備故。利他圓滿。所以者何。一切種冥皆永滅故。智德圓滿。諸境界冥亦永滅故。斷德圓滿。授正教手拔眾生出生死泥故。恩德圓滿。聲聞獨覺。雖破諸冥。而猶未能滅一切種。故不成就一切種智。未得所有無知差別。不行智故。意樂隨眠智等𨵗故。不能如理濟拔有情。自利利他德未滿故。雖有聖德而不名師。唯佛世尊二德圓滿。無倒濟拔一切有情。成就希奇廣大名稱。位居尊極。獨號大師。故先贊禮大師功德。以開所說對法藏論。對法者何。頌曰。
凈慧隨行名對法 及能得此諸慧論
論曰。慧者擇法義。凈者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《阿毗達磨順正理論》第一卷
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之一
諸一切種諸冥滅 拔眾生出生死泥 敬禮如是如理師 對法藏論我當說
論曰：凡是想要造論的人，必定有其宗派傳承。對於所尊奉的聖尊，理應首先歸敬。因此，經論的作者觀察到世間眾生，都被邪師的異端邪說所迷惑，而自己的老師（佛陀）永遠遠離一切愚昧。他所建立的教法真實不虛，處於大師的地位，成就了尊貴殊勝、不與他人相同的功德。爲了引發清凈的信心，並正確地流通他所創立的教法，所以首先讚頌佛薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）自利利他的圓滿功德，以此作為吉祥的開端，並允許開始論述。這裡，世尊（佛陀）的智慧和斷德都具足，所以自利圓滿；恩德完備，所以利他圓滿。為什麼這樣說呢？因為他永遠滅除了一切種類的愚昧，所以智德圓滿；因為他永遠滅除了所有境界的愚昧，所以斷德圓滿；因為他伸出正確的教導之手，拔眾生脫離生死泥潭，所以恩德圓滿。聲聞和獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）雖然也能破除愚昧，但還不能滅除一切種類的愚昧，所以不能成就一切種智，沒有獲得所有無知的差別，不行使智慧，意樂和隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）等不夠完善，所以不能如理如實地救拔有情眾生，自利利他的功德沒有圓滿。雖然有聖人的功德，但不能稱為『師』。只有佛世尊的智慧和斷德都圓滿，才能毫無錯謬地救拔一切有情眾生，成就稀有廣大的名聲，位居尊貴之極，獨自被稱為大師。所以首先讚頌大師的功德，以開啟所說的對法藏論。什麼是對法呢？頌文說：
『凈慧隨行名對法 及能得此諸慧論』
論曰：慧，是選擇法義的意思；凈，是...
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra Volume 1
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated under Imperial Order by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter 1: Exposition of the Basis (Part 1)
May all kinds of darkness be extinguished, May beings be pulled from the mud of birth and death. I respectfully salute such a teacher who acts according to reason, And I shall now speak on the Abhidharma Treasury.
Treatise: Those who wish to compose a treatise must have a lineage to follow. Towards the honored one they revere, it is reasonable to first pay homage. Therefore, the author of the sutra observes that all beings in the world are deluded by the heterodox teachings of false teachers. His own teacher (the Buddha) is forever free from all darkness. The teachings he establishes are not false, and he occupies the position of a great teacher, accomplishing venerable and unsurpassed merits. In order to inspire pure faith and to correctly propagate the teachings he established, he first praises the complete merits of the Bhagavan (World-Honored One), who benefits both himself and others, as an auspicious beginning and permits the commencement of the treatise. Here, the World-Honored One (the Buddha) is complete in both wisdom and severance, thus self-benefit is complete; his kindness is complete, thus benefiting others is complete. Why is this so? Because he has forever extinguished all kinds of darkness, thus wisdom is complete; because he has forever extinguished the darkness of all realms, thus severance is complete; because he extends the hand of correct teaching, pulling beings from the mud of birth and death, thus kindness is complete. Although Sravakas (Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) can also break through darkness, they are still unable to extinguish all kinds of darkness, thus they do not achieve all-knowing wisdom, have not obtained all the differences of ignorance, do not practice wisdom, and their intention and anusaya (latent tendencies) are not perfect, so they cannot rescue sentient beings according to reason and reality, and their merits of self-benefit and benefiting others are not complete. Although they have saintly virtues, they are not called 'teachers'. Only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, is complete in both wisdom and severance, and can rescue all sentient beings without error, achieving rare and vast fame, occupying the supreme position, and is uniquely called the Great Teacher. Therefore, he first praises the merits of the Great Teacher in order to open the Abhidharma Treasury that is to be spoken. What is Abhidharma? The verse says:
'Pure wisdom and its concomitants are called Abhidharma, And the treatises of wisdom that can attain this.'
Treatise: Wisdom means the discernment of the meaning of the Dharma; purity means...
無漏義。諸漏名垢。擇法離垢故名凈慧。何緣得知此無漏慧名為對法。以佛世尊恣天帝等所請問故。如契經言。我有甚深阿毗達磨及毗奈耶。恣汝請問。此以聖道及聖道果。恣天帝釋隨意請問。恣筏蹉類請問亦爾。復以何緣唯無漏慧名為對法。由此現觀諸法相已。不重迷故。豈不現觀非唯慧能。是則對法應非唯慧。實非唯慧。謂及隨行。何謂隨行。謂慧隨轉色受想等諸心所法。生等及心。此則總說凈慧隨行。無漏五蘊名為對法。何故不說受等隨行名為對法。慧于見等三現觀中。皆有能故。生等及色有事非余。受等唯通緣事現觀。受等各有領納等用。如慧能見應名對法。受等如盲。豈名對法。不能簡別四聖諦故。以于現覺苦等相中其見現觀最為殊勝。于諸諦中。簡擇轉故。受等雖與凈慧俱行。而慧力持趣彼彼境。故現觀中非為最勝。是故成就無漏慧根。說為勝義阿毗達磨。為有世俗阿毗達磨觀彼說此為勝義耶。有謂能得此諸慧論。此謂所得無漏慧根能得諸慧。謂彼世間殊勝修慧思慧聞慧及彼隨行。非離如是慧及隨行無漏慧根可能證得。彼是能得此方便故。同無漏慧受對法名。如慈方便亦名慈等。能得諸論。謂彼根本阿毗達磨。是無漏慧勝資糧故。亦名對法。如業異熟。漏等資糧亦名業等。前諸慧言。亦說生得。離生得慧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無漏義』：諸漏被稱為垢染。因為能選擇法義而遠離垢染，所以稱為『凈慧』（清凈的智慧）。憑什麼得知這無漏的智慧被稱為『對法』（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）呢？因為佛世尊允許天帝等隨意請問。如契經所說：『我有甚深阿毗達磨及毗奈耶（Vinaya，毗奈耶，戒律），允許你們請問。』這是以聖道及聖道果，允許天帝釋（Śakra，釋迦）隨意請問，允許筏蹉類（Vatsagotra，筏蹉種姓）請問也是一樣。又憑什麼只有無漏的智慧被稱為『對法』呢？因為通過這種智慧現觀諸法實相之後，就不會再迷惑了。難道現觀不是隻有智慧才能做到嗎？如果是這樣，那麼對法就不應該只有智慧。實際上，對法不僅僅是智慧，還包括隨之而來的行為。什麼是隨之而來的行為呢？就是隨著智慧而轉的色、受、想等諸心所法，以及生等和心。這總的來說就是清凈智慧所伴隨的行為。無漏的五蘊被稱為對法。為什麼不說受等隨行被稱為對法呢？因為智慧在見等三種現觀中，都具有能力。生等和色有事用而非其他，受等只通于緣事現觀。受等各有領納等作用，如同智慧能夠看見，應該被稱為對法。受等如同盲人，怎麼能被稱為對法呢？因為它們不能簡別四聖諦。在現覺苦等相的過程中，其見現觀最為殊勝，因為它在諸諦中進行簡擇和運轉。受等雖然與清凈智慧一同執行，但智慧的力量能夠保持並趨向于各種境界，所以在現觀中不是最殊勝的。因此，成就無漏慧根，被稱為勝義阿毗達磨。是否有世俗阿毗達磨，通過觀察它來說明這是勝義呢？有人說，能夠獲得這些智慧的論著，這指的是所獲得的無漏慧根能夠獲得諸種智慧，指的是世間的殊勝修慧、思慧、聞慧以及它們所伴隨的行為。如果離開了這些智慧和隨行，無漏慧根是不可能證得的。因為它們是獲得無漏慧根的方便，所以和無漏慧一樣，接受對法的名稱，如同慈心是獲得慈等心的方便，所以也稱為慈等。能夠獲得諸論，指的是根本阿毗達磨，因為它是無漏智慧殊勝的資糧，所以也稱為對法，如同業是異熟的資糧，所以也稱為業等。前面所說的諸慧，也包括生得慧。離開了生得慧
【English Translation】 English version: 'Anāsrava-artha' (無漏義, meaning of non-outflow): The outflows are called defilements. Because of choosing the Dharma and being apart from defilements, it is called 'pure wisdom' (凈慧). How is it known that this non-outflow wisdom is called 'Abhidharma' (對法, Abhidharma)? Because the Buddha-World-Honored-One allowed the Devas (天帝, heavenly beings) and others to ask questions freely. As the sutra says: 'I have the profound Abhidharma and Vinaya (毗奈耶, Vinaya, discipline), I allow you to ask questions.' This is with the holy path and the fruit of the holy path, allowing Śakra (釋迦, Indra) to ask questions freely, and allowing Vatsagotra (筏蹉類, Vatsa lineage) to ask questions as well. Furthermore, why is it only non-outflow wisdom that is called 'Abhidharma'? Because after directly perceiving the characteristics of all dharmas through this wisdom, one will not be confused again. Is it not the case that direct perception is not only achieved by wisdom? If so, then Abhidharma should not only be wisdom. In reality, Abhidharma is not only wisdom, but also includes what accompanies it. What are the accompanying actions? They are the mental factors such as form, feeling, thought, etc., that turn with wisdom, as well as birth and mind. This generally refers to the actions that accompany pure wisdom. The non-outflow five aggregates are called Abhidharma. Why not say that the accompanying actions such as feeling are called Abhidharma? Because wisdom has the ability in the three types of direct perception, such as seeing. Birth and form have functions but not others, and feeling only connects to the direct perception of objects. Feeling and others each have functions such as reception, just as wisdom can see and should be called Abhidharma. Feeling and others are like blind people, how can they be called Abhidharma? Because they cannot distinguish the Four Noble Truths. In the process of directly perceiving the characteristics of suffering and others, the direct perception of seeing is the most outstanding, because it selects and operates among the truths. Although feeling and others operate together with pure wisdom, the power of wisdom can maintain and move towards various realms, so it is not the most outstanding in direct perception. Therefore, achieving the root of non-outflow wisdom is called the ultimate Abhidharma. Is there a mundane Abhidharma, through observing it to explain that this is the ultimate? Some say that the treatises that can obtain these wisdoms, this refers to the non-outflow root of wisdom that can obtain various wisdoms, referring to the outstanding mundane cultivated wisdom, thought wisdom, hearing wisdom, and their accompanying actions. If one is apart from these wisdoms and accompanying actions, the non-outflow root of wisdom cannot be attained. Because they are the means to obtain the non-outflow root of wisdom, they receive the name of Abhidharma like the non-outflow wisdom, just as loving-kindness is the means to obtain loving-kindness and other minds, so it is also called loving-kindness and others. Being able to obtain the treatises refers to the fundamental Abhidharma, because it is the outstanding resource for non-outflow wisdom, so it is also called Abhidharma, just as karma is the resource for different maturation, so it is also called karma and others. The wisdoms mentioned earlier also include innate wisdom. Apart from innate wisdom
無能誦持對法教者。唯生得慧能正誦持契經等法。故彼亦名阿毗達磨。豈不此論是無漏慧勝資糧故亦名對法。何故乃名對法。俱舍頌曰。
攝彼勝義依彼故 此立對法俱舍名
論曰。此就依主及多財釋。藏謂堅實。猶如樹藏。對法論中諸堅實義皆入此攝。是彼藏故名對法藏。即是對法之堅實義。藏或所依。猶如刀藏。謂彼對法是此所依。引彼義言造此論故。此論以彼對法為藏。名對法藏。即是對法為所依義。此論所依阿毗達磨。何因故說。誰復先說。雖不應問說對法人。佛教依法不依人故。而欲必以人為量者。此及前問。今當總答。頌曰。
若離擇法定無餘 能滅諸惑勝方便 由惑世間漂有海 因此傳佛說對法
論曰。由離擇法無勝方便。能滅世間引苦諸惑。故世尊言。若於一法未達未知。我終不說能正盡苦。世間未滅諸煩惱故。於三有海生死輪迴。為令世間修習擇法滅諸煩惱。故言因此佛說對法。佛若不說。舍利子等諸大聲聞。亦無有能于諸法相如理簡擇。是故此論所依根本。阿毗達磨定是佛說。經主稱傳顯已不信。阿毗達磨是佛所說。何緣不信。傳聞尊者迦多衍尼子等造故。不說對法為所依故。如世尊告阿難陀言。汝等從今當依經量。諸部對法義宗異故。此皆不然。諸大聲聞。隨佛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人不能背誦和理解對法（Abhidharma，佛教哲學），但天生具有智慧，能夠正確地背誦和理解契經（Sutra，佛經）等法，那麼他也可以被稱為阿毗達磨。難道這部論著不是因為無漏智慧（Anasrava-jnana，沒有煩惱的智慧）的殊勝資糧（Sampadā，積累）而被稱為對法嗎？為什麼又稱之為對法呢？《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa，佛教論著）的頌文說： 『攝彼勝義依彼故，此立對法俱舍名。』 論述：這是從所依關係和多重含義來解釋的。「藏」意味著堅實，就像樹木的藏身之處一樣。對法論中所有堅實的意義都包含在此處，因為它是它們的藏身之處，所以稱為對法藏。也就是對法堅實的意義。藏也可以是所依，就像刀的藏身之處一樣。也就是說，對法是此論的所依，因為它引用了對法的意義來創作此論。這部論著以對法為藏，所以稱為對法藏。也就是以對法為所依的意義。這部論著所依據的阿毗達磨，是什麼原因要說它？又是誰先說的？雖然不應該問說對法的人是誰，因為佛教是依法不依人的。但如果一定要以人為標準來衡量，那麼這個問題和之前的問題，現在一併回答。頌文說： 『若離擇法定無餘，能滅諸惑勝方便，由惑世間漂有海，因此傳佛說對法。』 論述：因為如果沒有選擇法（Dharma-vicaya，辨別諸法的智慧），就沒有更好的方法來滅除世間導致痛苦的各種迷惑。所以世尊說：『如果對於一種法沒有通達和了解，我終究不會說能夠真正地滅盡痛苦。』因為世間沒有滅除各種煩惱，所以在三有之海（欲界、色界、無色界）中生死輪迴。爲了讓世間修習選擇法，滅除各種煩惱，所以說因此佛陀宣說了對法。如果佛陀不說，舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一）等各位大聲聞（Mahasravaka，佛陀的弟子）也沒有能力如理地簡擇諸法的真相。因此，這部論著所依據的根本，阿毗達磨一定是佛陀所說。經主（Sutrakara，佛經的作者）稱之為『傳』，表明他不相信阿毗達磨是佛陀所說。為什麼不相信呢？因為傳聞是尊者迦多衍尼子（Katyayaniputra，佛教論師）等人所造。因為沒有說對法是所依。就像世尊告訴阿難陀（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）說：『你們從今以後應當依據經典來衡量。』各個部派的對法在義理和宗旨上有所不同。這些說法都不對。各位大聲聞都是跟隨佛陀的教導。
【English Translation】 English version: If someone is unable to recite and uphold the Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy), but is born with wisdom and can correctly recite and uphold the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) and other teachings, then he can also be called Abhidharma. Isn't this treatise called Abhidharma because it is a superior resource (Sampadā, accumulation) of undefiled wisdom (Anasrava-jnana, wisdom without afflictions)? Why is it also called Abhidharma? The verse in the Abhidharmakośa (Buddhist treatise) says: 'Because it encompasses the ultimate meaning and relies on it, this is established as the name Abhidharmakośa.' Discussion: This is explained from the perspective of the dependent relationship and multiple meanings. 'Kośa' means solid, like a hiding place for trees. All the solid meanings in the Abhidharma treatises are included here, because it is their hiding place, so it is called Abhidharma-kośa. That is, the solid meaning of Abhidharma. Kośa can also be a support, like a hiding place for a knife. That is, the Abhidharma is the support of this treatise, because it cites the meaning of Abhidharma to create this treatise. This treatise takes the Abhidharma as its kośa, so it is called Abhidharma-kośa. That is, it takes the Abhidharma as its supporting meaning. The Abhidharma on which this treatise is based, why is it said? And who said it first? Although it should not be asked who said the Abhidharma, because Buddhism relies on the Dharma and not on people. But if you must use people as a standard of measurement, then this question and the previous question will be answered together now. The verse says: 'If there is no Dharma-vicaya (discrimination of dharmas), there is no superior means to extinguish the various delusions that lead to suffering in the world. Because of delusions, the world drifts in the ocean of existence. Therefore, it is transmitted that the Buddha spoke the Abhidharma.' Discussion: Because if there is no Dharma-vicaya (wisdom of discerning dharmas), there is no better way to extinguish the various delusions that cause suffering in the world. Therefore, the World Honored One said: 'If one has not penetrated and understood one Dharma, I will never say that one can truly extinguish suffering.' Because the world has not extinguished various afflictions, it is in the cycle of birth and death in the ocean of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). In order to allow the world to cultivate Dharma-vicaya and extinguish various afflictions, it is said that the Buddha therefore proclaimed the Abhidharma. If the Buddha did not speak it, Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) and other great Sravakas (Mahasravaka, disciples of the Buddha) would not be able to rationally discern the truth of all dharmas. Therefore, the foundation on which this treatise is based, the Abhidharma, must have been spoken by the Buddha. The Sutrakara (author of the Sutra) calls it 'transmission', indicating that he does not believe that the Abhidharma was spoken by the Buddha. Why doesn't he believe it? Because it is rumored that it was created by Venerable Katyayaniputra (Buddhist master) and others. Because it was not said that the Abhidharma is the support. Just as the World Honored One told Ananda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples): 'From now on, you should measure according to the scriptures.' The Abhidharmas of various schools differ in meaning and purpose. These statements are all incorrect. All the great Sravakas followed the Buddha's teachings.
聖教而結集故。阿毗達磨是佛所許。亦名佛說。能順遍知雜染清凈因果智故。如諸契經。若佛所許不名佛說。便應棄捨。無量契經若不說依非佛語者。毗柰耶藏應非佛說。臨涅槃時不勸依故。若言亦勸苾芻當依別解脫經無斯過者。是則應許廣毗柰耶非佛所說。便非定量。若毗柰耶即是廣釋戒經本故是佛說者。阿毗達磨廣釋契經。何故偏疑非佛所說。又即慧蘊。及與隨行。並勝資糧。名為對法四依中說智是所依。不說依言。有不成過又彼唯說經非定依。而竟不言阿毗達磨及毗柰耶依有差別。又定應許阿毗達磨是經差別。故成所依。或應頌等亦非所依。世尊唯勸依經量故。又今言依。欲顯何義。若顯量義。理未必然。如何世尊先說四量。而今但說經為量耶。或應先時依唯說一。以法等三經所攝故。或即于彼已遮依人。亦即勸依經之差別。而今復說有唐捐過。故今言依。應顯別義謂汝昔來心屬於我。是則依仗補特伽羅。自今以往無別所依。應唯仗經勿令忘失。又今言經。總說一切如來聖教。若不爾者。應頌等教應非所依。而復勸依別解脫者。為令于戒起尊重心。以彼戒經不應求義。唯當恭敬如說而行。毀重戒者不可修治。故重勸依令堅持戒。是故言依非唯量義。又勸阿難依經量者。正為勸依阿毗達磨。是經之量故名經量。即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為聖教被結集，所以阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）是佛陀所允許的，也可以稱為佛說。因為它能夠順應遍知（Sarvajna，一切智）以及雜染（Samklesha，煩惱）和清凈（Vishuddhi，解脫）的因果智慧。如同各種契經（Sutra，經藏）一樣，如果佛陀所允許的卻不稱為佛說，那麼就應該拋棄無量的契經。如果說不依據就不是佛語，那麼毗柰耶藏（Vinaya，律藏）就不應該是佛所說，因為佛陀在臨近涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）時沒有勸告依靠它。如果說佛陀也勸告比丘（Bhikshu，出家男眾）應當依靠別解脫經（Pratimoksha Sutra，戒經），這樣就沒有過失。那麼就應該承認廣大的毗柰耶不是佛所說，就不是可靠的依據。如果說毗柰耶就是廣大的戒經的解釋，因為它是戒經的根本，所以是佛所說，那麼阿毗達磨廣泛地解釋契經，為什麼偏偏懷疑它不是佛所說呢？而且，慧蘊（Prajna-skandha，智慧之蘊）以及隨行（Anuvrtti，隨順修行），還有殊勝的資糧（Sambhara，積聚），被稱為對法（Abhidharma，論藏）。四依（Cattari Nissaya，四種依靠）中說智慧是所依，沒有說依靠語言，有不成立的過失。而且他們只說經是確定的依靠，最終沒有說阿毗達磨和毗柰耶在依靠上有差別。而且一定應該承認阿毗達磨是經的差別，所以成為所依。或者應該說頌等也不是所依，因為世尊只勸告依靠經的衡量。而且現在說依靠，想要顯示什麼意義？如果顯示衡量意義，道理未必如此。為什麼世尊先前說了四量（Pramana，四種衡量標準），而現在只說經是衡量標準呢？或者應該說先前依靠只說一種，因為法等三種被經所攝。或者就在那裡已經遮止了依靠人，也勸告依靠經的差別，而現在又說，有多餘的過失。所以現在說依靠，應該顯示別的意義，就是說你過去以來心屬於我，這就是依靠補特伽羅（Pudgala，人），從今以後沒有別的所依，應該只依靠經，不要忘記。而且現在說經，總說一切如來聖教，如果不這樣，那麼頌等教法就不應該是所依。而且又勸告依靠別解脫，是爲了讓對於戒律生起尊重心，因為那部戒經不應該求義，只應當恭敬地如說而行。毀壞重戒的人不可修補，所以鄭重勸告依靠，讓堅持戒律。所以說依靠不是隻有衡量的意義。而且勸告阿難（Ananda，阿難陀）依靠經的衡量，正是爲了勸告依靠阿毗達磨，因為它是經的衡量，所以名叫經量。 English version: Because the sacred teachings are compiled, the Abhidharma is permitted by the Buddha and can also be called the Buddha's words. It is because it can accord with the Sarvajna (Omniscience) and the wisdom of cause and effect of Samklesha (Defilement) and Vishuddhi (Purification). Like the various Sutras, if what the Buddha permits is not called the Buddha's words, then countless Sutras should be discarded. If it is said that what is not based on is not the Buddha's words, then the Vinaya should not be the Buddha's words, because the Buddha did not advise relying on it near Nirvana. If it is said that the Buddha also advised Bhikshus to rely on the Pratimoksha Sutra, then there is no fault. Then it should be admitted that the vast Vinaya is not the Buddha's words, and it is not a reliable basis. If it is said that the Vinaya is the explanation of the vast precepts, because it is the root of the precepts, so it is the Buddha's words, then the Abhidharma extensively explains the Sutras, why is it suspected that it is not the Buddha's words? Moreover, the Prajna-skandha (Aggregate of Wisdom), as well as Anuvrtti (Following Practice), and the excellent Sambhara (Accumulation), are called Abhidharma. Among the Cattari Nissaya (Four Reliances), it is said that wisdom is the reliance, and there is no mention of relying on language, which has the fault of not being established. Moreover, they only say that the Sutra is a definite reliance, and ultimately do not say that there is a difference between Abhidharma and Vinaya in reliance. Moreover, it must be admitted that Abhidharma is a difference of the Sutra, so it becomes the reliance. Or it should be said that verses and so on are not the reliance, because the World Honored One only advised relying on the measure of the Sutra. Moreover, what meaning does it want to show by saying reliance now? If it shows the meaning of measurement, the reason is not necessarily so. Why did the World Honored One previously say the four Pramana (Four Valid Cognitions), but now only say that the Sutra is the standard of measurement? Or it should be said that previously relying on only said one kind, because the three kinds of Dharma and so on are included in the Sutra. Or it has already been stopped from relying on people there, and it also advises relying on the difference of the Sutra, and now it says again, there is a superfluous fault. So now saying reliance should show another meaning, that is, your heart has belonged to me in the past, this is relying on Pudgala (Person), from now on there is no other reliance, you should only rely on the Sutra, do not forget. Moreover, now saying Sutra, generally speaking of all the sacred teachings of the Tathagata, if not, then the teachings of verses and so on should not be the reliance. Moreover, advising to rely on Pratimoksha again is to make respect for the precepts arise, because that precept Sutra should not seek meaning, but should respectfully act as said. Those who destroy the heavy precepts cannot be repaired, so solemnly advise reliance, let them adhere to the precepts. So saying reliance is not only the meaning of measurement. Moreover, advising Ananda to rely on the measurement of the Sutra is precisely to advise relying on the Abhidharma, because it is the measurement of the Sutra, so it is called Sutra measurement.
【English Translation】 English version: Because the sacred teachings are compiled, the Abhidharma (Treatise Collection) is permitted by the Buddha and can also be called the Buddha's words. It is because it can accord with the Sarvajna (Omniscience) and the wisdom of cause and effect of Samklesha (Defilement) and Vishuddhi (Purification). Like the various Sutras (Scripture Collection), if what the Buddha permits is not called the Buddha's words, then countless Sutras should be discarded. If it is said that what is not based on is not the Buddha's words, then the Vinaya (Discipline Collection) should not be the Buddha's words, because the Buddha did not advise relying on it near Nirvana (Extinction). If it is said that the Buddha also advised Bhikshus (Monks) to rely on the Pratimoksha Sutra (Precept Scripture), then there is no fault. Then it should be admitted that the vast Vinaya is not the Buddha's words, and it is not a reliable basis. If it is said that the Vinaya is the explanation of the vast precepts, because it is the root of the precepts, so it is the Buddha's words, then the Abhidharma extensively explains the Sutras, why is it suspected that it is not the Buddha's words? Moreover, the Prajna-skandha (Aggregate of Wisdom), as well as Anuvrtti (Following Practice), and the excellent Sambhara (Accumulation), are called Abhidharma. Among the Cattari Nissaya (Four Reliances), it is said that wisdom is the reliance, and there is no mention of relying on language, which has the fault of not being established. Moreover, they only say that the Sutra is a definite reliance, and ultimately do not say that there is a difference between Abhidharma and Vinaya in reliance. Moreover, it must be admitted that Abhidharma is a difference of the Sutra, so it becomes the reliance. Or it should be said that verses and so on are not the reliance, because the World Honored One only advised relying on the measure of the Sutra. Moreover, what meaning does it want to show by saying reliance now? If it shows the meaning of measurement, the reason is not necessarily so. Why did the World Honored One previously say the four Pramana (Four Valid Cognitions), but now only say that the Sutra is the standard of measurement? Or it should be said that previously relying on only said one kind, because the three kinds of Dharma and so on are included in the Sutra. Or it has already been stopped from relying on people there, and it also advises relying on the difference of the Sutra, and now it says again, there is a superfluous fault. So now saying reliance should show another meaning, that is, your heart has belonged to me in the past, this is relying on Pudgala (Person), from now on there is no other reliance, you should only rely on the Sutra, do not forget. Moreover, now saying Sutra, generally speaking of all the sacred teachings of the Tathagata, if not, then the teachings of verses and so on should not be the reliance. Moreover, advising to rely on Pratimoksha again is to make respect for the precepts arise, because that precept Sutra should not seek meaning, but should respectfully act as said. Those who destroy the heavy precepts cannot be repaired, so solemnly advise reliance, let them adhere to the precepts. So saying reliance is not only the meaning of measurement. Moreover, advising Ananda (Ananda) to rely on the measurement of the Sutra is precisely to advise relying on the Abhidharma, because it is the measurement of the Sutra, so it is called Sutra measurement.
是眾經所有定義。阿毗達磨能決眾經。判經了義不了義故。阿毗達磨名能總攝。不違一切聖教理言。故順此理名了義經。與此理違名不了義。不了義者恐違法性。依正理教應求意旨。若異此者如先但說。依了義經。今亦應爾。唯勸依經。不應言量。所言諸部阿毗達磨義宗異故。非佛說者。經亦應爾。諸部經中。現見文義有差別故。由經有別。宗義不同。謂有諸部。誦七有經。彼對法中建立中有。如是建立漸現觀等。贊學根本異門等經。說一切有部中不誦。撫掌喻等眾多契經。于餘部中曾所未誦。雖有眾經諸部同誦。然其名句互有差別。謂有經說汝阿氏多。于當來世成等正覺。非黑非白。非黑非白異熟業等。無量名句諸部不同。是故不應由義宗異。阿毗達磨便非佛說。阿毗達磨定是佛說。由佛攝受三藏教故。如世尊說。老耄出家持吾三藏甚為難得。若謂此言依雜藏說。理必不然。以彼即是經差別故。曾無處說。別持彼故。唯有處說。持素怛纜及毗柰耶摩怛理迦。而無別處言持雜藏。亦不可說雜藏即是摩怛理迦。由別釋故。如大尊者迦葉波言。摩怛理迦。名目何等。謂四念住。廣說乃至八支聖道。四正行四法跡四無礙解。空空無愿無愿無相無相。諸現觀邊。諸世俗智。雜修靜慮。無諍愿智。邊際定智。止觀等法。及集異門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這是所有經典所具有的定義。阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）能夠決斷經典中的疑義，因為它能判別經典是了義（nitartha，究竟意義）還是不了義（neyartha，方便意義）。阿毗達磨被稱為能夠總攝一切，不違背一切聖教的道理和言辭。因此，順應這種道理的經典稱爲了義經，與這種道理相違背的經典稱為不了義經。對於不了義經，因為擔心違背法性（dharma-nature），應當依據正確的道理和教義來尋求其真實意旨。如果不是這樣，就像先前只說要依據了義經一樣，現在也應該這樣。只勸人依據經典，不應執著于言辭的數量。如果有人說，因為各個部派的阿毗達磨的義理和宗旨不同，所以阿毗達磨不是佛陀所說，那麼經典也應該如此看待。因為在各個部派的經典中，現在可以明顯看到文句和義理存在差別。由於經典存在差別，宗義也因此不同。例如，有些部派誦讀『七有經』，他們在對法（Abhidharma）中建立『中有』（antarabhava，中陰身）。像這樣建立漸現觀（kramanupasyana）等，讚歎學習根本異門（matrika）等的經典，說一切有部（Sarvastivada）中不誦讀。『撫掌喻』等眾多契經（sutra），在其他部派中從未誦讀過。即使有一些經典各個部派共同誦讀，但其名稱和語句也互相存在差別。例如，有些經典說『你，阿氏多（Ajita），在未來世將成就等正覺』，還有『非黑非白』，『非黑非白異熟業』等等，無量的名稱和語句在各個部派中都不同。因此，不應該因為義理和宗旨不同，就認為阿毗達磨不是佛陀所說。阿毗達磨一定是佛陀所說，因為它被佛陀攝受在三藏（tripitaka）教法之中。就像世尊所說，年老體衰的出家人能夠持守我的三藏，這是非常難得的。如果認為這句話是依據雜藏（ksudraka）而說的，那麼道理上一定不是這樣，因為雜藏只是經典的差別而已。從來沒有地方說過要單獨持守雜藏。只有地方說要持守素怛纜（sutram，經藏）和毗柰耶（vinaya，律藏）摩怛理迦（matrika，本母），而沒有其他地方說要持守雜藏。也不能說雜藏就是摩怛理迦，因為它們有不同的解釋。例如，大尊者迦葉波（Kasyapa）說，摩怛理迦，名稱是指什麼呢？是指四念住（smrtyupasthana），廣泛地說，乃至八支聖道（astangika-marga），四正行（samyakpratipatti），四法跡（dharma-pada），四無礙解（pratisamvid），空空（sunyata-sunyata），無愿無愿（apranihita-apranihita），無相無相（animitta-animitta），各種現觀邊（abhisamaya），各種世俗智（samvrti-jnana），雜修靜慮（dhyana），無諍愿智（aranabhivihara-jnana），邊際定智（kotigata-jnana），止觀（samatha-vipasyana）等法，以及集異門（sangiti-paryaya）。
【English Translation】 English version These are the definitions that all sutras possess. The Abhidharma (Abhidharma, the collection of treatises) is able to resolve doubts in the sutras because it can distinguish whether a sutra is nitartha (of definitive meaning) or neyartha (of provisional meaning). The Abhidharma is called that which can comprehensively encompass everything, not contradicting the principles and words of all sacred teachings. Therefore, sutras that accord with this principle are called nitartha sutras, and sutras that contradict this principle are called neyartha sutras. For neyartha sutras, because of the fear of contradicting the dharma-nature, one should seek their true meaning based on correct principles and teachings. If it is not like this, just as it was previously said to rely only on nitartha sutras, it should be the same now. Only advise people to rely on the sutras, and do not be attached to the quantity of words. If someone says that because the meanings and tenets of the Abhidharma of various schools are different, the Abhidharma is not spoken by the Buddha, then the sutras should also be regarded in the same way. Because in the sutras of various schools, it can now be clearly seen that there are differences in wording and meaning. Because there are differences in the sutras, the tenets are also different as a result. For example, some schools recite the 'Sutra of Seven Existences,' and they establish the 'intermediate existence' (antarabhava, the intermediate state) in the Abhidharma. Like this, establishing gradual insight (kramanupasyana) and so on, praising the sutras on the fundamental topics of learning (matrika), etc., are not recited in the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) school. Many sutras such as the 'Clapping Hands Analogy' have never been recited in other schools. Even if there are some sutras that are recited in common by various schools, their names and phrases are mutually different. For example, some sutras say, 'You, Ajita (Ajita), will attain complete enlightenment in the future,' and there are also 'neither black nor white,' 'neither black nor white resultant karma,' etc., countless names and phrases are different in various schools. Therefore, one should not think that the Abhidharma is not spoken by the Buddha simply because the meanings and tenets are different. The Abhidharma must be spoken by the Buddha, because it is included by the Buddha in the teachings of the Tripitaka (tripitaka). Just as the World Honored One said, it is very rare for an old and frail renunciant to be able to uphold my Tripitaka. If it is thought that this statement is based on the Ksudraka (ksudraka), then it must not be so in principle, because the Ksudraka is only a difference in the sutras. There has never been a place where it is said to uphold the Ksudraka separately. There are only places where it is said to uphold the Sutra (sutram, the Sutra Pitaka) and the Vinaya (vinaya, the Vinaya Pitaka) Matrika (matrika, the matrix), and there is no other place where it is said to uphold the Ksudraka. It cannot be said that the Ksudraka is the Matrika, because they have different explanations. For example, the great venerable Kasyapa (Kasyapa) said, what does the name Matrika refer to? It refers to the four foundations of mindfulness (smrtyupasthana), broadly speaking, up to the eightfold noble path (astangika-marga), the four right practices (samyakpratipatti), the four dharma-padas (dharma-pada), the four unobstructed knowledges (pratisamvid), emptiness-emptiness (sunyata-sunyata), wishlessness-wishlessness (apranihita-apranihita), signlessness-signlessness (animitta-animitta), various aspects of realization (abhisamaya), various conventional wisdoms (samvrti-jnana), mixed meditative states (dhyana), wisdom of non-contention (aranabhivihara-jnana), wisdom of the limit of existence (kotigata-jnana), calm and insight (samatha-vipasyana), and the Sangiti-paryaya.
法蘊施設。如是等類。一切總謂摩怛理迦。非雜藏中此等諸法具足可得。故說雜藏。即是第三非為善說。又契經說。于阿毗達磨阿毗毗柰耶應勤修學。故知佛說阿毗達磨。若爾阿毗毗柰耶藏。應為第四。不爾由許毗柰耶藏即是阿毗毗柰耶故。所有最勝增上尸羅相應論道。以能現對毗柰耶故。名阿毗毗柰耶。所有甚深諸法性相相應論道。以能現對法性相故。名阿毗達磨。或諸契經名為達磨。論能現前抉擇其義。名阿毗達磨別解脫。本名毗柰耶律。唯現前廣辯緣起。名阿毗毗柰耶。是故所言。不成疑難。又佛聖教三蘊所收。猶如契經。毗柰耶藏阿毗達磨定應量攝。正法滅經。亦作是說。
阿毗達磨毗柰耶 阿笈摩中要文義 當有不傳諸弟子 恐聞齊己有輕陵
又說此法此毗柰耶。此大師教法即對法。現見經中。有前句事。或時彼事。離前句說。如正等覺或但言覺。增上尸羅唯說尸羅。諸欲貪等但說貪等。故知此法即是對法。世尊有處。亦以法聲方便說有。阿毗達磨。謂若有說隨順契經。顯毗柰耶不違法性。應隨此等理教信知。阿毗達磨真是佛說。謗正法罪深為可怖。勿自愛人習語惡行訕謗對法言非佛說。謗論已了。如上所言。為令世間修習擇法。因此佛說阿毗達磨。何等名為彼所擇法。頌曰。
有漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：法蘊施設等，所有這些總稱為摩怛理迦（Matrika，論藏）。在雜藏中無法完全找到這些法，所以稱為雜藏。因此，說雜藏是第三藏是不正確的。而且，契經中說，應該勤奮學習阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論）和阿毗毗柰耶（Abhivinaya，增上戒律）。因此可知佛陀說了阿毗達磨。如果這樣，阿毗毗柰耶藏應該成為第四藏嗎？不是的，因為毗柰耶藏（Vinaya，戒律）就是阿毗毗柰耶。所有與最勝增上戒律相應的論述，因為能夠直接闡明毗柰耶，所以稱為阿毗毗柰耶。所有與甚深諸法性相相應的論述，因為能夠直接闡明法性相，所以稱為阿毗達磨。或者，所有契經稱為達磨（Dharma，法），論能夠直接抉擇其意義，所以稱為阿毗達磨。別解脫本名為毗柰耶律，唯獨直接廣泛地闡述緣起，稱為阿毗毗柰耶。因此，上述所言，不能構成疑問。而且，佛陀的聖教被三個蘊所包含，就像契經、毗柰耶藏和阿毗達磨一樣，一定可以用量來衡量。正法滅經中也這樣說： 『阿毗達磨毗柰耶，阿笈摩（Agama，聖傳）中要文義，當有不傳諸弟子，恐聞齊己有輕陵。』 又說，此法、此毗柰耶、此大師教法就是對法。在現見經中，有前句的事例。或者，有時彼事，離開前句說，如正等覺或只說覺，增上尸羅只說尸羅，諸欲貪等只說貪等。因此可知此法就是對法。世尊在有些地方，也用法這個詞方便地說有阿毗達磨。如果有人說隨順契經，顯明毗柰耶不違反法性，應該隨順這些道理和教義，相信阿毗達磨真是佛陀所說。誹謗正法的罪過非常可怕。不要自愛的人習慣說惡語，訕謗對法，說它不是佛陀所說。誹謗論藏已經說完了。如上所說，是爲了讓世間修習選擇法，因此佛陀說了阿毗達磨。什麼叫做他所選擇的法呢？頌曰： 『有漏』
【English Translation】 English version: Such categories as the 'Elements of Dharma Exposition' are all collectively called Matrika (Matrix). These Dharmas cannot be fully found in the Miscellaneous Collection, hence it is called the Miscellaneous Collection. Therefore, saying that the Miscellaneous Collection is the third is incorrect. Moreover, the Sutras say that one should diligently study the Abhidharma (Higher Dharma) and the Abhivinaya (Higher Discipline). Therefore, it is known that the Buddha spoke of the Abhidharma. If so, should the Abhivinaya Collection be the fourth? No, because the Vinaya (Discipline) Collection is considered to be the Abhivinaya. All discourses corresponding to the supreme higher discipline are called Abhivinaya because they can directly clarify the Vinaya. All discourses corresponding to the profound characteristics of Dharmas are called Abhidharma because they can directly clarify the characteristics of Dharmas. Alternatively, all Sutras are called Dharma, and the treatises can directly determine their meaning, hence they are called Abhidharma. The Pratimoksha (Individual Liberation) is originally called Vinaya-Law, and only directly and extensively explains dependent origination, hence it is called Abhivinaya. Therefore, what has been said does not constitute a difficulty. Moreover, the Buddha's teachings are contained in the three baskets, just like the Sutras, the Vinaya Collection, and the Abhidharma, which must be measurable. The Sutra on the Extinction of the True Dharma also says: 'The Abhidharma and Vinaya, the essential meanings in the Agamas (Traditions), there will be those who do not transmit them to their disciples, fearing that upon hearing them, they will be scorned.' It is also said that this Dharma, this Vinaya, this teaching of the Great Teacher is the Counter-Dharma. In the directly seen Sutras, there are cases of the preceding phrase. Or sometimes, that matter is spoken of apart from the preceding phrase, such as 'Perfectly Enlightened One' or simply 'Enlightened One,' 'Higher Discipline' only as 'Discipline,' 'Desires and Greed' only as 'Greed,' etc. Therefore, it is known that this Dharma is the Counter-Dharma. The World Honored One also conveniently speaks of the existence of Abhidharma in some places using the term 'Dharma.' If someone says that it accords with the Sutras, clarifies the Vinaya, and does not violate the nature of Dharma, one should follow these principles and teachings and believe that the Abhidharma is truly spoken by the Buddha. The sin of slandering the True Dharma is deeply terrifying. Those who love themselves should not habitually speak evil words, slander the Counter-Dharma, and say that it is not spoken by the Buddha. The slander of the treatises has been discussed. As mentioned above, it is to enable the world to cultivate the selection of Dharma, and therefore the Buddha spoke of the Abhidharma. What is called the Dharma that he selects? The verse says: 'With outflows.'
無漏法 除道余有為 于彼漏隨增 故說名有漏 無漏謂道諦 及三種無為 謂虛空二滅 此中空無礙 擇滅謂離系 隨系事各別 畢竟礙當生 別得非擇滅
論曰。說一切法略有二種。一者有漏。二者無漏。是則總說。次當別解。除道聖諦。余有為法。是名有漏。此復云何。謂五取蘊。色乃至識。如說云何名色取蘊。謂有漏色隨順諸取。廣說乃至。識亦如是。何緣取蘊名為有漏。以于彼中漏隨增故。有身見等諸煩惱中立漏名想。令染污心常漏泄故。與漏相應。及漏境界。隨增漏故。名漏隨增。隨增眠義后當廣辯。由此已遮不同界地及無漏緣。煩惱境界隨眠有漏。彼此展轉不隨增故。非相對立如是二名。有漏無漏復有何相。如世尊言。有漏法者。謂所有色隨順諸取。是能增益諸有取義。廣說乃至。識亦如是。與此相違。是無漏法。有漏無漏略相如是。為廣分別。復作是言。謂於過去未來現在。諸所有色生長現貪或瞋或癡。或隨一一余隨煩惱諸心所法。乃至廣說。復為何義作如是說。為別分別順諸取義。若爾唯應說能生長貪等煩惱。或隨一一余隨煩惱。非總相說。能別了知。為令一切別知義故。以非一切一切煩惱皆可現行。故唯總說。或隨一一余隨煩惱。又諸隨眠行相微細。彼現行位有不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無漏法，除了道諦之外，其餘的有為法， 在那些有為法中，煩惱會隨之增長，所以稱之為『有漏』。 無漏法指的是道諦，以及三種無為法， 即虛空、擇滅和非擇滅。其中，虛空是無礙的。 擇滅指的是離系（通過智慧斷除煩惱的解脫），根據所斷煩惱的不同而各別。 非擇滅指的是畢竟障礙未來生起的煩惱，通過其他因緣而獲得的。
論曰：總的來說，一切法可以分為兩種：有漏和無漏。這是總體的說法，接下來將分別解釋。除了道聖諦之外，其餘的有為法都稱為有漏。這些有漏法是什麼呢？就是五取蘊——色、受、想、行、識。例如，什麼是色取蘊？就是會增長諸取的有漏色。乃至識也是如此。為什麼取蘊被稱為有漏呢？因為在這些取蘊中，煩惱會隨之增長。這裡的『漏』指的是有身見等各種煩惱，它們使染污的心不斷地漏泄。與這些煩惱相應，以及作為這些煩惱的境界，都會增長煩惱，所以稱為『漏隨增』。『隨眠』的含義將在後面詳細解釋。由此可以排除不同界地以及無漏的因緣，因為煩惱的境界和隨眠是有漏的，它們彼此之間不會互相增長，所以不能像有漏和無漏這樣相對而立。有漏和無漏又有什麼區別呢？正如世尊所說：『有漏法是指所有會增長諸取的色，能夠增益諸有的執取。』乃至識也是如此。與此相反的就是無漏法。有漏和無漏的簡要區別就是這樣。爲了更廣泛地分別，所以又說：『在過去、未來、現在，所有會生長貪、嗔、癡，或者隨順任何一種其他隨煩惱的色，以及其他心所法。』乃至廣說。為什麼要這樣說呢？爲了更清楚地區分什麼是順諸取的。如果這樣，就應該只說能生長貪等煩惱，或者隨順任何一種其他隨煩惱，而不是總相地說。爲了讓大家都能清楚地瞭解其中的含義，因為不是所有的煩惱都可以現行，所以只能總相地說『或者隨順任何一種其他隨煩惱』。而且，諸隨眠的行相非常微細，在它們現行的時候，有時並不...
【English Translation】 English version: Unstained (Anāsrava) Dharma: Other than the Path (Mārga), all conditioned (Samskrta) things In them, outflows (āsrava) increase, therefore they are called 'stained' (sāsrava). Unstained refers to the Path Truth (Mārga Satya), and the three unconditioned (asamskrta) things, Namely, space (ākāśa), and the two cessations (nirodha): cessation through discrimination (pratisamkhyā-nirodha) and cessation not through discrimination (apratisamkhyā-nirodha). Among these, space is unobstructed. Cessation through discrimination refers to detachment (virāga), each detachment being distinct according to the object it detaches from. Cessation not through discrimination is the complete obstruction of future arising, obtained separately.
Treatise says: All dharmas can be broadly classified into two types: stained and unstained. This is a general statement; next, we will explain them separately. Except for the Noble Truth of the Path, all other conditioned dharmas are called stained. What are these? They are the five aggregates of grasping (upādāna-skandha): form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), perception (samjñā), mental formations (samskāra), and consciousness (vijñāna). For example, what is the aggregate of grasping of form? It is stained form that accords with grasping. And so on, consciousness is also the same. Why are the aggregates of grasping called stained? Because in them, outflows increase. 'Outflows' here refer to afflictions (klesha) such as the view of a self (satkāya-drsti), which cause the defiled mind to constantly leak. Being associated with these outflows, and being the objects of these outflows, increases the outflows, hence the term 'increase of outflows'. The meaning of 'latent tendencies' (anusaya) will be explained in detail later. This excludes different realms and grounds, as well as unstained conditions, because the objects of affliction and latent tendencies are stained, and they do not mutually increase each other, so these two terms (stained and unstained) are not relatively established. What are the characteristics of stained and unstained? As the World-Honored One said: 'Stained dharmas are all forms that accord with grasping, which can increase the grasping of existence.' And so on, consciousness is also the same. The opposite of this is unstained dharma. The brief distinction between stained and unstained is like this. For a broader distinction, it is further said: 'In the past, future, and present, all forms that generate greed (rāga), hatred (dvesa), or delusion (moha), or accord with any other secondary afflictions (upaklesha), and other mental factors (caitasika-dharmas).' And so on. Why is this said? To more clearly distinguish what accords with grasping. If so, it should only be said that it can generate greed and other afflictions, or accord with any other secondary afflictions, rather than a general statement. To enable everyone to clearly understand the meaning, because not all afflictions can manifest, it can only be generally said 'or accord with any other secondary afflictions'. Moreover, the characteristics of latent tendencies are very subtle, and when they manifest, sometimes they do not...
能知。忿等行相粗顯易知。故唯總說。余隨煩惱或墮世間。名為有漏世間所攝。名墮世間。謂處世間不出為義。依苦諦體立世間名。故契經言。吾當為汝宣說世間及世間集。又作是言。觀世間集於世間無。是為非有乃至廣說。復云何知。諸墮世間皆名有漏。如契經言。吾當為汝說有漏法及無漏法。有漏法者。謂諸所有眼。諸所有色。諸所有眼識。諸所有眼觸。諸所有眼觸為緣內所生。或樂受或苦受或不苦不樂受。如是乃至。墮世間意。墮世間法。墮世間意識。墮世間意觸。廣說乃至。名有漏法。無漏法者。謂出世間意。出世間法。出世間意識。廣說乃至。名無漏法。依此聖言。及由正理。有漏無漏法相成立。無法自制。譬喻論師違理背經。妄作是說。非有情數離過身中所有色等。名無漏法。此必不然。違契經故。如契經言。謂於過去未來現在諸所有色。生長現貪或瞋或癡。乃至廣說。非有情數。離過身中所有色等。既能生長有情貪等。云何無漏。所以者何。無比指鬘烏盧頻螺迦葉波等。緣世尊身生長貪瞋癡等漏故。彼計于言。非境第七。是依第七。如油于麻為漏所依。故名有漏。此不應理。以于去來說起現故。未曾依去來起現在貪等。是故彼計決定非善。又上經言。或隨一一余隨煩惱諸心所法非隨煩惱。有非心所。為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能知。忿等行相粗顯易知。故唯總說。其餘隨煩惱，有些屬於世間法，因此被稱為『有漏』，意為被世間所包含，也可理解為『墮入世間』，意味著處於世間而無法超脫。『世間』這個名稱是依據苦諦的本質而設立的。所以契經中說：『我將為你們宣說世間以及世間的集起。』又說：『觀察世間的集起，在世間中不存在，這就是非有，』乃至廣說。 又如何得知，所有墮入世間的都稱為『有漏』呢？正如契經所說：『我將為你們說有漏法和無漏法。有漏法是指所有眼（感官），所有色（對像），所有眼識（感官意識），所有眼觸（感官接觸），所有以眼觸為緣而內在產生的樂受、苦受或不苦不樂受。』如此乃至，『墮入世間的意（思維），墮入世間的法（概念），墮入世間的意識（思維意識），墮入世間的意觸（思維接觸），』廣說乃至，這些都稱為有漏法。無漏法是指『出離世間的意，出離世間的法，出離世間的意識，』廣說乃至，這些都稱為無漏法。 依據這段聖言，以及正確的道理，有漏和無漏的法相得以成立。無法自我控制。譬喻論師違背道理和經典，妄加說是：『非有情數，脫離過失之身的所有色等，稱為無漏法。』這必定是不對的，因為違背了契經。正如契經所說：『對於過去、未來、現在的所有色，生長、顯現貪、瞋或癡，』乃至廣說。非有情數，脫離過失之身的所有色等，既然能夠生長有情的貪等煩惱，怎麼能說是無漏呢？為什麼呢？因為像無比如來指鬘（Angulimala，殺人狂魔，后被佛陀感化）、烏盧頻螺迦葉波（Uruvilva-Kashyapa，著名外道首領，后皈依佛陀）等人，都曾因世尊的身相而生長貪瞋癡等煩惱。 他們認為，『非境第七』是『依第七』，就像油存在於芝麻中一樣，是煩惱所依之處，所以稱為有漏。這種說法是不合理的，因為對於過去和未來，現在才會生起。從未曾依據過去和未來而生起現在的貪等煩惱。所以他們的說法絕對是不正確的。此外，上面的經文說：『或者隨順每一個其餘的隨煩惱，這些心所法不是隨煩惱，有些不是心所。』為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 English version It can be known. Anger and other similar states are coarse and easily understood. Therefore, only a general explanation is given. The remaining secondary afflictions either belong to the mundane realm, hence they are called 'with outflows' (有漏, having outflows), meaning they are included within the mundane realm, or they can be understood as 'falling into the mundane realm,' meaning being in the world without being able to transcend it. The name 'world' (世間, the world) is established based on the essence of the Truth of Suffering. Therefore, the sutra says: 'I will explain to you the world and the arising of the world.' It also says: 'Observing the arising of the world, it does not exist in the world; this is non-existence,' and so on. Furthermore, how do we know that all that falls into the mundane realm is called 'with outflows'? As the sutra says: 'I will explain to you the Dharma with outflows and the Dharma without outflows. The Dharma with outflows refers to all eyes (感官, sense organs), all forms (對像, sense objects), all eye consciousness (感官意識, sense consciousness), all eye contact (感官接觸, sense contact), all pleasant, painful, or neutral feelings that arise internally based on eye contact.' And so on, 'The mind that falls into the mundane realm, the phenomena that fall into the mundane realm, the consciousness that falls into the mundane realm, the mind contact that falls into the mundane realm,' and so on, these are called the Dharma with outflows. The Dharma without outflows refers to 'the mind that transcends the mundane realm, the phenomena that transcend the mundane realm, the consciousness that transcends the mundane realm,' and so on, these are called the Dharma without outflows. Based on this sacred teaching and correct reasoning, the characteristics of Dharma with outflows and without outflows are established. There is no self-control. The Exemplification Masters, going against reason and the sutras, falsely claim: 'Phenomena such as form, which are not sentient beings and are separate from the body of faults, are called Dharma without outflows.' This is certainly incorrect because it contradicts the sutras. As the sutra says: 'Regarding all forms in the past, future, and present, greed, hatred, or delusion arise and manifest,' and so on. Since phenomena such as form, which are not sentient beings and are separate from the body of faults, can give rise to the greed and other afflictions of sentient beings, how can they be said to be without outflows? Why is this so? Because individuals like Angulimala (指鬘, a mass murderer who was later converted by the Buddha), Uruvilva-Kashyapa (烏盧頻螺迦葉波, a prominent leader of non-Buddhist sects who later converted to Buddhism), and others, developed greed, hatred, delusion, and other outflows based on the Buddha's physical form. They believe that 'non-object seventh' is 'dependent seventh,' just as oil exists in sesame seeds, it is the basis upon which afflictions rely, hence it is called with outflows. This is unreasonable because the present arises in relation to the past and future. Greed and other afflictions have never arisen based on the past and future. Therefore, their view is definitely incorrect. Furthermore, the sutra above says: 'Or following each of the remaining secondary afflictions, these mental factors are not secondary afflictions, some are not mental factors.' Why is this so?
簡彼故復言心所。故知復言心所法者。為顯于言是境第七。又應滅道是無智依。如言無明以于苦等無智為性。此中於言第七聲故。若此于言非許依者。因何固執。彼定是依。故於色等生長癡等。非定漏依方名有漏。又一切聲皆應無漏。以聲定非漏所依故。不應執聲定是無漏。經言聲體是雜染故。非說無漏名為雜染。是應理言。又諸異生身中善識應成無漏。非漏依故。若言漏分隨逐故者。學位諸識皆應有漏。又顯色等糞穢酒等非漏依故。應皆無漏。又阿羅漢身是無漏。不應正理。故契經說。諸所有苦皆取為緣。然阿羅漢身定是苦。故契經言。
阿羅漢壽終 深生大歡喜 其猶舍毒器 亦如眾病除
譬喻者說。先業所引六處名壽。此若無漏。聖不應觀如毒器等。如契經言。諸阿羅漢常自羞厭訶毀己身。聖者不應羞厭訶毀諸無漏法。故阿羅漢身定有漏。由契經言。無明所蔽。貪愛所縛。愚夫智者同感有身。若謂無明所感身滅。餘明所引身復續生。智者應無無明貪愛所感有身。便違經說。又諸覺分應成有果。若阿羅漢身非有者。如病如毒可厭毀身。而言非彼三有所攝。除譬喻師。誰為此計。又眼等法有過離過。體相同故。不應別執。又譬喻部。異生身中眼等亦非諸漏依止。彼執五識無染污故。若阿羅漢無諸取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 簡彼故進一步闡述心所（Citta-samprayutta，與心相應的心理活動）。因此可知，進一步闡述心所法，是爲了彰顯『于言』（指言語）是境（vishaya，對像）第七識（末那識，manas-vijnana）的境界。此外，滅道（nirodha-marga，通向涅槃的道路）應是無智（ajnana，缺乏智慧）的所依。如同所說，無明（avidya，無知）以對於苦（duhkha，痛苦）等缺乏智慧為自性。這裡，『于言』是指第七識的聲音。如果說『于言』不是被允許的所依，那麼因何如此固執地認為它一定是所依呢？因此，對於色（rupa，形態）等產生癡（moha，迷惑）等煩惱，並非一定是煩惱的所依才被稱為有漏（sasrava，受煩惱影響的）。此外，一切聲音都應是無漏（anasrava，不受煩惱影響的），因為聲音一定不是煩惱的所依。不應執著于聲音一定是無漏的，因為經文說聲音的體性是雜染（samklista，不清凈的）。並非說無漏被稱為雜染，這才是應理的說法。此外，諸異生（prthag-jana，凡夫）身中的善識（kusala-vijnana，善良的意識）應成為無漏，因為它不是煩惱的所依。如果說是因為煩惱的成分隨逐的緣故，那麼有學位的諸識都應是有漏的。此外，顯色（varna，顏色）等、糞穢、酒等，因為不是煩惱的所依，都應是無漏的。此外，阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟的聖者）的身是無漏的，這不應是正確的道理。因此契經（sutra，佛經）說，所有一切苦都取為緣。然而阿羅漢的身一定是苦，所以契經說： 『阿羅漢壽終，深生大歡喜，其猶舍毒器，亦如眾病除。』 譬喻者（Dristantavadin，佛教宗派，以譬喻闡釋佛法）說，先業（karma，行為）所引的六處（ayatana，感覺器官）名為壽（ayus，壽命）。如果這（六處）是無漏的，聖者不應觀其如毒器等。如契經所言，諸阿羅漢常常羞愧厭惡訶責譭謗自己的身體。聖者不應羞愧厭惡訶責譭謗諸無漏法。因此阿羅漢的身一定是有漏的，因為契經說，無明所蔽，貪愛（trsna，渴愛）所縛，愚夫和智者共同感受有身（satkaya，有情之身）。如果說無明所感的身滅了，其餘光明所引的身又繼續產生，那麼智者應沒有無明貪愛所感之有身，這就違背了經文的說法。此外，諸覺分（bodhyanga，菩提的組成部分）應成為有果（phala，結果）。如果阿羅漢的身不是有的，如同疾病如同毒藥一樣可以厭惡譭謗的身體，卻說它不被這三者所攝，除了譬喻師，誰會這樣認為呢？此外，眼等法有過失和離過失，體性相同，不應分別執著。此外，譬喻部（Dristantavadin）認為，異生身中的眼等也不是諸漏的依止，他們認為五識（panca-vijnana，五種感官意識）沒有染污的緣故。如果阿羅漢沒有諸取（upadana，執取）……
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, Jianbi explained the mental factors (Citta-samprayutta, mental activities associated with the mind). Therefore, it can be known that further explaining the mental factors is to highlight that 『in speech』 (referring to language) is the realm of the seventh consciousness (manas-vijnana, the mind consciousness). Moreover, cessation and the path (nirodha-marga, the path to Nirvana) should be the basis of non-wisdom (ajnana, lack of wisdom). As it is said, ignorance (avidya, unknowing) takes the lack of wisdom regarding suffering (duhkha, pain) etc. as its nature. Here, 『in speech』 refers to the sound of the seventh consciousness. If it is said that 『in speech』 is not an admitted basis, then why insist that it must be a basis? Therefore, the arising of delusion (moha, confusion) etc. towards form (rupa, shape) etc. does not necessarily mean that only what is a basis for defilements is called afflicted (sasrava, influenced by defilements). Furthermore, all sounds should be un-afflicted (anasrava, not influenced by defilements) because sound is definitely not a basis for defilements. One should not insist that sound is definitely un-afflicted, because the scriptures say that the nature of sound is impure (samklista, impure). It is not that the un-afflicted is called impure; this is the reasonable statement. Furthermore, the wholesome consciousness (kusala-vijnana, virtuous consciousness) in the bodies of ordinary beings (prthag-jana, common people) should become un-afflicted because it is not a basis for defilements. If it is said that it is because the elements of defilements follow along, then all consciousnesses of those in training should be afflicted. Furthermore, visible forms (varna, color) etc., filth, wine etc., because they are not a basis for defilements, should all be un-afflicted. Furthermore, the body of an Arhat (arhat, enlightened being) is un-afflicted; this should not be correct reasoning. Therefore, the sutras (sutra, Buddhist scriptures) say that all sufferings are taken as conditions. However, the body of an Arhat is definitely suffering, so the sutras say: 『When an Arhat dies, great joy arises deeply, like discarding a poisonous vessel, like the removal of all diseases.』 The Exemplifiers (Dristantavadin, a Buddhist school that explains the Dharma through parables) say that the six sense bases (ayatana, sensory organs) led by prior karma (karma, action) are called life (ayus, lifespan). If these (six sense bases) are un-afflicted, the saints should not view them as poisonous vessels etc. As the sutras say, all Arhats constantly feel shame and disgust, and criticize and denigrate their own bodies. Saints should not feel shame and disgust, and criticize and denigrate all un-afflicted dharmas. Therefore, the body of an Arhat must be afflicted because the sutras say that obscured by ignorance, bound by craving (trsna, thirst), fools and the wise alike experience having a body (satkaya, sentient body). If it is said that the body caused by ignorance ceases, and the body led by other light continues to arise, then the wise should not have a body caused by ignorance and craving, which contradicts the scriptures. Furthermore, the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga, components of enlightenment) should become fruitful (phala, result). If the body of an Arhat is non-existent, like a body that can be loathed and denigrated like a disease or poison, yet it is said that it is not encompassed by these three, who would think this way except for the Exemplifiers? Furthermore, the eyes etc. have faults and are free from faults, and their nature is the same, so one should not cling to them separately. Furthermore, the Exemplifiers (Dristantavadin) believe that the eyes etc. in the bodies of ordinary beings are also not the basis of defilements because they believe that the five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana, five sensory consciousnesses) are not defiled. If Arhats have no grasping (upadana, clinging)...
蘊豈不違經。如說彼觀自五取蘊如癰病等。又彼傳執。非有情數外法是苦而非苦諦。應執有貪非貪隨眠。眼非眼界。受非受蘊。如契經言觸俱生受名為受蘊。故應諸苦皆是苦諦。由契經言。若於諸苦。或於苦集。迷惑猶預。是于苦諦集諦生疑。如是已辯。譬喻論宗𨵗于至理。為有至教證彼執耶。彼謂亦有。故契經言。離貪瞋癡則離諸漏。又說有六心栽覆事。所謂有漏有取諸色心栽覆事。聲等亦爾。彼謂此中心栽覆事。既說有漏有取諸色。故知別有無漏諸色。廣說乃至。觸亦如是。彼依義準妄為是計。然聖教中。不應依此義準理門起諸戲論。如契經說。我諸所有觸所生受。一切皆滅。亦應義準。別有諸受。非觸所生。而不應許。又契經說。大迦葉波。于施主家心無繫著。亦應義準余阿羅漢。于施主家心有繫著。又彼經中非容義準。無若聲故。由彼不言。謂若有漏有取諸色心栽覆事。但言有漏有取諸色心栽覆事。此顯色過。非為簡色。是故彼宗亦無至教。雖彼上座誤引經言。若諸苾芻。有漏有取。彼于現法不般涅槃。又引經言。
真梵離諸漏 不染於世間 謂獨覺世尊 自在離諸漏
此于彼義都不相應。我亦不許阿羅漢等有漏取故。眼等雖名有漏順取。而非取漏。經亦不言阿羅漢等無順取法離諸有漏。言
亦不染者。謂於世間一切境界煩惱斷。故由契經。說貪等名。染謂於世間所攝受事及一切趣。永離貪等。故名不染。由此即釋余契經言。佛告苾芻。阿羅漢等於諸世間已得離系。雖行世間而能摧伏。不為世間之所染污。謂於世間諸有漏事。不為一切煩惱所縛。是故說言。阿羅漢等於諸世間已得離系。雖行世間而能摧伏。不為世間所染污者。此經意說。阿羅漢等雖處世間。亦覆成就而於世間得對治故。摧伏世間煩惱染污。是故彼宗都無至教。又彼起執依訓詞門。謂與漏俱名為有漏。此釋非理。立相異故。如契經言。謂於過去未來現在諸有色等。生長現愛或恚或慢。乃至廣說。如何去來與現俱起。又譬喻者。唐攪虛空。十八界中前十五界一向有漏。經所說故。謂契經言。有漏法者。諸所有眼諸所有色。諸所有眼識。如是乃至。身觸身識諸所有言。顯無餘義。彼言我等不誦此經。非不誦經能成所樂。欲成所樂當勤誦經。又彼不以一切契經皆為定量。豈名經部。謂見契經。與自所執宗義相違。即便誹撥。或隨自執改作異文。言本經文傳誦者失。或復一切皆不信受。如順別處等經皆言非聖教攝。是對法者實愛自宗。製造安置阿笈摩內。彼由此故背無量經。違越聖言多興異執。我此論中漸當顯示。已辯有漏及有漏因。云何無漏。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『亦不染』是指對於世間一切境界煩惱的斷除。因此，根據契經的說法，貪等被稱為『染』。所謂『不染』，是指對於世間所攝受的事物以及一切趣向，永遠地遠離貪等，因此稱為『不染』。由此也解釋了其他契經所說：佛告訴比丘，阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）等對於諸世間已經獲得了脫縛。雖然行走於世間，卻能夠摧伏煩惱，不被世間所染污。這是說，對於世間諸有漏的事物，不被一切煩惱所束縛。所以說，阿羅漢等對於諸世間已經獲得了脫縛，雖然行走於世間，卻能夠摧伏煩惱，不被世間所染污。這段經文的意思是說，阿羅漢等雖然身處世間，也成就了對於世間的對治，因此能夠摧伏世間的煩惱染污。因此，他們的宗義根本沒有至高的教理。 此外，他們還固執地依據訓詞的解釋，認為『與漏俱』就稱為『有漏』。這種解釋是不合理的，因為所立的相狀不同。例如契經所說：『對於過去、未來、現在諸有色等，生長現愛或恚或慢，乃至廣說。』如何能使過去、未來與現在同時生起？又譬喻者如同唐攪虛空。十八界中，前十五界一向是有漏的，這是經中所說的。所謂契經所說：『有漏法者，諸所有眼，諸所有色，諸所有眼識。』像這樣乃至『身觸身識』，諸所有言，顯示沒有剩餘的意義。他們說我們不誦讀這部經，不誦讀經並不能成就所希望的。想要成就所希望的，應當勤奮誦讀經文。而且他們不把一切契經都作為衡量標準，怎麼能稱為經部呢？他們看到契經與自己所執著的宗義相違背，就誹謗詆譭，或者隨著自己的執著而改作不同的文句，說原本的經文是傳誦者失誤。或者乾脆一切都不信受，如順別處等經，都說不是聖教所攝。這是對法者實在太愛自己的宗派，製造安置在阿笈摩（Agama，阿含經）內。他們因此背離了無量經文，違背了聖人的教言，多生出不同的執著。我在這部論中會逐漸地顯示這些。已經辨析了有漏以及有漏的因，什麼是無漏呢？就是……
【English Translation】 English version 'Also not defiled' refers to the cutting off of all realms of existence and afflictions in the world. Therefore, according to the sutras, greed and the like are called 'defilements'. 'Not defiled' means to be forever free from greed and the like with regard to things received in the world and all destinies. Therefore, it is called 'not defiled'. This also explains what other sutras say: The Buddha told the Bhikshus (monks), Arhats (Arhat, enlightened saints who have attained Nirvana) and others have already attained liberation from bondage in all realms of existence. Although walking in the world, they can subdue afflictions and are not defiled by the world. This means that with regard to the contaminated things in the world, they are not bound by all afflictions. Therefore, it is said that Arhats and others have already attained liberation from bondage in all realms of existence, and although walking in the world, they can subdue afflictions and are not defiled by the world. The meaning of this sutra is that although Arhats and others are in the world, they also achieve the antidote to the world, and therefore can subdue the defilements of the world. Therefore, their doctrine has no supreme teaching at all. In addition, they stubbornly rely on the interpretation of the training words, believing that 'being with leakage' is called 'contaminated'. This explanation is unreasonable because the established characteristics are different. For example, the sutra says: 'For the past, future, and present forms, etc., there is growth, manifestation of love, hatred, or arrogance, and so on.' How can the past and future arise simultaneously with the present? Moreover, the metaphor is like stirring the void in vain. Among the eighteen realms, the first fifteen realms are always contaminated, as stated in the sutras. The so-called sutra says: 'Contaminated dharmas are all eyes, all forms, all eye consciousness.' Like this, even 'body touch body consciousness', all words, show that there is no remaining meaning. They say that we do not recite this sutra, but not reciting the sutra cannot achieve what is desired. If you want to achieve what you want, you should diligently recite the scriptures. Moreover, they do not regard all sutras as a standard of measurement, how can they be called a sutra department? When they see that the sutras contradict their own doctrines, they slander and defame them, or change the sentences according to their own attachments, saying that the original sutras were mistakes made by those who recited them. Or they simply do not believe in everything, such as the sutras in other places, and say that they are not included in the holy teachings. This is because those who uphold the Dharma love their own sect too much, and manufacture and place them in the Agamas (Agama, collection of early Buddhist texts). Because of this, they have turned their backs on countless sutras, violated the words of the saints, and created many different attachments. I will gradually reveal these in this treatise. Having distinguished the contaminated and the cause of contamination, what is uncontaminated? It is...
道聖諦及三無為。有異釋言。與漏等類故名有漏。如有種族。復有釋言。為漏所污故名有漏。如有毒食。或有釋言。與漏俱斷故名有漏。如天帝釋有怛策迦與彼俱墮。如是等類訓釋眾多。與彼相違名無漏法。道聖諦者。謂非有漏色等五蘊。三無為者。虛空二滅所謂擇滅及非擇滅。此虛空等三種無為。及道聖諦。由是因緣名為無漏。次前已說其道聖諦。后當廣辯。于略所說三無為中。虛空但以無礙為性。于中諸法最極顯現。故名虛空。是則無障以為其相。所有大種及造色聚。一切不能遍覆障故。或非所障。亦非能障是故說言無障為相。已說虛空。擇滅即以離係爲性。於四聖諦各別簡擇。故名為擇。即是善慧差別為性離系涅槃是此果故。名為擇滅。有作是言。諸所斷法同一擇滅。對法者言。隨系事別。若諸所斷同一擇滅。證得苦法智忍所斷煩惱滅時。余煩惱滅為證得不若證得者。修余對治則為無用。若不證得。是則一物證少非余。與理相違。有分過故。由是定應計離系事。隨系事量。不違正理。已說擇滅。永礙當生得非擇滅。擇謂如理勤所成慧。不由此慧。有法永礙未來法生。名非擇滅。如眼與意專一色時。于所餘色及一切聲香味觸等。唸唸滅中對彼少分。意處法處得非擇滅。以五識身及與一分意識身等。于已滅境終不能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道聖諦和三種無為法。對於『有漏』，有不同的解釋。一種解釋是，因為它與煩惱等同類，所以稱為『有漏』，就像有種族一樣。另一種解釋是，因為它被煩惱所污染，所以稱為『有漏』，就像有毒的食物。還有一種解釋是，因為它與煩惱一同斷除，所以稱為『有漏』，就像天帝釋（Śakra，佛教的護法神）有怛策迦（Tarkṣya，一種神鳥），與他一同墮落。諸如此類的訓釋有很多。與『有漏法』相反的，稱為『無漏法』。 道聖諦是指非有漏的色等五蘊（skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）。三種無為法是：虛空、擇滅和非擇滅。這虛空等三種無為法，以及道聖諦，因為這些因緣，被稱為『無漏』。前面已經說了道聖諦，後面將詳細闡述。在簡略所說的三種無為法中，虛空只是以無礙為特性。在虛空中，一切諸法都最極顯現，所以稱為虛空。因此，無障礙是它的相狀。所有的大種（mahābhūta，構成物質世界的四大元素：地、水、火、風）和造色聚（rūpaskandha，由四大元素所組成的物質現象），都不能完全覆蓋和阻礙它。或者說，它既不是被阻礙的，也不是能阻礙的，所以說『無障礙』是它的相狀。已經說了虛空，擇滅是以離系（visaṃyoga，解脫束縛）為特性。對於四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，佛教的基本教義：苦、集、滅、道）各自進行簡別選擇，所以稱為『擇』。這就是善慧（kuśala-mati，善良的智慧）的差別為特性，因為離系涅槃（visaṃyoga-nirvāṇa，通過解脫而達到的涅槃）是它的結果，所以稱為擇滅。有人這樣認為，所有所斷的法都是同一個擇滅。對法者（Abhidharmikas，論藏學者）說，隨著所繫縛的事物不同而不同。如果所有所斷的法都是同一個擇滅，那麼在證得苦法智忍（kṣānti，對苦諦的忍可）時，所斷的煩惱滅時，其餘的煩惱滅了嗎？如果證得了，那麼修習其他的對治法就沒有用了。如果沒有證得，那麼就是說，一個事物證得了一部分，而不是全部，這與道理相違背，因為有部分缺失的過失。因此，一定要認為離系的事物，隨著所繫縛的事物的量而定，這樣才不違背正理。已經說了擇滅，永遠阻礙未來生起的，稱為非擇滅。擇是指如理勤奮所成就的智慧。不通過這種智慧，有法永遠阻礙未來法生起，稱為非擇滅。比如，當眼和意專注於一個顏色時，對於其餘的顏色以及一切聲香味觸等，在念念滅中，對於它們少部分，意處（manāyatana，意識的來源）和法處（dharmāyatana，意識的對象）得到非擇滅。因為五識身（pañca vijñāna kāyāḥ，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）以及一部分意識身等，對於已經滅去的境界，最終不能……
【English Translation】 English version The Noble Truth of the Path and the three unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) elements. There are different explanations for 『with outflows』 (sāsrava). One explanation is that it is called 『with outflows』 because it is of the same kind as defilements (kleśa), just like having a lineage. Another explanation is that it is called 『with outflows』 because it is tainted by defilements, just like poisoned food. Yet another explanation is that it is called 『with outflows』 because it is cut off together with defilements, just like Śakra (the ruler of the gods) has Tarkṣya (a mythical bird) who falls together with him. There are many such explanations. That which is contrary to 『with outflows』 is called 『without outflows』 (anāsrava) dharma. The Noble Truth of the Path refers to the five aggregates (skandha) such as form (rūpa) that are not with outflows. The three unconditioned elements are: space (ākāśa), cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), and cessation without discrimination (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). These three unconditioned elements, such as space, and the Noble Truth of the Path, are called 『without outflows』 because of these causes. The Noble Truth of the Path has already been mentioned earlier and will be elaborated on later. Among the three unconditioned elements mentioned briefly, space is characterized only by unobstructedness. In space, all dharmas are most clearly manifested, hence it is called space. Therefore, non-obstruction is its characteristic. All the great elements (mahābhūta) and aggregates of derived matter (upādāyarūpa) cannot completely cover and obstruct it. Or rather, it is neither obstructed nor capable of obstructing, hence it is said that 『non-obstruction』 is its characteristic. Space has been explained. Cessation through discrimination is characterized by disjunction (visaṃyoga). Discrimination and selection are made separately for each of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni), hence it is called 『discrimination』 (pratisaṃkhyā). This is characterized by the distinction of wholesome wisdom (kuśala-mati), because disjunction-nirvāṇa (visaṃyoga-nirvāṇa) is its result, hence it is called cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Some say that all that is to be abandoned is the same cessation through discrimination. The Abhidharmikas (those who study the Abhidharma) say that it differs according to the object of attachment. If all that is to be abandoned is the same cessation through discrimination, then when the afflictions abandoned upon attaining forbearance (kṣānti) of the knowledge of the dharma of suffering (duḥkha-dharma-jñāna), are the remaining afflictions extinguished or not? If they are extinguished, then cultivating other antidotes would be useless. If they are not extinguished, then it means that one thing is attained partially, not completely, which contradicts reason because there is the fault of partial incompleteness. Therefore, it must be considered that the object of disjunction is determined by the amount of the object of attachment, so that it does not contradict right reason. Cessation through discrimination has been explained. That which permanently obstructs future arising is called cessation without discrimination. Discrimination refers to the wisdom achieved through diligent effort in accordance with reason. Without this wisdom, a dharma permanently obstructs the arising of a future dharma, which is called cessation without discrimination. For example, when the eye and mind are focused on one color, with respect to the remaining colors and all sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, etc., in the moment-to-moment cessation, with respect to a small portion of them, the mind-base (manāyatana) and the dharma-base (dharmāyatana) attain cessation without discrimination. Because the five aggregates of consciousness (pañca vijñāna kāyāḥ) and a portion of the mind-consciousness aggregate, etc., with respect to the already ceased object, ultimately cannot...
生。緣俱境故。由彼生用系屬同時。所依緣故。若法能礙。彼法生用。此法離慧定礙彼法。令住未來。永不生故。得非擇滅。此法實有後當成立。隨順本文次第理故。前說除道余有為法。是名有漏。何謂有為。應當辯說頌曰。
又諸有為法 謂色等五蘊 亦世路言依 有離有事等
論曰。老病死等災橫差別。隱積損伏。故名為蘊。為別戒等故言色等。戒等五蘊。不能具攝一切有為。色等五蘊具攝有為故此偏說。言有為者。眾緣聚集共所生故。未來未起。何謂有為。是彼類故。亦名有為。如所燒薪。于未燒位是彼類故亦名為薪。或據曾當立名無失。如琴瑟等名為有聲。亦如乳房蓮花池等。諸不生法不越彼類。故名有為。此有為法。彼彼經中。世尊隨義名世路等。彼復云何。謂諸有為亦名世路。色等五蘊生滅法故。未來現在過去路中而流轉故。諸不生法眾緣𨵗故。雖復不生是彼類故立名無失。有說。無常之所吞食故名世路。或名言依。言謂言音。或謂能說。此則語聲相續差別。依謂名俱義。即具攝五蘊。如契經說。言依有三。無四無五。由此善通品類足論。彼說言依五蘊所攝。豈不亦依無為起說。何故彼義不立言依。彼義與名無俱理故。如說言依。謂名俱義。若義與名可俱說者。立為言依。以無為義與有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生起。因為因緣和合的緣故。由於這些生起的作用相互聯繫和同時存在，它們是所依賴的因緣。如果有一種法能夠阻礙另一種法的生起作用，那麼這種法（通過）遠離智慧（prajna）和禪定（samadhi）的阻礙，使那種法停留在未來，永遠不會生起，因此獲得非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha）。這種法是真實存在的，這一點將在後面成立，因為它符合本文的次第和道理。前面說過，除了道（marga）以外，其餘的有為法（samskrta-dharma）都叫做有漏（sasrava）。什麼叫做有為呢？應當辨別說明，頌文說：
『又諸有為法，謂色等五蘊，亦世路言依，有離有事等。』
論述：衰老、疾病、死亡等災禍橫生的差別，隱沒、積聚、損害、潛伏，所以叫做蘊（skandha）。爲了區別戒（sila）等，所以說色（rupa）等。戒等五蘊不能完全包括一切有為法，色等五蘊能夠完全包括有為法，所以這裡偏重說明。說有為，是因為眾多因緣聚集共同產生的緣故。未來還沒有生起的，為什麼叫做有為呢？因為是那一類的緣故，也叫做有為。如同燃燒的柴薪，在沒有燃燒的時候，因為是那一類的緣故，也叫做柴薪。或者根據曾經和將要（的狀態）來立名，沒有過失。如同琴瑟等叫做有聲，也如同蓮花池等。那些不生起的法，沒有超出那一類，所以叫做有為。這些有為法，在各種經典中，世尊根據意義，叫做世路等。那些又是什麼呢？就是諸有為法也叫做世路，因為色等五蘊是生滅法，在未來、現在、過去的路中流轉的緣故。那些不生起的法，因為眾多因緣的斷絕，雖然不生起，但是因為是那一類的緣故，立名沒有過失。有人說，因為被無常所吞食，所以叫做世路。或者叫做言依。言，指的是言語的聲音，或者指的是能說者。這裡指的是語聲相續的差別。依，指的是名（nama）和義（artha）共同存在。也就是完全包括五蘊。如同契經所說，言依有三，沒有四，沒有五。由此可以很好地理解《品類足論》。《品類足論》說言依是五蘊所攝。難道不是也依據無為（asamskrta）而起說嗎？為什麼那個意義不立為言依呢？因為那個意義和名沒有共同存在的道理。如同說言依，指的是名和義共同存在。如果義和名可以共同述說，就立為言依。因為無為的意義和有
【English Translation】 English version: Arising. Because of the aggregation of causes and conditions. Because these arising functions are interconnected and co-existent, they are the dependent causes and conditions. If a dharma can obstruct the arising function of another dharma, then this dharma (through) being apart from the obstruction of wisdom (prajna) and samadhi, causes that dharma to remain in the future and never arise, thereby attaining cessation through discrimination (pratisankhya-nirodha). This dharma is truly existent, which will be established later, because it conforms to the order and reason of this text. It was previously said that, apart from the path (marga), all conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharma) are called defiled (sasrava). What is meant by conditioned? It should be distinguished and explained, as the verse says:
'Moreover, all conditioned dharmas, namely the five aggregates such as form, are also the path of the world, the basis of speech, and have separation, events, etc.'
Treatise: The differences in calamities such as aging, sickness, and death, are hidden, accumulated, damaged, and latent, therefore they are called aggregates (skandha). In order to distinguish precepts (sila) etc., it is said form (rupa) etc. The five aggregates such as precepts cannot fully encompass all conditioned dharmas, but the five aggregates such as form can fully encompass conditioned dharmas, so this is emphasized here. To say conditioned is because it is produced by the aggregation of numerous causes and conditions. Why is that which has not yet arisen in the future called conditioned? Because it is of that category, it is also called conditioned. Like firewood that is burning, when it is not yet burning, it is also called firewood because it is of that category. Or, naming based on what has been and what will be (the state) is without fault. Like zithers and lutes are called having sound, and like lotus ponds etc. Those dharmas that do not arise do not go beyond that category, so they are called conditioned. These conditioned dharmas, in various sutras, the World Honored One, according to the meaning, calls them the path of the world etc. What are those again? That is, all conditioned dharmas are also called the path of the world, because the five aggregates such as form are dharmas of arising and ceasing, flowing in the paths of the future, present, and past. Those dharmas that do not arise, because of the cessation of numerous causes and conditions, although they do not arise, because they are of that category, naming them is without fault. Some say that because they are swallowed by impermanence, they are called the path of the world. Or they are called the basis of speech. Speech refers to the sound of language, or it refers to the speaker. Here it refers to the differences in the continuity of speech sounds. Basis refers to the co-existence of name (nama) and meaning (artha). That is, it completely encompasses the five aggregates. As the sutra says, there are three bases of speech, not four, not five. From this, the Prakaranapada can be well understood. The Prakaranapada says that the basis of speech is encompassed by the five aggregates. Isn't it also based on the unconditioned (asamskrta) that speech arises? Why is that meaning not established as the basis of speech? Because that meaning does not have the principle of co-existence with name. As it is said that the basis of speech refers to the co-existence of name and meaning. If meaning and name can be spoken of together, it is established as the basis of speech. Because the meaning of the unconditioned and the
為名不可俱說。無俱義故不立言依。墮世離世無俱理故。或此滅故建立無為。故契經言。蘊滅名滅。滅非言依。言依是蘊。復有釋言。若於是處三分可得。立為言依。謂依義語。無為唯義。故非言依。有說。亦依而𨵗于語。或名有離。諸趣輪迴沉溺生死。涅槃永舍故名為離。是息諸趣恒流轉義。若已至得定不還來。此有離故說名有離。如有財者名為有財。即是有為有出離義。一切有為皆同船筏。是故聖道亦應舍離。如契經言。法尚應斷。何況非法。或名有事。事謂所依。或是所住。即是因義。果依于因。從因生故。如子依母。或果住因。能覆因故。如人住床。是因為果所映蔽義。因果前後故。及細粗性故此有事故。說名有事。喻如前說。此唯有為。如是等類。說有為法諸名差別。於此所說有為法中。頌曰。
有漏名取蘊 亦說為有諍 及苦集世間 見處三有等
論曰。豈不前說。除道聖諦。余有為法。名為有漏。何故此中復重說耶。雖前已說。而欲顯彼差別名想。或為顯彼名想定義。故復重說。前說一切有為名蘊。今說有漏名為取蘊。義準無漏但名為蘊。即諸漏中立取名想。以能執取三有生故。或能執持引後有業。故名為取。蘊從取生。或能生取。故名取蘊。如草糠火。如花果樹。即有漏法亦名有諍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為（有）名和不可俱說（無名），因為沒有俱（共同）的意義，所以不建立言語所依賴的對象。墮世（輪迴）和離世（涅槃）沒有共同的道理。或者因為此（有為法）滅，所以建立無為法。所以契經上說：『蘊滅則名滅，滅不是言語所依賴的對象，言語所依賴的對象是蘊。』還有一種解釋說，如果在一個地方可以得到三分（義、語、名），就建立為言語所依賴的對象，這裡指的是依義的語言。無為法只有義，所以不是言語所依賴的對象。有人說，也依賴於語，或者名有分離。諸趣（六道）輪迴，沉溺於生死，涅槃永遠舍離（生死），所以名為離。這是止息諸趣恒常流轉的意思。如果已經到達（涅槃），決定不再回來，因為這裡有分離，所以說名有離。比如有財產的人稱為有財。這就是有為法有出離的意義。一切有為法都如同船筏，所以聖道也應該舍離。如契經上說：『法尚且應該斷除，何況非法。』或者名有事，事是指所依賴的，或者是指所住的，也就是指因。果依賴於因，從因產生，比如兒子依賴母親。或者果住于因，能夠覆蓋因，比如人住在床上。這是因為果所映蔽因的意義。因為因果有前後，以及細粗的性質，所以這裡有事，說名有事。比喻如同前面所說。這隻有有為法。像這樣等等，說明有為法的各種名稱差別。在這些所說的有為法中，頌說：
『有漏名取蘊（Upadanaskandha），也說為有諍，以及苦集世間，見處（Dṛṣṭisthāna）三有（Tribhava）等。』
論說：難道不是前面說過，除了道聖諦（Mārgasatya），其餘的有為法，名為有漏嗎？為什麼這裡又重複說呢？雖然前面已經說過，而是想要顯示那些差別名稱的想法，或者爲了顯示那些名稱想法的定義，所以又重複說。前面說一切有為法名為蘊，現在說有漏法名為取蘊。按照這個意義，無漏法只名為蘊。就在各種漏中建立取這個名稱想法，因為能夠執取三有（欲有、色有、無色有）的生，或者能夠執持引來後有的業，所以名為取。蘊從取生，或者能夠生取，所以名取蘊。如同草糠火，如同花果樹。即有漏法也名有諍。
【English Translation】 English version: 'For' name and 'not together speakable' (no name) cannot be spoken together, because there is no 'together' (common) meaning, therefore, the object upon which language relies is not established. 'Fallen world' (Samsara) and 'departed world' (Nirvana) have no common principle. Or because this (conditioned dharma) ceases, therefore, the unconditioned dharma is established. Therefore, the Sutra says: 'When the skandhas cease, the name ceases; cessation is not what language relies on; what language relies on are the skandhas.' There is another explanation that if three aspects (meaning, language, name) can be obtained in a place, it is established as what language relies on, referring to language that relies on meaning. The unconditioned dharma only has meaning, so it is not what language relies on. Some say that it also relies on language, or that name has separation. The cycle of the various destinies (Gatis), drowning in birth and death, Nirvana eternally abandons (birth and death), so it is called 'separation'. This is the meaning of ceasing the constant flow of the various destinies. If one has already arrived (at Nirvana), and is determined not to return, because there is separation here, it is said to have 'separation'. For example, someone who has wealth is called wealthy. This is the meaning of conditioned dharma having departure. All conditioned dharmas are like rafts, so the noble path should also be abandoned. As the Sutra says: 'Even the Dharma should be abandoned, let alone non-Dharma.' Or name has 'matter', 'matter' refers to what is relied upon, or what is dwelled in, which refers to the cause. The effect relies on the cause, arising from the cause, like a son relying on his mother. Or the effect dwells in the cause, able to cover the cause, like a person dwelling on a bed. This is because the effect obscures the meaning of the cause. Because cause and effect have before and after, as well as subtle and coarse natures, therefore there is 'matter' here, so it is called having 'matter'. The metaphor is as previously stated. This only has conditioned dharma. Like this and so on, explaining the various name differences of conditioned dharmas. Among these conditioned dharmas that are spoken of, the verse says:
'The contaminated (Sāsrava) is called grasping aggregates (Upadanaskandha), also said to be with strife, as well as the world of suffering and accumulation, views (Dṛṣṭisthāna), the three existences (Tribhava), etc.'
The treatise says: Wasn't it previously said that, except for the noble truth of the path (Mārgasatya), the remaining conditioned dharmas are called contaminated? Why is it repeated here again? Although it was said before, it is to reveal those different name ideas, or to reveal the definitions of those name ideas, so it is repeated again. Previously it was said that all conditioned dharmas are called aggregates, now it is said that contaminated dharmas are called grasping aggregates. According to this meaning, uncontaminated dharmas are only called aggregates. The name idea of 'grasping' is established within the various contaminations, because it is able to grasp the arising of the three existences (desire realm existence, form realm existence, formless realm existence), or it is able to uphold the karma that leads to future existence, so it is called 'grasping'. The aggregates arise from grasping, or are able to generate grasping, so they are called grasping aggregates. Like grass, chaff, and fire, like flowering and fruiting trees. That is, contaminated dharmas are also called with strife.
。謂煩惱中立諍名想。觸動善品故。損害自他故。蘊與諍俱。或諍蘊俱而得生起。故名有諍。此中意顯蘊之與諍非隨𨵗一。余可得生。及者顯余有漏名想。謂或名苦。即五取蘊。是諸逼迫所依處故。自性粗重不安隱故。或名為集。即彼種類能為因故。能整合故。或名世間。可毀壞故。如世尊說。性可毀壞故名世間。若爾道諦應是世間。不爾第二毀壞無故。道諦毀壞性不定故。世間毀壞性決定故。或名見處。薩迦耶等五見住中。隨增眠故。豈不有漏一切煩惱皆隨增耶。豈不諸見漏取諍攝前已說耶。雖有此理。而彼諸見。于有漏法一切種時相無差別。堅執無動隨增眠故。體用增盛。為顯有漏是能生長。此諸見處。故應重說。貪等癡疑則不如是。以彼貪等有一切種無一切時。癡一切時非無差別。疑無差別而不堅執。是故有漏不說彼處。或名三有。有因有依。三有攝故。等言為攝名有染等。如是等類是有漏法。隨義別名。如上所言。色等五蘊名有為法。色蘊者何。頌曰。
色者唯五根 五境及無表
論曰。色謂色蘊。言五根者所謂眼耳鼻舌身根。言五境者。所謂色聲香味所觸境。謂眼等所攝所行。及無表者。謂法處色。唯者唯此所顯。十處一處少分。名為色蘊。如是諸色其相云何。頌曰。
彼識依凈色 名
眼等五根
論曰。彼謂前說眼等五根。識即眼耳鼻舌身識。依者眼等五識所依。如是所依凈色為體。即此凈色名眼等根。故薄伽梵于契經中說眼等根凈色為相。本論亦說。云何眼根。眼識所依凈色為性。如是廣說。諸聖教中以根別識。不以境界。故知彼言顯根非境。有說。彼者是境非根而無意識緣色等故。名色等識。彼識所依名眼等過由凈色言所簡別故。若爾色言應成無用。彼識依凈名眼等根。義已成故。無識所依凈而非色。為簡彼故。應用色言。若謂色言是契經說。契經可爾。不說識依差別言故。若謂此言是本論說。彼亦同疑應俱思擇。如是釋者為遣疑難。須置色言。若識依言就有財釋。則應凈信名眼等根。故置色言。為簡此釋。無有一法以識為依色而是凈。可為此釋。是故色言甚為有用。由此即釋本論所言。又於此中前言為簡耳等四根。彼雖皆用凈色為性。而彼非為眼識所依。故彼四根非眼根攝。後言為簡無間滅依。彼雖亦為眼識所依。而彼非用凈色為性。故彼意根非眼根攝。或復前言。顯同分眼。後言為顯彼同分眼。余根亦爾。若爾凈色相無別故。應不成五。不爾。功能有差別故。如何得知功能別者。不共境識所依定故。又因別故。現見別因果有差別。猶如琴瑟簫笛等聲。然眼耳等所因四大各有差別。因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眼等五根
論曰：他們認為前面所說的眼等五根，識就是眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識。所依是指眼等五識所依賴的。這樣的所依以清凈的色為體性。這清凈的色就叫做眼等根。所以薄伽梵在契經中說，眼等根以清凈的色為相。本論也說：『什麼是眼根？眼識所依賴的清凈色為體性。』像這樣廣泛地說明。各種聖教中以根來區分識，而不是以境界來區分。所以，要知道他們所說的，是顯示根而不是境界。有人說，他們所指的是境界而不是根，因為沒有意識緣於色等，所以稱為色等識。那些識所依賴的叫做眼等，通過『清凈色』這個詞來加以區分。
如果這樣，『色』這個詞就應該變得沒有用處了。因為『那些識所依賴的清凈』，就可以表達眼等根的含義了。沒有哪個識所依賴的，是清凈的但不是色的，爲了區分這種情況，才使用『色』這個詞。如果認為『色』這個詞是契經里說的，契經里這樣說可以，因為它沒有說識所依賴的差別。如果認為這個詞是本論里說的，那也同樣有疑問，應該一起思考。像這樣解釋是爲了消除疑問，需要放置『色』這個詞。如果『識所依賴』這個詞，按照『有財釋』來解釋，那就應該是清凈的信心叫做眼等根了。所以放置『色』這個詞，是爲了區分這種解釋。沒有哪一種法，以識為所依，是色而且是清凈的，可以這樣解釋。所以，『色』這個詞非常有用。由此就解釋了本論所說。
又在這裡面，前面的『眼』字是爲了區分耳等四根。它們雖然都用清凈色為體性，但它們不是眼識所依賴的。所以那四根不屬於眼根的範疇。後面的『凈色』是爲了區分無間滅依（指意根）。它雖然也是眼識所依賴的，但它不是用清凈色為體性。所以意根不屬於眼根的範疇。或者，前面的『眼』字，顯示同分眼（指同一類別的眼）。後面的『凈色』，是爲了顯示那些同分眼。其餘的根也是這樣。如果這樣，清凈色的相沒有差別，應該不能構成五根。不是的，因為功能有差別。如何得知功能有差別呢？因為不共的境界和識的所依是確定的。而且因為因不同。現在看到不同的因，果也有差別。就像琴、瑟、簫、笛等聲音。然而眼、耳等所依賴的四大各有差別，因...
【English Translation】 English version The Five Roots: Eye, etc.
Treatise: They claim that the previously mentioned five roots, such as the eye, etc., are the consciousnesses, namely eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, and body-consciousness. The 'support' refers to what these five consciousnesses rely on. Such a support has pure form (rupa) as its essence. This pure form is called the roots such as the eye, etc. Therefore, the Blessed One said in the sutras that the roots such as the eye, etc., have pure form as their characteristic. The present treatise also states: 'What is the eye-root? It is the pure form that eye-consciousness relies on as its nature.' Thus, it explains extensively. Various sacred teachings distinguish consciousnesses by the root, not by the object. Therefore, know that what they say reveals the root, not the object. Some say that what they refer to is the object, not the root, because there is no consciousness that cognizes form, etc.; therefore, they are called form-consciousness, etc. What those consciousnesses rely on is called the eye, etc., distinguished by the term 'pure form'.
If so, the word 'form' should become useless. Because 'what those consciousnesses rely on, which is pure,' can express the meaning of the eye-root, etc. There is nothing that consciousness relies on that is pure but not form; to distinguish this situation, the word 'form' is used. If it is thought that the word 'form' is said in the sutras, it is acceptable in the sutras because it does not mention the difference in what consciousness relies on. If it is thought that this word is said in the present treatise, then there is also doubt, and it should be considered together. Such an explanation is to eliminate doubts, and the word 'form' needs to be placed. If the word 'what consciousness relies on' is explained according to 'possessive explanation', then it should be pure faith that is called the eye-root, etc. Therefore, the word 'form' is placed to distinguish this explanation. There is no dharma that relies on consciousness, is form, and is pure, that can be explained in this way. Therefore, the word 'form' is very useful. This explains what the present treatise says.
Moreover, in this context, the preceding word 'eye' is to distinguish the four roots such as the ear, etc. Although they all use pure form as their essence, they are not what eye-consciousness relies on. Therefore, those four roots do not belong to the category of the eye-root. The following 'pure form' is to distinguish the immediately ceasing support (referring to the mind-root). Although it is also what eye-consciousness relies on, it does not use pure form as its essence. Therefore, the mind-root does not belong to the category of the eye-root. Or, the preceding word 'eye' shows the same-category eye (referring to the same type of eye). The following 'pure form' is to show those same-category eyes. The remaining roots are also like this. If so, the characteristics of pure form are not different, and it should not be possible to constitute five roots. No, because the functions are different. How is it known that the functions are different? Because the uncommon object and the support of consciousness are definite. Moreover, because the causes are different. Now seeing different causes, the results are also different. Like the sounds of the qin (zither), se (lute), xiao (vertical flute), and di (bamboo flute), etc. However, the four great elements that the eye, ear, etc., rely on are each different, the cause...
差別故。眼等凈色體有差別。體雖有別因無異故。其果凈色應無別者。此難不然。雖同一相。現見異故。猶如內外大種差別。若言如聲。因雖有別而相一故。同一處攝眼等五根亦應爾者。無如是過。聲雖因別而與一識為境界故。一處所攝。眼等五根。別類境識所依性故。又是別依用所顯故。不應諸根同一處攝。又如識受。雖同了別領納一相。由因別故。而有六識三受差別。此亦如是。如彼識受。雖六三異而相同故一處所攝。眼等亦應一處攝者。受與無為。何因同處。故非一處攝。顯自相同有。自相雖異。同處攝故。已辯眼等相。色等今當說。頌曰。
色二或二十 聲唯有八種 味六香四種 觸十一為性
論曰。言色二者。是二種義。謂顯與形。此中顯色有十二種形色有八。故或二十。顯十二者。謂青黃赤白雲煙塵霧影光明闇。於十二中青等四種是正顯色。云等八種是此差別。其義隱者今當略釋。地水氣騰說之為霧。障光明起。于中余色可見名影。翻此為闇。日焰名光。月星火藥寶珠電等諸焰名明。形色八者。謂長短方圓高下正不正。此中正者。謂平等形。不平等形名為不正。余色易了故今不釋。有說。色有二十一種。空一顯色第二十一。此即空界色之差別。于顯色中青黃赤白影光明闇。唯顯可知。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『差別故。眼等凈色體有差別。體雖有別因無異故。其果凈色應無別者。』這種說法是因為存在差別。眼等（cakṣurādīni）清凈的色法在體性上有差別。雖然體性有差別，但因為原因沒有不同，所以其結果清凈的色法應該沒有差別。這種責難是不成立的。雖然是同一相狀，但顯現上能看到不同，就像內外的大種（mahābhūta）有差別一樣。如果說像聲音（śabda）一樣，原因雖然有差別，但相狀相同，所以同一處所攝取的眼等五根（pañcendriya）也應該如此，那麼就沒有這樣的過失。聲音雖然原因不同，但與一個識（vijñāna）作為境界，所以是一個處所攝取的。眼等五根，是不同類別的境識所依賴的體性，而且是不同的所依，用處所顯現的，不應該諸根在同一個處所攝取。又如識（vijñāna）和受（vedanā），雖然共同了別領納一個相狀，但由於原因不同，所以有六識（ṣaḍvijñāna）和三種受（tri-vedanā）的差別。這裡也是如此。如果說像識和受，雖然六種和三種不同，但因為相同，所以一個處所攝取，眼等也應該一個處所攝取，那麼受與無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma），是什麼原因在同一個處所呢？所以不是一個處所攝取。顯現各自的相同有。各自的相狀雖然不同，但同一個處所攝取。已經辨析了眼等的相狀，色等現在應當說。頌說： 『色二或二十，聲唯有八種，味六香四種，觸十一為性。』 論說：說色二種，是兩種意義，指顯色（varṇa）和形色（saṃsthāna）。這裡顯色有十二種，形色有八種，所以或者說有二十種。顯色十二種，指青（nīla）、黃（pīta）、赤（lohita）、白（avadāta）、云（megha）、煙（dhūma）、塵（rajas）、霧（mahika）、影（chāyā）、光明（āloka）、闇（andhakāra）。在十二種中，青等四種是正顯色，云等八種是這些的差別。其意義隱晦的現在應當略作解釋。地水氣騰起說之為霧，遮障光明生起，在其中其餘顏色可以看見名為影，與此相反的為闇。日焰名為光，月星火藥寶珠電等諸焰名為明。形色八種，指長（dīrgha）、短（hrasva）、方（caturasra）、圓（vṛtta）、高（unnatā）、下（avanata）、正（sama）、不正（viṣama）。這裡正，指平等形，不平等形名為不正。其餘顏色容易理解所以現在不解釋。有人說，色有二十一種，空（ākāśa）一種，顯色第二十一種。這指空界色（ākāśadhātu-rūpa）的差別。在顯色中，青黃赤白影光明闇，只有顯現可以知道。于
【English Translation】 English version 『Because of difference. The pure colors of the eye, etc., have differences in their substance. Although the substances are different, because the cause is not different, the resulting pure colors should have no difference.』 This statement is because there are differences. The pure colors of the eye, etc. (cakṣurādīni), have differences in their substance. Although the substances are different, because the cause is not different, the resulting pure colors should have no difference. This objection is not valid. Although they have the same appearance, differences are seen, just like the differences between the internal and external great elements (mahābhūta). If it is said that like sound (śabda), although the causes are different, the appearance is the same, so the five roots (pañcendriya) such as the eye, etc., which are included in the same place, should also be the same, then there is no such fault. Although the cause of sound is different, it is a realm for one consciousness (vijñāna), so it is included in one place. The five roots such as the eye, etc., are the nature of relying on different kinds of realm-consciousness, and they are different supports, manifested by their functions, so the roots should not be included in the same place. Also, like consciousness (vijñāna) and feeling (vedanā), although they jointly distinguish and perceive one appearance, due to different causes, there are differences between the six consciousnesses (ṣaḍvijñāna) and the three feelings (tri-vedanā). It is the same here. If it is said that like consciousness and feeling, although they are different in six and three ways, they are included in one place because they are the same, and the eye, etc., should also be included in one place, then why are feeling and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) in the same place? Therefore, they are not included in one place. Manifesting their own common existence. Although their own characteristics are different, they are included in the same place. The characteristics of the eye, etc., have already been distinguished, and colors, etc., should now be discussed. The verse says: 『Colors are two or twenty, sound has only eight kinds, taste has six kinds, smell has four kinds, touch has eleven as its nature.』 The treatise says: Saying that colors are two kinds means two meanings, referring to manifest color (varṇa) and shape color (saṃsthāna). Here, manifest colors have twelve kinds, and shape colors have eight kinds, so there are either twenty kinds. The twelve manifest colors refer to blue (nīla), yellow (pīta), red (lohita), white (avadāta), cloud (megha), smoke (dhūma), dust (rajas), mist (mahika), shadow (chāyā), light (āloka), and darkness (andhakāra). Among the twelve kinds, blue, etc., are the four primary manifest colors, and cloud, etc., are the differences of these. The meanings that are obscure should now be briefly explained. The rising of earth, water, and air is called mist, obstructing the arising of light, in which other colors can be seen is called shadow, and the opposite of this is darkness. The flame of the sun is called light, and the flames of the moon, stars, gunpowder, jewels, electricity, etc., are called brightness. The eight shape colors refer to long (dīrgha), short (hrasva), square (caturasra), round (vṛtta), high (unnatā), low (avanata), even (sama), and uneven (viṣama). Here, even refers to equal shapes, and uneven shapes are called uneven. The remaining colors are easy to understand, so they will not be explained now. Some say that there are twenty-one kinds of color, with space (ākāśa) being one kind and manifest colors being the twenty-first kind. This refers to the difference of the space element color (ākāśadhātu-rūpa). Among the manifest colors, only the manifestation of blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, and darkness can be known.
形色中身表業性。唯形可了。余色形顯俱可了知。如何一事有二體者。非宗所許。故無此過。辯業品中當更思擇。已說色處。當說聲處。能有呼召故名為聲。或唯音響說之為聲。善逝聖教咸作是言。聲是耳根所取境界。是四大種所造色性。此聲八種。謂有執受或無執受大種為因及有情數非有情數差別為四。此復可意及不可意差別成八。執受大種。謂現在世有情數攝。長養等流異熟地等。與此相違名無執受。此中執受大種為因。聲有二種。謂有情類加行所生。及余不待加行所起。其有情類加行所生。復有二種。一者手等加行所生。二者語表業為自性。此語表業復有二種。謂依名起。及不待名。依名起者復有二種。一者有記。二者無記。不待名者二種亦然。是有執受大種為因聲相差別。其無執受大種為因聲亦二種。一者有情加行所起。二者諸界擾動所生。初謂螺貝鐘鼓等聲。后謂風林河等所發有情數者語手等聲。餘聲即是非有情數。如是諸聲聞生悅者。名可意聲與此相違。名不可意。八中唯有初二應理。以有情數非有情數。即有執受及無執受大種為因。聲所攝故。於色等中亦應可說可意等異。何獨在聲。色等亦應說有執受及無執受大種為因。理實應說。然由聲處自性難知。故但就因說有二種。色等不爾。是故不說。本論所
攝聲相無異。故不應立此八種聲。豈不有聲用有執受及無執受大種為因而得生起。如手鼓等合所生聲無如是聲。二具四大各別果故。非二四大同得一果為俱有因。成過失故。雖有執受與無執受二四大種共相扣擊而俱為因。各別發聲彼聲各據自所依故。不成三體。雖有執受與無執受手鼓大種相擊為因發生二聲。而相映奪隨取一種。其差別相不易可知。是故聲處唯有二種。已說聲處。當說味處。越次說者。顯彼境識生無定故。味謂所啖。是可嘗義。此有六種。甘酢咸辛苦淡別故。已說味處。當說香處。香謂所嗅。此有四種。好香惡香等不等香有差別故。等不等者。增益損減。依身別故。有說。微弱增盛異故。本論中說。香有三種。好香惡香及平等香。若能長養諸根大種。名為好香。與此相違。名為惡香。無前二用。名平等香。或諸福業增上所生。名為好香。若諸罪業增上所生。名為惡香。唯四大種勢力所生。名平等香。此雖增上果而亦有差別。故唯大種勢力所生。亦是有情增上果攝。已說香處。當說觸處。觸謂所觸。十一為性。即十一實以為體義。謂四大種及七造觸。滑性澀性重性輕性及冷飢渴。若爾身根應成所觸。此既能觸彼彼定觸。此故有說。身根唯能觸非所觸。譬如眼根唯能見非所見。復有說者。無有少法能觸少法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 聲音的攝取和現象沒有區別。因此，不應該設立這八種聲音。難道不是有聲音的功用，由有執受和無執受的四大種為因而得以生起嗎？例如手鼓等樂器組合所產生的聲音，沒有像這樣（由八種聲音構成）的聲音。因為兩者具有各自不同的四大種的果報。不是兩種四大種共同得到一個果報作為俱有因，因為這樣會造成過失。即使有執受和無執受的兩種四大種互相撞擊而共同作為原因，各自發出聲音，那些聲音也各自依據自己所依之處。不會成為三種實體。即使有執受和無執受的手鼓的四大種互相撞擊作為原因，發生兩種聲音，而互相掩映奪取，隨便選取一種。它們的差別相不容易知道。因此，聲音的處所只有兩種。 已經說了聲音的處所，接下來應當說味道的處所。越過順序來說，是爲了顯示那些境識的產生沒有定準。味道是指所吃的東西，是可品嚐的意思。這有六種，因為有甘、酢（酸）、咸、辛苦、淡的區別。 已經說了味道的處所，接下來應當說香氣的處所。香氣是指所嗅的東西。這有四種，因為有好香、惡香、等香、不等香的差別。等和不等，是指增益和損減，依據身體的不同而有差別。有人說，是因為微弱、增盛的不同。本論中說，香氣有三種，好香、惡香以及平等香。如果能夠滋養諸根和大種，就稱為好香。與此相反，就稱為惡香。沒有前兩種作用，就稱為平等香。或者由諸福業增上所生，稱為好香。如果由諸罪業增上所生，稱為惡香。只有四大種勢力所生，稱為平等香。這雖然是增上的果報，但也有差別。所以只有四大種勢力所生，也是有情增上果所攝。 已經說了香氣的處所，接下來應當說觸覺的處所。觸覺是指所觸控的東西，以十一法為自性。就是以十一實法作為本體的意思。指四大種以及七種造觸：滑性、澀性、重性、輕性以及冷、饑、渴。如果這樣，身根應該成為所觸。既然它能觸，那麼它必定是被觸。因此有人說，身根只能觸，不是被觸。譬如眼根只能見，不是被見。又有人說，沒有少許法能夠觸少許法。
【English Translation】 English version The perception and phenomena of sound are no different. Therefore, these eight kinds of sound should not be established. Isn't it the case that the function of sound arises from the four great elements (Mahabhuta) of 'with-grasping' (with consciousness) and 'without-grasping' (without consciousness) as its cause? For example, the sound produced by the combination of musical instruments such as hand drums does not have such sounds (composed of eight kinds of sounds). This is because the two have different results from the four great elements. It is not that two kinds of four great elements jointly obtain one result as a co-existent cause, because this would lead to faults. Even if two kinds of four great elements, 'with-grasping' and 'without-grasping', strike each other and jointly act as a cause, each emitting sound, those sounds each rely on their own basis. They will not become three entities. Even if the four great elements of a hand drum, 'with-grasping' and 'without-grasping', strike each other as a cause, two sounds arise, and they overshadow and seize each other, arbitrarily selecting one kind. Their differences are not easy to know. Therefore, there are only two kinds of sound locations (Sound-ayatana). Having spoken of the sound location (Sound-ayatana), next we should speak of the taste location (Taste-ayatana). Speaking out of order is to show that the arising of those object-consciousness (Vijnana) is not fixed. Taste refers to what is eaten, meaning it can be tasted. There are six kinds of these, because of the differences between sweet (Madhura), sour (Amla), salty (Lavana), bitter (Katu), pungent (Tikta), and bland (Kasaya). Having spoken of the taste location (Taste-ayatana), next we should speak of the smell location (Smell-ayatana). Smell refers to what is smelled. There are four kinds of these, because there are differences between good smell (Sugandha), bad smell (Durgandha), equal smell (Sama-gandha), and unequal smell (Asama-gandha). 'Equal' and 'unequal' refer to increase and decrease, differing according to the body. Some say it is because of the differences between weak, increasing, and flourishing. In this treatise, it says that there are three kinds of smell: good smell (Sugandha), bad smell (Durgandha), and neutral smell (Sama-gandha). If it can nourish the roots (Indriya) and the great elements (Mahabhuta), it is called good smell (Sugandha). The opposite of this is called bad smell (Durgandha). Without the previous two functions, it is called neutral smell (Sama-gandha). Or, what arises from the increase of meritorious deeds (Punya), is called good smell (Sugandha). If it arises from the increase of sinful deeds (Papa), it is called bad smell (Durgandha). Only what arises from the power of the four great elements (Mahabhuta) is called neutral smell (Sama-gandha). Although this is an increased result, there are also differences. Therefore, only what arises from the power of the four great elements (Mahabhuta) is also included in the increased result of sentient beings. Having spoken of the smell location (Smell-ayatana), next we should speak of the touch location (Touch-ayatana). Touch refers to what is touched, with eleven dharmas as its nature. That is, taking the eleven real dharmas as its substance. It refers to the four great elements (Mahabhuta) and the seven created touches (Upadaya-rupa): smoothness (Laksana), roughness (Kharatva), heaviness (Gurutva), lightness (Lagutva), and cold (Sita), hunger (Jighatsa), thirst (Pipasa). If so, the body-organ (Kaya-indriya) should become what is touched. Since it can touch, then it must be touched. Therefore, some say that the body-organ (Kaya-indriya) can only touch, not be touched. For example, the eye-organ (Caksu-indriya) can only see, not be seen. Others say that there is no dharma that can touch another dharma.
。所依所緣無間生時。立觸名想。若依此識能得彼境。此于彼境假說能觸。境非識依故非能觸。即由此因唯說地等名為所觸。依彼色等定非所觸。此中意顯依身根識。不緣彼境而生起故。若彼色等非所觸者。如何華等由身觸時色等變壞。由彼所依被損壞故。現見所依有損益故能依損益。非此相違。如地方所甘澤潤沃稼穡叢林鮮榮滋茂。烈日所迫。與此相違。故知所依大種被損。能依色等變壞非余。如是義言后當廣辯。此中大種至次當說。今應略釋滑澀等相。滑即是性故言滑性。如別即性故言別性。訓釋詞者。可相逼觸。故名為滑。即是軟暖堪執持義此有澀用。故名有澀。如有毛者說為有毛。澀即是性故言澀性。是力粗燥堅硬異名。能為鎮壓。故名為重。是能成辦摧伏他義。重即是性故言重性。毗婆沙說。令稱權升故名為重。易可移轉故名為輕。現見世間。物形雖大。而有輕故。易令遷動。輕即是性故言輕性。毗婆沙說。不令稱首墜故名輕。由彼所逼希暖欲生。故名為冷。又令凝結及易了知。故名為冷。是彼損益疾可知義。食慾名饑。飲欲名渴。豈不欲是心所法故違觸相耶。以于因中立果名故。無相違失。如言河樂階隥亦樂。食為人命。草為畜命。余所未說。悶力劣等攝在此中。故不別說。悶不離滑。力即澀重劣在軟暖
。輕性中攝。如是其餘所觸種類。隨其所應十一中攝。何緣滑等展轉差別。所依大種增微別故。水火界增故生滑性。地風界增故生澀性。地水界增故生重性。火風界增故生輕性。故死身內重性偏增。水風界增故生於冷。由是亦說此所生悶。若爾云何言不離滑。隨一一增。此有無過。或復悶者。是滑差別。非唯滑性。應知此因亦有差別。是故滑性。或因水風界增故起。或因水火界增故生。所以二言無相違失。風界增故生饑。火界增故生渴余隨所應皆當配釋。如是所造。離大種外。別有體性。后當廣辯。
說一切有部順正理論卷第一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之二
於色蘊中已說根境唯余無表此今當說。頌曰。
亂心無心等 隨流凈不凈 大種所造性 由此說無表
論曰。亂心無心等者。等言謂通兩處。即不亂心及有心位。不善無記名亂心。余心名不亂。無想滅定名無心。此能滅心故。雖更有餘無心果位。而無表色非所隨流。故無心言不攝於彼。於三性心及無心位相似相續。故名隨流。凈不凈者。謂善不善。善心等起名凈無表。相似相續說為律儀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：輕性由火風二界增盛所攝。其餘觸的種類，也應根據情況歸入十一類中。為什麼滑性、澀性等有輾轉差別呢？因為它們所依賴的四大種的增減不同。水界和火界增盛產生滑性，地界和風界增盛產生澀性，地界和水界增盛產生重性，火界和風界增盛產生輕性。所以死亡的身體內重性特別增盛。水界和風界增盛產生冷的感覺，因此也說由此產生昏悶。如果這樣，為什麼說昏悶不離滑性呢？隨其中之一增盛，這沒有過失。或者昏悶是滑性的差別，不僅僅是滑性。應該知道這裡的因也有差別，所以滑性，或者因為水界和風界增盛而產生，或者因為水界和火界增盛而產生。所以這兩種說法沒有互相違背的錯誤。風界增盛產生飢餓，火界增盛產生口渴，其餘的都應根據情況進行解釋。像這樣，所造色離開四大種之外，另有其體性，後面將詳細辨析。
說一切有部順正理論卷第一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之二
在色蘊中已經說了根和境，只剩下無表色，現在將要說明。頌文說：
『亂心無心等 隨流凈不凈 大種所造性 由此說無表』
論述：『亂心無心等』，『等』字包括兩種情況，即不亂心和有心位。不善和無記心稱為亂心，其餘的心稱為不亂心。無想定和滅盡定稱為無心，因為它們能夠滅除心。雖然還有其他的無心果位，但是無表色不是隨它們而流轉的，所以『無心』不包括那些果位。在三種性質的心和無心位中，相似地相續，所以稱為『隨流』。『凈不凈』，指的是善和不善。善心等起稱為凈無表，相似地相續，稱為律儀（Vinaya）。
【English Translation】 English version: Lightness is encompassed by the increase of the fire and wind elements. Similarly, the remaining types of touch should be categorized into the eleven types as appropriate. Why are there differences between smoothness, roughness, and so on? Because the increase or decrease of the four great elements (Mahabhuta) on which they depend is different. The increase of the water and fire elements produces smoothness. The increase of the earth and wind elements produces roughness. The increase of the earth and water elements produces heaviness. The increase of the fire and wind elements produces lightness. Therefore, heaviness particularly increases in a dead body. The increase of the water and wind elements produces coldness, and it is also said that this produces faintness. If so, why is it said that faintness is inseparable from smoothness? There is no fault in saying that it follows the increase of one of them. Or, faintness is a difference of smoothness, not just smoothness itself. It should be known that the cause here is also different, so smoothness arises either from the increase of the water and wind elements or from the increase of the water and fire elements. Therefore, there is no contradiction between these two statements. The increase of the wind element produces hunger, and the increase of the fire element produces thirst. The rest should be explained accordingly. Thus, the derived matter (Upadaya-rupa), apart from the four great elements, has its own nature, which will be discussed in detail later.
Treatise on the Establishment of Right Reason According to the Sarvastivada School, Volume 1 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Treatise on the Establishment of Right Reason According to the Sarvastivada School, Volume 2
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 1 on Explaining the Basic Matters, Part 2
Having discussed the sense bases and objects within the aggregate of form (Rupa-skandha), only unmanifested form (Avijnapti-rupa) remains, which will now be explained. The verse says:
'Distracted mind, mindless states, etc., flowing along, pure and impure, Nature derived from the great elements, hence unmanifested form is explained.'
Commentary: 'Distracted mind, mindless states, etc.,' The word 'etc.' includes both situations, namely, non-distracted mind and states with mind. Unwholesome and indeterminate minds are called distracted minds, and the remaining minds are called non-distracted minds. The cessation of perception (Asanna-samapatti) and cessation attainment (Nirodha-samapatti) are called mindless states because they can extinguish the mind. Although there are other fruition states of mindlessness, unmanifested form does not flow along with them, so 'mindless' does not include those states. Similar continuity in the three types of minds and mindless states is called 'flowing along.' 'Pure and impure' refers to wholesome and unwholesome. Wholesome mind arising is called pure unmanifested form, and similar continuity is called Vinaya.
。或非律儀。不善心等起名不凈無表。相似相續。說為不律儀。或非不律儀。若無記心亦為二種。剎那等起。由此即說二等起心。然凈不凈二無表色。其隨轉心或不相似。若凈無表或全無心。因等起心二各相似。已說亂心無心等隨流凈不凈。復說大種所造者。有餘隨流凈不凈得。為簡彼故。說造色言。此中造者。即表因義。云何知然。如契經說。色造我見。即是因色起我見義。復言由此說無表者。由善不善心所等起。諸位隨流凈不凈色。雖如表業。而非表示令他了知。故名無表。為顯如是立名因緣。故言由此說者顯此。是余師意。經主不許如是種類無表色故。以要言之。依止身語表業差別。及善不善心等差別。所生無礙善不善色。是名無表。今謂經主。於此頌中。不能具說無表色相。以說隨流名無表故。彼自釋言。相似相續說名隨流。非初剎那可名相續。勿有太過之失。是故決定初念無表。不入所說相中。又相續者。是假非實。無表非實。失對法宗。又定所發亂無心位不隨流故。應非無表。若言不亂有心位中此隨流故無斯過者。凈不凈表業應有無表相。又謂等言通無心者。此言無用。前已攝故。亂心等言。已攝一切余有心位。第二等言。復何所攝。經主應思。或謂后等攝不亂心。前無用者。此不應然。無容攝故。何容
【現代漢語翻譯】 或非律儀，不善心等生起，稱為『不凈無表』。相似的相續，被稱為『不律儀』。或者說，它既非律儀，也非不律儀。如果是不記心，也屬於這兩種情況。剎那間生起。因此，就說了兩種等起心。然而，清凈和不清凈的兩種無表色，它們隨之轉變的心可能不相似。如果是清凈無表，或者完全沒有心。因為等起心，這兩種情況各自相似。已經說了亂心、無心等隨之流動的清凈與不清凈。又說了由大種所造的，還有剩餘的隨之流動的清凈與不清凈可以獲得。爲了簡化這些，所以說了『造色』這個詞。這裡，『造』字，就是表示原因的意思。怎麼知道是這樣呢？就像契經里說的，『色造我見』，就是因為色而生起我見的意思。又說，由此說無表，是因為由善或不善的心所等生起的，在各個階段隨之流動的清凈與不清凈的色，雖然像表業，但並非表示，使他人瞭解，所以稱為『無表』。爲了顯示這樣立名的因緣，所以說『由此說』，顯示這是其他論師的觀點，經主並不認可這種種類的無表色。總而言之，依靠身語表業的差別，以及善與不善心等的差別，所產生的無礙的善與不善的色，就叫做『無表』。現在認為經主，在這首偈頌中，不能完全說出無表色的相狀，因為說了『隨流』就叫做無表。他自己解釋說，相似的相續叫做『隨流』，最初的剎那不能叫做相續，不要有過分的失誤。因此，可以確定最初一念的無表，不屬於所說的相狀之中。而且，相續是假的，不是真實的，無表不是真實的，就失去了對法宗的意義。而且，由禪定所引發的，在亂心或無心狀態下，不隨之流動，所以不應該是無表。如果說在不亂的有心狀態中，它是隨之流動的，所以沒有這個過失，那麼清凈與不清凈的表業應該有無表的相狀。又說『等』字可以包括無心的情況，這句話沒有用，因為前面已經包括了。『亂心等』已經包括了一切其他的有心狀態，第二個『等』字，又包括什麼呢？經主應該思考。或者說後面的『等』字包括不亂的心，前面的沒有用，這不應該這樣，因為沒有容納的餘地。怎麼容納呢？ 或非律儀，不善心等生起，稱為『不凈無表』。相似的相續，被稱為『不律儀』。或者說，它既非律儀，也非不律儀。如果是不記心，也屬於這兩種情況。剎那間生起。因此，就說了兩種等起心。然而，清凈和不清凈的兩種無表色，它們隨之轉變的心可能不相似。如果是清凈無表，或者完全沒有心。因為等起心，這兩種情況各自相似。已經說了亂心、無心等隨之流動的清凈與不清凈。又說了由大種所造的，還有剩餘的隨之流動的清凈與不清凈可以獲得。爲了簡化這些，所以說了『造色』這個詞。這裡，『造』字，就是表示原因的意思。怎麼知道是這樣呢？就像契經里說的，『色造我見』，就是因為色而生起我見的意思。又說，由此說無表，是因為由善或不善的心所等生起的，在各個階段隨之流動的清凈與不清凈的色，雖然像表業，但並非表示，使他人瞭解，所以稱為『無表』。爲了顯示這樣立名的因緣，所以說『由此說』，顯示這是其他論師的觀點，經主並不認可這種種類的無表色。總而言之，依靠身語表業的差別，以及善與不善心等的差別，所產生的無礙的善與不善的色，就叫做『無表』。現在認為經主，在這首偈頌中，不能完全說出無表色的相狀，因為說了『隨流』就叫做無表。他自己解釋說，相似的相續叫做『隨流』，最初的剎那不能叫做相續，不要有過分的失誤。因此，可以確定最初一念的無表，不屬於所說的相狀之中。而且，相續是假的，不是真實的，無表不是真實的，就失去了對法宗的意義。而且，由禪定所引發的，在亂心或無心狀態下，不隨之流動，所以不應該是無表。如果說在不亂的有心狀態中，它是隨之流動的，所以沒有這個過失，那麼清凈與不清凈的表業應該有無表的相狀。又說『等』字可以包括無心的情況，這句話沒有用，因為前面已經包括了。『亂心等』已經包括了一切其他的有心狀態，第二個『等』字，又包括什麼呢？經主應該思考。或者說後面的『等』字包括不亂的心，前面的沒有用，這不應該這樣，因為沒有容納的餘地。怎麼容納呢？
【English Translation】 Or it is not a 律儀 (lǜyí) [rules of conduct]. The arising of unwholesome thoughts, etc., is called 'impure 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma]'. Similar continuity is described as 'not 律儀 (lǜyí) [rules of conduct]'. Or it is neither 律儀 (lǜyí) [rules of conduct] nor not 律儀 (lǜyí) [rules of conduct]. If it is a neutral mind, it also belongs to these two types, arising in an instant. Therefore, two types of arising minds are mentioned. However, the two types of 無表色 (wúbiǎo sè) [non-revealing form], pure and impure, may not have similar minds following them. If it is pure 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma], there may be no mind at all. Because of the arising mind, these two situations are similar. It has been said that the pure and impure that flow with the disturbed mind, the mindless, etc. It is also said that what is created by the great elements, there are remaining pure and impure that flow with it that can be obtained. To simplify these, the word '造色 (zào sè) [created form]' is used. Here, '造 (zào) [created]' means the cause. How do we know this? As the 契經 (qìjīng) [sutras] say, 'Form creates the view of self', which means that the view of self arises because of form. It is also said that 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma] is mentioned because the pure and impure forms that flow with the wholesome or unwholesome mental factors, etc., at various stages, although like 表業 (biǎo yè) [revealing karma], do not reveal or make others understand, so they are called '無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma]'. To show the cause and condition of establishing such a name, it is said 'thereby saying', showing that this is the view of other teachers, and the 經主 (jīng zhǔ) [sutra master] does not recognize this kind of 無表色 (wúbiǎo sè) [non-revealing form]. In short, depending on the differences in bodily and verbal 表業 (biǎo yè) [revealing karma], and the differences in wholesome and unwholesome minds, etc., the unobstructed wholesome and unwholesome forms that arise are called '無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma]'. Now it is believed that the 經主 (jīng zhǔ) [sutra master], in this verse, cannot fully describe the characteristics of 無表色 (wúbiǎo sè) [non-revealing form], because saying 'flowing with' is called 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma]. He himself explained that similar continuity is called 'flowing with', and the initial moment cannot be called continuity, lest there be excessive errors. Therefore, it can be determined that the initial thought of 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma] does not belong to the characteristics mentioned. Moreover, continuity is false, not real, and 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma] is not real, which loses the meaning of the 對法宗 (duì fǎ zōng) [Abhidharma school]. Moreover, what is initiated by 禪定 (chándìng) [meditative concentration], in a disturbed or mindless state, does not flow with it, so it should not be 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma]. If it is said that in an undisturbed mindful state, it flows with it, so there is no fault, then the pure and impure 表業 (biǎo yè) [revealing karma] should have the characteristics of 無表 (wúbiǎo) [non-revealing karma]. It is also said that the word 'etc.' can include the mindless situation, which is useless because it has already been included before. 'Disturbed mind, etc.' has already included all other mindful states, what does the second 'etc.' include? The 經主 (jīng zhǔ) [sutra master] should think about it. Or it is said that the latter 'etc.' includes the undisturbed mind, and the former is useless, which should not be the case because there is no room for it. How to accommodate it?
后等攝不亂心。遮言理于相似處起。乘無起等。理不及余。故非全攝。或可亂心言成無用。又應簡言。唯凈無表。于無心位隨流非余。于自釋中亦不簡別。故於此理經主應思。云何離失說無表相。
作等余心等 及無心有記 無對所造性 是名無表色
已說無表。此中所言大種所造。大種云何。頌曰。
大種謂四界 即地水火風 能成持等業 堅濕暖動性
論曰。此諸大種何緣名界。一切色法出生處故。亦從大種大種出生。諸出生處世間說名界。如金等礦立金等界名。或種種苦出生處故。說名為界。喻如前說有說。能持大種自相及所造色。故名為界。如是諸界亦名大種。何故言種。云何名大。種種造色差別生時。彼彼品類差別能起。是故言種。有說。有情業增上故。無始生死未嘗非有。是故言種。或法出現即名為有。生長有性。是故言種。即是生長法有性義。或是生長有情身義。或能顯了十種造色。是故言種。由此勢力彼顯了故。若爾便有大過之失。一切因緣于果生位。皆有用故。無大過失。有大用故。言大用者。謂諸有情根本事中。如是四種。有勝作用。依此建立識之與空。乃得說為有情根本。為別所餘故複名大。又于誑惑愚夫事中。此四最勝。故名為大。如矯賊中事業勝者。別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 后得定（Houde ding，指從禪定中出來后獲得的智慧）的攝持不會擾亂心。遮言的道理在於相似之處產生。憑藉無起等（Wuqi deng，指無生起等狀態）。道理不及於其他，所以並非完全攝持。或者說，擾亂心的話語變得無用，又應該簡化言辭，只有清凈的無表色（Wubiao se，指不可見的色法）。在無心位（Wuxin wei，指沒有意識的狀態）隨順流轉而非其他。在自我解釋中也沒有簡別。因此，對於這個道理，經主應該思考，如何離開失去而說無表色的相狀。
作等余心等，以及無心有記，無對所造性，是名無表色。
已經說了無表色。這裡所說的大種所造（Dazhong suozao，指由四大種所產生的），大種是什麼？頌文說：
大種謂四界，即地水火風，能成持等業，堅濕暖動性。
論述說：這些大種為什麼稱為界（Jie，指界限、類別）？因為是一切色法出生的處所。也從大種出生大種。諸出生處，世間稱為界。比如金等礦藏，立為金等界的名字。或者因為種種痛苦出生的處所，所以稱為界。比喻如同前面所說。有人說，能夠保持大種的自相以及所造的色法，所以稱為界。像這樣，諸界也稱為大種。為什麼稱為種（Zhong，指種子）？又為什麼稱為大（Da，指大）？種種造色差別生起時，那些品類的差別能夠生起，所以稱為種。有人說，因為有情業的增上，無始生死以來未曾沒有，所以稱為種。或者法出現就稱為有，生長有性，所以稱為種。就是生長法有性的意思。或者是生長有情身的意思。或者能夠顯了十種造色，所以稱為種。由此勢力，它們才顯了。如果這樣，便有很大的過失，因為一切因緣在果生起的時候，都有用處。沒有大的過失，因為有大的用處。說大用處，是指諸有情根本的事情中，這四種有殊勝的作用。依靠這四種建立識（Shi，指意識）和空（Kong，指空性），才能說是有情的根本。爲了區別其餘的，所以又稱為大。又在誑惑愚夫的事情中，這四種最殊勝，所以稱為大。如同矯賊中事業殊勝的人，區別于其他人。
【English Translation】 English version: The subsequent Samadhi (Houde ding, wisdom obtained after emerging from meditation) does not disturb the mind. The principle of 'concealing speech' arises in similar situations. Relying on 'non-arising' and so on (Wuqi deng, states like non-origination). The principle does not extend to others, so it is not a complete inclusion. Alternatively, the speech that disturbs the mind becomes useless, and the words should be simplified. Only pure 'non-revealing form' (Wubiao se, invisible form) exists. In the state of 'no-mind' (Wuxin wei, state of no consciousness), it flows along, not otherwise. There is also no distinction made in the self-explanation. Therefore, regarding this principle, the Sutra master should contemplate how to speak of the characteristics of 'non-revealing form' without losing it.
'Actions and other mental states, as well as unconscious and determinate states, the nature of what is created without opposition, are called non-revealing form.'
'Non-revealing form' has already been discussed. What is meant here by 'produced by the great elements' (Dazhong suozao, produced by the four great elements)? What are the great elements? The verse says:
'The great elements are the four realms, namely earth, water, fire, and wind, which can accomplish the functions of sustaining, etc., having the characteristics of solidity, moisture, warmth, and motion.'
The treatise says: Why are these great elements called 'realms' (Jie, boundaries, categories)? Because they are the place of origin for all forms. Also, great elements arise from great elements. Places of origin are called 'realms' in the world. For example, mines of gold, etc., are given the name 'realms of gold,' etc. Or because they are the place of origin for various sufferings, they are called 'realms.' The analogy is as mentioned before. Some say that they can maintain the self-nature of the great elements and the forms they produce, so they are called 'realms.' In this way, these realms are also called great elements. Why are they called 'seeds' (Zhong, seeds)? And why are they called 'great' (Da, great)? When various forms arise differently, the differences in those categories can arise, so they are called 'seeds.' Some say that because of the increase of sentient beings' karma, they have never been absent since beginningless Samsara, so they are called 'seeds.' Or when a Dharma appears, it is called 'existence,' growing with the nature of existence, so it is called 'seeds.' It means growing with the nature of Dharma's existence. Or it means growing the bodies of sentient beings. Or they can manifest the ten kinds of produced forms, so they are called 'seeds.' Because of this power, they are manifested. If so, there would be a great fault, because all causes and conditions are useful when the result arises. There is no great fault, because there is great use. 'Great use' refers to the fact that these four have a superior function in the fundamental affairs of sentient beings. Relying on these four to establish consciousness (Shi, consciousness) and emptiness (Kong, emptiness), it can be said that they are the foundation of sentient beings. To distinguish them from the rest, they are also called 'great.' Also, in the affairs of deceiving and deluding fools, these four are the most superior, so they are called 'great.' Like someone with superior abilities among impostors and thieves, distinguished from others.
余故名大矯大賊。如是此四因緣中勝。名大別余。無太過失。有說。此四普為一切余色所依。廣故名大。有說。一切色等聚中具有堅等。故名為大。風增聚中闕於色等。火增聚中闕于味等。色界諸聚皆無香味。青等聚中闕于黃等。滑等聚中闕于澀等。聲等不定。是故唯此四種名大。何故虛空不名大種。彼大種相不成立故。能損益故。立大種名。虛空不然。故非大種。豈不虛空有容受故能損益耶。虛空實無容受之用。非可聚色隨所住方虛空開避。云何容受。然無對故。不障彼住。由是虛空無損益用。若爾何意作如是說。能容受故名曰虛空。此說意言。有虛空故。令有對色展轉相容以虛空界與虛空相少分相似。故有此處假號虛空。空界即是咽喉等穴。能令眾生吞嚥飲食。及有轉變便利等事。以無容受損益功能。是故虛空定非大種。又諸大種非一非常。自相眾多果別無量。虛空自性是一是常。相無差別。全無有果。非無別因生有別果。是故虛空不名大種。若謂余因有差別故能助虛空生別果者。即此別因能生別果。何用執此虛空為因。有說。虛空其性常故。法生滅位相無差別。地等不爾。故法不同。現見大種。種等位中。其相轉變芽等位起。虛空無為則不如是。性相常故。作用都無。既不能生故非大種。又於此中。由大及種二
言具故。唯四義成。虛空有大而無種義。種與能生名差別故。有說。虛空亦無大義。體非色故。造色及余有為非色效能生故。是種非大。如前所說。大種二義互不成故。隨闕一種不能。產生所造色故。大種唯四不增不減。毗婆沙者作如是言。減即無能。增便無用。故唯有四。如床座足有說。大種法爾唯四。有說。大種于所造色唯須持攝熟長四業。若減若增無能無用。云何得知。此四大種恒不相離。如入胎經及大造經。應了知故。又理應然。何等為理。謂石等中現有能攝。生火增墜三業可得。故知於此有水火風恒不相離。于諸水中現有持攝。暖性流動三業可得。故知於此有地火風恒不相離。於火焰中現有任持。攝聚擊動三業可得。故知於此有地水風恒不相離。于風聚中現有能持。起冷暖觸三業可得。故知於此有地水火恒不相離。復云何知。如是四界。由此因緣恒相隨逐。由此能成持等業故。謂地等界如次能成持攝熟長四種事業。由此因緣。于諸色聚。若有持等四業可得。即知此中有地等界。互不相離恒相隨逐。為能持等四業即是界自相耶。不爾云何。如是四界隨其次第。堅濕暖動以為自相。應知此中說性顯體。為明體性不相離故。云何應知。地等四種。異堅等相。有持等業。復云何知。地等四種。相業無異徴審異耶。不
見相業有差別故。我等不見堅等持等相業有異故。反徴審汝。謂我言離堅等相條然別有持等業耶。然持等業與堅等相。非離非即。堅等即是地等自相。無所觀故。持等業用。別有所觀而施設故。非持自相。說此持業。勿一切法有持業故。皆名為地。成太過失是故應知。地界堅相無別所觀別觀所持說能持業。水界濕相無別所觀。別觀所攝說能攝業。火界暖相無別所觀。別觀所熟說能熟業。風界動相無別所觀。別觀所長羯剌藍等。或復芽等說能長業。長謂增盛。或複流引。動謂能引大種造色。令其相續生至余方。是故持等業非即堅等相。有說。三時一時異故。知相與業其義不同。有說。地等有持等業。若地界等有堅等相。此說不然。風與風界無差別故。長動應一。風界若以動為性者。何故契經及品類足論。皆言風界謂輕等動性。復說輕性為所造色。說動為風。輕為造色。是顯自相。輕為風者。舉果顯因。是風果故。豈不火界亦是輕因。說火風增生於輕故。雖有是說而火不定。若有輕性。火增為因。是處必有增盛風界。或有輕性。風增為因。而其中無增盛火界。如葦等花飄舉輕性。此中火界若增盛者。其中應有熱觸可得。由此風界遍為輕因。故別舉輕偏顯風界。然地等相易可了知。故不須說重等果。顯對堅等三動難了故。為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為看到相業有差別。我們沒有看到堅（khara-lakkhaṇa，堅硬相）等和持（dhāraṇa-kicca，支援作用）等相業有不同，所以反過來審查你。你說離開堅等相，另外有持等業嗎？然而持等業與堅等相，不是分離也不是同一。堅等就是地等自相（svalakṣaṇa，自性），因為沒有其他所觀察的；持等業用，另外有所觀察而施設，所以不是持的自相。說這個持業，不要因為一切法都有持業，都叫做地，這樣就成了太過失。所以應當知道，地界（pathavī-dhātu，地界）的堅相沒有另外所觀察的，另外觀察所支援的，說能持業。水界（āpo-dhātu，水界）的濕相沒有另外所觀察的，另外觀察所攝取的，說能攝業。火界（tejo-dhātu，火界）的暖相沒有另外所觀察的，另外觀察所成熟的，說能熟業。風界（vāyu-dhātu，風界）的動相沒有另外所觀察的，另外觀察所增長的羯剌藍（kalala，凝滑位）等，或者芽等，說能長業。長就是增盛。或者流引，動就是能引導大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）所造色（upādā-rūpa，衍生色），令其相續生到其他地方。所以持等業不是堅等相。 有人說，因為三時（過去、現在、未來）一時不同，知道相與業的意義不同。有人說，地等有持等業，如果地界等有堅等相，這種說法不對。因為風與風界沒有差別，長和動應該是一樣的。如果風界以動為自性，為什麼契經（sūtra，經）和品類足論（dhātukāya-pāda，論）都說風界是輕等動性？又說輕性是所造色，說動是風，輕是造色，這是顯示自相。說輕為風，是舉果顯因，因為是風的果。難道火界不是輕的因嗎？因為說火風增盛產生輕。雖然有這種說法，但是火不一定。如果有輕性，火增為因，這個地方一定有增盛的風界。或者有輕性，風增為因，而其中沒有增盛的火界，比如葦等花飄舉的輕性。這裡如果火界增盛，其中應該有熱觸可以得到。因此風界普遍是輕的因，所以特別舉輕來偏顯風界。然而地等相容易了知，所以不需要說重等果來顯示。因為對堅等三動難以瞭解，所以爲了
【English Translation】 English version Because the characteristics of the elements are seen to be different. We do not see that the characteristics of solidity (khara-lakkhaṇa) etc. and support (dhāraṇa-kicca) etc. are different, therefore we examine you in return. Do you say that apart from the characteristics of solidity etc., there are separate functions of support etc.? However, the functions of support etc. and the characteristics of solidity etc. are neither separate nor identical. Solidity etc. are the self-nature (svalakṣaṇa) of earth etc., because there is nothing else to observe; the functions of support etc. are established by observing something else, so they are not the self-nature of support. In saying this function of support, do not say that because all dharmas have the function of support, they are all called earth, because this would be an excessive fault. Therefore, it should be known that the characteristic of solidity of the earth element (pathavī-dhātu) has nothing else to observe, and by observing what is supported separately, it is said to be the function of support. The characteristic of moisture of the water element (āpo-dhātu) has nothing else to observe, and by observing what is taken in separately, it is said to be the function of cohesion. The characteristic of warmth of the fire element (tejo-dhātu) has nothing else to observe, and by observing what is matured separately, it is said to be the function of maturation. The characteristic of motion of the wind element (vāyu-dhātu) has nothing else to observe, and by observing what is grown separately, such as kalala (the first stage of embryonic development), or sprouts etc., it is said to be the function of growth. Growth means increase. Or flowing and leading, motion means being able to lead the primary elements (mahābhūta) and derived matter (upādā-rūpa), causing them to continue to be born in other places. Therefore, the functions of support etc. are not identical to the characteristics of solidity etc. Some say that because the three times (past, present, future) are different at one time, it is known that the meanings of characteristic and function are different. Some say that earth etc. have the functions of support etc., and if the earth element etc. have the characteristics of solidity etc., this statement is not correct. Because there is no difference between wind and the wind element, growth and motion should be the same. If the wind element is characterized by motion, why do the sūtras (sūtra) and the Dhātukāya-pāda (dhātukāya-pāda) say that the wind element is the nature of lightness etc. and motion? It is also said that lightness is derived matter, and motion is said to be wind, and lightness is derived matter, which shows the self-nature. Saying that lightness is wind is to illustrate the cause by the effect, because it is the effect of wind. Is the fire element not the cause of lightness? Because it is said that the increase of fire and wind produces lightness. Although there is this statement, fire is not certain. If there is lightness, and the increase of fire is the cause, there must be an increasing wind element in this place. Or there is lightness, and the increase of wind is the cause, but there is no increasing fire element in it, such as the lightness of reeds etc. being lifted up. If the fire element were increasing here, there should be hot touch to be obtained in it. Therefore, the wind element is universally the cause of lightness, so lightness is specifically mentioned to particularly show the wind element. However, the characteristics of earth etc. are easy to know, so there is no need to say the effect of heaviness etc. to show them. Because the three motions of solidity etc. are difficult to understand, therefore, in order to
地等界即地等耶。不爾。云何頌曰。
地謂顯形色 隨世想立名 水火亦復然 風即界亦爾
論曰。地言唯表顯形色處。豈不總地四處合成。何故但言顯形為地。此中雖有香味觸處。而隨世想故作是言。由諸世間相示地者。以顯形色而相示故。若爾世間相示衣等。亦以顯形而相表示。如言衣等。白等長等而許四處為衣等性。地亦應然。何故唯色又諸世間亦于香等施設地名。謂作是言。我今嗅地嘗地觸地。雖有是事而顯形色。于地水火能通表示。所以者何。世不多說我嗅於水。亦不多說嗅嘗於火。雖言觸地等而即地等界。是故地中雖有香等。而顯形色勝故偏說。又顯形色表示二界。地等無異是故偏說。若爾顯形表示衣等。勝香等故亦應偏說。世起想名無有決定。故對。法者隨世想名。示現地等衣等差別。又實有物非世共成。世所共成皆是假有。故於假法應隨世間所起想名差別而說。由是香等假說為地。亦無有失。且就顯形表示地者。作如是說。由諸世間想名無定。不可以一例余皆同。已說衣等四處為性。諸餘總法如應當知。衣等物中亦有生等。彼物應以五處為性。雖非非有。而諸世間不于彼起衣等想名。若爾聲處應名衣等。以世間說聞衣等聲。雖亦有聲而非相續。色等恒有故唯說四。如地但用顯形為體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『地等界』（Dì děng jiè，地界等）就是『地等』（Dì děng，地等）嗎？不是的。為什麼頌詞中說： 『地是指顯現的形狀和顏色，隨世俗的認知而立名。 水、火也是這樣，風也是一種界。』 論曰：『地』這個詞只是表示顯現的形狀和顏色之處。難道不是總的地由四處（色、香、味、觸）合成嗎？為什麼只說顯現的形狀是地呢？這裡雖然有香味觸處，但隨著世俗的認知才這樣說。因為世間向別人展示地的時候，是用顯現的形狀和顏色來展示的。如果這樣，世間展示衣服等，也是用顯現的形狀來展示的，比如人們說衣服等是白色、長等，並且認可四處（色、香、味、觸）是衣服等的性質，那麼地也應該這樣。為什麼只有顏色呢？而且世間也會在香等上施設『地』的名字，比如會說：『我現在嗅地、嘗地、觸地』。雖然有這些事，但顯現的形狀和顏色，對於地、水、火能夠普遍地表示。為什麼呢？因為世間很少說『我嗅水』，也很少說『嗅、嘗火』。雖然說『觸地』等，但那就是地等界。所以，地中雖然有香等，但顯現的形狀和顏色更重要，所以偏重說這個。而且顯現的形狀和顏色表示地等沒有差別，所以偏重說這個。如果這樣，顯現的形狀表示衣服等，比香等更重要，也應該偏重說。世間產生的認知和名稱沒有確定性，所以（不能這樣對比）。對於法來說，隨著世俗的認知和名稱，來顯示地等和衣服等的差別。而且真實存在的物體不是世間共同形成的，世間共同形成的都是假有的。所以對於假法，應該隨著世間所產生的認知和名稱的差別來說。因此，香等可以假地說成是地，也沒有什麼過失。暫且就顯現的形狀表示地來說，就這樣說。因為世間的認知和名稱沒有確定性，不能用一個例子來類推其他都相同。已經說了衣服等以四處為性質，其他的總法應該如實地瞭解。衣服等物體中也有生等，那些物體應該以五處為性質。雖然不是非有，但世間不會對它們產生衣服等的認知和名稱。如果這樣，聲音處應該叫做衣服等，因為世間會說聽到衣服等的聲音。雖然也有聲音，但不是相續不斷的，顏色等是恒常存在的，所以只說四處。就像地只用顯現的形狀作為本體一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Is 『Dì děng jiè』 (地等界, earth element etc.) the same as 『Dì děng』 (地等, earth etc.)? No. Why does the verse say: 『Earth refers to the manifested shape and color, named according to worldly perception. Water and fire are also like this, and wind is also an element.』 Treatise says: The word 『earth』 only represents the place where manifested shapes and colors appear. Isn't the total earth composed of four places (form, smell, taste, touch)? Why only say that the manifested shape is earth? Although there are smell, taste, and touch here, it is said so according to worldly perception. Because when the world shows earth to others, it uses the manifested shape and color to show it. If so, the world also shows clothes, etc., with the manifested shape, such as people saying that clothes, etc., are white, long, etc., and recognizing that the four places (form, smell, taste, touch) are the nature of clothes, etc., then earth should also be like this. Why only form? Moreover, the world also applies the name 『earth』 to smell, etc., such as saying: 『I am now smelling the earth, tasting the earth, touching the earth.』 Although there are these things, the manifested shape and color can universally represent earth, water, and fire. Why? Because the world rarely says 『I smell water,』 and rarely says 『smell or taste fire.』 Although it says 『touching the earth,』 etc., that is the earth element etc. Therefore, although there are smells, etc., in the earth, the manifested shape and color are more important, so it is emphasized. Moreover, the manifested shape and color represent that there is no difference between earth etc., so it is emphasized. If so, the manifested shape represents clothes, etc., which is more important than smell, etc., and should also be emphasized. The cognition and names produced by the world are not certain, so (they cannot be compared like this). For the Dharma, according to the worldly cognition and names, the differences between earth etc., and clothes etc., are shown. Moreover, truly existing objects are not formed by the world together, and those formed by the world together are all falsely existing. Therefore, for false dharmas, one should speak according to the differences in cognition and names produced by the world. Therefore, smell etc., can be falsely said to be earth, and there is no fault. For the time being, let's just say that the manifested shape represents the earth. Because the world's cognition and names are not certain, one cannot use one example to infer that all others are the same. It has already been said that clothes etc., have four places as their nature, and other total dharmas should be understood as they really are. There are also arising etc., in objects such as clothes, and those objects should have five places as their nature. Although it is not non-existent, the world will not produce the cognition and name of clothes etc., for them. If so, the sound place should be called clothes etc., because the world will say that they hear the sound of clothes etc. Although there is also sound, it is not continuous, and form etc., are constantly present, so only four are mentioned. Just as earth only uses the manifested shape as its substance.
。水火亦然。隨世想故。世間現見水青長等。故說顯形為水自性。世間見觸水流相已。便作是說。此中水流。然此流體理非實水。眼等五根境各別故。亦非顯色。身可觸故。又非形色。八不攝故。非離顯形有別色處。云何見觸水流相耶。眾水聚集風力所推。生彼彼方展轉相續。世間於此起流想名。如是眾水異方生時。于中顯形為眼所見。其間濕性為身所觸。是故顯形及與濕性。風力所擊展轉相推異方生時說為流性。非離此外別有流體。故水流等是假非真。世間現見火赤長等。故說顯形為火自性。又即色觸轉變生時。名火焰炭。是假非實。無一實物身眼得故。已說地等與界差別。世間于動立風名故。風與風界無有差別。由此道理言風即界。豈不世間于顯形色亦生風想。世間現以黑風團風更相示故。有通此難故說言亦。是如地等與界別義。古昔諸師咸作是說。地于中雜故見如此。為顯其風即是風界。故復言爾爾者定義。此二說中前說為勝。遍處不凈無差別故。不凈唯緣色處境故。頌曰。
此中根與境 即說十處界
論曰。已說實物根境無表為色蘊性。此中根境亦即說為十處十界。于處門中立為十處。謂眼處等。于界門中立為十界。謂眼界等。已立色蘊並立處界。此中色蘊何緣名色。善逝聖教。且說變壞故名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本水和火也是如此。由於世間的想法，世間現見水的青色、長度等，所以說顯現的形狀是水的自性。世間見到接觸到水的流動狀態后，便這樣說：『這裡有水流。』然而這流動之體，從理上說並非真實的水，因為眼等五根所對的境界各不相同，也不是顯現的顏色，因為身體可以觸及，又不是形狀，因為它不被『八不』所包含。如果不是離開顯現的形狀有別的顏色之處，又怎麼能見到和觸到水的流動狀態呢？是眾多水聚集在一起，被風力推動，在各個方向輾轉相續，世間對此產生流動的想法並命名。像這樣，眾多水在不同方向產生時，其中的顯現形狀為眼睛所見，其間的濕性為身體所觸。因此，顯現的形狀以及濕性，被風力衝擊，輾轉相推，在不同方向產生時，就被說成是流動的性質。並非離開這些之外，另有流動的實體。所以，水流等是虛假的，不是真實的。世間現見火的紅色、長度等，所以說顯現的形狀是火的自性。而且，就是顏色和觸覺轉變產生時，名為火焰、炭，這是虛假的，不是真實的，沒有一個真實的物體能被身體和眼睛所感知。已經說了地等與『界』的差別。世間因為對運動建立『風』的名稱，所以風與風界沒有差別。由此道理，說風就是界。難道世間不是對顯現的形狀也產生風的想法嗎？世間現在用黑風、團風互相指示，爲了通達這個難點，所以說『也』，這就像地等與『界』的差別一樣。古時候的老師們都這樣說：地在其中混雜，所以看到是這樣。爲了顯示那風就是風界，所以又說『爾爾』，『爾爾』是定義。這兩種說法中，前一種說法更為殊勝，因為遍處不凈沒有差別，不凈只緣於色處的境界。頌說： 『此中根與境，即說十處界。』 論說：已經說了真實存在的根、境、無表是色蘊的性質。這其中的根和境，也就說是十處和十界。在『處』的門中，立為十處，即眼處等。在『界』的門中，立為十界，即眼界等。已經建立了色蘊，並建立了處和界。這其中的色蘊，因為什麼緣故名為『色』呢？善逝的聖教，且說是變壞的緣故，名為『色』。
【English Translation】 English version Water and fire are the same. Due to the thoughts of the world, the world sees the blue color, length, etc., of water, so it is said that the manifested form is the self-nature of water. After the world sees and touches the flowing state of water, they say, 'Here is a stream of water.' However, this flowing entity, in principle, is not real water, because the objects of the five roots such as the eye are different, and it is not a manifested color, because the body can touch it, and it is not a shape, because it is not included in the 'eight nots'. If it is not apart from the manifested form that there is another place of color, how can one see and touch the flowing state of water? It is that many waters gather together and are pushed by the force of the wind, and continue to each other in various directions. The world has the idea of flow and names it. Like this, when many waters are produced in different directions, the manifested form is seen by the eyes, and the wetness in between is touched by the body. Therefore, the manifested form and the wetness, when impacted by the wind and pushed against each other, are said to be the nature of flow when produced in different directions. It is not that there is a separate flowing entity apart from these. Therefore, water flow, etc., are false, not real. The world sees the red color, length, etc., of fire, so it is said that the manifested form is the self-nature of fire. Moreover, when color and touch transform and arise, they are called flame and charcoal, which are false, not real. There is no real object that can be perceived by the body and eyes. The difference between earth, etc., and 'dhatu' (element) has been explained. Because the world establishes the name 'wind' for movement, there is no difference between wind and the wind element. From this principle, it is said that wind is the element. Does the world not also have the idea of wind for the manifested form? The world now uses black wind and whirlwind to indicate each other. In order to understand this difficulty, it is said 'also', which is like the difference between earth, etc., and 'dhatu' (element). The ancient teachers all said this: earth is mixed in it, so it is seen like this. In order to show that the wind is the wind element, it is said 'indeed', 'indeed' is the definition. Among these two statements, the former is more superior, because there is no difference in the impure everywhere, and the impure only relates to the realm of color. The verse says: 'Herein, the roots and objects, are said to be the ten ayatanas (sense-fields) and the ten dhatus (elements).' The treatise says: It has been said that the truly existing roots, objects, and non-manifestations are the nature of the rupa-skandha (form aggregate). The roots and objects herein are also said to be the ten ayatanas (sense-fields) and the ten dhatus (elements). In the 'ayatana' (sense-field) gate, they are established as the ten ayatanas (sense-fields), namely the eye-ayatana (eye sense-field), etc. In the 'dhatu' (element) gate, they are established as the ten dhatus (elements), namely the eye-dhatu (eye element), etc. The rupa-skandha (form aggregate) has been established, and the ayatanas (sense-fields) and dhatus (elements) have been established. Why is the rupa-skandha (form aggregate) called 'rupa' (form)? The Sugata's (Buddha's) holy teachings say that it is called 'rupa' (form) because it changes and decays.
色。此說意言。苦受因故。有觸對故。可轉易故。名為變壞。由變壞故說名為色。苦受因者。色有變壞。能生苦受。如義品言。
趣求諸欲人 常起于希望 諸欲若不遂 惱壞如箭中
有觸對者。手等所觸色便變壞。是有對礙可變壞義。可轉易者。如牛羊等身可轉易。是可轉變及貿易義。由可轉易故名變壞。云何色法可轉易耶。謂異相生故名轉易。或能表示宿所習業。故名為色。如契經說。此摩納婆。宿習能招惡形色業。謂多忿恨。或能表示內心所有。故名為色。如契經說。具壽。汝今諸根凝悅定證甘露。豈不此說唯就有見有情數色訓釋色詞。唯此能表宿所習業及內心故。若爾無見非情數色。應皆非色。無斯過失。唯色聚中有此義故。不說諸色皆能表示。且於一切非色。聚中無能表示。故此釋詞理得成立。如契經說。業為生因。此說諸生皆因於業。不言諸業皆是生因。今不應難。業非生因便為非業。若不爾者。善逝訓詞亦可為難。非一切色皆變壞故。世尊且據有對礙色。說如是言。有變壞故說名為色。又作是言。誰能變壞。謂手觸故即便變壞。乃至廣說。復作是言。諸習欲者。無有惡業而非所為。非諸聖者全不習欲。而竟不為招惡趣業。故知彼說唯據異生。此亦應然。不可為難。或一切色皆能表示宿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『色』（Rūpa，形態、顏色）。此處的解釋是說，因為是『苦受』（duhkha-vedana，痛苦的感受）的原因，因為有『觸對』（samphassa，接觸）的緣故，因為可以『轉易』（viparinama，變化、轉變）的緣故，所以稱為『變壞』（vicaya，變異、敗壞）。由於變壞的緣故，所以說名為『色』。 『苦受因』是指，『色』有變壞，能夠產生痛苦的感受。正如《義品》所說： 『追求各種慾望的人，常常生起希望。如果各種慾望不能滿足，惱怒和傷害就像被箭射中一樣。』 『有觸對』是指，手等所接觸的『色』便會變壞。這是有對礙、可以變壞的含義。『可轉易』是指，如牛羊等的身體可以被轉易。這是可以轉變以及貿易的含義。由於可以轉易的緣故，所以名為變壞。 『色法』（rupa-dharma，色法）如何可以轉易呢？意思是說，因為異相產生，所以名為轉易。或者能夠表示過去所習慣的業，所以名為『色』。如契經所說：『這位摩納婆（Manava，年輕人），過去習慣了能夠招致惡劣形色的業，也就是多忿恨。』或者能夠表示內心所有，所以名為『色』。如契經說：『具壽（Ayushman，有壽者），你現在諸根凝定喜悅，證得甘露（Amrita，不死）。』難道不是說這僅僅就可見的有情眾生的『色』來訓釋『色』這個詞嗎？只有這樣才能表示過去所習慣的業以及內心。如果這樣，那麼無見的非有情眾生的『色』，應該都不是『色』了。沒有這樣的過失，因為只有『色聚』（rupa-skandha，色蘊）中才有這樣的含義。不說所有的『色』都能表示。而且在一切非『色聚』中沒有能夠表示的，所以這樣的解釋詞義才能成立。如契經所說：『業為生因。』這是說諸生都因為業，不是說諸業都是生因。現在不應該責難，業不是生因就不是業了。如果不是這樣，那麼善逝（Sugata，佛陀的稱號）的訓詞也可以被責難，因為不是一切『色』都會變壞。世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的稱號）且根據有對礙的『色』，說這樣的話：『因為有變壞的緣故，所以說名為色。』又這樣說：『誰能夠變壞？』意思是說，手接觸的緣故就會變壞，乃至廣說。又這樣說：『諸習欲者，沒有惡業不是他們所為的。』不是說諸聖者完全不習欲，而竟然不做招致惡趣業的事情。所以知道那樣的說法僅僅是根據異生（prthagjana，凡夫）。這裡也應該這樣，不可以責難。或者一切『色』都能夠表示過去所習慣的
【English Translation】 English version: 'Rūpa' (form, color). The explanation here is that it is called 'vicaya' (change, decay) because it is the cause of 'duhkha-vedana' (painful feeling), because of 'samphassa' (contact), and because it can be 'viparinama' (change, transformation). Because of decay, it is called 'rūpa'. 'Duhkha-vedana-hetu' means that 'rūpa' decays and can produce painful feelings. As stated in the 'Meaning Chapter': 'People who seek various desires constantly have hope. If various desires are not fulfilled, annoyance and harm are like being shot by an arrow.' 'Samphassa' means that the 'rūpa' touched by hands, etc., will decay. This is the meaning of being obstructive and changeable. 'Viparinama' means that the bodies of cattle, sheep, etc., can be transformed. This is the meaning of being transformable and tradable. Because it can be transformed, it is called decay. How can 'rupa-dharma' (form-dharma) be transformed? It means that it is called transformation because different appearances arise. Or it can indicate past habitual karma, so it is called 'rūpa'. As stated in the sutra: 'This Manava (young man) used to practice karma that could bring about bad forms and colors, which is much anger and resentment.' Or it can indicate what is in the heart, so it is called 'rūpa'. As stated in the sutra: 'Ayushman (venerable one), your senses are now concentrated and joyful, and you have attained Amrita (immortality).' Isn't this just explaining the word 'rūpa' in terms of the visible sentient beings? Only in this way can it indicate past habitual karma and the heart. If so, then the invisible non-sentient beings' 'rūpa' should not be 'rūpa' at all. There is no such fault, because only in the 'rupa-skandha' (form aggregate) does this meaning exist. It is not said that all 'rūpa' can indicate. Moreover, in all non-'rupa-skandha', there is nothing that can indicate, so this explanation of the word can be established. As stated in the sutra: 'Karma is the cause of birth.' This means that all births are due to karma, not that all karma is the cause of birth. Now it should not be questioned that if karma is not the cause of birth, then it is not karma. If this is not the case, then the teachings of Sugata (the Buddha's title) can also be questioned, because not all 'rūpa' will decay. The Bhagavan (the Buddha's title) spoke in this way based on the obstructive 'rūpa': 'Because of decay, it is called rūpa.' He also said: 'Who can decay?' It means that it will decay because of hand contact, and so on. He also said: 'Those who are accustomed to desires have no evil karma that they do not do.' It is not that the saints do not practice desires at all, but they do not do things that lead to evil destinies. So it is known that such a statement is only based on ordinary beings (prthagjana). This should also be the case here, and it cannot be questioned. Or all 'rūpa' can indicate past habitual
所習業。非有情色。亦共許為宿業果故。無見諸色云何表示。與有見色不相離故。非離無見而有有見。有見無見一業果故。由此無見能表義成。而無受等亦成色過。雖從業生非恒有故。設恒有者。細難知故。異熟生色非思慮生無間隨轉。故唯諸色有能表示宿所習業。若爾聲非異熟生故。應不成色。雖非業生而能表示宿所習業。如鹽賢等是。所引證。又聲生因處無心定亦常現有。故於所釋色義無違。有說。變礙故名為色。若爾極微云何變礙。無一極微現在獨住。積集住故變礙義成有說。亦有獨住極微。然有變礙而不發識。五識依緣要積集故。如立極微。雖無方分亦無觸對。而許極微有礙有對有障用故。應知變礙義亦如是。已滅未生是彼類故。如所燒薪。彼同分眼。又如世說。急食急行故名為馬。而非一切。雖無彼德而似彼故。種類義成。但隨少分建立名想。此亦如是。由此即釋。定不生法住色相故。亦得色名。又如世間于未有用逆說當有。如言當火今若欻起焚燒村邏無一得存。亦如世間于用已滅追說曾有。如言昔火今若欻起焚燒村邏無一得存。非未有用及用已滅能實焚燒。而相類同說亦應理。定不生法理亦應然。彼設當生亦應變礙。是故變礙釋色義成。去來雖爾。無表云何。有釋。表色有變礙故。無表隨彼亦受色名。此
不應理。隨心轉色不從表生。應非色故。經主於此誤立前宗。言如樹動影亦隨動。即說過言。如樹滅時影必隨滅。表色滅時無表應滅。然非彼喻。所立異故。謂立所依有變礙故此亦名色。說是喻言。無表所依即四大種。非彼大種不成就時無表隨轉。故於此中無如是失。又此相違有不定過。謂不決定此從彼生。彼若滅時此亦隨滅。如父工匠種等滅時。非子殿堂芽等隨滅。又如所依金剛喻定。滅不成就。所生盡智至蘊相續不滅隨轉。又如無漏俱生所依。生上界時所依雖滅無表隨轉。若以所依大種變礙。能依無表亦名色者。眼等五識所依五根。有變礙故。應亦名色。有釋此言。無斯過失。無表依止大種轉時。如影依樹光依珠寶。眼等五識依眼等時。則不如是。唯能為作助生緣故。經主謂此如影依樹光依寶言。非為符順毗婆沙義。由許影等顯色極微各自依止四大種故。此非本論毗婆沙說。亦非不順毗婆沙義。此言意說。影等大種。樹等大種。為所依故。所以者何。影等大種生住變時。皆隨彼故。此影光言意表總聚。非唯顯色。如樹寶言。是故影等影色極微。依止影等大種而轉。影等大種復依樹等大種而生。故於此中無不順過。經主復說。設許影光依止樹寶。而無表色不同彼依。由許所依大種雖滅而無表色不隨滅故。此難不關毗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不應道理。無表色（Avijñapti-rūpa，不可表示的色法）隨心而轉變，並非從表色（Vijñapti-rūpa，可表示的色法）產生，因為它不是色法。經部師（Sautrāntika）在這裡錯誤地引用了前人的觀點，說就像樹動影子也隨之動一樣，這是一種錯誤的類比。如果說樹滅時影子也必然隨之滅，那麼表色滅時，無表色也應該滅。然而，這個比喻並不恰當，因為所建立的依據不同。他們認為，建立的所依具有變動和障礙的性質，因此也稱為色法，這只是一個比喻。無表色的所依是四大種（Mahābhūta，地、水、火、風），並非四大種不成就時，無表色就隨之轉變。因此，這裡沒有這樣的過失。 此外，這種說法存在不確定的過失，即不能確定此物一定從此物產生，或者彼物滅時此物也一定隨之滅。例如，父親、工匠、種子等滅亡時，兒子、殿堂、芽等不一定隨之滅亡。又如所依的金剛喻定（Vajropamasamādhi，如金剛般堅固的禪定）滅亡不成就時，所生的盡智（Kṣayajñāna，斷盡煩惱的智慧）乃至蘊（Skandha，五蘊，色、受、想、行、識）的相續不會滅亡而隨之轉變。又如無漏俱生（Anāsrava-sahaja，無漏同時生起的善法）的所依，在生到上界時，所依雖然滅亡，無表色仍然隨之轉變。如果認為所依的四大種具有變動和障礙的性質，能依的無表色也因此稱為色法，那麼眼等五識（Pañca-vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）所依的五根（Pañcendriya，眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根）具有變動和障礙的性質，也應該稱為色法。 有人解釋說，這樣沒有過失。無表色依止四大種轉變時，就像影子依止樹木，光芒依止珠寶。眼等五識依止眼等根時，則不是這樣，只能作為助生的因緣。經部師認為，這種說法就像影子依止樹木，光芒依止珠寶一樣，並非符合毗婆沙（Vaibhāṣika，說一切有部）的意義，因為他們認為影子等顯色極微（Varṇa-paramāṇu，最小的顏色單位）各自依止四大種。這並非本論《大毗婆沙論》的說法，也並非不順應毗婆沙的意義。這種說法的意思是，影子等大種以樹等大種為所依，為什麼呢？因為影子等大種的生、住、變異都隨順於樹等大種。這裡的『影』和『光』指的是總體的聚集，並非僅僅指顯色。就像『樹』和『寶』一樣。因此，影子等影色極微依止影子等大種而轉變，影子等大種又依止樹等大種而生，因此這裡沒有不順應的過失。 經部師又說，即使承認影子和光芒依止樹木和珠寶，無表色也不同於它們所依止的對象，因為即使所依的四大種滅亡，無表色也不會隨之滅亡。這種責難與毗婆沙無關。
【English Translation】 English version: It is unreasonable. Avijñapti-rūpa (unmanifested form) changes according to the mind and does not arise from Vijñapti-rūpa (manifested form), because it is not form. The Sautrāntika (Sūtra School) here mistakenly establishes the previous view, saying that just as the shadow moves when the tree moves, this is a faulty analogy. If it is said that when the tree disappears, the shadow must also disappear, then when the Vijñapti-rūpa disappears, the Avijñapti-rūpa should also disappear. However, this metaphor is not appropriate because the established basis is different. They believe that the established basis has the nature of change and obstruction, so it is also called form, but this is just a metaphor. The basis of Avijñapti-rūpa is the four great elements (Mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, wind), and Avijñapti-rūpa does not change when these four great elements are not accomplished. Therefore, there is no such fault here. Furthermore, this statement has an uncertain fault, that is, it cannot be determined that this thing must arise from that thing, or that when that thing disappears, this thing must also disappear. For example, when the father, craftsman, seed, etc. disappear, the son, palace, sprout, etc. do not necessarily disappear with them. Also, when the Vajropamasamādhi (diamond-like samādhi) on which it depends disappears and is not accomplished, the Kṣayajñāna (knowledge of exhaustion) that arises, and even the continuity of the Skandhas (aggregates, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), does not disappear and change with it. Also, like the basis of Anāsrava-sahaja (innate unconditioned good), when born in the upper realms, although the basis disappears, the Avijñapti-rūpa still changes with it. If it is thought that the Avijñapti-rūpa is also called form because the four great elements on which it depends have the nature of change and obstruction, then the five roots (Pañcendriya, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) on which the five consciousnesses (Pañca-vijñāna, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) depend should also be called form because they have the nature of change and obstruction. Some explain that there is no fault in this way. When Avijñapti-rūpa relies on the four great elements to change, it is like a shadow relying on a tree, and light relying on a jewel. When the five consciousnesses rely on the eye and other roots, it is not like this, they can only act as auxiliary causes. The Sautrāntika believes that this statement, like a shadow relying on a tree and light relying on a jewel, does not conform to the meaning of the Vaibhāṣika (Sarvāstivāda), because they believe that the Varṇa-paramāṇu (smallest unit of color) such as shadows each rely on the four great elements. This is not the statement of the original treatise, the Mahāvibhāṣa, nor is it contrary to the meaning of the Vaibhāṣika. The meaning of this statement is that the great elements such as shadows take the great elements such as trees as their basis. Why? Because the birth, dwelling, and change of the great elements such as shadows all follow the great elements such as trees. The 'shadow' and 'light' here refer to the overall aggregation, not just color. Just like 'tree' and 'jewel'. Therefore, the shadow-color atoms such as shadows rely on the great elements such as shadows to change, and the great elements such as shadows rely on the great elements such as trees to arise, so there is no contradiction here. The Sautrāntika also said that even if it is admitted that shadows and light rely on trees and jewels, Avijñapti-rūpa is different from the objects on which they rely, because even if the four great elements on which they rely disappear, Avijñapti-rūpa will not disappear with them. This accusation is irrelevant to the Vaibhāṣika.
婆沙義。能依所依許俱滅故。無表所依大種若滅。能依無表未常不滅。初念無表可與所依大種俱滅。第二念等無表云何。第二念等大種若無。其無表色豈得現有。雖此位中非無大種。而彼大種非此所依。非生因故。奇哉如是善解對法。豈不非唯生因大種望所造色。能為所依。然更有餘四因大種。望所造色許為依故。若彼所依大種滅已。能依無表猶不滅者。聖生無色無漏無表。既許成就應得現前。生依二因大種滅已。無漏無表。雖成不行。故知欲界無錶行者。定由所依大種不滅。此若不爾。彼云何然。由此諸師咸作是說。諸所造色有二種依。一生起依。二力轉依。聖生無色。由力轉依大種無故。無漏無表雖覆成就而不現行。由未承奉無倒解釋對法諸師。致斯迷亂。然眼等識所依五根。雖有變礙而不成色。由彼種類有別異故。有識種類不依於色。唯五識身依色而起六識皆用意為所依。無色界中意亦可得又于下地眠夢定等。意用可得無五根用。又理不應。六識自性一法種類亦色非色。無有無表不依色生。故應所依有變礙故。能依無表亦得名色。又言色者。如牛孔雀。依少分類。以立想名。非無差別。不應為難。已說色蘊。當說受等。頌曰。
受領納隨觸 想取像為體 四餘名行蘊 如是受等三 及無表無為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 婆沙論者認為，能依（指無表色）和所依（指大種）是同時壞滅的。如果作為無表色所依的大種壞滅，那麼能依的無表色沒有不壞滅的。最初一念的無表色可以和所依的大種同時壞滅，但是第二念及以後的無表色又該如何解釋呢？如果第二念及以後的大種不存在，那麼無表色又怎麼能夠存在呢？雖然在這個階段並非沒有大種，但是那些大種並非是無表色所依的，因為它們不是無表色的生起之因。真是奇怪啊，竟然如此理解阿毗達磨！難道不是隻有作為生起因的大種，才能作為所造色的所依嗎？還有其餘的四因大種，也被認為是所造色的所依。如果作為所依的大種已經壞滅，而能依的無表色仍然沒有壞滅，那麼聖者所生的無色界中的無漏無表，既然已經成就，就應該能夠顯現。因為生起所依的二因大種已經壞滅，所以無漏無表雖然成就卻不能起作用。由此可知，欲界的無表業行，一定是由於所依的大種沒有壞滅。如果不是這樣，那又該如何解釋呢？因此，諸位論師都這樣說，諸所造色有兩種所依：一是生起依，二是力轉依。聖者生於無色界，由於力轉依的大種不存在，所以無漏無表即使成就也不會顯現。這是由於沒有承奉和正確解釋阿毗達磨的諸位論師，才導致了這種迷惑。然而，眼識等所依的五根，雖然有變礙，卻不能成為色，因為它們的種類有差別。有識的種類不依賴於色，只有五識身依賴於色而生起，六識都以意為所依。在無想**中，意也可以存在，而且在下地的睡眠、夢境、禪定等狀態中，意的作用也可以存在，而五根的作用則不存在。而且，道理上不應該認為六識的自性是一種法，既是色又是非色。沒有不依賴於色而生起的無表色，所以應該認為所依的大種有變礙，能依的無表色也可以稱為色。而且，說到色，就像牛和孔雀一樣，依據少許的分類來建立想的名字，並非沒有差別，不應該以此來責難。已經說了色蘊，下面應當說受等。頌曰： 受是領納，隨順於觸；想是以取像為體；其餘四蘊稱為行蘊。像這樣，受等三種蘊，以及無表和無為法。
【English Translation】 English version: The Vaibhashikas hold that the dependent (referring to avijnapti-rupa) and the support (referring to the mahabhutas) perish simultaneously. If the mahabhutas, which are the support of avijnapti-rupa, perish, then the dependent avijnapti-rupa never fails to perish. The avijnapti-rupa of the first moment can perish simultaneously with the supporting mahabhutas, but how about the avijnapti-rupa of the second moment and onwards? If the mahabhutas of the second moment and onwards do not exist, how can the avijnapti-rupa exist? Although there are mahabhutas in this stage, those mahabhutas are not the support of avijnapti-rupa, because they are not the cause of its arising. How strange, to understand Abhidharma in this way! Isn't it only the mahabhutas that are the cause of arising that can be the support of the produced-rupa? There are also the remaining four causal mahabhutas, which are also considered to be the support of the produced-rupa. If the supporting mahabhutas have already perished, but the dependent avijnapti-rupa has not yet perished, then the anasrava (untainted) avijnapti-rupa of those born in the Arupadhatu (formless realm), since it has already been attained, should be able to manifest. Because the two causal mahabhutas that are the support of arising have already perished, the anasrava avijnapti-rupa, although attained, cannot function. From this, it can be known that the avijnapti-karma of the Kamadhatu (desire realm) must be due to the fact that the supporting mahabhutas have not perished. If this is not the case, then how can it be explained? Therefore, the masters all say that the produced-rupa has two kinds of support: one is the arising support, and the other is the force-transformation support. Those born in the Arupadhatu, because the force-transformation support of the mahabhutas does not exist, the anasrava avijnapti-rupa, even if attained, will not manifest. This is because they have not received and correctly interpreted the masters of Abhidharma, which has led to this confusion. However, the five sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) that are the support of eye-consciousness and so on, although they have change and obstruction, cannot become rupa, because their types are different. The type of consciousness does not depend on rupa, only the five vijnana-kayas (consciousness aggregates) arise depending on rupa, and all six consciousnesses take mind as their support. In the Asamjnasamadhi (state of non-perception), mind can also exist, and in the lower realms of sleep, dreams, samadhi, etc., the function of mind can also exist, while the function of the five sense organs does not exist. Moreover, it is not reasonable to think that the nature of the six consciousnesses is one dharma, which is both rupa and non-rupa. There is no avijnapti-rupa that does not arise depending on rupa, so it should be considered that the supporting mahabhutas have change and obstruction, and the dependent avijnapti-rupa can also be called rupa. Moreover, when talking about rupa, like cows and peacocks, the name of thought is established based on a small amount of classification, it is not without difference, and should not be criticized for this. The rupa-skandha (aggregate of form) has been discussed, and the vedana-skandha (aggregate of feeling) and so on should be discussed next. The verse says: Feeling is experiencing, in accordance with contact; perception takes the image as its essence; the remaining four skandhas are called samskara-skandha (aggregate of mental formations). Like this, the three skandhas of feeling, perception, and mental formations, as well as avijnapti-rupa and asamskrita-dharma (unconditioned dharma).
名法處法界
論曰。隨觸而生領納可愛及不可愛俱相違觸。名為受蘊。領納即是能受用義。此復三種。謂樂及苦不苦不樂。能益身心。故名為樂。能損身心。故名為苦。有所領納而非苦樂。名不苦不樂。如非黑非白。復云何知此別有體。有說。以能增益損減諸根大種及俱相違。三用別故。知有三體。或有說者。增貪瞋癡隨眠別故。知有三體。雖于諸受一切隨增。而由所緣及相應故。就別相說。又癡雖與三受相應。貪瞋各二而就多分相應現行故作是說復有說者。與貪瞋癡行相相似。故作是說。有餘師說。對法中言。於樂受中貪隨增者。不說樂受唯能起貪。但說其貪隨樂受起。二受瞋癡應知亦爾。今正說者。由教及理。知第三受決定非無。教者如言。由樂斷故。及苦斷故。此中唯有不苦不樂。理者離受心必不生。離苦樂心現可得故。焉知離受心必不生。由諸契經同所說故。如契經說。眼及色為緣生於眼識三和合觸俱起受想思。如是乃至。意及法為緣生於意識。三和合觸俱起受想思。無第七心離受而起。故知決定有第三受。又說諸受略有二種。一執取受。二自性受。執取受者。謂能領納自所緣境。自性受者。謂能領納自所隨觸。故世尊言。順樂受觸。順苦受觸。及順不苦不樂受觸。是樂受等所領觸義領所緣受與一境法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名法處法界（Nama-dharma-dhatu）：
論曰：隨著接觸而產生領納可愛和不可愛，以及相互違背的接觸，這被稱為受蘊（Vedanā-skandha）。領納就是能感受和享用的意思。這又分為三種，即樂（Sukha）、苦（Dukkha）和不苦不樂（Adhukhamasukha）。能增益身心的，所以稱為樂；能損害身心的，所以稱為苦；有所領納但非苦非樂的，稱為不苦不樂，就像非黑非白一樣。又如何知道這有不同的自體呢？有人說，因為能增益、損減諸根大種（Mahābhūta），以及相互違背的三種作用不同，所以知道有三種自體。或者有人說，因為增長貪（Rāga）、嗔（Dveṣa）、癡（Moha）隨眠（Anuśaya）的差別，所以知道有三種自體。雖然對於諸受，一切都隨之增長，但由於所緣（Ālambana）和相應（Samprayukta）的緣故，就個別相來說。而且癡雖然與三種受相應，貪和嗔各與兩種受相應，但就多分相應和現行來說，所以這樣說。又有人說，與貪、嗔、癡的行相相似，所以這樣說。有其他老師說，在對法（Abhidharma）中說，在樂受中貪隨之增長，不是說樂受只能生起貪，只是說貪隨著樂受生起，嗔和癡兩種受也應該知道是這樣。現在正確地說，由於教證和理證，知道第三種受決定不是沒有的。教證如說：『由於樂斷故，以及苦斷故，此中唯有不苦不樂。』理證是：離開受，心必定不生；離開苦樂，心現在可以得到。怎麼知道離開受，心必定不生呢？由於諸契經（Sūtra）共同所說。如契經說：『眼和色為緣，生於眼識（cakṣur-vijñāna），三和合觸（sparśa），俱起受、想（Saṃjñā）、思（Cetanā）。』像這樣乃至，意和法為緣，生於意識（mano-vijñāna），三和合觸，俱起受、想、思。沒有第七種心離開受而生起，所以知道決定有第三種受。又說諸受略有二種：一、執取受，二、自性受。執取受，是指能領納自己所緣的境界；自性受，是指能領納自己所隨的接觸。所以世尊說：『順樂受觸，順苦受觸，以及順不苦不樂受觸。』是樂受等所領觸的意義，領所緣受與一境法。
【English Translation】 English version Nama-dharma-dhatu (Elements of Name and Dharma):
Treatise says: Following contact, there arises the reception of what is lovely and unlovely, as well as mutually contradictory contacts. This is called the 'aggregate of feeling' (Vedanā-skandha). 'Reception' means the ability to experience and enjoy. This is further divided into three types: pleasure (Sukha), pain (Dukkha), and neither-pleasure-nor-pain (Adhukhamasukha). That which benefits the body and mind is called pleasure. That which harms the body and mind is called pain. That which is received but is neither pleasure nor pain is called neither-pleasure-nor-pain, like something that is neither black nor white. How do we know that these have distinct entities? Some say that it is because they can increase or decrease the roots (Indriya) and great elements (Mahābhūta), and because the three functions that are mutually contradictory are different, we know that there are three entities. Others say that it is because of the different latent tendencies (Anuśaya) of increasing greed (Rāga), hatred (Dveṣa), and delusion (Moha), we know that there are three entities. Although everything increases along with all feelings, it is spoken of in terms of individual characteristics because of the object (Ālambana) and association (Samprayukta). Moreover, although delusion is associated with the three types of feeling, and greed and hatred are each associated with two types of feeling, it is spoken of in this way because of the greater part of association and manifestation. Still others say that it is spoken of in this way because it is similar to the characteristics of greed, hatred, and delusion. Some other teachers say that in the Abhidharma, it is said that greed increases along with pleasant feeling, but it is not said that pleasant feeling can only give rise to greed, but only that greed arises along with pleasant feeling. It should be understood that the two feelings of hatred and delusion are also like this. Now, correctly speaking, based on scriptural and logical proofs, we know that the third type of feeling is definitely not non-existent. Scriptural proof is as it is said: 'Because of the cessation of pleasure, and because of the cessation of pain, there is only neither-pleasure-nor-pain here.' The logical proof is that without feeling, the mind will definitely not arise; apart from pleasure and pain, the mind can now be obtained. How do we know that without feeling, the mind will definitely not arise? It is because the sutras (Sūtra) say the same thing. As the sutra says: 'Eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness (cakṣur-vijñāna), the contact (sparśa) of the three coming together, along with feeling, perception (Saṃjñā), and thought (Cetanā).' Likewise, up to and including, mind and dharma are the conditions for the arising of mind-consciousness (mano-vijñāna), the contact of the three coming together, along with feeling, perception, and thought. There is no seventh mind that arises apart from feeling, so we know that there is definitely a third type of feeling. It is also said that there are roughly two types of feelings: one, grasping feeling; and two, self-nature feeling. Grasping feeling refers to the ability to receive the object of one's own perception; self-nature feeling refers to the ability to receive the contact that one follows. Therefore, the World-Honored One said: 'Contact that accords with pleasant feeling, contact that accords with painful feeling, and contact that accords with neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling.' This is the meaning of the contact received by pleasant feeling, etc. Receiving the object-feeling is the same as the one-object dharma.
。差別之相難可了知。如契經言。具足領受。此領受言似依慧說。故彼契經。次後復說。不受後有。如實了知。雖受亦能領納境界。而此領納自性難知。故領納觸為自性受。此不共余易了差別。如是諸受。與心等法同所緣故。異領納故。所緣事別。所領事別由此觸于受。若時為所領。是時非所緣。若時為所緣。是時非所領。故緣領事別。由此善通如是文句受樂受時。如實了知受於樂受。乃至廣說。此中意說。能以覺慧。無倒審知三受差別。非樂謂苦。非苦謂樂。非於苦樂謂俱相違。余亦如是。此中非受領受自性。即受性故。但領所緣受及余法。一切皆是心及心所所領受故。有阿笈摩。能顯此理。如契經言。緣種種界。有種種觸。緣種種觸。有種種受。緣種種受。有種種愛種種界者。謂根境識種種性相有差別故。何故不言緣種種界有種種受。復何不言緣種種界有種種愛。此亦同疑。故應俱釋。次第法爾安立無過現見世間。從先種子生後果時。由花乳等有差別故。果有差別。如次第生立因果定。俱生因果亦應定立。是故諸受雖亦因界。而要用觸以為近因。又如兩木相磨生火。風為近緣。如是三法和合生受。觸為近緣。故就領觸。為受自性。非領所緣。理定成立。此受約世總說為三。就觸所依別分為六。已說受蘊。第三想蘊
取像為體。謂於一切隨本安立。青長等色。琴貝等聲。生蓮等香。苦辛等味。滑澀等觸。生滅等法。所緣境中如相而取。故名為想。是故此想隨德立名。以能取像故名為想。總別三六如受應知。已說想蘊。第四行蘊。四餘諸行。謂除前說色受想三。及除當說識為第四。余有為法名為行蘊。此有相應及不相應。思等得等如其次第。契經唯說六思身者。由最勝故。所以者何。思是業性。為因感果。其力最強。故世尊言。若能造作有漏有為。名行取蘊。若謂唯此名行蘊者。理必不然。余行色等所不攝故。應非蘊攝。若言如此有何過者。則非苦集知斷應無。設爾何失。違聖教故。如世尊言。若於一法未達未知。我說不能作苦邊際。未斷未滅。說亦如是。若謂余行猶如虛空及非擇滅。無斯過者。理亦不然。彼是增長我執事故。我執能障苦盡法故。彼上座說。行蘊唯思。余作意等是思差別。復作是言。作意等行。不可離思知別有體。或離余行。別有少分思體可得。由此行蘊。雖非一物而一思攝。是故契經。雖舉一思。而不違理。復云何知。作意等行。一切皆用思為自體。以薄伽梵于契經中說六思身為行蘊故。說貪瞋等名意業故。非黑非白。無異熟業。能盡諸業。此以思名說聖道故。說諸靜慮無量無色。以為白白異熟業故。不應異名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 取像為體：指的是對於一切事物，都根據其本來的狀態進行安立。例如，青色、長短等是色（rupa）的顯現；琴聲、貝殼聲等是聲（shabda）的顯現；蓮花香等是香（gandha）的顯現；苦味、辛辣味等是味（rasa）的顯現；滑膩、粗澀等是觸（sprashtavya）的顯現；生滅等是法（dharma）的顯現。在所緣境中，如實地取其相狀，因此稱為想（samjna）。所以，這個想蘊（samjna-skandha）是隨其功德而立名，因為它能夠取像，所以稱為想。 總相、別相、三相、六相，這些都應該像受蘊（vedana-skandha）一樣去理解。以上已經說明了想蘊。 第四是行蘊（samskara-skandha）：除了前面所說的色蘊、受蘊、想蘊這三種，以及接下來要說的識蘊（vijnana-skandha）之外，其餘的有為法（samskrta-dharma）都稱為行蘊。這裡面包括心相應行（citta-samprayukta-samskara）和心不相應行（citta-viprayukta-samskara），例如思（cetana）等、得（prapti）等，按照它們的次第。 契經中只說了六思身（shat cetana-kayah），這是因為思最為殊勝。為什麼這樣說呢？因為思是業（karma）的性質，作為因能感生果報，它的力量最強。所以世尊說，如果能夠造作有漏有為法，就稱為行取蘊（samskara-upadana-skandha）。 如果說只有思才能稱為行蘊，那麼在理上必然是不成立的，因為其餘的行法，以及色蘊等，都不包含在思裡面，那麼這些就應該不屬於五蘊所攝了。如果說這樣有什麼過失呢？那麼對於苦（duhkha）、集（samudaya）的認知和斷除就應該不存在了。如果這樣，又有什麼缺失呢？這是違背聖教的緣故。正如世尊所說，如果對於一種法沒有通達、沒有認知，我說就不能夠作苦的邊際，沒有斷除、沒有滅盡，（對於其他法）也是這樣說的。 如果說其餘的行法，就像虛空（akasha）和非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha）一樣，那麼就沒有這樣的過失了。但是，在理上也是不成立的，因為它們是增長我執（atma-graha）的因緣，而我執能夠障礙苦盡之法。 有上座部（Sthavira）的論師說，行蘊只有思，其餘的作意（manaskara）等是思的差別。又說，作意等行，不能夠離開思而知道有別的自體，或者離開其餘的行法，而能夠得到少分的思的自體。因此，行蘊雖然不是單一的事物，但是被一個思所統攝。所以契經雖然只舉了一個思，但是並不違背道理。 又怎麼知道作意等行，一切都以思作為自體呢？因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在契經中說六思身為行蘊的緣故。說貪（raga）、嗔（dvesha）等名為意業（manas-karma）的緣故。非黑非白，沒有異熟果的業，能夠窮盡諸業，這是以思的名義來說明聖道（arya-marga）的緣故。說諸靜慮（dhyana）、無量（apramana）、無色定（arupa-samapatti），是為白白異熟業的緣故。不應該用不同的名稱。
【English Translation】 English version 'Taking the image as the essence' means that for all things, they are established according to their original state. For example, blue, length, etc., are manifestations of rupa (form); sounds of qin (a Chinese zither), sounds of shells, etc., are manifestations of shabda (sound); fragrance of lotus, etc., are manifestations of gandha (smell); bitter, spicy, etc., are manifestations of rasa (taste); smoothness, roughness, etc., are manifestations of sprashtavya (touch); arising and ceasing, etc., are manifestations of dharma (phenomena). In the object of cognition, taking the appearance as it is, hence it is called samjna (perception). Therefore, this samjna-skandha (aggregate of perception) is named according to its merit, because it can take images, it is called perception. The general characteristics, specific characteristics, three characteristics, and six characteristics should be understood like vedana-skandha (aggregate of feeling). The aggregate of perception has been explained above. The fourth is samskara-skandha (aggregate of mental formations): Apart from the three aggregates mentioned earlier, rupa-skandha, vedana-skandha, and samjna-skandha, and apart from vijnana-skandha (aggregate of consciousness) to be discussed next, the remaining conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharmas) are called samskara-skandha. This includes citta-samprayukta-samskaras (mental formations associated with mind) and citta-viprayukta-samskaras (mental formations not associated with mind), such as cetana (volition), prapti (attainment), etc., according to their order. The sutras only mention shat cetana-kayah (six bodies of volition), because volition is the most excellent. Why is that? Because volition is the nature of karma (action), as a cause it can produce results, and its power is the strongest. Therefore, the World-Honored One said that if one can create conditioned and defiled dharmas, it is called samskara-upadana-skandha (aggregate of clinging to mental formations). If it is said that only volition can be called samskara-skandha, then it is necessarily not established in reason, because the remaining mental formations, as well as rupa-skandha, etc., are not included in volition, then these should not be included in the five aggregates. If it is said that what is the fault in this? Then the recognition and elimination of duhkha (suffering) and samudaya (origin) should not exist. If so, what is the deficiency? This is because it violates the holy teachings. Just as the World-Honored One said, if one has not understood or recognized a certain dharma, I say that one cannot make an end to suffering, and the same is said for not having eliminated or extinguished it. If it is said that the remaining mental formations are like akasha (space) and pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through wisdom), then there is no such fault. However, it is also not established in reason, because they are the causes for increasing atma-graha (attachment to self), and atma-graha can obstruct the dharma of the end of suffering. Some teachers of the Sthavira (Theravada) school say that the samskara-skandha is only volition, and the remaining manaskara (attention), etc., are differences of volition. It is also said that attention and other mental formations cannot be known to have a separate essence apart from volition, or that a small part of the essence of volition can be obtained apart from the remaining mental formations. Therefore, although the samskara-skandha is not a single thing, it is governed by one volition. Therefore, although the sutras only mention one volition, it does not contradict reason. How is it known that attention and other mental formations all take volition as their essence? Because the Bhagavan (World-Honored One) said in the sutras that the six bodies of volition are the samskara-skandha. Saying that raga (greed), dvesha (hatred), etc., are called manas-karma (mental karma). Neither black nor white, karma without different ripening can exhaust all karmas, this is to explain the arya-marga (noble path) in the name of volition. Saying that the various dhyanas (meditative absorptions), apramanas (immeasurables), and arupa-samapattis (formless attainments) are white and white ripening karma. Different names should not be used.
說異法故。非一說一。是謬言故。諸薄伽梵終無謬言。彼上座宗所說如此。理謂不然。前後所立且相違故謂彼前說行蘊唯思。後言行蘊非唯一物。何容一思即非一物。唯說六思為行蘊故。知作意等思為體者。其理不然。說法異故。現見經中。世尊說法有種種異。或舉初攝后。或舉后攝初或舉初后以攝中間。或舉中間以攝初后。何等經中舉初攝后。謂靜慮食。瞿波洛迦。不退墮法。集諦等經。靜慮即是四修等持。契經中說。若修初靜慮。得現法樂住。非余不得現法樂住。舉初攝后故作是說。由是如來。所說無減。食謂四食契經中說。第一段食。有粗有細。非餘三食無有粗細。舉初攝后故作是說。瞿波洛迦。謂彼經說不了知色。非餘四蘊。已得了知。舉初攝后故作是說。不退墮法。謂彼經言。預流果人不墮惡趣。非余聖者墮諸惡趣。舉初攝后故作是說。集諦謂彼契經中說愛為集諦。非余染法集諦不收。舉初攝后故作是說。思擇諦中當別顯示。諸如是等無量契經。皆舉最初以攝於后。由是如來所說無減。何等經中舉后攝初。謂得自體識住。讚頌福田等經。得自體者。四得自體契經中說。生在非想非非想天。非可自害。非可他害。非不一切色無色天。非可自害。非可他害。舉后攝初故作是說。識住謂彼七識住經作如是說。有色
有情身一想異。如極光凈天。是第三識住。非不少光無量光天亦名有色身一想異。舉后攝初故作是說。讚頌福田。謂彼經說。
若於阿羅漢 恒修妙施福 常為諸天神 勸贊呈嘉瑞
非於前三修妙施福不蒙天等勸贊呈祥。舉后攝初故作是說。若謂前三堪應供養故亦得名阿羅漢者。便成此經非了義說。阿羅漢名主無學故。何等經中但舉初后以攝中間。謂贊出家證凈等經。贊出家者。謂彼經說。
諸有出家人 能證預流果 及阿羅漢果 是名多所作
非出家人。證一來果及不還果。非多所作。但舉初后以攝中間。故作是說。贊證凈者。謂彼經說。
諸有于如來 住妙信無動 及尸羅善凈 常得會嘉祥
非於法僧住信無動不會嘉祥。但舉初后以攝中間。故作是說。何等經中。但舉中間以攝初后。謂契經說。若有修習第四靜慮。名得漏盡。非不七依皆能盡漏。但舉中間以攝初后。故作是說。諸如是等無量契經。皆舉中間以攝初后。由是如來所說無減。諸經既爾。此亦應然。雖復行蘊多法整合。而但舉初說思無過。何不最初舉作意等。造作有為。思最勝故。如心能導三處現前修二法等。心能導者。如契經說。心導世間。此中非無受想等法。以心勝故。作如是說三處現前。謂契
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有情眾生的身和想不一致，就像極光凈天（Abhasvara）的眾生一樣。這是第三個識住。並非少光天（Parittabha）和無量光天（Apramanabha）也稱為有色身一想異。這是因為舉出後面的例子來涵蓋前面的例子，所以這樣說。讚頌福田，就像那部經里說的： 『如果對於阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟的聖者）恒常修習殊妙的佈施，諸天神常常會勸請讚歎，呈現吉祥的徵兆。』 並非對於前三個（指少光天、無量光天、極光凈天）修習殊妙的佈施，就不會蒙受天神的勸請讚歎，呈現吉祥的徵兆。這是因為舉出後面的例子來涵蓋前面的例子，所以這樣說。如果說前三個也堪能接受供養，所以也得名為阿羅漢，那麼這部經就成了不了義的說法。因為阿羅漢這個名稱主要指無學（已證得最高果位者）。 在什麼樣的經中，只舉出最初和最後來涵蓋中間的部分呢？就像贊嘆出家和證凈等的經典。讚歎出家，就像那部經里說的： 『凡是有出家人，能夠證得預流果（Srotapanna，入流果），以及阿羅漢果（Arhat，無學果），這叫做多所作。』 並非出家人證得一來果（Sakrdagamin）和不還果（Anagamin）就不是多所作。這是因為只舉出最初和最後來涵蓋中間的部分，所以這樣說。讚歎證凈，就像那部經里說的： 『凡是對如來（Tathagata，佛陀）具有殊妙的信心，不動搖，並且尸羅（Sila，戒律）善於清凈，常常能夠得到吉祥。』 並非對於法（Dharma，佛法）和僧（Sangha，僧團）具有不動搖的信心，就不會得到吉祥。這是因為只舉出最初和最後來涵蓋中間的部分，所以這樣說。在什麼樣的經中，只舉出中間的部分來涵蓋最初和最後呢？就像契經里說的：如果有修習第四靜慮（Dhyana，禪定），就叫做得到漏盡（煩惱的止息）。並非不七依（指未斷盡七種煩惱者）都能得到漏盡。這是因為只舉出中間的部分來涵蓋最初和最後，所以這樣說。諸如此類的無量契經，都是舉出中間的部分來涵蓋最初和最後。因此，如來所說的法沒有減少。既然其他的經典是這樣，這部經也應該如此。雖然行蘊（Samskara-skandha）由多種法整合，但是隻舉出最初的思（Cetanā）並沒有過失。為什麼不最初舉出作意等呢？因為造作有為法中，思最為殊勝。就像心能夠引導三處現前，修二法等。心能夠引導，就像契經里說的：心引導世間。這裡並非沒有受（Vedana）、想（Samjna）等法，因為心最為殊勝，所以這樣說。三處現前，指的是契……
【English Translation】 English version: The body and thought of sentient beings are dissimilar, like those in the Abhasvara (Radiant Light) heaven. This is the third station of consciousness. It is not that the Parittabha (Limited Light) and Apramanabha (Immeasurable Light) heavens are also called 'dissimilar in form and thought.' This is said because the latter is mentioned to encompass the former. Praising the field of merit, as it says in that sutra: 'If one constantly cultivates excellent offerings to the Arhats (Enlightened Saints), the gods will often exhort and praise, presenting auspicious omens.' It is not that cultivating excellent offerings to the first three (referring to Parittabha, Apramanabha, and Abhasvara heavens) will not receive the exhortation and praise of the gods, presenting auspicious omens. This is said because the latter is mentioned to encompass the former. If it is said that the first three are also worthy of offerings, and therefore also called Arhats, then this sutra becomes a statement of incomplete meaning. Because the name Arhat primarily refers to the 'no-more-learning' (those who have attained the highest fruit). In what kind of sutra are only the beginning and the end mentioned to encompass the middle? Like the sutras praising renunciation and purification, etc. Praising renunciation, as it says in that sutra: 'Those who have renounced the household life, who are able to attain the fruit of Srotapanna (Stream-enterer), and the fruit of Arhat (the fruit of no-more-learning), are called 'those who have done much.' It is not that a renunciant who attains the fruit of Sakrdagamin (Once-returner) and Anagamin (Non-returner) has not 'done much.' This is said because only the beginning and the end are mentioned to encompass the middle. Praising purification, as it says in that sutra: 'Those who have excellent faith in the Tathagata (Buddha), unwavering, and whose Sila (moral conduct) is well-purified, will always attain auspiciousness.' It is not that those who have unwavering faith in the Dharma (Buddhist teachings) and Sangha (Buddhist community) will not attain auspiciousness. This is said because only the beginning and the end are mentioned to encompass the middle. In what kind of sutra is only the middle mentioned to encompass the beginning and the end? Like the sutra that says: If one cultivates the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption), it is called attaining the cessation of outflows (the ending of defilements). It is not that all those who have not severed the seven attachments can attain the cessation of outflows. This is said because only the middle is mentioned to encompass the beginning and the end. All such countless sutras mention the middle to encompass the beginning and the end. Therefore, the Dharma spoken by the Tathagata is not diminished. Since other sutras are like this, this sutra should also be the same. Although the Samskara-skandha (aggregate of mental formations) is composed of many dharmas, there is no fault in mentioning only the initial Cetanā (volition). Why not mention Manasikara (attention) etc. at the beginning? Because among the conditioned phenomena, volition is the most excellent. Just as the mind can guide the manifestation of the three places, cultivating the two dharmas, etc. The mind can guide, as it says in the sutra: The mind guides the world. It is not that there are no Vedana (feeling), Samjna (perception), etc. here, but because the mind is the most excellent, it is said in this way. The manifestation of the three places refers to the...
經說。信於三處現在前故。能生多福。此中非無無貪無瞋正見等。法以信勝故。作如是說。修二法者。如契經說。應修二法。謂奢摩他毗缽舍那。善有為法一切應修。止觀勝故。作如是說。如是等經。皆舉勝法以為初首。此亦應然。又佛世尊。有餘之說處處可得。如窣堵波諸善士趣及心解脫斷結等經。窣堵波者。如契經說。三人應為造窣堵波。此理不應。為異生者造窣堵波。非見諦者。當知此經是有餘說。善士趣者。如契經說。七善士趣。謂趣涅槃阿羅漢果。非余聖生非善士趣。當知此經是有餘說。心解脫者。如契經言。得阿羅漢。其心解脫欲漏有漏及無明漏。然實解脫一切煩惱及隨煩惱。當知此經是有餘說。斷結者。謂契經中言。永斷三結證預流果。非不永斷見諦所斷一切煩惱。當知此經是有餘說。如是等經。皆就勝說此亦如是。造作有為。功能勝故。云何說此能造有為。謂有勝能。引生果故。果雖本有。而少分生此能隨引。故立為造。彼上座言。造有為者謂思能造本無有為。如織者言。我持此縷織作裳服。此亦應爾。如是所說。理必不然。有依無依不同法故。彼意謂思。如能織者。本無有為。謂如裳服。裳服所依縷無所喻。若許未來有為體有無少分用。造義得成。上座縷喻。顯有未來。或所立喻有言無義對法諸師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：經中說，由於對三處的信心現在生起，因此能夠產生許多福德。這其中並非沒有無貪、無嗔、正見等法，只是因為信的作用更為突出，所以這樣說。關於修習二法，如契經所說，應當修習兩種法，即奢摩他（止，samatha）和毗缽舍那（觀，vipassana）。一切善的有為法都應當修習，但因為止觀更為殊勝，所以這樣說。像這樣的經典，都是舉出殊勝的法作為開端。這裡也應當如此。此外，佛世尊還有其他的說法，處處可以找到，例如關於窣堵波（stupa，塔）的經典、關於善士趣的經典以及關於心解脫、斷結的經典。關於窣堵波，如契經所說，應當為三類人建造窣堵波。但按照這個道理，不應該為異生（凡夫）建造窣堵波，而應該為見諦者（證悟者）建造。應當知道這部經是有其他含義的說法。關於善士趣，如契經所說，有七種善士趣，即趣向涅槃（nirvana）和阿羅漢果（arhat）。其他的聖者出生並非善士趣。應當知道這部經是有其他含義的說法。關於心解脫，如契經所說，證得阿羅漢，他的心解脫了欲漏、有漏以及無明漏。但實際上是解脫了一切煩惱以及隨煩惱。應當知道這部經是有其他含義的說法。關於斷結，如契經中說，永遠斷除三種結，證得預流果（sotapanna）。並非沒有永遠斷除見諦所斷的一切煩惱。應當知道這部經是有其他含義的說法。像這樣的經典，都是就殊勝的方面來說，這裡也是如此。因為造作有為的功能殊勝。如何說這能造作有為呢？因為具有殊勝的功能，能夠引生果。果雖然本來就存在，但只有少部分生起，而這能隨之引導，所以立名為造。那位上座（長老）說，造作有為是指思能夠造作本來沒有的有為，就像織布的人說，我用這些線織成衣裳。這裡也應當如此。這樣的說法，道理必定不成立。因為有依和無依是不同的法。他的意思是說，思就像能夠織布的人，本來沒有有為，就像衣裳。衣裳所依賴的線沒有可以比喻的。如果允許未來有為的體存在，沒有少分的作用，造作的意義才能成立。上座用線來比喻，顯示有未來。或者所建立的比喻有言語而沒有意義，對法諸師（Abhidharma masters）。 English version: The sutra says that because faith in the three places arises in the present, it can generate much merit. It is not that there are no non-greed, non-hatred, right view, and other dharmas in this, but because faith is superior, it is said in this way. Regarding the cultivation of two dharmas, as the sutra says, two dharmas should be cultivated, namely samatha (tranquility) and vipassana (insight). All wholesome conditioned dharmas should be cultivated, but because samatha and vipassana are superior, it is said in this way. Sutras like these all begin by highlighting the superior dharma. This should also be the case here. Furthermore, the World Honored One Buddha has other teachings that can be found everywhere, such as the sutras on stupas, the destinations of virtuous people, and the liberation of mind and severance of fetters. Regarding stupas, as the sutra says, stupas should be built for three types of people. However, according to this principle, stupas should not be built for ordinary beings (異生, isheng), but should be built for those who have seen the truth (見諦者, jiandizhe). It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Regarding the destinations of virtuous people, as the sutra says, there are seven destinations of virtuous people, namely, heading towards nirvana (涅槃, niepan) and the fruit of arhat (阿羅漢果, arahan guo). The birth of other sages is not a destination of virtuous people. It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Regarding the liberation of mind, as the sutra says, having attained arhat, his mind is liberated from the outflows of desire, existence, and ignorance. But in reality, it is liberation from all afflictions and secondary afflictions. It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Regarding the severance of fetters, as it is said in the sutra, permanently severing the three fetters, one attains the fruit of stream-enterer (預流果, yuliuguo). It is not that all afflictions severed by seeing the truth are not permanently severed. It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Sutras like these all speak from the perspective of superiority, and this is also the case here, because the function of creating conditioned things is superior. How can it be said that this can create conditioned things? Because it has the superior function of leading to the arising of fruit. Although the fruit originally exists, only a small part arises, and this can guide it, so it is established as creation. That elder (上座, shangzuo) said that creating conditioned things means that thought can create conditioned things that originally did not exist, just as a weaver says, 'I use these threads to weave clothes.' This should also be the case here. Such a statement is certainly not reasonable, because dependent and independent are different dharmas. His meaning is that thought is like a weaver who can weave, and there was originally no conditioned thing, like clothes. The threads on which the clothes depend have nothing to be compared to. If it is allowed that the substance of future conditioned things exists, without a small part of its function, the meaning of creation can be established. The elder uses threads as a metaphor to show that there is a future. Or the established metaphor has words but no meaning, according to the Abhidharma masters (對法諸師, duifa zhushi).
【English Translation】 English version: The sutra says that because faith in the three places arises in the present, it can generate much merit. It is not that there are no non-greed, non-hatred, right view, and other dharmas in this, but because faith is superior, it is said in this way. Regarding the cultivation of two dharmas, as the sutra says, two dharmas should be cultivated, namely 'samatha' (tranquility) and 'vipassana' (insight). All wholesome conditioned dharmas should be cultivated, but because 'samatha' and 'vipassana' are superior, it is said in this way. Sutras like these all begin by highlighting the superior dharma. This should also be the case here. Furthermore, the World Honored One Buddha has other teachings that can be found everywhere, such as the sutras on 'stupas', the destinations of virtuous people, and the liberation of mind and severance of fetters. Regarding 'stupas', as the sutra says, 'stupas' should be built for three types of people. However, according to this principle, 'stupas' should not be built for ordinary beings ('異生', 'yisheng'), but should be built for those who have seen the truth ('見諦者', 'jiandizhe'). It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Regarding the destinations of virtuous people, as the sutra says, there are seven destinations of virtuous people, namely, heading towards 'nirvana' ('涅槃', 'niepan') and the fruit of 'arhat' ('阿羅漢果', 'arahan guo'). The birth of other sages is not a destination of virtuous people. It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Regarding the liberation of mind, as the sutra says, having attained 'arhat', his mind is liberated from the outflows of desire, existence, and ignorance. But in reality, it is liberation from all afflictions and secondary afflictions. It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Regarding the severance of fetters, as it is said in the sutra, permanently severing the three fetters, one attains the fruit of stream-enterer ('預流果', 'yuliuguo'). It is not that all afflictions severed by seeing the truth are not permanently severed. It should be known that this sutra has other implied meanings. Sutras like these all speak from the perspective of superiority, and this is also the case here, because the function of creating conditioned things is superior. How can it be said that this can create conditioned things? Because it has the superior function of leading to the arising of fruit. Although the fruit originally exists, only a small part arises, and this can guide it, so it is established as creation. That elder ('上座', 'shangzuo') said that creating conditioned things means that thought can create conditioned things that originally did not exist, just as a weaver says, 'I use these threads to weave clothes.' This should also be the case here. Such a statement is certainly not reasonable, because dependent and independent are different dharmas. His meaning is that thought is like a weaver who can weave, and there was originally no conditioned thing, like clothes. The threads on which the clothes depend have nothing to be compared to. If it is allowed that the substance of future conditioned things exists, without a small part of its function, the meaning of creation can be established. The elder uses threads as a metaphor to show that there is a future. Or the established metaphor has words but no meaning, according to the Abhidharma masters ('對法諸師', 'duifa zhushi').
。說假有法本無今有可為此喻。若執實體亦是本無。彼定不應立如是喻。又彼應說假實異相。若有異者。則無譬喻。若無異者。便似空花。說貪瞋等為意業故。知作意等思為體者。理亦不然。貪瞋邪見。體雖非業。業資糧故。亦說為業。如余資糧亦名彼彼。如戒經言。見眾聖樂河階隥樂。彼樂資糧。故亦名樂。又如經說。若有眼根。不調不護。此法能感非愛異熟。眼根雖是無異熟法。非愛異熟法資糧故。亦說能感非愛異熟。又如經說。樂談論等五種退具。實退具者。謂諸煩惱。引退果故。樂談論等。是彼資糧。亦名退具。又如經言。
愚夫著欲而興諍 諸仙無諍由離欲 是故應除一切欲 猶如麟角獨遊行
耽著境界興諸斗諍。境實非欲。是欲資糧故亦名欲。是故經言。
世諸妙境非真欲 真欲謂人分別貪
又如經說。增色隨眠。色非隨眠。是彼資糧故同彼說。又如經說。
女為梵行垢 女惱害眾生
女實非垢。垢謂貪等。是垢資糧故亦名垢。又契經中宣說七漏。實漏唯二。余皆非漏。是漏資糧故亦名漏。由此等經。證貪瞋等意業資糧故名意業。而非業體。道理成就。非黑非白。無異熟業。能盡諸業。此以思名說聖道故。知作意等思為體者。理亦不然。如想等名此無失故。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果說假有法（Pratītyasamutpāda，緣起法）本來沒有現在才有，可以用這個來做比喻。如果執著于實體（dravya，自性），認為它也是本來沒有的，那麼他們一定不應該立這樣的比喻。而且他們應該說明假和實的差異之處。如果有差異，就沒有譬喻可言。如果沒有差異，就好像虛空中的花朵一樣不真實。說貪、嗔等是意業的緣故，就認為作意等以思為體，這個道理也是不成立的。貪、嗔、邪見，本體雖然不是業，但因為是業的資糧，所以也說為業。如同其他的資糧也用它們所資助的事物來命名一樣。例如戒經上說：『見到眾聖的快樂，如同河邊的階梯一樣快樂。』這裡的快樂實際上是獲得快樂的資糧，所以也稱為快樂。又如經上說：『如果眼根不調伏、不守護，這種法能感得不喜愛的異熟果。』眼根雖然不是有異熟果的法，但因為是不喜愛的異熟果的資糧，所以也說能感得不喜愛的異熟果。又如經上說：『喜歡談論等五種退失之具。』真正的退失之具，是指各種煩惱，因為它們能引生退失的果報。喜歡談論等是這些煩惱的資糧，所以也稱為退失之具。又如經上說： 『愚夫著欲而興諍，諸仙無諍由離欲，是故應除一切欲，猶如麟角獨。』 耽著于境界而興起各種爭鬥。境界實際上不是慾望，但因為是慾望的資糧，所以也稱為慾望。所以經上說： 『世諸妙境非真欲，真欲謂人分別貪。』 又如經上說，增長色隨眠（rūpa-anuśaya，對色的潛在執著），色不是隨眠，但因為是隨眠的資糧，所以也同樣用隨眠來稱呼它。又如經上說： 『女為梵行垢，女惱害眾生。』 女人實際上不是垢，垢指的是貪等煩惱，因為女人是這些煩惱的資糧，所以也稱為垢。又在契經中宣說了七漏（saptāsrava，七種煩惱的泄漏），實際上只有兩種是真正的漏，其餘都不是漏，但因為是漏的資糧，所以也稱為漏。由此等經可以證明，貪、嗔等是意業的資糧，所以稱為意業，而不是意業的本體。非黑非白，沒有異熟果的業，能夠窮盡所有的業。這是因為用思的名稱來說明聖道（ārya-mārga，八正道），所以認為作意等以思為體，這個道理也是不成立的。如同想等名稱一樣，這樣就沒有過失了。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that the falsely existent dharma (Pratītyasamutpāda, dependent origination) was originally non-existent and now exists, this can be used as a metaphor. If one clings to substance (dravya, essence) and believes that it was also originally non-existent, then they should definitely not establish such a metaphor. Moreover, they should explain the differences between the false and the real. If there are differences, there is no metaphor to speak of. If there are no differences, it is like a flower in the sky, unreal. To say that greed, hatred, etc., are mental actions, and therefore to consider volition, etc., as being of the nature of thought, is also unreasonable. Greed, hatred, and wrong views, although their essence is not action, are considered actions because they are the resources for action. Just as other resources are named after the things they support. For example, the Vinaya Sutra says: 'Seeing the joy of the saints is like the joy of the steps by the river.' The joy here is actually the resource for obtaining joy, so it is also called joy. Furthermore, as the Sutra says: 'If the eye faculty is not tamed and not guarded, this dharma can cause an undesirable result.' Although the eye faculty is not a dharma with results, it is said to be able to cause an undesirable result because it is the resource for undesirable results. Furthermore, as the Sutra says: 'Fondness for discussion and other five means of decline.' The real means of decline refer to various afflictions, because they can lead to the result of decline. Fondness for discussion, etc., are the resources for these afflictions, so they are also called means of decline. Furthermore, as the Sutra says: 'Fools, attached to desires, engage in strife; the sages are without strife because they are free from desires; therefore, all desires should be eliminated, like a solitary rhinoceros horn.' Being attached to objects gives rise to various conflicts. Objects are not actually desires, but because they are the resources for desires, they are also called desires. Therefore, the Sutra says: 'The beautiful objects of the world are not true desires; true desire is the discriminating greed of people.' Furthermore, as the Sutra says, increasing the latent tendency of form (rūpa-anuśaya, latent attachment to form), form is not a latent tendency, but because it is the resource for the latent tendency, it is also referred to as such. Furthermore, as the Sutra says: 'Woman is a stain on pure conduct; woman torments sentient beings.' Woman is not actually a stain; the stain refers to afflictions such as greed, because woman is the resource for these afflictions, she is also called a stain. Furthermore, in the Sutras, the seven outflows (saptāsrava, seven leakages of afflictions) are proclaimed. In reality, only two are true outflows, the rest are not, but because they are the resources for outflows, they are also called outflows. From these Sutras, it can be proven that greed, hatred, etc., are the resources for mental actions, so they are called mental actions, but they are not the essence of mental actions. Neither black nor white, action without results can exhaust all actions. This is because the name of thought is used to explain the Noble Path (ārya-mārga, the Eightfold Path), so to consider volition, etc., as being of the nature of thought is also unreasonable. Just like the names of perception, etc., there is no fault in this.
契經言。修無常想能除欲愛色無色愛。彼以想名說諸聖道。既許聖道非想差別。此亦應然。故無有失。又說受意能斷煩惱。故契經說。修喜覺支依離貪意能破巢窟。聖道既非受意差別。此亦應然。故無有失。有聞經說。業縛眾生。謂一切業皆能繫縛。為遣如是邪僻執故。說此思業能盡諸業。又顯業勝故作是說。說諸靜慮無量無色。以為白白異熟業故。知作意等思為體者。此非審察。諸靜慮等。五蘊四蘊為自性故。如契經言。此中所有若色若受。廣說乃至。名靜慮等。非譬喻師業有色性。為顯諸業于感異熟力最強故。此中一切善五蘊法。皆說為業。又如此中受想及識。雖說為業。而體非思。如是此中作意等法。亦應說業。而體非思。若言受等別蘊攝故無斯過者。是則成立得以異名說于異法。此既成立如上所言。說貪瞋等名意業故。謂即是思理不成立。現見極成異性受等。以業名說。余亦應然。由此即破后所說因。不應異名說異法故。又見異名亦說異法。如言能行具香等施。施體是思。非即香等。然由香等覺發于思。故有異名說于異法。非一說一。是謬言故。諸薄伽梵終無謬言。知作意等思為體者。理亦不然。就勝說故。名義相屬不決定故。所化有情意樂別故。不了義經。現可得故。非薄伽梵謬說此言。若立行蘊體但是思
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《契經》中說，修習無常想可以去除對欲界、色界和無色界的貪愛。這裡用『想』這個名稱來指代各種聖道（Arya-marga）。既然承認聖道並非『想』的差別顯現，那麼作意等也應如此，因此沒有過失。此外，經中還說，感受和作意能夠斷除煩惱。因此，《契經》中說，修習喜覺支（Priti-sambojjhanga），依靠遠離貪慾的作意，能夠摧毀巢穴（指煩惱）。既然聖道並非感受和作意的差別顯現，那麼作意等也應如此，因此沒有過失。 有人聽聞經中說，業束縛眾生，就認為一切業都能繫縛眾生。爲了去除這種邪僻的執著，所以說這種思業（cetanā-karma）能夠窮盡諸業。這又顯示了業的殊勝，所以這樣說。經中說諸靜慮（dhyāna）、無量（apramāṇa）、無色（arūpa），因為它們是清凈的、有殊勝異熟果報的業。認為作意等以思為體，這是不審慎的。因為諸靜慮等，以五蘊（pañca-skandha）或四蘊為自性。如《契經》所說：『此中所有若色若受，廣說乃至，名靜慮等。』並非譬喻師（Dārṣṭāntika）所說的業具有色性。爲了顯示諸業在感受異熟果報方面的力量最強，所以這裡一切善的五蘊法，都說為業。又如此處，受、想及識，雖然說為業，但其體性並非思。這樣，此處的作意等法，也應說為業，但其體性並非思。 如果說，受等屬於不同的蘊，所以沒有這個過失，那麼這就等於承認可以用不同的名稱來稱說不同的法。既然這一點成立，那麼如上所說，說貪、嗔等名為意業，就意味著它們就是思，這個道理是不成立的。現在可以清楚地看到，具有不同自性的受等，也可以用『業』這個名稱來說。其他的也應如此。由此就破斥了後面所說的理由，即不應用不同的名稱來說不同的法。又可以看到，不同的名稱也可以用來稱說不同的法，例如說能行佈施的人具有香等。佈施的體性是思，並非就是香等。然而，由於香等覺醒了思，所以可以用不同的名稱來說不同的法。說『一即是一』是錯誤的說法，諸薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）絕不會說錯誤的言語。 認為作意等以思為體，這個道理也是不成立的。這是就殊勝的角度來說的，因為名義之間的關係並不確定，而且所化有情（vineya-jana）的意樂也各不相同，不了義經（neyārtha-sūtra）現在也可以得到。所以薄伽梵並沒有錯誤地說這些話。如果認為行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha）的體性只是思，
【English Translation】 English version The Sutra states that cultivating the thought of impermanence can eliminate attachment to the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm. Here, the term 'thought' (saṃjñā) is used to refer to the various Noble Paths (Arya-marga). Since it is admitted that the Noble Paths are not merely differentiations of 'thought,' the same should apply to volition (manasikara) and other factors, thus there is no fault. Furthermore, it is said in the scriptures that feeling (vedanā) and volition can sever afflictions. Therefore, the Sutra states that cultivating the joy factor of enlightenment (Priti-sambojjhanga), relying on volition that is detached from greed, can destroy the nest (referring to afflictions). Since the Noble Paths are not merely differentiations of feeling and volition, the same should apply to volition and other factors, thus there is no fault. Some, upon hearing the Sutra state that karma binds sentient beings, assume that all karma can bind sentient beings. To dispel this perverse clinging, it is said that this volitional karma (cetanā-karma) can exhaust all karmas. This also demonstrates the excellence of karma, and thus it is said. The Sutra speaks of the dhyānas (meditative absorptions), the immeasurables (apramāṇa), and the formless realms (arūpa), because they are pure and have excellent results. To consider volition and other factors as being of the nature of thought is not prudent, because the dhyānas and so on are of the nature of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) or the four aggregates. As the Sutra says, 'Whatever form, feeling, and so on are present in this, are called dhyānas and so on.' It is not the case that karma, as understood by the Dārṣṭāntikas (those who use analogies), has a form nature. To show that karmas are strongest in terms of experiencing results, all good five-aggregate dharmas are referred to as karma here. Also, in this context, feeling, perception, and consciousness are referred to as karma, but their nature is not thought. Similarly, volition and other factors here should also be referred to as karma, but their nature is not thought. If it is said that feeling and so on belong to different aggregates, so there is no fault, then this is equivalent to admitting that different names can be used to refer to different dharmas. Since this is established, then as mentioned above, saying that greed, hatred, and so on are called mental karma, which implies that they are thought, is not established. It can be clearly seen that feeling and so on, which have different natures, can also be referred to as 'karma.' The same should apply to others. This refutes the later reason given, that different names should not be used to refer to different dharmas. It can also be seen that different names can also be used to refer to different dharmas, such as saying that a person who gives alms has fragrance and so on. The nature of alms is thought, not fragrance and so on. However, because fragrance and so on awaken thought, different names can be used to refer to different dharmas. Saying 'one is one' is a false statement, and the Bhagavan (Blessed One) would never say false words. The idea that volition and other factors are of the nature of thought is also not established. This is spoken from the perspective of excellence, because the relationship between name and meaning is not fixed, and the inclinations of those to be tamed (vineya-jana) are also different, and Sutras of provisional meaning (neyārtha-sūtra) are available now. Therefore, the Bhagavan did not speak these words falsely. If it is thought that the nature of the aggregate of formations (saṃskāra-skandha) is only thought,
。彼顯世尊言有謬失。由許世尊說一法體即為非一。復說非一。體即一故。若說行蘊非一物成。此顯世尊言無謬失。是故彼因有言無理。又彼所立違于比量。謂行蘊體非唯是思。立總想故。如法處界。若異此者。應但名思。一法成故。如受想蘊。此中意顯如外第六法處界聲立總想故。總攝十一十七處界。不攝多法。如是行聲。立總想故。總攝四蘊。不攝多行。故知行蘊體不唯思。若爾如彼應最後說。思次第中自當顯示。此非文便故應且止。又以芭蕉喻行蘊故。知行蘊體非唯是思。如說行蘊喻如芭蕉。此顯多物成行蘊體。又以經說相應言故。知行蘊體非唯是思。如契經言。見為根信證智相應。若信與智俱是思者。是則思體與思相應。自體相應理不應許。又作意等不應即是思之差別以契經中離作意等別說思故。如契經說。彼如是見即如是思。若彼邪見即是思者。此義應言。彼如是思即如是思。或如是見即如是見。若作是言。其義何別又如經說。彼有如是信欲勤安念智思舍。名為勝行。若信等行即是思者說信等已。何復說思。又此諸法似同時用。如何一思多體俱起。上座此中作如是釋。為攝此時所起余行。故復舉思。前說信等。為顯此時所起勝行。如五濁法及四修行。謂五濁中見雖煩惱。由最勝故。復更別說。四修行者。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 彼顯世尊（Bhagavan，佛）言有謬失。因為他們認為世尊所說的一個法體既不是一，又不是非一，這是有錯誤的。因為世尊既說行蘊（Samskara-skandha，構成有情活動和行為的要素）不是單一的，又說它不是非單一的，所以他們的說法是錯誤的。如果說行蘊不是由單一事物構成，這才能表明世尊的說法沒有錯誤。因此，他們的理由是沒有道理的。而且，他們所建立的觀點也與比量（Anumana，推理）相悖。他們認為行蘊的體性不僅僅是思（Cetanā，意志），因為他們建立了總想（Samjñā，概念）的緣故，就像法處界（Dharmadhatu，法界）一樣。如果不是這樣，就應該只稱為思，因為它是單一法構成的，就像受蘊（Vedanā-skandha，感受）和想蘊（Samjñā-skandha，知覺）一樣。這裡的意思是說，就像外第六法處界的聲音一樣，建立了總想，總攝了十一處和十七界，但不攝取多種法。同樣，行蘊這個名稱，建立了總想，總攝了四蘊（Skandha，五蘊中的色、受、想、行），但不攝取多種行。因此，可知行蘊的體性不僅僅是思。如果是這樣，就應該像他們那樣最後說，在思的次第中自然會顯示。但這不符合文義的方便，所以應該暫時停止討論。又因為用芭蕉來比喻行蘊，可知行蘊的體性不僅僅是思。如經中所說，行蘊就像芭蕉一樣。這表明多種事物構成了行蘊的體性。又因為經中說了『相應』這個詞，可知行蘊的體性不僅僅是思。如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『見為根，信、證、智相應。』如果信（Śrāddha，信仰）和智（Jñāna，智慧）都是思，那麼思的體性就與思相應。自體相應在道理上是不應該允許的。而且，作意（Manaskara，注意）等不應該是思的差別，因為契經中離開了作意等，另外說了思。如契經所說：『彼如是見，即如是思。』如果彼邪見就是思，那麼這句話就應該說成：『彼如是思，即如是思。』或者『如是見，即如是見。』如果這樣說，它的意義有什麼區別呢？又如經所說：『彼有如是信、欲、勤、安、念、智、思、舍，名為勝行。』如果信等行就是思，那麼說了信等之後，為什麼還要再說思呢？而且，這些法似乎是同時起作用的，如何能讓一個思有多個體性同時生起呢？上座（Thera，長老）在這裡這樣解釋：爲了攝取此時所生起的其餘行，所以又舉了思。前面說信等，是爲了顯示此時所生起的殊勝行，就像五濁法和四修行一樣。比如五濁中，見雖然是煩惱，但因為最殊勝，所以又特別說了。四修行者，如...
【English Translation】 They clearly err in saying that the Blessed One's (Bhagavan, the Buddha) words are flawed. Because they assert that the Blessed One spoke of one dharma-body (Dharmakaya, the body of the Dharma) that is both not one and not non-one, which is incorrect. For the Blessed One said that the aggregate of formations (Samskara-skandha, the aggregate of mental formations) is neither singular nor non-singular, thus their assertion is wrong. If it is said that the aggregate of formations is not composed of a single thing, this demonstrates that the Blessed One's words are without error. Therefore, their reason is unreasonable. Moreover, their established view contradicts inference (Anumana, reasoning). They claim that the nature of the aggregate of formations is not solely volition (Cetanā, intention), because they establish a general concept (Samjñā, perception), like the sphere of the dharma-element (Dharmadhatu, the realm of phenomena). If it were otherwise, it should only be called volition, because it is composed of a single dharma, like the aggregates of feeling (Vedanā-skandha, sensation) and perception (Samjñā-skandha, perception). The meaning here is that, like the sound of the external sixth sphere of the dharma-element, a general concept is established, encompassing the eleven spheres and seventeen realms, but not encompassing multiple dharmas. Similarly, the name 'aggregate of formations' establishes a general concept, encompassing the four aggregates (Skandha, the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness), but not encompassing multiple formations. Therefore, it is known that the nature of the aggregate of formations is not solely volition. If so, it should be said last, as they do, and it will naturally be revealed in the order of volition. But this does not accord with the convenience of the text, so the discussion should be paused for now. Furthermore, because the aggregate of formations is likened to a banana tree, it is known that the nature of the aggregate of formations is not solely volition. As it is said in the scriptures, the aggregate of formations is like a banana tree. This shows that multiple things constitute the nature of the aggregate of formations. Moreover, because the word 'associated' is used in the scriptures, it is known that the nature of the aggregate of formations is not solely volition. As the sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) says: 'Seeing is the root, associated with faith, attainment, and wisdom.' If faith (Śrāddha, faith) and wisdom (Jñāna, wisdom) are both volition, then the nature of volition is associated with volition. Self-association should not be allowed in principle. Moreover, attention (Manaskara, attention) and so on should not be merely differentiations of volition, because the sutras speak of volition separately from attention and so on. As the sutra says: 'He sees thus, and thus he thinks.' If that wrong view is volition, then this sentence should be: 'He thinks thus, and thus he thinks.' Or 'He sees thus, and thus he sees.' If it is said in this way, what difference does it make? Furthermore, as the sutra says: 'He has such faith, desire, diligence, ease, mindfulness, wisdom, volition, and equanimity, which are called superior practices.' If faith and other formations are volition, then why is volition mentioned again after faith and so on have been mentioned? Moreover, these dharmas seem to function simultaneously, how can one volition have multiple natures arising at the same time? The Elder (Thera, elder) explains it here in this way: In order to encompass the remaining formations that arise at this time, volition is mentioned again. Faith and so on were mentioned earlier to show the superior practices that arise at this time, like the five turbidities and the four practices. For example, among the five turbidities, although view is an affliction, it is mentioned separately because it is the most superior. The four practices, such as...
契經言。修身語意妙行正見。斷身語意惡行邪見。非正邪見意妙惡行之所不攝。勝故別說。此亦應爾。理不應然。信等亦應思所攝故。不應別說。豈不已說。為顯此時所起勝行。故說信等。雖知已說。然不應理。一法一時多體俱起。如受想等不應理故非受想等一法體類樂小等別有俱時起。是故彼說非佛法宗。又彼彼處若不舉思。彼彼契經所說應闕。如世尊言。學無學戒定慧解脫。此契經內。既不舉思。應𨵗所餘作意等法。若謂聞者于彼已知。則舉慧等。亦應無用。是故彼釋。因定不然。喻亦非理。諸見所持難解脫故。為顯諸見縛義堅強。故與煩惱總別顯過。意惡行中邪見最重。為顯邪見勝彼貪瞋。理須總別說斷對治。思于信等未見勝用。何緣此思總別而說。是故彼喻與法不齊。如前難彼。若執信等思為自性。思與信等總別而說。其理不成。彼立見喻。極不相似。非諸煩惱諸意惡行一切皆用見為自體。何得以見總別說故。例思同彼應總別說。又設許彼作意等法皆思為性。然所立思。不同邪見。色界色處。若增上緣。若能作因。若分別慧。修三摩地。法界法處。行蘊安立。除作意等。無多思故。又此經中別說何用。謂契經言。若有所受即有所思。若有所思即有所想。若有所想即有所尋。彼宗既許尋即是思。舉尋為乘。彼上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經文中說，修習身語意的妙行和正見，斷除身語意的惡行和邪見。如果不是正見和邪見所包含的意妙行和意惡行，因為殊勝的緣故而單獨說明。那麼，（你認為）這種情況也應該一樣嗎？ 道理上不應該是這樣。因為信（śraddhā，信仰）、等（等等）也應該被『思』（manasikāra，作意）所包含，所以不應該單獨說明。難道（佛經中）沒有說過嗎？這是爲了顯示此時所產生的殊勝行為，所以才說信等等。即使知道已經說過了，但從道理上講不應該這樣，因為一種法在同一時間不可能有多種自體同時生起，就像受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，概念）等等，因為不合道理。不是像受想等一樣，一種法體類別，樂（sukha，快樂）、小（少）等分別有同時生起。因此，他們的說法不是佛法的宗旨。 而且，在各個地方，如果不提及『思』，那麼各個經文所說的內容就應該有所缺失。例如世尊說：『有學戒、無學戒、定（samādhi，禪定）、慧（prajñā，智慧）、解脫（vimukti，解脫）』。這個經文內，既然沒有提及『思』，就應該缺失其餘的作意等法。如果說聽者已經知道了這些，那麼提及慧等等也應該沒有用處。因此，他們的解釋肯定是不對的。比喻也不合理，因為被各種見解所束縛難以解脫。爲了顯示各種見解的束縛意義堅固強大，所以與煩惱總的、分別的顯示過失。 意惡行中邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）最重，爲了顯示邪見勝過貪（rāga，貪慾）嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨），理應總的、分別的說斷除對治。『思』對於信等等沒有看到殊勝的作用，為什麼這個『思』要總的、分別的說呢？因此，他們的比喻與法不齊等。就像之前反駁他們一樣，如果執著信等等以『思』為自性，『思』與信等等總的、分別的說，這個道理是不成立的。他們建立的見解的比喻，極其不相似。不是所有的煩惱、所有的意惡行都用見解作為自體。怎麼能因為以見解總的、分別的說，就類比『思』也應該總的、分別的說呢？ 又假設允許他們的作意等法都以『思』為自性，然而所建立的『思』，不同於邪見。**色處（rūpāyatana，色界）。如果增上緣，如果能作因，如果分別慧，修三摩地（samādhi，禪定），法界（dharmadhātu，法界），法處（dharmāyatana，法處），行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha，行蘊）安立，除了作意等，沒有很多『思』的緣故。又這個經中單獨說明有什麼用呢？經文說，如果有所感受，就有所思；如果有所思，就有所想；如果有所想，就有所尋。他們的宗派既然允許尋就是思，舉尋為乘，他們之上。
【English Translation】 English version: The sutra says: 'Cultivate the excellent conduct of body, speech, and mind, and right view; sever the evil conduct of body, speech, and mind, and wrong view.' If the excellent and evil conduct of mind are not encompassed by right and wrong views, they are separately explained because of their superiority. Should this also be the case here? It should not be so in principle. Because faith (śraddhā, belief), etc., should also be encompassed by 'thought' (manasikāra, attention), they should not be explained separately. Has it not already been said? This is to show the superior conduct arising at this time, so faith, etc., are mentioned. Even if it is known that it has already been said, it should not be so in principle, because it is impossible for one dharma to have multiple entities arising simultaneously, like feeling (vedanā, sensation), perception (saṃjñā, cognition), etc., because it is unreasonable. It is not like feeling, perception, etc., one dharma category, pleasure (sukha, happiness), smallness (minuteness), etc., separately arising simultaneously. Therefore, their statement is not the doctrine of Buddhism. Moreover, in various places, if 'thought' is not mentioned, then what is said in the various sutras should be lacking. For example, the World Honored One said: 'The precepts of the learner, the precepts of the non-learner, concentration (samādhi, meditation), wisdom (prajñā, wisdom), liberation (vimukti, freedom).' Within this sutra, since 'thought' is not mentioned, the remaining mental activities such as attention should be missing. If it is said that the listeners already know these, then mentioning wisdom, etc., should also be useless. Therefore, their explanation is definitely incorrect. The analogy is also unreasonable, because those who are held by various views are difficult to liberate. To show that the meaning of the bonds of various views is firm and strong, the faults are shown generally and specifically with afflictions. Among the evil conduct of mind, wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi, incorrect view) is the most serious. To show that wrong view surpasses greed (rāga, desire) and hatred (dveṣa, aversion), it is reasonable to speak of severing the antidote generally and specifically. 'Thought' has not been seen to have a superior function for faith, etc. Why should this 'thought' be spoken of generally and specifically? Therefore, their analogy is not equal to the Dharma. Just like refuting them before, if one clings to faith, etc., as being of the nature of 'thought,' then 'thought' and faith, etc., being spoken of generally and specifically, this principle is not established. Their established analogy of views is extremely dissimilar. Not all afflictions, not all evil conduct of mind, use views as their own entity. How can one analogize that 'thought' should also be spoken of generally and specifically because views are spoken of generally and specifically? Furthermore, suppose it is allowed that their mental activities such as attention are all of the nature of 'thought,' but the established 'thought' is different from wrong view. **Form-sphere (rūpāyatana, sphere of form). If it is a dominant condition, if it is a causal factor, if it is discriminating wisdom, cultivating samadhi (samādhi, meditation), the Dharma realm (dharmadhātu, realm of Dharma), the Dharma-sphere (dharmāyatana, sphere of Dharma), the establishment of the formation aggregate (saṃskāra-skandha, aggregate of formations), apart from attention, there is not much 'thought.' Moreover, what is the use of explaining it separately in this sutra? The sutra says, 'If there is feeling, then there is thought; if there is thought, then there is perception; if there is perception, then there is investigation.' Since their school allows that investigation is thought, taking investigation as a vehicle, above them.
座言。此經非乘。若不舉尋。疑思即是作意欲等。此不應疑。相有異故。彼體即思相如何異。若爾舉尋則應無用。彼執尋思其相一故。又作意等既許即思。疑思即彼。復有何過。是故彼言。都無有義。又彼所言。作意等行。不可離思。知別有者。于別有智。應正勤求。豈以無知。令作意等皆離思體無別有性。又如汝等頻言想識時依行緣相似轉故。雖不能示二相差別。而汝等宗。許其體異思作意等。應亦如是。縱汝不知體何妨異。若作意等體與思異。何故無經說為行蘊。亦說行故義已說蘊。謂說尋伺名為說行。說信欲等名為勝行。說諸命根名壽命行。非此等法體非蘊收。是有為故。如色受等。無經說彼余蘊所攝。而有經中說彼為行。豈有利根言非行蘊。又如離愛余後有因。雖說為集。不名集諦。而汝不應許非諦攝。諸因果法皆諦攝故。作意等行。亦應如是。雖說為行。不名行蘊。而汝不應許非蘊攝。一切有為蘊所攝故。世尊就勝且但說思。非作意等行蘊不攝。又彼不應作如是說。世尊無緣說於密語。離思余法行蘊所收。如前已論。理極成立。豈非是佛說密語緣。又行蘊收思外余法。理實是有。而但說思。此何密意。若無密意。便謗世尊。言不隨智。若有密意。即自成立佛密語緣故說四餘行名行蘊。理教相應義善成立。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 座言：如果認為這部經不是乘（yana，乘運之義，佛教用語，比喻佛法能運載眾生從生死此岸到達涅槃彼岸），如果不舉出尋（vitarka，粗略的觀察）和伺（vicara，細緻的觀察），那麼疑惑和思索就等同於作意（manaskara，心理活動）和欲（chanda，願望）等。這種懷疑是不應該有的，因為相（lakshana，事物所呈現的表象或特徵）是有差異的。如果對方問：『它們的本體即思（citta，心識）的相有什麼不同？』如果這樣，那麼舉出尋和伺就應該沒有用處了，因為他們認為尋和伺的相是一樣的。而且，既然已經承認作意等同於思，那麼疑惑和思索就是它們，又有什麼過錯呢？所以他們的說法完全沒有道理。 而且，他們所說的『作意等行（samskara，行蘊，心理活動）不可離開思』，如果知道有其他的行蘊，就應該努力去尋求其他的智慧。怎麼能因為沒有認知，就認為作意等都離開了思的本體，沒有其他的自性呢？又比如你們經常說想（samjna，表象認知）和識（vijnana，識別）在相似的行緣（samskara-pratyaya，行所造成的條件）下運轉，所以雖然不能展示兩種相的差別，但是你們的宗派（宗義）承認它們的本體是不同的，思和作意等也應該如此。即使你們不知道本體是什麼，又有什麼妨礙它們是不同的呢？如果作意等的本體與思不同，為什麼沒有經典說它們是行蘊所攝？也說了行，所以義理上已經說了蘊。所謂說尋和伺，就是說行；說信（sraddha，信仰）、欲等，就是說勝行（adhimoksa，殊勝的行）；說諸命根（jivitendriya，生命力），就是壽命行。這些法的本體並非蘊所攝，因為它們是有為法（samskrta-dharma，由因緣和合而成的法），就像色（rupa，物質）、受（vedana，感受）等一樣。沒有經典說它們是其餘的蘊所攝，但是在經典中說了它們是行，難道有利根（敏銳的智慧）的人會說它們不是行蘊嗎？ 又比如，離開了愛（trsna，渴愛），其餘的後有因（punarbhava-hetu，導致未來生命的原因），雖然說是集（samudaya，苦的根源），但不稱為集諦（samudaya-satya，集諦是四聖諦之一），但是你們不應該認為它們不是諦所攝，因為諸因果法（hetu-phala-dharma，原因和結果的法）都是諦所攝。作意等行也應該如此，雖然說是行，但不稱為行蘊，但是你們不應該認為它們不是蘊所攝，因為一切有為法都是蘊所攝。世尊就殊勝之處且只說了思，並非作意等行蘊不攝。 而且，他們不應該這樣說：世尊沒有因緣說密語（sandha-bhasa，隱秘的語言）。離開了思，其餘的法被行蘊所收攝，如前面已經論述的，道理極其成立。難道不是佛說密語的因緣嗎？而且，行蘊收攝思以外的其餘法，道理上確實是有的，而只說了思，這有什麼密意呢？如果沒有密意，那就是誹謗世尊，說他不隨順智慧。如果有密意，那就自己成立了佛說密語的因緣，所以說了四餘行（除了思之外的其餘行）名為行蘊，道理和教義相應，義理善於成立，就像...
【English Translation】 English version Someone says: 'This sutra is not a yana (vehicle, a Buddhist term, a metaphor for the Dharma that can carry sentient beings from the shore of birth and death to the other shore of Nirvana). If you don't bring up vitarka (coarse observation) and vicara (subtle observation), then doubt and thought are equivalent to manaskara (attention, mental activity) and chanda (desire, volition). This kind of doubt should not exist, because lakshana (characteristics, the appearance or features of things) are different.' If the other party asks: 'What is the difference between their essence, which is the characteristic of citta (mind, consciousness)?' If so, then bringing up vitarka and vicara should be useless, because they think the characteristics of vitarka and vicara are the same. Moreover, since it has been admitted that manaskara is equivalent to citta, then doubt and thought are them, so what is wrong with that? Therefore, their statement is completely unreasonable. Moreover, what they say, 'samskara (volitional formations, mental activities) such as manaskara cannot be separated from citta,' if they know there are other samskaras, they should strive to seek other wisdom. How can they think that manaskara, etc., are all separated from the essence of citta and have no other self-nature because they have no cognition? Also, for example, you often say that samjna (perception, conceptualization) and vijnana (consciousness, discrimination) operate under similar samskara-pratyaya (conditions created by volitional formations), so although you cannot show the difference between the two characteristics, your sect (doctrine) admits that their essence is different, and citta and manaskara, etc., should be the same. Even if you don't know what the essence is, what prevents them from being different? If the essence of manaskara, etc., is different from citta, why is there no sutra saying that they are included in the samskara-skandha (aggregate of volitional formations)? It also says samskara, so in terms of meaning, it has already said skandha (aggregate). The so-called saying vitarka and vicara is saying samskara; saying sraddha (faith), chanda (desire), etc., is saying adhimoksa (superior volition); saying jivitendriya (life force) is the life samskara. The essence of these dharmas is not included in the skandha, because they are samskrta-dharma (conditioned dharmas, dharmas formed by the combination of causes and conditions), just like rupa (matter), vedana (feeling), etc. No sutra says that they are included in the other skandhas, but the sutras say that they are samskaras, so would people with sharp wisdom say that they are not samskara-skandha? Also, for example, apart from trsna (craving), the remaining punarbhava-hetu (causes of future existence), although said to be samudaya (origin, the root of suffering), are not called samudaya-satya (truth of the origin of suffering, one of the Four Noble Truths), but you should not think that they are not included in the truth, because all hetu-phala-dharma (cause-and-effect dharmas) are included in the truth. Samskaras such as manaskara should also be the same. Although they are said to be samskaras, they are not called samskara-skandha, but you should not think that they are not included in the skandha, because all samskrta-dharmas are included in the skandha. The World-Honored One only spoke of citta in terms of its superiority, not that samskaras such as manaskara are not included in the samskara-skandha. Moreover, they should not say this: The World-Honored One had no reason to speak sandha-bhasa (hidden language). Apart from citta, the remaining dharmas are included in the samskara-skandha, as discussed earlier, the reasoning is extremely well-founded. Isn't this the reason why the Buddha spoke hidden language? Moreover, the fact that the samskara-skandha includes the remaining dharmas other than citta is indeed true in principle, but only citta is mentioned. What is the hidden meaning of this? If there is no hidden meaning, then it is slandering the World-Honored One, saying that he does not follow wisdom. If there is a hidden meaning, then it establishes the reason why the Buddha spoke hidden language, so saying that the four remaining samskaras (the remaining samskaras other than citta) are called samskara-skandha, the principle and doctrine are consistent, and the meaning is well-established, just like...
是行蘊。非盡有依。故唯約世總說三種。如前分別色蘊體已。便約處界二門建立。如是此中辯受想行三蘊體已。亦應建立為處及界。謂此三蘊。及無表色。三種無為。如是七法。于處門中立為法處。于界門中立為法界。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之三
已說四蘊自性處界。第五識蘊自性處界。今當顯示。頌曰。
識謂各了別 此即名意處 及七界應知 六識轉為意
論曰。識謂了別者。是唯總取境界相義。各各總取彼彼境相。名各了別。謂彼眼識雖有色等多境現前。然唯取色不取聲等。唯取青等。非謂青等。亦非可意不可意等。非男女等。非人杌等。非得失等。如彼眼識。于其自境。唯總取相。如是余識。隨應當知。有餘師說。誰於法性假說作者。為遮離識有了者計。何處復見唯於法性假說作者。現見說影為動者故。此于異處無間生時。雖無動作而說動者。識亦如是。于異境界相續生時。雖無動作而說了者。謂能了境故亦無失。云何知然。現見余處。遮作者故。如世尊告頗勒具那。我終不說有能了者。復有說言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是行蘊（Saṃskāra-skandha，五蘊之一，指心理活動）。並非所有事物都依賴於它。因此，只是根據世俗的共識，總括地說了三種（受、想、行）。如前面對色蘊（Rūpa-skandha，五蘊之一，指物質現象）的本體進行了分析，然後從處（Āyatana，感覺器官和感覺對像）和界（Dhātu，構成要素）兩個方面建立了它。同樣，在這裡對受蘊（Vedanā-skandha，五蘊之一，指感受）、想蘊（Saṃjñā-skandha，五蘊之一，指認知）和行蘊這三個蘊的本體進行辨析之後，也應該建立它們作為處和界。也就是說，這三個蘊，以及無表色（Avijñapti-rūpa，不可見的色法），三種無為法（Asaṃskṛta-dharma，未被創造的法），這七種法，在處門中被立為法處（Dharmāyatana，意識的對象），在界門中被立為法界（Dharmadhātu，法元素）。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之三
已經說了四蘊（色、受、想、行）的自性、處和界。現在將要顯示第五識蘊（Vijñāna-skandha，五蘊之一，指意識）的自性、處和界。頌曰：
識謂各了別 此即名意處 及七界應知 六識轉為意
論曰：識謂了別者，是僅僅總括地獲取境界相的意義。各自總括地獲取各個境界相，名為各了別。例如，眼識（Cakṣur-vijñāna，視覺意識）雖然有色等多種境界顯現於前，但僅僅取色，不取聲等。僅僅取青色等，不是說取青色等本身，也不是取可意或不可意等，不是取男女等，不是取人或木樁等，不是取得或失去等。如同眼識對於其自身境界，僅僅總括地取相。其餘的識，也應當根據情況瞭解。有其他論師說：誰對於法性（Dharmatā，法的本性）假說作者（Kāraka，能作者）？爲了遮止離開識而有能了者的計度。在哪裡又見到僅僅對於法性假說作者？現在見到說影子為動者。這在異處無間生起時，雖然沒有動作，卻說為動者。識也是這樣，在不同境界相續生起時，雖然沒有動作，卻說了能了者。說能了境，因此也沒有過失。如何知道是這樣呢？現在見到其他地方遮止作者的緣故。例如世尊告訴頗勒具那（Phalguṇa，人名）：我始終不說有能了者。又有人說：
【English Translation】 English version: It is the Saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of mental formations). Not everything depends on it. Therefore, only based on worldly consensus, three (feeling, perception, and mental formations) are generally spoken of. As the substance of the Rūpa-skandha (aggregate of form) has been analyzed before, it is then established from the perspectives of Āyatana (sense bases) and Dhātu (elements). Similarly, after analyzing the substance of the three aggregates of Vedanā-skandha (aggregate of feeling), Saṃjñā-skandha (aggregate of perception), and Saṃskāra-skandha here, they should also be established as Āyatana and Dhātu. That is, these three aggregates, as well as Avijñapti-rūpa (non-revealing form), and the three Asaṃskṛta-dharma (unconditioned dharmas), these seven dharmas are established as Dharmāyatana (sense base of dharma) in the Āyatana aspect, and as Dharmadhātu (element of dharma) in the Dhātu aspect.
Treatise on the Establishment of Right Reason According to the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 2 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 3
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated under Imperial Order by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter 1 on Explaining the Subject Matter, Part 3
The nature, Āyatana, and Dhātu of the four aggregates (form, feeling, perception, and mental formations) have been discussed. Now, the nature, Āyatana, and Dhātu of the fifth aggregate, Vijñāna-skandha (aggregate of consciousness), will be shown. The verse says:
Consciousness means individual discernment, this is called the mind-base, And seven elements should be known, the six consciousnesses transform into mind.
The treatise says: 'Consciousness means individual discernment' refers to the meaning of merely comprehensively grasping the characteristics of the object. Individually and comprehensively grasping the characteristics of each object is called individual discernment. For example, although various objects such as form appear before the eye-consciousness (Cakṣur-vijñāna), it only grasps form and not sound, etc. It only grasps blue, etc., not saying that it grasps blue, etc., themselves, nor does it grasp pleasant or unpleasant, etc., nor does it grasp male or female, etc., nor does it grasp human or stump, etc., nor does it grasp gain or loss, etc. Just as the eye-consciousness only comprehensively grasps the characteristics of its own object, the other consciousnesses should be understood accordingly. Some other teachers say: Who falsely posits an agent (Kāraka) for Dharmatā (the nature of dharma)? It is to prevent the assumption that there is a knower apart from consciousness. Where is it seen that an agent is falsely posited for Dharmatā? It is now seen that the shadow is said to be moving. This, when arising without interval in a different place, although there is no movement, is said to be moving. Consciousness is also like this, when arising continuously in different realms, although there is no action, it is said to be the knower. Saying that it knows the realm, therefore there is no fault. How is it known to be so? It is now seen that the agent is prevented in other places. For example, the World-Honored One told Phalguṇa: 'I never say that there is a knower.' Also, some say:
剎那名法性。相續名作者。自意所立。思緣起中。當更顯示。此識約世總說為三。就所依根別分為六。應知即此所說識蘊。于處門中立為意處。于界門中立為七界。及聲顯一析為二門。辯一一識體分處界。七界者何。六識及意。謂眼識界至意識界。即此六識轉為意界。此別建立蘊處界門。應知遍攝諸法皆盡。此中應思。若即識蘊名七心界。前說識蘊。就所依根別分為六。今離六識。說何等法。複名意界。更無異法即於此中。頌曰。
由即六識身 無間滅為意
論曰。即六識身無間滅已。能生后識。故名意界。時分異故別立無失。猶如子果立為父種。若爾界體。應唯十七或唯十二。更相攝故。何緣建立十八界耶。頌曰。
成第六依故 十八界應知
論曰。如五識界。別有眼等五界為依。第六意識無別所依。如離所緣識無起義。離依亦爾。識不得生。為成此依故說意界。如是所依能依境界。應知各六。界成十八。如何已滅名現識依。是現識生鄰近緣故。如雖有色而要依眼眼識得生。如是雖有所緣境界。而後識生。要依前念無間滅意。是故前言無間滅者。為遮前念有間滅心。雖先聞避而未生故。由此無間。已滅六識。為現識依。說為意界。或現在識正成依用。過去已成等無間緣。亦于現在能取果故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 剎那生滅的稱為法性（Dharmata，事物本性）。相續不斷的稱為作者（Kartar，行為者）。這是根據自己的理解所建立的。關於思緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda，緣起）的道理，將在後面更詳細地闡述。這個識（Vijñāna，意識）從世俗的角度總的來說可以分為三種。根據所依賴的根（Indriya，感官）的不同，又可以分為六種。應當知道，這裡所說的識蘊（Vijñānaskandha，識蘊），在處（Āyatana，處）的分類中被立為意處（Manāyatana，意處），在界（Dhātu，界）的分類中被立為七界（Sapta-dhātu，七界）。以及將聲音（Śabda，聲音）的顯現分析為兩個門（Dvāra，門）。辨別每一個識的體性，分屬於不同的處和界。七界是什麼呢？就是六識（Ṣaṭ-vijñāna，六識）和意（Manas，意）。也就是眼識界（Cakṣur-vijñāna-dhātu，眼識界）到意識界（Mano-vijñāna-dhātu，意識界）。這六識轉變成為意界（Mano-dhātu，意界）。這種特別建立蘊（Skandha，蘊）、處、界的方法，應當知道，它遍攝一切法，沒有遺漏。這裡應當思考，如果說識蘊就是七心界（Sapta-citta-dhātu，七心界），那麼前面說識蘊根據所依賴的根的不同分為六種，現在離開六識，又說是什麼法，可以稱為意界呢？難道還有其他的法嗎？實際上沒有其他的法，就在這裡面。 頌曰： 由即六識身 無間滅為意 論曰：六識身（Ṣaṭ-vijñāna-kāya，六識身）無間斷滅之後，能夠產生後來的識，所以稱為意界。因為時間不同，所以特別建立意界並沒有過失。就像種子和果實可以被立為父子關係一樣。如果這樣，那麼界的體性，應該只有十七界或者只有十二界，因為它們互相包含。為什麼還要建立十八界（Aṣṭādaśa-dhātu，十八界）呢？ 頌曰： 成第六依故 十八界應知 論曰：就像五識界（Pañca-vijñāna-dhātu，五識界），分別有眼（Cakṣus，眼）等五界作為所依（Āśraya，所依）。第六意識（ ষষ্ঠ vijñāna，第六意識）沒有其他的所依。就像離開所緣（Ālambana，所緣）識就不能生起一樣，離開所依也是如此，識不能產生。爲了成就這個所依，所以說意界。像這樣，所依、能依（Āśraya，能依）、境界（Viṣaya，境界），應當知道各有六種，界就成就了十八種。如何說已經滅去的（Niruddha，滅去的）是現在識（Pratyutpanna-vijñāna，現在識）的所依呢？因為它是現在識生起的鄰近的緣（Pratyaya，緣）。就像雖然有色（Rūpa，色），但是一定要依靠眼（Cakṣus，眼），眼識（Cakṣur-vijñāna，眼識）才能生起。像這樣，雖然有所緣境界，而後來的識生起，一定要依靠前一念無間斷滅的意（Manas，意）。所以前面說『無間滅』，是爲了遮止前一念有間隔斷滅的心（Citta，心）。雖然先前聽聞躲避，但是（眼識）還沒有生起。因此，無間斷滅的六識，作為現在識的所依，被說為意界。或者說，現在的識正在成就所依的作用，過去已經成就等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，等無間緣），也能在現在產生結果。
【English Translation】 English version That which is momentary is called Dharmata (the nature of phenomena). That which is continuous is called Kartar (the agent). This is established according to one's own understanding. The principle of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) will be explained in more detail later. This Vijñāna (consciousness) can be broadly divided into three types from a worldly perspective. According to the different Indriya (sense faculties) it relies on, it can also be divided into six types. It should be known that the Vijñānaskandha (aggregate of consciousness) mentioned here is established as Manāyatana (the sense-sphere of mind) in the classification of Āyatana (sense-spheres), and as Sapta-dhātu (seven elements) in the classification of Dhātu (elements). And analyzing the manifestation of Śabda (sound) into two Dvāra (gates). Discriminating the nature of each consciousness, belonging to different Āyatana and Dhātu. What are the seven elements? They are the six Vijñāna (consciousnesses) and Manas (mind). That is, from Cakṣur-vijñāna-dhātu (the element of eye-consciousness) to Mano-vijñāna-dhātu (the element of mind-consciousness). These six consciousnesses transform into Mano-dhātu (the element of mind). This special establishment of Skandha (aggregates), Āyatana, and Dhātu, it should be known, encompasses all Dharmas (phenomena) without omission. Here, it should be considered, if the Vijñānaskandha is the Sapta-citta-dhātu (seven mind elements), then earlier it was said that the Vijñānaskandha is divided into six types according to the different faculties it relies on. Now, apart from the six consciousnesses, what Dharma (phenomenon) is said to be called the Mano-dhātu (mind element)? Is there any other Dharma? Actually, there is no other Dharma, it is within this. Verse: Because the six consciousnesses, without interruption, cease to be the mind. Treatise: After the Ṣaṭ-vijñāna-kāya (body of six consciousnesses) ceases without interruption, it can generate subsequent consciousness, so it is called the Mano-dhātu (mind element). Because the time is different, there is no fault in specially establishing the Mano-dhātu. Just like the seed and the fruit can be established as father and son. If so, then the nature of the elements should only be seventeen or only twelve, because they contain each other. Why establish eighteen Dhātu (elements)? Verse: To complete the sixth basis, the eighteen elements should be known. Treatise: Just like the Pañca-vijñāna-dhātu (five consciousness elements), there are five elements such as Cakṣus (eye) as Āśraya (basis). The sixth consciousness (sixth vijñāna) has no other basis. Just as consciousness cannot arise without Ālambana (object), so too, consciousness cannot arise without a basis. To accomplish this basis, the Mano-dhātu (mind element) is spoken of. Like this, the Āśraya (basis), the Āśraya (support), and the Viṣaya (object), it should be known that each has six types, and the elements are accomplished as eighteen. How can it be said that what has ceased (Niruddha) is the basis of the Pratyutpanna-vijñāna (present consciousness)? Because it is the proximate Pratyaya (condition) for the arising of present consciousness. Just as although there is Rūpa (form), it must rely on the Cakṣus (eye) for Cakṣur-vijñāna (eye-consciousness) to arise. Like this, although there is an object, the subsequent consciousness must rely on the immediately preceding Manas (mind) that has ceased without interruption. Therefore, the previous statement 'without interruption' is to prevent the mind (Citta) of the previous moment from ceasing with interruption. Although one may have heard and avoided beforehand, (eye-consciousness) has not yet arisen. Therefore, the six consciousnesses that have ceased without interruption, as the basis of present consciousness, are said to be the Mano-dhātu (mind element). Or, the present consciousness is currently accomplishing the function of the basis, and the past has already accomplished the Samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition), and can also produce results in the present.
。雖依彼生。而非隨彼。故心依心。不名心所。心所品類。必隨心故。已釋諸蘊取蘊處界。當於此中思擇攝義。諸蘊總攝一切有為。取蘊唯攝一切有漏。處界總攝一切法盡。五蘊無為名一切法。別攝如是。應辯總攝。頌曰。
總攝一切法 由一蘊處界 攝自性非余 以離他性故
論曰。一蘊謂色。一處謂意。一界謂法。此三總攝五蘊無為。總是集義。置總言者。令知總三。勿謂各一。有餘部執。攝謂攝他。處處說言。余攝余故。且如說三蘊攝八支聖道。若攝自性。慧蘊唯應攝於正見。非正思惟及正精進。定蘊唯應攝於正定。不攝正念。既契經中不如是說。故知諸法唯攝他性。此執不然。無定因故。若攝他性。何因決。定慧蘊唯能攝正思惟及正精進。不攝正念及與正定。或所餘法。若言此攝。亦有定因。謂正思惟及正精進。其性猛銳相涉般若念定等法。慧相相違。念涉定相。非思惟等。若爾便成唯攝自性。由不許攝異相法故。諸法相望。無非異相。若片相似許相攝者。應許一切攝一切法。豈不如與他性相應。而非一切一切相應。如是應許他性相攝。而非一切一切相攝。此不應例。夫相應者。唯有緣法。異體相望。共一緣轉時依行相品類等同。此說相應。故非一切。其相攝者。通一切法。有何定因。此唯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使心識依賴於其他心識而生起，它也不是跟隨那個心識的，所以心依心，不稱為『心所』（Cittasikha，與心相關的精神因素）。心所的品類，必定跟隨心識。前面已經解釋了諸蘊（Skandha，五蘊，構成經驗世界的要素）、取蘊（Upadanaskandha，執取之蘊）、處（Ayatana，內處和外處，感官和對像）和界（Dhatu，十八界，感官、對像和意識）。現在應當在此之中思考它們所包含的意義。諸蘊總括了一切有為法（Samskrta，因緣和合而成的法），取蘊只包括一切有漏法（Sasrava，有煩惱的法），處和界總括了一切法。五蘊和無為法（Asamskrta，非因緣和合的法）被稱為一切法。分別地包含如上所述，現在應該辨析總括的含義。
頌曰： 總攝一切法，由一蘊處界； 攝自性非余，以離他性故。
論曰：一個蘊是指色蘊（Rupaskandha，物質的蘊），一個處是指意處（Manayatana，意識的感官），一個界是指法界（Dharmadhatu，法的界）。這三者總括了五蘊和無為法。『總』是聚集的意思。加上『總』字，是爲了讓人知道是總括這三者，不要認為是各自一個。有些有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）認為，『攝』是指包含其他的。因為經文中處處說『余攝余』（一個要素包含另一個要素）。例如，經中說三蘊包含八支聖道（Aryastangamarga，達到涅槃的八個步驟）。如果說是包含自性，那麼慧蘊（Prajnaskandha，智慧的蘊）就只應該包含正見（Samyagdrsti，正確的見解），而不應該包含正思惟（Samyaksamkalpa，正確的思考）和正精進（Samyagvyayama，正確的努力）。定蘊（Samadhiskandha，禪定的蘊）就只應該包含正定（Samyaksamadhi，正確的禪定），而不包含正念（Samyaksmrti，正確的念頭）。既然契經中不是這樣說的，所以就知道諸法只是包含他性。這種觀點是不對的，因為沒有確定的原因。如果說是包含他性，那麼根據什麼來決定慧蘊只能包含正思惟和正精進，而不包含正念和正定，或者其他的法？如果說這種包含也是有確定的原因的，那就是因為正思惟和正精進，它們的性質猛銳，與般若（Prajna，智慧）、念、定等法相互關聯，而慧相（Prajnalaksana，智慧的特徵）與念定等法相反，念涉入定相，而不是思惟等。如果這樣，就變成了只包含自性，因為不允許包含不同相的法。諸法相互觀望，沒有不是不同相的。如果片面相似就允許相互包含，那麼就應該允許一切法包含一切法。難道不像與他性相應，而不是一切與一切相應嗎？這樣就應該允許他性相互包含，而不是一切與一切相互包含。這不應該類比。所謂相應，只是有緣法（Hetuphala，因果關係）。不同實體的法相互觀望，共同在一個緣起中運轉，在運轉時，它們的依、行相、品類等相同，這叫做相應，所以不是一切。而相攝，則通於一切法，有什麼確定的原因呢？這只是……
【English Translation】 English version: Although a consciousness arises dependent on another, it does not follow that other. Therefore, mind depending on mind is not called a 『Cittasikha』 (mental factors associated with the mind). The categories of mental factors must follow the mind. The Skandhas (aggregates, the elements constituting the world of experience), Upadanaskandhas (aggregates of clinging), Ayatanas (sense bases, internal and external) and Dhatus (elements, eighteen realms) have already been explained. Now, one should contemplate within this the meaning of their inclusion. The Skandhas encompass all conditioned phenomena (Samskrta, phenomena arising from causes and conditions), the Upadanaskandhas only include all defiled phenomena (Sasrava, phenomena with afflictions), and the Ayatanas and Dhatus encompass all phenomena. The five Skandhas and unconditioned phenomena (Asamskrta, phenomena not arising from causes and conditions) are called all phenomena. Inclusion is as described above, now the meaning of encompassing should be discerned.
Verse: All phenomena are encompassed by one Skandha, Ayatana, and Dhatu; Including its own nature and not others, because it is separate from other natures.
Treatise: One Skandha refers to the Rupaskandha (aggregate of form, the material aggregate), one Ayatana refers to the Manayatana (sense base of mind, the sense organ of consciousness), and one Dhatu refers to the Dharmadhatu (element of dharma, the realm of phenomena). These three encompass the five Skandhas and unconditioned phenomena. 『Encompassing』 means gathering together. Adding the word 『encompassing』 is to let people know that it encompasses these three, and not to think that each is one. Some Sarvastivadins (the 'All Exists' school) believe that 『including』 means including others. Because the sutras say everywhere that 『one includes another』 (one element includes another element). For example, the sutras say that three Skandhas include the Eightfold Noble Path (Aryastangamarga, the eight steps to reach Nirvana). If it is said to include its own nature, then the Prajnaskandha (aggregate of wisdom, the wisdom aggregate) should only include Samyagdrsti (right view, correct understanding), and should not include Samyaksamkalpa (right thought, correct thought) and Samyagvyayama (right effort, correct effort). The Samadhiskandha (aggregate of concentration, the concentration aggregate) should only include Samyaksamadhi (right concentration, correct concentration), and should not include Samyaksmrti (right mindfulness, correct mindfulness). Since the sutras do not say it this way, it is known that phenomena only include other natures. This view is incorrect, because there is no definite reason. If it is said to include other natures, then according to what is it determined that the Prajnaskandha can only include Samyaksamkalpa and Samyagvyayama, and not include Samyaksmrti and Samyaksamadhi, or other phenomena? If it is said that this inclusion also has a definite reason, it is because Samyaksamkalpa and Samyagvyayama, their natures are sharp and they are related to Prajna (wisdom), mindfulness, concentration, and other phenomena, while Prajnalaksana (the characteristic of wisdom) is contrary to mindfulness, concentration, and other phenomena, and mindfulness involves the aspect of concentration, and not thought, etc. If so, it becomes only including its own nature, because it is not allowed to include phenomena of different aspects. Phenomena look at each other, and there is none that is not of a different aspect. If partial similarity is allowed to include each other, then it should be allowed that all phenomena include all phenomena. Is it not like being associated with other natures, but not everything being associated with everything? In this way, it should be allowed that other natures include each other, but not everything including everything. This should not be analogized. So-called association is only with causal phenomena (Hetuphala, cause and effect relationship). Different entities look at each other, and together they operate in one arising, and when operating, their support, aspects, categories, etc. are the same, this is called association, so it is not everything. But inclusion is common to all phenomena, what definite reason is there? This is only...
攝彼不攝余法。故應一切攝一切法。以諸色法及不相應。展轉相望。無一緣等互相似義。可不相應。相攝不爾若攝他性。何故眼等不攝耳等。得等展轉相望亦然。若爾何緣經說如是。此中相順假說為攝。謂正思惟及正精進。俱是慧品。順正見故。念是定品。順正定故。假說名攝若爾彼彼契經中言。信等五根慧根所攝。我以四攝攝諸徒眾。臺觀中心攝眾材等。世間亦說。雙栝攝扉。輪輞攝輻。縷攝衣等。其義云何。如是一切。假意趣說。謂依方便招引不散任持意趣。假說為攝。諸所引證攝他性言。是暫時說。待他成故。攝待因成義同不攝。又若許法定攝他性。一法生位應一切生。一法滅時應一切滅。是則非愛過失便增。一部斷時五部應斷。修勝對治。便為無用。見如是等眾過失故。我部諸師。說自性攝。如是所立攝自性言。是究竟說。不待他故攝不待因。是真實攝。諸法恒時。攝自性故。復云何知。不攝他性。以一切法離他性故。謂眼根性離耳等性。彼離於此而言此攝。理必不然。故知諸法唯攝自性。如是眼根唯攝色蘊。眼處眼界苦集諦等。是彼性故。不攝余蘊。余處界等離彼性故。如是余法隨應當思。因自性攝。此義應思。男女二根。何界所攝。何緣於此。率爾生疑。異部中言。非身根故。身界不攝。故可生疑。應舍
此疑。定身界攝與身用別。界云何同類境識同。故一界攝。言類同者。男女二根同身類故。由境同故。知彼類同。男女與身。同觸為境。眼鼻喉中觸咽便覺。余處不爾。豈異身根。此三境同。由識同顯。一切皆是身識依故。增上義異。故立別根。謂男女與身類境識同故。雖同處界。而增上義。有差別故。別立二根。如十一根。雖同處界。增上義異。各別立根。眼耳鼻根各依二處。何緣界體數不成多。合二為一故唯十八。何緣合二為一界耶。頌曰。
類境識同故 雖二界體一
論曰。眼耳鼻根。雖各二處。類等同故。合為一界。言類同者。同眼性故。言境同者。同色境故。言識同者。眼識依故。耳鼻亦然。故立一界。界體既一。處何緣二。頌曰。
然為令端嚴 眼等各生二
論曰。為所依身相端嚴故。界體雖一而兩處生。若眼耳根處唯生一。鼻無二穴。身不端嚴。此釋不然。駝貓鴟等。如是醜陋。何有端嚴。是故諸根各別種類。如是安布差別而生。此待因緣。如是差別因緣有障。或不二生。猶如身根頭項腹背手足等處。安布差別種類如是。不應疑難。亦待因緣。如是差別因緣有障。或別異生。故是蛇等。身支有𨵗。又見彼類。舌非一生。是故諸根安布差別。待因緣起。非為嚴身。若爾何故。說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此為疑問。『定身界』（Niyatakaya-dhatu，決定身界）包含于『身』的作用，還是與『身』的作用不同？如果屬於同一『界』（dhatu，界），為何『類』（jati，種類）、『境』（visaya，所緣）和『識』（vijnana，認知）相同？因此，它們屬於同一『界』。如果說『類』相同，那麼男女二根與『身』屬於同一『身』的種類。由於『境』相同，可知它們屬於同一『類』。男女二根與『身』，以『觸』（sprsta，接觸）為『境』。在眼、鼻、喉中接觸咽部便能覺察，其他地方則不然，難道是不同的『身根』（kaya-indriya，身根）嗎？這三者的『境』相同。由於『識』的顯現相同，一切都是『身識』（kaya-vijnana，身識）所依。『增上』（adhipati，主導）的意義不同，所以設立不同的『根』（indriya，根）。也就是說，男女二根與『身』，『類』、『境』、『識』相同，雖然在同一『處界』（ayatana-dhatu，處界），但『增上』的意義有差別，所以分別設立二根，如同十一根，雖然在同一『處界』，『增上』的意義不同，各自設立為『根』。眼、耳、鼻根各自依於二處，為何『界』的『體』（svabhava，自性）的數量沒有變成更多？因為合併二者為一，所以只有十八界。為何合併二者為一『界』呢？頌曰： 『類』、『境』、『識』相同故，雖然是二，『界』的『體』是一。 論曰：眼、耳、鼻根，雖然各自在二處，但『類』等相同，所以合為一『界』。『類』相同，是指同爲『眼性』（caksu-svabhava，眼之自性）。『境』相同，是指同爲『色境』（rupa-visaya，色之所緣）。『識』相同，是指『眼識』（caksu-vijnana，眼識）所依。耳、鼻也是如此，所以設立一『界』。『界』的『體』既然是一，為何『處』有二？頌曰： 然而爲了使端嚴，眼等各自生二。 論曰：爲了使所依之『身』（kaya，身體）的相貌端正莊嚴，『界』的『體』雖然是一，卻在兩處產生。如果眼、耳根只生一處，鼻子沒有兩個孔，『身』就不端正莊嚴。這種解釋不對。駝、貓、鴟等，如此醜陋，哪裡有端正莊嚴？所以諸根各有不同的種類，如此安布差別而生。這取決於因緣。如此差別因緣有障礙，或者不生二處，猶如『身根』在頭、項、腹、背、手、足等處，安布差別種類如此。不應懷疑責難，也取決於因緣。如此差別因緣有障礙，或者有別異的產生，所以蛇等，身體的肢體有殘缺。又見它們的種類，舌頭並非一生就有的。所以諸根的安布差別，取決於因緣而生，不是爲了莊嚴身體。如果這樣，為何說……
【English Translation】 English version: This is a question. Does the 'Niyatakaya-dhatu' (Determined Body Element) include the function of 'body' or is it different from the function of 'body'? If it belongs to the same 'dhatu' (element), why are 'jati' (species), 'visaya' (object), and 'vijnana' (cognition) the same? Therefore, they belong to the same 'dhatu'. If it is said that 'jati' is the same, then the male and female roots belong to the same 'body' species as the 'body'. Because 'visaya' is the same, it is known that they belong to the same 'jati'. The male and female roots and the 'body' take 'sprsta' (touch) as their 'visaya'. In the eyes, nose, and throat, one can perceive when the pharynx is touched, but not in other places. Are they different 'kaya-indriya' (body-organs)? The 'visaya' of these three is the same. Because the manifestation of 'vijnana' is the same, everything is dependent on 'kaya-vijnana' (body-consciousness). The meaning of 'adhipati' (dominance) is different, so different 'indriya' (organs) are established. That is to say, the male and female roots and the 'body' have the same 'jati', 'visaya', and 'vijnana'. Although they are in the same 'ayatana-dhatu' (sphere-element), the meaning of 'adhipati' is different, so two organs are established separately, just like the eleven organs, although they are in the same 'ayatana-dhatu', the meaning of 'adhipati' is different, and each is established as an 'organ'. The eye, ear, and nose organs each rely on two places. Why doesn't the number of 'svabhava' (nature) of the 'dhatu' become more? Because the two are combined into one, there are only eighteen dhatus. Why are the two combined into one 'dhatu'? The verse says: Because 'jati', 'visaya', and 'vijnana' are the same, although there are two, the 'svabhava' of the 'dhatu' is one. The treatise says: Although the eye, ear, and nose organs are each in two places, they are the same in 'jati', etc., so they are combined into one 'dhatu'. 'Jati' is the same, meaning they have the same 'caksu-svabhava' (eye-nature). 'Visaya' is the same, meaning they have the same 'rupa-visaya' (form-object). 'Vijnana' is the same, meaning they are dependent on 'caksu-vijnana' (eye-consciousness). The same is true for the ears and nose, so one 'dhatu' is established. Since the 'svabhava' of the 'dhatu' is one, why are there two 'places' (ayatana)? The verse says: However, in order to make it dignified, the eyes, etc., each produce two. The treatise says: In order to make the appearance of the 'kaya' (body) on which it depends upright and dignified, although the 'svabhava' of the 'dhatu' is one, it is produced in two places. If the eye and ear organs only produce one place, and the nose does not have two holes, the 'body' will not be upright and dignified. This explanation is not correct. Camels, cats, owls, etc., are so ugly, where is there upright dignity? Therefore, the organs each have different species, and are arranged and produced differently. This depends on conditions. Such different conditions have obstacles, or do not produce two places, just like the 'body-organ' in the head, neck, abdomen, back, hands, feet, etc., the arrangement and species are like this. There should be no doubt or blame, it also depends on conditions. Such different conditions have obstacles, or there are different productions, so snakes, etc., have incomplete limbs. Also see their species, the tongue is not born at once. Therefore, the arrangement and difference of the organs depend on conditions for their birth, not for the sake of adorning the body. If so, why say...
眼等根為令端嚴各生二處。此有別義。非為嚴身。現見世間。于諸作用增上圓滿。亦說端嚴。若眼等根各𨵗一處。見聞嗅用皆不明瞭。各具二者明瞭用生。是故此言為端嚴者。正是為令用增上義。已釋諸蘊及處界攝。當釋其義。于所知境。蘊攝有為。處界亦攝諸無為法。何故如是。所知境中或說名蘊。或名處界。由蘊處界三義別故。別義者何。頌曰。
聚生門種族 是蘊處界義
論曰。積聚義是蘊義。生門義是處義。種族義是界義。何等故知聚義是蘊。由經說故。如契經言。諸所有色。若過去若未來若現在。若內若外。若粗若細。若劣若勝。若遠若近。如是一切略為一聚。說名色蘊。此經中顯聚義是蘊。何緣故知門義是處。由訓詞故。處謂生門。心心所法于中生長。故名為處。是能生長彼作用義。如契經說。梵志當知。以眼為門。唯為見色。此經唯證門義有六。然心心所有十二門。故契經說。眼及色為緣生於眼識。三和合觸俱起受想思。如是乃至。意及法為緣生於意識。三和合觸俱起受想思。有餘師說。由此依此心等生長。故名為處。何緣故知族義是界。與世種族義相似故。如一山中有諸雄黃雌黃赤土安膳那等眾多種族。說名多界。如是一身。或一相續。有十八類諸法種族。名十八界。如彼山中有雄黃等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眼等根（感官）爲了使其端正莊嚴，各自在兩處產生。這其中有特別的意義，並非爲了裝飾身體。現在世間所見，在各種作用上增進圓滿，也稱為端嚴。如果眼等根各自只有一個，那麼見、聞、嗅等作用都不明瞭。各自具備兩個，才能明瞭地產生作用。因此，這裡所說的『端嚴』，正是爲了使作用增上的意義。 已經解釋了諸蘊（五蘊）、處（十二處）、界（十八界）的攝屬關係，現在應當解釋它們的意義。對於所知之境，蘊攝取有為法（因緣和合而成的法），處和界也攝取諸無為法（不依賴因緣而存在的法）。為什麼會這樣呢？在所知之境中，有時稱為蘊，有時稱為處或界，這是由於蘊、處、界三種意義不同。 不同的意義是什麼呢？頌曰： 『聚生門種族，是蘊處界義。』 論曰：積聚的意義是蘊的意義，生門的意義是處的意義，種族的意義是界的意義。根據什麼知道積聚的意義是蘊呢？因為經典是這樣說的。如契經所說：『所有色（物質），無論是過去、未來、現在，無論是內在、外在，無論是粗糙、細微，無論是低劣、殊勝，無論是遙遠、鄰近，所有這些都概括為一個積聚，稱為色蘊。』這部經中顯示了積聚的意義是蘊。 根據什麼知道生門的意義是處呢？因為訓詞是這樣解釋的。處，就是生門，心和心所法（心理活動）從中生長，所以稱為處。這是能夠生長那些作用的意義。如契經所說：『梵志（婆羅門），應當知道，以眼為門，僅僅是爲了看見顏色。』這部經只證明了門的意義有六個。然而，心和心所法有十二個門。所以契經說：『眼和色為緣，產生眼識（視覺意識），三者和合產生觸（感覺），同時產生受（感受）、想（概念）、思（思維）。』像這樣，乃至意（意識）和法（事物）為緣，產生意識（思維意識），三者和合產生觸，同時產生受、想、思。 有其他論師說，由於依靠這些，心等生長，所以稱為處。根據什麼知道種族的意義是界呢？因為它與世間的種族意義相似。例如，一座山中有雄黃、雌黃、赤土、安膳那（一種礦物）等各種種族，稱為多界。像這樣，一個身體，或者一個相續（生命流），有十八類諸法種族，稱為十八界。就像那座山中有雄黃等一樣。
【English Translation】 English version The roots such as the eye (sense organs) each arise in two places in order to be dignified and proper. There is a special meaning in this, it is not for decorating the body. It is now seen in the world that increasing perfection in various functions is also called dignified. If the roots such as the eye each have only one, then the functions of seeing, hearing, and smelling will not be clear. Having two each allows clear function to arise. Therefore, the 'dignified' mentioned here is precisely for the meaning of increasing function. Having already explained the inclusion of the Skandhas (Five Aggregates), Āyatanas (Twelve Sense Fields), and Dhātus (Eighteen Elements), we should now explain their meanings. Regarding the objects of knowledge, the Skandhas include conditioned dharmas (phenomena arising from causes and conditions), while the Āyatanas and Dhātus also include unconditioned dharmas (phenomena not dependent on causes and conditions). Why is this so? Among the objects of knowledge, sometimes they are called Skandhas, and sometimes they are called Āyatanas or Dhātus, because the three meanings of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus are different. What are the different meanings? The verse says: 'Aggregation, birth gate, and lineage, are the meanings of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus.' The treatise says: The meaning of aggregation is the meaning of Skandhas, the meaning of birth gate is the meaning of Āyatanas, and the meaning of lineage is the meaning of Dhātus. How do we know that the meaning of aggregation is Skandhas? Because the scriptures say so. As the sutra says: 'All form (matter), whether past, future, or present, whether internal or external, whether coarse or fine, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, all of these are summarized into one aggregation, called the Form Skandha.' This sutra shows that the meaning of aggregation is Skandha. How do we know that the meaning of birth gate is Āyatana? Because the definition explains it this way. Āyatana is the birth gate, from which mental activities (citta) and mental factors (cetasika) grow, so it is called Āyatana. This is the meaning of being able to grow those functions. As the sutra says: 'Brahmin, you should know that the eye is the gate, only for seeing colors.' This sutra only proves that there are six gates. However, there are twelve gates for mental activities and mental factors. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The eye and color are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness (visual consciousness), the combination of the three produces contact (sensation), and simultaneously arises feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), and volition (cetanā).' Like this, up to the mind (manas) and dharma (phenomena) being the conditions for the arising of mind consciousness (mental consciousness), the combination of the three produces contact, and simultaneously arises feeling, perception, and volition. Some other teachers say that because mental activities and so on grow by relying on these, they are called Āyatanas. How do we know that the meaning of lineage is Dhātu? Because it is similar to the meaning of lineage in the world. For example, a mountain contains various lineages such as realgar, orpiment, red earth, and anjana (a mineral), which are called multiple Dhātus. Like this, one body, or one continuum (life stream), has eighteen kinds of dharma lineages, called the Eighteen Dhātus. Just like the mountain contains realgar and so on.
生本諸礦。名為種族。如是此中有心心所生本諸法。說為種族。若爾處界義應相濫。俱心心所生本義故。由此別應釋種族義。如雄黃等展轉相望體類不同。故名種族。如是眼等。展轉相望。體類不同。故名種族。若爾意界望於六識。無別體類應非別界。此難不然。所依能依體類別故。有說。安立時分異故。復有說者。六是意先。意非六先。故甚有異。雖諸界體並通三世。然就位別安立異名。由此故言六先意后。未來意六。時位未分。如何可言六先意后。若以聚義釋蘊義者。蘊則非實。聚是假故。此難不然。于聚所依。立義言故非聚即義。義是實物名之差別。聚非實故。此釋顯經有大義趣。謂如言聚。離聚所依。無別實有聚體可得。如是言我色等蘊外。不應別求實有我體。蘊相續中假說我故。如世間聚。我非實有。蘊若實有。經顯何義。勿所化生知色等法。三時品類無量差別。各是蘊故。蘊則無邊便生怯退。謂我何能遍知永斷此無邊蘊。為策勵彼。蘊雖無邊。而相同故。總說為一。又諸愚夫。于多蘊上生一合想。現起我執。為令彼除一合想故。說一蘊中有眾多分。不為顯示色等五蘊多法合成是假非實。又一極微三世等攝。以慧分析略為一聚。蘊雖即聚。而實義成。余法亦然。故蘊非假。又於一一別起法中。亦說蘊故。蘊
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生本諸礦，名為種族（gotra，種族）。如同這樣，此中有心和心所（citta-caitta，心和心理活動）生起的根本諸法，被稱為種族。如果這樣，處（āyatana，感覺器官和對像）和界（dhātu，元素）的意義應該混淆了，因為它們都是心和心所生起的根本之義。因此，應該另外解釋種族的意義。比如雄黃等相互比較，其體性和種類不同，所以名為種族。如同眼等相互比較，其體性和種類不同，所以名為種族。如果這樣，意界（manodhātu，意識界）相對於六識（ṣaḍ-vijñāna-kāyāḥ，六種意識），沒有不同的體性和種類，應該不是單獨的界。這個難點不成立，因為所依（āśraya，依靠）和能依（āśrita，被依靠）的體性種類不同。有人說，是因為安立（sthāpana，建立）的時間不同。還有人說，六識在意界之前，意界不在六識之前，所以有很大的不同。雖然諸界的體性都通於三世（tryadhva，過去、現在、未來），但就位置差別而安立不同的名稱。因此才說六識先於意界之後。未來的意界和六識，時間位置沒有區分，怎麼能說六識先於意界之後呢？如果用聚集的意義來解釋蘊（skandha，五蘊）的意義，那麼蘊就不是真實的，因為聚集是虛假的。這個難點不成立，因為在聚集所依之上，建立意義之言，不是聚集就是意義。意義是真實事物的名稱差別，聚集不是真實的。這個解釋顯示了經文有很大的意義旨趣，就是說，比如言說聚集，離開聚集所依，沒有另外真實存在的聚集體可以得到。如同這樣，言說我，在色等蘊之外，不應該另外尋求真實存在的我體。在蘊的相續中假說為我。如同世間的聚集，我不是真實存在的。如果蘊是真實存在的，經文顯示什麼意義呢？不要讓所化眾生知道色等法，三世的品類有無量差別，各自是蘊，蘊就無邊無際，便產生怯退，認為我怎麼能普遍知曉並永遠斷除這無邊無際的蘊呢？爲了策勵他們，蘊雖然無邊無際，但相同，所以總說為一。又，那些愚夫，在多個蘊上產生一個整體的想法，現在生起我執。爲了讓他們去除一個整體的想法，說一個蘊中有眾多部分，不是爲了顯示色等五蘊是多種法合成的，是虛假的，不是真實的。又，一個極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）被三世等所攝，用智慧分析略為一聚。蘊雖然就是聚集，但真實意義成立。其餘的法也是這樣。所以蘊不是虛假的。又，在每一個個別生起的法中，也說蘊。 蘊
【English Translation】 English version They originate from elements, and are called gotra (種族, lineage, species). Likewise, in this, the dharmas that originate from mind and mental factors (citta-caitta, 心心所) are referred to as gotra. If so, the meanings of āyatana (處, sense bases) and dhātu (界, elements) should be confused, because both refer to the fundamental meaning of arising from mind and mental factors. Therefore, the meaning of gotra should be explained differently. For example, realgar and other substances differ in nature and kind when compared to each other, hence they are called gotra. Similarly, the eye and other sense organs differ in nature and kind when compared to each other, hence they are called gotra. If so, the manodhātu (意界, mind element) in relation to the six vijñāna-kāyāḥ (六識, six consciousnesses) has no different nature or kind, and should not be a separate element. This objection is not valid, because the nature and kind of the āśraya (所依, support) and āśrita (能依, supported) are different. Some say it is because the sthāpana (安立, establishment) of time is different. Others say that the six consciousnesses precede the mind element, and the mind element does not precede the six consciousnesses, so there is a great difference. Although the nature of all elements pervades the three times (tryadhva, 三世: past, present, and future), different names are established based on the difference in position. Therefore, it is said that the six consciousnesses come before and the mind element comes after. The future mind element and six consciousnesses have not yet been differentiated in time and position, so how can it be said that the six consciousnesses come before and the mind element comes after? If the meaning of skandha (蘊, aggregates) is explained by the meaning of accumulation, then the aggregates are not real, because accumulation is false. This objection is not valid, because the meaning of words is established on the basis of what is accumulated, and accumulation is not the meaning itself. Meaning is the difference in the names of real things, and accumulation is not real. This explanation shows that the sutra has a great meaning and purpose, which is to say that, for example, when speaking of accumulation, apart from what is accumulated, no separate real accumulation can be obtained. Likewise, when speaking of 'I', one should not seek a real 'I' outside of the aggregates such as form. 'I' is falsely spoken of in the continuum of aggregates. Like worldly accumulation, 'I' is not real. If the aggregates were real, what meaning would the sutra reveal? Do not let those who are to be transformed know that the dharmas such as form, with their immeasurable differences in the three times, each being an aggregate, would make the aggregates boundless, and they would become timid, thinking, 'How can I universally know and permanently cut off these boundless aggregates?' To encourage them, although the aggregates are boundless, they are the same, so they are collectively spoken of as one. Also, those fools generate a unified idea on multiple aggregates, and now generate self-grasping. In order to remove their unified idea, it is said that there are many parts in one aggregate, not to show that the five aggregates such as form are composed of many dharmas, and are false, not real. Also, a paramāṇu (極微, ultimate particle) is included in the three times, etc., and is briefly analyzed into an accumulation by wisdom. Although the aggregates are just accumulations, the real meaning is established. The remaining dharmas are also like this. Therefore, the aggregates are not false. Also, in each individually arising dharma, the aggregates are also spoken of. Aggregates
定非假。如說。俱生受名受蘊。想名想蘊。余說如經。於一切時和合生故。蘊雖各別。而聚義成。有餘師說。可分段義是蘊義。諸有為法。皆有過去未來現在三分段故。經主決判此釋越經。今謂不然。不違理故。處界二義。豈不越經。而於其中攝取為正。復有何理。唯蘊義中固求經證。于處界義唯依理釋。絕不求經。觀此義言。似專朋黨。故應如彼據理無違。何故世尊于所知境。由蘊等門作三種說。頌曰。
愚根樂三故 說蘊處界三
論曰。善逝意趣。雖極難知。據理推尋。似應如此。謂諸弟子。愚根及樂。各有三故。善逝隨彼。說蘊處界三種法門。樂謂勝解。三謂各三。所化眾生愚有三種。有愚心所。總執為我。有唯愚色。有愚色心。根亦有三。謂利中鈍。樂亦三種。謂樂略中及廣文故。隨所化生如是品別。如其次第。善逝為說蘊處界三。經主此中所說猶少。謂諸弟子。已過作意。已熟習行。初修事業。三位別故。懷我慢行。執我所隨。迷識依緣。三過別故。恃命財族而生憍逸。三病異故。由此等緣。如其次第。世尊為說蘊處界三。彼上座言。說蘊為明所執一合差別相故。說處為明境及有境差別相故。說界為明境及有境並所生識差別相故。且說處門。如何遍立境有境相。此中不說眼等五根及與意根為境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
並非是虛假的。例如，共同出生的感受稱為受蘊（Vedanāskandha，感受的集合），想法稱為想蘊（Saṃjñāskandha，想法的集合），其他的解釋如同經文所說。因為它們在所有時間共同和合產生，所以蘊雖然各自不同，但通過聚集的意義而成立。還有其他老師說，可以分段的意義就是蘊的意義。因為所有有為法（Saṃskṛta，被造作的事物）都有過去、未來、現在三個分段。
經部師（經量部，Sautrāntika）判斷這種解釋超越了經文。但我們認為不然，因為不違背道理。處（Āyatana，感覺的來源）和界（Dhātu，元素）的兩種意義，難道不也超越了經文嗎？但在其中攝取合理的解釋。又有什麼道理，唯獨在蘊的意義中固執地尋求經文的證據，而在處和界的意義中只依據道理來解釋，絕不尋求經文的依據？觀察這種說法，似乎是專門結黨營私。所以應該像他們那樣，依據道理而沒有違背。為什麼世尊對於所知的境界，通過蘊等法門作三種說法？頌文說：
『因為愚鈍的根器和不同的喜好，所以說了蘊、處、界三種。』
論述：善逝（Sugata，佛陀的稱號）的意圖，雖然極難了解，但依據道理推尋，似乎應該是這樣。因為諸位弟子，愚鈍的根器和不同的喜好，各有三種。善逝隨順他們，說了蘊、處、界三種法門。喜好是指殊勝的理解。三種是指各自有三種。所教化的眾生，愚鈍有三種：有愚癡於心所（Caitasika，心理活動），總執著為『我』；有隻愚癡於色（Rūpa，物質）；有愚癡於色和心。根器也有三種，即利根、中根、鈍根。喜好也有三種，即喜歡簡略的文句、中等的文句和廣博的文句。隨順所教化的眾生如此的品類差別，如其次第，善逝為他們說了蘊、處、界三種法門。
經部師在此所說的還不夠全面。因為諸位弟子，有已過作意（Manasikara，心理活動）、已熟習修行、初修事業三種階段的差別。有懷著我慢而行、執著我所隨屬、迷惑于識的依緣三種過失的差別。有依仗生命、財富、家族而生起驕傲放逸三種病癥的不同。由此等等因緣，如其次第，世尊為他們說了蘊、處、界三種法門。那位上座（長老）說，說蘊是爲了闡明所執著的一個整體的差別相。說處是爲了闡明境（Viṣaya，對像）和有境（Viṣayin，主體）的差別相。說界是爲了闡明境和有境以及所產生的識（Vijñāna，意識）的差別相。且說處的法門，如何普遍地建立境和有境的相？這裡沒有說眼等五根（Indriya，感覺器官）以及意根（Manendriya，意識的根源）是境。
【English Translation】 English version:
It is not false. For example, co-arisen feeling is called Vedanāskandha (aggregate of feeling), thought is called Saṃjñāskandha (aggregate of perception), and other explanations are as stated in the scriptures. Because they arise together at all times, although the skandhas are distinct, they are established through the meaning of aggregation. Some other teachers say that the meaning of being divisible is the meaning of skandha. Because all conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta, conditioned phenomena) have three divisions: past, future, and present.
The Sūtra Master (Sautrāntika) judges that this explanation goes beyond the scriptures. But we think not, because it does not contradict reason. Do not the two meanings of Āyatana (source of sensation) and Dhātu (element) also go beyond the scriptures? But among them, reasonable explanations are adopted. What reason is there to stubbornly seek scriptural evidence only in the meaning of skandha, while relying solely on reason to explain the meanings of Āyatana and Dhātu, without seeking scriptural basis at all? Observing this statement, it seems to be solely for partisan purposes. Therefore, it should be like them, based on reason without contradiction. Why did the World Honored One, regarding the knowable realm, make three kinds of teachings through the doors of skandha, etc.? The verse says:
'Because of the foolish roots and different inclinations, the three, skandha, Āyatana, and Dhātu, are taught.'
Treatise: The intention of the Sugata (Buddha's epithet) is extremely difficult to understand, but according to reason, it seems it should be like this. Because the disciples, the foolish roots and different inclinations, each have three kinds. The Sugata, according to them, taught the three Dharma doors of skandha, Āyatana, and Dhātu. Inclination refers to superior understanding. Three refers to each having three kinds. The beings to be taught have three kinds of foolishness: some are foolish about mental activities (Caitasika), generally clinging to 'I'; some are only foolish about form (Rūpa, matter); some are foolish about both form and mind. Roots also have three kinds, namely sharp, medium, and dull. Inclinations also have three kinds, namely liking brief sentences, medium sentences, and extensive sentences. According to the differences in the categories of beings to be taught, in that order, the Sugata taught them the three Dharma doors of skandha, Āyatana, and Dhātu.
The Sūtra Master's statement here is not comprehensive enough. Because the disciples have differences in three stages: past mental activity (Manasikara), familiar practice, and initial practice. There are differences in three faults: harboring arrogance and acting, clinging to what belongs to 'I', and being confused about the conditions of consciousness. There are differences in three illnesses: relying on life, wealth, and family to give rise to pride and arrogance. Due to these causes, in that order, the World Honored One taught them the three Dharma doors of skandha, Āyatana, and Dhātu. That Elder said that teaching skandha is to clarify the difference in the aspect of the one whole that is clung to. Teaching Āyatana is to clarify the difference between the object (Viṣaya) and the subject (Viṣayin). Teaching Dhātu is to clarify the difference between the object and the subject and the consciousness (Vijñāna) that arises. Furthermore, regarding the Dharma door of Āyatana, how is the aspect of object and subject universally established? Here, it is not said that the five sense organs (Indriya) such as the eye, and the mind organ (Manendriya), are objects.
性故。然一切法。皆意根境。此于意境。非為遍說以立處門。但說七法。為意境故。如契經說。苾芻當知。法謂外處。是十一處所不攝法。又處處說法為意境。故說處中。似非遍立境有境相。諸有於此復作是言。如契經說。意及法為緣生於意識者。說一切法皆為意境。彼但有言。理教無故。若必爾者。何名決定立處相別。且不遍立境及有境。過則同前。又上座說。諸法無非意所行故。皆法處攝。若爾唯應立一法處。以一切法皆意境故。此但有言。無定量證。又彼所言。雖實一處。而於一中據差別相。立餘十一。謂初眼處亦名法處。乃至意處亦名法處。最後法處唯名法處。若爾便越順別處經。如彼經說。苾芻當知。法謂外處。是十一處所不攝法。又處處說。法為意境。都無處言。眼等十一名為法處。故不可謂雖皆法處。而彼經中據別法處。說十一處所不攝法名為法處。是故彼言唯自計度。又彼雖立境及有境。而極雜亂。五取自境。意緣一切。有何雜亂。有境為境。境為有境。豈非雜亂。不了此中何者有境何者為境。故甚迷亂。我於此經見如是趣。說處欲顯不雜所依境有境異。此何所為。為舍我執。執我論者。妄作是言。我是見者乃至知者。此我即是樂等所依。此經示有多法作用。顯無一法名能見者。乃至所依。由此理故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『性故。然一切法。皆意根境。』意思是說，一切事物本質上都是由意根（manas-indriya，第六意識的根源）所認知的對象（境）。這裡所說的『意境』，並非要普遍地建立一個關於意根和其對像（法）的完整體系，而只是爲了說明七種法（dharma）是意根的對象。正如契經（sutra）所說：『苾芻（bhiksu，比丘），當知，法是指外處（ayatana，處），是不被十一個處所包含的法。』而且，經中處處都說法是意根的對象。因此，在十二處（ayatana）的說法中，似乎並沒有普遍地建立能認知的主體（有境）和被認知的客體（境）之間的關係。 有些人對此提出異議，他們說：『正如契經所說，意和法為緣，產生意識（vijnana）。』這表明一切法都是意根的對象。』但他們的說法只是空談，缺乏理證和教證。如果按照他們的說法，那麼如何才能確定地建立十二處的差別相呢？而且，如果不普遍地建立境和有境的關係，那麼就會和前面的過失一樣。 還有上座部（Sthavira Nikaya）的論師說：『一切法沒有不是意所行（manas-cara，意識活動）的，所以都屬於法處（dharma-ayatana）。』如果這樣，那就應該只建立一個法處，因為一切法都是意根的對象。』但這種說法也只是空談，沒有可靠的證據。 他們還說：『雖然實際上只有一個法處，但在這個法處中，根據不同的差別相，建立了其餘的十一個處。也就是說，最初的眼處（caksu-ayatana）也稱為法處，乃至意處（manas-ayatana）也稱為法處，而最後的法處則僅僅稱為法處。』如果這樣，那就違背了順別處經（十二處經），因為該經中說：『苾芻，當知，法是指外處，是不被十一個處所包含的法。』而且，經中處處都說法是意根的對象，但沒有地方說眼等十一個處也稱為法處。因此，不能說雖然它們都是法處，但在該經中，是根據特別的法處，來說明不被十一個處所包含的法稱為法處。所以，他們的說法只是自己的臆測。 而且，他們雖然建立了境和有境的關係，但卻極其雜亂。五根（indriya）只取各自的境，而意根緣一切法，這有什麼雜亂的呢？有境作為境，境作為有境，這難道不是雜亂嗎？不明白這裡面哪個是有境，哪個是境，所以非常迷惑。我對這部經的理解是這樣的：說十二處是爲了顯示不雜亂的所依（asraya）、境和有境的差別。這又是爲了什麼呢？爲了捨棄我執（atma-graha）。執著于『我』的論者，妄作是說：『我是見者，乃至知者。』這個『我』就是快樂等的所依。這部經顯示了多種法的作用，表明沒有一個法可以被稱為能見者，乃至所依。因為這個道理。
【English Translation】 English version 『性故。然一切法。皆意根境。』 This means that all phenomena are essentially objects (visaya) cognized by the mind-organ (manas-indriya, the root of the sixth consciousness). The term 『意境』 (manovisaya, mind-object) here does not aim to universally establish a complete system regarding the mind-organ and its objects (dharma), but merely to illustrate that the seven dharmas are objects of the mind-organ. As the sutra states: 『Bhiksus, know that dharma refers to the external sphere (ayatana), the dharma that is not included in the eleven spheres.』 Moreover, the sutras everywhere state that dharma is the object of the mind-organ. Therefore, in the explanation of the twelve ayatanas, it does not seem to universally establish the relationship between the cognizing subject (possessor of the sphere) and the cognized object (sphere). Some raise objections to this, saying: 『As the sutra states, mind and dharma are the conditions for the arising of consciousness (vijnana).』 This indicates that all dharmas are objects of the mind-organ.』 However, their statement is merely empty talk, lacking both logical and scriptural proof. If we follow their view, how can we definitively establish the distinct characteristics of the twelve ayatanas? Furthermore, if we do not universally establish the relationship between sphere and possessor of the sphere, we will fall into the same faults as before. Moreover, teachers of the Sthavira Nikaya (上座部) say: 『There is no dharma that is not an activity of the mind (manas-cara), so all are included in the dharma-ayatana.』 If this were the case, then only one dharma-ayatana should be established, because all dharmas are objects of the mind-organ.』 But this statement is also empty talk, lacking reliable evidence. They also say: 『Although there is actually only one dharma-ayatana, within this dharma-ayatana, based on different characteristics, the remaining eleven ayatanas are established. That is, the initial eye-ayatana (caksu-ayatana) is also called dharma-ayatana, and so on up to the mind-ayatana (manas-ayatana) is also called dharma-ayatana, while the final dharma-ayatana is only called dharma-ayatana.』 If this were the case, it would contradict the sutra on the distinct spheres (twelve ayatanas sutra), because that sutra states: 『Bhiksus, know that dharma refers to the external sphere, the dharma that is not included in the eleven spheres.』 Moreover, the sutras everywhere state that dharma is the object of the mind-organ, but nowhere do they say that the eleven ayatanas such as the eye are also called dharma-ayatana. Therefore, it cannot be said that although they are all dharma-ayatana, in that sutra, it is based on the special dharma-ayatana that the dharma not included in the eleven spheres is called dharma-ayatana. So, their statement is merely their own speculation. Moreover, although they establish the relationship between sphere and possessor of the sphere, it is extremely confused. The five sense organs (indriya) only take their respective spheres, while the mind-organ cognizes all dharmas. What confusion is there in this? The possessor of the sphere as the sphere, the sphere as the possessor of the sphere—is this not confusion? Not understanding which is the possessor of the sphere and which is the sphere, they are therefore very confused. My understanding of this sutra is as follows: The explanation of the twelve ayatanas is to show the distinction between the unconfused basis (asraya), sphere, and possessor of the sphere. What is this for? It is to abandon the attachment to self (atma-graha). Those who cling to the notion of 『self』 falsely say: 『I am the seer, and even the knower.』 This 『I』 is the basis of happiness and so on. This sutra shows the function of various dharmas, indicating that there is no single dharma that can be called the seer, or even the basis. Because of this reason.
。雖一切法皆是意境。而不共境。唯是境者。立為意境。唯對此立意為有境。勿彼謂此異想說我。有諸法處。體唯是境。亦有有境。然非所依。或此與意。立一有境。是能依故。亦無有失。眼等及意。雖有意根不共境義。而非唯境。色等五處雖但是境。而無意根不共境義。眼等五根更無餘境。即色等境名為不共。即對此境說有境名。此中處聲。說眼等六為所依處。說色等六為所緣處。顯此為緣生長異法。故說為處。即依此理。以釋處名。謂能生長心心所法。故名為處。是故說處。為立不雜境及有境無亂有用。我於此經。見是意趣。審擇法者應更尋思。何故一切心所法中。別立二法為受想蘊。脅尊者言。世尊於法了達而立。不應詰問。或說有因。頌曰。
諍根生死因 及次第因故 于諸心所法 受想別為蘊
論曰。世斗諍根。略有二種。謂貪著欲耽嗜拘礙。及貪著見耽嗜拘礙。初因受起。後由想生。味受力故。貪著諸欲。倒想力故。貪著諸見。又生死法。以受及想為最勝因。耽樂受故。執倒想故。愛見行者。生死輪迴。由此二因。及后當說次第因故。應知別立受想為蘊。其次第因。鄰次當辯。又此受想。能為愛見二雜染法。生根本故。各別顯一識住名故。依滅此二立滅定故。如是等因有多品類。何故無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：雖然一切法都是意境（Icchā-jñāna，意念的境界），但非共同的境界，只有作為境界的事物，才被立為意境。只有對此設立意念，才認為有境界。不要因為彼而說此，產生不同的想法，說我。在有諸法的地方，本體只是境界，也有有境界，但不是所依。或者此與意，立為一個有境界，因為是能依。也沒有什麼過失。眼等（cakṣurādīni，眼等五根）及意（manas，意識），雖然有意根（manodhātu，意界）不共境界的意義，但不是唯一的境界。色等五處（pañca viṣayāḥ，五種所緣境），雖然只是境界，但沒有意根不共境界的意義。眼等五根（pañcendriyāṇi，五根）沒有其餘的境界，即色等境界名為不共。即對此境界說有境界之名。此中『處』聲，說眼等六（ṣaḍāyatana，六處）為所依處，說色等六（ṣaḍviṣayāḥ，六境）為所緣處。顯示此為緣，生長不同的法，所以說為處。即依據此理，解釋處的名字，謂能生長心心所法（citta-caitta，心和心所），故名為處。所以說處，是爲了建立不雜亂的境界及有境界，沒有錯亂的用處。我於此經，見是意趣。審慎選擇法的人應該更深入地思考。為什麼在一切心所法中，特別設立兩種法作為受蘊（vedanā-skandha，感受之蘊）和想蘊（saṃjñā-skandha，概念之蘊）？脅尊者（Pārśva，脅比丘）說：世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）對於法完全通達而設立，不應該詰問。或者說有原因。頌曰： 諍根生死因，及次第因故，于諸心所法，受想別為蘊。 論曰：世間的斗諍之根，略有二種。謂貪著欲（kāma，慾望），耽嗜拘礙，及貪著見（dṛṣṭi，見解），耽嗜拘礙。最初由受（vedanā，感受）而起，後來由想（saṃjñā，概念）而生。因為品嚐感受的力量，所以貪著諸欲；因為顛倒想法的力量，所以貪著諸見。又生死之法，以受及想為最殊勝的因。因為耽樂於感受，執著于顛倒的想法。愛見（priya-dṛṣṭi，愛與見）的修行者，生死輪迴。由此二因，及後面將要說的次第因的緣故，應當知道特別設立受想為蘊。其次第因，鄰近著將要辨析。又此受想，能為愛見二種雜染法（saṃkleśa，煩惱）產生根本。各自顯示一個識住（vijñāna-sthiti，意識的住處）的名字的緣故。依靠滅除這二者而建立滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡定）的緣故。像這樣的原因有很多種類。為什麼沒有...
【English Translation】 English version: Although all dharmas are mental realms (Icchā-jñāna, realms of intention), they are not shared realms. Only that which is a realm is established as a mental realm. Only by establishing intention towards this is it considered to have a realm. Do not, because of that, speak of this, creating different thoughts and saying 'I'. In places where there are dharmas, the essence is only a realm, and there are also those with a realm, but they are not the basis. Or this and intention are established as one with a realm, because it is the support. There is no fault in this. The eye and so on (cakṣurādīni, the five sense organs) and the mind (manas, consciousness), although they have the meaning of the mind-root (manodhātu, mind element) as a non-shared realm, are not solely realms. The five sense objects (pañca viṣayāḥ, five objects of sense), although they are only realms, do not have the meaning of the mind-root as a non-shared realm. The five sense organs (pañcendriyāṇi, five faculties) have no other realms; the realms of form and so on are called non-shared. It is towards this realm that the name 'having a realm' is spoken. Here, the term 'place' refers to the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana, six sense-fields) as the place of reliance, and the six sense objects (ṣaḍviṣayāḥ, six objects) as the place of what is cognized. It shows that these are the conditions for the growth of different dharmas, therefore they are called 'places'. It is according to this principle that the name 'place' is explained, meaning that which can generate mental states and mental events (citta-caitta, mind and mental factors), therefore it is called a 'place'. Therefore, 'place' is spoken of in order to establish undistorted realms and those with realms, without confused functions. In this sutra, I see this as the intended meaning. Those who carefully examine the Dharma should contemplate further. Why, among all mental factors, are two dharmas specifically established as the aggregates of feeling (vedanā-skandha, the aggregate of sensation) and perception (saṃjñā-skandha, the aggregate of perception)? Venerable Pārśva (Pārśva, Venerable Pārśva) said: The World-Honored One (Śākyamuni, Shakyamuni) established this with complete understanding of the Dharma, and should not be questioned. Or it can be said that there is a reason. The verse says: The root of strife, the cause of birth and death, and the cause of sequence, therefore, among all mental factors, feeling and perception are separately established as aggregates. The treatise says: The root of worldly strife is roughly of two kinds: namely, attachment to desires (kāma, desire), indulgence and obstruction, and attachment to views (dṛṣṭi, views), indulgence and obstruction. The former arises from feeling (vedanā, sensation), and the latter arises from perception (saṃjñā, perception). Because of the power of savoring feelings, there is attachment to desires; because of the power of distorted perceptions, there is attachment to views. Furthermore, the dharmas of birth and death have feeling and perception as the most excellent causes. Because of indulging in feelings, there is attachment to distorted perceptions. Practitioners of love and views (priya-dṛṣṭi, love and views) transmigrate in birth and death. Because of these two causes, and because of the sequential cause that will be discussed later, it should be known that feeling and perception are specifically established as aggregates. The sequential cause will be analyzed next. Furthermore, these feeling and perception can generate the root of the two defilements (saṃkleśa, defilement) of love and views. Because they each manifest the name of a dwelling place of consciousness (vijñāna-sthiti, abode of consciousness). Because the cessation attainment (nirodha-samāpatti, cessation attainment) is established based on the cessation of these two. There are many kinds of such causes. Why is there no...
為。說在處界。非蘊攝耶。頌曰。
蘊不說無為 義不相應故
論曰。諸無為法若說為蘊。立在五中。或為第六。皆不應理。義相違故。所以者何。彼且非色。乃至非識。故非在五。聚義是蘊。非無為法。如彼色等有過去等品類差別。可略一聚名無為蘊。故非第六。又無為法。與顛倒依及斷方便。義相違故。說有漏蘊顯顛倒依。說無漏蘊顯斷方便。無為於此兩義都無。義不相應。故不立蘊。有說。無為是蘊息故。不可名蘊。如世瓶破非複稱瓶。經主難言。彼于處界例應成失。謂處界息應非處界。便違所宗。全于蘊門眾生計我。入無餘位諸蘊頓息。處界不然。非全生故。唯取蘊起假說為生。若諸蘊息亦立為蘊。般涅槃已。余蘊應存。眾生畏蘊有多過患。應于涅槃無安隱想。非處界中全有多過。故無餘位處界猶隨。故蘊不應例彼成法。又此息言意非顯斷。空非擇滅。體非斷故。此言意顯若於是處蘊相都無名為蘊息。三無為上聚義都無可名蘊息。非門族義于彼亦無故不應例。此釋與頌義善相符。世尊起教。覺惠為先。依何說蘊如是次第。頌曰。
隨粗染器等 界別次第立
論曰。五蘊隨粗隨染器等及界別故。次第而立。隨粗立者。五中最粗。所謂色蘊。有對礙故。五識依故。六識境故。五中初說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：那麼，無為法（Nirvana，指不生不滅的境界）包含在處（Ayatana，指感覺的來源，如眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）和界（Dhatu，指構成要素，如地、水、火、風、空、識）之中嗎？它不是蘊（Skandha，指構成個體的要素，如色、受、想、行、識）所包含的嗎？ 頌（Gatha，指偈頌）說： 『蘊不說無為，義不相應故。』 論（Shastra，指論述）說：如果將所有的無為法說成是蘊，無論將其安立在五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）之中，還是作為第六蘊，都是不合理的，因為它們的意義相互違背。為什麼這樣說呢？因為無為法既不是色，也不是受、想、行、識，所以不能包含在五蘊之中。蘊的定義是『聚合』，而無為法不是聚合。就像色等法有過去等品類的差別，可以略微聚合而稱為『無為蘊』，這是不可能的，所以不能作為第六蘊。而且，無為法與顛倒所依（Viparyasa，指錯誤的認知）以及斷滅的方便（指通過修行斷滅煩惱的方法）在意義上是相違背的。說有漏蘊（Sāsrava Skandha，指有煩惱的蘊）是爲了顯示顛倒所依，說無漏蘊（Anāsrava Skandha，指沒有煩惱的蘊）是爲了顯示斷滅的方便。無為法對於這兩種意義都沒有，意義不相應，所以不應安立為蘊。有人說，無為法是蘊的止息，所以不能稱為蘊，就像世間的瓶子破碎后不再稱為瓶子一樣。 經主（Sutrakara，指經文的作者）反駁說：如果這樣，那麼在處和界中也應該出現同樣的錯誤。也就是說，處和界的止息就不應該再是處和界，這就違背了你們的宗義。完全進入蘊的門徑，眾生執著于『我』，進入無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，指完全的涅槃）時，所有的蘊都停止了，但處和界不是這樣，因為它們不是完全產生的。只是取蘊的生起，假名為生。如果諸蘊的止息也安立為蘊，那麼般涅槃之後，其餘的蘊就應該存在。眾生畏懼蘊有多種過患，那麼對於涅槃就不應該有安穩的想法。處和界中沒有完全的多重過患，所以在無餘涅槃的境界中，處和界仍然存在。所以蘊不應該像處和界那樣成為法。而且，這裡的『止息』一詞，意思不是指斷滅，因為空和非擇滅（Asamskrta，指非人為的無為法）的體性不是斷滅。這裡的『止息』一詞，意思是說，如果某個地方完全沒有蘊的相狀，就稱為蘊的止息。在三種無為法上，聚合的意義完全沒有，所以不能稱為蘊的止息。門族（指類別）的意義在無為法上也沒有，所以不應該類比。這種解釋與偈頌的意義非常相符。世尊開始教導，以覺悟和智慧為先導，依據什麼來宣說蘊的這種次第呢？ 頌說： 『隨粗染器等，界別次第立。』 論說：五蘊是隨著粗細、染污、器（指根身）等以及界別的不同，依次安立的。隨著粗細安立：五蘊中最粗的是色蘊（Rupa Skandha，指物質的蘊），因為它有對礙（指有障礙），是五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）所依賴的，也是六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）的境界，所以在五蘊中首先宣說。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Then, are the Asamskrta Dharmas (Unconditioned Dharmas, referring to Nirvana) included in the Ayatana (sense bases, such as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) and Dhatu (elements, such as earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness)? Are they not included in the Skandha (aggregates, the components of an individual, such as form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness)? The Gatha (verse) says: 'The Skandhas do not speak of the Unconditioned, because the meaning is not corresponding.' The Shastra (treatise) says: If all the Asamskrta Dharmas are said to be Skandhas, whether they are established within the five Skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) or as a sixth Skandha, it is unreasonable because their meanings contradict each other. Why is this so? Because the Asamskrta Dharmas are neither form, nor feeling, perception, volition, or consciousness, so they cannot be included in the five Skandhas. The definition of Skandha is 'aggregation,' but the Asamskrta Dharmas are not aggregations. Just as form and other Dharmas have differences in categories such as past, etc., which can be slightly aggregated and called 'Asamskrta Skandha,' this is impossible, so it cannot be a sixth Skandha. Moreover, the Asamskrta Dharmas contradict the basis of Viparyasa (perversions, referring to incorrect cognitions) and the means of cessation (referring to the methods of practice to cease afflictions) in meaning. Saying the Sasrava Skandha (defiled Skandha, referring to Skandhas with afflictions) is to show the basis of Viparyasa, saying the Anasrava Skandha (undefiled Skandha, referring to Skandhas without afflictions) is to show the means of cessation. The Asamskrta Dharmas have neither of these two meanings, the meaning is not corresponding, so they should not be established as Skandhas. Some say that the Asamskrta Dharmas are the cessation of Skandhas, so they cannot be called Skandhas, just as a broken bottle in the world is no longer called a bottle. The Sutrakara (author of the Sutra) refutes: If so, then the same error should occur in Ayatana and Dhatu. That is, the cessation of Ayatana and Dhatu should no longer be Ayatana and Dhatu, which violates your doctrine. Completely entering the gate of Skandhas, sentient beings are attached to 'self,' and when entering Parinirvana (complete Nirvana) all the Skandhas cease, but Ayatana and Dhatu are not like this, because they are not completely produced. Only taking the arising of Skandhas, falsely calling it birth. If the cessation of Skandhas is also established as Skandhas, then after Parinirvana, the remaining Skandhas should exist. Sentient beings fear that Skandhas have many faults, then they should not have peaceful thoughts about Nirvana. There are no complete multiple faults in Ayatana and Dhatu, so in the realm of Parinirvana, Ayatana and Dhatu still exist. Therefore, Skandhas should not become Dharmas like Ayatana and Dhatu. Moreover, the word 'cessation' here does not mean annihilation, because the nature of Akasa (space) and Asamskrta (unconditioned) is not annihilation. The word 'cessation' here means that if there is no aspect of Skandha at all in a certain place, it is called the cessation of Skandha. On the three Asamskrta Dharmas, the meaning of aggregation is completely absent, so it cannot be called the cessation of Skandha. The meaning of lineage (referring to category) is also absent in the Asamskrta Dharmas, so it should not be analogized. This explanation is very consistent with the meaning of the Gatha. The World Honored One began to teach, with enlightenment and wisdom as the guide, according to what does he proclaim the order of the Skandhas in this way? The Gatha says: 'According to coarseness, defilement, vessel, etc., the order of the realms is established.' The Shastra says: The five Skandhas are established in order according to the differences in coarseness, defilement, vessel (referring to the root body), etc., and realms. Established according to coarseness: the coarsest of the five Skandhas is the Rupa Skandha (form aggregate, referring to the aggregate of matter), because it has resistance (referring to having obstacles), is relied upon by the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness), and is also the realm of the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness), so it is proclaimed first among the five Skandhas.
四中最粗。所謂受蘊。雖無形質。而行相用易了知故。四中初說。三中最粗。所謂想蘊。取男女等。行相作用。易了知故三中初說二中粗者。所謂行蘊。貪等現起。行相分明。易了知故。二中初說。識蘊最細。故最後說。隨染立者。謂從無始生死已來。男女于身更相染愛。由顯形等。故初說色。如是色貪。由耽受味。故次說受。此耽受味。由想顛倒。故次說想。此想顛倒。由煩惱力。故次說行。此煩惱力。依能引發後有識生。故后說識。隨器等者。謂色如器受所依故。受類飲食。增益損減有情身故。想同助味。由取怨親中平等相。助生受故。行似廚人。由思貪等業煩惱力。愛非愛等異熟生故。識喻食者。有情本中為主勝故。識為上首受等生故。即由此理。于受想等。隨福行中。但說識為隨福行者。又由此理。說行緣識。復由此告阿難陀曰。識若無者。不入母胎。心雜染故有情雜染。心清凈故有情清凈。于受想等俱起法中。如是等經。但標主識。隨界別者。謂欲界中色最為勝。諸根境色。皆具有故。色界受勝。于生死中諸勝妙受。具可得故。三無色中。想最為勝。彼地取相。最分明故。第一有中。行最為勝。彼思能感最大果故。此即識住。識住其中。顯似世間田種次第。是故諸蘊次第如是。由此五蘊無增減過。即由如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 色蘊（Rūpa-skandha，物質之蘊）在五蘊（Pañca-skandha）中最為粗顯。雖然受蘊（Vedanā-skandha，感受之蘊）沒有具體形狀，但其行相和作用容易理解，因此在四蘊中首先被提及。 想蘊（Saṃjñā-skandha，表象之蘊）在三蘊中最為粗顯。它執取男女等相，其行相和作用容易理解，因此在三蘊中首先被提及。 行蘊（Saṃskāra-skandha，意志之蘊）在二蘊中較為粗顯。貪婪等煩惱生起時，其行相分明，容易理解，因此在二蘊中首先被提及。 識蘊（Vijñāna-skandha，了別之蘊）最為細微，因此最後被提及。 隨染立者，是指從無始生死以來，男女對身體互相染著愛戀，因為身體的顯現等原因，所以首先說色蘊。由於貪戀感受的滋味，所以接著說受蘊。由於顛倒妄想，所以接著說想蘊。由於煩惱的力量，所以接著說行蘊。由於煩惱的力量，依賴於能引發後有的識的產生，所以最後說識蘊。 隨器等者，是指色蘊如同器皿，是受蘊所依賴的基礎。受蘊類似於飲食，能夠增益或損減有情的身軀。想蘊如同佐料，通過執取怨親中平等之相，幫助產生感受。行蘊類似於廚師，通過思慮貪婪等業和煩惱的力量，產生可愛或不可愛等不同的異熟果報。識蘊比喻為食物，因為它在有情的根本中佔據主導地位。識蘊是受蘊等產生的基礎。因此，在受想等隨福報而行的法中，只說識蘊是隨福報而行的。又因為這個道理，說行蘊緣于識蘊。佛陀又告訴阿難陀（Ānanda，佛陀十大弟子之一）說：『如果識蘊不存在，就不會入母胎。』心雜染所以有情雜染，心清凈所以有情清凈。在受想等共同生起的法中，像這樣的經典，只標明了主要的識蘊。 隨界別者，是指在欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生因有情慾而輪迴的世界）中，色蘊最為殊勝，因為諸根和境色都具備。受蘊殊勝，因為在生死輪迴中，各種殊勝美妙的感受都可以獲得。在三無色界（Arūpadhātu，沒有物質存在的精神世界）中，想蘊最為殊勝，因為在那個境界中，取相最為分明。在第一有（指非想非非想處天），行蘊最為殊勝，因為那裡的思能夠感得最大的果報。這就是識住，識安住其中，顯現出類似於世間田地耕種的次第。因此，五蘊的次第就是這樣。由此五蘊沒有增減的過失，就是因為這樣。
【English Translation】 English version The Rūpa-skandha (aggregate of form, or material form) is the coarsest among the five skandhas (Pañca-skandha, the five aggregates). Although the Vedanā-skandha (aggregate of feeling or sensation) has no physical form, its characteristics and functions are easily understood, hence it is mentioned first among the four skandhas. The Saṃjñā-skandha (aggregate of perception or conception) is the coarsest among the three skandhas. It grasps at the characteristics of male, female, etc., and its characteristics and functions are easily understood, hence it is mentioned first among the three skandhas. The Saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of mental formations or volition) is relatively coarse among the two skandhas. When afflictions such as greed arise, their characteristics are clear and easily understood, hence it is mentioned first among the two skandhas. The Vijñāna-skandha (aggregate of consciousness) is the most subtle, hence it is mentioned last. 『Following defilement』 refers to the fact that from beginningless samsara (Saṃsāra, cycle of death and rebirth), men and women are mutually attached and in love with their bodies. Because of the manifestation of the body, the Rūpa-skandha is mentioned first. Because of craving the taste of sensations, the Vedanā-skandha is mentioned next. Because of deluded thoughts, the Saṃjñā-skandha is mentioned next. Because of the power of afflictions, the Saṃskāra-skandha is mentioned next. Because the power of afflictions relies on the arising of consciousness that can cause future existence, the Vijñāna-skandha is mentioned last. 『Following the vessel, etc.』 refers to the fact that the Rūpa-skandha is like a vessel, the foundation upon which the Vedanā-skandha depends. The Vedanā-skandha is like food and drink, which can increase or decrease the body of sentient beings. The Saṃjñā-skandha is like seasoning, which helps to produce feelings by grasping at the characteristics of enemies, loved ones, and those in between with equanimity. The Saṃskāra-skandha is like a cook, who, through the power of thoughts, greed, and other karma (Karma, action driven by intention which leads to future consequences) and afflictions, produces different results, such as pleasant or unpleasant experiences. The Vijñāna-skandha is likened to food, because it occupies a dominant position in the fundamental nature of sentient beings. The Vijñāna-skandha is the basis for the arising of the Vedanā-skandha, etc. Therefore, among the dharmas (Dharma, teachings of the Buddha) that follow merit, only the Vijñāna-skandha is said to follow merit. Furthermore, for this reason, it is said that the Saṃskāra-skandha conditions the Vijñāna-skandha. The Buddha also told Ānanda (Ānanda, one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha): 『If the Vijñāna-skandha did not exist, it would not enter the mother's womb.』 The mind is defiled, therefore sentient beings are defiled; the mind is pure, therefore sentient beings are pure. In the dharmas that arise together, such as feeling and perception, only the primary Vijñāna-skandha is indicated in such sutras (Sūtra, a discourse of the Buddha). 『Following the realm』 refers to the fact that in the Kāmadhātu (Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire), the Rūpa-skandha is the most superior, because all the sense organs and sense objects are present. The Vedanā-skandha is superior, because in the cycle of birth and death, all kinds of superior and wonderful feelings can be obtained. In the three Arūpadhātu (Arūpadhātu, the formless realms), the Saṃjñā-skandha is the most superior, because in that realm, the grasping of characteristics is the clearest. In the highest realm (Neither perception nor non-perception), the Saṃskāra-skandha is the most superior, because the thought there can cause the greatest result. This is where consciousness abides, and its dwelling there resembles the order of cultivating fields in the world. Therefore, the order of the five skandhas is as such. Hence, there is no excess or deficiency in these five skandhas, and it is because of this reason.
諸次第因。於心所中別立受想。謂受與想。於心所中。相粗生染。類食同助。二界中強故別立蘊。已隨本頌。且就轉門。說次第因。四種如是。當就還門。復說一種。謂入佛法有二要門。一不凈觀。二持息念。不凈觀門。觀于造色。持息念門。念于大種。要門所緣。故先說色。由此觀力。分析色相。剎那極微。展轉差別。如是觀時。身輕安故。心便覺樂。故次說受。受與身合。定為損益。損益於我理必不成。由斯觀解。我想即滅。法想便生。故次說想。由此想故。達唯有法。煩惱不行。故次說行。煩惱既息。心住調柔。有所堪能。故次說識。已說順次。逆次應說。恐厭繁文故應且止。如是已說諸蘊次第。于界處中應先辯說六根次第。由斯境識次第可知。眼等何緣如是次第。頌曰。
前五境唯現 四境唯所造 余用遠速明 或隨處次第
論曰。於六根中。眼等前五。唯取現境。是故先說。意境不定。三世無為。或唯取一或二三四。是故后說。境決定者。用無雜亂。其相分明。所以先說。境不定者。用有雜亂。相不分明。所以後說。所言四境。唯所造者。前流至此。五中前四境唯所造。是故先說。身境不定。大種造色俱為境故。所以後說。或時身根唯取大種。或時身根唯取造色。或時身根俱取二種。是故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於諸蘊的次第因緣，在心所法中特別建立受和想。這是因為受和想在心所法中，其相粗顯，容易產生染污，並且在滋養方面作用相似，有助於增長染污。在色界和無色界中，它們的力量強大，所以特別建立為蘊。以上已經按照本頌，暫且就流轉門（從苦到苦的流轉過程）說明了次第因緣。四種蘊的次第是這樣的。接下來應當就還滅門（從苦解脫的過程）再說一種次第因緣，即進入佛法有兩個重要的門徑：一是不凈觀，二是持息念。不凈觀的門徑，是觀察由四大種所造的色法；持息唸的門徑，是專注於四大種。因為這是重要門徑所緣的對象，所以先說色蘊。通過這種觀修的力量，分析色法的相狀，達到剎那極微的程度，並進一步觀察它們之間的差別。在這樣觀修的時候，身體會感到輕安，內心便會覺察到快樂，所以接著說受蘊。受蘊與身體結合，必定帶來損或益的感受。認為損益是針對『我』的觀點，在理上必然不能成立。因此，通過這樣的觀察和理解，『我』的觀念就會滅除，而法的觀念便會產生，所以接著說想蘊。由於這種想的作用，通達一切都只是法，煩惱便無法生起，所以接著說行蘊。煩惱既然止息，心便安住于調柔的狀態，具備了修行的能力，所以接著說識蘊。以上已經說明了順次的次第。逆次的次第也應該說明，但恐怕文字過於繁瑣，所以暫且停止。以上已經說明了諸蘊的次第。在界和處中，應該先辨別說明六根的次第，由此可以瞭解境和識的次第。為什麼眼等六根是這樣的次第呢？頌文說： 『前五境唯現，四境唯所造，余用遠速明，或隨處次第。』 論中說：在六根中，眼等前五根，只取現在的境界，所以先說。意根所取的境界不固定，可以是過去、現在、未來，也可以是無為法，或者只取一種，或者取二、三、四種，所以放在後面說。所取的境界是固定的，其作用就沒有雜亂，其相狀就分明，所以先說。所取的境界不固定，其作用就有雜亂，其相狀就不分明，所以放在後面說。所說的四境，唯是所造之色，是從前流傳到此的。五根中的前四根所取的境界唯是所造之色，所以先說。身根所取的境界不固定，可以是四大種，也可以是所造之色，所以放在後面說。有時身根只取四大種，有時身根只取所造之色，有時身根同時取二者，所以...
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the sequential causes of the Skandhas (aggregates) (蘊), among the mental functions (心所), feeling (受) and perception (想) are established separately. This is because feeling and perception, among the mental functions, are coarse in nature, easily give rise to defilements, and are similar in their nourishing function, aiding in the growth of defilements. In the Form Realm (色界) and Formless Realm (無色界), their power is strong, so they are established as Skandhas separately. The above has followed the verses and temporarily explained the sequential causes based on the cycle of suffering (流轉門). The sequence of the four Skandhas is as such. Next, one should explain another sequential cause based on the path of cessation (還滅門), which is that there are two important gateways to entering the Buddha's teachings: one is the contemplation of impurity (不凈觀), and the other is mindfulness of breathing (持息念). The gateway of contemplating impurity is to observe the form (色) created by the four great elements (四大種); the gateway of mindfulness of breathing is to focus on the four great elements. Because these are the objects of focus for the important gateways, the Form Skandha is discussed first. Through the power of this contemplation, the characteristics of form are analyzed, reaching the level of instantaneous infinitesimal particles (剎那極微), and their differences are further observed. During such contemplation, the body feels light and at ease, and the mind perceives happiness, so the Feeling Skandha is discussed next. The Feeling Skandha, combined with the body, inevitably brings feelings of harm or benefit. The view that harm or benefit is directed at the 'self' (我) is logically untenable. Therefore, through such observation and understanding, the concept of 'self' will be extinguished, and the concept of Dharma (法) will arise, so the Perception Skandha is discussed next. Due to the function of this perception, it is understood that everything is merely Dharma, and afflictions (煩惱) cannot arise, so the Mental Formations Skandha (行) is discussed next. Since afflictions have ceased, the mind abides in a state of gentleness and possesses the ability to practice, so the Consciousness Skandha (識) is discussed next. The above has explained the sequential order. The reverse order should also be explained, but fearing that the text would be too lengthy, it will be stopped for now. The above has explained the sequence of the Skandhas. Among the Realms (界) and Spheres (處), the sequence of the six sense faculties (六根) should be distinguished and explained first, so that the sequence of objects (境) and consciousness (識) can be understood. Why are the eye and other sense faculties in this sequence? The verse says: 'The first five faculties only take present objects, four objects are only created, the rest are used for distance, speed, and clarity, or follow the sequence of location.' The treatise says: Among the six sense faculties, the first five, such as the eye, only take present objects, so they are discussed first. The objects taken by the mind faculty are not fixed; they can be past, present, or future, or unconditioned Dharmas (無為法), or only one, or two, three, or four, so it is discussed later. If the objects taken are fixed, their function is not mixed up, and their characteristics are clear, so they are discussed first. If the objects taken are not fixed, their function is mixed up, and their characteristics are not clear, so they are discussed later. The four objects mentioned, which are only created form, have been transmitted from before. The objects taken by the first four of the five faculties are only created form, so they are discussed first. The objects taken by the body faculty are not fixed; they can be the four great elements or created form, so it is discussed later. Sometimes the body faculty only takes the four great elements, sometimes the body faculty only takes created form, and sometimes the body faculty takes both, so...
身識。有說。極多緣五觸起。謂四大種滑等隨一。有說。極多緣十一起。余謂前四。如其所應。用遠速明。是故先說。謂眼耳根取遠境故。在二先說。二中眼用遠故先說。如遠叢林風等所擊。現觀搖動不聞聲故。又眼用速。先遠見人撞擊鐘鼓。后聞聲故。鼻舌兩根用俱非遠。先說鼻者。由速明故。如對香美諸飲食時。鼻先嗅香。舌後嘗味。如是且約境定不定用遠速明。辯根次第。或於身中隨所依處。安布上下說根次第。傳說。身中眼處最上。又顯在面。是故先說。耳鼻舌根依處漸下。身處多下。意無方處。有即依止五根生者。故最後說。豈不理實。鼻根極微。住鼻頞中。非居眼下。如說三根橫作行列。處無高下。如冠花鬘。理實應爾。然經主意。就根依處。假說如此。經主或言。似通異釋。故今於此別作頌文。
前五用先起 五用初二遠 三用初二明 或隨處次第
於六根中眼等前五。於色等境先起功用。意後方生。是故先說。如本論言。色等五境。五識先受。意識後知。為自識依及取自境。應知俱是眼等功用。於五根中初二用遠。境不合故。所以先說。二中眼用復遠於耳。引事如前是故先說。鼻等三用。初二分明。故鼻居先。舌次身後。如鼻于香能取微細。舌于甘苦則不如是。如舌于味能取微細。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身識（Kāya-vijñāna）。有人說，它極多地以五觸為緣而生起，即四大種（catvāri mahābhūtāni）的滑等任何一種。有人說，它極多地以十事為緣而生起，其餘人認為前四種（地、水、火、風）如其所應。因為眼根（cakṣur-indriya）和耳根（śrotra-indriya）的作用是遠、速、明，所以先說。意思是眼耳二根能取遠處的境。在眼耳二根中先說眼根，因為眼根的作用更遠。比如遠處的叢林被風等吹擊，能現見搖動卻聽不到聲音。而且眼根的作用迅速，先遠遠地看見有人撞擊鐘鼓，然後才聽到聲音。鼻根（ghrāṇa-indriya）和舌根（jihvā-indriya）的作用都不是遠，先說鼻根是因為它更迅速、更明瞭。比如面對香味美好的各種飲食時，鼻子先聞到香味，舌頭后嚐到味道。這樣，姑且根據境的定與不定、作用的遠與速、明與不明來辨別諸根的次第。或者根據諸根在身體中隨所依處的上下位置來安排諸根的次第。傳說，在身體中眼根所處的位置最高，而且顯露在面部，所以先說。耳根、鼻根、舌根所依處的位置逐漸降低，身根（kāya-indriya）所處的位置更加靠下。意根（manas-indriya）沒有固定的處所，有的意根是依止五根而生起的，所以最後說。難道不是道理上說，鼻根的極微（atyanta-sūkṣma）住在鼻頞（nāsa-vaṃśa）中，而不是在眼根的下方嗎？如經中所說，三根（眼、耳、鼻）橫向排列，位置沒有高下，如同花冠花鬘（puṣpa-mālā）。道理上確實應該如此。然而經主的意圖是就諸根所依處的位置，假託如此說法。經主或者說，這似乎是通用的不同解釋，所以現在在這裡另外作頌文：
前五用先起，五用初二遠， 三用初二明，或隨處次第。
在六根中，眼等前五根對於色等境首先生起作用，意根在之後才產生。所以先說前五根。如《阿毗達磨論》（Abhidharma）所說，色等五境，五識（pañca-vijñāna）先領受，意識后了知。作為自識的所依以及取自境，應當知道這都是眼等根的作用。在五根中，初二根（眼、耳）的作用是遠，因為與境不接觸。所以先說。二根中眼根的作用又遠於耳根，引用的事例如前所述，所以先說眼根。鼻等三根的作用，初二根（鼻、舌）分明，所以鼻根在前，舌根在後，身根在最後。比如鼻根對於香能取微細之香，舌根對於甘苦則不如鼻根。如同舌根對於味能取微細之味。
【English Translation】 English version Kāya-vijñāna (body consciousness). Some say that it arises mostly in dependence on the five touches, namely any one of the smooth, etc., of the four great elements (catvāri mahābhūtāni). Some say that it arises mostly in dependence on ten things together; others consider the first four (earth, water, fire, wind) as appropriate. Because the functions of the eye sense (cakṣur-indriya) and ear sense (śrotra-indriya) are far, quick, and clear, they are mentioned first. This means that the eye and ear senses can grasp distant objects. Among the eye and ear senses, the eye sense is mentioned first because its function is farther. For example, when a distant forest is struck by wind, etc., one can see the shaking but not hear the sound. Moreover, the function of the eye sense is quick; one can see someone striking a bell or drum from afar before hearing the sound. The functions of the nose sense (ghrāṇa-indriya) and tongue sense (jihvā-indriya) are neither far; the nose sense is mentioned first because it is quicker and clearer. For example, when facing fragrant and delicious foods, the nose smells the fragrance first, and the tongue tastes the flavor later. Thus, for the moment, the order of the senses is distinguished according to whether the object is fixed or unfixed, and whether the function is far, quick, or clear. Or, the order of the senses is arranged according to the upper and lower positions of the places where they are located in the body. It is said that the eye sense is located highest in the body and is visible on the face, so it is mentioned first. The places where the ear, nose, and tongue senses are located gradually descend, and the place where the body sense (kāya-indriya) is located is even lower. The mind sense (manas-indriya) has no fixed location; some mind senses arise in dependence on the five senses, so it is mentioned last. Is it not logically true that the extremely subtle (atyanta-sūkṣma) nose sense resides in the nasal septum (nāsa-vaṃśa), not below the eye sense? As it is said in the scriptures, the three senses (eye, ear, nose) are arranged horizontally, and their positions are not high or low, like a garland of flowers (puṣpa-mālā). Logically, it should indeed be so. However, the intention of the sūtra master is to speak in this way based on the location of the places where the senses reside. The sūtra master might say that this seems to be a common and different explanation, so now a verse is composed separately here:
The first five functions arise first, of the five functions, the first two are far, Of the three functions, the first two are clear, or according to the order of the places.
Among the six senses, the first five senses, such as the eye, first perform their functions with respect to objects such as form. The mind sense arises later. Therefore, the first five senses are mentioned first. As the Abhidharma says, the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna) first receive the five objects such as form, and the mind consciousness knows them later. As the basis of one's own consciousness and as the means of grasping one's own objects, it should be known that these are all functions of the eye and other senses. Among the five senses, the functions of the first two (eye, ear) are far because they do not come into contact with the object. Therefore, they are mentioned first. Among the two senses, the function of the eye sense is farther than that of the ear sense, as illustrated earlier, so the eye sense is mentioned first. Among the functions of the three senses, the first two (nose, tongue) are clear, so the nose sense is placed before the tongue sense, and the body sense is placed last. For example, the nose sense can grasp subtle fragrances, but the tongue sense is not as good at grasping sweet and bitter tastes. Just as the tongue sense can grasp subtle tastes.
身於冷暖則不如是。隨處次第。釋不異前。若色等境。五識先受。意識後知。云何夢中能取色等。有餘師說。夢中憶念先所受境。若不爾者。諸生盲人。于其夢中亦應取色。有說。夢中非必憶念先所受境。境相現前分明取故。非於覺位憶念了別先所受境。如在夢中色等現前分明可取。非於夢位憶昔境時有殊勝德過於覺位。由此憶念先所受境。明瞭現前勝於覺位。是故夢中能取。非昔所受色等。然于夢位有時亦能憶昔境者。此非實夢。不能分明取境相故。若爾生盲何緣夢位不能取色。誰言生盲于其夢位不能取色。若謂夢中必定憶念先所受境。非先未受。應信生盲夢中取色。昔餘生中曾見色故。又于夢中非唯夢見曾所更事。如余處說。是故生盲夢亦應爾。而本論言。色等五境五識先受意後知者。據容有說。非必定然。如是所言。於色等境。眼等先用。意後生者。亦非必定。眼等五識。展轉互為等無間緣本論說故。此中且約非夢散位受了色等次第而說。由此已釋定所取色。住空閑者。咸作是言。定中青等。是有見色。不可說言。此色定是眼識曾受異類色相。於此定中分明現故。此定境色。是定所生大種所造。清潔分明。無所障礙。如空界色。如是已說處界次第。即於此中應更思擇。何緣十處體皆是色。唯於一種立色處名。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身處冷暖之中並非如此。在任何情況下，理解都是逐步進行的，與之前沒有不同。如果說色等境界是五識首先感受，意識隨後知曉，那麼在夢中如何能夠感知色等境界呢？ 有些老師說，夢中是回憶先前所感受的境界。如果不是這樣，那麼天生的盲人也應該在夢中感知到顏色。 有人說，夢中不一定回憶先前所感受的境界，因為境界的形象會清晰地顯現出來，所以能夠清楚地感知。這不同於清醒時回憶和辨別先前所感受的境界。就像在夢中，顏色等事物會清晰地顯現出來，可以清楚地感知。在夢中回憶過去的境界時，並沒有比清醒時更殊勝的能力，因此回憶先前所感受的境界，其清晰程度超過了清醒時的狀態，所以夢中能夠感知並非先前所感受的顏色等事物。然而，在夢中，有時也能回憶起過去的境界，但這並非真實的夢，因為不能清晰地感知境界的形象。 如果這樣，那麼天生的盲人為什麼在夢中不能感知顏色呢？誰說天生的盲人在夢中不能感知顏色？如果說夢中必定回憶先前所感受的境界，而沒有先前感受過的就不能回憶，那麼就應該相信天生的盲人在夢中能夠感知顏色，因為他們在過去的其他生命中可能見過顏色。 而且，在夢中，不僅僅是夢見曾經經歷過的事情，正如其他地方所說。因此，天生的盲人做夢也應該是這樣。而本論說，色等五境（指色、聲、香、味、觸五種外在境界）是五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）首先感受，意識隨後知曉，這只是根據通常情況而言，並非必定如此。如此所說，對於色等境界，眼等器官（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）先起作用，意識后產生，也並非必定如此，因為眼等五識可以相互作為等無間緣（指一種緊密相連的因果關係），本論中這樣說過。這裡只是就非夢的散亂狀態下感受和了解顏色等事物的順序而言。 由此已經解釋了『定所取色』（指禪定中所見的顏色）。住在空閑處的人都說，禪定中的青色等顏色是有見之色。不能說這種顏色一定是眼識曾經感受過的異類色相，因為在這種禪定中，它清晰地顯現出來。這種禪定中的顏色是禪定所生的大種（指地、水、火、風四大元素）所造，清潔而分明，沒有任何障礙，就像空界（指虛空）的顏色一樣。 如上已經說明了處界（指十八界，即六根、六塵、六識）的次第。在此之中應該進一步思考，為什麼十處（指眼處、耳處、鼻處、舌處、身處、意處、色處、聲處、香處、味處）的體都是色，卻只有一種被稱為色處（指色境）？又，
【English Translation】 English version Being in cold and warmth is not like that. Everywhere, understanding proceeds gradually, no different from before. If it is said that the five consciousnesses first perceive objects such as form, and the mind (意識, yishi) later knows them, then how can one perceive form, etc., in dreams? Some teachers say that in dreams, one recalls previously experienced objects. If this were not the case, then those born blind should also perceive colors in their dreams. Some say that in dreams, it is not necessarily a recollection of previously experienced objects, because the appearance of the object manifests clearly, allowing for clear perception. This is different from recalling and distinguishing previously experienced objects in the waking state. Just as in dreams, colors and other things manifest clearly and can be clearly perceived. There is no superior ability in recalling past objects in dreams compared to the waking state. Therefore, the recollection of previously experienced objects is clearer than in the waking state, so one can perceive colors, etc., in dreams that were not previously experienced. However, in dreams, one can sometimes recall past objects, but this is not a real dream because one cannot clearly perceive the appearance of the object. If so, why can't those born blind perceive colors in their dreams? Who says that those born blind cannot perceive colors in their dreams? If it is said that in dreams, one must recall previously experienced objects, and one cannot recall what one has not previously experienced, then one should believe that those born blind can perceive colors in their dreams because they may have seen colors in past lives. Moreover, in dreams, one does not only dream of things that one has experienced, as it is said elsewhere. Therefore, the dreams of those born blind should also be like this. And the treatise says that the five consciousnesses first perceive the five objects such as form (色等五境, se deng wu jing - referring to the five external realms of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch), and the mind later knows them, this is only according to the usual situation, and it is not necessarily so. As it is said, for objects such as form, the organs such as the eyes (眼等, yan deng - eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body) act first, and the mind arises later, this is also not necessarily so, because the five consciousnesses such as the eye consciousness can mutually serve as immediate conditions (等無間緣, deng wu jian yuan - referring to a close causal relationship), as the treatise says. Here, it is only referring to the order of experiencing and understanding things such as colors in a non-dreaming, scattered state. From this, the 'form taken in meditation' (定所取色, ding suo qu se - referring to colors seen in meditation) has been explained. Those who live in secluded places all say that the blue and other colors in meditation are visible colors. It cannot be said that this color must be a different kind of appearance that the eye consciousness has previously experienced, because it manifests clearly in this meditation. The color in this meditation is created by the great elements (大種, da zhong - referring to the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind) produced by meditation, clean and clear, without any obstacles, like the color of the space realm (空界, kong jie - referring to the void). The order of the realms (處界, chu jie - referring to the eighteen realms, i.e., the six senses, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses) has been explained above. Within this, it should be further considered why the substance of the ten realms (十處, shi chu - referring to the eye base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base, mind base, form base, sound base, smell base, taste base) are all form, but only one is called the form base (色處, se chu - referring to the realm of form)? Also,
十二處體皆是法。唯於一種立法處名。頌曰。
為差別最勝 攝多增上法 故一處名色 一名為法處
論曰。雖十二處十色皆法。而為差別。一立總名。言差別者。謂各別處。若色法性等故名同。是則處名應二或一。諸弟子等。由此總名。唯應總知不了別相。為令了知境及有境種種差別。故立異名。由是如來於其聲等眼等色上。立異義名。色處更無異義名故。總名即別。如能作因。諸立別名。為顯別義。此顯別義。故即別名。法處亦爾。言最勝者。由二因緣。唯色處中色相最勝。一有見故。可示在此在彼差別。二有對故。手等觸時即便變壞。又多種故。三眼境故。世共於此立色名故。諸大論師。非於聲等立色名故。唯一名色。於法處中。攝受想等眾多法故。應立通名。若離通名。云何能攝多別相法同爲一處。又於此中攝名品類法名諸法。故立法名。謂擇法覺支法智法隨念法證凈法。念住法無礙解法寶法歸。此等法名有無量種。一切攝在此法處中。故獨名法。又增上法。所謂涅槃。此中攝故。獨名為法。諸契經中。有餘種種蘊。及處界名想可得。皆在此攝。如應當知。且辯攝余諸蘊名想。頌曰。
牟尼說法蘊 數有八十千 彼體語或名 此色行蘊攝
論曰。有說。佛教語為自體。彼說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：十二處（dvādaśāyatana，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根，以及色、聲、香、味、觸、法六境）的體性都是法（dharma，指事物、規律、道理）。但只有一種立法處被特別命名。偈頌說：
『爲了區分最殊勝的，攝取眾多增上之法，所以一個處名為色（rūpa，指可見之物），一個名為法處（dharmāyatana，指意識的對象）。』
論曰：雖然十二處中的十色（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身所對的色、聲、香、味、觸五境）都屬於法，但爲了區分，特別設立總名。所說的區分，是指各個不同的處。如果因為色法（rūpadharma，指物質現象）的性質等相同而名稱相同，那麼處的名稱應該只有兩個或一個。諸位弟子等，因此通過總名，應該只能總體瞭解而不能瞭解各個不同的相。爲了讓人們瞭解境（viṣaya，指認識的對象）和有境（viṣayin，指能認識的主體）的種種差別，所以設立不同的名稱。因此，如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號之一）在聲等（指聲音等）和眼等（指眼睛等）的色上，設立不同的意義名稱。色處（rūpāyatana，指眼所對的色境）沒有其他的意義名稱，所以總名就是別名，比如能作因（kāraṇahetu，指能夠產生結果的原因）。設立別名是爲了顯示不同的意義，這種顯示不同意義的，就是別名。法處也是如此。所說的最殊勝，是因為兩個原因，只有色處中的色相（rūpalakṣaṇa，指物質的特徵）最殊勝：一是可見，可以指示在此在彼的差別；二是有對（pratigha，指相互作用），用手等觸控時就會立即變壞。又因為種類多，是眼睛的對境，世人共同對此設立色名。諸位大論師，不會在聲等上設立色名。只有一個名稱為色。在法處中，攝受想等眾多法，應該設立通名。如果離開通名，怎麼能將眾多不同的相法歸為一處？又在此中攝受名品類法（nāmaprakāra dharma，指名稱的種類）和法名諸法（dharmanāma dharma，指法的名稱），所以設立法名。如擇法覺支（dharmavicaya-saṃbodhyaṅga，指選擇法的覺悟因素）、法智（dharmajñāna，指對法的智慧）、法隨念（dharmanusmṛti，指對法的憶念）、法證凈（dharmapratilambha-prasāda，指對法證悟的清凈）、念住法（smṛtyupasthāna dharma，指念住的法）、無礙解法（pratisaṃvid dharma，指無礙解的法）、寶法歸（ratnadharma-gati，指歸依寶法的行為）。這些法名有無量種，一切都攝在此法處中，所以單獨名為法。又是增上法（adhipati dharma，指起主導作用的法），所謂涅槃（nirvāṇa，指解脫），也在此中攝受，所以單獨名為法。諸契經（sūtra，指佛經）中，有其餘種種蘊（skandha，指構成個體的要素），以及處界（āyatana-dhātu，指處和界）的名相可以獲得，都包含在此處中，應當如實瞭解。下面辨析攝受其餘諸蘊的名相。偈頌說：
『牟尼（muni，指聖人，此處指佛陀）所說的法蘊（dharma-skandha，指法的集合），數量有八萬四千，它們的體性是語言或名稱，都包含在此色行蘊（rūpasaṃskāra-skandha，指物質和行為的集合）中。』
論曰：有人說，佛教的語言是自體。他們的說法是……
【English Translation】 English version: All twelve āyatanas (spheres of sense; namely, the six sense organs - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind - and their corresponding objects - form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects) are dharmas (things, principles, doctrines). However, only one of these āyatanas is specifically named. The verse states:
'For the sake of distinguishing the most excellent, encompassing many superior dharmas, therefore one āyatana is named rūpa (form, visible object), and one is named dharmāyatana (sphere of mental objects).'
Commentary: Although ten of the twelve āyatanas, which are the five sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, and touch) are dharmas, a general name is established for the sake of distinction. The distinction refers to each separate āyatana. If the names were the same because the nature of rūpadharma (material phenomena) is the same, then the names of the āyatanas should be only two or one. Therefore, disciples should only have a general understanding through the general name and not understand the distinct characteristics. To enable people to understand the various differences between viṣaya (objects of cognition) and viṣayin (subjects of cognition), different names are established. Therefore, the Tathāgata (one of the titles of the Buddha) established different meaningful names for sound, etc., and the form on the eye, etc. Since the rūpāyatana (sphere of form) has no other meaningful name, the general name is the specific name, like the kāraṇahetu (causal condition). Establishing specific names is to reveal different meanings, and this revealing of different meanings is the specific name. The dharmāyatana is also the same. The most excellent refers to two reasons: only the rūpalakṣaṇa (characteristic of form) in the rūpāyatana is the most excellent: first, because it is visible, the difference between here and there can be indicated; second, because it has pratigha (resistance, impact), it will immediately change and be destroyed when touched by the hand, etc. Also, because there are many kinds, it is the object of the eye, and people commonly establish the name 'rūpa' for it. The great teachers do not establish the name 'rūpa' for sound, etc. There is only one name, 'rūpa'. In the dharmāyatana, many dharmas such as saṃjñā (perception) are encompassed, so a general name should be established. If there is no general name, how can many different lakṣaṇa dharmas (characteristic dharmas) be grouped into one āyatana? Also, nāmaprakāra dharma (types of names) and dharmanāma dharma (names of dharmas) are encompassed here, so the name 'dharma' is established. Such as dharmavicaya-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of discrimination of dharmas), dharmajñāna (knowledge of dharmas), dharmanusmṛti (mindfulness of dharmas), dharmapratilambha-prasāda (clarity of attainment of dharmas), smṛtyupasthāna dharma (the dharma of the foundations of mindfulness), pratisaṃvid dharma (the dharma of unobstructed understanding), and ratnadharma-gati (the act of taking refuge in the Three Jewels). These dharma names are countless, and all are encompassed in this dharmāyatana, so it is uniquely named 'dharma'. Also, adhipati dharma (dominant dharma), namely nirvāṇa (liberation), is also encompassed here, so it is uniquely named 'dharma'. In the sūtras (Buddhist scriptures), the names of various other skandhas (aggregates), and āyatana-dhātus (spheres and elements) can be obtained, all of which are included here, and should be understood accordingly. Now, let's discuss encompassing the names of the remaining skandhas. The verse states:
'The dharma-skandhas (aggregates of dharmas) spoken by the muni (sage, here referring to the Buddha) number eighty-four thousand, and their essence is language or names, all of which are included in this rūpasaṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of form and formations).'
Commentary: Some say that the language of Buddhism is its essence. Their statement is...
法蘊皆色蘊攝。語用音聲為自性故。有說。佛教名為自體。彼說法蘊皆行蘊攝。名不相應行為性故。語教異名。教容是語。名教別體。教何是名。彼作是釋。要由有名乃說為教。是故佛教體即是名。所以者何。詮義如實。故名佛教。名能詮義。故教是名。由是佛教定名為體。舉名為首。以攝句文。齊何應知諸法蘊量。頌曰。
有言諸法蘊 量如彼論說 或隨蘊等言 如實行對治
論曰。有諸師言。八萬法蘊。一一量等法蘊足論。謂彼一一有六千頌。如對法中法蘊足說。或說法蘊。隨蘊等言一一差別。數有八萬。謂蘊處界緣起諦食靜慮無色無量解脫勝處遍處覺分神通無諍愿智無礙解等。一一教門。名一法蘊。如實說者。所化有情。有貪瞋癡我慢身見及尋思等八萬行別為對治彼八萬行故。世尊宣說八萬法蘊。謂說不凈慈悲緣起無常想空持息念等諸對治門。此即順顯隨蘊等言。無蘊等言。不為對治有情病行唐捐而說。如彼所說八萬法蘊。皆此五中二蘊所攝。如是余處諸蘊處界。類亦應然。頌曰。
如是余蘊等 各隨其所應 攝在前說中 應審觀自相
論曰。余契經中。諸蘊處界。隨應攝在前所說中。如此論中所說蘊等。應審觀彼一一自相。且諸經中說餘五蘊。謂戒定慧解脫解脫知見五蘊彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法蘊（Dharma-skandha，法的集合）是否都包含在色蘊（Rupa-skandha，物質的集合）中？因為語言的使用和聲音是它的自性（svabhava，自身存在的性質）的緣故嗎？ 有人說，佛教（Buddha-dharma，佛陀的教法）本身就是一個自體（atman，獨立存在的實體）。他們說，法蘊都包含在行蘊（Samskara-skandha，心理活動的集合）中，因為『名』（nama，名稱）與『不相應行』（citta-viprayukta-samskara，不與心識相應的行）是它的性質的緣故。 語言的教導是『語教』（vacana-sasana）的另一種說法。教導的內容是語言，『名』和『教』是不同的實體。那麼，什麼是『教』的『名』呢？他們這樣解釋：必須先有名，才能說為教。因此，佛教的本體就是名。為什麼這麼說呢？因為如實地詮釋意義，所以稱為佛教。名能夠詮釋意義，所以教就是名。因此，佛教的本體一定是名。舉出名作為首要，是爲了包含句子和文章。 應該如何知道諸法蘊的量呢？頌曰： 『有人說諸法蘊，量如彼論所說，或隨蘊等言，如實行對治。』 論曰：有些論師說，有八萬法蘊，每一個的量都等於《法蘊足論》（Dharma-skandha-pada-sastra）的量。也就是說，每一個都有六千頌，就像《對法》（Abhidharma）中的《法蘊足論》所說的那樣。或者說，法蘊隨著蘊等的說法而各有差別，數量有八萬。也就是蘊、處（ayatana，感覺的來源）、界（dhatu，元素）、緣起（pratitya-samutpada，因緣生法）、諦（satya，真理）、食（ahara，食物）、靜慮（dhyana，禪定）、無色（arupa，非物質的）、無量（apramana，無限的）、解脫（vimoksha，解脫）、勝處（abhibhayatana，克服處）、遍處（krtsnayatanas，一切處）、覺分（bodhyanga，菩提分）、神通（abhijna，超自然能力）、無諍（aranas，無諍論）、愿智（pranidhana-jnana，愿智）、無礙解（pratisamvida，無礙解）等。每一個教門，都稱為一個法蘊。如實說來，所教化的有情（sattva，眾生），有貪（raga，貪慾）、瞋（dvesha，嗔恨）、癡（moha，愚癡）、我慢（mana，我慢）、身見（satkayadristi，有身見）以及尋思（vitarka，尋思）等八萬種不同的行為。爲了對治這八萬種行為，世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀）宣說了八萬法蘊。也就是宣說不凈（asubha，不凈觀）、慈悲（maitri-karuna，慈悲觀）、緣起、無常想（anitya-samjna，無常想）、空（sunyata，空性）、持息念（anapana-smrti，安般念）等各種對治法門。這正是順應了隨蘊等言的說法。沒有蘊等言，就不會爲了對治有情（sattva，眾生）的病行而徒勞地說法。就像他們所說的八萬法蘊，都包含在這五蘊中的兩個蘊中。 像這樣，其餘地方的諸蘊、處、界，也應該依此類推。頌曰： 『如是余蘊等，各隨其所應，攝在前說中，應審觀自相。』 論曰：其餘契經（sutra，經）中，諸蘊、處、界，隨其所應包含在前面所說的內容中。就像這部論中所說的蘊等，應該仔細觀察它們各自的自相（svalaksana，自身獨有的特徵）。例如，在諸經中說到的其餘五蘊，也就是戒蘊（sila-skandha，戒律的集合）、定蘊（samadhi-skandha，禪定的集合）、慧蘊（prajna-skandha，智慧的集合）、解脫蘊（vimukti-skandha，解脫的集合）、解脫知見蘊（vimukti-jnana-darshana-skandha，解脫知見的集合）。
【English Translation】 English version Are all Dharma-skandhas (aggregates of teachings) included in the Rupa-skandha (aggregate of form)? Is it because the use of language and sound is its svabhava (self-nature)? Some say that Buddha-dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) is itself an atman (independent entity). They say that Dharma-skandhas are all included in the Samskara-skandha (aggregate of mental formations), because 'nama' (name) and 'citta-viprayukta-samskara' (non-mind-associated formations) are its nature. The teaching of language is another way of saying 'vacana-sasana' (verbal instruction). The content of the teaching is language, and 'nama' (name) and 'sasana' (teaching) are different entities. So, what is the 'name' of 'sasana'? They explain it this way: there must first be a name before it can be called a teaching. Therefore, the essence of Buddha-dharma is name. Why is this so? Because it explains the meaning truthfully, it is called Buddha-dharma. Name can explain the meaning, so teaching is name. Therefore, the essence of Buddha-dharma must be name. To put name first is to include sentences and articles. How should one know the measure of the Dharma-skandhas? The verse says: 'Some say the Dharma-skandhas, their measure is as said in that treatise, or according to the words of the aggregates, like the actual practice of counteracting.' The treatise says: Some teachers say that there are eighty-four thousand Dharma-skandhas, and the measure of each one is equal to the measure of the Dharma-skandha-pada-sastra. That is to say, each one has six thousand verses, as said in the Abhidharma's Dharma-skandha-pada. Or it is said that the Dharma-skandhas differ according to the words of the aggregates, and the number is eighty-four thousand. That is, the skandhas (aggregates), ayatanas (sources of sensation), dhatus (elements), pratitya-samutpada (dependent origination), satyas (truths), aharas (foods), dhyanas (meditations), arrupa (formless realms), apramanas (immeasurables), vimokshas (liberations), abhibhayatanas (overcoming bases), krtsnayatanas (totality bases), bodhyangas (factors of enlightenment), abhijna (supernormal powers), aranas (non-conflict), pranidhana-jnana (wisdom of vows), pratisamvida (analytical knowledges), etc. Each teaching gate is called a Dharma-skandha. To speak truthfully, the sentient beings (sattvas) to be taught have eighty-four thousand different behaviors such as raga (greed), dvesha (hatred), moha (delusion), mana (pride), satkayadristi (view of self), and vitarka (thinking). In order to counteract these eighty-four thousand behaviors, the Bhagavan (Buddha) proclaimed eighty-four thousand Dharma-skandhas. That is, he proclaimed various counteracting methods such as asubha (impurity contemplation), maitri-karuna (loving-kindness and compassion), dependent origination, anitya-samjna (perception of impermanence), sunyata (emptiness), anapana-smrti (mindfulness of breathing), and so on. This is precisely in accordance with the saying of the aggregates. Without the words of the aggregates, there would be no point in speaking in vain to counteract the diseases of sentient beings. Just like the eighty-four thousand Dharma-skandhas they speak of, they are all contained in two of these five skandhas. Like this, the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus in other places should also be inferred in the same way. The verse says: 'Thus, the remaining aggregates, etc., each according to its appropriateness, are included in what was said before, one should carefully observe their own characteristics.' The treatise says: In other sutras (scriptures), the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus are included in what was said before, as appropriate. Just like the skandhas, etc., mentioned in this treatise, one should carefully observe their own svalaksana (unique characteristics). For example, the remaining five skandhas mentioned in the sutras are the sila-skandha (aggregate of morality), samadhi-skandha (aggregate of concentration), prajna-skandha (aggregate of wisdom), vimukti-skandha (aggregate of liberation), and vimukti-jnana-darshana-skandha (aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation).
中戒蘊此色蘊攝。是身語業。非意思故。彼餘四蘊。此行蘊攝。是心所法。非受想故。又諸經說。十遍處等。前八遍處。及八勝處。無貪性故。此法處攝。若兼助伴。五蘊性故。即此意處法處所攝。后二遍處。空無邊等。四無色處。四蘊性故。亦此意處法處所攝。五解脫處。慧為性故。此法處攝。若兼助伴。即此聲意法處所攝。復有二處。謂無想有情天處及非想非非想處。初處即此十處所攝。無香味故。后處即此意法處攝。無色性故。又多界經說界差別。有六十二。應隨其相當知攝在十八界中。且彼經中所說六界。地水火風四界已辯。空識二界未辯其相。如是二界其相云何。頌曰。
空界謂竅隙 傳說是明闇 識界有漏識 有情生所依
論曰。內外竅隙。名為空界。如是竅隙。云何應知。傳說。竅隙即是明闇。謂窗指等明闇竅隙顯色差別。名為空界。本論中辯此空界相。亦說名為鄰阿伽色。言阿伽者。謂極礙色。大造積集。堪引往來。能有任持。極為礙故。鄰是近義。此空界色與彼相鄰。雖是彼類而非即彼。色謂色界色處色蘊。為其自性。此鄰極礙。復是色性。是故說名鄰阿伽色。有說。阿伽即空界色。此中無礙故名阿伽。即無礙色。余礙相鄰。是故說名鄰阿伽色。所言傳說。表不信承。彼說意言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：中戒蘊包含於色蘊中。這是身語的業，而不是意思的緣故。其餘的四個蘊，包含於行蘊中。這是心所法，而不是受和想的緣故。還有，許多經中說到的十遍處等，前八個遍處以及八勝處，因為沒有貪的性質，所以包含於法處中。如果加上助伴，因為具有五蘊的性質，就包含于意處和法處中。后兩個遍處，即空無邊處等，以及四無色處，因為具有四蘊的性質，也包含于意處和法處中。五解脫處，因為以智慧為性質，所以包含於法處中。如果加上助伴，就包含于聲、意、法處中。還有兩個處，即無想有情天處和非想非非想處。第一個處包含于這十個處中，因為它沒有香和味。后一個處包含于意處和法處中，因為它沒有色的性質。還有，在《多界經》中說到的界的差別，共有六十二種，應當根據它們各自的情況，知道它們包含在十八界中。且在那部經中所說的六界中，地、水、火、風四界已經辨析過了，空和識二界還沒有辨析它們的相狀。那麼，這兩個界的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『空界謂竅隙，傳說是明闇，識界有漏識，有情生所依。』 論曰：內外竅隙，名為空界。這樣的竅隙，應當如何理解呢？傳說是，竅隙就是明和暗。即窗戶、手指等明暗的竅隙所顯現的顏色差別，名為空界。在本論中辨析這個空界的相狀時，也說它叫做鄰阿伽色（Lin Akasa）（鄰近虛空之色）。阿伽（Akasa）的意思是極礙之色，由大的造作積聚而成，能夠引導往來，能夠有所任持，因為它極為阻礙。鄰是鄰近的意思。這個空界色與那個極礙之色相鄰近，雖然是那一類的，但並非就是那個極礙之色。色是指色處、色蘊，是它的自性。這個鄰近極礙之色，又是色的性質，所以說它叫做鄰阿伽色。有人說，阿伽（Akasa）就是空界色，因為這裡沒有阻礙，所以叫做阿伽（Akasa），即無礙之色。其餘的阻礙之色與它相鄰近，所以說它叫做鄰阿伽色。所說的『傳說』，表示不信奉和承認。他們的意思是說。
【English Translation】 English version: The aggregate of morality is included within the aggregate of form. This refers to the actions of body and speech, not thought. The remaining four aggregates are included within the aggregate of formations. These are mental factors, not feeling or perception. Furthermore, many sutras speak of the ten kasinas (ten objects of concentration), etc. The first eight kasinas and the eight liberations, because they lack the nature of greed, are included within the sphere of the dharma (realm of mental objects). If combined with associated factors, because they possess the nature of the five aggregates, they are included within the sphere of mind and the sphere of dharma. The latter two kasinas, such as the sphere of infinite space, and the four formless realms, because they possess the nature of the four aggregates, are also included within the sphere of mind and the sphere of dharma. The five spheres of liberation, because their nature is wisdom, are included within the sphere of dharma. If combined with associated factors, they are included within the spheres of sound, mind, and dharma. There are also two realms: the realm of non-perception and the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. The first realm is included within these ten spheres, because it lacks smell and taste. The latter realm is included within the sphere of mind and the sphere of dharma, because it lacks the nature of form. Moreover, the Multitude of Elements Sutra speaks of the distinctions of elements, totaling sixty-two. It should be understood that these are included within the eighteen spheres according to their respective natures. Of the six elements spoken of in that sutra, the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind have already been discussed. The two elements of space and consciousness have not yet had their characteristics explained. What, then, are the characteristics of these two elements? The verse says: 『The space element is said to be apertures, traditionally understood as light and darkness; the consciousness element is defiled consciousness, the basis of life for sentient beings.』 The treatise says: Internal and external apertures are called the space element. How should these apertures be understood? Traditionally, apertures are light and darkness. That is, the differences in color manifested by the apertures of light and darkness, such as windows and fingers, are called the space element. In this treatise, when analyzing the characteristics of this space element, it is also called Lin Akasa (neighboring space-form). Akasa (space) means extremely obstructive form, accumulated by great creation, capable of guiding coming and going, capable of sustaining, because it is extremely obstructive. Lin means neighboring. This space-form is adjacent to that extremely obstructive form, although it is of the same kind, it is not that extremely obstructive form itself. Form refers to the sphere of form, the aggregate of form, which is its self-nature. This neighboring extremely obstructive form is also of the nature of form, therefore it is called Lin Akasa. Some say that Akasa (space) is the space-form, because there is no obstruction here, it is called Akasa (space), that is, unobstructed form. The remaining obstructive forms are adjacent to it, therefore it is called Lin Akasa. The term 『traditionally』 indicates a lack of belief and acceptance. Their intention is to say.
何有此理。故彼上座。及餘一切譬喻部師。咸作是說。虛空界者。不離虛空。然彼虛空體非實有。故虛空界體亦非實。此有虛言而無實義。虛空實有。后當廣明。今因空界。且略成立。離虛空界實有虛空。故世尊言。虛空無色無見無對。當何所依。然藉光明虛空顯了。此經意說。虛空無為。雖無所依。而有所作。謂能容受一切光明。以果顯因。有實體相。虛空無者。應無光明。既有光明。眼識所取。是色差別。故有虛空。以能容受光明等故。實有虛空理極成立。由此所說。契經文句。顯二分明。各別實有。又於色界得離染時。亦說斷此虛空界故。如世尊說。離色染時心於五界解脫離染。唯余識界不應說斷。虛空無為。諸漏于中曾未轉故。又契經說。此虛空界有內有外。非即虛空。如契經言。內虛空界。所謂眼竅。乃至廣說。外虛空界。所謂空中及門窗等諸有竅隙。非無為法可言內外。豈不空界與空無為無障相同。體應無異。此言無理。所以者何。虛空無為無障相者。謂非能障。亦非所障。虛空界者。雖非能障。而是所障。被余障故。由此不應定說空界無障為相同彼虛空。若爾諸說。造色不離大種處者。彼說大種不障造色。大種亦非造色所障。是則大種無障為相。應同虛空。彼說非理。俱有對故。大種造色。互相障礙。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這怎麼可能呢？因此，那位上座（長老），以及其他一切譬喻部的老師，都這樣說：『虛空界（ākāśadhātu，空間界）不離虛空（ākāśa，空間），然而那虛空本身並非真實存在。』所以，虛空界的本體也不是真實的。這只是虛假的言論，沒有實際意義。虛空是真實存在的，這一點後面會詳細闡明。現在因為談到空界（ākāśadhātu），就先簡單地論證一下：離開虛空界，虛空（ākāśa）是真實存在的。所以世尊說：『虛空無色、無見、無對（不可觸），當依何處而存在？』然而，憑藉光明，虛空才得以顯現。這段經文的意思是說，虛空是無為法（asaṃskṛta，非因緣和合而成），雖然沒有所依之處，但有所作用，即能夠容納一切光明。這是用結果來顯示原因，說明虛空具有實體之相。如果虛空不存在，那麼光明也應該不存在。既然有光明，並且能被眼識所取，是色的差別顯現，所以虛空是存在的。因為它能夠容納光明等等，所以虛空真實存在的道理非常成立。由此所說，契經（sūtra，佛經）的文句，清楚地顯示了二分（能取、所取）各自真實存在。而且，在**得離染時，也說要斷除這個虛空界。如世尊所說：『離色染時，心於五界解脫離染，唯余識界（vijñānadhātu，識界）。』不應該說斷除虛空，因為虛空是無為法，諸漏（āsrava，煩惱）在其中從未流轉過。而且，契經中說，這個虛空界有內有外，並非就是虛空本身。如契經所言：『內虛空界，所謂眼竅』，乃至廣說。『外虛空界，所謂空中及門窗等諸有竅隙。』無為法不可能有內外之分。難道空界（ākāśadhātu）與空（ākāśa）的無為、無障礙的特性相同，本體就應該沒有差別嗎？這種說法沒有道理。為什麼呢？虛空的無為、無障礙之相，是指它既不能障礙其他事物，也不會被其他事物所障礙。而虛空界，雖然不能障礙其他事物，但會被其他事物所障礙，因為它會被其他事物遮蔽。因此，不應該斷定空界的無障礙特性與虛空相同。如果這樣說，那麼那些說『造色（rūpa，物質）不離大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）處』的說法，他們說大種不障礙造色，大種也不是造色所障礙的，那麼大種的無障礙之相，就應該與虛空相同了嗎？他們的說法沒有道理，因為大種和造色都是有對的，大種和造色會互相障礙。
【English Translation】 English version How can this be? Therefore, that Elder (上座, shangzuo), and all the other teachers of the Sautrāntika school (譬喻部師, pìyù bù shī), all say this: 'The space element (虛空界, xūkōng jiè, ākāśadhātu) is not separate from space (虛空, xūkōng, ākāśa), yet that space itself is not truly existent.' Therefore, the substance of the space element is also not real. This is merely false speech, without actual meaning. Space is truly existent, which will be explained in detail later. Now, because we are discussing the space element, let us first briefly establish that: apart from the space element, space (ākāśa) is truly existent. Therefore, the World-Honored One (世尊, Shìzūn) said: 'Space is without color, without visibility, without opposition (untouchable), where should it rely?' However, it is by means of light that space becomes manifest. The meaning of this sutra (契經, qìjīng, sūtra) is that space is unconditioned (無為法, wúwéi fǎ, asaṃskṛta), although it has no place to rely, it has a function, namely, it can accommodate all light. This is using the result to show the cause, indicating that space has the characteristic of substance. If space did not exist, then light should also not exist. Since there is light, and it can be apprehended by eye consciousness, it is a differentiation of form, therefore space exists. Because it can accommodate light and so on, the principle that space is truly existent is very well established. From what has been said, the words and phrases of the sutra clearly show that the two aspects (subject and object) each exist in reality. Moreover, at the time of **attaining freedom from defilements, it is also said that this space element is to be abandoned. As the World-Honored One said: 'When the mind is freed from the defilement of form, it is liberated from the five elements, with only the element of consciousness (識界, shì jiè, vijñānadhātu) remaining.' It should not be said that space is to be abandoned, because space is unconditioned, and the outflows (諸漏, zhū lòu, āsrava) have never flowed within it. Moreover, the sutra says that this space element has an inner and an outer, it is not space itself. As the sutra says: 'The inner space element is what is called the eye socket,' and so on extensively. 'The outer space element is what is called the space in the air and the gaps in doors and windows.' It is impossible for an unconditioned dharma to have an inner and an outer. Is it not the case that the space element (ākāśadhātu) and the unconditioned, unobstructed characteristic of space (ākāśa) are the same, and therefore their substance should be no different? This statement is unreasonable. Why? The unconditioned, unobstructed characteristic of space refers to the fact that it can neither obstruct nor be obstructed. The space element, although it cannot obstruct other things, it is obstructed by other things, because it is obscured by other things. Therefore, it should not be definitively said that the unobstructed characteristic of the space element is the same as that of space. If that is the case, then those who say 'formed matter (造色, zàosè, rūpa) is not separate from the location of the great elements (大種, dàzhǒng, mahābhūta)'—they say that the great elements do not obstruct formed matter, and the great elements are also not obstructed by formed matter—then the unobstructed characteristic of the great elements should be the same as that of space? Their statement is unreasonable, because both have resistance. The great elements and formed matter obstruct each other.
應各別處。豈相容受。既不相容。如何大種無障為相同于虛空。又彼許色少分無障。故與虛空其相有別。彼說大造雖不相障而障余色。故異虛空。雖諸大種不障自果。亦復不為自果所障。而與余色互相障礙。是故虛空無障為相。異虛空界。理得成立。由此空界非即虛空。又體實有。經說有故。猶如地等。如契經說。實有六界成假士夫。又是有為假士依故。猶如地等。又是明闇顯色性故。又是有漏。說此為緣入母胎故。離色染時說。斷彼故。即由此因證體是色。又如頌言。
譬如盛滿月 行無垢空輪
空即空界。顯空是色。有垢無垢。在色體故。有別誦言。
如凈滿月輪 遊歷虛空界
此亦空界無障垢故。月輪無垢義不異前。或復如何說有色法行於無色。與理相應。又說汝等當觀我手舉在虛空。乃至廣說。彼諸長老。不善諦觀如是理教。隨情所說。于古聖賢展轉傳授。順理言教而不敬從。已說空界。識界云何。謂有漏識。何緣不說無漏諸識為識界耶。與識界義不相應故。由無漏法。于有情生斷害壞等差別轉故。非生所依。如是六界。于有情生生養長因差別轉故。是生所依。生因。謂識界續生種故。養因。謂大種生依止故。長因謂空界容受生故。尊者世友作如是言。界是施設有情因故。非無漏法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應各別存在。豈能互相容納。既然不能互相容納，如何能說四大種（地、水、火、風，構成物質世界的四種基本元素）沒有障礙，與虛空相同呢？而且他們認為色法（物質現象）的少部分是沒有障礙的，所以與虛空在性質上有所區別。他們說四大造色（由四大種所造的色法）雖然不互相障礙，卻能障礙其他的色法，因此不同於虛空。雖然四大種不障礙自己的果（結果），也不被自己的果所障礙，但是會與其他色法互相障礙。因此，虛空以無障礙為特性，與虛空界不同，這個道理是可以成立的。由此可見，空界並非就是虛空。而且空界的體性是真實存在的，因為經典中這樣說，就像地界等一樣。如契經（佛經）所說：『真實存在六界（地、水、火、風、空、識）構成虛假的士夫（人）。』而且空界是有為法（由因緣和合而生的事物），是虛假士夫所依賴的，就像地界等一樣。而且空界具有明暗和顯色的性質。而且空界是有漏法（受煩惱影響的事物），經典中說以空界為緣進入母胎。在離開色染（對色界的貪戀）時說，斷除了空界。即由此原因證明空界的體性是色法。又如頌（偈頌）中所說：
『譬如盛滿月，行無垢空輪，』
空即是空界。顯示空界是色法。有垢或無垢，都在色法的體性中。有不同的誦本說：
『如凈滿月輪，遊歷虛空界，』
這也是因為空界沒有障礙和污垢。月輪沒有污垢的意義與前面相同。或者又如何能說有色法在無色法中執行，才符合道理呢？又說『你們應當看我的手舉在虛空中』，乃至廣說。那些長老，沒有好好地觀察這些道理和教義，只是隨自己的想法所說。對於古代聖賢輾轉傳授的、順應道理的言教卻不恭敬地遵循。已經說了空界，識界（意識的範圍）又是什麼呢？是指有漏識（受煩惱影響的意識）。為什麼不說無漏諸識（不受煩惱影響的意識）為識界呢？因為與識界的意義不相應。由於無漏法，對於有情（眾生）的生、斷、害、壞等差別轉變，不是生所依賴的。像這樣，六界對於有情的生、生養、長因的差別轉變，是生所依賴的。生因，是指識界延續生命的種子。養因，是指四大種是生命生長的依止。長因，是指空界容納生命的生長。尊者世友（Vasubandhu）這樣說：『界是設施，有情的原因。』不是無漏法。
【English Translation】 English version: They should exist separately. How can they accommodate each other? Since they cannot accommodate each other, how can it be said that the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind, the four basic elements that constitute the material world) are without obstruction and the same as space? Moreover, they believe that a small part of form (material phenomena) is unobstructed, so it is different from space in nature. They say that the four great derived forms (the forms created by the four great elements), although they do not obstruct each other, can obstruct other forms, so they are different from space. Although the four great elements do not obstruct their own results, nor are they obstructed by their own results, they obstruct other forms. Therefore, space, with its characteristic of being unobstructed, is different from the space realm, and this principle can be established. From this, it can be seen that the space realm is not the same as space. Moreover, the nature of the space realm is truly existent, because the scriptures say so, just like the earth realm and so on. As the sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say: 'The six realms (earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness) truly exist and constitute the false person (man).' Moreover, the space realm is a conditioned dharma (things that arise from the combination of causes and conditions), which the false person relies on, just like the earth realm and so on. Moreover, the space realm has the nature of light and darkness and manifest color. Moreover, the space realm is a defiled dharma (things affected by afflictions), and the scriptures say that it is the condition for entering the womb. When leaving the defilement of form (attachment to the realm of form), it is said that the space realm is cut off. This is the reason to prove that the nature of the space realm is form. And as the verse (gatha) says:
'Like a full moon, traveling in a stainless space wheel,'
Space is the space realm. It shows that the space realm is form. Whether defiled or undefiled, it is all in the nature of form. There are different recitations that say:
'Like a pure full moon, traveling in the realm of empty space,'
This is also because the space realm has no obstruction and defilement. The meaning of the moon wheel being without defilement is the same as before. Or how can it be said that form travels in formlessness, which is in accordance with reason? And it is said, 'You should look at my hand raised in the empty space,' and so on. Those elders did not carefully observe these principles and teachings, but spoke according to their own ideas. They do not respectfully follow the words and teachings of the ancient sages that have been passed down from generation to generation and are in accordance with reason. The space realm has already been discussed, what is the consciousness realm (the scope of consciousness)? It refers to defiled consciousness (consciousness affected by afflictions). Why not say that undefiled consciousness (consciousness unaffected by afflictions) is the consciousness realm? Because it is not in accordance with the meaning of the consciousness realm. Because undefiled dharmas, for the differences in the birth, cutting off, harming, and destruction of sentient beings (beings), are not what birth relies on. In this way, the six realms, for the differences in the birth, nourishment, and growth causes of sentient beings, are what birth relies on. The cause of birth refers to the seed of consciousness realm continuing life. The cause of nourishment refers to the fact that the four great elements are the basis for the growth of life. The cause of growth refers to the fact that the space realm accommodates the growth of life. Venerable Vasubandhu said: 'The realm is the cause of the establishment of sentient beings.' It is not an undefiled dharma.
。如契經說。六界為緣入母胎故。由此界名隨義而立。謂能持生。故名為界。入母胎緣。貫通六界。唯一識界。獨能續生。彼經六界此九界攝。余隨所應。當觀攝義。故諸餘界。十八界攝。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之四
如是已說余蘊處界皆在此中。蘊處界攝今當顯示。蘊處界三。有見等門義類差別。界中具顯根境識故。諸門義類易可了知。故今且約十八界辯。由斯蘊處義類已成。於前所說十八界中。幾有見幾無見。幾有對幾無對幾善幾不善幾無記。頌曰。
一有見謂色 十有色有對 此除色聲八 無記餘三種
論曰。十八界中。一是有見。所謂色界。云何說此名有見耶。由二義故。一者此色定與見俱。故名有見。由色與眼俱時起故。如有伴侶二者此色可有示現。故名有見。可示在此在彼別故。如有所緣。有說。此色于鏡等中有像可現。故名有見。可示如彼此亦爾故。不可說聲有谷響等應成有見。不俱生故。由說此相。余界無見義準已成。如是已說有見無見唯色蘊攝。十界有對。對是礙義。此有彼礙。故名有對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：正如契經所說，六界（地、水、火、風、空、識）為因緣進入母胎。因此，根據其意義而設立這些界的名稱，即具有保持和產生的作用，所以稱為『界』。進入母胎的因緣，貫通六界。只有識界（Vijnana-dhatu）能夠延續生命。該經中的六界被此處的九界所包含。其餘的應根據情況觀察其包含的意義。因此，其餘的界都被十八界所包含。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之四
如上已經說明了其餘的蘊、處、界都包含在此處。現在應當顯示蘊、處、界的包含關係。蘊、處、界三者，在有見等方面的意義和類別有所差別。由於界中完整地顯示了根、境、識，所以這些方面的意義和類別容易理解。因此，現在暫且圍繞十八界進行辨析。由此，蘊和處的意義和類別也就明白了。在前面所說的十八界中，哪些是有見的？哪些是無見的？哪些是有對的？哪些是無對的？哪些是善的？哪些是不善的？哪些是無記的？頌文說：
『一有見謂色，十有色有對，此除色聲八，無記餘三種。』
論述：在十八界中，一個是有見的，即**（Rupa-dhatu）。為什麼說這個色界是有見的呢？由於兩個原因：一是這個色必定與見識同時存在，所以稱為有見。因為色與眼識同時生起。如同有伴侶一樣；二是這個色可以被示現，所以稱為有見。可以顯示在此處或在彼處的區別。如同有所緣境一樣。有人說，這個色在鏡子等物體中可以顯現影像，所以稱為有見。可以顯示如此處或彼處也是同樣的道理。因此，不能說聲音有谷響等就應該成為有見，因為它們不是同時產生的。通過說明這個相狀，其餘的界是無見的意義就自然成立了。如上已經說明了有見和無見，它們只被色蘊（Rupa-skandha）所包含。十個界是有對的。『對』是阻礙的意思。此物對彼物有阻礙，所以稱為有對。
【English Translation】 English version: As the sutra says, the six elements (earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness) are the causes and conditions for entering the mother's womb. Therefore, the names of these elements are established according to their meanings, that is, having the function of maintaining and producing, so they are called 'elements' (dhatu). The causes and conditions for entering the mother's womb pervade the six elements. Only the consciousness element (Vijnana-dhatu) can continue life. The six elements in that sutra are included in the nine elements here. The rest should be observed according to the situation to understand the meaning of inclusion. Therefore, the remaining elements are all included in the eighteen elements.
Treatise on the Correct Theory of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 3 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562 Abhidharma Nyayanusara Sastra
Abhidharma Nyayanusara Sastra, Volume 4
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 1 on Explaining the Nature of Things, Part 4
As mentioned above, the remaining skandhas (aggregates), ayatanas (sense bases), and dhatus (elements) are all included here. Now, the inclusion relationships of skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus should be shown. The three, skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus, have differences in meaning and categories in terms of visibility, etc. Because the roots, objects, and consciousnesses are fully displayed in the elements, these aspects of meaning and categories are easy to understand. Therefore, now let's temporarily analyze around the eighteen elements. From this, the meanings and categories of skandhas and ayatanas will also be understood. Among the eighteen elements mentioned above, which are visible? Which are invisible? Which are resistant? Which are non-resistant? Which are wholesome? Which are unwholesome? Which are neutral? The verse says:
'One is visible, namely form (Rupa-dhatu); ten are material and resistant; excluding form and sound, eight are neutral; the remaining three are of other types.'
Commentary: Among the eighteen elements, one is visible, namely ** (Rupa-dhatu). Why is this form element said to be visible? Due to two reasons: First, this form must exist simultaneously with seeing, so it is called visible. Because form and eye-consciousness arise simultaneously, just like having a companion; second, this form can be shown, so it is called visible. It can be shown as being here or there, with distinctions. Just like having an object of focus. Some say that this form can manifest images in mirrors and other objects, so it is called visible. Showing it as being here or there is the same principle. Therefore, it cannot be said that sounds having echoes should become visible, because they do not arise simultaneously. By explaining this characteristic, the meaning that the remaining elements are invisible is naturally established. As mentioned above, visibility and invisibility are only included in the form aggregate (Rupa-skandha). Ten elements are resistant. 'Resistance' means obstruction. This thing obstructs that thing, so it is called resistant.
。此復三種。境界所緣障礙別故。境界有對。謂眼等根。心及心所。諸有境法與色等境。和會被礙。得有對名。故施設論。作如是言。有眼於水有礙非陸。乃至廣說。彼論意言。有眼水中與境和會。而被拘礙。非於陸境。所緣有對。謂心心所。于自所緣。和會被礙。得有對名。境界所緣。復有何別。若於彼法。此有功能。即說彼為此法境界。如人于彼有勝功能。便說彼為我之境界。心心所法執彼而起。彼於心等名為所緣。若法所緣有對定是境界有對。心心所法。境界若無。取境功能定不轉故。有雖境界有對而非所緣有對。謂五色根非相應法。無所緣故。云何眼等。于自境界所緣轉時。說名有礙。越彼于余此不轉故。或復礙者是和會義。謂眼等法。于自境界及自所緣。和會轉故。有說。若法唯于彼轉。不能越彼。故名有礙。障礙有對謂可集色。自於他處被礙不生。如手石等。更相障礙。今于如是三有對中。唯辯障礙。故但言十。更相障礙。對義勝故。若法境界有對亦障礙有對耶。應作四句。謂七心界相應法界。是第一句。色等五境。是第二句。眼等五根。是第三句。法界一分非相應法。是第四句。說十有色名為有對。義準說餘名為無對。言有色者。謂除無表。余色蘊攝。變礙名色。有變礙義。故名有色。有說。色者。謂
能示現在此彼言。此有彼言。故名有色。有說。諸色有自體故。名為有色。稱說易故。唯於色體說有色言。如是已說有對無對。於此所說十有對中。除色及聲。餘八無記。言無記者。謂不可記說為善不善故。應贊毀法。可記說在黑白品中。名為有記若於二品皆所不容。體不分明。名無記法。其餘十界。通善等三。即是七心色聲法界。善謂舍惡。是違惡義。或復善者。名慧攝受謂若諸法慧所攝受。或攝受慧。皆名為善。或復善者。是吉祥義。能招嘉瑞。如吉祥草。翻此即釋不善義名。色聲二界。善心等起。即名為善。噁心等起。名為不善。余是無記。其七心界。若無貪等相應名善。貪等相應名為不善。餘名無記。法界所攝品類眾多。無貪等性相應等起。擇滅名善。若貪等性相應等起。名為不善。餘名無記。其五識身皆無分別。又唯一念墮在境中。云何立為善不善性。若謂五識無分別故。非善不善。有太過失。或等引中所有意識。皆無分別。應非善性。又五識身非無分別。許與尋伺恒相應故。又雖一念墮在境中。誰遮相應。有信貪等。由有意識。雖復一念墮在境中。而成善惡。故不應用此所說因遮五識身善不善性。化地部說。前四識身。但異熟生。唯無記性。身識亦有時轉變生。故與意識俱通。有記。此說非理。與契經中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能示現在『此』和『彼』的言說，或者說『此有』和『彼有』的言說，因此稱為『有色』（可見的、有質礙的）。也有人說，諸色法具有各自的自體，因此稱為『有色』。因為稱說容易，所以只在色法的本體上說『有色』這個詞。 像這樣已經說明了『有對』（有阻礙的）和『無對』（無阻礙的）。在這裡所說的十種『有對』法中，除了色和聲，其餘八種是『無記』（非善非惡的）。說『無記』，是因為不可記說為善或不善。應該讚揚或譭謗的法，可以記說在黑品或白品中，稱為『有記』（可記說的）。如果對於黑白二品都不容納，體性不分明的，稱為『無記法』。 其餘十界（眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界、色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界），通於善、不善、無記三種。也就是七心界（眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界、末那識界）、色界、聲界、法界。捨棄惡法稱為『善』，是違背惡的含義。或者，善是指智慧的攝受，即如果諸法被智慧所攝受，或者攝受智慧，都稱為善。或者，善是吉祥的含義，能招來嘉祥瑞應，如吉祥草。反過來就解釋了『不善』的含義。 色界和聲界，由善心等生起，就稱為善；由噁心等生起，稱為不善；其餘是無記。七心界，如果沒有貪等煩惱相應，就稱為善；與貪等煩惱相應，就稱為不善；其餘稱為無記。法界所包含的品類眾多，與無貪等性相應等起，以及擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）稱為善；如果與貪等性相應等起，稱為不善；其餘稱為無記。 五識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）都沒有分別，又唯一念頭落在所緣境中，怎麼能立為善不善的性質呢？如果說五識沒有分別，所以不是善也不是不善，這有太大的過失。或者等持（禪定）中的所有意識，都沒有分別，應該也不是善性。 而且，五識身並非沒有分別，因為允許它與尋（粗略的觀察）和伺（精細的觀察）恒常相應。而且，即使一念頭落在所緣境中，誰阻止了它與信、貪等相應呢？由於有意識，即使一念頭落在所緣境中，也能成為善或惡。所以不應該用這個理由來否定五識身的善不善性。 化地部（佛教部派之一）說，前四識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識）只是異熟生（由業力成熟而生），只有無記性。身識有時也會轉變而生，所以與意識一樣，通於有記。這種說法不合理，與契經中的說法相違背。
【English Translation】 English version That which can be indicated by the words 'here' and 'there,' or by saying 'this exists' and 'that exists,' is therefore called 'having form' (rupa, visible and obstructive). Some say that all forms have their own self-nature, hence they are called 'having form.' Because it is easy to name and describe, the term 'having form' is only used for the essence of form. Thus, 'having resistance' (with obstruction) and 'without resistance' (without obstruction) have been explained. Among the ten 'having resistance' dharmas mentioned here, except for form and sound, the remaining eight are 'undetermined' (avyakrta, neither good nor bad). 'Undetermined' means that they cannot be described as good or bad. Dharmas that should be praised or blamed can be recorded in the black or white categories, and are called 'determined' (vyakrta, describable). If they are not accepted in either the black or white categories, and their nature is unclear, they are called 'undetermined dharmas.' The remaining ten realms (eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm) are connected to the three types of good, bad, and undetermined. These are the seven mind realms (eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm, manas consciousness realm), form realm, sound realm, and dharma realm. Abandoning evil is called 'good,' which is the opposite of evil. Or, good refers to the acceptance of wisdom, meaning that if dharmas are accepted by wisdom, or accept wisdom, they are all called good. Or, good means auspiciousness, which can attract auspicious omens, like auspicious grass. The opposite of this explains the meaning of 'bad.' The form and sound realms, arising from good mind, are called good; arising from bad mind, they are called bad; the rest are undetermined. The seven mind realms, if not associated with greed and other afflictions, are called good; associated with greed and other afflictions, they are called bad; the rest are called undetermined. The dharma realm contains many categories; association and arising with non-greed and other qualities, and cessation through wisdom (nirvana achieved through wise choice), are called good; if associated and arising with greed and other qualities, they are called bad; the rest are called undetermined. The five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) have no discrimination, and only one thought falls into the object of perception. How can they be established as having good or bad nature? If it is said that the five consciousnesses have no discrimination, so they are neither good nor bad, this has a great fault. Or, all consciousnesses in samadhi (meditative concentration) have no discrimination, so they should not be of good nature. Moreover, the five consciousnesses are not without discrimination, because they are allowed to be constantly associated with seeking (rough observation) and investigation (detailed observation). Moreover, even if one thought falls into the object of perception, who prevents it from being associated with faith, greed, etc.? Because there is consciousness, even if one thought falls into the object of perception, it can become good or bad. Therefore, this reason should not be used to deny the good or bad nature of the five consciousnesses. The Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school) say that the first four consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness) are only the result of karma (vipaka-ja, born from the maturation of karma), and only have undetermined nature. Body consciousness sometimes transforms and arises, so it is the same as consciousness, connected to the determined. This statement is unreasonable and contradicts the statements in the sutras.
立六愛身。義相違故。彼作是釋。眼觸無間所生貪愛。名眼觸生。此釋非理。受等同故。六六經中說眼觸生受想思等。非不許彼與眼觸等俱時而生。是故不應作如是釋。豈不如經說十八意近行。雖復說有三六不同。而唯在意。此亦應爾。如是立喻與法不同。立六六門。據所依異。立意近行。就所緣別。是故不應以彼喻此。又彼所說。但述己情。防護六根。契經說故。如契經說。應于眼根乃至意根防護而住。若如所說契經但應言應于意根防護而住。若謂釋此同意近行。經是則應言應防護色等。又說能招苦異熟故。如契經說。若有六根不護不防不密而住。招苦異熟。然五色根無記性故。不招異熟。應知經意。就依根識作如是說。如契經言。眼所識色。眼所希求。此亦如是。若不爾者。經唯應說。若有意根不護不防不密而住。招苦異熟。又契經說。若有眼根不護不防不密而住。乃至廣說。豈異熟生。有不護等。又雖一念墮在境中。而能取相故通有記。如契經言。眼見色已。能不取相。不取隨好。由諸色境二識取故。先起眼識取諸色相。後起意識取彼隨好。如是契經。意顯眼識能取相故。亦能起染。若爾云何唯說意識是有分別。應知但依分別力故。起諸過失。應共思求契經意趣。我說。若識於一剎那能取非一品類境界。於一所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：立六愛身，因為意義相違背的緣故。他們這樣解釋：眼觸（眼睛與外物接觸）無間所生的貪愛，名為眼觸生。這種解釋不合理，因為受（感受）等也是如此。在《六六經》中說眼觸生受、想、思等，並非不允許它們與眼觸等同時產生。所以不應該這樣解釋。難道不像經中所說十八意近行（十八種與意相關的心理活動）嗎？雖然說有三六不同，但都唯在意（意識）上。這裡也應該如此。這樣立比喻與法則不同。立六六門，是根據所依的不同。立意近行，是就所緣的差別。所以不應該用彼來比喻此。而且他們所說，只是陳述自己的想法。《防護六根契經》中這樣說，應該對眼根乃至意根防護而住。如果如他們所說，契經就應該只說『應該對意根防護而住』。如果說解釋這個同意近行，經文就應該說『應該防護色等』。又說能招感痛苦的異熟果報的緣故。如契經說，如果有人六根不守護、不防範、不保密而住，就會招感痛苦的異熟果報。然而五色根是無記性的緣故，不招感異熟果報。應該知道經文的意思，是就依根識而這樣說的。如契經說，眼所識的色，是眼所希求的。這裡也是這樣。如果不這樣，經文就應該只說，如果有人意根不守護、不防範、不保密而住，就會招感痛苦的異熟果報。又契經說，如果有人眼根不守護、不防範、不保密而住，乃至廣說。難道異熟所生，有不守護等嗎？又即使一念墮落在境界中，也能取相，所以通於有記（善或惡）。如契經說，眼見色已，能不取相，不取隨好。因為諸色境由二識取，先起眼識取諸色相，後起意識取彼隨好。這樣的契經，意在顯示眼識能取相，所以也能生起染污。如果這樣，為什麼只說意識是有分別的？應該知道只是依靠分別的力量，才生起諸種過失。應該共同思考契經的意趣。我說，如果識在一個剎那能取非一品類的境界，於一所緣上
【English Translation】 English version: Establishing the six aggregates of love is contradictory in meaning. They explain it this way: the craving that arises immediately from eye contact (eye and external object contact) is called 'eye-contact-born'. This explanation is unreasonable because it's the same with feeling (vedana) and so on. In the Sutra of Sixes, it says that feeling, perception, thought, etc., arise from eye contact, and it's not denied that they arise simultaneously with eye contact and so on. Therefore, it should not be explained in this way. Isn't it like the sutra that speaks of the eighteen mental activities related to the mind (eighteen mental activities associated with intention)? Although it says there are three sixes that are different, they are all only in the mind (consciousness). It should be the same here. Establishing this analogy is different from the Dharma. Establishing the six sixes is based on the difference in what is relied upon. Establishing mental activities related to the mind is based on the difference in what is cognized. Therefore, one should not use that to exemplify this. Moreover, what they say is merely stating their own feelings. The Sutra on Guarding the Six Roots says that one should dwell guarding the eye root, and even the mind root. If it were as they say, the sutra should only say, 'One should dwell guarding the mind root.' If it is said that this explanation agrees with mental activities related to the mind, then the sutra should say, 'One should guard forms, etc.' It also says that it can bring about painful results of maturation. As the sutra says, if someone dwells without guarding, protecting, or concealing the six roots, they will bring about painful results of maturation. However, the five sense roots are of indeterminate nature, so they do not bring about results of maturation. One should know that the meaning of the sutra is speaking in this way based on the consciousness that relies on the roots. As the sutra says, the form cognized by the eye is what the eye desires. It is the same here. If it were not so, the sutra should only say, 'If someone dwells without guarding, protecting, or concealing the mind root, they will bring about painful results of maturation.' Moreover, the sutra says, 'If someone dwells without guarding, protecting, or concealing the eye root,' and so on, extensively. Do those born from maturation have non-guarding, etc.? Furthermore, even if a single thought falls into an object, it can grasp the characteristic, so it is common to both determinate (good or bad). As the sutra says, 'Having seen a form with the eye, one can not grasp the characteristic, not grasp the secondary characteristics.' Because the various form objects are grasped by two consciousnesses, first the eye consciousness arises and grasps the characteristics of the forms, then the mind consciousness arises and grasps their secondary characteristics. This sutra intends to show that the eye consciousness can grasp the characteristic, so it can also give rise to defilements. If so, why is it only said that the mind consciousness is discriminating? One should know that it is only by relying on the power of discrimination that various faults arise. One should contemplate together the meaning of the sutra. I say, if consciousness can grasp more than one category of object in a single moment, on one object of focus
緣多心流注。如是相識。名有分別。然五識身唯取現境。無二念識同一所緣無一所緣前取滅已。第二念識復取生故。意識能緣三世境界。法雖已滅。猶是所行。於一所緣多心流注。故唯說此是有分別。然五識身。自性分別恒相應故。亦有分別。而契經言無分別者。謂無隨念計度分別。自性分別。其體是尋。五識相應。如前已說。然伽他說。第六增上王等。此中顯示多分起染次第。如契經言。父母于子能作難作。非不亦有子于父母能作難作。此中亦爾。然諸眾生有種種性。或軟煩惱。或利煩惱。軟煩惱者。要先發起虛妄分別。然後煩惱方現在前。利煩惱者。不待分別。境才相順。煩惱便起。由此道理。或有先起染污意識。或有先起染污余識。如燃火時。或先煙起。漸次生焰。後方洞然。或遇卒風。猛焰頓發。俄成灰燼。如人身中。病本若少。飲食乖適然后病生。病本若多。少遭風熱外緣所觸。眾疾競起。煩惱病起。理亦應然。故五識身亦通三性。理得成立。已說善等。十八界中。幾欲界系。幾色界。系幾無色界系。頌曰。
欲界系十八 色界系十四 除香味二識 無色系后三
論曰。系謂系屬。即被縛義。欲界所繫具足十八。色界所繫唯十四種。除香味境及鼻舌識。除香味者。段食性故。離段食貪方得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『緣多心流注。如是相識。名有分別。』意思是說，因為有多種因緣，心識的流注才會產生。像這樣，才能識別出『名』（nāma，精神現象）是有分別作用的。然而，前五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的本身只能取當下的境界，沒有第二唸的識與它緣于同一個對象，因為沒有一個對象是前一念識滅去之後，第二念識又重新取用的。意識（mano-vijñāna）能夠緣於過去、現在、未來三世的境界。法（dharma，事物、現象）雖然已經滅去，但仍然是意識所行的對象。對於同一個對象，有多種心識的流注，所以才說意識是有分別的。然而，前五識本身，因為自性分別恒常相應，所以也是有分別的。而契經上所說的『無分別』，是指沒有隨念計度分別。自性分別，它的體性是尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）。五識與尋相應，如同前面已經說過的。然而伽陀（gāthā，偈頌）中說，『第六增上王等』，這其中顯示了多分發起染污的次第。如同契經上所說，父母對於子女能夠做出難以做到的事情，並非沒有子女對於父母也能做出難以做到的事情。這裡也是一樣。然而，眾生有種種根性，或者煩惱微弱，或者煩惱強烈。煩惱微弱的人，要先發起虛妄分別，然後煩惱才會在面前顯現。煩惱強烈的人，不需要等待分別，境界才一相順，煩惱便會生起。由於這個道理，或者有先發起染污的意識，或者有先發起染污的其餘識。如同燃燒火焰的時候，或者先有煙升起，漸漸地產生火焰，然後才完全燃燒。或者遇到突然的風，猛烈的火焰一下子爆發，立刻化為灰燼。如同人的身體中，疾病的根本如果很少，飲食不調然後疾病才會產生。疾病的根本如果很多，稍微遭受風熱等外在因素的觸碰，各種疾病就會一起發作。煩惱病的生起，道理也應該是這樣。所以前五識也通於善、惡、無記三性，這個道理才能成立。已經說了善等。十八界（dhātu，構成要素）中，有多少是欲界（kāma-dhātu，慾望界）所繫，有多少是色界（rūpa-dhātu，物質界）所繫，有多少是無色界（arūpa-dhātu，非物質界）所繫。頌曰： 『欲界系十八，色界系十四，除香味二識，無色系后三。』 論曰：系，是系屬的意思，也就是被束縛的意思。欲界所繫的有全部十八界。色界所繫的只有十四種，除去香味境以及鼻識、舌識。除去香味的原因是，因為它們是段食（kabaḍīkāra-āhāra，粗摶食）的性質。離開對段食的貪愛才能得到解脫。
【English Translation】 English version 『Due to multiple causes, the flow of consciousness arises. Thus, recognition occurs. This is called having discrimination.』 This means that because there are many causes and conditions, the flow of consciousness arises. In this way, one can recognize that 『name』 (nāma, mental phenomena) has the function of discrimination. However, the five sense consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) can only grasp the present object. There is no second thought of consciousness that is related to the same object, because there is no object that the previous consciousness has ceased to grasp, and the second consciousness grasps again. The mind consciousness (mano-vijñāna) can be related to the objects of the three times: past, present, and future. Although the dharma (dharma, things, phenomena) has ceased, it is still the object of the mind consciousness. For the same object, there are multiple flows of consciousness, so it is said that the mind consciousness has discrimination. However, the five sense consciousnesses themselves also have discrimination because self-nature discrimination is constantly associated with them. The 『non-discrimination』 mentioned in the sutras refers to the absence of subsequent conceptual discrimination. Self-nature discrimination, its nature is vitarka (vitarka, rough thinking). The five consciousnesses are associated with vitarka, as has been said before. However, the gāthā (gāthā, verse) says, 『The sixth, the supreme king, etc.』, which shows the order of the arising of defilements in most cases. Just as the sutras say, parents can do difficult things for their children, and it is not that children cannot do difficult things for their parents. It is the same here. However, beings have various natures, either with weak afflictions or with strong afflictions. Those with weak afflictions must first arouse false discrimination, and then afflictions will appear before them. Those with strong afflictions do not need to wait for discrimination; as soon as the object is agreeable, afflictions will arise. For this reason, sometimes defiled mind consciousness arises first, and sometimes defiled other consciousnesses arise first. Just as when burning a fire, sometimes smoke rises first, gradually producing flames, and then it burns completely. Or, encountering a sudden wind, the fierce flames burst out at once and immediately turn to ashes. Just as in the human body, if the root of the disease is small, the disease will arise after improper diet. If the root of the disease is large, slightly exposed to external factors such as wind and heat, various diseases will break out together. The arising of affliction-disease should also be the same. Therefore, the five sense consciousnesses also pervade the three natures of good, evil, and neutral, and this principle can be established. Having spoken of good, etc. Among the eighteen dhātus (dhātu, elements), how many are bound to the kāma-dhātu (kāma-dhātu, desire realm), how many are bound to the rūpa-dhātu (rūpa-dhātu, form realm), and how many are bound to the arūpa-dhātu (arūpa-dhātu, formless realm)? The verse says: 『The desire realm is bound to eighteen, the form realm is bound to fourteen, excluding the two consciousnesses of smell and taste, the formless realm is bound to the last three.』 The treatise says: 『Bound』 means belonging to, that is, being bound. The desire realm is bound to all eighteen dhātus. The form realm is bound to only fourteen, excluding the objects of smell and taste, and the nose and tongue consciousnesses. The reason for excluding smell and taste is that they are of the nature of kabaḍīkāra-āhāra (kabaḍīkāra-āhāra, coarse food). Only by abandoning the craving for coarse food can one attain liberation.
生彼。除鼻舌識。無境界故。非無境界少有識生。若爾于彼亦應無觸。非食性觸于彼得有。觸界于彼無成食用。有成余用。所謂成身。若不爾者。大種應無。則諸所造亦應非有。便同無色何名色界。又于彼觸有成外用。謂成宮殿及衣服等。雖離食染。觸有別用。香味不然。故彼非有。有餘師說。住此依彼靜慮等至。見色聞聲。輕安俱起。有殊勝觸。攝益於身。是故此三。生彼靜慮。由相隨逐。香味不爾。故在彼無。經主此中謂前有過。言彼鼻舌亦應非有。如香味境。彼無用故。豈不二根于彼有用。謂起言說。及莊嚴身。起說嚴身。但須依處根非有見。何所莊嚴。如無男根亦無依處。二根無者依處亦無。于彼可無男根依處。彼無用故鼻舌依處。彼有用故。離根應有。謂莊嚴身。及起言說。有雖無用而有根生。如處胞胎定當死者。于中眼耳何用故生。于根有愛及殊勝業。因此故生。無用何失。豈不色界鼻舌二根有愛業因故亦應起。若離境愛。根愛亦無。或應男根于彼亦有。彼無男根。離根愛故。由離根愛。依處亦無。此中何因作如是執。若離境愛。根愛亦無。非根愛無處愛亦離。根與依處鄰逼而生。境界不然。如何倒執男根依處於彼不生。即顯男根于彼離愛。既許鼻舌依處彼生。故知二根彼愛未離。故不應執彼離根愛未離
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生於彼處（指無色界）。除了鼻識和舌識，因為沒有境界的緣故。並非沒有境界就少有意識產生。如果這樣，那麼在那裡也應該沒有觸覺。但並非食用性的觸覺在那裡可以存在。觸覺界在那裡沒有成就食用的作用，但有成就其他的作用，即成就身體。如果不是這樣，四大種（地、水、火、風）應該不存在，那麼由四大種所造的色法也應該不存在，那就和無色界一樣了，還叫什麼（此處原文缺失，無法翻譯）？而且，在那裡的觸覺有成就外在的作用，比如成就宮殿和衣服等。雖然離開了食物的染污，觸覺有其他的作用，但香味不是這樣，所以香味在那裡不存在。有些論師說，居住在這裡（指欲界），依靠彼處（指無色界）的靜慮等至，見到色法，聽到聲音，輕安同時生起，有殊勝的觸覺，攝取利益身體。因此，這三種（眼、耳、身）在彼處靜慮中產生，因為互相隨逐的緣故。香味不是這樣，所以在那裡沒有。經主（指《俱舍論》的作者世親》）在這裡認為前面有過失，說彼處的鼻和舌也應該不存在，就像香味的境界一樣，因為它們沒有作用的緣故。難道這兩個根（鼻根和舌根）在那裡沒有作用嗎？比如發起言說和莊嚴身體。發起言說和莊嚴身體，只需要依靠處所，根本身沒有見的作用，用什麼來莊嚴呢？就像沒有男根，也沒有依靠的處所一樣。沒有這兩個根，依靠的處所也沒有。在那裡可以沒有男根和依靠的處所，因為它們沒有作用的緣故。鼻根和舌根的依靠處所，因為它們有作用的緣故，即使離開了根也應該存在，比如莊嚴身體和發起言說。有些東西雖然沒有作用，但有根產生，比如處於胞胎中必定會死去的人，其中的眼根和耳根有什麼用處而產生呢？因為對根有愛著以及殊勝的業力，因此才產生，沒有用處又有什麼損失呢？難道（此處原文缺失，無法翻譯）鼻根和舌根因為有愛著和業力的原因，也應該產生嗎？如果離開了對境界的愛著，對根的愛著也沒有了。或者應該說男根在那裡也應該存在。彼處沒有男根，因為離開了對根的愛著的緣故。由於離開了對根的愛著，依靠的處所也沒有了。這裡是什麼原因讓你作出這樣的執著？如果離開了對境界的愛著，對根的愛著就沒有了。但並非對根的愛著沒有了，對處所的愛著也離開了。根和依靠的處所鄰近而生，境界不是這樣。如何顛倒執著男根和依靠的處所在彼處不產生？這正好顯示男根在彼處離開了愛著。既然允許鼻根和舌根的依靠處所在彼處產生，就知道這兩個根在彼處愛著還沒有離開，所以不應該執著彼處離開了根的愛著，還沒有離開。
【English Translation】 English version Born in that place (referring to the Formless Realm). Except for nose consciousness and tongue consciousness, because there is no object. It is not that there is little consciousness arising without an object. If so, then there should be no touch there either. But non-nutritive touch can exist there. The touch element does not achieve the function of nourishment there, but it achieves other functions, namely, achieving the body. If this were not the case, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) should not exist, then the forms created by the four great elements should not exist either, which would be the same as the Formless Realm, so what is it called ** (missing text in the original, unable to translate)? Moreover, touch there has an external function, such as achieving palaces and clothing. Although separated from the defilement of food, touch has other uses, but smell and taste are not like this, so they do not exist there. Some teachers say that residing here (referring to the Desire Realm), relying on the meditative absorption of that place (referring to the Formless Realm), seeing forms, hearing sounds, and lightness arise simultaneously, there is a special touch that benefits the body. Therefore, these three (eye, ear, body) arise in that meditative absorption, because they follow each other. Smell and taste are not like this, so they are not there. The master of the treatise (referring to Vasubandhu, the author of Abhidharmakośakārikā) here believes that there is a fault in the previous statement, saying that the nose and tongue there should also not exist, just like the objects of smell and taste, because they have no function. Are not these two roots (nose root and tongue root) useful there? For example, initiating speech and adorning the body. Initiating speech and adorning the body only require relying on a place, the root itself has no function of seeing, so what is there to adorn? Just like there is no male organ, there is no place to rely on. Without these two roots, there is no place to rely on. There can be no male organ and place to rely on there, because they have no function. The place to rely on for the nose root and tongue root, because they have a function, should exist even without the roots, such as adorning the body and initiating speech. Some things, although they have no function, have roots arising, such as those who are in the womb and are destined to die, what is the use of the eye and ear roots arising in them? Because there is attachment to the roots and special karma, therefore they arise, what is the loss if they have no use? Could it be that ** (missing text in the original, unable to translate) the nose and tongue roots should also arise because of attachment and karma? If there is no attachment to the object, there is no attachment to the root. Or it should be said that the male organ should also exist there. There is no male organ there, because there is no attachment to the root. Because there is no attachment to the root, there is no place to rely on. What is the reason that makes you make such an assertion here? If there is no attachment to the object, there is no attachment to the root. But it is not that if there is no attachment to the root, there is no attachment to the place. The root and the place to rely on arise closely together, the object is not like this. How can you perversely assert that the male organ and the place to rely on do not arise there? This shows that the male organ has no attachment there. Since it is allowed that the place to rely on for the nose root and tongue root arises there, it is known that the attachment to these two roots has not left there, so it should not be asserted that the attachment to the root has left there, and has not left.
處愛。理如前說。又離境愛非證根無。如或有時眼耳身識未得離愛。彼所依根。亦同其識。未得離愛。或復有時。已離識愛。根愛未離。由有所須。如是或時根愛已盡。其境界愛亦復隨滅。或復有時。已離境愛。由須用故。根愛未除。又引男根。亦不成證。由彼起愛所依不同。依于內身起六根愛。非依境起。如何可說若離境愛根愛亦無。起男根愛。依淫觸境。境愛彼無。理無根愛。又眼等根。互相系屬。見諸啞者多分耳聾。涂足不塗眼便明昧。臍輪涂沃津潤于唇。拔鼻中毛眼便落淚。諸如是等。其類寔繁。故知諸根更相損益。勿令眼等諸根用微故。鼻舌根色界定有。由茲色界十四義成。無色界系。唯有後三。所謂意法及意識界。要離色染。于彼得生。故無色中無十色界。依緣無故。五識亦無。故唯后三無色界系。已說界系。十八界中幾有漏幾無漏。頌曰。
意法意識通 所餘唯有漏
論曰。即此意法及意識三。一切皆通有漏無漏。謂除道諦及三無為。余意等三皆是有漏。道諦所攝。及三無為。如其所應。三皆無漏。唯通有漏。謂餘十五。道諦無為所不攝故。如是已說有漏無漏。十八界中。幾有尋有伺。幾無尋唯伺。幾無尋無伺。頌曰。
五識有尋伺 后三三餘無
論曰。眼等五識有尋有伺。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於對境之愛（處愛），處理方式如前所述。此外，離開對境界的愛並不意味著一定證得根無。例如，有時眼識、耳識、身識尚未斷除對境界的愛，那麼它們所依賴的根，也和這些識一樣，沒有斷除對境界的愛。或者，有時已經斷除了識對境界的愛，但根的愛還沒有斷除，這是因為還有所需求。像這樣，有時根的愛已經斷盡，那麼對境界的愛也隨之滅除。或者，有時已經斷除了對境界的愛，但因為還需要使用，所以根的愛還沒有去除。此外，用男根的例子來證明（離開對境界的愛，根愛也無）是不成立的，因為男根生起愛的所依不同。六根的愛是依于內在的身體而生起，不是依于外在的境界而生起。怎麼能說如果離開了對境界的愛，根的愛也就沒有了呢？生起男根的愛，是依于淫慾的觸境，那裡並沒有境界的愛，所以沒有根的愛。此外，眼等諸根互相聯繫。看到很多啞巴，大部分是耳聾。塗抹腳部而不塗抹眼睛，眼睛就會變得昏暗。塗抹臍輪，使之滋潤，嘴唇也會變得濕潤。拔掉鼻孔中的毛，眼睛就會流淚。像這樣的例子實在太多了。所以要知道諸根之間互相損益。不要讓眼等諸根的功能衰微。所以鼻根、舌根必定存在。因此，十四義成立。沒有系（此處原文有誤，應為『色』系）。只有后三者，即意界、法界和意識界，要離開對色的染著，才能在彼處獲得生。所以在無色界中沒有十（此處原文有誤，應為『色』系）。因為沒有所依的緣故，五識也沒有。所以只有后三者沒有**系（此處原文有誤，應為『色』系）。 已經說了界系。十八界中，哪些是有漏的，哪些是無漏的呢？頌說： 意、法、意識通有漏和無漏，其餘的只有有漏。 論說：就是這意界、法界和意識界三種，一切都通於有漏和無漏。也就是說，除了道諦和三種無為法，其餘的意等三種都是有漏的。道諦所攝的，以及三種無為法，如其所應，這三種都是無漏的。只有有漏的，是指其餘的十五界，因為它們不被道諦和無為法所攝。像這樣，已經說了有漏和無漏。十八界中，哪些是有尋有伺的，哪些是無尋唯伺的，哪些是無尋無伺的呢？頌說： 五識是有尋有伺的，后三是無尋無伺的，其餘的是無尋唯伺的。 論說：眼等五識是有尋有伺的。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'Chua Ai' (attachment to objects). The handling is as previously described. Furthermore, detachment from attachment to objects does not necessarily mean the attainment of rootlessness. For example, sometimes the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and body consciousness have not yet severed attachment to objects, then the roots upon which they depend are also, like these consciousnesses, not detached from attachment to objects. Or, sometimes the consciousness has already severed attachment to objects, but the attachment of the roots has not yet been severed, because there is still a need. Like this, sometimes the attachment of the roots has been completely severed, then the attachment to objects also ceases accordingly. Or, sometimes attachment to objects has already been severed, but because there is still a need for use, the attachment of the roots has not yet been removed. Furthermore, using the example of the male organ to prove (that if detachment from attachment to objects exists, then root attachment is also absent) is not valid, because the basis upon which the attachment of the male organ arises is different. The attachment of the six roots arises based on the internal body, not based on external objects. How can it be said that if detachment from attachment to objects exists, then root attachment is also absent? The arising of attachment to the male organ is based on the object of lustful touch; there is no attachment to objects there, so there is no root attachment. Furthermore, the roots such as the eye are interconnected. Seeing that many deaf-mutes are mostly deaf. Applying ointment to the feet without applying it to the eyes will cause the eyes to become dim. Applying ointment to the navel chakra, making it moist, will also moisten the lips. Plucking the hair in the nostrils will cause the eyes to tear. Examples like these are truly numerous. Therefore, know that the roots mutually benefit and harm each other. Do not let the functions of the roots such as the eye become weak. Therefore, the nose root and tongue root must exist. Therefore, the fourteen meanings are established. There is no 'Rupa' (form) affiliation. Only the latter three, namely the mind realm (意界, Yi Jie), the dharma realm (法界, Fa Jie), and the consciousness realm (意識界, Yi Shi Jie), must be detached from attachment to form in order to be born there. Therefore, in the formless realm, there are no ten 'Rupa' (form) affiliations. Because there is no basis for dependence, the five consciousnesses are also absent. Therefore, only the latter three have no 'Rupa' (form) affiliation. The realm affiliations have already been discussed. Among the eighteen realms, which are with outflows (有漏, You Lou) and which are without outflows (無漏, Wu Lou)? The verse says: Mind, dharma, and consciousness are common to both with and without outflows; the rest are only with outflows. The treatise says: These three, namely the mind realm, the dharma realm, and the consciousness realm, all are common to both with and without outflows. That is to say, except for the path truth (道諦, Dao Di) and the three unconditioned dharmas (三無為, San Wu Wei), the remaining three, such as the mind, are all with outflows. Those included in the path truth, and the three unconditioned dharmas, as appropriate, are all without outflows. Only with outflows refers to the remaining fifteen realms, because they are not included in the path truth and the unconditioned dharmas. Like this, with and without outflows have already been discussed. Among the eighteen realms, which are with initial and sustained application of thought (有尋有伺, You Xun You Si), which are without initial application of thought but only with sustained application of thought (無尋唯伺, Wu Xun Wei Si), and which are without initial and sustained application of thought (無尋無伺, Wu Xun Wu Si)? The verse says: The five consciousnesses are with initial and sustained application of thought, the latter three are without initial and sustained application of thought, and the rest are without initial application of thought but only with sustained application of thought. The treatise says: The five consciousnesses, such as eye consciousness, are with initial and sustained application of thought.
由與尋伺恒共相應。此五識身恒與尋伺共相應者。經主釋言。以行相粗外門轉故。此因非理。現見意識。內門轉時。亦常與彼共相應故。應作是釋。五識唯于尋伺所隨地中有故。非於欲界初靜慮中心心所法除尋與伺而有不與尋伺相應。何用外門為因簡別。意法意識名為后三。根境識中各居后故。此後三界皆通三品。意界意識界及相應法界。除尋與伺。若在欲界初靜慮中。有尋有伺。靜慮中間無尋唯伺。從此以上無尋無伺。法界一切非相應法。靜慮中間伺亦如是。于彼上地無尋伺故。非相應故。彼無尋故。自體自體不相應故。尋一切時無尋唯伺。自體自體不相應故。此常與伺共相應故。豈不經主言。無第二尋故。設有第二許相應耶。有第二受而不相應。無第二言。非為定證。一時無二故。行相不同故。雖有第二而不相應。如是此因便為無用。或應自體自體相應。許無差別亦相應故。此何緣故成異體耶。豈不還成自體自體不相應故。自體行相無差別法。一時無有二體相應。是故此因能為定證。非彼言無第二尋故。伺在欲界初靜慮中。三品不收。應名何等。此應名曰無伺唯尋。自體自體不相應故。此常與尋共相應故。由此安立有尋伺地。法有四品。餘十色界。尋伺俱無。常與尋伺不相應故。此中乘便應更思量。若五識身有尋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 尋和伺總是同時出現。這五種感官意識總是與尋和伺同時出現。經文的解釋是，因為它們的作用方式粗糙，並且在外部運作。這個理由是不合理的。我們看到，當意識在內部運作時，也經常與尋和伺同時出現。所以應該這樣解釋：五種感官意識只存在於有尋和伺的地方。在欲界（Kāmadhātu，指眾生輪迴的六道中的欲界）和初禪（初靜慮，指色界的第一禪定）中，除了尋和伺之外，沒有不與尋和伺相應的心理活動。為什麼要用『外部運作』作為理由來區分呢？ 意界（Manodhātu，意識之根）、意識界（Vijñānadhātu，六識之一）和法界（Dharmadhātu，諸法總稱）被稱為『后三』，因為它們在根、境、識中位於後面。這『后三』遍及三界（指欲界、色界、無色界），包含三種品類。意界、意識界以及相應的法界，除了尋和伺之外，如果在欲界和初禪中，就有尋和伺；在靜慮中間（靜慮中間，指色界第二禪），沒有尋只有伺；從那裡往上，就沒有尋也沒有伺。法界中的一切非相應法（不與心識相應的法），在靜慮中間，伺也是如此。因為在更高的境界中沒有尋和伺，所以它們是不相應的。因為沒有尋，所以自體和自體是不相應的。尋在任何時候都沒有尋只有伺的情況，因為自體和自體是不相應的。尋總是與伺同時出現。 難道經文中不是說『沒有第二個尋』嗎？即使有第二個尋，難道就允許它們相應嗎？有第二個受（Vedanā，感受）而不相應的情況。『沒有第二個』不能作為確定的證據。因為一個時間只有一個，作用方式不同。即使有第二個，它們也不相應。這樣一來，這個理由就變得沒有用了。或者應該允許自體和自體相應，因為允許沒有差別也是相應。那麼，這又為什麼會變成不同的個體呢？難道不會再次變成自體和自體不相應嗎？自體的作用方式沒有差別的法，一個時間不可能有兩個個體相應。所以這個理由可以作為確定的證據。而不是因為經文中說『沒有第二個尋』。 伺在欲界和初禪中，三種品類都不包含。應該稱為什麼呢？應該稱作『無伺唯尋』。因為自體和自體不相應。伺總是與尋同時出現。因此，安立了有尋伺地。法有四種品類。其餘十種**。尋和伺都沒有，因為它們總是與尋和伺不相應。這裡應該進一步思考。如果五種感官意識有尋...
【English Translation】 English version Vitarka (尋, initial application of thought) and Vicara (伺, sustained application of thought) always occur together. These five sense consciousnesses always occur with Vitarka and Vicara. The explanation in the scripture is that it is because their mode of operation is coarse and they operate externally. This reason is unreasonable. We see that when consciousness operates internally, it also often occurs with Vitarka and Vicara. So it should be explained this way: the five sense consciousnesses only exist in places where there are Vitarka and Vicara. In the Kāmadhātu (欲界, the desire realm, referring to the realm of desire among the six realms of reincarnation) and the first Dhyana (初靜慮, the first meditation in the form realm), apart from Vitarka and Vicara, there are no mental activities that do not correspond with Vitarka and Vicara. Why use 'external operation' as a reason to distinguish them? Manodhātu (意界, the root of consciousness), Vijñānadhātu (意識界, the consciousness element, one of the six consciousnesses), and Dharmadhātu (法界, the realm of phenomena, the totality of all dharmas) are called 'the latter three' because they are located at the back in the root, object, and consciousness. These 'latter three' pervade the three realms (referring to the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), containing three categories. Manodhātu, Vijñānadhātu, and the corresponding Dharmadhātu, apart from Vitarka and Vicara, if they are in the desire realm and the first Dhyana, then there are Vitarka and Vicara; in the intermediate Dhyana (靜慮中間, the second Dhyana in the form realm), there is no Vitarka but only Vicara; from there upwards, there is neither Vitarka nor Vicara. All non-corresponding dharmas (dharmas that do not correspond with consciousness) in the Dharmadhātu, in the intermediate Dhyana, Vicara is also like this. Because there are no Vitarka and Vicara in the higher realms, they are non-corresponding. Because there is no Vitarka, the self and the self are non-corresponding. Vitarka never has a situation where there is no Vitarka but only Vicara, because the self and the self are non-corresponding. Vitarka always occurs with Vicara. Didn't the scripture say 'there is no second Vitarka'? Even if there is a second Vitarka, would it be allowed to correspond? There are cases where there is a second Vedanā (受, feeling) that does not correspond. 'There is no second' cannot be used as definite evidence. Because there is only one at a time, and the modes of operation are different. Even if there is a second one, they do not correspond. In this way, this reason becomes useless. Or it should be allowed that the self and the self correspond, because allowing no difference is also corresponding. Then, why would this become different individuals? Wouldn't it become self and self not corresponding again? Dharmas whose modes of operation of the self are not different, it is impossible for two individuals to correspond at one time. So this reason can be used as definite evidence. Rather than because the scripture says 'there is no second Vitarka'. Vicara in the desire realm and the first Dhyana, none of the three categories contain it. What should it be called? It should be called 'no Vicara but only Vitarka'. Because the self and the self are non-corresponding. Vicara always occurs with Vitarka. Therefore, the place with Vitarka and Vicara is established. Dharmas have four categories. The remaining ten **. There are neither Vitarka nor Vicara, because they always do not correspond with Vitarka and Vicara. Here, further consideration should be given. If the five sense consciousnesses have Vitarka...
有伺。尋即分別。如何許彼無分別耶。頌曰。
說五無分別 由計度隨念 以意地散慧 意諸念為體
論曰。分別有三。一自性分別。二計度分別。三隨念分別。由五識身雖有自性而無餘二。說無分別。如一足馬名為無足。故雖有一而得名無。豈不意識有唯一種分別相應。由依意識總類具三。說有分別。自性分別體唯是尋。後心所中自當辯釋。餘二分別。如其次第。意地散慧諸念為體。散言簡定。意識相應散慧。名為計度分別。定中不能計度境故。非定中。慧。能于所緣。如此如是計度而轉。故於此中簡定取散。若定若散。意識相應諸念。名為隨念分別。明記所緣用均等故。五識雖與慧念相應。擇記用微。故唯取意。夫分別者。推求行相。故說尋為自性分別。簡擇明記。行似順尋。故分別名亦通慧念。由此三行差別攝持。皆令于境明瞭轉異。于已了境遮簡行生。故分別名不通於想于未了境不能印持。故分別名不通勝解。若在欲界及初靜慮。不定意識。具三分別。若初靜慮。在定意識。及上散心。各二分別。上地意識。若在定中。及五識身。各一分別。
如是已說有尋伺等。十八界中。幾有所緣。幾無所緣。幾有執受。幾無執受。頌曰。
七心法界半 有所緣余無 前八界及聲 無執
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：有尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）和有伺（vicara，精細的檢查）的心，立即進行分別。如何允許它們沒有分別呢？ 頌曰： 說五識無分別，由計度（parikalpana，推測）和隨念（anusmrti，回憶），以意地（manobhumi，意識的層面）的散慧（viksipta-mati，散亂的智慧），意（manas，意識）的諸念（smrti，記憶）為體。 論曰：分別有三種：一、自性分別（svabhava-parikalpana，本質上的分別），二、計度分別，三、隨念分別。由於五識身雖然有自性，但沒有其餘兩種，所以說它們沒有分別。就像一隻腳的馬被稱為沒有腳一樣。因此，雖然有一個，卻可以被稱為沒有。難道不是意識有唯一一種分別相應嗎？由於依靠意識總的類別具備三種，所以說它有分別。自性分別的體唯是尋。在後面的心所中將會詳細辨析。其餘兩種分別，按照次第，以意地的散慧和諸念為體。『散』字是爲了簡別禪定。與意識相應的散慧，名為計度分別。因為在禪定中不能計度境界。不是在禪定中的智慧，能夠對所緣境如此如此地計度而轉。因此，在這裡簡別禪定而取散亂。無論在禪定中還是散亂中，與意識相應的諸念，名為隨念分別。因為明記所緣的作用均等。五識雖然與慧和念相應，但選擇和記憶的作用微弱，所以只取意識。 總的來說，分別是指推求事物的行相。因此，說尋是自性分別。簡擇和明記，其行為類似於順著尋。因此，分別的名稱也通用於慧和念。由於這三種行為的差別攝持，都使得對於境界的明瞭轉變不同。對於已經明瞭的境界，遮止簡別行為的產生。因此，分別的名稱不通用於想（samjna，知覺），因為想不能印持未明瞭的境界。因此，分別的名稱不通用於勝解（adhimukti，勝妙的理解）。如果在欲界和初禪，不定的意識，具備三種分別。如果在初禪，在定的意識，以及上界的散心，各有兩種分別。上地的意識，如果在定中，以及五識身，各有一種分別。 像這樣已經說了有尋伺等。在十八界中，有幾個是有所緣（salambana，有對象），有幾個是無所緣（anlambana，無對象），有幾個是有執受（savijnaptika，有感受），有幾個是無執受（avijnaptika，無感受）？ 頌曰： 七心和法界的一半，有所緣，其餘的沒有。前面的八界和聲，沒有執受。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Minds with vitarka (initial application of thought, gross thought) and vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle thought) immediately engage in discrimination. How can you allow them to be without discrimination? Verse: It is said that the five consciousnesses are without discrimination, due to parikalpana (conceptualization, speculation) and anusmrti (recollection, mindfulness), with the distracted wisdom (viksipta-mati) of the mind-basis (manobhumi), and the memories (smrti) of the mind (manas) as their essence. Treatise: There are three types of discrimination: 1. svabhava-parikalpana (discrimination of inherent nature, essential discrimination), 2. parikalpana (conceptual discrimination), and 3. anusmrti (recollective discrimination). Because the five sense consciousnesses, although having inherent nature, lack the other two, they are said to be without discrimination. It's like a one-legged horse being called legless. Thus, although it has one, it can be called without. Doesn't the consciousness have only one type of corresponding discrimination? Because relying on the general category of consciousness possesses three, it is said to have discrimination. The essence of svabhava-parikalpana is only vitarka. In the subsequent mental factors, it will be explained in detail. The remaining two types of discrimination, in order, have the distracted wisdom of the mind-basis and memories as their essence. The word 'distracted' is to distinguish from samadhi (concentration). The distracted wisdom corresponding to consciousness is called parikalpana. Because in samadhi, one cannot conceptualize objects. It is not that wisdom in samadhi can conceptualize and turn towards the object in such and such a way. Therefore, here, distracted is distinguished from samadhi. Whether in samadhi or distraction, the memories corresponding to consciousness are called anusmrti. Because the function of clearly remembering the object is equal. Although the five consciousnesses correspond to wisdom and memory, the function of selection and memory is weak, so only consciousness is taken. In general, discrimination refers to investigating the characteristics of things. Therefore, it is said that vitarka is svabhava-parikalpana. Selection and clear memory, its behavior is similar to following vitarka. Therefore, the name of discrimination also applies to wisdom and memory. Because of the difference in these three types of behavior, they all make the understanding of the object different. For objects that have already been understood, the generation of restrictive and selective behavior is prevented. Therefore, the name of discrimination does not apply to samjna (perception), because perception cannot imprint on objects that have not been understood. Therefore, the name of discrimination does not apply to adhimukti (superior understanding). If in the desire realm and the first dhyana, the unfixed consciousness possesses three types of discrimination. If in the first dhyana, the consciousness in samadhi, and the distracted mind of the upper realms, each has two types of discrimination. The consciousness of the upper realms, if in samadhi, and the five sense consciousnesses, each has one type of discrimination. Having thus spoken of vitarka, vicara, etc., among the eighteen realms, how many have an object (salambana), how many are without an object (anlambana), how many have apprehension (savijnaptika), and how many are without apprehension (avijnaptika)? Verse: Seven minds and half of the dharma realm have an object, the rest do not. The first eight realms and sound are without apprehension.
受餘二
論曰。六識意界。及法界攝諸心所法。名有所緣。有所緣故。如人有子。所緣所行及與境界。名義差別。餘十色界。及法界攝不相應法。名無所緣。義準成故。此中上座作如是言。五識依緣俱非實有。極微一一不成所依所緣事故。眾微和合。方成所依所緣事故。為成此義。謬引聖言。佛告多聞諸聖弟子。汝等今者應如是學。諸有過去未來現在。眼所識色。此中都無常性恒性。廣說乃至。無顛倒性。出世聖諦。皆是虛偽妄失之法。乃至廣說。彼謂五識若緣實境。不應聖智觀彼所緣。皆是虛偽妄失之法。由此所依亦非實有。準所緣境不說而成。又彼師徒串習世典。引眾盲喻。證已義宗。傳說。如盲一一各住。無見色用。眾盲和集。見用亦無。如是極微一一各住。無依緣用。眾多和集。此用亦無。故處是假。唯界是實。彼部義宗略述如是。今謂彼論涉壞法宗。故有智人不應欣慕。五識不緣非實有境。和集極微為所緣故。又五識身無分別故。不緣眾微和合為境。非和合名別目少法。可離分別所見乃至所觸事成。以彼和合無別法故。唯是計度分別所取。五識無有計度功能。是故不緣和合為境。即諸極微。和集安布。恒為五識生起依緣。無有極微不和集故。設有極微不和集者。是彼類故。亦屬依緣。然五識身。唯用
和集為所緣故。不緣彼起。猶如雖有過去未來色等境界以五識身唯現境故不緣彼起。雖不緣彼而五境攝。又眼識不緣和合為境。以青等顯色應非實故。若眼識緣和合為境。青黃等覺應決定無。青等不應是和合故。若是和合應非實有。是則顯色。亦假非真。無容眼識不取青等。有意識能分別青等。若言青等如和合者。其理不然。以就勝義。非許和合是色性故。有諸師說。和合亦非意識境故。或五識身。唯緣勝義。世俗唯是意識所緣。故無青等同和合過。如取未來不見滅色。於何分位緣和合耶。于彼所依已滅分位。豈不此位無和合耶。餘位亦無。何獨責此。如青等有和合本無。唯分別心計度而取。如於現世和集色等。起總計度名和合覺。如是亦應由覺慧力。于已滅位不集色等。起總計度名和合覺。又如覺慧。雖集去來現在等色總為一聚名色蘊覺。而去來等諸色不同。不可集為一和合聚。雖彼一一各起蘊覺。而去來等諸色不同。應不總生一色蘊覺。然有如是總色蘊覺。故知亦于已滅色等。彼雖離散不可和集。而覺慧力。攝為一聚。成和合覺。理不相違。緣一合境名和合覺。如於已滅青色境界。謂是青性覺相分明。復為他說。我見如是如是青性。如是于彼已滅色等。起和合覺明瞭現前。亦為他說我見如是如是和合。若執意識亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為和合是所緣的緣故，所以不緣彼而生起。猶如雖然有過去、未來的顏色等境界，但五識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）因為只緣現前的境界，所以不緣彼而生起。雖然不緣彼，但五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）包含其中。而且眼識不緣和合為境界，因為青色等顯色應該不是真實的。如果眼識緣和合為境界，那麼對於青色、黃色等的覺知應該確定是沒有的。青色等不應該是和合的緣故。如果是和合的，應該不是真實存在的。那麼顯色也是虛假的，不是真實的。不可能眼識不取青色等。有意識能夠分別青色等。如果說青色等如同和合一樣，這個道理是不對的。因為就勝義諦（究竟的真理）來說，不承認和合是色的自性。有些論師說，和合也不是意識的境界。或者五識身只緣勝義諦，世俗諦只是意識所緣的。所以沒有青色等同於和合的過失。如同取未來、不見已滅的顏色一樣，在什麼分位緣和合呢？在它所依的已經滅去的分位。難道這個分位沒有和合嗎？其他分位也沒有。為什麼只責備這個分位呢？如同青色等有和合的本性，但實際上沒有，只是分別心計度而取。如同對於現世和集的顏色等，生起總體的計度，名為和合的覺知。這樣也應該由覺慧的力量，對於已經滅去的不聚集的顏色等，生起總體的計度，名為和合的覺知。又如覺慧，雖然聚集過去、未來、現在等的顏色，總為一聚，名為色蘊（rūpa-skandha）的覺知。而過去、未來等的諸色不同，不可聚集為一個和合的聚。雖然它們一一各自生起蘊的覺知，而過去、未來等的諸色不同，應該不總生起一個色蘊的覺知。然而有這樣的總色蘊的覺知。所以知道也是對於已經滅去的顏色等，它們雖然離散，不可和集，而覺慧的力量，攝為一聚，成就和合的覺知，道理不相違背。緣一個和合的境界，名為和合的覺知。如同對於已經滅去的青色境界，認為是青色的自性，覺知的相狀分明。又為他人說，我見如此如此的青色自性。如此對於彼已滅的顏色等，生起和合的覺知，明瞭現前。也為他說我見如此如此的和合。如果執著意識也
【English Translation】 English version Because aggregation is the object of cognition, it does not arise by cognizing that. Just as, although there are past and future colors and other objects, the five consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness) only cognize present objects, so they do not arise by cognizing those. Although they do not cognize those, the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) are included within them. Moreover, eye-consciousness does not cognize aggregation as its object, because manifest colors such as blue should not be real. If eye-consciousness cognizes aggregation as its object, then the perception of blue, yellow, etc., should definitely not exist. Blue, etc., should not be aggregations. If it is an aggregation, it should not be truly existent. Then manifest color is also false, not real. It is impossible for eye-consciousness not to apprehend blue, etc. There is consciousness that can distinguish blue, etc. If it is said that blue, etc., are like aggregation, that reasoning is incorrect. Because, according to ultimate truth, aggregation is not accepted as the nature of color. Some teachers say that aggregation is also not an object of consciousness. Or the five consciousnesses only cognize ultimate truth, while conventional truth is only cognized by consciousness. Therefore, there is no fault of blue, etc., being the same as aggregation. Just as apprehending future and unseen extinguished colors, in what division does one cognize aggregation? In the division where its basis has already ceased. Does this division not lack aggregation? Other divisions also lack it. Why only blame this one? Just as blue, etc., have the nature of aggregation, but in reality do not, it is only conceptual thought that measures and apprehends it. Just as, with respect to colors, etc., that are aggregated in the present world, a general measurement arises, called the perception of aggregation. Likewise, it should also be by the power of discriminating wisdom that, with respect to colors, etc., that are not aggregated and have ceased, a general measurement arises, called the perception of aggregation. Furthermore, just as discriminating wisdom, although aggregating past, future, and present colors, etc., collectively into one mass, is called the perception of the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha). And the various colors such as past and future are different and cannot be aggregated into one aggregated mass. Although each of them individually gives rise to the perception of an aggregate, and the various colors such as past and future are different, a single perception of the form aggregate should not arise in total. However, there is such a total perception of the form aggregate. Therefore, it is known that it is also with respect to colors, etc., that have ceased, that although they are scattered and cannot be aggregated, the power of discriminating wisdom gathers them into one mass, accomplishing the perception of aggregation, and the reasoning is not contradictory. Cognizing a single aggregated object is called the perception of aggregation. Just as with respect to the extinguished object of blue color, it is thought to be the nature of blue, and the aspect of perception is clear. And one says to others, 'I see such and such a nature of blue.' Likewise, with respect to those extinguished colors, etc., the perception of aggregation arises, clearly present. And one also says to others, 'I see such and such an aggregation.' If one insists that consciousness also
不能緣和合為境。是則應許諸和合覺無有所緣。若謂即緣所依為境。是則應名緣色等覺。色等一一非和合故。何得說名緣和合覺。若謂施設理亦不然。不可無境有施設故。非畢竟無可施設有。是故意識。亦有能緣和合為境非五識身。以彼唯緣實有境故。若執極微不可見故。眼識不緣實有為境。此執不然。是可見故。而不了者。由彼眼根取境粗故。又彼眼識無分別故。諸有殊勝智慧力者。乃能了別細極微相。如遠近觀錦繡文像又如先說。先何所說。謂無極微不和集故。既常和集。非不可見。有說。極微性相安立。彼于眼識為所緣定。眼識于彼非定現行。不能一一別相見者。不和會故。非非相故。以有諸法雖是可見有少因緣而不能見。如不能見水中鹽色。及不能見壁等障色。又不達義。妄引聖言。若執彼經有此義者。意識所緣亦應非實。同說虛偽妄失法故。若爾緣實覺慧應無。是則分明崩壞法論。若言意識通無漏故無斯過者。理亦不然。無漏意識。亦以總法為所緣故。汝宗又許。眼等五識通無漏故。不應妄執五識所緣唯假非實。有世間智緣界為境。彼所緣界亦應非實。然彼經說。六識所緣皆虛偽等。無有差別。故說有漏所緣唯假。但由貪著自所樂宗。若爾彼經復有何義。愚夫長夜。於色等境。妄執常等真實性相。是故如來
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不能以和合之物作為意識所緣的境。如果這樣，就應該承認所有和合而生的覺知都沒有所緣的境。如果說意識所緣的境是和合之物所依賴的處所，那麼就應該稱之為緣色等覺（緣色等產生的覺知）。因為色等事物各自獨立，並非和合而成，怎麼能說是緣和合之物的覺知呢？如果說這是施設安立的道理，那也是不合理的，因為沒有實際的境，就無法進行施設安立。並非完全沒有可以施設安立的事物。所以，意識能夠緣和合之物作為境，而前五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）不能，因為前五識只能緣實有的境。 如果有人認為極微（物質的最小單位）不可見，所以眼識不能緣實有的境，這種觀點是不對的。因為極微是可以見的，只是因為人們不瞭解。這是因為眼根取境比較粗略，而且眼識沒有分別能力。那些具有殊勝智慧的人，才能辨別細微的極微之相，就像從遠處或近處觀看錦繡的紋樣一樣。又如先前所說。先前說了什麼呢？就是因為沒有不和合的極微，既然極微總是和合在一起的，就不是不可見的。 有人說，極微的自性與相狀已經安立，它們對於眼識來說是確定的所緣境。但是，眼識對於極微並非總是現行，不能一一辨別極微的各個相狀，是因為極微沒有和合在一起，而不是因為極微沒有相狀。因為有些事物雖然是可見的，但由於一些因緣，我們無法看到，比如我們無法看到水中的鹽的顏色，也無法看到墻壁等遮擋的顏色。有些人不理解經義，錯誤地引用聖言。 如果有人認為那部經有這樣的含義，那麼意識所緣的境也應該不是真實的，因為經中同樣說了虛偽妄失之法。如果這樣，緣真實的覺慧就應該不存在了，這就會徹底摧毀佛法理論。如果說意識能夠通達無漏法，所以沒有這種過失，這種說法也是不合理的，因為無漏意識也是以總相法作為所緣的境。而且，你們宗派也承認眼等五識能夠通達無漏法，所以不應該妄自認為前五識所緣的境只是虛假的，不是真實的。世間智慧夠緣界（十八界）作為境，那麼它所緣的界也應該不是真實的。然而，那部經說六識所緣的境都是虛偽的，並沒有差別。所以說有漏識所緣的境只是虛假的。這只是因為貪著自己所喜歡的宗派。 如果這樣，那部經還有什麼意義呢？愚夫長夜（漫長的黑夜）以來，對於色等境，妄執常、樂、我、凈等真實性相。所以如來（Tathagata）才宣說諸法無常、無樂、無我、無凈。
【English Translation】 English version It is not possible to take aggregates as objects of consciousness. If so, it should be admitted that all cognitions arising from aggregates have no object. If it is said that consciousness takes the basis upon which aggregates rely as its object, then it should be called 'cognition of color, etc.' Because each of the colors, etc., is independent and not an aggregate, how can it be said to be 'cognition of aggregates'? If it is said that this is a matter of conceptual designation, that is also unreasonable, because without an actual object, there can be no conceptual designation. It is not that there is absolutely nothing that can be conceptually designated. Therefore, consciousness can take aggregates as objects, while the five sense consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) cannot, because the five sense consciousnesses can only take real objects. If someone argues that because extremely small particles (atoms) are invisible, eye consciousness cannot take real objects as its object, this view is incorrect. Because extremely small particles are visible, but people do not understand them. This is because the eye sense organ takes objects coarsely, and eye consciousness lacks the ability to discriminate. Those with superior wisdom can discern the subtle characteristics of extremely small particles, just like viewing the patterns of embroidery from a distance or up close. Also, as previously stated. What was said previously? It is that there are no extremely small particles that are not aggregated. Since extremely small particles are always aggregated, they are not invisible. Some say that the nature and characteristics of extremely small particles have been established, and they are definite objects for eye consciousness. However, eye consciousness does not always operate with respect to extremely small particles, and it cannot distinguish each characteristic of extremely small particles because they are not aggregated, not because they have no characteristics. Because there are some things that are visible, but due to certain conditions, we cannot see them, such as not being able to see the color of salt in water, or not being able to see colors blocked by walls, etc. Some people do not understand the meaning of the scriptures and incorrectly quote the holy words. If someone thinks that the scripture has this meaning, then the object of consciousness should also not be real, because the scripture also speaks of false and lost dharmas. If so, the wisdom of perceiving reality should not exist, which would completely destroy the Buddhist theory. If it is said that consciousness can penetrate unconditioned dharmas, so there is no such fault, this statement is also unreasonable, because unconditioned consciousness also takes general characteristics as its object. Moreover, your school also admits that the five sense consciousnesses can penetrate unconditioned dharmas, so it should not be falsely assumed that the objects of the five sense consciousnesses are only false and not real. Worldly wisdom can take realms (the eighteen realms) as its object, so the realms it takes as its object should also not be real. However, that scripture says that the objects of the six consciousnesses are all false, without any difference. Therefore, it is said that the objects of conditioned consciousness are only false. This is only because of attachment to one's own preferred school. If so, what is the meaning of that scripture? Ignorant people, for a long night (a long time), have falsely clung to the characteristics of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity in objects such as color. Therefore, the Tathagata (Tathagata) proclaimed that all dharmas are impermanent, without pleasure, without self, and without purity.
教聖弟子。如實觀彼離諸妄執。謂去來今六識所識。如彼妄執常等都無。皆是虛偽妄失之法。此顯妄執所取境虛。不顯所緣皆非是實。故彼經后復作是言。有能如是如實觀者。于去來今眼所識色。諸邪勝解想心見倒貪身繫等。廣說乃至。彼皆永斷。是故於中愚夫妄見所執常等。佛聖弟子。觀為虛偽妄失之法。非觀境體為虛偽等。是謂契經不違理義。又如是釋其理必然。由彼經說。于去來今眼所識色。非有眼識能識去來。又非去來可有和合。又非汝等許有去來。是故不應引彼聖教證成五識緣和合境。此契經義。違汝所宗。以說常等是虛等故。又彼經中。不依眼等五識境說。由觀彼境遠離所執常等性故。又說彼境三世別故。又說觀彼想心見倒貪身繫等皆永斷故。又若如言。便起定執于深義趣不思求者。受等亦應非勝義有。以於六境說虛等故。又于諸處唯總說言。眼色為緣。生於眼識。如何得知。以界和合為所依緣。生於眼識。非界和集為所依緣。復如何知唯界和集。理如前說。復有聖言。顯眼等識非緣妄境。故契經言。于不見言見。于見言不見。此非聖語。于見言見。于不見言不見。此是聖語。若眼等識緣妄境者。于見言見。應非聖語。于見言不見。應是聖語。若謂隨俗說如是言無斯過者。則應意識說。緣實者亦隨俗言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 教導聖弟子，如實地觀察那些遠離各種虛妄執著的境界，也就是過去、現在、未來這三個時段，六識所認識的境界。這些境界如同虛妄執著所認為的常、一等特性，實際上完全不存在，都是虛假的、錯誤的法。這表明虛妄執著所執取的境界是虛假的，但並沒有說所緣的境體都不是真實的。因此，那部經後面又這樣說：『如果有人能夠這樣如實地觀察，那麼對於過去、現在、未來，眼睛所認識的色，各種錯誤的勝解、想、心、見解顛倒、貪愛之身繫縛等等，』廣泛地說，『那些都將永遠斷除。』因此，對於這些境界，愚夫妄見所執著的常等特性，佛的聖弟子，觀察它們是虛假的、錯誤的法，而不是觀察境體的本身是虛假的等等。這才是契經不違背道理和意義的解釋。而且，這樣解釋其道理是必然的。因為那部經說，對於過去、現在、未來眼睛所認識的色，不是眼睛的識能夠認識過去、未來，也不是過去、未來可以有和合。而且，你們也不承認有過去、未來。因此，不應該引用那部聖教來證明五識緣取和合的境界。這部契經的意義，違背了你們的宗義，因為它說常等是虛假的等等。而且，那部經中，不是依據眼等五識的境界來說的，而是因為觀察那些境界遠離所執著的常等自性。而且，又說那些境界在過去、現在、未來三個時段是不同的。而且，又說觀察那些想、心、見解顛倒、貪愛之身繫縛等等都將永遠斷除。而且，如果按照你們所說，就會產生對深奧義理不思考探求的固定執著，那麼受等也應該不是勝義諦所具有的，因為對於六境說了虛假等等。而且，在很多地方只是總的說，眼睛和色為緣，產生眼識。怎麼能知道，是以界和合作為所依之緣，產生眼識，而不是以界和集作為所依之緣呢？又怎麼知道只有界和集呢？道理如同前面所說。還有聖言，顯示眼等識不是緣取虛妄的境界。所以契經說，『對於不見說見，對於見說不見，這不是聖語。對於見說見，對於不見說不見，這才是聖語。』如果眼等識緣取虛妄的境界，那麼對於見說見，應該不是聖語，對於見說不見，應該是聖語。如果說這是隨順世俗的說法，沒有這個過失，那麼意識說緣取真實的境界，也應該隨順世俗的說法。
【English Translation】 English version Teaching the noble disciples to truly observe those realms that are free from all deluded attachments, that is, the realms cognized by the six consciousnesses in the past, present, and future. These realms, like the characteristics of permanence, oneness, etc., that deluded attachments assume, do not actually exist at all; they are all false and erroneous dharmas. This shows that the realm grasped by deluded attachments is false, but it does not say that the objects of cognition are all unreal. Therefore, that sutra later says: 'If someone can thus truly observe, then with regard to the colors cognized by the eye in the past, present, and future, all wrong superior understandings, thoughts, minds, views, inverted views, attachments to the body, etc.,' broadly speaking, 'those will all be permanently severed.' Therefore, with regard to these realms, the characteristics of permanence, etc., that the foolish and deluded see and cling to, the Buddha's noble disciples observe them as false and erroneous dharmas, not observing the essence of the realm itself as false, etc. This is the explanation of the sutra that does not contradict reason and meaning. Moreover, it is necessary to explain it this way. Because that sutra says that with regard to the colors cognized by the eye in the past, present, and future, it is not the eye consciousness that can cognize the past and future, nor can there be a combination of past and future. Moreover, you do not admit that there is a past and future. Therefore, one should not cite that holy teaching to prove that the five consciousnesses cognize combined realms. The meaning of this sutra contradicts your tenets, because it says that permanence, etc., are false, etc. Moreover, that sutra does not speak based on the realms of the eye and other five consciousnesses, but because it observes that those realms are free from the clung-to nature of permanence, etc. Moreover, it says that those realms are different in the past, present, and future. Moreover, it says that observing those thoughts, minds, inverted views, attachments to the body, etc., will all be permanently severed. Moreover, if it is as you say, then fixed attachments will arise to profound meanings without thinking and seeking, then feeling, etc., should also not be ultimately real, because falsity, etc., are spoken of with regard to the six realms. Moreover, in many places it is only generally said that the eye and color are the condition for the arising of eye consciousness. How can one know that it is the combination of elements that is the supporting condition for the arising of eye consciousness, and not the collection of elements? And how does one know that it is only the collection of elements? The reasoning is as stated before. There are also holy words that show that the eye and other consciousnesses do not cognize false realms. Therefore, the sutra says, 'To say seeing for not seeing, and to say not seeing for seeing, these are not holy words. To say seeing for seeing, and to say not seeing for not seeing, these are holy words.' If the eye and other consciousnesses cognize false realms, then to say seeing for seeing should not be holy words, and to say not seeing for seeing should be holy words. If you say that this is following conventional speech and there is no fault, then the consciousness that says it cognizes real realms should also follow conventional speech.
是即一切唯有假說。便為安住壞法論宗。或應辯析差別道理。又此聖語。依何境說。若依和合。眼識不緣和合為境。已廣成立。若依和集即是勝義。何謂見言隨世俗說又所見色唯是勝義。于見見言可隨俗說。言于諸方不決定故。非所見色是隨俗言。而契經說。大母當知。于所見中唯有見語。此就增益常等性相。說此唯言。非於見境。又於色處。說名有見及有對故。于聲等處別異說故。處非假有。非於假有補特伽羅瓶等法上有差別說。唯于實有色等法上。有自共相差別說故。又於此中。觸法處界有何差別。而言觸法處唯是假。界是實耶。若言此二亦有差別。多物和合方得處名。一一別物。即得名界。觸處可爾。法處云何。汝宗法處雖有三法。而無積集。法界何異。又彼建立處界不同。都無正理及所餘量。但彼上座。隨意而立。傍觀鑒人不應信受又若處假界是勝義。上座此論便違經說。如契經說。喬答摩尊余處說言。我覺一切。依何一切言我覺耶。唯愿為開勝義有法。世尊告曰。梵志當知。言一切者。謂十二處。此勝義有。余皆虛偽。世尊不應依不實法說勝義有。又亦不應唯證假有成等正覺。空花論者可說此言。稱佛為師。不應黨此。故十二處皆是實有。非於假法可說勝義。如是上座諸有所言。前後諦觀。多成違害。信而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是說一切都只是假說，那就成了安住于『壞法論』的宗派。或者應該辨析其中的差別道理。而且這段聖語，是依據什麼境界說的呢？如果依據和合（samghata，組合），眼識不能以和合為境界，這一點已經廣泛成立。如果依據和集（samuccaya，聚集），那就是勝義（paramartha，究竟真實），為什麼又說『見』這個詞是隨順世俗說的呢？而且所見的色（rupa，顏色、形色）只是勝義，對於『見』這個詞可以隨順世俗說，是因為對於諸方（各個方向）不確定。所以，所見的色不是隨順世俗說的。而契經（sutra，佛經）上說：『大母當知，于所見中唯有見語。』這是就增益常等性相（對常等性質的增益）來說的『唯』字，不是對於見境（所見之境）說的。而且在色處（rupa-ayatana，色界）說名為『有見』及『有對』，在聲等處（聲音等處）有不同的說法，所以處（ayatana，處）不是假有（prajnapti-sat，假名安立的存在）。不是在假有的補特伽羅（pudgala，人）、瓶子等法上有差別說法，只是在實有的色等法上有自相（svalaksana，自身獨有的特性）和共相（samanya-laksana，與其他事物共有的特性）的差別說法。而且在這裡面，觸（sparsha，接觸）、法（dharma，事物、法則）、處（ayatana，處）、界（dhatu，界）有什麼差別呢？而說觸處、法處只是假，界是實有嗎？如果說這兩者也有差別，多種事物和合才能得到『處』這個名稱，一一單獨的事物，就得到『界』這個名稱。觸處可以這樣說，法處又該怎麼說呢？你們宗派的法處雖然有三種法，卻沒有積集。法界（dharma-dhatu，法界）又有什麼不同呢？而且他們建立處和界的不同，都沒有正當的理由和其餘的量（ प्रमाण pramana 有效認知方式）。只不過是上座部（Sthavira nikaya，原始佛教部派之一）的人，隨意設立的。有鑑別能力的人不應該相信接受。而且如果處是假，界是勝義，上座部的這種論點就違背了經文的說法。如契經上說：『喬答摩尊（Gotama，釋迦牟尼佛）在其他地方說：我覺了一切。』依據什麼『一切』說『我覺了』呢？希望您能開示勝義有的法。世尊（Bhagavan，佛）告訴梵志（brahmana，婆羅門）：『梵志當知，說一切，是指十二處（dvadasa-ayatana，十二處）。這是勝義有，其餘都是虛偽。』世尊不應該依據不真實法說勝義有。而且也不應該只是證得假有而成等正覺（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。空花論者（認為一切如空花般虛幻的人）可以說這種話。稱佛為師，不應該偏袒這種說法。所以十二處都是實有，不能在假法上說勝義。像這樣，上座部的人所說的話，前後仔細觀察，大多會產生矛盾和損害。相信並
【English Translation】 English version To say that everything is merely a hypothetical construct is to adhere to the tenets of the 'Doctrine of Corruptible Dharmas'. Or, one should analyze the reasons for the differences. Moreover, upon what realm is this sacred utterance based? If it is based on aggregation (samghata), eye-consciousness does not take aggregation as its object, which has already been extensively established. If it is based on collection (samuccaya), then it is ultimate reality (paramartha). Why then is it said that the term 'seeing' is used according to convention? Furthermore, the seen form (rupa) is solely ultimate reality. The term 'seeing' can be used conventionally because it is not fixed in all directions. Therefore, the seen form is not a conventional term. However, the sutra (sutra) states: 'Great Mother, know that in what is seen, there is only the utterance of seeing.' This 'only' is spoken in terms of the imputation of permanence and other characteristics, not in relation to the object of seeing. Moreover, in the realm of form (rupa-ayatana), it is said to be 'visible' and 'resistant'. In the realms of sound and so on, there are different statements. Therefore, the realms (ayatana) are not nominally existent (prajnapti-sat). There are no differential statements on nominally existent phenomena such as persons (pudgala) and pots. Only on truly existent phenomena such as form are there differential statements of self-characteristics (svalaksana) and common characteristics (samanya-laksana). Furthermore, what is the difference between contact (sparsha), dharma, realm (ayatana), and element (dhatu) in this context? Why are the realms of contact and dharma said to be merely nominal, while the elements are real? If it is said that there is also a difference between these two, the name 'realm' is obtained only through the combination of many things. Each individual thing obtains the name 'element'. This may be the case for the realm of contact, but what about the realm of dharma? Although your school's realm of dharma has three dharmas, there is no accumulation. How is the element of dharma (dharma-dhatu) different? Moreover, their establishment of the difference between realms and elements has no valid reason or other means of valid cognition (pramana). It is merely established arbitrarily by the elders (Sthavira nikaya). Those with discerning minds should not believe or accept it. Furthermore, if the realms are nominal and the elements are ultimately real, this argument of the elders contradicts the sutras. As the sutra says: 'The Venerable Gautama (Gotama) said elsewhere: I have awakened to everything.' Based on what 'everything' do I say 'I have awakened'? I wish you would reveal the ultimately existent dharma. The Blessed One (Bhagavan) said to the brahmin (brahmana): 'Brahmin, know that when I say everything, I mean the twelve realms (dvadasa-ayatana). These are ultimately existent, and the rest are false.' The Blessed One should not speak of ultimate existence based on unreal dharmas. Moreover, one should not attain complete and perfect enlightenment (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi) merely by realizing nominal existence. Those who argue for empty flowers (those who believe everything is illusory) may say such things. To call the Buddha a teacher and then favor this view is inappropriate. Therefore, the twelve realms are all truly existent, and ultimate reality cannot be spoken of in relation to nominal dharmas. Thus, when the words of the elders are carefully examined from beginning to end, they are often contradictory and harmful. Believing and
無智。同所敬承。具智信人。必無隨順。又眾盲喻。違彼自宗。一一極微非依緣體。眾微和合成依緣論。彼對盲喻。極不相符。和集極微為依緣論。此對盲喻理不相違。許一一微是依緣故。執一一微非可見者。眾微和合亦應不見。同盲喻故。如非色合。故五識身。決定不用和合為境。然必有境。故以實法為境義成。若五識身。了勝義境。何緣五識不斷結耶。了自相故。外門轉故。無等引故。無分別故。一墮境故。所緣少故。雖了勝義而不斷結。故說七半有所緣中。五界唯緣勝義為境。余緣勝義。亦緣世俗。如是已說有所緣等。十八界中九無執受。何等為九。謂前所說七有所緣。並全法界。此八及聲皆無執受。頌中及言。具含二義。一顯總集。謂八及聲總無執受。二顯異門。謂余師說。不離根聲亦有執受。餘九通二。謂五色根。色香味觸。云何通二。眼等五根住現在世。名有執受。過去未來。名無執受。色香味觸住現在世不離五根。名有執受。過去未來及住現在。非不離根。名無執受。是故九界各通二門。何等名為有執受相。標之心首而說是言。本論中說。己身所攝名有執受。此復云何。謂心心所執為己有。即心心所共所執持。攝為依處。名有執受。損益展轉更相隨故。若爾色等即應一向名無執受。心心所法不依彼故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無智』（Ajnana）：如果有人沒有智慧，卻受到人們的尊敬和供養，那麼有智慧和信仰的人一定不會隨順他。這就像一個關於一群盲人的比喻。這種觀點違背了他們自己的宗義，因為他們認為每一個極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位）都不是依緣體（相互依賴的實體）。然而，他們又說許多極微和合在一起形成了依緣論。這種說法與盲人的比喻極不相符。如果說和集在一起的極微是依緣論，那麼這與盲人的比喻在道理上並不相違背，因為他們承認每一個極微都是依緣的。如果他們認為每一個極微都是不可見的，那麼許多極微和合在一起也應該不可見，因為它們就像盲人的比喻一樣。就像非色法（arupa）的結合一樣。因此，五識身（panca-vijnanakaya，五種感官意識）絕對不是以和合之物為境界。然而，它們必定有境界，因此以實法（vastu dharma，真實存在的法）為境界的意義才能成立。如果五識身了知勝義境（paramartha-satya，終極真理），那麼為什麼五識不能斷除煩惱結（klesha-bandhana）呢？因為它們只是了知自相（svalaksana，事物自身的特性），並且是向外門轉的，沒有等引（samadhi，禪定），沒有分別（vikalpa，概念性的區分），一次只專注於一個境界，所緣的境界很少。雖然了知勝義，但不能斷除煩惱結。因此，在『七半有所緣』（sapta ardha alambana，七個半的所緣）中說，五界（panca-dhatu，五種元素）只緣勝義為境界，其餘的則既緣勝義，也緣世俗（samvriti-satya，世俗諦）。 如是已經說了有所緣等。十八界（ashtadasa-dhatu，十八界）中，有九個沒有執受（anupadana，不被執取）。哪九個呢？就是前面所說的七個有所緣，以及整個法界（dharma-dhatu，法界）。這八個以及聲（shabda，聲音）都沒有執受。頌中的『及』字，包含了兩種含義：一是顯示總集，即八個和聲總共沒有執受；二是顯示異門，即其他學派認為，不離根的聲也有執受。其餘的九個則通於二者。哪九個呢？就是五色根（panca-rupa-indriya，五種感官），色（rupa，顏色）、香（gandha，氣味）、味（rasa，味道）、觸（sprashtavya，觸覺）。如何通於二者呢？眼等五根如果住在現在世，就稱為有執受；如果住在過去或未來世，就稱為無執受。色香味觸如果住在現在世，並且不離五根，就稱為有執受；如果住在過去或未來世，或者住在現在世，但並非不離根，就稱為無執受。因此，九界各自通於二門。 什麼叫做有執受相（upadana-lakshana，被執取的相）呢？爲了標明它的首要意義，所以這樣說：在本論中說，『己身所攝』（svakaya-samgraha，被自身所攝）叫做有執受。這又是什麼意思呢？就是心（citta，意識）、心所（caitta，心理活動）執著為自己所有，即心和心所共同執持，攝為依處，叫做有執受。因為損益會輾轉地互相影響。如果這樣說，那麼色等就應該一概地稱為無執受，因為心和心所法不依賴於它們。
【English Translation】 English version 'Ajnana' (ignorance): If someone lacks wisdom but is respected and supported by people, then wise and faithful individuals will certainly not follow him. This is like the metaphor of a group of blind people. This view contradicts their own tenets, because they believe that each 'paramanu' (atom, the smallest unit of matter) is not an 'apratitya-samutpada' (interdependent entity). However, they also say that many 'paramanus' combined together form the theory of interdependence. This statement is highly inconsistent with the metaphor of blind people. If the combined 'paramanus' are said to be the theory of interdependence, then this is not contradictory to the metaphor of blind people in principle, because they admit that each 'paramanu' is interdependent. If they believe that each 'paramanu' is invisible, then many 'paramanus' combined together should also be invisible, because they are like the metaphor of blind people. It's like the combination of non-form ('arupa'). Therefore, the five aggregates of consciousness ('panca-vijnanakaya', five sense consciousnesses) definitely do not take combined objects as their realm. However, they must have a realm, so the meaning of taking real dharmas ('vastu dharma', truly existing phenomena) as their realm can be established. If the five aggregates of consciousness understand the 'paramartha-satya' (ultimate truth), then why can't the five consciousnesses cut off the bonds of affliction ('klesha-bandhana')? Because they only understand the self-characteristics ('svalaksana', the inherent characteristics of things), and they turn outwards, without 'samadhi' (meditative absorption), without 'vikalpa' (conceptual discrimination), focusing on only one realm at a time, and the objects they focus on are few. Although they understand the ultimate truth, they cannot cut off the bonds of affliction. Therefore, it is said in the 'seven and a half objects of focus' ('sapta ardha alambana') that the five elements ('panca-dhatu', five elements) only take the ultimate truth as their realm, while the rest take both the ultimate truth and the 'samvriti-satya' (conventional truth) as their realm. It has already been said about the objects of focus and so on. Among the eighteen realms ('ashtadasa-dhatu', eighteen realms), there are nine that are without grasping ('anupadana', not being grasped). Which nine? They are the seven objects of focus mentioned earlier, as well as the entire 'dharma-dhatu' (dharma realm). These eight, as well as sound ('shabda', sound), are all without grasping. The word 'and' in the verse contains two meanings: one is to show the total collection, that is, the eight and sound are all without grasping; the other is to show different perspectives, that is, other schools believe that sound that is not separate from the root also has grasping. The remaining nine are common to both. Which nine? They are the five sense organs ('panca-rupa-indriya', five sense organs), form ('rupa', color), smell ('gandha', odor), taste ('rasa', flavor), and touch ('sprashtavya', tactile sensation). How are they common to both? If the five sense organs such as the eye reside in the present world, they are called having grasping; if they reside in the past or future world, they are called without grasping. If form, smell, taste, and touch reside in the present world and are not separate from the five sense organs, they are called having grasping; if they reside in the past or future world, or reside in the present world but are not inseparable from the root, they are called without grasping. Therefore, each of the nine realms is common to two aspects. What is called the characteristic of grasping ('upadana-lakshana', the characteristic of being grasped)? In order to indicate its primary meaning, it is said this way: In this treatise, it is said that 'what is included in one's own body' ('svakaya-samgraha', what is encompassed by oneself) is called having grasping. What does this mean? It means that the mind ('citta', consciousness) and mental factors ('caitta', mental activities) are grasped as belonging to oneself, that is, the mind and mental factors are jointly grasped and taken as a basis, which is called having grasping. Because gain and loss will reciprocally influence each other. If this is said, then form, etc., should be generally called without grasping, because the mind and mental factors do not depend on them.
非根性故不爾。色等若不離根。雖非所依。而是心等之所親附。故無此失。毗婆沙說。若諸色法逼迫斷壞。便能生苦。與此相違即能生樂。是己身攝。名有執受。有餘師說。若諸有情執為自體。一切處時。方便防護茅灰火刺霜雹等緣。是己身攝。名有執受。若爾應違契經所說。故契經言。若於是處識所執藏。識所隨攝。名有執受。雖有是說而不相違。有執受法略有二種。一者有愛及有身見。執為己有。名有執受。二者為因能生苦樂。名有執受。宿業所引異熟果等。分位相續。是名第二。此中有愛及有身見。若正智生。即便斷滅。異熟相續。諸漏盡者。亦未斷滅。是故若法。既執受已。至般涅槃。隨轉不捨。此法一向名有執受。是為經論二義差別。如是已說有執受等。十八界中。幾大種性。幾所造性。幾可積集。幾非積集。頌曰。
觸界中有二 餘九色所造 法一分亦然 十色可積集
論曰。觸界通二。一者大種。二者所造。此二如前十一觸釋。寡學上座。於此說言。非觸處中有所造色。所以者何。即諸大種形差別故。謂即大種次第安布。于諸金銀頗胝迦寶雲母金剛芭蕉練等和合聚中。說為滑觸。與此相反和合聚中。說為澀觸。余隨所應。皆即大種安布差別。又眼亦能覺了彼故。彼謂依眼隨取大種形量
色相。亦能覺了滑澀等物。故知滑等不異大種。此說不然。違聖教故。如契經說。苾芻當知。觸謂外處。是四大種。及四大種所造有色無見有對。彼不許有。如是契經。不應不許。入結集故。又不違害諸餘契經。亦不違理。故應成量。彼謂此經非入結集。越總頌故。如說。製造順別處經立為異品。若爾便應棄捨一切。違自部執聖教契經如說。製造二種空經立為異品。亦越總頌。如是等類。互相非撥。若謂此經非聖所說違余經故。法處不說無色言故。如舍利子增十經中。唯作是言。有十色處。故知此經非入結集。但是對法諸師。愛無表色。製造安置阿笈摩中。若爾對法諸師。豈不亦能作如是說。譬喻部師。憎無表色。製造安置增十經中。如是展轉。更相非撥。便為壞亂一切契經。然增十經。為顯十種應遍知法。故但說言有十色處。此十一向苦諦攝故。苦諦唯是應遍知故。無有相違。無表有漏無漏性故。猶如意處。亦應修習。是故於彼增十經中。唯說一向應遍知法。豈不亦是應永斷耶。此難不然。立諦異故。又舍利子。于彼經中定有此意。言非盡法。即彼經中復說十種應永斷法謂五內外順諸蓋法非無餘法亦是永斷。是故成此不違余經。如是上座。說觸處中無所造色。決定違害此別處經。智者應了。言即諸大種形差別故者。
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "問：『色相』（Rupa，可見之物）也能覺察到滑、澀等觸感。因此可知，滑、澀等觸感與『四大種』（四大元素：地、水、火、風）並無不同。", "答：這種說法不對。因為它違背了聖教（Buddha's teachings）。例如，契經（Sutra，佛經）中說：『苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘），應當知道，觸，指的是外處（external sense base），即四大種，以及四大種所造的『有色無見有對』（that which has form, is invisible, and resistant）。』你們不承認有『有色無見有對』，這是不應該的。這樣的契經，不應被否定，因為它已收入結集（canonized）。而且，它也不與其他的契經相違背，也不違背道理，所以應當被視為正確的依據。", "對方辯駁說：這部經沒有收入結集，因為它超出了總頌（general summary）。正如經中所說：『製造順別處經（Sutras that fabricate teachings aligned with specific viewpoints）被立為異品（separate category）。』", "答：如果這樣，那就應該拋棄一切違揹你們部派所執持的聖教契經，例如經中所說：『製造二種空經（Sutras that fabricate teachings on two kinds of emptiness）被立為異品』，也超出了總頌。像這樣互相否定，只會導致混亂。", "對方辯駁說：這部經不是聖人（Buddha）所說，因為它違背了其他的經文。因為法處（Dharmadhatu，法界）沒有說『無色』（formless）這個詞。例如，《舍利子增十經》（Sariputra's Numerical Discourses）中只說了『有十色處』（ten realms of color）。因此可知，這部經沒有收入結集，只是對法（Abhidharma，論藏）的諸位論師，喜愛『無表色』（non-revealing form），而製造並安置在阿笈摩（Agama，阿含經）中。", "答：如果這樣，那麼對法諸師，難道不能也這樣說嗎？譬喻部（Dristantavada，經量部）的論師，憎恨『無表色』，製造並安置在《增十經》中。像這樣互相否定，就會破壞一切契經。", "然而，《增十經》是爲了顯示十種應當普遍瞭解的法，所以只說了『有十色處』。這十一種都屬於苦諦（Dukkha Satya，the truth of suffering）所攝，因為苦諦唯一是應當普遍瞭解的。這並沒有什麼相違背的地方。因為『無表』有有漏（with outflows）和無漏（without outflows）的性質，就像意處（Mind-base）一樣，也應當修習。因此，在那部《增十經》中，只說了一向應當普遍瞭解的法。難道它不也是應當永遠斷除的嗎？", "這個責難是不成立的，因為所立的諦（truth）不同。而且，舍利子（Sariputra，舍利弗）在那部經中一定有這樣的意思，即言語並非窮盡一切法。在那部經中又說了十種應當永遠斷除的法，即五種內外順諸蓋法（five internal and external factors that accord with the hindrances），並非沒有其餘的法也是應當永遠斷除的。因此，這證明了它不違背其他的經文。像這樣，上座部（Sthavira，長老部）說觸處中沒有所造色（derived form），這無疑是違背了這部別處經。智者應當明瞭。", "『言即諸大種形差別故者』（The statement that it is merely the difference in the shape of the great elements）...", "", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "Question: 'Rupa' (form, visible matter) can also perceive smoothness, roughness, and other tactile sensations. Therefore, it can be known that smoothness, roughness, and other tactile sensations are no different from the 'four great elements' (earth, water, fire, and wind).", "Answer: This statement is incorrect because it contradicts the sacred teachings (Buddha's teachings). For example, the Sutra (scripture) says: 'Bhikkhus (monks), you should know that touch refers to the external sense base, which is the four great elements, and the 'visible, invisible, resistant' (that which has form, is invisible, and resistant) created by the four great elements.' You do not acknowledge the existence of 'visible, invisible, resistant,' which is not right. Such a Sutra should not be denied because it has been included in the canon (canonized). Moreover, it does not contradict other Sutras, nor does it contradict reason, so it should be regarded as a correct basis.", "The opponent argues: This Sutra has not been included in the canon because it exceeds the general summary. As it is said in the Sutra: 'Sutras that fabricate teachings aligned with specific viewpoints are established as a separate category.'", "Answer: If this is the case, then all sacred teachings of the Sutras that contradict the views held by your school should be discarded, such as the Sutra that says: 'Sutras that fabricate teachings on two kinds of emptiness are established as a separate category,' which also exceeds the general summary. Such mutual denials will only lead to confusion.", "The opponent argues: This Sutra was not spoken by the Holy One (Buddha) because it contradicts other scriptures. Because the Dharmadhatu (realm of phenomena) does not mention the word 'formless.' For example, in the 'Sariputra's Numerical Discourses,' it only says 'there are ten realms of color.' Therefore, it can be known that this Sutra has not been included in the canon, but was fabricated and placed in the Agama (collection of scriptures) by the Abhidharma (scholastic) masters who love 'non-revealing form.'", "Answer: If this is the case, then can't the Abhidharma masters also say this? The Dristantavada (Sautrantika) masters hate 'non-revealing form' and fabricate and place it in the 'Numerical Discourses.' Such mutual denials will destroy all Sutras.", "However, the 'Numerical Discourses' is to show the ten kinds of dharmas that should be universally understood, so it only says 'there are ten realms of color.' These eleven all belong to the Dukkha Satya (the truth of suffering), because the truth of suffering is the only thing that should be universally understood. There is no contradiction here. Because 'non-revealing' has the nature of being with outflows and without outflows, just like the Mind-base, it should also be cultivated. Therefore, in that 'Numerical Discourses,' it only speaks of the dharmas that should be universally understood. Isn't it also something that should be permanently eliminated?", "This accusation is not valid because the established truth is different. Moreover, Sariputra (one of the Buddha's chief disciples) must have had this intention in that Sutra, that words do not exhaust all dharmas. In that Sutra, it also speaks of the ten kinds of dharmas that should be permanently eliminated, namely the five internal and external factors that accord with the hindrances, and it is not that there are no other dharmas that should also be permanently eliminated. Therefore, this proves that it does not contradict other scriptures. In this way, the Sthavira (Elders) say that there is no derived form in the touch base, which undoubtedly contradicts this separate Sutra. The wise should understand.", "'The statement that it is merely the difference in the shape of the great elements'..." ] }
不說正因。云何定知。即諸大種形量差別名滑等性。非異大種別有滑等又諸大種。安布差別。即諸大種。非諸大種是眼所取。眼所取者。謂顯與形。如何乃言即諸大種形差別故。豈不闇中身亦能取形量差別。若爾大種應二根取。以言形量即大種故。由此即破彼第二因。謂眼亦能覺了彼故。又謂依眼隨取大種形量色相亦能覺了滑澀等者。此言何義。若謂眼取大種形量。既執形量不異大種。應許眼根能取大種。若謂眼根能取色相。大種形量隨此比知。如是云何。遮滑等異大種。由見色相。比知滑等言即大種。此有何因。而言滑等不異大種。但有虛言都無實義。又應謂堅即餘三大安布差別如滑澀等。謂他亦能如是計度。餘三大種。安布差別。即名為堅。無別有堅異三可得。由無異因。不應別執。故彼言義。無所堪能。又因嗅香覺了苦酢。應言苦酢體不異香。又滑等相異諸大種。故異大種應別有性。謂非滑性即是堅性。非諸堅處皆有滑故。如地即堅未嘗相離滑性。若爾應不離堅亦非滑性即是濕性。非諸濕處皆有滑故。亦非滑性即是暖性。非諸暖處皆有滑故。亦非滑性即是動性。非息等處滑可得故。由此故知滑非大種。亦非不有。如實有法現可得故。又能為緣生影像故。若謂唯有安布差別無實體者。理亦不然安布差別必有所依。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不說正因（Hetu，理由）。如何確定知道？就是各大種（Mahabhuta，地、水、火、風四大元素）的形狀、大小、差別，以及被稱為滑（Slakshna，光滑）等的性質。並非不同於各大種，另外存在滑等性質。而且，各大種的排列組合的差別，就是各大種本身。並非各大種是眼睛所能感知的。眼睛所能感知的是顯色（Varna，顏色）和形狀。怎麼能說就是各大種的形狀差別呢？難道在黑暗中，身體也能感知形狀和大小的差別嗎？如果這樣，各大種應該被兩種感官感知。因為說形狀和大小就是各大種本身。因此，這就破斥了對方的第二個理由。因為眼睛也能覺察到它們。又說，依靠眼睛，隨著感知各大種的形狀、大小、顏色等，也能覺察到滑澀等性質。這話是什麼意思？如果說眼睛感知各大種的形狀和大小，既然認為形狀和大小不異於各大種，就應該承認眼根能感知各大種。如果說眼根能感知顏色，各大種的形狀和大小可以根據顏色來推知。這樣，又如何能遮止滑等性質異於各大種呢？因為見到顏色，推知滑等性質就是各大種本身。這有什麼理由呢？就說滑等性質不異於各大種，這只是空話，沒有任何實際意義。 又應該說，堅硬就是其餘三大（水、火、風）的排列組合差別，就像滑澀等一樣。就是說，對方也能這樣推測：其餘三大種的排列組合差別，就叫做堅硬，沒有另外的堅硬異於三大種可以得到。由於沒有不同的理由，不應該另外執著。所以對方的說法，沒有任何作用。又因為嗅到香味而覺察到苦味和酸味，就應該說苦味和酸味的本體不異於香味。 而且，滑等相異於各大種。所以異於各大種，應該有其自身的性質。就是說，並非滑性就是堅性。因為不是所有堅硬的地方都有光滑的性質。比如土地是堅硬的，但從未與光滑的性質分離。如果這樣，應該不離堅硬，也不是光滑的性質就是潮濕的性質。因為不是所有潮濕的地方都有光滑的性質。也不是光滑的性質就是溫暖的性質。因為不是所有溫暖的地方都有光滑的性質。也不是光滑的性質就是運動的性質。因為在呼吸等處，光滑是無法得到的。由此可知，光滑不是大種，也不是不存在。因為作為真實存在的法，現在可以得到。而且，能作為緣而產生影像。如果說只有排列組合的差別，沒有實體，這在道理上也是不成立的。排列組合的差別必定有所依靠。
【English Translation】 English version Not to mention the inconclusive reason (Hetu). How can it be definitely known? It is that the shapes, sizes, and differences of the great elements (Mahabhuta, the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind), as well as the properties called 'smooth' (Slakshna), etc., are not different from the great elements; there are no separate properties like smoothness. Moreover, the differences in the arrangement and combination of the great elements are the great elements themselves. It is not that the great elements are perceived by the eye. What the eye can perceive are appearance (Varna, color) and shape. How can it be said that it is the difference in the shape of the great elements? Could it be that in the dark, the body can also perceive the difference in shape and size? If so, the great elements should be perceived by two senses. Because it is said that shape and size are the great elements themselves. Therefore, this refutes the opponent's second reason. Because the eye can also perceive them. Furthermore, it is said that by relying on the eye, along with perceiving the shape, size, color, etc., of the great elements, one can also perceive properties such as smoothness and roughness. What does this mean? If it is said that the eye perceives the shape and size of the great elements, since it is believed that shape and size are not different from the great elements, it should be admitted that the eye-sense can perceive the great elements. If it is said that the eye-sense can perceive color, the shape and size of the great elements can be inferred from the color. In this way, how can one prevent properties such as smoothness from being different from the great elements? Because seeing color, one infers that properties such as smoothness are the great elements themselves. What reason is there for this? To say that properties such as smoothness are not different from the great elements is just empty talk, without any real meaning. Moreover, it should be said that hardness is the difference in the arrangement and combination of the remaining three great elements (water, fire, and wind), just like smoothness and roughness. That is to say, the opponent can also infer in this way: the difference in the arrangement and combination of the remaining three great elements is called hardness, and there is no other hardness different from the three great elements that can be obtained. Since there is no different reason, one should not cling to it separately. Therefore, the opponent's statement has no effect. Furthermore, because one smells a fragrance and perceives bitterness and sourness, it should be said that the essence of bitterness and sourness is not different from fragrance. Moreover, properties such as smoothness are different from the great elements. Therefore, different from the great elements, there should be its own nature. That is to say, it is not that smoothness is hardness. Because not all hard places have the property of smoothness. For example, the earth is hard, but it has never been separated from the property of smoothness. If so, it should not be separated from hardness, nor is the property of smoothness the property of wetness. Because not all wet places have the property of smoothness. Nor is the property of smoothness the property of warmth. Because not all warm places have the property of smoothness. Nor is the property of smoothness the property of movement. Because in places such as breathing, smoothness cannot be obtained. From this, it can be known that smoothness is not a great element, nor is it non-existent. Because as a truly existing dharma, it can be obtained now. Moreover, it can serve as a condition to produce images. If it is said that there is only the difference in arrangement and combination, without substance, this is not logically valid. The difference in arrangement and combination must have something to rely on.
此所依體即滑性故。或應唯得安布差別。不應亦了此中滑性。又契經中。方便說有如是滑性。如契經言。
如來面板極細滑 一切塵垢不著身
又縱滑性。有經無經。然曾無經遮彼有故。又與正理不相違故。如是滑性實有義成。又若滑性。異四大種。無別有體。應假非實。是則身識應不了知。身識唯緣勝義境故。又離分別滑覺應無。如離分別。于諸大種。一一體上皆有別覺。即說身識緣諸大種。實物為境。非緣假法。滑性亦然。既身所取。故不可說是假非實。又非一一大種中有。故異大種別有滑性。由此道理。亦總成立異四大種有澀等性。其中差別當更顯示。彼上座言。無別所造名輕重性。即諸大種。或少或多。說輕重故。又輕重性相待成故。非實有體。謂即一物待此名輕。待彼名重。非堅性等相待而成。又于風界說輕性故。輕即是風。如本論言。云何名風界。謂輕等動性。世尊亦說。諸輕等動性。名內外風界。此說不然。前說大種。與此相異。非此性故。若不了知經論義故。即謂輕性是風界者。應說重性是何大種。若說此宗謂有大種增生重性。重性即是此大種者。理必不然。重與地水相各異故。又於一切和合聚中。皆具有故。應無差別。若謂少多故無過者。應非重性即是堅濕。又許和合為輕重故。身識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為這個所依賴的自體就是滑性。或者應該僅僅得到安布（Anbu，安排）的差別，不應該也瞭解這其中的滑性。而且契經中，方便地說有這樣的滑性，如契經所說： 『如來的面板極其細滑，一切塵垢都不會沾染在身上』 而且即使有滑性，無論有沒有經典記載，也從來沒有經典遮止它的存在，而且與正理不相違背。像這樣，滑性真實存在的意思就成立了。而且如果滑性，與四大種不同，沒有別的自體，就應該是假而不是真實的。這樣的話，身識就不應該瞭解它，因為身識只緣取勝義境。而且離開分別，滑覺應該不存在。就像離開分別，對於各種大種，在每一個體上都有不同的感覺。這就是說身識緣取各種大種的實物作為境界，而不是緣取假法。滑性也是這樣，既然是身體所取，就不可說是假而不是真實的。而且不是在每一個大種中都有，所以滑性與大種不同，是另外存在的。由於這個道理，也總的成立了澀等性與四大種不同。其中的差別，應當進一步顯示。 那位上座說，沒有別的所造叫做輕重性，就是各種大種，或者少或者多，才說輕重。而且輕重性是相對待而成的，不是真實存在的自體。就是同一個事物，相對於這個來說是輕的，相對於那個來說是重的，而不是堅性等相對待而成。而且在風界中說輕性，輕就是風，如本論所說：『什麼叫做風界？就是輕等動性。』世尊也說，各種輕等動性，叫做內外風界。』 這種說法是不對的。前面說的大種，與這個不同，不是這個性質。如果不瞭解經論的意義，就認為輕性是風界的話，就應該說重性是什麼大種。如果說這個宗派認為有大種增生重性，重性就是這個大種的話，道理一定不對。因為重性與地、水相各不相同。而且在一切和合的聚集中，都具有重性，應該沒有差別。如果說因為少多所以沒有過失的話，就不應該是重性就是堅、濕。而且允許和合為輕重，身識...
【English Translation】 English version: Because this dependent entity is smoothness itself. Or one should only obtain the difference of arrangement (Anbu), and should not also understand the smoothness within it. Moreover, in the sutras, it is expediently said that there is such smoothness, as the sutra says: 'The Tathagata's skin is extremely fine and smooth, and no dust or dirt will adhere to the body.' Moreover, even if there is smoothness, whether there are scriptures or not, there has never been a scripture that prohibits its existence, and it does not contradict the correct reasoning. In this way, the meaning of the real existence of smoothness is established. Moreover, if smoothness is different from the four great elements and has no other self-nature, it should be false rather than real. In this case, body consciousness should not understand it, because body consciousness only grasps the ultimate reality. Moreover, without discrimination, the sensation of smoothness should not exist. Just as without discrimination, for various great elements, there are different sensations on each individual entity. This means that body consciousness grasps the real objects of the various great elements as its realm, rather than grasping false phenomena. Smoothness is also like this. Since it is grasped by the body, it cannot be said to be false rather than real. Moreover, it is not present in every single great element, so smoothness is different from the great elements and exists separately. Due to this reasoning, it is also generally established that properties such as roughness are different from the four great elements. The differences among them should be further revealed. That elder said that there is no other created thing called lightness and heaviness, but it is the various great elements, either few or many, that are said to be light or heavy. Moreover, lightness and heaviness are formed relatively and are not real entities. That is, the same thing is called light relative to this and heavy relative to that, and it is not formed relatively like hardness, etc. Moreover, lightness is mentioned in the wind element, and lightness is wind, as the treatise says: 'What is called the wind element? It is the property of lightness, etc., and movement.' The World Honored One also said, 'The various properties of lightness, etc., and movement are called the inner and outer wind elements.' This statement is incorrect. The great elements mentioned earlier are different from this and are not of this nature. If one does not understand the meaning of the sutras and treatises and thinks that lightness is the wind element, then one should say what great element heaviness is. If one says that this school believes that there is a great element that increases and produces heaviness, and that heaviness is this great element, then the reasoning must be incorrect. Because heaviness is different from earth and water in appearance. Moreover, it is present in all combined aggregates, so there should be no difference. If one says that there is no fault because of few or many, then it should not be that heaviness is hardness and wetness. Moreover, allowing combination to be lightness and heaviness, body consciousness...
不應緣彼為境。又即大種眾多極微和合聚中。許為重故。即應一切和合聚中皆有重性。無定因故。若言大種和集差別。能為因緣別生重性則無斯過。此於世間現所見故。又言輕重相待成故。非實有者。此非善說。譬如因果。輕重亦然。謂如一物待此名因。非即待此複名為果。待彼名果。非即待彼複名為因。如是一物待此名輕。非即待此複名為重。待彼名重。非即待彼複名為輕。因果既實。此如何假。故唯能詮相待不定。非所詮體而有改易。又如彼此岸。輕重性亦爾。謂于彼物立彼岸名。非說此岸令體改易。或於此物立此岸名。非說彼岸令體改易。以即一物相續轉時。待此彼邊名彼此岸。輕重亦然。體非不定又如黑白。輕重亦然。謂即一物待此名黑。待彼名白。而非顯色無別有體。是故相待。非不實因。若言待多總說一性。如瓶林等。是假非實。此亦應然。故非實者。云何知爾。應說其因。此且非因有過失故。若言堅等非相待成此相待成故非實者。堅等言說亦相待成。待不堅物立堅名故。堅非不實。此亦應然。若謂不然。未嘗相待說堅為濕。不相似故。此非不然。其所待因。一向決定。義相似故。然非待余堅名濕者。以更無別所待因故。待不堅物說此為堅。未嘗待彼名不堅物。輕重亦然。故義相似。雖于輕聚有時說重。
而非由說舍彼輕性。但余緣故。起異能詮。體非改易。如前已辯。是故相待非不實因。或諸堅物亦有待對成異品類。謂或名堅。成名堅勝。或名堅極。于中亦說堅名不堅。其理既同。汝應生喜。不能令喜。輕重二物。同堅不堅。應成一故。且輕重性異諸大種。實有義成。然不應言相待不定應成一物。如黑與白。雖相待對。品類不同。而非一故。若言黑白。雖品類異。而未曾有說白為黑黑為白者。此亦不然。現見世間。有此說故。名雖不定而體不易。如前已說。故體不同。又如汝說。微火為冷。有微暖聚。待此名冷。待彼名暖。名雖不定而體是實。此亦應然。有諸色聚。輕極微多。重極微少。此聚名輕。與此相違彼聚名重。輕重二性聚同體別。其理顯然。何緣不受。言于風界說輕性故輕即風者。此亦不然。辯大種中已釋此義。對堅等三。動最難了。故舉輕果以顯風因。雖四大種皆是輕因。而就增強。故作是說。火雖增強而不決定。又輕與動相順相似。故論經言。輕等動性。若唯如言定取義者。即彼經說。發毛爪等名內地界。豈發毛等唯地界耶。是故彼言。有別意趣。不應執彼遮輕造色。又阿笈摩有如是頌。
堅重墜身中 如重舟瀋海
故重如堅。應實有體。有餘師說。輕性唯用重無為體。此亦不然。于虛空
等重性既無。應有輕故。又于薪等重性非無。亦有輕故。若不爾者。擲置水內則不應浮。有非有性。不應俱有。亦不應說廣大故浮。廣大是形非觸性故。廣大石等亦應浮故。又此輕性是輕安果。故體非無。謂修定者。由輕安故。身覺輕觸。不應用無作輕安果。若唯令身離重觸故名為果者。理亦不然。輕性是身長養因故。不應謂無。亦能長養。以離輕安。應長養故。若謂輕安能除重觸。唯大種生名長養者。應謂輕安滅余大種生。余大種。即名長養。何滅重為。重性如輕應非別有。則與上座所執應同。然不應理。輕重二相。諸大種中。皆無有故。若執輕性即諸大種少分為體。應執輕安現在前故少大種生。何故輕安與諸大種相違而起。若相違者。少亦應不生。若不相違。誰障多不起。故輕不應是輕安果。又輕非用重無為性。品類異故。猶如重性。又阿笈摩說有輕重。如彼所說。如諸鐵團或諸鐵鍱。若時有火。有極暖熱。爾時便有極軟極輕極調柔用與此相違。極堅極重極不調柔。我身亦爾。若有輕安。則便有輕有調柔用。堪任修斷。與此相違。即便有重。無調柔用。不任修斷。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五
尊者眾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 等同的重量實際上是不存在的。因為有輕的緣故。又在木柴等物體上，等同的重量並非不存在，也有輕的緣故。如果不是這樣，那麼將木柴扔進水中就不應該漂浮。有和非有（指輕和重）的性質，不應該同時存在。也不應該說是由於木柴的廣大（體積大）才漂浮，因為廣大是形狀而不是觸覺的性質。如果這樣說成立，那麼廣大的石頭等也應該漂浮。此外，這種輕的性質是輕安（身體和心理的輕快舒適）的果實，所以它的本體並非不存在。所謂修習禪定的人，由於輕安的緣故，身體感覺到輕的觸覺。不應該用沒有作用的輕安作為果實。如果僅僅使身體脫離沉重的觸覺才稱為果實，這個道理也是不成立的。輕的性質是身體增長的因素，所以不應該說是沒有。也能增長，因為離開了輕安，也應該能增長。如果說輕安能夠去除沉重的觸覺，只有四大種（地、水、火、風）的產生才叫做增長，那麼應該說輕安消滅了其餘的四大種而產生新的四大種，其餘的四大種就叫做增長。為什麼要消滅沉重呢？沉重的性質如同輕的性質一樣，應該不是單獨存在的。那麼就與上座部（佛教部派之一）所執持的觀點相同了。然而這是不合理的，因為輕和重這兩種相，在所有的四大種中，都是沒有的。如果認為輕的性質就是諸大種的少部分為本體，那麼應該認為輕安現在前的時候，少部分的大種產生。為什麼輕安與諸大種相互違背而生起呢？如果相互違背，那麼少部分的大種也應該不生起。如果不相互違背，誰又阻礙多部分的大種不生起呢？所以輕不應該是輕安的果實。此外，輕不是以沉重的無為性質作為作用，因為品類不同，就像沉重的性質一樣。而且，《阿笈摩》（Agama，佛教聖典）中說有輕和重，就像其中所說的那樣：像鐵塊或鐵片，當有火，有極度的溫暖時，那時便有極度的柔軟、極度的輕、極度的調柔的作用。與此相反，就是極度的堅硬、極度的沉重、極度的不調柔。我的身體也是這樣，如果有輕安，那麼便有輕、有調柔的作用，能夠勝任修習和斷除煩惱。與此相反，便有沉重，沒有調柔的作用，不能勝任修習和斷除煩惱。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四 《大正藏》第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五
尊者眾
【English Translation】 English version Equal weight does not exist. Because there is lightness. Moreover, in firewood and other objects, equal weight is not non-existent; there is also lightness. If it were not so, then throwing firewood into water should not cause it to float. The nature of being and non-being (referring to lightness and heaviness) should not exist simultaneously. Nor should it be said that it floats because of the vastness (large volume) of the firewood, because vastness is a shape and not a tactile property. If this were true, then vast stones and the like should also float. Furthermore, this nature of lightness is the fruit of Prasrabdhi (lightness and comfort of body and mind), so its essence is not non-existent. Those who practice meditation, due to Prasrabdhi, feel a light touch on the body. One should not use inactive Prasrabdhi as the fruit. If merely causing the body to be free from heavy touch is called the fruit, this reasoning is also not valid. The nature of lightness is a cause for the growth of the body, so it should not be said to be non-existent. It can also cause growth, because even without Prasrabdhi, it should be able to cause growth. If it is said that Prasrabdhi can remove heavy touch, and only the arising of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) is called growth, then it should be said that Prasrabdhi eliminates the remaining four great elements and produces new four great elements; the remaining four great elements are then called growth. Why eliminate heaviness? The nature of heaviness, like the nature of lightness, should not be separately existent. Then it would be the same as the view held by the Sthavira school (one of the Buddhist schools). However, this is unreasonable, because the two characteristics of lightness and heaviness are not present in all the four great elements. If it is thought that the nature of lightness is the essence of a small part of the great elements, then it should be thought that when Prasrabdhi is present, a small part of the great elements arises. Why does Prasrabdhi arise in opposition to the great elements? If they are opposed to each other, then even a small part of the great elements should not arise. If they are not opposed to each other, who prevents a large part of the great elements from arising? Therefore, lightness should not be the fruit of Prasrabdhi. Furthermore, lightness does not take the inactive nature of heaviness as its function, because they are of different categories, just like the nature of heaviness. Moreover, the Agama (Buddhist scriptures) says that there are lightness and heaviness, just as it says: Like lumps of iron or sheets of iron, when there is fire, when there is extreme warmth, then there is extreme softness, extreme lightness, and extremely pliable function. In contrast to this, there is extreme hardness, extreme heaviness, and extreme inflexibility. My body is also like this; if there is Prasrabdhi, then there is lightness and pliable function, capable of undertaking practice and cutting off afflictions. In contrast to this, there is heaviness, without pliable function, incapable of undertaking practice and cutting off afflictions.
Shun Zheng Li Lun (Treatise on Following the Right Principle) of Sarvastivada, Volume 4 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun
Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun, Volume 5
Venerable Sangha
賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之五
又上座言。火界或少。或不增強。即名為冷。所以者何。于彼無日。或去日遠。便有冷故。又如極大炎熱起時。無別少分所造觸起。同許唯有火大增多。熱減少時亦應如是。無別少分所造觸生。應許唯是火大減少。若別有冷亦應許有別所造觸非暖非冷。是故定無冷所造觸。非火界少。或不增強即名為冷。現見冷觸所損害者。火界增時能攝益故。損害因增轉應損害。誰有智者作如是執。被少火害歸投大火。若謂彼由匱乏火故有損害者。理必不然。定有餘因能損害故。謂火少故。有餘冷增能為損害。非即由火。由此準說冷攝益者。謂為少因。所攝益者。此因若增。轉應攝益。是故彼論非為應理。又彼所說。熱增減時。無所造生唯即火者。亦不應理。現見二法更互相違。一法增時余法減故。如能斷道與所斷惑。非道增時無別惑起。例道退位無別惑生。又冷生時和合異故。謂水風界增盛聚中。有冷生因。非由火界。不應就火增盛為難。又執火界少為冷者。彼雪聚中火微極少。不應於此冷微極多。智不應言如如火界漸漸微少。如是如是火界轉多。為應理論。彼執冷火無別體故。不可金少即為非金。故有別物異諸大種。由火界減。彼物體增。是所造觸。說名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之五
又上座言：『火界（tejo-dhātu，四大元素之一，指熱能）或少，或不增強，即名為冷。』所以者何？于彼無日，或去日遠，便有冷故。又如極大炎熱起時，無別少分所造觸起，同許唯有火大增多。熱減少時亦應如是，無別少分所造觸生，應許唯是火大減少。若別有冷，亦應許有別所造觸非暖非冷。是故定無冷所造觸，非火界少，或不增強即名為冷。現見冷觸所損害者，火界增時能攝益故。損害因增轉應損害，誰有智者作如是執？被少火害歸投大火。若謂彼由匱乏火故有損害者，理必不然，定有餘因能損害故。謂火少故，有餘冷增能為損害，非即由火。由此準說冷攝益者，謂為少因。所攝益者，此因若增，轉應攝益。是故彼論非為應理。又彼所說，熱增減時，無所造生唯即火者，亦不應理。現見二法更互相違，一法增時余法減故。如能斷道與所斷惑。非道增時無別惑起，例道退位無別惑生。又冷生時和合異故。謂水風界增盛聚中，有冷生因，非由火界。不應就火增盛為難。又執火界少為冷者，彼雪聚中火微極少，不應於此冷微極多。智不應言如如火界漸漸微少，如是如是火界轉多。為應理論，彼執冷火無別體故。不可金少即為非金。故有別物異諸大種。由火界減，彼物體增，是所造觸，說名為冷。』
【English Translation】 English version Xian Zao
Translated under Imperial Order by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter 1.5: Discriminating the Nature of Things
Furthermore, the elder said: 'The fire element (tejo-dhātu, one of the four great elements, referring to heat energy), when diminished or not increased, is called cold.' Why is this so? Because there is no sun there, or it is far from the sun, hence there is cold. Moreover, just as when extreme heat arises, no separate, minimal touch-produced element arises, but it is universally accepted that only the fire element increases greatly; so too, when heat decreases, no separate, minimal touch-produced element should arise, but it should be accepted that only the fire element decreases. If there were a separate cold, it should also be accepted that there is a separate touch-produced element that is neither warm nor cold. Therefore, there is definitely no cold-produced touch; it is not that the fire element is diminished or not increased that is called cold. Those harmed by cold touch are now seen to be benefited when the fire element increases. If the cause of harm increases, it should instead cause harm; who with intelligence would hold such a view? Those harmed by a little fire turn to a great fire. If it is said that they are harmed because of a lack of fire, that is certainly not the case; there must be other causes that can cause harm. That is, because there is little fire, the increase of other cold can cause harm, not directly from the fire. By this analogy, those benefited by cold are said to be benefited by a small cause. If this cause increases, it should instead cause benefit. Therefore, that argument is not reasonable. Moreover, what they say, that when heat increases or decreases, no produced element arises, but only fire, is also not reasonable. It is now seen that two dharmas are mutually contradictory; when one dharma increases, the other dharma decreases. Like the path that can sever afflictions and the afflictions that are severed. It is not that when the path increases, no separate affliction arises; similarly, when the path declines, no separate affliction arises. Moreover, when cold arises, the combination is different. That is, in the assembly where the water and wind elements increase, there is a cause for cold to arise, not from the fire element. One should not use the increase of fire to make a difficult point. Furthermore, those who hold that the fire element being small is cold, in a snowdrift the fire is extremely small; it should not be that the cold is extremely great here. Intelligence should not say that just as the fire element gradually diminishes, so too the fire element increases. To be a reasonable theory, they hold that cold and fire have no separate substance. It cannot be that a little gold is non-gold. Therefore, there is a separate thing different from the great elements. Because the fire element decreases, that thing increases, and the touch produced by it is called cold.'
冷。有執此宗。謂有大種增生冷觸。冷觸即是此大種者。理亦不然。冷與水風相各異故。又二物成。體應是假便應不為身識所緣。以非冷暖無別性故。例無別冷。理亦不然。彼即冷等下等品類。分位別故有餘師說。冷等唯用暖無為體此亦不然。品類異故。猶如暖等。不容無法有異品類。或應地等用無為性。謂亦可說唯水等無。名地等界。故彼所說。非破冷觸是造色因。又冷能為覺生緣故。如火界等非即暖無。應有色聚全無有火。有非有俱不應理故。諸色聚中既必有火。是則冷觸應畢竟無。故知離火別有冷觸。又諸冷觸其體實有。相狀分明。現可覺故。猶如暖等。又契經中。如暖說故。體必應有。故契經言。我于冷暖皆能堪忍。若於爾時冷暖調適。即能成熟。取證成就。非於爾時極冷極暖。若極冷暖不能修業。故冷造色實有義成。又上座言。飢渴二種。非所造色。希求性故。理亦不然。此二于因說果名故。由觸差別逼切其身。生食飲欲。是飢渴因。故名飢渴。如說輕安。謂身輕性。輕安果故。說名輕安。若爾此因應暖為性。由火界暖。能熟能消。便能發生食飲欲故。此言非理。食飲二欲應是造色。火為因故。又非火界。是二欲因應一切時生一欲故。現見二欲非恒時有。豈不自宗欲因造觸所依大種。雖恒非無。而此造觸體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有人堅持這種觀點，認為『冷』（Śīta，寒冷）是大種（Mahābhūta，地、水、火、風四大元素）增生而產生的觸覺。他們認為『冷觸』就是這種大種。但這種說法不合理，因為『冷』與『水』（Āpas，四大元素之一）、『風』（Vāyu，四大元素之一）的性質各不相同。而且，如果『冷』是由兩種物質組成，那麼它的本體應該是虛假的，不應該成為身識（Kāya-vijñāna，五識之一）所緣的對象。因為如果『冷』沒有與『暖』（Uṣṇa，溫暖）的區別，就像沒有區別的『冷』一樣，這種說法也不合理。因為『冷』是『冷』等下等品類的不同分位。有些老師說，『冷』等只是以『暖無』為本體，這種說法也不合理，因為品類不同，就像『暖』等一樣。不能允許沒有法而有不同的品類。或者應該說『地』（Pṛthivī，四大元素之一）等以『無為』為本體。也可以說只有『水』等沒有『地』等界的名稱。所以他們的說法不能推翻『冷觸』是造色（Rūpa，物質現象）之因的觀點。而且，『冷』能成為覺（Vedanā，感受）產生的緣，就像『火界』（Tejas，四大元素之一）等一樣，不能說它就是『暖無』。否則，應該有色聚（Rūpa-kalāpa，物質微粒）完全沒有『火』，有和沒有都不合理。因為在所有色聚中必然有『火』，那麼『冷觸』就應該畢竟不存在。所以要知道，離開『火』，另外有『冷觸』。而且，所有的『冷觸』，它的本體確實存在，相狀分明，現在可以感覺到，就像『暖』等一樣。而且，契經（Sūtra，佛經）中，就像說『暖』一樣，它的本體必定應該存在。所以契經說：『我對於冷暖都能堪忍。』如果在那個時候冷暖調適，就能成熟，取得證悟成就。如果在那時極冷極暖，就不能修業。所以『冷』是造色，這個意義成立。而且，上座（Sthavira，長老）說，飢渴兩種不是所造色，因為它們具有希求性。這種說法也不合理，這兩種是在因上說果的名字。由於觸覺的差別逼迫身體，產生飲食的慾望，這是飢渴的原因，所以叫做飢渴。就像說『輕安』（Prasrabdhi，輕快安適），是指身體的輕性，因為是輕安的果，所以叫做輕安。如果這樣，那麼這個因應該是『暖』的性質，因為『火界』的『暖』，能夠成熟能夠消化，就能發生飲食的慾望。這種說法不合理，飲食二欲應該是造色，因為『火』是它的原因。而且，如果『火界』是這兩種慾望的原因，那麼應該一切時都生起一種慾望。現在看到這兩種慾望不是恒常都有的。難道不是你們宗派認為慾望的因——造觸所依的大種，雖然恒常存在，但是這個造觸的本體
【English Translation】 English version Some adhere to the view that 'cold' (Śīta, coldness) is a tactile sensation generated by the augmentation of the Mahābhūtas (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind). They argue that 'cold touch' is precisely this Mahābhūta. However, this assertion is unreasonable because 'cold' differs in nature from 'water' (Āpas, one of the four great elements) and 'wind' (Vāyu, one of the four great elements). Furthermore, if 'cold' were composed of two substances, its essence should be unreal and should not be an object cognized by body consciousness (Kāya-vijñāna, one of the five consciousnesses). For if 'cold' lacked distinction from 'warmth' (Uṣṇa, warmth), it would be like undifferentiated 'cold,' which is also unreasonable. This is because 'cold' is a distinct category within the lower classifications of 'cold' and the like. Some teachers assert that 'cold' and similar sensations are fundamentally 'absence of warmth,' but this is also unreasonable because categories differ, just as with 'warmth' and the like. It is impermissible for distinct categories to exist without a corresponding dharma. Alternatively, it should be said that 'earth' (Pṛthivī, one of the four great elements) and the like are fundamentally 'unconditioned.' It could also be argued that only 'water' and the like lack the designation of 'earth' and other realms. Therefore, their argument fails to refute the view that 'cold touch' is a cause of rūpa (material phenomena). Moreover, 'cold' can serve as a condition for the arising of sensation (Vedanā, feeling), just like the 'fire element' (Tejas, one of the four great elements), and it cannot be said to be simply 'absence of warmth.' Otherwise, there should be material aggregates (Rūpa-kalāpa, material particles) entirely devoid of 'fire,' which is unreasonable whether considered as existent or nonexistent. Since 'fire' is necessarily present in all material aggregates, 'cold touch' should be entirely nonexistent. Therefore, it should be understood that 'cold touch' exists separately from 'fire.' Furthermore, all 'cold touches' truly exist in their essence, with distinct characteristics, and are presently perceptible, just like 'warmth' and the like. Moreover, as stated in the Sūtras (Buddhist scriptures), just as 'warmth' is described, its essence must exist. Therefore, the Sūtras state: 'I am able to endure both cold and warmth.' If cold and warmth are balanced at that time, one can mature and attain realization. If it is extremely cold or extremely warm at that time, one cannot practice. Therefore, the meaning that 'cold' is a rūpa is established. Furthermore, the Sthaviras (elders) say that hunger and thirst are not produced rūpas because they possess a seeking nature. This assertion is also unreasonable; these two are named after the result in the cause. Due to the differentiation of touch pressing the body, the desire for food and drink arises, which is the cause of hunger and thirst, hence they are called hunger and thirst. Just as 'Prasrabdhi' (tranquility) is said, referring to the lightness of the body, it is called Prasrabdhi because it is the result of tranquility. If so, then this cause should be of the nature of 'warmth,' because the 'warmth' of the 'fire element' is able to ripen and digest, and thus can generate the desire for food and drink. This statement is unreasonable; the two desires for food and drink should be rūpas, because 'fire' is their cause. Moreover, if the 'fire element' were the cause of these two desires, then one desire should arise at all times. Now it is seen that these two desires are not constantly present. Is it not the case that your school believes that the Mahābhūta upon which the produced touch, the cause of desire, depends, although constantly present, the essence of this produced touch
非常有。此例不然。欲因造觸待風火界。增強生故。若謂二欲亦應爾者。理亦不然。如前已說。二欲應是造色性故。若謂如因所觸大種發生身識。而非身識是造色性。欲亦應然。此不相似。識不要因大種增盛方得生起。欲即不然。因增生故由彼身識不因大種。或等或增差別生起。但隨所依不由差別。身觸為緣而得生起。二欲不然。如所造色。要因大種增盛而生。既隨大種差別而生。何緣所遮令非造色。風火若盛二欲便增。風火若微二欲便減。既隨大種增微不同。二欲何緣非造色性。若言二欲雖因大種。而不依彼故非造色。謂欲依心不依大種。故不應難令成造色。若爾此欲應不要因大種增盛方得生起。不見不依大種身識。隨諸大種差別而生唯見身識大種為緣。若等若增。但觸便起。二欲若爾。應一切時不待增盛。有因便起。則前所說。應一切時生二欲難堅住難遣。又風火界有時雖增。而不現起食飲二欲。故知二欲因現不生。彼因爾時何緣不起。由所依身有過患故。或為余緣所障礙故。豈不即由此故二欲不生。何須復別計有欲因造觸。此不應然。欲與身識俱時起故。雖有障礙而識得生。欲不得生。此有何理。心所法生。必定系屬依緣識合。彼三具有。又彼希求大法地攝。故與一切心品俱生。生欲勝因。爾時具有而不生者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非如此。這個例子不同。因為想要產生觸覺，需要依賴風界和火界（四大元素中的兩種）。因為增強了（風界和火界），觸覺才得以產生。如果說兩種慾望也應該如此，道理也是不通的。正如之前所說，兩種慾望應該是所造之色（Rupa，色法）的性質。如果說就像因為所觸的大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素）而產生身識，但身識不是所造之色，那麼（兩種慾望不是所造之色）也應該成立。這並不相似。身識不需要依賴大種的增強才能生起，但慾望卻不是這樣，因為慾望是依賴（大種的）增強而產生的。由於身識不依賴大種的相等、增強或差別而生起，只是隨著所依（的根）而不依賴差別，以身觸為緣而得以生起。兩種慾望不是這樣，就像所造之色，需要依賴大種的增強才能產生。既然隨著大種的差別而產生，有什麼理由阻止它不是所造之色呢？風界和火界如果旺盛，兩種慾望便會增強；風界和火界如果微弱，兩種慾望便會減弱。既然隨著大種的增強和減弱而不同，兩種慾望有什麼理由不是所造之色的性質呢？如果說兩種慾望雖然依賴大種，但不依附於它們，所以不是所造之色，意思是說慾望依附於心，不依附於大種，所以不應該責難它成為所造之色。如果這樣，那麼這種慾望應該不需要依賴大種的增強才能生起。沒有看到不依附於大種的身識，隨著諸大種的差別而生起，只看到身識以大種為緣，相等或增強，只要有觸覺便會生起。如果兩種慾望也是這樣，應該在任何時候都不需要等待（大種的）增強，只要有因便會生起。那麼之前所說的『應該在任何時候都產生兩種慾望，難以堅守，難以去除』的責難就成立了。而且，風界和火界有時雖然增強，但食慾和飲欲卻不顯現。所以知道兩種慾望是因為（其他）因的顯現才產生的。那些因在那個時候為什麼不產生呢？因為所依的身有過患，或者被其他因緣所障礙。難道不就是因為這個原因，兩種慾望才不產生嗎？為什麼還需要另外計算有慾望的因，即造觸呢？這不應該這樣。因為慾望和身識是同時生起的。即使有障礙，身識也能生起，但慾望卻不能生起，這有什麼道理呢？心所法（Caitasika，心所）的產生，必定系屬於所依的根和緣，識（Vijnana，了別）的結合，這三者都具備。而且，這種希求屬於大法地（Mahadharma-bhumi，大地法）所攝，所以與一切心品同時生起。生起慾望的殊勝之因，在那個時候具備卻不生起，是什麼原因呢？
【English Translation】 English version It is not like that in this case. The desire to create contact depends on the wind and fire elements (two of the four great elements). It is because of the enhancement (of the wind and fire elements) that contact arises. If it is said that the two desires should also be like this, the reasoning is also not valid. As mentioned earlier, the two desires should be of the nature of created matter (Rupa). If it is said that just as bodily consciousness arises because of the touched great elements (Mahabhuta), but bodily consciousness is not created matter, then (the two desires not being created matter) should also be established. This is not similar. Bodily consciousness does not need to depend on the enhancement of the great elements to arise, but desire is not like this, because desire arises depending on the enhancement (of the great elements). Since bodily consciousness does not arise depending on the equality, enhancement, or difference of the great elements, but only arises following the basis (the sense organ) and not depending on difference, with bodily contact as the condition. The two desires are not like this, just like created matter, it needs to depend on the enhancement of the great elements to arise. Since it arises depending on the difference of the great elements, what reason is there to prevent it from being created matter? If the wind and fire elements are strong, the two desires will increase; if the wind and fire elements are weak, the two desires will decrease. Since it differs depending on the increase and decrease of the great elements, what reason is there for the two desires not to be of the nature of created matter? If it is said that although the two desires depend on the great elements, they do not rely on them, so they are not created matter, meaning that desire relies on the mind, not on the great elements, so it should not be criticized for becoming created matter. If so, then this desire should not need to depend on the enhancement of the great elements to arise. It is not seen that bodily consciousness, which does not rely on the great elements, arises depending on the difference of the great elements, only seeing that bodily consciousness takes the great elements as a condition, equal or enhanced, as long as there is contact, it will arise. If the two desires are also like this, they should not need to wait for (the great elements') enhancement at any time, as long as there is a cause, they will arise. Then the previous criticism that 'the two desires should arise at any time, difficult to maintain, difficult to remove' would be established. Moreover, although the wind and fire elements sometimes increase, the desire for food and drink does not appear. Therefore, it is known that the two desires arise because of the appearance of (other) causes. Why do those causes not arise at that time? Because the relying body has faults, or is obstructed by other conditions. Isn't it precisely because of this reason that the two desires do not arise? Why is it necessary to separately calculate that there is a cause for desire, namely creating contact? This should not be so. Because desire and bodily consciousness arise simultaneously. Even if there is an obstruction, bodily consciousness can arise, but desire cannot arise, what is the reason for this? The arising of mental factors (Caitasika) is certainly related to the relying sense organ and condition, and the combination of consciousness (Vijnana), all three of which are present. Moreover, this aspiration belongs to the category of great mental factors (Mahadharma-bhumi), so it arises simultaneously with all mental states. The excellent cause for the arising of desire is present at that time but does not arise, what is the reason?
必為所餘生緣𨵗故。所餘緣者。謂所造觸。故離大種實有飢渴。造色為性。又不應言造觸生障即障心心所。勿心等生障即障造觸。無異因故。且止廣諍。必應信有飢渴二體造觸為性。今應思擇。若諸大種色聚中增。為體為用。何緣復勸如是思擇。為欲蠲除不實過故。經主自論有處說言。此是彼宗所有過失。彼宗謂彼毗婆沙師。言諸聚中一切大種。體雖等有而或有聚。作用偏增。如心心所。又如所覺團中鹽味。未審此中經主意趣。定謂誰是毗婆沙師。若謂善釋阿毗達磨諸大論師。彼無此說。彼說大種由體故增。石水焰風。諸色聚內。堅濕暖動體相偏增。一一聚中各了一故。若諸聚內大種體均。不應此中各唯了一。又隨世想立地等名。應全無因。空有言說。以諸色聚形顯皆同。若執堅等體均無異。因何得生地等別想。若謂因用。理必不然。用與自體無差別故。用若是實即體增成。實即體故。用若非實亦體增成。不異體故。無非實用異體有增。由此即釋彼心心所團中鹽喻。謂鹽受等。用即體故。即體用增。總說如是。然有差別。謂諸大種有對礙故。可積集故。方處差別。分明可了。受等無對。不可積集。但由用別。了增微異。是故大種。體可積集。就體說增。心心所法。就用差別。說增微異。豈不色法亦見用增。如酢和水。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 必定是因為過去生所結下的因緣的緣故。所說的『余緣』，是指所造作的『觸』（Phassa，感受）。因此，離開了『大種』（Mahābhūta，四大元素），實際上存在著飢渴，其自性是造作『色』（Rūpa，物質）。而且，不應該說造作的『觸』產生障礙，就障礙了『心』（Citta，意識）和『心所』（Cetasika，心理活動）。不要讓『心』等等的生起障礙，就障礙了造作的『觸』，因為沒有不同的原因。姑且停止廣泛的爭論。必定應該相信存在飢渴這兩種實體，其自性是造作的『觸』。現在應該思考選擇，如果各種『大種』在『色聚』（Rūpakalāpa，物質的集合）中增加，是本體增加還是作用增加？為什麼又要勸導這樣思考選擇？爲了消除不真實的過失的緣故。經論的作者自己論述說，有的地方說，這是他們的宗派所有的過失。他們的宗派是指那些『毗婆沙師』（Vaibhāṣika，分別論者）。說在各種『聚』（集合）中，一切『大種』，本體雖然平等存在，但是有的『聚』，作用偏重增加，就像『心』和『心所』。又像所感覺到的團塊中鹽的味道。不知道這裡經論作者的意圖，確定說誰是『毗婆沙師』。如果說是善於解釋『阿毗達磨』（Abhidhamma，論藏）的各位大論師，他們沒有這樣說。他們說『大種』因為本體的緣故而增加。石頭、水、火焰、風，在各種『色聚』內，堅硬、潮濕、溫暖、流動的本體和現象偏重增加。在每一個『聚』中各自明顯不同。如果各種『聚』內『大種』的本體相同，不應該在這裡各自只有一種明顯不同。又隨著世俗的想像而建立地等等的名稱，應該完全沒有原因，只是空有言說。因為各種『色聚』的形狀和顯現都相同。如果執著堅硬等等的本體相同沒有差異，因為什麼能夠產生地等等的區別想像？如果說是作用的原因，道理必定不是這樣。作用和自體沒有差別。作用如果是真實的，就是本體增加形成。因為真實就是本體的緣故。作用如果不是真實的，也是本體增加形成。因為和本體沒有差異的緣故。沒有不是真實的作用，和本體不同的增加。由此就解釋了那些『心』『心所』團塊中鹽的比喻。說鹽的感受等等，作用就是本體的緣故。就是本體的作用增加。總的來說是這樣。然而有差別。各種『大種』因為有對礙的緣故，可以積聚的緣故，方位和處所的差別，可以分明瞭解。感受等等沒有對礙，不可以積聚。但是因為作用的區別，瞭解增加的細微差異。因此『大種』，本體可以積聚。就本體來說增加。『心』『心所』法，就作用的區別，來說增加的細微差異。難道不是『色法』也看到作用增加嗎？就像醋和水混合。
【English Translation】 English version: It must be because of the remaining causes and conditions from past lives. The 'remaining conditions' refer to the 'touch' (Phassa, sensation) that is created. Therefore, apart from the 'great elements' (Mahābhūta, the four primary elements), there is actually hunger and thirst, whose nature is the creation of 'form' (Rūpa, matter). Moreover, it should not be said that the created 'touch' produces obstacles, thereby obstructing the 'mind' (Citta, consciousness) and 'mental factors' (Cetasika, mental activities). Do not let the arising of 'mind' and so on be obstructed, thereby obstructing the created 'touch', because there is no different cause. Let us stop the extensive debate for now. It must be believed that there are two entities of hunger and thirst, whose nature is the creation of 'touch'. Now we should contemplate and choose, if the various 'great elements' increase in the 'form aggregates' (Rūpakalāpa, collection of matter), is it the increase of the substance or the increase of the function? Why should we encourage such contemplation and choice? It is for the sake of eliminating unreal faults. The author of the scripture himself argues that in some places it is said that this is the fault of their sect. Their sect refers to those 'Vaibhāṣikas' (Vaibhāṣika, the Differentiation Theorists). They say that in various 'aggregates' (collections), all 'great elements', although the substance is equally present, in some 'aggregates', the function is predominantly increased, just like 'mind' and 'mental factors'. Also like the taste of salt in the perceived lump. It is not known here the intention of the author of the scripture, who is definitely saying who is the 'Vaibhāṣika'. If it is said that they are the great masters who are good at explaining the 'Abhidhamma' (Abhidhamma, the collection of philosophical texts), they did not say this. They say that the 'great elements' increase because of the substance. Stone, water, flame, and wind, within various 'form aggregates', the substance and phenomena of hardness, wetness, warmth, and movement are predominantly increased. Each is clearly different in each 'aggregate'. If the substance of the 'great elements' is the same within various 'aggregates', it should not be that only one is clearly different in each of them. Also, according to worldly imagination, names such as earth are established, there should be no reason at all, only empty words. Because the shapes and appearances of various 'form aggregates' are the same. If one insists that the substance of hardness and so on is the same without difference, why can one produce different imaginations such as earth? If it is said that it is because of the function, the reason must not be so. The function and the self are not different. If the function is real, then the substance is increased and formed. Because the real is the substance. If the function is not real, then the substance is also increased and formed. Because it is not different from the substance. There is no unreal function that is different from the substance and increased. From this, the analogy of salt in the lump of 'mind' and 'mental factors' is explained. It is said that the feeling of salt and so on, the function is the substance. That is, the function of the substance increases. Generally speaking, it is like this. However, there is a difference. The various 'great elements' can be clearly understood in terms of the difference in direction and location because they have resistance and can be accumulated. Feelings and so on have no resistance and cannot be accumulated. But because of the difference in function, the subtle differences in increase are understood. Therefore, the substance of the 'great elements' can be accumulated. The increase is discussed in terms of the substance. The 'mind' and 'mental factors' are discussed in terms of the subtle differences in increase based on the difference in function. Isn't it also seen that the function of 'form' increases? Just like vinegar mixed with water.
良藥和毒。鹽和水等。雖兩數同。而用有異。如何言色就體說增。此不相違。以酢與水觸微雖等而味不同。酢味微多。水味微少。故酢味勝。還由體增。于諸聚中有味等物。體增強故。謂是用增。良藥毒等。緣起理門有差別故。體類如是。由此雖少而能伏多。非異體類有別用生。故執用增。是為邪計。或如類別。品別亦爾。故唯心等。就用說增。就體說增。謂諸色法。譬如依多依一成故。又諸大種就體說增。現可得故。教故。理故。謂大種增即體可得。非用非業。有集礙故。教者謂如種喻經說。若有地界。無水界者。應不聚集。無能攝故。如是一一廣說如經。此經意言。非有色聚全無水界。若全無者。應不和合。然有不能攝余色聚令和合者。以其少故。自余諸界。準釋應知。理謂大種若但用增。非體聚積。而說增者。應有大種。或所造色一極微上亦有用增。如於受等一法體上。有時用增獨能為境。何緣極微一一別住。不能為境生五識身。又諸極微用增強者。其相粗著。應非極微。故諸色法。由可積聚體有對礙。就體說增。諸無色法不可積聚。體無對礙。就用說增。此義既成。不可傾動。而經主說。毗婆沙師。言諸聚中一切大種體雖等有。而或有聚用偏增者。此未識宗。故作是說。又今應說。堅等何因是色所依。非余色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：良藥和毒藥，鹽和水等等，雖然數量相同，但用途卻不同。如果從物質層面來說增加，這並不矛盾。就像醋和水，接觸時感覺相似，但味道不同。醋的味道稍微濃烈，水的味道稍微淡薄，所以醋的味道更勝一籌，這仍然是因為物質的增加。在各種聚合體中，如果味道等同的物質，因為物質的增加，就可以說是用途的增加。良藥和毒藥等，是因為緣起理門（指事物之間相互依存的道理）有差別。物質的類別也是如此。因此，即使數量少，也能制伏數量多的。如果不是不同類別的物質，就不會產生不同的作用，所以認為用途增加，這是錯誤的見解。或者像類別一樣，品類也是如此。所以唯有心等等，才從用途上說增加。從物質層面來說增加，指的是各種色法（指有形物質），譬如依靠多和依靠一而形成。而且各種大種（指組成物質的基本元素），從物質層面來說增加，是現在可以得到的，因為經典這樣說，道理也這樣說。所謂大種增加，就是物質可以得到，而不是用途或作用。因為聚集會有障礙。經典上說，比如《種喻經》中說，如果只有地界（指堅硬的性質），沒有水界（指濕潤的性質），就不能聚集，因為沒有能夠攝持的力量。像這樣一一廣泛地解釋，就像經典所說的那樣。這部經的意思是說，不是說所有的色聚（指物質的集合體）完全沒有水界。如果完全沒有，就不能和合。而是說，有水界，但不能攝持其他的色聚使之和合，因為水界太少了。其餘的各種界，可以參照這個解釋來理解。道理是說，如果大種只是用途增加，而不是物質的聚集，卻說增加，那麼應該有大種，或者所造的色法（指由大種所組成的物質）在一個極微（指最小的物質單位）上也有用途增加。就像在受（指感受）等等一個法（指事物）的本體上，有時用途增加，獨自成為境界。為什麼極微一一分別存在，不能成為境界，產生五識身（指眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）？而且如果各種極微用途增加，它的相狀應該粗糙明顯，就不應該是極微了。所以各種色法，因為可以積聚，物質有對礙（指佔據空間），所以從物質層面來說增加。各種無色法（指精神現象），不可以積聚，物質沒有對礙，所以從用途上來說增加。這個道理既然成立，就不可動搖。而經主說，毗婆沙師（指《大毗婆沙論》的作者）說，在各種聚合體中，一切大種物質雖然等同存在，但有的聚合體用途偏重增加。這是不瞭解宗義，所以這樣說。現在應該說，堅硬等等，為什麼是色法所依，而不是其他的色法？
【English Translation】 English version: Medicine and poison, salt and water, etc., although equal in number, differ in their uses. If we speak of increase in terms of substance, this is not contradictory. Just as vinegar and water feel similar upon contact, but their tastes are different. The taste of vinegar is slightly stronger, while the taste of water is slightly weaker, so the taste of vinegar prevails, and this is still due to the increase in substance. In various aggregates, if substances with equal taste increase in substance, it can be said that the use increases. Medicine and poison, etc., are different because the principle of dependent origination (referring to the principle of interdependence between things) has differences. The category of substances is also like this. Therefore, even if the quantity is small, it can subdue a large quantity. If it is not a different category of substance, different effects will not arise, so thinking that the use increases is a wrong view. Or like categories, types are also like this. So only mind, etc., are said to increase in terms of use. To say increase in terms of substance refers to various forms (referring to tangible matter), such as forming by relying on many and relying on one. Moreover, the various great elements (referring to the basic elements that make up matter), to say increase in terms of substance, can be obtained now, because the scriptures say so, and the reason also says so. The so-called increase of the great elements is that the substance can be obtained, not the use or function. Because gathering will have obstacles. The scriptures say, for example, the Seed Analogy Sutra says, if there is only the earth element (referring to the property of hardness) and no water element (referring to the property of moisture), it cannot gather, because there is no power to hold it together. Explain each one extensively like this, as the scriptures say. The meaning of this sutra is that it is not that all material aggregates (referring to collections of matter) have no water element at all. If there is none at all, they cannot combine. Rather, there is a water element, but it cannot hold other material aggregates together, because the water element is too little. The remaining various elements should be understood by referring to this explanation. The reason is that if the great elements only increase in use, and not in the accumulation of substance, but say increase, then there should be great elements, or the created forms (referring to matter composed of the great elements) also have an increase in use on a single atom (referring to the smallest unit of matter). Just like on the substance of a single dharma (referring to a thing) such as sensation (referring to feeling), sometimes the use increases and becomes a realm alone. Why do atoms exist separately one by one and cannot become a realm, producing the five consciousnesses (referring to eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness)? Moreover, if the uses of various atoms increase, its appearance should be rough and obvious, and it should not be an atom. Therefore, various forms, because they can accumulate and the substance has obstruction (referring to occupying space), are said to increase in terms of substance. Various formless dharmas (referring to mental phenomena) cannot be accumulated, and the substance has no obstruction, so they are said to increase in terms of use. Since this principle is established, it cannot be shaken. But the author of the treatise says that the Vaibhashika masters (referring to the authors of the Great Vaibhasha Shastra) say that in various aggregates, although all the great elements exist equally in substance, some aggregates have a greater increase in use. This is not understanding the doctrine, so they say this. Now it should be said, why is hardness, etc., what form relies on, and not other forms?
等。以此遍滿一切處故。謂諸聚中地等四相。皆遍具有。色等不然。由此地等三義成立。一所依義。二能生義。三廣大義。又是色等所隨逐故。現見世間。瓶盆等物。由火成熟。便有色等轉變可得。扣擊彈撫有差別故。聲轉變生。余色等中無如是事。是故堅等。色等所隨。是色所依。非余色等。又能損壞余色物故。色等依地無能壞用。若爾久觀雪等盛色。根不應壞。不爾彼色所依能壞根所依故。以于闇中覺彼生苦。故知唯壞大種非根。若壞於根不應覺彼發生身識。又色不能損壞大種。非所觸故。是故大種。獨能損壞余色物故。是色所依。非余色等。有說。堅等所觸性故。能為所依。此說非理。冷等應成大種性故。然冷等觸。非遍滿故。不成大種。豈不暖中無有冷觸。于冷觸中亦無有暖。暖應如冷。亦非大種。此難不然。冷有暖故。由被冷覆而不可知。若爾冷觸應同暖遍。不爾冷用暖中無故。以于冷中暖用可得。非於暖中冷用可得。冷同暖遍。此難應止。暖用者何。謂能成熟。豈不見冷亦能成熟。如有暖故物不爛壞。不爛壞因名能成熟。冷亦如是。應與暖同。此亦不然。水風界盛。暫時凝結。此中成熟。即暖用故。是故不應說言堅等所觸性故能為所依。冷等應成大種性故。然彼冷觸。水風界增。四大果故。是所造色。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 等等。因為這個緣故，它遍佈一切處。也就是說，地（Prthivi，堅固性）、水（Apas，流動性）、火（Tejas，熱性）、風（Vayu，流動性）這四種基本元素在所有聚集體中都普遍存在。而顏色等則不然。因此，地等三種特性得以成立：一是作為所依之義，二是作為能生之義，三是作為廣大之義。而且，顏色等是地等所隨逐的。 現在可以看到，世間的瓶、盆等物，經過火的燒製，就會有顏色等的變化。敲擊、彈撥、撫摸，聲音就會產生差別。而其他的顏色等則沒有這樣的現象。所以，堅固性等是顏色等所隨逐的，是顏色所依賴的，而不是其他的顏色等。 而且，地界能夠損壞其他的顏色之物，而顏色等依賴於地界，卻沒有損壞的作用。如果這樣，長時間觀看雪等強烈的顏色，根識不應該損壞。不是這樣的，因為那些顏色所依賴的地界能夠損壞根識所依賴的地界。因為在黑暗中感覺到它們產生痛苦，所以知道僅僅是損壞了大種，而不是根識。如果損壞了根識，就不應該感覺到它們發生身體的意識。 而且，顏色不能損壞大種，因為它不是所觸之物。所以，大種獨自能夠損壞其他的顏色之物，因此它是顏色所依賴的，而不是其他的顏色等。有人說，因為堅固性等是所觸之物，所以能夠作為所依。這種說法沒有道理，因為寒冷等也應該成為大種的性質。然而，寒冷等觸覺不是普遍存在的，所以不能成為大種。 難道不是在溫暖中沒有寒冷之觸，在寒冷之觸中也沒有溫暖嗎？溫暖應該像寒冷一樣，也不是大種。這個疑問不對，因為寒冷中有溫暖。因為被寒冷覆蓋而不可知。如果這樣，寒冷之觸應該和溫暖一樣普遍。不是這樣的，因為溫暖的作用在寒冷中沒有。因為在寒冷中可以得到溫暖的作用，而不是在溫暖中可以得到寒冷的作用。寒冷和溫暖一樣普遍，這個疑問應該停止。 溫暖的作用是什麼？就是能夠成熟。難道沒有看到寒冷也能成熟嗎？如果有了溫暖，物體就不會腐爛。不腐爛的原因叫做能夠成熟。寒冷也是這樣，應該和溫暖相同。這個說法也不對，因為水界和風界旺盛，暫時凝結。這其中的成熟，就是溫暖的作用。所以不應該說堅固性等因為是所觸之物，所以能夠作為所依。寒冷等應該成為大種的性質。然而，那些寒冷的觸覺，是水界和風界增盛，是四大所產生的果，是所造之色。又
【English Translation】 English version: Etc. Because of this, it pervades all places. That is to say, the four elements of earth (Prthivi, solidity), water (Apas, fluidity), fire (Tejas, heat), and wind (Vayu, mobility) are universally present in all aggregates. Color and so on are not like this. Therefore, the three characteristics of earth and so on are established: first, the meaning of being a support; second, the meaning of being able to produce; and third, the meaning of being vast. Moreover, color and so on are followed by earth and so on. Now it can be seen that worldly objects such as bottles and basins, after being fired by fire, will have changes in color and so on. Striking, plucking, and stroking will produce differences in sound. Other colors and so on do not have such phenomena. Therefore, solidity and so on are followed by color and so on, and are what color depends on, not other colors and so on. Moreover, the earth element can damage other colored objects, but color and so on depend on the earth element and have no damaging effect. If so, prolonged viewing of intense colors such as snow should not damage the root consciousness. It is not like this, because the earth element on which those colors depend can damage the earth element on which the root consciousness depends. Because of feeling pain from their arising in the dark, it is known that only the great elements are damaged, not the root consciousness. If the root consciousness is damaged, one should not feel the body consciousness arising from them. Moreover, color cannot damage the great elements because it is not a tangible object. Therefore, the great elements alone can damage other colored objects, so they are what color depends on, not other colors and so on. Some say that because solidity and so on are tangible, they can serve as a support. This statement is unreasonable, because coldness and so on should also become the nature of the great elements. However, cold sensations and so on are not universally present, so they cannot become great elements. Isn't it true that there is no cold touch in warmth, and no warmth in cold touch? Warmth should be like coldness and not be a great element either. This question is incorrect, because there is warmth in coldness. It is unknowable because it is covered by coldness. If so, the touch of coldness should be as universal as warmth. It is not like this, because the function of warmth is not present in coldness. Because the function of warmth can be obtained in coldness, but the function of coldness cannot be obtained in warmth. Coldness is as universal as warmth, this question should stop. What is the function of warmth? It is the ability to ripen. Haven't you seen that coldness can also ripen? If there is warmth, objects will not rot. The reason for not rotting is called the ability to ripen. Coldness is also like this, and should be the same as warmth. This statement is also incorrect, because the water and wind elements are strong and temporarily coagulate. The ripening in this is the function of warmth. Therefore, it should not be said that solidity and so on can serve as a support because they are tangible. Coldness and so on should become the nature of the great elements. However, those cold sensations are the result of the increase of the water and wind elements, and are colors produced by the four great elements. Again
彼冷觸。持攝熟長。四決定用不可得故。體非大種。豈不由冷雪等凝結有勝用耶。此言非理。水風界盛。如造冷觸。生彼果故。亦由暖故。甘蔗汁等。凝結可得。若言冷是大種果者冷暖相違。不應和合。如何從暖生於冷耶。如堅與濕同一事故。互不相違。水火亦然。既同一事。理無相反。如以冷水澆灌石灰。從冷生熱。此亦應爾。以諸大種同一事故。雖性相違而恒和合。冷是水風近所生果。地界與彼都不相違。火性雖違而不為損。同一果故。何妨和合。又若見彼諸界增故。于諸聚中立異大種。即彼諸界。是能生長諸造色因。名為大種。非冷增故。于諸聚中立異大種。故非大種。然暖增故。于諸聚中異大想滅異大想生。冷即不爾。是故冷暖。能依所依。二性差別。豈不現見由冷增故水界凝結。世間於此亦立種種冰雪雹名。此難如前水風界盛如造冷觸生彼果釋。或冰雪雹即水異名。非草木等異名稱火。故彼所難理定不齊。是故冷觸唯所造性。由斯觸界有二義成。餘九色界。唯是所造。謂五色根色聲香味。法界一分。亦唯所造。此復云何。謂無表業。依大種生。故名所造。然聲為顯定無一界唯大種性。餘七心界。法界一分。除無表色。俱非二種。義準已成。譬喻論師。作如是說。諸所造色非異大種。所以者何。契經說故。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『彼冷觸』（那種冷的觸感）。『持攝熟長』（保持、攝取、成熟、增長）這四種決定的作用是無法獲得的。所以它的體性不是『大種』（四大元素）。難道不是因為冷雪等凝結而有殊勝的作用嗎？這種說法不合理。因為水界和風界強盛，就像製造冷的觸感一樣，產生那種結果。也因為溫暖的緣故，甘蔗汁等凝結是可以得到的。如果說冷是『大種』的果實，那麼冷和暖是相互違背的，不應該和合在一起。怎麼能從暖產生冷呢？就像堅硬和潮濕是同一件事的屬性一樣，互相不違背。水和火也是這樣。既然是同一件事，道理上就沒有相反的可能。就像用冷水澆灌石灰，從冷產生熱一樣，這也應該是這樣。因為各種『大種』是同一件事的屬性，雖然性質相反，但總是和合在一起。冷是水和風近距離產生的果實，地界和它都不相違背。火的性質雖然相違背，但不會造成損害，因為是同一個果實，有什麼妨礙和合呢？ 還有，如果看到那些界增多，就在各種聚合中建立不同的『大種』，那麼那些界，是能夠生長各種『造色』（由四大元素所造的色法）的原因，被稱為『大種』。不是因為冷增多，就在各種聚合中建立不同的『大種』。所以冷不是『大種』。然而，因為暖增多，在各種聚合中，不同的『大想』（對大的感知）滅去，不同的『大想』產生。冷卻不是這樣。所以冷和暖，能依靠的和所依靠的，這兩種性質是有差別的。難道不是親眼看到因為冷增多，水界凝結嗎？世間因此也建立各種冰雪雹的名稱。這種責難就像前面水界和風界強盛，就像製造冷的觸感，產生那種結果的解釋一樣。或者冰雪雹就是水的不同名稱，不是草木等不同的名稱是火。所以他們所責難的道理一定是不齊等的。所以冷的觸感只是『所造性』（被造的性質）。因此觸界有兩種意義成立。其餘九種**，只是『所造』。也就是五色根（眼耳鼻舌身）和色聲香味。法界的一部分，也只是『所造』。這又是什麼呢？就是『無表業』（無法顯示的業），依靠『大種』產生，所以名為『所造』。然而聲音爲了顯示，一定沒有一個界只是『大種性』。其餘七個心界，法界的一部分，除了『無表色』，都不是兩種。道理上已經成立。『譬喻論師』（以譬喻為論證方式的論師），這樣說，各種『所造色』不是不同的『大種』。為什麼呢？因為契經是這樣說的。
【English Translation】 English version 'That cold touch.' The functions of 'holding, gathering, maturing, and lengthening' are unattainable. Therefore, its essence is not 'Mahabhuta' (the four great elements). Isn't it because of the condensation of cold snow, etc., that there is a superior function? This statement is unreasonable. Because the water and wind elements are strong, just like creating a cold touch, that result is produced. Also, because of warmth, the condensation of sugarcane juice, etc., can be obtained. If it is said that cold is the fruit of 'Mahabhuta', then cold and warmth are mutually contradictory and should not be combined. How can cold be produced from warmth? Just like hardness and moisture are attributes of the same thing, they do not contradict each other. Water and fire are also like this. Since they are the same thing, there is no possibility of contradiction in principle. Just like pouring cold water on lime, heat is produced from cold, it should also be like this. Because the various 'Mahabhutas' are attributes of the same thing, although their natures are contradictory, they are always combined. Cold is the fruit produced by water and wind at close range, and the earth element does not contradict it at all. Although the nature of fire contradicts it, it does not cause harm, because it is the same fruit, what hinders the combination? Also, if seeing those elements increase, different 'Mahabhutas' are established in various aggregates, then those elements are the cause that can grow various 'Rupas' (form produced by the four great elements), and are called 'Mahabhutas'. It is not because cold increases that different 'Mahabhutas' are established in various aggregates. Therefore, cold is not 'Mahabhuta'. However, because warmth increases, in various aggregates, different 'Maha-samjna' (perception of greatness) disappears, and different 'Maha-samjna' arises. Cold is not like this. Therefore, cold and warmth, the dependent and the depended, these two natures are different. Isn't it seen with one's own eyes that because cold increases, the water element condenses? The world therefore also establishes various names for ice, snow, and hail. This accusation is like the previous explanation that the water and wind elements are strong, just like creating a cold touch, producing that result. Or ice, snow, and hail are just different names for water, not different names for fire like grass and trees. Therefore, the principle of their accusation is certainly not equal. Therefore, the touch of cold is only 'produced nature'. Therefore, the touch element has two meanings established. The remaining nine **, are only 'produced'. That is, the five sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and form, sound, smell, taste. A part of the Dharma realm is also only 'produced'. What is this? It is 'Avijñapti-karma' (non-manifesting karma), which arises depending on 'Mahabhuta', so it is called 'produced'. However, sound, in order to manifest, certainly does not have an element that is only 'Mahabhuta nature'. The remaining seven mind elements, a part of the Dharma realm, except for 'Avijñapti-rupa', are not both. The principle has already been established. The 'Pramana-vadins' (logicians who use analogies as a means of proof) say this, the various 'produced Rupas' are not different 'Mahabhutas'. Why? Because the sutras say so.
說。云何名內地界。謂于眼肉團中若內各別堅性堅類鄰近執受。乃至廣說。若異大種別有諸根。不應于根說大種性。又余經說。苾芻當知。諸有士夫皆即六界。既定說六。為假有情所依實事。故知眼等色等造色。非異大種。若所造色異諸大種。有何意趣。此經不說。彼言非理。不了契經深意趣故。前所引經。順世名想。故作是說。謂諸世間。眼肉團中。起眼名想。此眼名想。依眼所依大種等起。眼肉團者。總說一切。不離眼根大種所造。若不爾者。此經唯應說謂于眼內各別等。堅性等言。已遮慧眼。應不須說肉團中言。又于眼言是因第七。肉團中言是依第七。由此表知。總攝一切因眼所起。不離眼根大種所造。是因於眼所起肉團。其中所有內各別等。名內地界。此則顯示眼等生因依因等地。由此重說二第七言。總攝一切眼及肉團所依大種。后所引經。唯說六界。不言餘者。有別意趣。謂續生時眼等無故。雖於此位亦有身根。而猶未能覺冷等觸。若法有體。未起作用。不應立在有用品中。又唯六界。是諸有情有用本事。從續生心至命終心。常有用故。住滅定者。識有何用。彼過去識。能作未來等無間緣。由此當果決定現起。是彼識用。若爾身根亦應有用。同類因用未嘗無故。此難不然。非定成就與定成就。有差別故。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 說：什麼叫做內地界（Ādhyātmikadhātu）？就是指在眼球的肉團中，那些內在的、各自獨立的、具有堅硬性質和堅硬屬性，並且與眼根鄰近且被執取的物質。乃至更廣泛地說，如果存在與四大種（mahābhūta，即地、水、火、風）不同的其他根，就不應該在根上說四大種的性質。此外，其他經典中說：『比丘們應當知道，所有士夫都由六界（dhātu，即地、水、火、風、空、識）組成。』既然已經確定說了六界，作為假立的有情所依賴的真實事物，因此可知眼等色等所造之色，並非與四大種不同。如果所造之色與諸大種不同，有什麼意義呢？這部經沒有說，那樣的說法是不合理的，因為不瞭解契經的深刻含義。前面所引用的經文，是順應世俗的名相概念，所以這樣說。意思是說，世間的人們，在眼球的肉團中，產生了『眼』的名相概念。這個『眼』的名相概念，是依據眼所依賴的四大種等而生起的。眼球的肉團，是總括地說一切，不離眼根的四大種所造。如果不是這樣，這部經就應該只說『在眼內各自獨立』等等。『堅性』等等的說法，已經遮止了慧眼，應該不需要再說『肉團中』這個詞。而且，『于眼』這個詞是因第七格（表示原因），『肉團中』這個詞是依第七格（表示處所）。由此表明，總括一切因眼所生起，不離眼根的四大種所造，是因於眼所生起的肉團，其中所有內在的、各自獨立的等等，叫做內地界。這顯示了眼等生起的因、所依因等等。因此，重複使用兩個第七格，總括一切眼和肉團所依賴的四大種。後面所引用的經文，只說了六界，沒有說其他的，有特別的含義。意思是說，在續生的時候，眼等還沒有產生。雖然在這個階段也有身根，但仍然不能感覺到冷等觸覺。如果法有實體，但還沒有產生作用，就不應該被列入有用品之中。而且，只有六界，是所有有情有用處的根本。從續生的心到命終的心，一直都有用處。那麼，住在滅盡定中的人，識有什麼用處呢？他們過去的心識，能夠作為未來等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，即直接的、無間隔的條件），由此當來的果報決定會顯現，這就是那個識的作用。如果這樣，身根也應該有用處，因為同類的因的作用從來沒有停止過。這個責難是不成立的，因為非定成就和定成就之間是有區別的。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said: What is called the inner realm (Ādhyātmikadhātu)? It refers to the inherent, distinct, solid properties and characteristics within the fleshy mass of the eye, closely associated with and apprehended by the eye faculty. And so on, extensively described. If there were other faculties different from the four great elements (mahābhūta, i.e., earth, water, fire, and air), one should not attribute the nature of the great elements to the faculties. Moreover, another sutra states: 'Monks, know that all individuals are composed of the six elements (dhātu, i.e., earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness).' Since it is definitively stated that there are six elements, as the real basis upon which the conventionally designated sentient being depends, it is understood that the derived matter such as the eye and its corresponding colors are not different from the great elements. If the derived matter were different from the great elements, what would be the point? This sutra does not say; such a statement is unreasonable because it does not understand the profound meaning of the sutras. The previously cited sutra speaks in accordance with worldly conceptualizations. That is, in the fleshy mass of the eye, worldly beings generate the conceptual designation of 'eye.' This conceptual designation of 'eye' arises based on the great elements upon which the eye depends. The fleshy mass of the eye is a general term encompassing everything, inseparable from the great elements that constitute the eye faculty. If it were not so, this sutra should only say 'within the eye, distinct,' etc. The term 'solid properties,' etc., already excludes the wisdom eye, so there should be no need to mention 'in the fleshy mass.' Furthermore, 'in the eye' is the ablative case (indicating cause), while 'in the fleshy mass' is the locative case (indicating location). This indicates that everything arising from the eye, inseparable from the great elements that constitute the eye faculty, is the fleshy mass arising from the eye, and within it, the inherent, distinct, etc., are called the inner realm. This shows the cause of the arising of the eye, the dependent cause, etc. Therefore, the repetition of the two locative cases encompasses all the great elements upon which the eye and the fleshy mass depend. The later cited sutra only mentions the six elements, without mentioning others, which has a specific meaning. That is, at the time of rebirth, the eye, etc., have not yet arisen. Although there is also the body faculty at this stage, one is still unable to perceive cold and other tactile sensations. If a phenomenon has substance but has not yet produced its function, it should not be included among things that are useful. Moreover, only the six elements are the fundamental basis of usefulness for all sentient beings. From the mind at rebirth to the mind at death, they are always useful. Then, what is the use of consciousness for those who are in cessation? Their past consciousness can serve as the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya, i.e., the direct, uninterrupted condition) for the future, and thus the future result will definitely manifest; this is the function of that consciousness. If so, the body faculty should also be useful, because the function of the similar cause has never ceased. This objection is not valid, because there is a difference between non-definitive attainment and definitive attainment.
有身根。雖不成就。而有與果。同類因用。定無彼識。體不成就。能作當果等無間緣。故識與身。義非均等。又身根用。非同類因。為識生依。是身根用入滅定者。決定當出后識生依。是前識用。故唯六界。是諸有情有用本事。理極成立。或舉空界。表諸造色。故引此經非遮所造。空界實有是所造色。前已成故。又執造色不異大種。則應色等皆同一相。謂堅等相。若爾眼等五根所行。應無差別。是則違經所說。眼等所行各異。如何所執色等境界皆同一相。謂堅等相。然非一切境一切根所行。此不能令智者心喜若言如說色等五境雖同一相謂造色相。而無此失。如是大種與所造色。雖同一相謂堅等相。而無失者。此亦不然。非許造色性有別法體故。又眼等根。於色等境。取定別相。非定總故。所以者何此宗不許所造色性如堅等相有別法體。故不可謂如說色等。雖同所造一法自性。而眼根等境別義成。如是色等雖同堅等一法自相。而眼等根境別義立又眼等根於色等境。取定別相。非定總相。勿眼等根與色等境總相同故。亦是眼等五根所取。成大過失。又受等法與色等境。亦同一相所謂行相。受等亦應眼等所取。是故決定。應許色等有不共相種類差別。由此眼等。雖一一根能取多相。而無五根境雜亂失。種類別故若謂如彼眼等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有身根（身體的感官能力）。即使它沒有完全發揮作用，但它仍然能產生結果，因為它與同類原因有相同的作用。可以肯定的是，沒有那種識（意識），因為它的本體沒有完全發揮作用。它能作為下一個結果的等無間緣（直接原因），所以識和身（身體）的意義並不相同。而且，身根的作用不是同類原因，而是作為識產生的依賴。那些進入滅盡定（一種高級禪定狀態）的人，當他們出定時，一定會產生后識（之後的意識），這是前識的作用。因此，只有六界（地、水、火、風、空、識）對所有有情（眾生）來說是有用的根本。這個道理非常成立。或者，舉出空界（空間）來代表所有的造色（由四大組成的物質）。所以引用這部經並不是爲了否定所造色。空界確實存在，是所造色，這在前面已經成立了。如果認為所造色與大種（四大元素）沒有區別，那麼色（顏色）等都應該具有相同的相（性質），比如堅硬等相。如果是這樣，眼等五根（五種感官）所感知的對象應該沒有差別。這就違背了經中所說的眼等所感知的對象各不相同。怎麼能認為你們所執著的色等境界都具有相同的相，比如堅硬等相呢？然而，並非一切境界都能被一切根所感知。這不能讓智者感到高興。如果說，正如經中所說，色等五境雖然具有相同的相，即造色相，但沒有這個過失。就像大種與所造色，雖然具有相同的相，即堅硬等相，但沒有過失一樣。這也是不對的，因為不允許造色的自性有不同的法體。而且，眼等根對於色等境，取的是特定的差別相，而不是籠統的總相。為什麼這麼說呢？因為這個宗派不允許所造色的自性像堅硬等相一樣具有不同的法體。所以不能說，正如經中所說，色等雖然具有相同的造色這一法自性，但眼根等境界的差別義仍然成立。就像色等雖然具有相同的堅硬等這一法自相，但眼等根境界的差別義仍然成立。而且，眼等根對於色等境，取的是特定的差別相，而不是籠統的總相。不要因為眼等根與色等境的總相相同，就導致眼等五根所取出現大的過失。而且，受（感受）等法與色等境也具有相同的相，即行相（作用）。那麼受等也應該被眼等所取。因此，必須承認色等具有不共相（獨特的性質），種類上有差別。因此，眼等雖然每一根都能取多種相，但不會出現五根境界雜亂的過失，因為種類有差別。如果認為就像眼等一樣……
【English Translation】 English version There is the physical sense faculty (身根, shen gen, the physical sensory capacity). Even if it is not fully functional, it still produces results because it has the same function as a cause of the same kind. It is certain that there is no such consciousness (識, shi) because its substance is not fully functional. It can serve as the immediately preceding condition (等無間緣, deng wu jian yuan) for the next result. Therefore, the meanings of consciousness and the physical body are not the same. Moreover, the function of the physical sense faculty is not a cause of the same kind, but rather serves as a basis for the arising of consciousness. Those who enter cessation meditation (滅盡定, mie jin ding, a high state of meditative absorption) will definitely have subsequent consciousness arise when they emerge from it, which is the function of the previous consciousness. Therefore, only the six elements (六界, liu jie, earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness) are useful fundamentals for all sentient beings (有情, you qing). This principle is extremely well-established. Alternatively, the space element (空界, kong jie, space) is cited to represent all conditioned matter (造色, zao se, matter composed of the four great elements). Therefore, citing this sutra is not to deny conditioned matter. The space element truly exists and is conditioned matter, which has already been established earlier. If one holds that conditioned matter is no different from the great elements (大種, da zhong, the four great elements), then color (色, se) and so on should all have the same characteristic (相, xiang), such as the characteristic of solidity. If that were the case, the objects perceived by the five sense faculties (眼等五根, yan deng wu gen, eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) should have no difference. This would contradict the sutra's statement that the objects perceived by the eye and so on are different. How can you claim that the realms of color and so on that you cling to all have the same characteristic, such as the characteristic of solidity? However, not all realms can be perceived by all faculties. This cannot please the wise. If one says that, as the sutra says, the five realms of color and so on, although having the same characteristic, namely the characteristic of conditioned matter, do not have this fault, just as the great elements and conditioned matter, although having the same characteristic, namely the characteristic of solidity, do not have a fault, this is also not correct, because it is not allowed that the nature of conditioned matter has a different dharma-substance. Moreover, the eye and other faculties take specific differentiating characteristics of the realms of color and so on, not general overall characteristics. Why is this so? Because this school does not allow the nature of conditioned matter to have a different dharma-substance like the characteristic of solidity and so on. Therefore, it cannot be said that, as the sutra says, color and so on, although having the same nature of conditioned matter, the meaning of the difference in the realms of the eye faculty and so on is still established. Just as color and so on, although having the same self-characteristic of solidity and so on, the meaning of the difference in the realms of the eye and other faculties is still established. Moreover, the eye and other faculties take specific differentiating characteristics of the realms of color and so on, not general overall characteristics. Do not let the eye and other faculties and the realms of color and so on have the same overall characteristic, leading to a great fault in what is taken by the five faculties of the eye and so on. Moreover, feeling (受, shou) and other dharmas also have the same characteristic as the realms of color and so on, namely the characteristic of action (行相, xing xiang). Then feeling and so on should also be taken by the eye and so on. Therefore, it must be admitted that color and so on have unique characteristics (不共相, bu gong xiang) and differences in kind. Therefore, although each of the eye and so on can take many characteristics, there will be no fault of confusion in the realms of the five faculties, because the kinds are different. If one thinks that like the eye and so on...
五根。雖同一相謂澄凈相。而能各各別取境界。如是色等。雖同一相謂堅等相而是眼等各別所行。此亦不然。余法亦有澄凈相故。若澄凈相。是眼等根差別相者。是則不應許。所餘法亦有此相。然澄凈相。亦許信有。是故澄凈。于眼等根。非差別相。然堅濕等。是差別相。若執色等此相皆同。而言眼根唯取色處。非觸處者。無別因證。或複眼等。雖凈相同。而功能異。故別取境。功能異者。由因別故。眼等雖同四大種果。而諸大種增減不同。因既不同果功能異。由斯取境差別義成。又不應言色等差別亦由大種增減不同。若爾極微有不成過。故汝此救。理定不然。又彼具壽云何安立境有境異。謂若有人。自觸身份。既執身觸。皆同一相。一剎那中。互無差別。立誰為境。誰為有境。若有差別性別義成。謂堅等相。所觸名境。與此相違身名有境。許身觸性有差別故。若無差別。則無安立境有境異。便違理教。若言如意雖同一相而一剎那立境有境不相違者。理亦不然。意雖為境。而一切時立為有境。故無斯過。然身根境堅等大種。未嘗有時立為有境。故彼例救。理極不齊。許身根境堅等大種亦是有境。復有何失。如意唯應立為一處。是則應無決定安立。此為身處。此為觸處。應說此中有何定理。判此唯境此唯有境。故彼所宗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五根（panchindriya，五種感覺器官）。即使它們都具有相似的『澄凈相』（prasāda-lakṣaṇa，清晰明澈的性質），但它們各自能夠分別獲取不同的境界（gocara，感覺對像）。同樣，色（rūpa，顏色和形狀）等，雖然具有相似的『堅等相』（kaṭhina-ādi-lakṣaṇa，堅硬等性質），但卻是眼（cakṣu，視覺器官）等各自所行的境界。這種說法是不對的，因為其他法（dharma，事物）也具有『澄凈相』。如果『澄凈相』是眼等根的差別相（viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa，特殊性質），那麼就不應該允許其他法也具有這種性質。然而，我們承認『澄凈相』確實存在於其他法中。因此，『澄凈相』並非眼等根的差別相。然而，堅、濕等才是差別相。如果你們認為色等的這些性質都是相同的，卻說眼根只能獲取色處（rūpāyatana，視覺對像），而不能獲取觸處（spraṣṭavyāyatana，觸覺對像），那麼就沒有其他的理由可以證明這一點。 或者，即使眼等根的『澄凈相』相同，但它們的功能（kāritra，作用）不同，所以才能分別獲取不同的境界。功能的不同，是因為因（hetu，原因）不同。眼等根雖然都是四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）的果（phala，結果），但四大種的增減不同。因既然不同，果的功能也不同，因此獲取境界的差別就成立了。而且，不應該說色等的差別也是由大種的增減不同造成的。如果是這樣，就會有極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）無法形成的過失。所以你們的這種辯解，在道理上是站不住腳的。 此外，具壽（āyuṣmat，對有德長老的比丘的尊稱）啊，你們是如何安立境（viṣaya，對像）和有境（viṣayin，主體）的差異的呢？如果有人自己觸控身體，認為身體的觸覺都是相同的，在一剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）中，彼此沒有差別，那麼又如何確定誰是境，誰是有境呢？如果存在差別，那麼差別的意義才能成立。也就是說，堅等相，被觸控的稱為境，與此相反，身體稱為有境。因為我們承認身體的觸覺性質存在差別。如果沒有差別，那麼就無法安立境和有境的差異，這就違背了道理和教義。如果你們說，意（manas，意識）雖然具有相同的性質，但在一剎那中安立境和有境並不矛盾，那麼這種說法也是不對的。因為意雖然可以作為境，但在任何時候都可以被安立為有境，所以沒有這種過失。然而，身根（kāyendriya，觸覺器官）的境，即堅等大種，從來沒有被安立為有境。所以你們的這種類比是不恰當的。如果允許身根的境，即堅等大種，也可以作為有境，又有什麼損失呢？意只應該被安立在一個處（āyatana，感覺的來源）。那麼就應該沒有決定的安立，這個是身處（kāyāyatana，觸覺的來源），這個是觸處。應該說這裡有什麼定理，可以判斷這個只是境，這個只是有境呢？所以你們的宗義（svapakṣa，自己的觀點）是錯誤的。
【English Translation】 English version The five roots (panchindriya, five sense organs). Although they all have a similar 'clear and pure aspect' (prasāda-lakṣaṇa, aspect of clarity), they are each able to separately grasp different realms (gocara, sense objects). Similarly, form (rūpa, color and shape), etc., although having a similar 'aspect of solidity, etc.' (kaṭhina-ādi-lakṣaṇa, properties like hardness), are each the respective domains of the eye (cakṣu, visual organ), etc. This statement is incorrect, because other dharmas (dharma, phenomena) also have the 'clear and pure aspect'. If the 'clear and pure aspect' is the differentiating aspect (viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa, distinctive characteristic) of the eye, etc., then it should not be allowed that other dharmas also have this aspect. However, we acknowledge that the 'clear and pure aspect' does exist in other dharmas. Therefore, the 'clear and pure aspect' is not the differentiating aspect of the eye, etc. However, solidity, moisture, etc., are differentiating aspects. If you insist that these aspects of form, etc., are all the same, yet say that the eye organ can only grasp the form-sphere (rūpāyatana, visual object) and not the touch-sphere (spraṣṭavyāyatana, tactile object), then there is no other reason to prove this. Or, even if the 'clear and pure aspect' of the eye, etc., is the same, their functions (kāritra, function) are different, so they can separately grasp different realms. The difference in function is due to the difference in causes (hetu, cause). Although the eye, etc., are all the result (phala, result) of the four great elements (mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, wind), the increase or decrease of the four great elements is different. Since the causes are different, the functions of the results are also different, thus the difference in grasping realms is established. Moreover, it should not be said that the difference in form, etc., is also caused by the different increase or decrease of the great elements. If that were the case, there would be the fault of the ultimate particles (paramāṇu, smallest unit of matter) not being able to form. Therefore, your defense is not logically sound. Furthermore, venerable one (āyuṣmat, term of respect for a senior monk), how do you establish the difference between object (viṣaya, object) and subject (viṣayin, subject)? If someone touches their own body and considers the tactile sensations of the body to be all the same, without any difference in a single instant (kṣaṇa, extremely short unit of time), then how can one determine who is the object and who is the subject? If there is a difference, then the meaning of difference can be established. That is to say, the aspect of solidity, etc., that which is touched is called the object, and conversely, the body is called the subject. Because we acknowledge that there is a difference in the tactile nature of the body. If there is no difference, then the difference between object and subject cannot be established, which contradicts both reason and doctrine. If you say that although the mind (manas, consciousness) has the same nature, establishing object and subject in a single instant is not contradictory, then that statement is also incorrect. Because although the mind can be an object, it can be established as a subject at any time, so there is no such fault. However, the object of the body organ (kāyendriya, tactile organ), i.e., the great elements of solidity, etc., has never been established as a subject. Therefore, your analogy is inappropriate. If it is allowed that the object of the body organ, i.e., the great elements of solidity, etc., can also be a subject, what harm is there? The mind should only be established in one sphere (āyatana, source of sensation). Then there should be no definite establishment of this being the body-sphere (kāyāyatana, source of tactile sensation) and this being the touch-sphere. What principle can be stated here to determine that this is only the object and this is only the subject? Therefore, your own position (svapakṣa, one's own view) is incorrect.
。雜亂難辯又若色等即諸大種。彼說一一青色極微。即四大種。或唯是一。二俱有過。然色處等。雖色名同。而有青雄香甘冷等性相差別。由此五境展轉不同。眼等五根無共境過。若諸大種。性相各別。與青極微體無異者。豈不一故。四性不成。若青極微。唯一大種。即四大種。應互相離。一聚唯有一大種故。是則違害種喻等經。不應別異性相大種成無差別。一青色聚。若言隨一增故爾者。應說何界增故為青。若謂地界。陂池河海應無青色。若謂水界。玉青石等應不極青。若謂火界。世間盛火不應極赤。若謂風界。風中不應色不可得。若說青色異諸大種。實有一體。隨一界增。多四大種。各生青色合成一聚。于理無違。故異大種。有所造色。復有至教。分明證成。如契經言。諸所有色。皆四大種。及四大種所造攝故。復有何理。知所造言異諸大種。別有所目。然契經說。有諸愚夫。由六觸處。諸所觸對。覺樂覺苦。或有隨一。由彼所造。不可由斯所造言故。別有第七觸處可得。此非定證。有于異體亦說如是所造言故。如告具壽阿難陀言。所造我見。誰之所造。謂色所造。乃至廣說。若見余處。有所造言。無別所目。謂此亦爾。應有身見以色為體。便有乖違自所宗過。又不應以余所造言所目法體。或異不異。便疑此經說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 雜亂難辨又像青色等，就是諸大種（四大元素）。他們說每一個青色極微（最小單位的青色），就是四大種。或者說只有一個，兩種說法都有過失。然而色處等，雖然都名為『色』，卻有青、雄、香、甘、冷等性相差別。因此，五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）各自不同，眼等五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）沒有共用一個境界的過失。 如果諸大種的性相各自不同，與青色極微的本體沒有差異，豈不是因為本體相同，四種性質無法成立？如果青色極微只是一個大種，那麼四大種應該互相分離，因為一個聚集體中只有一個大種。這樣就違背了『種喻經』等經典。不應該認為性相各異的大種會變成沒有差別的單一青色聚集體。 如果說是因為其中一個元素增多導致的，那麼應該說是什麼元素增多才呈現青色？如果說是地界（地元素），那麼陂池、河海應該沒有青色。如果說是水界（水元素），那麼玉青石等應該不是極度青色。如果說是火界（火元素），那麼世間旺盛的火焰不應該是極度紅色。如果說是風界（風元素），那麼風中不應該無法得到顏色。 如果說青色與諸大種不同，實際上是一個整體，隨著其中一個元素增多，多數四大種各自產生青色，合成一個聚集體，在道理上沒有違背，所以與大種不同，有所造色（由四大元素合成的顏色）。 而且還有至高教義，分明地證實了這一點。如契經（佛經）所說：『所有一切色，都是四大種以及四大種所造的。』 又有什麼道理，知道『所造』這個詞不同於諸大種，另有所指？然而契經說：『有些愚夫，因為六觸處（眼觸、耳觸、鼻觸、舌觸、身觸、意觸），對於所接觸的事物，感覺快樂、感覺痛苦，或者感覺其中之一，都是由它們所造的。』不能因為『所造』這個詞，就認為另外有一個第七觸處可以得到。 這並非確定的證據，因為對於不同的本體，也使用『所造』這個詞。如佛告阿難陀說：『所造的我見，是誰所造的？是色所造的。』乃至廣說。如果看到其他地方，『所造』這個詞沒有另外所指，那麼這裡也應該一樣，應該認為身見以色為本體，這樣就違背了自己宗派的過失。 而且不應該因為『所造』這個詞所指的法體，是相同還是不同，就懷疑這部經的說法。
【English Translation】 English version What is confused and difficult to distinguish, like blue color, etc., are the Mahabhutas (the four great elements). They say that each ultimate particle of blue color is the four great elements. Or it is only one. Both views have faults. However, the sense-sphere of color, etc., although having the same name 'color,' have differences in characteristics such as blue, masculine, fragrant, sweet, cold, etc. Therefore, the five sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) are different from each other, and the five sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) do not have the fault of sharing a common object. If the characteristics of the Mahabhutas are different from each other, and there is no difference in essence from the ultimate particle of blue color, wouldn't it be that because the essence is the same, the four natures cannot be established? If the ultimate particle of blue color is only one Mahabhuta, then the four Mahabhutas should be separated from each other, because there is only one Mahabhuta in one aggregate. This would contradict scriptures such as the 'Kindred Simile Sutra.' It should not be thought that the Mahabhutas with different characteristics will become a single aggregate of blue color without any difference. If it is said that it is caused by the increase of one of the elements, then it should be said which element increases to produce the blue color? If it is said to be the earth element, then ponds, rivers, and seas should not have blue color. If it is said to be the water element, then jade, blue stones, etc., should not be extremely blue. If it is said to be the fire element, then the flourishing fire in the world should not be extremely red. If it is said to be the wind element, then color should not be unobtainable in the wind. If it is said that blue color is different from the Mahabhutas, and is actually a whole, and as one of the elements increases, most of the four Mahabhutas each produce blue color, combining into one aggregate, there is no contradiction in reason, so it is different from the Mahabhutas, and is 'that which is made' (color compounded by the four great elements). Moreover, there is the supreme teaching that clearly confirms this. As the sutra says: 'All forms are composed of the four great elements and that which is made by the four great elements.' What reason is there to know that the term 'that which is made' is different from the Mahabhutas and refers to something else? However, the sutra says: 'Some foolish people, because of the six sense bases (eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact), feel pleasure, feel pain, or feel one of them, from what they contact, all of which are made by them.' It cannot be argued that because of the term 'that which is made,' there is another seventh sense base that can be obtained. This is not definitive proof, because the term 'that which is made' is also used for different entities. As the Buddha told Ananda: 'The self-view that is made, by whom is it made? It is made by form,' and so on. If it is seen elsewhere that the term 'that which is made' does not refer to anything else, then it should be the same here, and it should be thought that the self-view is based on form, which would contradict the fault of one's own school. Moreover, one should not doubt the teachings of this sutra because the nature of the dharma referred to by the term 'that which is made' is the same or different.
大種所造言。有餘契經定證異故。如契經說。苾芻當知。眼謂內處四大種所造凈色。有色無見有對。乃至身處。廣說亦爾。苾芻當知。色謂外處四大種所造。有色有見有對。聲謂外處四大種所造。有色無見有對。香味二處。廣說亦爾。觸謂外處是四大種及四大種所造。有色無見有對。此中分明顯諸大種唯是觸處一分所攝。余有色處。皆非大種。故定知此及所造言。如我見經所造我見別有所目。定非如彼六觸處經。隨一所造無別所目。是故九色。法界一分。異四大種所造義成。如是已說大種性等。十八界中。五根五境十有色界。是可積集。以是極微體可聚故。義準餘八。非可積集。體非極微。不可聚故。如是已說可積集等。十八界中。幾能斫幾。所斫幾能燒幾。所燒幾能稱幾。所稱如是六門今應。總答頌曰。
謂唯外四界 能斫及所斫 亦所燒能稱 能燒所稱諍
論曰。色香味觸成斧薪等。此即名為能斫所斫。唯者定義。意顯斫等決定是外四界非余。及言為顯能斫所斫俱通四界。豈不有為剎那性故都無能斫所斫義耶。理雖如是。而諸色聚相逼續生。異緣分隔。令各續起。是故非無能斫所斫。此所斫義。身根等無。非諸色根異緣分隔可令成二各相續起。支分離身。則無根故。又身根等。亦非能斫。凈妙相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『大種所造』是指由四大種（地、水、火、風）所產生的物質現象。有其他的契經（佛經）可以明確證明這一點。例如，契經中說：『比丘（出家修行的男子）應當知道，眼（視覺器官）被稱為內處，是由四大種所造的清凈色，它是有顏色的，可以被看見，並且是有對礙的。』乃至身處（觸覺器官），經文的詳細解釋也是如此。『比丘應當知道，色（顏色、形狀）被稱為外處，是由四大種所造的，它是有顏色的，可以被看見，並且是有對礙的。聲（聲音）被稱為外處，是由四大種所造的，它是有顏色的，不能被看見，但是有對礙的。』香（氣味）和味（味道）這兩個處，經文的詳細解釋也是如此。觸（觸覺）被稱為外處，它既是四大種本身，也是四大種所造的。它是有顏色的，不能被看見，並且是有對礙的。』 這裡明確區分了大種僅僅是觸處的一部分。其餘有顏色的處，都不是大種本身。因此可以確定，這裡的『此』（觸處中的四大種）和『所造』（觸處中四大種所造的）的說法，就像《我見經》中『所造的我見』一樣，指的是一個特定的對象。這和《六觸處經》中，『隨一所造』沒有特定對象的情況不同。因此，九種色法（眼所見色、耳所聽聲、鼻所嗅香、舌所嘗味、身所觸物、以及法處所攝的色法），是法界（一切事物）的一部分，它們不同於四大種本身及其所造的物質，這個觀點是成立的。 像這樣已經說明了大種的性質等等。在十八界（眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界，色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界，眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界）中，五根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根）和五境（色境、聲境、香境、味境、觸境），這十個是有**的，是可以積聚的。因為它們的本體是極微（最小的物質單位），可以聚集在一起。按照這個道理，其餘的八個界（法界，眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界），是不可積聚的。因為它們的本體不是極微，所以不能聚集在一起。 像這樣已經說明了可積聚等等。在十八界中，哪些能夠砍伐，哪些被砍伐？哪些能夠燃燒，哪些被燃燒？哪些能夠稱量，哪些被稱量？現在應該總括地回答這六個問題，用偈頌（有韻律的詩句）來說明： 『所謂只有外面的四個界（色、聲、香、觸），能夠砍伐以及被砍伐，也能夠燃燒和能夠稱量，能夠燃燒和被稱量。』 論曰：顏色、氣味、香味、觸覺可以組成斧頭、柴火等等。這就是所謂的能夠砍伐和被砍伐。『唯』字是限定詞，意思是砍伐等等，一定是外面的四個界，而不是其他的。『及』字是爲了表明能夠砍伐和被砍伐都包括這四個界。難道不是因為有為法（因緣和合而成的法）是剎那生滅的，所以根本沒有能夠砍伐和被砍伐的意義嗎？道理雖然是這樣，但是各種顏色聚集在一起，互相逼近，連續產生，因為不同的因緣而分隔，使得各自繼續產生。所以並不是沒有能夠砍伐和被砍伐。這種被砍伐的意義，身根等等是沒有的。不是各種色根因為不同的因緣分隔就可以形成兩個各自相續產生。肢體離開身體，就沒有根了。而且身根等等，也不能夠砍伐，因為它們清凈美妙。
【English Translation】 English version 'That which is made of the great elements' refers to material phenomena produced by the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind). There are other Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) that clearly prove this. For example, the Sutra says: 'Bhikkhus (monks), you should know that the eye (visual organ) is called an internal base, which is a pure form made of the four great elements. It has color, can be seen, and is obstructive.' And so on, up to the body base (tactile organ), the detailed explanation of the scripture is the same. 'Bhikkhus, you should know that form (color, shape) is called an external base, which is made of the four great elements. It has color, can be seen, and is obstructive. Sound is called an external base, which is made of the four great elements. It has color, cannot be seen, but is obstructive.' The detailed explanations of the two bases of smell (odor) and taste (flavor) are also the same. Touch is called an external base, which is both the four great elements themselves and that which is made of the four great elements. It has color, cannot be seen, and is obstructive.' Here, it is clearly distinguished that the great elements are only a part of the touch base. The remaining colored bases are not the great elements themselves. Therefore, it can be determined that the statements 'this' (the four great elements in the touch base) and 'that which is made' (that which is made of the four great elements in the touch base) here, like 'that which is made of self-view' in the Self-View Sutra, refer to a specific object. This is different from the situation in the Six Touch Bases Sutra, where 'that which is made of any one' does not refer to a specific object. Therefore, the nine types of form (form seen by the eye, sound heard by the ear, smell smelled by the nose, taste tasted by the tongue, objects touched by the body, and forms included in the dharma base) are a part of the dharma realm (all things), and they are different from the four great elements themselves and the material things made of them. This view is valid. Like this, the nature of the great elements, etc., has been explained. Among the eighteen realms (eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm), the five roots (eye root, ear root, nose root, tongue root, body root) and the five objects (form object, sound object, smell object, taste object, touch object), these ten are **, and can be accumulated. Because their substance is extremely small (the smallest unit of matter), they can be gathered together. According to this principle, the remaining eight realms (dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm) are not accumulable. Because their substance is not extremely small, they cannot be gathered together. Like this, accumulability, etc., has been explained. Among the eighteen realms, which can chop, and which are chopped? Which can burn, and which are burned? Which can weigh, and which are weighed? Now, these six questions should be answered comprehensively, using a verse (rhythmic lines of poetry) to explain: 'It is said that only the four external realms (form, sound, smell, touch) can chop and be chopped, can also burn and can weigh, can burn and be weighed.' Commentary: Colors, odors, smells, and tactile sensations can form axes, firewood, and so on. This is what is called being able to chop and being chopped. The word 'only' is a qualifier, meaning that chopping, etc., must be the four external realms, and not others. The word 'and' is to show that both being able to chop and being chopped include these four realms. Isn't it because conditioned dharmas (dharmas that arise from causes and conditions) are momentary, so there is no meaning of being able to chop and being chopped at all? Although the principle is like this, various colors gather together, approaching each other, continuously arising, separated by different causes and conditions, causing each to continue to arise. Therefore, it is not that there is no being able to chop and being chopped. This meaning of being chopped is not present in the body root, etc. It is not that various form roots can be separated by different causes and conditions to form two that continue to arise separately. If the limbs leave the body, there is no root. Moreover, the body root, etc., cannot chop, because they are pure and wonderful.
故。如珠寶光。此等義言。唯言所顯。如能斫所斫體唯外四界。所燒能稱。其體亦爾。謂唯外四界名所燒能稱。身等色根。凈妙相故。亦非二事。如珠寶光。聲非色等相續俱轉。有間斷故。六義皆無。能燒所稱。有異諍論。謂或有說。能燒所稱。體亦如前。唯外四界。或復有說。唯有火界可名能燒。所稱唯重。如是已說能所斫等。十八界中。幾異熟生幾所長養。幾等流性。幾有實事。幾一剎那。如是五問今應總答。頌曰。
內五有熟養 聲無異熟生 八無礙等流 亦異熟生性 餘三實唯法 剎那唯后三
論曰。內五謂眼耳鼻舌身。有異熟生及所長養。遮等流性。是故不說。豈不前生眼等五界應言與後生及未生眼等諸根為因決定。如是眼等。應有等流。同類因生。等流果故。何緣乃說遮等流性。不說眼等全無等流。但即長養異熟生性。無別等流。故應遮止如異長養有異熟生。異異熟生有所長養。非異此二有別等流。為辯異門廢總論別離因而熟。故名異熟。異熟體生。名異熟生。或是異熟因所生故。名異熟生。略去中言。故作是說。譬如牛車。或所造業。至得果時。變而能熟。故名異熟。果從彼生。名異熟生。或於因上。假立果名。如於果上假立因名。如契經說。今六觸處。應知即是昔所造業。飲食
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，就像珠寶的光芒一樣，這些意義的表達，僅僅是語言所能顯現的。比如能砍和所砍的物體，僅僅是外在的四大元素（地、水、火、風）。所燒和能稱量的物體，它們的本體也是如此。也就是說，只有外在的四大元素才能被稱為所燒和能稱量。身體等色根，因為清凈微妙的緣故，也不是兩種不同的事物，就像珠寶的光芒一樣。聲音不是顏色等現象的相續和同時運轉，因為有間斷的緣故，所以不具備六種意義（能見、所見、能聞、所聞、能嗅、所嗅）。 對於能燒和所稱量的事物，存在不同的爭論。有人說，能燒和所稱量的物體，其本體也像前面所說的那樣，僅僅是外在的四大元素。或者又有人說，只有火界可以被稱為能燒，所稱量的只有重量。像這樣已經說完了能砍和所砍等。在十八界中，哪些是異熟所生，哪些是所長養，哪些是等流性質，哪些是真實存在的事物，哪些是一剎那生滅的？像這樣的五個問題，現在應該總括地回答。頌文說： 『內五有熟養，聲無異熟生，八無礙等流，亦異熟生性，餘三實唯法，剎那唯后三。』 論述：內五（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）具有異熟所生和所長養的性質，遮止了等流的性質，所以沒有說。難道不是前生的眼等五界，應該說是後生和未生的眼等諸根的決定因素嗎？像這樣，眼等應該具有等流的性質，因為是同類因所生，產生等流果的緣故。為什麼說遮止了等流的性質呢？不是說眼等完全沒有等流，只是說它們的長養和異熟生性，沒有其他的等流。所以應該遮止，就像異長養具有異熟生性一樣，異異熟生具有所長養的性質，而不是除了這兩種之外還有其他的等流。爲了辨別不同的方面，廢除了總體的論述，分別地離開因而成熟，所以叫做異熟。異熟的本體所生，叫做異熟生。或者是因為異熟因所生，所以叫做異熟生。省略了中間的詞語，所以這樣說。譬如牛車。或者所造的業，到了得到果報的時候，轉變而能夠成熟，所以叫做異熟。果報從它產生，叫做異熟生。或者在因上，假立果報的名稱，就像在果報上假立原因的名稱一樣。如契經所說，現在的六觸處，應該知道就是過去所造的業。飲食（食物）
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, like the light of a jewel, these expressions of meaning are only manifested by language. For example, the cutter and the cut object are only the four external elements (earth, water, fire, and wind). The burned and the measurable objects are also like this in their essence. That is, only the four external elements can be called burned and measurable. The body and other sense organs are not two different things because of their pure and subtle nature, just like the light of a jewel. Sound is not a continuous and simultaneous operation of phenomena such as color, because it is intermittent, so it does not have the six meanings (seer, seen, hearer, heard, smeller, smelled). Regarding the burned and the measurable, there are different disputes. Some say that the burned and the measurable objects are also like what was said before, only the four external elements. Or others say that only the fire element can be called the burner, and what is measured is only weight. Having said this about the cutter and the cut, etc., among the eighteen realms, which are born of Vipāka (異熟), which are nourished, which are of the nature of equal flow, which are real things, and which are momentary? These five questions should now be answered collectively. The verse says: 『The inner five have Vipāka and are nourished, sound is not born of Vipāka, the eight unimpeded are of equal flow, and also of the nature of Vipāka, the remaining three are real and only Dharma, the momentary is only the latter three.』 Treatise: The inner five (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) have the nature of being born of Vipāka and being nourished, preventing the nature of equal flow, so it is not mentioned. Shouldn't the five realms of the previous life, such as the eye, etc., be said to be the determining factors for the roots of the eye, etc., of the later life and the unborn? Like this, the eye, etc., should have the nature of equal flow, because they are born of the same kind of cause, producing the fruit of equal flow. Why is it said that the nature of equal flow is prevented? It is not said that the eye, etc., have no equal flow at all, but only that their nourishment and Vipāka-born nature have no other equal flow. Therefore, it should be prevented, just as different nourishment has the nature of being born of Vipāka, and different Vipāka-born has the nature of being nourished, rather than having other equal flows besides these two. In order to distinguish different aspects, the overall discussion is abolished, and maturing separately from the cause is called Vipāka. What is born of the essence of Vipāka is called Vipāka-born. Or because it is born of the cause of Vipāka, it is called Vipāka-born. The middle words are omitted, so it is said like this. For example, an ox cart. Or the karma created, when it comes to obtaining the fruit, transforms and can mature, so it is called Vipāka. The fruit is born from it, called Vipāka-born. Or, on the cause, a name of the fruit is falsely established, just as on the fruit a name of the cause is falsely established. As the sutra says, the present six contact points should be known as the karma created in the past. Food (飲食)
資助眠睡等持勝緣所益。名所長養。飲食等緣于異熟體。唯能攝護。不能增益。別有增益。名所長養。應知此中長養相續。常能護持。異熟相續。猶如外廓。防援內城。無異熟生離所長養有所長養離異熟生。如修所得天眼天耳。既說聲界無異熟生。義準非無等流長養。何緣聲界非異熟生。數數間斷。復還生故。異熟生色。無如是事。非隨欲樂異熟果生。聲隨欲生。故非異熟。豈不如彼施設論言。善修遠離粗惡語故。感得大士梵音聲相。雖由業感。而非異熟。以聲起在第三傳故。謂從彼業生諸大種。從諸大種緣擊發聲。若爾身受因業所生大種發故。應非異熟。此難不然。非諸身受皆因大種及因業生。大種所發。亦非一切皆是異熟。然諸身受。亦因非業所生大種及非大種而得生故。謂身受起。要假身觸。身識等緣。由此亦緣外大種起。非要待業所感大生。于理無違。故通異熟。若執聲界是異熟生。如是聲界。唯因大種。唯因異熟大種而生。不離如前所說過失。若說聲界非異熟生。如是聲界。唯因大種。通因異熟及非異熟大種而起。于理無違。亦無如前所說過失。故應如是分別聲界。非諸身受唯因大種。是異熟者。非唯異熟大種為因。又不同彼有違理失。是故所例。理極不齊。有餘師說。聲非異熟。如何異熟大種所生。故應
許聲屬第四傳。或第五傳。故非異熟。謂從業生異熟大種。從此傳生長養大種。此復傳生等流大種。長養大種髮長養聲。等流大種發等流聲。此說非理。豈不如從無記大種發善惡聲。從有執受發無執受。從身境界發耳境界。如是若從異熟大種發非異熟。有何相違。是故彼說定為非理。八無礙者。七心法界。此有等流異熟生性。若非異熟。同類遍行因所生者。名等流性。若異熟因所生起者。名異熟生。豈不此中亦有長養。謂先因力引後果生。亦令功能轉明盛故。契經亦言。諸無色法。增長廣大。應有長養。雖有此言。而非長養。即說等流增長廣大。若先因力引後果生。令其功能轉明盛者。此亦即依等流性說。同類遍行因所生故。諸有礙法。極微所成。同時積集。可名長養。諸無礙法。非極微故。無積集義。不名長養。軌範諸師咸作是說。余謂餘四色香味觸。皆通三種。謂異熟生。亦所長養。及等流性。實唯法者。實謂無為。以堅實故。此法界攝。故唯法界觸名有實。意法意識。名為后三。於六三中。最後說故。唯此三界。有一剎那。謂初無漏苦法忍品。非等流故。名一剎那。此說正現行亦非等流者。余有為法。無非等流。唯初無漏。五蘊剎那。無同類因而得生起。余有為法。無如是事。等無間緣。勢力強故。前因雖𨵗。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 許聲屬於第四傳或者第五傳，所以不是異熟（vipāka）。所謂從業所生的異熟大種（vipāka mahābhūta），由此傳遞生長滋養大種。此又傳遞產生等流大種（niṣyanda mahābhūta）。滋養大種發出滋養聲，等流大種發出等流聲。這種說法是不合理的。難道不是從無記大種（avyākṛta mahābhūta）發出善惡聲，從有執受（upādāna）發出無執受，從身境界發出耳境界嗎？這樣，如果從異熟大種發出非異熟，有什麼相違背的呢？所以他們的說法一定是錯誤的。 八無礙中，七個是心法界（citta-dhātu）。這些具有等流生（niṣyanda-ja）和異熟生（vipāka-ja）的性質。如果不是異熟，由同類遍行因（sabhāga-hetu）所生的，稱為等流性。如果是異熟因所生起的，稱為異熟生。難道這裡面沒有長養嗎？就是說先前的因的力量引導後來的果產生，也使得功能更加明顯強盛。契經也說，諸無色法，增長廣大，應該有長養。雖然有這種說法，但不是長養，只是說等流增長廣大。如果先前的因的力量引導後來的果產生，使其功能更加明顯強盛，這也是依據等流性說的，因為是同類遍行因所生。 諸有礙法，由極微（paramāṇu）所成，同時積集，可以稱為長養。諸無礙法，不是極微所成，沒有積集的意義，所以不稱為長養。軌範諸師都這樣認為。其餘的，指其餘的四種色（rūpa）、香（gandha）、味（rasa）、觸（sparśa），都通於三種性質，即異熟生、所長養和等流性。真實唯法，真實指的是無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma），因為它堅實。此屬於法界（dharma-dhātu）所攝，所以只有法界的觸（sparśa）稱為有實。意（manas）、法（dharma）、意識（vijñāna），稱為后三，因為在六三中最後說。只有這三個界，有一剎那（kṣaṇa），指的是最初的無漏苦法忍品（anāsrava-duḥkha-dharmajñāna-kṣānti）。因為不是等流，所以稱為一剎那。這是說正現行也不是等流。其餘的有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma），沒有不是等流的。只有最初的無漏五蘊（pañca-skandha）剎那，沒有同類因而能夠生起。其餘的有為法，沒有這樣的情況。等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya）的勢力強大，所以前因雖然衰弱。
【English Translation】 English version The sound of speech belongs to the fourth or fifth transmission, therefore it is not vipāka (result of action). The vipāka mahābhūtas (great elements) are born from karma, and from these, the nourishing mahābhūtas are transmitted, grown, and nourished. These, in turn, transmit and produce niṣyanda mahābhūtas (elements of outflow). The nourishing mahābhūtas produce nourishing sounds, and the niṣyanda mahābhūtas produce niṣyanda sounds. This explanation is unreasonable. Is it not the case that good and bad sounds arise from avyākṛta mahābhūtas (unspecified great elements), that what is with upādāna (grasping) arises from what is without upādāna, and that the realm of the body arises from the realm of the ear? Thus, if what is not vipāka arises from vipāka mahābhūtas, what contradiction is there? Therefore, their explanation must be incorrect. Among the eight unobstructed ones, seven are citta-dhātu (mind-element). These have the nature of being niṣyanda-ja (born of outflow) and vipāka-ja (born of result). If it is not vipāka, what is born from the sabhāga-hetu (cause of similar kind and pervasiveness) is called niṣyanda nature. If it arises from the vipāka-hetu (cause of result), it is called vipāka-ja. Is there not also growth here? That is, the power of the previous cause leads to the birth of the subsequent effect, and also makes the function more evident and strong. The sutras also say that the formless dharmas increase and expand, and should have growth. Although there is this statement, it is not growth, but rather the niṣyanda is said to increase and expand. If the power of the previous cause leads to the birth of the subsequent effect, making its function more evident and strong, this is also said according to the niṣyanda nature, because it is born from the cause of similar kind and pervasiveness. The obstructed dharmas, composed of paramāṇus (ultimate particles), accumulate simultaneously and can be called growth. The unobstructed dharmas, not composed of paramāṇus, have no meaning of accumulation, so they are not called growth. The teachers of the Vinaya all hold this view. The rest, referring to the remaining four rūpas (forms), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), sparśa (touch), all share the three natures, namely vipāka-ja, what is nourished, and niṣyanda nature. What is truly dharma, truly refers to asaṃskṛta-dharma (unconditioned dharma), because it is solid. This is included in the dharma-dhātu (dharma-element), so only the sparśa (touch) of the dharma-dhātu is called real. Manas (mind), dharma (objects of mind), vijñāna (consciousness) are called the latter three, because they are mentioned last in the six threes. Only these three realms have one kṣaṇa (instant), referring to the initial anāsrava-duḥkha-dharmajñāna-kṣānti (untainted forbearance regarding the truth of suffering). Because it is not niṣyanda, it is called one kṣaṇa. This means that what is presently occurring is also not niṣyanda. The remaining saṃskṛta-dharmas (conditioned dharmas) are all niṣyanda. Only the initial anāsrava pañca-skandhas (five aggregates) kṣaṇa cannot arise from a cause of similar kind. The remaining saṃskṛta-dharmas do not have such a situation. The power of the samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition) is strong, so the previous cause, although weakened.
而此得生。等無間緣勢力強者。與初聖道品類同故。無量善法所長養故。與初聖道性相等故。為此廣修諸加行故。苦法忍相應心名意界意識界。余俱起法。名為法界。復有餘師。此中異說。謂一切法。皆有實事。有實相故。除無為法。皆一剎那。速謝滅故。除初無漏心及助伴。余有為法。皆是等流。十色少分。是所長養。十七少分。是異熟生。由此眼等五內色根。各有二種。謂所長養。及異熟生。雖有餘三。而無別性。義雜亂故。所以不說。余皆準此。聲界有二。五識亦然。意意識三色等亦爾。法界有四。除所長養。上座此中依十二處。立一切種皆異熟生。非異熟生為所長養。如所纏裹周匝護持。又一身中。眼等應有二種類故。不見別有二所作故。無別長養。又彼聲處。應異熟生。以許彼因是異熟故。又異熟者。因頓引發任運隨轉。不須數數重起加行方得生起。又于眼等此事應同。若言聲處若是異熟。處無心位應恒行者。意等云何。若言意等有相續者。此亦不然。非異熟生所間絕故。彼上座宗。略述如是。而彼所說理皆不然。且十二處。非一切種。皆異熟生善染污等。異熟生性。不成立故。若善染污。是異熟生。已斷善根。及阿羅漢。如異熟意。應得現行。差別因緣。不可得故。又無漏法。是異熟生不應理故。又十二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如此才能獲得來生。等無間緣（緊接著的因緣）的勢力強大，因為它與最初的聖道品類相同。又因為無量的善法所滋養，與最初的聖道性質相等。爲了這個緣故，廣泛地修習各種加行（準備工作）。與苦法忍（對苦諦的忍受）相應的心，稱為意界（manas-dhātu）、意識界（mano-vijñāna-dhātu）。其餘一同生起的法，稱為法界（dharma-dhātu）。 還有其他的老師，對此有不同的說法，認為一切法都有真實的事體，因為有真實的自相。除了無為法（asaṃskṛta dharma），一切有為法（saṃskṛta dharma）都是一剎那（kṣaṇa）間迅速謝滅的。除了最初的無漏心（anāsrava-citta）及其助伴，其餘的有為法都是等流（niṣyanda）。十種色法（rūpa）的少部分是所長養（āhāraja），十七種少部分是異熟生（vipākaja）。因此，眼等五種內色根（indriya），各有兩種，即所長養和異熟生。雖然還有其餘三種根，但沒有特別的性質，意義雜亂，所以不說。其餘的都可以依此類推。聲界（śabda-dhātu）有兩種，五識（pañca-vijñāna）也是如此。意、意識、三種色法等也是這樣。法界有四種，除了所長養。 上座部（Sthavira nikāya）在此處依據十二處（dvādaśa āyatana），立論說一切種類都是異熟生，非異熟生的是所長養，就像被纏繞包裹周匝護持一樣。又因為一身之中，眼等應該有兩種類，但沒有看到有不同的兩種作用，沒有不同的長養。又那個聲處（śabda-āyatana），應該是異熟生，因為它所允許的因是異熟。又異熟的法，是因頓然引發，任運隨轉，不需要數數重複地發起加行才能生起。又對於眼等，這件事也應該相同。如果說聲處如果是異熟，在無心位應該恒常存在，那麼意等又如何呢？如果說意等有相續，這也是不對的，因為不是異熟生所間斷的。上座部的宗義，簡略地敘述如上。但他們所說的道理都不對。且十二處，並非一切種類都是異熟生，善、染污等異熟生的性質，不能成立。如果善、染污是異熟生，已經斷了善根的人，以及阿羅漢（Arhat），應該像異熟的意一樣，能夠現行，因為差別因緣不可得。又無漏法（anāsrava dharma），是異熟生，不應該成立。又十二處
【English Translation】 English version And thus one obtains rebirth. The force of the immediately preceding condition (anantara-pratyaya) is strong because it is of the same category as the initial noble path. Also, because it is nourished by immeasurable good dharmas, and because it is equal in nature to the initial noble path. For this reason, one extensively cultivates various preparatory practices (prayoga). The mind associated with the forbearance of suffering (duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti) is called the mind element (manas-dhātu) and the mind-consciousness element (mano-vijñāna-dhātu). The remaining co-arisen dharmas are called the dharma element (dharma-dhātu). There are other teachers who have different views on this, asserting that all dharmas have real entities because they have real own-natures (svalakṣaṇa). Except for unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta dharma), all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta dharma) are momentary (kṣaṇa) and quickly perish. Except for the initial undefiled mind (anāsrava-citta) and its associates, the remaining conditioned dharmas are outflows (niṣyanda). A small portion of the ten forms (rūpa) is nourished (āhāraja), and a small portion of seventeen is maturation-born (vipākaja). Therefore, each of the five internal sense bases (indriya), such as the eye, has two types: nourished and maturation-born. Although there are three other roots, they do not have distinct natures, and their meanings are confused, so they are not discussed. The rest can be inferred accordingly. The sound element (śabda-dhātu) has two types, and so do the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna). The mind, consciousness, and three forms are also like this. The dharma element has four types, excluding the nourished. The Sthavira nikāya, based on the twelve āyatanas, posits that all types are maturation-born, and that what is not maturation-born is nourished, like being wrapped and protected all around. Also, because within one body, the eye and other senses should have two types, but there are no two different functions seen, and no different nourishment. Furthermore, that sound base (śabda-āyatana) should be maturation-born because the cause it allows is maturation. Moreover, maturation-born dharmas are caused by a sudden arising of the cause, and they naturally follow, without needing repeated effort to arise. Also, this should be the same for the eye and other senses. If it is said that if the sound base is maturation, it should be constantly present in the mindless state, then what about the mind and others? If it is said that the mind and others have continuity, this is also not correct because it is not interrupted by maturation-born dharmas. The Sthavira nikāya's doctrine is briefly described as above. However, their reasoning is not correct. Moreover, not all types of the twelve āyatanas are maturation-born, and the nature of maturation-born, such as good and defiled, cannot be established. If good and defiled are maturation-born, those who have cut off their roots of good, and Arhats (Arhat), should be able to manifest like the maturation-born mind because the differentiating conditions are not available. Also, undefiled dharmas (anāsrava dharma) being maturation-born should not be established. Also, the twelve
處。攝一切法。若立一切皆異熟生。則應非情亦是異熟。若是異熟。與理相違。上座所宗。不可依據。如憑巨石難以浮深。若立異熟生通一切種非一切種唯是異熟生。除異熟生。應說別相。便與對法義有相符。對法諸師。亦無定立一處一界唯異熟生。隨其所應。非異熟者。立長養等諸門差別。又彼所說。非異熟生為所長養。如所纏裹周匝護持者。此非宗所許。但許身中有所長養異熟生色。長養相續常能護持。異熟相續。令不間斷。豈不一切皆唯異熟勢力所引。隨力勝劣。故有相續。或有間斷。此非佛教說一切果皆宿因造。同外道故。無同彼失。亦許現在眾緣功能助引生故。若爾不應說彼一切皆唯異熟勢力所引。又異熟力。一業所引。不應或時有勝有劣。不應計度一業力勢。或時增勝。或時微劣。異熟勢力。隨業所引。不應或時有勝有劣。又于憂喜勇怯等位。種種色相差別而生。此不可為異熟生性。以非相似相續轉故。此色與心。俱起俱滅。依心轉故。名所長養。又現見身。增減可得。異熟不應隨緣增減。若遇現緣而增益者。此所增益。非業所生。現緣生故。定非異熟。若雖有業勢力所隨。由𨵗資緣。而損減者。此所損減。非業所生。亦非異熟。由此道理。應決定知。若有增減。則非異熟。若是異熟。則無增減。由有此
【現代漢語翻譯】 處。總攝一切法。如果主張一切法都是異熟生（Vipāka-ja，由業力成熟而產生的果報），那麼無情之物也應是異熟所生。如果是異熟所生，這與道理相悖。上座部的宗義，不可作為依據，如同憑藉巨大的石頭難以在深水中漂浮。如果主張異熟生通於一切種類，而非一切種類都只是異熟生，那麼除了異熟生之外，應該說明其他的差別相，這樣就與《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，佛教論藏）的義理相符。《阿毗達磨》的論師們，也沒有確定地主張某一處或某一界唯有異熟生。根據具體情況，對於非異熟生，可以建立長養等各種差別的法門。 而且他們所說，非異熟生是被長養的，如同被纏繞包裹、周匝護持的事物。這並非宗義所允許的，只允許身體中存在被長養的異熟生色。長養相續能夠持續不斷地護持異熟相續，使其不間斷。難道不是一切都只是異熟勢力的牽引，隨著力量的強弱，所以有相續或有間斷嗎？ 這並非佛教的觀點，佛教不認為一切果報都是宿世的業因所造，否則就與外道相同了。我們沒有與外道相同的過失，因為我們也承認現在的各種因緣的功能可以幫助牽引果報的產生。如果這樣，就不應該說一切都只是異熟勢力的牽引。而且異熟力，是由一個業所牽引的，不應該有時強有時弱。 不應該推測一個業力的作用，有時增強，有時減弱。異熟勢力，隨著業力所牽引，不應該有時強有時弱。而且在憂愁、喜悅、勇敢、怯懦等狀態下，種種色相差別而生起，這不可能是異熟生的性質，因為不是相似的相續流轉。這些色法與心法，同時生起同時滅去，依靠心而轉變，所以稱為所長養。 而且現在所見的身，可以增減。異熟不應該隨著因緣而增減。如果遇到現在的因緣而增長，那麼這所增長的，不是業力所生，因為是現在的因緣所生，所以一定不是異熟。如果雖然有業力的勢力相隨，由於缺乏資助的因緣，而損減，那麼這所損減的，不是業力所生，也不是異熟。由此道理，應該確定地知道，如果有增減，就不是異熟；如果是異熟，就沒有增減。因為有這種
【English Translation】 Place. Comprehending all dharmas. If it is asserted that all phenomena are Vipāka-ja (resulting from the maturation of karma), then insentient things should also be Vipāka. If they are Vipāka, it contradicts reason. The tenets of the Sthavira school are unreliable, like trying to float in deep water with a huge rock. If it is asserted that Vipāka-ja pervades all kinds, and not that all kinds are only Vipāka-ja, then apart from Vipāka-ja, other distinct characteristics should be explained, which would align with the meaning of the Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophical treatises). The Abhidharma masters do not definitively assert that a certain place or realm is solely Vipāka-ja. According to the circumstances, for non-Vipāka-ja, various distinct dharmas such as nourishment can be established. Moreover, what they say, that non-Vipāka-ja is what is nourished, like something wrapped around and protected on all sides, is not what the school allows. It only allows that there is Vipāka-ja form in the body that is nourished. The continuous stream of nourishment can constantly protect the continuous stream of Vipāka, preventing it from being interrupted. Isn't everything just drawn by the power of Vipāka, and depending on the strength of the power, there is continuity or interruption? This is not the Buddhist view. Buddhism does not believe that all results are created by past karma, otherwise it would be the same as external paths (non-Buddhist schools). We do not have the same fault as them, because we also acknowledge that the function of present conditions can help draw forth the production of results. If so, it should not be said that everything is just drawn by the power of Vipāka. Moreover, the power of Vipāka, drawn by one karma, should not sometimes be strong and sometimes weak. One should not speculate about the effect of a karma, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing. The power of Vipāka, drawn by karma, should not sometimes be strong and sometimes weak. Moreover, in states of sorrow, joy, courage, and cowardice, various different forms arise, which cannot be the nature of Vipāka-ja, because it is not a similar continuous flow. These forms and mental states arise and cease simultaneously, relying on the mind to transform, so they are called what is nourished. Moreover, the body that is seen now can increase or decrease. Vipāka should not increase or decrease according to conditions. If it increases when encountering present conditions, then what is increased is not produced by karma, because it is produced by present conditions, so it is definitely not Vipāka. If, although there is the power of karma following, it decreases due to a lack of supporting conditions, then what is decreased is not produced by karma, nor is it Vipāka. For this reason, it should be definitely known that if there is increase or decrease, it is not Vipāka; if it is Vipāka, there is no increase or decrease. Because there is this
二。知所長養。離異熟體。別有義成。亦不應言異熟生色離極微增而有增益。離極微減而有損減。彼極微聚。系屬現緣暫時體生。還即滅故。用增非體。理相違故。極微用增。過如前說。若執一切唯異熟生。即一切果皆宿因造。便同宿作外道論失。又言一身眼等應有二種類者。此無所妨。事聚種類。二差別故。謂異熟生。與所長養。事種類別。因有異故。由此眼等。無別等流。離前二因。無別因故。依聚種類。說一無失。二事成一。聚種類故。又言不見。二所作者。應見為依。發生眼識及相應法。是二所作。不應唯說異熟生眼為識生依非所長養。勿彼天眼不能為依發生眼識。成過失故。異熟生眼。離所長養。不能為依發生眼識。故生一識。是二功能。又彼應說。許一身中有二眼等總別生識。此於法性。有何傷損。但應勿如彼許二共一根。彼違聖言。謬顯法性。尚無愧怯。況此順理。正顯聖言。而懷慚怖。故定應許一總身中眼等五根各二種類總別生識。于理無違。又言聲處應異熟生以許彼因是異熟者。理極粗淺。則聲處所因異熟大種應非異熟生。成過失故。由是不應定執此義。從異熟生者。皆名異熟生。若如是說。復有何過。聲處唯應非染觸攝。由彼所因性類爾故。又聲不應是所造色。彼因大種非所造故。又因染等所依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二、瞭解其增長的來源。如果說離開異熟體（vipāka-kāya，由業力成熟而產生的身體），另外有義成就，也不應該說異熟所生的色法離開極微的增多而有增長，離開極微的減少而有減少。那些極微的聚合，是依屬於現前的因緣而暫時產生，隨即又會滅壞。用量的增加並非本體的增加，這在道理上是相違背的。極微用量的增加，過失如同前面所說。如果執著一切都是由異熟所生，那麼一切果報都是由宿世的業因所造，那就等同於宿命論外道的論調的過失。 又說一個人的眼等器官應該有兩種類別，這並沒有什麼妨礙。因為事物聚合的種類，有這兩種差別。所謂異熟所生，與所長養，在事物種類類別上，原因是不同的。由此，眼等器官，沒有其他的等流因，因為離開了前面兩種原因，就沒有其他的原因了。依據聚合的種類，說是一種，沒有過失。因為兩種事物成就一個聚合的種類。又說沒有見到兩種所作者，應該見到以異熟生眼和所長養眼為所依，發生眼識以及相應的法，這是兩種所作。不應該只說異熟生眼是眼識產生的所依，而不是所長養眼。否則，如果天眼不能作為所依而產生眼識，就會有過失。異熟生眼，離開了所長養眼，不能作為所依而產生眼識。所以產生一個眼識，是兩種功能。 又他們應該說，允許一個身體中有兩種眼等器官，總的來說和分別來說都能產生識。這對於法性（dharma-dhātu，諸法的本性）有什麼損害呢？只是不應該像他們那樣，允許兩個共用一個根。他們違背聖言量（ārya-vacana，聖者的言教），錯誤地顯示法性，尚且沒有慚愧畏懼，更何況我們順應道理，正確地顯示聖言量，卻要懷有慚愧恐懼呢？所以一定要允許在一個總體的身體中，眼等五根各有兩種類別，總的來說和分別來說都能產生識，在道理上沒有違背。 又說聲處（śabda-āyatana，聲音的處所）應該是異熟所生，因為允許它的原因是異熟。這種說法極其粗淺。那麼，聲處所依賴的異熟大種（bhūta，組成物質世界的元素）應該不是異熟所生，就會有過失。因此，不應該一定執著這種觀點。從異熟所生的，都叫做異熟所生，如果這樣說，又有什麼過失呢？聲處只應該不是染污的觸所攝，因為它的原因的性質是這樣的。而且聲音不應該是所造色（upādā-rūpa，由四大種所造的色法），因為它的原因大種不是所造的。而且原因是染污等所依。
【English Translation】 English version 2. Understanding the source of its growth. If, apart from the Vipāka-kāya (body produced by the maturation of karma), there is a separate accomplishment of meaning, it should not be said that the rūpa (form) born from Vipāka increases when it is separated from the increase of the ultimate particles, or decreases when it is separated from the decrease of the ultimate particles. The aggregation of those ultimate particles arises temporarily depending on present conditions, and then immediately ceases. The increase in quantity is not an increase in substance, which is logically contradictory. The increase in the quantity of ultimate particles has the same faults as mentioned earlier. If one insists that everything is born from Vipāka, then all results are created by past karmic causes, which is the same as the fallacy of the fatalistic heretical theory. Furthermore, saying that the eyes and other organs of one person should have two categories is not an obstacle. Because the types of aggregates of things have these two differences. The so-called Vipāka-born and the nurtured have different causes in terms of the types of things. Therefore, the eyes and other organs do not have other isodirectional causes, because apart from the previous two causes, there are no other causes. According to the type of aggregate, saying it is one is not a fault. Because two things accomplish one type of aggregate. Furthermore, saying that two creators are not seen, it should be seen that the arising of eye consciousness and corresponding dharmas (phenomena) depends on the Vipāka-born eye and the nurtured eye, which are the two creators. It should not be said that only the Vipāka-born eye is the basis for the arising of eye consciousness, and not the nurtured eye. Otherwise, if the divine eye cannot be the basis for the arising of eye consciousness, there will be a fault. The Vipāka-born eye, separated from the nurtured eye, cannot be the basis for the arising of eye consciousness. Therefore, the arising of one eye consciousness is the function of both. Furthermore, they should say that it is permissible for one body to have two types of eyes and other organs, which can generate consciousness in general and in particular. What harm does this do to the Dharma-dhātu (the nature of all phenomena)? It is just that they should not, like them, allow two to share one root. They violate the Ārya-vacana (the words of the noble ones), and falsely reveal the Dharma-dhātu, yet they have no shame or fear, let alone that we, in accordance with reason, correctly reveal the Ārya-vacana, and should have shame and fear? Therefore, it must be allowed that in a general body, the five roots such as the eyes each have two categories, which can generate consciousness in general and in particular, and there is no contradiction in reason. Furthermore, saying that the Śabda-āyatana (the place of sound) should be Vipāka-born, because it is allowed that its cause is Vipāka, is extremely superficial. Then, the Vipāka-born Mahābhūta (elements that make up the material world) on which the place of sound depends should not be Vipāka-born, which would be a fault. Therefore, this view should not be insisted upon. Those born from Vipāka are all called Vipāka-born. If it is said in this way, what fault is there? The place of sound should only not be included in the contaminated touch, because the nature of its cause is like this. Moreover, sound should not be Upādā-rūpa (form created by the four great elements), because its cause, the Mahābhūta, is not created. Moreover, the cause is the basis of contamination, etc.
所緣。發生意識如是意識。應唯染等。成過失故。又一意識。一時應成善染等過。彼所依緣。一時容有善染等故。由此等過。不應執聲異熟生故成異熟生。是故應知。初釋為善。又言異熟因頓引發任運隨轉。不須數數重起加行方得生者。此不能立聲是異熟生性。由此反能立聲非異熟生。若執聲為異熟生性。一起斷已。應不更生。由異熟生一起斷已無加行因能重起故。我等皆許業感異熟。不由重起加行方生。汝等何緣重述斯旨。計彼所說。無所證聲異熟生用。只應為滿已論文數致此浮詞。又彼所執別有隨界。便為無用。于業所引異熟轉中。彼無用故。既許業因頓引異熟。不須數數加行重發。何須別執此隨界為。或應許此引業無用。又我意說。聲數間斷。隨欲重生。異熟生色。無如是事。汝今何故言于眼等此事應同。豈異熟色斷已重起。又我難意聲既是色與異熟色起法不同。應非異熟。何預意等。而汝欻責意等云何。汝自許聲所因大種。是異熟故。聲異熟生。若許意等亦如是者。從非異熟所生意等。則應一向非異熟生。若從異熟所生意等。亦應一向是異熟生。既不許然。如何例責。又色非色法有異故。異熟相續。亦應不同。非不生盲異熟生眼。起已斷壞。終不重生。即令意等異熟生法相續間絕。亦不重起。又異熟心。為非
異熟間。復異熟生時。即非異熟能為彼生因。復能斷彼類。非聲生因即令聲斷。是故異熟色與意等相續各異。不應為例。以要言之。彼於此論異熟長養等流義言。都不解了。致斯紛競。故應且止。鑒者當知。如是已說異熟生等。今應思擇。若有眼界。先不成就。今得成就。亦眼識耶。若眼識界先不成就。今得成就。亦眼界耶。如是等問。今應略答。頌曰。
眼與眼識界 獨俱得非等
論曰。獨得者。謂或有眼界。先不成就今得成就。非眼識。謂生欲界。漸得眼根。及無色歿。生二三四靜慮地時。或有眼識。先不成就。今得成就。非眼界。謂生二三四靜慮地。眼識現起。及從彼歿生下地時。俱得者。謂或有二界。先不成就。今得成就。謂無色歿。生於欲界及梵世時。非者俱非。謂除前相。等者攝余所未說義。此復云何。謂若成就眼界亦眼識界耶。應作四句。第一句者。謂生二三四靜慮地。眼識不起。第二句者。謂生欲界。未得眼根。或得已失。第三句者。謂生欲界。得眼不失。及生梵世。若生二三四靜慮地。眼識現起。第四句者。謂除前相。如是眼界與色界。眼識與色界。得及成就。如理應思。由斯理路。例應思擇。后五種三得與成就。並互相望及舍不成。如毗婆沙廣文示現。恐詞繁雜故今不述。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『異熟間』（Vipāka-antara）：如果異熟（Vipāka，果報）已經產生，那麼異熟本身就不能作為產生它的原因。同樣，能夠斷滅某一類聲音的，並非產生聲音的原因，也就能讓聲音斷滅。因此，異熟所生的色法與意識等等的相續是各自不同的，不應該作為類比的例子。總而言之，他們對於這部論典中關於異熟、長養、等流（Nisyanda，等流果）的意義完全不理解，才導致了這樣的爭論。所以應該暫時停止爭論。有見識的人應該明白這些道理。像這樣已經說完了異熟生等等的問題，現在應該思考：如果有人眼界（cakṣu-dhātu）先前沒有成就，現在得到了成就，那麼他是否也得到了眼識（cakṣu-vijñāna）呢？如果眼識界先前沒有成就，現在得到了成就，那麼他是否也得到了眼界呢？像這樣的問題，現在應該簡略地回答。頌文說：
『眼與眼識界，獨俱得非等』
論中解釋說：『獨得』是指，或者有人眼界先前沒有成就，現在得到了成就，但卻沒有得到眼識。例如，生在欲界（Kāma-dhātu），逐漸獲得眼根（cakṣurindriya），以及從無色界（Arūpa-dhātu）死亡，生到第二、第三、第四禪定時。或者有人眼識先前沒有成就，現在得到了成就，但卻沒有得到眼界。例如，生到第二、第三、第四禪定時，眼識現起，以及從那裡死亡，生到地獄時。『俱得』是指，或者有這兩個界，先前都沒有成就，現在都得到了成就。例如，從無色界死亡，生到欲界以及梵世（Brahma-loka）時。『非』是指兩者都沒有得到，也就是排除前面所說的情況。『等』是指包含其餘沒有說到的意義。這又是什麼呢？是指如果成就了眼界，是否也成就了眼識界呢？應該分為四種情況來討論。第一種情況是，生到第二、第三、第四禪定時，眼識沒有生起。第二種情況是，生到欲界，還沒有得到眼根，或者已經得到又失去了。第三種情況是，生到欲界，得到了眼根並且沒有失去，以及生到梵世。或者生到第二、第三、第四禪定時，眼識現起。第四種情況是，排除前面所說的情況。像這樣，眼界與，眼識與，得到以及成就，都應該如理地思考。通過這樣的思路，應該類推思考，后五種（耳、鼻、舌、身、意）三得與成就，以及互相之間的關係，還有捨棄和不成就的情況。這些都在《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中有詳細的說明，因為文字繁雜，所以現在不詳細敘述。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding 『Vipāka-antara』 (in between resultant effects): If a Vipāka (resultant effect) has already arisen, then that Vipāka itself cannot be the cause for its own arising. Similarly, that which can sever a certain kind of sound is not the cause of the sound's arising, and thus can cause the sound to cease. Therefore, the succession of Vipāka-born form and consciousness, etc., are each different and should not be taken as examples. In short, they completely misunderstand the meanings of Vipāka, nourishment, and Nisyanda (consequence of outflow) in this treatise, leading to such disputes. Therefore, the debate should be stopped for now. Those with discernment should understand these principles. Having discussed Vipāka-born phenomena, etc., we should now consider: If someone did not previously attain the eye-element (cakṣu-dhātu) and now attains it, do they also attain eye-consciousness (cakṣu-vijñāna)? If the eye-consciousness element was not previously attained and is now attained, do they also attain the eye-element? Such questions should now be answered briefly. The verse says:
『Eye and eye-consciousness element, attained alone, together, not, equal.』
The commentary explains: 『Attained alone』 means that someone may attain the eye-element without attaining eye-consciousness, such as when being born in the Desire Realm (Kāma-dhātu) and gradually acquiring the eye-faculty (cakṣurindriya), or when dying in the Formless Realm (Arūpa-dhātu) and being born in the second, third, or fourth Dhyana states. Or someone may attain eye-consciousness without attaining the eye-element, such as when being born in the second, third, or fourth Dhyana states and eye-consciousness arises, or when dying from there and being born in a lower realm. 『Attained together』 means that both elements may be attained together, such as when dying in the Formless Realm and being born in the Desire Realm or the Brahma-loka (梵世). 『Not』 means that neither is attained, excluding the aforementioned cases. 『Equal』 includes the remaining unstated meanings. What are these? It refers to whether one who has attained the eye-element has also attained the eye-consciousness element. This should be discussed in four cases. The first case is when one is born in the second, third, or fourth Dhyana states and eye-consciousness does not arise. The second case is when one is born in the Desire Realm and has not yet obtained the eye-faculty, or has obtained it and then lost it. The third case is when one is born in the Desire Realm and has obtained the eye-faculty and has not lost it, or when one is born in the Brahma-loka. Or when one is born in the second, third, or fourth Dhyana states and eye-consciousness arises. The fourth case is excluding the aforementioned cases. In this way, the eye-element and , eye-consciousness and , attainment and accomplishment, should all be considered rationally. Following this line of reasoning, one should analogously consider the attainment and accomplishment of the latter five (ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) three, as well as their mutual relationships, and the cases of abandonment and non-accomplishment. These are all explained in detail in the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), but are not elaborated on here due to the complexity of the text.
說一切有部順正理論卷第五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之六
如是已說得成就等。十八界中。幾內幾外。頌曰。
內十二眼等 色等六為外
論曰。六根六識十二名內。外謂所餘色等六境。我依名內。外謂此余。我體既無。內外何有。非無凈戒有凈戒依。經主此中作如是釋。我執依止故假說心為我。故契經說。
由善調伏我 智者得生天
世尊余處說調伏心。如契經言。
應善調伏心 心調能引樂
故但於心假說為我。眼等為此所依親近。故說名內。色等為此所緣疏遠。故名為外。若爾六識應不名內。未至意位。非心依故。至意位時不失六識界。未至意位亦非越意相。若異此者。意界唯應在過去世六識唯在現在未來。便違自宗許十八界皆通三世。又若未來現在六識。無意界相。設至過去意界位中。亦應不立。相於三世無改易故。此釋不然。今且應說。何緣一生一住一滅及一果等心心所中。說心名內。心所為外。豈不心所依假我心。是能依性。對彼所依。極親近故。轉應名內。又非眼等與眼識等常為所依。未曾有心。不與心所為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五
大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之六
如是已說得成就等。十八界中，幾內幾外？頌曰：
內十二眼等 色等六為外
論曰：六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識六種意識）十二名內。外謂所餘色（顏色、形狀）、聲（聲音）、香（氣味）、味（味道）、觸（觸感）、法（事物、概念）等六境。我依名內，外謂此余。我體既無，內外何有？非無凈戒有凈戒依。經主此中作如是釋：我執依止故假說心為『我』。故契經說：
由善調伏我 智者得生天
世尊余處說調伏心。如契經言：
應善調伏心 心調能引樂
故但於心假說為『我』。眼等為此所依親近，故說名內。色等為此所緣疏遠，故名為外。若爾六識應不名內？未至意位，非心依故。至意位時不失六識界，未至意位亦非越意相。若異此者，意界唯應在過去世，六識唯在現在未來，便違自宗許十八界皆通三世。又若未來現在六識，無意界相，設至過去意界位中，亦應不立，相於三世無改易故。此釋不然。今且應說：何緣一生一住一滅及一果等心心所中，說心名內，心所為外？豈不心所依假『我』心，是能依性，對彼所依，極親近故，轉應名內。又非眼等與眼識等常為所依，未曾有心，不與心所為
【English Translation】 English version:
Abhidharma Nyayanusara Shastra, Volume 5
Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma Nyayanusara Shastra
Abhidharma Nyayanusara Shastra, Volume 6
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 1 on the Discussion of Origination: Section 6
Having thus spoken of attainment and so forth, among the eighteen realms, how many are internal and how many are external? The verse says:
The twelve, eyes, etc., are internal; the six, forms, etc., are external.
The treatise says: The six roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind - six sense organs) and six consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness) are called internal. External refers to the remaining six objects: form (color and shape), sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma (things, concepts). 'I' (self) is the basis for the internal, and the external is what remains. Since the substance of 'I' does not exist, how can there be internal and external? It is not that there is no pure precept (śīla) because there is no basis for pure precept. The Sutra Master explains it thus: Because attachment to 'I' (self) is the basis, the mind is falsely called 'I'. Therefore, the sutra says:
By well taming the 'I', the wise attain birth in heaven.
The World-Honored One speaks of taming the mind elsewhere. As the sutra says:
One should well tame the mind; a tamed mind can bring happiness.
Therefore, it is only with regard to the mind that 'I' is falsely spoken of. The eyes, etc., are close to this basis, so they are called internal. Forms, etc., are distant from this object, so they are called external. If so, should the six consciousnesses not be called internal? Before reaching the position of mind (manas), they are not the basis of the mind. When reaching the position of mind, the realm of the six consciousnesses is not lost; before reaching the position of mind, they also do not transcend the characteristic of mind. If it were otherwise, the realm of mind should only be in the past, and the six consciousnesses should only be in the present and future, which would contradict our own school's acceptance that the eighteen realms all pervade the three times. Furthermore, if the future and present six consciousnesses do not have the characteristic of the mind realm, even if they reach the position of the past mind realm, they should also not be established, because the characteristic does not change in the three times. This explanation is not correct. Now, it should be said: Why, among the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta) that have one birth, one dwelling, one cessation, and one result, is the mind called internal and the mental factors external? Is it not that the mental factors rely on the false 'I' mind, which is the nature of the able-to-rely, and is extremely close to that which is relied upon, so it should instead be called internal? Furthermore, it is not that the eyes, etc., are always the basis for eye-consciousness, etc.; there has never been a mind that does not associate with mental factors.
所依性。故唯心所。應名為內。或復此中有何殊理。與假我心為所依者。立之為內。不立能依。故彼所言。無深理趣。又心少分。是我執依。一切心依。皆名為內。由此不應作如是釋。我執依止。故假說心為我。又少分心。貪等依故。應一切心皆成染污。或少分心。尋伺依故。一切應成有尋有伺。此既不爾。彼云何然。差別因緣不可得故。又彼何能遮心所等我執依性。以有身見緣五取蘊為境界故。是故彼釋理定不然。若爾何緣說心為我。恒于自境自在行故。我謂于自境常自在行。心曾無有時不行自境。故一切心。皆名為我。非諸心所亦得我名。意為上首故。經說獨行故。彼要依心能行境故。如諸心所。雖亦調伏。而但就勝說調伏心。說我亦然。唯心非所。若法與此似我之心。為不共益。彼名為內。與此相違余法名外。故諸心所無成內失。又諸心所。雖復與心一生住等。而心望心。獨名為內。非心所者。同異類心。展轉相望。為所依性。皆不捨故。諸心所法。異類望心。必定舍離能依性故。謂若善心。望善染污及無記心。為所依性。皆不捨離。染污無記心亦如是。若善心所望彼染污及無記心。舍能依性。染污無記望余亦爾。故心望心為所依性。無相簡隔。得名為內。心所望心。為能依性。有相簡隔。不得內名。又諸心所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所依性。因此說唯有心是『內』。或者，這裡面有什麼特別的道理呢？以虛假的『我』（假我）之心作為所依賴的對象，就把它稱為『內』，而不把能依賴的稱為『內』。所以他們所說的，沒有深刻的道理。而且，只有少部分的心是我執（Ahamkara）所依賴的，並非一切心都是我執的所依。如果一切心都是我執的所依，那麼一切心都應該被稱為『內』。因此，不應該這樣解釋：因為我執依賴於心，所以就假說心是『我』。而且，如果只有少部分的心是貪等煩惱的所依，那麼一切心都應該變成染污的。或者，如果只有少部分的心是尋伺（Vitarka-vicara）的所依，那麼一切心都應該成為有尋有伺的。既然事實並非如此，那麼他們所說的又怎麼能成立呢？因為找不到差別的原因和條件。而且，他們又怎麼能遮蔽心所等法作為我執所依的性質呢？因為有身見（Satkayadristi）以五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha）為境界。所以，他們的解釋肯定是不對的。如果這樣，那麼為什麼說心是『我』呢？因為心恒常在自己的境界中自在地執行。『我』的意思就是在自己的境界中常自在地執行。心從來沒有不執行在自己境界中的時候。所以，一切心都可以稱為『我』。但諸心所（Caitasikas）卻不能得到『我』這個名稱，因為心是主導，而且經典中說心是『獨行』的。心所要依賴於心才能在境界中執行。就像諸心所雖然也被調伏，但只是就殊勝的方面來說調伏心。說『我』也是這樣，只有心而不是心所。如果有一種法，對於這個類似『我』的心，有不共同的利益，那麼這種法就稱為『內』，與此相反的法就稱為『外』。所以諸心所不會有成為『內』的過失。而且，諸心所雖然與心一生同住等，但心相對於心來說，獨自被稱為『內』。而心所不是這樣。同類或異類的心，互相之間作為所依賴的性質，都不會捨棄。諸心所法，異類的心相對於心所來說，必定會舍離能依賴的性質。也就是說，如果善心相對於善的、染污的以及無記的心來說，作為所依賴的性質，都不會捨棄。染污的和無記的心也是這樣。如果善心所相對於染污的和無記的心來說，會捨棄能依賴的性質，染污的和無記的心相對於其他心也是這樣。所以心相對於心來說，作為所依賴的性質，沒有相互的間隔，可以稱為『內』。心所相對於心來說，作為能依賴的性質，有相互的間隔，不能得到『內』這個名稱。而且，諸心所
【English Translation】 English version The nature of dependence. Therefore, only the mind is considered 'internal'. Or, what special reason is there here? That which takes the false 'self' (Jiva) mind as its object of reliance is established as 'internal', but not that which is capable of relying. Therefore, what they say lacks profound meaning. Moreover, only a small portion of the mind is relied upon by ego-grasping (Ahamkara); not all minds are the basis of ego-grasping. If all minds were the basis of ego-grasping, then all minds should be called 'internal'. Therefore, it should not be explained in this way: because ego-grasping relies on the mind, it is falsely said that the mind is 'self'. Furthermore, if only a small portion of the mind is the basis of greed and other afflictions, then all minds should become defiled. Or, if only a small portion of the mind is the basis of investigation and analysis (Vitarka-vicara), then all should become with investigation and analysis. Since this is not the case, how can what they say be established? Because the cause and condition for differentiation cannot be found. Moreover, how can they obscure the nature of mental factors (Caitasikas) and others as the basis of ego-grasping? Because the view of a real self (Satkayadristi) takes the five aggregates of grasping (Panca-upadanakkhandha) as its object. Therefore, their explanation is definitely incorrect. If so, then why is the mind said to be 'self'? Because it constantly and freely operates in its own realm. 'Self' means constantly and freely operating in one's own realm. The mind never has a time when it does not operate in its own realm. Therefore, all minds can be called 'self'. But mental factors cannot obtain the name 'self', because the mind is the leader, and the scriptures say that the mind 'travels alone'. Mental factors must rely on the mind to operate in the realm. Just as mental factors are also tamed, but it is only in terms of the superior aspect that the mind is tamed. Saying 'self' is also like this, only the mind and not mental factors. If there is a dharma that has a non-common benefit for this mind that is similar to 'self', then this dharma is called 'internal', and the dharma that is contrary to this is called 'external'. Therefore, mental factors do not have the fault of becoming 'internal'. Moreover, although mental factors and the mind live together for a lifetime, the mind is uniquely called 'internal' in relation to the mind. Mental factors are not like this. Minds of the same or different types, in relation to each other as the nature of reliance, will not abandon it. Mental factors, minds of different types in relation to mental factors, will definitely abandon the nature of being able to rely. That is to say, if a virtuous mind, in relation to virtuous, defiled, and neutral minds, as the nature of reliance, will not abandon it. Defiled and neutral minds are also like this. If a virtuous mental factor, in relation to defiled and neutral minds, abandons the nature of being able to rely, defiled and neutral minds are also like this in relation to other minds. Therefore, the mind in relation to the mind, as the nature of reliance, has no mutual separation and can be called 'internal'. Mental factors in relation to the mind, as the nature of being able to rely, have mutual separation and cannot obtain the name 'internal'. Moreover, mental factors
。望同類心。為能依性。或多或少。心為所依。則不如是由此內名在心非所。若爾大法應受內名。不爾心所朋類壞故。如異生中不墮法者。復有餘師。依訓詞理以釋內名。謂我于彼有增上用。故名為內。我謂自體。于所餘法。有增上用。如彼大德鳩摩邏多說如是頌。
若爪指舌端 無別增上用 動觸嘗肴膳 作用應無差
色香味觸。諸色聚中。或唯身根。有增上用。如是廣說。乃至眼根。心亦于余有增上用。是故十二。皆得內名。若爾受等自體差別。亦見於余有增上用。是則諸法皆應名內。上座所宗。既一切法皆法處攝。彼宗云何建立內外。彼說如余。云何如余。謂為六識作所依者。建立為內。不為六識作所依者。建立為外。夫所依者。唯有情數親近不共色等不定。如彼色等。雖復亦有是有情數親近不共與眼等同。非所依故。而立為外。不立為內。如是眼等雖法處攝。與受等同是所依故。而立為內。不立為外。所餘法處。唯名為外。又雖眼等皆通二分。而內外性。互不相違。是故不應執此為難。謂作眼等識所依時。立為內性。若作意識所緣境時。立為外性。彼謂如意根是內處攝。為意識所緣。復外處攝。如是所說品類言詞。皆率己情。不能遮過。有似比度。無真教理。所以者何。違契經故。如契經說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：希望（與自己）同類的心（生起）。因為能夠作為（心和心所的）所依之性。或者多或者少，心作為（心所的）所依。那麼不如說是由於這個內在之名存在於心中，而不是（心）的所（依）。如果這樣，那麼大法（一切法）應該接受內在之名。如果不是這樣，那麼心所的朋黨種類就會壞滅，就像異生（凡夫）中不屬於法（心所）的那些（心）一樣。還有其他老師，依據訓詞的道理來解釋內在之名，說：『我對於彼（心所）有增上作用，所以名為內。』我指的是自體（心）。對於其餘的法（心所），有增上作用。就像那位大德鳩摩邏多所說的頌： 『如果爪、指、舌端，沒有特別的增上作用，那麼動、觸、嘗、肴膳，這些作用應該沒有差別。』 色、香、味、觸，在各種色聚中，或者只有身根有增上作用。像這樣廣泛地說，乃至眼根。心也對於其餘（心所）有增上作用。所以十二處（六根六塵），都得到內在之名。如果這樣，受等自體差別，也看到對於其餘（法）有增上作用。那麼所有的法都應該名為內。上座部的宗義，既然一切法都屬於法處所攝，他們的宗義如何建立內外呢？他們說如同其餘（宗派）。如何如同其餘宗派呢？就是說，作為六識的所依者，建立為內。不作為六識的所依者，建立為外。作為所依者，只有有情數（根）親近不共，色等（塵）不定。就像那些色等，雖然也有是有情數親近不共，與眼等相同，因為不是所依，所以立為外，不立為內。像這樣，眼等雖然屬於法處所攝，與受等相同，因為是所依，所以立為內，不立為外。其餘的法處，只名為外。又雖然眼等都通內外二分，而內外之性，互相不相違背。所以不應該執此為難。就是說，作為眼等識的所依時，立為內性。如果作為意識所緣境時，立為外性。他們認為如意根是內處所攝，為意識所緣，又是外處所攝。像這樣所說的品類言詞，都是率由己情，不能遮止過失。有相似的比度，沒有真正的教理。為什麼呢？因為違背了契經。如契經說：
【English Translation】 English version: Hoping for minds of the same kind (to arise). Because of the ability to be the nature of reliance (for mind and mental factors). Whether more or less, the mind serves as the reliance (for mental factors). Then it is better to say that it is because this inner name exists in the mind, rather than being what the mind relies on. If so, then the great Dharma (all dharmas) should receive the inner name. If not, then the factional categories of mental factors will be destroyed, like those (minds) among ordinary beings (common people) that do not belong to the Dharma (mental factors). There are also other teachers who explain the inner name based on the principles of etymology, saying: 'I have an increasing function for them (mental factors), so it is called inner.' 'I' refers to the self-nature (mind). For the remaining dharmas (mental factors), there is an increasing function. Just like the verse spoken by that great worthy, Kumaralata: 'If the nails, fingers, and tip of the tongue do not have special increasing functions, then the actions of moving, touching, tasting, and dining should have no difference.' Form, smell, taste, and touch, among the various aggregates of form, perhaps only the body faculty has an increasing function. Speaking broadly like this, even up to the eye faculty. The mind also has an increasing function for the remaining (mental factors). Therefore, the twelve ayatanas (six sense bases and six sense objects) all receive the inner name. If so, the self-nature differences of feeling, etc., are also seen to have an increasing function for the remaining (dharmas). Then all dharmas should be called inner. Since the Sarvastivada school holds that all dharmas are included in the Dharma-dhatu (realm of dharmas), how does their school establish inner and outer? They say it is like the other (schools). How is it like the other schools? That is, those that serve as the basis for the six consciousnesses are established as inner. Those that do not serve as the basis for the six consciousnesses are established as outer. As the basis, only sentient beings (roots) are closely and uniquely associated, while form, etc. (dusts), are uncertain. Just like those forms, etc., although there are also sentient beings closely and uniquely associated, being the same as the eye, etc., because they are not the basis, they are established as outer and not established as inner. Like this, although the eye, etc., belong to the Dharma-dhatu, being the same as feeling, etc., because they are the basis, they are established as inner and not established as outer. The remaining Dharma-dhatu is only called outer. Also, although the eye, etc., all connect to both inner and outer aspects, the nature of inner and outer does not contradict each other. Therefore, one should not hold this as a difficulty. That is, when serving as the basis for eye consciousness, etc., it is established as inner nature. If serving as the object of consciousness, it is established as outer nature. They believe that the mind-root is included in the inner ayatanas, being the object of consciousness, and also included in the outer ayatanas. The categories of words spoken like this are all based on one's own feelings and cannot prevent faults. There are similar comparisons, but no true teachings. Why? Because it contradicts the sutras. As the sutras say:
。苾芻當知。法謂外處。是十一處所不攝法。無見無對。且於此經。非一切法皆法處攝。由此經中遮十一處攝法處故。亦非唯彼所執別法名為法處。由此經中非如意處說無色故。彼宗唯執受想思蘊。名別法處。于中無色。若此經中。依彼別法。說法處者。則應如說無見無對。亦言無色。由是理故。於此經中。再廣遮遣異眼等處。謂是十一處所不攝法。及無見無對。若色唯有有見有對。更無餘色。直欲宣說別法處者。應但說言。法謂外處意處不攝亦是無色。由是已成此別法處十一不攝無見無對。或復應言無見無對意處不攝亦是無色。此中不說無色言故。又遮眼等攝法處故。由此別有法處色成。此色是何。謂無表色。業俱舍中當共思擇。云何令他知眼等處。雖為意境。而唯是內。故此經中。遮總數攝及差別性。以顯法處。謂佛世尊觀未來世。於我生處有稱釋子。執一切法皆是法處。為遮彼故。顯了說言。法處唯此非一切法。是故唯于辨法處相。說十一處所不攝言。以眼等無展轉攝義。于眼等處無如是說。意識能緣一切法故。勿一切法皆法處收。故於此中如是遮遣。又彼上座。復立眼等通內外性。定應不成。以曾無處說。彼眼等若作眼等識所依時。立為內性。若作意識所緣境時。立為外性。由此即破所引意根。以如眼等曾無
說故。如何自號善釋難師。而絕未知立同喻法。既能如此何遠舉意。為成眼根通內外性。只應近舉耳為同法。為成耳根通內外性。亦應近舉眼為同法。彼上座言。所立眼等通內外性。決定應成。如世尊說。苾芻當知。諸所有眼或過去或未來或現在。或內或外。乃至廣說。意亦如是。若爾便有太過之失。如契經說。于內身中住循身觀。乃至廣說。又如經言。諸所有色。若過去若未來若現在。若內若外。乃至廣說。於色等中。既無內性。經不應說。諸所有言。受想行中。如何有內。又先自說。若為六識作所依者。建立為內。既許如是。色等受等。非識所依。應唯名外。經何說內。如色受等。雖說內言。而非內處。唯外處攝。如是眼等。雖說外言。而非法處。唯內處攝。若爾經言有何意趣。此經意趣。當共思求。汝上所言。且不應理。我今當釋。此經意趣。謂彼眼等為識所依。說名為內。色等所緣說名為外。彼此無諍。又如眼根識所依止。已正當生說名為內。與此相違。說名為外。乃至意根。內外亦爾。若色等境。與識所依。同一身轉。說名為內。與此相違。說名為外。如是就處就所依身。建立內外。不違聖教。隨順法相。是故上座所立眼等。通內外性。定為不成非但不成。相又雜亂。以執眼等作識依緣為內外性。相雜亂故
。謂若意識緣所依意為境起時。此意當言置在何聚。不應在內意識所緣故。不應在外意識所依故。不應在內外。非經所說故。曾無經說。如是意根。或內或外。或通內外。豈不說有內外心耶。此就依身說為內外。若異此釋。應于受等內性不成。又應於心不具三觀。于唯外心住循心觀。無容有故。彼如是執。心為意識作所緣時。說名為外。此即名內。心常為識作所依故。若許眼等意識緣時。亦唯名內。斯有何失。非彼眼等有時不為自所發識作所依性。如是上座。立內外門。違害契經。不成相亂。唯我阿毗達磨諸大論師所立。順經成就。無雜亂失。已說內外。十八界中。幾同分幾彼同分。頌曰。
法同分餘二 作不作自業
論曰。法同分者。謂一法界唯是同分。今應先辨境同分相。若境與識定為所緣。且如法界。與彼意識為定所緣。是不共故。識于其中已生生法。此所緣境。說名同分。意能遍緣一切境故。於三世境及非世中。無一法界不于其中已正當生無邊意識。二念意識。即能普緣一切法故。由是法界。恒名同分。餘二者。謂餘十七界。皆有同分及彼同分。何名同分彼同分耶。謂作自業不作自業。若作自業名為同分。不作自業名彼同分。如何眼等說為同分彼同分耶。且同分眼。說有三種。謂於色界。已正當
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人問：『如果意識以意（manas，心意）為所依，以意為境而生起時，這個意應該被安置在哪裡？』不應該在內，因為意不是意識所緣的對象；不應該在外，因為意不是意識所依的根；不應該在內外之間，因為經典中沒有這樣說過。從來沒有經典說過，這樣的意根，或者在內，或者在外，或者貫通內外。難道不是說有內外心嗎？這是就依身而說內外。如果不是這樣解釋，那麼受（vedanā，感受）等等的內性就不能成立。而且，心（citta，心）的三觀（三種觀照方式）也不完整。對於唯有外心，安住于循心觀，是不可能的。他們這樣認為，心作為意識所緣的對象時，就稱為外；心常作為意識所依的根時，就稱為內。如果允許眼等作為意識所緣時，也僅僅稱為內，這有什麼過失呢？因為眼等有時不作為自己所發起的識的所依。像這樣，上座部設立內外之門，違背了契經，造成了不成相的混亂。只有我阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）的各位大論師所設立的，順應經典，成就義理，沒有雜亂的過失。已經說了內外，十八界（dhātu，界）中，哪些是同分（sabhāga，同類），哪些是彼同分（visabhāga，異類）？頌文說： 『法界是同分，其餘二者，作不作自己的業。』 論中說：法界是同分，是指法界（dharmadhātu，法界）唯一是同分。現在應該先辨別境的同分相。如果境與識一定是所緣，比如法界，與意識一定是所緣，因為是不共的。識在其中已經生起或將要生起法。這個所緣的境，就叫做同分。意（manas，心意）能夠普遍緣一切境，對於三世的境以及非世間法中，沒有一個法界不在其中已經、正在或將要生起無邊的意識。二念意識，就能普遍緣一切法。因此，法界恒常被稱為同分。其餘二者，是指其餘的十七界，都有同分和彼同分。什麼叫做同分，什麼叫做彼同分呢？就是作自己的業和不作自己的業。如果作自己的業，就叫做同分；不作自己的業，就叫做彼同分。為什麼眼等被稱為同分和彼同分呢？且說同分的眼，有三種，就是對於色（rūpa，顏色、形色），已經、正在或將要...
【English Translation】 English version: Someone asked: 'If consciousness arises with manas (mind, intellect) as its support and manas as its object, where should this manas be placed?' It should not be within, because manas is not the object of consciousness; it should not be without, because manas is not the root upon which consciousness relies; it should not be between within and without, because the scriptures do not say so. There has never been a scripture that says that such a root of mind is either within, without, or pervades both within and without. Isn't it said that there are inner and outer minds? This refers to the inner and outer in relation to the body. If it is not explained in this way, then the inner nature of vedanā (feeling, sensation) and so on cannot be established. Moreover, the three contemplations (three ways of observing) of the citta (mind) would not be complete. It is impossible to abide in the contemplation of following the mind with only the external mind. They believe that when the mind acts as the object of consciousness, it is called external; when the mind always acts as the root upon which consciousness relies, it is called internal. If it is allowed that the eye and so on are also called internal when they are the object of consciousness, what is the fault in this? Because the eye and so on sometimes do not act as the support for the consciousness that they initiate. In this way, the Sthavira school establishes the gate of inner and outer, which violates the sutras and causes confusion of non-establishment. Only what is established by us, the great masters of Abhidharma (doctrines), accords with the scriptures, achieves the meaning, and has no faults of confusion. Having spoken of inner and outer, among the eighteen dhātu (realms), which are sabhāga (homogeneous), and which are visabhāga (heterogeneous)? The verse says: 'The dharmadhātu is homogeneous, the remaining two, perform or do not perform their own function.' The treatise says: The dharmadhātu is homogeneous, meaning that the dharmadhātu (realm of phenomena) is uniquely homogeneous. Now, we should first distinguish the characteristics of the homogeneous aspect of objects. If an object and consciousness are definitely objects of perception, such as the dharmadhātu, which is definitely an object of perception for consciousness, because it is uncommon. Consciousness has already arisen or will arise within it. This object of perception is called homogeneous. Manas (mind, intellect) can universally perceive all objects, and in the realms of the three times and non-worldly dharmas, there is no dharmadhātu in which boundless consciousness has not already, is not currently, or will not arise. Two moments of consciousness can universally perceive all dharmas. Therefore, the dharmadhātu is constantly called homogeneous. The remaining two refer to the remaining seventeen realms, which all have both homogeneous and heterogeneous aspects. What is called homogeneous, and what is called heterogeneous? It is performing one's own function and not performing one's own function. If it performs its own function, it is called homogeneous; if it does not perform its own function, it is called heterogeneous. Why are the eye and so on called both homogeneous and heterogeneous? Let's say that the homogeneous eye has three types, which are, in relation to rūpa (form, color), has already, is currently, or will be...
見。彼同分眼。說有四種。謂此相違及不生法。西方諸師說有五種彼同分眼。謂不生法。復開為二。有識無識相差別故。如眼耳鼻舌身亦然。各于自境。應說自用。意界同分。說有三種。謂于所緣。已正當了。彼同分意。唯有一種。謂不生法。色界同分。說有三種。謂眼所見。已正當滅。彼同分色。說有四種。謂此相違及不生法。廣說乃至觸界亦爾。各對自根。應說自用。眼等六識依生不生。立二分故。如意界說。眼若於一是同分。于餘一切亦同分。此若於一是彼同分。于餘一切亦彼同分。廣說乃至意界亦爾。色即不然。于見者是同分。于不見者是彼同分。或有諸色。在妙高等山中而住。於一切有情。皆是彼同分。有天眼者。以無用故亦不觀彼。或有諸色。唯於一有情名為同分。如獨于私隱已正當觀。或有諸色。于百千有情名為同分。如共觀月舞相撲等色。復有何緣說眼同分及彼同分異於色耶。容多有情同見一色。無用一眼二有情觀。聲如色說。是共境故。香味觸三。如內界說。非共境故。然諸世間。依假名想。有言我等同嗅此香同嘗此味同覺此觸。云何同分彼同分義。分謂交涉。同有此分故名同分。云何交涉。謂根境識更相交涉。即是展轉相隨順義。或復分者。是已作用更相交涉。故先說言。若作自業名為同分。或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『見』（Dṛṣṭi）。與『彼同分眼』（tadbhāga-cakṣus）相關，有四種說法。即『此相違』（viruddha）以及『不生法』（anutpāda）。西方學者認為有五種『彼同分眼』，即『不生法』，又將其分為兩種，因為有『有識』（savijñāna）和『無識』（avijñāna）的差別。如同眼、耳、鼻、舌、身一樣，各自對於自己的境界，應該說明其作用。『意界同分』（mana-dhātu-sabhāga）有三種說法，即對於所緣，『已了』（atīta）、『正了』（anāgata）、『當了』（pratyutpanna）。『彼同分意』（tadbhāga-manas）只有一種，即『不生法』。 『同分』（sabhāga）有三種說法，即眼睛所見的，『已滅』（atīta）、『正滅』（anāgata）、『當滅』（pratyutpanna）。『彼同分色』（tadbhāga-rūpa）有四種說法，即『此相違』以及『不生法』。廣而言之，乃至『觸界』（spraṣṭavya-dhātu）也是如此。各自對應于自己的根，應該說明其作用。眼等六識依據生起與不生起，建立兩種分類，如同『意界』的說法。 如果眼對於一個是『同分』，那麼對於其餘一切也是『同分』。如果此對於一個是『彼同分』，那麼對於其餘一切也是『彼同分』。廣而言之，乃至『意界』也是如此。『色』（rūpa）則不然，對於見者是『同分』，對於不見者是『彼同分』。或者有些色，存在於『妙高』（Sumeru）等山中，對於一切有情，都是『彼同分』。即使有天眼者，因為沒有用處，也不會觀看它們。或者有些色，僅僅對於一個有情名為『同分』，例如獨自於私下已正當觀看的。或者有些色，對於百千有情名為『同分』，例如共同觀看月亮、舞蹈、相撲等色。 又是什麼緣故說『眼同分』和『彼同分』不同於『色』呢？因為可以有很多有情共同看見一個色，而沒有一個眼睛被兩個有情觀看的情況。聲音如同色一樣，因為是共同的境界。香、味、觸三種，如同內界所說，因為不是共同的境界。然而世間的人們，依據假名想，有說『我們共同嗅到此香，共同嚐到此味，共同覺到此觸』。什麼是『同分』和『彼同分』的意義呢？『分』（bhāga）是指交涉。共同有此『分』，所以名為『同分』。什麼是交涉呢？是指根、境、識更相交涉，也就是輾轉相隨順的意義。或者『分』是指已經作用的更相交涉，所以先前說，如果作為自己的業，名為『同分』。
【English Translation】 English version 『Seeing』 (Dṛṣṭi). Related to 『that-same-category-eye』 (tadbhāga-cakṣus), there are four kinds of statements. Namely, 『this contradictory』 (viruddha) and 『non-arising dharma』 (anutpāda). Western scholars believe there are five kinds of 『that-same-category-eye』, namely 『non-arising dharma』, which is further divided into two, because there are differences between 『with consciousness』 (savijñāna) and 『without consciousness』 (avijñāna). Just like the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, each should explain its function in relation to its own realm. 『Mind-element-same-category』 (mana-dhātu-sabhāga) has three kinds of statements, namely, for the object of perception, 『already perceived』 (atīta), 『being perceived』 (anāgata), 『about to be perceived』 (pratyutpanna). 『That-same-category-mind』 (tadbhāga-manas) has only one kind, namely 『non-arising dharma』. 『Same-category』 (sabhāga) has three kinds of statements, namely, what the eye sees, 『already ceased』 (atīta), 『being ceased』 (anāgata), 『about to cease』 (pratyutpanna). 『That-same-category-form』 (tadbhāga-rūpa) has four kinds of statements, namely 『this contradictory』 and 『non-arising dharma』. Broadly speaking, even up to the 『touch-element』 (spraṣṭavya-dhātu) is the same. Each corresponding to its own root, its function should be explained. The six consciousnesses of the eye, etc., establish two categories based on arising and non-arising, just like the statement of the 『mind-element』. If the eye is 『same-category』 for one thing, then it is 『same-category』 for everything else. If this is 『that-same-category』 for one thing, then it is 『that-same-category』 for everything else. Broadly speaking, even up to the 『mind-element』 is the same. 『Form』 (rūpa) is not like this; for the seer, it is 『same-category』, and for the non-seer, it is 『that-same-category』. Or some forms exist in mountains like 『Mount Sumeru』 (Sumeru), and for all sentient beings, they are 『that-same-category』. Even those with heavenly eyes will not look at them because they are useless. Or some forms are called 『same-category』 only for one sentient being, such as those that are being properly viewed privately and secretly. Or some forms are called 『same-category』 for hundreds of thousands of sentient beings, such as jointly viewing the moon, dancing, sumo wrestling, and other forms. Moreover, what is the reason for saying that 『eye-same-category』 and 『that-same-category』 are different from 『form』? Because many sentient beings can jointly see one form, but there is no situation where one eye is seen by two sentient beings. Sound is like form because it is a shared realm. The three, smell, taste, and touch, are like what is said about the inner realm because they are not shared realms. However, people in the world, based on assumed names, say 『we jointly smell this fragrance, jointly taste this flavor, jointly feel this touch』. What is the meaning of 『same-category』 and 『that-same-category』? 『Category』 (bhāga) refers to interaction. Jointly having this 『category』 is called 『same-category』. What is interaction? It refers to the root, object, and consciousness interacting with each other, which is the meaning of mutually following each other in turn. Or 『category』 refers to the interaction of what has already functioned, so it was said earlier that if it acts as its own karma, it is called 『same-category』.
復分者。是所生觸。依根境識交涉生故。同有此分故名同分。即同有用同有觸義。與此相違名彼同分。由非同分與彼同分種類分同。名彼同分。云何與彼種類分同。謂此與彼同見等相。同處同界。互為因故。互相屬故。互相引故。種類分同。已說同分及彼同分。十八界中。幾見所斷。幾修所斷。幾非所斷。頌曰。
十五唯修斷 后三界通三 不染非六生 色定非見斷
論曰。十五界者。謂十色界及五識界。唯修斷者。此十五界唯修所斷。后三界者。意界法界及意識界。於六三中最後說故。通三者。謂此後三界各通三種。此中八十八隨眠。及彼相應心心所法。並彼諸得若彼生等。諸俱有法。皆見所斷所餘有漏。皆修所斷。一切無漏。皆非所斷。此中有說。最初聖道。剎那生時。諸異生性。一切皆得永不成就。是故此性。亦見所斷經說。預流得不墮法。非不永斷。能招惡趣身語意業。得盡惡趣。名不墮法。又說。我已盡那落迦。乃至廣說。儘是斷義。如阿羅漢。自記別言。我生已盡。是故染污能招惡趣身語業等。亦見所斷。皆與見道極相違故。為遮此說。復言不染。非六生色。定非見斷。其異生性。是不染污。無記性攝。此若染污。欲界異生。離欲貪已。應非異生。此成就得。依屬生身。是故不應生余界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『復分』（Punarabhāga，再次劃分）：是指所產生的觸（sparśa，感覺）。由於根（indriya，感官）、境（viṣaya，對像）和識（vijñāna，意識）相互作用而產生，並且共同具有這種劃分，因此稱為『同分』（sabhāga，共同部分），即共同有用和共同有觸的意思。與此相反的稱為『彼同分』（visabhāga，不同部分）。由於不是同分，而是與彼同分在種類上相同，所以稱為彼同分。如何與彼在種類上相同呢？就是指此與彼具有相同的見解等現象，處於相同的處所和界域，互為因，互相隸屬，互相牽引，所以在種類上相同。已經說了同分和彼同分。 在十八界（aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ，十八界）中，哪些是見所斷（darśana-prahātavya，通過見道斷除的），哪些是修所斷（bhāvanā-prahātavya，通過修道斷除的），哪些是非所斷（aprahātavya，不斷除的）？頌文說： 『十五唯修斷，后三界通三，不染非六生，色定非見斷。』 論述說：『十五界』是指十色界（daśa rūpa-dhātavaḥ，十種色界）和五識界（pañca vijñāna-kāyāḥ，五種識界）。『唯修斷』是指這十五界僅僅是修所斷。『后三界』是指意界（mano-dhātu，意界）、法界（dharma-dhātu，法界）和意識界（mano-vijñāna-dhātu，意識界）。因為在六三中最後說，所以說『通三』，是指這后三界各自貫通三種。這其中，八十八隨眠（aṣṭāśīti anuśayāḥ，八十八種隨眠）以及與它們相應的心和心所法（citta-caitta dharmāḥ，心和心所法），以及它們的諸獲得（prāpti，獲得），如果它們產生等等，諸俱有法（sahabhūta dharma，同時存在的法），都是見所斷，其餘的有漏法（sāsrava dharma，有煩惱的法）都是修所斷，一切無漏法（anāsrava dharma，無煩惱的法）都是非所斷。這裡有人說，最初的聖道（ārya-mārga，聖道）剎那生起時，諸異生性（pṛthag-jana-tva，凡夫性）的一切都得到永不成就，因此這種性質也是見所斷。經中說，預流（srota-āpanna，預流果）獲得不墮落法（avinipāta-dharma，不墮落法），並非不永遠斷除能招致惡趣（durgati，惡道）的身語意業（kāya-vāṅ-manas-karma，身語意業）。斷盡惡趣，名為不墮落法。又說，『我已經斷盡那落迦（naraka，地獄）』，乃至廣說。『盡』就是斷的意思。如同阿羅漢（arhat，阿羅漢）自己記別說，『我生已盡』。因此，染污的能招致惡趣的身語業等，也是見所斷，因為它們與見道極其相違背。爲了遮止這種說法，又說『不染非六生，色定非見斷』。其異生性是不染污的，屬於無記性（avyākṛta，非善非惡）。如果它是染污的，那麼欲界（kāma-dhātu，欲界）的異生，在離開欲貪（kāma-rāga，欲貪）之後，就不應該是異生了。這種成就的獲得，依屬於所生的身體，因此不應該生於其他界。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Punarabhāga' (復分, re-division): Refers to the arising of 'sparśa' (觸, contact/sensation). Because it arises from the interaction of 'indriya' (根, sense faculties), 'viṣaya' (境, objects), and 'vijñāna' (識, consciousness), and because it shares this division, it is called 'sabhāga' (同分, common part), meaning having common use and common contact. That which is contrary to this is called 'visabhāga' (彼同分, different part). Because it is not a common part, but is the same in kind as the different part, it is called the different part. How is it the same in kind as that? It means that this and that have the same phenomena such as views, are in the same place and realm, are causes for each other, belong to each other, and attract each other, so they are the same in kind. The common part and the different part have already been discussed. Among the 'aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ' (十八界, eighteen elements), which are 'darśana-prahātavya' (見所斷, abandoned by seeing), which are 'bhāvanā-prahātavya' (修所斷, abandoned by cultivation), and which are 'aprahātavya' (非所斷, not abandoned)? The verse says: 'Fifteen are only abandoned by cultivation, the last three elements are connected to the three, the non-defiled and non-six-born, form and samadhi are definitely not abandoned by seeing.' The treatise says: 'Fifteen elements' refers to the ten 'rūpa-dhātavaḥ' (色界, form elements) and the five 'vijñāna-kāyāḥ' (識界, consciousness elements). 'Only abandoned by cultivation' means that these fifteen elements are only abandoned by cultivation. 'The last three elements' refers to 'mano-dhātu' (意界, mind element), 'dharma-dhātu' (法界, dharma element), and 'mano-vijñāna-dhātu' (意識界, mind-consciousness element). Because it is said last among the six threes, it is said 'connected to the three', meaning that these last three elements each connect to the three. Among these, the 'aṣṭāśīti anuśayāḥ' (八十八隨眠, eighty-eight latent tendencies) and the mind and mental factors ('citta-caitta dharmāḥ', 心心所法) corresponding to them, as well as their attainments ('prāpti', 獲得), if they arise, etc., all co-existent dharmas ('sahabhūta dharma', 俱有法) are abandoned by seeing, the remaining defiled dharmas ('sāsrava dharma', 有漏法) are abandoned by cultivation, and all undefiled dharmas ('anāsrava dharma', 無漏法) are not abandoned. Here, some say that when the first 'ārya-mārga' (聖道, noble path) arises in an instant, all of the 'pṛthag-jana-tva' (異生性, state of being an ordinary being) is attained and never accomplished, so this nature is also abandoned by seeing. The sutra says that 'srota-āpanna' (預流, stream-enterer) obtains the 'avinipāta-dharma' (不墮落法, non-falling dharma), not that they do not permanently abandon the 'kāya-vāṅ-manas-karma' (身語意業, body, speech, and mind karma) that can cause evil destinies ('durgati', 惡趣). Exhausting evil destinies is called non-falling dharma. It also says, 'I have exhausted 'naraka' (那落迦, hell)', and so on. 'Exhausted' means abandoned. Just as an 'arhat' (阿羅漢, arhat) himself declares, 'My birth is exhausted'. Therefore, defiled body, speech, and mind karma that can cause evil destinies, etc., are also abandoned by seeing, because they are extremely contrary to the path of seeing. To prevent this statement, it is also said 'the non-defiled and non-six-born, form and samadhi are definitely not abandoned by seeing'. The state of being an ordinary being is undefiled and belongs to the uncharacterized nature ('avyākṛta', 無記性). If it were defiled, then an ordinary being in the desire realm ('kāma-dhātu', 欲界), after leaving desire-greed ('kāma-rāga', 欲貪), should not be an ordinary being. This attainment of accomplishment depends on the body that is born, so it should not be born in other elements.
地成余界地諸異生性。此若是善斷善根者。應非異生。故不染污無記性攝。既不染污非見所斷。若見所斷應忍所斷。若忍所斷。忍正起時。猶應成就則應聖者亦是異生。又不染法。定非見斷。緣彼煩惱。究竟斷時。方名斷故。又非六生。亦非見斷。六謂意處。異此而生。名非六生。是從眼等五根生義。即五識等。緣色等境。外門轉故。非見所斷。又諸色法。若染不染。亦非見斷。如不染法。緣彼煩惱。究竟斷時。方名斷故。斷義云何。略有二種。一離縛斷二離境斷。離縛斷者。如契經言。于無內眼結如實了知我無內眼結。離境斷者。如契經言。汝等苾芻。若能于眼斷欲貪者。是則名為眼得永斷。阿毗達磨諸大論師。依彼次第。立二種斷。一自性斷。二所緣斷。若法是結及一果等。對治生時。于彼得斷。名自性斷。由彼斷故於所緣事。便得離系。不必于中得不成就。名所緣斷。此中一切。若有漏色。若不染污。有漏無色。及彼諸得生等法上。有見所斷及修所斷。諸結所繫。如是諸結。漸次斷時。於一一品各別體上。起離系得時彼諸結及一果等。皆名已斷。彼有漏色。及不染污。有漏無色。並彼諸得生等法上。諸離系得。爾時未起。未名為斷。由彼諸法唯隨彼地最後無間道所斷故。非諸見道。能隨地別次第離染。云何能斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 地界（Dhatu，構成要素）中，屬於異生性（Prthag-janatva，凡夫的性質）的那些部分，如果已經通過善根（Kusala-mula，善的根源）被徹底斷除，那麼就不應該再是異生了。因此，這些部分不屬於不染污無記性（Avyakrta，非善非惡的性質）。既然不染污，就不是見所斷（Darsana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）。如果是見所斷，就應該是忍所斷（Ksanti-heya，通過忍位斷除的煩惱）。如果是忍所斷，那麼在忍正起的時候，仍然應該成就（Siddha，獲得），這樣聖者（Arya，已證悟者）也應該還是異生了。而且，不染污法（Anasrava-dharma，無漏法）肯定不是見所斷的，因為對它們的煩惱，只有在究竟斷除的時候，才叫做斷除。 此外，非六生（Na-sadayatana，非六處所生）也不是見所斷的。六生指的是意處（Manayatana，意識的場所），與此不同而生的，叫做非六生，指的是從眼等五根（Indriya，感覺器官）所生的，也就是五識（Vijnana，感覺意識）等。因為它們緣於色等境界（Visaya，對像），在外門（Bahya-dvara，外部通道）運轉。所以不是見所斷的。還有，諸色法（Rupa-dharma，色法的性質），無論是染污的還是不染污的，都不是見所斷的。就像不染污法一樣，對它們的煩惱，只有在究竟斷除的時候，才叫做斷除。 斷除的意義是什麼呢？略有二種：一是離縛斷（Vimoksa-prahana，解脫束縛的斷除），二是離境斷（Visaya-prahana，脫離境界的斷除）。離縛斷，如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『于無內眼結（Antar-acaksur-samyojana，內在的眼結）如實了知我無內眼結』。離境斷，如契經所說：『汝等苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘），若能于眼斷欲貪者（Raga-trsna，貪慾），是則名為眼得永斷』。 阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）的諸大論師，依據這些次第，立二種斷：一是自性斷（Svabhava-prahana，自性上的斷除），二是所緣斷（Alambana-prahana，所緣境上的斷除）。如果某個法是結（Samyojana，煩惱的束縛）以及結的果等，當對治（Pratipaksa，對抗煩惱的方法）生起時，對它得到斷除，叫做自性斷。由於這個斷除，對於所緣的事物，便能得到離系（Visamyoga，脫離繫縛），不必在其中得不到成就，叫做所緣斷。 這裡的一切，如果有漏色（Sasrava-rupa，有煩惱的色法），或者不染污的有漏無色（Sasrava-arupa，有煩惱的無色法），以及它們的諸得（Prapti，獲得）、生（Jati，產生）等法上，有見所斷和修所斷（Bhavana-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的諸結所繫縛，那麼當這些結漸次斷除時，在每一個品類（Bhaga，部分）的各個體上，生起離系得（Visamyoga-prapti，脫離繫縛的獲得）的時候，這些結以及結的果等，都叫做已斷。那些有漏色，以及不染污的有漏無色，並它們的諸得、生等法上，諸離系得，在那個時候還沒有生起，還不能叫做斷，因為這些法僅僅隨著那個地（Bhumi，層次）的最後無間道（Anantarya-marga，直接通往解脫的道路）所斷除。不是諸見道（Darsana-marga，見道）能夠隨著地別的次第離染。那麼，如何能夠斷除呢？
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the nature of beings different from the realm of becoming (Prthag-janatva, the state of being an ordinary being) within the realm of existence (Dhatu, element), if these have been thoroughly severed by wholesome roots (Kusala-mula, roots of virtue), then they should no longer be considered beings different from the realm of becoming. Therefore, these are not included in the category of indeterminate and unpolluted (Avyakrta, neither wholesome nor unwholesome). Since they are unpolluted, they are not severed by view (Darsana-heya, to be abandoned by seeing the truth). If they were to be severed by view, they should be severed by forbearance (Ksanti-heya, to be abandoned by patience). If they were to be severed by forbearance, then when forbearance arises, it should still be accomplished (Siddha, accomplished), and thus even the noble ones (Arya, those who have attained enlightenment) would still be beings different from the realm of becoming. Furthermore, unpolluted dharmas (Anasrava-dharma, undefiled phenomena) are definitely not severed by view, because the afflictions related to them are only called severed when they are ultimately cut off. Moreover, that which is not born from the six sense bases (Na-sadayatana, not arising from the six sense spheres) is also not severed by view. The six sense bases refer to the mind base (Manayatana, the sphere of mind); that which arises differently from this is called not born from the six sense bases, referring to that which arises from the five sense organs (Indriya, sensory faculties) such as the eye. That is, the five consciousnesses (Vijnana, sensory consciousnesses) and so on, because they operate through the external gates (Bahya-dvara, external gateways) in relation to objects such as form (Visaya, object). Therefore, they are not severed by view. Furthermore, all form dharmas (Rupa-dharma, phenomena of form), whether polluted or unpolluted, are not severed by view. Just like unpolluted dharmas, the afflictions related to them are only called severed when they are ultimately cut off. What is the meaning of severance? Briefly, there are two types: one is severance through liberation from bondage (Vimoksa-prahana, abandonment through liberation), and the other is severance through separation from objects (Visaya-prahana, abandonment through separation from objects). Severance through liberation from bondage is as stated in the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture): 'Having truly understood that there is no internal eye-fetter (Antar-acaksur-samyojana, internal eye-fetter), I have no internal eye-fetter.' Severance through separation from objects is as stated in the Sutra: 'Bhikkhus (Bhikkhu, Buddhist monks), if you can sever desire and craving (Raga-trsna, desire and craving) for the eye, then it is called the eye being permanently severed.' The great Abhidharma (Abhidharma, Buddhist philosophical treatises) masters, based on this sequence, establish two types of severance: one is severance by nature (Svabhava-prahana, abandonment by nature), and the other is severance by object (Alambana-prahana, abandonment by object). If a dharma is a fetter (Samyojana, bond) and the result of a fetter, when the antidote (Pratipaksa, counterforce) arises, the severance obtained from it is called severance by nature. Because of this severance, one can attain detachment (Visamyoga, detachment) from the object, without necessarily failing to achieve it, which is called severance by object. Here, everything, whether it is polluted form (Sasrava-rupa, form with outflows), or unpolluted formless (Sasrava-arupa, formless with outflows), along with their attainments (Prapti, acquisition), arising (Jati, birth), and other dharmas, which are bound by the fetters to be severed by view and to be severed by cultivation (Bhavana-heya, to be abandoned by cultivation), when these fetters are gradually severed, at the moment when detachment is obtained on each individual entity of each category (Bhaga, part), these fetters and the results of the fetters are all called severed. Those polluted forms, and unpolluted formless, along with their attainments, arising, and other dharmas, the detachments have not yet arisen at that time, and cannot yet be called severed, because these dharmas are only severed by the final uninterrupted path (Anantarya-marga, path of immediate proximity) of that realm (Bhumi, plane). It is not that the paths of seeing (Darsana-marga, path of seeing) can gradually detach from defilements according to the order of the realms. So, how can one sever them?
彼色等法。見聖諦者。諸惡趣法。眾緣𨵗故。已得不生。緣彼煩惱未斷盡故。猶未名斷。若法未斷已得不生。或不成就。此與已斷有何差別。斷據治道。令得離系。非謂不生。或不成就。且非不生。故名為斷。以不定故所以者何。或有已斷。而猶得生。如彼身中異熟果等。隨其所應。或有已斷。亦得不生如身見等。或有未斷。已得不生。如未離染聖者身中。無有愛等一切過去及未來世諸不生法。若諸無為。已得忍者。邪見等法。如是一切。或有未斷而亦得生。如所餘法。隨其所應。亦非不成。故名為斷。亦不定故。所以者何。或有已斷。而猶成就。如彼身中不染污法。隨其所應。諸染污法。彼若斷已。定不成就。或染污法。彼雖未斷。而不成就。如未離欲者得暖隨轉戒諸犯戒惡舍而未斷。最後無間道所斷故。非身語業九品漸斷。諸染污者。過亦少故。如是等類。或有未斷而亦成就。如所餘法。隨其所應。有餘師說。招惡趣等身語二業。非見所斷。親等起故。非見所斷。有餘於此說過難言。現見余品親所起業。余品道生。方能永斷。是故彼說。定不應理。此難不然。應審思故。亦見此品親等起業。此品道生。即能永斷。何不引此而證彼義。若見所斷。應彼親起。然不應以彼為定品。夫定品者。由非遍惑力所隔別。是故品
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對於色等法，證得聖諦的人，諸惡趣之法，由於眾緣和合的緣故，已經獲得不生。但因為導致這些惡趣之法的煩惱還沒有斷盡，所以還不能稱為已斷。如果有一種法，雖然未斷，卻已經獲得不生，或者不成就，那麼這與已斷有什麼區別呢？ 『斷』是根據能對治煩惱的道，使之獲得解脫繫縛的力量，而不是指不生或者不成就。暫且說它並非不生，所以稱為『斷』，因為這是不一定的。為什麼這麼說呢？ 或者有已經斷除的，但仍然會生起，比如身體中的異熟果等，隨其所應。或者有已經斷除的，也能夠不生起，比如身見等。或者有未斷除的，卻已經獲得不生，比如未離染的聖者身中，沒有愛等一切過去和未來世的諸不生之法。 如果諸無為法，已經獲得忍（Kṣānti，此處指對真理的確認），邪見等法也是如此。或者有未斷除的，卻也會生起，比如其餘的法，隨其所應。 也並非不成就，所以稱為『斷』，也是不一定的。為什麼這麼說呢？或者有已經斷除的，但仍然成就，比如身體中的不染污法，隨其所應。諸染污法，如果斷除之後，必定不會成就。或者染污法，雖然沒有斷除，卻不成就，比如未離欲者獲得暖位（Uṣmagata，佛教修行位階之一）時，隨之而轉的戒律，以及諸犯戒的惡舍（惡業的捨棄），雖然沒有斷除，但由於最後無間道（Anantarya-mārga，指證悟前的最後階段）所斷除的緣故，並非身語業的九品漸斷。諸染污者，過失也少。像這些情況。 或者有未斷除的，卻也成就，比如其餘的法，隨其所應。有其他老師說，招感惡趣的身語二業，不是見道所能斷除的，因為是親近等起（Pravṛtti，指行為的發生）的緣故，所以不是見道所斷。 有些人對此提出過難言論，說現在看到其餘品類的親近所起之業，需要其餘品類的道生起，才能永遠斷除。所以他們的說法，一定是不合理的。這種責難是不成立的，應該仔細思考。也看到此品類的親近等起之業，此品類的道生起，就能永遠斷除。為什麼不引用這個來證明那個道理呢？如果見道所斷，應該是它親近所起的，但不應該以它為定品（Niyata-prakṛti，指性質確定的事物）。所謂定品，是因為沒有被普遍的迷惑力量所隔斷，所以是品類。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding phenomena such as form (rūpa), for those who have seen the Noble Truths (ārya-satya), the phenomena leading to evil destinies (durgati), due to the aggregation of various conditions (pratyaya), have already attained non-arising. However, because the afflictions (kleśa) that cause these evil destinies have not been completely eradicated, they cannot yet be called 'severed'. If a phenomenon, though not severed, has already attained non-arising or non-accomplishment, what is the difference between this and what is severed? 'Severance' (uccheda) is based on the path (mārga) that counteracts afflictions, enabling liberation (vimoksha) from bondage (bandhana), not merely referring to non-arising or non-accomplishment. Let's say it is not non-arising, hence it is called 'severance', because it is uncertain. Why is this so? Perhaps there are things that have been severed but still arise, such as the results of maturation (vipāka-phala) in the body, as appropriate. Or there are things that have been severed and also do not arise, such as the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi). Or there are things that have not been severed but have already attained non-arising, such as in the body of a non-detached noble one (vītarāga-ārya), there are no non-arising phenomena such as craving (tṛṣṇā) in all past and future lives. If the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) has already attained acceptance (kṣānti), so too are phenomena such as wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi). Or there are things that have not been severed but also arise, such as other phenomena, as appropriate. It is also not non-accomplishment, hence it is called 'severance', and it is also uncertain. Why is this so? Perhaps there are things that have been severed but are still accomplished, such as non-defiled (anāsrava) phenomena in the body, as appropriate. If defiled phenomena (sāsrava-dharma) are severed, they will definitely not be accomplished. Or defiled phenomena, though not severed, are not accomplished, such as when one who has not abandoned desire (vītarāga) obtains the stage of warmth (uṣmagata), the precepts (śīla) that follow, and the evil abandonment (akuśala-prahāṇa) of breaking precepts, though not severed, are severed by the final uninterrupted path (anantarya-mārga), not the gradual severance of the nine grades of body and speech karma. For defiled ones, the faults are also few. Such are these cases. Or there are things that have not been severed but are also accomplished, such as other phenomena, as appropriate. Some teachers say that the karma of body and speech that leads to evil destinies is not severed by the path of seeing (darśana-mārga), because it arises from close engagement (pravṛtti), so it is not severed by the path of seeing. Some have raised difficult arguments against this, saying that it is now seen that the karma arising from close engagement of other categories requires the arising of the path of other categories to be permanently severed. Therefore, their statement is certainly unreasonable. This objection is not valid and should be carefully considered. It is also seen that the karma arising from close engagement of this category can be permanently severed by the arising of the path of this category. Why not use this to prove that principle? If it is severed by the path of seeing, it should arise from its close engagement, but it should not be considered a fixed category (niyata-prakṛti). A fixed category is one that is not separated by the power of pervasive delusion (sarvatraga-moha), hence it is a category.
別。雖有十三。而說五門。以為定品。由是證知。身語二業。若此品親起即此品俱斷此業。既非見所斷惑親等起故。非見所斷。是故彼說非不應理。而契經言。諸邪見者。所起身業語業意業。皆是邪者。此不相違。經但說言。諸邪見者所起三業。不言邪見所起三業。或由邪見。起修所斷。貪等煩惱。為因等起。發起此業。故作是說。然修所斷。貪等煩惱。能為近因剎那等起。發起此業。故說有漏身語二業。唯修所斷。又契經中說預流者言。我已盡那落迦等。此說于彼得非擇滅。永不更生。故名為盡。此中有難。若未來法。永不更生。說名盡者。此不生法。其相如何。應如過去名不滅法。然于彼時。全未有體。如何可說彼是生法或不生法。彼應思擇。法于未來。為有為無。可作是難。又彼應詰世尊所言。如說未生惡不善法遮令不生。又言。此滅余更不續。復說遮止名斷諸漏。於此等言。亦應難詰。然于彼時。全未有體。如何可說不生不續及與遮止。或此相違。是故所說永不更生。故名為盡。非不應理。又如斷言。義有差別。盡言亦爾。不可例同。如契經說。能斷財蘊。或少或多。又言。能斷殺生等事。此亦應然。不可為例。又經雖說見諦圓滿補特伽羅。終不故思斷眾生命。乃至廣說。此亦不能證成色業是見所斷。由此經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 別。雖有十三（十三種煩惱）。而說五門（五種修行方法）。以為定品（確定品類）。由此可以證明，身業和語業，如果是此品（指某種煩惱）直接引發的，那麼此品斷除時，此業也隨之斷除。既然不是由見所斷的迷惑直接引發，就不是見所斷。所以他們的說法並非沒有道理。而契經上說，『那些持有邪見的人，所起身業、語業、意業，都是邪惡的』，這並不矛盾。經文只是說『那些持有邪見的人所起的三業』，而不是說『邪見所起的三業』。或者由於邪見，生起修所斷的貪等煩惱，作為因等而引發這些業。所以這樣說。然而修所斷的貪等煩惱，能作為近因，在剎那間引發這些業。所以說有漏的身語二業，唯有修所斷。還有，契經中說預流者（Sotapanna，入流果）說：『我已經斷盡了那落迦（Naraka，地獄）等』。這是說對於他們來說，獲得了非擇滅（Asamkhata-nirodha，非擇滅），永遠不再生於其中，所以稱為斷盡。這裡有一個疑問，如果未來法，永遠不再生起，說成是斷盡，那麼這種不生法，它的相狀是什麼樣的呢？應該像過去的不滅法一樣。然而在那個時候，完全沒有實體，如何可以說它是生法或不生法呢？應該思考，法在未來，是有還是無，可以這樣發難。而且他們應該詰問世尊（釋迦摩尼佛）所說，比如『阻止未生的惡不善法，使之不生』，又說『此滅之後，其餘不再相續』，又說阻止稱為斷盡諸漏（Asava，煩惱）。對於這些話，也應該詰問。然而在那個時候，完全沒有實體，如何可以說不生、不續以及阻止呢？或者這互相矛盾。所以說永遠不再生起，所以稱為斷盡，並非沒有道理。而且如同『斷』這個詞，意義有差別，『盡』這個詞也是一樣，不可以同樣看待。如同契經上說，『能夠斷除財物，或多或少』，又說『能夠斷除殺生等事』，這也應該如此，不可以作為例子。又經上雖然說見諦圓滿的補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅），終究不會故意思考斷眾生命，乃至廣說。這也無法證明色業是見所斷。由此經文
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, although there are thirteen (thirteen kinds of afflictions), it speaks of five doors (five methods of practice) to determine the categories. From this, it can be proven that physical and verbal actions, if directly caused by this category (referring to a certain affliction), then when this category is eliminated, these actions are also eliminated. Since it is not directly caused by delusions that are severed by view, it is not severed by view. Therefore, their argument is not unreasonable. However, the sutras say, 'Those who hold wrong views, their physical, verbal, and mental actions are all evil.' This is not contradictory. The sutra only says 'the three actions arising from those who hold wrong views,' not 'the three actions arising from wrong views.' Or, due to wrong views, afflictions such as greed, which are severed by cultivation, arise as causes and conditions, leading to these actions. That is why it is said this way. However, afflictions such as greed, which are severed by cultivation, can serve as the proximate cause, instantly arising and leading to these actions. Therefore, it is said that defiled physical and verbal actions are only severed by cultivation. Moreover, the sutra says that a Sotapanna (stream-enterer) says, 'I have exhausted Naraka (hell) and others.' This means that for them, they have attained Asamkhata-nirodha (unconditioned cessation), and will never be reborn there again, hence it is called exhaustion. Here is a question: if a future dharma (phenomenon) will never arise again, and is said to be exhausted, then what is the nature of this non-arising dharma? It should be like the past non-extinguished dharma. However, at that time, there is no substance at all, how can it be said to be an arising or non-arising dharma? It should be considered whether the dharma in the future is existent or non-existent; this question can be raised. Moreover, they should question what the World Honored One (Sakyamuni Buddha) said, such as 'Preventing unarisen evil and unwholesome dharmas from arising,' and also saying 'After this ceases, the rest will not continue,' and also preventing, which is called exhausting the Asava (defilements). For these words, they should also question. However, at that time, there is no substance at all, how can it be said to be non-arising, non-continuing, and preventing? Or this is contradictory. Therefore, saying that it will never arise again, hence it is called exhaustion, is not unreasonable. Moreover, just as the word 'severance' has different meanings, so does the word 'exhaustion,' and they cannot be regarded as the same. Just as the sutra says, 'Able to sever wealth, whether little or much,' and also says 'Able to sever killing and other actions,' this should also be the case, and cannot be taken as an example. Furthermore, although the sutra says that a Pudgala (person) who has perfected the vision of truth will never intentionally think of killing living beings, and so on. This also cannot prove that form-karma is severed by view. From this sutra
中說阿羅漢同此言故。然此經中。以初學者定無重惡意樂隨逐。故作是說。諸阿羅漢。斷彼近因。種類斯盡。故作是說。是故諸經。非證彼義。由此不染非六生色定非見斷。其理極成。如是已說見所斷等。十八界中。幾是見。幾非見。頌曰。
眼法界一分 八種說名見 五識俱生慧 非見不度故 眼見色同分 非彼能依識 傳說不能觀 被障諸色故
論曰。眼全是見。法界一分八種是見。余皆非見。何等為八。謂身見等。五染污見。世間正見。有學正見。無學正見。於法界中。此八是見。所餘非見。一切法中。唯有二法。是見自體。有色法中。唯眼是見。無色法中。行相明利。推度境界。內門轉慧。是見非余。此中眼相。如前已說。世間共了。觀照色故。闇相違故。用明利故。說眼名見。五染污見。隨眠品中當辯其相。世間正見。謂意識相應善有漏勝慧。有學正見。謂有學身中一切無漏慧。無學正見。謂無學身中決定無漏慧。一正見言具攝三種。別開三者。為顯異生學無學地三見別故。又顯漸次修習生故。譬如夜分無月等明雲霧晦冥而游險阻。所見色像無非顛倒。五染污見。觀法亦爾。譬如夜分有月等明除諸晦冥而游險阻。所見色像少分明凈。世間正見。觀法亦爾。譬如晝分雲翳上升掩蔽日
輪而游平坦。所見色像漸增明凈。有學正見。觀法亦爾。譬如晝分烈日舒光氛霧廓清而游平坦。所見色像最極明凈。無學正見。觀法亦爾。如如行者漸習慧生。除自心中愚闇差別。如是如是。于諸所緣。正見漸增明凈有異。非所緣境。有凈不凈。由自覺慧垢障有無。故謂所緣有凈不凈。如是諸見。總類有五。一無記類。二染污類。三善有漏類。四有學類。五無學類。無記類中。眼根是見。耳等諸根。一切無覆無記慧等。悉皆非見。染污類中。五見是見。余染污慧。悉皆非見。謂貪瞋慢不共無明疑俱生慧。余染污法。亦皆非見。有學類中。無慧非見。但余非見。無學類中。盡無生智及余非見。余無學慧一切是見。善有漏類中。唯意識相應善慧是見。余皆非見有餘師說。意識相應善有漏慧。亦有非見。謂五識身所引發慧。發有表慧。命終時慧。又於此善有漏類中。五識俱生慧亦非見。何緣如是所遮諸慧。皆非見耶。不決度故。唯有如前所說慧相。是見自體。謂無色中。行相明利。推度境界。內門轉慧。是見非余。唯此相慧。有決度能。于所緣境。審慮轉故。非所遮慧能于所緣審慮決度。是故非見。言決度者。謂于境界。審慮為先。抉擇究竟。若爾眼根既無此相應不名見。豈不先說。世間共了觀照色故。闇相違故。用明利故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 像輪子在平坦的地面上滾動一樣，所見的色像逐漸增多且明亮清晰。有學位的正見（Sravaka-jnana，聲聞智），觀察法也是如此。譬如在白天，強烈的陽光碟機散了霧氣，在平坦的地面上行走，所見的色像極其明亮清晰。無學位的正見（Arhat-jnana，阿羅漢智），觀察法也是如此。像這樣修行的人逐漸習慣，智慧增長，去除自身心中的愚昧和黑暗的差別。像這樣，對於各種所緣境，正見逐漸增多，明亮清晰且不同。不是所緣境本身有清凈或不清凈，而是由於自覺的智慧有垢障或沒有垢障，所以才說所緣境有清凈或不清凈。 像這樣，各種見解總共有五類：一是無記類（Avyakrta，非善非惡），二是染污類（Klista，煩惱），三是善有漏類（Kusala-sasrava，善但有煩惱），四是有學類（Saiksa，仍在學習），五是無學類（Asaiksa，已完成學習）。在無記類中，眼根是見。耳根等其他諸根，以及一切無覆無記的智慧等，都不是見。在染污類中，五見（五種錯誤的見解，即身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）是見，其餘染污的智慧都不是見。也就是貪、嗔、慢、不共無明（與生俱來的無明）、疑（懷疑）俱生的智慧。其餘染污法，也都不是見。在有學類中，沒有智慧就不是見，但其餘的不是見。在無學類中，盡智（Ksayajnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）和無生智（Anutpadajnana，不再產生煩惱的智慧）以及其餘的不是見，其餘的無學智慧都是見。在善有漏類中，只有與意識相應的善慧是見，其餘都不是見。有其他老師說，與意識相應的善有漏慧，也有不是見的，比如五識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）所引發的智慧，發有表慧（通過身體或語言表達的智慧），命終時的智慧。又在這種善有漏類中，與五識俱生的智慧也不是見。為什麼這些被遮止的智慧都不是見呢？因為它們不能決斷和衡量。只有像前面所說的智慧的相狀，才是見的自體，也就是在無色界中，行相明利，推度境界，在內心運作的智慧，才是見，其餘的不是。只有這種相狀的智慧，才有決斷的能力，對於所緣境，審慎考慮和運作。不是被遮止的智慧能夠對於所緣審慎考慮和決斷，所以不是見。所說的決斷，是指對於境界，以審慎考慮為先，抉擇到究竟。如果這樣，眼根既然沒有這種相應，就不叫見。難道不是先前說過，世間共同了知觀照色，因為與黑暗相違背，因為作用明利嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Like a wheel rolling on a flat surface, the perceived colors and forms gradually increase in number and become clearer and brighter. The Sravaka-jnana (wisdom of a disciple) with right view observes the Dharma in the same way. For example, during the daytime, the intense sunlight disperses the mist, and walking on a flat surface, the perceived colors and forms are extremely clear and bright. The Arhat-jnana (wisdom of an Arhat) with right view observes the Dharma in the same way. As practitioners become accustomed to this practice, their wisdom grows, removing the differences of ignorance and darkness from their minds. In this way, regarding various objects of perception, right view gradually increases, becoming clearer, brighter, and distinct. It is not that the objects of perception themselves are pure or impure, but because self-aware wisdom has or lacks defilements, it is said that the objects of perception are pure or impure. Thus, there are five general categories of views: first, the indeterminate (Avyakrta, neither good nor bad); second, the defiled (Klista, afflicted by passions); third, the wholesome with outflows (Kusala-sasrava, good but with afflictions); fourth, the learners (Saiksa, still learning); and fifth, the non-learners (Asaiksa, having completed learning). Among the indeterminate, the eye-faculty is seeing. The other faculties, such as the ear-faculty, and all un-obscured and indeterminate wisdom, etc., are not seeing. Among the defiled, the five views (the five erroneous views: self-view, extreme view, wrong view, view of holding to views, and view of holding to precepts and rituals) are seeing, but the remaining defiled wisdom is not seeing. That is, the wisdom born with greed, hatred, pride, unshared ignorance (innate ignorance), and doubt. The remaining defiled dharmas are also not seeing. Among the learners, without wisdom, there is no seeing, but the rest is not seeing. Among the non-learners, the Exhaustion-wisdom (Ksayajnana, wisdom of the exhaustion of afflictions) and Non-arising-wisdom (Anutpadajnana, wisdom of non-arising of afflictions) and the rest are not seeing, but the remaining non-learner wisdom is all seeing. Among the wholesome with outflows, only the wholesome wisdom associated with consciousness is seeing, and the rest is not seeing. Some other teachers say that the wholesome wisdom associated with consciousness also has what is not seeing, such as the wisdom induced by the five consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness), expressive wisdom (wisdom expressed through body or speech), and wisdom at the time of death. Also, in this category of wholesome with outflows, the wisdom born with the five consciousnesses is also not seeing. Why are these prohibited wisdoms not seeing? Because they do not decisively measure. Only the characteristics of wisdom as described earlier are the self-nature of seeing, that is, in the formless realm, the characteristics are clear and sharp, inferring the realm, the wisdom operating within the inner gate is seeing, and the rest is not. Only this characteristic of wisdom has the ability to decide, carefully considering and operating on the object of perception. The prohibited wisdom is not able to carefully consider and decide on the object of perception, so it is not seeing. The so-called decision refers to, regarding the realm, taking careful consideration as the first step, and decisively choosing to the end. If so, since the eye-faculty does not have this correspondence, it is not called seeing. Wasn't it said earlier that the world commonly knows to observe colors, because it is contrary to darkness, because its function is clear and sharp?
眼亦名見。契經亦言。眼見諸色。若眼見者。何不同時得一切境。無斯過失。許少分眼能見色故。少分者何。謂同分眼。同分眼相。如前已說。識所住持。乃成同分。非一切根同時自識各所住持。故無斯咎。若爾即應彼能依識是見非眼。要眼識生方能見故。不爾眼識力所住持。勝用生故。如依薪力勝用火生。若見色用是識生法。此見色用離眼應生。由識長益俱生大種。令起勝根。能見眾色。故不應說能依識見。誰有智者。當作是言。諸有因緣能生了別。如是了別。即彼因緣。識是見因。故非見體。何緣定知眼識非見。理教無故。言理無者。與耳等識無差別故。眼識與彼耳等諸識。有何差別。而獨名見。故不應言識為見體。若謂所依根差別故異余識者。理不應然。識由所依有差別故。但可想轉得眼識名。不應所依有差別故。法性改易。轉成見體。如依草木牛糞糠火。名雖改易。而暖性同。諸識相望。性類無別。言唯依眼識見非余。此說隨情不依正理。若此緣色故成見者。緣色意識亦應成見。唯緣現色故成見者。理亦不然。無異因故。緣三世境慧是見極成。緣去來色識。亦應成見。有去來識緣現色境。應許眾盲成現色見。若言意識非見體者。眼識亦應許體非見。非於一類少是見體少非見體。理不相違。如何一類。少分是善
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『眼』也被稱為『見』（dṛṣṭi，視覺）。經典（契經）中也說，『眼見諸色』。如果真的是眼睛在看，為什麼不能同時看到一切事物呢？不會有這種過失，因為只允許一部分眼睛能看到顏色。這一部分是什麼呢？就是『同分眼』。『同分眼』的相狀，前面已經說過了，是意識所住持，才能成為『同分』。不是所有的根都能同時各自認識自己所住持的。所以沒有這種過失。如果這樣說，那麼能依靠的意識應該是『見』，而不是眼睛了，因為要眼識產生才能看見。不是這樣的，是眼識的力量所住持，殊勝的作用才產生。就像依靠柴火的力量，殊勝的火才能產生。如果看見顏色的作用是識產生的，那麼這種看見顏色的作用離開眼睛也應該能產生。因為意識增長，和它一起產生的大種，使得殊勝的根產生，能看見各種顏色。所以不應該說能依靠的意識是『見』。誰有智慧會這樣說呢？凡是有因緣能產生了別的，這樣的了別，就是那個因緣。識是『見』的因，所以不是『見』的本體。憑什麼一定知道眼識不是『見』呢？因為沒有道理和教證。說沒有道理，是因為和耳識等沒有差別。眼識和耳識等有什麼差別，而唯獨被稱為『見』呢？所以不應該說識是『見』的本體。如果說因為所依靠的根不同，所以才和其他的識不同，道理上不應該是這樣。識因為所依靠的不同，所以可以想像轉變，得到眼識的名字。不應該因為所依靠的不同，法的性質就改變，轉變成『見』的本體。就像依靠草木、牛糞、糠、火，名字雖然改變，但是暖的性質相同。各種識相互比較，性質種類沒有差別。說只有依靠眼識才能看見，而不是其他的，這種說法是隨意的，不依據正理。如果因為緣于顏色，所以才成為『見』，那麼緣于顏色的意識也應該成為『見』。如果說只有緣于現在的顏色，所以才成為『見』，道理上也不對，因為沒有不同的原因。緣於三世境界的智慧是『見』，這是極度成立的。那麼緣於過去和未來的顏色的識，也應該成為『見』。如果有過去和未來的識緣于現在的顏色境界，就應該允許所有的盲人都能看見現在的顏色。如果說意識不是『見』的本體，那麼眼識也應該允許本體不是『見』。不能說在同一類事物中，少部分是『見』的本體，少部分不是『見』的本體，道理上不相違背。如何能說同一類事物，少部分是善的
【English Translation】 English version 『Eye』 is also called 『seeing』 (dṛṣṭi, vision). The sutras (契經) also say, 『The eye sees all colors.』 If it is truly the eye that sees, why can't it see everything at once? There is no such fault, because only a portion of the eye is allowed to see colors. What is this portion? It is the 『samāna-bhāga eye』 (同分眼, eye of similar category). The characteristics of the 『samāna-bhāga eye』 have been described earlier; it is that which is sustained by consciousness that becomes 『samāna-bhāga.』 Not all roots can simultaneously recognize what they each sustain. Therefore, there is no such fault. If that is the case, then the consciousness that relies on it should be 『seeing,』 not the eye, because seeing only occurs when eye-consciousness arises. It is not so; it is the power of eye-consciousness that sustains it, and thus a superior function arises. Just as relying on the power of firewood, a superior fire arises. If the function of seeing colors is produced by consciousness, then this function of seeing colors should also arise without the eye. Because as consciousness grows, the great elements that arise with it cause the superior root to arise, which can see various colors. Therefore, it should not be said that the consciousness that relies on it is 『seeing.』 Who with wisdom would say such a thing? Whatever has the causes and conditions to produce discernment, that discernment is that cause and condition. Consciousness is the cause of 『seeing,』 so it is not the essence of 『seeing.』 How can it be definitively known that eye-consciousness is not 『seeing』? Because there is no reason or scriptural proof. Saying there is no reason is because there is no difference from ear-consciousness, etc. What difference is there between eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness, etc., that it alone is called 『seeing』? Therefore, it should not be said that consciousness is the essence of 『seeing.』 If it is said that it is different from other consciousnesses because of the different root it relies on, that should not be the case. Because consciousness differs due to what it relies on, it can only be imagined to transform and gain the name of eye-consciousness. The nature of the dharma should not change and transform into the essence of 『seeing』 because of what it relies on. Just as relying on grass, wood, cow dung, chaff, and fire, the names change, but the nature of warmth is the same. Comparing various consciousnesses, their nature and kind are not different. Saying that only relying on eye-consciousness can see, and not others, is arbitrary and not based on correct reasoning. If it is because it is conditioned by color that it becomes 『seeing,』 then consciousness conditioned by color should also become 『seeing.』 If it is said that only being conditioned by present color makes it 『seeing,』 that is also not correct, because there is no different reason. Wisdom that is conditioned by the three times is 『seeing,』 which is extremely established. Then consciousness conditioned by past and future colors should also become 『seeing.』 If there are past and future consciousnesses conditioned by present color realms, then all blind people should be allowed to see present colors. If it is said that consciousness is not the essence of 『seeing,』 then eye-consciousness should also be allowed to not be the essence of 『seeing.』 It cannot be said that in the same category of things, a small part is the essence of 『seeing』 and a small part is not the essence of 『seeing,』 as there is no contradiction in principle. How can it be said that in the same category of things, a small part is good
少分非善。此亦應然。不應為例。體義別故。眼等諸識。體類雖同。而有善等義類差別。如火體義。了別境相識體類中。有凈非凈義類差別。名善非善。不可義類有差別故。即令體類亦有差別。如火雖有猛盛微劣。有煙無煙。待緣不同。義類差別。而其體類同無分別。暖為自性。如是諸識了別境相。體類雖同。而有善等義類差別。故所引例。不成救義。若謂諸識體類雖同而有見等義類別者。其理不然現是諸法體類別相。不應執為義類別故。非如善等遍通一切識等法故。如是且說無有因緣。眼識成見以辯理無。言教無者。謂無至教說眼識見令聞生解。處處經中。說眼及慧。名見可得。又說。眼識是見非眼。世間相違。世間但說無眼名盲。非無眼識。謂盲但由不成就眼。不由眼識成與不成。非生第二靜慮以上。于彼眼識不現前時有眼無識可名盲者。又諸盲者。雖𨵗眼根。而成眼識。應不名盲。亦復不應名無見者。若言見識不現前故。雖覆成就。而說為盲。是則世間。諸有目者。識不起位應亦名盲。又若眼識有能別相。令別余識得名見者。此能別相。即應是見。若此眼識。無能別相令別余識。而言眼識是見非余。應如惡王所頒教令。豈不如慧此亦爾耶。譬如諸慧擇法為相有時是見。亦是簡擇。有時非見。唯是簡擇。如是諸識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 少分不是好的例子。這個例子也應該如此，不應該作為例子。因為本體和意義不同。眼等各種識（vijñāna，了別作用）的本體種類雖然相同，但有善等意義種類的差別。比如火的本體和意義，在了別境相的識的種類中，有乾淨和不乾淨的意義差別，稱為善和非善。不能因為意義種類有差別，就認為本體種類也有差別。比如火雖然有猛烈、微弱，有煙、無煙，待緣不同等意義差別，但其本體種類相同，沒有分別，以暖為自性。像這樣，各種識了別境相，本體種類雖然相同，但有善等意義種類差別。所以所引用的例子，不能成立救義。 如果認為各種識的本體種類雖然相同，但有見（darśana，看見）等意義種類差別，這個道理是不成立的。現在這些法（dharma，事物）的本體種類差別是顯而易見的，不應該執著認為是意義種類差別。不像善等遍通一切識等法。像這樣，暫且說沒有因緣，眼識（cakṣur-vijñāna，視覺意識）成為見，以辯論道理上沒有。言教上沒有，是指沒有至教（決定性的教導）說眼識是見，令聽聞者生起理解。處處經中，說眼和慧（prajñā，智慧）名為見是可以得到的。又說，眼識是見，不是眼（cakṣus，眼睛）。這與世間常識相違背。世間只是說沒有眼睛叫做盲人，不是沒有眼識。所謂盲人，只是因為不成就眼睛，不是因為眼識成與不成。不是說生到第二禪定以上，在那個眼識不現前的時候，有眼無識可以叫做盲人。而且那些盲人，即使損壞了眼根（cakṣur-indriya，視覺器官），但成就了眼識，也不應該叫做盲人，也不應該叫做沒有看見的人。如果說見識不現前，即使成就了眼根，也說他是盲人。那麼世間所有有眼睛的人，在眼識不起作用的時候，也應該叫做盲人。還有，如果眼識有能夠區別的相，能夠區別于其他識而得名見，這個能夠區別的相，就應該是見。如果這個眼識，沒有能夠區別的相，能夠區別于其他識，卻說眼識是見，不是其他識，這應該就像惡王所頒佈的教令一樣。難道不像慧這樣嗎？比如各種慧，以選擇法為相，有時是見，也是簡擇（pravicaya，辨別），有時不是見，只是簡擇。像這樣，各種識。
【English Translation】 English version A small part is not a good example. This should also be the case; it should not be taken as an example because the essence and meaning are different. Although the essence of various vijñānas (consciousness, the function of discernment), such as eye-consciousness, is the same, there are differences in the meaning categories such as good. For example, the essence and meaning of fire, within the category of consciousness that discerns objects, there are differences in the meaning of clean and unclean, which are called good and not good. One cannot assume that the essence categories are also different just because the meaning categories are different. For example, although fire has differences in meaning such as being fierce, weak, smoky, and smokeless, depending on conditions, its essence category is the same, without distinction, with warmth as its nature. In this way, although the essence category of various consciousnesses that discern objects is the same, there are differences in meaning categories such as good. Therefore, the cited example cannot establish the meaning of salvation. If it is argued that although the essence category of various consciousnesses is the same, there are differences in meaning categories such as darśana (seeing), this reasoning is not valid. The differences in the essence categories of these dharmas (phenomena, things) are now obvious, and one should not insist that they are differences in meaning categories, unlike good, which pervades all consciousnesses and other dharmas. Thus, let us temporarily say that there is no cause or condition for eye-consciousness (cakṣur-vijñāna, visual consciousness) to become seeing, arguing that there is no such thing in reason. There is no such thing in verbal teaching, meaning there is no definitive teaching that says eye-consciousness is seeing, causing the listener to arise understanding. In various sutras, it is said that the eye (cakṣus, eye) and prajñā (wisdom) are called seeing and can be attained. Furthermore, it is said that eye-consciousness is seeing, not the eye. This contradicts worldly common sense. The world only says that not having eyes is called blindness, not not having eye-consciousness. So-called blindness is only because of not achieving the eye, not because of whether eye-consciousness is achieved or not. It is not said that those who are born in the second dhyana (meditative state) or above, when that eye-consciousness is not present, having eyes but no consciousness can be called blind. Moreover, those who are blind, even if they have damaged their eye-organ (cakṣur-indriya, visual organ), but have achieved eye-consciousness, should not be called blind, nor should they be called those who have not seen. If it is said that because seeing-consciousness is not present, even if the eye-organ is achieved, they are said to be blind, then all those in the world who have eyes should also be called blind when eye-consciousness is not functioning. Furthermore, if eye-consciousness has a distinguishing characteristic that can distinguish it from other consciousnesses and be named seeing, then this distinguishing characteristic should be seeing. If this eye-consciousness does not have a distinguishing characteristic that can distinguish it from other consciousnesses, but it is said that eye-consciousness is seeing, not other consciousnesses, this should be like a decree issued by an evil king. Is it not like prajñā? For example, various prajñās, with the characteristic of selecting dharmas, are sometimes seeing and also pravicaya (discrimination), and sometimes not seeing but only discrimination. Thus, various consciousnesses.
了境為相。有時是見。亦是了別。有時非見。唯是了別。由此即釋彼有難言。若識能見。誰復了別。許見與識無差別故。如是引例。理極不齊。由能別相令慧名見。此能別相。即是能見。非能別相令識名見。此能別相。即能見故。若能別相。即是見者。即所依眼。能見義成。識但由所依唯名有別故。或應說此定能別相。除所依根更有何法。唯眼識有耳等識無。又彼所言。如見與慧。見識亦爾。許無別者。亦應許識體即是慧。共許相應中見其體唯是慧故。又若見識無差別者。諸識應即見。見應即諸識。盲睡眠等。何緣不見。若謂爾時無眼識者。此亦不然。體類同故。此與余識體類何殊。余無見能。此獨能見。如斯等救。前已廣遮。或復一法應有二體。一體能識。一體能見。若非見體許能見者。即汝所宗。有太過失。若謂如慧能見能擇理不相違此亦然者。不爾見慧無差別故。豈不見識亦無差別。若爾有目應不異盲。何緣無目。成就眼識。得說為盲。而彼有目余識現前不名盲者。如此等過。前已廣論。是故定知眼識非見。復有餘師。以別道理。成立眼識定非是見。謂不能觀被障色故。然經主意。不忍彼因。故於頌中。摽傳說語。謂彼傳說。現見壁等所障諸色。則不能觀。若識見者。識無對故。壁等不礙應見障色。便詰答言。
于彼障色。眼識不生。識既不生。如何當見。此詰非理。眼識于彼。設許得生。亦不能見。前說余識無差別故。是故所言。于被障色。眼識不生。識既不生。如何見者。此不成答。又不應說于被障色眼識不生。理不成故。以難意言。若執眼識有見色用。識無對故。于被障色。應亦得生。若謂如識了別色用於被障色不得生者。理亦不然。此許眼識與有對眼一境轉故。若言我說亦同此者。汝不應然。不許眼見色為眼境理不成故。又何故說。識既不生。如何當見。生即是見。見即是生。若說識既不生如何當見。即說識既不生如何當生。或說識既不見如何當見。豈不於此應總難言。何故不生。何故不見。又若有執。一切因緣。皆唯前生。無俱起者。識生不生。皆不能見。依彼所宗。此亦非答。又于琉璃雲母等障。眼識亦起。何故說言。于被障色。眼識不生。若謂于中光明無隔故得生者。且許眼識于被障色生義得成。即汝前言。違自所許。又世現見。雖離光明而眼識起。如人能見諸黑闇色。夜行禽獸。亦見黑闇所障諸色。非欲觀闇待光明故。若言境界法應爾者。夜行禽獸。應如人等。于闇所障識亦不生。不可說言一黑闇色對人對畜其性變異。若言諸趣法應爾者。不爾諸趣是異熟故。貓貍犬等。于黑闇中。起染污心。取諸色故。唯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於被遮蔽的顏色，眼識無法生起。既然眼識不生起，又如何能看見呢？這種詰難是不合理的。即使假設眼識能夠生起，也無法看見，因為之前已經說過其他識並沒有差別。因此，所說的『對於被遮蔽的顏色，眼識不生起，既然不生起，又如何能看見』，這不能成立為回答。 而且，不應該說對於被遮蔽的顏色眼識不生起，因為這在理上不成立。以詰難的意圖來說，如果認為眼識有見色的作用，因為識沒有對礙，那麼對於被遮蔽的顏色，眼識也應該能夠生起。如果說，像識了別顏色的作用，對於被遮蔽的顏色就不能生起，這個道理也不對。因為這承認了眼識與有對礙的眼根在同一境界中運作。如果說我說的話也和這個一樣，你不應該這樣說。因為不允許眼見色作為眼根的境界，這個道理不成立。 再者，為什麼說『識既然不生起，又如何能看見』呢？生起就是看見，看見就是生起。如果說識既然不生起，又如何能看見，就等於說識既然不生起，又如何能生起？或者說識既然不能看見，又如何能看見？難道不應該在這裡一併詰難說，為什麼不生起？為什麼不能看見？ 還有，如果有人認為一切因緣都只是前生，沒有同時生起的，那麼識生起與否，都不能看見。依照他們的宗派，這也無法作為回答。而且，對於琉璃、雲母等遮蔽物，眼識也會生起，為什麼說對於被遮蔽的顏色，眼識不生起呢？如果說因為其中光明沒有阻隔，所以能夠生起，那麼就姑且承認眼識對於被遮蔽的顏色生起的意義成立，這與你之前所說的話相違背。 而且，世間現在可以見到，即使離開了光明，眼識也能生起，例如人能夠看見各種黑暗的顏色，夜間活動的禽獸，也能看見黑暗所遮蔽的各種顏色，並不是想要觀察黑暗就等待光明。如果說境界的法應該是這樣，那麼夜間活動的禽獸，應該像人一樣，對於黑暗所遮蔽的識也不能生起。不能說同一種黑暗的顏色，對於人和對於畜生，它的性質就有所變異。如果說各個趣的法應該是這樣，那也不對，因為各個趣是異熟果。貓、貍、犬等，在黑暗中，生起染污的心，去取各種顏色，唯。
【English Translation】 English version When a color is obstructed, eye-consciousness does not arise. Since eye-consciousness does not arise, how can one see? This challenge is unreasonable. Even if eye-consciousness were allowed to arise, it still could not see, because it was previously stated that other consciousnesses are no different. Therefore, the statement 'When a color is obstructed, eye-consciousness does not arise, and since it does not arise, how can one see?' is not a valid response. Furthermore, it should not be said that eye-consciousness does not arise for obstructed colors, because this is not logically sound. To express the intent of the challenge, if one holds that eye-consciousness has the function of seeing colors, then since consciousness has no obstruction, it should also be able to arise for obstructed colors. If it is said that, like the function of consciousness distinguishing colors, it cannot arise for obstructed colors, this reasoning is also incorrect. This is because it admits that eye-consciousness and the sense organ of the eye, which has obstruction, operate in the same realm. If you say that my statement is the same as this, you should not say so. Because it is not permissible for the eye to see color as the object of the eye, this reasoning is not valid. Moreover, why say 'Since consciousness does not arise, how can one see?' Arising is seeing, and seeing is arising. If one says that since consciousness does not arise, how can one see, it is the same as saying since consciousness does not arise, how can it arise? Or saying since consciousness cannot see, how can it see? Should one not collectively challenge here, 'Why does it not arise? Why can it not see?' Furthermore, if someone holds that all causes and conditions are only prior arising, and there is no simultaneous arising, then whether consciousness arises or not, one cannot see. According to their doctrine, this also cannot serve as a response. Moreover, eye-consciousness also arises for obstructions like crystal and mica, so why say that eye-consciousness does not arise for obstructed colors? If it is said that it can arise because there is no obstruction of light within them, then let us grant that the meaning of eye-consciousness arising for obstructed colors is established, which contradicts what you said earlier. Moreover, it is currently seen in the world that even without light, eye-consciousness can arise, such as people being able to see various dark colors, and nocturnal animals also being able to see various colors obstructed by darkness, it is not that one waits for light to observe darkness. If it is said that the nature of the realm should be like this, then nocturnal animals should be like people, and consciousness obstructed by darkness should also not arise. One cannot say that the nature of the same dark color varies for humans and animals. If it is said that the nature of different realms should be like this, that is also incorrect, because different realms are the result of different karma. Cats, civets, dogs, etc., in the darkness, generate defiled minds and grasp various colors, only.
異熟眼趣體所攝。故可於中作如是計。異熟法爾。于諸趣中。或有能取闇所障色。若謂夜行禽獸等眼常帶光明故能見者。理亦不然。不可得故。若言少故不可得者。于遠境色。照用應無。眼識于中不應得起。是故所說。于被障色。眼識不生。識既不生。如何見者。非如理答。唯未鑒人之所愛樂。若爾眼根能見論者。何緣不取被障諸色。眼有對故。于被障色。無見功能。識與所依一境轉故。亦不得起。經主於此。復徴難言。眼豈如身根境合方取。而言有對故不見彼耶。此難不然。不了所說有對義故。所以者何。此不唯說眼是障礙有對法故。唯取合境非不合境。故不能取被障諸色。此中亦依境界有對。義意說言。若於此境有被拘礙。彼于余境設無障者。亦不起用。況于有障。一切有境法應如是。不能俱時取諸境界。若爾眼識亦是有對。不應但言眼有對故於被障色無見功能。亦不應言識與所依一境轉故。可言于彼眼識不生。由自說言一切有境法應爾故。此例不然。不閑意故。我義意說。眼亦境界有對性故。色是障礙有對性故。于被障色。眼用不生。意與意識。雖有所依。能依決定。而無一境。作用決定。非此二種能於一時取一境界。所依眼根所取境界。即是能依眼識所取。又必同時。是故於彼被障境界。如遮眼用識用亦爾。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由異熟（Vipāka，業報成熟）所生的眼根，其作用範圍是有限的。因此，我們可以這樣認為：由異熟所決定的法則就是這樣，在各種趣（Gati，生命輪迴的去處）中，有些眼根能夠看到被黑暗遮蔽的顏色。如果有人說，夜間活動的禽獸等的眼睛總是帶有光芒，所以能夠看見東西，這種說法也是不合理的，因為找不到證據。如果說是因為光芒太少而找不到證據，那麼對於遙遠地方的顏色，這種光芒的照耀作用應該就沒有了，眼識在這種情況下不應該產生。所以說，對於被遮蔽的顏色，眼識是不會產生的。既然眼識不產生，又怎麼能看見東西呢？這種回答是不合理的，只有那些不瞭解情況的人才會喜歡這種說法。 如果這樣，那些認為眼根能夠看見東西的人，為什麼不能看見被遮蔽的顏色呢？因為眼根是有對（pratigha，有障礙）的，對於被遮蔽的顏色，沒有看見的功能。識（Vijñāna，意識）和它所依賴的根（Indriya，感覺器官）在同一個境界中運作，所以也不能產生。經部師（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）對此又提出疑問：難道眼睛像身根（kāya-indriya，觸覺器官）一樣，必須根和境（Viṣaya，感覺對像）結合才能產生作用嗎？所以才說因為有對而不能看見那些東西？ 這個疑問是不對的，因為不瞭解我所說的『有對』的含義。為什麼呢？因為這裡不僅僅是說眼睛是障礙性的有對法，所以只能取與它結合的境界，而不能取不結合的境界，所以不能取被遮蔽的顏色。這裡也是依據境界的有對性來說的，意思是說，如果對於某個境界有阻礙，那麼即使對於其他的境界沒有阻礙，眼根也不會起作用，更何況是有阻礙的境界呢？一切有境界的法都應該是這樣，不能同時取多個境界。 如果這樣，眼識也是有對的，不應該只說眼根有對，所以對於被遮蔽的顏色沒有看見的功能。也不應該說識和它所依賴的根在同一個境界中運作，所以才說眼識不會產生。因為你自己說過一切有境界的法都應該是這樣。這個例子是不對的，因為你不理解我的意思。我的意思是說，眼睛也是境界性的有對，顏色是障礙性的有對，所以對於被遮蔽的顏色，眼睛的作用不會產生。意（Manas，末那識）和意識（Vijñāna，了別識），雖然有所依賴，能依賴者是決定的，但是沒有一個境界，作用是決定的。這兩種識不能在同一時間取同一個境界。所依賴的眼根所取的境界，就是能依賴的眼識所取的境界，而且必須是同時的。所以對於那些被遮蔽的境界，就像遮蔽了眼睛的作用一樣，也遮蔽了眼識的作用。
【English Translation】 English version The visual faculty (eye-indriya) produced by Vipāka (karmic maturation) is limited in its scope. Therefore, one can posit as follows: by the very nature of Vipāka, in various destinies (Gati), some visual faculties are capable of perceiving colors obstructed by darkness. If one argues that nocturnal creatures' eyes constantly possess light, enabling them to see, this is also unreasonable because it cannot be substantiated. If it is said that it cannot be substantiated due to the scarcity of light, then the illuminating function should be absent for distant objects, and visual consciousness (eye-vijñāna) should not arise in such cases. Therefore, it is said that visual consciousness does not arise for obstructed colors. Since consciousness does not arise, how can one see? This is an unreasonable answer, favored only by those who lack discernment. If that's the case, why can't those who argue that the visual faculty can see, perceive obstructed colors? Because the visual faculty has resistance (pratigha), it lacks the function of seeing obstructed colors. Since consciousness and its basis operate in the same object, it also cannot arise. The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) further challenges this, asking: Does the eye only perceive when the faculty and object combine, like the body faculty (kāya-indriya)? Is that why it is said that it cannot see those objects due to resistance? This challenge is incorrect because it misunderstands the meaning of 'resistance' that I am referring to. Why? Because it is not only saying that the eye is a resistant phenomenon with obstacles, so it can only grasp objects that combine with it and not those that do not combine, hence it cannot grasp obstructed colors. Here, it is also based on the resistance of the object, meaning that if there is an obstruction to a certain object, then even if there is no obstruction to other objects, the visual faculty will not function, let alone in the case of obstructed objects. All phenomena with objects should be like this, unable to grasp multiple objects simultaneously. If that's the case, visual consciousness is also resistant. One should not only say that the visual faculty has resistance, so it lacks the function of seeing obstructed colors. Nor should one say that consciousness and its basis operate in the same object, so visual consciousness cannot arise. Because you yourself said that all phenomena with objects should be like this. This example is incorrect because you do not understand my meaning. My meaning is that the eye also has object-related resistance, and color has obstruction-related resistance, so the function of the eye does not arise for obstructed colors. Although Manas (mind) and consciousness (vijñāna) have a basis of dependence, the dependent is definite, but there is no single object, and the function is definite. These two types of consciousness cannot grasp the same object at the same time. The object grasped by the dependent visual faculty is the object grasped by the dependent visual consciousness, and it must be simultaneous. Therefore, for those obstructed objects, just as the function of the eye is obstructed, so too is the function of visual consciousness.
由是故說。識與所依一境轉故。可言于彼眼識不生。許識見者。何緣不起。豈不眼是境界有對。被琉璃等境拘礙時。于彼所障亦能起用。何故說言。若於此境。有被拘礙。彼于余境。設無障者。亦不起用。況于有障。豈不前說。不俱時取。取琉璃時。不取所障。取所障時。不取琉璃。以非俱取。無相違過。若爾何緣。眼不能取壁等障色。我不同汝言於是中。光明無故。所以者何。世間現見。雖離光明。而能取故。既謂不同。何緣不取。諸積聚色。障礙性故。譬如明闇為障不同。如闇與明雖同色處而闇所障人不能取。明所障色人則能取。夜行禽獸。雖亦能取闇所障色。而不能取壁等所障。如是雖能取琉璃等所障諸色。而不能取壁等所障。由此眼根唯見壁等。不見壁等所障諸色。有積聚色障礙性故。法應如是。不可推徴。有根雖能取不合境。由少礙故。而不能取余不合境。有根雖能取于合境。而有合境不能取故。經主所言。眼豈如身根境合方取。而由有對故不見彼者。此應責言。若根能取不合境者。則應能取一切不合。若取合境。則一切合。皆應能取。若不爾者。言成無用。是故所言。眼有對故。于被障色。無見功能。識與所依。一境轉故。可言于彼眼識不生。許識見者。何緣不起。如是立破。理極成就。
說一切
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此這樣說，因為識（consciousness）和它所依賴的（眼根）在同一個境界上運作，所以可以說在那個境界上眼識不會產生。如果允許識能見，那麼為什麼眼識不起作用呢？難道不是因為眼是境界，具有對礙性（有對），當被琉璃等境界阻礙時，即使對於被阻礙的物體也能起作用嗎？為什麼說如果對於這個境界，眼根被阻礙，那麼對於其他境界，即使沒有阻礙，眼根也不會起作用，更何況是有阻礙的情況呢？難道不是之前說過，眼根不是同時取境嗎？取琉璃時，不取被阻礙的物體；取被阻礙的物體時，不取琉璃。因為不是同時取境，所以沒有互相違背的過失。如果這樣，那麼為什麼眼不能取墻壁等阻礙物體的顏色呢？我不同意你的說法，認為是因為墻壁等物體中沒有光明。為什麼呢？因為世間現在可以見到，即使沒有光明，也能取境。既然說不同意，那麼為什麼眼不能取墻壁等物體的顏色呢？因為墻壁等物體具有積聚的顏色，具有障礙性。譬如光明和黑暗作為障礙是不同的。如同黑暗和光明雖然在同一個顏色處，但是被黑暗所阻礙，人就不能取境；被光明所阻礙的顏色，人就能取境。夜間活動的禽獸，雖然也能取被黑暗所阻礙的顏色，但是不能取被墻壁等所阻礙的顏色。像這樣，雖然能取被琉璃等所阻礙的各種顏色，但是不能取被墻壁等所阻礙的顏色。由此，眼根只能看見墻壁等，不能看見墻壁等所阻礙的各種顏色。因為墻壁等物體具有積聚的顏色，具有障礙性，法理應當如此，不可推測。有的根雖然能取不合之境，因為有少許阻礙，就不能取其他不合之境。有的根雖然能取合境，但是有的合境卻不能取。經主所說，眼難道像身根一樣，根境相合才能取境，因為具有對礙性（有對）所以不能見彼境嗎？這應該反駁說，如果根能取不合之境，那麼就應該能取一切不合之境；如果取合境，那麼一切合境都應該能取。如果不是這樣，那麼這種說法就毫無用處。所以說，眼因為具有對礙性（有對），所以對於被阻礙的顏色，沒有見的功能。識和它所依賴的（眼根）在同一個境界上運作，所以可以說在那個境界上眼識不會產生。如果允許識能見，那麼為什麼眼識不起作用呢？這樣的立論和駁斥，道理非常充分。 說一切有部（Sarvastivada）
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that because consciousness (識, vijnana) and its basis (眼根, eye-organ) operate in the same sphere, it can be said that eye-consciousness does not arise in that sphere. If it is allowed that consciousness can see, then why does eye-consciousness not arise? Is it not because the eye is a sphere, possessing resistance (有對, pratigha), and when obstructed by spheres such as crystal, it can still function even with respect to what is obstructed? Why is it said that if the eye-organ is obstructed with respect to this sphere, then with respect to other spheres, even if there is no obstruction, the eye-organ will not function, let alone when there is obstruction? Was it not said before that the eye-organ does not apprehend simultaneously? When apprehending crystal, it does not apprehend what is obstructed; when apprehending what is obstructed, it does not apprehend crystal. Because it does not apprehend simultaneously, there is no fault of contradiction. If so, then why can the eye not apprehend the color of obstructions such as walls? I do not agree with your statement that it is because there is no light in walls, etc. Why? Because it is seen in the world that even without light, apprehension is possible. Since you say you disagree, then why can the eye not apprehend the color of walls, etc.? Because walls, etc., have accumulated color and possess obstructive nature. For example, light and darkness are different as obstructions. Just as darkness and light are in the same color location, but what is obstructed by darkness cannot be apprehended by people, while the color obstructed by light can be apprehended by people. Nocturnal animals, although they can also apprehend colors obstructed by darkness, cannot apprehend what is obstructed by walls, etc. In this way, although they can apprehend various colors obstructed by crystal, etc., they cannot apprehend what is obstructed by walls, etc. Therefore, the eye-organ can only see walls, etc., and cannot see the various colors obstructed by walls, etc. Because walls, etc., have accumulated color and possess obstructive nature, the Dharma should be like this, and it cannot be speculated upon. Some roots, although they can apprehend non-contiguous spheres, cannot apprehend other non-contiguous spheres because of slight obstruction. Some roots, although they can apprehend contiguous spheres, cannot apprehend some contiguous spheres. What the Sutra master said, 'Is the eye like the body-organ, only apprehending when the root and sphere are combined, and because it possesses resistance (有對, pratigha), it cannot see that sphere?' This should be refuted by saying, 'If the root can apprehend non-contiguous spheres, then it should be able to apprehend all non-contiguous spheres; if it apprehends contiguous spheres, then all contiguous spheres should be able to be apprehended.' If this is not the case, then such a statement is useless. Therefore, it is said that because the eye possesses resistance (有對, pratigha), it has no function of seeing with respect to obstructed colors. Consciousness and its basis operate in the same sphere, so it can be said that eye-consciousness does not arise in that sphere. If it is allowed that consciousness can see, then why does eye-consciousness not arise? Such establishment and refutation are extremely well-reasoned. Sarvastivada (說一切有部)
有部順正理論卷第六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之七
眼若是見。何故世尊。說以為門。不言能見。如契經說。梵志當知。以眼為門。唯為見色。理不應說見即是門。但可說言。依門得見。非此契經定能證彼眼識是見。不說眼識以眼為門。唯見色故。有餘師執。以眼為門。慧見色故。應除固執共審思求此經意趣。我宗所釋。以諸愚夫無明所盲無真導者。或執自性極微等因。或執無因而生諸行。或謂諸行若剎那滅。一切世間。應俱壞斷。由此妄想計度諸行。或暫時住。或畢竟常。是故世尊。為顯諸行因果展轉。無始時來。雖剎那滅。而不壞斷。非一切果從一因生。亦非無因而生諸行。密意為說。如是契經。以眼為門。唯為見色。廣說乃至。以意為門。唯爲了法。門是緣義。緣有二種。謂種類同。及種類異。此中且說種類同緣。以眼為門。為見色者。謂后眼起。前眼為緣。為見色言。顯起有用。如是乃至意處應知。又此契經。為顯眼等各有二用。一能為門。二能取境。能為門者。且如眼根。能為所依。令心心所各別行相於境而轉。能取境者。且如眼根。唯為見色。若異此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《有部順正理論》卷第六 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之七
如果眼是能見的，為何世尊說眼是『門』（dvara），而不說眼能見呢？正如契經（sutra）所說：『梵志（Brahmana），你應該知道，以眼為門，僅僅是爲了見色。』理應不能說見就是門，只能說依靠門才能得見。並非此契經一定能證明眼識是見，因為契經沒有說眼識以眼為門，僅僅是爲了見色。有其他論師認為，以眼為門，是慧（prajna）見色。應該去除固執，共同審慎思考此經的意趣。我宗的解釋是，因為那些愚昧的人被無明（avidya）所矇蔽，沒有真正的引導者，或者執著于自性（prakrti）、極微（paramanu）等作為原因，或者執著于無因而產生諸行（samskara）。或者認為諸行如果剎那（ksana）滅，一切世間應該一同壞滅斷絕。因此，他們妄想計度諸行，認為諸行或者暫時住留，或者畢竟常住。所以世尊爲了顯示諸行因果輾轉，從無始以來，雖然剎那滅，但不會壞滅斷絕，並非一切果都從一個因產生，也不是無因而產生諸行，所以用隱秘的含義說了這樣的契經：以眼為門，僅僅是爲了見色，廣泛地說乃至以意（manas）為門，僅僅是爲了了法（dharma）。門是緣（pratyaya）的意思。緣有兩種，即種類相同和種類不同。這裡且說種類相同的緣，以眼為門，爲了見色，是指後起的眼，以前面的眼為緣。說『爲了見色』，是顯示生起的作用。像這樣乃至意處也應該知道。又此契經是爲了顯示眼等各有兩種作用，一是能作為門，二是能取境。能作為門，比如眼根（caksu-indriya），能作為所依，令心（citta）和心所（caitta）各自的行相在境上運轉。能取境，比如眼根，僅僅是爲了見色。如果不是這樣……
【English Translation】 English version 《Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra》Volume 6 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 《Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra》
《Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra》Volume 7
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 1 on Discriminating the Nature of Things, Section 7
If the eye is what sees, why did the World-Honored One say that the eye is a 'gate' (dvara), and not say that the eye can see? As the sutra (sutra) says: 'Brahmin (Brahmana), you should know that the eye is a gate, only for seeing form.' It should not be said that seeing is the gate, but only that one can see by relying on the gate. This sutra does not necessarily prove that eye-consciousness is seeing, because the sutra does not say that eye-consciousness uses the eye as a gate, only for seeing form. Some other teachers hold that the eye is a gate, and wisdom (prajna) sees form. We should remove our stubbornness and carefully consider the meaning of this sutra together. My school's explanation is that because those foolish people are blinded by ignorance (avidya) and have no true guides, they either cling to self-nature (prakrti), atoms (paramanu), etc. as causes, or cling to the idea that phenomena (samskara) arise without cause. Or they think that if phenomena cease in an instant (ksana), the entire world should perish and be cut off together. Therefore, they falsely imagine and speculate about phenomena, thinking that phenomena either stay temporarily or are ultimately permanent. Therefore, the World-Honored One, in order to show the revolving cause and effect of phenomena, from beginningless time, although ceasing in an instant, will not perish and be cut off, and that not all effects arise from one cause, nor do phenomena arise without cause, spoke this sutra with a hidden meaning: that the eye is a gate, only for seeing form, and broadly speaking, even the mind (manas) is a gate, only for understanding dharma (dharma). A gate means a condition (pratyaya). There are two kinds of conditions, namely, those of the same kind and those of different kinds. Here, let's talk about conditions of the same kind, that the eye is a gate, for seeing form, which means that the eye that arises later takes the previous eye as a condition. Saying 'for seeing form' is to show the function of arising. In this way, even the mind should be understood. Moreover, this sutra is to show that the eye and so on each have two functions, one is to be a gate, and the other is to grasp objects. To be a gate, for example, the eye-organ (caksu-indriya) can be a basis, causing the mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta) to operate in their respective forms on objects. To grasp objects, for example, the eye-organ is only for seeing form. If it is not like this...
者。唯義相違。諸心心所。唯應見故。然心心所。皆眼為門。汝執見體。唯心非所。又受想等諸心所法。領納取像造作等用。各各不同。不應唯見。既言唯見。明知是眼。由此眼根唯能見故。如是眼用。略有二種。一能為門。二能見色。乃至意處。如理當知。故我所宗無違經失。又此契經。更有別義。謂見方便。假說為門。世于方便。說門言故。如世間說。我依此門。必當獲得如意財寶。即是我依此方便義。世尊亦告手居士言。當依此門如法攝眾。謂四攝事。為攝方便。此說眼識為見方便。眼由識持。能見色故。識是眼根。見方便故。見依止故。假說名眼。此意說言。識為方便。眼能見色。如余經中。了別色位。以眼是識所依性故。鄰近緣故。于眼根體。假說識名。故契經言。眼所識色。此中亦爾。觀照色位。以識是眼鄰近緣故所依止故。于眼識體。假說眼名。無違經失。為舍外道我任持根令能取境顛倒執故。如是假說。令彼梵志了識持根能取自境非我持故。若爾應說眼識為門唯為見色。不應說識勿彼外道執我能見。謂所執我以識名說。世聞多執識為我故。若說為眼。即知眼識眼為所依。定非是我。我體常住。定無所依。聞說有依。我想便息。又避余過不應說識。謂經當說。以意為門。唯爲了法。若說識者。即定應說
【現代漢語翻譯】 這裡存在一個問題，即『義』（artha，意義）相互矛盾。所有的『心』（citta，意識）和『心所』（caitta，心理活動），都應該被視為『見』（darśana，見性）的客體。然而，『心』和『心所』都以『眼』（cakṣus，眼睛）為門戶。你認為『見』的本體只是『心』而不是『心所』。此外，『受』（vedanā，感受）、『想』（saṃjñā，概念）、等各種『心所』之法，它們的作用，如領納（感受）、取像（形成概念）、造作（意志活動）等，各不相同，不應該僅僅是『見』。既然你說是『唯見』，那就清楚地表明這是『眼』的作用。因此，『眼根』（cakṣurindriya，視覺器官）只能『見』。因此，『眼』的作用大致有兩種：一是作為門戶，二是能『見』色（rūpa，顏色和形狀）。乃至『意處』（mana-āyatana，意根），也應如理如實地理解。因此，我的宗派（宗義）沒有違背佛經的過失。 此外，這部『契經』（sūtra，佛經）還有其他的含義。即『見』的方便，可以假借地說是『門』。世俗中常說方便為『門』，例如世間常說：『我依此門，必當獲得如意財寶』，這實際上是說我依靠這個方便。世尊也曾告訴『手居士』（Sudatta，給孤獨長者）說：『應當依靠此門，如法地攝受大眾』，這裡指的是用『四攝事』（catuḥ-saṃgrahavastu，佈施、愛語、利行、同事）作為攝受的方便。這裡說『眼識』（cakṣur-vijñāna，視覺意識）是『見』的方便，因為『眼』由『識』（vijñāna，意識）所支援，才能『見』色。『識』是『眼根』『見』的方便，是『見』所依賴的基礎，所以假借地稱為『眼』。這個意思是說，『識』是方便，『眼』才能『見』色。如同其他經典中所說，了別色位，因為『眼』是『識』所依之性質，是鄰近的緣故，所以在『眼根』的本體上，假借地稱為『識』。所以『契經』說：『眼所識色』。這裡也是一樣，觀照色位，因為『識』是『眼』鄰近的緣故，是所依止的緣故，所以在『眼識』的本體上，假借地稱為『眼』，沒有違背佛經的過失。爲了捨棄外道所執著的『我』（ātman，靈魂）任持『根』（indriya，感官），使其能夠取境的顛倒執著，所以這樣假借地說。讓那些『梵志』（brāhmaṇa，婆羅門）明白『識』支援著『根』，使其能夠取自己的境界，而不是『我』在支援。 如果這樣，就應該說『眼識』為門，僅僅是爲了『見』色，不應該說『識』，以免那些外道執著『我』能『見』。這裡所執著的『我』，是用『識』這個名稱來說的，因為世間很多人執著『識』為『我』。如果說是『眼』，就知道『眼識』是『眼』所依賴的，一定不是『我』。『我』的本體是常住的，一定沒有所依賴。聽到說有依賴，『我』的妄想就會停止。又爲了避免其他的過失，不應該說『識』。經典應當說，以『意』（manas，心意）為門，僅僅是爲了『了』法（dharma，事物、法則）。如果說『識』，就一定應該說
【English Translation】 Here arises a problem where the 『artha』 (meaning) contradicts itself. All 『citta』 (mind, consciousness) and 『caitta』 (mental activities) should be regarded as the object of 『darśana』 (seeing, vision). However, both 『citta』 and 『caitta』 use the 『cakṣus』 (eye) as a gateway. You maintain that the essence of 『seeing』 is only 『citta』 and not 『caitta』. Furthermore, the functions of 『vedanā』 (feeling), 『saṃjñā』 (perception), and other 『caitta』 dharmas, such as reception (feeling), image-taking (forming concepts), and fabrication (volitional activities), are each different and should not be merely 『seeing』. Since you say 『only seeing』, it clearly indicates the function of the 『eye』. Therefore, the 『cakṣurindriya』 (eye faculty) can only 『see』. Thus, the function of the 『eye』 roughly has two aspects: one is to serve as a gateway, and the other is to be able to 『see』 『rūpa』 (color and form). Even the 『mana-āyatana』 (mind-base) should be understood accordingly. Therefore, my doctrine (school of thought) does not violate the sutras. Moreover, this 『sūtra』 (scripture) has other meanings. That is, the means of 『seeing』 can be figuratively said to be a 『gateway』. In common parlance, means are often referred to as 『gateways』, for example, people often say: 『By this gateway, I will surely obtain wish-fulfilling treasures』, which actually means I rely on this means. The World-Honored One also told 『Sudatta』 (Anathapindika, the benefactor) that: 『One should rely on this gateway to lawfully gather the assembly』, which refers to using the 『catuḥ-saṃgrahavastu』 (four means of gathering: giving, kind speech, beneficial action, and cooperation) as a means of gathering. Here it says that 『cakṣur-vijñāna』 (visual consciousness) is the means of 『seeing』, because the 『eye』 is supported by 『vijñāna』 (consciousness) in order to 『see』 『rūpa』. 『Vijñāna』 is the means of 『seeing』 for the 『eye faculty』, and it is the foundation upon which 『seeing』 relies, so it is figuratively called 『eye』. This means that 『vijñāna』 is the means, and the 『eye』 can 『see』 『rūpa』. As other scriptures say, distinguishing the position of colors, because the 『eye』 is the nature upon which 『vijñāna』 relies, and it is the proximate cause, so the essence of the 『eye faculty』 is figuratively called 『vijñāna』. Therefore, the 『sūtra』 says: 『The color cognized by the eye』. It is the same here, observing the position of colors, because 『vijñāna』 is proximate to the 『eye』 and is the foundation upon which it relies, so the essence of 『visual consciousness』 is figuratively called 『eye』, without violating the sutras. In order to abandon the externalists' attachment to the 『ātman』 (self, soul) that supports the 『indriya』 (sense organs), enabling it to grasp objects with inverted attachments, it is said figuratively in this way. Let those 『brāhmaṇa』 (Brahmins) understand that 『consciousness』 supports the 『faculty』, enabling it to grasp its own realm, and it is not supported by the 『self』. If so, it should be said that 『visual consciousness』 is the gateway, solely for 『seeing』 『rūpa』, and it should not be said 『consciousness』, lest those externalists cling to the idea that the 『self』 can 『see』. The 『self』 that is clung to here is referred to by the name 『consciousness』, because many people in the world cling to 『consciousness』 as the 『self』. If it is said to be 『eye』, it is known that 『visual consciousness』 relies on the 『eye』, and it is certainly not the 『self』. The essence of the 『self』 is permanent and certainly has nothing to rely on. Hearing that there is reliance, the delusion of 『self』 will cease. Furthermore, in order to avoid other faults, it should not be said 『consciousness』. The scripture should say that the 『manas』 (mind) is the gateway, solely for 『understanding』 『dharma』 (things, laws). If it says 『consciousness』, it should definitely say
意識為門。若作是說。便不應理。以即意識能了諸法。非余意了識為方便。豈不說意。亦有斯過。謂如說眼為門。即知是眼識為見方便。如是說意為門。亦知是意識爲了方便。雖復說意。而無斯過。由聞意名。唯作意解。非謂意識。所以者何。眼根有用識俱生故。眼識與眼作見方便。故於此識可說眼名。意根無用。以過去故。意識與意不作方便故於意識。不說名意。意為意識了法方便。要依意根能了法故。由是若說以眼為門。智者應知。為舍我執說識為眼。若至第六說意為門。智者應知。意即是意無了用故。意為方便意識能了。又此經說。有二種眼。謂彼同分。及同分眼。雖彼同分不能見色。而能為門引同分眼。令生見色。於一生中。必先獲得彼同分眼。然後引生同分眼故。如眼乃至身亦如是。意有二種。一者無用。二者有用。雖無用意不能了法。而能為門引有用意。令生了法。意識即意故。意即意識故。說意能了。無有過失。如是等義。辯釋此經。是故不應引為定證。遮見是眼成見是識。又經主言。然經說眼能見色者。是見所依故說能見。何緣經主起此執耶。由彼經言。意能識法。非意能識。以過去故。意是識依。故說能識。眼亦爾者。此不成證。意與意識。種類一故。以意識相即是意故。說意能識。于相無違。如
契經言。由意暴惡所作所說無非不善。不應說言由過去意。能起如是身語二業。此由現在意暴惡故。發起不善身語二業。又契經言。
欲生漏不起 由意無染濁
非無濁意定能發生無濁意識。故不應謂由所依說。又契經說。心導世間。此豈於心說心所事。是故不可引彼契說證眼見言說能依識。又此經說眼見色言。不可執為眼識能見。無處定說識能見故。處處有說。眼能見故。前說余師執慧見故。然此經說。意識法言。可就所依說識無過。有處定說識能識故。無處定說意能識故。於此義中。無異執故。又經主說。或就所依說能依業。如世間說床座言聲。經主何因。起斯定執。余言余解。不可無因。若謂有因所依眼力識見色故。此不成因。識見色因。非極成故。我等宗說。識能住持所依眼根令能見色。故言識見因不極成。又無餘經定說識見。豈不如說床座言聲。此說可然。以極成故。言聲床座。異處極成。故聞此言知能依業就所依說。如有實論世間共許。于余假說。非有識見。彼此極成。是故不應起如是執。若爾眼見亦不極成。何故但言識持眼見。不說依眼識見色耶。眼見極成。前已說故。眼耳等識。無差別故。眼耳等根。有差別故。非有用眼離識而生。故說眼根識持能見。識見有過。前已具論。故不應言依
眼識見。然契經說眼所識色。可就所依說能依業。眼與識異俱極成故。今聞識用在於眼根。知就所依說能依業。由此即釋余契經言眼所欣慕。有餘師說。眼識眼根。欣慕不成。無分別故。要有分別。欣慕可成。應知此中眼識所引分別意識。假說名眼。由眼傳生。如意近行。彼有分別。可成欣慕。是故不可引就所依說能依業證眼非見。眼能見色。具理教故。如是且辯執識見論不應正理。由此亦遮。執慧見論。其過等故。又若眼識相應慧見。余識相應慧亦應見。則一切境。應成所見。又一切根。見所依故。皆應成眼。復有何因。唯執眼識相應慧見。非余慧耶。又如前說盲不盲等。諸餘過難。隨其所應。于慧見論。皆應廣設。識慧見論。既並不成。由此準成。眼根能見。又契經說見聞覺知。四相各別。無雜亂故。若執識等為能見者。如前已說。無差別故。見聞覺知。應成雜亂。然此宗說。眼識持根。令有見用。非眼識見。聞等亦爾。隨其所應。又眼是見。非眼識等。經論世理證分明故。經謂契經。處處皆說眼見色故。又伽他言。兩眼兩耳。多見聞故。又契經說。我諸弟子。同世間眼。引導世間。住正法故。眼若非見。世尊弟子。不應能導與世眼同。又契經說。眼等五根。各別所行。各別境界。如是等說。極分明故。論謂根本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眼識能夠見。然而，契經上說眼所識別的色，可以就所依（眼根）來說能依（眼識）的作用。眼根和眼識的差別非常明顯。現在聽說眼識的作用在於眼根，就知道這是就所依來說能依的作用。由此就可以解釋其他契經上說的『眼所欣慕』。有其他論師說，眼識和眼根，不能產生欣慕，因為它們沒有分別能力。一定要有分別能力，才能產生欣慕。應該知道這裡所說的『眼』，是指眼識所引發的分別意識，假名為『眼』，因為它由眼根傳遞產生，就像『意』的快速活動一樣。這個分別意識具有分別能力，可以產生欣慕。因此，不能引用『就所依說能依業』來證明眼根不能見。眼根能夠見色，具備道理和教證。以上是辯駁執著眼識能見的論點，這種論點是不合理的。由此也否定了執著智慧能見的論點，因為它們的過失是相同的。而且，如果眼識相應的智慧能見，那麼其他識相應的智慧也應該能見，那麼一切境界，都應該成為所見。而且，一切根，因為是見的所依，都應該成為眼。又有什麼原因，只執著眼識相應的智慧能見，而不是其他識的智慧呢？而且，就像前面所說的盲和不盲等等，其他的過失和責難，都可以根據情況，在智慧能見的論點上廣泛地設立。眼識和智慧能見的論點，既然都不成立，由此就可以確定，眼根能夠見。而且，契經上說見、聞、覺、知，四種相各不相同，沒有混雜。如果執著眼識等為能見者，就像前面已經說過的，因為沒有差別，見、聞、覺、知，應該成為混雜。然而這個宗派說，眼識保持眼根，使它具有見的作用，不是眼識見。聞等也是這樣，根據情況而定。而且，眼是能見，不是眼識等，經、論、世間的道理都證明得很清楚。經，指的是契經，處處都說眼見色。而且，伽陀（偈頌）說：『兩眼兩耳，多見聞』。而且，契經上說：『我的弟子，如同世間的眼，引導世間，住于正法』。眼如果不能見，世尊的弟子，不應該能夠引導世間，與世間的眼相同。而且，契經上說：『眼等五根，各有各的所行，各有各的境界』。像這樣的說法，非常分明。論，指的是根本（論）。
【English Translation】 English version Eye consciousness sees. However, the sutras say that the colors perceived by the eye can be described in terms of the function of the dependent (eye consciousness) based on what it depends on (the eye organ). The difference between the eye organ and eye consciousness is very clear. Now that we hear that the function of eye consciousness lies in the eye organ, we know that this is describing the function of the dependent based on what it depends on. This explains other sutras that say 'what the eye delights in'. Some other teachers say that eye consciousness and the eye organ cannot produce delight because they lack the ability to discriminate. Discrimination is necessary for delight to arise. It should be understood that the 'eye' here refers to the discriminating consciousness produced by eye consciousness, which is nominally called 'eye' because it is transmitted and produced by the eye organ, just like the rapid activity of 'mind'. This discriminating consciousness has the ability to discriminate and can produce delight. Therefore, one cannot cite 'describing the function of the dependent based on what it depends on' to prove that the eye organ cannot see. The eye organ can see colors, possessing both reason and scriptural proof. The above refutes the argument that eye consciousness can see, which is unreasonable. This also negates the argument that wisdom can see, because their faults are the same. Moreover, if the wisdom associated with eye consciousness can see, then the wisdom associated with other consciousnesses should also be able to see, and then all realms should become what is seen. Furthermore, all organs, because they are the basis of seeing, should become eyes. What reason is there to insist that only the wisdom associated with eye consciousness can see, and not the wisdom of other consciousnesses? Moreover, like the previously mentioned issues of blindness and non-blindness, other faults and criticisms can be widely applied to the argument that wisdom can see, as appropriate. Since the arguments for eye consciousness and wisdom seeing are not established, it can be determined that the eye organ can see. Moreover, the sutras say that seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are four distinct characteristics, without confusion. If one insists that eye consciousness, etc., are the seers, as previously stated, because there is no difference, seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing should become confused. However, this school says that eye consciousness maintains the eye organ, enabling it to have the function of seeing, not that eye consciousness sees. The same applies to hearing, etc., as appropriate. Moreover, the eye is the seer, not eye consciousness, etc., as proven clearly by scriptures, treatises, and worldly reasoning. 'Scriptures' refers to the sutras, which everywhere say that the eye sees colors. Moreover, the Gatha (verse) says: 'Two eyes and two ears, see and hear much'. Moreover, the sutras say: 'My disciples are like the eyes of the world, guiding the world to abide in the correct Dharma'. If the eye cannot see, the Buddha's disciples should not be able to guide the world, being the same as the eyes of the world. Moreover, the sutras say: 'The five organs, such as the eye, each have their own domain and their own realm'. Such statements are very clear. 'Treatise' refers to the fundamental (treatise).
阿毗達磨。及毗婆沙。發智論言。二眼見色。品類足論。亦作是言。謂眼已見正見當見。諸如是等所說眾多。毗婆沙中。亦作是說。若眼所得說名所見。為顯同分眼有見能。故復說言。眼識所受。即是眼識任持眼根令有所得。說名見義世謂世間。同許眼見𨵗眼根者。說為盲故。理謂見聞嗅嘗等用。各各異故。非同識等。經論世理。如是分明。證唯眼根決定能見。然隨自執。譬喻部師。有於此中妄興彈斥。言何共聚揸掣虛空。眼色等緣生於眼識。此等於見孰為能所。唯法因果。實無作用。為順世情。假興言說。眼名能見識名能了。智者于中。不應執著。彼謂佛說方域言詞。不應堅執。世俗名想。不應固求。此言非順聖教正理。于眼見性。亦不能遮。雖復有為皆從緣起。而說諸法別相用故。謂有為法雖等緣生。而不失於自定相用。故世尊說。法從緣生。亦說地等有別相用。如地界等。雖從緣生。而有如前堅等自相。亦有持等決定作業。如是眼色。及眼識等。雖從緣生。而必應有種種差別決定相用。由此差別決定相用。眼唯名眼。非色非識色唯名色。非識非眼。識唯名識。非眼非色。此中雖無總實相用。可名能見所見能了。而於如是無有總實相用理中。如可說有眼色等緣生於眼識。如是亦說色識等緣生於眼見。于如是等無有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，論藏）以及《毗婆沙》（Vibhasha，廣解）和《發智論》（Jnanaprasthana Shastra，根本論書）中說，雙眼能見色。《品類足論》（Prakaranapada Shastra，論書）也這樣說，即眼睛已經見到、正在見到、將要見到。諸如此類所說的很多。 《毗婆沙》中也這樣說，如果眼睛獲得了，就稱為所見。爲了顯示同分眼有見的能力，所以又說，眼識所接受的，就是眼識任持眼根，使之有所獲得，這稱為見的意義。世間（世謂世間）共同認可眼睛能見，而說眼根有缺陷的人為盲人。 理是指見、聞、嗅、嘗等作用，各自不同（各各異故），不同於識等。經、論、世間道理，如此分明，證明只有眼根決定能見。然而隨從自己的執著，譬喻部（Dristantavadin，佛教部派）的論師，對此妄加彈斥，說：『什麼共同聚集，揸掣虛空？眼、色等緣產生眼識，這些對於見來說，哪個是能，哪個是所？唯有法（Dharma，佛法）的因果，實在沒有作用。爲了順應世俗人情，假立言說，眼名為能見，識名為能了。智者對此，不應執著。』 他們認為佛所說的方域言詞，不應堅執；世俗的名相，不應固求。這種說法不順應聖教正理，也不能遮止眼睛的見性。雖然一切有為法都從緣起，但還是說諸法有各自不同的相用。所謂有為法雖然同樣從緣而生，但不失去其自身決定的相用。所以世尊說，法從緣生，也說地等有不同的相用。如地界等，雖然從緣而生，而有如前堅硬等自身之相，也有持等決定的作用。如此，眼、色以及眼識等，雖然從緣而生，而必定應有種種差別決定的相用。 由於這種差別決定的相用，眼只能稱為眼，不是色，也不是識；色只能稱為色，不是識，也不是眼；識只能稱為識，不是眼，也不是色。此中雖無總體的、實在的相用，可以稱為能見、所見、能了，但在如此沒有總體、實在相用的道理中，如可說有眼、色等緣產生眼識，這樣也可以說色、識等緣產生眼見。對於如此等等沒有...
【English Translation】 English version: The Abhidharma, the Vibhasha (extensive commentary), and the Jnanaprasthana Shastra (foundational treatise) state that the two eyes can see form (rupa). The Prakaranapada Shastra (treatise) also says this, namely, the eye has seen, is seeing, and will see. Many such things are said. The Vibhasha also says that if the eye obtains something, it is called 'seen'. To show that the eye has the ability to see, it is further said that what the eye-consciousness (chaksu-vijnana) receives is what the eye-consciousness sustains the eye-organ (chaksu-indriya) to obtain, and this is called the meaning of 'seeing'. The world (lokavyavahara) commonly acknowledges that the eye can see, and those with defective eye-organs are called blind. 'Reason' (yukti) refers to the functions of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc., which are each different, unlike consciousness (vijnana) and the like. The scriptures, treatises, and worldly reasoning are so clear, proving that only the eye-organ can definitely see. However, following their own attachments, the Dristantavadin (school of Buddhism) masters rashly criticize this, saying: 'What is this common gathering, grasping and manipulating emptiness? The eye, form, and other conditions give rise to eye-consciousness. Among these, which is the 'able' (kartr), and which is the 'object' (karman) of seeing? Only the cause and effect of Dharma (Buddhist teachings) truly have no function. To comply with worldly sentiments, we falsely establish speech, calling the eye 'able to see' and consciousness 'able to understand'. The wise should not be attached to this.' They believe that the Buddha's words about regions and terms should not be rigidly adhered to; worldly names and concepts should not be stubbornly sought. This statement does not accord with the correct principles of the holy teachings, nor can it prevent the eye's nature of seeing. Although all conditioned phenomena (samskrta-dharma) arise from conditions, it is still said that phenomena have their own distinct characteristics and functions. That is, although conditioned phenomena arise from the same conditions, they do not lose their own determined characteristics and functions. Therefore, the World-Honored One (Bhagavan) said that phenomena arise from conditions, and also said that earth and the like have different characteristics and functions. For example, the earth element (prthvi-dhatu), although arising from conditions, has its own characteristic of hardness, as before, and also has the determined function of supporting. Thus, the eye, form, and eye-consciousness, although arising from conditions, must have various distinct and determined characteristics and functions. Due to these distinct and determined characteristics and functions, the eye can only be called 'eye', not 'form' or 'consciousness'; form can only be called 'form', not 'consciousness' or 'eye'; consciousness can only be called 'consciousness', not 'eye' or 'form'. Although there is no overall, real characteristic and function in this that can be called 'able to see', 'object of seeing', or 'able to understand', in such a principle where there is no overall, real characteristic and function, just as it can be said that the eye, form, and other conditions give rise to eye-consciousness, so too it can be said that form, consciousness, and other conditions give rise to eye-seeing. Regarding such things that have no...
總實相用法中。隨逐世情。似有總實相用顯現。世尊於此總實相用。勸有智者。令除執著。故作是言。方域言詞不應堅執。世俗名想不應固求。謂於世間。執有總實能見體相所起言詞。不應堅執。此相無故。及於世間執有總實能見作用所起名想。不應固求。此用無故。如見相用余類應知。不可以無總實相用便越世俗假立名言。一向依隨勝義而住。亦不可執別實用無。是故定應不違勝義。隨順世俗假立名言。由此但遮世間所起總實相用堅執固求。非謂亦遮諸法勝義各別相用堅執固求。以一切法緣起相用各實有故。非緣一切一切果生。是故我宗。雙依二諦說眼能見。兩俱無失世尊亦許作者作用。故契經說。苾芻當知。能了能了。故名為識。頗勒具那契經。雖說我終不說有能了者。亦不全遮作者作用。少有所遣。故作是言。思緣起中我當更辯。如是安住聖教正理。思求抉擇眼見非余。而彼于中妄興彈斥。撥世俗理。篾勝義宗。揸掣虛空。定唯在彼。又所引教。何所證成。豈此中言。眼非見體。非說眼見。便同外道。許諸法有總實相用。又彼所說因果應無。不許法有別相用故。要有諸法各別相用。方可說有因果差別。若許諸法有別相用。如是誹毀則為唐捐。若謂全無總別作用。便違世俗勝義諦理。既許因果二諦非無。應許諸法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 總實相用法中，順應世俗人情，似乎有總實相的作用顯現。世尊因此對這種總實相的作用，勸誡有智慧的人，要去除執著。所以這樣說：『方域言詞不應堅執，世俗名想不應固求。』 意思是說，對於世間執著于有總實，能見之體相所產生的言詞，不應該堅決執著，因為這種體相併不存在。以及對於世間執著于有總實，能見之作用所產生的名想，不應該固執追求，因為這種作用並不存在。如同見到體相和作用的其他情況，應該知道。 不可以因為沒有總實相用，就超越世俗假立的名言，一味地依隨勝義諦而住。也不可以執著于個別的實際作用不存在。所以一定要不違背勝義諦，順應世俗假立的名言。由此只是遮止世間所產生的對總實相用的堅決執著和固執追求，而不是說也遮止諸法勝義諦中各自的體相和作用的堅決執著和固執追求。因為一切法緣起之體相和作用各自真實存在，並非由一切因緣產生一切果。 因此，我宗同時依靠二諦來說明眼能見，兩者都沒有過失。世尊也允許作者和作用的存在。所以契經說：『苾芻（bhiksu，比丘），應當知道，能了能了，所以名為識。』 《頗勒具那契經》（Phalle Guṇa Sutra）雖然說我終究沒有說有能了者，但也不是完全遮止作者和作用，只是稍微有所遣除，所以這樣說：『思緣起中我當更辯。』 像這樣安住于聖教的正理，思考尋求決斷，眼見而非其他。而他們卻在其中妄加彈劾，否定世俗諦的道理，輕蔑勝義諦的宗旨，想要抓住虛空，必定只存在於他們那裡。而且所引用的教義，又能證明什麼呢？難道這裡說眼不是能見的本體，不是說眼見，就等同於外道，允許諸法有總實相用嗎？ 而且他們所說因果應該不存在，因為不承認法有各自的體相和作用。必須要有諸法各自的體相和作用，才可以說明有因果的差別。如果承認諸法有各自的體相和作用，那麼這樣的誹謗就是徒勞的。如果說完全沒有總別作用，就違背了世俗諦和勝義諦的道理。既然承認因果二諦並非不存在，就應該承認諸法。
【English Translation】 English version In the application of the general true aspect, following worldly sentiments, it seems that the function of the general true aspect manifests. Therefore, the World-Honored One advises wise individuals regarding this function of the general true aspect to eliminate attachments. Hence, it is said: 'Regional terms and expressions should not be rigidly adhered to, and worldly names and thoughts should not be stubbornly sought after.' This means that, regarding worldly attachments to the existence of a general reality, the words arising from the perceived essence of what can be seen should not be rigidly adhered to, because this essence does not exist. And regarding worldly attachments to the existence of a general reality, the names and thoughts arising from the perceived function of what can be seen should not be stubbornly sought after, because this function does not exist. As with other instances of seeing essence and function, one should understand. One should not, because of the absence of the function of the general true aspect, transcend worldly conventional designations and dwell solely in accordance with the ultimate truth. Nor should one cling to the non-existence of individual practical functions. Therefore, one must not contradict the ultimate truth and should follow worldly conventional designations. Thus, it only prevents the rigid adherence to and stubborn pursuit of the function of the general true aspect arising from the world, and does not mean that it also prevents the rigid adherence to and stubborn pursuit of the individual essences and functions in the ultimate truth of all dharmas. Because the essences and functions of all dharmas arising from conditions each truly exist, and not all causes produce all effects. Therefore, our school relies on both the two truths to explain that the eye can see, and neither is at fault. The World-Honored One also allows the existence of the agent and the action. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Bhikkhus (bhiksu, monks), you should know that it is called consciousness because it is capable of knowing.' Although the Phalle Guṇa Sutra says that I ultimately did not say there is a knower, it does not completely deny the agent and the action, but only slightly eliminates them, so it says: 'I will further discuss the arising of thought in the context of dependent origination.' Residing in the correct principles of the holy teachings in this way, contemplating, seeking, and deciding, it is the eye that sees and not something else. But they rashly criticize it, denying the truth of the conventional truth, and belittling the tenets of the ultimate truth, trying to grasp at emptiness, which must only exist with them. Moreover, what does the quoted teaching prove? Does it mean that saying the eye is not the essence of seeing, and not saying the eye sees, is the same as the heretics, allowing all dharmas to have the function of the general true aspect? Moreover, what they say is that cause and effect should not exist, because they do not admit that dharmas have their respective essences and functions. There must be the respective essences and functions of all dharmas in order to explain the difference between cause and effect. If they admit that all dharmas have their respective essences and functions, then such slander is in vain. If they say that there is no general or specific function at all, then they violate the principles of the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Since they admit that the two truths of cause and effect do not not exist, they should admit all dharmas.
有假實用。是故眼等取境義成。謂能見聞嗅嘗覺了。如是見用。總相已成。今更應思見用別相。于所見色。為一眼見。為二眼見何緣於此復更應思。豈不極成。若閉一眼余眼能見。是則二眼俱能見色。其義已成此義雖成。而猶未了二眼見色。前後俱時為審了知。應更思擇。若爾應說。非二眼中隨閉一眼或一眼壞即令余眼無見功能。故知一眼亦能見色。若彼二眼不壞俱開。則二眼根同時見色。一眼見色義顯易成。俱見難成故應辯釋。頌曰。
或二眼俱時 見色分明故
論曰。或時二眼俱能見色。何緣定知。見分明故。以閉一眼於色相續見不分明。開二眼時。即於此色見分明故。若二眼根前後見者。雖開二眼而但一見。如一眼閉見色不明。開二眼時亦應如是。如開二眼見色分明。一眼閉時亦應如是。既不如是。定知有時二眼俱見。依性一故。眼設百千尚生一識。況唯有二。有餘部說。處隔越故。眼見色時唯一非二。又以一眼觀箭等時。能審定知曲直相故。速疾轉故。增上慢心。謂我一時二眼能見。此說非理。所以者何。豈不現見。全身沒在冷暖水中。支體身根。俱時覺觸。如是二眼。處雖隔越。俱時見色。理亦無違。雖二眼根方處各異。種類同故。而一根攝。唯一眼識。依二眼生。故許同時俱見無失。然別因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：存在虛假的實用性。因此，眼等（indriya，感官）獲取境界的意義得以成立，即能夠見、聞、嗅、嘗、覺、了（viññāṇa，識別）。像這樣，總體的見的作用已經成立。現在更應該思考見的作用的個別相狀。對於所見的顏色（rūpa，色），是由一隻眼睛見，還是由兩隻眼睛見？為什麼對此需要進一步思考呢？難道不是已經非常明顯了嗎？如果閉上一隻眼睛，另一隻眼睛能夠見，那麼就是兩隻眼睛都能夠見顏色，這個道理已經成立。這個道理雖然成立，但仍然不清楚兩隻眼睛見顏色，是前後相繼還是同時發生，應該進一步思考選擇。如果是這樣，就應該說，不是兩隻眼睛中隨便閉上一隻，或者一隻眼睛壞了，就讓另一隻眼睛沒有見的功能。所以知道一隻眼睛也能見顏色。如果那兩隻眼睛不壞，同時睜開，那麼兩隻眼睛的根（indriya，感官）同時見顏色。一隻眼睛見顏色，道理顯明容易成立，同時見顏色難以成立，所以應該辨別解釋。頌（gāthā，偈頌）說： 『或者兩隻眼睛同時，見顏色分明，所以。』 論（abhidharma，論）說：或者有時兩隻眼睛都能見顏色。憑什麼確定知道呢？因為見得分明。因為閉上一隻眼睛，對於顏色的相續見得不分明，睜開兩隻眼睛時，就對此顏色見得分明。如果兩隻眼睛的根前後見，即使睜開兩隻眼睛而只是一隻眼睛見，就像一隻眼睛閉著見顏色不分明一樣，睜開兩隻眼睛時也應該這樣。就像睜開兩隻眼睛見顏色分明一樣，一隻眼睛閉著時也應該這樣。既然不是這樣，一定知道有時兩隻眼睛同時見。因為體性是一樣的。眼睛即使有成百上千，也只產生一個識（viññāṇa，意識），何況只有兩隻。有其他部派說，因為處所間隔的緣故，眼睛見顏色時只有一個而不是兩個。又因為用一隻眼睛觀察箭等時，能夠審定知道曲直的相狀。因為快速旋轉的緣故，增上慢心（adhimāna，過度的我慢）認為我一時兩隻眼睛能夠見。這種說法不合理。為什麼呢？難道不是現在就能看到，全身沒在冷暖水中，支體身根同時覺察到觸覺。像這樣，兩隻眼睛，處所雖然間隔，同時見顏色，道理也沒有違背。雖然兩隻眼睛的根方位處所各不相同，但種類相同，而屬於一個根所攝，只有一個眼識，依靠兩隻眼睛產生，所以允許同時都見沒有過失。然而，個別的因（hetu，原因）……
【English Translation】 English version: There is false practicality. Therefore, the meaning of the eye, etc. (indriya, sense organs) taking objects is established, that is, being able to see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and cognize (viññāṇa, consciousness). Thus, the general aspect of the function of seeing is already established. Now, one should further contemplate the individual aspects of the function of seeing. Regarding the seen color (rūpa, form), is it seen by one eye or by two eyes? Why is it necessary to further contemplate this? Isn't it already extremely evident? If one eye is closed and the other eye can see, then both eyes are able to see color, and this principle is established. Although this principle is established, it is still not clear whether the two eyes see color successively or simultaneously; one should further contemplate and choose. If that is the case, it should be said that it is not that if one of the two eyes is closed at random, or one eye is damaged, it causes the other eye to have no function of seeing. Therefore, it is known that one eye can also see color. If those two eyes are not damaged and are opened simultaneously, then the roots (indriya, sense organs) of the two eyes see color simultaneously. The principle that one eye sees color is clear and easy to establish; the simultaneous seeing of color is difficult to establish, so it should be distinguished and explained. The verse (gāthā) says: 『Or the two eyes simultaneously, see color clearly, therefore.』 The treatise (abhidharma) says: Or sometimes both eyes can see color. How is it definitely known? Because the seeing is clear. Because when one eye is closed, the continuous seeing of color is not clear; when two eyes are opened, then the seeing of this color is clear. If the roots of the two eyes see successively, even if two eyes are opened, it is only one eye that sees, just as when one eye is closed, seeing color is not clear; when two eyes are opened, it should also be like this. Just as when two eyes are opened, seeing color is clear, when one eye is closed, it should also be like this. Since it is not like this, it is definitely known that sometimes two eyes see simultaneously. Because the nature is the same. Even if there are hundreds or thousands of eyes, only one consciousness (viññāṇa) is produced, let alone only two. Some other schools say that because of the separation of location, when the eye sees color, there is only one and not two. Also, because when observing arrows, etc. with one eye, one can accurately know the shape of curvature and straightness. Because of the speed of rotation, the mind of excessive pride (adhimāna) thinks that I can see with two eyes at the same time. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Isn't it visible now that when the whole body is immersed in cold or warm water, the body roots of the limbs simultaneously perceive the tactile sensation. Like this, although the locations of the two eyes are separated, there is no contradiction in the principle of seeing color simultaneously. Although the locations of the roots of the two eyes are different, they are of the same kind, and are included in one root, and there is only one eye consciousness, which arises depending on the two eyes, so it is permissible to see simultaneously without fault. However, the individual cause (hetu) is...
故。但由一眼能審定知箭等曲直。言別因者。由眼極微如香荾花傍布而住。正現前事。見即分明。非正現前。見便不了。于觀箭等曲直相時。二眼中間置箭等者。俱望二眼非正現前。更相眩曜見不詳審。設當一眼置箭等時。余眼傍觀亦不審了。故閉一眼以箭等事當一眼時。一眼正觀無相眩曜。易審曲直。又言二眼處隔越故不俱見者。此亦不然。如人二手俱觸冷暖。處雖隔越。同時發識。眼亦應然。何不俱見。又一眼中有翳隔斷。應不俱時同發一識。又彼所言。速疾轉故。起增上慢。謂我一時二眼見者。此實能見。非增上慢。雖復二眼見用速疾。若於一時。一眼發識。余眼不能助發識者。便開二眼。或一眼閉。見色明昧差別應無。隨一眼中識定空故。由此亦遮上座所說。彼作是言。二眼于境前後起用。見則分明。或復一眼。有閉壞時。一眼雖開無相替代。彼所生識。唯依一門速疾轉故。見不明瞭。此說亦非所執二眼剎那展轉相替代時。一眼常空不能見色。恒唯一眼能見色故。與一眼者見色明昧差別應無。故彼所言不能令喜。又若一眼有閉壞時。眼識常依一門轉故。于所見色不明瞭者。是則二眼不壞俱開時。一眼識依二門轉。由此所見明瞭義成。若謂二眼不壞俱開。眼識爾時一門轉者。即前所說。或復一眼有閉壞時。一眼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，僅僅通過一隻眼睛就能準確地判斷箭是否彎曲或筆直。至於說原因不同的說法，是因為眼睛的極微部分像香茅花一樣排列分佈，只對正前方的事物清晰顯現。如果不是正前方的事物，就看不清楚。在觀察箭的彎曲或筆直時，如果在兩眼之間放置箭，兩眼都不能正對著箭，互相干擾，導致看不清楚。如果只用一隻眼睛對著箭，另一隻眼睛從旁邊觀看，也看不清楚。所以要閉上一隻眼睛，讓箭正對著另一隻眼睛，這樣才能沒有干擾地容易判斷箭的曲直。 又有人說，因為兩隻眼睛的位置有間隔，所以不能同時看到。這也是不對的。比如人的兩隻手同時觸控冷或熱的東西，雖然位置有間隔，但同時產生感覺。眼睛也應該如此，為什麼不能同時看到呢？而且，如果一隻眼睛裡有翳障隔斷，應該不能同時產生同一個意識。 還有人說，因為眼識快速轉動，所以產生了增上慢（錯誤的優越感），認為自己能同時用兩隻眼睛看到。這實際上是能看到的，不是增上慢。即使兩隻眼睛的視覺功能很快，如果在同一時刻，一隻眼睛產生意識，另一隻眼睛不能幫助產生意識，那麼睜開兩隻眼睛或閉上一隻眼睛，所見顏色的明暗差別應該沒有。因為任何時候都只有一隻眼睛的意識是確定的。 由此也駁斥了上座部的說法。他們說，兩隻眼睛對境物前後起作用，所以看得清楚。或者一隻眼睛閉上或損壞時，另一隻眼睛雖然睜著，也不能替代。他們所產生的意識，只是依靠一個通道快速轉動，所以看不清楚。這種說法也是不對的。如果按照他們所說的，兩隻眼睛剎那間交替替代，那麼就意味著總有一隻眼睛是空的，不能看到顏色，總是隻有一隻眼睛能看到顏色。那麼，用一隻眼睛看東西時，顏色的明暗差別應該沒有。所以他們的說法不能令人信服。 而且，如果一隻眼睛閉上或損壞時，眼識總是依靠一個通道轉動，所以對所見顏色看不清楚，那麼當兩隻眼睛都完好睜開時，一隻眼睛的意識就應該依靠兩個通道轉動，這樣才能說明所見事物清晰的道理。如果說兩隻眼睛都完好睜開時，眼識仍然只依靠一個通道轉動，那麼就和前面所說的，一隻眼睛閉上或損壞時的情況一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is only through one eye that one can accurately determine whether an arrow is bent or straight. As for the argument that the causes are different, it is because the extremely subtle parts of the eye are arranged and distributed like the flowers of the Cyperus rotundus (fragrant galingale), and they only clearly manifest things directly in front. If things are not directly in front, they cannot be seen clearly. When observing the bending or straightness of an arrow, if the arrow is placed between the two eyes, neither eye can directly face the arrow, and they interfere with each other, making it difficult to see clearly. If only one eye is used to face the arrow while the other eye observes from the side, it is also difficult to see clearly. Therefore, one eye should be closed, allowing the arrow to directly face the other eye, so that the bending or straightness of the arrow can be easily determined without interference. Furthermore, some say that because the positions of the two eyes are separated, they cannot see simultaneously. This is also incorrect. For example, when a person's two hands simultaneously touch something cold or hot, although the positions are separated, the sensation arises simultaneously. The eyes should be the same; why can't they see simultaneously? Moreover, if there is an obstruction or cataract in one eye, the same consciousness should not arise simultaneously. Still others say that because eye-consciousness rotates rapidly, it gives rise to an adhimāna (false sense of superiority), thinking that one can see with both eyes simultaneously. This is actually seeing, not adhimāna. Even if the visual function of the two eyes is fast, if at the same moment, one eye generates consciousness and the other eye cannot help generate consciousness, then whether both eyes are open or one eye is closed, there should be no difference in the brightness or darkness of the colors seen. This is because at any time, only the consciousness of one eye is definite. This also refutes the statements of the Theravada school. They say that the two eyes function one after the other in relation to objects, so they see clearly. Or when one eye is closed or damaged, the other eye, although open, cannot replace it. The consciousness they generate relies only on one channel and rotates rapidly, so they cannot see clearly. This statement is also incorrect. If, according to what they say, the two eyes alternate instantaneously, then it means that there is always one eye that is empty and cannot see colors, and only one eye can always see colors. Then, when seeing with one eye, there should be no difference in the brightness or darkness of the colors. Therefore, their statement is not convincing. Moreover, if when one eye is closed or damaged, eye-consciousness always relies on one channel to rotate, so the colors seen are not clear, then when both eyes are intact and open, the consciousness of one eye should rely on two channels to rotate, so that the principle of seeing things clearly can be explained. If it is said that when both eyes are intact and open, eye-consciousness still relies on only one channel to rotate, then it is the same as the situation described earlier, when one eye is closed or damaged.
雖開。無相替代。彼所生識。唯依一門速疾轉故。見不明瞭。言成無用。無替代言。亦不應理。剎那前後有替代故。又初剎那識應明瞭。又應意識恒常闇昧。是故彼說。決定無有見色明昧差別因緣。又彼應說。眼識生時。左右二眼眾緣皆具。何不同時俱能生識。二眼前後生識論者。眾緣具時。無有因緣。令生識用。初左非右。或復相違。又彼上座論宗所許。全身沒在冷暖水中。身根極微。遍能生識。以中或表身根損時。雖生身識。而不明瞭。故知身識明瞭生時。定由所依寬廣遍發幾許多百逾繕那身境遍現前。上下俱時。同生一識。何緣二眼。相去不遙。俱境現前。不許同時共生一識。今觀彼意。無別因緣。但欲故違阿毗達磨諸大論者所說義宗。頑嚚眾中逞己聰睿。對法者說。身根極微。理應定無一切同分。十三火聚纏逼身時。身根極微。猶有無量是彼同分。不生身識。設遍生識。身應散壞。彼上座言。此應徴難。彼所受身不散壞者。為由身識不遍發故。為由宿業力所持故。又彼身形所有損害。為由身識為由火燒。又彼身中。猛火遍逼。何緣身識不遍發耶。又發識處。身應散壞。如是徴難。皆不應理。業要待緣能持身故。謂由業力。令彼身中身根極微不遍發識。勿遍發識身便散壞。彼何不受如是義耶。又由此故。業力勝
劣差別義成。生彼有情。受苦輕重。業不等故。謂彼同分身根極微少者。便生猛利苦受。若彼同分身根極微多者。便生微劣苦受。若謂業力招異熟苦勝劣法爾何用彼者。此責不然。一身前後。受苦勝劣。應無有故。非一業力於一身中感苦受果前後勝劣滿業多故。無斯過者。理亦不然多業異熟。前後生起。無定因故。若謂待緣合時生者。是則業力待緣義成。業雖能招異熟苦果。要緣身觸身識方生。身識俱時乃生苦受。是故業力必待緣成。有非情法亦能為緣發生苦受。然非異熟。若謂彼緣亦是業力增上果者。然增上果。既非異熟。不必相續勝劣無定。是則無業不待緣成。其理難越。故我所言。謂由業力。令彼身中身根極微不遍發識。勿遍發識身便散壞。其理極成。言彼身形所有損害。為由身識為火燒者。我說定由身識損害。若無識了外火何能不見悅意境界現前樂受不生身有攝益。諸聰睿者。咸作是言。由遇外緣覺發內境。起心心所。方于自身為損為益。若無苦受與識俱生。誰于彼身能為損害。故彼所執。理定不然。言彼身中猛火遍逼。何緣身識不遍發者。上座亦應同此當說。何緣二眼境俱現前。唯一眼根生識非二。又如先說。先何所說。謂由業力令彼身中身根極微不遍發識。勿遍發識身便散壞。言發識處身應壞者。何緣定
知彼身不壞。如等活等捺落迦中。隨發識處身份便壞。而不全壞。若全壞者。彼應數數命終受生。是故應知。一切身份有多同時發一識者。如是眼根雖有二處。亦可俱時同發一識。云何一眼識依二眼根轉。識無形色無住處故。依二轉相難可定說。如何得知。識無住處。一識遍依多根轉故。謂若眼識有住處者。眼根有二眼識唯一。識應但依一眼而轉。則應一眼見色非二。或應俱時在一相續有二眼識依二根轉。如是二事既皆不許。故心心所定無住處。若謂一識於一時中住二眼處。此亦非理。有分相雜非一過故。謂若一識於一時中住二眼者應成有分住左眼分非住右眼住右眼分非住左故。又應相雜。二眼中間眼識。亦依身根住故。是則身識亦成眼識。又應非一。二眼中間若無眼識有隔斷故。如何成一。如是則應非一眼識於一時間各住一眼。是故不應許一眼識於一時中住二眼處。又執眼識住眼中者。當云何住。為體相涉如油住麻。為別相依如果住器。然此二執。俱不應理。若如初者。眼與眼識。其性各別。應成一故。若如後者。無方分法。別體相合。理不成故。若心心所無住處者。如何可言依止眼根了別諸色故名眼識。又若眼識不住眼中。如何眼根成所依性。此責非理。眼作眼識不共鄰近生起緣故說為依止及所依性。不可言依彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 瞭解身體不會完全壞滅。比如在等活地獄（Sañjīva-naraka，八熱地獄之一，眾生在此不斷復活受苦）等捺落迦（naraka，地獄）中，隨著意識生起的地方，身體的一部分會壞滅，但不會完全壞滅。如果完全壞滅，他們就應該不斷地死亡和受生。因此，應該知道，一切身體的部分，有多個同時生起一個意識的情況。就像眼根雖然有兩個地方，也可以同時生起一個意識。如何解釋一個眼識依賴兩個眼根運作呢？因為識沒有形狀和顏色，也沒有固定的住處，所以依賴兩個眼根運作的情況難以確定說明。如何得知識沒有固定的住處呢？因為一個識可以普遍地依賴多個根運作。如果眼識有住處，眼根有兩個，眼識只有一個，那麼識應該只依賴一隻眼睛運作，那麼就應該一隻眼睛能看見顏色，而另一隻眼睛不能。或者應該同時在一個相續中有兩個眼識依賴兩個眼根運作。這兩種情況都是不允許的。所以心和心所（citta-caitta，心和心理活動）一定沒有固定的住處。如果認為一個識在同一時間住在兩個眼睛的地方，這也是不合理的，因為這樣會造成有部分相雜而不是一個整體的過失。如果一個識在同一時間住在兩個眼睛裡，那麼就應該成為有部分：住在左眼的部分就不是住在右眼，住在右眼的部分就不是住在左眼。又應該相雜，因為兩眼中間的眼識也依賴身根而住。這樣身識也就成了眼識。又應該不是一個，因為兩眼中間如果沒有眼識，就會有隔斷，如何能成為一個？這樣就應該不是一個眼識在同一時間分別住在兩隻眼睛裡。所以不應該允許一個眼識在同一時間住在兩個眼睛的地方。又如果認為眼識住在眼睛裡，那麼應該如何住呢？是像油滲入芝麻一樣，本體互相滲透？還是像果實放在容器里一樣，彼此分離而相互依賴？這兩種說法都不合理。如果像前者，眼睛和眼識的性質各不相同，應該成為一個整體。如果像後者，沒有方分（空間分割）的法，本體分離而相互結合，在道理上是不能成立的。如果心和心所沒有住處，如何能說依賴眼根來了別各種顏色，所以叫做眼識呢？又如果眼識不住在眼睛裡，眼根如何成為所依賴的性質呢？這種責難是不合理的。眼睛作為眼識不共的、鄰近的生起之緣，所以說它是依賴和所依賴的性質，不能說依賴它。
【English Translation】 English version Knowing that the body is not completely destroyed. For example, in Sañjīva-naraka (one of the eight hot hells, where beings are constantly reborn to suffer) and other narakas (hells), as the consciousness arises, a part of the body is destroyed, but not completely. If it were completely destroyed, they would have to die and be reborn repeatedly. Therefore, it should be known that all parts of the body have multiple instances of a single consciousness arising simultaneously. Just as the eye-organ has two locations, it can also simultaneously generate one consciousness. How can one explain that one eye-consciousness relies on two eye-organs to function? Because consciousness has no shape or color and no fixed abode, it is difficult to definitively explain the situation of relying on two eye-organs. How can it be known that consciousness has no fixed abode? Because one consciousness can universally rely on multiple organs to function. If eye-consciousness had a dwelling place, and there are two eye-organs but only one eye-consciousness, then the consciousness should only rely on one eye to function, so one eye should be able to see colors while the other cannot. Or there should be two eye-consciousnesses relying on two eye-organs simultaneously in one continuum. Both of these situations are not allowed. Therefore, the mind and mental activities (citta-caitta) certainly have no fixed abode. If it is argued that one consciousness dwells in the place of two eyes at the same time, this is also unreasonable, because it would create the fault of having parts mixed together instead of being a whole. If one consciousness dwells in two eyes at the same time, then it should become partial: dwelling in the part of the left eye is not dwelling in the right eye, and dwelling in the part of the right eye is not dwelling in the left eye. It should also be mixed, because the eye-consciousness between the two eyes also relies on the body-organ to dwell. In this way, body-consciousness would also become eye-consciousness. It should also not be one, because if there is no eye-consciousness between the two eyes, there would be a separation, how could it be one? Thus, it should not be that one eye-consciousness dwells in each eye at the same time. Therefore, it should not be allowed that one eye-consciousness dwells in the place of two eyes at the same time. Furthermore, if it is argued that eye-consciousness dwells in the eyes, then how should it dwell? Is it like oil seeping into sesame, with the substances interpenetrating each other? Or is it like fruit placed in a container, separate but mutually dependent? Both of these arguments are unreasonable. If it is like the former, the natures of the eye and eye-consciousness are different, and they should become one whole. If it is like the latter, a dharma without spatial divisions, with separate substances combining with each other, cannot be established in principle. If the mind and mental activities have no dwelling place, how can it be said that relying on the eye-organ to distinguish various colors is called eye-consciousness? Also, if eye-consciousness does not dwell in the eyes, how can the eye-organ become the nature of what is relied upon? This accusation is unreasonable. The eye serves as the uncommon, proximate cause for the arising of eye-consciousness, so it is said to be the nature of reliance and what is relied upon; it cannot be said to rely on it.
即說住其中。亦說臣依王人依財食故。若謂眼識隨所依根有損益故住眼中者。理亦不然。現見影光映象等物。隨依損益而不住故。謂影等物非住樹等。而見樹等有損益時影等隨依亦有損益。又見大海。隨月虧盈。水有增減。然大海水不住月中。故所立因。有不定失。若爾眼識何不能取眼依肉團眼藥眼籌眼瞼翳等。設許眼識住眼根中。極相逼故。可不能取。既許眼識如非住境亦不住根。豈不如色亦應能取眼肉團等。此亦不然。由能依識與所依根一境轉故。又極遠色。與識所住雖不相鄰。而不能取。若肉團等。與所住根極鄰逼故。識不取者。諸所有色與所住根。不相鄰逼。皆應能取。是故眼識取境法爾。若所取境與所依根。極近極遠皆不能取。若爾眼識應有住處。非無住處。可說此識與所取色極近極遠。此亦不然。就所依根。說近遠故。或就鄰近生因說故。眼是眼識鄰近生因識執眼根以為我故。即就此因。說有近遠。或由眼識身內轉故。就身說有近遠無過。身由此理名有識身。以識執身為自內有。故知眼識在身內轉。有作是言。心心所法。定有住處。現見諸果住因處故。謂見世間所生諸果。無不住在能生因處。如羯剌藍住精血處。芽等亦住種等因處。眼根既是生眼識因。眼識定應住眼根處。若謂如聲亦離本者。此救不然。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 既然說眼識『住』在其中，也說官吏依附君王，人們依附財物食物的緣故（而存在）。如果說眼識隨著所依附的眼根有損傷或增益，所以住在眼中，這個道理也是不成立的。現在可以見到影子、光線、映象等事物，隨著所依附的物體有損傷或增益，但它們並不『住』在所依附的物體中。例如，影子等事物並非『住』在樹等物體上，但當看到樹等物體有損傷或增益時，影子等隨著所依附的物體也會有損傷或增益。又如看到大海，隨著月亮的虧缺或盈滿，海水會有增加或減少，然而大海的水並非『住』在月亮中。因此，所建立的理由有不確定的過失。 如果這樣，眼識為什麼不能取眼所依附的肉團、眼藥、眼簽、眼瞼、眼翳等？假設允許眼識住在眼根中，因為它們極其逼近，或許不能取。既然允許眼識像不住在境界中一樣，也不住在眼根中，難道不應該像取色一樣，也能取眼肉團等嗎？這也不成立。因為能依附的識與所依附的根在同一個境界中運轉的緣故。又如極其遙遠的色，與識所住的地方雖然不相鄰，但也不能取。如果肉團等，與所住的根極其鄰近逼迫，識不能取，那麼所有與所住的根不相鄰近逼迫的色，都應該能取。所以，眼識取境是自然而然的法則。如果所取的境界與所依附的根極其近或極其遠，都不能取。如果這樣，眼識應該有住處，並非沒有住處。可以說這個識與所取的色極其近或極其遠。這也不成立。這是就所依附的根來說近遠的緣故。或者就鄰近的生因來說的緣故。眼是眼識鄰近的生因，識執取眼根以為『我』的緣故。就是就這個原因，說有近遠。或者由於眼識在身體內運轉的緣故，就身體來說有近遠沒有過失。身體由此道理名為有識身。因為識執取身體為自己內在所有的。所以知道眼識在身體內運轉。有人這樣說，心和心所法，一定有住處。現在見到各種果實住在因處的緣故。例如見到世間所生的各種果實，沒有不住在能生之因處的。如羯剌藍（kalala，梵語，意為凝滑，指受精卵最初的凝結狀態）住在精血處，芽等也住在種子等因處。眼根既然是生眼識的因，眼識一定應該住在眼根處。如果說像聲音也離開本處一樣，這種辯解是不成立的。
【English Translation】 English version: Since it is said that eye-consciousness 'resides' within it, it is also said that officials rely on the king, and people rely on wealth and food (for their existence). If it is argued that eye-consciousness resides in the eye because it is affected by the damage or benefit to the eye-organ it relies on, this reasoning is also untenable. It is evident that shadows, light, reflections, and other things, while affected by the damage or benefit to the objects they rely on, do not 'reside' within those objects. For example, shadows and the like do not 'reside' in trees, but when the trees are seen to be damaged or benefited, the shadows are also affected accordingly. Similarly, the ocean's water increases or decreases with the waxing and waning of the moon, yet the ocean's water does not 'reside' in the moon. Therefore, the established reason has the fault of being uncertain. If this is the case, why can't eye-consciousness grasp the fleshy mass, eye medicine, eye probe, eyelids, or cataracts that the eye relies on? If it is granted that eye-consciousness resides in the eye-organ, perhaps it cannot grasp them because they are extremely close. Since it is granted that eye-consciousness does not reside in the eye-organ in the same way it does not reside in the object, shouldn't it be able to grasp the fleshy mass of the eye, just as it grasps color? This is also untenable because the consciousness that relies and the organ it relies on operate within the same sphere. Furthermore, extremely distant colors cannot be grasped, even though they are not adjacent to where consciousness resides. If the fleshy mass and the like are extremely close to the residing organ, and consciousness cannot grasp them, then all colors that are not adjacent to the residing organ should be graspable. Therefore, it is the natural law of eye-consciousness to grasp objects. If the grasped object is extremely near or extremely far from the relying organ, it cannot be grasped. If this is the case, eye-consciousness should have a dwelling place, not be without one. It can be said that this consciousness is extremely near or extremely far from the grasped color. This is also untenable because nearness and distance are spoken of in relation to the relying organ. Or because it is spoken of in relation to the proximate cause of arising. The eye is the proximate cause of arising for eye-consciousness, and consciousness grasps the eye-organ as 'I'. It is in relation to this cause that nearness and distance are spoken of. Or because eye-consciousness operates within the body, there is no fault in speaking of nearness and distance in relation to the body. The body is therefore called the conscious body (有識身). Because consciousness grasps the body as its own internal possession. Therefore, it is known that eye-consciousness operates within the body. Some say that mind and mental factors (心心所法) must have a dwelling place. This is because various fruits are seen to reside in the place of their causes. For example, all the fruits produced in the world are seen to reside in the place of their generating causes. Like the kalala (羯剌藍, the initial congealed state of a fertilized egg) resides in the place of sperm and blood, and sprouts reside in the place of seeds and other causes. Since the eye-organ is the cause of the arising of eye-consciousness, eye-consciousness should reside in the eye-organ. If it is said that it is like sound also leaving its original place, this defense is untenable.
聲必不離所依本故。此言非理。如糞土等相續有異。非如種等相續一故。眼與眼識。由體類別相續有異。如糞土等雖芽等因。體類別故住處各別。眼識亦然。不住眼處。非如芽等與種等因相續不異。可言住彼。又識不住色等處故。如色明空及作意等。雖能為因發生眼識。而識生時不住彼處。眼亦應爾。雖是識因。而識生時不住彼處。豈不如眼雖與色等同為識因而眼識生唯依止眼不依色等。如是眼根。雖與色等同為識因。而眼識生。應唯住眼不住色等。汝今何緣不取是義。謂如眼根。雖與色等望所生識依非依異。而與眼識同爲異類相續因性。如是眼根。雖與色等望所生識依非依異。而同作識非所住因。由此故知。心心所法。定無住處。其義極成。故先所言。識無形色。無住處故。依二轉相難可定說。理必應然。如是所說。眼等諸根。正取境時。為至不至。何緣於此猶復生疑。現見經中有二說故。如世尊說。有情眼根。愛非愛色之所拘礙。非不相至。拘礙義成。又世尊說。彼以天眼觀諸有情。廣說乃至。或遠或近。非於至境可立遠近。由此二說。故復生疑。根境相至其義不定。若就功能到境名至。則一切根唯取至境。若就體相無間名至。頌曰。
眼耳意根境 不至三相違
論曰。眼根唯取非至境界。遠近二境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『聲音必然不離所依賴的根本』，這種說法不合理。例如糞土等，其相續是不同的，不像種子等，其相續是同一的。眼根和眼識，由於本體類別不同，其相續也是不同的。如同糞土等，雖然是芽等的因，但由於本體類別不同，其住處也各不相同，眼識也是如此，不住在眼根之處。不像芽等和種子等因，相續沒有不同，可以說住在那裡。而且，識不住在色等處，如同色、明、空和作意等，雖然能作為因產生眼識，但眼識產生時不住在那些地方，眼根也應該如此，雖然是識的因，但識產生時不住在眼根之處。難道不像眼根，雖然與色等同為識的因，但眼識的產生唯獨依賴眼根，不依賴色等嗎？如同眼根，雖然與色等同為識的因，但眼識的產生應該唯獨住在眼根，不住在色等。你現在為何不採納這個道理？如同眼根，雖然與色等對於所產生的識，在依賴與不依賴上有所不同，但與眼識同爲異類相續的因性。如同眼根，雖然與色等對於所產生的識，在依賴與不依賴上有所不同，但共同作為識的非所住之因。由此可知，心和心所法，一定沒有住處，這個道理非常明確。所以先前所說，識沒有形色，沒有住處，依據二轉相難以確定，理應如此。像這樣所說，眼等諸根，在真正取境時，是至境還是不至境呢？為何對此還產生懷疑？因為現在看到經中有兩種說法。如世尊說：『有情（sentient beings）的眼根，被可愛和不可愛的色所拘礙，不是不相至的，拘礙的意義成立。』又世尊說：『他以天眼（divine eye）觀察諸有情（sentient beings），』廣泛地說乃至『或遠或近』，對於至境不能安立遠近。由於這兩種說法，所以又產生懷疑，根境相至的意義是不定的。如果就功能到達境界來說是『至』，那麼一切根都只取『至』境。如果就本體相無間隔來說是『至』，頌說： 『眼耳意根境，不至三相違。』 論說：眼根唯獨取非至的境界，遠近二境。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Sound necessarily does not depart from its inherent basis.』 This statement is unreasonable. For example, things like dung and soil have different continuities, unlike seeds and the like, which have the same continuity. The eye and eye-consciousness have different continuities due to their different natures. Just as dung and soil, although they are the causes of sprouts and the like, have different dwelling places because of their different natures, so too is it with eye-consciousness; it does not dwell in the eye. It is not like sprouts and the like, whose continuity is not different from that of seeds and the like, so that it can be said to dwell there. Moreover, consciousness does not dwell in places like form, light, space, and attention. Although these can be causes for the arising of eye-consciousness, when eye-consciousness arises, it does not dwell in those places. The eye should be the same; although it is a cause of consciousness, when consciousness arises, it does not dwell in the eye. Is it not like the eye, which, although it is a cause of consciousness along with form and the like, eye-consciousness arises relying only on the eye and not on form and the like? Just as the eye, although it differs from form and the like in terms of reliance and non-reliance with respect to the consciousness that arises, it should be that the arising of eye-consciousness dwells only in the eye and not in form and the like. Why do you not now adopt this reasoning? It is like the eye, which, although it differs from form and the like in terms of reliance and non-reliance with respect to the consciousness that arises, is the cause of a different kind of continuity along with eye-consciousness. Just as the eye, although it differs from form and the like in terms of reliance and non-reliance with respect to the consciousness that arises, it acts together as a non-dwelling cause of consciousness. From this, it is known that mind and mental factors definitely have no dwelling place; this principle is extremely well-established. Therefore, what was said earlier, that consciousness has no form or color and no dwelling place, and that it is difficult to determine based on the two aspects of transformation, is necessarily the case. As it is said, when the sense faculties such as the eye truly take objects, do they reach the object or not? Why do you still have doubts about this? Because there are now two statements seen in the sutras. As the World Honored One (Buddha) said: 『The eye faculty of sentient beings (有情), is obstructed by beloved and unloved forms, it is not that they do not reach each other, the meaning of obstruction is established.』 Also, the World Honored One (Buddha) said: 『He observes sentient beings (有情) with the divine eye (天眼),』 broadly speaking, 『whether far or near,』 one cannot establish far and near with respect to reaching objects. Because of these two statements, doubt arises again; the meaning of the sense faculties reaching objects is uncertain. If 『reaching』 is defined as the function reaching the object, then all sense faculties only take 『reaching』 objects. If 『reaching』 is defined as the absence of any gap in the substance, the verse says: 『The eye, ear, and mind faculties, reaching the object, these three contradict.』 The treatise says: The eye faculty only takes non-reaching objects, both near and far.
俱時取故眼若至境應有行動。非天授等有行動法。遠近二方一時俱至。是故眼根取非至境。若說如燈。于遠近境一時俱至。是彼性故。此說不然。因不成故。謂若有說。譬如明燈遠近二方俱至而照。眼根亦爾。遠近二境俱至而取。同彼明燈火明性故。此因不成。眼火明性非極成故。又眼不應是火明性。闇中欲見求光明故。非燈欲照瓶衣等時別求光明助方能照。若謂眼中火明小故求大光明助方見者。此亦非理。現見小明大所伏故。眼應畢竟不能見色。又明燈喻。與眼不同。鄰逼無間照不見故。謂如明燈。于油炷等極鄰逼物。能燒能照。眼則不然。于眼藥等極鄰逼境。不能見故。又如明燈。于諸遠近所照之物。無間遍照眼則不爾。或越中間樹林等色見山等故。由茲燈喻。與眼不同。前所立因。遠近二境俱時取故。證眼唯取非至境者。理無傾動。又眼不應至境方取。以不能取鄰逼境故。又亦能取頗胝迦等所障色故。又于所見有猶豫故。若取至境。因何猶豫。非於至處猶豫應理。又不審知人杌異故。既言至彼審知豎相不審差別。此有何因。又眼無容至遠境故。無容住此眼越多千逾繕那量。至月輪境眼有明故。無斯過者。理亦不然。眼有火明。非極成故。眼性非火。寧有火明。耳根亦唯取非至境。方維遠近可了知故。謂可了知此
南北等方維遠近差別音聲。聲至耳根方得聞者。應如味等。此事皆無。豈不鼻根亦見能了方維遠近香差別耶。雖見但由順方迴轉。取香明瞭比知差別。眼耳見聞方維遠近。不假迴轉而能了知。故與鼻根取境非類。又近遠聲。取有明瞭不明瞭故。若至乃聞並應明瞭。又近遠聲。取有決了猶豫別故。若至乃聞至無別故。如近決了。于諸遠聲。應無猶豫。如遠猶豫。于諸近聲。應無決了。由此等證。不至能聞。意根亦唯取非至境。不取俱有相應法故。若言如鼻雖不能取自俱生香而取至境意亦爾者。理必不然。由外覺發。內俱生香鼻方能取。義極成故。如說唯內食能作食事故。非不取時能為食事。又無色故非能有至。是故意根取非至境。設有難言。三根能取非至境者。理必不成。應皆能取一切處時所有一切不至物故。謂若三根取非至境。非至同故。天上地下。極遠障隔。已滅未生。諸不至物。何不能取。又彼三根。未起已滅。何不能取。又面余方。何不能見余方境界。此難不然。譬如磁石能吸鐵故。謂如磁石。雖能吸于諸不至鐵。而不能吸無量百千逾繕那等有隔障鐵。又不能吸已滅未生及不對面諸不至鐵。未起已滅亦不能吸。又如鏡等生於像故。謂如鏡等。雖復能生不至物像。而不能生極遠障隔已滅未生及不對面一切物像。未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 南北等方位，遠近的差別，以及音聲，聲音到達耳根才能被聽見，應該像味道等一樣。但這些情況都沒有。難道不是鼻根也能覺察到方位遠近的香味差別嗎？雖然能覺察，但只是通過順著方向迴轉，獲取香味來明白地比較和知道差別。而眼根和耳根見聞方位遠近，不需要回轉就能了知，所以和鼻根取境不同類。而且，對於近處和遠處的聲，獲取時有明瞭和不明瞭的區別。如果聲音到達才被聽見，那麼都應該是明瞭的。而且，對於近處和遠處的聲，獲取時有決斷和猶豫的區別。如果聲音到達才被聽見，那麼到達與否就沒有區別了。比如近處的聲是決斷的，那麼對於遠處的聲，應該沒有猶豫。如果遠處的聲是猶豫的，那麼對於近處的聲，應該沒有決斷。通過這些證據，可以得出結論：不（需要聲音）到達也能聽見。意根也只是取非至境（未到達的境界），不取俱有（同時存在）的相應法。如果說像鼻根一樣，雖然不能取自身俱生的香，但能取到達的境界，意根也是如此，那麼道理一定不對。因為由外覺引發，內在俱生的香鼻根才能取，這個道理已經很明確了。就像說只有內在的食物才能作為食物的因緣一樣，不取的時候不能作為食物的因緣。而且，意根沒有色，所以不能有到達。所以意根取非至境。如果有人提出疑問：如果三個根（眼、耳、鼻）能取非至境，那麼道理一定不成立，應該都能取一切處、一切時所有的一切未到達的事物。如果三個根取非至境，因為非至是相同的，那麼天上地下，極遠有障礙隔絕的，已經滅的，未生的，這些未到達的事物，為什麼不能取？而且，這三個根，對於未起和已滅的事物，為什麼不能取？而且，面對著一方，為什麼不能看見另一方的境界？這個疑問是不成立的。比如磁石能吸鐵一樣。就像磁石，雖然能吸那些未到達的鐵，但不能吸無量百千由旬等有隔障的鐵。而且不能吸已滅未生以及不對面的那些未到達的鐵，未起已滅的也不能吸。又比如鏡子等能生出影像一樣。就像鏡子等，雖然能生出未到達的事物的影像，但不能生出極遠有障礙隔絕的，已滅未生的，以及不對面的一切事物的影像。
【English Translation】 English version The differences in north-south directions, distances, and sounds. If a sound must reach the ear-consciousness (ear-root) to be heard, it should be like taste, etc. But these are not the case. Doesn't the nose-consciousness (nose-root) also perceive the differences in the fragrance of different directions and distances? Although it perceives, it only does so by turning in the direction, acquiring the fragrance to clearly compare and know the differences. The eye-consciousness (eye-root) and ear-consciousness (ear-root) perceive directions and distances without needing to turn, so they are not the same as the nose-consciousness (nose-root) in taking objects. Moreover, for sounds that are near and far, there are differences in clarity and unclearness when acquiring them. If the sound must reach to be heard, then all should be clear. Furthermore, for sounds that are near and far, there are differences in decisiveness and hesitation when acquiring them. If the sound must reach to be heard, then there would be no difference between reaching and not reaching. For example, a nearby sound is decisive, so there should be no hesitation for distant sounds. If a distant sound is hesitant, then there should be no decisiveness for nearby sounds. From these evidences, it can be concluded that one can hear without (the sound) reaching. The mind-consciousness (mind-root) also only takes non-arrived realms (non-proximate objects), not taking co-existent (simultaneously existing) corresponding dharmas. If it is said that like the nose-consciousness (nose-root), although it cannot take the fragrance that is co-born with itself, it can take the arrived realm, and the mind-consciousness (mind-root) is also like that, then the reasoning must be incorrect. Because the nose-consciousness (nose-root) can only take the internally co-born fragrance when triggered by external perception, this principle is very clear. It's like saying that only internal food can be the cause of eating; not taking it cannot be the cause of eating. Moreover, the mind-consciousness (mind-root) has no form, so it cannot have arrival. Therefore, the mind-consciousness (mind-root) takes non-arrived realms. If someone raises the question: If the three consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose) can take non-arrived realms, then the reasoning must be invalid; they should all be able to take all non-arrived things in all places and at all times. If the three consciousnesses take non-arrived realms, because non-arrival is the same, then why can't they take the non-arrived things that are above the sky and below the earth, extremely far away with obstacles, already ceased, and not yet born? Moreover, why can't these three consciousnesses take things that are not yet arisen and already ceased? Furthermore, facing one direction, why can't one see the realms of other directions? This question is not valid. It's like a magnet being able to attract iron. Just as a magnet, although it can attract those non-arrived iron, it cannot attract iron that is separated by countless hundreds of thousands of yojanas (unit of distance) and has obstacles. Moreover, it cannot attract those non-arrived iron that have already ceased, not yet born, and are not facing it; it also cannot attract those that are not yet arisen and already ceased. Also, like mirrors being able to produce images. Just as mirrors, although they can produce images of non-arrived things, they cannot produce images of all things that are extremely far away with obstacles, already ceased, not yet born, and not facing it.
起已滅亦不能生。眼等亦然。不應為難。是故彼難。不令三根退失能取非至境用。有說耳能取于至境。聲相續轉來入耳故。又自能聞耳中聲故。此說非理。手才執鈴聲頓息故。若聲相續來入耳中。手執鈴時依鈴聲可息。從彼傳生。中間離質相續不息。此聲應可聞。然執鈴時。現見一切鈴聲頓息。都不可聞。不可息余。余亦隨息。不聞余故。余亦不聞。若謂如燈滅時近遠明皆滅者。此亦不然。俱不俱時轉差別故。非一與一相續異故。謂燈與明現見俱轉。燈焰才滅則不見明。聲即不然。彼許離質展轉相續來入耳故。彼定應許聞至聲時初附質聲久已謝滅。若不爾者。初所起聲。聞位猶存。失剎那性。故聲與彼燈明不同。又燈與明。相續各異。如心心所同共緣生。緣被損時彼此俱息。聲即不爾。相續無異。如識相續不共緣生。聲相續中。前聲雖滅。后聲猶起。何故不聞。是故依質所發音聲。即能為緣生於耳識。若異此者。聲至方聞。了近遠聲。應無差別。然自能聞耳中聲者。非如香等鄰鼻等根。雖在耳中。仍非至境。由語逼耳字句難知。欲審聽者遮其苦逼。故耳唯能取非至境。今應思擇。何緣闇中。眼不能取瓶衣等色。為體無故。為非境故。為助取因無故。為障取因有故。而不取耶。且闇中色。非體無故而不可取。有天眼者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 起已滅的法既不能滅，也不能生。眼等（眼根等其他感覺器官）也是如此。不應該以此為難。因此，那種認為三根（此處指耳根）退失，不能獲取非至境（此處指聲音）的觀點是不成立的。有人說，耳朵能夠獲取至境（此處指聲音），因為聲音是相續不斷地傳遞進入耳朵的。而且，自己能夠聽到耳朵內部的聲音。這種說法是不合理的。因為手抓住鈴鐺時，聲音會立刻停止。如果聲音是相續不斷地傳遞進入耳朵的，那麼手抓住鈴鐺時，依靠某種方式是可以讓聲音停止的。聲音從鈴鐺傳遞產生，中間脫離鈴鐺的本體，相續不斷地傳遞而不停止，那麼這個聲音應該可以被聽到。然而，當抓住鈴鐺時，可以清楚地看到所有的聲音都立刻停止，完全聽不到任何聲音。不可能只停止一部分聲音，而其他聲音仍然繼續。因為聽不到其他聲音，所以其他聲音也應該停止。如果有人說，就像燈熄滅時，近處和遠處的明亮都會同時消失一樣，這也是不對的。因為燈光和明亮是同時或不同時地轉變，這是有區別的。而且，燈和明亮不是一個事物，它們的相續是不同的。燈和明亮是同時轉變的，燈焰一旦熄滅，就看不到明亮。但聲音不是這樣，他們認為聲音是脫離本體，輾轉相續地傳遞進入耳朵的。他們必定會認為，聽到至近的聲音時，最初附著在物體上的聲音早就已經消失了。如果不是這樣，那麼最初產生的聲音，在聽到的位置仍然存在，這就失去了剎那生滅的性質。所以聲音和燈光、明亮是不同的。而且，燈和明亮，它們的相續是各自不同的。就像心和心所（心理活動）共同依靠因緣而生起，當因緣受到損害時，彼此都會停止。聲音不是這樣，聲音的相續沒有不同。就像意識的相續不共同依靠因緣而生起一樣，在聲音的相續中，即使前面的聲音已經消失，後面的聲音仍然會產生。為什麼聽不到呢？因此，依靠物體所發出的聲音，才能作為因緣產生耳識。如果不是這樣，聲音到達才能聽到，那麼對於近處和遠處的聲，應該沒有差別。然而，自己能夠聽到耳朵內部的聲音，不是像香等靠近鼻子等感覺器官一樣。即使聲音在耳朵內部，仍然不是至境。因為說話的聲音逼近耳朵，字句難以辨認，想要仔細聽的人會遮擋這種逼迫。所以耳朵只能獲取非至境。現在應該思考，為什麼在黑暗中，眼睛不能獲取瓶子、衣服等顏色？是因為它們的本體不存在嗎？是因為它們不是眼睛的對境嗎？是因為幫助獲取的因緣不存在嗎？是因為阻礙獲取的因緣存在嗎？所以才不能獲取呢？首先，黑暗中的顏色，不是因為它們的本體不存在而不能獲取。因為有天眼的人，
【English Translation】 English version That which has arisen and ceased cannot be born again. The eye and other sense organs are the same. One should not make this a difficulty. Therefore, that difficulty, that the three roots (here referring to the ear root) are lost and cannot grasp non-proximate objects (here referring to sound), is not valid. Some say that the ear can grasp proximate objects (here referring to sound) because sound is continuously transmitted into the ear. Moreover, one can hear the sound within the ear itself. This statement is unreasonable. Because when the hand grasps a bell, the sound stops immediately. If sound were continuously transmitted into the ear, then when the hand grasps the bell, it would be possible to stop the sound by some means. The sound is transmitted from the bell, separated from the substance of the bell, continuously without stopping, then this sound should be audible. However, when grasping the bell, it is clearly seen that all sounds stop immediately, and no sound can be heard at all. It is impossible to stop only some sounds while others continue. Because other sounds are not heard, other sounds should also stop. If someone says that it is like when a lamp is extinguished, the brightness near and far disappears simultaneously, this is also incorrect. Because the transformation of light and brightness occurs simultaneously or at different times, there is a difference. Moreover, the lamp and brightness are not the same thing, their continuity is different. The lamp and brightness transform simultaneously, and once the flame of the lamp is extinguished, the brightness is no longer seen. But sound is not like this. They believe that sound is transmitted into the ear, separated from the substance, and transmitted successively. They must believe that when hearing the closest sound, the initial sound attached to the object has long since disappeared. If this were not the case, then the initial sound would still exist in the place where it is heard, which would lose the nature of momentary arising and ceasing. Therefore, sound and light are different. Moreover, the lamp and brightness, their continuity is different. Just as the mind and mental activities (mental events) arise together depending on conditions, when the conditions are damaged, they both cease. Sound is not like this, the continuity of sound is no different. Just as the continuity of consciousness does not arise together depending on conditions, in the continuity of sound, even if the previous sound has disappeared, the subsequent sound still arises. Why is it not heard? Therefore, the sound emitted by the object can be the condition for the arising of ear consciousness. If this were not the case, and sound could only be heard when it arrives, then there should be no difference between near and far sounds. However, one can hear the sound within the ear itself, not like fragrance close to the nose and other sense organs. Even if the sound is inside the ear, it is still not a proximate object. Because the sound of speech is close to the ear, and the words are difficult to distinguish, those who want to listen carefully will block this pressure. Therefore, the ear can only grasp non-proximate objects. Now one should consider, why in the darkness, the eye cannot grasp the colors of bottles, clothes, etc.? Is it because their substance does not exist? Is it because they are not the object of the eye? Is it because the conditions that help to grasp do not exist? Is it because the conditions that hinder grasping exist? Therefore, they cannot be grasped? First of all, the colors in the darkness are not impossible to grasp because their substance does not exist. Because those with divine eyes,
能現取故。又闇中色。非非境故而不可取。彼因大種。現可取故。設持明照應不取故。非處明中極微等色及余非境。眼根能見。雖有說言此闇中色如中有色異明色類故不可取。而非應理。所以者何。應不取彼俱行觸故。又持明照時。不見異色故。或應闇與明成滅生因故。形亦應成異類性故。現見曾受彼種類者。闇中觸時。知即彼故。又于闇中。赤染衣等。色至明中不見異故。由此證知非異色類。若爾闇色。何緣不取。譬喻論師。作如是說。由助取因光明無故。此中光明有何作用。謂有攝益能取根用。如食干麨不得味故。又言色在可見處故。若爾光明唯應于境能為攝益非攝益根。謂身住闇中。見明處色故。又由所立干麨喻故。復由所引阿笈摩故。又言色在可見處者。意不說色在光明中。但言境在根力及處。彼經廣說。乃至法在可知處故。又若闇中瓶衣等色。其體先有。𨵗助取因。故不能取。后遇光等助取因時。顯了彼色。故能取者。應許空中先有風體。闕助取因。故不能取。后遇扇等助取因時。顯了彼風。然後能取。又亦應許二木相磨是火取因非別生火。然不應許。有過失故。執我論者應亦可言。我體先有。𨵗能取根。故不能取。是故闇色。非助取因。光明無故眼不能取。若爾何緣不取。由障取因有故。何者是耶。謂即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為能夠立即獲取的緣故。而且黑暗中的顏色，因為不是（眼根的）直接對像所以無法獲取。但構成顏色的基本元素（大種），是能夠直接獲取的。假設因為持有照明（持明）而照亮，仍然無法獲取（黑暗中的顏色），那麼在光明中，極微細的顏色以及其他非（眼根）對象，眼根也無法看見。雖然有人說，這黑暗中的顏色，就像中陰身（中有）的顏色，與明亮中的顏色不同，所以無法獲取，但這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為應該無法獲取與顏色同時存在的觸感。而且，在持有照明照亮時，沒有看見不同的顏色。或者，應該說黑暗與光明是相互滅生之因，那麼形狀也應該成為不同類的性質。現在看見曾經感受過那種類的人，在黑暗中觸控時，知道就是那個人。而且，在黑暗中，紅色的染色衣服等，顏色到了明亮處也沒有看見不同，由此可以證明不是不同類的顏色。如果這樣，黑暗中的顏色，為什麼無法獲取呢？譬喻論師這樣說，因為幫助獲取的原因——光明——不存在。這光明有什麼作用呢？就是有攝取和增益能獲取的根的作用，就像吃乾燥的炒麵無法嚐到味道一樣。又說顏色在可見之處的緣故。如果這樣，光明只應該對境（所見之物）能夠起到攝取和增益的作用，而不是對根（眼根）起到攝取和增益的作用，就像身體處在黑暗中，卻能看見明亮處的東西一樣。而且，由於所立的乾燥炒麵的比喻的緣故。又由於所引用的阿笈摩（Agama，聖典）的緣故。又說顏色在可見之處，意思不是說顏色在光明中，只是說境在根的力量和處所。那部經廣泛地說明，乃至法在可知之處的緣故。而且，如果黑暗中的瓶子、衣服等的顏色，其本體先前就存在，缺少幫助獲取的原因，所以無法獲取。後來遇到光等幫助獲取的原因時，顯現了那些顏色，所以能夠獲取，那麼應該允許空中先前就有風的本體，缺少幫助獲取的原因，所以無法獲取。後來遇到扇子等幫助獲取的原因時，顯現了那風，然後才能獲取。而且也應該允許兩木相磨是火的獲取原因，而不是另外產生火。但是不應該允許這樣，因為有錯誤。執著于『我』的論者也應該可以說，『我』的本體先前就存在，缺少能獲取的根，所以無法獲取。所以黑暗中的顏色，不是因為幫助獲取的原因——光明——不存在，眼根才無法獲取。如果這樣，為什麼無法獲取呢？因為阻礙獲取的原因存在。那是什麼呢？就是……
【English Translation】 English version: Because it can be immediately apprehended. Moreover, color in darkness is not an immediate object (of the eye), hence it cannot be apprehended. However, the fundamental elements (Mahabhuta) that constitute color can be immediately apprehended. If, even with the aid of illumination (holding light), one still cannot apprehend (color in darkness), then in the light, extremely subtle colors and other non-objects (of the eye) also cannot be seen by the eye-sense. Although some say that color in darkness, like the color of an intermediate being (Antarabhava), is different from color in brightness, hence it cannot be apprehended, this is not reasonable. Why? Because one should not be able to apprehend the tactile sensation that accompanies color. Moreover, when illuminated by holding light, no different color is seen. Or, it should be said that darkness and light are mutually arising and ceasing causes, then form should also become a different kind of nature. Now, seeing someone who has been perceived before, one knows it is that person when touching them in darkness. Moreover, in darkness, red dyed clothes, etc., do not appear different in color when brought into the light, which proves that they are not different kinds of colors. If so, why can't color in darkness be apprehended? The example-giving teachers (Pramana-vadins) say that it is because the aiding cause—light—is absent. What is the function of this light? It has the function of gathering and enhancing the function of the apprehending sense, just as one cannot taste dry roasted flour. It is also said that color is in a visible place. If so, light should only be able to gather and enhance the object (what is seen), not the sense (eye-sense), just as one can see things in a bright place even when the body is in darkness. Moreover, because of the established example of dry roasted flour. Also, because of the cited Agama (scripture). Furthermore, saying that color is in a visible place does not mean that color is in light, but only that the object is within the power and location of the sense. That scripture extensively explains that even Dharma is in a knowable place. Moreover, if the colors of bottles, clothes, etc., in darkness already exist in their essence, lacking the aiding cause for apprehension, they cannot be apprehended. Later, when encountering aiding causes such as light, those colors are revealed, so they can be apprehended. Then it should be admitted that air already exists in its essence in the sky, lacking the aiding cause for apprehension, so it cannot be apprehended. Later, when encountering aiding causes such as a fan, that air is revealed, and then it can be apprehended. And it should also be admitted that rubbing two pieces of wood together is the cause of obtaining fire, not the separate generation of fire. But this should not be admitted, because there is a fault. Those who adhere to the 'self' should also be able to say that the essence of the 'self' already exists, lacking the apprehending sense, so it cannot be apprehended. Therefore, color in darkness is not that the eye-sense cannot apprehend it because the aiding cause—light—is absent. If so, why can't it be apprehended? Because there is a hindering cause for apprehension. What is that? It is...
黑闇雲煙塵等所障諸色。眼不能取。例極成故。光明違此障取因故。待彼光明。方能取色。故亦說彼為識生因。又如琉璃與彼壁等。望能取者。為障不同。如是闇明種類爾故。是障非障體性有別。如前已辯。豈不亦由助因無故而不能取。見根功能作意無故。雖有實境。而智不生。雖有是事。然可生疑。謂于闇中如不取色。光明亦爾。由此未知。為由所見無故不取。為由光明無故不取。云等障色不見極成。又黑闇障是所現見。故闇中色。由闇障故。眼不能取。此事無疑。如有說言。極遠諸色。由有遠故。而不能取。復有說言。極遠諸色。由無近故。而不能取。此二說中。前說為勝。以有體故。不生疑故。如是應知。有闇障故。無光明故。是故闇中所有諸色。定由闇障而不能取。光明違此障取因故。待彼光明。眼能取色。如是所說。其理必然。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯本事品第一之八
已說三根取非至境。餘三鼻等。與上相違。謂鼻舌身。唯取至境。如何知鼻唯取至香。有說。斷息時則不嗅香故。此因於義未足證成。設有息時能嗅香氣。何能證
鼻唯取至香。以諸極微不相觸故。何不相觸。若諸極微遍體相觸。即有實物體相雜過。若觸一分成有分失。是故此因。于鼻唯取至根香義。未足證成。實有息時能取香氣。然不相觸。至義豈成。彼難既然。此因何解。今觀至義。謂境與根。鄰近而生。方能取故。由此道理。說鼻舌身唯取至境。如言眼瞼籌等。至色眼不能見。非眼瞼等要觸眼根方得名至。但眼瞼等鄰近根生。即名為至。由不能見如是至色。故說眼根取非至境。如眼等根取非至境。然不能取極遠境界。鼻等亦然。雖取至境。而不能取極近境界。但由香等鄰近根生。故說三根取至無過。非鼻香等根境極微展轉相觸。非所觸故。又是障礙有對性故。觸即有失。為顯此義。復應研究。設有難言。若諸極微互不相觸。如何拊擊。得發音聲。今此豈同鵂鹠子等。要由合德方乃生聲。而為此難。然物合時理不成故不應許有合德生聲。若爾云何得有聲發。於此真實聖教理中。離合擊名。唯依大種。謂有殊勝二四大種。離合生時。得彼名故。此位大種。是聲生因。此俱生聲。是耳根境。此有何失。彼不忍受。我不忍受。亦有因緣。謂諸極微。既不相觸。彼此大種合義豈成。鄰近生時。即名為合。豈待相觸方得合名。又汝不應躊躇此義。此彼大種。定不相觸。所以者何。是所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 鼻子只能獲取鄰近的香味。因為所有的極微（kalāpa，構成物質的最小單位）不會相互接觸。為什麼不相互接觸呢？如果所有的極微遍佈全身相互接觸，就會有實物體相互混雜的過失。如果接觸一部分，就會有『有分』（savayava，可再分的）的過失。因此，這個理由，對於鼻子只能獲取鄰近的香味的意義，還不足以證明。實際上有氣息的時候才能獲取香氣，然而不相互接觸，『鄰近』的意義怎麼成立呢？ 既然對方提出了這樣的詰難，我們該如何解釋呢？現在觀察『鄰近』的意義，是指境（viṣaya，感官對像）和根（indriya，感官）鄰近而生，才能獲取。由於這個道理，說鼻子、舌頭、身體只能獲取鄰近的境。比如眼瞼、籌碼等，鄰近顏色，眼睛也不能看見。並非眼瞼等一定要接觸眼根才能叫做『鄰近』。但眼瞼等鄰近根而生，就叫做『鄰近』。由於不能看見這樣的鄰近的顏色，所以說眼根獲取非鄰近的境。如同眼等根獲取非鄰近的境，然而不能獲取極遠的境界，鼻子等也是這樣。雖然獲取鄰近的境，而不能獲取極近的境界。但由於香等鄰近根而生，所以說三種根獲取鄰近的境沒有過失。並非鼻子、香等根境的極微輾轉相互接觸，因為不是所接觸的緣故。又是障礙，因為是有對性（sapratigha，有阻礙的）的緣故。接觸即有失誤。爲了顯明這個意義，還應進一步研究。 假設有人提出詰難說，如果所有的極微互不接觸，如何拍打才能發出聲音？現在這豈不像鵂鹠（xiū liú，貓頭鷹）的幼鳥等，要由合德（結合的性質）才能產生聲音？而以此來為難。然而物體結合的時候，道理上不能成立，所以不應該允許有合德產生聲音。如果這樣，怎麼會有聲音發出呢？ 對此，在真實的聖教道理中，離開、結合、敲擊等名稱，只是依據四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）。意思是說，有殊勝的二大種，在分離結合產生的時候，得到這些名稱。這個位置上的大種，是聲音產生的因。這個同時產生的聲音，是耳根的境。這有什麼過失呢？對方不能忍受。我不忍受，也是有原因的。意思是說，所有的極微既然不相互接觸，彼此大種結合的意義怎麼成立？鄰近產生的時候，就叫做結合，難道要等到相互接觸才能得到結合的名稱嗎？ 而且你不應該猶豫這個意義。這些彼此的大種，一定不相互接觸。為什麼呢？因為是所…
【English Translation】 English version The nose only apprehends proximate scents, because all the kalāpas (ultimate particles) do not touch each other. Why do they not touch? If all the kalāpas were to touch each other throughout the body, there would be the fault of real substances intermingling. If they touch in one part, there would be the fault of 'having parts' (savayava). Therefore, this reason is insufficient to prove the meaning that the nose only apprehends proximate scents. In reality, it is when there is breath that scents can be apprehended, yet without touching, how can the meaning of 'proximate' be established? Since the opponent has raised such an objection, how should we explain it? Now, observing the meaning of 'proximate,' it refers to the sense object (viṣaya) and the sense faculty (indriya) arising in proximity to each other, so that apprehension is possible. Due to this principle, it is said that the nose, tongue, and body only apprehend proximate objects. For example, eyelids, counters, etc., are proximate to color, yet the eye cannot see them. It is not that eyelids, etc., must touch the eye faculty to be called 'proximate.' But eyelids, etc., arising in proximity to the faculty are called 'proximate.' Because such proximate colors cannot be seen, it is said that the eye faculty apprehends non-proximate objects. Just as the eye and other faculties apprehend non-proximate objects, yet cannot apprehend extremely distant objects, so it is with the nose, etc. Although they apprehend proximate objects, they cannot apprehend extremely close objects. But because scents, etc., arise in proximity to the faculty, it is said that the three faculties apprehend proximate objects without fault. It is not that the ultimate particles of the nose, scents, etc., touch each other in turn, because they are not what is touched. Moreover, it is an obstacle because it is obstructive (sapratigha). Contact would imply error. To clarify this meaning, further investigation is needed. Suppose someone raises the objection that if all the ultimate particles do not touch each other, how can striking produce sound? Is this not like the young of owls, etc., which require a combined property (合德) to produce sound? And use this to make things difficult. However, when objects combine, it is not logically tenable, so it should not be allowed that a combined property produces sound. If so, how can sound arise? Regarding this, in the true doctrine of the sacred teachings, the names of separation, combination, and striking are only based on the four great elements (mahābhūta: earth, water, fire, wind). That is to say, there are two distinguished great elements that, when separating and combining, receive these names. The great element in this position is the cause of sound production. This simultaneously produced sound is the object of the ear faculty. What fault is there in this? The opponent cannot endure it. I cannot endure it either, and there is a reason for this. That is to say, since all the ultimate particles do not touch each other, how can the meaning of the great elements combining with each other be established? When arising in proximity, it is called combination; is it necessary to wait for mutual contact to obtain the name of combination? Moreover, you should not hesitate about this meaning. These great elements of each other certainly do not touch each other. Why is that? Because it is what is...
觸故非能觸故。諸色蘊中。唯有觸界。名為所觸。但有身根。名為能觸。此外觸義。更不應思。若謂所觸亦能觸者。應許身根亦是所觸。則境有境。便應雜亂。然無雜亂。立境有境。若謂此二無雜亂失。身識所緣所依別故。豈不由此轉成雜亂。謂若身根。亦所觸者。何緣不作身識所緣。若許觸界亦能觸者。何緣不作身識所依若諸極微。定不相觸。毗婆沙論。則不應言非觸為因生於是觸。謂離散物正和合時。是觸為因生於非觸。謂和合物正離散時。是觸為因生於是觸。謂和合物復和合時。非觸為因生於非觸。謂向游塵同類相續。毗婆沙宗。決定不許極微展轉更相觸義。應知彼言有別意趣。且向游塵多極微集。而彼論說。非觸為因生於非觸。故知彼言。定有別意。有何別意。謂于和合說是觸言。毗婆沙師咸作是說。但由風界力所攝持。令諸極微和合不散。眾緣合故。聚色生時。說非觸因生於是觸。即離散因生聚集義。豈不無有不集極微待緣方集。則應一切是觸為因生於是觸。有作是說。亦有極微不聚集者。故無此失。有說。待粗和合色故。于細和合立非觸名。故非觸因生是觸者。是細聚因生粗聚義。故彼所言。于義無失。眾緣合故攝持聚色。風界滅時。與此相違。離散色起即於此位。說是觸因生於非觸。是粗聚因。生細聚
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 觸故非能觸故：因為觸本身不能再被觸及。 諸色蘊中，唯有觸界（Sparsha-dhatu，觸的元素）。名為所觸：在所有色蘊（Rupa-skandha，物質之蘊）中，只有觸界被稱為『所觸』，即被觸及之物。 但有身根（Kaya-indriya，身體感官）。名為能觸：只有身根被稱為『能觸』，即能進行觸碰的主體。 此外觸義，更不應思：除此之外，關於觸的意義，不應再作其他思考。 若謂所觸亦能觸者，應許身根亦是所觸：如果認為被觸及之物也能進行觸碰，那麼就應該承認身根也是被觸及之物。 則境有境，便應雜亂：這樣一來，作為對象的『境』和具有對象性的『有境』就會混淆。 然無雜亂，立境有境：然而，境和有境之間並沒有混淆，所以才能確立境和有境的區分。 若謂此二無雜亂失，身識所緣所依別故：如果認為這兩者沒有混淆的錯誤，是因為身識（Kaya-vijnana，身體意識）所緣的對象和所依賴的基礎不同。 豈不由此轉成雜亂：難道不是因此反而造成了混淆嗎？ 謂若身根，亦所觸者，何緣不作身識所緣：如果身根也是被觸及之物，為什麼不能作為身識所緣的對象呢？ 若許觸界亦能觸者，何緣不作身識所依：如果承認觸界也能進行觸碰，為什麼不能作為身識所依賴的基礎呢？ 若諸極微（Paramanu，最小的物質單位），定不相觸，毗婆沙論（Vibhasa，論藏）則不應言非觸為因生於是觸：如果所有的極微絕對不會相互接觸，《毗婆沙論》就不應該說『非觸』作為原因產生了『觸』。 謂離散物正和合時，是觸為因生於非觸：當離散的物體正在聚合時，是『觸』作為原因產生了『非觸』。 謂和合物正離散時，是觸為因生於是觸：當聚合的物體正在離散時，是『觸』作為原因產生了『觸』。 謂和合物復和合時，非觸為因生於非觸：當聚合的物體再次聚合時，是『非觸』作為原因產生了『非觸』。 謂向游塵同類相續：例如，空中的塵埃以同類的方式持續存在。 毗婆沙宗，決定不許極微展轉更相觸義：毗婆沙宗明確不允許極微之間相互接觸的觀點。 應知彼言有別意趣：應該知道他們這樣說有其他的含義。 且向游塵多極微集，而彼論說，非觸為因生於非觸：例如空中的塵埃是許多極微的集合，但《毗婆沙論》卻說『非觸』作為原因產生了『非觸』。 故知彼言，定有別意：因此可知，他們這樣說一定有其他的含義。 有何別意：有什麼其他的含義呢？ 謂于和合說是觸言：即對於聚合的狀態，稱之為『觸』。 毗婆沙師咸作是說：毗婆沙論師都這樣說。 但由風界力所攝持，令諸極微和合不散：只是由於風界的力量攝持，使得極微聚合而不分散。 眾緣合故，聚色生時，說非觸因生於是觸：當衆多因緣聚合，聚集的物質產生時，說是『非觸』作為原因產生了『觸』。 即離散因生聚集義：也就是離散的原因產生了聚集的意義。 豈不無有不集極微待緣方集，則應一切是觸為因生於是觸：難道沒有不聚集的極微，需要等待因緣才能聚集嗎？如果這樣，那麼一切都應該是『觸』作為原因產生了『觸』。 有作是說，亦有極微不聚集者，故無此失：有人這樣說，也存在不聚集的極微，所以沒有這個錯誤。 有說，待粗和合色故，于細和合立非觸名：有人說，因為要等待粗大的聚合色，所以對於細微的聚合，稱之為『非觸』。 故非觸因生是觸者，是細聚因生粗聚義：所以『非觸』作為原因產生『觸』，是指細微的聚集作為原因產生了粗大的聚集的意義。 故彼所言，于義無失：所以他們所說的話，在意義上沒有錯誤。 眾緣合故攝持聚色，風界滅時，與此相違，離散色起即於此位：當衆多因緣聚合攝持聚集的物質，風界消失時，與此相反，離散的物質產生，就在這個階段。 說是觸因生於非觸：說是『觸』作為原因產生了『非觸』。 是粗聚因，生細聚：是粗大的聚集作為原因，產生了細微的聚集。
【English Translation】 English version 『Touch is not able to touch』 means that touch itself cannot be touched. Among all the aggregates of form (Rupa-skandha), only the element of touch (Sparsha-dhatu) is called 『what is touched』 (Sparshatavya), that is, the object that is touched. Only the body sense (Kaya-indriya) is called 『what can touch』 (Sparshaka), that is, the subject that can perform the touching. Beyond this meaning of touch, no further thought should be given. If it is argued that what is touched can also touch, then it should be admitted that the body sense is also what is touched. In that case, the 『object』 (Vishaya) and the 『subject with an object』 (Vishayin) would be confused. However, there is no confusion, and the distinction between object and subject is established. If it is argued that there is no error of confusion between these two because the object and basis of body consciousness (Kaya-vijnana) are different. Wouldn』t this lead to confusion instead? If the body sense is also what is touched, why can』t it be the object of body consciousness? If it is admitted that the element of touch can also touch, why can』t it be the basis of body consciousness? If all atoms (Paramanu) definitely do not touch each other, then the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary) should not say that 『non-touch』 is the cause of 『touch』. When scattered objects are coming together, 『touch』 is the cause of 『non-touch』. When aggregated objects are scattering, 『touch』 is the cause of 『touch』. When aggregated objects are aggregating again, 『non-touch』 is the cause of 『non-touch』. For example, dust particles in the air continue in a similar manner. The Vibhasa school definitely does not allow the idea that atoms touch each other in turn. It should be understood that their words have a different meaning. For example, dust particles in the air are collections of many atoms, but the Vibhasa says that 『non-touch』 is the cause of 『non-touch』. Therefore, it is known that their words must have a different meaning. What is the different meaning? That is, the state of aggregation is called 『touch』. The Vibhasa masters all say this. It is only due to the force of the wind element that the atoms are held together and do not scatter. When many causes and conditions come together and aggregated matter arises, it is said that 『non-touch』 is the cause of 『touch』. That is, the cause of scattering produces the meaning of aggregation. Isn』t it the case that there are no atoms that do not aggregate and need to wait for conditions to aggregate? If so, then everything should be 『touch』 as the cause of 『touch』. Some say that there are also atoms that do not aggregate, so there is no such error. Some say that because it is necessary to wait for coarse aggregated matter, the name 『non-touch』 is given to fine aggregation. Therefore, 『non-touch』 as the cause of 『touch』 means that fine aggregation is the cause of coarse aggregation. Therefore, what they say is not wrong in meaning. When many causes and conditions come together and hold aggregated matter, and the wind element disappears, the opposite occurs, and scattered matter arises at this stage. It is said that 『touch』 is the cause of 『non-touch』. Coarse aggregation is the cause of fine aggregation.
義。眾緣合故。攝持聚色。風界不滅。諸粗色聚。或生自類。或轉生粗。說是觸因。生於是觸。是粗聚因。生粗聚義。由此道理。諸向游塵。能攝持粗。風界不起。細聚相續。不轉成粗。名非觸因生於非觸。是細聚因。生細聚義。此謂彼言所有別意。又于非色亦說觸言。如契經說。出滅定時。當觸幾觸。當觸三觸。謂不動觸。無所有觸。及無相觸。然非此中可計實有互相觸義。是故所言此彼大種。定不相觸。其理極成。若許相觸。復有何過。豈不前說。若諸極微遍體相觸。即有實物體相雜過。若觸一分。成有分失。然彼上座。於此復言。諸極微體。即是方分。如何有體。言無方分。此言非理。若許極微更無細分。有自體故。是方分者。諸無色法。既有自體。無差別故。應是方分。若謂無色無和合義。是故不應名方分者。此亦非理。諸無色法。有處亦說有和合故。又彼所宗。色有和合。亦不應理。應成一故。不應一體可名和合。又上座說。二類極微。俱無分故。住處無別。此亦非理。彼論自言。有說極微處不相障。是宗有失。違聖教中有對言故。何緣復說二類極微。俱無分故。住處無別。又彼所言。即由此故。許依同處說不相離。又言極少許五極微。同在一處。不相妨礙。此皆非理。若容五微同一處者。何物為障百千俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 含義是這樣的：由於眾多因緣聚合，攝取並保持聚集的色法，風界（Vayu-dhatu，四大元素之一，指風的元素）沒有消失，各種粗大的色法聚集體，或者產生同類的色法，或者轉變產生粗大的色法。這被稱為『觸因』，由此產生『觸』。這是粗大聚集體的因，產生粗大聚集體的意義。基於這個道理，那些飄向遊動的微塵，能夠攝取並保持粗大的色法，風界不起作用，細微的聚集體相續存在，不轉變成為粗大的色法，這被稱為『非觸因』，由此產生『非觸』。這是細微聚集體的因，產生細微聚集體的意義。這就是他們所說的話中不同的含義。 此外，對於非色法也說了『觸』這個詞。例如契經中說：『從滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種高級禪定狀態）出定時，會觸及幾種觸？』回答是：『會觸及三種觸，即不動觸（Anenja-samphassa），無所有觸（Akincanya-samphassa），以及無相觸（Animitta-samphassa）。』然而，在這裡不能認為有實際存在的互相接觸的意義。因此，所說的大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素）之間，必定不互相接觸，這個道理是極其成立的。如果允許互相接觸，又會有什麼過失呢？難道前面沒有說過，如果所有的極微（Paramanu，物質的最小單位）遍及全身互相接觸，就會有實際物體互相混雜的過失；如果接觸一部分，就會成為有分（Savayava，可再分的）的過失。 然而，上座部（Sthavira，佛教部派之一）的論師對此又說：『所有的極微，其體性就是方分（Amsa，有方向的部分），怎麼能說有體性卻沒有方分呢？』這種說法是不合理的。如果允許極微不再有更細微的部分，因為有自體（Svalaksana，自性）的緣故，就是有方分的；那麼，所有的無色法（Arupa-dharma，精神現象），既然有自體，沒有差別的緣故，也應該是有方分的。如果說無色法沒有和合的意義，所以不應該稱為方分，這也是不合理的。因為在某些情況下，也說無色法有和合。而且，他們所宗的色法有和合，也是不合理的，應該成為一體的緣故。不應該一個體性可以稱為和合。 而且，上座部的論師說：『兩類極微，都沒有分，所以住處沒有區別。』這種說法也是不合理的。他們的論典自己也說：『有人說極微的處所不互相障礙。』這是宗義上的過失，因為違背了聖教中『有對』的說法。為什麼又說兩類極微，都沒有分，所以住處沒有區別呢？而且，他們所說：『正因為如此，允許依據同一處所說不相分離。』又說『極少允許五個極微，在同一處所，不互相妨礙。』這些都是不合理的。如果容許五個極微在同一處所，那麼什麼東西會阻礙一百個、一千個極微同時存在呢？
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning is as follows: Due to the aggregation of numerous causes and conditions, the material forms are gathered and maintained, and the Vayu-dhatu (wind element, one of the four great elements) does not disappear. Various coarse material aggregates either produce similar material forms or transform into coarse material forms. This is called 'contact-cause' (touch-cause), from which 'contact' arises. This is the cause of coarse aggregates, producing the meaning of coarse aggregates. Based on this principle, those wandering dust particles can gather and maintain coarse material forms, the wind element does not function, and subtle aggregates continue to exist without transforming into coarse material forms. This is called 'non-contact-cause', from which 'non-contact' arises. This is the cause of subtle aggregates, producing the meaning of subtle aggregates. This is the different meaning in what they say. Furthermore, the term 'contact' is also used for non-material phenomena. For example, the sutra says: 'When emerging from the cessation attainment (Nirodha-samapatti, an advanced state of meditation), how many contacts will one experience?' The answer is: 'One will experience three contacts, namely the immovable contact (Anenja-samphassa), the contact of no-thingness (Akincanya-samphassa), and the signless contact (Animitta-samphassa).' However, it cannot be assumed here that there is an actual meaning of mutual contact. Therefore, it is certain that the great elements (Mahabhuta, the four great elements) do not contact each other, and this principle is well-established. If mutual contact is allowed, what fault would there be? Has it not been said before that if all the ultimate particles (Paramanu, the smallest unit of matter) contact each other throughout the body, there would be the fault of actual objects intermingling; if they contact only a part, it would result in the fault of being divisible (Savayava, having parts)? However, the Sthavira (one of the early Buddhist schools) masters further say: 'The nature of all ultimate particles is directional (Amsa, having directional parts), how can it be said that they have a nature but no directional parts?' This statement is unreasonable. If it is allowed that ultimate particles no longer have finer parts, because they have self-nature (Svalaksana, intrinsic nature), they are directional; then, all immaterial phenomena (Arupa-dharma, mental phenomena), since they have self-nature and are not different, should also be directional. If it is said that immaterial phenomena do not have the meaning of aggregation, therefore they should not be called directional, this is also unreasonable. Because in some cases, it is also said that immaterial phenomena have aggregation. Moreover, their doctrine that material forms have aggregation is also unreasonable, because they should become one. It should not be that one nature can be called aggregation. Moreover, the Sthavira masters say: 'Two types of ultimate particles have no parts, so there is no difference in their dwelling place.' This statement is also unreasonable. Their own treatises also say: 'Some say that the locations of ultimate particles do not obstruct each other.' This is a fault in their doctrine because it contradicts the statement of 'having opposition' in the sacred teachings. Why do they say that two types of ultimate particles have no parts, so there is no difference in their dwelling place? Moreover, they say: 'Precisely because of this, it is allowed to say that they are inseparable based on the same location.' They also say, 'It is allowed that a very few, five ultimate particles, are in the same location without obstructing each other.' These are all unreasonable. If it is allowed that five ultimate particles are in the same location, then what would prevent a hundred or a thousand ultimate particles from existing simultaneously?
胝。不許同處。如是便應一極微處。包容一切所有極微。是則世間總一微量。或應不許極少五微同在一處。不相妨礙。多微聚集。處寬廣故。是故應許極微有分。或許諸微互不相觸不相離義。異此可成無一極微。現在獨住而不聚集。如前已辯。是故一切和合聚中。隨其所應。皆有一切。由此故說不相離言。非約處同名不相離。然無分故。不觸義成。若爾身根及與觸界。如何能觸所觸得成。已成極微互不相觸。能所觸義。今應共思。若謂我宗由能所觸已許相觸。更何所思。唯汝自應思量是義。此不應理。許觸論宗。於是義中。應同思故。謂若鼻舌。與自境微。亦相觸者。何緣不許此根境微是能所觸。若不許二觸自境微。而同身根名取至境如彼理趣。此亦同然。或非色中應有相觸。如前所引觸三觸故。是故此中。應共思擇。契經所說觸義意趣。然我先說。謂境與根。鄰近而生。方能取故。名取至境。今能所觸。準彼應成極鄰近故。豈不一切鼻舌身根皆取至境。無差別故。則應能觸通鼻舌根。所觸亦應兼于香味。此亦非理。鄰近雖同。而於其中。有品別故。如眼瞼等。雖至名同。而於其中。非無品別。非眼瞼等同得至名。即令一切至無差別。瞼籌藥翳。于彼眼根。漸鄰近中。品類別故。又如眼等。取非至同。非至境中。非無
品別。鼻等亦爾。取至境同於至境中。應有品別。又滑澀等。世間共起所觸想名。對彼身根。說名能觸。故無有過。有說。實無能觸所觸。然似有故假立觸名。或任於中更求余理。且不應許境與身根實更相觸。如前已說。境與有境。應雜亂故。是故應隨此順正理。說能所觸名起因緣。有餘師說。雖諸極微互不相觸。而和合色相觸無過。由此拊擊。得發音聲。如諸極微。雖無變礙。而和合色變礙非無。此不應理。非離極微有和合色。若觸和合應觸極微。彼即應許極微相觸。是故前說。于理為勝。又上座言。此若觸彼。彼定觸此。既成所觸。余觸所觸。理不相違若異此者。極微展轉無相攝持。應不和合。若謂攝持是風界力。風界豈似手所捧持。攝持諸微。令不散墜。此難非理。且如水輪風輪攝持。令不散墜。風輪豈似手所捧持。如彼攝持。此亦應爾。若言我許極微相觸。由相觸故。相攝持者。似手捧難。則為唐捐。如汝所言。極微相觸。次第安布。能相攝持。我亦說言。由風界力。鄰近安布。能相攝持。故不應言。若異此者。極微展轉無相攝持。應不和合。異汝所言。極微展轉。有相攝持。和合成故。又不相觸。亦能攝持。譬如身根不觸身識能攝持識。令起現前。又彼所言。此若觸彼。彼定觸此。既成所觸。余觸所觸。理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 品類的區別。鼻等也是一樣。『取』（graha）至『境』（viṣaya），等同於在『至境』中。應該有品類的區別。又如滑、澀等，世間共同產生的所觸之想，針對彼身根，說名為能觸，所以沒有過失。有人說，實際上沒有能觸和所觸，然而因為看起來好像有，所以假立觸的名字。或者可以在其中尋求其他的道理。而且不應該允許境與身根實際互相接觸，如前面已經說過的，境與有境應該雜亂的緣故。因此，應該隨順此順正理，說能觸和所觸的名字是生起的因緣。有其他老師說，即使諸極微互相不相觸，而和合的色相觸也沒有過失。由此拊擊，得以發出聲音。如同諸極微，即使沒有變礙，而和合的色變礙並非沒有。這不合道理，因為沒有離開極微的和合色。如果觸和合，就應該觸極微，他們就應該允許極微相觸。所以前面所說的，在道理上是更勝一籌的。又有上座部的人說，此若觸彼，彼必定觸此，既然成了所觸，其餘的觸所觸，道理上不相違背。如果不是這樣，極微輾轉沒有互相攝持，應該不會和合。如果說攝持是風界的力量，風界難道像手所捧持一樣，攝持諸微，使它們不散落墜落嗎？這個責難不合道理。且如水輪、風輪攝持，使它們不散落墜落，風輪難道像手所捧持一樣嗎？像它們那樣攝持，這個也應該如此。如果說我允許極微相觸，因為相觸的緣故，互相攝持，像手捧一樣的責難，就是白費力氣。如你所說，極微相觸，次第安布，能夠互相攝持，我也說，由風界的力量，鄰近安布，能夠互相攝持，所以不應該說，如果不是這樣，極微輾轉沒有互相攝持，應該不會和合。與你所說的不同，極微輾轉，有互相攝持，和合而成。又不相觸，也能攝持，譬如身根不觸身識，能夠攝持識，使它生起現前。又他們所說，此若觸彼，彼必定觸此，既然成了所觸，其餘的觸所觸，道理上
【English Translation】 English version: The distinction of categories. The nose and so on are also the same. 'Taking' (graha) to 'object' (viṣaya) is the same as being in 'to the object'. There should be a distinction of categories. Also, like smoothness and roughness, the thought of what is touched that arises commonly in the world, in relation to that body-root, is called the toucher, so there is no fault. Some say that there is actually no toucher and no touched, but because it seems like there is, the name of touch is provisionally established. Or one can seek other reasons within it. Moreover, it should not be allowed that the object and the body-root actually touch each other, as has been said before, because the object and that which has the object should be mixed up. Therefore, one should follow this correct reasoning and say that the names of toucher and touched are the cause of arising. Some other teachers say that even though the ultimate particles do not touch each other, there is no fault in the touch of the aggregate of color. By striking it, a sound can be produced. Just as the ultimate particles, even though they have no change or obstruction, the change or obstruction of the aggregate of color is not non-existent. This is not reasonable, because there is no aggregate of color apart from the ultimate particles. If one touches the aggregate, one should touch the ultimate particles, and they should allow the ultimate particles to touch each other. Therefore, what was said earlier is superior in reason. Also, some elders (Sthavira) say that if this touches that, that must touch this. Since it has become the touched, the remaining touches the touched, there is no contradiction in reason. If it is not like this, the ultimate particles would not mutually hold each other, and they should not aggregate. If you say that holding is the power of the wind element, is the wind element like a hand holding, holding the particles so that they do not scatter and fall? This difficulty is not reasonable. For example, the water wheel and the wind wheel hold, so that they do not scatter and fall, is the wind wheel like a hand holding? Just as they hold, this should also be the case. If you say that I allow the ultimate particles to touch each other, because of touching each other, they mutually hold each other, the difficulty of holding like a hand is in vain. As you say, the ultimate particles touch each other, arranged in order, and can mutually hold each other, I also say that by the power of the wind element, arranged adjacently, they can mutually hold each other, so it should not be said that if it is not like this, the ultimate particles would not mutually hold each other, and they should not aggregate. Different from what you say, the ultimate particles mutually hold each other, and aggregate. Even without touching, they can hold, for example, the body-root does not touch the body-consciousness, but it can hold the consciousness, causing it to arise and appear. Also, what they say, if this touches that, that must touch this, since it has become the touched, the remaining touches the touched, in reason
無違者。彼不審思。而作是說。如前已說。境與身根。實不相觸。應境有境相雜過故。遍體一分觸違理故。諸有對法。體是障礙有對攝故。處所展轉。互不相容。不應相觸。無細分故。非觸一分。各別性故。非觸全體。同處多微。過如前說。如何可言。此若觸彼。彼定觸此。乃至廣說。又準此說。應亦可言。此若見彼。彼定見此。既成所見。余見所見。理不相違。此若聞彼。彼定聞此。既成所聞。余聞所聞。理無違等。彼既不然。此云何爾。若所觸界。亦不相觸如何大種展轉相望。互為攝益。或相損害。豈要相觸方能損益。異此云何。若必爾者。觀雪日等眼云何損。觀月輪等眼云何益。眼不應至日等大種。汝又不許有彼光明俱行大種。汝許光明依日月輪大種生故。由彼上座自說是言。大種造色。多不相離。亦有少分得相離者。謂諸日月燈寶光明。及離諸花。孤遊香等因論生論。身根既唯取至境故。日光中熱。身現得故汝云何知。日光但依日輪大種。不依鄰近身根大種。若於是處。身覺日熱。即近是處。眼見日光。應知此光非離大種。故唯鄰近大種為緣。能損能益。鄰近大種。非彼極遠。亦非相觸。此義已成。且如所觸。不觸身根。然能為因。令身損益。若謂所觸觸著身根。所依大種為損益者。雪日光等。于眼云何。設
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無違者（沒有過失的人）。他不審慎思考，就說出這樣的話。正如前面已經說過的那樣，境（所緣對像）與身根（身體感覺器官）實際上並沒有相互接觸。因為應境（適應所緣對像）有境相雜的過失。遍佈全身的各個部分接觸是違背道理的。諸有對法（有阻礙的事物），其體性是障礙，屬於有對的範疇。處所輾轉，互相不相容納，不應該相互接觸。因為沒有細微的部分，所以不是接觸一部分。因為各自具有不同的性質，所以不是接觸全體。同處存在多個微粒的過失，如前面所說。怎麼能說，『此若觸彼（如果這個接觸那個），彼定觸此（那個必定接觸這個）』，乃至廣說呢？
又按照這種說法，應該也可以說，『此若見彼（如果這個看見那個），彼定見此（那個必定看見這個）』。既然已經成立所見，其餘的見者和所見者，在道理上不應該相互違背。『此若聞彼（如果這個聽見那個），彼定聞此（那個必定聽見這個）』。既然已經成立所聞，其餘的聞者和所聞者，在道理上沒有違背等等。既然那些情況不是這樣，這種情況又怎麼會是這樣呢？
如果所觸界（可以被觸控的界）也不相互接觸，那麼四大種（地、水、火、風）輾轉相望，如何互相攝益（幫助）或互相損害呢？難道一定要相互接觸才能損害或幫助嗎？如果不是這樣，又該怎麼解釋呢？如果必定要相互接觸才能損益，那麼觀察雪和太陽等，眼睛為什麼會受到損害？觀察月亮等，眼睛為什麼會得到益處？眼睛不應該到達太陽等四大種。你又不允許有與太陽等光明一起執行的四大種。你允許光明依靠日月輪的四大種而產生。由於那位上座（長老）自己說，四大種所造的色法（物質現象），大多不相分離，也有少部分可以相分離，比如日月燈寶的光明，以及離開花朵，獨自飄散的香氣等。因論生論（根據一個論點引發另一個論點）。
身根既然只取至境（到達所緣對像），日光中的熱，身體現在就能感覺到，你又怎麼知道，日光只是依靠日輪的四大種，而不依靠鄰近身根的四大種呢？如果在某個地方，身體感覺到太陽的熱，就在附近的地方，眼睛看到日光，應該知道這光不是離開四大種的。所以只有鄰近的四大種作為緣，才能損害或幫助。鄰近的四大種，不是極遠的地方，也不是相互接觸。這個道理已經成立。且如所觸（比如可以被觸控的），不接觸身根，但能作為原因，使身體受到損害或益處。如果說所觸接觸到身根，所依靠的四大種造成損害或益處，那麼雪和日光等，對於眼睛又該怎麼解釋呢？設 English version: He who is without fault. He does not think carefully, and then speaks in this way. As has been said before, the object (the object of perception) and the body faculty (the organ of bodily sensation) do not actually touch each other. Because there is the fault of the object being mixed with the object-appearance in response to the object. The contact of each part of the body is contrary to reason. All things that have opposition (things that have obstruction), their nature is obstruction, and they belong to the category of having opposition. Places rotate and do not accommodate each other, so they should not touch each other. Because there are no subtle parts, it is not touching a part. Because each has a different nature, it is not touching the whole. The fault of many particles existing in the same place is as described before. How can it be said, 'If this touches that, that must touch this,' and so on?
Moreover, according to this statement, it should also be possible to say, 'If this sees that, that must see this.' Since what is seen has been established, the remaining seer and seen should not contradict each other in principle. 'If this hears that, that must hear this.' Since what is heard has been established, the remaining hearer and heard have no contradiction, and so on. Since those situations are not like this, how can this situation be like this?
If the touchable realm (the realm that can be touched) also does not touch each other, then how can the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), looking at each other in turn, mutually benefit or harm each other? Is it necessary to touch each other in order to harm or benefit? If not, how can it be explained? If it is necessary to touch each other in order to benefit or harm, then why does observing snow and the sun, etc., harm the eyes? Why does observing the moon, etc., benefit the eyes? The eyes should not reach the four great elements such as the sun. You also do not allow the four great elements that travel with the light of the sun, etc. You allow light to arise relying on the four great elements of the sun and moon. Because that elder himself said that the form (material phenomena) created by the four great elements mostly do not separate, and there are also a few that can separate, such as the light of the sun, moon, lamps, and jewels, and the fragrance that drifts alone away from flowers, etc. Argument arises from argument.
Since the body faculty only takes what reaches the object, and the heat in the sunlight can be felt by the body now, how do you know that the sunlight only relies on the four great elements of the sun's disc, and not on the four great elements of the nearby body faculty? If in a certain place, the body feels the heat of the sun, and in the nearby place, the eyes see the sunlight, it should be known that this light does not leave the four great elements. Therefore, only the nearby four great elements can be the cause of harm or benefit. The nearby four great elements are not extremely far away, nor are they touching each other. This principle has been established. For example, what is touchable does not touch the body faculty, but it can be the cause of harm or benefit to the body. If it is said that what is touchable touches the body faculty, and the four great elements on which it relies cause harm or benefit, then how can snow and sunlight, etc., be explained in relation to the eyes? Suppose
【English Translation】 Without fault, he does not think carefully and makes such statements. As previously mentioned, the object (the perceived object) and the body faculty (the sensory organ of the body) do not actually touch each other. This is because of the fault of the object and its appearance being mixed when responding to the object. The contact of every part of the body is contrary to reason. All dharmas with opposition (things that obstruct), their nature is obstruction, belonging to the category of things with opposition. Locations shift and are mutually incompatible, so they should not touch each other. Because there are no minute parts, it is not touching a part. Because each has a distinct nature, it is not touching the whole. The fault of multiple particles existing in the same place is as previously stated. How can it be said, 'If this touches that, that must touch this,' and so on? Furthermore, according to this statement, it should also be possible to say, 'If this sees that, that must see this.' Since what is seen has been established, the remaining seer and seen should not contradict each other in principle. 'If this hears that, that must hear this.' Since what is heard has been established, the remaining hearer and heard have no contradiction, and so on. Since those situations are not like this, how can this situation be like this? If the touchable realm (the realm of touch) also does not touch each other, then how do the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), looking at each other in turn, mutually support or harm each other? Is it necessary to touch each other to harm or support? If not, how can it be explained? If it is necessary to touch each other to benefit or harm, then why does observing snow and the sun, etc., harm the eyes? Why does observing the moon, etc., benefit the eyes? The eyes should not reach the four great elements such as the sun. You also do not allow the four great elements that travel with the light of the sun, etc. You allow light to arise relying on the four great elements of the sun and moon. Because that elder (Upadhyaya) himself said that the form (rupa) created by the four great elements mostly do not separate, and there are also a few that can separate, such as the light of the sun, moon, lamps, and jewels, and the fragrance that drifts alone away from flowers, etc. Argument arises from argument. Since the body faculty only takes what reaches the object, and the heat in the sunlight can be felt by the body now, how do you know that the sunlight only relies on the four great elements of the sun's disc, and not on the four great elements of the nearby body faculty? If in a certain place, the body feels the heat of the sun, and in the nearby place, the eyes see the sunlight, it should be known that this light does not leave the four great elements. Therefore, only the nearby four great elements can be the cause of harm or benefit. The nearby four great elements are not extremely far away, nor are they touching each other. This principle has been established. For example, what is touchable does not touch the body faculty, but it can be the cause of harm or benefit to the body. If it is said that what is touchable touches the body faculty, and the four great elements on which it relies cause harm or benefit, then how can snow and sunlight, etc., be explained in relation to the eyes? Suppose
許所觸觸著身根所依大種能為損益。然不許身所依大種能觸身根仍為損益。豈不大種展轉相望雖不相觸由相鄰近能為因故損益義成。故不應言若所觸界亦不相觸。如何大種展轉相望。互為攝益。或相損害。然大德說。一切極微。實不相觸。但由無間。假立觸名。經主此中。顯彼勝德。作如是言。此大德意。應可愛樂。若異此者。是諸極微。應有間隙。中間既空。誰障其行。許為有對。今說大德如是意趣。非即可樂亦非可惡。但應尋究。如何無間。仍不相觸。理未顯故。意趣難知。若說諸微全無間隙。然不相雜。應成有分。不許處同。復無間隙。既許無間。何不相觸。故彼但間言定顯鄰近義。此中但言。或顯定義。定有間隙。故名定間。如定有熱故名定熱。是定有隙。理得成義。或顯無義。謂此中無如極微量觸色所間。故名無間。如是無間大種極微鄰近生時。假說為觸。若作此釋。大德所言。一切極微。實不相觸。但由無間。假立觸名。深有義趣。即由障礙有對勢力。能相障行。許為有對。非許住處展轉相容而可說為障礙有對。豈怖處同。遮無間住。許有間隙而無趣行。非有所怖。法性應爾。諸有對者。處必不同。勿彼處同。或成有分。故無間住。理必不然。雖于中間少有空隙。而有對力。拒遏其行。間隙者何。有餘師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 允許所觸之物觸及作為身根所依的大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風），從而產生損益（有利或有害的影響）。然而，不允許作為身體所依的大種觸及身根，卻仍然產生損益。難道不是因為大種之間相互作用，即使沒有直接接觸，也因為彼此相鄰而能夠作為因緣，從而產生損益嗎？因此，不應該說如果所觸之界（觸覺的領域）也沒有相互接觸，那麼大種之間如何相互作用，互相攝益（互相幫助）或互相損害呢？ 然而，有大德（高僧）說：『一切極微（最小的物質單位），實際上並沒有相互接觸，只是因為沒有間隙，才假立了觸這個名稱。』經主（論藏的作者）在這裡，爲了彰顯那位大德的殊勝德行，這樣說：『這位大德的意趣，應該是值得喜愛和讚賞的。』如果不是這樣，那麼這些極微之間應該有間隙。中間既然是空的，誰來阻礙它們的執行呢？如果允許它們是有對（有阻礙）的，現在說這位大德的意趣是這樣，並非就一定值得喜愛，也並非就一定令人厭惡，而應該探究，如何在沒有間隙的情況下，仍然沒有相互接觸，這個道理還沒有顯現出來，所以意趣難以理解。 如果說諸微（所有的極微）完全沒有間隙，但是又不相互混合，那麼應該成為有分（可以分割的）。如果不允許它們處在同一位置，又沒有間隙，既然允許沒有間隙，為什麼不相互接觸呢？所以，他們只是用『間』這個詞來確定地顯示鄰近的含義。這裡只是說『或』，來顯示定義的含義，一定有間隙，所以叫做『定間』，就像一定有熱，所以叫做『定熱』一樣，是一定有間隙，這個道理才能成立。或者顯示沒有的含義，意思是這裡沒有像極微那樣大小的觸色所間隔，所以叫做『無間』。像這樣，沒有間隙的大種極微，在鄰近產生的時候，假說為觸。 如果這樣解釋，那麼那位大德所說：『一切極微，實際上並沒有相互接觸，只是因為沒有間隙，才假立了觸這個名稱。』就很有意義了。就是因為障礙和有對的勢力，能夠互相阻礙執行，所以允許它們是有對的。而不是允許它們所住之處相互容納，才可以被稱為障礙和有對。難道是因為害怕處在同一位置，而阻止沒有間隙的居住嗎？允許有間隙，卻沒有趣行（運動的趨勢），並非因為有所害怕，法性（事物的本性）本來就應該是這樣。凡是有對的，所處的位置必定不同，不要讓它們處在同一位置，否則會成為有分。所以，沒有間隙的居住，道理上一定是不成立的。即使在中間稍微有些空隙，而有對的力量，也會拒絕和阻止它們的執行。間隙是什麼呢？有其他老師（有其他的解釋）
【English Translation】 English version: It is allowed that what is touched, touches the Mahabhutas (great elements: earth, water, fire, wind) on which the body-organ relies, thus causing benefit or harm. However, it is not allowed that the Mahabhutas on which the body relies touch the body-organ, yet still cause benefit or harm. Isn't it because the Mahabhutas interact with each other, even without direct contact, they can, due to their proximity, act as conditions, thus causing benefit or harm? Therefore, it should not be said that if the realm of touch (the field of tactile sensation) also does not have mutual contact, how can the Mahabhutas interact with each other, mutually benefit (help each other) or mutually harm each other? However, a great Bhadanta (venerable monk) said: 'All atoms (the smallest units of matter) do not actually touch each other, but only because there is no gap between them, is the name 'touch' falsely established.' The Sutra Master (author of Abhidharma) here, in order to highlight the superior virtue of that Bhadanta, says this: 'The intention of this Bhadanta should be loved and praised.' If it is not like this, then there should be gaps between these atoms. Since the middle is empty, who would hinder their movement? If it is allowed that they are obstructive (have resistance), now saying that the intention of this Bhadanta is like this, is not necessarily worthy of love, nor is it necessarily hateful, but it should be investigated, how can there be no mutual contact when there is no gap? This principle has not yet been revealed, so the intention is difficult to understand. If it is said that all atoms have no gaps at all, but they do not mix with each other, then they should become divisible (capable of being divided). If it is not allowed that they are in the same position, and there is no gap, since it is allowed that there is no gap, why don't they touch each other? Therefore, they only use the word 'gap' to definitely show the meaning of proximity. Here it only says 'or', to show the meaning of definition, there must be a gap, so it is called 'definite gap', just like there must be heat, so it is called 'definite heat', it is certain that there is a gap, this principle can be established. Or it shows the meaning of non-existence, meaning that there is no touch-color (rupa) the size of an atom in between, so it is called 'no gap'. In this way, when the Mahabhuta atoms without gaps are produced in proximity, it is falsely said to be touch. If explained in this way, then what that Bhadanta said: 'All atoms do not actually touch each other, but only because there is no gap, is the name 'touch' falsely established,' is very meaningful. It is because of the obstruction and the power of resistance that they can hinder each other's movement, so it is allowed that they are obstructive. It is not allowed that the places where they reside accommodate each other, so they can be called obstructive and resistant. Is it because they are afraid of being in the same position that they prevent dwelling without gaps? Allowing gaps, but without the tendency to move, it is not because of fear, the Dharma-nature (the nature of things) should be like this. All those who are obstructive must be in different positions, do not let them be in the same position, otherwise they will become divisible. Therefore, dwelling without gaps must not be established in principle. Even if there are slight gaps in the middle, the power of resistance will reject and prevent their movement. What is the gap? There are other teachers (there are other explanations).
說。是無觸色。復有說言。都無所有。經主復說。又許極微。若有方分。觸與不觸。皆應有分。若無方分。設許相觸。亦無過者。此說非理。有分方分。名異義同。立無分言。已遮方分。如何於此復更生疑。謂許極微若有方分。既無方分。如何可觸又遍體觸。或觸一分。二皆有過。前已具論。如何復言。若無方分。設許相觸。亦無斯過。是故所言無極微量。觸色所間。故名無間。如是無間。大種極微。鄰近生時。假說為觸。其義成就。非住處同。或無間住。可許有對無分義成。今應觀察。眼等諸根。為于自境唯取等量。速疾轉故如旋火輪。見大山等。為于自境通取等量不等量耶頌曰。
應知鼻等三 唯取等量境
論曰。前說至境鼻等三根。應知唯能取等量境。如鼻舌身根極微量。香味觸境極微亦然。相稱合生鼻等識故。豈不鼻等三根極微有時不能遍取香等。何故乃言唯取等量。以非鼻等三根極微于香等微能取過量。故說唯能取等量境。非無少分三根極微亦能取于少分三境。隨境微量至根少多。爾所根微。能起功用。眼耳不定。謂眼於色有時取小。如見毛端。有時取大。如暫開目見大山等。有時取等。如見蒲桃野棗果等。耳根亦取蚊雷琴聲小大等量。意無質礙。不可辯其形量差別。頌中應知言兼勸知此義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人說，『觸』不是色法的組成部分。還有人說，根本不存在『觸』這種東西。經論的作者反駁說，你們又承認有『極微』（最小的物質單位）。如果『極微』有方分（佔據空間的部分），那麼無論『觸』還是『不觸』，都應該有部分接觸。如果『極微』沒有方分，即使允許它們相互接觸，也沒有什麼問題。這種說法是不合理的。『有分』和『方分』，名稱不同，意義相同。既然已經提出了『無分』的說法，就已經排除了『方分』的可能性。為什麼還要對此產生懷疑呢？如果承認『極微』有方分，既然沒有方分，又怎麼能接觸呢？要麼是全部接觸，要麼是接觸一部分，這兩種情況都有問題。之前已經詳細討論過了，為什麼還要說，如果沒有方分，即使允許接觸，也不會有問題呢？因此，所說的沒有極微的量，『觸』和『色』之間沒有間隔，所以稱為『無間』。像這樣『無間』的大種極微，在相鄰近的地方產生時，可以假說為『觸』，這樣就符合了道理。不是因為住在同一個地方，或者沒有間隔地住在一起，就可以允許有對立和無分的意義成立。現在應該觀察，眼根等諸根，對於自己的境界，是隻取等量的部分，因為速度很快，就像旋轉的火輪，看到大山等等，還是對於自己的境界，既取等量的部分，也取不等量的部分呢？頌文說： 『應當知道鼻根等三種根，只能取等量的境界。』 論述說：前面說到對於境界，鼻根等三種根，應當知道只能取等量的境界。比如鼻根、舌根、身根的極微量，和香味觸的境界的極微量也是一樣的。因為它們相互適應，共同產生鼻識等。難道不是鼻根等三種根的極微，有時不能完全取到香味等嗎？為什麼說只能取等量的境界呢？因為鼻根等三種根的極微，不能取到超過香味等極微的量。所以說只能取等量的境界。不是說沒有少部分的三根極微，也能取到少部分的三境。隨著境界的微量到達根的多少，相應的根微就能發揮作用。眼根和耳根是不定的。比如眼根對於色法，有時取小的部分，比如看到毛髮的末端。有時取大的部分，比如暫時睜開眼睛看到大山等等。有時取等量的部分，比如看到蒲桃、野棗等果實。耳根也取蚊子的聲音、雷聲、琴聲等大小等量的聲音。意根沒有實質的阻礙，無法分辨它的形狀和量的差別。頌文中的『應當知道』，兼有勸人知道這個道理的意思。
【English Translation】 English version: Some say that 'touch' is not a component of form (rupa). Others say that 'touch' does not exist at all. The author of the treatise refutes, 'You also acknowledge the existence of 'atoms' (the smallest units of matter). If 'atoms' have spatial parts, then whether 'touch' or 'non-touch', there should be partial contact. If 'atoms' have no spatial parts, even if you allow them to touch each other, there is no problem.' This statement is unreasonable. 'Having parts' and 'spatial parts' have different names but the same meaning. Since the concept of 'no parts' has already been proposed, the possibility of 'spatial parts' has been excluded. Why raise doubts about this again? If you acknowledge that 'atoms' have spatial parts, how can they touch if they have no spatial parts? Either it's full contact or partial contact, both cases have problems. This has been discussed in detail before, so why say that if there are no spatial parts, there would be no problem even if contact is allowed? Therefore, what is said to be without atomic measure, with no interval between 'touch' and 'form', is called 'uninterrupted'. Such 'uninterrupted' great element atoms, when produced in close proximity, can be hypothetically called 'touch', which aligns with reason. It is not because they reside in the same place or reside together without interruption that the meaning of opposition and indivisibility can be established. Now it should be observed whether the sense faculties such as the eye faculty, in relation to their respective objects, only take equal amounts, because of their rapid speed, like a rotating fire wheel seeing large mountains, or whether they take both equal and unequal amounts in relation to their respective objects. The verse says: 'It should be known that the nose faculty and the other two, only take objects of equal measure.' The treatise states: Regarding the objects mentioned earlier, it should be known that the nose faculty and the other two faculties can only take objects of equal measure. For example, the atomic measure of the nose, tongue, and body faculties is the same as the atomic measure of the objects of smell, taste, and touch. This is because they are mutually adapted and jointly produce nose consciousness, etc. Isn't it the case that the atoms of the nose faculty and the other two faculties sometimes cannot fully grasp smells, etc.? Why say that they only take objects of equal measure? Because the atoms of the nose faculty and the other two faculties cannot take more than the amount of the atoms of smells, etc. Therefore, it is said that they can only take objects of equal measure. It is not that a small portion of the three sense faculty atoms cannot also take a small portion of the three objects. As the atomic measure of the object reaches the root in small or large amounts, the corresponding root atoms can function. The eye faculty and ear faculty are uncertain. For example, the eye faculty sometimes takes a small part of form, such as seeing the tip of a hair. Sometimes it takes a large part, such as temporarily opening the eyes and seeing a large mountain, etc. Sometimes it takes an equal amount, such as seeing grapes, wild dates, and other fruits. The ear faculty also takes sounds of equal measure, such as the sound of a mosquito, thunder, and the sound of a zither, whether small or large. The mind faculty has no substantial obstruction, and it is impossible to distinguish the differences in its shape and quantity. The phrase 'it should be known' in the verse also implies encouraging people to know this principle.
今乘義便復應觀察。云何眼等諸根極微安布差別。不可見故。雖難建立。而有對故。住方處故。和集生故。定應說其安布差別。眼根極微。居眼星上。對向自境。傍布而住。如香荾花。清徹膜覆。令無分散。有說重累如丸而住。體清徹故。如秋泉池。不相障礙。耳根極微。居耳穴內。旋環而住。如卷樺皮。鼻根極微。居鼻頞內。背上面下。如雙爪甲。此初三根。橫作行度。無有高下。如冠花鬘。舌根極微。布在舌上。形如半月。當舌形中。如毛端量。非為舌根極微所遍。身根極微。遍住身份。如身形量。女根極微。形如鼓𣞙。男根極微。形如指𩎽。眼根極微有時一切皆是同分。有時一切皆彼同分。有時一分是彼同分。余是同分。乃至舌根極微亦爾。身根極微。定無一切皆是同分。乃至極熱㮈落迦中。猛焰纏身。猶有無量身根極微。是彼同分。故如是說。設遍發識。身應散壞。以無根境各一極微為所依緣能發身識。五識決定積集多微。方成所依所緣性故。云何建立六識所依。為如五識唯緣現在。意識通緣三世非世。如是諸識依亦爾耶。不爾。云何。頌曰。
后依唯過去 五識依或俱
論曰。由六識身無間滅已。皆名為意此與意識。作所依根。是故意識。唯依過去。眼等五識。所依或俱。或言表此亦依過去。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在趁著討論『義』的方便，我們進一步觀察。眼根等諸根的極微如何安布和差別呢？因為它們不可見，所以很難確立。但因為它們有對礙，住在一定的方位，並且是和合而生的，所以應當確定地說出它們的安布和差別。眼根的極微，位於眼球之上，正對著自己的境界，橫向分佈而住，像香荵花一樣。有清澈的薄膜覆蓋，使它們不致分散。有人說它們重疊累積，像丸子一樣而住。因為它們的體性清澈，像秋天的泉水池一樣，所以不會互相障礙。耳根的極微，位於耳孔之內，旋轉環繞而住，像捲起來的樺樹皮。鼻根的極微，位於鼻樑之內，背部朝上，面部朝下，像兩個爪甲。這最初的三個根，橫向排列，沒有高低之分，像頭上的花鬘。舌根的極微，分佈在舌頭之上，形狀像半月，位於舌頭的中間，像毛髮末端那麼大的地方，並非整個舌頭都被舌根的極微所遍佈。身根的極微，遍佈于身體的各個部分，像身體的形狀一樣。女根的極微，形狀像鼓槌。男根的極微，形狀像指甲銼。眼根的極微，有時全部都是同分。有時全部都是彼同分。有時一部分是彼同分，其餘是同分。乃至舌根的極微也是這樣。身根的極微，一定不會全部都是同分。乃至在極熱的地獄中，猛烈的火焰纏繞身體，仍然有無數的身根極微是彼同分。所以這樣說。如果遍身都發識，身體應該散壞。因為沒有根和境各自只有一個極微作為所依緣，能夠發起身識。五識的生起，決定需要積聚多個極微，才能成就所依和所緣的性質。如何建立六識的所依呢？是否像五識一樣只緣現在，而意識通緣三世呢？這些識的所依也是這樣嗎？不是的。那是怎樣呢？頌說： 『后依唯過去，五識依或俱。』 論說：由六識身無間斷滅之後，都名為意（Manas，意）。這個意與意識（Vijnana，識），作為所依根。所以意識，唯依過去。眼等五識，所依或者同時存在。『或』字表明這也依賴過去。
【English Translation】 English version: Now, taking advantage of this discussion on 『meaning』 (Artha), let us further observe. How are the ultimate particles (paramāṇu) of the sense faculties such as the eye arranged and differentiated? Because they are invisible, it is difficult to establish this. However, since they possess resistance (pratighāta), reside in a specific direction, and arise from aggregation, we should definitely describe their arrangement and differentiation. The ultimate particles of the eye faculty reside on the eyeball, facing their respective objects, and are arranged laterally, like the Campaka flower. They are covered by a clear membrane, preventing them from scattering. Some say they are stacked like a ball. Because their nature is clear, like an autumn spring pool, they do not obstruct each other. The ultimate particles of the ear faculty reside within the ear canal, arranged in a spiral, like rolled birch bark. The ultimate particles of the nose faculty reside within the nasal cavity, with the back facing upwards and the front facing downwards, like two fingernails. These first three faculties are arranged horizontally, without any height difference, like a garland of flowers on the head. The ultimate particles of the tongue faculty are distributed on the tongue, shaped like a half-moon, located in the middle of the tongue, in an area the size of a hair tip. The entire tongue is not covered by the ultimate particles of the tongue faculty. The ultimate particles of the body faculty pervade all parts of the body, conforming to the shape of the body. The ultimate particles of the female organ are shaped like a drumstick. The ultimate particles of the male organ are shaped like a nail file. The ultimate particles of the eye faculty are sometimes all of the same class (sabhāga). Sometimes they are all of a different class (visabhāga). Sometimes a portion is of a different class, and the remainder is of the same class. This is also the case for the ultimate particles of the tongue faculty. The ultimate particles of the body faculty are never all of the same class. Even in the extremely hot Naraka (hell realm), where fierce flames engulf the body, there are still countless ultimate particles of the body faculty that are of a different class. Therefore, it is said that if consciousness (vijñāna) were to arise throughout the entire body, the body would disintegrate. This is because there is no single ultimate particle of the root (indriya) and object (viṣaya) that serves as the sole basis and condition for the arising of body consciousness (kāya-vijñāna). The arising of the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna) definitely requires the accumulation of multiple ultimate particles in order to establish the nature of the basis (āśraya) and object (ālambana). How is the basis of the six consciousnesses established? Is it like the five consciousnesses, which only cognize the present, while the mind consciousness (mano-vijñāna) cognizes the three times? Are the bases of these consciousnesses also like this? No. How is it then? The verse says: 『The later depends only on the past, the five consciousnesses depend on either or both.』 The treatise says: After the uninterrupted cessation of the six consciousnesses, all are called manas (意). This manas (意) serves as the root of dependence for mano-vijñāna (意識). Therefore, mano-vijñāna (意識) depends only on the past. The dependence of the five consciousnesses, such as the eye consciousness, is either simultaneous or both. The word 『or』 indicates that it also depends on the past.
謂眼等五是俱所依。過去所依即是意界。如是五識所依各二。第六意識。所依唯一。為顯頌中依義差別。故復應問。若是眼識所依性者。即是眼識等無間緣耶。設是眼識等無間緣者。復是眼識所依性耶。應作四句。第一句。謂俱生眼根。第二句。謂無間滅心所法界。第三句。謂過去意根。第四句。謂除所說法。乃至身識亦爾。各各應說自根。意識應作順前句答。謂是意識所依性者。定是意識等無間緣。有是意識等無間緣。非與意識為所依性。謂無間滅心所法界。又五識界。如所依根。定有過現。彼所緣境。為亦如是。為有別耶。定有差別已滅未生。非五識境。所以者何。由與所依一境轉故。于非現境依不轉故。有執五識境唯過去。應告彼言。若如是者。豈不但以前生為緣與識俱生皆非緣性。又已滅色。彼執體無。但分別心。取為境起。又定應許。彼所依根。亦在過去。能生現識。如是彼言。皆不應理。且置所依及余識境。如何眼識境唯過去。不緣一切過去色耶無間百年滅無異故。若謂無失取自因故。無間滅色是現識因。百年滅色無因義者。此亦不然。無異因故。唯無間滅是現識因。非百年滅。有何因證。如彼百年已滅諸色。與現眼識。都不相關。無間滅色。應亦如是。既無差別。何獨為因此望百年。亦有差別。眼識將
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所謂眼等五者，是共同的所依之處。過去的所依之處就是意界（Manas-dhātu，意識的根本）。像這樣，五識的所依各有兩種。第六意識（意識本身），所依只有一個。爲了顯示頌文中所依之義的差別，所以應該進一步提問。如果是眼識的所依之性，就是眼識的等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，緊隨前念生起的因）嗎？假設是眼識的等無間緣，又是眼識的所依之性嗎？應該作出四句回答。 第一句，指的是俱生的眼根（cakṣur-indriya，視覺器官）。第二句，指的是無間滅的心所法界（citta-caitta-dharmadhātu，心和心所的法性）。第三句，指的是過去的意根（mano-indriya，意識的根源）。第四句，指的是除了所說法之外的情況。乃至身識（kāya-vijñāna，身體的意識）也是如此，各自應該說明自己的根。 意識（manovijñāna，思維的意識）應該作出順著前一句的回答，即如果是意識的所依之性，一定是意識的等無間緣。有的是意識的等無間緣，但不是意識的所依之性，指的是無間滅的心所法界。另外，五識界（pañca-vijñāna-kāya，五種感官意識的集合），如同所依之根，一定有過去和現在。那麼，它們所緣的境，也是這樣嗎？還是有所不同呢？ 一定有所不同，已經滅去但尚未產生的，不是五識的境。這是為什麼呢？因為與所依之根在同一個境界中運轉。對於非現在的境界，所依之根不會運轉。有人認為五識的境只有過去。應該告訴他們，如果這樣的話，豈不是隻有以前生起的作為緣，與識一同生起的都不是緣的性質了嗎？而且已經滅去的色（rūpa，物質現象），他們認為本體已經不存在，只是分別心（vikalpa-citta，分別念頭）取為境而生起。而且一定應該允許，他們所依之根，也在過去，能夠產生現在的意識。像這樣，他們的話，都不合理。 暫且放下所依和其餘識的境，為什麼眼識的境只有過去，不緣一切過去的色呢？無間斷的百年滅去也沒有不同啊。如果說沒有過失，因為取的是自己的因的緣故。無間滅去的色是現在識的因，百年滅去的色沒有因的意義，這也是不對的。沒有不同的因的緣故。只有無間滅去的是現在識的因，不是百年滅去的。有什麼原因可以證明呢？如同那百年已經滅去的諸色，與現在的眼識，完全沒有關係，無間滅去的色，也應該如此。既然沒有差別，為什麼唯獨是因呢？相對於百年，也有差別。眼識將...
【English Translation】 English version The so-called five, such as the eye, are the common bases of support. The past base of support is the Manas-dhātu (mind element). Thus, the five consciousnesses each have two bases of support. The sixth consciousness (consciousness itself) has only one base of support. To show the difference in the meaning of 'support' in the verse, one should further ask: If it is the nature of the base of support for eye-consciousness (cakṣur-vijñāna), is it the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-pratyaya) for eye-consciousness? Supposing it is the immediately preceding condition for eye-consciousness, is it also the nature of the base of support for eye-consciousness? Four possibilities should be stated. The first possibility refers to the co-arisen eye-organ (cakṣur-indriya, visual faculty). The second possibility refers to the mind-and-mental-objects-dharma-element (citta-caitta-dharmadhātu) that has ceased without interval. The third possibility refers to the past mind-organ (mano-indriya, mental faculty). The fourth possibility refers to the cases other than what has been stated. And so on, up to body-consciousness (kāya-vijñāna, body consciousness), each should state its own organ. Mind-consciousness (manovijñāna, mental consciousness) should answer in accordance with the previous statement, that is, if it is the nature of the base of support for mind-consciousness, it is definitely the immediately preceding condition for mind-consciousness. There are those that are the immediately preceding condition for mind-consciousness, but are not the nature of the base of support for mind-consciousness, referring to the mind-and-mental-objects-dharma-element that has ceased without interval. Furthermore, the five consciousness-elements (pañca-vijñāna-kāya, aggregate of five sensory consciousnesses), like the supporting organ, certainly have past and present. Then, are their objects of perception also like this, or are they different? There is definitely a difference; what has already ceased but has not yet arisen is not the object of the five consciousnesses. Why is this? Because they operate in the same realm as the supporting organ. The supporting organ does not operate in non-present realms. Some hold that the objects of the five consciousnesses are only in the past. They should be told that if this is the case, wouldn't it be that only what arose previously is the condition, and what arises together with consciousness is not the nature of the condition? Moreover, the form (rūpa, material phenomenon) that has already ceased, they believe that its substance no longer exists, but it is only the discriminating mind (vikalpa-citta, discriminating thought) that takes it as an object and arises. And it must be admitted that their supporting organ is also in the past, capable of producing present consciousness. Thus, their words are all unreasonable. Let's put aside the supporting organ and the objects of the other consciousnesses for now. Why is it that the object of eye-consciousness is only in the past, and does not perceive all past forms? There is no difference between what ceased without interval and what ceased a hundred years ago. If it is said that there is no fault because it takes its own cause as the condition, and that the form that ceased without interval is the cause of present consciousness, while the form that ceased a hundred years ago has no meaning as a cause, this is also incorrect. Because there is no different cause. Only what ceased without interval is the cause of present consciousness, not what ceased a hundred years ago. What reason can prove this? Just as those forms that ceased a hundred years ago have no relation to present eye-consciousness, the form that ceased without interval should also be the same. Since there is no difference, why is it uniquely the cause? Compared to a hundred years, there is also a difference. Eye-consciousness will...
生時。此色為緣故。若爾眼識境應非過去。識在未來緣現在境故。亦不可說異時為緣異時為境。此與眼識除為境用。復作何緣眼識生時。久已滅色近滅無異。何不為緣。汝執久滅與近滅者俱非實體無差別故。又久近滅。能為緣用。理俱不成。非現境界相續各異非一果性。無差別故。又汝應說。鼻舌身三。云何名為。取近至境過去未來。說為遠故。又若五識唯緣過去。如何于彼有現量覺。如於自身受有現量覺。謂我曾領納如是苦樂。此救不然。于自身受領納覺了時分異故。謂于自身。曾所生受。余時領納余時覺了。領納時者謂為損益時。爾時此受未為覺了境。謂了余境識俱生受。正現前時。能為損益。此損益位。名領納時。即自性受。領所隨觸。自體生故。識等領彼損益行相。自體起故。此滅過去。方能為境。生現憶念。此憶念位。名覺了時。由斯理趣。唯于現量。曾所受事。有現量覺。故現量覺。于自身受有義得成。現量有三。依根領納覺了。現量性差別故。過去色等。既許未曾現量所受。云何可言如自身受有現量覺。如於他身受非自領納。現量所受則無現量覺。言我曾受如是苦樂。緣彼受智。既非現量覺。如是現色等。非自依根現量所受。應無現量覺。謂我曾受如是色等。緣彼境智。應非現量覺。又若現在色等五境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生起時，這個色法作為（眼識的）所緣。如果這樣，那麼眼識的境界就不應該是過去（的色法）。因為識存在於未來，而緣于現在的境界的緣故。也不可以說不同時為緣，不同時為境。這與眼識除了作為境界的作用之外，還能做什麼緣呢？眼識生起時，很久以前滅去的色法與剛滅去的色法沒有差別，為什麼不能作為（眼識的）所緣呢？你認為很久以前滅去的和剛滅去的（色法）都不是實體，沒有差別。而且，很久以前滅去的和剛滅去的（色法）能夠作為所緣，在道理上都不能成立。因為不是現在的境界，相續各異，不是一個果的性質，沒有差別。而且你應該說，鼻、舌、身這三種（識），為什麼叫做取近至境，而把過去未來（的境界）說成是遠的緣故？還有，如果五識只緣於過去（的境界），那麼如何對它們有現量覺呢？就像對於自身所感受的有現量覺一樣，說我曾經領納過如此的苦樂。這種辯解是不對的，因為對於自身所感受的領納和覺了，時間是不同的。對於自身曾經產生的感受，在其他時間領納，在其他時間覺了。領納的時候，是指受到損害或利益的時候。那時，這個感受還不是覺了的境界。覺了其他境界的識，與（自身所生的）感受同時出現，正在現前的時候，能夠帶來損害或利益。這個損害或利益的階段，叫做領納時。也就是自性受，領納所隨的觸，自體生起。識等領納那些損害或利益的行相，自體生起。這些滅去的過去（的感受），才能作為境界，產生現在的憶念。這個憶念的階段，叫做覺了時。由於這個道理，只有對於現量，曾經感受過的事情，才有現量覺。所以現量覺，對於自身所感受的事情，在某種意義上是成立的。現量有三種，依根領納覺了。現量的性質有差別。過去（的）色等，既然允許沒有曾經被現量所感受過，怎麼能說像自身所感受的一樣有現量覺呢？就像對於他人所感受的，不是自己領納，現量所感受的，就沒有現量覺。說我曾經感受過如此的苦樂，緣于那個感受的智慧，既然不是現量覺。這樣，現在（的）色等，不是自己依根現量所感受的，應該沒有現量覺。說我曾經感受過如此的色等，緣于那個境界的智慧，應該不是現量覺。而且，如果現在（的）色等五境
【English Translation】 English version At the time of arising, this color (rupa) serves as the condition (for eye consciousness). If so, then the object of eye consciousness should not be the past (color). Because consciousness exists in the future, while it cognizes present objects. It also cannot be said that different times serve as condition and object. Besides serving as an object, what other condition does this provide for the arising of eye consciousness? When eye consciousness arises, there is no difference between a color that perished long ago and one that just perished, so why can't they serve as conditions? You maintain that both the long-perished and the recently-perished (colors) are not real entities and have no difference. Moreover, the ability of the long-perished and the recently-perished (colors) to serve as conditions cannot be established in principle. Because they are not present objects, their continuities are different, they are not of the same fruit nature, and there is no difference. Furthermore, you should explain why the three (consciousnesses) of nose, tongue, and body are called 'taking near-reaching objects,' while the past and future (objects) are said to be distant. Also, if the five consciousnesses only cognize the past (objects), how can there be direct perception (pratyaksha) of them? It's like having direct perception of one's own feelings, saying 'I once experienced such suffering and pleasure.' This defense is incorrect because the times of experiencing and realizing one's own feelings are different. Regarding the feelings that once arose in oneself, one experiences them at a different time and realizes them at a different time. The time of experiencing refers to the time of being harmed or benefited. At that time, this feeling is not yet an object of realization. The consciousness that realizes other objects, together with the (feelings) arising in oneself, is present, and can bring harm or benefit. This stage of harm or benefit is called the time of experiencing. That is, the self-nature feeling experiences the accompanying contact, arising from its own nature. Consciousness and so on experience those aspects of harm or benefit, arising from their own nature. These perished past (feelings) can then serve as objects, giving rise to present recollection. This stage of recollection is called the time of realization. Because of this reasoning, only for things that have been experienced through direct perception can there be direct perception. Therefore, direct perception of one's own feelings is established in a certain sense. There are three types of direct perception: experiencing, realizing, and direct perception based on the senses. The nature of direct perception has differences. Since past (rupa) and so on are admitted to not have been experienced through direct perception, how can it be said that there is direct perception like one's own feelings? Just as there is no direct perception of the feelings of others that are not experienced by oneself, saying 'I once experienced such suffering and pleasure,' the wisdom that cognizes that feeling is not direct perception. Similarly, present (rupa) and so on, not being experienced by oneself through direct perception based on the senses, should not have direct perception. Saying 'I once experienced such rupa and so on,' the wisdom that cognizes that object should not be direct perception. Moreover, if present (rupa) and the five objects
。非現量得。如緣未來受所起智。緣非曾領納現量所得故。必無自謂我曾領受如是苦樂。例緣過去色等起智。緣非曾依根現量所得故。應無自謂我曾領受如是色等。如苦受等。必為領納現量受已。方有緣彼現量覺生。如是色等。必為依根現量受已。方有緣彼現量覺生。現所逼故。定應信受。若領納受時非緣受為境。緣受為境時非領納受者。世尊何故作如是言。受樂受時如實了知受於樂受。乃至廣說。此無違失。如是所說。是觀察時。非領納時。顯觀行者。于曾領納現量所得樂等受中無迷謬故。作如是說。是故不應于諸現量曾未受境有現量覺。由此五識唯緣現境。必以俱生為所緣故。契經既說。眼色為緣。生於眼識。乃至廣說。何因識起俱托二緣。得所依名。在根非境。頌曰。
隨根變識異 故眼等名依
論曰。眼等即是眼等六界。由眼等根有轉變故。諸識轉異。隨根增損有明昧故。非色等變令識有異。以識隨根不隨境故。依名唯在眼等非余。若爾意識亦隨身轉。謂風病等損惱身時。意識即亂。身清泰時。意識安靜。何緣彼意識不以身為依。隨自所依故無此失。謂風病等損惱身時。發生苦受相應身識。如是身識。名亂意界。此與苦受俱落謝時。能為意根生亂意識。與此相違意識安靜。是故意識隨自所依。豈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不是現量所得。例如緣于未來感受所產生的智慧，因為緣于未曾領納的現量所得，所以必定不會自認為我曾經領受過這樣的苦樂。例如緣於過去色等所產生的智慧，因為緣于未曾依根現量所得，所以不應自認為我曾經領受過這樣的色等。如同苦受等，必定是領納現量感受之後，才會有緣於它的現量覺生起。如同色等，必定是依根現量感受之後，才會有緣於它的現量覺生起。因為現量所逼迫的緣故，必定應當信受。如果領納感受時不是緣于受為境界，緣于受為境界時不是領納受者，世尊為什麼會這樣說：『感受樂受時，如實了知感受樂受』，乃至廣說？這沒有違背之處。這樣所說，是觀察時，不是領納時。顯示觀行者，對於曾經領納的現量所得樂等受中沒有迷惑的緣故，才這樣說。所以不應對於諸現量曾經未受的境界有現量覺。由此五識唯緣現境，必定以俱生為所緣的緣故。《契經》既然說：『眼色為緣，生於眼識』，乃至廣說。什麼原因使得識的生起既依賴於兩種緣，又得到所依的名稱？是在根而不是在境。頌說： 『隨根變識異，故眼等名依。』 論說：眼等，即是眼等六界（六種感覺器官）。由於眼等根有轉變的緣故，諸識轉異，隨著根的增損有明昧的緣故。不是色等的變化使識有差異，因為識隨著根而不隨著境的緣故。所依的名稱只在眼等，不在其他。如果這樣，意識也隨著身體的轉變。例如風病等損惱身體時，意識就混亂；身體清泰時，意識就安靜。什麼緣故那個意識不以身為所依？因為隨著自身所依的緣故，沒有這個過失。例如風病等損惱身體時，發生苦受相應的身識。這樣的身識，名叫亂意界（擾亂意識的界限）。此與苦受一同落謝時，能為意根生起混亂的意識。與此相反，意識就安靜。所以意識隨著自身所依。難道
【English Translation】 English version: It is not obtained through direct perception (現量, xiànliàng). For example, the wisdom arising from contemplating future feelings, because it arises from direct perception that has not been experienced, one would certainly not think, 'I have experienced such pleasure and pain.' Similarly, the wisdom arising from contemplating past forms, etc., because it arises from direct perception that has not been based on the sense organs, one should not think, 'I have experienced such forms, etc.' Just as with painful feelings, etc., there must be direct perception of the feeling before a direct perceptual awareness of it can arise. Just as with forms, etc., there must be direct perception based on the sense organs before a direct perceptual awareness of it can arise. Because of the compulsion of direct perception, one must believe and accept this. If, when experiencing a feeling, one is not contemplating the feeling as an object, and when contemplating a feeling as an object, one is not experiencing the feeling, why did the World-Honored One say, 'When experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly knows that one is experiencing a pleasant feeling,' and so on? There is no contradiction here. What is said in this way is about the time of observation, not the time of experiencing. It shows that practitioners of contemplation are not confused about the pleasure, etc., that they have experienced through direct perception, and that is why it is said in this way. Therefore, one should not have direct perceptual awareness of objects that have never been experienced through direct perception. Therefore, the five consciousnesses only perceive present objects, and they must have co-arising entities as their objects. Since the Sutra says, 'Eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness,' and so on, what is the reason that the arising of consciousness relies on two conditions and also obtains the name 'support'? It is in the sense organ, not in the object. The verse says: 'As the sense organ changes, the consciousness differs; therefore, the eye, etc., are called supports.' The treatise says: 'Eye, etc.,' refers to the six sense-spheres (六界, liùjiè) of eye, etc. Because the sense organs of eye, etc., undergo changes, the consciousnesses transform differently, and their clarity varies with the increase or decrease of the sense organs. It is not the changes in forms, etc., that cause the consciousness to differ, because the consciousness follows the sense organ and not the object. The name 'support' only applies to the eye, etc., and not to anything else. If that is the case, then the mind-consciousness (意識, yìshì) also changes with the body. For example, when illnesses such as wind disorders afflict the body, the mind-consciousness becomes confused; when the body is clear and peaceful, the mind-consciousness is quiet. What is the reason that the mind-consciousness does not take the body as its support? Because it follows its own support, there is no fault in this. For example, when illnesses such as wind disorders afflict the body, body-consciousness (身識, shēnshì) arises in conjunction with painful feelings. This body-consciousness is called the 'realm of confused mind' (亂意界, luànyìjiè). When this and the painful feeling cease together, it can cause the mind-organ (意根, yìgēn) to generate a confused mind-consciousness. Conversely, the mind-consciousness is quiet. Therefore, the mind-consciousness follows its own support. Could it be
不有漏意界無間無漏識生。如是等異。如何意識隨自所依。非據有漏無漏等類名隨自依。但據增損明昧差別。如從無覆無記眼根生善不善有覆眼識。而名眼識隨自所依。此亦應爾。是故能依非隨一切所依法性。若不爾者。應非能依隨所依故。何緣所識是境非根。而立識名。隨根非境。頌曰。
彼及不共因 故隨根說識
論曰。彼謂前說眼等名依。故立識名。隨根非境。依是勝故。及不共者。謂眼唯自眼識所依。色亦通為他身眼識。及通自他意識所取。乃至身觸應知亦然。豈不意識境不共故應名法識。此難非理。通別法名。共非遍故。境不具前二種因故。謂通名法。非唯不共別名法界。非遍攝識。又別法界。雖不共余。而非意識所依根性。是故若法。是識所依。及不共者。隨彼說識。色等不然。故不隨彼說色等識。如鳴鼓聲及麥芽等。又此頌文。復有餘義。彼謂眼等識所隨故。及不共者。及由眼等是不共故。謂有一生色發四生眼識。無一生眼根發二生眼識。況有能發四生識者。如是界趣族類身眼。各別發識。故名不共。廣說乃至。身亦如是。豈不餘生意根亦發餘生意識。非全不發。但不俱時。無一生意一時併發二生意識。可如色等。故作是言。無二況四。如是眼等。識所隨故。生界趣等。別生識故。由此二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『不有漏意界無間無漏識生。如是等異。如何意識隨自所依。非據有漏無漏等類名隨自依。但據增損明昧差別。如從無覆無記眼根生善不善有覆眼識。而名眼識隨自所依。此亦應爾。是故能依非隨一切所依法性。若不爾者。應非能依隨所依故。』 問：為什麼所識是境而非根，卻要根據根而不是境來立識的名字呢？ 頌曰： 『彼及不共因，故隨根說識。』 論曰：『彼』指的是前面所說的眼等名依，因此立識的名字是根據根而不是境，因為依是更重要的。『及不共者』，指的是眼根僅僅是其自身眼識的所依，而色塵（Rūpa）則可以通於他人之眼識，也可以被自他之意識所取。乃至身觸（Sparśa）也應知是同樣的道理。 問：難道意識的境不是不共的嗎？為什麼不應該叫做『法識』呢？ 答：這個提問是不合理的，因為通別法（Dharma）的名字，是共而非遍的緣故。境不具備前面所說的兩種原因。通名是法，並非唯一不共的別名是法界（Dharmadhātu），而且法界並非普遍地包含所有的識。而且，別名法界雖然不共于其他，但並非是意識所依的根性。 因此，如果某個法是識的所依，而且是不共的，那麼就根據它來說識。色等不是這樣，所以不根據色等來說色等識。就像鳴鼓的聲音和麥芽等。 而且，這個頌文還有其他的含義。『彼』指的是眼等識所隨的緣故，『及不共者』，是因為眼等是不共的緣故。比如，一生之色塵可以引發四生之眼識，而無一生之眼根可以引發二生之眼識，更何況能引發四生之識者。像這樣，界（Dhātu）、趣（Gati）、族類（Kula）、身（Kāya）、眼（Akṣi）等，各自別別地引發識，所以叫做不共。廣而言之，乃至身也是如此。 問：難道餘生的意根（Manas）不會引發餘生的意識（Vijñāna）嗎？難道不是完全不引發嗎？ 答：但不是同時引發。沒有一生之意根，一時併發二生之意識，可以像色等那樣。所以才說，沒有二，更何況四。像這樣，眼等，是識所隨的緣故，生界趣等，別別生識的緣故，由此二。
【English Translation】 English version: 'No leakage of the mind element, without interval, no leakage of consciousness arises. Such are the differences. How does consciousness follow its own basis? It is not based on the categories of leakage and no leakage to follow its own basis, but only on the differences of increase, decrease, clarity, and obscurity. For example, from a non-afflicted, neutral eye-faculty arises afflicted eye-consciousness, whether good or bad, and it is named eye-consciousness following its own basis. This should also be the case here. Therefore, the able-to-rely does not follow all the natures of the dharma that are relied upon. If not, it should not be that the able-to-rely follows the relied-upon.' Question: Why is what is cognized an object and not a faculty, yet the name of consciousness is established according to the faculty and not the object? Verse: 'That and the non-common cause, therefore consciousness is spoken of following the faculty.' Treatise: 'That' refers to the aforementioned names of the eye, etc., as the basis. Therefore, the name of consciousness is established following the faculty and not the object, because the basis is superior. 'And the non-common' means that the eye is only the basis for its own eye-consciousness, while form (Rūpa) is common to the eye-consciousness of others and is also taken by the consciousness of oneself and others. Even body and touch (Sparśa) should be understood in the same way. Question: Isn't the object of consciousness non-common? Why shouldn't it be called 'dharma-consciousness'? Answer: This question is unreasonable because the names of common and specific dharmas are common and not pervasive. The object does not possess the two aforementioned causes. The common name is dharma, and the unique non-common name is not the Dharmadhātu (Dharma realm), and the Dharma realm does not universally encompass all consciousnesses. Moreover, although the specific Dharma realm is non-common to others, it is not the root nature relied upon by consciousness. Therefore, if a dharma is the basis of consciousness and is non-common, then consciousness is spoken of according to it. Form, etc., are not like this, so form-consciousness, etc., are not spoken of according to them. It's like the sound of a drum and malt, etc. Moreover, this verse has other meanings. 'That' refers to the fact that consciousness follows the eye, etc., and 'the non-common' is because the eye, etc., are non-common. For example, form of one life can give rise to eye-consciousness of four lives, but no eye-faculty of one life can give rise to eye-consciousness of two lives, let alone one that can give rise to consciousness of four lives. In this way, realms (Dhātu), destinies (Gati), clans (Kula), bodies (Kāya), eyes (Akṣi), etc., each separately give rise to consciousness, so they are called non-common. Broadly speaking, even the body is the same. Question: Doesn't the mind-faculty (Manas) of a previous life also give rise to the consciousness (Vijñāna) of a later life? Isn't it that it doesn't give rise to it at all? Answer: But it doesn't give rise to it simultaneously. There is no mind-faculty of one life that simultaneously gives rise to the consciousness of two lives, as can be the case with form, etc. That is why it is said that there are not two, let alone four. In this way, the eye, etc., are followed by consciousness, and the realms, destinies, etc., separately give rise to consciousness, due to these two.
因。隨根非境。有言。根識俱是內性。境唯是外。故隨根說。有言。根識俱有情數。色等不定。故隨根說。眾緣和合。眼識方生。何故契經。唯舉眼色。眼識所依所緣性故。余法雖是眼識生緣。而非所依及所緣性。又是眼識鄰近緣故。豈不空明能生作意亦是眼識鄰近緣耶。眼色二緣。于生眼識。極鄰近故。異空明等。又眼識生。必藉所依所緣力故。及不共故。眼識生時。必藉眼色為所依緣。余法不定。謂夜行類。識不藉明生。水行類。識不待空發人。于琉璃頗胝迦等障色亦爾。天眼發識。不假空明。若謂眼識生必藉明。近明近色。主明客明。定一為緣。方見色故。又眼識發。必藉于空。以空遍滿一切處故。此皆非理。眼藉明者。要藉大明照色方見。非貓貍等眼有大明。如何能見。復有人等眼雖無明而夜見色。甚違汝義。如說有人于闇中色亦能睹見。不待光明。若空遍滿一切處者。無障礙故。亦應能取壁等障色。能生作意。通與六識。作共生緣。眼色非共。是故契經。唯舉眼色。或隨所化宜聞便說。像跡喻等諸契經中。作意等緣皆具說故。隨身所住。眼見色時。身眼色識地為同不。應言此四或異或同。所言同者。謂生欲界。以自地眼。見自地色。四皆同地。生初靜慮。以自地眼。見自地色。亦皆同地。非生餘地有四事同
【現代漢語翻譯】 因。隨根非境。有言。根識俱是內性。境唯是外。故隨根說。——原因在於跟隨根而非境。有人說，根和識都是內在的性質，境是外在的，所以說是跟隨根。
有言。根識俱有情數。色等不定。故隨根說。——有人說，根和識都屬於有情眾生，而色等是不確定的，所以說是跟隨根。
眾緣和合。眼識方生。何故契經。唯舉眼色。——眾多因緣和合，眼識才能產生。為什麼佛經中只提到眼和色呢？
眼識所依所緣性故。余法雖是眼識生緣。而非所依及所緣性。又是眼識鄰近緣故。——因為眼和色是眼識所依賴和所緣的對象。其他的法雖然也是眼識產生的條件，但不是眼識所依賴和所緣的對象。而且眼和色是眼識最鄰近的緣。
豈不空明能生作意亦是眼識鄰近緣耶。——難道空和明能夠產生作意，不也是眼識鄰近的緣嗎？
眼色二緣。于生眼識。極鄰近故。異空明等。又眼識生。必藉所依所緣力故。及不共故。——眼和色這兩個緣，對於產生眼識來說，是最鄰近的，不同於空和明等。而且眼識的產生，必須依靠所依賴和所緣的力量，以及不共的特性。
眼識生時。必藉眼色為所依緣。余法不定。謂夜行類。識不藉明生。水行類。識不待空發人。于琉璃頗胝迦（Sphatika，一種寶石）等障色亦爾。天眼發識。不假空明。——眼識產生時，必須依靠眼和色作為所依賴的緣。其他的法是不確定的。比如夜間行走的動物，它們的識不是依靠光明產生的；水裡行走的動物，它們的識不是依靠空間產生的。人看到琉璃、頗胝迦等阻礙物後面的顏色也是這樣。天眼產生識，不需要依靠空間和光明。
若謂眼識生必藉明。近明近色。主明客明。定一為緣。方見色故。又眼識發。必藉于空。以空遍滿一切處故。——如果說眼識的產生必須依靠光明，靠近光明，靠近顏色，主要的光明和次要的光明，確定一個作為緣，才能看到顏色。又說眼識的產生，必須依靠空間，因為空間遍佈一切地方。
此皆非理。眼藉明者。要藉大明照色方見。非貓貍等眼有大明。如何能見。復有人等眼雖無明而夜見色。甚違汝義。——這些都是不合理的。眼依靠光明，需要依靠強烈的光明照亮顏色才能看到。貓和貍等的眼睛沒有強烈的光明，怎麼能看到東西呢？而且有些人眼睛雖然沒有光明，也能在夜裡看到顏色，這非常違揹你的觀點。
如說有人于闇中色亦能睹見。不待光明。若空遍滿一切處者。無障礙故。亦應能取壁等障色。——就像說有人在黑暗中也能看到顏色，不需要等待光明。如果空間遍佈一切地方，沒有障礙，也應該能看到墻壁等阻礙物後面的顏色。
能生作意。通與六識。作共生緣。眼色非共。是故契經。唯舉眼色。——能夠產生作意的，普遍與六識作為共同的產生條件。眼和色不是共同的。所以佛經中只提到眼和色。
或隨所化宜聞便說。像跡喻等諸契經中。作意等緣皆具說故。——或者根據所教化的人，適宜聽聞的就說。在象跡喻等佛經中，作意等緣都詳細地說明了。
隨身所住。眼見色時。身眼色識地為同不。——隨著身體所處的位置，眼睛看到顏色時，身體、眼睛、顏色、識，它們所處的地界是相同的嗎？
應言此四或異或同。所言同者。謂生欲界。以自地眼。見自地色。四皆同地。生初靜慮。以自地眼。見自地色。亦皆同地。非生餘地有四事同——應該說這四者或者相同或者不同。所說的相同，是指生在欲界，用欲界的眼睛，看到欲界的顏色，這四者都在同一地界。生在初禪，用初禪的眼睛，看到初禪的顏色，也都在同一地界。不是生在其他地界，這四者會相同。
【English Translation】 The cause lies in following the root (Indriya) rather than the object (Vishaya). Some say that both the root and consciousness (Vijnana) are internal in nature, while the object is external. Therefore, it is said to follow the root.
Some say that both the root and consciousness belong to sentient beings (Sattva), while forms (Rupa) and other things are uncertain. Therefore, it is said to follow the root.
When various conditions come together, eye-consciousness (Caksu-vijnana) arises. Why does the Sutra only mention the eye and form?
Because the eye and form are the basis (Asraya) and object (Alambana) of eye-consciousness. Although other dharmas are conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness, they are not its basis or object. Moreover, the eye and form are the closest conditions to eye-consciousness.
Isn't space (Akasa) and light (Aloka), which can generate attention (Manaskara), also close conditions to eye-consciousness?
The two conditions, eye and form, are extremely close to the arising of eye-consciousness, differing from space and light. Furthermore, the arising of eye-consciousness necessarily relies on the power of its basis and object, and because of their unique nature.
When eye-consciousness arises, it necessarily relies on the eye and form as its basis and object. Other dharmas are uncertain. For example, the consciousness of nocturnal animals does not arise relying on light; the consciousness of aquatic animals does not depend on space. The same is true when people see colors behind obstacles like crystal (Sphatika). The divine eye (Divyacaksu) generates consciousness without relying on space and light.
If it is said that the arising of eye-consciousness necessarily relies on light, being close to light and close to form, with either primary or secondary light being the determining condition for seeing form, and that the arising of eye-consciousness necessarily relies on space because space pervades everywhere,
all of this is unreasonable. If the eye relies on light, it needs strong light to illuminate the form in order to see it. Cats and civets do not have strong light in their eyes, so how can they see? Moreover, some people can see colors at night even without light, which greatly contradicts your view.
As it is said that some people can see colors in the dark without waiting for light. If space pervades everywhere without obstruction, then one should also be able to perceive colors behind obstructing objects like walls.
The ability to generate attention is a common condition for all six consciousnesses. The eye and form are not common. Therefore, the Sutra only mentions the eye and form.
Or it is spoken according to what is suitable for the person being taught. In Sutras such as the Elephant Footprint Sutra (Hastipadopama Sutra), conditions like attention are all explained in detail.
When the eye sees form, depending on where the body resides, are the realm (Bhumi) of the body, eye, form, and consciousness the same or not?
It should be said that these four are either different or the same. The same refers to being born in the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu), using the eye of the Desire Realm to see the form of the Desire Realm, all four being in the same realm. Being born in the First Dhyana (Prathama-dhyana), using the eye of the First Dhyana to see the form of the First Dhyana, are also all in the same realm. It is not possible for these four to be the same if born in different realms.
。所言異者。謂生欲界。若以初靜慮眼見欲界色。身色慾界。眼識初定。見初定色。身屬欲界。三屬初定。若以二靜慮眼。見欲界色。身色慾界。眼屬二定。識屬初定。見初定色身屬欲界。眼屬二定。色識初定。見二定色身屬欲界。眼色二定。識屬初定。如是若以三四靜慮地眼。見下地色。或自地色如理應知。如是若生四靜慮地。四事有異。如理應思。余界亦應如是分別。今當略辯此決定相。頌曰。
眼不下於身 色識非上眼 色于識一切 二于身亦然 如眼耳亦然 次三皆自地 身識自下地 意不定應知
論曰。身眼色三皆通五地。謂在欲界四靜慮中。眼識唯在欲界初定。此中眼根望身生地。或等或上。終不居下。色識望眼等下非上。下地眼根。串見粗色。于上細色無見功能。又下眼根。無有勝用。上地自有殊勝眼根于下地中。自有眼識。故下地眼。非上識依。色望于識。通等上下。色識于身。如色于識。謂通自地或上或下。識望于身。通自地者。唯生欲界初靜慮中。或上地者。唯生欲界。或下地者。唯生二三四靜慮地。色望于身。自下地者。自上眼見。若上地者。唯上眼見。又以自地眼。唯見自下色若以上地眼。見自上下色。廣說耳界。應知如眼。謂耳不下於身。聲識非上耳。聲于識一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於所說不同之處，是指生於欲界的情況。如果用初禪的眼睛去看欲界的顏色，身體屬於欲界，眼睛和眼識屬於初禪。在初禪中，用初禪的眼睛去看初禪的顏色，身體屬於欲界，三者（眼、色、識）都屬於初禪。如果用二禪的眼睛去看欲界的顏色，身體屬於欲界，眼睛屬於二禪，眼識屬於初禪。用二禪的眼睛去看初禪的顏色，身體屬於欲界，眼睛屬於二禪，顏色和眼識屬於初禪。用二禪的眼睛去看二禪的顏色，身體屬於欲界，眼睛和顏色屬於二禪，眼識屬於初禪。像這樣，如果用三禪或四禪的眼睛去看地獄的顏色，或者看自己所在禪定的顏色，應該如理如實地瞭解。像這樣，如果生在四禪天，四件事（身、眼、色、識）會有不同，應該如理如實地思考。其餘各界也應該這樣分別。現在簡略地辨別這些決定的相狀。頌詞說：
『眼根不低於身根所生之處，色和識不是高於眼根所能見的；色對於識來說，通於一切地；二者（色和識）對於身根來說也是這樣。』 『如眼根一樣，耳根也是這樣。其次，三禪和四禪都只在各自的禪定地。身根和識只在自己或地獄。意根是不定的，應該知道。』
論述說：身、眼、色三者都通於五地，即在欲界和四禪天中。眼和識只在欲界和初禪。這裡，眼根相對於身根所生的地方，或者相等，或者高於身根，終究不會低於身根。色和識相對於眼根，或者相等，或者低於眼根，不會高於眼根。下地的眼根，習慣於看粗糙的顏色，對於上界細微的顏色沒有觀看的功能。而且下地的眼根，沒有殊勝的作用。上地自有殊勝的眼根。在下地中，自有眼識。所以下地的眼睛，不是上地識的所依。顏色相對於識，通於相等、上界和地獄。色和識相對於身根，就像顏色相對於識一樣，即通於自己所在的地，或者上界，或者地獄。識相對於身根，通於自己所在的地，只生在欲界和初禪中；或者上界，只生在欲界；或者地獄，只生在二禪、三禪、四禪天。顏色相對於身根，自己或地獄，被自己或上界的眼睛所見。如果是上界，只被上界的眼睛所見。又用自己所在地的眼睛，只看自己或地獄的顏色。如果用上地的眼睛，看自己或上下的顏色。廣泛地說，耳界應該像眼界一樣瞭解，即耳根不低於身根所生之處，聲音和識不是高於耳根所能聽到的，聲音對於識來說，通於一切地。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the differences mentioned, it refers to beings born in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu). If one uses the eye of the First Dhyāna (初靜慮, First Meditation Heaven) to see forms in the Desire Realm, the body belongs to the Desire Realm, while the eye and eye-consciousness belong to the First Dhyāna. In the First Dhyāna, if one uses the eye of the First Dhyāna to see forms in the First Dhyāna, the body belongs to the Desire Realm, and all three (eye, form, and consciousness) belong to the First Dhyāna. If one uses the eye of the Second Dhyāna (二靜慮, Second Meditation Heaven) to see forms in the Desire Realm, the body belongs to the Desire Realm, the eye belongs to the Second Dhyāna, and the eye-consciousness belongs to the First Dhyāna. If one uses the eye of the Second Dhyāna to see forms in the First Dhyāna, the body belongs to the Desire Realm, the eye belongs to the Second Dhyāna, and the form and eye-consciousness belong to the First Dhyāna. If one uses the eye of the Second Dhyāna to see forms in the Second Dhyāna, the body belongs to the Desire Realm, the eye and form belong to the Second Dhyāna, and the eye-consciousness belongs to the First Dhyāna. Similarly, if one uses the eye of the Third Dhyāna (三靜慮, Third Meditation Heaven) or Fourth Dhyāna (四靜慮, Fourth Meditation Heaven) to see forms in the lower realms or in their own realm, one should understand it accordingly. Likewise, if one is born in the Fourth Dhyāna, the four elements (body, eye, form, and consciousness) will differ, and one should contemplate them accordingly. The other realms should also be distinguished in the same way. Now, let's briefly discuss these definitive characteristics. The verse says:
'The eye-faculty is not lower than the place where the body-faculty is born; form and consciousness are not higher than what the eye can see; form is connected to all realms in relation to consciousness; the two (form and consciousness) are also like this in relation to the body-faculty.' 'Like the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty is also like this. Furthermore, the Third and Fourth Dhyānas are only in their respective meditation realms. The body-faculty and consciousness are only in their own or lower realms. The mind-faculty is uncertain, it should be known.'
The treatise says: The body, eye, and form all pervade the five realms, that is, in the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyānas. The eye and consciousness are only in the Desire Realm and the First Dhyāna. Here, the eye-faculty, relative to the place where the body-faculty is born, is either equal to or higher than the body-faculty; it is never lower. Form and consciousness, relative to the eye-faculty, are either equal to or lower than the eye-faculty; they are not higher. The eye-faculty of the lower realms is accustomed to seeing coarse forms, and it does not have the function of seeing the subtle forms of the upper realms. Moreover, the eye-faculty of the lower realms does not have superior functions. The upper realms have their own superior eye-faculties. In the lower realms, there is eye-consciousness. Therefore, the eyes of the lower realms are not the basis for the consciousness of the upper realms. Form, relative to consciousness, is connected to equal, upper, and lower realms. Form and consciousness, relative to the body-faculty, are like form relative to consciousness, that is, connected to their own realm, or the upper realm, or the lower realm. Consciousness, relative to the body-faculty, is connected to its own realm, only born in the Desire Realm and the First Dhyāna; or the upper realm, only born in the Desire Realm; or the lower realm, only born in the Second, Third, and Fourth Dhyānas. Form, relative to the body-faculty, in its own or lower realm, is seen by the eyes of its own or upper realm. If it is the upper realm, it is only seen by the eyes of the upper realm. Furthermore, using the eyes of one's own realm, one only sees the forms of one's own or lower realms. If one uses the eyes of the upper realms, one sees the forms of one's own or upper and lower realms. Broadly speaking, the ear-realm should be understood like the eye-realm, that is, the ear-faculty is not lower than the place where the body-faculty is born, sound and consciousness are not higher than what the ear can hear, sound is connected to all realms in relation to consciousness.
切二于身亦然。隨其所應。廣如眼釋。鼻舌身三。總皆自地。多分同故香味二識。唯欲界故。鼻舌唯取至境界故。于中別者。謂身與觸。其地必同。取至境故。識望觸身。或自或下。自謂若生欲界初定。生上三定。謂之為下。應知意界。四事不定。謂意有時與身識法。同在一地。有時上下。身唯五地。三通一切。唯生五地。自意自識。緣自地法。名意與三同在一地。意界有時在上地者。謂游定時。若生欲界。從初靜慮。無間起欲界識。了欲界法。意屬上地。三屬下地。或二三四靜慮等無間。起初二三靜慮等地識。了初二三靜慮等地法。意屬上地。三屬下地。如是若生初靜慮等。從上起下。如理應知。于受生時。無上地意依下地身。必無下地身根不滅受上生故。又定無有住異地心而命終故。如是應知。無下地意依上地身。依上地意受下地身。則不違理。謂從上地意界無間。于欲色界。初結生時。意屬上地。身識下地。彼所了法。或自地。或上地。或不繫。如是應知。依下地意。受上地身。亦不違理。于游定時。有下地意依上地身。亦不違理。謂生上地。先起下地識身化心。如是識法。亦應廣說。復應思擇。若欲界眼。見欲界色。或色界眼見二界色。爾時彼色。可為幾種眼識所識。於此復起幾種分別。為令于宗不迷亂故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 切二于身亦然（其餘二根與身體的情況也是如此）。隨其所應（根據它們各自的情況）。廣如眼釋（詳細的解釋如同對眼根的分析）。鼻舌身三（鼻、舌、身三種根）。總皆自地（總體來說都在各自的本有地）。多分同故（因為它們大部分情況相同）。香味二識（香和味兩種識）。唯欲界故（只存在於欲界）。鼻舌唯取至境界故（鼻和舌只取到它們所接觸的境界）。 于中別者（其中不同的是），謂身與觸（身體和觸覺）。其地必同（它們所處之地必定相同）。取至境故（因為它們取到所接觸的境界）。識望觸身（從識的角度來看觸覺和身體），或自或下（可能在同一地，也可能在較低的地）。自謂若生欲界初定（同一地是指如果生在欲界或初禪定）。生上三定（較低的地是指生在上面的三禪定）。謂之為下（稱之為較低的地）。 應知意界（應當瞭解意界的情況）。四事不定（意界與色、受、想、行四蘊的關係是不確定的）。謂意有時與身識法（意有時與身識和法），同在一地（在同一地）。有時上下（有時在意界之上或之下）。身唯五地（身體只存在於五地，即欲界和四禪）。三通一切（意、法、識三者可以通於一切地）。唯生五地（只生於五地）。自意自識（在同一地的意和識），緣自地法（緣取自己地的法）。名意與三同在一地（稱為意與身識法同在一地）。 意界有時在上地者（意界有時在上地的情況），謂游定時（指在禪定中游歷時）。若生欲界（如果生在欲界），從初靜慮（從初禪定），無間起欲界識（無間斷地生起欲界的識），了欲界法（了知欲界的法）。意屬上地（意屬於上地），三屬下地（身識法屬於下地）。或二三四靜慮等無間（或者從二禪、三禪、四禪等無間斷地），起初二三靜慮等地識（生起初禪、二禪、三禪等地的識），了初二三靜慮等地法（了知初禪、二禪、三禪等地的法）。意屬上地（意屬於上地），三屬下地（身識法屬於下地）。如是若生初靜慮等（像這樣，如果生在初禪等），從上起下（從上地生起下地），如理應知（應當如理了解）。 于受生時（在受生的時候），無上地意依下地身（沒有上地的意依附於下地的身體的情況）。必無下地身根不滅受上生故（因為必定沒有下地的身體和根未滅而受上地生的道理）。又定無有住異地心而命終故（而且也必定沒有住在不同地的意而命終的情況）。如是應知（應當這樣瞭解）。 無下地意依上地身（沒有下地的意依附於上地的身體的情況）。依上地意受下地身（依附於上地的意而受下地的身體），則不違理（則不違背道理）。謂從上地意界無間（指從上地的意界無間斷地），于欲（在欲界），初結生時（最初結生的時候）。意屬上地（意屬於上地），身識下地（身體和識屬於下地）。彼所了法（意所了知的法），或自地（或者屬於自己的地），或上地（或者屬於上地），或不繫（或者不屬於任何地）。如是應知（應當這樣瞭解）。 依下地意（依附於下地的意），受上地身（受上地的身體），亦不違理（也不違背道理）。于游定時（在禪定中游歷時），有下地意依上地身（有下地的意依附於上地的身體）。亦不違理（也不違背道理）。謂生上地（指生在上地），先起下地識身化心（先產生下地的識、身體和化心）。如是識法（像這樣的識和法），亦應廣說（也應當廣泛地說明）。 復應思擇（還應當思考），若欲界眼（如果欲界的眼睛），見欲界色（看到欲界的色），或眼見二界色（或者**的眼睛看到兩個界的色）。爾時彼色（那時那個色），可為幾種眼識所識（可以被幾種眼識所識別）。於此復起幾種分別（對此又會產生幾種分別）。為令于宗不迷亂故（爲了不使宗義產生迷亂）。
【English Translation】 English version It is the same for the other two sense organs in relation to the body. According to their respective situations, the detailed explanation is like that for the eye. The three sense organs of nose, tongue, and body are all fundamentally in their own realms, mostly the same. The two consciousnesses of smell and taste exist only in the Desire Realm because the nose and tongue only grasp what is within their immediate reach. The difference among them is that the body and touch are necessarily in the same realm because they grasp what is within their immediate reach. From the perspective of consciousness, touch and the body can be in the same realm or a lower realm. 'Same realm' refers to being born in the Desire Realm or the First Dhyana (meditative absorption). 'Lower realm' refers to being born in the upper three Dhyanas, which are considered lower. It should be understood that the realm of mind (意界, yi jie) is uncertain in its four aspects (四事, si shi, referring to the four aggregates of form, feeling, perception, and mental formations). Sometimes the mind is in the same realm as the body, consciousness, and dharma. Sometimes it is above or below. The body exists only in the five realms (五地, wu di, Desire Realm and the four Dhyanas). The three (mind, dharma, and consciousness) can pervade all realms but are only born in the five realms. When the mind and consciousness are in the same realm, they cognize dharmas of their own realm. This is called the mind being in the same realm as the three. The mind realm is sometimes in a higher realm, such as when wandering in meditative absorption. If one is born in the Desire Realm and, without interruption from the First Dhyana, arises consciousness of the Desire Realm and cognizes dharmas of the Desire Realm, the mind belongs to the higher realm, and the three (body, consciousness, and dharma) belong to the lower realm. Or, without interruption from the Second, Third, or Fourth Dhyana, arises consciousness of the First, Second, or Third Dhyana and cognizes dharmas of the First, Second, or Third Dhyana, the mind belongs to the higher realm, and the three belong to the lower realm. Likewise, if one is born in the First Dhyana, etc., arising from a higher realm to a lower realm, it should be understood accordingly. At the time of rebirth, there is no instance of the mind in a higher realm relying on a body in a lower realm because there is no principle of the body and its sense organs in a lower realm not being destroyed while receiving rebirth in a higher realm. Moreover, there is definitely no instance of dying with the mind dwelling in a different realm. This should be understood. There is no instance of the mind in a lower realm relying on a body in a higher realm. Relying on the mind in a higher realm to receive a body in a lower realm is not contrary to reason. This refers to when, without interruption from the mind realm of a higher realm, at the initial moment of rebirth in the Desire Realm, the mind belongs to the higher realm, and the body and consciousness belong to the lower realm. The dharmas cognized by that mind may belong to its own realm, a higher realm, or be unconditioned. This should be understood. Relying on the mind in a lower realm to receive a body in a higher realm is also not contrary to reason. When wandering in meditative absorption, there is a mind in a lower realm relying on a body in a higher realm. This refers to being born in a higher realm and first arising the consciousness, body, and transformation-mind of a lower realm. Such consciousness and dharmas should also be extensively explained. Furthermore, it should be considered: if the eye in the Desire Realm sees a form in the Desire Realm, or the eye of a ** sees forms of two realms, how many types of eye-consciousness can cognize that form at that time? And how many distinctions arise from this? This is to prevent confusion regarding the doctrine.
先總料簡。后當別釋。應知此中且辯計度及與不定隨念分別。遍諸地故。約此二種。一切眼識。皆無分別。又善分別。能緣一切自上下地。染污分別。緣自上地。無記分別。緣自下地。隨所生地。未離彼貪具有此地三種分別。若離彼貪。唯有此地二種分別。謂除染污。非生餘地有初靜慮善眼。識現在前由此必定系屬生故。生初靜慮。亦不得依餘地眼根起善眼識。非生餘地能起餘地無覆無記分別現前。此亦必定系屬生故。非此中意唯說一生所起分別。若說一生。則生上地。應定無有下地分別。即此生中。彼三分別。無容得有現在前故。又上地分別應唯善非無記。前已說因故。通說餘生皆得具有。已總料簡。次當別釋。斷善根者。眼見色時。此色染污無覆無記。眼識所識。於此復起三種分別。謂善染污無覆無記。不斷善根。未離貪者。眼見色時。此色三種。眼識所識。於此復起三種分別。若諸異生。生在欲界。已離欲界貪。未離初定貪。以欲界眼。見諸色時。此色是善無覆無記。眼識所識。於此復起欲界分別若退法者。具有三種。不退法者。唯有二種。謂除染污。以初靜慮眼。見欲界色時。此色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識。於此復起欲界分別。如前應知。於此復起初靜慮地二種分別。謂除染污。以初靜慮眼見彼地色時。此色
唯是無覆無記。眼識所識。於此復起欲界分別。若退法者。則有二種。謂除無記。不退法者。則唯有善。於此復起初靜慮地三種分別。已離初定貪。未離二定貪。以二靜慮眼。見欲界色時。此色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識。於此復起欲界分別。若退法者。具有三種。不退法者。唯有二種。謂除染污。於此復起初定分別。若退法者。則有二種。謂除染污。不退法者。則唯有善。於此復起二靜慮地二種分別。謂除染污。以二靜慮眼。見初定色時。此色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識。於此復起欲界分別。若退法者則有二種。謂除無記。不退法者。則唯是善。於此復起初定分別。若退法者。具有三種。不退法者。則唯是善。於此復起二靜慮地二種分別。謂除染污。以二靜慮眼。見二定色時。此色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識於此復起欲界分別。若退法者。則有二種。謂除無記。不退法者。則唯有善。初靜慮地所起分別。亦如是知。於此復起二靜慮地三種分別隨此所說。別釋理趣。已離二定貪。未離三定貪。已離三定貪。未離四定貪。已離四定貪。如理應思擇。如說異生生在欲界。如是生在四靜慮地。及諸聖者生五地中。隨其所應。亦當廣說。然有差別。謂諸聖者。若退不退皆無緣上染污分別。異地遍行。皆已斷故。見道功德。必無退故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 唯有無覆無記（既非善也非惡，無法記說的狀態）。眼識所識別的（事物）。對此又生起欲界的分別。如果（修行人）是會退轉的，那麼就有兩種（分別）：即除去無記。不退轉的（修行人），那麼就只有善（的分別）。 對此又生起初靜慮地（色界初禪天）的三種分別。已經離開了初禪的貪慾，但還沒有離開二禪的貪慾，以二靜慮（色界二禪天）的眼，看見欲界的色時，這色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識別的。對此又生起欲界的分別。如果（修行人）是會退轉的，具有三種（分別）。不退轉的（修行人），唯有二種（分別）：即除去染污。 對此又生起初禪的分別。如果（修行人）是會退轉的，那麼就有兩種（分別）：即除去染污。不退轉的（修行人），那麼就只有善（的分別）。對此又生起二靜慮地（色界二禪天）的兩種分別：即除去染污。以二靜慮（色界二禪天）的眼，看見初禪的色時，這色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識別的。對此又生起欲界的分別。如果（修行人）是會退轉的，那麼就有兩種（分別）：即除去無記。不退轉的（修行人），那麼就唯是善（的分別）。 對此又生起初禪的分別。如果（修行人）是會退轉的，具有三種（分別）。不退轉的（修行人），那麼就唯是善（的分別）。對此又生起二靜慮地（色界二禪天）的兩種分別：即除去染污。以二靜慮（色界二禪天）的眼，看見二禪的色時，這色唯是無覆無記。眼識所識別的。對此又生起欲界的分別。如果（修行人）是會退轉的，那麼就有兩種（分別）：即除去無記。不退轉的（修行人），那麼就唯有善（的分別）。初靜慮地（色界初禪天）所生起的分別，也應當像這樣理解。 對此又生起二靜慮地（色界二禪天）的三種分別，隨著這裡所說的，分別解釋其中的道理和趣味。已經離開了二禪的貪慾，但還沒有離開三禪的貪慾，已經離開了三禪的貪慾，但還沒有離開四禪的貪慾，已經離開了四禪的貪慾，應當如理地進行思擇。 正如所說，凡夫眾生生在欲界，像這樣生在四靜慮地（色界四禪天），以及諸聖者生在五地（五蘊：色、受、想、行、識）中，隨著他們各自的情況，也應當廣泛地說明。然而有差別，即諸聖者，無論是退轉還是不退轉，都沒有緣于上界的染污分別，因為異地的遍行（煩惱）都已經斷除了。見道的功德，必定不會退失。
【English Translation】 English version: Only that which is neither good nor bad, and indescribable (avyākrta, 無覆無記). Perceived by eye consciousness. From this arises discrimination of the desire realm (kāmadhātu, 欲界). If the practitioner is prone to regression, then there are two types (of discrimination): namely, excluding the indescribable. If the practitioner is not prone to regression, then there is only the good. From this arises three types of discrimination of the first dhyāna (jhāna, 靜慮) realm. Having abandoned the desire for the first dhyāna, but not yet abandoned the desire for the second dhyāna, when seeing the form of the desire realm with the eye of the second dhyāna, this form is only that which is neither good nor bad, and indescribable. Perceived by eye consciousness. From this arises discrimination of the desire realm. If the practitioner is prone to regression, there are three types (of discrimination). If the practitioner is not prone to regression, there are only two types (of discrimination): namely, excluding defilement. From this arises discrimination of the first dhyāna. If the practitioner is prone to regression, then there are two types (of discrimination): namely, excluding defilement. If the practitioner is not prone to regression, then there is only the good. From this arises two types of discrimination of the second dhyāna realm: namely, excluding defilement. When seeing the form of the first dhyāna with the eye of the second dhyāna, this form is only that which is neither good nor bad, and indescribable. Perceived by eye consciousness. From this arises discrimination of the desire realm. If the practitioner is prone to regression, then there are two types (of discrimination): namely, excluding the indescribable. If the practitioner is not prone to regression, then there is only the good. From this arises discrimination of the first dhyāna. If the practitioner is prone to regression, there are three types (of discrimination). If the practitioner is not prone to regression, then there is only the good. From this arises two types of discrimination of the second dhyāna realm: namely, excluding defilement. When seeing the form of the second dhyāna with the eye of the second dhyāna, this form is only that which is neither good nor bad, and indescribable. Perceived by eye consciousness. From this arises discrimination of the desire realm. If the practitioner is prone to regression, then there are two types (of discrimination): namely, excluding the indescribable. If the practitioner is not prone to regression, then there is only the good. The discrimination arising from the first dhyāna realm should also be understood in this way. From this arises three types of discrimination of the second dhyāna realm, according to what is said here, separately explaining the reasoning and interest. Having abandoned the desire for the second dhyāna, but not yet abandoned the desire for the third dhyāna, having abandoned the desire for the third dhyāna, but not yet abandoned the desire for the fourth dhyāna, having abandoned the desire for the fourth dhyāna, one should contemplate and discern accordingly. As it is said, ordinary beings are born in the desire realm, just as they are born in the four dhyāna realms, and as the noble ones are born in the five aggregates (skandha, 五蘊), according to their respective situations, it should also be explained extensively. However, there is a difference, namely, that the noble ones, whether regressing or not regressing, have no discrimination based on defilement from higher realms, because the pervasive (afflictions) of different realms have already been cut off. The merit of the path of seeing (darśanamārga, 見道) will certainly not be lost.
由此方隅。例應推究耳聞聲等識及分別。傍論已了。應辯正論。今當思擇。十八界中。誰六識中幾識所識。幾常幾無常。幾根幾非根。頌曰。
五外二所識 常法界無為 法一分是根 並內界十二
論曰。十八界中。色等五界。如其次第。眼等五識各一所識。又總皆是意識所識。如是五界。各六識中二識所識。由此準知餘十三界。一切唯是意識所識。非五識身所緣境故。十八界中。無有一界全是常者。唯法一分無為是常。義準無常法余余界。十八界中。法界一分。並內十二。是根非余。謂五受根。信等五根及命根全。三無漏根。各有少分。是法界攝。眼等五根。如自名攝。女根男根。即是身界一分所攝。如后當辯。意根通是七心界攝。后三一分意意識攝。義準所餘色等五界。法界一分。皆體非根。二十二根。如契經說。所謂眼根耳根鼻根舌根身根意根女根男根命根樂根苦根喜根憂根舍根信根精進根念根定根慧根未知當知根已知根具知根。經中建立六處次第。故身根后即說意根。阿毗達磨諸大論師。回此意根。置命根后。無所有緣次第說故。諸門分別易顯了故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第九
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由此方隅（方位）。應該推究耳聞聲等識以及分別。傍論已經結束，現在應該辨析正論。現在應當思考選擇，十八界（眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界、色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界、眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界）中，哪些被六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）中的哪幾識所識別？哪些是常（恒常不變），哪些是無常（變化不定）？哪些是根（認識器官），哪些不是根？頌文說： 『五外二所識，常法界無為，法一分是根，並內界十二。』 論述：十八界中，色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界這五界，按照順序，分別被眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識各自識別。又全部都被意識所識別。像這樣，這五界，各自被六識中的兩種識所識別。由此可以推知其餘十三界，一切都只是被意識所識別。因為不是五識身所緣的境界。十八界中，沒有一界全是常的。只有法界中的一部分無為法是常。根據意義推斷，無常法和其餘各界都是無常的。十八界中，法界的一部分，連同內在的十二界，是根，其餘不是根。所說的五受根（樂受根、苦受根、喜受根、憂受根、舍受根），信等五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）以及命根全部，三無漏根（未知當知根、已知根、具知根）各有少部分，是法界所包含的。眼根等五根，如它們自身的名字所包含。女根、男根，就是身界的一部分所包含的，如後面將要辨析的。意根普遍是七心界（眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界、末那識界）所包含的。后三界的一部分是意意識所包含的。根據意義推斷，其餘的色界等五界，法界的一部分，本體都不是根。二十二根，如契經所說。所謂眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、意根、女根、男根、命根、樂根、苦根、喜根、憂根、舍根、信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根、未知當知根、已知根、具知根。經中建立六處（眼處、耳處、鼻處、舌處、身處、意處）的次第，所以身根之後就說意根。《阿毗達磨》的各位大論師，把這個意根，放在命根之後。因為是無所有緣的次第解說。各種門類的分別容易顯現明瞭的緣故。 《說一切有部順正理論》第八卷 《阿毗達磨順正理論》第九卷
【English Translation】 English version From this direction. It is appropriate to investigate the consciousness and discriminations of hearing sounds, etc. The side discussions are finished. It is appropriate to discuss the correct arguments. Now we should contemplate and choose: Among the eighteen realms (eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm), which are cognized by which of the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness)? Which are permanent (constant and unchanging), and which are impermanent (changing and unstable)? Which are roots (sense organs), and which are not roots? The verse says: 'The five external realms are cognized by two consciousnesses; the unconditioned aspect of the permanent dharma realm; a portion of the dharma realm is a root, along with the twelve internal realms.' Treatise: Among the eighteen realms, the five realms of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch are each cognized by one of the respective consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Furthermore, all are cognized by mind consciousness. Thus, these five realms are each cognized by two of the six consciousnesses. From this, it can be inferred that all of the remaining thirteen realms are only cognized by mind consciousness, because they are not the objects of the five consciousnesses. Among the eighteen realms, there is no realm that is entirely permanent. Only the unconditioned dharma ( Asamskrta dharma) in the dharma realm is permanent. Based on the meaning, impermanent dharmas and the remaining realms are all impermanent. Among the eighteen realms, a portion of the dharma realm, along with the twelve internal realms, are roots, and the rest are not roots. The five receptive roots (roots of pleasure, pain, joy, sorrow, and equanimity), the five roots of faith, etc. (faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) and the entirety of the life root, and portions of the three non-outflow roots (root of 'I will know what is not yet known', the root of knowledge, the root of complete knowledge) are included in the dharma realm. The five roots of eye, etc., are included as their own names imply. The female and male roots are included as part of the body realm, as will be discussed later. The mind root universally includes the seven consciousness realms (eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm, manas consciousness realm). A portion of the latter three realms are included in mind consciousness. Based on the meaning, the remaining five realms of form, etc., and a portion of the dharma realm, are not roots in their essence. The twenty-two roots are as described in the sutras. Namely, the eye root, ear root, nose root, tongue root, body root, mind root, female root, male root, life root, pleasure root, pain root, joy root, sorrow root, equanimity root, faith root, vigor root, mindfulness root, concentration root, wisdom root, root of 'I will know what is not yet known', the root of knowledge, the root of complete knowledge. In the sutras, the order of the six sense bases (eye base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base, mind base) is established, so the mind root is mentioned after the body root. The great Abhidharma masters place the mind root after the life root, because it is explained in the order of the object of 'nothingness'. The distinctions of the various categories are easily manifested and clarified. 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》 Volume 8 by the Sarvāstivāda school 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》 Volume 9
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之一
如是因界已列諸根今於此中應更思擇。世尊何故別說根名。在內界全及法一分。依增上義。別說為根。彼彼事中得增上故。此增上義。界義顯成。界謂伊地。或謂忍地。最勝自在。是伊地義。照灼明瞭。是忍地義。唯此熾盛光顯名根。此意總示二十二根。于諸聚中。作用增上。諸法相望。各各別有增上用故。應併名根。此極增上。別說義成。如師子王及村邑長轉輪王等。于獸村邑四大洲等。極增上故。此極增上。誰望于誰。頌曰。
傳說五於四 四根於二種 五八染凈中 各別為增上
論曰。非一切根總於一事為極增上。眼等五根各於四事有增上用。一莊嚴身。二導養身。三生識等。四不共事。莊嚴身者。謂五根中。隨闕一根。身醜陋故。導養身者。謂因見聞。避險難故。及於段食。能受用故。香味觸三。皆成段食。如有頌言。
譬如明眼人 能避現險難 世有聰明者 能離當苦惡 多聞能知法 多聞能離罪 多聞舍無義 多聞得涅槃
身由食住 命托食存 食已令心 適悅安泰
生識等者。謂發五識及相應法。隨所依根。有明昧故。不共事者。謂取自境。見聞嗅嘗覺別境故。有說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘（Tang Sanzang）奉詔譯 辯差別品第二之一 如是因界已列諸根，今於此中應更思擇。世尊何故別說根名？在內界全及法一分，依增上義，別說為根，彼彼事中得增上故。此增上義，界義顯成。界謂伊地（iddhi），或謂忍地（ksanti-bhumi）。最勝自在，是伊地義；照灼明瞭，是忍地義。唯此熾盛光顯名根，此意總示二十二根，于諸聚中，作用增上。諸法相望，各各別有增上用故，應併名根。此極增上，別說義成，如師子王及村邑長轉輪王等，于獸村邑四大洲等，極增上故。此極增上，誰望于誰？頌曰： 傳說五於四，四根於二種，五八染凈中，各別為增上。 論曰：非一切根總於一事為極增上。眼等五根各於四事有增上用：一莊嚴身，二導養身，三生識等，四不共事。莊嚴身者，謂五根中，隨闕一根，身醜陋故。導養身者，謂因見聞，避險難故，及於段食，能受用故。香味觸三，皆成段食。如有頌言： 譬如明眼人，能避現險難；世有聰明者，能離當苦惡。 多聞能知法，多聞能離罪；多聞舍無義，多聞得涅槃。 身由食住，命托食存，食已令心，適悅安泰。 生識等者，謂發五識及相應法，隨所依根，有明昧故。不共事者，謂取自境，見聞嗅嘗覺別境故。有說
【English Translation】 English version
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang (Tang Sanzang) under Imperial Order Chapter Two, Part One: Discrimination of Differences Having enumerated the causes and realms, and listed the faculties, we should now further examine them. Why did the World Honored One (Bhagavan) separately name them 'faculties'? Because they are entirely within the internal realms and a portion of the dharmas, and based on the meaning of dominance, they are separately called 'faculties,' as they are dominant in their respective affairs. This meaning of dominance clearly establishes the meaning of 'realm.' 'Realm' means iddhi (iddhi), or ksanti-bhumi (ksanti-bhumi). Supreme sovereignty is the meaning of iddhi; illuminating clarity is the meaning of ksanti-bhumi. Only this blazing radiance is named 'faculty.' This meaning generally indicates the twenty-two faculties, which are dominant in their functions among all aggregates. Because all dharmas have separate dominant functions in relation to each other, they should all be named 'faculties.' This extreme dominance establishes the meaning of separate designation, like the lion king, the village chief, or the wheel-turning king (chakravartin), who are extremely dominant over beasts, villages, and the four continents, respectively. This extreme dominance, in relation to whom? The verse says: 'It is said that five are dominant over four, four faculties over two kinds, five in defilement and eight in purity, each separately dominant.' The treatise says: Not all faculties are collectively extremely dominant over one thing. The five faculties of eye, etc., each have dominant functions over four things: first, adorning the body; second, guiding and nourishing the body; third, generating consciousness, etc.; and fourth, non-common affairs. 'Adorning the body' means that if one faculty is missing among the five, the body is ugly. 'Guiding and nourishing the body' means avoiding dangers through seeing and hearing, and being able to receive and use solid food. The three of taste, smell, and touch all constitute solid food. As a verse says: 'Like a person with clear eyes, able to avoid present dangers; the wise in the world can escape future suffering and evil.' 'Extensive learning can know the Dharma, extensive learning can avoid sin; extensive learning abandons meaninglessness, extensive learning attains Nirvana.' 'The body dwells by food, life relies on food for existence, having eaten, the mind is comfortable, joyful, and peaceful.' 'Generating consciousness, etc.' means generating the five consciousnesses and corresponding dharmas, depending on the clarity or obscurity of the faculty on which they rely. 'Non-common affairs' means grasping their own objects, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling separate realms. Some say
。眼耳于能守護生身法身。如其次第有增上用。前二伽他。即為此證。有說眼耳俱能守護生法二身。親近善士。聽聞正法。眼耳各為一增上故。女男命意。各於二事有增上用。且女男根二增上者。一有情異。二分別異。有情異者。劫初有情。形類皆等。二根生已。便有女男形類差別。分別異者。進止言音乳房髻等。安布差別。有說勇怯有差別故。名有情異。衣服莊嚴有差別故。名分別異。有說。此于染凈二品。有增上力。故言於二受不律儀。起無間業。斷善根故。名于染品。有增上力。能受律儀。入道得果。及離欲故。名于凈品有增上力。扇搋等身。無如是事。命根於二有增上者。謂由此故。施設諸根及根差別。由此有彼有此無彼無故。或於眾同分能續及能持。于無色界。要有命根。方有所生處決定故。彼起自地善染污心。或起余心。非命終故。意根於二有增上者。謂能續後有。及自在隨行。能續後有者。如世尊告阿難陀言。識若不入母胎中者。精血得成羯剌藍不。不也世尊。乃至廣說。自在隨行者。如契經言。
心能導世間 心能遍攝受 如是心一法 皆自在隨行
有說。意根于染凈品有增上力。故言於二。如契經言。心雜染故。有情雜染。心清凈故。有情清凈。樂等五受。信等八根。于染凈中有
增上力。謂樂等五。于染增上。貪等隨眠所依事故。有說。此于染凈二品。俱有增上。說為耽嗜出離依故。樂故心定苦為信依等。契經中說故。信等八根。于凈增上。如契經說我聖弟子。具信墻塹。具勤勢力。具念防衛。心定解脫。慧為刀劍。乃至廣說。此中即攝后三根故。彼于凈品。定有增上。初傳說言。顯樂后說。謂或有說。能導養身。非眼等用。是識增上。要由諸識了違順境。方能避險難。及受段食故。即彼復謂能見色等。不共功能。亦非異識。故不共事。于眼等根。不可立為別增上用。故非由此眼等成根。若爾云何。頌曰。
了自境增上 總立於六根 從身立二根 女男性增上 于同住雜染 清凈增上故 應知命五受 信等立為根 未當知已知 具知根亦爾 于得後後道 涅槃等增上
論曰。了自境者。謂六識身。眼等五根。于能了別各別境識。有增上用。第六意根。于能了別一切境識。有增上用。故眼等六。各立為根。然無境界亦成根失。以眼等根與能了別一切境識為通因故。識但隨根有明昧故。此說非理。彼同分根。應非根故。豈不斯過汝亦有耶。我無此失。說于嚴身有增上故。又非一切與能了別一切色識為通因性。以諸眼根剎那滅故了諸色識。不俱生故。若言眼類無
差別者。色亦應同。類無異故。若謂青黃種類別者。眼亦應爾。有異熟生及所長養類不同故。識但隨根有明昧者。此亦非因。識體生已。方可得有隨根明昧。未生令生增上力等。隨闕一種則不生故。或識隨根有明昧故。導養身義。應許在根。眼用若增。隨發勝識。能避險難。導養于身。眼用若微。隨發劣識。不了險難。令身顛墜。故導養身。在根非識。又於此中有何少異。前門已顯。眼等諸根。發眼等識及相應法。今此門中略彼一分。非已所見。何足生欣。既無別義不應重說。又汝所言。見色等用。非異識者。此亦不然。識能見等。前已遮故。謂依眼識。非能見體。與耳等識。類無別故。如是等難。廣說如前。又說從身立二根者。女男性中。有增上故。謂女性中。女根增上。于男性中。男根增上。女男性者。謂女及男。二身形類音聲作業志樂各異。女男根體。不離身根。身一分中。立此名故。此處少異余處身根。謂是欲界身根一分。唯能為依。發貪俱起不善身識。故從身根。別立為二。劫初等位。雖有身根。而無女男身形等異。故應從彼別立二根。此亦未越前門中義。前說二根于有情異及分別異。有增上故。又說命根五受信等。于同分住及染凈中。如其次第。有增上用。立為根者。此與前門。亦無別故。不應重述。又
說無漏三根亦爾。于得後後道涅槃等。有增上用。謂第一根。于得第二有增上用。此第二根。于得第三有增上用。此第三根。于得涅槃有增上用。非離此根能證彼故。亦不異前。無勞重說。即是于凈。有增上故。又經主釋。亦爾言者。類顯一一各能為根。亦不應理。不應疑故。由得後後道涅槃等。增上言故。別義已成。不應于中復生疑故。若言性類無差別故。應生疑者。理亦不然。見修無學。三地各異。互無相攝。不可生疑。設有生疑。得後後等。已簡別故。何煩類顯。雖同九根性無差別。而增上力有差別故。何容疑彼。應是一根非女男根。見此疑故。今釋彼言。更有別義。謂顯離九無別三根。如從身根別立男女。離身根體。無別二根。三根亦爾。雖從九根別義建立。而非離九別有三根。此釋應理。經主又釋。等言為顯復有異門。云何異門。謂見所斷。及修所斷煩惱滅中。如其次第。未知當知。及已知根。有增上用。此亦不然。唯無間道名增上者。見修道中。加行解脫勝進道攝。應不名根。若通四道皆增上者。順抉擇分。道類智等。于見所斷煩惱滅中。有增上故。應初根攝。已知根性。應攝第三。過失眾多。非為善釋。今以別義。釋彼等言。謂無漏慧。于諸諦理。先未現觀。今得現觀。有增上力。立第一根。若無漏慧
。已得現觀。于余煩惱漸永斷中。加行希望猶未滿足。有增上力。立第二根。若無漏慧。已離煩惱。于諸無漏現法樂住。有增上力。立第三根。慧為上首。具三現觀。故且說慧。餘八助成。理實所立根。亦通具二者。豈不此中忍于諦理已得現觀。七智于中重現觀故。非初根攝。又隔忍故。非第二攝。此解脫道。應不名根。已知根中。亦有諦理。先未現觀。今現觀故。則所立根。應成雜亂。此皆無失。見智現觀。有差別故。如世間慧。于諸聖諦。已得現觀。仍說無漏。先未現觀。今得現觀。又如苦集體雖一物。而行相別。現觀有別。若於諦理。未審決者。唯見現觀。若已審決。方得名為智見現觀。故彼七智。亦得名為先未現觀今得現觀。然道類智。無同此失。雖一剎那同於七智。而後相續皆有異故。如后多念。名已知根。非見道位。七智剎那。有于諦理重現觀者。故此與彼。不應同例。然盡智等。如初剎那。相續亦爾。皆能任持。金剛喻定所害煩惱。諸離系得。令相續故。經主不應同此無失。又道類智。于所觀境。雖一剎那。未得現觀。而於無量剎那道境。已得現觀。故少從多。於一切境。皆名現觀。成已知根。非度大海或妙高山余芥子量未能度故。可名于彼未得度者。此亦應然。西方諸師。說道類智。亦是未知當知根
攝。若對彼釋。此過全無。故我所言。無前二失。若增上故。立為根者。于愛見品諸煩惱中。受想二法。有增上用。想應如受亦立為根。又諸煩惱。于能損壞善品等中。有增上用。應成根體。又最勝故。建立諸根。一切法中。涅槃最勝。何緣不立涅槃為根。又迦比羅。語具手足。及大便處。亦立為根。于語執行及能棄捨。有增上故。如是等事。不應立根。由所許根有如是相。頌曰。
心所依此別 此住此雜染 此資糧此凈 由此量立根
論曰。心所依者。眼等六根。此內六處。是有情本。此相差別。由女男根。復由命根此一期住。此成雜染。由五受根。此凈資糧。由信等五。此成清凈。由后三根。由此立根。事皆究竟。不應更立想等為根。諸煩惱中。愛過最重。故唯立受與彼為根。愛過重者。以契經說。愛與六處為生因故。如契經說。由愛為因。六處生起。又想非見煩惱生因。余因發生顛倒見已。妄分別想。持令相續。離正對治。不可斷壞。故說此想與彼為因。受為愛因。俱通二種。受為過重。煩惱因故通二因故。獨立為根。有餘師言。想為余法所映奪故。不立為根。謂諸善想。正慧映奪。諸染污想。顛倒映奪。非增上故。不立為根。又諸煩惱。亦非增上。受于其中成增上故。唯受于彼可立為根。或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果針對前面的解釋進行反駁，那麼這些過失就完全不存在了。因此，我所說的，沒有前面兩種錯誤。如果因為增上的緣故而建立為根，那麼在愛見品類的各種煩惱中，受和想這兩種法，有增上的作用，想應該像受一樣也被立為根。而且，各種煩惱，在能夠損壞善品等方面，有增上的作用，應該成為根的自體。而且，因為最殊勝的緣故而建立諸根，一切法中，涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）最殊勝，為什麼不立涅槃為根呢？而且，迦比羅（Kapila，古印度數論派的創始人）認為，具有手足和大小便之處，也可以立為根，因為在說話、執行和能夠捨棄方面，有增上的緣故。像這些事情，不應該立為根，因為所允許的根有這樣的相狀。頌詞說：
『心所依此別，此住此雜染，此資糧此凈，由此量立根。』
論述說：心所依，指的是眼等六根（six sense organs：eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind）。這內在的六處（six internal sense bases），是有情眾生的根本。這些相狀的差別，由女根和男根（female and male reproductive organs）決定。又由命根（life faculty）決定這一期的壽命。由此成就雜染，由五受根（five feeling aggregates）決定。由此成為清凈的資糧，由信等五根（five faculties of faith）決定。由此成就清凈，由后三根（last three roots）決定。由此建立根，事情都究竟了，不應該再立想等為根。各種煩惱中，愛的過失最重，所以隻立受與它作為根。愛過失重的原因是，因為契經（Sutra，佛經）中說，愛與六處是產生的原因。如契經所說，由愛為因，六處生起。而且，想不是見煩惱產生的原因，其餘的原因發生顛倒見之後，虛妄分別想，保持令其相續，離開正確的對治，不可斷壞。所以說這個想與它作為原因。受作為愛的因，都通於兩種。受作為過失重的煩惱因，通於兩種原因，所以獨立作為根。有其餘的老師說，想被其餘的法所映奪，所以不立為根。所謂的各種善想，被正慧映奪，各種染污想，被顛倒映奪。不是增上的緣故，不立為根。而且各種煩惱，也不是增上的，受在其中成為增上的緣故。只有受對於它們可以立為根。或者...
【English Translation】 English version: If one refutes the previous explanation, then these faults are completely non-existent. Therefore, what I say does not have the previous two errors. If one establishes something as a root because of its predominance, then among the various afflictions of the categories of love and views, the two dharmas of feeling (受, vedanā) and perception (想, saṃjñā) have a predominant function. Perception should also be established as a root like feeling. Moreover, various afflictions have a predominant function in damaging wholesome qualities, etc., and should become the substance of a root. Furthermore, because of the most excellent, roots are established. Among all dharmas, Nirvana (涅槃, cessation of suffering) is the most excellent. Why is Nirvana not established as a root? Moreover, Kapila (迦比羅, founder of the Samkhya school) considered having hands and feet and places for excretion as roots, because they have a predominant function in speaking, acting, and being able to discard. Such things should not be established as roots, because the accepted roots have such characteristics. The verse says:
'The mind relies on these distinctions, these dwell in this, these are mixed with defilements, these are the resources for purification, these are purified, by these measures roots are established.'
The treatise says: 'The mind relies' refers to the six sense organs (眼等六根: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind). These six internal sense bases (此內六處) are the foundation of sentient beings. The distinctions of these characteristics are determined by the female and male reproductive organs (女男根). Furthermore, the duration of this life is determined by the life faculty (命根, jīvitendriya). The accumulation of defilements is accomplished by the five feeling aggregates (五受根). The resources for purification are the five faculties of faith (信等五根). Purification is accomplished by the last three roots (后三根). By establishing these roots, the matter is concluded, and there is no need to establish perception, etc., as roots. Among the various afflictions, the fault of love is the most serious, so only feeling is established as its root. The reason why the fault of love is serious is because the Sutra (契經) says that love and the six sense bases are the cause of arising. As the Sutra says, 'Due to love as the cause, the six sense bases arise.' Moreover, perception is not the cause of arising of afflictions of views. After other causes give rise to distorted views, false discrimination of perception maintains their continuity, and without the correct antidote, they cannot be broken. Therefore, it is said that this perception is the cause of those views. Feeling, as the cause of love, is common to both. Feeling, as the cause of afflictions, is a serious fault and is common to both causes, so it is independently established as a root. Some other teachers say that perception is overshadowed by other dharmas, so it is not established as a root. The wholesome perceptions are overshadowed by correct wisdom, and the defiled perceptions are overshadowed by distorted views. It is not predominant, so it is not established as a root. Moreover, the various afflictions are also not predominant, because feeling becomes predominant among them. Only feeling can be established as a root for them. Or...
損善品。壞樂果事。下劣鄙穢。如何立根。根是世間增上法故。又于諸法。涅槃雖勝。滅諸根故。不立為根。如破諸瓶破非瓶體。又語具等。亦不名根。不定雜亂。大過失故。不定失者。何等語具。立為語根。能發言音。名為語具。此即是舌。若爾則應尋伺等法及能引起語業諸風亦立為根。能發語故。謂尋伺等。依唇齒腭咽喉等緣發起言音。非但依舌。無異因故。又尋伺等。于發言音。是勝因故。又諸手腋。管絃息等。皆能為因。發言音故。不應唯立舌為語根。若謂了色亦由言故。不應獨立眼為根者。理必不然。諸生盲人。雖聞說色。不了青等差別相故。手于執取不應名根。口等亦能執取物故。足於行動不應名根。蛇魚等類。不由於足有行動故。出大便處。于能棄捨不應名根。口等亦能有棄捨故。雜亂失者。彼所立根應成雜亂。口能執取及棄捨故。手足俱有執行用故。有如是等雜亂過失。太過失者。彼所立根。應無限量。若舌根異語根異者。應許鼻根與息根異。如舌能語鼻通息故。若此于彼少有作用。即立為根。是則咽喉齒唇肚等。于諸吞嚼攝持等事。有增上故。應立為根。或一切因。于生自果。皆增上故。應並立根。故迦比羅。如童子戲。不應許彼語具等根。非定無雜極增上故。復有餘師。別說根相。頌曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 損善品（損害善良品質）。壞樂果事（破壞快樂的結果）。下劣鄙穢（低下卑劣）。如何立根（如何確立根）。根是世間增上法故（因為根是世間增上的法）。又于諸法（而且對於諸法），涅槃雖勝（涅槃雖然殊勝），滅諸根故（因為它滅盡諸根），不立為根（所以不被確立為根）。如破諸瓶破非瓶體（如同打破瓶子也破壞了非瓶子的形體）。又語具等（而且說話的工具等），亦不名根（也不稱為根），不定雜亂（因為它們不確定且雜亂），大過失故（有很大的過失）。 不定失者（不確定的過失是什麼）？何等語具（什麼樣的說話工具）？立為語根（被確立為語根）？能發言音（能夠發出聲音），名為語具（稱為說話工具）。此即是舌（這就是舌頭）。若爾則應尋伺等法（如果這樣，那麼尋伺等法），及能引起語業諸風（以及能夠引起語言行為的各種氣息），亦立為根（也應該被確立為根），能發語故（因為它們也能發出聲音）。謂尋伺等（所謂尋伺等），依唇齒腭咽喉等緣（依靠嘴唇、牙齒、上顎、咽喉等條件），發起言音（發起聲音），非但依舌（不僅僅依靠舌頭），無異因故（沒有不同的原因）。又尋伺等（而且尋伺等），于發言音（對於發出聲音），是勝因故（是殊勝的原因）。又諸手腋（而且各種手勢），管絃息等（管樂器的絃樂器的氣息等），皆能為因（都能成為原因），發言音故（發出聲音）。不應唯立舌為語根（不應該只確立舌頭為語根）。 若謂了色亦由言故（如果說了解顏色也是通過語言），不應獨立眼為根者（就不應該單獨確立眼睛為根），理必不然（道理必然不是這樣）。諸生盲人（因為天生盲人），雖聞說色（雖然聽到描述顏色），不了青等差別相故（卻不瞭解青色等的差別相）。手于執取不應名根（手對於抓取不應該稱為根），口等亦能執取物故（因為口等也能抓取東西）。足於行動不應名根（腳對於行走不應該稱為根），蛇魚等類（因為蛇魚等類），不由於足有行動故（不是因為腳才有行動）。出大便處（排出大便的地方），于能棄捨不應名根（對於能夠捨棄不應該稱為根），口等亦能有棄捨故（因為口等也能有捨棄）。 雜亂失者（雜亂的過失是），彼所立根應成雜亂（他們所確立的根應該成為雜亂）。口能執取及棄捨故（因為口能抓取和捨棄），手足俱有執行用故（手和腳都有執行的作用）。有如是等雜亂過失（有如此等等雜亂的過失）。太過失者（太多的過失是），彼所立根應無（他們所確立的根應該沒有）。若舌根異語根異者（如果舌根和語根不同），應許鼻根與息根異（應該允許鼻根和氣息根不同），如舌能語鼻通息故（如同舌頭能說話，鼻子能通氣息）。若此于彼少有作用（如果這個對於那個稍微有點作用），即立為根（就確立為根），是則咽喉齒唇肚等（那麼咽喉、牙齒、嘴唇、肚子等），于諸吞嚼攝持等事（對於各種吞嚥、攝取等事情），有增上故（有增上的作用），應立為根（應該確立為根）。或一切因（或者一切原因），于生自果（對於產生自己的結果），皆增上故（都有增上的作用），應並立根（應該都確立為根）。故迦比羅（所以迦比羅），如童子戲（如同兒童遊戲），不應許彼語具等根（不應該允許他們所說的說話工具等根），非定無雜極增上故（因為它們不確定、不純粹、不極度增上）。 復有餘師（還有其他老師），別說根相（分別說明根的相狀）。頌曰（偈頌說）：
【English Translation】 English version Damaging wholesome qualities. Ruining the events that lead to happy results. Inferior and base. How can these be established as roots? Because roots are the predominant factors in the world. Furthermore, regarding all dharmas, although Nirvana is superior, it is not established as a root because it extinguishes all roots. It is like breaking a jar also destroying the non-jar entity. Moreover, speech instruments, etc., are also not called roots because they are uncertain and mixed up, which are great faults. What is the fault of uncertainty? What kind of speech instrument is established as a speech root? That which can produce speech sounds is called a speech instrument. This is the tongue. If so, then mental activities such as investigation and analysis, as well as the winds that cause speech actions, should also be established as roots because they can produce speech. That is, investigation and analysis, etc., rely on conditions such as the lips, teeth, palate, throat, etc., to initiate speech sounds, not just the tongue, because there is no different cause. Moreover, investigation and analysis, etc., are superior causes for speech sounds. Furthermore, various hand gestures, wind instruments, string instruments, and breaths can all be causes for speech sounds. One should not only establish the tongue as a speech root. If it is said that understanding colors is also due to speech, then one should not independently establish the eye as a root, the reasoning is certainly not so. Because those born blind, although they hear about colors, do not understand the differences between blue, etc. The hand should not be called a root for grasping because the mouth, etc., can also grasp things. The foot should not be called a root for movement because creatures like snakes and fish do not have movement due to feet. The place for excreting feces should not be called a root for discarding because the mouth, etc., can also discard. The fault of being mixed up is that the roots they establish should become mixed up. Because the mouth can grasp and discard, and both hands and feet have the function of performing actions. There are such faults of being mixed up. The fault of being too extensive is that the roots they establish should have no **. If the tongue root is different from the speech root, then one should allow the nose root to be different from the breath root, just as the tongue can speak and the nose can breathe. If this has a slight effect on that, it is established as a root. Then the throat, teeth, lips, stomach, etc., have a predominant effect on swallowing, holding, and other things, so they should be established as roots. Or all causes have a predominant effect on producing their own results, so they should all be established as roots. Therefore, Kapila, like a child's play, should not allow their so-called speech instrument roots, etc., because they are uncertain, not pure, and not extremely predominant. Moreover, other teachers separately explain the characteristics of roots. The verse says:
或流轉所依 及生住受用 建立前十四 還滅后亦然
論曰。或言顯此是余師執。彼約生死流轉還滅。最勝所依。生住受用。有增上故。建立諸根。生死相續。是流轉義。流轉所依。謂六內處。眼等定是彼自性故。生由男女。二根為緣。彼得生故。住由命根。是彼相續不斷因故。受用由受。五受為緣。損益轉故。于流轉中。約此四種勝作用故。立十四根。還滅位中。亦約此四勝作用故。立餘八根。生死止息。是還滅義。即是六處。畢竟斷滅。此得所依。謂信等五。以是一切善根生長最勝因故。初無漏根。能生此得正定聚中。此初生故。次無漏根令此得住。由彼長時相續起故。后無漏根。令得受用現法樂住。彼所顯故。非業煩惱與內六處為生因故亦立為根。一一各別。無功能故。若爾眼等應亦非根。意喜樂舍。應非無漏。信等五根。應非有漏。就偏增說。可有此義。不應于中起決定執。諸業煩惱。無定不共增上用故。不立為根。已說根義及建立因。當說諸根一一自體。此中眼等乃至男根。前此品中已辯其相。謂彼識依五種凈色。名眼等根。女男二根。從身一分。差別而立。命根體是不相應故。不相應中當廣分別。信等體是心所法故。心所法中當廣分別。樂等五受。三無漏根。更無辯處。故今應釋。頌曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 或流轉所依（輪迴的依靠），及生住受用（產生、持續和享受），建立前十四根（指眼等十四種根），還滅后亦然（還滅之後也是如此）。
論曰：或者說，這是其他老師的觀點。他們根據生死流轉和還滅，以及最殊勝的所依（依靠），生、住、受用（產生、持續和享受），因為有增上的緣故，建立諸根。生死相續，是流轉的含義。流轉的所依，是指六內處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。眼等確定是它們的自性。生由男女二根為緣，因為它們能夠產生。住由命根，因為它是相續不斷的因。受用由受，五受（苦、樂、喜、憂、舍）為緣，因為損益在其中轉化。在流轉中，根據這四種殊勝的作用，建立十四根。在還滅位中，也根據這四種殊勝的作用，建立其餘八根。生死止息，是還滅的含義。也就是六處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）畢竟斷滅。這獲得的所依，是指信等五根（信、精進、念、定、慧），因為它們是一切善根生長的最殊勝的因。最初的無漏根，能夠產生這種獲得，在正定聚中，這是最初產生的。其次的無漏根，使這種獲得持續，因為它們長時間相續生起。最後的無漏根，使獲得受用現法樂住，因為它們所顯現的緣故。非業煩惱與內六處為生因，因此也立為根，一一各別，沒有功能的緣故。
如果這樣，眼等也應該不是根。意、喜、樂、舍，應該不是無漏。信等五根，應該不是有漏。就偏增上來說，可以有這種含義，不應該在其中產生決定性的執著。諸業煩惱，沒有一定的、不共的增上作用，因此不立為根。已經說了根的含義以及建立的原因，接下來應當說諸根一一的自體。這裡眼等乃至男根，在此品中已經辨析過它們的相。所謂識所依靠的五種凈色，名為眼等根。女男二根，從身體的一部分，差別而建立。命根的體是不相應行法，在不相應行法中應當廣為分別。信等的體是心所法，在心所法中應當廣為分別。樂等五受，三無漏根，沒有更多需要辨析的地方，所以現在應當解釋。頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version Or what is relied upon for transmigration (the support of reincarnation), and the arising, abiding, and enjoyment (production, continuation, and enjoyment), the first fourteen roots are established (referring to the fourteen roots such as the eye), and it is also the same after cessation (it is also the same after cessation).
Treatise says: Or it is said that this is the view of other teachers. They establish the roots based on the cycle of birth and death and cessation, as well as the most supreme reliance (support), arising, abiding, and enjoyment (production, continuation, and enjoyment), because there is an increasing cause. The continuous cycle of birth and death is the meaning of transmigration. The reliance of transmigration refers to the six internal bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind). The eye and others are definitely their own nature. Arising is caused by the male and female roots, because they can produce. Abiding is caused by the life root, because it is the cause of continuous continuation. Enjoyment is caused by feeling, the five feelings (suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, equanimity), because gains and losses are transformed within them. In transmigration, based on these four supreme functions, fourteen roots are established. In the state of cessation, also based on these four supreme functions, the remaining eight roots are established. The cessation of birth and death is the meaning of cessation. That is, the six bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) are completely extinguished. The reliance of this attainment refers to the five roots of faith and others (faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom), because they are the most supreme cause of the growth of all good roots. The initial undefiled root can produce this attainment, and in the assembly of right concentration, this is the first to be produced. The second undefiled root causes this attainment to continue, because they arise continuously for a long time. The final undefiled root causes the attainment to enjoy the dwelling in the pleasure of the present life, because they are manifested. Non-karmic afflictions and the six internal bases are the causes of arising, so they are also established as roots, each individually, because they have no function.
If so, the eye and others should also not be roots. Mind, joy, pleasure, equanimity, should not be undefiled. The five roots of faith and others should not be defiled. In terms of partial increase, there can be this meaning, and one should not have a decisive attachment to it. The various karmas and afflictions do not have a fixed, non-common increasing function, so they are not established as roots. The meaning of the roots and the reasons for their establishment have already been explained, and next, the individual self-natures of the roots should be explained. Here, the eye and others up to the male root, their characteristics have already been analyzed in this chapter. The five pure colors that consciousness relies on are called the roots of the eye and others. The male and female roots are established differently from a part of the body. The substance of the life root is non-associated formations, and it should be widely distinguished in non-associated formations. The substance of faith and others is mental factors, and it should be widely distinguished in mental factors. The five feelings of pleasure and others, the three undefiled roots, there is no more place to distinguish, so now it should be explained. Verse says:
身不悅名苦 即此悅名樂 及三定心悅 余處此名喜 心不悅名憂 中舍二無別 見修無學道 依九立三根
論曰。身謂身受。依身起故。即五識相應受言不悅者。是損惱義。於五識俱領觸受內。能損惱者。名為苦根。所言悅者。是攝益義。即五識俱領觸受內。能攝益者。名為樂根。初靜慮中。三識俱樂。亦此所攝。種類同故。第三靜慮。意識俱受。能攝益者。亦名樂根。彼地更無餘識身故。即意俱悅。立為樂根。意識俱生悅受有二在第三定。說名為樂。由此地中離喜貪故。除第三定。下三地中。說名喜根。有喜貪故。此二心悅。攝益義同。行相何殊。分為喜樂。由行相轉有差別故。若有心悅。安靜行轉。名為樂根。若有心悅粗動行轉。名為喜根。或復樂根攝益殊勝。喜根攝益則不如是。由此第三靜慮地樂。諸聖說為所耽著處。與意識俱能損惱受。是心不悅。名曰憂根。已約身心悅不悅受。行相差別。立四受根。所言中舍二無別者。中是非悅非不悅義。即不苦樂。說名舍根。身心受中。此定何受。應言此受通在身心。苦樂何緣各分為二。不苦不樂唯立一根。此在身心無差別故。謂心苦樂多分躁動。苦樂在身。則為安住。不苦不樂。在身在心。行相無差。唯安住故又心苦樂。多分別生。在身不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身不悅名為苦（苦受），即此悅名為樂（樂受），以及第三禪定的心悅（舍受），其餘處此名為喜（喜受）。 心不悅名為憂（憂受），中舍（舍受）二者沒有差別。 見道、修道、無學道，依據九種（根）建立三種（道）。
論曰：身指身受，依身而起。所謂『不悅』，是損惱的意思。在五識相應的感受中，能夠損惱的，名為苦根（苦受）。所言『悅』，是攝益的意思。即五識相應的感受中，能夠攝益的，名為樂根（樂受）。 初禪中，三識共同生起，也屬於樂根所攝，因為種類相同。第三禪中，意識相應的感受，能夠攝益的，也名為樂根（樂受），因為彼地沒有其餘的識身。 即與意識相應的悅受，有兩種，在第三禪定中，說名為樂（樂受），因為此地遠離了喜貪。除了第三禪定，下三地中，說名為喜根（喜受），因為有喜貪。 這兩種心悅，攝益的意義相同，行相有什麼不同，要分為喜和樂呢？因為行相的轉變有差別。如果有心悅，安靜地運轉，名為樂根（樂受）。如果有心悅，粗大地運轉，名為喜根（喜受）。或者樂根的攝益殊勝，喜根的攝益則不如是。 因此第三禪定地的樂（樂受），諸聖人說為所耽著之處。與意識相應的能夠損惱的感受，是心不悅，名叫憂根（憂受）。 已經依據身心悅與不悅的感受，行相的差別，建立了四種受根。所言『中舍二無別者』，『中』是非悅非不悅的意思，即不苦不樂，說名叫舍根（舍受）。 身心感受中，此定屬於何種感受？應該說此感受通於身心。苦樂為什麼各自分為兩種，不苦不樂只建立一種根？因為此在身心沒有差別。所謂心苦樂，大多躁動。苦樂在身，則為安住。不苦不樂，在身在心，行相沒有差別，唯有安住的緣故。又心苦樂，多由分別而生，在身則不。
【English Translation】 English version Unpleasantness of the body is called suffering (Dukkha Vedana), pleasantness is called happiness (Sukha Vedana), and the pleasantness of the third Dhyana (meditative absorption) is called equanimity (Upeksha Vedana), while in other realms it is called joy (Somanassa Vedana). Unpleasantness of the mind is called sorrow (Domanassa Vedana), and equanimity (Upeksha Vedana) is no different from neutrality (Adhukhamasukha Vedana). The paths of seeing, cultivation, and no-more-learning are established on three roots based on nine (roots).
Treatise says: 'Body' refers to bodily feeling, which arises based on the body. 'Unpleasantness' means causing harm. Among the feelings associated with the five consciousnesses, that which can cause harm is called the root of suffering (Dukkha Vedana). 'Pleasantness' means providing benefit. Among the feelings associated with the five consciousnesses, that which can provide benefit is called the root of happiness (Sukha Vedana). In the first Dhyana, the three consciousnesses arise together and are also included in the root of happiness because they are of the same kind. In the third Dhyana, the feeling associated with consciousness that can provide benefit is also called the root of happiness (Sukha Vedana) because there is no other body of consciousness in that realm. That is, the pleasant feeling associated with consciousness is of two kinds. In the third Dhyana, it is called happiness (Sukha Vedana) because greed for joy is absent in this realm. Apart from the third Dhyana, in the lower three realms, it is called the root of joy (Somanassa Vedana) because there is greed for joy. These two kinds of mental pleasantness have the same meaning of providing benefit. What is the difference in their characteristics that they are divided into joy and happiness? It is because there is a difference in the transformation of their characteristics. If there is mental pleasantness that operates quietly, it is called the root of happiness (Sukha Vedana). If there is mental pleasantness that operates coarsely, it is called the root of joy (Somanassa Vedana). Or the benefit provided by the root of happiness is superior, while the benefit provided by the root of joy is not so. Therefore, the happiness (Sukha Vedana) of the third Dhyana realm is said by the sages to be a place of attachment. The feeling associated with consciousness that can cause harm is mental unpleasantness, called the root of sorrow (Domanassa Vedana). The four roots of feeling have been established based on the difference in the characteristics of pleasant and unpleasant feelings of body and mind. 'Neutrality is no different from equanimity' means that 'neutrality' is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, that is, neither suffering nor happiness, and is called the root of equanimity (Upeksha Vedana). Among the feelings of body and mind, to which feeling does this absorption belong? It should be said that this feeling is common to both body and mind. Why are suffering and happiness each divided into two, while neither suffering nor happiness is established as only one root? It is because there is no difference between them in body and mind. So-called mental suffering and happiness are mostly agitated. Suffering and happiness in the body are stable. Neither suffering nor happiness, whether in body or mind, has no difference in characteristics, only because of stability. Moreover, mental suffering and happiness mostly arise from discrimination, while in the body they do not.
然。隨境力故。阿羅漢等。亦如是生。舍在身心。俱無分別。處中行相。任運而起。又苦樂受。在身在心。于怨于親。行相轉異。不苦不樂。在身在心。于中庸境。行相無異。是故苦樂。各分為二。不苦不樂。唯立一根。已釋樂等諸受根體。三無漏根。今次應釋。不可一一別說其體。應就三道依九總立。意樂喜舍信等五根。此九三道中。即是三無漏。謂在見道。意等九法。即是未知當知根體。未知當知行相轉故。若在修道。意等九法。即是第二。已知根體。為欲斷除余隨眠故。于已知境。數復了知。在無學道。意等九法。即是第三。具知根體。知己已知。故名為知。習知成性故。或能護知故。名為具知。九根相應。合成此事。故意等八。亦得此名。如是根名。雖二十二。而諸根體。但有十七。女男二根。身根攝故。三無漏根。九根攝故。如是已釋根體不同。當辯諸門義類差別。此二十二根中。幾有漏幾無漏。頌曰。
唯無漏后三 有色命憂苦 當知唯有漏 通二餘九根
論曰。次前所說。最後三根。體唯無漏。是無垢義。垢之與漏。名異體同。七有色根。命及憂苦。一向有漏。七有色者。眼耳鼻舌身女男根。色蘊攝故。九通二者。即前所說三無漏攝。意等九根。名為無漏。余意等九。是名有漏。有餘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『然。隨境力故。阿羅漢等。亦如是生。』意思是說，阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）也會因為外境的影響而產生感受。捨棄對身心的執著，對一切都不加以分別，處於中道的行相，自然而然地生起。 『舍在身心。俱無分別。處中行相。任運而起。』 『又苦樂受。在身在心。于怨于親。行相轉異。不苦不樂。在身在心。于中庸境。行相無異。是故苦樂。各分為二。不苦不樂。唯立一根。』 苦和樂的感受，無論是在身體上還是在心理上，對於怨恨的人和親愛的人，其表現形式都會有所不同。而不苦不樂的感受，無論是在身體上還是在心理上，對於中庸的境界，其表現形式都是一樣的。因此，苦和樂各自被分為兩種，而不苦不樂只設立一個根。 『已釋樂等諸受根體。三無漏根。今次應釋。不可一一別說其體。應就三道依九總立。』 已經解釋了樂等各種感受的根源和本體。接下來應該解釋三種無漏根（Anāsrava-indriya，無煩惱的根）。不能一一分別說明它們的本體，應該就見道（Darśana-mārga，見真理之道）、修道（Bhāvanā-mārga，修行之道）和無學道（Aśaikṣa-mārga，無須再學的道）這三道，依據九根來總括地建立。 『意樂喜舍信等五根。此九三道中。即是三無漏。謂在見道。意等九法。即是未知當知根體。未知當知行相轉故。』 意根（Manas-indriya，意識的根）、樂根（Sukha-indriya，快樂的根）、喜根（Saumanasya-indriya，喜悅的根）、舍根（Upekṣā-indriya，捨棄的根）、信根（Śraddhā-indriya，信仰的根）等五根，在這九根和三道中，就是三種無漏根。在見道中，意等九法，就是未知當知根（Anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya，未知將知的根）的本體，因為未知當知的行相會轉變。 『若在修道。意等九法。即是第二。已知根體。為欲斷除余隨眠故。于已知境。數復了知。』 如果在修道中，意等九法，就是第二種根，已知根（Ājñendriya，已知的根）的本體，爲了斷除剩餘的隨眠（Anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式），對於已知的境界，多次反覆地了知。 『在無學道。意等九法。即是第三。具知根體。知己已知。故名為知。習知成性故。或能護知故。名為具知。九根相應。合成此事。故意等八。亦得此名。』 在無學道中，意等九法，就是第三種根，具知根（Ājñātāvīndriya，完全知曉的根）的本體。因為已經知道自己已經知道，所以稱為知。因為習慣性地知道併成為本性，或者能夠守護所知，所以稱為具知。九根相互相應，共同成就此事，所以意等八根，也得到這個名稱。 『如是根名。雖二十二。而諸根體。但有十七。女男二根。身根攝故。三無漏根。九根攝故。』 這樣，根的名稱雖然有二十二種，但是根的本體，只有十七種。女根（Strīndriya，女性的根）和男根（Puruṣendriya，男性的根）被包含在身根（Kāya-indriya，身體的根）中，三種無漏根被包含在九根中。 『如是已釋根體不同。當辯諸門義類差別。此二十二根中。幾有漏幾無漏。』 這樣已經解釋了根的本體的不同，應當辨別各種門類在意義上的差別。這二十二根中，哪些是有漏的，哪些是無漏的？ 『頌曰。唯無漏后三 有色命憂苦當知唯有漏 通二餘九根』 『論曰。次前所說。最後三根。體唯無漏。是無垢義。垢之與漏。名異體同。七有色根。命及憂苦。一向有漏。七有色者。眼耳鼻舌身女男根。色蘊攝故。九通二者。即前所說三無漏攝。意等九根。名為無漏。余意等九。是名有漏。有餘』 論述說：緊接前面所說的，最後三種根，本體唯有無漏，是無垢的意義。垢和漏，名稱不同，本體相同。七種有色根，命根（Jīvitendriya，生命的根）以及憂根（Daurmanasya-indriya，憂愁的根），一向是有漏的。七種有色根是：眼根（Cakṣur-indriya，眼睛的根）、耳根（Śrotra-indriya，耳朵的根）、鼻根（Ghrāṇa-indriya，鼻子的根）、舌根（Jihvā-indriya，舌頭的根）、身根（Kāya-indriya，身體的根）、女根（Strīndriya，女性的根）和男根（Puruṣendriya，男性的根），因為它們被包含在色蘊（Rūpa-skandha，色蘊）中。九種通於二者，就是前面所說的三種無漏根所包含的意等九根，稱為無漏。其餘的意等九根，是有漏的。還有剩餘的。
【English Translation】 English version 『Indeed, due to the power of circumstances, Arhats (Arhat, a saint who has attained Nirvana) also arise in this way.』 This means that Arhats (Arhat, enlightened beings) also experience feelings due to the influence of external circumstances. Abandoning attachment to body and mind, without distinguishing anything, being in the middle way, the characteristics arise naturally. 『Abandoning attachment to body and mind, without distinguishing anything, being in the middle way, the characteristics arise naturally.』 『Moreover, the feelings of suffering and pleasure, whether in body or mind, manifest differently towards enemies and loved ones. The feeling of neither suffering nor pleasure, whether in body or mind, manifests the same in neutral circumstances. Therefore, suffering and pleasure are each divided into two, while neither suffering nor pleasure is established as only one root.』 The feelings of suffering and pleasure, whether in the body or in the mind, will have different manifestations for those who are resented and those who are loved. The feeling of neither suffering nor pleasure, whether in the body or in the mind, has the same manifestation for the neutral state. Therefore, suffering and pleasure are each divided into two, and neither suffering nor pleasure is established as only one root. 『The roots and entities of feelings such as pleasure have been explained. The three Anāsrava-indriya (non-outflow roots) should now be explained. Their entities cannot be described individually; they should be established generally based on the three paths and nine roots.』 The origins and entities of various feelings such as pleasure have been explained. Next, the three non-outflow roots (Anāsrava-indriya, roots without afflictions) should be explained. Their entities cannot be explained individually; they should be established generally based on the three paths (Darśana-mārga, the path of seeing the truth; Bhāvanā-mārga, the path of cultivation; Aśaikṣa-mārga, the path of no more learning) and nine roots. 『The five roots of mind (Manas-indriya, root of consciousness), pleasure (Sukha-indriya, root of pleasure), joy (Saumanasya-indriya, root of joy), equanimity (Upekṣā-indriya, root of equanimity), and faith (Śraddhā-indriya, root of faith), among these nine roots and three paths, are the three non-outflow roots. In the path of seeing, the nine dharmas such as mind are the entity of the Anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya (root of what is not yet known but will be known), because the characteristics of what is not yet known but will be known change.』 The five roots of mind (Manas-indriya, the root of consciousness), pleasure (Sukha-indriya, the root of happiness), joy (Saumanasya-indriya, the root of joy), equanimity (Upekṣā-indriya, the root of equanimity), and faith (Śraddhā-indriya, the root of faith), among these nine roots and three paths, are the three non-outflow roots. In the path of seeing, the nine dharmas such as mind are the entity of the root of what is not yet known but will be known (Anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya), because the characteristics of what is not yet known but will be known will change. 『If in the path of cultivation, the nine dharmas such as mind are the entity of the second root, the Ājñendriya (root of what is known), because one wants to eliminate the remaining latent tendencies (Anuśaya, potential forms of affliction), one repeatedly understands the known realm.』 If in the path of cultivation, the nine dharmas such as mind are the entity of the second root, the root of what is known (Ājñendriya), because one wants to eliminate the remaining latent tendencies (Anuśaya, the potential forms of affliction), one repeatedly understands the known realm. 『In the path of no more learning, the nine dharmas such as mind are the entity of the third root, the Ājñātāvīndriya (root of complete knowledge). Because one knows that one already knows, it is called knowing. Because knowing becomes habitual and becomes one's nature, or because one can protect what is known, it is called complete knowledge. The nine roots correspond to each other and together accomplish this matter, so the eight roots such as mind also receive this name.』 In the path of no more learning, the nine dharmas such as mind are the entity of the third root, the root of complete knowledge (Ājñātāvīndriya). Because one knows that one already knows, it is called knowing. Because knowing habitually becomes one's nature, or because one can protect what is known, it is called complete knowledge. The nine roots correspond to each other and together accomplish this matter, so the eight roots such as mind also receive this name. 『Thus, although there are twenty-two names for roots, there are only seventeen entities of roots. The female root (Strīndriya, the root of femaleness) and the male root (Puruṣendriya, the root of maleness) are included in the body root (Kāya-indriya, the root of the body), and the three non-outflow roots are included in the nine roots.』 Thus, although there are twenty-two names for roots, there are only seventeen entities of roots. The female root (Strīndriya) and the male root (Puruṣendriya) are included in the body root (Kāya-indriya), and the three non-outflow roots are included in the nine roots. 『Thus, the differences in the entities of the roots have been explained. The differences in the meanings of the various categories should be distinguished. Among these twenty-two roots, which are with outflows and which are without outflows?』 Thus, the differences in the entities of the roots have been explained. The differences in the meanings of the various categories should be distinguished. Among these twenty-two roots, which are with outflows and which are without outflows? 『Verse: Only the last three are without outflows. The colored, life, sorrow Know that only these are with outflows. Nine roots are common to both.』 『Treatise: Following what was said earlier, the last three roots are only without outflows, which is the meaning of being without defilements. Defilement and outflow have different names but the same entity. The seven colored roots, the life root (Jīvitendriya, the root of life) and the sorrow root (Daurmanasya-indriya, the root of sorrow) are always with outflows. The seven colored roots are: the eye root (Cakṣur-indriya, the root of the eye), the ear root (Śrotra-indriya, the root of the ear), the nose root (Ghrāṇa-indriya, the root of the nose), the tongue root (Jihvā-indriya, the root of the tongue), the body root (Kāya-indriya, the root of the body), the female root (Strīndriya) and the male root (Puruṣendriya), because they are included in the form aggregate (Rūpa-skandha, the aggregate of form). The nine that are common to both are the nine roots such as mind included in the three non-outflow roots mentioned earlier, which are called without outflows. The remaining nine roots such as mind are with outflows. There are others.』 The treatise says: Following what was said earlier, the last three roots are only without outflows, which is the meaning of being without defilements. Defilement and outflow have different names but the same entity. The seven colored roots, the life root (Jīvitendriya) and the sorrow root (Daurmanasya-indriya) are always with outflows. The seven colored roots are: the eye root (Cakṣur-indriya), the ear root (Śrotra-indriya), the nose root (Ghrāṇa-indriya), the tongue root (Jihvā-indriya), the body root (Kāya-indriya), the female root (Strīndriya) and the male root (Puruṣendriya), because they are included in the form aggregate (Rūpa-skandha). The nine that are common to both are the nine roots such as mind included in the three non-outflow roots mentioned earlier, which are called without outflows. The remaining nine roots such as mind are with outflows. There are others.
師說。信等五根。亦唯無漏。契經唯說聖所有故。又世尊說。若全無此信等五根。我說彼住外異生品。此非誠證。依無漏根說此言故。云何知然。先依無漏信等五根。建立諸聖位差別已。說此言故。全無此者。此即此前所說。無漏信等根義。若不爾者。唯應說言無信等根。不應言此。或諸異生。略有二種。一內二外。內謂不斷善根。外謂善根已斷。依外異生。作如是說。若全無此信等五根。我說彼住外異生品。為有契經證信等五通有漏不。亦有。云何。謂世尊說。我若於此信等五根。未如實知。是集沒味過患出離。未能超此天人世間及魔梵等。乃至未能證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。乃至廣說。非無漏法應作如是次第觀察。又說佛未轉法輪時。先以佛眼。遍觀世界。有諸有情。處在世間。或生或長。有上中下諸根差別。未轉法輪。世間已有無漏根者。如來出世。則為唐捐。若汝於此所引二經。異分別者。我當復以殊勝分別如理遮遣。故信等根。定通有漏。如是已說有漏無漏。二十二根中。幾是異熟幾非異熟。頌曰。
命唯是異熟 憂及后八非 色意餘四受 一一皆通二
論曰。且無分別此諸根中。唯一命根。定是異熟。如何此命。可無分別。定果命根。非異熟故。如是命根。亦是異熟。得邊際定應果苾芻
【現代漢語翻譯】 師（老師）說，信等五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）也唯是無漏的。契經（佛經）只說了聖者才具有這些根。而且，世尊說：『如果完全沒有這信等五根，我就說他住在外異生品（凡夫位）。』但這並非確鑿的證據，因為這是依據無漏根說的。如何知道是這樣呢？因為先依據無漏的信等五根，建立了諸聖位的差別之後，才說了這句話。『完全沒有此』，這個『此』，就是指前面所說的無漏信等根的含義。如果不是這樣，就應該只說『沒有信等根』，不應該說『沒有此』。或者，諸異生（凡夫）略有二種：一為內，二為外。內是指沒有斷善根的，外是指善根已經斷了的。這裡是依據外異生，才這樣說的：『如果完全沒有這信等五根，我就說他住在外異生品。』 有沒有契經證明信等五根也通於有漏呢？也有。怎麼說呢？世尊說：『我如果對於這信等五根，未能如實地知其是集（苦集）、沒（苦滅）、味（樂味）、過患（過患）、出離（出離），就不能超越這天人世間以及魔梵等，乃至不能證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺），乃至廣說。』無漏法不應該這樣次第觀察。又說佛未轉法輪時，先以佛眼，遍觀世界，有諸有情（眾生），處在世間，或生或長，有上中下諸根差別。如果未轉法輪時，世間已經有無漏根者，如來出世，則為唐捐（白費功夫）。如果你們對於我所引用的這兩部經，有不同的分別，我當再以殊勝的分別如理遮遣。所以，信等根，必定通於有漏。 像這樣已經說了有漏和無漏。二十二根中，哪些是異熟（果報），哪些不是異熟呢？頌曰： 命唯是異熟 憂及后八非 色意餘四受 一一皆通二 論曰：且不分別，在此諸根中，只有命根，一定是異熟。如何說此命根，可以沒有分別呢？因為定果命根，不是異熟的緣故。像這樣，命根也是異熟。得邊際定應果苾芻（比丘）。
【English Translation】 The teacher said that the five roots of faith, etc. (faith root, vigor root, mindfulness root, concentration root, wisdom root) are only unconditioned. The sutras (Buddhist scriptures) only state that sages possess these roots. Moreover, the World Honored One said, 'If one completely lacks these five roots of faith, etc., I say that they dwell in the category of external ordinary beings (worldly beings).' However, this is not conclusive evidence, as it is spoken based on the unconditioned roots. How do we know this? Because after first establishing the distinctions of the various stages of sainthood based on the unconditioned five roots of faith, etc., this statement was made. 'Completely lacks this,' this 'this' refers to the meaning of the unconditioned roots of faith, etc., mentioned earlier. If it were not so, it should only be said 'lacks the roots of faith, etc.,' and not 'lacks this.' Or, ordinary beings (worldly beings) are roughly of two types: internal and external. Internal refers to those who have not severed their roots of goodness, and external refers to those whose roots of goodness have already been severed. Here, it is based on external ordinary beings that it is said: 'If one completely lacks these five roots of faith, etc., I say that they dwell in the category of external ordinary beings.' Are there any sutras that prove that the five roots of faith, etc., also extend to the conditioned? Yes, there are. How so? The World Honored One said, 'If I have not truly known these five roots of faith, etc., as the arising (suffering's arising), cessation (suffering's cessation), savor (pleasurable taste), fault (drawbacks), and escape (liberation), I cannot transcend this world of gods and humans, as well as Mara, Brahma, etc., and even cannot attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled perfect enlightenment), and so on.' The unconditioned dharma should not be observed in this sequential manner. It is also said that before the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel, he first surveyed the world with his Buddha-eye, and there were sentient beings (beings) dwelling in the world, either born or growing, with distinctions of superior, middling, and inferior roots. If there were already those with unconditioned roots in the world before the Dharma wheel was turned, the Tathagata's appearance in the world would be in vain (a wasted effort). If you have different interpretations of these two sutras that I have cited, I will again refute them with superior interpretations that are in accordance with reason. Therefore, the roots of faith, etc., must extend to the conditioned. Having spoken in this way about the conditioned and the unconditioned, among the twenty-two roots, which are resultant (karmic retribution) and which are not resultant? The verse says: Life alone is resultant, sorrow and the latter eight are not. Form, mind, and the remaining four feelings, each extends to both. Commentary: Without further distinctions, among these roots, only the life root is definitely resultant. How can it be said that this life root can be without distinctions? Because the life root of fixed result is not resultant. In this way, the life root is also resultant. A Bhikshu (monk) who has attained the fruit of the borderline samadhi.
。于僧眾中或別人所。施思果故。諸我能感富異熟業。愿皆轉招壽異熟果。本論說故。有餘說。彼由邊際定力。引取前生順不定受業。所感壽命。令現受用。復有欲令邊際定力引前生業殘異熟果。而經主言。由勝定力。引取未曾諸根大種住時勢分。如此命根。非是異熟。余是異熟。此言非理。所以者何。且彼唯說。諸根大種。住時勢分。名為命根。如后當破。設許如是隨執彼為長養等性。皆不應理。且不應執是長養性。彼能防守異熟果故。所防異熟。已轉盡故。不應異熟相續斷已。獨有長養。太過失故。亦不應執是等流性。眼等無別等流性故。無記非善等流果故。又界應成雜亂過故。亦不應執是異熟性。定非欲界異熟因故。又彼自許如是事故。然其所說迷謬難詳。任更指陳。彼名何法。而言此命非異熟耶。尊者法勝說。此命根亦非異熟。故彼論說。有十三根。皆通二種。此違本論。一根非業是業異熟九根非業。非業異熟。十二不定。憂根及后信等八根。皆非異熟。是有記故。經說有業順憂受者。依受相應。言順無過。如言有觸順樂受等何緣定謂憂非異熟此是異熟。不應理故。云何不應。離欲貪者。不隨轉故。異熟不然。設許隨轉。應如苦根。阿羅漢等。亦可知有。而實非有。經所遮故。如契經說。設見大師般涅槃位亦
無愁等。又無用故。善亦不行。非能攝益。如喜根故。何相知彼有無記喜。彼時雖無。外相而有。內分別生。或彼善喜。容有現行。非善憂根。彼可現起。應隨善相準知無記。非無記喜。違離欲道。又阿笈摩。證彼有喜。如契經說。彼猶受喜異熟。不言彼有黑品憂根。故知憂根越異熟法。余根通二義準已成。謂七色意根。除憂餘四受。十二一一皆通二類。七有色根。若所長養則非異熟。余皆異熟。意及四受。若善染污。若威儀路。及工巧處。並能變化。隨其所應。亦非異熟。余皆異熟。如是已說是異熟等。二十二根中。幾有異熟幾無異熟。頌曰。
憂定有異熟 前八后三無 意余受信等 一一皆通二
論曰。如前所諍。憂根當知定有異熟。定言意顯唯有非無遮非異熟因無記無漏故。非為顯示唯此憂根是有異熟。勿有餘根一切皆是無異熟過。故但顯憂唯有異熟。越次說者。顯無記無漏若總若別皆無異熟因。非如此中有記有漏要總方是有異熟因。故越次說。深為有用。眼等前八。及最後三。此十一根。定無異熟。八無記故。三無漏故。余皆通二。義準已成。謂意根餘四受。信等言等取精進等四根。此十一一皆通二類。意樂喜舍。若不善善有漏有異熟。若無記無漏無異熟。苦根若善不善有異熟。若無記無異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無愁等（沒有憂愁等等）。又因為沒有作用的緣故，善也不去行持，不能夠攝受利益，如同喜根的緣故。如何知道他們有無記喜呢？即使那個時候沒有外在的表象，但內在的分別念卻產生了。或者那種善喜，容許有現行。不是善的憂根，它可能會現起。應該隨著善的表象來衡量推知無記，不是無記喜，違背了遠離慾望的道路。而且阿笈摩（Agama，聖傳）也證明他們有喜，如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說，他們仍然感受喜的異熟果報，沒有說他們有黑品的憂根。因此知道憂根超越了異熟法。其餘的根貫通兩種情況，這個含義已經成立。所說的七個有色根和意根，除了憂以外的其餘四種感受，十二個根一一都貫通兩種類別。七個有色根，如果是所增長養的，就不是異熟，其餘的都是異熟。意根和四種感受，如果是善的、染污的、威儀路的、工巧處的，並且能夠變化，隨著它們所適應的情況，也不是異熟，其餘的都是異熟。像這樣已經說完了什麼是異熟等等。在二十二根中，哪些是有異熟的，哪些是沒有異熟的呢？頌文說： 憂根和定根有異熟，前八根和后三根沒有異熟，意根和其餘的受信等根，一一都貫通兩種情況。 論述說：如同前面所爭論的，憂根應當知道一定有異熟。『定』這個詞的意思是隻存在有異熟，而不是沒有異熟，遮止了非異熟因的無記和無漏。不是爲了顯示只有這個憂根是有異熟的，以免其餘的根全部都是沒有異熟的過失。所以只是顯示憂根只有異熟。越過順序來說，顯示無記和無漏，無論是總的還是別的，都沒有異熟因。不是像這樣，有記和有漏，要總體上才是異熟因。所以越過順序來說，意義深遠，非常有用。眼等前八根，以及最後的三根，這十一個根，一定沒有異熟。因為八個根是無記的緣故，三個根是無漏的緣故。其餘的都貫通兩種情況，這個含義已經成立。所說的意根和其餘的四種感受，信等，『等』字包括精進等四根。這十一個根一一都貫通兩種類別。意根、樂受、喜受、舍受，如果不善或者善，有漏，就有異熟；如果無記或者無漏，就沒有異熟。苦根，如果善或者不善，就有異熟；如果無記，就沒有異熟。
【English Translation】 English version: No sorrow, etc. Also, because there is no function, good is not practiced, and it cannot gather benefits, like the root of joy. How do we know that they have neutral joy? Even if there is no external appearance at that time, internal discrimination arises. Or that good joy may be manifest. It is not the root of sorrow that is good, it may arise. It should be inferred from the appearance of good to know the neutral, not neutral joy, which violates the path of detachment from desire. Moreover, the Agama (聖傳) also proves that they have joy, as the Sutra (佛經) says, they still receive the fruition of joy, and it does not say that they have the root of sorrow of the black category. Therefore, it is known that the root of sorrow transcends the law of fruition. The remaining roots communicate in two ways, and this meaning has already been established. The seven colored roots and the mind root, except for sorrow, the remaining four feelings, each of the twelve roots communicates in two categories. The seven colored roots, if they are nurtured, are not fruition, and the rest are fruition. The mind and the four feelings, if they are good, defiled, of dignified conduct, or of skillful activities, and can change, according to their suitability, are also not fruition, and the rest are fruition. Thus, it has been said what fruition is, etc. Among the twenty-two roots, which have fruition and which do not? The verse says: Sorrow and concentration have fruition, the first eight and the last three do not. The mind and the remaining feelings, etc., each communicates in two ways. The treatise says: As previously argued, the root of sorrow should be known to have fruition. The word 'certainly' means that there is only fruition, not no fruition, preventing the neutral and unconditioned that are not the cause of fruition. It is not to show that only this root of sorrow has fruition, lest the remaining roots all have the fault of no fruition. Therefore, it only shows that sorrow only has fruition. Saying it out of order shows that the neutral and unconditioned, whether general or specific, have no cause of fruition. It is not like this, the marked and conditioned, must be the overall cause of fruition. Therefore, saying it out of order is profound and useful. The first eight roots, such as the eye, and the last three roots, these eleven roots certainly have no fruition. Because the eight roots are neutral, and the three roots are unconditioned. The rest communicate in two ways, and this meaning has already been established. The mind and the remaining four feelings, faith, etc., the word 'etc.' includes the four roots of diligence, etc. Each of these eleven roots communicates in two categories. The mind, pleasure, joy, and equanimity, if they are unwholesome or wholesome, conditioned, then there is fruition; if they are neutral or unconditioned, then there is no fruition. The root of suffering, if it is wholesome or unwholesome, then there is fruition; if it is neutral, then there is no fruition.
熟。信等五根。若有漏有異熟。若無漏無異熟。如是已說有異熟等。二十二根中。幾善幾不善幾無記。頌曰。
唯善後八根 憂通善不善 意余受三種 前八唯無記
論曰。信等五根。及三無漏。一向是善。次雖居后。乘前便故。而說在初。憂根唯通善不善性。意及四受。皆通三性。眼等八根。唯是無記。如是已說善不善等。二十二根中。幾欲界系幾色界系幾無色界系。頌曰。
欲色無色界 如次除后三 兼女男憂苦 並余色喜樂
論曰。欲界除后三無漏根。由彼三根唯不繫故。準知欲界系。有餘十九根。色界如前除三無漏。兼除男女憂苦四根。準知十五根。亦通色界系。除女男者。色界已離淫慾法故。除此無因須受用故。有說由此身醜陋故。此說不然。陰藏隱密非醜陋故。前說為善。然佛置彼在男品中。如契經說。無處無容女身為梵。有處有容男為梵者離欲威猛似男用故。如有稱讚大梵王言。
大梵如丈夫 所得皆已得 離欲道威猛 故說為丈夫
除苦根者。色界中無損害事故。苦是損害業異熟故。有說彼身極凈妙故。除憂根者。彼處無有違逆相故。又奢摩他潤相續故。有說色界具離欲智。憂是無智等流果故。無色如前除三無漏女男憂苦。併除五色及喜樂根準知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『熟。信等五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）。若有漏有異熟（有煩惱的，有果報），若無漏無異熟（沒有煩惱的，沒有果報）。如是已說有異熟等。二十二根中。幾善幾不善幾無記（二十二根中，哪些是善的，哪些是不善的，哪些是無記的）？頌曰：』 『唯善後八根，憂通善不善，意余受三種，前八唯無記。』 『論曰：信等五根，及三無漏（未知當知根、已知根、具知根），一向是善。次雖居后，乘前便故，而說在初。憂根唯通善不善性。意及四受（苦受、樂受、喜受、憂受），皆通三性（善、不善、無記）。眼等八根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、男根、女根、命根），唯是無記。如是已說善不善等。二十二根中。幾欲界系幾界系幾無界系（二十二根中，哪些屬於欲界，哪些屬於界，哪些屬於無界）？頌曰：』 『欲色無，如次除后三，兼女男憂苦，並余色喜樂。』 『論曰：欲界除后三無漏根（未知當知根、已知根、具知根），由彼三根唯不繫故。準知欲界系，有餘十九根。如前除三無漏，兼除男女憂苦四根。準知十五根，亦通系。除女男者，已離淫慾法故。除此無因須受用故。有說由此身醜陋故。此說不然。陰藏隱密非醜陋故。前說為善。然佛置彼在男品中。如契經說。無處無容女身為梵。有處有容男為梵者離欲威猛似男用故。如有稱讚大梵王言：』 『大梵如丈夫，所得皆已得，離欲道威猛，故說為丈夫。』 『除苦根者，中無損害事故。苦是損害業異熟故。有說彼身極凈妙故。除憂根者，彼處無有違逆相故。又奢摩他（止）潤相續故。有說具離欲智。憂是無智等流果故。無色如前除三無漏女男憂苦，併除五色及喜樂根準知』
【English Translation】 English version: 『Ripe. The five roots such as the root of faith (śraddhā-indriya), etc. If with outflows, there is resultant maturation (sāsrava vipāka); if without outflows, there is no resultant maturation (anāsrava avipāka). Thus, it has already been said about resultant maturation, etc. Among the twenty-two roots, how many are wholesome (kuśala), unwholesome (akuśala), and indeterminate (avyākrta)? The verse says:』 『Only the last eight roots are wholesome; sorrow (daurmanasya) is common to both wholesome and unwholesome; mind (manas) and the remaining feelings (vedanā) are of three kinds; the first eight are only indeterminate.』 『Treatise says: The five roots such as the root of faith, etc., and the three without outflows (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya, ājñendriya, ājñātāvīndriya) are invariably wholesome. Although they come later, they are mentioned first because of their connection to what precedes. The root of sorrow is common to both wholesome and unwholesome natures. Mind and the four feelings (suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow) are all of three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, indeterminate). The eight roots such as the eye (cakṣur-indriya), etc. (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, male, female, and life) are only indeterminate. Thus, it has already been said about wholesome, unwholesome, etc. Among the twenty-two roots, how many belong to the desire realm (kāmadhātu), the form realm (rūpadhātu), and the formless realm (arūpadhātu)? The verse says:』 『Desire, form, and formless realms, respectively exclude the last three; also include female, male, sorrow, and suffering; and also include the remaining form, joy, and pleasure.』 『Treatise says: The desire realm excludes the last three roots without outflows (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya, ājñendriya, ājñātāvīndriya), because these three roots belong only to the unconditioned. It can be inferred that the desire realm includes the remaining nineteen roots. The form realm, as before, excludes the three without outflows, and also excludes the four roots of female, male, sorrow, and suffering. It can be inferred that fifteen roots also belong to the form realm. The exclusion of female and male is because the form realm has already abandoned the laws of sexual desire. The exclusion of these is because there is no cause for them to be experienced. Some say it is because these bodies are ugly. This is not correct, because the hidden private parts are not ugly. The previous explanation is better. However, the Buddha placed them in the male category, as the sutra says: There is no place or allowance for a woman's body to be Brahman; there is a place and allowance for a man to be Brahman, because he is fierce and powerful like a man due to being free from desire. As there is praise for the Great Brahma King, saying:』 『The Great Brahma is like a husband, all that is obtained has already been obtained; the path is free from desire, fierce and powerful, therefore he is said to be a husband.』 『The exclusion of the root of suffering is because there is no cause for harm in the form realm. Suffering is the result of harmful karma. Some say it is because those bodies are extremely pure and wonderful. The exclusion of the root of sorrow is because there is no contrary aspect in that place. Moreover, tranquility (śamatha) moistens the continuum. Some say that the form realm possesses wisdom free from desire. Sorrow is the outflow result of non-wisdom. The formless realm, as before, excludes the three without outflows, female, male, sorrow, and suffering, and also excludes the five forms and the roots of joy and pleasure. It can be inferred that』
餘八根。通無色界系。如是已說欲界系等。二十二根中。幾見所斷幾修所斷幾非所斷。頌曰。
意三受通三 憂見修所斷 九唯修所斷 五修非三非
論曰。意喜樂舍。一一通三。憂根唯通見修所斷。非無漏故。七色命苦。唯修所斷。有色無染非六生故。非無漏故。信等五根。或修所斷。或非所斷。通善有漏及無漏故。最後三根。唯非所斷。皆是無漏無過法故。豈不聖道亦所斷耶。如契經言。應知聖道猶如船筏。法尚應斷何況非法。此非見修二道所斷。入無餘依涅槃界位舍故名斷。已說諸門義類差別。當說初得異熟諸根。幾異熟根何界初得。須問初得異熟根者。遮無染心能續生故。頌曰。
欲胎卵濕生 初得二異熟 化生六七八 色六上唯命
論曰。欲胎卵濕生。初受生位。唯得身與命二異熟根。觀行者言。此初生位。亦有具得眼等種子。然但身根。能生自識。眼等不爾。故唯說二。或生盲等。于續生時。無眼等根。但有此二。此言非理。所以者何。初續生時。無五識故。舉胎卵濕。顯除化生。化生色根。無漸起故。此辯異熟。不說意舍時彼定染非異熟故。爾時亦得信等諸根。非異熟故。此中不說羯賴藍位。雖得色等異熟生法。而體非根。故此不說。化生初位。得六七八。無形得六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 還有八根。普遍不被任何『系』所束縛。如上已述欲界『系』等。在二十二根中，哪些是見所斷，哪些是修所斷，哪些是非所斷？偈頌說： 『意』、三種『受』普遍通於三種，『憂』唯見、修所斷。 九種唯修所斷，五種修所斷、非所斷、三者皆不是。 論述：『意』、『喜』、『樂』、『舍』，每一種都普遍通於三種。『憂』根唯通於見所斷和修所斷，因為它不是無漏的緣故。七種色根、命根、苦根，唯修所斷。因為有色、無染污，不是六種生，也不是無漏的緣故。『信』等五根，或者為修所斷，或者為非所斷，通於善、有漏和無漏的緣故。最後三種根，唯非所斷，都是無漏、沒有過失的法。難道聖道不也是所斷嗎？如契經所說：『應當知道聖道猶如船筏，法尚且應當斷除，何況非法？』這並非見道和修道所斷，在進入無餘依涅槃界位時捨棄，所以名為斷。已經說了各種門類的義理差別，接下來應當說最初獲得異熟的各種根。哪些是異熟根？在哪個界最初獲得？必須詢問最初獲得異熟根的人，因為遮止了無染污心能夠繼續產生。偈頌說： 欲界胎生、卵生、濕生，最初獲得兩種異熟。 化生獲得六、七、八種，色界獲得六種，上界唯有命根。 論述：欲界的胎生、卵生、濕生，在最初受生的時候，唯獨獲得身根和命根這兩種異熟根。觀行者說，在這個最初生的時候，也有具足眼等根的種子，然而只有身根能夠產生自己的識，眼等根不能這樣，所以只說兩種。或者有生來就是盲人等，在繼續產生的時候，沒有眼等根，只有這兩種。這種說法沒有道理。為什麼呢？因為最初繼續產生的時候，沒有五識的緣故。舉出胎生、卵生、濕生，是爲了排除化生。化生的色根，沒有逐漸產生的過程。這裡辨別的是異熟，沒有說『意』和『舍』，因為那時必定是染污的，不是異熟的緣故。那時也獲得『信』等各種根，但不是異熟的緣故。這裡沒有說羯賴藍（Kalala）位，雖然獲得色等異熟所生的法，但其體不是根，所以這裡沒有說。化生最初的階段，獲得六、七、八種，沒有形根的獲得六種。
【English Translation】 English version: There are also eight roots. Universally, they are not bound by any 『dhatu』 (realm/sphere). As previously stated regarding the Desire Realm 『dhatu』 etc. Among the twenty-two roots, which are severed by seeing, which by cultivation, and which are not severed? The verse says: 『Mind』 (意, manas), the three 『feelings』 (受, vedanā) universally connect to the three, 『sorrow』 (憂, duhkha) is only severed by seeing and cultivation. Nine are only severed by cultivation, five are severed by cultivation, not severed, and not all three. Discussion: 『Mind』 (意, manas), 『joy』 (喜, priti), 『pleasure』 (樂, sukha), 『equanimity』 (舍, upekṣā), each universally connects to the three. The root of 『sorrow』 (憂, duhkha) only connects to what is severed by seeing and cultivation, because it is not unconditioned (無漏, anāsrava). The seven sense faculties (色根, rūpa-indriya), life faculty (命根, jīvitendriya), and suffering (苦, duhkha), are only severed by cultivation. Because they are with form, without defilement, not one of the six types of birth, and not unconditioned. The five faculties of 『faith』 (信, śraddhā), etc., are either severed by cultivation or not severed, connecting to wholesome, conditioned (有漏, sāsrava) and unconditioned (無漏, anāsrava) states. The last three roots are only not severed, as they are all unconditioned and without fault. Isn't the Noble Path also severed? As the sutra says: 『One should know that the Noble Path is like a raft; even the Dharma should be abandoned, let alone what is not Dharma.』 This is not severed by the paths of seeing and cultivation, but is abandoned upon entering the state of Nirvāṇa without remainder, hence it is called severance. Having discussed the differences in meaning among the various categories, we should now discuss the roots that are initially obtained as a result of maturation (異熟, vipāka). Which are the roots of maturation? In which realm are they initially obtained? It is necessary to ask about those who initially obtain the roots of maturation, because they prevent the unconditioned mind from continuing to arise. The verse says: In the Desire Realm, those born from wombs, eggs, and moisture initially obtain two types of maturation. Those born by transformation obtain six, seven, or eight types; in the Form Realm, six types are obtained; in the higher realms, only the life faculty (命根, jīvitendriya) is obtained. Discussion: In the Desire Realm, those born from wombs, eggs, and moisture, at the initial moment of birth, only obtain the two roots of maturation: the body faculty (身根, kāyendriya) and the life faculty (命根, jīvitendriya). Observers say that at this initial moment of birth, there are also seeds of the eye faculty (眼根, cakṣurindriya) etc., but only the body faculty can produce its own consciousness, while the eye faculty etc. cannot. Therefore, only two are mentioned. Or, there are those born blind, etc., who do not have the eye faculty etc. when continuing to be born, but only have these two. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because at the initial moment of continued birth, there are no five consciousnesses. Mentioning those born from wombs, eggs, and moisture is to exclude those born by transformation. The sense faculties (色根, rūpa-indriya) of those born by transformation do not arise gradually. This distinguishes maturation; it does not mention 『mind』 (意, manas) and 『equanimity』 (舍, upekṣā), because at that time they are necessarily defiled and not the result of maturation. At that time, the faculties of 『faith』 (信, śraddhā) etc. are also obtained, but they are not the result of maturation. The Kalala stage is not mentioned here, although one obtains the Dharma born from maturation such as sense faculties (色根, rūpa-indriya) etc., its essence is not a root, so it is not mentioned here. In the initial stage of transformation birth, one obtains six, seven, or eight types; without the form faculty, one obtains six types.
。如劫初時。六謂眼耳鼻舌身命。一形得七。如諸天等。二形得八。惡趣容有二形化生。色初得六。如欲化生無形者說。上唯命者。謂無色界。定生俱勝。故名為上。彼初唯得異熟命根。由此證知命根實有。此若非有。為得何根名生無色。非善染污名業果生。未受彼生容現起故。又異熟心無續生理。唯許染心能續生故。過去未來非有論者。爾時三世異熟皆無。異熟既無。生依何說。雖馳妄計以立己宗。必應許有生依實法。說異熟根最初得已。當說最後所滅諸根。何界死時幾根后滅。頌曰。
正死滅諸根 無色三色八 欲頓十九八 漸四善增五
論曰。且說染污及無記心正命終時根滅多少。謂無色界將命終時。命意舍三。于最後滅。無色唯有舍受非余。又無色言。遮彼有色。有餘師說。彼有色故。若不說有實物命根。何異。熟斷名無色死。若言異熟四蘊斷故彼名死者。善染污心現在前位。應亦名死。若言彼地所受異熟猶未盡者。如何不受而有盡期。善染污心現在前位。當言彼受何業異熟。非不現前可名為受。若謂于彼異熟習氣恒隨轉故名為受者。理亦不然。所執習氣。非極成故。太過失故。異熟雖盡。習氣隨故。如業習氣。應無死期。若異熟盡。無習氣者。業亦不應有餘習氣。若言習氣望現異熟如我得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：比如在劫初的時候，六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、命）中，一開始的生命形式可以獲得七根。例如，諸天等生命形式可以獲得七根。二禪天等生命形式可以獲得八根。惡趣眾生可能存在二形化生的情形。在色界中，最初可以獲得六根，就像欲界化生而沒有形體的眾生一樣。上面只提到命根，是因為他們沒有。禪定帶來的果報殊勝，所以稱為上界。他們最初只能獲得異熟的命根。由此可以證明命根是真實存在的。如果命根不存在，那麼獲得什麼根才能稱為生於無色界呢？既不是善業也不是染污業，而是由業果所生。因為尚未接受那種生命形式，所以允許（善業和染污業）現前。而且，異熟心沒有延續生命的能力，只允許染污心能夠延續生命。那些認為過去和未來不存在的人，認為那時三世的異熟果報都沒有。既然沒有異熟果報，那麼生命的產生依據什麼來說呢？即使他們極力妄想來建立自己的宗派，也必須承認存在生命的產生所依據的真實法。在說了異熟根最初獲得之後，接下來應當說最後滅去的各種根。在哪個界死亡時，哪些根最後滅去呢？頌文說： 『正死滅諸根，無色三色八，欲頓十九八，漸四善增五。』 論述說：先說以染污心和無記心臨終時，根滅去的多少。所謂無將要死亡時，命根、意根、舍受這三種根在最後滅去。無色界只有舍受，沒有其他的感受。而且，『無色』這個詞，排除了他們有色蘊的可能性。有其他老師說，他們有色蘊。如果不說有真實的命根，那和異熟斷滅有什麼區別呢？如果說異熟的四蘊斷滅所以稱為死亡，那麼善心和染污心現在前的時候，也應該稱為死亡。如果說那個地所接受的異熟果報還沒有窮盡，那麼如何在沒有接受的情況下就有窮盡的時候呢？善心和染污心現在前的時候，應當說他們接受的是什麼業的異熟果報呢？如果不是現前接受，怎麼能稱為接受呢？如果認為對於那個異熟的習氣一直跟隨流轉，所以稱為接受，那麼這個道理也是不成立的。因為所執著的習氣，不是極其確定的。而且有太過分的過失。即使異熟窮盡，習氣仍然跟隨，就像業的習氣一樣，應該沒有死亡的時候。如果異熟窮盡，就沒有習氣，那麼業也不應該有剩餘的習氣。如果說習氣對於現在的異熟來說，就像我得到...
【English Translation】 English version: For example, at the beginning of a kalpa (劫初), among the six faculties (六根) – eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and life (眼耳鼻舌身命) – the initial life form can acquire seven faculties. For instance, beings in the heavens (諸天) can acquire seven faculties. Beings in the second Dhyana heaven (二禪天) can acquire eight faculties. Beings in the evil realms (惡趣) may have two-formed beings born through transformation (二形化生). In the Form Realm (色界), initially, six faculties can be acquired, just like beings born through transformation in the Desire Realm (欲界) who have no form. The above only mentions the life faculty (命根) because they have no . The retribution from meditative concentration (禪定) is superior, hence it is called the upper realm (上界). They can only initially acquire the life faculty that is a result of differentiated maturation (異熟). From this, it can be proven that the life faculty truly exists. If the life faculty did not exist, then what faculty would one acquire to be called born in the Formless Realm (無色界)? It is neither good karma nor defiled karma, but born from the result of karma (業果). Because that life form has not yet been received, it is allowed for (good and defiled karma) to manifest. Moreover, the mind of differentiated maturation (異熟心) does not have the ability to continue life; only the defiled mind (染污心) is allowed to continue life. Those who believe that the past and future do not exist believe that at that time, the differentiated maturation retributions of the three times (三世) do not exist. Since there is no differentiated maturation retribution, then what is the basis for the arising of life? Even if they exert delusional efforts to establish their own sect, they must acknowledge that there is a real dharma (實法) upon which the arising of life depends. After speaking about the initial acquisition of the differentiated maturation root, next, we should talk about the various roots that are extinguished last. At the time of death in which realm, which roots are extinguished last? The verse says: 『At the moment of death, the faculties extinguished are: in the Formless Realm, three; in the Form Realm, eight; in the Desire Realm, nineteen or eight at once; gradually, four, with five added for the virtuous.』 The treatise says: First, let's talk about the amount of faculties extinguished at the time of death with a defiled mind (染污心) and a neutral mind (無記心). When one in the Formless Realm (無) is about to die, the life faculty (命根), the mind faculty (意根), and the feeling of indifference (舍受) are the three that are extinguished last. The Formless Realm only has the feeling of indifference, no other feelings. Moreover, the word 'Formless' excludes the possibility of them having form. Other teachers say that they have form. If it is not said that there is a real life faculty, then what is the difference from the cessation of differentiated maturation? If it is said that the four aggregates (四蘊) of differentiated maturation are extinguished, therefore it is called death, then when a virtuous mind (善心) and a defiled mind are present, it should also be called death. If it is said that the differentiated maturation retribution received in that realm has not yet been exhausted, then how can there be a time of exhaustion without being received? When a virtuous mind and a defiled mind are present, what karma's differentiated maturation retribution should be said to be received? If it is not received presently, how can it be called receiving? If it is thought that the habit energy (習氣) of that differentiated maturation constantly follows and flows, therefore it is called receiving, then this reasoning is also not established. Because the habit energy that is clung to is not extremely certain. And there is the fault of being too excessive. Even if the differentiated maturation is exhausted, the habit energy still follows, just like the habit energy of karma, there should be no time of death. If the differentiated maturation is exhausted and there is no habit energy, then karma should also not have remaining habit energy. If it is said that the habit energy is to the present differentiated maturation like I obtain...
者。應如我得異熟不起習氣則無。又非異熟習氣隨轉名受異熟。非彼性故。又汝所執習氣理無。后當廣辯。故定應許。從續生心至命終心別有實法。名為異熟恒相續轉。彼若斷時。名無色死。色界死時。八根后滅。謂眼等五。及前三根。化生生死根無缺故。欲頓死時。十九八滅。二形十滅。謂女男根及前說八。一形九滅。無形八滅。若漸死時。身命意舍四根后滅。此四必無前後滅義。若在三界。善心死時。一切位中。數各增五。善心必具信等根故。謂于無色。增至八根乃至欲界漸終至九。復應思擇。二十二根。幾能證得何沙門果。雖沙門果非根亦得。此辯根故。但問諸根。頌曰。
九得邊二果 七八九中二 十一阿羅漢 依一容有說
論曰。邊謂預流阿羅漢果。中謂一來及不還果。且預流果。由九根得。謂意舍信等初二無漏根。此果與向。未至地攝。故唯有舍。云何此由已知根得。由離系得與解脫道俱時起故。若爾何緣唯說無間道能得離系果。唯此能斷離系得生能障得故。由此故說。彼離系得。唯是無間道等流士用果。若爾解脫道。于果及得。有何功能。離系及能得。由無間道。非此果故。有說無間道是解脫道眷屬故。無間道所作。即名解脫道所作。如臣所作得王作名。西方諸師說。解脫道于離系得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 者。如果像我一樣獲得異熟果報后不再生起習氣，那就不存在習氣了。而且，並非異熟習氣隨著異熟果報而轉變，所以不稱為感受異熟，因為它不是那種性質。而且，你所執著的習氣在理上是不成立的，後面會詳細辯論。所以，必須承認，從相續產生的最初一念心到命終的最後一念心之間，存在一個真實的法，名為異熟，它恒常相續地運轉。當它斷滅時，稱為無色界的死亡。死亡時，八種根最後滅除，即眼等五根，以及前三種根（命根、意根、舍根）。因為化生者的生死根沒有缺失。如果欲界眾生頓然死亡，十九根或十八根滅除。二形（男女）者十根滅除，即男女根以及前面說的八根。一形者九根滅除。無形者八根滅除。如果漸次死亡，身根、命根、意根、舍根這四種根最後滅除。這四種根必定沒有前後滅除的說法。如果在三界中，以善心死亡時，在一切位中，數量各自增加五種。因為善心必定具有信等根。在無色界，增加到八根，乃至欲界漸次死亡時增加到九根。還應該思考，二十二根中，哪些根能夠證得沙門果？雖然沙門果不是根也能證得，但這裡辯論的是根，所以只問諸根。頌曰： 『九得邊二果，七八九中二，十一阿羅漢，依一容有說。』 論曰：邊是指預流果（Sotapanna-phala，須陀洹果）和阿羅漢果（Arhat-phala，阿羅漢果）。中是指一來果（Sakadagami-phala，斯陀含果）和不還果（Anagami-phala，阿那含果）。且說預流果，由九根獲得，即意根、舍根、信等五根，以及最初的兩個無漏根（未知當知根、已知根）。此果與向，屬於未至定所攝，所以只有舍根。為什麼說此果由已知根獲得？因為由離系得（Visamyoga-pratilabdhi，離系得）獲得，與解脫道（Vimoksa-marga，解脫道）同時生起。如果這樣，為什麼只說無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道）能夠獲得離系果？因為只有它能斷除障礙獲得離系的因素。因此說，離系得只是無間道的等流士用果。如果這樣，解脫道對於果和得有什麼功能？離系和能得由無間道產生，不是解脫道的果。有的人說，無間道是解脫道的眷屬，所以無間道所作，就稱為解脫道所作，如同臣子所作，可以稱為國王所作。西方諸師說，解脫道對於離系得...
【English Translation】 English version If, like me, after obtaining the Vipaka (異熟, result of actions) there is no arising of Vasanas (習氣, habitual tendencies), then there would be no Vasanas. Moreover, the Vipaka-Vasanas do not transform along with the Vipaka, so it is not called experiencing Vipaka, because it is not of that nature. Furthermore, the Vasanas that you adhere to are not established in reason, and will be debated in detail later. Therefore, it must be admitted that from the initial thought of the continuous arising mind to the final thought at the end of life, there exists a real Dharma (法, phenomenon) called Vipaka, which constantly and continuously operates. When it is cut off, it is called death in the Arupadhatu (無色界, formless realm). At the time of death, eight Indriyas (根, faculties) are extinguished last, namely the five sense faculties (eye, etc.), and the first three faculties (Jivitendriya (命根, life faculty), Manendriya (意根, mind faculty), and Upekhendriya (舍根, indifference faculty)). Because the birth and death faculties of those born by transformation are not lacking. If beings in the Kamadhatu (欲界, desire realm) die suddenly, nineteen or eighteen faculties are extinguished. Those with two forms (male and female) have ten faculties extinguished, namely the male and female faculties and the eight faculties mentioned earlier. Those with one form have nine faculties extinguished. Those without form have eight faculties extinguished. If death is gradual, the four faculties of Kaya (身根, body faculty), Jivita (命根, life faculty), Mana (意根, mind faculty), and Upeksa (舍根, indifference faculty) are extinguished last. These four faculties definitely do not have a sequential order of extinction. If one dies with a wholesome mind in the three realms, the number increases by five in each position. This is because a wholesome mind necessarily possesses the faculties of faith, etc. In the Arupadhatu, it increases to eight faculties, and in the Kamadhatu, it increases to nine faculties when gradually dying. It should also be considered which of the twenty-two faculties can attain the Sramana-phala (沙門果, fruits of asceticism). Although the Sramana-phala can be attained even without faculties, since this is a discussion of faculties, only the faculties are asked about. The verse says: 『Nine attain the two marginal fruits, seven, eight, and nine the two intermediate fruits, eleven the Arhat (阿羅漢, perfected being), depending on one, it may be said.』 The treatise says: 'Marginal' refers to the Sotapanna-phala (預流果, stream-enterer fruit) and the Arhat-phala (阿羅漢果, arhat fruit). 'Intermediate' refers to the Sakadagami-phala (一來果, once-returner fruit) and the Anagami-phala (不還果, non-returner fruit). Let's talk about the Sotapanna-phala, which is attained by nine faculties, namely the mind faculty, the indifference faculty, the five faculties of faith, etc., and the first two Anasrava (無漏, without outflows) faculties (Anajnatavajnasyamindriya (未知當知根, faculty of 'I will know what is to be known') and Ajnatavindriya (已知根, faculty of knowledge)). This fruit and its path belong to the Unto-be-reached concentration, so there is only the indifference faculty. Why is it said that this fruit is attained by the faculty of knowledge? Because it is attained by Visamyoga-pratilabdhi (離系得, attainment of separation), which arises simultaneously with the Vimoksa-marga (解脫道, path of liberation). If so, why is it only said that the Anantarya-marga (無間道, path of immediate succession) can attain the fruit of separation? Because only it can cut off the factors that hinder the attainment of separation. Therefore, it is said that the attainment of separation is only the result of the equal-flowing effort of the Anantarya-marga. If so, what function does the path of liberation have for the fruit and attainment? Separation and attainment are produced by the path of immediate succession, not the fruit of the path of liberation. Some say that the path of immediate succession is a relative of the path of liberation, so what the path of immediate succession does is called what the path of liberation does, just as what a minister does can be called what the king does. The Western teachers say that the path of liberation for the attainment of separation...
能作證故。此說不然。離系應是彼道果故。后當廣辯。今且略釋。雖解脫道于沙門果非同類因。而是相應俱有因故。名得彼果。亦無有失。以沙門體更互相依而得生故。展轉相望。為士用果誰復能遮。若言加行無間勝進應亦爾者。許亦無失。或已知根。亦為同類因。能得預流果。謂轉根時。如阿羅漢。就容有說。亦無有過。阿羅漢果。亦九根得。謂意信等后二無漏。樂喜舍中隨取一種。此果及向。通九地攝。故於三受隨取其一。中間二果。一一皆通七八九得。世出世道次第超越。證差別故。且一來果次第證者。依世間道。由七根得。謂意及舍信等五根。依出世道。由八根得。謂即前七根已知根第八。倍離欲貪超越證者。如預流果。由九根得。證不還果。應知亦爾。總例雖然。而有差別。全離欲貪超越證者依地別故。三受隨一。次第證者。若於第九解脫道中。入根本地。依世間道。由八根得。喜為第八。依出世道。由九根得。已知第九。若阿羅漢。亦九根得。違發智論。彼問幾根得阿羅漢。答十一故。三受定無俱時起故。但由九得。言十一根。依容有說。謂容有一補特伽羅。從無學位數數退已。由樂喜舍數復還得。非不還果有同此失。次第無容樂根得故。超越無容有退失故。復應思擇。成就何根。彼諸根中。幾定成就。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能作為證的緣故，這種說法是不對的。因為離系（Vairagya，離貪慾）應該是那些道（指沙門果）的果。之後會詳細辨析。現在先簡略解釋。雖然解脫道（指脫離煩惱的道路）對於沙門果來說不是同類因，但是因為是相應俱有因的緣故，所以說得到那些果，也沒有什麼過失。因為沙門的身體是互相依靠而產生的，輾轉相望，作為士用果（Kāraṇaphala，作用果），誰又能阻止呢？如果說加行（Prayoga，修行）無間勝進也應該是這樣，那麼允許也是沒有過失的。或者已知根（Ajñāta，未知）也可以作為同類因，能夠得到預流果（Srotaāpanna，入流果），指的是轉根的時候，就像阿羅漢（Arhat，應供）。就容許的情況來說，也沒有過失。阿羅漢果也是由九根得到的，指的是意根、信根等，后二無漏根（Anāsrava，無煩惱），在樂受、喜受、舍受中隨便取一種。這個果和向（指趨向果位的修行），都包含在九地中。所以在三種感受中隨便取一種。中間的二果（指一來果和不還果），每一個都通由七根、八根、九根得到。世間道和出世間道次第超越，證得的差別緣故。暫且說一來果（Sakṛdāgāmin，一來果）次第證得的，依靠世間道，由七根得到，指的是意根以及舍根、信根等五根。依靠出世間道，由八根得到，指的是前面的七根和已知根第八。倍離欲貪超越證得的，就像預流果，由九根得到。證得不還果（Anāgāmin，不來果），應該知道也是這樣。總的來說雖然是這樣，但是也有差別。完全脫離欲貪超越證得的，因為地的差別，在三種感受中隨便取一種。次第證得的，如果在第九解脫道中，進入根本地，依靠世間道，由八根得到，喜受作為第八。依靠出世間道，由九根得到，已知根作為第九。如果阿羅漢，也是由九根得到，這違反了《發智論》，《發智論》問由幾根得到阿羅漢，回答是十一根的緣故。因為三種感受一定不會同時生起，所以只能由九根得到。說十一根，是就容許的情況來說，指的是容許有一個補特伽羅（Pudgala，人），從無學位（Aśaikṣa，無學）數數退失之後，由樂受、喜受、舍受數數又重新得到。不還果沒有同樣的過失，因為次第沒有容許樂受得到的情況，超越沒有容許有退失的情況。還應該思考，成就什麼根？那些根中，有幾種是必定成就的？
【English Translation】 English version It can be testified, therefore this statement is not correct. 'Leaving attachment' (Vairagya) should be the result of those paths (referring to the Śrāmaṇa fruits). This will be discussed in detail later. Now, let's briefly explain. Although the path of liberation (referring to the path of detachment from afflictions) is not a homogeneous cause for the Śrāmaṇa fruits, it is a concurrent cause that is in accordance with them, so it is said to attain those fruits without any fault. Because the body of a Śrāmaṇa arises by relying on each other, looking at each other in turn, as a 'productive cause' (Kāraṇaphala), who can prevent it? If it is said that 'application' (Prayoga) without interruption and superior progress should also be the same, then allowing it is also without fault. Or the 'unknown root' (Ajñāta) can also be a homogeneous cause, capable of attaining the 'stream-enterer fruit' (Srotaāpanna), referring to the time of changing the root, like an 'Arhat' (Arhat). Speaking in terms of allowance, there is no fault. The Arhat fruit is also attained by nine roots, referring to the mind root, faith root, etc., the latter two 'untainted roots' (Anāsrava), taking any one of the pleasure, joy, or equanimity feelings. This fruit and the path (referring to the practice towards the fruit) are both included in the nine grounds. Therefore, any one of the three feelings is taken. The two intermediate fruits (referring to the once-returner and non-returner fruits) can each be attained by seven, eight, or nine roots. The worldly and supramundane paths transcend in order, due to the difference in attainment. For the 'once-returner fruit' (Sakṛdāgāmin) attained in order, relying on the worldly path, it is attained by seven roots, referring to the mind root and the equanimity root, faith root, etc., five roots. Relying on the supramundane path, it is attained by eight roots, referring to the previous seven roots and the 'known root' as the eighth. For those who transcendently attain by doubling the detachment from desire, like the stream-enterer fruit, it is attained by nine roots. It should be known that attaining the 'non-returner fruit' (Anāgāmin) is also the same. Although it is generally the same, there are differences. For those who transcendently attain by completely detaching from desire, due to the difference in grounds, any one of the three feelings is taken. For those who attain in order, if in the ninth path of liberation, entering the fundamental ground, relying on the worldly path, it is attained by eight roots, with joy as the eighth. Relying on the supramundane path, it is attained by nine roots, with the 'known root' as the ninth. If an Arhat, it is also attained by nine roots, which contradicts the Abhidharma-jñānaprasthāna-śāstra (發智論), which asks how many roots attain Arhatship, and answers eleven. Because the three feelings certainly do not arise simultaneously, it can only be attained by nine roots. Saying eleven roots is in terms of allowance, referring to allowing a 'person' (Pudgala) who, after repeatedly falling back from the 'state of no-more-learning' (Aśaikṣa), repeatedly regains it through pleasure, joy, or equanimity. The non-returner fruit does not have the same fault, because there is no allowance for the pleasure feeling to be attained in order, and there is no allowance for transcendence to have regression. It should also be considered, what roots are accomplished? Among those roots, how many are definitely accomplished?
頌曰。
成就命意舍 各定成就三 若成就樂身 各定成就四 成眼等及喜 各定成五根 若成就苦根 彼定成就七 若成女男憂 信等各成八 二無漏十一 初無漏十三
論曰。命意舍中。隨成就一。彼定成就如是三根。非此三中有闕成就。皆遍一切地及依故。信等五根。遍一切地。非一切依。餘十四根二俱非遍。故成命等。唯定成三。余或成就或不成就。云何成就眼等四根。生色界全欲界少分身根生。在欲色界全女男生。在欲界少分樂根生。在欲下三定及聖生上喜根生。在欲下二定及聖生上苦生。欲界全憂欲貪未離。信等五根若不斷善。三無漏根已得未舍。如是諸位。各定成就。除此餘位定不成就。若成樂根定成就四。謂命意舍樂。若成身根。亦定成四。謂命意捨身。余或成就。或不成就。如前應思。若成眼根。定成就五。謂命意舍。身根眼根。耳鼻舌根。應知亦五。前四如眼。第五自根。若成喜根。亦定成五。謂命意舍樂根喜根。生第二定。未離彼貪。但成第三染污樂受。若成苦根。定成就七。謂身命意四受除憂。若成女根定成就八。七如苦說。第八女根。男憂亦八。七如苦說。第八自根。信等亦八。謂命意舍信等五根。若女男俱成。彼定成十五若成具知根。定成就十一。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 頌曰：
成就命、意、舍（三種感受：命根、意根、舍受），各自必定成就三種根。 若成就樂身（樂受和身根），各自必定成就四種根。 成就眼等（眼根等四根）及喜（喜根），各自必定成就五根。 若成就苦根（苦受），彼必定成就七種根。 若成就女、男（女根、男根）、憂（憂受），信等（信根等五根）各自成就八種根。 二無漏（兩種無漏根）成就十一根，初無漏（初無漏根）成就十三根。
論曰：命、意、舍三種根中，隨成就其中一種，彼必定成就如是三種根。並非這三種根中有缺少成就的情況，因為它們遍及一切地並且是所依之故。信等五根遍及一切地，但不是一切所依。其餘十四根既非遍及一切地，也非一切所依。所以成就命等根，唯必定成就三種根，其餘或者成就或者不成就。如何成就眼等四根？在欲界完全，少分身根生時成就。在欲界完全的女根、男根生時成就。在欲界少分樂根生時成就。在欲界下三定以及聖者生時成就上界的喜根。在欲界下二定以及聖者生時成就上界的苦根。欲界完全的憂受，是由於欲貪未離。信等五根如果不斷善根，三種無漏根已得但未舍。像這樣的情況，各自必定成就。除了這些情況，必定不成就。若成就樂根，必定成就四種根，即命、意、舍、樂。若成就身根，也必定成就四種根，即命、意、舍、身。其餘或者成就，或者不成就，應該像前面那樣思考。若成就眼根，必定成就五種根，即命、意、舍、身根、眼根。耳、鼻、舌根，應該知道也是五種。前四種如眼根，第五種是其自身根。若成就喜根，也必定成就五種根，即命、意、舍、樂根、喜根。生在第二禪定，未離開彼貪慾，但成就第三禪的染污樂受。若成就苦根，必定成就七種根，即身、命、意、四受（除了憂受）。若成就女根，必定成就八種根，七種如苦根所說，第八種是女根。男根、憂受也是八種，七種如苦根所說，第八種是其自身根。信等根也是八種，即命、意、舍、信等五根。如果女根、男根都成就，那麼必定成就十五種根。如果成就具知根，必定成就十一種根，即...
【English Translation】 English version Verse:
Accomplishment of life, mind, and indifference (three feelings: life faculty, mind faculty, indifference feeling), each is definitely accomplished with three roots. If accomplishment of pleasure and body (pleasure feeling and body faculty), each is definitely accomplished with four roots. Accomplishment of eye, etc. (eye faculty and other four faculties) and joy (joy faculty), each is definitely accomplished with five roots. If accomplishment of pain (pain feeling), it is definitely accomplished with seven roots. If accomplishment of female, male (female faculty, male faculty), sorrow (sorrow feeling), faith, etc. (faith faculty and other five faculties) each is accomplished with eight roots. Two un-leaked (two un-leaked roots) accomplish eleven roots, the first un-leaked (the first un-leaked root) accomplishes thirteen roots.
Treatise: Among the roots of life, mind, and indifference, whichever one is accomplished, it is definitely accomplished with these three roots. It is not that there is a lack of accomplishment among these three roots, because they pervade all realms and are the basis. The five roots of faith, etc., pervade all realms, but are not the basis of everything. The remaining fourteen roots are neither pervasive to all realms nor the basis of everything. Therefore, the accomplishment of life, etc., is only definitely accomplished with three roots, and the rest may or may not be accomplished. How to accomplish the four roots of eye, etc.? It is accomplished when the body faculty is born in the complete desire realm, and a small part of the body faculty is born. It is accomplished when the complete female and male faculties are born in the desire realm. It is accomplished when a small part of the pleasure feeling is born in the desire realm. It is accomplished when the joy faculty of the upper realm is born in the lower three meditations of the desire realm and when a saint is born. It is accomplished when the pain faculty of the upper realm is born in the lower two meditations of the desire realm and when a saint is born. The complete sorrow feeling in the desire realm is due to the desire for lust not being separated. If the five roots of faith, etc., do not cut off the roots of goodness, the three un-leaked roots have been obtained but not abandoned. In such cases, each is definitely accomplished. Apart from these cases, it is definitely not accomplished. If the pleasure faculty is accomplished, it is definitely accomplished with four roots, namely life, mind, indifference, and pleasure. If the body faculty is accomplished, it is also definitely accomplished with four roots, namely life, mind, indifference, and body. The rest may or may not be accomplished, and should be considered as before. If the eye faculty is accomplished, it is definitely accomplished with five roots, namely life, mind, indifference, body faculty, and eye faculty. It should be known that the ear, nose, and tongue faculties are also five. The first four are like the eye faculty, and the fifth is its own faculty. If the joy faculty is accomplished, it is also definitely accomplished with five roots, namely life, mind, indifference, pleasure faculty, and joy faculty. Born in the second dhyana (meditation), not separated from that desire, but accomplished with the defiled pleasure feeling of the third dhyana. If the pain faculty is accomplished, it is definitely accomplished with seven roots, namely body, life, mind, and four feelings (excluding sorrow). If the female faculty is accomplished, it is definitely accomplished with eight roots, seven as described for pain, and the eighth is the female faculty. The male faculty and sorrow are also eight, seven as described for pain, and the eighth is its own faculty. The roots of faith, etc., are also eight, namely life, mind, indifference, and the five roots of faith, etc. If both the female and male faculties are accomplished, then fifteen roots are definitely accomplished. If the faculty of complete knowledge is accomplished, eleven roots are definitely accomplished, namely...
命與意樂喜舍根信第五根及具知根已知根亦爾。自根等十一。若成未知根。定成就十三。謂身命意苦樂喜舍信等五根及未知根。漸命終位。傳說深心厭生死故。能入見道。如是已說位定成就補特伽羅定成。當說諸極少者成就幾根。頌曰。
極少八無善 成受身命意 愚生無色界 成善命意舍
論曰。已斷善根。名為無善。彼若極少成就八根。謂五受根。及身命意。據漸捨命。唯余身根。愚謂異生。未見諦故。彼生無色。亦成八根。謂信等五。及命意舍。由定數故。及說愚故。善言不濫三無漏根。諸極多者成就幾根。頌曰。
極多成十九 二形除三凈 聖者未離欲 除二凈一形
論曰。諸二形者。具眼等根。除三無漏。成餘十九。無漏名凈。離二縛故。若聖有學。未離欲貪。成就極多。亦具十九。除二無漏。及除一形。二無漏者。謂具知根。前二隨一言一形者。無有二形及與無形。得聖法故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之二
因分別界。已廣辯根諸行俱生。今應思擇。何緣思擇諸行俱生。為遣邪宗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：命根與意樂根、喜根、舍根、信根、第五根以及具知根、已知根也是如此。從自根等十一根來說，如果成就未知根，必定成就十三根。即身根、命根、意根、苦根、樂根、喜根、舍根、信根等五根以及未知根。在漸次命終的階段，傳說因為深心厭惡生死，所以能夠進入見道。像這樣已經說了位次決定成就的補特伽羅（person, 個體）的決定成就。接下來應當說成就根最少的人成就幾根。頌文說： 『最少八根無善者，成就受根身命意；愚昧眾生生無色，成就善根命意舍。』 論述：已經斷了善根的人，稱為無善者。他們如果成就最少的根，成就八根，即五受根（苦、樂、喜、憂、舍），以及身根、命根、意根。根據漸次捨命的情況，只剩下身根。愚昧指異生（ordinary person, 凡人），因為沒有見到真諦。他們如果生到無色界，也成就八根，即信根等五根，以及命根、意根、舍根。因為有定數，以及說了是愚昧的緣故，『善』這個詞不會混淆到三個無漏根（outflow-free roots, 無煩惱根）。成就根最多的人成就幾根？頌文說： 『最多成就十九根，二形之人除三凈；聖者未離欲之人，除二凈及一形。』 論述：具有二形（both male and female sexual organs, 兩性）的人，具有眼根等根，除了三個無漏根，成就其餘十九根。無漏根稱為凈根，因為離開了兩種束縛。如果聖者有學（one still learning, 還在學習的人），沒有離開欲貪，成就最多也是十九根，除了兩個無漏根，以及除掉一個形根。兩個無漏根，指具知根。前面兩個隨便說一個，一個形根，指沒有兩形以及沒有無形的情況，因為得到了聖法的緣故。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯差別品第二之二 因為分別界，已經廣泛辨析了根和諸行俱生。現在應當思擇，因為什麼緣故思擇諸行俱生？爲了遣除邪宗。
【English Translation】 English version: The root of life, as well as the roots of intention, joy, equanimity, faith, the fifth root, the root of complete knowledge, and the root of known knowledge are also like this. From the eleven roots such as the self-root, if the root of the unknown is achieved, then thirteen roots are definitely achieved. Namely, the body root, life root, mind root, suffering root, pleasure root, joy root, equanimity root, the five roots such as the faith root, and the root of the unknown. In the stage of gradual death, it is said that because of a deep aversion to birth and death, one can enter the path of seeing. Thus, it has been said that the pudgala (person, 個體) whose position is determined to be achieved is definitely achieved. Next, it should be said how many roots are achieved by those who achieve the fewest roots. The verse says: 'The fewest are eight for those without goodness, achieving the roots of feeling, body, life, and mind; foolish beings born in the formless realm, achieve the roots of goodness, life, mind, and equanimity.' Commentary: Those who have cut off their roots of goodness are called those without goodness. If they achieve the fewest roots, they achieve eight roots, namely the five feeling roots (suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, equanimity), as well as the body root, life root, and mind root. According to the situation of gradual abandonment of life, only the body root remains. Foolish refers to ordinary beings (ordinary person, 凡人), because they have not seen the truth. If they are born in the Formless Realm, they also achieve eight roots, namely the five roots such as the faith root, as well as the life root, mind root, and equanimity root. Because there is a fixed number, and because it is said to be foolish, the word 'goodness' will not be confused with the three anāsrava roots (outflow-free roots, 無煩惱根). How many roots are achieved by those who achieve the most roots? The verse says: 'The most achieve nineteen roots, those with two forms excluding the three pure roots; holy ones who have not left desire, exclude the two pure roots and one form.' Commentary: Those who have two forms (both male and female sexual organs, 兩性) have roots such as the eye root, excluding the three anāsrava roots, achieving the remaining nineteen roots. The anāsrava roots are called pure roots because they are free from the two bonds. If a holy one who is still learning (one still learning, 還在學習的人) has not left desire, the most achieved is also nineteen roots, excluding the two anāsrava roots, and excluding one form root. The two anāsrava roots refer to the root of complete knowledge. The previous two can be said at random, and one form root refers to the situation where there are not two forms and there is no formlessness, because the holy Dharma has been obtained. Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 9 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 10 Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter Two, Section Two: Distinguishing Differences Because of distinguishing the realms, the roots and the co-arising of all phenomena have been extensively analyzed. Now it should be considered, for what reason should the co-arising of all phenomena be considered? In order to dispel heterodox views.
顯正理故。謂或有執。諸行無因自然而起。或復有執。由一因故諸行得生。或復有執。由自性等。不平等因。而生諸行。或復有執。諸行生時。唯用前生。為因故起。為遣此等種種邪宗顯生正理。故應思擇。此中諸行。略有二種。一有色。二無色。無色有三。一心。二心所。三心不相應行。有色有二。一是極微聚。二非極微聚。初極微聚復有二種。一欲界系。二色界系。初欲界系。復有二種。一無根聚。二有根聚。此中且辯極微聚色。頌曰。
欲微聚無聲 無根有八事 有身根九事 十事有餘根
論曰。有對色中。最後細分。更不可析。名曰極微。謂此極微。更不可以余色覺慧分析為多。此即說為色之極少。更無分故。立極少名。如一剎那名時極少。更不可析為半剎那。如是眾微。展轉和合。定不離者。說為微聚。此在欲界。無聲無根八事俱生。隨一不減。云何八事。謂四大種。及四所造。色香味觸。此若有聲。即成九事。而不說者。顯因大種相擊故生。非如色等恒時有故。無聲有根。諸極微聚。此俱生事。或九或十。有身根聚。九事俱生。八事如前。身為第九。有餘根聚。十事俱生。九事如身。加眼等一。眼耳鼻舌。必不離身。依身轉故。四根展轉相離而生。處各別故。此有根聚。若有聲生。加所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爲了顯明正確的道理。意思是說，有些人執著于諸行（一切事物）是無因而自然產生的；或者又有些人執著于諸行是由單一的原因而產生的；或者又有些人執著于諸行是由自性等等不平等的因產生的；或者又有些人執著于諸行產生時，僅僅以之前的生作為原因而產生。爲了遣除這些種種邪惡的宗派，顯明產生正確的道理，所以應當思考辨別。這裡所說的諸行，大致有兩種：一是有色，二是無色。無色有三種：一是心，二是心所，三是心不相應行。有色有兩種：一是極微聚，二是非極微聚。最初的極微聚又有兩種：一是欲界系，二是**界系。最初的欲界系，又有兩種：一是無根聚，二是有根聚。這裡先辨析極微聚色。頌詞說：
『欲界極微聚沒有聲音，沒有根的具有八種事物，有身根的具有九種事物，有其餘根的具有十種事物。』
論述說：有對色中，最後最細小的部分，不能再分割的，叫做極微（paramāṇu）。意思是說，這個極微，不能再用其他的色覺和智慧分析成更多。這就是所說的色的極少，因為不能再分割，所以立名為極少。就像一剎那（kṣaṇa）叫做時間極少，不能再分割成半剎那一樣。像這樣，眾多極微，輾轉和合，一定不分離的，就叫做微聚。這在欲界（kāmadhātu），沒有聲音，沒有根的極微聚，八種事物同時產生，隨便缺少一種都不行。哪八種事物呢？就是四大種（mahābhūta），以及四種所造色（upādāyarūpa）：色、香、味、觸。這如果有了聲音，就成了九種事物。但是這裡不說，是爲了表明聲音是因為大種互相撞擊而產生的，不像色等是恒常存在的。沒有聲音的有根的極微聚，這些同時產生的事物，或者九種，或者十種。有身根的極微聚，九種事物同時產生。八種事物和前面一樣，身（kāya）是第九種。有其餘根的極微聚，十種事物同時產生。九種事物和身根一樣，加上眼等一種。眼、耳、鼻、舌，一定不離開身體，依靠身體而運轉的緣故。四根輾轉相離而產生，因為處所各自不同的緣故。這種有根的極微聚，如果有聲音產生，加上所
【English Translation】 English version For manifesting the correct principle. That is to say, some are attached, holding that all phenomena (saṃskāra) arise without a cause and naturally; or again, some are attached, holding that phenomena arise from a single cause; or again, some are attached, holding that phenomena arise from unequal causes such as self-nature (prakṛti); or again, some are attached, holding that when phenomena arise, they arise only using the previous birth as the cause. In order to dispel these various evil sects and manifest the correct principle of arising, one should contemplate and discern. Among the phenomena mentioned here, there are roughly two kinds: one is form (rūpa), and the other is non-form (arūpa). Non-form has three kinds: one is mind (citta), the second is mental factors (caitasika), and the third is mind-non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra). Form has two kinds: one is aggregates of ultimate particles (paramāṇu-puñja), and the other is non-aggregates of ultimate particles. The initial aggregates of ultimate particles again have two kinds: one is related to the desire realm (kāmadhātu), and the other is related to the ** realm. The initial aggregates related to the desire realm again have two kinds: one is rootless aggregates, and the other is aggregates with roots. Here, let us first discuss the form of aggregates of ultimate particles. The verse says:
'Aggregates of desire realm particles are without sound; rootless ones have eight things; those with body-sense have nine things; those with other senses have ten things.'
The treatise says: Among forms that have resistance (sa-pratigha), the final, finest division, which cannot be further analyzed, is called an ultimate particle (paramāṇu). That is to say, this ultimate particle cannot be further analyzed into more by other form-perceptions and wisdom. This is what is said to be the ultimate minimum of form, because it cannot be further divided, hence the name 'ultimate minimum'. Just as a moment (kṣaṇa) is called the ultimate minimum of time, which cannot be further divided into half a moment. In this way, numerous particles, revolving and combining, are definitely inseparable, and are called aggregates of particles. These in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), without sound, rootless aggregates of particles, eight things arise simultaneously, and none can be missing. What are the eight things? They are the four great elements (mahābhūta), and the four derived forms (upādāyarūpa): color, smell, taste, and touch. If these had sound, they would become nine things. But it is not mentioned here to show that sound is produced because the great elements collide with each other, unlike color etc., which are constantly present. Rooted aggregates of particles without sound, these simultaneously arising things, are either nine or ten. Aggregates with body-sense (kāya), nine things arise simultaneously. The eight things are the same as before, and body (kāya) is the ninth. Aggregates with other senses, ten things arise simultaneously. The nine things are the same as the body-sense, plus one of the eye etc. The eye, ear, nose, tongue, must not be separated from the body, because they rely on the body to function. The four senses arise revolving and separated from each other, because their locations are different. If this rooted aggregate has sound arising, plus the
生聲。成十十一。此有執受大種為因。故與諸根不相離起。不說所以。如前應知。色界唯除香味二事。余同欲界。故不別說。若謂事言依體依處。太少太多。成過失者。所依能依。依體依處。差別說故。無有過失。謂所依事。依體而說。若能依事。依處而說。或唯依體。亦無有失。由此中說定俱生故。形色等體。非決定有。光明等中。則無有故。或唯依處。然為遮遣多誹謗故。別說大種。多誹謗者謂或謗言。大種造色。無別有性。或復謗言。無別觸處所造色體。或復謗言。非一切聚皆具一切。或復謗言。數不決定。別說大種。此謗皆除。若言大種各各別生造色果故。應成多者。其理不然約類說故。已說有色決定俱生。無色俱生今次當說。頌曰。
心心所必俱 諸行相或得
論曰。心與心所必定俱生。隨𨵗一時余曾不起。諸行即是一切有為。所謂有色無色諸行。前必俱言應流至此。謂有色等諸行生時。必與生等四相俱起。言或得者。謂諸行內。唯有情法。與得俱生。或言顯此不遍諸行。於前所說四有為中。廣辯色心如前品說。心所等法猶未廣辯。今先廣辯諸心所法。頌曰。
心所且有五 大地法等異
論曰。諸心所法。且有五品。大地法等。有別異故。此復云何。一大地法。二大善地法。三大
【現代漢語翻譯】 生聲（聲音）。成十十一（成就十一種）。此有執受大種（地、水、火、風四大元素，被執持受用）為因。故與諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根）不相離起。不說所以。如前應知。唯除香味二事。余同欲界（佛教宇宙觀中的欲界）。故不別說。若謂事言依體依處。太少太多。成過失者。所依能依。依體依處。差別說故。無有過失。謂所依事。依體而說。若能依事。依處而說。或唯依體。亦無有失。由此中說定俱生故。形色等體。非決定有。光明等中。則無有故。或唯依處。然為遮遣多誹謗故。別說大種。多誹謗者謂或謗言。大種造色。無別有性。或復謗言。無別觸處所造色體。或復謗言。非一切聚皆具一切。或復謗言。數不決定。別說大種。此謗皆除。若言大種各各別生造色果故。應成多者。其理不然約類說故。已說有色決定俱生。無色俱生今次當說。頌曰： 心心所必俱 諸行相或得 論曰。心與心所必定俱生。隨闕一時余曾不起。諸行即是一切有為。所謂有色無色諸行。前必俱言應流至此。謂有色等諸行生時。必與生等四相俱起。言或得者。謂諸行內。唯有情法。與得俱生。或言顯此不遍諸行。於前所說四有為中。廣辯色心如前品說。心所等法猶未廣辯。今先廣辯諸心所法。頌曰： 心所且有五 大地法等異 論曰。諸心所法。且有五品。大地法等。有別異故。此復云何。一大地法。二大善地法。三大
【English Translation】 English version: Sound arises. Accomplishes eleven. This arises because of the 'Mahabhutas' (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) that are apprehended. Therefore, it arises inseparably with the 'Indriyas' (the six sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). The reason is not stated; it should be understood as before. Only the two matters of smell and taste are excluded; the rest are the same as the 'Kamadhatu' (the desire realm) . Therefore, they are not separately discussed. If it is said that the statement of things depends on substance and location, and that there is too little or too much, resulting in error, there is no error because the dependent and the independent are spoken of differently according to substance and location. That is to say, the dependent things are spoken of according to substance, and the independent things are spoken of according to location. Or there is no error if they are spoken of only according to substance, because it is said here that they definitely arise together. Therefore, the substance of form and color is not definite, because it is not present in light and so on. Or it is only according to location. However, in order to dispel many slanders, the 'Mahabhutas' are separately discussed. The many slanders are that some slander that the 'Mahabhutas' create form and color without having a separate nature, or that there is no separate body of form and color created by the touchable. Or some slander that not all aggregates possess everything, or some slander that the number is not definite. Separately discussing the 'Mahabhutas' dispels all these slanders. If it is said that the 'Mahabhutas' each separately produce the result of created form and color, and therefore there should be many, the reason is not so because it is spoken of according to category. It has already been said that form and color definitely arise together. Now, the arising together of the formless will be discussed next. The verse says: 'Mind and mental factors necessarily arise together; the characteristics of all phenomena may or may not be obtained.' The treatise says: Mind and mental factors necessarily arise together. If one is missing at any time, the others never arise. All phenomena are all conditioned things, that is, phenomena with form and without form. The previous statement 'necessarily together' should flow to this, meaning that when phenomena such as those with form arise, they necessarily arise together with the four characteristics of arising and so on. The words 'may or may not be obtained' mean that among all phenomena, only sentient beings arise together with 'attainment'. The word 'or' shows that this does not pervade all phenomena. Among the four conditioned things mentioned earlier, form and mind have been extensively discussed in the previous chapter. Mental factors and other phenomena have not yet been extensively discussed. Now, the mental factors will be extensively discussed first. The verse says: 'Mental factors are roughly five: the great ground dharmas and so on are different.' The treatise says: Mental factors are roughly five categories: the great ground dharmas and so on are different. What are these? First, the 'Mahabhumika Dharmas' (the universal mental factors). Second, the 'Kushala-mahabhumika Dharmas' (the wholesome universal mental factors). Third, the great
煩惱地法。四大不善地法。五小煩惱地法。地謂容止處。或謂所行處。若此是彼容止所行。即說此為彼法之地。地即是心。大法地故。名為大地。此中若法。大地所有名大地法。謂法遍與一切品類一切心俱。生由此故。心非大地法。非心俱生故。彼法是何。頌曰。
受想思觸欲 慧念與作意 勝解三摩地 遍於一切心
論曰。于所依身。能益能損。或俱相違。領愛非愛俱相違觸。說名為受。安立執取男女等境差別相因。說名為想。令心造作善不善無記成妙劣中性說名為思。由有思故。令心於境有動作用。猶如磁石勢力能令鐵有動用。由根境識和合而生。能為受因。有所觸對。說名為觸。希求取境。說名為欲。簡擇所緣邪正等相。說名為慧。于境明記不忘失因。說名爲念。引心心所。令于所緣有所警覺。說名作意。此即世間說為留意。于境印可。說名勝解。有餘師言。勝謂增勝。解謂解脫。此能令心。于境無礙自在而轉。如勝戒等。令心無亂。取所緣境。不流散因。名三摩地。彼上座言。無如所計十大地法。此但三種。經說俱起受想思故。豈不彼經亦說有觸。如彼經言。三和合觸。經雖言有觸。不說有別體。故彼經言。如是三法聚集和合。說名為觸。故無如所計十大地法性。此言非理。由彼經言。義準
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 煩惱地法（Klesha-bhūmika dharmas）：指與煩惱相關的法。四大不善地法（Akushala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas）：指四種主要的不善法。五小煩惱地法（Parittaklesha-bhūmika dharmas）：指五種較小的煩惱法。地（Bhūmi）的意思是容止處，或者說是所行處。如果某事物是另一事物的容止處或所行處，那麼就說這個事物是那個法的『地』。『地』也就是心，因為它是大法的『地』，所以被稱為『大地』（Mahā-bhūmi）。這裡面，如果某個法是『大地』所有的，就叫做『大地法』（Mahā-bhūmika dharmas），意思是這些法普遍地與一切品類、一切心同時生起。因為這個原因，心不是『大地法』，因為它不是與心同時生起的。那麼這些法是什麼呢？頌文說： 『受（Vedanā），想（Samjñā），思（Cetanā），觸（Sparśa），欲（Chanda），慧（Prajñā），念（Smṛti）與作意（Manaskāra），勝解（Adhimoksha），三摩地（Samādhi），遍於一切心。』 論曰：對於所依之身，能夠利益，能夠損害，或者既非利益也非損害，領納可愛、不可愛以及非可愛非不可愛之觸，這叫做『受』。安立和執取男女等境界的差別相，這叫做『想』。令心造作善、不善、無記，成就妙、劣、中性，這叫做『思』。因為有『思』，所以令心對於境界有動作用，就像磁石的勢力能夠令鐵有動用一樣。由根、境、識和合而生，能夠作為『受』的原因，有所觸對，這叫做『觸』。希求和取境，這叫做『欲』。簡擇所緣的邪正等相，這叫做『慧』。對於境界明記不忘失的原因，這叫做『念』。引導心和心所，令其對於所緣有所警覺，這叫做『作意』。世間就稱這個為『留意』。對於境界印可，這叫做『勝解』。有其他論師說，『勝』是增勝，『解』是解脫。這個能夠令心對於境界無礙自在地運轉，就像殊勝的戒等。令心沒有散亂，取所緣境，不流散的原因，叫做『三摩地』。彼上座說，沒有像你們所計的十大地法，只有這三種，因為經中說『俱起受想思』。難道經中沒有說有『觸』嗎？就像經中所說：『三和合觸』。經中雖然說有『觸』，但沒有說有別的體性。所以經中說，『如是三法聚集和合，說名為觸』。所以沒有像你們所計的十大地法的體性。這種說法是不合理的，因為經中說，義準。
【English Translation】 English version Klesha-bhūmika dharmas (Defilement-ground dharmas): refers to the dharmas related to defilements. Akushala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas (Unwholesome great-ground dharmas): refers to the four major unwholesome dharmas. Parittaklesha-bhūmika dharmas (Minor defilement-ground dharmas): refers to the five minor defilement dharmas. Bhūmi (Ground) means the place of abiding, or the place of activity. If something is the place of abiding or the place of activity of another thing, then it is said that this thing is the 'ground' of that dharma. 'Ground' is also the mind, because it is the 'ground' of great dharmas, so it is called 'Great-ground' (Mahā-bhūmi). Here, if a dharma is possessed by the 'Great-ground', it is called 'Great-ground dharma' (Mahā-bhūmika dharmas), meaning that these dharmas universally arise simultaneously with all categories and all minds. For this reason, the mind is not a 'Great-ground dharma', because it does not arise simultaneously with the mind. So what are these dharmas? The verse says: 'Feeling (Vedanā), perception (Samjñā), volition (Cetanā), contact (Sparśa), desire (Chanda), wisdom (Prajñā), mindfulness (Smṛti) and attention (Manaskāra), conviction (Adhimoksha), concentration (Samādhi), pervade all minds.' The treatise says: Regarding the dependent body, being able to benefit, being able to harm, or being neither beneficial nor harmful, experiencing pleasant, unpleasant, and neither pleasant nor unpleasant contact, this is called 'feeling'. Establishing and grasping the differences in characteristics of objects such as male and female, this is called 'perception'. Causing the mind to create good, unwholesome, and neutral actions, accomplishing excellent, inferior, and middling qualities, this is called 'volition'. Because there is 'volition', it causes the mind to have movement towards objects, just as the power of a magnet can cause iron to have movement. Arising from the combination of root, object, and consciousness, being able to be the cause of 'feeling', having contact, this is called 'contact'. Desiring and grasping objects, this is called 'desire'. Discriminating the correct and incorrect aspects of what is cognized, this is called 'wisdom'. The cause of clearly remembering and not forgetting objects, this is called 'mindfulness'. Guiding the mind and mental factors, causing them to be alert to what is cognized, this is called 'attention'. The world calls this 'paying attention'. Approving of objects, this is called 'conviction'. Some other teachers say that 'adhi' means superior, and 'moksha' means liberation. This can cause the mind to operate freely and unhindered towards objects, like superior precepts and so on. Causing the mind to be without distraction, grasping the object of cognition, the cause of not being scattered, is called 'concentration'. The elder says that there are not ten great-ground dharmas as you have counted, there are only these three, because the sutra says 'feeling, perception, and volition arise together'. Does the sutra not also say that there is 'contact'? Just as the sutra says: 'Three combined contact'. Although the sutra says that there is 'contact', it does not say that there is a separate entity. Therefore, the sutra says, 'These three dharmas gather and combine, and are called contact'. Therefore, there are not ten great-ground dharmas as you have counted. This statement is unreasonable, because the sutra says, by implication.
有觸。理得成故。佛于彼經。非說觸相。但說生觸和合眾緣謂彼經中說名觸者。觸緣名觸。非實觸相。和合所生。乃名實觸云何知彼不說觸相。但說觸緣。余契經中。別說眼等為觸緣故。謂有經言。六處緣觸。伽他中說。二為觸緣。故知三和。觸緣非觸。不應謂彼更互為緣。三皆觸緣亦即觸相。以眼與色是眼識緣。眼識不為眼色緣故。設許三法更互為緣。觸是有緣。非即緣故。應離眼等三和合緣別有所生真實觸相。于能生觸三種近緣。假說觸名。非實觸相。眼色與觸。能為緣者。謂作所依所緣性故。眼識與觸。能為緣者。謂作一果不離依故。是故於彼假說觸名。然彼所言。眼等相望互為因果。和合名觸。此亦非理。義不成故。非彼宗中不許俱起。互為因果義可得成。有非有故。相續異故。非一果故。設許三法互為因果。彼不應說與觸為緣。以彼宗中觸無實故。現見說有與有為緣。如受與愛眼色與識。然說眼等與觸為緣。緣既實有。果亦應爾。由是證知。別有實觸。既許三法互為因果名為和合。彼亦應許從三和合別有觸生。由此故言。六處緣觸。伽他亦說。二為觸緣。若異此者。既無實法。可名和合。即此三中。假施設故。又彼三法。非互為緣。無和合義。如何可立彼為觸緣。若謂如說瓶衣等物色等為緣。然離色等。無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『觸』（Sparsha，感官接觸）。因為『理』（分析、推理）能夠成立，所以佛陀在那部經中，並沒有說『觸』的自性（Svalakshana，獨特的、不可分割的性質），只是說了產生『觸』的因緣和合。也就是說，在那部經中被稱為『觸』的，是『觸緣』（Sparshahetu，產生觸的條件）被稱為『觸』，而不是真實的『觸』的自性。因緣和合所生的，才被稱為真實的『觸』。 如何知道那部經沒有說『觸』的自性，而只是說了『觸緣』呢？因為在其他的契經（Sutra，佛經）中，分別說了眼等是『觸緣』。例如，有的經中說：『六處緣觸』（Shadayatana-pratyaya sparsha，六處是觸的緣起條件）。伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）中說：『二為觸緣』。因此，可知三和合是『觸緣』，而不是『觸』的自性。不應該說它們相互為緣，三者既是『觸緣』，也是『觸』的自性。因為眼和色是眼識的緣，而眼識不是眼和色的緣。 假設允許三法相互為緣，『觸』是有緣，但不是緣本身。因此，應該在眼等三和合的緣之外，另外存在所生的真實『觸』的自性。對於能夠產生『觸』的三種近緣，假名為『觸』，而不是真實的『觸』的自性。眼、色與『觸』，能夠作為緣的原因是：它們作為所依（Ashraya，基礎）和所緣（Alambana，對像）。眼識與『觸』，能夠作為緣的原因是：它們作為同一個結果，不離所依。 因此，對於它們假名為『觸』。然而，他們所說的，眼等相互觀望，互為因果，和合名為『觸』，這也是不合理的，因為義理上不能成立。因為在他們的宗義中，不允許同時生起，互為因果的義理可以成立。因為有非有，相續不同，不是同一個結果。 假設允許三法互為因果，他們不應該說與『觸』為緣。因為在他們的宗義中，『觸』沒有實體。現在看到的是說有與有為緣，例如受與愛，眼色與識。然而，說眼等與『觸』為緣，緣既然是真實的，果也應該是真實的。由此可以證明，另外存在真實的『觸』。 既然允許三法互為因果，名為和合，他們也應該允許從三和合中，另外有『觸』產生。因此才說，『六處緣觸』。伽陀也說：『二為觸緣』。如果不是這樣，既然沒有實法可以稱為和合，就在這三者中，假立施設。而且，這三法不是相互為緣，沒有和合的意義，如何可以建立它們是『觸緣』呢？如果說，就像瓶、衣服等物的色等是緣一樣，然而離開色等，沒有瓶、衣服等物。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 『Sparsha』 (contact). Because 『reasoning』 (analysis, inference) can be established, the Buddha, in that Sutra, did not speak of the 『Svalakshana』 (own-nature, unique and indivisible characteristic) of 『Sparsha』 (contact), but only spoke of the causes and conditions that produce 『Sparsha』. That is to say, what is called 『Sparsha』 in that Sutra is 『Sparshahetu』 (the condition for the arising of contact) is called 『Sparsha』, not the true 『Svalakshana』 of 『Sparsha』. What arises from the combination of causes and conditions is called true 『Sparsha』. How do we know that that Sutra did not speak of the 『Svalakshana』 of 『Sparsha』, but only spoke of 『Sparshahetu』? Because in other Sutras, it is separately stated that the eye, etc., are 『Sparshahetu』. For example, some Sutras say: 『Shadayatana-pratyaya sparsha』 (the six sense bases are the condition for contact). The Gatha (verse) says: 『Two are the conditions for contact』. Therefore, it can be known that the three-fold combination is 『Sparshahetu』, not the 『Svalakshana』 of 『Sparsha』. It should not be said that they are mutually conditioned, and that the three are both 『Sparshahetu』 and the 『Svalakshana』 of 『Sparsha』. Because the eye and form are the condition for eye-consciousness, but eye-consciousness is not the condition for the eye and form. Assuming that the three dharmas are allowed to be mutually conditioned, 『Sparsha』 is conditioned, but not the condition itself. Therefore, there should be a real 『Svalakshana』 of 『Sparsha』 that arises separately from the combination of the three, the eye, etc. The three proximate conditions that can produce 『Sparsha』 are nominally called 『Sparsha』, but not the real 『Svalakshana』 of 『Sparsha』. The eye, form, and 『Sparsha』 can be the condition because they serve as the 『Ashraya』 (basis) and 『Alambana』 (object). Eye-consciousness and 『Sparsha』 can be the condition because they serve as the same result, inseparable from the basis. Therefore, they are nominally called 『Sparsha』. However, what they say, that the eye, etc., look at each other, are mutually cause and effect, and the combination is called 『Sparsha』, is also unreasonable, because it cannot be established in terms of meaning. Because in their doctrine, it is not allowed to arise simultaneously, and the meaning of mutual cause and effect can be established. Because there is non-existence, the continuities are different, and it is not the same result. Assuming that the three dharmas are allowed to be mutually cause and effect, they should not say that they are conditioned by 『Sparsha』. Because in their doctrine, 『Sparsha』 has no substance. What is seen now is that existence is said to be conditioned by existence, such as feeling and craving, eye and form and consciousness. However, saying that the eye, etc., are conditioned by 『Sparsha』, since the condition is real, the result should also be real. From this, it can be proved that there is a real 『Sparsha』. Since it is allowed that the three dharmas are mutually cause and effect, and are called combination, they should also allow that 『Sparsha』 arises separately from the three-fold combination. Therefore, it is said, 『Shadayatana-pratyaya sparsha』. The Gatha also says: 『Two are the conditions for contact』. If it is not like this, since there is no real dharma that can be called combination, it is falsely established among these three. Moreover, these three dharmas are not mutually conditioned, and there is no meaning of combination, how can it be established that they are 『Sparshahetu』? If it is said that, just as the colors, etc., of objects such as bottles and clothes are conditions, however, without colors, etc., there are no bottles, clothes, etc.
瓶等物。此亦應爾。若爾受等。應無別物。如說受等。眼色為緣受等亦應。非離眼等若言觸相。非顯了故。謂如受等別相顯了。觸無如是別相可取。但由思構知有此法。故離三和。無別觸體。此亦不然。觸體實有。以有用故。如眼等根。謂眼等根。雖非現見。能取境故。知有自體。又如思等。雖非現見。但由思構。知有此法。謂有能成意業等用。由此用故。知有自體。若心所法現可見者。應無有執彼即是心觸亦應然。雖非現見。以有用故。知有自體。又曾未見諸聖教中於無體法說有別用。唯于有體。說有用言。既于觸中。說為有用。故知彼觸。別有自體。若言眼等六處差別即能生受。無別觸用。謂即內處與外境俱。能發生識互為因果。和合名觸。此即生受。故於此中。無別觸用。此言非理。先已說故。又經重言應無用故。又愛等應有即受等過故。謂先已說。非彼宗中不許俱起互為因果。義可成等。又經重言。三和合觸。應成無用。謂經先說眼色為緣生於眼識。由此眼等體及因果。其義已成。復說俱起受想思故。即分明證。眼等因果和合生彼。是則重言三和合觸。定應無用。由先所言眼等因果義已成故。豈不若說眼等因果和合而生別體觸者。三和合言。亦成無用。經但應說眼色為緣生於眼識。次說俱起受想思言。由此眼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 像瓶子之類的東西也是如此。如果這樣說，那麼受等（vedanāskandha，感受蘊）就應該沒有其他的體性。正如所說，以眼和色為緣而生受等，也應該一樣。如果說受等不能離開眼等和合而生，是因為觸（sparśa，觸）的相狀不明顯。這是因為受等有各自明顯的相狀，可以被認知，而觸沒有這樣可以被把握的明顯相狀，只能通過思慮構想才能知道有這種法存在。所以，離開了三和合（tisso sannipātā，根、境、識三者的聚合），就沒有單獨的觸的自體。這種說法是不對的，觸的自體是真實存在的，因為它有作用，就像眼等根（indriya，感覺器官）一樣。眼等根雖然不能直接被看見，但因為它們能夠獲取境界，所以我們知道它們有自體。又比如思等（cetanā，思），雖然不能直接被看見，但通過思慮構想，我們知道有這種法存在，因為它有成就意業等的作用。因為這些作用，我們知道它有自體。如果心所法（caittadharma，與心相應的心理現象）是可以直接看見的，那麼就不會有人執著於心本身了。觸也應該如此，雖然不能直接被看見，但因為它有作用，所以我們知道它有自體。而且，我們從未在聖教中看到對沒有自體的法說有作用，只有對有自體的法才說有作用。既然在觸中，經中說它有作用，所以我們知道觸有單獨的自體。 如果說眼等六處（saḷāyatana，六種感覺器官）的差別就能產生受，而不需要單獨的觸的作用，也就是說，內在的六處與外在的境界共同發生識，互相為因果，這種和合就叫做觸，而這就能產生受，所以這裡不需要單獨的觸的作用。這種說法是不合理的，因為之前已經說過了。而且，經文重複也會變得沒有意義。而且，愛等（taṇhā，渴愛）應該有和受等相同的過失。這是因為之前已經說過，在他們的宗派中，並不允許同時生起，互相為因果，意義就可以成立等等。而且，經文重複說『三和合觸』，應該變得沒有作用。這是因為經文之前已經說過，以眼和色為緣而生眼識，由此眼等自體以及因果關係，其意義已經成立。又說同時生起受想思，這就清楚地證明了眼等因果和合而生彼等。那麼重複說『三和合觸』，肯定應該沒有作用，因為之前所說的眼等因果的意義已經成立。難道如果說眼等因果和合而生起一個單獨的觸的自體，『三和合』這句話也會變得沒有作用嗎？經文應該只說以眼和色為緣而生眼識，然後說同時生起受想思，由此眼。
【English Translation】 English version: The same should apply to things like bottles. If that were the case, then vedanāskandha (aggregate of feeling) should have no separate entity. As it is said, with eye and color as conditions, vedanā etc. should also arise. If it is said that vedanā etc. cannot arise apart from the aggregation of eye etc., it is because the characteristic of sparśa (contact) is not obvious. This is because vedanā etc. have their own distinct characteristics that can be recognized, while sparśa does not have such a distinct characteristic that can be grasped; it can only be known through thought and conception that this dharma exists. Therefore, apart from the tisso sannipātā (the coming together of the three: sense organ, object, and consciousness), there is no separate entity of sparśa. This statement is incorrect; the entity of sparśa is real because it has a function, just like the indriya (sense faculties) such as the eye. Although the sense faculties such as the eye are not directly visible, we know they have their own entity because they can grasp objects. Similarly, cetanā (volition) etc., although not directly visible, we know that this dharma exists through thought and conception, because it has the function of accomplishing mental actions etc. Because of these functions, we know it has its own entity. If caittadharma (mental factors) were directly visible, then no one would cling to the mind itself. The same should apply to sparśa; although not directly visible, we know it has its own entity because it has a function. Moreover, we have never seen in the sacred teachings that a dharma without an entity is said to have a function; only a dharma with an entity is said to have a function. Since it is said in the sūtras that sparśa has a function, we know that sparśa has a separate entity. If it is said that the difference in the saḷāyatana (six sense bases) such as the eye can produce vedanā without the need for a separate function of sparśa, that is, the internal six sense bases and the external objects together give rise to consciousness, mutually acting as cause and effect, and this aggregation is called sparśa, and this can produce vedanā, so there is no need for a separate function of sparśa here. This statement is unreasonable because it has already been said before. Moreover, the repetition of the sūtra would become meaningless. Furthermore, taṇhā (craving) etc. should have the same faults as vedanā etc. This is because it has already been said that in their school, it is not allowed to arise simultaneously, mutually acting as cause and effect, and the meaning can be established, etc. Moreover, the sūtra's repetition of 'threefold contact' should become useless. This is because the sūtra has already said that with eye and color as conditions, eye-consciousness arises, and the meaning of the entity and cause and effect of the eye etc. has already been established. And it is said that vedanā, saṃjñā (perception), and cetanā arise simultaneously, which clearly proves that the cause and effect of the eye etc. arise together. Then the repetition of 'threefold contact' must be useless, because the meaning of the cause and effect of the eye etc. mentioned earlier has already been established. Would it not be the case that if it is said that the cause and effect of the eye etc. arise together and produce a separate entity of sparśa, the phrase 'threefold contact' would also become useless? The sūtra should only say that with eye and color as conditions, eye-consciousness arises, and then say that vedanā, saṃjñā, and cetanā arise simultaneously, thereby eye.
等。因果相仍義已成故。不爾此言更有餘義。我等不說三和合言。為成眼等為因果義。若爾此言為成何義。此專為成別有觸義。謂眼色識三俱起時。眼不待二。色亦如是。識生必托所依所緣。故眼識生。要待餘二。諸心所法生時。亦待所依所緣。然彼所依。復有二種。一是和合所依謂識。二是相離所依謂眼。或識是彼親密所依眼根是彼系屬所依。所緣即是彼所取境。故彼生時。必待三法。眼及色為緣生於眼識者。謂眼與色和合為緣生於眼識。即是俱時。不增不減。共為緣義。次後經復言三和合觸者。謂眼色識和合為緣。生於眼觸。亦是俱時。不增不減。共為緣義。若謂和合言是共為緣義。則應觸體三法合成。豈更有餘實體觸者。此亦非理。眼色識三。無有展轉為緣義故。然說一切共為緣故。由斯觸體別有義成。若爾應言三和合故觸。不爾為遮疑。后時生故。說第五聲。便疑後起。應如經說。曼馱多王。噁心起故。俱時墮落。若爾何緣契經但說六處緣觸。受等亦用彼為緣故。不爾何緣契經但說觸為緣受。受亦為緣生於觸故。此既如是。彼亦應然辯緣起中。當爲汝釋。如是且隨對法正理。釋經中句。是有用言。非如上座隨情解釋三和合言于義無用。又若緣觸和合生於受。遂謂觸即六處之差別。如是緣愛和合生於取。應謂愛
{ "translations": [ "等。因果相續的道理已經成立。否則，這句話還有其他含義。我們不說『三和合』是爲了成就眼等（感官）的因果關係。如果這樣，這句話是爲了成就什麼意義呢？這句話專門爲了成就別有『觸』（感覺）的意義。意思是說，當眼、色（物體）、識（意識）三者同時生起時，眼不依賴於另外兩者。色也是如此。而識的產生必定依託于所依（根）和所緣（境），所以眼識的產生，一定要依賴於另外兩者。諸心所法（心理作用）生起時，也依賴於所依和所緣。然而，這些所依，又有兩種。一是和合所依，指識；二是相離所依，指眼。或者說，識是它們親密的所依，眼根是它們系屬的所依。所緣就是它們所取之境。所以它們生起時，必定依賴於三種法。『眼及色為緣生於眼識』，意思是說，眼與色和合為緣，產生眼識，這是同時發生，不增不減，共同作為緣的意義。接下來經文中又說『三和合觸』，意思是說，眼、色、識和合為緣，產生眼觸（感覺），也是同時發生，不增不減，共同作為緣的意義。如果說『和合』的意思是共同作為緣，那麼觸的本體應該是三種法合成的，難道還有另外一個實體的觸嗎？這也是不合理的。眼、色、識三者，沒有互相作為緣的意義。然而，說一切共同作為緣的緣故，由此觸的本體是別有的意義就成立了。如果這樣，應該說『三和合故觸』。不是的，爲了遮止懷疑，認為觸是後來才產生的，所以用了第五格（『故』）。便會懷疑是後來才產生的，應該像經文所說，曼馱多王，因為噁心生起，同時墮落。如果這樣，為什麼契經只說六處緣觸，受等（感受等）也用六處作為緣的緣故？不是的，為什麼契經只說觸為緣生受，受也作為緣產生觸的緣故？既然這樣，那樣也應該如此。在辨別緣起中，我會為你解釋。像這樣，暫且隨順《對法》的正理，解釋經文中的語句，是有用的言語。不像上座部那樣隨自己的想法解釋，認為『三和合』這句話在意義上沒有用處。又如果因為緣觸和合產生受，就認為觸是六處的差別。像這樣，因為緣愛和合產生取，就應該認為愛", "現代漢語譯本：等。因果相續的道理已經成立。否則，這句話還有其他含義。我們不說『三和合』是爲了成就眼等（感官）的因果關係。如果這樣，這句話是爲了成就什麼意義呢？這句話專門爲了成就別有『觸』（感覺）的意義。意思是說，當眼、色（物體）、識（意識）三者同時生起時，眼不依賴於另外兩者。色也是如此。而識的產生必定依託于所依（根）和所緣（境），所以眼識的產生，一定要依賴於另外兩者。諸心所法（心理作用）生起時，也依賴於所依和所緣。然而，這些所依，又有兩種。一是和合所依，指識；二是相離所依，指眼。或者說，識是它們親密的所依，眼根是它們系屬的所依。所緣就是它們所取之境。所以它們生起時，必定依賴於三種法。『眼及色為緣生於眼識』，意思是說，眼與色和合為緣，產生眼識，這是同時發生，不增不減，共同作為緣的意義。接下來經文中又說『三和合觸』，意思是說，眼、色、識和合為緣，產生眼觸（感覺），也是同時發生，不增不減，共同作為緣的意義。如果說『和合』的意思是共同作為緣，那麼觸的本體應該是三種法合成的，難道還有另外一個實體的觸嗎？這也是不合理的。眼、色、識三者，沒有互相作為緣的意義。然而，說一切共同作為緣的緣故，由此觸的本體是別有的意義就成立了。如果這樣，應該說『三和合故觸』。不是的，爲了遮止懷疑，認為觸是後來才產生的，所以用了第五格（『故』）。便會懷疑是後來才產生的，應該像經文所說，曼馱多王，因為噁心生起，同時墮落。如果這樣，為什麼契經只說六處緣觸，受等（感受等）也用六處作為緣的緣故？不是的，為什麼契經只說觸為緣生受，受也作為緣產生觸的緣故？既然這樣，那樣也應該如此。在辨別緣起中，我會為你解釋。像這樣，暫且隨順《對法》的正理，解釋經文中的語句，是有用的言語。不像上座部那樣隨自己的想法解釋，認為『三和合』這句話在意義上沒有用處。又如果因為緣觸和合產生受，就認為觸是六處的差別。像這樣，因為緣愛和合產生取，就應該認為愛" ], "english_translations": [ 'Etc. The principle of the continuation of cause and effect has already been established. Otherwise, this statement would have other meanings. We do not say \'three harmonies\' to accomplish the cause-and-effect relationship of eye, etc. (sense organs). If so, what meaning does this statement accomplish? This statement is specifically to accomplish the meaning of a separate \'touch\' (sensation). It means that when the eye, color (object), and consciousness (awareness) arise simultaneously, the eye does not depend on the other two. Color is also the same. However, the arising of consciousness must rely on the support (root) and the object (environment), so the arising of eye-consciousness must depend on the other two. When mental functions (psychological actions) arise, they also depend on the support and the object. However, these supports are of two kinds. One is the combined support, referring to consciousness; the other is the separate support, referring to the eye. Or, consciousness is their close support, and the eye-root is their affiliated support. The object is what they take. Therefore, when they arise, they must depend on three dharmas. \'The eye and color are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness,\' which means that the eye and color combine as conditions to produce eye-consciousness. This happens simultaneously, without increase or decrease, and together as the meaning of condition. Next, the sutra says \'three harmonies touch,\' which means that the eye, color, and consciousness combine as conditions to produce eye-touch (sensation). This also happens simultaneously, without increase or decrease, and together as the meaning of condition. If it is said that \'harmony\' means acting together as a condition, then the substance of touch should be a combination of three dharmas. Is there another substantial touch? This is also unreasonable. The eye, color, and consciousness do not have the meaning of being conditions for each other. However, because it is said that everything acts together as a condition, the meaning that the substance of touch is separate is established. If so, it should be said \'three harmonies, therefore touch.\' No, in order to prevent suspicion that touch arises later, the fifth case (\'therefore\') is used. It would be suspected that it arises later, as the sutra says, King Mandhata fell at the same time because of the arising of evil thoughts. If so, why does the sutra only say that the six senses are the condition for touch, and feelings, etc. (sensations, etc.) also use the six senses as conditions? No, why does the sutra only say that touch is the condition for the arising of feeling, and feeling is also the condition for the arising of touch? Since this is the case, that should also be the case. I will explain it to you in the discrimination of dependent origination. In this way, for the time being, following the correct reasoning of the Abhidharma, explaining the sentences in the sutra is useful speech. It is not like the elders explaining according to their own ideas, thinking that the statement \'three harmonies\' is useless in meaning. Also, if feeling is produced because of the harmony of touch, then touch is considered to be the difference of the six senses. In this way, because grasping arises from the harmony of love, love should be considered', "English version: Etc. The principle of the continuation of cause and effect has already been established. Otherwise, this statement would have other meanings. We do not say 'three harmonies' to accomplish the cause-and-effect relationship of eye, etc. (sense organs). If so, what meaning does this statement accomplish? This statement is specifically to accomplish the meaning of a separate 'touch' (sensation). It means that when the eye, color (object), and consciousness (awareness) arise simultaneously, the eye does not depend on the other two. Color is also the same. However, the arising of consciousness must rely on the support (root) and the object (environment), so the arising of eye-consciousness must depend on the other two. When mental functions (psychological actions) arise, they also depend on the support and the object. However, these supports are of two kinds. One is the combined support, referring to consciousness; the other is the separate support, referring to the eye. Or, consciousness is their close support, and the eye-root is their affiliated support. The object is what they take. Therefore, when they arise, they must depend on three dharmas. 'The eye and color are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness,' which means that the eye and color combine as conditions to produce eye-consciousness. This happens simultaneously, without increase or decrease, and together as the meaning of condition. Next, the sutra says 'three harmonies touch,' which means that the eye, color, and consciousness combine as conditions to produce eye-touch (sensation). This also happens simultaneously, without increase or decrease, and together as the meaning of condition. If it is said that 'harmony' means acting together as a condition, then the substance of touch should be a combination of three dharmas. Is there another substantial touch? This is also unreasonable. The eye, color, and consciousness do not have the meaning of being conditions for each other. However, because it is said that everything acts together as a condition, the meaning that the substance of touch is separate is established. If so, it should be said 'three harmonies, therefore touch.' No, in order to prevent suspicion that touch arises later, the fifth case ('therefore') is used. It would be suspected that it arises later, as the sutra says, King Mandhata fell at the same time because of the arising of evil thoughts. If so, why does the sutra only say that the six senses are the condition for touch, and feelings, etc. (sensations, etc.) also use the six senses as conditions? No, why does the sutra only say that touch is the condition for the arising of feeling, and feeling is also the condition for the arising of touch? Since this is the case, that should also be the case. I will explain it to you in the discrimination of dependent origination. In this way, for the time being, following the correct reasoning of the Abhidharma, explaining the sentences in the sutra is useful speech. It is not like the elders explaining according to their own ideas, thinking that the statement 'three harmonies' is useless in meaning. Also, if feeling is produced because of the harmony of touch, then touch is considered to be the difference of the six senses. In this way, because grasping arises from the harmony of love, love should be considered" ] }
即是受之差別。此既不然。彼云何爾。或應說彼與此別因。先已成立。觸有自體。故不應謂觸即三和。又觸實有。契經說為心所法故。如受想等。謂薄伽梵。于契經中。說觸以為心所法性。非無實法。可名心所。故如受等。觸應有實。如伽他言。
眼色二為緣 生諸心所法 識觸俱受想 諸行攝有因
上座釋此伽他義言。說心所者。次第義故。說識言故。不離識故。無別有觸。次第義者。據生次第。謂從眼色生於識觸。從此復生諸心所法。俱生受等。名心所法。觸非心所。說識言者。謂於此中。現見說識。故觸是心。非心所法。不離識者。謂不離識而可有觸。識前定無和合義故。假名心所。而無別體。今謂三證。理並不然。初次第義。且不應理。眼色無間不說識故。復作是言。謂從眼色生於識觸。從此復生受等心所。若爾有何余心所法二緣所生。世尊經中。分明顯說。諸心所法。從二緣起。非在第三。我等於中。說諸心所亦二緣起。非在第三。上座于中起異分別。說諸心所唯在第三。是則陵蔑如來。或是不達經義。次說識言。亦不應理。豈見說識便無心所。此伽他中。非唯辯識。然不可以心所法言不屬識故。亦非受等。應可說言。受等諸法。亦非心所。所以者何。現見此中說識言故。雖說識言。而許
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 即是接受的差別。但現在這樣說是不對的。如果這樣，應該怎麼解釋呢？或者應該說，那個（觸）與這個（三和合）不同的原因是，（觸）的自體已經成立。所以不應該說觸就是三和合。而且觸是真實存在的，因為契經中說它是心所法（Citta-samprayukta-dharma，與心相應的法），就像受（Vedana，感受）、想（Samjna，表象）等一樣。薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在契經中說觸是心所法的性質，不是沒有實體的法可以稱為心所。所以像受等一樣，觸應該有實體。就像伽他（Gatha，偈頌）所說：
『眼色二為緣，生諸心所法，識觸俱受想，諸行攝有因。』
上座（Sthavira，長老）解釋這首伽他的意義說：說『心所』，是因為有次第的意義。因為說了『識』（Vijnana，了別），因為不離識，所以沒有另外的觸。次第的意義是，根據生起的次第，從眼和色生起識和觸，從此再生起受等心所法。與（識、觸）俱生的受等，稱為心所法。觸不是心所，說『識』是因為在這裡明顯地說了識，所以觸是心，不是心所法。不離識是指不離開識就可以有觸，識之前一定沒有和合的意義，所以假名為心所，而沒有別的自體。
現在我認為這三個論證，道理上都不成立。首先，次第的意義就不合理，因為眼和色之間並沒有說識。而且還這樣說：從眼和色生起識和觸，從此再生起受等心所。如果這樣，還有什麼其他的心所法是從二緣所生的呢？世尊在經中，分明地說，諸心所法是從二緣生起的，不是在第三位。我們在這裡說諸心所也是從二緣生起的，不是在第三位。上座在這裡產生了不同的分別，說諸心所只在第三位。這就是輕蔑如來，或者是不瞭解經義。其次，說『識』也不合理。難道見到說了識就沒有心所了嗎？這首伽他中，不是隻辨識。然而不可以因為心所法這個詞不屬於識，受等也應該說，受等諸法也不是心所。為什麼呢？因為現在看到這裡說了識。雖然說了識，但是允許...
【English Translation】 English version: That is the difference in reception. But this is not the case now. If so, how should it be explained? Or it should be said that the reason why that (Sparsha, contact) is different from this (three aggregates) is that the self-nature of (Sparsha) has already been established. Therefore, it should not be said that Sparsha is the three aggregates. Moreover, Sparsha is real, because the Sutras say that it is Citta-samprayukta-dharma (mental concomitants), just like Vedana (feeling), Samjna (perception), etc. The Bhagavan (World Honored One) said in the Sutras that Sparsha is the nature of mental concomitants, and no unreal dharma can be called mental concomitant. Therefore, like Vedana, etc., Sparsha should have reality. Just as the Gatha (verse) says:
'Eye and color are the two conditions, giving rise to all mental concomitants, Vijnana, Sparsha, Vedana, Samjna together, all actions are included in the cause.'
The Sthavira (Elder) explained the meaning of this Gatha by saying: 'Saying 'mental concomitants' is because there is a sequential meaning. Because 'Vijnana' (consciousness) is mentioned, because it is inseparable from Vijnana, there is no separate Sparsha. The sequential meaning is, according to the order of arising, from eye and color arise Vijnana and Sparsha, and from this, Vedana and other mental concomitants arise again. Vedana, etc., which arise together with (Vijnana, Sparsha), are called mental concomitants. Sparsha is not a mental concomitant, saying 'Vijnana' is because Vijnana is clearly mentioned here, so Sparsha is mind, not a mental concomitant. Inseparable from Vijnana means that Sparsha can exist without leaving Vijnana. There must be no meaning of aggregation before Vijnana, so it is falsely named mental concomitant, but has no other self-nature.'
Now I think these three arguments are not valid in principle. First of all, the sequential meaning is unreasonable, because Vijnana is not mentioned between eye and color. And it also says: From eye and color arise Vijnana and Sparsha, and from this, Vedana and other mental concomitants arise again. If so, what other mental concomitants are born from two conditions? The World Honored One clearly said in the Sutras that all mental concomitants arise from two conditions, not in the third position. We say here that all mental concomitants also arise from two conditions, not in the third position. The Sthavira has different distinctions here, saying that all mental concomitants are only in the third position. This is either belittling the Tathagata or not understanding the meaning of the Sutras. Secondly, saying 'Vijnana' is also unreasonable. Is it that there are no mental concomitants when Vijnana is mentioned? This Gatha is not only distinguishing Vijnana. However, it cannot be said that Vedana, etc., are not mental concomitants because the term mental concomitant does not belong to Vijnana. Why? Because we now see that Vijnana is mentioned here. Although Vijnana is mentioned, it is allowed...
受等是心所者。觸亦應然。彼后所言。謂不離識而可有觸。識前定無和合義故。假名心所。無別體者。亦不應理。依心所門。說觸言故。前說心所從二緣生。今乘彼門。列觸等相。非仍前識。寧無別體。應如受等。定別有性。雖觸生時。實不離識而不應說即識為體。以識生時亦不離觸。及受想等心。亦應用心所為性但假名心。心既不然。觸云何爾。又不離言義不成故。謂即依識假立觸名。言不離者。此不成就。若不離言。是相因義。識亦不離受等心所。應如前說。但假名心。若言此難亦同不成。謂識不離受等心所。應即受等。但假名心。此亦非理。以極成故。謂契經說。心與受等心所俱生。不相離故。又伽他義證此極成。謂眼色二緣共生諸心所。為但心所二緣所生。不爾云何亦生於識。識即是心。由此成立眼色二緣能生一切心心所法。非但生心。雖已總標諸心所法二緣所生。而未別顯。何者是耶。故復言觸。觸是受因。是故先說為彼二緣先生心所。後方生識。不爾云何故復言俱。是俱起義。諸心所者。諸是多言。已舉一觸。余是何等。故言受想及諸行攝。此顯受等與前識觸決定俱生。諸行攝者。總攝一切行蘊所收諸心所法。若不爾者。應但說思。不應言諸思是一故。為攝何義。復說有因。為攝與前俱有諸法。不相離故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果受（Vedanā，感受）等是心所（Caitasika，心理作用），那麼觸（Sparśa，接觸）也應該是心所。因為在受等之後所說的觸，是指不離識（Vijñāna，意識）而存在的觸。如果說在識產生之前，並沒有和合的意義，所以觸只是假名為心所，沒有獨立的自體，這也是不合理的。因為觸是在心所的範疇內被提及的。之前說心所是從兩種緣（條件）產生的，現在沿用這個思路，列舉觸等的相狀，而不是仍然指之前的識，所以觸怎麼會沒有獨立的自體呢？它應該像受等一樣，肯定有其獨立的自性。雖然觸產生的時候，實際上不離識，但不應該說觸就是識的自體。因為識產生的時候，也不離觸以及受、想等心所，也可以用心所作為自性，但只是假名為心。心既然不是這樣，觸又怎麼會是這樣呢？ 而且，『不離』的說法在義理上也是不成立的。如果說只是依識假立觸的名字，那麼『不離』的說法就不能成立。如果說『不離』是指相互依存的關係，那麼識也不離受等心所，應該像前面所說的那樣，只是假名為心。如果說這個反駁也同樣不成立，認為識不離受等心所，就應該說識就是受等，只是假名為心。這也是不合理的，因為這是已經成立的道理。經典上說，心與受等心所同時產生，互不分離。而且，偈頌的意義也證明了這個道理，即眼和色兩種緣共同產生諸心所，還是僅僅心所由兩種緣產生？如果不是這樣，為什麼也產生識呢？識就是心。由此成立眼和色兩種緣能夠產生一切心和心所法，而不僅僅是產生心。雖然已經總括地說明了諸心所法是由兩種緣產生的，但還沒有分別顯示哪些是心所法。所以又說觸。觸是受的因，所以先說觸是由那兩種緣先生起的心所，然後才產生識。如果不是這樣，為什麼又說『俱』呢？『俱』是同時生起的意思。『諸心所』中的『諸』是多的意思。已經舉了一個觸，其餘的是什麼呢？所以說受、想以及諸行所包含的。這顯示了受等與前面的識和觸是決定同時產生的。『諸行攝』是指總括一切行蘊所包含的心所法。如果不是這樣，應該只說思（Cetanā，意志），不應該說『諸』，因為思是一個。爲了包含什麼意義，又說『有因』呢？是爲了包含與前面同時存在的諸法，因為它們互不分離。
【English Translation】 English version: If Vedanā (feeling) and others are Cetasikas (mental factors), then Sparśa (contact) should also be a Cetasika. Because what is said after Vedanā and others, namely Sparśa, refers to Sparśa that exists without being separate from Vijñāna (consciousness). If it is said that before the arising of Vijñāna, there is no meaning of combination, so Sparśa is merely nominally a Cetasika, without a separate self-nature, this is also unreasonable. Because Sparśa is mentioned within the category of Cetasikas. Previously, it was said that Cetasikas arise from two conditions; now, following this line of thought, the characteristics of Sparśa and others are enumerated, rather than still referring to the previous Vijñāna, so how can Sparśa not have a separate self-nature? It should definitely have its own independent nature, like Vedanā and others. Although when Sparśa arises, it is actually not separate from Vijñāna, it should not be said that Sparśa is the self-nature of Vijñāna. Because when Vijñāna arises, it is also not separate from Sparśa, as well as Vedanā, Saṃjñā (perception), and other Cetasikas; one could also use Cetasika as its self-nature, but it is merely nominally called 'mind'. Since the mind is not like this, how could Sparśa be like this? Moreover, the statement 'not separate' is also not established in terms of meaning. If it is said that the name Sparśa is merely nominally established based on Vijñāna, then the statement 'not separate' cannot be established. If 'not separate' refers to the meaning of mutual dependence, then Vijñāna is also not separate from Vedanā and other Cetasikas, and it should be said, as mentioned earlier, that it is merely nominally called 'mind'. If it is said that this refutation is also not established, arguing that Vijñāna is not separate from Vedanā and other Cetasikas, then it should be said that Vijñāna is Vedanā and others, merely nominally called 'mind'. This is also unreasonable, because this is an already established principle. The scriptures say that the mind and Vedanā and other Cetasikas arise simultaneously, without separating from each other. Moreover, the meaning of the verses also proves this principle, namely, do the two conditions of eye and form jointly produce all Cetasikas, or are Cetasikas merely produced by two conditions? If it is not like this, why does Vijñāna also arise? Vijñāna is the mind. From this, it is established that the two conditions of eye and form can produce all mind and mental phenomena, and not just produce the mind. Although it has already been generally explained that all Cetasika phenomena are produced by two conditions, it has not yet been separately shown which ones are Cetasika phenomena. Therefore, Sparśa is mentioned again. Sparśa is the cause of Vedanā, so it is first said that Sparśa is the Cetasika that arises first from those two conditions, and then Vijñāna arises. If it is not like this, why is 'together' mentioned again? 'Together' means arising simultaneously. 'The Cetasikas' in 'all Cetasikas' means many. One Sparśa has already been mentioned, what are the others? Therefore, it is said that Vedanā, Saṃjñā, and what is included in all Saṃskāra (volitional formations). This shows that Vedanā and others are definitely produced simultaneously with the preceding Vijñāna and Sparśa. 'Included in all Saṃskāra' refers to encompassing all Cetasika phenomena included in the Saṃskāra Skandha (aggregate of volitional formations). If it were not like this, only Cetanā (volition) should be mentioned, and 'all' should not be said, because Cetanā is one. To include what meaning is 'with cause' mentioned again? It is to include all phenomena that exist simultaneously with the preceding ones, because they are not separate from each other.
。與彼俱生。即彼為因。不由眼色此無所依及所緣故。有作是釋。此有因言。顯心心所皆從緣起。此釋不然。前說眼色二緣所生。應無用故。復有別釋言。有因者。顯心心所有同類因。何者同類因。謂前生同類眼色。與彼非同類故。但說為緣。前生同類。如種子故。說之為因。又世尊言。眼是生識。鄰近緣故。亦說為因。諸心所法。亦以眼根為緣生故。說名有因。前緣后因。無重說過。如是正釋伽他義已。前言此難亦同不成。謂識不離受等心所。應即受等但假名心。彼言非理。由此中說心心所法俱時起故。顯識生時。不離觸等。是故前說。雖觸生時。實不離識。而不應說即識為體。以識生時亦不離觸及受想等。心亦應用心所為性。但假名心。理極成立。由此彼言。謂不離識而可有觸識前定無和合義故。假名心所。無別體者。此但有言都不應理。由彼三證理並不然。是故前言觸體實有。契經說為心所法故。如受想等。其理極成。故應信知。離根境識三和合外別有實觸。又觸實有。契經說為食所攝故。猶如識等。此中上座復作是言。四食中觸。未必唯用三和為體。所以者何。觸食應用所觸為體。以六境中無如所觸。更無所待。能生受者。謂勝冷熱鋸割等觸。故於一切身受因中。觸最增強。別立為食。由觸門故。便於三受。
【現代漢語翻譯】 與眼識一同生起的心所法，以眼識為生起的原因。因為離開了眼根和色塵，眼識便沒有所依靠和攀緣的對象，所以不能生起。有人這樣解釋：這裡說『有因』，是爲了表明心和心所法都是從因緣而生起的。這種解釋是不對的，因為如果眼識的生起僅僅是眼根和色塵這兩個緣所生，那麼『因』就沒有作用了。還有另一種解釋說，『有因』是爲了表明心和心所法有同類因。什麼是同類因呢？就是前一生所產生的同類眼根和色塵。因為眼根和色塵與心和心所法不是同一類，所以只能說是『緣』。而前一生所產生的同類心和心所法，就像種子一樣，所以說是『因』。而且，世尊說過，眼是產生眼識的鄰近的緣，也可以說是『因』。各種心所法，也是以眼根為緣而生起的，所以說是有因。前為緣，后為因，沒有重複的過失。這樣正確地解釋了伽陀（gāthā）的含義之後，前面所說的責難也就不成立了。前面說眼識不能離開受（vedanā）等心所法，那麼受等心所法就應該只是假名為『心』。這種說法是不合理的。因為這裡說心和心所法是同時生起的，表明眼識生起的時候，不能離開觸（sparśa）等心所法。所以前面說，雖然觸生起的時候，實際上不能離開眼識，但是不應該說觸就是眼識的自體。因為眼識生起的時候也不能離開觸以及受、想（saṃjñā）等心所法。心也可以用心所法為自性，只是假名為『心』，這個道理是完全成立的。因此，他們說，如果不離開眼識就可以有觸，那麼在眼識之前一定沒有和合的意義，所以假名為心所法，沒有別的自體。這種說法完全沒有道理。因為他們所說的三個證據，道理都不成立。所以前面說觸的自體是真實存在的，因為契經（sūtra）中說觸是心所法，就像受、想等一樣，這個道理是完全成立的。所以應該相信，在根、境、識三和合之外，另有真實的觸存在。而且，觸是真實存在的，因為契經中說觸是食所攝，就像識等一樣。這裡，上座（sthavira）又這樣說，四食（catvāra āhārāḥ）中的觸，未必只是以三和合為自體。為什麼呢？觸食應該以所觸為自體。因為在六境（ṣaḍviṣaya）中，沒有像所觸那樣，不需要等待其他條件，就能產生感受的。比如勝妙的冷熱、鋸割等觸。所以在一切身受的原因中，觸是最增強的，所以特別立為食。通過觸這個門，就容易產生三種感受。 現代漢語譯本 與眼識一同生起的心所法，以眼識為生起的原因。因為離開了眼根和色塵，眼識便沒有所依靠和攀緣的對象，所以不能生起。有人這樣解釋：這裡說『有因』，是爲了表明心和心所法都是從因緣而生起的。這種解釋是不對的，因為如果眼識的生起僅僅是眼根和色塵這兩個緣所生，那麼『因』就沒有作用了。還有另一種解釋說，『有因』是爲了表明心和心所法有同類因。什麼是同類因呢？就是前一生所產生的同類眼根和色塵。因為眼根和色塵與心和心所法不是同一類，所以只能說是『緣』。而前一生所產生的同類心和心所法，就像種子一樣，所以說是『因』。而且，世尊說過，眼是產生眼識的鄰近的緣，也可以說是『因』。各種心所法，也是以眼根為緣而生起的，所以說是有因。前為緣，后為因，沒有重複的過失。這樣正確地解釋了伽陀（gāthā）的含義之後，前面所說的責難也就不成立了。前面說眼識不能離開受（vedanā）等心所法，那麼受等心所法就應該只是假名為『心』。這種說法是不合理的。因為這裡說心和心所法是同時生起的，表明眼識生起的時候，不能離開觸（sparśa）等心所法。所以前面說，雖然觸生起的時候，實際上不能離開眼識，但是不應該說觸就是眼識的自體。因為眼識生起的時候也不能離開觸以及受、想（saṃjñā）等心所法。心也可以用心所法為自性，只是假名為『心』，這個道理是完全成立的。因此，他們說，如果不離開眼識就可以有觸，那麼在眼識之前一定沒有和合的意義，所以假名為心所法，沒有別的自體。這種說法完全沒有道理。因為他們所說的三個證據，道理都不成立。所以前面說觸的自體是真實存在的，因為契經（sūtra）中說觸是心所法，就像受、想等一樣，這個道理是完全成立的。所以應該相信，在根、境、識三和合之外，另有真實的觸存在。而且，觸是真實存在的，因為契經中說觸是食所攝，就像識等一樣。這裡，上座（sthavira）又這樣說，四食（catvāra āhārāḥ）中的觸，未必只是以三和合為自體。為什麼呢？觸食應該以所觸為自體。因為在六境（ṣaḍviṣaya）中，沒有像所觸那樣，不需要等待其他條件，就能產生感受的。比如勝妙的冷熱、鋸割等觸。所以在一切身受的原因中，觸是最增強的，所以特別立為食。通過觸這個門，就容易產生三種感受。
【English Translation】 The mental functions that arise together with eye consciousness have eye consciousness as their cause. Because apart from the eye organ and visible forms, eye consciousness has nothing to rely on or cling to, it cannot arise. Some explain it this way: saying 'having a cause' here is to show that both mind and mental functions arise from conditions. This explanation is incorrect, because if the arising of eye consciousness were solely due to the two conditions of the eye organ and visible forms, then the 'cause' would be useless. Another explanation says that 'having a cause' is to show that mind and mental functions have a cause of the same kind. What is a cause of the same kind? It is the eye organ and visible forms of the same kind produced in the previous life. Because the eye organ and visible forms are not of the same kind as mind and mental functions, they can only be called 'conditions'. But the mind and mental functions of the same kind produced in the previous life are like seeds, so they are called 'causes'. Moreover, the World-Honored One said that the eye is the proximate condition for producing eye consciousness, and can also be called a 'cause'. The various mental functions also arise with the eye organ as a condition, so they are said to have a cause. The former is a condition, the latter is a cause, and there is no fault of repetition. Having correctly explained the meaning of the gāthā (gāthā) in this way, the previous criticism is also untenable. It was previously said that eye consciousness cannot be separated from mental functions such as feeling (vedanā), so feeling and other mental functions should just be nominally called 'mind'. This statement is unreasonable. Because it is said here that mind and mental functions arise simultaneously, indicating that when eye consciousness arises, it cannot be separated from mental functions such as contact (sparśa). Therefore, it was previously said that although contact actually cannot be separated from eye consciousness when it arises, it should not be said that contact is the self-nature of eye consciousness. Because when eye consciousness arises, it also cannot be separated from contact, as well as feeling, conception (saṃjñā), and other mental functions. The mind can also use mental functions as its self-nature, and is only nominally called 'mind'. This principle is completely established. Therefore, they say that if contact can exist without being separated from eye consciousness, then there must be no meaning of combination before eye consciousness, so it is nominally called a mental function, without a separate self-nature. This statement is completely unreasonable. Because the three pieces of evidence they mentioned do not establish the principle. Therefore, it was previously said that the self-nature of contact is real, because the sūtra (sūtra) says that contact is a mental function, just like feeling, conception, and so on. This principle is completely established. Therefore, it should be believed that there is a real contact existing separately from the combination of the root, object, and consciousness. Moreover, contact is real, because the sūtra says that contact is included in nutriment, just like consciousness and so on. Here, the elder (sthavira) says again that contact in the four kinds of nutriment (catvāra āhārāḥ) is not necessarily just the combination of the three as its self-nature. Why? Contact as nutriment should take what is contacted as its self-nature. Because among the six objects (ṣaḍviṣaya), there is nothing like what is contacted that can produce feelings without waiting for other conditions. For example, excellent cold and heat, sawing, and other contacts. Therefore, among the causes of all bodily feelings, contact is the most enhanced, so it is specially established as nutriment. Through the gate of contact, it is easy to produce the three kinds of feelings. English version
皆能離染。其理得成。彼言但從自分別起。且彼三和。決定非觸。如何是食。或復是余此何所疑。而稱未必。但應舒意確判言非。若如段食。復有何過。謂如段食。非一法成。雖多法成。而得名一。觸食亦爾。三和合成。斯有何過。此喻非理。一一亦成段食性故。非彼眼等一一各別可名三和成觸食體。又根境識。攝法無遺。段食等三。皆應觸攝。食應唯一。世尊不應于契經中說食有四。識食攝在根及識中。段及意思體非離境。說觸食已。復說餘三。便顯世尊言成無用。故有智者。于說三和為觸食言。不應信受。又說所觸為觸食體理亦不然。于段食中。已說所觸為彼體故。又彼斷時說斷三受。理不成故。謂段食中。已攝所觸。三處合成段食性故。觸食若所觸食應唯有三。又說觸食斷遍知時。三受永斷然于有頂。得離染時。斷諸受盡。非於所觸。得離染時。可於諸受有永斷義。又于緣起次第義中。所說受緣。應是觸食。彼觸斷時。諸受應斷。非由所觸斷故彼斷。諸聖教中。都未曾見說彼所觸與受為緣。故受斷時。非由所觸。又說所觸更無所待能生受言。深可嗤笑。既許所觸。滅入過去。第三剎那。受方得起。是則所觸于受起時。體滅時隔。有何生用。由彼義宗。根境無間。識方得起。從識無間。受乃得生。身受生時。身及
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 皆能遠離染污，這個道理才能成立。他們說觸食僅僅是從自己的分別心產生的。而且，眼、境、識這三者的和合，絕對不是觸。那麼，什麼是觸食呢？或者說，觸食是其他什麼？對此有什麼可懷疑的，而說『未必』呢？應該明確地、肯定地說『不是』。如果觸食就像段食（指固體食物），那又有什麼過失呢？就像段食，不是由單一的法構成，雖然是由多種法構成，但可以被命名為一個整體。觸食也是這樣，由三和合而成，這有什麼過失呢？這個比喻不合理，因為眼、境、識中的每一個，也都可以構成段食的性質。眼等各自獨立，不能被稱為三和合而成的觸食的本體。而且，根、境、識已經涵蓋了所有的法，段食等三種食物，都應該被觸食所包含，那麼食物就應該只有一種。世尊不應該在契經中說食物有四種。識食已經被包含在根和識中，段食和意思食的本體都離不開外境。在說了觸食之後，又說其餘三種食物，就顯得世尊的言教沒有用處。所以，有智慧的人，對於說三和合是觸食的說法，不應該相信接受。 又說所觸是觸食的本體，這個道理也是不成立的。因為在討論段食的時候，已經說過所觸是段食的本體。而且，在斷除觸食的時候，說斷除三種感受，這個道理也是不成立的。因為在段食中，已經包含了所觸，三處和合構成了段食的性質。如果觸食就是所觸，那麼食物就應該只有三種。又說在斷除觸食，從而遍知的時候，三種感受會永遠斷除。然而，在有頂天（色界最高的禪定）獲得離染的時候，斷除了所有的感受，而不是在對所觸獲得離染的時候，可以使所有的感受都永遠斷除。而且，在緣起次第的意義中，所說的『受緣于觸』，這裡的觸應該是觸食。當這個觸斷除的時候，所有的感受都應該斷除，而不是因為所觸斷除，感受才斷除。在所有的聖教中，都沒有見過說所觸與受是互為緣的。所以，感受斷除的時候，不是因為所觸斷除。 又說所觸不需要任何等待，就能產生感受，這種說法非常可笑。既然承認所觸滅入過去，在第三個剎那，感受才產生，那麼所觸在感受產生的時候，本體已經滅去並間隔了一段時間，還有什麼產生作用呢？按照他們的觀點，根和境之間沒有間隔，識才能產生；從識產生之後沒有間隔，感受才能產生。當身體的感受產生的時候，身體和...
【English Translation】 English version All can be free from defilement, and this principle can be established. They say that contact-food arises solely from one's own discrimination. Moreover, the combination of the three—eye, object, and consciousness—is definitely not contact. So, what is contact-food? Or is it something else? What doubt is there about this, to say 'perhaps'? One should clearly and definitively say 'no'. If contact-food is like coarse food (referring to solid food), then what fault is there? Just as coarse food is not made up of a single dharma, although it is made up of many dharmas, it can be named as one whole. Contact-food is also like this, composed of the combination of three, so what fault is there? This analogy is unreasonable, because each of the eye, object, and consciousness can also constitute the nature of coarse food. The eye, etc., are each independent and cannot be called the body of contact-food formed by the combination of three. Moreover, the sense bases, objects, and consciousness have already encompassed all dharmas, and the three foods—coarse food, etc.—should all be included in contact-food, so there should only be one kind of food. The World Honored One should not have said in the sutras that there are four kinds of food. Consciousness-food has already been included in the sense bases and consciousness, and the bodies of coarse food and volitional food cannot be separated from external objects. After speaking of contact-food, speaking of the other three foods makes the World Honored One's teachings seem useless. Therefore, wise people should not believe and accept the statement that the combination of three is contact-food. Furthermore, saying that what is touched is the body of contact-food is also not a valid principle. Because in the discussion of coarse food, it has already been said that what is touched is the body of coarse food. Moreover, when cutting off contact-food, saying that the three kinds of feeling are cut off is also not a valid principle. Because in coarse food, what is touched has already been included, and the combination of the three places constitutes the nature of coarse food. If contact-food is what is touched, then there should only be three kinds of food. Also, saying that when cutting off contact-food, thereby fully knowing, the three feelings will be permanently cut off. However, when attaining freedom from defilement in the Peak of Existence (the highest dhyana of the Form Realm), all feelings are cut off, and it is not when attaining freedom from defilement from what is touched that all feelings can be permanently cut off. Moreover, in the meaning of the order of dependent origination, the 'feeling conditioned by contact' that is spoken of should be contact-food. When this contact is cut off, all feelings should be cut off, and not because what is touched is cut off that feelings are cut off. In all the holy teachings, it has never been seen that what is touched and feeling are said to be mutually conditioned. Therefore, when feeling is cut off, it is not because what is touched is cut off. Furthermore, saying that what is touched can produce feeling without any waiting is very laughable. Since it is admitted that what is touched perishes and enters the past, and feeling arises in the third moment, then when feeling arises, the body of what is touched has already perished and been separated for a period of time, so what producing function does it have? According to their view, consciousness can only arise without any interval between the sense base and the object; and feeling can only arise without any interval after consciousness arises. When bodily feeling arises, the body and...
所觸。其體已滅。時復隔遠。何得為因。且識生時。身觸已滅。望無間識。緣用尚無。況於後時所起身受。時分隔越。得有緣用。若言先有根境識三因果性故。受方得起。是故根境。于受起時。亦有展轉能生功用。如是便應有太過失。謂要先有名色六處。因果性故。觸乃得生。是則應言名色緣觸。或復應說六處緣受。以受起時。彼有用故。諸說分位緣起論者。雖受起時。亦緣六處。而曾不說六處緣受。設許所觸能生於受。如何可言更無所待。若彼生受不待根識。木石等中。何不生受。若彼要待根識等緣。方生受者。余境亦爾。云何不說。以六境中無如所觸更無所待能生受者。此與余境有何差別。而偏讚美。為生受因。決定無有根境識三共和合時。而不生受。故彼所說。無理可依。但從自心分別所起。又彼具壽。如何可言厭於劣界離妙界染。不可厭余得離余染。勿離余染余得解脫。彼此別因。不可得故。即由此理。苦集法智。不能兼離色無色貪。諸勝冷熱鋸割等觸。上界所無。故知意取欲界所觸。為觸食性。故彼所言。由觸門故。便於三受皆能離染。理不得成。又契經說。觸食斷時。三受永斷。故知佛說觸與三受俱時永斷。契經不說觸食斷已當斷三受。故不應言由斷觸故當於三受皆能離貪。說觸斷時受亦斷故非。于欲界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所觸（Sparsha，接觸）。其體已滅，時間又已過去很久，怎麼能作為原因呢？而且識產生的時候，身觸已經滅了。期望無間識，緣用的作用尚且沒有，更何況在之後的時間裡所起身受（Vedana，感受）？時間分隔遙遠，怎麼能有緣用的作用？如果說先有根（Indriya，感覺器官）、境（Vishaya，對像）、識（Vijnana，意識）這三者的因果性，所以感受才能生起，那麼根和境在感受生起的時候，也有輾轉相生的功用。如果這樣，就應該有太過失。也就是說，要先有名色（Namarupa，名色）、六處（Shadayatana，六處）的因果性，接觸才能產生。那麼就應該說名色緣觸，或者應該說六處緣受，因為在感受生起的時候，它們有用。那些說分位緣起論的人，雖然感受生起的時候，也緣六處，但從來不說六處緣受。假設允許所觸能生起感受，怎麼能說不再需要其他條件？如果感受的產生不需要根和識，那麼在木頭石頭等東西中，為什麼不產生感受？如果感受的產生一定要依賴根、識等條件，那麼其他的境也是一樣，為什麼不說？因為在六境中，沒有像所觸這樣不再需要其他條件就能產生感受的。這與其他的境有什麼差別？而偏偏讚美它，作為產生感受的原因。絕對沒有根、境、識三者共和合的時候，而不產生感受的情況。所以他們所說的，沒有道理可以依據，只是從自己的心中分別所產生的。 而且，具壽（Ayushman，佛陀對弟子的尊稱），怎麼能說厭離下劣的欲界，就能離開上妙的色界和無色界的貪染？不能厭離這個，就能離開那個的貪染。不離開這個貪染，那個就能解脫。彼此是不同的原因，這是不可能的。就因為這個道理，苦集法智（Dukkha-samudaya-nirodha-marga-jnana，苦集滅道四聖諦之智）不能同時離開色界和無色界的貪染。上界的勝妙冷熱、鋸割等觸是欲界所沒有的，所以知道這裡所說的觸，是指欲界的觸，作為觸食（Sparsha-ahara，觸食）的性質。所以他們所說的，通過觸這個門，就能對三種感受都能離染，這個道理是不能成立的。而且契經（Sutra，佛經）上說，觸食斷絕的時候，三種感受永遠斷絕。所以知道佛陀說觸和三種感受是同時永遠斷絕的。契經上沒有說觸食斷絕之後，當斷絕三種感受。所以不應該說因為斷絕了觸，就能對三種感受都能離貪。因為說觸斷絕的時候，感受也斷絕，所以不是在欲界。
【English Translation】 English version That which is touched (Sparsha, contact). Its substance has already perished, and time has passed for a long time. How can it be a cause? Moreover, when consciousness arises, bodily contact has already ceased. Hoping for uninterrupted consciousness, the function of causal use is not even present. How much more so the feeling (Vedana, sensation) that arises at a later time? Time is separated by distance. How can there be a function of causal use? If it is said that there is first the causal nature of the three—sense organs (Indriya), objects (Vishaya), and consciousness (Vijnana)—so that feeling can arise, then the sense organs and objects also have the function of mutually generating each other when feeling arises. If this is the case, there should be an excessive fault. That is to say, there must first be the causal nature of name and form (Namarupa) and the six sense bases (Shadayatana) so that contact can arise. Then it should be said that name and form are the condition for contact, or it should be said that the six sense bases are the condition for feeling, because they are useful when feeling arises. Those who speak of the theory of conditioned arising in stages, although they also condition the six sense bases when feeling arises, never say that the six sense bases are the condition for feeling. Suppose it is allowed that what is touched can give rise to feeling. How can it be said that no other conditions are needed? If the arising of feeling does not depend on the sense organs and consciousness, why does feeling not arise in things like wood and stone? If the arising of feeling must depend on conditions such as the sense organs and consciousness, then other objects are also the same. Why not say so? Because among the six objects, there is nothing like what is touched that can give rise to feeling without needing other conditions. What is the difference between this and other objects? And why praise it particularly as the cause of the arising of feeling? There is absolutely no case where the three—sense organs, objects, and consciousness—combine together and feeling does not arise. Therefore, what they say has no reason to rely on and is only produced from the discrimination of their own minds. Moreover, how can it be said, venerable one (Ayushman, a term of respect used by the Buddha for his disciples), that by being disgusted with the inferior desire realm, one can leave the defilements of greed in the superior form and formless realms? One cannot be disgusted with this and then leave the defilements of that. If one does not leave this defilement, that can be liberated. These are different causes, and this is impossible. Just because of this principle, the wisdom of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path (Dukkha-samudaya-nirodha-marga-jnana, the wisdom of the Four Noble Truths) cannot simultaneously leave the greed of the form and formless realms. The superior coolness, heat, sawing, and other touches of the upper realms are not present in the desire realm. Therefore, it is known that the touch spoken of here refers to the touch of the desire realm, as the nature of contact as food (Sparsha-ahara). Therefore, what they say, that through the gate of contact, one can leave the defilements of all three feelings, this principle cannot be established. Moreover, the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) says that when contact as food is cut off, the three feelings are forever cut off. Therefore, it is known that the Buddha said that contact and the three feelings are simultaneously and forever cut off. The Sutra does not say that after contact as food is cut off, the three feelings should be cut off. Therefore, it should not be said that because contact is cut off, one can leave greed for the three feelings. Because it is said that when contact is cut off, feeling is also cut off, it is not in the desire realm.
得離染時可於有頂亦得離染。故知別有一法名觸。是受近因。斷有頂時。此觸方斷由此斷故。三受永斷。此後更無諸所應作。故心所中。定有實觸。名為觸食。其理得成。古昔諸師。為證此觸其體實有。亦立多因上座于中。懷增上慢。自謂能釋。如是諸因。我當於中褒貶德失。古師所立諸因者何。謂彼咸言。觸定實有。說有因果。雜染離染各別斷除差別言故。如受想等。此中說有因果言者。謂說此觸有六處因有受果故。非世俗法而可說有勝義因果。說有雜染離染言者。謂佛于彼大六處經。說如是言若有于眼不如實見不如實知。便於眼中起諸雜染。如是若有於色于眼識于眼觸。廣說乃至。便於意觸起諸雜染。與此相違。便得離染。非於假法而可說有雜染離染。說有各別言者。謂佛于彼六六經中。說如是言。有六內處六外處六識身六觸身六受身六愛身各各差別。此契經中。根境識外。別說有觸。不可於彼假及所依各別而說。說有斷除言者。謂契經說。觸食斷時。三受永斷。非由見於世俗法故名如實見。及說聖道安住所緣。說有差別言者。謂于假法所依事中。亦有一一差別言說。如言我見瓶衣色等。此亦應爾。是則應說十八觸身。然不如是。故知觸體。非即三和。彼上座言。三和名觸。于如是義。亦不相違。所以者何。如名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得離染時，是否也能在有頂天（Bhavagra，色界最高的禪定天）中獲得離染？由此可知，必定存在一種名為『觸』（Sparsha，感官與對像接觸）的法，它是『受』（Vedana，感受）的近因。當斷除有頂天時，這種『觸』才會被斷除。由於這種斷除，三種感受（苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受）才能永遠斷除。此後，便不再有任何需要做的事情。因此，在心所法（Caitasika，與心相關的心理活動）中，必定存在真實的『觸』，被稱為『觸食』（Sparshahara，以觸為食）。這個道理是成立的。 古時候的許多論師，爲了證明『觸』的本體是真實存在的，也提出了許多論證。上座部（Sthavira，佛教部派之一）中有人懷著增上慢（Adhimana，未證得的境界，自認為已證得），自認為能夠解釋這些論證。我將對這些論證的優點和缺點進行評價。古師所提出的論證是什麼呢？他們都說，『觸』一定是真實存在的，因為經典中說有因果、雜染和離染的各別斷除以及差別等說法。就像『受』、『想』（Samjna，認知）等一樣。 這裡所說的『說有因果』，是指說『觸』有六處（Sadayatana，六種感官）為因，有『受』為果。並非世俗法（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）可以被說成具有勝義因果（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理的因果）。所說的『說有雜染離染』，是指佛陀在《大六處經》中這樣說：『如果有人對眼不如實見、不如實知，就會在眼中產生各種雜染。』像這樣，如果有人對色（Rupa，顏色和形狀）、眼識（Caksur-vijnana，眼識）、眼觸（Caksur-sparsha，眼觸）不如實見、不如實知，廣而言之，就會在意觸（Manas-sparsha，意觸）中產生各種雜染。與此相反，就能獲得離染。並非對假法（Prajnapti-sat，概念存在）可以談論雜染和離染。 所說的『說有各別』，是指佛陀在《六六經》中這樣說：『有六內處（Adhyatmika-ayatana，六內處）、六外處（Bahya-ayatana，六外處）、六識身（Vijnanakaya，六識身）、六觸身（Sparshakaya，六觸身）、六受身（Vedanakaya，六受身）、六愛身（Trsnakaya，六愛身），各自有差別。』在這部契經中，除了根（Indriya，感官）、境（Visaya，對像）、識（Vijnana，意識）之外，還特別提到了『觸』，不能將它說成是假法或所依（Asraya，依靠）。所說的『說有斷除』，是指契經中說，當『觸食』斷除時，三種感受（苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受）永遠斷除。並非因為見到世俗法才被稱為如實見，以及說聖道（Aryamarga，八正道）安住所緣。 所說的『說有差別』，是指在假法所依的事物中，也有一種一種的差別說法。例如說『我見瓶子、衣服、顏色等』。這也應該如此。那麼就應該說有十八觸身（Asta-dasa-sparshakaya，十八觸身），但事實並非如此。因此可知，『觸』的本體並非就是三和合（Tisro-sangati，根、境、識三者的結合）。那位上座部的人說，三和合就叫做『觸』，對於這樣的意義，也不相違背。為什麼呢？例如名稱...
【English Translation】 English version When one attains detachment, can one also attain detachment in Bhavagra (the highest realm of form in meditative absorption)? Therefore, it is known that there is indeed a dharma (phenomenon) called 'Sparsha' (contact, the contact between sense organ and object), which is the proximate cause of 'Vedana' (feeling). When Bhavagra is severed, this 'Sparsha' is severed. Because of this severance, the three feelings (painful, pleasant, and neutral) are permanently severed. After this, there is nothing more to be done. Therefore, in the 'Caitasika' (mental factors), there must be a real 'Sparsha', called 'Sparshahara' (contact as nutriment). This reasoning is established. In ancient times, many teachers, in order to prove that the essence of 'Sparsha' is real, also established many arguments. Among the Sthavira (one of the early Buddhist schools), some people, harboring 'Adhimana' (exaggerated conceit, thinking one has attained what one has not), thought they could explain these arguments. I will evaluate the merits and demerits of these arguments. What are the arguments established by the ancient teachers? They all said that 'Sparsha' must be real, because the scriptures speak of cause and effect, the separate severing of defilement and detachment, and differences, just like 'Vedana' (feeling), 'Samjna' (perception), etc. Here, 'speaking of cause and effect' refers to saying that 'Sparsha' has the six 'Sadayatana' (six sense bases) as its cause and 'Vedana' as its effect. It is not the 'Samvriti-satya' (conventional truth) that can be said to have 'Paramartha-satya' (ultimate truth) cause and effect. 'Speaking of defilement and detachment' refers to the Buddha saying in the 'Maha-salayatanika-sutta' (Greater Six Sense-Base Discourse): 'If someone does not see or know the eye as it really is, various defilements arise in the eye.' Likewise, if someone does not see or know 'Rupa' (form), 'Caksur-vijnana' (eye-consciousness), 'Caksur-sparsha' (eye-contact) as they really are, broadly speaking, various defilements arise in 'Manas-sparsha' (mind-contact). Conversely, one can attain detachment. It is not about 'Prajnapti-sat' (conceptual existence) that one can talk about defilement and detachment. 'Speaking of separate' refers to the Buddha saying in the 'Salayatana-vibhanga-sutta' (Analysis of the Six Sense-Bases): 'There are six 'Adhyatmika-ayatana' (internal sense bases), six 'Bahya-ayatana' (external sense bases), six 'Vijnanakaya' (bodies of consciousness), six 'Sparshakaya' (bodies of contact), six 'Vedanakaya' (bodies of feeling), six 'Trsnakaya' (bodies of craving), each with differences.' In this sutra, besides 'Indriya' (sense organ), 'Visaya' (object), and 'Vijnana' (consciousness), 'Sparsha' is specifically mentioned, and it cannot be said to be a conceptual existence or 'Asraya' (support). 'Speaking of severance' refers to the sutra saying that when 'Sparshahara' (contact as nutriment) is severed, the three feelings (painful, pleasant, and neutral) are permanently severed. It is not because one sees conventional truth that it is called seeing as it really is, and it is said that the 'Aryamarga' (Noble Eightfold Path) abides in its object. 'Speaking of difference' refers to the fact that in things that are based on conceptual existence, there are also differences one by one. For example, saying 'I see a bottle, clothes, colors, etc.' It should be like this as well. Then it should be said that there are eighteen 'Asta-dasa-sparshakaya' (eighteen bodies of contact), but that is not the case. Therefore, it can be known that the essence of 'Sparsha' is not just the combination of the three ('Tisro-sangati', the combination of sense organ, object, and consciousness). That person from the Sthavira school said that the combination of the three is called 'Sparsha', and there is no contradiction in this meaning. Why? For example, the name...
色等。亦有如是所說義故。眼等因果和合觸中。于上義門。都無違害。如彼說有因果言者。謂彼眼等因果合觸。六處為因。受為其果。離內六處。無三和故。從三和生樂苦等故。說有雜染雜染言者。謂三和觸。為受因故。希求方便。生諸雜染。彼于爾時。愿生自識。為辯此門領納差別。舉所依根及所取境。即於此事。如實見知。便得離染。說有各別言者。謂辯眼等因果合性。為受起因從此生愛。非諸眼色皆眼識因。非諸眼識皆眼色果。又如重擔與荷擔者。離取蘊擔。雖無荷者。而契經中。各別顯說。此亦應爾。說有斷除言者。謂斷雜染故。前說希求方便生諸雜染。今說斷彼雜染即名斷觸。見稱事故。名如實見。及說聖道安住所緣。說有差別言者。謂三和觸。非一合故。不可如瓶等說一有眾分。如名色等。亦有如是所說義者。謂如名色六處等支。非一法成。雖非實有。而有如上所說諸義。此亦應然。故無有失。如是一切理皆不成。且彼眼等因果和合。說名為觸。如先已破。謂先已說。非彼宗中不許俱起互為因果義可成等。如是所執。后更當破。又眼色等因果和合。于受何為非唯因果合即能有所生。如先已辯。又契經說。眼色為因。生受等果。如是因果。應合生識及為觸緣。或於此中。應說差別。若言無處如是說故。謂世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 色等。也有像這樣所說的原因。眼等因果和合的觸中，對於上述的意義，都沒有違背損害。就像他們所說有因果關係，是指眼等因果和合的觸，以六處（ayatana，感覺器官）為因，受（vedana，感受）為果。離開內在的六處，就沒有三和合（trisamgati，根、境、識的和合），因為從三和合產生樂、苦等感受。所以說有雜染，雜染是指三和合的觸，因為是受的因，希求的方便，產生各種雜染。他們在那個時候，希望產生自己的識（vijnana，意識）。爲了辨別這個方面的領納差別，舉出所依的根（indriya，感覺器官）和所取的境（visaya，感覺對像），就在這件事上，如實地見知，便能脫離雜染。說有各別，是指辨別眼等因果和合的性質，作為受生起的原因，從此產生愛（trsna，渴愛）。不是所有的眼和色都是眼識（caksu-vijnana，眼識）的因，不是所有的眼識都是眼色的果。又如重擔與荷擔者，離開取蘊（upadana-skandha，執取蘊）的負擔，雖然沒有荷擔者，但在契經（sutra，佛經）中，各別地顯說。這裡也應該這樣。說有斷除，是指斷除雜染的緣故。前面說希求的方便產生各種雜染，現在說斷除那些雜染就叫做斷觸。因為見到稱合的事情，所以叫做如實見，以及說聖道（arya-marga，八正道）安住所緣。說有差別，是指三和合的觸，不是一個整體，不可以像瓶子等那樣說一個整體有眾多部分，就像名色（nama-rupa，名色）等，也有像這樣所說的原因，是指像名色、六處等支分，不是一個法成就的。雖然不是真實存在，但有如上所說的各種意義。這裡也應該這樣，所以沒有過失。像這樣一切道理都不成立。而且眼等因果和合，說名為觸，就像先前已經破斥的。先前已經說過，不是他們的宗派中不允許俱起互為因果的意義可以成立等。像這樣所執著的，以後還要再破斥。又眼色等因果和合，對於受來說，為什麼不是隻有因果和合就能有所產生，就像先前已經辨別的。又契經說，眼色為因，產生受等果。像這樣的因果，應該和合產生識，以及作為觸的緣。或者在這裡，應該說出差別。如果說沒有地方像這樣說，是指世間。
【English Translation】 English version Color and so on. There is also such a meaning as stated. In the contact of the aggregation of causes and effects such as the eye, there is no contradiction or harm to the above-mentioned meaning. Just as they say there is a cause-and-effect relationship, it refers to the contact of the aggregation of causes and effects such as the eye, with the six ayatanas (sense organs) as the cause and vedana (feeling) as the effect. Apart from the inner six ayatanas, there is no trisamgati (the coming together of root, object, and consciousness), because pleasure, suffering, and other feelings arise from the trisamgati. Therefore, it is said that there are defilements, and defilements refer to the contact of the trisamgati, because it is the cause of feeling, and the means of seeking, producing various defilements. At that time, they hope to generate their own vijnana (consciousness). In order to distinguish the differences in reception in this aspect, the root (indriya, sense organ) on which it depends and the object (visaya, sense object) that is taken are cited, and on this matter, by truly seeing and knowing, one can be free from defilements. Saying that there are distinctions refers to distinguishing the nature of the aggregation of causes and effects such as the eye, as the cause of the arising of feeling, from which trsna (craving) arises. Not all eyes and colors are the cause of eye-consciousness (caksu-vijnana), and not all eye-consciousness is the effect of eye-color. Also, like a heavy burden and the one who carries it, apart from the burden of the upadana-skandha (clinging aggregates), although there is no carrier, it is separately and clearly stated in the sutras (Buddhist scriptures). It should be the same here. Saying that there is elimination refers to the elimination of defilements. Earlier, it was said that the means of seeking produce various defilements, and now it is said that eliminating those defilements is called eliminating contact. Because of seeing things that are in accordance, it is called truly seeing, and it is said that the arya-marga (Noble Eightfold Path) abides in what is conditioned. Saying that there are differences refers to the fact that the contact of the trisamgati is not a single whole, so it cannot be said that one whole has many parts like a bottle, just as nama-rupa (name and form) and so on. There is also such a meaning as stated, referring to the fact that branches such as nama-rupa and the six ayatanas are not accomplished by a single dharma. Although they are not truly existent, they have the various meanings stated above. It should be the same here, so there is no fault. In this way, all reasons are not established. Moreover, the aggregation of causes and effects such as the eye is called contact, just as it has already been refuted. It has already been said that it is not that their school does not allow the meaning of arising together and being mutually cause and effect to be established, and so on. Such attachments will be refuted later. Also, for the aggregation of causes and effects such as eye and color, why is it not that only the aggregation of causes and effects can produce something for feeling, just as it has already been distinguished. Also, the sutras say that eye and color are the cause, producing effects such as feeling. Such causes and effects should aggregate to produce consciousness, and serve as the condition for contact. Or in this, the difference should be stated. If it is said that there is nowhere that says it like this, it refers to the world.
尊言。眼色為緣。生於眼識。三和合觸。無處說言。眼色為因。生受等果。可言如是因果和合生識及觸。是故不應如是說者。此亦非理。有處說故。即此經說。受等俱生。此俱生言。顯與識等同時起義。后當成立。然彼經說。眼色為緣。生眼識者。由識是彼受等所依。相用強故。世尊慮有執眼色緣唯生眼識。故此經說。眼色為因。生受等果。又伽他說。眼色二緣。生諸心所。足為明證。故眼色緣。非唯生識。唯執眼等因果合故。名觸生受。理定不然。假法無能及不定故。所言眼等因果合觸。六處為因。離內六處無三和者。理亦不然。豈不離境及識隨一。亦無三和。非諸假法三事合成。于所依中。隨𨵗一種。而得有假。猶如伊字。說觸為實心所法者。雖依根境及識而生。然內六處。生用最勝。為勝生因及所依故。所以偏說。即由如是殊勝所依。標六觸名。謂眼等觸假法用既無。如何生受果。言三和觸為受因故。希求方便生雜染者。重言無用。已別說故。謂前已說。于眼於色于眼識中。起諸雜染。離三法外。復有何觸。而後重說于眼觸言。若謂此言重說眼等三法因果和合性者。是則不應但言眼觸如眼識及色非獨依彼故。眼色識三同作假觸所依止性。等無差別。唯言眼觸。不言色觸及眼識觸。此有何因。又彼所宗。由眼及色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 您說的。以眼和色為緣，產生眼識。三者和合而成觸。沒有地方說眼和色是原因，產生受等結果。如果說像這樣因果和合產生識和觸，那麼說眼和色是原因，產生受等結果，是不應該的。這種說法也是不合理的，因為有經文這樣說。就是這部經說，受等和識同時產生。這個『俱生』的意思，顯示了受等和識同時生起。這一點之後會成立。然而，那部經說，眼和色為緣，產生眼識，是因為識是受等所依賴的，其作用和力量強大。世尊考慮到有人會執著于眼和色為緣只產生眼識，所以這部經說，眼和色為因，產生受等結果。而且，《伽陀》中說，眼和色兩種緣，產生各種心所，足以證明。所以，眼和色為緣，並非只產生識。僅僅執著于眼等因果和合，就說觸產生受，道理肯定是不成立的。因為假法沒有能力，而且是不確定的。所說的眼等因果和合而成觸，六處是原因，離開內在的六處就沒有三和合，這種說法也是不合理的。難道不是離開境和識中的任何一個，也沒有三和合嗎？並非所有假法都是由三件事合成的，在所依之中，隨著其中一種，就可以有假立，就像『伊』字一樣。說觸是真實的心所法，雖然依賴於根、境和識而產生，但是內在的六處，產生作用最為殊勝，因為是殊勝的生因和所依，所以偏重說明。就是由於這樣殊勝的所依，才標立了六觸的名字。如果說眼等觸的假法沒有作用，如何產生受的結果呢？說三和合觸是受的原因，爲了希求方便而產生雜染，重複說沒有用，因為已經分別說過了。之前已經說過，在眼、色、眼識中，產生各種雜染。離開這三種法之外，還有什麼觸，而後又重複說眼觸呢？如果說這句話是重複說眼等三種法的因果和合的性質，那麼就不應該只說眼觸，就像眼識和色並非單獨依賴眼根一樣。眼、色、識三者共同作為假立的觸的所依止性，沒有差別，卻只說眼觸，不說色觸和眼識觸，這是什麼原因呢？而且，他們所宗的，由眼和色
【English Translation】 English version: You said, 'Eye and form are the condition for the arising of eye-consciousness. The combination of these three is contact. There is nowhere that says eye and form are the cause for the arising of feeling, etc., as a result.' If it is said that, 'Like this, the combination of cause and effect gives rise to consciousness and contact,' then saying that 'eye and form are the cause for the arising of feeling, etc., as a result' is not appropriate. This statement is also unreasonable because there are sutras that say so. This very sutra says that feeling, etc., arise simultaneously with consciousness. The term 'simultaneous arising' indicates that feeling, etc., arise at the same time as consciousness. This point will be established later. However, that sutra says that 'eye and form are the condition for the arising of eye-consciousness' because consciousness is what feeling, etc., rely on, and its function and power are strong. The World-Honored One, considering that some might cling to the idea that eye and form as condition only give rise to eye-consciousness, therefore this sutra says that 'eye and form are the cause for the arising of feeling, etc., as a result.' Moreover, the Gatha says that 'eye and form, these two conditions, give rise to various mental factors,' which is sufficient proof. Therefore, eye and form as condition do not only give rise to consciousness. Merely clinging to the combination of cause and effect of eye, etc., and saying that contact gives rise to feeling is definitely not established. Because fabricated dharmas have no ability and are uncertain. The statement that 'the combination of cause and effect of eye, etc., becomes contact, and the six sense bases are the cause; without the inner six sense bases, there is no three-way combination' is also unreasonable. Isn't it the case that without either the object or consciousness, there is also no three-way combination? Not all fabricated dharmas are composed of three things; within the basis of dependence, with any one of them, there can be a fabrication, just like the letter 'I'. Saying that contact is a real mental factor, although it arises dependent on the root, object, and consciousness, the inner six sense bases are the most excellent in producing function, because they are the excellent cause of arising and the basis of dependence, so they are emphasized. It is precisely because of such an excellent basis of dependence that the names of the six contacts are established. If the fabricated dharmas of eye contact, etc., have no function, how can they produce the result of feeling? Saying that the three-way combination of contact is the cause of feeling, and seeking a means to generate defilements, is a useless repetition, because it has already been explained separately. It has already been said before that in the eye, in form, and in eye-consciousness, various defilements arise. Apart from these three dharmas, what other contact is there, that you then repeat about eye contact? If you say that this statement is repeating the nature of the combination of cause and effect of the three dharmas of eye, etc., then you should not only say eye contact, just as eye-consciousness and form do not depend solely on the eye root. The eye, form, and consciousness together serve as the basis of dependence for fabricated contact, without any difference, yet you only say eye contact, and do not say form contact or eye-consciousness contact. What is the reason for this? Moreover, according to their doctrine, by eye and form
。生於眼識。後方生受。眼識為受等無間緣。鄰近所依。非眼非色。是則唯應說名識觸。如何反說為眼觸耶。若謂有無定相隨故。謂若有彼眼等六處。有眼等觸。彼無觸無如生盲等。無眼等觸由此經言六處緣觸。以有根者色識合時。便說有觸。非無根故。此亦不然。見有雖得眼等六處。而或有時諸識不起。則無有觸。如在無想滅盡定等。彼位無心。后當成立。故約有無定相隨者。唯應依識以摽觸名。又心所言。彼應憶念。觸若定隨根有無者。應名根所非心所法。又生盲等。若住意地。有心位中。既有身根。更何所𨵗。身觸不起。非有身識。身觸不生。見有身根。而無身觸。應知彼觸隨識有無。不隨根境識是生觸。強勝因故。應隨識說。然諸契經。說眼等觸。知別有觸體。是心所依眼等故。如眼等識名隨依說。其理極成。故不應言眼等六觸眼等因果和合為性。如別有觸雖依識生而說眼觸。我亦然者。其理不然。就勝因依說觸名故。或復略去中間言故。或說所依。所依眼故。又契經言。于眼於色于眼識中。起諸雜染。由此已說眼色識三因果合性。以根境識隨相系屬次第說故。若異此者。應次第說眼等六根六境六識又契經說。于眼觸中起雜染者。此言何義。若謂此言顯于眼等因果合性起雜染義。此義非理。由次第說根境識三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『生於眼識，然後才產生感受。眼識是感受的等無間緣（緊鄰的、無間隔的因緣），是鄰近的所依（依靠）。如果不是眼，也不是色（境），那麼就應該只說是識觸（意識的接觸），為什麼反而說是眼觸呢？』 如果說因為有無一定的對應關係，也就是說，如果有眼等六處（六根），就有眼等觸；如果沒有，比如天生盲人等，就沒有眼等觸。因為經中說『六處緣觸』，當有根者（具有感官的人）的色（境）與識（意識）結合時，就說有觸，而不是沒有根。但這種說法也不對，因為可以看到，即使有眼等六處，有時各種識也不生起，那麼就沒有觸，比如在無想定、滅盡定等狀態中，那些狀態中沒有心，這將在後面成立。所以，根據有無一定的對應關係來說，應該依據識來標明觸的名字。 而且，從心所（心的作用）來說，應該憶念。如果觸一定隨著根的有無而存在，就應該叫做根所，而不是心所法。而且，天生盲人等，如果住在意地（意識的層面），在有心的狀態中，既然有身根（身體的感官），還需要什麼呢？身觸不起。如果沒有身識，身觸就不會產生。可見有身根，卻沒有身觸。應該知道，觸是隨著識的有無而存在的，而不是隨著根和境。識是產生觸的強大而殊勝的因，所以應該隨著識來說。 然而，各種契經（佛經）中說『眼等觸』，是知道別有觸的自體，是心所依眼等（心所依于眼等根）的緣故，就像眼等識的名字是隨所依而說一樣，這個道理非常明確。所以不應該說眼等六觸是眼等因果和合的性質。如果說，就像別有觸雖然依識而生，卻說成眼觸，我也是這樣，這個道理是不對的。因為是就殊勝的因和所依來說觸的名字。或者是因為省略了中間的言語，或者說是所依，因為所依是眼。 而且，契經中說：『在眼、在色、在眼識中，產生各種雜染。』由此已經說了眼、色、識三者因果和合的性質，因為是按照根、境、識相互聯繫的順序來說的。如果不是這樣，就應該按照順序說眼等六根、六境、六識。而且契經說：『在眼觸中產生雜染』，這句話是什麼意思？如果說這句話顯示了在眼等因果和合的性質中產生雜染的意義，這個意義是不合理的。因為是按照順序說根、境、識三者。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Born of eye-consciousness, then feeling arises. Eye-consciousness is the immediately preceding condition for feeling, the proximate support. If it is neither the eye nor the form, then it should only be called 'consciousness-contact'. Why is it instead called 'eye-contact'?' If it is said that there is a definite correspondence between presence and absence, that is, if there are the six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), then there is eye-contact, etc.; if there are not, such as in the case of someone born blind, then there is no eye-contact, etc. Because the sutra says 'contact is conditioned by the six sense bases', when the form (object) and consciousness of someone with sense organs combine, it is said that there is contact, not when there are no sense organs. But this is also not correct, because it can be seen that even if there are the six sense bases, sometimes the various consciousnesses do not arise, and then there is no contact, such as in the states of non-perception and cessation. Those states are without mind, which will be established later. Therefore, according to the definite correspondence between presence and absence, the name of contact should be labeled according to consciousness. Moreover, from the perspective of mental factors (citta-samkhara), it should be remembered. If contact necessarily exists with the presence or absence of the sense base, it should be called 'sense-base-related', not a mental factor. Moreover, for someone born blind, etc., if they dwell in the realm of mind, in a state of having mind, since they have the body sense, what else is needed? Body-contact does not arise. If there is no body-consciousness, body-contact will not arise. It can be seen that there is a body sense, but no body-contact. It should be known that contact exists with the presence or absence of consciousness, not with the sense base and object. Consciousness is the powerful and superior cause of the arising of contact, so it should be spoken of according to consciousness. However, the various sutras say 'eye-contact, etc.', which is to know that there is a separate entity of contact, because it is the mental factor that relies on the eye, etc. (the mental factor relies on the eye, etc., sense bases), just as the name of eye-consciousness, etc., is spoken of according to what it relies on, this principle is very clear. Therefore, it should not be said that the six contacts of eye, etc., are the nature of the combination of the causes and effects of eye, etc. If it is said that just as a separate contact arises depending on consciousness, but is called eye-contact, I am also like that, this principle is not correct. Because the name of contact is spoken of in terms of the superior cause and what it relies on. Or because the intermediate words are omitted, or it is said to be what it relies on, because what it relies on is the eye. Moreover, the sutra says: 'In the eye, in the form, in the eye-consciousness, various defilements arise.' From this, it has already been said that the nature of the combination of the causes and effects of the eye, form, and consciousness, because it is spoken of in the order of the interconnectedness of the sense base, object, and consciousness. If it were not like this, then the six sense bases, six objects, and six consciousnesses of eye, etc., should be spoken of in order. Moreover, the sutra says: 'In eye-contact, defilements arise.' What does this statement mean? If it is said that this statement reveals the meaning of defilements arising in the nature of the combination of the causes and effects of eye, etc., this meaning is not reasonable. Because the sense base, object, and consciousness are spoken of in order.
。已顯彼故。或契經說。于眼識中。起諸雜染。即已成立。眼色識三因果合性。非無根境而有識故。于識起染。即於三和。豈不前言。非諸眼識皆眼色果。雖前有言。而無實義。故不成救。彼無眼識非眼色果。以執唯有現在法故。或復應說。彼識是何。若識有時眼色無故。非彼果者。則因果性。畢竟應無。執非並故。既諸眼識。皆眼色果。則于眼識起雜染言。便已成立。眼色識三因果合性。何須重說。此由汝等於法性相不善度量。輒率己情。釋佛經義。致斯迷惑。是故汝等。應更精勤於法性相求無倒解。言彼爾時愿生自識為辯此門領納差別。舉所依根所取境者。識且可爾。根境應思。彼二云何令受差別。如前已辯。彼受起時。根境體滅。無生用故。雜染既有過離染亦不成。如破彼說雜染道理。準此應破彼各別言。謂辯眼等因果合性為受起因。及生愛等。所立重擔荷擔者喻。于證彼義。無所堪能。以有未來五取蘊性。名為重擔。非荷擔者。現在取蘊名荷者故。如契經言。
已舍于重擔 后不復更取 取重擔為苦 舍重擔為樂
此有荷者異於重擔。彼無觸性離根境識。故所立喻。于義無能。有餘別釋此各別言。非別說故。則別有體。如外處中第六法處已攝六受及六愛身。雖別建立。而無別體。如是雖無根
境識外六觸身體。而亦別說六種觸身。斯有何過。此亦非理所以者何。離受愛外有餘法處。可得別說。離根境識。無別三和可別說故。言斷雜染故名斷者。如雜染中義準應破。謂雜染中。已廣成立。離眼等外有觸雜染。由彼斷故三受永斷。非由眼等因果合性雜染斷故三受永斷。言見稱事名如實見。及說聖道住所緣者。理亦不然。虛假事見非證實故。豈名如實。既非如實。何名聖道安住所緣。若非聖道安住所緣。何能永斷觸食三受。言三和觸非一合故。不可如瓶說眾分者。理亦不然。見非一合亦別說故。猶如有說補特伽羅之受想等眾分差別。言如名色六處等支。雖非實有而有如前所說諸義。故無失者。理亦不然。非審宗故。于非一事立一想名。各別事中失此名想。名假有相。如瓶如行。或如汝執三和觸等。名色名想不可雜壞。如觸法界總別皆有。故此非與汝執觸同。由斯類釋六處支等。為顯內處唯有六故。立六處名。非於多法立一名想。謂為六處於此實法名色等支。可有勝義因果等說。非於汝執假有觸等說有勝義因果等言。故彼古昔諸大論師。所立諸因。理善成就。由此有觸。是別心所。一切心俱。理極成立。此既成立。上座所言。大地唯三。極為迷謬。
云何成立。前四法余實有別體。是大地法。彼彼說故。實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於境、識、外六觸和身體。並且還分別說了六種觸身，這有什麼不妥嗎？這也是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為在受和愛之外，還有其他的法處可以分別說明。離開了根、境、識，就沒有其他的三和可以分別說明了。說斷滅雜染才叫做斷滅，就像在雜染中一樣，這個義理應該被駁斥。因為在雜染中，已經廣泛地成立了，離開了眼等之外，還有觸雜染。由於斷滅了觸雜染，所以三種受才能永遠斷滅。不是由於眼等因果合性的雜染斷滅，三種受才能永遠斷滅。說見到稱意的事情才叫做如實見，以及說聖道所安住的所緣，這個道理也是不成立的。因為虛假的事情的見解不是真實的，怎麼能叫做如實呢？既然不是如實，怎麼能叫做聖道安住的所緣呢？如果不是聖道安住的所緣，怎麼能永遠斷滅觸食三受呢？說三和觸不是一個整體，所以不能像瓶子一樣說眾多的部分，這個道理也是不成立的。因為見到不是一個整體，也可以分別說明。就像有人說補特伽羅（pudgala，人）的受、想等眾多的部分差別。說像名色、六處等支，雖然不是真實存在，但是有如前面所說的各種義理，所以沒有過失，這個道理也是不成立的。因為沒有審察宗義。對於不是同一件事物，建立一個相同的名稱和想法，在各個不同的事物中，就失去了這個名稱和想法。名稱是假有的相狀，就像瓶子和行為一樣。或者就像你所執著的三和觸等，名稱和想法不能混淆破壞。就像觸法界，總體和個別都有。所以這和你們所執著的觸不同。因此，用這種方式來解釋六處等支，是爲了顯示內處只有六個，所以才建立六處這個名稱。不是對於多種法建立一個相同的名稱和想法，說六處對於這個真實存在的名色等支，可以有勝義的因果等說法。不是對於你們所執著的假有的觸等，說有勝義的因果等言說。所以那些古代的大論師們，所建立的各種原因，道理是完全成立的。由此可見，觸是另外一種心所，和一切心同時生起，這個道理是極其成立的。既然這個道理已經成立，上座所說的大地唯有三種，就極其荒謬了。 怎麼樣才能成立呢？前面的四種法，有真實存在的另外的體性，是大地的法，因為在各種經典中都有這樣的說法，是真實的。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the realm, consciousness, the six external contacts, and the body. And also separately speaking of six kinds of bodily contacts, what is wrong with that? This is also unreasonable. Why? Because apart from feeling and craving, there are other dharma places that can be separately explained. Apart from the root, object, and consciousness, there is no other 'three-in-harmony' that can be separately explained. Saying that the extinction of defilements is called extinction, just like in defilements, this principle should be refuted. Because in defilements, it has been widely established that apart from the eye and so on, there are contact defilements. Because of the extinction of contact defilements, the three kinds of feelings can be permanently extinguished. It is not because of the extinction of the defilements of the combined nature of cause and effect of the eye and so on that the three kinds of feelings can be permanently extinguished. Saying that seeing things that are agreeable is called 'seeing things as they really are,' and saying that the object of focus where the holy path dwells, this principle is also not established. Because the view of false things is not real, how can it be called 'seeing things as they really are'? Since it is not 'seeing things as they really are,' how can it be called the object of focus where the holy path dwells? If it is not the object of focus where the holy path dwells, how can it permanently extinguish the three feelings of contact and food? Saying that the 'three-in-harmony' contact is not a single whole, so it cannot be said to have many parts like a pot, this principle is also not established. Because seeing that it is not a single whole can also be separately explained. Just like someone says that the person (pudgala) has different parts such as feeling, thought, and so on. Saying that like name and form, the six sense bases, etc., although they are not truly existent, they have the various meanings as mentioned before, so there is no fault, this principle is also not established. Because the doctrine has not been carefully examined. For things that are not the same, establishing the same name and thought, in each different thing, this name and thought are lost. The name is a falsely existent appearance, like a pot or an action. Or like the 'three-in-harmony' contact that you cling to, the name and thought cannot be confused and destroyed. Just like the contact realm of dharma, both the general and the specific exist. So this is different from the contact that you cling to. Therefore, explaining the six sense bases and so on in this way is to show that there are only six internal places, so the name 'six sense bases' is established. It is not establishing the same name and thought for multiple dharmas, saying that the six sense bases for this truly existent name and form, etc., can have ultimate cause and effect and so on. It is not saying that there are ultimate cause and effect and so on for the falsely existent contact and so on that you cling to. Therefore, the various reasons established by those great ancient masters are completely established. From this, it can be seen that contact is another mental factor, arising simultaneously with all minds, this principle is extremely established. Since this principle has been established, what the elder said that the earth has only three is extremely absurd. How can it be established? The previous four dharmas have a truly existent other nature, and are the dharmas of the earth, because there are such statements in various scriptures, it is real.
有別體。諸心起時。皆見有用。由斯理證。兩義皆成。又世尊言。謂一切法。欲為根本。作意引生。觸為能集。受為隨流。念為增上。定為上首。慧為最勝。解脫堅固涅槃究竟。想思二法。不說自成。故此經中略而不說。由定無有心相續中空無取相以取境相。諸心位中無非勝故。思是意業。有心皆有。由此契經。現證欲等實有別體。是大地法。然上座言。此經所說。是不了義。故不可依。彼云何知是不了義。彼謂色等理不應用。欲為根本。作意引生。觸為能集。然此經說一切法言。故應但依心心所說。由斯證是不了義經。此說不然。非所許故。依一切法。說此契經。不但偏依心心所說。為令弟子酬答外道矯詰問詞。說此經故。非諸外道於心心所名想極成。何容慮彼。於此義中。善巧詰問。謂諸外道。聞佛世尊於一切法能如實覺。廣大名稱遍諸世間。情不忍許。彼恒聚集。共設謀議。言大沙門喬答摩氏。辯才無滯。敵論為難。且應詰問。彼諸弟子。仁者大師。於一切法。具辯析智。所說云何。且一切法。誰為根本。廣說乃至。誰為究竟。世尊慮有新學苾芻欻遭究問。或便惶亂。為防斯恥。預說此經。應知此中言一切法欲為本者。一切流轉。皆以希求為種子故。謂于諸法。生覺了心。並以希求為根本故。如生順起緣一切心
。故說諸法欲為根本。一切法中所有了別。皆由作意方便引起。故說諸法作意引生。言一切法觸能集者。諸法皆與觸為能集。根境識三和合生故。言一切法受隨流者。諸受隨順一切法流。謂樂苦等。隨愛非愛及俱相違。別境轉故。或一切法隨受而流。意顯諸法隨受行相差別而轉。為境性故。言一切法念增上者。謂由念力。于諸所緣不忘失故。由此故說念為遍行。守門防邏。言一切法定上首者。謂三摩地。能繫縛心。令于所緣安住不散。令心於境專一審慮。故名為定。此于制心威力最勝。故言上首。心性雖躁。由定所持。不速背此往余流散。由此契經。說心如電說定堅固猶若金剛。言一切法慧最勝者。諸法性相。雖極甚深。般若堅明。皆能洞照。故言最勝。或復般若出過諸法。故名最勝。勝是過義。世俗於過。說為勝故。此中意說。唯有般若。遍照所知。尚有餘力。於一切法。能了別中。邪正勝解。力最堅固。由是印定諸境勝因。故言諸法解脫堅固。解脫即是勝解異名。無始時來。生死流轉。心境展轉。相續無邊。唯有涅槃。為其究竟。故言諸法涅槃究竟。由如是釋。一切法言。攝法周盡。更無異趣。由斯證此。是了義經。決定可依。證前兩義。此中欲者。思行蘊中。已引聖言。成立別有。謂如經說。彼有如是信欲勤安
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此說一切法以『欲』（chanda，意願）為根本。一切法中的所有了別（區分），都是由作意（manasikara，心理活動）方便引起的。所以說一切法由作意而生。 說到『一切法觸能集』，是指諸法都以『觸』（sparsha，感官接觸）為能集。因為根（indriya，感官）、境（vishaya，對像）、識（vijnana，意識）三者和合而生。 說到『一切法受隨流』，是指諸受（vedana，感受）隨順一切法流。也就是樂（sukha，快樂）、苦（duhkha，痛苦）等，隨著可愛（愛著的事物）、非愛（不愛著的事物）以及與兩者相違背的別境（不同的境界）而轉變。或者說一切法隨著受而流轉，意思是說諸法隨著受的行相差別而轉變，因為受是境的自性。 說到『一切法念增上』，是指由於念（smriti，記憶）的力量，對於所緣（alambana，對像）不會忘失。因此說念是遍行（普遍存在）。如同守門人防守巡邏。 說到『一切法定上首』，是指三摩地（samadhi，禪定）。它能夠繫縛心，使心安住在所緣上不散亂，使心對於境界專一審慮。所以稱為定。它在控制心方面威力最勝，所以說『上首』。心性雖然躁動，但由於定的控制，不會迅速背離所緣而往其他地方流散。因此契經（sutra，佛經）中說心如閃電，說定堅固猶如金剛。 說到『一切法慧最勝』，是指諸法的自性與現象，雖然極其深奧，但般若（prajna，智慧）光明堅固，都能夠洞察照見。所以說『最勝』。或者說般若超出諸法，所以名為『最勝』。勝是超越的意思，世俗中對於超越，說是『勝』。這裡的意思是說，只有般若，普遍照耀所知，尚有餘力，對於一切法，在能夠了別（區分）中，邪正的勝解（adhimoksha，勝妙的理解），力量最為堅固。由此印定諸境的殊勝之因，所以說諸法解脫堅固。解脫（vimoksha，解脫）就是勝解的異名。 從無始以來，生死流轉，心與境輾轉相續無邊無際，只有涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）才是它的究竟。所以說諸法以涅槃為究竟。通過這樣的解釋，『一切法』這個詞，涵蓋了所有法，周遍窮盡，更沒有其他不同的去處。因此可以證明這是了義經（nitartha sutra，究竟意義的經典），決定可以依憑。以此來證明前面的兩種意義。這裡所說的『欲』，在思行蘊中，已經引用聖言，成立了它的別有。比如經中所說：『彼有如是信欲勤安』
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is said that all dharmas have 'desire' (chanda) as their root. All distinctions within all dharmas arise from the skillful application of attention (manasikara). Hence, it is said that all dharmas are born from attention. Regarding 'all dharmas are gathered by contact (sparsha),' it means that all dharmas are gathered by contact. This is because the root (indriya), object (vishaya), and consciousness (vijnana) arise together. Regarding 'all dharmas flow with feeling (vedana),' it means that all feelings flow in accordance with all dharmas. That is, pleasure (sukha), pain (duhkha), and so on, change according to what is loved, what is not loved, and what is contrary to both. Or, it can mean that all dharmas flow with feeling, indicating that dharmas change according to the different aspects of feeling, because feeling is the nature of the object. Regarding 'all dharmas are enhanced by mindfulness (smriti),' it means that due to the power of mindfulness, one does not forget the object (alambana). Therefore, it is said that mindfulness is pervasive, like a guard patrolling the gate. Regarding 'all dharmas have concentration (samadhi) as their chief,' it refers to samadhi. It can bind the mind, causing it to dwell on the object without scattering, and causing the mind to contemplate the object with focused attention. Therefore, it is called concentration. It is the most powerful in controlling the mind, hence the term 'chief.' Although the nature of the mind is restless, it is held by concentration and does not quickly turn away from the object to wander elsewhere. Therefore, the sutras say that the mind is like lightning, and that concentration is as firm as diamond. Regarding 'all dharmas have wisdom (prajna) as the most excellent,' it means that although the nature and characteristics of dharmas are extremely profound, prajna is bright and firm, and can penetrate and illuminate them all. Therefore, it is called 'most excellent.' Or, it can mean that prajna surpasses all dharmas, hence the name 'most excellent.' 'Surpassing' means exceeding, and in the mundane world, exceeding is referred to as 'surpassing.' The meaning here is that only prajna universally illuminates what is knowable, and still has the power to firmly establish the correct and incorrect understanding (adhimoksha) in the ability to distinguish all dharmas. Therefore, it confirms the excellent cause of all objects, hence it is said that all dharmas are firm in liberation (vimoksha). Liberation is another name for excellent understanding. From beginningless time, the cycle of birth and death flows on, with the mind and object endlessly continuing in mutual succession. Only nirvana is its ultimate end. Therefore, it is said that all dharmas have nirvana as their ultimate end. Through this explanation, the term 'all dharmas' encompasses all dharmas, completely and exhaustively, with no other different destination. Therefore, it can be proven that this is a definitive sutra (nitartha sutra), which can be relied upon. This is to prove the two meanings mentioned earlier. The 'desire' mentioned here, within the formations aggregate, has already been established as distinct by the words of the sages. For example, the sutra says: 'They have such faith, desire, diligence, and ease.'
。乃至廣說。又前已說。諸心起時。皆見有用。證知欲是大地法性。所以者何。一切流轉。皆以希求為種子故。謂心用欲。作俱起緣。一切境中。恒流轉故。然上座言。此欲決定非大地法。阿闡地迦經所說故。此言非理。依巧便欲言非有欲。故無斯過。若言斯理他亦應同。謂他亦言。依全無慾。說非有故。此理不同。彼于余境。有所樂欲。現可得故。謂彼現於可愛樂事。定有希求。而得說為非有欲者。故知此依巧便欲說。如言非信世間亦于不仁孝子說為非子。故非有言。未為定證。于境無慾心必不生。故此定應是大地法。慧別有體。諸經說故。心了境時。必有簡擇。用微劣者。便不覺知。故慧定應是大地法。然上座說。慧于無明疑俱心品。相用無故。非大地法。所以者何。智與無智。猶豫決定。理不應俱。此說不然。邪見心品。與無明俱。理極成故。非無癡心可有邪見。故邪見品。定有無明。不共無明。相應心品。云何有慧。且許無智與智相應。其理成立。此既成立。不共無明。相應心品。亦應有慧。但微劣故。相不明瞭。由此類釋。亦與疑俱。若疑相應全無慧者。云何得有二品推尋。於二品中。差別簡擇。推尋理趣。乃成疑故。念體別有。亦如經說。心了境時。必有明記。亦由微劣。有不覺知。故念定應是大地法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 乃至廣說。前面已經說過，所有心生起的時候，都能見到其作用。這證明了『欲』（chanda, 希求）是『大地法』（mahā-bhūmika dharmas, 普遍存在的心所）。為什麼這麼說呢？因為一切流轉，都是以希求作為種子。也就是說，心通過『欲』，作為俱起緣，在一切境界中，恒常流轉。但是上座部（Theravada）的人說，這個『欲』絕對不是『大地法』，因為《阿闡地迦經》（Accantika Sutta）中這樣說。這種說法是不合理的，因為那是依據方便說，說的是『非有欲』（n'atthi chanda），所以沒有這個過失。如果說這個道理可以這樣用，那麼其他人也應該同樣使用，也就是說，其他人也可以說，依據完全沒有『欲』，所以說『非有』。這個道理是不一樣的，因為他們在其他的境界中，有所喜好和慾望，這是可以觀察到的。也就是說，他們現在對於可愛的事物，一定有希求，而（即使如此）也可以說成是『非有欲』，所以知道這是依據方便說。就像說『非信』（non-belief）一樣，世間也會對不仁不孝的兒子說『非子』（not a son）。所以，說『非有』，不能作為確定的證據。如果對於境界沒有『欲』，心一定不會生起，所以這個『欲』一定是『大地法』。 『慧』（prajñā, 智慧）的體性是另外存在的，很多經典都這樣說。心了知境界的時候，一定會有簡擇（discernment）。因為作用微弱，所以便不覺知。所以『慧』一定是『大地法』。但是上座部的人說，『慧』在與『無明』（avidyā, 愚癡）和『疑』（vicikicchā, 懷疑）俱生的心品中，沒有作用，所以不是『大地法』。為什麼這麼說呢？因為智慧和無智慧，猶豫和決定，在道理上不應該同時存在。這種說法是不對的，因為邪見（micchā-diṭṭhi, 錯誤的見解）心品，與『無明』俱生，這個道理是成立的。沒有無癡心（amoha, 不愚癡）不可能有邪見，所以邪見品，一定有『無明』。與不共無明（不與一切心相應的無明）相應的心品，怎麼會有『慧』呢？就算允許無智與智相應，這個道理也是成立的。既然這個道理成立，那麼與不共無明相應的心品，也應該有『慧』，只是因為微弱，所以作用不明顯。由此類推，『慧』也與『疑』俱生。如果與『疑』相應完全沒有『慧』，怎麼會有二品推尋（twofold investigation）呢？在二品中，差別簡擇，推尋理趣，才能構成『疑』。 『念』（smṛti, 正念）的體性是另外存在的，經典也是這樣說的。心了知境界的時候，一定會有明記（remembering）。也是因為微弱，所以有時不覺知。所以『念』一定是『大地法』。
【English Translation】 English version …and so on, extensively explained. Furthermore, as previously stated, whenever thoughts arise, their function is evident. This proves that 『Chanda』 (desire, aspiration) is a 『Mahā-Bhūmika Dharma』 (universal mental factor). Why is this so? Because all transmigrations have desire as their seed. That is to say, the mind, through 『Chanda』, acts as a co-arising condition, constantly transmigrating in all realms. However, the Theravadins say that this 『Chanda』 is definitely not a 『Mahā-Bhūmika Dharma』, as stated in the 『Accantika Sutta』. This statement is unreasonable, because it is based on a provisional statement, saying 『N'atthi Chanda』 (no desire), so there is no fault. If this reasoning can be used in this way, then others should use it in the same way, that is, others can also say that based on the complete absence of 『Chanda』, it is said to be 『non-existent』. This reasoning is different, because in other realms, they have likes and desires, which can be observed. That is to say, they certainly have aspirations for lovely things, and (even so) it can be said to be 『N'atthi Chanda』, so it is known that this is based on a provisional statement. Just like saying 『non-belief』, the world will also say 『not a son』 to an unbenevolent and unfilial son. Therefore, saying 『non-existent』 cannot be used as definite evidence. If there is no 『Chanda』 for the realm, the mind will definitely not arise, so this 『Chanda』 must be a 『Mahā-Bhūmika Dharma』. The nature of 『Prajñā』 (wisdom, understanding) exists separately, as many scriptures say. When the mind knows the realm, there must be discernment. Because the function is weak, it is not perceived. Therefore, 『Prajñā』 must be a 『Mahā-Bhūmika Dharma』. However, the Theravadins say that 『Prajñā』 has no function in the mental factors that arise together with 『Avidyā』 (ignorance, delusion) and 『Vicikicchā』 (doubt, uncertainty), so it is not a 『Mahā-Bhūmika Dharma』. Why is this so? Because wisdom and non-wisdom, hesitation and decision, should not exist at the same time in principle. This statement is incorrect, because the mental factor of wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi, incorrect belief) arises together with 『Avidyā』, which is established in principle. It is impossible to have wrong view without non-delusion (amoha, non-delusion), so the wrong view factor must have 『Avidyā』. How can the mental factors that correspond to non-common ignorance (ignorance that does not correspond to all minds) have 『Prajñā』? Even if it is allowed that non-wisdom corresponds to wisdom, this principle is also established. Since this principle is established, then the mental factors that correspond to non-common ignorance should also have 『Prajñā』, but because it is weak, the function is not obvious. By analogy, 『Prajñā』 also arises together with 『doubt』. If there is no 『Prajñā』 at all corresponding to 『doubt』, how can there be twofold investigation? In the two categories, differential discernment, investigating the rational interest, can constitute 『doubt』. The nature of 『Smṛti』 (mindfulness, memory) exists separately, as the scriptures also say. When the mind knows the realm, there must be remembering. Also because it is weak, it is sometimes not perceived. Therefore, 『Smṛti』 must be a 『Mahā-Bhūmika Dharma』.
然上座言。此念決定。非大地法。契經說有失念心故。失謂亡失。又見多於過去境上。施設念故。然于彼境。即智行相明記而轉。故無別念。此說不然。如前說故。非巧便念名為失念。如狂亂心名為失心。或念微劣。名為失念。如迷悶等。名失想思。既見多於過去境上。施設有念。便於現在所緣境上。有念極成。非於現境曾無明記。後於過去有憶念生。言于彼境。即智行相明記而轉。無別念者。理亦不然。覺察明記。行相別故。于境覺察重審名智。不忘失因。明記名念。故有說言。于所受境。令心不忘。明記爲念。若執如是明記行相。即智行相。無別念者。受等亦應無別有體。謂亦可言。即智行相。領納而轉。無別有受。余亦應然。即為非理。又彼唯許心所有三。智體亦無。何獨無念。說念即智。但有虛言。又阿笈摩。證念非智。如契經說。住正念者。便住正知。又契經言。具正知者。便具正念。如是等類。所說寔多。若念即智。契經應言。住正念者。便住正念。具正知者。便具正知。如是所言。有何別義。若念唯緣過去境者。如何失念知現他心。或復如何緣涅槃智。滅等行轉。而名失念。又緣未來。死生智等。如何失念。成力明通。如斯等類。為過茲甚。故諸心品。皆與念俱。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十
大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之三
作意別有。亦如經說。心由作意引發故生。故此定應是大地法。然上座言。無別一法名為作意。由此別相理不成故。謂于所緣。能作動意。名作意相。若於所緣。唯作動意。諸餘心所。應不能緣。若亦由斯方能緣者。理不應爾。名作意故。余緣生故。此難非理。諸心所法。依心轉故。但動于意余動亦成。故無心所不能緣過。又眾緣力諸法乃生。故雖余緣生心心所。而此作意。非無力用。謂此作意。力能令識于余境轉。若爾一境識流轉時。應無作意。是則作意非大地法。不爾一境識流轉時。亦有作意。然于余境。此用明瞭。謂於一境。剎那剎那。亦由作意力方引心令起。然于余境。引發心時。作意功能。明顯易了。豈不眾緣發生心等即名能引。何勞別計作意力為。此責非理。雖具生識余和合緣。而說作意能生識故如契經說。爾時若無能生作意。正現在前識終不起。理亦應爾。雖多境界俱時現前。而識何因唯緣一起。豈不於此生緣合故。誠如所言。此即作意生緣合者。即世尊言。作意爾時正現前義。所言作意。于境引心。為是前生。為是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之三
作意（manasikara，心理活動中的注意或 направленность ума）是獨立存在的。正如經文所說，心由作意引發而生。因此，作意必定屬於大地法（mahā-bhūmika，普遍存在的心所）。然而，上座部（Theravada，佛教的一個早期宗派）認為，沒有一種獨立的法被稱為作意，因為這種獨立的特性在邏輯上無法成立。所謂的作意相（laksana，特徵）是指能夠對所緣（alambana，對像）產生動意的作用。如果對於所緣，僅僅是產生動意，那麼其他的諸餘心所（caitasika，心理因素）就應該不能緣取對象。如果也必須通過作意才能緣取對象，那麼在邏輯上是不應該這樣的，因為作意只是被稱為『作意』而已，心和心所是由於其他因緣而生起的。這種責難是不合理的。因為所有心所法都是依心而轉的，只要動了意，其他的動也就自然完成了，所以不會出現心所不能緣取對象的問題。而且，諸法是由眾多因緣共同作用而產生的，所以即使心和心所是由其他因緣生起的，也不能說作意沒有作用。作意的作用在於能夠使識（vijnana，意識）轉向其他的境界。如果這樣說，那麼當識流轉于同一個境界時，就應該沒有作意了，這樣作意就不是大地法了。不是這樣的，當識流轉于同一個境界時，也是有作意的。只不過對於其他的境界，作意的作用更加明顯。也就是說，對於同一個境界，也是由於作意的力量，才能在每一個剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位）引發心生起。然而，在引發心去緣取其他境界時，作意的功能就顯得更加明顯和容易理解。難道不是說，眾多因緣發生心等法，就可以說是能引發嗎？為什麼還要另外計算作意的力量呢？這種責難是不合理的。即使具備了生起識的其他和合因緣，經文也說作意能夠生起識，正如契經（sutra，佛經）所說，如果當時沒有能夠生起識的作意正現在前，那麼識終究不會生起。道理也應該是這樣。即使有多個境界同時現前，識又是因為什麼原因只緣取其中一個呢？難道不是因為對於這個境界，生緣聚合的緣故嗎？誠如你所說，這也就是作意生緣聚合的含義，也就是世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）所說的，作意爾時正現前的意義。所說的作意，對於境界引發心，是前生的，還是
【English Translation】 English version
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 11
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Section on Distinguishing Differences, Chapter 2, Part 3
Manasikara (作意, attention or mental activity of directing the mind) exists independently. As the sutras say, the mind arises because it is initiated by manasikara. Therefore, it must be a mahā-bhūmika (大地法, universal mental factor). However, the Theravadins (上座部, an early Buddhist school) say that there is no separate dharma called manasikara, because this separate characteristic cannot be logically established. The so-called laksana (相, characteristic) of manasikara refers to the function of being able to generate intention towards the alambana (所緣, object). If it only generates intention towards the object, then the other caitasikas (心所, mental factors) should not be able to apprehend the object. If it is also necessary to apprehend the object through manasikara, then it should not be so logically, because manasikara is only called 'manasikara', and the mind and mental factors arise due to other causes and conditions. This criticism is unreasonable. Because all mental factors depend on the mind to function, as long as the intention is moved, the other movements will naturally be completed, so there will be no problem of mental factors not being able to apprehend the object. Moreover, all dharmas arise from the joint action of many causes and conditions, so even if the mind and mental factors arise from other causes and conditions, it cannot be said that manasikara has no function. The function of manasikara is that it can make vijnana (識, consciousness) turn to other realms. If this is the case, then when consciousness flows in the same realm, there should be no manasikara, so manasikara is not a mahā-bhūmika. It is not like this, there is also manasikara when consciousness flows in the same realm. However, for other realms, the function of manasikara is more obvious. That is to say, for the same realm, it is also due to the power of manasikara that the mind can be initiated in every ksana (剎那, extremely short unit of time). However, when initiating the mind to apprehend other realms, the function of manasikara becomes more obvious and easier to understand. Isn't it said that the occurrence of mind and other dharmas due to many causes and conditions can be said to be able to initiate? Why do you need to calculate the power of manasikara separately? This criticism is unreasonable. Even if there are other combined causes and conditions for the arising of consciousness, the sutras also say that manasikara can give rise to consciousness, as the sutra says, if there was no manasikara that could give rise to consciousness at that time, then consciousness would not arise after all. The principle should also be like this. Even if multiple realms appear at the same time, what is the reason why consciousness only apprehends one of them? Isn't it because of the aggregation of the causes and conditions for the arising of this realm? As you said, this is the meaning of the aggregation of the causes and conditions for the arising of manasikara, which is what the Bhagavan (世尊, the Blessed One, an honorific title for the Buddha) said, the meaning of manasikara being present at that time. The so-called manasikara, initiating the mind for the realm, is it from the previous life, or is it
俱起。是俱時起。非謂前生。經言作意正現前故。正現前者。謂正起近現前自境。即正生時。將入現在。取自境義。此中意顯。由作意力。引識令緣自所樂境。勝解別有。亦如經說。心由勝解。印可所緣。諸心起時。皆能印境。故此定應是大地法。然上座言。勝解別有理不成立。見此與智相無別故。謂于所緣令心決定。名勝解相此與智相都無差別。是故定應無別勝解。此言非理。要有印可。方決定故。有言勝解是決定者。于決定因說為決定。若爾此二。應不同時。不爾此二相隨順故。謂由簡擇。隨生印可。復由印可。隨生決定。不相違故。同時無失。若一切心。皆有此二。則諸心品。應皆印決。此難非理。以或有時余法所伏功能被損。雖有印決。劣難知故。諸無色法。就用說增。如前已辯。世尊建立。貪瞋癡等。行相異故。又別說有十無學支。故知非無別勝解體。彼謂此中心離貪軛。相續轉故。即隨縛斷。名正解脫。所以者何。以薄伽梵于余經中自決此義。故余經說。云何名為心善解脫。謂心從貪從瞋從癡。離染解脫。云何名為慧善解脫。謂如實知。心從貪等離染解脫。此言非善。以無體法。為無學支。理不成故。彼無少法名隨縛斷。如何可立為無學支。又彼釋言。即隨縛斷。名正解脫。此不成釋。所以者何。由隨縛
斷解脫生故。離染無為。名隨縛斷無學勝解。名正解脫。若不爾者。前離染言。已顯縛斷。后解脫言。應成無用。言如實知心解脫者。見離染心相應解脫。又如實知解脫心者。謂見解脫相應之心。故余契經。世尊自說。心離染故。便得解脫。若不爾者。解脫既是離染異名。應依初說。不依第五。如余處言。盡離滅等。雖依初說離染解脫。而體各異。若不爾者。說解脫言。應成無用。如無染離染義無差別故。又說解脫為對治故。非隨縛斷即是解脫。故契經說。折伏法中。言由正解脫折伏邪解脫。非隨縛斷能為對治。若能印可。是勝解相。此與信欲應無差別。相雖少同。而體甚異。謂審印可。是勝解相。心凈希求。是信欲相。豈不信順及與欲樂即印可耶。信順欲樂。隨順印可。非即印可。信欲助成勝解用故。心所相用。極難辯析。唯審睿覺。能分別知。故譬喻師。不能堪忍。分析勞倦。遂總非撥。三摩地別有。亦如契經說。平等持心。令住自境。名三摩地。諸心起時。無不各住自所取境。故此定應是大地法。然上座言。離心無別三摩地體。由即心體緣境生時不流散故。若三摩地。持心令住一境轉者。豈由三摩地無故。心便於多境轉耶。若謂多心由此持故令於一境無間轉者。則不應說剎那剎那有三摩地。心唯一念墮在境中。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為斷除了煩惱的束縛，才能從生死中解脫。遠離染污的無為法，稱為『隨縛斷』（Sui Fu Duan，即隨煩惱的斷滅而斷滅）。無學聖者所獲得的殊勝智慧，稱為『正解脫』（Zheng Jie Tuo，真正的解脫）。如果不是這樣，那麼前面所說的『離染』（Li Ran，遠離染污）已經顯示了煩惱的斷滅，後面所說的『解脫』就應該變得沒有意義了。 經文中說『如實知心解脫』（Ru Shi Zhi Xin Jie Tuo），是指見到遠離染污的心與解脫相應。又說『如實知解脫心』（Ru Shi Zhi Jie Tuo Xin），是指見到與解脫相應的心。所以其他的契經中，世尊親自說：『心遠離染污，便能得到解脫。』如果不是這樣，解脫既然是遠離染污的另一種說法，就應該依據最初的說法，而不是依據第五種說法。如同其他地方所說，『盡』（Jin，滅盡）、『離』（Li，遠離）、『滅』（Mie，寂滅）等，雖然都依據最初所說的遠離染污而得到解脫，但它們的本體各不相同。如果不是這樣，說『解脫』就應該變得沒有意義，因為沒有染污和遠離染污在意義上沒有差別。 又說解脫是對治煩惱的方法，所以『隨縛斷』不是真正的解脫。因此，契經中說，在折伏法中，說由『正解脫』折伏『邪解脫』（Xie Jie Tuo，錯誤的解脫），而不是『隨縛斷』能夠作為對治煩惱的方法。如果能夠認可這一點，這就是勝解的特徵。這與信（Xin，信仰）和欲（Yu，慾望）應該沒有差別。雖然它們的特徵有少許相同，但它們的本體卻大不相同。所謂審慎地認可，是勝解的特徵；內心清凈地希求，是信和欲的特徵。難道不是信順以及慾望的快樂就是認可嗎？信順和慾望的快樂，是隨順認可，而不是認可本身。信和欲能夠幫助成就勝解的作用。心所的特徵和作用，極難辨別分析，只有審慎的智慧才能分別知曉。所以譬喻師不能忍受分析的勞累，於是全部否定三摩地（San Mo Di，禪定）的差別存在。 也如同契經所說，平等地保持心，使它安住于自己的境界，這叫做三摩地。各種心生起的時候，沒有不各自安住于自己所取境界的。所以這種禪定應該是大地法（Da Di Fa，普遍存在的心所）。然而上座部（Shang Zuo Bu，佛教部派之一）的學者說，離開心沒有另外的三摩地的本體，因為心的本體在緣取境界生起的時候不會散亂。如果三摩地能夠保持心安住於一個境界運轉，難道是因為沒有三摩地，心就便於在多個境界中運轉嗎？如果說多個心由此保持，使它在一個境界中無間斷地運轉，那麼就不應該說剎那剎那都有三摩地，心只有一個念頭落在境界中。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of severing the bonds of arising from liberation, one is liberated from birth. Being free from defilement and unconditioned is called 『Sui Fu Duan』 (隨縛斷, Severance Following Bondage). The superior understanding of an Arhat (無學, Wu Xue, one who has nothing more to learn) is called 『Zheng Jie Tuo』 (正解脫, Right Liberation). If it were not so, then the previous statement of 『being free from defilement』 would have already indicated the severance of bondage, and the subsequent statement of 『liberation』 would become useless. The statement 『knowing liberation of the mind as it really is』 refers to seeing the liberation that corresponds to a mind free from defilement. Furthermore, 『knowing the liberated mind as it really is』 refers to seeing the mind that corresponds to liberation. Therefore, in other sutras, the World Honored One (世尊, Shi Zun, Buddha) himself said, 『Because the mind is free from defilement, it attains liberation.』 If it were not so, since liberation is another name for being free from defilement, it should be based on the first statement, not the fifth. As said elsewhere, 『cessation』 (盡, Jin), 『separation』 (離, Li), 『extinction』 (滅, Mie), etc., although all based on the initial statement of being free from defilement, their entities are different. If it were not so, the statement of 『liberation』 would become useless, because there would be no difference in meaning between being without defilement and being free from defilement. Moreover, liberation is said to be an antidote, so 『Sui Fu Duan』 is not true liberation. Therefore, the sutra says that in the methods of subduing, it is said that 『Zheng Jie Tuo』 subdues 『Xie Jie Tuo』 (邪解脫, Wrong Liberation), not 『Sui Fu Duan』 can serve as an antidote. If this can be accepted, it is the characteristic of superior understanding. This should be no different from faith (信, Xin) and desire (欲, Yu). Although their characteristics are slightly similar, their entities are very different. So-called careful acceptance is the characteristic of superior understanding; seeking with a pure mind is the characteristic of faith and desire. Isn't it that faith, obedience, and the joy of desire are acceptance? Faith, obedience, and the joy of desire follow acceptance, but are not acceptance itself. Faith and desire help to accomplish the function of superior understanding. The characteristics and functions of mental factors are extremely difficult to distinguish and analyze; only careful wisdom can discern them. Therefore, the metaphoricians cannot endure the fatigue of analysis, and thus completely deny the existence of the differences in Samadhi (三摩地, concentration). It is also as the sutra says, equally maintaining the mind, causing it to abide in its own object, this is called Samadhi. When various minds arise, none do not abide in their respective objects. Therefore, this concentration should be a universal mental factor (大地法, Da Di Fa, universal mental factors). However, the scholars of the Sthavira school (上座部, Shang Zuo Bu, one of the early Buddhist schools) say that there is no separate entity of Samadhi apart from the mind, because the entity of the mind does not become scattered when it arises in relation to an object. If Samadhi can maintain the mind, causing it to abide and function in one object, wouldn't it be that without Samadhi, the mind would easily function in multiple objects? If it is said that multiple minds are maintained by this, causing them to function uninterruptedly in one object, then it should not be said that there is Samadhi in every moment; the mind has only one thought falling into the object.
此應非有。如是此應非大地法。若由有此心住所緣。是則此體應非現見。然諸心所。體可現見。又法功能。不待余法。故心住境。自力非余。此言非理。令心造作。亦應無別大地法思。差別因緣。不可得故。又識非住所緣為性。慧等亦同。心有定非定故。又諸心所體現見言。如前已破。前如何破。謂若心所現可見者。應無有執彼即是心。又法功能。必待余法。或應緣起言成無義。又心所用。不應在心。心心所法性各別故。三摩地用。謂能住心了別所緣。是識功用。如自體起。必托所緣。亦非自能住境不散。設住境用。依心體成。如令心造作別有體義立。又阿笈摩。證三摩地實有別體。如契經說。應修二法。謂奢摩他毗缽舍那。若撥無實三摩地者。便違此等無量契經。若謂無違。於心心所分位差別。立此用故。即心心所差別轉時。立三摩地。名用無失。此亦不然。于余法體。立余法用。理不成故。又不應言三摩地用。于彼一切差別位立。唯依於心。而說此故。又彼宗義。心心所法。不同時起。有何定準說心定時受等亦定。若謂如無別相應體而說相應。此亦應爾。謂如無別相應法體。而彼心等。總名相應。如是雖無別三摩地而心心所。總說為定。理亦不然。是彼性故。謂心心所。是相應性。非等持性。所以者何。一切位中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『此應非有』（這句話不應該成立）。如果這樣，那麼『此』（指三摩地）就不應該是大地法（Mahabhumi-ka-dharmas，普遍存在於所有心識中的心理因素）。如果因為有『此』（三摩地）作為心識的住所緣（所專注的對象），那麼『此』的自體就不應該是現見的（可以直接觀察到的）。然而，所有心所（Caitasikas，心理因素）的自體都是可以現見的。此外，法的功能不依賴於其他法。因此，心識安住于境界，是依靠自身的力量，而不是其他。這種說法是不合理的。如果說三摩地令心識造作（產生作用），那麼也應該沒有獨立於大地法的『思』（Mati，意為思考、意念）。因為沒有可以區分它們的因緣（原因和條件）。 而且，識（Vijnana，心識）的自性不是住所緣。慧（Prajna，智慧）等其他心所也是如此，因為心有安定和不安定的時候。此外，關於『所有心所的自體都可以現見』的說法，之前已經被駁斥過了。 之前是如何駁斥的呢？如果心所可以被直接觀察到，那麼就不會有人認為它們就是心識本身了。 此外，法的功能必定依賴於其他法，否則緣起（Pratityasamutpada，事物相互依存的法則）的說法就變得沒有意義了。而且，心所的作用不應該存在於心識之中，因為心識和心所的自性是各自不同的。 三摩地的作用，在於能夠使心識安住並清晰地辨別所緣境。這是識的功能，就像識的自體生起時，必須依賴於所緣境一樣。三摩地並非自身能夠使心識安住于境界而不散亂。假設安住于境界的作用是依賴於心識的自體而成就的，就像爲了使心識造作而設立一個獨立於心識的自體一樣。 此外，阿笈摩（Agama，聖典）證明了三摩地確實具有獨立的自體。正如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『應修二法，謂奢摩他（Samatha，止）和毗缽舍那（Vipassana，觀）。』如果否定三摩地具有真實的自體，就違背了這些無數的契經。 如果認為沒有違背，因為只是在心識和心所的分位差別上，安立了這種作用。也就是說，在心識和心所的差別轉變時，安立三摩地的名稱和作用，這樣就沒有過失。這種說法也是不合理的，因為在一個法的自體上安立另一個法的作用，在道理上是不能成立的。 而且，不應該說三摩地的作用，是在彼一切差別位上安立的，而只是依於心識來說明這一點。此外，按照他們的宗義，心識和心所不是同時生起的，那麼有什麼確定的標準說心識安定時，受（Vedana，感受）等也安定呢？如果說就像沒有獨立的相應體（Samprayukta，共同運作的因素）卻說它們相應一樣，那麼也應該這樣說：就像沒有獨立於心識的相應法體，而將心識等總稱為相應。同樣，即使沒有獨立的三摩地，也可以將心識和心所總稱為『定』。這種說法在道理上也是不成立的。因為心識和心所的自性是相應的自性，而不是等持（Samahita，專注）的自性。為什麼這麼說呢？因為在一切狀態中，心識和心所...
【English Translation】 English version 'This should not exist.' If so, then 'this' (referring to Samadhi) should not be a Mahabhumi-ka-dharmas (mental factors universally present in all consciousness). If because 'this' (Samadhi) exists as the object of focus for the mind, then the self-nature of 'this' should not be directly visible. However, the self-nature of all Caitasikas (mental factors) is directly visible. Furthermore, the function of a dharma does not depend on other dharmas. Therefore, the mind abiding in a state is due to its own power, not others. This statement is unreasonable. If Samadhi causes the mind to act, then there should also be no independent 'Mati' (thought, intention) separate from the Mahabhumi-ka-dharmas, because there is no discernible cause or condition to differentiate them. Moreover, the nature of Vijnana (consciousness) is not the object of focus. The same applies to Prajna (wisdom) and other mental factors, because the mind has times of stability and instability. Furthermore, the statement that 'the self-nature of all mental factors is directly visible' has been refuted previously. How was it refuted previously? If mental factors could be directly observed, then no one would consider them to be the mind itself. Furthermore, the function of a dharma must depend on other dharmas, otherwise the statement of Pratityasamutpada (the law of interdependent origination) becomes meaningless. Moreover, the function of mental factors should not exist within the mind, because the self-nature of the mind and mental factors are distinct from each other. The function of Samadhi lies in its ability to enable the mind to abide and clearly discern the object of focus. This is the function of consciousness, just as when the self-nature of consciousness arises, it must depend on the object of focus. Samadhi is not able to, by itself, cause the mind to abide in a state without distraction. Assuming that the function of abiding in a state is achieved by relying on the self-nature of the mind, it is like establishing a self-nature independent of the mind in order to make the mind act. Furthermore, the Agamas (scriptures) prove that Samadhi does indeed have an independent self-nature. As the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say: 'Two dharmas should be cultivated, namely Samatha (tranquility) and Vipassana (insight).' If one denies that Samadhi has a real self-nature, one would be contradicting these countless Sutras. If one argues that there is no contradiction, because this function is merely established on the basis of the differentiation of the mind and mental factors. That is to say, when the mind and mental factors undergo differential transformations, the name and function of Samadhi are established, and thus there is no fault. This statement is also unreasonable, because establishing the function of one dharma on the self-nature of another dharma is not logically tenable. Moreover, it should not be said that the function of Samadhi is established on all those differential states, but rather it is only explained in relation to the mind. Furthermore, according to their doctrine, the mind and mental factors do not arise simultaneously, so what definite standard is there to say that when the mind is stable, Vedana (feeling) and others are also stable? If one says that it is like saying they are associated even though there is no independent Samprayukta (co-operating factors), then it should also be said that just as there is no dharma-body associated independently of the mind, the mind and so on are collectively called associated. Similarly, even if there is no independent Samadhi, the mind and mental factors can be collectively called 'Samahita' (focused). This statement is also not logically tenable. Because the nature of the mind and mental factors is the nature of association, not the nature of concentration. Why is this so? Because in all states, the mind and mental factors...
。彼相應性。無勝劣故。三摩地性。于諸位中。有勝劣故。此既一相諸位何緣勝劣有別。余法所持。令此功力有損益故。現見青等余色所糅。相續隨流。勝劣有別。又若無定心自住者。應無貪等心自染等。豈不如無別法助故。慧自簡擇。如是亦無別法助故。心自住境。此例不齊。以契經說心如電光亦如猿猴。非住相故。又三摩地體即心者。想等亦應無別有性。即心能取名相施設。應說為想。即心領納違等所緣。應說為受。即心造作善惡等業。應說為思。是則唯心。應無三所。又見諦者。于並生疑。故三摩地。非心位別。如契經說。大德世尊。我若在定。心則解脫。非不在定。為先有定後方解脫。廣說如經。彼執解脫亦心位別。或說無學心為解脫支故。必無二心一身並起。故彼于並不應生疑。是故定應別有心所。是心住因。名三摩地。故受等十。別有實體。一切心俱名大地法。如是已說十大地法。大善之地。名大善地。此中若法大善地所有。名大善地法。謂法恒于諸善心有。彼法是何。頌曰。
信及不放逸 輕安舍慚愧 二根及不害 勤唯遍善心
論曰。心濁相違。現前忍許。無倒因果。各別相屬。為欲所依。能資勝解。說名為信。專於己利防身語意放逸相違。名不放逸。正作意轉。身心輕利安適之因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 彼相應性（與三摩地相應的性質），無勝劣故（沒有勝劣之分）。三摩地性（三摩地的性質），于諸位中（在各種不同的禪定階段），有勝劣故（有勝劣之分）。既然三摩地是一種單一的性質，為什麼在不同的階段會有勝劣之別呢？因為余法所持（受到其他心所法的影響），令此功力有損益故（使得三摩地的力量有所增減）。現見青等余色所糅（就像我們看到青色等顏色與其他顏色混合），相續隨流（隨著混合的比例不同），勝劣有別（呈現出不同的優劣）。 又若無定心自住者（如果心沒有一種穩定的狀態），應無貪等心自染等（那麼就不會有貪婪等煩惱來污染心）。豈不如無別法助故（難道不像沒有其他心所法的幫助），慧自簡擇（智慧就能自己進行選擇）？如是亦無別法助故（同樣，如果沒有其他心所法的幫助），心自住境（心就能自己專注于目標）？此例不齊（這個例子並不恰當）。以契經說（因為佛經上說），心如電光亦如猿猴（心就像閃電一樣快速，也像猿猴一樣跳躍不定），非住相故（不是一種穩定的狀態）。 又三摩地體即心者（如果三摩地的本質就是心），想等亦應無別有性（那麼想等心所法也應該沒有獨立的性質）。即心能取名相施設（心能夠認知事物的名稱和概念），應說為想（就應該叫做想）。即心領納違等所緣（心能夠感受順境和逆境），應說為受（就應該叫做受）。即心造作善惡等業（心能夠造作善業和惡業），應說為思（就應該叫做思）。是則唯心（這樣就只有心），應無三所（應該沒有受、想、思這三種心所法了）。 又見諦者（證悟真理的人），于並生疑（對於同時生起的現象會產生懷疑），故三摩地（所以三摩地），非心位別（不是心的不同狀態）。如契經說（就像佛經上說的），大德世尊（偉大的世尊），我若在定（如果我在禪定中），心則解脫（心就能解脫），非不在定（如果不在禪定中，心就不能解脫）。為先有定後方解脫（這是先有禪定，然後才有解脫）。廣說如經（詳細的解釋就像經文里說的那樣）。彼執解脫亦心位別（他們認為解脫也是心的不同狀態），或說無學心為解脫支故（或者說無學者的心是解脫的因素）。必無二心一身並起（絕對不會有兩個心同時在一個身體里生起），故彼于並不應生疑（所以他們不應該對同時生起的現象產生懷疑）。 是故定應別有心所（因此，禪定應該是獨立於心的心所法），是心住因（是心安住的原因），名三摩地（叫做三摩地）。故受等十（所以受等十種心所法），別有實體（都有各自獨立的實體）。一切心俱名大地法（與所有心同時生起的心所法叫做大地法）。如是已說十大地法（以上已經解釋了十大地法）。大善之地（最大的善的範疇），名大善地（叫做大善地）。此中若法大善地所有（如果某個法存在於大善地中），名大善地法（就叫做大善地法）。謂法恒于諸善心有（也就是說，這種法總是存在於所有善心中）。彼法是何（這些法是什麼呢）？頌曰： 信及不放逸（信以及不放逸），輕安舍慚愧（輕安、舍、慚、愧），二根及不害（兩種善根以及不害），勤唯遍善心（精進只存在於善心中）。 論曰（論中說）：心濁相違（與心的污濁狀態相反），現前忍許（對當下所發生的事情能夠忍受和認可），無倒因果（對因果關係有正確的認識），各別相屬（對不同的事物有明確的歸屬感），為欲所依（是慾望產生的基礎），能資勝解（能夠幫助產生殊勝的理解），說名為信（這叫做信）。專於己利防身語意放逸相違（專注于自身的利益，防止身語意三方面的放逸），名不放逸（叫做不放逸）。正作意轉（正確的作意），身心輕利安適之因（是身心輕快安適的原因）。
【English Translation】 English version Its corresponding nature (the nature corresponding to Samadhi (concentration)), has no superiority or inferiority because (wu sheng lie gu) there is no superiority or inferiority. The nature of Samadhi (Sanmodi xing) (the nature of concentration), in all positions (yu zhu wei zhong) (in all the various stages of meditation), has superiority and inferiority because (you sheng lie gu) there is superiority and inferiority. Since this is a single characteristic, why are there differences in superiority and inferiority in various positions? Because of the support of other dharmas (yu fa suo chi), it causes this power to have increase and decrease (ling ci gong li you sun yi gu). It is evident that when green and other colors are mixed (xian jian qing deng yu se suo rou), the succession follows the flow (xiang xu sui liu), and there are differences in superiority and inferiority (sheng lie you bie). Moreover, if there is no fixed mind that dwells by itself (you ruo wu ding xin zi zhu zhe), there should be no greed and other mental defilements (ying wu tan deng xin zi ran deng). Is it not like without the help of other separate dharmas (qi bu ru wu bie fa zhu gu), wisdom chooses by itself (hui zi jian ze)? Likewise, without the help of other separate dharmas (ru shi yi wu bie fa zhu gu), the mind dwells on its object by itself (xin zi zhu jing)? This example is not consistent (ci li bu qi). Because the sutras say (yi qi jing shuo) that the mind is like lightning and also like a monkey (xin ru dian guang yi ru yuan hou), it is not in a state of dwelling (fei zhu xiang gu). Furthermore, if the substance of Samadhi is the mind itself (you sanmodi ti ji xin zhe), then thought and other mental functions should also have no separate existence (xiang deng yi ying wu bie you xing). The mind is able to grasp names and establish concepts (ji xin neng qu ming xiang shi she), it should be called thought (ying shuo wei xiang). The mind is able to receive pleasant and unpleasant experiences (ji xin ling na wei deng suo yuan), it should be called feeling (ying shuo wei shou). The mind is able to create good and bad karma (ji xin zao zuo shan e deng ye), it should be called volition (ying shuo wei si). Then there is only mind (shi ze wei xin), there should be no three aggregates (ying wu san suo) (feeling, thought, and volition). Moreover, those who have seen the truth (you jian di zhe), have doubts about simultaneous occurrences (yu bing sheng yi), therefore Samadhi (gu sanmodi), is not a separate state of mind (fei xin wei bie). As the sutras say (ru qi jing shuo), 'Great virtuous one, World Honored One (da de shi zun), if I am in concentration (wo ruo zai ding), the mind is liberated (xin ze jie tuo), if I am not in concentration (fei bu zai ding), it is not liberated.' It is first there is concentration, then there is liberation (wei xian you ding hou fang jie tuo). As the sutras explain in detail (guang shuo ru jing). They insist that liberation is also a separate state of mind (bi zhi jie tuo yi xin wei bie), or they say that the mind of a non-learner is a factor of liberation (huo shuo wu xue xin wei jie tuo zhi gu). There can never be two minds arising simultaneously in one body (bi wu er xin yi shen bing qi), therefore they should not have doubts about simultaneous occurrences (gu bi yu bing bu ying sheng yi). Therefore, concentration should be a separate mental factor (shi gu ding ying bie you xin suo), it is the cause of the mind dwelling (shi xin zhu yin), called Samadhi (ming sanmodi). Therefore, feeling and the other ten (gu shou deng shi), have separate entities (bie you shi ti). All mental functions that arise with the mind are called universal mental factors (yi qie xin ju ming da di fa). Thus, the ten universal mental factors have been explained (ru shi yi shuo shi da di fa). The realm of great goodness (da shan zhi di), is called the great wholesome ground (ming da shan di). If a dharma exists in the great wholesome ground (ci zhong ruo fa da shan di suo you), it is called a dharma of the great wholesome ground (ming da shan di fa). That is to say, this dharma is always present in all wholesome minds (wei fa heng yu zhu shan xin you). What are these dharmas (bi fa shi he)? The verse says: Faith and non-negligence (xin ji bu fang yi), ease, equanimity, shame, and embarrassment (qing an she can kui), two roots and non-harming (er gen ji bu hai), diligence only pervades the wholesome mind (qin wei bian shan xin). The treatise says (lun yue): Contrary to the turbidity of the mind (xin zhuo xiang wei), present endurance and acceptance (xian qian ren xu), correct cause and effect (wu dao yin guo), each belonging separately (ge bie xiang shu), relying on desire (wei yu suo yi), able to assist superior understanding (neng zi sheng jie), is called faith (shuo ming wei xin). Focusing on one's own benefit and preventing negligence in body, speech, and mind (zhuan yu ji li fang shen yu yi fang yi xiang wei), is called non-negligence (ming bu fang yi). Correct attention turning (zheng zuo yi zhuan), is the cause of lightness, ease, and comfort of body and mind (shi shen xin qing kuai an shi zhi yin).
。心堪任性。說名輕安。心平等性。說名為舍。掉舉相違。如理所引。令心不越。是為舍義。趣向如理。自法二種增上所生。違愛等流。心自在性。說名為慚。愛樂修習功德為先。違癡等流。厭惡劣法。說名為愧。有說怖畏謫罰惡趣自他謗因。說名為愧二根者謂無貪無瞋。已得未得境界耽著希求相違。無愛染性。名為無貪。于情非情。無恚害意。哀愍種子。說名無瞋。與樂損惱有情相違。心賢善性。說名不害。于諸已生功德過失。守護棄捨。于諸未生功德過失。令生不生。心無墮性。說名為勤。由有此故。心於如理所作事業。堅進不息。有作是言。此中既說身輕安故。非唯心所說名輕安。此言非理。受等亦應同此說故。然五識身相應諸受。說名身受。有作是說。設有輕安體非心所。然此中說心所法故。不應說彼以能隨順覺支體故。亦名覺支。謂身輕安。能引覺支心輕安故。亦見余處。瞋及瞋因。名瞋恚蓋。見思惟勤。名為慧蘊。雖彼瞋因思惟及勤非瞋非慧。然順彼故。亦得彼名。此亦應爾。舍后當辯。說二及言。兼攝欣厭。厭謂善心。審觀無量過患法性。此增上力。所起順無貪心厭背性。與此相應。名厭作意。欣謂善心。希求過患出離對治。此增上力。所起順證修心欣尚性。此于離喜未至等地。亦有現行。故非喜受。
與此相應。名欣作意。此二行相。更互相違。故一心中。無容並起。是故此中。不正顯說。大善地法性不成故。亦有喜根。厭行俱轉。定無有欣厭行俱轉。為表此二定不俱行。說二及言。行相違故。如是已說大善地法。大煩惱之地。名大煩惱地。此中若法。大煩惱地所有。名大煩惱地法。謂法恒于染污心有。彼法是何。頌曰。
癡逸怠不信 惛掉恒唯染
論曰。云何如是六種。名大煩惱地法。以恒唯與諸染心俱。頌言染者。是染心義。又放逸等及與無明。如其次第。應知即是前不放逸勤信輕安舍等所治。癡謂愚癡。于所知境。障如理解。無辯了相。說名愚癡。即是無明無智無顯。逸謂放逸。于專己利棄捨縱情。名為放逸。怠謂懈怠。于善事業。闕減勝能。于惡事業。順成勇悍。無明等流。名為懈怠。由此說為鄙劣勤性勤習鄙穢。故名懈怠。不信者。謂心不澄凈。邪見等流。于諸諦實靜慮等至。現前輕毀。于施等因。及於彼果。心不現許。名為不信。惛謂惛沈。𧄼瞢不樂等所生心。重性說名昏沉。由斯覆蔽心。便惛昧無所堪任。瞢憒性故。由是說為輕安所治。心為大種能生因故。由此為先。起身重性。假說惛沈。實非惛沈。彼是身識。所緣境故然此惛沈。無明覆故。本論不說為大煩惱地法。有言。彼論說無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：與此相應，名為『欣作意』（對所喜愛的事物產生的注意）。這兩種行相（心理活動的方式）是互相違背的，因此在一個心中，無法同時生起。所以，在這裡不明確地說，『大善地法』（普遍存在於善心中的心理因素）的自性是不成立的。也有『喜根』（喜悅的根本）與『厭行』（厭惡的心理活動）同時運作的情況，但絕對沒有『欣行』（欣喜的心理活動）與『厭行』同時運作的情況。爲了表明這二者絕對不會同時發生，所以說『二及』，因為它們的行相是相違背的。像這樣已經說完了『大善地法』。
『大煩惱之地』（普遍存在於煩惱心中的心理因素），名為『大煩惱地』。這裡面如果有什麼法，是『大煩惱地』所具有的，就稱為『大煩惱地法』。這些法總是存在於染污的心中。這些法是什麼呢？頌文說：
『癡、逸、怠、不信，惛沉、掉舉恒常與染污心相應。』
論述：為什麼這六種法被稱為『大煩惱地法』呢？因為它們恒常只與各種染污心同時生起。頌文中的『染』，就是染污心的意思。而且，放逸等等以及無明，應該知道它們分別就是前面所說的不放逸、勤、信、輕安、舍等等所對治的。『癡』（ignorance）是指愚癡，對於所知的境界，障礙如實的理解，沒有辨別了知的相狀，就叫做愚癡，也就是無明、無智、無顯現。『逸』（carelessness）是指放逸，對於專門利益自己的事情，丟棄捨離而放縱自己的情感，叫做放逸。『怠』（laziness）是指懈怠，對於善良的事業，缺少減少殊勝的能力，對於罪惡的事業，順從成就勇猛強悍，是無明等等的等流，叫做懈怠。因此說它是鄙劣的勤奮的性質，勤奮地學習鄙陋污穢的事情，所以叫做懈怠。『不信』（lack of faith）是指心不清澈澄凈，是邪見等等的等流，對於諸諦實、靜慮等至，現前輕視譭謗，對於佈施等等的原因，以及對於那些果報，心中不認可，叫做不信。『惛沉』（lethargy）是指昏沉，由𧄼瞢不樂等等所產生的心，沉重遲鈍的性質叫做昏沉。由於它遮蔽了心，就使心昏昧而不能勝任任何事情。因為有𧄼瞢昏聵的性質，因此說是輕安所對治的。心是大種（地、水、火、風）的能生因，因此以它為先導，產生身體的沉重性質，假借說成是昏沉，實際上不是昏沉，它是身識所緣的境界。然而這種昏沉，因為無明覆蓋的緣故，本論沒有說它是大煩惱地法。有人說，那部論說了沒有。
【English Translation】 English version: Correspondingly, it is called 'Chanda Manaskara' (attention directed towards desirable objects). These two characteristics (modes of mental activity) are mutually contradictory, therefore, within one mind, they cannot arise simultaneously. Therefore, it is not explicitly stated here that the nature of 'Mahakusalabhumika Dharmas' (mental factors universally present in wholesome minds) is not established. There are also cases where 'Priti Indriya' (the root of joy) and 'disgusting activity' operate simultaneously, but there is absolutely no case where 'Chanda activity' (activity of delight) and 'disgusting activity' operate simultaneously. To indicate that these two will absolutely not occur simultaneously, it is said 'two and', because their characteristics are contradictory. Thus, the 'Mahakusalabhumika Dharmas' have been explained.
'Mahaklesabhumika' (mental factors universally present in afflicted minds) is called 'Mahaklesabhumika'. If there are any dharmas within this that are possessed by 'Mahaklesabhumika', they are called 'Mahaklesabhumika Dharmas'. These dharmas are always present in defiled minds. What are these dharmas? The verse says:
'Ignorance, carelessness, laziness, lack of faith, lethargy, and restlessness are always associated with defiled minds.'
Commentary: Why are these six dharmas called 'Mahaklesabhumika Dharmas'? Because they constantly arise only with various defiled minds. The 'defiled' in the verse means defiled mind. Moreover, carelessness, etc., and ignorance, should be known to be what is counteracted by non-carelessness, diligence, faith, lightness, equanimity, etc., respectively. 'Ignorance' (Moha) refers to foolishness; regarding the objects of knowledge, it obstructs true understanding, lacking the characteristic of discernment, and is called ignorance, which is also non-illumination, non-wisdom, and non-manifestation. 'Carelessness' (Pramada) refers to abandoning and forsaking what specifically benefits oneself, indulging one's emotions, and is called carelessness. 'Laziness' (Styana) refers to indolence; regarding virtuous activities, it lacks and diminishes superior abilities; regarding evil activities, it complies with and accomplishes courage and strength; it is a co-flow of ignorance, etc., and is called laziness. Therefore, it is said to be the nature of inferior diligence, diligently learning inferior and defiled things, and is called laziness. 'Lack of faith' (Asraddha) refers to the mind not being clear and pure; it is a co-flow of wrong views, etc.; regarding the truths, meditative absorptions, etc., it presently despises and slanders; regarding the causes of giving, etc., and their results, the mind does not presently acknowledge them, and is called lack of faith. 'Lethargy' (Styana) refers to lethargy; the heavy nature of the mind produced by 𧄼瞢 unpleasantness, etc., is called lethargy. Because it obscures the mind, it makes the mind dull and incapable of anything. Because it has the nature of 𧄼瞢 confusion, it is said to be what is counteracted by lightness. The mind is the generative cause of the great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), therefore, taking it as a precursor, the heavy nature of the body arises, falsely called lethargy, but it is not actually lethargy; it is the object of the body consciousness. However, this lethargy, because it is covered by ignorance, is not said in this treatise to be a Mahaklesabhumika Dharma. Some say that that treatise said it was not.
明名。唯目惛沈。相相似故。無明性是大遍行故。是此地法不說而成。有說此名。總目二義。掉謂掉舉。親里尋等所生。令心不寂靜性。說名掉舉。心與此合。越路而行。非理作意。失念心亂。不正知邪勝解。前已說在大地法中。故此地法中。雖有而不說。如於大善地法不說無癡善根。唯諸染心。恒有此六。如是已說大煩惱地法。大不善之地。名大不善地。此中若法大不善地所有。名大不善地法。謂法恒于不善心有。彼法是何。頌曰。
唯遍不善心 無慚及無愧
論曰。唯二心所。但與一切不善心俱。謂無慚愧。故唯二種。名此地法。此二法相。如后頌中自當顯示。故此不說。如是已說大不善地法。小煩惱之地。名小煩惱地。此中若法小煩惱地所有。名小煩惱地法。謂法少分染污心俱。彼法是何。頌曰。
忿覆慳嫉惱 害恨諂誑憍 如是類名為 小煩惱地法
論曰。類言為攝不忍不樂憤發等義。小是少義。顯非一切染污心有。非雖少分染污心俱。仍各別起。無相應義。唯修所斷。意識俱起。無明相應。此諸法相。隨煩惱中。當廣分別。如前所說。一切心所。應知其性。皆是實有。所以者何。非一品類。所緣義中。種種行相。俱時起故。一體同時。如所緣義。差別行相。無容有故。然由余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『明名』（Mingming）。唯有眼睛昏花模糊。因為（它們）看起來相似的緣故。（因為）『無明性』（Wumingxing）是大遍行（Da Bianxing）的緣故。這是此地（Cidi）的法，不說也自然成立。有人說這個名稱，總括了兩種含義。（『掉』）指的是掉舉，由親近尋等（Qinli Xun Deng）所生，使心不能寂靜的性質，叫做掉舉。心與此（掉舉）結合，越過正路而行，不如理作意，失去正念，心意散亂，不正知，邪勝解。前面已經說在大地法（Dadi Fa）中，所以此地法中，即使有也不說。如同在大善地法（Da Shan Difa）中不說無癡善根（Wuchi Shangen）。只有各種染污心，恒常有這六種（大地法）。像這樣已經說了大煩惱地法（Da Fannao Difa）。
大不善之地，名為大不善地（Da Bushan D）。此中如果有什麼法是大不善地所有的，就叫做大不善地法（Da Bushan Difa）。指的是法恒常與不善心同在。這些法是什麼呢？頌文說：
『唯遍不善心，無慚及無愧』
論述：只有兩種心所，只是與一切不善心同時存在，就是無慚（Wu Chan）和無愧（Wu Kui）。所以只有這兩種，叫做此地法。這兩種法的體相，在後面的頌文中自然會顯示，所以這裡不說。像這樣已經說了大不善地法。
小煩惱之地，名為小煩惱地（Xiao Fannao D）。此中如果有什麼法是小煩惱地所有的，就叫做小煩惱地法（Xiao Fannao Difa）。指的是法與少部分的染污心同在。這些法是什麼呢？頌文說：
『忿覆慳嫉惱，害恨諂誑憍，如是類名為，小煩惱地法』
論述：『類』這個詞是爲了包括不忍、不樂、憤發等等含義。『小』是少的意思，顯示不是一切染污心都有。即使與少部分的染污心同在，仍然各自別起，沒有相應的意義。只有修所斷，與意識同時生起，與無明相應。這些法的體相，在隨煩惱中，應當廣泛地分別。如前面所說，一切心所，應當知道它們的性質，都是真實存在的。為什麼呢？因為不是同一品類，在所緣的意義中，有種種行相，同時生起。一體同時，如所緣的意義，差別行相，沒有存在的餘地。然而由於其他（原因）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Mingming'. Only the eyes are dim and blurred. Because (they) look similar. (Because) 'Wumingxing' (Nature of Ignorance) is Da Bianxing (Great Universal), this is the Dharma of Cidi (this ground), which is naturally established without saying. Some say that this name encompasses two meanings. '(Diao)' refers to restlessness, which is produced by being close to Qinli Xun Deng (seeking etc.), and the nature of making the mind unable to be quiet is called restlessness. The mind combines with this (restlessness), goes beyond the right path, does not pay attention to reason, loses mindfulness, the mind is distracted, does not know correctly, and has wrong understanding. It has already been said in Dadi Fa (Great Ground Dharma) before, so in this Cidi Fa, even if it exists, it is not said. It is like not talking about Wuchi Shangen (non-ignorance good root) in Da Shan Difa (Great Good Ground Dharma). Only all kinds of defiled minds always have these six (Great Ground Dharmas). In this way, Da Fannao Difa (Great Affliction Ground Dharma) has been said.
The land of great unwholesomeness is called Da Bushan D (Great Unwholesome Ground). If there is any Dharma in this that belongs to the Great Unwholesome Ground, it is called Da Bushan Difa (Great Unwholesome Ground Dharma). It refers to the Dharma that is always present with the unwholesome mind. What are these Dharmas? The verse says:
'Only pervading unwholesome mind, without shame and without embarrassment'
Commentary: There are only two mental factors that exist only with all unwholesome minds, namely Wu Chan (shamelessness) and Wu Kui (lack of embarrassment). Therefore, only these two are called this ground Dharma. The nature of these two Dharmas will naturally be revealed in the following verses, so it will not be discussed here. In this way, the Great Unwholesome Ground Dharma has been said.
The land of minor afflictions is called Xiao Fannao D (Minor Affliction Ground). If there is any Dharma in this that belongs to the Minor Affliction Ground, it is called Xiao Fannao Difa (Minor Affliction Ground Dharma). It refers to the Dharma that is present with a small part of the defiled mind. What are these Dharmas? The verse says:
'Anger, concealment, stinginess, jealousy, annoyance, harm, hatred, flattery, deceit, arrogance, such categories are called Minor Affliction Ground Dharmas'
Commentary: The word 'categories' is to include the meanings of intolerance, displeasure, indignation, etc. 'Minor' means few, indicating that not all defiled minds have them. Even if they are present with a small part of the defiled mind, they still arise separately and have no corresponding meaning. Only those that are severed by cultivation arise simultaneously with consciousness and correspond to ignorance. The nature of these Dharmas should be widely distinguished in the secondary afflictions. As mentioned earlier, all mental factors should be known to be real in nature. Why? Because they are not of the same category, and in the meaning of the object, there are various forms that arise simultaneously. One entity at the same time, like the meaning of the object, there is no room for different forms to exist. However, due to other (reasons).
法所制伏故。見其相續變異而起。現見清油垢水風等勢力制持。燈相續中。便有明昧聲動等故。如是已說大地法等品類決定心所差別。復有此余不定心所。惡作睡眠尋伺等類。總說名為不定地法。今應決判一切心所諸心品中俱生數量。何心品中。有幾心所。頌曰。
欲有尋伺故 于善心品中 二十二心所 有時增惡作 于不善不共 見俱唯二十 四煩惱忿等 惡作二十一 有覆有十八 無覆許十二 睡眠遍不違 若有皆增一
論曰。且欲界中心品有五。謂善唯一。不善有二。謂不共無明俱生。及余煩惱等俱生。無記有二。謂有覆無記。及無覆無記。如是欲界一切心品。決定恒與尋伺相應。故善心品。有二十二心所俱生。謂十大地法。十大善地法。及不定二。謂尋與伺。此中勤舍應不俱生。行相違故。如進與止。造修委棄。理不同時。契經亦遮此二俱起。說修二法時非時故。如契經說。心若惛沈。爾時應修擇法勤喜。修輕安定舍則為非時。心若掉舉。爾時應修輕安定舍。修擇法勤喜。則為非時。俱生無失。不相違故。住正理者。起如理行。不息名勤。即于爾時。棄非理行。平等名舍。又于如理非理行中。舍如持稱。進止平等。故舍與勤。更相隨順。起善止惡。行不相違。若於所緣。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
因為法所制伏的緣故，（燈焰的相續）看起來像是相續變異而生起。實際上，是由於清油、污垢、水、風等勢力的控制和保持。在燈焰的相續中，便有明亮和昏暗、聲音和動靜等現象。像這樣已經說完了大地法等品類的決定和心所的差別。還有其他一些不決定的心所，如惡作（kukkritya，後悔）、睡眠（middha，昏沉）、尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（vicara，精細的思考）等。總的來說，這些被稱為不定地法。現在應該判決一切心所和諸心品中同時生起的數量。在哪個心品中，有幾個心所？頌文說： 『欲界有尋伺的緣故，在善心品中，有二十二個心所，有時會增加惡作。在不善和不共（asaadharana，獨行）的（心品）中，（常與無明俱生），可以見到只有二十個（心所）同時生起。四種煩惱（klesha，惑）和忿（krodha，憤怒）等（俱生時），有惡作，共二十一個（心所）。有覆無記（savrana-avyakrta，有染污的無記）有十八個（心所），無覆無記（anavrana-avyakrta，無染污的無記）允許有十二個（心所）。睡眠普遍存在且不相違背，如果存在睡眠，都會增加一個（心所）。』 論述：且說欲界（kamadhatu，眾生居住的最低一層世界）的心品有五種。善心品只有一種。不善心品有兩種，即與不共無明（asaadharana-avidya，獨行無明）俱生的，以及與其餘煩惱等俱生的。無記心品有兩種，即有覆無記和無覆無記。像這樣，欲界的一切心品，決定恒常與尋和伺相應。所以，善心品有二十二個心所同時生起，即十大地法（maha-bhumika，普遍存在的心所）、十大善地法（kusala-maha-bhumika，善的心所）以及不定的兩種，即尋和伺。這其中，勤（virya，精進）和舍（upeksa，捨棄）不應該同時生起，因為它們的行相是相違背的，就像前進和停止、造作和放棄、委任和拋棄，道理上不能同時進行。契經（sutra，佛經）也禁止這二者同時生起，說修習兩種法有時機和非時機。如契經所說，心如果昏沉，這時應該修習擇法（dharmapravicaya，選擇正確的法）、勤和喜（priti，喜悅），修習輕安（prasrabdhi，身心輕快安適）和舍就是非時機。心如果掉舉（auddhatya，心神不定），這時應該修習輕安和舍，修習擇法、勤和喜就是非時機。同時生起沒有過失，因為不相違背。安住于正理的人，生起如理的行為，不停止叫做勤，就在那時，捨棄不如理的行為，平等叫做舍。又在如理和不如理的行為中，舍就像拿著秤一樣，前進和停止是平等的。所以舍和勤，互相隨順，生起善行，停止惡行，行為不相違背。如果對於所緣境，一心專注。
【English Translation】 English version
It appears to arise in continuous change because it is subdued by the law. In reality, it is controlled and maintained by the power of pure oil, dirt, water, wind, and so on. In the continuous flame of a lamp, there are phenomena such as brightness and dimness, sound and movement. Thus, the determination of the categories of the Great Ground Dharmas and the differences in mental factors have been explained. There are also other indeterminate mental factors, such as kukkritya (regret), middha (drowsiness), vitarka (coarse thought), and vicara (subtle thought). Generally speaking, these are called Indeterminate Ground Dharmas. Now, it should be determined the number of all mental factors and co-arising in the categories of mind. In which category of mind, how many mental factors are there? The verse says: 'Because the desire realm has vitarka and vicara, in the wholesome category of mind, there are twenty-two mental factors, and sometimes kukkritya is added. In the unwholesome and asaadharana (unique) (category of mind), (which always arises with ignorance), it can be seen that only twenty (mental factors) arise simultaneously. When the four kleshas (afflictions) and krodha (anger) and others (arise together), there is kukkritya, totaling twenty-one (mental factors). Savrana-avyakrta (defiled indeterminate) has eighteen (mental factors), and anavrana-avyakrta (undefiled indeterminate) is allowed to have twelve (mental factors). Middha is universal and not contradictory; if middha is present, one (mental factor) is always added.' Treatise: Let's say that there are five categories of mind in the kamadhatu (desire realm, the lowest realm where beings live). There is only one wholesome category of mind. There are two unwholesome categories of mind, namely, those that arise with asaadharana-avidya (unique ignorance) and those that arise with other kleshas and so on. There are two indeterminate categories of mind, namely, savrana-avyakrta and anavrana-avyakrta. In this way, all categories of mind in the desire realm are definitely and constantly associated with vitarka and vicara. Therefore, the wholesome category of mind has twenty-two mental factors arising simultaneously, namely, the ten maha-bhumikas (universal mental factors), the ten kusala-maha-bhumikas (wholesome mental factors), and the two indeterminate ones, namely, vitarka and vicara. Among these, virya (effort) and upeksa (equanimity) should not arise simultaneously, because their characteristics are contradictory, just like advancing and stopping, creating and abandoning, entrusting and discarding, which cannot be done at the same time in principle. The sutras (Buddhist scriptures) also prohibit these two from arising simultaneously, saying that there are times and non-times for cultivating the two dharmas. As the sutra says, if the mind is drowsy, then one should cultivate dharmapravicaya (discrimination of the Dharma), virya, and priti (joy); cultivating prasrabdhi (ease) and upeksa is not the time. If the mind is restless, then one should cultivate prasrabdhi and upeksa; cultivating dharmapravicaya, virya, and priti is not the time. There is no fault in arising simultaneously, because they are not contradictory. A person who abides in the correct principle gives rise to rational behavior; not stopping is called virya, and at that time, abandoning irrational behavior is called upeksa. Also, in rational and irrational behavior, upeksa is like holding a scale, and advancing and stopping are equal. Therefore, upeksa and virya are mutually compliant, giving rise to wholesome actions and stopping unwholesome actions, and the actions are not contradictory. If one focuses on the object of attention with one mind.
取一舍。更相違背。可有此失。由斯類釋。經主所難。謂有警覺無警覺性。作意與舍。應互相違。如是善成。于善心品。有二十二。心所俱生。不定地法。所餘二種。惡作睡眠。非通三界。及六識身。有漏無漏。非唯不染。亦非唯染。故善心品。非一切時。皆有惡作。但可容有。有時增數。至二十三。言惡作者。悔以惡作為所緣故。立惡作名。如無想定。有說。無相及身念住。有處名身。若爾有緣所未作事心生追悔。應非惡作。不爾。未作亦名作故。如追悔言。我先不作如是事業。是我惡作。然此惡作。通善不善。不通無記。隨憂行故。離欲貪者。不成就故。非無記法有如是事。然有追變。我頃何為不消而食。我頃何為不畫此壁。如是等類。彼心乃至未觸憂根。但是省察未起惡作。若觸憂根。便起惡作。爾時惡作。理同憂根。故說惡作。有如是相。謂令心戚。惡作心品。若離憂根。誰令心戚。惡作有四。謂善不善。一一皆依二處起故。若於不善不共心品。有二十種。心所俱生。謂十大地法。六大煩惱地法。二大不善地法。並二不定。謂尋與伺何等名為。不共心品。謂此心品。誰有無明。無有所餘。貪隨眠等。如不共品邪見見取及戒禁取。俱生亦爾。大地法中。即慧差別。說名為見。故數不增。頌言唯者。是簡別義。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 取一舍（upeksā，舍）更相違背，會有這種缺失嗎？通過這種方式解釋經文，經文的主旨在於反駁：認為有警覺性（作意）和無警覺性（舍）是互相違背的。這樣就很好地說明了，在善心品中，有二十二種心所（cetasika，心所）同時生起，屬於不定地法（aniyata-bhūmika）。剩餘的兩種，惡作（kukkucca，後悔）和睡眠（middha，昏沉），並非遍通三界（trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界），也非遍通六識身（sad-vijñāna-kāya，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）。它們既非僅僅是有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱），也非僅僅是無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱），也非僅僅是不染污（anupakliṣṭa，不被煩惱染污），也非僅僅是染污（upakliṣṭa，被煩惱染污）。因此，善心品並非在所有時候都有惡作，但可以容許有時增加數量，達到二十三種。 說到惡作，是因為以惡作為所緣（ālambana，對像），所以立名為惡作。就像無想定（asañjñā-samāpatti，無想禪定）。有人說，無相（animitta，沒有形相）以及身念住（kāya-smṛtyupasthāna，以身體為對象的正念），在某些地方被稱為身（kāya，身體）。如果這樣，那麼對於所未做的事情，心中生起追悔，應該不是惡作。並非如此，未做的事情也可以稱為『作』，例如追悔說：『我先前沒有做這樣的事業，這是我的惡作。』然而，這種惡作，通於善和不善，不通於無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡），因為它隨憂（daurmanasya，憂愁）而行。因為離欲貪者（vīta-rāga，斷除欲界貪慾的人）不成就惡作，所以無記法沒有這樣的事情。然而，有追悔變化，例如：『我剛才為什麼不消化就吃東西？我剛才為什麼不畫這面牆？』像這樣的情況，他們的心乃至沒有觸及憂根（daurmanasya-indriya，憂的根源），都只是省察，還沒有生起惡作。如果觸及憂根，便會生起惡作。那時，惡作的道理與憂根相同。所以說惡作有這樣的相狀，就是使內心感到不快。惡作心品，如果離開了憂根，誰會使內心感到不快呢？惡作有四種，即善和不善，每一種都依據兩個處所生起。 如果是不善不共心品（akuśala-asādhāraṇa-citta，不善且不共于其他心的心），有二十種心所同時生起，即十大地法（mahā-bhūmika，普遍存在的心所）、六大煩惱地法（kleśa-mahā-bhūmika，與煩惱相關的普遍存在的心所）、二大不善地法（akuśala-mahā-bhūmika，與不善相關的普遍存在的心所），以及二不定（aniyata，不確定），即尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）與伺（vicāra，細緻的思考）。什麼叫做不共心品呢？就是這種心品，誰有無明（avidyā，無知），就沒有其他的，比如貪隨眠（rāga-anuśaya，貪慾的潛在傾向）等等。就像不共品中的邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）、見取（dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，執取不正見）、以及戒禁取（śīla-vrata-parāmarśa，執取錯誤的戒律和禁制），同時生起也是這樣。在大地法中，就是慧（prajñā，智慧）的差別，被稱為見（dṛṣṭi，見解），所以數量沒有增加。頌文中的『唯』字，是簡別的意義，就是說...
【English Translation】 English version If taking one upeksā (equanimity) contradicts each other, could there be such a fault? This kind of explanation arises from the sutra master's difficulty, which is that having awareness (attention) and non-awareness (equanimity) should contradict each other. Thus, it is well established that in the wholesome mind category, there are twenty-two mental factors (cetasikas) that arise simultaneously, belonging to the indeterminate-ground dharmas (aniyata-bhūmika). The remaining two, regret (kukkucca) and sleep (middha), are not common to the three realms (trailokya: desire realm, form realm, formless realm), nor are they common to the six consciousness bodies (sad-vijñāna-kāya: eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness). They are neither solely defiled (sāsrava), nor solely undefiled (anāsrava), nor solely unpolluted (anupakliṣṭa), nor solely polluted (upakliṣṭa). Therefore, the wholesome mind category does not always have regret, but it can allow for an increase in number to twenty-three at times. Speaking of regret, it is named regret because it takes evil deeds as its object (ālambana). Like the cessation of perception (asañjñā-samāpatti). Some say that the signless (animitta) and mindfulness of the body (kāya-smṛtyupasthāna) are sometimes called body (kāya). If so, then regret arising in the mind for things not done should not be regret. Not so, things not done can also be called 'done,' such as regretting and saying, 'I did not do such a thing before, this is my regret.' However, this regret is common to both wholesome and unwholesome, but not to neutral (avyākṛta), because it follows sorrow (daurmanasya). Because those who are free from desire (vīta-rāga) do not achieve regret, neutral dharmas do not have such things. However, there are changes in regret, such as, 'Why didn't I digest my food before eating? Why didn't I paint this wall before?' In such cases, their minds, until they touch the root of sorrow (daurmanasya-indriya), are only examining and have not yet given rise to regret. If they touch the root of sorrow, then regret will arise. At that time, the principle of regret is the same as the root of sorrow. Therefore, it is said that regret has such characteristics, which is to make the mind sad. If the mind category of regret is separated from the root of sorrow, who will make the mind sad? There are four types of regret, namely wholesome and unwholesome, each arising from two places. If it is the unwholesome uncommon mind category (akuśala-asādhāraṇa-citta), there are twenty mental factors that arise simultaneously, namely the ten universal mental factors (mahā-bhūmika), the six great affliction-ground mental factors (kleśa-mahā-bhūmika), the two great unwholesome-ground mental factors (akuśala-mahā-bhūmika), and the two indeterminate (aniyata), namely initial application (vitarka) and sustained application (vicāra). What is called the uncommon mind category? It is that this mind category, whoever has ignorance (avidyā), does not have others, such as latent tendencies of greed (rāga-anuśaya), etc. Just like the wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi), view of holding views (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), and adherence to rites and rituals (śīla-vrata-parāmarśa) in the uncommon category, arising simultaneously is also like this. Among the universal mental factors, it is the difference of wisdom (prajñā) that is called view (dṛṣṭi), so the number does not increase. The word 'only' in the verse is a distinguishing meaning, which means...
唯見俱。定有二十。表不共品中容有惡作等。謂若惡作是不善者。唯無明俱。非余煩惱。貪慢二種。欣行轉故。瞋外門轉。行相粗故。非惡作俱。疑不決定。惡作決定。故不俱起。有身見等。欣行轉故。極猛利故。惡作不爾。然此惡作。依善惡行事處轉故。諸見不爾。故不相應。邪見一分。雖戚行轉。而二因故。非惡作俱。是故惡作是不善者。唯無明俱。容在不共。忿等亦爾。於四不善貪瞋慢疑。煩惱心品。有二十一心所俱生。二十如不共。如貪等隨一。於前所說。忿等相應隨煩惱品。亦二十一心所俱生。二十如不共。加忿等隨一。不善惡作相應心品。亦二十一心所俱生。謂即惡作等二十一。若於無記有覆心品。唯有十八心所俱生。謂如不共二十法中。除大不善地法二種。欲界無記有覆心者。謂與薩迦耶見及邊執見相應。不增見義。如前應釋。于余無記無覆心品。許唯十二心所俱生。謂十大地法。並不定尋伺。有執惡作亦通無記。憂如喜根。非唯有記。此相應品。便有十三心所俱起。睡眠一切不相違故。于諸心品。皆可現行。于善不善無記心品。隨何品有。即說此增。隨其所應。各增一數。工巧處等諸無記心。似有勇悍。然非稱理而起加行。故無有勤。又非染污故無懈怠。無信不信類此應知。已說欲界心所俱生諸品定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：只有惡作（kukkritya，對已做之事後悔，或對未做之事後悔）才與二十種心所相應。在『不共品』（anitya，無常；duhkha，苦；anatman，無我；asubha，不凈）中，可能包含惡作等。如果惡作是不善的，那麼它只與無明（avidya，無知）相應，而不與其他煩惱（klesha，煩惱）相應。貪（lobha，貪婪）和慢（mana，傲慢）這兩種煩惱，因為是『欣行轉』（abhinandati，歡喜地行動）的緣故，而瞋（dvesha，嗔恨）是『外門轉』（bahirmukha，向外發展）且『行相粗』（audarika，粗糙）的緣故，所以不與惡作相應。疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）是不確定的，而惡作是確定的，因此它們不會同時生起。有身見（satkayadristi，認為五蘊為我）等，因為是『欣行轉』且『極猛利』（tivra，強烈）的緣故，所以惡作不會與它們相應。然而，惡作是依據善惡行為和處所而轉變的，而諸見（dristi，錯誤的見解）不是這樣，所以它們不相應。邪見（mithyadristi，錯誤的見解）的一部分，雖然是『戚行轉』（klista，痛苦地行動），但由於兩個原因，不與惡作相應。因此，如果惡作是不善的，那麼它只與無明相應，可能存在於不共品中。忿（krodha，憤怒）等也是如此。在四種不善的貪、瞋、慢、疑煩惱心品中，有二十一種心所同時生起。這二十一種心所與不共品相同，再加上貪等其中之一。在前述的與忿等相應的隨煩惱品中，也有二十一種心所同時生起。這二十一種心所與不共品相同，再加上忿等其中之一。與不善惡作相應的心品中，也有二十一種心所同時生起，即惡作等二十一種。如果是在無記（avyakrta，非善非惡）有覆（savrana，有覆蓋）的心品中，只有十八種心所同時生起，即不共二十法中，除去『大不善地法』（mahākusalabhūmika，與大善相應的心所）兩種。欲界（kamadhatu，慾望界）的無記有覆心，是與薩迦耶見（satkayadristi，身見）和邊執見（antagrahadristi，邊見）相應的。不增加見的意義，如前所述應解釋。在其餘的無記無覆心品中，允許只有十二種心所同時生起，即十大地法（mahabhumika，普遍存在的心所），以及不定（aniyata，不確定）的尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（vicara，精細的思考）。有些觀點認為惡作也通於無記。憂（daurmanasya，憂愁）如同喜根（priti，喜悅），並非只有有記（savrana，有覆蓋）。與此相應的心品中，便有十三種心所同時生起。睡眠（middha，睡眠）與一切都不相違背，因此在各種心品中，都可以現行。在善、不善、無記心品中，無論哪種心品存在，就說這種心所增加。根據其相應的，各自增加一個數量。工巧處（silpasthana，工藝）、咒術（vidya，明咒）等各種無記心，似乎有勇悍（utsaha，努力），但並非依據正理而生起加行（prayoga，努力），所以沒有勤（virya，精進）。又因為不是染污的，所以沒有懈怠（kausidya，懈怠）。無信（asaddha，不信任）和不信（asradha，不信仰）等，可以依此類推。已經說了欲界心所同時生起的各種品類。
【English Translation】 English version: Only kukkritya (remorse for what has been done or not done) is associated with twenty mental factors. In the 'Anitya' (impermanence), 'Duhkha' (suffering), 'Anatman' (non-self), 'Asubha' (impurity) category, there may be kukkritya, etc. If kukkritya is unwholesome, then it is only associated with avidya (ignorance), and not with other kleshas (afflictions). Lobha (greed) and mana (pride), because they are 'abhinandati' (delightful actions), and dvesha (hatred) is 'bahirmukha' (outward-turning) and 'audarika' (coarse), so they are not associated with kukkritya. Vicikitsa (doubt) is uncertain, while kukkritya is certain, so they do not arise simultaneously. Satkayadristi (view of self in the five skandhas), etc., because they are 'abhinandati' and 'tivra' (intense), so kukkritya is not associated with them. However, kukkritya changes according to wholesome and unwholesome actions and places, while the dristis (wrong views) are not like this, so they are not associated. A part of mithyadristi (wrong view), although it is 'klista' (painful action), is not associated with kukkritya due to two reasons. Therefore, if kukkritya is unwholesome, then it is only associated with avidya, and may exist in the 'uncommon' category. Krodha (anger), etc., are also like this. In the four unwholesome lobha, dvesha, mana, vicikitsa mental categories, twenty-one mental factors arise simultaneously. These twenty-one mental factors are the same as the 'uncommon' category, plus one of lobha, etc. In the aforementioned secondary afflictions associated with krodha, etc., twenty-one mental factors also arise simultaneously. These twenty-one mental factors are the same as the 'uncommon' category, plus one of krodha, etc. In the mental category associated with unwholesome kukkritya, twenty-one mental factors also arise simultaneously, namely the twenty-one of kukkritya, etc. If it is in the avyakrta (neither wholesome nor unwholesome) savrana (covered) mental category, only eighteen mental factors arise simultaneously, namely the twenty 'uncommon' factors, excluding the two 'mahākusalabhūmika' (mental factors associated with great wholesomeness). The avyakrta savrana mind of the kamadhatu (desire realm) is associated with satkayadristi and antagrahadristi (extreme views). It does not increase the meaning of views, as should be explained as before. In the remaining avyakrta avrana (uncovered) mental categories, it is allowed that only twelve mental factors arise simultaneously, namely the ten mahabhumikas (universal mental factors), and the aniyata (uncertain) vitarka (coarse thought) and vicara (subtle thought). Some views hold that kukkritya also applies to avyakrta. Daurmanasya (sadness) is like priti (joy), not only savrana. In the mental category associated with this, thirteen mental factors arise simultaneously. Middha (sleep) is not contradictory to anything, so it can manifest in all mental categories. In the wholesome, unwholesome, and avyakrta mental categories, whichever mental category exists, it is said that this mental factor increases. According to their corresponding, each increases by one number. Various avyakrta minds such as silpasthana (crafts), vidya (mantras), etc., seem to have utsaha (effort), but they do not arise from prayoga (effort) according to right reason, so there is no virya (diligence). Also, because it is not defiled, there is no kausidya (laziness). Asaddha (distrust) and asradha (disbelief), etc., can be known by analogy. The various categories of mental factors arising simultaneously in the kamadhatu have been discussed.
量。當說上界。頌曰。
初定除不善 及惡作睡眠 中定又除尋 上兼除伺等
論曰。初靜慮中。於前所說諸心所法。除唯不善惡作睡眠。余皆具有。唯不善者。謂瞋煩惱。及無慚愧。除諂誑憍。所餘忿等。余皆有者。如欲界說。中間靜慮。除前所除。又更除尋。余皆具有。第二靜慮以上乃至無色界中。除前所除。又除伺等。等者顯除諂誑。余皆如前具有。以從欲界乃至梵天。皆有王臣眾生等別。故有諂誑。上地皆無。如是已說三界所繫諸心所法俱生定量。有諸心所。性相似同。難知差別。今隨宗義。辯彼難知心所別相。無慚無愧。愛之與敬。別相云何。頌曰。
無慚愧不重 于罪不見怖 愛敬謂信慚 唯于欲色有
論曰。無慚無愧差別相者。于諸功德及有德者。無敬無崇。無所忌難。無所隨屬。說名無慚。諸功德者。謂尸羅等。有德者謂親教等。於此二境。無敬無崇。是無慚相。即是敬崇能障礙法。或緣諸德。說為無敬。緣有德者。說為無崇。無所忌難。無所隨屬。總顯前二。或隨次第。于所造罪。不見怖畏。說名無愧。諸觀行者。所訶厭法。說名為罪。于所訶厭諸罪業中。不見能招此世他世譏毀謫罰非愛難忍異熟果等諸怖畏事。是無愧相。即不忌憚罪業果義。不見怖言。欲顯何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：量。當說上界。頌曰：
初定除不善 及惡作睡眠 中定又除尋 上兼除伺等
論曰：初禪（Dhyana，佛教禪定中的第一禪）中，對於前面所說的各種心所法（Citta-samprayukta-dharma，與心相應的心理現象），除了不善、惡作（Kaukṛtya，追悔）和睡眠（Middha，昏沉）之外，其餘都具有。只有不善的，是指瞋（Dvesha，嗔恨）煩惱，以及無慚（Ahrikya，不知羞恥）和無愧（Anapatrapya，不覺羞恥）。除了諂（Śāṭhya，虛偽）、誑（Māya，欺騙）、憍（Māna，驕傲）之外，其餘的忿（Krodha，憤怒）等都有。其餘都有的，如欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生因具有強烈慾望而居住的世界）所說。中間禪，除了前面所除的，又更除尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考），其餘都具有。第二禪（Dhyana，佛教禪定中的第二禪）以上乃至無所有處（Ākiṃcanyāyatana，四無色定之一），除了前面所除的，又除伺（Vicāra，精細的思考）等。『等』字顯示除諂誑。其餘都如前具有。因為從欲界乃至梵天（Brahmaloka，色界天的總稱），都有王臣眾生等區別，所以有諂誑，上地都沒有。像這樣已經說了三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）所繫各種心所法俱生定量。有一些心所，性質相似相同，難以知道差別。現在隨著宗義，辨別那些難以知道的心所差別相。無慚（Ahrikya，不知羞恥）和無愧（Anapatrapya，不覺羞恥），愛（Rāga，貪愛）和敬（Gaurava，尊敬），差別是什麼？頌曰：
無慚愧不重 于罪不見怖 愛敬謂信慚 唯于欲色有
論曰：無慚（Ahrikya，不知羞恥）無愧（Anapatrapya，不覺羞恥）的差別相是：對於各種功德以及有德之人，沒有尊敬沒有崇尚，沒有忌憚沒有為難，沒有隨從沒有歸屬，這叫做無慚。各種功德，是指尸羅（Śīla，戒律）等。有德之人，是指親教師等。對於這兩種境，沒有尊敬沒有崇尚，這是無慚的相。也就是尊敬崇尚的能障礙法。或者緣于各種功德，說為沒有尊敬；緣于有德之人，說為沒有崇尚。沒有忌憚沒有為難，沒有隨從沒有歸屬，總的顯示前面兩種。或者隨次第，對於所造的罪，不見怖畏，這叫做無愧。各種觀行者所呵責厭惡的法，說名為罪。對於所呵責厭惡的各種罪業中，不見能招此世他世譏毀謫罰非愛難忍異熟果等各種怖畏事，這是無愧的相。即是不忌憚罪業果的意義。『不見怖』這句話，想要顯示什麼？
【English Translation】 English version: Quantity. When speaking of the upper realms. A verse says:
In the initial Dhyana, eliminate unwholesome qualities, and also regret and drowsiness. In the intermediate Dhyana, also eliminate coarse thought; the higher ones also eliminate subtle thought, etc.
Treatise: In the first Dhyana (Dhyana, the first meditation in Buddhism), among all the mental factors (Citta-samprayukta-dharma, mental phenomena associated with the mind) mentioned earlier, all are present except for the unwholesome, regret (Kaukṛtya, remorse), and drowsiness (Middha, torpor). Only the unwholesome refers to anger (Dvesha, hatred), afflictions, and also shamelessness (Ahrikya, lack of shame) and lack of conscience (Anapatrapya, lack of remorse). Except for deceit (Śāṭhya, dishonesty), deception (Māya, illusion), and pride (Māna, arrogance), the remaining anger (Krodha, wrath), etc., are all present. The rest that are present are as described in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, the realm of beings with strong desires). In the intermediate Dhyana, in addition to what was previously eliminated, coarse thought (Vitarka, initial application of thought) is also eliminated; the rest are all present. From the second Dhyana (Dhyana, the second meditation in Buddhism) upwards to the realm of nothingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana, the sphere of no-thingness, one of the four formless realms), in addition to what was previously eliminated, subtle thought (Vicāra, sustained application of thought), etc., are also eliminated. The 'etc.' indicates the elimination of deceit and deception. The rest are all present as before. Because from the desire realm up to the Brahma realm (Brahmaloka, the realm of Brahma), there are distinctions such as kings, ministers, and sentient beings, there is deceit and deception; the higher realms do not have them. Thus, the inherent quantitative limits of the mental factors associated with the three realms (Trailokya, the three realms of desire, form, and formlessness) have been described. Some mental factors have similar natures, making it difficult to discern their differences. Now, according to the tenets of our school, we will differentiate the subtle distinctions between these difficult-to-discern mental factors. What are the differences between shamelessness (Ahrikya, lack of shame) and lack of conscience (Anapatrapya, lack of remorse), and love (Rāga, attachment) and respect (Gaurava, reverence)? A verse says:
Shamelessness and lack of conscience are without regard; they do not see fear in wrongdoing. Love and respect refer to faith and shame; they exist only in the realms of desire and form.
Treatise: The difference between shamelessness (Ahrikya, lack of shame) and lack of conscience (Anapatrapya, lack of remorse) is that towards virtues and virtuous individuals, there is no reverence, no esteem, no avoidance, no difficulty, no following, no belonging; this is called shamelessness. Virtues refer to precepts (Śīla, moral conduct), etc. Virtuous individuals refer to preceptors, etc. Towards these two objects, there is no reverence, no esteem; this is the characteristic of shamelessness. It is the dharma that obstructs reverence and esteem. Or, in relation to virtues, it is said to be without reverence; in relation to virtuous individuals, it is said to be without esteem. No avoidance, no difficulty, no following, no belonging, generally reveal the previous two. Or, sequentially, towards the sins committed, there is no fear; this is called lack of conscience. The dharmas that are criticized and detested by practitioners are called sins. Among the various sinful actions that are criticized and detested, there is no seeing of the various fearful things that can bring about blame, punishment, unpleasant and unbearable results in this life and the next; this is the characteristic of lack of conscience. It is the meaning of not being afraid of the consequences of sinful actions. What does the phrase 'not seeing fear' intend to reveal?
義。為不見彼怖。為見而不怖。前應顯無明。后應顯邪見。此言不顯見與不見。為無愧體。但顯有法是隨煩惱能與現行無智邪智為鄰近因。說名無愧。此略義者。謂能令心。于德有德無所崇敬。名曰無慚。于罪現行。無所忌憚。名為無愧。有餘師說。于諸煩惱。不能厭毀。名曰無慚。于諸惡行。不能厭毀。說為無愧。有說。獨處造罪無恥。名曰無慚。若處眾中造罪無恥。說為無愧。有說。現起不善心時。于異熟因。無所顧眄。名曰無慚。于異熟果。無所顧眄。說為無愧。諸不善心現在前位。皆于因果。無所顧眄。故一心中二法俱起。由此翻釋慚愧異相。若凈意樂。為習善人所樂勝業。名有慚者。為得善人所樂勝果。名有愧者。諸有愛樂勝業勝果。必亦怖于惡因苦果。一切善心。現在前位。定於因果。皆無迷惑。由此慚愧。一心並生。故有餘師。以如是義。標於心首。說如是言于所造罪。自觀無恥。名曰無慚。觀他無恥。說為無愧。謂異熟因。當時現起。故名為自。其異熟果。后時方有。故說為他。彼義意言。諸造罪者。意樂不凈。于現罪業及當苦果。皆無顧眄。由此已釋。經主此中。誤取彼情。橫申過難。謂設難言。若爾此二。所觀不同。云何俱起。已說無慚無愧別相。愛敬別者。愛謂愛樂。體即是信。然愛有二。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 義：爲了不見那些怖畏，還是爲了見了而不怖畏？前面應該顯示無明（avidyā，對事物真相的無知），後面應該顯示邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）。這裡沒有明顯說明見與不見。是爲了無愧的體性，但顯示有法是隨煩惱，能與現行的無智和邪智作為鄰近的因，這被稱為無愧。這個簡略的意義是說，能使心對於有德之人或事物沒有崇敬之心，這叫做無慚（ahrīka，不知羞恥）；對於罪惡的現行，沒有忌憚之心，這叫做無愧（anapatrāpya，不知羞惡）。 有其他論師說，對於各種煩惱，不能厭惡和譭謗，這叫做無慚；對於各種惡行，不能厭惡和譭謗，這被稱為無愧。有人說，獨自一人造罪，叫做無慚；如果在大眾之中造罪，就稱為無愧。有人說，當不善心生起時，對於異熟因（vipāka-hetu，導致不同結果的業因）沒有顧慮，這叫做無慚；對於異熟果（vipāka-phala，不同結果的業報）沒有顧慮，這稱為無愧。各種不善心在現在生起時，都對於因果沒有顧慮，所以一個心中兩種法同時生起。由此可以反過來解釋慚愧的不同相狀。如果以清凈的意樂，做為修行善法之人所喜愛的殊勝事業，這稱為有慚（hrī，有羞恥心）；爲了獲得善人所喜愛的殊勝果報，這稱為有愧（apatrāpya，有羞惡心）。 凡是喜愛殊勝事業和殊勝果報的人，必定也害怕惡因和苦果。一切善心在現在生起時，一定對於因果都沒有迷惑。因此，慚和愧在一個心中同時產生。所以有其他論師，以這樣的意義，標明於心首，說這樣的話：對於自己所造的罪，自己觀察，這叫做無慚；觀察他人，稱為無愧。所謂異熟因，當時現起，所以稱為『自』；而異熟果，在後時才有，所以說為『他』。他們的意思是說，那些造罪的人，意樂不凈，對於現在的罪業和將來的苦果，都沒有顧慮。由此已經解釋了。經主在這裡，錯誤地理解了他們的意思，橫加責難，說：『如果這樣，這二者所觀察的不同，怎麼能同時生起呢？』已經說了無慚和無愧的區別相狀。愛和敬的區別是，愛是指愛樂，其體性就是信。然而愛有兩種，一種是……
【English Translation】 義: Is it in order not to see those fears, or to see them and not be afraid? The former should reveal avidyā (ignorance, not knowing the true nature of things), and the latter should reveal mithyā-dṛṣṭi (wrong views). This does not clearly state seeing or not seeing. Is it for the nature of ahrīka (shamelessness), but it shows that there is a dharma that is a secondary affliction, capable of being a proximate cause for the currently arising non-wisdom and wrong wisdom, which is called ahrīka. This brief meaning is that it can cause the mind to have no respect for virtuous people or things, which is called ahrīka; for the current manifestation of sins, there is no fear or dread, which is called anapatrāpya (lack of moral shame). Other teachers say that for various afflictions, not being able to detest and slander them is called ahrīka; for various evil deeds, not being able to detest and slander them is called anapatrāpya. Some say that committing sins alone is called ahrīka; if committing sins in a crowd, it is called anapatrāpya. Some say that when unwholesome thoughts arise, there is no regard for vipāka-hetu (the cause of different results), which is called ahrīka; there is no regard for vipāka-phala (the result of different results), which is called anapatrāpya. When various unwholesome thoughts arise in the present, they have no regard for cause and effect, so two dharmas arise simultaneously in one mind. From this, the different characteristics of hrī (shame) and apatrāpya can be explained in reverse. If with pure intention, doing the superior deeds that are loved by those who cultivate goodness, this is called hrī; in order to obtain the superior rewards loved by virtuous people, this is called apatrāpya. Whoever loves superior deeds and superior rewards must also fear evil causes and bitter results. When all wholesome thoughts arise in the present, there is certainly no confusion about cause and effect. Therefore, hrī and apatrāpya arise simultaneously in one mind. Therefore, other teachers, with such meaning, mark it at the head of the mind, saying such words: For the sins one has committed, observing oneself is called ahrīka; observing others is called anapatrāpya. The so-called vipāka-hetu arises at that time, so it is called 'self'; while vipāka-phala only exists later, so it is called 'other'. Their meaning is that those who commit sins have impure intentions and have no regard for present sins and future bitter results. This has already been explained. The sūtra master here mistakenly understood their meaning and made unwarranted accusations, saying: 'If so, how can these two, whose observations are different, arise simultaneously?' The different characteristics of ahrīka and anapatrāpya have already been stated. The difference between love and respect is that love refers to loving and delighting, and its nature is faith. However, there are two kinds of love, one is...
有染污。二無染污。有染謂貪。無染謂信。信復有二。一忍許相。二愿樂相。若緣是處。現前忍許。或即于中。亦生愿樂。此中愛者。是第二信。或於因中。亦立果稱。前信是愛鄰近因故。名愛無失。敬謂敬重。體即是慚。謂如前釋大善地法中言。心自在性說為慚者。應知即是此中敬體。然復有言。有所崇重。故名為敬。由此為先。方生慚恥。故敬非慚。彼師應許無慚恥者能起恭敬。以執先起敬時未有慚恥故。應無慚恥者能起恭敬。若謂敬時已有慚恥。則不應說由敬為先方生慚恥。若謂敬時非無慚恥。然敬非慚。此亦非理。言敬非慚。無證因故。非敬為先方生慚恥。勿無慚者能起恭敬。又勿有敬而無慚恥。然復確執敬體非慚。但有虛言。都無實義。故應敬體是慚差別。謂或有慚。名有崇重。此慚差別說名為敬。補特伽羅為境界故。即慚差別。得崇重名。夫崇重者。是心自在。心自在性。已說為慚。謂於心中。有自在力。能自制伏。有所崇重。故說敬體是慚差別。于諸所尊。有所崇重。故名為敬。是境第七。或因第七。由於所尊發隨屬意。即名為慚。此慚即是有所崇重。故此敬體。是慚差別。義善成就。即由此證。補特伽羅為境信慚。說名愛敬。非謂以法為境起者。故愛與敬。雖大善攝。而不立在無色界中。有餘師言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有染污和無染污兩種。有染污指的是貪婪（Tanha）。無染污指的是信仰（Saddha）。信仰又有兩種相：一是忍許相，二是愿樂相。如果緣于某個處所，當下產生忍許，或者立即于其中，也產生愿樂。這裡所說的愛（Pema），是第二種信仰。或者在因中，也安立果的名稱，因為前一種信仰是愛的鄰近因，所以稱為愛沒有過失。敬（Garava）指的是敬重，其體性就是慚（Hiri），就像前面解釋大善地法中說的心自在性被說為慚一樣。應當知道這就是這裡敬的體性。然而又有人說，因為有所崇重，所以名為敬。因為以這個為先，才產生慚恥，所以敬不是慚。那位論師應該允許沒有慚恥的人能夠生起恭敬，因為他堅持先有敬的時候還沒有慚恥。所以不應該沒有慚恥的人能夠生起恭敬。如果說敬的時候已經有慚恥，那麼就不應該說由敬為先才產生慚恥。如果說敬的時候並非沒有慚恥，然而敬不是慚，這也是沒有道理的。說敬不是慚，因為沒有證據。不是敬為先才產生慚恥，不要讓沒有慚恥的人能夠生起恭敬，也不要有敬而沒有慚恥。然而又確實堅持敬的體性不是慚，只有虛假的話，都沒有實際意義。所以應該敬的體性是慚的差別，或者有慚，名為有所崇重，這種慚的差別被說名為敬。因為以補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）為境界，所以這種慚的差別，得到崇重的名稱。所謂崇重，是心自在，心自在性，已經被說為慚，指的是在心中，有自在的力量，能夠自我制伏，有所崇重，所以說敬的體性是慚的差別。對於諸所尊重，有所崇重，所以名為敬，這是境第七，或者因第七。由於所尊重而發出隨順的意樂，就名為慚，這種慚就是有所崇重。所以這種敬的體性，是慚的差別，意義善於成就。就是由此證明，以補特伽羅為境界的信和慚，說名為愛和敬，不是說以法為境界而生起的。所以愛與敬，雖然是大善所攝，而不立在無貪中。有其他論師說。
【English Translation】 English version There are two types of defilement: defiled and undefiled. Defiled refers to greed (Tanha). Undefiled refers to faith (Saddha). Faith further has two aspects: acceptance and aspiration. If, in relation to a certain place, acceptance arises immediately, or aspiration also arises immediately within it, then 'love' (Pema) here refers to the second type of faith. Or, the name of the result is also established in the cause, because the former faith is the proximate cause of love, so it is not a mistake to call it love. Reverence (Garava) refers to respect, and its essence is shame (Hiri), just as it was explained earlier in the great wholesome mental factors that the self-mastery of mind is said to be shame. It should be known that this is the essence of reverence here. However, some say that it is called reverence because there is something revered. Because shame arises after this, reverence is not shame. That teacher should allow that those without shame can generate respect, because he insists that there was no shame when respect first arose. Therefore, it should not be that those without shame can generate respect. If it is said that there was already shame when respect arose, then it should not be said that shame arises after reverence. If it is said that there is shame when respect arises, but reverence is not shame, this is also unreasonable. Saying that reverence is not shame is without evidence. It is not that shame arises after reverence; do not let those without shame be able to generate respect, and do not have respect without shame. However, they firmly insist that the essence of reverence is not shame, only empty words, without any real meaning. Therefore, the essence of reverence should be a distinction of shame, or there is shame, called something revered, this distinction of shame is said to be reverence. Because the Pudgala (person) is the object, this distinction of shame obtains the name of reverence. What is called reverence is the self-mastery of mind, and the self-mastery of mind has already been said to be shame, referring to having the power of self-mastery in the mind, being able to restrain oneself, and having something revered, so it is said that the essence of reverence is a distinction of shame. For all that is respected, there is reverence, so it is called reverence, this is the seventh in the object, or the seventh in the cause. Because of the intention to follow what is respected, it is called shame, this shame is something revered. Therefore, the essence of this reverence is a distinction of shame, and the meaning is well accomplished. It is proven by this that faith and shame with the Pudgala as the object are called love and reverence, not that which arises with the Dharma as the object. Therefore, although love and reverence are included in the great wholesome, they are not established in non-greed. Other teachers say.
信順親密。而無耽染。說名為愛。瞻望所尊。崇重隨屬。說名為敬有餘師說。親近善士因名為愛。不越彼言因名為敬。復有說者。于和合眾。見等皆同。故名為愛。于可尊重。深心恭事。故名為敬。此愛與敬。欲色界有。無色界無。無依處故。如是已說愛敬別相。尋伺憍慢別相云何。頌曰。
尋伺心粗細 慢對他心舉 憍由染自法 心高無所顧
論曰。尋伺別者。謂心粗細。心之粗性。說名為尋。心之細性。說名為伺。若爾尋伺體不異心。經即就心說二性故。此言非理。由不了達經義意故。經言所有心粗細性名尋伺者。由有此法。心起便粗。此法為尋。由有此法。心起便細。此法名伺。或作異釋。故體異心。謂我不言。心之粗性名心粗性。心之細性名心細性。若爾云何。依心粗性。名心粗性。依心細性。名心細性。若爾粗細性相違故。不應尋伺一心俱生。雖一心中二體可得。用增時別。故不相違。如水與酢等分和合。體雖平等。而用有增。粗心品中。尋用增故。伺用被損。有而難覺。細心品中。伺用增故。尋用被損。有而難覺。若謂酢用一切時增故非喻者。此言非理。我不定說。以酢喻尋。伺喻於水。但有用增者即說如酢故。若心品中。尋伺二法隨用增者。即說如酢。微便喻水。由是尋伺。雖一心中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 信順親密，而沒有耽染，這叫做『愛』。瞻仰所尊重的人，崇敬並隨順依屬，這叫做『敬』。還有一種說法是，親近善知識也叫做『愛』，不違揹他們的教誨叫做『敬』。還有一種說法是，在和合的僧團中，見解等同叫做『愛』，對於值得尊重的人，以深切的心恭敬侍奉叫做『敬』。這種愛和敬，在有慾望的人心中有，在沒有慾望的人心中沒有，因為它們沒有依靠之處。以上已經說明了愛和敬的區別。 尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的思考）、憍（Māna，驕傲）和慢（Atimāna，傲慢）的區別又是什麼呢？頌文說： 『尋伺心粗細，慢對他心舉，憍由染自法，心高無所顧。』 論述說：尋和伺的區別在於心的粗細。心的粗略性質叫做『尋』，心的細微性質叫做『伺』。如果這樣說，尋和伺的本體與心沒有區別，因為經文是就心來說這兩種性質。這種說法是不合理的，因為不瞭解經文的意義。經文所說的『所有心的粗細性質叫做尋和伺』，是指由於有這種法，心生起時就變得粗略，這種法叫做『尋』；由於有這種法，心生起時就變得細微，這種法叫做『伺』。或者可以作另一種解釋，認為它們的本體與心不同。我並不是說，心的粗略性質叫做心粗略性質，心的細微性質叫做心細微性質。如果不是這樣，那又是什麼呢？是依附於心的粗略性質，而稱之為心的粗略性質；依附於心的細微性質，而稱之為心的細微性質。如果這樣，粗略和細微的性質是相反的，不應該在同一心中同時生起。雖然在同一心中可以得到兩種體性，但由於作用增強的時間不同，所以並不矛盾。就像水和醋等量混合在一起，體性雖然平等，但作用卻有增強。在粗略的心品中，尋的作用增強，伺的作用就被減損，雖然存在卻難以察覺；在細微的心品中，伺的作用增強，尋的作用就被減損，雖然存在卻難以察覺。如果認為醋的作用在任何時候都在增強，所以這個比喻不恰當，這種說法是不合理的。我並沒有一定說用醋來比喻尋，用水來比喻伺，只是說作用增強的就說像醋一樣。如果在心品中，尋和伺兩種法，哪一種作用增強，就說像醋一樣，微弱的就比喻成水。因此，尋和伺雖然在同一心中
【English Translation】 English version Faithful adherence and intimacy, without defilement, is called 'love'. Looking up to those who are respected, revering and following them, is called 'respect'. Another explanation is that approaching virtuous friends is also called 'love', and not violating their teachings is called 'respect'. Yet another explanation is that in a harmonious Sangha (community), having the same views is called 'love', and serving those who are worthy of respect with a deep heart of reverence is called 'respect'. This love and respect exist in the minds of those with desires, but not in the minds of those without desires, because they have no place to rely on. The distinctions between love and respect have been explained above. What are the distinctions between Vitarka (initial application of thought, coarse thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle thought), Māna (pride) and Atimāna (arrogance)? The verse says: 'Vitarka and Vicara are coarse and subtle of mind, Māna elevates oneself against others' minds, Arrogance arises from attachment to one's own qualities, The mind is haughty and disregards everything.' The treatise says: The difference between Vitarka and Vicara lies in the coarseness and subtlety of the mind. The coarse nature of the mind is called 'Vitarka', and the subtle nature of the mind is called 'Vicara'. If this is the case, then the essence of Vitarka and Vicara is not different from the mind, because the sutras speak of these two qualities in relation to the mind. This statement is unreasonable because it does not understand the meaning of the sutras. The sutras say that 'all coarse and subtle qualities of the mind are called Vitarka and Vicara', meaning that because of this dharma (phenomenon), the mind becomes coarse when it arises, and this dharma is called 'Vitarka'; because of this dharma, the mind becomes subtle when it arises, and this dharma is called 'Vicara'. Or another explanation can be given, considering their essence to be different from the mind. I am not saying that the coarse quality of the mind is called the coarse quality of the mind, and the subtle quality of the mind is called the subtle quality of the mind. If not, then what is it? It is based on the coarse quality of the mind that it is called the coarse quality of the mind; it is based on the subtle quality of the mind that it is called the subtle quality of the mind. If so, the qualities of coarseness and subtlety are contradictory and should not arise simultaneously in the same mind. Although two natures can be obtained in the same mind, they are not contradictory because the time of their increased function is different. Just like water and vinegar mixed together in equal parts, the essence is equal, but the function is increased. In the coarse mind state, the function of Vitarka is increased, and the function of Vicara is diminished, existing but difficult to perceive; in the subtle mind state, the function of Vicara is increased, and the function of Vitarka is diminished, existing but difficult to perceive. If it is argued that the function of vinegar is always increasing, so this analogy is not appropriate, this statement is unreasonable. I am not necessarily saying that vinegar is used to represent Vitarka and water is used to represent Vicara, but only that what has an increased function is said to be like vinegar. If in the mind state, the function of either Vitarka or Vicara increases, it is said to be like vinegar, and the weak one is likened to water. Therefore, although Vitarka and Vicara are in the same mind
體俱可得。用時別故。而無一心。即粗即細。如貪癡性。雖並現行。而得說心為有貪行。隨何心品。有法用增。由此為門。總摽心品。有說。現見別法所持。令其別法相續變故。心體相續既有粗細。故知別為尋伺所持。有餘復言。為立尋伺。為定障故。說尋伺為心粗細性。云何知然。諸聖教內。處處於定立心名故。謂契經中。說四靜慮為定根已。復說四靜慮。為增上心學。又契經說。依住凈戒。修習二法。謂止觀已。復說。智者依住凈戒。修習心慧。又契經言。離貪慾故。心得解脫。離無明故。慧得解脫。止觀是彼親近對治。故知于定建立心名。謂大仙尊。見有觀行者。方欲趣入中間靜慮時。有法為障。推求此障。知尋為體。復有觀行者。方欲趣入第二靜慮時。有法為障。推求此障。知伺為體。既能為障。故知別有。若言煩惱足為定障。何須別立尋伺障者。此言非理。煩惱唯障離染法故。非為定障。云何知然。下地煩惱有雖已斷。而上地定不現前故。有雖未斷。上地邊定。亦現前故。又唯煩惱為定障者。應唯未斷能與趣入上地為障。然尋伺等。要現在前。方與趣入上地為障。又契經說。靜慮中言。寂靜尋伺。離喜斷樂。已離貪者。修諸定時。方說尋等寂靜離斷。故知煩惱外別有尋等障。于染善心。為障別故。不應責言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所有心識的體性都是可以獲得的。只是在作用的時候有所區別，所以才說沒有一個統一的心識。心識有粗有細，就像貪婪和愚癡的本性一樣，雖然可以同時出現，但可以說心識具有貪婪的行為。隨著任何心識的類別，某種法的作用增強，因此以此為途徑，總括地標示心識的類別。有人說，因為現量所見的不同的法所支援，使得那些不同的法相續變化，心識的體性相續既有粗細，所以知道是分別被尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，精細的思考）所支援。還有人說，建立尋和伺，是因為它們是禪定的障礙。為什麼知道是這樣呢？因為在各種聖教經典中，處處都以『心』來命名禪定。例如，在契經中，在說了四靜慮（catū ধ্যানানি，色界的四種禪定）是禪定的根本之後，又說四靜慮是增上心學。又如契經說，依靠安住于清凈的戒律，修習兩種法，即止（Śamatha，止息雜念）和觀（Vipassanā，如實觀察），之後又說，智者依靠安住于清凈的戒律，修習心和慧。又如契經說，因為遠離貪慾，心得到解脫；因為遠離無明，慧得到解脫。止和觀是它們最直接的對治方法，所以知道在禪定中建立了『心』的名稱。偉大的仙尊看到有觀行者正要進入中間靜慮時，有法成為障礙，推究這個障礙，知道是尋的體性。又有觀行者正要進入第二靜慮時，有法成為障礙，推究這個障礙，知道是伺的體性。既然能夠成為障礙，所以知道它們是分別存在的。如果說煩惱足以成為禪定的障礙，為什麼還要另外建立尋和伺作為障礙呢？這種說法是不合理的，因為煩惱僅僅障礙遠離染污的法，而不是禪定的障礙。為什麼知道是這樣呢？因為下地的煩惱即使已經斷除，上地的禪定也不會立即出現；有的煩惱即使沒有斷除，上地的邊定也會立即出現。而且，如果只有煩惱是禪定的障礙，那麼應該只有未斷除的煩惱才能障礙進入上地。然而，尋和伺等，必須現在面前，才能障礙進入上地。此外，契經中說，在靜慮中說，寂靜尋伺，離喜斷樂，已經遠離貪慾的人，在修習各種禪定時，才說尋等寂靜、遠離和斷除。因此，知道在煩惱之外，還有尋等作為障礙，因為它們對於染污和善良的心識，作為障礙是不同的。不應該責問說。
【English Translation】 English version All the natures of consciousness can be obtained. It's just that they differ in their functions, so it's said that there is no unified consciousness. Consciousness can be coarse or subtle, just like the nature of greed and ignorance, although they can appear simultaneously, it can be said that consciousness has greedy behavior. With any category of consciousness, the function of a certain dharma increases, therefore, taking this as a path, the categories of consciousness are generally indicated. Some say that because of the support of different dharmas seen by direct perception, those different dharmas continuously change, and since the nature of the continuity of consciousness has both coarse and subtle aspects, it is known that it is supported separately by Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought). Others say that establishing Vitarka and Vicara is because they are obstacles to Dhyana (meditation). How is it known to be so? Because in various sacred teachings and scriptures, the name 'mind' is used everywhere to name Dhyana. For example, in the Sutras, after saying that the four Dhyanas (catū ধ্যানানি, the four meditations of the form realm) are the root of Dhyana, it is also said that the four Dhyanas are the learning of higher mind. Also, as the Sutras say, relying on abiding in pure precepts, cultivate two dharmas, namely Śamatha (cessation of distractions) and Vipassanā (insightful observation), and then it is said that the wise rely on abiding in pure precepts, cultivate mind and wisdom. Also, as the Sutras say, because of being away from greed, the mind attains liberation; because of being away from ignorance, wisdom attains liberation. Śamatha and Vipassanā are their most direct antidotes, so it is known that the name 'mind' is established in Dhyana. The great sage saw that when a practitioner of insight was about to enter the intermediate Dhyana, a dharma became an obstacle, and investigating this obstacle, he knew it was the nature of Vitarka. Also, when a practitioner of insight was about to enter the second Dhyana, a dharma became an obstacle, and investigating this obstacle, he knew it was the nature of Vicara. Since they can become obstacles, it is known that they exist separately. If it is said that afflictions are sufficient to become obstacles to Dhyana, why is it necessary to separately establish Vitarka and Vicara as obstacles? This statement is unreasonable, because afflictions only obstruct the dharma of being away from defilement, not the obstacles to Dhyana. How is it known to be so? Because even if the afflictions of the lower realm have already been cut off, the Dhyana of the upper realm will not immediately appear; even if some afflictions have not been cut off, the marginal Dhyana of the upper realm will immediately appear. Moreover, if only afflictions are obstacles to Dhyana, then only uncut afflictions should be able to obstruct entry into the upper realm. However, Vitarka and Vicara, etc., must be present before they can obstruct entry into the upper realm. In addition, the Sutras say that in Dhyana, it is said that the tranquil Vitarka and Vicara, being away from joy and cutting off pleasure, those who have already been away from greed, when cultivating various Dhyanas, it is said that Vitarka, etc., are tranquil, away from, and cut off. Therefore, it is known that outside of afflictions, there are Vitarka, etc., as obstacles, because their obstacles to defiled and virtuous consciousness are different. One should not question.
煩惱障定。何須別立尋伺為障。是故所言為立尋伺為定障故。說尋伺為心粗細性。理善成立。定之粗障說名為尋。定之細障說名為伺。由此故說心之粗性。說名為尋。心之細性說名為伺。亦無有失。非於上地定過患中更有如斯粗細名想。故上地定。得一味名。由是彼無中間靜慮非上諸地。如初靜慮。於一地中。有漸除障。漸得勝定。可立中間。何故不說尋伺自相。如說。受等各別相耶。辯諸法相。有多門故。謂聖教中有約自性辯諸法相。或約相應果因功用及所緣等。且如說言。云何地界。謂堅強性。云何不善。謂與無慚無愧相應。云何三摩地。謂心一境性。云何為觸。謂三和合。云何為眼根。謂眼識所依。云何法智。謂于欲界所繫諸行。或彼行因。或彼行滅。或彼斷道。諸無漏智。如是等門。辯諸法相。皆于正理。無所乖違。是故不應責同受等。諸法性相。最極難知。辯靜慮中當更分別。如是已說尋伺別相。慢憍別者。慢謂對他心自舉性。稱量自他德類勝劣若實不實。心自舉恃。𣣋蔑於他。故名為慢。憍謂染著自法為先。令心傲逸。無所顧性。于自勇健財位戒慧族等法中。先起染著。心生傲逸。于諸善本無所顧眄。故名為憍。于諸善本無所顧者。謂由心傲。于諸善業不欣修習。是謂慢憍差別之相。如是已說諸心心所品
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於煩惱障定的問題：為什麼還需要另外設立尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，精細的觀察）作為障礙呢？因此，說設立尋和伺作為定的障礙，是因為尋和伺是心的粗細性質，這個道理是能夠成立的。定的粗略障礙稱為尋，定的精細障礙稱為伺。因此，說心的粗略性質稱為尋，心的精細性質稱為伺，也沒有什麼不妥。在上地定的過患中，沒有像這樣粗細的名相。所以上地定，得到『一味』的名稱。因此，上地定沒有中間靜慮，不像初禪那樣，在一地中，有逐漸去除障礙，逐漸獲得殊勝的定，可以設立中間靜慮。為什麼不說尋和伺的自相，就像說受等各自的相呢？辨別諸法的體相，有很多途徑。聖教中，有從自性辨別諸法體相的，或者從相應、果、因、功用以及所緣等辨別的。比如，什麼是地界（Dhātu，元素）？是堅硬的性質。什麼是不善？是與無慚（Ahrikya，不知恥）和無愧（Anapatrāpya，不畏罪）相應的。什麼是三摩地（Samādhi，禪定）？是心一境性。什麼是觸（Sparśa，感覺）？是三和合。什麼是眼根（Caksurindriya，視覺器官）？是眼識（Caksurvijñāna，視覺意識）所依。什麼是法智（Dharmajñāna，對法的智慧）？是對欲界（Kāmadhātu，慾望界）所繫的諸行，或者那些行的因，或者那些行的滅，或者那些斷道的無漏智。像這樣等途徑，辨別諸法的體相，都與正理沒有違背。所以不應該責怪它與受等諸法的體相不同。諸法的體相，是最極難知的，在辨別靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）時，應當更進一步分別。像這樣已經說了尋和伺的區別體相。慢（Māna，驕慢）和憍（Stambha，自負）的區別是：慢是對他人心生自高自大的心態，衡量自己和他人德行類別的勝劣，無論真實與否，內心自恃，輕蔑他人，所以稱為慢。憍是以染著自己的法為先導，使內心傲慢放逸，毫無顧忌。在自己的勇健、財富、戒律、智慧、家族等法中，先產生染著，內心生起傲慢，對於各種善的根本毫不顧及，所以稱為憍。對於各種善的根本毫不顧及，是因為內心傲慢，對於各種善業不歡喜修習。這就是慢和憍的區別體相。像這樣已經說了各種心和心所（Caitasika，心理活動）的品類。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the afflictive obscuration of fixed concentration: Why is it necessary to separately establish Vitarka (initial application of thought, gross thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle discernment) as obstacles? Therefore, the statement that Vitarka and Vicara are established as obstacles to fixed concentration is because Vitarka and Vicara are the coarse and subtle natures of the mind, which is a valid principle. The coarse obstacle to fixed concentration is called Vitarka, and the subtle obstacle to fixed concentration is called Vicara. Therefore, saying that the coarse nature of the mind is called Vitarka, and the subtle nature of the mind is called Vicara, is also not inappropriate. In the faults of higher-level fixed concentrations, there are no such coarse and subtle names and concepts. Therefore, higher-level fixed concentrations obtain the name of 'one taste'. Consequently, those higher realms lack intermediate Dhyana (meditative absorption), unlike the first Dhyana, where within one realm, there is a gradual removal of obstacles and a gradual attainment of superior fixed concentration, allowing for the establishment of an intermediate Dhyana. Why are the self-characteristics of Vitarka and Vicara not discussed, just as the individual characteristics of Vedanā (feeling) and others are discussed? Discriminating the characteristics of all Dharmas (phenomena) has many approaches. In the sacred teachings, there are those that discriminate the characteristics of all Dharmas based on their self-nature, or based on their association, result, cause, function, and object, etc. For example, what is the Earth Element (Dhātu)? It is the nature of solidity. What is unwholesome? It is that which is associated with Ahrikya (shamelessness) and Anapatrāpya (lack of remorse). What is Samādhi (concentration)? It is the one-pointedness of mind. What is Sparśa (contact)? It is the coming together of the three. What is the eye faculty (Caksurindriya)? It is the basis upon which eye consciousness (Caksurvijñāna) relies. What is Dharma Knowledge (Dharmajñāna)? It is the undefiled wisdom regarding the conditioned phenomena of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), or the causes of those phenomena, or the cessation of those phenomena, or the path to their cessation. Such approaches to discriminating the characteristics of all Dharmas are all in accordance with correct reasoning and do not contradict it. Therefore, one should not criticize it for being different from the characteristics of Vedanā and other Dharmas. The characteristics of all Dharmas are extremely difficult to know, and further distinctions should be made when discriminating Dhyana. Thus, the distinct characteristics of Vitarka and Vicara have been explained. The difference between Māna (pride) and Stambha (conceit) is: Māna is the mind's self-elevation in relation to others, measuring the superiority or inferiority of one's own and others' virtues, whether real or not, relying on oneself and belittling others, hence it is called Māna. Stambha is primarily attachment to one's own qualities, causing the mind to be arrogant and unrestrained. First, attachment arises to one's own courage, wealth, discipline, wisdom, family, and other qualities, and arrogance arises in the mind, with no regard for the roots of goodness, hence it is called Stambha. Having no regard for the roots of goodness means that due to arrogance, one does not joyfully cultivate virtuous actions. This is the difference between Māna and Stambha. Thus, the categories of various minds and mental factors (Caitasika) have been explained.
類不同俱生決定差別之相。然心心所于契經中。隨義建立種種名相。今當辯此名義差別。頌曰。
心意識體一 心心所有依 有緣有行相 相應義有五
論曰。心意識三。體雖是一。而訓詞等義類有異。謂集起故名心。思量故名意。了別故名識。或種種義故名為心。即此為他作所依止故名為意。作能依止故名為識。或界處蘊施設差別。或復增長相續業生種子差別。如是等類。義門有異。故心意識。三名所詮。義異體一。如心意識。三名所詮。義異體一。諸心心所名有所依。所緣行相相應亦爾。名義雖殊而體是一。謂心心所。以六內處。為所依故。名有所依。以色等境。為所緣故。名有所緣。即于所緣境品類相中。有能取義。故名有行相。平等俱時與他合故。說名相應。云何平等。五義等故。謂心心所。五義平等。故說相應。所依所緣行相時事。皆平等故。事平等者。一相應中。如心體一。諸心所法各各亦爾。有譬喻者。說唯有心無別心所。心想俱時。行相差別。不可得故。何者行相唯在想有。在識中無。深遠推求。唯聞此二名言差別。曾無體義差別可知。又由至教證無心所。如世尊告阿難陀言。若無有識入母胎者。乃至廣說。又說。或心或意或識長夜流轉。生於地獄。乃至生天。又說。士夫即是六界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不同種類的俱生（俱時產生）現象，其決定的差別相狀各不相同。然而，心和心所（心理活動及其屬性）在契經（佛經）中，根據意義的不同而建立了各種各樣的名稱和相狀。現在將辨析這些名稱和意義的差別。
頌曰： 『心、意識體性一，心心所有所依，有緣有行相，相應義有五。』
論曰：心、意、識這三者，體性雖然是一個，但是訓釋詞義等類別有所不同。聚集生起叫做『心』（Citta），思量叫做『意』（Manas），了別叫做『識』（Vijñāna）。或者說，種種意義叫做『心』，它作為其他事物所依賴的基礎叫做『意』，作為能依賴的基礎叫做『識』。或者說，在界（Dhātu）、處（Āyatana）、蘊（Skandha）的施設差別，或者增長、相續、業、生、種子的差別等方面，意義有所不同。因此，心、意、識這三個名稱所詮釋的意義不同，但體性是一個。如同心、意、識這三個名稱所詮釋的意義不同，但體性是一個一樣，所有心和心所的名稱都有所依賴，所緣（對像）、行相（認知方式）、相應也是如此。名稱和意義雖然不同，但體性是一個。所謂心和心所，以六內處（六根）作為所依賴的基礎，所以叫做『有所依』。以色等境界作為所緣，所以叫做『有所緣』。在所緣境界的品類相狀中，有能取的作用，所以叫做『有行相』。平等、同時與他物結合，所以叫做『相應』。如何是平等呢？因為五種意義相等。心和心所，在五種意義上是相等的，所以說相應。所依、所緣、行相、時間、事情，都是相等的。事情相等是指，在一個相應中，如同心的體性是一個一樣，各種心所法也各自是一個。有人用譬喻來說，只有心而沒有其他心所，心和想同時存在，行相的差別是不可得的。什麼行相只在想（Saṃjñā）中存在，而在識中沒有呢？深入推求，只聽到這兩個名稱的差別，從來沒有體性和意義的差別可以知道。而且，由於至教（佛陀的教誨）證明沒有心所。例如世尊告訴阿難陀（Ānanda）說：『如果沒有識進入母親的子宮，』乃至廣說。又說：『或者心、或者意、或者識，長夜流轉，生於地獄，』乃至生天。又說：『士夫（Pudgala）就是六界。』
【English Translation】 English version: The characteristics of co-arisen (occurring simultaneously) phenomena of different kinds have distinct determined differences. However, in the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures), 'mind' (Citta) and 'mental factors' (Caitasikas) are established with various names and aspects according to their meanings. Now, we will discuss the differences in these names and meanings.
Verse: 'Mind, consciousness, and intellect are one in essence; mind and mental factors have a basis; they have an object and a mode of operation; the meaning of association has five aspects.'
Treatise: Although mind (Citta), intellect (Manas), and consciousness (Vijñāna) are one in essence, their etymological explanations and categories differ. 'Mind' is named because it accumulates and arises; 'intellect' is named because it thinks; 'consciousness' is named because it discerns. Or, 'mind' is named because of its various meanings; it is called 'intellect' because it serves as the basis upon which other things rely; it is called 'consciousness' because it serves as the basis that can rely. Or, there are differences in the establishment of realms (Dhātu), sense bases (Āyatana), aggregates (Skandha), or in aspects such as growth, continuity, karma, birth, and seeds. Therefore, the meanings expressed by the three names—mind, intellect, and consciousness—are different, but their essence is one. Just as the meanings expressed by the three names—mind, intellect, and consciousness—are different but their essence is one, all names of mind and mental factors have a basis, an object (Ālambana), a mode of operation (Ākāra), and association (Saṃprayoga). Although the names and meanings are different, their essence is one. So-called mind and mental factors, because they take the six internal sense bases (six sense organs) as their basis, are called 'having a basis.' Because they take objects such as form as their object, they are called 'having an object.' Within the categories of the object, there is the function of grasping, so it is called 'having a mode of operation.' Because they are equal, simultaneous, and combine with others, they are called 'association.' How is it equal? Because the five meanings are equal. Mind and mental factors are equal in five meanings, so they are said to be associated. The basis, object, mode of operation, time, and event are all equal. The equality of events means that in one association, just as the essence of mind is one, each of the various mental factors is also one. Some use an analogy to say that there is only mind and no other mental factors; mind and perception (Saṃjñā) exist simultaneously, and the difference in their modes of operation is not discernible. What mode of operation exists only in perception and not in consciousness? After deep investigation, only the difference in these two names is heard, and there has never been a difference in essence and meaning that can be known. Moreover, the ultimate teaching (the Buddha's teachings) proves that there are no mental factors. For example, the World-Honored One told Ānanda: 'If there were no consciousness entering the mother's womb,' and so on. It is also said: 'Either mind, or intellect, or consciousness, transmigrates through the long night, being born in hell,' and even being born in the heavens. It is also said: 'A person (Pudgala) is the six elements.'
。所謂地界乃至識界。又說。我今不見一法速疾迴轉猶如心者。又說。我今不見一法若不修習則不調柔無所堪能猶如心者。又如契經伽他中說。
心遠行獨行 無身寐于窟 能調伏難伏 我說婆羅門
此等諸經皆遮心所。又於心所。多興諍論。故知離心無別有體。謂執別有心所論者。於心所中。興多諍論。或說。唯有三大地法。或說有四。或說有十。或說十四。故唯有識隨位而流。說有多種心心所別。如甘蔗汁。如倡伎人。故無受等別體可得。心心所法。共一境轉。生住滅等。分位是同。善不善等性類無異。體相差別。實難了知。非諸劣智慧生勝解。故契經言。心心所法。展轉相應。若受若想若思若識。如是等法和雜不離。不可施設差別之相。故應於此發起正勤求生勝解了差別相。諸契經中。處處說有受想思等。識俱生故。不可由不得一類別相便總撥一切聖教真理。縱仁於此識想差別。若得不得。然其想相離於識體。決定別有。我於此二差別相中。分明證得。謂若於彼諸境界中。總了其體。說名為識。別取名相。施設名想。復云何知。此二俱起。非於境界總了體識。無間滅已。別取名相。施設識生即名為想。由阿笈摩及正理故。阿笈摩者。謂契經中。先說識已。后說俱生受想思故。言正理者。謂于眼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所謂地界乃至識界（從地界到識界）。又說：『我如今沒有見到任何一法能像心一樣快速回轉。』又說：『我如今沒有見到任何一法如果不加以修習，就不能調伏，毫無用處，像心一樣。』又如契經的偈頌中說： 『心遠行獨行，無身寐于窟，能調伏難伏，我說婆羅門。』 這些經典都遮止了心所（citta-samprayukta，與心相應的心理現象）。而且對於心所，多有爭論。所以可知離開心（citta，心）沒有別的心所自體。那些執著認為心所是獨立存在的理論家，對於心所產生很多爭論。或者說只有三大地法（mahā-bhūta，構成物質世界的基本元素），或者說有四種，或者說有十種，或者說有十四種。所以只有識（vijñāna，意識）隨著不同的狀態而流動，才會有多種心和心所的差別。就像甘蔗汁，就像倡伎之人。所以沒有受（vedanā，感受）等獨立的自體可以獲得。心和心所法，共同在一個境界上運轉，生、住、滅等分位是相同的，善、不善等性質類別沒有差異，它們的體相差別，實在難以瞭解，不是那些低劣的智慧所能產生勝解的。所以契經說，心和心所法，輾轉相互相應，無論是受、想（saṃjñā，認知）、思（cetanā，意志）、識，這些法和合雜糅，不可施設差別之相。所以應該對此發起精進，求生勝解，瞭解它們的差別相。各種契經中，處處都說有受、想、思等，因為它們與識一同產生。不能因為得不到一種類別相，就總是否定一切聖教的真理。縱然你對於識和想的差別，無論得到與否，但是想的相狀離開識的自體，一定是獨立存在的。我對於這二者的差別相中，分明地證得了。如果對於那些境界中，總括地瞭解它的體性，就說名為識；分別地取其名稱和相狀，施設名稱就叫做想。又如何知道這二者是同時生起的呢？不是在境界中總括地瞭解其體性的識，在無間滅之後，才分別取其名稱和相狀，施設識生起就叫做想。這是由於阿笈摩（āgama，聖教）和正理的緣故。阿笈摩就是契經中，先說了識，后說俱生的受、想、思的緣故。正理就是說，對於眼
【English Translation】 English version: So-called earth realm up to consciousness realm. It also says: 'I now do not see a single dharma that revolves as quickly as the mind.' It also says: 'I now do not see a single dharma that, if not cultivated, cannot be tamed and is useless, like the mind.' It is also said in the verses of the sutras: 'The mind travels far, travels alone, without a body, it sleeps in a cave, it can tame the untamable, I call it a Brahmin.' These sutras all negate the mental factors (citta-samprayukta, mental phenomena associated with the mind). Moreover, there are many disputes about mental factors. Therefore, it can be known that there is no separate entity of mental factors apart from the mind (citta). Those theorists who insist that mental factors exist independently generate many disputes about mental factors. Some say that there are only three great elements (mahā-bhūta, the basic elements that constitute the material world), some say there are four, some say there are ten, and some say there are fourteen. Therefore, only consciousness (vijñāna, awareness) flows according to different states, and there are various differences between mind and mental factors, like sugarcane juice, like courtesans. Therefore, there is no independent entity of feeling (vedanā, sensation) and so on that can be obtained. The mind and mental factors operate together on one object, and the phases of arising, abiding, and ceasing are the same. The nature and categories of good and non-good are no different. The differences in their essence and characteristics are really difficult to understand, and not something that inferior intelligence can generate superior understanding of. Therefore, the sutras say that the mind and mental factors correspond to each other in turn, whether it is feeling, perception (saṃjñā, cognition), volition (cetanā, intention), or consciousness. These dharmas are mixed and inseparable, and it is impossible to establish different characteristics. Therefore, one should generate diligence in this, seek to generate superior understanding, and understand their different characteristics. In various sutras, it is said everywhere that there are feeling, perception, volition, etc., because they arise together with consciousness. One cannot deny all the truths of the holy teachings simply because one cannot obtain a category of characteristics. Even if you obtain or do not obtain the difference between consciousness and perception, the characteristics of perception, apart from the essence of consciousness, must exist independently. I have clearly realized the difference between these two. If one understands its essence in general in those realms, it is called consciousness; if one separately takes its name and characteristics and establishes a name, it is called perception. How do we know that these two arise simultaneously? It is not that after the consciousness that generally understands its essence in the realm ceases without interval, one separately takes its name and characteristics, and the arising of consciousness is established and called perception. This is due to the Āgama (āgama, sacred teachings) and correct reasoning. The Āgama is because the sutras first speak of consciousness and then speak of feeling, perception, and volition that arise together. Correct reasoning is to say that, for the eye
識所了色中。取相名想。若於后時。想方起者。前色已滅。云何今時有相可取。辯本事品。已遮眼識緣過去境。若言意識能取彼相。理亦不然。經說。眼觸所生想故。若謂此如意近行說。此亦非理。意識不從觸所生故。猶如眼識。非有諸識三和所生。如何可言識從觸起。若彼復執。從意識後方生意地能取相想。此非眼識無間所生。便違所言如意近行。又從身觸所生身受。若同彼想不現領納身所取境。如何現前分明隨領順苦等觸。不應許此領納過去所觸境生相分明故。又生次第。理不成故。謂經所說。眼觸所生受想及思。三心所法。眼識無間。誰定先生。彼許此三是識差別。故識不可多體俱生。定次第生。無因證故。應說三法誰最初起。雖引至教證唯有心。而於義中無證功力。識于諸處有勝功能。非諸心所。是故偏說。又諸心所無不依心。但說所依能依已顯。又心心所。隨處隨時。用有增微。就增者說。或有心品。識用增強。或受或想或復思等。隨一一法用增強位。以此為門。總摽心品。故唯說識。不妨有餘。心獨行言。為遮心並起。不遮心所。如言人獨行。故所引經。無證功力。言於心所有多諍論。故知離心無別體者。此亦不然。皆信有故。謂依理教。諸大論師。皆信離心別有心所。但于多少數增減中。經無定說。故
興諍論。若執受等是心差別。如何即心可名心所。據何定理。說識為心。復以何緣。即名心所。若謂諸識體即是心。受等諸法。是心體類。心相續中。有此法故。名心所者。何故不言所造諸色即是大種體類差別。即于地等相續位中。有此法故。名為所造。此既不爾。彼云何然。離大種外。別有所造。辯本事中已廣成立。若責何故知心所法決定離心別有體者。由阿笈摩及正理故。阿笈摩者。如契經言。眼色為緣。生於眼識。三和合觸。俱生受想思等心所。如是諸法。是心種類。依止於心。系屬於心。故名心所。此俱生言不說無間。但顯心所同時而生。俱有因中。當更成立。又不容有心體俱生。故知但說心所俱起。若謂如前所引經說。心心所法。展轉相應。若受若想若思若識。如是等法和雜不離。不可施設差別相者。此經意顯。心所與心其體無別。此亦非理。壽識暖三。亦同此說。應無別體。不可說言識之與暖其體無別。又和雜言。顯有別體。非無別體可說和雜。若唯有識。前識滅已。后識方生。云何可言如是等法和雜不離。若言由此受想思識無間生故名和雜者。此亦不然。理不成故。余契經說俱生言故。或識無間有此法生。容可說言和雜不離。非識無間有受等三俱時而起。如何可說受想思等與識和雜。故彼所執理教相違
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 引發爭論。如果執受（grahaṇa，領受）等是心的差別，為何心本身可以被稱為心所（caitta，心所法）？根據什麼定理，說識（vijñāna，意識）是心？又根據什麼緣由，稱其為心所？如果說諸識的體性就是心，而受（vedanā，感受）等諸法，是心體的一種類別，在心的相續中，因為有這些法，所以稱為心所，那麼，為什麼不說所造諸色（rūpa，色法）就是四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）的體類差別，在地的相續等位置中，因為有這些法，所以稱為所造？既然不是這樣，那又怎麼能那樣說呢？離開四大種之外，別有所造，在《辯本事》中已經廣泛成立。如果責問，根據什麼知道心所法決定與心有別體？因為有阿笈摩（āgama，聖教）和正理的緣故。阿笈摩，例如契經（sūtra，佛經）所說：『眼和色為緣，產生眼識（cakṣurvijñāna，眼識）。三和合觸（sparśa，觸），同時產生受、想（saṃjñā，想）、思（cetanā，思）等心所。』像這樣的諸法，是心的種類，依止於心，系屬於心，所以名為心所。這裡的『俱生』一詞，不是指無間（anantara，無間斷），只是顯示心所同時而生。俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，俱生因）中，應當進一步成立。又不容許有心體同時產生，所以知道只是說心所同時生起。如果說如前面所引用的經文所說，心和心所法，輾轉相應，無論是受、想、思、識，像這樣的法和合雜糅不分離，不可施設差別相，這句經文的意思是顯示，心所與心其體性沒有差別。這種說法也是不合理的。壽（āyus，壽命）、識、暖（uṣman，體溫）三者，也同樣可以這樣說，難道就沒有差別體性了嗎？不可說識與暖其體性沒有差別。而且『和雜』一詞，顯示有差別體性，沒有差別體性，怎麼能說和雜呢？如果只有識，前識滅后，后識才生，怎麼能說像這樣的法和合雜糅不分離？如果說由此受、想、思、識無間生起，所以名為和雜，這也是不對的，因為道理上不成立。其他的契經說了『俱生』一詞的緣故。或者識無間有這些法生起，或許可以說和雜不分離。不是識無間有受等三者同時生起，如何能說受、想、思等與識和雜？所以他們的執著，在道理和教義上是相違背的。
【English Translation】 English version arousing disputes. If grahaṇa (reception), etc., are differentiations of the mind, how can the mind itself be called caitta (mental factors)? According to what theorem is consciousness (vijñāna) said to be the mind? And by what reason is it called mental factors? If it is said that the nature of all consciousnesses is the mind, and that feelings (vedanā), etc., are a category of the mind's nature, and that in the continuum of the mind, because these dharmas exist, they are called mental factors, then why not say that the created forms (rūpa) are differentiations of the nature of the four great elements (mahābhūta), and that in the continuum of earth, etc., because these dharmas exist, they are called created? Since this is not the case, how can that be so? Apart from the four great elements, there are separately created things, which has been extensively established in the 'Treatise on Distinguishing the Fundamentals'. If one asks, how do we know that mental factors are definitely separate in nature from the mind? It is because of the āgama (scriptural authority) and correct reasoning. The āgama, for example, as the sūtra (scripture) says: 'Eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna). The contact (sparśa) of the three coming together simultaneously produces mental factors such as feeling, perception (saṃjñā), and volition (cetanā).' Such dharmas are of the mind's kind, rely on the mind, and are connected to the mind, hence they are called mental factors. The word 'simultaneous arising' here does not mean without interval (anantara), but merely shows that mental factors arise at the same time. This should be further established in the context of the co-existent cause (sahabhū-hetu). Furthermore, it is not permissible for the mind and mental factors to arise simultaneously, so it is known that it only speaks of mental factors arising together. If it is said that, as the previously quoted scripture says, the mind and mental factors are mutually corresponding, whether it be feeling, perception, volition, or consciousness, such dharmas are mixed and inseparable, and no distinction can be made, then the meaning of this scripture is to show that there is no difference in nature between mental factors and the mind. This is also unreasonable. The three of life (āyus), consciousness, and warmth (uṣman) can also be said in the same way; should there be no separate nature? It cannot be said that there is no difference in nature between consciousness and warmth. Moreover, the word 'mixed' shows that there is a separate nature; how can one speak of mixing if there is no separate nature? If there is only consciousness, and the previous consciousness has ceased and the subsequent consciousness arises, how can it be said that such dharmas are mixed and inseparable? If it is said that feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness arise without interval, hence they are called mixed, this is also incorrect, because it is not established in reason. Other scriptures speak of 'simultaneous arising'. Or, if these dharmas arise without interval from consciousness, it may be said that they are mixed and inseparable. It is not that feeling, perception, and volition arise simultaneously without interval from consciousness; how can it be said that feeling, perception, volition, etc., are mixed with consciousness? Therefore, their adherence is contradictory in both reason and doctrine.
。又契經言。修觀行者。得他心智。能知他心及心所法。而記別言。汝意如是。汝意如此。汝有此尋。汝有此伺。乃至廣說。不應即心名為心所。如前已辯。由是等類諸阿笈摩。證知離心別有心所。由正理者。如前所說。謂于眼識所了色中。取相名想。若於后時。想方起者。前色已滅。云何今時有相可取。乃至廣說。有餘復言。如契經說。
名映於一切 無有過名者 由此名一法 皆隨自在行
名者即是受相行識。既言一法。故知唯心無別心所。此言非理。以名如色多體成故。如契經言。法有二種。謂名及色。非大種等差別相法一法為性。此亦應爾。有餘復言。若心心所。其體各異。於一心品。應有眾多。能覺了用。故心所法應不異心。此亦不然。能覺了用。體唯一故。覺了謂慧。非心心所皆慧為體。如何令余非覺了性成覺了體。故無斯過。有餘復言。我等現見唯有一識。漸次而轉。故知離心。無別心所。此亦非理。受等如心體相分明。現可取故。又心心所。雖體俱生。而其功用。非無先後用增強位。體方可知。如諸大種。此亦應爾。有何定因。唯心心所俱時而起。說名相應。非諸大種。或所造色。由大種等體有增不增故。若爾心所體亦應然。不爾一相體無增故。又契經說。見為根信證智相應。故諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：還有契經上說，修習觀行的人，能夠獲得他心智（para-citta-jñāna），能夠知道其他人的心以及心中的法。並且能夠分辨說：『你的想法是這樣，你的意念是如此，你懷有這樣的尋（vitarka），你懷有這樣的伺（vicāra）。』乃至廣泛地說明。不應該直接將心稱為心所，如同前面已經辨析過的。由於這些種類的阿笈摩（āgama），可以證明離開心之外，另有心所存在。從正理上來說，如同前面所說的，比如對於眼識所了知的顏色中，取相稱為想（saṃjñā）。如果在之後的時間，想才生起，那麼之前的顏色已經滅去了，怎麼能在現在這個時候有相可以取呢？乃至廣泛地說明。還有其他人說，如同契經上所說：
『名映於一切，無有過名者，由此名一法，皆隨自在行。』
這裡所說的『名』，就是受（vedanā）、想（saṃjñā）、行（saṃskāra）、識（vijñāna）。既然說『一法』，所以知道只有心，沒有別的心所。這種說法是不合理的，因為『名』如同『色』一樣，是由多個體性組成的。如同契經上所說：『法有兩種，就是名和色。』不是大種等等差別相的法以一法為體性，這裡也應該是這樣。還有其他人說，如果心和心所，它們的體性各自不同，那麼在一個心品（citta-prakṛti）中，應該有眾多的能夠覺了的作用，所以心所法應該和心沒有區別。這種說法也是不對的，能夠覺了的作用，體性只有一個。覺了指的是慧（prajñā），不是心和心所都以慧為體性。怎麼能讓其餘不是覺了性的法成為覺了的體性呢？所以沒有這樣的過失。還有其他人說，我們現在看到只有一識（vijñāna），漸漸地轉移，所以知道離開心之外，沒有別的心所。這種說法也是不合理的，受等等如同心一樣，體性和相貌分明，現在可以取得。而且心和心所，雖然體性一同產生，但是它們的作用，並非沒有先後。作用增強的時候，體性才能夠被知道，如同諸大種（mahābhūta）一樣，這裡也應該是這樣。有什麼確定的原因，說心和心所同時生起，稱為相應（saṃprayukta），而不是諸大種或者所造色（upādā-rūpa）呢？因為大種等等的體性有增減。如果這樣，心所的體性也應該這樣。不是這樣的，因為一相的體性沒有增減。還有契經上說，見（darśana）為根，信（śraddhā）證（sākṣī）智（jñāna）相應，所以諸
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, the sutras state that those who cultivate contemplation attain the 'other-mind knowledge' (para-citta-jñāna), enabling them to know the minds and mental factors of others. They can discern and say, 'Your intention is such, your thought is like this, you have this 'seeking' (vitarka), you have this 'examining' (vicāra),' and so on, elaborating extensively. It is not appropriate to directly call the mind 'mental factors' (citta-samprayutta), as has been previously discussed. Based on these types of 'Agamas' (āgama), it can be proven that mental factors exist separately from the mind. According to logic, as mentioned before, for example, in the colors perceived by eye-consciousness, taking an image is called 'perception' (saṃjñā). If perception arises later, the previous color has already ceased. How can there be an image to be taken at this time? And so on, elaborating extensively. Others also say, as the sutra states:
'Name reflects in everything, nothing surpasses name, therefore this one 'name-dharma', all follow freely.'
Here, 'name' refers to 'feeling' (vedanā), 'perception' (saṃjñā), 'volition' (saṃskāra), and 'consciousness' (vijñāna). Since it speaks of 'one dharma', it is understood that there is only mind, without separate mental factors. This statement is unreasonable because 'name', like 'form' (rūpa), is composed of multiple entities. As the sutra states, 'There are two types of dharmas, namely name and form.' It is not that the differentiated aspects of the 'great elements' (mahābhūta) and so on, have one dharma as their nature; it should be the same here. Others also say that if the mind and mental factors have different natures, then in one 'mind-moment' (citta-prakṛti), there should be many functions of awareness. Therefore, mental factors should not be different from the mind. This statement is also incorrect because the function of awareness has only one nature. Awareness refers to 'wisdom' (prajñā). It is not that both the mind and mental factors have wisdom as their nature. How can one make other non-awareness natures become the nature of awareness? Therefore, there is no such fault. Others also say that we now see only one 'consciousness' (vijñāna) gradually transforming. Therefore, we know that apart from the mind, there are no separate mental factors. This statement is also unreasonable. 'Feeling' (vedanā) and so on, like the mind, have distinct natures and appearances, and can now be apprehended. Moreover, although the mind and mental factors arise together in nature, their functions are not without sequence. When the function increases, the nature can be known, just like the 'great elements' (mahābhūta). It should be the same here. What definite reason is there to say that the mind and mental factors arise simultaneously, called 'associated' (saṃprayukta), but not the 'great elements' or 'derived form' (upādā-rūpa)? Because the nature of the great elements and so on, increases or decreases. If so, the nature of mental factors should also be like this. It is not so, because the nature of one aspect does not increase or decrease. Furthermore, the sutra states that 'seeing' (darśana) is the root, and 'faith' (śraddhā), 'attestation' (sākṣī), and 'wisdom' (jñāna) are associated. Therefore, all
大種。或所造色。無相應義。若言不爾不遮余故。非彼經中說諸色法無相應義。又亦說色有相應故。謂于諍處。說二相應。此言非理。太過失故。如於一分佛說色言。應一切法皆色為體。若言世尊唯說大種所造為色。此亦非理。不遮余故。若謂變壞故名為色。知此色言。已遮余法。此亦非理。唯變壞義。非定知故。若謂經言手等觸對故名變壞。唯變礙義。是色非余。此亦非理。不決定故。非彼經中說唯變壞是色非余。又余經中。亦說無色有變礙故。謂契經言。意為可意不可意法之所變礙。故無色法亦應是色。如是經言。了別境界。故名為識。應諸色法亦識為體。若謂不然。曾無說色識為體故。此不應理。如想受等。應成識故。又不遮故。若謂如何無所緣法而得說爲了境識者。此亦非理。自計度故。何處經言。無所緣法不能了境。又何處說。色無所緣。是故應唯心心所法。有相應義。同一所依所緣行相時事等故。諸契經中。見心心所有如是義。非大種等。以大種等方處勢用各各差別。雖暫和合不相離故假說相應。而非畢竟有相應義。唯心心所。畢竟相應。故相應言。義善成立。有餘師說。如一器中煎水涌沸擊爛燒動四用差別。俱時有故。知四大種。異體和雜。實有義成。如是眾多心心所法。展轉相助。雖同一時所依所緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大種（四大元素）或者所造色（由四大元素所產生的物質現象），沒有相應（相互關聯）的意義。如果說不是這樣，因為沒有遮止其他的可能性。因為那部經中並沒有說諸色法（一切物質現象）沒有相應的意義，而且也說了色（物質）有相應的緣故。譬如在爭論之處，說了二者相應。這種說法沒有道理，因為有太過（推論過度）的過失。如同在一部分佛經中說了『色』這個詞，就應該一切法都以色為體。如果說世尊只是說由大種所造的才是色，這也是沒有道理的，因為沒有遮止其他的可能性。 如果說因為變壞的緣故名為色，認為這個『色』字，已經遮止了其他的法，這也是沒有道理的，因為只有變壞的意義，不是確定的緣故。如果說經中說手等觸對的緣故名叫變壞，只有變礙的意義，是色而不是其他的，這也是沒有道理的，因為不決定的緣故。因為那部經中並沒有說只有變壞是色而不是其他的，而且其他的經中，也說了無色（非物質）有變礙的緣故。譬如契經中說，意（心）為可意（喜愛）不可意（不喜愛）的法所變礙。所以無色法也應該是色。 如同經中說，了別境界（識別對像）的緣故名為識（意識），應該諸色法也以識為體。如果說不是這樣，因為從來沒有說過色以識為體。這不應該有道理，如同想（思維）、受（感受）等，應該成為識的緣故。而且因為沒有遮止的緣故。如果說如何沒有所緣法（認識的對象）而能夠說爲了境識（以境界為對象的意識）呢？這也是沒有道理的，因為是自己計度的緣故。哪裡有經中說，沒有所緣法就不能了境？又哪裡說了，色沒有所緣？ 所以應該只有心（精神）和心所法（心理活動）有相應的意義，因為同一所依（相同的依靠）、所緣（相同的對象）、行相（相同的狀態）、時（相同的時間）等緣故。諸契經中，見到心和心所有這樣的意義，而不是大種等。因為大種等方（方位）、處（處所）、勢用（作用）各各差別，雖然暫時和合不相離的緣故，假說相應，而不是畢竟有相應的意義。只有心和心所，畢竟相應。所以相應這個詞，意義善於成立。 有其他老師說，如同一器皿中煎水，涌沸、擊爛、燒動四種作用差別，同時有，所以知道四大種，異體和雜，實在有意義成立。如同眾多心心所法，輾轉相助，雖然同一時間所依所緣。
【English Translation】 English version The Mahabhutas (the four great elements) or the Rupas (form, matter) produced from them, have no Samprayoga (association, connection) meaning. If it is said that it is not so, because it does not preclude other possibilities. Because that sutra does not say that all Rupas have no Samprayoga meaning, and it also says that Rupa has Samprayoga. For example, in the place of dispute, it is said that the two are in Samprayoga. This statement is unreasonable because it has the fault of being too excessive (over-extrapolation). Just as in some sutras, the word 'Rupa' is mentioned, then all Dharmas should be considered to have Rupa as their essence. If it is said that the World Honored One only said that what is produced by the Mahabhutas is Rupa, this is also unreasonable because it does not preclude other possibilities. If it is said that because of change and decay it is called Rupa, and it is thought that this word 'Rupa' has already precluded other Dharmas, this is also unreasonable because only the meaning of change and decay is not definite. If it is said that the sutra says that because of the contact of hands etc., it is called change and decay, and only the meaning of change and obstruction is Rupa and not others, this is also unreasonable because it is not definite. Because that sutra does not say that only change and decay is Rupa and not others, and other sutras also say that Arupa (formless) has change and obstruction. For example, the sutra says that the mind is changed and obstructed by pleasant and unpleasant Dharmas. Therefore, Arupa Dharmas should also be Rupa. Just as the sutra says that because of distinguishing objects, it is called Vijnana (consciousness), all Rupas should also have Vijnana as their essence. If it is said that it is not so, because it has never been said that Rupa has Vijnana as its essence. This should not be reasonable, just as Samjna (perception), Vedana (feeling) etc., should become Vijnana. And because it does not preclude other possibilities. If it is said how can there be an objectless Dharma and still be called an object-oriented Vijnana? This is also unreasonable because it is self-conceived. Where does the sutra say that without an object, one cannot perceive the object? And where does it say that Rupa has no object? Therefore, only Citta (mind) and Cetasikas (mental factors) should have the meaning of Samprayoga, because they have the same basis, the same object, the same characteristics, the same time, etc. In the sutras, we see that Citta and Cetasikas have such meanings, but not the Mahabhutas etc. Because the Mahabhutas etc. have different directions, places, and functions, although they temporarily combine and are not separate, it is falsely said to be Samprayoga, but there is no ultimate Samprayoga meaning. Only Citta and Cetasikas are ultimately in Samprayoga. Therefore, the word Samprayoga is well established in meaning. Some other teachers say that just as in a pot of boiling water, there are four different functions of boiling, hitting, burning, and moving at the same time, so we know that the four Mahabhutas are different in substance and mixed together, and there is a real meaning established. Just like many Citta and Cetasikas help each other, although they rely on the same object at the same time.
行相相似。而其勢用各各差別。無雜亂故。知有別體。如斯論旨諸部極成。皆已共摧唯有心論。故心心所別有義成。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之四
無色法中。已辯心心所。今次當辯心不相應行。頌曰。
心不相應行 得非得同分 無想二定命 相名身等類
論曰。等者等取句身文身及和合性。類者顯余所計度法。即前種類。謂有計度離得等有蘊得等性。如是諸法。不與心相應故。說名為心不相應行。非如心所與心共一所依所緣相應而起。說心言者。為顯此中所說得等是心種類。諸心所法。所依所緣。皆與心同。亦心種類。為簡彼故。言不相應。諸無為法。亦心種類。無所依緣。故亦是不相應。為欲簡彼故復言行。此已總標。復應別釋。于中且辯得非得相。頌曰。
得謂獲成就 非得此相違 得非得唯于 自相續二滅
論曰。得獲成就。義雖是一。而依門異。說差別名。得有二種。謂先未得。及先已得。先未得得。說名為獲。先已得得。說名成就。應知非得。與此相違。謂先未得及得已失
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『行相相似，而其勢用各各差別，無雜亂故，知有別體。如斯論旨諸部極成，皆已共摧唯有心論。故心心所別有義成。』
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之四
無色法中，已辯心心所。今次當辯心不相應行。頌曰：
『心不相應行，得非得同分， 無想二定命，相名身等類。』
論曰：等者，等取句身、文身及和合性。類者，顯余所計度法，即前種類。謂有計度離得等有蘊得等性。如是諸法，不與心相應故，說名為心不相應行。非如心所與心共一所依、所緣、相應而起。說心言者，為顯此中所說得等是心種類。諸心所法，所依所緣，皆與心同，亦心種類。為簡彼故，言不相應。諸無為法，亦心種類，無所依緣，故亦是不相應。為欲簡彼故復言行。此已總標，復應別釋。于中且辯得非得相。頌曰：
『得謂獲成就，非得此相違， 得非得唯于，自相續二滅。』
論曰：得、獲、成就，義雖是一，而依門異，說差別名。得有二種，謂先未得，及先已得。先未得得，說名為獲。先已得得，說名成就。應知非得，與此相違，謂先未得及得已失。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The characteristics are similar, but their functions and effects are different, without confusion, so it is known that they have separate entities. Such arguments are extremely established in various schools, but all have been refuted except for the Mind-Only theory. Therefore, it is established that the mind and mental factors are separate.'
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 11 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 12
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra (Zhongxian)
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang (Xuanzang), under Imperial Order
Chapter 2, Section 4: Discriminating Differences
Among the formless dharmas, the mind and mental factors have already been discussed. Now, we will discuss the citta-viprayukta-samskaras (心不相應行, mind-non-associated formations). The verse says:
'Mind-non-associated formations, attainment (得, de), non-attainment (非得, feide), homogeneity (同分, tongfen), Non-perception (無想, wuxiang), two kinds of samadhi (二定, erding), life (命, ming), characteristics (相, xiang), name (名, ming), body (身, shen), and class (等類, denglei).'
Commentary: 'Etc.' includes aggregates of phrases (句身, jushen), aggregates of words (文身, wenshen), aggregates of letters (字身, zishen), and aggregation (和合性, hehexing). 'Class' reveals other conceptualized dharmas, which are the aforementioned types. Some conceptualize that apart from attainment, there are properties such as the attainment of aggregates. Because such dharmas are not associated with the mind, they are called mind-non-associated formations. They do not arise like mental factors, which share a common basis (所依, suoyi), object (所緣, suoyuan), and association (相應, xiangying) with the mind. The term 'mind' is used to show that the attainment, etc., mentioned here are types of mind. The basis and object of all mental factors are the same as the mind, and they are also types of mind. To distinguish them, it is said 'non-associated'. Unconditioned dharmas (無為法, wuweifa) are also types of mind, but they have no basis or object, so they are also non-associated. To further distinguish them, it is said 'formations'. This has been a general outline; now, it should be explained separately. Among them, let's first discuss the characteristics of attainment and non-attainment. The verse says:
'Attainment is called acquisition (獲, huo) and accomplishment (成就, chengjiu); non-attainment is the opposite of this. Attainment and non-attainment exist only in one's own continuum (自相續, zixiangxu) and in the two cessations (二滅, ermie).'
Commentary: Attainment, acquisition, and accomplishment have the same meaning, but they are named differently depending on the aspect. There are two types of attainment: that which was not previously attained and that which was previously attained. Attainment of what was not previously attained is called acquisition. Attainment of what was previously attained is called accomplishment. It should be known that non-attainment is the opposite of this, meaning what was not previously attained and what was attained and then lost.
。未得非得。說名不獲。已失非得名不成就。故說異生性。名不獲聖法。於何法中有得非得。且有為中。于自相續。有得非得。非他相續及非相續。若蘊墮在自相續中。可有成就不成就故。他相續蘊及非情蘊。必無成就不成就故。無為法中。唯於二滅。有得非得。一切有情。無不成就非擇滅者。故對法中。有如是說。誰成無漏法。謂一切有情。除初剎那具縛聖者及餘一切具縛異生。諸餘有情。皆成擇滅。決定無有成就虛空。以于虛空無有得故。亦無不成就。以無非得故。若法有得亦有非得。若法無得亦無非得。其理決定。依此得故。說如是言。色蘊行蘊。一得所得。余蘊行蘊。說亦如是。有漏無漏。一得所得。有為無為。一得所得。如是等類。如理應思。經主此中作如是問。何緣知有別物名得。應答彼言。契經說故。如契經中薄伽梵說。應知如是補特伽羅。成就善法及不善法。若謂經說有轉輪王成就七寶。有太過失。此難不然。王於七寶自在無礙。名成就故。若謂余經所說成就亦應爾者。此亦不然。以現在者。唯于現在有自在力。非過未故。謂轉輪王。于現七寶有自在力。增上果故。恒現前故。隨樂而轉。可名成就。善不善法。則不決定。且如善法。現在前時。補特伽羅。于現善法。可說成就。彼於過未不善法中。應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 未得卻說已得，這稱為『不獲』（aprapti，未獲得）。已經失去的卻說未失去，這稱為『不成就』（anasraya，未成就）。因此說『異生性』（prthag-janatva，凡夫性），名為不獲得聖法。在什麼法中有獲得和未獲得呢？且說在『有為法』（saṃskṛta dharma，有為法）中，對於自己的『相續』（saṃtāna，心相續），有獲得和未獲得。不是其他的相續以及非相續。如果『蘊』（skandha，五蘊）落在自己的相續中，就可能有成就和不成就。其他的相續的蘊以及非情蘊，必定沒有成就和不成就。在『無為法』（asaṃskṛta dharma，無為法）中，唯有對於二滅（兩種滅：擇滅和非擇滅），有獲得和未獲得。一切有情，沒有不成就『非擇滅』（apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，非擇滅）的。所以在《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，對法）中，有這樣的說法：誰成就『無漏法』（anāsrava dharma，無漏法）？說是一切有情，除了最初剎那具有束縛的聖者以及其餘一切具有束縛的異生。其餘的有情，都成就『擇滅』（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）。決定沒有成就『虛空』（ākāśa，虛空），因為對於虛空沒有獲得。也沒有不成就，因為沒有未獲得。如果法有獲得也有未獲得，如果法沒有獲得也沒有未獲得，這個道理是決定的。依靠這個獲得，所以這樣說：『色蘊』（rūpa-skandha，色蘊）和『行蘊』（saṃskāra-skandha，行蘊），一獲得就全部獲得。其餘的蘊和行蘊，也這樣說。『有漏』（sāsrava，有漏）和『無漏』（anāsrava，無漏），一獲得就全部獲得。『有為』（saṃskṛta，有為）和『無為』（asaṃskṛta，無為），一獲得就全部獲得。像這些等等，應該如理思維。 經主（sūtra-dhāra，經主）在這裡這樣問：憑什麼知道有別的東西名為『得』（prāpti，獲得）？應該回答他說：因為『契經』（sūtra，經）這樣說。如契經中薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）說：『應當知道這樣的補特伽羅（pudgala，補特伽羅），成就善法和不善法。』如果說經中說有『轉輪王』（cakravartin，轉輪王）成就七寶，有太過失。這個責難不對。轉輪王對於七寶自在無礙，名為成就。如果說其餘經中所說的成就也應該是這樣，這也是不對的。因為現在者，唯有對於現在有自在力，不是過去和未來。所謂轉輪王，對於現在的七寶有自在力，是增上果（adhipati-phala，增上果），恒常現前，隨其喜好而運轉，可以名為成就。善不善法，則不決定。且如善法，現在前時，補特伽羅，對於現在的善法，可以說成就。他對於過去和未來的不善法中，應該
【English Translation】 English version To claim attainment when there is none is termed 'non-acquisition' (aprapti). To claim non-loss when something is already lost is termed 'non-non-establishment' (anasraya). Therefore, 'the nature of an ordinary being' (prthag-janatva) is said to be the non-acquisition of holy Dharma. In what Dharma is there acquisition and non-acquisition? It is said that in 'conditioned Dharma' (saṃskṛta dharma), there is acquisition and non-acquisition with respect to one's own 'continuum' (saṃtāna). It is not the continuum of others, nor is it non-continuum. If a 'skandha' (aggregate) falls within one's own continuum, there may be establishment and non-establishment. The skandhas of others' continua and non-sentient skandhas certainly have no establishment or non-establishment. In 'unconditioned Dharma' (asaṃskṛta dharma), there is acquisition and non-acquisition only with respect to the two cessations (selective cessation and non-selective cessation). All sentient beings invariably establish 'non-selective cessation' (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Therefore, in the Abhidharma, it is said: Who establishes 'untainted Dharma' (anāsrava dharma)? It is said to be all sentient beings, except for the holy ones bound in the first moment and all other ordinary beings who are bound. The remaining sentient beings all establish 'selective cessation' (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). It is definitively impossible to establish 'space' (ākāśa), because there is no acquisition with respect to space. Nor is there non-non-establishment, because there is no non-acquisition. If a Dharma has acquisition, it also has non-acquisition; if a Dharma has no acquisition, it also has no non-acquisition. This principle is definitive. Relying on this acquisition, it is said: The 'form aggregate' (rūpa-skandha) and the 'volitional formations aggregate' (saṃskāra-skandha), once acquired, are all acquired. The remaining aggregates and the volitional formations aggregate are also spoken of in this way. 'Tainted' (sāsrava) and 'untainted' (anāsrava), once acquired, are all acquired. 'Conditioned' (saṃskṛta) and 'unconditioned' (asaṃskṛta), once acquired, are all acquired. Such things as these should be contemplated reasonably. The Sūtra Master (sūtra-dhāra) asks here: By what means do we know that there is a separate thing called 'acquisition' (prāpti)? One should answer him: Because the 'Sūtra' (sūtra) says so. As the Bhagavan (Bhagavān, Blessed One) says in the Sūtra: 'One should know that such a 'pudgala' (pudgala, person) establishes wholesome Dharma and unwholesome Dharma.' If it is said that the Sūtra says that a 'cakravartin' (cakravartin, wheel-turning king) establishes the seven treasures, there is the fault of excess. This objection is not valid. The cakravartin is unhindered and at ease with respect to the seven treasures, which is called establishment. If it is said that the establishment spoken of in other Sūtras should also be like this, this is also not valid. Because the present one has power only over the present, not over the past or future. The so-called cakravartin has power over the present seven treasures, which is the dominant result (adhipati-phala), constantly present, and turns according to his pleasure, which can be called establishment. Wholesome and unwholesome Dharmas are not definitive. For example, when wholesome Dharma is present, the pudgala can be said to establish the present wholesome Dharma. With respect to past and future unwholesome Dharmas, he should
更指陳。若無現得由何別法。說為自在。不善現前徴善亦爾。況執過未全無體者。於何自在說名成就。若於未來。有能生力名成就者。理亦不然。是則應有非愛過故。謂諸異生。住最後有。定生無漏應是聖者。諸阿羅漢。住最後心。決定不能復生無漏。應非阿羅漢。便退成異生住世俗。忍見所斷煩惱。必不復生。應是預流果。又若許有別物名得。有何非理。如是非理。謂所執得。無體可知。如色聲等。或貪瞋等。無用可知。如眼耳等。故無容有別物名得。執有別物。是為非理。此定不然。非非理故。由所許得是已得法不失因故。又是知此係屬於彼。智幖幟故。除此更有何別大用能過於此。說此為無。若爾何用執此得為。唯所依中。有諸種子。未拔未損。增長自在。于如是位。立成就名。由斯不失已得諸法。亦此屬彼智之幖幟。此復云何。且諸善法。略有二種。一者不由功力修得。二者要由功力修得。即名生得及加行得。不由功力而修得者。若所依中。種未被損。名為成就。若所依中種已被損。名不成就。謂斷善者。由邪見力。損所依中善根種子。應知名斷。非所依中善根種子畢竟被害說名為斷。要由功力而修得者。若所依中。彼法已起。生彼功力自在無損。說名成就。與此相違。名不成就。不善無記。由對治道。斷伏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 更進一步指出，如果沒有實際獲得的『得』，又有什麼其他方法可以說明『自在』（Īśvara，自在天，一種神）呢？如果不善法不會顯現，那麼善法也是一樣。更何況執著於過去和未來完全沒有實體的觀點呢？又如何能說在什麼方面『自在』的成就呢？如果說在未來有產生能力才叫做成就，那麼這個道理也是不成立的。這樣一來，就會有不合情理的過失。例如，那些住在最後有（bhavāgra，有頂天，色界最高的境界）的異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫），如果註定會生起無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna，沒有煩惱的智慧），那麼他們就應該是聖者（ārya，證悟者）。而那些住在最後心的阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟者），如果註定不能再生起無漏智，那麼他們就不應該是阿羅漢，反而會退轉成為住在世俗的異生。又比如，那些被世俗忍（laukika-kṣānti，世間忍）所斷除的煩惱，必定不會再生起，那麼他們就應該是預流果（srota-āpanna-phala，入流果，佛教四果位中的第一個果位）。 此外，如果允許有另外一種東西叫做『得』，又有什麼不合道理的呢？像這樣不合道理的情況，是指所執著的『得』，沒有實體可以認知，就像色、聲等；或者像貪、嗔等，沒有作用可以認知，就像眼、耳等。所以，不可能有另外一種東西叫做『得』，執著有另外一種東西，就是不合道理。這種說法肯定是不對的，因為不是不合道理的緣故。因為所允許的『得』，是已經獲得的法不失的原因，又是知道此法屬於彼法的智慧標誌。除了這些，還有什麼更大的作用能超過這些呢？如果說這些都沒有用，那麼又何必執著這個『得』呢？ 只是在所依（āśraya，身心）中，有各種種子（bīja，潛能），沒有被拔除，沒有被損害，增長自在，在這樣的狀態下，才建立『成就』的名稱。因為這樣才不會失去已經獲得的各種法，也是此法屬於彼法的智慧標誌。這又是什麼意思呢？且說各種善法，大致有兩種：一種是不需要通過功力修習就能獲得的，一種是需要通過功力修習才能獲得的，也就是所謂的生得（nisarga-lābha，自然獲得）和加行得（prayogaja-lābha，通過努力獲得）。不需要通過功力修習就能獲得的，如果所依中的種子沒有被損害，就叫做成就；如果所依中的種子已經被損害，就叫做不成就。例如，斷善根者，由於邪見的力量，損害了所依中的善根種子，應該知道這叫做斷。不是說所依中的善根種子完全被破壞才叫做斷。需要通過功力修習才能獲得的，如果所依中，那個法已經生起，產生那個法的功力自在沒有損害，就叫做成就；與此相反，就叫做不成就。不善法和無記法，通過對治道（pratipakṣa-mārga，對治煩惱的方法）斷除和降伏。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, if there is no 'attainment' (lābha) that is actually obtained, by what other means can we explain 'Īśvara' (自在, a deity)? If unwholesome dharmas do not manifest, then wholesome dharmas are the same. Moreover, how can we speak of the 'accomplishment' of 'Īśvara' in any aspect when clinging to the view that the past and future have no substance at all? If having the power to produce in the future is called accomplishment, then this reasoning is also untenable. If so, there would be unreasonable faults. For example, those ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) dwelling in the highest realm of existence (bhavāgra), if they are destined to generate undefiled wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna), then they should be noble ones (ārya). And those arhats (arhat) dwelling in the final moment of consciousness, if they are destined not to generate undefiled wisdom again, then they should not be arhats, but rather regress to being ordinary beings dwelling in the mundane. Furthermore, those afflictions that have been severed by mundane forbearance (laukika-kṣānti) will certainly not arise again, so they should be stream-enterers (srota-āpanna-phala). Moreover, if it is permissible to have another thing called 'attainment,' what is unreasonable about that? Such unreasonableness refers to the 'attainment' that is clung to, which has no substance that can be cognized, like form, sound, etc.; or like greed, hatred, etc., which have no function that can be cognized, like eyes, ears, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to have another thing called 'attainment,' and clinging to another thing is unreasonable. This statement is certainly incorrect because it is not unreasonable. Because the 'attainment' that is permitted is the reason why the dharmas that have already been obtained are not lost, and it is also the mark of wisdom that knows that this dharma belongs to that dharma. Besides these, what greater function can surpass these? If it is said that these are useless, then why cling to this 'attainment'? It is only in the basis (āśraya) that there are various seeds (bīja), which have not been uprooted, have not been damaged, and grow freely. In such a state, the name 'accomplishment' is established. Because in this way, the various dharmas that have already been obtained will not be lost, and it is also the mark of wisdom that this dharma belongs to that dharma. What does this mean? Furthermore, there are roughly two types of wholesome dharmas: one that can be obtained without effort, and one that must be obtained through effort, which are called innate attainment (nisarga-lābha) and attainment through effort (prayogaja-lābha). Those that can be obtained without effort, if the seeds in the basis have not been damaged, are called accomplishment; if the seeds in the basis have been damaged, are called non-accomplishment. For example, those who have severed their roots of goodness, due to the power of wrong views, damage the seeds of goodness in the basis, and this should be known as severance. It is not said that the seeds of goodness in the basis are completely destroyed that is called severance. Those that must be obtained through effort, if that dharma has already arisen in the basis, and the power to generate that dharma is free and undamaged, are called accomplishment; the opposite of this is called non-accomplishment. Unwholesome and neutral dharmas are severed and subdued by the antidotal path (pratipakṣa-mārga).
種子。或無功力可生現行。名不成就。與此相違名為成就。故所執得便為無用。如是種種顛倒所執。但有虛言。而無實義。且執何法名為種子。謂名與色。于生自果。所有展轉鄰近功能。此由相續轉變差別。名色者何。謂即五蘊。如何執此為種子性。能為善等諸法生因。為總為別。為自種類。且汝所執。唯應爾所。若言是總種體應假。假為實因。不應正理。若言是別。如何可執無記色種為善不善諸法生因。若自種類善法無間。不善法生。或復相違。以何為種。天愛非汝解種子性。前心俱生思差別故。後心功能差別而起。即後心上功能差別。說為種子。由此相續轉變差別。當來果生此中意說。不善心中。有善所引展轉鄰近功能差別。以為種子。從此無間善法得生。或善心中不善所引展轉鄰近功能差別。以為種子。從此無間不善法生。今汝所執功能差別種子。與彼善不善心。為有別體。為無別體。此無別體。豈不許善為不善種及許不善為善種耶。誰有心者。執暖與火無有別體。而復執言。唯暖能燒。火不能燒。云何能感那落迦等諸異熟果。不善心中。安置能感。可愛異熟善思差別所引功能差別種子。復云何感末奴沙等諸異熟果。凈善心中。安置能感非愛異熟惡思差別所引功能差別種子。諸不善心。于感可愛諸異熟果。無堪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種子。或者沒有足夠的力量產生實際的行為，這被稱為『不成就』（未能實現）。與此相反的情況稱為『成就』（實現）。因此，你所執著的（種子）就變得沒有用處。像這樣種種顛倒的執著，只有虛假的話語，而沒有實際的意義。那麼，你所執著的什麼法被稱為『種子』呢？就是『名』（精神現象）和『色』（物質現象），它們在產生自身結果時，所具有的輾轉鄰近的功能。這是由於相續的轉變和差別而產生的。『名色』是什麼呢？就是五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）。如何執著它們為種子性，能夠成為善等諸法產生的因呢？是總的（五蘊總體），還是別的（五蘊中的某一個），還是自種類（同類相生）？你所執著的，應該只有這些。如果說是總的，那麼種子的本體就應該是假立的。用假立的東西作為真實的因，這不合道理。如果說是別的，那麼如何能夠執著無記的色法種子，成為善和不善諸法產生的因呢？如果是自種類，善法之後無間產生不善法，或者相反，那麼以什麼作為種子呢？天愛（對提問者的尊稱），你並不理解種子性。因為前一念心的俱生思的差別，導致后一念心的功能差別而生起。這后一念心上的功能差別，就被稱為種子。由此相續的轉變和差別，未來的果報才會產生。這裡的意思是說，在不善心中，有善所引發的輾轉鄰近的功能差別，作為種子。從此之後，善法得以產生。或者在善心中，有不善所引發的輾轉鄰近的功能差別，作為種子。從此之後，不善法得以產生。現在你所執著的功能差別種子，與那些善和不善的心，是有別的本體，還是沒有別的本體？如果沒有別的本體，豈不是允許善成為不善的種子，以及允許不善成為善的種子嗎？誰有心智，會認為暖和火沒有別的本體，卻又執著說，只有暖能燒，火不能燒呢？如何能夠感得那落迦（地獄）等諸異熟果（不同性質的果報）呢？在不善心中，安置能夠感得可愛異熟（令人喜愛的果報）的善思差別所引發的功能差別種子。又如何能夠感得末奴沙（人類）等諸異熟果呢？在清凈的善心中，安置能夠感得非愛異熟（令人不喜愛的果報）的惡思差別所引發的功能差別種子。諸不善心，對於感得可愛的諸異熟果，沒有能力。
【English Translation】 English version Seeds. Or without sufficient power to generate actual actions, this is called 'non-accomplishment' (failure to realize). The opposite of this is called 'accomplishment' (realization). Therefore, what you cling to (the seed) becomes useless. Like this, all kinds of inverted clinging are just empty words without real meaning. So, what dharma do you cling to as a 'seed'? It is 'name' (mental phenomena) and 'form' (material phenomena), which have the function of reciprocal proximity in producing their own results. This arises from the transformation and difference of the continuum. What are 'name and form'? They are the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness). How can you cling to them as seed-nature, capable of being the cause of the arising of good dharmas, etc.? Is it the total (the totality of the five skandhas), or the separate (one of the five skandhas), or the self-kind (like produces like)? What you cling to should only be these. If you say it is the total, then the essence of the seed should be nominally established. It is not reasonable to use the nominally established as the real cause. If you say it is the separate, then how can you cling to the seed of the indeterminate form as the cause of the arising of good and unwholesome dharmas? If it is the self-kind, and unwholesome dharmas arise immediately after good dharmas, or vice versa, then what is taken as the seed? Beloved of the gods (a respectful address to the questioner), you do not understand seed-nature. Because of the difference in the co-arisen thought of the previous mind, the functional difference of the subsequent mind arises. This functional difference on the subsequent mind is called the seed. From this transformation and difference of the continuum, the future result will arise. The meaning here is that in the unwholesome mind, there is the functional difference of reciprocal proximity induced by the good, as the seed. From this, good dharmas can arise. Or in the good mind, there is the functional difference of reciprocal proximity induced by the unwholesome, as the seed. From this, unwholesome dharmas can arise. Now, is the functional difference seed that you cling to, of a different essence from those good and unwholesome minds, or not of a different essence? If it is not of a different essence, wouldn't it be allowing the good to be the seed of the unwholesome, and allowing the unwholesome to be the seed of the good? Who with intelligence would think that warmth and fire are not of a different essence, and yet cling to the idea that only warmth can burn, and fire cannot burn? How can one experience the vipaka (differently matured results) such as Naraka (hell)? In the unwholesome mind, one places the functional difference seed induced by the wholesome thought difference that can experience the pleasant vipaka (desirable results). And how can one experience the vipaka such as Manusya (human)? In the pure wholesome mind, one places the functional difference seed induced by the unwholesome thought difference that can experience the unpleasant vipaka (undesirable results). Unwholesome minds are incapable of experiencing pleasant vipaka.
能故。諸凈善心。于感非愛諸異熟果。無堪能故。云何言二能招二果。如是便謗諸佛世尊所得十力中處非處智力。又應許思差別所引功能差別種子與心同一果故。無漏心中。亦有有漏功能差別。則無漏心。亦應能感三有之果。無漏心中。亦許安置煩惱種故。則無漏心。亦應能作煩惱生因。或聖身中。修所斷惑。應無種子自然而生。煩惱心中亦許安置無漏種故。則煩惱心。亦應能作無漏生因。或聖身中。煩惱心后所起無漏。應無種生。或應爾時名初無漏。又退法性阿羅漢果。或有退起諸煩惱故。即阿羅漢無學心中。應有三界煩惱種子。有煩惱退。后當廣辯。又曾未見異種類法性有差別而無別體。故彼所執極為迷謬。又前所起思差別。與后功能差別心云何作因果更互相應義。此何所疑。因果法爾。要有前思差別故。方有後心功能差別生。若無前思差別者後心功能差別則不起。是故此二得有因果更互相應。若有思時少有所起。可有此義。然有思時都無所起。未來無故。前思後心有無不併。云何可說因果相應。如是等義。辯過未中。當更思擇。然彼所說。非所依中善根種子畢竟被害說名斷者。何故但言非畢竟害。此但應言畢竟不害。本無種故。又彼所說。違害契經。以契經言畢竟斷故。如世尊說。應知如是補特伽羅。善法隱沒
。惡法出現。有隨俱行。善根未斷。以未斷故。從此善根。猶有可起余善根義。彼於後時。一切皆斷。如何所有微劣善根一切皆斷。非畢竟害。故彼但應由自分別魍魎所魅。而作此言。又善種子。若邪見力。損其功用。令不生芽。設非畢竟斷。此復何所用。無用能生善根芽故。若邪見力。不能損彼生善芽用。是則不應名斷善根。能生善故。又彼所言。要由功力而修得者。若所依中彼法已起。生彼功力。自在無損。說名成就。此亦非理。彼宗此善生義尚無。況有身中彼法已起。生彼功力。自在無損。前說彼宗。未來無故當於何處有自在力。即彼生因。理非有故。不應徴覓余不生因。既無生因。依何而說生彼功力自在無損。由此已遮說煩惱斷品類計度。然彼所言。猶如種子火所焚燒轉變異前無能生用。如是聖者所依身中。無生惑能。名煩惱斷。惑世間道。損所依中煩惱種子。亦名為斷。與上相違名未斷者。此今應說。以無漏道。斷諸煩惱。與世間道斷諸煩惱。有何差別。俱如種子火所焚燒無生用故。若謂如種非極被損令永不能生於芽等。以世間道。損煩惱種。亦復如是。猶能如前生諸行果及當能起諸煩惱者。如何說言如種被損。種被損者謂不生芽。若能生芽不名被損。由世俗道。斷惑亦爾。若損惑種。應不能生后既能生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
惡法出現，並且有隨之俱行的惡行。如果善根沒有斷絕，因為沒有斷絕的緣故，那麼從這個善根中，仍然有可能生起其餘的善根。如果他在之後的時間裡，一切善根都斷絕了，那麼如何解釋所有微弱的善根都被斷絕了呢？因為不是徹底的損害，所以他應該只是被自己的分別妄想所迷惑，才說出這樣的話。
此外，善的種子，如果被邪見的勢力損害了它的功用，導致它不能生出新芽，即使不是徹底斷絕，又有什麼用呢？因為沒有生出善根新芽的能力。如果邪見的勢力不能損害它生出善芽的功用，那麼就不應該叫做斷絕善根，因為它還能生出善的緣故。
還有，他們所說的，一定要通過功力才能修得的，如果在所依止的身體中，那個法已經生起，產生那個功力，自在而沒有損害，才能叫做成就。這也是不合理的。他們的宗派連善的生起都不承認，更何況身體中那個法已經生起，產生那個功力，自在而沒有損害呢？前面說過他們的宗派，未來沒有，那麼在哪裡會有自在的力量呢？因為那個生起的原因，道理上是不存在的，所以不應該再去尋找其他不生起的原因。既然沒有生起的原因，又依據什麼來說生起那個功力自在而沒有損害呢？由此已經駁斥了他們所說的煩惱斷滅的品類計度。
然而他們所說，就像種子被火焚燒，轉變了原來的狀態，沒有了生起的能力。就像這樣，聖者所依止的身體中，沒有了生起迷惑的能力，叫做煩惱斷滅。用世間的道，損害所依止的身體中的煩惱種子，也叫做斷滅。與上述情況相反的，叫做沒有斷滅。現在應該說，用無漏道斷滅諸煩惱，與用世間道斷滅諸煩惱，有什麼差別呢？因為兩者都像種子被火焚燒一樣，沒有了生起的作用。
如果說，就像種子沒有被徹底損害，以至於永遠不能生出新芽等等。用世間的道，損害煩惱的種子，也是如此。仍然能夠像以前一樣生起諸行的果報，以及將來能夠生起諸煩惱，那麼怎麼能說像種子被損害了呢？種子被損害是指不能生出新芽。如果能生出新芽，就不能叫做被損害。用世俗的道斷滅迷惑也是這樣，如果損害了迷惑的種子，就應該不能生起，既然能夠生起。 English version
The emergence of evil dharmas, accompanied by associated evil deeds. If the roots of goodness (善根) [Shàngēn: roots of goodness] are not severed, because they are not severed, then from these roots of goodness, there is still the possibility of arising other roots of goodness. If, at a later time, all roots of goodness are severed, then how can it be explained that all weak roots of goodness are severed? Because it is not a complete harm, he should only be deluded by his own discriminating illusions and utter such words.
Furthermore, if the seed of goodness, due to the power of wrong views, impairs its function, causing it not to sprout, even if it is not completely severed, what is the use of it? Because it has no ability to sprout the seed of goodness. If the power of wrong views cannot impair its function of sprouting the seed of goodness, then it should not be called severing the roots of goodness, because it can still produce goodness.
Moreover, what they say, that which must be attained through effort and power, if that dharma has already arisen in the support, generating that power, freely and without harm, is called accomplishment. This is also unreasonable. Their school does not even acknowledge the arising of goodness, let alone that dharma has already arisen in the body, generating that power, freely and without harm. It was said earlier that their school has no future, so where would there be free power? Because the cause of that arising is not logically existent, one should not seek other causes of non-arising. Since there is no cause of arising, based on what can it be said that generating that power is free and without harm? This has already refuted their calculation of the categories of the cessation of afflictions (煩惱) [Fánnǎo: Afflictions].
However, what they say is like a seed burned by fire, transforming its original state, having no ability to produce. Just like this, in the body relied upon by the sage, there is no ability to produce delusion, which is called the cessation of afflictions. Using the worldly path, harming the seeds of afflictions in the body relied upon, is also called cessation. The opposite of the above situation is called not ceased. Now it should be said, what is the difference between using the unconditioned path to cease all afflictions and using the worldly path to cease all afflictions? Because both are like seeds burned by fire, having no function of arising.
If it is said, just like a seed is not completely damaged, so that it can never sprout, etc. Using the worldly path, harming the seeds of afflictions is also like this. It is still able to produce the fruits of actions as before, and in the future, it will be able to produce afflictions, so how can it be said to be like a seed being damaged? A seed being damaged means it cannot sprout. If it can sprout, it cannot be called damaged. Using the mundane path to cease delusion is also like this. If it harms the seeds of delusion, it should not be able to arise, since it is able to arise.
【English Translation】 The emergence of evil dharmas, accompanied by associated evil deeds. If the roots of goodness (善根) [Shàngēn: roots of goodness] are not severed, because they are not severed, then from these roots of goodness, there is still the possibility of arising other roots of goodness. If, at a later time, all roots of goodness are severed, then how can it be explained that all weak roots of goodness are severed? Because it is not a complete harm, he should only be deluded by his own discriminating illusions and utter such words. Furthermore, if the seed of goodness, due to the power of wrong views, impairs its function, causing it not to sprout, even if it is not completely severed, what is the use of it? Because it has no ability to sprout the seed of goodness. If the power of wrong views cannot impair its function of sprouting the seed of goodness, then it should not be called severing the roots of goodness, because it can still produce goodness. Moreover, what they say, that which must be attained through effort and power, if that dharma has already arisen in the support, generating that power, freely and without harm, is called accomplishment. This is also unreasonable. Their school does not even acknowledge the arising of goodness, let alone that dharma has already arisen in the body, generating that power, freely and without harm. It was said earlier that their school has no future, so where would there be free power? Because the cause of that arising is not logically existent, one should not seek other causes of non-arising. Since there is no cause of arising, based on what can it be said that generating that power is free and without harm? This has already refuted their calculation of the categories of the cessation of afflictions (煩惱) [Fánnǎo: Afflictions]. However, what they say is like a seed burned by fire, transforming its original state, having no ability to produce. Just like this, in the body relied upon by the sage, there is no ability to produce delusion, which is called the cessation of afflictions. Using the worldly path, harming the seeds of afflictions in the body relied upon, is also called cessation. The opposite of the above situation is called not ceased. Now it should be said, what is the difference between using the unconditioned path to cease all afflictions and using the worldly path to cease all afflictions? Because both are like seeds burned by fire, having no function of arising. If it is said, just like a seed is not completely damaged, so that it can never sprout, etc. Using the worldly path, harming the seeds of afflictions is also like this. It is still able to produce the fruits of actions as before, and in the future, it will be able to produce afflictions, so how can it be said to be like a seed being damaged? A seed being damaged means it cannot sprout. If it can sprout, it cannot be called damaged. Using the mundane path to cease delusion is also like this. If it harms the seeds of delusion, it should not be able to arise, since it is able to arise.
不應名損。若不名損。如何名斷。又一心中。能斷所斷。理不俱有。斷義不成。故彼所言。謂名與色。于生自果。所有展轉鄰近功能。名為種子。理不成立。又彼所言。此由相續轉變差別。何名轉變。謂相續中前後異性。何名相續。謂因果性。三世諸行。何名差別。謂有無間生果功能。如是具壽。一切所說。異意異言其首亦異。以譬喻者無有相續前後異性。亦無因果三世諸行。亦無無間生果功能。如后當辯。彼由憎背對法義宗。于聖教中。起諸過患。如誹謗得於聖教中所起眾多違理過患。如是于得若許實有。于聖教義有何相違。經主于中雖隨自執多有所說。而無所成。所執種子理不成故。種子既無。知所許得。是已得法。不失因故。又是知此係屬於彼。智幖幟故。決定有用。用有既成。知別有體。故所許得。體用極成。對法諸師議論宗處。諸譬喻者。多分于中申自所執諸法種子。惑亂正義。令不分明。復有諸師。於此種子。處處隨義。建立別名。或名隨界。或名熏習。或名功能。或名不失。或名增長。故我此中廣興抉擇。摧彼所執建立正宗。如是已成得非得性。此差別義今應廣思。且得云何。頌曰。
三世法各三 善等唯善等 有系自界得 無系得通四 非學無學三 非所斷二種
論曰。三世法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不應該說是『名』（nāma，五蘊之一，指精神現象）會受到損害。如果『名』不會受到損害，又如何能說是『斷』呢？而且，在同一個心中，能斷和所斷的道理不能同時存在，這樣『斷』的意義就無法成立。所以他們所說的，『名』和『色』（rūpa，五蘊之一，指物質現象）對於它們所產生的果，所有輾轉鄰近的功能，稱之為『種子』（bīja，潛在力量），這個道理是不能成立的。還有他們所說的，這是由於相續轉變的差別。什麼叫做『轉變』呢？就是相續中前後不同的性質。什麼叫做『相續』呢？就是因果的性質，三世（過去、現在、未來）諸行的流轉。什麼叫做『差別』呢？就是有無間斷產生果的功能。像這樣，具壽（尊稱）們，你們所說的一切，意思不同，言辭不同，開頭也不同。用譬喻來說，沒有相續前後不同的性質，也沒有因果三世諸行的流轉，也沒有無間斷產生果的功能。這些在後面將會辯論。他們由於憎恨背離對法（Abhidharma，佛教哲學）的義理和宗旨，所以在聖教（Buddha-śāsana，佛教的教法）中，產生了各種過患。就像誹謗『得』（prāpti，獲得）會在聖教中所產生眾多違背道理的過患一樣。像這樣，如果承認『得』是真實存在的，那麼對於聖教的義理有什麼相違背的地方呢？經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）的論師們雖然隨順自己的執見說了許多，但是沒有成就任何東西。因為他們所執著的『種子』的道理不能成立。『種子』既然沒有，就知道他們所承認的『得』，是已經得到的法，因為不失掉原因的緣故。而且又是知道這個『得』是屬於那個法的，是智慧的標誌。決定是有用的。『用』的存在既然成立，就知道另外有自體。所以他們所承認的『得』，它的體和用都是極其成立的。對法（Abhidharma，佛教哲學）的諸位論師在議論宗旨的地方，那些譬喻者，大部分在其中陳述自己所執著的諸法『種子』，迷惑擾亂正義，使之不分明。還有一些論師，對於這個『種子』，處處隨著意義，建立不同的名稱。或者叫做『隨界』，或者叫做『熏習』，或者叫做『功能』，或者叫做『不失』，或者叫做『增長』。所以我在這裡廣泛地興起抉擇，摧毀他們所執著的，建立正確的宗旨。像這樣已經成立了『得』和『非得』的性質，這個差別的意義現在應該廣泛地思考。且『得』是什麼呢？頌說： 『三世法各三，善等唯善等，有系自界得，無系得通四，非學無學三，非所斷二種。』 論說：三世的法
【English Translation】 English version: It should not be said that 'nāma' (name, one of the five skandhas, referring to mental phenomena) is damaged. If 'nāma' is not damaged, how can it be said to be 'cut off'? Moreover, in the same mind, the principle of what can be cut off and what is cut off cannot exist simultaneously, so the meaning of 'cut off' cannot be established. Therefore, what they say, that 'nāma' and 'rūpa' (form, one of the five skandhas, referring to material phenomena) have all the functions of gradual proximity to the fruit they produce, which are called 'bīja' (seed, potential power), this principle cannot be established. Also, what they say, this is due to the difference in the transformation of the continuum. What is called 'transformation'? It is the different nature of the continuum before and after. What is called 'continuum'? It is the nature of cause and effect, the flow of the three times (past, present, future). What is called 'difference'? It is the function of producing fruit without interruption. Like this, Venerable Ones, everything you say has different meanings, different words, and different beginnings. To use a metaphor, there is no continuous difference in nature before and after, nor is there a flow of cause and effect in the three times, nor is there a function of producing fruit without interruption. These will be debated later. Because they hate and deviate from the meaning and purpose of Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy), they have caused various faults in the Buddha-śāsana (Buddhist teachings). Just like the slander of 'prāpti' (attainment) will cause many unreasonable faults in the Buddhist teachings. Like this, if it is admitted that 'attainment' is real, then what is contrary to the meaning of the Buddhist teachings? Although the Sautrāntikas (one of the Buddhist schools) have said a lot according to their own views, they have not achieved anything. Because the principle of 'seed' that they adhere to cannot be established. Since there is no 'seed', it is known that the 'attainment' they admit is the dharma that has already been attained, because the cause is not lost. Moreover, it is also known that this 'attainment' belongs to that dharma, which is a sign of wisdom. It is definitely useful. Since the existence of 'use' is established, it is known that there is another self-nature. Therefore, the 'attainment' they admit, its substance and use are extremely established. In the place where the Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy) masters discuss the purpose, those who use metaphors mostly state the 'seeds' of all dharmas that they adhere to, confusing and disturbing the correct meaning, making it unclear. There are also some teachers who, for this 'seed', establish different names everywhere according to the meaning. Or it is called 'following the realm', or it is called '熏習(xūnxí, perfuming)', or it is called 'function', or it is called 'non-loss', or it is called 'growth'. Therefore, I am here to extensively promote the determination, destroy what they adhere to, and establish the correct purpose. In this way, the nature of 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' has been established, and the meaning of this difference should now be widely considered. And what is 'attainment'? The verse says: 'The three times of dharmas each have three, good, etc. are only good, etc., those with attachment attain their own realm, those without attachment attain all four, non-learners and non-learners have three, and those not to be abandoned have two kinds.' The treatise says: The dharmas of the three times
得各有三種。謂過去法。有過去得。有未來得。有現在得。如是未來及現在法。各有三得。約容有義。且作是說。其中差別。后當更辯。又善等法。得唯善等。謂善不善及無記法。如其次第。有善不善無記三得。又有系法。得唯自界。謂欲色界無色界法。如其次第。唯有欲色無色三得。若無系法得通四種。謂不繫法。就總種類。具四種得。即三界系及與不繫。別分別者。非擇滅得。通三界系。若擇滅得。色無色系及與不繫。其道諦得。唯有不繫。又有學法。得唯有學。若無學法得唯無學。故學無學法得各有一種。非學無學法得總類有三。別分別者。全五取蘊。及三無為。總名非學非無學法。且五取蘊。及非擇滅。並非聖道所證擇滅。唯有非學非無學得。若有學道所證擇滅。得唯有學。若無學道所證擇滅。得唯無學。又見修所斷法。如其次第。有見修所斷得。非所斷法得總有二。別分別者。諸無漏法名非所斷。若非擇滅及非聖道所證擇滅得唯一種。謂修所斷。若以聖道所證擇滅。及道聖諦得唯一種。謂非所斷前言三世各有三得。諸有為法。皆定爾耶。不爾。云何。頌曰。
無記得俱起 除二通變化 有覆色亦俱 欲色無前起
論曰。無覆無記得唯俱起。無前後生。勢力劣故。一切無覆無記法得。皆定爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：得各有三種，即過去法的過去得、未來得和現在得。同樣，未來法和現在法也各有三種得。這是從容許有義的角度來說的，其中的差別，以後再詳細辨析。此外，善等法只能得到善等得，也就是說，善、不善和無記法，依次對應有善、不善、無記三種得。又有繫縛之法，只能得到自身界系的得，即欲界、色界、無色界法，依次對應只有欲界、色界、無色界三種得。如果是非繫縛之法，則能通達四種得，即不繫縛之法，就總的種類來說，具有四種得，包括三界繫縛和不繫縛。如果分別來說，非擇滅（pratisamkhyanirodha，通過智慧力而達到的滅）得，能通達三界繫縛。如果是擇滅（viSamkhyanirodha，通過修行力而達到的滅）得，則能通達色界、無色界繫縛和不繫縛。而道諦（marga-satya，通往解脫的道路）得，則只有不繫縛。又有學法，只能得到有學得；如果是無學法，則只能得到無學得。所以，有學和無學法得各有隻有一種。非學非無學法得，總的種類有三種。如果分別來說，全部五取蘊（panca-upadanaskandha，構成經驗世界的五種要素），以及三種無為法（asamskrta-dharma，不生不滅的法），總稱為非學非無學法。且五取蘊和非擇滅，以及非聖道所證的擇滅，只有非學非無學得。如果有學道所證的擇滅，則只有有學得；如果是無學道所證的擇滅，則只有無學得。又見所斷法（darshana-heya-dharma，通過見道斷除的煩惱）和修所斷法（bhavana-heya-dharma，通過修道斷除的煩惱），依次對應有見所斷得和修所斷得。非所斷法得，總的來說有兩種。如果分別來說，諸無漏法（anasrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法）名為非所斷。如果是非擇滅和非聖道所證的擇滅，得只有一種，即修所斷。如果是以聖道所證的擇滅，以及道聖諦，得只有一種，即非所斷。前面說三世各有三種得，那麼所有有為法（samskrta-dharma，有生有滅的法）都是這樣嗎？不是的。那是怎樣的呢？頌說： 無記得俱起，除二通變化；有覆色亦俱，欲色無前起。 論曰：無覆無記（avrata-avyakrta，不覆障真理且非善非惡的性質）得唯俱起，無前後生，勢力弱故。一切無覆無記法得，皆是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: There are three kinds of 'attainment' (prapti) for each, namely, the past attainment of past dharmas, the future attainment, and the present attainment. Similarly, future dharmas and present dharmas each have three kinds of attainment. This is stated from the perspective of allowing for such a possibility, and the differences among them will be further discussed later. Furthermore, wholesome dharmas (kusala-dharma) can only attain wholesome attainments. That is to say, wholesome, unwholesome (akusala), and neutral (avyakrta) dharmas have, in order, three kinds of attainments: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. Moreover, conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) only attain attainments within their own realm. Specifically, the dharmas of the desire realm (kama-dhatu), form realm (rupa-dhatu), and formless realm (arupa-dhatu) have, in order, only three kinds of attainments: desire realm, form realm, and formless realm. If it is an unconditioned dharma (asamskrta-dharma), it can penetrate four kinds of attainments. That is, unconditioned dharmas, in general, possess four kinds of attainments, including the three realms and the unconditioned. If distinguished separately, non-cessation through discrimination (pratisamkhyanirodha, cessation attained through the power of wisdom) attainment can penetrate the three realms. If it is cessation through discrimination (viSamkhyanirodha, cessation attained through the power of practice) attainment, it can penetrate the form realm, formless realm, and the unconditioned. The attainment of the path truth (marga-satya, the truth of the path to liberation) only has the unconditioned. Furthermore, a dharma of the state of learning (saiksha-dharma) can only attain the attainment of the state of learning; if it is a dharma of the state of no-more-learning (asiksha-dharma), it can only attain the attainment of the state of no-more-learning. Therefore, the attainments of the dharmas of the state of learning and the state of no-more-learning each have only one kind. The attainments of dharmas that are neither of the state of learning nor of the state of no-more-learning have three kinds in general. If distinguished separately, the entire five aggregates of clinging (panca-upadanaskandha, the five aggregates that constitute the experienced world), and the three unconditioned dharmas (asamskrta-dharma, dharmas that are neither produced nor destroyed), are collectively called dharmas that are neither of the state of learning nor of the state of no-more-learning. Moreover, the five aggregates of clinging and non-cessation through discrimination, as well as cessation through discrimination not attained by the noble path, only have the attainment of neither the state of learning nor of the state of no-more-learning. If it is cessation through discrimination attained by the path of the state of learning, it only has the attainment of the state of learning; if it is cessation through discrimination attained by the path of the state of no-more-learning, it only has the attainment of the state of no-more-learning. Furthermore, dharmas to be abandoned by seeing (darshana-heya-dharma, afflictions to be abandoned through the path of seeing) and dharmas to be abandoned by cultivation (bhavana-heya-dharma, afflictions to be abandoned through the path of cultivation) have, in order, the attainments of those to be abandoned by seeing and those to be abandoned by cultivation. The attainments of dharmas not to be abandoned have two kinds in general. If distinguished separately, all unconditioned dharmas (anasrava-dharma, dharmas without afflictions) are called not to be abandoned. If it is non-cessation through discrimination and cessation through discrimination not attained by the noble path, the attainment has only one kind, namely, that to be abandoned by cultivation. If it is cessation through discrimination attained by the noble path, and the truth of the path, the attainment has only one kind, namely, that not to be abandoned. Earlier, it was said that the three times each have three kinds of attainments. Is this the case for all conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharma, dharmas that are produced and destroyed)? No, it is not. What is it like then? The verse says: Unwholesome-neutral attainments arise simultaneously, except for two that penetrate transformation; defiled form also arises simultaneously; desire and form realms have no prior arising. The treatise says: Unwholesome-neutral (avrata-avyakrta, qualities that neither obscure the truth nor are good or bad) attainments only arise simultaneously, without prior or subsequent arising, because their power is weak. All unwholesome-neutral dharma attainments are like this.
耶。不爾。云何。除眼耳通及能變化。謂眼耳通慧。及能變化心。勢力強故。加行差別所成辦故。雖是無覆無記性收。而有前後及俱起得。又威儀路四蘊之得。多分世斷及剎那斷。唯除諸佛馬勝苾芻及余善習威儀路者。若工巧處四蘊之得。亦多世斷及剎那斷。除毗濕縛羯磨天神及余善習工巧處者。唯有無覆無記法得。但俱起耶。不爾。云何。有覆無記色得亦爾。謂唯色界初靜慮染身語表業得亦如前。但有俱起。雖上品染。而亦不能發無表故。勢力微劣。由此定無法前後得。欲界諸色。亦定唯有俱起得耶。不爾。云何。謂欲界系善不善色得無前起。唯有俱生。及後起得。如是已辯得差別相。非得差別其相云何。頌曰。
非得凈無記 去來世各三 三界不繫三 許聖道非得 說名異生性 得法易地舍
論曰。性差別者。一切非得。皆唯無覆無記性攝。世差別者。過去未來。各有三種謂過去法及未來法。一一各有三世非得。若現在法。唯有過去未來非得。決定無有現在非得。以現在法與不成就不俱行故。有說。現法無現非得。性相違故。界差別者。三界系法。及不繫法。各三非得。謂欲界系法。有二界非得。色無色界系。及不繫亦爾定無非得是無漏者。所以者何。由許聖道非得說名異生性故。如本論言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『不，不是這樣。』『那又是怎樣呢？』除了眼耳通和變化神通之外，眼耳通的智慧以及變化心，因為它們的力量強大，並且是通過特殊的修行才能獲得的，所以即使它們屬於無覆無記的性質，也存在前起、後起和俱起的情況。此外，威儀路（指合乎禮儀的行為舉止）所包含的四蘊之得，大多是世斷（指在一段時間內中斷）和剎那斷（指瞬間中斷）。但諸佛、馬勝比丘（Aśvajit，佛陀的弟子）以及其他善於修習威儀路的人除外。如果工巧處（指工藝技巧）所包含的四蘊之得，也大多是世斷和剎那斷。但毗濕縛羯磨天神（Viśvakarman，印度教的工匠神）以及其他善於修習工巧處的人除外。只有無覆無記法的『得』，才僅僅是俱起的嗎？』『不，不是這樣。』『那又是怎樣呢？』有覆無記的色『得』也是如此。也就是說，只有初禪的染污身語表業的『得』，才像前面所說的那樣，僅僅是俱起的。即使是上品染污，也不能引發無表色，因為它的力量微弱。因此，這種定法沒有前後起的『得』。欲界的各種色法，也一定是隻有俱起的『得』嗎？』『不，不是這樣。』『那又是怎樣呢？』也就是說，欲界所繫善和不善的色『得』沒有前起，只有俱生和後起的『得』。像這樣，已經辨析了『得』的差別相。『非得』的差別相又是怎樣的呢？頌曰： 『非得』是清凈的無記性，過去和未來各有三種。 三界和不繫各有三種，聖道被認為是『非得』。 被稱為『異生性』，『得』法容易捨棄。 論曰：性質上的差別是，一切『非得』都僅僅屬於無覆無記的性質。時間上的差別是，過去和未來各有三種，也就是說，過去的法和未來的法，每一種都有三種世的『非得』。如果是現在的法，則只有過去和未來的『非得』，絕對沒有現在的『非得』。因為現在的法和不成就不會同時存在。有人說，現在的法沒有現在的『非得』，因為性質相反。界上的差別是，三界所繫的法和不繫法，各有三種『非得』。也就是說，欲界所繫的法，有色界和無色界所繫的『非得』，以及不繫的『非得』。色界和無色界所繫的法，也有類似的『非得』。絕對沒有『非得』是無漏的。為什麼呢？因為聖道的『非得』被認為是『異生性』。正如本論所說：
【English Translation】 English version: 'No, it is not so.' 'Then how is it?' Except for the supernormal powers of the eye and ear, and the ability to transform, the wisdom of the supernormal powers of the eye and ear, and the mind capable of transformation, because their power is strong, and they are accomplished through special practice, even though they belong to the nature of uncovered and indeterminate, there are cases of arising before, after, and simultaneously. Moreover, the 'attainment' (得) of the four aggregates (蘊) included in deportment (威儀路, proper conduct), is mostly interrupted by lifetimes (世斷, interrupted for a period of time) and interrupted momentarily (剎那斷, interrupted instantly). But this excludes Buddhas, Aśvajit (馬勝比丘, one of Buddha's disciples), and others who are skilled in practicing deportment. If the 'attainment' of the four aggregates included in skillful arts (工巧處, craftsmanship), is also mostly interrupted by lifetimes and interrupted momentarily. But this excludes Viśvakarman (毗濕縛羯磨天神, the divine craftsman in Hinduism) and others who are skilled in practicing skillful arts. Is it only the 'attainment' of uncovered and indeterminate dharmas that is merely simultaneous?' 'No, it is not so.' 'Then how is it?' The 'attainment' of covered and indeterminate form (色) is also like this. That is to say, only the 'attainment' of the defiled bodily and verbal expressions (身語表業) of the first dhyana (初靜慮, first meditative absorption) is only simultaneous, as mentioned before. Even if it is the highest grade of defilement, it cannot generate unmanifested form (無表色), because its power is weak. Therefore, this fixed dharma has no 'attainment' that arises before or after. Are all the forms of the desire realm (欲界) definitely only simultaneous 'attainment'?' 'No, it is not so.' 'Then how is it?' That is to say, the 'attainment' of good and unwholesome forms belonging to the desire realm has no prior arising, only simultaneous and subsequent arising. Thus, the differences in the characteristics of 'attainment' have been distinguished. What are the differences in the characteristics of 'non-attainment' (非得)? The verse says: 'Non-attainment' is pure and indeterminate, in the past and future, each has three types. The three realms (三界) and the unconditioned (不繫) each have three types, the noble path (聖道) is considered 'non-attainment'. It is called 'other-being nature' (異生性), 'attaining' dharmas is easy to abandon. The treatise says: The difference in nature is that all 'non-attainment' belongs only to the nature of uncovered and indeterminate. The difference in time is that the past and future each have three types, that is to say, past dharmas and future dharmas, each has three types of 'non-attainment' in the three times. If it is a present dharma, then there is only 'non-attainment' of the past and future, and there is absolutely no present 'non-attainment'. Because present dharmas and non-accomplishment do not exist simultaneously. Some say that present dharmas have no present 'non-attainment', because their natures are opposite. The difference in realms is that the dharmas belonging to the three realms and the unconditioned each have three types of 'non-attainment'. That is to say, the dharmas belonging to the desire realm have 'non-attainment' belonging to the form realm and the formless realm, and the unconditioned. The dharmas belonging to the form realm and the formless realm also have similar 'non-attainment'. There is absolutely no 'non-attainment' that is unconditioned (無漏). Why? Because the 'non-attainment' of the noble path is considered 'other-being nature'. As the treatise says:
。云何異生性。謂不獲聖法。不獲即是非得異名。如何無漏法可名異生性不獲。何聖法名異生性耶。為總不獲一切聖法。為唯不獲苦法智忍。有說。不獲一切聖法。若爾豈不無非異生。無一總成諸聖法故。若有不獲不雜于獲。是異生性。若雜獲者。非異生性。故無有失。若爾本論應說純言。不爾雜言見義有故。如說此類食水食風。雖無純言。而亦知彼純食水風。不雜余故。有說。不獲苦法智忍。然非后舍覆成異生。前已永害。彼非得故。經主於此復作是言。若曾未生聖法相續。分位差別。名異生性。何緣經主。復作是言。謂異生性。都無實物。若爾是誰相續分位。謂眼耳等相續分位。豈一剎那眼等分位。非異生性。而言眼等相續方是異生性耶。非一剎那可名相續。剎那便有非實過故。此非唯有言違義失。亦復有餘違契經過。故世尊說。如是名為隨信行者。入正性離生。超越異生地。此異生地。即異生性。何緣故知。說得舍故。非於爾時舍曾所得眼等諸法少分可知。如得未曾所得聖法。聖者正在見道位時。成就眼等一切品類。皆如前位。無所缺減。若異生性。無別有體。便違此經。爾時無別異生地體可超越故。若謂惡趣是異生地。得忍位已應非異生。若謂眼等未得聖時離聖法故。依之假立異生名想是異生性。入見道時。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼是異生性（是指凡夫的狀態）？ 意思是說沒有獲得聖法（指超脫世俗的佛法），『不獲』就是『非得』的另一種說法。 那麼，無漏法（指沒有煩惱的清凈之法）怎麼能被稱為異生性所不能獲得的呢？ 什麼樣的聖法才能被稱為異生性呢？ 是指完全沒有獲得一切聖法，還是僅僅沒有獲得苦法智忍（證悟苦諦的智慧和忍辱）？ 有人說，是指完全沒有獲得一切聖法。 如果這樣說，難道不是就沒有非異生（指聖人）了嗎？ 因為沒有人能夠完全成就所有的聖法。 如果有不夾雜于已得聖法的『不獲』，那就是異生性；如果夾雜著已得的聖法，那就不是異生性。 所以沒有過失。 如果這樣，本論應該說『純粹』的不獲。 不這樣說，是因為雜言也有意義。 比如，說某種生物吃水、吃風，雖然沒有說『純粹』吃水風，但我們也知道它們只吃水風，不夾雜其他東西。 有人說，是指沒有獲得苦法智忍。 然而，並非之後捨棄了苦法智忍又變成異生，因為之前已經永遠斷絕了獲得苦法智忍的可能性。 經論的作者對此又說，如果從未生起聖法相續的分位差別，就叫做異生性。 為什麼經論的作者又說，異生性根本沒有實體呢？ 如果這樣，是誰的相續分位呢？ 是指眼耳等的相續分位。 難道一剎那的眼等分位，不是異生性，而是說眼等相續才是異生性嗎？ 一剎那不能稱為相續，因為剎那有非真實的過失。 這不僅有言語和意義上的矛盾，而且還有違背佛經的過失。 所以世尊說：『這樣的人叫做隨信行者，進入正性離生（指證悟），超越異生地。』 這個異生地，就是異生性。 為什麼知道是這樣呢？ 因為經中說了『得』和『舍』。 並非在那個時候捨棄了曾經獲得的眼等諸法的一小部分，就像獲得從未獲得的聖法一樣。 聖者正在見道位（指初果）的時候，成就眼等一切品類，都和之前一樣，沒有什麼缺少。 如果異生性沒有別的自體，就違背了這部經，因為那時沒有別的異生地體可以超越。 如果說惡趣是異生地，那麼得到忍位之後就不應該還是異生。 如果說眼等在沒有得到聖法的時候，因為遠離聖法，所以依此假立異生的名稱和想法，這就是異生性。 進入見道的時候。
【English Translation】 English version: What is 'alien nature' (referring to the state of an ordinary being)? It means not obtaining the holy Dharma (referring to the Buddha's teachings that transcend the mundane). 'Not obtaining' is another way of saying 'non-attainment'. How can the undefiled Dharma (referring to pure Dharma without afflictions) be said to be unobtainable by 'alien nature'? What kind of holy Dharma is called 'alien nature'? Some say it means not obtaining all the holy Dharmas. If so, wouldn't there be no non-ordinary beings (referring to sages)? Because no one can fully accomplish all the holy Dharmas. If there is 'non-attainment' that is not mixed with already attained holy Dharmas, that is 'alien nature'; if it is mixed with already attained holy Dharmas, it is not 'alien nature'. So there is no fault. If so, the treatise should say 'pure' non-attainment. Not saying so is because mixed speech also has meaning. For example, saying that a certain creature eats water and wind, although it doesn't say 'purely' eats water and wind, we also know that they only eat water and wind, not mixed with other things. Some say it means not obtaining the 'Tolerance of the Knowledge of Suffering' (Kṣānti of Dharma-jñāna regarding Suffering) (the wisdom and forbearance to realize the truth of suffering). However, it's not that after abandoning the 'Tolerance of the Knowledge of Suffering', one becomes an ordinary being again, because the possibility of obtaining the 'Tolerance of the Knowledge of Suffering' has been forever severed before. The author of the treatise further says that if the differentiated positions of the continuum of holy Dharma have never arisen, it is called 'alien nature'. Why does the author of the treatise also say that 'alien nature' has no real substance at all? If so, whose continuum of positions is it? It refers to the continuum of positions of the eyes, ears, etc. Is it that a single moment of the position of the eyes, etc., is not 'alien nature', but rather the continuum of the eyes, etc., is 'alien nature'? A single moment cannot be called a continuum, because a moment has the fault of being unreal. This not only has contradictions in words and meaning, but also has the fault of contradicting the sutras. Therefore, the World Honored One said: 'Such a person is called a follower by faith, enters the 'Rightness that is Apart from Birth' (referring to enlightenment), and transcends the 'Land of Ordinary Beings'.' This 'Land of Ordinary Beings' is 'alien nature'. How do we know this is the case? Because the sutra speaks of 'obtaining' and 'abandoning'. It's not that at that time, a small part of the eyes, etc., that were once obtained is abandoned, just like obtaining the holy Dharma that has never been obtained. When a sage is in the 'Path of Seeing' (referring to the first fruit), all categories such as the eyes, etc., are accomplished, and they are the same as before, with nothing lacking. If 'alien nature' has no separate self-nature, it contradicts this sutra, because at that time there is no separate body of the 'Land of Ordinary Beings' that can be transcended. If it is said that the evil realms are the 'Land of Ordinary Beings', then after obtaining the 'Tolerance' position, one should not still be an ordinary being. If it is said that when the eyes, etc., have not obtained the holy Dharma, because they are separated from the holy Dharma, the name and idea of an ordinary being are falsely established based on this, and this is 'alien nature'. When entering the 'Path of Seeing'.
超越彼故。說名超越異生地者。理亦不然。如何爾時眼等諸法如本隨逐。而可說為超越眼等。若言如證阿羅漢果超越眼等。理亦不然。彼時具證眼等結斷。雖成就眼等而名超越故。今此位中。眼等如本具縛成就。故喻不齊。若謂如言未離欲聖超越惡趣。理亦不然。于彼已得非擇滅故。未離欲聖。于彼不作不趣不行。可名超越。今見道位。超何眼等。若言應有異瓶等物瓶等性者。理亦不然。離破瓶等。舍瓶等性理不成故。無漏心起時。眼等如本。而舍異生性。故例不齊。由此已遮生性等例若言婆羅門等性何不爾者。如聖異生定差別。彼不見故。謂聖異生。各有少分不作不趣。作趣定別。無有少分智慧工巧制止堪能定差別事。婆羅門等。諸種姓中。唯一能為。非余能作。可因此執有婆羅門等性。雖亦見有中邊國等少分差別。而無別性。由許別有眾同分法為差別依。故無有過。豈不如聖法即說是聖性。成就此性。故名聖者。如是異生法應即異生性。成就此性。故名異生。此例不然。以諸聖法唯聖者有。可即聖法說為聖性。諸異生法聖者亦有。如何可立為異生性。若異生法。唯異生有遍異產生可是異生性。惡趣無想北俱盧等。不遍異生故非異生性。余命根等。雖遍異生。非唯異生有。亦非異生性。又唯異生有遍異生相續。違聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 超越彼故。說名超越異生地者。理亦不然。如何爾時眼等諸法如本隨逐。而可說為超越眼等？若言如證阿羅漢果（Arahan fruit，佛教修行證悟的最高果位）超越眼等。理亦不然。彼時具證眼等結斷。雖成就眼等而名超越故。今此位中。眼等如本具縛成就。故喻不齊。若謂如言未離欲聖超越惡趣。理亦不然。于彼已得非擇滅故。未離欲聖。于彼不作不趣不行。可名超越。今見道位。超何眼等？若言應有異瓶等物瓶等性者。理亦不然。離破瓶等。舍瓶等性理不成故。無漏心起時。眼等如本。而舍異生性。故例不齊。由此已遮生性等例。若言婆羅門（Brahmin，印度教的祭司階層）等性何不爾者？如聖異生定差別。彼不見故。謂聖異生。各有少分不作不趣。作趣定別。無有少分智慧工巧制止堪能定差別事。婆羅門等。諸種姓中。唯一能為。非余能作。可因此執有婆羅門等性。雖亦見有中邊國等少分差別。而無別性。由許別有眾同分法為差別依。故無有過。豈不如聖法即說是聖性。成就此性。故名聖者。如是異生法應即異生性。成就此性。故名異生？此例不然。以諸聖法唯聖者有。可即聖法說為聖性。諸異生法聖者亦有。如何可立為異生性？若異生法。唯異生有遍異產生可是異生性。惡趣無想北俱盧（Uttarakuru，傳說中的北方勝地）等。不遍異生故非異生性。余命根等。雖遍異生。非唯異生有。亦非異生性。又唯異生有遍異生相續。違聖
【English Translation】 English version To transcend that, to say one has transcended the state of an ordinary being is not logically sound. How can it be said that one has transcended the eyes and other faculties when, at that time, these faculties still follow one as before? If you say it is like attaining the fruit of an Arhat (Arahan fruit, the highest state of enlightenment in Buddhism) and transcending the eyes and other faculties, that is also not logically sound. At that time, one has fully realized the cessation of the bonds of the eyes and other faculties. Although one still possesses the eyes and other faculties, one is said to have transcended them. But in this state [of the path of seeing], the eyes and other faculties are still bound and possessed as before, so the analogy is not apt. If you say it is like a non-desire saint transcending the evil realms, that is also not logically sound, because they have already attained non-selective cessation in those realms. A non-desire saint does not act, go, or proceed in those realms, so they can be said to have transcended them. But in the state of the path of seeing, what eyes and other faculties have been transcended? If you say that there should be a separate nature of pots, just as there are different pots, that is also not logically sound, because the nature of pots cannot be abandoned without breaking the pots. When the undefiled mind arises, the eyes and other faculties remain as before, but the nature of an ordinary being is abandoned, so the analogy is not apt. This refutes the analogy of the nature of birth, etc. If you ask why it is not like the nature of a Brahmin (Brahmin, the priestly class in Hinduism), it is because the difference between a saint and an ordinary being is not seen in that way. That is, a saint and an ordinary being each have a small portion of non-action and non-going, and their actions and goings are definitely different. There is no definite difference in wisdom, skill, restraint, or ability. Among the Brahmin castes, only one can do certain things, and others cannot, so one can hold the view that there is a nature of Brahmins. Although one also sees small differences in central and border countries, etc., there is no separate nature, because it is admitted that there is a separate commonality of beings as the basis for the difference, so there is no fault. Is it not like the holy Dharma being said to be the holy nature, and one who has attained this nature is called a holy person? In the same way, the Dharma of an ordinary being should be the nature of an ordinary being, and one who has attained this nature should be called an ordinary being? This analogy is not valid, because the holy Dharmas are only possessed by holy persons, so the holy Dharmas can be said to be the holy nature. The Dharmas of ordinary beings are also possessed by holy persons, so how can they be established as the nature of ordinary beings? If the Dharma of an ordinary being is only possessed by ordinary beings and pervades all ordinary beings, then it can be the nature of ordinary beings. The evil realms, the non-thinking realms, Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru, a legendary northern land), etc., do not pervade all ordinary beings, so they are not the nature of ordinary beings. Other things like the life force, although they pervade all ordinary beings, are not only possessed by ordinary beings, so they are also not the nature of ordinary beings. Furthermore, only ordinary beings have a continuous stream of ordinary being-ness that contradicts the holy ones.
道得是異生性。又若有法與諸異生作身生因是異生性。豈不業煩惱與諸異生作身生因。何用異生性。此責非理。現見有法待余因方能作余法因故。非業煩惱所生眼等。離四大種。而可得生。故有別法。名異生性。即超越此。故名超異生地。要作此釋。方顯世尊所說契經有大義趣。傍論已了。今更應思。如是非得。何時當舍。此法非得。得此法時。或轉易地。舍此非得。如聖法非得說名異生性。隨得聖法時舍三界非得。如是住初無漏心者。于苦法智展轉乃至。住金剛喻三摩地者。于阿羅漢所有非得。如其所應。隨得此法。舍此非得。如是乃至。阿羅漢果。時解脫者。于阿羅漢不時解脫。所有非得。得此法時。舍此非得。余法非得。類此應思。又此非得。云何名舍。若非得得斷。非得非得生。如是名為舍于非得。得與非得。雖各有餘得及非得。然非無窮。由得勢力。成就本法及與得得。得得勢力。成就法得。豈成無窮。非得亦應如理思擇。非得非得。必不俱生。又從下地生上地時。下地非得一切皆舍。從上生下。類此應知。由所依力。非得轉故。如是已辯得非得相。同分者何。頌曰。
同分有情等
論曰。有別實物。名為同分。謂諸有情。展轉類等。本論說此。名眾同分。一趣等生。諸有情類。所有身形。諸根
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果說道『異生性』（prthag-janatva，凡夫的性質），又如果存在某種法，能作為諸位凡夫產生身體的原因，那就是『異生性』。那麼，業和煩惱不也是作為諸位凡夫產生身體的原因嗎？為什麼還需要『異生性』呢？ 答：這種責難是不合理的。因為我們清楚地看到，有些法需要依賴其他的因，才能作為其他法的原因。比如，由業和煩惱所生的眼等器官，如果離開了四大種（四大元素），是不可能產生的。所以，存在一種特別的法，叫做『異生性』。它超越了這些（四大種等），所以叫做『超異生地』。只有這樣解釋，才能顯示世尊所說的契經具有偉大的意義。 （以上是）旁論已經結束。現在應該進一步思考，像這樣的『非得』（aprapti，未獲得），什麼時候才能捨棄？這種法的『非得』，在獲得這種法的時候，或者在轉變所處的地位時，就會捨棄這種『非得』。比如，聖法的『非得』被稱為『異生性』，隨著獲得聖法時，就捨棄了三界的『非得』。像這樣，安住于最初的無漏心（anāsrava-citta，無煩惱的心）的人，對於苦法智（duhkha-dharma-jnana，對苦諦的智慧）逐漸增長，乃至安住于金剛喻三摩地（vajropama-samādhi，如金剛般堅固的三摩地）的人，對於阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟者）的所有『非得』，都應該根據情況，隨著獲得這種法，就捨棄這種『非得』。像這樣，乃至阿羅漢果（arhat-phala，阿羅漢的果位），時解脫者（samaya-vimukta，按時解脫者），對於阿羅漢不時解脫（asamaya-vimukta，非按時解脫者）的所有『非得』，在獲得這種法的時候，就捨棄這種『非得』。其他的法的『非得』，也應該按照這個思路來思考。 又，這種『非得』，是怎樣被稱為『捨棄』的呢？如果『非得』的『得』（prapti，獲得）斷滅，『非得』的『非得』（aprapti-aprapti，未獲得之未獲得）生起，這樣就叫做捨棄了『非得』。『得』與『非得』，雖然各自還有剩餘的『得』和『非得』，但並不是無窮無盡的。由於『得』的力量，成就了本法以及與『得』相關的『得』；『得』的『得』的力量，成就了法之『得』。難道會成為無窮無盡嗎？『非得』也應該按照這個道理來思考。『非得』的『非得』，必定不會同時生起。 又，從下地生到上地時，下地的所有『非得』都會捨棄。從上地生到下地，也應該類比著來理解。由於所依（āśraya，基礎）的力量，『非得』會轉變。像這樣，已經辨析了『得』和『非得』的相狀。什麼是『同分』（sabhāgatā，同類性）呢？頌曰： 『同分有情等』 論曰：存在一種特別的實物，叫做『同分』。指的是諸位有情，輾轉相類似等等。本論說這種（同分），叫做『眾同分』（nikāya-sabhāgatā，群體的同類性）。同一趣（gati，道）等生的諸位有情，所有身形、諸根……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If 'heterogeneity' (prthag-janatva, the nature of an ordinary being) is spoken of, and if there is a dharma that acts as the cause of the body's birth for all ordinary beings, then that is 'heterogeneity'. But aren't karma and afflictions also the cause of the body's birth for all ordinary beings? Why is 'heterogeneity' needed? Answer: This accusation is unreasonable. Because we clearly see that some dharmas need to rely on other causes in order to act as the cause of other dharmas. For example, the eyes and other organs born from karma and afflictions cannot be produced if they are separated from the four great elements (mahābhūta). Therefore, there is a special dharma called 'heterogeneity'. It transcends these (the four great elements, etc.), so it is called 'transcending the heterogeneous ground'. Only with this explanation can the great meaning of the sutras spoken by the World Honored One be revealed. (The above is) the side discussion is over. Now we should further consider, when will such 'non-attainment' (aprapti, non-acquisition) be abandoned? The 'non-attainment' of this dharma is abandoned when this dharma is attained, or when the position one is in is transformed. For example, the 'non-attainment' of the holy dharma is called 'heterogeneity'. As one attains the holy dharma, one abandons the 'non-attainment' of the three realms. In this way, a person who abides in the initial undefiled mind (anāsrava-citta, mind without afflictions), gradually increases in the knowledge of suffering (duhkha-dharma-jnana, wisdom of the truth of suffering), and even a person who abides in the vajropama-samādhi (vajropama-samādhi, diamond-like samadhi), all 'non-attainments' of the arhat (arhat, enlightened one) should be abandoned according to the situation, as one attains this dharma. In this way, even up to the fruit of arhat (arhat-phala, the fruit of arhatship), the one liberated in time (samaya-vimukta, one liberated on time), all 'non-attainments' of the arhat not liberated in time (asamaya-vimukta, one not liberated on time) are abandoned when this dharma is attained. The 'non-attainments' of other dharmas should also be considered according to this line of thought. Also, how is this 'non-attainment' called 'abandonment'? If the 'attainment' (prapti, acquisition) of 'non-attainment' ceases, and the 'non-attainment' of 'non-attainment' (aprapti-aprapti, non-acquisition of non-acquisition) arises, this is called abandoning 'non-attainment'. Although 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' each have remaining 'attainments' and 'non-attainments', they are not endless. Due to the power of 'attainment', the original dharma and the 'attainment' related to 'attainment' are accomplished; the power of 'attainment' of 'attainment' accomplishes the 'attainment' of the dharma. Could it become endless? 'Non-attainment' should also be considered according to this principle. The 'non-attainment' of 'non-attainment' will certainly not arise simultaneously. Also, when one is born from a lower realm to a higher realm, all 'non-attainments' of the lower realm are abandoned. When one is born from a higher realm to a lower realm, it should be understood by analogy. Due to the power of the basis (āśraya, foundation), 'non-attainment' will transform. In this way, the characteristics of 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' have been distinguished. What is 'commonality' (sabhāgatā, similarity)? The verse says: 'Commonality, sentient beings, etc.' Treatise says: There is a special real object called 'commonality'. It refers to sentient beings who are similar to each other, etc. This treatise calls this (commonality) 'group commonality' (nikāya-sabhāgatā, commonality of the group). All sentient beings born in the same realm (gati, path), all body shapes, faculties...
業用。及飲食等。互相似因。並其展轉相樂欲因。名眾同分。如鮮凈色業心大種。皆是其因。故身形等。非唯因業。現見身形。是更相似。業所引果。諸根業用。及飲食等。有差別故。若謂滿業有差別故。此差別者。理不應然。或有身形。唯由相似引業所起。以眾同分有差別故。業用等別。若身形等。唯業果者。隨其所樂業用等事。若舍若行應不得有。此中身形業用樂欲。展轉相似。故名為同。分是因義。有別實物是此同因。故名同分。如是同分。世尊唯依諸有情說。非草木等。故契經言。此天同分。此人同分。乃至廣說。就界趣生處身等別。有無量種有情同分。復有法同分。謂隨蘊處界。異生同分入離生時舍。有情同分入涅槃時舍。豈不異生性即異生同分。此不應然。所作異故。謂彼身形業用樂欲。互相似因。名為同分。若與聖道成就相違。是異生因。名異生性。入離生時。于眾同分。亦舍亦得。于異生性。舍而不得。同分非色。如何得知。有用能生無別事類。由見彼果。知有彼故。如見現在業所得果。知有前生曾所作業。又觀行者。現證知故。何不許有無情同分。不應如是責。有大過失故。汝亦許有人天等趣胎卵等生。何不亦許庵羅等趣菉豆等生。又佛世尊。曾不說故但應思擇。何故世尊。唯于有情。說有同分。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 業（Karma）用，以及飲食等等，互相類似的原因，並且它們輾轉相樂欲的原因，叫做眾同分（Sattvasabhāga，眾生共業）。就像鮮凈色業心大種（Mahābhūta，四大種）都是它的原因。所以身形等等，並非僅僅因為業。現在看到的身形，是更加相似的業所引導的結果。諸根的業用，以及飲食等等，有差別的原因。如果說是因為滿業（Pūraka-karma，圓滿業）有差別的原因，導致這些差別，這個道理不應該成立。或者有的身形，僅僅由相似的引業（Ākṣepaka-karma，引業）所產生，因為眾同分有差別的原因，業用等等才會有差別。如果身形等等，僅僅是業的果報，那麼隨著他們所喜歡的業用等事情，如果捨棄或者實行，應該不會存在。這裡身形、業用、樂欲，輾轉相似，所以叫做同。分是原因的意思。有別的實物是這個共同的原因，所以叫做同分。像這樣的同分，世尊僅僅依據諸有情（Sattva，眾生）而說，不是草木等等。所以契經（Sūtra，佛經）說，『此天同分，此人同分』，乃至廣說。就界（Dhātu，界）、趣（Gati，趣）、生（Jāti，生）、處（Āyatana，處）、身等等的差別，有無量種有情同分。還有法同分（Dharma-sabhāga，法類同分），就是隨著蘊（Skandha，蘊）、處（Āyatana，處）、界（Dhātu，界）的不同，異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）同分在進入離生（Vivikta-ja，離欲生）的時候捨棄，有情同分在進入涅槃（Nirvāṇa，涅槃）的時候捨棄。難道異生性（Pṛthagjana-tva，凡夫性）就是異生同分嗎？這個不應該這樣認為，因為作用不同。他們身形、業用、樂欲，互相類似的原因，叫做同分。如果與聖道（Ārya-mārga，聖道）的成就相違背，是異生的原因，叫做異生性。進入離生的時候，對於眾同分，也捨棄也得到；對於異生性，捨棄而不能得到。同分不是色（Rūpa，色），如何得知？因為有用能生，沒有別的事類，因為見到那個結果，知道有那個原因。就像見到現在業所得的果報，知道有前生曾經所造的業。又觀行者（Yogin，瑜伽行者），現在證知的原因。為什麼不允許有無情（Acitta，無情）同分？不應該這樣責問，有很大的過失。你也允許有人天等趣、胎卵等生，為什麼不允許庵羅等趣、菉豆等生？而且佛世尊，曾經沒有說過，所以應該思考選擇。為什麼世尊，僅僅對於有情，說有同分？
【English Translation】 English version The uses of Karma, and food and drink, etc., are mutually similar causes, and their causes of mutual enjoyment and desire are called Sattvasabhāga (community of beings). Just like the pure and bright Karma, mind, and Mahābhūta (the four great elements) are all its causes. Therefore, body shape, etc., are not solely due to Karma. The body shape now seen is the result of more similar Karma leading to it. The uses of the faculties, and food and drink, etc., have differences. If it is said that these differences are due to the differences in Pūraka-karma (completing Karma), this reasoning should not hold. Or some body shapes are produced solely by similar Ākṣepaka-karma (projecting Karma), because the Sattvasabhāga has differences, and the uses of Karma, etc., will have differences. If body shapes, etc., are solely the result of Karma, then according to their desired uses of Karma, etc., whether abandoning or practicing, it should not exist. Here, body shape, uses of Karma, and desires are mutually similar, so they are called 'community'. 'Bhāga' means cause. There is a separate real entity that is the common cause, so it is called 'Sabhāga'. Such Sabhāga, the World-Honored One only speaks of based on all Sattva (sentient beings), not plants, etc. Therefore, the Sūtra (scripture) says, 'This is the Sattvasabhāga of the Deva (gods), this is the Sattvasabhāga of humans,' and so on. Based on the differences in Dhātu (realm), Gati (course), Jāti (birth), Āyatana (sense base), body, etc., there are countless kinds of Sattvasabhāga. There is also Dharma-sabhāga (community of Dharma), which is that according to the differences in Skandha (aggregate), Āyatana (sense base), and Dhātu (realm), the Pṛthagjana (ordinary being)'s Sabhāga is abandoned when entering Vivikta-ja (birth of detachment), and the Sattvasabhāga is abandoned when entering Nirvāṇa (liberation). Isn't Pṛthagjana-tva (the state of being an ordinary being) the same as Pṛthagjana-sabhāga? This should not be thought of in this way, because the functions are different. The causes of their body shape, uses of Karma, and desires being mutually similar are called Sabhāga. If it contradicts the attainment of Ārya-mārga (noble path), it is the cause of being an ordinary being, called Pṛthagjana-tva. When entering Vivikta-ja, one both abandons and obtains the Sattvasabhāga; one abandons but cannot obtain Pṛthagjana-tva. Sabhāga is not Rūpa (form), how is it known? Because there is a use that can produce, and there is no separate category of things, because seeing that result, one knows there is that cause. Just like seeing the result obtained from present Karma, one knows there was Karma done in a previous life. Also, it is because the Yogin (practitioner) presently knows it through realization. Why is it not allowed to have Acitta (non-sentient) Sabhāga? One should not question in this way, there is a great fault. You also allow beings in the realms of gods and humans, born from wombs and eggs, why not also allow beings in the realms of mangoes and green beans? Moreover, the Buddha, the World-Honored One, has never said so, so one should contemplate and choose. Why did the World-Honored One only speak of Sabhāga in relation to sentient beings?
非於草等。復云何知。如是同分。別有實物。且我于中作如是解。由彼草等無有展轉業用樂欲互相似故。于彼不說別有同分。又必因有情。草等方生故。唯于有情。說有同分。又因先業及現勤勇。此法得生。于彼草等。二事皆無。故無同分。即由此事。證有實物。又木素漆雕畫等像。及彼真形。雖有色形展轉相似。而言一實。由此非唯見彼相似。即言是實。要于相似差別物類。方起實言。故知實有此差別法。此實言說。由此法生。又前說故。前說云何。謂見身形。是更相似。業所引果。諸根業用。及飲食等。有差別故。是諸同分。展轉差別。如何于彼。更無同分。而起無別覺施設耶。由諸同分是同類事等因性故。即為同類展轉相似覺施設因。如眼耳等由大種造。方成色性。大種雖無餘大種造。而色性成。此應顯成勝論所執總同句義同異句義。若勝論執。此二句義。其體非一。剎那無常。無所依止。展轉差別。設令同彼。亦無多過。非勝論者執眼等根能行色等。即令釋子舍如是見。別作余解。故彼所難。是朋黨言。求正理人。不應收采。已辯同分。無想者何。頌曰。
無想無想中 心心所法滅 異熟居廣果
論曰。若生無想有情天中。有法能令心心所滅。名為無想。是實有物。能遮未來心心所法。令暫不
起。如堰江河。此法一向是無想定所感異熟。由彼無想有情天中。無想及色。唯是無想定所感異熟故。此定無力引眾同分及與命根。以眾同分及與命根唯是有心。第四靜慮所感果故。彼處余蘊。是共異熟。以生無想有情天中。入無想前。出無想后。多時有心故。然無心位。極長遠故。總名無想天。無想有情。居在何處。居在廣果。謂廣果天中。有高勝處如中間靜慮。名無想天。彼以宿業。等無間緣。為任持食。謂由宿業。引眾同分及命根等。由續生心及無間入無想果心。牽引資助。故彼亦有過去觸等。為任持食。無心位中。唯有過去觸等為食。現在都無。有心位中。二種俱有。彼諸有情。由想起故。從彼處沒。沒已決定生於欲界。非余處所。先修定行。所感壽量。勢力盡故。于彼不能更修定故。如箭射空力盡便墮。若諸有情。應生彼處。必有欲界順后受業。如應生彼北俱盧洲。必定應有生天之業。已辯無想。二定者何。謂無想定。及滅盡定。初無想定。其相云何。頌曰。
如是無想定 后靜慮求脫 善唯順生受 非聖得一世
論曰。如前所說。有法能令心心所滅。名為無想。如是復有別法。能令心心所滅。名無想定。說如是聲。唯顯此定滅心心所與無想同。由正成辦。或極成辦。故名為定。有餘師說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：開始討論。就像堤壩攔截江河一樣。這種法門一向是由無想定所感得的異熟果報。因為在那些無想有情天中，只有無想和色蘊，是無想定所感得的異熟果報。因此，這個禪定沒有力量引生眾同分（所有生命共有的特性）以及命根（維持生命的能力）。因為眾同分和命根只有有心識的第四禪才能感得果報。在那個地方，其餘的蘊（受、想、行、識）是共同的異熟果報。因為在生到無想有情天之前，以及從無想有情天出來之後，有很多時候是有心識的。然而，由於無心識的狀態極其長遠，所以總的來說叫做無想天。無想有情居住在哪裡呢？居住在廣果天。在廣果天中，有高勝的地方，就像中間禪一樣，叫做無想天。他們以宿世的業力，作為等無間緣（緊接著的因緣），作為維持生命的食物。也就是說，由宿世的業力，牽引眾同分和命根等，由續生的心識以及緊接著進入無想果的心識，牽引和資助。所以他們也有過去的觸等，作為維持生命的食物。在無心識的狀態中，只有過去的觸等作為食物，現在的都沒有。在有心識的狀態中，兩種都有。那些有情，由於生起想念的緣故，從那個地方死亡。死後必定生到欲界，而不是其他地方。因為先前修習禪定所感得的壽命，勢力已經用盡，所以在那裡不能再修習禪定。就像箭射向天空，力量用盡就墜落下來。如果有些有情，應該生到那個地方，必定有欲界的順后受業（未來受報的業力）。就像應該生到北俱盧洲，必定應該有生天的業力。已經辨析了無想。什麼是二定呢？就是無想定和滅盡定。首先說無想定，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌詞說： 『如是無想定，后靜慮求脫，善唯順生受，非聖得一世。』 論述說：就像前面所說的，有法能夠讓心和心所滅除，叫做無想。像這樣，又有別的方法，能夠讓心和心所滅除，叫做無想定。說『如是』的聲音，只是顯示這個禪定滅除心和心所，與無想相同。由於正確地成就，或者極其地成就，所以叫做定。有其他論師說。
【English Translation】 English version: Beginning the discussion. It's like a dam blocking a river. This Dharma always arises from the Vipaka (result of actions) felt by those in the Asanjnika (no-thought realm). Because in those Asanjnika heavens, there is only no-thought and Rupa (form), which are the Vipaka felt by those in the Asanjnika Samapatti (no-thought concentration). Therefore, this Samadhi (concentration) has no power to generate Nikayasabhaga (commonality of beings) and Jivitindriya (life force). Because Nikayasabhaga and Jivitindriya can only be felt as a result of the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption) with mind. In that place, the remaining Skandhas (aggregates) are shared Vipaka. Because before being born into the Asanjnika heaven, and after emerging from the Asanjnika state, there are many times when there is mind. However, because the state of no-mind is extremely long, it is generally called the Asanjnika heaven. Where do the Asanjnika beings reside? They reside in the Vrihatphala (great fruit) heaven. In the Vrihatphala heaven, there are higher places, like the intermediate Dhyana, called the Asanjnika heaven. They use the Karma (action) from past lives as the Samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition), as food to sustain life. That is to say, the Karma from past lives draws Nikayasabhaga and Jivitindriya, etc., and the mind of rebirth and the mind of entering the Asanjnika result immediately afterwards, draw and assist. Therefore, they also have past Sparsha (contact), etc., as food to sustain life. In the state of no-mind, only past Sparsha, etc., serve as food; there is none in the present. In the state of mind, both are present. Those beings, due to the arising of thoughts, die from that place. After death, they are certain to be born into the Kamadhatu (desire realm), and not other places. Because the lifespan felt by previously practicing Samadhi has exhausted its power, they cannot practice Samadhi there anymore. It's like an arrow shot into the sky, falling down when its power is exhausted. If some beings are destined to be born in that place, they must have Karma in the Kamadhatu that will be felt later. Just like being born in Uttarakuru (northern continent), there must be Karma for being born in heaven. Asanjnika has been discussed. What are the two Samapattis (attainments)? They are Asanjnika Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti (cessation attainment). First, what is the nature of Asanjnika Samapatti? The verse says: 『Thus is Asanjnika Samapatti, seeking liberation in the later Dhyana, good only for experiencing results in the next life, non-saints attain it for one lifetime.』 The treatise says: Just as mentioned earlier, there is a Dharma that can cause the mind and mental factors to cease, called Asanjnika (no-thought). Like this, there is another method that can cause the mind and mental factors to cease, called Asanjnika Samapatti. Saying 『thus』 only shows that this Samapatti's cessation of mind and mental factors is the same as Asanjnika. Because it is correctly accomplished, or extremely accomplished, it is called Samapatti. Other teachers say.
。如理等行故名為定。令心大種平等行故。無想者定。或定無想。名無想定。由厭壞想。生此定故。非諸異生能厭壞受。由耽著受而入定故。此定在何地。謂在後靜慮即在第四靜慮非余。此不應說。所以者何。此定能感無想異熟。已說無想居廣果天。當說廣果。在後靜慮。豈于餘地而修彼因。此責不然曾無說故。未曾有處說無想定為無想因。豈不前頌說無想為異熟。于彼釋中。說為無想定果。此亦不然。曾未有頌作如是說。今說乃成。何故此定。名異生定。為求解脫修此定故。彼執無想是真解脫。執無想定為出離道。為證無想而修此定。一切聖者。不執有漏為真解脫及真出離。故說此定名異生定。前說無想。是異熟故。無記性攝。不說自成。今無想定。一向是善。豈不此是異熟因故。善性所攝不說自成。此于無想有情天中。為因能招五蘊異熟。不爾頌中猶未說故。又染無記。誰復能遮。若爾此中應言純善。不爾離言見義有故。此應準前異生性釋。或唯言善。已顯非余。此定既是異熟因性。為順何受。唯順生受非順現后及不定受。一類諸師。作此定執。理順生受及不定受。所以者何。成此定者。亦容得入正性離生。入已必無現起此定。由約現行。說無想定名異生定。非約成就。又許此定通是此法外法異生所得非聖。以諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如理如法地修行，所以稱為『定』。使心和大種平等執行的緣故。『無想者定』，或者說『定無想』，名為『無想定』（Asamjnasamapatti，一種禪定狀態）。因為厭惡和破壞『想』（samjna，認知）而生起這種禪定。不是所有的凡夫俗子都能厭惡和破壞『受』（vedana，感受），因為他們執著于『受』而進入禪定。這種禪定在哪個『地』（bhumi，境界）呢？在後面的『靜慮』（dhyana，禪那），也就是在第四『靜慮』，而不是其他的。這不應該這樣說。為什麼呢？因為這種禪定能夠感得『無想異熟』（asamjni-vipaka，無想的果報）。已經說過『無想』住在『廣果天』（Brhatphala，色界天之一）。將要說『廣果』在後面的『靜慮』。難道會在其他的『地』修習它的因嗎？這種責難是不對的，因為從來沒有這樣說過。從來沒有在任何地方說過『無想定』是『無想』的因。難道不是前面的偈頌說『無想』是『異熟』嗎？在那裡的解釋中，說是『無想定』的果。這也不對。從來沒有偈頌這樣說。現在這樣說才成立。為什麼這種禪定，名為『異生定』（prthagjana-samapatti，凡夫的禪定）呢？因為爲了求解脫而修習這種禪定。他們執著『無想』是真正的解脫，執著『無想定』是出離的道路。爲了證得『無想』而修習這種禪定。一切聖者，不執著有漏法是真正的解脫和真正的出離。所以說這種禪定名為『異生定』。前面說『無想』，是『異熟』的緣故，屬於『無記性』（avyakrta，非善非惡的性質）所攝。不說自成。現在『無想定』，一向是善的。難道不是這是『異熟』的因的緣故，屬於『善性』（kusala，善的性質）所攝，不說自成嗎？這種禪定在『無想有情天』（Asamjnisattva，色界天之一）中，作為因能夠招感五蘊的『異熟』。不是這樣的，因為偈頌中還沒有這樣說。而且染污和『無記』，誰又能阻止呢？如果這樣，這裡應該說純粹是善的。不是這樣的，因為離開言語也能見到意義。這裡應該參照前面關於『異生性』的解釋。或者只說『善』，已經顯示不是其他的了。這種禪定既然是『異熟』的因的性質，是順應哪種『受』（vedana，感受）呢？僅僅是順應『生受』（utpatti-vedana，產生時的感受），不是順應『現受』（drsta-vedana，當下的感受）、『后受』（aparapariya-vedana，未來的感受）以及『不定受』（aniyata-vedana，不確定的感受）。一類論師，這樣執著這種禪定。道理上是順應『生受』和『不定受』。為什麼呢？成就這種禪定的人，也可能進入『正性離生』（niyata-krama，確定解脫的階位）。進入之後必定不會再現起這種禪定。因為是就現行來說，『無想定』名為『異生定』，不是就成就來說。又允許這種禪定通通是此法、外法、異生所能得到的，而不是聖者所能得到的。因為諸位 聖者
【English Translation】 English version Rightly and properly practicing is called 'Samadhi' (定, concentration). It is because it makes the mind and the great elements operate equally. 'Asamjnika-samapatti' (無想定, cessation of perception), or 'Samadhi without perception,' is called 'Asamjnasamapatti' (無想定, cessation of perception). It arises from the aversion and destruction of 'Samjna' (想, perception). Not all ordinary beings can detest and destroy 'Vedana' (受, feeling), because they are attached to 'Vedana' and enter Samadhi. In which 'Bhumi' (地, realm) is this Samadhi? It is in the later 'Dhyana' (靜慮, meditation), that is, in the fourth 'Dhyana', not in others. This should not be said. Why? Because this Samadhi can cause 'Asamjni-vipaka' (無想異熟, the result of non-perception). It has been said that 'Asamjni' (無想, non-perception) dwells in 'Brhatphala' (廣果天, one of the heavens in the form realm). It will be said that 'Brhatphala' is in the later 'Dhyana'. How can one cultivate its cause in other 'Bhumi'? This accusation is incorrect, because it has never been said like this. Nowhere has it been said that 'Asamjnasamapatti' is the cause of 'Asamjni'. Didn't the previous verse say that 'Asamjni' is 'Vipaka' (異熟, result)? In the explanation there, it is said to be the result of 'Asamjnasamapatti'. This is also incorrect. No verse has ever said this. It is only established now by saying it. Why is this Samadhi called 'Prthagjana-samapatti' (異生定, Samadhi of ordinary beings)? Because this Samadhi is practiced to seek liberation. They cling to 'Asamjni' as true liberation, and cling to 'Asamjnasamapatti' as the path of escape. This Samadhi is practiced to attain 'Asamjni'. All sages do not cling to contaminated dharmas as true liberation and true escape. Therefore, this Samadhi is called 'Prthagjana-samapatti'. It was said earlier that 'Asamjni' is 'Vipaka', so it belongs to 'Avyakrta' (無記性, indeterminate nature). It is not said to be self-established. Now 'Asamjnasamapatti' is always good. Isn't it because this is the cause of 'Vipaka', it belongs to 'Kusala' (善性, wholesome nature), and it is not said to be self-established? This Samadhi, in 'Asamjnisattva' (無想有情天, one of the heavens in the form realm), as a cause, can attract the 'Vipaka' of the five aggregates. It is not like this, because it has not been said like this in the verse. Moreover, who can prevent defilement and 'Avyakrta'? If so, it should be said here that it is purely good. It is not like this, because meaning can be seen even without words. The previous explanation about 'Prthagjana-nature' should be referred to here. Or only saying 'good' already shows that it is not other things. Since this Samadhi is the nature of the cause of 'Vipaka', which 'Vedana' (受, feeling) does it conform to? It only conforms to 'Utpatti-vedana' (生受, feeling at the time of arising), not to 'Drsta-vedana' (現受, present feeling), 'Aparapariya-vedana' (后受, future feeling), and 'Aniyata-vedana' (不定受, indeterminate feeling). A class of teachers clings to this Samadhi in this way. In principle, it conforms to 'Utpatti-vedana' and 'Aniyata-vedana'. Why? Those who achieve this Samadhi may also enter 'Niyata-krama' (正性離生, the stage of definite liberation). After entering, they will definitely not manifest this Samadhi again. Because it is said in terms of present conduct that 'Asamjnasamapatti' is called 'Prthagjana-samapatti', not in terms of achievement. It is also allowed that this Samadhi is universally attainable by those of this Dharma, external Dharma, and ordinary beings, but not by sages. Because all sages
聖者于無想定如見深坑不樂入故。頌中已說求脫言故。即顯此定唯屬異生。復言非聖。便為無用。此初得時。為得幾世。此于諸位中。如別解脫戒。唸唸別得。未曾得故。第一念時。非得過去。以無心故。不修未來。故初得時。唯得一世。謂得現在。第二念等。乃至未出。亦成過去。出已乃至未舍已來。唯成過去。如天眼耳。無未來修。唯加行得。非離染得。次滅盡定。其相云何。頌曰。
滅盡定亦然 為靜住有頂 善二受不定 聖由加行得 成佛得非前 三十四念故
論曰。如前無想定。滅盡定亦然。謂如已離第三靜慮貪者。有法能令心心所滅。名無想定。如是已離無所有處貪者。有法能令心心所滅。名滅盡定。如是二定差別相者。前無想定。為求解脫厭壞於想。以出離想作意為先。而得證入。今滅盡定。為求靜住厭壞散動。以止息想作意為先。而得證入。前無想定。在色界邊地。今滅盡定。在無色邊地。以在非想非非想處所受生身。是最上業。所牽引故。說名有頂。或有邊際。故名有頂。如樹邊際說名樹頂。唯此地中。有滅盡定。何緣下地無此定耶。厭背一切心及邊際心斷。方能得此勝解脫故。謂由二緣。立此解脫。一者厭背一切心故。二者邊際心暫斷故。若於下地有此定者。便非厭背一切
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：聖者因為見到無想定如同深坑，所以不樂於進入。頌文中已經說了『求脫』，因此顯示此定僅僅屬於凡夫（異生）。如果再說『非聖』，就顯得沒有用處。那麼，初次獲得無想定的時候，能獲得幾世（的時間）呢？此定在各種位次中，如同別解脫戒一樣，唸唸之間分別獲得，因為之前從未獲得過。第一念的時候，不能獲得過去世，因為沒有心識的緣故；也不修未來世。所以，初次獲得的時候，只能獲得一世，也就是獲得現在世。第二念等，乃至沒有出定，也成為過去世。出定之後，乃至沒有捨棄此定之前，都成為過去世，如同天眼、天耳一樣。無想定沒有未來世的修習，僅僅通過加行而獲得，不是通過遠離染污而獲得。接下來是滅盡定，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『滅盡定亦然，為靜住有頂，善二受不定，聖由加行得，成佛得非前，三十四念故。』 論中說：如同前面的無想定，滅盡定也是這樣。也就是說，如同已經遠離第三禪貪慾的人，有一種法能夠讓心和心所滅盡，叫做無想定。同樣，已經遠離無所有處貪慾的人，有一種法能夠讓心和心所滅盡，叫做滅盡定。這兩種定的差別在於：無想定是爲了求解脫，厭惡和破壞想念，以出離想念作為先導，從而證入。而滅盡定是爲了尋求寂靜安住，厭惡和破壞散亂，以止息想念作為先導，從而證入。無想定在**邊地，滅盡定在無色邊地。因為在非想非非想處所受生的身體，是最上等的業力所牽引的緣故，所以叫做有頂。或者說，有邊際，所以叫做有頂，如同樹的邊際叫做樹頂一樣。只有在這個地界中，才有滅盡定。為什麼地獄沒有這種定呢？因為厭背一切心以及邊際心斷，才能獲得這種殊勝的解脫。也就是說，通過兩種因緣，才能成立這種解脫：一是厭背一切心，二是邊際心暫時斷滅。如果在地獄有這種定，就不是厭背一切了。
【English Translation】 English version: The noble ones do not delight in entering the state of 'no-perception samadhi' (Wuxiangding 無想定) because they see it as a deep pit. The verse already mentions 'seeking liberation,' thus revealing that this samadhi belongs only to ordinary beings (Yisheng 異生). Saying 'not noble' would be useless. When one initially attains this samadhi, how many lifetimes (of time) are attained? This samadhi, in various stages, is attained separately in each moment, like the Pratimoksha vows (Biejietuo jie 別解脫戒), because it has never been attained before. In the first moment, the past cannot be attained because there is no mind; nor is the future cultivated. Therefore, when initially attained, only one lifetime is attained, which is the present. The second moment, and so on, until one exits the samadhi, also becomes the past. After exiting the samadhi, until one abandons it, it all becomes the past, like the divine eye (Tianyan 天眼) and divine ear (Tianer 天耳). There is no cultivation of the future in 'no-perception samadhi'; it is attained only through effort (Jiaxing 加行), not through detachment from defilements. Next is the 'cessation samadhi' (Miejinding 滅盡定). What is its characteristic? The verse says: 'Cessation samadhi is also like that, for quiet dwelling at the peak (Youding 有頂), wholesome two feelings uncertain, noble ones attain through effort, attaining Buddhahood not before, thirty-four moments hence.' The treatise says: Like the 'no-perception samadhi' mentioned earlier, 'cessation samadhi' is also like that. That is, just as one who has already detached from desire for the third dhyana (third meditation stage) has a dharma that can cause the mind and mental factors to cease, called 'no-perception samadhi,' so too, one who has already detached from desire for the realm of nothingness (Wusuoyouchu 無所有處) has a dharma that can cause the mind and mental factors to cease, called 'cessation samadhi.' The difference between these two samadhis is that 'no-perception samadhi' is for seeking liberation, disliking and destroying thoughts, taking the intention of abandoning thoughts as a precursor, and thereby attaining entry. 'Cessation samadhi,' on the other hand, is for seeking quiet dwelling, disliking and destroying distractions, taking the intention of stopping thoughts as a precursor, and thereby attaining entry. 'No-perception samadhi' is in the **borderland, while 'cessation samadhi' is in the formless realm (Wuse bian di 無色邊地). Because the body received in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (Feixiang feifeixiang chu 非想非非想處) is drawn by the most supreme karma, it is called the 'peak' (Youding 有頂). Or, it has a boundary, so it is called the 'peak,' just as the edge of a tree is called the treetop. Only in this realm is there 'cessation samadhi.' Why is there no such samadhi in the lower realms? Because one can only attain this supreme liberation by disliking all minds and cutting off the boundary mind. That is, this liberation is established through two conditions: first, disliking all minds; second, the boundary mind temporarily ceasing. If there were such a samadhi in the lower realms, it would not be disliking all minds.
種心。以未能厭上地心故。亦不名為邊際心斷。以上地心猶未斷故。應名厭背少分諸心。亦復應名中際心斷。於三性中。此滅盡定。同前唯善。非染無記。非諸聖者厭怖散動取染無記為寂靜住。前無想定能順生受及不定受。今滅盡定。通順生后及不定受。謂約異熟。有順生受。或順后受。及不定受。或全不受謂若下地起此定已。不生上地便般涅槃。此滅盡定。能招有頂四蘊異熟。前無想定。唯異生得。此滅盡定。唯聖者得。非諸異生能起滅定。彼有自地。起滅定障。猶未斷故。未超有頂見所斷惑于起滅定畢竟無能。非諸異生能超有頂見所斷惑。故唯聖者。得滅盡定。有餘師說。由諸異生怖斷滅故。聖者於此現法涅槃勝解入故。唯聖者得。非諸異生彼說非理。于無想定。與此同故。彼此心斷。涅槃勝解。無差別故。此中有說。第四靜慮心心所粗。猶有所依。故不怖斷。彼亦非理。修無想定。為滅心故。為求解脫起出離想。修無想定。怖畏滅心。不應正理。既出離想。修無想定。亦應涅槃勝解而入是故彼說。非為正因。一切聖者。得有頂時。皆得如斯滅盡定不。應言不得。由此定非離染得故。由何而得。由加行得。要由加行。方證得故。如無想定。初證得時。唯得現在。不得過去。不修未來。要由心力。方能修故。第二念
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『種心』（Zhong Xin）：因為未能厭離上地之心，所以也不能稱為『邊際心斷』。因為上地之心尚未斷除，所以應該稱為厭背少分之心，也應該稱為『中際心斷』。在三種性質中，這種滅盡定，和前面一樣，只有善性，不是染污或無記。聖者不會因為厭惡散亂而取染污或無記為寂靜的住所。之前的無想定能順生受和不定受，現在的滅盡定，能通順生、順后和不定受。這是就異熟果報而言。有順生受，或順后受，以及不定受，或者完全不受，例如從下地起身入此定后，不生到上地就直接般涅槃。這種滅盡定，能招感有頂天的四蘊異熟果報。之前的無想定，只有凡夫能得到，這種滅盡定，只有聖者能得到。因為凡夫不能生起滅盡定，他們有自身所處的境界，生起滅盡定的障礙還沒有斷除。因為還沒有超越有頂天的見所斷惑，所以對於生起滅盡定，畢竟沒有能力。因為凡夫不能超越有頂天的見所斷惑，所以只有聖者才能得到滅盡定。 有其他老師說，因為凡夫害怕斷滅，而聖者對於這種現世涅槃有殊勝的理解而進入，所以只有聖者才能得到，凡夫不能得到。他們的說法沒有道理，因為無想定和滅盡定一樣，對於斷除心識和涅槃的理解沒有差別。這裡有人說，第四禪的心和心所比較粗糙，還有所依賴，所以不害怕斷滅。這種說法也沒有道理，因為修無想定是爲了滅除心識，爲了求解脫而生起出離之想。如果修無想定的人害怕滅除心識，是不合道理的。既然生起出離之想而修無想定，也應該有涅槃的殊勝理解而進入。所以他們的說法不是正確的理由。所有的聖者，在得到有頂天的時候，都能得到這種滅盡定嗎？應該說不能得到。因為這種定不是通過離染而得到的，而是通過加行而得到的。一定要通過加行，才能證得。就像無想定，初次證得的時候，只能得到現在的，不能得到過去的，不修習未來的，一定要通過心力，才能修習。第二念……
【English Translation】 English version 'Zhong Xin' (Seed Mind): Because of not being able to be satiated with the minds of the higher realms, it is also not called 'cessation of the boundary mind'. Because the minds of the higher realms have not yet been cut off, it should be called aversion to a small portion of minds, and it should also be called 'cessation of the intermediate mind'. Among the three natures, this extinction attainment, like the previous one, is only wholesome, not defiled or neutral. The saints do not take defiled or neutral states as peaceful abodes because they are disgusted with distraction. The previous non-perception attainment can accord with the reception of life and indefinite reception, and the present extinction attainment can accord with the reception of life, subsequent reception, and indefinite reception. This is in terms of the result of different maturation. There is reception of life, or subsequent reception, and indefinite reception, or no reception at all, such as rising from a lower realm into this attainment and directly entering Parinirvana without being born into a higher realm. This extinction attainment can attract the four aggregates of the peak of existence as the result of different maturation. The previous non-perception attainment can only be attained by ordinary beings, and this extinction attainment can only be attained by saints. Because ordinary beings cannot generate extinction attainment, they have their own realm, and the obstacles to generating extinction attainment have not yet been cut off. Because they have not transcended the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing in the peak of existence, they have no ability to generate extinction attainment at all. Because ordinary beings cannot transcend the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing in the peak of existence, only saints can attain extinction attainment. Other teachers say that because ordinary beings fear annihilation, and saints enter into this present-life Nirvana with superior understanding, only saints can attain it, and ordinary beings cannot. Their statement is unreasonable, because non-perception attainment is the same as extinction attainment, and there is no difference in the understanding of cutting off consciousness and Nirvana. Some here say that the mind and mental factors of the fourth dhyana are relatively coarse and still have something to rely on, so they are not afraid of annihilation. This statement is also unreasonable, because cultivating non-perception attainment is to extinguish consciousness, and to generate the thought of renunciation in order to seek liberation. If those who cultivate non-perception attainment are afraid of extinguishing consciousness, it is unreasonable. Since they generate the thought of renunciation and cultivate non-perception attainment, they should also enter with a superior understanding of Nirvana. Therefore, their statement is not a correct reason. Do all saints, when they attain the peak of existence, attain this extinction attainment? It should be said that they cannot. Because this attainment is not attained through detachment from defilement, but through effort. It must be attained through effort. Just like non-perception attainment, when it is first attained, it can only be attained in the present, not in the past, and not cultivated in the future. It must be cultivated through mental power. The second thought...
等。乃至未舍。亦成過去。世尊亦以加行得耶。不爾。云何。成佛時得。彼謂世尊盡智時得。豈不盡智于成佛時亦不名得。況滅盡定。以諸菩薩住金剛喻三摩地時。名得盡智。得體生時。名為得故。于成佛時。應說盡智。不由加行而現在前。暫起欲樂現在前時。一切圓德。隨樂起故。非佛身中所有功德成佛時得。如何可說佛盡智時得滅盡定。由菩薩時永離一切煩惱染故。令佛身中功德得起。故說如來所有功德。皆離染得。故彼所言。亦有過失。隨宜為彼而通釋者。謂于近事。而說遠聲。或金剛喻三摩地時。必成佛故。亦名成佛。無間剎那。定成佛故。且置斯事。世尊曾未起滅盡定。得盡智時如何得成。最上圓滿俱分解脫。永離定障故。舍不成就故。于起滅定得自在故。如已起者成俱解脫。西方師說。菩薩學位。先起此定。后得菩提。迦濕彌羅國毗婆沙師說。非前起滅定後方生盡智。何因此國知前未起。何為不責西方起因。且我迦濕彌羅國。說三十四念得菩提故。謂諸菩薩。決定先於無所有處。已得離貪。方入見諦。不復須斷下地煩惱。三十四念。得大菩提。諦現觀中。有十六念。離有頂貪。有十八念。謂斷有頂九品煩惱。有九無間九解脫道。如是十八。足前十六。成三十四。於此中間。無容得起不同類心。故於前位。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 等，乃至未舍，亦成過去。世尊也是通過加行才得到的嗎？不是的。那是如何得到的呢？成佛時得到的。他們認為世尊是在獲得盡智時得到的。難道盡智在成佛時也不稱為『得』嗎？更何況是滅盡定。因為諸位菩薩在住于金剛喻三摩地時，才稱為『得』到盡智。在獲得自體產生時，才稱為『得』到。所以在成佛時，應該說盡智不由加行而自然顯現。當短暫的欲樂顯現時，一切圓滿的功德都隨著快樂而生起。並非佛身中所有的功德都是在成佛時才得到的。怎麼能說佛在獲得盡智時才得到滅盡定呢？由於菩薩在過去已經永遠離開了所有的煩惱染污，才使得佛身中的功德得以生起。所以說如來所有的功德，都是遠離染污而得到的。所以他們的說法，也是有錯誤的。爲了方便他們理解而作出的解釋是，對於近的事情，而說了遠的事情。或者說，在金剛喻三摩地時，必定會成佛，所以也稱為成佛。因為在無間剎那，必定會成佛。暫且放下這件事。世尊從未生起過滅盡定，在獲得盡智時如何能夠成就最上圓滿的俱分解脫？因為永遠離開了定的障礙，因為捨棄了不成就的狀態，因為對於生起滅定獲得了自在。如同已經生起滅盡定的人，成就了俱解脫。西方師說，菩薩在修學階段，先證得此定，然後獲得菩提。迦濕彌羅國的毗婆沙師說，不是先證得滅盡定，然後才生起盡智。憑什麼這個國家知道之前沒有生起滅盡定？為什麼不責問西方生起的原因？而且我們迦濕彌羅國，說三十四念就能獲得菩提。意思是說，諸位菩薩，必定先在無所有處，已經獲得了離貪，才進入見諦。不再需要斷除下地的煩惱。三十四念，就能獲得大菩提。在諦現觀中，有十六念是離開有頂貪的，有十八念是斷除有頂的九品煩惱的，有九個無間道和九個解脫道。這樣十八念，加上前面的十六念，就成了三十四念。在這中間，沒有可能生起不同類的心。所以在前面的階段，
【English Translation】 English version Etc., even until not abandoned, it also becomes past. Did the World-Honored One also attain it through effort (加行, jiāxíng, effort, practice)? No. How then? He attained it at the time of Buddhahood. They claim that the World-Honored One attained it at the time of obtaining Exhaustive Knowledge (盡智, jìnzhì, Exhaustive Knowledge). But isn't Exhaustive Knowledge not called 'attained' even at the time of Buddhahood? How much more so for Cessation Attainment (滅盡定, mièjìndìng, Cessation Attainment). Because when Bodhisattvas abide in the Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛喻三摩地, jīngāng yù sānmódì, Vajra-like Samadhi), it is called 'attaining' Exhaustive Knowledge. When the entity of attainment arises, it is called 'attaining.' Therefore, at the time of Buddhahood, it should be said that Exhaustive Knowledge manifests without effort. When momentary desire and pleasure manifest, all perfect virtues arise along with the pleasure. Not all merits in the Buddha's body are attained at the time of Buddhahood. How can it be said that the Buddha attained Cessation Attainment at the time of obtaining Exhaustive Knowledge? Because Bodhisattvas have permanently abandoned all defilements of afflictions in the past, it allows the merits in the Buddha's body to arise. Therefore, it is said that all the merits of the Tathagata are attained by being free from defilements. Therefore, their statement also has faults. The explanation given for their convenience is that they spoke of distant things in relation to near things. Or, at the time of the Vajra-like Samadhi, Buddhahood is certain to be attained, so it is also called Buddhahood. Because Buddhahood is certain to be attained in the uninterrupted moment. Let's put this matter aside for now. The World-Honored One has never arisen in Cessation Attainment, so how could he attain the most supreme and perfect Ubhaya-vimoksha (俱分解脫, jùfēn jiětuō, Ubhaya-vimoksha) when obtaining Exhaustive Knowledge? Because he has permanently abandoned the obstacles of Samadhi, because he has abandoned the state of non-accomplishment, because he has gained freedom over arising and ceasing Samadhi. Like one who has already arisen in Cessation Attainment, he attains Ubhaya-vimoksha. The Western teachers say that in the Bodhisattva's stage of learning, one first arises in this Samadhi and then attains Bodhi. The Vaibhashika teachers of Kashmir say that Exhaustive Knowledge does not arise after first arising in Cessation Attainment. How does this country know that Cessation Attainment did not arise before? Why not question the cause of arising in the West? Moreover, we in Kashmir say that Bodhi is attained in thirty-four moments. It means that the Bodhisattvas must first have attained freedom from greed in the Realm of Nothingness (無所有處, wúsuǒyǒuchù, Realm of Nothingness) before entering the Vision of Truth (見諦, jiàndì, Vision of Truth). They no longer need to cut off the afflictions of the lower realms. In thirty-four moments, they attain Great Bodhi. In the Vision of Truth, there are sixteen moments of leaving the greed of the Peak of Existence (有頂, yǒudǐng, Peak of Existence), and there are eighteen moments of cutting off the nine grades of afflictions of the Peak of Existence, with nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation. Thus, these eighteen moments, added to the previous sixteen moments, make thirty-four moments. In between these moments, there is no possibility of arising a mind of a different kind. Therefore, in the previous stage,
決定無容起滅盡定。若於前位。起滅盡定。便越期心。然諸菩薩。決定不越要期心故。理實菩薩。不越期心。然非不越無漏聖道。若爾期心。如何不越。謂我未得諸漏永盡。終不解斯結加趺坐。決定不越如是期心。唯於一坐時諸事究竟故。豈不由斯已成違越。欲起無漏聖道期心。如何菩薩。為盡諸漏。修未曾得見修二道。欲拔有頂見斷惑根。及除有頂修惑怨敵。立誓要期結加趺坐。事未究竟。而於其中。舍所要期無漏治道貴重無始。能為誑惑世間定類。為獲共有易得滅定。而致稽留。如是善成三十四念得菩提故。為非前因。如契經說。出滅定時。當觸三觸。謂不動觸。無所有觸。及無相觸。何者云何觸此三觸。有說。滅定起心相應。有空無愿無相三觸。如其次第。出滅定時。觸於三觸。有餘師說。識處空處心相應觸。名不動觸此二純作識空想故。無所有處心相應觸。名無所有觸。無先所有故。非想非非想處心相應觸。名無相觸。想無想相。不分明故即由此故。說四無色名有想定。從滅定起心通有漏無漏。滅定起時。或逆次第入諸等至。或逆超越入諸等至。容有如是起滅定心現在前故。復有餘師。作如是說。唯約無漏。無所有處緣涅槃心。起滅定時。言觸三觸。以無漏故。名為不動。無所有處地所攝故。名無所有緣涅槃
故。名為無相。雖已說二定有多同異相。而於其中復有同異。頌曰。
二定依欲色 滅定初人中
論曰。言二定者。謂無想定。及滅盡定。此二俱依欲色二界。而得現起。然於此中。有說。唯在下三靜慮。入無想定。非在第四。勿因與果極相鄰逼。有說。亦在第四靜慮。入無想定。除無想天。以生彼天受彼果故。有餘師說。唯在欲界。入無想定。非在色界。彼違論文。謂本論言。或有是色有。此有非五行。謂色廛有情。或生有想天。住不同類心。若入無想定。若入滅盡定。或生無想天。已得入無想。是謂是色有。此有非五行。由此證知。如是二定。俱依欲色而得現起。是名同相。言異相者。謂無想定。欲色二界。皆得初起。滅定初起。唯在人中。謂滅盡定。唯在人中。得初修起。唯人中有說者釋者。及有強盛。加行力故。有在人中。初修得已。由退為先。方生色界。依色界身。后復修起。非在無色能入滅定。無所依故。命根必依色心而轉。若在無色入滅定者。色心俱無命根應斷。諸蘊展轉相依而住。故無有情唯具一蘊。又心心所。不相離故。亦無有情唯具三蘊。何因故知。滅定有退。準鄔陀夷契經義故。經言具壽。有諸苾芻。先於此處。具凈尸羅。具三摩地。具般羅若。能數入出滅受想定。斯有是處。應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，（無想定和滅盡定）被稱為『無相』。雖然已經說了這兩種禪定有許多相同和不同的方面，但在這些方面中仍然存在相同和不同之處。頌文說： 『二定依欲色，滅定初人中』 論述：所說的『二定』，指的是無想定和滅盡定。這兩種禪定都依賴於欲界和色界才能生起和顯現。然而，對此存在不同的說法。有人說，只能在下三禪（初禪、二禪、三禪）中進入無想定，不能在第四禪中進入，因為原因和結果過於接近。也有人說，也可以在第四禪中進入無想定，但不能在無想天中進入，因為（眾生）已經生到那個天界，承受那個天界的果報。還有其他老師說，只能在欲界中進入無想定，不能在色界中進入。他們的說法違背了經文。因為本論中說：『或者有是色界有情，這種有情不是五蘊行。』指的是色界的有情，或者生到有想天，住在不同種類的心中，如果進入無想定，或者進入滅盡定，或者生到無想天，已經證得了進入無想定的能力。這就是所謂的『是色界有情，這種有情不是五蘊行』。由此可以證明，這兩種禪定都依賴於欲界和色界才能生起和顯現。這是它們相同的地方。不同的地方在於，無想定在欲界和色界都可以初次生起，而滅盡定只能在人中初次生起。也就是說，滅盡定只能在人中開始修習。只有人中有說法者、解釋者，以及有強大而精進的修行力量。有些人先在人中修得滅盡定，然後因為退失而回到之前的狀態，再生到色界，依靠色界的身體，之後再次修習。無色界不能進入滅盡定，因為沒有所依賴的基礎。命根必須依賴色和心才能運轉。如果在無色界進入滅盡定，色和心都沒有了，命根應該斷絕。諸蘊相互依賴而存在，所以沒有有情只有一蘊。而且，心和心所法不會分離，所以也沒有有情只有三蘊。因為什麼原因知道滅盡定會退失呢？根據鄔陀夷契經的意義。經中說，具壽，有些比丘，先前在這裡，具足清凈的戒律，具足三摩地，具足般若，能夠多次進入和出離滅受想定，這是有可能的。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, (the No-Thought Concentration and the Cessation Concentration) are called 'No-Sign'. Although it has been said that these two concentrations have many similarities and differences, there are still similarities and differences within these aspects. The verse says: 'The two concentrations rely on the Desire and Form realms; the Cessation Concentration initially arises in the human realm.' Discussion: The 'two concentrations' refer to the No-Thought Concentration (Asamjnasamadhi) and the Cessation Concentration (Nirodhasamadhi). Both of these rely on the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu) and the Form Realm (Rupadhatu) to arise and manifest. However, there are different views on this. Some say that one can only enter the No-Thought Concentration in the lower three Dhyanas (first, second, and third Dhyanas), but not in the fourth Dhyana, because the cause and effect are too close. Others say that one can also enter the No-Thought Concentration in the fourth Dhyana, but not in the Heaven of No-Thought (Asamjnatta), because (beings) have already been born in that heaven and are experiencing the results of that heaven. Still other teachers say that one can only enter the No-Thought Concentration in the Desire Realm, but not in the Form Realm. Their view contradicts the scriptures. Because the treatise says: 'Or there are beings in the Form Realm, these beings are not the five aggregates.' This refers to beings in the Form Realm, or those born in the Heaven of Thought, dwelling in different kinds of minds, if they enter the No-Thought Concentration, or enter the Cessation Concentration, or are born in the Heaven of No-Thought, having already attained the ability to enter the No-Thought Concentration. This is what is called 'beings in the Form Realm, these beings are not the five aggregates.' From this, it can be proven that both of these concentrations rely on the Desire Realm and the Form Realm to arise and manifest. This is their similarity. The difference is that the No-Thought Concentration can initially arise in both the Desire Realm and the Form Realm, while the Cessation Concentration can only initially arise in the human realm. That is, the Cessation Concentration can only be initially practiced in the human realm. Only humans have speakers, interpreters, and strong and diligent practice power. Some people first attain the Cessation Concentration in the human realm, and then return to the previous state due to regression, and are reborn in the Form Realm, relying on the body of the Form Realm, and then practice again. The Formless Realm (Arupadhatu) cannot enter the Cessation Concentration because there is no basis to rely on. The life force must rely on form and mind to function. If one enters the Cessation Concentration in the Formless Realm, there is no form and mind, and the life force should be cut off. The aggregates depend on each other to exist, so there is no being with only one aggregate. Moreover, mind and mental factors do not separate, so there is no being with only three aggregates. For what reason do we know that the Cessation Concentration can regress? According to the meaning of the Udayi Sutra. The sutra says, 'Venerable ones, there are some monks who, previously here, were complete in pure precepts, complete in Samadhi, complete in Prajna, and were able to enter and exit the Cessation of Perception and Feeling many times, this is possible.'
如實知。彼于現法。或臨終位。不能勤修令解滿足。從此身壞超段食天。隨受一受意成天身。于彼生已。複數入出滅受想定。亦有是處。應如實知。此意成天身。佛說是色界滅受想定。唯在有頂。若得此定。必無退者。不應得往色界受生。如是廣釋二定異相。總有六門。謂地加行相續異熟順受初起。有差別故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之五
今應思擇。滅盡定中。總滅一切心心所法。何緣唯說滅受想定。厭逆彼二生此定故。謂想與受。能為見愛雜染所依。故偏厭逆如是二法。多諸過患。如五蘊中已廣分別。故偏厭逆入滅盡定。有餘師言。諸相應法。若生若滅。若得若斷。如是等事。無不同時。然說法者。隨宜方便。以種種門差別而說。阿毗達磨。唯依正理。分別諸法性相義類。判決諸經意趣權實。不令如說定執非余。由此應知。諸經意趣。如說此定識不離身。當知心所亦應不離。如說此定諸意行滅。當知此中心亦應滅。如斯影論。余經亦有。如言諸佛正等菩提。皆不放逸以為根本。余經復告阿難陀言。無上菩提。由精進得。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如實了知。如果有人在現世，或者臨終之際，不能勤奮修行以達到解脫和滿足，那麼他死後會超越段食天（靠食物維持生命的天界），轉生到隨受一受意成天（一種可以通過意念創造事物的天界）。在那裡出生后，他還會多次進入和退出滅受想定（一種通過滅除感受和思想來達到的禪定狀態）。確實存在這樣的情況，應該如實了知。佛陀說，這種意成天的狀態是滅受想定，只存在於有頂天（色界最高的禪定境界）。如果獲得了這種禪定，必定不會退轉，也不應該再受生。以上廣泛解釋了兩種禪定狀態的不同之處，總共有六個方面，即地（基礎）、加行（準備）、相續（持續）、異熟（果報）、順受（順應感受）和初起（開始），因為這些方面存在差別。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十二 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十三 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯差別品第二之五 現在應該思考，在滅盡定（一種完全停止所有心和心所活動的禪定狀態）中，總共滅除了一切心和心所法（心理活動），為什麼只說滅受想定呢？因為厭惡和違逆想（思想）和受（感受）這二者，所以才生起這種禪定。也就是說，想和受，能夠成為見（錯誤的見解）和愛（貪愛）等雜染的依靠。因此特別厭惡和違逆這兩種法，因為它們有很多過患，就像在五蘊（構成個體的五種要素）中已經廣泛分別過的那樣。所以特別厭惡和違逆，從而進入滅盡定。有其他論師說，諸如相應法（同時生起和滅去的法），無論是生起還是滅去，無論是獲得還是斷除，這些事情都是同時發生的。然而說法的人，會根據適當的方便，用各種不同的方式來解說。阿毗達磨（論藏）只依據正確的道理，來分別諸法的性質、相狀、意義和類別，判斷和決定諸經的意趣是權巧還是真實，不讓人像鸚鵡學舌一樣，只執著于字面意思，否定其他的可能性。由此應該知道，諸經的意趣，比如經中說這種禪定中識（意識）不離身，就應該知道心所（心理活動）也不應該離開身體。又比如經中說這種禪定中諸意行（意志活動）滅除，就應該知道這種禪定中心（意識）也應該滅除。像這樣的影子論證，在其他經典中也有。比如經中說諸佛的正等菩提（完全覺悟），都是以不放逸（精進）為根本。其他經典又告訴阿難陀說，無上菩提，是由精進獲得的。
【English Translation】 English version: Know truthfully. If someone in the present life, or at the time of death, cannot diligently cultivate to achieve liberation and satisfaction, then after death, they will transcend the Duan Shi Devas (heavens that are sustained by food) and be reborn in the Sui Shou Yi Shou Yi Cheng Devas (a type of heaven where one can create things through thought). After being born there, they will also repeatedly enter and exit the Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation of perception and feeling). Indeed, there is such a case, and it should be known truthfully. The Buddha said that this state of Yi Cheng Devas is Nirodha-samāpatti, which only exists in Akanistha (the highest realm of form). If one attains this samadhi, one will definitely not regress, nor should one be reborn again. The above extensively explains the differences between the two samadhi states, with a total of six aspects, namely, ground (basis), application (preparation), continuity (duration), vipāka (result), agreeable feeling (pleasant sensation), and initial arising (beginning), because there are differences in these aspects. Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 12 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 13 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter 2.5: Distinguishing Differences Now it should be considered, in Nirodha-samāpatti (the samadhi of cessation), all citta (mind) and caitta (mental factors) are extinguished. Why is only the cessation of perception and feeling mentioned? It is because of the aversion and opposition to saṃjñā (perception) and vedanā (feeling) that this samadhi arises. That is to say, perception and feeling can become the basis for defilements such as dṛṣṭi (wrong views) and tṛṣṇā (craving). Therefore, these two dharmas are particularly disliked and opposed, because they have many faults, as has been extensively distinguished in the five skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual). Therefore, one particularly dislikes and opposes them, thereby entering Nirodha-samāpatti. Some other teachers say that all co-arising dharmas (dharmas that arise and cease simultaneously), whether arising or ceasing, whether attaining or abandoning, these things happen simultaneously. However, the speaker will, according to appropriate means, explain in various different ways. Abhidharma (the collection of treatises) only relies on correct reasoning to distinguish the nature, characteristics, meaning, and categories of dharmas, and to judge and determine whether the intent of the sutras is expedient or real, so as not to have people parrot-like, only clinging to the literal meaning and denying other possibilities. From this, it should be known that the intent of the sutras, such as when the sutra says that in this samadhi, consciousness (vijñāna) does not leave the body, it should be known that mental factors (caitta) should also not leave the body. Also, when the sutra says that in this samadhi, all volitional activities (cetanā) cease, it should be known that the mind (citta) should also cease in this samadhi. Such shadow arguments also exist in other sutras. For example, the sutra says that the perfect enlightenment (samyak-saṃbodhi) of all Buddhas is based on non-negligence (apramāda). Other sutras tell Ananda that unsurpassed enlightenment is attained through diligence (vīrya).
如說智慧能害煩惱。余經復言。修無常想。能斷欲貪。乃至廣說。譬喻論者。作如是言。滅盡定中。唯滅受想。以定無有無心有情。滅定命終。有差別故。經說入滅定識不離身故。又言壽暖識互不相離故。此說非理。以一切心皆與受想俱生滅故。有何至教。證此義成。如契經說。眼及色為緣生於眼識。三和合觸。俱起受想思。如是乃至。意及法為緣生於意識等。曾無處言有第七識。可執彼識離受想生。又此定中。所依滅故。能依亦滅。非無所依。諸心所法。可能獨生。是故此中。諸心心所。一切皆滅。若謂此俱言顯無間起義。如曼馱多噁心起故俱時墮落。如不凈俱修念覺支。此亦應爾理必不然。有差別故。曼馱多等。契經俱言。理實應顯無間起義。以非愛業與非愛果。決定不應同時生故。又彼經說第五轉故。如彼經說。曼馱多王噁心起故。俱時墮落。此顯后時方墮落義。不凈覺支。有漏無漏性差別故。起不同時。此經俱言。顯同時起。聖教正理皆不相違。故此言俱非無間起。又執俱言顯無間起。有不定過。如契經說。樂俱喜俱四諦現觀。不可復執。此同曼馱多等經。謂樂喜無間方生四諦現觀。又如經說。有貪心等。與貪俱故。名有貪心。此不應執從貪無間所起之心名有貪心。如是便有太過之失。故此俱言。顯同時義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果有人說智慧能夠損害煩惱，而其他經典又說，修習無常想能夠斷除欲貪，乃至廣泛地闡述。譬喻論者這樣說：在滅盡定中，只有受和想滅除，因為沒有無心的有情進入禪定。滅盡定中死亡和正常死亡是有區別的，因為經典說進入滅盡定后，識並沒有離開身體，又說壽、暖、識互相不分離。這種說法是不合理的，因為一切心都與受和想同時生滅。有什麼至高的教義能夠證明這個觀點成立呢？就像契經所說，眼和色為緣而生眼識，三者和合產生觸，同時生起受、想、思。乃至意和法為緣而生意識等等。從來沒有地方說過有第七識，可以認為那個識是離開受和想而生的。而且在這個禪定中，所依賴的（根）滅除了，能依賴的（識）也滅除了。沒有所依賴的，諸心所法不可能獨自產生。因此，在這個禪定中，所有心和心所都全部滅除。 如果有人說，這裡的『俱』字顯示的是無間生起的意思，就像曼馱多（Mandhata）噁心生起時同時墮落一樣，就像不凈觀同時修習念覺支一樣。這也應該是這樣。但這個道理必然是不成立的，因為有差別。曼馱多等人的情況，經典中的『俱』字，實際上應該顯示的是無間生起的意思，因為非可愛的業和非可愛的果，決定不應該同時產生。而且那部經中說了『第五轉』，就像那部經所說，曼馱多王噁心生起時，同時墮落。這顯示的是之後才墮落的意思。不凈觀的覺支，由於有漏和無漏的性質不同，生起的時間也不同。這部經中的『俱』字，顯示的是同時生起，聖教和正理都沒有互相違背。所以這裡的『俱』字不是無間生起的意思。 如果執著『俱』字顯示的是無間生起的意思，就會有不確定的過失。就像契經所說，樂同時、喜同時，四諦現觀。不能再執著說，這和曼馱多等人的經典一樣，認為樂和喜無間生起，才會有四諦現觀。又比如經典說，有貪心等，因為與貪同時，所以叫做有貪心。不應該執著說，從貪無間生起的心叫做有貪心。如果這樣，就會有太過分的過失。所以這裡的『俱』字，顯示的是同時的意思。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that wisdom can harm afflictions, and other sutras say that cultivating the thought of impermanence can cut off desire and greed, and so on extensively. The Exemplificationists say this: In the Cessation Attainment (滅盡定, nièjìn dìng), only sensation (受, shòu) and perception (想, xiǎng) cease, because there are no mindless sentient beings entering samadhi. There is a difference between dying in Cessation Attainment and normal death, because the sutras say that after entering Cessation Attainment, consciousness (識, shì) does not leave the body, and it is also said that life (壽, shòu), warmth (暖, nuǎn), and consciousness do not separate from each other. This statement is unreasonable, because all minds arise and cease simultaneously with sensation and perception. What supreme teaching can prove this view to be established? Just as the sutra says, eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness (眼識, yǎnshì), the combination of the three produces contact (觸, chù), and simultaneously arise sensation, perception, and volition (思, sī). And so on, mind and dharma are the conditions for the arising of mind consciousness (意識, yìshì), etc. Nowhere has it been said that there is a seventh consciousness, which can be considered to arise apart from sensation and perception. Moreover, in this samadhi, because the support (base) ceases, the supported (consciousness) also ceases. Without a support, mental factors (心所法, xīnsǔo fǎ) cannot arise independently. Therefore, in this samadhi, all minds and mental factors all cease. If it is said that the word 'simultaneously' (俱, jù) here indicates the meaning of immediate arising, just as Mandhata (曼馱多, Màntuóduō)'s evil mind arose and he fell simultaneously, just as the mindfulness of the foul (不淨觀, bùjìng guān) is cultivated simultaneously with the mindfulness factors of enlightenment (念覺支, niàn jué zhī). It should also be like this. But this reasoning is necessarily not established, because there is a difference. In the case of Mandhata and others, the word 'simultaneously' in the sutra should actually indicate the meaning of immediate arising, because unwholesome karma and unwholesome results should definitely not arise simultaneously. Moreover, that sutra speaks of the 'fifth turning,' just as that sutra says, King Mandhata's evil mind arose and he fell simultaneously. This shows the meaning of falling only later. The enlightenment factor of mindfulness of the foul, due to the difference in nature between defiled (有漏, yǒulòu) and undefiled (無漏, wúlòu), arises at different times. The word 'simultaneously' in this sutra indicates simultaneous arising, and the sacred teachings and correct reasoning do not contradict each other. Therefore, the word 'simultaneously' here does not mean immediate arising. If one insists that the word 'simultaneously' indicates the meaning of immediate arising, there will be the fault of uncertainty. Just as the sutra says, joy simultaneously, happiness simultaneously, the direct realization of the Four Noble Truths (四諦, sìdì). One cannot insist that, like the sutras of Mandhata and others, joy and happiness arise immediately, and then there is the direct realization of the Four Noble Truths. Also, for example, the sutra says, a mind with greed, etc., is called a mind with greed because it is simultaneous with greed. One should not insist that the mind arising immediately from greed is called a mind with greed. If so, there would be the fault of being too excessive. Therefore, the word 'simultaneously' here indicates the meaning of simultaneity.
又受想等。依止心故。名為心所。離所依止。此受想等。應不得生。若謂心作等無間緣名所依者。心亦依心無間生故。應名心所。又從心所無間生心。心所亦應成所依性。如是等義。至六因中。當更廣辯。又契經說。入滅定時。諸意行滅。故知滅定。非但滅此受想二法。又識相續。於此定中。非暫滅者。決定應有所依所緣。與識和合離所依緣。識不生故。既有三和。必應有觸。與觸俱起。有受想思。則滅定中。受想二法。亦應不滅。若謂如經說受緣愛。然阿羅漢。雖有諸受。而非愛緣。觸亦應爾。非一切觸皆生受等。此例不然。有差別故。經自簡言。若無明觸所生諸受。為緣生愛。諸阿羅漢。無無明觸。故雖有受。而不生愛。曾無有處簡觸生受。故但有觸。必生受等。有餘師說。于滅定中。雖有識體。而無觸者。未知彼意執何為觸。然一切識。必托所依所緣而起。所依緣識。三法和合。佛說為觸。由觸為緣。生受想等。許滅定中有三和合。然說無觸但有虛言。又滅定中。唯有心者。應無思慮。以滅定中說諸意行悉皆滅故。心若無思。即無思慮。無思慮心。同所不許。心有作業。皆由思故。思既非有。心亦定無。無心有情。理必應有。有命等故。異於命終。有情色心。非決定有。心若定有。色亦應然。色有時無。心亦應
【現代漢語翻譯】 此外，感受、思想等等，因為依賴於心而存在，所以被稱為『心所』（citta-saṃskāra，心的構成要素）。如果離開了所依賴的心，這些感受、思想等等，應該無法產生。如果說心作為『等無間緣』（samanantarapratyaya，直接的因）是它們所依賴的，那麼心也是依賴於前一個心念的無間生起，因此也應該被稱為『心所』。而且，從心所無間生起心念，心所也應該成為所依賴的。這些道理，在討論『六因』（hetu，原因）時，會更詳細地辨析。 此外，《契經》（sūtra，佛經）中說，進入『滅盡定』（nirodha-samāpatti，一種高級禪定狀態）時，所有的『意行』（manas-saṃskāra，意志活動）都滅盡了。因此可知，滅盡定不僅僅是滅除了感受和思想這兩種法。而且，識（vijñāna，意識）的相續，在這種禪定中，不是暫時停止，而是決定需要有所依賴的『所依』（āśraya，基礎）和『所緣』（ālambana，對像）。因為識與所依和所緣和合，離開了所依和所緣，識就不會產生。既然有三者的和合，必定有『觸』（sparśa，感官接觸）。與觸同時生起，就有感受、思想和思（cetanā，意志）。那麼在滅盡定中，感受和思想這兩種法，也應該不會滅除。 如果有人說，就像經中所說『受緣愛』（vedanā-pratyayā tṛṣṇā，感受是愛的緣起條件），但是阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟的聖者）雖然有各種感受，卻不是愛的緣。那麼觸也應該如此，不是所有的觸都會產生感受等等。這種類比是不成立的，因為有差別。經中自己做了區分，說『如果是由無明觸（avidyā-sparśa，由無明產生的觸）所產生的各種感受，是產生愛的緣』。阿羅漢沒有無明觸，所以即使有感受，也不會產生愛。從來沒有地方區分觸是否產生感受，所以只要有觸，必定會產生感受等等。 有其他論師說，在滅盡定中，雖然有識的本體，卻沒有觸。不知道他們認為什麼是觸。然而，一切的識，必定依賴於所依和所緣而生起。所依、所緣和識，這三種法和合，佛陀稱之為觸。因為觸是緣，所以產生感受、思想等等。如果承認滅盡定中有三者的和合，卻說沒有觸，只是空話。 此外，如果滅盡定中只有心，那麼應該沒有思慮，因為滅盡定中說所有的意行都滅盡了。心如果沒有思，就沒有思慮。沒有思慮的心，是任何人都不會認可的。心的一切活動，都是由思產生的。思既然不存在，心也必定不存在。沒有心的有情，在道理上應該存在，因為有命根等等，這與命終不同。有心，不是決定存在的。如果心是決定存在的，色（rūpa，物質）也應該如此。色有時不存在，心也應該如此。
【English Translation】 Furthermore, feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), and so on, are called 'mental factors' (citta-saṃskāra) because they depend on the mind. If they were to exist independently of the mind, these feelings, perceptions, and so on, should not be able to arise. If it is argued that the mind, as the 'immediately preceding condition' (samanantarapratyaya), is what they depend on, then the mind itself also arises dependently on the immediately preceding mind-moment, and therefore should also be called a 'mental factor'. Moreover, since a mind-moment arises immediately after a mental factor, the mental factor should also be considered a basis of dependence. These points will be discussed in more detail when we examine the 'six causes' (hetu). Furthermore, the sūtras (discourses of the Buddha) state that when entering the 'cessation attainment' (nirodha-samāpatti, a high state of meditative absorption), all 'volitional activities of the mind' (manas-saṃskāra) cease. Therefore, it is known that the cessation attainment does not merely eliminate feeling and perception. Moreover, the stream of consciousness (vijñāna-saṃtāna) in this state is not temporarily suspended; it must necessarily have a basis (āśraya) and an object (ālambana) on which to rely. Because consciousness arises in conjunction with its basis and object, consciousness cannot arise without these conditions. Since there is a coming together of these three, there must be 'contact' (sparśa). With contact, there arise feeling, perception, and volition (cetanā). Therefore, in the cessation attainment, feeling and perception should also not cease. If someone argues, as the sūtras say, 'feeling is the condition for craving' (vedanā-pratyayā tṛṣṇā), but an arhat (a liberated being) has various feelings without craving arising, then contact should be similar; not all contact necessarily gives rise to feeling, and so on. This analogy is not valid because there is a distinction. The sūtras themselves specify that 'feelings born of contact conditioned by ignorance (avidyā-sparśa) are the condition for craving'. Arhats do not have contact conditioned by ignorance, so even though they have feelings, craving does not arise. There is no instance where contact is specified as not giving rise to feeling; therefore, wherever there is contact, feeling and so on must arise. Some other teachers say that in the cessation attainment, although there is the essence of consciousness, there is no contact. It is not known what they consider contact to be. However, all consciousness must arise dependent on a basis and an object. The Buddha said that the coming together of the basis, object, and consciousness is contact. Since contact is the condition, feeling, perception, and so on arise. To admit that there is a coming together of these three in the cessation attainment, yet to say that there is no contact, is mere empty talk. Furthermore, if there is only mind in the cessation attainment, there should be no thought, because it is said that all volitional activities of the mind cease in the cessation attainment. If the mind has no thought, it has no deliberation. A mind without deliberation is not accepted by anyone. All activities of the mind arise from thought. Since thought does not exist, the mind must also not exist. A sentient being without mind should logically exist, because it has life-force and so on, which is different from death. The existence of mind is not definite. If mind were definite, form (rūpa) should also be definite. Since form sometimes does not exist, mind should also be the same.
爾。故有命者。即名有情。然命必依色心隨一。引契經說。識不離身。于定無心。亦無違害。以即於此所依身中識必還生。故言不離。謂一相續。眾同分中。識相續流。非畢竟斷。譬如鬼病暫不發時。由未永除。仍名不離。引壽暖識不相離言。于定無心。亦無違害。唯于少分說此言故。以無色中都無有暖。非無壽識。故此定中。都無有識。非無壽暖。無色界中。無一切色。后當廣辯。是故滅定。必無有心。然定後心。復得生者。定前心作等無間緣。所引攝故。又加行中。要期勢力。所引發故。滅盡定體為假為實。應言此定體實非假。能遮礙心。令不生故。經主於此。引異釋言。由前定心能為遮礙。謂前定心。與所餘心。相違而起。由此起故。唯令余心暫時不轉。此能引發違心所依。令相續故。唯不轉位。假立為定。無別實體。此唯不轉分位假定。入前出后。兩位皆無。故假說此。是有為攝。或即所依。由定心引。令如是起。假立為定。若爾後心從何而起。彼說此依有根身起。以有根身與心展轉為種子故。何有此理。應一切時一切境識俱時起故。說依前心後心起者。以無第二等無間緣。雖有同時所依境界。而無一切境識俱起。若執不待自類因緣待有根身識便起者。彼一切位。一切境識。何法為礙。起不俱時。聞有餘師。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爾。所以說有命者，就叫做『有情』（Sattva，指有情識的生命）。然而生命必定依附於色（Rupa，物質）或心（Citta，精神）的其中之一。經文上說，『識（Vijnana，意識）不離身』，對於入定（Samadhi）而無心的情況，也沒有衝突。因為在這種所依之身中，意識必定還會再生起，所以說『不離』，是指意識的相續不斷。在眾生的同類相續中，意識的相續之流不會完全斷絕。譬如鬼病暫時沒有發作的時候，因為沒有徹底根除，仍然叫做『不離』。引用『壽（Ayus，壽命）、暖（Usma，體溫）、識不相離』的說法，對於入定而無心的情況，也沒有衝突。這只是在少部分情況下這樣說，因為在無色界（Arupadhatu）中，完全沒有體溫，但並非沒有壽命和意識。所以在這個禪定中，完全沒有意識，但並非沒有壽命和體溫。無色界中，沒有一切色法，後面會詳細辨析。因此，滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti）必定沒有心識。然而，入定后的心識，之所以能夠再次生起，是因為入定前的心識作為等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，直接連續的條件）所引導攝持的緣故。又加上在加行（Prayoga，預備階段）中，要期（Vow，誓願）的勢力所引發的緣故。滅盡定的本體是假（假有，conventional truth）還是實（實有，ultimate truth）呢？應該說這個定的本體是真實的，因為它能夠遮礙心識，使心識不生起。經文的作者在這裡引用不同的解釋說，由於之前的定心能夠作為遮礙。意思是之前的定心，與其餘的心識，相互違背而生起。由於這個定心的生起，只是讓其餘的心識暫時不運轉。這個定心能夠引發違背心識的所依，使之相續不斷。只是在不運轉的階段，假立為『定』，沒有別的實體。這只是不運轉的分位假定，入定前和出定后，這兩個階段都沒有，所以假說這個『定』是有為法（Samskrta，有生滅變化的法）所攝。或者就是所依之身，由於定心的引導，使之如此生起，假立為『定』。如果這樣，那麼後來的心識從哪裡生起呢？他們說這依賴於有根身（Sadayatana，具有感覺器官的身體）而生起，因為有根身與心識輾轉互為種子。哪裡有這樣的道理呢？應該一切時、一切境的意識同時生起才對。說依賴於前心後心生起的人，是因為沒有第二個等無間緣。雖然有同時的所依境界，但沒有一切境識同時生起的情況。如果執著于不等待自類因緣（Sajatiya-hetu，同類因），而等待有根身，意識便生起的人，那麼在一切階段，一切境的意識，什麼法能夠阻礙它們，使它們不能同時生起呢？聽說有其他的老師。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, those who have life are called 'sentient beings' (Sattva, referring to beings with consciousness). However, life must rely on either form (Rupa, matter) or mind (Citta, spirit). The sutras say, 'Consciousness (Vijnana, awareness) does not leave the body,' and there is no contradiction in the case of entering Samadhi (meditative state) without mind. Because in this dependent body, consciousness will surely arise again, so it is said 'does not leave,' referring to the continuous flow of consciousness. In the common stream of beings, the flow of consciousness is not completely cut off. For example, when a ghost sickness is temporarily not manifesting, it is still called 'does not leave' because it has not been completely eradicated. Quoting the saying 'life (Ayus, lifespan), warmth (Usma, temperature), and consciousness do not leave each other,' there is no contradiction in the case of entering Samadhi without mind. This is only said in a few cases, because in the Formless Realm (Arupadhatu), there is no warmth at all, but there is still life and consciousness. Therefore, in this Samadhi, there is no consciousness at all, but there is still life and warmth. In the Formless Realm, there are no forms at all, which will be analyzed in detail later. Therefore, Nirodha-samapatti (Cessation Attainment) must be without consciousness. However, the reason why consciousness can arise again after entering Samadhi is because the consciousness before entering Samadhi is guided and sustained by the Samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition). In addition, it is also caused by the power of the vow (Vow) in the Prayoga (preparatory stage). Is the nature of Nirodha-samapatti false (conventional truth) or real (ultimate truth)? It should be said that the nature of this Samadhi is real, because it can obstruct consciousness and prevent it from arising. The author of the sutra here quotes a different explanation, saying that the previous Samadhi mind can act as an obstruction. It means that the previous Samadhi mind arises in opposition to the remaining consciousness. Because of the arising of this Samadhi mind, it only temporarily prevents the remaining consciousness from functioning. This Samadhi mind can cause the dependent basis of opposing consciousness to continue. It is only in the non-functioning stage that it is conventionally established as 'Samadhi,' without any other entity. This is only a conventional designation for the non-functioning state. It does not exist before entering Samadhi or after exiting Samadhi, so it is conventionally said that this 'Samadhi' is included in the Samskrta (conditioned phenomena). Or it is the dependent body, which is guided by the Samadhi mind, causing it to arise in this way, conventionally establishing it as 'Samadhi.' If so, where does the subsequent consciousness arise from? They say that it arises depending on the Sadayatana (body with sense organs), because the Sadayatana and consciousness are seeds for each other in a reciprocal manner. Where is there such a reason? All consciousness of all objects should arise simultaneously at all times. Those who say that subsequent consciousness arises depending on the previous consciousness are because there is no second Samanantarapratyaya. Although there are simultaneous dependent objects, there is no situation where all consciousness of all objects arises simultaneously. If one insists on not waiting for the Sajatiya-hetu (homogeneous cause), but waiting for the Sadayatana, and consciousness arises, then in all stages, what Dharma can prevent all consciousness of all objects from arising simultaneously? I have heard of other teachers.
起如是見。執有多識一身俱起。今觀仁者。似己稟承故說此言。欲符彼執。若言所說不待前心待有根身後識起者。據無心位。作如是說。有根身中。有心種故。但從彼起。非待前心。有心位中不從彼起。此亦非理無異因果。又有心位。諸識起時。轉更應待有根身種。所以者何。在無心位。有根身中。有違余心定心種子。由此損伏有根身中余心種子。應無勝力引起余心。若言此位有根身中。有不違心無量心種。由此勝力余心生者。有心位中。亦應同此。如何不待有根身生。又如有執。不待自類種子為因。穀麥等芽。但由地等而得生起。何有智人。聞不嗤笑。又執滅定體唯是假。未知何法為假所依。非離假依可有假法。又唯不轉其體是無。如何可言是有為攝。此前後位及現皆無。有性恒時不可得故。而言是有是有為攝。但有虛言。都無有義。若言假定亦有所依。謂所依身。由定心引。令如是起。假立為定。是則此定應無記攝。非無記法可說為善。是故唯應依心心起。非前定心力能遮礙余心。由此故知。離前心外定有別法。能遮礙心。由此法故。于無心位。雖有心因。而心不起。即此別法。名滅盡定。體是有為。實而非假。修觀行者。由定前心要期願力所引發故。令滅盡定勢力漸微。至都盡位。無遮礙用意法為緣。還生意識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果有人像這樣理解，認為存在一種具有多種識別功能，並且與身體同時產生的意識。現在觀察您，似乎您已經接受了這種觀點，所以才這樣說，想要符合他們的執著。如果說您所說的意識產生，不需要之前的意識作為條件，而是依賴於具有根身的身體而產生，那麼這種說法是針對無心位（沒有意識的狀態）而言的。因為在具有根身的身體中，存在意識的種子，所以意識從那裡產生，不需要依賴之前的意識。但在有心位（有意識的狀態）中，意識不是從那裡產生的，這也是不合理的，因為這與因果關係相悖。而且在有心位中，各種意識產生時，反而更應該依賴於具有根身的種子。為什麼呢？因為在無心位中，具有根身的身體中，存在著違背其他意識的禪定（Dhyana）的種子。由於這種禪定的力量，抑制了具有根身的身體中其他意識的種子，應該沒有足夠的力量引發其他意識。如果說在這種狀態下，具有根身的身體中，存在著不違背意識的無量意識的種子，因此強大的力量使其他意識產生，那麼在有心位中，也應該同樣如此，為什麼不依賴於具有根身的身體而產生呢？又比如有人執著認為，不需要同類種子作為原因，穀物、麥子等的幼芽，僅僅依靠土地等條件就能生長。哪個有智慧的人聽了不會嘲笑呢？ 還有人執著認為，滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）的本體僅僅是假立的。但不知道什麼法是假立所依賴的。沒有離開假立所依賴的事物，就不可能有假立的法。而且僅僅是不運轉，它的本體就是不存在的，怎麼能說是屬於有為法（Saṃskṛta）所攝呢？這種滅盡定的前後狀態以及現在都是不存在的，因為有自性的恒常狀態是不可得的，卻說它存在，是屬於有為法所攝，這只是虛妄的言語，沒有任何意義。如果說假立的禪定也有所依賴，就是所依賴的身體，由禪定之心引導，使身體如此運作，假立為禪定。那麼這種禪定應該是無記（不善不惡）所攝，沒有無記法可以被說成是善的。所以只應該依賴於心和心所（Caitasika）的生起，而不是之前的禪定之心能夠阻礙其他的意識。因此可知，除了之前的意識之外，禪定還有一種特別的法，能夠阻礙意識。由於這種法的存在，在無心位中，即使有意識的原因，意識也不會產生。這種特別的法，就叫做滅盡定，本體是有為法，是真實的而不是虛假的。修行觀行的人，由於禪定之前的意識的要期願力所引發，使滅盡定的勢力逐漸減弱，直到完全消失，沒有阻礙意識的用意法作為緣，意識又重新產生。
【English Translation】 English version: If someone holds such a view, believing that there is a consciousness with multiple recognitions that arises simultaneously with the body, observing you now, it seems you have accepted this view, hence you speak this way, wanting to conform to their attachment. If you say that the consciousness you speak of does not depend on the previous consciousness as a condition, but arises relying on the body with sense faculties (root-body), then this statement is directed at the state of no-mind (absence of consciousness). Because in the body with sense faculties, there are seeds of consciousness, so consciousness arises from there, not depending on the previous consciousness. But in the state of mind (presence of consciousness), consciousness does not arise from there, which is also unreasonable, because it contradicts the law of cause and effect. Moreover, in the state of mind, when various consciousnesses arise, they should depend even more on the seeds of the body with sense faculties. Why? Because in the state of no-mind, in the body with sense faculties, there are seeds of meditation (Dhyana) that contradict other consciousnesses. Due to the power of this meditation, suppressing the seeds of other consciousnesses in the body with sense faculties, there should not be enough power to trigger other consciousnesses. If you say that in this state, in the body with sense faculties, there are countless seeds of consciousness that do not contradict consciousness, therefore the powerful force causes other consciousnesses to arise, then in the state of mind, it should be the same, why does it not arise depending on the body with sense faculties? Furthermore, for example, some people stubbornly believe that without seeds of the same kind as the cause, the sprouts of grains, wheat, etc., can grow solely relying on conditions such as soil. Which wise person would not laugh upon hearing this? There are also those who stubbornly believe that the essence of Nirodha-samāpatti (Cessation of Perception and Sensation) is merely a hypothetical construct. But they do not know what dharma (phenomenon) the hypothetical construct relies on. Without leaving the thing that the hypothetical construct relies on, there can be no hypothetical dharma. Moreover, merely not functioning, its essence is non-existent, how can it be said to be included in the Saṃskṛta (conditioned phenomena)? The previous and subsequent states of this Nirodha-samāpatti, as well as the present, are all non-existent, because the constant state of having self-nature is unattainable, yet it is said to exist and be included in the Saṃskṛta, which is just empty words without any meaning. If you say that the hypothetical meditation also has something to rely on, which is the body it relies on, guided by the mind of meditation, causing the body to operate in this way, hypothetically establishing it as meditation, then this meditation should be included in the category of indeterminate (neither good nor bad), and no indeterminate dharma can be said to be good. Therefore, one should only rely on the arising of mind and mental factors (Caitasika), and not on the previous mind of meditation being able to obstruct other consciousnesses. Therefore, it can be known that, apart from the previous consciousness, meditation has a special dharma that can obstruct consciousness. Due to the existence of this dharma, in the state of no-mind, even if there is a cause for consciousness, consciousness will not arise. This special dharma is called Nirodha-samāpatti, its essence is Saṃskṛta, it is real and not hypothetical. Those who practice contemplation, due to the power of the vow made by the consciousness before meditation, cause the power of Nirodha-samāpatti to gradually weaken, until it completely disappears, and without the intentional dharma that obstructs consciousness as a condition, consciousness arises again.
。由此準釋。前無想定。及與無想。隨其所應。已辯二定。命根者何。頌曰。
命根體即壽 能持暖及識
論曰。命體即壽。故本論言。云何命根。謂三界壽。異名雖爾。自體未詳。應更指陳。何法名壽。謂有別法。能持暖識。說名為壽。故世尊言。
壽暖及與識 三法捨身時 所捨身僵仆 如木無思覺
故有別法。能持暖識。相續住因。說名為壽若爾此壽。何法能持。此壽能持我說是業。一向是業異熟果故。一期生中。常隨轉故。暖非一向業異熟果。識二俱非雖有一期常隨轉處。而非一向是業異熟。故不可說識由業持。是故說壽能持暖識。非非業感識流轉中業有少分能持功用。一同分中。異熟生識。斷而更續。壽力所持。復如何知。壽能持暖。要有壽者。方有暖故。諸無暖者。亦見有壽。故知壽體非暖所持。豈不無壽亦見有暖。雖亦見有非此所論。此論壽識俱行暖故。由此故知。有別實法。彼力能持有情數暖。及能持識。說之為壽。經主於此。復作是言。今亦不言。全無壽體。但說壽體非別實物。若爾何法說名壽體。謂三界業。隨應所引六處並依住時勢分。由業所引六處並依住時勢分。相續決定。隨應住時。爾所時住。故此勢分。說為壽體。如谷種等所引乃至熟時勢分。又如放箭所引
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 由此可以推論解釋。前面的無想定，以及和它相似的無想天，已經辨析了這兩種禪定。那麼，命根是什麼呢？頌文說： 『命根的本體就是壽命，能夠維持體溫和意識。』 論述說：命的本體就是壽命。所以《本論》說：『什麼是命根？』回答說：『就是三界的壽命。』雖然名稱不同，但自體還沒有詳細說明，應該進一步指明。什麼法叫做壽命呢？就是有一種特別的法，能夠維持體溫和意識，這就被稱為壽命。所以世尊說： 『壽命、體溫和意識，這三種法捨棄身體的時候，所捨棄的身體就會僵硬倒地，像木頭一樣沒有思想和感覺。』 所以有一種特別的法，能夠維持體溫和意識，作為相續存在的因，這就被稱為壽命。如果這樣，那麼這個壽命，又是什麼法能夠維持呢？這個壽命是由業力維持的，我說這是業的異熟果。因為在一期生命中，它總是相隨相轉的。體溫並非完全是業的異熟果，意識則兩者都不是。雖然有在一期生命中常相隨轉的情況，但並非完全是業的異熟果。所以不能說意識是由業力維持的。因此說壽命能夠維持體溫和意識，而不是非由業力感生的意識流轉中，業力有少部分維持的功用。在同一部分中，異熟所生的意識，斷滅后又相續，這是壽命的力量所維持的。又如何知道壽命能夠維持體溫呢？因為必須有壽命存在，才會有體溫。那些沒有體溫的人，也可見到有壽命存在。所以知道壽命的本體不是由體溫維持的。難道沒有壽命也可見到有體溫嗎？雖然也可見到，但不是這裡所討論的。這裡討論的是壽命和意識共同存在的體溫。因此可知，有一種特別的實在法，它的力量能夠維持有情眾生的體溫，以及能夠維持意識，這就被稱為壽命。經文作者在這裡，又作這樣的說法：現在也不說完全沒有壽命的本體，但說壽命的本體不是一種特別的實物。如果這樣，那麼什麼法被稱為壽命的本體呢？就是三界的業力，隨著相應的業力所引生的六處以及所依的住時勢分。由業力所引生的六處以及所依的住時勢分，相續不斷地決定，隨著相應的住時，在那一段時間裡存在。所以這個勢分，就被稱為壽命的本體。就像穀子的種子等所引生的乃至成熟時的勢分，又像射出去的箭所引生的……』
【English Translation】 English version: From this, the explanation can be inferred. The preceding Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment) and the realm of No-Thought (Asañjñisattva), along with No-Thought itself, have already been distinguished as two types of samadhi (concentration). What then, is the life-force (jīvitendriya)? The verse says: 'The essence of the life-force is life itself, capable of sustaining warmth and consciousness.' The treatise states: The essence of life is life itself. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa says: 'What is the life-force?' It answers: 'It is the life of the three realms (tridhātu).' Although the names differ, the essence itself has not been explained in detail and should be further clarified. What dharma (phenomenon) is called life? It is a distinct dharma that can sustain warmth and consciousness, and this is called life. Therefore, the World-Honored One (Bhagavan) said: 'When life, warmth, and consciousness, these three dharmas, abandon the body, the abandoned body becomes stiff and falls, like wood without thought or sensation.' Therefore, there is a distinct dharma that can sustain warmth and consciousness, serving as the cause for their continuous existence, and this is called life. If so, what dharma sustains this life? This life is sustained by karma (action), and I say it is the result of karmic maturation (vipāka). Because in one lifetime, it always accompanies and transforms. Warmth is not entirely the result of karmic maturation, and consciousness is neither. Although there are instances where they constantly accompany each other in one lifetime, they are not entirely the result of karma. Therefore, it cannot be said that consciousness is sustained by karma. Thus, it is said that life can sustain warmth and consciousness, rather than karma having a small sustaining function in the flow of consciousness not generated by karma. In the same part, the consciousness born from maturation, after ceasing, continues again, sustained by the power of life. Furthermore, how do we know that life can sustain warmth? Because warmth exists only when life exists. Those without warmth are also seen to have life. Therefore, it is known that the essence of life is not sustained by warmth. Is it not the case that warmth is seen even without life? Although it is also seen, it is not what is being discussed here. This discussion concerns warmth that coexists with life and consciousness. Therefore, it can be known that there is a distinct, real dharma whose power can sustain the warmth of sentient beings and can sustain consciousness, and this is called life. The author of the sutra (sūtra) here makes this statement again: Now, it is not said that there is no essence of life at all, but it is said that the essence of life is not a distinct, real entity. If so, what dharma is called the essence of life? It is the karma of the three realms, along with the duration of the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana) and their support, determined by the corresponding karma. The duration of the six sense bases and their support, determined by karma, continuously and decisively exist for the corresponding duration. Therefore, this duration is called the essence of life. Just like the duration from the seed of grain to its maturation, or like the duration of an arrow shot forth...'
乃至住時勢分。壽體實有。根處已成。於此但應徴經主意。若處無業所引異熟內五色處。于彼或時無業所引第六意處。謂于長時起染污識或善有漏。及無漏識。相續位中。無業所引異熟勢分。說何為壽。若於是處有業異熟。從生剎那至命終位。恒無間轉可說是處有業所引住時勢分。相續決定。說為命根。此既無業所引異熟住時勢分恒無間轉。云何可說此有命根。其理既然。為說何法名業所引住時勢分。既無所引住時勢分。相續決定。復屬於誰。既無如是相續決定。由何義說隨應住時爾所時住說為壽體。是故經主。於此義中。專構多言。都無所表。又所引喻。于證無能。如種所引相續無斷。乃至熟時。恒隨轉故。放箭所引相續無斷。乃至住時。恒隨轉故。此二可有乃至熟時住時勢分。非業異熟。於一切時。相續無斷可言業謝猶有所引住時勢分相續決定。隨應住時。爾所時住。故所引喻。于證無能。是故壽體。實有別物。能持暖識。說為命根。如是命根。非唯依身轉。于無色界。有命根故。非唯依心轉。處無心位。亦有命故。若爾命根依何而轉。此依先世能引業轉及依現世眾同分轉。其眾同分。亦準命根。今復應思。諸有死者。為壽盡故。為有餘因。施設論言。有壽盡故死。非福盡故死。廣作四句。第一句者。感壽異熟業
【現代漢語翻譯】 乃至安住于勢力時分，壽命和身體是真實存在的，六根和六塵已經形成。對於這些，我們只需要探究經文主旨即可。如果某個地方沒有由業力所牽引的異熟果報，即內在的五種色處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身），那麼在這個地方，有時也不會有由業力所牽引的第六種意處（意識）。這是指在長時間內生起染污的意識，或者是有漏的善業，以及無漏的意識，在這些相續的階段中，沒有由業力所牽引的異熟果報的勢力時分，那麼又該如何稱之為壽命呢？如果某個地方有業力的異熟果報，從出生的那一剎那到死亡的那一刻，持續不斷地運轉，那麼可以說這個地方有由業力所牽引的安住于勢力時分，相續不斷，這可以稱之為命根。既然這裡沒有由業力所牽引的異熟果報的安住于勢力時分持續不斷地運轉，又怎麼能說這裡有命根呢？這個道理是顯而易見的。那麼，又該如何解釋由業力所牽引的安住于勢力時分呢？既然沒有由業力所牽引的安住于勢力時分，相續不斷，那麼它又屬於誰呢？既然沒有這樣的相續不斷，又根據什麼道理說，隨著應該安住的時間，就在那個時間安住，稱之為壽命呢？因此，經文的主旨，在這層含義中，只是徒勞地說了許多，卻什麼也沒有表達出來。而且，所引用的比喻，也無法證明什麼。比如，種子所牽引的相續不斷，直到成熟的時候，一直隨著運轉。射出的箭所牽引的相續不斷，直到停止的時候，一直隨著運轉。這兩種情況可以有直到成熟時或停止時的勢力時分。但是，業力的異熟果報，在任何時候，相續不斷，卻不能說業力已經消謝，仍然有牽引的安住于勢力時分相續不斷，隨著應該安住的時間，就在那個時間安住。所以，所引用的比喻，無法證明什麼。因此，壽命的本體，確實是另外一種東西，能夠保持溫暖和意識，稱之為命根。這樣的命根，不僅僅依靠身體運轉，因為在無想天（無）中，也有命根。也不僅僅依靠心識運轉，因為在沒有心識的狀態下，也有生命存在。如果這樣，那麼命根依靠什麼運轉呢？它依靠前世能夠牽引的業力運轉，也依靠現世的眾同分運轉。這個眾同分，也和命根一樣。現在應該思考，那些死亡的人，是因為壽命耗盡而死，還是因為其他原因？《施設論》中說，有因為壽命耗盡而死的，也有不是因為福報耗盡而死的，並廣泛地作了四種分類。第一種情況是，感受壽命異熟的業力。 現代漢語譯本：乃至安住于勢力時分，壽命和身體是真實存在的，六根和六塵已經形成。對於這些，我們只需要探究經文主旨即可。如果某個地方沒有由業力所牽引的異熟果報，即內在的五種色處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身），那麼在這個地方，有時也不會有由業力所牽引的第六種意處（意識）。這是指在長時間內生起染污的意識，或者是有漏的善業，以及無漏的意識，在這些相續的階段中，沒有由業力所牽引的異熟果報的勢力時分，那麼又該如何稱之為壽命呢？如果某個地方有業力的異熟果報，從出生的那一剎那到死亡的那一刻，持續不斷地運轉，那麼可以說這個地方有由業力所牽引的安住于勢力時分，相續不斷，這可以稱之為命根。既然這裡沒有由業力所牽引的異熟果報的安住于勢力時分持續不斷地運轉，又怎麼能說這裡有命根呢？這個道理是顯而易見的。那麼，又該如何解釋由業力所牽引的安住于勢力時分呢？既然沒有由業力所牽引的安住于勢力時分，相續不斷，那麼它又屬於誰呢？既然沒有這樣的相續不斷，又根據什麼道理說，隨著應該安住的時間，就在那個時間安住，稱之為壽命呢？因此，經文的主旨，在這層含義中，只是徒勞地說了許多，卻什麼也沒有表達出來。而且，所引用的比喻，也無法證明什麼。比如，種子所牽引的相續不斷，直到成熟的時候，一直隨著運轉。射出的箭所牽引的相續不斷，直到停止的時候，一直隨著運轉。這兩種情況可以有直到成熟時或停止時的勢力時分。但是，業力的異熟果報，在任何時候，相續不斷，卻不能說業力已經消謝，仍然有牽引的安住于勢力時分相續不斷，隨著應該安住的時間，就在那個時間安住。所以，所引用的比喻，無法證明什麼。因此，壽命的本體，確實是另外一種東西，能夠保持溫暖和意識，稱之為命根。這樣的命根，不僅僅依靠身體運轉，因為在無想天（無）中，也有命根。也不僅僅依靠心識運轉，因為在沒有心識的狀態下，也有生命存在。如果這樣，那麼命根依靠什麼運轉呢？它依靠前世能夠牽引的業力運轉，也依靠現世的眾同分運轉。這個眾同分，也和命根一樣。現在應該思考，那些死亡的人，是因為壽命耗盡而死，還是因為其他原因？《施設論》中說，有因為壽命耗盡而死的，也有不是因為福報耗盡而死的，並廣泛地作了四種分類。第一種情況是，感受壽命異熟的業力。
【English Translation】 Even when dwelling in the power of time, life and body are truly existent, and the six roots and six objects have already formed. Regarding these, we only need to investigate the main idea of the scriptures. If a place does not have the Vipaka (異熟) result drawn by karma, that is, the inner five sense objects (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), then in that place, sometimes there will not be the sixth mind object (consciousness) drawn by karma. This refers to the stage of continuity in which defiled consciousness arises for a long time, or conditioned wholesome karma, as well as unconditioned consciousness. In these continuous stages, there is no power of time for the Vipaka result drawn by karma, so how can it be called life? If a place has the Vipaka result of karma, continuously operating from the moment of birth to the moment of death, then it can be said that this place has the power of time dwelling drawn by karma, continuously without interruption, which can be called the life force (命根). Since there is no power of time dwelling of the Vipaka result drawn by karma continuously operating here, how can it be said that there is a life force here? This principle is obvious. So, how should the power of time dwelling drawn by karma be explained? Since there is no power of time dwelling drawn by karma, continuously without interruption, then to whom does it belong? Since there is no such continuous uninterruptedness, according to what principle is it said that as long as one should dwell, one dwells for that time, and this is called life? Therefore, the main idea of the scriptures, in this meaning, is just vainly saying a lot, but expressing nothing. Moreover, the metaphors cited cannot prove anything. For example, the continuous uninterruptedness drawn by a seed continues to operate until it matures. The continuous uninterruptedness drawn by a shot arrow continues to operate until it stops. These two situations can have the power of time until maturity or stopping. However, the Vipaka result of karma, at any time, continuously without interruption, cannot be said that the karma has disappeared, and there is still the power of time dwelling drawn continuously, dwelling for that time as long as one should dwell. Therefore, the metaphors cited cannot prove anything. Therefore, the essence of life is indeed another thing that can maintain warmth and consciousness, called the life force. Such a life force does not only rely on the body to operate, because in the realm of non-perception (無**), there is also a life force. It also does not only rely on consciousness to operate, because in the state of no consciousness, there is also life. If so, then what does the life force rely on to operate? It relies on the karma that can draw from previous lives to operate, and also relies on the commonality of beings (眾同分) in the present life to operate. This commonality of beings is also the same as the life force. Now we should consider whether those who die, die because their lifespan is exhausted, or because of other reasons? The 'Establishment Treatise' says that some die because their lifespan is exhausted, and some do not die because their merit is exhausted, and it widely makes four categories. The first situation is the karma of experiencing the Vipaka of lifespan.
力盡故。第二句者。感富樂果業力盡故。第三句者。能感二種業俱盡故。第四句者。不能避脫枉橫緣故。不應復言舍壽行故。義已攝在初句中故。壽盡位中福盡。于死無復功能。故俱盡時有死。說為俱盡故死。發智論說。此壽當言隨相續轉。為復當言一起便住。欲纏有情。不入無想定。不入滅盡定。當言此壽隨相續轉。若入無想定。若入滅盡定。及色無色廛一切有情。當言此壽一起便住。彼言何義。若所依身。可損害故。壽隨損害。是名第一隨相續轉。若所依身不可損害。如起而住。是名第二一起便住。初顯有障。后顯無障。由此決定有非時死。故契經說。有四得自體。謂有得自體。唯可自害。非可他害。廣作四句。唯可自害非他害者。謂生欲界戲忘念天意憤恚天。彼由專習增上嬉戲。身體疲勞。意念忘失。又由發起增上憤恚。以怨恨心。更相顧視。是故於彼殞沒非余。此復應說舍壽行者。以不由他自捨命故。唯可他害非自害者。謂處卵中。及處胎中。羯剌藍頞部曇閉尸鍵南缽羅奢佉位。由彼無能自損害故。俱可害者。謂余多分欲界有情。俱非害者。謂在中有色無色界。一切有情。及在欲界。一分有情。如那落迦北俱盧洲正住見道慈定滅定及無想定王仙佛使佛所記別達弭羅嗢怛羅殑耆羅長者子耶舍鳩磨羅時彼最後身菩
薩及此菩薩母懷菩薩胎時一切轉輪王及此輪王母懷輪王胎時。若爾何故契經中言。大德何等有情所得自體。非可自害非可他害。舍利子謂在非想非非想處受生有情。彼輕舉后以攝初故。如余契經。舉初攝后。謂如經說。初靜慮中。有離生樂。此舉最初攝后諸地。亦有此樂。此經亦爾。舉后攝初。或除有頂其餘無色。諸靜慮中受生有情。亦如欲界戲忘念天意憤恚天。唯可自害。彼亦由起如是種類煩惱力故。從彼處沒。或余無色諸靜慮中。所得自體。可為自地聖道所害。亦上他地近分所害。有頂自上二害俱無是故說為俱非所害。豈不有頂亦為他地聖道所害。應名他害。若依此說。理亦應通。然今言他意說上地。以于殊勝事亦他聲轉故。或此于彼無自在力。方說為他上地于下皆得自在。不名他故。然於此中。應作是責。若佛意說。自他地道。斷諸煩惱。名自他害。則不應言因自他害便有致死。非因斷惑不斷惑故有死不死。又與前釋理不相應。謂那落迦等。非自他所害。然彼尊者。於前所說。自他害義心已領解。為顯余義。復作是言。大德彼諸有情。為從彼處有殞沒不。舍利子。若彼有情。未斷煩惱。便有殞沒。已斷煩惱。即于彼處。而般涅槃。何緣尊者但依最後所得自體。復問世尊。由彼俱無自他害故。有于彼起常增上慢。
為令棄捨。故復問言。彼諸有情。乃至廣說。命行壽行。有何差別。若生法壽。名為命行。不生法壽。說為壽行。有作是言。非所棄捨。名為命行。是所棄捨。名為壽行。復有說言。若神足果。名為命行。若先業果。名為壽行。復有說者。若明增上生。名為命行。無明增上生。名為壽行。或有說者。唯離貪者相續所得。名為命行。亦有貪者相續所得。名為壽行。是為命行壽行差別。已辯命根。何謂諸相。頌曰。
相謂諸有為 先住異滅性
論曰。如是四種。是有為相。顯彼性故。得彼相名。此中生者。謂有別法。是行生位。無障勝因。由能引攝。令其生故。能引攝者。謂彼生時。此法能為彼勝緣性。雖諸行起。皆得名生。然此生名。但依諸行生位無障勝因而立。住謂別法。是已生未壞諸行。引自果無障勝因異謂別法。是行相續後異前因。滅謂別法。是俱生行滅壞勝因。性是體義。豈不經說有三有為之有為相。住為善友。能安有為。何故不說。契經不說。必有所因。應為開示。若有諸相。唯表有為。此經便說。非此住相唯表有為。諸無為法。亦自住故。或復於此具顯有為功德過失。故說四種。于契經中。唯為顯示有為過失。故但說三。或如余經。但言行是有生滅法。非無有異。此經亦然。非無住體。觀少因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 爲了使人捨棄錯誤的觀念，所以再次提問說：『那些有情（指眾生），乃至廣泛地說，命行（維持生命的行為）、壽行（壽命的延續）和壽（壽命）有什麼差別？』如果是有生之法的壽命，就叫做命行；不是有生之法的壽命，就叫做壽行。有人這樣說：『不是被捨棄的，叫做命行；是被捨棄的，叫做壽行。』還有人說：『如果是神足（神通的力量）的果報，就叫做命行；如果是先前的業力（karma）的果報，就叫做壽行。』還有人說：『如果是明（智慧）增上而生，就叫做命行；如果是無明（ignorance）增上而生，就叫做壽行。』或者有人說：『只有遠離貪慾者相續所得的，叫做命行；也有貪慾者相續所得的，叫做壽行。』這就是命行和壽行的差別。 已經辨析了命根（生命之根），什麼是諸相（各種現象）呢？頌（偈頌）說： 『相是指諸有為法（一切因緣和合而成的法），具有先生、后住、變異、壞滅的性質。』 論（論述）說：像這樣四種，是有為法的相狀，因為能顯示它們的性質，所以得到這些相狀的名稱。這裡面，生（產生）是指有另外的法，是諸行（各種行為）產生時的無障礙的殊勝之因，因為它能引導和攝持，使它們產生。能引導和攝持的，是指在它們產生時，這個法能作為它們殊勝的緣性。雖然各種行為的生起，都可以叫做生，但是這個生的名稱，只是依據諸行生起時無障礙的殊勝之因而立的。住（安住）是指另外的法，是已經產生但還沒有壞滅的諸行，引生自身果報的無障礙的殊勝之因。異（變異）是指另外的法，是諸行相續變化后不同於先前的因。滅（壞滅）是指另外的法，是與諸行同時生起的滅壞的殊勝之因。性（性質）是本體的意思。難道經典不是說有三種有為法的有為相嗎？住是善友，能夠安立有為法，為什麼不說呢？經典不說，必定有原因，應該加以開示。如果有諸相，只是表示有為法，這部經就會說。不是這個住相只是表示有為法，諸無為法（非因緣和合的法），也自己安住的緣故。或者在這部經中，具體地顯示有為法的功德和過失，所以說四種。在契經（佛經）中，只是爲了顯示有為法的過失，所以只說三種。或者像其他經典一樣，只說行是有生滅的法，不是沒有變異。這部經也是這樣，不是沒有住的本體。觀察少的原因。
【English Translation】 English version: To cause the abandonment of wrong views, the question is asked again: 'What are the differences between those sentient beings, even broadly speaking, between míng xíng (命行, life-sustaining activities), shòu xíng (壽行, longevity-sustaining activities), and shòu (壽, lifespan)?' If it is the lifespan of a being subject to birth, it is called míng xíng; if it is not the lifespan of a being subject to birth, it is called shòu xíng. Some say: 'That which is not abandoned is called míng xíng; that which is abandoned is called shòu xíng.' Others say: 'If it is the result of shén zú (神足, supernatural powers), it is called míng xíng; if it is the result of past yè lì (業力, karma), it is called shòu xíng.' Still others say: 'If it arises from the increase of míng (明, wisdom), it is called míng xíng; if it arises from the increase of wú míng (無明, ignorance), it is called shòu xíng.' Or some say: 'Only that which is continuously obtained by those who are free from greed is called míng xíng; that which is continuously obtained by those who are also greedy is called shòu xíng.' These are the differences between míng xíng and shòu xíng. Having discussed the mìng gēn (命根, root of life), what are the zhū xiàng (諸相, various characteristics)? The sòng (頌, verse) says: 'Characteristics refer to all yǒu wéi fǎ (有為法, conditioned dharmas), which have the nature of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing.' The lùn (論, treatise) says: These four are the characteristics of yǒu wéi fǎ, because they manifest their nature, hence they obtain these names of characteristics. Here, shēng (生, arising) refers to another fǎ (法, dharma), which is the unobstructed and superior cause for the arising of zhū xíng (諸行, various activities), because it can guide and gather them, causing them to arise. That which can guide and gather refers to the fact that when they arise, this fǎ can serve as their superior causal condition. Although the arising of various activities can all be called arising, this name of arising is only established based on the unobstructed and superior cause for the arising of zhū xíng. Zhù (住, abiding) refers to another fǎ, which is the unobstructed and superior cause for the already arisen but not yet destroyed zhū xíng to produce their own results. Yì (異, changing) refers to another fǎ, which is the cause of the subsequent changes in the continuous flow of zhū xíng that is different from the previous cause. Miè (滅, ceasing) refers to another fǎ, which is the superior cause for the simultaneous arising and ceasing of zhū xíng. Xìng (性, nature) is the meaning of essence. Doesn't the scripture say that there are three characteristics of yǒu wéi xiàng of yǒu wéi fǎ? Abiding is a good friend, capable of establishing yǒu wéi fǎ, why is it not mentioned? The scripture does not mention it, there must be a reason, it should be explained. If there are characteristics that only represent yǒu wéi fǎ, this scripture would say so. It is not that this characteristic of abiding only represents yǒu wéi fǎ, because zhū wú wéi fǎ (諸無為法, unconditioned dharmas) also abide by themselves. Or, in this scripture, the merits and faults of yǒu wéi fǎ are specifically shown, so four are mentioned. In the qì jīng (契經, sutras), only the faults of yǒu wéi fǎ are shown, so only three are mentioned. Or, like other scriptures, it is only said that activities are dharmas of arising and ceasing, not that there is no change. This scripture is also like that, it is not that there is no essence of abiding. Observe the few causes.
故。唯說有三。故四與三。無相違失觀何因故。唯說有三。住通有為無為品故。勿所化者生如是疑。有為無為。展轉相似。故雖有住。而但說三。或此經中。已密說住。以直言三。無唯聲故。若異此者。應說唯有三種有為之有為相。或此經中。住異合說。不爾住言應成無用。合說意者。為顯有為住必兼異。諸無為法。有住無異。故別有為。非此經中言住異者。顯住即異。但顯有為有起有盡有住有異。若謂無為住不成者。此不應理。必應成故。以當成立有三無為。由此即成無為有住。故定唯有四有為相此生等相。既是有為。應更別有生等四相。若更有相。便致無窮。彼更有餘生等相故。實許更有。然非無窮。所以者何。頌曰。
此有生生等 於八一有能
論曰。此中有言。兼顯定義。意顯此有唯四非余。此謂前說四種本相。生生等者。謂四隨相。即是生之生生。乃至滅之滅滅。諸行有為。由四本相。本相有為。由四隨相。世尊何處說隨相耶。豈不此經亦說隨相。謂生等相。亦是有為。故生生等相。亦起等性故。契經既說。有三有為之有為相。有為之起。亦可了知。盡及住異。亦可了知。如何此中不攝隨相。又于諸相。皆有亦言。故此經中。亦說隨相。言有為之起亦可了知者。起即本相生。亦表生生義。盡及
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，如果只說有三種有為相，那麼四種有為相和三種有為相之間就沒有矛盾了。為什麼只說有三種呢？因為『住』（Sthiti，持續）通於有為法和無為法。爲了避免被教化者產生這樣的疑惑：有為法和無為法在持續方面相似，所以雖然有『住』，但只說三種有為相。或者，這部經中已經秘密地說了『住』，因為直接說三種有為相，沒有『唯』（eva，僅僅）這個詞。如果不是這樣，就應該說『只有三種有為法的有為相』。或者，這部經中『住』和『異』（Anyathātva，變異）合在一起說了。否則，『住』這個詞就應該變得沒有用了。合在一起說的意思是，爲了顯示有為法的『住』必然包含『異』，而無為法有『住』而沒有『異』，所以特別說有為法。如果這部經中說『住』和『異』，是爲了顯示『住』就是『異』，那麼就只顯示有為法有『生』（Jāti，生起）、『盡』（Vyaya，滅壞）、『住』和『異』。如果認為無為法沒有『住』，這是不合理的，必然有『住』，因為將會成立有三種無為法，由此就成立了無為法有『住』。所以，確定只有四種有為相。既然『生』等相是有為法，那麼應該另外有『生』等四種相嗎？如果還有其他的相，就會導致無窮無盡，因為那些相還有其他的『生』等相。實際上，是允許有其他的相，但不是無窮無盡的。為什麼呢？頌曰： 『此有生生等，於八一有能。』 論曰：『此中』的『此』字，兼有顯示定義的作用，意思是說，這裡只有四種有為相，沒有其他的。『此』指的是前面說的四種根本相。『生生等』指的是四種隨相，也就是『生』的『生生』，乃至『滅』的『滅滅』。諸行有為由四種根本相所決定，根本相有為由四種隨相所決定。世尊在什麼地方說了隨相呢？難道這部經中沒有說隨相嗎？所謂『生』等相也是有為法，所以『生生』等相也有『起』（utpāda，生起）等性質。既然契經說了有三種有為法的有為相，那麼有為法的『起』也可以瞭解，『盡』以及『住』、『異』也可以瞭解。為什麼這裡沒有包括隨相呢？而且對於各種相，都有『亦』（api，也）這個詞，所以這部經中也說了隨相。『有為法的起也可以瞭解』這句話，『起』就是根本相的『生』，也表示『生生』的含義，『盡』以及
【English Translation】 Therefore, if it is only said that there are three conditioned characteristics, then there is no contradiction between the four conditioned characteristics and the three conditioned characteristics. Why are only three mentioned? Because 'Sthiti' (duration) is common to both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. To avoid the doubt arising in those being taught that conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are similar in terms of duration, although there is 'Sthiti', only three conditioned characteristics are mentioned. Alternatively, 'Sthiti' has already been secretly mentioned in this sutra, because directly saying three conditioned characteristics does not include the word 'eva' (only). If it were not so, it should be said 'there are only three conditioned characteristics of conditioned dharmas'. Or, in this sutra, 'Sthiti' and 'Anyathātva' (alteration) are mentioned together. Otherwise, the word 'Sthiti' should become useless. The meaning of mentioning them together is to show that the 'Sthiti' of conditioned dharmas necessarily includes 'Anyathātva', while unconditioned dharmas have 'Sthiti' but no 'Anyathātva', so conditioned dharmas are specifically mentioned. If this sutra says 'Sthiti' and 'Anyathātva' to show that 'Sthiti' is 'Anyathātva', then it only shows that conditioned dharmas have 'Jāti' (origination), 'Vyaya' (cessation), 'Sthiti', and 'Anyathātva'. If it is thought that unconditioned dharmas do not have 'Sthiti', this is unreasonable, they must have 'Sthiti', because it will be established that there are three unconditioned dharmas, and thus it is established that unconditioned dharmas have 'Sthiti'. Therefore, it is certain that there are only four conditioned characteristics. Since 'Jāti' etc. are conditioned dharmas, should there be another four characteristics such as 'Jāti' etc.? If there are other characteristics, it would lead to endlessness, because those characteristics would have other characteristics such as 'Jāti' etc. In reality, it is allowed that there are other characteristics, but it is not endless. Why? The verse says: 'This has origination of origination, etc., in eight, one has the ability.' The treatise says: The word 'this' in 'this has' also has the function of showing definition, meaning that there are only four conditioned characteristics here, and no others. 'This' refers to the four fundamental characteristics mentioned earlier. 'Origination of origination, etc.' refers to the four secondary characteristics, which are the 'origination of origination' of 'origination', up to the 'cessation of cessation' of 'cessation'. Conditioned dharmas are determined by the four fundamental characteristics, and conditioned fundamental characteristics are determined by the four secondary characteristics. Where did the World Honored One speak of secondary characteristics? Does this sutra not speak of secondary characteristics? The so-called characteristics such as 'origination' are also conditioned dharmas, so characteristics such as 'origination of origination' also have the nature of 'utpāda' (arising) etc. Since the sutra says that there are three conditioned characteristics of conditioned dharmas, then the 'utpāda' of conditioned dharmas can also be understood, and 'Vyaya' as well as 'Sthiti' and 'Anyathātva' can also be understood. Why are secondary characteristics not included here? Moreover, for various characteristics, there is also the word 'api' (also), so this sutra also speaks of secondary characteristics. The sentence 'the arising of conditioned dharmas can also be understood', 'arising' is the 'Jāti' of the fundamental characteristic, and also expresses the meaning of 'origination of origination', 'Vyaya' as well as
住異亦可知言類起。亦言應如理釋。若不爾者。何用亦言。故契經中。于無為法說尚無有起等可知。此說意言。諸無為法。尚無生等本相可知況生生等隨相可得。若不爾者。應但說無起等可知。不應言尚。又薄伽梵。于契經中。說諸有為相復有相。故契經說色有起盡。此復應知。亦有起盡。乃至廣說。又契經說。老死生等。由此故知。相復有相。若爾本相。如所相法。一一應有四種隨相。此復各四展轉無窮。無斯過失。四本四隨。於八於一功能別故為親緣用。名曰功能。謂四本相。一一皆於八法有用。四種隨相。一一皆於一法有用。其義云何。謂法生時。並其自體。九法俱起。自體為一。相隨相八。本相中生。除其自性。能為親緣。生餘八法。諸法于自體。無生等用。故隨相生生為親緣用。於九法內。唯生本生。此生一生多由功能別。故生性既無異功能。何有別如受領納性。雖無異而有差別損益功能。又本相隨相。境有多少。如五識意識境有少多。本相中住。亦除自性。能為親緣。住餘八法。隨相住住。能為親緣。於九法中。唯住本住。謂為親緣令法暫住。能引自果。是住功能。本相中異。除其自性。能為親緣。異餘八法。隨相異異。能為親緣。於九法中。唯異本異。本相中滅。除其自性。能為親緣。滅餘八法。隨相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 住異等現象也可以用『類起』來解釋。也可以說，應該如理地解釋。如果不是這樣，為什麼要用『亦』這個詞呢？所以，在契經中，對於無為法，說的是『尚且沒有生起等可知』。這句話的意思是說，各種無為法，尚且沒有生等本來的體相可以知曉，更何況是生生等隨逐的相狀可以得到呢？如果不是這樣，就應該只說『沒有生起等可知』，不應該說『尚且』。 而且，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在契經中說，各種有為法的相，還有相。所以契經說，色（Rupa，物質）有生起和消滅。這應該知道，也有生起和消滅，乃至廣說。而且契經說，衰老、死亡、出生等等。因此可知，相還有相。 如果這樣，本相（original characteristics），如所相法（the characterized dharma），每一個都應該有四種隨相（secondary characteristics）。這樣又各自有四種，展轉無窮，不會有這種過失。四種本相和四種隨相，對於八法和一法，功能不同，作為親近的因緣而起作用，這叫做功能。也就是說，四種本相，每一種都對於八法有用。四種隨相，每一種都對於一法有用。這是什麼意思呢？ 意思是說，法產生的時候，連同它自身，九法同時生起。自體是一個，相隨相是八個。在本相中，生（Jati，生）除了它自身，能作為親近的因緣，生起其餘八法。各種法對於自體，沒有生等作用。所以隨相中的生生，作為親近的因緣而起作用，在九法之內，唯有生本生。這個生一生多，是因為功能不同。所以生的體性既然沒有差異，功能又有什麼不同呢？比如受（Vedana，感受）的領納性。雖然沒有差異，但是有差別損益的功能。 而且，本相和隨相，所緣的境界有多少不同，就像五識（five consciousnesses）和意識（mind consciousness）的境界有多少不同一樣。在本相中，住（Sthiti，住）除了它自身，能作為親近的因緣，使其餘八法安住。隨相中的住住，能作為親近的因緣，在九法中，唯有住本住。作為親近的因緣，使法暫時安住，能引出自果，這就是住的功能。在本相中，異（Anityata，異）除了它自身，能作為親近的因緣，使其餘八法變異。隨相中的異異，能作為親近的因緣，在九法中，唯有異本異。在本相中，滅（Vyaya，滅）除了它自身，能作為親近的因緣，使其餘八法滅亡。隨相中的滅滅。
【English Translation】 English version The phenomena of abiding and change can also be explained by 'category arising'. It can also be said that the explanation should be in accordance with the truth. If not, why use the word 'also'? Therefore, in the sutras, regarding unconditioned dharmas, it is said that 'even arising, etc., are unknowable'. This means that various unconditioned dharmas do not even have original characteristics such as arising that can be known, let alone the accompanying characteristics such as arising of arising that can be obtained. If not, it should only be said that 'arising, etc., are unknowable', and should not say 'even'. Moreover, the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the World-Honored One) said in the sutras that the characteristics of various conditioned dharmas also have characteristics. Therefore, the sutras say that Rupa (Rupa, form) has arising and ceasing. It should be known that there is also arising and ceasing, and so on. Moreover, the sutras say aging, death, birth, etc. Therefore, it can be known that characteristics also have characteristics. If so, the original characteristics (original characteristics), such as the characterized dharma (the characterized dharma), each should have four secondary characteristics (secondary characteristics). In this way, each has four, endlessly transforming, and there will be no such fault. The four original characteristics and the four secondary characteristics have different functions for the eight dharmas and one dharma, and act as close causes and conditions, which is called function. That is to say, each of the four original characteristics is useful for the eight dharmas. Each of the four secondary characteristics is useful for one dharma. What does this mean? It means that when a dharma arises, together with itself, nine dharmas arise simultaneously. The self-nature is one, and the characteristics accompanying the characteristics are eight. In the original characteristics, Jati (Jati, birth), except for itself, can act as a close cause and condition to generate the other eight dharmas. Various dharmas have no functions such as arising for the self-nature. Therefore, the arising of arising in the secondary characteristics acts as a close cause and condition. Within the nine dharmas, only birth gives rise to original birth. This birth gives rise to many because of different functions. Therefore, since the nature of birth has no difference, what is the difference in function? For example, the receptive nature of Vedana (Vedana, feeling). Although there is no difference, there is the function of differential gain and loss. Moreover, the objects of the original characteristics and secondary characteristics differ in quantity, just as the objects of the five consciousnesses (five consciousnesses) and mind consciousness (mind consciousness) differ in quantity. In the original characteristics, Sthiti (Sthiti, abiding), except for itself, can act as a close cause and condition to keep the other eight dharmas abiding. The abiding of abiding in the secondary characteristics can act as a close cause and condition. Among the nine dharmas, only abiding abides in the original abiding. As a close cause and condition, it causes the dharma to abide temporarily and can lead to its own result. This is the function of abiding. In the original characteristics, Anityata (Anityata, change), except for itself, can act as a close cause and condition to change the other eight dharmas. The change of change in the secondary characteristics can act as a close cause and condition. Among the nine dharmas, only change changes in the original change. In the original characteristics, Vyaya (Vyaya, cessation), except for itself, can act as a close cause and condition to cause the other eight dharmas to cease. The cessation of cessation in the secondary characteristics.
滅滅。能為親緣。於九法中。唯滅本滅。是故生等相復有相。隨相唯四。無無窮失。何緣如是分別相耶。異此分別。不應理故。所以者何。非舍如斯阿毗達磨立相正理。朋順余宗。少有能立有為相故。諸有違背對法正理于諸相等真實義中。所生覺慧。皆為迷謬。凡有所說。莫不乖真。我今于中次第廣辯。且彼經主。緣他故說。何緣如是分析虛空。非生等相有實法體。如所分別。所以者何。無定量故。謂此諸相。非如色等有定現比。或至教量。證實有者。豈生等相。有實法體。如余分別不爾若爾如是所言。非生等相有實法體。如所分別。便為無用。又此諸相。豈如瓶等有定現比。或至教量。證體假有。既遮實有。故彼定應許生等相體是假有。第三計有理必無故。由遮差別。準知定應非許生等。畢竟無故。且無現量證彼生等體是假有。諍論事故。亦無至教證彼生等體是假有。無處說故。若假有比量實有亦應同。是則汝曹由執假有。豈非倒是鉆攪虛空。證相體實理后當辯。今應先引至教為證。謂契經言。諸邪見者。所有身業語業意業。諸有愿求。皆如所見。所有諸行皆是彼類。此經意說。生等諸行。隨彼轉故。彼一果故。彼為因故。名為彼類。由此經中。說三業義。故受等行。非此所須。又一境轉故。但應隨說一。是故但應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 滅（Nirodha，寂滅）。能成為親緣（Hetu，因緣）。在九種法（Dharma）中，唯有滅的本滅（根本寂滅）。因此，生（Jāti，生）、等（Samatā，平等）等相（Lakṣaṇa，相狀）相互關聯，相互存在。隨順這些相，只有四種（生、老、病、死），沒有無窮的過失。為何要如此分別這些相呢？如果不是這樣分別，就不合乎道理。為什麼呢？因為如果不捨棄這種阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）建立相的正理，而順從其他宗派，就很少能成立有為相（Saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇa，有為法的相狀）。凡是違背對法正理的，對於諸相的真實意義所產生的覺慧，都是迷惑錯誤的。凡是所說的，沒有不違背真理的。我現在在這裡次第廣泛地辨析。 且說那些經主，因為其他原因而說。為何要如此分析虛空（Ākāśa，空界）？因為生等相沒有真實的法體，就像所分別的那樣。為什麼呢？因為沒有定量（Pramāṇa，量）的緣故。也就是說，這些相，不像色（Rūpa，色蘊）等那樣，有確定的現量（Pratyakṣa，現量）、比量（Anumāṇa，比量），或者聖教量（Āgama，聖言量）來證實它們的存在。難道生等相有真實的法體，像其他的分別那樣嗎？不是這樣的。如果這樣，那麼所說的『生等相沒有真實的法體，就像所分別的那樣』，就變得沒有意義了。而且，這些相，難道像瓶子等那樣，有確定的現量、比量，或者聖教量來證明它們是假有（Prajñapti，假名安立）的嗎？既然遮止了實有，那麼他們就必定應該承認生等相的體是假有。第三種計度認為有道理，但實際上沒有。因為遮止了差別，就可以推知必定不應該承認生等相是畢竟沒有的。而且，沒有現量來證明生等相的體是假有，因為存在爭議。也沒有聖教量來證明生等相的體是假有，因為沒有地方這樣說。如果假有的比量成立，那麼實有也應該同樣成立。那麼你們這些人因為執著假有，難道不是顛倒地鉆攪虛空嗎？證明相的體是真實的道理，後面將會辯論。現在應該先引用聖教作為證明。比如契經（Sūtra，經）說：『那些邪見者，所有的身業（Kāya-karma，身業）、語業（Vāk-karma，語業）、意業（Manas-karma，意業），所有的愿求，都如他們所見。所有的諸行都是與他們同類的。』這部經的意思是說，生等諸行，隨著他們而轉變，因為他們是唯一的果，因為他們是因，所以被稱為與他們同類。因為這部經中，說了三業的意義，所以受（Vedanā，感受）等行，不是這裡所需要的。而且因為在一個境界中轉變，所以只應該隨著說一個。因此只應該
【English Translation】 English version Nirodha (滅, cessation). It can be a Hetu (親緣, cause). Among the nine Dharmas (九法), only the fundamental cessation of Nirodha (滅本滅). Therefore, Jāti (生, birth), Samatā (等, equality), and other Lakṣaṇas (相, characteristics) are interconnected and co-existent. Following these characteristics, there are only four (birth, aging, sickness, and death), without infinite faults. Why should these characteristics be distinguished in this way? If they are not distinguished in this way, it would be unreasonable. Why? Because if one does not abandon this Abhidharma (阿毗達磨, scholastic treatises) which establishes the correct principles of characteristics, and instead follows other schools, it is rare to be able to establish the characteristics of conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇa, 有為相). All those who contradict the correct principles of Abhidharma, the wisdom that arises regarding the true meaning of all characteristics is deluded and mistaken. Whatever is said, nothing does not deviate from the truth. I will now analyze and explain this extensively in sequence. Moreover, those Sūtra masters speak for other reasons. Why analyze Ākāśa (虛空, space) in this way? Because the characteristics of birth, etc., do not have a real Dharma substance, as distinguished. Why? Because there is no Pramāṇa (定量, valid cognition). That is, these characteristics, unlike Rūpa (色, form) and others, do not have definite Pratyakṣa (現量, direct perception), Anumāṇa (比量, inference), or Āgama (聖教量, scriptural authority) to prove their existence. Do the characteristics of birth, etc., have a real Dharma substance, like other distinctions? It is not so. If so, then the statement 'the characteristics of birth, etc., do not have a real Dharma substance, as distinguished' becomes meaningless. Moreover, do these characteristics, like a pot, etc., have definite Pratyakṣa, Anumāṇa, or Āgama to prove that they are conventionally existent (Prajñapti, 假有)? Since real existence is negated, then they must necessarily admit that the substance of the characteristics of birth, etc., is conventionally existent. The third calculation considers it reasonable, but in reality, it is not. Because the difference is negated, it can be inferred that one should definitely not admit that the characteristics of birth, etc., are absolutely non-existent. Moreover, there is no Pratyakṣa to prove that the substance of the characteristics of birth, etc., is conventionally existent, because there is a dispute. There is also no Āgama to prove that the substance of the characteristics of birth, etc., is conventionally existent, because there is nowhere that says so. If the inference of conventional existence is established, then real existence should also be established in the same way. Then, are you not perversely churning space because you are attached to conventional existence? The reason for proving that the substance of the characteristics is real will be debated later. Now, scriptural authority should be cited as proof first. For example, the Sūtra (契經, scripture) says: 'Those with wrong views, all their Kāya-karma (身業, bodily actions), Vāk-karma (語業, verbal actions), and Manas-karma (意業, mental actions), all their aspirations, are as they see them. All their actions are of the same kind as them.' The meaning of this Sūtra is that the actions of birth, etc., change with them, because they are the only result, because they are the cause, so they are called of the same kind as them. Because the meaning of the three karmas is spoken of in this Sūtra, therefore Vedanā (受, feeling) and other actions are not needed here. And because they change in one realm, only one should be spoken of accordingly. Therefore, only should
身語意業。俱行生等說為諸行。此行從彼邪見所生。是邪見果。故名彼類。若謂如是所釋不然。汝於此經。更說何義。然我所釋。于義無違。又三相經足為至教。謂彼經說。有三有為之有為相。有為之起。亦可了知。盡及住異。亦可了知。若異此者。經但應言三有為相。謂諸有為起盡住異。是則再說有為之言。及亦可知。皆應無用。汝執生等三有為相。離所相法。無別有體。應求此文有何義趣。若謂不說有為之言。則不了知誰之相者。說有為相。足可了知。相屬有為。無勞此說。既離此說。義亦得成。然標釋中。皆置第六。故知能相。離所相有。現見以余表示余故。若謂亦見置第六聲然非異體。故因不定。豈不能相離所相無。是則經文應如向說。離第六轉。義亦成故。又彼所引。無異第六。釋此經文。因亦不定。如何由此定判經文。所說三相。是假非實。又彼所言。天愛汝等執文迷義。薄伽梵說。義是所依。何謂此經所說實義。謂愚夫類。無明所盲。於行相續。執我我所。長夜于中。而生耽著。世尊為斷彼執著故。顯行相續體是有為及緣生性。故作是說。有三有為之有為相。非顯諸行一剎那中具有三相。由一剎那起等三相不可知故。非不可知。應立為相。故此契經。復作是說。有為之起。亦可了知。盡及住異。亦可知
者。今謂彼釋不應經義。且不應許行相續中但有一起一盡一異。設復許有。亦不應說。以執我者。雖不曾聞行相續中有起盡等。而亦自然能了知故。彼雖了知。而猶執我。故復為說則為唐捐。先已了知。我執猶盛。今欲除遣。而復為說。應審思議。世尊設教。于所化者。何所益耶。然諸異生。於行相續。迷細生滅。執我我所。世尊欲令遣所執故。顯示諸行一相續中有多剎那生滅差別。故作是說。有三有為之有為相。乃至廣說。如是說經。深成有用。若謂諸行剎那生等非彼現見說無益者。汝等於此。亦不現見。豈不求理。非不了知。若不了知剎那生等。必無能捨我我所執。唯佛能設方便善巧。令彼求理而得了知。先不了知。故生我見。今了知故。我見便舍故知此說三有為相。唯約剎那。非據相續然剎那生等。雖非現見而說有用。汝所釋經義由無用故。必不應理。故我解經。非同汝釋。又汝應說。無明所盲。行相續中。起我見者。於行相續生等諸相。未聞說前為現見不。若言現見。便越所宗。或復為說。應成無用。若不現見。佛為說后應亦不知。無異因故。若言教力令其知者。剎那諸相。理亦應同。若相續相粗易知者。離佛教力。彼亦應知。若諸行中。相續諸相。雖非現見。而許教力令其了知。能治我執。剎那諸相。亦應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
有人說，你現在的解釋不符合經義。而且不應該允許在行相續中只有一起一滅、一異。即使允許有這些，也不應該說出來。因為執著于『我』（ātman）的人，即使沒有聽過行相續中有生起、滅盡等，也能自然地瞭解這些。他們即使瞭解了這些，仍然執著于『我』。所以，再為他們說這些，就成了徒勞。既然已經瞭解了，『我』執仍然很強盛，現在想要去除它，卻又重複說這些，應該仔細思考。世尊（Śākyamuni）設立教法，對於所要教化的人，有什麼益處呢？然而，各種凡夫俗子，對於行相續中細微的生滅變化感到迷惑，執著于『我』和『我所』（ātmanīya）。世尊想要讓他們捨棄這種執著，所以顯示諸行在一相續中有多剎那的生滅差別。因此才說，有三種有為法（saṃskṛta dharma）的有為相（saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa），乃至廣說。這樣說經，才真正有用。如果說諸行的剎那生滅等不是他們親眼所見，說了也沒用，那麼你們對於這些，也同樣不是親眼所見，難道不應該尋求道理嗎？如果不能瞭解剎那生滅等，必定無法捨棄『我』和『我所』的執著。只有佛（Buddha）才能設立方便善巧，讓他們尋求道理而得以瞭解。先前不瞭解，所以產生『我』見（ātma-dṛṣṭi）。現在瞭解了，『我』見就捨棄了。所以要知道，這裡所說的三種有為相，只是針對剎那而言，不是針對相續而言。然而，剎那生滅等，即使不是親眼所見，但說了有用。你所解釋的經義因為沒有用，所以一定不合理。因此，我對經的理解，不同於你的解釋。
而且，你應該說，被無明（avidyā）所矇蔽，在行相續中產生『我』見的人，對於行相續的生滅等諸相，在沒有聽聞之前，是親眼所見嗎？如果說是親眼所見，就違背了你的宗義。或者再為他們說這些，就成了無用。如果不是親眼所見，佛為他們說了之後，應該也不知道，因為沒有不同的原因。如果說是教法的力量讓他們知道，那麼剎那的諸相，道理也應該相同。如果相續的相粗顯容易知道，那麼離開佛教的力量，他們也應該知道。如果在諸行中，相續的諸相，即使不是親眼所見，而允許教法的力量讓他們瞭解，能夠對治『我』執，那麼剎那的諸相也應該如此。
【English Translation】 English version:
Someone says that your current explanation does not conform to the meaning of the scriptures. Moreover, it should not be allowed that in the stream of phenomena (saṃtāna), there is only one arising and one ceasing, one same and one different. Even if these are allowed, they should not be spoken of. Because those who cling to 『self』 (ātman), even if they have not heard of arising, ceasing, etc. in the stream of phenomena, can naturally understand these. Even if they understand these, they still cling to 『self』. Therefore, to speak of these to them again would be in vain. Since they already understand, the clinging to 『self』 is still strong. Now, wanting to remove it, yet repeating these things, one should carefully consider. What benefit does the World Honored One (Śākyamuni) establish the teachings for, to those who are to be taught? However, various ordinary beings are confused about the subtle arising and ceasing changes in the stream of phenomena, clinging to 『self』 and 『what belongs to self』 (ātmanīya). The World Honored One wants them to abandon this clinging, so he reveals that in one stream of phenomena, there are many momentary arising and ceasing differences. Therefore, it is said that there are three conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta dharma) with conditioned characteristics (saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa), and so on, extensively explained. Saying the scriptures in this way is truly useful. If you say that the momentary arising and ceasing of phenomena, etc., are not seen by them, so speaking of them is useless, then you also do not see these things directly. Shouldn't you seek the reason? If one cannot understand momentary arising and ceasing, one will certainly not be able to abandon the clinging to 『self』 and 『what belongs to self』. Only the Buddha (Buddha) can establish skillful means to allow them to seek the reason and understand. Previously, they did not understand, so they generated the view of 『self』 (ātma-dṛṣṭi). Now that they understand, the view of 『self』 is abandoned. Therefore, know that the three conditioned characteristics spoken of here are only for the moment, not for the continuum. However, momentary arising and ceasing, even if not seen directly, are useful when spoken of. Your explanation of the scriptures is certainly unreasonable because it is useless. Therefore, my understanding of the scriptures is different from your explanation.
Moreover, you should say, those who are blinded by ignorance (avidyā), generating the view of 『self』 in the stream of phenomena, do they directly see the characteristics of arising, ceasing, etc. in the stream of phenomena before hearing them spoken of? If you say they see them directly, you contradict your own doctrine. Or, to speak of these to them again would be useless. If they do not see them directly, they should not know even after the Buddha speaks of them, because there is no different cause. If you say that the power of the teachings allows them to know, then the principle should be the same for the momentary characteristics. If the characteristics of the continuum are obvious and easy to know, then they should also know them without the power of the Buddhist teachings. If, in phenomena, the characteristics of the continuum, even if not seen directly, are allowed to be understood through the power of the teachings, and can counteract the clinging to 『self』, then the momentary characteristics should also be so.
如是。如何乃言剎那生等。非彼現見。說無所益。然諸行中相續生等。誰不能了。而更須說。故彼所釋。違經義理。又一剎那生等諸相。微細覺慧所能了知。謂于剎那無間。展轉善觀察者。能了知故。微細覺慧。由教力生。了行無常。能除我執。既是微細覺慧所知。言一剎那起等三相不可知者。非如理說。又彼所說。非不可知應立相者。不應定說。不可知故。為非相因受等諸相。粗覺慧者。不能了知。非非相故。言不可知。便非相者。如是所說。非應理論。又此經言。有為之起。亦可了知。盡及住異。亦可知者。依剎那說。此經意說。剎那起等。審觀察時。可了知故。世尊為勸諸受化者。令審觀察。故說此言。又經主言。然經重說有為言者。令知此相表是有為。勿謂此相表有為有。如居白鷺表水非無。如是所言。違自宗義。許未生位有為有者。可說非生表有為有。以未生時彼先有故。既未生位。執有為無。豈得非生表有為有。白鷺表水。正是彼宗。生表有為有性同喻。若生不表本無今有。有為有者便似亦撥。唯許有為是有宗義。彼執有為唯得自體。即說名生。生體即是有為有性。生與有為。既無別體。有為與有。復無差別。如何此相。能表有為不表于有。又若為此重說有為。前所說言。便為無用。有為之起。亦可知等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如是。如果這樣，為何說剎那生等（一切事物都在極短的時間內生滅變化）？如果不是親眼所見，說了也沒有用處。然而，在諸行（一切事物）中，相續生等（事物持續不斷地生滅變化），誰不能理解呢？又何須多說？所以他的解釋，違背了經文的義理。而且，一剎那生等諸相（事物在一剎那間的生滅變化），是微細的覺慧（精微的智慧）所能了知的。也就是說，在剎那之間，不斷地、仔細地觀察，就能了知。微細的覺慧，由教法（佛陀的教導）的力量產生，了知諸行無常（一切事物都是無常的），能去除我執（對自我的執著）。既然是微細覺慧所知，說一剎那起等三相（生、住、滅三種狀態）不可知，就不是如理如實的說。而且，他所說的，『非不可知應立相者』（不應該說不可知才設立相），不應該斷定說不可知。因為非相因（不是相的成因）的受等諸相（感受等現象），粗覺慧者（粗淺的智慧）不能了知，並非因為不是相（現象）的緣故，就說不可知，便不是相，這樣說，是不應道理的。而且這部經說，有為之起（有為法的生起），也是可以了知的，盡及住異（有為法的滅盡、住留和變異），也是可以知道的，這是依據剎那來說的。這部經的意思是說，剎那起等（剎那生起等現象），仔細觀察時，是可以了知的。世尊爲了勸導那些接受教化的人，讓他們仔細觀察，所以說了這些話。而且經主說，『然而經文重複說有為』，是爲了讓人知道這個相（現象）表明是有為法，不要認為這個相表明有為法存在。如同白鷺表明有水，並非沒有水。這樣說，違背了他自己的宗義。如果承認未生位（事物未生起的狀態）有有為法存在，可以說『非生』表明有為法存在，因為在未生時，它已經存在了。既然在未生位，認為有為法不存在，怎麼能說『非生』表明有為法存在呢？白鷺表明水，正是他們宗派的觀點，生表明有為法的存在，是同樣的譬喻。如果生不能表明本來沒有現在有，有為法的存在，就好像也在否定。只有承認有為法是存在的宗義，他們認為有為法只有自體，就說名為生。生的本體就是有為法的存在。生與有為法，既然沒有不同的本體，有為法與存在，又沒有差別，那麼這個相，怎麼能表明有為法而不表明存在呢？而且如果爲了這個而重複說有為，那麼前面所說的話，就變得沒有用了，『有為之起，亦可知等』（有為法的生起，也是可以知道的）等等。
【English Translation】 English version: Thus. If so, why speak of momentary arising, etc. (all things arise and perish in extremely short periods of time)? If it is not directly seen, speaking of it is of no benefit. However, among all phenomena (all things), who cannot understand continuous arising, etc. (the continuous arising and perishing of things)? Why is it necessary to say more? Therefore, his explanation contradicts the meaning of the scriptures. Moreover, the characteristics of momentary arising, etc. (the arising and perishing of things in a moment), can be understood by subtle wisdom (refined wisdom). That is to say, by constantly and carefully observing within a moment, one can understand. Subtle wisdom arises from the power of the teachings (the Buddha's teachings), and knowing that all phenomena are impermanent (all things are impermanent) can remove attachment to self (attachment to the ego). Since it is known by subtle wisdom, saying that the three characteristics of momentary arising, etc. (the three states of arising, abiding, and ceasing), are unknowable is not a truthful statement. Moreover, what he said, 'Those who should not establish characteristics because they are unknowable,' should not be definitively said to be unknowable. Because the characteristics of feeling, etc. (phenomena such as feelings), which are not causes of characteristics, cannot be understood by those with coarse wisdom (shallow wisdom), it is not because they are not characteristics that they are said to be unknowable, and therefore not characteristics. Such a statement is unreasonable. Moreover, this scripture says that the arising of conditioned phenomena (the arising of conditioned dharmas) can also be known, and the cessation, abiding, and change (the cessation, abiding, and change of conditioned dharmas) can also be known. This is based on the moment. The meaning of this scripture is that momentary arising, etc. (phenomena such as momentary arising), can be known when carefully observed. The World Honored One spoke these words to encourage those who accept teachings to observe carefully. Moreover, the author of the scripture says, 'However, the scripture repeats the term conditioned,' to let people know that this characteristic (phenomenon) indicates conditioned dharmas, and not to think that this characteristic indicates the existence of conditioned dharmas. Just as a white heron indicates water, it does not mean there is no water. Such a statement contradicts his own doctrine. If one admits that conditioned dharmas exist in the unarisen state (the state where things have not yet arisen), one can say that 'non-arising' indicates the existence of conditioned dharmas, because it already exists in the unarisen state. Since one believes that conditioned dharmas do not exist in the unarisen state, how can one say that 'non-arising' indicates the existence of conditioned dharmas? A white heron indicating water is precisely the view of their sect, and arising indicating the existence of conditioned dharmas is a similar analogy. If arising cannot indicate that what was originally non-existent now exists, the existence of conditioned dharmas seems to be denied as well. Only the doctrine that admits the existence of conditioned dharmas, they believe that conditioned dharmas only have their own essence, which is called arising. The essence of arising is the existence of conditioned dharmas. Since arising and conditioned dharmas do not have different essences, and conditioned dharmas and existence have no difference, how can this characteristic indicate conditioned dharmas but not indicate existence? Moreover, if conditioned is repeated for this reason, then what was said earlier becomes useless, 'The arising of conditioned phenomena can also be known,' etc.
。足能成立如斯義故。是故此言。應表別義。彼上座言。若不重說有為言者。則不了知有為之相。為表何義此為能表。有色等性。為復能表有味等性為或能表善惡等性。為遣斯惑。重說有為。彼亦非理。已說有三有為之相。何容此相表有色等。非於別法無差別相應與彼法為差別相。又經當說。有為之起亦可知等。于無為中。當復遮此起等三相。由斯足了此相分明表有為性。何須重說。又彼何容疑此諸相能表示余有色等性。由有色等是自相故。起等表此應成自相。不應一體自相有三。如何契經說有三相。故彼於此無容致疑。又當亦言兼表集義。令知三相表一有為。無容疑此別有所表。是故彼執。亦定非善。又彼依何如何施設諸有為相。且彼經主。朋上座宗。作如是說。諸行相續。初起名生。終盡位中。說名為滅。中間相續隨轉名住。此前後別。名為住異。復謂世尊依如是義。說難陀言。是善男子。善知受生。善知受住。及善知受衰異壞滅。諸行相續名何所詮。謂諸有為無間流轉。此復何法為其自性。是假有法。寧求自性。然諸剎那。展轉相似。因果相繼。諸行感赴。連環無斷。說名相續。若爾相續說有一生。不應正理。非俱起故。若謂無量諸行剎那無間缺生名為相續。如何可說相續有生。彼依已生未滅諸行。方可建立有
為法生。非於未生及已滅故。又此相續。既是假有。為唯現在。是此所依為復通依過去現在。若唯現在。是此所依。此則不應說為假有。一剎那法。獨為相續假法所依。不應理故。然依多法總立為一。是假有相。如瓶如行。若此通依過去現在。以相續假前生剎那及現在法為所依故。是則相續生義應無。不可言生在過去故。又法現在。則非相續若是相續。非現在故。既唯現在可立有生。應唯剎那不名相續。若無此義。應違契經。故契經言。或有一類。其身安住。乃至百年。非一剎那可百年住。誰言一念。身住百年。但說此身相似相續中不間起異類剎那。謂身前前剎那無間。後後相似剎那續生。假說一身百年安住。此于經說有何相違。又不應言相續有住。以于多念立相續名。多念必無俱時住故。豈不共許剎那分位及眾同分三現在成。如何乃言無相續住。若無相續。后二應無。此同前經。應如理釋。謂后二種。假立現名。於此亦應假立生等。許三世有。此義可然。若說過去未來無體。唯有現在一剎那中。如何執有相續生等。非前剎那諸行未滅。爾時即有後剎那生。如何執此二共有一生相。又一剎那如何非有生滅二相俱時建立。又諸剎那展轉相似。時無間缺。諸行生時。容可執有相續生等。若時善識剎那無間。不善識生。復于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為法而生（Dharmotpāda）。並非對於未生起和已滅去的事物而言。而且這種相續（saṃtāna），既然是假有（prajñaptisat），那麼是僅僅以現在（vartamāna）作為它的所依，還是也通依過去（atīta）和現在？如果僅僅以現在作為它的所依，那麼就不應該說它是假有。因為一個剎那（kṣaṇa）之法，獨自作為相續假法的所依，是不合道理的。然而，依靠多種法總合而立為一，才是假有的相狀，比如瓶子，比如行為。如果它通依過去和現在，因為相續假以前生的剎那和現在的法作為所依，那麼相續的生起之義就應該不存在了，因為不能說生起發生在過去。而且，法如果是現在的，就不是相續；如果是相續，就不是現在的。既然只有現在才能成立有生起，就應該只有剎那，而不能稱為相續。如果沒有這個道理，就應該違背契經（sūtra）。所以契經說：『或者有一類眾生，他們的身體安住，乃至百年。』沒有一個剎那可以安住百年。誰說一個念頭，身體就能安住百年？只是說這個身體在相似的相續中，沒有間斷地生起異類的剎那，意思是身體前一個剎那沒有間斷，后一個相似的剎那相續生起，假說一個身體安住百年。這與經文所說有什麼相違背呢？ 也不應該說相續有住（sthiti），因為在多個念頭上才立為相續之名，多個念頭必定沒有同時安住的。難道不是共同承認剎那的分位（avasthā），以及眾生的同分（nikāya），這三種現在成就嗎？為什麼說沒有相續的安住呢？如果沒有相續，那麼后兩種（同分和分位）就應該沒有。這和前面的經文一樣，應該如理地解釋。意思是后兩種，是假立為現在的名稱。對於這裡也應該假立生等。如果承認三世（過去、現在、未來）是有，這個道理還可以成立。如果說過去未來沒有實體，只有現在一個剎那中，如何執著有相續的生等呢？如果前一個剎那的諸行（saṃskāra）沒有滅去，那時就有後一個剎那生起，如何執著這兩個剎那共同有一個生相（utpāda-lakṣaṇa）呢？又一個剎那如何不是有生滅二相同時建立呢？又諸個剎那輾轉相似，時間上沒有間斷和缺失，諸行生起時，或許可以執著有相續的生等。如果時間上善識（kuśala-citta）的剎那沒有間斷，不善識（akuśala-citta）生起，又于
【English Translation】 English version: It arises for the sake of the Dharma (Dharmotpāda), not for what is unborn or has ceased. Moreover, since this continuity (saṃtāna) is a conceptual existence (prajñaptisat), is it only the present (vartamāna) that serves as its basis, or does it also rely on the past (atīta) and present? If only the present serves as its basis, then it should not be called a conceptual existence. It is unreasonable for a single moment (kṣaṇa) of Dharma to be the sole basis for a continuous conceptual Dharma. However, establishing one by combining multiple Dharmas is the characteristic of conceptual existence, like a pot or an action. If it relies on both the past and present, because the continuity relies on past moments and present Dharmas, then the meaning of the arising of continuity should not exist, because it cannot be said that arising occurs in the past. Moreover, if a Dharma is present, it is not continuous; if it is continuous, it is not present. Since only the present can establish arising, it should only be a moment and not be called continuity. If there is no such principle, it would contradict the sūtra (sūtra). Therefore, the sūtra says: 'There are beings whose bodies remain for up to a hundred years.' No single moment can remain for a hundred years. Who says that a single thought can keep the body for a hundred years? It simply means that in a similar continuity, dissimilar moments arise without interruption, meaning that the preceding moment of the body arises without interruption, followed by a similar moment, falsely saying that a body remains for a hundred years. How does this contradict what the sūtra says? It should also not be said that continuity has duration (sthiti), because the name of continuity is established on multiple moments, and multiple moments certainly do not exist simultaneously. Is it not commonly accepted that the divisions (avasthā) of moments and the commonality (nikāya) of beings, these three are accomplished in the present? Why say that there is no duration of continuity? If there is no continuity, then the latter two (commonality and divisions) should not exist. This is the same as the previous sūtra and should be explained reasonably. It means that the latter two are falsely established as the name of the present. Here, arising and so on should also be falsely established. If it is admitted that the three times (past, present, future) exist, this principle can be established. If it is said that the past and future have no substance, and only the present exists in a single moment, how can one cling to the arising of continuity and so on? If the activities (saṃskāra) of the previous moment have not ceased, and then the next moment arises, how can one cling to the fact that these two moments share a single characteristic of arising (utpāda-lakṣaṇa)? Moreover, how can a single moment not have both the characteristics of arising and ceasing established simultaneously? Furthermore, if the moments are similar in succession, and there is no interruption or lack of time, when the activities arise, perhaps one can cling to the arising of continuity and so on. If, in time, a moment of wholesome consciousness (kuśala-citta) arises without interruption, and unwholesome consciousness (akuśala-citta) arises, and then
此識剎那無間。無記識起。爾時前後識性不同。如何執有相續生等。若言前後是一識類。亦得說名相似相續。則此相續。應無有生。從無始時來。一識相續故。乃至未入無餘涅槃。此相續住應無有滅。又善識剎那已生已滅不善起。不善識剎那已生已滅無記起。豈不爾時一剎那頃生滅二相俱時建立。如遮諸行相續有生。如是亦應類遮住滅。誰有身心無狂亂者。能執已滅未生有住。或一剎那執有相續。又若不許色等諸行一一剎那皆有生滅。則譬喻者亦執有為經多時住。便與外道勝論等師執有何別。而言最後剎那滅故。一一剎那皆有滅者。彼豈不名心蘊餘事口說餘事。以破他宗。又唯法無名滅性故。彼宗滅性法無為體。是則諸法應非無常。非諸法無可名法故。若即諸法說為無常。不應滅性以無為體。以法皆用有為性故。滅相之體。名為滅性。非無有體可立性名。如何彼宗可言滅性。又言。諸行是有滅法。理不應成。滅無體故。無體不應成法性故。又無常性。若無體者。不應說第六謂色之無常。無無系屬自及他故。又相續異理亦不成。非一切時於一切處許有前後差別性故。由此故說。若執身等非一一念皆有異者。外緣無別。如何后時身等現有差別可得。彼于外緣。無差別時。誰令相續前後差別。不應言別自然而有。相同相續應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此識（Vijnana）剎那之間沒有間隔，無記識（Avyakrta-Vijnana）生起。如果前後識的性質不同，又如何認為有相續生等現象呢？如果說前後識屬於同一識類，可以稱之為相似相續，那麼這種相續就應該沒有生起。因為從無始以來，都是一個識在相續，乃至沒有進入無餘涅槃（Anupadhisesa-nirvana）之前，這種相續存在就應該沒有滅盡。 又，善識剎那生起后滅去，不善識（Akusala-Vijnana）生起；不善識剎那生起后滅去，無記識生起。難道不是說，在一剎那間，生和滅兩種相同時成立嗎？既然可以否定諸行（Samskara）的相續有生，也應該同樣否定住和滅。誰有身心而沒有狂亂，會認為已經滅去而尚未生起的法有住留呢？或者在一剎那間認為有相續存在？ 又，如果不承認色等諸行在每一個剎那都有生滅，那麼譬喻者也認為有為法（Samskrta-dharma）經過很長時間才住留，這與外道勝論派等的主張有什麼區別呢？如果說因為最後的剎那滅去，所以每一個剎那都有滅，那麼這豈不是心口不一？用一種說法來反駁其他宗派，而自己卻持有另一種觀點。 又，只有法（Dharma）沒有名為滅的自性，所以他們的宗派認為滅性是無為法（Asamskrta-dharma）的體性。如果是這樣，那麼諸法就不應該無常。因為諸法並非沒有可以稱之為法的自性。如果直接說諸法是無常的，就不應該認為滅性以無為法為體性，因為法都具有有為法的性質。滅相的體性，名為滅性，沒有體性就不能建立為性。他們的宗派怎麼能說有滅性呢？ 又說，諸行是有滅之法，這個道理不應該成立，因為滅沒有自體。沒有自體就不應該成為法的自性。又，如果無常性沒有自體，就不應該說第六種是色的無常，因為沒有與自身和他者的聯繫。又，相續的差異這個道理也不成立，因為並非在任何時候、任何地方都承認有前後差別性。 因此我說，如果認為身等不是在每一個念頭都有差異，那麼在外緣沒有差別的情況下，後來的身等如何能夠顯現出差別呢？在外緣沒有差別的時候，是誰讓相續產生前後差別呢？不應該說差別是自然而有的，相同的相續也應該如此。
【English Translation】 English version This consciousness (Vijnana) has no interval between moments, and indeterminate consciousness (Avyakrta-Vijnana) arises. If the natures of the preceding and following consciousnesses are different, how can one assert that there is a continuity of arising, etc.? If it is said that the preceding and following consciousnesses belong to the same category of consciousness, which can be called similar continuity, then this continuity should have no arising. Because from beginningless time, it is one consciousness that continues, and until one enters Anupadhisesa-nirvana (Nirvana without remainder), this existing continuity should have no cessation. Furthermore, after a wholesome consciousness moment arises and ceases, an unwholesome consciousness (Akusala-Vijnana) arises; after an unwholesome consciousness moment arises and ceases, an indeterminate consciousness arises. Isn't it the case that, in one moment, both arising and ceasing are established simultaneously? Since one can deny that the continuity of conditioned phenomena (Samskara) has arising, one should also deny abiding and ceasing in the same way. Who, with body and mind and without madness, would think that a phenomenon that has ceased and has not yet arisen has abiding? Or, in one moment, think that there is continuity? Moreover, if one does not acknowledge that conditioned phenomena such as form have arising and ceasing in every moment, then the example-givers also think that conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma) abide for a long time. What difference is there between this and the assertions of non-Buddhist Samkhya school and others? If it is said that because the final moment ceases, every moment has ceasing, then isn't this speaking one thing with the mouth and thinking another in the mind? Using one statement to refute other schools, while holding another view oneself. Furthermore, only Dharma has no self-nature called cessation, so their school thinks that the nature of cessation is the nature of unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta-dharma). If this is the case, then dharmas should not be impermanent. Because dharmas are not without a nature that can be called Dharma. If one directly says that dharmas are impermanent, one should not think that the nature of cessation has unconditioned dharma as its nature, because dharmas all have the nature of conditioned dharma. The nature of the cessation aspect is called the nature of cessation; without a nature, one cannot establish a nature. How can their school say that there is a nature of cessation? It is also said that conditioned phenomena are dharmas of cessation, but this reasoning should not be established, because cessation has no self-nature. Without self-nature, it should not become the nature of Dharma. Furthermore, if impermanence has no self-nature, one should not say that the sixth is the impermanence of form, because there is no connection with oneself and others. Furthermore, the reasoning of the difference of continuity is also not established, because it is not acknowledged that there is a difference between before and after at all times and in all places. Therefore, I say that if one thinks that bodies, etc., do not have differences in every thought, then how can later bodies, etc., manifest differences when external conditions have no difference? When external conditions have no difference, who causes the continuity to have differences between before and after? One should not say that the difference is natural; the same should be true of similar continuity.
無別故。亦應執生自然有故。亦不應說自類為因故有差別。類無別故。若謂即用自類前生為后因緣相續有別。是則地等離火等合。應但由前熟變相起而實不起。故理不然。又彼撥無俱生異相。復無外緣前後差別。而定執有相續異相遍一切時一切處者。此無所因。而興固執。又不應執與外緣俱。前因剎那為緣性故。能生后念果性剎那。由茲相續前後有異。或有諸行不待外緣。而有有為異相體故。有執所相長時相續。微細損減。即說名異。此亦不然。一切相續。應非遍有異相體故。謂增益時。應無異故。如有說言。是四大種。及所造色。所合成身。有時見增。有時見減。又此相續。復由何緣。而有損減。過同前說。如是已破相續生等。所引契經。于義非證。彼善男子。善知未來過去受故。謂現在智。知未來受。正生名生。非已生位。知過去受。已滅名滅。非正滅位。非知已生未滅位受。不應理故。善知受住及衰異言。非本所誦。設有此誦。義亦無違。過去未來。據曾當說。有生等故。又生等相一切時有。故彼所引于證無能。是故應隨聖教正理。信解諸行一一剎那實有生等非於相續。又經主說。一一剎那諸有為法。離執實有四相亦成。云何得成。謂一一念。本無今有名生。有已還無名滅。後後剎那。嗣前前起名為住。即彼前
後有差別故名住異。於前后念相似生時。前後相望非無差別。故離執有生等實物。一剎那頃四相亦成。豈不汝宗先有所怖故不。許有生等別物。今還失念自成立耶。如何有為一剎那頃。生住異滅四法為性。而無一法一時即生即住即衰即壞過失。若謂系屬眾緣故者。眾緣同此應頓為緣。謂彼眾緣。一一皆以生住異滅為自性故。此中何理。緣體有四。初為生緣。非即令滅。復有何理。諸有為法。但生體緣為緣。初令諸法生。非滅體緣為緣令法本不起。又生與滅依一法成。若異不異皆有過失。所以者何。此若異者。此即異此。不應理故。若不異者。生時應滅。滅時應生。又應無二。生滅二種。更相障故。又生法體。即滅法體。而言生滅。無雜亂失。此必應是毗瑟笯天所為幻惑。又應審決過去未來為有為無。然後可說本無今有有已還無相續。或剎那皆成假四相。又依何義說住相言。後後剎那。嗣前前起。嗣前起者。應即是生。既再說生。應無四相。又何緣力前後剎那相續有異。過同前說。又唯法無名為滅性。所有過失。如前已辯。故知生等。別有實物。又經主說。若離有為色等自性。有生等物。一法一時。應即生住衰異壞滅。許俱有故。執離有為無別生等。如斯過疾。不可救療。一法一時。功能差別。理不成故。許離有為有別
生等。無斯過失。如體不同。用有別故。現見內外。諸羯剌藍。諸種子等。余緣攝助。于生自果。有勝功能。謂羯賴藍等。識所攝助為勝因性。生頞部曇等。雖頞部曇等非不待識。而非因識生頞部曇等。此二相續。有差別故。然非此識與頞部曇等不作勝緣。由此有彼有。此無彼無故。又非此識與羯賴藍等為俱助緣生頞部曇等。即令此識亦與種等為俱助緣。生於芽等。如是種等。地等攝助。為勝因性。生於芽等。雖彼芽等非不待地等。而非因地等生於芽等。種等無間。生芽等故。然非地等與彼芽等不作勝緣。芽等有無隨地等故。又非地等與種子等為俱助緣生於芽等。即令地等亦得與彼羯賴藍等為俱助緣。而得生於頞部曇等。如是余法緣助。于因令生自果。如應當說。又自稱為釋迦弟子。必應亦許有俱生因。由契經言。識與名色。更互為緣。而得住故。然羯賴藍種等。與頞部曇芽等。為前生因。識及地等。為俱生緣。此俱生緣。比前生因。其力增勝。以雖有彼羯賴藍等及與種等諸前生因。若無有識地等俱緣。即頞部曇芽等諸果。必不生故。由此準知。諸有為法。雖有種種外助因緣。而必有內生住異滅。為近助因。方得行世。然有為法。分位不同。略有三種。謂引果用。未得正得已滅別故。此諸有為。復有二種。謂有作用。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生命等等。沒有這些過失。就像身體不同，作用也有區別。現在可以觀察到，無論是內在的羯剌藍（kalala，受精卵），還是外在的種子等等，在其他因緣的幫助下，對於產生它們各自的結果，都有殊勝的功能。也就是說，羯剌藍等，在識的攝持幫助下，成為殊勝的因性，從而產生頞部曇（arbuda，凝滑位）等。雖然頞部曇等並非不依賴於識，但並非因為識而產生頞部曇等，因為這兩者相續存在，有差別。然而，並非說這個識對於頞部曇等不起殊勝的助緣作用，因為有了這個識，才會有頞部曇等，沒有這個識，就沒有頞部曇等。而且，並非說這個識與羯剌藍等作為共同的助緣，產生頞部曇等，就使得這個識也能與種子等作為共同的助緣，產生芽等。同樣，種子等，在土地等的攝持幫助下，成為殊勝的因性，從而產生芽等。雖然這些芽等並非不依賴於土地等，但並非因為土地等而產生芽等，因為種子等是無間地產生芽等的。然而，並非說土地等對於這些芽等不起殊勝的助緣作用，因為芽等的存在與否取決於土地等。而且，並非說土地等與種子等作為共同的助緣，產生芽等，就使得土地等也能與羯剌藍等作為共同的助緣，從而產生頞部曇等。像這樣，其他的法緣幫助，對於因產生它們各自的結果，應當如實說明。 又自稱為釋迦（Śākya）弟子的人，必定也應該承認有俱生因。因為契經上說，識與名色（nāmarūpa，精神與物質），相互為緣，才能存在。然而，羯剌藍、種子等，對於頞部曇、芽等，是前生因；識以及土地等，是俱生緣。這個俱生緣，比前生因，力量更加強大。因為即使有羯剌藍等以及種子等這些前生因，如果沒有識、土地等這些俱緣，那麼頞部曇、芽等這些結果，必定不會產生。由此可以推知，諸有為法，即使有種種外在的助緣，也必定有內在的生、住、異、滅，作為近助因，才能在世間存在。然而，有為法，根據分位的不同，略有三種，即引果用、未得正得、已滅的區別。這些有為法，又有兩種，即有作用、無作用。
【English Translation】 English version: Life and so on. There are no such faults. Just as bodies are different, their functions also differ. It is now observable that whether it is the internal kalala (fertilized ovum), or the external seeds and so on, with the help of other conditions, they have a superior function in producing their respective results. That is to say, kalala and so on, under the support and assistance of consciousness, become a superior causal nature, thereby producing arbuda (gelatinous stage) and so on. Although arbuda and so on are not independent of consciousness, they are not produced by consciousness, because these two exist continuously and have differences. However, it is not to say that this consciousness does not play a superior auxiliary role for arbuda and so on, because with this consciousness, there will be arbuda and so on, and without this consciousness, there will be no arbuda and so on. Moreover, it is not to say that this consciousness, together with kalala and so on, as a common auxiliary condition, produces arbuda and so on, so that this consciousness can also, together with seeds and so on, as a common auxiliary condition, produce sprouts and so on. Similarly, seeds and so on, under the support and assistance of land and so on, become a superior causal nature, thereby producing sprouts and so on. Although these sprouts and so on are not independent of land and so on, they are not produced by land and so on, because seeds and so on produce sprouts and so on without interruption. However, it is not to say that land and so on do not play a superior auxiliary role for these sprouts and so on, because the existence or absence of sprouts and so on depends on land and so on. Moreover, it is not to say that land and so on, together with seeds and so on, as a common auxiliary condition, produce sprouts and so on, so that land and so on can also, together with kalala and so on, as a common auxiliary condition, produce arbuda and so on. In this way, the assistance of other dharma conditions, for the cause to produce their respective results, should be explained truthfully. Furthermore, those who call themselves disciples of Śākya (釋迦，the historical Buddha) must also acknowledge that there are co-existent causes. Because the sutras say that consciousness and nāmarūpa (名色，name and form, mind and matter) are mutually dependent conditions for existence. However, kalala, seeds, and so on, are prior causes for arbuda, sprouts, and so on; consciousness and land, and so on, are co-existent conditions. This co-existent condition is more powerful than the prior cause. Because even if there are prior causes such as kalala and seeds, without co-existent conditions such as consciousness and land, the results such as arbuda and sprouts will definitely not arise. From this, it can be inferred that all conditioned dharmas, even if there are various external auxiliary conditions, must have internal arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing as proximate auxiliary causes in order to exist in the world. However, conditioned dharmas, according to the difference in their stages, are roughly of three types, namely, the distinction between the function of leading to a result, not yet attained, rightly attained, and already ceased. These conditioned dharmas are further of two types, namely, having function and not having function.
及唯有體。前是現在。后是去來。此復一一各有二種。謂彼功能。有勝有劣。謂有為法。若能為因。引攝自果。名為作用。若能為緣。攝助異類。是謂功能。如是二種。辯三世中。當廣思擇。應以差別緣起正理蘊在心中。于其生等。功能差別。當生信解。謂或有法。于未獲得引果用時。由過未得正得已滅引果用時。外緣攝助。于辦自事。發起內緣。攝助功能。是名生相。或復有法。于正獲得引果用時。即由彼時外緣攝助。于辦自事。發起內緣。攝助功能。是餘三相。于正生位。生為內緣。起所生法。至已生位。此所生法。名為已起。于正滅位。住為內緣。安所住法。令引自果。至已滅位。此所住法。名于自果已能引發。即正滅位。滅為內緣。壞所滅法。至已滅位。此所滅法。名為已壞。異相亦爾。如應當知。有餘師說。因要待處世時位伴。方與果故。生已生時。起用差別。謂或有因。待處與果。如雨要待云處方生。要贍部洲處金剛座。方證無上正等菩提。或復有因。待世與果。如異熟因。順解脫分。要在過去。方能與果。或復有因。待時與果。如輪王業。要劫增時。方能獲得轉輪王位。或復有因。待位與果。如諸種子。至變果位。方能生芽。初無漏心。及光明等。雖體先有。而要未來正生位中。能有所作。或復有因。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以及唯有『體』（Svalaksana，自性）。前面指的是現在，後面指的是過去和未來。而這每一個又各有兩種，指的是它們的功能，有殊勝的，也有低劣的。所謂的『有為法』（Samskrta-dharma，有生滅變化的法），如果能夠作為『因』（Hetu，直接產生結果的原因），引導和攝持自身的結果，就叫做『作用』（Karitra，直接效果）。如果能夠作為『緣』（Pratyaya，輔助條件），攝持和幫助不同的種類，這就叫做『功能』（Samarthya，間接效果）。像這樣的兩種，在辨析三世的時候，應當廣泛地思考和選擇，應當以差別緣起的正理蘊藏在心中，對於它的生等等功能差別，應當生起信解。也就是說，或者有的法，在沒有獲得引導結果的作用時，由於過去未得，正在獲得，已經滅去，引導結果的作用時，外緣攝持和幫助，在辦理自身的事情時，發起內緣，攝持和幫助功能，這叫做『生相』（Jati-laksana，產生的相狀）。或者又有法，在正在獲得引導結果的作用時，就由於那個時候外緣攝持和幫助，在辦理自身的事情時，發起內緣，攝持和幫助功能，這就是其餘的三個相。在正在產生的位置，『生』（Jati，產生）作為內緣，生起所產生的法，到已經產生的位置，這個所產生的法，叫做『已經生起』。在正在滅去的位置，『住』（Sthiti，持續）作為內緣，安住所安住的法，令其引導自身的結果，到已經滅去的位置，這個所安住的法，叫做對於自身的結果已經能夠引發。就在正在滅去的位置，『滅』（Vyaya，消滅）作為內緣，壞滅所要滅去的法，到已經滅去的位置，這個所滅去的法，叫做『已經壞滅』。『異相』（Anityata-laksana，變異的相狀）也是這樣，應當如實地瞭解。有其他的老師說，因需要等待處所、世間、時間、位置、伴侶，才給予果，所以生和已生時，作用有差別。也就是說，或者有的因，等待處所才給予果，比如下雨需要等待云的處所才能產生，需要贍部洲（Jambudvipa，我們所居住的大陸）的金剛座（Vajrasana，菩提樹下的座位），才能證得無上正等菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上的正覺）。或者又有因，等待世間才給予果，比如異熟因（Vipaka-hetu，導致不同結果的因），順解脫分（Moksha-bhagiya，有助於解脫的部分），需要在過去，才能給予果。或者又有因，等待時間才給予果，比如輪王業（Chakravartin-karma，轉輪聖王的業力），需要劫增時，才能獲得轉輪王的地位。或者又有因，等待位置才給予果，比如各種種子，到變成果實的位置，才能生出芽。最初的無漏心（Anasrava-citta，沒有煩惱的心）以及光明等等，雖然本體先前就有，而需要在未來正在產生的位置中，才能有所作為。或者又有因，
【English Translation】 English version: And only the 'essence' (Svalaksana, intrinsic nature). The former refers to the present, the latter to the past and future. Each of these again has two aspects, referring to their functions, some superior and some inferior. The so-called 'conditioned dharmas' (Samskrta-dharma, phenomena subject to change), if they can act as a 'cause' (Hetu, direct cause of a result), guiding and holding their own result, are called 'action' (Karitra, direct effect). If they can act as a 'condition' (Pratyaya, auxiliary condition), holding and assisting different kinds, this is called 'function' (Samarthya, indirect effect). Such two aspects, in distinguishing the three times, should be widely considered and chosen. One should keep the correct principle of differentiated dependent origination in mind, and for its arising and other functional differences, one should generate faith and understanding. That is to say, or some dharmas, when not obtaining the function of leading to a result, due to past non-attainment, present attainment, and already ceased, when leading to a result, external conditions hold and assist, in handling their own affairs, initiating internal conditions, holding and assisting function, this is called 'birth aspect' (Jati-laksana, aspect of arising). Or again, some dharmas, when presently obtaining the function of leading to a result, just due to that time external conditions holding and assisting, in handling their own affairs, initiating internal conditions, holding and assisting function, these are the remaining three aspects. In the position of presently arising, 'birth' (Jati, arising) acts as an internal condition, giving rise to the dharma that is produced, to the position of already arisen, this dharma that is produced is called 'already arisen'. In the position of presently ceasing, 'duration' (Sthiti, continuation) acts as an internal condition, dwelling the dharma that is dwelt, causing it to lead to its own result, to the position of already ceased, this dharma that is dwelt is called having been able to cause its own result. Just in the position of presently ceasing, 'cessation' (Vyaya, extinction) acts as an internal condition, destroying the dharma that is to be destroyed, to the position of already ceased, this dharma that is destroyed is called 'already destroyed'. The 'different aspect' (Anityata-laksana, aspect of change) is also like this, one should know it as it is. Some other teachers say that a cause needs to wait for place, world, time, position, companion, in order to give a result, so the action of birth and already born is different. That is to say, or some causes, wait for a place to give a result, for example, rain needs to wait for the place of clouds to arise, one needs the Vajrasana (Vajrasana, seat under the Bodhi tree) in Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, the continent we live on) to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). Or again, some causes, wait for the world to give a result, for example, the cause of different ripening (Vipaka-hetu, cause leading to different results), the part conducive to liberation (Moksha-bhagiya, part that helps liberation), needs to be in the past to give a result. Or again, some causes, wait for time to give a result, for example, the karma of a wheel-turning king (Chakravartin-karma, karma of a Chakravartin), needs the time of increasing kalpa to obtain the position of a wheel-turning king. Or again, some causes, wait for a position to give a result, for example, various seeds, to the position of transforming into a fruit, can produce a sprout. The initial uncontaminated mind (Anasrava-citta, mind without afflictions) and light, etc., although the essence is already there, needs to be in the future position of presently arising, to be able to do something. Or again, some causes,
待伴與果。如諸大種心心所等。要與伴俱。能有所作。由斯差別。緣起正理。四相起用。分位不同。謂正生時。生相起用。至已生位。住異滅三。同於一時。各起別用。如是四相。用時既別。如何難言一法一時應即生住衰異壞滅。又正滅時。此所相法。由余住相為勝因故。暫時安住。能引自果。即于爾時由余異相為勝因故。令其衰異。即于爾時由余滅相為勝因故。令其壞滅。故三一時無相違過。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之六
又彼經主。於此生疑。爾時此法。為名安住。為名衰異。為名壞滅。今當爲決。已生位中。住異滅三。起用各別。令所相法。於一時中。所望不同。具有三義。如斯通釋。何理相違。故彼所疑。未為應理。又次前說。設許未來生有作用。如何成未來。應說未來相。法現在時。生用已謝。如何成現在。應說現在相。此無所違。無非現在。有作用故。豈不生相未來生時能生諸法。即是作用。何故乃言。此唯現在。天愛作用。非汝所知。此是功能。非關作用。謂有為法。若能為因。引攝自果。名為作用。若能為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：伴隨和結果。例如諸大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）和心心所（citta-caitasika，心和心所）等，必須與伴隨者一起，才能有所作為。由於這種差別，緣起（pratītyasamutpāda， dependent origination）的正理，四相（catvāri lakṣaṇāni，四種特徵：生、住、異、滅）的起用，以及分位不同。所謂正生之時，生相（utpāda-lakṣaṇa，生之相）起用；到了已生之位，住（sthiti，住）、異（anyathātva，異）、滅（vyaya，滅）三相，同時各自起不同的作用。像這樣，四相的作用時間既然不同，怎麼能說一個法在同一時間應該同時生、住、衰、異、壞、滅呢？又在正滅之時，這個被相所相的法，由於其餘住相作為殊勝的因，所以暫時安住，能夠引生自己的結果。就在那個時候，由於其餘異相作為殊勝的因，使其衰變差異；就在那個時候，由於其餘滅相作為殊勝的因，使其壞滅。所以三相同時起作用，沒有互相違背的過失。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之六
此外，那位經部師（sūtra-vādin，經量部論師）對此產生疑問：那時這個法，是名為安住，是名為衰異，還是名為壞滅？現在應當為您決斷。在已生之位中，住、異、滅三相，起用各自不同，使得被相所相的法，在同一時間中，所期望的不同，具有三種意義。像這樣通達解釋，有什麼道理相違背呢？所以他所懷疑的，並不合理。又如前所說，假設允許未來生有作用，如何成為未來？應該說未來相的法在現在時，生起的作用已經消失，如何成為現在？應該說現在相。這沒有相違背的地方，沒有不是現在的，因為有作用的緣故。難道不是生相在未來生起時能夠生起諸法，這就是作用嗎？為什麼說這只是現在？天愛（deva-priya，一種尊稱）的作用，不是你所能知道的。這是功能，不關作用。所謂有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有為法），如果能夠作為因，引攝自己的結果，就叫做作用；如果能夠作為
【English Translation】 English version: Companionship and results. For example, the great elements (mahābhūta) and mental factors (citta-caitasika), etc., must be accompanied by companions in order to be able to act. Due to this difference, the correct principle of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), the functions of the four characteristics (catvāri lakṣaṇāni: origination, duration, decay, and cessation), and the different positions. When it is just arising, the characteristic of origination (utpāda-lakṣaṇa) functions; when it reaches the position of having already arisen, the three characteristics of duration (sthiti), decay (anyathātva), and cessation (vyaya) simultaneously each perform different functions. Since the times of the functions of these four characteristics are different, how can it be said that one dharma should simultaneously arise, endure, decay, change, perish? Furthermore, when it is just ceasing, this dharma that is characterized by the characteristics, due to the remaining characteristic of duration being the superior cause, temporarily abides and can lead to its own result. At that very time, due to the remaining characteristic of decay being the superior cause, it decays and changes; at that very time, due to the remaining characteristic of cessation being the superior cause, it perishes. Therefore, the simultaneous functioning of the three characteristics does not have the fault of contradiction.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvāstivāda, Volume 13 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya
Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Volume 14
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Two on Discriminating Differences, Section Six
Moreover, that Sūtra Master (sūtra-vādin) has doubts about this: At that time, is this dharma called abiding, is it called decaying and changing, or is it called perishing? Now I will resolve it for you. In the position of having already arisen, the three characteristics of duration, decay, and cessation each have different functions, causing the dharma that is characterized by the characteristics to have different expectations at the same time, possessing three meanings. Explaining it thoroughly like this, what principle is contradictory? Therefore, what he doubts is not reasonable. Furthermore, as previously said, if it is allowed that the future arising has a function, how can it become the future? It should be said that the dharma of the future characteristic, when it is in the present time, the function of arising has already disappeared, how can it become the present? It should be said that it is the present characteristic. There is no contradiction here, there is nothing that is not present, because it has a function. Isn't it that the characteristic of arising can generate all dharmas when it arises in the future, and this is the function? Why do you say that this is only the present? The function of the 'beloved of the gods' (deva-priya) is not something you can know. This is a capability, it is not related to function. What is called a conditioned dharma (saṃskṛta-dharma) is that if it can act as a cause, leading to its own result, it is called a function; if it can act as
緣。攝助異類。是謂功能。如前已辯。一切現在。皆能為因。引攝自果。非諸現在皆能為緣攝助異類。謂闇中眼。或有功能被損害者。便於眼識。不能為緣攝助令起。然其作用。非闇所損。定能為因。引當眼故。由斯作用。功能有別。然于同類相續果生。有定不定。攝引勢力。名為作用。亦名功能。若於異類相續果生。但能為緣。攝助令起。此非作用。但是功能。豈不論言。苦法智忍。光明生相。如是三法。皆于未來。能起作用。天愛汝今執文迷義。我宗釋言。此文但約近緣功能。假說作用。以于多種法生緣中生是近緣。理極成立。故以餘位因作用名。於此位中。假立名想。如是住等。隨應當知。苦忍光明。亦於此位。有勝功力。假立此名。實唯引果。方名作用。或有難言。于正生位。若無生等如何此時生有作用。非住異滅。於此位中。若有生等。如何住等無用唯生。此難不然。且正生位。生等非無。住等爾時非現在故。功能未有。設此位中。未有生等。如汝因果。理亦無違由汝宗中果將生位能生因性。或有或無。許有鄰近展轉因故。又彼經主。於四相中。許三撥異。作如是說。又應一法生已未壞名住。住已壞時名滅。理且可然。異於一法進退推徴。理不應有。所以者何。異謂前後性相轉變。非即此法可言異此。故說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣（hetu，因）：攝取和幫助不同類的法，這叫做功能（karitra）。正如前面已經辨析過的，一切現在法都能作為因，引導和攝取自己的果。但不是所有現在法都能作為緣，攝取和幫助不同類的法。比如在黑暗中的眼睛，或者有些功能受到損害的眼睛，對於眼識來說，就不能作為緣來攝取和幫助它生起。然而，眼睛作為因的作用並沒有被黑暗所損害，它一定能作為因，引導未來的眼識產生。因此，作用和功能是有區別的。 然而，對於同類相續的果的產生，有決定和不決定的攝取和引導的力量，這叫做作用，也叫做功能。如果對於不同類相續的果的產生，只能作為緣，攝取和幫助它生起，這不叫做作用，只是功能。 難道你沒有聽說過嗎？苦法智忍（kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-duḥkha，對苦諦的忍），光明生相（utpāda-lakṣaṇa，生相的光明），這三種法，都能在未來產生作用。 天愛（devānāṃpriya，對僧人的尊稱），你現在是執著于文字而迷惑了義理。我宗的解釋是，這段經文只是就近緣的功能，假說為作用。因為在多種法產生的因緣中，生是近緣，這個道理非常成立。所以用其他位次的因的作用之名，在這個位次中，假立名想。像住等，也應該隨其相應的情況來理解。苦忍光明，也在此位次中，有殊勝的功力，所以假立這個名稱。實際上只有引導果，才能叫做作用。 或者有人會問難說，在正生位（utpāda-sthiti，生起的狀態）的時候，如果沒有生等（utpāda，生），那麼此時生怎麼會有作用呢？如果不是住（sthiti，住）、異（anyathātva，異）、滅（bhaṅga，滅）在起作用，那麼在這個位次中，如果有生等，那麼住等又有什麼用呢？只有生在起作用嗎？ 這個問難是不成立的。且說在正生位的時候，生等不是沒有，只是住等在那個時候不是現在法，所以功能還沒有。假設在這個位次中，沒有生等，就像你們的因果一樣，道理上也沒有違背。因為在你們的宗派中，果將要產生的時候，能生的因性，或者有，或者沒有，允許有鄰近的展轉因的緣故。 而且那位經主，在四相（caturlakṣaṇa，四種狀態）中，允許三種是不同的，作這樣的說法。又應該說，一個法生起后還沒有壞滅，叫做住；住以後壞滅的時候，叫做滅。這個道理姑且可以接受。異對於一個法來說，進退地推求，道理上是不應該有的。為什麼呢？異是指前後性相的轉變，不是說這個法可以異於這個法，所以說。
【English Translation】 English version Hetu (cause): Taking in and assisting dissimilar dharmas, this is called karitra (function). As previously discussed, all present dharmas can serve as causes, guiding and taking in their own effects. However, not all present dharmas can serve as conditions, taking in and assisting dissimilar dharmas. For example, an eye in darkness, or an eye with impaired function, cannot serve as a condition for eye consciousness to arise. Nevertheless, the function of the eye as a cause is not impaired by darkness; it will certainly serve as a cause, guiding the future arising of eye consciousness. Therefore, there is a distinction between function and karitra. However, for the arising of similar continuous effects, there is a definite and indefinite power of taking in and guiding, which is called karitra, also called function. If, for the arising of dissimilar continuous effects, it can only serve as a condition, taking in and assisting its arising, this is not called karitra, but only function. Have you not heard that kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-duḥkha (the forbearance of the wisdom of the Dharma of suffering), utpāda-lakṣaṇa (the luminosity of the characteristic of arising), these three dharmas can all produce karitra in the future? Devānāṃpriya (beloved of the gods, a respectful term for monks), you are now attached to the words and confused about the meaning. Our school explains that this passage only speaks of the function of the proximate condition, falsely calling it karitra. Because among the causes and conditions for the arising of various dharmas, arising is the proximate condition, this principle is very well established. Therefore, using the name of the function of the cause in other positions, we falsely establish a name and concept in this position. Like sthiti (duration) and so on, it should be understood accordingly. Kṣānti (forbearance) and utpāda (arising) also have superior power in this position, so we falsely establish this name. In reality, only guiding the effect can be called karitra. Or someone might object, saying, 'In the state of utpāda-sthiti (arising), if there is no utpāda (arising), then how can arising have karitra at this time? If it is not sthiti (duration), anyathātva (change), and bhaṅga (cessation) that are functioning, then in this state, if there is utpāda (arising), then what is the use of sthiti (duration) and so on? Is it only arising that is functioning?' This objection is not valid. Let us say that in the state of utpāda (arising), utpāda (arising) and so on are not absent, it is just that sthiti (duration) and so on are not present dharmas at that time, so the function is not yet present. Suppose that in this state, there is no utpāda (arising) and so on, just like your cause and effect, there is no contradiction in principle. Because in your school, when the effect is about to arise, the nature of the cause that can produce it, either exists or does not exist, allowing for the reason of proximate and mutually dependent causes. Moreover, that master of the scriptures, among the caturlakṣaṇa (four characteristics), allows three to be different, making such a statement. It should also be said that a dharma that has arisen but has not yet ceased is called sthiti (duration); when it ceases after duration, it is called bhaṅga (cessation). This principle can be accepted for the time being. Anyathātva (change), in terms of advancing and retreating from a dharma, should not exist in principle. Why? Anyathātva (change) refers to the transformation of the nature and characteristics of before and after, it is not to say that this dharma can be different from this dharma, so it is said.
頌言。
即前異不成 異前非一法 是故於一法 立異終不成
且已略成異有別體。剎那相續異並不成。今復各應思擇此義。謂許法外有異相體。由此能令所相一法異而不異。此我應思。不許法外有異相體。而許剎那相續有異。如何外緣雖無差別。然得有異。經主應思。我所應思。於後思擇。三世義處。當兼顯了。今於此中。正當義便。故略成立。用遣所疑。謂從本來諸法唯有自體安住。差別用無。由遇前生俱生緣力。令差別用本無而起。即此名為現在作用。亦名能引自果功能。依此世尊。作如是說。本無今有。有已還無。此用與體。不可言異。如能益損差別功能與能領受自體不異。又如所執。於後心中。前心差別。所引習氣。此不可說異於後心。或復如善有見有對。造色業性。雖不異色。而彼品類。差別義成。故於此中。諸對法者。於法自體。差別用中。立有異名。非唯自體。謂有為法。于自體中。能引自果。作用名住。即此作用。衰損名異。此住及衰。無容自有應有別法令住令衰。此二之因。即住異相。於斯正理。何不忍歟。我於此中。不能忍者。此差別用。于現在時。與其自體。非異性故。此用既異。體亦應然。如何乃言用異非體。若執過去未來體無。于彼所宗。可有此失。非許三世恒有體者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 偈頌說： 如果說『異』先於『成』，那麼『異』就不能成立；如果說『異』後於『成』，那麼『異』就不是單一的法。 因此，對於單一的法，建立『異』的觀點最終是不能成立的。 而且，已經簡略地成立了『異』有不同的自體。剎那相續的『異』也不能成立。現在應該各自思考這個道理。如果允許在法之外有『異相』的自體，由此就能使所相的一法既『異』又不『異』。這個道理我應該思考。如果不允許在法之外有『異相』的自體，而允許剎那相續有『異』，那麼，即使外緣沒有差別，又如何能有『異』呢？經主要思考，我也要思考。在後面的思考中，關於三世的意義，應當兼顧顯明。現在在這裡，正是爲了方便說明這個道理，所以簡略地成立，用來消除疑惑。也就是說，從本來上講，諸法唯有自體安住，沒有差別作用。由於遇到前生俱生緣的力量，使得差別作用本來沒有而生起。這就叫做現在的『作用』，也叫做能引生自果的『功能』。依據這個道理，世尊這樣說：『本來沒有現在有，有了以後又還無』。這個『用』和『體』，不能說是『異』。如同能增益和損害的差別功能與能領受的自體不是『異』。又如同所執著的，在後面的心中，前心的差別，所引生的習氣，這不能說是異於後心。或者如同善的有見有對的造色業性，雖然不異於色，但是它們的品類差別義是可以成立的。所以在這裡，諸對法者，在法的自體差別作用中，立有『異』的名，不是唯有自體。所謂有為法，在自體中，能引生自果的作用叫做『住』，這個作用衰損叫做『異』。這個『住』和『衰』，不能自己有，應當有別的法使之『住』使之『衰』。這兩個的原因，就是『住』和『異』的相。對於這個正理，為什麼不能忍受呢？我在這裡，不能忍受的是，這個差別作用，在現在時，和它的自體，不是異性的緣故。這個『用』既然是『異』，『體』也應該是這樣。怎麼能說『用異非體』呢？如果執著過去未來體是『無』，對於他們所宗，可能有這個過失。不是允許三世恒有體的人。
【English Translation】 English version: Verse: 'If 'difference' precedes 'becoming', then 'difference' cannot be established; if 'difference' follows 'becoming', then 'difference' is not a single dharma (law, phenomenon).' Therefore, with respect to a single dharma, establishing the view of 'difference' ultimately cannot be established. Moreover, it has already been briefly established that 'difference' has a distinct self-nature (atman). The 'difference' of momentary continuity cannot be established either. Now, each should contemplate this meaning. If it is allowed that there is a 'difference-aspect' (viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa) self-nature outside of the dharma, then this can cause the dharma being characterized to be both 'different' and 'not different'. This I should contemplate. If it is not allowed that there is a 'difference-aspect' self-nature outside of the dharma, but it is allowed that there is 'difference' in momentary continuity, then how can there be 'difference' even though the external conditions (pratyaya) are not different? The Sutra Master (Sūtra-dhāra) should contemplate, and I should contemplate. In later contemplation, the meaning of the three times (past, present, future) should be considered and made clear. Now, here, it is precisely for the convenience of explaining this principle, so it is briefly established to dispel doubts. That is to say, from the beginning, all dharmas only have their own self-nature abiding, without differential function. Due to encountering the power of the previous life's co-arisen conditions, the differential function arises from non-existence. This is called the present 'function' (kriya), and it is also called the 'capacity' (sāmarthya) to produce its own result. Based on this principle, the World-Honored One (Bhagavan) said: 'Originally non-existent, now existent; having existed, it returns to non-existence.' This 'function' and 'essence' (dravya) cannot be said to be 'different'. Just as the differential functions of being able to benefit and harm are not different from the self-nature that can receive. Also, as it is held, in the later mind, the difference of the previous mind, the habit-energy (vāsanā) that is produced, this cannot be said to be different from the later mind. Or like the visible and resistant (有見有對) form-creating karma-nature (造色業性) of good, although it is not different from form (rūpa), the meaning of their category difference can be established. Therefore, here, those who uphold the Abhidharma (對法者), in the differential function of the dharma's self-nature, establish the name of 'difference', not only the self-nature. The conditioned dharma (有為法), in its self-nature, the function that can produce its own result is called 'abiding' (sthiti), and the decline of this function is called 'change' (anyathātva). This 'abiding' and 'decay' cannot exist on their own; there should be other dharmas that cause them to 'abide' and cause them to 'decay'. The cause of these two is the aspect of 'abiding' and 'difference'. Why can't you endure this correct principle? What I cannot endure here is that this differential function, in the present time, is not of a different nature from its self-nature. Since this 'function' is 'different', the 'essence' should also be so. How can it be said that 'the function is different but not the essence'? If one insists that the past and future essences are 'non-existent', then for their school, there may be this fault. Not for those who allow that the three times are constantly existent.
。所以者何。若作用息。唯舍現在。法體猶存。云何乃令體亦有異。故說頌言。
自體名有異 由勝用衰損 如何於一法 立異終不成
非正生位立有異名。作用爾時未衰損故。即由此理。立住異名。此能衰損引果用故。由法作用。被衰損時。方引自果。由因被損。後果生位。漸劣前因。故果漸劣。由因有異。此果剎那。復由俱起異相為緣令衰損故。復能為後果漸劣緣。如是一切。有為相續。剎那剎那。令後後異。故前前念。有異義成。此義既成。應為比量。謂見最後有差別故。前諸剎那。定有差別。非如幻惑。譬喻論師。所立剎那相續異理。若爾相續漸增長時。異相應無。不見果故。無斯過失。住相爾時由外緣助。勢力增強摧伏異故。有餘師說。諸法作用。無有能住過一剎那。是故有為說名有異。非舍自相方得異名亦非有為有常性過。由此法性自體恒然。非作非轉不可改易。故火常用暖為自體。離暖更無火體可得。然火作用要藉眾緣。故宗立火為無常性。若自體異。即成別法。應非無常。體無變故。謂若唯執現在世有去來體無。則諸行法其性應常。無變異故。云何無異。謂有與無性各安立無變異故。彼唯執有現在世法剎那性故不可變異。未來過去其體並無。無法如何當言變異。故不可說諸行無常。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：為什麼這麼說呢？如果（諸法的）作用停止，只是捨棄了現在的狀態，（但是）法的本體仍然存在，怎麼能說本體也有了差異呢？所以（經文）用偈頌說：
『自體名為有差異，由於殊勝的作用衰減損耗。（如果）如何對於一個法，安立（不同的）名稱，最終不能成立。』
不是在（法）剛產生的時候就安立（它）具有差異的名稱，因為作用在那個時候還沒有衰減損耗。就是根據這個道理，安立（法）『住』的差異名稱，因為（『住』）能夠衰減損耗（法），並引生結果的作用。由於法的（這種）作用，在被衰減損耗的時候，才引生它自身的結果。由於因被損耗，結果產生的狀態，逐漸不如之前的因，所以結果逐漸變差。由於因有差異，這個結果的剎那，又由於同時生起的不同現象作為緣，使（結果）衰減損耗，又能夠成為（產生）更差結果的緣。像這樣，一切有為法的相續，剎那剎那地，使後後的（狀態）不同。所以前前的念頭，具有差異的意義成立。這個意義既然成立，應該用比量來證明，就是說，因為看到最後（的狀態）有差別，所以之前的各個剎那，一定有差別。不像幻惑（的現象）。譬喻論師所建立的剎那相續差異的道理。
如果（按照你說的），相續逐漸增長的時候，差異的現象就應該沒有了，因為看不到結果的緣故。（回答：）沒有這種過失。（因為）『住』的現象，在那個時候，由於外緣的幫助，勢力增強，摧伏了差異的緣故。（另外）有其他論師說，諸法的作用，沒有能夠停留超過一個剎那的。所以有為法才被稱為有差異。不是捨棄了自身的相狀才得到差異的名稱，也不是說有為法具有常性。由於法的自性本體恒常如此，不是造作的，不是轉變的，不可改變的。所以火常常用暖作為它的本體，離開了暖，就沒有火的本體可以得到。然而火的作用，一定要依靠眾多的因緣，所以（我們）立宗說火是無常的。
如果自體有差異，就變成了別的法，就不應該是無常的，因為本體沒有變化的緣故。如果僅僅執著現在世存在，過去和未來的本體不存在，那麼諸行法的性質就應該是常恒的，因為沒有變異的緣故。為什麼沒有差異呢？因為有和無的性質各自安立，沒有變異的緣故。他們僅僅執著現在世的法具有剎那的性質，所以不可變異。未來和過去，它們的本體都沒有，沒有（本體）如何能說變異呢？所以不能說諸行是無常的。
【English Translation】 English version: Why is this so? If the function ceases, only the present state is relinquished, but the substance of the dharma still exists. How can it be said that the substance also has differences? Therefore, the verse says:
'The self-nature is named as different, due to the superiority of function, decline, and loss. How can different names be established for one dharma? Ultimately, it cannot be established.'
It is not at the time when (a dharma) is first produced that a different name is established, because the function has not yet declined or diminished at that time. It is based on this principle that the different name of 'abiding' is established, because ('abiding') can diminish and deplete (the dharma) and lead to the effect of its function. Because of the function of the dharma, when it is diminished and depleted, it then leads to its own effect. Because the cause is diminished, the state of the effect produced is gradually inferior to the previous cause, so the effect gradually deteriorates. Because the cause has differences, this moment of the effect, again due to the different phenomena arising simultaneously as conditions, causes (the effect) to diminish and deplete, and can again become the condition for (producing) a worse effect. Like this, all conditioned dharmas continue, moment by moment, causing the later (states) to be different. Therefore, the meaning of difference in the previous moments is established. Since this meaning is established, it should be proven by analogy, that is, because we see that the final (state) has differences, therefore the previous moments must have differences. It is not like the illusionary phenomena. The principle of momentary continuity of difference established by the Sautrantikas (Sautrantikas: a school of Buddhism) .
If (according to you), when the continuity gradually increases, the phenomenon of difference should disappear, because the cause of the effect is not seen. (Answer:) There is no such fault. (Because) the phenomenon of 'abiding', at that time, due to the help of external conditions, the power increases, subduing the cause of difference. (Also) other teachers say that the function of all dharmas cannot stay for more than one moment. Therefore, conditioned dharmas are called different. It is not that they relinquish their own characteristics to obtain different names, nor is it that conditioned dharmas have permanence. Because the self-nature of the dharma is always like this, it is not created, not transformed, and cannot be changed. Therefore, fire always uses warmth as its substance; without warmth, there is no substance of fire to be obtained. However, the function of fire must rely on many conditions, so (we) establish the thesis that fire is impermanent.
If the self-nature has differences, it becomes another dharma, and it should not be impermanent, because the substance does not change. If you only cling to the existence of the present world, and the substance of the past and future does not exist, then the nature of all conditioned dharmas should be permanent, because there is no change. Why is there no difference? Because the nature of existence and non-existence are each established, and there is no change. They only cling to the fact that the dharma of the present world has a momentary nature, so it cannot be changed. The future and the past, their substances do not exist, how can we say that there is change when there is no (substance)? Therefore, it cannot be said that all conditioned things are impermanent.
不可說言無變為有有變為無名為變異。有無二性體不相成。以有與無體相違故。亦非果異因無異故。非無異因。可有異果。果必隨因方有異故。若謂有性是無常者。理亦不然。有性不可成余性故。以法有性未嘗非有。有與非有各別立故。由此諸行變異定無。是則有為皆應常住。若許過未亦有亦無。從未生無可生為有。從已生有可滅為無。此去來無與現在有。俱非決定。可有改易。去來之有與現在同。於一切時。恒無改易。由於體有用或有無。可說有為分位有異。是故唯說三時有宗。於一法中。可言有異。法有異故。異相可成。異相既成。無常義立。非如唯說現在有宗。相續剎那。異皆非有。如前已說。故應且止。若生在未來。生所生法。未來一切法。何不頓生。彼能生因。各常合故。此先已辯。先何所辯。謂或有法。于未獲得引果用時。由遇未得正得已滅引果用時外緣攝助。于辦自事。發起內緣攝助功能。是名生相。即依此義。說如是言。頌曰。
生能生所生 非離因緣合
論曰。非離所餘因緣和合。唯生相力。能生所生。故諸未來。非皆頓起。生相雖作俱起近因能生所生。諸有為法。而必應待前自類因及餘外緣和合攝助。如種地等差別因緣助芽等生令生芽等。若爾我等唯見因緣有生功能。無別生相。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不可說言語所說的『無』變為『有』，或者『有』變為『無』，這叫做變異（vikāra）。『有』和『無』這兩種性質，本體上不能互相成就，因為『有』和『無』在本體上是相互違背的。也不是結果不同於原因，原因沒有不同。沒有不同的原因，就不可能有不同的結果，結果必定隨著原因才會有不同。如果說『有』的性質是無常的，這個道理也是不成立的，『有』的性質不可能變成其他的性質，因為法具有『有』的性質，就從來沒有不是『有』的時候，『有』和『非有』是各自獨立存在的。由此可見，諸行的變異是絕對沒有的，那麼一切有為法都應該恒常住立。如果承認過去和未來既是『有』也是『無』，從未生到可生為『有』，從已生到可滅為『無』，那麼這過去未來的『無』和現在的『有』，都不是決定的，可以改變的。過去未來的『有』和現在相同，在一切時候，恒常沒有改變。由於本體有用或者有無，可以說有為法的分位有不同，所以只有三世有宗，對於一個法中，可以說有不同，法有不同，不同的相狀就可以成立，不同的相狀成立了，無常的意義就成立了。不像唯說現在有宗，相續的剎那，不同都沒有，如前面已經說過的，所以應該停止討論。如果生存在未來，生所生法，未來的一切法，為什麼不一下子都產生呢？因為它們能生的原因，各自恒常聚合的緣故。這個先前已經辯論過了。先前辯論了什麼呢？就是或者有法，在沒有獲得引果作用的時候，由於遇到未得、正得、已滅引果作用的時候，外緣攝助，在辦理自身事情的時候，發起內緣攝助功能，這叫做生相（jāti-lakṣaṇa）。就依據這個意義，說這樣的話。頌說： 『生』能生『所生』，不是離開因緣和合。 論說：不是離開其餘因緣的和合，唯獨『生』相的力量，能生『所生』，所以諸多的未來，不是一下子都生起。『生』相雖然作為俱起近因，能生『所生』，但是必定應該等待先前的自類因以及其餘外緣的和合攝助，如種子、土地等差別因緣，幫助芽等生起，令生起芽等。如果這樣，我們只看見因緣有生起的功能，沒有別的『生』相存在。
【English Translation】 English version: It cannot be said that what is called 'non-existence' (abhāva) changes into 'existence' (bhāva), or 'existence' changes into 'non-existence'; this is called alteration (vikāra). 'Existence' and 'non-existence', these two natures, cannot accomplish each other in essence, because 'existence' and 'non-existence' are mutually contradictory in essence. Nor is it that the result is different from the cause, and the cause is not different. If there is no different cause, there cannot be a different result; the result must follow the cause in order to be different. If it is said that the nature of 'existence' is impermanent (anitya), this reasoning is also not valid. The nature of 'existence' cannot become another nature, because a dharma (phenomenon) that has the nature of 'existence' has never not been 'existence'; 'existence' and 'non-existence' are each established independently. From this, it can be seen that the alteration of all conditioned things (saṃskṛta) is definitely non-existent, then all conditioned dharmas should be eternally abiding. If it is admitted that the past and future are both 'existence' and 'non-existence', from not yet being born to being able to be born is 'existence', from already being born to being able to be extinguished is 'non-existence', then this 'non-existence' of the past and future and the 'existence' of the present are not definite and can be changed. The 'existence' of the past and future is the same as the present, and at all times, it is constantly without change. Because the essence has use or has non-use, it can be said that the divisions of conditioned dharmas are different, so only the Sarvāstivāda school, which asserts the existence of the three times, can say that there are differences in one dharma. If the dharma has differences, different characteristics can be established. Once different characteristics are established, the meaning of impermanence is established. It is not like the school that only asserts the existence of the present, where the differences in successive moments do not exist, as has been said before, so we should stop the discussion here. If birth exists in the future, and the dharma produced by birth exists, why do all future dharmas not arise all at once? Because their causes that are able to produce are constantly assembled. This has been debated before. What was debated before? It is that perhaps there are dharmas that, when they have not yet obtained the function of leading to a result, due to encountering the external conditions of not yet obtaining, rightly obtaining, and already ceasing to lead to a result, are aided by external conditions, and when managing their own affairs, initiate the function of being aided by internal conditions; this is called the characteristic of birth (jāti-lakṣaṇa). Based on this meaning, it is said like this. The verse says: 'Birth' (jāti) can produce 'what is produced' (jātya), not apart from the combination of causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya). The treatise says: Not apart from the combination of the remaining causes and conditions, only the power of the characteristic of 'birth' can produce 'what is produced', so the many futures do not all arise at once. Although the characteristic of 'birth' acts as a co-arising proximate cause that can produce 'what is produced', it must wait for the previous cause of its own kind and the combination and assistance of the remaining external conditions, such as the different causes and conditions of seeds, land, etc., which help the sprouts to arise, causing the sprouts, etc., to arise. If this is the case, we only see that causes and conditions have the function of producing, and there is no separate characteristic of 'birth'.
因緣合。諸法即生。無即不生。何勞生相。故應唯有因緣力生。此責不然。唯許眾緣諸法生者。此責同故。謂若唯許未來諸法因緣和合而得生者。此責亦同未來諸法因緣無別何不頓生。又因緣中。隨闕一種具所餘故。果亦應生。且如眼根先業所引。雖離大種。而亦應生。或應但由大種功力不由先業眼根得生。或諸眼根。隨業所引。能生大種。無不合時。於一生時。余亦應起。或應大種于眼無能。不見離前眼大種獨生故。但應因前眼后眼得生。執大種能生。應成無用。又如種子水土等緣隨闕一時芽必不起。故知種等功力極成。于眼等生。地等大種。能生功力。非所現見。既不現見。大種功力。應不為因生於眼等。又汝所執。有業種子。相續轉變。誰為障礙。不能頓生。一切業果。若由緣助。業種方能生。應但緣能生。何勞業種。以眾緣助業果乃生。眾緣若無果不生故。既賴緣助而業種非無。雖藉眾緣。寧撥無生相。又見初念無漏生時。生能為因。起無漏得。得自相有。前已極成。應說除生有何別法。能作此得。前俱起因。若全無因。得不應起。則初無漏。應不說成。生相生時。為亦別有俱生因不。應言亦有。謂除生體餘一果法。云何異滅為生助因。古昔諸師。咸作是釋。同一果法。展轉為因。如諸大種。更相順故。復有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因緣和合，諸法便生；沒有因緣，諸法不生。又何必設立『生相』（作為生起的原因）呢？所以，應該僅僅是因緣的力量使諸法產生。這種責難是不對的。如果僅僅允許未來諸法由因緣和合而生，那麼這種責難同樣適用於你。如果未來諸法的因緣沒有差別，為什麼不一起產生呢？ 此外，在因緣中，如果缺少一種，憑藉其餘的條件，結果也應該產生。例如，眼根由先前的業力所牽引，即使離開了四大種，也應該能夠產生。或者應該僅僅憑藉四大種的力量，而不是由於先前的業力，眼根就能產生。或者，各種眼根，隨著業力的牽引，能夠產生四大種，在沒有不和合的時候，在一生中，其餘的（眼根）也應該一起產生。或者，四大種對於眼根沒有作用，因為沒有看到離開先前的眼根，四大種能夠獨自產生。所以，應該僅僅由先前的眼根和後來的眼根產生（新的眼根）。如果認為四大種能夠產生（眼根），那就應該成為無用之物。 又如種子、水、土等因緣，如果缺少其中任何一個，芽就一定不會生長。所以，要知道種子等的功力是極其重要的。對於眼根等的產生，地等四大種的產生功力，不是我們現在能夠看到的。既然不能親眼看到，四大種的功力，就不應該作為產生眼根等的原因。而且，你所執著的，有業的種子，相續轉變，誰來阻礙它，不能立刻產生一切業的果報呢？如果由於因緣的幫助，業的種子才能產生，那麼應該僅僅是因緣能夠產生，又何必需要業的種子呢？因為眾多的因緣幫助，業的果報才能產生，如果眾多的因緣沒有，果報就不會產生。既然依賴於因緣的幫助，而業的種子並非沒有，即使憑藉眾多的因緣，怎麼能否定沒有『生相』呢？ 又看到最初的無漏智慧產生時，『生』（生相）作為原因，產生無漏的『得』（獲得）。『得』的自體是存在的，這在前面已經充分說明。應該說除了『生』之外，還有什麼別的方法，能夠產生這個『得』呢？先前一起產生的因，如果完全沒有原因，『得』就不應該產生。那麼最初的無漏智慧，就不應該說是成就了。 『生相』產生時，是否也有其他的俱生因呢？應該說也是有的。就是說，除了『生』的本體之外，其餘的一個果法，如何不同於『滅』，而作為『生』的助因呢？古代的諸位法師，都這樣解釋，同一個果法，輾轉作為原因，就像四大種，互相順應一樣。還有...
【English Translation】 English version When conditions come together, all dharmas arise; without conditions, they do not arise. Why then posit a 'birth aspect' (saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇa) [as the cause of arising]? Therefore, it should only be the power of conditions that causes dharmas to arise. This criticism is not valid. If you only allow future dharmas to arise from the combination of conditions, then this criticism applies to you as well. If the conditions for future dharmas are no different, why don't they all arise at once? Furthermore, if one condition is missing from the set of conditions, the result should still arise by virtue of the remaining conditions. For example, the eye-sense-faculty, led by past karma, should be able to arise even without the great elements (mahābhūta). Or, it should be that the eye-sense-faculty arises solely by the power of the great elements, and not due to past karma. Or, various eye-sense-faculties, led by karma, can produce the great elements, and when there is no lack of harmony, the others (eye-sense-faculties) should also arise together in one lifetime. Or, the great elements have no effect on the eye-sense-faculty, because we do not see the great elements arising independently without the previous eye-sense-faculty. Therefore, (the new eye-sense-faculty) should arise only from the previous and subsequent eye-sense-faculties. If you believe that the great elements can produce (the eye-sense-faculty), then they should become useless. Moreover, like seeds, water, soil, and other conditions, if any one of them is missing, the sprout will certainly not arise. Therefore, know that the power of seeds, etc., is extremely important. Regarding the arising of eye-sense-faculties, etc., the power of the great elements like earth to produce is not something we can currently see. Since it is not visible, the power of the great elements should not be the cause of the arising of eye-sense-faculties, etc. Furthermore, regarding what you hold to be the seed of karma, continuously transforming, who is hindering it from immediately producing all the results of karma? If the seed of karma can only arise with the help of conditions, then it should only be the conditions that can produce, and why is the seed of karma needed? Because the results of karma can only arise with the help of many conditions, and if the many conditions are absent, the results will not arise. Since it relies on the help of conditions, and the seed of karma is not absent, how can you deny the existence of the 'birth aspect'? Moreover, when we see the first moment of undefiled wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna) arising, 'birth' (the birth aspect) acts as the cause, producing the 'attainment' (prāpti) of undefiled wisdom. The self-nature of 'attainment' exists, which has been fully explained earlier. It should be said that besides 'birth', what other method can produce this 'attainment'? If the causes that arise together earlier have no cause at all, 'attainment' should not arise. Then the first undefiled wisdom should not be said to be accomplished. When the 'birth aspect' arises, are there also other co-arising causes? It should be said that there are. That is to say, besides the essence of 'birth', how is the remaining dharma of result different from 'cessation', and how does it act as an auxiliary cause for 'birth'? The ancient masters all explained it this way: the same dharma of result mutually acts as a cause, just like the great elements, which mutually support each other. Furthermore...
釋言。諸有為法。一切皆是生等性故。生等四相。一一用時。以此為門。余皆助力。證斯義者。謂念住中。觀身等為無常性故。然上座說。諸行無住。若行可住。經極少時。何故不經。須臾日月時年劫住。無異因故又阿笈摩亦說諸行無有住故。如世尊言。苾芻諸行皆臨滅時。既無有住。亦無有滅。且彼所說。若行可住。經極少時理不應忍。極少時者謂一剎那。若一剎那。亦無有住。是則諸行。應畢竟無。若謂有為全無有住。得體無間即滅故者。豈不有此得體時。故即名諸行極少住時。雖有此時。而無有住。依何位說此無住言。為得體時。為得體后。執無住位。唯應二時。若得體時。亦無住者。則不能越前所說過。若得體后。方言無住。非所許故。設難唐捐。汝等所言。得體時者。即我說住。能引果時。非我所宗引果時後。諸行有住。何緣汝等對我遮破。諸行住時。如汝行中有時有者。必待余法生用方成。如是亦應有引果者。必待余法方成引用。此所待者。立以住名。是則我宗。如汝所說。礭陳何等理教相違。豈不經言諸行無住。若說有住。此教相違。汝執有違。種種計度。非實義故。對法諸師。所說稱理。有何違害。然契經說。無有住者。為遮常住。故說此言。次後復言。亦無滅故。此言遮遣諸行斷滅。若離為遮諸行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 釋言：一切有為法，都具有生等特性。生、住、異、滅四相，每一個起作用時，都以此（生等性）為根本，其餘的相都只是輔助。爲了證明這個道理，可以在念住中觀察身等，因為它們都是無常的。然而，上座部說，諸行（一切事物）是沒有住留的。如果事物可以住留，哪怕是很短的時間，為什麼不能住留須臾、日月、時年、劫呢？因為沒有不同的原因啊！而且，《阿笈摩經》也說諸行沒有住留。正如世尊所說：『比丘們，諸行都在臨近滅亡的時候。』既然沒有住留，也就沒有滅亡。如果他們所說的事物可以住留，哪怕是很短的時間，這個道理是不應該容忍的。所謂『極少時』，指的是一剎那。如果一剎那也沒有住留，那麼諸行就應該完全不存在了。如果認為有為法完全沒有住留，得到自體后立即就滅亡，那麼難道不是有得到自體的時候嗎？所以，就稱這個得到自體的時候為諸行極少住留的時間。即使有這個時間，也沒有住留，依據什麼位置說這個『無住』呢？是在得到自體的時候，還是在得到自體之後？執著『無住』的位置，應該只有這兩個時間。如果在得到自體的時候也沒有住留，那就不能超越前面所說過的過失。如果在得到自體之後才說『無住』，那就不是我們所允許的，這樣的責難是徒勞的。你們所說的『得到自體的時候』，就是我所說的『住』，是能夠引發結果的時候。我所宗的是引發結果之後，諸行有住留。你們為什麼要對我進行遮破呢？諸行住留的時候，就像你們的『行』中有時有時一樣，必須等待其他法的生起才能成就作用。這樣也應該有引發結果者，必須等待其他法才能成就引發作用。這個所等待的，就立名為『住』。這樣，我的宗義，就像你們所說的，究竟陳述了哪些與理和教相違背的地方呢？難道不是經中說『諸行無住』嗎？如果說有住留，這與經教相違背。你們執著有違背，進行種種計度，都不是真實的意義。對法諸師所說的，是符合道理的，有什麼違害呢？然而，契經說『沒有住留』，是爲了遮止常住，所以才這樣說。緊接著又說『也沒有滅亡』，這句話是爲了遮遣諸行斷滅。如果離開爲了遮止諸行 English version: Explanation: All conditioned dharmas (zhū yǒu wéi fǎ) (phenomena subject to causes and conditions) possess the characteristic of arising (shēng) and so on. The four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing (shēng zhù yì miè), each functions with this (the characteristic of arising and so on) as its foundation, while the others serve as assistance. To prove this principle, one can observe the body (shēn) and so on in mindfulness (niàn zhù), because they are impermanent (wú cháng). However, the Sthaviras (shàng zuò bù) (Elders) say that all activities (zhū xíng) (conditioned phenomena) have no abiding (zhù). If things could abide, even for a very short time, why can't they abide for a moment (xū yú), a day and night (rì yuè), a year (shí nián), or an eon (jié)? Because there is no different cause! Moreover, the Agama Sutra (Ā gé pō mó jīng) also says that activities have no abiding. Just as the World Honored One (shì zūn) said: 'Bhikkhus (bǐ qiū), all activities are approaching destruction.' Since there is no abiding, there is also no cessation (miè). If what they say is that things can abide, even for a very short time, this principle should not be tolerated. The so-called 'very short time' refers to a kshana (chà nà) (instant). If there is no abiding even for a kshana, then all activities should be completely non-existent. If it is argued that conditioned dharmas have no abiding at all, and that they cease immediately after obtaining their substance (dé tǐ), then isn't there a time when they obtain their substance? Therefore, this time of obtaining substance is called the time when activities abide for a very short time. Even if there is this time, there is no abiding. Based on what position is this 'no abiding' spoken of? Is it at the time of obtaining substance, or after obtaining substance? The position of adhering to 'no abiding' should only be these two times. If there is no abiding even at the time of obtaining substance, then one cannot overcome the faults mentioned earlier. If one says 'no abiding' only after obtaining substance, then it is not what we allow, and such criticism is futile. What you say as 'the time of obtaining substance' is what I call 'abiding,' which is the time when it can produce a result. What I uphold is that after producing a result, activities have abiding. Why do you refute me? When activities abide, just like your 'activities' sometimes exist and sometimes don't, they must wait for the arising of other dharmas (fǎ) to accomplish their function. Similarly, there should be those who produce results, who must wait for other dharmas to accomplish the function of producing results. This waiting is established as 'abiding.' Thus, my doctrine, as you say, ultimately states what contradicts reason and teaching? Doesn't the sutra say 'activities have no abiding'? If one says there is abiding, this contradicts the sutra. Your adherence to contradiction, making various calculations, is not the real meaning. What the Dharma Masters (duì fǎ zhū shī) say is in accordance with reason, so what harm is there? However, the sutra says 'there is no abiding' to negate permanence (cháng zhù), so it says this. Then it further says 'there is also no cessation,' this statement is to negate the annihilation (duàn miè) of activities. If one departs from negating the activities
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: All conditioned dharmas (zhū yǒu wéi fǎ) (phenomena subject to causes and conditions) possess the characteristic of arising (shēng) and so on. The four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing (shēng zhù yì miè), each functions with this (the characteristic of arising and so on) as its foundation, while the others serve as assistance. To prove this principle, one can observe the body (shēn) and so on in mindfulness (niàn zhù), because they are impermanent (wú cháng). However, the Sthaviras (shàng zuò bù) (Elders) say that all activities (zhū xíng) (conditioned phenomena) have no abiding (zhù). If things could abide, even for a very short time, why can't they abide for a moment (xū yú), a day and night (rì yuè), a year (shí nián), or an eon (jié)? Because there is no different cause! Moreover, the Agama Sutra (Ā gé pō mó jīng) also says that activities have no abiding. Just as the World Honored One (shì zūn) said: 'Bhikkhus (bǐ qiū), all activities are approaching destruction.' Since there is no abiding, there is also no cessation (miè). If what they say is that things can abide, even for a very short time, this principle should not be tolerated. The so-called 'very short time' refers to a kshana (chà nà) (instant). If there is no abiding even for a kshana, then all activities should be completely non-existent. If it is argued that conditioned dharmas have no abiding at all, and that they cease immediately after obtaining their substance (dé tǐ), then isn't there a time when they obtain their substance? Therefore, this time of obtaining substance is called the time when activities abide for a very short time. Even if there is this time, there is no abiding. Based on what position is this 'no abiding' spoken of? Is it at the time of obtaining substance, or after obtaining substance? The position of adhering to 'no abiding' should only be these two times. If there is no abiding even at the time of obtaining substance, then one cannot overcome the faults mentioned earlier. If one says 'no abiding' only after obtaining substance, then it is not what we allow, and such criticism is futile. What you say as 'the time of obtaining substance' is what I call 'abiding,' which is the time when it can produce a result. What I uphold is that after producing a result, activities have abiding. Why do you refute me? When activities abide, just like your 'activities' sometimes exist and sometimes don't, they must wait for the arising of other dharmas (fǎ) to accomplish their function. Similarly, there should be those who produce results, who must wait for other dharmas to accomplish the function of producing results. This waiting is established as 'abiding.' Thus, my doctrine, as you say, ultimately states what contradicts reason and teaching? Doesn't the sutra say 'activities have no abiding'? If one says there is abiding, this contradicts the sutra. Your adherence to contradiction, making various calculations, is not the real meaning. What the Dharma Masters (duì fǎ zhū shī) say is in accordance with reason, so what harm is there? However, the sutra says 'there is no abiding' to negate permanence (cháng zhù), so it says this. Then it further says 'there is also no cessation,' this statement is to negate the annihilation (duàn miè) of activities. If one departs from negating the activities
斷者。此無滅言。更何所遣。然諸行滅。但有二種。一生無間滅。二畢竟斷滅。故為遮遣常斷二邊。經言諸行無住無滅。非為遮遣對法諸師所立為因。令引果住。諸有智者。請為諦觀。誰之所言。違正理教。為說諸行有暫住者。為說諸行全無滅者。我本不言諸行生已全無有滅。何緣經說。皆臨滅時。亦無有滅。言無滅者。是無息義。此無意說。諸行生已。無間必滅。無暫息時。說無住言此義已顯。復言無滅。應成無用。我亦不言諸行生已畢竟常住。若爾何緣。說有為法生已有住。言有住者。是暫停義。謂正滅時。諸行暫住。非於已滅及正生時可說住言。無作用故。如前已說。于正滅時。諸行方有引果作用。雖作是說。而住必無。曾無契經說有住故。曾無遮故。何定言無。又理所逼。故應信有。設無至教。住于正理。無所乖違。言有何失。然有至教證住為有。如撫掌喻。契經中言。苾芻諸行如幻如焰。暫時而住。速還謝滅。豈不由斯已證對法所說諸行有暫住時由此亦成毗婆沙釋。言無住者依剎那后密意而說。非謂全無。然彼所言。此隨自意。分別計度。通善逝經。經曾不言有住故者。今謂彼類未讀此經。或率己情。撥為非量。或朋黨執。濁亂其心。雖數披文而不記了。諸求理者。請為尋思。誰于佛經隨自意執。為言諸行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果說諸行是斷滅的，那麼就意味著沒有所謂的『滅』。既然沒有『滅』，還需要遣除什麼呢？ 答：實際上，諸行的『滅』有兩種：一是生起后立即滅，即『生無間滅』；二是徹底斷滅，即『畢竟斷滅』。爲了避免落入常見和斷見這兩種極端，佛經中說『諸行無住無滅』。這並不是爲了否定對法論師所建立的『因能引發果並使其暫住』的觀點。有智慧的人應該仔細觀察，是誰的說法違背了正理和教義：是說諸行有短暫存在的，還是說諸行完全沒有滅的？ 我本來就沒有說過諸行生起后完全沒有滅。為什麼佛經中說，諸行在臨近滅亡時，也沒有滅呢？這裡所說的『無滅』，是指沒有停止的意思。這並不是說諸行生起后，立即滅亡，沒有暫時的停息。前面說『無住』，已經表達了這個意思，如果再說『無滅』，就顯得多餘了。我也沒有說過諸行生起后，會永遠存在。如果這樣，為什麼又說有為法生起後會有『住』呢？這裡所說的『住』，是指暫時的停頓。指的是在正要滅亡的時候，諸行會有暫時的停頓。在已經滅亡和正在生起的時候，不能說『住』，因為沒有作用。正如前面所說，在正要滅亡的時候，諸行才會有引發結果的作用。即使這樣說，『住』也必然是不存在的，因為沒有哪部佛經說過有『住』，也沒有哪部佛經禁止說有『住』，為什麼一定要說沒有呢？而且，從道理上來說，也應該相信有『住』。即使沒有佛陀的教導，『住』在正理上也沒有什麼違背的地方，說有『住』又有什麼過失呢？ 實際上，有佛陀的教導可以證明『住』是存在的，比如拍手掌的比喻。佛經中說，『比丘們，諸行就像幻象和火焰一樣，暫時存在，很快就會消失滅亡。』這難道不是已經證明了對法論師所說的諸行有暫時存在的時候嗎？由此也成就了毗婆沙的解釋。說『無住』是依據剎那之後的密意而說的，並不是說完全沒有『住』。然而他們卻說，這是隨自己的意思分別計度，來解釋佛經。佛經從來沒有說過有『住』。現在我說，他們這些人沒有讀過這部佛經，或者按照自己的想法，否定了佛經的權威性，或者因為黨派之爭，擾亂了自己的心智，即使多次閱讀佛經，也不記得了。那些追求真理的人，請仔細思考，是誰在佛經中隨自己的意思執著，說諸行...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If it is said that all phenomena are annihilated, then it means there is no such thing as 'cessation'. Since there is no 'cessation', what else needs to be eliminated? Answer: In reality, there are two types of 'cessation' of all phenomena: one is immediate cessation after arising, i.e., 'cessation without interval'; the other is complete annihilation, i.e., 'ultimate cessation'. To avoid falling into the two extremes of permanence and annihilation, the sutras say 'all phenomena neither abide nor cease'. This is not to deny the view established by the Abhidharma masters that 'a cause can give rise to an effect and cause it to abide temporarily'. Wise people should carefully observe whose statement contradicts right reason and doctrine: is it the one who says that all phenomena have a temporary existence, or the one who says that all phenomena have no cessation at all? I have never said that all phenomena completely cease after arising. Why do the sutras say that when all phenomena are about to perish, there is also no cessation? The 'no cessation' here means no stopping. This does not mean that all phenomena cease immediately after arising, without temporary rest. The previous statement 'no abiding' has already expressed this meaning. If we say 'no cessation' again, it would be redundant. I have also not said that all phenomena remain permanent after arising. If so, why is it said that conditioned phenomena have 'abiding' after arising? The 'abiding' here refers to temporary pause. It refers to the temporary pause of all phenomena when they are about to perish. It cannot be said to be 'abiding' when they have already perished or are arising, because there is no function. As mentioned earlier, it is only when they are about to perish that all phenomena have the function of giving rise to results. Even so, 'abiding' is necessarily non-existent, because no sutra has ever said that there is 'abiding', nor has any sutra forbidden saying that there is 'abiding'. Why must it be said that there is none? Moreover, from the perspective of reason, one should believe that there is 'abiding'. Even without the Buddha's teachings, 'abiding' does not contradict right reason. What fault is there in saying that there is 'abiding'? In fact, there are the Buddha's teachings that can prove that 'abiding' exists, such as the analogy of clapping hands. The sutras say, 'Bhikkhus, all phenomena are like illusions and flames, existing temporarily and quickly disappearing.' Does this not already prove that the Abhidharma masters' statement that all phenomena have a temporary existence is true? This also accomplishes the explanation of the Vibhasha. Saying 'no abiding' is based on the secret intention after a moment, not meaning that there is no 'abiding' at all. However, they say that this is interpreting the sutras according to their own ideas. The sutras have never said that there is 'abiding'. Now I say that these people have not read this sutra, or they deny the authority of the sutras according to their own ideas, or they have disturbed their minds because of partisan disputes, and even if they read the sutras many times, they do not remember them. Those who seek the truth, please think carefully, who is clinging to their own ideas in the sutras, saying that all phenomena...
有暫住者。為撥此經為非量者。然薄伽梵先於經中。說臨滅時諸行無住。慮當來世。譬喻部師。執彼經文。撥剎那住。故復說此撫掌喻經。顯諸行中有暫時住。彼不忍受此大師言。復作是責。何緣但許依剎那后密意而說。而不言依眾同分后。剎那與此有何差別。此責非理。有差別故。剎那頃住。有俱起因。眾同分住此因非有。是故此責。非應正理。彼復責言。若由住力能令諸行暫時住者。何不由此令諸有為經千俱胝。剎那量住。何緣諸行一念住因非即令住千俱胝念。此亦非理。離能生因。彼亦不許諸行生故。何緣諸行。一念生因。非即令生千俱胝念。如是道理。進退應同。又契經言。應知樂受生住皆樂。復有經言。應知色等有生有住。若謂此經依相續說。不應正理。義不成故。謂若不許剎那有住。如何相續住義得成。相續必依剎那成故。如是住相。理教極成。然譬喻師。固言非有。不知于住曾結何冤。其理顯然。而不忍受。有餘難言。若無常相。離無常性。別有體者。何不離苦。別有苦相。如斯例難。其理不成。若說無常性由無常相有。可依此說而設難言。苦性亦應由苦相有。然有為法。性是無常。但由滅相。為緣故滅。如有為法性是無常。要待生緣為緣故起。如是苦性。設復更有苦相為緣。此復何用。故所例難。其
理不成。由此已遮空無我難。又即無常相。亦是苦相。體無常故。苦經所說故。又彼亦應遭如是難。若所生法。別有生緣。方得生者。應許苦法別待苦緣方得成苦。或所生法。應離生緣自然而生。猶如苦等。又前已說前說者何。如汝行中有時有者。必待余法生用方成。如是我宗。一切時有。故法有性。不待因緣。苦無我等。應如有性滅應如生。要待余法。故知別有能滅內因。離所滅法。名無常相。若謂諸行無別滅因。生亦應然。不待因有。此二與體俱異法故。或應說二差別所因。若言此二亦有差別。謂諸行生必待因故。現見生時遲速差別。若諸行滅。亦待因者。亦應滅時遲速有異。滅若如生。時有遲速。便違諸行剎那滅宗。故知無因自然而滅。無斯過失。滅因與行必俱有故。時無差別。生因與行。或俱不俱。雖時隔越。亦為因故。諸行生時。可有遲速。若諸行滅。不由因者。于正生時。應即滅壞。或應后位滅壞亦無。汝許前後同無因故。若謂此位諸行未生。何得難令即有滅者。是則應許生為滅因。要見有生方有滅故。既許諸行滅必待生。如何可言無因而滅。又由至教。證滅有因。如契經言。此法滅故。彼法亦滅。又說如是一切有因。故知諸行由因故滅。又諸有為相皆展轉為因。必由有生。方可滅故。必有滅法。方可生
故。必由有住。方有異故。必由有異。住可遷故。復有責言。住因無故。法自然滅。何用滅因。此責非理。唯說前生為因論者。因正有時。未有所起。彼執未來體是無故。後果生位。前因已無。雖無住因。何妨有住。故彼所說。非無滅因。又先已辯住相為因。諸行生已剎那頃住。如何復說住無有因。若謂諸行一剎那后必無有故自然滅者。若無滅相。誰遣其無令生已滅。都由滅相。故離有為。有滅相體。又不應執滅相體無。如前所引。契經中說。有為之起。亦可了知。盡及住異。亦可知故。非於無法應勸了知。諸可了知者是有異名故。又如必有能生差別令所生法至已生位。如是必有能滅差別。令所滅法至已滅位。故滅如生別有義立又彼上座。作如是言。如雖無別有性一性長性短性合離性等為其所待而亦得成。有一長短合離等法。住等亦然。無別所待。此說便成違自宗過。彼宗自許有一長短合離等法待余成故。彼執諸法托有因緣本無今有故。諸法有待。余有性非無所待。汝宗諸行本無今有。有性如生待有方立。對法者說。諸法有性一切時有。不待因緣。故彼所言。自違宗義。遮余同類此一方成。故亦待餘一義成立。長短展轉相待而成。或待極微安布而立。故非自有。必待他成。合之與離。亦待別物。是故一切皆有所待。非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，必須依賴於『住』（Dwell, 存在），才能有『異』（Change, 變化）的產生。必須依賴於『異』，『住』才能被遷移（改變）。如果有人責難說：『住』是因為沒有原因，所以法會自然消滅，為何還要有消滅的原因呢？』這種責難是不合理的。只有那些認為前生是原因的理論家，才會在原因真正存在的時候，還沒有任何事物產生。他們認為未來的本體是『無』，所以在結果產生的階段，之前的因已經不存在了。即使沒有『住』的原因，又有什麼妨礙『住』的存在呢？』所以他們的說法並非沒有消滅的原因。 而且，之前已經辯論過『住相』（Dwelling characteristic, 存在的相）是原因。諸行（phenomena, 現象）產生后，會在剎那間存在。怎麼能又說『住』沒有原因呢？如果說諸行在一個剎那后必然會消失，所以是自然消滅，那麼如果沒有『滅相』（Cessation characteristic, 滅的相），誰會使它們消失，讓它們產生后就滅亡呢？完全是因為有『滅相』，所以離開了有為法（conditioned phenomena, 有條件的事物），才會有『滅相』的本體。 而且，不應該認為『滅相』的本體是『無』。就像之前引用的契經（Sutra, 佛經）中所說，有為法的生起是可以瞭解的，它的消滅以及存在和變化也是可以瞭解的。不應該勸人去了解不存在的事物。凡是可以瞭解的事物，都是有不同名稱的。 又如，必定有能夠產生差別的因素，使所產生的法達到已產生的階段。同樣，必定有能夠消滅差別的因素，使所要消滅的法達到已消滅的階段。所以，『滅』就像『生』一樣，是獨立存在的。 而且，那位上座（senior monk, 上座比丘）這樣說：『就像雖然沒有單獨的『性』（nature, 自性），例如『一性』（oneness, 單一性）、『長性』（length, 長度）、『短性』（shortness, 短度）、『合性』（combination, 結合性）、『離性』（separation, 分離性）等作為它所依賴的對象，但仍然可以成立，存在長短、合離等法。『住』等也是這樣，沒有單獨依賴的對象。』這種說法就犯了違背自己宗派的過失。因為他們的宗派自己承認存在長短、合離等法，需要依賴其他事物才能成立。他們認為諸法是依託因緣，本來沒有現在才有，所以諸法是有所依賴的。而『有性』（existence, 存在性）並非沒有所依賴的對象。你們宗派認為諸行本來沒有現在才有，『有性』就像『生』一樣，需要依賴其他事物才能成立。對法者（Abhidharmikas, 阿毗達摩論師）說，諸法的『有性』在任何時候都存在，不需要依賴因緣。所以他們的說法違背了自己宗派的教義。遮止其他同類事物，這一事物才能成立，所以也需要依賴其他事物才能成立。長短是互相依賴才能成立，或者依賴極微（ultimate particles, 極微）的排列才能成立，所以不是自身就有的，必定要依賴其他事物才能成立。結合和分離也需要依賴其他事物。因此，一切事物都是有所依賴的，並非沒有所依賴的對象。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, there must be reliance on 'Dwell' (住, existence) for 'Change' (異, variation) to arise. There must be reliance on 'Change' for 'Dwell' to be transferred (altered). If someone objects, saying, 'Dwell' is without cause, so the Dharma naturally ceases; why then is a cause for cessation needed?' This objection is unreasonable. Only those theorists who consider the prior life as the cause hold that when the cause truly exists, nothing has yet arisen. They believe the future entity is 'non-existent' (無), so in the stage where the result arises, the prior cause no longer exists. Even without a cause for 'Dwell', what prevents 'Dwell' from existing?' Therefore, their statement is not without a cause for cessation. Moreover, it has already been debated that the 'Dwelling characteristic' (住相, characteristic of existence) is a cause. After phenomena (諸行, phenomena) arise, they exist for an instant. How can it be said again that 'Dwell' has no cause? If it is said that phenomena necessarily cease after an instant, so they cease naturally, then if there is no 'Cessation characteristic' (滅相, characteristic of cessation), who would cause them to cease, causing them to perish after arising? Entirely because there is a 'Cessation characteristic', there is a substance of 'Cessation characteristic' apart from conditioned phenomena (有為法, conditioned phenomena). Moreover, it should not be held that the substance of 'Cessation characteristic' is 'non-existent' (無). As stated in the Sutra (契經, Buddhist scripture) cited earlier, the arising of conditioned phenomena can be understood, and its cessation, as well as existence and change, can also be understood. One should not be encouraged to understand non-existent things. All things that can be understood have different names. Furthermore, just as there must be a factor that can produce differences, causing the produced Dharma to reach the stage of being produced, so too there must be a factor that can eliminate differences, causing the Dharma to be eliminated to reach the stage of being eliminated. Therefore, 'Cessation' is like 'Arising' in that it exists independently. Moreover, that senior monk (上座, senior monk) said, 'Just as although there is no separate 'nature' (性, nature), such as 'oneness' (一性, oneness), 'length' (長性, length), 'shortness' (短性, shortness), 'combination' (合性, combination), 'separation' (離性, separation), etc., as something it relies on, it can still be established, and there exist phenomena such as length, shortness, combination, and separation. 'Dwell', etc., are also like this, without a separate object of reliance.' This statement commits the fault of contradicting one's own school. Because their school itself admits that there exist phenomena such as length, shortness, combination, and separation, which need to rely on other things to be established. They believe that phenomena rely on causes and conditions, and they did not exist originally but exist now, so phenomena are dependent. And 'existence' (有性, existence) is not without an object of reliance. Your school believes that phenomena did not exist originally but exist now, and 'existence' is like 'arising' in that it needs to rely on other things to be established. The Abhidharmikas (對法者, Abhidharma masters) say that the 'existence' of phenomena exists at all times and does not need to rely on causes and conditions. Therefore, their statement contradicts the doctrines of their own school. Preventing other similar things is how this one thing can be established, so it also needs to rely on other things to be established. Length and shortness are mutually dependent to be established, or they rely on the arrangement of ultimate particles (極微, ultimate particles) to be established, so they are not self-existent and must rely on other things to be established. Combination and separation also need to rely on other things. Therefore, all things are dependent and not without an object of reliance.
無所待可立名言。又法生因亦應由此例被遮遣。如有等性無所待成。生亦應爾。然無是事。故諸有為。分位差別。一切皆待異因緣成。非自然有。故有為相。一一剎那。皆別實有義極成立。譬喻部師所立。假有相續生等。諸有為相。不合正理。違背契經。唯我所宗。符經順理。故有智者。應勤修學。已廣分別諸有為相。名身等類。其義云何。頌曰。
名身等所謂 想章字總說
論曰。等者等取句身文身名句文身。本論說故。諸想總說。即是名身。諸章總說。即是句身。諸字總說。即是文身。言總說者。是合集義。于合集義中。說嗢遮界故。想謂於法分別取著。共所安立。字所發想。即是眼耳瓶衣車等。如是想身。即是名身。謂眼耳等。章謂章辯。世論者釋。是辯無盡。帶差別章。能究竟辯所欲說義。即是福招樂異熟等。如是章身。即是句身。謂如有說。
福招樂異熟 所欲皆如意 並速證第一 永寂靜涅槃
如是句等。字謂𧙃阿壹伊等字。如是字身。即是文身。謂迦佉伽等。有餘師說。本論中言。云何多名身。謂名名事等。非彼論師欲辯名等是實有相。而依假合以發問端。是故彼問多名身等者。決定應問名等體實相。思擇名等體實相中。何用推徴名等假合。又名等三相差別者。謂聲所顯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無所待』（沒有任何條件依賴）可以立為名言（概念）。同樣，法（dharma，佛法）產生的因也應該由此例證被否定。如果像『等性』（事物之間的相等性）那樣，不需要任何條件就能成立，那麼『生』（產生）也應該如此。然而，事實並非如此。因此，一切有為法（saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而成的現象），其分位（狀態）、差別（不同）都依賴於不同的因緣才能成立，並非自然而有。所以，有為法的各個相狀，在每一個剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）都是真實存在的，這個意義是完全成立的。譬喻部（Dṛṣṭāntavāda，佛教部派之一）的論師所立的『假有相續生』等有為相，不合乎正理，違背契經（sūtra，佛經）。只有我（指作者或其宗派）所宗奉的觀點，才符合佛經，順應道理。所以，有智慧的人，應該努力修學。已經廣泛地分別了諸有為相，那麼名身（nāmakāya，名稱的集合）等類別，其意義是什麼呢？頌曰： 『名身』等所謂，想、章、字總說。 論曰：『等』字，包括句身（padakāya，語句的集合）、文身（vyañjanakāya，文字的集合），因為本論中這樣說。各種『想』（saṃjñā，概念）的總和，就是『名身』。各種『章』（uddeśa，段落）的總和，就是『句身』。各種『字』（akṣara，字母）的總和，就是『文身』。說『總說』，是合集的意思。在合集的意思中，說了『嗢遮界』（uddeśaka，總說）。『想』，是指對於法（dharma，事物）分別取著，共同安立。字所引發的想，就是『眼』、『耳』、『瓶』、『衣』、『車』等。這樣的『想身』，就是『名身』，指眼、耳等。『章』，是指章辯（uddeśa-pratibhāna，段落的辯論），世論者解釋說，這是辯論無窮無盡，帶有差別的段落，能徹底地辯明想要說的意義，就是『福招樂異熟』（puṇya-āvartate-sukha-vipāka，福報招感快樂的果報）等。這樣的『章身』，就是『句身』，比如有人說： 『福招樂異熟，所欲皆如意，並速證第一，永寂靜涅槃』。 像這樣的句子等。『字』，是指𧙃（a）、阿（ā）、壹（i）、伊（ī）等字。這樣的『字身』，就是『文身』，指迦（ka）、佉（kha）、伽（ga）等。有其他論師說，本論中說：『云何多名身？』（什麼是多的名身？），是指名、名事等。並非那些論師想要辯論名等是實有的相狀，而是依靠假合來發起問題的開端。所以，他們問『多名身』等，一定是想問名等的真實體相。在思擇名等的真實體相中，為什麼要推究名等的假合呢？又，名等三相的差別，是指聲音所顯示的。
【English Translation】 English version 『Having nothing to depend on』 can be established as a term (concept). Furthermore, the cause of the arising of dharmas (dharma, teachings or phenomena) should also be rejected by this example. If something like 『equality』 (sameness between things) can be established without any dependence, then 『arising』 (birth) should be the same. However, this is not the case. Therefore, all conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta, phenomena that arise from causes and conditions), their states, and differences, all depend on different causes and conditions to be established, and do not exist naturally. Thus, the characteristics of conditioned phenomena, in every single moment (kṣaṇa, an extremely short unit of time), are truly existent, and this meaning is fully established. The 『illusory continuous arising』 and other characteristics of conditioned phenomena established by the Dṛṣṭāntavāda (a Buddhist school), do not accord with correct reasoning and contradict the sūtras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures). Only the view that I (the author or their school) uphold conforms to the sūtras and accords with reason. Therefore, wise individuals should diligently study and practice. Having extensively distinguished the characteristics of conditioned phenomena, what is the meaning of categories such as nāmakāya (nāmakāya, collection of names)? The verse says: 『Nāmakāya』 and so on, are said to be the collection of thoughts, chapters, and letters. The treatise says: 『And so on』 includes padakāya (padakāya, collection of sentences) and vyañjanakāya (vyañjanakāya, collection of letters), because this is stated in the treatise. The collection of all 『thoughts』 (saṃjñā, concepts) is nāmakāya. The collection of all 『chapters』 (uddeśa, paragraphs) is padakāya. The collection of all 『letters』 (akṣara, alphabets) is vyañjanakāya. Saying 『collection』 means the meaning of aggregation. Within the meaning of aggregation, the 『uddeśaka』 (uddeśaka, summary) is mentioned. 『Thought』 refers to the discrimination and attachment to dharmas (dharma, phenomena), which are commonly established. The thought evoked by letters is 『eye,』 『ear,』 『bottle,』 『clothing,』 『cart,』 and so on. Such a 『thought-body』 is nāmakāya, referring to eye, ear, etc. 『Chapter』 refers to chapter-discourse (uddeśa-pratibhāna, discourse on paragraphs), which worldly scholars explain as endless discourse, with differentiated chapters, capable of thoroughly explaining the intended meaning, such as 『merit brings about pleasant ripening』 (puṇya-āvartate-sukha-vipāka, merit brings about pleasant results). Such a 『chapter-body』 is padakāya, as when someone says: 『Merit brings about pleasant ripening, all desires are fulfilled, and one quickly attains the supreme, the eternally tranquil nirvāṇa.』 Like such sentences and so on. 『Letter』 refers to letters such as 𧙃 (a), 阿 (ā), 壹 (i), 伊 (ī), etc. Such a 『letter-body』 is vyañjanakāya, referring to 迦 (ka), 佉 (kha), 伽 (ga), etc. Other teachers say that in this treatise it is said: 『What is a multitude of nāmakāya?』 referring to name, named object, etc. It is not that those teachers want to argue that names and so on are truly existent characteristics, but rather they rely on false aggregation to initiate the beginning of the question. Therefore, when they ask 『a multitude of nāmakāya,』 they must be asking about the true nature of names and so on. In contemplating the true nature of names and so on, why would one investigate the false aggregation of names and so on? Furthermore, the difference between the three characteristics of names and so on refers to what is revealed by sound.
。能顯于義。已共立為能詮定量。顯示所解意樂所生。能表所知。境界自體。猶如響像。此相是名。若能辯析所知境中。廣略義門。此相是句。于能說者。聲已滅位。猶令繫念。持令不惑。傳寄餘者。此相是文。此中名者。謂隨歸赴。如如語聲之所歸赴。如是如是。于自性中。名皆隨逐。呼召于彼。句者即能辯所說義謂能辯析差別義門。文者謂能有所彰顯。依此由此彼彰顯故。此即是字。謂令繫念無有忘失。或復由此之所任持。令無疑惑。或能持彼。轉寄於余。故有說言。如靜慮者方便境相。與靜慮中所覺了境。而為梯隥。文于名句及義亦爾。有餘師說。𧙃壹等字。能彰名句。故說為文。即此諸字。或別或總。能詮自性。故說為名。即此和合。能究竟辯差別義門。說名為句。如是三種。體應成一。又應非實。故不可依。復有餘師。一處顯三相。謂如說言。欲我知汝本。此中諸字各說為文。欲者是名。總說為句。是則總說名句文身。此亦不免前所說過。是故最初所說名等三相為善。可研尋故。豈不經中受想行識四無色蘊總說為名。本論亦言。法處所攝。身業語業。是色所收。其餘法處。皆名所攝。此中何故說名。但以心不相應行蘊為性。契經本論。皆為總攝一切法門。略為二種。色為體者。總說為色。自余非色。總說為
【現代漢語翻譯】 能顯于義，已經共同確立為能詮定量（能夠正確表達意義的標準）。顯示所要表達的意樂所產生的，能夠代表所認知的境界自體，就像回聲和影像一樣，這種特性就叫做『名』（nāma，名稱）。如果能夠辨析所知境界中廣泛和簡略的意義，這種特性就叫做『句』（pada，句子）。對於說話者來說，即使聲音已經消失，仍然能夠使人繫念不忘，保持清晰不迷惑，並且傳遞給其他人，這種特性就叫做『文』（vyañjana，文字）。 這裡所說的『名』，是指隨著歸向，就像語言的聲音所歸向的那樣，在這種自性中，『名』都隨之而行，呼喚著它。『句』就是能夠辨別所說意義，能夠辨析差別意義。『文』就是能夠有所彰顯，依靠這個，通過這個，那個得以彰顯，這就是字，能夠使人繫念不忘，沒有忘失，或者依靠這個的任持，使人沒有疑惑，或者能夠保持它，傳遞給其他人。所以有人說，就像禪定者方便的境界相，與禪定中所覺悟的境界，作為梯子一樣，文字對於名、句和意義也是如此。 有其他老師說，𧙃壹等字，能夠彰顯名句，所以說是『文』。這些字，或者分別，或者總體，能夠詮釋自性，所以說是『名』。這些字和合在一起，能夠究竟地辨別差別意義，所以叫做『句』。像這樣三種，本體應該成為一體，又應該不是真實的，所以不可依靠。還有其他老師說，一個地方顯現三種相，就像說『欲我知汝本』，這裡每個字都說是『文』，『欲』是『名』，總的說是『句』。那麼總的說來就是名句文身。但這也不能免除前面所說過的錯誤。所以最初所說的名等三種相是好的，可以研習尋思。難道不是經典中受、想、行、識四種無色蘊總的說是『名』嗎？本論也說，法處所攝的身業、語業，是色所收，其餘法處，都屬於『名』所攝。這裡為什麼說『名』，只是以心不相應行蘊為體性呢？契經和本論，都是爲了總攝一切法門，簡略地分為兩種，以色為體性的，總的說是『色』，其餘非色的，總的說是『名』。
【English Translation】 That which manifests meaning has already been established as a valid means of expression (neng quan ding liang). It reveals what is produced by the intention to express, and it can represent the self-nature of the known realm, like an echo or an image. This characteristic is called 'name' (nāma). If one can discern the broad and concise meanings within the known realm, this characteristic is called 'sentence' (pada). For the speaker, even after the voice has ceased, it can still cause people to remember and not be confused, and it can be transmitted to others. This characteristic is called 'letter' (vyañjana). Here, 'name' refers to that which follows the direction, just as the sound of language follows its direction. In this self-nature, 'name' always follows and calls upon it. 'Sentence' is that which can discern the meaning being spoken, and can discern the different meanings. 'Letter' is that which can manifest something. Relying on this, through this, that is manifested. This is the character, which can cause people to remember without forgetting, or relying on this support, it can cause people to have no doubts, or it can maintain it and transmit it to others. Therefore, some say that just as the realm of skillful means for a meditator, and the realm realized in meditation, serve as a ladder, letters are the same for name, sentence, and meaning. Other teachers say that characters like 𧙃壹 can manifest names and sentences, so they are called 'letters'. These characters, either separately or collectively, can explain self-nature, so they are called 'names'. These characters, when combined, can ultimately discern different meanings, so they are called 'sentences'. These three, in this way, should become one entity, and should also not be real, so they cannot be relied upon. Still other teachers say that one place manifests three aspects, just like saying 'I want to know your origin'. Here, each character is said to be a 'letter', 'want' is a 'name', and the whole is said to be a 'sentence'. Then, generally speaking, it is the body of name, sentence, and letter. But this cannot avoid the mistakes mentioned earlier. Therefore, the initially stated three aspects of name, etc., are good and can be studied and contemplated. Isn't it the case that in the sutras, the four formless aggregates of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are generally called 'name'? The treatise also says that the bodily and verbal actions included in the sphere of objects (法處) are included in form (色), and the remaining spheres of objects are all included in 'name'. Why is it said here that 'name' only has the nature of mental formations not associated with mind? Both the sutras and the treatises are for generally encompassing all teachings, briefly dividing them into two types: that which has form as its nature is generally called 'form', and the remaining non-form is generally called 'name'.
名。非色聚中攝於名故。總從別目。故說為名。今此中名。唯約能顯所詮義說。是故但以心不相應行蘊為性。義為可說不可說耶。如實應言。義不可說。若爾何故。因為等言。解為等義。非顛倒解。又應違經吾當為汝略說法要。有義有文。無斯過失。假安立故。謂劫初人。于種種義。共立種種差別想名。由此相傳。于諸名想。解無顛倒。又如有說。語能發名。名能顯義。然契經言。文義巧妙。曾無有說有義有文。設許如斯亦無有失。世尊所說。具文義故。謂世尊教。能正顯了無量義門。文詞圓滿。無所缺漏。故作是說。又三世諸法各有三世名謂過去法。過去諸佛。以過去名。曾已顯示。未來諸佛。以未來名。當復顯示。現在諸佛。以現在名。今正顯示。未來現在。如應當知。又諸法中。無無名者。若有應成非所知過。故薄伽梵說如是言。
名能映一切 無有過名者 是故名一法 皆隨自在行
有餘師說。義少名多。於一義中。有多名故。有餘復說。名少義多。名唯一界少分所攝。義則具收十八界故。復有說者。互有少多。謂約界攝。義多名少。若依立教。義少名多。謂佛世尊。於一一法。隨義施設無邊名故。如貪名愛名火名蛇名蔓名渴名網名毒名泉名河名脩名廣名針縷等。如是一切。此中經主。作如
是言。豈不此三語為性故用聲為體。色自性攝如何乃說為心不相應行。此責非理。所以者何。由教及理。知別有故。教謂經言。語力文力。若文即語。別說何為。又說應持正法文句。又言依義不依于文。又說伽他因謂闡陀文字。闡陀謂造頌份量語為體。又契經言。知法知義法謂名等。義謂所詮。又契經言。文義巧妙。又言應以善說文句讀誦正法惡說文句讀誦正法義即難解。又說如來獲得希有名句文身。又說彼彼勝解文句甚為希有。由此等教。證知別有能詮諸義名句文身。猶如語聲。實而非假。理謂現見。有時得聲而不得字。有時得字而不得聲。故知體別。有時得聲不得字者。謂雖聞聲而不了義。現見有人粗聞他語。而複審問。汝何所言。此聞語聲。不了義者。都由未達所發文故。如何乃執文不異聲。有時得字不得聲者。謂不聞聲。而得了義。現見有人不聞他語。睹唇等動。知其所說。此不聞聲。得了義者。都由己達所發文故。由斯理證。文必異聲。又見世間。隱聲誦咒。故知咒字。異於咒聲。又見世間。有二論者。言音相似。一負一勝。此勝負因。必異聲有。又法與詞二無礙解。境界別故。知字離聲。是故聲者。但是言音。相無差別。其中屈曲。必依迦遮吒多波等。要由語聲。發起諸字。諸字前後和合生名此名既生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如是說來，難道不是這三種語言以自性故而以聲音為載體嗎？如果色蘊本身就已包含自性，為何又說其為心不相應行呢？這種責難是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為通過教證和理證，可以知道它們是不同的。教證是指佛經所說：『語力』、『文力』。如果文字就是語言，那又何必分別說明呢？又說應當受持正法的文字和語句。又說要依義不依文。又說伽陀（gāthā，頌）的因是闡陀（chandas，韻律）文字，闡陀是指造頌的份量，以語言為載體。又契經中說：『知法知義』，法是指名稱等，義是指所詮釋的內容。又契經中說：『文義巧妙』。又說應當以善說的文字語句讀誦正法，如果用惡說的文字語句讀誦正法，那麼義理就難以理解。又說如來獲得了希有的名句文身。又說彼彼勝解的文字語句非常希有。』由此等教證，可以證明另有能詮釋諸義的名句文身，猶如語聲一樣，是真實存在的，而不是虛假的。 理證是指現量所見。有時聽到聲音卻得不到文字，有時得到文字卻得不到聲音，所以知道它們的本體是不同的。有時聽到聲音卻得不到文字，是指雖然聽到了聲音，卻不瞭解其中的含義。現在看到有人粗略地聽到別人說話，然後又審問：『你說了什麼？』這就是聽到了語聲，卻不瞭解其中的含義，都是因為沒有理解所發出的文字的緣故。怎麼能執著地認為文字與聲音沒有區別呢？有時得到文字卻得不到聲音，是指沒有聽到聲音，卻瞭解了其中的含義。現在看到有人沒有聽到別人說話，卻通過觀察嘴唇等的動作，知道他所說的話。這就是沒有聽到聲音，卻瞭解了其中的含義，都是因為已經理解了所發出的文字的緣故。由此理證，文字必定與聲音不同。又看到世間有人隱聲誦咒，所以知道咒字不同於咒聲。又看到世間有兩位論者，言語聲音相似，但一個失敗一個勝利，這勝負的原因，必定與聲音不同。又法無礙解和詞無礙解，境界不同，所以知道文字脫離於聲音。因此，聲音只是言語的聲音，相貌沒有差別，其中的屈曲，必定依賴於迦（ka）、遮（ca）、吒（ṭa）、多（ta）、波（pa）等。一定要通過語聲，才能發起諸字，諸字前後和合而產生名稱，這個名稱一旦產生，
【English Translation】 English version: It is said, are not these three languages using sound as their substance because of their nature? If the aggregate of form (rūpa-skandha) itself includes nature, why is it said to be a mental force not associated with consciousness (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra)? This accusation is unreasonable. Why? Because through scriptural authority (āgama) and reasoning (yukti), we know that they are different. Scriptural authority refers to the sutras saying: 'power of speech,' 'power of writing.' If writing is the same as speech, why differentiate them? It is also said that one should uphold the words and sentences of the true Dharma. It is also said to rely on the meaning, not on the words. It is also said that the cause of a verse (gāthā) is the meter (chandas) of the writing; meter refers to the measure of composing verses, with language as its substance. Also, the sutras say: 'Know the Dharma, know the meaning'; Dharma refers to names, etc., and meaning refers to what is being explained. Also, the sutras say: 'The words and meaning are skillful.' It is also said that one should recite the true Dharma with well-spoken words and sentences; if one recites the true Dharma with poorly spoken words and sentences, then the meaning will be difficult to understand. It is also said that the Tathāgata (如來) obtained rare name-sentence-body (nāma-pada-vyañjana-kāya). It is also said that the words and sentences of those superior understandings are very rare.' From these scriptural authorities, it can be proven that there are separate name-sentence-bodies that can explain all meanings, just like speech sounds, which are real and not false. Reasoning refers to what is directly seen. Sometimes one hears the sound but does not get the writing, and sometimes one gets the writing but does not hear the sound, so one knows that their substance is different. Sometimes one hears the sound but does not get the writing, which means that although one hears the sound, one does not understand its meaning. Now we see someone roughly hearing someone else speak, and then asking: 'What did you say?' This is hearing the speech sound, but not understanding its meaning, all because one has not understood the writing that was uttered. How can one stubbornly insist that writing is no different from sound? Sometimes one gets the writing but does not hear the sound, which means that one does not hear the sound, but understands its meaning. Now we see someone not hearing someone else speak, but knowing what they are saying by observing the movements of their lips, etc. This is not hearing the sound, but understanding its meaning, all because one has already understood the writing that was uttered. From this reasoning, writing must be different from sound. Also, we see people in the world reciting mantras silently, so we know that the mantra syllables are different from the mantra sounds. Also, we see two debaters in the world whose speech sounds are similar, but one loses and one wins; the cause of this victory or defeat must be different from the sound. Also, the unobstructed understanding of Dharma (法無礙解) and the unobstructed understanding of words (詞無礙解) have different realms, so we know that writing is separate from sound. Therefore, sound is only the sound of speech, and its appearance is no different; its inflections must depend on ka, ca, ṭa, ta, pa, etc. It is necessary to use speech sounds to initiate the syllables, and the syllables combine in sequence to generate a name; once this name is generated,
即能顯義。由此展轉而作是言。語能發名名能顯義。故名聲異。其理極成應知此中聲是能說。文是所說。義俱非二。如是則為無亂建立。此中經主。又作是言。非但音聲皆稱為語。要由此故。義可了知。如是音聲。方稱語故。謂能說者。于諸義中。已共立為能詮定量。若此句義。由名能顯但由音聲顯用已辯。何須橫計別有實名。何等名為能詮定量。豈不于義共立想名。此即說為能詮定量。謂能說者。于諸義中。先共安立如是諸字。定能展轉。詮如是義。由共安立如是字故。因如是字發如是名。此名即是能詮定量。諸能說者。將發語時。要先思惟。如是定量。由此自語。或他語時。于所顯義。皆能解了。故非唯聲即能顯義。要語發字。字復發名。名乃能詮。所欲說義。如語發字。字復發名。如是應思。發句道理。此中經主。復作是言。又未了此名如何由語發。為由語顯。為由語生。若由語生。語聲性故。聲應一切皆能生名。若謂生名聲有差別。此足顯義。何待別名。若由語顯。語聲性故。聲應一切皆能顯名。若謂顯名聲有差別。此足顯義。何待別名。執聲能詮。斯難亦等。謂若聲體。即能顯義。應一切聲無非能顯。若謂能顯聲有差別如是差別。應即是名。故所推徴。未為過難。然能說者。以所樂名。先蘊在心。方復思度
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即能顯義。由此輾轉而作是言：『語能發名，名能顯義。』故名聲有差異。這個道理非常明確，應當知道這裡的聲音是能說（表達）的，文字是所說（被表達的），而意義都不是這兩者。這樣才能建立起沒有混亂的體系。 這裡經文的作者又說：『不只是聲音都可以稱為語，一定要由此（聲音）才能瞭解意義，這樣的聲音才稱為語。』也就是說，能說者在各種意義中，已經共同確立了能詮釋的標準。如果這個句子的意義，由名稱能夠顯現，僅僅由聲音顯現的作用已經辨明，何須另外計算有實在的名稱呢？ 什麼叫做能詮釋的標準呢？難道不是對於意義共同設立了想像的名稱嗎？這就是所說的能詮釋的標準。也就是說，能說者在各種意義中，先共同安立了這些字，一定能夠輾轉地詮釋這些意義。由於共同安立了這些字，因此由這些字發出這些名稱。這個名稱就是能詮釋的標準。各種能說者，將要說話的時候，要先思惟這些標準。由此，自己說話或者他人說話的時候，對於所要顯現的意義，都能夠理解。所以不是隻有聲音就能顯現意義，而是要語言發出文字，文字再發出名稱，名稱才能夠詮釋所想要說的意義。如同語言發出文字，文字再發出名稱，應當這樣思考發出語句的道理。 這裡經文的作者又說：『又沒有了解這個名稱是如何由語言發出的，是由語言顯現的，還是由語言產生的？』如果是從語言產生的，因為語言是聲音的性質，聲音應該一切都能產生名稱。如果說產生名稱的聲音有差別，這就足以顯現意義，何必等待另外的名稱？如果是從語言顯現的，因為語言是聲音的性質，聲音應該一切都能顯現名稱。如果說顯現名稱的聲音有差別，這就足以顯現意義，何必等待另外的名稱？ 執著聲音能夠詮釋，這個責難也是一樣的。如果聲音的本體，就能顯現意義，應該一切聲音沒有不能顯現的。如果說能顯現的聲音有差別，這樣的差別，應該就是名稱。所以你所提出的推論和責難，並沒有什麼過錯。 然而能說者，將自己喜歡的名稱，先蘊藏在心中，然後才思考。
【English Translation】 English version It can thus reveal the meaning. From this, it is said in turn: 'Speech can generate names, and names can reveal meanings.' Therefore, names and sounds are different. This principle is very clear, and it should be known that here, sound is what can speak (express), and writing is what is spoken (expressed), while the meanings are neither of these two. Only in this way can a system without confusion be established. Here, the author of the scripture also says: 'Not only can sounds be called speech, but it is necessary that meaning can be understood through this (sound), and such sound is called speech.' That is to say, speakers have already jointly established the standard of what can be interpreted in various meanings. If the meaning of this sentence can be revealed by the name, and the function of sound alone has been clarified, why should we calculate separately that there is a real name? What is the standard of what can be interpreted? Isn't it that imagined names are jointly established for meanings? This is what is called the standard of what can be interpreted. That is to say, speakers first jointly establish these words in various meanings, and they will definitely be able to interpret these meanings in turn. Because these words are jointly established, these names are issued from these words. This name is the standard of what can be interpreted. When various speakers are about to speak, they must first think about these standards. Therefore, when they speak themselves or others speak, they can understand the meaning to be revealed. Therefore, it is not only sound that can reveal meaning, but language must issue words, and words must issue names, and names can interpret the meaning that one wants to say. Just as language issues words, and words issue names, one should think about the principle of issuing sentences in this way. Here, the author of the scripture also says: 'Also, it is not understood how this name is issued from language, whether it is revealed by language or produced by language?' If it is produced from language, because language is the nature of sound, sound should be able to produce all names. If it is said that the sound that produces names is different, this is enough to reveal the meaning, why wait for another name? If it is revealed from language, because language is the nature of sound, sound should be able to reveal all names. If it is said that the sound that reveals names is different, this is enough to reveal the meaning, why wait for another name? Clinging to the idea that sound can interpret, this difficulty is the same. If the substance of sound can reveal meaning, all sounds should be able to reveal meaning. If it is said that the sound that can reveal meaning is different, this difference should be the name. Therefore, the inferences and criticisms you have made are not at fault. However, the speaker first stores the name he likes in his heart, and then thinks about it.
。我當發起如是如是言。為他宣說如是如是義。由此後時。隨思發語。因語發字。字復發名。名方顯義。由依如是展轉理門說。語發名名能顯義。如斯安立。其理必然。若不以名先蘊心內。設令發語無定表詮。亦不令他于義生解。又經主言。或唯應執別有文體。即總集此為名等身更執有餘。便為無用。此亦非理。無有諸文俱時轉故。由斯總集理不成故。非一一文中皆不顯義故。或如樹等。大造合成。非不緣斯別生于影。影由假髮。而體非假。如是諸文。亦應總集別生名句而彼名句雖由假髮。而體非假。此為善說理極成故。若爾則應一切假法皆可安立為實有性。無如是過所以者何。於一字中。亦有名故。無假有法攪一實成。故假與名義不相似。既於一字。亦得有名。寧知此名。離字而有。如是一字。如無義字。無有所詮。依此為緣。別有名起。方能表義。然極相近。別相難知。如壁上光二色難辯。若許即聲能顯于義。無別名等。斯有何失。違害法相。豈非失耶。無有音聲。唯意能得。字等不爾。故體不同。然有音聲。雖由共立契約而發。有作意聽。而但了聲。于義不了。彼后因此還得了知。非前了聲于義不了。后唯因此便能了義。故知離聲別有名等。前意未得不了所詮。后意得時。方能了義。若謂不爾後意還因得聲差別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：我應當這樣發起言論，為他人宣說這樣的意義。從這之後，隨著思考而發出言語，因言語而產生文字，文字又產生名稱，名稱才能夠顯現意義。由於依靠這樣的輾轉相生的道理來說明，言語產生名稱，名稱能夠顯現意義，這樣的安立，其道理是必然的。如果不是先在心中蘊含名稱，即使發出言語，也沒有確定的表達，也不能使他人對意義產生理解。而且經文的主旨說，或者僅僅應當執著于另外的文體，就是總集這些文體作為名稱等的身，如果另外執著于其他，就成為無用。這也是不合道理的，因為沒有諸多的文字同時運轉的緣故。由於這樣的總集在道理上不能成立的緣故，不是每一個文字中都不顯現意義的緣故。或者如同樹等，由大的造作合成，並非不因為這些而另外產生影子，影子由假借而產生，而本體並非是假借。如同這些文字，也應當總集起來另外產生名稱語句，而這些名稱語句雖然由假借而產生，而本體並非是假借。這是很好的說法，道理極其成立的緣故。如果這樣，那麼就應當一切假法都可以安立為實有的自性。沒有這樣的過失，是什麼原因呢？因為在一個字中，也有名稱的緣故，沒有假有的法攪亂一個實有的成立。所以假借與名稱的意義不相似。既然在一個字中，也可以得到名稱，怎麼知道這個名稱，離開字而存在呢？如同一個字，如同沒有意義的字，沒有所要詮釋的，依靠這個作為因緣，另外有名稱產生，才能夠表達意義。然而極其相近，另外的相難以知道，如同墻壁上的光，兩種顏色難以分辨。如果允許就是聲音能夠顯現意義，沒有另外的名稱等，這有什麼過失呢？違背了法的體相，難道不是過失嗎？沒有聲音，只有意念能夠得到，文字等不是這樣，所以本體不同。然而有聲音，雖然由共同設立的契約而發出，有作意聽聞，而僅僅瞭解聲音，對於意義不瞭解。在那之後因此還能夠得知，不是先前瞭解聲音對於意義不瞭解，之後僅僅因此就能夠了解意義。所以知道離開聲音另外有名稱等，先前的意念沒有得到，不瞭解所要詮釋的，之後的意念得到的時候，才能夠了解意義。如果說不是這樣，之後的意念還是因為得到聲音的差別 English version: I should initiate speech in this way, and explain the meaning in this way to others. From then on, words arise from thought, characters arise from words, and names arise from characters, and only then can meaning be revealed. Because of relying on such a revolving principle to explain, words generate names, and names can reveal meaning. Such an establishment is necessarily the principle. If names are not first contained within the mind, even if words are spoken, there is no definite expression, nor can others understand the meaning. Moreover, the main point of the scripture is that one should only adhere to another literary style, that is, to collectively gather these literary styles as the body of names, etc. If one adheres to something else, it becomes useless. This is also unreasonable, because there are no many characters operating simultaneously. Because such a collection cannot be established in principle, it is not because each character does not reveal meaning. Or like trees, etc., composed of large creations, it is not that shadows are not produced separately because of these, shadows are produced by borrowing, but the substance is not borrowed. Like these characters, they should also be collectively gathered to separately produce name sentences, and although these name sentences are produced by borrowing, the substance is not borrowed. This is a good saying, because the principle is extremely established. If so, then all false dharmas should be established as real nature. There is no such fault, why? Because in one character, there is also the reason for the name, there is no false dharma disturbing the establishment of a real one. Therefore, the meaning of borrowing and name is not similar. Since in one character, one can also obtain a name, how do you know that this name exists apart from the character? Like a character, like a meaningless character, there is nothing to be interpreted, relying on this as a cause, another name arises, and then it can express meaning. However, they are extremely close, and the other aspects are difficult to know, like the light on the wall, the two colors are difficult to distinguish. If it is allowed that the sound can reveal the meaning, and there are no other names, etc., what is the fault in this? Violating the characteristics of the Dharma, is it not a fault? There is no sound, only intention can be obtained, characters, etc. are not like this, so the substance is different. However, there is sound, although it is issued by a jointly established contract, there is intentional hearing, but only the sound is understood, and the meaning is not understood. After that, it can still be known because of this, it is not that the previous understanding of the sound does not understand the meaning, and later only because of this can the meaning be understood. Therefore, it is known that there are other names, etc. apart from the sound, the previous intention has not been obtained, and the meaning to be interpreted is not understood, and when the later intention is obtained, the meaning can be understood. If it is said that it is not like this, the later intention is still because of obtaining the difference in sound
【English Translation】 I should initiate speech in this way, and explain the meaning in this way to others. From then on, words arise from thought, characters arise from words, and names arise from characters, and only then can meaning be revealed. Because of relying on such a revolving principle to explain, words generate names, and names can reveal meaning. Such an establishment is necessarily the principle. If names are not first contained within the mind, even if words are spoken, there is no definite expression, nor can others understand the meaning. Moreover, the main point of the scripture is that one should only adhere to another literary style, that is, to collectively gather these literary styles as the body of names, etc. If one adheres to something else, it becomes useless. This is also unreasonable, because there are no many characters operating simultaneously. Because such a collection cannot be established in principle, it is not because each character does not reveal meaning. Or like trees, etc., composed of large creations, it is not that shadows are not produced separately because of these, shadows are produced by borrowing, but the substance is not borrowed. Like these characters, they should also be collectively gathered to separately produce name sentences, and although these name sentences are produced by borrowing, the substance is not borrowed. This is a good saying, because the principle is extremely established. If so, then all false dharmas should be established as real nature. There is no such fault, why? Because in one character, there is also the reason for the name, there is no false dharma disturbing the establishment of a real one. Therefore, the meaning of borrowing and name is not similar. Since in one character, one can also obtain a name, how do you know that this name exists apart from the character? Like a character, like a meaningless character, there is nothing to be interpreted, relying on this as a cause, another name arises, and then it can express meaning. However, they are extremely close, and the other aspects are difficult to know, like the light on the wall, the two colors are difficult to distinguish. If it is allowed that the sound can reveal the meaning, and there are no other names, etc., what is the fault in this? Violating the characteristics of the Dharma, is it not a fault? There is no sound, only intention can be obtained, characters, etc. are not like this, so the substance is different. However, there is sound, although it is issued by a jointly established contract, there is intentional hearing, but only the sound is understood, and the meaning is not understood. After that, it can still be known because of this, it is not that the previous understanding of the sound does not understand the meaning, and later only because of this can the meaning be understood. Therefore, it is known that there are other names, etc. apart from the sound, the previous intention has not been obtained, and the meaning to be interpreted is not understood, and when the later intention is obtained, the meaning can be understood. If it is said that it is not like this, the later intention is still because of obtaining the difference in sound
能了義故。此聲差別非異於聲。此亦不然能詮契約。即聲差別理不成故。若所共立。能詮契約。即聲差別者。應如色差別。非共立契亦可了知。非青與黃二色差別要共立契然後了知。雖二色中先不共立差別契約。而彼青黃差別之相。非異色故。眼識得已。意識即能隨分別知此彼差別。又理不應于契約上覆作契約。故不應言能詮契約。雖不異聲而先不共立契約者。雖復得聲而更待余立契約故未能了別。此望餘聲有差別相。又若所立契即聲差別者。于有義聲及無義聲所有差別。雖先未共立差別契。應亦了知。謂於一聲有此差別。于餘聲上。此差別無。先未共立差別契者。得二聲時。雖不了義。然應如彼二色差別。即能了達有契約聲無契約聲差別之相。故知別有名句文身。緣聲而生。能顯了義。然彼上座。於此復言。意業為先。所生聲位。安布諸字。決定差別。以成名等。此離於聲。別有自性。理不可得。如是亦應由前理教顯彼上座有言無實。非但由彼虛構言詞能立即聲是名等體。若但由彼虛構言詞。能立即聲是名等者。亦應能立一切極成別有體法為無別體。謂即濕性。積集凝結。名為堅性。即彼堅性。離散消融。名為濕性。即堅濕性。與冷乖離名為暖性。即上三性。于輕轉時名為動性。眼識所識色界即是香處所攝。即諸大
種能有所緣。名心心所。如是一切皆應得成。又因現搖香觸等相。亦能了義。故不應立名句文身即聲為體。是故於我所說離聲有名等三。能顯義理。若能如實少分顯非我應收采。非但由彼所構虛言。能傾實義。又彼雖說如世尊言。因尋伺言說語。非不因尋伺言說語者。由聲發聲。故名等三無別有體。此亦無失。如施等故。謂如經言。舍施受樂。此亦應然語因名語。又如觸等因亦名為觸等。又彼雖說非世共知名句文身。是心不相應行。我當於彼而發語言。既不共知。語憑何發。此亦非理。世間雖無分別功力。而能緣故。如世間說。被菜所燒為泥所爛。彼雖不達而是能緣。此亦應爾。又如以眼現見光明。而言我今見不了色。又作兩手相擊聲因。而言作聲。不言作擊。又無智者。但作是言。因棄捨欲棄捨便穢。然實義者。因棄捨欲生便穢路。能發風心。心復發風。風方棄捨。如是非無了名等覺能覺了義。但由名等覺相微細。故不能知。雖不定心不能分別。此是聲覺。此名等覺。此是義覺。而實非無。故於審諦觀察諸法差別相時。世間粗心所起言說。未足為證。且諸世間。于自覺慧所行境界。亦不能知。故佛世尊。如實開演。諸有執我等隨觀見。一切唯於五取蘊起。如是世間。于粗淺事。若不聞說。尚未能了。況于深細心不相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種子生起所緣境，名為心和心所（Citta-caitta）。像這樣，一切都應該能夠成立。又因為顯現搖動、香、觸等現象，也能理解意義。所以不應該建立名、句、文身（Nāma-pada-vyañjana）即聲音為本體的觀點。因此，對於我所說的離開聲音而有名等三者，能夠顯現義理的說法，如果能夠如實地稍微顯現出非我的部分，我應該採納，而不應該僅僅因為他們所構造的虛假言論，就傾覆真實的意義。而且，他們雖然說如世尊所說，因為尋伺（Vitarka-vicāra）而有言說，沒有尋伺就沒有言說。由於聲音發出聲音，所以名等三者沒有別的自體。這也沒有過失，就像佈施等一樣。就像經文所說，捨棄佈施而獲得快樂，這也應該一樣，語言因為名而有語言。又如觸等，因為因也名為觸等。而且，他們雖然說非世間共知的名、句、文身是心不相應行（Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra），我將對他們發起語言。既然不共同知道，語言憑藉什麼發起？這也是不合理的。世間雖然沒有分別的功力，但能夠緣取，就像世間所說，被蔬菜所燒，被泥土所爛。他們雖然不理解，但是能夠緣取，這也應該一樣。又如用眼睛現見光明，卻說我現在見，不能了知顏色。又作出兩手相擊的聲音，卻說作出聲音，不說作出擊打。又沒有智慧的人，只是這樣說，因為捨棄慾望，捨棄就變得污穢。然而真實的意義是，因為捨棄慾望，生殖器就變得污穢。能夠發起風的心，心又發起風，風才捨棄。像這樣，並非沒有了知名等覺（Saṃjñā）能夠覺了意義，只是因為名等覺的相非常微細，所以不能知道。雖然不定心不能分別，這是聲覺，這是名等覺，這是義覺，但實際上並非沒有。所以在審諦觀察諸法差別相的時候，世間粗糙的心所產生的言說，不足以作為證據。而且世間對於自覺慧所行境界，也不能知道。所以佛世尊如實開演，所有執著我等隨順觀見，一切唯於五取蘊（Pañca-upādānakkhandha）生起。像這樣，世間對於粗淺的事情，如果不聽聞，尚且不能了知，何況對於深細的心不相應
【English Translation】 English version A seed arises from a condition, named mind and mental factors (Citta-caitta). Like this, everything should be able to be established. Moreover, because the appearance of shaking, smell, touch, and other phenomena can also understand the meaning, it should not be established that name, sentence, and body of letters (Nāma-pada-vyañjana) are the essence of sound. Therefore, regarding my statement that apart from sound, there are name and the other two, which can reveal the meaning, if it can truly reveal a small part of non-self, I should adopt it, and should not overturn the true meaning merely because of the false words they construct. Moreover, although they say, as the World Honored One said, there is speech because of investigation and analysis (Vitarka-vicāra), and there is no speech without investigation and analysis. Because sound produces sound, name and the other two have no separate essence. This is also without fault, just like giving and so on. As the sutra says, giving up giving and receiving happiness, it should be the same, language has language because of name. Also, like touch and so on, because of the cause, it is also called touch and so on. Moreover, although they say that name, sentence, and body of letters, which are not commonly known in the world, are mind-unrelated formations (Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), I will initiate language towards them. Since it is not commonly known, what does language rely on to arise? This is also unreasonable. Although the world does not have the power of discrimination, it can grasp, just as the world says, being burned by vegetables, being rotted by mud. Although they do not understand, they can grasp, and it should be the same. Also, like seeing light with the eyes, but saying that I see now, but cannot understand color. Also, making the sound of two hands clapping, but saying that making sound, not saying making clapping. Also, those without wisdom only say that because of abandoning desire, abandoning becomes defiled. However, the true meaning is that because of abandoning desire, the genitals become defiled. It can initiate the mind of wind, and the mind initiates wind again, and wind abandons. Like this, it is not that there is no perception (Saṃjñā) that can understand the meaning, but because the appearance of perception is very subtle, it cannot be known. Although the unfocused mind cannot distinguish, this is sound perception, this is name perception, this is meaning perception, but in reality, it is not that there is none. Therefore, when carefully observing the differences in the characteristics of all dharmas, the speech produced by the coarse mind of the world is not sufficient as evidence. Moreover, the world cannot know the realm of self-aware wisdom. Therefore, the World Honored One Buddha truly revealed that all attachments to self and other views arise only from the five aggregates of clinging (Pañca-upādānakkhandha). Like this, the world, for superficial matters, if they do not hear about them, they cannot understand them, let alone the subtle mind-unrelated
應行蘊所攝名句文身。不因開示。而能解了。故彼所言。定為非理又經主說。諸剎那聲。不可聚集亦無一法分分漸生。如何名生。可由語發。又自釋言。云何待過去諸表剎那。最後表剎那。能生無表。復自難言。若爾最後位聲乃生名。但聞最後聲。應能了義。若作是執。語能生文。文復生名。名方顯義此中過難。應同前說。以諸念文不可集故。語顯名過。應例如生。又文由語。若顯若生。準語于名。皆不應理。此難違害自所稟宗。彼說去來。皆無自體。聲前後念。不可頓生。如何成文成名成句。若前前念。轉轉相資。最後剎那。成文名句。但聞最後。應了義成。又無相資。去來無故。既恒一念。如何相資。既無相資。前後相似。后如初念。應不能詮。聞后如初。應不了義。故彼所執。前後相資。聲即能詮。理不成立。我宗三世皆有非無。故后待前。能生名等。雖最後念名等方生。而但聞彼。不能了義。由不具聞。如先共立名等契約。能發聲故。然聞一聲。亦有了者。由串習故。依此比余。故經主言。破彼非此。毗婆沙說名句文三。各有三種。名三種者。謂名名身多名身。句文亦爾。名有多位。謂一字生。或二字生。或多字生。一字生者。說一字時。但可有名。說二字時。即謂名身。或作是說。說三字時。即謂多名身。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 應由行蘊所包含的名、句、文的集合，不是通過開示就能理解的。因此他們所說的話，一定是缺乏道理的。而且《經主》還說，所有的剎那之聲，不可能聚集在一起，也沒有任何一個法是逐漸產生的。那麼，如何稱之為『生』，又如何能由語言發出呢？ 他們自己解釋說：『如何依靠過去的那些表業剎那，最後的表業剎那才能產生無表業呢？』他們又自己反駁說：『如果這樣，那麼最後階段的聲音才產生名稱，那麼僅僅聽到最後的聲音，就應該能夠理解意義。』如果他們這樣認為，語言能夠產生文字，文字又產生名稱，名稱才能顯示意義，這裡面的過失和困難，應該和前面所說的一樣，因為所有的念頭和文字都不能聚集在一起。 語言顯示名稱的過失，應該和產生一樣。而且文字是由語言顯示或產生的，按照語言對於名稱的類比，這都是不合道理的。這種反駁違背了他們自己所遵循的宗派。他們說過去和未來都沒有自體，聲音的前後念頭不可能同時產生，那麼如何形成文字、名稱和句子呢？ 如果前一個念頭，逐漸地互相資助，最後的剎那，形成文字、名稱和句子，那麼僅僅聽到最後的聲音，就應該能夠理解意義的完成。而且沒有互相資助，因為過去和未來都不存在。既然始終只有一個念頭，如何互相資助呢？既然沒有互相資助，前後念頭相似，後面的念頭和最初的念頭一樣，應該不能表達意義。聽到後面的念頭和最初的念頭一樣，應該不能理解意義。所以他們所堅持的，前後互相資助，聲音就能表達意義，這個道理是不能成立的。 我們宗派認為三世都是存在的，不是不存在的。所以後面的念頭依靠前面的念頭，能夠產生名稱等等。雖然最後的念頭名稱等等才產生，但是僅僅聽到最後的念頭，不能理解意義。因為沒有完全聽到，就像先前共同建立名稱等等的契約，能夠發出聲音一樣。然而聽到一個聲音，也有理解的人，因為串習的緣故，依據這個來類比其他的。所以《經主》說，破斥他們不是破斥我們。 《毗婆沙》說，名、句、文三種，各有三種。名稱的三種是：名、名身、多名身。句子和文字也是這樣。名稱有多個階段，即一個字產生，或者兩個字產生，或者多個字產生。一個字產生時，說一個字的時候，只能有名。說兩個字的時候，就叫做名身。或者這樣說，說三個字的時候，就叫做多名身。
【English Translation】 English version The collection of name (nāma, designation), sentence (vākya, a string of words), and syllable (vyañjana, a unit of sound) that are encompassed by the skandha of formation (saṃskāra-skandha, the aggregate of mental formations) cannot be understood through mere instruction. Therefore, their words are definitely unreasonable. Moreover, the Sūtra Master says that all momentary sounds cannot be gathered together, nor does any dharma arise gradually in parts. So, how can it be called 'arising,' and how can it be produced by language? They themselves explain: 'How can the last expressing moment rely on the past expressing moments to produce non-expressing karma (avijñapti, non-manifest action)?' They then refute themselves: 'If so, then the name is produced only by the last sound, so merely hearing the last sound should be able to understand the meaning.' If they hold this view, that language can produce syllables, syllables can produce names, and names can reveal meaning, the faults and difficulties here should be the same as mentioned before, because all thoughts and syllables cannot be gathered together. The fault of language revealing names should be the same as arising. Moreover, if syllables are revealed or produced by language, according to the analogy of language to names, it is all unreasonable. This refutation violates the tenets they themselves adhere to. They say that the past and future have no self-nature, and the preceding and following moments of sound cannot arise simultaneously, so how can syllables, names, and sentences be formed? If the preceding moment gradually assists each other, and the last moment forms syllables, names, and sentences, then merely hearing the last sound should be able to understand the completion of the meaning. Moreover, there is no mutual assistance, because the past and future do not exist. Since there is always only one moment, how can they assist each other? Since there is no mutual assistance, and the preceding and following moments are similar, the following moment is like the initial moment and should not be able to express meaning. Hearing the following moment is like the initial moment and should not be able to understand meaning. Therefore, what they insist on, that the preceding and following moments assist each other and sound can express meaning, this principle cannot be established. Our school believes that the three times (past, present, and future) all exist, not that they do not exist. Therefore, the following moment relies on the preceding moment to produce names, etc. Although the names, etc., are produced only by the last moment, merely hearing the last moment cannot understand the meaning. Because it is not heard completely, just like the prior agreement to establish names, etc., can produce sound. However, there are also people who understand when they hear a single sound, because of familiarity. Based on this, we can make analogies to others. Therefore, the Sūtra Master says that refuting them is not refuting us. Vibhasha says that each of the three—name, sentence, and syllable—has three types. The three types of name are: name, name-body, and multiple-name-body. The same is true for sentences and syllables. Names have multiple stages, that is, one syllable arises, or two syllables arise, or multiple syllables arise. When one syllable arises, when one syllable is spoken, there can only be a name. When two syllables are spoken, it is called a name-body. Or it can be said that when three syllables are spoken, it is called a multiple-name-body.
或作是說。說四字時。方謂多名身。二字生者。說二字時。但可有名。說四字時。即謂名身。或作是說。說六字時。即謂多名身。或作是說說八字時。方謂多名身。多字生中。三字生者。說三字時。但可有名。說六字時。即謂名身。或作是說。說九字時。即謂多名身。或作是說。說十二字時。方謂多名身。此為門故。余多字生。名身多身。如理應說。句亦多位。謂處中句。初句后句。短句長句。若八字生。名處中句。不長不短故。謂處中三十二字生於四句。如是四句。成室路迦。經論文章。多依此數。若六字已上生名初句。二十六字已下生名后句。若減六字生名短句。過二十六字生名長句。且依處中句辯三種。說八字時。但可有句。說十六字時。即謂句身。或作是說。說二十四字時。即謂多句身。或作是說。說三十二字時。方謂多句身。文即字故。唯有一位。說一字時。但可有文。說二字時。即謂文身。或作是說。說三字時。即謂多文身。或作是說。說四字時。方謂多文身。由此理故。應作是說。說一字時。有名無名身無多名身。無句無句身無多句身。有文無文身無多文身。說二字時。有名有名身。無多名身。無句等三。有文有文身。無多文身。說四字時。有名等三。無句等三。有文等三。說八字時。有名等三。有句
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 或者有人這樣說：當說出四個字的時候，才稱之為『多名身』（擁有多個名稱的集合）。如果只說兩個字，那麼在說出這兩個字的時候，只能說是有『名』（名稱）。當說出四個字的時候，就稱之為『名身』（名稱的集合）。或者有人這樣說：當說出六個字的時候，才稱之為『多名身』。或者有人這樣說：當說出八個字的時候，才稱之為『多名身』。在多個字的產生中，如果是三個字，那麼在說出三個字的時候，只能說是有『名』。當說出六個字的時候，就稱之為『名身』。或者有人這樣說：當說出九個字的時候，才稱之為『多名身』。或者有人這樣說：當說出十二個字的時候，才稱之為『多名身』。這是因為有這樣的規則，其餘多個字的產生，『名身』和『多身』，都應該按照這個道理來說明。 句子也有多種位置，例如『處中句』（長度適中的句子），『初句』（起始句），『后句』（結尾句），『短句』（短的句子），『長句』（長的句子）。如果是八個字組成的，稱為『名處中句』，因為它既不長也不短。所謂『處中句』，是指三十二個字組成四句。像這樣的四句，構成一個『室路迦』（śloka，梵語，頌）。經典和文章，大多依據這個數量。 如果六個字以上構成，稱為『初句』。二十六個字以下構成，稱為『后句』。如果少於六個字，稱為『短句』。超過二十六個字，稱為『長句』。暫且依據『處中句』來辨別三種情況。當說出八個字的時候，只能說是有『句』（句子）。當說出十六個字的時候，就稱之為『句身』（句子的集合）。或者有人這樣說：當說出二十四個字的時候，才稱之為『多句身』（多個句子的集合）。或者有人這樣說：當說出三十二個字的時候，才稱之為『多句身』。 『文』（文字）就是字，所以只有一個位置。當說出一個字的時候，只能說是有『文』。當說出兩個字的時候，就稱之為『文身』（文字的集合）。或者有人這樣說：當說出三個字的時候，才稱之為『多文身』（多個文字的集合）。或者有人這樣說：當說出四個字的時候，才稱之為『多文身』。 由於這個道理，應該這樣說：當說出一個字的時候，有『名』（名稱），沒有『名身』，沒有『多名身』，沒有『句』（句子），沒有『句身』，沒有『多句身』，有『文』（文字），沒有『文身』，沒有『多文身』。當說出兩個字的時候，有『名』，有『名身』，沒有『多名身』，沒有『句』等三種情況，有『文』，有『文身』，沒有『多文身』。當說出四個字的時候，有『名』等三種情況，沒有『句』等三種情況，有『文』等三種情況。當說出八個字的時候，有『名』等三種情況，有『句』
【English Translation】 English version: Or it is said thus: When uttering four characters, then it is called 'multi-nāmakāya' (多名身, collection of multiple names). When uttering two characters, then at the time of uttering these two characters, it can only be said that there is 'nāma' (名, name). When uttering four characters, then it is called 'nāmakāya' (名身, collection of names). Or it is said thus: When uttering six characters, then it is called 'multi-nāmakāya'. Or it is said thus: When uttering eight characters, then it is called 'multi-nāmakāya'. Among the arising of multiple characters, if there are three characters, then at the time of uttering three characters, it can only be said that there is 'nāma'. When uttering six characters, then it is called 'nāmakāya'. Or it is said thus: When uttering nine characters, then it is called 'multi-nāmakāya'. Or it is said thus: When uttering twelve characters, then it is called 'multi-nāmakāya'. This is because of this rule; for the arising of other multiple characters, 'nāmakāya' and 'multi-kāya', should be explained according to this principle. Sentences also have multiple positions, such as 'madhyamavākya' (處中句, middle sentence), 'prathamavākya' (初句, first sentence), 'paścimavākya' (后句, last sentence), 'hrasvavākya' (短句, short sentence), 'dīrghavākya' (長句, long sentence). If it is composed of eight characters, it is called 'nāma-madhyamavākya', because it is neither long nor short. The so-called 'madhyamavākya' refers to thirty-two characters forming four sentences. Such four sentences constitute a 'śloka' (室路迦, verse). Sutras and texts mostly rely on this number. If it is composed of six or more characters, it is called 'prathamavākya'. If it is composed of twenty-six or fewer characters, it is called 'paścimavākya'. If it is less than six characters, it is called 'hrasvavākya'. If it exceeds twenty-six characters, it is called 'dīrghavākya'. Let's temporarily distinguish three situations based on 'madhyamavākya'. When uttering eight characters, it can only be said that there is 'vākya' (句, sentence). When uttering sixteen characters, then it is called 'vākyakāya' (句身, collection of sentences). Or it is said thus: When uttering twenty-four characters, then it is called 'multi-vākyakāya' (多句身, collection of multiple sentences). Or it is said thus: When uttering thirty-two characters, then it is called 'multi-vākyakāya'. 'Akṣara' (文, letter) is the same as character, so there is only one position. When uttering one character, it can only be said that there is 'akṣara'. When uttering two characters, then it is called 'akṣarakāya' (文身, collection of letters). Or it is said thus: When uttering three characters, then it is called 'multi-akṣarakāya' (多文身, collection of multiple letters). Or it is said thus: When uttering four characters, then it is called 'multi-akṣarakāya'. Due to this principle, it should be said thus: When uttering one character, there is 'nāma', there is no 'nāmakāya', no 'multi-nāmakāya', no 'vākya', no 'vākyakāya', no 'multi-vākyakāya', there is 'akṣara', no 'akṣarakāya', no 'multi-akṣarakāya'. When uttering two characters, there is 'nāma', there is 'nāmakāya', no 'multi-nāmakāya', no 'vākya' and the other two, there is 'akṣara', there is 'akṣarakāya', no 'multi-akṣarakāya'. When uttering four characters, there is 'nāma' and the other two, no 'vākya' and the other two, there is 'akṣara' and the other two. When uttering eight characters, there is 'nāma' and the other two, there is 'vākya'
無句身無多句身。有文等三。說十六字時。有名等三。有句有句身。無多句身。有文等三。說三十二字時。名句文三。各具三種。由此為門。余如理說。已略辯三。復應思擇。如是名等。何界所繫。為是有情數。為非有情數。為是異熟生。為是所長養。為是等流性。為善為不善為無記。此皆應辯。頌曰。
欲色有情攝 等流無記性
論曰。此名等三。唯是欲色二界所繫。就色界中。有說唯在初靜慮地。有說亦通上三靜慮。隨語隨身。所繫別故。若說此三隨語系者。說生欲界作欲界語時。語名等身皆是欲界系。彼所說義。或三界系。或通不繫。即彼復作初定語時。語及名等初定地系。身欲界系。義如前說。如是若生初靜慮地。作二地語。如理應思。若生二三四靜慮地。作二地語。亦如理思。若說此三隨身繫者。說生欲界或四靜慮。名等及身。各自地系。語或自地。或他地系。義如前說又名等三。有情數攝。非情有為不成就故。能說者成。非所顯義。唯成現在不成去來。又名等三。唯等流性。非所長養。非異熟生。而言名等從業生者。是業所生。增上果故。又名等三。唯是無覆無記性攝。故斷善者。說善法時。雖成善名等。而不成善法。離欲貪者。不成不善。諸無學者。不成染污。成能詮名等。非所詮法故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 沒有句子本身，沒有多個句子本身。有文等三種情況。當說十六個字的時候，有名等三種情況。有句子，有句子本身，沒有多個句子本身。有文等三種情況。當說三十二個字的時候，名、句、文三種，各自具備三種情況。由此作為一個入門，其餘的按照道理來說明。已經簡略地辨析了這三種情況，還需要進一步思考選擇。像這樣，名等等，屬於哪個界所管轄？是屬於有情數，還是屬於非有情數？是屬於異熟生，還是屬於所長養？是屬於等流性？是屬於善，還是屬於不善，還是屬於無記？這些都應該辨析。頌詞說： 『欲界、色界有情所攝，等流、無記性。』 論述說：這名等等三種，僅僅是欲界和色界所管轄。在色界中，有人說僅僅在初禪天，有人說也通於上面的二禪、三禪、四禪天。隨著語言和身體的不同，所管轄的範圍也不同。如果說這三種情況隨著語言而管轄，那麼，當（一個人）生在欲界，說欲界的語言時，語言、名等等都屬於欲界所管轄。他所說的意義，或者屬於三界所管轄，或者不屬於任何界所管轄。如果他再說初禪天的語言時，語言和名等等屬於初禪天所管轄，身體屬於欲界所管轄，意義和前面所說的一樣。像這樣，如果生在初禪天，說兩個禪天的語言，也應該按照道理來思考。如果生在二禪、三禪、四禪天，說兩個禪天的語言，也應該按照道理來思考。如果說這三種情況隨著身體而管轄，那麼，當（一個人）生在欲界或者四禪天，名等等和身體，各自屬於各自的界所管轄。語言或者屬於自己的界，或者屬於其他的界，意義和前面所說的一樣。另外，名等等三種，屬於有情數所管轄，因為非有情沒有能說的作用，不能成就。能說的人可以成就，但所顯示的意義，只能成就現在，不能成就過去和未來。另外，名等等三種，僅僅是等流性，不是所長養，也不是異熟生。如果說名等等是從業而生的，那是因為業所生的增上果。另外，名等等三種，僅僅是無覆無記性所管轄。所以，斷了善根的人，在說善法的時候，雖然可以成就善的名等等，但是不能成就善法。離開了欲貪的人，不能成就（與欲貪相關的）不善法。諸位無學（已經證得阿羅漢果位的人），不能成就染污法。因為成就的是能詮釋的名等等，而不是所詮釋的法。
【English Translation】 English version: There is no sentence-body, no multiple sentence-body. There are three aspects of 'text' (文, wén). When speaking sixteen words, there are three aspects of 'name' (名, míng) etc. There is sentence, there is sentence-body, no multiple sentence-body. There are three aspects of 'text' etc. When speaking thirty-two words, 'name', 'sentence' (句, jù), and 'text', each possesses three aspects. Taking this as an entrance, the rest should be explained according to reason. Having briefly distinguished these three, further contemplation and selection are needed. Like this, 'name' etc., to which realm (界, jiè) do they belong? Do they belong to the category of sentient beings (有情數, yǒu qíng shù), or non-sentient beings (非有情數, fēi yǒu qíng shù)? Do they belong to Vipaka-born (異熟生, yì shú shēng), or nurtured (所長養, suǒ zhǎng yǎng)? Do they belong to the nature of outflow (等流性, děng liú xìng)? Are they good, non-good, or neutral (無記, wú jì)? All these should be distinguished. The verse says: 『Desire realm (欲界, yù jiè), Form realm (色界, sè jiè) sentient beings are included, outflow, neutral nature.』 The treatise says: These three, 'name' etc., are only related to the Desire realm and Form realm. Within the Form realm, some say they are only in the first Dhyana (靜慮, jìng lǜ) ground, some say they also extend to the upper second, third, and fourth Dhyana grounds. Depending on the language and body, the realms they belong to are different. If it is said that these three are related to language, then when (a person) is born in the Desire realm and speaks the language of the Desire realm, the language, 'name' etc. are all related to the Desire realm. The meaning he speaks, either belongs to the three realms, or does not belong to any realm. If he then speaks the language of the first Dhyana, the language and 'name' etc. belong to the first Dhyana ground, the body belongs to the Desire realm, the meaning is as said before. Like this, if born in the first Dhyana ground, speaking the language of two Dhyana grounds, it should be considered according to reason. If born in the second, third, or fourth Dhyana grounds, speaking the language of two Dhyana grounds, it should also be considered according to reason. If it is said that these three are related to the body, then when (a person) is born in the Desire realm or the four Dhyana grounds, 'name' etc. and the body, each belongs to its own realm. The language either belongs to its own realm, or belongs to another realm, the meaning is as said before. Furthermore, these three, 'name' etc., belong to the category of sentient beings, because non-sentient beings do not have the function of speaking and cannot be accomplished. The one who can speak can be accomplished, but the meaning that is displayed can only accomplish the present, not the past and future. Furthermore, these three, 'name' etc., are only of the nature of outflow, not nurtured, nor Vipaka-born. If it is said that 'name' etc. are born from karma, it is because they are the Adhipati-phala (增上果, zēng shàng guǒ) (dominant result) born from karma. Furthermore, these three, 'name' etc., are only included in the nature of Anivrita-avyakrita (無覆無記, wú fù wú jì) (uncovered neutral). Therefore, a person who has severed his roots of good, when speaking of good Dharma, although he can accomplish good 'name' etc., he cannot accomplish good Dharma. A person who has left desire-greed cannot accomplish non-good (related to desire-greed). Those Arhats (無學者, wú xué zhě) (those who have nothing more to learn) cannot accomplish defilement. Because what is accomplished is the 'name' etc. that can express, not the Dharma that is expressed.
如上所說。余不相應。所未說義。今當略辯。頌曰。
同分亦如是 並無色異熟 得相通三類 非得定等流
論曰。亦如是言。為顯同分如名身等。通於欲色有情等流無覆無記。並無色言。顯非唯欲色。言並異熟。顯非唯等流。是界通三類通二義。云何異熟。謂地獄等。及卵生等。趣生同分。云何等流。謂界地處。種姓族類。沙門梵志。學無學等。所有同分。有餘師說。諸同分中。先業所引生是異熟。同分現在加行起是等流。同分得及諸相類並通三。謂具剎那等流異熟。非得二定。唯是等流。唯言為明非異熟等所餘應說。而不說者命根無想。如前說故。余義準前已可知故。謂說得等唯成等故。有情數攝。義可準知。說諸有為有生等故。準知諸相。通情非情。余隨所應。義皆已顯。是故於此無勞重說。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之七
如是已辯不相應行前言生相生所生時。非離所餘因緣和合。此中何法。說為因緣。且因六種何等為六。頌曰。
能作及俱有 同類與相應 遍行並異熟 許因唯六種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如上所說，還有一些不相應行法沒有詳細解釋，現在我將簡要地辨析這些內容。偈頌說： 『同分（Sabhāgatā，眾生共業所感的事物）也是如此，以及無色界的異熟果報，得（Prāpti，獲得）與相（Lakṣaṇa，事物特徵）通於三類（異熟、等流、俱有），但得不是由定（Samāpatti，禪定）所產生的等流果。』 論中解釋說：『也是如此』，是爲了說明同分就像名身等一樣，通於欲界、色界有情，是等流果、無覆無記性。『以及無色界』，表明同分不僅限於欲界和色界。『以及異熟』，表明同分不僅是等流果。這是說同分在界上通於三類，在性質上通於二義。什麼是異熟果呢？指地獄等，以及卵生等，這些趣生的同分。什麼是等流果呢？指界、地、處、種姓族類、沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）、梵志（Brāhmaṇa，婆羅門）、有學無學等，所有這些的同分。有些論師說，在各種同分中，由先前的業力所牽引而產生的，是異熟果；由現在的加行而產生的，是等流果。同分的得以及各種相，都通於三類，即具有剎那、等流、異熟。但得不是二定（指無想定和滅盡定）所產生的，僅僅是等流果。』唯』字是爲了表明不是異熟果等。其餘應該說的，但沒有說的，如命根（Jīvitendriya，生命力）、無想（Asaṃjñā，無想狀態），因為前面已經說過。其餘的意義可以參照前面已經知道的，如說得等只是成就等，所以屬於有情數所攝。意義可以參照知道。說諸有為法有生等，所以可以參照知道諸相通於有情和非有情。其餘的隨其所應，意義都已經顯明。因此，在這裡無需重複說明。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十五 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯差別品第二之七 如是已辯不相應行前言生相生所生時。非離所餘因緣和合。此中何法。說為因緣。且因六種何等為六。頌曰。 能作及俱有 同類與相應 遍行並異熟 許因唯六種
【English Translation】 English version: As stated above, there are still some non-associated formations that have not been explained in detail. Now I will briefly analyze these contents. The verse says: 'Sabhāgatā (commonality, the things felt by sentient beings due to shared karma) is also like this, as well as the Vipāka (result of actions) of the Formless Realm. Prāpti (attainment) and Lakṣaṇa (characteristics) are common to the three categories (Vipāka, Niṣyanda, Sahabhū), but attainment is not a Niṣyanda result produced by Samāpatti (meditative absorption).' The treatise explains: 'Also like this' is to illustrate that Sabhāgatā, like Nāmakāya (group of names) and so on, is common to beings in the Desire Realm and Form Realm, and is a Niṣyanda result, unwholesome or neutral. 'As well as the Formless Realm' indicates that Sabhāgatā is not limited to the Desire Realm and Form Realm. 'As well as Vipāka' indicates that Sabhāgatā is not only a Niṣyanda result. This means that Sabhāgatā is common to the three categories in terms of realms, and common to two meanings in terms of nature. What is Vipāka? It refers to hells, etc., and oviparous births, etc., these destinies' Sabhāgatā. What is Niṣyanda? It refers to realms, lands, places, castes, clans, Śrāmaṇa (ascetics), Brāhmaṇa (Brahmins), those who are still learning and those who have completed learning, etc., all of these's Sabhāgatā. Some teachers say that among various Sabhāgatā, those produced by the force of previous karma are Vipāka results; those produced by present effort are Niṣyanda results. The Prāpti of Sabhāgatā and various characteristics are all common to the three categories, that is, having Kṣaṇa (momentariness), Niṣyanda, and Vipāka. But Prāpti is not produced by the two Samāpatti (referring to the state of non-perception and cessation), it is only a Niṣyanda result. The word 'only' is to indicate that it is not a Vipāka result, etc. The rest that should be said but is not said, such as Jīvitendriya (life force), Asaṃjñā (non-perception), because it has been said before. The rest of the meaning can be known by referring to what has already been known, such as saying that Prāpti, etc., is only the accomplishment, etc., so it belongs to the category of sentient beings. The meaning can be known by referring to it. Saying that all conditioned dharmas have arising, etc., so it can be known by referring to the fact that characteristics are common to sentient and non-sentient beings. The rest, as appropriate, the meaning has already been made clear. Therefore, there is no need to repeat it here. Shun Zheng Li Lun, Volume 14 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun, Volume 15 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order Chapter 2-7: Analysis of Differences Thus, the non-associated formations have been discussed, as well as the arising, characteristics of arising, and the time of arising. They are inseparable from the remaining causes and conditions. Among these, what dharma is said to be the cause and condition? And what are the six kinds of causes? The verse says: 'Capable cause and co-existent cause, Homogeneous cause and associated cause, All-pervading cause and resultant cause, It is accepted that there are only six kinds of causes.'
論曰。本論許因唯有六種。不增不減。一能作因。二俱有因。三同類因。四相應因。五遍行因。六異熟因。能作因體。通一切法。是故先說。俱有因體。遍諸有為。故居第二。余同類等。于有為中。如其所應。各攝少分。隨言穩便。次第而說。法生所賴。故說為因。如是六因。非佛所說。如何本論自立此名。定無大師所不說義。阿毗達磨。輒有所說。經中現無。由隱沒故。自相可得。決定應有。又諸經中。所化力故。世尊方便作異門說。對法諸師。由見少相。知其定有。分明結集。故有說言。此六因義。說在增一增六經中。時經久遠。其文隱沒。尊者迦多衍尼子等。于諸法相。無間思求。冥感天仙現來授與。如天授與筏第遮經其理必然。如四緣義。雖具列在此部經中而餘部中。有不誦者。由時淹久。多隱沒故。既見余經。有少隱沒。故知此處。亦非具在。又見經中處處散說。故六因義。定應實有。謂如經說。眼及色為緣生於眼識。又如經說。二因二緣。能生正見諸如是等。即能作因。諸法於他。有能作義由生無障。故立此因。如契經說。有三道支。正見隨轉。又如經說。三和合觸。俱起受想思。諸如是等。即俱有因。諸行俱時。同作一事。由互隨轉。故立此因。如說如是補特伽羅。成就善法及不善法。應知如是補
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論中說，本論允許的因只有六種，不多也不少：一是能作因（一切事物生起的最基本的原因），二是俱有因（互相依存，共同產生結果的原因），三是同類因（相似的，能增長同類法的原因），四是相應因（心和心所同時生起，互相依存的原因），五是遍行因（在所有不善心中普遍存在的原因），六是異熟因（由善惡業產生的果報的原因）。 能作因的本體，貫通一切法，所以首先說明。俱有因的本體，遍及所有有為法（由因緣和合而成的法），所以排在第二位。其餘的同類因等，在有為法中，根據它們各自的情況，攝取少部分。爲了言語的方便，按照順序來說明。 法產生所依賴的，所以稱為因。這六因，並非佛陀親自宣說，為什麼本論自己設立這個名稱呢？一定沒有大師沒有說過的意義。《阿毗達磨》（論藏），往往有所說，經典中現在沒有，是因為隱沒的緣故，它的自相是可以得到的，決定應該是有的。而且，在各種經典中，由於教化的對象不同，世尊方便地用不同的方式來說明。對法論師們，由於見到少許的跡象，知道它一定是有的，所以分明地結集出來。所以有人說，這六因的意義，在《增一阿含經》和《增六阿含經》中說過。當時年代久遠，經文隱沒了。尊者迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra）等人，對於諸法的體相，無間斷地思考探求，暗中感得天仙顯現來傳授給他，就像天神授與筏第遮經（筏第遮，Vatsīputra）一樣，這個道理是必然的。就像四緣的意義，雖然完整地列舉在這部經中，而其他的經典中，有不背誦的，由於時間長久，大多隱沒的緣故。既然見到其他的經典，有少許的隱沒，所以知道此處，也不是全部都在。 又見到經典中處處分散地說，所以六因的意義，一定是真實存在的。比如經中說，眼和色為緣，產生眼識。又如經中說，二因二緣，能夠產生正見等等，這就是能作因。諸法對於其他的法，有能起作用的意義，由於產生沒有障礙，所以設立這個因。如契經說，有三種道支，正見隨之運轉。又如經中說，三和合觸，同時生起受、想、思。這些等等，就是俱有因。諸行同時，共同做一件事，由於互相隨順運轉，所以設立這個因。如說，如是補特伽羅（補特伽羅，Pudgala，人），成就善法和不善法，應當知道如是補
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise states that the only six types of hetu (cause) allowed in this treatise, no more and no less, are: 1. Kāraṇa-hetu (the cause that enables), 2. Sahabhū-hetu (the co-existent cause), 3. Sabhāga-hetu (the homogeneous cause), 4. Samprayukta-hetu (the associated cause), 5. Sarvatraga-hetu (the pervasive cause), and 6. Vipāka-hetu (the resultant cause). The substance of Kāraṇa-hetu pervades all dharmas (phenomena), so it is explained first. The substance of Sahabhū-hetu pervades all conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta-dharma), so it is placed second. The remaining Sabhāga-hetu, etc., among conditioned dharmas, each encompasses a small portion as appropriate. For the sake of linguistic convenience, they are explained in order. That upon which the arising of a dharma depends is called a hetu. These six hetus were not personally spoken by the Buddha, so why does this treatise establish this name itself? There is certainly no meaning that the masters have not spoken of. The Abhidharma (the collection of treatises) often has things to say that are not currently found in the sutras because they are hidden. Its self-nature can be obtained, and it should definitely exist. Moreover, in various sutras, due to the different objects of teaching, the World-Honored One (Bhagavān) expediently explains them in different ways. The Abhidharma masters, seeing a few signs, know that it must exist, so they clearly compile it. Therefore, some say that the meaning of these six hetus was spoken in the Ekottara Agama Sutra and the Ekottarika Agama Sutra. At that time, the texts were hidden due to the long passage of time. The Venerable Kātyāyanīputra and others, constantly contemplating and seeking the characteristics of all dharmas, secretly felt that the celestial beings appeared and transmitted it to him, just like the gods gave the Vatsīputra Sutra. This principle is inevitable. Just like the meaning of the four conditions (catvāri pratyayāḥ), although they are completely listed in this sutra, there are those who do not recite them in other sutras because they have been hidden for a long time. Since we see that other sutras have a few hidden things, we know that this place is not all there either. Also, seeing that the sutras say it scattered everywhere, the meaning of the six hetus must be real. For example, the sutra says that the eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness. Also, the sutra says that two hetus and two conditions can produce right view, etc., which is Kāraṇa-hetu. Dharmas have the meaning of being able to act on other dharmas, and because there is no obstacle to arising, this hetu is established. As the sutra says, there are three limbs of the path, and right view follows them. Also, as the sutra says, the union of the three, contact, simultaneously arises with feeling, perception, and volition. All of these are Sahabhū-hetu. All actions occur simultaneously, doing one thing together, and because they follow each other, this hetu is established. As it is said, such a Pudgala (person) achieves good and bad dharmas, and it should be known that such a Pudgala
特伽羅。善法隱沒惡法出現。有隨俱行。善根未斷以未斷故。從此善根。猶有可起余善根義。又說苾芻。若於彼彼多隨尋伺。即于彼彼心多趣入。無明為因起諸染著。明為因故離諸染著。諸如是等。即同類因。過去現在。同類諸法由牽自果故立此因。如契經說。見為根信證智相應。又如經言。若有了別。即有了知。在定了知。乃為如實非不在定。諸如是等。即相應因。心心所相應。同作一事。由共取一境故立此因。如契經言諸邪見者。所有身業語業意業。諸有愿求。皆如所見所有諸行皆是彼類。如是諸法。皆悉能招非欣愛樂不可意果。又經說。一切見趣生時。皆以有身見為其根本。若此見生不忍一切。此見能生貪慾瞋恚。諸如是等。即遍行因。過去現在。見苦集所斷疑見無明。及相應俱有。于同異類諸染污法由能引起故立此因。一部為因生五部果。故同類外立遍行因如契經言。若所作業。是善有漏。是修所成。于彼處生。受諸異熟。又如經言。諸故思業作及增長。定招異熟諸如是等。即異熟因。一切不善善有漏法由招異類故立此因。如是六因。佛處處說。諸憎背者。迷故不見。又薄伽梵處處經中。說有俱生前生因義。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。如次應知。前二因義。又薄伽梵于契經中。分明顯說二種因義。謂契經言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 特伽羅（Tegalo）。善法隱沒，惡法出現，並且有隨之俱生的現象。如果善根尚未斷絕，因為沒有斷絕的緣故，從此善根，仍然有可能生起其餘的善根。此外，佛陀還說，比丘如果對於某些事物多加尋伺，那麼心就會更多地趨向于這些事物。無明是產生各種染著的根源，而明則是遠離各種染著的根源。這些都屬於同類因。過去和現在的同類諸法，因為能夠牽引產生自身的結果，所以被立為同類因。正如契經所說：『見為根，與信、證、智相應。』又如經中所說：『如果有了別，就有了知。在定了知的情況下，才能如實認知，如果不在定中，就不能如實認知。』這些都屬於相應因。心和心所相互相應，共同完成一件事，因為共同取同一個境，所以被立為相應因。正如契經所說：『那些持有邪見的人，他們的所有身業、語業、意業，以及所有的愿求，都與他們的見解相同，他們所有的行為都屬於同一類。』這些法都能夠招感不令人欣喜、不令人快樂、令人不悅的果報。此外，經中還說，一切見趣產生時，都以有身見為其根本。如果這種見產生，就不會容忍一切，這種見能夠產生貪慾和瞋恚。這些都屬於遍行因。過去和現在，見苦集所斷的疑見和無明，以及與它們相應的俱有法，對於同類和異類的各種染污法，因為能夠引起它們，所以被立為遍行因。一部分法作為原因，能夠產生五部分的結果，因此在同類因之外，又設立了遍行因。正如契經所說：『如果所造的業是善的、有漏的、是修所成的，那麼就會在那個地方出生，承受各種不同的異熟果報。』又如經中所說：『那些有意的思業，無論是已經造作的還是正在增長的，必定會招感異熟果報。』這些都屬於異熟因。一切不善的以及善的有漏法，因為能夠招感不同種類的果報，所以被立為異熟因。佛陀在不同的地方都說過這六種因，那些憎恨背離佛陀教義的人，因為迷惑而不能看見。此外，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在許多經典中，都說過有俱生因和前生因的含義。依據『此有故彼有，此生故彼生』，應該依次理解前兩種因的含義。此外，薄伽梵在契經中，清楚地說明了兩種因的含義，也就是契經所說的：
【English Translation】 English version: Tegalo. When wholesome dharmas are obscured and unwholesome dharmas arise, there is co-occurrence. If the roots of good are not severed, because they are not severed, from these roots of good, there is still the possibility of arising other roots of good. Furthermore, it is said that if a Bhikshu frequently engages in contemplation and investigation of certain things, his mind will be more inclined towards those things. Ignorance is the cause of arising various attachments, while clarity is the cause of abandoning various attachments. These are all examples of the 'cause as homogeneous type' (sabhāga-hetu). Past and present dharmas of the same type, because they lead to their own results, are established as this cause. As the sutra says: 'View is the root, corresponding to faith, realization, and wisdom.' Also, as the sutra says: 'If there is discrimination, there is knowledge. Only in settled knowledge is there true reality, not in unsettled knowledge.' These are all examples of the 'cause as association' (samprayuktaka-hetu). Mind and mental factors are associated, doing one thing together, and because they jointly take one object, this cause is established. As the sutra says: 'Those who hold wrong views, all their bodily, verbal, and mental actions, and all their aspirations, are like their views, and all their actions are of the same kind.' These dharmas are all capable of bringing about undesirable, unpleasant, and disagreeable results. Furthermore, the sutra says that when all views arise, they all take the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) as their root. If this view arises, it cannot tolerate anything, and this view can generate greed and hatred. These are all examples of the 'cause as pervasive' (sarvatraga-hetu). Past and present, the views and ignorance to be abandoned by seeing suffering and origination, and their corresponding co-existent dharmas, in relation to both similar and dissimilar defiled dharmas, because they can cause them to arise, this cause is established. One part as a cause can generate five parts of results, therefore, outside of the cause as homogeneous type, the cause as pervasive is established. As the sutra says: 'If the actions performed are wholesome, defiled, and cultivated, then one will be born in that place and receive various different results of maturation (vipāka).' Also, as the sutra says: 'Intentional actions, whether performed or increasing, will definitely bring about results of maturation.' These are all examples of the 'cause as maturation' (vipāka-hetu). All unwholesome and wholesome defiled dharmas, because they can bring about results of a different kind, this cause is established as the cause as maturation. These six causes, the Buddha spoke of in various places, but those who hate and turn away, because of delusion, do not see them. Furthermore, the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Blessed One) in many sutras, spoke of the meaning of the co-existent cause (sahabhū-hetu) and the prior cause (pūrva-hetu). Based on 'this being, that is; this arising, that arises,' the meaning of the first two causes should be understood accordingly. Furthermore, the Bhagavan in the sutras, clearly explained the meaning of two causes, which is what the sutra says:
諸有不敏處無明者。由無明故。亦造福行。此經即顯有前生因。又契經說眼色為緣。廣說乃至。意法為緣生癡所生染濁作意。此中愚者癡即無明。希求即愛愛表即業。此經即顯有俱生因。一心中說有展轉為因故。至義次第當複決擇。已略舉因。今當廣辯。且初能作因相云何。頌曰。
除自余能作
論曰。此能作因。略有二種。一有生力。二唯無障。諸法生時。唯除自體。以一切法。為能作因。由彼生時皆不為障。于中少分有能生力。且如有一眼識生時。以所依眼為依止因。以所緣色。為建立因。以眼識等。如種子法。為不斷因。以相應法。為攝受因。以俱有法為助伴因。以耳根等為依住因。此等總說為能作因。于中一分。名有力因。以有能生勝功能故。所餘諸分。名無力因。以但不為障礙住故。雖余因性亦能作因。然能作因。更無別稱。如色處等。總即別名。何故自體。非自能作因。以能作因於自體無故。謂無障義。是能作因。自於自體。恒為障礙。又一切法。不待自體。應有恒成。損減等故。有餘師說。若有自體因自體者。即應無明還緣無明。乃至老死還緣老死。一剎那頃。此即此因。是則乖違緣起法性。有餘師說。自於自體。不見有用。故非因緣。猶如指端刀刃眼等。若除自體。餘一切法。與此一法為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於那些不敏銳和處於無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）狀態的人來說，由於無明，他們也會造作福業（puṇya-karma，帶來善果的行為）。這部經就顯示了有前生的因果。而且契經（sūtra，佛經）中說，眼和色是生起（眼識的）緣，廣泛地說，乃至意和法是生起癡（moha，愚昧）所生的染污作意（kliṣṭa-manaskāra，受煩惱影響的心理活動）的緣。這裡，愚者所說的『癡』就是無明，希求就是愛（rāga，貪愛），愛的表現就是業（karma，行為）。這部經就顯示了有俱生因（sahajāta-hetu，同時產生的因）。在『一心』中說有輾轉為因的緣故，至於義理的次第，應當再次抉擇。上面已經簡略地舉出了因，現在應當廣泛地辨析。首先，能作因（kāraṇa-hetu，起作用的因）的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌（gāthā，偈頌）說： 『除了自身以外，其餘都能作為能作因。』 論（śāstra，論述）說：這能作因，略有二種：一是具有生力（janana-śakti，產生力量），二是僅僅沒有障礙。諸法生起時，除了自體（svabhāva，自身）以外，一切法都能作為能作因，因為它們生起時都不構成障礙。其中少部分具有能生之力。比如，當一個眼識生起時，以所依眼（cakṣur-indriya，眼根）為依止因（āśraya-hetu，依靠的因），以所緣色（rūpa，顏色和形狀）為建立因（ālambana-hetu，所緣的因），以眼識等（相似的）如種子法（bīja-dharma，種子一樣的法）為不斷因（anantara-hetu，無間斷的因），以相應法（samprayukta-dharma，同時生起的法）為攝受因（saṃprayoga-hetu，相互配合的因），以俱有法（sahabhūta-dharma，同時存在的法）為助伴因（sahakāri-hetu，輔助的因），以耳根等為依住因（niśraya-hetu，居住的因）。這些總的來說就是能作因。其中一部分，名為有力因（śakta-hetu，有力量的因），因為它具有能生的殊勝功能。其餘的部分，名為無力因（aśakta-hetu，沒有力量的因），因為它僅僅是不構成障礙而存在。雖然其餘的因性（hetu-svabhāva，因的性質）也能作為能作因，然而能作因沒有其他的別稱，如色處等，總的名稱就是別的名稱。為什麼自體不是自身的能作因呢？因為能作因對於自體來說是不存在的。所謂『無障礙』的意義，就是能作因。自身對於自身，總是構成障礙。而且一切法，不依賴於自身，就應該恒常存在，或者恒常損減等等。有其餘的老師說，如果存在自體因自體的情況，就應該無明還緣無明，乃至老死還緣老死。在一剎那間，這個就是這個的因，這就違背了緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，因緣和合而生）的法性。有其餘的老師說，自身對於自身，看不出有什麼作用，所以不是因緣，猶如指端、刀刃、眼睛等等。如果除去自體，其餘的一切法，與此一法為...
【English Translation】 English version For those who are not sharp and are in a state of avidyā (ignorance, delusion about the true nature of things), due to avidyā, they also create puṇya-karma (meritorious actions, actions that bring good results). This sūtra reveals that there is a cause from a previous life. Moreover, the sūtra says that the eye and form are the conditions for the arising (of eye consciousness), and broadly speaking, even the mind and dharma are the conditions for the arising of defiled manaskāra (mental activity influenced by afflictions) born from moha (delusion, ignorance). Here, the 'delusion' mentioned by the ignorant is avidyā, and seeking is rāga (attachment, craving), and the expression of love is karma (action). This sūtra reveals that there is a co-arising cause (sahajāta-hetu, simultaneously arising cause). Because it is said in 'one mind' that there is a cause that turns around, as for the order of meaning, it should be determined again. Above, the causes have been briefly mentioned, and now they should be widely analyzed. First, what is the characteristic of the kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause, the cause that produces an effect)? The gāthā (verse) says: 'Except for itself, everything else can act as an efficient cause.' The śāstra (treatise) says: This efficient cause is roughly of two types: one is having janana-śakti (productive power, the power to generate), and the other is merely without obstruction. When dharmas arise, except for their own svabhāva (self-nature, own being), all dharmas can act as efficient causes, because they do not constitute an obstruction when they arise. Among them, a small part has the power to generate. For example, when an eye consciousness arises, it takes the cakṣur-indriya (eye sense organ) as the āśraya-hetu (support cause, the cause that is relied upon), it takes the rūpa (form, color and shape) as the ālambana-hetu (object cause, the cause that is cognized), it takes the (similar) bīja-dharma (seed-like dharmas) such as eye consciousness as the anantara-hetu (immediately preceding cause, the cause without interruption), it takes the samprayukta-dharma (associated dharmas, simultaneously arising dharmas) as the saṃprayoga-hetu (conjunction cause, the cause that cooperates with each other), it takes the sahabhūta-dharma (co-existent dharmas, simultaneously existing dharmas) as the sahakāri-hetu (auxiliary cause, the cause that assists), it takes the ear sense organ etc. as the niśraya-hetu (foundation cause, the cause that resides in). These are collectively called efficient causes. Among them, a part is called śakta-hetu (powerful cause, the cause with power), because it has the superior function of being able to generate. The remaining parts are called aśakta-hetu (powerless cause, the cause without power), because it merely exists without constituting an obstruction. Although the remaining hetu-svabhāva (nature of cause, the nature of cause) can also act as an efficient cause, however, the efficient cause has no other separate name, such as the form element etc., the general name is another name. Why is the self-nature not the efficient cause of itself? Because the efficient cause does not exist for itself. The meaning of 'without obstruction' is the efficient cause. The self always constitutes an obstruction to itself. Moreover, all dharmas, without relying on themselves, should exist constantly, or constantly diminish, and so on. Some other teachers say that if there is a situation where the self is the cause of itself, then avidyā should condition avidyā, and even old age and death should condition old age and death. In an instant, this is the cause of this, which violates the dharma-nature of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination, arising from conditions). Some other teachers say that the self cannot see any function for itself, so it is not a condition, like the tip of a finger, the edge of a knife, the eyes, and so on. If the self is removed, all other dharmas, with this one dharma, are...
能作因。則無間業。亦與聖道為能作因。如何應理。又唯生時。由無障住。可能為因。應非餘位。非彼與此有時為因。有時非因。可應正理。聖道生位。彼定為因。故於余時。非無因義。若於此生彼能為障。而不為障。可立為因。然於此生。無障用者。設不為障。何得為因。由一切法展轉相望。皆有障力。故得為因。謂於是處。有此一法。是處無容更有第二。設復此法于余處有。彼亦無容更有餘法。如是諸法。豈不相望皆能為障。而不為障。故皆可立為能作因。無色亦有時依等定。故彼相望。亦有障力。又諸法內。一法生時。如與欲法余皆無障。謂二緣故。法不得生。一順因無。二違緣有。諸法生位。必待勝力。各別因緣。及待所餘無障而住。增上緣法。由能生因。有能障因無諸法乃生。故唯由無障礙。說一切法。名為能作因。非有障力。而不為障。與無障力不為障者。于無障時。少有差別。俱有無障力同無勝用故。由斯已遣諸有難言。若一切法。無障住故。皆能作因。何緣諸法。非皆頓起。一殺生時。何緣一切非如殺者皆成殺業。但由無障。說彼為因。無勝用故。灰刺等觸。為樂受因。如何應理。非灰等觸為樂受因。是因因故。謂同類故。苦受得與樂受為因。因灰等觸生於苦受。故為因因。如是見等。展轉相望。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能作因（hetupratyaya，六因之一，指事物產生的外在條件）。那麼無間業（ānantarya-karma，指導致立即受報的惡業）也能作為聖道（ārya-mārga，指通往解脫的道路）的能作因嗎？這如何說得通呢？而且只有在（諸法）生起的時候，因為沒有障礙的緣故，才可能作為（聖道的）因。那麼，在其他時候就不應該能作為因。如果說有時是因，有時不是因，這還算合理。聖道生起的時候，（無間業）一定是因。所以在其他時候，並非沒有因的意義。如果（一法）對於（另一法）的生起，有時是障礙，有時不是障礙，可以被認為是因。然而，對於（另一法）的生起，沒有障礙作用的（法），即使不構成障礙，又怎麼能成為因呢？由於一切法相互關聯，都具有障礙的力量，所以可以作為因。也就是說，在某個地方，有了這個法，就沒有容納第二個法的空間。即使這個法在其他地方存在，那裡也沒有容納其他法的空間。像這樣，諸法之間難道不是相互構成障礙嗎？（既然）不構成障礙，所以都可以被認為是能作因。無色界（ārūpya-dhātu，佛教三界之一，指沒有物質存在的精神領域）有時也依賴於等至（samāpatti，指禪定狀態），所以它們之間也具有障礙的力量。 此外，在諸法之中，當一個法生起時，如果與欲法（kāma-dharma，指與慾望相關的法）相應，其餘的法都沒有障礙。這是因為有兩種原因導致法不能生起：一是順因（anuloma-hetu，指促進事物產生的因素）缺失，二是違緣（pratyanīka-pratyaya，指阻礙事物產生的因素）存在。諸法生起的時候，必須依賴於強大的、個別的因緣，並且依賴於其餘沒有障礙而存在的增上緣法（adhipati-pratyaya，六緣之一，指對事物起主導作用的條件）。由於能生之因存在，能障之因缺失，諸法才能生起。所以僅僅因為沒有障礙，就說一切法都是能作因，而不是說具有障礙的力量而不構成障礙。與沒有障礙的力量而不構成障礙的（法）相比，在沒有障礙的時候，（兩者）只有少許差別，因為都具有沒有障礙的力量，卻沒有殊勝的作用。因此，已經消除了那些有疑問的人的說法：如果一切法因為沒有障礙而存在，都能作為能作因，那麼為什麼諸法不是同時生起呢？當一個人殺生的時候，為什麼不是所有人都像殺人者一樣，都造下殺業呢？僅僅因為沒有障礙，才說它們是因，因為它們沒有殊勝的作用。灰塵、荊棘等觸覺，如何能成為樂受（sukha-vedanā，指快樂的感受）的因呢？灰塵等觸覺不是樂受的因，而是因的因。也就是說，因為同類的緣故，苦受（duḥkha-vedanā，指痛苦的感受）可以作為樂受的因。因為灰塵等觸覺產生苦受，所以是因的因。像這樣，見（darśana，指視覺）等等，相互關聯，有...
【English Translation】 English version The efficient cause (hetupratyaya, one of the six causes, referring to the external conditions for the arising of things). Then, can the ānantarya-karma (karma that leads to immediate retribution) also be an efficient cause for the ārya-mārga (the path to liberation)? How can this be justified? Moreover, only at the time of arising (of dharmas), due to the absence of obstruction, is it possible to be a cause (for the Holy Path). Then, at other times, it should not be able to be a cause. It is reasonable to say that sometimes it is a cause and sometimes it is not. When the Holy Path arises, (ānantarya-karma) is definitely a cause. Therefore, at other times, it is not without the meaning of a cause. If (one dharma) is sometimes an obstruction and sometimes not an obstruction to the arising of (another dharma), it can be considered a cause. However, for the arising of (another dharma), how can (a dharma) that has no obstructive function become a cause, even if it does not constitute an obstruction? Since all dharmas are interconnected and have the power of obstruction, they can be considered causes. That is to say, in a certain place, with this dharma, there is no room for a second dharma. Even if this dharma exists in another place, there is no room for other dharmas there. In this way, do dharmas not mutually constitute obstructions? (Since they) do not constitute obstructions, they can all be considered efficient causes. The ārūpya-dhātu (the formless realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, referring to the spiritual realm without material existence) sometimes also relies on samāpatti (a state of meditative absorption), so they also have the power of obstruction between them. Furthermore, among all dharmas, when one dharma arises, if it corresponds to kāma-dharma (dharmas related to desire), the remaining dharmas have no obstruction. This is because there are two reasons why a dharma cannot arise: first, the anuloma-hetu (the factor that promotes the arising of things) is missing, and second, the pratyanīka-pratyaya (the factor that hinders the arising of things) exists. When dharmas arise, they must rely on powerful, individual causes and conditions, and rely on the remaining adhipati-pratyaya (the dominant condition, one of the six conditions, referring to the condition that plays a leading role in things) that exist without obstruction. Because the cause of arising exists and the cause of obstruction is missing, dharmas can arise. Therefore, it is only because there is no obstruction that all dharmas are said to be efficient causes, rather than saying that they have the power of obstruction but do not constitute obstruction. Compared to (dharmas) that have no obstructive power and do not constitute obstruction, there is only a slight difference (between the two) when there is no obstruction, because both have the power of no obstruction but do not have a special function. Therefore, the statements of those who have doubts have been eliminated: if all dharmas exist because there is no obstruction and can all be efficient causes, then why do dharmas not arise simultaneously? When a person commits murder, why do not all people commit the karma of murder like the murderer? It is only because there is no obstruction that they are said to be causes, because they have no special function. How can the tactile sensations of dust, thorns, etc., be the cause of sukha-vedanā (pleasant feeling)? The tactile sensations of dust, etc., are not the cause of pleasant feeling, but the cause of the cause. That is to say, because of the same kind, duḥkha-vedanā (painful feeling) can be the cause of pleasant feeling. Because the tactile sensations of dust, etc., produce painful feeling, they are the cause of the cause. Like this, darśana (seeing), etc., are interconnected and have...
少功能。皆應顯說。由前略指觸受方隅。余例可悉。無煩廣辯。故能作因。望所生果。非唯無障。亦有生力。然闕親因及因等起。故一切法。不可頓生。非如殺者皆成殺業。過去諸法。與餘二世為能作因。彼二世法。還與過去為增上果。未來諸法。與餘二世。由無障故為能作因。彼二世法。非俱后故。不與未來為增上果。果必由因取故。唯有二因。唯據無障。故許通三。現在諸法。與餘二世。為能作因。彼二世中。唯未來法。為現在果。有為有為是因是果。有為無為。非因非果。無為無為非因非果。無為有為。是因非果。由此義故。說如是言。能作因多非增上果。以一切法皆能作因。唯諸有為。是增上果。如是已辯能作因相。第二俱有因相云何。頌曰。
俱有互為果 如大相所相 心於心隨轉
論曰。若法更互為士用果。彼法更互為俱有因。展轉助力。而得生故。其相云何。如四大種。更互相望。為俱有因。雖有體增體不增者。而皆三一。更互為因。自體不應待自體故。亦不應待同類體故。一一大種。唯待餘三。要四大種。異類和集。方有功能。生造色故。如是有為相與所相。心與心隨轉。亦更互為因。是則俱有因。由互為果。遍攝有為法。如其所應。此中所說。因相太少。謂諸心隨轉。及諸能相。各
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 功能較少。都應該明白地說出來。因為前面已經略微指出了觸、受、方、隅等，其餘的例子都可以明白，無需過多辯論。所以，能作因（hetupratyaya）對於它所期望產生的果（phala）來說，不僅沒有障礙，而且還有產生的能力。然而，由於缺少親因（samanantarapratyaya）以及因等起（sahakāripratyaya），所以一切法不可能一下子產生。並非像殺人者都會造成殺業一樣。過去諸法，對於其餘二世（現在和未來）來說，是能作因。那二世的法，反過來對於過去來說，是增上果（adhipatipratyaya）。未來諸法，對於其餘二世來說，因為沒有障礙的緣故，是能作因。那二世的法，因為不是在未來之後，所以不對於未來作為增上果。果必定是由因產生的，所以只有二因（能作因和俱有因）。只是根據沒有障礙這一點，所以允許通於三世。現在諸法，對於其餘二世來說，是能作因。那二世中，只有未來法，是現在的果。有為法（saṃskṛta）對於有為法來說，既是因也是果。有為法對於無為法（asaṃskṛta）來說，既不是因也不是果。無為法對於無為法來說，既不是因也不是果。無為法對於有為法來說，是因但不是果。因為這個道理，所以說這樣的話：能作因多，但不是增上果。因為一切法都能作為能作因，只有諸有為法，是增上果。像這樣已經辨析了能作因的相狀。第二，俱有因（sahabhūhetu）的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌說：
俱有互為果 如大相所相 心於心隨轉
論說：如果諸法互相作為士用果（puruṣakāra-phala），那麼這些法就互相作為俱有因。因為輾轉互相幫助，才能得以產生。它的相狀是怎樣的呢？比如四大種（mahābhūta），互相之間，作為俱有因。雖然有體性增長和體性不增長的，但都是三一（同時存在）。互相作為因。自體不應該等待自體，也不應該等待同類體。每一個大種，只等待其餘三種。必須要四大種，異類和合，才有功能，產生造色（rūpa）。比如有為相（saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa）與所相（lakṣaṇīyamāna），心與心隨轉（citta-caitta），也互相作為因。那麼俱有因，由於互相作為果，普遍地攝取有為法，如其所應。這裡所說的因相太少了，比如諸心隨轉，以及諸能相，各自
【English Translation】 English version Functions are few. All should be clearly explained. Because the preceding has briefly indicated touch, sensation, direction, and corner, the remaining examples can be understood, without the need for extensive debate. Therefore, the efficient cause (hetupratyaya) not only has no obstruction to the result (phala) it expects to produce, but also has the ability to produce it. However, due to the lack of immediate cause (samanantarapratyaya) and cooperative cause (sahakāripratyaya), all dharmas cannot arise at once. It is not like a murderer will necessarily create the karma of murder. Past dharmas, in relation to the other two times (present and future), are efficient causes. The dharmas of those two times, in turn, are dominant results (adhipatipratyaya) in relation to the past. Future dharmas, in relation to the other two times, are efficient causes because there is no obstruction. The dharmas of those two times, because they are not after the future, do not act as dominant results in relation to the future. A result must be produced by a cause, so there are only two causes (efficient cause and coexistent cause). Only based on the absence of obstruction is it allowed to extend to the three times. Present dharmas, in relation to the other two times, are efficient causes. Among those two times, only future dharmas are the results of the present. Conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta) in relation to conditioned dharmas are both causes and results. Conditioned dharmas in relation to unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta) are neither causes nor results. Unconditioned dharmas in relation to unconditioned dharmas are neither causes nor results. Unconditioned dharmas in relation to conditioned dharmas are causes but not results. Because of this reason, it is said that efficient causes are many, but not dominant results. Because all dharmas can act as efficient causes, only conditioned dharmas are dominant results. Thus, the characteristics of the efficient cause have been analyzed. Second, what are the characteristics of the coexistent cause (sahabhūhetu)? The verse says:
Coexistent mutually are results, like the great elements and their characteristics. Mind and mental concomitants mutually transform.
The treatise says: If dharmas mutually act as the result of effort (puruṣakāra-phala), then these dharmas mutually act as coexistent causes. Because they help each other in turn, they can arise. What are its characteristics? For example, the four great elements (mahābhūta), in relation to each other, act as coexistent causes. Although there are those whose nature increases and those whose nature does not increase, they are all three-in-one (existing simultaneously). They mutually act as causes. The self-nature should not wait for the self-nature, nor should it wait for the same kind of nature. Each great element only waits for the other three. It is necessary for the four great elements, different in kind, to combine, in order to have the function of producing form (rūpa). For example, conditioned characteristics (saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa) and what is characterized (lakṣaṇīyamāna), mind and mental concomitants (citta-caitta), also mutually act as causes. Then the coexistent cause, because it mutually acts as a result, universally encompasses conditioned dharmas, as appropriate. The characteristics of the cause mentioned here are too few, such as mental concomitants and the characteristics, each
應說互為俱有因。故又不應說唯互為果為俱有因。法與隨相。非互為果。然為因故。此為因相。彼應更辯。由此義故。應辯相言。有為法一果可為俱有因。本論說故。此無過失。然本論中。曾不見說心隨轉色與心為因。應辯此中造論者意。或有師言。是有餘說。彼顯論過。非謂辯成。言義闕減。名論過故。復有師言。此中論者。非為具辯俱有因相。但為遮遣余宗所執。謂為遮遣執唯有心。故說離心有諸心所。又為遮遣執業唯思無無表業。是故復說有心隨轉身業語業。復為遮遣執生等相非實有物。是故復說。有心隨轉不相應行。豈不具辯俱有因相。轉更顯成。別有心所身語無表及生等相。又于余處。曾未具辯俱有因相。今不具說。便成闕減。故彼應思。我於此中。見如是意。若法與心。決定俱起。遍一切心。依心而轉。即說彼法。與所依心。展轉相望。為俱有因。諸心所法。非定俱起。或少或多。現可得故。身業語業。非遍諸心。不定心俱全無有故。生等諸相。皆依心轉。非互相依。生等皆以法為上首。互相資故。由斯不說彼互為因。又於此中。為欲顯示但說異類為俱有因。同類互為因。不說而成義。又為顯示有身語業唯依於心不依于表。故不說彼與心為因。又彼大德意趣難了。諸有智者。尚未善知。故於此中。有作是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應該說它們互為俱有因（hetu samprayuktaka hetu，同時存在的因）。因此，不應該僅僅說互為果（paraspara phala）才是俱有因。法（dharma，事物）與隨相（anulaksana，伴隨的特徵），不是互為果，但它們是因，這就是因的相狀。對此應該進一步辨析。由於這個道理，應該辨析相（laksana，特徵）的說法。有為法（samskrta dharma，有生滅變化的法）的一個果（phala）可以作為俱有因，因為本論（abhidharma，阿毗達磨）中這樣說過，這沒有過失。然而，在本論中，從未見過說心隨轉色（citta-viprayukta-rupa，不與心相應的色法）與心（citta）互為因。應該辨析這裡造論者的意圖。或者有論師說，這是有遺漏的說法，他們只是爲了顯示論的過失，而不是爲了辯論成立，因為言辭意義有所欠缺，這被稱為論的過失。又有論師說，這裡的論者，不是爲了完整地辨析俱有因的相狀，只是爲了遮遣其他宗派的執著，即爲了遮遣那些執著只有心（citta）的觀點，所以才說離開了心，還有各種心所（caittasika）。又爲了遮遣那些執著業（karma）只有思（cetana），沒有無表業（avijnapti karma），所以才說有心隨轉身業（kaya karma）和語業（vak karma）。又爲了遮遣那些執著生（jati，生）、住（sthiti，住）、異（anyathatva，異）、滅（vyaya，滅）等相（laksana，特徵）不是真實存在的，所以才說有心隨轉不相應行（citta-viprayukta-samskara，不與心相應的行法）。難道這不是完整地辨析俱有因的相狀，反而更加明顯地成立了別有心所、身語無表以及生等相嗎？又在其他地方，從未完整地辨析俱有因的相狀，現在不完整地說，就成了欠缺。所以他們應該思考。我在這裡，看到這樣的意圖：如果一個法（dharma）與心（citta）決定同時生起，遍及一切心，依心而轉，就說這個法與所依的心，輾轉相望，互為俱有因。各種心所法（caittasika dharma），不是決定同時生起，或者少或者多，現在可以得到證明。身業（kaya karma）和語業（vak karma），不是遍及所有心，因為沒有心的時候，它們完全不存在。生（jati）等諸相（laksana），都依心而轉，但不是互相依賴，因為生等都以法（dharma）為首要，互相資助。因此不說它們互為因。又在這裡，爲了顯示只說異類（vijatiya，不同類）互為俱有因，同類（sajatiya，同類）互為因，不說也成立了意義。又爲了顯示有身語業（kaya-vak karma）只依於心（citta），不依于表（vijnapti，表業），所以不說它們與心互為因。而且那些大德（mahatman，偉大的修行者）的意趣難以理解，即使是有智慧的人，也尚未完全瞭解。因此，在這裡，有人這樣認為。
【English Translation】 English version: It should be said that they are mutual co-existent causes (hetu samprayuktaka hetu, causes existing simultaneously). Therefore, it should not be said that only mutual effects (paraspara phala) are co-existent causes. Dharmas (dharma, phenomena) and accompanying characteristics (anulaksana, accompanying features) are not mutual effects, but they are causes, and this is the characteristic of a cause. This should be further analyzed. Because of this reason, the statement of characteristics (laksana, features) should be analyzed. A single effect (phala) of conditioned dharmas (samskrta dharma, conditioned phenomena) can be a co-existent cause, because it is said so in the Abhidharma (abhidharma), and there is no fault in this. However, in the Abhidharma, it has never been seen that mind-disassociated form (citta-viprayukta-rupa, form not associated with mind) and mind (citta) are mutual causes. The intention of the author here should be analyzed. Or some teachers say that this is an incomplete statement, and they only show the fault of the treatise, not to argue for its establishment, because the meaning of the words is lacking, which is called a fault of the treatise. Other teachers say that the author here is not to fully analyze the characteristics of co-existent causes, but only to refute the attachments of other schools, that is, to refute those who hold that there is only mind (citta), so they say that apart from mind, there are various mental factors (caittasika). Also, to refute those who hold that karma (karma) is only volition (cetana) and there is no non-revealing karma (avijnapti karma), so they say that there are bodily karma (kaya karma) and verbal karma (vak karma) that accompany the mind. Also, to refute those who hold that characteristics such as birth (jati), duration (sthiti), change (anyathatva), and cessation (vyaya) are not real, so they say that there are mind-disassociated formations (citta-viprayukta-samskara, formations not associated with mind) that accompany the mind. Isn't this fully analyzing the characteristics of co-existent causes, but rather more clearly establishing that there are separate mental factors, bodily and verbal non-revealing karma, and characteristics such as birth? Also, in other places, the characteristics of co-existent causes have never been fully analyzed, and now not fully stating them becomes a deficiency. So they should think about it. Here, I see this intention: if a dharma (dharma) arises definitely simultaneously with the mind (citta), pervades all minds, and depends on the mind, then it is said that this dharma and the mind on which it depends, mutually regard each other as co-existent causes. Various mental factors (caittasika dharma) do not arise definitely simultaneously, either few or many, which can now be proven. Bodily karma (kaya karma) and verbal karma (vak karma) do not pervade all minds, because when there is no mind, they do not exist at all. Characteristics such as birth (jati) all depend on the mind, but they do not depend on each other, because birth and so on take dharma (dharma) as the primary and assist each other. Therefore, it is not said that they are mutual causes. Also, here, in order to show that only dissimilar (vijatiya, different kinds) are mutual co-existent causes, and similar (sajatiya, same kind) are mutual causes, the meaning is established even if it is not said. Also, in order to show that bodily and verbal karma (kaya-vak karma) only depend on the mind (citta) and not on expression (vijnapti, revealing karma), so it is not said that they are mutual causes with the mind. Moreover, the intentions of those great beings (mahatman, great practitioners) are difficult to understand, and even wise people have not fully understood them. Therefore, here, some think like this.
計。唯心能與心隨轉色。為俱有因。非色與心。從心生故。依心起故。如王與臣。勝不因劣。此計非理。如臣與王防衛任持互有力故。心隨轉法。其體云何。頌曰。
心所二律義 彼及心諸相 是心隨轉法
論曰。一切所有心相應法。靜慮無漏。二種律儀。彼法及心之生等相。如是皆謂心隨轉法。何因不說彼之隨相。不說所因。后自當辯。何緣此法名心隨轉。頌曰。
由時果善等
論曰。略說由時果等善等。十種緣故名心隨轉。且由時者。謂此與心一生住滅。及墮一世。由果等者。謂此與心。一果等流。及一異熟。由善等者。謂此與心。同善不善無記性故。豈不但言一生住滅。即知亦是墮一世中。雖亦即知墮於一世。而猶未了。此法與心。過去未來。亦不相離。或為顯示諸不生法。故復說言及墮一世。若爾但應言墮一世。不爾應不令知定墮一世。豈不等流異熟亦是一果攝。如何一果外。說等流異熟耶。實爾此中言一果者。但攝士用及離系果。豈不此言通故亦攝等流異熟。雖言亦攝。非此所明。然士用果。總有四種。俱生無間。隔越不生。此顯與因非俱有果。為遮唯執與因俱生。和合聚中有士用果。此和合聚。互為果故。自非自體士用果故。即顯非彼俱起和合。士用果中。有一果義。是故別舉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：他們認為，只有心才能隨著心所轉變的色法而轉變，這是俱有因（simultaneous cause），而不是色法隨著心轉變。因為色法是從心所生，依賴心而起，就像國王和臣子的關係一樣，強大的不會因為弱小而改變。這種觀點是不合理的，就像臣子和國王互相防禦、互相支援，彼此都有力量一樣。那麼，隨著心轉變的法，它的本體是什麼呢？頌文說： 『心所二律義，彼及心諸相，是心隨轉法。』 論述說：一切與心相應的法，靜慮（dhyana，禪定）和無漏（anasrava，無煩惱）的兩種律儀（samvara，戒律），這些法以及心的生、住等相狀，這些都被稱為隨著心轉變的法。為什麼不說這些法所隨順的相狀呢？因為不說這些法所依賴的原因，後面自然會辨析。為什麼這些法被稱為『心隨轉』呢？頌文說： 『由時果善等。』 論述說：簡略地說，由於時間、果報以及善等十種原因，這些法被稱為隨著心轉變的。首先，從時間上來說，這些法與心一同生、住、滅，並且存在於同一世中。從果報上來說，這些法與心具有相同的等流果（nisyanda-phala，習氣果）和異熟果（vipaka-phala，報應果）。從善性上來說，這些法與心具有相同的善、不善或無記性。難道僅僅說一同生、住、滅，就能知道它們也存在於同一世中嗎？雖然也能知道它們存在於同一世中，但仍然不清楚這些法與心在過去和未來是否也不相分離。或者爲了顯示那些不生之法，所以才又說『存在於同一世中』。如果這樣，那麼只應該說『存在於同一世中』。如果不是這樣，就不應該讓人知道它們必定存在於同一世中。難道等流果和異熟果不也是一種果報嗎？為什麼在一種果報之外，還要說等流果和異熟果呢？實際上，這裡說的一種果報，只是指士用果（purusakara-phala，增上果）和離系果（visamyoga-phala，解脫果）。難道這種說法也包括等流果和異熟果嗎？雖然也包括，但這不是這裡要說明的。然而，士用果總共有四種：俱生（sahaja，同時生起）、無間（anantara，無間斷）、隔越（vyavahita，有間隔）、不生。這裡顯示了與因不同時存在的果報，是爲了遮止那些只執著于與因同時生起的觀點。在和合的聚合體中，有士用果，因為這個和合的聚合體互相作為果報，而不是自身作為自身的士用果。這就顯示了不是那些同時生起的和合。在士用果中，有一種果報的意義，所以特別提出來。
【English Translation】 English version: They maintain that only the mind can transform along with the form that transforms with the mind, which is the co-existent cause (俱有因,俱有因), not the form transforming with the mind. Because form is born from the mind and arises dependent on the mind, like the relationship between a king and his ministers, the strong does not change because of the weak. This view is unreasonable, just as ministers and kings defend and support each other, each having power. So, what is the substance of the dharma that transforms with the mind? The verse says: 'Mental factors, two kinds of discipline (律儀, samvara), these and the characteristics of the mind, are the dharmas that transform with the mind.' The treatise says: All dharmas that are associated with the mind, the two kinds of discipline of dhyana (靜慮, dhyana) and anasrava (無漏, anasrava), these dharmas and the characteristics of the mind such as arising and abiding, are all called dharmas that transform with the mind. Why not speak of the characteristics that these dharmas follow? Because the causes on which these dharmas depend are not spoken of, they will naturally be analyzed later. Why are these dharmas called 'transforming with the mind'? The verse says: 'Due to time, result, goodness, etc.' The treatise says: Briefly speaking, due to ten reasons such as time, result, and goodness, these dharmas are called transforming with the mind. First, in terms of time, these dharmas arise, abide, and cease together with the mind, and exist in the same lifetime. In terms of result, these dharmas and the mind have the same nisyanda-phala (等流果, nisyanda-phala) and vipaka-phala (異熟果, vipaka-phala). In terms of goodness, these dharmas and the mind have the same good, unwholesome, or neutral nature. Does merely saying arising, abiding, and ceasing together imply that they also exist in the same lifetime? Although it can be known that they exist in the same lifetime, it is still unclear whether these dharmas and the mind are inseparable in the past and future. Or, in order to show those dharmas that do not arise, it is said again 'exist in the same lifetime'. If so, then it should only be said 'exist in the same lifetime'. If not, then it should not be made known that they necessarily exist in the same lifetime. Are nisyanda-phala and vipaka-phala not also a kind of result? Why, in addition to one kind of result, are nisyanda-phala and vipaka-phala mentioned? In reality, the one kind of result mentioned here only refers to purusakara-phala (士用果, purusakara-phala) and visamyoga-phala (離系果, visamyoga-phala). Does this statement also include nisyanda-phala and vipaka-phala? Although it also includes them, this is not what is being explained here. However, there are four kinds of purusakara-phala in total: sahaja (俱生, sahaja), anantara (無間, anantara), vyavahita (隔越, vyavahita), and non-arising. This shows the result that does not exist simultaneously with the cause, in order to prevent those who only cling to the view that it arises simultaneously with the cause. In the aggregate of combination, there is purusakara-phala, because this aggregate of combination acts as a result for each other, rather than itself acting as its own purusakara-phala. This shows that it is not those combinations that arise simultaneously. In purusakara-phala, there is the meaning of one kind of result, so it is specifically mentioned.
等流異熟。應知此中時一果一。顯俱顯共。其義有殊。此中心王極少。猶與五十八法為俱有因。謂十大地法。彼四十本相。心八本隨相。名五十八法。五十八中。除心四隨相。餘五十四。為心俱有因。何緣心隨相。非心俱有因。不由彼力心得生故。心非與彼互為果故。彼於一法。有功能故。又與心王非一果故。聚中多分非彼果故。即由如是所說多因。隨相不名心隨轉法。若爾云何心能與彼為俱有因。由隨心王生等諸位。彼得轉故。豈不應知大種生等。心亦用彼為俱有因。謂如造色非生等果。生等非不與諸大種為俱有因。此亦應爾。如是所例。其理不齊。展轉果一果多。非彼果故。非諸造色是諸大種展轉果中一果所攝。何容造色非諸大種生等果故。例此為失。又如前說。前說者何。不由彼力。心得生故。然諸大種。與生等相。展轉力生。故無此失。有餘師說。五十八中。能為心因。唯十四法。謂十大地法。並心四本相。非諸心所生等相力能為心因。如心隨相。若爾便違品類足論。如彼論言。或有苦諦。以有身見為因。非與有身見為因。除未來有身見及彼相應法生老住無常。諸餘染污苦諦。或有苦諦。以有身見為因。亦與有身見為因。即所除法。彼作是言。我等不誦及彼相應法。應隨義理簡擇論文方可誦持故。異此便壞俱
有因相。或應許隨相亦心俱有因。復有說言。一切同聚。皆互相望。為俱有因。于同聚中。隨闕一種。所餘諸法。皆不生故。此諸說中初說為善。又此俱起和合聚中。有是能轉而非隨轉。謂即心王。有唯隨轉。謂色及心不相應行。有是能轉亦是隨轉。謂心所法。隨心轉故。能轉心不相應行故。有二俱非。謂除前相。云何俱起諸法聚中。有因果義。何故知無俱起諸法。于將生位。既非已生。並應未有。如何可說能生所生。又說。有因則有果故。若未來世諸法能生。應有諸法恒時生過。又俱生法。此果此因。無定因證。如牛兩角。又諸世間。種等芽等。極成因果相生事中。未見如斯同時因果。故今應說。云何俱起諸法聚中。有因果義。今當且為辯因果相。即令知有俱生因果。謂前略舉諸因相中。引薄伽梵處處經說。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。與此相反非有非生。如是名為因果總相。此中初顯俱生因義。後文復顯前生因義。若爾決定無俱生因。以薄伽梵說依此有彼有未來無故。何得為因。此責不然。無有多種故。未來非無故。后當廣辯。又此契經。證未來有。或復彼應說不違理經義。此中上座。釋經義言。依此有彼有者。此說有因相續為先。然後有果相續而住。誰生為先。誰生已住。為答此復說此生故彼生。此顯因生為先故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有俱有因（simultaneous cause）的說法。或者有人認為，應許隨心而轉的相（characteristics）也與心同時具有俱有因。還有一種說法認為，一切同聚之法，都互相觀待，作為俱有因。因為在同聚之中，缺少任何一種，其餘諸法都不能生起。在這些說法中，最初的說法比較合理。此外，在這個俱起和合的聚集中，有些是能轉而非隨轉的，比如心王（mind-king）；有些是唯隨轉的，比如色（form）和心不相應行（mental formations not associated with mind）；有些是能轉也是隨轉的，比如心所法（mental factors），因為它們隨心而轉，也能轉心不相應行；有些則二者都不是，比如除了前面所說的相。 那麼，在俱起諸法（simultaneous phenomena）的聚集中，如何體現因果的意義？為什麼知道沒有俱起諸法在將要生起的時候，既非已生，也應未有，如何能說能生和所生？而且，如果說有因就有果，那麼如果未來世的諸法能夠生起，就會有諸法恒時生起的過失。此外，俱生法，這個是果，這個是因，沒有確定的因證，就像牛的兩角。而且，在世間，種子等生芽等，這種極易成立的因果相生之事中，沒有見過像這樣同時因果的情況。所以現在應該說，在俱起諸法的聚集中，如何體現因果的意義？ 現在我將要辨析因果之相，從而使你們知道有俱生因果。就像前面略舉的諸因相中，引用薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀）在多處經中所說：『依此有彼有，此生故彼生，與此相反非有非生。』這就是因果的總相。其中，最初顯明瞭俱生因的意義，後面的文句又顯明瞭前生因的意義。如果這樣，那就決定沒有俱生因了，因為薄伽梵說『依此有彼有』，未來沒有，怎麼能作為因呢？ 這種責難是不對的。因為沒有多種，未來並非沒有。後面將會廣泛辨析。而且，這部契經（sutra）證明了未來是有。或者他們應該說不違背經義。其中，上座（elder monks）解釋經義說：『依此有彼有』，這是說有因相續為先，然後有果相續而住。誰生為先？誰生已住？爲了回答這個問題，又說『此生故彼生』，這顯示了因生為先。
【English Translation】 English version There is the theory of simultaneous cause (俱有因, ju you yin). Or some argue that the characteristics (相, xiang) that are allowed to follow the mind also simultaneously possess simultaneous cause with the mind. Another view states that all phenomena in the same aggregation mutually depend on each other as simultaneous causes. Because if any one of them is missing from the aggregation, the remaining phenomena cannot arise. Among these views, the first one is considered more reasonable. Furthermore, within this aggregation of simultaneous arising and combination, some are capable of transforming but not following, such as the mind-king (心王, xin wang); some only follow, such as form (色, se) and mental formations not associated with mind (心不相應行, xin bu xiang ying xing); some are capable of both transforming and following, such as mental factors (心所法, xin suo fa), because they follow the mind and can also transform mental formations not associated with mind; and some are neither, such as the characteristics mentioned earlier. Then, how is the meaning of cause and effect manifested in the aggregation of simultaneous phenomena (俱起諸法, ju qi zhu fa)? Why is it known that when simultaneous phenomena are about to arise, they are neither already arisen nor should they be considered as not yet existing? How can one speak of the capable of producing and the produced? Moreover, if it is said that where there is a cause, there is an effect, then if future phenomena are capable of arising, there would be the fault of phenomena constantly arising. Furthermore, for simultaneous phenomena, this is the effect, this is the cause, there is no definite causal proof, like the two horns of a cow. Moreover, in the world, in the easily established causal relationships such as seeds producing sprouts, such simultaneous cause and effect have not been seen. Therefore, it should now be explained how the meaning of cause and effect is manifested in the aggregation of simultaneous phenomena? Now I will analyze the characteristics of cause and effect, thereby enabling you to know that there are simultaneous cause and effect. Just like in the previously briefly mentioned characteristics of causes, quoting what the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, Bhagavan, the Buddha) said in various sutras: 'This existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; the opposite of this, neither existing nor arising.' This is the general characteristic of cause and effect. Among them, the beginning clarifies the meaning of simultaneous cause, and the subsequent sentences clarify the meaning of prior cause. If so, then there is definitely no simultaneous cause, because the Bhagavan said 'This existing, that exists,' and the future does not exist, how can it be a cause? This accusation is incorrect. Because there are not many kinds, the future is not non-existent. This will be extensively analyzed later. Moreover, this sutra (契經, sutra) proves that the future exists. Or they should say that it does not contradict the meaning of the sutra. Among them, the elder monks (上座, elder monks) explain the meaning of the sutra: 'This existing, that exists,' this means that the continuity of cause comes first, and then the continuity of effect abides. Which arises first? Which abides after arising? To answer this question, it is also said 'This arising, that arises,' which shows that the arising of the cause comes first.
後果生而相續住。如是上座。但率己情。妄解佛經。以扶己義。如是解釋佛所說經。無有定因堪為證故。謂何定因為證依此有彼有言。但據因果相續而說。不據一一因果剎那。依有一念因即有一念果。此順正理。非因相續後方有果相續。違正理故。又彼所說。無別勝理。非覺為先而作是釋。不能開顯經之妙義。若謂剎那因果難覺故據相續因果說者。此亦不然。無容有故。謂無容有不隔果剎那因相續而起。亦無容有不隔因剎那果相續起故。若如彼釋。應顯世尊說非如理。或應不據相續因果而說此經。彼如是釋。令緣起義難可了知。是故彼應於此經義更作余釋。又彼何理定判。前經依相續說。后經不爾。后經亦應得作是釋。此生故彼生者。此說有因相續為先然後有果相續而住。非彼宗有與生義別。如非將生時與將起時異。又所疑問。誰生為先誰住已住。亦不應理。前後二門。不相待故。二門所待。義各異故。非前所說依此有彼。有復待后說此生故彼生。謂前已說。依此有彼有。不待疑問誰生故彼生。並待后釋因生故果生。前義方了。如后所說。此生故彼生。要待疑問。誰生故彼生。復待別釋因生故果生義即明瞭。如是前說依此有彼有。亦待疑問。依誰有彼有。復待別釋。依因有果有義即明瞭。是故前後所待各別。故我所說
。初經為顯俱生因義。后經復顯前生因義。其理極成。彼復異門。釋此經義。前經為顯諸行有因。后經為遮計常因執。此亦非理。但說后經。如是二門。皆成就故。謂經但說此生故彼生。二事俱辯。由說因果相繼而生。顯行有因遮無因論。由生言故。顯無常因。亦即能遮說常因論。諸常住法。必無生故。既由后說。二事俱成。則說前經。便為無用。非薄伽梵說無用經。故知二經。非如彼釋。設許如是解釋前經。亦不乖違俱生因義。謂即依此俱生因有。而能令彼俱生果有。豈不由此顯行有因。亦即能遮執無因論。如后所說。此生故彼生。由此能顯因是無常。亦即能遮說常因論。而不違害說前生因。如是前說依此有彼有。由此能顯諸行有因。亦即能遮說無因論。而不違害說俱生因。又前生因正居有位。未來無故。都無所生。彼宗自說未來無故。既無所生。如何善逝。分明顯說。此有彼有。如此有言。是差別說。所說有義。現有極成。故彼有言。亦差別說。所說有義。亦應現有。此彼異因。不可得故。如是同喻。彼此極成。如言彼色居正滅位。又曾無處於極成無作差別說。言彼是有。如何可於未來無法作差別說言彼是有。於差別說。而說為無。如是所言。違害正理。又未來法。許有因故。雖無作用。而體應有。若彼不許未來
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 初經是爲了闡明『俱生因』（simultaneous cause）的意義，后經又闡明『前生因』（previous life cause）的意義，這個道理非常明確。他們又用不同的方式來解釋這兩部經的意義。他們認為，前經是爲了闡明諸行（all phenomena）皆有因，后經是爲了破斥計執常因的邪見。這種說法也是不合理的，因為僅僅是后經，就能成就這兩種意義。也就是說，經文只是說『此生故彼生』（this arising, that arises），就同時辯明瞭兩件事：通過說明因果相續而生，就闡明了諸行有因，破斥了無因論；通過『生』這個字，就闡明了因是無常的，也就能夠破斥常因論，因為一切常住之法，必然沒有生滅。既然僅僅通過後經的說法，就能成就這兩種意義，那麼前經的說法就變得沒有用了。薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）不會說沒有用的經，所以要知道這兩部經的解釋，不是像他們所說的那樣。即使允許像他們那樣解釋前經，也不違背俱生因的意義。也就是說，正是依靠這個俱生因的存在，才能使那個俱生果存在。難道不能由此闡明諸行有因，並且能夠破斥執著無因論的邪見嗎？就像後面所說的，『此生故彼生』，由此能夠闡明因是無常的，也就能破斥常因論，而不妨礙說前生因。像前面所說的，『依此有彼有』（this existing, that exists），由此能夠闡明諸行有因，並且能夠破斥說無因論的邪見，而不妨礙說俱生因。而且，前生因正處於已有的位置，因為未來還沒有到來，所以沒有所生。他們宗派自己說未來沒有，既然沒有所生，善逝（Sugata，佛陀）怎麼會分明地說『此有彼有』呢？像這樣『有』的說法，是差別之說，所說的『有』的意義，現在是極其明確的，所以『彼有』的說法，也應該是差別之說，所說的『有』的意義，也應該現在存在。因為『此』和『彼』的因是不同的，所以是不可得的。像這樣的比喻，彼此都是明確的。就像說那個色法（rupa，物質現象）處於正在滅亡的位置。又曾經沒有處於極其明確的無作，而差別地說『彼是有』。怎麼可以在未來沒有法的時候，差別地說『彼是有』呢？對於差別之說，卻說為沒有，像這樣所說的話，違背了正理。而且，未來的法，因為允許有因，所以即使沒有作用，它的體性也應該存在。如果他們不允許未來
【English Translation】 English version The first sutra primarily elucidates the meaning of 'simultaneous cause' (俱生因, jùshēng yīn). The subsequent sutra further clarifies the meaning of 'previous life cause' (前生因, qiánshēng yīn). This principle is extremely well-established. They, in turn, offer different interpretations of the meaning of these sutras. They argue that the first sutra serves to demonstrate that all phenomena (諸行, zhūxíng) have causes, while the second sutra aims to refute the attachment to the notion of a permanent cause. This reasoning is also flawed, as the latter sutra alone accomplishes both objectives. Specifically, the sutra stating 'this arising, that arises' (此生故彼生, cǐ shēng gù bǐ shēng) simultaneously clarifies two points: by explaining the continuous arising of cause and effect, it demonstrates that phenomena have causes and refutes the doctrine of causelessness; by using the word 'arising' (生, shēng), it clarifies that the cause is impermanent, thereby also refuting the doctrine of a permanent cause, since all permanent entities are necessarily without arising and ceasing. Since the latter sutra alone achieves both objectives, the first sutra becomes redundant. The Bhagavan (薄伽梵, Bójiāfàn, the Blessed One) does not utter redundant sutras. Therefore, it should be understood that the interpretation of these two sutras is not as they claim. Even if we were to accept their interpretation of the first sutra, it would not contradict the meaning of simultaneous cause. That is, it is precisely by relying on the existence of this simultaneous cause that the simultaneous effect can exist. Does this not demonstrate that phenomena have causes and refute the attachment to the doctrine of causelessness? As stated later, 'this arising, that arises' demonstrates that the cause is impermanent and refutes the doctrine of a permanent cause, without contradicting the notion of a previous life cause. As stated earlier, 'this existing, that exists' (依此有彼有, yī cǐ yǒu bǐ yǒu) demonstrates that phenomena have causes and refutes the doctrine of causelessness, without contradicting the notion of a simultaneous cause. Moreover, the previous life cause is currently in a state of existence, but because the future has not yet arrived, there is nothing that arises from it. Their own school asserts that the future does not exist. Since there is nothing that arises, how could the Sugata (善逝, Shànshì, the Well-Gone One, an epithet of the Buddha) clearly state 'this existing, that exists'? Such a statement of 'existence' is a differentiated statement. The meaning of 'existence' that is spoken of is extremely clear in the present. Therefore, the statement 'that exists' should also be a differentiated statement, and the meaning of 'existence' that is spoken of should also exist in the present. Because the causes of 'this' and 'that' are different, they are unobtainable. Such an analogy is clear to both sides. It is like saying that that form (色, sè, rupa) is in the process of ceasing. Furthermore, there has never been a differentiated statement of 'that exists' made about something that is clearly non-existent. How can one differentiate and say 'that exists' about something that does not exist in the future? To deny the differentiated statement is to contradict right reason. Moreover, future phenomena are admitted to have causes, so even if they have no function, their essence should exist. If they do not admit that the future
有因。應許畢竟無同兔角。既許有因。亦必應許未來體有異畢竟無。諸所言無。義有多種。未生已滅畢竟互無。初二言無。但無作用。故未來世。非體全無。得有能生及所生義。于正生位。作用雖無。而有功能生所生法。又我不許諸未生因及已生因是真作者。諸法無有真作用故。真作用者。謂諸因緣。于所生果。常能造作。此真作用。非佛所許。然諸法生。互相系屬。隨有所闕。余則不生。非此不生。彼有生義。依如是量。說此為因。此因功能。非恒時有。故無諸法恒時生過。又我不許唯俱生因不假余因能生諸法。故無諸法恒時生過。又唯說有前生因者。于如是過。豈獨言無。彼前生因。恒時有故。應一切法一切時生。隨有許因能生諸法。皆可施設如是過難。然妄執有隨界論者。彼執恒現有無量法生因。豈不汝宗獨為諸法於一切時頓生過害。若汝雖執唯前生因而待余緣方能生果。何故不許此俱生因亦待余緣方能生法。如汝所執。唯前生因能生諸法。然不恒生未來亦爾。不應為難言俱生法此果此因無定。因證如兩角等。皆非應理。現見兩角。隨一壞時。余不壞故。若隨一壞。余亦壞者。可比相生如心心所。又我不許一切俱生皆有展轉為因果義。許有者何。謂共一果或展轉果。方有此義。或由此力。彼法得生。如是俱生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有因：如果承認一切事物都像兔角一樣，畢竟是空無，那麼就不應該承認有產生事物的原因。既然承認有原因，就必須承認未來的事物在本體上與現在的事物不同，而不是完全空無。 所說的『無』，有多種含義：未生、已滅、畢竟空無。前兩種『無』，只是沒有作用。所以，未來的世界，並非本體完全空無，而是具有能生和所生的意義。在事物正要產生的階段，雖然沒有實際的作用，但具有產生其他事物的功能。 而且，我不認為未產生的因和已產生的因是真正的作者。因為一切事物都沒有真正的作用。所謂的『真作用』，是指各種因緣，對於所產生的果，能夠持續不斷地造作。這種『真作用』，不是佛所認可的。然而，諸法的產生，是互相聯繫的，缺少任何一個條件，其他的法就不能產生。並非因為這個法不產生，其他的法就能產生。根據這樣的衡量標準，才說這個是因。這種因的功能，不是恒常存在的，所以不會出現一切事物恒常產生的情況。 另外，我不認為只有同時產生的因，不需要其他因的幫助，就能產生一切事物。所以不會出現一切事物恒常產生的情況。如果只說有前生的因，那麼對於上述的過失，難道就能避免嗎？因為前生的因是恒常存在的，那麼一切事物應該在一切時間產生。只要有人認為某種因能夠產生一切事物，都可以用這樣的過失來責難他。然而，那些妄自執著于隨界論的人，他們認為恒常存在著無數產生事物的因，難道他們的宗派就不會有所有事物在一切時間同時產生的過失嗎？ 如果你們雖然認為只有前生的因才能產生果，但還需要其他條件的配合才能產生果，那麼為什麼不允許同時產生的因也需要其他條件的配合才能產生法呢？就像你們所認為的，只有前生的因才能產生一切事物，但也不是恒常產生，未來也是如此。不應該用『同時產生的法，這個果和這個因沒有確定關係』來責難。用『原因就像兩隻角』等來證明，都是不合理的。因為現在可以看到，當一隻角損壞時，另一隻角不會損壞。如果一隻角損壞，另一隻角也損壞，那麼可以比作相互依存的心和心所。 而且，我不認為一切同時產生的法，都有互相作為因果的意義。只有在共同產生一個果，或者互相作為果的情況下，才有這種意義。或者因為這個法的力量，那個法才能產生。這樣的同時產生的法，才具有互相作為因果的意義。
【English Translation】 English version There is a cause: If it is admitted that all things are ultimately like a rabbit's horn, which is non-existent, then it should not be admitted that there is a cause for the arising of things. Since it is admitted that there is a cause, it must be admitted that future things are different in substance from present things, and not completely non-existent. The 'non-existence' that is spoken of has various meanings: not yet arisen, already ceased, and ultimately non-existent. The first two types of 'non-existence' simply mean that there is no function. Therefore, the future world is not completely non-existent in substance, but has the meaning of being able to produce and be produced. Moreover, I do not consider the cause that has not yet arisen and the cause that has already arisen to be the true creators. Because all things do not have true function. The so-called 'true function' refers to the various conditions that can continuously create the resulting effect. This 'true function' is not recognized by the Buddha. However, the arising of all dharmas is interconnected, and if any condition is lacking, the other dharmas cannot arise. It is not because this dharma does not arise that the other dharmas can arise. According to this standard of measurement, it is said that this is the cause. The function of this cause is not constant, so there will not be a situation where all things constantly arise. In addition, I do not believe that only simultaneously arising causes can produce all things without the help of other causes. Therefore, there will not be a situation where all things constantly arise. If one only says that there is a cause from a previous life, then can the above-mentioned faults be avoided? Because the cause from a previous life is constant, then all things should arise at all times. As long as someone believes that a certain cause can produce all things, they can be blamed with such faults. However, those who falsely cling to the theory of following realms, they believe that there are countless causes that constantly exist to produce things, wouldn't their sect have the fault of all things arising simultaneously at all times? If you believe that only the cause from a previous life can produce the effect, but it also needs the cooperation of other conditions to produce the effect, then why not allow the simultaneously arising cause to also need the cooperation of other conditions to produce the dharma? Just as you believe that only the cause from a previous life can produce all things, but it does not constantly produce them, and the future is the same. It should not be blamed by saying 'simultaneously arising dharmas, this effect and this cause have no definite relationship'. Using 'the cause is like two horns' etc. to prove it is unreasonable. Because it can be seen now that when one horn is damaged, the other horn will not be damaged. If one horn is damaged and the other horn is also damaged, then it can be compared to the mind and mental factors that depend on each other. Moreover, I do not believe that all simultaneously arising dharmas have the meaning of being cause and effect to each other. Only when they jointly produce an effect, or act as effects to each other, does this meaning exist. Or because of the power of this dharma, that dharma can arise. Such simultaneously arising dharmas have the meaning of being cause and effect to each other.
有因果義。非牛兩角有上所說。故不可引為同法喻。又對法者。非許俱生互為果法。有決定量。謂此唯因。此唯是果。但許如是和合聚中一切相望皆因皆果。故不應責因果定因。又如唯說前生因者。許有少分前生非因。非諸前生皆無因義。如是說有俱生因者。亦許少分俱生非因。非諸俱生皆無因義。又有別喻證俱生因。故彼立因。有不定過。謂世現見。燈之與明。俱時而生。有因果故。復何因證。燈是明因。謂明隨燈。或增或減。或住或行。有差別故。又欣明者。便取燈故。又厭明者。便害燈故。我亦許明因燈而起。然不許彼因俱起燈。所以者何。燈明俱起。不可待燈明方生故。非俱生法相待應理。如非自體待自體生。但由前生燈為緣故。無間后念明乃得生是故不應引之為喻。此亦非理。燈初起時。有燈無明不可得故。謂曾未見有時有燈而無有明。故為非理。若謂時促不可得者。此亦不然。非極成故。若有少分無明之燈。世極成立。或有責彼不得之因。容可答言。由時促故。此不可得。然無少分無明之燈。世極成立。故不應說由時促故。為不得因。若許燈明恒俱起者。彼不應說燈是明因。由燈與明一因生故。謂油炷等。與燈為因。即此亦應為明因故。如是二種。既一因生。如燈不因明故得起。明亦應爾。非因燈生。復
有喻故。不相因起。如苣蕂中皮人與膩三事和合。一因生故。非展轉因。世極成立。燈明亦爾。一因生故。明必不應用俱起燈為因。燈明不應同一因起。如皮人膩在苣蕂中。不見苣蕂皮人膩合同一因生得為因果。燈明二種。現見在前相隨等因。證有因果。故不可說同一因生。又一為先俱生諸法因有差別。是極成故。謂共現見。一種為先所起牙中。俱生諸法。色香味觸。因各別故。既一芽中。色香味觸。俱時而起。因各有殊。故知燈明。俱時而起。亦應如彼非一因生。若燈與明一因生者。或有以物掩蔽燈時。明應如燈非不相續。燈如明故。應亦不生。非苣蕂中皮人膩合一因起位。見有隨一緣礙不生余尚得起。燈明不爾。故因不同。若謂燈明體無別者。亦不違害我俱生因。又焰與明。非同法故。其體各異。由前所說。相隨等因。得為因果。故燈明喻。其義極成。又見厭背受想二法入滅定者。思等心所。亦如受想。皆不得生說此定中意行滅故。由此準度驗思等生系屬受想。故知諸法前生因外。有俱生因。然上座言。思等心所。于滅定中。不得生者。由與受想生因同故。非由展轉為因生故。何謂為彼所同之因。若謂是觸此位應有。彼許滅定中有心現行故。若是所依此位亦有一切心所法。皆依識生故。同因既有。彼何不生。又應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有譬喻的緣故。不是互相依存而生起的。比如在苣蕂（一種植物）中，皮、人（指人偶）、膩（指油脂）三者和合。因為一個原因而生起。不是輾轉相因。世俗諦是這樣成立的。燈和光明也是這樣。因為一個原因而生起。光明必定不應該用同時生起的燈作為原因。燈和光明不應該由同一個原因生起。如同皮、人、膩在苣蕂中，不能見到苣蕂、皮、人、膩合同由一個原因生起而成為因果關係。燈和光明兩種，現在可以見到在前面互相隨順的等同原因，證明有因果關係。所以不可以說是同一個原因生起。又，一個為先，同時生起的諸法，原因是有差別的。這是極其成立的緣故。所謂共同現見，一種為先所生起的芽中，同時生起的諸法，色、香、味、觸，原因各自不同。既然一個芽中，色、香、味、觸，同時生起，原因各有不同。所以知道燈和光明，同時生起，也應該像那樣不是一個原因生起。如果燈和光明一個原因生起，或者有人用東西遮蔽燈的時候，光明應該像燈一樣不是不相續。燈像光明一樣，也應該不生起。不是苣蕂中皮、人、膩合由一個原因生起的位置，見到有隨一個緣阻礙不生起，其餘尚且能夠生起。燈和光明不是這樣。所以原因不同。如果說燈和光明體性沒有差別，也不違揹我所說的俱生因。又，火焰和光明，不是同一種法，所以它們的體性各不相同。由於前面所說的，互相隨順的等同原因，可以成為因果關係。所以燈和光明的比喻，它的意義極其成立。又，見到厭背受、想二法而進入滅盡定的人，思等心所，也像受、想一樣，都不能生起，說這種禪定中意行滅盡的緣故。由此推斷，驗證思等生起系屬於受、想。所以知道諸法除了前生因外，有俱生因。然而上座部說，思等心所，在滅盡定中，不能生起，是因為與受、想生起的原因相同。不是由於輾轉為因生起的緣故。什麼叫做他們所共同的原因？如果說是觸，這個位置應該有。他們允許滅盡定中有心現行。如果是所依，這個位置也有一切心所法，都依靠識而生起。共同的原因既然有，它們為什麼不生起？又應該...
【English Translation】 English version There is a metaphor. They do not arise interdependently. For example, in a jute creeper (Grewia asiatica), the skin, the purusha (person/puppet), and the sneha (grease) are combined. They arise from one cause. It is not a process of interdependent origination. The conventional truth is established in this way. The lamp and the light are also like that. Because they arise from one cause. The light should definitely not use the lamp that arises simultaneously as the cause. The lamp and the light should not arise from the same cause. Just as the skin, the purusha, and the sneha are in the jute creeper, one cannot see the jute creeper, the skin, the purusha, and the sneha arising from the same cause and becoming cause and effect. The two kinds of lamp and light, now one can see the equal causes that follow each other in front, proving that there is a cause and effect relationship. Therefore, it cannot be said that they arise from the same cause. Moreover, when one arises first, the causes of all the dharmas (phenomena) that arise simultaneously are different. This is extremely established. What is called common perception is that in the sprout that arises first, the dharmas that arise simultaneously, rupa (form), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), sprashtavya (touch), have different causes. Since in one sprout, rupa, gandha, rasa, sprashtavya arise simultaneously, the causes are different. Therefore, it is known that the lamp and the light, arising simultaneously, should also be like that, not arising from one cause. If the lamp and the light arise from one cause, or when someone covers the lamp with something, the light should be like the lamp, not non-continuous. The lamp is like the light, so it should also not arise. It is not the position where the skin, the purusha, and the sneha in the jute creeper combine and arise from one cause, seeing that when one condition is obstructed and does not arise, the others can still arise. The lamp and the light are not like that. Therefore, the causes are different. If it is said that the nature of the lamp and the light is not different, it does not contradict my saying of co-arising causes. Moreover, the flame and the light are not the same dharma, so their natures are different. Because of what was said earlier, the equal causes that follow each other can become cause and effect. Therefore, the metaphor of the lamp and the light, its meaning is extremely established. Moreover, seeing those who are disgusted with vedana (feeling) and samjna (perception), and enter into nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment), cetana (volition) and other mental factors, are also like vedana and samjna, all cannot arise, saying that in this samadhi (concentration), the mental activities are extinguished. From this inference, verifying that the arising of cetana and others is related to vedana and samjna. Therefore, it is known that dharmas have co-arising causes in addition to the causes of previous lives. However, the Sthavira (Elder) said that cetana and other mental factors, in nirodha-samapatti, cannot arise, because the causes of arising are the same as vedana and samjna. It is not because of interdependent origination. What is called the common cause for them? If it is said to be sparsha (contact), it should be present in this position. They allow the mind to be present in nirodha-samapatti. If it is the basis, there are also all mental factors in this position, all arising depending on vijnana (consciousness). Since the common cause is present, why do they not arise? Moreover, it should...
退失前後生論。許觸與識為彼因故。由此不應說與受想生因同故思等不生。又見因雖同而不俱生故。知必俱生者。定展轉為因。謂由眼色前生識故。無量眼識。皆可得生。此生因雖同。而不俱起者。由不展轉為因生故。唯因前識后識得生。非因后識前識生故。由此驗知。生因雖共。不相因者。未必俱生。若必俱生。定相因起。俱生因義。由此極成。又前已說。芽中色等。俱時而起。因各有殊故知生因雖不同者。亦有展轉俱時起義。是故俱起及不俱起。非定由因同與不同。又說心心所同一因生。亦說俱生時有因果故。謂說心所及與眼識。同用眼色為因而生。故契經說。眼色二為緣。生諸心所。又契經說眼及色為緣。生於眼識。如是二經。說心心所同一因生。復說同時諸心所法。依心而生。故契經說。若想若思。諸心所法。是心種類。依止於心。系屬於心。依心而轉。非諸心所。心不俱生。有依屬心依心轉義。非無與有可成能依所依性故。如是之義。后當更辯。是故決定有俱生因。又俱生因。若定無者。應立大種造色不成。謂若大種及眼等造色。唯依前生大種而生者。大種眼等同用一具大種為因。何緣造色唯是眼等。非諸大種。又應違經謂薄伽梵。對無衣者。作如是言。我終不說受眾苦者。無因無緣。有苦生起。若執諸法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於退失前後生論的討論。有人認為觸（sparśa，感覺）和識（vijñāna，意識）是（諸法生起）的原因。因此，不應說（觸和識）與受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，表象）的生起原因相同，所以思（cetanā，意志）等不會生起。又可見，即使原因相同，（諸法）也未必同時生起。因此，可知必然同時生起的事物，一定是輾轉互為因果的。例如，由於眼（cakṣus，視覺器官）和色（rūpa，顏色）在前一刻生起了識，所以無量的眼識才得以生起。這些眼識的生起原因雖然相同，但並非同時生起，這是因為它們不是輾轉互為因果而生起的。只有前一刻的識才能作為后一刻識生起的原因，而後一刻的識不能作為前一刻識生起的原因。由此可以驗證，即使生起的原因相同，如果彼此不互為因果，也未必同時生起；如果必然同時生起，一定是互相依賴而生起的。俱生因（sahabhū-hetu，同時俱起因）的意義，由此得以確立。 此外，前面已經說過，芽中的色等（諸法），是同時生起的，但它們各自的因卻不同。由此可知，即使生起的原因不同，也有輾轉互為因果、同時生起的情況。因此，同時生起和不同時生起，並非一定取決於原因是否相同。 又有人說，心（citta，心識）和心所（caitta，心所法）是由同一個原因生起的，也說同時生起時有因果關係。例如，心所和眼識，都是以眼和色為原因而生起的。所以契經（sūtra，佛經）中說，『眼和色二者為緣，生起諸心所。』又契經說，『眼和色為緣，生起眼識。』這兩部經都說明了心和心所是由同一個原因生起的。而且，同時生起的諸心所法，是依心而生起的。所以契經說，『若想若思，諸心所法，是心種類，依止於心，系屬於心，依心而轉。』如果諸心所和心不是同時生起的，就不會有依屬於心、依心而轉的意義。如果不是同時存在，就無法成立能依和所依的關係。這些道理，後面還會進一步辨析。因此，可以確定有俱生因的存在。 如果俱生因一定不存在，那麼就無法成立大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）和造色（upādā rūpa，由四大所造的色法）。如果大種和眼等造色，僅僅是依靠前一刻生起的大種而生起的，那麼大種和眼等都是以同一組大種為原因，為什麼造色只是眼等，而不是諸大種呢？ 此外，這也會違背佛經。薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）對無衣外道說：『我終究沒有說過，承受眾多痛苦的人，是無因無緣而生起痛苦的。』如果執著諸法（dharma，法）
【English Translation】 English version: Discussion on the theory of the loss of prior and subsequent arising. Some argue that contact (sparśa, sensation) and consciousness (vijñāna, awareness) are the causes (for the arising of phenomena). Therefore, it should not be said that (contact and consciousness) have the same cause of arising as feeling (vedanā, feeling) and perception (saṃjñā, perception), so volition (cetanā, volition) and others will not arise. Moreover, it can be seen that even if the cause is the same, (phenomena) do not necessarily arise simultaneously. Therefore, it can be known that things that necessarily arise simultaneously must be causally related to each other in a revolving manner. For example, because the eye (cakṣus, visual organ) and form (rūpa, color) give rise to consciousness in the previous moment, countless eye-consciousnesses can arise. Although the causes of these eye-consciousnesses are the same, they do not arise simultaneously because they do not arise through revolving causality. Only the consciousness of the previous moment can be the cause of the consciousness of the next moment, and the consciousness of the next moment cannot be the cause of the consciousness of the previous moment. From this, it can be verified that even if the causes of arising are the same, if they are not causally related to each other, they do not necessarily arise simultaneously; if they necessarily arise simultaneously, they must arise in mutual dependence. The meaning of the co-arising cause (sahabhū-hetu, simultaneous cause) is thus established. Furthermore, it has been said before that the form, etc. (phenomena) in a sprout arise simultaneously, but their respective causes are different. From this, it can be known that even if the causes of arising are different, there are cases of revolving causality and simultaneous arising. Therefore, simultaneous arising and non-simultaneous arising do not necessarily depend on whether the causes are the same or different. Some also say that the mind (citta, mind) and mental factors (caitta, mental phenomena) arise from the same cause, and also say that there is a cause-and-effect relationship when arising simultaneously. For example, mental factors and eye-consciousness arise from the eye and form as causes. Therefore, the sūtra (sūtra, Buddhist scripture) says, 'The eye and form are the conditions for the arising of mental factors.' Also, the sūtra says, 'The eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness.' These two sūtras explain that the mind and mental factors arise from the same cause. Moreover, the mental factors that arise simultaneously depend on the mind for their arising. Therefore, the sūtra says, 'Whether it is perception or volition, all mental factors are of the mind's kind, rely on the mind, are bound to the mind, and turn according to the mind.' If the mental factors and the mind do not arise simultaneously, there would be no meaning of relying on the mind and turning according to the mind. If they do not exist simultaneously, the relationship of dependence and support cannot be established. These principles will be further analyzed later. Therefore, it can be determined that there is a co-arising cause. If the co-arising cause certainly does not exist, then the great elements (mahābhūta, the four great elements) and derived form (upādā rūpa, form derived from the four great elements) cannot be established. If the great elements and derived form such as the eye only rely on the great elements arising in the previous moment for their arising, then the great elements and the eye, etc., all use the same set of great elements as the cause, why is the derived form only the eye, etc., and not the great elements? Furthermore, this would contradict the Buddhist scriptures. The Bhagavan (Bhagavān, the World-Honored One) said to the naked ascetics: 'I have never said that those who endure much suffering arise from suffering without cause or condition.' If one clings to phenomena (dharma, phenomena)
唯有前生因無俱生因者。彼即應說。有因緣時無苦生起。苦生起位因緣已無是則違前契經所說。又應違害緣起正理。如契經說。眼色為緣生於眼識。前生眼色。與后眼識。應非所依及非所緣。有無有故。非畢竟無。可說此是所依所緣。此亦應爾彼眼識生時。眼色已滅故。應無緣力。眼識自生。無法無容為所依故。眼識唯緣現在境故。若眼色識。不俱生者。則應眼色非眼識緣或耳聲等。亦眼識緣。同與眼識。非相屬故。若薄伽梵。唯說前生眼色為緣生眼識者。則應說眼識唯用識為緣。自類緣強如種子故。前識為后識等無間緣故。既不說識為眼識緣。故知此中唯說俱起眼根色境。為眼識緣。非一身中二識俱起。故不說識為眼識緣。若謂此中唯說眼識不共緣者。前生眼色與耳聲等。不屬眼識。義無別故。何唯眼色。為不共緣。非耳聲等。又必應爾。由第六識無別俱生所依緣故。但說前起意為依緣。意識得生。非如余識又諸識緣非唯前起。以契經說。意法為緣。生於意識意識通以三世無為。為境界故。由此決定有俱生緣。理極成立。又此經言。三和合觸。分明證故。若眼識生。眼色已滅。眼識爾時。與誰和合。若言五觸如意觸者。此亦不然。意識力強。通與諸法有和合故。意識依境。雖不俱生。而體非無。有和合義。我宗三世
及三無為皆實有故。汝宗唯有現在世法。合義不成。又諸憎背俱生因者。初無漏法。從何因生。彼前生因。曾未有故。若謂凈界本來有者。因既恒有。何緣障故。無漏果法。曾未得生。若言更賴余緣助者。即此所賴。何不為因。又應唐捐作如是責。謂何不執自在天等若言要待相續轉變。理亦不然。此與凈界。若異若一。皆有過故。謂若異者。應同前難。即此轉變。何不為因。如何復執凈界為種。或應唐捐作如是詰。如服瀉藥天來令利。若言一者。前後既同。應畢竟無生無漏用。然彼前後無差別因。不可無因自有差別。若言如種待緣轉變。同類種子有地等緣。和合攝助可有相續待時方成轉變差別。所執凈界無漏法種。若是有漏。執此唐捐。有漏法不應為無漏種故。無漏法亦不應為有漏種故。若是無漏如何本來成就聖道。而墮惡趣。豈成聖道而是異生。非聖位中不起聖道。爾時可得名異生故。若言少故無斯過者。勿彼能為無始積集。堅固煩惱對治生因。又更無勞難譬喻者。契經已遮彼所執故。如世尊說。我實不見。提婆達多白法猶成如毛端量。乃至廣說。世尊自說。天授身中。白法根種。無餘已拔。故此經內。復作是言。有隨俱行善根未斷。以未斷故。從此善根。猶有可起余善根義。彼於後時。一切皆斷。今應說彼除此善
根。更復有何非無餘拔。而於佛教所說義中。無顧忌心。不能信受。不可聞說。大木聚中。有凈界故。即說有情身中亦有太過失故。如大木聚隨他所欲。成凈成染。有情亦應許隨他欲。或從凈界無漏法種。生聖法已。復隨他欲。還成異生。又亦應執諸阿羅漢退法種性有煩惱種。無學有退。后當成立。又上座說。諸行決定無俱生因。諸行將生。應無因故。又應余類生余類故。謂俱生法。于將起位。非此與彼能作生因。猶未生故。又應求彼二種異因。由彼二因。二俱得起。此說非理。無證因故。是所許故。謂俱生法。將生位中。此非彼因。未說因證。豈不已說。猶未生故。此亦同疑。謂何因證。猶未生法。不能為因。又彼如何。于無體法。倒許為因。非有體法。若謂未生體非有者。體若非有。勿謂有因。非兔角等畢竟無法。可說有因。此亦應爾。汝亦不許兔角非無。又我所宗有有多種。體用假實有差別故。未來雖有。而引果用。猶未有故。說為未生。體既非無。何無因義。不說因證。而執未生非法生緣。不應正理。若未生故不得成因生故成因。是則應許過去諸法定成因性。若爾執有隨界唐捐。或應隨界無因而有。若謂過去是展轉因。此有虛言。都無實義如何過去。全無有體。而可成立為展轉因。智者應觀此盲朋黨。于無體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根。還有什麼更徹底的拔除（煩惱）呢？如果對於佛教所說的義理，沒有顧忌之心，不能信受，就不可為他說。如果因為大木聚中有乾淨的地方，就說有情（sentient beings）的身體中也有太過分的過失。就像一大堆木頭，可以隨他人的意願，變成乾淨的或染污的。有情也應該允許隨他人的意願，或者從凈界的無漏法種（seeds of undefiled dharmas）中，生出聖法（noble dharmas）后，又隨他人的意願，變成凡夫。又應該執著于阿羅漢（Arhats）有退轉的法種性（dharma lineage），有煩惱的種子。無學（those beyond learning）會有退轉，以後再來成立這個觀點。還有上座部（Theravada）說，諸行（all phenomena）是決定的，沒有俱生因（co-arising cause）。諸行將要產生時，應該沒有原因。又應該有不同種類的事物產生出其他種類的事物。所謂的俱生法，在將要生起的位置，不是這個對那個能作為生起的原因，因為還沒有產生。又應該尋求那兩種不同的原因，由那兩種原因，兩種事物都能夠生起。這種說法沒有道理，因為沒有證據。這是所允許的，所謂的俱生法，在將要產生的位置，這個不是那個的原因，沒有說原因的證據。難道不是已經說了嗎？因為還沒有產生。這也有同樣的疑問，用什麼原因來證明，還沒有產生的法，不能作為原因。還有他們如何，對於沒有實體的法，反而認為是原因，對於有實體的法，卻不認為是原因。如果說未生的事物沒有實體，如果實體沒有，就不要說有原因。不是像兔角等畢竟沒有的事物，可以說有原因。這也應該一樣。你們也不允許兔角是沒有的。還有我所宗的有，有多種，體（essence）、用（function）、假（provisional）、實（real）有差別。未來雖然有，但是引發結果的作用，還沒有，所以說是未生。實體既然不是沒有，為什麼說沒有原因呢？不說原因的證據，卻執著于未生的事物不是生起的緣，這不應該合乎正理。如果因為未生，所以不能成為原因，因為生起，所以成為原因，那麼就應該允許過去諸法（past dharmas）決定成為原因。如果這樣，執著于隨界（following realms）就白費了，或者應該隨界沒有原因而有。如果說過去是展轉因（indirect cause），這是虛假的話，完全沒有實際意義，如何過去，完全沒有實體，而可以成立為展轉因。智者應該觀察這些盲目的朋黨，對於沒有實體的...
【English Translation】 English version Root. What further non-residual eradication is there? If one has no hesitation towards the meaning explained in Buddhism, cannot believe and accept it, then it is not permissible to speak to them. If because there is a clean place in a large pile of wood, one says that there are excessive faults in the bodies of sentient beings (sentient beings). Just like a large pile of wood, which can be turned into clean or defiled according to the wishes of others. Sentient beings should also be allowed to, according to the wishes of others, or from the undefiled dharma seeds (seeds of undefiled dharmas) of the pure realm, after producing noble dharmas (noble dharmas), again according to the wishes of others, turn into ordinary beings. Also, one should be attached to the idea that Arhats (Arhats) have a degenerating dharma lineage (dharma lineage), with seeds of afflictions. Those beyond learning (those beyond learning) will have degeneration, and this viewpoint will be established later. Also, the Theravada (Theravada) says that all phenomena (all phenomena) are determined, and there is no co-arising cause (co-arising cause). When all phenomena are about to arise, there should be no cause. Also, different kinds of things should produce other kinds of things. The so-called co-arising dharmas, in the position of about to arise, are not this to that can be the cause of arising, because they have not yet arisen. Also, one should seek those two different causes, by those two causes, both things can arise. This statement is unreasonable because there is no evidence. This is what is allowed, the so-called co-arising dharmas, in the position of about to arise, this is not the cause of that, there is no evidence of the cause. Hasn't it already been said? Because it has not yet arisen. This also has the same doubt, what cause is used to prove that a dharma that has not yet arisen cannot be a cause. Also, how do they, for a dharma without substance, instead consider it a cause, but for a dharma with substance, do not consider it a cause. If one says that things that have not yet arisen have no substance, if the substance does not exist, then do not say there is a cause. It is not like rabbit horns and other things that ultimately do not exist, which can be said to have a cause. This should also be the same. You also do not allow rabbit horns to be non-existent. Also, the existence of my school has many kinds, essence (essence), function (function), provisional (provisional), and real (real) have differences. Although the future exists, the function of causing results has not yet occurred, so it is said to be not yet arisen. Since the substance is not non-existent, why say there is no cause? Without saying the evidence of the cause, one is attached to the idea that things that have not yet arisen are not the conditions for arising, this should not be reasonable. If because it has not yet arisen, it cannot become a cause, because it arises, it becomes a cause, then one should allow past dharmas (past dharmas) to definitely become causes. If so, being attached to following realms (following realms) is in vain, or following realms should exist without a cause. If one says that the past is an indirect cause (indirect cause), this is a false statement, with absolutely no practical meaning, how can the past, which has no substance at all, be established as an indirect cause. Wise people should observe these blind partisans, regarding things without substance...
法。倒執為因。有體法中。撥無因義。若謂因過去非過去是因。是則未來亦應同此。如過去法體非有故。非展轉因。未來亦應體非有故。非展轉果。又展轉者是相續言。不應此法。即續於此。既無去來。唯有現在。故應決定無展轉因。然彼所說。又應求彼二種異因。由彼二因。二俱起者。此我已許。謂我許心心所等法。皆由前生自類因起。及由俱起異類因生。汝復于中何勞徴難。是故上座。都無有因能證定無俱生因義。又彼所說。唯一剎那。有所依性。及諸行法。有俱生因。皆難可了。此非理說。雖難可了。而義非無。如所依性。謂所依性。一剎那中。雖難可了。而心心所。非無所依剎那眼等。又諸業果。一剎那頃。雖難可了。感起非無。此俱生因。亦應如是。然後具壽。諸所發言。皆非善說。違教理故。由此決定有俱生因。故俱有因理極成立。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之八
如是已辯俱有因相。第三同類因相云何。頌曰。
同類因相似 自部地前生 道展轉九地 唯等勝為果 加行生亦然 聞思所成等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法，反而錯誤地執著它為原因。在有實體的法中，否定原因的意義。如果說過去或非過去是原因，那麼未來也應該如此。如同過去的法體不是實有，所以不是輾轉相生的原因；未來也應該因為體不是實有，所以不是輾轉相生的結果。而且，輾轉的意思是相續不斷，不應該是這個法直接延續于這個法。既然沒有過去和未來，只有現在，所以應該確定沒有輾轉相生的原因。然而他們所說的，又應該尋求那兩種不同的原因，由那兩種原因，兩種都生起，這一點我已經允許了。就是我允許心和心所等法，都是由前一生同類的因生起，以及由同時生起的不同類的因生起。你又在其中費力地詰難什麼呢？所以上座，根本沒有原因能夠證明確定沒有俱生因的意義。而且他們所說的，唯一剎那，有所依的自性，以及各種行法，有俱生因，都難以理解。這不是合理的說法。雖然難以理解，但道理並非沒有。比如所依的自性，在一個剎那中，雖然難以理解，但心和心所，並非沒有所依的剎那眼等。又比如各種業的果報，在一個剎那頃，雖然難以理解，但感生髮起並非沒有。這俱生因，也應該像這樣。然後具壽（Bhante，對有德長老的尊稱），你們所說的，都不是正確的說法，因為違背了教義和道理。由此可以確定有俱生因，所以俱有因的道理非常成立。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之八
像這樣已經辨析了俱有因的相狀，第三種同類因的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
同類因相似 自部地前生 道展轉九地 唯等勝為果 加行生亦然 聞思所成等
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma, is instead wrongly clung to as a cause. Within the Dharma that has substance, the meaning of cause is denied. If it is said that the past or non-past is a cause, then the future should also be the same. Just as the substance of the past Dharma is not real, therefore it is not a cause of continuous arising; the future should also, because its substance is not real, not be a result of continuous arising. Moreover, 'continuous' means uninterrupted succession; it should not be that this Dharma directly continues from this Dharma. Since there is no past and future, only the present, it should be determined that there is no cause of continuous arising. However, what they say is that one should seek those two different causes, and that both arise from those two causes, which I have already allowed. That is, I allow that mental events (citta) and mental factors (cetasika), etc., all arise from the cause of the same kind in the previous life, and from the cause of a different kind that arises simultaneously. What are you laboriously questioning in this? Therefore, Venerable Sirs (上座, elder monks), there is no cause that can prove that there is definitely no co-existent cause. Moreover, what they say, that only a single moment (剎那, ksana) has the nature of being relied upon, and that all conditioned dharmas (行法, samskrta-dharma) have co-existent causes, is difficult to understand. This is not a reasonable statement. Although it is difficult to understand, the principle is not without reason. For example, the nature of being relied upon, in a single moment, although difficult to understand, mental events and mental factors are not without the momentary eyes, etc., that they rely upon. And for example, the results of various karmas, in a single moment, although difficult to understand, the arising of the effect is not without. This co-existent cause should also be like this. Then, Venerable Sirs (具壽, Bhante, an honorific for virtuous elders), what you say is not correct, because it contradicts the teachings and principles. From this, it can be determined that there is a co-existent cause, so the principle of co-existing cause is extremely established.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 15 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma Nyayanusara Sastra
Abhidharma Nyayanusara Sastra, Volume 16
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra (眾賢)
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘) under Imperial Decree
Chapter Two, Section Eight: Discrimination of Differences
Having thus discussed the characteristics of the co-existent cause, what are the characteristics of the third, the homogenous cause? The verse says:
Homogenous cause is similar, arising from the previous existence in its own category and realm. The path transforms through the nine realms, with only equal or superior as the result. Arising from effort is also like this, such as that attained through hearing and contemplation.
論曰。能養能生或遠或近諸等流果。名同類因。應知此因。唯相似法。于相似法。非於異類。如善五蘊與善五蘊展轉相望。為同類因。染污無記。應知亦爾。有餘師說。凈無記蘊。五是色果。四非色因。性下劣故。有餘師說。五是四果。色非四因。勢力劣故。有餘師說。色與四蘊。相望展轉。皆不為因。劣異類故。若就位說。有餘師言。羯賴藍位。能與十位為同類因。頞部曇等九位。一一皆除前位。與余為因。后位望前。但有緣義。若爾最初羯賴藍色。應無有因。最後老色。應無有果。故理不然。復有師言。前生十位。一一皆與後生十位。各自類色為同類因。由此方隅。一切外分。各于自類。如應當說。譬喻者說。諸色決定無同類因。但由眾緣和合資助。而得生長。現從井下掘出泥中。有芽生故。非於地下曾有種生。芽從何起。故知色法無同類因。彼執違害本論所說。故本論言。過去大種。未來大種。因增上等。彼言我說於此無違。由增上緣有近有遠。如次說為因增上故。無方逃難矯設此言。雖似順文。而實違理。又非許色有同類因。于理于文。有所違害。然從井下掘出泥中。有芽生者。彼先有種。闕和合緣。未生芽等。今緣和合。牙等乃生。若彼泥中。無同類因。而得生者。應生一切。或全不生。無定因故。為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論中說，能夠滋養和產生，無論是遠還是近的等流果（nisyanda-phala，相似的結果），被稱為同類因（sabhāga-hetu，同類因）。應當知道，這種因只存在於相似的法（dharma，事物、現象）之間，而不是在不同的類別之間。例如，善的五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素）與善的五蘊相互之間，互為同類因。染污（kliṣṭa，煩惱）和無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡）的法，也應當知道是這樣。 有其他論師說，清凈的無記蘊中，五種是色的果，四種不是色的因，因為它們的性質低劣。還有論師說，五種是四種的果，色不是四種的因，因為它的勢力弱。還有論師說，色與四蘊相互之間，都不互為因，因為它們是低劣且不同的類別。 如果就階段（avasthā）來說，有論師說，羯賴藍位（kalala，受精卵最初的凝結狀態）能夠與十個階段互為同類因。頞部曇（arbuda，受精卵稍後的狀態）等九個階段，每一個都排除前一個階段，與其餘的階段互為因。後面的階段對於前面的階段，只有緣（pratyaya，條件）的意義。如果這樣，那麼最初的羯賴藍色的受精卵，應該沒有因；最後的衰老之色，應該沒有果。所以這個道理是不成立的。 又有論師說，前生的十個階段，每一個都與後生的十個階段，各自的同類色互為同類因。由此，一切外在的部分，各自在自己的類別中，應當像這樣說。譬喻者（Darṣṭāntika，舉例說明者）說，諸色（rūpa，物質現象）決定沒有同類因，只是由於眾多因緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）的和合資助，才得以生長。現在從井下掘出的泥土中，有芽生長，這並不是因為在地下曾經有種子生長，那麼芽是從哪裡產生的呢？所以知道色法沒有同類因。他們的執著違背了本論所說。所以本論說，過去的大種（mahābhūta，構成物質世界的四大元素），未來的大種，因增上等。他們說，我說的話與此沒有違背，由於增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，增上緣）有近有遠，依次說為因增上，所以沒有逃避困難而虛假地設立這個說法。雖然表面上順應了經文，但實際上違背了道理。又不是承認色有同類因，在道理和經文上，都有所違背。 然而，從井下掘出的泥土中，有芽生長，是因為那裡先前有種子，缺少和合的緣，沒有生出芽等，現在因緣和合，芽等才得以生長。如果那泥土中，沒有同類因，而能夠生長，那麼應該生出一切，或者完全不生，因為沒有確定的原因。
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise states that what can nourish and produce, whether near or far, similar results (nisyanda-phala), is called a homogenous cause (sabhāga-hetu). It should be understood that this cause exists only between similar dharmas (things, phenomena), not between different categories. For example, wholesome five aggregates (pañca-skandha, the five elements that constitute an individual) mutually serve as homogenous causes for each other. It should also be understood that defiled (kliṣṭa) and neutral (avyākṛta) dharmas are the same. Some other teachers say that among the pure neutral aggregates, five are the result of form, and four are not the cause of form because their nature is inferior. Still other teachers say that five are the result of four, and form is not the cause of four because its power is weak. Yet other teachers say that form and the four aggregates do not mutually serve as causes for each other because they are inferior and different categories. If speaking in terms of stages (avasthā), some teachers say that the kalala stage (the initial coagulation state of a fertilized egg) can mutually serve as a homogenous cause with ten stages. The nine stages such as arbuda (a later state of a fertilized egg), each excluding the preceding stage, serve as causes for the remaining stages. The later stages have only the meaning of condition (pratyaya) in relation to the preceding stages. If so, then the initial kalala form should have no cause; the final senescent form should have no result. Therefore, this reasoning is not valid. Again, some teachers say that each of the ten stages of the previous life mutually serves as a homogenous cause with the corresponding form of the ten stages of the subsequent life. From this, all external parts, each in its own category, should be spoken of in this way. The exemplifiers (Darṣṭāntika) say that forms (rūpa, material phenomena) definitely have no homogenous cause, but only grow due to the combined assistance of numerous causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya). Now, sprouts grow from the soil dug out from under a well, which is not because seeds had ever grown underground. So where do the sprouts come from? Therefore, it is known that form-dharmas have no homogenous cause. Their adherence contradicts what is stated in this treatise. Therefore, this treatise states that past great elements (mahābhūta, the four elements that constitute the material world), future great elements, cause-augmentation, etc. They say that what I say does not contradict this, because the augmenting condition (adhipati-pratyaya) is near or far, and is successively said to be the cause-augmentation, so there is no false establishment of this statement to escape difficulties. Although it superficially conforms to the text, it actually violates the principle. Moreover, it does not admit that form has a homogenous cause, which violates both principle and text. However, sprouts grow from the soil dug out from under a well because there were seeds there previously, lacking the combined conditions, and sprouts, etc., did not grow. Now, the causes and conditions are combined, and sprouts, etc., grow. If there is no homogenous cause in that soil, and it can grow, then everything should grow, or nothing should grow at all, because there is no definite cause.
諸相似於相似法。皆可得說為同類因。不爾云何自部自地。唯與自部自地為因。是故說言自部自地。部謂五部。謂見苦所斷。乃至修所斷。地謂九地。謂欲界為一。靜慮無色八。此中欲界見苦所斷。還與欲界見苦所斷。為同類因。如是乃至。欲界修所斷。還與欲界修所斷為因。如說欲界五部所斷。靜慮無色。各四地中。隨其所應。皆如是說。此為一切。不爾前生。謂唯前生。與后相似。生未生法。為同類因。是謂圓滿同類因相。唯說前生與後生果為同類因。于義便闕。不說與未生為同類因故。唯說過去與未來現在為同類因等。于義亦闕。不說過去有因果故。若如前說。通攝本論所說前生與後生法。及說過去為現未因。現在但為未來因義。未來何故無同類因。彼無前後次第義故。豈不諸法于正生時已能蠲除一切障礙。望未生者得說為前。又異熟因。于未來世。亦應非有由異熟果。望異熟因無前後故。要依前後立同類因。非正生時已越后位。未有作用。如余未來。過去唯前。未來唯后。現通前後。約世定故。過去諸法。雖皆是前。而取果時。已定前後。非未來法于正生時作用別余可立前後。要至現在已生位中。方簡未來。令成后位。以已作用。取彼為果。若爾異熟因亦勿未來有。此彼非類。所以者何。此同類因與等流果。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 凡是相似於相似法的，都可以被認為是同類因（hetu）。否則，如何解釋自部（svabhāga）自地（svabhūmi）的事物，僅僅與其自身所屬的部和地的事物互為因呢？因此說『自部自地』。部指的是五部，即見苦所斷（darśana-heya）、見集所斷（darśana-heya）、見滅所斷（darśana-heya）、見道所斷（darśana-heya）和修所斷（bhāvanā-heya）。地指的是九地，即欲界（kāma-dhātu）為一，靜慮（dhyāna）和無色界（ārūpya-dhātu）共八。這裡，欲界見苦所斷的事物，仍然與欲界見苦所斷的事物互為同類因。像這樣，乃至欲界修所斷的事物，仍然與欲界修所斷的事物互為因。正如所說的欲界五部所斷的事物，靜慮和無色界的各個四地中，根據其相應的，都可以這樣說。這涵蓋了一切情況。否則，如果說前生（pūrva-bhava）僅僅與後生（apara-bhava）相似的已生（jāta）和未生（ajāta）法互為同類因，那麼同類因的相狀就不圓滿了。僅僅說前生與後生果為同類因，在意義上就有所缺失，因為沒有說與未生法互為同類因。僅僅說過去（atīta）與未來（anāgata）和現在（pratyutpanna）互為同類因等等，在意義上也有所缺失，因為沒有說過去有因果。如果像前面所說的那樣，就能夠全面涵蓋本論所說的前生與後生法，以及說過去為現在和未來的因，現在僅僅為未來的因的意義。未來為什麼沒有同類因呢？因為它沒有前後次第的意義。難道不是諸法在正生的時候，就已經能夠消除一切障礙了嗎？對於未生的法來說，可以被認為是『前』。此外，異熟因（vipāka-hetu）在未來世也應該不存在，因為異熟果（vipāka-phala）相對於異熟因來說，沒有前後關係。同類因的成立要依賴於前後關係，而不是正生的時候就已經超越了後面的位置，還沒有作用，就像其餘的未來法一樣。過去僅僅是『前』，未來僅僅是『后』，現在貫通前後，這是根據世（adhvan）的確定性來決定的。過去的諸法，雖然都是『前』，但是在取果的時候，已經確定了前後關係。未來的法在正生的時候，作用沒有區別于其他，無法建立前後關係。要到現在的已生位中，才能區分未來，使其成為『后』位，因為已經有了作用，所以取它作為果。如果這樣，那麼異熟因也不應該存在於未來。這二者不是同一類。為什麼呢？因為這個同類因與等流果（nisyanda-phala）。
【English Translation】 English version All similarities to the law of similarity can be said to be homogeneous causes (hetu). Otherwise, how can it be explained that the self-category (svabhāga) and self-ground (svabhūmi) are only causes for their own category and ground? Therefore, it is said 'self-category and self-ground.' 'Category' refers to the five categories: what is abandoned by seeing suffering (darśana-heya), what is abandoned by seeing origination (darśana-heya), what is abandoned by seeing cessation (darśana-heya), what is abandoned by seeing the path (darśana-heya), and what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya). 'Ground' refers to the nine grounds: the desire realm (kāma-dhātu) as one, and the form and formless realms (dhyāna and ārūpya-dhātu) as eight. Here, what is abandoned by seeing suffering in the desire realm is still a homogeneous cause for what is abandoned by seeing suffering in the desire realm. Likewise, even what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm is still a cause for what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. As it is said, what is abandoned by the five categories in the desire realm, and in each of the four grounds of the form and formless realms, according to their corresponding, can all be said in this way. This covers all situations. Otherwise, if it is said that the previous life (pūrva-bhava) is only a homogeneous cause for the similar born (jāta) and unborn (ajāta) dharmas of the subsequent life (apara-bhava), then the characteristic of the homogeneous cause is not complete. Merely saying that the previous life is a homogeneous cause for the subsequent life's result is deficient in meaning, because it does not say that it is a homogeneous cause for the unborn dharma. Merely saying that the past (atīta) is a homogeneous cause for the future (anāgata) and present (pratyutpanna), etc., is also deficient in meaning, because it does not say that the past has cause and effect. If it is as said before, then it can comprehensively cover the previous and subsequent life dharmas mentioned in this treatise, as well as the meaning of saying that the past is the cause for the present and future, and the present is only the cause for the future. Why does the future not have a homogeneous cause? Because it does not have the meaning of sequential order. Is it not that when dharmas are being born, they are already able to eliminate all obstacles? For the unborn dharma, it can be considered 'previous.' Furthermore, the ripening cause (vipāka-hetu) should also not exist in the future, because the ripening result (vipāka-phala) does not have a sequential relationship with the ripening cause. The establishment of the homogeneous cause depends on the sequential relationship, and not that at the time of being born, it has already surpassed the later position and has not yet functioned, like the rest of the future dharmas. The past is only 'previous,' the future is only 'subsequent,' and the present connects both previous and subsequent, which is determined according to the certainty of time (adhvan). Although all past dharmas are 'previous,' when taking the result, the sequential relationship has already been determined. The function of future dharmas at the time of being born is not different from others, and a sequential relationship cannot be established. It is only in the present born position that the future can be distinguished, making it the 'subsequent' position, because it has already functioned, so it is taken as the result. If so, then the ripening cause should also not exist in the future. These two are not the same category. Why? Because this homogeneous cause is related to the outflow result (nisyanda-phala).
善等無別。若無先後應互為因。既互為因應互為果。互為因果。與理相違。既無理能遮互為果。則應許有果在因先。亦有二心互為因義。是則違害發智論文。彼異熟因。與果相別。雖離前後。而無上過。故同類因。就位建立。未來非有。若異熟因。就相建立。未來非無。若同類因。未來非有。豈不因義今有本無。許故無失。約位非體。由和合作用位。果非體果。和合作用。是法差別因緣和合。法行異位。法行異位。非離體成。然異位行。亦非即體。如是異位。從異位生。同類果因。名為異位。故和合作用位。果非體果。理雖無過。文而有違。如本論說。若法與彼法為因。無時此法非彼因。豈不過現與彼為因未來非因。便違此說。無違此過。此依俱有相應異熟。通三世因。密意說故。有餘師釋。雖此通依六因作論。而無有失。未來既無同類遍行。如何可說無時非因。未來雖無。而此意說能為因后無時非因。又此未來亦定應有。謂有為法于正生時。定能為因。殄諸障故。依此密說無時非因。然經主言。彼非善釋。以未來法正生位前非同類因後方成故。如是過難。前已釋通。謂非未來有前後故。就三世說無時非因。意顯更無第四時故。若爾等無間應同此說。然本論不許。故本論言。若時此法。未至已生。非等無間。無斯過失
。所以者何。等無間緣。據開避力。非正生位。有開避能。要已生時。有開避力。若至已滅。名已開避。同類因者。如種子法。于正生位。住種法中。至已生時。正能取果。故因非類等無間緣。有餘師釋。次正生后。此同類因。定取自果。等無間緣。則非決定。有已滅位。方取自果。故不可依正生時說。毗婆沙釋。為現二門。如彼處說。此亦應爾如此處說。彼亦應爾。然經主說。如是作文。獲何功德。唯顯論主非善於文。無斯過失。轉彰論主于文巧故。謂能顯示諸所作文有有餘意有無餘意。何須顯示有餘意文。有餘意文。處處有故。於何處有。次後當辯。如是善通發智論說。品類足論當云何通。如彼論言。或有苦諦。以有身見為因。非與有身見為因。除未來有身見及彼相應苦諦。諸餘染污苦諦。或有苦諦。以有身見為因。亦與有身見為因。即所除法。是誦者失。文無此言。彼論但言除未來有身見相應苦諦。無及彼言。設有如是言。準義應知謬。施設足論當云何通。彼說諸法四事決定。所謂因果所依所緣。應知彼文因者。謂能作俱有相應異熟因。果者謂增上士用異熟果。所依者謂眼等六根。所緣者謂色等六境。又品類足論當云何通。如說云何非心為因法。謂彼已入正性離生補特伽羅初無漏心。及余異生決定當入正性離生
【現代漢語翻譯】 所以是什麼原因呢？因為'等無間緣'（Samanantarapratyaya，等無間緣）具有開闢阻礙的力量。這種力量並非在事物正在產生的階段（正生位）就存在，而是在事物已經產生時才具備。如果事物已經滅盡，則稱為'已開避'。'同類因'（Sabhagahetu，同類因），例如種子，在正在產生的階段（正生位）處於種子狀態（住種法中），直到已經產生時，才能真正產生結果。因此，'因'不是與'等無間緣'同類的。有些論師解釋說，在事物正在產生之後，這種'同類因'必定產生其自身的結果，而'等無間緣'則不一定。有些事物在已經滅盡之後，才產生其自身的結果，因此不能依據正在產生的階段來解釋。'毗婆沙'的解釋是爲了展現兩種途徑（現二門），正如彼處所說，此處也應如此，正如此處所說，彼處也應如此。然而，經主說，像這樣寫作，能獲得什麼功德呢？只是爲了顯示論主不擅長寫作，沒有這樣的過失，從而更加彰顯論主在寫作上的巧妙，即能夠顯示所寫的文章有'有餘意'和'無餘意'。為什麼需要顯示'有餘意'的文章呢？因為'有餘意'的文章到處都是。在什麼地方有呢？接下來將會辯論。像這樣，如果不能通達《發智論》的說法，那麼《品類足論》又該如何理解呢？正如該論所說：'或者有苦諦，以有身見為因，而非與有身見為因'，這是指除了未來的有身見以及與它相應的苦諦之外，其餘的染污苦諦。'或者有苦諦，以有身見為因，也與有身見為因'，指的就是所排除的法。這是誦讀者的錯誤，原文中沒有這樣的話。該論只是說，除了未來的有身見相應的苦諦，沒有'及彼'這樣的說法。即使有這樣的說法，按照意義也應該知道是錯誤的。那麼，《施設足論》又該如何理解呢？該論說諸法由四事決定，即因、果、所依、所緣。應該知道，該文中的'因'指的是能作因、俱有因、相應因和異熟因。'果'指的是增上士用和異熟果。'所依'指的是眼等六根。'所緣'指的是色等六境。那麼，《品類足論》又該如何理解呢？例如，該論說，什麼是非心為因的法？指的是那些已經進入'正性離生'（正性離生）的補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅）最初的無漏心，以及其餘異生決定將要進入'正性離生'的法。
【English Translation】 What is the reason for this? It is because 'Samanantarapratyaya' (等無間緣, immediately preceding condition) possesses the power to open and avoid obstacles. This power does not exist in the stage of something being produced (正生位, the stage of actual arising), but only when it has already arisen. If something has already ceased, it is called 'already opened and avoided' (已開避). 'Sabhagahetu' (同類因, cause of the same kind), such as a seed, in the stage of being produced (正生位) is in the state of a seed (住種法中, abiding in the seed state), and only when it has already arisen can it truly produce a result. Therefore, 'cause' is not of the same kind as 'Samanantarapratyaya'. Some teachers explain that after something is being produced, this 'cause of the same kind' will definitely produce its own result, while 'Samanantarapratyaya' is not necessarily so. Some things produce their own results only after they have ceased, so it cannot be explained based on the stage of being produced. The explanation of the 'Vibhasa' (毗婆沙) is to show two paths (現二門), just as it is said there, it should be the same here, just as it is said here, it should be the same there. However, the Sutra Master says, what merit can be obtained by writing like this? It is only to show that the Treatise Master is not good at writing and does not have such faults, thus further highlighting the Treatise Master's skill in writing, that is, being able to show that the written articles have 'with remainder meaning' (有餘意) and 'without remainder meaning' (無餘意). Why is it necessary to show articles with 'with remainder meaning'? Because articles with 'with remainder meaning' are everywhere. Where are they? It will be debated next. Like this, if one cannot understand the explanation of the 'Jnanaprasthana' (發智論), then how should the 'Sangitiparyaya' (品類足論) be understood? As the treatise says: 'Or there is suffering truth (苦諦), with the view of self (有身見) as the cause, but not with the view of self as the cause', this refers to the remaining defiled suffering truths except for the future view of self and the suffering truths corresponding to it. 'Or there is suffering truth, with the view of self as the cause, and also with the view of self as the cause', this refers to the excluded dharma. This is the mistake of the reciter, there are no such words in the original text. The treatise only says that except for the suffering truths corresponding to the future view of self, there is no 'and them' (及彼) statement. Even if there is such a statement, according to the meaning, it should be known that it is wrong. Then, how should the 'Dharmaskandha' (施設足論) be understood? The treatise says that all dharmas are determined by four things, namely cause, effect, support, and object. It should be known that the 'cause' in this text refers to the efficient cause, co-existent cause, associated cause, and resultant cause. 'Effect' refers to the superior man's use and the resultant effect. 'Support' refers to the six roots such as the eye. 'Object' refers to the six objects such as form. Then, how should the 'Sangitiparyaya' (品類足論) be understood? For example, the treatise says, what is the dharma that is not caused by mind? It refers to the initial uncontaminated mind of those 'Pudgalas' (補特伽羅, individuals) who have entered 'Samyaktva-niyata' (正性離生, the fixed course of righteousness), and the dharmas of other ordinary beings who are destined to enter 'Samyaktva-niyata'.
初無漏心。然彼異生未來所有諸無漏心。皆非心為因。何故唯說彼初無漏心。有作是釋。彼文不辯同類因義。何者唯辯二種異生。謂有般涅槃法。及無般涅槃法。文雖不舉無涅槃法。義準理門顯示知有。謂彼既說。有餘異生決定當入正性離生。由此義準亦有異生決定不入正性離生。有餘師釋。彼文亦辯同類因義。然彼唯說。若心畢竟非心為因。雖彼未入正性離生者。諸無漏心。皆非心為因。然彼若入正性離生。唯有初無漏心。是非心為因法。余心無不以心為因。識身足論。當云何通。如彼論言。於過去染污眼識所有隨眠。彼於此心。或能為因。非所隨增。或所隨增。不能為因。或能為因。亦所隨增。或不能為因。亦非所隨增。且能為因非所隨增者。謂諸隨眠在此心前同類遍行。即彼隨眠。若不緣此。設緣已斷及此相應隨眠已斷。為所隨增不能為因者。謂諸隨眠。在此心后同類遍行。即彼隨眠。緣此未斷。能為其因。亦所隨增者。謂諸隨眠。在此心前同類遍行。即彼隨眠。緣此未斷及此相應隨眠未斷。不能為因亦非所隨增者。謂諸隨眠。在此心后同類遍行。即彼隨眠。若不緣此。設緣已斷。若所餘緣。若他隨眠。若不同界遍行隨眠。如彼過去染污眼識。未來染污眼識亦爾。過去四句其理可然。未來如何可立四句。有作是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 最初沒有無漏心（Anāsrava-citta）。然而，那些異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）未來所有的無漏心，都不是以心為因。為什麼只說最初的無漏心呢？ 有一種解釋是，那段經文沒有辨析同類因的意義。那段經文只是辨析兩種異生，即有般涅槃法（parinirvāṇa-dharma，有入涅槃之法）和沒有般涅槃法。經文雖然沒有提到沒有涅槃法，但根據義理可以推知有這種異生。也就是說，既然經文說，有些異生必定會進入正性離生（niyāma-avakrānti，確定證入聖道），由此可以推知，也有異生必定不會進入正性離生。 有其他論師解釋說，那段經文也辨析了同類因的意義。然而，經文只是說，如果某個心畢竟不是以心為因，即使那些尚未進入正性離生者的無漏心，都不是以心為因。但是，如果他們進入了正性離生，只有最初的無漏心不是以心為因的法，其餘的心沒有不是以心為因的。 《識身足論》（Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra）應該如何解釋呢？正如該論所說：對於過去染污的眼識（cakṣur-vijñāna）所具有的隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式），它對於這個心，或者能為因，而非所隨增；或者所隨增，不能為因；或者能為因，也所隨增；或者不能為因，也非所隨增。 能為因而非所隨增，指的是那些隨眠在這個心之前同類遍行（sabhāga-anuvṛtti，同類相續）。也就是那些隨眠，如果不緣此心，或者緣此心后已經斷除，以及與此心相應的隨眠已經斷除。 所隨增而不能為因，指的是那些隨眠在這個心之後同類遍行。也就是那些隨眠，緣此心而未斷除。 能為因也所隨增，指的是那些隨眠在這個心之前同類遍行。也就是那些隨眠，緣此心而未斷除，以及與此心相應的隨眠未斷除。 不能為因也非所隨增，指的是那些隨眠在這個心之後同類遍行。也就是那些隨眠，如果不緣此心，或者緣此心后已經斷除，或者所緣是其他的，或者其他的隨眠，或者不同界的遍行隨眠。 正如過去的染污眼識，未來的染污眼識也是如此。過去的四句道理還說得通，未來如何能成立四句呢？有人這樣解釋說：
【English Translation】 English version Initially, there is no Anāsrava-citta (undefiled mind). However, all future Anāsrava-cittas of those Pṛthagjanas (ordinary beings) are not caused by mind. Why is it only said about the initial Anāsrava-citta? One explanation is that the passage does not discuss the meaning of homogeneous cause. That passage only distinguishes between two types of Pṛthagjanas: those who have parinirvāṇa-dharma (the quality of entering Nirvana) and those who do not have parinirvāṇa-dharma. Although the passage does not mention those without Nirvana-dharma, it can be inferred from the meaning that such Pṛthagjanas exist. That is, since the passage says that some Pṛthagjanas will definitely enter niyāma-avakrānti (the stage of assured progress towards enlightenment), it can be inferred that there are also Pṛthagjanas who will definitely not enter niyāma-avakrānti. Other teachers explain that the passage also discusses the meaning of homogeneous cause. However, the passage only says that if a mind is definitely not caused by mind, even the Anāsrava-cittas of those who have not yet entered niyāma-avakrānti are not caused by mind. But if they enter niyāma-avakrānti, only the initial Anāsrava-citta is a dharma that is not caused by mind; the remaining minds are all caused by mind. How should the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra (Treatise on the Body of Consciousness) be interpreted? As the treatise says: Regarding the anuśaya (latent tendencies of defilements) possessed by past defiled cakṣur-vijñāna (eye-consciousness), it is either a cause for this mind but not increased accordingly, or increased accordingly but not a cause, or both a cause and increased accordingly, or neither a cause nor increased accordingly. Being a cause but not increased accordingly refers to those anuśayas that are sabhāga-anuvṛtti (homogeneous continuation) before this mind. That is, those anuśayas, if they do not cognize this mind, or if they have been severed after cognizing this mind, and the anuśayas corresponding to this mind have been severed. Increased accordingly but not being a cause refers to those anuśayas that are sabhāga-anuvṛtti after this mind. That is, those anuśayas that cognize this mind but have not been severed. Being both a cause and increased accordingly refers to those anuśayas that are sabhāga-anuvṛtti before this mind. That is, those anuśayas that cognize this mind but have not been severed, and the anuśayas corresponding to this mind have not been severed. Neither being a cause nor increased accordingly refers to those anuśayas that are sabhāga-anuvṛtti after this mind. That is, those anuśayas, if they do not cognize this mind, or if they have been severed after cognizing this mind, or if the object is something else, or other anuśayas, or sabhāga-anuvṛtti of a different realm. Just as with past defiled eye-consciousness, so it is with future defiled eye-consciousness. The reasoning for the four categories in the past is understandable, but how can the four categories be established in the future? Some explain it this way:
釋。彼于未來應立三句。除所隨增不能為因。彼無後故。然說未來如過去者。顯正生時。必入現在。望余未起。可立為前。對此可說餘名后故。有餘師釋。此說未來亦有四句。不言未來有在心后同於過去。謂有同類遍行隨眠在未來世。于彼未來染污眼識。緣而未斷。是所隨增不為因故。言同類因唯自地者。定依何說。定依有漏。若無漏道。展轉相望。一一皆與九地為因。謂四靜慮及三無色未至中間。是名九地。余無等引。非猛利故。皆不能發。無漏聖道。九地道諦。展轉為因。所以者何。此非系地故。非諸地愛執為已有故。由是道諦。雖地不同。展轉為因。同種類故。然非一切為一切因。與誰為因。謂等勝果。加行生故。非為劣因。初定聖道。有依初定。乃至有依無所有處二定等道應知亦爾。于依自上有。于依下地無。謂依初定初定聖道。與依九定九地聖道為同類因。即此唯用依初定道為同類因。不用依上聖道為因。以性劣故。依第二定初定聖道。除依初定。與依余定九地聖道。為同類因。即此唯用依初二定九地聖道。為同類因。非依上地依第三定。初定聖道。除依初二。與依余定九地聖道。為同類因。即此唯用依初二三九地聖道。為同類因。非依上地。乃至若依無所有處初定聖道。唯與依此無所有處九地聖道。為同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 解釋：對於未來，應該建立三種陳述。除了伴隨增長的，不能作為原因，因為它沒有後續。然而，說未來像過去一樣，是爲了表明在正確產生時，必然進入現在。考慮到其餘的尚未發生，可以將其設立為『前』。對於此，可以說其餘的名為『后』。 有其他老師解釋說，這裡說未來也有四種陳述。沒有說未來在心中之後，與過去相同。意思是說，有同類的普遍存在的隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）在未來世，對於那個未來的染污眼識，緣取而未斷，因此是伴隨增長的，不作為原因。說同類因只在自地（自己的境界）的原因是什麼呢？這一定是依據有漏（具有煩惱）來說的。如果無漏道（沒有煩惱的道路），相互之間，每一個都與九地（九種禪定境界）作為原因。這九地指的是四靜慮（四種禪定）以及三無色（三種無色界禪定），未至定（未到地定）和中間定（中間禪定）。其餘的沒有等引（專注），因為不夠強烈，都不能引發無漏聖道（沒有煩惱的聖者之道）。 九地道諦（九種禪定境界的真諦）相互之間作為原因。為什麼呢？因為這些不是繫縛之地，不是各個地對愛的執著作為自己的。因此，道諦雖然地不同，相互之間作為原因，因為是同種類。然而，不是一切作為一切的原因。與誰作為原因呢？與相等或更勝的結果，因為是加行（努力修行）所生。不是作為較差的原因。初禪的聖道，有依靠初禪的；乃至有依靠無所有處（Akincanyayatana，無所有處定）的，二禪等道，應該知道也是這樣。對於依靠自己之上的有，對於依靠下地的沒有。意思是說，依靠初禪的初禪聖道，與依靠九定（九種禪定）的九地聖道作為同類因。這個僅僅使用依靠初禪的道作為同類因，不使用依靠上面的聖道作為原因，因為性質較差。依靠第二禪的初禪聖道，除了依靠初禪的，與依靠其餘定的九地聖道作為同類因。這個僅僅使用依靠初禪和二禪的九地聖道作為同類因，不是依靠上地。依靠第三禪的初禪聖道，除了依靠初禪和二禪的，與依靠其餘定的九地聖道作為同類因。這個僅僅使用依靠初禪、二禪和三禪的九地聖道作為同類因，不是依靠上地。乃至如果依靠無所有處的初禪聖道，僅僅與依靠這個無所有處的九地聖道作為同類因。
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: Regarding the future, three statements should be established. Except for what increases along with it, it cannot be a cause, because it has no subsequent. However, saying that the future is like the past is to show that when it is correctly produced, it necessarily enters the present. Considering that the rest has not yet arisen, it can be established as 'before'. Regarding this, it can be said that the rest is named 'after'. Some other teachers explain that this says that the future also has four statements. It does not say that the future is the same as the past after being in the mind. It means that there are similar, universally present Anusaya (latent tendencies of afflictions) in the future world. For that future defiled eye consciousness, it is conditioned and not yet severed, therefore it increases along with it and is not a cause. What is the reason for saying that the cause of the same kind is only in its own ground (its own realm)? This must be based on the conditioned (having afflictions). If the unconditioned path (path without afflictions), mutually, each is a cause with the nine grounds (nine levels of meditative absorption). These nine grounds refer to the four Dhyanas (four meditative absorptions) and the three Arupadhatus (three formless realms), the Anagamyaphala (stage of non-returning) and the intermediate Dhyana (intermediate absorption). The rest do not have Samadhi (concentration), because they are not strong enough, and cannot initiate the unconditioned noble path (path of the noble ones without afflictions). The nine grounds of the Truth of the Path (nine levels of meditative absorption of the truth of the path) are mutually causes. Why? Because these are not bound grounds, not each ground's attachment to love as its own. Therefore, although the Truth of the Path is in different grounds, they are mutually causes, because they are of the same kind. However, not everything is a cause for everything. With whom is it a cause? With equal or superior results, because it is produced by exertion (diligent practice). It is not a cause for inferior results. The noble path of the first Dhyana, some rely on the first Dhyana; and some rely on the Akincanyayatana (sphere of nothingness), the second Dhyana and other paths, it should be known that it is also like this. For relying on what is above oneself, there is; for relying on the lower ground, there is not. It means that the noble path of the first Dhyana relying on the first Dhyana, and the noble path of the nine grounds relying on the nine Dhyanas are causes of the same kind. This only uses the path relying on the first Dhyana as a cause of the same kind, and does not use the noble path relying on the above as a cause, because its nature is inferior. The noble path of the first Dhyana relying on the second Dhyana, except for relying on the first Dhyana, and the noble path of the nine grounds relying on the remaining Dhyanas are causes of the same kind. This only uses the noble path of the nine grounds relying on the first and second Dhyanas as a cause of the same kind, and does not rely on the upper ground. The noble path of the first Dhyana relying on the third Dhyana, except for relying on the first and second Dhyanas, and the noble path of the nine grounds relying on the remaining Dhyanas are causes of the same kind. This only uses the noble path of the nine grounds relying on the first, second, and third Dhyanas as a cause of the same kind, and does not rely on the upper ground. And so on, if the noble path of the first Dhyana relies on the sphere of nothingness, it is only a cause of the same kind with the noble path of the nine grounds relying on this sphere of nothingness.
類因。即此通用依九地定九地聖道。為同類因。如依九定。初定聖道。余定聖道。依於九地。隨其所應。當廣思擇。又一地攝諸無漏道。亦非一切為一切因。為等勝因。非劣因故。且如已生苦法智忍。還與未來苦法智忍。為同類因。是名為等。又即此忍。復能與后從苦法智至無生智。為同類因。是名為勝。如是廣說。乃至已生諸無生智。唯與等類為同類因。更無勝故。又諸已生見道修道。及無學道。隨其次第。與三二一為同類因。展轉為因。亦不違理。如何後生勝無漏道。能與前生劣無漏道。為同類因而不違理。誰言後生勝為前生劣因。前生鈍根。種性修道。與自相續未來決定不生利根種性見道。為同類因。何理為礙。一切有情。各別相續。法爾安立六種種性。無學望前應知亦爾。然有差別。謂有前生無學聖道。于自相續後生修道為同類因無學退已。于修道中。可有轉生利根義故。若爾應與本論相違。如說已知根與未知當知根為所緣增上。非因非等無間。如是具知根。於二根亦爾。此無相違。有餘意故。如次前說。有餘意文。處處皆有。即是此等。故應顯示有餘意文。今此文中。有何余意。謂依後生如是根性所攝已知根。即望前生如是根性所攝未知根。密作如是言。為所緣增上非因等無間。劣故後生故。此文但說已起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 類因（Sabhāgahetu）。即此通用依九地（Nine grounds）定九地聖道（Noble path）。為同類因。如依九定（Nine concentrations）。初定（First concentration）聖道，余定（Remaining concentrations）聖道。依於九地，隨其所應，當廣思擇。又一地（One ground）攝諸無漏道（Non-outflow path），亦非一切為一切因。為等勝因（Equal and superior cause），非劣因故。且如已生苦法智忍（Kṣāntijñāna of suffering dharma）還與未來苦法智忍，為同類因，是名為等。又即此忍，復能與后從苦法智（Suffering dharma knowledge）至無生智（Anutpādajñāna），為同類因，是名為勝。如是廣說。乃至已生諸無生智，唯與等類為同類因，更無勝故。又諸已生見道（Path of seeing）、修道（Path of cultivation）及無學道（Path of no more learning），隨其次第，與三二一為同類因。展轉為因，亦不違理。如何後生勝無漏道，能與前生劣無漏道，為同類因而不違理？誰言後生勝為前生劣因？前生鈍根（Dull faculties）種性修道，與自相續未來決定不生利根（Sharp faculties）種性見道，為同類因，何理為礙？一切有情（All sentient beings），各別相續，法爾安立六種種性（Six kinds of nature）。無學（Arhat）望前應知亦爾。然有差別，謂有前生無學聖道，于自相續後生修道為同類因，無學退已，于修道中，可有轉生利根義故。若爾應與本論相違。如說已知根（Root of knowledge）與未知當知根（Root of future knowledge）為所緣增上（Ālambana adhipati），非因非等無間（Samanantara）。如是具知根（Root of complete knowledge），於二根亦爾。此無相違，有餘意故。如次前說，有餘意文，處處皆有，即是此等。故應顯示有餘意文。今此文中，有何余意？謂依後生如是根性所攝已知根，即望前生如是根性所攝未知根，密作如是言：為所緣增上非因等無間，劣故後生故。此文但說已起
【English Translation】 English version Sabhāgahetu (Homogeneous cause). That is, this common reliance on the nine grounds (Nine grounds) determines the noble path (Noble path) of the nine grounds. It is a homogeneous cause. For example, relying on the nine concentrations (Nine concentrations), the noble path of the first concentration (First concentration), and the noble path of the remaining concentrations (Remaining concentrations). Relying on the nine grounds, according to what is appropriate, one should broadly contemplate. Furthermore, one ground (One ground) encompasses all non-outflow paths (Non-outflow path), but not everything is the cause of everything. It is an equal and superior cause (Equal and superior cause), not an inferior cause. For example, the already arisen Kṣāntijñāna of suffering dharma (Kṣāntijñāna of suffering dharma) is still a homogeneous cause with the future Kṣāntijñāna of suffering dharma, and this is called equal. Moreover, this same forbearance can also be a homogeneous cause with the subsequent path from suffering dharma knowledge (Suffering dharma knowledge) to Anutpādajñāna (Anutpādajñāna), and this is called superior. Thus, it is broadly explained. Even up to the already arisen Anutpādajñāna, it is only a homogeneous cause with equal types, and there is no further superiority. Furthermore, the already arisen path of seeing (Path of seeing), path of cultivation (Path of cultivation), and path of no more learning (Path of no more learning), in their respective order, are homogeneous causes with three, two, and one. To be causes in turn is also not contrary to reason. How can the later-arisen superior non-outflow path be a homogeneous cause with the earlier-arisen inferior non-outflow path without contradicting reason? Who says that the later-arisen superior is the inferior cause of the earlier-arisen? The earlier-arisen dull faculties (Dull faculties) nature path of cultivation, with its own continuum, will definitely not give rise to the sharp faculties (Sharp faculties) nature path of seeing in the future as a homogeneous cause, what reason is there to obstruct it? All sentient beings (All sentient beings), each with their own continuum, naturally establish six kinds of nature (Six kinds of nature). It should also be known that the Arhat (Arhat) looking back is the same. However, there is a difference, namely, that the earlier-arisen Arhat noble path is a homogeneous cause with the later-arisen path of cultivation in its own continuum. After the Arhat has regressed, in the path of cultivation, there can be a rebirth with sharp faculties. If so, it should contradict the original treatise. As it is said, the root of knowledge (Root of knowledge) and the root of future knowledge (Root of future knowledge) are Ālambana adhipati (Ālambana adhipati), not Samanantara (Samanantara). Likewise, the root of complete knowledge (Root of complete knowledge) is also the same for the two roots. This is not contradictory, because there is a remaining intention. As previously mentioned in order, there are passages with remaining intentions everywhere, and these are just these. Therefore, the passages with remaining intentions should be shown. In this passage, what is the remaining intention? Namely, relying on the later-arisen root of knowledge encompassed by such a nature, that is, looking at the earlier-arisen root of future knowledge encompassed by such a nature, secretly saying: It is Ālambana adhipati, not cause or Samanantara, because it is inferior and later-arisen. This passage only speaks of what has already arisen.
作用依相續轉諸無漏根。如說有用世第一法。若爾有情各別相續。法爾安立三乘菩提。如是亦應聲聞乘道得作獨覺佛乘道因。獨覺乘道作佛道因。無斯過失。性極遠故。若已升陟聲聞道者。無容更生余乘道故。若爾已升隨信行道。隨法行道。無容更生。是則前生隨信行道。與未來世畢竟不生隨法行道。應不為因。亦無此失。諸鈍根道。可有轉成利根道故。謂即由彼隨信行根諸蘊相續。可有轉得屬隨法行蘊相續根。非由已升聲聞乘道諸蘊相續。可有轉得獨覺佛乘蘊相續道。依如是理。故有說言。雖無是處而假分別。若見道中。有出觀者。隨信行道。亦有轉得隨法行根。然無出義。故根差別。與乘不同。由此故言。諸鈍根道。與鈍及利。為同類因。若利根道。唯利道因。如隨信行及信勝解時解脫道隨其次第。與六四二。為同類因。若隨法行及見至非時解脫道。隨其次第。與三二一。為同類因。此亦準前應知不定。諸上地道。為下地因。云何名為或等或勝。由因增長。及由根故。為但聖道唯與等勝為同類因。不爾云何。余世間法加行生者。亦與等勝為因非劣。加行生法其體云何。謂聞所成思所成等。等者等取修所成等因聞思修所生功德。名彼所成。加行生故。唯與等勝為因非劣。如欲界系聞所成法。能與自界聞思所成。為同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 作用是使相應的無漏根相續轉變。例如，就像經中所說的，存在『有用世第一法』。如果這樣，每個有情眾生的相續各不相同，並且法爾（dharma-nature）安立了三乘菩提（菩提：覺悟）。那麼，聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna）的道也應該可以作為獨覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna）和佛乘（Buddhayāna）的道的因，獨覺乘的道也可以作為佛道的因。但實際上並沒有這種過失，因為它們的性質極其遙遠不同。如果已經上升到聲聞道，就沒有可能再產生其他乘的道了。如果這樣，已經上升到隨信行道（Śraddhānusārin）和隨法行道（Dharmānusārin），就沒有可能再產生。那麼，前一生是隨信行道，與未來世畢竟不生隨法行道，應該不能作為因。但也沒有這個過失，因為鈍根的道，可以轉變成利根的道。也就是說，由那些隨信行根的諸蘊相續，可以轉而獲得屬於隨法行蘊的相續根。而不是由已經上升到聲聞乘道的諸蘊相續，可以轉而獲得獨覺佛乘的蘊相續道。依據這樣的道理，所以有人說，雖然沒有這樣的情況，但可以假想分別。如果在見道（Darśanamārga）中，有出觀的人，隨信行道，也有可能轉而獲得隨法行根。然而實際上並沒有出觀的情況，所以根的差別，與乘不同。因此說，鈍根的道，與鈍根和利根，作為同類因。如果是利根的道，僅僅是利根道的因。例如隨信行和信勝解（Śraddhādhimukta）時解脫道（Samayamukta），隨其次第，與六、四、二，作為同類因。如果是隨法行和見至（Dṛṣṭiprāpta）非時解脫道（Asamayamukta），隨其次第，與三、二、一，作為同類因。這個也應該準照前面所說的，是不定的。諸上地道，作為下地道的因，怎麼樣叫做或者相等或者殊勝呢？由於因的增長，以及由於根的緣故。難道僅僅是聖道才與相等或殊勝的道作為同類因嗎？不是這樣的，其餘世間法，通過加行（prayoga）所產生的，也與相等或殊勝的法作為因，而不是劣等的法。加行所產生的法的體性是什麼呢？就是聞所成（śrutamayā）、思所成（cintāmayā）等等。『等』字，是等取修所成（bhāvanāmayā）等等。因為聞、思、修所產生的功德，名為彼等所成，因為是加行所產生的緣故，僅僅與相等或殊勝的法作為因，而不是劣等的法。例如欲界系（Kāmadhātu）的聞所成法，能夠與自界的聞、思所成的法，作為同類因。
【English Translation】 English version The function is to continuously transform the corresponding non-outflow roots. For example, as it is said in the scriptures, there exists the 'Useful World's First Dharma (Laukikāgradharma)'. If this is the case, each sentient being's continuum is different, and the three vehicles of Bodhi (Bodhi: enlightenment) are naturally established. Then, the path of the Śrāvakayāna (Śrāvakayāna: Hearer Vehicle) should also be able to serve as the cause for the paths of the Pratyekabuddhayāna (Pratyekabuddhayāna: Solitary Realizer Vehicle) and the Buddhayāna (Buddhayāna: Buddha Vehicle), and the path of the Pratyekabuddhayāna can also serve as the cause for the Buddha path. But in reality, there is no such fault, because their natures are extremely distant and different. If one has already ascended to the Śrāvaka path, there is no possibility of generating the path of another vehicle. If this is the case, having already ascended to the Śraddhānusārin (Śraddhānusārin: One who follows by faith) and Dharmānusārin (Dharmānusārin: One who follows by Dharma), there is no possibility of further arising. Then, the previous life being the path of Śraddhānusārin, and in the future life, the path of Dharmānusārin will not arise at all, it should not serve as a cause. But there is also no such fault, because the path of dull faculties can be transformed into the path of sharp faculties. That is to say, from the aggregates continuum of those roots of Śraddhānusārin, one can transform and obtain the continuum root belonging to the aggregates of Dharmānusārin. It is not that from the aggregates continuum of those who have already ascended to the Śrāvakayāna path, one can transform and obtain the aggregates continuum path of the Pratyekabuddhayāna and Buddhayāna. According to such a principle, some say that although there is no such situation, one can hypothetically distinguish. If in the Darśanamārga (Darśanamārga: Path of Seeing), there are those who emerge from contemplation, the path of Śraddhānusārin may also transform and obtain the root of Dharmānusārin. However, there is actually no emergence from contemplation, so the difference in roots is different from the vehicles. Therefore, it is said that the path of dull faculties, with dull and sharp faculties, serves as a cause of the same kind. If it is the path of sharp faculties, it is only the cause of the path of sharp faculties. For example, the Samayamukta (Samayamukta: Liberated by time) path of Śraddhānusārin and Śraddhādhimukta (Śraddhādhimukta: Liberated by faith), in their respective order, with six, four, and two, serve as causes of the same kind. If it is the Asamayamukta (Asamayamukta: Liberated not by time) path of Dharmānusārin and Dṛṣṭiprāpta (Dṛṣṭiprāpta: One who has attained insight), in their respective order, with three, two, and one, serve as causes of the same kind. This should also be understood as uncertain, according to what was said earlier. The paths of the higher grounds, as the cause of the paths of the lower grounds, how is it called either equal or superior? Due to the increase of the cause, and due to the roots. Is it only the noble path that serves as a cause of the same kind with paths that are equal or superior? It is not so, other worldly dharmas, produced through prayoga (prayoga: effort), also serve as causes with dharmas that are equal or superior, but not inferior dharmas. What is the nature of the dharmas produced by prayoga? It is śrutamayā (śrutamayā: born of hearing), cintāmayā (cintāmayā: born of thinking), etc. The word 'etc.' includes bhāvanāmayā (bhāvanāmayā: born of meditation), etc. Because the merits produced by hearing, thinking, and meditation are called those produced by them, because they are produced by prayoga, they only serve as causes with dharmas that are equal or superior, but not inferior dharmas. For example, the śrutamayā dharma of the Kāmadhātu (Kāmadhātu: Desire Realm) can serve as a cause of the same kind with the dharmas of hearing and thinking of its own realm.
類因。非修所成因。欲界無故思所成法。與思所成。為同類因。非聞所成因。以彼劣故。若色界系聞所成法。能與自界聞修所成。為同類因。非思所成。因色界無故。修所成法。唯與自界修所成法。為同類因。非聞所成因。以彼劣故。無色界系修所成法。唯與自界修所成法。為同類因。非聞思所成因。以無故劣故。有餘師說。思所成法。與修所成。為同類因。豈不欲界有思所成無修所成。若於色界有修所成無思所成。然世間法。唯與自界。為同類因。前說自部自地為因。依有漏故。如何彼說思為修因。有作是釋。即于欲界。有勝方便所攝善根。雖思所成。而極寂靜。似修慧故。名修所成。思為彼因。說亦無過有餘師釋。得盡智時所修欲界思所成法。是阿羅漢修慧果故。似修慧故。名修所成。思為彼因。說亦無過。此聞思修所成諸法。各有九品。謂下下等。若下下品。為九品因。下中八因。乃至上上。唯上上因。除前劣故。生得善法。與加行善。為同類因。非加行善為生得因。以彼劣故。又生得善。亦有九品。一切相望展轉為因。容一一后皆現前故。有餘師說。定一心中得一切故。然由現行異熟九品。可施設有九品差別。染污九品。準此應知。復由對治有九品故。可施設有九品差別。無覆無記。總有四種。謂異熟生。威
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 類因（Sabhāgahetu，同類因）。非由修習而成的因。因為欲界沒有由思所成的法，所以由思所成的法，與由思所成的法，是同類因。不是由聽聞而成的因，因為聽聞所成的法比較低劣。如果是有系（Sāsrava，有煩惱的）的由聽聞而成的法，能與自身界（Kāmadhātu，欲界）的由聽聞和修習而成的法，作為同類因。不是由思所成的因，因為沒有這種因。由修習而成的法，僅僅與自身界的由修習而成的法，作為同類因。不是由聽聞而成的因，因為聽聞所成的法比較低劣。沒有有系的由修習而成的法，僅僅與自身界的由修習而成的法，作為同類因。不是由聽聞和思所成的因，因為沒有這種因，而且聽聞和思所成的法比較低劣。有其他論師說，由思所成的法，與由修習而成的法，是同類因。難道欲界不是有由思所成的法，而沒有由修習而成的法嗎？如果在色界（Rūpadhātu，色界）有由修習而成的法，而沒有由思所成的法。然而世間法，僅僅與自身界，作為同類因。前面所說自身部（Svabhāga，自身部）自身地（Svabhūmi，自身地）作為因，是因為有漏（Sāsrava，有煩惱的）的緣故。如何他們說思為修的因呢？有人這樣解釋，即使在欲界，有殊勝方便所攝的善根，雖然是由思所成的，但是極其寂靜，類似於修慧的緣故，名為由修習所成。思為這種法的因，這樣說也沒有過失。有其他論師解釋，在獲得盡智（Kṣayajñāna，斷盡煩惱的智慧）時所修的欲界的由思所成的法，是阿羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢）修慧的果，類似於修慧的緣故，名為由修習所成。思為這種法的因，這樣說也沒有過失。這些由聽聞、思、修所成的諸法，各有九品，即下下等。如果是下下品，為九品的因。下中品為八品的因，乃至上上品，僅僅為上上品因。因為排除了前面的低劣品。生得的善法，與加行（Prayoga，通過努力獲得的）善法，作為同類因。不是加行善法為生得善法的因，因為加行善法比較低劣。而且生得善法，也有九品，一切互相望，輾轉為因。容許一一之後都現前。有其他論師說，在定一心中得到一切的緣故。然而由於現行（Prādurbhāva，顯現）的異熟（Vipāka，果報）有九品，可以施設（Prajñapti，假立）有九品差別。染污的九品，參照這個應該知道。又由於對治（Pratipakṣa，對抗）有九品的緣故，可以施設（Prajñapti，假立）有九品差別。無覆無記（Anivṛtāvyākṛta，非善非惡），總共有四種，即異熟生（Vipākaja，果報所生），威儀（Iryāpatha，行為舉止）
【English Translation】 English version Sabhāgahetu (同類因, cause of the same kind). A cause not accomplished by cultivation. Because the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, 欲界) lacks dharmas accomplished by thinking, dharmas accomplished by thinking are the cause of the same kind for dharmas accomplished by thinking. It is not a cause accomplished by hearing, because the latter is inferior. If it is a Sāsrava (有系, with afflictions) dharma accomplished by hearing, it can be the cause of the same kind for dharmas accomplished by hearing and cultivation in its own realm (Kāmadhātu, 欲界). It is not a cause accomplished by thinking, because there is no such cause. Dharmas accomplished by cultivation are only the cause of the same kind for dharmas accomplished by cultivation in their own realm. It is not a cause accomplished by hearing, because the latter is inferior. There are no Sāsrava (有系, with afflictions) dharmas accomplished by cultivation, only the cause of the same kind for dharmas accomplished by cultivation in their own realm. It is not a cause accomplished by hearing and thinking, because there is no such cause, and because dharmas accomplished by hearing and thinking are inferior. Some other teachers say that dharmas accomplished by thinking are the cause of the same kind for dharmas accomplished by cultivation. Isn't it the case that the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, 欲界) has dharmas accomplished by thinking but not dharmas accomplished by cultivation? If in the form realm (Rūpadhātu, 色界) there are dharmas accomplished by cultivation but not dharmas accomplished by thinking. However, worldly dharmas are only the cause of the same kind for their own realm. The previous statement that one's own group (Svabhāga, 自身部) and one's own ground (Svabhūmi, 自身地) are the cause is because they are Sāsrava (有漏, with afflictions). How can they say that thinking is the cause of cultivation? Some explain it this way: even in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, 欲界), there are roots of goodness encompassed by superior means, although accomplished by thinking, they are extremely tranquil, resembling the wisdom of cultivation, hence they are called accomplished by cultivation. Thinking is the cause of these dharmas, and there is no fault in saying so. Other teachers explain that the dharmas accomplished by thinking in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, 欲界) cultivated at the time of attaining Kṣayajñāna (盡智, wisdom of the exhaustion of afflictions) are the result of the Arhat's (阿羅漢, Arhat) wisdom of cultivation, resembling the wisdom of cultivation, hence they are called accomplished by cultivation. Thinking is the cause of these dharmas, and there is no fault in saying so. These dharmas accomplished by hearing, thinking, and cultivation each have nine grades, namely the lowest of the lowest, etc. If it is the lowest of the lowest grade, it is the cause of the nine grades. The lowest of the middle grade is the cause of eight grades, and so on, up to the highest of the highest grade, which is only the cause of the highest of the highest grade. Because the preceding inferior grades are excluded. Innate good dharmas are the cause of the same kind for good dharmas acquired through effort (Prayoga, 通過努力獲得的). It is not that good dharmas acquired through effort are the cause of innate good dharmas, because the former are inferior. Moreover, innate good dharmas also have nine grades, all mutually regarding each other, turning into causes. It is permissible that each one appears after the other. Some other teachers say that everything is obtained in one-pointed concentration. However, due to the nine grades of manifested (Prādurbhāva, 顯現) Vipāka (異熟, result), it can be provisionally established (Prajñapti, 假立) that there are nine grades of difference. The nine grades of defilement should be understood accordingly. Furthermore, due to the nine grades of Pratipakṣa (對治, counteraction), it can be provisionally established (Prajñapti, 假立) that there are nine grades of difference. Uncovered and unspecified (Anivṛtāvyākṛta, 非善非惡) dharmas are generally of four kinds, namely Vipākaja (異熟生, born of result), Iryāpatha (威儀, deportment)
儀路。工巧處。化心俱品。隨其次第。能與四三二一為因。有餘師說。一切相望展轉為因。同一縛故。此說非理。勿初靜慮暖等四法展轉為因。又欲界化心。有四靜慮果。非上靜慮果下靜慮果因。非加行因得下劣果。勿設功用而無所獲。因如是義。故有問言。頗有已生諸無漏法非未生位無漏法因。有謂已生苦法智品。于自種性未來不生苦法智忍俱品諸法。如是乃至。諸有已生金剛喻品。與自種性。下位未生諸無漏法。又一切勝。於一切劣。以加行法為同類因。所得之果。或等或勝。頗有一身諸無漏法前所定得非後生因。有。謂未來苦法忍品。於後已生苦法智品。以果必無在因前故。或同類因。未來無故。頗有前生諸無漏法非后已起無漏法因。有。謂前生勝無漏法。於後已起劣無漏法。如前已生苦法智得於后已生苦法忍得。彼雖後生。而是劣故。如是一切聖道諸得。前勝后劣。準此應知。經主此中以上果退下果現前。用答所問。此非決定。退上果已。容有練根起勝無漏現在前故。彼應簡此。然此同類因。與果功用。無有窮盡。非如異熟因與果功用定有窮盡。諸阿羅漢。受同類因。果猶未盡。而涅槃故。非同類因定能生果。謂有同類因。由有障故。果或余時起。或永不生。故於此中。有作是問。同類因與果亦能取果耶。總
相答言。諸與果者。必能取果。所以者何。不取而與。理不成故。有能取果而不能與。謂阿羅漢最後諸蘊。以前諸蘊雖能與果而未窮盡便般涅槃。又于聽誦思擇等業。雖同加行遇等助緣。而見善根積集有異。故知因用。非唯此生。然說隨俱善根力故。善根生者。據成就說。此說意言。因雖成就及不成就。皆能生果而成就者。生果力強。強弱雖殊。為因義等。又近遠因雖俱成就。而於生果。亦有勝劣。若但因彼隨俱善根。善根生者。善根斷已。應當畢竟不續善根。故同類因。約與果用。受用無盡。非異熟因。如是義門。曾何處說。豈不辯此因相中言。未來現在過去為因。過去現在為未來因。復有何緣。于阿羅漢正命終位。心心所法。遮等無間緣。許同類因性。此二與果等非俱故。等無間緣。由開避力。諸阿羅漢正命終時。無無間生心心所法。由闕和合生因緣故。無所開避等無間果。是故亦無能開避力。故遮最後法等無間緣相。然同類因果通近遠又所引果。無有限量。非所取果必定當起。故不可類等無間緣。遮后位立同類因性。有異說言。定應唯許于無間果立同類因。又不應言善惡無記心次起位。非由前念為同類因后念心起。由見世間種芽莖葉蓓蕾花果。不相似物。次第生時。無間為因。相次而起。無隔越故。又如毛角能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 他們相互回答說：『凡是給予果報的，必定能夠取得果報。』為什麼這樣說呢？因為不取得就給予，道理上是不成立的。有能夠取得果報卻不能給予的，指的是阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）最後的諸蘊（Skandha，構成個體的要素，如色、受、想、行、識）。因為以前的諸蘊雖然能夠給予果報，但還沒有窮盡就進入了般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。還有，在聽聞、誦讀、思考、選擇等行為中，即使有相同的加行（Prayoga，努力）和遇到的輔助因緣，但所見到的善根（Kusala-mula，善的根源）積累卻有差異。所以知道因的作用，不僅僅在於這一生。然而說隨順共同的善根力量，善根產生，是根據成就來說的。這說明，因雖然成就或不成就，都能產生果報，但成就的因，產生果報的力量更強。雖然強弱不同，但作為因的意義是相同的。還有，近因和遠因雖然都成就，但在產生果報上，也有勝劣之分。如果僅僅因為那個隨順共同的善根，善根產生，那麼善根斷滅后，應當永遠不再延續善根。所以同類因，就給予果報的作用來說，受用是無盡的，而不是異熟因（Vipaka-hetu，導致不同結果的因）。 這樣的道理，曾在哪裡說過呢？難道不是在辨析因的相狀中說：『未來、現在、過去是因，過去、現在是未來的因』嗎？又有什麼緣故，在阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）正命終（Right Livelihood，八正道之一）的時候，心心所法（Citta-caitta，心和心理活動）遮止等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，無間緣）？允許同類因的性質。這二者與果報等不同，所以不是共同的緣故。等無間緣，由於開闢的力量。諸位阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）正命終的時候，沒有無間產生的心心所法（Citta-caitta，心和心理活動）。由於缺少和合產生的因緣的緣故，沒有所開闢的等無間果。因此也沒有能夠開闢的力量。所以遮止最後法的等無間緣的相狀。然而同類因果貫通近遠，又所引生的果報，沒有**。不是所取得的果報必定會產生。所以不可以類比等無間緣。遮止后位建立同類因的性質。有不同的說法認為，一定應該只允許在無間果上建立同類因。又不應該說善、惡、無記心（Kusala-akusala-avyakrta，善、惡、非善非惡）相繼產生的位次，不是由前唸作為同類因，后念心才產生。因為看到世間種子、芽、莖、葉、蓓蕾、花、果，不相似的事物，次第產生的時候，無間為因，相繼而起，沒有間隔超越的緣故。又如毛角能
【English Translation】 English version They answered each other, saying: 'Those who give fruits must be able to take fruits.' Why is that? Because giving without taking is logically impossible. There are those who can take fruits but cannot give them, referring to the last Skandhas (aggregates of existence) of an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana). Because the previous Skandhas, although able to give fruits, have not been exhausted before entering Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). Furthermore, in activities such as listening, reciting, thinking, and choosing, even with the same Prayoga (effort) and encountering auxiliary conditions, the accumulation of Kusala-mula (roots of goodness) seen differs. Therefore, it is known that the function of cause is not only in this life. However, saying that the power of common roots of goodness follows, and that roots of goodness arise, is based on accomplishment. This means that although a cause is accomplished or not, it can produce results, but an accomplished cause has a stronger power to produce results. Although the strength varies, the meaning as a cause is the same. Also, although both near and far causes are accomplished, there are superior and inferior aspects in producing results. If it is only because of that common root of goodness that follows, and the root of goodness arises, then after the root of goodness is cut off, it should never continue the root of goodness. Therefore, the use of homogeneous causes in giving fruits is inexhaustible, not a Vipaka-hetu (cause leading to different results).' Where has such a principle been stated? Isn't it said in analyzing the characteristics of causes: 'The future, present, and past are causes; the past and present are causes of the future'? Furthermore, for what reason, when an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana) is in the state of Right Livelihood (one of the Eightfold Path) at the end of life, do the Citta-caitta (mind and mental activities) prevent Samanantarapratyaya (the immediately preceding condition)? Allowing the nature of homogeneous causes. These two are different from fruits, so they are not common causes. The immediately preceding condition is due to the power of opening up. When Arhats (those who have attained Nirvana) are in the state of Right Livelihood at the end of life, there are no Citta-caitta (mind and mental activities) arising without interval. Because of the lack of conditions for harmonious arising, there is no immediately preceding result to be opened up. Therefore, there is no power to open up. Therefore, the characteristic of the immediately preceding condition of preventing the last Dharma is prevented. However, homogeneous causes and results connect near and far, and the results drawn out have no **. The results obtained are not necessarily produced. Therefore, it cannot be compared to the immediately preceding condition. Preventing the establishment of the nature of homogeneous causes in the later position. There are different views that it should only be allowed to establish homogeneous causes in the immediately preceding result. Furthermore, it should not be said that the successive positions of good, evil, and neutral minds (Kusala-akusala-avyakrta) are not caused by the previous thought as a homogeneous cause, and the subsequent thought arises. Because when seeing seeds, sprouts, stems, leaves, buds, flowers, and fruits in the world, dissimilar things arise in succession, the immediately preceding is the cause, arising in succession without interval or transcendence. Also, like hair and horns can
生蒲葦。彼言非理。現見善惡。隨一增時。餘一減故。又修能治所治應增。則永應無解脫苦義。又習所治能治應增。便無不成能治道者。如是等失。彼不可離。又見世間。習學書論工巧智等。已得堅住。雖遇異緣于中間起。而後生位。還以前時同類相續為因而起。故同類因。亦有隔越。種芽等喻。于證無能。外物相生次第安住。內法不爾。故喻無能。如種無間定有芽生非莖葉等。善心無間。不見定有如是心生。又芽無間可有莖生。非莖無間可有芽生。善惡心生。次第無定。又諸外物。時分決定。內法不爾。故喻無能。謂由功能勤勇教等力殊勝故。修觀行者。善心多時相續而轉。諸習欲者。噁心多時相續而轉。非芽莖等。時分不定。故內外別。又稻等類。次第生中。無記性同。可有因義。心等一類。次第生中。善等性殊。不應為喻。言從毛角生蒲葦者。是世俗論。與理相違。若許相生無簡同異。何不從二各二果生。然彼毛角如糞暖等。于生蒲葦但作順緣。故同類因。唯于自類有間無間。皆得成因。如是已辯同類因相。第四相應因相云何。頌曰。
相應因決定 心心所同依
論曰。唯心心所。是相應因。豈不此中無簡別故時境行相別亦相應。設簡別言。此三同者。異身同囑。應說相應。故說同依。總遮斯難。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他們說從毛髮和角能生長出蒲葦（一種植物），這是不合道理的。明明可以現見善與惡，隨著其中一方增長，另一方就會減少。而且，如果修習能對治的法門，所要對治的煩惱也隨之增長，那麼就永遠沒有從痛苦中解脫的可能了。反之，如果習染所要對治的煩惱，能對治的法門也隨之增長，那就沒有不能成就對治之道的人了。像這樣的過失，他們無法擺脫。 又看到世間上，學習書論、工巧技藝等，一旦獲得穩固的基礎，即使遇到不同的因緣在中間出現，在後來的階段，還是會以先前同類的相續作為原因而生起。所以，同類因也有間隔的情況。用種子和芽等來比喻，對於證明他們的觀點是無力的。外在事物的相生，次第是安住的，而內在的法不是這樣，所以比喻是無力的。比如種子之後一定會有芽產生，但不會是莖或葉等。善心之後，不一定會有同樣性質的心生起。而且，芽之後可以有莖生起，但莖之後不可能有芽生起。善惡心的生起，次第是不一定的。而且，外在的事物，時間有明確的劃分，內在的法不是這樣，所以比喻是無力的。這是因為通過功能、勤奮、教導等力量的殊勝，修習觀行的人，善心可以長時間相續不斷地運轉；而那些習慣於慾望的人，噁心可以長時間相續不斷地運轉。而不是像芽和莖等，時間劃分是不定的。所以內在和外在是有區別的。而且，稻子等類別，在次第生起中，是無記性的，可以作為原因。而心等一類，在次第生起中，善等性質是不同的，不應該作為比喻。說從毛髮和角能生長出蒲葦，這是世俗的說法，與道理相違背。如果允許任何事物都可以相生，不區分相同和不同，為什麼不從二者各自生出兩個結果呢？然而，毛髮和角就像糞便和溫暖等，對於蒲葦的生長，只是作為順緣。所以，同類因，只有在自身同類中，無論有間隔還是沒有間隔，都可以成為原因。以上已經辨析了同類因的相狀。第四種相應因的相狀是什麼呢？頌文說： 『相應因決定，心心所同依』 論述：只有心和心所（心理活動）才是相應因。難道不是因為這裡沒有區分，所以時間、境和行相不同也是相應的嗎？假設區分來說，這三者相同，不同身體的人共同接受囑託，也應該說是相應。所以說『同依』，總的遮止了這種詰難。
【English Translation】 English version: They say that reeds can grow from hair and horns, which is unreasonable. It is evident that good and evil are seen, and when one increases, the other decreases. Moreover, if practicing the means to counteract afflictions also increases the afflictions to be counteracted, then there would never be a possibility of liberation from suffering. Conversely, if habituating the afflictions to be counteracted also increases the means to counteract them, then there would be no one who could not achieve the path of counteraction. Such faults they cannot escape. Furthermore, seeing that in the world, learning books, treatises, crafts, and intelligence, once a firm foundation is obtained, even if different conditions arise in between, in the later stages, it will still arise with the previous similar continuum as the cause. Therefore, similar causes also have intervals. Using seeds and sprouts as metaphors is powerless to prove their point. The arising of external things is sequential and stable, while internal dharmas are not like that, so the metaphor is powerless. For example, after a seed, there will definitely be a sprout, but not a stem or leaves. After a good thought, there is no guarantee that a thought of the same nature will arise. Moreover, after a sprout, there can be a stem, but after a stem, there cannot be a sprout. The arising of good and evil thoughts is not sequential. Furthermore, external things have a definite time division, while internal dharmas do not, so the metaphor is powerless. This is because through the superiority of function, diligence, teaching, and other powers, those who practice contemplation can have good thoughts continuously flowing for a long time; while those who are accustomed to desires can have evil thoughts continuously flowing for a long time. It is not like sprouts and stems, where the time division is indefinite. Therefore, there is a difference between internal and external. Moreover, categories like rice, in sequential arising, are of an indeterminate nature and can be considered a cause. While categories like mind, in sequential arising, have different natures such as good, so they should not be used as metaphors. Saying that reeds can grow from hair and horns is a worldly saying, contrary to reason. If anything is allowed to arise from anything else, without distinguishing between same and different, why not have two results arising from each of the two? However, hair and horns, like manure and warmth, only act as supporting conditions for the growth of reeds. Therefore, similar causes, only within their own category, whether with or without intervals, can be causes. The characteristics of similar causes have been discussed above. What is the characteristic of the fourth, associated cause (samprayukta-hetu)? The verse says: 'Associated cause is definite, mind and mental factors (citta-caitta) share the same basis.' Commentary: Only mind and mental factors are associated causes. Is it not because there is no distinction here, so that different times, objects, and aspects are also associated? Suppose we distinguish and say that these three are the same, then people in different bodies jointly receiving instructions should also be said to be associated. Therefore, saying 'same basis' generally prevents this objection.
謂要同依心心所法。方得更互為相應因。此中同言。顯所依一。謂若眼識。用此剎那眼根為依。相應受等。亦即用此眼根為依。乃至意識。及相應法。同依意根。應知亦爾。今應思擇。眼耳等根。所依性同。何緣說彼能依之識。所依各異。何勞致問。諸識所依。依性雖同。而類別故。若爾何故知同依言。唯就俱生剎那依義。說眼識等同一所依。非就長時種類依義。說諸眼識同一所依。又無間依種類同故。應眼等識為相應因。世尊亦依種類同義。說眼等識所依諸根。故契經言。眼見色已。生憂喜舍。又契經說。以眼為門。唯為見色。此等皆說種類同依。是故頌中。應如是簡謂心心所。同時同依。故彼釋中。自攝二義。謂若眼識用此剎那眼根為依。乃至廣說。頌中既闕同時之言。如何得知此同依者。非一種類是一剎那。若謂釋中攝故無過。應所造頌不說同依。但說相應因決定心心所。又相應言。足遮諸難。非時依異可有相應。但說相應。即知一切時依行相境事皆同。若異時依。異行相境。不相應故。非種類一多事俱起。共相應故俱有相應二因何別。且相應因法亦俱有因。有俱有因法非相應因。謂隨轉色。生等大種。若相應因即俱有因。此中二因義有何別。非相應因即俱有因。由此二因義各異故。然即一法。是相應因。亦俱
有因義差別者。不相離義。是相應因。同一果義是俱有因。又展轉力同生住等。是俱有因。若展轉力同緣一境。是相應因。有餘師說。由互為果義立俱有因。如商侶相依共遊險道。由五平等義立相應因。即如商侶同受同作食等事業。其中闕一。皆不相應。是故極成互為因義。如是已辯相應因相。第五遍行因相云何。頌曰。
遍行謂前遍 為同地染因
論曰。遍行因者。謂前已生遍行隨眠。及俱品法。與后同地自部他部諸染污法。為遍行因何等名為遍行品法。隨眠品中。當廣分別。此因勢力。越同類因勢力而轉。故別建立。亦為餘部染法因故。由此勢力。餘部煩惱。及彼眷屬。亦生長故。于自部攝諸煩惱中。同類遍行二因何別。由有身見。諸愛得生。諸愛亦能生有身見。二差別相如何可知。自部二因。亦有差別。謂執我故。能令諸愛生起堅固增廣熾盛。我見遍緣諸愛境故。愛令我見生起堅固。而不能令增廣熾盛。不能遍緣我見境故。由諸遍惑展轉相望。皆能遍緣所緣境故。一一遍惑。皆互能令生起堅固增廣熾盛。故此二因。非無差別。一時一品。能為同類遍行二因。有何差別。雖同時取二等流果。而自部果增盛非余。故彼二因亦有差別。何故云何自部增盛。由二因門所長養故。由此為彼近生因故。令彼增廣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有因的意義差別在於：不相分離的意義，是相應因。具有相同結果的意義，是俱有因。並且，相互作用產生相同的生住等作用，是俱有因。如果相互作用共同緣於一個境界，則是相應因。還有其他論師說，由於互為結果的意義而建立俱有因，就像商人們互相依靠共同在危險的道路上行走一樣。由於五種平等意義而建立相應因，就像商人們共同接受、共同從事飲食等事業一樣，其中缺少任何一種，都不能相應。因此，極力主張互為因的意義。以上已經辨析了相應因的相狀。第五種遍行因的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『遍行』是指先前的『遍行』（Parihāṇi，煩惱的一種），作為同地的染污之因。 論述：遍行因，是指先前已經產生的遍行隨眠（Parihāṇi Anusaya，潛在的煩惱），以及與其相應的法，對於後來在同一地（例如欲界、色界、無色界）的，屬於自己部類或其它部類的各種染污法，作為遍行因。什麼叫做遍行品法呢？在隨眠品中，將會廣泛地分別說明。這種因的力量，超過了同類因的力量而發揮作用，所以特別建立。也因為它是其它部類的染污法的因。由於這種力量，其它部類的煩惱以及它們的眷屬，也會生長。在自己部類所攝的各種煩惱中，同類遍行因和二因有什麼區別？由於有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊身是真實存在的錯誤見解），各種愛（Tṛṣṇā，渴愛）得以產生，各種愛也能產生有身見。這兩種差別相如何才能知道？自己部類的兩種因，也有差別。就是說，由於執著于『我』，能夠使各種愛生起、堅固、增長、熾盛，因為我見普遍地緣于各種愛的境界。愛使我見生起堅固，但不能使其增長、熾盛，因為不能普遍地緣於我見的境界。由於各種遍惑（Parihāṇi Kleśa，普遍存在的煩惱）相互之間，都能普遍地緣于所緣的境界，所以每一種遍惑，都能互相使對方生起、堅固、增長、熾盛。因此這兩種因，並非沒有差別。一時一品，能夠作為同類遍行二因，有什麼差別？雖然同時取得兩種等流果（Niṣyanda-phala，與因相似的結果），但是自己部類的果增盛，而不是其它部類的。所以這兩種因也有差別。為什麼說自己部類的果增盛呢？因為受到兩種因門的滋養。因此，由於是它們近生的原因，使它們增長。
【English Translation】 English version The difference in the meaning of causes lies in: the meaning of non-separation is the corresponding cause (saṃprayukta-hetu). The meaning of having the same result is the coexistent cause (sahabhū-hetu). Furthermore, mutual interaction producing the same arising, abiding, etc., is the coexistent cause. If mutual interaction jointly focuses on one object, it is the corresponding cause. Some other teachers say that the coexistent cause is established due to the meaning of being mutual results, just like merchants relying on each other to travel together on dangerous roads. The corresponding cause is established due to the meaning of five equalities, just like merchants jointly receiving and engaging in activities such as eating and drinking; if any one of these is missing, they cannot correspond. Therefore, the meaning of mutual causality is strongly advocated. The characteristics of the corresponding cause have been analyzed above. What is the nature of the fifth pervasive cause (sarvatraga-hetu)? The verse says: 'Pervasive' refers to the preceding 'pervasive' (Parihāṇi, a type of affliction), as the cause of defilement in the same realm. Treatise: The pervasive cause refers to the previously arisen pervasive latent afflictions (Parihāṇi Anusaya, potential afflictions), and the dharmas corresponding to them, which act as the pervasive cause for various defiled dharmas in the same realm (e.g., the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm), belonging to one's own category or other categories. What are called pervasive category dharmas? They will be extensively explained in the section on latent afflictions. The power of this cause surpasses the power of the homogeneous cause and operates separately, hence its special establishment. It is also the cause of defiled dharmas of other categories. Due to this power, afflictions of other categories and their retinues also grow. Among the various afflictions included in one's own category, what is the difference between the homogeneous pervasive cause and the two causes? Because of the view of self (Satkāya-dṛṣṭi, the erroneous view that the five aggregates are truly existent), various cravings (Tṛṣṇā, thirst) arise, and various cravings can also generate the view of self. How can these two different aspects be known? The two causes in one's own category also have differences. That is, due to attachment to 'self', it can cause various cravings to arise, become firm, increase, and intensify, because the view of self universally focuses on the objects of various cravings. Craving causes the view of self to arise firmly, but cannot cause it to increase or intensify, because it cannot universally focus on the objects of the view of self. Because various pervasive delusions (Parihāṇi Kleśa, universally existing afflictions) mutually focus on the objects they focus on, each pervasive delusion can mutually cause the other to arise, become firm, increase, and intensify. Therefore, these two causes are not without differences. What is the difference between being able to act as two homogeneous pervasive causes at the same time and in the same category? Although they simultaneously obtain two results of outflow (Niṣyanda-phala, results similar to the cause), the result of one's own category is more enhanced, not that of other categories. Therefore, these two causes also have differences. Why is it said that the result of one's own category is more enhanced? Because it is nourished by the two causal doors. Therefore, because they are the cause of their near arising, they cause them to increase.
及熾盛故。唯生自部二因何別。無遍行因。唯生自部。謂遍行法。正現前時。俱時有力。取五部果。又已如前說彼差別。有餘師說。俱有因一分是相應因。同類因一分是遍行因。彼師意說。遍行因義。即同類因。然不應理。餘部亦應是同類故。則非遍行。應望餘部成同類因。是則諸因應成雜亂。雖復諸因無各別體。而諸因義互不相雜。若遍行法能為五部。染污法因則見所斷。應為一切染污法因。是宗所許不應為難。故品類足。說如是言。云何見所斷為因法。謂諸染污法。及見所斷法所感異熟。云何無記為因法。謂諸無記有為法。及不善法。或有苦諦。以有身見為因。非與有身見為因。廣說乃至。除未來有身見及彼相應法生老住無常。諸餘染污苦諦。若爾應違施設足論。如彼論說。頗有法是不善唯不善為因耶。曰有。謂聖人離欲退最初已起染污思。依未斷因。密作是說。此染污思因雖具有不善無記。而無記因。先已永斷。聖人退位。見所斷惑。皆已斷故。一切見道。必無退故。欲界染無記。皆見所斷故。唯不善因。退故成就。說為未斷。是故無失。若已斷法。亦能為因。何緣諸聖補特伽羅。于無有愛重瞋恚纏諸慢類中。曾不現起。斷見邪見薩伽耶見。皆已斷故。無有愛等。隨其次第。彼近起故。彼於今位。云何為因。非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以及熾盛的緣故。唯生自部（只產生自身所屬類別的果）的二因（同類因和遍行因）有什麼區別？沒有遍行因。唯生自部，是指遍行法，正在現前的時候，同時具有力量，能取五部（五種不同的煩惱類別）的果。又已經像前面所說的那樣說明了它們的差別。有些老師說，俱有因（共同存在的因）的一部分是相應因（與心識相應的因），同類因的一部分是遍行因。那位老師的意思是說，遍行因的意義，就是同類因。然而這不應道理。其餘部類也應該是同類因的緣故，那就不是遍行因了。應該望向其餘部類成為同類因，這樣一來，各種因就應該變得雜亂了。雖然各種因沒有各自獨立的實體，但是各種因的意義互不相混雜。如果遍行法能夠作為五部染污法的因，那麼見所斷（通過見道斷除的煩惱）的煩惱，應該作為一切染污法的因。這是宗義所允許的，不應該以此為難。所以《品類足論》這樣說：『什麼是見所斷作為因的法？是指各種染污法，以及見所斷法所感生的異熟果。』『什麼是非記（非善非惡）作為因的法？是指各種非記的有為法，以及不善法。』或者有苦諦，以有身見（認為五蘊身心為真實自我的邪見）作為因，而不是與有身見作為因。廣泛地說乃至，除了未來的有身見以及與它相應的法，生老住無常。各種其餘的染污苦諦。如果這樣，應該違背《施設足論》。如那部論所說：『有沒有法是不善，唯獨以不善作為因的呢？』回答說：『有。』是指聖人離開欲界貪慾退轉時，最初已經生起的染污思，依靠未斷的因。秘密地這樣說，這個染污思的因雖然具有不善和非記，但是非記的因，先前已經永遠斷除了。聖人退位，見所斷的迷惑，都已經斷除了的緣故。一切見道，必定沒有退轉的緣故。欲界染污的非記，都是見所斷的緣故。唯獨不善的因，因為退轉的緣故而成就，說為未斷。所以沒有過失。如果已經斷除的法，也能作為因，什麼緣故各種聖補特伽羅（聖人），在無有愛（對上界存在的貪愛）、重（強烈的）瞋恚纏（被瞋恚束縛）、各種慢類（驕慢）中，從來沒有現起？斷見（認為沒有來世的邪見）、邪見（錯誤的見解）、薩伽耶見（認為五蘊身心為真實自我的邪見），都已經斷除了的緣故。無有愛等等，隨著它們的次第，是它們近的生起原因。它們在現在這個階段，如何作為因呢？不是。
【English Translation】 English version: And because of its intensity. What is the difference between the two hetus (causes) that 'only produce from their own category' (唯生自部) (homogeneous cause and pervasive cause)? There is no pervasive cause. 'Only produce from their own category' refers to pervasive dharmas (法), which, when presently manifest, simultaneously have the power to take the results of the five categories (五部) (five categories of afflictions). Moreover, their differences have already been explained as mentioned before. Some teachers say that a portion of the co-existent cause (俱有因) is the associated cause (相應因), and a portion of the homogeneous cause (同類因) is the pervasive cause. That teacher means that the meaning of the pervasive cause is the same as the homogeneous cause. However, this is not reasonable. The other categories should also be homogeneous causes, so it would not be a pervasive cause. It should be regarded as a homogeneous cause in relation to the other categories. In this way, all the causes should become mixed up. Although the various causes do not have separate entities, the meanings of the various causes do not mix with each other. If pervasive dharmas can be the cause of the five categories of defiled dharmas, then the afflictions severed by seeing (見所斷) should be the cause of all defiled dharmas. This is allowed by the doctrine, and it should not be challenged. Therefore, the Prakaranapada (品類足論) says: 'What are the dharmas that are severed by seeing as a cause? They are the various defiled dharmas, and the dissimilar results produced by the dharmas severed by seeing.' 'What are the dharmas that are neutral (無記) as a cause? They are the various neutral conditioned dharmas, and unwholesome dharmas.' Or there is the truth of suffering (苦諦), with the view of self (有身見) as the cause, but not with the view of self as the cause. Broadly speaking, up to and including, except for the future view of self and the dharmas associated with it, birth, aging, abiding, impermanence. All the other defiled truths of suffering. If so, it should contradict the Sthapanapada (施設足論). As that treatise says: 'Are there any dharmas that are unwholesome, with only unwholesome as the cause?' The answer is: 'Yes.' It refers to the defiled thought that initially arises when a saint regresses from detachment from desire, relying on an unsevered cause. Secretly saying this, although the cause of this defiled thought has both unwholesome and neutral, the neutral cause has already been permanently severed. When a saint regresses, the delusions severed by seeing have all been severed. Because all the paths of seeing (見道) definitely do not regress. The defiled neutral of the desire realm are all severed by seeing. Only the unwholesome cause is accomplished because of regression, and it is said to be unsevered. Therefore, there is no fault. If dharmas that have already been severed can also be a cause, why do the various holy pudgalas (補特伽羅) (individuals), among the love of existence (無有愛) (craving for existence in the higher realms), strong anger entanglements (瞋恚纏), and various types of pride (慢類), never manifest? The view of annihilation (斷見), wrong views (邪見), and the view of self (薩伽耶見) have all been severed. Love of existence, etc., in their respective order, are the proximate causes of their arising. How can they be a cause in the present stage? They are not.
彼於今方成因義。于異生位。修所斷染法。已用見所斷。為遍行因。若法與彼法為因。無時此法非彼因。故雖已斷。而因可說。應知此中過去現在。遍行隨眠。為五部因。能緣五部。亦是五部之所隨增。彼相應法。除所隨增生等。復除能緣五部。彼諸法得。非遍行因。或前後故。性疏遠故。非一果故。有遍行隨眠非遍行因。謂未來世遍行隨眠。有遍行因非遍行隨眠。謂過去現在遍行隨眠。一果法有俱是。謂過去現在遍行隨眠。有俱非謂所餘諸法。有於此中作如是難。若說諸見疑及無明。為遍行因。生異類果與余別故。名遍行者。非遍行中亦有此用。謂貪隨眠于境耽著。能為一切邪行根本。如有邪見令貪隨眠于諸境中耽著熾盛。如是有貪亦令邪見於自所緣熾盛增廣。乃至引彼令斷善根。如有邪見謗滅道已引貪隨眠令樂生死。如是有貪樂生死已。能引邪見令謗滅道。是故唯執見疑無明。為遍行因。生五部果。非余貪等。理定不成。此難不然。因用別故。不遍隨眠。總以五部諸染污法。但為士用及增上果。展轉可作等無間緣令現起故。及彼生時。不障礙故。遍行隨眠。亦以五部諸染污法。為等流果。此彼何別。得如是耶。遍行隨眠。通緣一切有漏法故。勢力堅固。熾盛增廣。才已生時。便能引發同異類果。不遍隨眠。則不如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『彼於今方成因義』的解釋是：在異生位（指凡夫位），修所斷的染污法，已經以見所斷的染污法作為遍行因（指普遍存在的因）。如果一個法是另一個法的因，那麼任何時候這個法都是那個法的因。因此，即使見所斷的染污法已經被斷除，仍然可以稱其為因。應該瞭解，這裡所說的過去和現在的遍行隨眠（指煩惱的潛在狀態），是五部（指五種煩惱類別）的因，能夠緣取五部，也是五部所隨之增長的。與這些遍行隨眠相應的法，除了所隨之增長的生等（指生、住、異、滅），以及能夠緣取五部的法之外，那些法所獲得的『得』（指獲得的狀態），不是遍行因。這可能是因為時間上的先後關係，或者性質上的疏遠關係，或者不是同一個果的原因。 存在遍行隨眠不是遍行因的情況，例如未來的遍行隨眠。也存在遍行因不是遍行隨眠的情況，例如過去和現在的遍行隨眠。有一種情況是兩者都是，即過去和現在的遍行隨眠，它們是同一個果的法。有一種情況是兩者都不是，即其餘的諸法。 有人提出這樣的疑問：如果說諸見（指各種錯誤的見解）、疑（指懷疑）和無明（指對真理的無知）是遍行因，因為它們產生不同型別的果，並且與其他果有所區別，所以被稱為遍行。但是，在非遍行中也有這種作用。例如，貪隨眠對境界的耽著，能夠成為一切邪行的根本。就像邪見能夠使貪隨眠在各種境界中耽著熾盛一樣，貪也能使邪見在它所緣的境界中熾盛增廣，甚至引導它斷除善根。就像邪見誹謗滅道之後，引導貪隨眠樂於生死一樣，貪樂於生死之後，也能引導邪見誹謗滅道。因此，僅僅執著于見、疑、無明作為遍行因，產生五部果，而不是其餘的貪等，這個道理是不成立的。 這個疑問是不成立的，因為因的作用不同。不遍的隨眠，總的來說，對於五部諸染污法，只是作為士用果（指主要作用的果）和增上果（指輔助作用的果），可以輾轉作為等無間緣（指緊接著的因緣）使之現起，以及在它們產生的時候，不障礙它們。而遍行隨眠，也以五部諸染污法作為等流果（指同類相續的果）。這二者有什麼區別呢？遍行隨眠，能夠普遍緣取一切有漏法（指有煩惱的法），所以勢力堅固，熾盛增廣，才一生起，就能引發同類和異類的果。而不遍的隨眠，則不如是。
【English Translation】 English version: The explanation of 'He now becomes the cause of meaning' is: In the position of an ordinary being (referring to the state of a common person), the defiled dharmas severed by cultivation have already used the defiled dharmas severed by view as pervasive causes (referring to universally existing causes). If one dharma is the cause of another dharma, then at any time this dharma is the cause of that dharma. Therefore, even if the defiled dharmas severed by view have been eliminated, they can still be called causes. It should be understood that the past and present pervasive latent defilements (referring to the potential state of afflictions) mentioned here are the causes of the five categories (referring to the five types of afflictions), which can grasp the five categories and are also increased by the five categories. The dharmas corresponding to these pervasive latent defilements, except for the arising, etc., that are increased, and the dharmas that can grasp the five categories, the 'attainment' (referring to the state of attainment) obtained by those dharmas is not a pervasive cause. This may be because of the temporal order, or the distant nature, or because it is not the same result. There are cases where pervasive latent defilements are not pervasive causes, such as future pervasive latent defilements. There are also cases where pervasive causes are not pervasive latent defilements, such as past and present pervasive latent defilements. There is a case where both are, that is, past and present pervasive latent defilements, which are dharmas of the same result. There is a case where neither is, that is, the remaining dharmas. Someone raised this question: If it is said that views (referring to various wrong views), doubt (referring to doubt), and ignorance (referring to ignorance of the truth) are pervasive causes, because they produce different types of results and are different from other results, they are called pervasive. However, non-pervasive also has this effect. For example, the attachment of greed latent defilement to the realm can become the root of all evil deeds. Just as wrong views can make greed latent defilement intensely attached to various realms, greed can also make wrong views intensely increase in the realm it grasps, and even guide it to cut off good roots. Just as wrong views slander the path of cessation and guide greed latent defilement to enjoy samsara, greed enjoying samsara can also guide wrong views to slander the path of cessation. Therefore, it is not valid to only cling to views, doubt, and ignorance as pervasive causes, producing five categories of results, rather than other greed, etc. This question is not valid because the function of the cause is different. Non-pervasive latent defilements, in general, are only used as the dominant result (referring to the result of the main function) and the augmenting result (referring to the result of the auxiliary function) for the five categories of defiled dharmas, and can be transformed into immediate conditions (referring to the immediate cause) to make them manifest, and do not hinder them when they arise. The pervasive latent defilements also use the five categories of defiled dharmas as the outflow result (referring to the result of the same kind of continuation). What is the difference between the two? Pervasive latent defilements can universally grasp all contaminated dharmas (referring to dharmas with afflictions), so their power is strong, intense, and increasing, and as soon as they arise, they can cause the results of the same and different kinds. Non-pervasive latent defilements are not like this.
是。緣境狹少。功能劣故。雖貪隨眠耽著境界。亦與邪見為展轉因。乃至引令斷諸善本。而非暫起。頓引自他五部染法。為等流果。有貪隨眠樂生死已。能引邪見。謗滅道者。此一部中。展轉相引。非於異部。故亦無違。或復因義甚深難了。無邊差別。非易可知。謂諸法中。都無真實作者作用。然復說有無量種因能招諸果。謂于諸果。此為近因。此為遠因。此因令生。此因令滅。此因令彼。有此因不。為害此因能牽引。此因為所依。此因如助伴。此因如種子。此因如飲食。此因如醫藥。此等因義。差別無邊。唯佛世尊。所行境界。如是已辯遍行因相。第六異熟因相云何。頌曰。
異熟因不善 及善唯有漏
論曰。唯諸不善。及善有漏。是異熟因。異熟法故。隨其所應。此因能感異熟果故。名異熟因。今於此中。因是何義。謂隨業法。能別有情。故契經言諸有情類勝劣高下。由業所別。又契經說。業為生因。頌中及聲。顯此因與果性相雖異而品類無雜。唯言為遮異熟因體攝諸因義。謂有餘師說。一切果皆名異熟。彼亦應許異熟因體攝一切因。唯言為令勿同如是余師橫計。彼復何緣。執一切果。皆名異熟。由契經說。此大光明。有何異熟。又契經言。二種施食所感異熟。平等平等。又說愛為受之異熟。又言如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是的。因為所緣的境界狹隘稀少，功能低下薄弱，所以即使貪隨眠（Rāga-anuśaya，貪慾的潛在傾向）耽著于境界，也會與邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）互相成為展轉相生的原因，乃至最終導致斷絕一切善的根本，而並非只是暫時的生起。它會立即引導自身和他人的五部染法，作為等流果（Niṣyanda-phala，同類相續的結果）。有貪隨眠因為樂於生死輪迴，所以能夠引發邪見，誹謗涅槃解脫之道。這種展轉相引的關係，只存在於同一部類之中，而不會發生在不同的部類之間，因此並不矛盾。或者是因為因緣的意義非常深奧難以理解，差別無邊無際，不容易被認識到。也就是說，在一切法中，本來就沒有真實的作者和作用，然而卻又宣說了有無量種的因能夠招感各種各樣的果。對於各種果來說，這個是近因，那個是遠因；這個因使之產生，那個因使之滅亡；這個因使之成為那樣，有沒有這個因會造成損害；這個因能夠牽引，這個因是所依賴的基礎，這個因如同助伴，這個因如同種子，這個因如同飲食，這個因如同醫藥。這些因的意義，差別無邊無際，只有佛世尊所行境界才能完全瞭解。以上已經辨析了遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，普遍存在的因）的相狀。第六種異熟因（Vipāka-hetu，導致異熟果的因）的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『異熟因是不善，以及善唯有漏。』 論述：只有那些不善的以及善的有漏法，才是異熟因。因為它們是異熟法。根據它們各自的情況，這些因能夠感生異熟果，所以被稱為異熟因。現在在這裡，『因』是什麼意思呢？是指能夠區別有情的隨業法。所以契經上說，各種有情眾生的勝劣高下，是由業所區別的。而且契經上還說，業是生（生命）的原因。頌文中的『以及』這個詞，顯示了這種因與果在性質和相狀上雖然不同，但是品類上沒有混雜。『唯』這個詞是爲了遮止異熟因的本體涵蓋一切因的意義。也就是說，有其他的老師說，一切果都叫做異熟。那麼他們也應該承認異熟因的本體涵蓋一切因。『唯』這個詞是爲了避免與這些其他老師的橫加揣測相同。他們又是什麼原因，執著地認為一切果都叫做異熟呢？因為契經上說，『這種大光明，有什麼異熟？』而且契經上說，『兩種施食所感得的異熟，平等平等。』又說愛是受的異熟。又說，如果...
【English Translation】 English version: Yes. Because the objects of perception are narrow and scarce, and their functions are inferior and weak, even if the Rāga-anuśaya (latent tendency of greed) is attached to the objects, it will become a mutual cause with Mithyā-dṛṣṭi (wrong views), eventually leading to the severance of all roots of goodness, and not just arising temporarily. It will immediately lead to the five categories of defiled dharmas of oneself and others, as Niṣyanda-phala (result of the same kind). Because Rāga-anuśaya delights in Saṃsāra (birth and death), it can give rise to Mithyā-dṛṣṭi, slandering the path of Nirvāṇa (liberation). This mutual attraction only exists within the same category, and will not occur between different categories, so there is no contradiction. Or it is because the meaning of causes and conditions is very profound and difficult to understand, with boundless differences, and not easy to be recognized. That is to say, in all dharmas, there is originally no real author or function, but it is said that there are countless kinds of causes that can bring about various kinds of effects. For various effects, this is the proximate cause, that is the distant cause; this cause makes it arise, that cause makes it perish; this cause makes it become like that, whether having this cause will cause harm; this cause can attract, this cause is the basis of reliance, this cause is like a companion, this cause is like a seed, this cause is like food, this cause is like medicine. The meanings of these causes are infinitely different, and only the realm of the Buddha can fully understand them. The characteristics of Sarvatraga-hetu (pervasive cause) have been analyzed above. What are the characteristics of the sixth type of Vipāka-hetu (cause leading to Vipāka-phala)? The verse says: 『Vipāka-hetu is unwholesome, and wholesome only with outflows.』 Treatise: Only those unwholesome and wholesome dharmas with outflows are Vipāka-hetu. Because they are Vipāka-dharma. According to their respective situations, these causes can generate Vipāka-phala, so they are called Vipāka-hetu. Now here, what does 『cause』 mean? It refers to the dharmas that follow karma and can distinguish sentient beings. Therefore, the Sutra says that the superiority and inferiority of various sentient beings are distinguished by karma. Moreover, the Sutra also says that karma is the cause of life. The word 『and』 in the verse shows that although this cause and effect are different in nature and characteristics, they are not mixed in category. The word 『only』 is to prevent the meaning of the substance of Vipāka-hetu from encompassing all causes. That is to say, other teachers say that all effects are called Vipāka. Then they should also admit that the substance of Vipāka-hetu encompasses all causes. The word 『only』 is to avoid being the same as these other teachers' arbitrary speculations. What is the reason why they stubbornly believe that all effects are called Vipāka? Because the Sutra says, 『What Vipāka does this great light have?』 Moreover, the Sutra says, 『The Vipāka felt by the two kinds of food offerings are equal and equal.』 It also says that love is the Vipāka of feeling. It also says, if...
來若不說此語。即諸時眾。無如是異熟。又說此夢。有何異熟。又諸世間。亦說食等為樂異熟。此類寔繁。此諸異熟言。皆就喻假說。如眼福田愛說海火母聲。如何知前亦就喻說。若不爾者。諸無漏法。應有異熟然諸契經。遮無漏法有異熟義。說無漏思。為非黑非白。無異熟業。能盡諸業。故說無漏法。所引等流名異熟者。雖彼情計立異名言。而義無別。又諸經中。亦有如是就喻假說。如人壽短。說為殺生等流果故。此于增上。說等流言。以不善業無覆無記。為等流果。不應理故。何緣定知。唯不善法。及善有漏。是異熟因。契經說故。謂契經說。有黑黑異熟業。有白白異熟業。有黑白黑白異熟業。有非黑非白異熟業。能盡諸業。又契經言。現見領受悅意異熟。或復領受悲號異熟。由善不善。又說我遭身業等損。謂苦受生受苦異熟。復言我遇身業等益。謂樂受生受樂異熟。如斯等證。其類眾多。又如同類異熟二因。義不相雜。等流異熟二果。亦應不相雜亂。雖諸異熟不越等流。而彼異熟。非彼等流。故知異熟等流果異佛觀所化宜聞差別。說法有殊。阿毗達磨。依真實理。決判諸法。故非異熟總攝諸果經言諸業有三果故。若一切果皆異熟者。經不應言果及異熟。若執諸果皆異熟果。應許諸因皆異熟因。經說諸業為生因故
。如眼耳等。宿業為因。應從因生。皆由宿業。是則經說。無明為因。起貪瞋癡。及有經說。有因緣故。眾生耽染。此等皆應因於宿業。許亦何失。如種種身是宿業果。現行煩惱。差別亦然。是則應同離系邪論。非佛弟子。且置如斯破愚傍論。根本法相。今應正辯。何緣無漏不招異熟。毗婆沙說。無愛潤故。如貞實種無水潤沃。又無漏法。既非系地。如何能招系地異熟。何緣無記不招異熟。由力劣故。如朽敗種。余善不善。能招異熟。如有水潤諸貞實種。然異熟因。或持業釋。故契經說。異熟生眼。或依主釋。故契經言。業之異熟。義如前辯。言異熟者。或離因熟。或異因熟。此二屬果。或所造業。至得果時。變而能熟。此一屬因。然經主言。毗婆沙師。作如是釋。異類而熟。是異熟義。謂異熟因。唯異類熟。俱有等因。唯同類熟。能作一因。兼同異熟。故唯此一。名異熟因。乃至廣說。皆不應理。毗婆沙師。非決定說。六因所得。皆名熟故。設許爾者。是果異名。亦無有失。此異熟因。總說有二。一能牽引。二能圓滿。且眾同分。及與命根。非不相應行獨所能牽引。云何知然。契經說故。如契經說。業為生因。又說業令生死輪轉。又言業力。能別有情。又言劣界。思業所引。應知劣界。即是欲有。又品類足說。諸命
【現代漢語翻譯】 如眼、耳等（指感覺器官）。宿業（前世的行為）是產生它們的原因。既然一切都應從因產生，那麼所有這些都應源於宿業。如果是這樣，那麼經書上所說的『無明（ignorance）是產生貪、瞋、癡（greed, hatred, and delusion）的原因』，以及『由於因緣（conditions），眾生（sentient beings）沉溺於世俗』的說法，都應該歸因於宿業。接受這種觀點又有什麼損失呢？就像各種各樣的身體是宿業的結果一樣，現在產生的煩惱的差別也是如此。如果是這樣，那就應該和離系外道（a non-Buddhist school of thought）的邪論一樣了，而不是佛陀的弟子。暫且放下這些破除愚癡的旁論，現在應該正確地辨析根本的法相（dharmas）。為什麼無漏（free from outflows）的善業不能招感異熟果（vipaka-phala, a result that is different in nature from its cause）呢？《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，因為沒有愛的滋潤，就像堅實的種子沒有水的滋潤一樣。而且，無漏法既然不屬於繫縛之地（the realm of bondage），又怎麼能招感繫縛之地的異熟果呢？為什麼無記（neutral）的業不能招感異熟果呢？因為力量弱小，就像腐爛的種子一樣。其餘的善業和不善業能夠招感異熟果，就像有水滋潤的堅實種子一樣。然而，異熟因（vipaka-hetu, the cause of vipaka）有時是持業釋（karmadharaya, a type of compound word），所以契經（sutra）說『異熟生眼（vipaka-ja-caksu, the eye born from vipaka）』；有時是依主釋（tatpurusa, another type of compound word），所以契經說『業之異熟（karma-vipaka, the vipaka of karma）』。意義如前面所辨析的。說到異熟，有的是『離因熟（ripens apart from the cause）』，有的是『異因熟（ripens from a different cause）』，這兩種都屬於果。有的是『所造業（the karma created）』，到得果的時候，發生變化而能夠成熟，這一個屬於因。然而，經論的主張者說，毗婆沙師是這樣解釋的：『異類而熟（ripens as something different）』，這就是異熟的含義。也就是說，異熟因只能以異類的形式成熟，俱有等因（co-existent causes）只能以同類的形式成熟，能作一因（capable cause）兼有同類和異類的成熟，所以只有這一個被稱為異熟因，乃至廣說，都是不合理的。毗婆沙師並沒有決定說六因（six causes）所得的都叫做熟。即使允許這樣說，也只是果的別名，也沒有什麼損失。這個異熟因，總的來說有兩種：一是能牽引（draw forth），二是能圓滿（complete）。而且，眾同分（community of beings）以及命根（life force），並非不相應行（dissociated formations）所能單獨牽引的。怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為契經是這樣說的。如契經說，業是生的原因，又說業令生死輪轉，又說業力能夠區分有情，又說劣界（inferior realms）是思業（intentional karma）所牽引的。應該知道劣界就是欲有（the realm of desire）。而且，《品類足論》（Prakaranapada）說，諸命 根（life faculty）由業所引。故知眾同分。及與命根。非不相應行獨所能引。然諸有情。隨先業力。于彼彼處。相續生時。先業所引。眾同分等。于彼彼處。相續而起。后業爾時。能為圓滿。故異熟因。總有二種。謂能牽引。及能圓滿。若爾何失。如是二因。于異熟果。有勝有劣。如於一果。多因和合。有因於中。勢力增者。名為勝因。餘名為劣。此亦應爾。若爾何用。別立二名。有別用故。謂能牽引。唯能牽引。不能圓滿。能圓滿者。亦能牽引。亦能圓滿。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自類異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他類異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自地異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他地異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自果異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他果異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自相異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他相異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自時異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他時異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自界異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他界異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自蘊異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他蘊異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自處異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他處異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自門異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他門異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自性異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他性異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自受異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他受異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自根異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他根異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自觸異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他觸異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自想異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他想異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自法異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他法異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自業異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他業異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自煩惱異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他煩惱異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自隨眠異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他隨眠異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自纏異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他纏異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自蓋異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他蓋異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自暴流異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他暴流異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自軛異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他軛異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自取異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他取異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自系異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他系異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自結異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他結異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自根異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他根異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自處異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他處異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自界異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他界異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自蘊異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他蘊異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自相異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他相異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自時異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他時異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自性異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他性異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自受異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他受異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自法異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他法異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自業異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他業異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自煩惱異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他煩惱異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自隨眠異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他隨眠異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自纏異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他纏異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自蓋異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他蓋異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自暴流異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他暴流異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自軛異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他軛異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自取異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他取異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自系異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他系異熟。是謂二種差別作用。復有差別。謂能牽引。唯能牽引自結異熟。能圓滿者。亦能牽引他結異熟。是謂二種差別作用。
【English Translation】 Like the eyes and ears (referring to the sense organs). Past karma (actions from previous lives) is the cause of their arising. Since everything should arise from a cause, all of these should originate from past karma. If this is the case, then the statements in the scriptures that 'ignorance (avidya) is the cause of greed, hatred, and delusion (raga, dvesha, and moha),' and 'due to conditions (pratyaya), sentient beings (sattva) are immersed in worldliness,' should all be attributed to past karma. What is the loss in accepting this view? Just as the various bodies are the result of past karma, so too are the differences in the afflictions that arise now. If this is the case, then it should be the same as the heretical theories of the Nirgranthas (a non-Buddhist school of thought), and not the disciples of the Buddha. Let us set aside these side arguments that refute ignorance, and now we should correctly analyze the fundamental dharmas (phenomena). Why is it that undefiled (anasrava) wholesome karma does not produce vipaka-phala (a result that is different in nature from its cause)? The Vibhasa (commentary) says that it is because it is not moistened by love, just like a solid seed is not moistened by water. Moreover, since undefiled dharmas do not belong to the realm of bondage, how can they produce vipaka-phala in the realm of bondage? Why is it that neutral (avyakrta) karma does not produce vipaka-phala? Because its power is weak, like a rotten seed. The remaining wholesome and unwholesome karma can produce vipaka-phala, just like a solid seed is moistened by water. However, vipaka-hetu (the cause of vipaka) is sometimes a karmadharaya (a type of compound word), so the sutra says 'vipaka-ja-caksu (the eye born from vipaka)'; sometimes it is a tatpurusa (another type of compound word), so the sutra says 'karma-vipaka (the vipaka of karma).' The meaning is as analyzed earlier. When it comes to vipaka, some ripen 'apart from the cause,' and some ripen 'from a different cause,' both of which belong to the result. Some are 'the karma created,' which, when the time comes to obtain the result, changes and is able to ripen, and this one belongs to the cause. However, the proponents of the scriptures say that the Vibhasa masters explain it this way: 'Ripens as something different,' this is the meaning of vipaka. That is to say, vipaka-hetu can only ripen in a different form, co-existent causes can only ripen in the same form, and capable cause has both the same and different ripening, so only this one is called vipaka-hetu, and so on, which is all unreasonable. The Vibhasa masters did not definitively say that everything obtained from the six causes is called ripening. Even if this is allowed, it is only another name for the result, and there is no loss. This vipaka-hetu, generally speaking, has two types: one is able to draw forth, and the other is able to complete. Moreover, the community of beings and the life force are not solely drawn forth by dissociated formations. How do we know this is the case? Because the sutras say so. As the sutra says, karma is the cause of birth, and it also says that karma causes the cycle of birth and death to turn, and it also says that the power of karma can distinguish sentient beings, and it also says that inferior realms are drawn forth by intentional karma. It should be known that inferior realms are the realm of desire. Moreover, the Prakaranapada (treatise) says that the life faculty is drawn forth by karma. Therefore, it is known that the community of beings and the life force are not solely drawn forth by dissociated formations. However, when sentient beings are continuously born in various places according to the power of their past karma, the community of beings and so on, which are drawn forth by past karma, continuously arise in those various places. Later karma is then able to complete them. Therefore, there are two types of vipaka-hetu in general: one that is able to draw forth, and one that is able to complete. If so, what is the loss? These two causes have superiority and inferiority in the vipaka-phala. Just as in one result, many causes come together, and the cause that has greater power among them is called the superior cause, and the rest are called inferior causes, this should also be the case. If so, what is the use of establishing two separate names? There is a separate use because the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth and cannot complete, while the one that is able to complete can both draw forth and complete. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own kind, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other kinds. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own realm, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other realms. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own result, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other results. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own characteristic, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other characteristics. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own time, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other times. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own realm, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other realms. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own aggregates, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other aggregates. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own place, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other places. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own door, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other doors. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own nature, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other natures. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own feeling, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other feelings. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own faculty, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other faculties. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own contact, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other contacts. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own perception, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other perceptions. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own dharma, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other dharmas. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own karma, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other karmas. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own afflictions, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other afflictions. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own latent tendencies, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other latent tendencies. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own bonds, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other bonds. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own hindrances, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other hindrances. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own floods, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other floods. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own yokes, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other yokes. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own grasping, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other grasping. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own fetters, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other fetters. This is the difference in the two types of functions. There is another difference, which is that the one that is able to draw forth can only draw forth vipaka of its own ties, while the one that is able to complete can also draw forth vipaka of other ties. This is the difference in the two types of functions.
根是業異熟。非是業故。不相應行無是業者。諸有釋此品類足言。一切命根。皆是異熟。于招異熟業力最勝。由此意趣故作是說。豈不此釋轉復能遮不相應行有牽引力業于異熟。是勝因故。命眾同分。是勝異熟。許唯業招命眾同分。方可得說。于招異熟業力最勝。異不應爾。要業牽引。命眾同分時非業緣斯亦能招異熟若執非業亦能牽引勝異熟者。則不應說于招異熟業力最勝。是故彼釋。定非應理。非心隨轉身語二業定不能引命眾同分。不爾便違契經正理。經言劣界思所引故。此說欲有命眾同分。唯意業感。非身語業。身語表業。眾多極微。一心所起于中唯一。引眾同分及與命根。余無此能。不應理故。若許同時共感一果。則應更互為俱有因。有對造色。為俱有因。非宗所許。此非展轉力所生故。又非次第一一極微牽引命根及眾同分。一心起故。非一心起。無異功能別引生后。而無過失。非為滿業。亦有斯過。於一生中。各別能取色香味等。圓滿果故。依此無表。亦同此釋。多遠離體一心起故。不許互為俱有因故。若無對造色有非俱有因。說有對言。便為無用。顯有對造色皆非俱有因。故作是說。有無對造色得為俱有因。不可同彼。若欲界系身語二業。不能牽引。便違契經。如說殺生若修若習若多修習生那落迦。乃至廣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『根』（indriya）是業的異熟果（vipāka）。但它本身不是業，因為不相應行法（viprayukta-samskara）中沒有能被稱為業的。有些解釋《品類足論》（Prakaranapada）的人說，一切命根（jivitendriya）都是異熟果，因為它們在招感異熟果的業力中最為殊勝。他們是出於這種想法才這樣說的。但這種解釋豈不是反而阻礙了不相應行法具有牽引異熟果的力量？因為命根是殊勝的異熟果，而業是殊勝的因。如果承認只有業才能招感命根的同分（nikayasabhaga），那麼才能說業在招感異熟果的業力中最為殊勝。否則，如果不是業的牽引，命根的同分在不是業的因緣時也能招感異熟果，那麼就不應該說業在招感異熟果的業力中最為殊勝。因此，那種解釋肯定是不合理的。 非心（acitta）隨轉的身語二業（kaya-vacikakarma）一定不能牽引命根的同分。否則，就違背了契經（sutra）的正理。經中說，『由下劣界的思所牽引』，這是說欲界的命根同分，唯有意業（manaskarma）所感，而非身語業。身語的表業（vijnapti-karma），由眾多極微（paramanu）組成，由一個心所（cittacaitta）生起，其中只有一個能牽引眾同分和命根，其餘的沒有這種能力，因為這不合道理。如果允許同時共同感受一個果報，那麼它們應該互相成為俱有因（sahabhu-hetu）。有對的造色（sapratigha-rupa）可以作為俱有因，但這不是宗義所允許的，因為這不是輾轉力所生。而且，也不是次第地由每一個極微牽引命根和眾同分，因為它們是由一個心生起的。不是由一個心生起的，就沒有不同的功能來分別牽引產生後來的果報，這樣才沒有過失。即使是爲了圓滿業（paripurna-karma），也有這種過失，因為在一生中，可以分別獲取色香味等圓滿的果報。根據這一點，無表業（avijnapti-karma）也同樣可以這樣解釋，因為多個遠離的體是由一個心生起的，而且不允許互相成為俱有因。如果沒有對的造色作為非俱有因，那麼說『有對』這個詞就沒有用處了。說『有對』是爲了顯示有對的造色都不是俱有因。有無對的造色可以作為俱有因，但不能和有對的造色一樣。 如果欲界的身語二業不能牽引（異熟果），就違背了契經。例如經中說，『殺生，如果修習、串習、多次修習，就會生到那落迦（naraka，地獄）』，乃至廣說。
【English Translation】 English version 'Root' (indriya) is the result of the maturation of karma (vipāka). However, it is not karma itself, because non-associated formations (viprayukta-samskara) do not contain anything that can be called karma. Some who interpret the Prakaranapada (Treatise on Categories) say that all life faculties (jivitendriya) are the result of maturation, because they are the most excellent in the power of karma that attracts maturation. They say this with this intention. But doesn't this interpretation further prevent non-associated formations from having the power to attract maturation? Because the life faculty is an excellent result of maturation, and karma is an excellent cause. If it is admitted that only karma can attract the commonality of life faculties (nikayasabhaga), then it can be said that karma is the most excellent in the power of karma that attracts maturation. Otherwise, if the commonality of life faculties can attract maturation even when it is not the cause of karma, then it should not be said that karma is the most excellent in the power of karma that attracts maturation. Therefore, that interpretation is definitely unreasonable. The bodily and verbal karmas (kaya-vacikakarma) that follow a non-mind (acitta) state certainly cannot attract the commonality of life faculties. Otherwise, it would violate the correct principle of the sutras. The sutra says, 'Attracted by the thought of the inferior realm,' which means that the commonality of life faculties in the desire realm is only felt by mental karma (manaskarma), not by bodily or verbal karma. The expressive karmas (vijnapti-karma) of body and speech are composed of numerous atoms (paramanu) and arise from a single mental state (cittacaitta). Among them, only one can attract the commonality of beings and the life faculty, and the rest do not have this ability, because it is unreasonable. If it is allowed to simultaneously experience a single result, then they should become co-existent causes (sahabhu-hetu) to each other. Colored matter with resistance (sapratigha-rupa) can be a co-existent cause, but this is not allowed by the doctrine, because it is not produced by reciprocal force. Moreover, it is not that each atom sequentially attracts the life faculty and the commonality of beings, because they arise from a single mind. If they do not arise from a single mind, then there is no different function to separately attract and produce later results, so there is no fault. Even for complete karma (paripurna-karma), there is this fault, because in one lifetime, one can separately obtain complete results such as color, smell, taste, etc. Based on this, non-expressive karma (avijnapti-karma) can also be explained in the same way, because multiple distant entities arise from a single mind, and it is not allowed to become co-existent causes to each other. If there is no colored matter with resistance as a non-co-existent cause, then saying 'with resistance' is useless. Saying 'with resistance' is to show that colored matter with resistance is not a co-existent cause. Colored matter without resistance can be a co-existent cause, but it cannot be the same as colored matter with resistance. If the bodily and verbal karmas of the desire realm cannot attract (the result of maturation), it would violate the sutras. For example, the sutra says, 'Killing living beings, if practiced, cultivated, and repeatedly cultivated, will lead to rebirth in Naraka (naraka, hell),' and so on.
說。又違本論。如說於此三惡行中。何罪最大。謂能隨順僧破妄語。此業能取無間獄中劫壽異熟。壽定說為所牽引果。此說所起。顯能起思。粗易了故。無相違失。于欲界中。有時一蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂有記得及彼生等。有時二蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂善不善色及生等。有時四蘊。為異熟因。共感一果。謂善不善心心所法。及彼生等。欲界無有隨轉色故。無有五蘊為異熟因共感一果。有餘師說。欲界亦有五蘊為因共感一果。謂同剎那表無表色。及能起此心心所法。彼說不然。所起身語。與諸能起。異熟別故。能起所起。非定一時。故所感果。非定俱起。謂能所起。容於一時能取果故。應一果者。理亦不然。雖能所起容有一時而果異故。表與無表。雖同剎那。而所取果。尚有差別。又諸表業有多極微。無表亦有多遠離事。必同時起。果尚有殊。何況能起心心所法。與非隨轉色。而同取一果。故彼所說。理定不然。於色界中。有時一蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂有記得。無想等至。及彼生等。有時二蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂初靜慮。善有表業。及彼生等。非於第二靜慮已上有諸表業。無能起故。有時四蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂無隨轉色。善心心所法。及彼生等。此有六心。如后當說。有時五蘊為異熟因。共感一
果。謂有隨轉色。諸心心所法。及彼生等。無色界中。有時一蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂有記得滅盡等至。及彼生等。有時四蘊為異熟因。共感一果。謂一切善心心所法。如是總有九異熟因。謂三界中。如數次第。三四二種品類差別。有業唯感一處異熟。謂感法處。即命根等。若感意處。定感二處。謂意與法。若感觸處。應知亦二。謂觸與法。若感色處。定感三處。謂色觸法。若感香味。應知亦三。謂各為一。並觸與法若感身處。定感四處。謂身色處觸處法處。若感眼處。定感五處。謂眼身色及觸法處。感耳鼻舌。應知亦五。謂各為一。身色觸法。有業能感六七八九十十一處。聲非異熟。故此不論。業或少果。或多果故。如外種果或少或多。如蓮種等。有根芽莖花臺須葉種種果異。蒲桃等種。則不如是。波沓波種。有多根莖枝條花葉種種果異。有諸水陸草木種類。但有一莖。如針茅等。或但有葉無莖等生。種子法然。不應疑問。有一念業多念異熟。無多念業一念異熟。勿設劬勞果減因故。有一世業三世異熟。無三世業一世異熟。招感異熟勢力法爾。然異熟果無與業俱。非造業時即受果故。又業現在。非即果熟。法受業門。理決定故。亦非無間。由次剎那等無間緣力所引故。剎那正起。力難制故。又異熟因感異類果。必
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於異熟果，即隨轉之色（指與心識相伴而生的色法），以及諸心心所法（指各種心理活動和心理屬性）和它們的生等現象。在無色界中，有時一個蘊（指構成個體存在的要素，如色、受、想、行、識）作為異熟因（指導致果報的原因），共同感受一個果報。例如，有心記得的滅盡定等至（指一種禪定狀態，達到滅盡一切感受和思想的狀態），以及它們的生等現象。 有時四個蘊作為異熟因，共同感受一個果報。例如，一切善心心所法。總共有九種異熟因，即三界（指欲界、色界、無色界）中，按照順序，各有三種、四種、兩種品類的差別。 有些業只能感受一個處的異熟果報，即感受法處（指意識的對象，包括各種概念、思想等），也就是命根等。如果感受意處（指意識本身），必定感受兩個處，即意處和法處。如果感受觸處（指感覺），應當知道也是兩個處，即觸處和法處。如果感受色處（指視覺對像），必定感受三個處，即色處、觸處和法處。如果感受香味，應當知道也是三個處，即香味各自為一，加上觸處和法處。如果感受身處（指身體的感覺），必定感受四個處，即身處、色處、觸處、法處。如果感受眼處（指視覺器官），必定感受五個處，即眼處、身處、色處、觸處、法處。感受耳處、鼻處、舌處，應當知道也是五個處，即各自為一，加上身處、色處、觸處、法處。有些業能夠感受六、七、八、九、十、十一個處。聲音不是異熟果，所以這裡不討論。 業或者產生少的果報，或者產生多的果報，就像外在的種子產生果實，或者少或者多。例如蓮花的種子等，有根、芽、莖、花、臺、須、葉種種不同的果實。蒲桃等的種子，則不是這樣。波沓波的種子，有很多根、莖、枝條、花葉種種不同的果實。有些水陸草木種類，只有一根莖，如針茅等。或者只有葉子沒有莖等生長。種子的法爾如是，不應該疑問。 有一念的業產生多唸的異熟果報，沒有多唸的業產生一念的異熟果報。不要設定勤勞而果報減少的原因。有一世的業產生三世的異熟果報，沒有三世的業產生一世的異熟果報。招感異熟果報的勢力是法爾如是的。然而，異熟果報不會與業同時產生，因為不是造業的時候就立即受果報。而且，業在現在，不是立即果報成熟。法接受業的門徑，道理是決定的。也不是無間，由於次剎那等無間緣（指緊接著前一剎那的因緣）的力量所引導。剎那正起，力量難以控制。而且，異熟因必定感受不同種類的果報。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the results of Vipāka (異熟, maturation, result), namely the accompanying transformed Rūpa (色, form, referring to the physical phenomena that arise in conjunction with consciousness), and all Citta-caitta dharmas (心心所法, mental activities and attributes) and their arising etc. In the Arūpadhātu (無色界, formless realm), sometimes one Skandha (蘊, aggregate, element of existence, such as Rūpa, Vedanā, Saṃjñā, Saṃskāra, Vijñāna) serves as the Vipāka-hetu (異熟因, cause of maturation), jointly experiencing one result. For example, there is the Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) that is remembered, and their arising etc. Sometimes four Skandhas serve as the Vipāka-hetu, jointly experiencing one result. For example, all wholesome Citta-caitta dharmas. In total, there are nine types of Vipāka-hetu, namely in the Triloka (三界, three realms: Kāmadhātu, Rūpadhātu, Arūpadhātu), in order, there are three, four, and two types of differences. Some Karma (業, action) can only experience the Vipāka result of one Āyatana (處, sense base), namely experiencing the Dharmāyatana (法處, sense base of mental objects), which is the Jīvitendriya (命根, life faculty) etc. If one experiences the Manāyatana (意處, sense base of mind), one will definitely experience two Āyatanas, namely the Manāyatana and the Dharmāyatana. If one experiences the Sparśāyatana (觸處, sense base of touch), it should be known that there are also two, namely the Sparśāyatana and the Dharmāyatana. If one experiences the Rūpāyatana (色處, sense base of form), one will definitely experience three Āyatanas, namely the Rūpāyatana, the Sparśāyatana, and the Dharmāyatana. If one experiences the Gandhāyatana (香處, sense base of smell) and Rasāyatana (味處, sense base of taste), it should be known that there are also three, namely each of the Gandhāyatana and Rasāyatana, along with the Sparśāyatana and the Dharmāyatana. If one experiences the Kāyāyatana (身處, sense base of body), one will definitely experience four Āyatanas, namely the Kāyāyatana, the Rūpāyatana, the Sparśāyatana, and the Dharmāyatana. If one experiences the Cakṣurāyatana (眼處, sense base of eye), one will definitely experience five Āyatanas, namely the Cakṣurāyatana, the Kāyāyatana, the Rūpāyatana, the Sparśāyatana, and the Dharmāyatana. Experiencing the Śrotrāyatana (耳處, sense base of ear), Ghrāṇāyatana (鼻處, sense base of nose), and Jihvāyatana (舌處, sense base of tongue), it should be known that there are also five, namely each of them, along with the Kāyāyatana, the Rūpāyatana, the Sparśāyatana, and the Dharmāyatana. Some Karma can experience six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven Āyatanas. Sound is not a Vipāka, so it is not discussed here. Karma can produce either few results or many results, just like external seeds produce fruits, either few or many. For example, lotus seeds etc., have roots, sprouts, stems, flowers, platforms, stamens, leaves, and various different fruits. Seeds of Java plum etc., are not like this. Pātāpa seeds have many roots, stems, branches, flowers, leaves, and various different fruits. Some aquatic and terrestrial plant species have only one stem, such as needle grass etc. Or they only have leaves and no stems etc. The nature of seeds is such, and there should be no doubt. One moment of Karma can produce many moments of Vipāka results, but many moments of Karma cannot produce one moment of Vipāka result. Do not establish the reason for reducing the fruit of labor. One lifetime of Karma can produce Vipāka results in three lifetimes, but three lifetimes of Karma cannot produce Vipāka results in one lifetime. The power of attracting Vipāka results is naturally so. However, Vipāka results do not arise simultaneously with Karma, because one does not immediately receive the result when creating Karma. Moreover, Karma is present, but the result does not mature immediately. The path of Dharma accepting Karma is definitely determined. It is also not without interval, because it is guided by the power of the immediately preceding condition (Samanantara-pratyaya, 等無間緣) of the next moment. When the moment arises, the power is difficult to control. Moreover, Vipāka-hetu definitely experiences results of different kinds.
待相續方能辦故。已說六因。當說世定。頌曰。
遍行與同類 三世三世三
論曰。遍行同類。唯居過現。未來世無。理如前說。相應俱有異熟三因。於三世中。皆悉遍有。頌既不說能作因所居。義準應知通三世非世。不可說彼定時分故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之九
已辯六因相別世定。必應對果建立因名。何等名為因所對果。頌曰。
果有為離系 無為無因果
論曰。果有五種。后當廣說。今且略標有為離系。如本論說。果法雲何。謂諸有為。及與擇滅。豈不擇滅許是果故必應有因。非無有因可說為果。曾未見故。我亦許道為證得因。經說此為沙門果故。此六因內。從何因得。我說此果非從六因。前說六因生所賴故。若爾應許。此證得因。離前六因。別為第七。我宗所許。如汝所言。豈不汝宗有如是誦。涅槃是果。而無有因。雖有此誦。于義無失。謂諸世間。于設功用所欣事辦。共立果名。死於士夫。極為衰惱。故於不死。士最所欣。如是所欣由道功用。所證得故。說名為果。言無因者。道于
所得擇滅無為。非六因故。擇滅于道。非所生果。是所證果。道于擇滅非能生因。是能證因。故道與滅。更互相對。因果是非不可定說。若道于滅。為證得因。是則但應得為道果。誰言道果定非滅得。道于滅得為同類因。或亦說為俱有因故。然此非聖正所求果。由諸聖者以所得滅蘊在心中。修行聖道。故道勝果。唯所得滅。非滅之得。以諸聖者非求有為而修聖道。故薄伽梵。于契經中。說沙門果唯斷非道非唯為證。道修道。非無用得。初念道時。應所作已辦。若許擇滅。是能作因。應許涅槃。有增上果。非許擇滅。眼等生時。有能生用。可如聲等。謂有為法。正生位中。有為無為。皆不為障。故一切法。皆能作因。然有為中。唯過現法。有取與用。說為有果。未來諸法。及諸無為。無如是用。故非有果。故契經說。諸因諸緣。能生識者。皆是無常。雖無為法。是因是緣。而不能生。故佛不說。如前思擇能作因中。說能作因。略有二種。一有生力。二唯無障。故無為法。無障成因。由不能生故非有果。豈不經說。意法為緣。生於意識。何故無為是法所攝。而不能生。依多能生。密作是說。何妨少分有不能生。或復無為亦能生識。然識非果。如前說故。非能生故。便是無常。彼說能生後有識故。由如是理。如有為法建立因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所得擇滅無為（Nirvana obtained through discernment）：因為它不是六因（hetu）之一。擇滅對於道（marga）來說，不是所生之果，而是所證之果。道對於擇滅來說，不是能生之因，而是能證之因。因此，道與滅是相互對應的，因果關係並非絕對。如果說道對於滅來說是證得之因，那麼就應該只得到道果。誰說道果一定不是滅的獲得呢？道對於滅的獲得來說是同類因，或者也可以說是俱有因。然而，這並非聖者真正追求的果。因為聖者將所得之滅蘊藏在心中，修行聖道。因此，道的殊勝之果，唯有所得之滅，而非滅的獲得。因為聖者並非爲了追求有為法（conditioned phenomena）而修行聖道。所以，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在契經（sutra）中說，沙門果（sramana-phala）唯有斷除煩惱，而非僅僅爲了證得。道修道，並非無用之得。初念道時，應所作已辦。如果允許擇滅是能作因（karana-hetu），就應該允許涅槃（Nirvana）有增上果（adhipati-phala）。不應允許擇滅在眼等生起時，有能生之用，可以像聲音等一樣。也就是說，有為法在正生起的時候，有為和無為都不會成為障礙。因此，一切法都能作為能作因。然而，在有為法中，只有過去和現在的法，有取與之用，可以稱為有果。未來諸法以及諸無為法，沒有這樣的作用，因此不是有果。所以契經說，諸因諸緣，能夠生起識（vijnana）的，都是無常的。雖然無為法是因是緣，但不能生起識，所以佛不說。如前思擇能作因中，說能作因略有二種：一是有生之力，二是唯有無障礙。因此，無為法是無障礙之因，但由於不能生起，所以不是有果。難道經中不是說，意（manas）和法（dharma）為緣，生起意識（manovijnana）嗎？為什麼無為法是法所攝，卻不能生起意識呢？這是依據多數能生的情況，秘密地這樣說的。不妨礙少部分有不能生起的情況。或者無為法也能生起識，然而識不是果，如前所說。因為不能生起，所以便是無常。他們說能生起後有識（rebirth consciousness）的緣故。由於這樣的道理，如有為法建立因。
【English Translation】 English version Nirvana obtained through discernment (Pratisankhya-nirodha): Because it is not one of the six causes (hetu). Nirvana through discernment, in relation to the path (marga), is not a produced result, but a realized result. The path, in relation to Nirvana through discernment, is not a productive cause, but a realizing cause. Therefore, the path and cessation are mutually corresponding, and the relationship of cause and effect is not absolute. If the path is considered the cause for realizing cessation, then only the result of the path should be obtained. Who says that the result of the path is definitely not the attainment of cessation? The path is a homogenous cause for the attainment of cessation, or it can also be said to be a co-existent cause. However, this is not the result truly sought by the noble ones. Because the noble ones, with the cessation they have attained stored in their hearts, practice the noble path. Therefore, the superior result of the path is only the cessation that has been attained, not the attainment of cessation itself. Because the noble ones do not practice the noble path in order to seek conditioned phenomena (samskrta-dharma). Therefore, the Bhagavan (Blessed One) said in the sutras that the fruit of a sramana (sramana-phala) is only the cessation of defilements, and not merely for the sake of realization. The path cultivates the path, and it is not a useless attainment. When the path is first contemplated, what should be done is already accomplished. If it is allowed that Nirvana through discernment is an efficient cause (karana-hetu), then it should be allowed that Nirvana (Nirvana) has a dominant result (adhipati-phala). It should not be allowed that Nirvana through discernment has a productive function when the eyes and other sense organs arise, like sounds and the like. That is to say, when conditioned phenomena are arising, both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena do not become obstacles. Therefore, all phenomena can act as efficient causes. However, among conditioned phenomena, only past and present phenomena have the function of taking and giving, and can be called results. Future phenomena and all unconditioned phenomena do not have such a function, and therefore are not results. Therefore, the sutras say that all causes and conditions that can give rise to consciousness (vijnana) are impermanent. Although unconditioned phenomena are causes and conditions, they cannot give rise to consciousness, so the Buddha does not say so. As previously considered in the efficient cause, it is said that there are roughly two types of efficient causes: one has the power to produce, and the other only has the absence of obstruction. Therefore, unconditioned phenomena are causes of non-obstruction, but because they cannot produce, they are not results. Is it not said in the sutras that mind (manas) and mental objects (dharma) are the conditions for the arising of mental consciousness (manovijnana)? Why is it that unconditioned phenomena are included in mental objects, but cannot give rise to mental consciousness? This is said secretly based on the majority of cases that can produce. It does not hinder the fact that a small portion cannot produce. Or unconditioned phenomena can also give rise to consciousness, but consciousness is not a result, as previously stated. Because it cannot produce, it is impermanent. They say that it is because it can give rise to rebirth consciousness. Due to such reasoning, just as conditioned phenomena establish causes.
果。無為不然。是故擇滅。是因無果。是果無因。理極成立。此中多類誹謗涅槃。彼誹謗因。紛競非一。我今正破經主謗因。兼破余師。成立擇滅因茲亦辯餘二無為。此中經主。引經部說一切無為。皆非實有。如色受等別有實物。此所無故。然經說者。唯無所觸。說名虛空。謂于闇中。無所觸對。便作是說。此是虛空。已起隨眠。生種滅位。由揀擇力。余不更生。說名擇滅。離揀擇力。由闕緣故。余不更生。名非擇滅。如殘眾同分中夭者余蘊。此皆非理。無因證故。且彼所言。唯無所觸。說名虛空。無觸名空我亦信受。空無觸故。言唯無觸。說名虛空。非別有體。此何因證。已證闇中無所觸對。便作是說。此是虛空。豈不此因能證非有。非唯用此所說為因。能證虛空決定非有。謂彼但說。此是虛空。非所觸對。如何知彼唯于無觸。說名虛空。如世說言。此樂非苦。豈唯無苦。說名為樂。若謂不然。苦樂二受。有損有益。所作別故。非此虛空少有所作。可得如樂。故喻不同。是則前因。應成無用。由今但以虛空都無。所作可得證非有故。且定不可以無觸對。謂是虛空為決定因。證虛空體唯無所觸。是則經主此中無因能證虛空決定非有。又契經說。虛空無為。有所作故。非不如樂。如世尊說。風依虛空無作有依非有心執。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 果。『無為』不是由因而生。因此，『擇滅』（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）是因，但沒有果；是果，但沒有因。這個道理極其成立。這裡有很多人誹謗『涅槃』（寂滅），他們誹謗『因』，爭論紛紛，不止一種。我現在要破斥經部（Sautrāntika）的論點，他們誹謗『因』，同時也破斥其他學派的觀點，從而確立『擇滅』的『因』。由此也辨析其餘兩種『無為』（不受因果影響的狀態）。 這裡經部引用經部的觀點，認為一切『無為』都不是真實存在的，不像色、受等有各自真實的實體。因為『無為』沒有這些實體的特性。然而，經中說，只有『無所觸』（沒有阻礙）才被稱為『虛空』（空間）。也就是說，在黑暗中，沒有東西可以觸及，就說這是『虛空』。已經生起的隨眠（煩惱的潛在傾向），在生、住、滅的階段，通過揀擇力（智慧的選擇），使其餘的煩惱不再生起，這被稱為『擇滅』。離開揀擇力，由於缺少因緣，其餘的煩惱不再生起，這被稱為『非擇滅』。就像殘餘的眾同分（生命延續的因素）中，中途夭折者的其餘蘊（構成生命的要素）。這些說法都沒有道理，因為沒有證據支援。 首先，他們所說的，只有『無所觸』才被稱為『虛空』，『無觸』即是『空』，我是相信的，因為『空』就是沒有阻礙。但說『只有無觸』才被稱為『虛空』，而不是有別的實體，這有什麼證據呢？已經證明在黑暗中沒有東西可以觸及，就說這是『虛空』。難道這個理由就能證明『虛空』不存在嗎？不能僅僅用這個理由來證明『虛空』一定不存在。他們只是說，這是『虛空』，沒有觸及。怎麼知道他們僅僅因為沒有觸及，才稱之為『虛空』呢？就像世人說，這是快樂，不是痛苦。難道僅僅因為沒有痛苦，就稱之為快樂嗎？如果說不是這樣，那是因為苦和樂這兩種感受，有損害和有益的作用，所產生的效果不同。而這個『虛空』，卻沒有任何作用可以像快樂一樣被感知。所以這個比喻是不恰當的。那麼，之前的理由就應該變得沒有用了，因為現在僅僅用『虛空』完全沒有作用可以感知，來證明它不存在。 而且，不能僅僅因為沒有觸及，就認為是『虛空』，並以此作為決定性的理由，來證明『虛空』的本體僅僅是沒有觸及。這樣看來，經部在這裡沒有任何理由能夠證明『虛空』一定不存在。此外，契經（佛經）中說，『虛空』是『無為』，因為它有所作用，不像快樂那樣。就像世尊說，風依靠『虛空』，沒有造作，有依靠，不是有心識的執取。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Asrava』 (unconditioned reality) is not caused. Therefore, 『Nirvana attained through discrimination』 (擇滅, cessation through choice) is a cause without a result, and a result without a cause. This principle is extremely well-established. Here, many people slander 『Nirvana』 (寂滅, cessation), and they slander the 『cause,』 with numerous and varied disputes. Now, I will refute the arguments of the Sautrāntika (經部), who slander the 『cause,』 and also refute the views of other schools, thereby establishing the 『cause』 of 『cessation through choice.』 From this, I will also analyze the remaining two types of 『unconditioned reality』 (無為, that which is not subject to cause and effect). Here, the Sautrāntika quotes the view of the Sautrāntika school, asserting that all 『unconditioned realities』 are not truly existent, unlike form, sensation, etc., which have their own real entities. Because 『unconditioned realities』 do not have these characteristics of real entities. However, the sutras say that only 『absence of contact』 (無所觸, absence of obstruction) is called 『space』 (虛空). That is, in darkness, there is nothing that can be touched, and it is said that this is 『space.』 Latent tendencies (隨眠, potential tendencies of afflictions) that have already arisen, in the stages of arising, abiding, and ceasing, through the power of discrimination (揀擇力, the power of wise choice), prevent the remaining afflictions from arising again, and this is called 『cessation through choice.』 Apart from the power of discrimination, due to the lack of conditions, the remaining afflictions do not arise again, and this is called 『cessation not through choice.』 Like the remaining aggregates (蘊, elements constituting life) of those who die prematurely among the remaining common destiny (眾同分, factors of life continuation). These statements are all unreasonable because there is no evidence to support them. First, what they say, that only 『absence of contact』 is called 『space,』 and that 『absence of contact』 is 『emptiness』 (空), I believe, because 『emptiness』 is without obstruction. But to say that 『only absence of contact』 is called 『space,』 and that it does not have another entity, what evidence is there for this? It has been proven that in darkness, there is nothing that can be touched, and it is said that this is 『space.』 Can this reason prove that 『space』 does not exist? It cannot be proven that 『space』 definitely does not exist merely by using this reason. They only say that this is 『space,』 without contact. How do we know that they call it 『space』 only because there is no contact? Just as people say, this is happiness, not suffering. Is it called happiness merely because there is no suffering? If it is said that it is not like this, it is because the two feelings of suffering and happiness have the effects of harm and benefit, and the effects they produce are different. But this 『space』 does not have any effect that can be perceived like happiness. Therefore, this analogy is inappropriate. Then, the previous reason should become useless, because now it is only used to prove that 『space』 does not exist because 『space』 has no effect that can be perceived. Moreover, it cannot be considered 『space』 merely because there is no contact, and this cannot be used as a decisive reason to prove that the essence of 『space』 is merely the absence of contact. In this way, the Sautrāntika has no reason here to prove that 『space』 definitely does not exist. Furthermore, the sutras (契經, Buddhist scriptures) say that 『space』 is 『unconditioned reality,』 because it has a function, unlike happiness. Just as the World Honored One (世尊, the Buddha) said, the wind relies on 『space,』 without creation, with reliance, not with the grasping of consciousness.
又光明色是虛空相。故知虛空其體實有。如契經說。然藉光明虛空顯了由此定顯虛空之相。所謂光明。所以契經復說此語。謂佛先說。風依虛空。后說虛空無所依止。勿彼梵志生如是疑。如何證知虛空是有。而世尊說。風依虛空。為遣彼疑。復說此語。若空非有。何藉光明。光明有色有見有對。若無虛空。誰能容受。故世尊說然藉光明虛空顯者。顯光明色能與虛空為實有相。然彼上座。不了此經所說義趣。妄作是詰。若藉光明虛空顯了。虛空應是色法所收。如是詰言。何從而至。又虛空體。應實非無。以契經中如心說故。如契經言。虛空無色無見無對。當何所依。非於我中或兔角等。可有如是差別言說。此中彼釋。為對所問。故說此言。如契經說。善調伏我。我是所依。若為對問說此言者。不應作是說。但應言梵志虛空無體當何所依。又不應說然藉光明虛空顯了。非於前際說言可了。及於作者說言可得。而應說為如實對問。若於非有如有而說。此說便成無義利語。又所引喻于證無能。調我我依於心說故。此于內義已廣思擇。無色等言。若無實義。此所引喻。何所辯成。又彼所言。若虛空體少有實物。虛空常故。則有礙色應永不生。或應許此是有為攝。如筏蹉子。彼不審思。故作是說由彼所執。實不能容余礙色故。非虛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 又，光明的顯現依賴於虛空，這證明了虛空本身是真實存在的。正如契經（佛經）所說，光明的存在使得虛空得以顯現，因此可以確定虛空的存在。所謂光明，契經中也對此有所闡述。佛陀先說，風依存於虛空；之後又說，虛空不依賴於任何事物。這是爲了避免梵志（婆羅門修行者）產生這樣的疑問：如何證明虛空是存在的，而世尊（佛陀）卻說風依存於虛空？爲了消除他們的疑惑，佛陀進一步解釋說，如果虛空不存在，又何須光明來顯現它呢？光明是有顏色、可見、有對礙的。如果沒有虛空，誰能容納光明呢？因此，世尊說，光明的存在使得虛空得以顯現，這表明光明可以作為虛空真實存在的證據。然而，那位上座（長老比丘）沒有理解這部經的真正含義，妄加詰難說：『如果虛空的顯現依賴於光明，那麼虛空就應該被歸類為色法（物質現象）。』這樣的詰難從何而來呢？ 此外，虛空本身應該是真實存在的，而不是不存在的，因為契經中是這樣描述的。正如契經所說：『虛空無色、無見、無對礙，它又依賴於什麼呢？』這並不是說在『我』之中，或者像兔角一樣，可以有這樣的差別言說。對此，他們的解釋是爲了回答所提出的問題，所以才這樣說。正如契經所說：『善於調伏我，我是所依賴的。』如果爲了回答問題而這樣說，就不應該這樣說，而應該說：『梵志，虛空沒有實體，它又依賴於什麼呢？』也不應該說光明的存在使得虛空得以顯現。不應該說在前際（過去）可以理解，或者在作者（造物者）那裡可以得到，而應該如實地回答問題。如果對於不存在的事物，說成是存在的事物，那麼這種說法就變得毫無意義。而且，所引用的比喻也無法證明任何事情，因為調伏『我』，『我』是所依賴的，這是在心中說的。關於內在的意義已經廣泛地思考過了。無色等等的說法，如果沒有真實的意義，那麼所引用的比喻又能證明什麼呢？ 還有他們所說：『如果虛空本身稍微有一點真實的東西，因為虛空是永恒的，那麼有礙的色法就應該永遠不會產生。』或者應該承認這是有為法（因緣和合而成的法）。就像筏蹉子（Vacchagotta）一樣，他們沒有仔細思考，所以才這樣說。因為他們所執著的實體不能容納其他的有礙色法，而不是虛空本身不能容納。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the appearance of light depends on space (ākāśa), which proves that space itself is real. As stated in the sutras (kheyaṅga sutta), the existence of light makes space manifest, thus confirming the existence of space. Regarding light, the sutras also elaborate on this. The Buddha first said that wind depends on space; then he said that space does not depend on anything. This is to avoid the Brahmins (Brahmin practitioners) from having such doubts: How to prove that space exists, while the World Honored One (Bhagavan, the Buddha) says that wind depends on space? To dispel their doubts, the Buddha further explained that if space did not exist, why would light be needed to manifest it? Light has color, is visible, and has resistance. If there were no space, who could accommodate light? Therefore, the World Honored One said that the existence of light makes space manifest, which shows that light can serve as evidence of the real existence of space. However, that Elder (Thera, senior bhikkhu) did not understand the true meaning of this sutra and rashly questioned: 'If the appearance of space depends on light, then space should be classified as form (rūpa, material phenomena).' Where does such a question come from? Moreover, space itself should be real, not non-existent, because that is how it is described in the sutras. As the sutras say: 'Space has no color, is invisible, and has no resistance; what does it depend on?' It is not to say that within 'me,' or like a rabbit's horn, there can be such different statements. In response, their explanation is to answer the question, so they say this. As the sutras say: 'Well-taming me, I am the dependent.' If saying this to answer the question, one should not say this, but should say: 'Brahmin, space has no substance, what does it depend on?' Nor should it be said that the existence of light makes space manifest. It should not be said that it can be understood in the past (pūrva), or obtained from the creator (kartṛ), but should answer the question truthfully. If for something that does not exist, it is said to be something that exists, then this statement becomes meaningless. Moreover, the cited metaphor cannot prove anything, because taming 'me,' 'I' is the dependent, which is said in the mind. The inner meaning has been extensively considered. If the statements of no color, etc., have no real meaning, then what can the cited metaphor prove? Also, what they said: 'If space itself has a little bit of real substance, because space is eternal, then obstructive form should never arise.' Or it should be admitted that this is conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta). Like Vacchagotta (Vacchagotta), they did not think carefully, so they said this. Because the entity they cling to cannot accommodate other obstructive forms, not that space itself cannot accommodate them.
空體被余礙色所障礙故。余色生時。虛空開避。成無常失。然此虛空。容受性故。非色性故。無勞開避。虛空界體是障色故。余色生時。理應開避。謂虛空界。是輕妙色。雖不障余。而被余障。可是無常有為所攝。虛空相者。既不障余。亦非余障。色法生位。寧是無常有為所攝。虛空與色。同住無違。故於諸位。無起無盡。然壁等中有障礙者。由有礙色居彼障余。非空無為彼中無故。虛空界色。微薄輕妙。不能礙余。被余粗重色排障時。即便開避。諸有對色。法應如是。若一所居。必無第二。虛空無對與空界殊。何容類彼有無常失。又彼所言。若虛空體。是實有物。應成有為。此與空界。無差別故。彼有虛言。而無實理。世尊自說有差別故。如契經言。虛空無色無見無對。又言空界離色染時。與四俱斷。若虛空界。不異虛空。虛空無色無見無對。空界應然。應如識界說于無色離染時斷。又經說空界成假士夫。及說藉光明虛空顯了。若虛空界即是虛空。又即光明是虛空界。豈契經說然藉光明光明顯了。故知有異。又契經說。所有諸法。若諸有為。若諸無為。于中離染。最為第一。然此經中。說法有二。無為是法。不可言無。無體不應成法性故。諸無為者。顯彼體多。故有虛空及非擇滅。足以離染方可成多。除此更無餘無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 空界（Akasa-dhatu，指虛空的元素）被其餘的有礙之色所障礙，因此，當其他色法生起時，虛空需要讓開，這導致了無常的過失。然而，這種虛空具有容受的性質，並且不是色法的性質，因此不需要讓開。虛空界（Akasa-dhatu）的體性是障礙色法的，所以當其他色法生起時，按道理應該讓開。這是因為虛空界是輕妙之色，雖然它不障礙其他色法，但會被其他色法所障礙，因此可以被視為無常的有為法所攝。虛空的相，既不障礙其他色法，也不是被其他色法所障礙，當色法生起時，怎麼能說是無常的有為法所攝呢？虛空與色法同住而沒有違背，所以在各種狀態下，沒有生起也沒有消盡。然而，在墻壁等物體中存在障礙，是因為有礙之色佔據了那個位置，從而阻礙了其他物體，而不是因為虛空無為法存在於其中。虛空界之色，微薄輕妙，不能阻礙其他物體，當被其他粗重的色法排擠阻礙時，就會讓開。所有有對的色法，都應該是這樣。如果一個物體佔據了一個位置，那麼必然沒有第二個物體可以佔據。虛空沒有對礙，與虛空界不同，怎麼能將它比作虛空界，並認為它有無常的過失呢？ 此外，他們所說，如果虛空的體性是真實存在的物體，那麼就應該成為有為法，這與虛空界沒有差別。他們所說的是虛妄之言，沒有真實的道理，因為世尊自己說過它們之間是有差別的。正如契經所說，虛空沒有顏色，沒有可見性，沒有對礙。又說，空界在離開色染時，與四種事物一同斷除。如果虛空界與虛空沒有區別，那麼虛空沒有顏色，沒有可見性，沒有對礙，空界也應該如此。應該像識界一樣，在描述離開色染時被斷除。此外，經中說空界構成了假名士夫，並且說憑藉光明，虛空才得以顯現。如果虛空界就是虛空，又即是光明，那麼契經怎麼會說憑藉光明，光明才得以顯現呢？因此可知它們是有區別的。還有契經說，所有諸法，無論是諸有為法，還是諸無為法，在其中離染，是最為第一的。然而，這部經中，說法有兩種，無為法是法，不可說沒有，沒有體性不應該成為法性。諸無為法，顯示了它們的體性很多，所以有虛空和非擇滅，足以用來離染，才可以成為很多。除了這些之外，沒有其他的無為法了。
【English Translation】 English version The Akasa-dhatu (space element) is obstructed by the remaining obstructive colors, therefore, when other colors arise, space needs to give way, which leads to the fault of impermanence. However, this space has the nature of accommodation and is not the nature of color, so there is no need to give way. The nature of Akasa-dhatu is to obstruct colors, so when other colors arise, it should give way in principle. This is because Akasa-dhatu is a subtle color, although it does not obstruct other colors, it is obstructed by other colors, so it can be regarded as being included in impermanent conditioned phenomena. The characteristic of space neither obstructs other colors nor is obstructed by other colors. When colors arise, how can it be said to be included in impermanent conditioned phenomena? Space and colors coexist without contradiction, so in various states, there is no arising and no ceasing. However, the obstruction in walls and other objects is because obstructive colors occupy that position, thereby obstructing other objects, not because the unconditioned space exists in it. The color of Akasa-dhatu is subtle and light, unable to obstruct other objects. When it is squeezed and obstructed by other coarse colors, it will give way. All obstructive colors should be like this. If one object occupies a position, then there must be no second object that can occupy it. Space has no obstruction and is different from Akasa-dhatu. How can it be compared to Akasa-dhatu and considered to have the fault of impermanence? Furthermore, they say that if the nature of space is a real object, then it should become a conditioned phenomenon, which is no different from Akasa-dhatu. What they say is false and has no real reason, because the World-Honored One himself said that there are differences between them. As the sutra says, space has no color, no visibility, and no obstruction. It also says that when the space element is separated from color attachment, it is cut off together with four things. If Akasa-dhatu is no different from space, then space has no color, no visibility, and no obstruction, and Akasa-dhatu should be the same. It should be described as being cut off when separated from color attachment, just like the Vijnana-dhatu (consciousness element). Furthermore, the sutra says that the space element constitutes a nominal person, and that space is revealed by light. If Akasa-dhatu is space, and is also light, then how can the sutra say that light is revealed by light? Therefore, it can be known that they are different. There is also a sutra that says that all dharmas, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are the most supreme when detached from attachment. However, in this sutra, there are two kinds of dharmas. Unconditioned dharmas are dharmas and cannot be said to be non-existent. Not having a nature should not become the nature of dharma. The unconditioned dharmas show that their nature is many, so there are space and non-selective cessation, which are sufficient to be used for detachment and can become many. Apart from these, there are no other unconditioned dharmas.
為故。由此空界非即虛空。上坐不思。言二無別。有餘師說。無別虛空。于礙色無生空覺故。彼說非理。即由此因能證虛空。別有體故。異礙色處。別有虛空能為所緣。生空覺故。若無所緣。覺不生故。由斯彼說。但有虛言。又亦可言。無別礙色。于空無處。色覺生故。然非由此可證色無。故彼不能證空非有。若謂諸色有體可知。空亦應然。可比知故。謂如眼等。雖不現知。而由有用。比知有體。如是虛空。亦有用故。比知有體。用如前說。是故虛空。別有實體。又彼所說。已起隨眠生種滅位。由揀擇力。余不更生。名擇滅者。如是擇滅。理亦不成。緣闕不生。無差別故。擇力緣闕二種不生。委細推徴。竟有何別。又離聖道。亦有不生。豈不修道便成無用。此非無用。以修道力。能滅未生未來隨眠及生種子。由種滅故。令未來世惑苦不生。若謂不爾。彼由何力而得不生。譬喻論師所執種子。前于思擇得有無中。已拔其根片無遺漏。此種今者從何復生。設種非無。此隨眠等。若由緣闕。后不更生。或由擇力。滅彼種故。令不更生。此二何別。又不生法。猶如過去。必不更生。復何須斷。種雖未斷。而所生法。必不更生。猶如已斷。勤修斷道。應成無用。豈不汝宗亦于已得非擇滅法更勤方便修能斷道斷彼得耶。我宗可然。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為何如此說呢？因為這個空界（ākāśa-dhātu，空間界）並非等同於虛空（śūnyatā，空性）。有些上座部比丘不加思索，聲稱二者沒有區別。有些其餘的老師說，虛空與礙色（rūpa，色法）沒有區別，因為在礙色中沒有產生對空的覺知。他們的說法是不合理的。正是因為這個原因，才能證明虛空是存在的，因為它與礙色不同，是獨立存在的。在不同於礙色的地方，存在著虛空，它可以作為所緣（ālambana，認識對像），產生對空的覺知。如果沒有所緣，覺知就不會產生。因此，他們的說法只不過是空話。此外，也可以說，礙色與空沒有區別，因為在空中沒有礙色的處所，卻能產生對色的覺知。然而，不能因此就證明色法不存在。所以，他們不能證明空不存在。 如果他們認為諸色（sarva rūpa，一切色法）有自體可以被認知，那麼空也應該如此，因為可以通過類比來認知。例如，像眼睛等，雖然不能直接感知，但由於其作用，可以通過類比來認知其存在。同樣，虛空也有作用，所以可以通過類比來認知其存在。虛空的作用如前所述。因此，虛空是獨立存在的實體。 此外，他們所說的，已經生起的隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式）和生起種子（bīja，業力的種子）在滅位（nirodha，止息狀態），由於揀擇力（pratisamkhyāna-bala，智慧的力量），其餘的不再生起，稱為擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧的止息），這樣的擇滅在理上也無法成立。因為缺少因緣而不生起，與通過揀擇力使之不生起，二者沒有差別。仔細推敲，究竟有什麼區別呢？ 此外，即使沒有聖道（ārya-mārga，八正道），也有不生起的情況。難道修道就沒有用了嗎？並非沒有用處。因為通過修道的力量，能夠滅除未生起的未來隨眠以及生起種子。由於種子滅除，使得未來世的迷惑和痛苦不再生起。如果不是這樣，那麼它們通過什麼力量才能不生起呢？譬喻論師（Dārṣṭāntika，經量部）所執著的種子，之前在思擇有無的過程中，已經被徹底拔除，片甲不留。這些種子現在又從哪裡生出來呢？ 假設種子並非不存在，這些隨眠等，如果因為缺少因緣，以後不再生起，或者因為揀擇力，滅除了它們的種子，使得不再生起，這二者有什麼區別呢？ 此外，不生之法，猶如過去之法，必定不再生起，又何須斷除呢？種子雖然未斷，而所生之法，必定不再生起，猶如已斷。那麼勤奮地修習斷道，就應該變得沒有用處了。 難道你們宗派（指對方宗派）不也是對於已經得到的非擇滅法（apratisamkhyā-nirodha，非通過智慧的止息）更加勤奮地修習能夠斷除的道，來斷除那個『得』嗎？我們宗派是可以這樣做的。
【English Translation】 English version Why is it so? Because this ākāśa-dhātu (space element) is not identical to śūnyatā (emptiness). Some elders, without contemplation, claim that the two are no different. Some other teachers say that there is no difference between emptiness and rūpa (form), because there is no arising of the perception of emptiness in rūpa. Their statement is unreasonable. It is precisely because of this reason that emptiness can be proven to exist, because it is different from rūpa and exists independently. In a place different from rūpa, there exists emptiness, which can serve as an ālambana (object of cognition), giving rise to the perception of emptiness. If there is no object of cognition, perception will not arise. Therefore, their statement is merely empty words. Furthermore, it can also be said that there is no difference between rūpa and emptiness, because in emptiness there is no place for rūpa, yet the perception of form can arise. However, one cannot therefore prove that form does not exist. So, they cannot prove that emptiness does not exist. If they believe that all rūpa (all forms) have a self-nature that can be cognized, then emptiness should also be so, because it can be cognized through analogy. For example, like the eyes, although they cannot be directly perceived, their existence can be cognized through analogy because of their function. Similarly, emptiness also has a function, so its existence can be cognized through analogy. The function of emptiness has been described earlier. Therefore, emptiness is an independently existing entity. Furthermore, what they say about the already arisen anuśaya (latent tendencies of defilements) and bīja (seeds of karma) being in the state of nirodha (cessation), and because of pratisamkhyāna-bala (the power of wisdom), the rest no longer arise, which is called pratisamkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom), such cessation is also not logically established. Because not arising due to the lack of conditions is no different from not arising through the power of discrimination. Upon careful examination, what difference is there? Furthermore, even without the ārya-mārga (Noble Eightfold Path), there are cases of non-arising. Does that mean that cultivation is useless? It is not useless. Because through the power of cultivation, one can extinguish the unarisen future latent tendencies and the seeds of arising. Because the seeds are extinguished, the delusions and suffering of future lives will no longer arise. If it were not so, then through what power would they not arise? The seeds held by the Dārṣṭāntika (Sautrāntika), in the previous process of contemplating existence and non-existence, have been completely uprooted, leaving nothing behind. From where do these seeds now arise? Assuming that the seeds are not non-existent, if these latent tendencies, etc., no longer arise in the future because of the lack of conditions, or because the seeds have been extinguished through the power of discrimination, causing them to no longer arise, what is the difference between these two? Furthermore, a dharma that does not arise, like a past dharma, will certainly not arise again, so why is there a need to cut it off? Although the seeds have not been cut off, the dharma that arises from them will certainly not arise again, as if it has already been cut off. Then diligently cultivating the path of cutting off should become useless. Don't you (referring to the opponent's school) also diligently cultivate the path that can cut off, in order to cut off that 'attainment' of apratisamkhyā-nirodha (cessation not through wisdom) that has already been attained? Our school can do this.
由說通斷三世惑苦別證涅槃諸不生法。猶如過去。得障涅槃。故復須斷。汝宗不爾唯說隨眠及苦不生。為涅槃故。種雖未滅。有如已滅。畢竟不生。如是不生。即涅槃體。與后何異委細推究。未見有殊。是故我宗。說擇滅體。通斷三世惑苦故得。說非擇滅。唯于未來。諸行闕緣不生故得。由斯二滅相無雜亂。又彼所說。違背契經。經言五根若修若習若多修習。能令過去未來現在眾苦永斷。此永斷體。即是涅槃。唯于未來。有不生義。非於過現。豈不相違。雖有此文。而不違義。此經意說。緣過現苦煩惱斷故。名眾苦斷。如世尊言。汝等於色應斷貪慾。貪慾斷時。便名色斷及色遍智。及至廣說。過現苦斷。義亦應然。或此經中。別有意趣。過去煩惱。謂過去生所起煩惱現在煩惱。謂現在生所起煩惱。如是二世所起煩惱。為生未來諸煩惱故。于現相續。引起種子。此種斷故。彼亦名斷。如異熟盡時亦說名業盡。未來眾苦。及諸煩惱。由無種故。畢竟不生。說名為斷。若異此者。過去現在。何緣須斷。非於已滅及正滅時。須設劬勞為令其滅。如是一切。但有虛言。且破彼初所釋經義。謂無漏道斷煩惱時。無有能緣過現煩惱。可斷彼故。而經說言。修習五根。斷過現苦。然彼煩惱。當於爾時。為在未來。為在現在。定不可執在
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由（我方）所說的擇滅（Nirvana，通過智慧抉擇而證得的寂滅），能斷除過去、現在、未來三世的煩惱和痛苦，從而證得涅槃，以及諸多的不生之法。這就像（你方所說的）過去（之煩惱），（如果）成為障礙涅槃的因素，所以仍然需要斷除。你方宗派不是這樣認為的，只說隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在狀態）和痛苦不會產生，因此可以達到涅槃。即使煩惱的種子沒有滅盡，也如同已經滅盡一樣，畢竟不會再生起。這種不生，就是涅槃的本體。這與（我方所說的擇滅）有什麼不同呢？仔細推究，未見有任何差別。因此我方宗派認為，擇滅的本體，能斷除三世的煩惱和痛苦，所以才能證得。而非擇滅（apratisamkhyanirodha，不通過智慧抉擇而證得的寂滅），只是對於未來，諸行（samskara，行蘊）缺少因緣，所以不生起，因此才能證得。由於這兩種寂滅的體相沒有混淆雜亂。 而且你方所說的，違背了契經（sutra，佛經）。經中說，五根（panca indriyani，信、精進、念、定、慧五種能力）如果修習、串習、多次修習，能使過去、未來、現在的種種痛苦永遠斷除。這永遠斷除的本體，就是涅槃。只是對於未來，有不生之義，而不是對於過去和現在，這豈不是（與你方觀點）相違背嗎？雖然有這段經文，但並不違背（我方所說的）意義。這段經文的意思是說，因為過去和現在的痛苦的煩惱斷除了，所以名為眾苦斷。如同世尊所說，『你們對於色（rupa，物質）應當斷除貪慾。貪慾斷除時，便名為色斷，以及色遍知（rupa-parijnana，對色的完全理解）』，乃至廣說。過去和現在的痛苦斷除，意義也應當如此。或者這段經中，另有其他的意趣。過去的煩惱，是指過去生所產生的煩惱；現在的煩惱，是指現在生所產生的煩惱。像這樣，二世所產生的煩惱，爲了產生未來的諸煩惱，所以在現在的相續中，引起（煩惱的）種子。這（煩惱）種子斷除的緣故，也名為（煩惱）斷除。如同異熟（vipaka，果報）窮盡時，也說名為業盡。未來的眾苦，以及諸煩惱，由於沒有（煩惱的）種子，畢竟不會生起，所以說名為斷。如果不是這樣，過去和現在（的煩惱），為何需要斷除？對於已經滅除以及正在滅除（的煩惱），不需要費力去令其滅除。像這樣的一切，都只是虛妄之言。 且先破斥你方最初所解釋的經義，認為無漏道（anasrava-marga，沒有煩惱的修行道路）斷除煩惱時，沒有能夠緣取過去和現在的煩惱，可以斷除它們，所以經中說，修習五根，斷除過去和現在的痛苦。然而那些煩惱，當於爾時，是在未來，還是在現在？必定不能執著（認為它們）在（那裡）。
【English Translation】 English version The Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attained through wisdom) spoken of (by our school) can sever the afflictions and suffering of the three times—past, present, and future—thereby realizing Nirvana and the various unarisen dharmas. It is like the past (afflictions, according to your school), which, if they become obstacles to Nirvana, still need to be severed. Your school does not hold this view; it only says that anusaya (latent tendencies) and suffering do not arise, thus leading to Nirvana. Even if the seeds of affliction are not extinguished, they are as if they have been extinguished, ultimately not arising. This non-arising is the very essence of Nirvana. What difference is there between this and (our school's Nirodha-samapatti)? Upon careful examination, no difference is seen. Therefore, our school believes that the essence of Nirodha-samapatti can sever the afflictions and suffering of the three times, thus enabling realization. As for Apratisamkhyanirodha (cessation attained without wisdom), it is only with regard to the future that the samskaras (formations) lack the necessary conditions, so they do not arise, thus enabling realization. Because of this, the characteristics of these two cessations are not confused or mixed up. Moreover, what you say contradicts the sutras (discourses of the Buddha). The sutra says that if the five indriyas (faculties of faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom) are cultivated, practiced, and repeatedly cultivated, they can cause the complete cessation of all suffering—past, future, and present. This essence of complete cessation is Nirvana. It is only with regard to the future that there is the meaning of non-arising, not with regard to the past and present. Does this not contradict (your view)? Although there is this passage, it does not contradict (our) meaning. The meaning of this passage is that because the afflictions of past and present suffering are severed, it is called the cessation of all suffering. Just as the World-Honored One said, 'You should sever greed for rupa (form). When greed is severed, it is called the severance of rupa and the complete understanding of rupa,' and so on extensively. The severance of past and present suffering should also be understood in the same way. Or, there may be another intention in this sutra. Past afflictions refer to the afflictions that arose in past lives; present afflictions refer to the afflictions that arise in the present life. In this way, the afflictions that arise in the two times, in order to generate future afflictions, cause the seeds (of affliction) to arise in the present continuum. Because these (affliction) seeds are severed, it is also called the severance (of afflictions). Just as when vipaka (result) is exhausted, it is also said that karma is exhausted. Future suffering and afflictions, because there are no (affliction) seeds, ultimately do not arise, so it is called severance. If it is not like this, why would past and present (afflictions) need to be severed? There is no need to exert effort to cause the destruction of what has already been destroyed or is in the process of being destroyed. All of this is just empty talk. Let us first refute your initial interpretation of the sutra, which holds that when the anasrava-marga (path free from defilements) severs afflictions, there is no ability to apprehend past and present afflictions that can be severed. Therefore, the sutra says that cultivating the five indriyas severs past and present suffering. However, at that time, are those afflictions in the future or in the present? It is certainly not tenable to hold that they are (there).
於過去。已滅無故。豈復須斷。若在未來。彼執無故。與空花等。何有所緣。若在現在。便有二心。俱行過故。亦不應理。若謂有種。種已不成。設復許成。亦不應理。非心心所體無所緣。如何可言緣過現苦。不應計彼是無漏心。以無漏心非煩惱故。又非所斷。如何可執由斷彼故。亦說能緣過現二世諸煩惱斷。今恣汝說此位斷何能緣過去現在煩惱。故汝所言。都無實義。又緣離世所起煩惱。修習五根。應不能斷。所以者何。經不說故。汝執經說斷過現言。說斷能緣過現煩惱。斷未來言。亦應爾故。豈不經說。修習五根。斷未來苦。苦言總故。亦攝能緣。離世煩惱。此豈如彼空花者。經無所依憑。隨欲而釋。世尊總說。修習五根能斷去來現在眾苦。何緣執此斷過現言。說斷能緣過現煩惱。即執此說斷未來言是斷未來眾苦體義。汝必應釋斷未來言。唯斷能緣未來煩惱。則緣離世所起煩惱。修習五根。應不能斷。若汝定釋斷未來言。是斷未來眾苦體故。亦攝能緣離世煩惱。則應未來苦言總故。亦攝能緣過現煩惱。若爾契經不應別說。能斷過去現在眾苦。由如是理證立此經。斷過現言。唯斷苦體。故知擇滅。通斷三世眾苦而證。非唯未來隨眠及苦不生為體。又所引證。亦不相應。緣過現苦煩惱斷故名眾苦斷。理不成故。言斷貪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於過去。已經滅亡沒有原因。哪裡還需要斷除。如果在未來。那個執著沒有原因。與虛空中的花朵一樣。沒有什麼可以攀緣的。如果在現在。便會有兩個心。同時執行過去。也不合道理。如果說有種子。種子已經不能成就。即使允許成就。也不合道理。不是心和心所的本體沒有所緣。怎麼能說攀緣過去和現在的痛苦。不應該認為那是無漏心。因為無漏心不是煩惱。又不是所斷除的。怎麼能執著說因為斷除了它。也說能夠攀緣過去和現在二世的各種煩惱斷除。現在任憑你說這個位次斷除了什麼能夠攀緣過去現在煩惱。所以你所說。完全沒有實際意義。又對於脫離世間所產生的煩惱。修習五根。應該不能斷除。為什麼呢。因為經典沒有這樣說。你執著經典說斷除過去現在的話。說是斷除能夠攀緣過去現在煩惱。斷除未來的話。也應該這樣說。難道經典沒有說。修習五根。斷除未來痛苦。痛苦這個詞是總稱。也包括能夠攀緣的。脫離世間的煩惱。這難道像虛空中的花朵那樣。經典沒有所依據。隨意解釋。世尊總的說。修習五根能夠斷除過去未來現在各種痛苦。為什麼執著這個斷除過去現在的話。說是斷除能夠攀緣過去現在煩惱。就執著這個說斷除未來的話是斷除未來各種痛苦的本體意義。你必定應該解釋斷除未來的話。只是斷除能夠攀緣未來煩惱。那麼攀緣脫離世間所產生的煩惱。修習五根。應該不能斷除。如果你一定解釋斷除未來的話。是斷除未來各種痛苦的本體。也包括能夠攀緣脫離世間的煩惱。那麼應該未來痛苦這個詞是總稱。也包括能夠攀緣過去現在煩惱。如果這樣契經不應該分別說。能夠斷除過去現在各種痛苦。由於這樣的道理證明這個經典。斷除過去現在的話。只是斷除痛苦的本體。所以知道擇滅（Prajna-vimukti）。貫通斷除三世各種痛苦而證得。不是隻有未來隨眠（anusaya）以及痛苦不生作為本體。又所引用的證據。也不相應。攀緣過去現在痛苦煩惱斷除的緣故叫做各種痛苦斷除。道理不能成立。說斷除貪（raga）
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the past. It has already ceased and has no cause. Why would it need to be eliminated again? If it is in the future, that attachment has no cause, like flowers in the sky. There is nothing to cling to. If it is in the present, then there would be two minds, both running past simultaneously, which is also unreasonable. If you say there is a seed, the seed cannot be accomplished. Even if you allow it to be accomplished, it is also unreasonable. It is not that the essence of mind and mental factors has nothing to cling to. How can you say that it clings to past and present suffering? It should not be considered a non-outflow mind (anasrava-citta), because a non-outflow mind is not an affliction. Moreover, it is not what is to be eliminated. How can you insist that because it is eliminated, it is also said to be able to cling to the various afflictions of the past and present two worlds being eliminated? Now, let you say what this position eliminates that can cling to past and present afflictions. Therefore, what you say has no real meaning at all. Furthermore, regarding the afflictions arising from being detached from the world, cultivating the five roots (panca indriyas) should not be able to eliminate them. Why? Because the sutras do not say so. You insist that the sutras say to eliminate the past and present, saying that it eliminates what can cling to past and present afflictions. Eliminating the future should also be said in this way. Doesn't the sutra say that cultivating the five roots eliminates future suffering? The word 'suffering' is a general term, also including what can cling to, the afflictions detached from the world. Is this like flowers in the sky? The sutras have no basis and are interpreted arbitrarily. The World Honored One generally said that cultivating the five roots can eliminate all kinds of suffering in the past, future, and present. Why insist that this elimination of the past and present says that it eliminates what can cling to past and present afflictions? Then insist that this saying of eliminating the future is the essential meaning of eliminating all kinds of future suffering. You must explain that eliminating the future only eliminates what can cling to future afflictions. Then clinging to the afflictions arising from being detached from the world, cultivating the five roots should not be able to eliminate them. If you insist that eliminating the future is the essence of eliminating all kinds of future suffering, also including what can cling to afflictions detached from the world, then the word 'future suffering' should be a general term, also including what can cling to past and present afflictions. If so, the sutras should not separately say that they can eliminate all kinds of past and present suffering. Due to such reasoning, this sutra is proven to say that eliminating the past and present only eliminates the essence of suffering. Therefore, it is known that cessation through discernment (Prajna-vimukti) thoroughly eliminates all kinds of suffering in the three times and is attained. It is not only that future latent tendencies (anusaya) and the non-arising of suffering are its essence. Moreover, the cited evidence is also not corresponding. The reason for eliminating various sufferings is called the elimination of various sufferings because clinging to past and present suffering afflictions is eliminated. The reasoning cannot be established. Saying to eliminate greed (raga)
欲名色等斷。理亦不成。過同前故。如何名斷。汝自應思。又色等蘊。非唯貪慾斷故名斷。由色等蘊亦恚慢等所緣境故。受想行識。亦與貪慾俱時斷故。由此不應定說色等唯據能緣斷故名斷。如是亦應釋斷過現言非但據能緣煩惱斷說。故彼引證。符順此宗。于彼所宗。理非符順。由斯亦破彼后釋經以種子言。都無實義。依之說斷。義豈得成。所引喻言。亦非同法。業望異熟。有別體故。非離煩惱有種義成。如何可言斷彼種故名斷過去現在眾苦。故彼無義。但構虛言。又說不生為涅槃體。極為非理。無常過故。阿毗達磨說。諸聖者斷煩惱已。有可退生。其理堅牢。后當廣辯。故彼所說。非智所欣。又未來無。彼宗所許。如何可執無而復無先有後無世極成故。又彼論者。所執涅槃唯是不生。如何名得。由得對治。證得當起煩惱後有畢竟相違所依身故。名得涅槃。若爾才得初念聖道應得所治煩惱涅槃。當於爾時。已得此道所治當起煩惱。後有畢竟相違所依身故。如是安住。後學道時。應成無學。已得此道所治相違所依身故。安住此等無間道時。何所未證。求解脫道。已得涅槃。進修何用。無斯過失。初念聖道與煩惱種。俱時滅故。如汝所宗。諸煩惱得。非未永滅煩惱種時。名得當起煩惱後有畢竟相違所依身故。又非無間道未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果想要說名色等（nāmarūpa，五蘊中的色蘊和受、想、行、識四蘊）的斷滅，這個道理也是不成立的，因為和前面的過失一樣。如何才能稱之為『斷』呢？你應該自己好好想想。而且，色等五蘊的斷滅，不僅僅是因為貪慾斷滅才叫做『斷』，還因為色等五蘊也是嗔恚、傲慢等煩惱所攀緣的對境。受、想、行、識也和貪慾同時斷滅。因此，不應該肯定地說色等五蘊僅僅是因為能緣的煩惱斷滅才叫做『斷』。同樣，也應該解釋說，過去和現在的『斷』，不僅僅是根據能緣的煩惱斷滅來說的。所以，他們引用的經文，符合我們的宗義，但並不符合他們的宗義。因此，也駁斥了他們後來解釋經文時所說的『種子』，根本沒有實際意義，依靠它來說『斷』，道理怎麼能成立呢？他們引用的比喻，也並不相同。業和異熟（vipāka，果報）有不同的自體，並非離開煩惱就能成立『種子』的意義。怎麼能說斷滅了那個『種子』，就叫做斷滅了過去和現在的眾苦呢？所以他們的說法沒有道理，只是虛構的言論。又說不生為涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）的本體，這是非常不合理的，因為有無常的過失。阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）說，諸位聖者斷滅煩惱之後，還有可能退轉而重新產生，這個道理是堅固的，後面會詳細辨析。所以他們的說法，不是有智慧的人所贊同的。而且，未來是『無』，這是他們宗派所承認的。怎麼能執著于『無』而又『無』呢？因為先有後無是世俗所公認的。而且，他們論者所執著的涅槃僅僅是『不生』，怎麼能稱之為『得』呢？因為『得』是對治，證得當要生起的煩惱和後有的畢竟相違的所依身，所以叫做『得涅槃』。如果這樣，那麼才得到初念聖道（āryamārga，聖道）就應該得到所對治的煩惱的涅槃，因為在那個時候，已經得到了這個道所對治的當要生起的煩惱和後有的畢竟相違的所依身。如果這樣安住，在後來的有學道（śaikṣamārga，還在修學的聖道）的時候，就應該成為無學（aśaikṣa，無須再修學的聖者），因為已經得到了這個道所對治的相違的所依身。安住于這些無間道（anantaryamārga，無間道）的時候，還有什麼沒有證得呢？如果求解脫道的人已經得到了涅槃，那麼進一步修行還有什麼用呢？沒有這些過失，因為初念聖道和煩惱的種子同時滅亡。就像你們的宗派所說，諸煩惱的『得』，不是在沒有永遠滅除煩惱種子的時候，就叫做得到了當要生起的煩惱和後有的畢竟相違的所依身。而且不是在無間道還沒有
【English Translation】 English version: If you want to assert the cessation of nāmarūpa (name and form, referring to the five skandhas of rūpa (form), vedanā (feeling), saṃjñā (perception), saṃskāra (mental formations), and vijñāna (consciousness)), this reasoning is also untenable, as it shares the same faults as before. How can it be called 'cessation'? You should reflect on this yourself. Moreover, the cessation of the skandhas such as rūpa is not solely due to the cessation of craving; it is also because these skandhas are objects of attachment for anger, pride, and other afflictions. Feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness also cease simultaneously with craving. Therefore, it should not be definitively stated that the skandhas such as rūpa are called 'cessation' only based on the cessation of the afflictions that cognize them. Similarly, it should be explained that the 'cessation' of the past and present is not solely based on the cessation of the afflictions that cognize. Therefore, the scriptures they cite align with our doctrine but not with theirs. Consequently, it also refutes their later explanation of the scriptures using the term 'seed,' which has no real meaning at all. How can the reasoning of 'cessation' be established based on it? The analogy they cite is also not the same. Karma and vipāka (result, fruition) have different entities; the meaning of 'seed' cannot be established apart from the afflictions. How can it be said that the cessation of that 'seed' is called the cessation of the suffering of the past and present? Therefore, their statement is unreasonable, merely fabricated words. Furthermore, stating that non-arising is the essence of nirvāṇa (liberation, cessation) is extremely unreasonable because it has the fault of impermanence. The Abhidharma (collection of philosophical texts) states that after the noble ones have ceased the afflictions, there is still the possibility of regression and rebirth, which is a firm principle that will be discussed in detail later. Therefore, their statement is not appreciated by the wise. Moreover, the future is 'non-existent,' which is acknowledged by their school. How can one cling to 'non-existence' and then 'non-existence' again? Because having existence first and then non-existence is commonly accepted in the world. Furthermore, how can what their debaters cling to, nirvāṇa as merely 'non-arising,' be called 'attainment'? Because 'attainment' is the antidote, attaining the basis that is ultimately contrary to the afflictions and future existence that are about to arise, therefore it is called 'attaining nirvāṇa.' If so, then upon attaining the first moment of the āryamārga (noble path), one should attain the nirvāṇa of the afflictions that are to be counteracted, because at that time, one has already attained the basis that is ultimately contrary to the afflictions and future existence that are to be counteracted by this path. If one abides in this way, then during the later śaikṣamārga (path of learning, path of training), one should become an aśaikṣa (one beyond learning, an arhat), because one has already attained the basis that is contrary to what is counteracted by this path. When abiding in these anantaryamārga (path of immediate result), what has not been attained? If someone seeking the path of liberation has already attained nirvāṇa, then what is the use of further practice? There are no such faults because the first moment of the noble path and the seeds of the afflictions cease simultaneously. Just as your school says, the 'attainment' of the afflictions is not called attaining the basis that is ultimately contrary to the afflictions and future existence that are about to arise when the seeds of the afflictions have not been permanently eliminated. Moreover, it is not when the anantaryamārga has not yet
生時已能永滅諸煩惱種。故於安住。後學道時。無有已成無學道失若爾無學。應有煩惱。所以者何。初念聖道。既與煩惱種不相違。后亦應然。無差別故。然得非喻。許體別故。后時聖道差別生故。謂我許得別有實體。不違于忍與智相違。所以者何。智與煩惱得相違得俱時生故。汝宗唯說。煩惱所依相續轉變。名煩惱種。及說煩惱畢竟不生。名為涅槃。有何法體。不違何法。與何相違。又初聖道。將欲生時。是異生身。將欲滅位。初聖道起。舍異生身。離彼有何別煩惱種。與初聖道。說不相違。次後便違無差別道。故汝宗義非為善立。又若涅槃都無體者。如何經說。一切有為無為法中。此最第一。如何無體。可立法名。如何說無于無中勝。現見諸法有自相者。展轉相望。說有勝劣。未見有說兔角空花展轉相望安立勝劣。是故決定別有涅槃。能持自相。故名為法。此于余法。其體殊勝。故涅槃體。實有義成。又佛世尊。定說為有。如契經說。苾芻當知。定有無生。此若無者。生死眾苦。應無盡期。由有無生。乃至廣說。我亦不說全無涅槃。但應如我所說而有。如說此聲有先非有有後非有。不可非有說為有故。有義得成。說有無為。應知亦爾。有雖非有。而可稱歎。故諸災橫畢竟非有。名為涅槃。此於一切有非有中。最為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當（阿羅漢）活著的時候，就已經能夠永遠滅除各種煩惱的種子。因此，在安住于（阿羅漢）果位，繼續學習佛道的時候，不會有已經成就的無學道（阿羅漢果）退失的情況。如果像你所說的那樣，無學道（阿羅漢果）應該還是會有煩惱。為什麼這麼說呢？因為最初生起聖道（證得初果）的念頭，既然與煩惱的種子不相違背，那麼之後也應該如此，因為沒有差別。然而，你所說的『得』（prāpti，獲得）並不是一個恰當的比喻，因為我們承認『得』的體性是不同的。後來的聖道之所以不同，是因為它生起了差別。也就是說，我承認『得』有它自己的實體，它與『忍』（ksānti，忍位）不相違背，但與『智』（jñāna，智位）相違背。為什麼這麼說呢？因為『智』與煩惱的『得』是相互違背的，不能同時生起。你們宗派只是說，煩惱所依的相續轉變，叫做煩惱的種子，並且說煩惱畢竟不生起，叫做涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）。那麼，涅槃有什麼樣的法體？它不違背什麼法？又與什麼法相違背呢？而且，最初的聖道將要生起的時候，還是異生身（凡夫身），將要滅去的時候，最初的聖道生起，捨棄了異生身。離開了異生身，還有什麼別的煩惱種子，與最初的聖道，說是不相違背的呢？之後又違背沒有差別的道。所以你們宗派的義理並不是很好地建立起來的。還有，如果涅槃完全沒有實體，那麼經典怎麼會說，在一切有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有生滅變化的法）和無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma，無生滅變化的法）中，涅槃是最殊勝的呢？如果沒有實體，怎麼可以安立法名？又怎麼能說『無』在『無』中殊勝呢？現在看到諸法有各自的自相，輾轉相對，才能說有殊勝和低劣。沒有見過有人說兔角和空花輾轉相對，然後安立殊勝和低劣的。所以，可以確定涅槃是別有的，能夠保持自己的自相，所以叫做『法』。這個涅槃相對於其他的法，它的體性是殊勝的。所以涅槃的體性，是真實存在的，這個道理成立。而且，佛世尊（Buddha，覺者）也肯定地說涅槃是存在的，如契經所說：『比丘（bhikṣu，出家男眾）們，你們應當知道，確實有無生（anutpāda，不生）的涅槃。』如果這個無生不存在，那麼生死輪迴的眾苦，應該沒有窮盡的時候。由於有無生，乃至廣說。我也沒有說完全沒有涅槃，但涅槃應該是像我所說的那樣存在的。就像說這個聲音，先前沒有，後來也沒有，但不能因為沒有，就說它是有，所以『有』的意義才能成立。說有無為法，也應該知道是這樣的。雖然『有』不是真實的存在，但可以稱讚它。所以各種災難橫禍畢竟不存在，叫做涅槃。這個涅槃在一切『有』和『非有』之中，最為殊勝。
【English Translation】 English version: When (an Arhat) is alive, he is already able to permanently eradicate all seeds of afflictions (kleśa). Therefore, when dwelling in the (Arhat) fruition and continuing to learn the path, there is no loss of the already attained state of no-more-learning (Arhatship). If, as you say, the state of no-more-learning (Arhatship) should still have afflictions, why is that? Because the initial thought of the holy path (attaining the first fruit), since it is not contradictory to the seeds of afflictions, then it should be the same afterwards, because there is no difference. However, the 'attainment' (prāpti) you speak of is not an appropriate analogy, because we acknowledge that the nature of 'attainment' is different. The later holy path is different because it gives rise to distinctions. That is to say, I acknowledge that 'attainment' has its own entity, which is not contradictory to 'forbearance' (ksānti), but is contradictory to 'wisdom' (jñāna). Why is that? Because the 'attainment' of 'wisdom' and afflictions are mutually contradictory and cannot arise simultaneously. Your school only says that the transformation of the continuum on which afflictions rely is called the seed of afflictions, and that the ultimate non-arising of afflictions is called Nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa). Then, what kind of dharma-nature does Nirvāṇa have? What dharma does it not contradict? And what dharma does it contradict? Moreover, when the initial holy path is about to arise, it is still the body of an ordinary being (prthagjana-kāya), and when it is about to cease, the initial holy path arises, abandoning the body of an ordinary being. Apart from the body of an ordinary being, what other seed of afflictions is said to be not contradictory to the initial holy path? Afterwards, it contradicts the path without difference. Therefore, the tenets of your school are not well established. Furthermore, if Nirvāṇa has no entity at all, how can the scriptures say that among all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma), Nirvāṇa is the most supreme? If it has no entity, how can a name be established for it? And how can it be said that 'non-existence' is superior among 'non-existences'? Now, seeing that all dharmas have their own self-characteristics (svalakṣaṇa), in relation to each other, it can be said that there are superior and inferior. I have never seen anyone say that rabbit horns and empty flowers are related to each other and then establish superior and inferior. Therefore, it can be determined that Nirvāṇa is separate and has the ability to maintain its own self-characteristic, so it is called 'dharma'. This Nirvāṇa, in relation to other dharmas, its nature is supreme. Therefore, the nature of Nirvāṇa is truly existent, and this principle is established. Moreover, the Buddha (Buddha) also affirmed that Nirvāṇa exists, as the sutra says: 'Monks (bhikṣu), you should know that there is indeed un-arising (anutpāda).』 If this un-arising does not exist, then the sufferings of samsara should have no end. Because there is un-arising, and so on. I have not said that there is no Nirvāṇa at all, but Nirvāṇa should exist as I have said. Just as it is said that this sound did not exist before and does not exist after, but it cannot be said that because it does not exist, it is said to exist, so the meaning of 'existence' can be established. It should be known that saying there is unconditioned dharma is also like this. Although 'existence' is not truly existent, it can be praised. Therefore, all calamities and misfortunes ultimately do not exist, and this is called Nirvāṇa. This Nirvāṇa is the most supreme among all 'existence' and 'non-existence'.
殊勝。為令所化深生欣樂。故應稱歎此為第一。非如是說涅槃為有有義得成。所以者何。假實二有。不相應故。餘種類有曾無說故。雖說此聲有先非有有後非有。而應審決。為於畢竟非有物上說此有言。為此有言即于有上遮余而立。若別有物。居聲先後可遮聲故。說非有言。謂彼物中。此聲非有。諸互非有。定依有說。若於畢竟非有物中而說有言。何不違理。非汝有物名為涅槃。可於其中遮苦有故。即說彼物。名為非有。故所立喻。于證無能。又不應引世俗言說。非撥勝義。朋援己宗。經主此中。亦不隨喜。如是有義以作是說不可非有有義得成。世俗有言尚不隨喜。如何可說無為有言。是故有言定應不可。依於畢竟非有而說。然彼畢竟非有涅槃。非假非實。更無餘有。而許為有。彼譬喻師。立有法性。何極深隱。又曾無處見非有中有勝有劣。亦無智者。于非有中。有贊有毀。然作是說。有雖非有。而可稱歎。此但有言如何復言。故諸災橫畢竟非有。名為涅槃。有非有中。此最為勝。謂唯災橫有體法中。見有勝劣。非於無體故彼所言。唯依妄執。豈不有法有差別故非有隨之亦有差別。如色聲等。非有各異。此亦不然。非有與有。相同相別。俱不成故。謂此非有有差別者。為由與有其相同故。為由與有其相別故。若由相同
。應即是有。若由相別。應為指陳色之非有。何相非色。豈不非有即為此相。若爾色聲非有相何別。而言色等非有各異耶。如色與聲。雖同是有。而有種種相狀差別。非有不然。無異體故。由此所說。有雖非有。而可稱歎。乃至廣說。但有虛言而無實義。故唯于有勝劣可成。于非有中。定無勝劣。世尊既說。離染涅槃。于諸法中。最為殊勝。應如色等實有義成。又若涅槃體非有者。豈令所化生厭生欣。非有中無勝劣相故。又應大聖惑所化生。于非有中如有說故。又若起見撥無涅槃。應成正見無倒解故。若謂此見不了涅槃。唯是行無故是邪者是則斷見。應成正見。由彼唯緣諸行無故。若謂此見於唯行無非方便解故非正者。非於行無非方便見名為斷見是余見故。然諸斷見。唯緣行無。故不能遮成正見失。又于滅境。起靜等見。應非正見。非實解故。非非有中有靜不靜如石女兒非勇非怯。現見病無別有調適。諸苦惱無別有安樂。如是亦應有為差別。非有之位別有無為。又若涅槃無實體者。如何可是聖諦所收。無體豈應名諦名妄。且言聖諦。其義云何。豈不此言屬無倒義。聖見有無皆無顛倒。謂聖于苦見唯是苦。于苦非有見唯非有。此于聖諦義有何違。此有違者謂無境界。慧必不生。而言聖慧見非有境。何倒過此。思去來中當
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 。應即是有（存在）。如果從現象上區分，應該是指明顏色並非存在。什麼現象不是顏色呢？難道不是『非有』（不存在）就是這種現象嗎？如果這樣，顏色和聲音的『非有』現象有什麼區別呢？為什麼要說顏色等等的『非有』各有不同呢？就像顏色和聲音，雖然都是『有』（存在），但有種種不同的形態和性質。『非有』則不然，因為它沒有不同的本體。因此，你們所說的，『有』雖然不是『有』，但可以讚歎，乃至廣說，都只是虛假的言辭，沒有實際意義。所以只能在『有』的勝劣上有所成就，在『非有』中，絕對沒有勝劣之分。世尊既然說了，離染的涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）在一切法中最為殊勝，就應該像顏色等一樣，是真實存在的。而且，如果涅槃的本體不是『有』，怎麼能讓被教化的人產生厭離和欣喜呢？因為在『非有』中，沒有勝劣的現象。而且，聖人（指佛陀）應該迷惑了被教化的人，因為在『非有』中說了『有』。而且，如果有人產生見解，否定涅槃的存在，就應該成為正確的見解，因為沒有顛倒的理解。如果說這種見解不瞭解涅槃，只是認為諸行（Samskara，一切有為法）不存在，所以是邪見，那麼斷見（Ucchedaditthi，認為人死後一切皆無的見解）就應該成為正見，因為它只是緣于諸行不存在。如果說這種見解對於諸行不存在，不是方便的理解，所以不是正見，那麼對於諸行不存在，不是方便的見解，就叫做斷見，是其他的見解。然而，各種斷見，只是緣于諸行不存在，所以不能阻止成為正見的錯誤。而且，對於滅盡的境界，產生寂靜等等的見解，應該不是正見，因為不是真實的理解。因為在『非有』中，沒有寂靜和不寂靜，就像石女兒（無生之物）沒有勇敢和怯懦。現在看到疾病的消失，沒有另外的調適；各種痛苦煩惱的消失，沒有另外的安樂。這樣，也應該認為有為法的差別，在『非有』的地位上，另外存在著無為法（Asamskrta，不生不滅的法）。而且，如果涅槃沒有實體，怎麼能被聖諦（Aryasatya，四聖諦）所包含呢？沒有實體怎麼能稱為『諦』（Satya，真理）或『妄』（Mithya，虛妄）呢？且說聖諦，它的意義是什麼呢？難道不是指沒有顛倒的意義嗎？聖人所見的『有』和『無』都沒有顛倒，就是聖人對於苦，只看到是苦；對於苦的『非有』，只看到是『非有』。這對於聖諦的意義有什麼違背呢？如果說這有違背，就是說沒有境界，智慧一定不會產生，而說聖人的智慧見到『非有』的境界，還有什麼比這更顛倒的呢？思考過去和未來的時候，應當……
【English Translation】 English version . 'Should be' is the same as 'is'. If distinguished by phenomena, it should be pointing out that color does not exist. What phenomenon is not color? Isn't 'non-existence' (of color) precisely this phenomenon? If so, what is the difference between the 'non-existence' of color and sound? Why say that the 'non-existence' of color, etc., are each different? Just as color and sound, although both 'exist', have various different forms and qualities. 'Non-existence' is not like that, because it has no different entity. Therefore, what you say, that 'existence', although not 'existence', can be praised, and so on, are all false words without real meaning. So only in the superiority and inferiority of 'existence' can something be achieved; in 'non-existence', there is absolutely no superiority or inferiority. Since the World Honored One (Bhagavan, Buddha) has said that Nirvana (liberation) free from defilement is the most supreme among all dharmas, it should be real like color, etc. Moreover, if the substance of Nirvana is not 'existence', how can it cause those being taught to generate aversion and joy? Because in 'non-existence', there is no phenomenon of superiority or inferiority. Moreover, the Sage (Buddha) should be confusing those being taught, because he speaks of 'existence' in 'non-existence'. Moreover, if someone generates a view denying the existence of Nirvana, it should become a correct view, because there is no inverted understanding. If you say that this view does not understand Nirvana, but only thinks that Samskaras (all conditioned phenomena) do not exist, so it is a wrong view, then the annihilationist view (Ucchedaditthi, the view that after death everything ceases to exist) should become a correct view, because it only focuses on the non-existence of Samskaras. If you say that this view of the non-existence of Samskaras is not a skillful understanding, so it is not correct, then a view of the non-existence of Samskaras that is not skillful is called annihilationist view, which is another view. However, various annihilationist views only focus on the non-existence of Samskaras, so they cannot prevent the mistake of becoming a correct view. Moreover, generating views of tranquility, etc., towards the state of cessation should not be a correct view, because it is not a real understanding. Because in 'non-existence', there is no tranquility or non-tranquility, just as a stone woman (something that does not exist) has no courage or cowardice. Now seeing the disappearance of illness, there is no other adjustment; the disappearance of various sufferings and afflictions, there is no other happiness. Thus, it should also be thought that the differences of conditioned phenomena, in the position of 'non-existence', there is another unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta, uncreated dharma). Moreover, if Nirvana has no substance, how can it be included in the Noble Truths (Aryasatya, Four Noble Truths)? How can something without substance be called 'Truth' (Satya) or 'Falsehood' (Mithya)? Let's talk about the Noble Truths, what is its meaning? Doesn't it refer to the meaning of non-inversion? The 'existence' and 'non-existence' seen by the Sage are not inverted, that is, the Sage only sees suffering as suffering; for the 'non-existence' of suffering, he only sees it as 'non-existence'. What contradiction is there to the meaning of the Noble Truths? If you say that this is contradictory, it means that there is no object, and wisdom will certainly not arise, and to say that the wisdom of the Sage sees the object of 'non-existence', what could be more inverted than this? When thinking about the past and future, one should...
辯此義。如何畢竟絕名言無。而可說言。此是苦滅。而不違理。現見此彼指當名言。唯于有起。如何非有起此名言。又無如何成第三諦。此中經主。輕掉答言。第二無間聖見及說。故成第三。此答非理。今難者意。以若無境慧必不生。如何見無為第三諦。又若無體。但有虛言。何義說為第三聖諦。又若苦滅。唯是苦無。是則但應說苦治道。說道便顯所治苦無。若不令無何名能治本依治道為令苦無故彼苦無說治便顯。何離苦道別說苦滅。故若涅槃離於苦道。無別有體。但有虛言。何用說為第三聖諦。又汝應說。于立涅槃為實有宗。見何過失。而不信受。然許涅槃實有別物。于佛聖教所有義利。片無違失。雖彼所言若許實有朋虛妄計是名為失。然不應理。計畢竟無。亦名為有是虛妄故。又彼更有餘虛妄計。謂未來法。無而復無。計為涅槃。過如前說。又彼計有煩惱種子於色等法非即非離。雖如斤斧補特伽羅而有能生障道等用。如是等類。非有執有。虛妄計度。汝常串習。為己所宗。何反彈斥。雖寄他言作如是說。許便擁護毗婆沙宗。今詳經主似總厭背毗婆沙宗。欲依空花撥一切法皆無自性。而今於此且撥涅槃。擬為同喻證余非有。若實為護毗婆沙宗所說。不應朋壞法論。勿以彼論惡見之垢塵穢己心。宜將此宗正法之水而自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：辨析這個意義。如何才能最終斷絕名言概念，卻又可以說這是苦滅（Dukkha-nirodha，苦的止息），而不違背道理呢？明明看到這些事物可以通過指稱和名言來表達，而這些指稱和名言只在事物生起時才存在。如果苦滅並非生起的事物，又如何能用名言來表達呢？如果苦滅什麼都沒有，又如何能成為第三聖諦（Tṛtīya Āryasatya，滅諦）呢？ 經部師輕率地回答說：『在第二剎那的聖見（Ārya-darśana，聖者的見地）和聖說之後，就成就了第三聖諦。』這種回答是不合理的。現在提問者的意思是，如果沒有所觀的境界，智慧就不會生起，如何能見到無為法（Asaṃskṛta，不生不滅之法）作為第三聖諦呢？又如果苦滅沒有實體，只是虛假的名言，那麼說它是第三聖諦有什麼意義呢？ 又如果苦滅僅僅是苦的消失，那麼就應該只說苦的對治之道（Mārga，道諦）。說道就能顯現所對治的苦已經消失。如果不使苦消失，又怎麼能稱為能對治苦的根本所依的道呢？爲了使苦消失，所以說對治之道就能顯現苦的消失。為什麼要離開苦的對治之道，另外再說苦滅呢？所以，如果涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）離開了苦的對治之道，沒有別的實體，只是虛假的名言，又何必說它是第三聖諦呢？ 而且，你應該說說，如果認為涅槃是真實存在的，會有什麼過失，以至於你不相信接受它呢？然而，如果承認涅槃是真實存在的，對於佛陀的教法的所有義理，一點也不會有違背和缺失。雖然他們所說，如果承認涅槃是真實存在的，就會助長虛妄的計度，這被稱為過失。但是，這種說法是不合理的。認為涅槃是徹底的空無，也同樣是一種『有』的虛妄計度。 而且，他們還有其他的虛妄計度，認為未來的法，是無而又無，並把這種狀態計度為涅槃，這種過失和前面所說的一樣。而且，他們認為煩惱的種子存在於色等法中，既不完全相同，也不完全分離，雖然像斤斧補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）一樣，具有產生障礙和引導等作用。像這些等等，都是非有執有，虛妄的計度。你常常串習這些，作為自己的宗派，為什麼反而要彈斥呢？ 雖然你借用別人的話，作這樣的說法，好像是在擁護毗婆沙宗（Vaibhāṣika，有部）。現在詳細考察經部師，似乎是總體上厭惡背離毗婆沙宗，想要依靠空花（空中的花朵）來否定一切法都沒有自性。而現在在這裡，姑且先否定涅槃，想要用它作為比喻來證明其他法也是不存在的。如果真的是爲了維護毗婆沙宗所說的，就不應該助長破壞正法的言論。不要用那些惡見的垢塵來玷污自己的心，應該用這個宗派的正法之水來洗滌自己。
【English Translation】 English version: Let's analyze this meaning. How can we ultimately cut off all conceptual language, and yet be able to say, 'This is the cessation of suffering (Dukkha-nirodha),' without contradicting reason? We clearly see that these things can be expressed through designation and language, and these designations and languages only exist when things arise. If the cessation of suffering is not something that arises, how can it be expressed with language? And if the cessation of suffering is nothing, how can it become the Third Noble Truth (Tṛtīya Āryasatya)? The Sautrāntika (Sūtra School) carelessly replies, 'After the second moment of noble seeing (Ārya-darśana) and noble speaking, the Third Noble Truth is accomplished.' This answer is unreasonable. The questioner's intention is that if there is no object to be seen, wisdom will not arise. How can one see the unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta) as the Third Noble Truth? Furthermore, if the cessation of suffering has no substance, but is merely a false expression, what is the meaning of calling it the Third Noble Truth? Moreover, if the cessation of suffering is merely the absence of suffering, then we should only speak of the path to the cure of suffering (Mārga). Speaking of the path reveals that the suffering to be cured has disappeared. If it does not cause suffering to disappear, how can it be called the path that is the fundamental basis for curing suffering? In order to make suffering disappear, it is said that the path to the cure reveals the disappearance of suffering. Why speak separately of the cessation of suffering apart from the path to the cure of suffering? Therefore, if Nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇa) is separate from the path to the cure of suffering, has no other substance, and is merely a false expression, why is it necessary to speak of it as the Third Noble Truth? Furthermore, you should explain what faults there would be in establishing Nirvāṇa as truly existent, such that you do not believe and accept it. However, if one admits that Nirvāṇa is truly existent, there will be no contradiction or deficiency in any of the meanings of the Buddha's teachings. Although they say that if one admits that Nirvāṇa is truly existent, it will encourage false conceptions, this is called a fault. However, this statement is unreasonable. Thinking that Nirvāṇa is completely non-existent is also a false conception of 'existence'. Moreover, they have other false conceptions, thinking that future dharmas are non-existent and then non-existent again, and considering this state to be Nirvāṇa. The fault of this is the same as what was said before. Furthermore, they believe that the seeds of afflictions exist in form and other dharmas, neither completely the same nor completely separate, although, like the axe-Pudgala (Pudgala), they have the function of producing obstacles and guidance. These and other such things are all false conceptions of taking the non-existent as existent. You often practice these, taking them as your own school, so why do you criticize them instead? Although you borrow the words of others, making such statements as if you are supporting the Vaibhāṣika (Vaibhāṣika) school, upon closer examination, the Sautrāntika seems to generally dislike and turn away from the Vaibhāṣika school, wanting to rely on the sky-flower (flowers in the sky) to deny that all dharmas have self-nature. And now here, let's first deny Nirvāṇa, wanting to use it as a metaphor to prove that other dharmas are also non-existent. If it is really to protect what the Vaibhāṣika school says, one should not encourage speech that destroys the true Dharma. Do not defile your mind with the dirt of those evil views, but should wash yourself with the water of the true Dharma of this school.
沐浴。又言涅槃非體可得。如色受等非用可得如眼耳等。此實應然。涅槃實非如色受等及眼耳等體用可得。然有異彼體用可知。色等有為依自相續。體用粗顯。易可了知。然彼涅槃。不依相續。體用微隱難可了知。要具精勤勝觀行者。修所成慧正現前時。方證涅槃真實體用。從觀出已。唱如是言。奇哉涅槃。滅靜妙離非諸盲者不了青黃謂明眼人亦不見色或復縱汝知與不知。但許涅槃可名為有。則應定許體實非無。離有實物有不成故。又相即體。涅槃既有滅靜等相。有體義成。又彼所言。滅若別有如何可立彼事之滅。第六轉聲。由滅與事非互相屬。此彼相望非因果故。唯遮彼事。第六可成。彼事之無。名為滅故。彼言非理。相屬非唯在因果故。又亦非唯無別體故。如何安立彼事之滅。應知二滅屬於二心。二心能遮彼事得故且得擇滅。要由二道。初無間道。與煩惱得俱時而滅。后解脫道。與擇滅得俱時而生非煩惱得未已滅時。其離系得至已生位。如是彼彼煩惱得滅。便有此此擇滅得生。故說此此滅屬於彼彼事。于契經中。此義已顯。經言具壽。言滅滅者。由誰滅故。而得言滅。由五取蘊滅故言滅。若無別滅。經但應言是誰之滅謂五取蘊。何義說言由五取蘊滅故言滅。應知煩惱得若滅時。名煩惱滅。我終不許即眾苦滅名為涅
槃許苦滅故。離於苦道。別得擇滅。方名涅槃。滅若別無。有前說過。謂阿羅漢。應有煩惱。或住學道。煩惱已無。以於後時無差別故。此中經主。復作是言。何因此滅定屬此得。豈非難盡矯設浮詞。一相同品。離系與得。設無定因。斯亦何咎。由一道力。總滅諸結。總得離系。何用定因。或能所得。相屬法爾。或能斷道。為此定因。由道引生離系得故。非余斷道所斷惑滅由余道得。故汝應喜。同一斷道所得擇滅。其體非一有何定因。言此屬貪此屬瞋等。設無定屬。復有何過。謂一品中一切所滅。一道所斷所得離系。既同一得。何用定因。或如先說。先何所說。謂由法爾相屬無亂。以從本來貪等與滅法爾相屬。決定無亂。斷道起位能總證得。故無定因。亦無有過。若謂不然。違聖教故謂有聖教。能顯涅槃。唯以非有為其自性。故契經言。所有眾苦。皆無餘斷。各別捨棄盡離染滅靜息永沒。余苦不續。不取不生。此極寂靜。此極美妙。謂舍諸依及一切愛。盡離染滅。名為涅槃。又許涅槃體唯非有便為善釋。經說喻言。如燈焰涅槃心解脫亦爾。彼謂此說如燈涅槃。唯燈焰謝無別有物。如是世尊。心得解脫。唯諸蘊滅。更無所有。對法諸師。已通此說。謂言苦滅。義有二途。一離苦外無別實體。二離苦外有別實體。佛觀所化
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 槃（pán，指涅槃）許苦滅的緣故，脫離了苦道，另外獲得擇滅（zé miè，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態），才叫做涅槃（niè pán，佛教修行的最終目標，指熄滅一切煩惱和痛苦的狀態）。如果滅不是另外存在的，那麼按照之前所說，阿羅漢（ā luó hàn，已證得涅槃的聖者）應該還有煩惱，或者還停留在修學的階段。因為煩惱已經斷除，如果之後的狀態沒有差別，那就說不通了。經主（jīng zhǔ，指經文的作者或註釋者）在這裡又說，憑什麼這個滅就一定屬於這個證得？這難道不是難以辯駁的狡辯之詞嗎？同樣的一類事物，脫離繫縛和獲得，如果沒有確定的原因，又有什麼過錯呢？憑藉一道（yī dào，指一種修行方法）的力量，總共斷滅了所有的煩惱結縛，總共獲得了脫離繫縛的狀態，哪裡需要確定的原因呢？或者說，能夠獲得的和所獲得的，它們之間的相屬是自然而然的。或者說，能夠斷除煩惱的道，就是這個滅的確定原因。因為道引導產生了脫離繫縛的獲得，所以不是其他的斷道所斷除的迷惑，由其他的道來獲得。所以你應該感到高興。同一個斷道所獲得的擇滅，它的本體不是單一的，哪裡有什麼確定的原因，說這個屬於貪，那個屬於嗔等等？如果沒有確定的歸屬，又有什麼過錯呢？也就是說，同一品類中一切被斷滅的，由一道所斷除，所獲得的脫離繫縛，既然是同一個獲得，哪裡需要確定的原因呢？或者像先前所說的那樣。先前說了什麼呢？就是說，由於法爾（fǎ ěr，事物本來的規律）的相屬，不會有錯亂。因為從本來上，貪等等和滅，法爾相屬，決定不會錯亂。斷道的生起，能夠總體的證得，所以沒有確定的原因，也沒有什麼過錯。如果說不是這樣，那就是違背了聖教（shèng jiào，佛教的教義）。因為有聖教能夠顯示涅槃，唯獨以『非有』作為它的自性。所以契經（qì jīng，符合佛理的經典）上說，所有的眾苦，都完全沒有剩餘地斷除，各自捨棄，完全脫離，遠離染污，寂靜止息，永遠沉沒，餘下的痛苦不再延續，不執取，不產生。這是極其寂靜的，這是極其美妙的。就是說，捨棄所有的依賴和一切的愛，完全脫離，遠離染污，就叫做涅槃。又允許涅槃的本體唯獨是『非有』，這樣就能夠很好地解釋經文所說的比喻。比如燈焰的涅槃，心的解脫也是這樣。他們認為，這裡所說的像燈的涅槃，只是燈焰熄滅，沒有另外的物體存在。像這樣，世尊（shì zūn，對佛的尊稱）的心得到解脫，只是諸蘊（zhū yùn，構成人身的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）滅盡，沒有其他的存在。對法諸師（duì fǎ zhū shī，研究阿毗達摩的法師）已經解釋了這種說法。他們說，苦滅的意義有兩種途徑：一是脫離苦之外沒有別的實體，二是脫離苦之外有別的實體。佛觀察所教化的人。
【English Translation】 English version Because of the acceptance that suffering ceases, one departs from the path of suffering and separately attains Nirodha (zé miè, cessation through discernment), which is then called Nirvana (niè pán, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of extinguishing all afflictions and suffering). If cessation were not something separate, then, as previously stated, an Arhat (ā luó hàn, a saint who has attained Nirvana) should still have afflictions or remain in the stage of learning. Since afflictions have already been eliminated, it would not make sense if there were no difference in the subsequent state. Here, the author of the scripture further says, 'Why must this cessation necessarily belong to this attainment?' Isn't this an indefensible sophistry? For the same kind of things, detachment and attainment, if there is no definite cause, what fault is there? By the power of one path (yī dào, a method of practice), all fetters are totally extinguished, and detachment is totally attained. Where is the need for a definite cause? Or, what can be attained and what is attained are naturally related. Or, the path that can eliminate afflictions is the definite cause of this cessation. Because the path leads to the attainment of detachment, it is not that the afflictions eliminated by other paths of cessation are attained by other paths. Therefore, you should rejoice. The Nirodha (zé miè, cessation through discernment) attained by the same path of cessation is not a single entity. What definite cause is there to say that this belongs to greed, that belongs to hatred, and so on? If there is no definite belonging, what fault is there? That is to say, everything that is extinguished in the same category, eliminated by one path, and the detachment attained, since it is the same attainment, where is the need for a definite cause? Or, as previously stated. What was said previously? It was said that due to the natural law (fǎ ěr, the inherent law of things), there will be no confusion. Because from the beginning, greed and so on, and cessation, are naturally related, there will definitely be no confusion. The arising of the path of cessation can totally attain, so there is no definite cause, and there is no fault. If it is said that it is not so, then that is contrary to the sacred teachings (shèng jiào, Buddhist doctrines). Because there are sacred teachings that can reveal Nirvana (niè pán, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of extinguishing all afflictions and suffering), solely taking 'non-existence' as its nature. Therefore, the sutra (qì jīng, a scripture that accords with Buddhist principles) says that all sufferings are completely and without remainder eliminated, each abandoned, completely detached, far from defilement, tranquil and ceased, forever submerged, and the remaining suffering no longer continues, is not grasped, and does not arise. This is extremely tranquil, this is extremely wonderful. That is to say, abandoning all dependencies and all love, completely detaching, far from defilement, is called Nirvana (niè pán, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of extinguishing all afflictions and suffering). Furthermore, allowing the essence of Nirvana (niè pán, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of extinguishing all afflictions and suffering) to be solely 'non-existence' would be a good explanation of the metaphor stated in the scripture. For example, the Nirvana (niè pán, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of extinguishing all afflictions and suffering) of a lamp flame is like the liberation of the mind. They believe that what is said here, like the Nirvana (niè pán, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of extinguishing all afflictions and suffering) of a lamp, is only the extinguishing of the lamp flame, and there is no other object existing. Like this, when the Tathagata's (shì zūn, an honorific title for the Buddha) mind attains liberation, it is only the extinction of the Skandhas (zhū yùn, the five aggregates that constitute a person, namely form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness), and there is nothing else existing. The masters of Abhidharma (duì fǎ zhū shī, masters who study Abhidharma) have already explained this statement. They say that the meaning of the cessation of suffering has two paths: one is that there is no separate entity apart from suffering, and the other is that there is a separate entity apart from suffering. The Buddha observes those who are to be taught.
意樂不同。故說如斯二種滅義。謂或有處說無別體。如向所引二種契經或復有處說有別體。如契經說。定有無生。又契經言。有處有離。復有經說我觀實有無為句義。所謂涅槃。復有經言。由五取蘊滅故言滅。此類寔繁。故我所宗。不違聖教。又經所說燈焰涅槃。離燈別有無常相故。此之所喻。于義何違或燈涅槃。雖無別體。而非非有。諸行皆是無常性故。其體非無。依此為言。亦無有過。又非由此所引契經能證涅槃體唯非有。此經唯就入無餘依般涅槃時。而宣說故。謂於此位。一切余依。皆無餘斷。各別捨棄。乃至廣說。故不相違。有餘師說言不生者。依此無生。故言不生。此中經主。作如是說。我等見此第七轉聲。于證滅有都無功力。何意故說依此無生。若依此言。屬已有義。應本不生涅槃常故。若依此言。屬已得義。是則應計依道之得。故唯依道。或依道得。令苦不生。汝應信受。我等見此第七轉聲。于證滅有。甚有功力。道之與得。俱依滅故。以有涅槃。方求道得。此若非有。求彼何為。又苦不生。非唯由道。或復由得增上忍時。已得殊勝苦不生故。又緣闕故。苦亦不生。應是涅槃。如前已說。若謂種子未滅故者。已如前破。前如何破。種雖未滅。有如已滅。畢竟不生。與后何異。又若由道。或復由得。苦不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 意樂不同，所以說了這兩種『滅』（Nirodha）的含義。也就是說，有的地方說『滅』沒有獨立的實體，就像前面引用的兩種契經所說；而有的地方又說『滅』有獨立的實體，就像契經所說，『確實有無生』（Ajata）。還有契經說，『在某個地方有分離』（Viveka）。又有經說，『我觀察到確實有無為（Asamskrta）的句義，那就是涅槃（Nirvana）』。還有經說，『由於五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha）的滅盡，所以稱為滅』。這類說法實在很多。因此，我所宗的觀點，並不違背聖教（Arya-sasana）。 又經中所說的『燈焰涅槃』，是說燈焰熄滅后，另外有無常（Anitya）的相狀存在。這個比喻，在意義上有什麼違背呢？或者說，燈的涅槃，雖然沒有獨立的實體，但並非完全沒有。因為諸行（Samskara）都是無常的性質，所以它的體性並非沒有。依據這個來說，也沒有過失。 而且，不能因為引用的契經，就能證明涅槃的體性僅僅是沒有。這部經只是就進入無餘依般涅槃（Anupadhisesa-nirvana）時，才這樣宣說的。也就是說，在這個階段，一切剩餘的依處，都完全斷絕，各自捨棄，乃至廣說。所以並不矛盾。 有其他老師說，『不生』（Ajata）是依據這個『無生』（Asamskrta）而說的，所以才說『不生』。對此，經主（Sutrakara）這樣說，我們認為這個第七轉聲（指梵文語法中的奪格，表示『依』），對於證明『滅』的存在，沒有任何作用。為什麼還要說『依據這個無生』呢？如果『依據這個』是指『已經有的』含義，那麼就應該本來不生，因為涅槃是常恒的緣故。如果『依據這個』是指『已經得到的』含義，那麼就應該認為是依據道（Marga）的獲得。所以，僅僅是依據道，或者依據道的獲得，才能使痛苦不生，你們應該信受。 我們認為這個第七轉聲，對於證明『滅』的存在，非常有作用。因為道和獲得，都是依據『滅』而存在的。因為有了涅槃，才去尋求道和獲得。如果涅槃不存在，那麼尋求它們又有什麼用呢？而且，痛苦不生，不僅僅是因為道，或者因為獲得增上忍（Adhimukti-ksanti）時，已經獲得的殊勝境界，痛苦才不生。 而且，因為因緣（Hetu-pratyaya）的缺失，痛苦也不生。這應該是涅槃，就像前面已經說過的。如果說是因為種子（Bija）沒有滅盡的緣故，那麼前面已經駁斥過了。前面是如何駁斥的呢？即使種子沒有滅盡，也有像已經滅盡一樣，畢竟不會再生起的情況，這和（涅槃的）情況有什麼不同呢？而且，如果因為道，或者因為獲得，痛苦才不生。
【English Translation】 English version The inclinations are different, hence these two kinds of meanings of 'cessation' (Nirodha) are spoken of. That is, in some places it is said that 'cessation' has no separate entity, as the two Sutras quoted earlier say; while in other places it is said that 'cessation' has a separate entity, as the Sutra says, 'There is indeed the unborn' (Ajata). There is also a Sutra that says, 'In some place there is separation' (Viveka). And there is a Sutra that says, 'I observe that there is indeed the meaning of the unconditioned (Asamskrta), that is Nirvana (Nirvana).' There is also a Sutra that says, 'Because of the cessation of the five aggregates of clinging (Panca-upadanakkhandha), it is called cessation.' Such statements are indeed numerous. Therefore, the view of my school does not contradict the Holy Teaching (Arya-sasana). Moreover, the 'Nirvana of a lamp flame' mentioned in the Sutra refers to the existence of impermanent (Anitya) characteristics after the lamp flame is extinguished. What contradiction is there in this metaphor in terms of meaning? Or rather, the Nirvana of a lamp, although it has no separate entity, is not completely non-existent. Because all conditioned things (Samskara) are of an impermanent nature, its essence is not non-existent. There is no fault in speaking based on this. Moreover, the quoted Sutra cannot prove that the nature of Nirvana is merely non-existence. This Sutra is only spoken of when entering Nirvana without remainder (Anupadhisesa-nirvana). That is, at this stage, all remaining attachments are completely cut off, each abandoned, and so on. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Some other teachers say that 'unborn' (Ajata) is said based on this 'unconditioned' (Asamskrta), hence it is said 'unborn'. To this, the Sutra Master (Sutrakara) says, we believe that this seventh case (referring to the ablative case in Sanskrit grammar, indicating 'based on') has no effect on proving the existence of 'cessation'. Why say 'based on this unconditioned'? If 'based on this' refers to the meaning of 'already existing', then it should be originally unborn, because Nirvana is eternal. If 'based on this' refers to the meaning of 'already attained', then it should be considered based on the attainment of the path (Marga). Therefore, only by relying on the path, or by attaining the path, can suffering not arise, you should believe. We believe that this seventh case is very effective in proving the existence of 'cessation'. Because the path and attainment both rely on 'cessation'. Because there is Nirvana, one seeks the path and attainment. If Nirvana does not exist, then what is the use of seeking them? Moreover, suffering does not arise only because of the path, or because of the excellent state already attained when gaining higher tolerance (Adhimukti-ksanti), suffering does not arise. Moreover, because of the lack of causes and conditions (Hetu-pratyaya), suffering also does not arise. This should be Nirvana, as has been said before. If it is said that it is because the seed (Bija) has not been completely extinguished, then it has been refuted before. How was it refuted before? Even if the seed has not been completely extinguished, there are cases where it is like it has been extinguished, and it will never arise again, what is the difference between this and (the case of Nirvana)? Moreover, if suffering does not arise because of the path, or because of attainment.
生者。初念道時。已無惑苦。過如前說。則住學道。煩惱應無。若煩惱種未滅故者。治道生時。種何不滅正相違故。如闇與明。又于涅槃。得正生位。所治惑苦。方名永滅故彼師說。依此無生。故言不生。第七轉聲。于證滅有。甚有功力。若謂若然。修無間道。應無用者。理亦不然。涅槃正是此道果故若初剎那所治惑苦。已名永滅。是何道果故解脫道。無離系果。由與滅得俱時生故。如是已破經主謗因。成立涅槃其體實有。有餘師說。無實涅槃。非因果故。如兔角等。諸實有者。因果為證。涅槃既非因果性攝。故定無有能證有因。是故涅槃定非實有。彼言非理。前已成立。虛空無為。其體實有。非因果性。此亦應然。又但有言。彼宗許有是因果性。非實有故。謂執涅槃非有論者。許未來是果過去是因而非許去來是實有性。故因果性非證有因。若許去來是實有者。許涅槃體是果是因。由許涅槃是沙門果。故與正生法為無障因故。修正行者。為辦涅槃果名所辦。所辦是果。或應說辦非果者何。何有體常而是因果。此不應責。且應自責。何有果因。而體實有。如一念起離同類因。彼一切處。無同喻理。有餘師言。涅槃雖有。而假非實。此亦不然。假所依體。不可得故。若謂諸行即是涅槃假所依者。亦不應理。應成所斷染污有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於證得阿羅漢果位的人來說，在最初證悟的剎那，就已經沒有了任何迷惑和痛苦。這種情況和之前所說的一樣。那麼，如果安住于修道，就應該沒有煩惱才對。如果說煩惱的種子還沒有滅盡，那麼在修道生起的時候，為什麼煩惱的種子不會滅盡呢？這在道理上是相違背的，就像黑暗和光明不能並存一樣。而且，在涅槃中，獲得正生的位置，所要對治的迷惑和痛苦，才能被稱作永遠滅盡。所以那位老師說，依據這種無生，才說不生。第七轉聲，對於證得寂滅有很大的功用。 如果有人認為，既然如此，那麼修無間道就沒有用了，這種說法也是不正確的。涅槃正是這種道的果實。如果最初剎那所對治的迷惑和痛苦，已經被稱作永遠滅盡，那麼這是什麼道的果實呢？解脫道沒有離系的果實，因為它和寂滅的獲得是同時生起的。這樣，就已經駁斥了經主的誹謗，成立了涅槃的真實存在。 還有一些老師說，沒有真實的涅槃，因為它不是因果關係。就像兔角一樣，凡是真實存在的，都有因果作為證明。涅槃既然不屬於因果的範疇，所以一定沒有能夠證明它存在的因。因此，涅槃一定不是真實存在的。這種說法是不合理的，因為之前已經成立了虛空無為的真實存在，它也不是因果關係。涅槃也應該是這樣。 而且，僅僅是有言論，他們的宗派允許有因果關係，但不是真實存在。這是指那些認為涅槃不存在的人，他們允許未來是果，過去是因，但不允許過去和未來是真實存在的。所以因果關係不能證明存在的原因。如果允許過去和未來是真實存在的，那麼就應該允許涅槃的本體是果是因。因為允許涅槃是沙門的果實，所以對於正生法來說是無障礙的因。修正行的人，爲了成就涅槃的果實，才被稱為所辦。所辦是果實。或者應該說，所辦不是果實是什麼呢？ 怎麼會有本體是常住不變的，又是因果關係的呢？不應該這樣責問。應該反過來責問自己，怎麼會有果的因，而本體又是真實存在的呢？就像一個念頭生起，離開了同類的因。在所有這些地方，都沒有相同的比喻道理。還有一些老師說，涅槃雖然存在，但是虛假的，不是真實的。這種說法也是不正確的，因為虛假所依賴的本體，是無法得到的。如果說諸行就是涅槃所依賴的虛假本體，這也是不合理的，應該成為所斷的染污有。
【English Translation】 English version For those who attain Arhatship (a perfected person who has attained nirvana) , in the very first moment of enlightenment, there is no more confusion or suffering. This is as previously stated. Then, if one dwells in the practice of the path, there should be no afflictions. If it is said that the seeds of affliction have not yet been extinguished, then why are the seeds of affliction not extinguished when the practice of the path arises? This is contradictory in principle, just as darkness and light cannot coexist. Moreover, in Nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhism), attaining the position of right birth, the delusions and suffering to be overcome are then said to be extinguished forever. Therefore, that teacher says that based on this non-arising, it is said to be non-arising. The seventh turning of sound has great utility in attaining cessation. If someone thinks that if this is the case, then practicing the uninterrupted path is useless, this statement is also incorrect. Nirvana is precisely the fruit of this path. If the delusions and suffering overcome in the very first moment are said to be extinguished forever, then what is the fruit of this path? The path of liberation has no fruit of detachment, because its attainment of cessation arises simultaneously. In this way, the sutra master's slander has been refuted, and the real existence of Nirvana has been established. There are also some teachers who say that there is no real Nirvana because it is not a cause-and-effect relationship. Like a rabbit's horn, everything that truly exists has cause and effect as proof. Since Nirvana does not fall into the category of cause and effect, there is certainly no cause that can prove its existence. Therefore, Nirvana is certainly not real. This statement is unreasonable, because it has been previously established that the unconditioned nature of space truly exists, and it is also not a cause-and-effect relationship. Nirvana should be the same. Moreover, it is merely a statement that their sect allows for cause-and-effect relationships, but not real existence. This refers to those who believe that Nirvana does not exist, they allow the future to be the effect and the past to be the cause, but they do not allow the past and the future to be real. Therefore, cause and effect cannot prove the reason for existence. If the past and the future are allowed to be real, then the essence of Nirvana should be allowed to be both the effect and the cause. Because Nirvana is allowed to be the fruit of the Shramana (ascetic), it is an unobstructed cause for the Dharma of right birth. Those who practice right conduct, in order to achieve the fruit of Nirvana, are called 'what is to be accomplished'. What is to be accomplished is the fruit. Or it should be said, what is it that is to be accomplished that is not the fruit? How can there be a substance that is permanent and unchanging, and also a cause-and-effect relationship? One should not ask this question. One should instead ask oneself, how can there be a cause of the fruit, and the substance is truly existent? Just like a thought arises, leaving the cause of the same kind. In all these places, there is no similar analogy. There are also some teachers who say that Nirvana exists, but it is false, not real. This statement is also incorrect, because the substance on which falsehood depends cannot be obtained. If it is said that all phenomena are the false substance on which Nirvana depends, this is also unreasonable, and should become the defilement to be abandoned.
漏無常性故。非離所依有假擇滅可執。雖以所斷染污有漏無常為其所依。而非所斷。不染無漏常住為性。又相違故。應非用彼為此所依。如明與闇。曾無假法違自所依。又許涅槃是諸行滅。如何可說諸行為依未見有明闇為依故。又行有時滅未有故。未離欲者。有貪等時。不應許彼有貪等滅。貪等無位。方證涅槃。故彼所說。非順正理。有餘復言。智必有境。涅槃無實。彼作是言。緣涅槃慧。以名為境。理必不然。邪正二見。應相成故。謂若正見覺了涅槃。寂靜常住。應成見取。以一切名皆無常故。若諸邪見。誹謗涅槃為無常性。應成正見。以稱實義。而生解故。諸說涅槃無體論者。終不許說名即是無。諸說涅槃有體論者。終不許說名即涅槃。故彼所言亦違正理。又上座說。如世尊言。如是句義。甚為難見。謂一切依。皆永棄捨。寂靜美妙。乃至涅槃。如是涅槃。如何難見。以其自性極難見故。如何非有可說自性。自執涅槃非實有故。若謂擇滅。雖非實有。而薩迦耶是實有故。離彼得滅名為自性。故契經言。如是滅界。緣薩迦耶。而得顯了。此違正理。所執滅界。與薩迦耶。非即非離。如何可言滅有自性。若有自性。如何復言滅非實有。既許涅槃非實有故。即無自性。何用誑惑信無智人。書此前後相違言論。又經唯說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為『漏』（煩惱）具有無常的性質，所以不能執著于離開所依之物而存在的『假擇滅』（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態）。雖然以所斷的染污有漏無常作為它的所依，但它本身不是被斷除的對象，而是不染污、無漏、常住的性質。而且，因為性質相反，不應該用那些作為它的所依，就像光明與黑暗一樣。從來沒有虛假的法違背它自己的所依。而且，如果承認涅槃是諸行的滅盡，怎麼能說諸行是它的所依呢？沒有見過光明以黑暗為所依的。而且，諸行有時滅盡，有時未滅盡，所以在沒有離開慾望的人，有貪慾等煩惱的時候，不應該承認他們有貪慾等的滅盡。只有在貪慾等煩惱不存在的時候，才能證得涅槃。所以他們所說的，不符合正確的道理。 還有一些人說，智慧必定有其對象，而涅槃不是真實的。他們這樣說，以名為涅槃的『慧』（智慧），以『名』（概念）為對象，這在道理上必定是不成立的。因為邪見和正見應該相互成就。如果正見覺悟到涅槃是寂靜常住的，就應該成為『見取』（執著于錯誤的見解），因為一切『名』都是無常的。如果邪見誹謗涅槃是無常的，就應該成為正見，因為它符合真實的意義而產生理解。那些說涅槃沒有實體的論者，最終不會允許說『名』就是『無』。那些說涅槃有實體的論者，最終不會允許說『名』就是涅槃。所以他們所說的也違背了正確的道理。 還有上座部的人說，就像世尊所說，『如是』（如此）的句義，非常難以見到，指的是一切所依都被永遠拋棄，寂靜美妙，乃至涅槃。這樣的涅槃，怎麼會難以見到呢？因為它自性極難見到。如果涅槃不是實有的，怎麼能說它有自性呢？因為他們自己執著于涅槃不是實有的。如果說擇滅雖然不是實有的，但是『薩迦耶』（有身見，對五蘊的錯誤執著）是實有的，離開它而得到的滅就叫做自性，所以契經上說，這樣的滅界，緣于薩迦耶而得以顯現，這違背了正確的道理。他們所執著的滅界，與薩迦耶，非即非離，怎麼能說滅有自性呢？如果有自性，怎麼又說滅不是實有的呢？既然承認涅槃不是實有的，就沒有自性，何必用這些前後矛盾的言論來欺騙那些沒有智慧的人呢？而且經中只說。
【English Translation】 English version: Because 『Laukika』 (defilements) has the nature of impermanence, one cannot cling to 『false Nirodha-satya』 (cessation achieved through wisdom) that exists apart from its basis. Although it takes the defiled, afflicted, impermanent Laukika that is to be abandoned as its basis, it is not itself what is to be abandoned, but is of the nature of undefiled, unconditioned, permanent. Moreover, because they are contradictory, one should not use those as its basis, just like light and darkness. There has never been a false dharma that contradicts its own basis. Furthermore, if one admits that Nirvana is the cessation of all Samskaras (conditioned phenomena), how can one say that Samskaras are its basis? One has never seen light taking darkness as its basis. Moreover, Samskaras sometimes cease and sometimes do not, so for those who have not abandoned desire, when there is greed and other afflictions, one should not admit that they have cessation of greed and other afflictions. Only when greed and other afflictions are absent can one attain Nirvana. Therefore, what they say does not accord with correct reasoning. Some others say that wisdom must have an object, and Nirvana is not real. They say that the 『wisdom』 (Prajna) that cognizes Nirvana takes 『name』 (concept) as its object, which is certainly not logically sound. Because wrong views and right views should mutually accomplish each other. If right view realizes that Nirvana is peaceful and permanent, it should become 『Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa』 (clinging to wrong views), because all 『names』 are impermanent. If wrong views slander Nirvana as impermanent, it should become right view, because it accords with the true meaning and generates understanding. Those who say that Nirvana has no substance will ultimately not allow saying that 『name』 is 『non-existence』. Those who say that Nirvana has substance will ultimately not allow saying that 『name』 is Nirvana. Therefore, what they say also contradicts correct reasoning. Furthermore, the Sthavira school says that, as the World Honored One said, the meaning of 『Tathata』 (suchness) is very difficult to see, referring to all bases being abandoned forever, peaceful and wonderful, even Nirvana. How can such Nirvana be difficult to see? Because its nature is extremely difficult to see. If Nirvana is not real, how can one say that it has a nature? Because they themselves cling to the idea that Nirvana is not real. If one says that Nirodha-satya, although not real, 『Satkayadṛṣṭi』 (view of self in the five aggregates) is real, and the cessation obtained by abandoning it is called nature, so the Sutra says that such a realm of cessation is manifested through Satkayadṛṣṭi, this contradicts correct reasoning. The realm of cessation that they cling to, and Satkayadṛṣṭi, are neither identical nor separate, how can one say that cessation has a nature? If it has a nature, how can one say that cessation is not real? Since they admit that Nirvana is not real, it has no nature, why use these contradictory statements to deceive those without wisdom? Moreover, the Sutra only says.
如是滅界。緣薩迦耶。而得顯了。如何定知滅非實有。唯薩迦耶。是實有物。然說緣他而顯了者。皆實有物。世所極成。如緣闇等明等顯了。緣實有物非實顯了曾無有處。是所極成。故薩迦耶是實有物。謂滅非實。但是虛言。緣薩迦耶。滅顯了者說因彼滅建立此故。由五取蘊滅故言滅。余契經中。分明說故。又彼所說雖諸經中有說。三界三涅槃界。有為界無為界。有滅界有生有無生。有苦滅聖諦我現了知。是安隱處。諸如是等。亦不相違。緣薩迦耶而建立故。此亦率爾。作如是說。縱三界等。緣薩迦耶。而得建立既無因證。如何定知體非實有。又言緣彼此顯了故。是實有物。便為極成無體無容由他顯了。如明等顯緣闇等故。又彼所言。契經中說。有滅界者。亦不相違。緣離有身。而顯示故。有無生者。亦不相違。于實有生。不轉立故。即是有生相續斷義。此亦非理如上所言。緣他顯者。是實有故。生與無生。體各異故。非有不應說為有故。假實有外更無別有。若執無生非假實有不應名有。如前已說。生相續斷。義有二種。謂離有身無別有別。準前苦滅二義應知。如何定言唯生不轉名相續斷。非別有物。許有別物。有無生言。可成有義。若無別物。不應名有。說過如前。又薄伽梵。于契經中。但應說言。有生不轉。不應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果像這樣滅盡了界（Dhatu，構成存在的元素），是依賴於薩迦耶（Satkayadrishti，有身見，認為五蘊是『我』的邪見）而得以顯現。如何確定『滅』不是真實存在的，而只有薩迦耶是真實存在的呢？如果說依賴於其他事物而得以顯現的，都是真實存在的事物，這是世間普遍認可的，比如依賴於黑暗等而顯現光明等。依賴於真實存在的事物，而非真實存在的事物得以顯現，這種情況從未有過，這是普遍認可的。所以薩迦耶是真實存在的事物，而『滅』不是真實的，只是虛妄的言說。依賴於薩迦耶，『滅』得以顯現，是因為說由於它的滅盡而建立這個（滅）。由於五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha，執著於五蘊）的滅盡，所以才說『滅』。其他的契經（Sutra，佛經）中，也分明地這樣說。 而且，他們所說的，即使在諸經中也有說到，三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）、三種涅槃界（Nirvana-dhatu，聲聞、緣覺、菩薩的涅槃）、有為界（Samskrta-dhatu，由因緣和合而成的世界）、無為界（Asamskrta-dhatu，不依賴因緣而存在的世界）、有滅界（Nirodha-dhatu，滅盡煩惱的世界）、有生（Jati，產生）、有無生（Ajati，不產生）、有苦滅聖諦（Duhkha-nirodha-aryasatya，滅苦的真理），我現了知，這是安穩之處，諸如此類的說法，也不互相矛盾，因為都是依賴於薩迦耶而建立的。這種說法也是草率的，像這樣說。即使三界等是依賴於薩迦耶而得以建立的，既然沒有原因和證據，如何確定它的體性不是真實存在的呢？而且說依賴於彼此而得以顯現，就是真實存在的事物，這就被認為是極端的。沒有體性，沒有容貌，卻能依賴於其他事物而顯現，就像光明等依賴於黑暗等而顯現一樣。 而且他們所說的，契經中說有滅界，也不互相矛盾，因為是依賴於遠離有身（Satkaya，五蘊）而顯示的。有無生，也不互相矛盾，因為對於真實存在的生，不轉變而建立，就是有生相續斷絕的意思。這種說法也是不合理的，就像上面所說的，依賴於其他事物而顯現的，是真實存在的。生與無生，體性各自不同。不應該把沒有說成有。如果假想的、真實存在之外，沒有其他的存在，如果執著于無生不是假想的、真實存在的，就不應該稱之為有，就像前面已經說過的。生相續斷絕，有兩種含義，一種是遠離有身，一種是沒有其他的存在。參照前面的苦滅兩種含義應該知道。如何確定只有生不轉變，才叫做相續斷絕，而不是有其他的存在呢？如果承認有其他的存在，有無生的說法，就可以成立有（存在）的意義。如果沒有其他的存在，就不應該稱之為有，過失就像前面所說的那樣。而且薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀），在契經中，只應該說有生不轉變，不應該...
【English Translation】 English version: If the destruction of a Dhatu (element constituting existence) is manifested in relation to Satkayadrishti (the view of a self, the false view that the five skandhas are 'I'), how can it be definitively known that 'destruction' is not truly existent, and only Satkayadrishti is truly existent? If it is said that whatever is manifested in relation to something else is truly existent, this is universally acknowledged in the world, such as light being manifested in relation to darkness. There has never been a case where something non-existent is manifested in relation to something truly existent; this is universally acknowledged. Therefore, Satkayadrishti is truly existent, while 'destruction' is not real but merely a false statement. 'Destruction' is manifested in relation to Satkayadrishti because it is said that this (destruction) is established due to its cessation. 'Destruction' is spoken of because of the cessation of the five Upadanakkhandhas (the five aggregates of clinging). This is clearly stated in other Sutras (Buddhist scriptures). Moreover, what they say, even if it is mentioned in various Sutras, such as the three realms (Trailokya: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), the three Nirvana-dhatus (Nirvana of Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas), the conditioned realm (Samskrta-dhatu: the world formed by causes and conditions), the unconditioned realm (Asamskrta-dhatu: the world that exists independently of causes and conditions), the Nirodha-dhatu (the realm of cessation of afflictions), existence (Jati), non-existence (Ajati), the noble truth of the cessation of suffering (Duhkha-nirodha-aryasatya), 'I know this now, this is a place of peace,' and so on, are not contradictory, because they are all established in relation to Satkayadrishti. This statement is also rash, saying it in this way. Even if the three realms, etc., are established in relation to Satkayadrishti, since there is no cause or evidence, how can it be definitively known that its essence is not truly existent? Moreover, saying that whatever is manifested in relation to each other is truly existent is considered extreme. Having no essence, no form, yet being able to be manifested by something else, like light being manifested in relation to darkness. Furthermore, what they say, that the Sutras mention the Nirodha-dhatu, is not contradictory, because it is manifested in relation to being apart from Satkaya (the five skandhas). Non-existence is also not contradictory, because it is not established by transforming a truly existent existence, but it means the continuous cessation of existence. This statement is also unreasonable, just as it was said above, that whatever is manifested in relation to something else is truly existent. Existence and non-existence have different essences. One should not call non-existence existence. If there is nothing else besides the hypothetical and truly existent, if one clings to non-existence as not being hypothetical or truly existent, it should not be called existence, as it has been said before. The continuous cessation of existence has two meanings: one is being apart from Satkaya, and the other is having no other existence. One should understand this by referring to the two meanings of the cessation of suffering mentioned earlier. How can it be definitively said that only the non-transformation of existence is called continuous cessation, and not having another existence? If one admits that there is another existence, the statement of non-existence can establish the meaning of existence. If there is no other existence, it should not be called existence; the fault is as mentioned before. Moreover, the Bhagavan (Buddha), in the Sutras, should only say that existence does not transform, and should not...
說此有無生言。世尊不應于勝義諦作迷謬說。有實無實。俱說有故。是迷謬言。為生如無生說為有故。其體非實。為無生如生說為有故。其體是實。令生如是迷謬心故。又相續斷道未生無。道生已有道退復無。以諸聖人退生惑故。則相續斷。應非無為。又說。涅槃非實有故。即無生者。理亦不然。唯有立宗。無證因故。謂何因證非實有故。涅槃無生非此無生。由常住故。而體實有。又許非實證無生故。則諸假法。應無有生。又應假法亦即無生。若爾汝宗剎那實法。不許生故。相續是假。亦無生故。是則汝曹。生之與滅。都非實有。何期汝等嘗厭空花。而今乃成空花差別。又彼所說。如契經言。一切法者。謂十二處又契經言。此十二處。皆有戲論。皆是無常。契經復言。眼色眼識。廣說乃至。意法意識皆是無常。若謂涅槃實而常住。世尊於此應有簡別。如是所說。非審思求。如言皆是有熱惱故。謂彼經言。此十二處。皆有戲論皆是無常。皆有熱惱。非諸聖道體非處攝。又彼定無貪等熱惱。何不簡別。然彼契經。唯依有漏十二處體。密意說言此十二處。皆有熱惱。即就此說。皆有戲論。皆是無常。不應由斯謗涅槃體言非實有。是故定應離苦集道有涅槃體。常實義成。今應思擇非擇滅體。此中經主所辯相言。離簡擇力。由闕
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果說存在『有生』和『無生』的說法，那麼世尊（釋迦牟尼佛的尊稱）就不應該在勝義諦（佛教的最高真理）上做出迷惑錯誤的言論。因為既說『有』又說『無』，這就是迷惑錯誤的言論。把『生』說成『無生』，就說它存在，但它的本體並非真實；把『無生』說成『生』，就說它存在，但它的本體卻是真實的。這樣會使人生起迷惑的心。而且，相續（事物或現象的連續）斷滅，道（修行之路）未生時是『無』，道生起后是『有』，道退失后又變成『無』。如果聖人退失了已經生起的惑，那麼相續就斷滅了，這應該不是無為法（不依賴因緣而存在的法）。而且，如果說涅槃（解脫的境界）不是真實存在的，那麼『無生』的說法在道理上也就不成立。這只是立宗（提出觀點），而沒有證因（證明的理由）。用什麼原因來證明涅槃不是真實存在的呢？涅槃的『無生』並非指『沒有生』，而是因為它是常住的，所以本體是真實存在的。而且，如果允許用『非實』來證明『無生』，那麼所有的假法（因緣和合而成的法）都應該沒有生。而且，假法也應該就是『無生』。如果這樣，你們宗派所說的剎那實法（瞬間存在的真實法），因為不承認有生，所以相續是假法，也就沒有生。這樣看來，你們所說的『生』和『滅』，都不是真實存在的。沒想到你們曾經厭惡空花（虛幻的事物），現在卻變成了空花的差別（更加虛幻的事物）。 而且他們所說，就像契經（佛經）所說，『一切法』指的是十二處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根，以及色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵）。又如契經所說，這十二處都有戲論（虛妄分別），都是無常的。契經又說，眼、色、眼識，乃至意、法、意識，都是無常的。如果說涅槃是真實而常住的，世尊應該對此有所簡別（區分）。這樣的說法，是沒有經過審慎思考的。就像說一切都有熱惱一樣，因為經中說，這十二處都有戲論，都是無常的，都有熱惱。但聖道（通往涅槃的道路）的本體並不屬於十二處所攝，而且聖道中一定沒有貪等熱惱，為什麼不加以區分呢？然而，那部契經只是依據有漏（有煩惱）的十二處本體，以密意（隱藏的含義）說這十二處都有熱惱。只是就此而言，說它們都有戲論，都是無常的。不應該因此就誹謗涅槃的本體說它不是真實存在的。因此，一定應該在苦、集、道之外，存在涅槃的本體，常實的意義才能成立。現在應該思考非擇滅（通過智慧力量而達到的滅）的本體。經主（論師）所辯論的相言，離開了簡擇力（選擇和辨別的能力），因為缺少...
【English Translation】 English version: To say that there is 'existence of arising' and 'non-arising,' the World-Honored One (a respectful title for Shakyamuni Buddha) should not make misleading statements about the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Because both 'existence' and 'non-existence' are spoken of, this is a misleading statement. To say that 'arising' is like 'non-arising' and then say it exists, but its essence is not real; to say that 'non-arising' is like 'arising' and then say it exists, but its essence is real. This causes people to have confused minds. Moreover, the continuity (saṃtāna) is severed, and when the path (mārga) has not arisen, there is 'non-existence'; when the path arises, there is 'existence'; and when the path is lost, there is again 'non-existence.' If a sage loses the afflictions that have already arisen, then the continuity is severed, and this should not be unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). Furthermore, if it is said that Nirvāṇa (the state of liberation) is not truly existent, then the statement of 'non-arising' is also not logically valid. This is merely stating a position (pakṣa) without providing a valid reason (hetu). What reason is there to prove that Nirvāṇa is not truly existent? The 'non-arising' of Nirvāṇa does not mean 'no arising,' but rather that it is permanent (nitya), so its essence is truly existent. Moreover, if it is allowed to use 'non-reality' to prove 'non-arising,' then all conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta-dharmas) should have no arising. And conditioned phenomena should also be 'non-arising.' If that is the case, then the momentary real phenomena (kṣaṇika-satya-dharmas) of your school, because they do not admit arising, and continuity is conditioned, are also non-arising. Thus, it seems that the 'arising' and 'cessation' that you speak of are not truly existent. Unexpectedly, you once detested empty flowers (illusory things), but now you have become the distinctions of empty flowers (even more illusory things). Moreover, what they say is like what the sūtras (Buddhist scriptures) say: 'All dharmas' refer to the twelve āyatanas (the six sense organs - eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind - and the six sense objects - form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma). And as the sūtras say, these twelve āyatanas all have play (prapañca), and are all impermanent (anitya). The sūtras also say that the eye, form, and eye-consciousness, and so on up to the mind, dharma, and mind-consciousness, are all impermanent. If it is said that Nirvāṇa is real and permanent, the World-Honored One should have made a distinction (vyavaccheda) regarding this. Such a statement has not been carefully considered. It is like saying that everything has heat, because the sūtras say that these twelve āyatanas all have play, are all impermanent, and all have heat. But the essence of the noble path (ārya-mārga) is not included within the twelve āyatanas, and there is certainly no heat of greed, etc., in the noble path, so why not make a distinction? However, that sūtra only relies on the defiled (sāsrava) essence of the twelve āyatanas, and speaks with a hidden meaning (saṃdhāya) that these twelve āyatanas all have heat. It is only in this regard that it is said that they all have play and are all impermanent. One should not therefore slander the essence of Nirvāṇa by saying that it is not truly existent. Therefore, it must be that there exists the essence of Nirvāṇa apart from suffering, origination, and the path, and the meaning of permanence and reality can be established. Now, one should consider the essence of nirodha-asamāpatti (cessation attained through wisdom). The arguments debated by the sūtra master (ācārya), apart from the power of discernment (prajñā), because of the lack of...
緣故。余不更生。名非擇滅。如殘眾同分中夭者余蘊。且應詰彼。何名闕緣。謂法生緣。若不和合。非不和合。少有法體。何能為障。令法不生。豈不闕緣名緣不具。此有何法。過亦同前。若謂闕緣即緣非有。亦不應理。非有不能障有生故。由此決定。非唯闕緣名非擇滅。然別有法。得由闕緣。此有勝能障可生法。令永不起。名非擇滅。若無別法能為障礙。但由闕緣法不生者。后遇彼類緣和合時。前不生法。今應還起。豈不如許有非擇滅得由闕緣。非遇彼類緣和合時舍非擇滅。如是唯許由闕緣故諸法不生。非遇彼類緣和合時彼法還起。所例非等。有無異故。謂由闕緣得非擇滅。障可生法。令永不生。乃至涅槃得定相續。設遇彼類緣和合時。亦無有能捨先所得。夫緣闕者。但是緣無。無法無能與有為障。后遇彼類緣和合時。何法能遮令不還起。然法若住不生法中。此法必無還生之理。是故定有能永障緣。非唯闕緣令永不起豈不緣起道理法然。依此無彼無。此滅故彼滅。計非擇滅。則為唐捐。此所說言。有何意趣。表唯緣闕故法不生。此中不見決定言說。如何得知。唯緣闕故。既不說有餘不生因。故知不生。唯由緣闕。此中不說余不生因。以彼但由緣闕得故。非擇滅得。為即用此緣闕為因。不爾非有無有功能為有因故。于
緣闕位。隨所住心。得非擇滅。如是滅得即因彼心。非因緣闕。又準所說緣起道理。即定證知。有非擇滅。受滅故愛滅。緣起經說故。此云何證非擇滅有。如是滅言非余滅故。且彼不可是無常滅。見受滅時有愛生故。非愛未至已生位時。可為無常滅相所滅。又彼不可說為擇滅。言由愛斷受得斷故。如世尊言。汝等於受應斷貪慾。貪慾斷故。此受便斷。此經中辯受愛擇滅。意顯受愛斷必俱時。緣起經中。說次第滅非次第滅。諸緣起支。可名擇滅同對治故。由此準知。離無常滅及擇滅外。有非擇滅。由愛生緣闕故而得。依此密說言受滅故愛滅。又經說有二阿羅漢。由此準知有非擇滅。如契經說。諸阿羅漢。略有二種。所謂退法及不退法。諸阿羅漢。一切煩惱皆斷無餘。而無生智有得不得。由此準知。必有別法。若有得者。煩惱便住不生法中。得無生智。此法即是非擇滅體。若不得者。煩惱可生。便有退失無無生智。根殊勝故。煩惱不生。何用計斯非擇滅體。依何義說根殊勝名。若此但依無生智說。彼意即說得無生智殊勝根故。煩惱不生。此復應思。諸阿羅漢。皆煩惱斷。何緣於此殊勝智根有得不得。若過退法。名殊勝根。亦不應理。得此根者。亦有退生煩惱義故。謂退法性。轉得勝根。乃至堪達。猶有遇緣退住學位。起諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣于條件的缺失，隨著心所安住的狀態，可以獲得非擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧力斷滅煩惱而證得的滅）。像這樣的滅的獲得，是因為那個心（的狀態），而不是因為條件的缺失。而且，根據所說的緣起道理，就可以確定地知道有非擇滅。因為受（Vedana，感受）滅，所以愛（Trsna，渴愛）滅，這是緣起經所說的。這是如何證明非擇滅存在的呢？因為這樣的『滅』不是其他的滅。而且，那不可能是無常滅（Anitya-nirodha，事物自然生滅的現象），因為見到受滅的時候，還有愛生起。在愛還沒有達到已經生起的狀態時，不能被認為是無常滅所滅。而且，那也不可說是擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧力斷滅煩惱而證得的滅），因為說是由於愛斷了，受才能斷。就像世尊所說：『你們對於受，應當斷除貪慾。因為貪慾斷了，這受就斷了。』這部經中辨明了受和愛的擇滅，意思是顯示受和愛的斷滅必定是同時的。緣起經中，說次第滅和非次第滅。諸緣起支，可以被稱作擇滅，因為它們是對治（煩惱）的。由此可以推知，除了無常滅和擇滅之外，還有非擇滅，由於愛生起的條件缺失而獲得。依據這個秘密的說法，說『受滅故愛滅』。 而且，經中說有二種阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者），由此可以推知有非擇滅。就像契經所說：『諸阿羅漢，大致有兩種，所謂退法和不退法。』諸阿羅漢，一切煩惱都已斷盡無餘，但是無生智（Anutpada-jnana，不再產生煩惱的智慧）有得到和沒得到之分。由此可以推知，必定有另外的法。如果有人得到了無生智，煩惱就會安住于不生法中，得到無生智。這個法就是非擇滅的本體。如果沒有得到無生智，煩惱可能會生起，就會有退失，沒有無生智。因為根器殊勝的緣故，煩惱不會生起，何必去考慮這個非擇滅的本體呢？依據什麼意義說根器殊勝呢？如果這只是依據無生智來說，那意思就是說得到無生智，根器殊勝，所以煩惱不生起。這又應該思考，諸阿羅漢，都已經斷盡煩惱，為什麼對於這殊勝的智慧之根，有得到和沒得到之分？如果超過退法，可以稱作殊勝根器，也不應該這樣說，因為得到這種根器的人，也有退轉而生起煩惱的可能。所謂退法之性，即使轉而得到殊勝的根器，乃至能夠達到，仍然有遇到因緣而退住于學位，生起諸（煩惱）。
【English Translation】 English version Due to the absence of conditions, along with the state of the mind where it dwells, one can attain Pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through discernment, achieved by eradicating afflictions through the power of wisdom). The attainment of such cessation is due to that state of mind, not merely due to the absence of conditions. Moreover, according to the principle of dependent origination, it can be definitively known that there is Pratisankhya-nirodha. Because the cessation of Vedana (feeling) leads to the cessation of Trsna (craving), as stated in the Sutra on Dependent Origination. How does this prove the existence of Pratisankhya-nirodha? Because such 'cessation' is not any other kind of cessation. Furthermore, it cannot be Anitya-nirodha (cessation due to impermanence, the natural arising and ceasing of phenomena), because when feeling ceases, craving still arises. When craving has not yet reached the state of having arisen, it cannot be considered to be ceased by Anitya-nirodha. Moreover, it cannot be said to be Pratisankhya-nirodha, because it is said that feeling ceases because craving is cut off. Just as the World Honored One said, 'You should eliminate craving for feeling. Because craving is cut off, this feeling ceases.' This Sutra clarifies the Pratisankhya-nirodha of feeling and craving, meaning that the cessation of feeling and craving must occur simultaneously. In the Sutra on Dependent Origination, it speaks of sequential cessation and non-sequential cessation. The limbs of dependent origination can be called Pratisankhya-nirodha because they are antidotes (to afflictions). From this, it can be inferred that besides Anitya-nirodha and Pratisankhya-nirodha, there is also Asaṃkhyā-nirodha, which is attained due to the absence of conditions for the arising of craving. Based on this secret teaching, it is said, 'Because feeling ceases, craving ceases.' Moreover, the Sutra says that there are two types of Arhats (one who has attained Nirvana), from which it can be inferred that there is Asaṃkhyā-nirodha. As the Sutra says, 'Arhats are roughly of two types, namely, those who regress and those who do not regress.' All afflictions of Arhats have been completely eradicated without remainder, but Anutpada-jnana (the wisdom of non-arising, the wisdom of no longer generating afflictions) is either attained or not attained. From this, it can be inferred that there must be another Dharma. If someone has attained Anutpada-jnana, afflictions will abide in the Dharma of non-arising, having attained Anutpada-jnana. This Dharma is the substance of Asaṃkhyā-nirodha. If Anutpada-jnana has not been attained, afflictions may arise, and there will be regression, without Anutpada-jnana. Because of the superiority of the root faculties, afflictions do not arise, so why consider this substance of Asaṃkhyā-nirodha? According to what meaning is the superiority of the root faculties spoken of? If this is only based on Anutpada-jnana, then it means that having attained Anutpada-jnana, the root faculties are superior, so afflictions do not arise. This should be further considered: all Arhats have already eradicated afflictions, so why is there attainment and non-attainment of this superior root of wisdom? If surpassing the regressing Dharma can be called superior root faculties, it should not be said that way, because those who have attained this root faculty may still regress and generate afflictions. The nature of regressing Dharma, even if it transforms and attains superior root faculties, and is even capable of reaching, still has the possibility of encountering conditions and regressing to the stage of learning, generating all (afflictions).
煩惱若得勝根煩惱不起。轉退法性。得思法根。應不復生一切煩惱。然不如是。由此故知。有阿羅漢。以諸煩惱生緣闕故。得非擇滅。由此勢力。能遮煩惱。令永不生。得無生智。若有退義。一切可然。而退不成。故皆不爾。退義必有。后當思擇。又于施設。第一法中。諸言顯有多無為故。證無為中有非擇滅。足前二種。方可成多。除此更無餘無為故。又滅與盡。名別體同。經說預流盡三惡趣。故知有別非擇滅體。此盡定非余滅攝故。謂契經中。說預流者已盡地獄已盡傍生已盡餓鬼。乃至廣說。非彼已能斷諸惡趣。由彼未離欲界貪故。而諸惡趣。要于究竟離欲貪時。方得名斷。有說。預流緣諸惡趣煩惱可生。故未名斷。此因非諸有斷所緣能緣煩惱猶可生故。亦非盡言顯無常滅。以所盡者皆未生故。由此證知。定有別法。名非擇滅。得此法故。令諸惡趣畢竟不生。若執但由闕生緣故彼不生者。過如前說。然上座說。非擇滅名。諸聖教中。曾無說處。但邪分別。橫計為有非聖說故。不可信依。此亦不然。聖所說故。且彼所執舊隨界等。如瘖啞人于夢所說。都無所用。但為誘引信無智人令生欣樂。誰有賢聖說如是言。何聖教中。有片可得。是故上座。勿以己宗準度他宗亦非聖說。豈不彼彼諸聖教中。離擇無常二種滅外。處處
說有滅盡等聲。上座于中。何容不忍。對法者說。有用五字以于未來亦得擇滅。為欲簡彼令易了知。故本論中。加非擇字。論者意說。世尊所言。非擇為先。于未來世。由闕緣故。得永不生。應知此即非擇滅體。何容謂此非聖所言。復有餘師。謂非擇滅由余故得。不以闕緣。根境為緣。諸識得起。一根與意。專一境時。余識生緣。根境雖具。而於彼彼識不得生。此豈生緣根境有闕。然具根境。識不俱生。故知但由得非擇滅。若謂由闕第二等無間緣故。此第二等無間緣。由何故闕。豈不諸識不併生故。闕于第二等無間緣。復以何緣。識不併起。以有過故。必不可說諸識並生。若說並生便有染凈俱生等過。要先並生斯過方可有。豈先有過。為不併生因。然識不併生。故無斯過。得非擇滅故。識不併生。如是所言。皆不應理。若得非擇滅。不由闕緣。得非擇滅已應還可退。雖復諸識不可並生。而容后時次第生故。若依五識。說如是言。由所緣境已滅謝故。能滅諸識永不生者。是則同前。由闕緣故。得非擇滅。令永不生。由此應知。前說為善。故非擇滅實有義成。然本論中。說無為法名無事者。是無因義。所以者何。事有五種。一自性事。如有處言。若已得此事。彼成就此事。二所緣事。如有處言。一切法智所知隨其事。三所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有人說有滅盡等聲音，上座（長老）對於這些，怎麼能不忍受呢？對於講對法的人說，用『用』和『五字』，即使在未來也能獲得擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的涅槃）。爲了簡化說明，使人容易理解，所以在本論中，加上『非擇』二字。論者的意思是說，世尊所說的，以『非擇』為先，在未來世，由於缺少因緣的緣故，而永遠不生。應當知道這就是非擇滅的本體。怎麼能說這不是聖人所說的呢？
又有其他老師認為，非擇滅是由其他原因獲得的，不是因為缺少因緣。根和境是緣，各種識得以生起。一個根與意，專注於一個境時，其他識的生起因緣，根和境雖然具備，但是對於那些識，卻不能生起。這難道是生起因緣的根和境有缺失嗎？然而具備根和境，識卻不一起生起。所以知道只是因為獲得了非擇滅。如果說是因為缺少第二等無間緣的緣故，那麼這第二等無間緣，又因為什麼原因缺少呢？難道不是因為各種識不一起生起嗎？又因為什麼緣故，識不一起生起呢？因為有過失的緣故，必定不能說各種識一起生起。如果說一起生起，便有染污和清凈一起生起等過失。要先一起生起，這些過失才可能存在。難道先有過失，作為不一起生起的原因嗎？然而識不一起生起，所以沒有這些過失。因為獲得非擇滅的緣故，識不一起生起。這樣所說，都是不合道理的。如果獲得非擇滅，不是因為缺少因緣，那麼獲得非擇滅后，應該還可以退轉。即使各種識不能一起生起，也容許後來次第生起的緣故。如果依據五識，說這樣的話，因為所緣的境已經滅謝的緣故，能夠使各種識永遠不生，那麼這就和前面一樣，因為缺少因緣的緣故，獲得非擇滅，使之永遠不生。由此應該知道，前面所說是正確的。所以非擇滅確實有其意義成立。
然而在本論中，說無為法名為無事，是無因的意義。為什麼這樣說呢？事有五種：一是自性事，如有處說，如果已經得到這件事，他就成就這件事。二是所緣事，如有處說，一切法智所知隨其事。三是
【English Translation】 English version: Some say there are sounds of cessation, etc. How can the elder monks not tolerate these? To those who speak of the Dharma, it is said that using 'use' and 'five words,' even in the future, one can attain nirodha-samāpatti (擇滅, cessation attained through wisdom). To simplify the explanation and make it easier to understand, the word 'non-selective' (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, 非擇) is added in this treatise. The commentator means that what the Buddha said, 'non-selective' comes first, in the future, due to the lack of conditions, it will never arise again. It should be known that this is the essence of pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. How can it be said that this is not what the saints said?
Furthermore, other teachers believe that pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is attained by other causes, not because of a lack of conditions. The root and the object are conditions for the arising of various consciousnesses. When one root and mind are focused on one object, although the conditions for the arising of other consciousnesses, the root and the object, are present, those consciousnesses cannot arise. Is this because the root and the object of the arising conditions are lacking? However, with the root and the object present, consciousnesses do not arise together. Therefore, it is known that it is only because pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha has been attained. If it is said that it is because of the lack of the second immediately preceding condition, then why is this second immediately preceding condition lacking? Isn't it because various consciousnesses do not arise together? And for what reason do consciousnesses not arise together? Because of faults, it is certainly impossible to say that various consciousnesses arise together. If it is said that they arise together, there will be faults such as defilement and purity arising together. These faults can only exist if they arise together first. Is it that faults come first, as the cause of not arising together? However, consciousnesses do not arise together, so there are no such faults. Because pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha has been attained, consciousnesses do not arise together. Such statements are all unreasonable. If pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is attained not because of a lack of conditions, then after pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is attained, it should be possible to regress. Even if various consciousnesses cannot arise together, it is permissible for them to arise in sequence later. If, based on the five consciousnesses, it is said that because the object of perception has already ceased, it can cause various consciousnesses to never arise again, then this is the same as before, because of the lack of conditions, pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is attained, causing them to never arise again. From this, it should be known that what was said earlier is correct. Therefore, the meaning of pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is indeed established.
However, in this treatise, calling unconditioned dharmas 'without affairs' means without cause. Why is this so? There are five kinds of affairs: first, the affair of self-nature (svabhāva, 自性), as it is said in some places, 'If one has already attained this affair, he accomplishes this affair.' Second, the affair of the object of perception (ālambana, 所緣), as it is said in some places, 'All knowledge of dharmas knows according to its affair.' Third, the
系事。如有處言。若於此事愛結所繫。彼於此事恚結系耶。四所因事。如有處言。有事法雲何。謂諸有為法。五所攝事。如有處言。田事宅事妻子等事。故本論中。依第四說無為無事。不依最初自性事說無為無事。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之十
因離系果。傍論已周。本所明今當說。于當所辯異熟等流離系士用及增上果。如是五果。對前六因。當言何果何因所得。頌曰。
后因果異熟 前因增上果 同類遍等流 俱相應士用
論曰。於五果中。第三離系。非生因得。故此不論且辯六因。得餘四果。言后因者。謂異熟因。于因頌中。最後說故。初異熟果。此因所得。有言異熟從異熟生。故此不應名無異熟。彼言非理。同類異熟二因所生。義各別故。謂前異熟。為同類因生后異熟。為等流果。即后異熟。由先業成。能成諸業。名異熟因。所成異熟。即異熟果。二因體異。二果義分。因果類殊。無相雜過。然異熟體。如熟飲食。于生異熟。無勝功能。故唯不善。及善有漏。是異熟因。名有異熟。言前因者。謂能作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果存在某種情況，對於這件事存在愛結（Rāga-saṃyojana）的束縛，那麼對於這件事是否存在嗔結（Dveṣa-saṃyojana）的束縛呢？ 答：有四種情況可能導致這種情況。 問：什麼是『有事法』（vastu-dharma）？ 答：指的是所有有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma）。 問：什麼是『五所攝事』？ 答：指的是田地、房產、妻子等事物。 因此，在本論中，根據第四種情況，無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma）是『無事』（avastu），而不是根據最初的自性事（svabhāva-vastu）來說無為法是『無事』。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之十
已經討論了因離系果（hetu-visaṃyoga-phala）的旁論，現在應當說明原本要辨析的內容。對於將要辨析的異熟果（vipāka-phala）、等流果（niṣyanda-phala）、離系果（visaṃyoga-phala）、士用果（puruṣakāra-phala）以及增上果（adhipati-phala）這五種果，相對於之前的六因（hetu），應當說哪種果是由哪種因所得呢？頌曰：
『后因果異熟，前因增上果，同類遍等流，俱相應士用。』
論曰：在五種果中，第三種離系果不是由生因（janaka-hetu）所得，因此這裡不討論它，只辨析六因如何得到其餘四種果。『后因』指的是異熟因（vipāka-hetu），因為它在因的頌中最後被提到。最初的異熟果是由這個因所得。有人說，異熟果是從異熟果產生的，因此不應該說它沒有異熟。這種說法是不合理的，因為同類因（sabhāga-hetu）和異熟因所產生的果在意義上是不同的。前一個異熟果作為同類因，產生后一個異熟果，作為等流果。后一個異熟果由先前的業（karma）所成就，能夠成就諸業，被稱為異熟因，所成就的異熟果就是異熟果。兩種因的體性不同，兩種果的意義也不同，因果的類別不同，因此沒有混雜的過失。然而，異熟的體性就像煮熟的食物，對於產生異熟沒有殊勝的功能。因此，只有不善（akuśala）和善（kuśala）的有漏（sāsrava）業才是異熟因，被稱為『有異熟』。『前因』指的是能作因（kāraṇa-hetu）。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If there is a situation where there is a binding of attachment (Rāga-saṃyojana) to this matter, is there also a binding of aversion (Dveṣa-saṃyojana) to this matter? Answer: There are four possible reasons for this situation. Question: What is meant by 'thing-dharma' (vastu-dharma)? Answer: It refers to all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma). Question: What are the 'five categories of things' (pañca-saṃgraha-vastu)? Answer: It refers to things like fields, houses, wives, etc. Therefore, in this treatise, according to the fourth situation, unconditioned dharma (asaṃskṛta-dharma) is 'non-thing' (avastu), and it is not based on the original self-nature thing (svabhāva-vastu) that unconditioned dharma is said to be 'non-thing'.
Treatise on the Establishment of Right Reason of the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 17 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 18
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 2.10: Discrimination of Differences
The side discussion on the result of separation from causes (hetu-visaṃyoga-phala) is now complete. What was originally to be discussed should now be explained. Regarding the five results to be discussed: the result of maturation (vipāka-phala), the result of outflow (niṣyanda-phala), the result of separation (visaṃyoga-phala), the result of effort (puruṣakāra-phala), and the result of dominance (adhipati-phala), in relation to the previous six causes (hetu), which result should be said to be obtained from which cause? The verse says:
'The later cause yields the result of maturation, the earlier cause yields the result of dominance, the similar kind pervades the result of outflow, the concurrent yields the result of effort.'
Commentary: Among the five results, the third, the result of separation, is not obtained from the generative cause (janaka-hetu), so it is not discussed here. Only the six causes and how they obtain the remaining four results are discussed. 'The later cause' refers to the ripening cause (vipāka-hetu), because it is mentioned last in the verse on causes. The initial result of maturation is obtained from this cause. Some say that the result of maturation arises from the result of maturation, so it should not be said that it has no result of maturation. That statement is unreasonable because the results produced by the similar cause (sabhāga-hetu) and the ripening cause are different in meaning. The former result of maturation, as a similar cause, produces the later result of maturation, as a result of outflow. The later result of maturation is accomplished by previous karma (karma), which is able to accomplish all karmas, and is called the ripening cause. The accomplished result of maturation is the result of maturation. The natures of the two causes are different, and the meanings of the two results are also different. The categories of cause and result are different, so there is no fault of mixing. However, the nature of maturation is like cooked food, and it has no superior function in producing maturation. Therefore, only unwholesome (akuśala) and wholesome (kuśala) defiled (sāsrava) actions are ripening causes, and are called 'having maturation'. 'The earlier cause' refers to the efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu).
因。于因頌中。最初說故。后增上果。此因所得。增上之果。名增上果。唯無障住。有何增上。豈不即由無障住故說為增上。何勞徴詰。又先已辯。能作因中。說能作因亦有勝力。謂眼識等。于正生時。耳等展轉。有增上力。聞已便生欣見欲故。于器世界諸物生時。諸有情業。有增上力。諸可愛果。于不善業。不可愛果。于諸善業。亦有展轉增上生用此等增上。如應當思。同類遍行。得等流果。果似因故。名為等流。如是二因。果相相似。故因雖二。其果唯一。俱有相應。得士用果。非越士體有別士用。即此所得。名士用果。此士用名。為目何法。即目諸法所有功能。如是冥符后頌文說。若因彼力生。是果名士用。然經主謂此士用名即目諸法所有作用。是則彼應作如是說。同牽一果。故名士用。若爾唯應無間隔越有士用果。俱生中無。非俱生中可有一切皆共同得一士用果。自體不因自力生故。亦不可說各別牽果。勿俱有因非一果故。此中士用士力士能士之勢分。義皆無別。諸法功能。如士用故。名為士用如勇健人。似師子故。名為師子。豈不同類遍行二因無間所生亦士用果。然等流果。二因無間所生諸法。或是或非。一切決定。名士用果。何故但說俱有相應得士用果。非同類遍行。唯此二因。具足能得俱生無間二士用
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『因』，在關於『因』的頌文中，因為最初就已說明，後來的『增上果』，是此『因』所獲得的。『增上』之果，名為『增上果』。僅僅是『無障住』，有什麼『增上』呢？難道不正是因為『無障住』才被稱為『增上』嗎？何必還要質疑呢？而且之前已經辨析過，在『能作因』中，說明『能作因』也有殊勝的力量。比如眼識等，在正產生時，耳朵等輾轉，有增上的力量，因為聽到之後便產生欣喜見到的慾望。在器世界諸物產生時，諸有情（眾生）的業，有增上的力量。諸可愛之果，對於不善業；不可愛之果，對於諸善業，也有輾轉增上生起的作用。這些『增上』，應當如理思維。 同類遍行（相似且普遍存在的因），得到『等流果』（結果與原因相似）。果實與原因相似，所以名為『等流』。像這樣兩種『因』，果實相互相似，所以『因』雖然有兩個，但其果只有一個。俱有相應（共同存在且相互關聯的因），得到『士用果』（由主導者作用產生的果）。並非超越『士』的本體而有別的『士用』，就是由此所得，名為『士用果』。這『士用』之名，是爲了指稱什麼法呢？就是指稱諸法所有的功能。就像後面頌文所說：『若因彼力生，是果名士用。』然而經主認為這『士用』之名，就是指稱諸法所有的作用。那麼他應該這樣說：『共同牽引一個果，所以名為士用。』如果這樣，就應該只有無間隔的超越才有『士用果』，俱生之中沒有。並非俱生之中可以一切都共同得到一個『士用果』，因為自體不是因為自己的力量而產生。也不可說各自牽引果，不要讓俱有的『因』不是一個果。這裡『士用』、『士力』、『士能』、『士之勢分』，意義都沒有區別。諸法的功能，像『士用』一樣，所以名為『士用』，就像勇健的人，像獅子一樣，所以名為獅子。難道不是同類遍行兩種『因』無間所生也是『士用果』嗎？然而『等流果』，兩種『因』無間所生的諸法，或者可以，或者不可以，一切都是決定的，名為『士用果』。為什麼只說俱有相應得到『士用果』，而非同類遍行？只有這兩種『因』，具足能夠得到俱生無間兩種『士用』。
【English Translation】 English version 『Hetu』 (cause), in the verses about 『Hetu』, because it is initially explained, the later 『Adhipati-phala』 (dominant result), is obtained from this 『Hetu』. The result of 『Adhipati』 is called 『Adhipati-phala』. What 『Adhipati』 (dominance) is there in merely 『unobstructed abiding』? Isn't it precisely because of 『unobstructed abiding』 that it is called 『Adhipati』? Why question it further? Moreover, it has already been discussed that in 『Kāraṇa-hetu』 (efficient cause), it is explained that 『Kāraṇa-hetu』 also has superior power. For example, eye consciousness, etc., when arising properly, the ears, etc., reciprocally have dominant power, because after hearing, the desire to see with joy arises. When things in the vessel world arise, the karma of sentient beings has dominant power. The desirable results are for unwholesome karma; the undesirable results are for wholesome karma, and there is also a reciprocal dominant arising function. These 『Adhipati』 should be contemplated as appropriate. 『Sabhāga-hetu』 (cause of similar kind) and 『Sarvatraga-hetu』 (omnipresent cause) obtain 『Nisyanda-phala』 (result flowing from the cause). The result is similar to the cause, so it is called 『Nisyanda』. Like this, these two 『hetu』, the results are similar to each other, so although there are two 『hetu』, there is only one result. 『Sahabhū-hetu』 (co-existent cause) and 『Samprayuktaka-hetu』 (associated cause) obtain 『Puruṣakāra-phala』 (result of effort). It is not beyond the essence of 『Puruṣa』 (person) that there is a separate 『Puruṣakāra』 (personal effort), it is precisely what is obtained from this, called 『Puruṣakāra-phala』. What dharma (phenomenon) does this name 『Puruṣakāra』 refer to? It refers to all the functions of all dharmas. Just like the later verse says: 『If it arises because of that power, that result is called Puruṣakāra.』 However, the author of the treatise believes that this name 『Puruṣakāra』 refers to all the actions of all dharmas. Then he should say: 『Commonly pulling one result, so it is called Puruṣakāra.』 If so, then there should only be uninterrupted transcendence that has 『Puruṣakāra-phala』, there is none among co-arising. It is not that among co-arising, everything can commonly obtain one 『Puruṣakāra-phala』, because the self-essence does not arise because of its own power. It also cannot be said that each pulls a result, lest the co-existent 『hetu』 is not one result. Here, 『Puruṣakāra』, 『Puruṣa-bala』 (personal strength), 『Puruṣa-śakti』 (personal ability), 『Puruṣa-tejas』 (personal influence), the meanings are not different. The functions of all dharmas, like 『Puruṣakāra』, so it is called 『Puruṣakāra』, just like a brave person, like a lion, so it is called a lion. Isn't it that the dharmas produced without interval by the two 『hetu』 of similar kind and omnipresent cause are also 『Puruṣakāra-phala』? However, 『Nisyanda-phala』, the dharmas produced without interval by the two 『hetu』, either can or cannot, everything is determined, called 『Puruṣakāra-phala』. Why only say that co-existent and associated obtain 『Puruṣakāra-phala』, and not similar kind and omnipresent? Only these two 『hetu』 are fully capable of obtaining the two 『Puruṣakāra』 of co-arising without interval.
果。非前二因。是故不說。成等流果唯似自因。同類遍行果唯相似。故彼二果。唯名等流。余非等流。非二因得。又士用果。俱者義強。俱有相應。獨能獲得俱士用果。是故偏說。又同類因。雖亦能得所生無間諸士用果。而非一切皆能定得。以阿羅漢最後諸蘊無無間生士用果故。俱有相應二因。決定得士用果。是故偏說。有餘師言。能作因等。亦有能得士用果義非異熟因。俱生無間二士用果。此所無故。有餘師說此異熟因。亦有隔越遠士用果。譬如農夫所收果實。已辯因果相對決定。今當正辯果相差別。異熟等果。其相云何。頌曰。
異熟無記法 有情有記生 等流似自因 離系由慧盡 若因彼力生 是果名士用 除前有為法 有為增上果
論曰。唯于無覆無記法中。有異熟果。若爾則應非有情數亦是異熟。為欲簡彼說有情言。唯于有情。有異熟故。若爾于彼有情數中。長養等流。應是異熟。又為簡彼。說有記生。一切不善。及善有漏。能記異熟。故名有記。從彼后時。異熟方起。非俱無間名有記生。如是名為異熟果相。豈不異熟亦以前位異熟果體為同類因。是前異熟等流果故。則應亦說從無記生。是等流性。如何乃說從有記生。非等流性。無如是失。異熟果體。由同類因。相有雜亂。由異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 果。不是前述的兩種原因（同類因、俱有因）。因此這裡不說。成為等流果的，僅僅是相似於自己的原因。同類遍行果僅僅是相似。因此這兩種果，僅僅名為等流果。其餘的不是等流果，不是由這兩種原因所得。另外，士用果，俱有因的意義更強。俱有因和相應因，獨自能夠獲得俱士用果。因此偏重說明。另外，同類因，雖然也能得到所生無間（沒有間隔）的各種士用果，但並非一切都能確定得到。因為阿羅漢最後的諸蘊沒有無間產生的士用果的緣故。俱有因和相應因這兩種原因，決定能得到士用果。因此偏重說明。有其他老師說，能作因等，也有能夠得到士用果的意義，但不是異熟因。俱生和無間兩種士用果，這裡沒有的緣故。有其他老師說，這異熟因，也有間隔遙遠的士用果。譬如農夫所收穫的果實。已經辨析了因果相對的決定性。現在應當正式辨析果相的差別。異熟果等果，它們的相是什麼樣的？頌說：
異熟是無記法（既非善也非惡），有情（眾生）中有記（善或惡業）所生 等流果相似於自己的原因，離系果由智慧斷盡煩惱而得 如果因為某個原因的力量而產生，這個果就叫做士用果 除了前面的有為法，有為法是增上果
論述：只有在無覆無記法（不障礙善法生起的無記法）中，才有異熟果。如果這樣，那麼非有情數（非眾生的事物）也應該是異熟果。爲了簡別這一點，所以說『有情』，只有在有情中，才有異熟果。如果這樣，那麼在有情數中，長養等流果，應該是異熟果。又爲了簡別這一點，所以說『有記生』。一切不善和善的有漏業，能夠記錄異熟果，所以名叫有記。從這些業之後，異熟果才產生，不是同時或無間產生，所以名叫有記生。像這樣名為異熟果的相。難道異熟果不也是以前位的異熟果體作為同類因嗎？因為是前異熟的等流果的緣故。那麼也應該說從無記生，是等流的性質。為什麼卻說從有記生，不是等流的性質？沒有這樣的過失。異熟果體，由於同類因，相有雜亂。由於異
【English Translation】 English version The result. It is not the previous two causes (homogeneous cause, coexistent cause). Therefore, it is not mentioned here. Becoming an outflow result is only similar to its own cause. The homogeneous pervasive result is only similar. Therefore, these two results are only named outflow results. The rest are not outflow results, not obtained from these two causes. In addition, for the purposive result, the meaning of the coexistent cause is stronger. The coexistent cause and the corresponding cause alone can obtain the coexistent purposive result. Therefore, emphasis is placed on explaining it. In addition, the homogeneous cause, although it can also obtain the various purposive results produced without interval, not all can be certainly obtained. Because the final aggregates of the Arhat do not have purposive results produced without interval. The coexistent cause and the corresponding cause, these two causes, can certainly obtain the purposive result. Therefore, emphasis is placed on explaining it. Some other teachers say that the efficient cause, etc., also have the meaning of being able to obtain the purposive result, but it is not the maturation cause. The two purposive results of co-birth and without interval, are not present here. Some other teachers say that this maturation cause also has purposive results that are separated and distant. For example, the fruits harvested by farmers. The determination of the relative relationship between cause and result has already been analyzed. Now, the differences in the characteristics of the results should be formally analyzed. What are the characteristics of the maturation result and other results? The verse says:
The maturation result is an unspecified (neither good nor evil) dharma, produced in sentient beings from a marked (good or evil karma) cause. The outflow result is similar to its own cause, the separation result is obtained by wisdom exhausting afflictions. If it arises from the power of a certain cause, this result is called the purposive result. Apart from the preceding conditioned dharmas, conditioned dharmas are the dominant result.
Treatise: Only in the unspecified dharmas that are not obstructive (unspecified dharmas that do not hinder the arising of good dharmas), is there a maturation result. If so, then non-sentient beings (things that are not sentient beings) should also be maturation results. In order to distinguish this, it is said 'sentient beings', only in sentient beings, is there a maturation result. If so, then among sentient beings, the nourishing outflow result should be a maturation result. Again, in order to distinguish this, it is said 'produced from a marked cause'. All unwholesome and wholesome contaminated karma can record the maturation result, so it is called marked. After these karmas, the maturation result arises, not simultaneously or without interval, so it is called produced from a marked cause. Like this, it is called the characteristic of the maturation result. Isn't the maturation result also using the previous maturation result body as the homogeneous cause? Because it is the outflow result of the previous maturation result. Then it should also be said that it is produced from an unspecified cause, and is of the nature of outflow. Why is it said that it is produced from a marked cause, and is not of the nature of outflow? There is no such fault. The maturation result body, due to the homogeneous cause, has mixed characteristics. Due to the maturation
熟因。相無雜亂。是故但說從有記生由此準知。非等流性以等流果與因相似有雜亂故若異熟果。與因相殊。無雜亂故。非有情數亦從業生。何故不說為異熟果。此不應難。唯不共業所得之果。名異熟故。何故非情。非唯不共業所得果。以非情法余可於中共受用故。豈不大梵所住非情是別業果。亦應說彼名業異熟。何乃言非。有作是言。大梵住處。一切大梵業增上生。有餘復言。大梵住處。相續未壞。余可於中有受用理。故非不共。如何一物。無量有情業所共感。豈不已說。余可於中共受用故。若非情果不共業招。應隨異熟俱時起盡。又世現見國主崩時。所王國土。猶相續住。若所王國唯主業招。非余有情業共感者。余應不可於中受用。又若非情別業所感。則應一一諸有情身所居室宅園林池沼城郭山川悉皆各異而實不爾。故知一物無量有情業所共感。豈不業體有種種故應不能招無種種果云何可說無量有情多業同招非情一物。無如是失。譬如芽等。觀自類因。而成一故。謂如芽等。雖因地水時分人功糞等力起。而觀自類因故成一。非觀地等因故成多。如是非情。觀自因故。體成一物。非由觀彼無量業故其體成多。又見世間。非種種業生種種果。如何不許種種業生非種種果。業于所感非情果中。有何因用。業于彼果。為能作
因。如前已辯。如是已辯異熟果相等流果相今次當辯。似自因法。名等流果。謂似同類遍行二因。如同類因。善染無記。彼等流果。其相亦然。如遍行因。唯是染污彼等流果。其相亦爾。豈不俱起士用果性亦似自因。如何可言似自因法名等流果。無等流果不似自因。有士用果與自因異。故似自因名等流果。定無濫彼士用果失。豈不亦有等流果因。如遍行因。在於異部。用異部法。為等流果。他部等流。自部因性。染污同故。非不相似。其士用果性亦有殊。是故與因非定相似。有餘師釋。似自因言。謂果與因。具二相似。一者體類。二者性類。言體類者。謂受想等。言性類者。謂善染等。若於俱起士用果中。性類雖同。體必有異。受非受等士用果故。若於後起士用果中。體類性類。皆容有異。故不可說果定似因。若等流果。性必似因。于中亦有體似因者。唯等流果。定似自因。故似因言。無相濫失。若遍行因。亦得等流果。何不許此即名同類因於自部果。實即同類因。若望餘部。唯遍非同類。然非遍法。隨其性類。各望自部。唯同類因。若諸遍法。望於他部。同染污類。唯遍行因。此望自部。具二因義。故遍行因。雖得等流果。而不可許即名同類因。如是已辯等流果相。離系果相。今次當辯。由慧盡法。名離系果。滅故
名盡。擇故名慧。即說擇滅。名離系果。由擇為因。離諸繫縛。證此滅故。說名為果。如是已辯離系果相。士用果相。今次當辯。若法因彼勢力所生。即說此法。名士用果。此有四種。俱生無間隔越不生。如前已說。言俱生者。謂同一時。更互為因力所生起。言無間者。謂次後時。由前念因力所生起。如世第一法生苦法智忍。言隔越者。謂隔遠時。展轉為因力所生起。如農夫等於穀麥等。言不生者。所謂涅槃。由無間道力所得故。此既不生。如何可說彼力生故名士用果。現見於得亦說生名。如說我財生是我得財義。若無間道。斷諸隨眠。所證擇滅。如是擇滅。名離系果及士用果。若無間道。不斷隨眠重證本時所證擇滅。如是擇滅。非離系果。唯士用果。謂全未離欲界貪者。入見道時。苦法智忍。斷十隨眠。所證擇滅。如是擇滅。名離系果及士用果。若全已離欲界貪者。入見道時。苦法智忍。不斷隨眠證本擇滅。如是擇滅。非離系果。先離系故。是士用果。由此忍力。更起余得。而重證故。若分已離欲界貪者。入見道時。苦法智忍。於十隨眠。有斷不斷。所證擇滅。有新有本。如其次第。二果一果。如是乃至道法智忍。若全未離已離分離欲界貪者。於八隨眠。全斷不斷。分斷不斷。所證擇滅。有新有本。及有新本。如其
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『名盡』（nama-ksaya，名稱的滅盡）。因為選擇的緣故而得名『慧』（prajna，智慧）。因此，『擇滅』（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅盡）被稱為『離系果』（visamyoga-phala，解脫之果）。由於『擇』（pratisankhya，選擇）是原因，它能使人脫離各種束縛。證得這種滅盡狀態，所以被稱為『果』（phala，結果）。以上已經辨析了『離系果』的相狀。現在接下來辨析『士用果』（purusakara-phala，由人的努力所產生的果）的相狀。如果一個法是由於某種勢力的作用而產生的，那麼這個法就被稱為『士用果』。這種果有四種：俱生、無間、隔越、不生。這些之前已經說過了。 所謂『俱生』（sahaja，同時產生）是指在同一時間，互相作為原因的力量而產生的。所謂『無間』（anantara，無間斷）是指在緊隨其後的時間，由前一念的原因的力量而產生的，例如世第一法生起苦法智忍（duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti，對苦諦的智慧和忍）。所謂『隔越』（viprakrsta，間隔超越）是指在間隔很遠的時間，輾轉作為原因的力量而產生的，例如農夫對於穀物等。所謂『不生』（anutpada，不產生）是指涅槃（nirvana，寂滅），由於無間道（anantarya-marga，無間道）的力量而獲得。既然涅槃是不生的，怎麼能說由於某種力量產生而稱為『士用果』呢？但我們看到，在獲得時也說『生』，例如說『我的財產生了』，意思就是『我獲得了財產』。 如果無間道斷除了各種隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式），所證得的擇滅，這樣的擇滅既是『離系果』也是『士用果』。如果無間道沒有斷除隨眠，而重新證得先前所證的擇滅，那麼這樣的擇滅不是『離系果』，只是『士用果』。例如，完全沒有脫離欲界貪慾的人，在進入見道（darshana-marga，見道）時，苦法智忍斷除了十種隨眠，所證得的擇滅，這樣的擇滅既是『離系果』也是『士用果』。如果完全已經脫離欲界貪慾的人，在進入見道時，苦法智忍沒有斷除隨眠，而是證得了原先的擇滅，那麼這樣的擇滅不是『離系果』，因為先前已經脫離了繫縛，只是『士用果』，因為通過這種忍的力量，重新生起了其他的獲得，從而重新證得了它。如果部分脫離了欲界貪慾的人，在進入見道時，苦法智忍對於十種隨眠，有斷除也有未斷除，所證得的擇滅，有新的也有原先的，按照順序，分別是二果和一果。像這樣直到道法智忍（marga-dharma-jnana-ksanti，對道的智慧和忍）。如果完全沒有脫離、已經脫離、部分脫離欲界貪慾的人，對於八種隨眠，完全斷除、未斷除、部分斷除，所證得的擇滅，有新的、有原先的、以及有新有原先的，按照他們的情況。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Nama-ksaya' (名盡, the extinction of name). Because of the act of choosing, it is named 'Prajna' (慧, wisdom). Therefore, 'Pratisankhya-nirodha' (擇滅, extinction through wisdom) is called 'Visamyoga-phala' (離系果, the fruit of detachment). Because 'Pratisankhya' (擇, choosing) is the cause, it enables one to be free from all bonds. Attaining this state of extinction, it is therefore called 'Phala' (果, fruit or result). The characteristics of 'Visamyoga-phala' have been discussed above. Now, we will discuss the characteristics of 'Purusakara-phala' (士用果, the fruit of human effort). If a dharma arises due to the force of some power, then this dharma is called 'Purusakara-phala'. This fruit is of four types: co-arising, immediate, remote, and non-arising. These have been mentioned before. What is meant by 'co-arising' (俱生, sahaja) is that at the same time, they arise from the force of mutually being causes. What is meant by 'immediate' (無間, anantara) is that in the immediately following time, it arises from the force of the cause of the previous thought, such as the arising of 'duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti' (苦法智忍, the knowledge and acceptance of the truth of suffering) from the highest mundane dharma. What is meant by 'remote' (隔越, viprakrsta) is that at a distant time, it arises from the force of being causes in turn, such as farmers in relation to grains and wheat. What is meant by 'non-arising' (不生, anutpada) is 'Nirvana' (涅槃, extinction), which is attained through the power of 'anantarya-marga' (無間道, the path of immediate consequence). Since Nirvana does not arise, how can it be said that it is called 'Purusakara-phala' because it arises from some power? But we see that in attainment, 'arising' is also used, such as saying 'my wealth has arisen', which means 'I have obtained wealth'. If the 'anantarya-marga' eradicates all 'anusaya' (隨眠, latent tendencies of defilements), the 'pratisankhya-nirodha' attained is both 'visamyoga-phala' and 'purusakara-phala'. If the 'anantarya-marga' does not eradicate the 'anusaya', but re-attains the 'pratisankhya-nirodha' previously attained, then such 'pratisankhya-nirodha' is not 'visamyoga-phala', but only 'purusakara-phala'. For example, if someone who has not completely detached from desire-realm greed enters the 'darshana-marga' (見道, the path of seeing), the 'duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti' eradicates the ten 'anusaya', and the 'pratisankhya-nirodha' attained is both 'visamyoga-phala' and 'purusakara-phala'. If someone who has completely detached from desire-realm greed enters the 'darshana-marga', the 'duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti' does not eradicate the 'anusaya', but attains the original 'pratisankhya-nirodha', then such 'pratisankhya-nirodha' is not 'visamyoga-phala', because detachment has already occurred, but only 'purusakara-phala', because through the power of this acceptance, other attainments arise again, thereby re-attaining it. If someone who has partially detached from desire-realm greed enters the 'darshana-marga', the 'duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti' has both eradication and non-eradication of the ten 'anusaya', and the 'pratisankhya-nirodha' attained has both new and original, which are respectively two fruits and one fruit in order. It is like this until 'marga-dharma-jnana-ksanti' (道法智忍, the knowledge and acceptance of the truth of the path). If someone who has not completely detached, has detached, or has partially detached from desire-realm greed, has complete eradication, non-eradication, or partial eradication of the eight 'anusaya', the 'pratisankhya-nirodha' attained has new, original, and both new and original, according to their circumstances.
次第。二果一果。二果一果。義如前釋。若全未離色無色貪。入見道時。苦類智忍。斷色無色十八隨眠。所證擇滅。如是擇滅。名離系果及士用果。若分已離色無色貪。入見道時。苦類智忍。於色無色十八隨眠。有斷不斷。所證擇滅。有新有本。如其次第。二果一果。如是乃至道類智忍。若全未離。及分已離色無色貪。於色無色十四隨眠。亦有全斷分斷不斷。所證擇滅。有新有本。如其次第。亦有二果二果一果。義如前釋。于修道中。諸無間道。各隨其義。如例應思。如是已辯離系果相。增上果相。今次當辯。諸有為法。除在前生。是余有為之增上果。必無少果在因前生。果在因前。斯有何咎。若未來法。其果已生。是則未來。所作已辦。以無用故。應不更生。非本不生。而可有滅。無生滅故。諸行應常。若謂此應如不生法。雖無生滅。而體非常。此救不然。見彼種類。有生滅故。例不生法。可是無常。若行本來都無生滅。例何可說其體非常。故不成救。士用增上二果差別。云何應知。對作受者。有差別故。應知差別士用果名。唯對作者。增上果名。兼對受者。如穀麥等對諸農夫名士用果。彼力生故。亦增上果。彼受用故。對唯受者。唯增上果。非彼力生。彼受用故。工匠所成。對諸工匠。及對非匠。二果一果。準上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 次第：二果（Sakadagami-phala，斯陀含果）一果（Sotapatti-phala，須陀洹果），二果一果。意義如前文解釋。如果完全沒有斷離色界和無色界的貪慾，在進入見道（見諦）時，以苦類智忍（Dukkhe anupassanā-ñāṇa-khanti，于苦諦觀察的智慧忍）斷除色界和無色界的十八種隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式），所證得的擇滅（Nirodha，滅盡）。這樣的擇滅，名為離系果（Visamyutta-phala，與煩惱分離的果）以及士用果（Purisakāra-phala，由個人努力產生的果）。 如果部分斷離了色界和無色界的貪慾，在進入見道時，以苦類智忍，對於色界和無色界的十八種隨眠，有已斷和未斷的情況，所證得的擇滅，有新證得的和原本就有的。按照這樣的次第，對應二果和一果。 像這樣乃至道類智忍（Magge anupassanā-ñāṇa-khanti，于道諦觀察的智慧忍），如果完全沒有斷離，以及部分斷離了色界和無色界的貪慾，對於色界和無色界的十四種隨眠，也有完全斷除、部分斷除和沒有斷除的情況，所證得的擇滅，有新證得的和原本就有的。按照這樣的次第，也有二果、二果、一果。意義如前文解釋。 在修道中，各種無間道（Anantarika-magga，直接通向解脫的道路），各自根據其意義，可以按照例子進行思考。像這樣已經辨析了離系果的相狀。接下來應當辨析增上果（Adhipati-phala，由主要因素產生的果）的相狀。所有有為法（Sankhata-dhamma，因緣和合而成的法），除了在前一生已經存在的，是其餘有為法的增上果。絕對沒有少量的果在因之前產生。 如果果在因之前產生，會有什麼過失呢？如果未來的法，它的果已經產生，那麼這個未來法所要做的事情已經完成。因為它沒有用處，應該不再產生。如果原本就不產生，卻可以有滅盡，沒有生滅的緣故，諸行（Sankhara，有為法）應該恒常。如果說這應該像不生法一樣，雖然沒有生滅，但體性不是恒常的。這樣的辯解是不成立的，因為看到它們的種類，有生滅的緣故，可以類比不生法，認為它是無常的。如果諸行本來就沒有生滅，用什麼例子來說明它的體性不是恒常的呢？所以這樣的辯解是不成立的。 士用果和增上果的差別，應該如何理解呢？因為對於作者和受者，有差別的緣故，應該知道它們的差別。士用果的名稱，只針對作者。增上果的名稱，兼顧作者和受者。例如穀物和麥子等，對於農夫來說，名為士用果，因為是他們的力量產生的緣故。也是增上果，因為他們受用的緣故。對於僅僅是受用者來說，只是增上果，不是他們的力量產生的緣故，因為他們受用的緣故。工匠所製作的物品，對於工匠，以及對於非工匠，對應二果和一果，參照上面的解釋。
【English Translation】 English version Sequence: Sakadagami-phala (the fruit of once-returner), Sotapatti-phala (the fruit of stream-enterer), Sakadagami-phala, Sotapatti-phala. The meaning is as explained before. If one has not completely abandoned the desire for the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, when entering the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga), with Dukkhe anupassanā-ñāṇa-khanti (the wisdom-acceptance of contemplating suffering), one eradicates the eighteen latent defilements (Anusaya) of the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, and the cessation (Nirodha) attained is called Visamyutta-phala (fruit of detachment) and Purisakāra-phala (fruit of personal effort). If one has partially abandoned the desire for the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, when entering the Path of Seeing, with Dukkhe anupassanā-ñāṇa-khanti, regarding the eighteen latent defilements of the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, there are cases of having eradicated and not having eradicated. The cessation attained has both newly attained and originally existing. According to this sequence, they correspond to Sakadagami-phala and Sotapatti-phala. Likewise, up to Magge anupassanā-ñāṇa-khanti (the wisdom-acceptance of contemplating the path), if one has not completely abandoned, and has partially abandoned the desire for the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, regarding the fourteen latent defilements of the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, there are also cases of complete eradication, partial eradication, and non-eradication. The cessation attained has both newly attained and originally existing. According to this sequence, there are also Sakadagami-phala, Sakadagami-phala, and Sotapatti-phala. The meaning is as explained before. In the Path of Cultivation, each of the Anantarika-magga (paths of immediate result) can be considered according to its meaning, as in the examples. Thus, the characteristics of Visamyutta-phala have been distinguished. Next, the characteristics of Adhipati-phala (fruit of dominance) should be distinguished. All conditioned phenomena (Sankhata-dhamma), except those that existed in the previous life, are the Adhipati-phala of other conditioned phenomena. There is absolutely no small amount of fruit that arises before the cause. If the fruit arises before the cause, what fault would there be? If a future phenomenon has already produced its fruit, then the task to be done by this future phenomenon is already completed. Because it is useless, it should no longer arise. If it originally does not arise, yet there can be cessation, because there is no arising and ceasing, all phenomena (Sankhara) should be permanent. If it is said that this should be like unarisen phenomena, although there is no arising and ceasing, its nature is not permanent. This defense is not valid, because seeing their kind, there is arising and ceasing, so it can be compared to unarisen phenomena, considering it impermanent. If phenomena originally have no arising and ceasing, what example can be used to say that its nature is not permanent? Therefore, this defense is not valid. How should the difference between Purisakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala be understood? Because there is a difference for the doer and the receiver, their difference should be known. The name Purisakāra-phala is only for the doer. The name Adhipati-phala includes both the doer and the receiver. For example, grains and wheat, for farmers, are called Purisakāra-phala, because they are produced by their effort. They are also Adhipati-phala, because they are used by them. For those who only use them, they are only Adhipati-phala, not produced by their effort, because they are used by them. The objects made by craftsmen, for the craftsmen and for non-craftsmen, correspond to Sakadagami-phala and Sotapatti-phala, referring to the above explanation.
應知。余例皆爾。于上所說六種因中。何位何因取果與果。頌曰。
五取果唯現 二與果亦然 過現與二因 一與唯過去
論曰。五因取果。唯于現在。定非過去。彼已取故。亦非未來。彼無用故。言取果者。是能引義。謂引未來令其生等。于同體類。能為種子。于異體類。由同一果。于非一果。由同性類。于異性類。而由有是自聚相續。是故一切皆名能引。如是能引名為取果。此取果用。唯現在有。非於去來。唯此可名有為作用。於六因內簡去何因。而言五因。唯現取果。謂六因內。除能作因。此能作因何緣被簡。有餘師說。此能作因。取果與果時無決定。故取與中。俱不分別。彼說非理。所以者何。此因取果。無非現在。又非不取而有與義。如何乃言時無決定。然能作因。能取果者。定唯現在。與通過現。應如同類。遍行二因。但非一切有增上果。可取或與。故此不說。豈不此因能取果用亦通過去。如何乃言能取果者。定唯現在。故本論中作如是說。過去諸法。為等無間。能生二心。若出無想滅盡定心。由入定心。現在取者。則應二定永不現前。又非不取而有與義。故應取果亦通過去。無如是事。入二定心。唯現在時。能取二定及出心果。然由二定是正所求。必應先起。由此為障。令出定心非於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：應當瞭解，其他的例子也都是這樣。在上面所說的六種因中，哪一個位置的哪一個因能夠取得果和給予果呢？頌文說： 『五因取果唯于現在，二因與果亦復如然，過去與現在二因皆可，一因給予果唯於過去。』 論中說：五因取得果，唯有在現在。一定不是過去，因為過去已經取得果了。也不是未來，因為未來還沒有作用。所說的『取得果』，是能夠引導的意思。也就是引導未來，使其產生等等。對於同類的，能夠作為種子。對於不同類的，由於同一個果。對於不是同一個果的，由於同一種性質。對於不同性質的，由於具有自身聚集相續的緣故。所以一切都叫做能夠引導。像這樣能夠引導，就叫做取得果。這種取得果的作用，只有現在才有，不是過去和未來。只有這才能叫做『有為作用』。在六因之內，省略掉哪一個因，而說只有五因在現在取得果呢？就是六因之內的能作因。這個能作因為什麼被省略掉呢？ 有其他的老師說，這個能作因，在取得果和給予果的時候，沒有決定的時間。所以在取得和給予之中，都不分別。他們的說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為這個因取得果，沒有不是現在的。又不是不取得果而有給予果的意義。怎麼能說時間沒有決定呢？然而能作因，能夠取得果的，一定只有現在。給予果可以通過現在。應該如同同類的、普遍存在的兩種因。但不是一切都有增上果，可以取得或者給予。所以這裡不說。難道這個因能夠取得果的作用，也可以通過過去嗎？怎麼能說能夠取得果的，一定只有現在呢？ 所以在本論中這樣說，過去的諸法，作為等無間緣，能夠產生兩種心，如果從無想定和滅盡定出來的心，由於進入定心，在現在取得果，那麼這兩種定就應該永遠不會再出現。又不是不取得果而有給予果的意義。所以應該取得果也可以通過過去。沒有這樣的事情。進入兩種定心，只有在現在的時候，能夠取得兩種定以及出定心的果。然而由於兩種定是真正所要求的，必定應該先產生。因此作為障礙，使得出定心不能在……
【English Translation】 English version: It should be understood that other examples are also like this. Among the six causes mentioned above, which cause in which position can obtain the result and give the result? The verse says: 'The five causes obtain the result only in the present, the two causes also give the result in the same way, the past and present two causes are both possible, and one cause gives the result only in the past.' The treatise says: The five causes obtain the result only in the present. It is definitely not the past, because the past has already obtained the result. It is also not the future, because the future has no function yet. The so-called 'obtaining the result' means being able to guide. That is, guiding the future to produce, etc. For those of the same kind, it can be used as a seed. For those of different kinds, it is due to the same result. For those that are not the same result, it is due to the same nature. For those of different natures, it is due to the fact that they have their own gathering and continuation. Therefore, everything is called being able to guide. Such being able to guide is called obtaining the result. This function of obtaining the result only exists in the present, not in the past and future. Only this can be called 'conditioned action'. Among the six causes, which cause is omitted, and it is said that only the five causes obtain the result in the present? It is the efficient cause (Nirmana-hetu) among the six causes. Why is this efficient cause omitted? Some other teachers say that this efficient cause does not have a definite time when obtaining the result and giving the result. Therefore, it is not distinguished in obtaining and giving. Their statement is unreasonable. Why? Because this cause obtains the result, and there is no time that is not the present. And there is no meaning of giving the result without obtaining the result. How can it be said that the time is not definite? However, the efficient cause, which can obtain the result, must only be in the present. Giving the result can pass through the present. It should be like the two causes of the same kind and universally existing. But not everything has an increasing result, which can be obtained or given. Therefore, it is not mentioned here. Could it be that the function of this cause being able to obtain the result can also pass through the past? How can it be said that being able to obtain the result must only be in the present? Therefore, in this treatise, it is said that the past dharmas, as immediately preceding conditions (Samanantara-pratyaya), can produce two kinds of minds. If the mind coming out of the state of non-perception (Asamjna-samapatti) and the state of cessation (Nirodha-samapatti), due to entering the state of mind, obtains the result in the present, then these two states should never appear again. And there is no meaning of giving the result without obtaining the result. Therefore, obtaining the result should also be able to pass through the past. There is no such thing. Entering the two states of mind, only in the present, can obtain the two states and the result of the mind coming out of the state. However, because the two states are truly desired, they must be produced first. Therefore, as an obstacle, it makes the mind coming out of the state unable to be in...
入心無間即起。此義於後當更分別。故上所言。此因取果。無非現在。又非不取而有與義。其理極成。然毗婆沙。有如是說。其能作因。取果與果。俱通過現。理不應然。法居現在。亦如同類遍行二因。總取未來為自果故。俱有相應與果亦爾。唯于現在。由此二因取果與果必俱時故。同類遍行二因與果。通於過現能作因中諸有果者。應同此說。然非一切皆容有果。故此不論同類遍行二因與果。過去可然。現在如何與等流果。有等流果無間生故。謂此二因。有等流果無間生者。即現在時。于無間果。亦取亦與。此果已生。因謝過去。名已取與。若此二因。滅至過去。其等流果。方至生時。則此二因。于正生果。先取今與。言與果者。謂此諸因。正與彼力。令其生等。其能作因。正居現在。彼增上果。有現已生。如眼根等。為能作因。生眼識等。諸增上果。有無間生。如世第一法等為能作因生苦法智忍等。諸增上果。有隔越生。如順解脫分善根等為能作因生三乘菩提盡智等諸增上果。善同類因。有時取果而非與果。應作四句。第一句者。謂斷善根時。最後所捨得。第二句者。謂續善根時。最初所得得。經主於此謬作是言。應說爾時續者前得。今詳彼說。理不應然。所以者何。非唯斷位最後所捨得與今續時初得等流果。以于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 入心無間立刻生起（果）。這個道理在後面應當更詳細地分辨。所以上面所說，『此因取果』，無非是說在現在。又不是不取而有給予的含義，這個道理非常明確。然而《毗婆沙論》中，有這樣的說法：『能作因』，取果和與果，都通過現在。這個道理不應該是這樣。法存在於現在，也如同『同類因』和『遍行因』這兩種因，總是取未來作為自己的果，俱有相應和與果也是這樣，只存在於現在。由此這兩種因取果和與果必定是同時的緣故，『同類因』和『遍行因』與果，通於過去和現在。『能作因』中那些有果的，應該也同樣這樣說。然而不是一切都容許有果，所以這裡不論『同類因』和『遍行因』與果。過去可以這樣說，現在如何與『等流果』呢？因為有『等流果』無間地產生。所謂這兩種因，有『等流果』無間地產生的情況，就是在現在的時候，對於無間果，既取也與。這個果已經產生，因消逝成為過去，叫做『已取與』。如果這兩種因，滅盡到過去，它的『等流果』，才到產生的時候，那麼這兩種因，對於正在產生的果，先取今與。所說的『與果』，是指這些因，正在給予那個力量，使其產生等等。『能作因』，正存在於現在，那個增上果，有現在已經產生的，如眼根等，作為『能作因』，產生眼識等，這些增上果。有無間產生的，如世第一法等，作為『能作因』，產生苦法智忍等，這些增上果。有隔越產生的，如順解脫分善根等，作為『能作因』，產生三乘菩提盡智等，這些增上果。善『同類因』，有時取果而不是與果，應該作四句來分析。第一句是指，斷善根的時候，最後所捨棄的得。第二句是指，續善根的時候，最初所得到的得。經主對此錯誤地這樣說，應該說那時續者前得。現在詳細考察他的說法，道理不應該是這樣。為什麼呢？不僅僅是斷位最後所捨棄的得與現在續時初得等流果，因為在
【English Translation】 English version: The arising immediately without interval enters the mind. This meaning will be further distinguished later. Therefore, what was said above, 'this cause takes effect,' is nothing but saying it is in the present. Moreover, it is not that there is giving without taking; this principle is extremely clear. However, in the Vibhasa (Commentary), there is such a saying: 'The efficient cause (karana hetu) takes the effect and gives the effect, all passing through the present.' This principle should not be so. The dharma resides in the present, and it is also like the two causes of 'homogeneous cause' (sabhaga hetu) and 'all-pervading cause' (sarvatraga hetu), which always take the future as their own effect; co-existence and giving the effect are also like this, only existing in the present. Therefore, because these two causes taking the effect and giving the effect must be simultaneous, the 'homogeneous cause' and 'all-pervading cause' giving the effect extend to the past and present. Those with effects among the 'efficient causes' should also be said in the same way. However, not everything allows for an effect, so here we do not discuss the 'homogeneous cause' and 'all-pervading cause' giving the effect. The past can be said in this way, but how does the present give the 'result of conforming cause' (nisyanda-phala)? Because there is a 'result of conforming cause' that arises without interval. What is meant by these two causes having a 'result of conforming cause' arising without interval is that, in the present time, for the immediate effect, it both takes and gives. This effect has already arisen, and the cause has vanished into the past, called 'already taken and given.' If these two causes cease and go into the past, and their 'result of conforming cause' then arrives at the time of arising, then these two causes, for the effect that is just arising, first take and then give now. What is meant by 'giving the effect' is that these causes are just giving that power, causing it to arise, etc. The 'efficient cause' is just residing in the present, and that dominant effect has already arisen in the present, such as the eye faculty, etc., as the 'efficient cause,' giving rise to eye consciousness, etc., these dominant effects. There are those that arise without interval, such as the World's Supreme Dharma, etc., as the 'efficient cause,' giving rise to suffering, knowledge, forbearance, etc., these dominant effects. There are those that arise with separation, such as the roots of good of the Part of Approaching Liberation, etc., as the 'efficient cause,' giving rise to the wisdom of exhaustion of the Three Vehicles of Bodhi, etc., these dominant effects. The good 'homogeneous cause' sometimes takes the effect but does not give the effect, and should be analyzed with four sentences. The first sentence refers to the last abandoned attainment at the time of severing the roots of good. The second sentence refers to the first attainment obtained at the time of continuing the roots of good. The Sutra Master mistakenly said this, saying that it should be said that at that time, the continuer obtains the former. Now, upon detailed examination of his statement, the principle should not be so. Why? It is not only that the last abandoned attainment at the time of severing and the first attainment at the time of continuing are the 'result of conforming cause,' because in
斷位先已滅得亦與續時得等流故。如何前位多剎那得。為同類因。皆取今得。而於今時。但說最後一剎那得與今得果。是故應如本文為善。第三句者。謂不斷善根。于所餘諸位。第四句者。謂除前相。又于不善同類因中。亦有四句。第一句者。謂離欲貪時最後所捨得。第二句者。謂退離欲時。最初所得得。經主於此亦作是言。應說爾時退者前得。今詳彼說。理亦不然。以有如前所說過故。第三句者。謂未離欲貪。于所餘諸位。第四句者。謂除前相。有覆無記同類因中。亦有四句。于阿羅漢得時退時。未得及余。如理應說。無覆無記同類因中。有順后句。謂與果時。必亦取果。無覆無記。為同類因。乃至涅槃。恒相續故。或時取果。而非與果。謂阿羅漢最後諸蘊。約有所緣剎那差別。善同類因。應作四句。第一句者。謂善心無間。起染無記心。第二句者。謂與上相違。第三句者。謂善心無間。還起善心。第四句者。謂除前相。不善心等。如其所應。亦有四句。例準應說。異熟與果。唯於過去。由異熟果無與因俱。或無間故。西方諸師。說果有九。前五果外。別立四果。一加行果。謂如無生智等。遠為不凈等果。二安立果。謂如水輪為風輪果。乃至草等為大地果。如是一切所安立法。當知皆為能安立果。三和合果。謂如芽
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『斷位先已滅得亦與續時得等流故』，因為斷滅位之前已經滅去的『得』，與相續位時的『得』是等流的。如何解釋『前位多剎那得』，作為同類因，都取現在的『得』呢？而在現在，只說最後一剎那的『得』與現在的果有關。因此，應該像本文這樣說是正確的。 第三句是指，沒有斷善根，在其餘各個位。 第四句是指，除去前面的情況。在不善同類因中，也有四句。第一句是指，離開欲貪時最後捨棄的『得』。第二句是指，退離欲貪時，最初得到的『得』。經主在這裡也這樣說，應該說那時退者之前的『得』。現在詳細考察他的說法，道理也不對，因為有前面所說過的原因。 第三句是指，沒有離開欲貪，在其餘各個位。第四句是指，除去前面的情況。有覆無記同類因中，也有四句。對於阿羅漢得到時、退失時、未得到時以及其餘情況，應該如理宣說。無覆無記同類因中，有順后句，即與果時，必定也取果。無覆無記，作為同類因，乃至涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的境界），恒常相續不斷。有時取果，而不與果，指阿羅漢最後的諸蘊。根據所緣的剎那差別，善同類因，應該作四句。第一句是指，善心之後，無間生起染污無記心。第二句是指，與上面相反的情況。第三句是指，善心之後，無間還生起善心。第四句是指，除去前面的情況。不善心等，根據情況，也有四句，可以類推宣說。異熟與果，只在過去，因為異熟果沒有與因同時，或者沒有無間的情況。西方諸師說果有九種，在前五果之外，另外建立四種果。一是加行果，比如無生智等，遠為不凈等果。二是安立果，比如水輪為風輪果，乃至草等為大地果。像這樣一切所安立的事物，應當知道都是能安立的果。三是和合果，比如芽。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The already extinguished 'attainment' in the previous state is of the same flow as the 'attainment' in the continuing state.' How can it be explained that 'the 'attainment' of many kshanas (剎那，momentary units of time) in the previous state' is taken as the homogenous cause, and all take the present 'attainment'? And in the present, it is only said that the 'attainment' of the last kshana is related to the present result. Therefore, it should be correct as stated in this text. The third phrase refers to not severing the roots of goodness, in all the remaining states. The fourth phrase refers to excluding the previous situation. In the unwholesome homogenous cause, there are also four phrases. The first phrase refers to the 'attainment' that is finally abandoned when leaving desire-attachment. The second phrase refers to the 'attainment' that is initially obtained when retreating from desire-attachment. The Sutra master also says here that it should be said that the previous 'attainment' of the one who retreats at that time. Now, examining his statement in detail, the reasoning is also incorrect, because there is the reason mentioned earlier. The third phrase refers to not leaving desire-attachment, in all the remaining states. The fourth phrase refers to excluding the previous situation. In the obscured and indeterminate homogenous cause, there are also four phrases. For the time when an Arhat (阿羅漢，one who has attained Nirvana) attains, retreats, has not attained, and other situations, it should be declared according to reason. In the unobscured and indeterminate homogenous cause, there is a phrase that follows, that is, when giving the result, it is certain to also take the result. Unobscured and indeterminate, as a homogenous cause, even to Nirvana (涅槃，the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), it is constantly continuous. Sometimes the result is taken, but not given, referring to the last skandhas (蘊，aggregates of existence) of an Arhat. According to the difference in the kshana of what is cognized, the wholesome homogenous cause should be made into four phrases. The first phrase refers to, after a wholesome mind, an obscured and indeterminate mind arises without interval. The second phrase refers to the situation opposite to the above. The third phrase refers to, after a wholesome mind, a wholesome mind arises again without interval. The fourth phrase refers to excluding the previous situation. Unwholesome minds, etc., according to the situation, also have four phrases, which can be declared by analogy. The maturation and giving of the result only occur in the past, because the result of maturation does not occur simultaneously with the cause, or without interval. Western teachers say there are nine types of results, and in addition to the previous five results, they establish four other results. One is the effort result, such as the unborn wisdom, etc., which are remotely the results of impurity, etc. Two is the establishment result, such as the water wheel being the result of the wind wheel, and even grass, etc., being the result of the great earth. Like this, all things that are established should be known as the results that can establish. Three is the combination result, such as a sprout.
等為時地水種子等果。及眼識等。為眼色明作意等果。四修習果。謂如化心等。為諸靜慮果。如是四果。皆是士用增上果攝。由是故說。果唯有五。說因果已。復應思擇。此中何法幾因所生。應知此中法略有四。謂染污法。異熟生法。初無漏法。三所餘法。余法者何。謂除異熟。余無記法。除初無漏。諸餘善法。如是四法。頌曰。
染污異熟生 余初聖如次 除異熟遍二 及同類餘生 此謂心心所 余及除相應
論曰。諸染污法。除異熟因。餘五因生。由異熟因所生諸法。非染污故。異熟生法。除遍行因。餘五因生。由遍行因所生諸法唯染污故。三所餘法。雙除異熟遍行二因。餘四因生。由所餘法非異熟性故。及非染污故初無漏法。及除同類。及言為顯亦除異熟遍行二因餘三因生。由初無漏無有前生同類法故。及是善故。有餘師言。此中應說諸染污法唯四因生所以者何。遍行因體。離同類因。無別性故。彼言非理。所以者何。若彼不說遍行因者。便為不說餘部染因。若彼不說同類因者。便為不說非遍行法及遍行得諸染法因。然實貪等貪等為因。得由得因而得生起。故染污法。除異熟因。餘五因生。此說應理。如是四法。為說何等。應知唯是心心所法。若爾所餘不相應行。及色四法。復幾因生。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如時節、土地、水、種子等是果實生長的因，眼識等是眼睛、顏色、光明、作意等產生的結果。四種修習的果報，比如化生之心等，是各種禪定的結果。這四種果報都屬於士用增上果的範疇。因此說，果只有五種。說完因果，還應該思考，這裡面哪些法是由幾種因產生的。應該知道，法大致有四種：染污法（Klista-dharma），異熟生法（Vipāka-ja dharma），最初的無漏法（Anāsrava-dharma），以及其餘的法。其餘的法是什麼呢？就是除了異熟果之外的無記法（Avyākrta-dharma），以及除了最初的無漏法之外的其餘善法（Kusala-dharma）。這四種法可以用下面的偈頌來概括：
染污異熟生， 余初聖如次， 除異熟遍二， 及同類餘生， 此謂心心所， 余及除相應。
論述：各種染污法，除了異熟因之外，由其餘五種因產生。因為由異熟因所產生的各種法，不是染污的。異熟生法，除了遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu）之外，由其餘五種因產生。因為由遍行因所產生的各種法，只有染污法。其餘的法，同時排除異熟因和遍行因這兩種因，由其餘四種因產生。因為其餘的法不是異熟的性質，也不是染污的。最初的無漏法，以及排除同類因（Sabhāga-hetu），這裡的『及』字是爲了表明也排除了異熟因和遍行因這兩種因，由其餘三種因產生。因為最初的無漏法沒有前生的同類法，而且是善的。有其他論師說，這裡應該說各種染污法只由四種因產生，為什麼呢？因為遍行因的本體，與同類因沒有區別。這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？如果他們不說遍行因，那就等於沒說其他部的染污因。如果他們不說同類因，那就等於沒說非遍行法以及遍行所得的各種染污法的因。然而實際上，貪等以貪等為因，獲得由獲得因而生起。所以染污法，除了異熟因之外，由其餘五種因產生。這種說法是合理的。以上所說的四種法，是爲了說明什麼呢？應該知道，僅僅是心和心所法（Citta-caitasika dharma）。如果這樣，那麼其餘的不相應行法（Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra）以及色法（Rūpa），又是由幾種因產生的呢？
【English Translation】 English version: For example, seasons, land, water, and seeds are the causes of fruits. Eye consciousness, etc., are the results of eye, color, light, attention, etc. The four fruits of cultivation, such as the mind of transformation, etc., are the results of various meditations. These four fruits all belong to the category of Adhipati-phala (dominance result). Therefore, it is said that there are only five kinds of results. After discussing causes and results, one should also consider which dharmas (phenomena) are produced by how many causes. It should be known that dharmas are roughly of four kinds: Klista-dharma (defiled dharmas), Vipāka-ja dharma (resultant dharmas), the initial Anāsrava-dharma (undefiled dharmas), and the remaining dharmas. What are the remaining dharmas? They are Avyākrta-dharma (non-specified dharmas) other than Vipāka-phala (resultant fruit), and Kusala-dharma (wholesome dharmas) other than the initial Anāsrava-dharma. These four dharmas can be summarized by the following verse:
'Defiled, resultant-born, Remaining, initial, holy, in order, Excluding resultant, pervasive two, And homogenous, remaining born, This refers to mind and mental factors, Remaining and excluding associated.'
Treatise: All Klista-dharmas (defiled dharmas) are produced by the remaining five causes except for Vipāka-hetu (resultant cause), because the dharmas produced by Vipāka-hetu are not defiled. Vipāka-ja dharmas (resultant dharmas) are produced by the remaining five causes except for Sarvatraga-hetu (pervasive cause), because the dharmas produced by Sarvatraga-hetu are only defiled. The remaining dharmas exclude both Vipāka-hetu and Sarvatraga-hetu, and are produced by the remaining four causes, because the remaining dharmas are neither of the nature of Vipāka nor defiled. The initial Anāsrava-dharma (undefiled dharmas), as well as excluding Sabhāga-hetu (homogenous cause), the word 'and' here indicates that it also excludes Vipāka-hetu and Sarvatraga-hetu, and is produced by the remaining three causes, because the initial Anāsrava-dharma has no previous homogenous dharmas and is wholesome. Some other teachers say that it should be said here that all Klista-dharmas are produced by only four causes. Why? Because the substance of Sarvatraga-hetu has no difference from Sabhāga-hetu. This statement is unreasonable. Why? If they do not mention Sarvatraga-hetu, then it is equivalent to not mentioning the defiled causes of other schools. If they do not mention Sabhāga-hetu, then it is equivalent to not mentioning the causes of non-pervasive dharmas and the defiled dharmas obtained through pervasiveness. However, in reality, greed, etc., takes greed, etc., as its cause, and attainment arises from the cause of attainment. Therefore, Klista-dharmas, except for Vipāka-hetu, are produced by the remaining five causes. This statement is reasonable. What are the four dharmas mentioned above intended to explain? It should be known that it is only Citta-caitasika dharma (mind and mental factors). If so, then how many causes produce the remaining Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (non-associated formations) and Rūpa (form)?
心心所。所除因外及除相應。應知余法從四三二餘因所生。謂染污色。不相應行。如心心所。除異熟因。及除相應。餘四因生。異熟生色不相應行。如心心所。除遍行因。及除相應。餘四因生。三所餘色。不相應行。如心心所。雙除異熟遍行二因。及除相應。餘三因生。初無漏色。不相應行。如心心所。除前三因。及除相應。餘二因生。一因生法。決定無有。今應思擇。一切法中。何法能為幾因自性。謂或有法。具足能為六因自性。次第乃至有法能為一因自性。此中有法。具足能為六因性者。謂諸過現不善遍行心心所法。有法能為五因性者。謂諸過現不善非遍心心所法。或無記遍心心所法。或善有漏心心所法。或不善遍不相應行。有法能為四因性者。謂諸過現不善色法。或善有漏色。心不相應行。或不善非遍心不相應行。或無記遍心不相應行。或無記非遍心心所法。或諸無漏心心所法。或諸未來不善善有漏心心所法。有法能為三因性者。謂諸過現無記色法。或無記非遍心不相應行。或無漏色心不相應行。或未來不善及善有漏色心不相應行。或無記無漏心心所法。有法能為二因性者。謂諸未來無記無漏色心不相應行。有法能為一因性者。謂無為法。無法非因。有法非果。所謂虛空及非擇滅。復應思擇。如是六因。自性相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『心心所』（Citta-caitasika，與心相關的心理活動）。除了『因』（hetu，根本原因）之外，以及除了『相應』（samprayukta，同時生起）之外。應當知道其餘的法，是從四因、三因或二因所生。也就是說，染污的『色』（rupa，物質現象），『不相應行』（viprayukta-samskara，不與心相應的行蘊），就像『心心所』一樣，除了『異熟因』（vipaka-hetu，果報因）以及除了『相應』之外，由其餘四因所生。『異熟生色』（vipaka-ja rupa，果報所生的色法），『不相應行』，就像『心心所』一樣，除了『遍行因』（sarvatraga-hetu，普遍存在的因）以及除了『相應』之外，由其餘四因所生。其餘三種『色』，『不相應行』，就像『心心所』一樣，同時去除『異熟』和『遍行』這兩種因，以及除了『相應』之外，由其餘三因所生。最初的『無漏色』（anāsrava rūpa，無漏的色法），『不相應行』，就像『心心所』一樣，去除前面三種因，以及除了『相應』之外，由其餘二因所生。由一因所生的法，決定沒有。現在應當思考，一切法中，什麼法能夠作為幾種因的自性。也就是說，或者有法，具足能夠作為六因的自性，依次乃至有法能夠作為一因的自性。這裡面，有法具足能夠作為六因的自性，指的是過去和現在的『不善遍行心心所法』（akusala sarvatraga citta-caitasika dharma，不善且普遍存在的心和心所）。有法能夠作為五因的自性，指的是過去和現在的『不善非遍心心所法』（akusala asarvatraga citta-caitasika dharma，不善但非普遍存在的心和心所），或者『無記遍心心所法』（avyakrta sarvatraga citta-caitasika dharma，無記且普遍存在的心和心所），或者『善有漏心心所法』（kusala sasrava citta-caitasika dharma，善且有煩惱的心和心所），或者『不善遍不相應行』（akusala sarvatraga viprayukta-samskara，不善且普遍存在的不相應行）。有法能夠作為四因的自性，指的是過去和現在的『不善色法』（akusala rupa dharma，不善的色法），或者『善有漏色』（kusala sasrava rupa，善且有煩惱的色法），『心不相應行』（citta-viprayukta-samskara，與心不相應的行蘊），或者『不善非遍心不相應行』（akusala asarvatraga citta-viprayukta-samskara，不善但非普遍存在的心不相應行），或者『無記遍心不相應行』（avyakrta sarvatraga citta-viprayukta-samskara，無記且普遍存在的心不相應行），或者『無記非遍心心所法』（avyakrta asarvatraga citta-caitasika dharma，無記但非普遍存在的心和心所），或者諸『無漏心心所法』（anasrava citta-caitasika dharma，無漏的心和心所），或者諸未來『不善』和『善有漏心心所法』（akusala/kusala sasrava citta-caitasika dharma，不善/善且有煩惱的心和心所）。有法能夠作為三因的自性，指的是過去和現在的『無記色法』（avyakrta rupa dharma，無記的色法），或者『無記非遍心不相應行』（avyakrta asarvatraga citta-viprayukta-samskara，無記但非普遍存在的心不相應行），或者『無漏色心不相應行』（anasrava rupa citta-viprayukta-samskara，無漏的色法和心不相應行），或者未來『不善』和『善有漏色心不相應行』（akusala/kusala sasrava rupa citta-viprayukta-samskara，不善/善且有煩惱的色法和心不相應行），或者『無記無漏心心所法』（avyakrta anasrava citta-caitasika dharma，無記且無漏的心和心所）。有法能夠作為二因的自性，指的是諸未來『無記無漏色心不相應行』（avyakrta anasrava rupa citta-viprayukta-samskara，無記且無漏的色法和心不相應行）。有法能夠作為一因的自性，指的是『無為法』（asamskrta dharma，非因緣和合的法）。沒有法不是『因』（hetu，原因）。有法不是『果』（phala，結果），指的是『虛空』（ākāśa，空間）以及『非擇滅』（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅盡）。還應當思考，像這樣的六因，它們的自性相。
【English Translation】 English version 'Citta-caitasikas' (mental activities associated with the mind). Apart from 'hetu' (root cause), and apart from 'samprayukta' (arising simultaneously). It should be known that the remaining dharmas are produced from four, three, or two causes. That is to say, defiled 'rupa' (material phenomena), 'viprayukta-samskaras' (formations not corresponding to the mind), like 'citta-caitasikas', except for 'vipaka-hetu' (resultant cause) and except for 'samprayukta', are produced by the remaining four causes. 'Vipaka-ja rupa' (resultant-born rupa), 'viprayukta-samskaras', like 'citta-caitasikas', except for 'sarvatraga-hetu' (omnipresent cause) and except for 'samprayukta', are produced by the remaining four causes. The remaining three types of 'rupa', 'viprayukta-samskaras', like 'citta-caitasikas', simultaneously removing the two causes of 'vipaka' and 'sarvatraga', and except for 'samprayukta', are produced by the remaining three causes. The initial 'anāsrava rūpa' (untainted rupa), 'viprayukta-samskaras', like 'citta-caitasikas', removing the preceding three causes, and except for 'samprayukta', are produced by the remaining two causes. A dharma produced by one cause is definitely non-existent. Now it should be considered, among all dharmas, which dharma can be the nature of how many causes. That is to say, there are dharmas that fully can be the nature of six causes, sequentially down to dharmas that can be the nature of one cause. Among these, dharmas that fully can be the nature of six causes refer to past and present 'akusala sarvatraga citta-caitasika dharmas' (unwholesome omnipresent mind and mental factors). Dharmas that can be the nature of five causes refer to past and present 'akusala asarvatraga citta-caitasika dharmas' (unwholesome non-omnipresent mind and mental factors), or 'avyakrta sarvatraga citta-caitasika dharmas' (indeterminate omnipresent mind and mental factors), or 'kusala sasrava citta-caitasika dharmas' (wholesome tainted mind and mental factors), or 'akusala sarvatraga viprayukta-samskaras' (unwholesome omnipresent formations not corresponding to the mind). Dharmas that can be the nature of four causes refer to past and present 'akusala rupa dharmas' (unwholesome rupa dharmas), or 'kusala sasrava rupa' (wholesome tainted rupa), 'citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (formations not corresponding to the mind), or 'akusala asarvatraga citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (unwholesome non-omnipresent formations not corresponding to the mind), or 'avyakrta sarvatraga citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (indeterminate omnipresent formations not corresponding to the mind), or 'avyakrta asarvatraga citta-caitasika dharmas' (indeterminate non-omnipresent mind and mental factors), or all 'anasrava citta-caitasika dharmas' (untainted mind and mental factors), or all future 'akusala' and 'kusala sasrava citta-caitasika dharmas' (unwholesome/wholesome tainted mind and mental factors). Dharmas that can be the nature of three causes refer to past and present 'avyakrta rupa dharmas' (indeterminate rupa dharmas), or 'avyakrta asarvatraga citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (indeterminate non-omnipresent formations not corresponding to the mind), or 'anasrava rupa citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (untainted rupa and formations not corresponding to the mind), or future 'akusala' and 'kusala sasrava rupa citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (unwholesome/wholesome tainted rupa and formations not corresponding to the mind), or 'avyakrta anasrava citta-caitasika dharmas' (indeterminate untainted mind and mental factors). Dharmas that can be the nature of two causes refer to all future 'avyakrta anasrava rupa citta-viprayukta-samskaras' (indeterminate untainted rupa and formations not corresponding to the mind). Dharmas that can be the nature of one cause refer to 'asamskrta dharmas' (unconditioned dharmas). There is no dharma that is not a 'hetu' (cause). There are dharmas that are not 'phala' (result), referring to 'ākāśa' (space) and 'pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' (cessation through wisdom). It should also be considered, such six causes, their nature.
望。有純有雜。且能作因。對俱有因。為順后句。謂俱有因必雜能作。有純能作非俱有因。謂無為法。又能作因對同類因。亦順后句。謂同類因必雜能作。有純能作非同類因。謂未來法。及無為法。又能作因對相應因。亦順后句。謂相應因必雜能作。有純能作非相應因。謂諸色法。不相應行。及無為法。又能作因對遍行因。亦順后句。謂遍行因必雜能作。有純能作非遍行因。謂未來法。過去現在非遍行法。及無為法。又能作因對異熟因。亦順后句。謂異熟因必雜能作。有純能作非異熟因。謂無記法。及無漏法。若俱有因對同類因。為順后句。謂同類因。必雜俱有。有純俱有非同類因。謂未來法。又俱有因對相應因。亦順后句。謂相應因必雜俱有。有純俱有非相應因。謂諸色法。不相應行。又俱有因對遍行因。亦順后句。謂遍行因必雜俱有。有純俱有非遍行因。謂未來法。過去現在非遍行法。又俱有因對異熟因。亦順后句。謂異熟因必雜俱有。有純俱有非異熟因。謂諸有為中無記無漏法。若同類因對相應因。應作四句。第一句者。謂過去現在色不相應行。第二句者。謂未來世心心所法。第三句者。謂過現世心心所法。第四句者。謂未來色不相應行。及無為法。又同類因對遍行因。為順后句。謂遍行因必雜同類。有純同類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於能作因（hetu-paccaya，一切事物生起之因）的性質，它既可以是純粹的，也可以是混合的，並且能夠作為一種因。能作因相對於俱有因（sahabhu-hetu，同時存在的因）來說，是順於后句的，也就是說，俱有因必然是混合了能作因的。存在純粹的能作因，但不是俱有因的情況，例如無為法（asaṅkhata-dhamma，未被創造的法）。 能作因相對於同類因（sabhāga-hetu，同類因）來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，同類因必然是混合了能作因的。存在純粹的能作因，但不是同類因的情況，例如未來法（anāgata-dhamma，未來的法）以及無為法。 能作因相對於相應因（sampayutta-hetu，相應的因）來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，相應因必然是混合了能作因的。存在純粹的能作因，但不是相應因的情況，例如諸色法（rūpa-dhamma，物質現象），不相應行（vippayutta-saṅkhāra，與心不相應的行法），以及無為法。 能作因相對於遍行因（sabbattha-ga-hetu，普遍存在的因）來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，遍行因必然是混合了能作因的。存在純粹的能作因，但不是遍行因的情況，例如未來法，過去（atīta）和現在（paccuppanna）的非遍行法，以及無為法。 能作因相對於異熟因（vipāka-hetu，導致果報的因）來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，異熟因必然是混合了能作因的。存在純粹的能作因，但不是異熟因的情況，例如無記法（abyākata-dhamma，非善非惡的法）以及無漏法（anāsava-dhamma，無煩惱的法）。 如果俱有因相對於同類因來說，是順於后句的，也就是說，同類因必然是混合了俱有因的。存在純粹的俱有因，但不是同類因的情況，例如未來法。 俱有因相對於相應因來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，相應因必然是混合了俱有因的。存在純粹的俱有因，但不是相應因的情況，例如諸色法，不相應行。 俱有因相對於遍行因來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，遍行因必然是混合了俱有因的。存在純粹的俱有因，但不是遍行因的情況，例如未來法，過去和現在的非遍行法。 俱有因相對於異熟因來說，也是順於后句的，也就是說，異熟因必然是混合了俱有因的。存在純粹的俱有因，但不是異熟因的情況，例如諸有為法（saṅkhata-dhamma，被創造的法）中的無記法和無漏法。 如果同類因相對於相應因來說，應該作四句區分：第一句是指過去和現在的色法與不相應行；第二句是指未來世的心和心所法（citta-cetasika-dhamma，精神現象）；第三句是指過去和現在的心和心所法；第四句是指未來的色法與不相應行，以及無為法。 同類因相對於遍行因來說，是順於后句的，也就是說，遍行因必然是混合了同類因的。存在純粹的同類因……
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the nature of hetu-paccaya (the root condition, the condition by way of being a root), it can be either pure or mixed, and it can function as a condition. Hetu-paccaya in relation to sahabhu-hetu (the co-existent condition) follows the latter clause, meaning that sahabhu-hetu must be mixed with hetu-paccaya. There are cases where there is pure hetu-paccaya but not sahabhu-hetu, such as asaṅkhata-dhamma (unconditioned phenomena). Hetu-paccaya in relation to sabhāga-hetu (the condition of association) also follows the latter clause, meaning that sabhāga-hetu must be mixed with hetu-paccaya. There are cases where there is pure hetu-paccaya but not sabhāga-hetu, such as anāgata-dhamma (future phenomena) and asaṅkhata-dhamma. Hetu-paccaya in relation to sampayutta-hetu (the condition of association) also follows the latter clause, meaning that sampayutta-hetu must be mixed with hetu-paccaya. There are cases where there is pure hetu-paccaya but not sampayutta-hetu, such as rūpa-dhamma (material phenomena), vippayutta-saṅkhāra (non-associated formations), and asaṅkhata-dhamma. Hetu-paccaya in relation to sabbattha-ga-hetu (the pervasive condition) also follows the latter clause, meaning that sabbattha-ga-hetu must be mixed with hetu-paccaya. There are cases where there is pure hetu-paccaya but not sabbattha-ga-hetu, such as anāgata-dhamma, atīta (past) and paccuppanna (present) non-pervasive phenomena, and asaṅkhata-dhamma. Hetu-paccaya in relation to vipāka-hetu (the result condition) also follows the latter clause, meaning that vipāka-hetu must be mixed with hetu-paccaya. There are cases where there is pure hetu-paccaya but not vipāka-hetu, such as abyākata-dhamma (indeterminate phenomena) and anāsava-dhamma (untainted phenomena). If sahabhu-hetu in relation to sabhāga-hetu follows the latter clause, it means that sabhāga-hetu must be mixed with sahabhu-hetu. There are cases where there is pure sahabhu-hetu but not sabhāga-hetu, such as anāgata-dhamma. Sahabhu-hetu in relation to sampayutta-hetu also follows the latter clause, meaning that sampayutta-hetu must be mixed with sahabhu-hetu. There are cases where there is pure sahabhu-hetu but not sampayutta-hetu, such as rūpa-dhamma, vippayutta-saṅkhāra. Sahabhu-hetu in relation to sabbattha-ga-hetu also follows the latter clause, meaning that sabbattha-ga-hetu must be mixed with sahabhu-hetu. There are cases where there is pure sahabhu-hetu but not sabbattha-ga-hetu, such as anāgata-dhamma, atīta and paccuppanna non-pervasive phenomena. Sahabhu-hetu in relation to vipāka-hetu also follows the latter clause, meaning that vipāka-hetu must be mixed with sahabhu-hetu. There are cases where there is pure sahabhu-hetu but not vipāka-hetu, such as abyākata and anāsava dhamma among saṅkhata-dhamma (conditioned phenomena). If sabhāga-hetu in relation to sampayutta-hetu, four distinctions should be made: the first refers to past and present rūpa-dhamma and vippayutta-saṅkhāra; the second refers to future citta-cetasika-dhamma (mental phenomena); the third refers to past and present citta-cetasika-dhamma; the fourth refers to future rūpa-dhamma and vippayutta-saṅkhāra, and asaṅkhata-dhamma. Sabhāga-hetu in relation to sabbattha-ga-hetu follows the latter clause, meaning that sabbattha-ga-hetu must be mixed with sabhāga-hetu. There are cases where there is pure sabhāga-hetu...
非遍行因。謂過現世非遍行法。又同類因對異熟因。應作四句。第一句者。謂過去現在無記無漏法。第二句者。謂未來不善及善有漏法。第三句者。謂過現不善及善有漏法。第四句者。謂未來世無記無漏。及無為法。若相應因對遍行因。應作四句。第一句者。謂未來世心心所法。過現非遍心心所法。第二句者。謂過去現在遍不相應行。第三句者。謂過去現在遍心心所法。第四句者。謂諸色法。未來一切不相應行。過現非遍不相應行。及無為法。又相應因對異熟因。亦作四句。第一句者。謂無記無漏心心所法。第二句者。謂不善善有漏色。不相應行。第三句者。謂不善善有漏心心所法。第四句者。謂無記無漏色。不相應行。及無為法。若遍行因對異熟因。應作四句。第一句者。謂過去現在無記遍行法。第二句者。謂未來不善及善有漏法。過現善有漏不善非遍行法。第三句者。謂過去現在不善遍行法。第四句者。謂未來世無記無漏法。過現無漏無記非遍行法。及無為法。又應思擇。如是六因。色非色等。諸門差別。謂六因中相應遍行二因非色。余之四因。通色非色。有見無見。有對無對。應知亦爾。又六因中。唯相應因。但相應法。余通相應不相應法。有所依無所依。有發悟無發悟。有行相無行相。有所緣無所緣。應知亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非遍行因：指過去和現在的非遍行法（非普遍適用的法）。 又，同類因對異熟因，應作四句（四種情況）： 第一句：指過去和現在的無記法（非善非惡的法）和無漏法（超越煩惱的法）。 第二句：指未來的不善法（惡法）以及善的有漏法（有煩惱的善法）。 第三句：指過去和現在的不善法以及善的有漏法。 第四句：指未來的無記法和無漏法，以及無為法（不生不滅的法）。 若相應因對遍行因，應作四句： 第一句：指未來世的心和心所法（心理活動），以及過去和現在非遍行的心和心所法。 第二句：指過去和現在遍行的不相應行法（既非心理也非物質的抽像概念）。 第三句：指過去和現在遍行的心和心所法。 第四句：指諸色法（物質現象），未來的一切不相應行法，過去和現在非遍行的不相應行法，以及無為法。 又，相應因對異熟因，也作四句： 第一句：指無記和無漏的心和心所法。 第二句：指不善和善的有漏色法（有煩惱的物質現象）和不相應行法。 第三句：指不善和善的有漏心和心所法。 第四句：指無記和無漏的色法和不相應行法，以及無為法。 若遍行因對異熟因，應作四句： 第一句：指過去和現在的無記遍行法。 第二句：指未來的不善法以及善的有漏法，過去和現在善的有漏法以及不善的非遍行法。 第三句：指過去和現在的不善遍行法。 第四句：指未來世的無記和無漏法，過去和現在的無漏和無記非遍行法，以及無為法。 又應思考，這六因在色法和非色法等方面的差別。六因中，相應因和遍行因不是色法，其餘四因，通於色法和非色法。有見和無見，有對和無對，也應如此理解。 又，六因中，只有相應因，只是相應法。其餘通於相應法和不相應法。有所依和無所依，有發悟和無發悟，有行相和無行相，有所緣和無所緣，也應瞭解。
【English Translation】 English version 'Non-pervasive cause': refers to past and present non-pervasive dharmas (laws or phenomena that are not universally applicable). Furthermore, when considering the homogenous cause in relation to the ripening cause, four possibilities should be considered: The first possibility: refers to past and present indeterminate (neither good nor bad) dharmas and uncontaminated dharmas (dharmas beyond afflictions). The second possibility: refers to future unwholesome dharmas (evil dharmas) and wholesome contaminated dharmas (wholesome dharmas with afflictions). The third possibility: refers to past and present unwholesome dharmas and wholesome contaminated dharmas. The fourth possibility: refers to future indeterminate dharmas and uncontaminated dharmas, as well as unconditioned dharmas (dharmas that are not subject to birth and death). If the concurrent cause is considered in relation to the pervasive cause, four possibilities should be considered: The first possibility: refers to future minds and mental factors (psychological activities), and past and present non-pervasive minds and mental factors. The second possibility: refers to past and present pervasive non-associated formations (abstract concepts that are neither mental nor material). The third possibility: refers to past and present pervasive minds and mental factors. The fourth possibility: refers to all material phenomena, all future non-associated formations, past and present non-pervasive non-associated formations, and unconditioned dharmas. Furthermore, when considering the concurrent cause in relation to the ripening cause, four possibilities should also be considered: The first possibility: refers to indeterminate and uncontaminated minds and mental factors. The second possibility: refers to unwholesome and wholesome contaminated material phenomena (material phenomena with afflictions) and non-associated formations. The third possibility: refers to unwholesome and wholesome contaminated minds and mental factors. The fourth possibility: refers to indeterminate and uncontaminated material phenomena and non-associated formations, as well as unconditioned dharmas. If the pervasive cause is considered in relation to the ripening cause, four possibilities should be considered: The first possibility: refers to past and present indeterminate pervasive dharmas. The second possibility: refers to future unwholesome dharmas and wholesome contaminated dharmas, past and present wholesome contaminated dharmas, and unwholesome non-pervasive dharmas. The third possibility: refers to past and present unwholesome pervasive dharmas. The fourth possibility: refers to future indeterminate and uncontaminated dharmas, past and present uncontaminated and indeterminate non-pervasive dharmas, and unconditioned dharmas. Furthermore, one should contemplate the differences among these six causes in terms of material and non-material phenomena, etc. Among the six causes, the concurrent cause and the pervasive cause are not material phenomena. The remaining four causes are common to both material and non-material phenomena. The same should be understood for visible and invisible, obstructive and non-obstructive. Furthermore, among the six causes, only the concurrent cause is solely concurrent dharma. The others are common to both concurrent and non-concurrent dharmas. Dependent and independent, enlightening and non-enlightening, with characteristics and without characteristics, with objects and without objects, should also be understood.
爾。又六因中。遍行異熟二因唯有漏。余之四因。通有漏無漏。又六因中。能作一因。通有為無為。余之五因。一向是有為。又六因中。遍行一因唯是染。余之五因。通染及不染有罪無罪。黑白。有覆無覆。順退不順退。應知亦爾。又六因中。異熟一因。唯有異熟。余之五因。通有異熟及無異熟。又六因中。能作一因。通三世及非世。俱有相應異熟三因。皆通三世。同類遍行二因。唯通過去現在。又六因中。遍行一因。不善無記。異熟一因。通善不善。余之四因。皆通三性。又六因中。遍行異熟。通三界系。余之四因。通三界系。及通不繫。又六因中。遍行異熟二因。唯是非學非無學。余之四因。皆通三種。又六因中。遍行一因。唯見所斷。異熟一因。通見修所斷。余之四因。通見修所斷及非所斷。又六因中。能作一因。通四諦攝及非諦攝。遍行異熟二因。唯通苦集諦攝。余之三因。通苦集道三諦所攝。又六因中。相應遍行。唯四蘊攝。俱有同類異熟三因。通五蘊攝。能作一因。通五蘊攝及非蘊攝。又六因中。相應遍行。意法處攝。異熟一因。色聲意法四處所攝。余之三因。十二處攝。又六因中。遍行一因。意法意識三界所攝。相應一因。通七心界法界所攝。異熟一因。通色聲界及七心界法界所攝。余之三因。十八界
攝。此等因果諸差別相。非一切智。無能遍知。已隨我等覺慧所行。因果義中。廣辯其相。為重明瞭。思擇諸緣。何謂諸緣。頌曰。
說有四種緣 因緣五因性 等無間非后 心心所已生 所緣一切法 增上即能作
論曰。於何處說。謂契經中。如契經中。說四緣性。謂因緣性。等無間緣性。所緣緣性。增上緣性。此中緣性。即是四緣。如四所居即所居性。為顯種類。故說性言。意辯諸緣。隨事差別。有無量體。然括其義。無非攝入四種類中。謂一切緣。無過此性。於六因內。除能作因。所餘五因。是因緣性。如本論說。何謂因緣。謂一切有為法。論既不說亦攝無為。故立五因。為因緣性。無為何故不立因緣。此如前釋。唯無障住立能作因。非余因攝。能作因體。攝法普周。隨事不同。差別多種。譬如行蘊法界法處法寶法歸法念住等。攝法多故。別立通名。為攝五因及三緣性所不攝義。立能作因及增上緣。體俱廣故。又諸因相差別云何。因差別相。略有二種。一者生因。二者了因。復有二種。一者定因。二不定因。復有二種。一者共因。二不共因。復有二種。一者近因。二者遠因。復有二種。一前生因。二俱起因。復有二種。一自他相續因。二非有情數因。雖諸法性本有非無而功用成。必待因力
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 攝（samgraha，總攝）。這些因果之間的種種差別相狀，不是一切智者（sarvajna，遍知一切事物的人）就能夠完全瞭解的。我已經隨順著我的覺悟智慧所行之處，在因果的意義中，廣泛地辨析了這些相狀，爲了重新使之更加明瞭，所以思擇各種因緣。什麼是各種因緣呢？頌文說：
『說有四種緣，因緣五因性，等無間非后，心心所已生，所緣一切法，增上即能作。』
論述：在什麼地方說的呢？就是在契經（sutra，佛經）中。如契經中，說了四種緣的體性，即因緣性（hetu-pratyaya，產生結果的根本原因），等無間緣性（samanantara-pratyaya，無間斷的條件），所緣緣性（alambana-pratyaya，對像條件），增上緣性（adhipati-pratyaya，增強結果的條件）。這裡說的緣性，就是四緣。如同四所居住的地方就是所居性一樣，爲了顯示種類，所以說『性』這個詞。意思是辨別各種因緣，隨著事情的差別，有無量的體性。然而概括其意義，沒有不是攝入這四種種類中的。就是說一切因緣，沒有超過這四種體性的。在六因（hetu，原因）之內，除了能作因（karana-hetu，起作用的原因），其餘五因都是因緣性。如本論所說：什麼是因緣呢？就是一切有為法（samskrta-dharma，由因緣和合而成的法）。論中既然沒有說也包括無為法（asamskrta-dharma，非因緣和合而成的法），所以建立五因為因緣性。為什麼無為法不立為因緣呢？這如同前面解釋的那樣。只有無障礙的住立才立為能作因，不是其餘因所能包含的。能作因的體性，所包含的法普遍而周遍，隨著事情的不同，差別多種多樣。譬如行蘊（samskara-skandha，意志和行動的集合），法界（dharma-dhatu，諸法存在的界限），法處（dharmayatana，產生法的場所），法寶（dharma-ratna，佛法的珍貴），法歸（dharma-sarana，皈依法），法念住（dharma-smrtyupasthana，對法的正念）等。所包含的法很多，所以另外建立一個通用的名稱。爲了包含五因以及三種緣性所不能包含的意義，所以建立能作因和增上緣，它們的體性都非常廣大。另外，各種因的相狀差別是什麼呢？因的差別相狀，大致有兩種：一是生因（janaka-hetu，產生結果的原因），二是了因（jnapaka-hetu，使結果顯現的原因）。又有兩種：一是定因（niyata-hetu，必然產生特定結果的原因），二是不定因（aniyata-hetu，不一定產生特定結果的原因）。又有兩種：一是共因（sadharna-hetu，多個結果共同的原因），二是不共因（asadharana-hetu，單個結果獨有的原因）。又有兩種：一是近因（asanna-hetu，距離結果近的原因），二是遠因（viprakrsta-hetu，距離結果遠的原因）。又有兩種：一是前生因（purvajata-hetu，先於結果產生的原因），二是俱起因（sahabhava-hetu，與結果同時產生的原因）。又有兩種：一是自他相續因（svapara-samtana-hetu，自身和他者相續的原因），二是非有情數因（anatma-bhuta-hetu，非生物的原因）。雖然諸法的體性本來就有，不是沒有，但是功用的成就，必定要依賴因的力量。
【English Translation】 English version: Samgraha (collection). These various distinctions of cause and effect cannot be fully known by an omniscient being (Sarvajna, one who knows all things). I have, in accordance with the course of my awakened wisdom, extensively analyzed these characteristics within the meaning of cause and effect. To further clarify them, I will contemplate the various conditions. What are these various conditions? The verse says:
'It is said there are four kinds of conditions: the causal condition, which is the nature of the five causes; the immediately preceding condition, which is not subsequent; the mind and mental factors that have already arisen; the object condition, which is all dharmas; and the dominant condition, which is the ability to act.'
Discussion: Where is this said? It is in the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures). As in the Sutras, the nature of the four conditions is described: the nature of the causal condition (hetu-pratyaya, the fundamental cause that produces the result), the nature of the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-pratyaya, the uninterrupted condition), the nature of the object condition (alambana-pratyaya, the object condition), and the nature of the dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya, the condition that enhances the result). Here, the nature of the conditions refers to the four conditions. Just as the place where four reside is the nature of residence, the word 'nature' is used to indicate the category. It means distinguishing the various conditions, which have countless natures depending on the matter. However, summarizing their meaning, there is nothing that is not included in these four categories. That is to say, all conditions do not exceed these four natures. Within the six causes (hetu, reasons), except for the acting cause (karana-hetu, the cause that takes action), the remaining five causes are the nature of the causal condition. As stated in this treatise, what is the causal condition? It is all conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharma, dharmas compounded by causes and conditions). Since the treatise does not say that it also includes unconditioned dharmas (asamskrta-dharma, dharmas not compounded by causes and conditions), it establishes the five causes as the nature of the causal condition. Why are unconditioned dharmas not established as causal conditions? This is as explained earlier. Only unobstructed abiding is established as the acting cause, which cannot be included by the other causes. The nature of the acting cause encompasses all dharmas universally and completely, varying in many ways depending on the matter. For example, the formation aggregate (samskara-skandha, the collection of volitions and actions), the dharma realm (dharma-dhatu, the boundary of the existence of all dharmas), the dharma base (dharmayatana, the place where dharmas arise), the dharma jewel (dharma-ratna, the preciousness of the Dharma), refuge in the Dharma (dharma-sarana, taking refuge in the Dharma), mindfulness of the Dharma (dharma-smrtyupasthana, correct mindfulness of the Dharma), etc. Because it includes many dharmas, a common name is established separately. To include the meanings that the five causes and the three natures of conditions cannot include, the acting cause and the dominant condition are established, both of which have very broad natures. Furthermore, what are the differences in the characteristics of the various causes? The differences in the characteristics of the causes are roughly of two kinds: first, the generating cause (janaka-hetu, the cause that produces the result), and second, the illuminating cause (jnapaka-hetu, the cause that makes the result manifest). There are also two kinds: first, the definite cause (niyata-hetu, the cause that necessarily produces a specific result), and second, the indefinite cause (aniyata-hetu, the cause that does not necessarily produce a specific result). There are also two kinds: first, the common cause (sadharna-hetu, the common cause of multiple results), and second, the uncommon cause (asadharana-hetu, the unique cause of a single result). There are also two kinds: first, the proximate cause (asanna-hetu, the cause close to the result), and second, the remote cause (viprakrsta-hetu, the cause far from the result). There are also two kinds: first, the antecedent cause (purvajata-hetu, the cause that arises before the result), and second, the co-arising cause (sahabhava-hetu, the cause that arises simultaneously with the result). There are also two kinds: first, the cause of one's own and others' continuums (svapara-samtana-hetu, the cause of the continuums of oneself and others), and second, the cause of non-sentient entities (anatma-bhuta-hetu, the cause of non-living things). Although the nature of dharmas is inherently present and not absent, the accomplishment of their function necessarily depends on the power of causes.
。如諸造色體本非無。而功用成必因大種。因中勝者其唯五因。如造色因勝者無五。無有為法成不由因。如羸病人不能自起。由如此義。故說頌言。
無少成立不由因 一切由因佛所說 諸法因多細難了 世迷便謂總無因
然上座言。因緣性者。謂舊隨界。即諸有情。相續展轉。能為因性。彼謂世尊契經中說。應知如是補特伽羅。善法隱沒。惡法出現。有隨俱行善根未斷。以未斷故。從此善根。猶有可起余善根義。隨俱善根。即舊隨界。相續展轉。能為因性。如斯等。類說名因緣。此亦同前經主所執種子義破。此舊隨界。即彼種子名差別故。今乘義便。隨彼所執名義有殊。更廣遮遣。觀彼隨界。但有虛言。推徴其體。都不可得。故亦不可即說此為相續展轉能為因性。諸有相續展轉為因。有體可得如色受等。若舊隨界。是有相續展轉為因。應如色等有體可得。此為何相。是種種法。所薰成界。以為其相。此亦難知。體為是色。為乃至識。隨界名舊應是有為。一切有為。皆五蘊攝。故若是有。應於色等五蘊性中隨是一種。或彼應說。何有有為。非是色等五蘊所攝。然體是有。可為極成。故但有言。都無實體。又舊隨界。無體可知。猶如合行和合有等。此舊隨界。體不可說。但可說言。是業煩惱所薰六處。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 就像各種造色（Rūpa，物質現象）的自體並非不存在，但其功用的成就必定依賴於四大種（Mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）。在這些因緣中，最重要的是五種因緣。如果造色的因緣勝過這五種，那是不可能的。沒有任何有為法（Saṃskṛta，因緣和合而成的法）的成就不是由因緣產生的，就像虛弱的病人無法自己站起來一樣。由於這個道理，所以有頌文說： 『沒有絲毫的成立不是由因緣產生的，一切都是由因緣產生的，這是佛陀所說的。各種法的因緣眾多且細微難以理解，世人迷惑，就認為一切都沒有因緣。』 然而，上座部（Sthavira Nikāya）的人說：『因緣性』指的是舊隨界（Purāṇānusaya-dhātu，舊的隨眠煩惱），也就是各種有情（Sattva，眾生）相續不斷地流轉，能夠作為因性。他們認為世尊在契經（Sūtra，佛經）中說過，應該知道這樣的補特伽羅（Pudgala，人），善法隱沒，惡法出現，但還有隨俱行（Sahaja，與生俱來的）的善根（Kuśalamūla，善的根本）沒有斷。因為沒有斷，所以從此善根，還有可能生起其他的善根。隨俱善根，就是舊隨界，相續不斷地流轉，能夠作為因性。像這樣的說法，就叫做因緣。』 這和之前經主（Sūtrakāra，經的作者）所執著的種子（Bīja，種子）的意義一樣，都可以被破斥。因為這舊隨界，就是種子的另一種名稱。現在趁著義理的方便，雖然他們所執著的名義有所不同，但可以更廣泛地遮止破斥。觀察他們的隨界，只不過是虛妄的言說，推究它的自體，根本無法得到。所以也不可以說這就是相續不斷地流轉，能夠作為因性。各種相續不斷地流轉作為因緣的事物，都有自體可以得到，比如色（Rūpa，顏色、形色）、受（Vedanā，感受）等。如果舊隨界是相續不斷地流轉作為因緣，就應該像色等一樣有自體可以得到。 這是什麼樣的相？是各種法所熏習而成的界，作為它的相。這也是難以理解的。它的自體是色，還是受，乃至是識（Vijñāna，識別）？隨界的名字是『舊』，應該是『有為』。一切有為法，都包含在五蘊（Pañcaskandha，色、受、想、行、識）之中。所以如果是『有』，就應該在色等五蘊的性質中，是其中的一種。或者他們應該說，有什麼有為法，不是色等五蘊所包含的？然而自體是『有』，才可以被認為是極成（Prasiddha，已被普遍認可）。所以這只不過是言說，根本沒有實體。 而且舊隨界，沒有自體可以知道，就像合行（Sametya，集合）和和合有（Sāmagrī，因緣和合）等一樣。這舊隨界，它的自體是不可說的，只能說，是被業（Karma，行為）和煩惱（Kleśa，煩惱）所熏習的六處（Ṣaḍāyatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。
【English Translation】 English version: Just as the various Rūpa (material forms) are not inherently non-existent, their functional accomplishment necessarily depends on the Mahābhūta (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind). Among these causes, the five causes are the most important. If the cause of Rūpa surpasses these five, it is impossible. No Saṃskṛta (conditioned phenomena) is accomplished without a cause, just as a weak person cannot stand up on their own. Because of this reason, there is a verse that says: 『Nothing is established without a cause; everything is caused, as the Buddha said. The causes of phenomena are numerous and subtle, difficult to understand; the world is deluded and thinks there is no cause at all.』 However, the Sthavira Nikāya (Elders School) says: 『The nature of cause and condition』 refers to the Purāṇānusaya-dhātu (old latent tendencies), which is the continuous transmigration of various Sattva (sentient beings), capable of being a causal nature. They believe that the World-Honored One said in the Sūtra (scripture): 『It should be known that such a Pudgala (person) has good dharmas hidden and evil dharmas appearing, but there are still Sahaja (innate) Kuśalamūla (roots of goodness) that have not been severed. Because they have not been severed, from these roots of goodness, there is still the possibility of arising other roots of goodness. The Sahaja Kuśalamūla is the old latent tendencies, continuously transmigrating, capable of being a causal nature. Such statements are called causes and conditions.』 This is the same as the Bīja (seed) meaning adhered to by the Sūtrakāra (author of the sutra) before, and can be refuted. Because this old latent tendency is another name for the seed. Now, taking advantage of the convenience of the meaning, although the names and meanings they adhere to are different, it can be more widely prevented and refuted. Observing their latent tendencies, it is only false speech, and examining its substance, it cannot be obtained at all. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is the continuous transmigration, capable of being a causal nature. Various things that continuously transmigrate as causes and conditions have substances that can be obtained, such as Rūpa (form), Vedanā (feeling), etc. If the old latent tendency is continuously transmigrating as a cause and condition, it should be like Rūpa, etc., with a substance that can be obtained. What is this appearance? It is the realm formed by the various dharmas being perfumed, as its appearance. This is also difficult to understand. Is its substance Rūpa, or Vedanā, or even Vijñāna (consciousness)? The name of the latent tendency is 『old,』 it should be 『Saṃskṛta』 (conditioned). All Saṃskṛta are included in the Pañcaskandha (five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness). Therefore, if it is 『existent,』 it should be one of the natures of the five aggregates such as Rūpa. Or they should say, what Saṃskṛta is not included in the five aggregates such as Rūpa? However, the substance is 『existent,』 it can be considered Prasiddha (universally accepted). Therefore, this is only speech, and there is no substance at all. Moreover, the old latent tendency has no substance that can be known, just like Sametya (assembly) and Sāmagrī (combination of conditions), etc. The substance of this old latent tendency is unspeakable, it can only be said that it is the Ṣaḍāyatana (six sense bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) perfumed by Karma (action) and Kleśa (afflictions).
感餘生果。此界非唯體不可說。但執為有。與理相違。非體不可說可為極成有。以諸假有補特伽羅瓶等可說。為無別體。若諸實有色受等法。一一可說。為有別體。非舊隨界可說猶如補特伽羅瓶等假有。亦非實有如色等法。是故不應執此為有。既爾何得執為因緣。又隨界言。非聖教說。但上座等。擅立此名。又彼許何諸業煩惱所薰六處感餘生果。為業煩惱俱生滅者。為此後時相續生者。為是無間生異熟者。若業煩惱俱生六處能感果者。則后六處無感果能。俱亦應然。豈能感果。應唯業煩惱有感果能。何須執六處感餘生果。又彼不應定執。眼等為業煩惱俱起助因。盲等唯托業煩惱緣。亦感餘生眼耳等故。又因與果許隔越成。何用執斯為舊隨界。若此後時相續六處。能感果者。與業煩惱。都不相應。如何薰彼可成隨界。非有與無有相應義。豈不因果得有相應與彼相同令成緣故彼相同語理不相應。以彼相言目彼之相。應言此相與彼相同。然於此中。略此相語。此業煩惱。與彼后時相續六處。性類各別。如何此相與彼相同。豈得相應令成緣性。或彼意謂業煩惱俱六處將滅。與后六處。其相是同。令成緣者。亦不應理。前六處相。于將滅時。后體未有。體未有故。彼相亦無。何有相同。令成緣性。故彼所說。但有虛言。若彼相言
【現代漢語翻譯】 感餘生果（感受到來世的果報）。此界（指六處）非唯體不可說（不僅僅是本體不可說），但執為有（如果執著地認為它是真實存在的），與理相違（就與真理相悖）。非體不可說可為極成有（不能因為本體不可說就認為它是真實存在的），以諸假有補特伽羅（pudgalā，補特伽羅，意為人我）瓶等可說（因為像補特伽羅、瓶子等假有之物是可以被描述的），為無別體（因為它們沒有獨立的本體）。若諸實有色受等法（如果像色、受等真實存在的法），一一可說（每一個都可以被描述），為有別體（因為它們有各自獨立的本體）。非舊隨界可說猶如補特伽羅瓶等假有（舊隨界不能像補特伽羅、瓶子等假有之物一樣被描述），亦非實有如色等法（也不是像色等法一樣真實存在）。是故不應執此為有（所以不應該執著地認為它是真實存在的）。既爾何得執為因緣（既然如此，又怎麼能執著地認為它是因緣呢）？ 又隨界言（而且，關於隨界的說法），非聖教說（不是佛陀的教導），但上座等（只是上座部等），擅立此名（擅自設立這個名稱）。又彼許何諸業煩惱所薰六處感餘生果（而且，他們認為是什麼樣的被業和煩惱薰染的六處會感受到來世的果報）？為業煩惱俱生滅者（是與業和煩惱同時生滅的六處）？為此後時相續生者（還是此後相續產生的六處）？為是無間生異熟者（還是無間產生的異熟果）？若業煩惱俱生六處能感果者（如果與業和煩惱同時產生的六處能夠感受到果報），則后六處無感果能（那麼後來的六處就沒有感受果報的能力了）。俱亦應然（同時產生的也應該如此）。豈能感果（怎麼能感受到果報呢）？應唯業煩惱有感果能（應該只有業和煩惱有感受果報的能力）。何須執六處感餘生果（為什麼需要執著於六處感受來世的果報呢）？ 又彼不應定執（而且，他們不應該執著地認為），眼等為業煩惱俱起助因（眼等是與業和煩惱同時生起的助因），盲等唯托業煩惱緣（盲人等只是依靠業和煩惱的緣），亦感餘生眼耳等故（也能感受到來世的眼耳等）。又因與果許隔越成（而且，如果承認因和果可以隔越而成立），何用執斯為舊隨界（又何必執著于這個舊隨界呢）？若此後時相續六處（如果此後相續產生的六處），能感果者（能夠感受到果報），與業煩惱（與業和煩惱），都不相應（都不相應）。如何薰彼可成隨界（如何薰染它們而成為隨界呢）？非有與無有相應義（有和無之間沒有相應的道理）。豈不因果得有相應與彼相同令成緣故（難道不是因為因果之間有相應的關係，並且與彼相同才能成為緣嗎）？彼相同語理不相應（彼相同這種說法在道理上是不相應的）。以彼相言目彼之相（因為彼相指的是彼的相）。應言此相與彼相同（應該說此相與彼相同）。然於此中（然而在這裡），略此相語（省略了此相的說法）。此業煩惱（這個業和煩惱），與彼后時相續六處（與彼後來的相續六處），性類各別（性質和種類各不相同）。如何此相與彼相同（如何能說此相與彼相同呢）？豈得相應令成緣性（怎麼能相應而成為緣的性質呢）？ 或彼意謂業煩惱俱六處將滅（或者他們認為與業和煩惱同時產生的六處即將滅亡），與后六處（與後來的六處），其相是同（它們的相是相同的）。令成緣者（從而成為緣），亦不應理（也是不合理的）。前六處相（前六處的相），于將滅時（在即將滅亡的時候），后體未有（後來的本體還沒有產生）。體未有故（因為本體還沒有產生），彼相亦無（那個相也沒有）。何有相同（哪裡有相同之處）？令成緣性（從而成為緣的性質）？故彼所說（所以他們所說的），但有虛言（只是虛妄之言）。若彼相言（如果他們說相）
【English Translation】 English version: Feeling the remaining life's consequences. This realm (referring to the six sense bases) is not only inexpressible in its essence (體不可說), but also, clinging to it as existent contradicts reason. It cannot be considered ultimately existent simply because its essence is inexpressible, as the conventionally existent pudgalā (補特伽羅, person/self) and pot are describable, being without separate essence. If truly existent dharmas like form (色) and feeling (受) are each describable, it is because they have separate essences. The 'old following realm' (舊隨界) cannot be described like the conventionally existent pudgalā and pot, nor is it truly existent like form and other dharmas. Therefore, one should not cling to it as existent. If so, how can one cling to it as a cause and condition? Furthermore, the term 'following realm' (隨界) is not found in the sacred teachings (聖教), but is a name arbitrarily established by the elders (上座部) and others. Moreover, what kind of six sense bases, influenced by karma (業) and afflictions (煩惱), do they consider to experience the consequences of the remaining life? Is it the six sense bases that arise and cease simultaneously with karma and afflictions? Is it the six sense bases that arise successively later? Or is it the immediately arising ripening result (異熟果)? If the six sense bases that arise simultaneously with karma and afflictions can experience the consequences, then the later six sense bases would have no ability to experience the consequences. The simultaneous ones should be the same. How can they experience the consequences? Only karma and afflictions should have the ability to experience the consequences. Why cling to the six sense bases experiencing the consequences of the remaining life? Moreover, they should not definitively assert that the eye and other sense organs are auxiliary causes arising simultaneously with karma and afflictions, while the blind and others only rely on the conditions of karma and afflictions, yet still experience the eye, ear, and other sense organs in the remaining life. Furthermore, if cause and effect are admitted to be established across a gap, what is the use of clinging to this 'old following realm'? If the six sense bases that arise successively later can experience the consequences, they are not at all in accordance with karma and afflictions. How can they be influenced by them to become the 'following realm'? There is no meaning of accordance between existence and non-existence. Isn't it because cause and effect have an accordant relationship and are the same as each other that they become conditions? The statement 'the same as each other' is not logically consistent. Because 'that sameness' refers to the sameness of that. It should be said 'this sameness is the same as that'. However, in this case, the phrase 'this sameness' is omitted. This karma and afflictions and those later successively arising six sense bases are different in nature and kind. How can this sameness be the same as that? How can they be in accordance to become the nature of a condition? Or perhaps they mean that the six sense bases arising simultaneously with karma and afflictions are about to cease, and their sameness is the same as the later six sense bases, thereby becoming a condition. This is also unreasonable. The sameness of the former six sense bases, when they are about to cease, the later entity has not yet arisen. Because the entity has not yet arisen, that sameness is also non-existent. Where is there any sameness? Thereby becoming the nature of a condition? Therefore, what they say is merely empty words. If they say sameness
。依當有說。如世間說煮飯磨麨。以彼當來極成有故。此喻非理。與所立宗。等不成故。又喻與法。世俗容有不容有故。且應先審。勝義煮磨為有自性或差別類。為畢竟無猶若空花。故喻與宗。不成義等。若據世俗。容有煮磨。依此可言煮飯磨麨。不容有法與無相同。故此喻無證宗之力。然此飯麨。非當有名。現有極成飯及麨故。觀此可說提婆達多與此相同。煮飯磨麨所喻不爾。故不相應。又所煮磨飯麨成已。所方飯麨相續猶在。彼此相同俱現可得。后念六處。至已生時。爾時已無前念六處。故不可說彼此相同。由后未生及已生位。俱不可說此彼相同。故所立喻。與法非等。設許飯麨是當有名。所喻相同。亦不應理。以非前念六處所生與業煩惱俱行六處。由業煩惱為俱助緣。有異相起。非因果故。如何有力令后成緣。故不可言。與業煩惱俱行六處。勝前六處。與后相同令成緣性。是故若言前六處滅還能生后自類六處。業煩惱滅還生自類后業煩惱。如是可說依當有名。有相同義。若業煩惱俱行六處。與前無異。而能令後有異相生。成緣性者。則不應說。與后六處其相是同。令成緣性。又此何故令后成緣。故彼所言。都無實義。若是無間能生異熟六處為因。能感果者。是則應無順后受業。唯無間因生異熟故。無斯過失。鄰
近展轉。能牽果故。如花種等。鄰近展轉。能引果生。若爾更招尤重過失。順生后受業應雜亂。汝宗自許。一業所熏。六處相續。牽一果故。又種芽等。一相續攝種芽等雖滅。而後果可生。業煩惱六處相續各別業煩惱滅已。何容后時六處自類展轉相續。至最後時。能生彼果。故彼法喻。義不相應。又業煩惱俱生六處。彼不應許業煩惱熏。勿許同時有因果故。如何從彼非業煩惱所熏六處。更無別緣。而於后時欻復生起諸業煩惱所熏六處。故汝所宗。理非善立。若謂如神糞土資熏能生芽等。此亦非理。我所許故。又不成故。謂我宗許有同時因。可立此喻。汝宗不爾。云何如種糞土資熏。又於此中。正立法喻。種應正喻業煩惱心。六處應言猶如糞土。則業煩惱類應名隨界。如何說六處為隨界耶。非由糞土資熏種故。還令生起糞土類芽。故種唯應喻於六處。由此六處業煩惱熏。生當六處異熟果故。此救非理。非后六處果即說用前六處為因故。謂經說眼等業煩惱為因。如種為因生於芽等。非芽等用糞等為因。故彼所救。非為應理。又經說生業為因故。非當六處。六處為種。非業煩惱為因感生。可執六處為其種子。故眼等五。于感當生。全無勝用。意處或有與業煩惱同一果義。故所立喻。與法相違。或種相續。與彼糞土。相續俱時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『近展轉，能牽果故，如花種等。』意思是說，就像花種一樣，鄰近的因素相互作用，能夠引發結果的產生。如果這樣說，會招致更加嚴重的過失，因為順著這種邏輯，後世所受的業就會變得雜亂無章。你們宗派自己也承認，一種業的熏習，會使六處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）相續，從而牽引出一個結果。 『又種芽等，一相續攝種芽等雖滅，而後果可生。』意思是說，種子和芽等，雖然種子和芽等已經滅亡，但它們屬於同一個相續，所以果實仍然可以產生。但是，業、煩惱和六處是各自不同的相續。業和煩惱滅亡后，怎麼能在後來的時間裡，六處還能自行相續，直到最後產生那個果報呢？所以，你所舉的法喻並不恰當。 『又業煩惱俱生六處，彼不應許業煩惱熏，勿許同時有因果故。』意思是說，業和煩惱與六處同時產生，你們不應該允許業和煩惱熏習六處，因為你們不允許同時存在因果關係。那麼，如何從那些沒有被業和煩惱熏習的六處，在沒有其他因緣的情況下，在後來的時間裡突然產生被業和煩惱熏習的六處呢？所以，你們宗派的理論，在理上是站不住腳的。 『若謂如神糞土資熏能生芽等。』如果你們說，就像肥沃的糞土滋養熏習，能夠產生芽等。這種說法也是不合理的，因為這是我所允許的，而且也是不成立的。我們宗派承認有同時存在的因，所以可以立這個比喻。但你們宗派不承認，又怎麼能像種子被糞土滋養熏習一樣呢？ 而且，在這個比喻中，正確的比喻應該是：種子應該比喻為業、煩惱和心，六處應該比喻為糞土。那麼，業和煩惱的類別就應該被稱為隨界（與因同類的果）。怎麼能說六處是隨界呢？並不是因為糞土滋養熏習種子，就能讓它生出糞土類的芽。所以，種子只能比喻為六處。因此，六處被業和煩惱熏習，會產生相應的六處的異熟果。 這種辯解是不合理的，因為後來的六處果，並不是以之前的六處為因產生的。經書上說，眼等（眼根等）的業和煩惱是因，就像種子是產生芽等的因一樣，而不是芽等以糞等為因。所以，他們的辯解是不合理的。而且，經書上說，產生業是因，而不是當下的六處。六處是種子，而不是業和煩惱是因感生。不能執著六處是種子。所以，眼等五根，對於感受當下的果報，完全沒有殊勝的作用。意處（意識）或許與業和煩惱有同一果報的意義。所以，所立的比喻，與佛法相違背。或者說，種子的相續，與糞土的相續是同時存在的。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Proximity and transformation can lead to results, like flower seeds, etc.' This means that, like flower seeds, neighboring factors interact and can lead to the production of results. If this is said, it will lead to more serious faults, because following this logic, the karma received in later lives will become chaotic. Your sect itself admits that the cultivation of one karma will make the six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) continue, thus leading to a result. 'Also, seeds and sprouts, etc., are included in one continuum. Although seeds and sprouts, etc., have perished, the result can still be produced.' This means that seeds and sprouts, etc., although the seeds and sprouts, etc., have perished, they belong to the same continuum, so the fruit can still be produced. However, karma, afflictions, and the six sense bases are different continuums. After karma and afflictions have perished, how can the six sense bases continue on their own in later times until they finally produce that karmic result? Therefore, the analogy you cited is not appropriate. 'Also, karma and afflictions arise simultaneously with the six sense bases. They should not allow karma and afflictions to cultivate the six sense bases, because they do not allow cause and effect to exist simultaneously.' This means that karma and afflictions arise simultaneously with the six sense bases. You should not allow karma and afflictions to cultivate the six sense bases, because you do not allow cause and effect to exist simultaneously. Then, how can the six sense bases that have not been cultivated by karma and afflictions suddenly produce the six sense bases that have been cultivated by karma and afflictions in later times without other causes and conditions? Therefore, the theory of your sect is not tenable in reason. 'If it is said that fertile manure cultivates and produces sprouts, etc.' If you say that, like fertile manure nourishing and cultivating, it can produce sprouts, etc. This statement is also unreasonable, because this is what I allow, and it is also not established. Our sect admits that there are simultaneous causes, so we can establish this analogy. But your sect does not admit it, so how can it be like seeds being nourished and cultivated by manure? Moreover, in this analogy, the correct analogy should be: seeds should be compared to karma, afflictions, and mind, and the six sense bases should be compared to manure. Then, the category of karma and afflictions should be called the 'following realm' (the result of the same kind as the cause). How can it be said that the six sense bases are the 'following realm'? It is not because manure nourishes and cultivates seeds that it can produce sprouts of the manure type. Therefore, seeds can only be compared to the six sense bases. Therefore, the six sense bases are cultivated by karma and afflictions, and will produce the corresponding six sense bases as the result of maturation. This defense is unreasonable, because the later six sense bases are not produced by the previous six sense bases as the cause. The scriptures say that the karma and afflictions of the eye, etc. (eye faculty, etc.) are the cause, just as seeds are the cause of producing sprouts, etc., and not that sprouts, etc., take manure, etc., as the cause. Therefore, their defense is unreasonable. Moreover, the scriptures say that the production of karma is the cause, not the present six sense bases. The six sense bases are the seeds, not that karma and afflictions are the cause of feeling and producing. One cannot cling to the six sense bases as the seeds. Therefore, the five sense faculties such as the eye have no special function in feeling the present karmic result. The mind base (consciousness) may have the meaning of the same karmic result as karma and afflictions. Therefore, the established analogy is contrary to the Dharma. Or, the continuum of seeds exists simultaneously with the continuum of manure.
。能生異果。諸業煩惱。相續久滅。而計六處相續為因。生業煩惱所牽異果。如斯法喻。豈得言同。又種糞土。俱有分故。芽中可有二果續生。如何可與無分有分同招一果為同法喻。若執芽中糞土與種果體無別。是則能喻。與所立同。俱不成故。又彼為證舊隨界有。所引聖言。有隨俱行善根未斷。此經還證彼所妄執舊隨界無。以諸善根無貪等性。彼於此位。不現在前。得未舍故。名為未斷。依將斷善。故說此言。此中善根。唯生得善。諸加行善。先已斷故。生得善根。于續善位。隨染心得。故謂隨行九品頓得。故謂俱行。或此善根。先得後起。故謂隨行。現起與得。不相違害。故謂俱行。是謂此經此句實義。善根斷者。亦現無此隨俱善根。故此經言。彼於後時。一切皆斷。隨俱善根。既舊隨界此善根無。故彼隨界亦無。隨界既無。后因何法善根續起。又初續位善根現無。應無隨界。既無隨界。何緣名續後善根起。復從何因。然契經說。從此善根。后余善根。定當還起。故此還證舊隨界無。又彼自言。此舊隨界。體不可說。如何於此。說為善根。善根因性。又於一念一心體中。無有細分。如何能牽愛及非愛俱相違果。定差別因。不可得故。又善不善及無記心。於一切時。應俱現起。然不應許。互相違故。謂于善心正現行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：能產生不同的結果（異果）。各種業和煩惱，持續很久之後才會滅除。而認為六處（六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）的相續是原因，產生被業和煩惱牽引的不同的結果。像這樣的比喻，怎麼能說是相同呢？而且，種子和糞土，都有各自的作用。從幼芽中可能會有二種結果相續產生。怎麼能把沒有作用和有作用的事物，說成是共同招致一個結果的相同比喻呢？如果認為幼芽中的糞土和種子所產生的果實本體沒有區別，那麼這個能作為比喻的事物，和所要論證的事物就相同了，都不能成立。而且，他們爲了證明舊隨界（過去隨順的界限）的存在，所引用的聖言（佛經），說的是『有隨俱行善根未斷』（有隨順一起生起的善根沒有斷滅）。而這部經反而證明了他們所妄加執著的舊隨界不存在，因為各種善根沒有貪婪等的性質，它們在這個階段，不會顯現出來。因為已經得到但還沒有捨棄，所以叫做『未斷』。是依據將要斷滅的善根，所以說了這句話。這裡所說的善根，只是生來就有的善，各種通過修行而獲得的善，之前就已經斷滅了。生來就有的善根，在相續善的時候，會隨著染污的心而生起，所以說是『隨行』。九品同時獲得，所以說是『俱行』。或者這種善根，先得到後生起，所以說是『隨行』。顯現生起和得到，不互相違背，所以說是『俱行』。這就是這部經這句話的真實含義。善根斷滅的人，也不會顯現出這種隨俱善根。所以這部經說，『彼於後時，一切皆斷』（他們在之後的時間，一切都斷滅了）。隨俱善根，既然在舊隨界中沒有這種善根，所以他們的隨界也沒有。隨界既然沒有，之後依靠什麼法，善根才能相續生起呢？而且，最初相續的時候，善根沒有顯現，應該沒有隨界。既然沒有隨界，憑什麼叫做相續？之後的善根又從什麼原因生起呢？然而契經（佛經）說，『從此善根，后余善根，定當還起』（從這個善根，之後其餘的善根，一定會再次生起）。所以這反而證明了舊隨界不存在。而且他們自己說，這個舊隨界的本體不可說。怎麼能在這裡，說它是善根呢？善根是原因的性質。而且，在一念一心（一個念頭一個心）的本體中，沒有細微的區分。怎麼能牽引喜愛和不喜愛這兩種互相違背的結果呢？因為決定的差別的原因，是無法得到的。而且，善、不善和無記心（非善非惡的心），在所有的時間，應該同時生起。但是不應該允許這種情況發生，因為它們互相違背。比如在善心正在顯現的時候
【English Translation】 English version: It can produce different results (異果, yì guǒ: different results). Various karmas and afflictions will be extinguished after a long period of continuation. However, they consider the continuation of the six entrances (六處, liù chù: the six sense organs, namely eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) as the cause, producing different results that are driven by karma and afflictions. How can such a metaphor be said to be the same? Moreover, both seeds and manure have their respective functions. Two kinds of results may successively arise from the sprout. How can one compare things that have no function and things that have function, saying that they jointly bring about one result as the same metaphor? If one insists that there is no difference between the manure in the sprout and the fruit body produced by the seed, then this metaphor, and the thing to be demonstrated, are the same, and neither can be established. Furthermore, in order to prove the existence of the old following realm (舊隨界, jiù suí jiè: the past following realm), the holy words (scriptures) they cited say, 'There are accompanying good roots that have not been cut off (有隨俱行善根未斷, yǒu suí jù xíng shàn gēn wèi duàn)'. However, this scripture instead proves that the old following realm they falsely cling to does not exist, because various good roots do not have the nature of greed, etc., and they will not manifest in this stage. Because they have been obtained but not yet abandoned, they are called 'not cut off'. This statement is based on the good roots that are about to be cut off. The good roots mentioned here are only those that are innate, and the various good roots obtained through practice have already been cut off before. The innate good roots, when continuing goodness, arise along with the defiled mind, so they are called 'following'. The nine qualities are obtained simultaneously, so they are called 'accompanying'. Or these good roots are obtained first and then arise later, so they are called 'following'. Manifestation and obtaining do not contradict each other, so they are called 'accompanying'. This is the true meaning of this sentence in this scripture. Those whose good roots are cut off will also not manifest these accompanying good roots. Therefore, this scripture says, 'They will all be cut off at a later time (彼於後時，一切皆斷, bǐ yú hòu shí, yī qiē jiē duàn)'. Since there are no such accompanying good roots in the old following realm, their following realm also does not exist. Since the following realm does not exist, what dharma can the good roots rely on to continue arising later? Moreover, when initially continuing, the good roots do not manifest, so there should be no following realm. Since there is no following realm, why is it called continuation? And from what cause do the subsequent good roots arise? However, the scripture says, 'From these good roots, other good roots will definitely arise again later (從此善根，后余善根，定當還起, cóng cǐ shàn gēn, hòu yú shàn gēn, dìng dāng hái qǐ)'. Therefore, this instead proves that the old following realm does not exist. Moreover, they themselves say that the substance of this old following realm is indescribable. How can it be said to be a good root here? The good root is the nature of the cause. Furthermore, within the substance of one thought and one mind (一念一心, yī niàn yī xīn: one thought one mind), there are no subtle distinctions. How can it drive the two contradictory results of love and dislike? Because the cause of the definite difference cannot be obtained. Moreover, good, unwholesome, and neutral minds (無記心, wú jì xīn: neutral mind) should arise simultaneously at all times. But this should not be allowed, because they contradict each other. For example, when a good mind is manifesting
位。不善無記心界恒隨。彼與善心非有別體。依何理說。彼不現行。餘二性心。正現行位。各徴二性。亦應同此。又彼應說。若一心中。有多品類心界隨逐。何緣從此多心隨界。后時但起一品類心。然於一時。有一切識所依境界等無間緣因緣。又具何不併起。彼所依等。一一剎那。皆有能生一切識義。何法為礙。於一時間。非從一根並生多識然彼上座。於此說言。有一念一根俱生二識。如共一身根命命鳥等。不可一處二身根生。如是便違有對法性。此言但順上座自心。無二有情同一根義。相續異故。而命命等。二根雜住。如身舌根。故從二根生於二識。非一根上二識並生。亦無一根二有情共。理應如是。謂有一根是多業果。理不成故。然一切根。皆非共有。如是上座。何理能遮於一相續同時依止一根多根發多識過。故舊隨界。非為善說。又上座等。唯執諸法從無間生。豈不大師說因緣性便為無用。以所有法生所藉因。等無間力足能成辦。何勞此外更說因緣。雖彼釋言等無間力與生因力其義有殊。于生法中。俱有功用。而無實理。但有虛言。即隨界力無間住故。非離心等等無間力。可言別有因緣功用。又彼上座。執有法體雖經劫滅。而自相續。展轉相仍。猶為因性。今觀彼法但能為緣。生慶自心。妄計喜悅。非於生法實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：不善和無記（既非善也非惡）的心界總是相隨。它們與善心沒有本質區別。依據什麼道理說，當善心正在活動時，不善和無記的心界不活動呢？如果其餘兩種性質的心（不善和無記）正在活動時，也各自包含兩種性質（例如，不善心也包含善和無記的成分），那也應該同樣處理（即不善心活動時，善和無記的成分不活動）。 又，他們應該解釋，如果一個心中有多種品類的心界隨逐，為什麼從此多種心隨界之後，只生起一種品類的心？然而，在同一時間，具備一切識所依賴的境界等無間緣（緊鄰的過去心）和因緣（根本原因），又有什麼妨礙它們不一起生起呢？它們所依賴的境界等，每一個剎那都具有產生一切識的可能性。是什麼法則阻礙了這一點？ 在同一時間，並非從一個根（感官）同時產生多個識。然而，上座部對此說，有一念（極短的時間）中，一個根可以同時產生兩個識，就像共用一個身體的根和命根的命命鳥一樣。不能在一個地方有兩個身體的根產生，這樣就違背了有對法的性質（即相互作用的法則）。 這種說法只是順應上座部自己的想法，沒有兩個有情（眾生）共用一個根的道理，因為相續（心流）是不同的。而命命鳥等，是兩個根雜住在一起，比如身體的根和舌根。所以從兩個根產生兩個識，而不是一個根上同時產生兩個識。也沒有一個根被兩個有情共用。理應如此，因為一個根是多個業的果報，這個道理不成立。然而，一切根都不是共有的。 這樣，上座部用什麼道理能夠阻止在一個相續中，同時依止一個根或多個根而生起多個識的過失呢？所以，舊的隨界說是錯誤的。 而且，上座部只執著于諸法從無間（緊鄰的過去）產生，難道不是大師（佛陀）所說的因緣性就變得無用了嗎？因為所有法產生所憑藉的因，等無間的力量就足以完成，何必此外再說因緣呢？ 雖然他們解釋說，等無間的力量與生因的力量意義不同，在生法中都有功用，但沒有實際道理，只有虛假的言辭。因為隨界的力量是無間住的，所以不能說離開心等等的等無間力，還有別的因緣功用。 而且，上座部執著於法體雖然經過劫滅，但它的自相續仍然輾轉相仍，仍然是因性。現在觀察這種法，只能作為緣，生起慶幸自己的心，妄自計較喜悅，對於生法沒有實際作用。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Unwholesome and indeterminate (neither wholesome nor unwholesome) mind-elements always accompany. They have no essential difference from wholesome minds. Based on what principle do you say that when a wholesome mind is active, unwholesome and indeterminate mind-elements are not active? If the other two types of minds (unwholesome and indeterminate) each contain two natures when they are active (for example, an unwholesome mind also contains wholesome and indeterminate components), then it should be treated the same way (i.e., when an unwholesome mind is active, the wholesome and indeterminate components are not active). Furthermore, they should explain, if there are multiple categories of mind-elements accompanying a single mind, why does only one category of mind arise after these multiple mind-elements? However, at the same time, possessing the immediately preceding condition (anantarya-pratyaya) and the causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) upon which all consciousnesses rely, what prevents them from arising together? The objects upon which they rely, in each moment, have the potential to generate all consciousnesses. What law obstructs this? At the same time, multiple consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously from one sense faculty. However, the Sthaviras (Elders, a Buddhist school) say that in one moment (a very short time), one sense faculty can simultaneously produce two consciousnesses, like the root and life-root of the Jivajivaka bird sharing one body. It is impossible for the roots of two bodies to arise in one place; this would violate the nature of opposing dharmas (i.e., the law of interaction). This statement merely conforms to the Sthaviras' own ideas. There is no principle of two sentient beings (beings with consciousness) sharing one sense faculty because the continua (mind-streams) are different. However, the Jivajivaka bird, etc., have two roots mixed together, such as the body-root and the tongue-root. Therefore, two consciousnesses arise from two roots, not two consciousnesses arising simultaneously from one root. Nor is one root shared by two sentient beings. It should be like this because the principle of one root being the result of multiple karmas is not established. However, all roots are not shared. In this way, what principle can the Sthaviras use to prevent the fault of multiple consciousnesses arising simultaneously in one continuum, relying on one root or multiple roots? Therefore, the old theory of accompanying elements is incorrect. Moreover, the Sthaviras only cling to the idea that dharmas arise from the immediately preceding (anantara), doesn't this render the causal nature (hetu-pratyaya) taught by the Master (Buddha) useless? Because the immediately preceding power is sufficient to accomplish all that dharmas rely on to arise, why bother to talk about causal conditions in addition to this? Although they explain that the power of the immediately preceding is different in meaning from the power of the causal condition, and both have functions in the arising of dharmas, there is no actual reason, only false words. Because the power of the accompanying elements is continuously present, one cannot say that there is a separate causal function apart from the immediately preceding power of the mind, etc. Moreover, the Sthaviras cling to the idea that although the substance of a dharma has passed through eons, its self-continuum still continues to transform, and it is still a causal nature. Now, observing this dharma, it can only serve as a condition, giving rise to a mind that rejoices in itself, falsely calculating joy, and having no actual effect on the arising of dharmas.
能為因。所以者何。若有法體雖經劫滅。猶能為因。即彼為因。足能生法。何勞虛構。隨界為因。又若彼法雖無有體。而能為因生所生法。是則應許諸石女兒亦能為因生餘子息。若謂因體本有今無。諸石女兒本亦無者。則應彼法不成因緣。本有因時果法未起。今果起位。因體已無。故說因緣定應無用。若上座許唯自相續生起決定得為因緣。云何復許善不善法為因緣生無記異熟。非善不善隨界為因可生無記。相續異故。若善不善。無間能生無記異熟。此中應說。何故云何善不善為因生無記異熟。若言無記熏善不善故善不善為無記因。此亦非理。前已數辯彼熏習言。無實義故。又彼云何善不善法。無記熏故。成異熟因。若謂先時異熟熏故。則應異熟為異熟因。若異熟果。善不善法為因故生。而言此中無因緣用。唯增上攝。甚為非理。所以者何。善不善為因能牽起彼果。此于彼果。何故非因。又彼所言。違越聖教。如契經說。此因此緣。令彼有情生地獄等。又說眼等以業為因。又說諸生業為因等。此中上座。作是釋言。諸增上緣。不越因性。故我所說。其理善成。此亦非理。離因緣外。經別說有增上緣故。又曾無處同彼說故。謂曾無經作如是說。增上緣性。即是因緣。正理論師。容作是釋。非譬喻者。可作是言。以能作因。
非彼許故。又彼上座。如何可執言。一心具有種種界。熏習一心多界。理不成故。非聖教中許勝義法有唯一體多體整合。若言有心。其體雖一。而於其內。界有眾多。多界與心。體無異故。界應成一。心與多界。體無異故。心應成多。諸界相望。體無異故。一與一切體應相雜。此執終非理應上廣思擇。然隨界名。應言隨過。無量過失。所隨逐故。觀彼但欲破聖教故。壞正理故。矯立此名。或彼但由法性深細。不能久忍。聞思疲勞。是故於中未能了達。然于諸佛弟子眾中。無方便求了達稱譽。矯立如是隨界虛名。由此應隨阿毗達磨所說正理以釋因緣。是故因緣五因為性。誠為善說。不可傾動。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之十一
辯因緣已。等無間緣。何法為性。非后已生心心所法。謂除阿羅漢最後心心所。諸餘已生心心所法。一切皆是等無間緣。為簡未來無為法故。說已生言。為簡諸色不相應故。說心心所。何故等無間緣唯心心所。此與等無間緣義相應故。此緣生法等而無間。依此義立等無間名。謂一相續。必無同類二法俱生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 並非如此允許的緣故。而且那位上座（Sthavira，佛教長老），如何可以執著地說，一個心中具有種種界（dhātu，構成要素）？熏習一個心而產生多個界，道理上是不成立的。聖教中並不允許勝義法（paramārtha-satya，究竟真理）是唯一體或多體整合。如果說有心，其體雖然是一個，但在其內，界有眾多。多個界與心，體沒有差異，界應該成為一個。心與多個界，體沒有差異，心應該成為多個。諸界相互觀望，體沒有差異，一個與一切體應該相雜。這種執著終究不是理應在上廣泛思擇的。然而隨著界的名字，應該說隨著過失。無量過失，所隨逐的緣故。觀察他們只是想破壞聖教的緣故，破壞正理的緣故，矯飾地設立這個名字。或者他們只是由於法性深細，不能長久忍耐，聞思疲勞，因此于其中未能了達。然而在諸佛弟子眾中，沒有方便求得了達的稱譽，矯飾地設立如此隨界的虛名。由此應該隨著阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）所說的正理來解釋因緣。因此因緣以五因為自性，誠為善說，不可傾動。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第十九 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯差別品第二之十一 辯論因緣之後，等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，等無間緣），什麼法為自性？不是后已生的心心所法（citta-caitta dharma，心和心所法）。謂除阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）最後的心心所，其餘已生的心心所法，一切都是等無間緣。爲了簡別未來和無為法（asaṃskṛta dharma，非因緣和合的法），所以說『已生』。爲了簡別諸色（rūpa，物質）和不相應法（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，不相應行法），所以說『心心所』。為什麼等無間緣只有心心所？因為這與等無間緣的意義相應。此緣所生的法是相等而沒有間斷的。依據這個意義而立等無間之名。所謂一個相續，必定沒有同類的兩個法同時生起。
【English Translation】 English version: It is not allowed for that reason. Moreover, how can that Sthavira (Elder) adhere to the statement that one mind possesses various dhātus (elements)? The conditioning of one mind to produce multiple dhātus is logically untenable. The Holy Teaching does not permit that ultimate truths (paramārtha-satya) are either a single entity or an aggregation of multiple entities. If one says there is a mind, although its essence is one, within it, there are numerous dhātus. Since the multiple dhātus and the mind are not different in essence, the dhātus should become one. Since the mind and the multiple dhātus are not different in essence, the mind should become multiple. Considering the dhātus in relation to each other, since they are not different in essence, one and all should be intermingled. This adherence is ultimately not something that should be extensively considered. However, following the name of the dhātu, one should say following the fault. Because countless faults are pursued. Observing that they merely wish to destroy the Holy Teaching, destroy the correct reasoning, they falsely establish this name. Or they are merely unable to endure for long due to the profound subtlety of the Dharma-nature, and are fatigued by hearing and thinking, therefore they have failed to understand it. However, among the disciples of all Buddhas, there is no convenient way to seek the reputation of understanding, so they falsely establish such an empty name following the dhātus. Therefore, one should explain causality according to the correct reasoning stated in the Abhidharma (Treatise Collection). Therefore, causality, with its five causes as its nature, is truly well-spoken and cannot be overturned. Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 18 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 19 Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter 2.11: Discriminating Differences After discussing causality, what is the nature of samanantarapratyaya (the immediately preceding condition)? It is not the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta dharma) that have already arisen subsequently. That is to say, excluding the last mind and mental factors of an Arhat (one who has extinguished all afflictions), all other mind and mental factors that have already arisen are the immediately preceding condition. To distinguish it from the future and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta dharma), it is said 'already arisen'. To distinguish it from material form (rūpa) and non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), it is said 'mind and mental factors'. Why is it that only mind and mental factors are the immediately preceding condition? Because this corresponds to the meaning of the immediately preceding condition. The dharma produced by this condition is equal and without interruption. Based on this meaning, the name 'immediately preceding' is established. That is to say, in a single continuum, there can never be two dharmas of the same kind arising simultaneously.
故說名等。此緣對果。無同類法中間為隔。故名無間。若說此果無間續生名無間者。出無想等心等。望前應非無間。或無等法于中間起。名等無間。是二中間。無容得有等法生義。或前俱生心心所品等。與無間后品為緣。非唯類同名等無間。唯執同類相續者。言唯心心所。一一自類。前能為后。等無間緣如是便違本論所說。如說云何心等無間法。謂心無間。余心心所法。乃至廣說。理亦有違。謂有尋伺三摩地無間或無尋伺三摩地現前。彼尋伺應非等無間緣性。及無尋伺三摩地無間。或有尋伺三摩地現前。彼尋伺應無等無間緣起。彼言心心所雖等無間生。然非剎那無間必起。如從無想有情天沒時。五百劫前。久滅心心所。與今心心所。為等無間緣。及出二定心心所法。以入心心所。為等無間緣。是等無間生。非剎那無間。此亦應爾。彼有久滅有尋有伺無尋無伺三摩地法。為今自類等無間緣。故無如前所說過失。彼言非理。過去為現等無間緣。理不成故。若正滅位。已取后時心心所法。為等無間。豈不便成等無間法。亦有時分間隔方生。誰作定因無間不起。要余分位間隔方生。然無想天二無心定。有隔時分。當起定因。是則汝宗。余有心位心心所法。應非一切皆能為后。等無間緣。若汝謂此如阿羅漢後心心所。設不為后等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此稱作『等』（Sama）。此為緣對果，沒有同類法在中間間隔，所以稱作『無間』（Anantara）。如果說此果無間續生稱作『無間』，那麼從無想等心等（指從無想定、滅盡定等狀態出來的心識）來看，相對於之前的狀態，應該不是無間。或者說，沒有『等』的法在中間生起，稱作『等無間』。是二者中間，沒有容許『等』法生起的意義。或者說，之前的俱生心心所品等，與無間之後的品類作為緣，並非僅僅是同類才稱作『等無間』。如果僅僅執著于同類相續，說唯有心心所，一一各自的類別，前一刻能夠成為后一刻的等無間緣，這樣就違背了本論所說。例如，本論說：『什麼是心等無間法？』回答說：『心無間，其餘心心所法。』乃至廣說。 在道理上也有違背。例如，有尋伺三摩地（Vitarka-vicara-samadhi，有尋有伺的禪定）無間，或者無尋伺三摩地（Avitarka-avicara-samadhi，無尋無伺的禪定）現前，那麼彼尋伺應該不是等無間緣的性質。以及無尋伺三摩地無間，或者有尋伺三摩地現前，那麼彼尋伺應該沒有等無間緣的生起。他們說心心所雖然等無間生起，但並非剎那無間必定生起。例如，從無想有情天（Asamjnasattva，無想有情天）死亡時，五百劫前，很久以前滅去的心心所，與現在的心心所，作為等無間緣。以及從二定（指無想定和滅盡定）出來的心心所法，以進入的心心所，作為等無間緣。這是等無間生起，並非剎那無間。這裡也應該如此。他們有很久以前滅去的有尋有伺、無尋無伺三摩地法，作為現在自己類別的等無間緣，所以沒有像前面所說的過失。 他們說不合理，過去作為現在的等無間緣，道理上不成立。如果正滅位，已經取了后時的心心所法，作為等無間，豈不就成了等無間法，也有時分間隔才生起。誰作了定因無間不起？要其餘分位間隔才生起。然而無想天（Asamjnasattva）和二無心定（指無想定和滅盡定），有間隔時分，當生起定因。那麼按照你們的宗義，其餘有心位的心心所法，應該不是一切都能作為后一刻的等無間緣。如果你們認為這就像阿羅漢（Arhat）的後心心所，即使不作為后一刻的等
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is called 'Sama' (equal). This is the cause in relation to the effect, with no similar dharma intervening, hence it is called 'Anantara' (without interval). If it is said that this effect arises continuously without interval and is called 'Anantara,' then from the perspective of mind and mental factors arising from states like the Asamjnas (non-perceptual realm), etc. (referring to emerging from states of Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment) and Asamjnasamadhi (non-perceptual concentration)), it should not be without interval compared to the previous state. Or, if a dharma that is not 'Sama' arises in between, it is called 'Samanantara' (immediately contiguous). In between these two, there is no possibility for a 'Sama' dharma to arise. Or, the previous co-arisen mind and mental factors, etc., serve as a condition for the subsequent uninterrupted category; it is not merely that being of the same type is called 'Samanantara.' If one clings only to the continuity of the same type, saying that only mind and mental factors, each of their own kind, can be the Samanantara-pratyaya (immediately contiguous condition) for the subsequent one, then this would contradict what is stated in the original treatise. For example, the treatise says: 'What is the dharma of mind as Samanantara?' The answer is: 'Mind without interval, and the remaining mental factors,' and so on. There is also a contradiction in principle. For example, Vitarka-vicara-samadhi (concentration with initial and sustained thought) without interval, or Avitarka-avicara-samadhi (concentration without initial and sustained thought) manifests; then that Vitarka (initial thought) should not be the nature of the Samanantara-pratyaya. And Avitarka-avicara-samadhi without interval, or Vitarka-vicara-samadhi manifests; then that Vitarka should not have the arising of the Samanantara-pratyaya. They say that although mind and mental factors arise as Samanantara, they do not necessarily arise without a moment's interval. For example, when dying from the Asamjnasattva (non-perceptual being) realm, the mind and mental factors that perished long ago, five hundred kalpas (aeons) before, serve as the Samanantara-pratyaya for the present mind and mental factors. And the dharma of mind and mental factors emerging from the two concentrations (referring to Nirodha-samapatti and Asamjnasamadhi), with the entering mind and mental factors, serve as the Samanantara-pratyaya. This is Samanantara arising, not without a moment's interval. It should be the same here. They have the Vitarka-vicara, Avitarka-avicara Samadhi dharmas that perished long ago, serving as the Samanantara-pratyaya for the present category of their own, so there is no fault as mentioned before. They say it is unreasonable; the past serving as the Samanantara-pratyaya for the present is not established in principle. If, in the state of cessation, one has already taken the mind and mental factors of a later time as Samanantara, wouldn't it then become a Samanantara dharma, which also arises with a temporal interval? Who makes the definite cause not arise without interval? It is necessary for other divisional positions to arise with an interval. However, the Asamjnasattva and the two mindless concentrations (referring to Nirodha-samapatti and Asamjnasamadhi) have an interval of time, when the definite cause will arise. Then, according to your doctrine, the mind and mental factors in other mind-possessing states should not all be able to serve as the Samanantara-pratyaya for the subsequent moment. If you think that this is like the later mind and mental factors of an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana), even if they do not serve as the subsequent
無間緣。有何過者。亦不應理。彼后無間心心所法。永不生故。此後無間心心所法。當有可生。于中亦無等類為間。何非緣體。又此心品無間所生。復以何緣。非等無間。然有能容后余心心所。令必可起名等無間緣。彼阿羅漢後心心所無容起后。故非此例。于有漏定。理且如前。無漏定中。當更徴斥謂若依止有尋伺定。而得證入正性離生。不起期心復得上果。后入無漏無尋伺定。前所依定。不復現前。彼前定應非等無間緣性。或若依止第二靜慮。乃至依止第四靜慮。而得證入正性離生。不起期心。得阿羅漢。后入無漏初靜慮等。彼后定應無等無間緣起。非執同類相續者宗。必有當生有尋伺定故。及有已滅無尋伺定故。又此何勞更深徴斥。且初無漏心等應不生。無等無間緣為能取故。既爾解脫畢竟應無。豈不如無同類因取而有無漏初心等生。如是雖無等無間緣取。何妨無漏初心等亦生。此例非等。緣必具故。謂此雖無同類因取。有餘因故。定有因緣。初無漏心及心所法。有所緣故。如餘一切心心所法。定四緣生。執同類宗。二事皆闕。此心心所。如何得生。非有極成心心所法。從三緣起可為同喻。是故解脫畢竟應無。若爾唯應此心心所生由異類等無間緣。如無同類因唯異類牽起。此亦非理。種子理故。立同類因。有漏不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無間緣』（Anantarika-pratyaya，直接緣）。若說它有何過失，這也是不合道理的。因為在它之後的『無間』（Anantara，直接）的心和心所法，永遠不會再生起。而在此之後的『無間』（Anantara，直接）的心和心所法，應當有可以生起的。其中也沒有同類作為間隔，為何不能作為緣的自體呢？又，這心品『無間』（Anantara，直接）所生起的，又以什麼緣故，不是『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）呢？然而，有能夠容納後來的其餘心和心所法，令其必定可以生起，這叫做『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）。那些阿羅漢（Arhat）的最後心和心所法，沒有容納後續生起的可能，所以不能作為這個例子。 對於有漏定（Sāsrava-samādhi，有漏定），道理且如前面所說。在無漏定（Anāsrava-samādhi，無漏定）中，應當更進一步地駁斥：如果依靠有尋伺定（Savitarka-savicāra-samādhi，有尋伺定）而證入正性離生（Samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti，趣入正性決定），不起預期的心而得到上果（Uttara-phala，更高的果位），之後進入無漏無尋伺定（Anāsrava-avitarka-avicāra-samādhi，無漏無尋伺定），之前所依靠的定，不再現前。那麼，之前的定應當不是『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）的性質。 或者，如果依靠第二靜慮（Dhyāna，禪那），乃至依靠第四靜慮（Dhyāna，禪那），而證入正性離生（Samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti，趣入正性決定），不起預期的心，得到阿羅漢（Arhat）果位，之後進入無漏的初靜慮（Dhyāna，禪那）等，那麼，之後的定應當沒有『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）的生起。因為執著同類相續的宗派，必定有應當生起的有尋伺定（Savitarka-savicāra-samādhi，有尋伺定），以及有已經滅去的無尋伺定（Avitarka-avicāra-samādhi，無尋伺定）。 又，這何勞更深入地駁斥呢？且最初的無漏心等應當不生起，因為『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）是能夠攝取它的緣故。既然這樣，解脫（Moksha，解脫）畢竟應當不存在。難道不像沒有同類因的攝取，而有無漏的最初心等生起嗎？像這樣，即使沒有『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）的攝取，又有什麼妨礙無漏的最初心等也生起呢？ 這個例子是不相等的，因為緣必定要具足。意思是說，雖然沒有同類因的攝取，但有其餘的因的緣故，必定有因緣。最初的無漏心和心所法，有所緣的緣故，像其餘一切心和心所法一樣，必定由四緣所生。執著同類宗派，這兩件事都欠缺。這心和心所，如何能夠生起呢？沒有極其成立的心和心所法，可以從三緣生起作為相同的比喻。因此，解脫（Moksha，解脫）畢竟應當不存在。 如果這樣，唯獨應當是這心和心所的生起，由異類『等無間緣』（Samanantarika-pratyaya，等無間緣）所生起，就像沒有同類因，唯獨由異類牽引生起一樣。這也是不合道理的，因為有種子的道理，所以才立同類因。有漏不是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Anantarika-pratyaya' (immediately preceding condition). If one says it has any fault, that is also unreasonable. Because the mind and mental factors immediately following it will never arise again. And the mind and mental factors immediately following this should be able to arise. There is no similar kind as an interval in between, so why can't it be the substance of the condition? Furthermore, by what condition is this mind-group, which arises immediately, not a 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition)? However, there is that which can accommodate the subsequent remaining minds and mental factors, causing them to necessarily arise, and this is called 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition). The final mind and mental factors of those Arhats (Arhat) have no possibility of accommodating subsequent arising, so they cannot be taken as an example. Regarding the contaminated concentration (Sāsrava-samādhi), the reasoning is as before. In uncontaminated concentration (Anāsrava-samādhi), one should further refute: If one relies on concentration with investigation and analysis (Savitarka-savicāra-samādhi) and attains entry into the rightness of definite condition (Samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti), without generating an anticipatory mind and attains a higher fruit (Uttara-phala), and then enters uncontaminated concentration without investigation and analysis (Anāsrava-avitarka-avicāra-samādhi), the concentration previously relied upon no longer manifests. Then, the previous concentration should not be of the nature of 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition). Or, if one relies on the second Dhyāna (Dhyāna), or even the fourth Dhyāna (Dhyāna), and attains entry into the rightness of definite condition (Samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti), without generating an anticipatory mind, and attains the state of an Arhat (Arhat), and then enters the uncontaminated first Dhyāna (Dhyāna) and so on, then the subsequent concentration should not have the arising of 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition). Because the school that adheres to the continuity of similar kinds necessarily has the concentration with investigation and analysis (Savitarka-savicāra-samādhi) that should arise, and the concentration without investigation and analysis (Avitarka-avicāra-samādhi) that has already ceased. Moreover, why bother with further deep refutation? Furthermore, the initial uncontaminated mind and so on should not arise, because 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition) is the condition that can grasp it. Since this is the case, liberation (Moksha) should ultimately not exist. Isn't it like the arising of the initial uncontaminated mind and so on without the grasping of a similar cause? In this way, even without the grasping of 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition), what prevents the initial uncontaminated mind and so on from also arising? This example is not equal, because the conditions must be complete. It means that although there is no grasping of a similar cause, there are other causes, so there must be conditions. The initial uncontaminated mind and mental factors have an object to be cognized, so like all other minds and mental factors, they must arise from the four conditions. The school that adheres to similar kinds lacks both of these things. How can this mind and mental factors arise? There is no extremely established mind and mental factors that can arise from three conditions as a similar analogy. Therefore, liberation (Moksha) should ultimately not exist. If that is the case, then it should only be that the arising of this mind and mental factors is caused by dissimilar 'Samanantarika-pratyaya' (contiguous condition), just as without a similar cause, it is only drawn by a dissimilar kind to arise. This is also unreasonable, because there is the principle of seeds, so a similar cause is established. Contamination is not like this.
應為無漏種。故非許此有同類因等無間緣。由開避理。同類異類。皆有此能。與處牽生。力無別故。諸心心所。隨其所應。同類異類。皆能引起。許皆能作等無間緣。于教及理。並無違失。無想等喻。與法不同。謂不相應。非心心所。故不能作等無間緣。沒及出時。心心所法。可還用彼生及入時心心所法為此緣起。余有心位。剎那剎那。等無間緣。曾無暫闕。何勞以隔越為等無間緣。夫等無間緣。謂與處牽起。異類心等。與處牽起義同。而非等無間緣。斯有何理。又應貪等等無間緣無間唯生貪等煩惱。則善心等。無容得生。如是信等等無間緣無間。唯應生於信等。則染心等。無容得生。由是等難。便為善伏。唯執同類相續者論。何故一身心心所法。無有同類二體俱生。等無間緣。無第二故。復何緣故。無有第二等無間緣。一一有情。各唯一心。相續轉故。復何緣故。知諸有情。各唯一心相續而轉。心於余境。正馳散時。于余境中。不審知故。又心在定。專一境時。余境散心。必不生故。又現有能調伏心故。謂若許有二心俱生。誰復障多。令不俱起。是則應有多心並生。一有一心。尚難調伏。況一有二。或一有多。既現有能調伏心者。故知一身內一心相續生。又若一身多心並起。為境各別。為共相應。若共相應。一境一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應是無漏的種子。因此不應允許這種有同類因的等無間緣（saṃanantarapratyaya，直接且無間斷的緣）。因為開避了這種道理，同類和異類，都有這種能力。與處牽引生起，力量沒有差別。各種心和心所（caitta，心理活動），根據它們各自相應的，同類和異類，都能引起。允許它們都能作為等無間緣。在教義和道理上，都沒有違背和缺失。無想定（asaṃjñāsamāpatti，一種無意識的禪定）等的比喻，與法不同。因為它們是不相應的，不是心和心所。所以不能作為等無間緣。入滅和出滅的時候，心和心所法，可以還用它們生起和進入時的心和心所法作為這種緣起。其餘有心位的時候，剎那剎那，等無間緣，從來沒有暫時缺失。何必用間隔越過（時間或空間）的作為等無間緣呢？所謂的等無間緣，是指與處牽引生起。異類心等，與處牽引生起的意義相同，但不是等無間緣。這有什麼道理呢？又應該貪等等無間緣無間，只生起貪等煩惱。那麼善心等，就沒有容身之地得以生起。像這樣，信等等無間緣無間，只應該生起信等。那麼染污心等，就沒有容身之地得以生起。因為這些困難，就被很好地克服了。只有執著同類相續的人才會爭論。為什麼一身的心和心所法，沒有同類的兩個體同時生起？因為等無間緣，沒有第二個的緣故。又是什麼緣故，沒有第二個等無間緣？因為每一個有情（sattva，眾生），各自只有一個心，相續運轉的緣故。又是什麼緣故，知道各種有情，各自只有一個心相續而運轉？因為心在其他的境界上，正在馳散的時候，對於其他的境界中，不能審慎地知道的緣故。又心在禪定中，專一於一個境界的時候，其餘境界的散亂心，必定不會生起的緣故。又現在有能夠調伏心的緣故。如果允許有兩個心同時生起，誰又會阻止更多的心，令它們不一起生起呢？那麼就應該有很多心並生。一個心，尚且難以調伏。何況一個身體里有兩個，或者一個身體里有很多個。既然現在有能夠調伏心的人，所以知道一個身體內，一個心相續生起。又如果一個身體里多個心並起，是境界各自不同，還是共同相應？如果共同相應，一個境界，一個
【English Translation】 English version: It should be a seed of no outflows (anāsrava-bīja). Therefore, it should not be allowed that this has a homogeneous cause as the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya). Because this principle is opened up and avoided, both homogeneous and heterogeneous types have this ability. The force of drawing forth at the place is no different. Various minds (citta) and mental factors (caitta), according to their respective appropriateness, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, can give rise to. It is allowed that they can all act as the immediately preceding condition. There is no contradiction or deficiency in doctrine and reason. The analogy of the state of non-perception (asaṃjñāsamāpatti) and others is different from the Dharma (law, principle). Because they are not associated, they are not mind and mental factors. Therefore, they cannot act as the immediately preceding condition. At the time of cessation and emergence, mind and mental factors can still use the mind and mental factors at the time of their arising and entering as this condition. At other times when there is mind, moment by moment, the immediately preceding condition has never been temporarily lacking. Why bother using something separated (in time or space) as the immediately preceding condition? The so-called immediately preceding condition refers to drawing forth at the place. Heterogeneous minds and so on have the same meaning of drawing forth at the place, but they are not the immediately preceding condition. What is the reason for this? Furthermore, the immediately preceding condition of greed and so on should only give rise to afflictions such as greed. Then, there would be no room for wholesome minds and so on to arise. In this way, the immediately preceding condition of faith and so on should only give rise to faith and so on. Then, there would be no room for defiled minds and so on to arise. Because of these difficulties, they are well overcome. Only those who cling to the continuity of the same type will argue. Why is it that in one body, mind and mental factors do not have two entities of the same type arising simultaneously? Because the immediately preceding condition does not have a second. Furthermore, what is the reason that there is no second immediately preceding condition? Because each sentient being (sattva) has only one mind, which continues to turn. Furthermore, what is the reason for knowing that various sentient beings each have only one mind that continues to turn? Because when the mind is scattering in other objects, it cannot carefully know in other objects. Furthermore, when the mind is in meditation, focused on one object, the scattered mind in other objects will certainly not arise. Furthermore, there is now the ability to tame the mind. If it is allowed that two minds arise simultaneously, who would prevent more minds from not arising together? Then there should be many minds arising together. One mind is already difficult to tame. How much more so if there are two in one body, or many in one body. Since there is now someone who can tame the mind, it is known that within one body, one mind arises continuously. Furthermore, if multiple minds arise together in one body, are the objects different, or are they mutually corresponding? If they are mutually corresponding, one object, one
相。無差別故。俱起唐捐。若境各別。則應染凈善惡俱生。便無解脫。既無此失。故一有情。唯有一心相續而轉。復有至教。證一有情唯有一心相續而轉。謂契經說。受樂受時。彼于爾時。二受俱滅。又契經說。心為獨行。復云何知。無有識等生而不藉等無間緣。由阿笈摩及正理故。阿笈摩者。如契經言。及彼能生作意正起。由正理者。現見覺慧。定由覺慧為先生故。若異此者。何理能遮。本無有情。今時欻起。諸阿羅漢。最後心心所。何緣故說非等無間緣。是不能生。有法性故。即是不能牽後果義。此復何故。無牽果能。以于爾時余緣闕故。若爾但由余緣闕故。后識不生。許此有能牽後果用。斯有何咎。此不應許。若許能牽。則應具能取果與果。余有心位等無間緣無非具此二功能故。豈不即以余緣闕故不具二能。是則應言。余緣闕故。不能牽果。由此故說。是不能生有法性故。因義極成。或復能牽能與等無間心心所處。名等無間緣。謂正滅時心心所法。能牽能與。在正生位。等無間法處。名等無間緣。諸阿羅漢。最後心等。于正滅時。無有正生等無間法。故不可說等無間緣。若爾無想及二定前心心所法。于正滅位正生位中。無等無間心心所法。望沒出位。諸心心所。應不可說等無間緣。無斯過失。沒出心等。定當生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：相，因為沒有差別。如果同時生起，就都將是徒勞無功的。如果境是各不相同的，那麼染污、清凈、善、惡就應該同時產生，這樣就沒有解脫了。既然沒有這種過失，所以一個有情，只有一顆心相續不斷地流轉。還有至高的教義，證明一個有情只有一顆心相續不斷地流轉。就像契經所說，感受快樂感受的時候，他在那個時候，兩種感受都滅盡了。又契經說，心是獨自執行的。又怎麼知道，沒有識等產生而不依靠等無間緣（saṃanantarapratyaya，直接的、無間斷的因緣）呢？通過阿笈摩（āgama，聖傳、經）以及正理的緣故。阿笈摩，就像契經所說，以及那個能夠產生作意（manaskāra，心理活動）的正確生起。通過正理，現見覺慧（buddhi，智慧），一定是由覺慧作為先生的緣故。如果不是這樣，什麼道理能夠阻止，本來沒有有情，現在突然產生呢？諸位阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟者）的最後的心和心所（caitta，心理活動），因為什麼緣故說不是等無間緣？是因為不能產生，具有法的自性。也就是不能牽引後果的意義。這又是因為什麼緣故，沒有牽引果的能力呢？因為在那個時候其餘的因緣缺少的緣故。如果這樣，僅僅因為其餘的因緣缺少的緣故，後來的識不產生，允許這個有能力牽引後果的作用，這有什麼過失呢？這不應該允許。如果允許能夠牽引，那麼就應該具有能夠取果和與果的能力。其餘有心位的等無間緣沒有不具備這兩種功能的緣故。難道不是因為其餘的因緣缺少的緣故不具備這兩種能力嗎？這樣就應該說，其餘的因緣缺少的緣故，不能牽引果。因此才說，是不能產生具有法的自性的緣故，因的意義非常成立。或者能夠牽引、能夠給予等無間的心和心所處，叫做等無間緣。就是在正確滅的時候，心和心所法，能夠牽引、能夠給予，在正確生起的位置，等無間法處，叫做等無間緣。諸位阿羅漢，最後的心等，在正確滅的時候，沒有正確生起的等無間法，所以不可以說是等無間緣。如果這樣，無想（asaṃjñā，無想狀態）以及二定（dhyāna，禪定）前的心和心所法，在正確滅的位置，正確生起的位置中，沒有等無間的心和心所法，期望沒出位，諸位心和心所，應該不可以說是等無間緣。沒有這種過失。沒出心等，必定會產生。 English version: The characteristic, because there is no difference. If they arise simultaneously, they will all be in vain. If the realms are different, then defilement, purity, good, and evil should arise simultaneously, and there would be no liberation. Since there is no such fault, therefore, a sentient being has only one mind that continues to flow. There is also the supreme teaching that proves that a sentient being has only one mind that continues to flow. Just as the sutra says, when experiencing pleasant feelings, at that time, both feelings cease. Also, the sutra says that the mind travels alone. How do we know that there is no consciousness, etc., that arises without relying on the immediately preceding condition (saṃanantarapratyaya)? It is because of the āgama (scriptural authority) and correct reasoning. The āgama is like what the sutra says, 'and the correct arising of the attention (manaskāra) that can produce it.' Through correct reasoning, the directly perceived wisdom (buddhi) must be caused by wisdom as the prior cause. If it is not so, what reason can prevent a sentient being that did not exist originally from suddenly arising now? Why is it said that the last mind and mental factors (caitta) of the arhats (arhat, enlightened beings) are not immediately preceding conditions? It is because they cannot produce, possessing the nature of dharma. That is, they cannot lead to subsequent results. Why is it that they do not have the ability to lead to results? It is because the other conditions are lacking at that time. If so, only because the other conditions are lacking, the subsequent consciousness does not arise. Allowing this to have the function of leading to subsequent results, what fault is there? This should not be allowed. If it is allowed to lead, then it should have the ability to both take the result and give the result. The immediately preceding condition in other mind-states does not lack these two functions. Isn't it because the other conditions are lacking that it does not have these two abilities? Then it should be said that because the other conditions are lacking, it cannot lead to the result. Therefore, it is said that it cannot produce, possessing the nature of dharma, so the meaning of the cause is extremely established. Or, the place of the mind and mental factors that can lead and give the immediately preceding condition is called the immediately preceding condition. That is, when the mind and mental factors are ceasing correctly, they can lead and give. In the position of correct arising, the place of the immediately preceding dharma is called the immediately preceding condition. The last mind, etc., of the arhats, when ceasing correctly, there is no correctly arising immediately preceding dharma, so it cannot be said to be the immediately preceding condition. If so, the mind and mental factors before the non-perception (asaṃjñā) and the two concentrations (dhyāna), in the position of correct cessation, in the position of correct arising, there is no immediately preceding mind and mental factors. Expecting the position of emerging from cessation, the minds and mental factors should not be said to be the immediately preceding condition. There is no such fault. The mind of emerging from cessation, etc., will definitely arise.
【English Translation】 English version: The characteristic, because there is no difference. If they arise simultaneously, they will all be in vain. If the realms are different, then defilement, purity, good, and evil should arise simultaneously, and there would be no liberation. Since there is no such fault, therefore, a sentient being has only one mind that continues to flow. There is also the supreme teaching that proves that a sentient being has only one mind that continues to flow. Just as the sutra says, when experiencing pleasant feelings, at that time, both feelings cease. Also, the sutra says that the mind travels alone. How do we know that there is no consciousness, etc., that arises without relying on the immediately preceding condition (saṃanantarapratyaya)? It is because of the āgama (scriptural authority) and correct reasoning. The āgama is like what the sutra says, 'and the correct arising of the attention (manaskāra) that can produce it.' Through correct reasoning, the directly perceived wisdom (buddhi) must be caused by wisdom as the prior cause. If it is not so, what reason can prevent a sentient being that did not exist originally from suddenly arising now? Why is it said that the last mind and mental factors (caitta) of the arhats (arhat, enlightened beings) are not immediately preceding conditions? It is because they cannot produce, possessing the nature of dharma. That is, they cannot lead to subsequent results. Why is it that they do not have the ability to lead to results? It is because the other conditions are lacking at that time. If so, only because the other conditions are lacking, the subsequent consciousness does not arise. Allowing this to have the function of leading to subsequent results, what fault is there? This should not be allowed. If it is allowed to lead, then it should have the ability to both take the result and give the result. The immediately preceding condition in other mind-states does not lack these two functions. Isn't it because the other conditions are lacking that it does not have these two abilities? Then it should be said that because the other conditions are lacking, it cannot lead to the result. Therefore, it is said that it cannot produce, possessing the nature of dharma, so the meaning of the cause is extremely established. Or, the place of the mind and mental factors that can lead and give the immediately preceding condition is called the immediately preceding condition. That is, when the mind and mental factors are ceasing correctly, they can lead and give. In the position of correct arising, the place of the immediately preceding dharma is called the immediately preceding condition. The last mind, etc., of the arhats, when ceasing correctly, there is no correctly arising immediately preceding dharma, so it cannot be said to be the immediately preceding condition. If so, the mind and mental factors before the non-perception (asaṃjñā) and the two concentrations (dhyāna), in the position of correct cessation, in the position of correct arising, there is no immediately preceding mind and mental factors. Expecting the position of emerging from cessation, the minds and mental factors should not be said to be the immediately preceding condition. There is no such fault. The mind of emerging from cessation, etc., will definitely arise.
故生入心等於。正滅位。即能為彼等無間緣。由不相應中間為隔。沒出心等。不得即生。彼若生時。名等無間。故此可說等無間緣。或此滅時。彼雖未起中間隔越。而由為此等無間緣力所取故。義已可說等無間生。有餘釋言。無餘心等續此起故。諸阿羅漢。最後心心所。非等無間緣。然非此心更無後念識續生故。有非意失。以立意根依所顯故。然最後心。有所依義。闕余緣故。后識不生等無間緣。作用所顯。若法此緣取為果已。彼法無間。必定當生。彼所說因。都不應理。若闕余緣故。后識不生。則唯具余緣。后識應起。既不如是。應說此心由闕余緣。無此緣用。此緣無故。后識不生。何乃說言無餘心等續此生故。非此緣體。若謂最後心。亦能取果。唯余緣闕故。后識不生如是所依。得名意界。亦應說是等無間緣。等無間緣。作用所顯。此既有作用。余何不續生。由此彼應更說余理。故前二釋。為無過因。何故未來心心所法。全不許立等無間緣。等無間緣。前後所顯。未來無故。不立此緣。謂前已生心心所法。能為次後在正生位心心所等等無間緣。非於未來已有決定前後安立。設許有者。修正加行則為唐捐。若法先於此無間立。此法無間。彼定生故。若作是執。善心無間。具有善染無記三心。生必待于正加行等。如從
種有灰芽等生。待和合緣。而得生故。修正加行。功不唐捐。此救隨情。未能遣難。生決定故。建立此緣。若三心中。隨有一種。善心無間。決定生者。修正加行。則為唐捐。若三種心。善心無間非定生者。則無此緣。非不定生名等無間。是故未來世。無等無間緣。若執未來有定前後。如世第一于苦忍等。彼據何緣。說定前後。非未來法前後可成。謂非未來世第一法于苦法忍可說前後。以彼本唯一世攝故。夫前後義。歷世方成。世第一法至已生位。苦法智忍。方名為后。故前後義。于未來無等無間緣。由此非有。又設未來有定前後。亦不可立等無間緣。如芽等生屬種等故。雖有前後。而無此緣。若此法生。系屬彼法。要彼起已。此乃得生。故等無間緣。唯生已方立。若爾未來世。應無異熟因。由此因果定有前後。然非未來有前後故。無斯過失。雖定前後。而不約之立此因故。謂雖異熟因定有前後。而不約前後立異熟因。若爾如何立此因果。謂如是業因感如是異熟。此相可說亦在未來。故於未來。亦可安立。然約法性。預說未來。此因前生。此果後起。因已生位。果后義成。爾時方名真實前後。非未生位有實前後。諸因可說未來有者。彼因不待歷世而立。如俱有因相應因等。豈不俱有因待中世而立。此責非理。不了義故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『種有灰芽等生』（種子、灰燼、嫩芽等產生），需要等待各種條件和合才能產生。因此，修正加行（通過修行來改正行為）不會白費功夫。這種補救措施只是暫時緩解情況，不能完全消除困難，因為（果報的）產生是註定的。因此，需要建立這些因緣條件。如果在三種心中，有一種善心沒有間斷，註定會產生（善果），那麼修正加行就成了徒勞。如果這三種心中，善心沒有間斷，但並非註定產生（善果），那麼就沒有這種因緣。『非不定生名等無間』（不是非決定性的產生，稱為等無間緣）。所以，未來世沒有等無間緣。如果有人認為未來有固定的前後順序，就像世第一法（世間最高的善法）對於苦忍（對苦諦的忍可）等，那麼他們是根據什麼因緣來說明這種固定的前後順序呢？因為未來的法不能成立前後關係。也就是說，不能說未來的世第一法對於苦法忍（對苦諦之法的忍可）有前後關係，因為它們本質上都屬於同一個時期。所謂的前後關係，只有經歷不同的時期才能成立。世第一法到了已經產生的階段，苦法智忍（對苦諦之智的忍可）才能被稱為『后』。因此，前後關係在未來沒有等無間緣。由此可見，沒有等無間緣。 又假設未來有固定的前後順序，也不能成立等無間緣，就像嫩芽等的產生依賴於種子等。即使有前後順序，也沒有這種因緣。如果這個法產生，依賴於那個法，必須在那個法生起之後，這個法才能產生。所以，等無間緣只能在已經產生之後才能成立。如果這樣，那麼未來世就沒有異熟因（導致不同結果的業因）了嗎？因為這種因果關係必定有前後順序。然而，因為未來沒有前後順序，所以沒有這種過失。雖然有固定的前後順序，但不是根據這種前後順序來建立異熟因。也就是說，雖然異熟因必定有前後順序，但不是根據前後順序來建立異熟因。如果這樣，如何建立這種因果關係呢？也就是說，像這樣的業因會感得像這樣的異熟果報，這種關係是可以說明的，即使在未來也是如此。因此，在未來也可以安立這種關係。然而，根據法的性質，預先說明未來，這個因先產生，這個果後生起。在因已經產生的階段，果在後的意義才能成立。那時才能稱為真實的前後關係，而不是在未產生的階段就有真實的前後關係。那些可以被說成未來有的因，不需要經歷不同的時期來成立，比如俱有因（同時存在的因）、相應因（相互關聯的因）等。難道俱有因不是要經歷中間的時期才能成立嗎？這種責難是不合理的，因為沒有理解其真正的含義。
【English Translation】 English version 'Seeds, ashes, sprouts, etc., arise' only when various conditions are met. Therefore, correcting one's conduct through diligent practice is not in vain. This remedy only alleviates the situation temporarily and cannot completely eliminate difficulties because the arising of (karmic consequences) is predetermined. Therefore, these conditions must be established. If, among the three types of minds, there is one wholesome mind that arises without interruption and is destined to produce (good results), then correcting one's conduct becomes futile. If, among these three types of minds, the wholesome mind arises without interruption but is not destined to produce (good results), then there is no such condition. 'Not non-deterministic arising is called contiguous condition (Samanantarapratyaya)'. Therefore, there is no contiguous condition in the future. If someone believes that there is a fixed sequence of before and after in the future, like the highest mundane dharma (Lokikagradharma) in relation to forbearance towards suffering (Ksanti) etc., then based on what condition do they explain this fixed sequence of before and after? Because future dharmas cannot establish a relationship of before and after. That is, it cannot be said that the future highest mundane dharma has a relationship of before and after with the forbearance towards the dharma of suffering, because they essentially belong to the same period. The meaning of before and after can only be established by experiencing different periods. Only when the highest mundane dharma reaches the stage of having already arisen can the knowledge of forbearance towards the dharma of suffering be called 'after'. Therefore, the relationship of before and after does not have a contiguous condition in the future. Hence, there is no contiguous condition. Furthermore, even if the future has a fixed sequence of before and after, a contiguous condition cannot be established, just as the arising of sprouts etc. depends on seeds etc. Even if there is a sequence of before and after, there is no such condition. If this dharma arises and depends on that dharma, then this dharma can only arise after that dharma has arisen. Therefore, the contiguous condition can only be established after it has already arisen. If so, then is there no resultant cause (Vipakahetu) in the future? Because this cause-and-effect relationship must have a sequence of before and after. However, because the future has no sequence of before and after, there is no such fault. Although there is a fixed sequence of before and after, the resultant cause is not established based on this sequence of before and after. That is, although the resultant cause must have a sequence of before and after, the resultant cause is not established based on the sequence of before and after. If so, how is this cause-and-effect relationship established? That is, it can be said that such a karmic cause will bring about such a resultant effect, even in the future. Therefore, this relationship can also be established in the future. However, according to the nature of dharmas, it is predicted in advance that in the future, this cause will arise first, and this effect will arise later. Only when the cause has already arisen can the meaning of the effect being after be established. Only then can it be called a real relationship of before and after, not a real relationship of before and after in the unarisen stage. Those causes that can be said to exist in the future do not need to go through different periods to be established, such as the coexistent cause (Sahabhuhetu), the associative cause (Samprayuktakahetu), etc. Isn't the coexistent cause established by going through the intermediate period? This accusation is unreasonable because it does not understand its true meaning.
。以俱時有故名俱有因。是更互相望為因果義。若未來世無等無間緣。如何世尊知未來因果。如契經說。若能供養吾身。馱都八分中一。當十三劫。不墮惡趣。人天往還。受諸妙樂。如是等說。其數寔多。非如是儔一切智境。非一切智可能測量知其真實。如世尊說。諸佛德用。諸佛境界。不可思議。故不應責。有餘師說。如過去世。佛于未來。現知見轉。謂佛欲知有情因果。然現在世。時分短促。故多觀察過去未來。非佛世尊欲知后際先觀前際然後能知。如佛世尊更無所待。由過去境智現前故。於過去世有情身中業果相應。能善通達此法無間。此法已生。如是不待先觀前際。由未來境智現前故。于未來世有情身中業果相應。能定現見。此法無間。此法當生。復有餘師。作如是說。有情身內現有未來。因果先相。猶如影像。或色或心。不相應行。佛唯觀此。便知未來。非要現游靜慮通慧。然非於彼占相故知。以于未來現證見故。非占相知。能于所佔。現前證見。分明記別。佛于如是爾焰稠林。理有所因。方能現起。無礙觀察。勝方便智。非佛自稱一切智者。便於色等現境界中。非眼等識于先領受。唯用意識常現了知。又眼等識于聲等境。理無方便。令互作業。何緣一切。色非等無間緣。等無間義不相應故。非無等法俱生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為同時存在而被稱為俱有因（俱時有故名俱有因）。這是互相觀望作為因果的意義（是更互相望為因果義）。如果未來世沒有等無間緣（若未來世無等無間緣），世尊如何得知未來的因果（如何世尊知未來因果）？正如契經所說：『如果能夠供養我的身體，在八份舍利中供養一份（若能供養吾身，馱都八分中一），當在十三劫中不墮入惡趣（當十三劫，不墮惡趣），在人天之間往返，享受各種美妙的快樂（人天往還，受諸妙樂）。』像這樣的說法實在很多（如是等說，其數寔多）。不是像這樣的一類事物是一切智的境界（非如是儔一切智境），不是一切智所能測量得知其真實的（非一切智可能測量知其真實）。正如世尊所說，諸佛的德行和作用（諸佛德用），諸佛的境界（諸佛境界），是不可思議的（不可思議），所以不應該責難（故不應責）。 有其他老師說（有餘師說），如同過去世一樣（如過去世），佛在未來，顯現知見的轉變（佛于未來，現知見轉）。意思是說佛想要知道有情眾生的因果（謂佛欲知有情因果），然而現在世，時間短暫（然現在世，時分短促），所以多觀察過去和未來（故多觀察過去未來）。不是說佛世尊想要知道未來的事情，必須先觀察過去的事情然後才能知道（非佛世尊欲知后際先觀前際然後能知）。如同佛世尊不再需要任何憑藉（如佛世尊更無所待），由於過去境界的智慧顯現的緣故（由過去境智現前故），對於過去世有情眾生身中的業果相應（於過去世有情身中業果相應），能夠很好地通達這個法沒有間隔（能善通達此法無間），這個法已經產生（此法已生）。像這樣不需要先觀察過去的事情（如是不待先觀前際），由於未來境界的智慧顯現的緣故（由未來境智現前故），對於未來世有情眾生身中的業果相應（于未來世有情身中業果相應），能夠確定地顯現看見（能定現見），這個法沒有間隔（此法無間），這個法將要產生（此法當生）。 又有其他老師，這樣說（復有餘師，作如是說），有情眾生的身體內現在就有未來的因果的先兆（有情身內現有未來，因果先相），猶如影像（猶如影像），或者是色法（或色），或者是心法（或心），或者是不相應行法（不相應行），佛只是觀察這些（佛唯觀此），便知道未來（便知未來），不需要顯現地運用靜慮和通慧（非要現游靜慮通慧）。然而不是通過占卜相術來得知（然非於彼占相故知），因為對於未來有直接的證見（以于未來現證見故），不是通過占卜相術得知（非占相知），能夠對於所占卜的事物，現前證見（能于所佔，現前證見），分明地記住和辨別（分明記別）。佛對於像這樣細微繁雜的事物（佛于如是爾焰稠林），有道理上的原因（理有所因），才能顯現出（方能現起），沒有阻礙的觀察（無礙觀察），殊勝方便的智慧（勝方便智）。不是佛自己聲稱是一切智者（非佛自稱一切智者），就能對於色等顯現的境界中（便於色等現境界中），不是眼等識首先領受（非眼等識于先領受），只用意識常常顯現了知（唯用意識常現了知）。 而且眼等識對於聲音等境界（又眼等識于聲等境），道理上沒有辦法（理無方便），讓它們互相作用（令互作業）。為什麼一切色法不是等無間緣（何緣一切，色非等無間緣）？因為等無間的意義不相應（等無間義不相應故）。不是沒有等同的法同時產生（非無等法俱生）。
【English Translation】 English version: It is called a co-existent cause (俱有因) because it exists simultaneously (俱時有故名俱有因). This is the meaning of viewing each other as cause and effect (是更互相望為因果義). If there is no immediately preceding condition (等無間緣) in the future (若未來世無等無間緣), how does the World-Honored One (世尊) know the future cause and effect (如何世尊知未來因果)? As the sutra says: 'If one can make offerings to my body, offering one of the eight parts of the relics (若能供養吾身，馱都八分中一), one will not fall into evil realms for thirteen kalpas (當十三劫，不墮惡趣), wandering between humans and gods, enjoying various wonderful pleasures (人天往還，受諸妙樂).' Such statements are numerous (如是等說，其數寔多). It is not that such things are within the realm of omniscience (非如是儔一切智境), it is not that omniscience can measure and know their truth (非一切智可能測量知其真實). As the World-Honored One said, the virtues and functions of all Buddhas (諸佛德用), the realms of all Buddhas (諸佛境界), are inconceivable (不可思議), so one should not criticize (故不應責). Other teachers say (有餘師說), just like in the past (如過去世), the Buddha in the future manifests the transformation of knowledge and vision (佛于未來，現知見轉). It means that the Buddha wants to know the cause and effect of sentient beings (謂佛欲知有情因果), but the present is short (然現在世，時分短促), so he observes the past and future more (故多觀察過去未來). It is not that the World-Honored One wants to know the future, he must first observe the past before he can know (非佛世尊欲知后際先觀前際然後能知). Just as the World-Honored One no longer needs any reliance (如佛世尊更無所待), because the wisdom of the past realm manifests (由過去境智現前故), he can well understand the corresponding karma and fruit in the bodies of sentient beings in the past (於過去世有情身中業果相應), this dharma has no gap (能善通達此法無間), this dharma has already arisen (此法已生). Like this, without waiting to observe the past first (如是不待先觀前際), because the wisdom of the future realm manifests (由未來境智現前故), he can definitely see the corresponding karma and fruit in the bodies of sentient beings in the future (于未來世有情身中業果相應), this dharma has no gap (此法無間), this dharma will arise (此法當生). There are other teachers who say this (復有餘師，作如是說), there are present in the bodies of sentient beings the preliminary signs of future cause and effect (有情身內現有未來，因果先相), like images (猶如影像), or form (色), or mind (心), or non-associated formations (不相應行), the Buddha only observes these (佛唯觀此), then he knows the future (便知未來), without having to manifest meditative concentration and supernormal wisdom (非要現游靜慮通慧). However, it is not known by divination (然非於彼占相故知), because there is direct realization of the future (以于未來現證見故), it is not known by divination (非占相知), one can directly realize what is divined (能于所佔，現前證見), clearly remember and distinguish (分明記別). The Buddha, for such subtle and complex things (佛于如是爾焰稠林), has a reason in principle (理有所因), then he can manifest (方能現起), unobstructed observation (無礙觀察), and superior expedient wisdom (勝方便智). It is not that the Buddha himself claims to be omniscient (非佛自稱一切智者), he can, in the manifested realms of form and so on (便於色等現境界中), it is not that the eye consciousness and so on first receive (非眼等識于先領受), only the mind consciousness constantly manifests and knows (唯用意識常現了知). Moreover, the eye consciousness and so on, for the realms of sound and so on (又眼等識于聲等境), there is no way in principle (理無方便), to make them interact (令互作業). Why is it that all forms are not immediately preceding conditions (何緣一切，色非等無間緣)? Because the meaning of immediately preceding does not correspond (等無間義不相應故). It is not that there are no equal dharmas arising simultaneously (非無等法俱生).
為隔。故此無有等無間緣。謂一身中一長養色。相續不斷。復有第二長養色生。不相違害。如一食等所長養色。相續不斷。復有食等所長養色。相續而生。又有一類異熟生色。相續不斷。復有一類異熟生色。相續而生。又一四大種所生造色同類多極微俱時而起。故不可立等無間緣。或法現前等而無間彼法可立等無間緣。謂現行心。若此所繫。或非所繫。俱行受等。與此皆同。故名為等。無心受等同一類法二體俱生。故名無間。色法不爾謂一心時有欲界系及色界系。二色並生。或欲界系及不繫色。俱時而起。故色無有等無間緣。上座此中妄作是詰。若一類色。相續不斷。復有一類。相續而生。由此故非等無間者。何緣于彼不共無明相應品中。有貪等起。此應反詰。彼上座言。不共無明相應心品。何緣得有貪等俱生。不共無明。相續未斷。定無貪等俱時起義。然說貪等不共無明俱時起者。但為誘誑寡學門人。顯己善通對法宗義。而於本論及諸聖言。曾無此理。又彼所詰。意何所顯。為如二種長養眼根相無差別。例彼貪等不共無明。相亦無異。為如貪等不共無明其相有異。例彼二種長養眼根。相亦差別。縱有此意。應陳所詰。於此義中。得何勝利。豈由此故。便令受等貪等信等無此緣義。故彼所詰。有言無理。有餘復言色法
【現代漢語翻譯】 因為有間隔，所以沒有等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，直接且無間斷的緣）。例如，一個身體中的一種由營養滋養的色（Rupa，物質現象），相續不斷，又有第二種由營養滋養的色產生，彼此不衝突。又如一種由食物等滋養的色，相續不斷，又有另一種由食物等滋養的色相續產生。又有一種異熟生色（Vipāka-ja rūpa，由業力產生的色），相續不斷，又有另一種異熟生色相續產生。又一個四大種（Mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）所生的造色（Upādā rūpa，衍生色）中，同類的許多極微（Paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）同時生起。因此，不能成立等無間緣。或者，當一個法現前等且無間斷時，那個法可以成立等無間緣。例如，現行心（Pravṛtti-citta，正在活動的心），無論是與此心所繫（Citta-samprayukta，與心相應的），還是非所繫（Citta-visamyukta，與心不相應的），俱生的受（Vedanā，感受）等，都與此心相同，所以稱為『等』。無心受等同一類法，兩個體同時產生，所以名為『無間』。色法不是這樣，例如，一個心識生起時，有欲界系（Kāmadhātu，欲界）和**界系（此處原文缺失，無法翻譯）的兩種色同時產生，或者欲界系和非系色（不屬於任何界的色）同時生起。所以色法沒有等無間緣。上座部（Theravada）在此處妄加詰難：如果一類色相續不斷，又有另一類色相續而生，由此就說不是等無間緣，那麼，為什麼在與不共無明（Asādhāraṇa-avidyā，獨特的無明）相應的品類中，會有貪（Lobha，貪婪）等生起？這應該反問：那位上座部說，與不共無明相應的心品，為什麼會有貪等同時生起？不共無明相續未斷，必定沒有貪等同時生起的道理。然而，說貪等與不共無明同時生起，只是爲了誘騙寡學的門人，顯示自己精通對法（Abhidharma，論藏）的宗義，但在本論（指《阿毗達摩論》）及諸聖言中，從未有此道理。而且，他所詰難的，意欲顯示什麼？是像兩種由營養滋養的眼根，其相沒有差別，以此為例，說明貪等與不共無明，其相也沒有差別？還是像貪等與不共無明，其相有差別，以此為例，說明兩種由營養滋養的眼根，其相也有差別？縱然有此意圖，也應該陳述所詰難的內容，在這種義理中，能得到什麼勝利？難道由此就能使受等、貪等、信等沒有此緣的道理成立嗎？所以他的詰難，有言而無理。還有其他人說，色法
【English Translation】 Because of the presence of intervals, there is no Samanantarapratyaya (immediately contiguous condition). For example, in one body, one type of Rupa (matter, material phenomena) nourished by nutrition continues uninterruptedly, and then a second type of Rupa nourished by nutrition arises without conflicting with the first. Similarly, one type of Rupa nourished by food, etc., continues uninterruptedly, and then another type of Rupa nourished by food, etc., arises contiguously. Also, one type of Vipāka-ja rūpa (resultant matter born of karma) continues uninterruptedly, and then another type of Vipāka-ja rūpa arises contiguously. Furthermore, in the case of derived matter (Upādā rūpa) produced by the four great elements (Mahābhūta - earth, water, fire, wind), many similar ultimate particles (Paramāṇu - the smallest unit of matter) arise simultaneously. Therefore, Samanantarapratyaya cannot be established. Alternatively, when a dharma is present equally and without interruption, that dharma can be established as Samanantarapratyaya. For example, the active mind (Pravṛtti-citta), whether associated with (Citta-samprayukta) or disassociated from (Citta-visamyukta) this mind, and the co-arising feeling (Vedanā) etc., are all the same as this mind, hence called 'equal'. Feeling etc. without mind, being the same type of dharma, arise simultaneously as two entities, hence called 'contiguous'. Rupa is not like this. For example, when one consciousness arises, two types of Rupa, belonging to the Kāmadhātu (desire realm) and the **dhātu (realm - missing text in original, untranslatable) arise simultaneously, or Rupa belonging to the Kāmadhātu and non-affiliated Rupa (matter not belonging to any realm) arise simultaneously. Therefore, Rupa does not have Samanantarapratyaya. The Theravada (Sthavira) school wrongly raises an objection here: If one type of Rupa continues uninterruptedly, and then another type of Rupa arises contiguously, and from this it is said that it is not Samanantarapratyaya, then why, in the category associated with Asādhāraṇa-avidyā (unique ignorance), do Lobha (greed) etc. arise? This should be countered by asking: Why, according to that Theravada master, do greed etc. arise simultaneously in the mind category associated with Asādhāraṇa-avidyā? Since Asādhāraṇa-avidyā continues uninterruptedly, there is definitely no reason for greed etc. to arise simultaneously. However, saying that greed etc. arise simultaneously with Asādhāraṇa-avidyā is merely to deceive the poorly learned disciples, to show that one is well-versed in the doctrines of Abhidharma (scholastic treatises), but there is no such principle in the original texts (referring to the Abhidharma texts) and the words of the sages. Moreover, what does his objection intend to show? Is it like the two types of eye-sense-organs nourished by nutrition, whose characteristics are not different, using this as an example to show that the characteristics of greed etc. and Asādhāraṇa-avidyā are also not different? Or is it like the characteristics of greed etc. and Asādhāraṇa-avidyā being different, using this as an example to show that the characteristics of the two types of eye-sense-organs nourished by nutrition are also different? Even if there is such an intention, the content of the objection should be stated. What victory can be gained in this meaning? Can it be that because of this, the principle that feeling etc., greed etc., faith etc. do not have this condition is established? Therefore, his objection is eloquent but unreasonable. Others also say that Rupa
生滅。少多無定。故非此緣。謂或有時從多生少。如燒稻稈大聚為灰。從充大身轉生瘦小。或時復有從少生多。如細種生諾瞿陀樹根莖枝葉。漸次增榮。聳干抽條。垂陰遠覆。羯剌藍等。轉生大身。故色定無等無間義。豈不心所無間生時亦有少多品類非等。謂善不善無記心中。有尋有伺三摩地等。此于異類。實有少多。然自類中。無非等義。謂無少受無間生多。或復從多無間生少。想等亦爾。無非等失。故心心所生滅體均。依之可立等無間義。然彼上座。對自門人。於此義中。妄有所詰。謂色亦與心心所同。自類一一各差別故。雖于諸界和合聚中有無量色。而彼種類展轉相望。各有差別。如是所詰。但有虛言。既許現前有同類色。則同類色並起義成。非各有殊名現同類。然許諸聚展轉相望種類有別。則別聚內。有多色體。同類義成。又若多微。同因一具大種所起。上座此中如何可執種類各異。又見胡麻諸豆麥等。從一種體。有多果生。多果相望。其類是一。如何可執此類有殊。又彼自言。有同類色多體和合。何反為徴。謂彼上座。自遮諸色等無間緣。言有同類。同聚多色。俱時而起。非心受等同類俱生。故諸色定無等無間緣義。又彼所言。如色非色。雖有差別。而等不遮同類因等。如是彼法。亦應等作等無間緣。上座
【現代漢語翻譯】 生滅變化，數量多少沒有定數，因此色法不是等無間緣。（因為）有時會從多生少，比如焚燒一大堆稻草成為灰燼，或者從肥胖的身體轉生為瘦小的身體；有時又會從少生多，比如從細小的種子生長出尼拘陀樹（榕樹），根莖枝葉逐漸繁茂，樹幹高聳，枝條伸展，樹蔭覆蓋很遠，羯剌藍（受精卵）等逐漸轉生為大的身體。所以色法一定沒有相等和無間斷的意義。難道不是心所法在無間生起時，也有數量多少和品類的差別，不是相等的嗎？比如在善、不善、無記心中，有尋、有伺、三摩地等。這些在不同類別的心所法中，確實有數量多少的差別。然而在同一類別的心所法中，沒有不相等的意義。也就是說，沒有從少量的受無間斷地生起大量的受，或者從大量的受無間斷地生起少量的受，想等心所法也是如此，沒有不相等的過失。所以，心和心所的生滅本體是相同的，依據這一點可以建立等無間緣的意義。然而那位上座部論師，面對自己的門人，在這個意義中，妄加詰難，說色法也和心、心所法一樣，同一類別中的每一個色法也各有差別。即使在諸界的和合聚集體中，有無量的色法，但那些種類相互之間，各有差別。這樣的詰難，只是空話。既然承認現前有同類的色法，那麼同類色法同時生起的意義就成立了，而不是各自不同卻名為同類。如果承認各個聚集體相互之間種類有差別，那麼在不同的聚集體內，有多種色法，同類的意義就成立了。而且，如果多個微塵，由同一個大種因同時產生，上座部論師在這種情況下，怎麼能執著于種類各異呢？又看到胡麻、各種豆類、麥子等，從同一種子，產生多個果實，多個果實相互之間，種類是相同的，怎麼能執著于這些果實的種類有差別呢？而且，那位論師自己也說，有同類的多種色法和合在一起，為何反而要提出質疑呢？那位上座部論師，自己遮止了諸色法作為等無間緣的可能性，說有同類的、同一個聚集體的多種色法，同時生起，不像心和受等同類的心所法同時生起。所以諸色法一定沒有等無間緣的意義。而且，那位論師所說，像色法和非色法，雖然有差別，但是差別並不妨礙它們作為同類因等。那麼這些法，也應該同樣可以作為等無間緣。上座部論師！ 上座部論師！
【English Translation】 Arising and ceasing, with no fixed amount of more or less, therefore, material form is not the immediately preceding condition (Skt: samanantarapratyaya). This is because sometimes much arises from little, like burning a large pile of rice straw into ashes, or being reborn from a large body into a small one; and sometimes little arises from much, like a tiny seed growing into a Nigrodha tree (banyan tree), its roots, stems, branches, and leaves gradually flourishing, its trunk towering, its branches extending, its shade covering far and wide, or a kalala (embryo) gradually developing into a large body. Therefore, material form certainly does not have the meaning of equality and contiguity. Isn't it the case that when mental factors arise without interruption, there are also differences in quantity and category, and they are not equal? For example, in wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral minds, there are initial application (Skt: vitarka), sustained application (Skt: vicara), samadhi (concentration), and so on. These indeed have differences in quantity among different categories of mental factors. However, within the same category of mental factors, there is no meaning of inequality. That is to say, there is no instance of a small amount of feeling (Skt: vedana) arising without interruption from a large amount of feeling, or vice versa. The same applies to perception (Skt: samjna) and other mental factors; there is no fault of inequality. Therefore, the nature of arising and ceasing of mind and mental factors is the same, and based on this, the meaning of immediately preceding condition can be established. However, that elder teacher (Skt: Sthavira), in front of his disciples, made a false objection to this meaning, saying that material form is also the same as mind and mental factors, with each material form in the same category also having differences. Even though there are countless material forms in the aggregate of elements, those categories are different from each other. Such an objection is just empty words. Since it is admitted that there are similar material forms present, then the meaning of similar material forms arising simultaneously is established, rather than each being different but named as similar. If it is admitted that there are differences in categories between different aggregates, then within different aggregates, there are multiple material forms, and the meaning of similarity is established. Moreover, if multiple atoms arise simultaneously from the same great element cause, how can the elder teacher insist that the categories are different in this case? Furthermore, we see that sesame seeds, various beans, wheat, and so on, produce multiple fruits from the same seed, and the categories of the multiple fruits are the same. How can one insist that the categories of these fruits are different? Moreover, that teacher himself said that there are multiple material forms of the same category combined together, so why raise a question in return? That elder teacher himself prevented the possibility of material forms being the immediately preceding condition, saying that there are multiple material forms of the same category in the same aggregate arising simultaneously, unlike mind and feeling and other mental factors of the same category arising simultaneously. Therefore, material forms certainly do not have the meaning of immediately preceding condition. Moreover, what that teacher said, like material form and non-material form, although there are differences, the differences do not prevent them from being the same kind of cause, etc. Then these dharmas should also be able to act as the immediately preceding condition in the same way. Elder teacher! Elder teacher!
此徴。極為雜亂。既爾亦應計諸色有所緣。又如所許。俱等無間緣。而於其中。有色有非色。如是應許俱同類因。等而其中有此緣非此緣。今於此中。假許彼執。顯義有別酬彼所徴。然實不可許諸色法為等無間緣相不相應故。若諸色法等無間緣相相應者。法爾應立。何須引例。同類因等。此緣彼因。義各異故。若諸色法等無間緣相不相應。設復引彼同類因等。于義何益。于義無益。而引彼因。例此緣者。但是上座。其年衰朽。出虛之言。有餘復言。以諸色法一類相續。此處生時。若余色來奪其處者。可有移往余處生義。故非前色與處方生。又本色聚相續不斷。其邊復有同類色生。不爾色聚應無增長。等無間緣。終無此理。故色不立等無間緣。譬喻論師。說諸色法如心心所法有等無間緣。見乳醅種花生酪酢芽果。如心心所前滅後生。故知諸色。有此緣義。又無經說唯心心所能為此緣。故立此緣定非色者。是虛妄執。無如是義。諸緣功能。無邊差別。略說四故。謂諸法生。待多緣合。諸緣功用。差別無邊。然佛世尊。略說為四。諸從乳等羯喇藍等形依等緣。生於酪等頞部曇等影識等果。當知攝在因增上緣。何緣故知乳等無間生於酪等。前法非后等無間緣。此先已說。先何所說。謂前說言。等無間義不相應故。現見極成心心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是個征難，非常雜亂。既然如此，也應該認為諸色法有所緣。又如你們所承認的，俱有等無間緣。但在其中，有色法也有非色法。這樣，就應該承認俱有同類因，等等，但在其中，有此緣，非此緣。現在在這裡，假設認可他們的執著，顯示意義有所區別，來回答他們的征難。但實際上，不可承認諸色法為等無間緣，因為它們不相應。如果諸色法與等無間緣相應，本來就應該成立，何必引用例子？同類因等等，此緣彼因，意義各自不同。如果諸色法與等無間緣不相應，即使引用同類因等等，對於意義有什麼幫助？對於意義沒有幫助，卻引用那些因，來比喻這個緣，這只是上座長老，年老衰朽，說虛妄之言。還有人說，因為諸色法一類相續，此處產生時，如果其他色法來奪取它的位置，才會有移往其他地方產生的意義。所以不是前面的色法與處所同時產生。而且本來的色聚相續不斷，它的旁邊又有同類色產生。不然，色聚應該沒有增長。等無間緣，終究沒有這個道理。所以色法不能成立等無間緣。 譬喻論師說，諸色法如同心心所法一樣，有等無間緣。看見乳變成醅，種子變成花生，酪變成酢，芽變成果。如同心心所法前滅後生。所以知道諸色法，有這個緣的意義。又沒有經典說只有心心所才能成為這個緣。所以認為成立這個緣一定不是色法，是虛妄的執著。沒有這樣的道理。諸緣的功能，有無邊的差別，略說為四種。因為諸法產生，等待多種緣的聚合。諸緣的功用，差別無邊。然而佛陀世尊，略說為四種。諸如從乳等（指牛奶等）到羯喇藍等（Kalala，指受精卵），形依等緣（指形狀所依賴的緣），產生酪等（指奶酪等）到頞部曇等（Arbuda，指胚胎），影識等果（指影子和意識等果報）。應當知道這些都攝在因增上緣中。因為什麼緣故知道乳等無間地產生酪等，前法不是后法的等無間緣？這之前已經說過了。之前說了什麼？之前說，等無間（Samanantarapratyaya）的意義不相應。
【English Translation】 English version: This is a very confused objection. Since it is so, it should also be considered that all forms have something they depend on. And as you admit, they have co-equal and immediate conditions (Samanantarapratyaya). But among them, there are forms and non-forms. Thus, it should be admitted that they have co-equal homogeneous causes, etc., but among them, there is this condition and not this condition. Now, here, we hypothetically accept their attachment, show that the meaning is different, and answer their objection. But in reality, it is not permissible to consider all forms as immediate conditions, because they are not corresponding. If all forms corresponded to immediate conditions, it should naturally be established; why need to cite examples? Homogeneous causes, etc., this condition and that cause, have different meanings. If all forms do not correspond to immediate conditions, even if we cite homogeneous causes, etc., what help is it to the meaning? It is of no help to the meaning, but citing those causes to exemplify this condition is just the elder monk, old and senile, speaking empty words. Others say that because all forms are a continuous stream of the same kind, if another form comes to take its place when it arises here, there can be a meaning of moving and arising elsewhere. Therefore, it is not that the previous form and the place arise simultaneously. Moreover, the original aggregate of forms continues uninterrupted, and next to it, another form of the same kind arises. Otherwise, the aggregate of forms should not grow. Immediate condition, there is ultimately no such reason. Therefore, form cannot be established as an immediate condition. The Exemplification Masters say that all forms, like mental states and mental events, have immediate conditions. Seeing milk turn into whey, seeds turn into peanuts, cheese turn into vinegar, buds turn into fruit, just as mental states and mental events arise after the previous ones cease. Therefore, it is known that all forms have the meaning of this condition. Moreover, no sutra says that only mental states and mental events can be this condition. Therefore, to think that establishing this condition is definitely not form is a false attachment. There is no such reason. The functions of all conditions have boundless differences, briefly speaking of four. Because all phenomena arise, waiting for the aggregation of many conditions. The functions of all conditions have boundless differences. However, the Buddha, the World Honored One, briefly spoke of four. Such as from milk etc. to Kalala (受精卵) etc., shape-dependent conditions to cheese etc. to Arbuda (胚胎) etc., shadow consciousness etc. fruits. It should be known that these are all included in the causal and dominant conditions. For what reason do we know that milk etc. immediately produce cheese etc., and that the previous phenomenon is not the immediate condition of the latter phenomenon? This has been said before. What was said before? It was said before that the meaning of immediate condition (Samanantarapratyaya) is not corresponding.
所法。生必系屬等無間緣。所有俱生。皆別種類。諸同種類。必不俱生。故同類俱。互相違法。要前念滅。后念方起。由與處方便立等無間緣。一四大種所生同類乳等造色。有多極微。俱時而起。不相妨礙。此相乖越等無間緣。故酪等生。雖系屬彼。而不可立等無間緣。大種相生。亦同此釋。謂同異類。皆可俱生。更互同時不相妨礙。雖相繼起。而非此緣。又言無經說唯心等為此緣者。於色亦同。謂無經言。諸色亦有前能為后等無間緣。故譬喻師。非理橫執。諸色亦有等無間緣。又譬喻師。為許色有所緣緣不。彼說言無。豈有契經明證此義。雖無經說。理必應然。等無間緣。何不許爾。故彼具壽。諸所發言。但率己情。無真理教。不相應行。何緣不立等無間緣。以亂起故。謂一身中。善惡無記。及三界系不繫俱生。毗婆沙說。心及心所。所依所緣行相有礙。由斯故立等無間緣。色不相應。無如是事。故彼不立為此緣體。上座此中顯己于學不勤方便。謬作是言。此說都無證成理趣。唯顯心等與色等別觀彼所言。未閑說意證成理趣蘊在此中。謂一所依所緣行相。定無有二識等並生。故必由前與處方起。若前為礙。后不得生。由此證知。唯心心所。前能為后等無間緣。若爾命根無二俱起。何不許托等無間緣。謂此命根。如識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『所法』（Saloka-dhamma，世間法）。一切生起都必然與等無間緣（samanantara-paccaya，無間緣）相關聯。所有俱生（sahajāta，同時生起）的事物，都是不同的種類。所有相同的種類，必然不會同時生起。因此，相同的種類同時生起，彼此互相違背。必須是前一念滅去，后一念才能生起。由於給予處所和方便，才成立等無間緣。四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）所生的相同種類，例如乳等造色（upādā-rūpa，四大種所造的色法），有許多極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）同時生起，互不妨礙。這種現象違背了等無間緣。因此，酪等的生起，雖然與彼（四大種）相關聯，卻不能成立等無間緣。四大種的相互生起，也可以用同樣的道理來解釋。也就是說，相同種類和不同種類，都可以同時生起，相互之間同時存在，互不妨礙。雖然相繼生起，但不是等無間緣。 又說沒有經典說明唯心等是此緣的說法，對於色法也是一樣的。也就是說，沒有經典說，諸色法也有前一色法能夠成為后一色法的等無間緣。因此，譬喻師（Dārṣṭāntika，經量部）不合理地強行認為，諸色法也有等無間緣。此外，譬喻師是否承認色法有所緣緣（ārammaṇa-paccaya，所緣緣）？他們說沒有。難道有契經（sutta，佛經）明確證明這個道理嗎？雖然沒有經典這樣說，但道理必然是這樣。等無間緣，為什麼不承認呢？因此，那位具壽（āyasmant，長老），所說的話，都只是按照自己的想法，沒有真正的道理和教義，不符合相應的行為。為什麼不成立等無間緣呢？因為會產生混亂。也就是說，在一個身體中，善、惡、無記（kusala, akusala, avyākata，善、不善、無記）以及三界系（kāmadhātu, rūpadhātu, arūpadhātu，欲界、色界、無色界）和不繫（無系）同時生起。《毗婆沙》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）說，心和心所（citta, cetasika，心和心理活動）的所依（nissaya，依靠）、所緣（ārammaṇa，對像）和行相（ākāra，狀態）是有障礙的。因此才成立等無間緣。色法不相應，沒有這樣的情況。因此，色法不被認為是等無間緣的本體。 上座（Thera，長老）在這裡顯示自己對於學習不勤奮，錯誤地說：『這個說法完全沒有證明道理的趣味，只是顯示心等和色等的區別。』觀察他們所說的話，不熟悉說話的意義，證明道理的趣味蘊含在這裡面。也就是說，一個所依、所緣和行相，絕對不會有兩個識等同時生起。因此，必須由前一識給予處所才能生起。如果前一識成為障礙，后一識就無法生起。由此可以證明，只有心和心所，前一者才能成為后一者的等無間緣。如果這樣，命根（jīvitindriya，生命力）沒有兩個同時生起，為什麼不承認依託等無間緣呢？也就是說，這個命根，就像識一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding 『Saloka-dhamma』 (worldly phenomena). All arising is necessarily connected to samanantara-paccaya (the immediately preceding condition). All sahajāta (co-arisen) phenomena are of different types. All phenomena of the same type necessarily do not arise simultaneously. Therefore, simultaneous arising of the same type contradicts each other. It is necessary that the previous moment ceases for the subsequent moment to arise. It is due to providing a place and means that samanantara-paccaya is established. The same type of upādā-rūpa (derived matter) produced by the four mahābhūta (great elements), such as milk, has many paramāṇu (ultimate particles) arising simultaneously without hindering each other. This phenomenon contradicts samanantara-paccaya. Therefore, the arising of curds, etc., although related to them (the four great elements), cannot establish samanantara-paccaya. The mutual arising of the four great elements can also be explained in the same way. That is, the same and different types can arise simultaneously, coexisting simultaneously without hindering each other. Although they arise successively, they are not this condition. Furthermore, the statement that there are no sutras stating that only mind, etc., are this condition is the same for matter. That is, there are no sutras saying that material phenomena also have a preceding material phenomenon that can be the samanantara-paccaya for a subsequent material phenomenon. Therefore, the Dārṣṭāntika (Sautrāntika school) unreasonably insists that material phenomena also have samanantara-paccaya. Furthermore, do the Dārṣṭāntikas acknowledge that material phenomena have ārammaṇa-paccaya (object condition)? They say no. Is there a sutta (Buddhist scripture) that clearly proves this principle? Although there is no sutra that says this, the principle must be so. Why not acknowledge samanantara-paccaya? Therefore, what that āyasmant (venerable one) says is only according to his own ideas, without true reason and doctrine, and does not conform to corresponding practice. Why is samanantara-paccaya not established? Because it would cause confusion. That is, in one body, kusala, akusala, avyākata (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral) and kāmadhātu, rūpadhātu, arūpadhātu (the realms of desire, form, and formlessness) and the unconditioned arise simultaneously. The Vibhasa (Buddhist treatise) says that the nissaya (basis), ārammaṇa (object), and ākāra (aspect) of citta and cetasika (mind and mental factors) are obstructed. Therefore, samanantara-paccaya is established. Material phenomena are not associated and do not have such a situation. Therefore, material phenomena are not considered the essence of samanantara-paccaya. The Thera (elder) here shows that he is not diligent in learning and mistakenly says: 『This statement completely lacks the interest of proving the principle, it only shows the difference between mind, etc., and matter, etc.』 Observing what they say, they are not familiar with the meaning of speech, the interest of proving the principle is contained herein. That is, with one basis, object, and aspect, there will absolutely not be two consciousnesses, etc., arising simultaneously. Therefore, it must be that the preceding consciousness gives place for it to arise. If the preceding consciousness becomes an obstacle, the subsequent consciousness cannot arise. From this, it can be proven that only mind and mental factors, the preceding one can be the samanantara-paccaya for the subsequent one. If so, jīvitindriya (life faculty) does not have two arising simultaneously, why not acknowledge relying on samanantara-paccaya? That is, this life faculty is like consciousness.
等相。故亦應立等無間緣。此例不然。命與生體俱先行力所引起故。謂此命根非無間滅。命力所引。要是先位所作行業力所引生。既爾命根應一念頃一切頓起一切同依。一念行業力所引故。先業所引心心所法起應不藉等無間緣。且諸命根。無頓起失。即由業力生決定故。因果法爾。一剎那業。引多剎那異熟令起。又無用故。命不頓生。謂為任持眾同分故。引命根起。一命相續。足能任持。多便無用。心心所法。雖先業引。而非不待等無間緣。托諸根境。而得生故。既托根境。和合故生。設多並生。亦非無用。然無第二等無間緣。故同類中。無二俱起。又心心所。非唯先業力所引生。異熟及余雜亂起故。若不更托等無間緣。應一剎那有多俱起。謂命根體。唯是異熟。唯由先業力所引生。可言同類定次而起。心心所法。無如是事。異熟滅已。有等流生。等流無間。有剎那起。或起異熟。非定同類。故心心所。雖有異熟生。而亦不可言與命根等。是故唯等常無間生。名等無間。以此與此為緣故說等無間緣。豈不極微一類相續前前滅已後後續生。自類相望。等而無間。由前開避。後方得起。相不乖越。等無間緣。此不俱生。由無用故。非等無間緣力故然。準前命根。如理應釋。然此亦有同類俱生。故不應言此緣所攝。又若唯開
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 等同之相。因此也應確立等無間緣（samānantarapratyaya，意為『無間斷的因緣』）。但這個例子並非如此。命根（jīvitendriya，意為『生命力』）與生體都是由先前的業力所引起的。也就是說，這個命根不是無間斷地滅去的，而是由命力所引導。這命力是由先前的行為所產生的業力所引導而生。既然如此，命根應該在一念之間全部同時生起，全部都同時依附。因為是由一念的行業力所引導的。先前的業力所引導的心心所法（citta-caitta，意為『心與心所』）的生起，應該不需要等無間緣。而且，所有的命根，沒有同時生起的過失，這是由於業力所產生的決定性。因果法爾如是。一剎那的業，引導多個剎那的異熟果（vipāka，意為『果報』）生起。而且沒有作用，命根不會同時生起。這是爲了任持眾生的同分（sabhāga，意為『同類』）的緣故。引導命根生起，一個命根的相續，就足以任持，多了就沒有用。心心所法，雖然是先前的業力所引導，但並非不依賴等無間緣。因為要依託諸根（indriya，意為『感覺器官』）和境（viṣaya，意為『對像』），才能生起。既然依託根境，和合才能生起。即使多個同時生起，也並非沒有用。然而沒有第二個等無間緣，所以在同類之中，沒有兩個同時生起。而且心心所法，並非僅僅是先前的業力所引導而生，還有異熟以及其他雜亂的生起。如果不再次依託等無間緣，應該在一剎那間有多個同時生起。命根的體性，僅僅是異熟，僅僅是由先前的業力所引導而生，可以說同類有定次地生起。心心所法，沒有這樣的情況。異熟滅去之後，有等流（niḥsyanda，意為『同類相續』）生起，等流無間斷地，有剎那生起，或者生起異熟，並非一定是同類。所以心心所法，雖然有異熟生，但也不能說與命根等同。因此只有等同且常無間斷地生起，才叫做等無間。用這個與這個作為因緣，所以說等無間緣。難道不是極微（paramāṇu，意為『最小的物質單位』）一類相續，前一個滅去之後，后一個相續生起，自類相互觀望，等同且無間斷，由前一個開闢，后一個才能生起，相互不違背，是等無間緣嗎？這個不是同時生起，因為沒有用，不是等無間緣的力量所致。參照前面的命根，按道理應該這樣解釋。然而這裡也有同類同時生起，所以不應該說這個緣所攝。而且如果僅僅是開闢
【English Translation】 English version They are of equal nature. Therefore, the samānantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition) should also be established. This example is not so. The jīvitendriya (life faculty) and the living body are both caused by the force of prior karma. That is to say, this jīvitendriya does not cease without interruption, but is guided by the life force. This life force is guided and produced by the force of karma generated by prior actions. Since this is the case, the jīvitendriya should arise all at once in a single moment, and all should depend on it simultaneously, because it is guided by the force of karma of a single moment. The arising of citta-caitta (mind and mental factors) guided by prior karma should not require the samānantarapratyaya. Moreover, all jīvitendriya do not have the fault of arising simultaneously, because their arising is determined by karma. The law of cause and effect is such. A single moment of karma causes many moments of vipāka (resultant effect) to arise. Moreover, there is no use for jīvitendriya to arise simultaneously. This is because it is for the purpose of sustaining the sabhāga (commonality) of beings. Causing the jīvitendriya to arise, the continuity of one jīvitendriya is sufficient to sustain it; more would be useless. Although citta-caitta are guided by prior karma, they are not independent of the samānantarapratyaya, because they arise by relying on the indriya (sense organs) and viṣaya (objects). Since they rely on the sense organs and objects, they arise through combination. Even if many arise simultaneously, it is not useless. However, there is no second samānantarapratyaya, so among those of the same kind, no two arise simultaneously. Moreover, citta-caitta are not only guided and produced by the force of prior karma, but also by vipāka and other mixed arisings. If they did not rely on the samānantarapratyaya again, many should arise simultaneously in a single moment. The nature of jīvitendriya is only vipāka, and it is only guided and produced by the force of prior karma, so it can be said that those of the same kind arise in a fixed order. Citta-caitta do not have such a case. After vipāka ceases, niḥsyanda (confluence) arises. Without interruption of niḥsyanda, there is momentary arising, or vipāka arises, but it is not necessarily of the same kind. Therefore, although citta-caitta have vipāka arising, it cannot be said that they are equal to jīvitendriya. Therefore, only that which is equal and constantly without interruption is called samānantara. Using this and this as conditions, it is called samānantarapratyaya. Is it not the case that paramāṇu (ultimate particles) are a continuous series, with the former ceasing and the latter arising, looking at each other within their own kind, equal and without interruption, with the former opening the way and the latter being able to arise, not contradicting each other, being the samānantarapratyaya? This does not arise simultaneously, because it is useless, not because of the force of the samānantarapratyaya. Referring to the previous jīvitendriya, it should be explained reasonably. However, there are also those of the same kind arising simultaneously here, so it should not be said that this is included in this condition. Moreover, if it is only opening the way
避建立此緣。可說極微等亦此緣攝。然約開避。及據牽生。立此緣體。故極微等。雖前避后。而非此緣。心等相生。有定不定。故知亦據有力牽生。現見一心前後相續。雖前避后。其理皆同。而生不生。有定不定。且生定者。謂世第一法心之無間。有苦法智忍心決定生。如是乃至。金剛喻定心之無間。有盡智品心決定生。有煩惱者。定心無間。煩惱心生。如是一切不生定者。謂染污品心之無間。諸無漏品心定不生。諸無漏品心之無間。諸染污品心定不生。一切無學心之無間。一切有學心定不生。下地煩惱心之無間。上地煩惱心定不生。一切異熟心之無間。諸剎那品心定不生。一切剎那心之無間。諸異熟品心定不生。如是一切生不定者。謂欲界染心之無間。自地四種心皆可生。上地煩惱心之無間。下地善品心亦可生。如是一切於後思擇相生義中更當顯示。由此所說。生與不生。有定不定。故知非但約開避立等無間緣。亦據牽生果法功用。非此功用。極微等有故彼不立等無間緣。豈不於心一類相續亦無如是牽生功用。非此功用或有或無。若此時無。后應非有。諸心心所。自因力生。前無間滅。有何所作。而計心等獨為此緣。色不相應非此緣體。前無間滅有所作者。謂諸根境雖現和合。若前不滅。后必不生。謂一身中。雖多
緣合而無識等同類並生。故知前心無間滅位。有力引後心等令生。色不相應。無如是事。故彼不立等無間緣。如說。云何心等無間法。謂心無間余心心所法。已生正生。及無想定。乃至廣說。此已生言。攝過現世。正生言攝未來生時。若爾便應第二念等定及出定心非心等無間入心無間。彼未生故。豈不彼諸法后正生時名心等無間。故無此失。如何無失。彼正生時。前入定心。久滅過去。今時亦不可名心等無間。無斯過失。中間無餘等無間緣為間隔故。有餘師說。彼法雖遠。義已可說為正生時等無間緣。果被取已。必當生故。若爾違害見蘊中文。如彼問言。若法與彼法為等無間。或時此法與彼非等無間耶。彼即答言。若時此法未至已生。有何違害。等無間定要至已生。此不相違。兩釋差別。俱攝受故。若時此法未已生者。此法是何為前為后。如世第一法生苦法智忍。為世第一法未至已生時。非與苦法智忍為等無間。若至已生位為等無間耶。為苦法智忍未至已生時。非與世第一法為等無間。若至已生位為等無間耶。若執前者。有心位可爾。無心位如何。謂無心定入心已生不可即與第二念等定及出心為等無間。若入定心至已生位。即與彼諸法。為等無間者。等無間緣果法被取。必無有物能礙其生。則彼一切皆應頓起。若入心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因緣聚合而沒有『識』（vijñāna，認知）等同類法一起產生的情況。因此可知前一剎那的心在無間斷滅時，有力量引導后一剎那的心等法生起。色法和不相應行法沒有這樣的情況，所以它們不建立等無間緣。如經中所說：『什麼是心等無間法？』是指心無間斷地生起其餘的心和心所法，已生和正生，以及無想定等，乃至廣說。這裡『已生』包括過去和現在，『正生』包括未來生起的時候。如果這樣，那麼第二唸的等持（samādhi，專注）以及出定之心，就不是入定之心的等無間緣，因為它們還沒有生起。難道不是說這些法在之後正生的時候，才稱為心等無間嗎？所以沒有這個過失。為什麼沒有過失呢？因為中間有其餘的等無間緣作為間隔。有其他老師說，這些法雖然距離很遠，但從意義上來說，可以說是在正生時的等無間緣，因為果已經被取，必定會生起。如果這樣，就違背了『見蘊』（darśana-skandha，見蘊）中的文句，如其中問道：『如果一個法與另一個法是等無間，有時這個法與那個法不是等無間嗎？』回答說：『如果這個法還沒有達到已生的時候。』有什麼違背呢？等無間一定要達到已生，這並不矛盾。兩種解釋的差別，都在於攝受。如果這個法還沒有已生，那麼這個法是前還是后呢？例如世第一法生起苦法智忍（duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti，對苦諦的忍），在世第一法未達到已生時，不是與苦法智忍為等無間。如果達到已生位，才是等無間嗎？苦法智忍未達到已生時，不是與世第一法為等無間。如果達到已生位，才是等無間嗎？如果執著前者，在有心位可以這樣說，但在無心位如何呢？例如無心定入心已生，不可能立即與第二唸的等持以及出心為等無間。如果入定之心達到已生位，就與那些法為等無間，那麼等無間緣的果法被取，必定沒有任何事物能夠阻礙它的生起，那麼它們就應該全部同時生起。如果入心 English version: When conditions come together, 'consciousness' (vijñāna) and similar phenomena do not arise together. Therefore, it is known that when the previous moment of mind ceases without interruption, it has the power to lead the subsequent moment of mind and other phenomena to arise. Form and non-associated formations do not have such a case, so they do not establish the immediately preceding condition. As it is said in the scriptures: 'What are the mental phenomena of immediately preceding condition?' It refers to the mind giving rise to the remaining mental and mental properties without interruption, those that have already arisen and are arising, as well as the state of non-perception, and so on, extensively explained. Here, 'already arisen' includes the past and present, and 'arising' includes the time of future arising. If so, then the second thought of concentration (samādhi) and the mind emerging from concentration are not the immediately preceding condition of the mind entering concentration, because they have not yet arisen. Isn't it said that these phenomena are called the immediately preceding condition of the mind when they arise later? So there is no fault in this. Why is there no fault? Because there are other immediately preceding conditions as intervals in between. Some other teachers say that although these phenomena are far away, in terms of meaning, it can be said to be the immediately preceding condition at the time of arising, because the result has been taken and will definitely arise. If so, it contradicts the sentences in the 'aggregate of views' (darśana-skandha), as it asks: 'If one phenomenon is the immediately preceding condition of another phenomenon, is it sometimes the case that this phenomenon is not the immediately preceding condition of that phenomenon?' The answer is: 'If this phenomenon has not yet reached the state of having arisen.' What contradiction is there? The immediately preceding condition must reach the state of having arisen, and this is not contradictory. The difference between the two explanations lies in their inclusiveness. If this phenomenon has not yet arisen, then is this phenomenon before or after? For example, when the highest mundane dharma arises, the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma of suffering (duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti), when the highest mundane dharma has not reached the state of having arisen, it is not the immediately preceding condition of the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma of suffering. If it reaches the state of having arisen, is it the immediately preceding condition? When the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma of suffering has not reached the state of having arisen, it is not the immediately preceding condition of the highest mundane dharma. If it reaches the state of having arisen, is it the immediately preceding condition? If one insists on the former, it can be said so in the state of having a mind, but how about in the state of having no mind? For example, when the mind entering the state of no-mind concentration has already arisen, it is impossible to immediately consider it as the immediately preceding condition of the second thought of concentration and the mind emerging from concentration. If the mind entering concentration reaches the state of having arisen, it is the immediately preceding condition of those phenomena, then when the result of the immediately preceding condition is taken, there must be nothing that can hinder its arising, then they should all arise simultaneously. If the mind enters
【English Translation】 English version: The coming together of conditions without the simultaneous arising of similar phenomena like 'consciousness' (vijñāna). Therefore, it is known that when the previous moment of mind ceases without interruption, it has the power to lead the subsequent moment of mind and other phenomena to arise. Form and non-associated formations do not have such a case, so they do not establish the immediately preceding condition. As it is said in the scriptures: 'What are the mental phenomena of immediately preceding condition?' It refers to the mind giving rise to the remaining mental and mental properties without interruption, those that have already arisen and are arising, as well as the state of non-perception, and so on, extensively explained. Here, 'already arisen' includes the past and present, and 'arising' includes the time of future arising. If so, then the second thought of concentration (samādhi) and the mind emerging from concentration are not the immediately preceding condition of the mind entering concentration, because they have not yet arisen. Isn't it said that these phenomena are called the immediately preceding condition of the mind when they arise later? So there is no fault in this. Why is there no fault? Because there are other immediately preceding conditions as intervals in between. Some other teachers say that although these phenomena are far away, in terms of meaning, it can be said to be the immediately preceding condition at the time of arising, because the result has been taken and will definitely arise. If so, it contradicts the sentences in the 'aggregate of views' (darśana-skandha), as it asks: 'If one phenomenon is the immediately preceding condition of another phenomenon, is it sometimes the case that this phenomenon is not the immediately preceding condition of that phenomenon?' The answer is: 'If this phenomenon has not yet reached the state of having arisen.' What contradiction is there? The immediately preceding condition must reach the state of having arisen, and this is not contradictory. The difference between the two explanations lies in their inclusiveness. If this phenomenon has not yet arisen, then is this phenomenon before or after? For example, when the highest mundane dharma arises, the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma of suffering (duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti), when the highest mundane dharma has not reached the state of having arisen, it is not the immediately preceding condition of the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma of suffering. If it reaches the state of having arisen, is it the immediately preceding condition? When the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma of suffering has not reached the state of having arisen, it is not the immediately preceding condition of the highest mundane dharma. If it reaches the state of having arisen, is it the immediately preceding condition? If one insists on the former, it can be said so in the state of having a mind, but how about in the state of having no mind? For example, when the mind entering the state of no-mind concentration has already arisen, it is impossible to immediately consider it as the immediately preceding condition of the second thought of concentration and the mind emerging from concentration. If the mind entering concentration reaches the state of having arisen, it is the immediately preceding condition of those phenomena, then when the result of the immediately preceding condition is taken, there must be nothing that can hinder its arising, then they should all arise simultaneously. If the mind enters
后。出心即生。是則二定。永應不起。若執後者。苦法智忍。未已生時。應不與彼世第一法為等無間。然必應許。苦法智忍。在正生時。即名與彼世第一法為等無間。此中一類許可前執。然見蘊文。約有心位說等無間。故無前失。或言設約無心位辯。此失亦無。謂入定心。居現在位。頓取諸定及出心果。亦與最初剎那定果滅入過去。隨後諸定及出定心。一一生時。與果非取。先已取故。豈不一切等無間緣無有異時取果與果。此責非理。取果必頓。與果有漸。故無有失。但應責言。同一心果。何緣諸定及出定心。前後而生不俱時起。正所求者。理必前生。謂入定心。順求于定故心無間。定心前生。若爾何緣諸剎那定。前後而起。諸剎那定。俱生無用。故不俱生。由前加行勢力所引。故多念定長時續生。非多剎那。定俱起用。一剎那定。所不能為。故不頓生。猶如識等。然諸念定。是等無間。不可說是等無間緣。若法由前心等引起。同一種類。必不俱生。生已復能引后令起。可名等無間及等無間緣。諸定雖由前心等引。同一種類。必不俱生。然其生已不能引后。可名等無間非等無間緣。是故設約無心位辯亦無有失。諸作是說。入二定心滅入過去。方能漸取第二念等定及出心。彼入定心。應非過去。未取果者。是牽果名。諸
牽果能是行作用。依行作用立三世別。若有作用非現在者。豈不便壞世別所依。諸有釋言。過去眼等。於色等境。無有見聞嗅嘗覺等各別作用。故非現在。彼釋不然。應共審決。眼等作用。為是于境見等功能為牽果用。若是于境見等功能。便於闇中。現在眼等。未生已滅。眼等何殊而不說為未來過去。闇中眼等。雖無見聞嗅嘗等用。而皆現有牽果功能。可名作用。約有此用皆名現在。所餘取境與果等用。皆非作用。但是功能。如是功能。三時容有。辯三世處。當更思擇。又過去世諸心心所。于所依等。不能為礙。故不能作此緣取果。復有一類。許可后執。豈不苦法智忍在正生時。即與世第一法為等無間。理實應爾。然此中說等無間緣要至已生此緣方立。故無有過。如是兩釋。未已生言。於我義宗。並無違害。已廣抉擇。阿毗達磨。等無間緣。所有正理。然彼上座。復作是言。等無間緣。謂前生法。令無間法獲得自體。如世尊說。意法為緣。生於意識。謂意為因。法為緣故。意識得生。然無一時二識並起。此相非理。不明瞭故。色心無間。有色心生。俱是前生。令無間法獲得自體。豈可即說色心互作等無間緣。然不應許互為緣義。謂色與心。相續各別。如何互作等無間緣。又一心因。起多色果。多色無間。無二識生。何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『牽果能』（產生結果的能力）是一種『行作用』（行為的作用）。根據『行作用』，可以確立『三世』（過去、現在、未來）的區別。如果存在某種作用不是現在的，那豈不是會破壞『世別』（三世的區別）所依賴的基礎？ 有些人解釋說，過去的眼等（眼根等），對於色等境（顏色等對像），沒有見聞嗅嘗覺等各自不同的作用，所以不是現在的。這種解釋是不對的，應該共同審慎地判斷。眼等的作用，是對於境（對像）的見等功能，還是牽引結果的作用？如果是對於境的見等功能，那麼在黑暗中，現在的眼等，未生已滅，和過去的眼等有什麼區別，而不說它們是未來或過去呢？黑暗中的眼等，雖然沒有見聞嗅嘗等作用，但都具有牽引結果的功能，可以稱為作用。根據有這種功能，都可以稱為現在。其餘的取境（獲取對像）和產生結果等作用，都不是作用，只是功能。這樣的功能，三世都可能存在。辨別三世之處，應當更深入地思考。 而且，過去世的諸心心所（各種心理活動），對於所依等（所依賴的事物），不能造成障礙，所以不能作為此緣（這種條件）來獲取結果。又有一類人，許可后執（允許後來的執著）。豈不是苦法智忍（對苦諦的智慧忍耐）在正生起時，就與世第一法（世間第一法）為等無間（緊密相連）？道理上確實應該如此。然而，這裡說等無間緣（緊密相連的條件）要到已經產生之後，此緣才能成立，所以沒有過失。像這樣的兩種解釋，『未已生』（尚未產生）這個詞，對於我的義宗（我的觀點），並沒有違背損害，已經廣泛地抉擇了阿毗達磨（論藏）中關於等無間緣的所有正理。 然而，彼上座（那位上座部論師）又這樣說：等無間緣，是指前生的法，使無間法（緊接著的法）獲得自體（自身）。如世尊所說，『意法為緣，生於意識』，意思是意為因，法為緣，所以意識得以產生。然而，沒有一時二識並起（同時生起兩個意識）的情況。這種說法不合理，因為不夠明瞭。色心無間（色法和心法之間），有色心生（色法和心法生起），都是前生，使無間法獲得自體。難道可以說色心互相作為等無間緣嗎？然而，不應該允許互相為緣的意義，因為色與心，相續各別（延續的方式不同），如何互相作為等無間緣？又一心因（一個心識的因），可以引起多色果（多個色法的果），多個色法無間，沒有兩個意識生起，為什麼？
【English Translation】 English version 'Generating-result-ability' (牽果能) is a type of 'action-function' (行作用). Based on 'action-function', the distinction of the 'Three Times' (三世 - past, present, future) is established. If there exists some function that is not present, wouldn't it undermine the foundation upon which the 'distinction of times' (世別) relies? Some explain that past eye-organs, etc. (眼等), do not have separate functions such as seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling with respect to color-objects, etc. (色等境), and therefore are not present. This explanation is incorrect and should be carefully judged together. Is the function of the eye-organ, etc., the ability to see, etc., with respect to objects, or the function of generating results? If it is the ability to see, etc., with respect to objects, then in darkness, the present eye-organ, etc., which has not arisen and has ceased, what is the difference between it and the past eye-organ, etc., that it is not said to be future or past? The eye-organ, etc., in darkness, although it does not have the functions of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc., it has the function of generating results, which can be called a function. Based on having this function, it can be called present. The remaining functions of grasping objects and generating results, etc., are not functions, but only abilities. Such abilities can exist in the three times. The place to distinguish the three times should be considered more deeply. Moreover, the mental states and mental events (心心所) of the past world cannot hinder their support, etc. Therefore, they cannot be taken as the condition to obtain the result. Furthermore, there is a category of people who permit later grasping. Isn't it the case that when the forbearance of the wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering (苦法智忍) is arising, it is immediately contiguous with the highest mundane Dharma (世第一法)? In principle, it should be so. However, here it is said that the immediately contiguous condition (等無間緣) is established only after it has arisen, so there is no fault. Like these two explanations, the term 'not yet arisen' (未已生) does not contradict or harm my doctrine. The Abhidharma (阿毗達磨) has extensively determined all the correct principles regarding the immediately contiguous condition. However, that venerable elder (彼上座) further says: The immediately contiguous condition refers to the Dharma of the previous life, which causes the immediately contiguous Dharma to obtain its own nature. As the World Honored One said, 'Mind and Dharma are the conditions for the arising of consciousness,' meaning that mind is the cause and Dharma is the condition, so consciousness can arise. However, there is no instance of two consciousnesses arising simultaneously. This statement is unreasonable because it is not clear enough. Between form and mind, there is the arising of form and mind, both of which are previous lives, causing the immediately contiguous Dharma to obtain its own nature. Can it be said that form and mind mutually act as immediately contiguous conditions? However, the meaning of mutual conditionality should not be allowed, because form and mind have different continuities, how can they mutually act as immediately contiguous conditions? Furthermore, one mind-cause can cause multiple form-results, and between multiple forms, there is no arising of two consciousnesses, why?
得相望為等無間。故不應立等無間緣。心等獨生。可名等無間。色等並起。如何得此名。故彼說色為等無間緣者。是不思審。謬作是言。又彼宗承。隨界論者。因等無間。二緣應同。隨界所依。體無別故。噁心無間。有善心生。應說誰因誰等無間。體無別故。責余亦然。故上座宗。但于聖教。矯施常網。幻惑愚夫。等無間緣。其性已辯。所緣緣性應說是何。謂所緣緣。即一切法。離心心所所緣境外。決定更無餘法可得。謂一切法。是心心所生所攀附。故曰所緣。即此所緣。是心心所。發生緣故。名所緣緣。一切法者。即十二處。謂眼耳鼻舌身意識。及相應法。隨其次第以諸色聲香味觸法。為所緣境。六根唯是意識所緣。何緣故知。經言多法生意識故。又眼等根。皆五識境。所不攝故。譬喻者宗。理必應爾。如意觀法。五識亦然。謂所緣緣。非所緣境。若所緣境。非所緣緣。所以者何。彼說色等。若能為緣。生眼等識。如是色等。必前生故。若色有時眼識未有。識既未有。誰復能緣。眼識有時色已非有。色既非有。誰作所緣。眼識不應緣非有境。以說五識緣現在故。彼宗現在。非非有故。現所緣色。非所緣緣。與現眼識。俱時生故。乃至身識。徴難亦然。五識應無所緣緣義。彼宗意識。緣現在者。應同五識。進退推徴。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『相望』（互相觀望）才能成為『等無間』（無間隙）。所以不應該建立『等無間緣』（無間緣）。只有心等可以單獨產生，可以稱為『等無間』。色等同時產生，如何能得到這個名稱？所以他們說色是『等無間緣』，是不經過審慎思考，錯誤地這樣說。而且他們的宗派繼承了『隨界論』（根據界限劃分），『因』（原因）和『等無間』這兩種緣應該相同，因為根據界限所依據的本體沒有區別。噁心之後，有善心產生，應該說誰是『因』，誰是『等無間』？因為本體沒有區別。責問其他情況也是一樣。所以上座部的宗派，只是在聖教上，虛假地設定常網，迷惑愚笨的人。『等無間緣』的性質已經辨析清楚了，『所緣緣』（所緣的緣）的性質應該說是什麼呢？ 所謂『所緣緣』，就是一切法（dharma），除了心和心所（citta-cetasika）所緣的境界之外，絕對沒有其他的法可以得到。所謂一切法，是心和心所產生時所攀附的，所以叫做『所緣』。就是這個『所緣』，是心和心所發生的緣故，叫做『所緣緣』。一切法，就是十二處（dvādasāyatana），即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意識，以及相應的法。按照次序，以諸色（rūpa）、聲（śabda）、香（gandha）、味（rasa）、觸（sparśa）、法（dharma）為所緣境。六根（ṣaḍindriya）只是意識所緣的。根據什麼知道的呢？因為經中說多種法產生意識。而且眼等根，都是五識（pañcavijñāna）的境界所不包含的。譬喻者的宗派，道理必定應該是這樣。如意觀法，五識也是這樣。所謂『所緣緣』，不是『所緣境』；如果『所緣境』，不是『所緣緣』。為什麼這樣說呢？他們說色等，如果能作為緣，產生眼等識，那麼這些色等，必定是先前產生的。如果色有時存在，而眼識還沒有產生，既然識還沒有產生，誰又能緣呢？眼識有時存在，而色已經不存在，既然色已經不存在，誰來作為所緣呢？眼識不應該緣非存在的境界，因為經中說五識緣現在（vartamāna）的境界。他們的宗派認為現在不是非有。現在所緣的色，不是『所緣緣』，因為它和現在的眼識同時產生。乃至身識，也可以這樣提問。五識應該沒有『所緣緣』的意義。他們的宗派認為意識緣現在的境界，應該和五識一樣，進行推論。
【English Translation】 English version 'Looking at each other' (saṃ-√lok, mutual observation) can become 'immediately contiguous' (samanantarā, without gaps). Therefore, the condition of 'immediately contiguous condition' (samanantarapratyaya) should not be established. Only mind and the like can arise independently and be called 'immediately contiguous'. How can form and the like, which arise simultaneously, obtain this name? Therefore, their statement that form is an 'immediately contiguous condition' is made without careful consideration and is erroneous. Furthermore, their school, adhering to the 'theory of realms' (dhātu-vāda), should have the two conditions, 'cause' (hetu) and 'immediately contiguous', be the same, because the underlying substance according to the realm has no difference. After an evil mind, a good mind arises. Who should be said to be the 'cause' and who the 'immediately contiguous'? Because the underlying substance has no difference. The same applies to questioning other situations. Therefore, the Sthavira school (Theravāda), merely imposes a constant net on the sacred teachings, deluding foolish people. The nature of the 'immediately contiguous condition' has already been clarified. What should be said about the nature of the 'object condition' (ālambanapratyaya)? The 'object condition' is all dharmas, and apart from the objects cognized by mind and mental factors (citta-cetasika), there are absolutely no other dharmas to be found. All dharmas are what the mind and mental factors cling to when they arise, hence they are called 'objects' (ālambana). This 'object' is the condition for the arising of mind and mental factors, hence it is called 'object condition'. All dharmas are the twelve sense bases (dvādasāyatana), namely eye (cakṣu), ear (śrotra), nose (ghrāṇa), tongue (jihvā), body (kāya), and mind (manas), and their corresponding dharmas. In order, they take forms (rūpa), sounds (śabda), smells (gandha), tastes (rasa), tactile objects (sparśa), and mental objects (dharma) as their objects. The six sense organs (ṣaḍindriya) are only objects of the mind. How is this known? Because the sutras say that many dharmas give rise to consciousness. Moreover, the eye and other sense organs are not included in the realm of the five consciousnesses (pañcavijñāna). The school of the Exemplifiers (Dārṣṭāntika) must logically hold this view. Just like the contemplation of mental objects, the five consciousnesses are also like that. The 'object condition' is not the 'object cognized'; if it were the 'object cognized', it would not be the 'object condition'. Why is this so? They say that if form and the like can act as a condition for the arising of eye consciousness and the like, then these forms and the like must have arisen earlier. If form exists at a time when eye consciousness has not yet arisen, then since consciousness has not yet arisen, who can cognize it? If eye consciousness exists at a time when form no longer exists, then since form no longer exists, who acts as the object? Eye consciousness should not cognize non-existent objects, because the sutras say that the five consciousnesses cognize present (vartamāna) objects. Their school believes that the present is not non-existent. The form cognized in the present is not the 'object condition', because it arises simultaneously with the present eye consciousness. The same questioning applies to body consciousness. The five consciousnesses should not have the meaning of 'object condition'. Their school believes that mind consciousness cognizes present objects, and should be inferred in the same way as the five consciousnesses.
若緣去來及無為者。決定無有所緣緣義。彼執去來及無為法。皆非有故。非非有體可立為緣。太過失故。此中上座。復作是言。緣過去等所有意識。非無所緣。非唯緣有。何緣故爾。以五識身為等無間。所生意識。說能領受。前意所取諸境界故。如是意識以意為因。此所緣緣。即五識境。要彼為先。此得生故。隨彼有無。此有無故。然此意識。非唯緣有。爾時彼境。已滅壞故。非無所緣。由此意識隨彼有無此有無故。又隨憶念久滅境時。以于彼境前識為緣。生於今時。隨憶念識墮一相續。傳相生故。雖有餘緣。起隨念識。而要緣彼先境方生。如是所言。都無實義。同諸啞類夢有所說。唯愚親友。或妄信依。諸有智人。誰能聽受。彼既非許五識所緣與五識身俱時而起。是則五識尚所緣境滅已方生。況五無間所生意識。能受彼境。第三剎那意識生故。若五無間所生意識。能受過去五識所緣。復許所緣非是無者。則分明許意識所緣。雖名已滅而少分有。若執全無。則分明說。所生意識。都無所緣。而復說言。然此意識。非唯緣有。爾時彼境。已滅壞故。非無所緣。由此意識隨彼有無此有無者。但是虛言。具慚愧人。不應持此隱蔽此識。無所緣過。又何故言。然此意識非唯緣有。爾時彼境。已滅壞故。已滅壞法。豈許亦有亦非
有耶。若爾便歸正理論者意所游路。以正理論有義多途。作用功能。體性別故。然過去法。非如現在作用亦有。非如空花體性亦無。若不許爾。言此意識非唯緣有。此言何用。應言此識決定緣無。或復應言決定緣有。又何故說。非無所緣。隨彼有無此有無故。若隨境有識有義成。是則過去便成有體。若過境無而有現識。則不應說隨彼有無非無所緣言。又無義以境有故名有所緣。境體既無。所緣何有。又隨憶念久滅境時。云何前生緣彼境識。能為緣故生今識耶。前識有時。今識未有。今識有位。前識已無。如何可言。于久滅境。前為緣故今識得生。非無與無可有緣義。非一相續故得為緣。兔角何緣前不生后。無與無法許為緣故。若有隨界不同彼者。理亦不然。於前境中。今隨界識。曾未生故。如何可言。緣彼境識。前為緣故。令今得生。不可說言隨界與識別時緣境。勿於一時有二時故。又應一識各別所緣。以隨界體即今識故。識非定緣前滅境故。若謂隨界體非今識。應一相續二識並生。又不應言。隨界生識。非前生故。如何可說。于久滅境。前為緣故。今念識生。隨前有無今有無故。得為緣者。理亦不然。前後有無。不相隨故。然彼復言。由過去世展轉為因。復由未來展轉為果。智等得生。是故智等。不可定說所緣是有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果這樣，那就落入了歸正理論者（Pudgalavada，主張有『補特伽羅』，一種非即蘊、非離蘊的實在）的意圖之中，因為歸正理論認為『補特伽羅』有多種意義、作用、功能和體性。然而，過去的法（dharma，事物、現象）不像現在的法一樣具有作用，也不像虛空中的花朵一樣沒有體性。如果不允許這樣說，那麼說『這個意識並非僅僅緣于有』這句話有什麼用呢？應該說『這個意識必定緣于無』，或者說『必定緣于有』。又為什麼要說『並非沒有所緣』呢？因為隨著境（vishaya，對像）的有無，這個意識也有無。如果隨著境的有，意識就有，那麼過去的事物就成了有體性的。如果過去的境沒有了，而有現在的意識，那麼就不應該說『隨著境的有無，意識也有無，並非沒有所緣』這句話。而且，沒有意義說因為境是有，所以才有所緣。境的體性既然沒有了，所緣又有什麼呢？ 又，當回憶起很久以前滅去的境時，為什麼前一生緣于那個境的意識，能夠作為緣（pratyaya，條件）而生起現在的意識呢？前一個意識存在的時候，現在的意識還沒有產生；現在的意識存在的時候，前一個意識已經消失了。怎麼能說對於很久以前滅去的境，前一個意識作為緣，現在的意識才能產生呢？沒有和沒有之間沒有作為緣的道理。不能因為是一相續（ekasantati，單一相續）就可以作為緣。兔角為什麼不能作為前緣而生起後來的事物呢？因為允許沒有和沒有之間可以作為緣。如果說有隨界（anvaya，伴隨）不同於彼（境），道理也是不成立的。因為對於前一個境，現在的隨界識從來沒有生起過。怎麼能說緣于那個境的意識，前一個意識作為緣，使得現在的意識得以產生呢？不能說隨界與意識同時緣于境，因為不能在同一時間有兩個時間。而且，應該一個意識有各自不同的所緣，因為隨界的體性就是現在的意識。意識並非一定緣于先前滅去的境。如果認為隨界的體性不是現在的意識，那麼應該一個相續中有兩個意識同時產生。而且，不應該說隨界生起意識，因為不是先前生起的。怎麼能說對於很久以前滅去的境，前一個意識作為緣，現在的憶念識才能產生呢？因為隨著前一個意識的有無，現在的意識也有無，所以才能作為緣，這個道理也是不成立的。因為前後意識的有無，並不互相隨順。 然而，他們又說，由於過去世輾轉相因為因，又由於未來世輾轉相因為果，智慧等才能產生。因此，智慧等不能確定說所緣是有。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If so, then it falls into the path traversed by the Pudgalavadins (those who adhere to the theory of the 'Pudgala,' a real entity that is neither identical to nor separate from the skandhas), because the Pudgalavadins believe that the 'Pudgala' has multiple meanings, functions, operations, and natures. However, past dharmas (things, phenomena) do not have the same function as present dharmas, nor are they without nature like flowers in the sky. If this is not allowed, then what is the use of saying 'this consciousness is not solely conditioned by existence'? It should be said 'this consciousness is definitely conditioned by non-existence,' or 'definitely conditioned by existence.' And why say 'it is not without an object'? Because with the existence or non-existence of the vishaya (object), this consciousness also exists or does not exist. If consciousness exists with the existence of the object, then past things become substantial. If the past object is gone, but there is present consciousness, then it should not be said 'with the existence or non-existence of the object, consciousness also exists or does not exist, it is not without an object.' Moreover, it is meaningless to say that because the object exists, there is an object. Since the nature of the object is gone, what object is there? Furthermore, when recalling a long-extinct object, why can the consciousness of the previous life, which was conditioned by that object, arise as a pratyaya (condition) for the present consciousness? When the previous consciousness exists, the present consciousness has not yet arisen; when the present consciousness exists, the previous consciousness has already disappeared. How can it be said that for a long-extinct object, the previous consciousness, as a condition, allows the present consciousness to arise? There is no reason for non-existence to be a condition for non-existence. It cannot be said that because it is a single stream (ekasantati), it can be a condition. Why can't a rabbit's horn be a prior condition for the arising of later things? Because it is allowed that non-existence can be a condition for non-existence. If it is said that there is an anvaya (accompaniment) different from that (object), the reasoning is also not valid. Because for the previous object, the present anvaya consciousness has never arisen. How can it be said that the consciousness conditioned by that object, the previous consciousness as a condition, allows the present consciousness to arise? It cannot be said that the anvaya and consciousness simultaneously condition the object, because there cannot be two times at the same time. Moreover, one consciousness should have its own different objects, because the nature of the anvaya is the present consciousness. Consciousness is not necessarily conditioned by the previously extinct object. If it is thought that the nature of the anvaya is not the present consciousness, then two consciousnesses should arise simultaneously in one stream. Moreover, it should not be said that the anvaya gives rise to consciousness, because it is not previously arisen. How can it be said that for a long-extinct object, the previous consciousness as a condition, allows the present memory consciousness to arise? Because with the existence or non-existence of the previous consciousness, the present consciousness also exists or does not exist, so it can be a condition, but this reasoning is also not valid. Because the existence or non-existence of the previous and subsequent consciousnesses do not follow each other. However, they also say that because the past lives are mutually conditioned as causes, and because the future lives are mutually conditioned as effects, wisdom and so on can arise. Therefore, it cannot be definitively said that the object of wisdom and so on exists.
或復是無。奇哉東方善言窮匱。如斯等論亦有書持。若執去來因果展轉。不觀現在智等得生。又執去來一向非有。是則智等應定緣無。若執去來因果展轉。亦觀現在智等得生。是則一心應有二慮。以無與有相差別故。又因果展轉名何所詮。非越現剎那有前後際。如何過未立展轉名。非無與無可名展轉。故彼所說。過去未來。因果展轉。智得生等。但足論文。都無有義。如是已辯所緣緣性。增上緣性。即能作因。以能作因因義細故。無邊際故。攝一切法。若此于彼。不礙令生。是能作因。增上緣義。對三緣義。此類最多。所作寔繁。故名增上。豈不增上攝法普周。寧復對三。言此增上。非對三體立增上名。何者對三義用而立。諸緣義用。互不相通。諸緣體性。更互相雜。如增上緣義類無量。所作繁廣。餘三不然。故此獨摽。增上緣稱。有餘師說。此增上緣。體類最多。故名增上。豈不諸法皆所緣緣。如何此緣獨名增上。俱有諸法。非所緣緣。是增上緣。故不應難。此不應理。所以者何。立所緣緣非不定故。謂若此法。為彼所緣。設不緣時。亦所緣體。以所緣境性安住故。既一切法。皆所緣緣。不應此緣獨名增上。此定應理。所以者何。如增上緣。彼不爾故。謂若此法為彼增上。無時望彼非增上緣。但彼生時。遍為增上。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 或者又回覆到『是無』的爭論。真是奇怪啊，東方善於言辭的人也會有理屈詞窮的時候。像這樣的論點也有人記錄和堅持。如果執著於過去和未來的因果循環，而不觀察現在的智慧等生起，又執著於過去和未來完全不存在，那麼智慧等就應該確定是無緣而生。如果執著於過去和未來的因果循環，也觀察現在的智慧等生起，那麼一心之中應該有兩種思慮，因為有和無是相互區別的。另外，因果循環這個名稱所要表達的是什麼呢？如果不能超越現在的剎那，存在前後的界限，又如何能用過去和未來建立循環這個名稱呢？如果無和無之間，就不能稱之為循環。所以他們所說的，過去未來，因果循環，智慧得以生起等等，只不過是文字上的堆砌，完全沒有任何意義。像這樣已經辨析了所緣緣的性質。增上緣的性質，就是能作因。因為能作因的因義非常細微，而且沒有邊際，所以能夠涵蓋一切法。如果這個對於那個，不妨礙它的生起，這就是能作因，也就是增上緣的意義。相對於其他三種緣，這種型別的緣最多，所起的作用也確實繁多，所以叫做增上緣。難道增上緣所包含的法不是普遍周遍的嗎？為什麼還要相對於其他三種緣，說這個是增上緣呢？不是針對其他三種緣的本體而建立增上這個名稱，而是針對三種緣的意義和作用而建立的。各種緣的意義和作用，互不相通。各種緣的體性，更是互相混雜。比如增上緣的意義和種類無量無邊，所起的作用繁多而廣泛，而其他的三個緣則不是這樣，所以唯獨這個緣被特別標明為增上緣。有其他老師說，這個增上緣，本體和種類最多，所以叫做增上緣。難道不是一切法都是所緣緣嗎？為什麼這個緣單獨被稱為增上緣呢？同時存在的諸法，如果不是所緣緣，那就是增上緣，所以不應該這樣提問。這個說法一定是有道理的。為什麼呢？因為建立所緣緣不是不確定的。意思是說，如果這個法，是那個法所緣的，即使沒有緣的時候，也是所緣的本體，因為所緣的境界的性質是安住的。既然一切法，都是所緣緣，就不應該這個緣單獨被稱為增上緣。這個說法一定是合理的。為什麼呢？就像增上緣一樣，其他緣不是這樣的。意思是說，如果這個法對於那個法是增上緣，沒有哪個時候對於那個法不是增上緣。只是在那個法生起的時候，普遍地作為增上緣。
【English Translation】 English version: Or again, it reverts to the debate of 'is or is not'. How strange that even those in the East skilled in speech find themselves at a loss for words. Such arguments are even recorded and adhered to. If one clings to the revolving cycle of cause and effect in the past and future, without observing the arising of present wisdom, and also clings to the complete non-existence of the past and future, then wisdom and the like should certainly arise without any condition. If one clings to the revolving cycle of cause and effect in the past and future, and also observes the arising of present wisdom, then there should be two considerations in one mind, because 'being' and 'non-being' are distinct from each other. Furthermore, what does the term 'revolving cycle of cause and effect' signify? If it cannot transcend the present moment, having boundaries of before and after, how can the name 'revolving cycle' be established using the past and future? If there is no relationship between 'non-being' and 'non-being', it cannot be called a revolving cycle. Therefore, what they say about the past and future, the revolving cycle of cause and effect, the arising of wisdom, and so on, is merely a piling up of words, completely devoid of meaning. Thus, the nature of the object-condition (所緣緣) has been analyzed. The nature of the dominant condition (增上緣), is the efficient cause (能作因). Because the meaning of the efficient cause is very subtle and without limit, it can encompass all dharmas. If this does not hinder the arising of that, it is the efficient cause, which is the meaning of the dominant condition. Compared to the other three conditions, this type of condition is the most numerous, and its effects are indeed vast, so it is called the dominant condition. Does not the dharma encompassed by the dominant condition pervade everything? Why then, in relation to the other three, is this called the dominant condition? The name 'dominant' is not established in relation to the substance of the other three conditions, but is established in relation to the meaning and function of the three conditions. The meanings and functions of the various conditions do not intercommunicate. The natures of the various conditions are even more intermingled. For example, the meanings and types of the dominant condition are immeasurable, and its effects are numerous and extensive, while the other three are not like this, so this condition alone is specially designated as the dominant condition. Some other teachers say that this dominant condition has the most substance and types, so it is called the dominant condition. Are not all dharmas object-conditions? Why is this condition alone called the dominant condition? Dharmas that exist simultaneously, if they are not object-conditions, then they are dominant conditions, so this question should not be asked. This statement must be reasonable. Why? Because the establishment of the object-condition is not uncertain. It means that if this dharma is the object of that dharma, even when there is no condition, it is still the substance of the object, because the nature of the object's realm is abiding. Since all dharmas are object-conditions, this condition alone should not be called the dominant condition. This statement must be reasonable. Why? Just like the dominant condition, the other conditions are not like this. It means that if this dharma is a dominant condition for that dharma, there is no time when it is not a dominant condition for that dharma. Only when that dharma arises does it universally act as a dominant condition.
其所緣緣。則不如是。俱有諸法。非所緣緣。所以者何。總論體雖等別望有少多。故此一緣。獨名增上。此中意說。唯增上緣。體類俱多。非唯據體。以所緣類皆增上緣。非增上類皆所緣緣。類謂于果功能差別。有餘師說。所生廣故。名增上緣。謂一切法。唯除自體。遍能生起一切有為。如一剎那眼識生位。除其自性。用一切。法為增上緣。餘生亦爾。且如現在一念眼識。自相續中。過去諸識。為其種子。未來諸識。不為障礙。令已得生。同時眼根。為所依止。未來過去所有眼識。不障為因。令其已起。他相續法。亦為此因。謂見他身。起自眼識。或欣他色。生自眼根。為展轉緣。生自眼識。故他余法。亦轉為緣。望自識生。有增上力。諸餘色法。為眼識因。謂為所緣及於所依。為損為益。由此展轉眼識已生聲亦為因。謂聞彼故。所依損益。因茲長養損減眼根。令已發生明昧眼識。香味所觸耳鼻舌身。亦于所依。為損為益。由斯展轉。為眼識因。於法界中。諸有為法。有為助伴。有攝受因。或為能牽。或為依等。如是展轉。皆眼識因。擇滅無為。亦為因者。謂有情類。信謗涅槃發業。能招愛非愛果。由斯展轉眼識得生。一切有為。有非擇滅。由不得彼。諸法得生。展轉為因。亦生眼識。虛空容受色等有為。展轉為因。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於它（眼識）的所緣緣（ālambana-pratyaya，產生結果所依靠的條件）。並非如此。所有共同存在的法，不是所緣緣。為什麼呢？總的來說，它們的體性雖然相同，但從個別來看，有多有少。因此，只有這一種緣，才特別稱為增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，起主要增上作用的條件）。這裡的意思是說，只有增上緣，其體類才有很多，不僅僅是就體性而言。因為所緣的種類都是增上緣，但增上緣的種類不都是所緣緣。種類是指對於結果的功能差別。有些論師說，因為所生的範圍廣大，所以稱為增上緣。也就是說，一切法，除了自身之外，普遍能夠生起一切有為法。例如，在一個剎那的眼識生起時，除了它自身的自性，用一切法作為增上緣。其他的生起也是如此。比如，現在一念的眼識，在它自身的相續中，過去的各種識，是它的種子；未來的各種識，不會成為障礙，使它得以產生。同時，眼根（cakṣur-indriya，視覺器官）是它所依賴的處所。未來和過去的所有眼識，不會成為障礙，使它得以生起。其他眾生的相續法，也是它的原因。比如，看到其他人的身體，生起自己的眼識；或者欣羨其他人的顏色，生起自己的眼根，作為輾轉的緣，生起自己的眼識。所以，其他的法，也輾轉成為緣，對於自己的眼識生起，有增上的力量。其他的色法，是眼識的原因，作為所緣，以及對於所依的眼根，造成損害或利益。由此輾轉，眼識已經生起，聲音也是原因。因為聽到聲音，所依的眼根受到損害或利益，因此增長或減少，使已經發生的眼識變得明亮或昏暗。香味所觸，耳鼻舌身，也對於所依的根，造成損害或利益，因此輾轉，成為眼識的原因。在法界中，各種有為法，作為有為的助伴，有攝受的原因，或者作為能牽引的，或者作為所依的等等，這樣輾轉，都是眼識的原因。擇滅無為（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的寂滅狀態），也是原因。因為有情相信或誹謗涅槃，發起業，能夠招感可愛或不可愛的果報，因此輾轉，眼識得以生起。一切有為法，有非擇滅（apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，不通過智慧抉擇自然達到的寂滅狀態），因為不能得到那些法，諸法得以生起，輾轉成為原因，也生起眼識。虛空容受色等有為法，輾轉成為原因。
【English Translation】 English version Its object-condition (ālambana-pratyaya, the condition on which a result depends). It is not so. All co-existent dharmas are not object-conditions. Why? Generally speaking, although their nature is the same, individually speaking, there are more or less. Therefore, only this one condition is specifically called the dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya, the condition that plays a major dominant role). The meaning here is that only the dominant condition has many types, not just in terms of nature. Because the types of objects are all dominant conditions, but the types of dominant conditions are not all object-conditions. Type refers to the functional difference for the result. Some teachers say that because what is produced is vast, it is called the dominant condition. That is to say, all dharmas, except for themselves, can universally give rise to all conditioned dharmas. For example, when a moment of eye-consciousness arises, except for its own nature, it uses all dharmas as the dominant condition. Other arising is also the same. For example, the current moment of eye-consciousness, in its own continuum, the past consciousnesses are its seeds; the future consciousnesses will not be obstacles, allowing it to arise. At the same time, the eye-organ (cakṣur-indriya, the visual organ) is the place it relies on. All future and past eye-consciousnesses will not be obstacles, allowing it to arise. The continuum of other beings is also its cause. For example, seeing the bodies of other people gives rise to one's own eye-consciousness; or admiring the colors of other people gives rise to one's own eye-organ, as a condition of mutual dependence, giving rise to one's own eye-consciousness. Therefore, other dharmas also become conditions in turn, having a dominant power for the arising of one's own eye-consciousness. Other form dharmas are the cause of eye-consciousness, as the object, and causing harm or benefit to the eye-organ on which it depends. From this in turn, eye-consciousness has already arisen, and sound is also a cause. Because hearing the sound, the dependent eye-organ is harmed or benefited, thus increasing or decreasing, making the already arisen eye-consciousness bright or dim. Smells, tastes, and touches, ears, noses, tongues, and bodies, also cause harm or benefit to the dependent organs, and thus in turn, become the cause of eye-consciousness. In the realm of dharma, various conditioned dharmas, as companions of the conditioned, have the cause of acceptance, or as the one who can lead, or as the dependent, and so on in turn, are all causes of eye-consciousness. Cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, the state of cessation achieved through wise discernment) is also a cause. Because sentient beings believe in or slander Nirvana, initiating karma, they can attract desirable or undesirable results, and thus in turn, eye-consciousness can arise. All conditioned dharmas have cessation not through discrimination (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, the state of cessation achieved naturally without wise discernment), because those dharmas cannot be obtained, dharmas can arise, and in turn become the cause, and also give rise to eye-consciousness. Space accommodates form and other conditioned dharmas, and in turn becomes the cause.
亦發眼識。故一切法。為增上緣。眼識得生。余例應爾。由此諸法。一一望余。一切有為。為此緣性。如是一切。善與不善。皆應展轉為增上緣。謂善為因。生王家等受富樂果。由此為依。多行放逸。造諸不善。不善為因。多遭苦逼。緣茲生厭。廣樹眾善。又內外法。亦互為緣。謂因農夫。生稼穡等。因飲食等。滋長有情。有情無情。有根無根。有心無心。及有執受無執受等。應知皆互為增上緣。隨其所應。例可安立。如是一趣。為五趣緣。一一為先生一切故。或依一趣。起一切因。由此當來受彼果故又怖惡趣。修諸善業生人天中。於人天中。嗜慾造罪。生諸惡趣。諸如是等。品類無邊。故增上緣。所生最廣。如是用體所生廣故。應知略述此增上緣。然契經中。說世白法三增上者。止惡行善所觀因。故立增上名。謂境現前。煩惱將起。隨觀彼一惡止善行。于止行中。得增上故。契經且說增上有三非余。于余無增上義。雖諸增上義通近遠。而就勝說。如立母名。如聖教中說愛為母。以能生長諸有情故。非余煩惱無生長能。勝故多故。繫縛心故。說愛為母。非余煩惱。又說二法能護世間。非不有餘悲等能護。如斯等類。無量無邊。就勝為言。此亦應爾。然上座說。此增上緣。但據諸根生心心所。此宗可爾。彼義不成。所以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 亦能引發眼識的產生。因此，一切法都是眼識生起的增上緣。其他情況也應依此類推。由此可知，一切法，各自相對於其他法，一切有為法，都具有這種緣起的性質。像這樣，一切善與不善，都應該輾轉相生，互為增上緣。也就是說，善行作為原因，能使人投生於王侯之家等，享受富裕快樂的果報。但因此為依仗，往往放縱自己，造作各種不善之業。不善之業作為原因，會使人遭受諸多痛苦的逼迫，由此產生厭離之心，廣泛地修習各種善行。此外，內在的法和外在的法，也互相作為緣起。例如，因為有農夫，才能生長莊稼等；因為有飲食等，才能滋養有情眾生。有情與無情，有根與無根，有心與無心，以及有執受與無執受等，都應該知道它們互相作為增上緣。根據它們各自的情況，可以進行相應的安立。就像一個趣（gati，生命形式）可以作為其他五個趣的緣起，因為每一個趣都是先前一切的果。或者，依靠一個趣，可以產生一切因，因此將來會承受相應的果報。又比如，因為害怕惡趣，所以修習各種善業，從而投生到人天之中。在人天之中，貪圖享樂而造作罪業，從而墮落到各種惡趣。諸如此類的品類，無邊無際。所以，增上緣所產生的範圍最為廣泛。像這樣，因為它的用和體所產生的範圍廣泛，所以應該知道，這裡只是簡略地敘述了這種增上緣。然而，在契經（sutra，佛經）中，說到世間的白法（sukladharma，善良的法）有三種增上，是爲了止惡行善，以及所觀察的因，所以才安立了增上這個名稱。也就是說，當境界現前，煩惱將要生起時，如果能隨之觀察，就能止息惡行，奉行善事，在止息惡行和奉行善事中，就能得到增上的力量。契經只是說了增上有三種，而不是說只有三種，因為在其他方面沒有增上的意義。雖然各種增上的意義，既包括近的，也包括遠的，但這裡是就殊勝的方面來說的。就像安立母親的名稱一樣。就像聖教中說愛是母親，因為它能夠生長各種有情眾生，而不是說其他的煩惱沒有生長的能力。因為愛最為殊勝，數量最多，能夠繫縛人心，所以說愛是母親，而不是其他的煩惱。又比如，說有兩種法能夠守護世間，並不是說沒有其他的悲等能夠守護。像這樣的例子，無量無邊，都是就殊勝的方面來說的，這裡也應該這樣理解。然而，上座部（Sthavira Nikāya，佛教部派之一）的學者說，這種增上緣，只是指諸根產生心和心所（citta-caitta，心理活動）的情況。如果這個宗派是這樣認為的，那麼他們的觀點就不能成立。為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 English version It also gives rise to eye consciousness. Therefore, all dharmas are the dominant condition for the arising of eye consciousness. Other cases should follow this analogy. Hence, all dharmas, each in relation to the others, all conditioned dharmas, possess this nature of conditionality. Likewise, all good and non-good deeds should reciprocally arise, serving as dominant conditions for each other. That is, good deeds, as a cause, can lead to rebirth in noble families, resulting in the enjoyment of wealth and happiness. However, relying on this, one often indulges in pleasure and commits various non-good deeds. Non-good deeds, as a cause, can lead to suffering and oppression, from which arises aversion, leading to the extensive cultivation of various good deeds. Furthermore, internal and external dharmas also serve as conditions for each other. For example, because of farmers, crops and the like can grow; because of food and drink, sentient beings are nourished. Sentient and non-sentient, with roots and without roots, with mind and without mind, and with apprehension and without apprehension, all should be understood as serving as dominant conditions for each other. According to their respective circumstances, appropriate establishments can be made. Just as one gati (realm of existence) can serve as a condition for the other five gatis, because each gati is the result of all that came before. Or, relying on one gati, one can generate all causes, and therefore will receive the corresponding results in the future. Moreover, fearing the evil gatis, one cultivates various good deeds, leading to rebirth in the human and heavenly realms. In the human and heavenly realms, craving desires and committing sins, one falls into the various evil gatis. Such categories are boundless and limitless. Therefore, the scope of what is produced by the dominant condition is the broadest. In this way, because its function and essence produce a wide range, it should be known that this dominant condition is only briefly described here. However, in the sutras (Buddhist scriptures), it is said that there are three dominant conditions for the white dharmas (wholesome dharmas) in the world, which are established with the name 'dominant' because they stop evil, practice good, and contemplate the causes. That is, when an object appears and afflictions are about to arise, if one can observe it accordingly, one can stop evil deeds and practice good deeds, and in stopping evil deeds and practicing good deeds, one can obtain the power of dominance. The sutras only say that there are three dominant conditions, not that there are only three, because there is no meaning of dominance in other aspects. Although the meanings of various dominant conditions include both near and far, here it is discussed from the perspective of the superior aspects. It is like establishing the name of 'mother'. Just as the holy teachings say that love is the mother, because it can nurture various sentient beings, not that other afflictions do not have the ability to nurture. Because love is the most superior, the most numerous, and can bind people's hearts, it is said that love is the mother, not other afflictions. Furthermore, it is said that there are two dharmas that can protect the world, not that there are no other forms of compassion that can protect. Such examples are boundless and limitless, all spoken from the perspective of the superior aspects, and this should also be understood in this way. However, the scholars of the Sthavira Nikāya (a Buddhist school) say that this dominant condition only refers to the situation where the sense faculties give rise to mind and mental factors (citta-caitta). If this school thinks so, then their view cannot be established. Why?
者何。如前屢辯。謂彼不許有俱生因。許前生因。義不成立。故彼所說。但有虛言。又說此緣相不具足。且如眼識生增上緣。非但眼根為依故起。亦有大種。為轉生因轉長養因。謂諸飲食。業煩惱等。為招引因。此明昧因。謂眼增損。首足身份。為任持因。作意明空。引助令起。如斯等類。非彼所論。故辯此緣相不具足。余耳識等。隨其所應。有無量緣。非彼所說。故彼所說。增上緣相。但得少分。義不周圓。然彼所宗。亦許多法。于生識等。為展轉因。如何此緣。唯說眼等。彼復說言。若法于彼。或生或養。可說為因。非不相由可有因義。故非一切法皆能作因及增上緣。不相由藉故。彼言非理。諸法生時。所藉諸因。無分限故。謂不可說此法生時但藉若干法為因起。如外內法要藉時方眾具種子。法與非法。若合若離。餘生住壞。及大種等差別為因。芽等及身。方得生長。是故諸法于生長時。所藉眾緣。無有限數。故一切法。皆能作因及增上緣。此說為善。又彼不了能作因義。故於此中不能信受。因即能作。名能作因。義不相違。即能生義。或有所以。可名為因。復有所以。可名非因。能作二義。名能作因。不相違故。可名為因。不相由故。可名非因。故能作因。能含二義。然不相違。復有二種。謂于所生法能礙不能
礙。不能礙者與能為礙。而不礙法。不礙義同。故此亦有少分因相。由相不明不共施設。除俱有等五種勝因。所餘因義。若近若遠。一切說為能作因故。或此是彼能作之因。名能作因。是此與彼轉為因義。如是因義。一切法中。皆容得有。故一切法。皆能作因。能作因中。已廣思擇。今因解釋增上緣門。故復略辯此因名義。然上座言。為遮來世說一切法為一法因及緣者意。故契經說定有四緣。彼言但彰已無明鑑。豈違對法所說因緣。
說一切有部順正理論卷第十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之十二
如是因緣。有何差別。此就實體。差別都無。應說因緣如何相攝。我前已說。因緣五因性。增上即能作。何復生疑所餘二緣。未辯因攝。故今於此猶可生疑。有作是言。同類遍行二因。各少分名等無間緣。皆約已生。位無別故。無如是理。果有異故。豈不一切因皆有士用果。若法有力能生於彼。或得於彼。彼是此法士用果故。不爾二因俱等流果。義所顯故。又善不善。有漏無漏界地等別。同異皆是等無間緣之士用果。二因之果。唯據類同。故與此緣。非無差別。豈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『礙』（障礙）。不能成為障礙者與能成為障礙者，與不障礙的法，不障礙的意義相同。因此這裡也有少許因的相狀。由於相狀不明顯，不共同施設。除了俱有因等五種殊勝的因，其餘因的意義，無論是近還是遠，都可說為能作因。或者說，『此』是『彼』能產生的因，名為能作因。這是『此』與『彼』轉化為因的意義。這樣的因的意義，在一切法中，都容許存在。所以一切法，都是能作因。在能作因中，已經廣泛地思考選擇。現在因為解釋增上緣的門徑，所以再次簡略地辨析這個因的名稱和意義。然而上座部說，爲了遮止未來世說一切法都是一個法的因和緣的觀點，所以契經說必定有四緣。他們的說法只是表明已經沒有明智的見解，難道違背了對法中所說的因緣嗎？
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第十九 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯差別品第二之十二
像這樣的因緣，有什麼差別呢？就實體而言，差別完全沒有。應該說因緣如何相互包含。我之前已經說過，因緣具有五因的性質，增上緣就是能作因。為什麼又產生疑問呢？其餘兩種緣，沒有辨析其包含關係，所以現在對此仍然可以產生疑問。有人這樣說，同類因和遍行因這兩種因，各自有少部分可以稱為等無間緣。因為都是關於已經產生的，在位置上沒有區別。沒有這樣的道理，因為果有不同。難道不是一切因都有士用果嗎？如果法有力量能夠產生『彼』，或者得到『彼』，『彼』就是此法的士用果。不是這樣的，兩種因都是等流果，這是意義所顯示的。而且善與不善，有漏與無漏，界地等差別，相同與不同，都是等無間緣的士用果。兩種因的果，只是根據類別相同。所以與這個緣，並非沒有差別。難道……
【English Translation】 English version: 『Āvaraṇa』 (obstacle). That which cannot be an obstacle and that which can be an obstacle are the same as the unobstructed dharma and the unobstructed meaning. Therefore, there is also a small aspect of cause here. Because the aspect is not clear, it is not commonly established. Except for the five excellent causes such as Sahabhū-hetu (simultaneous cause), the meaning of the remaining causes, whether near or far, can be said to be Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause). Or, 『this』 is the cause that 『that』 can produce, called Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause). This is the meaning of 『this』 and 『that』 transforming into a cause. Such a meaning of cause is permissible in all dharmas. Therefore, all dharmas are Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause). In Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause), there has already been extensive consideration and selection. Now, because of explaining the gateway of Adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition), this cause's name and meaning are briefly analyzed again. However, the Sthavira school said that in order to prevent future generations from saying that all dharmas are the cause and condition of one dharma, the sutras say that there must be four conditions. Their statement only shows that there is no longer any wise insight. Does it violate the causes and conditions stated in the Abhidharma?
Shun Zheng Li Lun (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) Volume 19 T29, No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Volume 20
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 2.12: Distinguishing Differences
What are the differences between such causes and conditions? In terms of substance, there is no difference at all. It should be said how causes and conditions include each other. I have said before that causes and conditions have the nature of five causes, and Adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition) is Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause). Why do doubts arise again? The remaining two conditions have not been analyzed for their inclusion relationship, so doubts can still arise about this now. Some say that the two causes, Sabhāga-hetu (homogeneous cause) and Sarvatraga-hetu (universal cause), each have a small part that can be called Samanantara-pratyaya (contiguous condition). Because they are all about what has already arisen, there is no difference in position. There is no such reason, because the results are different. Isn't it true that all causes have Puruṣakāra-phala (fruit of effort)? If a dharma has the power to produce 『that』 or obtain 『that』, 『that』 is the Puruṣakāra-phala (fruit of effort) of this dharma. It is not like this, the two causes are both Niḥsyanda-phala (result of outflow), which is what the meaning shows. Moreover, good and non-good, contaminated and uncontaminated, realms and grounds, etc., differences, similarities, and differences are all Puruṣakāra-phala (fruit of effort) of Samanantara-pratyaya (contiguous condition). The results of the two causes are only based on the same category. Therefore, with this condition, it is not without difference. Could it be...
不二因之等流果亦兼有異。如欲纏系見。苦所斷二因所牽。自部等流有記無記。此亦染污。其類是同。有漏無漏。界地等異二因必無。故非無別。若爾已生心心所法。相應俱有二因攝故。應皆不立等無間緣。此與二因之士用果。其相各別。此無間生。與彼俱生。果有異故。豈不二因亦有無間生士用果。無如是義。以心心所能生無間士用果力。應知即是等無間緣。非是俱有相應因用。二因唯有能得俱生士用果力。以心心所能引俱生士用果義。即名俱有相應二因。引無間生士用果義。應知即是等無間緣。如引俱生果雖無別而依異義別立二因。體雖相雜。而義有異。二因對彼等無間緣。義別體同。應知亦爾。故等無間非即諸因。其所緣緣。為即因不。有作是說。即能作因。以體與果俱相似故。豈不所緣緣士用果為果。有作是說。此所緣緣果唯增上。或復能作因。亦有士用果。故無有失。若爾俱有相應二因。應如所緣能作因攝。然非所緣緣展轉增上果。亦非士用果從所緣緣生。故無體果俱相似義。是故有釋。因緣差別。不遍是因。遍者是緣。攝不攝故。如指指節。是故不見等無間緣及所緣緣有因攝義。此與因別。理不待言。唯初后二緣。應辯與因別。此既有別。余之二緣。緣義等故。亦應有別。故有總辯緣因異言。謂因能生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不二因（Hetu）的等流果（Nisyanda-phala）也兼有差異。例如，欲界的煩惱纏縛（Klesha），見苦所斷的二因（指見苦所斷的煩惱之因）所牽引，自部等流（Svabhaga-nisyanda）有記（Vyākrta，已決定的）和無記（Avyākrta，未決定的）。這些也是染污的，其類別是相同的。有漏（Sāsrava）和無漏（Anāsrava），界（Dhātu）和地（Bhūmi）等的差異，二因必然沒有。所以並非沒有差別。如果這樣，已經生起的心（Citta）和心所法（Caitasika-dharma），因為相應俱有二因所攝，應該都不成立等無間緣（Samanantara-pratyaya）。這與二因的士用果（Purusakara-phala），它們的相狀各自不同。這個是無間生（Anantara），那個是俱生（Sahaja），果有差異的緣故。難道二因就沒有無間生的士用果嗎？沒有這樣的道理。因為心和心所能生無間士用果的力量，應當知道就是等無間緣，不是俱有相應因的作用。二因只有能得到俱生的士用果的力量。因為心和心所能引俱生的士用果的意義，就叫做俱有相應二因。引無間生的士用果的意義，應當知道就是等無間緣。如同引俱生果雖然沒有差別，但是依據不同的意義而分別建立二因。體性雖然相雜，但是意義有差異。二因對於等無間緣，意義不同而體性相同，應當知道也是這樣。所以等無間緣不是就是諸因。 其所緣緣（Alambana-pratyaya），是就是因嗎？有人這樣說，就是能作因（Karana-hetu），因為體性和果都相似的緣故。難道所緣緣的士用果是果嗎？有人這樣說，這個所緣緣的果僅僅是增上（Adhipati）。或者能作因也有士用果，所以沒有過失。如果這樣，俱有相應二因，應該像所緣緣一樣被能作因所攝。然而不是所緣緣展轉增上的果，也不是士用果從所緣緣生起，所以沒有體性和果都相似的意義。因此有人解釋說，因和緣的差別，不是普遍都是因，普遍的才是緣，因為攝與不攝的緣故。如同手指和指節。所以不見等無間緣和所緣緣有被因所攝的意義。這個與因的差別，道理不用多說。只有最初和最後的二緣，應該辨別與因的差別。這個既然有差別，其餘的二緣，緣的意義相同，也應該有差別。所以有總的辨別緣和因的差異的說法，說因能夠生。
【English Translation】 English version The Nisyanda-phala (result of outflow) of the Hetu (cause) of non-duality also has differences. For example, the Klesha (afflictions) of the desire realm, drawn by the two Hetus (causes, referring to the causes of afflictions severed by seeing suffering) severed by seeing suffering, the Svabhaga-nisyanda (homogeneous outflow) has Vyākrta (determined) and Avyākrta (undetermined). These are also defiled, and their categories are the same. The differences between Sāsrava (with outflows) and Anāsrava (without outflows), Dhātu (realms) and Bhūmi (grounds), etc., the two Hetus necessarily do not have. Therefore, it is not without differences. If so, the Citta (mind) and Caitasika-dharma (mental factors) that have already arisen, because they are included in the Sahaja (co-existent) and corresponding two Hetus, should not be established as Samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition). This and the Purusakara-phala (result of effort) of the two Hetus, their appearances are each different. This is Anantara (immediately following), that is Sahaja (co-existent), because the results are different. Could it be that the two Hetus do not have the immediately following Purusakara-phala? There is no such reason. Because the power of the mind and mental factors to produce the immediately following Purusakara-phala, it should be known that it is the Samanantara-pratyaya, not the function of the co-existent corresponding cause. The two Hetus only have the power to obtain the co-existent Purusakara-phala. Because the meaning of the mind and mental factors being able to lead to the co-existent Purusakara-phala is called the co-existent corresponding two Hetus. The meaning of leading to the immediately following Purusakara-phala, it should be known that it is the Samanantara-pratyaya. Just as although there is no difference in leading to the co-existent result, the two Hetus are established separately according to different meanings. Although the natures are mixed, the meanings are different. The two Hetus are different in meaning but the same in nature with respect to the Samanantara-pratyaya, it should be known that it is also like this. Therefore, the Samanantara-pratyaya is not just the causes. Is the Alambana-pratyaya (object condition) just the cause? Some say that it is the Karana-hetu (efficient cause), because the nature and the result are similar. Could it be that the Purusakara-phala of the object condition is the result? Some say that the result of this object condition is only Adhipati (dominance). Or the efficient cause also has the Purusakara-phala, so there is no fault. If so, the co-existent corresponding two Hetus should be included in the efficient cause like the object condition. However, it is not the result of the object condition's successive increase, nor is the Purusakara-phala produced from the object condition, so there is no meaning of the nature and result being similar. Therefore, some explain that the difference between cause and condition is that not everything is a cause, and what is universal is a condition, because of inclusion and non-inclusion. Like a finger and a finger joint. Therefore, the meaning of the Samanantara-pratyaya and the object condition being included in the cause is not seen. This difference from the cause, the reason does not need to be said much. Only the first and last two conditions should be distinguished from the difference from the cause. Since this has a difference, the remaining two conditions, the meaning of the conditions is the same, there should also be a difference. Therefore, there is a general statement distinguishing the difference between condition and cause, saying that the cause can produce.
緣能長養。猶如生養二母差別。又緣攝助。因方能生。生已相續。緣力長養。故或有說。因唯有一。緣乃有多。猶如種子糞土等異。又因不共。共者是緣。如眼如色。又作自事說名為因。若作他事說名為緣。即如種子糞土等異。又能引起說名為因。能任持者說名為緣。如花如蒂。又因名近。遠者名緣。如珠如日。又因能生。緣者能辦。猶如從酪出於生酥。鉆器人功力所能辦。非鉆器等令水出酥。以於水中闕酥因故。如斯等類。差別眾多。是故因緣。別立名想。由其功力有差別故。又正有義故說為因。能助顯發故說為緣。如字界緣于義有別。然契經說。二因二緣。生正見者。言音作意近遠等生無漏正見。約此義顯因緣二名。又契經說。有因有緣。有由序者。此顯俱起無間遠因義有差別。又契經說。眼因色緣生眼識者。意顯眼識隨不共根及共境起。又契經說。此因此緣此由序者。此中意顯作者作具及余助緣。如是等經。隨義應釋。已隨理教。廣辯諸緣。如是諸緣顯法生滅以為作用。應說何緣於何位法。而興作用。頌曰。
二因於正滅 三因於正生 餘二緣相違 而興于作用
論曰。前說五因。為因緣性。二因作用。于正滅時。正滅時言。顯法現在滅現前故。名正滅時。俱有相應二因。於法滅現前位。而作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：緣能滋養事物，就像生母和養母的差別一樣。而且，緣能輔助和攝持，因才能產生。產生之後，緣的力量使之相續不斷地增長。所以，有人說，因只有一個，而緣卻有很多，就像種子和肥料的不同。而且，因是不共的，共同的是緣，比如眼和色。又，自己直接做的事情叫做因，幫助做其他事情的叫做緣，就像種子和肥料的不同。又，能夠引起事物產生的叫做因，能夠任持事物存在的叫做緣，比如花和花蒂。又，因是近的，遠的是緣，比如珠子和陽光。又，因能夠產生，緣能夠成辦，就像從牛奶中提煉出酥油，需要鉆具和人工的力量才能完成。如果想從水中提取酥油，即使有鉆具等工具也無法做到，因為水中缺少酥油的因。像這樣的例子有很多，差別也很多。因此，因和緣，分別設立不同的名稱和概念，因為它們的功能和作用有差別。而且，因為具有真實的作用，所以稱為因；能夠幫助顯現和引發，所以稱為緣，就像文字、界限和緣對於意義的區分一樣。然而，《契經》中說，兩種因和兩種緣，能夠產生正見，即言語和作意，近和遠等，能夠產生無漏的正見。這是從這個意義上顯示因和緣這兩個名稱的。又，《契經》中說，有因、有緣、有由序，這顯示了俱起、無間和遠因在意義上的差別。又，《契經》中說，眼因色緣產生眼識，意思是說眼識隨著不共的根和共同的境而產生。又，《契經》中說，此因此緣此由序，這裡的意思是說作者、工具和其餘的助緣。像這樣的經文，應該根據意義來解釋。已經根據道理和教義，廣泛地辨析了各種緣。這些緣顯示了法的生滅，並以此作為作用。應該說，什麼樣的緣在什麼樣的法位上，發揮作用呢？頌曰：
二因於正滅 三因於正生
餘二緣相違 而興于作用
論曰：前面說的五因，作為因緣的性質。兩種因的作用，在正滅的時候。正滅的時候，顯示法在現在滅的時候顯現，所以叫做正滅的時候。俱有因和相應因，在法滅現前的位置，發揮作用。
English version: 'Condition' can nourish and foster, just like the difference between a birth mother and a foster mother. Moreover, 'condition' can assist and support, so that 'cause' can arise. After arising, the power of 'condition' allows it to continuously grow. Therefore, some say that there is only one 'cause', but there are many 'conditions', just like the difference between a seed and fertilizer. Furthermore, 'cause' is non-common, while what is common is 'condition', such as the eye and form (rupa). Also, doing one's own direct work is called 'cause', while helping to do other things is called 'condition', just like the difference between a seed and fertilizer. Moreover, what can bring about the arising of something is called 'cause', while what can sustain its existence is called 'condition', such as a flower and its stem. Also, 'cause' is near, while what is far is 'condition', such as a pearl and the sunlight. Also, 'cause' can produce, while 'condition' can accomplish, just like extracting ghee from milk, which requires the power of a drill and human effort to accomplish. If one wants to extract ghee from water, even with drills and other tools, it cannot be done, because water lacks the 'cause' of ghee. There are many such examples, and many differences. Therefore, 'cause' and 'condition' are established with different names and concepts, because their functions and effects are different. Moreover, because it has a real effect, it is called 'cause'; what can help to manifest and bring forth is called 'condition', just like the distinction between letters, boundaries, and conditions in relation to meaning. However, the sutras say that two causes and two conditions can generate right view, namely speech and attention, near and far, etc., can generate undefiled right view. This is to show the two names of 'cause' and 'condition' from this meaning. Also, the sutras say that there is 'cause', there is 'condition', and there is 'sequence', which shows the difference in meaning between co-arising, immediate, and distant causes. Also, the sutras say that the eye as 'cause' and form (rupa) as 'condition' give rise to eye consciousness, meaning that eye consciousness arises according to the non-common root and the common object. Also, the sutras say that 'this is because of this cause, this condition, this sequence', where the meaning is to show the agent, the tool, and the remaining auxiliary conditions. Such sutras should be interpreted according to their meaning. The various conditions have been extensively analyzed according to reason and doctrine. These conditions manifest the arising and ceasing of dharmas, and take this as their function. It should be said, what kind of condition, in what position of dharma, exerts its function? The verse says:
Two causes at the time of cessation, Three causes at the time of arising,
The remaining two conditions are contrary, And exert their function.
Commentary: The five causes mentioned earlier are the nature of cause and condition. The function of two causes is at the time of cessation. The phrase 'at the time of cessation' shows that the dharma manifests at the time of present cessation, so it is called the time of cessation. The co-existent cause (俱有因) and the associated cause (相應因) exert their function at the position where the cessation of dharma is present.
【English Translation】 English version: 'Condition' can nourish and foster, just like the difference between a birth mother and a foster mother. Moreover, 'condition' can assist and support, so that 'cause' can arise. After arising, the power of 'condition' allows it to continuously grow. Therefore, some say that there is only one 'cause', but there are many 'conditions', just like the difference between a seed and fertilizer. Furthermore, 'cause' is non-common, while what is common is 'condition', such as the eye and form (rupa). Also, doing one's own direct work is called 'cause', while helping to do other things is called 'condition', just like the difference between a seed and fertilizer. Moreover, what can bring about the arising of something is called 'cause', while what can sustain its existence is called 'condition', such as a flower and its stem. Also, 'cause' is near, while what is far is 'condition', such as a pearl and the sunlight. Also, 'cause' can produce, while 'condition' can accomplish, just like extracting ghee from milk, which requires the power of a drill and human effort to accomplish. If one wants to extract ghee from water, even with drills and other tools, it cannot be done, because water lacks the 'cause' of ghee. There are many such examples, and many differences. Therefore, 'cause' and 'condition' are established with different names and concepts, because their functions and effects are different. Moreover, because it has a real effect, it is called 'cause'; what can help to manifest and bring forth is called 'condition', just like the distinction between letters, boundaries, and conditions in relation to meaning. However, the sutras say that two causes and two conditions can generate right view, namely speech and attention, near and far, etc., can generate undefiled right view. This is to show the two names of 'cause' and 'condition' from this meaning. Also, the sutras say that there is 'cause', there is 'condition', and there is 'sequence', which shows the difference in meaning between co-arising, immediate, and distant causes. Also, the sutras say that the eye as 'cause' and form (rupa) as 'condition' give rise to eye consciousness, meaning that eye consciousness arises according to the non-common root and the common object. Also, the sutras say that 'this is because of this cause, this condition, this sequence', where the meaning is to show the agent, the tool, and the remaining auxiliary conditions. Such sutras should be interpreted according to their meaning. The various conditions have been extensively analyzed according to reason and doctrine. These conditions manifest the arising and ceasing of dharmas, and take this as their function. It should be said, what kind of condition, in what position of dharma, exerts its function? The verse says:
Two causes at the time of cessation, Three causes at the time of arising,
The remaining two conditions are contrary, And exert their function.
Commentary: The five causes mentioned earlier are the nature of cause and condition. The function of two causes is at the time of cessation. The phrase 'at the time of cessation' shows that the dharma manifests at the time of present cessation, so it is called the time of cessation. The co-existent cause (俱有因) and the associated cause (相應因) exert their function at the position where the cessation of dharma is present.
功能。此位二因作功能者。謂俱生品。隨闕一時。作用皆無。不能取境。于現在位。如是二因。雖俱一時取果與果。而今但約與果功能。所言三因。于正生者。謂未來法。于正生位。生現前故。名正生時。同類遍行異熟三種。法正生位。而作功能。故有說言。等流異熟二果。因力牽引。令生同類遍行。容有無間等流果起。可言彼果。于正生時。因興作用。異熟因果。必隔遠時。其因久滅。果方正起。如何作用。在果生時。非過去時可有作用。此言作用。意顯功能。二相別中。已曾思擇。以因雖滅經無量時而有功能。令自果起。由不共故。自果生時。作用雖無。而於自果。興功能上。立作用名。彼上座言。一剎那頃。難說此是生時滅時。非法由因先生后滅。如杖持罥內蛇穴中繫頸挽出方斷其命。然體本無。由因故有。彼說但是掉舉戲言。引非所宗。鄙俚言故。非對法者許法由因先生后滅同系蛇喻。但由緣起理趣法然。為曉學徒。說取與用。顯于果起因有功能。故彼所言。唯增掉戲。又彼所言。一剎那頃。難說此是生時滅時。彼恒尋思粗淺異論。尚年已過。居衰耄時。豈能測量。幼恒思擇。一切智者。詮至理言。修成妙慧所游宗極。雖一剎那而本末起。今時正起。名曰生時。生已無間。正臨謝往。名曰滅時。此何難說。或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 功能。此位二因作功能者。謂俱生品（同時產生的因）。隨闕一時。作用皆無。不能取境。于現在位。如是二因。雖俱一時取果與果。而今但約與果功能。所言三因。于正生者。謂未來法。于正生位。生現前故。名正生時。同類遍行異熟三種。法正生位。而作功能。故有說言。等流異熟二果。因力牽引。令生同類遍行。容有無間等流果起。可言彼果。于正生時。因興作用。異熟因果。必隔遠時。其因久滅。果方正起。如何作用。在果生時。非過去時可有作用。此言作用。意顯功能。二相別中。已曾思擇。以因雖滅經無量時而有功能。令自果起。由不共故。自果生時。作用雖無。而於自果。興功能上。立作用名。彼上座言。一剎那頃。難說此是生時滅時。非法由因先生后滅。如杖持罥內蛇穴中繫頸挽出方斷其命。然體本無。由因故有。彼說但是掉舉戲言。引非所宗。鄙俚言故。非對法者許法由因先生后滅同系蛇喻。但由緣起理趣法然。為曉學徒。說取與用。顯于果起因有功能。故彼所言。唯增掉戲。又彼所言。一剎那頃。難說此是生時滅時。彼恒尋思粗淺異論。尚年已過。居衰耄時。豈能測量。幼恒思擇。一切智者。詮至理言。修成妙慧所游宗極。雖一剎那而本末起。今時正起。名曰生時。生已無間。正臨謝往。名曰滅時。此何難說。或 在此功能中，有兩個因發揮作用，即俱生品（simultaneous causes）。如果其中一個缺失，作用就無法產生，也無法獲取對象。在當下，這兩個因同時獲取結果併產生結果，但這裡只討論產生結果的功能。所說的三個因，對於正在產生的法來說，指的是未來的法。在正在產生的階段，因為生起並顯現，所以稱為正生時。同類因、遍行因和異熟因這三種因，在法正在產生的階段發揮作用。因此有人說，等流果和異熟果，是被因的力量牽引而產生的，從而產生同類因和遍行因。可能會有無間等流果生起，可以說這個果在正生時，因發揮了作用。異熟因果必然相隔很長時間，因已經滅去很久，果才開始產生。那麼，如何在果產生時發揮作用呢？過去的時間不可能有作用。這裡所說的作用，實際上指的是功能。在二相的區分中，已經思考過，即使因已經滅去很久，仍然具有產生結果的功能，因為它們是不共的。在結果產生時，雖然沒有作用，但對於結果來說，在發揮功能上，可以稱為作用。那位上座說，在一剎那的時間裡，很難說什麼是生時，什麼是滅時。法不是由因先產生后滅去的，就像用棍子夾住蛇穴里的蛇，繫住脖子拉出來才斷其命一樣。然而，法的本體本來不存在，是因為因才產生的。他的說法只是掉舉戲言，引用的不是我們宗派的觀點，因為他的話語粗俗淺薄。對法論者不認可法是由因先產生后滅去的，也不認可用系蛇來比喻。只是因為緣起的道理本來就是如此，爲了讓學生明白，才說獲取和給予的作用，顯示果產生時因具有功能。所以他的話，只是增加了掉舉戲論。還有，他說，在一剎那的時間裡，很難說什麼是生時，什麼是滅時。他一直在思考粗淺的異論，年紀已經很大，處於衰老的時候，怎麼能衡量從小就思考一切智者所說的至理之言，以及修成妙慧所達到的宗派的最高境界呢？即使是一剎那，也有本末的生起。現在正在生起的時候，就叫做生時。生起之後，緊接著就面臨謝落和消逝，就叫做滅時。這有什麼難說的呢？或者
【English Translation】 English version Function. The two causes that perform functions in this state are called co-existent categories (simultaneous causes). If one is missing, the function will not occur, and it cannot grasp the object. In the present state, these two causes simultaneously take the result and give the result, but now we only discuss the function of giving the result. The three causes mentioned, for those that are being produced, refer to future dharmas. In the stage of being produced, because they arise and manifest, it is called the time of being produced. The three types of dharmas—similar cause, pervasive cause, and resultant cause—function in the stage of being produced. Therefore, some say that the outflowing result and the resultant result are drawn by the power of the cause, causing the arising of similar cause and pervasive cause. It is possible for an immediate outflowing result to arise, and it can be said that the cause exerts its function at the time of being produced. The resultant cause and result are necessarily separated by a long time. The cause has long ceased, and the result is just arising. How can it function? At the time of the result's arising, the past time cannot have a function. The term 'function' here implies 'capability'. In the distinction of the two characteristics, it has already been considered that even though the cause has ceased for countless times, it still has the capability to cause its own result to arise, because they are non-common. At the time of the result's arising, although there is no function, for the result itself, the name of 'function' is established on the exertion of capability. That elder said that in an instant, it is difficult to say what is the time of arising and what is the time of ceasing. Dharmas are not first produced by the cause and then cease, like using a stick to hold a snake in its hole, tying its neck and pulling it out before cutting off its life. However, the substance of dharmas is originally non-existent, and it is caused by the cause. His statement is merely frivolous talk, and he is quoting something that is not our doctrine, because his words are vulgar and shallow. Those who study Abhidharma do not accept that dharmas are first produced by the cause and then cease, nor do they accept the analogy of tying a snake. It is only because the principle of dependent origination is naturally so, that we explain the function of taking and giving to students, showing that the cause has the capability when the result arises. Therefore, his words only increase frivolous talk. Furthermore, he said that in an instant, it is difficult to say what is the time of arising and what is the time of ceasing. He has been constantly contemplating shallow and different views, and his years have already passed, and he is in a state of decline and old age. How can he measure the words of ultimate truth spoken by the all-knowing one, who has been contemplating since childhood, and the ultimate realm of the doctrine attained by cultivating wonderful wisdom? Even in an instant, there is the arising of the beginning and the end. The time when it is just arising now is called the time of arising. After arising, it immediately faces decline and passing away, which is called the time of ceasing. What is difficult to say about this? Or
雖難說非不可說。勤加方便。而可說故。豈由汝等墮于劬勞己不能說。令他亦舍無上菩提亦難可得。豈由難得便舍至求。是故不應以己墮學不了其相便撥言無。又體本無由因有者。何煩說此違自宗言。謂若本無。如何言體。既得言體。何謂本無。依對法宗。應作是說。以未來法亦有亦無。謂作用無體本有故。由諸先起及俱生因。體本所無。今時方有。說未來世無體論宗。未生既無。如何言體。若彼無間必當有故。得言體者。有太過失。現在無間必當無故。應言無體。便一切無。又未來無。以當有故。言有體者。現在有體。以曾無故。何不言無。過去亦應得說體有。以曾有故。世便相雜。是故彼說不耐推徴。唯對法宗。理無傾動。已說因緣二時作用。二緣作用。與此相違。等無間緣。於法生位。而興作用。以彼生時前心心所引開避故。若所緣緣。能緣滅位。而興作用。以心心所要現在時方取境故。其增上緣。法生滅位。皆無障住。故彼作用隨無障位。一切無遮。今應思擇。俱有相應。及所緣緣。若法生已。方興作用。何須立此二因一緣。若執因緣要有作用。方許立為因緣性者。則未來世。應無因緣。然宗所許。不應為難。若爾云何說有作用。若離如是二因一緣。正滅位中。所引諸法。應無作用。取境功能。若作用無亦名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 雖難以說清，但並非完全不可說。只要勤加方便，便是可以說的。難道是因為你們自己陷入辛勞，不能說清，就讓別人也放棄無上菩提，認為難以獲得嗎？難道因為難以獲得，就放棄追求嗎？所以，不應該因為自己陷入學習的困境，不瞭解事物的真相，就否定它的存在。而且，如果本體本來沒有，是因為因緣才產生的，又何必說這些違背自己宗義的話呢？如果說是本來沒有，又怎麼能說有本體呢？既然已經說了有本體，又怎麼能說是本來沒有呢？ 依照對法宗（Abhidharma，佛教哲學的一個學派），應該這樣說：未來的法，既可以說是有，也可以說是沒有。說它沒有，是因為作用還沒有顯現；說它有，是因為本體本來就存在。由於諸如先起因和俱生因的作用，本體本來沒有的，現在才產生。如果按照說未來世沒有本體的宗義，未生的事物既然沒有，又怎麼能說有本體呢？如果說因為那個事物在無間之後必定會產生，所以可以稱為有本體，那麼就會有太過分的過失。既然現在的事物在無間之後必定會消失，就應該說沒有本體，那麼一切事物就都不存在了。而且，未來的事物雖然沒有，但因為將來會產生，所以說有本體；那麼現在的事物有本體，是因為曾經沒有過，為什麼不說沒有呢？過去的事物也應該可以說有本體，因為它曾經存在過。這樣一來，世間的一切事物就混雜在一起了。所以，那種說法經不起推敲。只有對法宗的理論，才不會被動搖。 已經說了因緣在兩個時期的作用，下面說說兩種緣的作用，這與前面的說法相反。等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，心與心所相續不斷的因緣），在法產生的時候起作用，因為法產生的時候，前一剎那的心和心所會引開道路，讓新的法產生。所緣緣（alambanapratyaya，心和心所的所緣對像），在能緣的心和心所滅去的時候起作用，因為心和心所必須在現在這一刻才能取境。增上緣（adhipatipratyaya，起增強作用的因緣），在法產生和滅去的時候，都沒有障礙，所以它的作用隨著沒有障礙的情況而變化，一切都沒有遮擋。現在應該思考，俱有緣（sahajatapratyaya，同時存在的因緣）和相應緣（samprayuktakahetu，相互配合的因緣），以及所緣緣，如果法產生之後才起作用，又何必設立這兩種因和一種緣呢？如果認為因緣必須有作用，才能被認為是因緣的性質，那麼未來的事物就應該沒有因緣了。然而，這是宗義所允許的，不應該以此來為難。如果這樣，那麼如何解釋說有作用呢？如果離開了這兩種因和一種緣，在正滅位中，所引發的諸法，就應該沒有作用，沒有取境的功能。如果作用也沒有了，也就算...
【English Translation】 English version Although it is difficult to explain, it is not entirely impossible. With diligent effort, it can be explained. Is it because you yourselves are caught in toil and cannot explain it clearly, that you lead others to abandon Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (無上菩提, unsurpassed complete enlightenment), thinking it is difficult to attain? Is it because it is difficult to attain that you abandon the pursuit? Therefore, one should not deny the existence of something simply because one is stuck in learning and does not understand its true nature. Moreover, if the essence (體) originally did not exist, and only came into being due to conditions (因緣), why bother saying things that contradict one's own doctrine? If you say it originally did not exist, how can you say it has an essence? Since you have already said it has an essence, how can you say it originally did not exist? According to the Abhidharma (對法宗, Buddhist philosophical school), it should be said that future dharmas (法, phenomena) both exist and do not exist. They do not exist because their function has not yet manifested; they exist because their essence inherently exists. Due to the functions of causes such as the prior cause (先起因) and the co-existent cause (俱生因), the essence, which originally did not exist, now comes into being. If, according to the doctrine that the future world has no essence, how can you say that something unborn has an essence, since it does not exist? If you say that because that thing will definitely arise immediately after, it can be called having an essence, then there would be an excessive fault. Since present things will definitely disappear immediately after, it should be said that they have no essence, and then everything would not exist. Moreover, although future things do not exist, because they will come into being in the future, it is said that they have an essence; then present things have an essence because they once did not exist, why not say they do not exist? Past things should also be said to have an essence because they once existed. In this way, all things in the world would be mixed up. Therefore, that kind of statement cannot withstand scrutiny. Only the theory of the Abhidharma is unshakable. Having spoken about the function of causes and conditions in two periods, let's talk about the function of two kinds of conditions, which is contrary to the previous statement. The immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya, 等無間緣, the condition of continuous succession of mind and mental factors) functions at the time of the arising of a dharma, because when a dharma arises, the mind and mental factors of the previous moment will open the way for the new dharma to arise. The object-condition (alambanapratyaya, 所緣緣, the object of mind and mental factors) functions at the time of the cessation of the mind and mental factors that cognize it, because the mind and mental factors must grasp the object in the present moment. The dominant condition (adhipatipratyaya, 增上緣, the condition that enhances) has no obstruction in the arising and ceasing of dharmas, so its function changes according to the absence of obstruction, and everything is unhindered. Now we should consider the co-existent condition (sahajatapratyaya, 俱有緣, the condition of simultaneous existence) and the associated condition (samprayuktakahetu, 相應緣, the condition of mutual cooperation), as well as the object-condition. If they only function after a dharma has arisen, why establish these two causes and one condition? If it is thought that a cause or condition must have a function in order to be considered the nature of a cause or condition, then future things should have no causes or conditions. However, this is permitted by the doctrine and should not be used to make things difficult. If so, how can we explain that there is a function? If these two causes and one condition are absent, then the dharmas that are brought about in the state of cessation should have no function, no ability to grasp objects. If there is no function, then it is...
緣者。諸阿羅漢最後心等。亦應可立等無間緣。此責非理。前已辯故。說所緣緣非要由有作用方立。何相關涉。而將例彼等無間緣。彼緣要由開避牽引。故唯現在正可安立。于未來世。定無彼緣。于現在時。曾有作用。故雖過去。亦可安立。其所緣緣。非唯現在。但有體性。皆可成緣。不必要由作用而立。唯于少分。少分成緣。得作用名。非於一切。云何知有體方得成緣。所緣體若無。覺不生故。有餘師說。立因立緣。亦有別義。非要能起。雖無生用。而亦成因。如自相續。見定因果。於他相續。理亦非無。如契經說。二因二緣。生於正見。此亦應爾。能生不生俱成因性。俱有諸法。和合能牽異聚一果。名為作用。以于如是和合聚中。隨闕一法。余皆無用。故俱有法。更互為因。如俱有因。相應亦爾。展轉有力。能取所緣。故非能生方成因性。若爾何緣先作是說。法生所賴故說名因。非可離因法有生義。故作是說。非謂一切能生果者方得名因。因義尚然。緣亦應爾。故法生已。作用非無。辯諸緣已。應言何法由幾緣生。頌曰。
心心所由四 二定但由三 余由二緣生 非天次第故
論曰。此中由言為顯故義。謂心心所。四緣故生。其所緣緣。除生心等。無別有用。謂六識身。及相應法。隨其所應。以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果這樣，那麼諸阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得無生的人）的最後心念等，也應該可以成立等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，無間緣，即緊鄰的前一剎那的心識為后一剎那心識生起的條件）。 答：這種責難是不合理的。因為前面已經辯論過了，說所緣緣（alambanapratyaya，即對像作為心識生起的條件）的成立，並非一定要有作用才能成立，這有什麼關係呢？而你要用它來類比等無間緣。等無間緣一定要通過開闢、躲避、牽引等作用，所以只能在現在才能安立。對於未來世，肯定沒有這種緣。在現在時，曾經有作用，所以即使是過去，也可以安立。而所緣緣，並非只有現在，只要有體性，都可以成為緣，不一定要通過作用來成立。只有在少部分情況下，少部分成為緣，才得到作用的名稱，並非在所有情況下都是如此。 問：怎麼知道有體性才能成為緣呢？ 答：因為所緣的體性如果不存在，覺就不會產生。 還有其他論師說，立因（hetu，原因）和立緣（pratyaya，條件），也有不同的意義，並非一定要能生起。即使沒有生起的作用，也可以成為因，比如自己的相續（santana，心識流），見定（指禪定中的觀察）的因果，對於他人的相續，道理也不是沒有，如契經（sutra，佛經）所說，二因二緣，生於正見（samyag-drsti，正確的見解）。這也應該如此，能生和不能生都成為因性。俱有諸法（sahabhu-dharma，同時存在的法），和合能牽引不同的聚合產生一個結果，這叫做作用。因為在這樣的和合聚中，缺少任何一個法，其餘的都沒有用。所以俱有法，互相為因，如同俱有因（sahabhu-hetu，同時存在的因），相應也是如此，輾轉有力，能取所緣，所以並非能生才能成為因性。 問：如果這樣，為什麼先前要說，法的生起所依賴的才叫做因？ 答：因為不能離開因，法才有生起的意義，所以才這樣說，並非說一切能生果的才能叫做因。因的意義尚且如此，緣也應該如此。所以法生起后，作用並非沒有。 辯論了各種緣之後，應該說，什麼法由幾種緣生起？ 頌曰：
心心所由四 二定但由三 余由二緣生 非天次第故
論曰：這裡『由』字是爲了顯示『故』的意義。意思是說，心和心所（caitta，心理活動），由四緣故生起。其所緣緣，除了生心等之外，沒有別的用處。指的是六識身（sad-vijnanakaya，六種意識），以及相應的法，根據它們的情況，以 English version: Question: If that's the case, then the last thought of the Arhats (Arhat, those who have attained no-rebirth), etc., should also be able to establish samanantarapratyaya (the immediately preceding condition, i.e., the mind of the immediately preceding moment is the condition for the arising of the mind of the subsequent moment). Answer: This accusation is unreasonable. Because it has been argued before that the establishment of alambanapratyaya (the object as the condition for the arising of consciousness) does not necessarily require function to be established. What is the relevance? And you want to use it to analogize samanantarapratyaya. Samanantarapratyaya must pass through functions such as opening, avoiding, and attracting, so it can only be established in the present. For the future, there is definitely no such condition. In the present, there has been a function, so even in the past, it can be established. However, alambanapratyaya is not only in the present, as long as it has substance, it can become a condition, and it does not necessarily need to be established through function. Only in a few cases, a small part becomes a condition, and then it gets the name of function, not in all cases. Question: How do you know that having substance can become a condition? Answer: Because if the substance of the object does not exist, awareness will not arise. There are other teachers who say that establishing hetu (cause) and establishing pratyaya (condition) also have different meanings, and it is not necessary to be able to arise. Even without the function of arising, it can become a cause, such as one's own santana (mind stream), the cause and effect of seeing samadhi (referring to observation in meditation), for the santana of others, the principle is not without it, as the sutra (Buddhist scripture) says, two causes and two conditions give rise to samyag-drsti (right view). This should also be the case, both able to arise and unable to arise become causal nature. Sahabhu-dharmas (co-existing dharmas), combined can attract different aggregates to produce a result, this is called function. Because in such a combined aggregate, if any one dharma is missing, the rest are useless. Therefore, co-existing dharmas are causes for each other, just like sahabhu-hetu (co-existing cause), and so is association, which is powerful in turn and can take the object, so it is not that only being able to arise can become causal nature. Question: If so, why did you say earlier that what the arising of dharma depends on is called a cause? Answer: Because dharma cannot arise without a cause, that's why it is said, not that everything that can produce a result is called a cause. The meaning of cause is still like this, and so should the condition. Therefore, after the dharma arises, the function is not absent. After discussing the various conditions, it should be said, what dharma arises from how many conditions? Verse:
The mind and mental states arise from four, two samadhis arise from only three, the rest arise from two conditions, not in the order of the heavens.
Treatise: Here, the word 'from' is to show the meaning of 'therefore'. It means that the mind and mental states (caitta, mental activities) arise from four conditions. Its alambanapratyaya, in addition to arising mind and so on, has no other use. It refers to the six consciousnesses (sad-vijnanakaya, six kinds of consciousness), and the corresponding dharmas, according to their situation, with
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If that's the case, then the last thought of the Arhats (Arhat, those who have attained no-rebirth), etc., should also be able to establish samanantarapratyaya (the immediately preceding condition, i.e., the mind of the immediately preceding moment is the condition for the arising of the mind of the subsequent moment). Answer: This accusation is unreasonable. Because it has been argued before that the establishment of alambanapratyaya (the object as the condition for the arising of consciousness) does not necessarily require function to be established. What is the relevance? And you want to use it to analogize samanantarapratyaya. Samanantarapratyaya must pass through functions such as opening, avoiding, and attracting, so it can only be established in the present. For the future, there is definitely no such condition. In the present, there has been a function, so even in the past, it can be established. However, alambanapratyaya is not only in the present, as long as it has substance, it can become a condition, and it does not necessarily need to be established through function. Only in a few cases, a small part becomes a condition, and then it gets the name of function, not in all cases. Question: How do you know that having substance can become a condition? Answer: Because if the substance of the object does not exist, awareness will not arise. There are other teachers who say that establishing hetu (cause) and establishing pratyaya (condition) also have different meanings, and it is not necessary to be able to arise. Even without the function of arising, it can become a cause, such as one's own santana (mind stream), the cause and effect of seeing samadhi (referring to observation in meditation), for the santana of others, the principle is not without it, as the sutra (Buddhist scripture) says, two causes and two conditions give rise to samyag-drsti (right view). This should also be the case, both able to arise and unable to arise become causal nature. Sahabhu-dharmas (co-existing dharmas), combined can attract different aggregates to produce a result, this is called function. Because in such a combined aggregate, if any one dharma is missing, the rest are useless. Therefore, co-existing dharmas are causes for each other, just like sahabhu-hetu (co-existing cause), and so is association, which is powerful in turn and can take the object, so it is not that only being able to arise can become causal nature. Question: If so, why did you say earlier that what the arising of dharma depends on is called a cause? Answer: Because dharma cannot arise without a cause, that's why it is said, not that everything that can produce a result is called a cause. The meaning of cause is still like this, and so should the condition. Therefore, after the dharma arises, the function is not absent. After discussing the various conditions, it should be said, what dharma arises from how many conditions? Verse:
The mind and mental states arise from four, two samadhis arise from only three, the rest arise from two conditions, not in the order of the heavens.
Treatise: Here, the word 'from' is to show the meaning of 'therefore'. It means that the mind and mental states (caitta, mental activities) arise from four conditions. Its alambanapratyaya, in addition to arising mind and so on, has no other use. It refers to the six consciousnesses (sad-vijnanakaya, six kinds of consciousness), and the corresponding dharmas, according to their situation, with
色等五及一切法。為所緣緣。心等因緣。具五因性。前生自類。開避引發。是謂心等等無間緣。此增上緣。即一切法。各除自性。隨其所應。豈不一緣二因作用。非於彼法生時。即有如是心等四緣故生。如何因緣。具五因性。雖法滅位作用方成。而法生時非無功力。離此彼法必不生故。以心心所必仗所緣。及托二因。方得生故。若法與彼法為所緣。或因無暫時。非本論說故。二無心定三緣故生。除所緣緣。非能緣故。此因緣者。但有二因。一俱有因。謂二定上生等諸相。二同類因。謂前已生自地善法。等無間緣。謂入定心及相應法。增上緣者。謂如前說。豈不無想亦三緣生。是心心所等無間故。亦應說為心等無間。但非心等加行引生。故於此中。廢而不說。或此無想。但聲所顯。非如二定相對立故。二定何緣是心等無間。而不說是心等無間緣。由心等力。所引生故。如心心所生必系屬前心滅故。非如色法可與余心俱時轉故。非如得等可有雜亂。俱現前故。非如生等。是余伴故。然心方便加行引生。故可說為心等無間。與心等起定相違害。故非心等等無間緣。又為此緣理相違故。謂修行者。厭惡現行心心所法。入無心定。若無心定。復為此緣。引心心所。則修行者。應於此定無樂起心。為離現行心心所法。入無心定。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 色等五者（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）以及一切法，作為所緣緣（alambana-pratyaya，產生心理活動的對象或條件）。心等（指心及心所法）作為因緣（hetu-pratyaya），具備五種因性（pancha-hetu）：前生自類（purvajata-sabhaga），開避引發（apavaranantaraya-utpadaka）。這被稱為心等等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，緊鄰的條件）。此增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，主導條件），即一切法，各自除去自性（svabhava），隨其所應。難道不是一個緣（pratyaya）具有兩種因（hetu）的作用嗎？不是在那個法生起時，就有了如是心等四緣（catur-pratyaya）而生起。如何因緣具備五種因性？雖然法滅位（nirodha-avastha）作用才成就，而法生起時並非沒有功力。離開此，彼法必定不生起。因為心心所（citta-caitta）必定依賴所緣，及依託二因（dvi-hetu），才能生起。如果法與彼法作為所緣，或者因（hetu）沒有暫時性，就不是本論所說的。二無心定（dvi-asamjnika-samapatti，兩種無心禪定）由三種緣（tri-pratyaya）而生起，除去所緣緣，因為不是能緣（alambana）的緣故。此因緣只有兩種因：一俱有因（sahabhu-hetu，同時存在的因），指二定（dvi-samapatti）上生等諸相；二同類因（sabhaga-hetu，同類因），指先前已生起的自地善法。等無間緣，指入定心及相應法。增上緣者，如同前面所說。 難道無想（asamjni，無想狀態）不是也由三種緣生起嗎？因為是心心所等無間（citta-caitta-samanantara）的緣故，也應該說為心等無間。但不是心等加行（citta-adi-prayoga）所引發，因此在此處，廢而不說。或者此無想，只是聲音所顯示，不像二定相對立。二定為何是心等無間，而不說是心等無間緣？由心等力所引生。如心心所生起必定系屬於前心滅去，不像色法（rupa）可以與余心同時運轉。不像得等（prapti-adi）可以有雜亂，同時現前。不像生等（jati-adi），是其餘伴侶。然而心方便加行所引發，所以可說為心等無間。與心等起定（citta-samutthapana-samadhi）相違害，所以不是心等等無間緣。又為此緣（pratyaya）理相違背，意思是修行者，厭惡現行心心所法，入無心定。如果無心定，又為此緣，引心心所，那麼修行者，應該於此定無樂而生起心。爲了離開現行心心所法，才入無心定。
【English Translation】 English version The five senses (rupa-adi-panca, referring to the five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) and all dharmas (everything that exists) serve as the object condition (alambana-pratyaya, the object or condition that gives rise to mental activity). The mind and its mental factors (citta-adi, referring to the mind and mental concomitants) serve as the causal condition (hetu-pratyaya), possessing five causal properties (pancha-hetu): antecedent homogeneity (purvajata-sabhaga), opening the way and inducing (apavaranantaraya-utpadaka). This is called the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc. (samanantara-pratyaya, the immediately preceding condition). This dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya, the dominating condition) is all dharmas, each excluding its own nature (svabhava), as appropriate. Isn't it that one condition (pratyaya) has the function of two causes (hetu)? It is not that when that dharma arises, there are already the four conditions of mind, etc. (catur-pratyaya) that cause it to arise. How can a causal condition possess five causal properties? Although the function is only accomplished in the state of cessation of the dharma (nirodha-avastha), it is not that the dharma has no power when it arises. If it were not for this, that dharma would certainly not arise. Because the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta) must rely on the object and depend on two causes (dvi-hetu) in order to arise. If a dharma serves as the object for another dharma, or if the cause (hetu) is not temporary, then it is not what is discussed in this treatise. The two unconscious absorptions (dvi-asamjnika-samapatti, the two kinds of unconscious samadhi) arise from three conditions (tri-pratyaya), excluding the object condition, because it is not the condition that cognizes (alambana). This causal condition only has two causes: one is the co-existent cause (sahabhu-hetu, the cause that exists simultaneously), referring to the characteristics of the arising of the two absorptions (dvi-samapatti); the second is the homogeneous cause (sabhaga-hetu, the cause of the same kind), referring to the previously arisen wholesome dharmas of one's own realm. The immediately preceding condition is the mind entering into absorption and its corresponding dharmas. The dominant condition is as previously stated. Isn't it that the non-perception (asamjni, state of non-perception) also arises from three conditions? Because it is the immediately preceding condition of mind and mental factors (citta-caitta-samanantara), it should also be said to be the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc. But it is not induced by the effort of mind, etc. (citta-adi-prayoga), therefore it is discarded and not discussed here. Or this non-perception is only manifested by sound, unlike the two absorptions which are in opposition to each other. Why are the two absorptions the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc., but not said to be the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc.? Because they are induced by the power of mind, etc. Just as the arising of mind and mental factors must be connected to the cessation of the previous mind, unlike form (rupa) which can operate simultaneously with other minds. Unlike attainment, etc. (prapti-adi) which can be confused and appear simultaneously. Unlike birth, etc. (jati-adi), which are other companions. However, it is induced by the skillful effort of the mind, so it can be said to be the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc. It is contrary to the samadhi that arises with the mind, etc. (citta-samutthapana-samadhi), so it is not the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc. Furthermore, it is logically contradictory to be this condition (pratyaya), meaning that practitioners, disgusted with the currently operating mind and mental factors, enter into unconscious absorption. If unconscious absorption is again this condition, inducing mind and mental factors, then practitioners should not find joy in this absorption and give rise to mind. It is in order to leave the currently operating mind and mental factors that one enters into unconscious absorption.
復引生心心所法。不應道理亦有至教。證無心定由心心所加行引生。如說超過一切非想非非想處想受滅身作證具足住。故知二定是心心所。加行引生。由心差別現前證故。無有至教。證無心定能為此緣。引心心所。故非心等等無間緣。二定剎那。前望於後。何緣不立等無間緣。諸念皆由前心等引。不能引后。如前已說。又最後念。應無果故。出心為果。斯有何失。豈不已說。此非心等等無間緣。如何可言最後念定出心為果。又出定心。依前心等加行起故。不可說作最後剎那定所引果。入定心等。望出定心。非無間滅。出心望彼。如何可說等無間耶。無等無間緣于中為隔故。無間等無間。義各有差別。前心等力引后法生。后法名為前等無間。剎那無隔。立無間名。是故二言。其義各別故作是說。若法與心為等無間。彼法亦是心無間耶。應作四句。第一句者。謂無心定出心心所。及第二等諸定剎那第二句者。謂初所起諸定剎那。及有心位諸心心所生住異滅。第三句者。謂初所起諸定剎那。及有心位心心所法。第四句者。謂第二等諸定剎那。及無心定出心心所生住異滅。若法與心為等無間。與無心定為無間耶。應作四句。謂前第三第四句。為今第一第二句。即前第一第二句。為今第三第四句。余不相應及諸色法。皆因增上二
緣所生。復云何知。世間諸法。唯如上說因緣所生。非自在天我勝性等一因。所起。由次第故。謂諸世間。若自在等一因生者。則應一切俱時而生。非次第起。因現有故。何法為障。令不俱生。現見諸法。次第而起。故知非但一因所生。若執世間隨自在欲。前後差別。故非頓起。是則應許非一因生。亦許欲為法生因故。此欲前後生滅差別。理亦不成。因無異故。非因無異果有差別。要待異因。果方別故。或差別欲。應許頓生。所因前後無差別故。是則諸法亦應頓生。誰能為障。令不頓起。若自在欲。更待余因。前後次第差別生者。應所因法更待余因。則所待因。應無邊際。因無邊故。無始義成。不越釋門因緣正理。徒異名說自在為因。又無用故。不應妄執世間諸法自在為因。非自在天作大功力生世間法。少有所用。故不應謂自在為因。若為發生自歡喜者。但應發喜。何用生余。若喜離余方便不發。是則彼喜余方便生。自在於斯。應非自在。于喜既爾。余亦應然。差別因緣不可得故。或余方便。應余方便生。何用計從自在天所起。若余方便。離余方便生喜。亦應非余方便所起。或生苦具。逼害有情。為發自喜。咄哉何用事斯暴惡自在天為。又信世間唯從自在一因所起。則撥世間現見善惡諸士用果。若言自在待余因緣助發
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣起所生。又如何得知世間諸法，唯如上述所說由因緣所生，而非由自在天（Maheśvara，印度教主神濕婆的別稱）、我（Ātman，指常一不變的「真我」）、勝性（Prakṛti，數論中的自性，宇宙的本源）等單一原因所產生呢？這是因為有次第的緣故。如果世間萬物是由自在天等單一原因所生，那麼一切事物應該同時產生，而不是有先有後地依次產生。因為原因已經存在，有什麼能夠阻礙它們同時產生呢？但我們現在看到諸法是依次產生的，所以可知並非由單一原因所生。如果有人認為世間萬物的產生是隨自在天的意願而有先後差別，所以不是同時產生，那麼這就等於承認並非由單一原因所生，也承認了意願是事物產生的因素。然而，這種意願的前後生滅差別，在道理上也說不通，因為原因並沒有不同。如果原因沒有不同，結果卻有差別，那麼就必須等待不同的原因，結果才會有不同。或者，這種有差別的意願應該同時產生，因為產生它的原因在時間上沒有先後差別。這樣，諸法也應該同時產生，誰又能阻止它們同時產生呢？如果自在天的意願還需要其他因素來輔助才能有先後次第的差別產生，那麼這個被需要的因素又需要其他因素，這樣一來，所依賴的因素就應該沒有邊際了。因為原因沒有邊際，所以就成了無始。這並沒有超出釋迦牟尼佛所說的因緣正理，只是用不同的名稱來說自在天是原因罷了。而且，這種說法也沒有實際用處，所以不應該妄自認為世間諸法是由自在天所產生。自在天並沒有費很大的力氣來產生世間諸法，也沒有從中獲得任何用處，所以不應該說自在天是原因。如果說是爲了產生他自己的歡喜，那麼他只需要產生歡喜就可以了，為什麼要產生其他事物呢？如果歡喜不通過其他方便就無法產生，那麼這種歡喜就是由其他方便所生，自在天在這裡就應該不是自在的了。對於歡喜是這樣，對於其他事物也應該是這樣，因為找不到不同的因緣。或者，其他方便應該由其他方便所生，為什麼要說是從自在天那裡產生的呢？如果其他方便不需要其他方便就能產生歡喜，那麼也應該不是由其他方便所產生。或者，（自在天）產生痛苦的工具，逼迫殘害有情眾生，是爲了產生他自己的歡喜嗎？唉，要這樣的暴惡自在天有什麼用呢？如果相信世間萬物唯獨由自在天這一個原因所產生，那麼就否定了世間所見的善惡諸士的功用和果報。如果說自在天要等待其他因緣來輔助才能發揮作用，
【English Translation】 English version Born of conditions. How else is it known? All phenomena in the world are solely born of conditions as described above, and not from a single cause such as Maheśvara (the Great Lord, a name for the Hindu deity Shiva), Ātman (the self, referring to the unchanging 'true self'), or Prakṛti (primordial matter in Samkhya philosophy). This is because of the sequential order. If all things in the world were produced by a single cause like Maheśvara, then everything should arise simultaneously, not sequentially. Since the cause is present, what could obstruct them from arising together? We see that phenomena arise sequentially, so it is known that they are not produced by a single cause alone. If one argues that the differences in the world arise according to the will of Maheśvara, and thus are not simultaneous, then this is equivalent to admitting that they are not produced by a single cause, and also admitting that will is a factor in the production of phenomena. However, this difference in the arising and ceasing of will is also logically untenable, because the cause is not different. If the cause is not different, yet the result is different, then one must await a different cause for the result to be different. Or, this differentiated will should arise simultaneously, because the cause that produces it has no temporal difference. Thus, all phenomena should also arise simultaneously. Who could obstruct them from arising simultaneously? If the will of Maheśvara requires other factors to assist in producing sequential differences, then the factor that is needed would require other factors, and so on, to the point where the dependent factors would be limitless. Because the causes are limitless, the meaning of beginninglessness is established. This does not go beyond the correct reasoning of dependent origination taught by Śākyamuni Buddha, but merely uses a different name to say that Maheśvara is the cause. Moreover, this assertion is useless, so one should not falsely believe that all phenomena in the world are produced by Maheśvara. Maheśvara does not expend great effort to produce the phenomena of the world, nor does he gain any benefit from it, so it should not be said that Maheśvara is the cause. If it is said that it is to generate his own joy, then he only needs to generate joy, why produce other things? If joy cannot be generated without other means, then that joy is produced by other means, and Maheśvara should not be independent in this case. What is true for joy should also be true for other things, because no different conditions can be found. Or, other means should be produced by other means, why say that they are produced from Maheśvara? If other means can produce joy without other means, then they should also not be produced by other means. Or, (Maheśvara) produces instruments of suffering, oppressing and harming sentient beings, in order to generate his own joy? Alas, what is the use of such a violent and evil Maheśvara? If one believes that all things in the world are produced solely by Maheśvara as a single cause, then one denies the effects and rewards of the efforts of the virtuous and wicked people seen in the world. If it is said that Maheśvara must await other conditions to assist in his actions,
功能方成因者。但是朋敬自在天言。離所餘因緣。不見別用故。時地水等種種因緣。于芽等生現有功力。芽等隨彼成有無故。于芽等生除彼功力。不見別用。故不應計世間法起自在為因。自在既然。我勝性等。亦應準此如應思擇。故無有法唯一因生。但從如前所說種種因緣所起。其理極成。既言色法因及增上。二緣所生。大種所造。總名為色于中雲何。大種所造自他相望。互為因緣。頌曰。
大為大二因 為所造五種 造為造三種 為大唯一因
論曰。初言大為大二因者。是諸大種。更互相望。但為俱有同類因義。俱起前生為因別故。謂隨闕一。余不生故。更互相望。有俱有因。性類雖別。而同一事。更相順故。有同類因。大於所造。能為五因。何等為五。謂生依立持養別故。雖同時生。而隨轉故。如芽起影燈焰發明。大於所造。得成因義。如是五因。但是能作。因之差別。大望所造。為餘五因。理不成故。且諸大種。望所造色。非俱有因。非一果故。豈不大種與生等相非同得一所造色果。非不相望為俱有因。雖非同得一所造果。而更有餘同一果義。大與所造必無一果。故例生等。理定不齊。又諸大種。與生等相。設互相望。不同一果。而互為果。故得成俱有因。大與所造。無如是義。豈不心與心之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果功能是由唯一的原因造成的。但是朋敬自在天（Maheśvara，印度教神祇，被認為是宇宙的創造者和毀滅者）說，除了剩餘的因緣之外，看不到其他作用。時間、地點、水等各種因緣，對於芽等的產生，現在有其作用力。因為芽等隨著這些因緣的成就而存在或不存在。對於芽等的產生，如果去除這些作用力，就看不到其他作用。所以不應該認為世間法的產生是以自在天為原因。自在天既然如此，我和勝性等，也應該按照這個道理相應地進行思考。所以沒有一種法是唯一原因產生的，而是從前面所說的各種因緣所產生的，這個道理非常明確。既然說色法是由因和增上緣兩種緣所生，並且是由大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風）所造。總的來說，被稱為色，那麼其中，大種所造之物，從自身和他者的角度來看，是如何互相成為因緣的呢？頌文說：
『大為大二因，為所造五種，造為造三種，為大唯一因。』
論述：最初說的大為大二因，是指各種大種，互相之間，只是作為俱有因和同類因。因為俱起和前生是因的差別。如果缺少其中一個，其他的就不會產生。互相之間，有俱有因。性質種類雖然不同，但是同一件事，互相順應，有同類因。大種對於所造之物，能成為五種因。哪五種呢？就是生因、依因、立因、持因、養因的差別。雖然同時產生，但是隨著它而轉變。比如芽的生起、影子的出現、燈焰的照明，大種對於所造之物，能夠成就因的意義。這五種因，只是能作因的差別。大種對於所造之物，作為其餘五種因，道理上是不成立的。而且各種大種，對於所造的色法，不是俱有因，因為不是同一個果。難道大種和生等相，不是共同得到一個所造色果嗎？不是不互相作為俱有因嗎？雖然不是共同得到一個所造果，但是還有其他的同一果的意義。大種和所造之物，必定沒有同一個果，所以用生等來舉例，道理一定是不一樣的。而且各種大種，和生等相，即使互相之間，不是同一個果，但是互相作為果，所以能夠成為俱有因。大種和所造之物，沒有這樣的意義。難道心和心之……
【English Translation】 English version: If a function is caused by a single cause. However, Maheśvara (a Hindu deity, considered the creator and destroyer of the universe) says that apart from the remaining causes and conditions, no other function is seen. Various causes and conditions such as time, place, and water have a present efficacy in the production of sprouts, etc. Because sprouts, etc., exist or do not exist depending on the accomplishment of these causes and conditions. If these efficacies are removed from the production of sprouts, etc., no other function is seen. Therefore, it should not be considered that the arising of worldly phenomena is caused by Maheśvara. Since Maheśvara is like this, 'I' and 'Prakriti' (primordial substance) etc., should also be considered accordingly. Therefore, no dharma (phenomenon) arises from a single cause, but arises from various causes and conditions as previously stated, which is a very established principle. Since it is said that form is produced by two conditions, cause and dominant condition, and is made by the Mahābhūtas (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), and is generally called form, then how do the things made by the Mahābhūtas mutually become causes and conditions from the perspective of themselves and others? The verse says:
'The great are two causes for the great, five kinds for the made, the made are three kinds for the made, one cause for the great.'
Commentary: The initial statement 'The great are two causes for the great' refers to the various Mahābhūtas, which are only co-existent causes and homogeneous causes in relation to each other. Because co-arising and prior arising are the differences of causes. If one is missing, the others will not arise. Mutually, there are co-existent causes. Although the nature and kinds are different, they are the same thing, and they are mutually compliant, so there are homogeneous causes. The Mahābhūtas can become five kinds of causes for the made. What are the five kinds? They are the differences of the cause of production, the cause of reliance, the cause of establishment, the cause of maintenance, and the cause of nourishment. Although they arise simultaneously, they change with it. For example, the arising of a sprout, the appearance of a shadow, the illumination of a lamp flame, the Mahābhūtas can achieve the meaning of cause for the made. These five kinds of causes are only the differences of the efficient cause. It is not logically established that the Mahābhūtas are the remaining five kinds of causes for the made. Moreover, the various Mahābhūtas are not co-existent causes for the form made, because they are not the same result. Isn't it that the Mahābhūtas and the characteristics of production, etc., do not jointly obtain a single form result? Aren't they not mutually acting as co-existent causes? Although they do not jointly obtain a single result, there is still the meaning of the same result. The Mahābhūtas and the made definitely do not have the same result, so it is definitely different to use production, etc., as examples. Moreover, the various Mahābhūtas and the characteristics of production, etc., even if they are not the same result mutually, they act as results mutually, so they can become co-existent causes. The Mahābhūtas and the made do not have such a meaning. Isn't it that mind and mind...
隨相非互為果。而心與相。為俱有因。大與所造。亦應如是。何故非因。此例非等。心與隨相。雖復相望非互為果。而彼隨相互為果法。定有與心互為果義。又心隨相與心一果。故心與彼為俱有因。大與所造。無如是事。故大於彼。非俱有因。又所造色。有善不善。大種一向無記性攝。非如是相成俱有因。若爾大種。望無記造色。應成俱有因。不爾所造善不善無記。同一種類故。同一類色。少分以大種為因少分非大種為因。無如是理。如一類法少分與心相應。少分非心相應。無如是義。又許大種在過去世。所造之色通去來。今非俱有因有如是理。又成就別。故無此因。謂有成就。諸所造色。非四大種。或有成就。能造大種。非所造色。非俱有因有如是相。故大與造。非俱有因。非相應因。不相應故。亦非遍行及異熟因。大種無覆無記性故。非同類因。俱時起故。設後起者。非同類故。雖有無記同。而種類異故。如心受等。種類雖別。而互相望。為同類因。大與所造。亦應爾者。理亦不然。受等與心。種類雖別。而同一果。故得為因。由此應知。說緣道理。又本論中。亦有文證。大望造色。無五種因。如說有色處非無記為因亦非無記。謂善色處。若諸大種。望所造色。於五因內。隨作一因。則此句義。應不成立。若爾應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 隨相（隨心識而生的外在表象）並非互為結果。然而，心與相（外在表象）是俱有因（共同存在的因）。大種（地、水、火、風四大元素）與所造色（由四大元素所產生的物質）也應如此。為何說大種不是所造色的俱有因呢？這個例子並不恰當。心與隨相雖然相互觀望並非互為結果，但隨相之間互為結果的法則，必定存在與心互為結果的意義。而且，心與隨相是心的一個結果。因此，心與隨相是俱有因。大種與所造色之間，沒有這樣的關係。所以，大種不是所造色的俱有因。此外，所造色有善與不善之分，而大種一向屬於無記性（非善非惡的性質）。這不像隨相那樣可以相互成就，成為俱有因。 如果這樣說，那麼大種對於無記的所造色，應該成為俱有因了吧？並非如此。因為所造的善、不善、無記之色，屬於同一種類。同一類色，少部分以大種為因，少部分不以大種為因，沒有這樣的道理。就像同一類法，少部分與心相應，少部分不與心相應，沒有這樣的道理。而且，允許大種存在於過去世，所造之色通於過去、未來、現在，並非俱有因，這是有道理的。此外，成就不同，所以沒有這種因果關係。所謂有成就的所造色，並非四大種；或者有成就的能造大種，並非所造色。非俱有因有這樣的現象。所以，大種與所造色，不是俱有因。 大種也不是相應因，因為它們不相應。也不是遍行因和異熟因，因為大種是無覆無記性（既非善也非惡，且能覆蓋煩惱的性質）。大種也不是同類因，因為它們是同時生起的。即使是後生起的，也不是同類因，雖然有無記的相同，但種類不同。就像心與受等（感受等心理活動），種類雖然不同，但相互觀望，可以成為同類因。大種與所造色也應該如此嗎？道理並非如此。受等與心，種類雖然不同，但屬於同一個結果，所以可以成為因。由此應該知道，這是說明緣起的道理。而且，在本論中，也有經文可以證明，大種對於所造色，沒有五種因果關係。比如，經中說，有色處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身所對的色境）不是以無記為因，也不是無記。這裡指的是善的色處。如果諸大種對於所造色，在五種因果關係中，隨便作為一種因，那麼這句話的意義，就應該不能成立了。如果這樣的話，應該...
【English Translation】 English version The co-arising appearances (external manifestations arising from consciousness) are not mutually resultant. However, the mind and the appearances (external manifestations) are co-existent causes (hetu). The great elements (mahābhūta, the four primary elements: earth, water, fire, and air) and the derived matter (upādāyarūpa, matter derived from the four primary elements) should also be like that. Why is it said that the great elements are not the co-existent cause of the derived matter? This example is not appropriate. Although the mind and the co-arising appearances are not mutually resultant when viewed in relation to each other, the law of the co-arising appearances being mutually resultant must have the meaning of being mutually resultant with the mind. Moreover, the mind and the co-arising appearances are one result of the mind. Therefore, the mind and the co-arising appearances are co-existent causes. There is no such relationship between the great elements and the derived matter. Therefore, the great elements are not the co-existent cause of the derived matter. Furthermore, the derived matter has good and bad aspects, while the great elements always belong to the indeterminate nature (avyākṛta, neither good nor bad). This is not like the co-arising appearances that can mutually accomplish each other and become co-existent causes. If that is the case, then the great elements should become the co-existent cause for the indeterminate derived matter, right? Not so. Because the derived matter, whether good, bad, or indeterminate, belongs to the same category. It is unreasonable for some parts of the same category of matter to have the great elements as their cause, while other parts do not have the great elements as their cause. Just like it is unreasonable for some parts of the same category of dharma (phenomena) to be associated with the mind, while other parts are not associated with the mind. Moreover, it is permissible for the great elements to exist in the past, and the derived matter to extend to the past, future, and present, and not be a co-existent cause. This is reasonable. Furthermore, the accomplishments are different, so there is no such causal relationship. What is meant is that there are accomplished derived matter that are not the four great elements; or there are accomplished productive great elements that are not derived matter. Non-co-existent causes have such phenomena. Therefore, the great elements and the derived matter are not co-existent causes. The great elements are also not associated causes (samprayuktuka-hetu), because they are not associated. They are also not pervasive causes (sarvatraga-hetu) and resultant causes (vipāka-hetu), because the great elements are obscured-indeterminate in nature (nivṛtāvyākṛta, neither good nor bad, and capable of obscuring afflictions). The great elements are also not homogenous causes (sabhāga-hetu), because they arise simultaneously. Even if they arise later, they are not homogenous causes, although they have the same indeterminate nature, but they are of different categories. Just like the mind and feelings (vedanā), although they are of different categories, they can become homogenous causes when viewed in relation to each other. Should the great elements and the derived matter also be like that? The reasoning is not like that. Feelings and the mind, although they are of different categories, belong to the same result, so they can become causes. From this, it should be known that this is explaining the principle of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Moreover, in the original treatise, there are also scriptural proofs that the great elements do not have the five causal relationships with the derived matter. For example, the sutra says that the sense bases (āyatana, the sense organs and their corresponding objects) are not caused by the indeterminate, nor are they indeterminate. This refers to the good sense bases. If the great elements were to act as any one of the five causal relationships for the derived matter, then the meaning of this sentence should not be established. If that is the case, it should...
與經論相違。如契經言。因四大種。施設色蘊。本論亦言。大種所造。因增上等。俱不相違。據生因等。說此言故。大與所造。為生因者。從彼起故。如母生子。為依因者。隨彼轉故。如臣依王。為立因者。能任持故。如地持物。為持因者。由彼力持。令不斷故。如食持命。為養因者。能增長故。猶如樹根水所沃潤。如是則顯大與所造。為起變持住長因性。或生因者。一切大種生所造色。非離諸大種有造色生故。造色生已。同類相續。不斷位中。火為依因。能令乾燥。不爛壞故。水為立因。能為浸潤。令不散故。地為持因。能任持彼。令不墜故。風為養因。能引發彼。令增長故。如是大種。雖與所造無俱有等五種因義。而有生等五種別因。故與經論無相違失。此中上座。妄作是言。生等五因。非聖教說。彼謂聖教。曾無此名。未審彼宗。何名聖教。為鳩摩羅設摩文頌。為扇帙略所造論門。且佛教中有此名想。如契經說。愛生士夫愛生自體。又契經說依戒住戒。名色依識。識依名色。頌依文士。又契經說。四食建立攝益求生已生有情。又契經說。水持地等。又契經言。聽聞正法。能令如理作意圓滿。乃至廣說。汝等由信。棄捨家法。趣于非家。信所長養。制睡眠力。乃至廣說。唯汝所執。舊隨界因。諸聖教中。都無說處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：與經論相違背。例如《契經》中說，由於四大種（地、水、火、風四種基本元素）的緣故，才施設（建立）了色蘊（物質的集合）。《本論》也說，所造之色（由四大種產生的物質）是由於大種（四大種）的增上緣等原因產生的，這二者並不相違背。這是根據生因等（產生的原因等）來說的。大種與所造之色，作為生因（產生的原因）來說，是因為所造之色從大種而生起，就像母親生孩子一樣。作為依因（依靠的原因）來說，是因為所造之色隨著大種而運轉，就像臣子依靠國王一樣。作為立因（建立的原因）來說，是因為大種能夠任持（承擔）所造之色，就像大地承載萬物一樣。作為持因（保持的原因）來說，是因為大種的力量保持所造之色，使之不中斷，就像食物維持生命一樣。作為養因（養育的原因）來說，是因為大種能夠增長所造之色，就像樹根被水滋潤一樣。這樣就顯示了大種與所造之色，具有起因、變因、持因、住因、長因的性質。 或者說，作為生因（產生的原因）來說，一切大種都能產生所造之色，因為沒有離開諸大種而能產生造色的情況。造色產生之後，同類相續，在不斷絕的狀態中，火作為依因（依靠的原因），能夠使之乾燥，不腐爛。水作為立因（建立的原因），能夠浸潤，使之不散壞。地作為持因（保持的原因），能夠任持它，使之不墜落。風作為養因（養育的原因），能夠引發它，使之增長。像這樣，大種雖然與所造之色沒有俱有因等五種因的意義，但有生因等五種不同的因。所以與經論沒有相違背的過失。這裡，上座部（佛教部派之一）的人，妄作這樣的言論，說生因等五因，不是聖教（佛陀的教導）所說的。他們認為聖教中，從來沒有這些名稱。不知道他們宗派，把什麼叫做聖教？是鳩摩羅什（Kuma^rajiva，著名譯經師）的文頌，還是扇帙略（S'a^ntira^ks!ita，古印度佛教論師）所造的論門？且佛教中有這樣的想法，例如《契經》中說，愛產生士夫（人），愛產生自體（自身）。又《契經》說，依靠戒律而安住于戒律。名色（精神和物質）依靠識（意識），識依靠名色。頌（詩歌）依靠文士（作者）。又《契經》說，四食（四種營養）建立、攝益、求生已生的有情（眾生）。又《契經》說，水保持大地等。又《契經》說，聽聞正法，能夠使如理作意（正確的思考）圓滿，乃至廣說。你們因為信仰，拋棄了家法，走向了非家（出家），信仰所長養，控制睡眠的力量，乃至廣說。只有你們所執著的，舊的隨界因（不清楚具體含義），在各種聖教中，都沒有說到的地方。
【English Translation】 English version: It contradicts the sutras and treatises. For example, the sutras say that the 'rupa-skandha' (form aggregate, the aggregate of matter) is established based on the four great elements ('maha-bhuta', the four primary elements: earth, water, fire, and wind). The 'shastra' (treatise) also says that the 'rupa' (form, matter) produced is due to the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) as the 'adhipati-pratyaya' (dominant condition) and so on. These two are not contradictory. This is because it is said according to the 'janaka-hetu' (productive cause) and so on. The 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) and the produced 'rupa' (form, matter), as the 'janaka-hetu' (productive cause), is because the produced 'rupa' (form, matter) arises from the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements), just like a mother gives birth to a child. As the 'ashraya-hetu' (dependent cause), it is because the produced 'rupa' (form, matter) follows the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements), just like a minister relies on the king. As the 'sthiti-hetu' (establishing cause), it is because the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) can support the produced 'rupa' (form, matter), just like the earth supports things. As the 'dhrti-hetu' (sustaining cause), it is because the power of the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) sustains the produced 'rupa' (form, matter), so that it does not cease, just like food sustains life. As the 'posana-hetu' (nourishing cause), it is because the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) can increase the produced 'rupa' (form, matter), just like the roots of a tree are nourished by water. Thus, it shows that the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) and the produced 'rupa' (form, matter) have the nature of being the 'utpatti-hetu' (arising cause), 'vikara-hetu' (transforming cause), 'dhrti-hetu' (sustaining cause), 'avasthana-hetu' (abiding cause), and 'vrddhi-hetu' (increasing cause). Or, as the 'janaka-hetu' (productive cause), all the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) can produce the produced 'rupa' (form, matter), because there is no situation where 'rupa' (form, matter) can be produced without the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements). After the 'rupa' (form, matter) is produced, the same kind continues. In the state of not being interrupted, fire, as the 'ashraya-hetu' (dependent cause), can make it dry and not rot. Water, as the 'sthiti-hetu' (establishing cause), can moisten it and prevent it from scattering. Earth, as the 'dhrti-hetu' (sustaining cause), can support it and prevent it from falling. Wind, as the 'posana-hetu' (nourishing cause), can induce it and make it grow. Like this, although the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements) and the produced 'rupa' (form, matter) do not have the meaning of the five kinds of causes such as 'sahabhu-hetu' (co-existent cause), they have five different causes such as 'janaka-hetu' (productive cause). Therefore, there is no fault of contradicting the sutras and treatises. Here, the 'Sthavira' (Elders, a Buddhist school) people falsely make such statements, saying that the five causes such as 'janaka-hetu' (productive cause) are not said by the 'agama' (sacred teachings, Buddha's teachings). They think that there have never been these names in the 'agama' (sacred teachings, Buddha's teachings). I don't know what their school calls 'agama' (sacred teachings, Buddha's teachings)? Is it the 'stotra' (hymn) of Kuma^rajiva (famous translator of scriptures), or the 'shastra-mukha' (treatise gate) created by S'a^ntira^ks!ita (ancient Indian Buddhist philosopher)? Moreover, there is such a thought in Buddhism, for example, the 'sutra' says that love produces 'purusa' (person), love produces 'atman' (self). Also, the 'sutra' says to abide in the 'sila' (precepts) by relying on the 'sila' (precepts). 'Nama-rupa' (name and form, mind and matter) relies on 'vijnana' (consciousness), 'vijnana' (consciousness) relies on 'nama-rupa' (name and form, mind and matter). 'Stotra' (hymn) relies on 'kavi' (poet). Also, the 'sutra' says that the four 'ahara' (nutriment) establish, benefit, seek to produce existing sentient beings. Also, the 'sutra' says that water sustains the earth and so on. Also, the 'sutra' says that listening to the 'saddharma' (true Dharma) can make 'yoniso-manasikara' (appropriate attention) complete, and so on. Because of faith, you have abandoned the 'kula-dharma' (family law) and gone to 'anagara' (homelessness, renunciation), nourished by faith, controlling the power of sleep, and so on. Only what you cling to, the old 'svadhatu-hetu' (unclear specific meaning), is nowhere mentioned in the various 'agama' (sacred teachings, Buddha's teachings).
。諸所造色。自互相望。但有三因。所謂俱有同類異熟。據所造類。容有三因。非一切有俱有因者。謂隨心轉身語二業七支相望。展轉為因。同類因者。一切前生。於後同類。異熟因者。謂諸不善及善有漏。身語二業。能招異熟眼根等果。所造于大但為一因。謂異熟因。身語二業。能招異熟大種果故。已辯諸法爾所緣生。當隨宗委辯等無間緣義。前雖總說諸心心所已生。除最後為等無間緣。未決定說。何心無間有幾心生。復從幾心有何心起。今當定說心有多種。如何依彼可定說耶。且略說心有十二種。云何十二。頌曰。
欲界有四心 善惡覆無覆 色無色除惡 無漏有二心
論曰。且於欲界。有四種心。謂善不善有覆無記無覆無記。色無色界。各有三心。謂除不善。余如上說。如是十種說有漏心。若無漏心。唯有二種。謂學無學。合成十二。此十二心。互相生者。頌曰。
欲界善生九 此復從八生 染從十生四 余從五生七 色善生十一 此復從九生 有覆從八生 此復生於六 無覆從三生 此復能生六 無色善生九 此復從六生 有覆生從七 無覆如色辯 學從四生五 余從五生四
論曰。欲界善心無間生九。謂自界四。色界二心。于入定時及續生位。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於所造的色法（Rūpa，物質現象），從它們彼此之間的關係來看，只有三種因，即俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因）、同類因（sabhāga-hetu，同類因）和異熟因（vipāka-hetu，果報因）。就所造的色法種類而言，可能存在這三種因，但並非一切都有俱有因。例如，隨心而起的轉身語二業（karma，行為）的七支相互依存，輾轉為因。同類因是指一切前生的行為，對於後生的同類行為而言。異熟因是指諸不善業以及善的有漏業，它們能夠招感異熟果，如眼根等。所造的色法對於四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）來說，只是一種因，即異熟因，因為身語二業能夠招感異熟的大種果。 以上已經辨析了諸法自然而然地由所緣而生的情況，接下來應當詳細地根據宗義來辨析等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，無間緣）的意義。前面雖然總體上說了諸心心所（citta-caitta，心和心所）已生，除了最後的心心所作為等無間緣，但尚未明確說明，何種心無間地能生起幾種心，又從幾種心能生起何種心。現在應當確定地說，心有多種，如何依據這些心來確定地說明呢？暫且簡略地說，心有十二種。哪十二種呢？頌文說： 『欲界有四心，善惡覆無覆；色無色除惡，無漏有二心。』 論述：在欲界（kāma-dhātu，慾望領域）有四種心，即善心、不善心、有覆無記心和無覆無記心。在色界（rūpa-dhātu，色界）和無色界（arūpa-dhātu，無色界），各有三種心，即除去不善心，其餘如上所說。這十種心被稱為有漏心（sāsrava-citta，有煩惱的心）。如果說是無漏心（anāsrava-citta，無煩惱的心），則只有兩種，即學心（śaikṣa-citta，還在學習的心）和無學心（aśaikṣa-citta，已經完成學習的心）。總合起來共有十二種心。這十二種心，互相生起的情況是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『欲界善生九，此復從八生；染從十生四，余從五生七；色善生十一，此復從九生；有覆從八生，此復生於六；無覆從三生，此復能生六；無色善生九，此復從六生；有覆生從七，無覆如色辯；學從四生五，余從五生四。』 論述：欲界的善心無間地能生起九種心，即自身界的四種心，色界和無色界的善心兩種。在入定時以及續生位時。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the produced rūpa (material phenomena), viewed in relation to each other, there are only three hetu (causes): namely, Sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause), Sabhāga-hetu (cause of similar kind), and Vipāka-hetu (resultant cause). In terms of the types of produced rūpa, these three causes may exist, but not everything has a co-existent cause. For example, the seven limbs of karma (actions) of body, speech, and mind that arise according to the mind are mutually dependent and act as causes in turn. The cause of similar kind refers to all previous lives in relation to subsequent lives of the same kind. The resultant cause refers to all unwholesome karma and wholesome contaminated karma, which can bring about resultant effects such as the eye faculty. The produced rūpa has only one cause in relation to the mahābhūta (great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind), namely the resultant cause, because the karma of body and speech can bring about the resultant great elements. Having already discussed how all dharmas (phenomena) naturally arise from their objects, we should now thoroughly discuss the meaning of Samanantara-pratyaya (immediately contiguous condition) according to the tenets of our school. Although it was generally stated earlier that all citta-caitta (mind and mental factors) have arisen, except for the last citta-caitta as the immediately contiguous condition, it has not been clearly stated which mind can give rise to how many minds without interruption, and from how many minds can which mind arise. Now it should be definitively stated that there are many kinds of minds, and how can we definitively explain based on these minds? Let's briefly say that there are twelve kinds of minds. What are the twelve kinds? The verse says: 'In the Kāma-dhātu (desire realm) there are four minds: wholesome, unwholesome, obscured, and unobscured. In the Rūpa-dhātu (form realm) and Arūpa-dhātu (formless realm), there are three minds, excluding the unwholesome. The Anāsrava (untainted) has two minds.' Discussion: In the Kāma-dhātu (desire realm), there are four kinds of minds, namely wholesome mind, unwholesome mind, obscured indeterminate mind, and unobscured indeterminate mind. In the Rūpa-dhātu (form realm) and Arūpa-dhātu (formless realm), there are three kinds of minds each, excluding the unwholesome mind, the rest are as mentioned above. These ten kinds of minds are called Sāsrava-citta (contaminated minds). If it is Anāsrava-citta (untainted mind), there are only two kinds, namely Śaikṣa-citta (mind of a learner) and Aśaikṣa-citta (mind of one who has completed learning). Combined, there are twelve kinds of minds. How do these twelve kinds of minds arise from each other? The verse says: 'The wholesome of the desire realm gives rise to nine, and it arises from eight. The defiled arises from ten and gives rise to four. The remaining arises from five and gives rise to seven. The wholesome of the form realm gives rise to eleven, and it arises from nine. The obscured arises from eight and gives rise to six. The unobscured arises from three and can give rise to six. The wholesome of the formless realm gives rise to nine, and it arises from six. The obscured arises from seven, and the unobscured is explained like the form realm. The learner arises from four and gives rise to five, and the remaining arises from five and gives rise to four.' Discussion: The wholesome mind of the desire realm can give rise to nine kinds of minds without interruption, namely the four kinds of minds in its own realm, and the two kinds of wholesome minds in the form and formless realms. During the entry into samādhi (meditative absorption) and at the time of rebirth.
如其次第。生善染心。生何善心。復何地攝。此于初位。生加行心。若於后時。生離欲得。隨順住故。無容起彼生得善心。生在此間。不能令彼起現前故。有說彼心未至地攝。有言亦攝在初靜慮。有說亦在靜慮中間。尊者妙音。作如是說。乃至亦在第二靜慮。如超定時。隔地而起。有作是說。非等引心無力能牽隔地心起。是故彼說。理定不然。及無色一。于續生位。欲善無間。生彼染心。並學無學。隨順住故。欲善無間。必定不生色無色纏無覆無記。彼皆系屬自界心故。亦定不生無色界善。以彼於此四遠遠故。一所依遠。二行相遠。三所緣遠。四對治遠。即此復從八無間起。謂自界四。色界二心。于出定時。從彼善起。被初靜慮。染定惱時。從彼染心。生於欲善。求依下善為防退故。及學無學。謂出觀時。染謂不善有覆無記。二各從十無間而生。謂自界四。色無色六。于續生位。上界六心。皆可命終生欲二染。必無無漏生染污心。故此非從學無學起。即此無間。能生四心。謂自界四。余無生理。必無下地染心無間能生上地。及無漏心。余謂欲纏無覆無記。此心從五無間而生。謂自界四。及色界善。欲界化心。從彼生故。即此無間能生七心。謂自界四。及色界二。善與染污。于入定時。欲界化心。還生彼善。于續生位。
欲界無覆。生彼染心。並無色一。于續生位。此無覆心。能生彼染。如是已辯。欲界四心無間。從生能生決定。色界善心無間生十一。謂除無色。無覆無記心。異熟生心。屬自界故。即此復從九無間起。謂除欲界二染污心。及除無色無覆無記。有覆從八無間而生。除欲二染。及學無學。即此無間能生六心。謂自界三。欲善不善有覆無記。無覆從三無間而起。謂唯自界。余無生理。即此無間能生六心。謂自界三。欲無色染。已辯色界三心相生。無色界善無間生九。謂除欲善欲色無覆。即此從六無間而生。謂自界三。及色界善。並學無學。有覆無間能生七心。謂自界三。及色界善。欲色界染。即此亦從七無間起。謂除欲色染。及學無學心。無覆如色說。從三無間生。謂自界三。余皆非理。即此無間能生六心。謂自界三。及欲色染。已辯無色三心相生。學心從四無間而起。謂即學心。及三界善。即此無間能生五心。謂前四心。及無學一。非三界染。互相違故。非諸無覆。不明利故。余謂無學從五無間生。謂三界善。及學無學二。即此無間能生四心。謂三界善。及無學一。不生學心。彼非果故。非染無覆。如前說故。說十二心互相生已。云何分此為二十心。頌曰。
十二為二十 謂三界善心 分加行生得 欲無覆分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 欲界無覆心（指非染污的無覆無記心），如果眾生生於欲界，且生起染污心，以及生於無色界一生（指無色界眾生），在相續的轉生階段，這種無覆心能夠生起彼界的染污心。像這樣已經辨析完畢。欲界四種心之間的無間相生關係，從生位來說，是決定的。 善心無間能夠生起十一種心，即除去無色界的善心、無覆無記心和異熟生心，因為它們屬於各自的界。而這種善心又可以從九種心無間生起，即除去欲界的兩種染污心，以及除去無色界的無覆無記心。 有覆心（指染污心）可以從八種心無間生起，除去欲界的兩種染污心，以及學心和無學心。而這種有覆心無間能夠生起六種心，即自界的三種心（善、不善、有覆無記）。 無覆心可以從三種心無間生起，即僅僅是自界的三種心，其餘情況不合道理。而這種無覆心無間能夠生起六種心，即自界的三種心，以及欲界和無色界的染污心。以上已經辨析了欲界三種心之間的相生關係。 無色界的善心無間能夠生起九種心，即除去欲界的善心、欲界的無覆心和色界的無覆心。而這種善心可以從六種心無間生起，即自界的三種心，以及欲界的善心，還有學心和無學心。 有覆心無間能夠生起七種心，即自界的三種心，以及欲界的善心，還有欲界的染污心。而這種有覆心也可以從七種心無間生起，即除去欲界和色界的染污心，以及學心和無學心。 無覆心的情況如同色界所說，從三種心無間生起，即自界的三種心，其餘情況都不合道理。而這種無覆心無間能夠生起六種心，即自界的三種心，以及欲界和色界的染污心。以上已經辨析了無色界三種心之間的相生關係。 學心可以從四種心無間生起，即學心本身，以及三界的善心。而這種學心無間能夠生起五種心，即前面的四種心，以及無學心。不會生起三界的染污心，因為它們互相違背。也不會生起各種無覆心，因為它們不明利。 其餘的，即無學心可以從五種心無間生起，即三界的善心，以及學心和無學心兩種。而這種無學心無間能夠生起四種心，即三界的善心，以及無學心。不會生起學心，因為它不是無學心的果。不會生起染污心和無覆心，如同前面所說。 在說了十二種心互相生起之後，如何將這十二種心分為二十種心呢？頌文說： 十二種心分為二十種，是指三界的善心，通過區分加行位和生得位，以及欲界的無覆心進行區分。
【English Translation】 English version If a being is born in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm) with an Avyākrta (undetermined/neutral) mind that is Anāvarana (uncovered/unobstructed), and also if a being is born in the Arūpadhātu (formless realm), in the process of rebirth, this Anāvarana mind can give rise to the defiled mind of that realm. This has been discussed. The four minds of the Kāmadhātu have a definite causal relationship in terms of arising. A wholesome mind can give rise to eleven minds, excluding the wholesome mind of the Arūpadhātu, the Avyākrta mind that is Anāvarana, and the Vipāka (resultant) mind, because they belong to their respective realms. This wholesome mind can arise from nine minds, excluding the two defiled minds of the Kāmadhātu and the Anāvarana Avyākrta mind of the Arūpadhātu. A covered (defiled) mind can arise from eight minds, excluding the two defiled minds of the Kāmadhātu, and the Śaiksa (learner) and Aśaiksa (no-longer-learner) minds. This covered mind can give rise to six minds, namely the three minds of its own realm (wholesome, unwholesome, and covered Avyākrta). An Anāvarana mind can arise from three minds, namely only the three minds of its own realm; other possibilities are not reasonable. This Anāvarana mind can give rise to six minds, namely the three minds of its own realm, and the defiled minds of the Kāmadhātu and Arūpadhātu. The causal relationships of the three minds of the Kāmadhātu have been discussed. A wholesome mind of the Arūpadhātu can give rise to nine minds, excluding the wholesome mind of the Kāmadhātu, the Anāvarana mind of the Kāmadhātu, and the Anāvarana mind of the Rūpadhātu (form realm). This wholesome mind can arise from six minds, namely the three minds of its own realm, the wholesome mind of the Kāmadhātu, and the Śaiksa and Aśaiksa minds. A covered mind can give rise to seven minds, namely the three minds of its own realm, the wholesome mind of the Kāmadhātu, and the defiled mind of the Kāmadhātu. This covered mind can also arise from seven minds, excluding the defiled minds of the Kāmadhātu and Rūpadhātu, and the Śaiksa and Aśaiksa minds. The Anāvarana mind is like what was said about the Rūpadhātu, arising from three minds, namely the three minds of its own realm; other possibilities are not reasonable. This Anāvarana mind can give rise to six minds, namely the three minds of its own realm, and the defiled minds of the Kāmadhātu and Rūpadhātu. The causal relationships of the three minds of the Arūpadhātu have been discussed. A Śaiksa mind can arise from four minds, namely the Śaiksa mind itself, and the wholesome minds of the three realms. This Śaiksa mind can give rise to five minds, namely the previous four minds, and the Aśaiksa mind. It does not give rise to the defiled minds of the three realms, because they are mutually contradictory. Nor does it give rise to the various Anāvarana minds, because they are not clear. The remaining, namely the Aśaiksa mind, can arise from five minds, namely the wholesome minds of the three realms, and the Śaiksa and Aśaiksa minds. This Aśaiksa mind can give rise to four minds, namely the wholesome minds of the three realms, and the Aśaiksa mind. It does not give rise to the Śaiksa mind, because it is not the result of the Aśaiksa mind. It does not give rise to defiled minds and Anāvarana minds, as mentioned before. Having discussed the twelve minds that arise from each other, how are these twelve minds divided into twenty minds? The verse says: The twelve minds are divided into twenty, referring to the wholesome minds of the three realms, by distinguishing between the preparatory stage (加行位, kāxíng wèi) and the naturally attained stage (生得位, shēngdé wèi), and by distinguishing the Anāvarana mind of the Kāmadhātu.
四 異熟威儀路 工巧處通果 色界除工巧 餘數如前說
論曰。三界善心。各分二種。謂加行得。生得別故。欲界無覆。分為四心。一異熟生。二威儀路。三工巧處。四通果心。色無覆心。分為三種。除工巧處。上界都無造作種種工巧事故。無色界無行等事故。無威儀路。無攝受支三摩地故。亦無通果。有謂無色。不緣色等為境界故。彼界無有威儀路等二無記心。彼即應許空無邊處近分定有威儀路等。若謂彼定此無容有。故無過者。前即非因雖緣色等為境界者。彼亦許此無容有故。依如是理。欲界有八。色界有六。無色有四。學無學心。合為二十。如是二十。互相生者。且說欲界八種心中加行善心無間生十。謂自界七。除通果心。自類凈定無間生故。及色界一。加行善心。並學無學。即此復從八無間起。謂自界四。二善二染。及色界二。加行有覆並學無學。生得善心無間生九。謂自界七。除通果心。及色無色有覆無記。即此復從十一心起。謂自界七。除通果心。及色界二。加行有覆。並學無學。二染污心無間生七。謂自界七。除通果心。即此復從十四心起。謂自界七。除通果心。及色界四。除加行善與通果心。並無色三。除加行善。異熟威儀無間生八。謂自界六除加行善與通果心。及色無色有覆無記
【現代漢語翻譯】 四 異熟威儀路，工巧處通果 除工巧，餘數如前說
論曰：三界（欲界、色界、無色界）善心，各分二種，謂加行得（通過努力獲得的）和生得（天生的）之別故。欲界無覆（沒有覆蓋、遮蔽）分為四心：一、異熟生（由異熟果報所生的心），二、威儀路（與威儀相關的行為），三、工巧處（與工藝技巧相關的），四、通果心（神通果報之心）。色界無覆心，分為三種，除工巧處。上界都無造作種種工巧事故，無無行等事故，無威儀路，無攝受支三摩地（專注的三摩地）故，亦無通果。有謂無色，不緣色等為境界故，彼界無有威儀路等二無記心。彼即應許空無邊處近分定有威儀路等。若謂彼定此無容有，故無過者，前即非因雖緣色等為境界者，彼亦許此無容有故。依如是理，欲界有八，有六，無色有四，學無學心，合為二十。如是二十，互相生者，且說欲界八種心中加行善心無間生十，謂自界七，除通果心，自類凈定無間生故，及一。加行善心，並學無學。即此復從八無間起，謂自界四，二善二染，及二，加行有覆並學無學。生得善心無間生九，謂自界七，除通果心，及色無色有覆無記。即此復從十一心起，謂自界七，除通果心，及二，加行有覆，並學無學。二染污心無間生七，謂自界七，除通果心。即此復從十四心起，謂自界七，除通果心，及四，除加行善與通果心，並無色三，除加行善。異熟威儀無間生八，謂自界六除加行善與通果心，及色無色有覆無記
【English Translation】 Four The Vipaka (resultant) deportment path, the skillful activities, the fruit of supernormal powers. Except for skillful activities, the remaining numbers are as previously stated.
Treatise says: The wholesome minds of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) are each divided into two types, namely those obtained through effort (additionally acquired) and those obtained by birth (innately acquired). The desire realm, being unclouded (without obscurations), is divided into four minds: 1. Vipakaja (resultant-born), 2. Iriyapatha (deportment path), 3. Silpakarmathana (skillful activities), 4. Abhijñaphala-citta (mind of the fruit of supernormal powers). The unclouded mind of the form realm is divided into three types, excluding skillful activities. The upper realms do not have the creation of various skillful activities, nor do they have ** or actions, etc., nor do they have the deportment path, nor do they have Samadhi (concentration) that gathers and supports, therefore, they also do not have the fruit of supernormal powers. Some say that the formless realm, not taking form etc. as its object, does not have the two indeterminate minds such as the deportment path. They should then admit that the near-attainment concentration of the sphere of infinite space has the deportment path etc. If it is said that this concentration cannot accommodate this, therefore there is no fault, then the former is not a valid reason, even though it takes form etc. as its object, they also admit that this cannot be accommodated. According to this reasoning, the desire realm has eight, ** has six, the formless realm has four, and the minds of learners and non-learners combined make twenty. These twenty arise from each other. Let us first say that among the eight types of minds in the desire realm, the wholesome mind of effort immediately gives rise to ten, namely seven in its own realm, excluding the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers, because its own kind of pure concentration immediately arises, and ** one. The wholesome mind of effort, along with learners and non-learners. From this, eight immediately arise again, namely four in its own realm, two wholesome and two defiled, and ** two, the clouded effort along with learners and non-learners. The wholesome mind obtained by birth immediately gives rise to nine, namely seven in its own realm, excluding the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers, and the clouded indeterminate of the form and formless realms. From this, eleven minds immediately arise again, namely seven in its own realm, excluding the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers, and ** two, the clouded effort, along with learners and non-learners. The two defiled minds immediately give rise to seven, namely seven in its own realm, excluding the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers. From this, fourteen minds immediately arise again, namely seven in its own realm, excluding the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers, and ** four, excluding the wholesome effort and the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers, and three in the formless realm, excluding the wholesome effort. The resultant deportment immediately gives rise to eight, namely six in its own realm, excluding the wholesome effort and the mind of the fruit of supernormal powers, and the clouded indeterminate of the form and formless realms.
。即此復從七無間起。謂自界七。除通果心。工巧處心無間生六。謂自界六。除加行善與通果心。即此復從七無間起。除通果心。從通果心。無間生二。謂自界一。即通果心。及色界一。即加行善。即此亦從二無間起。謂即前說自色二心。說欲界心互相生已。次說色界。六種心中。從加行善心無間生十二。謂自界六。及欲界三。加行生得與通果心。並無色一。加行善心。學無學心。即此復從十無間起。謂自界四。除威儀路與異熟生。及欲界二。加行通果。並無色二。加行有覆。學無學心。生得善心無間生八。謂自界五。除通果心。及欲界二。不善有覆。並色界一。有覆無記。即此無記無間生九。謂自界五。除通果心。及欲界四。二善二染。即此復從十一心起。謂自界五。除通果心。及欲界三。即生得善。威儀異熟。並無色三。除加行善。異熟威儀無間生七。謂自界四。除加行善與通果心。及欲界二。不善有覆。並無色一。有覆無記。即此復從五無間起。謂自界五。除通果心。從通果心無間生二。謂自界二。加行通果。即此亦從二無間起。謂即前說自界二心。說色界心互相生已。次說無色。四種心中。加行善心無間生七。謂自界四。及色界一。加行善心。並學無學。即此復從六無間起。謂自界三。唯除異熟。及色界一。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 緊接著，又從此七種無間（anantara）心識生起。指的是自身界（自界）的七種心識，除去神通果心（通果心）。從工巧處心（工巧處心）無間生起六種心識，指的是自身界的六種心識，除去加行善（加行善）和神通果心。緊接著，又從此七種無間心識生起，除去神通果心。從神通果心無間生起兩種心識，指的是自身界的一種心識，即神通果心，以及色界（色界）的一種心識，即加行善。緊接著，也從此兩種心識無間生起，指的是前面所說的自身界的兩種色界心識。 在說完欲界（欲界）心識互相生起之後，接著說色界。在六種色界心中，從加行善心無間生起十二種心識，指的是自身界的六種心識，以及欲界的三種心識，即加行生得（加行生得）和神通果心，以及無色界（無色界）的一種心識，即加行善心、有學無學心（學無學心）。緊接著，又從此十種無間心識生起，指的是自身界的四種心識，除去威儀路（威儀路）和異熟生（異熟生），以及欲界的兩種心識，即加行神通果，以及無色界的兩種心識，即加行有覆（加行有覆）、有學無學心。 生得善心（生得善心）無間生起八種心識，指的是自身界的五種心識，除去神通果心，以及欲界的兩種心識，即不善有覆（不善有覆），以及色界的一種心識，即有覆無記（有覆無記）。緊接著，此無記心識無間生起九種心識，指的是自身界的五種心識，除去神通果心，以及欲界的四種心識，即兩種善（二善）兩種染（二染）。緊接著，又從此十一種心識生起，指的是自身界的五種心識，除去神通果心，以及欲界的三種心識，即生得善、威儀異熟（威儀異熟），以及無色界的三種心識，除去加行善。 異熟威儀（異熟威儀）無間生起七種心識，指的是自身界的四種心識，除去加行善和神通果心，以及欲界的兩種心識，即不善有覆，以及無色界的一種心識，即有覆無記。緊接著，又從此五種無間心識生起，指的是自身界的五種心識，除去神通果心。從神通果心無間生起兩種心識，指的是自身界的兩種心識，即加行神通果。緊接著，也從此兩種心識無間生起，指的是前面所說的自身界的兩種心識。 在說完色界心識互相生起之後，接著說無色界。在四種無色界心中，加行善心無間生起七種心識，指的是自身界的四種心識，以及色界的一種心識，即加行善心，以及有學無學。緊接著，又從此六種無間心識生起，指的是自身界的三種心識，唯獨除去異熟（異熟），以及色界的一種心識。
【English Translation】 English version: Immediately following this, it again arises from the seven 'anantara' (無間, immediately preceding) consciousnesses. This refers to the seven consciousnesses of its own realm (自界). Excluding the supernormal fruition consciousness (通果心). From the skillful activity consciousness (工巧處心), six consciousnesses arise without interval, referring to the six consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the preliminary meritorious action (加行善) and the supernormal fruition consciousness. Immediately following this, it again arises from these seven 'anantara' consciousnesses, excluding the supernormal fruition consciousness. From the supernormal fruition consciousness, two consciousnesses arise without interval, referring to one consciousness of its own realm, which is the supernormal fruition consciousness, and one consciousness of the form realm (色界), which is the preliminary meritorious action. Immediately following this, it also arises from these two consciousnesses without interval, referring to the two form realm consciousnesses of its own realm mentioned earlier. After speaking about the mutual arising of the desire realm (欲界) consciousnesses, next is the form realm. Among the six form realm consciousnesses, from the preliminary meritorious action consciousness, twelve consciousnesses arise without interval, referring to the six consciousnesses of its own realm, and the three consciousnesses of the desire realm, which are the preliminary innate (加行生得) and the supernormal fruition consciousness, and one consciousness of the formless realm (無色界), which is the preliminary meritorious action consciousness, the consciousnesses of those with learning and those without learning (學無學心). Immediately following this, it again arises from these ten 'anantara' consciousnesses, referring to the four consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the deportment path (威儀路) and the resultant birth (異熟生), and the two consciousnesses of the desire realm, which are the preliminary supernormal fruition, and the two consciousnesses of the formless realm, which are the preliminary defiled (加行有覆), the consciousnesses of those with learning and those without learning. The innate meritorious consciousness (生得善心) arises without interval into eight consciousnesses, referring to the five consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the supernormal fruition consciousness, and the two consciousnesses of the desire realm, which are the unwholesome defiled (不善有覆), and one consciousness of the form realm, which is the defiled indeterminate (有覆無記). Immediately following this, this indeterminate consciousness arises without interval into nine consciousnesses, referring to the five consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the supernormal fruition consciousness, and the four consciousnesses of the desire realm, which are two meritorious (二善) and two tainted (二染). Immediately following this, it again arises from these eleven consciousnesses, referring to the five consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the supernormal fruition consciousness, and the three consciousnesses of the desire realm, which are the innate meritorious, the deportment resultant (威儀異熟), and the three consciousnesses of the formless realm, excluding the preliminary meritorious action. The resultant deportment (異熟威儀) arises without interval into seven consciousnesses, referring to the four consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the preliminary meritorious action and the supernormal fruition consciousness, and the two consciousnesses of the desire realm, which are the unwholesome defiled, and one consciousness of the formless realm, which is the defiled indeterminate. Immediately following this, it again arises from these five 'anantara' consciousnesses, referring to the five consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding the supernormal fruition consciousness. From the supernormal fruition consciousness, two consciousnesses arise without interval, referring to the two consciousnesses of its own realm, which are the preliminary supernormal fruition. Immediately following this, it also arises from these two consciousnesses without interval, referring to the two consciousnesses of its own realm mentioned earlier. After speaking about the mutual arising of the form realm consciousnesses, next is the formless realm. Among the four formless realm consciousnesses, the preliminary meritorious action consciousness arises without interval into seven consciousnesses, referring to the four consciousnesses of its own realm, and one consciousness of the form realm, which is the preliminary meritorious action consciousness, and those with learning and without learning. Immediately following this, it again arises from these six 'anantara' consciousnesses, referring to the three consciousnesses of its own realm, excluding only the resultant (異熟), and one consciousness of the form realm.
加行善心。並學無學。生得善心無間生七。謂自界四。及色界一。有覆無記。並欲界二。不善有覆。即此復從四無間起。謂自界四。有覆無記無間生八。謂自界四。及色界二。加行有覆。並欲界二。不善有覆。即此復從十無間起。謂自界四。及色界三。生得異熟與威儀路。並欲界三。名如色說。異熟生心無間生六。謂自界三。除加行善。及色界一。有覆無記。並欲界二。不善有覆。即此復從四無間起。謂自界四。說無色心互相生已。次說無漏。二種心中。從有學心無間生六。謂通三界加行善心。及欲生得。並學無學。即此復從四無間起。謂三加行。及有學心。從無學心無間生五。謂前有學所生六中。除有學一。即此復從五無間起。謂三加行。及學無學。復有何緣。加行無間。能生異熟工巧威儀。非彼無間生加行善。且異熟生。由先業力所引發故。勢力羸劣。非作功用所引發故。不能引起加行善心。故彼不能生加行善。出心不由功用轉故。加行無間。生彼無違。工巧威儀。勢力羸劣。樂作功用。引發工巧及威儀故。不能引起加行善心。出心不由功用轉故。加行無間。生彼無違。若爾染心。不應無間生加行善。染著境界。違背善故。勢力劣故。無甚過失。厭倦煩惱。數數現前。作是思惟。設何方便。令無義聚止息不行。便
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 加行善心（通過努力獲得的善心），以及有學（仍然在學習的聖者）和無學（已經完成學習的聖者）之心。生得善心（自然產生的善心）無間生七種心：即自界（自身所處的禪定境界）的四種心，以及界（原文如此，疑為其他禪定境界）的一種有覆無記心（被煩惱覆蓋的中性心），加上欲界的兩種不善有覆心（被煩惱覆蓋的不善心）。同樣，從四種無間（緊接著）生起的心，即自界的四種心，有覆無記心無間生八種心：即自界的四種心，以及界的兩種心，加行有覆心（通過努力產生的被煩惱覆蓋的心），加上欲界的兩種不善有覆心。同樣，從十種無間生起的心，即自界的四種心，以及界的三種心，生得異熟心（由業力產生的果報心）與威儀路心（日常行為中的心），加上欲界的三種心，名稱如色界所說。異熟生心無間生六種心：即自界的三種心，除去加行善心，以及界的一種有覆無記心，加上欲界的兩種不善有覆心。同樣，從四種無間生起的心，即自界的四種心。說完無色界心互相生起之後，接著說無漏心（沒有煩惱的心）。在兩種無漏心中，從有學心無間生六種心：即通三界的加行善心，以及欲界的生得善心，加上有學和無學之心。同樣，從四種無間生起的心，即三種加行心，以及有學心。從無學心無間生五種心：即前面有學心所生的六種心中，除去有學心一種。同樣，從五種無間生起的心，即三種加行心，以及有學和無學之心。又有什麼緣故，加行心無間能夠生起異熟心、工巧心（與技能相關的心）和威儀心，而不是它們無間生起加行善心呢？且說異熟生心，由於先前的業力所引發，勢力羸弱，不是通過努力作用所引發，所以不能引起加行善心。因此它們不能生起加行善心，因為出離心不由自主地運轉。加行心無間生起它們沒有違背。工巧心和威儀心，勢力羸弱，喜歡通過努力作用，引發工巧和威儀，所以不能引起加行善心。出離心不由自主地運轉，加行心無間生起它們沒有違背。如果這樣，染污心（被煩惱染污的心）不應該無間生起加行善心，因為染著境界，違背善，勢力弱。沒有很大的過失，因為厭倦煩惱，數數現前，這樣思惟：設定什麼方便，令無意義的聚集止息不行，便...
【English Translation】 English version: 'Progressive wholesome thought' (exertional wholesome thought), and the minds of 'learners' (those still on the path to enlightenment) and 'non-learners' (those who have completed their learning). 'Naturally arising wholesome thought' (innate wholesome thought) immediately gives rise to seven types of minds: namely, four types of minds from its own realm (the meditative state it belongs to), and one 'covered and indeterminate mind' (a neutral mind obscured by defilements) from the ** realm (as in the original text, possibly another meditative state), plus two 'unwholesome and covered minds' (unwholesome minds obscured by defilements) from the desire realm. Similarly, from the four immediately arising minds, namely the four types of minds from its own realm, the 'covered and indeterminate mind' immediately gives rise to eight types of minds: namely, four types of minds from its own realm, and two types of minds from the ** realm, 'exertional covered mind' (covered mind arising from effort), plus two 'unwholesome and covered minds' from the desire realm. Similarly, from the ten immediately arising minds, namely the four types of minds from its own realm, and three types of minds from the ** realm, 'resultant mind' (mind arising from past karma) and 'behavioral path mind' (mind associated with everyday actions), plus three types of minds from the desire realm, the names are as described in the form realm. 'Resultant mind' immediately gives rise to six types of minds: namely, three types of minds from its own realm, excluding 'progressive wholesome thought', and one 'covered and indeterminate mind' from the ** realm, plus two 'unwholesome and covered minds' from the desire realm. Similarly, from the four immediately arising minds, namely the four types of minds from its own realm. Having described the mutual arising of minds in the formless realm, next, the 'untainted mind' (mind free from defilements) is discussed. Among the two types of untainted minds, from the mind of a 'learner' immediately arises six types of minds: namely, 'progressive wholesome thought' common to the three realms, and 'innate wholesome thought' from the desire realm, plus the minds of 'learners' and 'non-learners'. Similarly, from the four immediately arising minds, namely the three types of 'progressive thought', and the mind of a 'learner'. From the mind of a 'non-learner' immediately arises five types of minds: namely, among the six types of minds arising from the mind of a 'learner' mentioned earlier, excluding the mind of a 'learner'. Similarly, from the five immediately arising minds, namely the three types of 'progressive thought', and the minds of 'learners' and 'non-learners'. Furthermore, what is the reason that 'progressive thought' can immediately give rise to 'resultant mind', 'skillful mind' (mind related to skills), and 'behavioral mind', but they cannot immediately give rise to 'progressive wholesome thought'? Moreover, 'resultant mind', because it is caused by the power of past karma, is weak in strength and not caused by effort, so it cannot give rise to 'progressive wholesome thought'. Therefore, they cannot give rise to 'progressive wholesome thought', because the mind of renunciation does not operate autonomously. There is no contradiction in 'progressive thought' immediately giving rise to them. 'Skillful mind' and 'behavioral mind', being weak in strength, like to act through effort, causing skillfulness and behavior, so they cannot give rise to 'progressive wholesome thought'. The mind of renunciation does not operate autonomously, and there is no contradiction in 'progressive thought' immediately giving rise to them. If so, 'defiled mind' (mind tainted by defilements) should not immediately give rise to 'progressive wholesome thought', because attachment to objects contradicts wholesomeness and is weak in strength. There is not much fault, because being weary of afflictions, frequently appearing, thinking thus: what means should be set up to stop the meaningless accumulation from ceasing to function, then...'
如實知起過失境。能生功德。脫我當起煩惱現前。尋復覺知。起善防護由斯願力。能起加行。無始時來。數習染故。勢力不劣。故染無間。生加行善。欲界生得。行相明利。非勝功用之所引發。以明利故。可有從彼學無學心色界加行無間而起。非勝功用所引發故。不能從此引生彼心。色無色界。生得善心。不明利故。非勝功用所引發故。非學無學。他界加行無間而起。亦非從此引生彼心。又欲生得。以明利故。可從色染無間而生。能為防護。色界生得。不明利故。非無色染無間而起。作意有三。謂自共相勝解作意。有差別故。云何名為自相作意。謂觀諸色變礙為相。乃至觀識了別為相。如是等觀相應作意。云何名為共相作意。謂十六行相應作意。云何名為勝解作意。謂不凈觀。及四無量。有色解脫。勝處。遍處如是等觀相應作意。如是三種作意無間。聖道現前。聖道無間。亦能具起三種作意。若作是說。便順此言。不凈觀俱行修念等覺分。有餘師說。唯從共相作意無間。聖道現前。聖道無間。方能具起三種作意。若爾何故。契經中言。不凈觀俱行修念等覺分。由不凈觀。調伏心已。方能引生共相作意。從此無間。聖道現前。依此展轉密意而說。故無有過。有餘復言。唯從共相作意無間。聖道現前。聖道無間。亦唯能起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如實地瞭解產生過失的境界，能夠產生功德。如果我將要生起煩惱現前，隨即覺察知道，生起善的防護，由於這樣的願力，能夠發起加行（努力修行）。因為從無始以來，多次熏習染污的緣故，勢力不弱，所以染污之後，能夠無間地生起加行善。欲界眾生生來就具有的善心，其行相明瞭銳利，不是殊勝功用所引發的。因為明瞭銳利，所以可以從這種生得善心之後，無間地生起有學、無學之心。不是殊勝功用所引發的緣故，不能從此生得善心引發彼有學、無學之心。色界和無色界眾生生來就具有的善心，因為不明瞭銳利，也不是殊勝功用所引發的緣故，不能從其他界眾生的加行之後無間地生起，也不能從此生得善心引發彼心。 又，欲界眾生生來就具有的善心，因為明瞭銳利，可以從色界的染污之後無間地生起，能夠作為防護。色界和無色界眾生生來就具有的善心，因為不明瞭銳利，不能從無色界的染污之後無間地生起。作意有三種，分別是自相作意、共相作意和勝解作意，因為它們之間有差別。什麼叫做自相作意呢？就是觀察諸色的變礙為相，乃至觀察識的了別為相，像這樣觀察相應的作意。什麼叫做共相作意呢？就是與十六行相應的作意。什麼叫做勝解作意呢？就是不凈觀，以及四無量心，有色解脫，勝處，遍處，像這樣觀察相應的作意。像這三種作意無間，聖道現前。聖道無間，也能同時生起三種作意。如果這樣說，就順應了這個說法：不凈觀同時具有修念等覺分。有其他論師說，只有從共相作意無間，聖道才能現前。聖道無間，才能同時生起三種作意。如果這樣，為什麼契經中說：不凈觀同時具有修念等覺分，通過不凈觀調伏心之後，才能引生共相作意，從此無間，聖道現前。這是依據這種輾轉相生的密意而說的，所以沒有過失。還有人說，只有從共相作意無間，聖道才能現前，聖道無間，也只能生起
【English Translation】 English version To know truthfully the realm of arising faults is capable of generating merit. If I am about to generate afflictions presently, I will immediately become aware and know, and generate virtuous protection. Due to such vows, one is able to initiate application (exertion in practice). Because from beginningless time, one has repeatedly been habituated to defilements, their power is not weak. Therefore, after defilement, one can generate application of virtue without interruption. The naturally acquired virtuous mind of beings in the Desire Realm is clear and sharp in its characteristics, and is not initiated by superior effort. Because it is clear and sharp, it is possible that after this naturally acquired virtuous mind, a mind of learning or no-more-learning arises without interruption. Because it is not initiated by superior effort, it cannot initiate that mind of learning or no-more-learning from this naturally acquired virtuous mind. The naturally acquired virtuous mind of beings in the Form and Formless Realms is not clear and sharp, and is not initiated by superior effort. Therefore, it cannot arise without interruption after the application of beings in other realms who are learning or have no-more-learning, nor can it initiate that mind from this naturally acquired virtuous mind. Furthermore, the naturally acquired virtuous mind of beings in the Desire Realm, because it is clear and sharp, can arise without interruption after defilement in the Form Realm, and can serve as protection. The naturally acquired virtuous mind of beings in the Form and Formless Realms, because it is not clear and sharp, cannot arise without interruption after defilement in the Formless Realm. There are three types of attention (作意, zuòyì): self-characteristic attention, common-characteristic attention, and superior-understanding attention, because there are differences between them. What is called self-characteristic attention? It is the attention that observes the characteristic of change and obstruction in forms, and even observes the characteristic of discernment in consciousness, such as these corresponding attentions. What is called common-characteristic attention? It is the attention corresponding to the sixteen aspects. What is called superior-understanding attention? It is the contemplation of impurity, as well as the four immeasurables (四無量, sìwúliáng), the colored liberations, the mastery spheres, and the all-encompassing spheres, such as these corresponding attentions. With these three types of attention without interruption, the Noble Path (聖道, shèngdào) manifests. Without interruption of the Noble Path, one can also simultaneously generate the three types of attention. If one says this, then it accords with this statement: the mindfulness enlightenment factor (念等覺分, niànděngjuéfēn) occurs simultaneously with the contemplation of impurity. Other teachers say that only from common-characteristic attention without interruption can the Noble Path manifest. Without interruption of the Noble Path, one can simultaneously generate the three types of attention. If so, why does the sutra say: the mindfulness enlightenment factor occurs simultaneously with the contemplation of impurity, and after subduing the mind through the contemplation of impurity, one can initiate common-characteristic attention, and from this without interruption, the Noble Path manifests. This is said based on this mutually generating secret intention, so there is no fault. Others further say that only from common-characteristic attention without interruption can the Noble Path manifest, and without interruption of the Noble Path, one can only generate
共相作意。此言有失。所以者何。依未至等三地。證入正性離生。聖道無間。可生欲界共相作意。以欲界中共相作意去彼聖道非極遠故。若依第二第三第四靜慮。證入正性離生。聖道無間。起何作意。非起欲界。共相作意以極遠故。又于彼地。無容有故。以非彼地已有曾得共相作意。異於曾得順抉擇分。非諸聖者順抉擇分可復現前。非得果已可重發生加行道故。彼今應說。此聖道后。起何共相作意現前。豈不繫屬順抉擇分。亦修彼類共相作意。如觀諸行皆是無常。觀一切法皆是無我。涅槃寂靜。聖道無間。引彼現前。此救非理。系屬加行所修作意。非得果后可引現前。是彼類故。前說聖道無間。通三作意現前。于理為善。若依未至定。得阿羅漢果。后出觀心。或即彼地。或是欲界。依無所有處。得阿羅漢果。后出觀心。或即彼地。或是有頂。若依餘地。得阿羅漢果。后出觀心。唯自非余。地于欲界中有三作意。一聞所成。二思所成。三生所得。色界亦有三種作意。一聞所成。二修所成。三生所得。無思所成。舉心思時。即入定故。無色唯有二種作意。一修所成。二生所得。欲界聞思作意無間。聖道現前。聖道無間。具起三種作意現前。以諸聖道起必系屬。加行道故。非生得善作意無間聖道現前。色界聞修作意無間。聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『共相作意』（Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra，普遍概念的專注）。這種說法有所缺失。原因是什麼呢？依據未至定（Anāgamya，未至定）、中間定等三地（指欲界、色界、無色界），證入正性離生（Samyaktva-nyāma-avakrānti，正確的解脫之道），聖道（Ārya-mārga，聖者的道路）無間斷地生起，可以生起欲界的共相作意。因為欲界中的共相作意距離那聖道並非極其遙遠。如果依據第二禪、第三禪、第四禪，證入正性離生，聖道無間斷地生起，會生起什麼作意呢？不會生起欲界的共相作意，因為它極其遙遠。而且在那禪定之地，也不可能有欲界的共相作意存在。因為在那禪定之地，沒有已經獲得過的共相作意。這不同於曾經獲得的順抉擇分（Anulomikī-kṣānti，隨順抉擇分）。聖者們不會再次出現順抉擇分，因為已經證得果位后，不會再重新發生加行道（Prayoga-mārga，預備道）。現在應該說，這聖道之後，生起什麼樣的共相作意？難道不是屬於順抉擇分，也修習那類共相作意嗎？例如觀察諸行都是無常的，觀察一切法都是無我的，涅槃是寂靜的，聖道無間斷地生起，引導這些作意現前。這種辯解是不合理的。屬於加行道所修習的作意，在證得果位后，是無法引導它現前的，即使它們是同類的。之前說聖道無間斷地生起，貫通三種作意現前，在道理上是合理的。如果依據未至定，證得阿羅漢果（Arhat，阿羅漢），之後出觀時，或者就在那禪定之地，或者在欲界。如果依據無所有處定（Ākiṃcanyāyatana，無所有處定），證得阿羅漢果，之後出觀時，或者就在那禪定之地，或者在有頂天（Bhavāgra，有頂天）。如果依據其他禪定之地，證得阿羅漢果，之後出觀時，只會在自己所在的禪定之地，不會在其他地方。在欲界中有三種作意：一、聞所成（Śruta-mayī，聽聞而得）；二、思所成（Cintā-mayī，思慮而得）；三、生所得（Upapattijā，與生俱來）。色界也有三種作意：一、聞所成；二、修所成（Bhāvanā-mayī，修習而得）；三、生所得。沒有思所成，因為當用心思慮時，就進入禪定了。無色界只有兩種作意：一、修所成；二、生所得。欲界的聞所成和思所成的作意無間斷地生起，聖道現前，聖道無間斷地生起，同時具備三種作意現前。因為諸聖道的生起必定屬於加行道。不是生得的善作意無間斷地生起，聖道就會現前。 聞所成和修所成的作意無間斷地生起，聖道就會現前。
【English Translation】 English version: The statement 'Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra (attention to universal characteristics) is flawed. Why? Because, based on the Anāgamya (unreached concentration), the intermediate concentration, and the three realms (referring to the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm), upon entering the Samyaktva-nyāma-avakrānti (the correct path of liberation), the Ārya-mārga (noble path) arises without interruption, and Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra of the desire realm can arise. This is because the Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra in the desire realm is not extremely far from that noble path. If, based on the second, third, or fourth Dhyāna (meditative absorption), one enters the Samyaktva-nyāma-avakrānti, and the Ārya-mārga arises without interruption, what kind of attention arises? It does not give rise to the Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra of the desire realm, because it is extremely far away. Moreover, in that meditative state, there is no possibility of the Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra of the desire realm existing. This is because in that meditative state, there is no Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra that has already been attained. This is different from the Anulomikī-kṣānti (conformity-knowledge). The saints will not have conformity-knowledge appear again, because after attaining the fruit, the Prayoga-mārga (path of application) will not occur again. Now it should be said, after this noble path, what kind of Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra arises? Does it not belong to conformity-knowledge, and also cultivate that kind of Sāmānya-saṃjñā-manaskāra? For example, observing that all phenomena are impermanent, observing that all dharmas are without self, and that Nirvana is tranquil, the noble path arises without interruption, guiding these attentions to appear. This defense is unreasonable. The attention cultivated by the path of application cannot be guided to appear after attaining the fruit, even if they are of the same kind. Previously, it was said that the noble path arises without interruption, connecting the three kinds of attention to appear, which is reasonable. If, based on the Anāgamya, one attains the Arhat (worthy one) fruit, and then exits the contemplation, it is either in that meditative state or in the desire realm. If, based on the Ākiṃcanyāyatana (sphere of nothingness), one attains the Arhat fruit, and then exits the contemplation, it is either in that meditative state or in the Bhavāgra (peak of existence). If, based on other meditative states, one attains the Arhat fruit, and then exits the contemplation, it will only be in one's own meditative state, not in other places. In the desire realm, there are three kinds of attention: 1. Śruta-mayī (arising from hearing); 2. Cintā-mayī (arising from thinking); 3. Upapattijā (arising from birth). In the form realm, there are also three kinds of attention: 1. arising from hearing; 2. Bhāvanā-mayī (arising from cultivation); 3. arising from birth. There is no attention arising from thinking, because when one uses the mind to think, one enters meditation. In the formless realm, there are only two kinds of attention: 1. arising from cultivation; 2. arising from birth. When the attention arising from hearing and the attention arising from thinking in the desire realm arise without interruption, the noble path appears. When the noble path arises without interruption, all three kinds of attention are present. Because the arising of all noble paths necessarily belongs to the path of application. It is not that the wholesome attention arising from birth arises without interruption, and the noble path will appear. When the attention arising from hearing and the attention arising from cultivation arise without interruption, the noble path will appear.
道現前。聖道無間。亦唯起彼二種作意。無色唯修作意無間。聖道現起。聖道無間。亦唯起修。不起生得。若生第二靜慮以上。起初靜慮三識身時。諸有未離自地染者。彼從自地善染無記作意無間。二識現前三識無間。還生自地三種作意。諸有已離自地染者。除染作意。唯善無記作意無間。三識現前。三識無間。亦唯起此二種作意。於前所說十二心中。何心現前幾心可得。頌曰。
三界染心中 得六六二種 色善三學四 余皆自可得
論曰。欲色染心正現前位。十二心內。各得六心。無色染心正現前位。十二心內。唯得二心。為一剎那。應言不爾。且起欲界染污心時。或界退還。或續善本。或退勝德。於此三位。隨容有數。總得六心。界退還時。除自無覆。定得自界。善等三心。色界染心。亦容可得。續善本位。得自善心。以疑心中續善根故。退勝德位。三界染心。及有學心。皆容可得。若起色界染污心時。或界退還。或退勝德。隨容有數。亦得六心。界退還時。得自三種。及得欲界無覆無記。謂通果心。退勝德位。色無色界二染污心。及有學心。皆容可得。若起無色染污心時。頓得二心。謂學自染。此中唯有退勝德位。色界善心。正現前位。十二心內。容得三心。謂自善心。及欲色界無覆無記。由
升進故。有說根本靜慮起時。頓得三心。即如前說。若泛說得。此義非無。然于爾時。唯得后二。以前一種先已得故。若不爾者。此位學心。亦容可得。應言得四。若有學心。正現前位。十二心內。容得四心。謂有學心。及欲色界無覆無記。並無色善若初證入正性離生。爾時學心。即名為得。若以聖道。離欲界染。最後所起解脫道時。得欲色界無覆無記。若以聖道。離色界染。得無色善。此中離言。非究竟離。以於色染未全離時。無色善心。已可得故。有說全離色界染時。得無色界根本地善。若爾應說亦得學心。離欲染時。亦得色善。是則應說。學心得五。余謂前說染等心餘。謂三界三無覆無記。欲無色善。及無學心。不說彼心正現前位得心差別。應知彼心。正現前位。唯自可得。色無覆心。正現前位。都無所得。前已得故。不應說言皆自可得。豈不無學心正起時亦容得四。謂三界善。初盡智時。未來修故。非先已得。有未來修。如何可言此唯自得。又無色善正現起時。亦得學心。寧唯自得。今言得者。非先所成。如后頌說。故無此難。若不爾者。色善得三。學心得四。亦不應說容得余故。此義應思。有餘但言。心有十一。以學無學同無漏故。即約此義。總說頌曰。
慧者說染法 現起時得九 善心中得六
無記唯無記
欲界染心。界退還位。除自無覆。得自界三。色界染心。界退還位。得自善染。欲色無覆無記染心。退無學位。得自界染及有學心。此約界論。得心多少。非約地辯。故得九心。無色善心。無容得故。有餘師說。染得十心。以無色中退生下地。染心起位得自善心。雖言得心約界而立。如亦可說得無漏心。得地善心何緣不說。言善心中得六心者。謂以正見。續善根時得欲界善。離欲染時。應知頓得欲色無覆。初入定時。如應別得色無色善。初入離生位。證阿羅漢時。得學無學。若爾何故。言得六心。如經主難應言得七。然學無學。同無漏故。總說一心。言六無失。有餘師釋。得盡智時。頓得六心。謂三界善。欲色無覆。及無漏心。雖約別時。亦容得六。而據頓得。故說此時。泛說無違。非今頌意。為攝前義。復說頌曰。
由託生入定 及離染退時 續善位得心 非先所成故
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之一
已依三界。辯得心等。今應思擇。三界是何。各于其中。處別有幾。頌曰。
地獄傍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無記唯無記
欲界染心（指被慾望污染的心）。在界退還位（指從某個禪定境界退回到較低境界的狀態）時，除了自界無覆無記心（指不善不惡，沒有遮蔽作用的心）之外，可以得到自界的三種心，即善心、染污心和無記心。在界退還位時，可以得到自界的善心和染污心。對於欲界、色界無覆無記染心，在退到無學位（指阿羅漢果位以下的修行位）時，可以得到自界的染污心以及有學心（指須陀洹果到阿那含果之間的修行者的心）。
這裡是從界的角度來討論，得到的心有多少，而不是從地的角度來辨析。所以說得到九種心。因為無色界的善心，沒有可能得到。有其他論師說，染污心可以得到十種心，因為在無色界中退生到下地時，在染污心生起的位置可以得到自界的善心。雖然說得到心是從界的角度來建立的，但也可以說得到無漏心（指超越三界的清凈心）。為什麼不說得到地的善心呢？
說到善心中可以得到六種心，是指以正見（指正確的見解）續善根（指延續善的根基）時，可以得到欲界的善心。在離開慾望的染污時，應該知道可以頓悟得到欲界和色界的無覆無記心。在初入定時，應該分別得到色界和無色界的善心。在初入離生位（指初果須陀洹）時，證得阿羅漢果時，可以得到有學心和無學心（指阿羅漢的心）。
如果這樣，為什麼說得到六種心呢？如果經文的主張有疑問，應該說得到七種心。然而，有學心和無學心，都是無漏的，所以總的說為一種心，說六種心沒有錯誤。有其他論師解釋說，在得到盡智（指斷盡煩惱的智慧）時，頓悟得到六種心，即三界的善心，欲界和色界的無覆無記心，以及無漏心。雖然是從不同的時間來說，也可能得到六種心，但根據頓悟得到的情況，所以這樣說。泛泛而說沒有違背經義，但不是現在這首偈頌的意思。爲了概括前面的意義，又說了這首偈頌：
由託生入定，及離染退時，續善位得心，非先所成故。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之一
已經依據三界，辨析了得到心等。現在應該思考，三界是什麼？各自在其中，處所的差別有幾種？偈頌說：
地獄傍
【English Translation】 English version 'Unspecified is only unspecified.'
When a defiled mind (referring to a mind tainted by desires) in the Desire Realm regresses from a meditative state (referring to the state of falling back from a certain level of meditative absorption), apart from its own realm's non-obscured and unspecified mind (referring to a mind that is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, and has no obscuring effect), it can attain three types of minds from its own realm: wholesome, defiled, and unspecified. When regressing from a realm, one can attain the wholesome and defiled minds of that realm. For defiled minds that are non-obscured and unspecified in the Desire and Form Realms, when regressing from the state of non-learning (referring to stages of practice below the Arhat fruit), one can attain the defiled minds of their own realm, as well as the minds of those still learning (referring to the minds of practitioners from Stream-enterer to Non-returner).
Here, the discussion is from the perspective of realms, considering how many minds can be attained, rather than analyzing from the perspective of planes. Therefore, it is said that nine types of minds can be attained. Because wholesome minds of the Formless Realm cannot be attained. Some other teachers say that defiled minds can attain ten types of minds, because when regressing from the Formless Realm to a lower plane, one can attain the wholesome minds of their own realm when defiled minds arise. Although it is said that attaining minds is established from the perspective of realms, it can also be said that one attains unconditioned minds (referring to pure minds that transcend the three realms). Why not say that one attains wholesome minds of the planes?
When it is said that six types of minds can be attained in wholesome minds, it refers to when continuing wholesome roots (referring to continuing the foundation of goodness) with right view (referring to correct understanding), one can attain the wholesome minds of the Desire Realm. When departing from the defilements of desire, one should know that one can suddenly attain the non-obscured and unspecified minds of the Desire and Form Realms. When initially entering meditative absorption, one should separately attain the wholesome minds of the Form and Formless Realms. When initially entering the stage of Stream-entry (Sotapanna), and when attaining the Arhat fruit, one can attain the minds of those still learning and the minds of those who have completed learning (referring to the mind of an Arhat).
If so, why is it said that six types of minds are attained? If there is doubt about the sutra's claim, it should be said that seven types of minds are attained. However, the minds of those still learning and the minds of those who have completed learning are both unconditioned, so they are collectively referred to as one type of mind, and saying six types of minds is not a mistake. Some other teachers explain that when attaining the Exhaustion of Knowledge (referring to the wisdom of completely eradicating afflictions), one suddenly attains six types of minds, namely the wholesome minds of the three realms, the non-obscured and unspecified minds of the Desire and Form Realms, and the unconditioned mind. Although it is spoken of from different times, it is also possible to attain six types of minds, but based on the situation of sudden attainment, that is why it is said. Speaking generally does not contradict the meaning, but it is not the meaning of this verse. To summarize the preceding meaning, this verse is spoken again:
'Due to rebirth, entering meditation, and when departing from defilements and regressing, the mind is attained in the position of continuing goodness, because it was not previously accomplished.'
Shun Zheng Li Lun of Sarvastivada, Volume 20 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun
Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun Volume 21
Composed by Venerable Zhongxian
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 3.1 on Discriminating Dependent Origination
Having already discriminated the attainment of minds, etc., based on the Three Realms, now we should consider, what are the Three Realms? Within each of them, how many differences in location are there? The verse says:
Hell, animal
生鬼 人及六慾天 名欲界二十 由地獄洲異 此上十七處 名色界于中 三靜慮各三 第四靜慮八 無色界無處 由生有四種 依同分及命 令心等相續
論曰。那落迦等下四趣全。及天一分。眷屬中有。並器世間。總名欲界。天一分者。謂六慾天。一四大王眾天。二三十三天。三夜摩天。四睹史多天。五樂變化天。六他化自在天。如是欲界地獄趣等。並器世間。總有十處。地獄洲異。分為二十。八大地獄。名地獄異。一等活地獄。二黑繩地獄。三眾合地獄。四號叫地獄。五大叫地獄。六炎熱地獄。七大熱地獄。八無間地獄。言洲異者。謂四大洲。一南贍部洲。二東勝身洲。三西牛貨洲。四北俱盧洲。如是十二。並六慾天。傍生餓鬼。處成二十。若有情界。從自在天。至無間獄。若器世界。乃至風輪。皆欲界攝。已說欲界並處不同。此欲界上。處有十七。謂三靜慮處各有三。第四靜慮處獨有八。器及有情。總名色界。第一靜慮處有三者。一梵眾天。二梵輔天。三大梵天。第二靜慮處有三者。一少光天。二無量光天。三極光凈天。第三靜慮處有三者。一少凈天。二無量凈天。三遍凈天。第四靜慮處有八者。一無雲天。二福生天。三廣果天。並五凈居處合成八。五凈居者。一無繁天。二無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生鬼（眾生），人以及六慾天（欲界天的總稱）， 合起來稱為欲界二十處，因為地獄和洲的差別而得名。 這以上有十七處，稱為（色界）， 其中三個靜慮各有三處，第四靜慮有八處。 無（無色界）沒有處所，因為有四種生。 依靠同分和命根，使心識等相續不斷。
論中說：那落迦（地獄）等下四趣全部，以及天界的一部分，眷屬中有（中陰身），加上器世間（眾生所依賴的物質世界），總稱為欲界。天界的一部分，指的是六慾天，即：一、四大王眾天（四大天王所居住的天界），二、三十三天（帝釋天所居住的天界），三、夜摩天（空居天之一），四、睹史多天（彌勒菩薩所居住的天界），五、樂變化天（能隨心所欲變化事物的天界），六、他化自在天（能自在享受他人變化成果的天界）。像這樣，欲界的地獄趣等，加上器世間，總共有十處。因為地獄和洲的差別，分為二十處。八大地獄，稱為地獄的差別，即：一、等活地獄（眾生互相殘殺的地獄），二、黑繩地獄（獄卒用黑繩在罪人身上劃線切割的地獄），三、眾合地獄（眾生被壓榨粉碎的地獄），四、號叫地獄（眾生因痛苦而號叫的地獄），五、大叫地獄（比號叫地獄更痛苦的地獄），六、炎熱地獄（充滿火焰的地獄），七、大熱地獄（比炎熱地獄更痛苦的地獄），八、無間地獄（永無間斷受苦的地獄）。所說的洲的差別，指的是四大洲，即：一、南贍部洲（我們所居住的洲），二、東勝身洲（位於東方的洲），三、西牛貨洲（位於西方的洲），四、北俱盧洲（位於北方的洲）。像這樣十二處，加上六慾天，傍生（畜生）和餓鬼，總共構成二十處。如果是有情眾生的範圍，從自在天（他化自在天）到無間地獄，如果是器世界，乃至風輪（支撐世界的風層），都屬於欲界所攝。已經說了欲界以及處所的不同。這欲界之上，有十七處，即三個靜慮處各有三處，第四靜慮處單獨有八處。器世間和有情眾生，總稱為**（色界）。第一靜慮處有三處，即：一、梵眾天（梵天界的大眾），二、梵輔天（梵天界的輔臣），三、大梵天（梵天界的統治者）。第二靜慮處有三處，即：一、少光天（光明較少的天界），二、無量光天（光明無量的天界），三、極光凈天（光明極為清凈的天界）。第三靜慮處有三處，即：一、少凈天（清凈較少的天界），二、無量凈天（清凈無量的天界），三、遍凈天（清凈普遍的天界）。第四靜慮處有八處，即：一、無雲天（沒有云的天界），二、福生天（福德所生的天界），三、廣果天（果報廣大的天界），加上五凈居處，合起來構成八處。五凈居天是：一、無繁天（沒有煩惱的天界），二、無熱天（沒有熱惱的天界）。
【English Translation】 English version Sentient beings, humans, and the six Desire Realms (Kama-dhatu heavens), are collectively known as the twenty realms of the Desire Realm, named due to the differences in hells and continents. Above these are seventeen realms, known as ** (Rupa-dhatu, the Form Realm), where each of the three Dhyanas (meditative absorptions) has three realms, and the Fourth Dhyana has eight realms. The ** (Arupa-dhatu, the Formless Realm) has no fixed locations, because there are four types of birth. Relying on commonality and the life force, the mind and other factors continue uninterrupted.
The treatise states: The lower four realms, such as Naraka (hells), in their entirety, and a portion of the heavens, the Antarabhava (intermediate state) beings, along with the container world (the material world that beings rely on), are collectively called the Desire Realm. The portion of the heavens refers to the six Desire Realm heavens, namely: 1. Caturmaharajika-kayikas (Heaven of the Four Great Kings), 2. Trayastrimsas (Heaven of the Thirty-three), 3. Yama Devas (Yama Heaven), 4. Tusita Devas (Tusita Heaven), 5. Nirmanarati Devas (Heaven of Enjoying Transformations), 6. Paranirmita-vasavartin Devas (Heaven of Controlling the Transformations of Others). Thus, the hell realms, etc., of the Desire Realm, along with the container world, total ten realms. Due to the differences in hells and continents, they are divided into twenty. The eight great hells are called the differences of hells, namely: 1. Samjiva (Reviving Hell), 2. Kalasutra (Black Thread Hell), 3. Samghata (Crushing Hell), 4. Raurava (Screaming Hell), 5. Maha-raurava (Great Screaming Hell), 6. Tapana (Burning Hell), 7. Pratapana (Great Burning Hell), 8. Avici (Hell of Uninterrupted Suffering). The differences of continents refer to the four great continents, namely: 1. Jambudvipa (the continent we inhabit), 2. Purvavideha (East Videha), 3. Aparagodaniya (West Godaniya), 4. Uttarakuru (North Kuru). Thus, these twelve, along with the six Desire Realm heavens, animals, and hungry ghosts, constitute twenty realms in total. If it is the realm of sentient beings, from the Paranirmita-vasavartin Devas (Heaven of Controlling the Transformations of Others) to Avici Hell, and if it is the container world, even the wind wheel (the layer of wind supporting the world), all are included within the Desire Realm. The Desire Realm and its different locations have been described. Above this Desire Realm, there are seventeen realms, namely, each of the three Dhyana realms has three, and the Fourth Dhyana realm alone has eight. The container world and sentient beings are collectively called ** (Rupa-dhatu, the Form Realm). The First Dhyana realm has three, namely: 1. Brahma-parisadya (Retinue of Brahma), 2. Brahma-purohita (Ministers of Brahma), 3. Maha-brahma (Great Brahma). The Second Dhyana realm has three, namely: 1. Parittabha (Limited Light), 2. Apramanabha (Unlimited Light), 3. Abhasvara (Radiant Light). The Third Dhyana realm has three, namely: 1. Parittasubha (Limited Purity), 2. Apramanasubha (Unlimited Purity), 3. Subhakrtsna (All-Pervading Purity). The Fourth Dhyana realm has eight, namely: 1. Anabhraka (Cloudless), 2. Punyaprasava (Merit-Born), 3. Brhatphala (Great Fruit), along with the five Suddhavasa (Pure Abodes), making up eight. The five Pure Abodes are: 1. Avrha (No Greatness), 2. Atapa (No Heat).
熱天。三善現天四善見天。五色究竟天。廣善所生故名為梵。此梵即大。故名大梵。由彼獲得中間定故。最初生故。最後歿故。威德等勝故。名為大。大梵所有所化所領。故名梵眾。于大梵前。行列侍衛。故名梵輔。自地天內光明最小。故名少光。光明轉勝量難測故。名無量光。凈光遍照自地處故。名極光凈。意地受樂。說名為凈。于自地中此凈最劣。故名少凈。此凈轉增量難測故。名無量凈。此凈周普。故名遍凈。意顯更無樂能過此。以下空中天所居地。如雲密合。故說名云。此上諸天。更無雲地。在無雲首。故說無雲。更有異生勝福方所可往生故。說名福生。居在方所。異生果中此最殊勝。故名廣果。離欲諸聖。以聖道水。濯煩惱垢。故名為凈。凈身所止。故名凈居。或住於此。窮生死邊。如還債盡。故名為凈。凈者所住。故名凈居。或此天中。無異生雜。純聖所止。故名凈居。繁謂繁雜。或謂繁廣。無繁雜中此最初故。繁廣天中此最劣故。說名無繁。或名無求。不求趣入無色界故。已善伏除雜修靜慮上中品障。意樂調柔。離諸熱惱。故名無熱。或令下生煩惱名熱。此初離遠。得無熱名。或復熱者。熾盛為義。謂上品修靜慮及果。此猶未證。故名無熱。已得上品雜修靜慮。果德易彰。故名善見。雜修定障。余品至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 熱天（Reya）。三善現天（Sudassana）四善見天（Sudassi）。五色究竟天（Akaniṭṭha）。廣善所生故名為梵（Brahmā），此梵即大，故名大梵（Mahābrahmā）。由彼獲得中間定故，最初生故，最後歿故，威德等勝故，名為大。大梵所有、所化、所領，故名梵眾（Brahma-parisadya）。于大梵前，行列侍衛，故名梵輔（Brahma-purohita）。自地天內光明最小，故名少光（Parittābha）。光明轉勝量難測故，名無量光（Apramāṇābha）。凈光遍照自地處故，名極光凈（Ābhāsvara）。意地受樂，說名為凈。于自地中此凈最劣，故名少凈（Parittaśubha）。此凈轉增量難測故，名無量凈（Apramāṇaśubha）。此凈周普，故名遍凈（Śubhakṛtsna）。意顯更無樂能過此。以下空中天所居地，如雲密合，故說名云。此上諸天，更無雲地，在無雲首，故說無雲（Anabhraka）。更有異生勝福方所可往生故，說名福生（Puṇyaprasava）。居在方所，異生果中此最殊勝，故名廣果（Bṛhatphala）。離欲諸聖，以聖道水，濯煩惱垢，故名為凈。凈身所止，故名凈居（Śuddhāvāsa）。或住於此，窮生死邊，如還債盡，故名為凈。凈者所住，故名凈居。或此天中，無異生雜，純聖所止，故名凈居。繁謂繁雜，或謂繁廣。無繁雜中此最初故，繁廣天中此最劣故，說名無繁（Avṛha）。或名無求，不求趣入無煩天故。已善伏除雜修靜慮上中品障，意樂調柔，離諸熱惱，故名無熱（Atapa）。或令下生煩惱名熱，此初離遠，得無熱名。或復熱者，熾盛為義，謂上品修靜慮及果，此猶未證，故名無熱。已得上品雜修靜慮，果德易彰，故名善見（Sudṛśa）。雜修定障，余品至
【English Translation】 English version Reya Heaven. The Sudassana (Beautiful Appearance) Heaven. The Sudassi (Clear Vision) Heaven. The Akaniṭṭha (Ultimate in Form) Heaven. Because of the vast good deeds that generate them, they are called Brahma (梵). This Brahma is great, hence called Mahābrahmā (大梵, Great Brahma). Because they attain the intermediate dhyana (定, meditative state), they are the first to be born and the last to die, and their power and virtue are superior, hence they are called Great. What belongs to, is transformed by, and is governed by Mahābrahmā is called Brahma-parisadya (梵眾, Assembly of Brahma). Those who stand in rows and guard before Mahābrahmā are called Brahma-purohita (梵輔, Retinue of Brahma). Within their own heaven, their light is the least, hence they are called Parittābha (少光, Limited Light). Because their light increases and is difficult to measure, they are called Apramāṇābha (無量光, Immeasurable Light). Because pure light shines throughout their own realm, they are called Ābhāsvara (極光凈, Radiant Light). The enjoyment of pleasure in the mind realm is called purity. Within their own realm, this purity is the least, hence they are called Parittaśubha (少凈, Limited Purity). Because this purity increases and is difficult to measure, they are called Apramāṇaśubha (無量凈, Immeasurable Purity). Because this purity is all-pervasive, they are called Śubhakṛtsna (遍凈, Universal Purity). It means that there is no other pleasure that can surpass this. The realms below, where the heavens reside in the air, are like dense clouds, hence they are called clouds. The heavens above this have no cloud-like ground, and are at the head of no clouds, hence they are called Anabhraka (無雲, Cloudless). Because there are other beings with superior blessings who can be reborn there, they are called Puṇyaprasava (福生, Birth of Merit). Residing in a place, this is the most outstanding among the fruits of other beings, hence it is called Bṛhatphala (廣果, Great Fruit). Those saints who are free from desire wash away the defilements of affliction with the water of the holy path, hence they are called pure. The place where pure bodies reside is called Śuddhāvāsa (凈居, Pure Abode). Or, residing here, they exhaust the limits of birth and death, like repaying a debt completely, hence they are called pure. The place where the pure ones reside is called Śuddhāvāsa. Or, in this heaven, there are no mixed beings, only saints reside, hence it is called Śuddhāvāsa. 'Abundant' means complex or vast. Because this is the first among the non-complex, and the least among the vast heavens, it is called Avṛha (無繁, No Complexity). Or it is called 'no seeking', because they do not seek to enter the Avṛha Heaven. Having well subdued the upper and middle grade obstacles of mixed cultivation of dhyana, their minds are gentle and free from all heat and vexation, hence they are called Atapa (無熱, No Heat). Or, that which causes lower beings to have affliction is called heat, and this is the first to be far away from it, hence they are called Atapa. Or, 'heat' means intense, referring to the upper grade cultivation of dhyana and its fruit, which they have not yet attained, hence they are called Atapa. Having attained the upper grade mixed cultivation of dhyana, the fruit of virtue is easily manifested, hence they are called Sudṛśa (善見, Good Vision). The remaining grades of obstacles to mixed cultivation of dhyana reach
微。見極清澈。故名善見。更無有處於有色中能過於此。名色究竟。或此已到眾苦所依身最後邊。名色究竟。有言色者。是積集色。至彼後邊。名色究竟。此十七處。諸器世間。並諸有情。總名色界。有餘別說十七處名。初靜慮中。總立二處。第四靜慮。別說無想。彼師應言。處有十八。以彼大梵。望梵輔天。壽量身量。無尋受等。皆有別故。豈不無想望廣果天。唯異生等有差別故。前亦應言處有十八。此難非理。無想天生。即廣果天系業果故。若爾大梵所受生身。亦梵輔天系業果故。不應別說為一天處。即梵輔天上品系業。招大梵果。此業望彼。少有差別。故招壽等。亦少不同。若大梵天。望彼梵輔。壽量等別。合為一處。則少光等。壽等雖殊。應合一處成大過失。此例不然。大梵一故。要依同分。立天處名。非一梵王可名同分。雖壽量等與余不同。然由一身不成同分。故與梵輔合立一天。高下雖殊。然地無別。少光天等。與此相違。故彼不應引之為例。上座色界立十八天。故作是言。修諸靜慮。各有三品。謂上中下。隨三品因。生三天處。第一靜慮。大梵天王。自類相望。得有同分。與梵輔處。勝劣有殊。如聚落邊阿練若處。雖相鄰近。而處不同。無想有情。于第四定。為第四處。與廣果天。有差別故。處成十八
。此亦不然。初靜慮地。處應四故。無想有情。應離廣果不別立故。若謂隨修三品靜慮。諸靜慮地。處各三者。則大梵王。壽等勝故。應異初定上中下因別用中間勝定業感。故應大梵異初定三。別業所招。成第四處。或應大梵無別有因。無想有情。與彼廣果。壽身量等。無差別故。應無異因。處非第四。故立十八。理必不成。又若必然。應色究竟壽量身量三十二十。或六十四。然俱不許。是故不可約修靜慮三品不同立處有別。因雖有四。處但立三。因但有三。處立四故。又初靜慮。處若有三。應大梵王望梵輔處。高廣迥隔。如上下天。亦應倍增壽量身量。是則一切建立不成。然梵眾天。壽量半劫。身量亦有半逾繕那。至大梵天。量皆一半。若立大梵處為第三。應壽與身量增至二。是則以上。皆應倍增。諸所建立。皆不成就。是故迦濕彌羅國。諸大論師。咸說大梵王所居。即梵輔處。由茲色界。處唯十六。如是所說。善順契經。七識住中。唯舉邊故。如極光凈及遍凈天。若謂不然。契經應說。如大梵處非梵眾天。無想有情望廣果處。壽等無異。如何別立。彼復說言。第一靜慮。非無壽等建立差別。以彼三天半半增故。若爾大梵。應亦倍增。是則上天建立皆壞。無斯過失。許少光天望大梵天亦半增故。此唯妄執。未見色天
。別處極成。有半增故。又壞正理。所以者何。既許依修三品靜慮。得三品果。建立三天。何理中天倍增于下。然其上處半勝於中。故彼所言。唯憑妄執。是故建立色界諸天。唯我國師。所說無亂。已說色界並處不同。無色界中。都無有處。以無色法無有方所。過去未來。無表無色。不住方所。理決然故。但異熟生。勝劣差別。說有四種。一空無邊處。二識無邊處。三無所有處。四非想非非想處。如是四種。名無色界。此四非由處有上下。但由生故。勝劣有殊。復云何知。彼無方處。謂於是處。得彼定者。命終即於是處生故。復從彼歿。生欲色時。即於是處。中有起故。雖由生故四種不同。而無上下方處差別。四種何緣次第如是。由漸離欲漸得定故。或即由生次第如是。隨生因力。果少多故。如有色界。一切有情。要依色身。心等相續。于無色界。受生有情。以何為依。心等相續。何緣於此欻復生疑。以諸法中都無有我。心心所法。在欲色中。依託色身。可相續轉。于無色界。既無色身。心等應無相續轉義。故今於此可復生疑。當知彼依同分及命。心等相續。非我為依。及聲攝余不相應行。謂得非得。及與生等。非於此中顯同分等實有自體。前已成故。但顯彼用。謂能為緣。緣謂為依令心等續。眼等四識。一一皆用無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其他地方的極微並非如此。因為有半增的情況，這會破壞正確的道理。為什麼這麼說呢？既然允許依靠修習三種靜慮（dhyāna，禪定），獲得三種果報，從而建立三天（trayastriṃśa，三十三天），那麼憑什麼道理說中天（madhyadeśa，中土）比下天（adholoka，地獄）增加一倍呢？然而，上面的處所比中間的處所稍微殊勝一些。所以他們所說的話，只是憑藉虛妄的執著。因此，諸天的建立，只有我國的老師（指佛陀）所說的沒有錯亂。已經說了有色界（rūpadhātu，色界）並處不同，在無色界（arūpadhātu，無色界）中，根本沒有處所。因為無色法沒有方位和處所。過去和未來，無表色（avijñapti-rūpa，無表色）不住在方位處所，這是理所當然的。但由於異熟果報（vipāka，異熟）的殊勝和低劣差別，所以說有四種無色界：一、空無邊處（ākāśānantyāyatana，空無邊處）；二、識無邊處（vijñānānantyāyatana，識無邊處）；三、無所有處（ākiṃcanyāyatana，無所有處）；四、非想非非想處（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，非想非非想處）。這四種稱為無色界。這四種不是因為處所有上下之分，而是因為所生的原因，殊勝和低劣有所不同。又怎麼知道它們沒有方位處所呢？因為在某個地方，得到那種禪定的人，命終之後就會在那個地方出生。又從那裡死亡，生到欲界（kāmadhātu，欲界）和色界時，就在那個地方，中陰身（antarābhava，中陰身）生起。雖然因為所生的原因，四種不同，但是沒有上下方位的差別。四種無色界為什麼次第是這樣呢？因為逐漸遠離慾望，逐漸得到禪定。或者就是因為所生的次第是這樣。隨著生因的力量，果報的多少不同。就像有色界一樣，一切有情（sattva，眾生）都要依靠色身（rūpakāya，色身），心等才能相續。在無色界，受生的有情，依靠什麼才能使心等相續呢？為什麼在這裡突然又產生懷疑呢？因為諸法之中根本沒有我（ātman，我），心和心所法（citta-caitta，心和心所）在欲界和色界中，依託色身，可以相續運轉。在無色界，既然沒有色身，心等應該沒有相續運轉的道理。所以現在在這裡可以再次產生懷疑。應當知道他們依靠同分（sabhāgatā，同分）和命根（jīvitendriya，命根），心等才能相續，不是依靠我。以及聲音所攝的其餘不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，心不相應行），比如得和非得，以及生等等。不是在這裡顯示同分等有真實的自體，前面已經成立了。只是顯示它們的作用，就是能夠作為緣（pratyaya，緣），緣就是作為依靠，使心等相續。眼等四識，每一個都用無間滅識（anantara-niruddha-vijñāna，無間滅識）
【English Translation】 English version: The ultimate particles elsewhere are not like this. Because there is a half-increase, it destroys the correct reasoning. Why is that? Since it is allowed to rely on cultivating the three types of meditative absorptions (dhyāna), to obtain the three types of results, thereby establishing the Trayastriṃśa Heaven (thirty-three heavens), by what reasoning does the middle heaven (madhyadeśa, central land) increase by double compared to the lower heaven (adholoka, lower realm)? However, the upper place is slightly superior to the middle place. Therefore, what they say is only based on false attachments. Therefore, the establishment of the heavens, only what our teacher (referring to the Buddha) said is without confusion. It has already been said that the Form Realm (rūpadhātu) has different co-existences, in the Formless Realm (arūpadhātu), there is fundamentally no place. Because formless dharmas have no direction or place. The past and future, non-manifesting form (avijñapti-rūpa), do not reside in a directional place, this is logically certain. But due to the superior and inferior differences in the results of maturation (vipāka), it is said that there are four types of Formless Realms: 1. Sphere of Infinite Space (ākāśānantyāyatana); 2. Sphere of Infinite Consciousness (vijñānānantyāyatana); 3. Sphere of Nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana); 4. Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana). These four are called the Formless Realm. These four are not because the places have upper and lower distinctions, but because of the cause of birth, the superiority and inferiority are different. How do we know that they have no directional place? Because in a certain place, those who attain that samādhi, after death, will be born in that place. And from there, when they die and are born into the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu) and Form Realm, in that place, the intermediate being (antarābhava) arises. Although due to the cause of birth, the four are different, there is no difference in upper and lower directions. Why is the order of the four Formless Realms like this? Because of gradually distancing oneself from desire and gradually attaining samādhi. Or it is because the order of birth is like this. Depending on the power of the cause of birth, the results are more or less different. Just like in the Form Realm, all sentient beings (sattva) must rely on the physical body (rūpakāya) for the mind and so on to continue. In the Formless Realm, what do sentient beings who are born rely on for the mind and so on to continue? Why do doubts suddenly arise here again? Because there is fundamentally no self (ātman) in all dharmas, the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta) in the Desire Realm and Form Realm rely on the physical body to continue to function. In the Formless Realm, since there is no physical body, the mind and so on should not have the principle of continuous functioning. Therefore, doubts can arise again here. It should be known that they rely on commonality (sabhāgatā) and life force (jīvitendriya) for the mind and so on to continue, not relying on the self. And the remaining non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) included in sound, such as attainment and non-attainment, and birth and so on. It is not to show that commonality and so on have a real self-nature here, which has already been established earlier. It only shows their function, which is to be able to act as a condition (pratyaya), and the condition is to serve as a reliance for the mind and so on to continue. Each of the four consciousnesses, eye consciousness and so on, uses the immediately ceasing consciousness (anantara-niruddha-vijñāna)
間滅意及自色根。為其所依。及為依性。以自色根所依大種。身根及大。同分命根。得等生等。但為依性。身識即用意及身根。為其所依。及為依性。但以身根所依大種。同分命根。得等生等。為其依性。非為所依。意識但以無間滅意。為其所依。及為依性。身根及大。同分命根。得等生等。但為依性。如是欲色有情心等。依色同分命等相續。無色有情。以無色故。但依同分及命根等。心等相續。非無有依。依與所依。二相何別。今詳宗趣。二相別者。要由彼有此方得生。無則不生。是為依相。定有彼相及隨變者。是謂為依及所依相。豈不雖有色同分等。而或有時心等不續。如何說彼為心等依。此責不然。以有別法。能違心等。令不續故。心等續位必有彼依。故彼得為心等依相。現見心等。于死身內。畢竟不生。于生身中。心心所法。決定當起。故彼色等。依相極成。由此故知。色聲香等。於心心所。不能為依。以外事中有色聲等。然心心所。曾不轉故。前所依相。應非遍有。非諸心等皆隨所依而轉變故。心等不隨無間滅意定有轉變。如何可說彼為所依。心等定隨意根轉變。夫隨變者。謂令改易。無間滅意。于正滅時。令後心等入正生位。意根已滅。心等已生。如是即成后隨前變。非同分等為心等依。如眼等根無間滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 間斷滅絕的意根（Manas-indriya，意識的根源）以及自身的色根（Rupa-indriya，物質的根源），是其他心識活動的所依（Alambana，支援）和依性（Upadanata，依賴）。因為自身的色根所依賴的大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素），身根（Kaya-indriya，身體的根源）以及大種，同分命根（Samanabhaga-jivitendriya，同類眾生的命根），獲得共同的生起等等，僅僅是作為依性。身識（Kaya-vijnana，身體的意識）即是用意根和身根作為其所依和依性。但以身根所依賴的大種，同分命根，獲得共同的生起等等，作為其依性，而非作為所依。 意識（Manovijnana，心的意識）僅僅以無間斷滅絕的意根，作為其所依和依性。身根以及大種，同分命根，獲得共同的生起等等，僅僅作為依性。像這樣，欲界（Kama-dhatu， desire realm）和色界（Rupa-dhatu，form realm）的有情眾生的心識等等，依賴於色法（Rupa，物質）的同分命根等等相續不斷。無色界（Arupa-dhatu，formless realm）的有情眾生，因為沒有色法，僅僅依賴於同分和命根等等，心識等等相續不斷，並非沒有所依。依（Asraya，依靠）與所依（Asrita，被依靠）這兩種相有什麼區別？現在詳細說明宗趣，這兩種相的區別在於，必須由於它的存在，這個才能生起，沒有它就不能生起，這就是依相。一定有它的相，以及隨之變化，這就是所謂的依和所依相。 難道不是即使有色法的同分等等，而有時心識等等不相續，如何說它們是心識等等的依？這種責難是不對的，因為有其他的法，能夠違背心識等等，使它們不相續。心識等等相續存在的時候，必定有它們的依，所以它們才能作為心識等等的依相。現在看到心識等等，在死去的身體內，畢竟不能生起。在活著的身體中，心和心所法（Citta-caitta，mental states）必定會生起，所以那些色法等等，作為依的相是極其確定的。由此可知，色聲香等等，對於心和心所，不能作為依，因為在外在事物中有色聲等等，然而心和心所，從來沒有因此而轉變。 前面所說的依相，應該不是普遍存在的。因為各種心識等等，不都隨著所依而轉變。心識等等不隨著無間斷滅絕的意根一定有轉變，如何能說它是所依？心識等等一定隨著意根轉變。所謂隨之變化，是指使之改變。無間斷滅絕的意根，在正要滅絕的時候，使後面的心識等等進入正要生起的狀態。意根已經滅絕，心識等等已經生起，這樣就形成了後面的隨著前面的變化。不同於同分等等作為心識等等的依，如同眼根（Caksu-indriya，視覺的根源）無間斷滅絕。
【English Translation】 English version: The immediately ceasing Manas-indriya (mind faculty) and its own Rupa-indriya (form faculty) are the Alambana (support) and Upadanata (dependence) for other consciousness activities. Because the Mahabhuta (great elements) on which its own Rupa-indriya depends, the Kaya-indriya (body faculty) and the Mahabhuta, the Samanabhaga-jivitendriya (life faculty of similar beings), obtain co-arising, etc., they are merely as dependence. Kaya-vijnana (body consciousness) uses the Manas-indriya and Kaya-indriya as its support and dependence. However, it takes the Mahabhuta on which the Kaya-indriya depends, the Samanabhaga-jivitendriya, obtaining co-arising, etc., as its dependence, but not as its support. Manovijnana (mind consciousness) only uses the immediately ceasing Manas-indriya as its support and dependence. The Kaya-indriya and the Mahabhuta, the Samanabhaga-jivitendriya, obtaining co-arising, etc., are merely as dependence. Like this, the minds, etc., of sentient beings in the Kama-dhatu (desire realm) and Rupa-dhatu (form realm) depend on the continuous Samanabhaga-jivitendriya, etc., of Rupa (form). Sentient beings in the Arupa-dhatu (formless realm), because they have no Rupa, only depend on the Samanabhaga and Jivitendriya, etc., the minds, etc., continue, not without dependence. What is the difference between Asraya (reliance) and Asrita (that which is relied upon)? Now, to explain the doctrine in detail, the difference between these two aspects is that, necessarily because of its existence, this can arise; without it, it cannot arise. This is the aspect of reliance. There must be its aspect, and it changes accordingly; this is what is called the aspect of reliance and that which is relied upon. Isn't it the case that even though there is the Samanabhaga, etc., of Rupa, sometimes the minds, etc., do not continue? How can it be said that they are the reliance of the minds, etc.? This criticism is not correct, because there are other Dharmas that can contradict the minds, etc., causing them not to continue. When the minds, etc., continue to exist, they must have their reliance, so they can be the aspect of reliance for the minds, etc. Now we see that the minds, etc., in a dead body, after all, cannot arise. In a living body, Citta-caitta (mental states) will certainly arise, so those Rupas, etc., as the aspect of reliance, are extremely certain. From this, we know that Rupa, sound, smell, etc., cannot be the reliance for the mind and mental states, because in external matters there are Rupa, sound, etc., but the mind and mental states have never changed because of them. The previously mentioned aspect of reliance should not be universally present. Because various minds, etc., do not all change according to what they rely on. The minds, etc., do not necessarily change according to the immediately ceasing Manas-indriya. How can it be said that it is what is relied upon? The minds, etc., certainly change according to the Manas-indriya. What is meant by changing accordingly is to cause it to change. The immediately ceasing Manas-indriya, at the time of its proper cessation, causes the subsequent minds, etc., to enter the state of proper arising. The Manas-indriya has already ceased, and the minds, etc., have already arisen. In this way, the subsequent changes according to the previous. It is different from the Samanabhaga, etc., being the reliance of the minds, etc., like the immediately ceasing Caksu-indriya (eye faculty).
意。故所依相與依相別。遍諸所依無相濫過。如是欲色諸有情心。四蘊俱生。咸為依性。唯一色蘊。得為所依。意識所依。亦應兼色。隨色變故。現見大種。酒等惱時。心便改易。無容意識色為所依。夫成所依。定能生變意識非定隨大變生。設大種無。此亦有故。由是大種。望于意識。唯可成依。非所依性。是故六識欲色界中。用四蘊為俱生依性。無色意識。無複色依。彼俱生依。但通三蘊。若爾何故。但言無色心等依于同分及命。此說定同無亂依故。謂心心所。雖互為依。而非定同。不自依故。亦非無亂。在此地生。亂起自他心心所故。同分及命。心等同依。又此地生。唯此地故。依此設起不同地心。由此還令自地心起。唯依此二。名此地生。牽引業生。無間斷故。由斯說是同不亂依。心等不然。故略不說。若無此二。餘地四蘊。現在前時。爾時有情。應名餘地。非此地攝。自地先業。所牽引果。不相續故。然不應許。是故當知。如欲色界。身同分命。為心等依。雖或有時異地心起。而依身等。於此生中。后定當牽自地心起。如是無色。雖無有身。心等定依同分及命。故頌偏說。同分命根。此是牽引業異熟故。是余異熟相續住因。譬如樹根莖等依住。現見諸樹葉枝莖等。雖同種生。而依根住。是故不應謂眼根等唯依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：意識的所依之相和依之相不同。普遍存在於所有所依之中，沒有混淆的過失。像這樣，欲界和色界所有有情的心，四蘊同時產生，都作為依之自性。只有色蘊，才能作為所依。意識的所依，也應該包括色蘊。因為隨著色蘊的變化，可以明顯看到四大種（地、水、火、風）受到酒等侵擾時，心也會隨之改變。如果說意識以色蘊為所依，那麼，能夠成為所依的，必定能夠產生變化，而意識並不一定隨著四大種的變化而產生。即使沒有四大種，意識也可能存在。因此，四大種對於意識來說，只能成為依，而不是所依。所以，在欲界中，六識以四蘊作為俱生依之自性。無色界的意識，沒有色蘊作為所依。它們的俱生依，只包括三蘊（受、想、行）。 如果這樣，為什麼只說無色界的心等依于同分（同一類眾生）和命根（壽命）呢？這是因為說的是確定相同、沒有錯亂的依。也就是說，心和心所，雖然互相為依，但並非確定相同，因為它們不自己作為自己的依。也不是沒有錯亂，因為在此地產生，會錯亂地生起自己和他人的心和心所。同分和命根，是心等共同的依，而且在此地產生，只屬於此地。依靠它們，即使生起不同地的心，也會因此而使自己此地的心生起。只有依靠這二者，才能稱為此地所生，因為牽引業的生起，沒有間斷。因此，說它們是相同且不混亂的依。心等不是這樣，所以略而不說。 如果沒有這二者，其他地的四蘊現在前時，那時有情，應該稱為其他地的，而不是屬於此地的。因為自己此地先前的業所牽引的果報，沒有相續。然而，不應該允許這種情況發生。所以應當知道，像欲界一樣，身體、同分、命根，是心等的依。雖然有時會生起異地的心，但依靠身體等，在此生中，之後必定會牽引自己此地的心生起。像這樣，無色界雖然沒有身體，心等確定依靠同分和命根。所以頌文偏重地說同分和命根，這是因為它們是牽引業的異熟果，是其餘異熟果相續存在的因，譬如樹的根是莖等所依止的。現在看到各種樹的葉、枝、莖等，雖然同一種生，但都依靠根而存在。因此，不應該認為眼根等只是依靠……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: The aspect of what consciousness relies on (所依相, suǒ yī xiàng) is different from the aspect of relying (依相, yī xiàng). It pervades all that is relied upon without the fault of confusion. Like this, the minds of all sentient beings in the desire realm (欲界, yù jiè) and form realm (色界, sè jiè), with the simultaneous arising of the four aggregates (四蘊, sì yùn), all serve as the nature of reliance. Only the aggregate of form (色蘊, sè yùn) can serve as what is relied upon. What consciousness relies on should also include form, because as form changes, it is evident that when the great elements (大種, dà zhǒng) [earth, water, fire, wind] are disturbed by alcohol etc., the mind also changes accordingly. If consciousness relies on form, then what can become relied upon must be able to produce change, but consciousness does not necessarily arise with the change of the great elements. Even without the great elements, consciousness may exist. Therefore, the great elements can only become a reliance for consciousness, not what is relied upon. Thus, in the desire realm, the six consciousnesses use the four aggregates as the nature of simultaneous arising reliance. The consciousnesses of the formless realm (無色界, wú sè jiè) do not have form as a reliance. Their simultaneous arising reliance only includes the three aggregates [feeling, perception, volition]. If so, why is it only said that the minds etc. of the formless realm rely on the commonality (同分, tóng fēn) [same type of beings] and life force (命根, mìng gēn) [lifespan]? This is because it speaks of a definite, identical, and non-confused reliance. That is, mind and mental factors, although they rely on each other, are not definitely identical, because they do not rely on themselves. Nor are they without confusion, because arising in this realm, they confusedly give rise to the minds and mental factors of oneself and others. Commonality and life force are the common reliance of minds etc., and arising in this realm, they only belong to this realm. Relying on them, even if minds of different realms arise, they will still cause the mind of this realm to arise. Only relying on these two can be called arising in this realm, because the arising of karma that draws [牽引業, qiān yǐn yè] is without interruption. Therefore, it is said that they are identical and non-confused reliance. Minds etc. are not like this, so they are omitted. If these two are absent, and the four aggregates of other realms are present, then sentient beings at that time should be called beings of other realms, not belonging to this realm, because the result drawn by the previous karma of this realm does not continue. However, this should not be allowed. Therefore, it should be known that, like in the desire realm, the body, commonality, and life force are the reliance of minds etc. Although minds of different realms may sometimes arise, relying on the body etc., in this life, they will definitely draw the mind of this realm to arise later. Like this, although the formless realm does not have a body, minds etc. definitely rely on commonality and life force. Therefore, the verse emphasizes commonality and life force, because they are the ripened fruit of drawing karma, and the cause of the continuous existence of other ripened fruits, just as the roots of a tree are what the stems etc. rely on. It is evident that the leaves, branches, stems etc. of various trees, although born of the same species, all rely on the roots. Therefore, it should not be thought that the eye faculty etc. only rely on...
業住無別有依。由斯已釋。生無色界業生心等。須別依因。故本論中。不作是說。心轉即用相應為依。即由此因得非得等。及聲總顯不說別名。謂彼非唯業所生故。設業生者。非恒續故。如何彼法。為心等依。謂彼若無。自地心等。必不生故。猶如身等。或由彼是無亂因故。非生上地成就下善。又無成異地異生性等故。彼為依性。其理極成。有餘師言。如坑塹等。雖無風等。燈焰不生。彼法若無。心等不起。故知心等用彼為依。或有門人。作是徴詰。不相應行。應如色身。亦能為依。生意識等。故但為說不相應行為心等依。非無色界俱生四蘊無相依義。然於此中。心與受等。為所依性。非彼受等為心所依。非所隨故。要心總了境界相時。受等方能取差別相。故彼隨心。非心隨彼。然心心所。名互相依。互隨轉者。同一果故。何緣不說。欲色界中。此二為依。心等相續。而但說彼依於色身。欲色界中。身同分等。雖恒相續。皆能為依。而身粗顯。是故偏說。或為成立同分命根離身別有。故作是說。非於無色。或餘地中。業生心等。恒現前故。或顯同分及命根等亦依身轉。故作是說。雖彼與身互相依止。而身勝故。偏說為依。豈不命根為身依性。亦是殊勝。命根若無。身根等法。皆不轉故。雖無命根彼皆不轉。而身多遇災
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『業住無別有依。由斯已釋。』這句話已經解釋了，業和住所沒有分別，都依賴於某種東西。『生無業生心等。須別依因。故本論中。不作是說。』如果心和心所（受、想、行、識）的生起不是由業所生，那麼就需要其他的依賴原因。因此，在本論中沒有這樣說。 『心轉即用相應為依。即由此因得非得等。及聲總顯不說別名。謂彼非唯業所生故。』心的轉變，也就是心的作用，是依賴於相應的條件。通過這個原因，可以獲得『得』和『非得』等等。這裡用『聲』總括地顯示，而不說具體的名字，是因為這些條件不僅僅是由業所生。 『設業生者。非恒續故。如何彼法。為心等依。謂彼若無。自地心等。必不生故。猶如身等。』假設這些心和心所是由業所生，它們也不是恒常相續的。那麼，這些法如何能成為心等的所依呢？因為如果缺少了這些法，自身層次的心等就一定不會生起，就像身體一樣。 『或由彼是無亂因故。非生上地成就下善。又無成異地異生性等故。彼為依性。其理極成。』或者因為這些法是無混亂的原因。它們不會在上地生起，成就下地的善。也沒有成就異地異生性的情況。因此，它們作為所依的性質，道理非常明顯。 『有餘師言。如坑塹等。雖無風等。燈焰不生。彼法若無。心等不起。故知心等用彼為依。』有些老師說，就像坑塹等，即使沒有風等，燈焰也不會生起。如果缺少了這些法，心等就不會生起。因此，可以知道心等是依賴於這些法。 『或有門人。作是徴詰。不相應行。應如色身。亦能為依。生意識等。故但為說不相應行為心等依。非無色俱生四蘊無相依義。』或者有學生提出疑問，不相應行（Viprayukta-samskaras）應該像色身一樣，也能作為所依，生起意識等。因此，只說是『不相應行』作為心等的所依，並不是說無色界的俱生四蘊（Skandha）沒有互相依賴的意義。 『然於此中。心與受等。為所依性。非彼受等為心所依。非所隨故。要心總了境界相時。受等方能取差別相。故彼隨心。非心隨彼。』然而在這裡，心和受等是所依的性質，而不是受等作為心的所依。因為受等不是心所隨從的。只有當心總體瞭解境界相時，受等才能取差別相。因此，受等隨從於心，而不是心隨從於受。 『然心心所。名互相依。互隨轉者。同一果故。何緣不說。欲界中。此二為依。心等相續。而但說彼依於色身。』然而，心和心所（Caitasikas）被稱為互相依賴，互相隨轉，是因為它們有相同的結果。為什麼不說在欲界（Kama-dhatu）中，這二者是互相依賴的，心等相續，而只說它們依賴於色身（Rupa-kaya）呢？ 『欲界中。身同分等。雖恒相續。皆能為依。而身粗顯。是故偏說。或為成立同分命根離身別有。故作是說。』在欲界中，身同分等，雖然恒常相續，都能作為所依，但是身體粗顯，所以偏重於說身體。或者爲了成立同分命根（Sabhaga-jivitendriya）離開身體而單獨存在，所以這樣說。 『非於無色。或餘地中。業生心等。恒現前故。或顯同分及命根等亦依身轉。故作是說。』不是因為在無色界（Arupa-dhatu）或其他地中，業所生的心等恒常現前。或者爲了顯示同分和命根等也依賴於身體而運轉，所以這樣說。 『雖彼與身互相依止。而身勝故。偏說為依。豈不命根為身依性。亦是殊勝。命根若無。身根等法。皆不轉故。』雖然它們和身體互相依賴，但是身體更為殊勝，所以偏重於說身體作為所依。難道命根作為身體的所依，不是更加殊勝嗎？如果缺少了命根，身體的根等法都不會運轉。 『雖無命根彼皆不轉。而身多遇災』雖然沒有命根，它們都不會運轉，但是身體更容易遇到災難。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Karma and abode are not separate and have a basis.' This has already been explained. 'The arising of mind, etc., is not due to karma; it requires a separate cause.' Therefore, this is not stated in the original treatise. 'The transformation of mind relies on corresponding functions as its basis. From this cause, one obtains 'attainment' and 'non-attainment,' etc. The term 'sound' is used to generally indicate this without specifying individual names because these conditions are not solely produced by karma.' 'Even if they are produced by karma, they are not constantly continuous. How can these dharmas be the basis for mind, etc.? Because if these dharmas are absent, the mind, etc., of its own realm will certainly not arise, just like the body.' 'Or because these dharmas are the cause of non-confusion. They do not arise in the higher realms and accomplish the merits of the lower realms. Also, there is no accomplishment of different realms or different births. Therefore, their nature as a basis is extremely evident.' 'Some teachers say, 'Like pits and trenches, even without wind, the flame of a lamp will not arise. If these dharmas are absent, mind, etc., will not arise. Therefore, it is known that mind, etc., uses them as a basis.' 'Or some disciples raise the question, 'Non-associated formations (Viprayukta-samskaras) should, like the physical body, also be able to serve as a basis for the arising of consciousness, etc.' Therefore, it is only said that 'non-associated formations' are the basis for mind, etc. This does not mean that the co-arisen four aggregates (Skandha) in the formless realm have no meaning of mutual dependence.' 'However, in this context, mind and feeling, etc., are the nature of the basis, not feeling, etc., as the basis of mind, because they are not followed. Only when the mind generally understands the characteristics of the object, can feeling, etc., grasp the differentiated characteristics. Therefore, they follow the mind, not the mind following them.' 'However, mind and mental factors (Caitasikas) are called mutually dependent and mutually transforming because they have the same result. Why is it not said that in the desire realm (Kama-dhatu), these two are mutually dependent, with the continuous arising of mind, etc., but only said that they rely on the physical body (Rupa-kaya)?' 'In the desire realm, the shared body, etc., although constantly continuous, can all serve as a basis, but the body is coarse and obvious, so it is emphasized. Or, in order to establish that the shared life faculty (Sabhaga-jivitendriya) exists separately from the body, it is said in this way.' 'It is not because in the formless realm (Arupa-dhatu) or other realms, the mind, etc., produced by karma are constantly present. Or, to show that the shared nature and life faculty, etc., also rely on the body to function, it is said in this way.' 'Although they and the body are mutually dependent, the body is more superior, so it is emphasized as the basis. Isn't the life faculty as the basis of the body also more superior? If the life faculty is absent, the faculties of the body, etc., will not function.' 'Although without the life faculty, they will not function, but the body is more prone to disasters.'
橫等緣。命等隨身亦有損益。故身與彼為依義勝。即由此義。對法諸師說。無色中以無身故。同分命等。更互相依。經主此中。假為賓主。謬增正義。作是難言。若爾有色有情心等。何不但依此二相續。謂對法者。作是釋言。有色界生。此二劣故。無色此二。因何故強。彼界二從勝定生故。由彼等至。能伏色想。若爾于彼。心等相續。但依勝定。何用別依。又今應說。如有色界受生有情。同分命根。依色而轉。無色此二。以何為依。此二更互相依而轉。有色此二。何不相依。有色界生。此二劣故。無色此二。因何故強。彼界二從勝定生故。前說彼定能伏色想。是則還同心相續難。或心心所。唯互相依。經主定於阿毗達磨。無所承稟。謬述此言。或由自心憎厭對法。矯作是說。惑亂正宗。誰有妙通諸法相者。當作如是酬前所問。彼立自宗言。無色界心等相續。無別有依。謂若有因。未離色愛。引起心等。所引心等。與色俱生。依色而轉。若因於色。已得離愛。厭背色故。所引心等。非色俱生。不依色轉。此亦非理。若引因力。令彼心等相續轉者。善與染心。現在前位。心等相續。應無所依。又如有情在欲色界。引因力故。心等相續。與色俱生。依色而轉。如是有情。在無色界。引因力故。心等相續。與眾同分命根俱生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 橫等緣（橫向的各種因緣）。命等（命根等）隨身也有損益。所以身體與命根等互為所依，意義重大。正因為這個意義，對法（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）的諸位論師說，在無色界中，因為沒有身體，所以同分（sabhāgatā，眾生種類相同）、命根等，就互相依存。經主（Sūtra Master，經的作者或註釋者）在這裡，把這種關係假託為賓主關係，錯誤地增加了自己的見解，提出了這樣的難題：如果這樣，有色界有情的心等，為什麼不只依靠這二者的相續呢？ 對法論師這樣解釋說：因為有色界的生，這二者（同分、命根）比較弱。無色界的這二者，因為什麼緣故而強大呢？因為那個界的這二者是從殊勝的禪定所生。由於那些等至（samāpatti，禪定），能夠降伏色想。如果這樣，在那個境界中，心等相續，只依靠殊勝的禪定就可以了，為什麼還要另外的所依呢？ 而且現在應該說，如有色界受生的有情，同分、命根，依靠色身而運轉。無色界的這二者，以什麼為所依呢？這二者互相依存而運轉。有色界的這二者，為什麼不互相依存呢？因為有色界的生，這二者比較弱。無色界的這二者，因為什麼緣故而強大呢？因為那個界的這二者是從殊勝的禪定所生。前面說那個禪定能夠降伏色想，那麼還是和心相續的難題一樣。 或者心和心所（caitta，與心同時生起並相應運作的心理現象）唯有互相依存。經主一定是對阿毗達磨沒有什麼瞭解，錯誤地敘述這些話。或者因為他自己內心憎恨厭惡對法，故意這樣說，迷惑擾亂正確的宗義。誰有精妙通達諸法實相的能力，就應該這樣回答前面所提出的問題。 他們立足於自己的宗派說，無色界的心等相續，沒有另外的所依。意思是說，如果有因，還沒有離開對色的貪愛，引起心等，所引起的心等，與色身一同生起，依靠色身而運轉。如果因為對色身，已經得到了離貪愛，厭背色身，所引起的心等，不是與色身一同生起，不依靠色身運轉。這也是沒有道理的。如果引業的力量，令那些心等相續運轉，善心和染心，在現在位前，心等相續，應該沒有所依。 又比如有情在欲界，引業的力量，心等相續，與色身一同生起，依靠色身而運轉。如同有情在無色界，引業的力量，心等相續，與眾同分、命根一同生起。
【English Translation】 English version: The transverse conditions (hetu-pratyaya, the various transverse causes and conditions). The life force, etc. (jīvita, etc.) that accompany the body also have increase and decrease. Therefore, the body and the life force, etc., are mutually dependent, which is of great significance. Precisely because of this significance, the Abhidharma (阿毗達磨) masters say that in the Formless Realm, because there is no body, the commonality (sabhāgatā, the shared characteristics of beings of the same kind), the life force, etc., are mutually dependent. The Sūtra Master (經主, the author or commentator of the sutra), here, falsely attributes this relationship to a host-guest relationship, mistakenly adding his own views, and raises this difficult question: If so, why don't the minds, etc., of sentient beings in the Form Realm rely solely on the continuity of these two? The Abhidharma masters explain it this way: Because the birth in the Form Realm makes these two (commonality, life force) weaker. Why are these two in the Formless Realm stronger? Because these two in that realm are born from superior samādhi (等至, meditative absorption). Because of those samāpatti (禪定), they can subdue the perception of form. If so, in that realm, the continuity of mind, etc., can rely solely on superior samādhi, why is there a need for another basis? Moreover, it should now be said that, like sentient beings born in the Form Realm, the commonality and life force rely on the physical body to function. What do these two in the Formless Realm rely on? These two are mutually dependent and function. Why are these two not mutually dependent in the Form Realm? Because the birth in the Form Realm makes these two weaker. Why are these two in the Formless Realm stronger? Because these two in that realm are born from superior samādhi. It was previously said that that samādhi can subdue the perception of form, so it is still the same as the difficulty of the mind's continuity. Or the mind and mental factors (caitta, 與心同時生起並相應運作的心理現象) are only mutually dependent. The Sūtra Master must have no understanding of the Abhidharma, mistakenly narrating these words. Or because he himself hates and detests the Abhidharma in his heart, he deliberately says this, confusing and disturbing the correct doctrine. Whoever has the wonderful ability to thoroughly understand the true nature of all dharmas should answer the previous question in this way. They base themselves on their own school and say that the continuity of mind, etc., in the Formless Realm has no other basis. The meaning is that if there is a cause that has not yet abandoned attachment to form, causing the mind, etc., the mind, etc., that are caused arise together with the physical body and function relying on the physical body. If, because of the physical body, one has already attained detachment and aversion to the physical body, the mind, etc., that are caused do not arise together with the physical body and do not function relying on the physical body. This is also unreasonable. If the power of karma causes those continuities of mind, etc., to function, good and defiled minds, in the present position, the continuity of mind, etc., should have no basis. Also, like sentient beings in the Desire Realm, the power of karma causes the continuity of mind, etc., to arise together with the physical body and function relying on the physical body. Like sentient beings in the Formless Realm, the power of karma causes the continuity of mind, etc., to arise together with the commonality and life force.
不依於色。唯依同分命根而轉。既許欲色有情心等。不依色身定無轉義。何因無色有情心等。都無所依。而有轉義。又彼現許欲色界中心等相續。雖一業果。而必依余心等方轉。于無色界何不許然。又不應說唯有於色未離愛因所引心等依色而轉。現有於色已離愛因。所引心等。與色俱生。依色而轉。生欲色界。色愛已除。無色界心。現在前故。彼雖無色心現在前。而彼有情。不名無色。未離色愛。因果為依。此無色心。相續轉故。地獄現起無色界心。既別有依。上亦應爾。又生無色。起餘地心。或起無漏。若無自地少法為依心相續者。當言此是何地有情。如是推徴。前已數辯。是故經主。所見非妙。上座此中。言無色界心與心所更互相依。如二蘆束相依而住。或如地獄名色相依。應詰彼言。如欲色界。雖名四蘊。更互相依。而許彼名別依色轉。如是無色心所與心雖相依止。然復應許別有所依。得相續住。是故違背對法正理。必無有能證義真實。如本論說。云何欲界。謂有諸法。欲貪隨增。色無色界。亦復如是。為顯諸法三界現行。非皆彼系。故作是說。豈不諸法非異界地煩惱隨增。應舉一切自界煩惱隨增顯別。理實應然。但說多分隨眠顯別。以諸有情多分現起貪隨眠故。言欲貪者。謂欲界貪。色無色貪。亦復如是。略
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不依賴於色蘊（rupa）。僅僅依賴於同分命根（samanabhaga-jivitindriya）而運轉。既然承認欲界（kama-dhatu）、色界（rupa-dhatu）有情的心識等，不依賴於色身就必定沒有運轉的道理。為什麼無色界（arupa-dhatu）有情的心識等，都沒有所依賴，卻有運轉的道理呢？ 而且他們現在承認欲界中心識等的相續，雖然是同一業的果報，但也必須依賴於其他心識等才能運轉。在無色界，為什麼不允許這樣呢？ 而且不應該說只有對於色界還沒有斷除愛著的因所引發的心識等才依賴於色蘊而運轉。現在有對於色界已經斷除愛著的因所引發的心識等，與色蘊同時產生，依賴於色蘊而運轉。因為在欲界，色界的愛著已經去除，無色界的心識現在生起。 他們雖然沒有色蘊的心識現在生起，但是這些有情，不能稱為無色。因為沒有斷除色界的愛著，以因果為所依，這些無色界的心識，才能相續運轉。地獄現在生起無色界的心識，既然有別的所依，那麼上界也應該如此。 而且生到無色界，生起其他地的心識，或者生起無漏智（anasrava-jnana）。如果沒有自己地界的少許法作為所依，心識相續，那麼應當說這是哪個地界有情的心識？像這樣推究，前面已經多次辨析。所以經主的見解並不精妙。 上座部（Theravada）在此處說，無色界的心識與心所（citta-samprayukta）互相依賴，就像兩束蘆葦互相依靠而住，或者像地獄的名色（nama-rupa）互相依賴。應該詰問他們說，像欲界，雖然名為四蘊（catur-skandha），互相依賴，但也承認它們是另外依賴於色蘊而運轉。像這樣，無色界的心所與心識雖然互相依賴，但也應該承認它們另外有所依賴，才能相續安住。所以這是違背對法（abhidharma）的正理，必定沒有能夠證明義理真實的。 就像本論所說：『什麼是欲界？』是指有各種法，欲貪（kama-raga）隨著增長。色界、無色界，也是這樣。爲了顯示各種法在三界（tri-dhatu）中現行，並非都是被它們所繫縛，所以才這樣說。難道不是各種法被不同界地的煩惱隨著增長，應該舉出一切自己界地的煩惱隨著增長來顯示差別嗎？道理上確實應該這樣。但只是說多分隨眠（anusaya）來顯示差別，因為各種有情多分現起貪隨眠的緣故。說到欲貪，是指欲界的貪。色界、無色界的貪，也是這樣。簡略。
【English Translation】 English version It does not rely on 'rupa' (form). It only relies on the 'samanabhaga-jivitindriya' (life-faculty of similar kind) to function. Since it is admitted that the minds and so on of sentient beings in the 'kama-dhatu' (desire realm) and 'rupa-dhatu' (form realm) cannot function without relying on the physical body, what is the reason that the minds and so on of sentient beings in the 'arupa-dhatu' (formless realm) have no basis at all, yet they can function? Moreover, they now admit that the continuity of minds and so on in the 'kama-dhatu', although it is the result of the same karma, must rely on other minds and so on to function. In the 'arupa-dhatu', why is this not allowed? Furthermore, it should not be said that only the minds and so on caused by the cause of attachment to the 'rupa-dhatu' rely on 'rupa' to function. There are now minds and so on caused by the cause of detachment from the 'rupa-dhatu', which arise simultaneously with 'rupa' and rely on 'rupa' to function. Because in the 'kama-dhatu', attachment to 'rupa' has been removed, and the mind of the 'arupa-dhatu' now arises. Although they do not have the mind of 'rupa' arising now, these sentient beings cannot be called formless. Because they have not abandoned attachment to 'rupa', and rely on cause and effect, these minds of the 'arupa-dhatu' can continue to function. Since the mind of the 'arupa-dhatu' arises in the lower realm, and there is another basis, then the upper realm should also be the same. Moreover, being born in the 'arupa-dhatu', arising other realm's minds, or arising 'anasrava-jnana' (undefiled wisdom). If there is no little dharma of one's own realm as a basis for the continuity of mind, then what realm should be said to be the sentient being's mind? Such investigation has been discussed many times before. Therefore, the view of the 'sutra-master' is not subtle. The 'Theravada' says here that the mind and 'citta-samprayukta' (mental concomitants) of the 'arupa-dhatu' rely on each other, just like two bundles of reeds rely on each other to stay, or like the 'nama-rupa' (name and form) of the lower realm rely on each other. They should be questioned, like the 'kama-dhatu', although it is called 'catur-skandha' (four aggregates), relying on each other, it is also admitted that they rely on 'rupa' to function. In this way, although the mental concomitants and mind of the 'arupa-dhatu' rely on each other, it should also be admitted that they rely on something else to continue to abide. Therefore, this is contrary to the correct principles of 'abhidharma' (higher knowledge), and there is definitely no one who can prove the truth of the meaning. Just as the 'shastra' says: 'What is the 'kama-dhatu'?' It refers to various dharmas, where 'kama-raga' (desire-attachment) increases. The 'rupa-dhatu' and 'arupa-dhatu' are also the same. In order to show that various dharmas manifest in the 'tri-dhatu' (three realms), and are not all bound by them, that is why it is said. Isn't it that various dharmas are increased by the afflictions of different realms, should all the afflictions of one's own realm be cited to show the difference? In principle, it should be so. But only the majority of 'anusaya' (latent tendencies) are mentioned to show the difference, because various sentient beings mostly manifest 'raga-anusaya' (attachment-latent tendencies). Speaking of 'kama-raga', it refers to the attachment of the 'kama-dhatu'. The attachment of the 'rupa-dhatu' and 'arupa-dhatu' are also the same. Briefly.
說段食。淫所引貪。可立欲名。如經頌說。
世諸妙境非真欲 真欲謂人分別貪 妙境如本住世間 智者于中已除欲
為顯貪慾名異體同。故說此頌。欲所屬界。說名欲界。色所屬界。說名色界。略去中言。故作是說。如胡椒飲。如金剛環。于彼界中。色非有故。名為無色。所言色者。是變礙義。或示現義。彼體非色。立無色名。非彼但用色無為體。無色所屬界。說名無色界。略去中言。喻如前說。又欲之界。名為欲界。由此界能任持欲故。色無色界。應知亦然。若界有色而無定者。是名欲界。若界有色亦有定者。是名色界。若界無色而有定者。是無色界。或界有色有欲境者。是名欲界。若界有色無慾境者。是名色界。若界俱無。是無色界。或界雖有五蘊異熟。而無五蘊為異熟因同得一果。是名欲界。若界俱有。是名色界。若界俱無。是無色界。或界多分具一切色。是名欲界。若界一切於色闕減。是名色界。若界一切色法皆無。是無色界。或界有色。亦有多趣。是名欲界。若界有色。而無多趣。是名色界。若界無色。亦無多趣。是無色界。如是等別。有無量種。三界為一。為復有多。三界無邊。如虛空量。故雖無有始起有情。無量無邊佛出於世。一一化度無數有情。令證無餘般涅槃界。而不窮盡。猶
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 再說段食（kabaḷīkāra āhāra，粗段食物）。淫慾所引發的貪愛，可以被稱作『欲』。正如經文偈頌所說： 『世間諸般美妙之境並非真正的欲，真正的欲是指人們的分辨和貪愛。美妙之境如其本性存在於世間，有智慧的人已經從中去除貪慾。』 爲了顯示貪慾的名稱不同但本體相同，所以說了這個偈頌。欲所統屬的界，被稱為欲界（kāmadhātu）。色所統屬的界，被稱為色界（rūpadhātu）。這裡省略了中間的詞語，所以這樣說。例如『胡椒飲』，『金剛環』。在那個界中，因為沒有色，所以稱為無色（arūpa）。所說的『色』，是變礙的意思，或者說是示現的意思。它們的本體不是色，所以立名為無色。並非它們僅僅以色無為本體。無色所統屬的界，被稱為無色界（arūpadhātu）。這裡省略了中間的詞語，比喻就像前面所說的那樣。另外，欲的界，稱為欲界，因為這個界能夠任持欲。色界和無色界，應當知道也是這樣。如果一個界有色而沒有禪定，這就是欲界。如果一個界有色也有禪定，這就是色界。如果一個界沒有色而有禪定，這就是無色界。或者說，如果一個界有色，也有欲的境界，這就是欲界。如果一個界有色，而沒有欲的境界，這就是色界。如果一個界既沒有色，也沒有欲的境界，這就是無色界。或者說，如果一個界雖然有五蘊的異熟果報，但沒有五蘊作為異熟因，共同得到一個果報，這就是欲界。如果一個界兩者都有，這就是色界。如果一個界兩者都沒有，這就是無色界。或者說，如果一個界大部分都具備一切色法，這就是欲界。如果一個界在色法上有所欠缺減少，這就是色界。如果一個界一切色法都沒有，這就是無色界。或者說，如果一個界有色，也有多種趣向，這就是欲界。如果一個界有色，而沒有多種趣向，這就是色界。如果一個界沒有色，也沒有多種趣向，這就是無色界。像這樣的區別，有無量多種。 三界（trayo dhātavaḥ）是一體的，還是有多個？三界無邊無際，如同虛空一樣廣大。所以即使沒有最初的有情，無量無邊的佛陀出現於世，每一位佛陀都化度無數的有情，讓他們證得無餘涅槃界（nirupadhisesa-nirvana-dhatu），也不會有窮盡的時候，就像...
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, consider coarse food (kabaḷīkāra āhāra). The craving induced by lust can be termed 'desire'. As the verse in the scripture says: 'The various beautiful objects in the world are not true desire; true desire refers to people's discrimination and craving. Beautiful objects exist in the world as their nature, wise people have already removed desire from them.' To show that the names of craving are different but the essence is the same, this verse is spoken. The realm governed by desire is called the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu). The realm governed by form is called the Form Realm (rūpadhātu). Here, the middle words are omitted, so it is said this way. Like 'pepper drink', 'vajra ring'. In that realm, because there is no form, it is called Formless (arūpa). What is called 'form' is the meaning of change and obstruction, or the meaning of manifestation. Their essence is not form, so the name Formless is established. It is not that they merely take formlessness as their essence. The realm governed by formlessness is called the Formless Realm (arūpadhātu). Here, the middle words are omitted, the analogy is as said before. Furthermore, the realm of desire is called the Desire Realm, because this realm can sustain desire. The Form Realm and the Formless Realm should also be understood in the same way. If a realm has form but no concentration, this is the Desire Realm. If a realm has form and also has concentration, this is the Form Realm. If a realm has no form but has concentration, this is the Formless Realm. Or, if a realm has form and also has objects of desire, this is the Desire Realm. If a realm has form but no objects of desire, this is the Form Realm. If a realm has neither form nor objects of desire, this is the Formless Realm. Or, if a realm has the ripened result of the five aggregates, but does not have the five aggregates as the cause of the ripened result, jointly obtaining one result, this is the Desire Realm. If a realm has both, this is the Form Realm. If a realm has neither, this is the Formless Realm. Or, if a realm mostly possesses all forms, this is the Desire Realm. If a realm is deficient in form, this is the Form Realm. If a realm has no form at all, this is the Formless Realm. Or, if a realm has form and also has many destinies, this is the Desire Realm. If a realm has form but does not have many destinies, this is the Form Realm. If a realm has no form and also does not have many destinies, this is the Formless Realm. Such distinctions are of countless kinds. Are the Three Realms (trayo dhātavaḥ) one, or are there many? The Three Realms are boundless, as vast as space. Therefore, even if there were no first sentient being, countless Buddhas appear in the world, each Buddha transforms countless sentient beings, causing them to attain the Nirupadhisesa-nirvana-dhatu (nirupadhisesa-nirvana-dhatu), without ever being exhausted, just like...
若虛空。世界當言云何安住。當言傍生。故契經言。譬如天雨滴如車軸。無間無斷。從空下澍。如是東方。無間無斷。無量世界。或壞或成。如於東方。南西北方亦復如是。不說上下。有說。亦有上下二方。餘部經中。說十方故。色究竟上。復有欲界。于欲界下。有色究竟。如是展轉。世界無邊。若有離一三界貪時。諸三界貪。無不滅離。依初靜慮。起通慧時。所發神通。但能往至自所生界梵世非余。所餘通慧。應知亦爾。勿有于境太過失故。已說三界。趣復云何。何處幾種。頌曰。
于中地獄等 自名說五趣 唯無覆無記 有情非中有
論曰。於三界中。隨其所應。說有五趣。如自名顯。謂前所說。地獄傍生鬼及人天。是名五趣。唯于欲界。有四趣全。三界各有天趣一分。為顯有界非趣所攝。故三界中說有五趣。善染無記。有情無情。及中有等。皆是界性。趣體唯攝無覆無記及與有情。而非中有。言趣體唯攝無覆無記者。唯異熟生。為趣體故。由此已釋。趣唯有情。無情中無異熟生故。中有非趣。后當廣辯。趣體唯攝無覆無記。有何聖教。能定證知。謂七有經。且可為證。經說七有。謂地獄有。傍生有。餓鬼有。天有。人有。業有。中有。此中業有。是五趣因。簡趣異因。是故別說。此經為顯趣體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果虛空是這樣，那麼世界應當如何安住？應當如何看待傍生（動物）？正如契經所說：『譬如天降大雨，雨滴粗如車軸，連綿不斷地從空中傾瀉而下。』同樣，在東方，無數的世界無間斷地經歷著壞滅和產生。如同東方一樣，南方、西方、北方也是如此。這裡沒有提到上下方。有人說，也有上下兩個方向，因為其他經典中提到了十方。在色究竟天之上，還有欲界；在欲界之下，有色究竟天。就這樣循環往復，世界是無邊無際的。如果有人能夠脫離對三界的貪慾，那麼他對三界的貪慾都會完全滅除。 當依靠初禪，生起神通智慧時，所發的神通只能到達自己所出生的梵天世界，而不能到達其他世界。其他的神通智慧，也應該知道是同樣的道理，不要因為對境界太過執著而產生過失。上面已經講了三界，那麼趣又是什麼？有多少種？頌詞說： 『于中地獄等，自名說五趣，唯無覆無記，有情非中有。』 論述：在三界之中，根據其各自的情況，可以分為五趣。正如其名稱所顯示的那樣，就是前面所說的地獄、傍生、餓鬼、人和天，這就是五趣。只有在欲界，四趣是齊全的。三界各自都包含天趣的一部分。爲了表明有些界不是五趣所包含的，所以在三界中說有五趣。善、染、無記，有情、無情，以及中有等等，都是界的性質。趣的本體只包含無覆無記以及有情，而不包含中有。說趣的本體只包含無覆無記，是因為只有異熟生才是趣的本體。由此已經解釋了，趣只包含有情，因為無情中沒有異熟生。中有不是趣，後面會詳細辨析。趣的本體只包含無覆無記，有什麼聖教能夠確定地證明這一點呢？《七有經》可以作為證明。經中說了七有，即地獄有、傍生有、餓鬼有、天有、人有、業有、中有。其中業有是五趣的因，爲了區分趣和趣的因，所以單獨列出。這部經是爲了顯示趣的本體。
【English Translation】 English version: If space is like that, how should we say the world abides? How should we regard pangsheng (傍生) [animals]? As the Qijing (契經) [scripture] says: 'For example, heavy rain falls, with raindrops as thick as cart axles, continuously pouring down from the sky.' Similarly, in the east, countless worlds are endlessly undergoing destruction and formation. Just as in the east, so it is in the south, west, and north. There is no mention of the upper and lower directions here. Some say that there are also the upper and lower two directions, because other scriptures mention the ten directions. Above the Sekushthena (色究竟天) [Akanistha heaven], there is still the desire realm; below the desire realm, there is the Sekushthena. Thus, in this cycle, the world is boundless. If someone can detach from the greed for the three realms, then their greed for the three realms will be completely extinguished. When relying on the first dhyana (靜慮) [meditative absorption] and generating wisdom through spiritual powers, the spiritual powers that arise can only reach the Brahma (梵天) [Brahma] world where one was born, and cannot reach other worlds. Other wisdom through spiritual powers should also be understood in the same way, so as not to make mistakes due to being too attached to the realm. The three realms have been discussed above, so what are the Qu (趣) [destinies]? How many kinds are there? The verse says: 'Among them, hells, etc., are named as the five Qu, only the non-obscured and non-specified, sentient beings are not Zhongyou (中有) [intermediate existence].' Commentary: Within the three realms, according to their respective situations, there can be five Qu. As their names indicate, they are the previously mentioned hells, pangsheng, hungry ghosts, humans, and gods. These are the five Qu. Only in the desire realm are all four Qu complete. Each of the three realms contains a portion of the god Qu. To show that some realms are not included in the five Qu, it is said that there are five Qu in the three realms. Good, defiled, unspecified, sentient, non-sentient, and Zhongyou, etc., are all the nature of the realms. The substance of Qu only includes the non-obscured and non-specified, as well as sentient beings, but does not include Zhongyou. The reason for saying that the substance of Qu only includes the non-obscured and non-specified is that only Vipaka (異熟) [resultant] birth is the substance of Qu. From this, it has been explained that Qu only includes sentient beings, because there is no Vipaka birth in non-sentient beings. Zhongyou is not a Qu, and this will be analyzed in detail later. What sacred teachings can definitively prove that the substance of Qu only includes the non-obscured and non-specified? The Seven Existences Sutra can be used as proof. The sutra speaks of seven existences, namely hell existence, pangsheng existence, hungry ghost existence, god existence, human existence, karma existence, and Zhongyou. Among them, karma existence is the cause of the five Qu. In order to distinguish between Qu and the cause of Qu, it is listed separately. This sutra is to show the substance of Qu.
唯攝無覆無記。故簡異因。然經主言非別說故。定非彼攝。如五濁中。煩惱與見別說為濁。非別說故。彼見定非煩惱所攝。如是業有。雖亦是趣。為顯趣因所以別說。故有說趣體兼善染。彼言非理。無處說故。有處說見亦是煩惱。雖有所因。別說為濁。而準余說。知即煩惱。曾無有處說諸趣因業即趣體可為誠證。雖有所因。別說為有。而準彼說。知業是趣。如何定知業是趣體。有所因故。有中別說。而非業有。體非是趣。為顯趣因說為業有。故所引喻。于證無能。又彼所言。有太過失。應執中有亦趣攝故。然彼釋言。由與趣義不相應故。二趣中間。故名中有。此若趣攝。應非中有。如是所釋。后更研尋。且五濁經。于證無力曾無處說業是趣故。既許中有。由與趣義不相應故。非是趣體。業亦應然。亦與趣義不相應故。定非趣體。業若趣體。趣應相雜。於一趣身中。有多趣業故。若趣因業即是趣者。人有地獄業或現前。彼應是人亦是地獄。亦不應說地獄趣體。雖現在前。而非地獄。如是則有太過失故。謂異熟果正現在前。應非地獄。無差別故。然契經說。異熟起已。名那落迦。故業非趣。又業是趣。與理相違。猶如中有。是趣因故。趣謂所往。中有不應是所往處。由此能往正所生處。故非趣攝。如是業有。既許趣因。非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯有『攝』（涵蓋）、『無覆無記』（非善非惡，不障礙解脫）的業，才與『因』不同。因此，要加以區分。 然而，《經》中主要說的是『非別說故』（不是單獨說明的緣故），所以可以確定『業有』不屬於『趣』（輪迴的去處）的範疇。例如，在五濁（Five Turbidities）中，煩惱和見解被單獨列為『濁』，因為它們是單獨說明的。如果不是單獨說明的，那麼見解就一定不屬於煩惱的範疇。同樣，『業有』雖然也是『趣』，但爲了彰顯它是『趣』的『因』，所以才單獨說明。 因此，有人說『趣』的本體兼具善與惡，這種說法是不合理的，因為沒有地方這樣說過。有些地方說『見』也是煩惱，雖然有其原因，但單獨列為『濁』。根據其他的說法，我們知道『見』就是煩惱。從來沒有地方說過諸『趣』的『因』——『業』就是『趣』的本體，可以作為可靠的證據。雖然有其原因，才單獨說明『業有』，但根據其他的說法，我們知道『業』是『趣』的『因』。 如何確定『業』就是『趣』的本體呢？因為有『所因故』（因為是原因的緣故），在『有』（存在）中單獨說明。然而，『業有』的本體不是『趣』，是爲了彰顯『趣』的『因』才說成『業有』。所以，所引用的比喻，對於證明『業』是『趣』的本體，沒有任何作用。而且，他們所說的，有『太過失』（過度推論的過失），應該認為『中有』（bardo，中陰身）也屬於『趣』的範疇。 然而，他們的解釋說，因為『中有』與『趣』的意義不相應，處於兩個『趣』的中間，所以稱為『中有』。如果『中有』屬於『趣』的範疇，就不應該稱為『中有』。這樣的解釋，以後還要進一步研究。而且，《五濁經》對於證明『業』是『趣』沒有任何力量，因為從來沒有地方說過『業』是『趣』。 既然承認『中有』因為與『趣』的意義不相應，所以不是『趣』的本體，那麼『業』也應該如此，也因為與『趣』的意義不相應，所以一定不是『趣』的本體。如果『業』是『趣』的本體，那麼『趣』就應該混雜在一起。在一個『趣』的身中，有多種『趣』的『業』。 如果『趣』的『因』——『業』就是『趣』本身，那麼人有地獄的『業』如果現在顯現，那他應該是人，也是地獄。也不應該說地獄『趣』的本體，雖然現在顯現，但不是地獄。這樣就會有『太過失』，意思是說，異熟果（Vipaka，成熟的果報）正在顯現，應該不是地獄，因為沒有差別。然而，契經（Sutra，佛經）說，異熟果生起之後，就稱為『那落迦』（Naraka，地獄），所以『業』不是『趣』。 而且，『業』是『趣』，與道理相違背，就像『中有』。『中有』是『趣』的『因』，『趣』是指所前往的地方，『中有』不應該是所前往的地方。因此，『中有』能夠前往真正的出生之處，所以不屬於『趣』的範疇。同樣，『業有』，既然承認是『趣』的『因』，就不是『趣』。
【English Translation】 English version Only 'karma' that is 'Sangraha' (inclusive), 'Avyākrta' (neither good nor bad, not obstructing liberation), is different from 'cause'. Therefore, it should be distinguished. However, the main point in the 'Sutra' is 'Na Prthak Uktah' (not separately stated), so it can be determined that 'Karma Bhava' (karmic existence) does not belong to the category of 'Gati' (destiny, realm of rebirth). For example, in the Five Turbidities (Pañca Kaṣāya), afflictions and views are separately listed as 'turbidities' because they are separately stated. If they are not separately stated, then views are certainly not included in the category of afflictions. Similarly, although 'Karma Bhava' is also 'Gati', it is separately stated to highlight that it is the 'cause' of 'Gati'. Therefore, some say that the essence of 'Gati' encompasses both good and evil. This statement is unreasonable because there is no place where it is said like this. Some places say that 'views' are also afflictions, although there is a reason for it, they are separately listed as 'turbidities'. According to other statements, we know that 'views' are afflictions. There has never been a place where it is said that the 'cause' of all 'Gatis' - 'karma' is the essence of 'Gati', which can be used as reliable evidence. Although there is a reason for separately stating 'Karma Bhava', according to other statements, we know that 'karma' is the 'cause' of 'Gati'. How can it be determined that 'karma' is the essence of 'Gati'? Because there is 'Hetu' (because it is the cause), it is separately stated in 'Bhava' (existence). However, the essence of 'Karma Bhava' is not 'Gati', it is said to be 'Karma Bhava' to highlight the 'cause' of 'Gati'. Therefore, the cited metaphor has no effect on proving that 'karma' is the essence of 'Gati'. Moreover, what they say has the fault of 'Ativyapti' (overextension), it should be considered that 'Antarābhava' (bardo, intermediate state) also belongs to the category of 'Gati'. However, their explanation says that because 'Antarābhava' does not correspond to the meaning of 'Gati', it is called 'Antarābhava' because it is in the middle of two 'Gatis'. If 'Antarābhava' belongs to the category of 'Gati', it should not be called 'Antarābhava'. Such an explanation needs further study in the future. Moreover, the 'Five Turbidities Sutra' has no power to prove that 'karma' is 'Gati', because there is never a place where it is said that 'karma' is 'Gati'. Since it is admitted that 'Antarābhava' is not the essence of 'Gati' because it does not correspond to the meaning of 'Gati', then 'karma' should also be like this, and it is certainly not the essence of 'Gati' because it does not correspond to the meaning of 'Gati'. If 'karma' is the essence of 'Gati', then 'Gatis' should be mixed together. In the body of one 'Gati', there are various 'karmas' of 'Gatis'. If the 'cause' of 'Gati' - 'karma' is 'Gati' itself, then if a person has the 'karma' of hell manifesting now, then he should be a person and also hell. It should also not be said that the essence of hell 'Gati', although it is now manifesting, is not hell. This would have the fault of 'Ativyapti', meaning that the Vipaka (ripened result) is manifesting, it should not be hell, because there is no difference. However, the Sutra (Buddha's discourse) says that after the Vipaka arises, it is called 'Naraka' (hell), so 'karma' is not 'Gati'. Moreover, 'karma' is 'Gati', which contradicts reason, like 'Antarābhava'. 'Antarābhava' is the 'cause' of 'Gati', 'Gati' refers to the place to go, 'Antarābhava' should not be the place to go. Therefore, 'Antarābhava' can go to the real place of birth, so it does not belong to the category of 'Gati'. Similarly, 'Karma Bhava', since it is admitted to be the 'cause' of 'Gati', is not 'Gati'.
所趣處。亦非趣攝。是故應知。趣體唯攝無覆無記。其理極成。唯異熟生。是諸趣體。何緣證知。契經說故。經說舍利子作是言。具壽。若有地獄諸漏現前故。造作增長順地獄受業。彼身語意曲穢濁故。于那落迦中。受五蘊異熟。異熟起已。名那落迦。除五蘊法。彼那落迦。都不可得。此中既說。除異熟生色等五蘊。無別地獄。異熟起已。名那落迦。故知趣體唯是異熟。雖彼釋言為遮實有能往諸趣補特伽羅。故作是說。除五蘊法。彼那落迦。都不可得。非遮余蘊。故作是言。然是自心虛妄計度。經說異熟五蘊起已方得名為那落迦故。又言除此異熟蘊法。彼那落迦不可得故。非蘊法言是總相說。乘前異熟五蘊起故。此言亦能兼遮實有。能往諸趣補特伽羅。許異熟蘊。總遮余故。又彼所言。異熟起已名地獄者。說異熟起方名地獄。非說地獄唯是異熟。此亦隨情妄作斯解。其次即有簡別說故。謂除次前異熟蘊法。彼那落迦。都不可得。若諸趣體非唯異熟。何故要言。異熟起已方名地獄。非於前位異熟諸蘊。先未起時已有地獄。能招業有。非於爾時已名地獄。故知地獄唯異熟生。非彼地獄能招業有。于異熟起未起位中。現行成就。少有差別。是故趣體唯異熟生。非善染等。理極成立。有餘師說。亦通長養。彼違契經。不可依信
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所趣之處，也不是被『趣』所包含的。因此應當知道，『趣』的本體只包含無覆無記（既非善也非惡，且不導致果報），這個道理非常明確。只有異熟生（由業力成熟而產生的果報）才是諸『趣』的本體。憑什麼可以證明呢？因為契經是這麼說的。經中舍利子（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）這樣說：『具壽，如果地獄的各種煩惱現前，因此造作增長順應地獄果報的業，那個人身語意行為都是彎曲污穢的，因此在那落迦（Naraka，地獄）中，承受五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）的異熟果報。異熟果報生起后，才叫做那落迦。如果除去五蘊之法，那落迦就完全不可能存在。』這裡已經說了，除去異熟所生的色等五蘊，沒有其他的地獄。異熟生起后，才叫做那落迦。所以知道『趣』的本體只是異熟。 雖然有人解釋說，這是爲了遮止真實存在的、能夠前往諸『趣』的補特伽羅（Pudgala，人或有情），所以才這樣說：『除去五蘊之法，那落迦就完全不可能存在』，而不是遮止其他的蘊。所以才這樣說。但這只是自己內心的虛妄計度。經中說異熟五蘊生起后，才得名為那落迦。又說除去這異熟蘊之法，那落迦就不可得。『非蘊法』這句話是總相而言的，因為憑藉之前的異熟五蘊生起，這句話也能同時遮止真實存在的、能夠前往諸『趣』的補特伽羅。因為承認異熟蘊，就總的遮止了其他的可能性。 而且他們所說，『異熟生起后才叫做地獄』，是說異熟生起才叫做地獄，而不是說地獄只是異熟。這也是隨自己的想法妄加解釋。因為接下來就有簡別的說明。就是說，除去之前的異熟蘊之法，那落迦就完全不可能存在。如果諸『趣』的本體不僅僅是異熟，為什麼要說異熟生起后才叫做地獄呢？難道在之前的階段，異熟諸蘊還沒有生起的時候，就已經有地獄了嗎？能夠招感業果的有，難道在那個時候就已經叫做地獄了嗎？所以知道地獄只是異熟所生。不是那個地獄能夠招感業果的有，在異熟生起和未生起的階段，現行和成就上，稍微有些差別。所以『趣』的本體只是異熟所生，不是善或者染污等等，這個道理非常明確。有其他的老師說，也通於長養（增長），這違背了契經，不可信賴。
【English Translation】 English version: The place to which one goes is also not included in 'Gati' (趣, realm or destination). Therefore, it should be known that the substance of 'Gati' only includes that which is un-obscured and neutral (neither good nor evil, and does not lead to karmic retribution). This principle is extremely well-established. Only Vipāka-born (異熟生, born from the maturation of karma) is the substance of all 'Gatis'. How can this be proven? Because the Sutras say so. The Sutra says that Śāriputra (舍利子, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) said: 'Venerable Sir, if the various defilements of hell manifest, thus creating and increasing karma that leads to the suffering of hell, then that person's body, speech, and mind are crooked and impure. Therefore, in Naraka (那落迦, hell), one experiences the Vipāka of the five Skandhas (五蘊, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). After the Vipāka arises, it is called Naraka. If the Dharma of the five Skandhas is removed, then Naraka is completely unattainable.' Here it is said that apart from the five Skandhas, such as form, which are born from Vipāka, there is no other hell. After Vipāka arises, it is called Naraka. Therefore, it is known that the substance of 'Gati' is only Vipāka. Although some explain that this is said to prevent the truly existing Pudgala (補特伽羅, person or sentient being) who can go to the various 'Gatis', so it is said: 'If the Dharma of the five Skandhas is removed, then Naraka is completely unattainable,' rather than preventing the other Skandhas. That is why it is said. But this is just a false calculation in one's own mind. The Sutra says that after the Vipāka of the five Skandhas arises, it is called Naraka. It is also said that if this Dharma of Vipāka Skandhas is removed, then Naraka is unattainable. The phrase 'non-Skandha Dharma' is a general statement, because by relying on the previous arising of the Vipāka of the five Skandhas, this statement can also simultaneously prevent the truly existing Pudgala who can go to the various 'Gatis'. Because by acknowledging the Vipāka Skandhas, one generally prevents other possibilities. Moreover, what they say, 'It is called hell only after Vipāka arises,' means that it is called hell only after Vipāka arises, rather than saying that hell is only Vipāka. This is also a misinterpretation according to one's own ideas. Because there is a separate explanation next. That is, if the previous Dharma of Vipāka Skandhas is removed, then Naraka is completely unattainable. If the substance of the various 'Gatis' is not only Vipāka, why is it necessary to say that it is called hell only after Vipāka arises? Could it be that in the previous stage, when the Vipāka Skandhas had not yet arisen, there was already hell? The existence that can attract karmic results, could it already be called hell at that time? Therefore, it is known that hell is only born from Vipāka. It is not that hell can attract the existence of karmic results, and there is a slight difference in the present activity and accomplishment in the stages of Vipāka arising and not arising. Therefore, the substance of 'Gati' is only born from Vipāka, not good or defiled, etc. This principle is very well-established. Some other teachers say that it also applies to growth (increase), which contradicts the Sutras and cannot be trusted.
。言地獄諸漏現在前故者。應言地獄煩惱是何。而今說為地獄諸漏。非地獄等諸趣煩惱。如初定等系地各別。然諸趣業定有別故。能起煩惱。如業而說。非趣體唯無覆無記。便與品類足論相違。彼說五趣一切隨眠。所隨增者。彼依五部能結生心。故作是說。趣及人心。總說為趣。無相違過。譬如村落及村落邊總名村落。中有非趣。何緣故知。由經論理為定量故。且由經者。謂七有經。別說五趣。因方便故。言由論者。施設論說。四生攝五趣。非五攝四生。不攝者何所謂中有。法蘊論說。眼界云何。謂四大種所造凈色。是眼眼根眼處眼界。地獄傍生鬼人天趣。修成中有。言由理者。趣謂所往。中有不然。如前已說。又彼即于死處生故。非所往處。故非趣體。然有難言。若爾無色亦應非趣。即于死處受生故者。彼難非理。以諸無色死處即生。不往余處。故是趣體。中有雖是死處即生。然往余處。故非趣體。經主復言。既爾中有名中有故。不應名趣。二趣中故名中有者。此不應理。因不成故。若許中有非趣極成。可作是言。二趣中故名為中有。中有非趣。既不極成。如何可言。二趣中故名為中有。名中有故。因義不成。設許中有是趣體者。順彼受業。若未離貪。定在死生二有中起。故名中有。非說彼在二趣中故名為中有。然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『地獄的各種煩惱現在顯現』這句話，應該說地獄的煩惱是什麼，而不是說地獄的各種煩惱。地獄等各道的煩惱，就像初禪等各自有其繫縛一樣是各不相同的。然而，各道的業確實有差別，能夠引起煩惱，所以根據業來說。並非各道的本體只是無覆無記，這樣就與《品類足論》相違背。《品類足論》說五趣的一切隨眠煩惱都會隨之增長，那是依據五部能夠結生心而說的。因此，將道和人心總稱為道，沒有相違背的過失。譬如村落和村落邊沿總稱為村落。其中有『中有』不是道，是什麼原因知道的呢？因為經典和理論可以作為衡量標準。從經典來說，如《七有經》分別說了五趣，這是因為方便的緣故。從理論來說，《施設論》說四生包含五趣，而不是五趣包含四生。不包含的是什麼呢？就是『中有』。《法蘊論》說，眼界是什麼？是指四大種所造的清凈色，是眼、眼根、眼處、眼界，以及地獄、傍生、鬼、人、天趣，修成『中有』。從道理上說，趣是指所往之處，『中有』不是這樣，如前面已經說過的。而且，『中有』是在死亡的地方產生，不是所往之處，所以不是道的本體。然而，有人會提出疑問，如果這樣，無色界也應該不是道，因為也是在死亡的地方受生的。這個疑問是不合理的，因為無色界在死亡的地方就是生處，不往其他地方，所以是道的本體。『中有』雖然是在死亡的地方產生，但要往其他地方，所以不是道的本體。 經主又說，既然『中有』名為『中有』，就不應該稱為道，因為在二趣之間所以名為『中有』。這種說法是不合理的，因為因不成。如果承認『中有』不是道，這是極端的說法，可以說因為在二趣之間所以名為『中有』。『中有』不是道，既然不是極端的說法，怎麼能說因為在二趣之間所以名為『中有』，因為名為『中有』，所以原因的意義不成立。假設承認『中有』是道的本體，順應他所受的業，如果還沒有離開貪慾，一定在死有和生有之間產生，所以名為『中有』，不是說他在二趣之間所以名為『中有』。然而
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the statement 'All the defilements of hell are now manifest,' it should be asked, 'What are the afflictions of hell?' rather than speaking of 'various defilements of hell.' The afflictions of each realm, such as hell, are distinct, just as the attachments of the first Dhyana (初禪) and other realms are distinct. However, the karma of each realm does indeed differ and can give rise to afflictions, so it is spoken of according to karma. It is not that the essence of each realm is merely unwholesome and neutral, which would contradict the Prakaranapada Sastra (品類足論). The Prakaranapada Sastra states that all latent afflictions (隨眠) of the five realms increase along with them, which is said based on the five aggregates (五部) that can generate rebirth consciousness (結生心). Therefore, realms and the human mind are collectively referred to as realms, without any contradiction. For example, a village and the outskirts of a village are collectively called a village. Among them, the 'intermediate state' (中有) is not a realm. How is this known? Because scriptures and reason can be used as standards. From the scriptures, such as the Seven Existences Sutra (七有經), the five realms are spoken of separately, for the sake of convenience. From the theory, the Establishment Treatise (施設論) says that the four types of birth (四生) encompass the five realms, but not that the five realms encompass the four types of birth. What is not encompassed? That is the 'intermediate state.' The Dharma Collection Treatise (法蘊論) says, 'What is the eye element (眼界)?' It refers to the pure form produced by the four great elements (四大種), which is the eye, the eye faculty (眼根), the eye base (眼處), the eye element, and the intermediate state formed by hell, animals (傍生), ghosts (鬼), humans, and heavenly beings (天趣). From the perspective of reason, a realm refers to a place to be gone to, but the 'intermediate state' is not like this, as mentioned earlier. Moreover, the 'intermediate state' arises in the place of death, not a place to be gone to, so it is not the essence of a realm. The master of the scriptures further says, 'Since the 'intermediate state' is called the 'intermediate state,' it should not be called a realm, because it is between two realms, hence the name 'intermediate state'.' This statement is unreasonable because the cause is not established. If it is acknowledged that the 'intermediate state' is not a realm, which is an extreme statement, it can be said that it is called the 'intermediate state' because it is between two realms. The 'intermediate state' is not a realm, and since it is not an extreme statement, how can it be said that it is called the 'intermediate state' because it is between two realms? Because it is called the 'intermediate state,' the meaning of the cause is not established. Assuming that the 'intermediate state' is acknowledged as the essence of a realm, in accordance with the karma it receives, if one has not yet abandoned desire (貪慾), it will definitely arise between the existence of death and the existence of birth, hence the name 'intermediate state,' not because it is said to be between two realms that it is called the 'intermediate state.' However,
無本有名中有過。在中有地生死中間。容有不起本有者故。謂或容有生有無間死有現前。非起本有。必無容有在中有地死有無間生有現前。故中有名。不濫余有。雖亦有說欲色界中非定一切有中有者。此後思擇中有義中。當立定有破彼所說。或容彼在異類二生中間起故。名為中有。非在二趣中間有故其本有等。無如是事。又經主言。此若趣攝。非中間故。是則不應名中有者。亦不應理。所以者何。設是趣攝。如前所釋。成中有故。中有非趣。前說理成。經主後言不堪為證。此中上座作如是言。若許中有非趣所攝。彼即應說。離五趣外。別有能感中有起業。此無有失。是所許故。謂我宗中。許五趣體唯是無記。中有起業。唯是不善善有漏故。由是當知。離五趣外。別有能感中有起業。然此中有。即趣業果。謂業能招諸趣果者。此即能感往趣方便。往趣方便。即名中有。如同所許。化非化生。是一業果。如是應許趣非趣攝。一業所招。中般涅槃。由此成立。順定受業。已與果故。若別業果。生有等業。未與果故。應不能起永斷余結聖道現前。豈不生結彼已斷故。能起如是聖道現前。如契經說。應知如是補特伽羅。已斷生結。未斷起結。故不成證。如何二結同一地系。而前後斷。與理無違。故應思求彼經意趣。我今於此。審
諦思求見彼契經。有如是意。謂依二斷說如是言。二斷者何。一得永對治斷。二得永不行斷。此中初斷。謂起結全生結少分。於色界貪。得永離故。于無色貪。未永離故。若第二斷。唯是生結。于欲色界。未離貪者。二時容有起結現行。謂住本有。發滿業時。及住中有。續中有時。異生位中。造牽引業。已能感此應所受生。彼對治力伏相續故。覺了生有深過患故。住本有中。不能現起能發生有圓滿業結。由此畢竟彼業不生。住中有中。彼無現起聖道障故。未至生處。便斷余結而般涅槃。由彼無容結生有故。第二生結永不現行。先已得彼非擇滅故。由此諸趣。與彼中有。是一業果。其理極成。又必應然。除在中有般涅槃者。無住中有不至生有而命終故。若別業果。應同所餘別異業果。以何因故。諸受中有。必復至生。若余有情。在中有位。生有等業。亦已與果。何不同彼中般有情未至生處中有便死。此例不齊。以不還果是中般者。一切生結皆已斷故。與生相違。勝對治道已現行故。順彼受業。已與果故。不至生有便般涅槃。諸餘有情。住在中有。生結未斷。又無違生勝治道故。順彼受業。雖已與果。而必當受生有異熟。諸業異熟。勢猛速故。然彼上座。覺慧衰微。于無過中。妄興過難。言若中有非趣所攝。彼即應說離五
趣外。別有能感中有起業。勝智于中不應收采。如是總釋諸趣體已。次應別解一一趣名。那落名人。迦名為惡。人多造惡。顛墜其中。由是故名那落迦趣。或近人故。名那落迦。造重罪人。速墮彼故。或復迦者是樂異名。那者言無。落是與義。無樂相與。名那落迦。或復落迦是救濟義。那名不可。不可救濟。名那落迦。或復落迦是愛樂義。不可愛樂。名那落迦。言傍生者。彼趣多分身橫住故。或彼趣中。容有少分傍行者故。又類多故。多愚癡故。名曰傍生。言餓鬼者。謂餘生中喜盜他物。習慳貪等。又復多是所祀祖宗。又多希求以自存濟。又多怯劣。其形瘦悴。身心輕躁。故名餓鬼。人謂令天緣之起慢。我於此類善趣中尊或彼自心多增上慢。或多思慮。故名為人。天謂光明。威德熾盛。遊戲談論。勇悍相陵。或復尊高。神用自在。眾所祈告。故名為天。有作是言。阿素洛者。與諸天眾。違諍交通。言本是天。威德殊勝。由斯等故。天趣所收。諦現觀中。無堪能故。似非人故。多諂曲故。定非天趣。是鬼趣攝。與諸天眾。相違諍等。皆非證因。以不定故。且相違諍。非證天因。曾聞有人。共羅剎鬥。又聞羅剎與獼猴鬥。曼馱多王。破阿素洛。如斯等事。其類寔多。然諸天中。蘇陀味勝。阿素洛女。容貌端嚴。由是相侵。
【現代漢語翻譯】 阿難（Ananda）。還有一種情況，在能感受的境界中產生業力。對於這種殊勝的智慧，不應該去執著和追求。以上是總的解釋了諸趣的體性。接下來應該分別解釋每一趣的名稱。 那落迦（Naraka）的意思是地獄。迦（Ka）的意思是惡。因為眾生多造惡業，顛倒墮落其中。因此叫做那落迦趣。或者因為接近人道，所以叫做那落迦。造作深重罪業的人，迅速墮落到那裡。或者迦（Ka）是快樂的另一種說法，那（Na）的意思是沒有，落（Loka）的意思是給予。沒有快樂給予，叫做那落迦。或者落迦（Loka）是救濟的意思，那（Na）的意思是不可以。不可以救濟，叫做那落迦。或者落迦（Loka）是愛樂的意思，不可以愛樂，叫做那落迦。 傍生（Tiryagyoni）的意思是畜生。這一趣的眾生，大部分身體是橫著住的。或者這一趣中，容許有少部分是橫著行走的。又因為種類繁多，又因為大多愚癡，所以叫做傍生。 餓鬼（Preta）的意思是餓鬼。他們前世喜歡偷盜他人的財物，習慣慳吝貪婪等等。又有很多是被人祭祀的祖先。又大多希望通過乞求來維持生存。又大多怯懦弱小，形體瘦弱憔悴，身心輕浮躁動，所以叫做餓鬼。 人（Manushya）的意思是人類。人類會因為天道而生起傲慢，認為自己在善趣中最為尊貴。或者他們自己內心多有增上慢。或者多思多慮，所以叫做人。 天（Deva）的意思是天神。他們光明照耀，威德熾盛，嬉戲談論，勇敢強悍互相侵凌。或者尊貴高尚，神通自在，為大眾所祈求告，所以叫做天。 有人這樣說，阿素洛（Asura）與諸天眾，違背爭鬥交通往來。原本是天人，威德殊勝。因為這些原因，被天趣所收攝。在諦現觀中，沒有堪能性。好像不是人，大多諂媚虛偽，一定不是天趣，是鬼趣所攝。與諸天眾，互相違背爭鬥等等，都不是證實的理由。因為是不確定的。而且互相違背爭鬥，不是證明是天人的原因。曾經聽說有人，和羅剎（Rakshasa）戰鬥。又聽說羅剎和獼猴戰鬥。曼馱多王（Mandhatri），擊破阿素洛。像這樣的事情，實在很多。然而諸天中，蘇陀（Sudha）的味道殊勝，阿素洛女，容貌端莊美麗。因此互相侵奪。
【English Translation】 Ananda. Furthermore, there is a situation where karma arises from the realm of sensation. One should not cling to or pursue this superior wisdom. The above is a general explanation of the nature of the various realms of existence. Next, each realm's name should be explained separately. Naraka (Naraka) means 'hell'. Ka (Ka) means 'evil'. Because beings create much evil karma, they fall and are inverted within it. Therefore, it is called the Naraka realm. Or because it is close to the human realm, it is called Naraka. Those who commit grave sins quickly fall there. Or Ka (Ka) is another word for 'pleasure', Na (Na) means 'without', and Loka (Loka) means 'giving'. 'Without pleasure being given' is called Naraka. Or Loka (Loka) means 'salvation', and Na (Na) means 'impossible'. 'Impossible to save' is called Naraka. Or Loka (Loka) means 'love and joy', and 'not lovable' is called Naraka. Tiryagyoni (Tiryagyoni) means 'animals'. Most beings in this realm live with their bodies horizontal. Or in this realm, there may be a small portion that walks horizontally. Also, because there are many kinds, and because they are mostly ignorant, they are called Tiryagyoni. Preta (Preta) means 'hungry ghosts'. In their previous lives, they liked to steal the property of others, and were accustomed to stinginess and greed, etc. Also, many are ancestors who are worshiped. Also, most hope to survive by begging. Also, most are timid and weak, with thin and haggard bodies, and restless minds, so they are called Pretas. Manushya (Manushya) means 'human beings'. Humans may develop arrogance because of the heavenly realms, thinking that they are the most noble in the good realms. Or they themselves have much arrogance in their hearts. Or they are thoughtful and contemplative, so they are called humans. Deva (Deva) means 'gods'. They are radiant, with majestic virtue, playing and talking, brave and fierce, and invading each other. Or they are noble and lofty, with supernatural powers and freedom, and are prayed to by the masses, so they are called Devas. Some say that Asuras (Asura) are in conflict and communication with the Devas. Originally they were Devas, with superior majestic virtue. For these reasons, they are included in the Deva realm. In the direct perception of truth, they do not have the ability. They seem not to be human, and are mostly flattering and hypocritical, so they are definitely not in the Deva realm, but are included in the ghost realm. Mutual conflict and contention with the Devas, etc., are not reasons for proof, because they are uncertain. Moreover, mutual conflict and contention are not reasons to prove that they are Devas. It has been heard that someone fought with a Rakshasa (Rakshasa). It has also been heard that a Rakshasa fought with a monkey. King Mandhatri (Mandhatri) defeated the Asuras. There are really many such things. However, among the Devas, the taste of Sudha (Sudha) is superior, and the Asura women have dignified and beautiful appearances. Therefore, they invade and plunder each other.
數興違諍。不由同趣。故彼非天。言互交通。亦不成證。現見貴賤亦互交通。諸耽欲人。重色非族。曾聞大樹緊那羅王。有女端嚴。名為奪意。善財菩薩。納以為妻。言本是天。亦不成證。是天帝釋。贊妻父言。諸讚美言。或實非實。重設支故。矯贊其父。諂愛發言。豈足為證。又彼本住妙高山頂。為天所逼。退就下居。言本是天。亦無有失。又彼傲慢。自謂是天。數與諸天興師相伐。釋天為止。巧慰令欣。應時處言。設虛無過。威德殊勝。亦非證因。曾聞曼馱多王。威德勝於天故。難陀跋難陀等。雖是傍生。然其威德自在。勝諸天眾。故阿素洛。唯鬼趣收。亦非第六。曾不說故。然不說為惡趣攝者。恐彼于佛。起毒噁心。因茲長夜受諸劇苦。又由訓詞。遮彼天攝。素洛名天。是自在義。阿是非義。顯彼非天。自在減天。名阿素洛又素洛者。謂極可愛。天極可愛。得素洛名。雖彼亦多受諸快樂。由多諂曲。非極可愛。有說。諸趣或體相雜。異趣相因。而生子故。如魚身者。鹿子仙人。自昔傳聞。其類無量。一身兩趣。故有相雜。彼說不然。自業趣定。而彼生緣有種種故。見非情內有有情生。豈彼一身。情非情攝。如庵羅女。因樹而生。喬答摩宗。因日光起。故相因有。非證雜因。傳說化生有因胎藏。既因胎藏。何謂化
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 數興違諍（經常引發爭端）。不由同趣（不屬於同一類）。故彼非天（所以他們不是天人）。言互交通（說他們之間互相交通往來）。亦不成證（也不能作為證據）。現見貴賤亦互交通（現在可見貴族和平民也互相往來）。諸耽欲人（那些沉迷於慾望的人）。重色非族（看重美色而不是家族）。曾聞大樹緊那羅王（曾經聽說大樹緊那羅王，Kinnara King）。有女端嚴（有個女兒端莊美麗）。名為奪意（名叫奪意，Dattacitta）。善財菩薩（Sudhana）納以為妻（娶她為妻）。言本是天（說她本來是天人）。亦不成證（也不能作為證據）。是天帝釋（帝釋天，Indra）贊妻父言（讚美他岳父的話）。諸讚美言（那些讚美之詞）。或實非實（有時是真實的，有時是不真實的）。重設支故（因為重視姻親關係）。矯贊其父（虛假地讚美他的岳父）。諂愛發言（諂媚討好的言語）。豈足為證（怎麼能作為證據呢）。又彼本住妙高山頂（而且他們本來住在妙高山頂，Mount Meru）。為天所逼（被天人所逼迫）。退就下居（退而居住在下方）。言本是天（說他們本來是天人）。亦無有失（也沒有什麼不妥）。又彼傲慢（而且他們傲慢）。自謂是天（自認為是天人）。數與諸天興師相伐（多次與諸天發動戰爭）。釋天為止（帝釋天阻止他們）。巧慰令欣（巧妙地安慰他們使他們高興）。應時處言（在適當的時候說適當的話）。設虛無過（即使是虛假的也沒有過錯）。威德殊勝（威德殊勝）。亦非證因（也不是作為證據的原因）。曾聞曼馱多王（曾經聽說曼馱多王，Mandhatri）。威德勝於天故（威德勝過天人）。難陀跋難陀等（Nanda和Upananda等）。雖是傍生（雖然是旁生）。然其威德自在（然而他們的威德自在）。勝諸天眾（勝過諸天眾）。故阿素洛（所以阿修羅，Asura）。唯鬼趣收（只被歸為鬼道）。亦非第六（也不是第六道）。曾不說故（因為經典中沒有這樣說）。然不說為惡趣攝者（然而不說他們被歸為惡趣的原因）。恐彼于佛（是害怕他們對佛陀）。起毒噁心（生起惡毒的心）。因茲長夜受諸劇苦（因此長夜遭受各種劇烈的痛苦）。又由訓詞（而且根據訓誡）。遮彼天攝（阻止他們被歸為天道）。素洛名天（素洛，Sura，的意思是天）。是自在義（是自在的意思）。阿是非義（阿，A，是否定的意思）。顯彼非天（顯示他們不是天人）。自在減天（自在不如天人）。名阿素洛（名為阿修羅）。又素洛者（而且素洛，Sura，的意思是）。謂極可愛（極其可愛）。天極可愛（天人極其可愛）。得素洛名（所以得到素洛這個名字）。雖彼亦多受諸快樂（雖然他們也多受各種快樂）。由多諂曲（由於多諂媚奸詐）。非極可愛（不是極其可愛）。有說（有人說）。諸趣或體相雜（各種道可能本體混雜）。異趣相因（不同的道互相依存）。而生子故（而生下後代）。如魚身者（比如魚身的人）。鹿子仙人（Rishyaśringa）。自昔傳聞（自古以來就流傳）。其類無量（他們的種類無數）。一身兩趣（一身兼具兩道）。故有相雜（所以有混雜的情況）。彼說不然（那種說法不對）。自業趣定（各自的業決定了各自的道）。而彼生緣有種種故（而且他們的出生因緣有各種各樣）。見非情內有有情生（看到在無情物中也有有情眾生出生）。豈彼一身（難道他們一身）。情非情攝（兼具無情和有情嗎）。如庵羅女（比如庵羅女，Amra）。因樹而生（因為樹而出生）。喬答摩宗（喬答摩宗，Gautama）。因日光起（因為日光而產生）。故相因有（所以是互相依存而存在）。非證雜因（不是證明混雜的原因）。傳說化生有因胎藏（傳說化生有因為胎藏而生）。既因胎藏（既然因為胎藏）。何謂化（那還叫什麼化生呢）
【English Translation】 English version They frequently initiate disputes and do not belong to the same category. Therefore, they are not Devas (gods). The claim that they interact with each other does not constitute evidence. We see that even nobles and commoners interact. Those who are attached to desires value beauty over lineage. It has been heard that the Kinnara King (Kinnara King) of the great tree had a beautiful daughter named Dattacitta (Dattacitta). Sudhana (Sudhana) took her as his wife. The claim that she was originally a Deva (god) does not constitute evidence. Indra (Indra) praised his wife's father, but such praises may or may not be true. Because of the importance of kinship, he exaggerated his praise for his father-in-law. Flattering and loving words are insufficient as evidence. Furthermore, they originally resided on the summit of Mount Meru (Mount Meru) but were forced to retreat to a lower dwelling due to pressure from the Devas (gods). The claim that they were originally Devas (gods) is not invalidated by this. Moreover, they are arrogant and consider themselves Devas (gods), frequently engaging in battles with other Devas (gods). Indra (Indra) prevents them, skillfully comforting them to make them happy. Speaking appropriately for the occasion, even if untrue, is not a fault. Superior power and virtue are not evidence. It has been heard that King Mandhatri (Mandhatri) possessed power and virtue surpassing the Devas (gods). Nanda and Upananda (Nanda and Upananda), though born as animals, possessed power and freedom surpassing the Devas (gods). Therefore, Asuras (Asura) are classified only within the realm of ghosts and are not a sixth realm, as it has never been stated. The reason for not including them in the evil realms is to prevent them from developing malicious thoughts towards the Buddha, which would cause them to suffer greatly for a long time. Furthermore, through instruction, their inclusion among the Devas (gods) is prevented. Sura (Sura) means Deva (god), signifying freedom. A (A) signifies negation, indicating that they are not Devas (gods). Those whose freedom is less than that of the Devas (gods) are called Asuras (Asura). Moreover, Sura (Sura) means extremely lovable. Devas (gods) are extremely lovable, hence the name Sura (Sura). Although they also experience much happiness, due to their deceitfulness, they are not extremely lovable. Some say that the realms may be mixed in nature, with different realms depending on each other, resulting in offspring. For example, Rishyaśringa (Rishyaśringa), who had the body of a fish, has been traditionally known to have countless descendants. One body may belong to two realms, hence the mixture. That view is incorrect. One's karma determines one's realm, and their birth conditions are diverse. Seeing sentient beings born within inanimate objects, does that mean they are both sentient and inanimate? For example, Amra (Amra) was born from a tree, and the Gautama (Gautama) lineage arose from sunlight. Therefore, they exist interdependently and do not prove a mixed cause. It is said that transformation births are caused by the womb. If they are caused by the womb, how can they be called transformation births?
生。俗論多虛。不應依信。或異相托。理亦無違。鹿子仙人魚身者等。由滿業異形相不同。其實是人。故趣無雜。自余感赴。因果不同。思擇業中。當廣分別。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之二
於前所說諸界趣中。如其次第。識住有七。其七者何。頌曰。
身異及想異 身異同一想 翻此身想一 並無色下三 故識住有七 余非有損壞
論曰。謂若略說。欲界人天並及下三靜慮無色。此七生處。是識住體。若廣分別。應隨契經。有色有情。身異相異。如人一分天。是第一識住。一分天者。謂欲界天。及初靜慮。除劫初起。言有色有情者。是成就色身義。言身異者。謂彼色身。種種顯形。狀貌異故。彼由身異。或有異身。故彼有情說名身異。言想異者。謂彼苦樂不苦不樂。想差別故。彼由想異。或有異想。或習異想。以成其性。故彼有情說名想異。今應思擇。豈不後有身異言故有色已成。前有色言。應無義用。此責非理。于無色中。現見亦有說身言故。若謂身後有想異言。已證身言。唯詮色者。亦不應
【現代漢語翻譯】 生：世俗的觀點大多是虛假的，不應該輕易相信。即使有不同的表象，在道理上也沒有衝突。例如，鹿子仙人（Rishi with deer features）、魚身者（Matsya Avatar）等，由於過去所造的業不同，導致外形各異，但他們的本質仍然是人，所以所趣向的果報並沒有混雜。至於其他的感受和趨向，都是因為因果不同所致，應該在思擇業果時詳細區分。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十一 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之二
在前面所說的各種界和趣（Gati，生命的不同存在狀態）中，按照次第，有七種識住（Vijnana-sthiti，意識的住所）。這七種是什麼呢？頌文說：
『身異及想異，身異同一想，翻此身想一，並無色下三，故識住有七，余非有損壞。』
論述：如果簡略地說，欲界（Kama-dhatu）的人和天，以及下三禪定（Dhyana）的無色界（Arupa-dhatu），這七種生存之處就是識住的本體。如果詳細區分，應該按照契經（Sutra）所說：有色有情（Rupa-sattva），身體不同，想法也不同，例如一部分人天。這是第一種識住。一部分天，指的是欲界天和初禪（Prathama Dhyana），除了劫初開始的時候。說『有色有情』，是指成就色身的意思。說『身異』，是指他們的色身，有各種各樣的顯現和形狀，外貌不同。他們因為身體不同，或者有不同的身體，所以這些有情被稱為『身異』。說『想異』，是指他們的苦、樂、不苦不樂等感受不同。他們因為想法不同，或者有不同的想法，或者習慣了不同的想法，從而形成了他們的特性，所以這些有情被稱為『想異』。現在應該思考，難道不是因為後面有『身異』的說法，所以有色已經成立了嗎？那麼前面說『有色』，應該沒有意義了吧？這種責難是不合理的，因為在無色界中，現在也看到有說『身』的情況。如果說後面有『想異』的說法，已經證明了『身』這個詞只是指色身，那也是不應該的。
【English Translation】 Birth: Common worldly views are mostly false and should not be readily believed. Even if there are different appearances, there is no contradiction in principle. For example, Rishis with deer features (鹿子仙人, Lùzǐ xiānrén) and the Matsya Avatar (魚身者, Yú shēn zhě) etc., have different forms due to the different karmas they have accumulated in the past, but their essence is still human, so the resulting destinies are not mixed. As for other feelings and tendencies, they are due to different causes and effects, and should be carefully distinguished when contemplating karma.
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》Volume 21 by the Sarvastivada School Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》Volume 22
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 3.2: Exposition on Dependent Origination
Among the various realms and destinies (趣, Qù, Gati) mentioned earlier, there are seven abodes of consciousness (識住, Shí zhù, Vijnana-sthiti) in order. What are these seven? The verse says:
'Different bodies and different thoughts, different bodies and same thoughts, the reverse of this, same body and same thoughts, along with the lower three of the formless realm, therefore there are seven abodes of consciousness, the rest are not damaged.'
Treatise: Briefly speaking, the humans and devas of the desire realm (欲界, Yù jiè, Kama-dhatu), and the lower three dhyanas (靜慮, Jìnglǜ, Dhyana) of the formless realm (無色界, Wúsè jiè, Arupa-dhatu), these seven places of existence are the substance of the abodes of consciousness. If distinguished in detail, it should be according to what the sutras (契經, Qìjīng, Sutra) say: sentient beings with form (有色有情, Yǒusè yǒuqíng, Rupa-sattva), different bodies and different thoughts, such as a portion of humans and devas. This is the first abode of consciousness. 'A portion of devas' refers to the devas of the desire realm and the first dhyana (初禪, Chū chán, Prathama Dhyana), except for the beginning of a kalpa (劫, Jié). 'Sentient beings with form' means having a form body. 'Different bodies' means that their form bodies have various manifestations and shapes, and their appearances are different. Because their bodies are different, or they have different bodies, these sentient beings are called 'different bodies'. 'Different thoughts' means that their feelings of suffering, pleasure, neither suffering nor pleasure, etc., are different. Because their thoughts are different, or they have different thoughts, or they are accustomed to different thoughts, thus forming their characteristics, these sentient beings are called 'different thoughts'. Now it should be considered, isn't it because there is the statement 'different bodies' later, that having form has already been established? Then the previous statement 'having form' should be meaningless, right? This accusation is unreasonable, because in the formless realm, we now also see cases of saying 'body'. If it is said that the later statement 'different thoughts' has already proven that the word 'body' only refers to the form body, that is also not right.
理。除想已外。余無色中。有疑濫故。或復謂後有如人言故前身言無有濫者。此亦非理。由后說有一分天言。容有濫故。若謂不以一分天言令彼身言濫于無色。依次第故。又于次後。說梵眾等諸天言故。理亦不然。非遍說故。非后遍說一切天眾皆建立在。余識住中。勿有生疑。一分天者。兼攝有頂第四靜慮。故說有色及身異言。非有頂天可言有色。第四靜慮。可言身異。一分天言。已簡惡處。餘人天眾。各自名顯。故此所說。一分天言。所攝如前。其義成立。由斯有頂。第四靜慮。及諸惡處。非識住攝。故有色言具大義用。或言有色為顯異因。謂身異因即是有色。要由有色。身方有異。由身有異。想異得成。故有色言。顯異因性。由能損益。勝境現前。損益身時。身便變異。即于如是身變異時。令飲食等亦有變異。彼變異故。身異得成。由是便生樂等異想。故言有色是顯異因。若必有色言。顯身異因者。極光凈等。身應有異。又極光凈。應無異想。由彼天中身無異故。又諸梵眾。想應不一。由彼天中身有異故。由斯所釋。理未必然。其理必然。異因定故。謂身有異。定色為因。非色為因令身定異。故極光凈等。無身成異失。如眼色為緣生於眼識等。如契經說。眼色為緣。生於眼識。現有眼色。眼識不生。余亦應爾。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 理。除了想蘊之外，其餘的無色界中，存在疑惑和混淆的可能性。或者有人說，因為後世的人會說前世的事情，所以前世的事情不會有混淆。這種說法也是不合理的。因為後來說有一部分天人所說的話，可能存在混淆。如果說不因為一部分天人所說的話，就認為無色界的事情不會混淆，因為有次第的緣故。而且在其次之後，又說了梵眾等諸天所說的話，所以這種說法也是不合理的。因為不是普遍的說法。不是後來普遍地說了所有的天眾都建立在其餘的識住之中，不要產生懷疑。一部分天人，兼攝了有頂天（Bhavagra，三界最高的天界）和第四禪天（the fourth Dhyana）。所以說有色和身體不同。不是說有頂天可以稱為有色，第四禪天可以稱為身體不同。一部分天人的說法，已經簡別了惡處（evil realms）。其餘的人天眾，各自的名字都很明顯。所以這裡所說的一部分天人，所包含的內容如前所述，其意義成立。因此，有頂天、第四禪天以及各種惡處，不屬於識住所攝。所以有色這個詞具有很大的意義和作用。或者說有色是爲了顯示差異的原因。所謂身體差異的原因就是有色。一定要通過有色，身體才會有差異。通過身體有差異，想的差異才能成立。所以有色這個詞，顯示了差異的原因的性質。由於能夠損益，殊勝的境界現前，損益身體的時候，身體就會發生變異。就在這樣的身體發生變異的時候，使得飲食等也有變異。因為這些變異，身體的差異才能成立。由此就產生了樂等不同的想法。所以說有色是顯示差異的原因。如果一定要說有色這個詞，顯示了身體差異的原因，那麼極光凈天（Abhasvara，二禪天）等，身體應該有差異。而且極光凈天，應該沒有不同的想法。因為那些天中身體沒有差異的緣故。而且諸梵眾天（Brahma-parisadya，色界初禪天），想法應該不一致。因為那些天中身體有差異的緣故。因此，這種解釋，道理不一定成立。其道理必然成立，因為差異的原因是確定的。所謂身體有差異，一定是色為原因。不是色為原因，使得身體一定有差異。所以極光凈天等，沒有身體形成差異的過失。比如眼睛和色塵為緣，產生眼識等。如契經所說，眼睛和色塵為緣，產生眼識。現在有眼睛和色塵，眼識不產生，其餘的也應該如此。又
【English Translation】 English version: The principle. Apart from the skandha of perception (sañña, perception), in the remaining realms of formlessness (arupa, formless realms), there is doubt and the possibility of confusion. Or someone might say that because people in later lives speak of past lives, there will be no confusion about past lives. This statement is also unreasonable. Because later it is said that the words of a portion of the gods (deva, gods) may contain confusion. If it is said that the affairs of the formless realm are not confused because of the words of a portion of the gods, it is because of the order. Moreover, after that, it is said that the words of the Brahma assembly (Brahma-parisadya) and other gods, so this statement is also unreasonable. Because it is not a universal statement. It is not that all the gods are universally said to be established in the remaining abodes of consciousness (vijnana-tthiti, abodes of consciousness), so do not have doubts. A portion of the gods includes both the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra, the highest realm of the three realms) and the Fourth Dhyana (the fourth Dhyana). Therefore, it is said that form and body are different. It is not that the Peak of Existence can be called form, and the Fourth Dhyana can be called different in body. The statement of a portion of the gods has already distinguished the evil realms (evil realms). The names of the remaining human and heavenly beings are all obvious. Therefore, the portion of the gods mentioned here contains the content as mentioned before, and its meaning is established. Therefore, the Peak of Existence, the Fourth Dhyana, and the various evil realms are not included in the abodes of consciousness. Therefore, the word 'form' has great meaning and function. Or it is said that form is to show the cause of difference. The so-called cause of bodily difference is form. It is necessary to have form for the body to be different. Through the difference in body, the difference in perception can be established. Therefore, the word 'form' shows the nature of the cause of difference. Because it can benefit and harm, when the superior realm appears and benefits or harms the body, the body will change. When such a body changes, the diet and other things also change. Because of these changes, the difference in body can be established. From this, different thoughts such as pleasure arise. Therefore, it is said that form is the cause of showing difference. If it must be said that the word 'form' shows the cause of bodily difference, then the gods of Abhasvara (Abhasvara, the second Dhyana heaven), etc., should have differences in body. Moreover, the gods of Abhasvara should have no different thoughts. Because there is no difference in body in those heavens. Moreover, the thoughts of the Brahma assembly (Brahma-parisadya, the first Dhyana heaven of the form realm) should be inconsistent. Because there are differences in body in those heavens. Therefore, this explanation is not necessarily true. The principle is necessarily established because the cause of difference is certain. The so-called difference in body must be caused by form. It is not that form is the cause that makes the body necessarily different. Therefore, the gods of Abhasvara, etc., do not have the fault of the body forming a difference. For example, the eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness, etc. As the sutra says, the eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness. Now there are eye and form, but eye consciousness does not arise, and the rest should be the same. Also
如經說。身有輕安。便生受樂。此經意顯無染受樂。定輕安為因非身輕安。定能生受樂。此亦應爾。故理必然。若謂眼色定為眼識緣。闕余緣故。有眼識不起。如契經說。能生作意。若不正起。識不生故。既許有色為身異因復闕何緣。令身不異。又受樂體。異於輕安。雖復輕安遍於諸地。無受樂地。可不生樂。有色身異。既無別體。諸有色者。皆應身異。此亦不然。與彼同故。雖諸有色皆身異因。有闕余因。而身不異。謂于欲界初靜慮中。有表無表尋伺多識。為因生果。有種種異。故彼有色。為身異因。極光凈天等。無彼因故。雖有色因。而身但一。不可以說彼為身異因。則不許言有色故身異。勿說作意能生眼識。便不許說眼色為緣。又彼不應以業生眼故。便不許說眼等為眼因。又彼不應以種生芽故。便不許說水糞等為因。是故不應作如是難。以有色故。令身異者。極光凈等。身應有異。言極光凈應無異想。由彼天中身無異者。亦不應理。由心於定有厭欣故。如說樂因。又想異言。為遣疑故。謂說身一。想應非異。心隨身故。為遣此中想隨身疑。故說想異。此言意顯極光凈天。心不隨身。與余天別。言諸梵眾。想應不一。由彼天中身有異者。理實應爾。但為顯示彼劫初時同於一因。起一執想。故言想一。是故前釋。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如經文所說，當身體感到輕快安適（輕安）時，就會產生快樂的感受（受樂）。這段經文的含義在於闡明，產生快樂感受的根本在於沒有污染的輕安，是禪定帶來的輕安，而不是指身體本身的輕快安適。禪定能夠產生快樂的感受。這個道理也應該是一樣的，所以從邏輯上來說是必然的。如果說眼和色塵（色）是眼識產生的條件（緣），但因為缺少其他條件，眼識也可能不會生起。正如經文所說，能夠產生『作意』（Manasikara，心理活動，專注），如果『作意』沒有正確生起，眼識也不會產生。既然你承認色塵是身體產生變化的不同的原因，那麼又缺少了什麼條件，導致身體沒有發生變化呢？而且，快樂的感受（受樂）的本體，不同於輕安。即使輕安遍佈于各個禪定境界（諸地），但沒有哪個禪定境界是隻有輕安而沒有快樂感受的，所以快樂感受一定會產生。而色身的變化，如果沒有其他的本體，那麼所有有色身的事物，都應該發生身體的變化。這種說法也是不對的，因為它和前面的情況類似。雖然各種色塵都是導致身體發生變化的原因，但因為缺少其他條件，身體可能不會發生變化。例如，在欲界和初禪中，有表色和無表色，以及尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）伺（Vicara，精細的思考）、多種意識活動等，作為產生結果的原因，會產生種種不同。所以，那裡的色塵，是導致身體發生變化的原因。而極光凈天（Abhasvara）等天界，沒有這些原因，雖然有色塵的原因，但身體仍然是統一的，不能說那裡的色塵是導致身體發生變化的原因。因此，不能因為有色塵就說身體會發生變化。不要說『作意』能夠產生眼識，就否認眼和色塵是眼識產生的條件。而且，不應該因為業力產生眼睛，就否認眼睛等是眼識產生的原因。也不應該因為種子產生芽，就否認水和肥料等是產生的原因。所以，不應該提出這樣的詰難。如果說因為有色塵，就導致身體發生變化，那麼極光凈天等天界，身體應該有變化。說極光凈天應該沒有不同的想法，也是不合理的，因為他們的心對於禪定有厭惡和喜好。正如經文所說，快樂的感受是（厭惡和喜好）的原因。又說『想』（Samjna，認知）不同，是爲了消除疑惑。因為前面說身體是統一的，那麼『想』應該也是相同的，因為心隨著身體而變化。爲了消除這種『想』隨著身體變化的疑惑，所以說『想』是不同的。這句話的意思是說，極光凈天的心不隨著身體而變化，這與其他天界不同。說『諸梵眾』（Brahma』s multitude）的『想』應該不相同，因為他們的身體有差異，從道理上來說確實應該如此。但爲了顯示他們在劫初的時候，因為相同的業力，產生相同的執著和想法，所以說『想』是相同的。因此，前面的解釋是正確的。 是故前釋。一
【English Translation】 English version: As the sutra says, when the body experiences lightness and ease (Prasrabdhi), joyful feelings (Sukha) arise. The meaning of this sutra is to clarify that the fundamental cause of joyful feelings lies in undefiled Prasrabdhi, which is the Prasrabdhi arising from Samadhi, not merely physical lightness and ease. Samadhi can generate joyful feelings. This principle should also be the same, so it is logically inevitable. If it is said that the eye and form (Rupa) are the conditions (Hetu) for the arising of eye consciousness (Vijnana), but due to the lack of other conditions, eye consciousness may not arise. As the sutra says, the ability to generate 'attention' (Manasikara), if 'attention' does not arise correctly, consciousness will not arise. Since you admit that form is a different cause for the body to change, then what conditions are lacking that prevent the body from changing? Moreover, the essence of joyful feeling (Sukha) is different from Prasrabdhi. Even though Prasrabdhi pervades all meditative states (Bhumis), there is no meditative state that only has Prasrabdhi without joyful feelings, so joyful feelings will definitely arise. And the change of the physical body, if there is no other essence, then all things with physical bodies should undergo physical changes. This statement is also incorrect, because it is similar to the previous situation. Although various forms are the cause of physical changes, the body may not change due to the lack of other conditions. For example, in the desire realm (Kama-dhatu) and the first Dhyana, there are representational and non-representational forms, as well as Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought), and various consciousness activities, which, as causes for generating results, will produce various differences. Therefore, the forms there are the cause of physical changes. However, the Abhasvara heaven (Abhasvara) and other heavens do not have these causes. Although there is the cause of form, the body is still unified. It cannot be said that the forms there are the cause of physical changes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the body will change because there is form. Do not say that 'attention' can generate eye consciousness, and then deny that the eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness. Moreover, it should not be denied that the eyes, etc., are the cause of eye consciousness because karma produces the eyes. Nor should it be denied that water and fertilizer, etc., are the cause of the sprout because the seed produces the sprout. Therefore, such a challenge should not be raised. If it is said that because there is form, the body will change, then the bodies of the Abhasvara heaven, etc., should have changes. It is unreasonable to say that the Abhasvara heaven should have no different thoughts, because their minds have aversion and liking for Samadhi. As the sutra says, joyful feelings are the cause of (aversion and liking). Furthermore, saying that 'perception' (Samjna) is different is to dispel doubts. Because it was previously said that the body is unified, then 'perception' should also be the same, because the mind changes with the body. In order to dispel the doubt that 'perception' changes with the body, it is said that 'perception' is different. The meaning of this sentence is that the minds of the Abhasvara heaven do not change with the body, which is different from other heavens. Saying that the 'perception' of the 'multitude of Brahmas' (Brahma』s multitude) should not be the same, because their bodies have differences, which should indeed be the case in principle. However, in order to show that at the beginning of the Kalpa, because of the same karma, they produced the same attachments and thoughts, it is said that 'perception' is the same. Therefore, the previous explanation is correct. Therefore, the previous explanation is correct.
分天言。亦攝梵眾天。唯除劫初起。此言意顯彼想實異。但就少分緣義。說為想一。由斯有色定是異因。故有色言。深有義用。有色有情。身異想一。如梵眾天。謂劫初起。是第二識住。所以者何。以劫初起彼梵眾天同生此想。我等皆是大梵化生。大梵爾時亦生此想。是諸梵眾皆我化生。何緣梵眾同生此想。由見梵王處所形色及神通等皆殊勝故。又觀大梵。先時已有已。及余天後方生故。彼不能見從上地歿。依初靜慮發宿住通。不能了知上地境故。何緣大梵亦生此想。彼才發心。眾便生故。謂己所化。非速歿故。或愚業果感赴理故。或見己身。形狀勢力壽威德等。過餘眾故。由是緣故。梵眾梵王。身雖有殊。而生一想。豈不梵眾言。我從彼生。而大梵王言。我能生彼。想即有異。如何言一。此責非理。梵眾梵王。同執一因而生想故。或緣所化想是一故。有說此中唯依梵眾。言同一想。非大梵王。以彼經但言如梵眾天故。非王一身可名眾故。雖彼后時得聰睿覺亦生異想。而從初位。以立其名。故言想一。王從眾說。得想一名。故可彼天總名想一。言身異者。前說彼天。有表等因。感別果故。安立眾生。有差別故。經說。梵眾作是念言。我等曾見如是有情長壽久住。乃至起愿。云何當令諸餘有情生我同分。于彼正起此心願
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 分天而言，也包括了梵眾天（Brahmakayika Devas）。只有劫初產生時例外。這裡的意思是說，他們的想法實際上是不同的，只是就少部分因緣的意義上，說他們『想一』。因此，有色界的禪定是不同的原因造成的。所以說『有色』，意義深遠。有色界有情，身體不同，想法相同，就像梵眾天一樣。這是指劫初產生時，是第二識住。為什麼這麼說呢？因為劫初產生時，那些梵眾天都產生了相同的想法：『我們都是大梵天（Mahabrahma）化生的。』大梵天當時也產生了這樣的想法：『這些梵眾都是我化生的。』為什麼梵眾天會產生相同的想法呢？因為他們看到大梵天的處所、形色以及神通等等都非常殊勝。而且觀察到大梵天，在他們之前就已經存在了，以及其他的諸天之後才產生，他們不能看到從上地死後，依靠初禪（初靜慮）而獲得的宿住神通，不能瞭解上地的境界。為什麼大梵天也會產生這樣的想法呢？因為他才剛一發心，梵眾天就產生了。認為梵眾天是他所化生的，不是很快就死去的緣故。或者因為愚昧，認為這是業果感召的道理。或者看到自己的身體、形狀、勢力、壽命、威德等等，超過了其他的梵眾天。因為這些原因，梵眾天和大梵天，身體雖然不同，卻產生相同的想法。難道不是梵眾天說『我從他生』，而大梵天王說『我能生他們』，想法就不同了嗎？怎麼能說『想一』呢？這種責難是不合理的。梵眾天和大梵天，都執著于同一個原因而產生想法。或者因為所化生的對象，想法是相同的緣故。有人說，這裡只是依據梵眾天，說他們『同一想』，而不是大梵天王。因為那部經只是說『如梵眾天』。不是大梵天王一個人可以稱為『眾』的緣故。雖然他們後來變得聰明，產生了不同的想法，但是從最初的地位，來確立他們的名稱，所以說『想一』。大梵天王從梵眾天的角度來說，得到『想一』這個名稱。所以可以把那些天總稱為『想一』。說『身異』，是因為前面說過，那些天有表色等原因，感得不同的果報。爲了安立眾生，有差別。經中說，梵眾天這樣想：『我們曾經見過這樣的有情，長壽久住，』乃至起愿：『怎麼樣才能讓其他的有情，生到我們這一類。』在他們心中，正是生起這樣的心願。
【English Translation】 English version: Speaking of the heavens separately, it also includes the Brahmakayika Devas (梵眾天). Except for the beginning of the kalpa (劫初). This means that their thoughts are actually different, but only in the sense of a small part of the cause and condition, it is said that they have 'one thought' (想一). Therefore, the colored samadhi (有色定) is caused by different reasons. So saying 'colored' (有色) has profound meaning. Sentient beings in the realm of form (有色有情), have different bodies but the same thought, just like the Brahmakayika Devas. This refers to the beginning of the kalpa, which is the second abode of consciousness (第二識住). Why is this so? Because at the beginning of the kalpa, those Brahmakayika Devas all had the same thought: 'We are all born from Mahabrahma (大梵).' Mahabrahma at that time also had this thought: 'These Brahmakayikas are all born from me.' Why do the Brahmakayikas have the same thought? Because they see that Mahabrahma's place, form, and supernatural powers are all very superior. And observing that Mahabrahma existed before them, and the other devas were born later, they cannot see the death from the upper realms, relying on the Abhijna (宿住通) obtained from the first Dhyana (初禪 or 初靜慮), and cannot understand the realm of the upper realms. Why does Mahabrahma also have this thought? Because as soon as he has a thought, the Brahmakayikas are born. Thinking that the Brahmakayikas are born from him, not dying quickly. Or because of ignorance, thinking that this is the principle of karmic retribution. Or seeing that his body, shape, power, lifespan, majesty, etc., surpass the other Brahmakayikas. Because of these reasons, the Brahmakayikas and Mahabrahma, although their bodies are different, have the same thought. Isn't it that the Brahmakayikas say 'I am born from him,' and Mahabrahma says 'I can give birth to them,' so the thoughts are different? How can it be said that they have 'one thought'? This accusation is unreasonable. The Brahmakayikas and Mahabrahma are both attached to the same cause and have the same thought. Or because the objects they create have the same thought. Some say that here it is only based on the Brahmakayikas, saying that they have 'the same thought,' not Mahabrahma. Because that sutra only says 'like the Brahmakayika Devas.' It is not that Mahabrahma alone can be called a 'multitude' (眾). Although they later became intelligent and had different thoughts, their names were established from the initial position, so it is said that they have 'one thought.' Mahabrahma gets the name 'one thought' from the perspective of the Brahmakayikas. So those devas can be collectively called 'one thought.' Saying 'different bodies' is because, as mentioned earlier, those devas have causes such as representational form (表色), which result in different retributions. In order to establish sentient beings, there are differences. The sutra says that the Brahmakayikas think like this: 'We have seen such sentient beings, living long and staying for a long time,' and even make a vow: 'How can we make other sentient beings be born into our category?' In their hearts, they are precisely generating such a wish.
時。我等便生彼同分內。梵眾何處。曾見梵王。有餘師言。住極光凈。從彼天歿來生此故。既從彼歿來生此間。云何未得第二靜慮。而能憶彼諸宿住事。誰言未得第二靜慮。若得應離初靜慮貪。如何彼尚生初定戒禁取。退已方生。斯有何失。豈不色界無有退耶。有說。初生無妨有退。有餘師說。住中有中。曾見梵王。此不應理。經言見彼久住世故。彼天中有。于正所受生。既不闕緣。無容久住故。應說梵眾即住自天。曾見梵王。極光凈歿。初受生時。曾見彼故。謂諸梵眾初下生時。見大梵王。威光赫烈。雖懷敬慕欲往親承。威神所逼。未果前詣。于茲荏苒遂致多時。后勵專誠。預近瞻仰。到已皆共作是念言。我等曾見。乃至廣說。謂彼近見大梵王時。便能憶知先所見事。復能了達眾下生前。獨有梵王及心所愿。或彼先在極光凈天。曾見梵王。今見能憶。謂彼昔在極光凈天。曾見梵王獨居下地。亦知心願與眾同居。俯愍便興初靜慮化。令所化眾偶侍梵王起化。須臾自便福盡命終。生下初靜慮中。大梵身心及所化事。皆初靜慮通慧所緣。今見便發宿住隨念。故彼梵眾作是念言。我等曾見。乃至廣說。有餘師說。二靜慮中所起。能緣梵世眼識。是初靜慮地法所收。故今亦能隨念彼識。有作是說。彼梵眾天。不受處胎斷末摩苦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 當時，我們便出生在與大梵天（Mahābrahmā，色界初禪天之主）相同的境界中。梵眾天（Brahmakāyika-deva，梵天界的天人）在哪裡見過梵王（Brahmadeva，即大梵天）呢？有些老師說，他們住在極光凈天（Ābhāsvara，二禪天）。因為從彼天去世后才來到這裡。既然是從彼天去世后才來到這裡，為什麼在沒有獲得第二禪定的情況下，卻能回憶起過去生中的事情呢？誰說沒有獲得第二禪定？如果獲得了第二禪定，就應該脫離對初禪定的貪戀。為什麼他們還執著于初禪定的戒禁取見（śīlabbata-parāmarsa，執著于錯誤的戒律和苦行）呢？或許是退轉之後才出生的。這有什麼問題嗎？難道沒有退轉的情況嗎？有人說，最初出生時沒有退轉，後來退轉也是有可能的。還有些老師說，他們住在中陰身（antarābhava，死亡到再生的過渡狀態）中，曾經見過梵王。這種說法不合理。《經》中說，因為見到梵王長久住世的緣故。中陰身的天人，對於正在接受的生命，既然不缺少因緣，就沒有理由長久停留。所以應該說，梵眾天就住在自己的天界，曾經見過梵王。或者說，他們從極光凈天去世，初次受生時，曾經見過梵王。也就是說，諸梵眾天最初下生時，見到大梵王威光顯赫，雖然懷著敬慕之心想要前去親近侍奉，但被威神所迫，未能如願前往。因此時間流逝，過了很久。後來努力專心致志，得以靠近瞻仰。到達后，都共同產生這樣的念頭：『我們曾經見過』，乃至廣說。也就是說，當他們靠近見到大梵王時，便能回憶起先前所見之事。又能瞭解大眾下生之前，只有梵王及其心願。或者他們先前在極光凈天，曾經見過梵王，現在見到就能回憶起來。也就是說，他們過去在極光凈天，曾經見過梵王獨自居住在地獄，也知道梵王的心願是與大眾同住，於是慈悲憐憫，興起初禪天的化生。讓所化生的大眾偶然侍奉梵王開始化生。不久之後，自己福報耗盡，壽命終結，出生在下方的初禪天中。大梵天的身心以及所化之事，都是初禪天的通慧所緣。現在見到，便能引發宿住隨念（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti，回憶前世的能力）。所以那些梵眾天產生這樣的念頭：『我們曾經見過』，乃至廣說。還有些老師說，在二禪定中所生起的，能夠緣取梵世（Brahma-loka，梵天界）的眼識，是初禪天地的法所攝。所以現在也能隨念那個眼識。有人這樣說，那些梵眾天，不受處胎（garbhāvāsa，在子宮中居住）和斷末摩（marmaccheda，身體被分割）的痛苦。
【English Translation】 English version At that time, we were born within the same realm as Mahābrahmā (the lord of the first Dhyāna heaven in the Form Realm). Where did the Brahmakāyika-devas (the gods of the Brahma realm) see Brahmadeva (i.e., Mahābrahmā)? Some teachers say that they resided in Ābhāsvara (the second Dhyāna heaven). Because they came here after dying from that heaven. Since they came here after dying from that heaven, how could they recall past lives without having attained the second Dhyāna? Who says they haven't attained the second Dhyāna? If they had attained the second Dhyāna, they should have been free from attachment to the first Dhyāna. Why are they still attached to the wrong view of adhering to precepts and asceticism (śīlabbata-parāmarsa)? Perhaps they were born after regressing. What's wrong with that? Isn't it possible to regress? Some say that there is no regression at the beginning of birth, but regression is possible later. Some other teachers say that they resided in the intermediate state (antarābhava) and saw Brahmadeva. This is unreasonable. The Sutra says that they saw Brahmadeva because he had been dwelling in the world for a long time. The beings in the intermediate state, with regard to the life they are receiving, since they do not lack conditions, there is no reason to stay for a long time. Therefore, it should be said that the Brahmakāyika-devas resided in their own heaven and saw Brahmadeva. Or, they died from Ābhāsvara and saw Brahmadeva when they were first born. That is to say, when the Brahmakāyika-devas first descended, they saw Mahābrahmā with his majestic radiance. Although they had reverence and admiration and wanted to go and serve him, they were forced by his divine power and could not go as they wished. Therefore, time passed and a long time went by. Later, they worked hard and focused their minds, and were able to approach and behold him. After arriving, they all had the thought: 'We have seen him before,' and so on. That is to say, when they approached and saw Mahābrahmā, they were able to recall what they had seen before. They were also able to understand that before the masses descended, there was only Brahmadeva and his wishes. Or, they had previously seen Brahmadeva in Ābhāsvara, and now they can recall it when they see him. That is to say, they had previously seen Brahmadeva dwelling alone in the lower realm in Ābhāsvara, and they also knew that Brahmadeva's wish was to live with the masses, so he compassionately arose the manifestation of the first Dhyāna. He caused the masses he manifested to occasionally serve Brahmadeva and begin to manifest. Soon after, his own merit was exhausted and his life ended, and he was born in the lower first Dhyāna. The body and mind of Mahābrahmā and the things he manifested are all objects of the wisdom of the first Dhyāna. Now that they see him, they can evoke the recollection of past lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti). Therefore, those Brahmakāyika-devas had the thought: 'We have seen him before,' and so on. Some other teachers say that the eye consciousness that arises in the second Dhyāna and is able to perceive the Brahma-loka (the Brahma realm) is included in the Dharma of the first Dhyāna. Therefore, they can now also recall that eye consciousness. Some say that those Brahmakāyika-devas do not suffer the pain of dwelling in the womb (garbhāvāsa) and the cutting of the marmas (marmaccheda).
。由斯得有念無忘失。故憶前生所見等事。有色有情。身一想異。如極光凈天。是第三識住。此中舉后。兼以攝初。應知具攝第二靜慮。若不爾者。彼少光天。無量光天。何識住攝。彼二既有第三識住相。無緣可說非識住所收。故知此中依舉顯理。說諸識住。非但如言。彼天中無有表業等為因所感差別身形。故言身一。即形顯等。同處諸天。相無別義。然彼尊者阿奴律陀契經中言。光凈天等。身有高下勝劣可得。此依別處。故作是言。非一天中身有差別。又契經說。極光天中。有時諸天。同共集會。其身有異。光明並同。此說諸天其身各別。不言形顯狀貌不同。故與此經無相違失。有說。梵眾名極光天。有妙光明。勝下天故。第二靜慮。喜舍二想。雜亂現前。故言想異。傳說。彼天厭根本地喜根已起。近分地舍根現前。厭近分地舍根已起。根本地喜根現前。譬如有人于諸飲食若素若膩欣厭互增。經主引經釋想異義。謂極光凈。新舊生天。緣于劫火。有怖不怖。二想交雜。故名想異。非喜與舍二想交雜。若爾不應第三靜慮由樂想故說名想一。有何別理。第三靜慮。由一樂想。名為想一。第二靜慮。非由喜舍二想交雜名為想異。故彼所言。乍如可錄及加詳察。未足信依。上座此中作如是說。第三靜慮。於一切時。由不怖想
。故言想一。彼所引教。與經主同。今詳彼言。非符識住。此及前釋。理並不然。謂識于中喜樂安住。立為識住。如何乃說依于怖想立識住名。即以此緣。說諸惡處。第四靜慮。及有頂天。非識住攝。次後當辯。理必應然。上座亦說。諸惡處等。非識住因。謂識住名。顯識樂住。如說。有處令士夫心樂住其中。是名識住。非惡處等。令士夫心樂住其中。故非識住。既言若識不樂住中非識住者。怖想令識不樂住中。豈名識住。若彼怖想。雖能令識不樂住中。而立識住。是則彼說。諸惡處等非識住因。有不定失。又不怖想無容生故。應遍凈天非名想一。如何知彼此想不生。彼有此想。曾無說故。謂曾無處說遍凈天見下水災而不生怖。或容彼謂水不上升。無慮漂疑故無怖者。既本無疑慮不怖想何從。若謂于中少有疑慮。則應遍凈非名想一。是故但依對法正理。釋想一異。名義善成。非譬喻宗理可存立。故有智者。擇善而從。有色有情。身一想一。如遍凈天。是第四識住。言身一者。釋義如前。唯有樂想。故名想一。遍凈天樂。寂靜微妙。常生欣樂。無起厭時。是故無由近分交雜。故唯依此立想一名。豈不遍凈亦有想異。如契經說。此遍凈天。受寂靜受樂。非如余遍凈。此非想異。顯樂受中自有差別。無別受故。一切有為展轉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此說想是單一的。他們所引用的教義，與經部的觀點相同。現在仔細分析他們的說法，並非是依據認識而安住。這種解釋以及之前的解釋，在道理上都是不成立的。正確的理解是，如果意識在某個境界中感到喜悅和安住，就可稱之為識住。怎麼能說依據恐怖的想法而建立識住的名稱呢？如果按照這種邏輯，那麼諸惡處（Apāya，指地獄、餓鬼、畜生三惡道）和第四禪天、以及有頂天（Bhavāgra，指非想非非想處天）都不應被包括在識住之中。這一點將在後面進行辨析，道理必然是這樣的。上座部的論師也說，諸惡處等不是識住的原因。識住的名稱，是爲了顯示意識樂於安住的狀態。正如經文所說：『有處所能使士夫的心樂於安住其中，這就被稱為識住。』而諸惡處等，並不能使士夫的心樂於安住其中，所以不是識住。既然說如果意識不樂於安住的處所就不是識住，那麼恐怖的想法使意識不樂於安住，怎麼能稱為識住呢？如果他們認為，雖然恐怖的想法能使意識不樂於安住，但仍然可以建立識住，那麼他們所說的諸惡處等不是識住的原因，就存在不確定的過失。而且，因為不可能沒有恐怖的想法，所以遍凈天（Śubhakṛtsna，指色界第三禪天）不應被稱為『想一』。怎麼知道遍凈天沒有恐怖的想法呢？因為從來沒有這樣說過。也就是說，從來沒有地方說過遍凈天的眾生看到地獄的水災而不產生恐懼。或者他們認為，水不會上升，沒有被水漂走的疑慮，所以沒有恐懼。既然本來就沒有疑慮，那麼恐怖的想法從何而來呢？如果說其中稍微有一些疑慮，那麼遍凈天就不應被稱為『想一』。因此，只有依據對法（Abhidharma，指佛教的論藏）的正理，來解釋想的同一與差異，才能使名稱和意義得到完善的成立。譬喻宗的理論是站不住腳的。所以有智慧的人，應該選擇正確的道理並遵循它。 有色界的有情，身是同一的，想也是同一的，例如遍凈天的眾生。這是第四識住。說『身一』，解釋的意義如前所述。只有快樂的想法，所以稱為『想一』。遍凈天的快樂，寂靜而微妙，常常產生欣樂，沒有產生厭倦的時候。因此，沒有近分定（Upacāra-samādhi，指欲界定和未至定）的交雜。所以僅僅依據這種快樂的想法，而建立『想一』的名稱。 難道遍凈天就沒有不同的想法嗎？例如契經上說：『此遍凈天的眾生，感受寂靜的快樂，不像其他的遍凈天。』這並不是想法的不同，而是顯示快樂的感受中，自身就存在差別。因為沒有其他的感受，一切有為法（Saṃskṛta，指由因緣和合而成的現象）都是輾轉...
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is said that perception is singular. The teachings they cite are the same as those of the Sautrāntikas (Sautrāntika, a school of early Buddhism). Now, upon careful analysis of their statement, it is not based on recognition and abiding. This explanation, as well as the previous one, is not logically sound. The correct understanding is that if consciousness finds joy and abides in a certain realm, it can be called a 'dwelling of consciousness' (vijñāna-sthiti). How can one say that the name 'dwelling of consciousness' is established based on fearful thoughts? If we follow this logic, then the evil realms (Apāya, referring to the three lower realms of hell, hungry ghosts, and animals), the fourth dhyāna heaven, and the peak of existence (Bhavāgra, referring to the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) should not be included in the dwellings of consciousness. This will be discussed later, and the reasoning will inevitably be so. The Sthavira (Sthavira, an early Buddhist school) masters also say that the evil realms, etc., are not the cause of the dwellings of consciousness. The name 'dwelling of consciousness' is to show that consciousness delights in abiding. As the sutra says, 'There is a place where a man's mind delights to abide, and this is called a dwelling of consciousness.' But the evil realms, etc., do not make a man's mind delight to abide, so they are not dwellings of consciousness. Since it is said that if consciousness does not delight in abiding in a place, it is not a dwelling of consciousness, then how can fearful thoughts, which make consciousness not delight in abiding, be called a dwelling of consciousness? If they believe that although fearful thoughts can make consciousness not delight in abiding, a dwelling of consciousness can still be established, then their statement that the evil realms, etc., are not the cause of the dwellings of consciousness has an uncertain fault. Moreover, because it is impossible to be without fearful thoughts, the Śubhakṛtsna heaven (Śubhakṛtsna, referring to the third dhyāna heaven in the realm of form) should not be called 'singularity of perception.' How do we know that there are no fearful thoughts in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven? Because it has never been said. That is, nowhere has it ever been said that the beings of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven see the water disasters of the lower realms and do not feel fear. Or they may think that the water will not rise, and there is no worry of being washed away, so there is no fear. Since there was originally no worry, where did the fearful thoughts come from? If it is said that there is a slight worry in it, then the Śubhakṛtsna heaven should not be called 'singularity of perception.' Therefore, only by relying on the correct reasoning of the Abhidharma (Abhidharma, referring to the Buddhist philosophical treatises), to explain the sameness and difference of perception, can the name and meaning be perfectly established. The theory of the exemplifiers is untenable. Therefore, wise people should choose the correct reasoning and follow it. Beings in the realm of form, whose body is the same and whose perception is the same, such as the beings of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven. This is the fourth dwelling of consciousness. Saying 'singularity of body,' the meaning of the explanation is as before. There are only happy thoughts, so it is called 'singularity of perception.' The happiness of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven is peaceful and subtle, and it often produces joy, without ever producing weariness. Therefore, there is no mixing of the access concentration (Upacāra-samādhi, referring to the concentration of the desire realm and the concentration before reaching the first dhyāna). Therefore, only based on this happy thought is the name 'singularity of perception' established. Are there no different thoughts in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven? For example, the sutra says, 'The beings of this Śubhakṛtsna heaven experience peaceful happiness, unlike the other Śubhakṛtsna heavens.' This is not a difference in thought, but it shows that there are differences within the experience of happiness itself. Because there are no other feelings, all conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta, referring to phenomena that arise from causes and conditions) are mutually...
差別。一類亦有下等品殊。不可依斯立想有異。是故但依唯一樂想。立想有一義無傾動初靜慮中。由染污想。故言想一。以于非因起戒禁取執為因故。第二靜慮。由二善想。故言想異。由等至力。二受交參而現前故。第三靜慮。由無記想。故言想一。純一寂靜。異熟樂受而現前故。下三無色。名別如經。即三識住。是名為七。何等三無色。謂無色有情。一切色想。皆超越故。諸有對想。皆隱沒故。于別異想。不作意故。入無邊空。空無邊處具足住。如隨空無邊處天。是第五識住。無色有情。一切空無邊處。皆超越故。入無邊識。識無邊處具足住。如隨識無邊處天。是第六識住。無色有情。一切識無邊處。皆超越故。入無所有。無所有處具足住。如隨無所有處天。是第七識住。今應思擇。初無色言。豈非無義。說諸色想皆超越言。義已足故。此責不然。有別義故。色界有情。雖無慾染。而有欲想。成就現行。俱現可得。勿有因此生如是疑。無色有情。雖無色染。應有色想成就現行。是故須說無色有情。一切色想。皆已超越。欲界系想。名欲想故。豈不一切色想皆超越言無色及越色想二皆成就此亦非理。有作是言。無色界中。亦有色故。初言無色。意為顯成無色界中都無色故。次說色想皆超越言。顯彼都無色界想故。由此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 差別。即使是同一類中，也有下等和殊勝的差別。不應該根據這些差別就認為存在本質上的不同。因此，只需要依據唯一的快樂之想，確立『想一』的觀念，在初禪中不會動搖。因為受到染污之想的影響，所以說『想一』，因為他們把非因（錯誤的因）當作是持戒和禁制的真正原因。 在第二禪中，由於兩種善想，所以說『想異』。這是因為禪定的力量，兩種感受交替出現。 在第三禪中，由於無記之想，所以說『想一』。這是因為純粹而寂靜的、異熟所生的快樂感受顯現。 下三無色界的名稱如經文所說，也就是三種識住，合起來稱為七種識住。什麼是三種無色界呢？是指無色界有情，他們超越了一切色想（rupa-samjna，對物質形態的感知），所有的有對想（pratigha-samjna，有阻礙的感知）都隱沒了，對於各種不同的想法（nanatva-samjna，差異性的感知）不加以注意，進入無邊虛空，安住在空無邊處（akasanantyayatana），就像那些居住在空無邊處天的眾生一樣。這是第五識住。 無色界有情，他們超越了一切空無邊處，進入無邊識，安住在識無邊處（vijnanantyayatana），就像那些居住在識無邊處天的眾生一樣。這是第六識住。 無色界有情，他們超越了一切識無邊處，進入無所有，安住在無所有處（akincanyayatana），就像那些居住在無所有處天的眾生一樣。這是第七識住。 現在應該思考，最初的『無色』這個詞，難道不是沒有意義的嗎？因為『說諸色想皆超越』這句話已經足夠表達這個意思了。這種責難是不對的，因為『無色』這個詞還有別的意義。即使有情沒有對慾望的染著，但仍然可能有與慾望相關的想法，這些想法可能已經成就並且正在發生作用。爲了避免因此產生這樣的疑問：『無色界有情，即使沒有對物質的染著，也應該有與物質相關的想法已經成就並且正在發生作用』，所以必須說無色界有情已經超越了一切色想。欲界系的想法被稱為欲想（kama-samjna，慾望的感知）。難道『一切色想皆超越』這句話不是意味著無色界和超越色想這兩種狀態都同時成就嗎？這種說法也是不合理的。有人這樣說，在『無』（不存在物質）中，仍然可能有顏色存在。所以，最初說『無色』，是爲了表明在無色界中完全沒有顏色。接下來再說『色想皆超越』，是爲了表明他們完全沒有與物質相關的想法。由此可見，
【English Translation】 English version Differences exist. Even within the same category, there are inferior and superior distinctions. One should not assume fundamental differences based on these distinctions. Therefore, one should only rely on the singular thought of joy, establishing the concept of 'unity of thought' (ekatva-samjna) without wavering in the first dhyana (jhana, meditative state). Because of the influence of defiled thoughts, it is said 'unity of thought,' as they grasp non-causes (wrong causes) as the true causes for upholding precepts and prohibitions (sila-vrata-paramarsa). In the second dhyana, due to two wholesome thoughts, it is said 'difference of thought' (nanatva-samjna). This is because, through the power of samadhi (concentration), two kinds of feelings alternately arise. In the third dhyana, due to neutral thought (non-defiled and non-wholesome), it is said 'unity of thought.' This is because pure and tranquil, resultant joyful feelings manifest. The names of the lower three formless realms are as stated in the sutras, which are the three abodes of consciousness (識住, vijnana-sthiti), collectively called the seven abodes of consciousness. What are the three formless realms? They refer to formless beings who have transcended all perceptions of form (rupa-samjna, perception of material form), all perceptions of resistance (pratigha-samjna, perception of obstruction) have disappeared, and they do not attend to perceptions of difference (nanatva-samjna, perception of diversity), entering into infinite space, dwelling in the realm of infinite space (akasanantyayatana), like those beings who dwell in the heaven of infinite space. This is the fifth abode of consciousness. Formless beings, having transcended all of infinite space, enter into infinite consciousness, dwelling in the realm of infinite consciousness (vijnanantyayatana), like those beings who dwell in the heaven of infinite consciousness. This is the sixth abode of consciousness. Formless beings, having transcended all of infinite consciousness, enter into nothingness, dwelling in the realm of nothingness (akincanyayatana), like those beings who dwell in the heaven of nothingness. This is the seventh abode of consciousness. Now, it should be considered whether the initial word 'formless' (arupa) is meaningless, since the statement 'having transcended all perceptions of form' is sufficient to express this meaning. This criticism is not valid, because the word 'formless' has a separate meaning. Even though beings may not have attachment to desire, they may still have thoughts related to desire, which may be accomplished and currently active. To avoid the doubt that 'formless beings, even without attachment to form, should have thoughts related to form that are accomplished and currently active,' it is necessary to say that formless beings have transcended all perceptions of form. Thoughts related to the desire realm are called desire-thoughts (kama-samjna, perception of desire). Does the statement 'having transcended all perceptions of form' not imply that both the formless realm and the transcendence of form are simultaneously accomplished? This statement is also unreasonable. Some say that in 'non-existence' (absence of matter), there may still be color. Therefore, initially saying 'formless' is to show that in the formless realm, there is completely no color. Next, saying 'having transcended all perceptions of form' is to show that they completely have no thoughts related to form. Thus,
二言。皆有義用。生無色界。亦成色想。越色想言。豈非無義。此難非理。已簡別故。謂前簡別。欲界系想。名欲想故。色想亦然。非生無色可有亦成色界想者。故此非難。或彼色想。都不現行。設就緣色釋。亦無乖越義。一切色想皆超越者。貪染現行俱超越故。言色想者。謂色界想。或唯第四靜慮地想。緣自他地色為境界。故名色想。諸有對想皆隱沒者。五識相應想皆沒故。依有對根諸所生想。唯緣有對為境界故。名有對想。若於欲界。得離貪時。二識相應。諸有對想皆當隱沒。生上無容重現行故。于初靜慮。得離貪時。三識相應。諸有對想。雖當隱沒。而非一切。生上有時。重現行故。第四靜慮。得離貪時。所可現行。皆當隱沒。無色無容重現行故。于別異想不作意者。不復作意起異想故。取差別相。名別異想。此復云何。謂若有想。于所緣色。自相行轉。此于離色貪。能為拘礙故。今不作意。令此現行。共相行想。順離貪故。有餘師說。若想遍能緣色非色。名別異想。今於此想。不作意行。唯作意行。緣無色想。是故無色。及諸色想。皆超越等。俱成有義。此中何法。名為識住。謂彼所繫五蘊四蘊識于其中。樂住著故。有餘師說。唯有情數。得識住名。契經說故。為顯諸識所住著事。故契經說七識住名。由此余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二言（兩種說法）。都有其意義和作用。即使在無色界沒有（此處原文缺失，根據上下文推測為『色』，指物質、形色），也能形成色想（rūpa-saṃjñā，對物質的感知）。如果超越了色想的範疇，那言語還有什麼意義呢？這種質疑是不合理的，因為之前已經做過簡別（區分）。 之前的簡別，指的是欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）所繫的想，被稱為欲想。色想也是如此。並非說生於無色界（arūpadhātu，無色界）就不能有形成想的情況。所以這種質疑是不成立的。或者說，那種色想根本就不起現行。即使從緣色的角度來解釋，也沒有違背超越的意義。一切色想都被超越，是因為貪染現行都被超越了。 所說的色想，指的是**想（此處原文缺失，根據上下文推測為『欲』，指慾望）。或者僅僅指第四禪定（dhyāna，禪定）之地的想，以自身或他人的色為境界，所以稱為色想。諸有對想（sa-pratigha-saṃjñā，有阻礙的想）都隱沒，是因為與五識（pañca-vijñāna，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）相應的想都隱沒了。依賴有對根（sa-pratigha-indriya，有阻礙的根，即五根）所產生的想，僅僅以有對為境界，所以稱為有對想。如果在欲界證得離貪時，與二識（意識和末那識）相應的諸有對想都會隱沒，因為生到更高的境界不可能再重新現行。 在初禪（prathama-dhyāna，初禪）證得離貪時，與三識相應的諸有對想，雖然會隱沒，但並非全部，因為生到更高的境界有時會重新現行。在第四禪證得離貪時，所有可能現行的想都會隱沒，因為無色界沒有重新現行的可能。對於別異想（nānātva-saṃjñā，差異想）不作意，是因為不再作意生起差異想。取差別相，稱為別異想。這又是什麼呢？指的是如果有一種想，在所緣的色上，以自相運轉，這種想對於離色貪會產生阻礙，所以現在不作意，讓它現行。而共相行想（sāmānya-ākāra-saṃjñā，共相想），則順應離貪。 有其他論師說，如果有一種想能夠普遍緣色和非色，就稱為別異想。現在對於這種想，不作意行，只作意行緣無色想。因此，無色以及諸色想，都被超越等等，都成為有意義的。這裡面什麼法，稱為識住（vijñāna-sthiti，意識的住所）？指的是彼所繫的五蘊（pañca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）或四蘊（受、想、行、識），識在其中樂於安住和執著。有其他論師說，只有有情數才能稱為識住，因為契經（sūtra，佛經）是這樣說的。爲了顯示諸識所住著的事物，所以契經說了七識住的名字。由此余（此處原文不完整）
【English Translation】 English version Two statements. Both have their meaning and function. Even in the Arūpadhātu (無色界, the formless realm), where there is no ** (missing in the original text, inferred as 'rūpa' based on context, meaning form or matter), rūpa-saṃjñā (色想, perception of form) can still arise. If one transcends the realm of rūpa-saṃjñā, what meaning do words have? This objection is unreasonable because a distinction has already been made. The previous distinction refers to the saṃjñā (想, perception) associated with the Kāmadhātu (欲界, the desire realm), which is called kāma-saṃjñā (欲想, perception of desire). The same applies to rūpa-saṃjñā. It is not the case that being born in the Arūpadhātu prevents the formation of -saṃjñā. Therefore, this objection is invalid. Alternatively, that rūpa-saṃjñā may not manifest at all. Even if explained from the perspective of perceiving form, there is no contradiction to the meaning of transcendence. All rūpa-saṃjñā are transcended because both craving and defilement are transcended. The so-called rūpa-saṃjñā refers to -saṃjñā (missing in the original text, inferred as 'desire' based on context). Or it refers only to the saṃjñā of the fourth dhyāna (禪定, meditation) realm, with its object being form in its own or other realms, hence the name rūpa-saṃjñā. All sa-pratigha-saṃjñā (有對想, perceptions with obstruction) are obscured because the saṃjñā associated with the five vijñānas (五識, the five consciousnesses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) are all obscured. The saṃjñā arising from the sa-pratigha-indriya (有對根, the sense organs with obstruction, i.e., the five sense organs) only take sa-pratigha as their object, hence the name sa-pratigha-saṃjñā. If one attains freedom from desire in the Kāmadhātu, all sa-pratigha-saṃjñā associated with the two consciousnesses (mind consciousness and manas consciousness) will be obscured because it is impossible to reappear in higher realms. When one attains freedom from desire in the first dhyāna (初禪, the first meditation), the sa-pratigha-saṃjñā associated with the three consciousnesses will be obscured, but not all, because they may reappear when born in higher realms. When one attains freedom from desire in the fourth dhyāna, all possible manifestations will be obscured because there is no possibility of reappearing in the Arūpadhātu. Not attending to nānātva-saṃjñā (別異想, perception of difference) means no longer attending to the arising of perceptions of difference. Taking the characteristics of difference is called nānātva-saṃjñā. What is this? It refers to a saṃjñā that operates on the perceived form with its own characteristics. This saṃjñā hinders freedom from desire for form, so one does not attend to it, allowing it to manifest. While sāmānya-ākāra-saṃjñā (共相想, perception of generality) is conducive to freedom from desire. Some other teachers say that a saṃjñā that can universally perceive both form and non-form is called nānātva-saṃjñā. Now, one does not attend to this saṃjñā, but only attends to the saṃjñā that perceives non-form. Therefore, the transcendence of non-form and all rūpa-saṃjñā becomes meaningful. What dharma (法, teaching) is called vijñāna-sthiti (識住, abode of consciousness) here? It refers to the five skandhas (五蘊, the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) or four skandhas (feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) to which it is associated, in which consciousness delights to dwell and cling. Some other teachers say that only sentient beings can be called vijñāna-sthiti because the sūtras (契經, Buddhist scriptures) say so. To reveal the things in which consciousness dwells and clings, the sūtras mention the names of the seven vijñāna-sthiti. Therefore, the rest (the original text is incomplete here).
處。非識住攝。以彼處識有損壞故。識于其中不樂住著。余處者何。謂諸惡處。第四靜慮。及與有頂。云何于中識有損壞。損壞識法。于彼有故。何等名為損壞識法。謂諸惡處有重苦受。能損於識。第四靜慮。有無想定及無想事。有頂天中。有滅盡定。能壞於識令相續斷。復說若處余處有情。心樂來止。若至於此。不更求出。說名識住。于諸惡處。二義俱無。第四靜慮。心恒求出。謂諸異生。求入無想。若諸聖者。樂凈居等。若凈居天。樂證寂滅。有頂昧劣。故非識住。有說。若識愛力執受。安住其中。說名識住。一切惡處。凈居天等。業力執受。安住其中。無想有情。及與有頂。見力執受。安住其中。由是皆非識住所攝。有餘師說。眾生有三。所謂樂著諸境樂想。樂著境者。人及欲天。樂著樂者。下三靜慮。樂著想者。下三無色。唯於此處。立識住名。余無此三。故非識住。上代師資相承說者。若處具有見修所斷及無斷識。立識住名。異此便非識住所攝。豈不欲界人及六天無無漏識。應非識住。若言能作無漏所依。則有頂天。應名識住。此難非理。欲界無定可就所依說有無漏。然有頂天是定地攝。應依自性說彼有無。由自性無。故非識住。或非有頂補特伽羅一所依中具三種識。欲界善處補特伽羅。一所依中。容具三
識。故不應以有頂為例。第四靜慮。雖具三識。而五處全。一處少分。不具三識。故少從多。不立識住。是故識住。數唯有七。如是解釋七識住已。因茲復辯九有情居。其九者何。頌曰。
應知兼有頂 及無想有情 是九有情居 余非不樂住
論曰。前七識住。及第一有。無想有情。是名為九。諸有情類。唯於此九。欣樂住故。立有情居。謂諸有情。自樂安住。所依色等實物非余。以諸有情是假有故。然諸實物。是假所居。故有情居。唯有情法。以有情類于自依身愛住增強。非於處所。又于處所。立有情居。則有情居應成雜亂。居無雜亂。唯有內身。故有情居。唯有情法。既言生已名有情居。知有情居不攝中有又諸中有。非久所居。故諸有情不樂安住。又必應爾。由本論說。為顯生處。立有情居。于生死中。為顯諸識由愛住著。建立識住。顯諸有情于自依止愛樂安住。立有情居。故此二門。建立差別。然契經說。有色有情無想無別想。如無想天者。想謂總取境。別想謂分別。今此天中。並遮前二。故說無想無別想言。或無想言。唯遮于想。無別想者。遮想俱行。或無想言。是總遮故。勿謂此處諸想皆無。故復說言無別想者。顯有成就。但無現行。以別想名。詮現想故。或言無想。恐謂此中唯無染想。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：意識。因此不應該以有頂天為例。第四禪天，雖然具備三種意識，但是五處齊全，一處少分，不具備三種意識，因此少數服從多數，不建立識住。因此，識住的數量只有七種。像這樣解釋了七識住之後，因此又辨析九有情居。這九種是什麼呢？頌文說：
『應當知道包括有頂天，以及無想有情，這就是九有情居，其餘的不是不樂於居住。』
論述說：前面的七識住，以及第一有，無想有情，這合起來稱為九有情居。各種有情眾生，只有在這九處，欣然樂於居住，因此建立有情居。所謂有情，是自己快樂安住的地方，所依賴的色等實物，而不是其他。因為各種有情是假有的緣故。然而各種實物，是假有居住的地方。因此有情居，只有有情法。因為有情眾生對於自己所依賴的身體，愛戀安住的心增強，而不是對於處所。又如果在處所建立有情居，那麼有情居應該成為雜亂的。居所沒有雜亂，只有內在的身體。因此有情居，只有有情法。既然說了出生之後稱為有情居，就知道有情居不包括中有。而且各種中有，不是長久居住的地方，因此各種有情不樂於安住。而且必定應該是這樣，因為本論說，爲了顯示出生的地方，建立有情居。在生死輪迴中，爲了顯示各種意識由於愛戀而執著，建立識住。顯示各種有情對於自己所依賴的身體，愛戀安住，建立有情居。因此這兩個方面，建立的差別不同。然而契經上說，有色有情，無想無別想，如同無想天一樣。想，是指總體的取境。別想，是指分別。現在這個天中，一併遮止了前面兩種。因此說無想無別想。或者無想，只是遮止了想。無別想，是遮止與想同時生起的。或者無想，是總體的遮止。不要認為此處各種想都沒有，所以又說無別想，顯示有成就，但是沒有現行。因為別想這個名稱，詮釋的是現行的想。或者說無想，是恐怕認為這裡只有沒有染污的想。
【English Translation】 English version: Consciousness. Therefore, it should not be exemplified by the Akaniṣṭha (highest heaven in the Realm of Form). The Fourth Dhyāna (fourth meditative absorption), although possessing three types of consciousness, has all five sense faculties complete, and one faculty partially, not possessing three types of consciousness. Therefore, the minority follows the majority, and a station of consciousness is not established. Thus, the number of stations of consciousness is only seven. Having explained the seven stations of consciousness in this way, we further discuss the nine abodes of sentient beings. What are these nine?
The verse says:
'It should be known that including the Akaniṣṭha (highest heaven in the Realm of Form), and the non-percipient beings, these are the nine abodes of sentient beings; the rest are not unwilling to dwell there.'
The treatise says: The preceding seven stations of consciousness, and the first existence, the non-percipient beings, these together are called the nine abodes of sentient beings. Sentient beings of all kinds, only in these nine places, are happy and willing to dwell, therefore abodes of sentient beings are established. What is called a sentient being is a place where one happily dwells, relying on material things such as form, and not others. Because all sentient beings are provisionally existent. However, all material things are places where the provisionally existent dwell. Therefore, abodes of sentient beings are only phenomena related to sentient beings. Because sentient beings have an increased love and attachment to dwelling in their own bodies, and not to places. Furthermore, if abodes of sentient beings were established in places, then the abodes of sentient beings should become mixed up. Abodes are not mixed up, only the inner body is. Therefore, abodes of sentient beings are only phenomena related to sentient beings. Since it is said that after birth it is called an abode of sentient beings, it is known that abodes of sentient beings do not include the intermediate state (antarābhava). Moreover, the various intermediate states are not places of long-term dwelling, therefore sentient beings are not happy to dwell there. And it must be so, because this treatise says that in order to show the place of birth, abodes of sentient beings are established. In the cycle of birth and death, in order to show that various consciousnesses are attached due to love, stations of consciousness are established. To show that various sentient beings love and are happy to dwell in their own bodies, abodes of sentient beings are established. Therefore, these two aspects have different establishments. However, the sutras say that sentient beings with form, without perception and without distinct perception, are like the non-percipient heavens. 'Perception' refers to the general grasping of objects. 'Distinct perception' refers to discrimination. Now, in this heaven, both of the preceding two are prevented. Therefore, it is said 'without perception and without distinct perception'. Or 'without perception' only prevents perception. 'Without distinct perception' prevents what arises simultaneously with perception. Or 'without perception' is a general prevention. Lest it be thought that there is no perception at all here, therefore it is further said 'without distinct perception', showing that there is accomplishment, but no manifestation. Because the name 'distinct perception' explains the manifested perception. Or saying 'without perception' is for fear that it is thought that there is only no defiled perception here.
由斯復說無別想言。即顯此中無有一切品類別想。有頂無想。既非識住。如何可說為有情居。此責不然。義各異故。由此二處有壞識法。識不樂居。故非識住。然彼二處。成有情身。有情樂居。故九所攝。謂若有處。余樂來居。不樂遷動。有情居攝。余處皆非。不樂住故。言余處者。謂諸惡處。第四靜慮。除無想天。惡處皆非有情居者。謂非余處有樂來居。亦無住中不樂遷動。第四靜慮。除無想天。所餘皆非有情居者。雖從余處有樂來居。然非住中不樂遷動。謂廣果等。若諸異生。樂入無想或無色處。若諸聖者。樂入凈居或無色處。凈居天處。樂入涅槃。故彼皆非有情居攝。然佛余處。曾以處聲。宣說涅槃有頂無想。有諸外道。執有頂天及無想天。為真解脫。勿有聞此同說處聲。便謂二天。同真解脫。起涅槃覺。轉助邪宗。由此世尊。與諸識住。一處合說。為有情居。顯真涅槃非為如是。但假施設有情所居。何故世尊。有情居內。有頂無想。偏說處聲。精勤果中。至究竟故。唯異生處。精勤果中。無想有情。最為究竟。一切生處。精勤果中。唯有頂天。最為究竟。故唯此二。偏說處聲。或復處聲。顯來門義。謂此二處。異熟盡時。多分命終。來生下故。因七識住。已辯有情居。余契經中。復說四識住。其四者何。頌曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由是，再說『無別想』，即是顯示此處沒有一切品類差別的想法。有頂天（Bhavagra, the peak of existence）和無想天（Asaññasatta, the realm of non-perception），既然不是識住（Viññāṇaṭṭhiti, abodes of consciousness），如何能說是『有情居』（Sattāvāsa, abodes of sentient beings）呢？ 這種責難是不對的，因為意義各有不同。由於這兩個地方存在『壞識法』（having the nature of destroying consciousness），意識不樂於居住，所以不是識住。然而，這兩個地方構成了有情的身軀，有情樂於居住，所以被九種有情居所攝。也就是說，如果某個地方，其他的有情樂於前來居住，不樂於遷移變動，那麼這個地方就被攝屬於有情居；其餘的地方則不是，因為有情不樂於居住。 所說的『其餘的地方』，是指各種惡劣的地方，以及第四禪天（catuttha jhāna）中，除了無想天之外的地方。惡劣的地方都不是有情居，因為沒有其他有情樂於前來居住，也沒有在居住期間不樂於遷移變動。第四禪天中，除了無想天之外的其餘地方，都不是有情居，雖然有從其他地方樂於前來居住的有情，但並非在居住期間不樂於遷移變動，例如廣果天（Vehapphala）。 如果各種異生（puthujjana, ordinary beings）樂於進入無想天或無色界（arūpaloka），如果各種聖者（ariya, noble ones）樂於進入凈居天（Suddhāvāsa）或無色界，凈居天是有情樂於進入涅槃（Nibbāna）的地方，所以這些地方都不被攝屬於有情居。 然而，佛陀在其他地方，曾經用『處』（place）這個詞語，宣說涅槃、有頂天和無想天。有些外道（titthiya, non-buddhist ascetics）執著于有頂天和無想天，認為那是真正的解脫。爲了避免有人聽到佛陀也用『處』這個詞語，就認為這兩個天界等同於真正的解脫，產生涅槃的錯覺，反而助長了邪說，因此，世尊將各種識住與一個『處』合併來說，作為有情居，以此來顯示真正的涅槃不是這樣的，只是假借施設為有情所居住的地方。 為什麼世尊在有情居中，特別用『處』這個詞語來稱呼有頂天和無想天呢？因為在精勤修行的果報中，它們達到了究竟。在異生所處的境界中，無想有情最為究竟；在一切有情所處的境界中，只有有頂天最為究竟。所以只對這兩個地方特別使用『處』這個詞語。 或者，『處』這個詞語，顯示了『來』（coming）的含義。意思是說，這兩個地方的有情，在異熟果報結束時，大多會死亡，然後投生到較低的境界。因為已經根據七識住辨析了有情居，所以在其他的契經中，又說了四識住，這四種是什麼呢？頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, to say 'no different thought' means to show that there are no thoughts of any kind of distinction here. Bhavagra (the peak of existence) and Asaññasatta (the realm of non-perception), since they are not Viññāṇaṭṭhiti (abodes of consciousness), how can they be said to be Sattāvāsa (abodes of sentient beings)? This accusation is incorrect, because the meanings are different. Because these two places have the 'nature of destroying consciousness', consciousness is not happy to reside there, so they are not abodes of consciousness. However, these two places constitute the bodies of sentient beings, and sentient beings are happy to reside there, so they are included in the nine abodes of sentient beings. That is to say, if there is a place where other sentient beings are happy to come and reside, and are not happy to move, then this place is included in the abodes of sentient beings; other places are not, because sentient beings are not happy to reside there. The 'other places' mentioned refer to various evil places, and the places in the fourth jhāna (catuttha jhāna) except for Asaññasatta. Evil places are not abodes of sentient beings, because no other sentient beings are happy to come and reside there, nor are they unhappy to move during their residence. The remaining places in the fourth jhāna except for Asaññasatta are not abodes of sentient beings, although there are sentient beings who are happy to come and reside from other places, they are not unhappy to move during their residence, such as Vehapphala (the realm of great reward). If various puthujjana (ordinary beings) are happy to enter Asaññasatta or the arūpaloka (formless realms), if various ariya (noble ones) are happy to enter Suddhāvāsa (pure abodes) or the arūpaloka, and Suddhāvāsa is a place where sentient beings are happy to enter Nibbāna (Nirvana), then these places are not included in the abodes of sentient beings. However, in other places, the Buddha once used the word 'place' to declare Nibbāna, Bhavagra, and Asaññasatta. Some titthiya (non-buddhist ascetics) are attached to Bhavagra and Asaññasatta, and consider them to be true liberation. In order to avoid someone hearing that the Buddha also uses the word 'place' and thinking that these two realms are equivalent to true liberation, creating the illusion of Nibbāna, and instead helping heretical doctrines, therefore, the World Honored One combines the various abodes of consciousness with one 'place' to speak of as the abodes of sentient beings, in order to show that true Nibbāna is not like this, but is only provisionally established as a place where sentient beings reside. Why does the World Honored One, in the abodes of sentient beings, especially use the word 'place' to refer to Bhavagra and Asaññasatta? Because in the reward of diligent practice, they have reached the ultimate. Among the realms where ordinary beings reside, Asaññasatta is the most ultimate; among all the realms where sentient beings reside, only Bhavagra is the most ultimate. Therefore, only these two places are specially used with the word 'place'. Or, the word 'place' shows the meaning of 'coming'. It means that sentient beings in these two places mostly die when the result of their karma ends, and then are reborn in lower realms. Because the abodes of sentient beings have been distinguished based on the seven abodes of consciousness, in other sutras, four abodes of consciousness are mentioned again. What are these four? The verse says:
。
四識住當知 四蘊唯自地 說獨識非住 有漏四句攝
論曰。如世尊言。識隨色住。識隨受住。識隨想住。識隨行住。是名四種。如是四種其體云何。謂唯除識。有漏四蘊。又此唯在自地非余。非識樂隨餘地蘊住。雖依餘地蘊識亦現前。而餘地蘊中識不樂住。喜愛潤識。令于蘊中增長廣大。契經說故。非於餘地色等蘊中喜愛能潤識令增長廣大。故餘地蘊。非識住攝。又自地中。唯有情數。唯自相續。立為識住。非非情數他相續中識隨樂住如自相續。有餘師說。彼亦識住。以于其中喜愛潤識亦令增長及廣大故。已依自宗建立識住。當說建立識住因緣。此中雲何識非識住。又此識住其義云何。謂識于中由喜愛力。攝為所住。及為所著。是識住義。識隨色住。住色著色。契經說故若爾識蘊應成識住。世尊亦說。于識食中。有喜有染。有喜染故。識住其中。識所乘御。此中經主。作如是釋。亦不遮識。識所依著。總于諸蘊生喜染故。然如色等一一蘊中。生諸喜染。令識依著。獨識不然。故言非住。又佛意說。此四識住。猶如良田。總說一切有取諸識。猶如種子。不可種子立為良田。仰測世尊教意如是。又法與識可俱時生為識良田。可立識住。識蘊不爾。故非識住。如是所釋。但述己情。審諦思求。無深理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
四識住應當知曉，四蘊只在各自的界地。 說單獨的識不是識住，有漏的識住被四句所包含。
論曰：正如世尊所說：『識隨著色而住，識隨著受而住，識隨著想而住，識隨著行而住。』這被稱為四種識住。這四種識住的本體是什麼呢？是指除了識以外，有漏的色、受、想、行四蘊（skandha）。而且，這四種識住只存在於各自的界地，而不是其他的界地。因為識不會喜歡隨著其他界地的蘊而住。雖然依靠其他界地的蘊，識也會顯現，但是識並不喜歡住在其他界地的蘊中。因為喜愛能滋潤識，使識在蘊中增長廣大，這是契經（sutra）所說的。不是在其他界地的色等蘊中，喜愛能滋潤識，使識增長廣大。所以，其他界地的蘊，不屬於識住所包含的範圍。而且，在各自的界地中，只有有情（sentient beings）的，只有自身相續的，才能被立為識住。不是在非有情的，其他相續中，識會像在自身相續中一樣樂於安住。有其他的老師說，那些也是識住，因為在其中喜愛能滋潤識，也能使識增長和廣大。已經依據自己的宗派建立了識住，接下來應當說明建立識住的因緣。這裡，為什麼識不是識住呢？而且，這識住的意義是什麼呢？是指識在其中由於喜愛的力量，被攝取為所住之處，以及所執著之處，這就是識住的意義。識隨著色而住，住在色中，執著於色，契經是這樣說的。如果這樣，識蘊（vijnana-skandha）應該成為識住。世尊也說過，在識食（vijnana-ahara）中，有喜有染，因為有喜染，識就住在其中，識所乘御。這裡的經主，作這樣的解釋，也不排除識是識所依著之處，因為總的來說，對於諸蘊生起喜染。然而，像色等一一蘊中，生起各種喜染，使識依著，單獨的識不是這樣，所以說不是識住。而且，佛的意思是說，這四種識住，猶如良田，總的說來，一切有取（業）的諸識，猶如種子，不可以把種子立為良田。仰測世尊的教意是這樣的。而且，法（dharma）與識可以同時生起，作為識的良田，可以立為識住，識蘊不是這樣，所以不是識住。像這樣所解釋的，只是陳述了自己的想法，仔細思考探求，沒有深刻的道理。
【English Translation】 English version:
The four abodes of consciousness should be known; the four aggregates exist only in their respective realms. It is said that individual consciousness is not an abode; the four conditioned abodes are encompassed by the four statements.
Treatise: As the World-Honored One said: 'Consciousness dwells with form, consciousness dwells with sensation, consciousness dwells with perception, consciousness dwells with volition.' These are called the four types. What is the nature of these four? They are the four conditioned aggregates (skandha) excluding consciousness. Moreover, these exist only in their respective realms, not in others. Consciousness does not delight in dwelling with the aggregates of other realms. Although consciousness may manifest relying on the aggregates of other realms, it does not delight in dwelling within them. Because craving nourishes consciousness, causing it to grow and expand within the aggregates, as the sutras (sutra) say. It is not that craving in the aggregates of form, etc., of other realms can nourish consciousness, causing it to grow and expand. Therefore, the aggregates of other realms are not included in the abodes of consciousness. Furthermore, within their respective realms, only sentient beings (sentient beings), only one's own continuum, are established as abodes of consciousness. It is not that in non-sentient beings or the continua of others, consciousness delights in dwelling as it does in one's own continuum. Some other teachers say that those are also abodes of consciousness because craving within them can nourish consciousness, causing it to grow and expand. Having established the abodes of consciousness according to our own school, we should now explain the causes and conditions for establishing the abodes of consciousness. Here, why is consciousness not an abode of consciousness? And what is the meaning of 'abode of consciousness'? It means that consciousness, through the power of craving, is taken as a dwelling place and as something to be attached to; this is the meaning of 'abode of consciousness.' Consciousness dwells with form, dwells in form, and is attached to form, as the sutras say. If so, the consciousness aggregate (vijnana-skandha) should become an abode of consciousness. The World-Honored One also said that in the food of consciousness (vijnana-ahara), there is joy and attachment; because of this joy and attachment, consciousness dwells within it and is driven by it. The master of the sutras here explains it in this way, not excluding that consciousness is what consciousness relies on and is attached to, because joy and attachment arise in all the aggregates in general. However, joy and attachment arise in each aggregate such as form, causing consciousness to rely on it; individual consciousness is not like this, so it is said not to be an abode. Moreover, the Buddha's intention is that these four abodes of consciousness are like fertile fields, and all conditioned consciousnesses that are taken up are like seeds; seeds cannot be established as fertile fields. This is how we surmise the Buddha's teachings. Furthermore, dharma (dharma) and consciousness can arise simultaneously as a fertile field for consciousness, which can be established as an abode of consciousness; the consciousness aggregate is not like this, so it is not an abode of consciousness. This explanation merely states one's own opinion; upon careful consideration and inquiry, there is no profound reason.
趣。識與識住。如種如田。理可如是。不違教故。然彼所說。若法與識。可俱時生。為識良田。立識住者。不應正理。所以者何。彼先自說。識所依著。故名識住。非於俱起受等蘊中有識所依。彼依識故。住若所依。識不依彼。如何可說彼為識住。又非所緣同一境故。俱生受等。非所取故。又不可以相應依著釋識住義。勿諸色法及不相應非識住故。又相應理無差別故。則應無漏亦識住體。如何可說俱生色等為識良田立為識住。又言。佛意說四識住。猶如良田。總說一切有取諸識。猶如種子。不可種子立為田者。理亦不然。異識相望。有所依著。豈非田義。又于識中。應無有取。然契經說。有取諸識。故知亦有識住識中。又彼所言。亦不遮識。識所依著。總于諸蘊生喜染故。然如色等一一蘊中。生諸喜染。令識依著。獨識不然。故言非者。亦不應理。彼契經說。于識食中。有喜有染。有喜染故。識住其中。識所乘御。如何乃說。但于諸蘊總生喜染。獨識不然。若言食中不立田種二分差別故無過者。應說因緣。何故不立。既于識食。別生喜染。識住其中。不應總說有取諸識皆如種子。識既于識。可為良田。何理獨遮識為識住。故彼所說。但述己情。無深理趣。非為善釋。又彼上座作是釋言。即此不應還住於此。故不可說識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：關於『識』（Vijñāna，了別作用）與『識住』（Vijñāna-sthiti，意識的住所），譬如種子與田地的關係，這樣的比喻在道理上是否成立？是否符合佛教的教義？ 答：雖然這種比喻在一定程度上可以理解，但如果像他們所說的那樣，認為某種法（Dharma，事物、現象）可以與『識』同時產生，並作為『識』的良田，從而建立『識住』的概念，這在邏輯上是不合理的。為什麼呢？ 因為他們自己先說，『識住』之所以稱為『識住』，是因為『識』依附於它。然而，在與『識』同時生起的受蘊（Vedanā-skandha，感受）、想蘊（Saṃjñā-skandha，知覺）等蘊中，並沒有『識』所依附的東西。這些蘊依附於『識』，如果『識住』是所依，那麼『識』就不應該依附於它們。既然『識』不依附於它們，怎麼能說它們是『識住』呢？ 而且，即使受蘊等與『識』所緣的境界相同，它們也不是『識』所取（Grahana，執取）的對象。此外，也不能用『相應』（Samprayukta，同時發生、互相依存）和『依附』來解釋『識住』的含義，否則，諸如色法（Rūpa-dharma，物質現象）以及不相應的行法（Visaṃprayukta-saṃskāra，非相應的行蘊）也應該成為『識住』了，這顯然是不對的。 再者，如果按照『相應』的道理，沒有差別，那麼無漏智（Anāsrava-jñāna，沒有煩惱的智慧）也應該成為『識住』的本體。那麼，又怎麼能說與『識』同時生起的色法等是『識』的良田，並以此建立『識住』的概念呢？ 還有，他們說，佛陀的意思是把四識住（Catur-vijñāna-sthiti，四種意識的住所）比作良田，把一切有執取的『識』比作種子。但不能把種子說成是田地，這個道理也是不成立的。從不同的『識』相互依存的角度來看，難道不是田地的含義嗎？ 此外，在『識』中，不應該沒有有執取的成分。然而，契經（Sūtra，佛經）中說，有有執取的『識』。因此，可知在『識住』中也有『識』。而且，他們所說的，也不能排除『識』依附於『識』，從而對諸蘊產生喜悅和染著。 然而，如果說在色蘊等每一個蘊中，都會產生喜悅和染著，從而使『識』依附於它們，而唯獨『識』不會這樣，這種說法也是不合理的。因為契經中說，在『識食』（Vijñāna-āhāra，意識的食糧）中，有喜悅和染著。因為有喜悅和染著，所以『識』就安住其中，並被『識』所駕馭。怎麼能說只是對諸蘊總體上產生喜悅和染著，而唯獨『識』不會這樣呢？ 如果說，因為在『識食』中沒有建立田地和種子兩種不同的區分，所以沒有過失，那麼就應該說明原因，為什麼不建立這種區分。既然在『識食』中分別產生喜悅和染著，『識』就安住其中，就不應該籠統地說一切有執取的『識』都像種子一樣。既然『識』可以作為『識』的良田，那麼又有什麼道理要單獨排除『識』作為『識住』的可能性呢？ 因此，他們的說法，只是在陳述自己的想法，沒有深刻的道理，不是一個好的解釋。還有，那位上座（長老）是這樣解釋的：『即此不應還住於此』，所以不能說『識』。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Regarding 'Vijñāna' (consciousness, the function of distinguishing) and 'Vijñāna-sthiti' (the abode of consciousness), is the analogy of seeds and fields reasonable? Does it align with Buddhist teachings? Answer: While this analogy can be understood to some extent, if, as they say, a certain Dharma (thing, phenomenon) can arise simultaneously with 'Vijñāna' and serve as a fertile field for 'Vijñāna', thereby establishing the concept of 'Vijñāna-sthiti', it is logically unreasonable. Why? Because they themselves first stated that 'Vijñāna-sthiti' is so-called because 'Vijñāna' relies on it. However, in the Skandhas (aggregates) such as Vedanā-skandha (feeling), Saṃjñā-skandha (perception), etc., which arise simultaneously with 'Vijñāna', there is nothing that 'Vijñāna' relies on. These Skandhas rely on 'Vijñāna'. If 'Vijñāna-sthiti' is the support, then 'Vijñāna' should not rely on them. Since 'Vijñāna' does not rely on them, how can it be said that they are 'Vijñāna-sthiti'? Moreover, even if the objects of Vedanā, etc., are the same as those of 'Vijñāna', they are not objects of 'Vijñāna's' Grahana (grasping). Furthermore, the meaning of 'Vijñāna-sthiti' cannot be explained by 'Samprayukta' (concomitant, co-occurring, interdependent) and reliance, otherwise, Rūpa-dharma (material phenomena) and Visaṃprayukta-saṃskāra (non-associated formations) should also become 'Vijñāna-sthiti', which is obviously incorrect. Furthermore, if according to the principle of 'Samprayukta', there is no difference, then Anāsrava-jñāna (undefiled wisdom) should also become the substance of 'Vijñāna-sthiti'. Then, how can it be said that the Rūpa, etc., that arise simultaneously with 'Vijñāna' are fertile fields for 'Vijñāna', and thereby establish the concept of 'Vijñāna-sthiti'? Also, they say that the Buddha's intention is to compare the Catur-vijñāna-sthiti (four abodes of consciousness) to fertile fields, and all 'Vijñāna' with attachment to seeds. But one cannot say that seeds are fields, this principle is also untenable. From the perspective of different 'Vijñāna' mutually relying on each other, isn't that the meaning of a field? In addition, there should be no elements of attachment in 'Vijñāna'. However, the Sūtra (Buddhist scripture) says that there is 'Vijñāna' with attachment. Therefore, it can be known that there is also 'Vijñāna' in 'Vijñāna-sthiti'. Moreover, what they say cannot exclude 'Vijñāna' relying on 'Vijñāna', thereby generating joy and attachment to the Skandhas. However, if it is said that in each of the Skandhas such as Rūpa, joy and attachment will arise, thereby causing 'Vijñāna' to rely on them, but 'Vijñāna' alone will not, this statement is also unreasonable. Because the Sūtra says that in 'Vijñāna-āhāra' (consciousness-nourishment), there is joy and attachment. Because there is joy and attachment, 'Vijñāna' abides in it and is driven by 'Vijñāna'. How can it be said that joy and attachment are only generated to the Skandhas as a whole, but 'Vijñāna' alone will not? If it is said that because there is no establishment of two different distinctions between field and seed in 'Vijñāna-āhāra', there is no fault, then the reason should be explained, why not establish this distinction. Since joy and attachment are generated separately in 'Vijñāna-āhāra', and 'Vijñāna' abides in it, it should not be said in general that all 'Vijñāna' with attachment are like seeds. Since 'Vijñāna' can serve as a fertile field for 'Vijñāna', then what reason is there to exclude the possibility of 'Vijñāna' as 'Vijñāna-sthiti' alone? Therefore, their statement is only expressing their own ideas, without profound reasoning, and is not a good explanation. Also, that Elder explained it this way: 'This should not abide here again', so 'Vijñāna' cannot be said.
隨識住。若言過未及他相續識中住者。其理不然。唯于識中。無有勢力令識增長及廣大故。謂如色等。匡助於識。令其熾盛。識即不然。唯了別中無此用故。彼如是釋。非悟理言。且此不應還住此故。不可說識隨識住者。于彼宗義。其理不然。非彼唯于現在諸法立為識住。如何得以一剎那識。非自住故。證識非住。其義可成。縱加遠避。終應唯許過未受等名為識住。彼識剎那無受等故。如是所說。即此不應還住此因。于義何益。若謂如色于現在時可成識住。識不如是故所說因於義有益。此亦非理。受等亦應非識住故。竟不曾說識與受等差別因緣。故所說因。于義無益。又未了彼。即此不應還住此言。意顯何義。若言意顯自體不能于自體中守自性義。則應同彼空花論宗。許一切法不守性故。如是識住。亦不應成。若言意顯自體不能為自所依或所緣義。是則所立。唐捐其功。曾無有疑。依緣自故。謂如色等。他性諸法。可有為識所依所緣。識自體中。曾無此感。而今立理。復何所成。凡所立因。為遮有濫。此中無濫。因何所遮。是故彼因深成無用。又識自類展轉相望。何劣受等而非識住。豈不前說。此證因言。唯于識中。無有勢力令識增長及廣大故。前雖已說。而非應理。識緣受等。增長廣大。非識緣識。此有何因。豈不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 隨識住（隨著意識而安住）。如果說過去、未來以及其他相續的意識中安住，這個道理是不成立的。因為唯獨在意識中，沒有力量使意識增長和廣大。比如色（物質）等，能夠幫助意識，使它熾盛，但意識卻不能這樣。因為在單純的了別作用中沒有這種作用。他們的這種解釋，並非領悟真理的言論。而且，『此不應還住此』（這個不應該返回安住于這個）的說法是不成立的，所以不能說意識隨著意識而安住。在他們的宗義中，這個道理是不成立的。他們並非僅僅在現在的諸法中建立『識住』。怎麼能用一個剎那的意識，因為它不是自己安住，來證明意識不是安住呢？即使極力迴避，最終也應該只允許過去、未來、受（感受）等名為『識住』。因為那個意識剎那沒有受等。這樣所說，『即此不應還住此』這個原因，對於義理有什麼幫助呢？如果說，比如色在現在時可以成為識住，意識不是這樣，所以所說的原因對於義理有幫助。這也是不合理的。因為受等也應該不是識住。始終沒有說過意識與受等差別的原因。所以所說的原因，對於義理沒有幫助。而且沒有理解他們，『即此不應還住此』這句話，意在顯示什麼意義？如果說意在顯示自體不能在自體中守護自性的意義，那就應該和空花論宗一樣，承認一切法不守護自性。這樣，識住也不應該成立。如果說意在顯示自體不能作為自己的所依或所緣的意義，那麼所建立的論點，就白費功夫了。從來沒有人懷疑，依緣自己。比如色等，他性的諸法，可以作為意識的所依所緣。意識自體中，從來沒有這種感覺。而現在建立理論，又能成就什麼呢？凡是所建立的原因，是爲了遮止有混濫。這裡沒有混濫，原因要遮止什麼呢？所以他們的原因，完全沒有用處。而且意識的自類，輾轉相望，為什麼比受等差，就不能是識住呢？難道前面不是說過，這個證明的原因說，唯獨在意識中，沒有力量使意識增長和廣大嗎？前面雖然已經說過，但並不合理。意識緣受等，會增長廣大，意識緣意識，這有什麼原因呢？難道不是
【English Translation】 English version It abides following consciousness. If it is said that it abides in past, future, and other continuous consciousnesses, this reasoning is not valid. Because only in consciousness, there is no power to make consciousness grow and expand. For example, form (rupa) etc., can assist consciousness, making it flourish, but consciousness cannot do this. Because in mere discernment, there is no such function. Their explanation is not a statement of enlightenment. Moreover, the statement 'this should not return to abide in this' is not valid, so it cannot be said that consciousness abides following consciousness. In their doctrine, this reasoning is not valid. They do not merely establish 'consciousness-abiding' in present dharmas. How can one use a momentary consciousness, because it does not abide by itself, to prove that consciousness is not abiding? Even if one tries to avoid it, one should ultimately only allow past, future, feeling (vedana), etc., to be called 'consciousness-abiding'. Because that moment of consciousness does not have feeling, etc. Thus, what is said, what help does the reason 'this should not return to abide in this' provide to the meaning? If it is said that, for example, form can become consciousness-abiding in the present time, but consciousness is not like this, so the stated reason is helpful to the meaning. This is also unreasonable. Because feeling, etc., should also not be consciousness-abiding. It has never been said what the cause of the difference between consciousness and feeling, etc., is. So the stated reason is of no help to the meaning. Moreover, they have not understood what meaning they intend to show with the statement 'this should not return to abide in this'. If it is said that it intends to show the meaning that the self-nature cannot guard its own nature in itself, then it should be the same as the doctrine of the flowers in the sky, admitting that all dharmas do not guard their own nature. In this way, consciousness-abiding should also not be established. If it is said that it intends to show the meaning that the self-nature cannot be the basis or object of itself, then the established argument is in vain. No one has ever doubted that it relies on and conditions itself. For example, form, etc., other-natured dharmas, can be the basis and object of consciousness. In the self-nature of consciousness, there has never been this feeling. But now establishing a theory, what can be accomplished? All the reasons that are established are to prevent confusion. There is no confusion here, what does the reason need to prevent? Therefore, their reason is completely useless. Moreover, why is the self-category of consciousness, looking at each other in turn, worse than feeling, etc., so that it cannot be consciousness-abiding? Didn't it say earlier that the reason for this proof says that only in consciousness, there is no power to make consciousness grow and expand? Although it has been said before, it is not reasonable. Consciousness conditions feeling, etc., and will grow and expand, but what is the reason that consciousness conditions consciousness? Isn't it
此因亦如前辨。謂如受等。匡助於識。令其熾盛。識即不然。唯了別中。無此用故。何用說此非極成因。不能證成。非所許故。識緣唯領等增長廣大。非緣唯了別。此有何因。又彼上座。自於解釋識住中言。識隨色住。謂我我所。攀緣色生。是色識住。乃至廣說。識亦于識。謂我我所。攀緣識生。何非識住。謂我我所攀緣既同。識何獨不令識增長廣大。又彼所說。識于所緣唯了別故。非如受等匡助於識令熾盛者。豈不于識所了事中。彼謂后時受等方起。是則于境要先了別。然後領等隨次而生。能引識流展轉熾盛。故唯了別。最是勝因。能匡助識。應成識住。如生本苦生為勝因。識熾盛因識最為勝。識及識住。皆識為因。能令展轉增長廣大。故識不能匡助於識令熾盛者。非為善因。若恐違經言識非住。上座立理豈不違經。經說識能增長識故。應除自執更訪余因。然我師宗。作如是釋。為令于識除我見心。故於識中。不說識住。如說。莎底契經中言。我達世尊所說法教。馳流生死。唯識非余。識謂世尊異名說我。為欲除滅彼我見心。顯識依他體。非是我我所依性。非謂能依。故識住門。唯說有四。非實識住但四非識。今謂世尊所說識住。唯色等四。不言識者。由但色等於三時中與續有識為助伴故。謂唯色等。與識俱生。過
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此因的辨析也如前文所述。例如，受（vedanā，感受）等心所，能夠輔助於識（vijñāna，意識），使其更加熾盛。而識本身卻不能這樣，因為識的功能僅僅在於了別（vijñāna，識別），沒有輔助其他識的作用。因此，何必說這個『非極成因』（hetu asiddha，理由不成立）呢？它不能成立，因為它不是我們所認可的。識所緣的只是領受（vedanā，感受）等，使其增長廣大，而不是僅僅了別。這又有什麼理由呢？ 而且，那位上座（長老）自己在解釋『識住』（viññāṇaṭṭhiti，意識的住處）時說：『識隨色住』，意思是『我』和『我所』（attā and attaniya，自我和屬於自我的），攀緣色（rūpa，色法）而生，這就是色識住。乃至廣說。識也隨識住，意思是『我』和『我所』，攀緣識而生，為什麼不是識住呢？既然『我』和『我所』的攀緣相同，為什麼識不能使識增長廣大呢？ 而且，他所說的『識對於所緣的只是了別，不像受等能夠輔助於識使其熾盛』，難道不是說在識所了別的事物中，他認為後來的受等才生起嗎？如果是這樣，那麼對於境（āyatana，處），必定先有了別，然後領受等才依次產生，能夠引導識流輾轉熾盛。所以，唯有了別才是最殊勝的因，能夠輔助於識，應該成為識住。如同生（jāti，出生）是本苦（mūla-dukkha，根本苦）的殊勝因一樣，識熾盛的因，識是最殊勝的。識以及識住，都是以識為因，能夠使其輾轉增長廣大。所以，說識不能輔助於識使其熾盛，不是一個好的理由。 如果擔心違背了經文所說的『識非住』，那麼上座建立的這個道理豈不是也違背了經文？經文說識能夠增長識，所以應該去除自己的執著，再去尋求其他的理由。然而，我的老師的宗派，是這樣解釋的：爲了使人對於識去除我見（attadiṭṭhi，我見）之心，所以在識中，不說識住。如同《莎底契經》（Sātyaka Sutta）中所說：『我理解世尊所說的法教，馳流生死，唯識非余。』識是世尊的異名，用來說明『我』，爲了想要滅除那個我見之心，顯示識是依他體（paratantra，依他起性），不是我或我所的自性，不是能依。所以，識住的法門，只說了有四種，不是說真實的識住只有四種，而是說只有色等四種不是識。 現在我認為，世尊所說的識住，只有色等四種，沒有說識，是因為只有色等在三世（過去、現在、未來）中，與相續存在的識作為助伴的緣故。也就是說，只有色等，與識俱生，經過...
【English Translation】 English version This reason is also analyzed as before. For example, feelings (vedanā) and other mental factors assist consciousness (vijñāna), causing it to flourish. Consciousness itself does not do this, as its function is solely to distinguish (vijñāna), without this assisting function. Therefore, why speak of this 'unestablished reason' (hetu asiddha)? It cannot be established because it is not something we accept. What consciousness cognizes are only feelings (vedanā) etc., causing them to increase and expand, not merely distinguishing. What is the reason for this? Moreover, that Elder (Thera) himself, in explaining the 'abodes of consciousness' (viññāṇaṭṭhiti), said: 'Consciousness dwells in form,' meaning 'I' and 'mine' (attā and attaniya), arising in dependence on form (rūpa), this is the abode of consciousness in form. And so on, extensively. Consciousness also dwells in consciousness, meaning 'I' and 'mine,' arising in dependence on consciousness, why is this not an abode of consciousness? Since the dependence on 'I' and 'mine' is the same, why does consciousness alone not cause consciousness to increase and expand? Furthermore, what he said, 'Consciousness only distinguishes its object, unlike feelings etc. which assist consciousness to flourish,' does it not mean that in the things distinguished by consciousness, he believes that feelings etc. arise later? If this is the case, then with respect to the object (āyatana), there must first be distinguishing, and then feelings etc. arise in sequence, able to lead the stream of consciousness to flourish in turn. Therefore, only distinguishing is the most excellent cause, able to assist consciousness, and should become an abode of consciousness. Just as birth (jāti) is the excellent cause of fundamental suffering (mūla-dukkha), the cause of consciousness flourishing, consciousness is the most excellent. Consciousness and the abodes of consciousness are all caused by consciousness, able to cause them to increase and expand in turn. Therefore, saying that consciousness cannot assist consciousness to flourish is not a good reason. If there is fear of contradicting the sutras which say 'consciousness is not an abode,' then does not the reasoning established by the Elder also contradict the sutras? The sutras say that consciousness can increase consciousness, so one should remove one's own attachment and seek other reasons. However, the school of my teacher explains it this way: in order to cause people to remove the mind of self-view (attadiṭṭhi) towards consciousness, therefore, in consciousness, the abode of consciousness is not spoken of. As it is said in the Sātyaka Sutta: 'I understand the Dharma taught by the World-Honored One, flowing in samsara, only consciousness, not anything else.' Consciousness is a different name of the World-Honored One, used to explain 'I,' in order to extinguish that mind of self-view, showing that consciousness is dependent origination (paratantra), not the nature of self or what belongs to self, not the support. Therefore, the Dharma gate of the abodes of consciousness only speaks of four types, not saying that the true abodes of consciousness are only four, but saying that only form etc., the four, are not consciousness. Now I believe that the abodes of consciousness spoken of by the World-Honored One are only form etc., the four, not speaking of consciousness, because only form etc. in the three times (past, present, future) are the conditions that assist the continuing consciousness. That is to say, only form etc., arising together with consciousness, after...
未亦能為識助伴。令續有識生死馳流。識則不爾。故非識住。且眼等根。及俱色等。與俱生識。為所依依。已滅未生。但為識境。是故色蘊。於三時中。望續有識。能為助伴。現在受等。與識俱生。為俱有因。一分與識同緣一境。有助伴用。已滅未生。但為識境。是故受等。亦於三時。望續有識。能為助伴。識雖過未。望續有識。少有助能。而俱生中。全無助力。不俱起故。色等望識。具二助能。識唯去來。故非識住。故非情數。及他身中。色等四蘊。亦非識住。由彼望識但為所緣。不具二門助伴用故。住謂所住。是續有識。引自果時。能為依義。住或所著。是續有識。引自果時。能為境義。自身色等。可有與識同一境義。設不同境。然能為依。具二助能。故立識住。非有情數。他身色等。則不如是。故非識住。如何定知識住道理如是安立。契經說故。如世尊言。有四依取所緣識住。識隨色住。住色著色。是識與色。或俱時生。依於色住。或於色境緣而生著。何緣生著。前說于中喜愛潤故。如是乃至。識隨行住。皆應廣說。曾無有說。識隨識住。隨謂親附。或謂鄰近。去來定說為疏遠故。現在色等。附近於識。與識俱生。名識隨住。定無有識與識俱生。故不應言識隨識住。由此經故。唯餘四蘊。與續有識。為伴義成。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『未亦能為識助伴。令續有識生死馳流。』意思是說，（色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊）也能作為『識』（Vijnana，了別作用）的助伴，使得相續不斷的『有識』（指有情眾生的心識）在生死輪迴中流轉。但『識』本身不是這樣，所以不能說是『識住』（Vijnana-sthiti，心識的住所）。 而且，眼根等（Indriya，感覺器官）以及與之相關的色等（Rupa，顏色、形狀等），與俱生識（Sahaja-vijnana，同時產生的意識）互為所依。已經滅去的和尚未產生的，只能作為『識』的境界（Visaya，對像）。因此，『色蘊』（Rupa-skandha，色聚集）在過去、現在、未來三個時段中，對於相續不斷的『有識』來說，能夠作為助伴。 現在的『受』（Vedana，感受）等，與『識』同時產生，互為俱有因（Sahabhu-hetu，共同存在的因），一部分與『識』共同緣取一個境界，具有助伴的作用。已經滅去的和尚未產生的，只能作為『識』的境界。因此，『受』等也在過去、現在、未來三個時段中，對於相續不斷的『有識』來說，能夠作為助伴。 『識』雖然在過去和未來，對於相續不斷的『有識』來說，稍微有些幫助，但在俱生（Sahaja，同時產生）的情況下，完全沒有助力，因為不是同時生起的。『色』等對於『識』來說，具備兩種助益的能力，而『識』只能是過去和未來，所以不是『識住』。 因此，不是有情數（Sattva-samkhya，有情眾生的範疇），以及他人身中的『色』等四蘊（Rupa-skandha, Vedana-skandha, Samjna-skandha, Samskara-skandha，色、受、想、行四種聚集），也不是『識住』。因為它們對於『識』來說，只能作為所緣（Alambana，對像），不具備兩種助伴的作用。 『住』（Sthiti，住所）指的是所住之處，是相續不斷的『有識』在引生自身果報時，能夠作為依靠的意義。『住』或者說是所執著之處，是相續不斷的『有識』在引生自身果報時，能夠作為境界的意義。自身（Sva-kaya，自己的身體）的『色』等，可能與『識』具有同一境界的意義。即使不同境界，也能作為依靠，具備兩種助益的能力，所以可以建立為『識住』。不是有情數，他人身中的『色』等，則不是這樣，所以不是『識住』。 如何確定『識住』的道理是這樣安立的呢？因為契經（Sutra，佛經）是這樣說的。如世尊（Bhagavan，佛）所說：『有四依取所緣識住，識隨色住，住色著色。』意思是說，『識』與『色』，或者同時產生，依靠于『色』而住，或者對於『色』的境界緣取而生起執著。為什麼會生起執著呢？前面說過，因為對『色』的喜愛滋潤的緣故。像這樣，乃至『識隨行住』，都應該廣泛地解說。 從來沒有說過『識隨識住』。『隨』（Anu，跟隨）的意思是親附，或者說是鄰近。過去和未來，一定說是疏遠的緣故。現在的『色』等，附近於『識』，與『識』同時產生，叫做『識隨住』。一定沒有『識』與『識』同時產生，所以不應該說『識隨識住』。由此經的緣故，只有其餘四蘊，與相續不斷的『有識』，作為伴侶的意義才能成立。 English version: 『The un-manifested can also be a companion to consciousness, causing the continuous flow of consciousness in the cycle of birth and death.』 This means that the (form, feeling, perception, and mental formations) can also serve as companions to 『Vijnana』 (consciousness, the function of discernment), enabling the continuous 『consciousness』 (referring to the consciousness of sentient beings) to flow in the cycle of birth and death. However, 『consciousness』 itself is not like this, so it cannot be said to be 『Vijnana-sthiti』 (the abode of consciousness). Moreover, the sense organs such as the eye (Indriya, sensory organs) and the related forms (Rupa, colors, shapes, etc.), together with the co-arisen consciousness (Sahaja-vijnana, simultaneously arising consciousness), are mutually dependent. Those that have ceased and have not yet arisen can only serve as the object (Visaya, object) of 『consciousness.』 Therefore, the 『form aggregate』 (Rupa-skandha, aggregate of form) in the past, present, and future, can serve as a companion to the continuous 『consciousness.』 The present 『feeling』 (Vedana, sensation) and others arise simultaneously with 『consciousness,』 mutually serving as co-existent causes (Sahabhu-hetu, co-existing cause), and a portion shares the same object with 『consciousness,』 having the function of a companion. Those that have ceased and have not yet arisen can only serve as the object of 『consciousness.』 Therefore, 『feeling』 and others also in the past, present, and future, can serve as a companion to the continuous 『consciousness.』 Although 『consciousness』 in the past and future provides some assistance to the continuous 『consciousness,』 it has no assistance at all in the case of co-arising (Sahaja, simultaneous arising), because it does not arise simultaneously. 『Form』 and others possess two kinds of assisting abilities for 『consciousness,』 while 『consciousness』 can only be past and future, so it is not 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 Therefore, it is not the category of sentient beings (Sattva-samkhya, the category of sentient beings), and the four aggregates (Rupa-skandha, Vedana-skandha, Samjna-skandha, Samskara-skandha, the four aggregates of form, feeling, perception, and mental formations) such as 『form』 in the bodies of others are also not 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 Because they can only serve as the object (Alambana, object) for 『consciousness,』 and do not possess the two functions of a companion. 『Abode』 (Sthiti, abode) refers to the place where one dwells, which is the meaning of being able to rely on when the continuous 『consciousness』 generates its own karmic results. 『Abode』 or what is clung to is the meaning of being the object when the continuous 『consciousness』 generates its own karmic results. The 『form』 of one's own body (Sva-kaya, one's own body) may have the meaning of sharing the same object with 『consciousness.』 Even if they are different objects, they can serve as a reliance, possessing two kinds of assisting abilities, so it can be established as 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 The 『form』 and others in the bodies of others, which are not the category of sentient beings, are not like this, so they are not 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 How can it be determined that the principle of 『Vijnana-sthiti』 is established in this way? Because the Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures) say so. As the World Honored One (Bhagavan, Buddha) said: 『There are four reliances for consciousness to take as its object and abide, consciousness abides in form, abides in form and clings to form.』 This means that 『consciousness』 and 『form』 either arise simultaneously, relying on 『form』 to abide, or arise clinging to the object of 『form.』 Why does clinging arise? As mentioned earlier, it is because of the love and attachment to 『form.』 In this way, even 『consciousness abides in mental formations,』 should be explained extensively. It has never been said that 『consciousness abides in consciousness.』 『Anu』 (following) means to be close or nearby. The past and future are definitely said to be distant. The present 『form』 and others are near to 『consciousness,』 arising simultaneously with 『consciousness,』 called 『consciousness abiding.』 There is definitely no 『consciousness』 arising simultaneously with 『consciousness,』 so it should not be said that 『consciousness abides in consciousness.』 Because of this Sutra, only the remaining four aggregates can be established as having the meaning of being companions to the continuous 『consciousness.』
【English Translation】 English version: 『The un-manifested can also be a companion to consciousness, causing the continuous flow of consciousness in the cycle of birth and death.』 This means that the (form, feeling, perception, and mental formations) can also serve as companions to 『Vijnana』 (consciousness, the function of discernment), enabling the continuous 『consciousness』 (referring to the consciousness of sentient beings) to flow in the cycle of birth and death. However, 『consciousness』 itself is not like this, so it cannot be said to be 『Vijnana-sthiti』 (the abode of consciousness). Moreover, the sense organs such as the eye (Indriya, sensory organs) and the related forms (Rupa, colors, shapes, etc.), together with the co-arisen consciousness (Sahaja-vijnana, simultaneously arising consciousness), are mutually dependent. Those that have ceased and have not yet arisen can only serve as the object (Visaya, object) of 『consciousness.』 Therefore, the 『form aggregate』 (Rupa-skandha, aggregate of form) in the past, present, and future, can serve as a companion to the continuous 『consciousness.』 The present 『feeling』 (Vedana, sensation) and others arise simultaneously with 『consciousness,』 mutually serving as co-existent causes (Sahabhu-hetu, co-existing cause), and a portion shares the same object with 『consciousness,』 having the function of a companion. Those that have ceased and have not yet arisen can only serve as the object of 『consciousness.』 Therefore, 『feeling』 and others also in the past, present, and future, can serve as a companion to the continuous 『consciousness.』 Although 『consciousness』 in the past and future provides some assistance to the continuous 『consciousness,』 it has no assistance at all in the case of co-arising (Sahaja, simultaneous arising), because it does not arise simultaneously. 『Form』 and others possess two kinds of assisting abilities for 『consciousness,』 while 『consciousness』 can only be past and future, so it is not 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 Therefore, it is not the category of sentient beings (Sattva-samkhya, the category of sentient beings), and the four aggregates (Rupa-skandha, Vedana-skandha, Samjna-skandha, Samskara-skandha, the four aggregates of form, feeling, perception, and mental formations) such as 『form』 in the bodies of others are also not 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 Because they can only serve as the object (Alambana, object) for 『consciousness,』 and do not possess the two functions of a companion. 『Abode』 (Sthiti, abode) refers to the place where one dwells, which is the meaning of being able to rely on when the continuous 『consciousness』 generates its own karmic results. 『Abode』 or what is clung to is the meaning of being the object when the continuous 『consciousness』 generates its own karmic results. The 『form』 of one's own body (Sva-kaya, one's own body) may have the meaning of sharing the same object with 『consciousness.』 Even if they are different objects, they can serve as a reliance, possessing two kinds of assisting abilities, so it can be established as 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 The 『form』 and others in the bodies of others, which are not the category of sentient beings, are not like this, so they are not 『Vijnana-sthiti.』 How can it be determined that the principle of 『Vijnana-sthiti』 is established in this way? Because the Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures) say so. As the World Honored One (Bhagavan, Buddha) said: 『There are four reliances for consciousness to take as its object and abide, consciousness abides in form, abides in form and clings to form.』 This means that 『consciousness』 and 『form』 either arise simultaneously, relying on 『form』 to abide, or arise clinging to the object of 『form.』 Why does clinging arise? As mentioned earlier, it is because of the love and attachment to 『form.』 In this way, even 『consciousness abides in mental formations,』 should be explained extensively. It has never been said that 『consciousness abides in consciousness.』 『Anu』 (following) means to be close or nearby. The past and future are definitely said to be distant. The present 『form』 and others are near to 『consciousness,』 arising simultaneously with 『consciousness,』 called 『consciousness abiding.』 There is definitely no 『consciousness』 arising simultaneously with 『consciousness,』 so it should not be said that 『consciousness abides in consciousness.』 Because of this Sutra, only the remaining four aggregates can be established as having the meaning of being companions to the continuous 『consciousness.』
有四依取。世尊說故。言依取者。謂色等四。為生死依。煩惱所取。或即為依。攝取眾苦。由是無漏非住理成。唯說依取。為識住故。無漏色等。滅依取故。即彼經說。苾芻當知。若於色界。已得離貪。于所隨色。意生系斷。此係斷故。即能緣識。無覆住著增長廣大。廣說受等三界亦然。即由此經。義準三世色等四蘊。皆識住攝。為顯色等與識異故。我所稟宗。作如是說。若法與識。可俱時生。識所乘御。如人船理。此法可說識住非余。如是所言。意簡識住與識類別。非為欲遮去來色等言非識住。雖許去來亦識住攝。而非情數。非識住收。彼現在時。與續有識。尚為疏遠。況在去來。由彼恒時與續有識但為疏遠。所緣境界。定非彼識附近助伴。故識與彼俱非識住。自身色等。雖在去來與識疏遠。而於現在。與續有識。極相親近。由種類同。亦名識住。如現在世異心無心兩位自身色行二蘊。謂如現起不同分心及無心位色行二蘊。雖非現在同分識依。而不失於二識住相。住彼相故。設於爾時。起同分識。定能為住。余緣礙故。識暫不生非彼爾時無識住相。去來色等。理亦應然。具二助能。相不失故。由此色等。自相續中。三世所攝。皆名識住。七四識住。皆有漏攝。為七攝四四攝七耶。非遍相攝。可為四句。有七非四。乃
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 存在四種『依取』（ālambana-upādāna，依賴和執取）。這是世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）所說的。所謂的『依取』，指的是色（rūpa，物質）、受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，知覺）、行（saṃskāra，意志）這四種蘊（skandha，構成要素）。它們是生死輪迴所依賴的，也是煩惱所執取的。或者說，它們本身就是依賴，攝取了種種痛苦。因此，無漏（anāsrava，沒有煩惱）的智慧並非建立在這些『住』（sthiti，停留）的道理之上。只說『依取』，是因為它們是識（vijñāna，意識）的住所。無漏的色等，滅除了『依取』的緣故。 就像那部經里所說：『比丘（bhikkhu，出家人）們應當知道，如果對於色，已經獲得了離貪（vītarāga，沒有貪慾），對於所隨順的色，意生繫縛（manojavasaṃyoga，精神上的束縛）已經斷除。因為這個繫縛斷除的緣故，能夠緣取的識，就不會再有住著、增長和廣大。』 廣泛地說明了受、想、行三蘊以及三界（trayo dhātava，欲界、色界、無色界）也是如此。根據這部經，可以推斷出過去、現在、未來三世的色等四蘊，都屬於識住所攝。 爲了顯示色等與識的不同，我所稟承的宗義（觀點）是這樣說的：如果一種法（dharma，事物、現象）可以與識同時生起，並且被識所乘御，就像人乘船一樣，那麼這種法就可以說是識住，而不是其他的。這樣說，是爲了區分識住與識的類別，而不是爲了遮止過去、未來的色等，說它們不是識住。雖然允許過去、未來的色等也屬於識住所攝，但它們並非情識所能計算，也不是識住所能收攝的。它們在現在的時候，與相續的識尚且疏遠，更何況是在過去、未來呢？ 由於它們恒常與相續的識疏遠，所緣的境界，必定不是那個識附近的助伴。所以識與它們，都不是識住。自身（ātman，自我）的色等，雖然在過去、未來與識疏遠，但在現在，與相續的識極其親近。由於種類相同，也可以稱為識住。比如現在世異心（不同心）和無心（沒有心）兩種狀態下的自身的色蘊和行蘊。也就是說，比如現在生起不同分的心，以及無心狀態下的色蘊和行蘊，雖然不是現在同分識的所依，但不會失去作為兩種識住的相狀。因為安住于那種相狀的緣故，即使在那個時候，生起了同分識，必定能夠成為識住。因為其他的因緣阻礙的緣故，識暫時不生起，並非那個時候沒有識住的相狀。過去、未來的色等，道理也應該是這樣。具備兩種助益的能力，相狀不會失去的緣故。 因此，色等在自身相續中，被三世所攝，都可以稱為識住。七種和四種識住，都是有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）所攝。是七種攝四種，還是四種攝七種呢？並非普遍相攝，可以分為四句。有七種不是四種的，乃...
【English Translation】 English version There are four 'supports and attachments' (ālambana-upādāna). This is what the World Honored One (Śākyamuni) said. The so-called 'supports and attachments' refer to the four aggregates (skandha): form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), and volition (saṃskāra). They are what the cycle of birth and death relies on, and what afflictions attach to. Or rather, they themselves are the reliance, gathering all kinds of suffering. Therefore, undefiled (anāsrava) wisdom is not established on the principle of these 'abodes' (sthiti). Only 'supports and attachments' are mentioned because they are the abodes of consciousness (vijñāna). Undefiled form, etc., extinguish the cause of 'supports and attachments'. Just as it says in that sutra: 'Bhikkhus (monks), you should know that if, regarding form, one has already attained freedom from greed (vītarāga), and the mental bond (manojavasaṃyoga) to the form that follows is severed. Because this bond is severed, the consciousness that can grasp will no longer have attachment, growth, or expansion.' It extensively explains that feeling, perception, and volition, as well as the three realms (trayo dhātava: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), are also like this. According to this sutra, it can be inferred that the four aggregates of form, etc., in the past, present, and future, are all included within the abodes of consciousness. To show the difference between form, etc., and consciousness, the doctrine (viewpoint) that I adhere to says this: If a dharma (phenomenon, thing) can arise simultaneously with consciousness and be ridden by consciousness, like a person riding a boat, then this dharma can be said to be an abode of consciousness, and not others. Saying this is to distinguish the category of abodes of consciousness from consciousness, not to prevent past and future forms, etc., from being said to be not abodes of consciousness. Although it is allowed that past and future forms, etc., are also included in the abodes of consciousness, they cannot be calculated by emotional consciousness, nor can they be collected by the abodes of consciousness. Because they are constantly distant from the continuous consciousness, the object of cognition is certainly not a nearby companion of that consciousness. Therefore, consciousness and them are not abodes of consciousness. One's own (ātman) form, etc., although distant from consciousness in the past and future, are extremely close to the continuous consciousness in the present. Because they are of the same kind, they can also be called abodes of consciousness. For example, one's own aggregates of form and volition in the two states of different mind (different mind) and no mind (no mind) in the present world. That is to say, for example, the aggregates of form and volition in the state of different mind arising now, and in the state of no mind, although they are not the support of the present consciousness of the same category, they will not lose the appearance of being two kinds of abodes of consciousness. Because they abide in that appearance, even if a consciousness of the same category arises at that time, it will certainly be able to become an abode of consciousness. Because other causes hinder it, consciousness does not arise temporarily, but it is not that there is no appearance of an abode of consciousness at that time. The principle of past and future forms, etc., should also be like this. Because they have the ability of two kinds of assistance, the appearance will not be lost. Therefore, form, etc., in one's own continuum, which are included in the three times, can all be called abodes of consciousness. The seven and four abodes of consciousness are all included in the defiled (sāsrava). Is it that the seven include the four, or the four include the seven? They are not universally inclusive, and can be divided into four sentences. There are seven that are not four, namely...
至廣說。第一句者。謂七中識。第二句者。謂諸惡處。第四靜慮。及有頂中。除識余蘊。第三句者。七中四蘊。第四句者。謂除前相。七中有識四中無者。由此二門。建立異故。若法與識。互為因果。識樂隨轉。立七識住。若法與識。可俱時生。能為助伴。立四識住。故所承師。咸作是說由所化者。稟性不同。故說七四識住差別。云何所化稟性不同。謂彼或樂各別緣境。或有于境不樂別緣。或樂遍知諸法自相。或於自相不樂遍知。或耽著愛或耽著見。或有自相煩惱力強。或有共相煩惱力強。或樂境界。或樂生死。有如是等性別無量。已說識住。於前所說諸界趣中。應知其生。略有四種。何等為四。何處有何。頌曰。
于中有四生 有情謂卵等 人傍生具四 地獄及諸天 中有唯化生 鬼通胎化二
論曰。前所說界。通情非情。趣唯有情。然非遍攝。生唯遍攝。故說有情。無非有情名眾生故。然有情類。卵生胎生濕生化生。是名為四。生謂生類諸有情中。雖余類雜。而生類等。言生類者。是眾生義。若爾界趣。應亦名生。不爾界通情非情故。趣雖有情。而非遍故。此唯情遍獨立生名。上座謂生是生因義。則非情法。應亦名生。以卵胎濕皆生因故。化生應非生。無別生因故。彼言亦有俱起生因。此不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 至於廣說（詳細解釋）。第一句指的是七種識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識、末那識）。第二句指的是各種惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）。第四靜慮（色界第四禪定）以及有頂天（非想非非想處天）中，除了識以外的其餘四蘊（色、受、想、行）。第三句指的是七種識中的四蘊。第四句指的是除去前面所說的，七種識中有識而四種識中沒有的。由於這兩種不同的方式，建立了不同的識住。如果法與識互相為因果，識隨著樂而轉變，就建立七識住。如果法與識可以同時生起，能夠作為助伴，就建立四識住。所以我們所承襲的老師們都這樣說，由於所教化的人，稟性不同，所以說了七種和四種識住的差別。 什麼是所教化的人稟性不同呢？就是說，他們或者喜歡各自緣取不同的境界，或者對於境界不喜歡分別緣取。或者喜歡普遍瞭解諸法的自相，或者對於自相不喜歡普遍瞭解。或者耽著于愛，或者耽著于見。或者有自相的煩惱力量強大，或者有共相的煩惱力量強大。或者喜歡境界，或者喜歡生死。有像這樣的種種差別，數量無量。 已經說了識住，在前面所說的各種界（三界：欲界、色界、無色界）趣（五趣或六趣：地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天、阿修羅）中，應當知道它們的產生。大致有四種。是哪四種呢？在哪裡有呢？頌文說： 『于中有四生，有情謂卵等，人傍生具四，地獄及諸天，中有唯化生，鬼通胎化二』 論曰：前面所說的界，包括有情和非情（有生命和無生命）。趣只包括有情，但是並非全部包括。生則全部包括有情。所以說有情，因為沒有不是有情而被稱為眾生的。然而有情種類，有卵生、胎生、濕生、化生，這稱為四種生。生指的是各類有情中，雖然其餘種類混雜，但是生類是相同的。說到生類，就是眾生的意思。如果這樣，界和趣也應該稱為生嗎？不是的，因為界包括有情和非情。趣雖然包括有情，但是並非全部包括。只有生全部包括有情，所以獨立稱為生。上座部認為生是生因的意思。那麼非情法也應該稱為生嗎？因為卵、胎、濕都是生因的緣故。化生應該不是生，因為沒有其他的生因的緣故。他們說也有俱起生因。這不成立。
【English Translation】 English version: As for the extensive explanation. The first phrase refers to the seven consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness, and alaya consciousness). The second phrase refers to all evil destinies (hells, hungry ghosts, animals). The fourth dhyana (the fourth meditative state in the Form Realm) and the Peak of Existence (the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception) contain the remaining four skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations) besides consciousness. The third phrase refers to the four skandhas within the seven consciousnesses. The fourth phrase refers to what is excluded from the previous descriptions, where the seven consciousnesses have consciousness but the four consciousnesses do not. Due to these two different approaches, different abodes of consciousness are established. If a dharma and consciousness are mutually cause and effect, and consciousness transforms according to pleasure, then seven abodes of consciousness are established. If a dharma and consciousness can arise simultaneously and serve as companions, then four abodes of consciousness are established. Therefore, the teachers we have inherited from all say that due to the different natures of those being taught, the differences between the seven and four abodes of consciousness are explained. What are the different natures of those being taught? It means that they either like to individually grasp different realms, or they do not like to separately grasp realms. Or they like to universally understand the self-nature of all dharmas, or they do not like to universally understand the self-nature. Or they are attached to love, or they are attached to views. Or they have strong afflictions related to self-nature, or they have strong afflictions related to common characteristics. Or they like realms, or they like birth and death. There are such various differences, countless in number. Having discussed the abodes of consciousness, one should know their arising within the various realms (the Three Realms: Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) and destinies (the Five or Six Destinies: hells, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, gods, asuras) mentioned earlier. There are roughly four types. What are these four types? Where do they exist? The verse says: 'In the intermediate state, there are four kinds of birth; sentient beings are said to be egg-born, etc. Humans and animals have all four; hells and the heavens, the intermediate state only has transformation birth; ghosts have both womb-birth and transformation birth.' Commentary: The realms mentioned earlier include both sentient and non-sentient beings. The destinies include only sentient beings, but not all of them. Birth includes all sentient beings. Therefore, it is said that there are sentient beings, because there is no being that is not sentient and is called a living being. However, the types of sentient beings include egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born. These are called the four kinds of birth. Birth refers to the types of sentient beings, where although other types are mixed, the types of birth are the same. Speaking of types of birth, it means living beings. If so, should realms and destinies also be called birth? No, because realms include both sentient and non-sentient beings. Although destinies include sentient beings, they do not include all of them. Only birth includes all sentient beings, so it is independently called birth. The Theravada school believes that birth means the cause of birth. Then should non-sentient dharmas also be called birth? Because eggs, wombs, and moisture are all causes of birth. Transformation birth should not be birth, because there is no other cause of birth. They say there is also a co-arising cause of birth. This is not established.
應然。彼自不許俱生因故。設有是何而竟不顯。但有虛說。非離先業有別生因。亦非化生與業俱起。故彼所說。理必不然。所承諸師。作如是釋。緣業合起。故說為生。謂諸有情。有卵胎濕。三緣和合。別別而生。有無別緣。唯業力合五蘊四蘊如應頓生。彼業力強不待緣故。今釋一切皆業合生。佛說有情業所生故。有業生果待卵等緣。方有差別。有業生果。不待外緣。自有差別。若說一切皆業合生。如何說為卵胎生等。不可卵等從業合生名卵等生。彼非情故。不說一切唯業合生。不說卵等體生由業。但說一切皆業合生。業合生時。有緣卵等。從緣標別。名卵等生若說業生。名應無別。言卵生者。謂諸有情。生從卵㲉。如鵝雁等。言胎生者。謂諸有情。生從胎藏。如象馬等。言濕生者。謂諸有情。從皮肉骨。牛糞油滓水等和合暖潤氣生如蟲飛蛾。蚊蚰蜒等言化生者。謂諸有情。不待三緣。無而欻有。具根無缺。支分頓生。如那落迦天中有等。化生體兼五蘊四蘊。餘三但用五蘊為體。有說。皆通異熟長養。有說。一切體唯異熟。人及傍生。各具四種。人卵生者。謂如世羅鄔波世羅。生從鶴卵。鹿母所生三十二子。給孤獨女二十五子。般遮羅王五百子等。人胎生者。如今世人。人濕生者。如曼馱多遮盧鄔波遮盧鴿鬘庵羅衛等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應然。因為他們自己不承認俱生因的緣故。即使有這樣的說法，又有什麼能夠最終顯現出來呢？只不過是虛妄的言說罷了。並非離開先前的業力，還有其他的生起之因。也不是化生與業力同時生起。所以他們所說的，道理必定不是這樣。他們所信奉的老師，是這樣解釋的：因緣和業力聚合而生起，所以說為『生』。意思是說，諸有情，有卵生、胎生、濕生三種，因緣和合，各自別別而生。有的沒有其他的因緣，唯有業力聚合，五蘊或四蘊如其所應地頓然生起。因為那業力強大，不等待因緣的緣故。現在解釋說一切都是業力聚合而生。佛說有情是業力所生的緣故。有的業力生果，等待卵等因緣，才會有差別。有的業力生果，不等待外在的因緣，自然有差別。如果說一切都是業力聚合而生，如何說為卵生、胎生等呢？不能說卵等是從業力聚合而生，就叫做卵等生，因為卵等不是有情。不說一切唯有業力聚合而生，不說卵等的自體生起是由於業力，只是說一切都是業力聚合而生。業力聚合而生的時候，有因緣卵等，從因緣上標示差別，叫做卵等生。如果只說業力生，名稱上應該沒有差別。所說的卵生，是指諸有情，從卵殼中生出，如鵝、雁等。所說的胎生，是指諸有情，從胎藏中生出，如象、馬等。所說的濕生，是指諸有情，從皮、肉、骨、牛糞、油滓、水等和合，溫暖濕潤的氣息中生出，如蟲、飛蛾、蚊、蚰蜒等。所說的化生，是指諸有情，不等待三種因緣，無中生有，忽然出現，具足諸根，沒有殘缺，支分頓然生起，如那落迦（地獄）和天中有（中陰身）等。化生的自體兼具五蘊和四蘊，其餘三種只用五蘊作為自體。有人說，都通於異熟（果報）和長養（增長）。有人說，一切的自體唯是異熟。人及傍生（畜生），各自具有四種（生）的方式。人中的卵生，如世羅（Sela）、鄔波世羅（Upasela），從鶴卵中生出。鹿母所生的三十二個兒子，給孤獨（Anathapindika）的女兒所生的二十五個兒子，般遮羅王（King Pancala）的五百個兒子等。人中的胎生，如現在世間的人。人中的濕生，如曼馱多（Mandhata）、遮盧（Caru）、鄔波遮盧（Upacaru）、鴿鬘（Kapotamali）、庵羅衛（Amravati）等。
【English Translation】 English version: It should be so. Because they themselves do not accept the co-arising cause. Even if there is such a statement, what can ultimately manifest? It is merely a false statement. It is not that apart from prior karma, there is another cause of arising. Nor is it that apparitional birth arises simultaneously with karma. Therefore, what they say is certainly not the case. The teachers they follow explain it this way: conditions and karma combine to arise, hence it is said to be 'birth'. That is to say, sentient beings have three types of birth: oviparous, viviparous, and moisture-born. Conditions combine, and they are born separately. Some have no other conditions, only the combination of karmic force, and the five aggregates or four aggregates arise suddenly as appropriate. Because that karmic force is strong, it does not wait for conditions. Now it is explained that everything is born from the combination of karma. The Buddha said that sentient beings are born of karma. Some karmic fruits await conditions such as eggs before there are differences. Some karmic fruits do not await external conditions and have differences naturally. If it is said that everything is born from the combination of karma, how can it be said to be oviparous, viviparous, etc.? It cannot be said that eggs, etc., are born from the combination of karma and are called egg-born, etc., because eggs, etc., are not sentient beings. It is not said that everything is born only from the combination of karma, nor is it said that the self-nature of eggs, etc., arises from karma, but it is said that everything is born from the combination of karma. When karma combines to produce birth, there are conditions such as eggs, and distinctions are marked from the conditions, called egg-born, etc. If only karmic birth is spoken of, there should be no distinction in names. What is called oviparous refers to sentient beings born from eggshells, such as geese and swans. What is called viviparous refers to sentient beings born from the womb, such as elephants and horses. What is called moisture-born refers to sentient beings born from the combination of skin, flesh, bones, cow dung, oil residue, water, etc., with warm and moist air, such as insects, moths, mosquitoes, and earthworms. What is called apparitional birth refers to sentient beings who do not wait for three conditions, arising suddenly from nothing, complete with roots, without defects, and with limbs arising instantly, such as those in Naraka (hell) and Antarabhava (intermediate state). Apparitional birth includes both five aggregates and four aggregates, while the other three only use five aggregates as their substance. Some say that all are related to both Vipaka (result) and Nutriment. Some say that the substance of everything is only Vipaka. Humans and animals each have four types (of birth). Among humans, the oviparous are like Sela (Sela), Upasela (Upasela), born from crane eggs. The thirty-two sons born by Lady Deer, the twenty-five sons born by the daughter of Anathapindika (Anathapindika), and the five hundred sons of King Pancala (King Pancala), etc. Among humans, the viviparous are like people in the present world. Among humans, the moisture-born are like Mandhata (Mandhata), Caru (Caru), Upacaru (Upacaru), Kapotamali (Kapotamali), Amravati (Amravati), etc.
。人化生者。唯劫初人。此四生人。皆可得聖。得聖無受卵濕二生。以聖皆欣殊勝智見卵濕生類。性多愚癡。或諸卵生。生皆再度。故飛禽等。世號再生。聖怖多生。故無受義。濕生多分眾聚同生。聖怖雜居。故亦不受。傍生三種。現所共知。化生如龍妙翅鳥等。一切地獄諸天中有。皆唯化生。有說。餓鬼唯化生攝。有說。餓鬼亦有胎生。如餓鬼女白目連曰。
我夜生五子 隨生皆自食 晝生五亦然 雖盡而無飽
於四生內。何者最多。有說濕生。現見多故。設有肉等聚廣無邊。下越三輪。上過五凈。容遍其量頓變為蟲。是故濕生多餘三種。有餘師說。化生最多。謂二趣全。三趣少分。及諸中有。皆化生故。一切生中。何生最勝。應言最勝唯是化生。支分諸根。圓具猛利。身形微妙。故勝餘生。若爾何緣後身菩薩得生自在。不受化生。見受胎生。有大利故。謂為引道諸大釋種。親屬相因。入正法故。又令所化生增上心。彼既是人。能成大義。我曹亦爾。何為不能。因發正勤。修正法故。若化生者。恐疑是天。佛轉法輪。便成無用。謂天所轉。還被天機。唯天能知。非人所了。由斯自蔑。于正法輪。不起正勤勇猛思擇。又令余類生敬慕心。舍俗出家。勤修正行。謂知菩薩生貴族中。能捨尊位。出家修道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 人化生（由變化而生）者，只有劫初（世界開始形成的時期）的人。這四種（胎生、卵生、濕生、化生）生命形式的人，都可以證得聖果。證得聖果的人不會是卵生或濕生，因為聖者都欣求殊勝的智慧和見解，而卵生和濕生的眾生，天性大多愚癡。或者有些卵生生物，一生會經歷多次生命，所以飛禽等，世俗稱之為『再生』。聖者畏懼多次生死輪迴，所以不會選擇卵生或濕生。 濕生生物大多是群體聚集而生，聖者畏懼混雜居住，所以也不會選擇濕生。傍生（畜生）有三種，現在大家都知道。化生，比如龍、妙翅鳥等，以及所有的地獄眾生、諸天眾生和中有（中陰身），都只有化生。有人說，餓鬼也屬於化生。也有人說，餓鬼也有胎生，比如餓鬼女對目連（Maudgalyāyana）說： 『我夜裡生五個孩子，生下來就被自己吃掉；白天也生五個，也是這樣，雖然吃光了，卻永遠吃不飽。』 在四種生命形式中，哪一種最多？有人說是濕生，因為現在看到的很多。假設有一堆肉等聚集在一起，廣闊無邊，下越過三輪（風輪、水輪、金輪），上超過五凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa），能夠容納的範圍內的東西都一下子變成蟲子。所以濕生比其他三種生命形式多。 有其他老師說，化生最多。因為地獄道和天道全部，以及畜生道、餓鬼道、人道的一部分，以及所有的中有身，都是化生。 在所有生命形式中，哪一種最殊勝？應該說最殊勝的是化生。因為化生的肢體和諸根，圓滿具足，猛利，身形微妙，所以勝過其他生命形式。如果這樣，為什麼後身的菩薩（Bodhisattva）能夠自在地選擇出生方式，而不接受化生，而是選擇胎生呢？因為胎生有很大的利益。爲了引導諸大釋迦（Śākya）種姓的人，親屬之間相互影響，進入正法。又讓所教化的人產生增上心，他們既然是人，能夠成就大的意義，我們也可以。因此發起精進心，修正法。如果是化生，恐怕會被懷疑是天人，佛（Buddha）轉法輪（Dharmacakra），就會變得沒有用處。因為天人所轉的法輪，還是會被天人的根機所限制，只有天人才能理解，不是人所能理解的。因此自我輕視，對於正法輪，不會發起精進勇猛的思考和選擇。又讓其他眾生生起敬慕之心，捨棄世俗，出家修行。因為知道菩薩出生在貴族中，能夠捨棄尊貴的地位，出家修道。
【English Translation】 English version Those who are born by transformation (spontaneously born) are only the people at the beginning of the kalpa (the period when the world began to form). People of these four types of birth (womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born) can all attain sainthood. Those who attain sainthood are not born from eggs or moisture, because saints all seek excellent wisdom and insight, while beings born from eggs and moisture are mostly foolish by nature. Or some egg-born beings experience multiple lives, so birds, etc., are commonly called 'reborn' in the world. Saints fear multiple births and deaths, so they do not choose egg-birth or moisture-birth. Moisture-born beings mostly live in groups, and saints fear living in mixed company, so they do not choose moisture-birth. There are three types of animals (beasts), which everyone knows now. Transformation-born beings, such as dragons, Garuda (Suparṇa), etc., and all hell beings, all heavenly beings, and the intermediate state (antarābhava), are all only transformation-born. Some say that hungry ghosts are also included in transformation-birth. Others say that hungry ghosts are also womb-born, such as the hungry ghost woman who said to Maudgalyāyana: 'I give birth to five children at night, and each one is eaten by myself as soon as it is born; I give birth to five during the day as well, and it is the same, although I eat them all, I am never full.' Among the four types of birth, which is the most numerous? Some say it is moisture-born, because we see so many of them now. Suppose there is a pile of meat, etc., gathered together, boundless and vast, extending below the three wheels (wind wheel, water wheel, gold wheel) and above the five Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa), everything within its capacity suddenly turns into insects. Therefore, moisture-born beings are more numerous than the other three types. Other teachers say that transformation-born beings are the most numerous. Because the entire hell realm and the entire heaven realm, as well as a portion of the animal realm, the hungry ghost realm, and the human realm, and all intermediate beings, are transformation-born. Among all types of birth, which is the most superior? It should be said that the most superior is transformation-birth. Because the limbs and faculties of transformation-born beings are complete, sharp, and their bodies are subtle, so they are superior to other types of birth. If so, why is it that a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) in his last life can freely choose his birth and does not accept transformation-birth, but chooses womb-birth? Because womb-birth has great benefits. In order to guide the people of the great Śākya (Śākya) clan, relatives influence each other, and enter the true Dharma. It also allows those who are taught to develop an enhanced mind, since they are human beings, they can accomplish great meaning, and so can we. Therefore, they generate diligence and cultivate the true Dharma. If it were transformation-birth, there would be fear of being suspected of being a deva (god), and the Buddha's (Buddha) turning of the Dharma wheel (Dharmacakra) would become useless. Because the Dharma wheel turned by the devas would still be limited by the faculties of the devas, and only devas could understand it, not humans. Therefore, they would belittle themselves and not generate diligent and vigorous thought and choice regarding the true Dharma. It also allows other beings to develop a sense of admiration, abandon the secular world, and practice diligently. Because they know that the Bodhisattva was born into a noble family and was able to abandon his honorable position and become a monk to cultivate the path.
。成等正覺。轉大法輪。我等何為不生欣仰。因茲舍俗修正行故。又為摧伏憍慢眾生。令知世尊是輪王種。屬斯隆貴。憍慢山崩。聞說敬承無疑謗故。若化生者。種族難知。恐疑幻化。為天為鬼。如外道論矯設謗言。過百劫后。當有大幻出現於世。啖食世間。又與化生時不同故。謂佛出世。人無化生。人化生時。佛不出世。有作是說。為饒益他。故受胎生。擬留身界。令無量眾一供養因。千返生天。及證解脫。化生才殞。無復遺形。如滅燈光。即無所屬。此中經主。作如是難。若人信佛。有持愿通。能久留身。此不成釋。今謂此釋其理必成。通所留身。非佛功德力無畏等所依熏故。不能廣大饒益世間所以然者。是可留法。通愿能留。一切化生如剎那法。必無留義。謂諸有為。剎那定滅。諸佛神力。亦不能留。設欲久留。即須別化。此所別化。非佛功德力無畏等之所依熏。故於世間。無大饒益。若不爾者。佛應化為如本身形。受諸供養。令無量眾生天解脫。故我所稟。毗婆沙師咸作是言。後身菩薩為利他故。不受化生。此義極成。不可傾動。化生何故死無遺形。由彼頓生。故應頓滅。如戲水者出沒亦然。毗婆沙師說。化生者造色多故。死無遺形。大種多者。死非頓滅。即由此義。可以證知。一四大種。生多造色。若爾便
與契經相違。經說。化生諸妙翅鳥。為充所食。取化生龍。由彼不了。取擬充食。不說除饑。斯有何咎。是故但說為食取龍不言此龍有成食用。或龍未死。暫得充飢。死已還饑。暫食何咎。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之三
已辯四生。前說地獄諸天中有。唯是化生。此中何法說名中有。何緣中有非即名生。頌曰。
死生二有中 五蘊名中有 未至應至處 故中有非生
論曰。于死有後。在生有前。即彼中間。有自體起。為至生處。故起此身。二有中間。故名中有。如何此有。體有起歿。而不名生。又此有身。為從業得。為自體有。從業得者。此應名生。業為生因。契經說故。自體有者。此應無因。則同無因。外道論失。是故中有。應即名生。生謂當來所應至處。依所至義。建立生名。此中有身體雖起歿。而未至彼。故不名生。體謂此中異熟五蘊。此但名起。不說為生。死生有中暫時起故。或復生者。是所起義。中有能起。所以非生。所起者何。謂業所引。異熟五蘊。究竟分明。以業為生因。契經說故。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 與契經（Sutra）相違背。經中說，化生的妙翅鳥（Garuda，一種神鳥）爲了滿足食物的需求，會抓取化生的龍（Naga）。由於那些人不明瞭這一點，認為抓取龍是爲了完全滿足食物需求，而沒有考慮到僅僅是暫時充飢。這有什麼過錯呢？因此，經中只說是爲了食物而抓取龍，並沒有說這些龍會成為完全的食物。或者龍還沒有死，只是暫時充飢，死了之後仍然會飢餓。暫時食用又有什麼過錯呢？
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十二 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之三
已經辨析了四生（caturyoni）。前面說過地獄（Naraka）、諸天（Deva）、中有（Antarabhava）都只是化生（upapaduka）。這裡什麼法被稱為中有？為什麼中有不直接稱為生（jati）？頌文說：
死生二有中 五蘊名中有 未至應至處 故中有非生
論曰：在死有（cyuti-bhava）之後，在生有（upapatti-bhava）之前，就在這中間，有自體生起，爲了到達將要出生的處所，所以生起這個身體。在兩個『有』的中間，所以叫做中有。這個『有』是如何存在的，它的體性是如何生起和消滅的，卻不叫做『生』呢？而且這個有身，是從業（karma）而得的，還是自體就有的？如果是從業而得的，這應該叫做『生』，因為業是生的原因，契經（Sutra）中是這麼說的。如果是自體就有的，這應該沒有原因，那就和無因外道的理論一樣了。所以，中有應該就是『生』。『生』是指將來應該到達的地方，依據所到達的意義，建立『生』這個名稱。這個中有身體雖然生起和消滅，但是還沒有到達那個地方，所以不叫做『生』。體性是指這其中的異熟五蘊（vipaka-skandha）。這只是叫做生起，不說是『生』，因為在死有和生有中間暫時生起。或者說，『生』是所生起的意思，中有能夠生起，所以不是『生』。所生起的是什麼呢？就是業所牽引的，異熟五蘊，究竟分明。因為業是生的原因，契經中是這麼說的。這個...
【English Translation】 English version It contradicts the Sutras (契經). The Sutras say that the Garuda (妙翅鳥, a mythical bird), born by transformation, in order to satisfy its need for food, captures the Naga (龍, a mythical serpent) also born by transformation. Because those people do not understand this, they think that capturing the Naga is to completely satisfy the need for food, without considering that it is only a temporary satiation. What fault is there in this? Therefore, the Sutras only say that the Naga is captured for food, without saying that these Nagas will become complete food. Or the Naga has not yet died, but is only temporarily satiated; after it dies, it will still be hungry. What fault is there in temporarily eating?
T29 No. 1562 Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra (說一切有部順正理論) - Scroll 22 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra
Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra (阿毗達磨順正理論) - Scroll 23
Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian (眾賢)
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘) under Imperial Decree
Chapter 3, Section 3: Explanation of Dependent Origination (辯緣起品)
The four types of birth (caturyoni) have already been discussed. It was previously said that beings in hell (Naraka), the heavens (Deva), and the intermediate state (Antarabhava) are all born by transformation (upapaduka). What dharma is called the intermediate state here? Why is the intermediate state not directly called birth (jati)? The verse says:
In between death and birth, the five aggregates are called the intermediate state. Not yet arrived at the place to be arrived at, therefore the intermediate state is not birth.
Treatise: After the death-existence (cyuti-bhava), before the birth-existence (upapatti-bhava), in that intermediate period, there is a self-arising. In order to reach the place of birth, this body arises. In the middle of the two 'existences,' it is called the intermediate state. How does this 'existence' exist, how does its nature arise and cease, and yet it is not called 'birth'? Moreover, is this body of existence obtained from karma (karma), or does it exist by itself? If it is obtained from karma, this should be called 'birth,' because karma is the cause of birth, as the Sutras say. If it exists by itself, this should have no cause, which would be the same as the theory of causelessness of the non-Buddhist. Therefore, the intermediate state should be 'birth.' 'Birth' refers to the place to be arrived at in the future. Based on the meaning of what is arrived at, the name 'birth' is established. Although this body of the intermediate state arises and ceases, it has not yet arrived at that place, so it is not called 'birth.' The nature refers to the five aggregates of resultant (vipaka-skandha) in this. This is only called arising, not 'birth,' because it arises temporarily in the middle of death-existence and birth-existence. Or, 'birth' is the meaning of what is arisen. The intermediate state is able to arise, so it is not 'birth.' What is arisen? It is the five aggregates of resultant, led by karma, ultimately distinct and clear. Because karma is the cause of birth, as the Sutras say. This...
應名生者。其理不然。不說業為因皆名為生。故契經說。有補特伽羅。已斷起結。未斷生結。廣說四句。由是準知。有順中有非生有業。此業所得。不說為生。故與彼經無相違過。此既與生同一業引。如何中有名起非生。豈不前說。所至所趣。乃說為生。中有不爾。又一業果多故無失。如一念業有多念果。一無色業。色無色果。如是一業所引之果。有生有起。理何相違。有餘部師。執無中有。有與理教並相違故。理相違者。前蘊滅處。后異即生。俱有過故。謂若異處前蘊滅已。異處後生則無中有。如何不許死有無間即于異處生有蘊生。若於此處。前蘊滅已。此處後生。亦無中有。是則應許。死有無間。即於此處。生有蘊生。如是中有。異前滅處。若生不生。皆無用故。死有無間。生有即生。其理極成。故無中有。又曾不說中有業故。謂有經說。順現受等三業不同。曾無契經說有第四順中有業。不可說中有無業而生。勿一切無因自然生故。又應諸有情皆具神通故。謂離功用。一切有情。皆應性得神通自在。然多用功。少有成辦。是故中有。理定應無。又許有死生有應成。謂要有生方有死故。若許有死不由產生。有太過失。謂于諸趣。雖無頓生。應有頓死。無生有死。理極相違。又取有無俱成失故。謂死無間取中有不若取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 認為『應名生』（merely nominal birth）是這種情況，道理是不對的。不能說以業為因的都叫做『生』。所以契經上說，有補特伽羅（pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』），已經斷了『起結』（arising fetters），但還沒有斷『生結』（becoming fetters），並廣泛地說了四種情況。由此可以推知，有順於中有的業，但不是生有的業。這種業所得到的果報，不能叫做『生』，所以和那部經文沒有相違背的過失。既然這（中有）和『生』是同一個業所牽引，為什麼中有隻是『起』而不是『生』呢？難道前面不是說過，所至之處、所趣之處，才叫做『生』嗎？中有不是這樣。而且一個業可以有多個果報，所以沒有過失。比如一個念頭的業可以產生多個念頭的果報，一個無色界的業可以產生色界和無色界的果報。同樣，一個業所牽引的果報，有的是『生』，有的是『起』，道理上有什麼相違背的呢？ 有些分別論者，認為沒有中有。這在道理和教義上都是相違背的。在道理上相違背，是因為前一蘊滅之處，后一蘊立即在異處產生，這樣就都有過失。如果異處前一蘊滅后，異處后一蘊生，就沒有中有。為什麼不允許死有（dying state）無間斷地在異處產生生有（birth state）的蘊呢？如果在此處，前一蘊滅后，此處后一蘊生，也沒有中有。那就應該允許死有無間斷地在此處產生生有的蘊。這樣，中有如果和前一蘊滅處不同，無論生還是不生，都沒有用處。死有無間斷地，生有就產生了，這個道理是極成立的，所以沒有中有。 而且從來沒有說過有中有的業。因為有經文說，順現受等三種業不同，從來沒有契經說過有第四種順中有業。不能說中有沒有業而產生，否則一切都成了無因自然產生了。而且應該一切有情都具有神通。因為離開了功用，一切有情都應該天生具有神通自在。然而多數人費了很大力氣，也很少有人能夠成就。所以，中有，在道理上一定是不應該有的。 而且如果允許有死有和生有，就應該成立『要有生才有死』。如果允許有死不由生而產生，就有太大的過失。比如在各個趣（gati，生命輪迴的道途）中，即使沒有頓生，也應該有頓死。沒有生而有死，道理上是極相違背的。而且取有和無有都會造成過失。因為死無間斷地取中有，如果不取
【English Translation】 English version The idea that 『merely nominal birth』 (應名生) is the case is not correct. It cannot be said that everything caused by karma is called 『birth』. Therefore, the sutras say that there are pudgalas (補特伽羅, meaning 『person』 or 『sentient being』) who have severed the 『arising fetters』 (起結) but have not severed the 『becoming fetters』 (生結), and extensively describe four situations. From this, it can be inferred that there is karma that leads to the intermediate state (中有), but it is not karma that leads to birth. The result obtained from this karma cannot be called 『birth』, so there is no contradiction with that sutra. Since this (intermediate state) and 『birth』 are drawn by the same karma, why is the intermediate state only 『arising』 and not 『birth』? Didn't we say earlier that the place reached and the place approached are called 『birth』? The intermediate state is not like that. Moreover, one karma can have multiple results, so there is no fault. For example, the karma of one thought can produce the results of multiple thoughts, and the karma of one formless realm can produce the results of both the form realm and the formless realm. Similarly, the results drawn by one karma, some are 『birth』 and some are 『arising』, what contradiction is there in principle? Some Sarvastivadins (分別論者) believe that there is no intermediate state. This contradicts both reason and doctrine. The contradiction in reason is because at the place where the previous aggregate ceases, the next aggregate immediately arises in a different place, and this has faults. If after the previous aggregate ceases in a different place, the next aggregate arises in a different place, there is no intermediate state. Why is it not allowed that the dying state (死有) arises without interruption in a different place as the birth state (生有)? If in this place, after the previous aggregate ceases, the next aggregate arises in this place, there is also no intermediate state. Then it should be allowed that the dying state arises without interruption in this place as the birth state. In this way, if the intermediate state is different from the place where the previous aggregate ceases, whether it arises or not, it is useless. The dying state arises without interruption, and the birth state arises, this principle is extremely established, so there is no intermediate state. Moreover, it has never been said that there is karma for the intermediate state. Because there are sutras that say that the three types of karma, such as karma to be experienced in the present life, are different, and no sutra has ever said that there is a fourth type of karma that leads to the intermediate state. It cannot be said that the intermediate state arises without karma, otherwise everything would arise naturally without cause. And all sentient beings should have supernatural powers. Because apart from effort, all sentient beings should be born with supernatural powers and freedom. However, most people put in a lot of effort, and few people can achieve it. Therefore, the intermediate state, in principle, should definitely not exist. Moreover, if the dying state and the birth state are allowed, it should be established that 『there must be birth before there is death』. If it is allowed that death arises without being caused by birth, there is a great fault. For example, in the various gati (趣, paths of rebirth), even if there is no sudden birth, there should be sudden death. There is no birth but there is death, which is extremely contradictory in principle. Moreover, taking existence and non-existence will both cause faults. Because the intermediate state is taken without interruption after death, if it is not taken
應生。經所說故。如契經說。若舍此身。更取余身。我記生故。如其不取應般涅槃。既般涅槃。何有中有。又彼應有無窮過故。謂死生間。既有中有。生中中死兩隙寧無。設有便成無窮過失。如是略辯與理相違。與教相違。今次當說。謂世尊說。預流有情。極於七有。若有中有。世尊應言極十四有。又無間業。應成有間。謂契經言。五無間業。作已無間生地獄中。若隔中有。違無間義。又有中住。契經所遮。謂契經說。
再生汝今過盛位 至衰將近琰魔王 欲往前路無資糧 求住中間無所止
若有中有。如何世尊言。彼中間無有所止。又彼非為宿住智緣。謂契經言。知宿住者。言我彼歿來生此間。不言彼歿曾生中有。由與如是理教相違。故知定無中有可得。前宗所執。略述如是。今謂一切皆非證因。且彼初說。前蘊滅處。后異即生。俱有過者。此難非理。許鄰死處中有生故。謂許中有於前死處。非隔非即鄰次而起。如是後後。乃至結生。恒鄰次起。故無前失。至辯自宗。當更顯示。又言不說中有業者。理亦不然。有處說故。謂契經說。我由如是雜滓穢身所造惡業。愿令一切皆成現受。勿隨勿生勿后當受。豈不隨言即顯中有。謂現身後。方便異熟。順生順后。總說名隨。中有名為方便異熟。以有惡業順
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 答：應該有中有（Antarabhava，指死亡和投生之間的過渡期），因為經文是這樣說的。例如，《契經》（Sutra，佛經）中說：『如果捨棄此身，再取另一個身體，我能記得前世的事情。』因為記得前世，所以如果沒有中有，就應該直接般涅槃（Parinirvana，指完全的涅槃，不再輪迴）。既然已經般涅槃，怎麼還會有中有呢？而且，如果承認有中有，就會有無窮的過失。也就是說，死亡和出生之間既然有中有，那麼出生和中有之間、中有和死亡之間，難道就沒有間隔嗎？如果存在間隔，就會造成無窮的過失。像這樣簡略地辯論，既不符合道理，也不符合佛教的教義。 現在我來解釋正確的觀點。世尊（Bhagavan，佛的尊稱）說過，預流（Srotapanna，佛教修行的一個階段）的有情（Sattva，眾生），最多經歷七次生死。如果有中有，世尊就應該說最多經歷十四次生死。而且，無間業（Anantarika-karma，指會導致立即受報的惡業）就會變成有間業。因為《契經》中說，五無間業，造作之後會立即墮入地獄。如果隔著中有，就違背了『無間』的含義。而且，有中有存在，也被契經所否定。《契經》中說： 『再生啊，你現在已經過了鼎盛時期，接近衰老，閻魔王（Yama，掌管死亡的神）就要來臨。想要前往來世，卻沒有資糧；想要停留在中間，卻沒有可以停留的地方。』 如果有中有，世尊怎麼會說『中間沒有可以停留的地方』呢？而且，中有也不是宿住智（Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana，回憶前世的能力）的緣起。因為《契經》中說，知道宿世的人會說：『我從那裡死後，來到這裡。』而不會說『我從那裡死後，曾經生於中有。』由於與這樣的道理和教義相違背，所以可以肯定沒有中有存在。前面宗派所堅持的觀點，簡略地敘述如上。我認為這些都不是有力的證據。他們最初說，前一蘊（Skandha，構成個體的要素）滅盡的地方，后一蘊立即產生，這兩種情況都有過失。這個責難是不合理的，因為我們承認在臨近死亡的地方，中有就會產生。也就是說，我們承認中有在前一死亡之處，既不是完全相同，也不是完全不同，而是緊鄰著產生。像這樣，後後相續，乃至結生（Pratisandhi，指投胎），都是緊鄰著產生，所以沒有之前的過失。等到辯論我們自己的宗派時，會更詳細地說明。 而且，說經文中沒有提到中有所造的業，這個說法也不合理，因為有些地方提到了。例如，《契經》中說：『我由這樣雜亂污穢的身體所造的惡業，愿讓一切都變成現世受報，不要跟隨我，不要讓我再生，不要在以後受報。』難道『跟隨』這個詞不是指中有嗎？也就是說，現世之後，方便異熟（Upaya-vipaka，指通過方便手段成熟的果報），順著生世和後世，總的來說叫做『跟隨』。中有就叫做方便異熟，因為有惡業順著...
【English Translation】 English version: Reply: There should be an Antarabhava (intermediate state, referring to the transitional period between death and rebirth), because the scriptures say so. For example, the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'If I abandon this body and take another, I can remember past lives.' Because I remember past lives, if there were no Antarabhava, one should directly attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana, no more reincarnation). Since one has already attained Parinirvana, how can there still be an Antarabhava? Moreover, if one admits the existence of Antarabhava, there will be infinite faults. That is to say, since there is an Antarabhava between death and birth, wouldn't there be intervals between birth and Antarabhava, and between Antarabhava and death? If there are intervals, it will lead to infinite faults. Such a brief debate is neither in accordance with reason nor with Buddhist teachings. Now I will explain the correct view. The Bhagavan (the Blessed One, an honorific for the Buddha) said that a Srotapanna (stream-enterer, a stage of Buddhist practice) being, at most, experiences seven births and deaths. If there is an Antarabhava, the Bhagavan should have said that at most, one experiences fourteen births and deaths. Moreover, Anantarika-karma (deeds that lead to immediate retribution) would become interrupted karma. Because the Sutra says that the five Anantarika-karmas, after being committed, immediately lead to rebirth in hell. If separated by an Antarabhava, it violates the meaning of 'immediate'. Furthermore, the existence of an intermediate state is also denied by the Sutra. The Sutra says: 'Rebirth, you have now passed your prime, approaching old age, and Yama (the lord of death) is about to come. If you want to go to the next life, you have no provisions; if you want to stay in the middle, you have nowhere to stay.' If there is an Antarabhava, how could the Bhagavan say that 'there is nowhere to stay in the middle'? Moreover, the Antarabhava is not the cause of Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana (the ability to recall past lives). Because the Sutra says that those who know past lives will say: 'I died there and came here.' They will not say 'I died there and was once born in the Antarabhava.' Because it contradicts such reason and teachings, it can be affirmed that there is no Antarabhava. The views insisted upon by the previous school are briefly described above. I believe that these are not strong evidence. They initially said that where the previous Skandha (aggregate, the elements that constitute an individual) ceases, the next Skandha immediately arises, and both situations have faults. This criticism is unreasonable, because we admit that in the vicinity of death, the Antarabhava arises. That is to say, we admit that the Antarabhava arises in the previous place of death, neither completely the same nor completely different, but immediately adjacent. In this way, subsequent successions, up to Pratisandhi (rebirth), arise immediately adjacent, so there is no previous fault. When we debate our own school, we will explain it in more detail. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that the scriptures do not mention the karma created by the Antarabhava, because some places do mention it. For example, the Sutra says: 'The evil karma created by this mixed and impure body, I wish that everything would become retribution in this life, do not follow me, do not let me be reborn, do not let me receive retribution in the future.' Doesn't the word 'follow' refer to the Antarabhava? That is to say, after this life, Upaya-vipaka (the fruition matured through expedient means), following birth and future lives, is generally called 'follow'. The Antarabhava is called Upaya-vipaka, because there is evil karma following...
中有受。故發遮愿。說勿隨言。或業能招當所往趣。此即能感中有異熟。中生二有。一業所牽。如前已辯。故中有業。不可言無。然佛世尊。略說三種分位定業。感中有業。攝在其中。故不別說。又言諸有情應具神通者。亦不違理。此位有故。若中有位。一切有情。具業成通。斯亦何咎。非此位有。例余皆然。勿一時間作野乾等。或異生類。則例恒然。或應汝曹謗中有者。許有情類皆具神通。謂諸有情。於此處歿。能超無量億逾繕那極遠處生。都無障礙。此外何有餘大神通。又言許有死生有應成者。此難亦不然。許生差別故。應理論者。于生差別。立中有名非即生有。如往人趣。于未到間。有生差別。是生方便。未名人趣。已得名人。未到所應生。一業所引故。由此故無諸趣頓死。許中有是生方便故。由此亦答取有無因。于取差別。名中有故。非此中身言意唯說色。亦見於非色說身言故。謂三有中。生及差別。總名生故。言舍此身更取余身。記生何咎。若謂唯說色法名身。有舍此身取無色者。豈薄伽梵不記為生。設許色身。亦無有失。舍此身已。更取余身。佛但記為生。不言生有故。非唯生有可記為生。以立生名但遮死故。如言師雨豈即同天。又此不應有無窮失。許鄰次起。無此失故。若死中有處隔而生。可如所言有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中有（Antarabhava，指死亡和投生之間的過渡期）存在。因此，佛陀發願遮止惡業，告誡我們不要隨意說話。或者說，業力能夠招感我們前往的趣向，這就是能夠感生中有異熟果報的業力。中有和生有是兩種存在狀態。一種是被業力牽引，如前文已經辨析過的。所以，中有之業是不可否認的。然而，佛陀世尊只是簡略地說了三種分位的定業，感生中有的業力就包含在其中，所以沒有單獨說明。還有，說所有有情都應該具有神通，這也不違背道理，因為中有位就具有這種能力。如果所有有情在中有的階段都具有業力所成的神通，這又有什麼過錯呢？不能因為這個階段有，就推斷其他階段也必然如此。不要一時看到野乾等異類眾生，就認為所有時候都是這樣。或者，你們這些誹謗中有的人，應該承認有情都具有神通。因為有情在此處死亡后，能夠超越無量億逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）的極遠之處投生，沒有任何障礙。除了這種能力，還有什麼更大的神通呢？ 又說，如果承認有死有和生有，就應該承認有應成（Prasaṅga，一種邏輯推理方法）的過失，這種責難也是不成立的，因為承認生有差別。應理論者，在生有差別的基礎上，建立了中有的名稱，但它並不是即生有。比如前往人趣，在未到達之前，存在生的差別，這是生的方便，還沒有被稱為人趣，已經可以被稱為人。還沒有到達所應投生的地方，是被業力所牽引的緣故。因此，不會出現所有趣向同時死亡的情況，因為承認中有是生的方便。由此也回答了取有無因的問題，在取有的差別上，稱為中有。並非這個中有的身和意只說是色法，因為在非色法中也看到了身這個詞。所謂三有中，生和差別，總稱為生。說捨棄此身，更取余身，記載為生有什麼過錯呢？如果說只有色法才能稱為身，那麼捨棄此身而取無色身的人，難道薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊的尊稱）不記載為生嗎？即使承認是色身，也沒有什麼過失。捨棄此身之後，更取余身，佛陀只是記載為生，沒有說是生有。所以，不是隻有生有才能被記載為生，因為建立生的名稱只是爲了遮止死。比如，說師子雨，難道就等同於天降雨嗎？ 而且，這不應該有無窮的過失，因為承認是鄰次生起，所以沒有這種過失。如果死亡和中有之間存在間隔而生，可能會像你所說的那樣存在問題。
【English Translation】 English version There is an intermediate existence (Antarabhava). Therefore, the Buddha made a vow to prevent evil deeds and warned us not to speak carelessly. Alternatively, karma can attract us to the destination we are going to, and this is the karma that can generate the heterogeneous fruition of the intermediate existence. The intermediate existence and the birth existence are two states of existence. One is drawn by karma, as has been analyzed before. Therefore, the karma of the intermediate existence cannot be denied. However, the Buddha, the World Honored One, only briefly mentioned the fixed karma of three divisions, and the karma that generates the intermediate existence is included in it, so it is not explained separately. Furthermore, saying that all sentient beings should have supernatural powers is not against reason, because the intermediate existence has this ability. If all sentient beings in the intermediate existence stage have supernatural powers achieved by karma, what is wrong with that? One cannot infer that other stages are necessarily the same because this stage exists. Do not think that all times are like this just because you see jackals and other different kinds of beings at one time. Or, you who slander the intermediate existence should admit that sentient beings have supernatural powers. Because sentient beings, after dying here, can be reborn beyond countless billions of yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of length) without any obstacles. What greater supernatural power is there besides this ability? Furthermore, saying that if one admits that there is death existence and birth existence, one should admit that there is the fault of consequentialism (Prasaṅga), this accusation is also not valid, because one admits that there is a difference in birth existence. Those who theorize, based on the difference in birth existence, established the name of the intermediate existence, but it is not immediately the birth existence. For example, when going to the realm of humans, before arriving, there is a difference in birth, which is a convenience for birth. It has not yet been called the realm of humans, but it can already be called a human. Not yet arriving at the place where one should be reborn is because one is drawn by karma. Therefore, the situation where all destinies die at the same time will not occur, because it is admitted that the intermediate existence is a convenience for birth. This also answers the question of taking existence without cause, and the difference in taking existence is called the intermediate existence. It is not that the body and mind of this intermediate existence only refer to form, because the word 'body' is also seen in non-form. In the so-called three existences, birth and difference are collectively called birth. What is wrong with recording it as birth when saying that one abandons this body and takes another body? If one says that only form can be called a body, then for those who abandon this body and take a formless body, wouldn't the Bhagavan (the Blessed One) record it as birth? Even if one admits that it is a form body, there is no fault. After abandoning this body, one takes another body, and the Buddha only records it as birth, without saying that it is birth existence. Therefore, it is not only birth existence that can be recorded as birth, because establishing the name of birth is only to prevent death. For example, saying that a lion rains, does it mean that it is the same as rain from the sky? Moreover, this should not have the fault of infinity, because it is admitted that it arises in sequence, so there is no such fault. If there is a gap between death and the intermediate existence, and then birth occurs, there may be problems as you said.
無窮失。然死中有鄰次而生。既無中間。更立何用。故無窮過。非預我宗。又以我宗立有中有。則令中有更有中有。如是汝宗。唯立生有。亦應生有更有生有。彼此過同。不應為難。如是且破遮中有理。次當辯釋遮中有教。經言預流極七有者。此于中有。亦無所違。說一期生為一有故。謂中有等。總名一期生。由形等同一業所引故。如是四有。總立一有名故。無預流極十四有過。一期生有。由少所因。依分位別。分為四有。或七有言。且依人趣生有而說。故亦無違。如汝宗中。亦許預流者受天七有。應成極十四。或彼意謂。極七有言。非欲別顯人天各七。但顯人天總唯七有。若爾應說預流有情生死馳流人天七有。經不應說預流有情生死馳流人天各七。故知經說極七有言。意顯人天各別有七。不應執此違余經故。經言具見補特伽羅。無處無容受第八有。無違經失。乘前經故。謂經前說。預流人天各受七有。定無第八。次言具見補特伽羅。無處無容受第八有。故彼所引極七有經。于中有宗。亦無違害。又言無間業應成有間者。亦不應理。遮異趣故。謂若有作無間業已。定無異趣隔。必生地獄中。我見此經。義意如是。或復中有亦地獄收。故無無間成有間失。必生地獄中有中故。或執中間少有所隔非無間者。則無間業。畢竟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無窮失：如果死亡之後緊接著就是下一生的開始，中間沒有任何過渡階段，那麼設立中有（Antarabhava，中陰身）還有什麼用呢？因此，無窮的過失不屬於我們的宗義。如果你們宗義認為存在『有中有』，那麼就會導致『有中有』還有『有中有』，無窮無盡。同樣，如果你們宗義只承認『生有』，那麼也應該承認『生有』之後還有『生有』，彼此的過失是一樣的，不應該以此來責難我們。 這樣就駁斥了遮止中有的道理。接下來應當解釋遮止中有的教義。《經》中說『預流者最多經歷七有』，這與中有並不衝突，因為經中將一期生命稱為『一有』。所謂中有等，總稱為一期生命，因為它們的形體等都是由同一業力所牽引。這樣，四有總共構成一個『有』，因此不會出現預流者最多經歷十四有的過失。一期生命有，由於所依賴的因很少，根據分位的不同，可以分為四有。或者說七有，只是根據人趣的生有而說的，因此也沒有衝突。就像你們宗義中，也承認預流者可以經歷天道的七有，這樣就應該變成最多經歷十四有。或者他們認為，『最多經歷七有』，並不是要分別顯示人道和天道各有七有，而是顯示人天總共只有七有。如果是這樣，就應該說『預流有情在人天道中生死流轉，總共經歷七有』。經中不應該說『預流有情在人天道中生死流轉，人天各有七有』。因此，經中所說的『最多經歷七有』，是顯示人天各有七有，不應該以此來違背其他的經典。經中說『具見補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，指人或有情）沒有地方、沒有可能接受第八有』，這並沒有違背經典的過失，因為這是承接前面的經文。經文前面說，預流者在人天道中最多經歷七有，絕對沒有第八有。接著說，具見補特伽羅沒有地方、沒有可能接受第八有。因此，他們所引用的『最多經歷七有』的經典，對於中有宗來說，並沒有任何妨礙。 又說『無間業（Anantarya karma，指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、出佛身血、破和合僧五種罪業）應該變成有間』，這也是不合理的，因為這遮止了異趣。如果有人造了無間業，那麼一定不會被其他趣隔開，必定會墮入地獄。我認為這部經的意義是這樣的。或者，中有也屬於地獄所攝，因此不會出現無間業變成有間的過失，因為必定會生在地獄的中有中。或者認為中間稍微有所隔開就不是無間，那麼無間業就徹底不存在了。
【English Translation】 English version: The fault of infinity: If death is immediately followed by the next life, without any intermediate stage, then what is the use of establishing the Antarabhava (intermediate state)? Therefore, the fault of infinity does not belong to our doctrine. If your doctrine holds that there is an 'existence within existence,' then it would lead to an infinite regress of 'existence within existence.' Similarly, if your doctrine only acknowledges 'birth existence,' then it should also acknowledge 'birth existence' followed by 'birth existence.' The faults are the same, and you should not use this to criticize us. Thus, the reasoning that refutes the existence of the intermediate state is refuted. Next, we should explain the teachings that refute the existence of the intermediate state. The Sutra says, 'A Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) at most experiences seven existences.' This does not contradict the intermediate state, because the Sutra refers to one lifetime as 'one existence.' The intermediate state, etc., are collectively called one lifetime, because their form, etc., are all driven by the same karma. In this way, the four existences together constitute one 'existence,' so there is no fault of a Stream-enterer experiencing at most fourteen existences. One lifetime existence, due to the few causes it relies on, can be divided into four existences according to different stages. Or the term 'seven existences' is used, which is only based on the birth existence of the human realm, so there is no contradiction. Just like in your doctrine, you also acknowledge that a Stream-enterer can experience seven existences in the heavens, which should then become at most fourteen existences. Or they think that 'at most experiences seven existences' does not specifically show that the human and heavenly realms each have seven existences, but shows that the human and heavenly realms together only have seven existences. If that is the case, then it should be said, 'A Stream-enterer transmigrates in the human and heavenly realms, experiencing a total of seven existences.' The Sutra should not say, 'A Stream-enterer transmigrates in the human and heavenly realms, each having seven existences.' Therefore, the Sutra's statement of 'at most experiences seven existences' shows that the human and heavenly realms each have seven separate existences, and should not be used to contradict other Sutras. The Sutra says, 'A Pudgala (person or sentient being) who has attained the vision of truth has no place, no possibility to receive an eighth existence.' This does not violate the Sutra, because it follows the previous Sutra. The previous Sutra said that a Stream-enterer at most experiences seven existences in the human and heavenly realms, and there is absolutely no eighth existence. Then it says that a Pudgala who has attained the vision of truth has no place, no possibility to receive an eighth existence. Therefore, the Sutra they cited about 'at most experiences seven existences' does not pose any obstacle to the doctrine of the intermediate state. Furthermore, saying that 'Anantarya karma (karma of immediate retribution, referring to the five heinous crimes of killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an Arhat, shedding the blood of a Buddha, and causing disunity in the Sangha) should become interrupted' is also unreasonable, because it prevents different destinies. If someone has committed Anantarya karma, then they will definitely not be separated by other destinies and will definitely fall into hell. I think the meaning of this Sutra is like this. Or, the intermediate state also belongs to hell, so there is no fault of Anantarya karma becoming interrupted, because one will definitely be born in the intermediate state of hell. Or, if one thinks that a slight separation in between is not immediate, then Anantarya karma would not exist at all.
應無。定無有造無間業已不隔剎那鄰次即生地獄中故。若謂經說身壞無間生地獄故無斯過者。此亦不然。剎那壞故。若言此壞據一期終。我亦言生但生中有。經言身壞生地獄中。不說即生地獄生有。故遮異趣。說無間言。若不許然。應無無間。是故所引無間業經。無有功能遮遣中有。經言身壞生地獄中。不說即生地獄生有。如何中有。由此證無。有如童豎戲設難言。若無間言。遮異趣者。則無中有。其理極成。自執中有異於趣故。許無間言遮異趣故。彼言非善。許義別故。說者意言遮異趣者。兩趣各別。故言異趣。如兩村異名為異村。非非趣攝名為異趣。豈如是類童豎戲言。能正推徴令證實義。故證中有決定為無。如是契經。非易可得。又此中有。定有義成。以但說此為無間故。若無中有。有惑有情。身壞無間皆受生有。經唯說此。則為唐捐。我釋此經。言無間者。為遮異趣中間為隔。及遮中有緣闕稽留。故此經言。深有義趣。除此餘業無此定遮。故不說彼為無間業。汝釋此經。為遮中有。則一切業。皆成無間。故汝應信中有義成。或撥此經。言成無義。又於此業。見無間言。即謂此言為遮中有。余許有間。中有應成。又余經中。說有中般。故此經意。應審思求。若但執文。有太過失。謂契經說。一類有情。於五無間
業。作及增長已。無間必定生那落迦。若但執文。應要具五方生地獄。非隨闕一或餘業因。便成太過。又言無間生那落迦。應作即生不待身壞。由此已釋遮中住經。謂佛誨言。汝從此歿。定速顛墜。無異趣生。于中有中。亦無暫止。若不爾者。一切有情。皆死即生。何獨遮此。故由此證。中有轉成。又言彼非為宿住智緣者。此亦非理。略標趣故。非宿住通不緣中有。然略標趣。故說此言。我從彼歿。來生於此。若異此者。彼亦應言。我受此生羯剌藍等。彼既不說。此亦應無。此既非無。中有應爾。或從彼歿。來生此言。已攝中有。此生攝故。如是餘部遮中有因。皆無勝力能遮中有。應理論師。作如是說。定有中有。由理教故。理教者何。頌曰。
如谷等相續 處無間續生 像實有不成 不等故非譬 一處無二並 非相續二生 說有健達縛 及五七經故
論曰。且由正理。中有非無。中有若無。則定非有從余處歿余處續生。未見世間相續轉法。處雖有間而可續生。既許有情從余處歿生於余處。則定應許中間連續中有非無。譬如世間谷等相續。現見谷等余處續生。必于中間處無間斷。故有情類相續亦然。剎那續生。處必無間。是故中有實有義成。豈不世間亦見有色處雖間斷而得續生。如鏡等中從
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：業，造作和增長之後，必定無間地生於那落迦（地獄）。如果僅僅執著于字面意思，就應該要具備五種條件才能生地獄，而不是缺少其中一個或因為其他業因。否則就太過分了。又說無間生於那落迦，應該是造作之後立即就生，不等待身壞。由此已經解釋了《遮中住經》，說佛告誡說：『你從此死後，必定迅速顛墜，不會生於其他趣，于中有（中陰身）中，也沒有暫時的停留。』如果不是這樣，一切有情都應該死後立即生，為何唯獨遮止這個人？所以由此證明，中有會轉成。又說『他不是爲了宿住智的緣故』，這也是沒有道理的，因為只是簡略地標明了趣向，而不是宿住智不能緣中有。然而因為簡略地標明了趣向，所以說了這樣的話：『我從那裡死後，來生於此。』如果不是這樣，他也應該說：『我受此生，從羯剌藍（受精卵）等開始。』他既然沒有這樣說，這裡也應該沒有。這裡既然不是沒有，中有就應該是這樣。或者說『從那裡死後，來生於此』這句話，已經包含了中有，因為此生包含了中有。像這樣，其他部派遮止中有的原因，都沒有足夠的力量來遮止中有。應理論師這樣說：『一定有中有，因為有道理和教證。』道理和教證是什麼呢？頌曰： 『如谷等相續，處無間續生，像實有不成，不等故非譬，一處無二並，非相續二生，說有健達縛（尋香），及五七經故。』 論曰：且由正理，中有非無。中有若無，則定非有從余處歿余處續生。未見世間相續轉法，處雖有間而可續生。既許有情從余處歿生於余處。則定應許中間連續中有非無。譬如世間谷等相續。現見谷等余處續生。必于中間處無間斷。故有情類相續亦然。剎那續生。處必無間。是故中有實有義成。豈不世間亦見有色處雖間斷而得續生。如鏡等中從
【English Translation】 English version: Karma, once created and increased, will definitely lead to an uninterrupted birth in Naraka (hell). If one clings only to the literal meaning, then all five conditions must be met to be born in hell, rather than lacking one or due to other karmic causes. Otherwise, it would be excessive. Furthermore, it is said that one is born in Naraka without interruption, meaning one is born immediately after the action, without waiting for the body to break down. This already explains the Shade of the Intermediate State Sutra, where the Buddha advises, 'After your death, you will surely fall quickly and not be born in another realm. In the Bardo (intermediate state), there will be no temporary stop.' If this were not the case, all sentient beings would be born immediately after death. Why single out this person? Therefore, this proves that the Bardo transforms. Furthermore, saying 'He is not for the sake of the wisdom of past lives' is also unreasonable because it only briefly indicates the destination, not that the wisdom of past lives cannot perceive the Bardo. However, because it briefly indicates the destination, it says, 'I died there and was born here.' If this were not the case, he should also say, 'I received this life, starting from Kalala (embryo).' Since he did not say that, there should be nothing here either. Since there is something here, the Bardo should be like this. Or saying 'Died there and was born here' already includes the Bardo because this life includes the Bardo. In this way, the reasons other schools use to deny the Bardo do not have enough power to deny the Bardo. The logician says, 'There must be a Bardo because there is reason and scriptural proof.' What are the reason and scriptural proof? The verse says: 'Like the continuity of grains, continuous birth without interruption, the image is not truly existent, not equal, therefore not an analogy, one place cannot have two simultaneously, not two births in succession, it is said there is a Gandharva (fragrance seeker), and five or seven periods.' The treatise says: Moreover, based on correct reasoning, the Bardo is not non-existent. If there were no Bardo, then there would definitely be no continuous birth from one place to another after death. We have not seen in the world that the continuous transformation of phenomena can continue to be born even if there is an interval in space. Since it is accepted that sentient beings die in one place and are born in another, it must be admitted that there is a continuous Bardo in between. For example, the continuity of grains in the world. It is evident that grains continue to be born in other places, and there must be no interruption in between. Therefore, the continuity of sentient beings is also the same. Birth continues in an instant, and there must be no interruption in space. Therefore, the existence of the Bardo is truly established. Is it not also seen in the world that colored objects can continue to be born even if there is an interval in space, such as in mirrors?
質生像。死生二有。理亦應然。經主此中。作如是釋。諸像實有理不成故。又非等故。為喻不成。謂別色生。說名為像。其體實有。理所不成。設成非等。故不成喻。何因像體實有不成。以一處所無二並故。彼謂一處鏡色及像。並見現前。二色不應同處並有。依異大故。又陜水上。兩岸色形。同處一時。俱現二像。居兩岸者。互見分明。曾無一處並見二色。不應謂此二色俱生。又影與光。未嘗同處。然曾見鏡懸置影中。光像顯然現於鏡面。不應於此謂二並生。或言一處無二並者。鏡面月像。謂之為二。近遠別見。如觀井水。若有並生。如何別見。故知諸像于理實無。然諸因緣和合勢力。令如是見。以諸法性功能差別難可思議。今謂彼因。不能遣像。故不能解破中有難。且彼所說以一處所無二故者。其理不然。同處壁光。俱可取故。雖壁光色異大為依。而於一時同處可取。不可亦撥在壁光無。由此例知映象俱有。故彼所說非遣像因。若謂光依日輪大種。故無過者。理亦不然。暖觸如光近可取故。又日光色應無依因。許離所依能依轉故。如是映象二色所依。大種雖殊。而可同處。故彼所說。依異大故。因證二處不同。言成無用。又諸大種其處應同。彼無所依大種異故。若有對故無斯過者。則不應以依異大故證映象色二處不
同。能造所造。有對同故。理但應言。映象二色俱有對故。同處不成。同處既無。何言一處鏡色及像並見現前。若言處異不可取者。理亦不然。前已說故。謂壁光色。亦同處可取。然有對故。理實處不同。雖處不同。而可同取。如光壁理。映象亦然。今且為仁。解同取理。謂彼像色。極清妙故。不能掩蔽所餘諸色。以鏡與像最極相鄰。起增上慢。謂同處取。如雲母等。極清妙色所隔諸餘色。若極相鄰。便起增上慢。謂同處取。或如前說。光壁雖殊。而於一時同處可取。如彼理趣。此亦應然。又於一水。兩岸形色。現像同時。各別見者。緣和差別。故如是見。謂一水上。非一像生。清妙性同。不相掩蔽。見緣合者則能見之。若闕見緣則不能見。或有一處二見緣合。同觀色像。非不共見。謂一鏡中。一所見像。余即於此亦得同見若鏡等中。無別像起同餘處者。有何定因。唯鏡等中。俱見色像。或於一色。有二有情。別住同觀。有見不見。如於凈板涂以骨灰籌畫為文。時經久遠。設復新畫地壁為文。向光背光。有見不見。非於一色二可同觀即以例余。皆令共見。勿以一色不可同觀。便以例余。皆無共見。故彼所說。理非為善。又言光影同處相違。月像鏡面見處別者。次後遮遣大德邏摩所立理中。兼酬此責。彼作是說。鏡等諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 同（相同）。能造（能產生）和所造（被產生）之物，因為有對立的緣故。道理上應該說，鏡子中的影像和鏡子的顏色都是有對立的緣故，所以在同一個地方不能成立。同一個地方既然沒有，怎麼能說在一個地方鏡子的顏色和影像同時顯現呢？如果說處所不同就不能同時被觀察到，道理上也是不成立的，因為前面已經說過了。比如墻壁的光和顏色，也是在同一個地方可以被觀察到，雖然它們有對立的緣故。道理上實際上處所是不同的，雖然處所不同，但是可以同時被觀察到，就像光和墻壁的道理一樣，鏡子中的影像也是這樣。現在姑且爲了你們，解釋同時被觀察到的道理。是因為影像的顏色極其清澈美妙，所以不能夠遮蔽其餘的顏色。因為鏡子和影像最極相鄰，產生增上慢（錯誤的認知），認為是在同一個地方被觀察到，就像雲母等極其清澈美妙的顏色所隔開的其餘顏色，如果極其相鄰，就會產生增上慢，認為是在同一個地方被觀察到。或者像前面所說的，光和墻壁雖然不同，但是在同一時間同一個地方可以被觀察到，就像那個道理一樣，這裡也應該是這樣。又比如在同一片水面上，兩岸的形狀和顏色，顯現的影像同時被各自看到，是因為緣起和合的差別，所以這樣被看到。也就是說，在同一片水面上，不是隻有一個影像產生，清澈美妙的性質相同，不會互相遮蔽，看到影像的因緣聚合的人就能看到它，如果缺少看到影像的因緣就不能看到它。或者在一個地方有兩個觀看的因緣聚合，同時觀看顏色和影像，不是不能共同看到。也就是說，在一個鏡子中，一個所看到的影像，其餘的人也可以在這裡同時看到。如果在鏡子等之中，沒有別的影像產生在其餘的地方，有什麼確定的原因呢？只有在鏡子等之中，同時看到顏色和影像。或者對於一個顏色，有兩個有情眾生，分別居住同時觀看，有的人看到，有的人看不到，就像在乾淨的木板上塗上骨灰，用籌碼畫出紋路，時間經過很久，假設重新在墻壁上畫出紋路，向著光或者揹著光，有的人看到，有的人看不到。不能因為一個顏色兩個人不能同時看到，就以此類推其餘的顏色，都沒有共同觀看的情況。所以他們所說的道理是不好的。又說光和影子在同一個地方是相違背的，月亮的影像和鏡子的表面看到的處所是不同的，這是爲了遮遣大德邏摩所建立的道理，同時也迴應這個責難。他這樣說，鏡子等
【English Translation】 English version Same (identical). The able-to-be-produced (that which can produce) and the produced (that which is produced), because of the reason of opposition. In principle, it should be said that the image in the mirror and the color of the mirror both have the reason of opposition, so it cannot be established in the same place. Since there is nothing in the same place, how can it be said that the color of the mirror and the image appear simultaneously in one place? If it is said that they cannot be observed simultaneously because the locations are different, it is also not established in principle, because it has been said before. For example, the light and color of a wall can also be observed in the same place, although they have the reason of opposition. In principle, the locations are actually different, but although the locations are different, they can be observed simultaneously, just like the principle of light and wall, the image in the mirror is also like this. Now, for your sake, let me explain the principle of simultaneous observation. It is because the color of the image is extremely clear and wonderful, so it cannot obscure the remaining colors. Because the mirror and the image are extremely adjacent, giving rise to an increase in pride (wrong cognition), thinking that they are observed in the same place, just like the remaining colors separated by extremely clear and wonderful colors such as mica, if they are extremely adjacent, they will give rise to an increase in pride, thinking that they are observed in the same place. Or, as mentioned before, although light and wall are different, they can be observed in the same place at the same time, just like that principle, it should be the same here. Also, for example, on the same water surface, the shapes and colors of the two banks, the appearing images are seen separately at the same time, because of the difference in the arising and combination of conditions, so they are seen in this way. That is to say, on the same water surface, there is not only one image produced, the clear and wonderful nature is the same, and they do not obscure each other, those who see the conditions for seeing the image can see it, and if they lack the conditions for seeing the image, they cannot see it. Or in one place, two conditions for viewing are combined, and colors and images are viewed simultaneously, it is not that they cannot be seen together. That is to say, in one mirror, an image that is seen, others can also see it simultaneously here. If in mirrors, etc., there is no other image produced in other places, what is the definite reason? Only in mirrors, etc., are colors and images seen simultaneously. Or for one color, two sentient beings, living separately and viewing simultaneously, some see it, some do not see it, just like applying bone ash to a clean wooden board and drawing patterns with chips, after a long time, suppose new patterns are drawn on the wall, facing the light or against the light, some see it, some do not see it. One cannot infer from the fact that two people cannot see one color simultaneously that all other colors cannot be seen together. Therefore, what they say is not good. It is also said that light and shadow are contradictory in the same place, and the place where the moon's image and the surface of the mirror are seen is different, this is to refute the principle established by the great virtuous Luomo, and also to respond to this accusation. He said, mirrors, etc.
像。皆非實有。造色為性。一分與遍。俱非理故。謂藉月輪為因。引發依水一分。或復遍依生像造色。二皆非理。依水一分。理且不然。無定因故。遍隨轉故。遍亦不然。分限見故。以俱非理。故非造色。又影與光互相違故。謂懸二鏡置影光中。光影二像。交現鏡面。現見光影。更互相違。如其二像。是實造色。不應同處二俱可取。既俱現可取故。非實造色。又分位別有取多故。謂天授像。現水等中。分位別故。取種種色。謂青黃赤白。取一則非余。不應一處異色同止。設許同止。何不俱取。故知此中無別造色。又量無差見動作故。謂一天授。背趣鏡時。像現量無差見往來用別。於一造色。無容有此。然見有此。故非造色。又見像依處各別故。謂依水等。現月像時。見像與依。方處各別。若於水上。有像色生。是則不應見處遠近。然見遠近。故非造色。若爾于彼所見是何。本質為緣生眼識故。如緣眼色眼識得生。如是緣于眼及鏡等。對鏡等質。眼識得生。實見本質。謂見別像。今謂彼諸因。亦不能遣像。且彼所說。一分與遍。俱非理故。非造色者。理不應然。余亦同故。謂許緣于眼及鏡等。對鏡等質眼識生者。如是二種。徴責亦同。一分與遍。俱非理故。謂還見本質。藉鏡等為緣。一分或遍。二皆非理。且非鏡等一分
為緣。無定因故。歷余方所。皆能現前為見緣故。亦非鏡等遍能為緣。所見分明有分限故。以俱非理。故成謬執。然我不許月等為因水等一分為依生像。但質與依。無隔相對。依中法爾有質像生。何容像生但依一分。如何知像遍所依生。現見多人列長渠側各見月像。對自面故。若爾何故一不見多。如是見緣不和合故。雖一切處有月像生。而但現前見緣和合。故於一分可見非余。傍闕明緣。闇所隔故。有餘師釋。像色輕微。正近可觀。橫遠難見。或復漸次一亦見多。故於此中不應為難。若彼多者。則無有一而能見多。不可為難。若青黃等可俱見者。此亦應同多像極微。俱可見故。然見月像有分限者。以彼本質有分限故。現像必隨所依本質。或無分限。本質為緣。於水上生無分限像。猶如於水現空想青。是故本質有分限故。雖一切處有月像生。而見分限。亦無有過。或復如說鏡等為緣還見現前本質相者。雖復一分或遍為緣。皆不應理。然見本質。決定應許鏡等為緣。生像亦然。何勞徴難。又彼所說。以影與光互相違故。不應同處。由此故知像非有者。亦不應理。非所許故。謂懸二鏡置影光中所現二像。非實光影。如色彼觸不可得故。若爾明瞭所見是何。謂隨壁等光影二質。於二鏡面。有不相違。光影像起。非光影色。如有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為緣起。沒有固定的原因。經歷其餘的方位和處所。都能現前成為見緣的緣故。也不是鏡子等普遍能成為緣。所見到的影像分明有界限的緣故。因為兩者都不合理。所以成為錯誤的執著。然而我不認為月亮等是水等一部分為依靠而生起影像的原因。只是本體與所依靠的，沒有間隔地相對。在所依靠的之中自然有本體的影像生起。怎麼能說影像的生起只是依靠一部分呢？如何知道影像普遍地在所依靠的上面生起呢？現在看見許多人排列在長長的水渠旁邊，各自看見月亮的影像。因為（月亮）對著自己的面容的緣故。如果這樣，為什麼一個人不能看見多個（月亮）呢？像這樣，見緣沒有和合的緣故。雖然一切處所都有月亮的影像生起。但是隻有現前的見緣和合。所以在（水渠的）一部分可以看見，在其餘部分不能看見。旁邊缺少明亮的緣，被黑暗所隔斷的緣故。有其餘的論師解釋說，影像的顏色輕微。正對著的近處可以看見。橫向的遠處難以看見。或者逐漸地一個（人）也能看見多個（月亮）。所以在這裡不應該提出疑問。如果那些是多個（月亮），那麼就沒有一個（月亮）而能看見多個（月亮）的（道理）。不可以作為疑問。如果青色黃色等可以一起看見，那麼這個也應該相同，多個影像的極微，一起可以看見的緣故。然而看見月亮的影像有界限的原因，是因為那個本質有界限的緣故。顯現的影像必定隨著所依靠的本質。或者沒有界限。本質作為緣，在水上生起沒有界限的影像。猶如在水中顯現虛空的青色。因此本質有界限的緣故。雖然一切處所都有月亮的影像生起。而看見的（影像）有界限。也沒有過失。或者如所說，鏡子等作為緣，還看見現前的本質的相貌。即使一部分或者普遍地作為緣。都不合理。然而看見本質，決定應該允許鏡子等作為緣。生起影像也是這樣。何必勞煩地提出疑問呢？而且他們所說，因為影子與光互相違背的緣故。不應該在同一個地方。因為這個緣故知道影像不是真實存在的，也不合理。因為不是我所允許的。所謂懸掛兩面鏡子，放置在影子和光亮之中所顯現的兩個影像。不是真實的光影。如同顏色和觸覺不可得到一樣。如果這樣，明瞭所見的是什麼呢？是隨著墻壁等的光影兩種物質。在兩個鏡子的表面。有不相違背的光影像生起。不是光影的顏色。如有（下文）。 English version: Because of conditions (為緣). There is no fixed cause. Passing through other directions and places. All can presently become the condition for seeing (見緣) because of this reason. It is also not that mirrors, etc., can universally become conditions. The seen image is clearly limited because of this. Because both are unreasonable, it becomes a mistaken attachment. However, I do not consider the moon, etc., to be the cause of the image arising relying on a part of the water, etc. It is just that the substance (質) and the reliance (依) are opposite each other without separation. Within the reliance, there is naturally the substance's image arising. How can it be said that the arising of the image relies only on a part? How is it known that the image universally arises on what is relied upon? Now it is seen that many people are lined up along a long canal, each seeing the moon's image. Because (the moon) is facing their own faces. If so, why can't one person see multiple (moons)? Like this, the condition for seeing is not in harmony because of this reason. Although the moon's image arises in all places. But only the present condition for seeing is in harmony. Therefore, it can be seen in a part (of the canal), but not in the rest. The side lacks the bright condition, and is separated by darkness because of this reason. Some other teachers explain that the color of the image is subtle. The directly facing close place can be seen. The horizontal distant place is difficult to see. Or gradually one (person) can also see multiple (moons). Therefore, one should not raise questions here. If those are multiple (moons), then there is no (reason) for one (moon) to be able to see multiple (moons). It cannot be taken as a question. If blue and yellow, etc., can be seen together, then this should also be the same, multiple images of extremely small particles, can be seen together because of this reason. However, the reason why seeing the moon's image has limits is because that essence (本質) has limits. The manifested image must follow the essence that is relied upon. Or there are no limits. The essence acts as a condition, and a limitless image arises on the water. It is like manifesting the blue color of emptiness in the water. Therefore, because the essence has limits. Although the moon's image arises in all places. And the seen (image) has limits. There is also no fault. Or as it is said, mirrors, etc., act as conditions, and one sees the appearance of the present essence again. Even if a part or universally acts as a condition. Neither is reasonable. However, seeing the essence, it should definitely be allowed that mirrors, etc., act as conditions. The arising of the image is also like this. Why bother raising questions? Moreover, what they say, because shadows and light contradict each other. They should not be in the same place. Because of this reason, knowing that the image is not truly existent is also unreasonable. Because it is not what I allow. What is called hanging two mirrors, placing them in the midst of shadows and light, the two images that appear. They are not true light and shadows. Like color and touch cannot be obtained. If so, what is clearly seen? It is the two substances of light and shadow that follow the walls, etc. On the surface of the two mirrors. There is the arising of light and shadow images that do not contradict each other. It is not the color of light and shadow. As if there is (more to follow).
【English Translation】 Because of conditions (為緣). There is no fixed cause. Passing through other directions and places. All can presently become the condition for seeing (見緣) because of this reason. It is also not that mirrors, etc., can universally become conditions. The seen image is clearly limited because of this. Because both are unreasonable, it becomes a mistaken attachment. However, I do not consider the moon, etc., to be the cause of the image arising relying on a part of the water, etc. It is just that the substance (質) and the reliance (依) are opposite each other without separation. Within the reliance, there is naturally the substance's image arising. How can it be said that the arising of the image relies only on a part? How is it known that the image universally arises on what is relied upon? Now it is seen that many people are lined up along a long canal, each seeing the moon's image. Because (the moon) is facing their own faces. If so, why can't one person see multiple (moons)? Like this, the condition for seeing is not in harmony because of this reason. Although the moon's image arises in all places. But only the present condition for seeing is in harmony. Therefore, it can be seen in a part (of the canal), but not in the rest. The side lacks the bright condition, and is separated by darkness because of this reason. Some other teachers explain that the color of the image is subtle. The directly facing close place can be seen. The horizontal distant place is difficult to see. Or gradually one (person) can also see multiple (moons). Therefore, one should not raise questions here. If those are multiple (moons), then there is no (reason) for one (moon) to be able to see multiple (moons). It cannot be taken as a question. If blue and yellow, etc., can be seen together, then this should also be the same, multiple images of extremely small particles, can be seen together because of this reason. However, the reason why seeing the moon's image has limits is because that essence (本質) has limits. The manifested image must follow the essence that is relied upon. Or there are no limits. The essence acts as a condition, and a limitless image arises on the water. It is like manifesting the blue color of emptiness in the water. Therefore, because the essence has limits. Although the moon's image arises in all places. And the seen (image) has limits. There is also no fault. Or as it is said, mirrors, etc., act as conditions, and one sees the appearance of the present essence again. Even if a part or universally acts as a condition. Neither is reasonable. However, seeing the essence, it should definitely be allowed that mirrors, etc., act as conditions. The arising of the image is also like this. Why bother raising questions? Moreover, what they say, because shadows and light contradict each other. They should not be in the same place. Because of this reason, knowing that the image is not truly existent is also unreasonable. Because it is not what I allow. What is called hanging two mirrors, placing them in the midst of shadows and light, the two images that appear. They are not true light and shadows. Like color and touch cannot be obtained. If so, what is clearly seen? It is the two substances of light and shadow that follow the walls, etc. On the surface of the two mirrors. There is the arising of light and shadow images that do not contradict each other. It is not the color of light and shadow. As if there is (more to follow).
情像體非有情。故光影像。體非光影。雖同處現。而不相違。又彼所宗。影非實物。既無實體。何所相違。非無體中。可言違害。故約彼執違義亦無。則所說因。俱非所許。所言光影。更互相違。若有不應同處取者。此言何義。謂光影像。若是實有。應互相違。不應同處。同處既無。應不可取。既俱可取。故像實無。我先所言。其義如是。為唯實無者定不可取耶。或有實無而亦可取。或有實有而不可取。若爾所說同處既無。應不可取。此言何用同處雖無亦應可取。汝執無者亦可取故。亦不可說非一切無皆悉可取。無異因故。謂一切無相無差別。故不可說可不可取。又彼所言。由分位別有取多故。像非實者。此言于像亦不相違。唯于有中。由分位別。可取多色。非於無故。要于實有所見境中。由根明遠近方所等差別。得有邪正了色不同。如觀日光所照實有蟏蛸網色孔雀尾輪。方所等殊。所見有異。亦如觀見旋火輪等。是故定知實有像色。由分位別有取眾多。故彼遮因。翻證像有。或如燈焰眾色雜居。由所住方有礙別故。非住一切見皆周盡。又如觀箭曲直不同。雖有取多。亦無有過。雖無一處異色同止。而有取時。謂為同處。如斯理趣。前已具論。故彼推徴。于像無害。又彼所說。其量無差。見動作故。像非實者。理亦不
然。前已說故。謂雖別有實像色生。而像必隨所依本質。故量雖等。而隨所應。于所依上。如其本質。有顯形動三種像生。像隨所依及本質故。雖無動作。而似往來及余運動三用可得。如是動相。或由本質。余方運轉。無間生故。或由所依隨持者等有動搖故。或由觀者自有動搖。謂像轉故。如是諸像。不越所依份量處所。隨本質等。見有往來及余動相。此于造色。有何相違。言見有此故非造色。不可異余造色相故。便非造色。如青黃等。雖互相異。而是造色。或應堅相異暖等故。便非大種。余例亦然。如諸大種與所造色。雖互相異而色性同。故此無能遮造色性。又彼所說。見像及依處各別故。非造色者。理亦不然。空界月像。同依水等。而發生故。謂空界色。與彼月輪。次第安布。近遠差別。是見依像處差別因。空界是有。色處所攝。前已成立。故與月輪於水等上。各能生像。由所生像與質相同。故見與依處似差別。或由如是見緣和合非遠近中。令見遠近。如觀採畫錦繡等文。無高下中。見有高下。由月遠故。見像亦然。如滿月輪。見像無缺。由如是理。破彼諸因。故彼諸因。不能遣像。然彼隨自執。悅愚夫情言。本質為緣。生眼識等。如斯意趣。還為如前自所說因之所遮遣。謂藉鏡等一分為緣。或遍為緣。俱非理故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『是的，』因為之前已經說過了。意思是說，即使另外有真實的色法（rupa，物質現象）產生，影像必然會跟隨它所依賴的本質（dharma，事物自性）。因此，即使數量相等，影像也會根據所應呈現的本質，在所依賴的事物上，如其本質那樣，產生顯現、形貌和動態這三種影像。影像跟隨它所依賴的事物和本質，因此，即使沒有實際的動作，也能呈現出往來和其他運動的三種作用。這樣的動態現象，或者是因為本質在其他方向上運轉，無間斷地產生；或者是因為所依賴的事物隨著持有者等的搖動而搖動；或者是因為觀看者自身在搖動，導致影像轉動。像這樣，各種影像不會超出所依賴事物的份量和處所，而是隨著本質等，呈現出往來和其他動態。這與造色（bhuta-rupa，四大元素所造的色法）有什麼矛盾呢？說『因為看到這些現象，所以不是造色』，這是不成立的，因為不能因為與其他的造色現象不同，就說它不是造色。比如青色和黃色等，雖然互相不同，但都是造色。或者，應該說因為堅硬的性質與溫暖等不同，所以不是大種（maha-bhuta，四大元素）。其他的例子也是一樣。就像四大種與所造色，雖然互相不同，但色法的性質相同，因此這不能否定影像的造色性質。而且，他們所說的『因為看到影像和所依賴的處所各不相同，所以不是造色』，這個道理也是不成立的。空界（akasa-dhatu，空間界）中的月亮影像，同樣依賴於水等而產生。意思是說，空界的色法與月輪依次排列，遠近有差別，這是看到所依賴處所和影像處所不同的原因。空界是存在的，屬於色處所攝，之前已經成立。因此，空界和月輪都能在水等上產生影像。由於所產生的影像與本質相同，所以看起來與所依賴的處所不同。或者，由於這樣的見緣（darsana-pratyaya，視覺的條件）和合，不是遠也不是近，而使人看到遠近。就像觀看彩繪的錦繡等圖案，沒有高低，卻能看到高低。因為月亮遙遠，所以看到的影像也是這樣。就像滿月，看到的影像沒有殘缺。通過這些道理，可以駁斥他們的各種理由。因此，他們的各種理由不能否定影像的存在。然而，他們只是隨順自己的執著，爲了取悅愚昧的人，說本質是產生眼識等的條件。這樣的意圖，還是會被之前他們自己所說的理由所否定，因為憑藉鏡子等一部分作為條件，或者普遍作為條件，都是不合理的。 English version: 'Yes,' because it has been said before. This means that even if there are separate real rupas (material phenomena) produced, the image must follow the essence (dharma, the nature of things) it depends on. Therefore, even if the quantity is the same, the image will, according to the essence it should present, produce three kinds of images—manifestation, form, and movement—on the thing it depends on, as its essence. The image follows the thing it depends on and the essence, so even without actual movement, it can present the three functions of seeming to come and go and other movements. Such dynamic phenomena either arise because the essence is rotating in other directions, producing them without interruption; or because the thing it depends on is shaking along with the holder, etc.; or because the viewer themselves is shaking, causing the image to rotate. Like this, various images do not exceed the quantity and location of the thing they depend on, but according to the essence, etc., they present coming and going and other dynamics. What contradiction is there between this and bhuta-rupa (material phenomena produced by the four great elements)? To say 'because these phenomena are seen, therefore it is not bhuta-rupa' is not valid, because one cannot say that it is not bhuta-rupa simply because it is different from other bhuta-rupa phenomena. For example, blue and yellow, although different from each other, are both bhuta-rupa. Or, it should be said that because the nature of solidity is different from warmth, etc., it is not maha-bhuta (the four great elements). Other examples are the same. Just like the four great elements and the produced material phenomena, although different from each other, have the same nature of material phenomena, so this cannot negate the bhuta-rupa nature of the image. Moreover, their saying that 'because the image and the place it depends on are seen as different, therefore it is not bhuta-rupa' is also not valid. The moon's image in the akasa-dhatu (space element) similarly depends on water, etc., to arise. This means that the material phenomena of the space element and the moon are arranged in sequence, and the difference in distance is the reason why the place it depends on and the place of the image are seen as different. The space element exists and is included in the material realm, which has been established before. Therefore, the space element and the moon can both produce images on water, etc. Because the produced image is the same as the essence, it appears different from the place it depends on. Or, because such darsana-pratyaya (conditions of seeing) come together, neither far nor near, they cause people to see distance. Just like viewing painted brocade and embroidered patterns, there is no height, but one can see height. Because the moon is far away, the image seen is also like that. Just like the full moon, the image seen is not incomplete. Through these reasons, their various arguments can be refuted. Therefore, their various arguments cannot negate the existence of the image. However, they are merely following their own attachments, in order to please ignorant people, saying that the essence is the condition for producing eye consciousness, etc. Such intentions will still be negated by the reasons they themselves stated before, because it is unreasonable to rely on a part of the mirror, etc., as a condition, or to rely on it universally as a condition.
【English Translation】 English version: 'Yes,' because it has been said before. This means that even if there are separate real rupas (material phenomena) produced, the image must follow the essence (dharma, the nature of things) it depends on. Therefore, even if the quantity is the same, the image will, according to the essence it should present, produce three kinds of images—manifestation, form, and movement—on the thing it depends on, as its essence. The image follows the thing it depends on and the essence, so even without actual movement, it can present the three functions of seeming to come and go and other movements. Such dynamic phenomena either arise because the essence is rotating in other directions, producing them without interruption; or because the thing it depends on is shaking along with the holder, etc.; or because the viewer themselves is shaking, causing the image to rotate. Like this, various images do not exceed the quantity and location of the thing they depend on, but according to the essence, etc., they present coming and going and other dynamics. What contradiction is there between this and bhuta-rupa (material phenomena produced by the four great elements)? To say 'because these phenomena are seen, therefore it is not bhuta-rupa' is not valid, because one cannot say that it is not bhuta-rupa simply because it is different from other bhuta-rupa phenomena. For example, blue and yellow, although different from each other, are both bhuta-rupa. Or, it should be said that because the nature of solidity is different from warmth, etc., it is not maha-bhuta (the four great elements). Other examples are the same. Just like the four great elements and the produced material phenomena, although different from each other, have the same nature of material phenomena, so this cannot negate the bhuta-rupa nature of the image. Moreover, their saying that 'because the image and the place it depends on are seen as different, therefore it is not bhuta-rupa' is also not valid. The moon's image in the akasa-dhatu (space element) similarly depends on water, etc., to arise. This means that the material phenomena of the space element and the moon are arranged in sequence, and the difference in distance is the reason why the place it depends on and the place of the image are seen as different. The space element exists and is included in the material realm, which has been established before. Therefore, the space element and the moon can both produce images on water, etc. Because the produced image is the same as the essence, it appears different from the place it depends on. Or, because such darsana-pratyaya (conditions of seeing) come together, neither far nor near, they cause people to see distance. Just like viewing painted brocade and embroidered patterns, there is no height, but one can see height. Because the moon is far away, the image seen is also like that. Just like the full moon, the image seen is not incomplete. Through these reasons, their various arguments can be refuted. Therefore, their various arguments cannot negate the existence of the image. However, they are merely following their own attachments, in order to please ignorant people, saying that the essence is the condition for producing eye consciousness, etc. Such intentions will still be negated by the reasons they themselves stated before, because it is unreasonable to rely on a part of the mirror, etc., as a condition, or to rely on it universally as a condition.
。又彼所說。唯率妄情。于鏡等中。無本質故。對鏡等質鏡等中無。豈余處有法于余處可取。喻亦非理。非同法故。謂曾無色住在余方。不對眼根緣生眼識。可喻本質鏡等中無。而於其中緣生眼識。若彼緣闕故眼識不生。則此中不應引彼為喻。為如何等。彼有此無。而於此中。分明可取。又彼所說。唯述妄情。以所立因非極成故。唯緣本質眼及鏡等。眼識得生。非極成故。唯對眼色。眼等為緣。眼識得生。理極成立。既取像色。分明現前。故知取像。非取本質。又理必然。以所取像形量顯色異本質故。謂于鏡等。山石池墻樹林等像量減本質。又豎刀等。見面像長。橫便見闊。異本質量。又于油等。觀面像時。面像顯色。與本質異。若所見像。即是本質。不應形顯與質不同。諸有顯形。異於彼者。皆非即彼。世所極成。未知具壽。離形與顯。有何本質。而執見像形顯雖殊而即本質。若謂本質與顯及形非即非離而實可得。是則便同阿素洛女。巧為幻化誑惑愚夫。若謂藉緣力所改轉。雖即是彼。而現有異。此亦不然。互相違故。理不成故非為善釋。謂若即彼。不應現異。既現有異。不應即彼。即彼現異更互相違。又現有異而言即彼。理不成立。太過失故。謂老等位亦應可執即是先時羯剌藍等。由緣力轉故現有異等爾劬勞。何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：此外，他們所說的，只是順著虛妄的情感。因為在鏡子等物體中，沒有所謂的『本質』。如果對著鏡子等物體的『本質』，鏡子等物體中都沒有，那麼又怎麼能說在其他地方存在一種法，可以從其他地方獲取呢？這個比喻也是不合理的，因為它們不是相同的情況。他們說曾經有顏色存在於其他地方，不對眼根產生關聯，也就不會產生眼識。這可以比作『本質』在鏡子等物體中不存在，但卻能在其中產生眼識。如果那個『緣』缺失了，所以眼識無法產生，那麼就不應該在這裡引用那個比喻。有什麼是他們有而這裡沒有的，而在這裡卻能清晰地獲取的呢？ 此外，他們所說的，只是陳述虛妄的情感，因為他們所建立的『因』不是普遍認可的。他們說只有通過『本質』、眼睛和鏡子等，眼識才能產生，這並不是普遍認可的。只有當眼睛面對顏色，以眼睛等作為條件，眼識才能產生，這個道理才是普遍成立的。既然獲取的影像和顏色清晰地呈現在眼前，所以我們知道獲取的是影像，而不是『本質』。 而且，從道理上來說也是必然的，因為所獲取的影像的形狀、大小和顏色都與『本質』不同。例如，在鏡子等物體中，山石、池塘、墻壁、樹林等的影像，其大小都小於『本質』。又如，豎立的刀等物體，見面部的影像顯得長，橫過來則顯得寬，這都與『本質』的形狀大小不同。又如，在油等物體中觀察面部的影像時，面部影像的顏色與『本質』不同。如果所看到的影像就是『本質』，那麼形狀和顏色就不應該與『本質』不同。任何形狀和顏色與彼不同的東西，都不是彼本身，這是世間普遍認可的。我不知道具壽（Ayushman，對僧侶的尊稱）離開了形狀和顏色，還有什麼『本質』。卻堅持認為所見的影像雖然形狀和顏色不同，但就是『本質』。如果說『本質』與形狀和顏色非即非離，但實際上是可以獲得的，那麼這就如同阿修羅女（Asura，一種神）巧妙地進行幻化，欺騙愚蠢的人。 如果說憑藉『緣』的力量而改變和轉化，雖然還是那個『本質』，但呈現出不同的樣子，這也是不對的，因為這互相矛盾，道理上也不成立，所以不是一個好的解釋。如果說是那個『本質』，就不應該呈現出不同的樣子。既然呈現出不同的樣子，就不應該是那個『本質』。『即是彼』和『現有異』更是互相矛盾。而且，在呈現出不同的樣子時，卻說是那個『本質』，這個道理是不成立的，犯了『太過』的錯誤。例如，老年等狀態也應該可以認為是先前的羯剌藍（Kalala，胚胎的最初階段）等，因為憑藉『緣』的力量而轉化，所以呈現出不同的樣子等等。又何必那麼辛苦呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, what they say merely follows deluded emotions, because in mirrors and the like, there is no 'essence' (本質, ben zhi). If the 'essence' is facing the mirror, etc., and it is not in the mirror, etc., how can there be a dharma elsewhere that can be taken from elsewhere? The analogy is also unreasonable because they are not the same. They say that color once existed elsewhere, not related to the eye faculty, so no eye consciousness arises. This can be compared to the 'essence' not being in the mirror, etc., but eye consciousness arises within it. If that 'condition' (緣, yuan) is missing, so eye consciousness does not arise, then that analogy should not be cited here. What do they have that is not here, and that can be clearly taken here? Furthermore, what they say merely describes deluded emotions, because the 'cause' (因, yin) they establish is not universally accepted. They say that eye consciousness arises only through the 'essence', the eye, and the mirror, etc., which is not universally accepted. Only when the eye faces color, with the eye, etc., as conditions, does eye consciousness arise, which is a well-established principle. Since the image and color taken are clearly present, we know that what is taken is the image, not the 'essence'. Moreover, it is logically necessary because the shape, size, and color of the image taken are different from the 'essence'. For example, in mirrors, etc., the images of mountains, rocks, ponds, walls, forests, etc., are smaller in size than the 'essence'. Also, when a knife, etc., is held vertically, the image of the face appears long, and when held horizontally, it appears wide, which is different in shape and size from the 'essence'. Also, when observing the image of the face in oil, etc., the color of the face image is different from the 'essence'. If the image seen is the 'essence', then the shape and color should not be different from the 'essence'. Anything whose shape and color are different from that is not that itself, which is universally accepted in the world. I do not know, Venerable Sir (Ayushman, 對僧侶的尊稱), what 'essence' there is apart from shape and color. Yet they insist that the image seen, although different in shape and color, is the 'essence'. If it is said that the 'essence' is neither identical nor separate from shape and color, but can actually be obtained, then this is like an Asura woman (Asura, 一種神) skillfully performing illusions to deceive foolish people. If it is said that it is changed and transformed by the power of 'conditions' (緣, yuan), although it is still that 'essence', it appears different, this is also incorrect because it is contradictory and logically untenable, so it is not a good explanation. If it is that 'essence', it should not appear different. Since it appears different, it should not be that 'essence'. 'Is that' and 'appears different' are even more contradictory. Moreover, when it appears different, to say that it is that 'essence' is logically untenable, committing the fallacy of 'too much'. For example, old age, etc., should also be considered the earlier Kalala (Kalala, 胚胎的最初階段), etc., because it is transformed by the power of 'conditions', so it appears different, etc. Why bother so much?
不即信藉眾緣力有別像生。而計藉緣還見本質。是故所說。本質為緣。生眼識等。比度道理。極為微劣。于證無能。經主此中。所作是說故知諸像。于理實無。然諸因緣和合勢力。令如是見。以諸法性功能差別難思議者。彼何不謂質鏡等緣和合勢力別能生像故如是見。以說法性功能差別難思議故。又和合名。非名實法。如何可執有勢力耶。又執多緣合成一力。如何說諸法有差別功能。是故應如功能差別。眼及色等為緣。別引功能差別。眼識令生。如是亦由功能差別。質及鏡等為緣。別引功能差別。像色令生。由此證成諸像實有。或應總撥諸法皆無。嘗聞有人總撥無諸法。今觀具壽。似與彼情通。審爾無勞共為談論。又若爾者。撥中有人。豈不亦能作如是說。因緣和合勢力難思。死生中間。處雖隔遠。而令續起。以諸業性功能差別難可思議。故應諦思。于鏡等上。若無像起。如何現前。如余實色。分明可見。故對法者。咸作是言。于鏡等中。別有像色。大造和合差別為體。對別現生如是像故。猶如此像本質所依。謂鏡等中。鏡等現質。為依緣故。有隨所依本質像起。分明可見。像所緣質。實有極成。此像為緣。于別鏡等。亦有隨質所依像起。分明可見。故知前像緣起像故。實有義成。由是應知。諸像實有。此若無者。余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不應立即相信憑藉眾緣之力而有不同的影像產生，卻認為憑藉因緣還能見到本質。因此，所說的『本質作為因緣，產生眼識等』，這種推比度量的道理，極為微弱，對於證悟真理毫無作用。經部論師在此處所作的論述，是想說明諸影像在理上實際上是不存在的，然而，是諸種因緣和合的勢力，才使我們產生這樣的見解。既然諸法的自性功能差別難以思議，那為什麼不說鏡子等因緣和合的勢力，能夠特別產生影像，所以我們才這樣看見呢？因為可以說法的自性功能差別難以思議的緣故。而且，『和合』這個名稱，並非真實存在的法，如何能夠執著它具有勢力呢？又如果執著多種因緣合成一種勢力，又如何能說諸法具有不同的功能呢？因此，應該像功能差別一樣，眼和色等作為因緣，分別引導功能差別，使眼識產生。同樣，也應該由功能差別，鏡子等作為因緣，分別引導功能差別，使影像的顏色產生。由此可以證明諸影像確實存在。或者應該全部否定諸法都不存在。我曾經聽說有人全部否定諸法存在，現在看來，您似乎與他們的想法相通。如果真是這樣，那就不必再與您討論了。又如果這樣，否定諸法的人，豈不也能這樣說：因緣和合的勢力難以思議，死亡和出生之間，處所雖然遙遠，卻能使生命延續，因為諸業的自性功能差別難以思議。所以應該仔細思考，如果在鏡子等上面，沒有影像產生，如何能像其他真實存在的顏色一樣，分明可見呢？所以對法論者都這樣說：在鏡子等中，另外有影像的顏色，以大種和合的差別為體性，爲了針對不同的對象而產生這樣的影像。就像這影像本質所依賴的，也就是鏡子等中，鏡子等顯現出本質，作為所依賴的因緣，所以有隨著所依賴的本質而產生的影像，分明可見。影像所緣的本質，確實存在，這是極其確定的。這影像作為因緣，在其他的鏡子等中，也有隨著本質所依賴的影像產生，分明可見。所以知道前面的影像是由因緣而產生的影像，確實存在，這是義理上成立的。由此應該知道，諸影像確實存在。如果這影像不存在，那麼…… English version One should not immediately believe that different images arise by the power of various conditions, yet assume that one can still see the essence by relying on conditions. Therefore, the statement that 'essence serves as the condition for the arising of eye-consciousness, etc.' is a very weak analogy and is incapable of proving the truth. The Sautrāntika (school of Buddhism) here attempts to argue that images do not actually exist in reality. However, it is the combined power of various conditions that causes us to have such perceptions. Since the differences in the nature and function of phenomena are inconceivable, why not say that the power of the combined conditions of mirrors, etc., can specifically produce images, and that is why we see them in this way? Because it can be said that the differences in the nature and function of phenomena are inconceivable. Moreover, the term 'combination' does not refer to a real, existing phenomenon; how can one insist that it has power? Furthermore, if one insists that multiple conditions combine to form a single power, how can one say that phenomena have different functions? Therefore, one should, like the differences in function, consider the eye and color, etc., as conditions that separately guide the differences in function, causing eye-consciousness to arise. Similarly, one should also consider the mirror, etc., as conditions that separately guide the differences in function, causing the color of the image to arise. This proves that images do indeed exist. Or, one should completely deny that all phenomena exist. I have heard that some people completely deny the existence of all phenomena. Now it seems that you share their views. If that is the case, then there is no need to discuss it with you further. Moreover, if that is the case, wouldn't those who deny phenomena also be able to say: 'The power of the combination of conditions is inconceivable; although the places between death and birth are far apart, they can cause life to continue because the differences in the nature and function of karma are inconceivable.' Therefore, one should carefully consider: if no image arises on the mirror, etc., how can it be clearly seen like other real colors? Therefore, the Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy) scholars all say: 'In the mirror, etc., there is another color of the image, with the difference of the great elements combined as its nature, in order to produce such an image for different objects.' Just like the essence upon which this image depends, that is, in the mirror, etc., the mirror, etc., manifests the essence, serving as the dependent condition, so there is an image arising along with the essence upon which it depends, clearly visible. The essence that the image perceives truly exists, this is extremely certain. This image serves as a condition, and in other mirrors, etc., there is also an image arising along with the essence upon which it depends, clearly visible. Therefore, it is known that the previous image is an image arising from conditions, and its existence is established in terms of meaning. From this, it should be known that images do indeed exist. If this image does not exist, then...
【English Translation】 English version One should not immediately believe that different images arise by the power of various conditions, yet assume that one can still see the essence by relying on conditions. Therefore, the statement that 'essence serves as the condition for the arising of eye-consciousness, etc.' is a very weak analogy and is incapable of proving the truth. The Sautrāntika (school of Buddhism) here attempts to argue that images do not actually exist in reality. However, it is the combined power of various conditions that causes us to have such perceptions. Since the differences in the nature and function of phenomena are inconceivable, why not say that the power of the combined conditions of mirrors, etc., can specifically produce images, and that is why we see them in this way? Because it can be said that the differences in the nature and function of phenomena are inconceivable. Moreover, the term 'combination' does not refer to a real, existing phenomenon; how can one insist that it has power? Furthermore, if one insists that multiple conditions combine to form a single power, how can one say that phenomena have different functions? Therefore, one should, like the differences in function, consider the eye and color, etc., as conditions that separately guide the differences in function, causing eye-consciousness to arise. Similarly, one should also consider the mirror, etc., as conditions that separately guide the differences in function, causing the color of the image to arise. This proves that images do indeed exist. Or, one should completely deny that all phenomena exist. I have heard that some people completely deny the existence of all phenomena. Now it seems that you share their views. If that is the case, then there is no need to discuss it with you further. Moreover, if that is the case, wouldn't those who deny phenomena also be able to say: 'The power of the combination of conditions is inconceivable; although the places between death and birth are far apart, they can cause life to continue because the differences in the nature and function of karma are inconceivable.' Therefore, one should carefully consider: if no image arises on the mirror, etc., how can it be clearly seen like other real colors? Therefore, the Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy) scholars all say: 'In the mirror, etc., there is another color of the image, with the difference of the great elements combined as its nature, in order to produce such an image for different objects.' Just like the essence upon which this image depends, that is, in the mirror, etc., the mirror, etc., manifests the essence, serving as the dependent condition, so there is an image arising along with the essence upon which it depends, clearly visible. The essence that the image perceives truly exists, this is extremely certain. This image serves as a condition, and in other mirrors, etc., there is also an image arising along with the essence upon which it depends, clearly visible. Therefore, it is known that the previous image is an image arising from conditions, and its existence is established in terms of meaning. From this, it should be known that images do indeed exist. If this image does not exist, then...
像何緣。若言前像所緣本質為此緣者。理亦不然。前質不對后所依故。後像不隨前質起故。謂后所依。唯對前像。不對前質。如何可說前質為緣。現於後像。曾未見有背鏡等質。于鏡等中。為緣現像。由斯後像不隨前質。但隨前像。其理極成。是故所言。于別鏡等。所現後像。但緣前質。不隨前像。唯述妄情。復如何知像體實有。由像不越實有相故。謂若不越眼等識境皆是實有。后當成立。像既可見。故知實有。又像有時而可得故。此若無者。應一切時定不可得。或常可得。若謂有時可不可得。由所待緣合不合者。是則應知。余有為法。于緣合位。實有義成。又無分別識所緣故。謂五識身所緣境界。實有極成。然像既通眼識所得。故知實有。又像能遮余色生故。謂像能礙余像色生。于自所居。障餘生故。若法隨具如前相者。當知彼法。實有極成。此像既然。故知實有。豈不前說。一狹水上。同處一時。有二像起。如何說此礙余像生。豈不前言。如壁光等。處雖各別。而謂處同。由增上慢。不應為責。又于鏡中。別處取故。謂於一鏡。一處所中。無有二像俱時可得。如緣差別。取像亦異。若謂色性理不成者。此亦不然。理極成故。又如何知。像體定有。與余有法。生相似故。如識芽等。諸緣生法。有體極成。此亦如是。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『像』以什麼為所緣呢？如果說前一個『像』所緣的本質是后一個『像』的『緣』，這個道理也是不成立的。因為前一個『質』不是后一個『所依』的對象。后一個『像』也不是隨著前一個『質』而生起的。所謂后一個『所依』，只是針對前一個『像』，而不是針對前一個『質』。怎麼能說前一個『質』是后一個『像』的『緣』呢？ 在後一個『像』顯現時，從未見過鏡子等『質』，在鏡子等之中，作為『緣』而顯現『像』。因此，后一個『像』不是隨著前一個『質』，而是隨著前一個『像』，這個道理非常明顯。所以說，在別的鏡子等中，所顯現的后一個『像』，只是緣於前一個『質』，不隨前一個『像』，這只是虛妄的情執。 又如何知道『像』的體性是真實存在的呢？因為『像』不超出真實存在的相狀。如果說不超出眼等識的境界，都是真實存在的，這在後面會成立。『像』既然是可見的，所以知道它是真實存在的。而且『像』有時可以得到。如果『像』不存在，那麼應該任何時候都無法得到，或者任何時候都可以得到。如果說有時可以得到，有時無法得到，是由於所依賴的『緣』聚合或不聚合，那麼就應該知道，其餘的有為法，在『緣』聚合的時候，真實存在的意義就成立了。 又因為『像』是無分別識所緣的。五識身所緣的境界，真實存在是極其確定的。然而『像』既然是眼識可以得到的，所以知道它是真實存在的。而且『像』能夠遮止其他『色』的產生。『像』能夠阻礙其他『像』和『色』的產生，在自己所佔據的位置，障礙其他的產生。如果一個法具備像前面所說的相狀，就應當知道這個法是真實存在的。這個『像』既然如此，所以知道它是真實存在的。 難道不是前面說過，在狹窄的水面上，同一個地方同一時間，有兩個『像』生起嗎？怎麼說這個『像』會阻礙其他『像』的產生呢？難道不是前面說過，像墻壁上的光等，雖然處所各不相同，卻認為是同一個處所，這是由於增上慢的緣故，不應該用來責難。又因為在鏡子中，是從不同的地方獲取的。在同一面鏡子的同一個地方，沒有兩個『像』同時可以得到。就像『緣』的差別一樣，獲取的『像』也不同。 如果說『色』的體性道理不成立，這也是不對的，因為道理非常成立。又如何知道『像』的體性一定是存在的呢？因為它與其他的有法，產生相似。就像『識』、『芽』等，各種『緣』所生的法，有體性是極其確定的，這個『像』也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version: What is the 『image』 (像, xiàng) based on as its object of perception (所緣, suǒ yuán)? If it is said that the essence (本質, běn zhì) perceived by the previous 『image』 is the 『condition』 (緣, yuán) for the subsequent 『image,』 this reasoning is also not valid. This is because the previous 『substance』 (質, zhì) is not the object of the subsequent 『basis』 (所依, suǒ yī). The subsequent 『image』 does not arise following the previous 『substance.』 The so-called subsequent 『basis』 is only directed towards the previous 『image,』 not towards the previous 『substance.』 How can it be said that the previous 『substance』 is the 『condition』 for the subsequent 『image』? When the subsequent 『image』 appears, it has never been seen that mirrors or other 『substances』 act as the 『condition』 for the appearance of the 『image』 within the mirrors or similar objects. Therefore, the subsequent 『image』 does not follow the previous 『substance』 but follows the previous 『image,』 which is very clear. Thus, to say that the subsequent 『image』 appearing in other mirrors or similar objects only depends on the previous 『substance』 and not on the previous 『image』 is merely a deluded attachment. Furthermore, how do we know that the nature (體性, tǐ xìng) of the 『image』 is truly existent? Because the 『image』 does not go beyond the characteristics of what truly exists. If it is said that whatever does not go beyond the realm of eye consciousness (眼等識, yǎn děng shí) is truly existent, this will be established later. Since the 『image』 is visible, we know it is truly existent. Moreover, the 『image』 can sometimes be obtained. If the 『image』 did not exist, it should either be impossible to obtain at any time or possible to obtain at all times. If it is said that it is sometimes possible and sometimes impossible to obtain depending on whether the dependent 『conditions』 (緣, yuán) are assembled or not, then it should be known that the meaning of truly existing is established for other conditioned phenomena (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) when the 『conditions』 are assembled. Also, because the 『image』 is perceived by non-discriminating consciousness (無分別識, wú fēn bié shí). The realm perceived by the five consciousnesses (五識身, wǔ shí shēn) is extremely certain to be truly existent. However, since the 『image』 can be obtained by eye consciousness, we know it is truly existent. Furthermore, the 『image』 can prevent the arising of other 『forms』 (色, sè). The 『image』 can obstruct the arising of other 『images』 and 『forms,』 hindering other arisings in its occupied position. If a phenomenon possesses characteristics as described earlier, it should be known that this phenomenon is truly existent. Since this 『image』 is like this, we know it is truly existent. Was it not said earlier that on a narrow surface of water, two 『images』 arise in the same place at the same time? How can it be said that this 『image』 obstructs the arising of other 『images』? Was it not said earlier that like the light on a wall, although the locations are different, they are considered the same location due to increased pride (增上慢, zēng shàng màn)? This should not be used as a criticism. Also, because in a mirror, it is obtained from different places. In the same place on the same mirror, two 『images』 cannot be obtained simultaneously. Just like the difference in 『conditions,』 the obtained 『images』 are also different. If it is said that the principle of the nature of 『form』 is not established, this is also incorrect, because the principle is very well established. Furthermore, how do we know that the nature of the 『image』 must exist? Because it is similar in arising to other existent phenomena. Just like 『consciousness』 (識, shí), 『sprouts』 (芽, yá), and other phenomena arising from various 『conditions,』 having a nature is extremely certain, and this 『image』 is also like this.
世共現見。從眾緣生。是故應知。像體定有。如余有法。定有極成。從別緣生。相有差別。諸像亦爾。從別緣生。相有差別。故應定有。由此所言與余有法生相似故。其理極成。生無自因。曾未見故。像非有者。理亦不然。我許像生有自因故。謂我許像有同類因。如從異緣生識芽等。非我許像因鏡等生。以許像生依自因故。鏡水明等。但作取緣。如取向游塵。要藉光穿影。非光及影為彼塵因。亦非彼塵無因而有。或不可說異緣生即無。同異色生俱現見有故。且如何見從日月珠有火水生。此亦應爾。若言火水從自種生。以二珠中有二界故。則應火水俱二珠生。或應二珠能生風地。有二界故。如生火水。若謂二珠二界增故。偏為火水自類生緣。理亦不然。二珠應有熱濕二種。現可得故。若謂二珠要由日月光明攝受。二界便增。方能為緣生火水者。則應二種併爲光明所攝受故俱生火水。若彼二珠。界無增減何因熱焰緣助日珠。能令生火。非為冷焰緣助日珠即令生水。亦應如是徴責月珠。諸緣起理。實為難覺。石灰水合。唯生火故。謂世現見燒石為灰。遇水便能生火非水。此唯可說緣起難思。除此有何無過之答。又虹霓等。諸色聚生。從因起理。極難知故。又金剛等一色聚中。現有種種威神力故。又療人獸樹等事中。現有眾多
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 世間普遍可見，諸法皆由眾多因緣和合而生。因此應當知曉，影像的本體必定是存在的，如同其他的有法（dharma，法）一樣，其存在是確定的。由於從不同的因緣而生，諸法的相狀有所差別；各種影像也是如此，從不同的因緣而生，其相狀也各有差別。所以，影像必定是存在的。因為這種說法與其他的有法產生的方式相似，所以這個道理是完全成立的。認為『生』沒有自身的原因，這是從未見過的。認為影像不是存在的，這個道理也是不成立的。我承認影像的產生有其自身的原因。也就是說，我承認影像有同類的因，比如從不同的因緣而生的意識之芽等等。我並不認為影像是由鏡子等產生的，因為我承認影像的產生是依靠其自身的原因。鏡子、水、光明等等，僅僅是作為『取緣』（條件）而存在，就像取向遊動的微塵，需要憑藉光線的穿透和陰影的襯托。但光線和陰影並不是這些微塵的原因，也不是這些微塵沒有原因而自然產生的。或者說，不能因為是從不同的因緣而生，就認為它不存在，因為同類和異類的色法產生都是可以親眼見到的。而且，如何解釋從太陽和月亮以及寶珠中產生火和水呢？這也應該是同樣的道理。如果說火和水是從它們自身的種子中產生的，因為這兩個寶珠中存在著火界和水界，那麼就應該火和水都從這兩個寶珠中產生。或者說，這兩個寶珠應該能夠產生風和地，因為它們存在著風界和地界，就像它們能夠產生火和水一樣。如果說這兩個寶珠因為火界和水界的增多，才偏向于成為火和水各自的自類生緣，這個道理也是不成立的，因為這兩個寶珠應該具有冷熱和潮濕兩種性質，這是現在可以觀察到的。如果說這兩個寶珠需要由太陽和月亮的光明攝受，兩種界才得以增加，才能作為產生火和水的條件，那麼就應該兩種（寶珠）都因為被光明所攝受而同時產生火和水。如果這兩個寶珠的界沒有增加或減少，那麼為什麼熱的火焰作為太陽寶珠的助緣，就能使其產生火，而不是冷的火焰作為太陽寶珠的助緣，就使其產生水呢？也應該這樣來責問月亮寶珠。諸法緣起的道理，實在是難以覺察。石灰和水混合，卻只產生火，這是因為世間普遍見到燒石頭成為石灰，遇到水就能產生火而不是水。這隻能說是緣起不可思議，除了這個，還有什麼沒有過失的回答呢？還有虹霓等等，各種顏色的聚集產生，從因緣而起的道理，也是極難知曉的。還有金剛等等，一種顏色的聚集體中，現在就存在著各種各樣的威神力。還有療**樹等等的事例中，現在就存在著眾多的...
【English Translation】 English version It is commonly seen in the world that all phenomena arise from the aggregation of numerous causes and conditions. Therefore, it should be known that the essence of images definitely exists, just like other existing dharmas (dharma, law), whose existence is certain. Because they arise from different causes and conditions, the characteristics of phenomena differ; the same is true for various images, which arise from different causes and conditions, and their characteristics also differ. Therefore, images must exist. Because this statement is similar to the way other existing dharmas arise, this principle is completely established. The idea that 'birth' has no cause of its own has never been seen. The idea that images do not exist is also not valid. I admit that the arising of images has its own cause. That is to say, I admit that images have causes of the same kind, such as the sprouts of consciousness arising from different causes and conditions, etc. I do not think that images are produced by mirrors, etc., because I admit that the arising of images depends on their own causes. Mirrors, water, light, etc., only exist as 'taking conditions' (conditions), just like taking moving dust, which needs the penetration of light and the contrast of shadows. But light and shadows are not the cause of these dust particles, nor are these dust particles produced naturally without a cause. Or, it cannot be said that it does not exist because it arises from different causes and conditions, because the arising of similar and dissimilar colors can be seen with one's own eyes. Moreover, how to explain the generation of fire and water from the sun and moon and jewels? The same should be true. If it is said that fire and water are produced from their own seeds, because there are fire and water realms in these two jewels, then fire and water should be produced from both jewels. Or, these two jewels should be able to produce wind and earth, because they have wind and earth realms, just like they can produce fire and water. If it is said that these two jewels tend to become the self-class causes of fire and water because of the increase of the fire and water realms, this principle is also not valid, because these two jewels should have both cold and hot and humid properties, which can be observed now. If it is said that these two jewels need to be absorbed by the light of the sun and moon, and the two realms can be increased, so that they can be the conditions for generating fire and water, then both (jewels) should generate fire and water at the same time because they are absorbed by the light. If the realms of these two jewels do not increase or decrease, then why can the hot flame, as an auxiliary cause of the sun jewel, make it produce fire, but not the cold flame, as an auxiliary cause of the sun jewel, make it produce water? The moon jewel should also be questioned in the same way. The principle of the arising of all dharmas is really difficult to perceive. Lime and water are mixed, but only fire is produced, because it is commonly seen in the world that burning stones becomes lime, and fire can be produced when it encounters water instead of water. It can only be said that the arising of conditions is inconceivable. Apart from this, what other answer is there without fault? There are also rainbows, etc., the gathering of various colors, and the principle of arising from causes and conditions is also extremely difficult to know. There are also vajras, etc., in a gathering of one color, there are now various powers and divine powers. There are also many things in the examples of healing ** trees, etc., and there are many...
希奇用故。又諸物類。遇熱日月咒術等緣。便有生變。雖不共合。而現為因。故緣起理。實為難覺。若瞭如斯緣起正理。則不應說生無自因。曾未見故。像定非有。諸有說像乍可非無然非造色。此言粗淺。無勞酬對。若非造色。應非眼境。但應言像非唯造色。是故諸像實有理成。非像理成。便能順立撥無中有者色間斷生喻。許質與依中間有物連續無斷而生像故。謂月面等大種。恒時法爾。能生清妙大種。無間遍至。現對所依。在所皆生似本像色。依若清澈。像顯易知。依若粗穢像隱難了。雖二中間亦有像色。由清妙故。在依方顯如日光等。雖復遍生。在壁等依。方現可見。如何知像連質而生。中間有隔。像不生故。謂若月等。中無連續。於水等中。能生像者。中間有隔。像亦應生如彼所宗。執無中有。余處蘊滅。余處蘊生。又像形容。屈伸俯仰。及往來等。隨本質故。由斯證像連質而生。不可引為遮中有喻。非像無故。為喻不成。但由非等壞隨質故。謂見諸像。壞隨本質。生有亦隨死有滅者。有情相續。便有斷過。又諸像生。似本質故。謂月等像。定似本質。從牛等死有。應唯牛等生。既不許然。故喻非等。又從一質。生多像故。謂隨質依。生諸像位。可從一質隨對鏡等。眾多所依遍生多像。非從一蘊相續死有。多蘊
相續生有俱生。故像於斯。非為等喻。又質與像。非相續故。謂質與像。非一相續。像與本質。俱時有故。諸相續者。必不俱生像質俱生。故非相續。有情相續。前後無間。於此處死。余處續生。但應引谷。為同法喻。像非等故。為喻不成。又所現像。由二生故。謂二緣故。諸像得生。一者本質。二者鏡等。世間現見。生有不爾。所以者何。生有如像。死有如質。更有何法。如像所依。故所引喻。與法非等。若精血等。如像所依。理亦不然。非有情故。又于空等。欻爾化生。于中執何如像依處。若謂唯識相續流轉。連續死生其義已立。執色相續。復何所成。此不應理。諸有於色。未得離貪離色。唯心相續流轉。理不成故。若心離色。可相續流。則應受生。定不取色。故心相續。必與色俱。方能流轉。往受生處。又契經說。唯縛而生。唯縛而死。唯由被縛。從此世間。往於他世。聖說一切未離色貪。無不皆被色縛所縛。故無唯識相續流轉。亦不可計前本有色。即能相續往後生處現見死處。身喪滅故。由此應知。別有色往。是故中有。定有理成。若謂現見離色心轉。謂住於此。速取月輪。住縛喝國都城。念波吒厘子邑。世尊亦說。我不見有一法迴轉速疾如心。又契經說。心遠行獨行無身寐于窟。如是等類。非於中間別物可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『相續生』（saṃtatotpāda，指生命流轉的連續性）和『俱生』（sahajāta，指同時產生）是不同的。因此，用影像來比喻是不恰當的。而且，本質（pratibimba-hetu，產生影像的原因）和影像（pratibimba，反映出的形象）並非相續的。本質和影像並非一個連續的過程。影像和本質是同時存在的。凡是相續的事物，必定不是同時產生的。影像和本質是同時產生的，所以不是相續的。有情的相續是前後沒有間斷的，在此處死亡，在其他地方繼續出生。應該用穀物的生長來作為相同的比喻。影像的比喻是不恰當的，所以這個比喻不成立。而且，所顯現的影像是由兩個條件產生的，也就是由兩個緣故，影像才能產生：一是本質，二是鏡子等。世間上可以見到，『生有』（bhava，指生命存在）不是這樣的。為什麼呢？因為『生有』就像影像，『死有』（maraṇa，指死亡）就像本質。還有什麼法可以像影像所依賴的呢？所以所引用的比喻與法並不相同。如果說精血等像影像所依賴的，道理也是不通的，因為它們不是有情。而且，在空中等地方，突然化生，在這種情況下，認為什麼像是影像的依處呢？如果認為唯識（vijñāna-mātra，唯有意識）相續流轉，連續死生，這個道理已經成立，執著於色（rūpa，物質）的相續，又有什麼用呢？這個說法是不合理的。那些對於色還沒有離貪的人，離開色，唯有心相續流轉，這個道理是不成立的。如果心離開了色，可以相續流轉，那麼就應該受生時，一定不取色。所以心相續必定與色俱在，才能流轉，前往受生之處。而且契經（sūtra，佛經）上說，唯有被束縛而生，唯有被束縛而死，唯有由於被束縛，才從此世間前往他世。聖人說一切沒有離開色貪的人，沒有不被色縛所束縛的。所以沒有唯識相續流轉的說法。也不可以認為前世本有的色，就能相續前往後世的生處，因為現見死亡之處，身體已經喪滅了。由此應該知道，另外有色前往，所以『中有』（antarābhava，中陰身）的存在，道理是成立的。如果說現見離開色的心在運轉，就像住在這裡，迅速取到月輪，住在縛喝國（Bāhrika）的都城，念著波吒厘子邑（Pāṭaliputra）。世尊也說，我沒有見到有一種法迴轉得像心一樣迅速。而且契經上說，心遠行、獨行、無身、寐于窟。像這些等等，不是在中間有別的物體可以。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Continuous arising' (saṃtatotpāda, referring to the continuity of life's flow) and 'co-arising' (sahajāta, referring to simultaneous arising) are different. Therefore, using an image as a metaphor is inappropriate. Moreover, the essence (pratibimba-hetu, the cause of the image) and the image (pratibimba, the reflected form) are not continuous. The essence and the image are not a continuous process. The image and the essence exist simultaneously. Whatever is continuous must not arise simultaneously. The image and the essence arise simultaneously, so they are not continuous. The continuity of sentient beings is without interruption, dying here and continuing to be born elsewhere. One should use the growth of grain as a similar metaphor. The metaphor of the image is inappropriate, so this metaphor does not hold. Furthermore, the manifested image arises from two conditions, that is, the image can arise from two causes: one is the essence, and the other is a mirror, etc. It can be seen in the world that 'becoming' (bhava, referring to the existence of life) is not like this. Why? Because 'becoming' is like an image, and 'death' (maraṇa, referring to death) is like the essence. What other dharma is like that which the image relies on? Therefore, the cited metaphor is not the same as the dharma. If it is said that semen and blood are like that which the image relies on, the reasoning is also not valid, because they are not sentient beings. Moreover, in places such as the sky, sudden transformation occurs. In this case, what is considered to be the place where the image relies? If it is thought that only consciousness (vijñāna-mātra, only consciousness) continuously flows, continuously dying and being born, this principle has already been established. Clinging to the continuity of form (rūpa, matter), what is the use? This statement is unreasonable. For those who have not yet abandoned greed for form, leaving form, only the mind continuously flows, this principle is not established. If the mind leaves form and can continuously flow, then one should definitely not take form when being born. Therefore, the mind's continuity must be together with form in order to flow and go to the place of rebirth. Moreover, the sutra (sūtra, Buddhist scripture) says that one is born only when bound, one dies only when bound, and only because of being bound does one go from this world to another world. The sage said that all those who have not abandoned greed for form are all bound by the bonds of form. Therefore, there is no saying that only consciousness continuously flows. It is also not possible to think that the form that originally existed in the previous life can continuously go to the place of birth in the next life, because it is seen that the body has perished at the place of death. From this, it should be known that there is another form that goes, so the existence of the 'intermediate state' (antarābhava, the intermediate body) is established in principle. If it is said that the mind is seen to be moving away from form, just like living here and quickly taking the moon, living in the capital city of Bāhrika, and thinking of Pāṭaliputra. The World Honored One also said, 'I have not seen a dharma that revolves as quickly as the mind.' Moreover, the sutra says, 'The mind travels far, travels alone, is without a body, and sleeps in a cave.' Like these and so on, there is no other object in between that can.
得。如是死生際中有雖無。而從此世間至於他世。此亦非理。前已說故。取非至境故。依等速轉故。謂前已說。未離色貪離色唯心流轉非理。又眼意識。取非至境。心住於此。遠取月輪。遙念他邑。亦無有過。非心往至所取念境。曾不見識離所依生。或亦曾無離依無過。由此已釋心遠行等。又于所依境界行相。心疾迴轉。非離所依唯往境界速疾迴轉。是故知心非離於色。相續流轉往受生處。由斯中有實有理成。如是已明像連質起。死生處隔。同喻不成。由此亦遮響聲為喻。以聲與彼谷等中間有物相續傳生響故。謂本發聲。所依大種。傳生妙大種。遍至谷等中所在擊生。似本聲響。中間雖有聲響相續。或散微故。而不可聞。若於中間。觸山谷等。即便聚積。亦可得聞。云何知然。異時聞故。謂諸聽者。先聞本聲。於後方聞聲所發響。若謂無間剎那聞者。二剎那前後難了知故。應起增上慢。謂一時聞。而不謂然知聲相續中間淹滯。覺異時聞。由如是聲相續展轉。至於谷等方擊響生。彌更證成。定有中有。豈不汝宗亦定不許諸聲相續轉入耳聞。如何言聲相續展轉。遇緣發響。異時方聞。汝責不然。我不遮故。謂聲相續轉。非我所遮。唯轉入耳聞。非我所許。諸有大種。發聲緣處。展轉相擊。皆有聲生。在可聞緣聲方可取。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『得。如是死生際中有雖無。而從此世間至於他世。此亦非理。前已說故。取非至境故。依等速轉故。』意思是說，即使承認死生之間的『中有』（bardo，指死亡和投生之間的過渡狀態）不存在，但從這個世界到另一個世界的過渡也是不合理的。因為之前已經說過，心識所取並非直接的境界，而是依賴於等速的轉變。 『謂前已說。未離色貪離色唯心流轉非理。』 這指的是之前已經說過，如果還沒有脫離對色（rupa，物質）的貪執，那麼純粹的心識流轉是不合理的。 『又眼意識。取非至境。心住於此。遠取月輪。遙念他邑。亦無有過。非心往至所取念境。曾不見識離所依生。或亦曾無離依無過。由此已釋心遠行等。』 此外，眼識所取的並非直接的境界。心識安住於此地，卻能感知遠處的月亮，遙想其他的城邑，這並沒有什麼過錯。因為心識並非真的前往所取和所念的境界。從來沒有見過心識脫離所依而生起，或者說，脫離所依而沒有過失。因此，這也解釋了心識能夠遠行的道理。 『又于所依境界行相。心疾迴轉。非離所依唯往境界速疾迴轉。是故知心非離於色。相續流轉往受生處。由斯中有實有理成。』 而且，心識在所依的境界和行相上迅速回轉，而不是脫離所依，僅僅前往境界而快速回轉。因此，可知心識並非脫離色而相續流轉，前往受生之處。由此，『中有』的真實存在才得以成立。 『如是已明像連質起。死生處隔。同喻不成。由此亦遮響聲為喻。以聲與彼谷等中間有物相續傳生響故。』 像和質是相連而生起的，而死亡和出生之處是分隔的，所以之前的比喻並不成立。因此，也可以否定用響聲來作比喻，因為聲音和山谷等之間有物質相續傳遞，從而產生迴響。 『謂本發聲。所依大種。傳生妙大種。遍至谷等中所在擊生。似本聲響。中間雖有聲響相續。或散微故。而不可聞。若於中間。觸山谷等。即便聚積。亦可得聞。』 也就是說，最初發聲所依賴的『大種』（mahabhuta，四大元素），傳遞產生微妙的『大種』，遍及山谷等處，撞擊而產生類似原本聲音的迴響。中間雖然有聲音相續，但因為分散微弱，所以聽不到。如果在中間遇到山谷等，聲音就會聚集，就可以聽到了。 『云何知然。異時聞故。謂諸聽者。先聞本聲。於後方聞聲所發響。若謂無間剎那聞者。二剎那前後難了知故。應起增上慢。謂一時聞。而不謂然知聲相續中間淹滯。覺異時聞。由如是聲相續展轉。至於谷等方擊響生。彌更證成。定有中有。』 怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為聽到迴響的時間不同。聽者先聽到原本的聲音，之後才聽到聲音所發出的迴響。如果說是在無間剎那聽到的，那麼兩個剎那的前後難以分辨，應該會產生增上慢，認為是一時聽到的。但實際上並非如此，而是知道聲音相續在中間停滯，感覺到是不同時聽到的。由於這樣的聲音相續輾轉，到達山谷等處才撞擊產生迴響，更加證明了『中有』的存在。 『豈不汝宗亦定不許諸聲相續轉入耳聞。如何言聲相續展轉。遇緣發響。異時方聞。』 難道你們宗派也一定不允許聲音相續傳入耳朵聽到嗎？怎麼能說聲音相續輾轉，遇到因緣才發出迴響，不同時聽到呢？ 『汝責不然。我不遮故。謂聲相續轉。非我所遮。唯轉入耳聞。非我所許。諸有大種。發聲緣處。展轉相擊。皆有聲生。在可聞緣聲方可取。于』 你的責難是不對的，我並沒有否定聲音相續的傳遞。我所不允許的只是聲音相續傳入耳朵聽到。凡是有『大種』作為發聲的因緣之處，輾轉相擊都會產生聲音，只有在可聽聞的因緣下，聲音才能被感知。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Granted that there is no intermediate state (bardo) between death and birth, it is still unreasonable that there is a transition from this world to another world, as it has been said before, because the mind takes non-immediate objects and relies on uniform velocity.』 This means that even if we admit that the 『intermediate state』 (bardo, the transitional state between death and rebirth) does not exist, the transition from this world to another is still unreasonable, because as previously stated, the mind does not directly perceive objects but relies on uniform transformations. 『It has been said before that it is unreasonable for the mind to flow without being free from attachment to form (rupa),』 This refers to what was said before, that if one has not yet detached from the attachment to form (rupa, matter), then the pure flow of consciousness is unreasonable. 『Moreover, eye-consciousness does not take immediate objects. The mind dwells here, yet it perceives the distant moon and thinks of other cities without error, because the mind does not actually go to the objects it perceives and thinks of. We have never seen consciousness arise apart from its basis, nor is there any fault in being apart from its basis. Thus, the mind's ability to travel far is explained.』 Furthermore, eye-consciousness does not take immediate objects. The mind dwells here, yet it perceives the distant moon and thinks of other cities without error, because the mind does not actually go to the objects it perceives and thinks of. We have never seen consciousness arise apart from its basis, nor is there any fault in being apart from its basis. Thus, the mind's ability to travel far is explained. 『Moreover, the mind quickly revolves around the aspects of its basis and objects, rather than leaving its basis and quickly going only to the objects. Therefore, we know that the mind does not flow continuously apart from form to the place of rebirth. Thus, the real existence of the intermediate state is established.』 Moreover, the mind quickly revolves around the aspects of its basis and objects, rather than leaving its basis and quickly going only to the objects. Therefore, we know that the mind does not flow continuously apart from form to the place of rebirth. Thus, the real existence of the 『intermediate state』 is established. 『It has been made clear that the image arises in connection with the substance, but the places of death and birth are separated, so the previous analogy does not hold. Therefore, the analogy of the echo is also refuted, because there is a continuous transmission of matter between the sound and the valley, which produces the echo.』 The image and the substance arise in connection with each other, but the places of death and birth are separated, so the previous analogy does not hold. Therefore, the analogy of the echo is also refuted, because there is a continuous transmission of matter between the sound and the valley, which produces the echo. 『That is to say, the mahabhutas (great elements) on which the original sound depends transmit subtle mahabhutas, which spread throughout the valleys and strike to produce echoes similar to the original sound. Although there is a continuous sound in between, it is inaudible because it is dispersed and weak. If it encounters mountains and valleys in between, it will accumulate and become audible.』 That is to say, the 『mahabhutas』 (mahabhuta, the four great elements) on which the original sound depends transmit subtle 『mahabhutas』, which spread throughout the valleys and strike to produce echoes similar to the original sound. Although there is a continuous sound in between, it is inaudible because it is dispersed and weak. If it encounters mountains and valleys in between, it will accumulate and become audible. 『How do we know this? Because we hear it at different times. Listeners first hear the original sound, and then hear the echo produced by the sound. If it is said that it is heard in an uninterrupted moment, it is difficult to distinguish between the two moments, and one should develop arrogance, thinking that it is heard at the same time. But this is not the case, but rather one knows that the sound continues and lingers in between, and feels that it is heard at different times. Because of such a continuous transmission of sound, it strikes and produces an echo when it reaches the valleys, which further proves the existence of the intermediate state.』 How do we know this? Because we hear it at different times. Listeners first hear the original sound, and then hear the echo produced by the sound. If it is said that it is heard in an uninterrupted moment, it is difficult to distinguish between the two moments, and one should develop arrogance, thinking that it is heard at the same time. But this is not the case, but rather one knows that the sound continues and lingers in between, and feels that it is heard at different times. Because of such a continuous transmission of sound, it strikes and produces an echo when it reaches the valleys, which further proves the existence of the 『intermediate state』. 『Do not your school also definitely deny that sounds continue to enter the ear and are heard? How can you say that sounds continue to transmit, meet conditions, produce echoes, and are heard at different times?』 Do not your school also definitely deny that sounds continue to enter the ear and are heard? How can you say that sounds continue to transmit, meet conditions, produce echoes, and are heard at different times? 『Your accusation is not correct, because I do not deny it. What I do not deny is the transmission of sound. What I do not allow is the continuous sound entering the ear and being heard. Wherever there are mahabhutas as the cause of sound, there will be sound produced by mutual striking. Sound can only be perceived when there are audible conditions.』 Your accusation is not correct, because I do not deny it. What I do not deny is the transmission of sound. What I do not allow is the continuous sound entering the ear and being heard. Wherever there are 『mahabhutas』 as the cause of sound, there will be sound produced by mutual striking. Sound can only be perceived when there are audible conditions.
中先取本質處聲。於後乃聞異處生響。無同外道至根聞過。非聲相續轉入耳聞。以有先聞質處聲已。后時異質。及離耳根更于別處。聞所發響。若唯能取逼耳生聲。應不遙聞異方聲響。故非相續轉入耳聞。亦非諸聲無相續轉。遙聞聲響。方所別故。聲響異時異處聞故。由此中有定有義成。有餘師言。風等緣合有差別故。聲展轉至。及不離質二。皆可聞是。則耳根。應能通取至不至境成。違宗過。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之四
有餘復言。如無色界歿。中無連續欲色界色生。如是亦應此死有滅中。無連續彼生有起。所引谷喻。于證無能。又此喻中有非愛過。謂同法喻。例法應同。然谷等種中。唯生谷芽等。如是人歿。應但生人。牛等歿時。唯生牛等。故喻於此有非愛過。又種滅處。即有芽生。應眼根中識等滅已即於是處識等還生。則唯一根。恒生識等。如是耳等便為無用。又一身中。識等滅已。即復於此識等還生。是則恒存應無死義。如是死有於此處滅。即於此處中有復生。後後念生即前前處。乃至中有滅。即此生有生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 首先，耳識是先獲取聲音的本質之處（質處聲），之後才能聽到從其他地方產生的聲響（異處生響）。這與外道認為聲音直接進入耳根的觀點不同。聲音並不是連續不斷地傳入耳中，才被聽到的。因為耳識是先聽到聲音的本質之處，之後在不同的時間，不同的地點，即使離開了耳根，也能聽到所發出的聲響。如果耳識只能獲取逼近耳邊產生的聲音，那麼就不應該能遙遠地聽到來自其他地方的聲音。所以，聲音不是連續不斷地傳入耳中才被聽到的，也不是所有的聲音都無間斷地傳遞，才能遙遠地聽到聲響，因為地點不同。由於聲音和聲響在不同的時間和地點被聽到，由此可以確定中有（Bardo, intermediate state between death and rebirth）的存在是有道理的。 還有其他論師說，由於風等因緣和合而產生差別，聲音可以傳播到達，以及聲音不離本質這兩點，都是可以被聽到的。如果是這樣，那麼耳根就應該能夠同時獲取到達和未到達的境界，這便犯了違背宗義的過失（違宗過）。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之四
還有其他論者說，就像沒有無色界的眾生死後，沒有連續不斷地從欲界（Kāmadhātu）到色界（Rūpadhātu）的產生一樣，也應該如此，此死有（dying consciousness）滅亡之後，沒有連續不斷地彼生有（rebirth consciousness）的生起。所引用的谷芽的比喻，對於證明這一點沒有作用。而且這個比喻中存在著不合意之處（非愛過）。也就是說，作為同法喻，類比的法則應該是相同的。然而，谷等種子中，只會生長出谷芽等。同樣地，人死後，應該只生出人，牛等死後，應該只生出牛等。所以這個比喻在這裡存在著不合意之處。而且種子滅亡的地方，就會有芽的產生。那麼，眼根（eye sense organ）中的識（consciousness）等滅亡之後，就應該立刻在那個地方，識等再次產生。那麼就只有一個根，恒常地產生識等。這樣一來，耳朵等其他的根就變得沒有用了。而且，一個身體中，識等滅亡之後，立刻又在這個身體中，識等再次產生。如果是這樣，那麼就應該恒常存在，沒有死亡的意義了。同樣地，死有在此處滅亡，立刻就在此處，中有再次產生。後後唸的產生，就在前前唸的地方，乃至中有滅亡，立刻就在這裡，生有產生。
【English Translation】 English version First, the ear consciousness (ear-vijñāna) initially grasps the essential nature of sound at its source ('quality-place-sound'). Only then can it hear sounds originating from different locations ('different-place-sound'). This differs from the externalist (外道, heretical) view that sound directly enters the ear root (ear-indriya). Sound is not continuously transmitted into the ear to be heard. Because the ear consciousness first hears the essential nature of sound, it can later hear sounds emitted at different times and places, even when separated from the ear root. If the ear consciousness could only grasp sounds produced near the ear, it should not be able to hear sounds from distant locations. Therefore, sound is not continuously transmitted into the ear to be heard, nor are all sounds transmitted without interruption to be heard from afar, because the locations are different. Since sounds and noises are heard at different times and places, it can be determined that the existence of the Bardo (中有, intermediate state between death and rebirth) is reasonable. Other teachers say that due to the combination of conditions such as wind, there are differences, and that sound can propagate to reach, and that sound is inseparable from its essence, both of which can be heard. If this were the case, then the ear root should be able to simultaneously grasp both reached and unreached objects, which would be a fault of contradicting the doctrine (違宗過, pratipakṣa-sādhanatā).
T29 No. 1562 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (Shun zheng li lun) Scroll 23 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Scroll 24
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra (眾賢)
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘) under Imperial Decree
Chapter 3, Section 4: Analysis of Dependent Origination (辯緣起品)
Furthermore, some say that just as there is no continuous arising from the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) to the form realm (Rūpadhātu) without the death of a being in the formless realm (Arūpadhātu), so too should there be no continuous arising of the subsequent existence (rebirth consciousness) from the cessation of this dying consciousness (death-consciousness). The analogy of the grain sprout is ineffective in proving this point. Moreover, this analogy contains an undesirable consequence (非愛過, anabhimata). That is, as a similar example, the principle of analogy should be the same. However, from grains and other seeds, only grain sprouts and the like arise. Similarly, when a human dies, only a human should be born, and when a cow dies, only a cow should be born. Therefore, this analogy has an undesirable consequence here. Moreover, where the seed ceases, the sprout arises immediately. Then, after the consciousness (vijñāna) and so on in the eye sense organ (eye-indriya) cease, the consciousness and so on should arise again immediately in that place. Then there would be only one sense organ, constantly producing consciousness and so on. In this case, the ears and other sense organs would become useless. Moreover, after the consciousness and so on in one body cease, the consciousness and so on would arise again immediately in that body. If this were the case, then there should be constant existence, and there would be no meaning of death. Similarly, when the dying consciousness ceases here, the intermediate existence (antarābhava) arises again immediately in this place. The arising of each subsequent moment is in the place of each preceding moment, until the intermediate existence ceases, and the subsequent existence arises immediately here.
是則應無往餘生義。中有勝用。於此頓亡。巧立如斯害自宗喻。此皆非理。所以者何。從無色歿。生有色者。色法生時。有連續故。謂無色歿。生欲色時。即由是處大種和合。從順后受業。有異熟色生。故彼色生。非無連續。或總相續無間斷故。謂無色界。異熟終時。四無色蘊。無間無斷。為緣引發。欲色界中。與色俱生。諸蘊令起。故彼色起。非無連續。欲色界歿。欲色界生。死生中間。處所懸隔。若無少物于中連持。無色死生下。豈得為同喻。又於此中。無非愛過。如一稻種。為芽麨飯灰散五因。如是有情一趣相續。為五因故。謂一稻種。能為五因。若遇順緣。便生自果。如是一趣有情相續。具為五因。若遇如是順緣和合。便生自果。故無人等滅唯生自類過。又無如種芽同處生滅失。以種相續生芽等時。雖無間斷。非無處異。準斯理趣。內法亦然。故無果因唯同處失。謂諸種聚。于滅壞時。由水等緣和合攝助。能為粗大芽聚生因。于種滅時。芽異處起。芽雖增長轉至遠方。而於中間。鄰次無斷。由此外法從種生芽處非隔即鄰次道理。如是內法。隨所依身。心相續轉。亦無有失。謂于死時。大種等聚。由業風等緣所攝持。能與當生鄰死處起大種等聚。為能生因。獨業不能令彼色聚中無連續遠處欻生。鄰死所生。即是
中有。從茲展轉。趣余方生。于其中間。非即非越。能至生有。如從種等芽等漸生能至於果。故舉谷喻。非害自宗。或復何勞強撥中有。世曾未見。有諸色聚。中無連續。于異處生。唯見影光火焰等事中間連續至余方生。故非頓亡中有勝用。然眼識等。緣和合力。不越依身。別別處起。無方所故。非住一根於一身中識常生滅。恒無死難由斯已解。或復死者同分蘊滅。異分蘊生。故無斯過。且化生者。先世所作業果色根。並所依處。此處頓滅。即於此處。容有其餘業果頓起。可疑死位與前無別。餘三生者。先世所作業果。色根相續雖滅。而見依處相似隨轉。非后色根無所依處。別業果故。非即依前。由此證知。餘業所感。根及依處。鄰次前身根滅所依。異處而起。有對礙法。自所住方。必能障余。令不起故。於此無有恒不死疑。有餘復言。猶如尺蠖前安前足後足后移。如是死生方所雖隔。先取后舍。得至余方。是故於斯中有無用。毗婆沙者。貶此釋言。此釋極同下俚言義。如是便有非二有情二趣二心俱行過故。又尺蠖喻。其理不成。以彼蟲身中無間絕。安前移后。處隔可然。死生有身。中間隔絕。如何可得取生有身。既未取生。如何舍死。非心心所處無斷可成。離所依身處續義無故。若謂有色為無斷依。則為中有義已成
立。若謂死生雖隔而到。則尺蠖喻。義不相應。有餘復言。死生二有。雖隔而至。如意勢通。此亦不然。非所許故。異此余類。此歿彼生。中間隔絕。應成通慧。若爾此應是行差別。實爾細故難可了知。謂一剎那。不應為難。故前谷喻。無過理成。以要相連處無間斷。生有起故。定有中有。又有別理。中有非無。現見剎那無間生者。決定方所無間生故。謂世現見。從執受色。無間還生執受色者。剎那處所。俱無間生若生有色。許從死有剎那無間鄰近而生。處所亦應無間鄰近。然無如是理故。中有義成。若謂如從無色界歿生有色界。色初起時。昔色與今。方所無間剎那有間。而得續生。亦應地獄死生有色剎那無間處有間生。此亦不然。不了宗故。謂于昔者。從欲色歿。生無色時。色身滅處今從彼歿。生欲色時。即前色身滅處。無間引今色起。非我所宗。是故此中。剎那處所。俱非鄰近。不應為喻。又若剎那鄰近生者。處所定爾。非由種故。謂諸剎那無間生者。處所必定。亦無間生非此相違。有斯決定。故彼所例。理不相應。又余緣合。方成因性現所見故。中有義成。謂諸種子。余助緣合。能作芽因。世所現見。如是識種。生生有色。必藉生處。外色為緣。故識定與生處色合。不應一識與死有身及生處所處間斷色有俱合義
。故有中有。若謂非色無所住處故無過者。理亦不然。無所住言。依遮諸識住根及境。如人座故。非識與色合義全無。以契經言有識身故。又經說識不離身故。若謂死有色親能為因。如中有色生生有色者。亦不應理。死有與生處所隔絕。不成因故。或外助緣精血等色。與彼隔絕。應無助用。故應別有生有色因與精血合。此即中有。又如何知。定有中有。現可得故。謂中有身。凈天眼者。現前可得。故如是說。諸中有身。極凈天眼之所能見。又彼尊者阿泥律陀亦言。具壽我觀佛化其量最多。非諸中有。是故中有。決定非無。又聖教說有中有故謂契經言。有有七種。即五趣有業有中有。又經說有健達縛故。如契經言。入母胎者。要由三事俱現在前。一者母身是時調適。二者父母交愛和合。三健達縛正現在前。除中有身。有何別物。名健達縛正現在前。若謂二經非我所許。非汝不許故此便無。謂無定因可為誠證。汝不許者。其體皆無。有謂后經應如是說。塞建陀滅正現在前。傳者謬誦。為健達縛。於此位中。樂器無故。此非經義。於此位中。前蘊已滅。無來義故。然余經中。說健達縛東南西北諸方來故。如掌馬族契經中言。汝今知不。此健達縛正現前者。為婆羅門。為剎帝利。為是吠舍。為戍達羅。為東方來。為南西北。復
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，存在中有（Antarabhava，指死亡到投胎之間的過渡期）。如果認為因為沒有色法（Rupa，物質）的住處，所以沒有過失，這個理由也是不成立的。』無所住』的意思是，遮止了諸識（Vijnana，意識）住在根（Indriya，感覺器官）和境（Visaya，感覺對像）上，就像人坐在座位上一樣。並非說識與色完全沒有關聯，因為契經（Sutra，佛經）中說有識身（Savijnanaka-kaya，具有意識的身體）。而且經中也說識不離身。如果認為死有（Cyuti-bhava，死亡時的狀態）的色法能夠作為親因，就像中有的色法產生生有（Upapatti-bhava，投生時的狀態）的色法一樣，這也是不合理的。因為死有與生有處所隔絕，不能成為原因。或者說，外在的助緣，比如精血等色法，與死有隔絕，應該沒有幫助作用。所以應該有另外的生有的色法之因與精血結合，這就是中有。又如何知道一定有中有呢？因為現在可以得到。所謂中有的身體，具有清凈天眼（Divyacaksu，天眼）的人，可以親眼見到。所以這樣說，諸中有的身體，是極清凈的天眼所能見到的。而且尊者阿泥律陀（Aniruddha）也說：『具壽（Ayushman，對僧人的尊稱），我看到佛陀化現的身體數量最多，而不是諸中有。』所以，中有決定不是沒有的。而且聖教（Aryadharma，佛法）中說有中有，比如契經中說，有有七種，即五趣有（五道輪迴）、業有（Karma-bhava，業力所致的存在）、中有。又經中說有健達縛（Gandharva，乾闥婆）的緣故。如契經所言：『進入母親子宮的人，需要由三件事同時出現：一是母親的身體在當時調適；二是父母交愛和合；三是健達縛正現在前。』除了中有身，還有什麼別的東西，可以稱為健達縛正現在前呢？如果認為這兩部經不是我所認可的，並非你不認可，它就不存在。因為沒有確定的原因可以作為真實的證據。你不認可的，它的本體就都沒有了嗎？有人認為後面的經應該這樣說：『塞建陀（Skandha，五蘊）滅正現在前。』是傳誦的人錯誤地念成了健達縛。因為在這個階段中，沒有樂器。這不是經的含義。因為在這個階段中，前蘊（Purva-skandha，前一蘊）已經滅盡，沒有來的意義。然而其他的經中，說健達縛從東南西北諸方而來。如掌馬族契經中說：『你現在知道嗎？這個健達縛正現在前的，是婆羅門（Brahmana，祭司），還是剎帝利（Ksatriya，武士），還是吠舍（Vaisya，商人），還是戍達羅（Sudra，奴隸）？是從東方來，還是南西北？』 English version Therefore, there is an intermediate existence (Antarabhava). If it is argued that there is no fault because there is no place for form (Rupa) to dwell, this reasoning is also not valid. 'No place to dwell' means that it prevents the consciousnesses (Vijnana) from dwelling on the sense organs (Indriya) and sense objects (Visaya), just like a person sitting on a seat. It is not that there is no connection between consciousness and form at all, because the Sutras (scriptures) say that there is a body with consciousness (Savijnanaka-kaya). Moreover, the Sutras also say that consciousness is inseparable from the body. If it is argued that the form of the dying state (Cyuti-bhava) can be a direct cause, just like the form of the intermediate existence produces the form of the arising state (Upapatti-bhava), this is also unreasonable. Because the dying state and the arising state are separated by location, they cannot be a cause. Or, the external auxiliary conditions, such as sperm and blood, are separated from the dying state, and should have no helping effect. Therefore, there should be another cause of the form of the arising state that combines with sperm and blood, and this is the intermediate existence. Furthermore, how do we know for sure that there is an intermediate existence? Because it can be obtained now. The so-called body of the intermediate existence can be seen with the naked eye by those who have pure divine eyes (Divyacaksu). Therefore, it is said that the bodies of the intermediate existences can be seen by the extremely pure divine eyes. Moreover, the Venerable Aniruddha also said: 'Ayushman (term of respect for monks), I see that the number of bodies manifested by the Buddha is the largest, not the intermediate existences.' Therefore, the intermediate existence is definitely not non-existent. Moreover, the Holy Dharma (Aryadharma) says that there is an intermediate existence, such as the Sutras saying that there are seven types of existence, namely the five destinies (five realms of reincarnation), existence due to karma (Karma-bhava), and the intermediate existence. Also, the Sutras say that there is a Gandharva. As the Sutras say: 'One who enters the mother's womb needs three things to be present at the same time: first, the mother's body is in a suitable condition at that time; second, the parents' love and harmony are combined; third, the Gandharva is present.' Apart from the body of the intermediate existence, what else can be called the Gandharva being present? If it is argued that these two Sutras are not recognized by me, it does not mean that it does not exist because you do not recognize it. Because there is no definite reason that can be used as true evidence. If you do not recognize it, does that mean that its essence does not exist? Some people think that the later Sutra should say: 'The Skandhas (five aggregates) cease and are present.' It was a mistake in recitation that it was read as Gandharva. Because in this stage, there are no musical instruments. This is not the meaning of the Sutra. Because in this stage, the previous Skandhas have already ceased, and there is no meaning of coming. However, other Sutras say that the Gandharva comes from the southeast, northwest, and other directions. As the Sutra of the Palm Horse Clan says: 'Do you know now? Is this Gandharva who is present a Brahmana (priest), a Ksatriya (warrior), a Vaisya (merchant), or a Sudra (slave)? Does he come from the east, south, west, or north?'
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, there is an intermediate existence (Antarabhava, referring to the transitional period between death and rebirth). If it is argued that there is no fault because there is no place for form (Rupa, matter) to dwell, this reasoning is also not valid. 'No place to dwell' means that it prevents the consciousnesses (Vijnana, consciousness) from dwelling on the sense organs (Indriya, sense organs) and sense objects (Visaya, sense objects), just like a person sitting on a seat. It is not that there is no connection between consciousness and form at all, because the Sutras (scriptures) say that there is a body with consciousness (Savijnanaka-kaya, a body with consciousness). Moreover, the Sutras also say that consciousness is inseparable from the body. If it is argued that the form of the dying state (Cyuti-bhava, the state at the time of death) can be a direct cause, just like the form of the intermediate existence produces the form of the arising state (Upapatti-bhava, the state at the time of rebirth), this is also unreasonable. Because the dying state and the arising state are separated by location, they cannot be a cause. Or, the external auxiliary conditions, such as sperm and blood, are separated from the dying state, and should have no helping effect. Therefore, there should be another cause of the form of the arising state that combines with sperm and blood, and this is the intermediate existence. Furthermore, how do we know for sure that there is an intermediate existence? Because it can be obtained now. The so-called body of the intermediate existence can be seen with the naked eye by those who have pure divine eyes (Divyacaksu, divine eyes). Therefore, it is said that the bodies of the intermediate existences can be seen by the extremely pure divine eyes. Moreover, the Venerable Aniruddha also said: 'Ayushman (term of respect for monks), I see that the number of bodies manifested by the Buddha is the largest, not the intermediate existences.' Therefore, the intermediate existence is definitely not non-existent. Moreover, the Holy Dharma (Aryadharma, the Buddha's teachings) says that there is an intermediate existence, such as the Sutras saying that there are seven types of existence, namely the five destinies (five realms of reincarnation), existence due to karma (Karma-bhava, existence due to karma), and the intermediate existence. Also, the Sutras say that there is a Gandharva. As the Sutras say: 'One who enters the mother's womb needs three things to be present at the same time: first, the mother's body is in a suitable condition at that time; second, the parents' love and harmony are combined; third, the Gandharva is present.' Apart from the body of the intermediate existence, what else can be called the Gandharva being present? If it is argued that these two Sutras are not recognized by me, it does not mean that it does not exist because you do not recognize it. Because there is no definite reason that can be used as true evidence. If you do not recognize it, does that mean that its essence does not exist? Some people think that the later Sutra should say: 'The Skandhas (five aggregates) cease and are present.' It was a mistake in recitation that it was read as Gandharva. Because in this stage, there are no musical instruments. This is not the meaning of the Sutra. Because in this stage, the previous Skandhas have already ceased, and there is no meaning of coming. However, other Sutras say that the Gandharva comes from the southeast, northwest, and other directions. As the Sutra of the Palm Horse Clan says: 'Do you know now? Is this Gandharva who is present a Brahmana (priest), a Ksatriya (warrior), a Vaisya (merchant), or a Sudra (slave)? Does he come from the east, south, west, or north?'
如是說。隨是何族。隨從何方。來現在前。非前蘊滅可有來義。故彼所言。依自計度。又世論說。由二因緣。女男交會。事極成立。一健達縛。二邏剎娑。初令自生和合貪故。後由強力現所逼故。然中有身。符順初義。彼雖無樂器。而健達縛成。或隨世間。假立名想。何勞於此起固執為。設於此經。彼亦不誦。豈復不信如是契經。如說汝非此他俱世當於中有能作苦邊。又說將歿將生時故。如契經言。我以天眼觀有情類。將歿將生。此將生言。即目中有。從此歿已。未生彼故。有謂此說究竟為遠。于已生位。說將生言。如說大王今何來此。應于已歿說將歿言。差別因緣不可得故。又設爾者中有亦成。於此已歿未生彼故。或於已生再說無用。又非唯究竟方說遠言。現見有遠言亦說遠故。如世尊告舍利子言。汝觀此童。今來詣此。由此定證。將生時言。非說已生。但目中有。又可住經說意成故。謂世尊告彼可住言。若於爾時。彼有情類。此身已舍。住意成中。后一類身。未已生位。我施設彼。當於爾時。所住意成。有愛及取。言意成者。即中有身。由此證知。定有中有。有隨自執。妄釋此經。言意成聲。詮無色界。彼謂可住朋友命終。超有色天。生於無色。可住天眼觀不能見。來問世尊。若於爾時。彼有情類。乃至廣說。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如是我聞（如是說）。此人是哪個種族的？從哪個方向而來？現在來到我的面前。如果前一蘊已經滅盡，那麼『來』就沒有意義。所以他們所說的話，只是根據自己的推測。而且世俗的說法是，男女交合需要兩個因緣才能成功：一是健達縛（Gandharva，尋香），二是邏剎娑（Rakshasa，羅剎）。前者是因為自身想要和合的貪慾，後者是因為強大的力量逼迫。然而，中有身（Antarabhava，中陰身）符合前者的意思。即使沒有樂器，健達縛也能成就。或者可以隨順世間，假立名想，何必在此固執呢？如果他們連這部經都不誦讀，又怎麼會相信這樣的契經呢？正如經中所說：『你既不屬於這裡，也不屬於其他地方，更不屬於兩者之間，那麼誰能在中有中結束痛苦呢？』又說，將要死亡和將要出生的時候，正如契經所說：『我以天眼觀察眾生，將要死亡和將要出生。』這裡所說的『將要出生』，指的就是中有。因為從此地死亡后，還沒有生到彼地。有人認為，這樣說究竟是太遙遠了，在已經出生的階段，說『將要出生』，就像說『大王現在從哪裡來這裡』一樣。應該對已經死亡的人說『將要死亡』。因為沒有其他不同的因緣。而且，即使這樣說，也仍然成立中有，因為他已經從這裡死亡，還沒有生到那裡。或者對已經出生的人再說『將要出生』就沒有意義了。而且，並非只有究竟的時候才說『遙遠』，現在看到也有說『遙遠』的情況。就像世尊告訴舍利子說：『你看看這個孩子，現在來到這裡。』由此可以確定，『將要出生』是指將要出生的時候，只是指中有。而且，《可住經》中也說了意成（Manomaya，意生身），世尊告訴可住說：『如果在那時，那些眾生，已經捨棄了這個身體，住在意成中，后一類身體，還沒有出生的時候，我施設他們，應當在那時，所住的意成，有愛和取。』這裡所說的『意成』，就是中有身。由此可以證明，一定有中有。有人根據自己的執著，錯誤地解釋這部經，說『意成』是指沒有**。他們認為，可住的朋友命終后，超越了有色天，生於無色界，可住用天眼也無法看見，所以來問世尊：『如果在那時，那些眾生……』等等。
【English Translation】 English version: Thus I have heard. From what family is he? From what direction does he come? He is now present before me. If the previous skandha (aggregate) has ceased, there can be no meaning of 'coming'. Therefore, what they say is based on their own speculation. Moreover, worldly sayings state that two causes are needed for a male and female to unite successfully: first, a Gandharva (seeker of fragrance); second, a Rakshasa (demon). The former is due to their own desire for union, while the latter is due to the force of compulsion. However, the Antarabhava (intermediate state being) accords with the first meaning. Even without musical instruments, a Gandharva can be accomplished. Or, one can follow the world and provisionally establish names and concepts; why be so attached to this? If they do not even recite this sutra, how can they believe in such a scripture? As it is said in the sutra: 'You are neither here, nor there, nor in between; then who can end suffering in the intermediate state?' It also speaks of the time of dying and the time of being born, as the sutra says: 'I see with my divine eye sentient beings who are dying and being born.' The phrase 'being born' refers to the Antarabhava. Because after dying from here, they have not yet been born there. Some say that this is too far in the ultimate sense, saying 'being born' at the stage of already being born, just like saying 'Where does the great king come here from now?' One should say 'about to die' to someone who has already died, because there is no other different cause. Moreover, even if you say so, the Antarabhava is still established, because he has already died from here and has not yet been born there. Or, it is useless to say 'about to be born' again to someone who has already been born. Moreover, it is not only in the ultimate sense that 'far' is said; we see that 'far' is also said in the present. Just as the World-Honored One told Shariputra: 'Look at this child, he is coming here now.' From this, it is certain that 'about to be born' refers to the time of being born, and only refers to the Antarabhava. Moreover, the Sutra of Sustaining also speaks of the Manomaya (mind-made body), as the World-Honored One told Sustaining: 'If at that time, those sentient beings, having abandoned this body, dwell in the Manomaya, and the next kind of body has not yet been born, I designate them, at that time, dwelling in the Manomaya, with love and grasping.' The 'Manomaya' here is the Antarabhava. From this, it can be proven that there is definitely an Antarabhava. Some, according to their own attachments, wrongly interpret this sutra, saying that 'Manomaya' refers to no **. They think that Sustaining's friend, after dying, transcended the Form Realm and was born in the Formless Realm, which Sustaining could not see with his divine eye, so he came to ask the World-Honored One: 'If at that time, those sentient beings...' and so on.
類身者。欲色界身。住意成言。顯在無色。此執非理。無定因故。且應徴問。撥中有者。此意成聲。乃目多義。如何定執詮無色耶。謂于劫初。色無色界。變化中有。皆見此聲。如其次第。略當顯示。如說彼位有色意成。一切支體。無不具足。又說超越食段食天。隨生一類意成天處。又世尊告鄔陀夷言。意成天身。汝謂何等。豈不汝謂是無色名。又說從此身起意別。化作余身種類有色意成。又說此身無間壞已。起如是蘊。有色意成。故意成聲。乃目多義。如何定謂詮于無色。若謂余說此責亦同。理不應爾。前身已舍。后未已生。經所說故。又彼所執。理不應然。若為可住。說無色界為意成者。彼則不應以天眼通觀欲色界。非離色貪可生欲色。若為求彼所生處故。以天眼通觀二界者。不應說無色為所住意成。以不定知彼生處故。由此經說。住意成言。專為顯成有中有義。又何經證中有非無。由經說有五不還故。謂世尊說。有五不還。一者中般。二者生般。三無行般。四有行般。五者上流。中有若無。何名中般。若謂欲色二界中間得般涅槃名中般者。不生二界中有復無。何有有情于中趣般。若謂于彼有天名中。理必不然。無聖言故。謂于諸部。都無有經說有中天。唯憑自計。又彼應有太過之失。謂亦應有生等諸天住彼得般
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『類身者』（具有相似身體者）的主張。如果他們想要主張『意成身』（manomayakāya，由意念形成的身體）存在於無色界，並且通過『住意成言』（關於意成身的陳述）來證明這一點，這種執著是不合理的，因為沒有確定的理由。而且，應該質問那些否定『中有』（antarābhava，中陰身）存在的人：這個『意成聲』（關於意成身的說法）具有多種含義，你們如何能斷定它指的是無色界呢？ 有人說，在劫初，色界不存在時，變化而來的『中有』都能看見這種聲音。接下來將按順序簡要說明。正如經文所說，在那個階段，『有色意成身』（sarūpī manomayakāya，具有形色的意成身）的一切肢體都完全具備。又說，超越了『食段食天』（食物作為營養的天界）之後，會隨之生於某一類的『意成天處』（manomayakāyika-deva，意成天）。而且，世尊告訴鄔陀夷說：『意成天身』，你認為是什麼？難道你不是認為它是無色界的名稱嗎？又說，從此身體生起，意念分離，化作其他種類的有色意成身。又說，這個身體立即壞滅后，生起這樣的蘊，是有色意成身。所以，『意成聲』具有多種含義，如何能斷定它指的是無色界呢？ 如果有人說，其他的經文也存在同樣的責難。這種說法是不合理的。因為經文說，前一個身體已經捨棄，后一個身體尚未產生。而且，他們所執著的觀點是不合理的。如果爲了能夠安住，而說無色界是『意成身』，那麼他們就不應該用天眼通來觀察欲界和色界。因為不離色貪，就無法生於欲界和色界。如果爲了尋求他們所生之處，而用天眼通來觀察這兩個界，就不應該說無色界是所安住的『意成身』，因為無法確定地知道他們所生之處。因此，經文所說的『住意成言』，專門是爲了闡明『中有』存在的意義。 又有什麼經文證明『中有』不是不存在的呢？因為經文說有『五不還』（pañca anāgāminaḥ，五種不還果阿羅漢）。世尊說，有五種不還果阿羅漢：一是『中般』（antarāparinirvāyin，中陰般涅槃），二是『生般』（upapadyaparinirvāyin，生般涅槃），三是『無行般』（asaṃskāraparinirvāyin，無行般涅槃），四是『有行般』（saṃskāraparinirvāyin，有行般涅槃），五是『上流』（ūrdhvasrotas，上流般涅槃）。如果『中有』不存在，怎麼會有『中般』這個名稱呢？如果有人說，在欲界和色界中間得到般涅槃，稱為『中般』，那麼不生於這兩個界，『中有』又不存在，怎麼會有有情在中陰身中趣向般涅槃呢？ 如果有人說，在那裡有天，名為『中天』，這種說法肯定是不合理的，因為沒有聖言量作為依據。在各個部派的經典中，都沒有經文說有『中天』，只是憑藉自己的推測。而且，他們應該有太過之失，也就是說，也應該有『生天』等諸天住在那裡得到般涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version The assertion regarding 『those with similar bodies』 (類身者). If they want to assert that the 『manomayakāya』 (意成身, mind-made body) exists in the Formless Realm and use the 『statement about the mind-made body』 (住意成言) to prove it, this attachment is unreasonable because there is no definite reason. Moreover, those who deny the existence of the 『antarābhava』 (中有, intermediate state) should be questioned: this 『statement about the mind-made body』 has multiple meanings, how can you definitively say that it refers to the Formless Realm? Someone might say that at the beginning of the kalpa, when the Form Realm did not exist, the transformed 『antarābhava』 could see this sound. Next, a brief explanation will be given in order. As the sutra says, at that stage, the 『sarūpī manomayakāya』 (有色意成身, mind-made body with form) has all its limbs fully complete. It is also said that after transcending the 『edible food heavens』 (食段食天, heavens where food is taken as nourishment), one will be born in a certain type of 『manomayakāyika-deva』 (意成天處, mind-made heaven). Moreover, the World-Honored One told Udayi: 『What do you think the mind-made body is?』 Don't you think it is a name for the Formless Realm? It is also said that from this body arises, the mind separates, and transforms into other types of mind-made bodies with form. It is also said that after this body immediately perishes, such skandhas arise, which are mind-made bodies with form. Therefore, the 『statement about the mind-made body』 has multiple meanings, how can it be definitively said that it refers to the Formless Realm? If someone says that other sutras also have the same fault, this statement is unreasonable. Because the sutra says that the previous body has been abandoned, and the next body has not yet arisen. Moreover, their attachment is unreasonable. If it is said that the Formless Realm is the 『mind-made body』 for the sake of being able to abide, then they should not use the divine eye to observe the Desire Realm and the Form Realm. Because without being detached from desire for form, one cannot be born in the Desire Realm and the Form Realm. If they use the divine eye to observe these two realms in order to seek where they will be born, they should not say that the Formless Realm is the 『mind-made body』 in which they abide, because they cannot definitively know where they will be born. Therefore, the 『statement about the mind-made body』 in the sutra is specifically to clarify the meaning of the existence of the 『antarābhava』. Moreover, what sutra proves that the 『antarābhava』 is not non-existent? Because the sutra says there are 『five anāgāmin』 (五不還, five types of non-returners). The World-Honored One said that there are five types of non-returners: first, 『antarāparinirvāyin』 (中般, one who attains parinirvana in the intermediate state), second, 『upapadyaparinirvāyin』 (生般, one who attains parinirvana upon rebirth), third, 『asaṃskāraparinirvāyin』 (無行般, one who attains parinirvana without effort), fourth, 『saṃskāraparinirvāyin』 (有行般, one who attains parinirvana with effort), and fifth, 『ūrdhvasrotas』 (上流, one who ascends to higher realms). If the 『antarābhava』 does not exist, how can there be the name 『antarāparinirvāyin』? If someone says that attaining parinirvana in between the Desire Realm and the Form Realm is called 『antarāparinirvāyin』, then without being born in these two realms, and the 『antarābhava』 not existing, how can there be sentient beings heading towards parinirvana in the intermediate state? If someone says that there is a deva there called 『intermediate deva』 (中天), this statement is certainly unreasonable because there is no scriptural authority as a basis. In the sutras of various schools, there is no sutra that says there is an 『intermediate deva』, it is only based on their own speculation. Moreover, they should have the fault of being too excessive, that is to say, there should also be devas such as 『born devas』 (生天) residing there and attaining parinirvana.
名生般等。若謂如言有中生般。亦許成立中生二有。雖復說有有行等般。而不許立有行等有。如是雖許別有中天。何廢天名。不通生等。此亦非理。有行等三。別立有名。無別用故。非為住彼趣般涅槃。是立中生二有別用。又必無有住生有中得般涅槃。一剎那故。非更別立。有行等有。于立有門。少有別用中生等位。別立有名。于立有門。各有別用。唯立四有。有用便足。無勞別說余別有名。若立中天唯有趣般用。生等何故不別立天名。若立中天不約此用。然許別立有中天名。生等亦應然無定別因故。有何定用立中天名。而生等無故不應理。又所立名。皆隨義故。無容於此妄立異名。謂有加行道精勤運轉。得般涅槃。名有行般。若無加行道非勤運轉。得般涅槃。名無行般。無容於此更立異名。所立中天。但隨汝自欲。誰遮自欲。不立生等天。是故非斯妄分別論能遮中有。故此非無。又如何知。定有中有。由契經說。有七善士趣故。謂於前五。中般分三。由處及時遠近中故。譬如札火小星迸時才起近即滅。初善士亦爾。譬如鐵火小星迸時起至中乃滅。二善士亦爾。譬如鐵火大星迸時遠未墮而滅。三善士亦爾。若無中有。此依何立。非彼所執別有中天。有此處時。三品差別。故彼所執。定為非理。有說諸有壽量中間。斷余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
名生般等：如果說像經文所說，有『中生般』(在中有階段證得涅槃)，也應該允許成立『中生二有』(在中有階段經歷兩次生命)。雖然經文中說有『有行般』(通過努力修行證得涅槃)等涅槃方式，但不允許設立『有行有』(通過努力修行而存在的生命)。 同樣，即使允許另外存在『中天』(中有天的存在)，為什麼就不能將『天』這個名稱用於『生』(生命開始)等階段呢？這也不合理。『有行』等三種涅槃方式，因為沒有其他用途，所以另外設立名稱。而設立『中生二有』，是因為它有不同於其他階段的特殊用途，即爲了安住於此而趣向涅槃。而且，絕對沒有人在『生有』(生命開始的階段)中獲得涅槃，因為生命只有一剎那。因此，沒有必要另外設立『有行有』。在設立『有』的概念時，『中生』等階段的地位，因為各自有不同的用途，所以另外設立名稱。僅僅設立四有(本有、生有、死有、中有)就足夠了，沒有必要另外說明其他的名稱。如果設立『中天』僅僅是爲了趣向涅槃，那麼『生』等階段為什麼不另外設立『天』的名稱呢？如果設立『中天』不侷限於這個用途，那麼允許另外設立『中有天』的名稱，『生』等階段也應該如此，因為沒有確定的區別原因。有什麼確定的用途要設立『中天』的名稱，而『生』等階段卻沒有呢？所以這不合理。而且，所設立的名稱，都應該根據意義來確定，不能在這裡隨意設立不同的名稱。所謂『有加行道精勤運轉，得般涅槃，名有行般』(通過修行加行道，精勤努力而證得涅槃，稱為有行般)；如果『無加行道非勤運轉，得般涅槃，名無行般』(沒有修行加行道，不努力而證得涅槃，稱為無行般)，沒有理由在這裡另外設立不同的名稱。所設立的『中天』，只是隨你自己的意願，誰阻止你自己的意願，不設立『生』等天呢？因此，這種虛妄的分別論不能否定中有的存在，所以中有不是不存在的。 另外，如何知道一定存在中有呢？因為契經中說，有七種善士趣向涅槃。即在前五種善士中，『中般』(在中有階段證得涅槃)分為三種，根據所處的地方以及時間遠近來劃分。譬如，用錘子敲擊火焰，迸出的小火星剛出現就立即熄滅，初善士也是這樣。譬如，用鐵錘敲擊火焰，迸出的小火星出現到中間才熄滅，二善士也是這樣。譬如，用鐵錘敲擊火焰，迸出的大火星飛得很遠還沒有落地就熄滅，三善士也是這樣。如果沒有中有，這些是依據什麼而設立的呢？不是他們所執著的另外存在的中天，有處所、時間這三種差別。所以他們所執著的，一定是錯誤的。有人說，各種有(生命狀態)的壽命中間，斷絕了其他的...
【English Translation】 English version:
'Ming sheng ban deng': If it is said, as the scriptures state, that there is 'Zhong sheng ban' (attaining Nirvana in the intermediate state), then it should also be permissible to establish 'Zhong sheng er you' (experiencing two lives in the intermediate state). Although the scriptures mention 'You xing ban' (attaining Nirvana through diligent practice), it is not permissible to establish 'You xing you' (a life existing through diligent practice). Similarly, even if it is permissible to have a separate 'Zhong tian' (the existence of an intermediate heaven), why can't the name 'Tian' be used for stages like 'Sheng' (the beginning of life)? This is also unreasonable. 'You xing' and the other three types of Nirvana are given separate names because they have no other use. The establishment of 'Zhong sheng er you' is because it has a special purpose different from other stages, namely, to abide in it and move towards Nirvana. Moreover, absolutely no one attains Nirvana in 'Sheng you' (the stage of the beginning of life) because life is only a moment. Therefore, there is no need to establish 'You xing you' separately. When establishing the concept of 'You' (existence), the status of stages like 'Zhong sheng' (intermediate birth), because each has a different purpose, separate names are established. It is sufficient to establish only the four 'You' (Bhava: existence) (Bhavanga-sota, Upapatti-bhava, Cuticitta-bhava, Antarabhava), and there is no need to separately explain other names. If the establishment of 'Zhong tian' is only for moving towards Nirvana, then why are the stages of 'Sheng' (birth) and others not given separate names of 'Tian'? If the establishment of 'Zhong tian' is not limited to this purpose, then it is permissible to separately establish the name of 'Zhong you tian' (intermediate heaven), and the stages of 'Sheng' and others should also be the same, because there is no definite reason for distinction. What definite purpose is there to establish the name of 'Zhong tian', while 'Sheng' and others do not have it? Therefore, this is unreasonable. Moreover, the names that are established should be determined according to the meaning, and it is not permissible to arbitrarily establish different names here. The so-called 'You jia xing dao jing qin yun zhuan, de ban nie pan, ming you xing ban' (attaining Nirvana through practicing the path of application, diligently striving, is called You xing ban); if 'Wu jia xing dao fei qin yun zhuan, de ban nie pan, ming wu xing ban' (without practicing the path of application, without striving, attaining Nirvana, is called Wu xing ban), there is no reason to establish different names here. The established 'Zhong tian' is only according to your own wishes, who is stopping your own wishes, not establishing 'Sheng' and other heavens? Therefore, this false discrimination cannot deny the existence of the intermediate state, so the intermediate state is not non-existent. Furthermore, how do we know that the intermediate state certainly exists? Because the scriptures say that there are seven types of virtuous people who move towards Nirvana. That is, among the first five types of virtuous people, 'Zhong ban' (attaining Nirvana in the intermediate state) is divided into three types, according to the place where they are located and the distance of time. For example, when a hammer strikes a flame, the small spark that bursts out immediately extinguishes, and the first virtuous person is also like this. For example, when an iron hammer strikes a flame, the small spark that bursts out extinguishes in the middle, and the second virtuous person is also like this. For example, when an iron hammer strikes a flame, the large spark that bursts out flies far and has not yet landed before it extinguishes, and the third virtuous person is also like this. If there is no intermediate state, what are these established based on? It is not the separate intermediate heaven that they cling to, which has these three differences of place and time. Therefore, what they cling to must be wrong. Some say that in the middle of the lifespan of various existences (states of life), other...
煩惱。皆名中般。由至界位。或想或尋。而般涅槃。故說三品。彼謂煩惱隨眠位中。修斷加行。名至界位。此中意顯有種未行。說名界位。即利根者。創起煩惱。便能精勤。修斷加行。名至想位。此中意顯染想初行。說名想位。即中根者。起煩惱久。方能精勤。修斷加行。名至尋位。此中意顯。由煩惱力。令心於境種種尋求。說名尋位。即鈍根者。世尊依此。善士趣中。分析中般。說為三種。此雖巧計。義實不然。若爾現般。應非有故。又無尋地。亦說中般。如嗢柁南伽他中說。
總集眾聖賢 四靜慮各十 三無色各七 唯六謂非想
此伽陀中。第二靜慮以上三地。亦說中般。諸中般皆斷五下分結故。非無尋地可說至尋。非上三地中闕一善士趣。又無色界應有中般。有壽量中間得般涅槃故。又薄伽梵舍利子等。一切皆應是中般攝。唯除生在睹史多天後身菩薩。及除生在北俱盧洲諸有情等。其餘有情。容中天故。又彼或余諸有所執。皆札火等喻不相應。遠近及中處時差別。若離中有皆不成故。汝等但由貪著己見。憎背中有。起斯妄執。非為依隨聖教正理。是故中有實有極成。撥中有無。是何見攝。是迷因果連續為先所起邪見。諸經說謗化生有情是邪見故。已廣成立中有非無。今復應思。當往何趣。所起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於煩惱，都叫做『中般』（Antarāparinirvāyin，在中有階段入滅）。根據到達的界位，或者想，或者尋，而入般涅槃（涅槃，Nirvana）。所以說有三種品類。他們認為在煩惱隨眠的階段，通過修行斷除煩惱的加行，叫做『至界位』。這裡的意思是顯示有某種（煩惱）尚未發生作用，所以叫做『界位』。也就是說，對於利根的人來說，剛一生起煩惱，就能精勤地修行斷除煩惱的加行，叫做『至想位』。這裡的意思是顯示染污的想念剛剛開始活動，所以叫做『想位』。也就是說，對於中等根器的人來說，生起煩惱很久之後，才能精勤地修行斷除煩惱的加行，叫做『至尋位』。這裡的意思是顯示，由於煩惱的力量，使得心對於境界產生種種尋求，所以叫做『尋位』。也就是說，對於鈍根的人來說。世尊根據這些，在善士趣中，分析『中般』，說為三種。這種巧妙的計算，實際上是不對的。如果這樣，那麼『現般』（Upapadukaparinirvāyin，生般涅槃）就不應該存在了。而且在無尋地（沒有尋求的禪定境界），也說有『中般』，就像《嗢柁南伽他》（Udanagāthā）中所說： 『總集眾聖賢，四靜慮各十，三無色各七，唯六謂非想。』 這首伽陀中，第二靜慮以上的三個地，也說有『中般』。因為所有的『中般』都斷除了五下分結（五下分結，Pañcāvarabhāgīya-saṃyojanāni）的緣故。所以無尋地不能說是『至尋』。而且在上三地中，不會缺少善士趣。而且沒有**也應該有『中般』，因為在壽量中間就能入般涅槃的緣故。而且薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）的舍利子（Śāriputra）等，一切都應該被歸為『中般』所攝。只有除了生在睹史多天（Tuṣita）的後身菩薩，以及除了生在北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）的諸有情等，其餘的有情，都可能經歷中有階段。而且他們或者其他人所執著的，都像札火等比喻一樣不相應。因為遠近以及中間處所時間的差別，如果離開了中有，都不能成立。你們只是因為貪著自己的見解，憎恨背離中有，才產生這種虛妄的執著，而不是依隨聖教的正理。所以中有是真實存在的，是極其確定的。否定中有，是屬於哪種見解呢？這是以迷惑因果連續為先所產生的邪見。諸經中說誹謗化生有情是邪見，所以已經廣泛地成立了中有不是沒有的。現在應該思考，（死後）將要前往哪個趣（Gati，輪迴的去處）。（臨終時）所生起的（念頭）……
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding afflictions, all are called 'Antarāparinirvāyin' (one who attains Nirvana in the intermediate state). Depending on the realm reached, either through thought or seeking, they attain Parinirvana (Nirvana). Therefore, there are said to be three categories. They believe that in the stage of dormant afflictions, the practice of cutting off afflictions is called 'reaching the realm'. The intention here is to show that some (afflictions) have not yet become active, so it is called 'realm'. That is to say, for those with sharp faculties, as soon as afflictions arise, they can diligently practice cutting off afflictions, which is called 'reaching the thought stage'. The intention here is to show that defiled thoughts have just begun to operate, so it is called 'thought stage'. That is to say, for those with medium faculties, it takes a long time after afflictions arise before they can diligently practice cutting off afflictions, which is called 'reaching the seeking stage'. The intention here is to show that due to the power of afflictions, the mind seeks various things in the environment, so it is called 'seeking stage'. That is to say, for those with dull faculties. Based on these, the World-Honored One (Bhagavān) analyzes 'Antarāparinirvāyin' in the realm of virtuous beings and speaks of three types. This clever calculation is actually incorrect. If so, then 'Upapadukaparinirvāyin' (one who attains Nirvana immediately upon birth) should not exist. Moreover, 'Antarāparinirvāyin' is also mentioned in the realm without seeking (meditative states without seeking), as stated in the 'Udanagāthā': 'Gathering all the sages, ten each in the four Dhyanas (Jhānas, meditative states), seven each in the three formless realms, only six in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception.' In this Gatha, the three realms above the second Dhyana also speak of 'Antarāparinirvāyin'. Because all 'Antarāparinirvāyin' have cut off the five lower fetters (Pañcāvarabhāgīya-saṃyojanāni). Therefore, the realm without seeking cannot be said to be 'reaching the seeking stage'. Moreover, the realm of virtuous beings is not lacking in the upper three realms. Moreover, there should also be 'Antarāparinirvāyin' without **, because they can attain Parinirvana in the middle of their lifespan. Moreover, Śāriputra (Śāriputra) and others of the World-Honored One (Bhagavān) should all be included in 'Antarāparinirvāyin'. Only those Bodhisattvas who are born in the Tuṣita (Tuṣita) heaven in their last life, and those beings who are born in Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru), are excluded; other beings may experience the intermediate state. Moreover, what they or others cling to is as inconsistent as the analogy of striking fire. Because the differences in distance, intermediate places, and time cannot be established without the intermediate state. You only generate this false attachment because you are greedy for your own views and hate and turn away from the intermediate state, rather than following the correct principles of the holy teachings. Therefore, the intermediate state is real and extremely certain. Denying the intermediate state, to which view does it belong? This is a wrong view that arises from being confused about the continuity of cause and effect. The sutras say that slandering beings born by transformation is a wrong view, so it has been widely established that the intermediate state is not non-existent. Now we should think about which Gati (Gati, destination of rebirth) we will go to. The (thoughts) that arise (at the time of death) ...
中有形狀如何。此何所疑。此與生有一異業果。俱有過故。所以者何。若中生有同一業果。便違經說。有數取趣。已斷生結。未斷起結。乃至廣說。諸業必由煩惱起故。業如煩惱。應有差別。則中有形應異當趣。若中生有。各異業果。何緣二果定先後生。此中有業。順現受等所不攝故應唯不定。又見人等。宿業雖別。而有身形相似無異。有業雖一。而果有殊。故可生疑。諸趣中有。與當所趣形為同別。為遣此疑。頌曰。
此一業引故 如當本有形 本有謂死前 居生剎那后
論曰。業有二種。一牽引業。二圓滿業。中生二有。牽引業同。圓滿業異。引業同故。此中有形。與當本有。其狀相似。如印所印文像不殊。若爾於一豬等腹內。容有五趣中有頓起。可有五子俱時命終。各當往生一趣中故。既有地獄中有現前。如何不能焚燒母腹。無斯過失。以地獄火唯燒有罪諸有情故。非不積集感彼業者。或未得果可為地獄火所焚燒。其理決定。又彼中有。非恒被燒。如何即令焚燒母腹。地獄本有。尚不恒燒。如暫游增。況彼中有。有言設許中有恒燒。如不可見。亦不可觸。身極細故。所難非理。諸趣中有。雖居一腹。非互觸燒。業所遮故。欲中有量。雖如小兒年五六歲。而根明利。有餘師說。欲界中有。皆如本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：中陰身（antarabhava，指死亡到再次投生之間的狀態）的形狀是怎樣的？ 答：你為什麼會有這樣的疑問？ 中陰身和下一生的存在，它們的業果（karma-phala，行為的結果）是相同還是不同呢？ 如果相同，那麼兩者都會有過失。為什麼這麼說呢？ 如果中陰身和下一生的存在具有相同的業果，那就違背了經文的說法，即存在一些『數取趣』（pudgala，補特伽羅，指不斷輪迴的個體），他們已經斷除了『生結』（bhava-samyojana，導致投生的束縛），但尚未斷除『起結』（upapatti-samyojana，導致產生的束縛），乃至更廣的說法。 因為所有的業都必然由煩惱（klesha，精神上的負面情緒）而生起，所以業就像煩惱一樣，應該有差別。因此，中陰身的形狀應該與它將要投生的形態不同。 如果中陰身和下一生的存在具有不同的業果，那麼為什麼這兩種果報一定會先後產生呢？ 因為這種中陰身的業，不屬於順現受業（drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma，現世受報的業）等所包含的範圍，所以它應該是不確定的。 此外，我們看到人等等，雖然宿業（purva-karma，前世的業）不同，但他們的身形卻相似沒有差異。雖然業相同，但果報卻有不同。所以才會有這樣的疑問： 各個趣（gati，輪迴的道途，如地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、阿修羅、天）的中陰身，與他們將要投生的形態是相同還是不同？ 爲了消除這個疑問，頌文說： 『此一業引故，如當本有形，本有謂死前，居生剎那后。』 論曰：業有兩種，一、牽引業（akarshana-karma，引導投生的業），二、圓滿業（paripurana-karma，使果報圓滿的業）。中陰身和下一生的存在，它們的牽引業相同，圓滿業不同。因為牽引業相同，所以中陰身的形狀，與它將要投生的形態相似，就像印章所印的文字影象沒有差別一樣。 如果這樣，那麼在一個豬等的腹內，可能會同時出現五趣（panchagati，五道）的中陰身，可能會有五個孩子同時死亡，各自將要往生不同的趣。既然有地獄（naraka，受苦之處）的中陰身出現，為什麼不能焚燒母腹呢？ 不會有這樣的過失。因為地獄之火只焚燒有罪的有情（sattva，眾生），而不是沒有積聚感受地獄業的人，或者還沒有得到果報的人，才會被地獄之火焚燒，這是確定的道理。 而且，中陰身並非一直被焚燒，怎麼會立刻焚燒母腹呢？地獄的本有身（bhava，存在狀態）尚且不恒常被焚燒，比如暫時遊歷人間，何況是中陰身呢？ 有人說，即使假設中陰身恒常被焚燒，但它也是不可見、不可觸的，因為身體極其微細，所以這樣的責難是不合理的。各個趣的中陰身，即使居住在一個腹內，也不會互相接觸焚燒，因為有業的遮蔽。 欲界（kama-dhatu，有情慾求的世界）的中陰身，雖然大小像五六歲的小孩，但根器明利。有其他論師說，欲界的中陰身，都像本有身（purva-bhava，前一生）。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is the shape of the intermediate being (antarabhava, the state between death and rebirth)? Answer: Why do you have such doubts? Do the intermediate being and the subsequent existence have the same or different karmic results (karma-phala, the result of actions)? If they are the same, then both will have faults. Why is that? If the intermediate being and the subsequent existence have the same karmic results, it would contradict the sutras, which state that there are 'pudgalas' (individuals who continuously transmigrate) who have severed the 'bonds of existence' (bhava-samyojana, the fetters leading to rebirth) but have not yet severed the 'bonds of arising' (upapatti-samyojana, the fetters leading to origination), and so on. Since all actions (karma) necessarily arise from afflictions (klesha, negative mental emotions), actions, like afflictions, should have differences. Therefore, the shape of the intermediate being should be different from the form it will take in its next existence. If the intermediate being and the subsequent existence have different karmic results, then why do these two results necessarily arise one after the other? Because the karma of this intermediate being does not belong to the category of karma that is experienced in the present life (drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma, karma that ripens in the present life), it should be uncertain. Furthermore, we see that people, etc., although their past karma (purva-karma, karma from previous lives) is different, their physical forms are similar without difference. Although the karma is the same, the results are different. That's why there is this doubt: Are the intermediate beings of the various realms (gati, paths of rebirth, such as hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, asuras, and gods) the same as or different from the form they will take in their next existence? To dispel this doubt, the verse says: 'Because of the same attracting karma, it is like the form of the subsequent existence. The subsequent existence refers to before death, immediately after the moment of birth.' The treatise says: There are two types of karma: first, attracting karma (akarshana-karma, karma that leads to rebirth), and second, fulfilling karma (paripurana-karma, karma that perfects the result). The intermediate being and the subsequent existence have the same attracting karma but different fulfilling karma. Because the attracting karma is the same, the shape of the intermediate being is similar to the form it will take in its next existence, just like the image imprinted by a seal is not different. If that's the case, then within the womb of a pig, etc., there might simultaneously appear intermediate beings from the five realms (panchagati, the five paths of rebirth), and five children might die at the same time, each destined to be reborn in a different realm. Since an intermediate being from hell (naraka, a place of suffering) appears, why can't it burn the mother's womb? There will be no such fault. Because the fire of hell only burns sentient beings (sattva, beings) who have committed sins, and not those who have not accumulated the karma to experience hell, or those who have not yet received the result, will be burned by the fire of hell. This is a definite principle. Moreover, the intermediate being is not constantly burned, so how could it immediately burn the mother's womb? Even the inherent body (bhava, state of existence) of hell is not constantly burned, such as when temporarily visiting the human realm, let alone the intermediate being. Some say that even if we assume that the intermediate being is constantly burned, it is still invisible and intangible because its body is extremely subtle, so such an objection is unreasonable. The intermediate beings of the various realms, even if they reside in the same womb, will not touch and burn each other because they are shielded by karma. The intermediate being of the desire realm (kama-dhatu, the realm of beings with desires), although it is the size of a five- or six-year-old child, has sharp faculties. Other teachers say that the intermediate beings of the desire realm are all like their previous existence (purva-bhava, previous life).
有盛年時量。有言菩薩中有可然。非余有情中有亦爾。菩薩中有。如盛年時。形量周圓。具諸相好。故住中有。將入胎時。照百俱胝四大洲等。為順方域吉瑞相故。令菩薩母于其夢中見白象子來入右脅。九十一劫。已舍傍生。況最後身。仍為白象。有說中有。皆生門入。非破母腹而得入胎。故雙生者。前小后大。理實中有。隨欲入胎。非要生門。無障礙故。然由業力。胎藏所拘。色界中有量。圓滿如本有。非色究竟中有身形。長十六千逾繕那量。贍部洲趣。無處能容。以太虛空極寬廣故。中有身色。如末尼珠。燈等光明。無障礙故。色界中有。與衣俱生。慚愧增故。欲界中有。多分無衣。無慚愧故。唯除菩薩。及鮮白尼。本願力故。有餘師說。唯除此尼。施僧袈裟。發勝愿故。從茲世世。有自然衣。恒不離身。隨時改變。乃至最後般涅槃時。即以此衣。纏尸焚葬。收其遺骨。起窣堵波。亦有衣形。周匝纏繞。菩薩所起一切善法。皆唯迴向無上菩提。我等所宗許二俱有說。所似本有。其體是何。謂在死有前生有後蘊。總說有體。雖通一切有漏法性。而就有情前後位別。分析為四。一者中有。義如前說。二者生有。謂于諸趣。結生剎那。三者本有。除生剎那。死前餘位。四者死有。謂最後念。若有於色未得離貪。此有無間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有盛年時的形量。有人說菩薩的中陰身也是如此。並非其他有情眾生的中陰身也是這樣。菩薩的中陰身，如同盛年時，形體量度周全圓滿，具足各種相好。因此安住于中陰身時，將要入胎的時候，能照亮百俱胝（俱胝：印度數字單位，相當於千萬）四大洲等。爲了順應方域的吉祥徵兆，讓菩薩的母親在夢中見到白象的幼崽進入右脅。九十一劫以來，已經捨棄了傍生道，何況是最後之身，仍然示現為白象。有人說中陰身，都是從生殖門進入，不是破開母腹而入胎。所以雙生子，前面出生的較小，後面出生的較大。實際上中陰身，是隨其意願入胎，不一定要從生殖門進入，因為沒有障礙的緣故。然而由於業力的緣故，被胎藏所拘束。中陰身的量度，圓滿如同本有身。並非色究竟天的中陰身形，長達十六千逾繕那（逾繕那：長度單位）的量度。贍部洲（贍部洲：我們所居住的這個世界）沒有地方能夠容納。因為太虛空極其寬廣的緣故，中陰身色，如同末尼寶珠（末尼寶珠：一種寶珠），燈的光明。因為沒有障礙的緣故。 中陰身，與衣服一同產生，因為慚愧心增長的緣故。欲界的中陰身，大多沒有衣服，因為沒有慚愧心的緣故。唯獨菩薩，以及鮮白尼（鮮白尼：指受過具足戒的比丘尼），因為本願力的緣故。有其他論師說，唯獨除了這位尼，因為她施捨僧眾袈裟，發殊勝愿的緣故。從此世世代代，有自然產生的衣服，恒常不離身，隨時改變，乃至最後般涅槃（般涅槃：佛教術語，指涅槃的最終狀態）的時候，就用這件衣服，纏繞屍體焚燒埋葬，收取她的遺骨，建造窣堵波（窣堵波：即佛塔），也有衣服的形狀，周匝纏繞。菩薩所發起的一切善法，都唯獨迴向無上菩提。我們所宗派認為二者都有的說法。所相似的本有身，它的體是什麼呢？就是在死有之前，生有之後的蘊。總的說有體，雖然通達一切有漏法性，而就眾生前後位別的不同，分析為四種。一者是中有，意義如前面所說。二者是生有，指在諸趣中，結生的一剎那。三者是本有，除了結生的一剎那，死亡之前的其餘時間。四者是死有，指最後的一念。如果有人對於色界還沒有脫離貪慾，這種有是無間斷的。
【English Translation】 English version It has the measure of a vigorous adult. Some say that the intermediate state of a Bodhisattva is like that. It is not the same for other sentient beings. The intermediate state of a Bodhisattva is like that of a vigorous adult, with the form and measure being complete and perfect, possessing all auspicious marks. Therefore, dwelling in the intermediate state, when about to enter the womb, it illuminates a hundred kotis (koti: Indian numerical unit, equivalent to ten million) of the four great continents, etc. To accord with the auspicious signs of the region, it causes the Bodhisattva's mother to see in her dream a white elephant calf entering her right side. For ninety-one kalpas, it has already abandoned the animal realm, let alone the final body, which still manifests as a white elephant. Some say that the intermediate state all enters through the birth canal, not by breaking open the mother's womb to enter the womb. Therefore, twins, the one born first is smaller, and the one born later is larger. In reality, the intermediate state enters the womb according to its wish, not necessarily through the birth canal, because there is no obstruction. However, due to the force of karma, it is constrained by the womb. The measure of the intermediate state is complete and perfect like the original existence. It is not the form of the intermediate state of the Akanistha heaven, which is sixteen thousand yojanas (yojana: unit of length) long. The Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa: the world we live in) has no place to accommodate it. Because the empty space is extremely vast, the color of the intermediate state body is like a mani jewel (mani jewel: a kind of jewel), the light of a lamp. Because there is no obstruction. The intermediate state is born with clothes, because the sense of shame increases. The intermediate state of the desire realm mostly has no clothes, because there is no sense of shame. Only the Bodhisattva, and the pure white nun (pure white nun: refers to a fully ordained Bhikkhuni), because of the power of their original vows. Some other teachers say that only except for this nun, because she gave a Sanghati (Sanghati: a type of robe) to the Sangha, and made a supreme vow. From then on, in every lifetime, she has naturally produced clothes, constantly inseparable from her body, changing at any time, even until the final Parinirvana (Parinirvana: Buddhist term, refers to the final state of Nirvana), she will use this garment to wrap the corpse for cremation and burial, collect her relics, and build a stupa (stupa: Buddhist pagoda), also with the shape of clothes, wrapped around. All the good deeds initiated by the Bodhisattva are solely dedicated to unsurpassed Bodhi. Our school holds that both are possible. What is the nature of the similar original existence? It is the skandhas (skandhas: aggregates) before death and after birth. Generally speaking, the nature of existence, although it pervades all conditioned dharmas, is analyzed into four types according to the different positions of sentient beings before and after. The first is the intermediate state, the meaning is as mentioned above. The second is birth, referring to the moment of rebirth in the various realms. The third is the original existence, except for the moment of rebirth, the remaining time before death. The fourth is death, referring to the last thought. If someone has not yet detached from desire for the realm of form, this existence is uninterrupted.
中有定起。即於一生。位別分四。豈不諸有中有最初。則本有名。應目中有。非目中有。以當無間。生等三有。非彼果故若位容有。生當無間。中等諸位。可名本有。望餘生諸位。安立此名。非立此名望一生三位。又此無間。定生彼有。此有望彼立本有名。又本有名目正所趣。餘三不爾。不得此名。已說形量。余義當辯。頌曰。
同凈天眼見 業通疾具根 無對不可轉 食香非久住 倒心趣欲境 濕化染香處 天首上三橫 地獄頭歸下
論曰。此中有身。是何眼境。為同類眼凈天眼見。謂中有身。唯同類眼。及余修得凈天眼見非不同類不凈天眼之所能觀極微細故生得天眼尚不能觀況余能見以說若有極凈天眼方能見故。有說地獄傍生餓鬼人天中有。如其次第。各除後後。見自及前。為有能遮中有行不。上至諸佛。亦不能遮。以諸通中業通疾故。中有成就最疾業通。故契經言中。有業力。最為強盛。一切有情。一切加行。無能遮抑𣣋虛自在。是謂通義。通由業得。名為業通。此通勢用速故名疾。中有具此最疾業通。諸通速行。無能勝者。依此故說。業力最強。隨地諸根。中有皆具。雖言中有。如本有形。而初異熟。最勝妙故。又求有故。無不具根。曾聞析破焰赤鐵團。見於其中有蟲居止。故知中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
『中有』（Antarabhava，指死亡和投生之間的過渡期）的生起是確定的。就在一生中，根據階段不同分為四種。難道不是所有的『中有』最初產生時，都應該被稱為『本有』（Purvajata，指生命最初的階段）嗎？應該說，『中有』不是『本有』。不是『本有』的原因是，它緊隨『無間』（nirantara，死亡的瞬間）之後，並且是『生』（jati，出生）等三種存在的階段。它不是那些階段的結果。如果階段上允許有『生』緊隨『無間』，那麼『中有』等階段可以被稱為『本有』，這是相對於其餘的『生』等階段來安立這個名稱的。而不是相對於一生中的三個階段來安立這個名稱。此外，『無間』之後必定會產生『彼有』（utpattibhava，指投生后的存在），因為『此有』（指『中有』）有望于『彼有』，所以安立『本有』這個名稱。而且，『本有』這個名稱是真正所趨向的，其餘三個階段不是這樣，所以不能得到這個名稱。上面已經說了形狀和大小，其餘的意義將在後面辯論。頌文說：
『同凈天眼見，業通疾具根， 無對不可轉，食香非久住， 倒心趣欲境，濕化染香處， 天首上三橫，地獄頭歸下。』
論述：這種『中有』之身，是什麼樣的眼睛才能看到的呢？是同類眾生的眼睛，還是清凈的天眼才能看到？也就是說，『中有』之身，只有同類眾生的眼睛，以及通過修行獲得的清凈天眼才能看到。不是不同類眾生的眼睛，也不是不清凈的天眼所能看到的，因為它極其微細。即使是天生獲得的天眼也不能看到，更何況其他的眼睛呢？因為經文說，只有極其清凈的天眼才能看到。有人說，地獄、傍生（畜生）、餓鬼、人、天這五道眾生的『中有』，按照次序，各自除了後面的，都能看到自己以及前面的。有沒有什麼力量能夠阻礙『中有』的執行呢？即使是諸佛，也不能阻礙。因為在各種神通中，業力所生的神通最快。『中有』成就了最快的業力神通。所以契經上說，『中有』的業力，最為強大，一切有情，一切努力，都不能阻礙它，就像虛空一樣自在。這就是神通的意義。神通由業力獲得，所以叫做業通。這種神通的勢用非常迅速，所以叫做疾。『中有』具有這種最快的業力神通。各種神通的快速執行，沒有能夠勝過它的。依據這個原因，所以說業力最強。隨其所往之地的諸根，『中有』都具備。雖然說『中有』的形狀，和『本有』一樣，但是最初的異熟果報，最為殊勝微妙。而且，因為尋求存在的緣故，沒有不具備諸根的。曾經聽說，剖開燒得通紅的鐵塊，看到其中有蟲子居住，所以知道『中有』
【English Translation】 English version:
『Antarabhava』 (the intermediate state between death and rebirth) has a definite arising. Within a single lifetime, it is divided into four stages based on their differences. Shouldn't the very first 『Antarabhava』 be called 『Purvajata』 (the initial stage of life)? It should be said that 『Antarabhava』 is not 『Purvajata』. The reason it is not 『Purvajata』 is that it immediately follows 『nirantara』 (the moment of death) and is a stage of the three existences such as 『jati』 (birth). It is not the result of those stages. If the stage allows 『jati』 to immediately follow 『nirantara』, then stages such as 『Antarabhava』 can be called 『Purvajata』. This name is established in relation to the remaining stages of 『jati』, etc., not in relation to the three stages of a single lifetime. Furthermore, 『utpattibhava』 (the existence after rebirth) will definitely arise after 『nirantara』, because 『this existence』 (referring to 『Antarabhava』) hopes for 『that existence』, so the name 『Purvajata』 is established. Moreover, the name 『Purvajata』 is what is truly aimed at, the remaining three stages are not like this, so they cannot obtain this name. The shape and size have already been discussed above, and the remaining meanings will be debated later. The verse says:
『Seen by those with similar pure heavenly eyes, possessing karmic powers, swift and complete with faculties, Unopposed and unchangeable, feeding on scents and not dwelling long, With inverted minds heading towards the realm of desire, dwelling in moist and transformative places, stained by scents, The heads of those destined for heavens point upwards with three horizontal lines, the heads of those destined for hells point downwards.』
Treatise: What kind of eyes can see this 『Antarabhava』 body? Is it the eyes of beings of the same kind, or pure heavenly eyes? That is to say, the 『Antarabhava』 body can only be seen by the eyes of beings of the same kind, and by pure heavenly eyes obtained through cultivation. It cannot be seen by the eyes of beings of different kinds, nor by impure heavenly eyes, because it is extremely subtle. Even naturally obtained heavenly eyes cannot see it, let alone other eyes? Because the scriptures say that only extremely pure heavenly eyes can see it. Some say that the 『Antarabhava』 of beings in hell, animals, hungry ghosts, humans, and heavens, in that order, each excluding those behind them, can see themselves and those in front of them. Is there any power that can hinder the movement of 『Antarabhava』? Even the Buddhas cannot hinder it. Because among all the supernatural powers, the power born from karma is the fastest. 『Antarabhava』 achieves the fastest karmic power. Therefore, the scriptures say that the karmic power of 『Antarabhava』 is the strongest, and all sentient beings and all efforts cannot hinder it, just like the freedom of space. This is the meaning of supernatural power. Supernatural power is obtained from karma, so it is called karmic power. The power of this supernatural power is very fast, so it is called swift. 『Antarabhava』 possesses this fastest karmic power. The fast movement of all supernatural powers cannot surpass it. Based on this reason, it is said that karmic power is the strongest. The 『Antarabhava』 possesses all the faculties of the place it is going to. Although it is said that the shape of 『Antarabhava』 is the same as 『Purvajata』, the initial result of different maturation is the most excellent and subtle. Moreover, because it seeks existence, it has all the faculties. It has been heard that when a red-hot iron block is cut open, insects are seen living inside it, so it is known that 『Antarabhava』
有無對義成。對謂對礙。此金剛等。所不能遮。故名無對。此界趣處。皆不可轉。謂定無有色中有歿欲中有生。亦無翻此。此與生有。一業引。故應知趣處不轉亦然。此中有身。資段食不。且如欲界中有食香。隨福多福少。香有好有惡。由斯故得健達縛名。諸字界中。義非一故。此頞縛界。雖正目行。而於其中。亦有食義。以食香故。名健達縛。而音短者。如設建途及羯建途。略故無過。有說中有。藉香持身。以尋香行。名健達縛。如是中有。為住幾時。此中有身。定非久住。生緣未合非久。如何大德釋言。常途非久。緣未合者。容住多時。由彼命根非別業引。有餘師說。此但少時。以中有中恒求生故。若於父母。俱定不移。雖住遠方。業令速合。若於父母。隨一可移。雖極清貞訶厭欲者。而於異境。起染現行。諸起染定時令非時亦起。或寄相似余類中生。謂驢等身。似於馬等。非由所寄同分有殊。便失中生一業所引。生緣雖別。所引一故。設許轉受相似類生。由少類同。亦無有過。又界趣處。若不全移。雖少類殊。亦無有失。以界趣處業定不移。餘外生緣見有差別。如豆足等。斯有何過。或業種類。差別無邊。唯佛世尊。方能究達。正結中有。為以何心。以染污心。譬如生有。將結生有。方便如何。住中有中。為至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有無對義成（是否成立『無對』的定義）。對謂對礙（『對』意味著相對和障礙）。此金剛等（這種堅固性），所不能遮（是任何事物都無法阻擋的），故名無對（所以稱為『無對』）。 此界趣處（這個界、趣、處），皆不可轉（都是不可改變的）。謂定無有色中有歿欲中有生（意思是說，不會有從色界的中陰身死亡后又在欲界中陰身中出生的事情），亦無翻此（也不會有相反的情況）。此與生有（中陰身和生有），一業引（由同一種業力牽引）。故應知趣處不轉亦然（所以要知道趣和處也是不可改變的）。 此中有身（這種中陰身），資段食不（是否以段食為食）？且如欲界中有食香（例如欲界的中陰身以香氣為食），隨福多福少（根據福報的多少），香有好有惡（香氣有好有壞）。由斯故得健達縛名（因此被稱為『健達縛』(Gandharva，尋香)）。諸字界中（在各種詞語的範疇中），義非一故（含義不是唯一的），此頞縛界（這個『頞縛』界），雖正目行（雖然主要指行動），而於其中（但在其中），亦有食義（也有食物的含義），以食香故（因為以香氣為食），名健達縛（所以稱為『健達縛』）。而音短者（而發音短促），如設建途及羯建途（就像『設建途』(Setu)和『羯建途』(Ketu)），略故無過（因為省略所以沒有問題）。 有說中有（有人說中陰身），藉香持身（依靠香氣維持身體），以尋香行（因為尋香而行），名健達縛（稱為『健達縛』）。如是中有（這樣的中陰身），為住幾時（會停留多久）？此中有身（這種中陰身），定非久住（一定不會停留太久），生緣未合非久（如果出生的因緣沒有聚合就不會停留太久）。如何大德釋言（為什麼大德解釋說），常途非久（通常不會太久），緣未合者（因緣沒有聚合的），容住多時（可能會停留很長時間）？由彼命根非別業引（因為他們的命根不是由其他的業力牽引）。 有餘師說（有其他老師說），此但少時（中陰身只會停留很短的時間），以中有中恒求生故（因為中陰身總是尋求出生）。若於父母（如果對於父母），俱定不移（都確定無法投生），雖住遠方（即使住在遙遠的地方），業令速合（業力也會讓因緣迅速聚合）。若於父母（如果對於父母），隨一可移（只要有一個可以投生），雖極清貞訶厭欲者（即使是非常清凈貞潔、厭惡慾望的人），而於異境（在不同的境界中），起染現行（也會生起染污的行為）。諸起染定時令非時亦起（所有生起染污的行為，無論何時都會發生）。 或寄相似余類中生（或者寄託在相似的其他種類中出生），謂驢等身（比如驢等身體），似於馬等（類似於馬等）。非由所寄同分有殊（不是因為所寄託的種類有差異），便失中生一業所引（就失去了中陰身由同一種業力牽引的特性）。生緣雖別（出生的因緣雖然不同），所引一故（但牽引的業力是相同的）。設許轉受相似類生（即使允許轉生到相似的種類中），由少類同（因為有少許種類相同），亦無有過（也沒有過失）。 又界趣處（而且界、趣、處），若不全移（如果不完全改變），雖少類殊（即使種類稍微不同），亦無有失（也沒有損失）。以界趣處業定不移（因為界、趣、處的業力是確定的，不會改變）。餘外生緣見有差別（其他的外部出生因緣可以看到差別）。如豆足等（比如豆足(Daupadika)等）。斯有何過（這有什麼過失呢）？或業種類（或者業的種類），差別無邊（差別是無邊無際的），唯佛世尊（只有佛世尊），方能究達（才能徹底瞭解）。 正結中有（真正結生中陰身），為以何心（是以什麼樣的心）？以染污心（以染污的心）。譬如生有（就像生有一樣）。將結生有（將要結生有），方便如何（有什麼方法）？住中有中（住在中陰身中），為至（爲了到達）……
【English Translation】 English version Is the definition of 'Anupata'(無對, without opposition) valid? 'Pata'(對, opposition) means relativity and obstruction. This adamantine quality, etc., cannot be obstructed by anything, hence it is called 'Anupata'. This 'Dhatu'(界, realm), 'Gati'(趣, course), and 'Ayatana'(處, place) are all immutable. It means that there will be no instance of dying from the intermediate state of the Form Realm and being born in the intermediate state of the Desire Realm, nor the reverse. This intermediate state and the state of birth are drawn by the same 'Karma'(業, action). Therefore, it should be known that the course and place are also immutable. Does this intermediate being subsist on 'Duan Shi'(段食, coarse food)? For example, the intermediate being of the Desire Realm feeds on fragrance. According to the amount of merit, the fragrance is good or bad. Hence, it is called 'Gandharva'(健達縛, scent-eater). Among the categories of words, the meaning is not unique. Although this 'Adhva'(頞縛, path) primarily refers to action, it also has the meaning of food, because it feeds on fragrance, hence it is called 'Gandharva'. The shortened pronunciation, like 'Setu'(設建途) and 'Ketu'(羯建途), is acceptable due to abbreviation. Some say that the intermediate being sustains itself on fragrance, and because it seeks fragrance, it is called 'Gandharva'. How long does such an intermediate being reside? This intermediate being certainly does not reside for long. If the conditions for birth are not met, it will not reside for long. Why does the great master explain that it usually does not reside for long, but if the conditions are not met, it may reside for a long time? Because their life force is not drawn by separate 'Karma'. Some other teachers say that this is only a short time, because the intermediate being is constantly seeking birth. If it is certain that they cannot be born from both parents, even if they live far away, 'Karma' will quickly bring the conditions together. If it is possible to be born from either parent, even if they are extremely pure and averse to desire, they will still engage in defiled actions in different realms. All defiled actions arise regardless of whether it is the right time or not. Or they may be born in other similar species, such as donkeys, which are similar to horses. It is not because the species they are born into is different that they lose the characteristic of being drawn by the same 'Karma' as the intermediate being. Although the conditions for birth are different, the 'Karma' that draws them is the same. Even if it is allowed to be reborn into similar species, there is no fault because there is some similarity in the species. Moreover, if the 'Dhatu', 'Gati', and 'Ayatana' are not completely changed, there is no loss even if the species is slightly different. Because the 'Karma' of the 'Dhatu', 'Gati', and 'Ayatana' is fixed and will not change. Differences can be seen in other external conditions for birth, such as 'Daupadika'(豆足) and others. What fault is there in this? Or the types of 'Karma' are infinitely different, and only the World Honored One, the Buddha, can fully understand them. With what mind does one truly form the intermediate being? With a defiled mind, just like the state of birth. What are the means to form the state of birth? Residing in the intermediate state, in order to reach...
生處。由心顛倒。馳趣欲境。彼宿業力。所起眼根。雖住遠方。能見生處父母交會。而起倒心。若當爲男。于母起愛。于父起恚。女則相違。由是因緣。男女生已。于母于父。如次偏朋。故施設論。有如是說。時健達縛。於二心中。隨一現行。謂愛或恚。彼由起此二種倒心。便謂己身與所愛合。所憎不凈。泄至胎時。謂是己有。便生喜慰。當生喜位。名入母胎。取最後時所遺精血二三滴許。成羯剌藍。精血相依。無間而住。中有蘊滅。生有蘊生。若男處胎。依母右脅。向背蹲坐。若女處胎。依母左脅。向腹而住。女男串習左右事故。宿自分別力使然故。無慾中有非女非男。以中有身不闕根故。入母胎后。或作不男。如何無根羯剌藍大種體。即能作諸色根生依。誰謂色根依彼大種。中有大種。以羯剌藍大種為依。能生生有。謂彼中有。與羯剌藍大種相依。最後滅位。中有大種。藉彼為緣為因。引生異前大種。彼異大種。能作根依。如種生芽。必依地等。若爾何緣契經中說。父母不凈。生羯剌藍。依不凈生。無違經失。有餘師說。精血大種。于轉變位。即作根依。謂前無根中有俱滅。後有根者。無間續生。如種與芽滅生道理。彼執生有色法生時。非中有色相續而起。與芽從種道理相違。無情與情。為種引起。不應道理。相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於生命產生的地方。由於心識顛倒，追逐于感官慾望的境界。過去世的業力所形成的眼根，即使身處遙遠的地方，也能看見將要出生的處所，即父母交合的場景，從而產生顛倒之心。如果是將要出生的男孩，則對母親產生愛戀，對父親產生憎恨；如果是女孩，則情況相反。由於這樣的因緣，男女出生后，自然而然地分別偏愛母親或父親。所以《施設論》中有這樣的說法：當『健達縛』（gandharva，意為中陰身，等待投胎的眾生）在兩種心中，隨其中一種現行，即愛或憎。由於生起這兩種顛倒之心，便認為自己與所愛者結合，所憎惡者是不凈的，當精液泄入子宮時，便認為是自己的，從而產生喜悅。當產生喜悅的時刻，就叫做『入母胎』。取最後遺留的精血二三滴左右，形成『羯剌藍』（kalala，意為凝滑，受精卵最初的形態）。精血相互依存，沒有間斷地存在。中有的蘊滅，生有的蘊生。如果是男孩入胎，則依靠母親的右脅，背向外蹲坐；如果是女孩入胎，則依靠母親的左脅，面向腹部而住。男女習慣於左右的姿勢，是過去世的分別習氣所導致的，是宿世的自然分別力量所致。沒有慾望的中陰身，既非男也非女，因為中陰身並沒有缺少根（指性器官）。進入母胎后，或者會變成不男（指沒有效能力的人）。為什麼沒有根的『羯剌藍』大種體，能夠作為諸色根（指眼耳鼻舌身）產生的所依呢？誰說色根是依靠那些大種的？中有的四大種，以『羯剌藍』的四大種為所依，能夠產生生有。也就是說，那個中陰身，與『羯剌藍』的四大種相互依存，在最後滅亡的時刻，中有的四大種，憑藉它作為緣和因，引生出與之前不同的大種。這種不同的大種，能夠作為根的所依。就像種子生出芽，必定依靠土地等。如果這樣，為什麼契經中說，父母的不凈，產生『羯剌藍』？依靠不凈而產生，並沒有違背經文的說法。有其他論師說，精血的四大種，在轉變的時刻，就作為根的所依。也就是說，之前的沒有根的中有一起滅亡，之後有根的生有，沒有間斷地相續產生，就像種子與芽的滅生道理一樣。他們的觀點認為，生有的色法產生時，不是中有的色法相續而起。這與芽從種子產生的道理相違背。無情之物與有情之物，作為種子而引起，是不合道理的。相續的問題。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the place of birth. Due to the mind's inversion, it rushes towards the realm of desire. The eye-faculty, arising from past karmic forces, even from a distant place, can see the place of birth, the union of parents, thus giving rise to an inverted mind. If it is to be a boy, he develops love for the mother and hatred for the father; if a girl, the opposite occurs. Due to this cause, after birth, boys and girls naturally favor their mothers or fathers respectively. Therefore, the 'Treatise on Establishments' states: When a 'gandharva' (intermediate being awaiting rebirth) has one of two minds active, namely love or hatred. Due to arising these two inverted minds, it considers itself united with the loved one, and the hated one as impure. When semen is released into the womb, it considers it its own, thus generating joy. The moment of generating joy is called 'entering the mother's womb'. Taking about two or three drops of the last remaining semen and blood, it forms a 'kalala' (the initial form of the embryo). Semen and blood depend on each other, existing without interruption. The aggregates of the intermediate being cease, and the aggregates of the being of birth arise. If a boy enters the womb, he leans on the mother's right side, squatting with his back turned outward; if a girl enters the womb, she leans on the mother's left side, facing the abdomen. The habit of boys and girls with left and right positions is due to past habits of discrimination, caused by the natural power of past karma. An intermediate being without desire is neither male nor female, because the intermediate being does not lack faculties (referring to sexual organs). After entering the mother's womb, one may become a eunuch (referring to someone without sexual ability). Why can the 'kalala' aggregate of great elements without faculties serve as the basis for the arising of the sense faculties (referring to eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body)? Who says that the sense faculties rely on those great elements? The great elements of the intermediate being, relying on the great elements of the 'kalala', can generate the being of birth. That is to say, that intermediate being, depending on the great elements of the 'kalala', at the moment of final cessation, the great elements of the intermediate being, relying on it as a condition and cause, give rise to great elements different from before. These different great elements can serve as the basis for the faculties. Just as a sprout grows from a seed, it must rely on earth and so on. If so, why do the sutras say that the parents' impurity gives rise to the 'kalala'? Relying on impurity to arise does not contradict the sutras. Some other teachers say that the great elements of semen and blood, at the moment of transformation, serve as the basis for the faculties. That is to say, the previous intermediate being without faculties ceases together, and the subsequent being of birth with faculties arises continuously without interruption, just like the principle of the cessation and arising of seed and sprout. Their view is that when the form of the being of birth arises, it does not arise continuously from the form of the intermediate being. This contradicts the principle of the sprout arising from the seed. Inanimate objects and animate objects, as seeds to cause arising, are unreasonable. The issue of continuity.
續異故。有情無情二色俱滅。后情色起。無情為因。情不為因。言非應理。是故前說。于理為勝。此說欲界胎卵二生。濕化二生。染于香處。若濕生者。染香故生。謂遠嗅知生處香氣。便生愛染。往彼受生。隨業所應。香有凈穢。若化生者。染處故生。謂遠觀知當所生處。便生愛染。往彼受生。隨業所應。處有凈穢。生地獄者。亦由業力。或見身遇冷雨寒風。或見身遭熱風猛焰。冷侵熱逼。酷毒難忍。希遇溫涼。冀除所厄。見熱地獄熱焰熾然。寒地獄中寒風飄鼓。便生愛染。馳躬投赴。有餘師說。由見先造感彼業時。己身伴類。心生愛慕。馳往赴彼。往何趣中有。何相赴生處。且天中有。首正上升。如人直身從坐而起。人等三趣中有橫行。如鳥飛空往余洲處。地獄中有。頭下足上。顛墜其中。故伽他說。
顛墜于地獄 足上頭歸下 由譭謗諸仙 樂寂修苦行
因辯中有復應伺察。何緣無色無中有耶。彼業不能引中有故。何緣彼業於此無能。起結斷已。方生彼故。煩惱助業。方能引果。非離煩惱業有引能。以阿羅漢雖有諸業而不能引當來有故。有說若地具粗細業。于彼地中。得有中有。然無色界。有細無粗。粗細業者。謂色非色。或身等業。或十業道。此復應詰。何緣若地。具粗細業。方有中有。今于
此中。見如是意。中有是細。所趣是粗。以所趣中滿業多故。又趣壽限。容有定故。有位中受細滿業果。有位中受粗滿業果。欲色界中。具二業果。故有中有。無色不然。有餘師說。為往生處。表所趣形。故立中有。非無色界有處有形。若爾即于自死屍內。身根滅處。命終受生。不往余方。中有何用。此立中有。表所趣形。前說二緣隨有一故。此救非理。表所趣形。于所趣生。無勝用故。若中有已起。可表所趣形無用。故不起何能表所趣。故表所趣。非中有因。然上座言。若命終處。即受生者。中有便無。彼言非善。非死有位方引中有。如何可說。若死處生。不引中有。定於先時已作增長。感中有業。今誰為礙。令中有果不起現前。或復中生同一業果。中有復是一期生初。中有若無。生應不續。如必無有越羯剌藍生頞部曇。是彼初故。若謂生有是一期初。中有非初。不必須引。此都無義。但有虛言。彼生起結。俱未斷故。汝亦應許。未斷生結生有或無。無異因故。非須別用方有蘊起。蘊起必由因未離愛。彼即中有須起之因。如有胎中定當死者。除由因力。何用根生。若謂此應如中般者。無生滿業。如是即于死處生者。無中滿業。此例不齊。如生有位必依中有。非中有位亦依生有。故例不齊。由斯一切未離第四靜慮貪者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在此（指中有位）。見到這樣的想法：中有（antarabhava）是微細的，所趨向的（下一生）是粗大的。因為所趨向的（下一生）中充滿更多業力。又因為趨向的壽命有限制。有些中有位感受微細的滿業果報，有些中有位感受粗大的滿業果報。欲界（kāmadhātu）中，具足兩種業果。所以有中有。無色界（arūpadhātu）不是這樣。有其他老師說，爲了表示往生之處，顯示所趨向的形狀，所以設立中有。並非沒有**的有處有形狀。如果這樣，那麼就在自己死亡的屍體內，身根滅盡之處，命終受生，不往其他地方，那中有有什麼用呢？設立中有，是爲了表示所趨向的形狀。前面說的兩種因緣，只要有一個存在。這種辯解不合理。表示所趨向的形狀，對於所趨向的生命，沒有殊勝的作用。如果中有已經生起，可以表示所趨向的形狀沒有用。所以不生起，又怎麼能表示所趨向的形狀呢？所以表示所趨向的形狀，不是中有的原因。然而上座部（Sthavira nikāya）說，如果命終之處，就是受生之處，那麼中有就沒有了。他們的說法不好。不是死亡的時候才引發中有。怎麼能說，如果在死亡之處受生，就不引發中有呢？一定在先前已經作了增長，感得中有的業力。現在誰能阻礙，讓中有的果報不生起顯現呢？或者中有和生有是同一業果。中有又是一期生命的開始。如果中有沒有，生命應該不能延續。就像絕對沒有從羯剌藍（kalala，受胎后第一週的狀態）直接生出頞部曇（arbuda，受胎后第二週的狀態）一樣。因為羯剌藍是最初的。如果認為生有是一期生命的開始，中有不是開始，所以不必一定引發。這完全沒有道理。只有虛假的話語。因為他們的生起和結縛都沒有斷。你也應該承認，沒有斷生結，生有或者沒有。沒有不同的原因。不需要特別的作用，才有蘊的生起。蘊的生起必定由於因沒有離開愛。那也就是中有必須生起的原因。就像胎中註定要死的人，除非由於因的力量，否則要根生做什麼呢？如果認為這應該像中般涅槃（antarāparinirvāṇa）一樣，沒有生起的滿業。這樣，就在死亡之處生起的人，沒有中有的滿業。這個比喻不恰當。就像生有位必定依靠中有，並非中有位也依靠生有。所以比喻不恰當。由於這個原因，一切沒有離開第四禪（caturtha dhyāna）貪慾的人。
【English Translation】 English version Here (referring to the intermediate state, antarabhava). One sees such a thought: the intermediate state (antarabhava) is subtle, while the destination (the next life) is coarse. This is because the destination is filled with more karma. Also, because the lifespan of the destination is limited. In some intermediate states, one experiences the subtle fruition of complete karma; in others, one experiences the coarse fruition of complete karma. In the desire realm (kāmadhātu), both types of karmic fruition are present. Therefore, there is an intermediate state. The formless realm (arūpadhātu) is not like this. Some other teachers say that the intermediate state is established to indicate the place of rebirth and to show the form of the destination. It is not that there is a form in a place without **. If that were the case, then one would be born at the very spot where the body and senses perish within one's own corpse, without going elsewhere. What would be the use of the intermediate state? The intermediate state is established to show the form of the destination. The two causes mentioned earlier are sufficient if either one is present. This defense is unreasonable. Showing the form of the destination has no superior function for the life to be reached. If the intermediate state has already arisen, it can be said that showing the form of the destination is useless. So, if it does not arise, how can it show the form of the destination? Therefore, showing the form of the destination is not the cause of the intermediate state. However, the Sthavira nikāya (Theravada school) says that if the place of death is the place of rebirth, then there is no intermediate state. Their statement is not good. It is not that the intermediate state is only triggered at the time of death. How can it be said that if one is born at the place of death, the intermediate state is not triggered? Certainly, there has been prior accumulation and increase of the karma that causes the intermediate state. Who can now prevent the fruition of the intermediate state from arising and manifesting? Or perhaps the intermediate state and the subsequent life share the same karmic fruition. The intermediate state is also the beginning of a life cycle. If there is no intermediate state, life should not continue. Just as there is absolutely no direct transition from kalala (the first week after conception) to arbuda (the second week after conception). Because kalala is the beginning. If it is argued that the subsequent life is the beginning of a life cycle, and the intermediate state is not the beginning, so it does not necessarily need to be triggered, this is completely meaningless. There are only empty words. Because their arising and binding have not been severed. You should also admit that without severing the bond of birth, the subsequent life may or may not occur. There is no different cause. There is no need for a special action for the arising of aggregates. The arising of aggregates is certainly due to the cause not being separated from craving. That is the cause for the intermediate state to arise. Just as someone destined to die in the womb, what is the use of the arising of the senses unless due to the power of karma? If it is argued that this should be like antarāparinirvāṇa (intermediate nirvana), where there is no complete karma for arising, then in the same way, for someone who arises at the place of death, there is no complete karma for the intermediate state. This analogy is not appropriate. Just as the subsequent life necessarily relies on the intermediate state, it is not the case that the intermediate state also relies on the subsequent life. Therefore, the analogy is not appropriate. For this reason, all those who have not abandoned craving for the fourth dhyāna (caturtha dhyāna).
。彼若已造生有滿業。必亦能造中有滿業。不說自成。或有不還。由對治力。伏相續故。生結不行。此唯能造中有滿業。若闕對治是俱墮法。彼無能礙二結現行。由是未離色界貪者。生有必依中有起故。設於死處即受生者。亦定應許。死有無間中有即生。中有無間生有方起。又此中有。有決定相。謂無未離欲色界貪。生有不從中有後起。亦無中有與所趣生。非同一業所牽引果。亦無中有能入無心可為身證。俱分解脫。及起世俗不同分心。住中有中。無轉根義。亦無能斷見所斷惑。及無斷欲界修所斷隨眠。如是等門。皆應思擇。一切中有。皆起倒心入母胎不。不爾云何契經中說。入胎有四。其四者何。頌曰。
一于入正知 二三兼住出 四於一切位 及卵恒無知 前三種入胎 謂輪王二佛 業智俱勝故 如次四餘生
論曰。有諸有情。多修福慧。故死生位。念力所持。心想分明。正知無亂。于中或有正知入胎。或有正知住胎。兼入。或正知出兼知入住。兼言為顯后必帶前。有諸有情。福慧俱少。入住出位。皆不正知。前不正知。后位必爾。如是所說四種入胎。具攝一切。入胎皆盡。順結頌法。如是次第。然契經中。次第不爾。如是四種。且說胎生有愚不愚分位差別。諸卵生者。入胎等位。皆恒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果那個人已經造作了生有（bhava，存在）圓滿之業，那麼必定也能造作中有（antarabhava，中陰）圓滿之業。這不包括自然成就的情況，或者是不還果（anāgāmin，不再返回欲界受生）的聖者，因為他們憑藉對治的力量，已經調伏了煩惱的相續，所以生有的結縛無法產生作用。這些聖者只能造作中有圓滿之業。如果缺乏對治的力量，那就是俱墮法（ubhayabhāga，既墮落於生有也墮落於中有），他們無法阻止兩種結縛的現行。因此，對於那些沒有斷離欲貪（kāma-rāga，對欲界的貪慾）的人來說，生有必定依賴中有而生起。假設在死亡之處立即受生，也應當承認死有（cyuti-bhava，死亡時的存在狀態）之後緊接著就是中有產生，中有之後生有才產生。此外，這中有具有決定的相狀，也就是說，沒有斷離欲貪，生有就不會從中有之後產生；也沒有中有和所趣向的生處，不是由同一種業力所牽引的結果；也沒有中有能夠進入無心定（asaṃjñā-samāpatti，無想正受）的狀態，可以作為身證（kāya-sākṣin，以身體證得解脫者）；共同分解脫（ubhaya-bhāga-vimukta，俱解脫者），以及生起世俗的不同分心（pṛthag-jana-citta，凡夫心）。住在中有之中，沒有轉變根性的道理，也沒有能力斷除見所斷惑（darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱），以及斷除欲界修所斷的隨眠（bhāvanā-heya-anuśaya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）。像這些方面，都應該仔細思考。是否一切中有，都生起顛倒之心而進入母胎呢？如果不是這樣，那麼契經（sūtra，佛經）中為什麼說，入胎有四種情況？這四種情況是什麼？頌文說： 『一于入正知，二三兼住出，四於一切位，及卵恒無知。 前三種入胎，謂輪王二佛，業智俱勝故，如次四餘生。』 論中說：有些有情，因為修習了大量的福德和智慧，所以在死亡和出生的階段，念力能夠保持，心想清晰分明，正知沒有錯亂。其中有些人能夠正知入胎，有些人能夠正知住胎，兼顧入胎，或者正知出胎，兼顧知道入胎和住胎。『兼』字是爲了表明後者必定包含前者。有些有情，福德和智慧都很少，在入胎、住胎和出胎的階段，都不能保持正知。前一個階段不能保持正知，後面的階段也必定如此。像這樣所說的四種入胎，完全包含了所有入胎的情況。按照順應結縛的頌文順序是這樣的，然而契經中的順序不是這樣。這四種情況，只是說明胎生有情有愚癡和不愚癡的分位差別。對於卵生有情來說，在入胎等階段，都是一直處於無知的狀態。
【English Translation】 English version: If that being has already created the complete karma of becoming (bhava), then they must also be able to create the complete karma of the intermediate state (antarabhava). This does not include cases of spontaneous arising, or non-returners (anāgāmin), because they have subdued the continuum of afflictions through the power of antidotes, so the fetters of becoming cannot take effect. These non-returners can only create the complete karma of the intermediate state. If the power of antidotes is lacking, then it is a case of falling into both (ubhayabhāga), and they cannot prevent the present manifestation of the two fetters. Therefore, for those who have not abandoned desire-attachment (kāma-rāga), becoming necessarily arises dependent on the intermediate state. Supposing that one is born immediately at the place of death, it should also be admitted that the dying-consciousness (cyuti-bhava) is immediately followed by the arising of the intermediate state, and only after the intermediate state does becoming arise. Furthermore, this intermediate state has definite characteristics, that is, without abandoning desire-attachment, becoming will not arise after the intermediate state; nor is there an intermediate state and the destination of rebirth that are not the result of being drawn by the same karma; nor can the intermediate state enter a state of non-perception (asaṃjñā-samāpatti), which can be a bodily realization (kāya-sākṣin); co-liberation (ubhaya-bhāga-vimukta), and the arising of the different minds of ordinary people (pṛthag-jana-citta). While dwelling in the intermediate state, there is no changing of faculties, nor the ability to sever afflictions to be abandoned by seeing (darśana-heya), nor to sever the latent tendencies to be abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm (bhāvanā-heya-anuśaya). These aspects should all be carefully considered. Do all intermediate beings enter the womb with a deluded mind? If not, why does the sutra (sūtra) say that there are four ways of entering the womb? What are these four? The verse says: 'One has right knowledge upon entering, two and three combine dwelling and exiting, four is without knowledge in all positions, and eggs are always without knowledge. The first three types of entering the womb refer to a wheel-turning king and two Buddhas, because their karma and wisdom are superior, and the fourth refers to other beings accordingly.' The treatise says: Some beings, because they have cultivated much merit and wisdom, are sustained by the power of mindfulness at the time of death and birth, their thoughts are clear and distinct, and their right knowledge is not confused. Among them, some have right knowledge upon entering the womb, some have right knowledge while dwelling in the womb, combining entering, or have right knowledge upon exiting the womb, combining knowing entering and dwelling. The word 'combining' is to show that the latter necessarily includes the former. Some beings have little merit and wisdom, and in the stages of entering, dwelling, and exiting the womb, they cannot maintain right knowledge. If they cannot maintain right knowledge in the first stage, they will certainly not be able to in the later stages. The four types of entering the womb described in this way completely encompass all cases of entering the womb. The order of the verses follows the order of fetters, but the order in the sutra is not like this. These four types only describe the differences in the positions of sentient beings born from a womb, whether they are foolish or not. For sentient beings born from eggs, they are always in a state of ignorance in the stages of entering the womb, etc.
無知。如何卵生。從卵而出。言入胎藏。此據當來立名無失。如世間說造釧織衣。或說卵生曾入胎等。依今說昔。故無有過。應知此中。依想勝解有倒無倒。故說正不正知。謂諸有情。有倒想解。于中或有業智有失。彼入胎位。起倒想解。見大風雨毒熱嚴寒。或大軍眾聲威亂逼。遂見自入密草稠林葉窟茅廬。投樹墻下。于中或有業雖無失。由智有失。起倒想解。入母胎位。自見己身。入妙園林升花臺殿。坐臥殊勝諸床座等。住時見己住在此中。出位見身從此處出。是於三位。皆不正知。若諸有情。無倒想解。彼入胎位。知自入胎。住出胎時。自知住出。是於三位。皆能正知。四種入胎經應隨此義釋。何緣入胎不正知者。于住出位。必不正知。劣悟勝迷。理無容故。謂將入位。支體諸根。具足無損。強勝明利。尚不正知況住出時。支根損缺。羸劣闇昧。而能正知。理無容故。住正知者。由入胎時。勝正知因。一力引故。出正知者。由入住時勝正知因二力引故。又前三種入胎不同。謂轉輪王。獨覺大覺。如其次第。初入胎者。謂轉輪王。入位正知。非住非出。二入胎者。謂獨勝覺。入住正知。非於出位。三入胎者。謂無上覺。入住出位。皆能正知。此初三人。以當名顯復有差別。如次應知業智及俱三種勝故。第一業勝。宿
世曾修廣大福故。第二智勝。久習多聞勝思擇故。第三俱勝。曠劫修行勝福慧故。除前三種。余胎卵生。福智俱劣。合成第四。有說此四皆辯菩薩。謂最後有。即是第三睹史多天。前生第二。遇迦葉波佛。次前生為初。自此以前。皆是第四。或復初二三無數劫。如其次第。前三入胎。自此以前。皆是第四。豈不續有定是染心。何容正知入母胎藏。正知正念。說根律儀。夫根律儀。決應是善。無斯過失。一切正知。皆善性攝。非所許故。異此應無正知誑語。或入胎位。據相續說。非唯正結。生有剎那。於此位中。善心多起。染污心少。故說正知。如世間說白豆聚等。或令于彼發起恭敬。于不迷亂。立正知名。謂如實知。此是我父。此是我母。故名正知。云何第三。後有菩薩。于戒果等。皆明瞭知。而入胎時。有如是事。非入住位。有不正知。可於出時有正知理。出正知者。先因引故。無斯過失。由無始來串習如是世俗愛故。世間現見。由串習力。于才生時。便有愛染。如何可說四種入胎。唯正不正知二種入胎故。非住及出可說入胎。故不應言入胎有四。以入勝故。說四無失。謂入胎時。有差別故。于住出位。有能正知。以無不正知。入母胎藏。于住或出位。能有正知。故於住出。無倒想解。能自知者。由入差別。是故入
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 世尊曾修習廣大的福德，所以（他是）第二種——智勝。（因為他）長久地學習和聽聞，勝過（僅僅）思考和選擇，所以（他是）第三種——俱勝。除了前面這三種，其餘的胎生、卵生眾生，福德和智慧都比較差，合起來是第四種。（有人）說這四種都是辯才無礙的菩薩。所謂『最後有』，就是指第三種，即兜率天（Tushita Heaven）的前生。第二種（菩薩）曾遇到迦葉波佛（Kasyapa Buddha）。再往前推，第一種（菩薩）就是最初的（菩薩）。從這（最初的菩薩）往前推，都是第四種（福智俱劣的眾生）。或者說，最初的兩種或三種（菩薩）經歷無數劫，按照順序，前三種（菩薩）入胎。從這（第三種菩薩）往前推，都是第四種（福智俱劣的眾生）。 難道相續不斷的心念一定是染污的嗎？怎麼能說（菩薩）以正確的認知進入母親的胎藏呢？（經中）說（菩薩）以正確的認知和正念，守護根門（根律儀）。所謂守護根門，一定是善的。沒有這樣的過失。一切正確的認知，都屬於善的範疇，不是（你）所允許的。如果不是這樣，就應該沒有正確的認知，（只有）虛妄的言語。或者說，進入胎位，是就相續來說的，不僅僅是最初結生有的那一剎那。在這個階段，善心多起，染污心少，所以說（菩薩）以正確的認知入胎。就像世間人說『白豆聚』等等。 或者（菩薩）令（眾生）對（父母）發起恭敬心，對於不迷惑顛倒，建立『正知』的名稱。就是說，如實地知道『這是我的父親』，『這是我的母親』，所以叫做『正知』。為什麼第三種（菩薩），即最後有菩薩，對於戒律的果報等等，都明瞭地知道，而在入胎的時候，會有這樣的事情（指不正知）呢？不是說在安住胎位的時候，有不正知，而是說在出胎的時候，有正知的道理。出胎時的正知，是先前的因緣所引導的，沒有這樣的過失。由於無始以來串習世俗的愛染，世間現在可以見到，由於串習的力量，在剛出生的時候，便有愛染。 怎麼能說四種入胎，只有正知和不正知兩種入胎呢？不是說安住和出胎可以稱為入胎，所以不應該說入胎有四種。因為入胎時有殊勝之處，所以說四種沒有過失。就是說，入胎的時候，有差別。在安住或出胎的時候，能夠有正確的認知，因為沒有不正知入母胎藏。在安住或出胎的階段，能夠有正確的認知，所以對於安住和出胎，沒有顛倒的想像和理解。能夠自己知道（這些道理），是因為入胎時的差別，所以（說）入胎（有四種）。
【English Translation】 English version The World Honored One cultivated vast blessings, therefore (he is) the second type - superior in wisdom. (Because he) has long studied and heard, surpassing (merely) thinking and choosing, therefore (he is) the third type - superior in both. Apart from these three types, the remaining beings born from wombs or eggs have inferior blessings and wisdom, collectively forming the fourth type. (Some) say that all four types are Bodhisattvas with unhindered eloquence. The so-called 'last existence' refers to the third type, that is, the previous life in Tushita Heaven. The second type (of Bodhisattva) encountered Kasyapa Buddha. Further back, the first type (of Bodhisattva) is the initial (Bodhisattva). Before this (initial Bodhisattva), all are the fourth type (beings with inferior blessings and wisdom). Or, the initial two or three (Bodhisattvas) experience countless kalpas, in order, the first three types (of Bodhisattvas) enter the womb. Before this (third Bodhisattva), all are the fourth type (beings with inferior blessings and wisdom). Isn't it that the continuous stream of thoughts is necessarily defiled? How can it be said that (the Bodhisattva) enters the mother's womb with correct knowledge? (The sutra) says that (the Bodhisattva) with correct knowledge and mindfulness, guards the sense faculties (root discipline). The so-called guarding of the sense faculties must be good. There is no such fault. All correct knowledge belongs to the category of good, which is not (what you) allow. If it were not so, there should be no correct knowledge, (only) false speech. Or, entering the womb is spoken of in terms of continuity, not just the initial moment of rebirth. In this stage, good thoughts arise more, and defiled thoughts are fewer, so it is said that (the Bodhisattva) enters the womb with correct knowledge. Just like the world says 'heap of white beans' and so on. Or (the Bodhisattva) causes (beings) to generate reverence for (parents), and establishes the name 'correct knowledge' for not being confused and deluded. That is, to know truthfully 'this is my father', 'this is my mother', so it is called 'correct knowledge'. Why is it that the third type (of Bodhisattva), that is, the Bodhisattva in the last existence, clearly knows the consequences of precepts and so on, but at the time of entering the womb, there is such a thing (referring to incorrect knowledge)? It is not that there is incorrect knowledge when dwelling in the womb, but that there is the principle of correct knowledge when emerging from the womb. The correct knowledge at the time of emerging from the womb is guided by previous causes, there is no such fault. Due to the habitual practice of worldly love and attachment from beginningless time, it can be seen in the world now that due to the power of habitual practice, there is love and attachment at the time of birth. How can it be said that there are four types of entering the womb, but only two types of entering the womb: correct knowledge and incorrect knowledge? It is not that dwelling and emerging from the womb can be called entering the womb, so it should not be said that there are four types of entering the womb. Because there are superior aspects at the time of entering the womb, it is said that the four types are without fault. That is, at the time of entering the womb, there are differences. At the time of dwelling or emerging from the womb, there can be correct knowledge, because there is no incorrect knowledge entering the mother's womb. In the stage of dwelling or emerging, there can be correct knowledge, so there are no inverted imaginations and understandings regarding dwelling and emerging. Being able to know (these principles) oneself is because of the differences at the time of entering the womb, therefore (it is said) entering the womb (has four types).
胎聲。兼說住出位。故住出位。雖有正知及不正知。而不成六。由入勝故。雖有三種。同異類殊。而總說入。所以然者。由爾所門。說處母胎。事究竟故。如是異類。有二入胎。于同類中。復二成四。此中應說。誰往入胎。何故問誰。以無我故。謂若無我。為復說誰。從此世間。乘中有蘊。往趣他世。入住出胎。是故應有內用士夫。從此世間往入胎等。為遮彼故。頌曰。
無我唯諸蘊 煩惱業所為 由中有相續 入胎如燈焰 如引次第增 相續由惑業 更趣于余世 故有輪無初
論曰。無有實我能往入胎所以者何。如色眼等自性作業。不可得故。托所依緣。識等起位。所執別用實我不成。別用既無。又無自性明瞭可得。如兔角等。如何執有內用士夫。世尊亦遮所執實我。是作受者。能往後世。故世尊言。有業有異熟。作者不可得。謂能捨此蘊。及能續余蘊。乃至廣說。復如何知。所執實我。是作者等。實不可得。為體無故。為體實有。有不得因。無得因故。我宗定許。由我體無。故不可得。非余因故。諸起我執無過四種。一執有我即蘊為性。二執異蘊住在蘊中。三執異蘊住異蘊法。四執異蘊都無所住。如是四種執我。有實而不可得。皆不應理。且非有我即蘊為性。即別即總。皆不成故。所以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於胎聲，同時講述了住胎和出胎的階段。因此，住胎和出胎的階段，即使有正知和不正知，也不能構成六入（六根）。因為進入母胎的狀態更為殊勝。雖然有三種不同的情況，但由於同類和異類的差別，總的來說都稱為『入』。之所以這樣說，是因為通過這些門徑，可以完整地講述處在母胎中的事情。像這樣，異類中有兩種入胎方式，在同類中，又可以分為兩種，總共四種。這裡應該說明，是誰去入胎？為什麼要問『誰』？因為沒有『我』（ātman）。如果說沒有『我』，那麼是誰從這個世界，通過中有（antarābhava）的蘊（skandha），前往其他世界，住胎和出胎呢？因此，應該有一個內在作用的士夫（puruṣa），從這個世界前往入胎等等。爲了駁斥這種觀點，頌文說： 『無我唯諸蘊，煩惱業所為，由中有相續，入胎如燈焰，如引次第增，相續由惑業，更趣于余世，故有輪無初。』 論曰：沒有真實的『我』能夠前往入胎。為什麼呢？因為像色（rūpa）、眼（cakṣus）等自性的作用是不可得的。依託所依之緣，識（vijñāna）等生起作用，所執著的具有特殊作用的真實的『我』是不能成立的。既然特殊的作用沒有，又沒有自性可以清楚地得到，就像兔角一樣，怎麼能執著有內在作用的士夫呢？世尊（Buddha）也遮止了所執著的真實的『我』，是作者和受者，能夠前往後世。所以世尊說：『有業（karma）有異熟（vipāka），作者不可得。』 意思是說，能夠捨棄此蘊，以及能夠延續其他蘊，乃至廣說。又如何知道，所執著的真實的『我』，是作者等等，實際上是不可得的呢？是因為本體沒有，還是因為本體實有，但有不得的原因，沒有得到的原因呢？我宗（佛教）肯定地認為，因為『我』的本體沒有，所以不可得，而不是因為其他原因。那些生起我執的人，沒有超過四種情況：一是執著有『我』，即蘊為自性；二是執著『我』異於蘊，住在蘊中；三是執著『我』異於蘊，住在異於蘊的法中；四是執著『我』異於蘊，都無所住。像這樣四種執著『我』，有實體卻不可得，都是不合理的。而且沒有『我』即蘊為自性，無論是即是別，還是即是總，都是不能成立的。為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the sound of the womb, it also discusses the stages of dwelling in the womb and emerging from the womb. Therefore, the stages of dwelling in and emerging from the womb, even with correct knowledge and incorrect knowledge, do not constitute the six entrances (six sense organs). This is because the state of entering the womb is more superior. Although there are three different situations, due to the differences between similar and dissimilar types, they are generally referred to as 'entering.' The reason for this is that through these gateways, the events of being in the womb can be fully described. In this way, there are two ways of entering the womb in dissimilar types, and in similar types, they can be divided into two, making a total of four. Here, it should be explained who goes to enter the womb. Why ask 'who'? Because there is no 'self' (ātman). If it is said that there is no 'self,' then who is it that, from this world, through the skandhas (aggregates) of the intermediate state (antarābhava), goes to other worlds, dwells in the womb, and emerges from it? Therefore, there should be an inner-acting puruṣa (person) who goes from this world to enter the womb, etc. To refute this view, the verse says: 'Without self, only the skandhas, caused by afflictions and karma, due to the continuity of the intermediate state, entering the womb is like a lamp flame, like drawing in, gradually increasing, the continuity is due to delusion and karma, further going to other worlds, therefore there is a cycle without beginning.' The treatise says: There is no real 'self' that can go to enter the womb. Why? Because the functions of things like rūpa (form), cakṣus (eye), etc., are unattainable in their own nature. Relying on the conditions of dependence, the arising of consciousness (vijñāna) and other functions, the real 'self' with special functions that is clung to cannot be established. Since special functions do not exist, and there is no self-nature that can be clearly obtained, just like a rabbit's horn, how can one cling to an inner-acting puruṣa? The Buddha (Bhagavan) also prevents the clinging to the real 'self' as the agent and receiver, who can go to the next life. Therefore, the Buddha said: 'There is karma (action), there is vipāka (result), but the agent is unattainable.' Meaning, able to abandon this skandha and able to continue other skandhas, and so on. Furthermore, how is it known that the real 'self' that is clung to, is the agent, etc., is actually unattainable? Is it because the substance does not exist, or because the substance really exists, but there is a reason for not obtaining it, and no reason for obtaining it? My school (Buddhism) definitely believes that because the substance of 'self' does not exist, it is unattainable, and not because of other reasons. Those who give rise to self-grasping do not exceed four situations: one is clinging to the existence of 'self,' which is the nature of the skandhas; two is clinging to 'self' as different from the skandhas, dwelling in the skandhas; three is clinging to 'self' as different from the skandhas, dwelling in a dharma different from the skandhas; four is clinging to 'self' as different from the skandhas, dwelling nowhere. In this way, the four types of clinging to 'self,' having substance but being unattainable, are all unreasonable. Moreover, there is no 'self' that is the nature of the skandhas, whether it is identical or different, or identical and total, cannot be established. Why?
者何。各別自相。所不攝故。應成假故。亦非異蘊住在蘊中。體常無常。俱有過故。若無常者。唸唸各異。便非一我。有死有生。即作者應失。不作者應得。又非離蘊有生滅法少分可得。故非無常。若謂是常。應無轉變。生老病死。皆不應成。又應無容別往余趣。又愛非愛境界合時。我不應隨苦樂轉變。亦不應為苦樂相應煩惱所惱。既非所惱。不應由斯起法非法。則未來世愛非愛身。既無有因。應無生理。則不可說我體雖常由身改轉。說我變異如是我體不隨自身。生老病死。諸趣苦樂。煩惱業果。而轉變故。則應本來畢竟解脫。既不許爾。故我非常。離常無常。不可別執。有第三聚。計之為我。如虛空等。諸無為法。體異蘊故。不住蘊中。此亦應然。應不住蘊亦非異蘊。住異蘊法。染凈蘊法。既不相依。則所計我。便成不用。既不依蘊非蘊何依。我與非蘊。不相關故。亦非異蘊。都無所住。如無為法。過同前故。又應本來。常解脫故。謂所執我。既無所住。則與色身。苦樂等受。小大等想。善惡等行。色聲等識。都不相關。則應本來遠離五蘊。不由功用。自然解脫。是故所執實我作者。能捨此續余無。故不可得。非體實有。有不得因。得因無故。而不可得。若爾外道。於何所緣。而起我執。雖離諸蘊無別我性。為執所
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "『我』是什麼呢？是各自獨立的個體，不被其他事物包含，因此是虛假的。也不是不同的蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素）存在於蘊中。『我』的本體是常還是無常呢？兩者都有過失。如果說是無常，那麼每一念都在變化，就不是同一個『我』了。有死亡和出生，那麼作者（造業者）應該失去其果報，而非作者應該得到果報。而且，也找不到離開五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）之外，有生滅法的一點點存在，所以『我』不是無常的。如果說是常，那麼『我』應該沒有轉變，生老病死都不應該發生。而且，『我』應該沒有可能前往其他趣（輪迴的去處）。當喜愛和不喜愛的境界出現時，『我』不應該隨著苦樂而轉變。也不應該被與苦樂相應的煩惱所困擾。既然沒有被煩惱所困擾，就不應該因此產生合法和非法（善與惡）。那麼未來世的喜愛和不喜愛的身體，既然沒有原因，就不應該有產生的道理。那麼就不能說『我』的本體雖然是常，但由於身體的改變而轉變。說『我』的變異，就像『我』的本體不隨著自身、生老病死、諸趣苦樂、煩惱業果而轉變一樣。那麼『我』應該本來就是徹底解脫的。既然不承認這一點，所以『我』不是常。離開常和無常，不可能另外執著有第三種聚合，認為那就是『我』。就像虛空等無為法（不受因緣造作的法），本體與五蘊不同，不住在五蘊中一樣，這個『我』也應該如此，應該不住在五蘊中，也不是與五蘊不同的東西。住在不同的蘊中的法，染污和清凈的蘊的法，既然不相互依存，那麼所認為的『我』，就變得沒有用處了。既然不依賴五蘊，那麼『我』又依賴什麼呢？『我』與非五蘊，因為沒有關聯。也不是與五蘊不同的東西，完全沒有所住之處，就像無為法一樣，過失與前面相同。又應該本來就是常解脫的。所謂執著的『我』，既然沒有所住之處，那麼就與色身、苦樂等感受、大小等想法、善惡等行為、色聲等識，完全沒有關聯。那麼應該本來就遠離五蘊，不由功用，自然解脫。因此，所執著的真實的『我』的作者，能夠捨棄此生而延續到下一生，是不可能得到的。不是本體真實存在，因為沒有得到的原因，得到的原因不存在，所以不可能得到。如果這樣，外道（非佛教的修行者）緣于什麼而生起我執呢？雖然離開五蘊沒有別的『我』的自性，但由於執著所", "English version", "What is 『self』 (Atman)? It is a separate, independent entity, not included within the aggregates (skandhas), therefore it is unreal. Nor are different skandhas residing within the skandhas. Is the nature of 『self』 permanent or impermanent? Both have faults. If it is said to be impermanent, then every moment is changing, and it is not the same 『self』. There is death and birth, then the doer (of actions) should lose their karmic results, and the non-doer should receive the results. Moreover, one cannot find even a trace of arising and ceasing phenomena outside of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), so 『self』 is not impermanent. If it is said to be permanent, then 『self』 should not change, and birth, old age, sickness, and death should not occur. Moreover, 『self』 should not be able to go to other realms (of rebirth). When liked and disliked objects appear, 『self』 should not change with pleasure and pain. Nor should it be troubled by afflictions corresponding to pleasure and pain. Since it is not troubled by afflictions, it should not generate lawful and unlawful (good and bad) actions. Then the liked and disliked bodies of future lives, since there is no cause, should not arise. Then it cannot be said that the nature of 『self』 is permanent but changes due to the change of the body. Saying that the change of 『self』 is like the nature of 『self』 not changing with itself, birth, old age, sickness, death, the pleasures and pains of various realms, afflictions, karmic actions, and results. Then 『self』 should be fundamentally and completely liberated. Since this is not admitted, therefore 『self』 is not permanent. Apart from permanent and impermanent, it is impossible to grasp a third aggregation, thinking that it is 『self』. Just like unconditioned dharmas (laws not created by conditions) such as space, whose nature is different from the aggregates and does not reside in the aggregates, this 『self』 should also be like this, it should not reside in the aggregates, nor is it something different from the aggregates. The dharmas residing in different aggregates, the defiled and pure aggregates, since they do not depend on each other, then the 『self』 that is conceived becomes useless. Since it does not rely on the aggregates, then what does 『self』 rely on? 『Self』 and non-aggregates, because they are not related. Nor is it something different from the aggregates, completely without a place to reside, just like unconditioned dharmas, the fault is the same as before. Also, it should be fundamentally and always liberated. The so-called 『self』 that is clung to, since it has no place to reside, then it has no connection with the body, feelings such as pleasure and pain, perceptions such as large and small, mental formations such as good and bad actions, and consciousness such as sights and sounds. Then it should be fundamentally away from the five aggregates, without effort, naturally liberated. Therefore, the real 『self』 that is clung to, the doer, who can abandon this life and continue to the next life, cannot be obtained. It is not a real entity, because there is no cause to obtain it, and the cause to obtain it does not exist, so it cannot be obtained. If so, what do non-Buddhists (those who are not Buddhist practitioners) rely on to generate the clinging to 『self』? Although there is no other nature of 『self』 apart from the five aggregates, due to clinging," "What are the skandhas? skandhas = aggregates, the five elements that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness", "What are the realms? realms = the realms of rebirth in samsara (cyclic existence)" ] }
緣。然唯諸蘊。為境起執。如契經說。諸有執我等隨觀見。一切唯於五取蘊起。雖無如彼外道所說真實我性。而有聖教。隨順世間所說假我。既無實我。依何假說。雖無實我。而於蘊中。隨順世間。假說為我。何緣知說我唯托蘊非余。以染及凈法唯依蘊成故。謂我實無以諸雜染。但依諸蘊剎那相續。由煩惱業勢力所引。中有相續。得入母胎。譬如燈焰剎那相續轉至余方。諸蘊亦爾。且於欲界。若未離貪。內外處為緣起。非理作意貪等煩惱。從此而生。劣中勝思及識俱起。起已能牽當非愛果。亦為無間識等生緣。無間識等。觀同異類。前俱生緣。而得起時。或善或染。或無記性。起已復能引自當果。及為無間識等生緣。如是為緣。後後次第。能牽二果。隨應當知。此蘊相續。領納先世惑業所引壽量等法。彼異熟勢。至窮盡時。死識與依。俱至滅位。能為中有識等生緣。中有諸蘊。由先惑業。如幻相續。往所生處。至母腹內。中有滅時。復能為緣。生生有蘊。譬如燈焰。雖剎那滅。而能前後因果無間展轉相續。得至余方。故雖無我。蘊剎那滅。而能往趣後世義成。即此諸蘊。如先惑業勢力所引。次第漸增。於一期中。展轉相續。復由惑業。往趣余世。現見因異其果有殊。故諸引業。果量非等。壽果長短。由業不同。隨業增
微。所引壽命。與身根等。展轉相依。于羯剌藍頞部曇等。後後諸位。漸漸轉增。何等名為羯剌藍等。謂蘊相續。轉變不同。如是漸增。至根熟位。觀內外處。作意等緣和合發生。貪等煩惱造作增長。種種諸業。由此惑業。復有如前。中有相續。轉趣余世。應知如是。有輪無初。謂惑為因。能造諸業。業為因故。力能引生。生復為因。起于惑業。從此惑業。更復有生。故知有輪旋環無始。若執有始。始應無因。始既無因。余應自起。無異因故。現見相違。由此定無無因起法。無一常法。少能為因。破自在中。已廣遮遣。是故生死決定無初。猶如谷等展轉相續。然有後邊。由因盡故。如種等盡芽等不生。生死既無。究竟清凈。故染及凈。唯依蘊成。執有實我。便為無用。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之五
已說內外羯剌藍等種等道理。因果相續。應知此即說名緣起。如是緣起。非唯十二。云何知然。如本論說。云何為緣起。謂一切有為。然契經中。辯緣起處。或時具說十二有支。如勝義空契經等說。或說十一。如智事等經。或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
非常微細的壽命，與身根等相互依賴，在羯剌藍（Kalala，受精卵）頞部曇（Arbuda，凝結期）等後續階段，逐漸增長。什麼叫做羯剌藍等呢？是指蘊的相續，轉變不同，像這樣逐漸增長，直到根成熟的階段，觀察內外處，作意等因緣和合發生，貪等煩惱造作增長，種種的業。由於這些迷惑和業，又像之前一樣，中有相續，轉向其他的世界。應該知道，像這樣，有輪是沒有開始的。迷惑是原因，能夠造作諸業；業是原因，有力量能夠引生；生又是原因，產生迷惑和業。從這些迷惑和業，又再次有生。所以知道有輪像車輪一樣旋轉，沒有開始。如果認為有開始，那麼開始就應該沒有原因。開始既然沒有原因，其餘的就應該自己產生，因為沒有不同的原因。這與我們所見到的現象相違背。因此，可以確定沒有無因而起的法。也沒有單一常住的法，能夠作為原因。在破斥自在天（Ishvara，印度教中的主神）的論述中，已經廣泛地遮止了這種觀點。所以，生死輪迴決定沒有開始，就像穀物等輾轉相續一樣。但是有終結的時候，因為原因窮盡的緣故，就像種子等窮盡，就不會產生芽等。生死既然沒有究竟的開始，也就沒有究竟的清凈，所以染污和清凈，僅僅依賴於蘊的形成。執著于有真實的『我』（Atman，靈魂），就變得沒有意義了。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十五 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯緣起品第三之五
已經說了內外羯剌藍等種子等道理，因果相續。應該知道這就被稱作緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda，dependent origination）。像這樣的緣起，不僅僅是十二緣起支（Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，the twelve links of dependent origination）。怎麼知道是這樣的呢？就像本論所說：什麼是緣起？是指一切有為法（Saṃskṛta，conditioned phenomena）。然而在契經中，辨別緣起的地方，有時完整地說十二有支，就像《勝義空契經》等所說；有時說十一個，就像《智事等經》。
【English Translation】 English version:
The extremely subtle life-force, along with the sense faculties and so on, mutually depend on each other, gradually increasing in the subsequent stages of Kalala (the stage of the embryo), Arbuda (the stage of coagulation), and so on. What are these Kalala and so on? They refer to the continuity of the skandhas (aggregates), which transform differently, gradually increasing in this way until the stage of mature faculties. Observing the internal and external sense bases, with attention and other conditions coming together, afflictions such as greed arise and increase, creating various karmas. Due to these delusions and karmas, there is again, as before, an intermediate existence (Antarabhava), continuing and transmigrating to other worlds. It should be known that, in this way, the wheel of existence has no beginning. Delusion is the cause, capable of creating various karmas; karma is the cause, having the power to bring about rebirth; rebirth is again the cause, giving rise to delusion and karma. From these delusions and karmas, there is again rebirth. Therefore, it is known that the wheel of existence revolves without beginning. If one insists on a beginning, then the beginning should have no cause. Since the beginning has no cause, the rest should arise on their own, because there is no different cause. This contradicts what we see. Therefore, it can be determined that there is no dharma (phenomenon) that arises without a cause. Nor is there a single, permanent dharma that can serve as a cause. In the refutation of Ishvara (the creator god in Hinduism), this view has already been widely rejected. Therefore, samsara (the cycle of birth and death) definitely has no beginning, just like grains and so on continue in succession. However, it has an end, because the cause is exhausted, just as when seeds and so on are exhausted, sprouts and so on do not arise. Since samsara has no ultimate beginning, it also has no ultimate purity, so defilement and purity depend solely on the formation of the skandhas. Clinging to a real Atman (self or soul) becomes meaningless.
Shun Zheng Li Lun (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) Volume 24 by the Sarvāstivāda school T29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Volume 25 Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian Translated under imperial decree by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang Chapter 3.5: Explanation of Dependent Origination
The principles of internal and external Kalala and other seeds have been explained, with cause and effect continuing. It should be known that this is called Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination). Such dependent origination is not only the Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda (the twelve links of dependent origination). How is this known? As stated in the treatise: What is dependent origination? It refers to all Saṃskṛta (conditioned phenomena). However, in the sutras, when discussing dependent origination, sometimes all twelve links are fully explained, as in the 'Sheng Yi Kong Qijing' (Superior Meaning of Emptiness Sutra) and others; sometimes eleven are mentioned, as in the 'Zhi Shi Deng Jing' (Knowledge and Affairs Sutra) and so on.
唯說十。如城喻等經。或復說九。如大緣起經。或說有八。如契經言。諸有沙門。或婆羅門。不如實知。諸法性等。諸如是等所說差別。何緣論說與經有異。論隨法性。經順化宜。故契經中。分別緣起。隨所化者機宜異說。或論了義。經義不了。或論通說情及非情。契經但依有情數說。依有情故。染凈得成。佛為有情。開顯此二。但為此事。佛現世間。故契經中。依有情說。為欲成立大義利故。分別緣起。諸有支中。具無量門義類差別。今且略辯三生分位。無間相續。有十二支。頌曰。
如是諸緣起 十二支三際 前後際各二 中八據圓滿
論曰。十二支者。一無明。二行。三識。四名色。五六處。六觸。七受。八愛。九取。十有。十一生。十二老死。言三際者。一前際。二后際。三中際。即是過未及現三生。云何十二支。於三際建立。謂前後際。各立二支。中際八支。故成十二。無明行在前際。謂過去生。生老死在後際。謂未來生。所餘八在中際。謂現在生。前際二因。所招五果。后際二果。所待三因。非諸一生皆具此八。據圓滿者。說有八支。圓滿者何。謂支無缺。或由圓滿。惑業所招。謂先增上惑業所引。此中意說。補特伽羅。歷一切位。名圓滿者。非諸天中及色無色。羯剌藍等諸位闕故世尊
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有的經文說有十支，比如《城喻經》等。有的經文說有九支，比如《大緣起經》。有的經文說有八支，比如契經中說：『有些沙門或婆羅門，不能如實地瞭解諸法的自性等等。』像這些經文所說的差別，是什麼原因導致論典的說法與經文不同呢？論典是根據法的自性而說的，經文是順應教化的方便而說的。所以在契經中，對緣起的分別解說，是隨著所教化對象的根器而有所不同的。或者論典是了義的，經文是不了義的。或者論典是普遍地講述有情和非有情，契經只是依據有情來講述。因為依據有情，染污和清凈才能成立。佛爲了有情，開顯這二者。只是爲了這件事，佛才出現在世間。所以在契經中，依據有情來講述，是爲了成立大的利益的緣故。分別緣起，在各個支分中，具有無量的門類和義理差別。現在且略微辨別三生的分位，無間相續，共有十二支。頌說： 『像這樣的諸緣起，十二支分處在三際，前後際各有兩支，中間八支據說是圓滿的。』 論說：十二支是：一、無明（Avidyā，不明白事理的迷惑）。二、行（Saṃskāra，由無明而產生的行為）。三、識（Vijñāna，了別作用）。四、名色（Nāmarūpa，精神和物質的結合）。五、六處（Ṣaḍāyatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）。六、觸（Sparśa，感覺器官與外境的接觸）。七、受（Vedanā，感受）。八、愛（Tṛṣṇā，渴愛）。九、取（Upādāna，執取）。十、有（Bhava，存在）。十一、生（Jāti，出生）。十二、老死（Jarā-maraṇa，衰老和死亡）。 所說的三際是：一、前際。二、后際。三、中際。也就是過去、未來和現在三生。怎樣將十二支建立在三際中呢？就是在前後際各建立兩支，中際建立八支，所以構成十二支。無明和行在前際，指的是過去生。生和老死在後際，指的是未來生。其餘的八支在中際，指的是現在生。前際的兩個因，招感五種果報。后際的兩個果報，所依賴的是三種因。不是每一生都具備這八支，據說是圓滿的，才說有八支。什麼是圓滿呢？就是支分沒有缺失。或者由於圓滿的惑業所招感。指的是先前的增上惑業所牽引。這裡的意思是說，補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）經歷一切位，才稱為圓滿。不是諸天中以及色界和無色界，羯剌藍（Kalala，受精卵最初的凝結狀態）等各個階段有所缺失，世尊才這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version: Some sutras speak of ten links, such as the City Simile Sutra and others. Some speak of nine, such as the Great Dependent Origination Sutra. Some speak of eight, as the sutra says: 'Some śramaṇas (ascetics) or brāhmaṇas (priests) do not truly know the nature of phenomena, etc.' What is the reason for the differences in these statements between the treatises and the sutras? Treatises follow the nature of the Dharma, while sutras accord with the convenience of conversion. Therefore, in the sutras, the explanation of dependent origination varies according to the capacity of those being taught. Or the treatise is definitive in meaning, while the sutra is not. Or the treatise speaks universally of both sentient and non-sentient beings, while the sutra only speaks based on sentient beings. Because based on sentient beings, defilement and purity can be established. The Buddha reveals these two for sentient beings. It is only for this matter that the Buddha appears in the world. Therefore, in the sutras, the explanation is based on sentient beings, for the sake of establishing great benefit. The explanation of dependent origination, in each link, has countless categories and differences in meaning. Now, let us briefly discuss the divisions of the three lives, in uninterrupted succession, with twelve links. The verse says: 'These dependent originations, the twelve links, are in the three times; the past and future times each have two, the middle eight are said to be complete.' The treatise says: The twelve links are: 1. Avidyā (ignorance). 2. Saṃskāra (formations). 3. Vijñāna (consciousness). 4. Nāmarūpa (name and form). 5. Ṣaḍāyatana (six sense bases). 6. Sparśa (contact). 7. Vedanā (feeling). 8. Tṛṣṇā (craving). 9. Upādāna (grasping). 10. Bhava (becoming). 11. Jāti (birth). 12. Jarā-maraṇa (old age and death). The three times are: 1. Past time. 2. Future time. 3. Present time. These are the three lives of past, future, and present. How are the twelve links established in the three times? Two links are established in each of the past and future times, and eight links are established in the present time, thus forming the twelve links. Avidyā and Saṃskāra are in the past time, referring to the past life. Jāti and Jarā-maraṇa are in the future time, referring to the future life. The remaining eight links are in the present time, referring to the present life. The two causes in the past time bring about five results. The two results in the future time depend on three causes. Not every life has all eight links; it is said to be complete when there are eight links. What is complete? It means that the links are not missing. Or it is caused by complete afflictions and karma. It refers to being led by previous increasing afflictions and karma. The meaning here is that a Pudgala (person) goes through all stages to be called complete. It is not that the devas (gods) in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm, and the stages such as Kalala (the initial stage of the embryo) are missing, that the World-Honored One says this.
但約欲界少分補特伽羅。說具十二。如大緣起契經中說。佛告阿難。識若不入胎。得增廣大不。不也世尊。乃至廣說。是故若有補特伽羅。于次前生。造無明行。具招現在。識等五支。復于現生。造愛取有。招次後世。生等二支。應知此經依彼而說。若依一切補特伽羅。立諸有支。便成雜亂。謂彼或有現在五支。非次前生。無明行果。及次後世。生老死支。非現在生愛取有果。彼皆非此。經意所明。勿見果因相去隔絕。便疑因果。感起無能。應知緣起支。略唯二分。前後際如次七支五支。以果與因屬因果故。或因與果。五支七支。以因攝因。以果攝果故。謂現愛取。即過無明。現在有支即過去行。現在世識。即未來生。余現四支。即當老死。是名因果二分差別。此緣起言為目何義。今見此中差別義者。謂缽剌底。是現前義。壹女界是有義。一字界中。有多義故。由先缽剌底。壹女界成緣。訖埵緣是已義。此合所依變成獵比參。是和合義。嗢是上升義。缽地界是有義。由以嗢為先。缽地界成起。此總義者。緣現已合。有法升起。是緣起義。緣現前言。即目和合。復言和合。有何別用。為成無法唯一緣生。或顯俱生前生緣故。緣現前者。顯俱生緣。緣和合者。顯前生緣。此則顯成依。此有彼有。此生故彼生。是緣起義。又
缽剌底。顯應行義。壹女馱都。顯不壞法。參顯正集。此意總顯世出現因。說名緣起。謂壹女界。由缽剌底為先助故。轉變成緣。正集及升。為先助故。令缽地界轉變成起。依如是義。立緣起名。經主此中。釋差別義。缽剌底是至義。醫底界是行義。由先助力。界義轉變。故行由至。轉變成緣。參是和合義。嗢是上升義。缽地界是有義。有藉合升。轉變成起。由此有法。至於緣已。和合升起。是緣起義。如是所釋。越彼所宗。且彼有界。由先助力。轉變成起。非異有故。再顯有義。竟何所成。以彼所宗無有非起無起。非有一應無義。經主自立此句義已。復自假興如是徴難。如是句義。理不應然。所以者何。依一作者。有二作用。於前作用。應有已言。如有一人浴已方食。無少行法有在起前。先至於緣。后時方起。非無作者可有作用。故說頌言。
至緣若起先 非有不應理 若俱便壞已 彼應先說故
又自釋言。無如是過。且應反詰聲論諸師。法何時起。為在現在。為在未來。設爾何失。起若現在。起非已生。如何成現。現是已生。復如何起。已生復起。便致無窮。起若未來。爾時未有。何成作者。作者既無。何有作用。故於起位。即亦至緣起位者何。謂未來世。諸行正起。即于起位。亦說至緣。非如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：缽剌底（Pratītya，緣），顯現行義。壹女馱都（ekadhātu，一界），顯現不壞之法。參（sam，和合）顯現正集。此意總顯世間出現之因，說名為緣起。謂壹女界，由缽剌底為先助之故，轉變成為緣，正集及升，為先助之故，令缽地界（padadhātu，位界）轉變成為起。依如是之義，立緣起之名。經主於此中，解釋差別之義。缽剌底是至義，醫底界是行義，由先助力，界義轉變，故行由至，轉變成緣。參是和合義，嗢是上升義，缽地界是有義，有藉和合上升，轉變成起。由此有法，至於緣已，和合升起，是緣起之義。如是所解釋，超越彼等所宗。且彼等有界，由先助力，轉變成起，非異有之故，再顯有義，究竟成就什麼？以彼等所宗無有非起無起，非有一應無義。經主自立此句義已，復自假設興起如是之徵難。如是句義，道理不應如此。所以是什麼呢？依一作者，有二作用，於前作用，應有已言。如有一人浴已方食，無少行法有在起前，先至於緣，后時方起。非無作者可有作用。故說頌言： 至緣若起先，非有不應理 若俱便壞已，彼應先說故 又自解釋言：無如是過。且應反詰聲論諸師，法何時起？為在現在？為在未來？設爾何失？起若現在，起非已生，如何成現？現是已生，復如何起？已生復起，便致無窮。起若未來，爾時未有，何成作者？作者既無，何有作用？故於起位，即亦至緣起位者何？謂未來世，諸行正起，即于起位，亦說至緣，非如。
【English Translation】 English version: Pratītya (Pratītya, Condition), manifests the meaning of action. Ekadhātu (ekadhātu, One Element), manifests the indestructible Dharma. Sam (sam, Combination) manifests the correct collection. This meaning generally reveals the cause of the world's appearance, which is called Dependent Origination. That is, the One Element, due to Pratītya's prior assistance, transforms into a condition; the correct collection and rising, due to prior assistance, cause the Padadhātu (padadhātu, Position Element) to transform into arising. Based on this meaning, the name Dependent Origination is established. The Sūtra Master, in this context, explains the meaning of difference. Pratītya means 'to arrive,' and the Īdṛk Element means 'action.' Due to prior assistance, the meaning of the element transforms, so action, through arrival, transforms into a condition. Sam means 'combination,' and Ud means 'rising.' The Padadhātu means 'existence.' Existence, relying on combination and rising, transforms into arising. Therefore, when a Dharma exists and arrives at a condition, combining and arising, that is the meaning of Dependent Origination. As explained in this way, it surpasses their doctrines. Moreover, their element, due to prior assistance, transforms into arising; because it is not different from existence, it further reveals the meaning of existence. What is ultimately accomplished? Because their doctrine has no non-arising without arising, it is not that there should be existence without meaning. The Sūtra Master, having established this sentence's meaning himself, then assumes and raises such a challenge. Such a sentence's meaning should not be so in principle. Why is that? Relying on one agent, there are two actions; in the prior action, there should be the word 'already.' Just as a person bathes and then eats, there is no small action that precedes arising, first arriving at the condition, and then arising later. There can be no action without an agent. Therefore, the verse says: If arrival at the condition arises first, it is not reasonable to have non-existence. If they are simultaneous, then it has already been destroyed; therefore, it should be said first. Furthermore, he explains himself: There is no such fault. Moreover, one should retort to the teachers of sound doctrine: When does a Dharma arise? Is it in the present? Or is it in the future? What is lost if it is so? If arising is in the present, arising is not already born; how can it become present? The present is already born; how can it arise again? Arising again after being born leads to infinity. If arising is in the future, at that time it does not yet exist; how can it become an agent? Since there is no agent, how can there be action? Therefore, in the position of arising, what is also the position of arriving at the condition and arising? It means that in the future world, when all actions are correctly arising, in the position of arising, one also speaks of arriving at the condition, not like...
是言能釋前難。以正起位許屬未來。彼宗未來。猶未有體。至緣及起。依何得成。故前所難。無少行法有在起前。先至於緣。后時方起。非無作者。可有用言。仍未通釋。又言聲論。妄所安立。作者作用。理實不成。有是作者。起是作用。非於此中見有作者。異起作用。真實可得。故此義言。于俗無謬。此亦非理。所以者何。作者作用。義非無別。若非依有得有起用。則畢竟無。應成作者。又縱彼說。作者作用。若異若同。且彼未來。以無體故。不成作者。故彼所說。不免前過。大德邏摩。作如是說。為詮表義。故發音聲。生滅等聲。皆于諸行相續分位差別安立。于多義中。方得究竟。非一剎那細難知故。于相續位。立相既成。於一剎那。亦可準立。如是所說。但有虛言。既說音聲為詮表義。彼宗生等。其體實無。故生等聲。無義可表。無法不可說為義故。又生等相。非行相續分位安立。前于思擇有為相中。已遮遣故要剎那位。立相得成。行相續中。方可準立。由相續假攬實成故。又彼起言。依何而說。非無有用可說用言。非畢竟無。可言有用。故彼于難。亦非善釋。唯對法宗說已無過。起及起前。皆可有故。謂對法者言法起時。如已生位。其體實有。可隨俗說作者無謬。諸說起位。同畢竟無。而說作者。如何無謬。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這種說法並不能解釋之前的難題。因為你們主張『正起位』（正在生起的狀態）屬於未來。但你們宗派認為未來還沒有實體，要等到因緣和合才能生起。那麼，『正起位』又依據什麼才能成立呢？所以，之前提出的難題依然存在，即沒有任何行法（事物）是在生起之前就存在的。必須先有因緣，然後才能在之後生起。如果說沒有作者（能動者），那還可以用語言來解釋。但現在的情況是，你們仍然沒有徹底解釋清楚這個問題。而且，你們聲論派（認為聲音是永恒的學派）所說的，都是妄想安立的，作者和作用的道理實際上是不能成立的。如果說有作者，生起是作用，但我們並沒有看到作者和生起作用是不同的，是可以真實得到的。所以，這種說法在世俗層面是說不通的。 這也是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為作者和作用的意義並非沒有區別。如果不是依靠『有』才能有『起用』，那麼就畢竟是『無』，應該成為作者。即使按照你們的說法，作者和作用，無論是異還是同，但因為未來沒有實體，所以不能成為作者。因此，你們的說法仍然不能免除之前的過失。 大德邏摩（Logama）這樣說：爲了詮釋表達意義，所以才發出聲音。生、滅等聲音，都是在諸行（事物）的相續分位差別上安立的，在多種意義中，才能得到究竟的理解。因為一個剎那（極短的時間）太細微難以理解。在相續的位子上，建立相（概念）已經成立，那麼在一個剎那上，也可以類比建立。但這種說法只是空話。既然說聲音是爲了詮釋表達意義，但你們宗派認為生等（生、住、異、滅）的體性實際上是沒有的。所以，生等的聲音，沒有什麼意義可以表達。因為沒有法（事物）就不能說成是意義。而且，生等相，不是在行（事物）的相續分位上安立的，之前在思擇有為相（有為法的特徵）中，已經遮遣了這種說法。必須在剎那的位子上，建立相才能成立，然後在行（事物）的相續中，才可以類比建立。因為相續是虛假的，攬取真實而成的。 而且，你們所說的『起』，又是依據什麼而說的呢？如果不是沒有『有用』，就可以說『用』這個詞。如果不是畢竟『無』，就可以說『有用』。所以，你們對於這個難題，並沒有很好地解釋。只有對法宗（阿毗達摩宗）的說法沒有過失，因為他們認為『起』和『起前』，都是可以有的。對法宗認為，法（事物）生起的時候，就像已經生起的狀態一樣，它的體性是真實存在的，可以隨順世俗的說法，認為作者沒有錯誤。而那些認為『起位』（生起的狀態）等同於畢竟『無』的說法，卻說有作者，這怎麼能沒有錯誤呢？
【English Translation】 English version: This statement does not resolve the previous difficulty. Because you assert that the 'present arising state' (the state of currently arising) belongs to the future. However, your school believes that the future has no substance yet, and it can only arise when conditions come together. Then, upon what does the 'present arising state' rely to be established? Therefore, the previous difficulty remains, namely, that no dharma (thing) exists before arising. There must be conditions first, and then arising can occur later. If you say there is no author (agent), then language can be used to explain it. But in the current situation, you still haven't thoroughly explained this issue. Moreover, what your school of sound (which believes that sound is eternal) says is all falsely established; the principles of author and action cannot actually be established. If you say there is an author, and arising is the action, but we haven't seen that the author and the action of arising are different, and can be truly obtained. Therefore, this statement is not understandable at the mundane level. This is also unreasonable. Why? Because the meaning of author and action are not without distinction. If it were not relying on 'existence' to have 'action', then it would ultimately be 'non-existence', and should become the author. Even according to your statement, whether the author and action are different or the same, because the future has no substance, it cannot become the author. Therefore, your statement still cannot escape the previous fault. The Venerable Logama (Logama) said this: In order to interpret and express meaning, sound is produced. Sounds such as arising and ceasing are all established on the differences in the continuous phases of dharmas (things). Only in multiple meanings can ultimate understanding be obtained. Because a kshana (extremely short time) is too subtle and difficult to understand. In the continuous position, establishing the characteristic (concept) is already established, then in one kshana, it can also be established by analogy. But this statement is just empty words. Since it is said that sound is for interpreting and expressing meaning, but your school believes that the nature of arising, etc. (arising, abiding, changing, ceasing) actually does not exist. Therefore, the sound of arising, etc., has no meaning to express. Because without a dharma (thing), it cannot be said to be a meaning. Moreover, the characteristics of arising, etc., are not established on the continuous phases of dharmas (things). Previously, in considering the characteristics of conditioned dharmas (characteristics of conditioned dharmas), this statement has already been refuted. It is necessary to establish the characteristic on the position of the kshana in order to be established, and then in the continuity of dharmas (things), it can be established by analogy. Because continuity is false, formed by grasping reality. Moreover, upon what is your statement of 'arising' based? If it were not without 'usefulness', then the word 'use' could be said. If it were not ultimately 'non-existence', then 'usefulness' could be said. Therefore, you have not well explained this difficulty. Only the statement of the Abhidharma school (Abhidharma school) has no fault, because they believe that 'arising' and 'before arising' can both exist. The Abhidharma school believes that when a dharma (thing) arises, it is like the state of already arising, its nature is truly existent, and it can follow mundane statements, believing that the author has no error. But those who believe that the 'state of arising' (the state of arising) is equivalent to ultimate 'non-existence', but say there is an author, how can this be without error?
若謂俱生因果論者。于已言過。無由解脫。已言於我進退無違。作者及時。俱非定故。雖依一作者說有已言。而見有已言依別作者。如依我已汝得不行。雖有已言依前時說。而亦見依后。如開口已眠。雖有已言。依別時說。而亦見有依不別時。如世有說言闇至已燈滅。是故俱生因果論者。于緣起理。進退無失。緣起句義。唯此極成。何故世尊。為釋緣起。先作是說。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。而不唯說無明緣等。釋緣起義。且上座言。緣起有二。一有情數。二非有情。前兩句文。通攝二種。言無別故。無明緣等。唯攝有情。有情有故。然彼上座。親教門人。有自斥言。此釋非理。與摽釋理。不相應故。前摽后釋。理必相符。如何雙摽。后唯釋一。又外緣起。於此經中。不應先摽。以無用故。此斥非理。上所釋言。不違摽釋。非無用故。謂無明等。后所釋言。不越摽中有情緣起。故摽釋理非不相應。夫置先摽。擬生后釋。后既無釋。先何用摽。是故但應摽有情數。摽非有情數與釋不相符。且非別摽。不釋何咎。既無別釋。何用總摽。此中總摽。有大義用。謂以現見非情緣起。顯不現見內緣起故。種子生芽等世所現知。無明緣行等非世現見。世尊顯示。如依種等有芽等得有。及種等生故芽等得生。如是應知。依無明等有。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人堅持俱生因果論，那麼他已經說過的話就無法解脫，因為他已經說過的話，無論進退都與我（ātman）的觀點沒有衝突。作者和時間都不是固定的。雖然依據一個作者可以解釋『已言』（已經說過的話），但也可以看到『已言』依賴於不同的作者，例如，依據『我』已經說了，『你』就可以不行動。雖然『已言』可以依據先前的時間來說，但也可以看到它依據之後的時間，例如，張開嘴之後睡覺。雖然『已言』可以依據不同的時間來說，但也可以看到它依據不不同的時間，例如，世俗中有人說『黑暗到來之後燈就熄滅了』。因此，堅持俱生因果論的人，在緣起（pratītyasamutpāda）的道理上，無論進退都沒有過失。緣起的意義，只有這種解釋才是最確定的。那麼，為什麼世尊（Śākyamuni Buddha）爲了解釋緣起，首先說『依此有彼有，此生故彼生』，而不只是說無明緣（avidyā）等來解釋緣起的意義呢？ 上座部（Theravāda）的論師說，緣起有兩種：一是有情數（sentient beings），二是非有情數（non-sentient beings）。前兩句經文涵蓋了這兩種，因為沒有明確的區分。而無明緣等只涵蓋有情數，因為有情存在。然而，那位上座部論師的親教師的門人，有人自己批評說，這種解釋不合理，因為它與標示和解釋的原則不符。前面的標示和後面的解釋，在道理上必須相符。如何能夠標示兩種，而後面只解釋一種呢？而且，外在的緣起，不應該在這部經中首先標示，因為它沒有用處。這種批評是不合理的。上座部論師的解釋，並不違反標示和解釋的原則，因為它並非沒有用處。無明等，後面所解釋的，並沒有超出標示中的有情緣起，所以標示和解釋的原則並非不相符。如果先設定標示，是爲了引出後面的解釋，而後面沒有解釋，那麼先前的標示有什麼用呢？因此，應該只標示有情數。標示非有情數與解釋不相符。而且，如果沒有單獨標示，不解釋又有什麼過錯呢？既然沒有單獨的解釋，又何必總的標示呢？ 這裡總的標示，有很大的意義和作用。那就是通過現見的非有情緣起，來顯示不現見的內在緣起。種子生芽等，是世人所能現見知道的。而無明緣行等，不是世人所能現見知道的。世尊顯示，就像依靠種子等，才有芽等得以存在，以及種子等生起，所以芽等得以生起一樣。應當知道，依靠無明等，才有（苦）得以存在。
【English Translation】 English version: If someone insists on the theory of co-arising cause and effect (俱生因果論), then what he has already said cannot be undone, because what he has said does not conflict with the view of 'I' (ātman) whether advancing or retreating. The agent and time are not fixed. Although 'already said' (已言) can be explained based on one agent, it can also be seen that 'already said' depends on different agents, for example, based on 'I' having said, 'you' can refrain from acting. Although 'already said' can be based on a previous time, it can also be seen to be based on a later time, for example, sleeping after opening the mouth. Although 'already said' can be based on different times, it can also be seen to be based on non-different times, for example, people in the world say 'after darkness arrives, the lamp goes out.' Therefore, those who insist on the theory of co-arising cause and effect, in the principle of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), have no fault whether advancing or retreating. The meaning of dependent origination is only most certainly established by this explanation. Then, why did the World Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha), in order to explain dependent origination, first say 'this existing, that exists; this arising, that arises,' instead of just explaining the meaning of dependent origination by saying ignorance (avidyā) as a condition, etc.? The Theravāda (上座部) masters say that there are two types of dependent origination: one is sentient beings (有情數), and the other is non-sentient beings (非有情數). The first two sentences of the sutra encompass both of these, because there is no clear distinction. However, ignorance as a condition, etc., only encompasses sentient beings, because sentient beings exist. However, a disciple of the Theravāda master's personal teacher criticized, saying that this explanation is unreasonable, because it does not conform to the principle of indication and explanation. The preceding indication and the following explanation must be consistent in principle. How can one indicate two types, but only explain one type later? Moreover, external dependent origination should not be indicated first in this sutra, because it is useless. This criticism is unreasonable. The Theravāda master's explanation does not violate the principle of indication and explanation, because it is not useless. What is explained later, such as ignorance, etc., does not exceed the dependent origination of sentient beings in the indication, so the principle of indication and explanation is not inconsistent. If the preceding indication is set up to elicit the following explanation, and there is no explanation later, then what is the use of the preceding indication? Therefore, only sentient beings should be indicated. Indicating non-sentient beings is inconsistent with the explanation. Moreover, if there is no separate indication, what fault is there in not explaining? Since there is no separate explanation, why bother with a general indication? The general indication here has great meaning and function. That is, to reveal the non-manifest internal dependent origination through the manifest dependent origination of non-sentient beings. The arising of sprouts from seeds, etc., is something that people in the world can see and know. However, ignorance as a condition for action, etc., is not something that people in the world can see and know. The World Honored One reveals that just as sprouts, etc., can exist by relying on seeds, etc., and sprouts, etc., can arise because seeds, etc., arise, so it should be known that suffering can exist by relying on ignorance, etc.
行等得有。無明等生故。行等得生。是故總摽。有大義用。此總顯示一切有為無一不從眾緣起者。若爾何故。不釋非情如於有情。先摽后釋。非情易了。但藉總摽。情數難知。故須別釋。諸緣起教。多為利根。是故不應所摽皆釋。又有情勝。故應廣辯。外法亦以內為因故。若爾何故。余契經中。亦有廣辯外緣起處。如種喻經等故。所釋不然如是師徒。未為賢善。自師勞思。所造論宗。為逞己能。輕為彈斥。善說法者。理不應然。我於此中。詳彼所釋。一切皆與自論相違。謂彼論說經皆了義。而今釋此違彼論宗。釋不具申摽中義故。彼便許此非了義經。故此定非彼宗經義。大德邏摩。于自師釋。心不忍許。復自釋言。若十二支。許依三際即為略攝。三際緣起說。依此有彼有。及此生故彼生。若不許然。即此二句。如次顯示親傳二因。此亦不然。且應詳辯。為攝三際。說此二門。如是二門。義為同異。義若同者。但說一門。于義已周。余便無用。又違后釋。別顯二因。非此二言。前後再說。可令義旨。或同或異。若如后釋。兩義異者。為攝三際。說此二言。即此二言。各應重說。若異此者。非遍一切。則摽與釋。義不相符。謂于摽中。所不攝義。釋中廣辯。義豈相應。故彼還成違摽釋理。由此親傳。皆無重言。于諸有支。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『行』等才能獲得存在。因為『無明』（avidyā，指對事物真相的無知）等產生，所以『行』等才能產生。因此，總括地標示出來，具有重大的意義和作用。這個總括的標示顯示了一切有為法（saṃskṛta，指由因緣和合而成的現象），沒有一樣不是從眾多的因緣而生起的。如果這樣，為什麼不像解釋有情眾生那樣，先標示后解釋無情之物呢？因為無情之物容易理解，只需要總括地標示即可。而有情眾生的情形難以理解，所以需要分別解釋。諸多的緣起教法，多半是為利根之人所說，因此不應該所有標示的內容都加以解釋。而且有情眾生更為殊勝，所以應該廣泛地辨析。外在的法也是以內在的法為因緣的。如果這樣，為什麼在其他的契經中，也有廣泛辨析外在緣起的地方，比如《種喻經》等呢？像這樣解釋是不對的。這樣的師徒，不能算是賢善。爲了逞顯自己的能力，輕率地彈斥自己老師辛勤思考所建立的論宗。善於說法的人，不應該這樣做。我在這裡詳細地考察他所解釋的內容，一切都與他自己的論宗相違背。他之前的論說認為，佛經都是了義經（nītārtha，指意義明確、直接的經典），而現在解釋這部經卻違背了他自己的論宗，因為解釋沒有完全闡述標示中的含義。這樣一來，他就不得不承認這部經不是了義經。因此，這一定不是他宗派的經義。大德邏摩（Lokakṣema），對於自己老師的解釋，心中不忍接受，於是自己解釋說，如果十二因緣支（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda）允許依賴於過去、現在、未來三際（tryadhva），那麼就相當於簡略地概括了三際的緣起之說。依據『此有故彼有』，以及『此生故彼生』的說法。如果不允許這樣，那麼這兩句話就依次顯示了親因和傳因。這種說法也是不對的。應該詳細地辨析，爲了概括三際，才說這兩句話嗎？這兩句話的意義是相同還是不同？如果意義相同，那麼只說一句話，意義就已經完備了，其餘的就沒有用了。而且也違背了後面的解釋，分別顯示了兩種原因。如果不是前後重複地說這兩句話，就可以使意義旨趣或者相同或者不同。如果像後面的解釋那樣，兩種意義不同，爲了概括三際，才說這兩句話，那麼這兩句話就應該各自重複地說。如果不是這樣，就不能普遍地涵蓋一切，那麼標示和解釋，意義就不相符了。在標示中沒有涵蓋的意義，在解釋中卻廣泛地辨析，意義怎麼能相應呢？因此，他還是犯了違背標示來解釋的錯誤。由此可見，親因和傳因，都沒有重複的言辭，在各種有支中。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Actions' (saṃskāra) and so on can only be obtained if there is something to obtain them from. Because 'ignorance' (avidyā, referring to ignorance of the true nature of things) and so on arise, 'actions' and so on can arise. Therefore, a general indication is made, which has great meaning and use. This general indication shows that all conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta, referring to phenomena that are compounded of causes and conditions), none of them arise without depending on numerous causes and conditions. If so, why not explain non-sentient things like sentient beings, first indicating and then explaining? Because non-sentient things are easy to understand, only a general indication is needed. But the situation of sentient beings is difficult to understand, so it needs to be explained separately. Many teachings on dependent origination are mostly spoken for those with sharp faculties, so it is not necessary to explain all the indicated content. Moreover, sentient beings are more superior, so they should be widely analyzed. External dharmas are also caused by internal dharmas. If so, why are there also places in other sutras where external dependent origination is widely analyzed, such as the Seed Analogy Sutra? Such an explanation is not correct. Such a teacher and disciple cannot be considered virtuous and wise. In order to show off his own ability, he rashly criticizes the tenets established by his teacher's hard thinking. One who is good at teaching should not do this. Here, I examine in detail what he explained, and everything contradicts his own tenets. His previous statement was that the sutras are all of definitive meaning (nītārtha, referring to scriptures with clear and direct meaning), but now explaining this sutra violates his own tenets, because the explanation does not fully elaborate on the meaning in the indication. In this way, he has to admit that this sutra is not of definitive meaning. Therefore, this is certainly not the meaning of his sect's sutra. The virtuous Lokakṣema could not bear to accept his teacher's explanation, so he explained it himself, saying that if the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda) are allowed to rely on the three times of past, present, and future (tryadhva), then it is equivalent to briefly summarizing the teaching of dependent origination in the three times. According to the saying 'This exists, therefore that exists,' and 'This arises, therefore that arises.' If this is not allowed, then these two sentences respectively show the direct cause and the transmitted cause. This statement is also incorrect. It should be analyzed in detail whether these two sentences are spoken in order to summarize the three times. Are the meanings of these two sentences the same or different? If the meanings are the same, then only one sentence needs to be said, and the meaning is already complete, and the rest is useless. Moreover, it also violates the later explanation, which separately shows the two causes. If these two sentences are not repeated before and after, the meaning and purpose can be either the same or different. If, as in the later explanation, the two meanings are different, and these two sentences are spoken in order to summarize the three times, then these two sentences should each be repeated. If this is not the case, then it cannot universally cover everything, and then the indication and the explanation do not correspond in meaning. The meaning that is not covered in the indication is widely analyzed in the explanation, how can the meaning correspond? Therefore, he still makes the mistake of explaining in violation of the indication. From this, it can be seen that there are no repeated words in the direct cause and the transmitted cause, in the various limbs of existence.
但隨摽一與后廣釋。不相應故。若謂此二遍屬諸支。謂初無明為緣生行。或親或傳。行等亦然。此但悕望。而無實理。后無如是分別說故。是則摽釋還不相符。又譬喻宗。過未無體。如何可立親傳二因。且非業無間能生異熟故。業望異熟。親因不成。亦非傳因。傳義無故。非業滅已後有余因。由先業力。招異熟果。要先因滅已。余因感果時。遠由先因力。方名傳因故。諸有橫計舊隨界等。思擇因中。已廣遮破。設許有彼傳。亦不成遠近二因。滅無異故。依何而說。彼遠此近。據曾有說。理亦不成。隨一有時。隨一無故。無法無容說為傳故。由此亦破據當有說。現在雖有。未來無故。非無所待。可說有傳。是故定知。譬喻論者。但為誑惑。迷真理教。無覺慧人。輒有所釋。上座徒黨。有釋為破無因常因。有釋為顯因果住生。說斯二句。經主已破。故不重遣。上座復言。依此有彼有者。依果有因有滅。此生故彼生者。恐疑果無因生。是故復言。由因生故。果方得起。非謂無因。經主難言經義若爾。應作是說。依此有彼成無。又應先言。因生故果生已。后乃可說。依果有因成無。如是次第。方名善說。若異此者。欲辯緣起。依何次第。先說因滅。故彼所釋。非此經義。如是上座。凡有所言。親教門人。及同見者。尚不承信。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：但是隨著標舉一個『有』字，後面又廣泛地解釋，這兩者是不相應的。如果說這兩個『有』字普遍地屬於各個支分（ अंगों ，anga，十二緣起中的每一環），認為最初的無明為緣而產生行，或者直接或者間接；行等等也是這樣。這只是希望如此，而沒有實際的道理。因為後面的經文中沒有像這樣的分別解說。這樣一來，標舉和解釋還是不相符。 又譬喻宗（ Sautrāntika，經量部，佛教部派之一）認為過去和未來沒有實體，如何能夠建立直接和間接兩種因呢？而且，不是業（ karma，行為）能夠無間隔地產生異熟果（ vipāka-phala，果報），所以業對於異熟果來說，直接因不能成立，間接因也不能成立，因為沒有間接的意義。不是業滅之後還有其他的因，憑藉先前的業力，招感異熟果。一定要先因滅了之後，其餘的因感果的時候，遙遠地憑藉先前因的力量，才能稱為間接因。那些橫加計度，認為有舊隨界等等的說法，在思擇因的時候，已經廣泛地遮破了。 假設允許有那種間接因，也不能成立遠和近兩種因，因為滅沒有差別。依據什麼來說，那個是遠，這個是近呢？依據曾經有來說，道理也不能成立，因為隨一個有時，隨一個沒有。沒有法，沒有容許說成為間接。因此，也破斥了依據當有來說。現在雖然有，未來沒有。不是沒有所待，可以說有間接。所以一定知道，譬喻論者，只是爲了誑惑，迷惑了真實的道理教法，沒有覺悟智慧的人，就隨便地加以解釋。 上座部（ Sthavira Nikāya，原始佛教部派之一）的徒黨，有的解釋是爲了破斥無因和常因，有的解釋是爲了顯示因果的住和生，說這兩句話。經主（論主，指本論的作者）已經破斥過了，所以不再重複駁斥。上座部又說：『依此有彼有』，是說依果有因而有滅；『此生故彼生』，是恐怕懷疑果沒有因也能生，所以又說，由於因生，果才能生起，不是說沒有因。 經主反駁說：如果經義是這樣，應該這樣說：『依此有彼成無』。又應該先說『因生故果生』，之後才可以說『依果有因成無』。像這樣的次第，才叫做善說。如果不是這樣，想要辨別緣起，依據什麼次第，先說因滅？所以他們的解釋，不是這部經的意義。像這樣，上座部，凡是他們所說的，親教師的門人，以及見解相同的人，尚且不相信。
【English Translation】 English version: However, by merely pointing out one 'is' and then broadly explaining it later, these two are not corresponding. If it is said that these two 'is' universally belong to each branch (anga, limb of dependent origination), considering that the initial ignorance is the condition for the arising of action, either directly or indirectly; and so on for action and the rest. This is merely wishful thinking and has no real reason. Because the later sutras do not have such separate explanations. In this way, the pointing out and the explanation still do not match. Moreover, the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) believes that the past and future have no substance, how can one establish the two kinds of causes, direct and indirect? Furthermore, it is not that karma (action) can produce the result of maturation (vipāka-phala, fruition) without interval, so for karma in relation to the result of maturation, the direct cause cannot be established, nor can the indirect cause be established, because there is no meaning of indirectness. It is not that after the karma has ceased, there are other causes, relying on the power of previous karma, to attract the result of maturation. It must be that after the prior cause has ceased, when the remaining causes produce the result, remotely relying on the power of the prior cause, can it be called an indirect cause. Those who arbitrarily speculate, thinking there are old following realms and so on, have already been widely refuted in the consideration of causes. Even if one allows for that kind of indirect cause, it cannot establish the two causes of far and near, because cessation has no difference. Based on what can one say that one is far and the other is near? Based on having existed, the reasoning also cannot be established, because one exists at one time, and the other does not. Without a dharma, there is no allowance to say it is indirect. Therefore, it also refutes the saying based on will exist. Although it exists now, it does not exist in the future. It is not without dependence that one can say there is indirectness. Therefore, one must know for certain that the Sautrāntikas are merely trying to deceive, confusing the true doctrine, and those without awakened wisdom readily interpret it. The followers of the Sthavira Nikāya (one of the early Buddhist schools), some explain it as refuting causelessness and permanent cause, some explain it as revealing the abiding and arising of cause and effect, saying these two sentences. The author of the treatise (the main figure in the text) has already refuted them, so he will not refute them again. The Sthavira Nikāya further says: 'Because this exists, that exists,' which means that because the result exists, the cause exists and ceases; 'Because this arises, that arises,' which is to prevent the doubt that the result can arise without a cause, so they further say that because the cause arises, the result can arise, not saying that there is no cause. The author of the treatise refutes, saying: If the meaning of the sutra is like this, it should be said: 'Because this exists, that becomes non-existent.' And one should first say 'Because the cause arises, the result arises,' and then one can say 'Because the result exists, the cause becomes non-existent.' Such an order is called a good explanation. If it is not like this, wanting to distinguish dependent origination, based on what order does one first say the cause ceases? Therefore, their explanation is not the meaning of this sutra. Like this, the Sthavira Nikāya, whatever they say, the disciples of the preceptor, and those with the same views, still do not believe it.
況隨聖教。順正理人。可能忍受。東方貴此。實謂奇哉。經主何緣。但言彼釋非此經義。我今說彼上座所言。全無義理。諸有唯說前生為因。及唯現世。有體論者。曾無果有因方有滅。以果有時因已無故。于果起位因可有滅。故因滅時果猶未有。若果有位。因方有滅。許因猶有便壞剎那。又果有時因方許滅。則成因果俱時有過。以果有時因未無故。果於爾時亦有滅故。又若爾者。應不致疑果無因生。俱現有故。謂果有位因方有滅。果現從彼未無因生。如何有疑果無因起。則不應復說。因生故果生。若彼救言。我意不說果有位因方滅。我意但言。要果有位因方有滅。是于果有時因方有無義。設許如是。亦不應疑。謂果有時。因方非有。是則已顯因先非無。何容復疑。果無因起。又余處說。依種等有。芽等得有。此有何義。若即有彼義便失自宗。若別有余義。何緣定執。未來名有許非即彼義。過去名有許即彼義耶。又無體法。不應說有。思涅槃中。已具遮遣。又果未有。應立有名。由因已無。仍名有故。由此義故。依此有彼有言。義便不定。然不許爾。是故應知。上座所言。全無義理。然彼經主。差別遮言。非此經義。無異有說此石女兒。非極勇健。又經主述自軌範師釋二句義。顯己仁孝。彼雖有失。而不彰顯。師資之道
。理固應然。我于彼師。無所承稟。設為彈斥。無虧大望。故我於此如實顯非。謂彼諸師釋此二句。為顯因果不斷及生。謂依無明不斷諸行不斷。即由無明生故。諸行得生。如是展轉。皆應廣說。此釋不然。經義若爾。即亦應說。行緣無明。亦依行不斷無明不斷。以行與無明同對治故。非取斷位。而可說言。愛猶不斷。同對治故。若謂此就現行斷說。則後生言應成無用。曾無有一無明現行而不名生。何須重說。故知經主所稟諸師。于諸法相。未為明達。對法諸師。釋此二句。諸有支起。必由二因。俱生前生。有差別故。或有但以有體為因。或有為因有之差別。先為標此二種因故。說依此有彼有及此生故彼生。后為釋此二種因故。說謂無明緣行。乃至生緣老死。或此二句。義雖無別。而緣起支。略有二種。謂前後際。因果不同。略標前際。故說依此有彼有。略標后際。故說此生故彼生。由此前際定說已有現有。謂依此有彼有。因果如次。在過現故。若於后際。定說現生當生。謂此生故彼生。因果如次。在現未故。前際中果有義已圓。故說為有。后際中果有義未滿。故說為生。果正所求故隨果說。或依二諦。釋此二言。二諦即是。世俗勝義。依多立一。名世俗諦。安立界體。名勝義諦。前諦隨順世間言說。后諦隨順賢聖言
【現代漢語翻譯】 理應如此。我對於那些老師，並沒有接受他們的傳承和教導。即使我對他們的觀點提出反駁和批評，也不會有損於我對佛法的宏大期望。因此，我在此如實地揭示他們的錯誤。他們解釋這兩句話（『依此有故彼有，此生故彼生』）是爲了表明因果的相續不斷和生起。他們認為，依賴於無明，諸行就不會斷絕，正是由於無明的生起，諸行才得以產生。像這樣輾轉相生，都應該廣泛地說明。這種解釋是不正確的。如果經文的含義是這樣，那麼也應該說『行緣無明』，也依賴於行的不斷，無明也不會斷絕，因為行與無明是對治的雙方。如果沒有達到斷滅的地位，卻說愛仍然沒有斷絕，也是因為它們是對治的雙方。如果說這是就現行的斷滅而言，那麼後面『生』這個字就變得沒有意義了。從來沒有一個無明現行而不被稱為『生』的，何必重複說明呢？所以，我知道經文作者所師承的那些老師，對於諸法的體相，還沒有完全明瞭通達。 對法論師解釋這兩句話，認為諸有的生起，必定由兩種原因：俱生（同時生起）和前生（先於所生之法而生起），因為它們之間存在差別。或者有的僅僅以『有體』（存在的自體）作為原因，或者有的以『有』的差別作為原因。先標明這兩種原因，所以說『依此有故彼有，此生故彼生』。後面爲了解釋這兩種原因，所以說『謂無明緣行，乃至生緣老死』。或者這兩句話，意義雖然沒有差別，但是緣起的支分，略有二種，即前後際（過去和未來）。因果不同。簡略地標明前際，所以說『依此有故彼有』。簡略地標明后際，所以說『此生故彼生』。由此，前際必定說已有、現有，即『依此有故彼有』，因果依次在過去和現在。如果在後際，必定說現在生、當來生，即『此生故彼生』，因果依次在現在和未來。前際中，果的『有』的意義已經圓滿，所以說為『有』。后際中，果的『有』的意義還沒有圓滿，所以說為『生』。果是真正所追求的，所以隨著果來說。或者依據二諦（兩種真理）來解釋這兩句話。二諦就是世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）和勝義諦（paramārtha-satya）。依據多種事物而建立一個概念，名為世俗諦。安立諸法的界限和體性，名為勝義諦。前一種真理隨順世間的言說，后一種真理隨順賢聖的智慧。
【English Translation】 It should be so. I have not received any transmission or teachings from those teachers. Even if I refute and criticize their views, it will not diminish my great hope for the Dharma. Therefore, I hereby reveal their errors truthfully. They explain these two sentences ('This existing, that exists; this arising, that arises') to show the continuity and arising of cause and effect. They believe that, relying on ignorance (avidyā), actions (saṃskāra) will not be cut off, and it is precisely because of the arising of ignorance that actions can arise. Like this, mutually arising, all should be explained extensively. This explanation is incorrect. If the meaning of the scripture is like this, then it should also be said 'actions condition ignorance,' also relying on the non-cessation of actions, ignorance will not cease, because actions and ignorance are the opposing sides. If one has not reached the state of cessation, yet says that craving (tṛṣṇā) is still not cut off, it is also because they are the opposing sides. If it is said that this is in terms of the present cessation, then the word 'arising' later becomes meaningless. There has never been an ignorance presently active that is not called 'arising,' why repeat it? Therefore, I know that those teachers whom the author of the scripture followed have not fully understood the characteristics of all dharmas. The Abhidharma masters explain these two sentences, believing that the arising of all existences must be due to two causes: co-arising (simultaneous arising) and prior-arising (arising prior to the dharma that arises), because there is a difference between them. Or some only take 'existence itself' (existing entity) as the cause, or some take the difference of 'existence' as the cause. First, to indicate these two causes, it is said 'This existing, that exists; this arising, that arises.' Later, to explain these two causes, it is said 'Namely, ignorance conditions actions, and even birth conditions old age and death.' Or these two sentences, although the meaning is not different, the limbs of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) are roughly of two kinds, namely the prior and posterior limits (past and future). The causes and effects are different. Briefly indicating the prior limit, it is said 'This existing, that exists.' Briefly indicating the posterior limit, it is said 'This arising, that arises.' Therefore, the prior limit must say already existing, presently existing, namely 'This existing, that exists,' the causes and effects are sequentially in the past and present. If in the posterior limit, it must say presently arising, future arising, namely 'This arising, that arises,' the causes and effects are sequentially in the present and future. In the prior limit, the meaning of the 'existence' of the effect is already complete, so it is said to be 'existing.' In the posterior limit, the meaning of the 'existence' of the effect is not yet complete, so it is said to be 'arising.' The effect is what is truly sought, so it is spoken of according to the effect. Or, according to the two truths (two kinds of truth) to explain these two sentences. The two truths are conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). According to multiple things to establish a concept, it is called conventional truth. Establishing the boundaries and nature of all dharmas, it is called ultimate truth. The former truth accords with worldly speech, the latter truth accords with the wisdom of the noble ones.
說。世俗諦法。得有名生。失有名滅。勝義諦法。用起名生。用息名滅。言得有者。謂假所依。眾緣和集。合立一有。言用起者。謂諸實物。眾緣合時。引果用起。唯現有論。亦定應許。如是所說。二種有義。若不許此。應舍契經。依此有彼有者。是假所依有假便得有義。此意說假是有非生。即所依緣和合立故。何緣證知。如契經說。
如即攬眾分 假相說為車 世俗說有情 應知攬諸蘊
貪等煩惱。多緣假生。方能為因。生後有識。依正理說。必應如是。此生故彼生者。是因實界生實界得生義。此意說實。眾緣力故。令起作用。是生非有。何緣證知。如契經說。二因二緣。能生正見。此生故者。過去現在諸緣生故。言彼生者。未來果生。雖于未來亦有緣義。約分位故。但說已生。或依此有彼有者。是依前生因。有現生果。有義言。此生故彼生者。是現生果生故。後生因生義。此中意顯現生生故。遮余對治。生後有因。復依現生因有。後生果得有。由後生果生故。後後因得生。如是有輪。旋環無始。有餘師釋。如是二言。為于緣起知決定故。如余處說。依無明有。諸行得有。非離無明可有諸行。由如是理。唯有四句。若異此者。應成多句。謂依此有彼有彼非有。及此生故彼生彼不生。如是便成六句差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 說：在世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）的層面，『得』（獲得）意味著有名相的產生，『失』（失去）意味著有名相的滅亡。在勝義諦（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理）的層面，『用起』（作用生起）意味著有名相的產生，『用息』（作用止息）意味著有名相的滅亡。 所謂『得』，指的是依賴於假立之所依，眾多因緣和合，而假立為『有』。 所謂『用起』，指的是諸真實之物，在眾多因緣聚合時，引發結果的作用生起。唯識宗（Vijnanavada）也必定應當認可這種說法。 如上所說，是兩種『有』的含義。如果不認可這些，就應該捨棄佛經（Sutra）。 『依此有彼有』，指的是依賴於假立之所依而有假立，因此才有所謂『得』的含義。這意思是說，假立是『有』，但並非真實產生，而是依賴於所依之緣的和合而假立。 有什麼證據可以證明這一點呢？就像佛經所說： 『就像聚集眾多部分，假想地稱之為『車』一樣，世俗中說『有情』（Sattva），應當知道也是聚集了諸蘊（Skandha）。』 貪等煩惱，多半是依賴於假立而產生，才能作為原因，產生後有的識（Vijnana）。依正理來說，必定應當如此。 『此生故彼生』，指的是因真實界（Dhatu）的生起，而使真實界得以生起的含義。這意思是說，真實之物，憑藉眾多因緣的力量，使其生起作用，這是『生』而非『有』。 有什麼證據可以證明這一點呢？就像佛經所說：『二因二緣，能生正見（Samyag-drsti）。』 『此生故』，指的是過去和現在的諸緣生起。 『彼生』，指的是未來的果報生起。雖然對於未來也有因緣的含義，但因為是約分位來說，所以只說已經生起。 或者，『依此有彼有』，指的是依賴於前生的因，而有現生的果報，是『有』的含義。 『此生故彼生』，指的是現生的果報生起，因此後生的因得以生起的含義。這裡的意思是，顯現現生的生起，是爲了遮止其餘的對治，生起後有的因。 又依賴於現生的因，而有後生的果報得以存在，由於後生的果報生起，因此後后的因得以生起。像這樣，有輪（Bhava-cakra）旋轉循環，沒有開始。 有些論師解釋說，這兩個『如是』，是爲了對於緣起（Pratitya-samutpada）的認知更加確定。就像其他地方所說，依賴於無明（Avidya）而有諸行（Samskara）得以存在，沒有了無明，就不可能有諸行。 由於這樣的道理，只有四句。如果不是這樣，就應該成為多句，也就是『依此有彼有彼非有』，以及『此生故彼生彼不生』，這樣就變成了六句差別了。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said: In terms of Samvriti-satya (conventional truth), 'attainment' means the arising of names and forms, and 'loss' means the cessation of names and forms. In terms of Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth), 'the arising of function' means the arising of names and forms, and 'the cessation of function' means the cessation of names and forms. What is meant by 'attainment' refers to relying on a falsely established basis, with numerous conditions and causes harmonizing, thereby establishing a 'being'. What is meant by 'the arising of function' refers to when various real entities, with numerous conditions and causes gathering, lead to the arising of the function of a result. The Vijnanavada (Consciousness-only) school should also definitely acknowledge this. As mentioned above, these are the meanings of the two types of 'being'. If these are not acknowledged, then the Sutras should be abandoned. 'Based on this, that exists' refers to relying on a falsely established basis to have a false establishment, hence the meaning of 'attainment'. This means that the false establishment is 'being', but it is not truly produced; rather, it is falsely established by relying on the harmonization of the conditions and causes of the basis. What evidence proves this? Just as the Sutra says: 'Just as gathering numerous parts, a false appearance is called a 'cart', in the mundane world, 'sentient beings' (Sattva) are said to exist; it should be known that they are also gathered from the Skandhas (aggregates)'. Afflictions such as greed mostly arise relying on false establishments, and only then can they serve as causes to produce the Vijnana (consciousness) of future existence. According to correct reasoning, it must be so. 'This arising, therefore that arising' refers to the meaning of the arising of the real realm (Dhatu) causing the real realm to be able to arise. This means that real entities, through the power of numerous conditions and causes, cause their function to arise; this is 'arising' and not 'being'. What evidence proves this? Just as the Sutra says: 'Two causes and two conditions can produce Samyag-drsti (right view)'. 'This arising' refers to the arising of past and present conditions and causes. 'That arising' refers to the arising of future results. Although there is also the meaning of conditions and causes for the future, it is only said to have already arisen because it is spoken of in terms of divisions. Alternatively, 'based on this, that exists' refers to relying on the causes of previous lives to have the results of present lives; this is the meaning of 'being'. 'This arising, therefore that arising' refers to the meaning of the arising of the results of present lives causing the causes of future lives to be able to arise. The meaning here is that the manifestation of the arising of present lives is to prevent other antidotes from arising, causing the causes of future existence to arise. Furthermore, relying on the causes of present lives, the results of future lives are able to exist; because the results of future lives arise, the causes of subsequent lives are able to arise. In this way, the Bhava-cakra (wheel of existence) rotates and cycles without beginning. Some teachers explain that these two 'thus' are for the sake of a more definite understanding of Pratitya-samutpada (dependent origination). Just as it is said elsewhere, relying on Avidya (ignorance), Samskara (formations) are able to exist; without Avidya, there can be no Samskara. Due to such reasoning, there are only four statements. If it were not so, there should be more statements, namely 'based on this, that exists, that does not exist', and 'this arising, therefore that arising, that does not arise', which would then become six different statements.
別。如依燈有燈光有闇非有。及燈生故燈光生闇不生。此不應然。燈有闇滅。無有因果相應理故。法有我無。定無因果相應理故。本無迷執。為顯因果相應理故。說此契經諸句差別。非有與無有因果義。如是所標。應成無用。如后別釋。前應總標。后釋既無。前標何用。是故應如前釋為善。此中唯辯因果相故。執過四句。理不應然。謂依燈有闇非有依燈非有。闇便有。如是所說。非因果相。若必爾者。句應成八。齊爾所方能圓顯生滅故。由前四句。圓顯于生。由后四句。圓顯于滅。若爾句別。但應成四。謂依此有彼有。及依此無彼無。爾所便能圓顯義故。不爾唯此未說生故。已說有言。意唯詮有。故說依此有彼有。未說此生故彼生。非諸有法必有生故。本無今有。前已數遮。故如所言。定為無義。若謂說在勝義空經。因余義門。我當會釋。前說三際立十二支。謂無明行。乃至廣說。此中何法名為無明。乃至何法名為老死。頌曰。
宿惑位無明 宿諸業名行 識正結生蘊 六處前名色 從生眼等根 三和前六處 於三受因異 未了知名觸 在淫愛前受 貪資具淫愛 為得諸境界 遍馳求名取 有謂正能造 牽當有果業 結當有名生 至當受老死
論曰。于宿生中。諸煩惱位。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：駁斥：如果像依靠燈，有燈光時就有黑暗，沒有燈光時就沒有黑暗，這種說法是不對的。因為燈亮時黑暗消滅，而不是燈生時燈光生而黑暗不生。這不合道理。就像法有我無，必定沒有因果相應的道理。本來沒有迷惑執著，爲了顯明因果相應的道理，才說這些契經的各種語句差別。沒有和有，都沒有因果的意義。像這樣標明，應該成為無用。像後面分別解釋一樣，前面應該總括標明。後面解釋既然沒有，前面標明有什麼用？所以應該像前面的解釋那樣才好。這裡只辨別因果的相狀，執著於四句，道理上是不對的。所謂依靠燈有黑暗，沒有依靠燈就沒有黑暗，這樣說，不是因果的相狀。如果必定這樣，句子應該成為八句，才能完整地顯示生滅。由前面的四句，完整地顯示生。由後面的四句，完整地顯示滅。如果這樣，句子分別，只應該成為四句，所謂依靠此有彼有，以及依靠此無彼無，這樣就能完整地顯示意義。不是這樣，只是沒有說生。已經說了『有』這個字，意思只是詮釋『有』，所以說依靠此有彼有，沒有說此生故彼生，不是所有的有法必定有生。本來沒有現在有，前面已經多次遮止。所以像所說的，必定是沒有意義的。如果說在勝義空經中，因為其他的意義，我應當會合解釋。前面說三際建立十二支，所謂無明、行，乃至廣說。這裡什麼法名為無明？乃至什麼法名為老死？頌說：
宿惑位無明 宿諸業名行
識正結生蘊 六處前名色
從生眼等根 三和前六處
於三受因異 未了知名觸
在淫愛前受 貪資具淫愛
為得諸境界 遍馳求名取
有謂正能造 牽當有果業
結當有名生 至當受老死
論說：在過去生中，各種煩惱的階段，
【English Translation】 English version: Objection: If, like relying on a lamp, there is darkness when there is lamplight, and there is no darkness when there is no lamplight, this is not correct. Because when the lamp is lit, darkness is extinguished, not that when the lamp is lit, lamplight arises and darkness does not arise. This is unreasonable. Just as the Dharma exists but the self does not, there is certainly no corresponding principle of cause and effect. Originally, there was no delusion or attachment; in order to reveal the corresponding principle of cause and effect, these various sentence differences in the sutras are spoken. Neither 'non-existence' nor 'existence' has the meaning of cause and effect. To state it this way should become useless. Just as in the later separate explanations, the former should be a general statement. Since there is no later explanation, what is the use of the former statement? Therefore, it should be like the previous explanation, which is better. Here, only the characteristics of cause and effect are distinguished; clinging to the four statements is unreasonable. The so-called relying on the lamp, there is darkness; not relying on the lamp, there is no darkness. Such a statement is not the characteristic of cause and effect. If it must be so, the sentence should become eight sentences in order to fully reveal arising and ceasing. The first four sentences fully reveal arising, and the last four sentences fully reveal ceasing. If so, the sentences should only become four sentences, namely, relying on this, there is that; and relying on this, there is no that. This would fully reveal the meaning. If not, it is only that 'arising' has not been spoken. The word 'existence' has already been spoken, and its meaning only explains 'existence'. Therefore, it is said that relying on this, there is that; it is not said that because this arises, that arises. Not all existing dharmas necessarily have arising. Originally non-existent, now existent, has been refuted many times before. Therefore, as said, it is definitely meaningless. If it is said that in the Sutra of Ultimate Emptiness (勝義空經), because of other meanings, I should combine and explain. Previously, it was said that the three periods (三際) establish the twelve links (十二支), namely, ignorance (無明), action (行), and so on. Here, what dharma is called ignorance? And what dharma is called old age and death (老死)? The verse says:
Past delusion is ignorance (宿惑位無明), past actions are called action (宿諸業名行).
Consciousness rightly connects the aggregates of rebirth (識正結生蘊), the name and form (名色) before the six sense bases (六處).
From the arising of the eyes and other roots (從生眼等根), the six sense bases (六處) before the three contacts (三和).
Different from the causes of the three feelings (三受) , not understanding is called contact (觸).
Feeling (受) before lust and love (淫愛), greed for resources is lust and love (淫愛).
To obtain all realms (諸境界), pervasive seeking is called grasping (取).
'Existence' (有) is said to be the very act of creating, pulling the karma that will have future results (牽當有果業).
Connecting to the future is called birth (生), reaching the future is experiencing old age and death (老死).
The treatise says: In past lives, the stage of various afflictions,
至今果熟。總謂無明。何故無明聲。總說煩惱。與牽後有行。為定因故。業由惑發。能牽後有。無惑有業。後有無故。非牽後有。諸行生時。貪等於中皆有作用。彼行起位。定賴無明。故無明聲。總說煩惱。若爾何故唯前生惑。總謂無明。此生不爾。唯前生惑。似無明故。貪等煩惱。未得果時。勢力無虧。說為明利。若得果已。取與用虧。不名明利。無明勢力。設未虧損。亦非明利。彼現行時。亦難知故。前生諸惑。至於今生。已得果故。勢力虧損。其相不明。似無明品。故唯前世惑。可說無明聲。非於行中。亦應同此說。假立名想。唯于同類故。然經主說。彼與無明。俱時行故。由無明力。彼現行故。如說王行。非無導從。王俱勝故。總謂王行。未了此中俱時行義。為諸煩惱隨從無明。為說無明隨從煩惱。若取前義。理必不然。余惑相應。無明劣故。勝隨從劣。理必不成。若取后義。應無明體從彼為名。隨從彼故。非不隨從此。可從此為名。若謂此彼互相隨從。無差別故。非決定因。而偏立名。豈令生喜。又由無明力。彼現行故者。為約能轉無明而說。為約隨轉無明而說。如是二途。並皆非理。無明亦隨貪等轉故。與余相應。非自在故。非不自在。可說力強。但應說無明由貪等力起。于彼相應品。貪等力強故。如不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 至今果報成熟，總稱為『無明』（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑和無知）。為什麼稱之為『無明』，而總說為煩惱呢？因為『無明』與牽引後有的『行』（saṃskāra，業力行為）有關，是『行』的決定性原因。業由迷惑而生髮，能夠牽引未來的存在（後有）。如果沒有迷惑，即使有業，因為沒有未來的存在，也不能牽引後有。諸『行』生起的時候，貪等煩惱在其中都有作用。但是，這些『行』生起的位置，一定依賴於『無明』。所以，『無明』這個名稱，總括了所有的煩惱。 如果這樣，為什麼只把前生的迷惑，總稱為『無明』呢？今生的迷惑不是這樣嗎？因為只有前生的迷惑，才像『無明』。貪等煩惱，在沒有得到果報的時候，勢力沒有減弱，可以稱為『明利』。如果已經得到果報，其作用就減弱了，不能稱為『明利』。『無明』的勢力，即使沒有減損，也不是『明利』的，因為在它現行的時候，也很難察覺。 前生的各種迷惑，到了今生，已經得到了果報，勢力減弱，其相不明顯，類似『無明』的品性。所以，只有前世的迷惑，可以說成是『無明』。如果在『行』中也這樣說，就應該同樣地假立名想，只在同類事物中才成立。然而，經文的主旨是說，『無明』與『行』同時發生，因為『行』是由『無明』的力量而現行的。就像說『國王出行』，並非沒有隨從，因為國王的地位最高。所以總稱為『國王出行』。 如果不能理解這裡『俱時行』（同時發生）的含義，那麼是諸煩惱隨從『無明』，還是說『無明』隨從煩惱呢？如果取前一種解釋，道理一定不成立，因為與其餘迷惑相應時，『無明』是劣勢的。優勢隨從劣勢，道理上說不通。如果取后一種解釋，那麼『無明』的本體應該從它們那裡獲得名稱，因為隨從它們。如果不是隨從它們，就不能從它們那裡獲得名稱。如果說『無明』和煩惱互相隨從，沒有差別，那麼就不是決定的原因，而偏偏要立一個名稱，這怎麼能讓人感到歡喜呢？ 『又由無明力，彼現行故』這句話，是就能夠轉變『無明』而說的，還是就隨順轉變『無明』而說的呢？這兩種途徑，都不合理。因為『無明』也隨順貪等煩惱而轉變，與其餘煩惱相應時，它不是自在的。如果不是自在的，就不能說是力量強大。只能說『無明』是由貪等的力量而生起的，在與它相應的品類中，貪等的力量更強。比如不...
【English Translation】 English version Until the fruit ripens, it is generally called 'Avidyā' (ignorance, delusion about the true nature of things). Why is it called 'Avidyā' and generally referred to as afflictions (kleśas)? Because 'Avidyā' is related to 'Saṃskāra' (volitional actions, karmic formations) that lead to future existence (bhava), and it is the determining cause of 'Saṃskāra'. Karma arises from delusion and can lead to future existence. If there is no delusion, even if there is karma, it cannot lead to future existence because there is no future existence. When 'Saṃskāra' arises, afflictions such as greed (lobha) all have a role in it. However, the position where these 'Saṃskāra' arise necessarily depends on 'Avidyā'. Therefore, the name 'Avidyā' encompasses all afflictions. If so, why is it that only afflictions from the previous life are generally called 'Avidyā'? Aren't afflictions in this life the same? It is because only afflictions from the previous life resemble 'Avidyā'. Afflictions such as greed, when they have not yet received their karmic result, their power has not diminished and can be called 'clear and sharp' (mingli). If they have already received their karmic result, their function diminishes and cannot be called 'clear and sharp'. The power of 'Avidyā', even if it has not diminished, is also not 'clear and sharp', because it is difficult to perceive when it is active. The various afflictions from the previous life, having received their karmic result in this life, have diminished in power, and their appearance is not obvious, resembling the nature of 'Avidyā'. Therefore, only afflictions from the previous life can be said to be 'Avidyā'. If we say the same about 'Saṃskāra', we should similarly establish a conceptual designation, which is only valid within the same category. However, the main point of the scripture is that 'Avidyā' and 'Saṃskāra' occur simultaneously, because 'Saṃskāra' is manifested by the power of 'Avidyā'. It is like saying 'the king is traveling', which does not mean there are no attendants, because the king's position is supreme. Therefore, it is generally called 'the king is traveling'. If the meaning of 'occurring simultaneously' (俱時行, jù shí xíng) here is not understood, then are the afflictions following 'Avidyā', or is 'Avidyā' following the afflictions? If we take the former interpretation, the reasoning is certainly not valid, because when associated with other afflictions, 'Avidyā' is inferior. It is not logical for the superior to follow the inferior. If we take the latter interpretation, then the essence of 'Avidyā' should derive its name from them, because it follows them. If it does not follow them, it cannot derive its name from them. If we say that 'Avidyā' and afflictions follow each other mutually, without distinction, then it is not a determining cause, and yet a name is established, how can this bring joy? The phrase 'Moreover, because of the power of Avidyā, they manifest' (又由無明力，彼現行故, yòu yóu wúmíng lì, bǐ xiànxíng gù), is it said in terms of being able to transform 'Avidyā', or in terms of conforming to the transformation of 'Avidyā'? Both of these paths are unreasonable. Because 'Avidyā' also conforms to the transformation of afflictions such as greed, and when associated with other afflictions, it is not independent. If it is not independent, it cannot be said to be powerful. It can only be said that 'Avidyā' arises from the power of greed, and in the category associated with it, the power of greed is stronger. For example, not...
可說導從勝王。如何說貪等由無明力起。是故二因。皆無證力。唯前所說。其理為勝。于宿生中。福等業位。至今果熟。總立行名。初句位言。流至老死。福等諸業。隨經主意。辯業品中。當廣思擇。此中應辯。何緣宿生如是類業。獨名為行。名隨義故。其義云何。謂依眾緣和合已起。或展轉力和合已生。又能為緣已令果和合。或此和合已能為果緣。是謂行名所隨實義。宿生中業果今熟者。行相圓滿。獨立行名。由此已遮當生果業。以彼業果仍未熟故。相未圓滿。不立行名。豈不一切已與自果。異熟因體。皆具此相。則應一切皆立行名。此體是何。謂諸非業及業前生。已得果者。雖有此理。而就勝說。業為異熟因。牽果最勝故。生現在果。業粗顯易知故。因此能信知生過去果業。是故唯此獨立行名。雖一切因已與果者。總應名行。然此唯說能招後有諸異熟因。故無行名不遍相失。是故成就。唯宿生中。感此生業。獨名為行。于母胎等。正結生時。一剎那位五蘊名識。此剎那中。識最勝故。此唯意識。於此位中。五識生緣。猶未具故。識是何義。謂能了者前于思擇。識蘊性中。已述余師假說了者。今為遮遣上座所執。顯自所立。應復尋思。彼上座言。契經中說。識是了者。此非勝義。是世俗說。若是了者是識。亦應說為
非識。謂若能了說名為識。不能了時應成非識。不應非識可立識名。上座此中說何位識。為不能了。若說未生已滅位識。便似空花。非彼所宗。此位有識。如何可說若是了者是識。亦應說為非識。亦不可說。于現在時。具有能了不能了識。以現在識必了境故。更無第四識位可得。如何可說不能了時。應成非識。又彼所宗。非識說識。識說非識。無法非識說為識故。現在是了說不了故。而上座言。不應非識立識名者。翻成自咎。諸說去來實有識者。非不了位便成非識。定是能了。識性類故。今此義中。不言了位方名為識。但作是說。眾緣合時。唯識能了。如是應說。非要取像方名為想。非要觀察方名為慧。余例應知。如世工師。不作瓶等。亦名彼匠。若遇彼緣。唯此能造瓶等物故。若謂作者體實都無。則亦應無能了等用。若謂亦無能了等用。應無識等功能差別。此若亦無。何有識等。識等無者。便濫空花。無聖教說。識非了者。然為遮我是了者計。故世尊告頗勒具那。我終不說有能了者。此不說言。表不顯義。意為遮有自在無緣不依他成我爲了者。故彼經說。設有來問。識是何緣。乃至廣說。此問了者與何為緣。若此經中。問如是義。何不正說。與彼為緣。但言若得此問。我當作如是答。乃至即當來後有生所起。為遮有
我是了者計。故不正說。識是彼緣。若作是說。識是彼緣。便謂世尊說我名識。故先顯示識體是生。後方說生必緣于有。故次後問。有是何緣。復答言乃至即當來生有。此經不說前為現因。但說現因能生當有。由但顯后準知前故。如不廣顯後果差別。但顯前果。后可準知。何故世尊。舉生顯識。顯識與生同一相故。由同一相說有緣生。即已顯成行緣識義。故不別說識所從緣。若爾如問識食何緣。答此問中。如何無過。問何緣者。問所從緣。及問為緣。雙答無失。亦如有問觸復何緣。答此問言。六處緣觸。觸復緣受。若此偏問不應雙答。若偏問雙答。應問異答異。是故所問識食何緣與問觸同。雙答無過。故先說識與余為緣。后說以余為緣生識。此中亦說生緣老死。有為緣生。顯識與生行支與有俱無異體。故無有過。或復此中。亦正說識能為緣體。言乃至故。以乃至聲。表分限義。此中意說。乃至即當來後有生所起。此識為緣。若爾還成生他疑失。不爾當說從緣生故。如后當說。此緣于有。謂次後問。有是何緣。復答言乃至即當來生有。有聲即表識所緣行。何故此中唯行與識。但以乃至分齊聲顯。此意顯示能引後有能結後有。俱一剎那故。此經不遮識為能了者。但為遮我爲了者計。如何知然。余經中說。云何名識。謂能了
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 我是爲了破除人們認為存在『了者』（能知覺的主體）的錯誤觀念，所以才不直接說『識』（Vijnana，意識）是『彼緣』（以彼為緣）。如果直接說『識』是『彼緣』，人們就會誤以為世尊（佛陀）說『我』（Atman，靈魂）的別名就是『識』。因此，我先說明『識』的本體是『生』（Jati，出生），然後才說『生』必定以『有』（Bhava，存在）為緣。所以，接著問『有』是以什麼為緣？回答說，乃至以『當來生有』（未來將要出生的存在）為緣。這部經並沒有說『前』（過去）是『現因』（現在的因），只是說『現因』能生『當有』。因為只顯示了後面的結果，就可以推知前面的原因。如同不詳細說明後果的差別，只顯示前面的結果，後面的結果就可以推知。為什麼世尊用『生』來顯示『識』？因為『識』與『生』具有相同的相狀。由於具有相同的相狀，所以說『有』以『生』為緣，就已經顯示了『行緣識』（業行緣意識）的意義，因此沒有另外說明『識』所從緣。如果這樣，就像問『識食』（意識之食）以什麼為緣一樣，這個回答中，如何沒有過失？問『何緣』，是問『所從緣』和『為緣』，雙重回答沒有過失。也如同問『觸』（Sparsha，感覺）又以什麼為緣，回答說，『六處』（Shadayatana，六根）緣『觸』，『觸』又緣『受』（Vedana，感受）。如果只問一個方面，就不應該雙重回答。如果只問一個方面卻雙重回答，就應該問什麼回答什麼。所以，所問的『識食』以什麼為緣，與問『觸』相同，雙重回答沒有過失。所以，先說『識』與其餘的法為緣，后說以其餘的法為緣而生『識』。這裡也說了『生』緣『老死』（Jaramarana，衰老和死亡），『有』為緣『生』，顯示『識』與『生』，『行支』（業行）與『有』，都沒有不同的本體，所以沒有過失。或者，這裡也正確地說了『識』能作為緣的本體，用『乃至』這個詞，來表示分界限的意義。這裡的意思是說，乃至『當來後有生』（未來再次出生的存在）所生起的，這個『識』為緣。如果這樣，還是會造成『生他』（生起其他）的疑惑和過失。不是這樣的，應當說從緣而生，如同後面將要說的，這個緣于『有』。也就是接著問，『有』是以什麼為緣？回答說，乃至以『當來生有』為緣。『有』這個詞就表示『識』所緣的『行』。為什麼這裡只有『行』與『識』，只用『乃至』這個分界限的詞來顯示？這裡的意思是顯示能引生後有和能結生後有，都是同一剎那的。這部經並沒有遮止『識』是能了別者，只是爲了遮止人們認為『我』是能了別者的錯誤觀念。如何知道是這樣呢？因為其他的經典中說，什麼叫做『識』？就是能了別。
【English Translation】 English version I am refraining from directly stating that 『Vijnana』 (consciousness) is 『Paccaya』 (dependent origination) because of the misconception that there is a 『Karta』 (doer or knower). If I were to directly say that 『Vijnana』 is 『Paccaya』, people might mistakenly believe that the Blessed One (Buddha) is referring to 『Atman』 (self or soul) by the name 『Vijnana』. Therefore, I first explain that the essence of 『Vijnana』 is 『Jati』 (birth), and then I say that 『Jati』 is necessarily conditioned by 『Bhava』 (becoming or existence). Hence, the subsequent question is, 『What is the condition for Bhava?』 The answer is, 『Upadana』 (clinging) is the condition for Bhava, leading to future existence. This sutra does not state that the 『past』 is the 『present cause』, but rather that the 『present cause』 can give rise to 『future existence』. By revealing only the later result, the preceding cause can be inferred. Just as the differences in consequences are not elaborated, but only the preceding result is shown, the subsequent results can be inferred. Why does the Blessed One use 『Jati』 to reveal 『Vijnana』? Because 『Vijnana』 and 『Jati』 share the same characteristic. Since they share the same characteristic, saying that 『Bhava』 is conditioned by 『Jati』 already reveals the meaning of 『Sankhara-paccaya Vijnana』 (volitional actions condition consciousness), so there is no separate explanation of what 『Vijnana』 arises from. If that is the case, like asking what is the condition for 『Vijnana-ahara』 (nutriment of consciousness), how is there no fault in this answer? Asking 『what is the condition』 inquires about both 『what it arises from』 and 『what it is conditioned by』, and answering both is without fault. Similarly, if one asks what is the condition for 『Sparsha』 (contact), the answer is that 『Shadayatana』 (six sense bases) conditions 『Sparsha』, and 『Sparsha』 conditions 『Vedana』 (feeling). If only one aspect is asked, one should not answer both. If one asks about one aspect but answers about both, one should answer according to what is asked. Therefore, the question of what conditions 『Vijnana-ahara』 is the same as asking about 『Sparsha』, and answering both is without fault. Therefore, it is first said that 『Vijnana』 is conditioned by other dharmas, and then it is said that 『Vijnana』 arises from being conditioned by other dharmas. Here it is also said that 『Jati』 conditions 『Jaramarana』 (aging and death), and 『Bhava』 conditions 『Jati』, showing that 『Vijnana』 and 『Jati』, 『Sankhara』 (volitional actions) and 『Bhava』, do not have different essences, so there is no fault. Or, here it is also correctly stated that 『Vijnana』 can be the essence of a condition, using the word 『upadana』 to indicate the meaning of delimitation. The meaning here is that 『Vijnana』 is the condition for what arises from 『future existence』. If that is the case, it still creates the doubt and fault of 『producing others』. It is not like that; it should be said that it arises from conditions, as will be said later, that this is conditioned by 『Bhava』. That is, the subsequent question is, 『What is the condition for Bhava?』 The answer is, 『Upadana』 is the condition for 『future existence』. The word 『Bhava』 indicates the 『Sankhara』 conditioned by 『Vijnana』. Why are only 『Sankhara』 and 『Vijnana』 shown here, using only the delimiting word 『upadana』? The meaning here is to show that what can lead to future existence and what can bind to future existence are both in the same instant. This sutra does not deny that 『Vijnana』 is the one who knows, but only to prevent the misconception that 『Atman』 is the one who knows. How is it known to be so? Because other sutras say, what is called 『Vijnana』? It is what can know.
者。又佛世尊。遮別作者。故知作者非一切無。如何世尊遮別作者。如世尊說。有業有異熟。作者不可得。謂能捨此蘊。及能續余蘊。唯除法假。此既唯遮差別作者。故余作者。應許非無。為顯因果相續諸行即是作者。故復說言。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。雖有難言如一天授。能造環釧。未造造已。及正造時。體唯是一。識亦應爾。俱作者故。此亦不然。天授前後。體實非一。妄謂一故。無一天授其體是常。雖實前後唸唸各異。然由諸行前後相似。微細差別。其相難知。故諸愚夫。妄謂為一。如祠授行相同天授不知別者。謂天授行故彼難中。無同法喻。故經說識。是了者言。但依勝義。非約世俗。而上座言。此非勝義。是世俗說。定為非理。行名色二緣識何別。此三緣識。何處說耶。行緣識者。如契經中。說行緣識。名色緣識者。如大緣起經。佛告阿難陀。識不依名色為得住不。不也世尊。二緣識者。如契經說。緣二生識。其二者何。謂眼與色。乃至意法。無行名色緣識非二有二緣識。非行名色。謂唯結生識。說行為緣。此由行勢力。牽引生故。此結生識。唯一剎那。即此亦名名色緣識。由依名色得增長故。又亦說此名二緣識。意法為緣而得生故。六處等位。唯二緣識。豈不名色及二緣識。亦行為緣。一切前生業異熟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：還有，佛世尊遮止的是『差別作者』，由此可知作者並非完全不存在。世尊是如何遮止『差別作者』的呢？ 答：如世尊所說：『有業有異熟（vipāka，果報），但作者不可得。』這裡所說的『作者』，是指能夠捨棄此蘊（skandha，五蘊），並能夠延續到其他蘊的作者。但這是在法假（dharma-saṃjñā，法的假名）的範疇之外。既然僅僅是遮止『差別作者』，那麼其餘的作者，應當允許其存在。 爲了顯示因果相續的諸行（saṃskāra，行）就是作者，所以又說：『依此有彼有，此生故彼生。』 雖然有人會提出疑問，比如像一個天授（Devadatta，人名）能夠製造環釧（kuṇḍala，耳環），無論在未製造、製造完畢、還是正在製造的時候，他的身體都只有一個，那麼識（vijñāna，意識）也應該如此，因為它們都是作者。 但這種說法是不對的。天授的前後，身體實際上並非同一個，只是人們錯誤地認為是一個。沒有一個天授的身體是恒常不變的。雖然實際上前後唸唸各異，但由於諸行前後相似，細微的差別難以察覺，所以愚夫們錯誤地認為是一個。就像祭祀時接受佈施的人和天授行為相同，不知道他們之間的區別。所以，在那個難題中，沒有相同的比喻。 因此，經中說識是『了者』，只是依據勝義諦（paramārtha-satya，真諦），而不是依據世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦）。而上座部（Sthavira nikāya，佛教部派）的人說，這並非勝義諦，而是世俗諦的說法，這肯定是不合理的。 問：行（saṃskāra，行）和名色（nāmarūpa，名色）這二者作為緣（pratyaya，因緣）與識（vijñāna，意識）有什麼區別？這三種緣與識的關係，在什麼地方有說明呢？ 答：行緣識，如契經（sūtra，佛經）中所說。名色緣識，如《大緣起經》（Mahāpratītyasamutpāda-sūtra）中所說，佛告訴阿難陀（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）：『識如果不依靠名色，能夠安住嗎？』阿難陀回答：『不能，世尊。』 二緣識，如契經所說：『緣二生識。』這二者是什麼呢？就是眼（cakṣu，眼）與色（rūpa，色），乃至意（manas，意）與法（dharma，法）。 沒有行和名色作為緣的識，也沒有二緣識，不是行和名色。只有結生識（pratisaṃdhi-vijñāna，投胎時的意識）才說是以行為緣，這是由於行的勢力牽引而生。這個結生識，只有一個剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）。 這個結生識也稱為名色緣識，因為它依靠名色而得以增長。又可以說它是二緣識，因為它是以意和法為緣而生。在六處（ṣaḍāyatana，六根）等階段，只有二緣識。 難道名色和二緣識，不也是以行為緣嗎？一切前生的業異熟（karma-vipāka，業報）……
【English Translation】 English version Question: Furthermore, the World-Honored One, the Buddha, prohibits the 'distinctive agent' (viśeṣa-kāraka), hence it is known that the agent is not entirely non-existent. How does the World-Honored One prohibit the 'distinctive agent'? Answer: As the World-Honored One said: 'There is karma (karma) and there is its result (vipāka), but the agent is unattainable.' The 'agent' referred to here is the one who can abandon this aggregate (skandha) and continue to other aggregates. However, this is outside the scope of the designation of dharma (dharma-saṃjñā). Since only the 'distinctive agent' is prohibited, the remaining agents should be allowed to exist. To show that the continuous activities (saṃskāra) of cause and effect are the agents, it is further said: 'When this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises.' Although someone might raise a question, such as a Devadatta (Devadatta, a proper noun) being able to make earrings (kuṇḍala), whether before making, after making, or while making, his body is only one, then consciousness (vijñāna) should also be the same, because they are both agents. But this statement is incorrect. The Devadatta before and after is actually not the same body, it is just mistakenly thought to be one. There is no Devadatta whose body is constant and unchanging. Although in reality, each moment is different, because the activities are similar before and after, and the subtle differences are difficult to perceive, therefore foolish people mistakenly think it is one. Just like the person receiving offerings during a sacrifice is the same as the actions of Devadatta, not knowing the difference between them. Therefore, in that difficulty, there is no similar analogy. Therefore, the sutra says that consciousness is the 'knower' (vijñātṛ), only based on the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), not based on the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). And the elders of the Sthavira nikāya (Sthavira nikāya, a Buddhist school) say that this is not the ultimate truth, but a statement of conventional truth, which is definitely unreasonable. Question: What is the difference between activity (saṃskāra) and name and form (nāmarūpa) as conditions (pratyaya) for consciousness (vijñāna)? Where is the relationship between these three conditions and consciousness explained? Answer: Activity as a condition for consciousness, as stated in the sutras (sūtra). Name and form as a condition for consciousness, as stated in the Mahāpratītyasamutpāda-sūtra (Mahāpratītyasamutpāda-sūtra), the Buddha told Ānanda (Ānanda, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples): 'If consciousness does not rely on name and form, can it abide?' Ānanda replied: 'No, World-Honored One.' Two conditions for consciousness, as stated in the sutras: 'Consciousness arises from two conditions.' What are these two? They are the eye (cakṣu) and form (rūpa), and so on, up to the mind (manas) and dharma (dharma). There is no consciousness with activity and name and form as conditions, nor is there consciousness with two conditions that are not activity and name and form. Only rebirth consciousness (pratisaṃdhi-vijñāna) is said to have activity as its condition, because it is born due to the power of activity. This rebirth consciousness exists for only one moment (kṣaṇa). This rebirth consciousness is also called name and form conditioned consciousness, because it grows by relying on name and form. It can also be said to be two-conditioned consciousness, because it is born with mind and dharma as conditions. In the stage of the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana), there is only two-conditioned consciousness. Are name and form and two-conditioned consciousness not also conditioned by activity? All the karmic results (karma-vipāka) of previous lives...
識。或所餘識。皆行為緣而得生故。雖有是理。然識生中。但說勝因。以為緣故。如生眼識。亦緣空等。而但說言緣二生識。謂續生位。意識生時。行為勝因。方得生起。由先業力。引至此位。故但說此以行為緣。若至餘位。則名色等。亦得與識為勝生緣。豈不續生最初位識。亦以中有為勝生緣。此難不然。見離中有此續生識亦得生故。非餘位識離名色等亦有得生。是故唯于初結生位說行緣識。有餘師說。行緣識者。謂初取時。名色緣識者。謂取已守護時。二緣識者。謂護已增長時。或有說言。行緣識者。顯示宿業。名色緣識者。顯示次第。二緣識者。顯示所依境。復有說者。言行緣識。顯一門轉。名色緣識。顯二門轉。彼位識亦依身根門轉故。言二緣識。顯六門轉。如是等類。有多差別。又薄伽梵。說二種識為名色緣。謂結生時識。及本有時識。故世尊告阿難陀言。識若不入母胎中者。此名色成羯剌藍不。不也世尊。乃至廣說。世尊復告阿難陀言。識入母胎。復還舍離名色得生后名色不。不也世尊。乃至廣說。此中義者。若識不入母胎中生。此識俱生所有名色。應不能與羯剌藍位名色為因。設已入在母胎中生。若遇礙緣而斷絕者。羯剌藍位。所有名色。則不順生羯剌藍后所有名色。是名色支不成就義。世尊復告阿難
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 識（Vijnana，了別作用）。或者說剩餘的識，都是以行為緣而產生的。雖然有這個道理，但在識的產生中，只說最主要的因作為緣。例如，產生眼識，也緣于空等，但只說緣於二（指名色）而生識。所謂續生位，意識產生時，行為最主要的因，才能生起。由於先前的業力，牽引到這個階段，所以只說以行為緣。如果到了其他階段，那麼名色等，也可以作為識產生的主要因緣。難道續生最初位的識，不是以中有（Antarabhava，死亡到投胎之間的狀態）為最主要的生緣嗎？這個疑問不對。因為可以看到，離開中有，這個續生的識也能產生。而其他階段的識，離開名色等，卻沒有能產生的。所以只在最初結生位說行緣識。有其他老師說，『行緣識』是指最初攝取的時候，『名色緣識』是指攝取之後守護的時候，『二緣識』是指守護之後增長的時候。或者有人說，『行緣識』是顯示宿業，『名色緣識』是顯示次第，『二緣識』是顯示所依的境界。還有人說，『行緣識』顯示一門運轉，『名色緣識』顯示二門運轉，因為那個階段的識也依靠身根門運轉，所以說『二緣識』，顯示六門運轉。像這些等等，有很多差別。而且薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）說了兩種識作為名色的緣，即結生時的識，和根本有時的識。所以世尊告訴阿難陀（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）說：『如果識不進入母親的胎中，這個名色能成為羯剌藍（Kalala，受精卵）嗎？』阿難陀回答：『不能，世尊。』乃至廣說。世尊又告訴阿難陀說：『識進入母親的胎中，又舍離，名色能生出後面的名色嗎？』阿難陀回答：『不能，世尊。』乃至廣說。這裡的意思是，如果識不進入母親的胎中產生，這個識同時產生的所有名色，就不能作為羯剌藍位的名色的因。假設已經進入母親的胎中產生，如果遇到障礙的因緣而斷絕，羯剌藍位的所有名色，就不能順利地產生羯剌藍后的所有名色。這就是名色支不成就的意義。世尊又告訴阿難陀
【English Translation】 English version Vijnana (consciousness, the function of distinguishing). Or the remaining consciousness, all arise from action as a condition. Although this is the principle, in the arising of consciousness, only the predominant cause is spoken of as the condition. For example, in the arising of eye consciousness, it is also conditioned by space and so on, but it is only said to be conditioned by two (referring to name and form) to give rise to consciousness. The so-called rebirth linking state, when consciousness arises, action is the predominant cause for it to arise. Due to the power of previous karma, it is drawn to this stage, so it is only said to be conditioned by action. If it reaches other stages, then name and form, etc., can also be the predominant conditions for the arising of consciousness. Isn't the consciousness in the initial rebirth linking state also taking the Antarabhava (intermediate state between death and rebirth) as the predominant condition for arising? This question is not valid. Because it can be seen that even without the Antarabhava, this rebirth linking consciousness can arise. But consciousness in other stages cannot arise without name and form, etc. Therefore, only in the initial moment of conception is it said that action conditions consciousness. Some other teachers say that 'action conditions consciousness' refers to the initial moment of grasping, 'name and form condition consciousness' refers to the moment of guarding after grasping, and 'two condition consciousness' refers to the moment of growth after guarding. Or some say that 'action conditions consciousness' shows past karma, 'name and form condition consciousness' shows the sequence, and 'two condition consciousness' shows the object relied upon. Still others say that 'action conditions consciousness' shows the functioning of one sense door, 'name and form condition consciousness' shows the functioning of two sense doors, because the consciousness in that stage also relies on the body sense door to function, so it is said that 'two condition consciousness' shows the functioning of six sense doors. Like these and so on, there are many differences. Moreover, the Bhagavan (World Honored One) spoke of two kinds of consciousness as conditions for name and form, namely the consciousness at the time of conception and the consciousness at the fundamental moment. Therefore, the World Honored One told Ananda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), 'If consciousness does not enter the mother's womb, can this name and form become a Kalala (embryo)?' Ananda replied, 'No, World Honored One.' And so on. The World Honored One again told Ananda, 'If consciousness enters the mother's womb and then departs, can name and form give rise to the subsequent name and form?' Ananda replied, 'No, World Honored One.' And so on. The meaning here is that if consciousness does not enter the mother's womb to arise, all the name and form that arise simultaneously with this consciousness cannot be the cause of the name and form in the Kalala stage. Supposing it has already entered the mother's womb to arise, if it encounters obstructing conditions and is cut off, all the name and form in the Kalala stage cannot smoothly give rise to all the name and form after the Kalala. This is the meaning of the name and form limb not being accomplished. The World Honored One again told Ananda
陀言。識在嬰孩或童子位。便斷壞者。名色必無增長廣大。不應生有剎那無間名色位生可名嬰孩及童子位。故此言識。在本有時。此等識言。既無差別。取何位識。為名色緣。為釋此疑。故頌中說。識正結生蘊。以行為緣故。雖初位識。能與俱起及無間生名色為緣。而此不取能為俱起名色緣義。由於此中但約分位辯緣起故。結生剎那。識及助伴。總名為識。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之六
結生識后。六處生前。中間諸位。總稱名色。豈不已生身意二處。應言此在四處生前。大德邏摩。率自意釋。度名色已。方立處名。意體雖恒。有非意處。要是觸處。方得處名。滅盡定中。意處不壞。由斯亦許有意識生。然闕余緣。故無有觸。是故非識。名色位中。身意二根。可得名處。故說名色在六處前。名色為緣。生於六處。此唯率意。妄設虛言。都無正理及正教故。謂無理教。可以證成。意法為緣。生於意識。于中亦有不名三和。或有三和。而無有觸。若謂此位有劣三和。觸亦應然。寧全非有。彼宗許觸即三和故。又彼亦許有處無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經中說：『識』在嬰孩或童子階段，如果斷滅損壞，那麼『名色』必然無法增長擴大。不應該說在有『剎那無間』的『名色』階段，可以稱為嬰孩或童子階段。因此，這裡所說的『識』，是在生命開始的時候。這些關於『識』的說法，既然沒有差別，那麼應該取哪個階段的『識』，作為『名色』的緣呢？爲了解釋這個疑問，所以在頌中說，『識』是真正連線生命的蘊，以『行』為緣故。雖然最初階段的『識』，能夠與同時生起以及無間生起的『名色』作為緣，但是這裡不取它作為同時生起『名色』的緣的意義，因為這裡只是根據階段來辨別緣起。結生（受生）的那一剎那，『識』以及它的助伴，總稱為『識』。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之六
在結生識（patisandhi-viññāṇa）之後，六處（saḷāyatana）產生之前，中間的各個階段，總稱為『名色』（nāmarūpa）。難道不是已經產生了身處（kāyāyatana）和意處（manāyatana）這兩個處，應該說這在四處產生之前嗎？大德邏摩（Loma）根據自己的想法解釋，度量了『名色』之後，才設立『處』的名稱。意的本體雖然恒常存在，但不是意處。必須是觸處（phassāyatana），才能得到『處』的名稱。在滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti）中，意處沒有壞滅，因此也允許有意識產生。然而缺少其餘的緣，所以沒有觸。因此，在『識』的『名色』階段中，身根（kāyindriya）和意根（manindriya）這兩個根，可以得到『處』的名稱。所以說『名色』在六處之前。『名色』作為緣，產生六處。這只是根據自己的想法，隨意設立的虛假言論，完全沒有正理和正確的教義。所謂沒有道理和教義，可以證明意和法作為緣，產生意識。其中也有不稱為三和（tisso saṅgatayo），或者有三和，而沒有觸的情況。如果說這個階段有低劣的三和，那麼觸也應該如此，寧可完全沒有。他們的宗派允許觸就是三和。而且他們也允許有處沒有...
【English Translation】 English version: 'It is said that if 'consciousness' (viññāṇa) is severed or destroyed in the stage of an infant or child, then 'name and form' (nāmarūpa) will inevitably fail to grow and expand. It should not be said that in the 'name and form' stage of 'momentary contiguity,' one can be called an infant or child. Therefore, the 'consciousness' mentioned here is at the beginning of life. Since these statements about 'consciousness' are without difference, which stage of 'consciousness' should be taken as the condition for 'name and form'? To explain this doubt, it is said in the verse that 'consciousness' is the aggregate that truly connects life, with 'action' (karma) as the condition. Although the initial stage of 'consciousness' can be a condition for the simultaneously arising and contiguously arising 'name and form,' this is not taken as the meaning of being a condition for the simultaneously arising 'name and form,' because here we are only distinguishing dependent origination according to stages. At the moment of rebirth (patisandhi), 'consciousness' and its associates are collectively called 'consciousness.'
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 25 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Abhidharma, Volume 26
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 3, Section 6: Analysis of Dependent Origination
After rebirth consciousness (patisandhi-viññāṇa) and before the arising of the six sense bases (saḷāyatana), the intermediate stages are collectively called 'name and form' (nāmarūpa). Shouldn't it be said that since the body base (kāyāyatana) and mind base (manāyatana) have already arisen, this is before the arising of the four sense bases? The Venerable Loma interprets according to his own ideas, establishing the name of 'sense base' only after measuring 'name and form.' Although the essence of mind is constant, it is not the mind base. It must be the contact base (phassāyatana) to obtain the name of 'sense base.' In cessation attainment (nirodha-samāpatti), the mind base is not destroyed, so it is also permissible for consciousness to arise. However, lacking other conditions, there is no contact. Therefore, in the 'name and form' stage of 'consciousness,' the body faculty (kāyindriya) and mind faculty (manindriya) can obtain the name of 'sense base.' Therefore, it is said that 'name and form' is before the six sense bases. 'Name and form' is the condition for the arising of the six sense bases. This is merely a false statement arbitrarily established according to one's own ideas, completely lacking correct reasoning and correct teachings. The so-called lack of reason and teachings can prove that mind and mental objects are the condition for the arising of consciousness. Among them, there are also cases where it is not called the three conjunctions (tisso saṅgatayo), or there are three conjunctions but no contact. If it is said that there are inferior three conjunctions in this stage, then contact should also be the same, rather than completely absent. Their school allows contact to be the three conjunctions. Moreover, they also allow there to be a sense base without...
觸。由彼自說滅盡定中意處不壞而無有觸。既爾于識名色位中。何法壞心。令非意處。又彼執離根境識三。有何別緣。親能生觸。而言闕故。識有觸無。非佛世尊曾有此說。但如童豎自室戲言。又說名色為觸緣故。如告慶喜。若有問言。觸有緣耶。應答言有。彼若復問。此觸何緣。應正答言。所謂名色。既爾豈不六處生前有名色故。必應有觸。是則無時意非意處。若謂如是。生觸名色。非六處前名色支位。如世尊告阿難陀言。識在嬰孩及童子位。便斷壞者。名色必無增長廣大。如是名色。豈六處前。故今觸緣即彼名色。此救亦非理。說識為緣故。謂能為緣生觸名色。世尊即說。彼結生識為緣。如契經言。識若不入母胎中者。此名色成羯剌藍不。不也世尊。乃至廣說。次說名色與觸為緣。非此位中可得即說為嬰孩等。故不成救今此位中。已有何色。為緣生觸。而言此位。名色為緣。生於觸耶。有說此位唯名生觸。約位總說名色為緣。有言此約名色滿位。身觸為緣。能生身識。故說名色與觸為緣。今謂此中名色緣觸。就位總說。言具二緣。若別說緣。或名或二。或即六處為緣生觸。故說名色與觸為緣。然名色位。非無有觸。以許此中有意識故。曾無處說。離根境等別有觸緣。而說此中有識無觸。有言無理。又彼所說。意體
【現代漢語翻譯】 觸（Sparsha，接觸）。根據他們自己的說法，在滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種禪定狀態）中，意處（Manayatana，意根）不壞，但沒有觸。既然如此，在識（Vijnana，意識）、名色（Namarupa，名與色，精神與物質）的階段中，什麼法破壞了心，使其不是意處呢？此外，他們認為離開根（Indriya，感覺器官）、境（Vishaya，感覺對像）、識這三者，還有什麼其他的因緣能夠直接產生觸，卻說因為缺少這個因緣，所以識存在而觸不存在呢？佛世尊從未這樣說過，這就像小孩子在房間里自言自語。而且，經中說名色是觸的緣（Hetu，因緣），例如佛告誡阿難（Ananda）說：『如果有人問，觸有緣嗎？』應該回答說有。如果他們進一步問，這觸的緣是什麼？應該正確地回答說，是名色。』既然如此，難道在六處（Shadayatana，六根）產生之前，因為有名色，就必定有觸嗎？如果是這樣，那麼意處就沒有不是意處的時候。如果他們說，這樣產生觸的名色，不是六處之前的名色支位，就像世尊告訴阿難陀（Ananda）說：『如果識在嬰孩和童子時期就斷滅，名色就不會增長廣大。』這樣的名色，難道在六處之前嗎？所以現在觸的緣就是那個名色。』這種辯解也是不合理的，因為經中說識是緣，意思是說識能夠作為緣而產生觸和名色。世尊說，那個結生識（Patisandhi-vijnana，投胎時的意識）是緣，如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『如果識不進入母胎，這個名色能成為羯剌藍（Kalala，受精卵）嗎？』『不能，世尊。』乃至廣說。接著說名色與觸互為緣，但在這個階段中，不能立即說成是嬰孩等。所以這種辯解是不成立的。現在在這個階段中，已經有什麼色，作為緣而產生觸，卻說在這個階段中，名色是緣，產生觸呢？有人說，在這個階段中，只有名產生觸，從階段的總體來說，名色是緣。有人說，這是指名色圓滿的階段，身觸（Kaya-sparsha，身體的接觸）作為緣，能夠產生身識（Kaya-vijnana，身體的意識），所以說名色與觸互為緣。我認為，這裡名色緣觸，是從階段的總體來說，意思是具備兩種緣。如果分別說緣，或者只有名，或者兩者都有，或者就是六處作為緣而產生觸，所以說名色與觸互為緣。然而，在名色的階段，並非沒有觸，因為允許這個階段中有意識。從未有任何地方說過，離開根、境等，還有其他的觸緣，卻說這個階段中有識而沒有觸，這種說法是沒有道理的。此外，他們所說的，意的本體
【English Translation】 Sparsha (Touch). According to their own statement, in Nirodha-samapatti (Cessation of Perception and Sensation), Manayatana (the mind-base) is not destroyed, but there is no touch. Since this is the case, in the stage of Vijnana (consciousness), and Namarupa (name and form, mind and matter), what dharma destroys the mind, making it not the mind-base? Furthermore, they believe that apart from the three—Indriya (sense organs), Vishaya (sense objects), and Vijnana (consciousness)—what other condition can directly produce touch, yet they say that because this condition is lacking, consciousness exists but touch does not? The Buddha-Bhagavan never said this; it is like a child talking to himself in a room. Moreover, the scriptures say that Namarupa is the condition for touch, as when the Buddha told Ananda: 'If someone asks, does touch have a condition?' You should answer that it does. If they further ask, what is the condition for this touch? You should correctly answer that it is Namarupa.' Since this is the case, isn't it true that before the arising of the six sense bases (Shadayatana), because there is Namarupa, there must be touch? If so, then there is no time when the mind-base is not the mind-base. If they say that the Namarupa that produces touch in this way is not the Namarupa of the stage before the six sense bases, just as the Bhagavan told Ananda: 'If consciousness is destroyed in infancy and childhood, Namarupa will not grow and expand.' Is such Namarupa before the six sense bases? Therefore, the condition for touch now is that Namarupa.' This defense is also unreasonable, because the scriptures say that consciousness is the condition, meaning that consciousness can be the condition for producing touch and Namarupa. The Bhagavan said that Patisandhi-vijnana (rebirth consciousness) is the condition, as the Sutra says: 'If consciousness does not enter the mother's womb, can this Namarupa become a Kalala (embryo)?' 'No, Bhagavan.' And so on. Next, it says that Namarupa and touch are mutually conditioned, but in this stage, it cannot be immediately said to be infancy, etc. Therefore, this defense is not valid. Now, in this stage, what form is already there, serving as the condition for producing touch, yet it is said that in this stage, Namarupa is the condition for producing touch? Some say that in this stage, only name produces touch, and from the overall perspective of the stage, Namarupa is the condition. Some say that this refers to the stage of complete Namarupa, where Kaya-sparsha (bodily touch) as a condition can produce Kaya-vijnana (bodily consciousness), so it is said that Namarupa and touch are mutually conditioned. I believe that here, Namarupa conditions touch, from the overall perspective of the stage, meaning that it possesses two conditions. If the conditions are spoken of separately, it may be only name, or both, or the six sense bases themselves as the condition for producing touch, so it is said that Namarupa and touch are mutually conditioned. However, in the stage of Namarupa, there is no absence of touch, because it is allowed that there is consciousness in this stage. Nowhere has it been said that apart from the sense organs, sense objects, etc., there are other conditions for touch, yet it is said that in this stage there is consciousness but no touch; this statement is unreasonable. Furthermore, what they say about the nature of mind
雖恒。有非意處。此何所表。若是處體。而不施設。此何所以。竟不說因。又言觸處。方立處名。許是處體。此言便壞。若非處體。便違契經。一切法者。謂十二處。然佛世尊。處處顯示。離十二處。無別有法。亦不可說。于諸法中。有非處體而處所攝。雖一極微。不能生觸。而無現在唯一極微。非五識身所依緣者。亦是處體。得彼相故。是故所說。意體雖恒有非意處。非應理說。若爾何故。不作是言。四處生前。說為名色。識名色位。用減劣故。謂二位中。諸內處體。用猶減劣。不立處名。若此位中。處用圓勝。即於此位。可立處名。或位不同。體有異故。謂六處位。所得意身。用勝體圓。非前所得。如是六處。名色為緣。故說名色緣生六處。或此位方得全分現行故。謂要支開位。方得男女根。爾時諸識身。乃容皆現起。故身意處。六處位中。體用現行。方得全分。由斯故說六處生前是名色位。此說為善。余廣分別。此名色支。於此後文。當更顯示。即此名色為緣所生。具眼等根。未三和合。中間諸蘊。說名六處。謂名色后。六處已生。乃至根境識未具和合位。下中上品。次第漸增。於此位中。總名六處。豈於此位。諸識不生。而得說三未具和合。且無一位意識不生。名色位中。身識亦起。況六處位。言無三和。所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 雖然說『意』（manas, 心）是恒常存在的，但也有不是『意處』（manāyatanāni, 意處）的時候。這說明了什麼呢？如果說『處』（āyatana, 處）是實體，而不進行施設，這又是為什麼呢？始終沒有說明原因。又說因為有了『觸』（sparśa, 觸），才有了『處』這個名稱，如果允許『處』是實體，那麼這個說法就站不住腳了。如果『處』不是實體，那就違背了契經的說法，即『一切法』（sarva dharma, 一切法）指的是十二處（dvādaśa āyatanāni, 十二處）。然而，佛世尊（Buddha-bhagavān, 佛世尊）處處顯示，離開十二處，沒有別的法存在，也是不可說的。在諸法中，有不是『處』的實體，但被『處』所包含的情況。即使一個極微（paramāṇu, 極微）也不能產生觸，但沒有現在唯一的一個極微，不是五識身（pañca vijñāna kāya, 五識身）所依緣的，它也是『處』的實體，因為它具有那種相。因此，說『意』的實體雖然恒常存在，但也有不是『意處』的時候，這種說法是不合理的。 如果這樣，為什麼不說『四處』（catvāryāyatanāni, 四處）生前叫做『名色』（nāmarūpa, 名色）呢？因為在『識』（vijñāna, 識）和『名色』的階段，作用減弱了。也就是說，在這兩個階段中，各個內處的實體，作用仍然減弱，所以不立『處』的名稱。如果在這個階段中，『處』的作用圓滿而殊勝，那麼就在這個階段可以立『處』的名稱。或者因為階段不同，實體也有差異。也就是說，在六處位（ṣaḍāyatanāni, 六處位）所得到的『意身』（manokāya, 意身），作用殊勝，實體圓滿，不是之前所能得到的。像這樣，六處以名色為緣，所以說『名色緣生六處』。或者因為在這個階段才能完全顯現。也就是說，要等到肢體展開的階段，才能有男女根（strīndriya puruṣendriya, 男女根），這時，各個識身才有可能全部顯現。所以『身』（kāya, 身）和『意處』（manāyatana, 意處），在六處位中，實體和作用都顯現，才能完全具備。因此才說六處生前是名色位。這種說法是合理的。其餘更廣泛的分別，這個『名色』支，在後面的文章中，將會更詳細地顯示。即以這個名色為緣所生，具有眼等根（cakṣurādīndriya, 眼等根），在未三和合（tri samāgama, 三和合）的中間階段的諸蘊（skandha, 蘊），叫做六處。也就是說，在名色之後，六處已經產生，直到根、境、識（indriya viṣaya vijñāna, 根境識）未完全和合的階段，下、中、上品，次第漸增。在這個階段中，總稱為六處。難道在這個階段，諸識不生，而能說三未具和合嗎？實際上沒有一個階段意識（manovijñāna, 意識）是不生的。在名色位中，身識（kāyavijñāna, 身識）也已經生起，更何況六處位，說沒有三和合呢？
English version: Although it is said that 'manas' (mind) is constantly present, there are times when it is not a 'manāyatanāni' (mind base). What does this signify? If 'āyatana' (base) is a substance and is not subject to designation, what is the reason for this? No reason is given. Furthermore, it is said that the name 'base' is established because of 'sparśa' (contact). If it is allowed that 'base' is a substance, then this statement is untenable. If 'base' is not a substance, then it contradicts the statement in the sutras that 'sarva dharma' (all dharmas) refers to the twelve āyatanāni (twelve bases). However, the Buddha-bhagavān (Blessed One) shows everywhere that apart from the twelve bases, there is no other dharma, and it cannot be said that among all dharmas, there is something that is not a substance of 'base' but is included in 'base'. Even a paramāṇu (atom) cannot produce contact, but there is no single atom that is not the object of reliance for the five vijñāna kāya (five consciousnesses), and it is also a substance of 'base' because it has that characteristic. Therefore, the statement that the substance of 'manas' is constantly present, but there are times when it is not a 'manāyatana', is not reasonable. If so, why is it not said that 'catvāryāyatanāni' (four bases) before birth are called 'nāmarūpa' (name and form)? Because in the stages of 'vijñāna' (consciousness) and 'nāmarūpa', the function is diminished. That is to say, in these two stages, the substance of each internal base still has a diminished function, so the name 'base' is not established. If in this stage, the function of 'base' is complete and excellent, then in this stage the name 'base' can be established. Or because the stages are different, the substances are also different. That is to say, the 'manokāya' (mind-body) obtained in the ṣaḍāyatanāni (six bases) stage has a superior function and a complete substance, which could not be obtained before. In this way, the six bases are conditioned by name and form, so it is said that 'name and form conditions the arising of the six bases'. Or because it is only in this stage that it can be fully manifested. That is to say, it is only when the limbs are developed that there can be strīndriya puruṣendriya (male and female organs), and at this time, all the consciousnesses can be fully manifested. Therefore, 'kāya' (body) and 'manāyatana' (mind base), in the six bases stage, the substance and function are manifested, and they can be fully possessed. Therefore, it is said that the stage before the six bases is the name and form stage. This statement is reasonable. The remaining more extensive distinctions, this 'nāmarūpa' limb, will be shown in more detail in the following text. That is, conditioned by this name and form, having cakṣurādīndriya (eye, etc.), the skandha (aggregates) in the intermediate stage before the tri samāgama (three convergences) are called the six bases. That is to say, after name and form, the six bases have already arisen, until the stage where the indriya viṣaya vijñāna (sense organs, objects, and consciousnesses) are not fully converged, the lower, middle, and upper grades gradually increase in order. In this stage, it is generally called the six bases. Is it that in this stage, the consciousnesses do not arise, and it can be said that the three are not fully converged? In fact, there is no stage in which manovijñāna (mind consciousness) does not arise. In the name and form stage, kāyavijñāna (body consciousness) has already arisen, let alone the six bases stage, saying that there is no three convergences?
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese translation: Although it is said that 'manas' (mind) is constantly present, there are times when it is not a 'manāyatanāni' (mind base). What does this signify? If 'āyatana' (base) is a substance and is not subject to designation, what is the reason for this? No reason is given. Furthermore, it is said that the name 'base' is established because of 'sparśa' (contact). If it is allowed that 'base' is a substance, then this statement is untenable. If 'base' is not a substance, then it contradicts the statement in the sutras that 'sarva dharma' (all dharmas) refers to the twelve āyatanāni (twelve bases). However, the Buddha-bhagavān (Blessed One) shows everywhere that apart from the twelve bases, there is no other dharma, and it cannot be said that among all dharmas, there is something that is not a substance of 'base' but is included in 'base'. Even a paramāṇu (atom) cannot produce contact, but there is no single atom that is not the object of reliance for the five vijñāna kāya (five consciousnesses), and it is also a substance of 'base' because it has that characteristic. Therefore, the statement that the substance of 'manas' is constantly present, but there are times when it is not a 'manāyatana', is not reasonable. If so, why is it not said that 'catvāryāyatanāni' (four bases) before birth are called 'nāmarūpa' (name and form)? Because in the stages of 'vijñāna' (consciousness) and 'nāmarūpa', the function is diminished. That is to say, in these two stages, the substance of each internal base still has a diminished function, so the name 'base' is not established. If in this stage, the function of 'base' is complete and excellent, then in this stage the name 'base' can be established. Or because the stages are different, the substances are also different. That is to say, the 'manokāya' (mind-body) obtained in the ṣaḍāyatanāni (six bases) stage has a superior function and a complete substance, which could not be obtained before. In this way, the six bases are conditioned by name and form, so it is said that 'name and form conditions the arising of the six bases'. Or because it is only in this stage that it can be fully manifested. That is to say, it is only when the limbs are developed that there can be strīndriya puruṣendriya (male and female organs), and at this time, all the consciousnesses can be fully manifested. Therefore, 'kāya' (body) and 'manāyatana' (mind base), in the six bases stage, the substance and function are manifested, and they can be fully possessed. Therefore, it is said that the stage before the six bases is the name and form stage. This statement is reasonable. The remaining more extensive distinctions, this 'nāmarūpa' limb, will be shown in more detail in the following text. That is, conditioned by this name and form, having cakṣurādīndriya (eye, etc.), the skandha (aggregates) in the intermediate stage before the tri samāgama (three convergences) are called the six bases. That is to say, after name and form, the six bases have already arisen, until the stage where the indriya viṣaya vijñāna (sense organs, objects, and consciousnesses) are not fully converged, the lower, middle, and upper grades gradually increase in order. In this stage, it is generally called the six bases. Is it that in this stage, the consciousnesses do not arise, and it can be said that the three are not fully converged? In fact, there is no stage in which manovijñāna (mind consciousness) does not arise. In the name and form stage, kāyavijñāna (body consciousness) has already arisen, let alone the six bases stage, saying that there is no three convergences?
余識身。亦容得起。然非恒勝。故未立三和名。於此位中。唯六處勝。故約六處。以標位別。既許六處緣名色生。一念名色。后即應立六處。如一念識后即立名色支。此責不然。六處要待名色成熟。方得生故。何法說為名色成熟。無別有法。然名色位。下中品時。未能為緣引生六處。要增上位。方能為緣引生六處。即名成熟。要待名色熟。六處方生。如因種轉變芽方得起。或非離名色六處可得生。如要依云方得降雨。若爾六處。非名色生。如何可說言名色緣六處。諸為緣者。謂有助能。未必親生。方成緣義。如果雖為引業所牽。滿業若無。果終不起。如是六處。雖業所招。無名色緣。必無起義。即先行業所招六處。要由名色緣助乃生。同一相續勢力引故。雖名色為緣亦生色等。而即初念識。滋潤所生。故不說彼緣名色起。又彼色等。通情非情。今此唯明有情緣起。故唯說名色為緣生六處。或先已辯。識緣名色。即已總說緣生色等。今名色后色等與前。更有何殊義用可得。而須說彼。從名色生。故如本文。所說無失。此中上座。欲令眼等唯有世俗和合用故。作如是說。眼等五根。唯世俗有。乃至廣說。如是所欲。于理匪宜。救療彼方。如初品說。有少差別。今應更辯。謂上座言。五根所發識。唯緣世俗。有無分別故。猶
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 我（阿羅漢）承認有『身』（蘊，五蘊之一），它能容納六處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意），但『身』並非總是最強的。因此，我們不以『三和』（三事和合）來命名這個階段。在這個階段，六處的作用最為突出，所以我們以六處來區分不同的階段。既然我們允許六處由名色（五蘊中的受、想、行、識以及色蘊）為緣而生，那麼在一念名色之後，就應該立即建立六處。就像在一念識之後，立即建立名色支一樣。這種責難是不成立的，因為六處需要等待名色成熟后才能產生。那麼，什麼才能被稱作名色成熟呢？並沒有其他的法。然而，名色處於下品或中品時，不能作為緣來引發六處。只有當名色增長到上品時，才能作為緣來引發六處，這就叫做成熟。六處需要等待名色成熟才能產生，就像種子需要轉變才能生出芽一樣。或者說，六處不能脫離名色而產生，就像降雨需要依靠云一樣。如果這樣，六處就不是由名色所生，又怎麼能說名色是六處的緣呢？凡是作為緣的，是指具有幫助和支援的能力，不一定需要親自產生。就像果實雖然受到引業（牽引的業力）的牽引，但如果沒有滿業（圓滿的業力），果實最終也不會產生。同樣，六處雖然是由業力所招感，但如果沒有名色的緣，也無法產生。也就是說，先前的行業所招感的六處，需要依靠名色的緣的幫助才能產生。因為它們屬於同一相續的勢力所引導。雖然名色作為緣也能產生色等（色、聲、香、味、觸），但這些是由最初一念識的滋潤所生，所以不說它們是由名色為緣而起。而且，這些色等，既包括有情（有生命的眾生），也包括非情（無生命的物質），而現在我們只討論有情緣起，所以只說名色是六處產生的緣。或者說，之前已經辯論過，識緣名色，就已經總括地說明了緣生色等。現在名色之後的色等，與之前的色等相比，還有什麼不同的意義和作用呢？而需要說它們是從名色所生呢？所以，就像本文所說的那樣，沒有錯誤。這裡，上座部（佛教部派之一）爲了使眼等（眼根等五根）只有世俗和合的作用，所以這樣說：眼等五根，只有世俗意義上的存在，乃至廣說。像這樣所想表達的，在道理上是不合適的。救療他們的方法，就像初品所說的那樣，只有少許差別。現在應該進一步辯論。上座部說，五根所發出的識，只能緣於世俗，因為有無分別的緣故，就像...
【English Translation】 English version I (an Arhat) acknowledge the existence of 'self' (skandha, one of the five skandhas), which can accommodate the six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), but the 'self' is not always the strongest. Therefore, we do not name this stage as 'three harmonies' (three factors in conjunction). In this stage, the six sense bases are the most prominent, so we use the six sense bases to distinguish different stages. Since we allow the six sense bases to arise from name and form (nama-rupa) (the sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness within the five skandhas, as well as the form skandha), then after a single moment of name and form, the six sense bases should be immediately established, just as after a single moment of consciousness, the name and form branch is immediately established. This accusation is not valid, because the six sense bases need to wait for name and form to mature before they can arise. So, what can be called the maturation of name and form? There is no other dharma (law, phenomenon). However, when name and form are in the lower or middle grade, they cannot be used as a condition to induce the six sense bases. Only when name and form increase to the upper grade can they be used as a condition to induce the six sense bases, which is called maturation. The six sense bases need to wait for name and form to mature before they can arise, just as a seed needs to transform before a sprout can arise. Or rather, the six sense bases cannot arise apart from name and form, just as rainfall needs to rely on clouds. If so, the six sense bases are not born from name and form, so how can it be said that name and form are the condition for the six sense bases? Those who act as conditions refer to having the ability to help and support, and do not necessarily need to produce it personally. Just as a fruit, although pulled by the attracting karma (karma that draws one to a particular rebirth), if there is no fulfilling karma (karma that completes the rebirth), the fruit will ultimately not arise. Similarly, although the six sense bases are summoned by karma, without the condition of name and form, there will be no arising. That is to say, the six sense bases summoned by previous actions need to rely on the help of name and form to arise, because they are guided by the power of the same continuum. Although name and form as a condition can also produce form, etc. (form, sound, smell, taste, touch), these are produced by the nourishment of the initial moment of consciousness, so it is not said that they arise from name and form as a condition. Moreover, these forms, etc., include both sentient beings (beings with life) and non-sentient beings (inanimate matter), but now we are only discussing the arising of sentient beings, so we only say that name and form are the condition for the arising of the six sense bases. Or rather, it has already been argued before that consciousness conditions name and form, which has already comprehensively explained the arising of form, etc. Now, compared with the previous forms, etc., after name and form, what different meaning and function is there? And why is it necessary to say that they are born from name and form? Therefore, as stated in this text, there is no error. Here, the Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school) wanted to make the eye, etc. (the five sense organs) only have the function of conventional combination, so they said: the five sense organs, such as the eye, only exist in the conventional sense, and so on. What they want to express in this way is not appropriate in terms of reason. The method of curing them is only slightly different from what was said in the first chapter. Now we should further argue. The Sarvastivadins say that the consciousness emitted by the five sense organs can only be related to the conventional, because there is discrimination of existence and non-existence, just like...
如明鏡照眾色像。即由此理。識不任依。如佛世尊言。依智不依識。意識通緣世俗勝義。故體兼有依及非依。此亦不然。智應同故。若眼等識。緣世俗故。無分別故。不任依者。智亦應然。豈唯依性。謂彼說智是思差別。依五根門。亦有智起。彼緣世俗。無分別故。亦應同識。不任為依。若謂智生有緣勝義。及有分別。識亦應然。謂有意識。能緣勝義。有分別故。亦任為依。若智唯由意所引起。亦不應說唯智是依。以許意識通緣二故。及許體兼依非依故。由此如意識。智亦通非依。意識應如智亦有任依者。又無漏智。亦應非依。以于多法一行轉故。無分別故。上座意許。如是法智。不緣勝義。故即於此。說如是言。多分有情。所起諸智。于多法上。一相智生。謂于多法。取一合相。此智難成。緣勝義起。若謂此智雖緣多法生。而不于諸法取一合相。眼等諸識。應亦許然。謂彼雖緣多法為境起。無分別故。不取一合相。如是應許五識唯依意識。貫通依非依性。有取一合相。有緣勝義故。曾無處說意識是依。上座或時說為依性。是則上座。于經義中。進退躊躇。不能定顯。設復定顯。便違理教。故上座意。不任為依。余處別當辯此經義。恐文煩重。故應且止。但應思擇。此正所明。上座此中。廣為方便。立無境識。此于第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如明鏡照眾色像，正是基於這個道理，『識』不值得依賴。正如佛陀世尊所說：『依智不依識』。意識既能緣於世俗諦，也能緣于勝義諦，因此本體兼具可依賴和不可依賴的性質。但這種說法是不成立的，因為『智』也應該與『識』相同。如果說眼等識因為緣於世俗諦，且沒有分別，所以不值得依賴，那麼『智』也應該如此。難道只有依賴的性質嗎？ 有人說，『智』是思慮的差別，依賴於五根門而生起。這種『智』緣於世俗諦，沒有分別，也應該與『識』相同，不值得作為依賴。如果說『智』的生起有緣于勝義諦，並且有分別，那麼『識』也應該如此。也就是說，有的意識能夠緣于勝義諦，並且有分別，也值得作為依賴。如果『智』僅僅由意所引起，也不應該說只有『智』是依賴，因為你們承認意識既能緣於二諦，又承認本體兼具可依賴和不可依賴的性質。 由此可見，如同意識一樣，『智』也同樣具有不可依賴的性質。意識應該像『智』一樣，也有值得依賴的性質。此外，無漏智也不應該作為依賴，因為它在多種法上以一種行相運轉，並且沒有分別。上座部的意思是，這樣的法智不緣于勝義諦，所以才這樣說：大多數有情所生起的各種『智』，在多種法上，產生一種行相的『智』，即在多種法上，取一種綜合的相。這種『智』很難說是緣于勝義諦而生起的。 如果說這種『智』雖然緣于多種法而生起，但並不在諸法上取一種綜合的相，那麼眼等諸識也應該允許這樣，即它們雖然緣于多種法作為境界而生起，但因為沒有分別，所以不取一種綜合的相。這樣就應該允許五識僅僅依賴於意識，貫通可依賴和不可依賴的性質，因為意識既有取一種綜合相的，也有緣于勝義諦的。從來沒有地方說過意識是依賴。上座部有時說意識是依賴的性質，這樣看來，上座部對於經義，進退猶豫，不能明確地闡述。即使明確地闡述，也會違背道理和教義。所以上座部的觀點，不值得作為依賴。關於此經的意義，在其他地方再作辨析。恐怕文字過於繁瑣，所以應該暫且停止。但應該思考，這才是真正要闡明的。上座部在這裡，廣為方便，立無境識，這在第...
【English Translation】 English version Like a clear mirror reflecting various images, it is based on this principle that 『consciousness』 (識, vijñāna) is not reliable. As the Buddha, the World-Honored One, said: 『Rely on wisdom (智, jñāna), not on consciousness.』 Consciousness can apprehend both conventional truth (世俗諦, saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (勝義諦, paramārtha-satya), therefore its nature combines both reliable and unreliable aspects. However, this statement is not valid, because 『wisdom』 should be the same. If it is said that eye-consciousness and other consciousnesses are not reliable because they apprehend conventional truth and lack discrimination, then 『wisdom』 should also be the same. Does it only have the nature of reliance? Someone might say that 『wisdom』 is the difference of thought, arising dependent on the five sense faculties. This 『wisdom』 apprehends conventional truth and lacks discrimination, so it should be the same as 『consciousness』 and not be worthy of reliance. If it is said that the arising of 『wisdom』 has conditions that apprehend ultimate truth and has discrimination, then 『consciousness』 should also be the same. That is to say, some consciousnesses can apprehend ultimate truth and have discrimination, so they are also worthy of reliance. If 『wisdom』 is only caused by mind, it should not be said that only 『wisdom』 is reliable, because you admit that consciousness can apprehend both truths and admit that its nature combines both reliable and unreliable aspects. From this, it can be seen that, like consciousness, 『wisdom』 also has the nature of being unreliable. Consciousness should be like 『wisdom』, also having the nature of being worthy of reliance. Furthermore, undefiled wisdom (無漏智, anāsrava-jñāna) should also not be relied upon, because it operates on multiple dharmas with one aspect and lacks discrimination. The Sthavira school (上座部, Sthavira) means that such Dharma-wisdom (法智, dharma-jñāna) does not apprehend ultimate truth, so they say this: the various 『wisdoms』 arising in most sentient beings produce a 『wisdom』 of one aspect on multiple dharmas, that is, taking a comprehensive aspect on multiple dharmas. It is difficult to say that this 『wisdom』 arises from apprehending ultimate truth. If it is said that although this 『wisdom』 arises from apprehending multiple dharmas, it does not take a comprehensive aspect on the dharmas, then eye-consciousness and other consciousnesses should also be allowed to be like this, that is, although they arise from apprehending multiple dharmas as objects, they do not take a comprehensive aspect because they lack discrimination. In this way, it should be allowed that the five consciousnesses only rely on consciousness, connecting the nature of reliable and unreliable, because consciousness both takes a comprehensive aspect and apprehends ultimate truth. There is never a place where it is said that consciousness is reliable. The Sthavira school sometimes says that consciousness is the nature of reliance. In this view, the Sthavira school hesitates back and forth regarding the meaning of the sutras and cannot clearly explain it. Even if they clearly explain it, it will violate reason and doctrine. Therefore, the view of the Sthavira school is not worthy of reliance. The meaning of this sutra will be analyzed elsewhere. Fearing that the text is too cumbersome, it should be stopped for now. But it should be considered that this is what truly needs to be clarified. The Sthavira school here, widely as a convenience, establishes objectless consciousness (無境識, nirālambana-vijñāna), this is in the...
五隨眠品中。當廣遮遣。應知如是辯六處中。亦可遍摧彼諸妄計。薄伽梵說。根境識三具和合時。說名為觸謂未能了三受因異。但具三和。彼位名觸。觸差別義。后當廣辯。已了三受因差別相。未起淫貪。此位名受。謂已能了苦樂等緣。淫愛未行。說名受位。受差別義。后當廣辯。貪妙資具。淫愛現行。未廣追求。此位名愛。妙資具者。謂妙資財。貪此及淫。總名為愛。廣辯愛義。如隨眠品。上座於此。復作是說。受望于愛。非作生因。若爾如何說受緣愛。受為境故。說為愛緣。謂諸愛生。緣受為境。故契經說。若有于受。不如實知。是集沒味過患出離。彼于受喜。即名為取。云何知此。契經中說。愛緣受生。豈不所言彼于受喜。即是緣受生喜愛義。此非誠證。于因義中。亦可得說第七聲故。謂因於受。喜愛得生。是依受因。生喜愛義。由此故說受為愛緣。若不爾者。要愛生已。方有所緣。非愛未生可能緣受未有體故。既余緣力。愛體已生。如何復言受緣生愛。若余緣力。愛體已生。受為所緣。亦名緣者。如是便有太過之失。謂受有時。緣愛為境。亦應說受以愛為緣。又愛有時。緣觸為境。亦應說觸為緣生愛。又無漏智。亦緣愛為境。亦應說此愛為緣故生。設許此經約緣受境說于受喜。何緣知說受緣愛者。非謂生因。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 在五隨眠品（Pañca-anuśaya，五種潛在的煩惱）中，應當廣泛地遮止（煩惱）。應當知道，像這樣在辨析六處（Ṣaḍāyatana，六種感官）時，也可以普遍地摧毀那些虛妄的計度。 薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）說：『根（Indriya，感官）、境（Viṣaya，對像）、識（Vijñāna，意識）三者具足和合時，稱作觸（Sparśa，接觸），這是因為未能瞭解三種受（Vedanā，感受）的因是不同的，只是具備了三者的和合。那個階段叫做觸。觸的差別意義，之後會廣泛辨析。』 已經瞭解三種受的因的差別相，但尚未生起淫貪（Kāma-rāga，對感官快樂的貪慾），這個階段叫做受。這是說已經能夠了解苦、樂等的因緣，淫愛尚未發生，所以稱作受的階段。受的差別意義，之後會廣泛辨析。 貪著美妙的資具，淫愛現行，但未廣泛地追求，這個階段叫做愛（Tṛṣṇā，渴愛）。美妙的資具，是指美妙的資財。貪著這些以及淫慾，總稱為愛。廣泛辨析愛的意義，如隨眠品中所說。 上座（Sthavira，長老）對此又這樣說：『受對於愛，不是作為生因（Hetu，原因）。』如果這樣，那麼如何說『受緣愛』呢？受是作為愛的所緣境（Ālambana，對像），所以說是愛的緣。這是說諸愛生起，以受為所緣境。所以契經（Sūtra，佛經）說：『如果有人對於受，不如實地知（Ajñāna，無知）集（Samudaya，生起）、沒（Astangama，滅沒）、味（Āsvāda，樂味）、過患（Ādīnava，過患）、出離（Niḥsaraṇa，出離），那麼他對受的喜好，就叫做取（Upādāna，執取）。』 如何知道這一點呢？契經中說：『愛緣受生。』難道所說的『他對受的喜好』，就是緣受而生喜愛之義嗎？這不是確實的證據。在因的意義中，也可以說第七格（Locative case，表示處所、時間、原因等的格），這是說因為受，喜愛才得以生起，是依靠受的因，而生起喜愛之義。因此才說受是愛的緣。 如果不是這樣，要愛生起之後，才有所緣，愛未生起不可能緣受，因為沒有自體。既然憑藉其他緣的力量，愛的自體已經生起，如何又說受緣生愛呢？如果憑藉其他緣的力量，愛的自體已經生起，受作為所緣，也叫做緣的話，這樣便有太過之失。這是說受有時，緣愛為境，也應該說受以愛為緣。又愛有時，緣觸為境，也應該說觸為緣而生愛。又無漏智（Anāsrava-jñāna，沒有煩惱的智慧），也緣愛為境，也應該說這愛是緣故而生。 假設允許這部經是就緣受境而說對於受的喜好，憑什麼知道說『受緣愛』，不是指生因呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Within the section on the Five Latent Defilements (Pañca-anuśaya), one should extensively prevent (defilements). It should be known that, in this way, while analyzing the Six Sense Bases (Ṣaḍāyatana), one can also universally destroy those false conceptions. The Blessed One (Bhagavān) said: 'When the three—sense faculty (Indriya), object (Viṣaya), and consciousness (Vijñāna)—are complete and in harmony, it is called contact (Sparśa). This is because one has not yet understood that the causes of the three feelings (Vedanā) are different; it is merely the combination of the three. That stage is called contact. The different meanings of contact will be extensively analyzed later.' 'Having understood the different aspects of the causes of the three feelings, but without yet arising sensual craving (Kāma-rāga), this stage is called feeling. This means that one is already able to understand the causes of suffering, pleasure, etc., but sensual love has not yet arisen, so it is called the stage of feeling. The different meanings of feeling will be extensively analyzed later.' 'Craving for delightful resources, with sensual love actively present, but without extensive pursuit, this stage is called craving (Tṛṣṇā). Delightful resources refer to delightful wealth. Craving for these and sensual desire are collectively called craving. The extensive analysis of the meaning of craving is as described in the section on Latent Defilements.' The Elder (Sthavira) further said in this regard: 'Feeling is not the generative cause (Hetu) of craving.' If that is the case, then how is it said that 'feeling is the condition for craving'? Feeling serves as the object of craving (Ālambana), so it is said to be the condition for craving. This means that cravings arise with feeling as their object. Therefore, the Sutra (Sūtra) says: 'If someone does not truly know (Ajñāna) the arising (Samudaya), cessation (Astangama), allure (Āsvāda), drawbacks (Ādīnava), and escape (Niḥsaraṇa) of feeling, then their delight in feeling is called grasping (Upādāna).' How is this known? The Sutra says: 'Craving arises conditioned by feeling.' Does the statement 'their delight in feeling' simply mean that craving arises conditioned by feeling? This is not conclusive evidence. In the sense of cause, one can also use the locative case, meaning that because of feeling, delight arises; it is relying on the cause of feeling that delight arises. Therefore, it is said that feeling is the condition for craving. If it were not so, then craving would have to arise first before there could be an object, and craving could not condition feeling before it arises, because it has no self-nature. Since the self-nature of craving has already arisen through the power of other conditions, how can it be said that feeling conditions the arising of craving? If the self-nature of craving has already arisen through the power of other conditions, and feeling, as the object, is also called a condition, then there would be an excessive consequence. This means that when feeling sometimes takes craving as its object, it should also be said that feeling is conditioned by craving. Also, when craving sometimes takes contact as its object, it should also be said that contact is the condition for the arising of craving. Furthermore, non-outflow wisdom (Anāsrava-jñāna) also takes craving as its object, and it should also be said that this craving is the condition for its arising. Assuming that this Sutra is speaking about delight in feeling in relation to feeling as the object, how do we know that saying 'feeling conditions craving' does not refer to the generative cause?
上座所宗。亦許一切所說緣起。皆據生因。如何此中。撥生因義。故彼論說。緣起為繩。繫縛有情。令住生死。若能遍知受。名為斷繩。若緣受生即名為縛。說所緣受。為令遍知。為愛即能遍知于受。而言說受。為令遍知。不爾云何。謂遍知智知受集等智所知受。即愛所緣。無有定因。證能治境即是所治。愛等所緣。故不應言。愛緣受起。說所緣受為令遍知。設為令遍知說愛所緣受。許所緣受為愛生因。于理何違。因為誹撥。誹許意識以意為所緣。便撥意根為因生識義。又彼上座。于自論中。數處有言。因受生愛。謂有無明受能為愛緣。無明觸生。受為緣生愛。又說愛是果。必以受為因。由說果名。知有因故。又說無明助受。能為愛生因故。如是所說。存前違后。存后違前。前後二言。互相違害。不觀理趣。率爾發言。故彼所言。不可依信。尊者世親。作如是釋。彼于愛喜。即名取者。愛攝在取。中故經不別說。上座於此。妄撥言非因果二門。理應別故。謂愛與取。因果性殊。以愛為因生取果故。如彼尊者說。愛為因還能生愛。有何別失。理必不然。說異相故。謂于緣起中。說異相因果。為辯生死相續次第。不可言愛攝在取中。若也愛生。還因於愛。如是展轉。便致無窮。何所遍知。令愛止息。即應生死無斷絕期。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 上座部的觀點也認可一切所說的緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda），都基於生因（hetu）。為什麼在這裡否定生因的意義呢？因為他們的論典中說，緣起就像繩索，繫縛著有情（sattva），使他們停留在生死輪迴中。如果能夠普遍地瞭解受（vedanā，感受），就叫做斷繩。如果以受為緣而生起，就叫做繫縛。說所緣受（ālambana-vedanā，作為所緣的感受），是爲了使人普遍地瞭解它。難道是因為愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）就能普遍地瞭解受，才說受嗎？如果不是這樣，那又該如何解釋呢？意思是說，以遍知智（parijñā-jñāna）去了解受的集起（samudaya）等智慧所瞭解的受，就是愛所緣的。沒有確定的理由可以證明能對治的境界就是所要對治的。愛等煩惱所緣的境界，因此不應該說，愛是緣受而生起的。說所緣受是爲了使人普遍地瞭解它。假設爲了使人普遍地瞭解而說愛所緣的受，允許所緣受作為愛生起的原因，在道理上有什麼違背呢？ 因為誹謗和否定，誹謗和否定意識（vijñāna）以意（manas）為所緣，就否定意根（manāyatana）作為因生起識（vijñāna）的意義。而且，上座部在自己的論典中，多次說到因受生愛。意思是說，因為有無明（avidyā），受能夠成為愛的緣。無明所生的觸（sparśa）為緣而生受，受為緣而生愛。又說愛是果，必定以受為因。因為說了果的名字，就知道有因的緣故。又說無明幫助受，能夠成為愛生起的原因。像這樣所說，前面和後面互相矛盾，前面和後面互相違背。前後兩種說法，互相沖突，不觀察道理，隨便發言。所以他們所說的話，不可靠信。尊者世親（Vasubandhu）是這樣解釋的：他對愛和喜，就叫做取（upādāna，執取）。愛包含在取之中，所以經典中沒有另外說明。上座部對此妄加否定，說不是因果二門，道理上應該區分。意思是說，愛和取，因果性質不同，以愛為因生取這個果的緣故。像那位尊者所說，愛作為因還能生愛，有什麼別的過失呢？道理上必定不是這樣，因為說了不同的相狀的緣故。意思是說，在緣起中，說了不同相狀的因果，是爲了辨別生死相續的次第。不能說愛包含在取中。如果愛生起，還因為愛，這樣輾轉下去，就會導致無窮無盡，要普遍地瞭解什麼，才能使愛止息呢？這樣就應該生死沒有斷絕的期限了，就像...
【English Translation】 English version The Sthavira school also accepts that all that is said about Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) is based on hetu (cause). Why is the meaning of cause denied here? Because their treatises say that Pratītyasamutpāda is like a rope, binding sentient beings (sattva), causing them to remain in the cycle of birth and death. If one can universally understand vedanā (feeling), it is called cutting the rope. If it arises based on vedanā, it is called bondage. Saying that ālambana-vedanā (feeling as an object) is to make people universally understand it. Is it because tṛṣṇā (craving) can universally understand vedanā that vedanā is spoken of? If not, how should it be explained? It means that the vedanā understood by the wisdom of universally knowing (parijñā-jñāna) the samudaya (arising) of vedanā, etc., is what craving clings to. There is no definite reason to prove that the state that can be countered is what needs to be countered. The states clung to by craving and other afflictions, therefore, it should not be said that craving arises based on vedanā. Saying that ālambana-vedanā is to make people universally understand it. Suppose, for the sake of universal understanding, it is said that craving clings to vedanā, allowing vedanā as the cause of the arising of craving, what is the contradiction in reason? Because of slander and denial, slandering and denying that vijñāna (consciousness) takes manas (mind) as its object, then denying the meaning of manāyatana (mind base) as the cause of the arising of vijñāna. Moreover, the Sthavira school, in their own treatises, repeatedly says that craving arises from vedanā. It means that because there is avidyā (ignorance), vedanā can become the condition for craving. Sparśa (contact) born of ignorance arises as a condition for vedanā, and vedanā arises as a condition for craving. It is also said that craving is the result, and it must take vedanā as the cause. Because the name of the result is spoken, it is known that there is a cause. It is also said that ignorance helps vedanā and can become the cause of the arising of craving. What is said in this way contradicts the former and the latter, and the former and latter contradict each other. The two statements before and after conflict with each other, without observing the reason, speaking casually. Therefore, what they say is not reliable. Venerable Vasubandhu explains it this way: He calls love and joy upādāna (grasping). Love is included in grasping, so it is not explained separately in the scriptures. The Sthavira school falsely denies this, saying that it is not the two gates of cause and effect, and it should be distinguished in reason. It means that love and grasping have different causal properties, because love is the cause of the result of grasping. As that venerable one said, what other fault is there if love as a cause can still give rise to love? In principle, it must not be so, because different appearances are spoken of. It means that in dependent origination, the cause and effect of different appearances are spoken of in order to distinguish the sequence of the continuation of birth and death. It cannot be said that love is included in grasping. If love arises, it is still because of love, and if it continues in this way, it will lead to infinity. What needs to be universally understood in order to stop love? In this way, there should be no end to birth and death, just like...
是所言。皆不應理。自宗許觸即是觸因。和合性故。非彼許觸與觸所因。有別異相。或應許觸離因而有。若彼意許觸與觸因。雖無異相。而有因果。愛取亦然。何容非斥。若言假實相有異者。理亦不然。非如受等類有別故。謂彼宗觸離觸所因。非如受等。體類有別。如何可言其相有異。非諸假法。離假所依。別有相體。依何辯異。或如六處。與觸為緣。非許為緣唯望自類。望自他類。皆許為緣。然於此中。非無因果。如是說愛與取為緣。亦應許非唯望自類。望自他類。皆得為緣。而於此中。非無因果。又如六處。名色為緣。雖無相別。而有因果。亦如名色。用識為緣。識體即在名中所攝。前識后識。雖無相異。而識名色。非無因果。從愛生取。類亦應然。故緣起中。相雖無別。亦有因果。由此說取即攝於愛。亦無有失。所言因果。其相定異。如是言義。無理證成。為辯生死相續次第。必說因果。其相有殊。非相無別。有何因證。若謂因果相若無別。則所化生難知故者。亦不成證。所以者何。愛取義名有差別故。如識等名義與名色等別。既不說愛即為愛因。如何可言。二愛因果別難知故。生死相續次第難知。分明說愛能生取果。如是因果別豈難知。如彼所宗說。名色因識。六處因名色。觸因六處。非難了知又佛世尊。親
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 您所說的這些，都不合乎道理。您自己的宗派承認『觸』（Sparsha，感覺）就是『觸因』（產生感覺的原因），因為它們具有和合的性質。但您不承認『觸』和『觸因』有任何區別。或者您應該承認『觸』可以脫離『因』而存在。如果您的意思是『觸』和『觸因』雖然沒有區別，但存在因果關係，那麼愛（Trsna，渴愛）和取（Upadana，執取）也應如此，為何要加以駁斥呢？ 如果說假法和實法在體相上有區別，這個理由也不成立。因為『觸』和『受』（Vedana，感受）等不同，它們在類別上並沒有區別。您說『觸』脫離了『觸因』，但它們不像『受』等那樣，在本體類別上有所區別，又怎麼能說它們的體相有區別呢？任何假法，都不能脫離其所依賴的假立基礎而存在，又依據什麼來區分它們的差異呢？ 或者就像六處（Sadayatana，六根）以『觸』為緣，但並不只是以同類為緣，而是以自身和他類都作為緣。然而，這其中並非沒有因果關係。同樣，說『愛』以『取』為緣，也應該承認不只是以同類為緣，而是以自身和他類都可以作為緣。而這其中並非沒有因果關係。 又比如，六處以名色（Namarupa，名色）為緣，雖然在體相上沒有區別，但存在因果關係。也像名色以識（Vijnana，了別）為緣，識的本體就包含在名色之中。前識和后識雖然沒有體相上的區別，但識和名色之間並非沒有因果關係。從『愛』產生『取』，情況也應該如此。所以，在緣起法中，體相上即使沒有區別，也存在因果關係。因此，說『取』包含在『愛』之中，也沒有什麼過失。所謂因果的體相必定不同，這種說法是沒有任何道理可以證明的。 爲了辨別生死相續的次第，必須說明因果的體相有所不同，如果體相沒有區別，又有什麼理由可以證明呢？如果認為因果的體相沒有區別，那麼所要教化的人就難以理解，這個理由也不能成立。為什麼呢？因為『愛』和『取』在意義和名稱上是有區別的，就像『識』等的名稱和意義與『名色』等不同。既然不說『愛』就是『愛』的『因』，又怎麼能說因為『愛』和『取』的因果關係難以區分，所以生死的相續次第就難以理解呢？分明說『愛』能產生『取』的果，這樣的因果關係難道難以理解嗎？ 就像您所宗派所說，名色以識為因，六處以名色為因，觸以六處為因，這些都不難理解。而且佛陀世尊親自…
【English Translation】 English version What you've said is all unreasonable. Your own school admits that 'Sparsha' (touch, feeling) is the 'cause of touch' (the reason for the arising of feeling), because they have a co-existing nature. But you don't admit that 'touch' and 'the cause of touch' have any difference. Or you should admit that 'touch' can exist independently of its 'cause'. If you mean that 'touch' and 'the cause of touch', although without difference, have a cause-and-effect relationship, then Trsna (craving, thirst) and Upadana (grasping, clinging) should be the same, why refute it? If you say that the phenomenal and the real have differences in their nature, this reason is also untenable. Because 'touch' and 'Vedana' (sensation, feeling) are different, they have no difference in category. You say that 'touch' is independent of 'the cause of touch', but they are not like 'Vedana' and so on, which have differences in their essential categories, so how can you say that their nature is different? Any phenomenal dharma cannot exist independently of the basis of its dependence, so what is the basis for distinguishing their differences? Or like the Sadayatana (six sense bases) which take 'touch' as a condition, but not only take the same kind as a condition, but also take themselves and other kinds as conditions. However, there is still a cause-and-effect relationship in this. Similarly, saying that 'craving' takes 'grasping' as a condition, it should also be admitted that it does not only take the same kind as a condition, but also takes itself and other kinds as conditions. And there is still a cause-and-effect relationship in this. Also, for example, the six sense bases take Namarupa (name and form) as a condition, although there is no difference in nature, there is a cause-and-effect relationship. Also like name and form taking Vijnana (consciousness, discrimination) as a condition, the essence of consciousness is included in name and form. Although the previous consciousness and the subsequent consciousness have no difference in nature, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between consciousness and name and form. The situation should be the same from 'craving' arising 'grasping'. Therefore, in dependent origination, even if there is no difference in nature, there is a cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with saying that 'grasping' is included in 'craving'. The so-called nature of cause and effect must be different, there is no reason to prove this statement. In order to distinguish the order of the continuity of birth and death, it is necessary to explain that the nature of cause and effect is different. If there is no difference in nature, what reason can prove it? If you think that the nature of cause and effect is not different, then it will be difficult for those who are to be taught to understand, this reason is also untenable. Why? Because 'craving' and 'grasping' are different in meaning and name, just like the names and meanings of 'consciousness' and so on are different from 'name and form' and so on. Since it is not said that 'craving' is the 'cause' of 'craving', how can it be said that because the cause-and-effect relationship between 'craving' and 'grasping' is difficult to distinguish, the order of the continuity of birth and death is difficult to understand? Clearly saying that 'craving' can produce the fruit of 'grasping', is such a cause-and-effect relationship difficult to understand? Just as your school says, name and form are caused by consciousness, the six sense bases are caused by name and form, and touch is caused by the six sense bases, these are not difficult to understand. And the Buddha, the World Honored One, personally...
演說故。謂契經說。若於受喜即名為取。取為有緣。乃至廣說。故取攝愛。其理極成。上座復言。此經非了義。或誦者失。別說對治故。彼謂此經非了義攝。世尊為令速斷滅故。于取因上。假說取聲。或應誦言。若於受喜。便能生取。所以者何。余處別說彼對治故以契經言。若能滅此。于諸受喜。以喜滅故。取亦隨滅。悲哉東土。聖教無依。如是不知了不了義。仍隨自樂。決判眾經。為立己宗。緣受生愛。及破他立取攝愛言。真了義經。判為不了。實可依者。執作非依非了義經。可名不了。勿不了義名了義經。若爾總無可依聖教。唯有無義。不可依言。是則便成壞聖法者。若取因愛。攝在取中。如取蘊因。攝在取蘊。如是取體。及與取因。二種皆以取聲而說。于令速斷。彌是勝緣。何所乖違。判非了義。又彼不可改本誦言。于教義中。無勝用故非本所誦。于聖教中。義有所闕。何煩輒改。又彼所引證此契經。非了義言。亦非誠證。謂因愛滅。果愛及余。亦隨滅故。薄伽梵說。若能滅此。于諸愛喜。以喜滅故。取亦隨滅。為顯一因有多果故。又何不信如是契經。由此經說。喜即名取。故余經言。以喜滅故。取亦隨滅。世尊為顯取所攝喜。即是取因。故作是說若作是說。彌令速斷。以于取中。攝多過故。又若余處分明顯說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 爲了說明這一點，可以引用佛經中的話：『如果對感受產生歡喜，就稱之為『取』（upādāna，執取）。』『取』是『有』（bhava，存在）的緣起。』等等，這些都充分說明了『取』包含了『愛』（taṇhā，渴愛）。 上座部（Theravāda）的論師又說：『這部經不是了義經（nītārtha sūtra，究竟意義的經典），或許是誦讀者弄錯了，因為它是爲了特別對治（parihāra，補救）而說的。』他們認為這部經不是了義經，世尊是爲了讓人迅速斷滅煩惱，才在『取』的因上，假借說了『取』這個名稱。或者應該這樣誦讀：『如果對感受產生歡喜，就能生起『取』。』為什麼呢？因為其他地方特別說明了對治的方法。』就像佛經里說的：『如果能滅除這種對感受的歡喜，因為歡喜滅除了，『取』也會隨之滅除。』 可悲啊，東土（指印度以外的地區，此處指當時的佛教傳播地）的佛教，沒有了真正的依靠。像這樣不明白了義和不了義（neyārtha，需要進一步解釋的經典）的區別，仍然隨自己的喜好，來判斷各種佛經，爲了建立自己的宗派。把『緣于感受生起愛』，以及破斥他人『取包含了愛』的說法，把真正的了義經，判斷為不了義經。把真正可以依靠的經典，執著為不可依靠的。非了義經，可以稱為不了義，但不要把不了義經稱爲了義經。如果這樣，那就完全沒有可以依靠的聖教了，只有沒有意義、不可依靠的言論。這樣就成了破壞聖法的人。 如果『取』的因——『愛』，包含在『取』之中，就像『取蘊』（upādānakkhandha，執取蘊）的因包含在『取蘊』之中一樣。這樣，『取』的本體，以及『取』的因，兩種都可以用『取』這個名稱來說明。對於讓人迅速斷滅煩惱，更是殊勝的因緣，有什麼衝突呢？為什麼要判斷為非了義經呢？ 而且，他們不可以隨意更改原本誦讀的經文，因為在教義上，沒有更好的用法。如果不是原本誦讀的經文，在聖教的意義上，有所欠缺，何必隨便更改呢？而且，他們所引用的證明這部經不是了義經的說法，也不是可靠的證明。因為『愛』滅除了，果『愛』以及其他的煩惱，也會隨之滅除。薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）說：『如果能滅除這種對感受的歡喜，因為歡喜滅除了，『取』也會隨之滅除。』這是爲了顯示一個因可以有多個果。 又為什麼不相信這樣的佛經呢？因為這部經說：『歡喜就稱之為『取』。』所以其他經里說：『因為歡喜滅除了，『取』也會隨之滅除。』世尊爲了顯示『取』所包含的歡喜，就是『取』的因，所以這樣說。如果這樣說，更能讓人迅速斷滅煩惱，因為在『取』之中，包含了更多的過患。而且，如果在其他地方分明地說明了這一點……
【English Translation】 English version: To illustrate this, we can quote the words from the sutras: 'If one generates delight in feeling, it is called 'grasping' (upādāna).' 'Grasping' is the condition for 'existence' (bhava).' And so on, which fully demonstrates that 'grasping' includes 'craving' (taṇhā). The Theravāda master further said: 'This sutra is not a definitive sutra (nītārtha sūtra), perhaps the reciter made a mistake, because it was said for special treatment (parihāra).' They believe that this sutra is not a definitive sutra, and the World Honored One (Bhagavān) spoke of the name 'grasping' on the cause of 'grasping' in order to quickly cut off afflictions. Or it should be recited like this: 'If one generates delight in feeling, then 'grasping' can arise.' Why? Because other places specifically explain the method of treatment.' Just like the sutra says: 'If one can extinguish this delight in feeling, because delight is extinguished, 'grasping' will also be extinguished.' Alas, Buddhism in the Eastern Land (referring to regions outside of India, here referring to the then-spread of Buddhism) has no true reliance. Like this, not understanding the difference between definitive (nītārtha) and non-definitive (neyārtha) sutras, still judging various sutras according to one's own preferences, in order to establish one's own sect. Taking 'craving arises from feeling', and refuting others' saying 'grasping includes craving', judging the true definitive sutras as non-definitive sutras. Clinging to the truly reliable sutras as unreliable. Non-definitive sutras can be called non-definitive, but do not call non-definitive sutras definitive. If so, then there is completely no reliable holy teaching, only meaningless and unreliable words. This would become a person who destroys the holy Dharma. If the cause of 'grasping' - 'craving' - is included in 'grasping', just like the cause of 'clinging-aggregates' (upādānakkhandha) is included in 'clinging-aggregates'. In this way, the essence of 'grasping', as well as the cause of 'grasping', both can be explained by the name 'grasping'. For making people quickly cut off afflictions, it is an even more excellent condition, what conflict is there? Why judge it as a non-definitive sutra? Moreover, they cannot arbitrarily change the original recited sutra, because in terms of doctrine, there is no better usage. If it is not the originally recited sutra, and there is a lack in the meaning of the holy teaching, why change it casually? Moreover, their citation to prove that this sutra is not a definitive sutra is also not a reliable proof. Because 'craving' is extinguished, the fruit 'craving' and other afflictions will also be extinguished. The World Honored One (Bhagavān) said: 'If one can extinguish this delight in feeling, because delight is extinguished, 'grasping' will also be extinguished.' This is to show that one cause can have multiple effects. And why not believe such sutras? Because this sutra says: 'Delight is called 'grasping'.' Therefore, other sutras say: 'Because delight is extinguished, 'grasping' will also be extinguished.' The World Honored One (Bhagavān) said this in order to show that the delight contained in 'grasping' is the cause of 'grasping'. If said in this way, it can make people cut off afflictions more quickly, because in 'grasping', there are more faults contained. Moreover, if this is clearly explained elsewhere...
。愛之與取。條然異類。可判此經。喜即名取。為不了義然無是說。仍有餘經。判愛即取謂世尊說。我當爲汝說順取法及諸取體。廣說乃至。云何為取體。謂此中欲貪。上座自言。若薄伽梵。自標自釋。是了義經。不可判斯為不了義。又薄伽梵。告諸苾芻。取非即五蘊。亦非離五蘊。然取即是此中欲貪。是故此經言喜即取。無容判是不了義經。又取攝愛。理定應爾。以諸煩惱皆業因故。如前際惑。皆謂無明。故契經言。取緣有者。是因煩惱。發諸業義。愛于發業。是最勝因。攝在取中。為緣發有。于理何失。而不信依。如前際緣起。說無明緣行。一切煩惱。皆能發業。是業因故。皆謂無明。故后際中。能發業惑。皆取所攝。其理極成。又彼所言。愛還因愛。如是展轉。便致無窮。理實無窮。于宗何失。謂許后愛因前愛生。前愛復因前前愛起。因無始故。理實無窮。此於我宗。是德非失。又彼所說。何所遍知。令愛息者。遍知自性故。及遍知因故。能令愛息。如是愛因。略有二種。一異類謂受。二同類謂愛。有何因證令愛止息。唯由遍知異類因受。非由遍知同類因愛。縱許愛息。唯由遍知。異類因受。豈能違愛。攝在取中。故說愛因亦取中攝。理無傾動。為得種種可意境界。周遍馳求。此位名取。取有四種。謂欲及見戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：愛和取，是截然不同的兩類事物。如果僅憑『喜即是取』就判定此經為不了義，這是沒有道理的。還有其他的經典，判定愛即是取，例如世尊說：『我應當為你們解說順取法以及各種取的本體。』 詳細解釋乃至，『什麼是取的本體？』 就是指此中的欲貪。上座自己說，如果薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）自己標舉自己解釋，這就是了義經，不可判定為不了義。而且，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）告訴各位苾芻（bhiksu，比丘）：『取不是五蘊（skandha）本身，也不是離開五蘊而存在，而是指此中的欲貪。』 因此，此經說『喜即是取』，不應判定為不了義經。而且，取包含愛，道理一定是這樣，因為各種煩惱都是業的因。如同前際的迷惑，都稱為無明（avidya）。所以契經說，『取緣有』，是指因為煩惱而引發各種業。愛對於引發業是最殊勝的因，包含在取中，作為緣而引發有，在道理上有什麼缺失呢？為什麼不相信並依據呢？如同前際的緣起，說無明緣行，一切煩惱都能引發業，因為是業的因，所以都稱為無明。因此，在後際中，能引發業的迷惑，都包含在取中，這個道理非常明確。而且他們所說，愛又因愛而生，這樣輾轉下去，就會導致無窮無盡。實際上就是無窮無盡，對於宗義有什麼缺失呢？就是承認後來的愛是因先前的愛而生，先前的愛又因更先前的愛而起，因為因是無始的，所以道理上就是無窮無盡。這對於我宗來說，是優點而不是缺點。而且他們所說，要遍知什麼，才能使愛止息呢？遍知自性，以及遍知因，才能使愛止息。像這樣，愛的因，大致有兩種：一種是異類，指受；一種是同類，指愛。有什麼樣的證據，能使愛止息，唯有通過遍知異類因——受，而不是通過遍知同類因——愛。縱然承認愛止息，唯有通過遍知異類因——受，難道就能違背愛包含在取中嗎？所以說愛的因也包含在取中，道理上沒有絲毫動搖。爲了得到各種可意的境界，周遍地馳求，這個階段叫做取。取有四種，即欲取、見取、戒禁取和...
【English Translation】 English version: Attachment and grasping are distinctly different categories. To judge this sutra as provisional (not definitive) based solely on 'joy is grasping' is unreasonable. There are other sutras that identify love as grasping, such as when the World Honored One (Bhagavan) said, 'I shall explain to you the methods of conforming to grasping and the essence of various graspings.' Elaborating further, 'What is the essence of grasping?' It refers to the desire and craving within this. The elder himself said, 'If the Bhagavan (World Honored One) himself introduces and explains, that is a definitive sutra, and it cannot be judged as provisional.' Moreover, the Bhagavan (World Honored One) told the bhiksus (monks), 'Grasping is not the five skandhas (aggregates) themselves, nor does it exist apart from the five skandhas; rather, it refers to the desire and craving within this.' Therefore, this sutra says 'joy is grasping,' and it should not be judged as a provisional sutra. Furthermore, grasping encompasses love; the principle must be so, because all afflictions are the cause of karma. Like the delusions of the past, all are called ignorance (avidya). Therefore, the sutra says, 'Conditioned by grasping, there is becoming,' which means that afflictions give rise to various karmas. Love is the most excellent cause for generating karma, and it is included within grasping, serving as a condition for becoming. What is wrong with this in terms of principle? Why not believe and rely on it? Just as in the arising of conditions in the past, it is said that ignorance conditions action; all afflictions can generate karma, and because they are the cause of karma, they are all called ignorance. Therefore, in the future, the delusions that can generate karma are all included within grasping; this principle is extremely clear. Moreover, what they say, that love arises from love, and so on in a cycle, leads to endlessness. In reality, it is endless; what is wrong with this in terms of doctrine? It is acknowledging that later love arises from earlier love, and earlier love arises from even earlier love; because the cause is beginningless, the principle is indeed endless. For our school, this is a virtue, not a flaw. Moreover, what they say, what must be thoroughly known in order to cease love? Thoroughly knowing the self-nature, as well as thoroughly knowing the cause, can cease love. Like this, the causes of love are roughly of two kinds: one is dissimilar, referring to feeling; the other is similar, referring to love. What kind of evidence can cause love to cease? Only through thoroughly knowing the dissimilar cause—feeling—not through thoroughly knowing the similar cause—love. Even if it is acknowledged that love ceases, only through thoroughly knowing the dissimilar cause—feeling—can it contradict the inclusion of love within grasping? Therefore, it is said that the cause of love is also included within grasping; the principle is unshaken. To seek and strive for various desirable realms, this stage is called grasping. There are four kinds of grasping: desire grasping, view grasping, precept and vow grasping, and...
禁我語取差別故。以能取故。說名為取。即諸煩惱。作相想業。謂欲界系煩惱隨煩惱。除見名欲取。如馬等車。三界四見。名為見取。彼戒禁取。名戒禁取。色無色界系。煩惱隨煩惱。唯除五見。名我語取。如是語取。隨眠品中。當廣分別。唯與上座。抉擇相應。此中略辯不立無明。為別取者。自力無明。不猛利故。非解性故。相應無明。他煩惱力。令能取故。由斯義故。不別立取。離余見立戒禁取者。于能集業力最勝故。由斯故說一戒禁取。于集業門力齊四見。由此一見。令業熾然。乖違聖道。遠離解脫。故戒禁取。別立取名。以諸取名錶依執義。雖煩惱類皆為依執。而此二取。依執義勝。故唯此二。俱得取名。以二於他最堅執故。然於此二。戒禁取強。如所蔽執熾然行故。由是離余。別立為取。四見皆以慧為性故。對余煩惱。依執義強。攝四簡余。立為見取。諸餘煩惱。定不定地。有差別故。不善無記。因差別故。立餘二取。我語之取。名我語取。是於我語。能執取義。此有我語。說為我語。是於此中。有我語義。此體是何。謂有情數。諸法聚集。於此我語。有能執著。名我語取。若爾一切煩惱。皆應名我語取。我宗許爾。為難唐捐。何故少分說我語取。為欲成立一切煩惱皆我語取。故說別名。謂以別名說餘三取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為執著于『我語』而產生差別，由於能夠執取，所以稱之為『取』，也就是各種煩惱。這些煩惱產生『相想業』（現象、概念和行為），指的是欲界所繫的煩惱和隨煩惱，除了『見』（錯誤的知見）之外，稱為『欲取』，就像馬和車一樣。三界中的四種『見』，稱為『見取』。那些關於戒律和禁制的錯誤執取，稱為『戒禁取』。色界和無色界所繫的煩惱和隨煩惱，除了五種『見』之外，稱為『我語取』。關於『我語取』，在《隨眠品》中會有詳細的分別解釋，只與上座部的抉擇相應。這裡簡略地辯論，不單獨設立『無明』為一種『取』，是因為無明自身的力量不夠強烈，不能作為解脫的障礙。而與無明相應的其他煩惱，藉助其他煩惱的力量，才能夠產生執取。因為這個原因，不單獨設立『取』。 將『戒禁取』從其他『見』中分離出來，是因為它在積聚業力方面最為強大。因此說，一個『戒禁取』在積聚業力方面的力量，等同於四種『見』。因為這種錯誤的知見，會使業力更加熾盛，違背聖道，遠離解脫，所以『戒禁取』單獨設立為一種『取』。各種『取』的名稱，都表示依賴和執著的含義。雖然各種煩惱都屬於依賴和執著，但『戒禁取』和『我語取』在依賴和執著方面的意義更為突出，所以只有這兩種『取』才能獲得『取』的名稱，因為這兩種『取』對於其他事物最為執著。然而，在這兩種『取』中，『戒禁取』更為強烈，因為它所矇蔽和執著的事物會熾盛地執行。因此，它從其他『取』中分離出來，單獨設立為一種『取』。四種『見』都以智慧為本質，相對於其他煩惱，在依賴和執著方面的意義更強，所以將四種『見』概括起來，排除其他煩惱，設立為『見取』。 其他的煩惱，在禪定的深淺程度上存在差別，善與不善、有記與無記的因果關係也存在差別，所以設立了其餘兩種『取』。『我語』的『取』，稱為『我語取』，是指對於『我語』能夠產生執取的意義。這裡所說的『我語』，是指存在『我』的語義。它的本體是什麼呢？是指有情眾生所聚集的各種法。對於這個『我語』，產生執著，就稱為『我語取』。如果這樣說，那麼一切煩惱都應該稱為『我語取』。我宗派承認這一點，所以這個提問是多餘的。為什麼只說少部分的煩惱是『我語取』呢？是爲了成立一切煩惱都是『我語取』，所以才說出這個特別的名稱。也就是說，用特別的名稱來說明其餘三種『取』。
【English Translation】 English version Because of attachment to 'I-speech' (我語, wǒ yǔ, the concept of 'I' and 'mine'), differences arise. Because of the ability to grasp, it is called 'grasping' (取, qǔ), which refers to various afflictions (煩惱, fán nǎo). These afflictions generate 'appearance-thought-action' (相想業, xiāng xiǎng yè, phenomena, concepts, and actions), referring to the afflictions and secondary afflictions associated with the desire realm (欲界, yù jiè). Except for 'views' (見, jiàn, wrong views), it is called 'desire-grasping' (欲取, yù qǔ), like horses and carts. The four 'views' in the three realms (三界, sān jiè) are called 'view-grasping' (見取, jiàn qǔ). Those erroneous attachments to precepts and prohibitions are called 'precept-and-prohibition-grasping' (戒禁取, jiè jìn qǔ). The afflictions and secondary afflictions associated with the form realm (色界, sè jiè) and formless realm (無色界, wú sè jiè), except for the five 'views', are called 'I-speech-grasping' (我語取, wǒ yǔ qǔ). Regarding 'I-speech-grasping', detailed distinctions will be explained in the Anusaya chapter (隨眠品, suí mián pǐn), corresponding only to the decisions of the Sthaviras (上座部, shàng zuò bù, Elders). Here, we briefly argue that 'ignorance' (無明, wú míng) is not separately established as a type of 'grasping' because ignorance itself is not strong enough and cannot be an obstacle to liberation. Other afflictions associated with ignorance, with the help of other afflictions, can generate grasping. For this reason, 'grasping' is not established separately. Separating 'precept-and-prohibition-grasping' from other 'views' is because it is the most powerful in accumulating karmic force. Therefore, it is said that one 'precept-and-prohibition-grasping' is equivalent to the power of the four 'views' in accumulating karmic force. Because this erroneous view intensifies karma, contradicts the holy path, and distances one from liberation, 'precept-and-prohibition-grasping' is separately established as a type of 'grasping'. The names of various 'graspings' all indicate the meaning of reliance and attachment. Although various afflictions belong to reliance and attachment, the meanings of reliance and attachment in 'precept-and-prohibition-grasping' and 'I-speech-grasping' are more prominent, so only these two 'graspings' can obtain the name 'grasping' because these two 'graspings' are most attached to other things. However, among these two 'graspings', 'precept-and-prohibition-grasping' is stronger because the things it obscures and clings to operate intensely. Therefore, it is separated from other 'graspings' and separately established as a type of 'grasping'. The four 'views' are all essentially wisdom, and their meaning of reliance and attachment is stronger than other afflictions, so the four 'views' are summarized, excluding other afflictions, and established as 'view-grasping'. Other afflictions have differences in the depth of meditation, and there are also differences in the causal relationships of good and bad, determinate and indeterminate, so the remaining two 'graspings' are established. The 'grasping' of 'I-speech' is called 'I-speech-grasping', which refers to the meaning of being able to grasp 'I-speech'. The 'I-speech' mentioned here refers to the existence of the semantics of 'I'. What is its substance? It refers to the various dharmas gathered by sentient beings. Attachment to this 'I-speech' is called 'I-speech-grasping'. If this is the case, then all afflictions should be called 'I-speech-grasping'. My school admits this, so this question is superfluous. Why are only a small portion of afflictions said to be 'I-speech-grasping'? It is to establish that all afflictions are 'I-speech-grasping', so this special name is given. That is, the special name is used to explain the remaining three 'graspings'.
。顯我語取。是立總名。如色處界。及如行蘊法念住等。于聖教中。多見此例。為總攝余所應說義。故於少分。安立總名。如初力無畏及法處界等。復有異門。釋我語取。謂依此故。能引我言。此即我見。名為我語。色無色纏。貪慢疑等。能令我見增長堅多。朋我語故。名我語取。是令我語能堅執義。或取能令我語盛義。非欲貪等亦得此名。唯定地惑。能於我語。極增盛中為近因故。非散地惑朋助我見令其增盛如定地惑。欲界有情。多游外境。令心散動。故此地惑。非令內緣我執增盛。是故不說為我語取。於此對法所立理中。寡學上座。謬興彈斥。如是所說。理不相應。聖教曾無如是說故。謂曾無有少聖教中以我語聲說上二界惑。彼所繫我見煩惱。及以取聲說彼余惑。又前後說。自相違故。謂對法中。自作是說。出家外道。于長夜中。執我有情。命者生者。及養育者。補特伽羅。彼尚不能記別無我。況能施設斷我語取。上座於此。畢竟無能顯對法宗。違於法性。但如歌末無義餘聲。言聖教曾無如是說故者。且問上座聖教是何。於三藏中。曾未聞有佛以法印決定印言。齊爾所來名為聖教。若謂聖教。是佛所言。寧知此言非佛所說。未見有一于佛所言。能決定知量邊際故。謂曾未見。有于佛語能達其邊。如何定言對法宗義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 顯現『我語』的『取』（upādāna，執取）。這是建立一個總的名稱，例如色處界（rūpa-āyatana-dhātu，色界、處、界），以及如行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha，行蘊）、法念住（dharma-smṛtyupasthāna，法念住）等。在聖教（ārya-śāsana，聖者的教導）中，經常見到這樣的例子，爲了總括其餘應該說的意義，所以在少部分上，安立總的名稱，例如初力（prathama-bala，初力）、無畏（vaiśāradya，無畏）以及法處界（dharma-āyatana-dhātu，法處界）等。 又有不同的解釋『我語取』的方法，即依靠它，能夠引生『我』的言論。這也就是『我見』（satkāya-dṛṣṭi，有身見），名為『我語』。色界（rūpa-dhātu，色界）、無色界（arūpa-dhātu，無色界）的煩惱，貪（rāga，貪）、慢（māna，慢）、疑（vicikitsā，疑）等，能夠使『我見』增長、堅固、眾多，作為『我語』的朋黨，所以名為『我語取』。這是使『我語』能夠堅固執著的意義。或者說，『取』能夠使『我語』興盛的意義。並非欲貪（kāma-rāga，欲貪）等也能得到這個名稱，只有禪定地的迷惑，對於『我語』的極度增盛，是近因的緣故。散地的迷惑，朋助『我見』，使其增盛，不如定地的迷惑。 欲界（kāma-dhātu，欲界）的有情，大多遊蕩于外境，使心散亂動搖，所以此地的迷惑，不能使內在的緣——『我執』增盛，因此不說它是『我語取』。對於此《對法》（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩）所建立的道理中，寡學的上座（長老），錯誤地興起彈劾，這樣所說的，道理不相應，聖教中從未有這樣的說法。 說從未有任何聖教中，以『我語』的聲音，說上二界（指色界和無色界）的迷惑，他們所繫縛的『我見』煩惱，以及以『取』的聲音，說他們的其餘迷惑。又前後所說，自相矛盾。因為《對法》中，自己這樣說：出家外道，于長夜中，執著『我有情』、『命者』、『生者』，以及『養育者』，『補特伽羅』（pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『個體』）。他們尚且不能記別『無我』，何況能夠施設斷除『我語取』？上座對於此，畢竟不能顯明《對法》的宗旨，違背了法性，但如同歌唱的結尾，沒有意義的剩餘聲音。 說『聖教中從未有這樣的說法』，且問上座，『聖教』是什麼？在三藏（tripiṭaka，三藏）中，從未聽聞有佛以法印（dharma-mudrā，法印）決定印證說，到此為止叫做『聖教』。如果說『聖教』是佛所說的話，怎麼知道這句話不是佛所說的呢？未曾見過有人對於佛所說的話，能夠決定知道它的量和邊際。說未曾見過有人對於佛語能夠通達它的邊際，如何能斷定《對法》的宗旨呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Manifesting 『I-utterance』 with 『grasping』 (upādāna). This establishes a general term, such as the realm of color-sphere-element (rūpa-āyatana-dhātu), and like the aggregates of formations (saṃskāra-skandha), the mindfulness of dharma (dharma-smṛtyupasthāna), etc. In the Noble Teaching (ārya-śāsana), such examples are frequently seen. For the purpose of encompassing the remaining meanings that should be spoken, a general term is established for a small part, such as the initial power (prathama-bala), fearlessness (vaiśāradya), and the realm of dharma-sphere-element (dharma-āyatana-dhātu), etc. There is another way to explain 『grasping of I-utterance,』 which is that by relying on it, one can generate the speech of 『I.』 This is the 『view of self』 (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), called 『I-utterance.』 The afflictions of the Form Realm (rūpa-dhātu) and Formless Realm (arūpa-dhātu), such as greed (rāga), pride (māna), doubt (vicikitsā), etc., can cause the 『view of self』 to increase, become firm, and numerous, acting as allies of 『I-utterance,』 hence it is called 『grasping of I-utterance.』 This is the meaning of making 『I-utterance』 able to be firmly grasped. Or, 『grasping』 has the meaning of making 『I-utterance』 flourish. It is not that desire-greed (kāma-rāga), etc., can also obtain this name; only the delusions of the meditative grounds are the proximate cause for the extreme flourishing of 『I-utterance.』 The delusions of the scattered grounds assist the 『view of self,』 causing it to increase, but not as much as the delusions of the meditative grounds. Beings in the Desire Realm (kāma-dhātu) mostly wander in external objects, causing the mind to be scattered and agitated. Therefore, the delusions of this realm cannot cause the internal condition—『self-grasping』—to increase, so it is not said to be 『grasping of I-utterance.』 Regarding the principles established in this Abhidharma, a poorly learned elder (上座) mistakenly raises criticisms, saying that what is said is not in accordance with reason, and that there has never been such a statement in the Noble Teaching. It is said that there has never been any Noble Teaching that uses the sound of 『I-utterance』 to speak of the delusions of the upper two realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm), the afflictions of 『view of self』 that they are bound to, and uses the sound of 『grasping』 to speak of their remaining delusions. Moreover, what is said before and after contradicts itself. Because in the Abhidharma, it is said: Ascetics of other religions, for a long night, cling to 『I have a sentient being,』 『a life,』 『a birth,』 and 『a nourisher,』 『pudgala』 (補特伽羅, meaning 『person』 or 『individual』). They are not even able to distinguish 『no-self,』 how much less are they able to establish the cutting off of 『grasping of I-utterance』? The elder is ultimately unable to clarify the tenets of the Abhidharma, contradicting the nature of dharma, but like the end of a song, a meaningless remaining sound. Saying 『there has never been such a statement in the Noble Teaching,』 let the elder be asked, what is the 『Noble Teaching』? In the Tripiṭaka (三藏), it has never been heard that the Buddha used the Dharma Seal (dharma-mudrā) to definitively seal and say, 『Up to this point is called the Noble Teaching.』 If it is said that the 『Noble Teaching』 is what the Buddha said, how do you know that this statement was not said by the Buddha? It has never been seen that anyone can definitively know the measure and boundary of what the Buddha said. Saying that it has never been seen that anyone can understand the boundary of the Buddha's words, how can one determine the tenets of the Abhidharma?
。非聖教說。上座於此。乍可斥言。此所釋理。違於法性。不應總撥。聖教中無。世尊每言。諸有所說。順法性理。堪為定量。如契經說。隨順契經。顯毗柰耶。不違法性。如是所說。方可為依。阿毗達磨。既名總攝。不違一切聖教理言。故所釋理。無違法性。然佛世尊。亦嘗稱讚。非契佛意符正理言。如契經言。汝等所說。雖非我本意而所說。皆善符正理故。皆可受持。若聖教中。現無說處。言非量者。有太過失。謂聖教中。何處顯了定說。樹等皆無有命。定說諸行皆剎那滅。定說瓶等非別實有。定說過去非未來為因。定說有情非本無今有。又佛世尊。曾於何處。定釋密說殺父等言。謂有漏業。名為父等。又自所執。舊隨界等。佛於何處。曾說此言。設為證成。引相似教。非正顯故。可作余釋。由是所言。無經說故。便非有者。非決定因。又阿難陀。尚不應說如是釋理。全無說處。況彼上座。于聖教中。少分受持。便應定判。故嗢怛羅契經中說。天帝釋白嗢怛羅言。我今遍觀贍部洲內。諸佛弟子。無能受持如是法門。唯除大德。是故大德。應自正勤持此法門。無令忘失。世尊自說此法門故。由是比知。今亦無有于佛聖教能具受持。佛初涅槃。及正住世。阿難陀等聞持海人。尚不遍知佛語邊際。況今得有能遍知人。故
上座說。謂曾無有少聖教中以我語聲說上界等。此欲顯已知聖教邊。于自所知。增益之甚。然契經說。取為有緣一切煩惱。皆能發業。故取應攝一切煩惱。應具攝理。已如前說。此與理教。無片相違。故知經中定有說處。是故憎揹他宗善說。茍欲成立自所宗承。如是未為順聖教理。毀他成已。豈曰仁師。有智學徒。皆依對法。采正理食。以增慧命。飲濯如是善說清流。諸所愿求。無不成辦。自無凈信。又闕多聞越路而行。誹毀正法。顯已有濫外道異生。豈謂自障稟賢聖法。豈不此釋違于聖教。如世尊告諸苾芻言。汝等昔時。執我語取。為常恒住不變易法。謂正住耶。實爾世尊。乃至廣說。此中意說。于內法中。執取為我。名我語取。故對法釋。違此契經。此亦不然。迷經義故。且應審察。為依我見。問諸苾芻。汝等昔時。執我語取。為常恒等。為依所取我語事耶。我見且無。常恒等相。亦無有執。謂常恒等。如何世尊問苾芻眾。汝等昔時。執我語取。為常恒等。謂正住耶。苾芻云何。答言實爾。故應但約所執取事為常等問。此意假說所取我語。名我語取。或應誦言。汝等昔時。由我語取。執常恒等。謂正住耶。或復應言。汝等昔時。執我語體。為常恒住。乃至廣說。雖為此釋。非意所存。理實但應所取名取。若謂此釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 上座部論師說：『從來沒有在任何聖教中，用我的聲音宣說上界等。』 這想表明他們已經瞭解聖教的邊緣，對於自己所知的，增益得太過分了。然而，契經上說，『執取』是產生一切煩惱的根源，一切煩惱都能引發業。所以，『取』應該涵蓋一切煩惱，應該具備完整的道理，這已在前面說過了。這與道理和教義，沒有絲毫相違背。所以，要知道經典中一定有說到這個地方。因此，憎恨、背離其他宗派的善說，只想成立自己的宗派傳承，這樣並沒有順應聖教的道理。詆譭他人來成就自己，怎麼能說是仁慈的導師呢？有智慧的學徒，都依據對法（Abhidharma，論藏），採納正確的道理作為食物，來增長智慧的生命，飲用、洗滌像這樣善說的清流，各種願望和需求，沒有不能成就的。自己沒有清凈的信心，又缺少廣博的見聞，越過正路而行，誹謗正確的佛法，這表明已經有了濫竽充數的外道異生的行為。怎麼能說自己能接受賢聖的佛法呢？難道這種解釋沒有違背聖教嗎？就像世尊告訴諸位比丘說：『你們過去，執著我的言語，認為是常恒、住不變易的法，認為是正確的嗎？』 比丘們回答說：『確實是這樣，世尊。』 乃至廣說。這裡的意思是說，對於內法（指佛教的教義）中，執取為『我』，叫做『我語取』。所以，對法的解釋，違背了這個契經。這種說法也是不對的，因為迷惑了經文的意義。應該仔細審查，是依據我見（Satkayadristi，薩迦耶見），問諸位比丘：『你們過去，執著我的言語，認為是常恒等嗎？』 還是依據所執取的『我語』這件事呢？我見本來就沒有常恒等的相狀，也沒有執著，認為是常恒等。世尊怎麼會問比丘眾：『你們過去，執著我的言語，認為是常恒等嗎？』 認為是正確的嗎？』 比丘們又怎麼會回答說『確實是這樣』呢？所以，應該只是就所執取的事物，問是不是常等。這裡的意思是假借所執取的『我語』，稱作『我語取』。或者應該誦讀為：『你們過去，由於我語取，執著常恒等，認為是正確的嗎？』 或者又應該說：『你們過去，執著我語的本體，認為是常恒住，』 乃至廣說。雖然這樣解釋，不是我所贊同的。道理上確實應該把所取的東西叫做『取』。如果說這種解釋
【English Translation】 English version: The elder said: 'There has never been any saying in the holy teachings, using my voice, about the upper realms, etc.' This intends to show that they have understood the edge of the holy teachings, and they have excessively augmented what they know. However, the sutras say that 'grasping' is the root of all afflictions, and all afflictions can initiate karma. Therefore, 'grasping' should encompass all afflictions and should possess complete reasoning, as has been said before. This does not contradict reason and doctrine in the slightest. Therefore, one should know that there must be a place in the scriptures that speaks of this. Therefore, hating and turning away from the good sayings of other schools, only wanting to establish one's own school's tradition, is not in accordance with the principles of the holy teachings. How can one who slanders others to achieve oneself be called a benevolent teacher? Wise students all rely on Abhidharma (對法，論藏), adopting correct reasoning as food to increase the life of wisdom, drinking and washing in the clear stream of such good sayings, and all wishes and requests will be fulfilled. If one does not have pure faith and lacks extensive learning, walking off the right path and slandering the correct Dharma, this shows that one already has the behavior of a sham heterodox outsider. How can one say that one can receive the Dharma of the wise and holy? Does this explanation not contradict the holy teachings? Just as the World Honored One told the monks: 'In the past, you were attached to my words, thinking they were constant, permanent, and unchanging, thinking it was correct?' The monks replied: 'Indeed, World Honored One.' And so on. The meaning here is that, in the inner Dharma (內法，指佛教的教義), grasping as 'I' is called 'grasping my words'. Therefore, the explanation of Abhidharma contradicts this sutra. This statement is also incorrect because it is confused about the meaning of the sutra. One should carefully examine whether it is based on the view of self (Satkayadristi，薩迦耶見), asking the monks: 'In the past, you were attached to my words, thinking they were constant, etc.?' Or is it based on the matter of the 'my words' that were grasped? The view of self originally does not have the characteristics of constancy, etc., and there is no attachment, thinking it is constant, etc. How could the World Honored One ask the monks: 'In the past, you were attached to my words, thinking they were constant, etc., thinking it was correct?' And how could the monks answer 'Indeed'? Therefore, one should only ask about the things that were grasped, whether they are constant, etc. The meaning here is to borrow the 'my words' that were grasped, calling it 'grasping my words'. Or it should be recited as: 'In the past, because of grasping my words, you were attached to constancy, etc., thinking it was correct?' Or it should be said: 'In the past, you were attached to the essence of my words, thinking it was constant and abiding,' and so on. Although this explanation is not what I agree with. In principle, the things that are grasped should indeed be called 'grasping'. If one says this explanation
理不應然。于能作用中。多置屢吒故。如是所引。理不定然。于業差別中。亦有屢吒故。如是經義。證對法宗。釋我語取。義更明瞭。謂我語者。是說我言。世共于中說此為我。此有我語。得我語名。我語能為取依著處。故亦得說為我語取。此體是何。謂五取蘊。世于取蘊。起我有情命者等想。故契經說。諸有沙門。或婆羅門。乃至廣說。此意則說。汝等昔時。執五取蘊。為常恒住。乃至廣說。故所引經。所說取義。不能決定。證彼所執。亦不能遮。諸對法者。如前所辯。我語取相。然彼具壽。引此契經。但能顯已誦文迷義。言前後說自相違者。此宗前後。都不相違。于對法文。不了義意。隨已謬解。謂有相違。由彼出家諸外道類。不了取義。唯聞取名。但隨取名。自稱我等。說斷三取。唯除第四。所以者何。彼諸外道。謂我語取。即所取我。然彼計我。是常恒住不變易法。體不可斷。又於我斷彼生大怖。故不施設斷我語取。此意說言。彼若真實善解取義。於我語取。亦應施設能斷少分。以于取義不善了知。唯聞取名。妄推實義。故除第四。言唯斷三。亦如今時一譬喻者。不應立義而強立之。應立義中而倒不立。又彼依自所執取門。施設斷三。非我語取。然彼所執。取體不同。且欲取中。有言體是諸妙欲境。有謂淫貪
【現代漢語翻譯】 理不應然：這種說法在道理上是不應該成立的。因為在能產生作用的事物中，常常存在『屢吒』（Luta，障礙、過失）的因素，所以這樣推導出的結論，在道理上是不確定的。在業的差別中，也存在『屢吒』的因素。因此，這樣的經文含義，對於『對法』（Abhidharma，論藏）宗派來說，解釋『我語取』（Atmagraha，我語執取）的意義更加明確。所謂『我語』，是指人們常說的『我』這個概念。世俗之人通常會說『這是我』，『這裡有我的東西』，從而得到『我語』這個名稱。『我語』能夠成為執取和依戀的對象，所以也可以說是『我語取』。那麼，『我語取』的本體是什麼呢？就是『五取蘊』（Panca-upadanakkhandha，五種執取蘊）。世俗之人對於『五取蘊』，會產生『我』、『有情』、『命者』等等的錯誤想法。所以契經中說，『諸有沙門，或婆羅門，乃至廣說』，其意思就是說，你們過去執著『五取蘊』，認為是常恒不變的，等等。因此，所引用的經文，所說的『取』的意義，不能夠確定地證明他們的執著，也不能夠否定『對法』學者的觀點，正如前面所辯論的『我語取』的相狀。然而，這位具壽（Bhikkhu，比丘）引用這段契經，只是顯示了他誦讀經文卻迷惑于經文的意義。說前後說法自相矛盾，實際上這個宗派前後並不矛盾。因為對於『對法』經文的不瞭解，隨意地錯誤理解，才認為有矛盾。由於那些出家的外道，不瞭解『取』的意義，只是聽到『取』這個名稱，就隨便地根據『取』這個名稱，自稱我們說斷除三種『取』，唯獨不包括第四種。為什麼呢？因為那些外道認為『我語取』就是所執取的『我』。然而他們所認為的『我』，是常恒不變的法，本體是不可斷滅的。而且如果斷滅了『我』，他們會感到非常恐懼，所以他們不設立斷滅『我語取』的說法。這說明，如果他們真的能夠很好地理解『取』的意義，那麼對於『我語取』，也應該設立能夠斷滅一部分的說法。因為對於『取』的意義不善於瞭解，只是聽到『取』這個名稱，就胡亂地推測它的真實意義，所以才除去了第四種『取』，只說斷滅三種『取』。就像現在用一個比喻來說明，不應該設立意義的地方卻強行設立，應該設立意義的地方卻反而不設立。而且他們是依據自己所執著的『取』的門徑，來設立斷滅三種『取』的說法，而不是『我語取』。然而他們所執著的『取』的本體是不同的。比如在『欲取』（Kama-upadana，欲執取）中，有人說它的本體是各種美妙的慾望境界，有人說是淫慾貪愛。
【English Translation】 理不應然 (Lǐ bù yìng rán): This statement should not be established in reason. Because in things that can produce effects, there are often 'Luta' (屢吒, obstacles, faults) factors, so the conclusions derived in this way are uncertain in reason. In the differences of karma, there are also 'Luta' factors. Therefore, the meaning of such scriptures, for the 'Abhidharma' (對法, theory store) school, explains the meaning of 'Atmagraha' (我語取, self-speech grasping) more clearly. The so-called 'self-speech' refers to the concept of 'I' that people often say. Ordinary people usually say 'This is me', 'Here are my things', thus obtaining the name 'self-speech'. 'Self-speech' can become the object of grasping and attachment, so it can also be said to be 'self-speech grasping'. So, what is the substance of 'self-speech grasping'? It is the 'Five Aggregates of Grasping' (五取蘊, Panca-upadanakkhandha). Ordinary people will have wrong ideas about the 'Five Aggregates of Grasping', such as 'I', 'sentient beings', 'life-givers', etc. Therefore, the scripture says, 'All Shramanas, or Brahmins, and so on', which means that you used to cling to the 'Five Aggregates of Grasping', thinking that they were constant and unchanging, and so on. Therefore, the meaning of 'grasping' in the cited scripture cannot definitively prove their clinging, nor can it deny the views of 'Abhidharma' scholars, just as the characteristics of 'self-speech grasping' were debated earlier. However, this Bhikkhu (具壽, monk) quoted this scripture only to show that he recited the scripture but was confused by its meaning. Saying that the statements before and after contradict each other, in fact, this school is not contradictory before and after. Because of the lack of understanding of the 'Abhidharma' scriptures, arbitrarily misunderstanding, it is considered that there are contradictions. Because those externalists who have left home do not understand the meaning of 'grasping', they only hear the name 'grasping', and then casually according to the name 'grasping', they claim that we say to cut off the three 'graspings', except for the fourth. Why? Because those externalists think that 'self-speech grasping' is the 'I' that is grasped. However, the 'I' they think is a constant and unchanging dharma, and its substance cannot be cut off. And if the 'I' is cut off, they will feel very scared, so they do not establish the saying of cutting off 'self-speech grasping'. This shows that if they can really understand the meaning of 'grasping' well, then for 'self-speech grasping', they should also establish the saying that a part can be cut off. Because they are not good at understanding the meaning of 'grasping', they only hear the name 'grasping', and then recklessly speculate on its true meaning, so they remove the fourth 'grasping' and only say to cut off the three 'graspings'. It's like using a metaphor now to illustrate that you shouldn't set up meanings where you shouldn't, but you don't set up meanings where you should. Moreover, they are based on their own clinging to the path of 'grasping' to establish the saying of cutting off the three 'graspings', not 'self-speech grasping'. However, the substance of the 'grasping' they cling to is different. For example, in 'desire grasping' (欲取, Kama-upadana), some say that its substance is all kinds of wonderful desire realms, and some say it is lustful greed.
。他宗戒禁。名戒禁取。他宗諸見。名為見取。於我見中。執為正智。故不建立我語取名。故說斷三。非我語取。故諸外道。有作是言。如彼大師。可敬可愛。我師亦爾。如彼大師。於法究竟。我師亦爾。如彼法侶。互相敬愛。我等亦爾。如彼于戒圓滿護持。我等亦爾。如彼施設。能斷諸取。我等亦爾。彼與我等。有何差別。故我宗義。前後無違。上座如何安立諸取彼言欲取。于契經中。世尊分明親自開示。如有請問。欲者謂何。世尊答言。謂五妙欲。然非妙欲即是欲體。此中欲貪。說名為欲。又世尊勸依了義經。此了義經。不應異釋。我今於此。見如是意。謂由愛力。五妙欲中。欲貪生故。而有所取。是名欲取。經與彼義。都不相應。謂此經中。都不依彼所執欲取而興問答又經所說。亦不乖違。我對法宗所說欲義。我等亦說。五妙欲中。所有欲貪。是真欲故。又彼引此。竟何所成。世尊於此中。非辯欲取故。又此所引。非了義經。復應觀察別意趣故。謂經后句。世尊自遮。言非妙欲即是欲體。有何密意。於前句中。正答問言。謂五妙欲。若更有別意。而名了義經。更無別意者。應名不了義。則了不了義應無定建立。又何意說。五妙欲中。欲貪生故。而有所取。是名欲取。為執欲貪。為執妙欲。名為欲取。除此二種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 其他宗派的戒律和禁制，被稱為『戒禁取』。其他宗派的各種見解，被稱為『見取』。在『我見』中，執著於它是真正的智慧，所以不建立『我語取』這個名稱。因此說斷除三種取，而不是『我語取』。所以那些外道會這樣說：『像那位大師一樣，值得尊敬和愛戴，我的老師也是這樣。像那位大師一樣，對於佛法究竟通達，我的老師也是這樣。像他們的法侶一樣，互相尊敬愛護，我們也是這樣。像他們一樣，對於戒律圓滿地守護和堅持，我們也是這樣。像他們所施設的教法一樣，能夠斷除各種執取，我們也是這樣。他們和我們有什麼差別呢？』所以我的宗義，前後沒有矛盾。上座您如何安立這些『取』呢？ 他們說：『欲取（kāma-upādāna）』，在契經中，世尊（Bhagavan）分明親自開示。如果有人請問，『欲』指的是什麼？世尊回答說：『指的是五妙欲（pañca kāmaguṇā）。』然而，並非妙欲本身就是『欲』的本體，這裡所說的『欲貪』，才被稱為『欲』。而且世尊勸導我們依止了義經（nītārtha sūtra）。這部了義經，不應該用不同的方式解釋。我現在對此的理解是，由於愛慾的力量，在五妙欲中，欲貪產生，因此而有所執取，這叫做『欲取』。經文與他們的意思，完全不相應。因為這部經中，根本沒有依據他們所執著的『欲取』而進行問答。而且經文所說的，也沒有違揹我對法宗（Abhidharma）所說的『欲』的含義。我們也是說，在五妙欲中，所有的欲貪，才是真正的『欲』。而且他們引用這些，究竟能說明什麼呢？世尊在這裡，並非在辨析『欲取』。而且這裡所引用的，並非了義經，還應該觀察其他的意趣。也就是說，經文的后一句，世尊自己遮止說，『並非妙欲本身就是「欲」的本體』，這有什麼密意呢？在前一句中，正確地回答了提問，說『指的是五妙欲』。如果還有其他的含義，才能稱為『了義經』，如果沒有其他的含義，就應該稱為『不了義經』，那麼了義經和不了義經的建立就應該沒有定準了。 又是什麼意思說，在五妙欲中，欲貪生起，因此而有所取，這叫做『欲取』。是執著欲貪，還是執著妙欲，才叫做『欲取』？除了這兩種，
【English Translation】 English version The precepts and prohibitions of other sects are called 'śīlavrata-upādāna' (戒禁取, adherence to rules and vows). The various views of other sects are called 'dṛṣṭi-upādāna' (見取, adherence to views). In 'ātma-dṛṣṭi' (我見, self-view), clinging to it as true wisdom, therefore, the name 'ātma-vāda-upādāna' (我語取, adherence to the doctrine of self) is not established. Therefore, it is said to abandon the three upādānas (取, clingings), not 'ātma-vāda-upādāna'. So those non-Buddhists say: 'Like that master, worthy of respect and love, so is my teacher. Like that master, ultimately understanding the Dharma, so is my teacher. Like their Dharma companions, respecting and loving each other, so are we. Like them, perfectly upholding and maintaining the precepts, so are we. Like their teachings, able to cut off all clingings, so are we. What is the difference between them and us?' Therefore, my doctrine is consistent from beginning to end. How do you, venerable sir, establish these upādānas? They say: 'kāma-upādāna' (欲取, adherence to sensual pleasures), in the sūtras, the Bhagavan (世尊, the Blessed One) clearly and personally revealed. If someone asks, 'What is kāma (欲, sensual pleasure)?' The Bhagavan answers: 'It refers to the pañca kāmaguṇā (五妙欲, five strands of sensual pleasure).' However, the five strands of sensual pleasure themselves are not the essence of kāma; it is the kāma-rāga (欲貪, sensual desire) that is called kāma here. Moreover, the Bhagavan advises us to rely on the nītārtha sūtras (了義經, sūtras of definitive meaning). These nītārtha sūtras should not be interpreted in different ways. My understanding of this is that, due to the power of desire, kāma-rāga arises in the five strands of sensual pleasure, and therefore there is clinging, which is called 'kāma-upādāna'. The sūtra does not correspond to their meaning at all. Because in this sūtra, there is no question and answer based on their clinging to 'kāma-upādāna'. Moreover, what the sūtra says does not contradict the meaning of 'kāma' as explained by my Abhidharma (我對法宗, Abhidharma) school. We also say that, among the five strands of sensual pleasure, all kāma-rāga is the true kāma. Moreover, what can they prove by quoting these? The Bhagavan is not analyzing 'kāma-upādāna' here. Moreover, what is quoted here is not a nītārtha sūtra; other intentions should also be observed. That is to say, in the last sentence of the sūtra, the Bhagavan himself prevents saying, 'The five strands of sensual pleasure themselves are not the essence of kāma', what is the hidden meaning of this? In the previous sentence, the question is answered correctly, saying 'It refers to the five strands of sensual pleasure'. If there are other meanings, it can be called a 'nītārtha sūtra'; if there are no other meanings, it should be called a 'neyārtha sūtra' (不了義經, sūtra of provisional meaning), then the establishment of nītārtha and neyārtha sūtras should have no fixed standard. What does it mean to say that, among the five strands of sensual pleasure, kāma-rāga arises, and therefore there is clinging, which is called 'kāma-upādāna'? Is it clinging to kāma-rāga or clinging to the five strands of sensual pleasure that is called 'kāma-upādāna'? Apart from these two,
更作余執。則無所依。且彼所宗。取不攝愛。不應欲取體是欲貪。或彼前後自相違害。若執妙欲名欲取者。豈非煩惱能為業因。又取不應緣愛而起。唯應許愛緣取而生。彼上座言。取非二種。但于妙欲。欲貪生故。執而不捨。說名欲取。巧為如是響像言詞。惑亂東方愚信族類。何名為執。何名不捨。豈不于彼五妙欲中有欲貪生。即名為執。耽著不棄。即名不捨。故先說彼不應立義。而強立之。應立義中而倒不立言成無謬。或彼應辯執不捨相。非即前二而名欲取。彼言見取。即是五見。謂愛力故。執而不捨。故契經說。由有彼故。應知是諸沙門梵志成不聰睿。墮無明趣。愛廣滋長。彼謂諸見。由愛勢力。種種熾盛。名廣滋長。如是所說。前後相違。不了經義。引之無益。如何彼說前後相違。謂能執故。說名為執。如是執體。即是五見。彼即不棄。故名不捨。是謂後言違於前說。謂彼前說。于內法中。執取為我。名我語取。或我語取。見取所收。無別性故。應唯三取。理不應許。取體相雜。如何說彼不了經義。謂經但言愛廣滋長。如何知說。是由愛力。種種熾盛。名廣滋長。非由見力愛滋長耶。我於此中。見如是義。謂由見力。愛廣滋長。由彼經言。沙門梵志。依前際執。說常住論。言我世間皆悉是常。於四事中。而興諍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 更進一步地，如果認為『取』是另一種執著，那麼就沒有任何依據了。而且他們所宗奉的理論，認為『取』不包含愛，那麼就不應該說『欲取』的本體是『欲貪』（對於妙欲的貪愛）。或者他們的前後說法自相矛盾。如果認為對美妙的慾望的執著叫做『欲取』，那麼難道不是說煩惱能夠成為產生業的原因嗎？而且，『取』不應該緣于愛而生起，而應該承認愛是緣于『取』而產生的。那些上座部的人說，『取』不是兩種，只是對於美妙的慾望，因為產生了欲貪，所以執著而不放舍，這叫做『欲取』。這是巧妙地用一些空洞的言辭，迷惑東方那些容易輕信的人們。 什麼叫做『執』？什麼叫做『不捨』？難道不是對於那五種美妙的慾望，心中生起了欲貪，就叫做『執』嗎？貪戀執著而不放棄，就叫做『不捨』嗎？所以，先前說他們不應該建立這樣的定義，卻強行建立。應該建立的定義，卻顛倒過來不建立，這怎麼能說是沒有錯誤的呢？或者他們應該辨別『執』和『不捨』的相狀，而不是把前面兩種合起來叫做『欲取』。 他們說，『見取』就是五種邪見（身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）。因為愛的力量，執著而不放舍。所以契經上說，由於有這些邪見，應當知道這些沙門（出家修行者）和梵志（婆羅門修行者）變得不聰明，墮入無明的境地，愛因此而廣泛滋長。他們認為，各種邪見由於愛的勢力，種種熾盛，叫做廣泛滋長。像這樣所說的，前後是互相矛盾的，不瞭解經文的含義，引用經文也沒有用處。 為什麼說他們的說法前後矛盾呢？因為他們說，能夠執著，所以叫做『執』。像這樣的『執』的本體，就是五種邪見。他們又說，不放棄這些邪見，所以叫做『不捨』。這後面的說法就違背了前面的說法。因為他們前面說，在內在的法中，執著于『我』，叫做『我語取』。或者『我語取』被『見取』所包含，沒有區別，所以應該只有三種『取』（欲取、見取、戒禁取），道理上不應該允許『取』的本體是混雜的。 怎麼能說他們不瞭解經文的含義呢？因為經文只是說愛廣泛滋長，怎麼知道說的是由於愛的力量，種種熾盛，叫做廣泛滋長呢？難道不是由於邪見的力量，愛才滋長的嗎？我在這裡看到這樣的含義，就是由於邪見的力量，愛才廣泛滋長。因為那部經上說，沙門和梵志，依據對過去的執著，宣說常住的理論，說『我和世間都是常住不變的』，在四件事情（世間常、世間無常、世間亦常亦無常、世間非常非無常）中，而興起爭論。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, if 『grasping』 (upadana) is considered another form of clinging, then there is no basis for it. Moreover, their doctrine holds that 『grasping』 does not include attachment (love), so it should not be said that the essence of 『sense-desire grasping』 (kama-upadana) is 『sense-desire attachment』 (kama-tanha, craving for sensual pleasures). Or their statements are self-contradictory. If holding onto delightful desires is called 『sense-desire grasping,』 then isn't it saying that afflictions can be the cause of karma? Also, 『grasping』 should not arise from attachment; rather, attachment should be acknowledged as arising from 『grasping.』 Those Theravadins say that 『grasping』 is not of two kinds; it is only with regard to delightful desires that attachment arises, and holding onto them without letting go is called 『sense-desire grasping.』 This is cleverly using empty words to confuse the foolish and credulous people of the East. What is called 『holding』 (grasping)? What is called 『not letting go』 (non-abandoning)? Isn't it that when attachment arises towards those five delightful desires, it is called 『holding』? Being attached and not abandoning is called 『not letting go』? Therefore, it was said earlier that they should not establish such a definition, yet they forcibly establish it. They invert what should be established and do not establish it; how can this be said to be without error? Or they should distinguish the characteristics of 『holding』 and 『not letting go,』 rather than combining the previous two and calling it 『sense-desire grasping.』 They say that 『view grasping』 (ditthi-upadana) is the five wrong views (self-view, extreme view, wrong view, view of holding to views, view of holding to precepts). Because of the power of attachment, they hold on without letting go. Therefore, the sutras say that because of these wrong views, it should be known that these ascetics (sramanas) and brahmins become unwise, fall into the realm of ignorance, and attachment grows extensively. They believe that various wrong views, due to the power of attachment, become intensely strong, which is called extensive growth. What they say is self-contradictory, not understanding the meaning of the sutras, and quoting them is useless. Why is it said that their statements are self-contradictory? Because they say that being able to hold on is called 『holding.』 The essence of such 『holding』 is the five wrong views. They also say that not abandoning these wrong views is called 『not letting go.』 This later statement contradicts the earlier statement. Because they said earlier that holding onto 『self』 in internal phenomena is called 『self-view grasping』 (atta-vada-upadana). Or 『self-view grasping』 is included in 『view grasping,』 having no distinction, so there should only be three types of 『grasping』 (sense-desire grasping, view grasping, precept and practice grasping), and it should not be allowed that the essence of 『grasping』 is mixed. How can it be said that they do not understand the meaning of the sutras? Because the sutras only say that attachment grows extensively, how do they know that it is due to the power of attachment that it becomes intensely strong, which is called extensive growth? Isn't it due to the power of wrong views that attachment grows? I see such a meaning here, that it is due to the power of wrong views that attachment grows extensively. Because that sutra says that ascetics and brahmins, based on their clinging to the past, proclaim the theory of permanence, saying 『I and the world are permanent,』 and they engage in disputes over four matters (the world is permanent, the world is impermanent, the world is both permanent and impermanent, the world is neither permanent nor impermanent).
論。由有彼故。應知是諸沙門梵志。成不聰睿。墮無明趣。愛廣滋長。此中意說。愛由見力。而廣滋長。非見由愛。此分明說愛廣滋長。如何翻謂見滋長耶。如何此經。引之無益。謂縱如彼釋引之何所成。非由此能成彼見取。豈由此故。便能證成。離彼諸見。外有執而不捨。然執不捨。即是諸見。故所引經。于彼無益。彼言此中戒禁取者。非五見中戒禁取攝。然即戒禁其體是何。謂有外道。由愛力故。受持牛鹿豬狗戒禁。愿我由斯持戒禁力。當受快樂。或當永斷。觀察為先。所起執見。是五見中。戒禁取攝。希欲為先。所受戒禁。是四取中。戒禁取攝。故此與彼。取體不同。如是立中。有二種失。取體支體。俱雜亂故。且無有一。但希求果。受持戒禁。非見為先。要見為先。方希求故。設許彼說。希欲為先。所受戒禁。非五見中戒禁取攝。則定應許。觀察為先。所受戒禁。是五見中戒禁取攝。此戒禁取。於四取中。為是見取。為戒禁取。隨許是一。取應雜亂。或違先許。彼先許言。希欲為先。所受戒禁。是四取中戒禁取攝。非五見中戒禁取攝。無如是失。以能執見是四取中見取所攝。所執戒禁。是四取中戒禁取攝。此救非理。四見亦應如戒禁取而建立故。謂餘四見。亦應能執。是四取中。見取所攝。所執境界。別立余
取。又應欲貪立為欲取。所貪境界。別立余取。此彼差別。無定因故。是則諸取。數應不定。如對法宗。於五見內。獨立一見。名戒禁取。我宗亦然。強者別立。若爾應唯四見立一。如戒禁取。欲貪與境。應立別取。何理能遮。故彼所宗。非善立取。又諸有支。體應雜亂。謂取支中。有有支故以契經說。告阿難陀。能感當來後有諸業。應知即是此中有支。又業為生因。余契經說故。所受戒禁是有是業。後有即生。應如前際。則當生有。應取為緣。上座救言。此後所起。方名為有。用取為緣。此救不然。有業非有。即此種類。有業是有。此必應遭外道所魅。又應說愛。與有為緣。彼許有戒禁。從希望生故。由此定知。越對法理。必無于取無過安立。今應思擇。應諸煩惱皆是取緣。展轉相因。諸惑生故。何故但說愛為取緣。不可取緣說余煩惱。夫取緣者。謂能為緣。令取體生。不捨所取。愛望于取。具有二能。余惑但能令取體起。故唯說愛。能為取緣。上座釋言。所以不說余煩惱者。理無有故。謂若離愛。現在前行我語等取。終不行故。未了彼言。何意故說。若遮諸惑展轉力生。是則應違聖教正理。故契經說。佛告苾芻。愛由愛生。愛復生恚。恚由恚起。恚復生愛。如是亦說。取為愛緣。又契經說。愛用無明。為集為因為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 取。又應將欲貪單獨設立為欲取（kāma-upādāna，對感官享樂的執取）。所貪戀的境界，另外設立為其他的取。這兩種取之間的差別，沒有確定的原因。這樣一來，諸取的數量就應該是不確定的。就像《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma）的宗義，在五見（pañca-dṛṣṭi，五種錯誤的見解）中，單獨設立一種見解，名為戒禁取（śīla-vrata-upādāna，對戒律和儀軌的執取）。我們宗派也是這樣，強大的就單獨設立。如果這樣，就應該只將四見設立為一種，就像戒禁取一樣，欲貪和境界，應該設立為不同的取，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？所以他們的宗義，不是很好地安立取。此外，諸有支（bhavaṅga，有情的生命之流）的體性應該雜亂。因為在取支中，有有支的緣故。因為契經（sūtra，佛經）中說，告訴阿難陀（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一），能夠感得未來後有的諸業，應該知道就是此中有支。此外，業是生的原因，其他的契經中也這樣說。所以所受持的戒禁是有是業，後有就是生，應該像前際一樣，那麼當生有，應該以取為緣。上座（長老）辯解說，此後所生起的，才名為有，用取作為緣。這種辯解是不對的，有業不是有，就是這種種類，有業是有，這必定會遭到外道的迷惑。此外，應該說愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）與有作為緣，他們允許有戒禁，是從希望產生的緣故。由此必定知道，違背了《阿毗達磨》的道理，必定沒有對取無過失的安立。現在應該思考，是否所有的煩惱都是取的緣，輾轉相因，諸惑產生。為什麼只說愛是取的緣呢？不可以將取緣說成其他的煩惱嗎？所謂的取緣，是指能夠作為緣，令取體產生，不捨棄所取。愛對於取，具有兩種能力。其他的迷惑只能令取體生起，所以只說愛，能夠作為取的緣。上座解釋說，所以不說其他的煩惱，是因為道理上沒有。意思是說，如果離開愛，現在前行的我語等取，最終不會行起。沒有了解他的話，是什麼意思呢？如果遮止諸惑輾轉產生的力量，那麼就應該違背聖教的正理。所以契經中說，佛告訴比丘（bhikṣu，出家男眾），愛由愛生，愛又生嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨），嗔由嗔起，嗔又生愛。像這樣也說，取是愛的緣。此外，契經中說，愛用無明（avidyā，對事物真相的無知）作為集、作為因。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, desire and greed should be established as 'kāma-upādāna' (clinging to sensual pleasures). The objects of greed should be separately established as other forms of clinging. There is no definite reason for the difference between these two. Therefore, the number of clingings should be indefinite. Just as the Abhidharma school establishes one view separately within the five views (pañca-dṛṣṭi), calling it 'śīla-vrata-upādāna' (clinging to rules and rituals), so does our school, establishing the stronger ones separately. If that is the case, then only four views should be established as one, just like 'śīla-vrata-upādāna'. Desire and greed, along with their objects, should be established as separate clingings. What reason can prevent this? Therefore, their doctrine is not a well-established clinging. Moreover, the nature of the 'bhavaṅga' (stream of existence) should be mixed up, because within the clinging factor, there is the existence factor. Because the sutra says, telling Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), 'The karmas that can cause future existence should be known as this existence factor.' Furthermore, karma is the cause of birth, as other sutras say. Therefore, the precepts and vows that are undertaken are both existence and karma. Future existence is birth, and it should be like the previous existence, so future existence should have clinging as its condition. The elder defends by saying that what arises later is called existence, using clinging as the condition. This defense is not correct. Karma that is not existence is of this kind. Karma that is existence, this will surely be deluded by external paths. Furthermore, it should be said that craving (tṛṣṇā) and existence are conditions for each other, because they allow precepts and vows to arise from hope. From this, it is definitely known that violating the principles of Abhidharma, there is definitely no faultless establishment of clinging. Now it should be considered whether all afflictions are conditions for clinging, mutually causing each other, and the various delusions arise. Why is it only said that craving is the condition for clinging? Can't the condition for clinging be said to be other afflictions? The so-called condition for clinging refers to what can serve as a condition, causing the clinging to arise, without abandoning what is clung to. Craving has two abilities in relation to clinging. Other delusions can only cause the clinging to arise, so it is only said that craving can serve as the condition for clinging. The elder explains that the reason for not mentioning other afflictions is that there is no reason for it. It means that if one is separated from craving, the clinging to 'I' and 'mine' that are currently active will ultimately not arise. Not understanding his words, what does he mean? If one prevents the power of the afflictions from arising mutually, then one should violate the correct principles of the holy teachings. Therefore, the sutra says that the Buddha told the monks (bhikṣu), 'Craving arises from craving, and craving gives rise to hatred (dveṣa), hatred arises from hatred, and hatred gives rise to craving.' In this way, it is also said that clinging is the condition for craving. Furthermore, the sutra says that craving uses ignorance (avidyā) as the origin and cause.
生為類。前已成立。無明是取。故亦應說。愛用取為緣。但由前說因。是故不說。理亦應爾。慢起無間遇恚生緣。然恚不生。反生於愛。斯有何理。愛恚生緣。定有差別。由是證知。愛亦緣余惑生。故非取生但緣于愛。而偏說者。由具二能。上座此中。妄釋經義。謂非離愛恚得現行。未審此言。欲詮何義。豈不愛恚不俱起故。必應離愛恚得現行。若謂恚行必由前愛。是經義者。此但虛言。以契經言。恚由恚起。恚復生愛。故但虛言。由是所言。理無有故。愛必非賴余煩惱生。取但因愛。理不成立。是故對法所說取支。總攝諸惑。其理為善。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之七
如是所成。取為緣故。馳求種種可意境時。必定牽生。招當有業。謂由愛力。取增盛時。種種馳求善不善境。為得彼故。積集眾多能招後有凈不凈業。此業生位。總名有支。應知此中由此依此。能有當果。故立有名。上座釋言。有謂有性。故世尊說。有謂當來後有生起。有性即是當來世中果生起義。如是所釋。理教相違。有應與生無差別故。當果生起。體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『生為類』（jāti-varga，生命種類）這個概念，之前已經成立了。『無明』（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）是『取』（upādāna，執取）的根本原因，所以也應該說『愛』（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）以『取』為緣。但因為前面已經說明了原因，所以這裡不再重複。道理也應該是這樣。當『慢』（māna，傲慢）生起時，緊接著可能會遇到引發『恚』（dveṣa，嗔恨）的因緣，然而『恚』不一定產生，反而可能產生『愛』，這有什麼道理呢？『愛』和『恚』的生起因緣，肯定是有差別的。由此可以證明，『愛』也可能緣于其他的煩惱而生起，所以『取』的生起，不只是緣于『愛』。之所以特別強調『愛』，是因為『愛』同時具備兩種能力（指生取和生有）。 上座部（Sthavira nikāya）的論師在這裡錯誤地解釋了經文的含義，認為不離開『愛』和『恚』，『取』就不能現行。不知道這種說法，想要表達什麼意思？難道不是因為『愛』和『恚』不會同時生起，所以必須離開『愛』，『取』才能現行嗎？如果認為『恚』的產生必定依賴於之前的『愛』，這就是經文的含義，那麼這只是空話。因為契經上說，『恚』由『恚』而起，『恚』又會生『愛』，所以這只是空話。由此可見，這種說法在道理上是站不住腳的。『愛』必定不是依賴於其他煩惱而生起，『取』只是因為『愛』，這種說法是不成立的。因此，對法藏（Abhidharma）中所說的『取支』（upādāna-aṅga，取支），總攝一切煩惱，這個道理才是正確的。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之七
像這樣所成就的，以『取』為緣故，在追求各種可意境界時，必定牽引產生招感當來『有』（bhava，存在）的業。這是因為『愛』的力量，當『取』增盛時，就會追求各種善與不善的境界。爲了得到這些境界，就會積聚很多能夠招感後有的清凈或不清凈的業。這種業的生起狀態，總稱為『有支』（bhava-aṅga，有支）。應該知道，在這裡，因為由此（指業）依靠此（指取），能夠產生當來的果報，所以立名為『有』。 上座部的論師解釋說，『有』是指『有性』（bhava-tā，存在的性質），所以世尊說，『有』是指當來後有的生起，『有性』就是當來世中果報生起的意思。這樣的解釋，在道理和教義上都是相違背的，因為『有』應該與『生』（jāti，出生）沒有差別。當果報生起，本體...
【English Translation】 English version: The concept of 'birth as a class' (jāti-varga, category of birth) has already been established. 'Ignorance' (avidyā, delusion about the true nature of things) is the root cause of 'grasping' (upādāna, clinging), so it should also be said that 'craving' (tṛṣṇā, thirst) is conditioned by 'grasping'. However, because the cause has already been explained earlier, it is not repeated here. The principle should be the same. When 'pride' (māna, arrogance) arises, it may immediately encounter conditions that give rise to 'hatred' (dveṣa, aversion), but 'hatred' may not necessarily arise; instead, 'craving' may arise. What is the reason for this? The conditions for the arising of 'craving' and 'hatred' are definitely different. From this, it can be proven that 'craving' can also arise from other afflictions, so the arising of 'grasping' is not only conditioned by 'craving'. The reason why 'craving' is particularly emphasized is because 'craving' possesses both abilities (referring to generating grasping and generating existence). The Sthavira nikāya (Elders school) masters here mistakenly interpret the meaning of the sutras, believing that 'grasping' cannot manifest without 'craving' and 'hatred'. I don't know what this statement intends to express? Isn't it because 'craving' and 'hatred' do not arise simultaneously, so 'grasping' must manifest without 'craving'? If it is believed that the arising of 'hatred' necessarily depends on previous 'craving', and that this is the meaning of the sutras, then this is just empty talk. Because the sutras say that 'hatred' arises from 'hatred', and 'hatred' in turn gives rise to 'craving', so this is just empty talk. From this, it can be seen that this statement is untenable in principle. 'Craving' does not necessarily arise dependent on other afflictions, and 'grasping' is only because of 'craving', this statement is not established. Therefore, the principle that the 'grasping limb' (upādāna-aṅga, the factor of grasping) mentioned in the Abhidharma (teachings), encompasses all afflictions, is correct.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 26 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 27
Composed by Venerable Master Samghabhadra
Translated under Imperial Order by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter 3.7 on Distinguishing Dependent Origination
As such, what is accomplished, because of 'grasping' as a condition, when pursuing various desirable objects, will definitely lead to the generation of karma that attracts future 'existence' (bhava, being). This is because of the power of 'craving'. When 'grasping' increases, it will pursue various good and bad objects. In order to obtain these objects, it will accumulate a lot of pure or impure karma that can attract future existence. This state of arising of karma is collectively called the 'existence limb' (bhava-aṅga, the factor of existence). It should be known that here, because from this (referring to karma) relying on this (referring to grasping), future retribution can be produced, so it is named 'existence'. The Sthavira school masters explain that 'existence' refers to 'the nature of existence' (bhava-tā, the quality of being), so the World-Honored One said that 'existence' refers to the arising of future existence, and 'the nature of existence' is the meaning of the arising of retribution in the future world. Such an explanation is contradictory in both principle and doctrine, because 'existence' should be no different from 'birth' (jāti, birth). When retribution arises, the substance...
即生支。則緣起支。便應數減。若謂現業是有因故假立有名。亦不應理。業體即是現有性故。業是現有性。能為當有因。故不可但言有因故名有。自性是有。寧假立名。如業有為因感異熟。有此果有。豈假因有為名。設許假立名。非失有自體能有所有。俱有性故。為證彼義。不應引此經。由此經文有異誦者故。云何異誦。如有誦言。有謂能令後有生起。設如彼誦。理亦無違。此于因中。說果名故。由有體是當有起因。假說當來後有生起。為顯此義。故世尊說。取緣有已。次為顯有是生緣故說此契經。又有于生為因最近。故契經說。業為生因。為顯業有是生近因。故於業有因上。假說果名。此事必然。故后總結。言取緣有有緣生故。又余經說。佛告慶喜。招後有業。此中名有。是故上座。所引契經。于自釋有不堪為證。唯對法者。所釋有名。符理順經。最為殊勝。有有二種。謂業異熟。今於此中。唯取業有。辯當生果近因性故。如前異誦契經中言。有謂能令後有生起。即如前際業說行支。今後際中。業名為有。此顯生死前後際同。惑業為因。招異熟果。上座妄執。此有支名。總攝一切有。經不別說故。謂佛總說。有略有三。故知有支。攝一切有。若不爾者。世尊但應說此為行。或說為業。復有經證。如契經言。有謂當來
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『即生支』（bhavaṅga，生命之流），那麼緣起支（paṭiccasamuppādaṅga，十二緣起支）的數量就應該減少。如果說『有』（bhava，存在）是因為現有的業（karma，行為）有因，所以才假立一個名稱，這也是不合理的。業的本體就是現有的性質。業是現有的性質，能夠成為未來『有』的因，所以不能僅僅說因為有因才稱為『有』。自性就是『有』，哪裡需要假立名稱呢？比如業作為因，能夠感得異熟果（vipāka，果報），有了這個果報才有了『有』，難道還需要假借因的『有』來命名嗎？ 即使允許假立名稱，也不會失去『有』的自體，它能夠擁有所有。因為『有』和『所有』是同時存在的。爲了證明那個意義，不應該引用這部經，因為這部經文有不同的誦本。什麼是不同的誦本呢？比如有的誦本說：『有』是指能夠讓未來的『有』生起。即使像那樣的誦本，在道理上也沒有違背。這是在因中說果的名字。因為『有』的本體是未來『有』生起的因，所以假說當來後有生起。爲了顯示這個意義，所以世尊說，『取緣有』之後，接著爲了顯示『有』是『生』的緣，所以說了這部契經。而且『有』對於『生』來說，是作為因的最直接的因素，所以契經說，業是『生』的因。爲了顯示業的『有』是『生』的近因，所以在業的『有』的因上，假說了果的名字。這件事是必然的，所以最後總結說，因為『取緣有』，『有緣生』。 另外的經中說，佛告訴慶喜（Ānanda）：招感後有的業，這裡面說的『有』，就是指『業』。所以上座部（Theravada）所引用的契經，不能用來證明他們自己對『有』的解釋。只有對法藏（Abhidhamma）的學者所解釋的『有』，符合道理，順應經義，最為殊勝。『有』有兩種，即業和異熟。現在在這裡，只取業的『有』，辨析它作為當生果的近因的性質。就像前面不同的誦本的契經中所說，『有』是指能夠讓未來的『有』生起，就像前面際（過去）的業說是行支（saṅkhāra，行）。現在後際（未來）中，業的名字叫做『有』。這顯示了生死前後際是相同的，惑和業作為因，招感異熟果。上座部妄自執著，這個『有』支的名字，總攝了一切的『有』，因為經中沒有分別說明。認為佛總說了『有』，略有三種，所以知道『有』支，攝了一切的『有』。如果不是這樣，世尊就應該只說這是『行』，或者說是『業』。還有經可以證明，比如契經說，『有』是指當來。
【English Translation】 English version If 『bhavaṅga』 (the life-continuum) is the 『bhava』 (becoming) factor, then the number of 『paṭiccasamuppādaṅga』 (the twelve factors of dependent origination) should be reduced. If it is said that 『bhava』 (existence) is given a nominal designation because the existing 『karma』 (action) has a cause, this is also unreasonable. The essence of karma is its existing nature. Karma is of an existing nature and can be the cause of future 『bhava』; therefore, it cannot be said that it is called 『bhava』 merely because it has a cause. Its self-nature is 『existence』; why would it need a nominal designation? For example, karma, as a cause, can bring about 『vipāka』 (resultant effect); with this resultant effect, there is 『bhava』. Does it need to be named by borrowing the 『existence』 of the cause? Even if a nominal designation is allowed, it would not lose the self-nature of 『bhava』, which is capable of possessing everything. This is because 『bhava』 and 『everything』 exist simultaneously. To prove that meaning, this sutra should not be cited, because this sutra has different recensions. What are the different recensions? For example, some recensions say: 『Bhava』 refers to that which can cause future 『bhava』 to arise. Even with such recensions, there is no contradiction in principle. This is speaking of the name of the result in the cause. Because the essence of 『bhava』 is the cause of the future arising of 『bhava』, it is nominally said that future 『bhava』 will arise. To show this meaning, the World-Honored One said, 『Conditioned by clinging, there is becoming,』 and then, to show that 『bhava』 is the condition for 『birth,』 this sutra was spoken. Moreover, 『bhava』 is the most direct factor as a cause for 『birth,』 so the sutra says that karma is the cause of 『birth.』 To show that the 『existence』 of karma is the proximate cause of 『birth,』 the name of the result is nominally spoken on the cause of the 『existence』 of karma. This matter is inevitable, so it is finally concluded that 『conditioned by clinging, there is becoming; conditioned by becoming, there is birth.』 Another sutra says that the Buddha told Ānanda: The karma that invites future existence, the 『bhava』 mentioned here refers to 『karma.』 Therefore, the sutra cited by the Theravada school cannot be used to prove their own interpretation of 『bhava.』 Only the 『bhava』 interpreted by scholars of the Abhidhamma conforms to reason, accords with the meaning of the sutras, and is the most excellent. There are two kinds of 『bhava,』 namely karma and resultant effect. Now, here, only the 『bhava』 of karma is taken to analyze its nature as the proximate cause of the fruit to be born. Just as the sutra in the different recensions mentioned earlier says, 『Bhava』 refers to that which can cause future 『bhava』 to arise, just as the karma in the previous existence is said to be the 『saṅkhāra』 (volitional formations) factor. Now, in the future existence, the name of karma is called 『bhava.』 This shows that the past and future existences of samsara are the same, and delusion and karma, as causes, invite resultant effects. The Theravada school stubbornly insists that the name of this 『bhava』 factor encompasses all 『bhava,』 because the sutra does not explain it separately. They believe that the Buddha generally spoke of 『bhava,』 briefly having three types, so they know that the 『bhava』 factor encompasses all 『bhava.』 If this were not the case, the World-Honored One should have only said that this is 『saṅkhāra,』 or that it is 『karma.』 There are also sutras that can prove it, such as the sutra that says, 『Bhava』 refers to the future.
後有生起。又世尊告阿難陀言。有略有三。欲色無色。又世尊告阿難陀言。業感當來後有名有。又契經說。諸有若無。頗有有不。乃至廣說。故取能作業有生因。業為有助令生有起。是為略述。上座所宗。如是所言。皆非善說。雖不別說。然應別解。如說。識等緣名色等。雖於此中總說三界所有緣起。而許依容有說。識緣名色。名色緣六處。如是此中。雖不別說。而應別解。謂三界系業。說三界有名。如是有何過。若異此者。應攝非情。謂彼自言。若於此法。欲色無色貪等隨增。此法如應。名三界有。非情諸法。亦欲色界貪等隨增。以於此中不別說故。亦應攝彼。而彼不許。故非總攝。若謂此中依無明等有情說故。雖總說有。而不可謂亦攝非情。豈不此中但依流轉還滅次第。及依惑業為因感生。次第說故。雖總說有。而隨所應。但依不善善有漏業。說為欲色無色三有。若此有體如彼行支。何不如彼以行名說。前于思擇行名義中。已辯余無所隨義故。何不名業。為欲顯此感後有因。是業差別。非一切業皆後有因。故立有名。不說為業。又業名有。聖教極成。如七有經說為業有。故彼所說。不別說故。知有支名。攝諸有者。違理教故。非為善說。彼所引經。應正詳辯。且初所引頗勒具那契經中說。有謂當來後有生起。此前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 阿難陀，世尊還說，有三種『有』（bhava）：欲有（kāma-bhava，指欲界眾生的存在狀態），色有（rūpa-bhava，指色界眾生的存在狀態），無色有（arūpa-bhava，指無色界眾生的存在狀態）。 世尊還對阿難陀說，業力會感召未來的『有』，即未來的存在。 還有《契經》中說：『諸有若無，頗有有不？』等等，廣泛地說明了『有』。 因此，我們認為，『有』是能造作業的『有』，是產生生命的原因。業力是『有』的助緣，使『有』得以產生和生起。以上是對上座部宗義的簡要敘述。像這樣所說的，都不是正確的解釋。雖然經文中沒有分別說明，但應該分別理解。 例如，經中說：『識緣名色，名色緣六處』等等。雖然這裡總括地說明了三界所有的緣起，但允許根據情況分別說明，比如『識緣名色，名色緣六處』。 同樣，在這裡，雖然經文中沒有分別說明，但應該分別理解。也就是說，三界所繫的業力，才被稱為三界的『有』。這樣理解有什麼過失呢？ 如果不是這樣理解，就應該把非情之物（沒有情感的物體）也包括進來。因為他們自己說，如果對於某種法，欲界的貪慾、色界的貪慾、無色界的貪慾等隨之增長，那麼這種法就相應地被稱為三界的『有』。非情之物也同樣會隨著欲界的貪慾等增長，因為經文中沒有分別說明，所以也應該把它們包括進來。但是他們並不允許這樣做。所以，『有』並非總括一切。 如果你們說，這裡是依據無明等有情眾生來說的，所以雖然總括地說『有』，但不能說也包括非情之物。那麼，難道這裡不是僅僅依據流轉和還滅的次第，以及依據惑業為因感生果報的次第來說的嗎？所以，雖然總括地說『有』，但根據情況，僅僅依據不善業、善業和有漏業，來說明欲有、色有和無色有這三種『有』。 如果『有』的體性像『行』支一樣，為什麼不像『行』一樣用『行』這個名稱來說明呢？因為之前在思擇『行』的名稱和意義時，已經辨析過『行』沒有隨順其他意義的緣故。為什麼不用『業』這個名稱，而要立『有』這個名稱呢？爲了顯示感召後有的原因是業的差別，不是一切業都是後有的原因，所以才立『有』這個名稱，而不說為『業』。 而且，『業』被稱為『有』，是聖教中極為確定的。如《七有經》中說為『業有』。所以，他們所說的，因為經文中沒有分別說明，就認為『有』支的名稱包括了所有的『有』，這是違背道理和教義的，不是正確的解釋。 他們所引用的經文，應該正確地詳細辨析。首先，在所引用的《頗勒具那契經》（Phagguna Sutta，一部關於討論『有』的經文）中說，『有』是指當來後有的生起。此前
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the Blessed One told Ānanda, 'There are, in brief, three kinds of 『bhava』 (being or existence): kāma-bhava (sense-sphere existence), rūpa-bhava (form-sphere existence), and arūpa-bhava (formless-sphere existence).' The Blessed One also said to Ānanda, 'Karma (業) causes future 『bhava』, that is, future existence.' Moreover, the sutra (契經) says, 'If all 『bhava』 is non-existent, is there any 『bhava』 at all?' and so on, extensively explaining 『bhava』. Therefore, we consider 『bhava』 to be the 『bhava』 that can create karma, the cause of generating life. Karma is the auxiliary condition for 『bhava』, enabling 『bhava』 to arise and come into being. The above is a brief account of the doctrines of the Sthavira school (上座部). What has been said in this way is not a good explanation. Although it is not separately stated in the scriptures, it should be understood separately. For example, the sutra says, 'Consciousness (識) conditions name and form (名色), name and form conditions the six sense bases (六處),' and so on. Although it comprehensively explains the arising of all conditioned phenomena in the three realms (三界), it is permissible to explain them separately according to the situation, such as 'Consciousness conditions name and form, name and form conditions the six sense bases.' Similarly, here, although it is not separately stated in the scriptures, it should be understood separately. That is to say, the karma bound to the three realms is called the 『bhava』 of the three realms. What fault is there in understanding it this way? If it were not understood in this way, then non-sentient things (非情之物) should also be included. Because they themselves say that if, with respect to a certain dharma (法), desire-realm (欲界) craving, form-realm (色界) craving, formless-realm (無色界) craving, etc., increase accordingly, then this dharma is correspondingly called the 『bhava』 of the three realms. Non-sentient things also increase with desire-realm craving, etc. Because it is not separately stated in the scriptures, they should also be included. But they do not allow this. Therefore, 『bhava』 does not encompass everything. If you say that here it is based on sentient beings (有情眾生) with ignorance (無明), etc., so although 『bhava』 is spoken of comprehensively, it cannot be said to include non-sentient things. Then, isn't it the case that here it is only based on the order of transmigration (流轉) and cessation (還滅), and based on the order of affliction (惑) and karma (業) as the cause of generating karmic retribution (果報)? Therefore, although 『bhava』 is spoken of comprehensively, according to the situation, it is only based on unwholesome karma (不善業), wholesome karma (善業), and defiled karma (有漏業) to explain the three 『bhava』: kāma-bhava, rūpa-bhava, and arūpa-bhava. If the nature of 『bhava』 is like the limb of 『saṃskāra』 (行支), why not use the name 『saṃskāra』 to explain it, just like 『saṃskāra』? Because previously, when considering the name and meaning of 『saṃskāra』, it has already been analyzed that 『saṃskāra』 does not follow other meanings. Why not use the name 『karma』 (業), but instead establish the name 『bhava』? In order to show that the cause of generating future existence is the difference in karma, and not all karma is the cause of future existence, therefore the name 『bhava』 is established, and it is not called 『karma』. Moreover, 『karma』 being called 『bhava』 is extremely certain in the sacred teachings. As the 『Seven Bhava Sutra』 (七有經) says, it is 『karma-bhava』. Therefore, what they say, because it is not separately stated in the scriptures, they consider the name of the 『bhava』 limb to include all 『bhava』, which is contrary to reason and doctrine, and is not a good explanation. The sutras they cite should be correctly and thoroughly analyzed. First, in the cited Phagguna Sutta (頗勒具那契經, a sutra discussing 『bhava』), it says that 『bhava』 refers to the arising of future existence. Prior to this
已釋。謂此經文。有異誦故。及於因中。說果名故。又彼所引。三有契經。亦不相違。總問答故。非我等說一切取蘊不皆名有但有支內。業有勝故。唯業得名。然彼阿難陀。總問諸有。不問有支故。佛還總答。故彼所引。非證有支通以三界諸有為體。又彼所引二有契經。亦不相違。以總說故。謂于業有異熟有中。總說有聲。俱有性故。前三界有。總以有聲。說三界系一切業果。今此為顯因果差別業與異熟。說為別有。或三界有。以一有聲。說無量門。諸有漏法。今此但說感當來業。及後有果。總名為有。或此經說。業感當來。後有名有。此經正辯感後有業名為有支。如何引之。證通名有。故此文后。復作是言。若欲界系業有無者。頗得施設欲界有耶。不也世尊。乃至廣說。此顯要有業有方有異熟有義。即正說有緣生謂當生位。已有身根命根異熟說名後有。如是即以有聲說生。非業俱行異熟名有。此於後有。無感用故。如是聖教。順對法宗。如何引之證成彼義。又彼所引大緣起經。諸有若無。頗有有等亦不達義。故復引來。此中世尊。為辯行有取果與果功能時別。言諸有若無頗有有不者。寄問欲顯業取果時。謂若此時無現業有。必無能引當生有義。於此文后。復作是言。諸有若無頗有生不。此寄問顯業與果時。謂若過去
業有無者。必無生有令正起義。或此後文意顯業有。雖取果已要未斷滅。方有與生令正起義。若無過去業雖未斷。已滅無體。何能與生。而今契經。作如是說。若謂猶有舊隨界故。此但有言無作因理。故此一分經義有別。非證要有現在業有方令現在果有亦有。現業俱有非現業果。如何無業。彼有便無故。此經非證有支通攝有。此中業有是能有。若異熟有是所有。如是所有。即是當來業果生中之差別義。此中正說。能有為有已具成立。如前行支。然彼復說。故取能作業有生因。業為有助令生有起。此非諦說。唯取諸業。為此有支。已於上文。數成立故。契經唯說取緣有故。唯許業有取為緣故。豈不上座於此義中已立有支。唯是業有。不說取緣異熟有故。由此所說。業為有助。令生有起。但如童豎自室戲言。非佛說故。業俱行有。於後果生。無感功能。前已說故。若謂業有由異熟有助其力故為生有因。是則彼宗。生無色界。業有起位。都無異熟。既無助力。應不招生。若謂爾時。有異熟界。前已破故。理亦不成。設許業有由異熟有助其力故。為生有因。是則有支。唯是業有。唯此業有。用取為緣。能作生緣其義成立。諸對法者。亦許一切無明等位皆具五蘊。然就勝者。以立支名。余劣俱生。但為助伴。故異熟有。于有支中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『業有』（karma-bhava，有業）和『無有』（abhava，無業）的問題：如果過去沒有業，那麼爲了使『有』（bhava，存在）正確生起，就必須有新的業。或者，根據後面的文意，『業有』是指雖然業已產生果報，但尚未斷滅，因此能夠促使『有』正確生起。如果過去沒有業，即使業尚未斷滅，也已經滅失，沒有實體，如何能夠促使『有』產生呢？然而，現在的契經卻這樣說。如果說仍然有舊的隨界（舊業所隨順的界），這只是說說而已，沒有作為因的道理。因此，這一部分的經義有所不同，不能證明必須有現在的『業有』才能使現在的果報『有』產生。如果現在有業，但沒有現在的業的果報，那麼如何能說沒有業呢？如果彼方有，這邊就沒有了。因此，這部經不能證明『有支』（bhava-anga，有支）普遍包含『有』。這裡的『業有』是能有的，而『異熟有』（vipaka-bhava，異熟有）是所有的。這樣的『所有』，就是未來業果生中的差別意義。這裡主要說的是，能有作為『有』已經成立，就像前面的行支（samskara-anga，行支）一樣。然而，他們又說，所以取能作業作為『有』的生因，業作為『有』的助緣，使『生有』（jati-bhava，生有）生起。這不是真實的說法。僅僅取諸業作為這個『有支』，已經在上文中多次成立了。契經只說取緣『有』，只允許業有以取為緣。難道上座部（Theravada）沒有在這個意義中建立『有支』，僅僅是『業有』，而不說取緣『異熟有』嗎？由此所說，業作為『有』的助緣，使『生有』生起，只不過像是孩童在自己的房間里說戲言，不是佛陀所說的。業俱行『有』，對於後果的產生，沒有感果的功能，前面已經說過了。如果說『業有』由於『異熟有』的幫助，增強了它的力量，所以成為『生有』的因，那麼按照他們的宗義，『生』是無因的。『業有』生起的時候，根本沒有『異熟』。既然沒有助力，就不應該產生『生』。如果說那時有『異熟界』，前面已經破斥過了，道理也說不通。假設允許『業有』由於『異熟有』的幫助，增強了它的力量，所以成為『生有』的因，那麼『有支』就僅僅是『業有』。僅僅這個『業有』，用取作為緣，能夠作為生的緣，這個意義才能成立。諸對法者（Abhidharmikas，阿毗達摩論師）也承認一切無明（avidya，無明）等位都具有五蘊（panca-skandha，五蘊），但就最殊勝的來說，用來建立支的名義，其餘較差的俱生法，只是作為助伴。因此，『異熟有』在『有支』中。
【English Translation】 English version The question of 『karma-bhava』 (karma-bhava, karma-becoming) and 『abhava』 (abhava, non-karma): If there were no past karma, then in order for 『bhava』 (bhava, becoming) to arise correctly, there must be new karma. Or, according to the later text, 『karma-bhava』 refers to the fact that although karma has already produced its result, it has not yet been extinguished, so it can promote the correct arising of 『bhava』. If there were no past karma, even if the karma had not been extinguished, it would have already perished and have no substance, how could it promote the arising of 『bhava』? However, the current sutras say this. If it is said that there is still the old 『anudhātu』 (old element that karma follows), this is just talk and there is no reason for it to be a cause. Therefore, this part of the sutra's meaning is different and cannot prove that there must be present 『karma-bhava』 in order for the present result 『bhava』 to arise. If there is present karma, but there is no present result of karma, then how can it be said that there is no karma? If the other side has it, then this side does not. Therefore, this sutra cannot prove that the 『bhava-anga』 (bhava-anga, limb of becoming) universally includes 『bhava』. Here, 『karma-bhava』 is the potential becoming, while 『vipaka-bhava』 (vipaka-bhava, result-becoming) is the becoming that is possessed. Such 『possession』 is the difference in the future arising of karma results. Here, it is mainly said that the potential becoming as 『bhava』 has already been established, just like the previous 『samskara-anga』 (samskara-anga, limb of formations). However, they also say that the taking of karma as the cause of 『bhava』, and karma as the auxiliary condition of 『bhava』, causes 『jati-bhava』 (jati-bhava, birth-becoming) to arise. This is not a true statement. Merely taking all karmas as this 『bhava-anga』 has already been established many times in the previous text. The sutra only says that 『bhava』 is conditioned by 『upadana』 (upadana, grasping), and only allows karma-bhava to be conditioned by grasping. Hasn't the Theravada established the 『bhava-anga』 in this meaning, only as 『karma-bhava』, and not said that 『vipaka-bhava』 is conditioned by grasping? Therefore, what is said that karma as the auxiliary condition of 『bhava』 causes 『jati-bhava』 to arise is just like children playing in their own rooms, not what the Buddha said. Karma-concurrent 『bhava』 has no function of experiencing the result for the arising of later results, as has been said before. If it is said that 『karma-bhava』 is aided by 『vipaka-bhava』, which enhances its power, so it becomes the cause of 『jati-bhava』, then according to their doctrine, 『birth』 is without a cause. When 『karma-bhava』 arises, there is no 『vipaka』 at all. Since there is no assistance, 『birth』 should not arise. If it is said that there was 『vipaka-dhatu』 (vipaka-element) at that time, it has already been refuted before, and the reasoning does not hold. Assuming that 『karma-bhava』 is allowed to be aided by 『vipaka-bhava』, which enhances its power, so it becomes the cause of 『jati-bhava』, then the 『bhava-anga』 is only 『karma-bhava』. Only this 『karma-bhava』, using grasping as a condition, can be the cause of birth, and this meaning can be established. The Abhidharmikas (Abhidharmikas, Abhidhamma masters) also admit that all states of 『avidya』 (avidya, ignorance) have the 『panca-skandha』 (panca-skandha, five aggregates), but in terms of the most excellent, it is used to establish the name of the limb, and the remaining inferior co-arising dharmas are only auxiliary companions. Therefore, 『vipaka-bhava』 is in the 『bhava-anga』.
。非立名依。以非勝故。又彼上座。忿嫉纏心。毀罵先賢。辯取緣有。唯顯業有以為有支。故自問言。契經所說。取緣有者。何因故知。即自答言。以現見故。謂今現見。欲取為因。無量有情。造種種業因戒禁取。內外道人。種種受持苦難行業。因見等取。毗婆沙師。外道等人。起諍論業。此中彼自不說有支。謂取為緣。業異熟有。佛亦不說。離業有支。故彼所言。總攝一切。有為取緣有者。前後相違。不順聖言。非佛弟子。如斯顯說違理教言。著違教理。顛倒妄見。執為真正。異外道宗。毗婆沙師言順教理。所有見解。符會理教。撥為邪妄。同諸外道。如是朋黨。贊己毀他。有智者聞深可喘笑。是故先說。今於此中。唯取業有。辯當生果。近因性故。理善成立。唯由業有。從此命終。復結當生。非異熟故。正結生有位。即立為生支。如此生中。行為緣故。初結生位。名為識支。如是來生。有為緣故。初結生位。名為生支。此位此名。正所須故。謂于現世。識用分明。未來世中。生用最顯。隨自用顯。立以支名。或余經中。說生苦故。為造天趣。後有業者。令生厭舍。故說為生。或顯後有業皆能招苦果。為令不造故說為生。由是余經。說生等苦畢竟寂滅名般涅槃。我不說生名依不相應行。是故上座所設難詞。如在空閑
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非立名依：因為不是殊勝的理由。 而且那位上座（長老），被忿怒和嫉妒纏繞內心，詆譭辱罵先賢，辯論『取』是『有』的緣起。只顯示『業有』作為『有支』，所以自己提問說：『契經（佛經）所說的，以『取』為緣而有『有』，是什麼原因知道的？』 然後自己回答說：『因為現在可以看見。』意思是現在可以看見，以欲取為原因，無數的有情（眾生）造作種種業；因為戒禁取，內道（佛教內部）和外道（佛教以外的宗教）的人，種種受持苦難的行業；因為見取等，毗婆沙師（論師），外道等人，發起諍論的業。 這裡面他自己沒有說『有支』，意思是『取』為緣，『業』的異熟果報是『有』。佛陀也沒有說，離開『業有支』。 所以他所說的話，總括一切，認為『有為』以『取』為緣而有『有』，前後互相矛盾，不順從聖言（佛陀的教誨），不是佛陀的弟子。像這樣明顯地說出違背道理的教言，執著于違背教理、顛倒錯亂的妄見，執以為是真正的道理，和外道的宗義一樣。 毗婆沙師的言論順從教理，所有的見解，符合道理和教義，卻被說成是邪惡虛妄的，和外道一樣。像這樣結黨營私，讚揚自己，詆譭他人，有智慧的人聽了，深深地感到可笑。 所以先前說，現在在這裡面，只取『業有』，辯論當來生的果報，因為是近因的性質，道理上可以很好地成立。只有通過『業有』，從此命終，又結生當來生，不是異熟果報的緣故。 正在結生『有』的階段，就立為『生支』。像這樣來生，因為『有』的緣故，最初結生的階段，名為『識支』。像這樣來生，因為『有』的緣故，最初結生的階段，名為『生支』。這個階段，這個名稱，正是所需要的。 意思是對於現世，『識』的作用分明；未來世中，『生』的作用最明顯。隨著各自的作用明顯，就立為『支』的名稱。或者其他經典中，說『生』是苦的緣故，爲了讓造作天趣（天道）後有業的人，產生厭惡舍離之心，所以說為『生』。 或者顯示後有業都能招感苦果，爲了讓人不造作，所以說為『生』。因此其他經典中，說『生』等苦徹底寂滅，名為般涅槃（涅槃）。我不說『生』是依不相應行（非色法，非心法，非心所法）。所以上座所設的難題，就像在空閑處一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Non-establishment based on reliance: Because it's not due to a superior reason. Moreover, that elder (Upādhyāya), with a mind entangled by anger and jealousy, slandered and reviled the former sages, arguing that 'grasping' (upādāna) is the origin of 'existence' (bhava). He only reveals 'karma-existence' (kamma-bhava) as a 'limb of existence' (bhavaṅga), so he asks himself: 'As the sutras (scriptures) say, what is the reason for knowing that 'existence' arises from 'grasping'?' Then he answers himself: 'Because it is visible now.' Meaning that it is visible now that, due to desire-grasping, countless sentient beings create various karmas; because of adherence to rules and vows (śīla-vrata-upādāna), followers of both internal (within Buddhism) and external (outside Buddhism) paths uphold various difficult practices; because of view-grasping (dṛṣṭi-upādāna) and so on, the Vibhāṣā masters (commentators), externalists, and others initiate the karma of disputes. Herein, he himself does not mention 'limb of existence,' meaning that 'grasping' is the condition, and the maturation of 'karma' is 'existence.' The Buddha also did not say that there is 'limb of existence' apart from 'karma-existence.' Therefore, what he says, encompassing everything, considers 'conditioned things' to have 'existence' arising from 'grasping,' which is contradictory, not in accordance with the holy words (Buddha's teachings), and not befitting a disciple of the Buddha. Such a clear statement of teachings that contradict reason, clinging to views that contradict teachings and reason, distorted and deluded, holding them as true, is like the doctrines of externalists. The words of the Vibhāṣā masters accord with the teachings and reason, and all views that align with reason and doctrine are dismissed as evil and false, like those of externalists. Such partisanship, praising oneself and denigrating others, is deeply laughable to those with wisdom. Therefore, as said before, now here, only 'karma-existence' is taken, arguing for the result of the future life, because it is the nature of the proximate cause, which can be well established in reason. Only through 'karma-existence,' upon death from this life, is the next life connected, not because of the maturation of karma. The stage of connecting to 'existence' is established as the 'birth limb' (jāti-aṅga). In this way, for the coming life, because of 'existence,' the initial stage of connection is called the 'consciousness limb' (vijñāna-aṅga). In this way, for the coming life, because of 'existence,' the initial stage of connection is called the 'birth limb.' This stage, this name, is precisely what is needed. Meaning that for the present life, the function of 'consciousness' is clear; in the future life, the function of 'birth' is most evident. According to the clarity of each function, the name of the 'limb' is established. Or, in other sutras, because 'birth' is said to be suffering, in order to cause those who create karma for heavenly realms in future lives to generate aversion and detachment, it is called 'birth.' Or, to show that future karma can bring about suffering, in order to prevent people from creating it, it is called 'birth.' Therefore, in other sutras, the complete cessation of suffering such as 'birth' is called Parinirvana (Nirvana). I do not say that 'birth' is based on non-associated formations (neither material form, nor mind, nor mental factors). Therefore, the difficult question posed by the elder is like being in an empty place.
獨為哀泣。又先思擇有為相中。已遣彼言。故不重述。此生支后至當受支。中間諸位。總名老死。即如現在名色六處觸受四支。于未來生如是四位。名為老死。為令厭舍欣當有心。以老死名。顯當過患。若今世識。即未來生。今識為緣。但生名色。生應非遍為老死緣。或老死名。非通四位。故至當受。名老死言。應更思擇。此無有失。老死支名。定通四位。隨容有故。說以生為緣以一一支皆名老死故。于老死位。說有四支顯未來生。亦如現在。得有前後為因果義。如何知佛以老死聲。總說當來名色等四。佛于緣起后際果中。已說一支。唯餘四故。如是正顯。於三生中具十二支有輪無始。過此更說。則為唐捐。說十二支義圓滿故。若謂當果唯應說生於義已周說余無用。此亦非理。若但說生。后際果中。未遍說故。如過去世二支為因。招現在果已圓滿說。如是現世三支為因。招未來果。亦應具說。為顯后際如前際故。若異此者。教成減失。以不遍說后際果故。或愚者聞毗瑟笯等諸天世界。若得往生。彼唯有生無老無死。聞已造集種種邪因。如來說生皆有老死。為遮遏彼求生方便。故於當果。不但說生。彼上座言。世尊非以老死聲說當來四支。以老死名無差別故。又契經說乃至死故。彼言非理。前已說故。謂前已說后際果中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 獨自為此悲哀哭泣。並且事先思考有為之相，之前已經闡述過，所以不再重複。此生的支分之後，直到將要承受的支分，中間的各個階段，總稱為老死。就像現在的名色（nāmarūpa，精神與物質）、六處（ṣaḍāyatana，感覺器官）、觸（sparśa，感官接觸）、受（vedanā，感受）這四個支分，在未來生中也是這四個階段，稱為老死。爲了使人厭惡捨棄，欣求未來，用老死之名，來顯示未來的過患。如果今世的識（vijñāna，意識）就是未來生，今世的識作為緣，只會產生名色，那麼生就不應普遍地成為老死的緣。或者老死之名，並非貫通四個階段。所以，對於將要承受的階段，稱為老死，應該進一步思考。這沒有錯誤。老死這個支分之名，一定貫通四個階段，因為隨其所應，所以說以生為緣，因為每一個支分都可以稱為老死。所以在老死這個階段，說有四個支分，顯示未來生，也像現在一樣，有前後因果的關係。如何知道佛陀用老死之聲，總括地說將來的名色等四支？佛陀在緣起的后際果中，已經說了一個支分，只剩下四個支分了。這樣就正確地顯示了，在三世中具備十二支，輪迴沒有開始。超過這個範圍再說，就是徒勞無益的，因為說十二支的意義已經圓滿了。如果認為將來的果報只應該說生，因為意義已經完備，再說其他的就沒有用處。這也是不合理的。如果只說生，那麼后際果中，就沒有普遍地闡述。就像過去世的兩個支分作為因，招感現在的果報，已經圓滿地闡述了。這樣，現在世的三個支分作為因，招感未來的果報，也應該完整地闡述，爲了顯示后際像前際一樣。如果不是這樣，教法就成了減損和缺失，因為沒有普遍地闡述后際的果報。或者愚笨的人聽到毗瑟笯（Viṣṇu）等諸天世界，如果能夠往生，那裡只有生沒有老沒有死，聽了之後造作種種邪因。如來說生都有老死，爲了阻止他們尋求往生的方便，所以在未來的果報中，不僅僅說生。那位上座說，世尊不是用老死之聲來說將來的四個支分，因為老死之名沒有差別。而且契經中說乃至死。他的話沒有道理，因為之前已經說過了。之前已經說過後際果中
【English Translation】 English version Alone, he weeps and laments. Furthermore, he first contemplates the characteristics of conditioned existence, which has already been discussed, so it will not be repeated. The stages between the 'birth' link and the 'to-be-experienced' link are collectively called 'old age and death' (jarā-maraṇa). Just as the present four links of 'name and form' (nāmarūpa, mind and matter), 'six sense bases' (ṣaḍāyatana, six sense organs), 'contact' (sparśa, sensory contact), and 'feeling' (vedanā, sensation) are the four stages in future existence, they are called 'old age and death'. To inspire aversion and abandonment, and to encourage aspiration for the future, the term 'old age and death' is used to reveal the future suffering. If the consciousness (vijñāna, consciousness) of this life is the same as that of the future life, and if the consciousness of this life is the condition for the arising of only 'name and form', then 'birth' should not universally be the condition for 'old age and death'. Or, the term 'old age and death' does not encompass all four stages. Therefore, the term 'old age and death' for the 'to-be-experienced' stage should be further considered. There is no error in this. The term 'old age and death' definitely encompasses all four stages, because it is appropriate to do so. It is said that 'birth' is the condition because each link can be called 'old age and death'. Therefore, in the stage of 'old age and death', it is said that there are four links, indicating that future existence, like the present, has a causal relationship of before and after. How do we know that the Buddha uses the term 'old age and death' to collectively refer to the future four links of 'name and form' and so on? The Buddha has already spoken of one link in the future result of dependent origination, leaving only four links. This correctly shows that the twelve links are complete in the three lifetimes, and the cycle has no beginning. To say more than this would be futile, because the meaning of the twelve links is already complete. If it is argued that only 'birth' should be spoken of regarding the future result, because the meaning is already complete and it is useless to say anything else, this is also unreasonable. If only 'birth' is spoken of, then the future result is not universally explained. Just as the two links of the past life are the cause of the present result, which has been completely explained, so too should the three links of the present life be completely explained as the cause of the future result, in order to show that the future is like the past. If it were otherwise, the teachings would become diminished and incomplete, because the future result would not be universally explained. Or, foolish people hear of the worlds of gods such as Viṣṇu, and if they can be reborn there, there is only birth and no old age or death. Having heard this, they create various wrong causes. The Tathagata says that all births have old age and death. To prevent them from seeking the means of rebirth, the future result is not only spoken of as 'birth'. That elder says that the World-Honored One does not use the term 'old age and death' to refer to the future four links, because the name 'old age and death' is not distinct. Moreover, the sutras say 'even death'. His words are unreasonable, because it has already been said before. It has already been said before that in the future result
。已說一支唯餘四故。四支雖別。老死義通。故以一名說四無失。如是而說。顯前後際因果相應。不增不減。若過四位。立老死支。所說便增。無所詮故。亦名為減。不遍說故。由是老死定攝四支。乃至死言。亦無有失。前際業果。死為後邊。非越四支別有老死。后際業果。理亦應然。除初位生。餘名老死。望終盡位。說乃至言。非謂先時不名老死。又望定有。說乃至言。于生支后。死定有故。由是彼說。不堪收采。何故但以有為相名。說后際果。不說前際。現不現見。有差別故謂前際果。體及生等俱可現見。舉體便知。后際二種。俱非現見。唯顯彼過。令厭息求。如說。苾芻色生住起。應知即是苦生病住老死起義。乃至廣說。生與老死。各說一支。顯彼功能時分異故。或佛於此緣起義中。說世俗生等非就勝義說。彼初起位。總說名生。終盡位中。總說名死老。非定有然順死故。不別立支。總名老死。或蘊增位。總說名生。蘊減位中。總名老死。或諸愚夫所欣樂事。總名為生。即彼愚夫所厭離事。總名老死。故生與老死。各別立一支。豈不亦有死緣生。何故唯說生緣死。由決定故。作如是說。謂有死者。非定有生。諸有生者。定有死故。若爾有生非定有老。由此中老據世俗故。如何可說生緣老耶。以若無生定無老故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 已說一支唯餘四故：既然已經說了一個支（生），就只剩下四個支（老、病、死、憂悲惱苦）了。 四支雖別，老死義通：雖然四個支有所區別，但老和死的意義是相通的。 故以一名說四無失：所以用一個『老死』的名稱來說明這四個支，並沒有錯漏。 如是而說，顯前後際因果相應，不增不減：這樣來說明，就能夠顯示前後際的因果關係是相應的，既沒有增加也沒有減少。 若過四位，立老死支，所說便增，無所詮故：如果超過這四個位置，另外設立『老死』支，那麼所說的內容就增加了，因為沒有所要詮釋的意義。 亦名為減，不遍說故：也可以說是減少了，因為沒有全面地說明。 由是老死定攝四支，乃至死言，亦無有失：因此，『老死』必定包含這四個支，甚至只說一個『死』字，也沒有錯漏。 前際業果，死為後邊，非越四支別有老死：前一際的業的果報，以死為最後階段，並不是超越這四個支之外，另外存在老和死。 后際業果，理亦應然：后一際的業的果報，道理也應該是這樣。 除初位生，餘名老死：除了最初的『生』這個位置，其餘的都可稱為『老死』。 望終盡位，說乃至言，非謂先時不名老死：考慮到最終結束的位置，所以說『乃至』，並不是說之前的時間不稱為『老死』。 又望定有，說乃至言，于生支后，死定有故：又考慮到必定存在，所以說『乃至』，因為在『生』支之後，必定有『死』。 由是彼說，不堪收采：因此，那種說法是不值得采納的。 何故但以有為相名，說后際果，不說前際？：為什麼只用有為法的相狀名稱，來說明后一際的果報，而不說前一際的果報呢？ 現不現見，有差別故：因為顯現和不顯現，存在差別。 謂前際果，體及生等俱可現見，舉體便知：所謂前一際的果報，它的本體以及生等等，都是可以顯現見到的，舉出本體就能夠知道。 后際二種，俱非現見，唯顯彼過，令厭息求：后一際的兩種（老和死），都不是可以顯現見到的，只是爲了顯示它們的過患，使人厭惡而停止追求。 如說。苾芻色生住起。應知即是苦生病住老死起義：例如說，比丘，色的生、住、起，應當知道就是苦的生、病的住、老死的起的意思。 乃至廣說：乃至廣泛地說明。 生與老死，各說一支，顯彼功能時分異故：生和老死，各自說明一個支，是爲了顯示它們的功能和時間段落不同。 或佛於此緣起義中，說世俗生等非就勝義說：或者佛陀在這個緣起義理中，所說的世俗的生等等，不是就勝義諦來說的。 彼初起位，總說名生，終盡位中，總說名死老：在最初起始的位置，總的稱為『生』，在最終結束的位置中，總的稱為『死老』。 非定有然順死故，不別立支，總名老死：雖然不一定有，但是順著死，所以不另外設立一個支，總稱為『老死』。 或蘊增位，總說名生，蘊減位中，總名老死：或者五蘊增長的位置，總的稱為『生』，五蘊減少的位置中，總的稱為『老死』。 或諸愚夫所欣樂事，總名為生，即彼愚夫所厭離事，總名老死：或者各種愚夫所欣喜快樂的事情，總的稱為『生』，就是那些愚夫所厭惡遠離的事情，總稱為『老死』。 故生與老死，各別立一支：所以生和老死，各自設立一個支。 豈不亦有死緣生。何故唯說生緣死？：難道不是也有死緣生嗎？為什麼只說生緣死呢？ 由決定故。作如是說。謂有死者。非定有生。諸有生者。定有死故：因為是決定的緣故，所以這樣說。意思是說，有死的人，不一定有生；各種有生的人，必定有死。 若爾有生非定有老。由此中老據世俗故。如何可說生緣老耶？：如果這樣，有生不一定有老。因為這裡的老是根據世俗來說的。怎麼可以說生緣老呢？ 以若無生定無老故：因為如果沒有生，必定沒有老。
【English Translation】 English version It has been said that one branch remains out of four: Since one branch (birth) has already been spoken of, only four branches (aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair) remain. Although the four branches are distinct, the meanings of aging and death are interconnected: Although the four branches are different, the meanings of aging and death are related. Therefore, there is no error in using one name to describe the four: Therefore, there is no mistake in using the single term 'aging and death' to describe these four branches. Speaking in this way reveals the corresponding cause and effect between the past and future, without adding or subtracting: Explaining it this way reveals the corresponding cause-and-effect relationship between the past and future, without increasing or decreasing anything. If one were to go beyond the four positions and establish a branch for aging and death, what is said would be increased, because there would be nothing to explain: If one were to exceed these four positions and establish a separate branch for 'aging and death,' then what is said would be increased, because there would be nothing to explain. It would also be called a reduction, because it would not be a comprehensive explanation: It could also be called a reduction, because it would not be a comprehensive explanation. Therefore, aging and death definitely encompass the four branches, and even the word 'death' is not in error: Therefore, 'aging and death' definitely encompass these four branches, and even just saying the word 'death' is not a mistake. For the karmic result of the past, death is the final end; there is no aging and death separate from the four branches: For the karmic result of the past, death is the final stage; there is no aging and death that exists separately from these four branches. The karmic result of the future should also be the same: The karmic result of the future should also be the same in principle. Except for the initial position of birth, the rest are called aging and death: Except for the initial position of 'birth,' the rest can be called 'aging and death.' Considering the final end, the word 'even' is used; it is not that the previous time is not called aging and death: Considering the final ending position, the word 'even' is used; it is not that the previous time is not called 'aging and death.' Also, considering what is definitely present, the word 'even' is used, because after the branch of birth, death is certain: Also, considering what is definitely present, the word 'even' is used, because after the branch of 'birth,' death is certain. Therefore, that explanation is not worth adopting: Therefore, that explanation is not worth adopting. Why is the result of the future spoken of only in terms of conditioned phenomena, and not the result of the past?: Why is the result of the future spoken of only in terms of conditioned phenomena, and not the result of the past? Because there is a difference between what is visible and what is not: Because there is a difference between what is visible and what is not. That is, the result of the past, the body and birth, etc., are all visible; one knows it by mentioning the body: That is, the result of the past, its essence and birth, etc., are all visible; one knows it simply by mentioning the essence. The two aspects of the future are not visible; only their faults are revealed, causing one to become weary and cease seeking: The two aspects of the future (aging and death) are not visible; only their faults are revealed, causing one to become weary and cease seeking. As it is said, 'Bhikkhus, the arising, abiding, and ceasing of form should be understood as the arising of suffering, the abiding of sickness, and the arising of aging and death': As it is said, 'Bhikkhus, the arising, abiding, and ceasing of form should be understood as the arising of suffering, the abiding of sickness, and the arising of aging and death.' And so on, extensively explained: And so on, extensively explained. Birth and aging-death are each spoken of as a branch to show the difference in their functions and time periods: Birth and aging-death are each spoken of as a branch to show the difference in their functions and time periods. Or, in this teaching of dependent origination, the Buddha speaks of worldly birth, etc., not in terms of ultimate truth: Or, in this teaching of dependent origination, the Buddha speaks of worldly birth, etc., not in terms of ultimate truth. The initial arising position is generally called birth, and the final ending position is generally called aging-death: The initial arising position is generally called birth, and the final ending position is generally called aging-death. Although it is not definite, it follows death, so a separate branch is not established; it is generally called aging-death: Although it is not definite, it follows death, so a separate branch is not established; it is generally called aging-death. Or, the position of increasing aggregates is generally called birth, and the position of decreasing aggregates is generally called aging-death: Or, the position of increasing aggregates is generally called birth, and the position of decreasing aggregates is generally called aging-death. Or, the things that foolish people delight in are generally called birth, and the things that those foolish people detest are generally called aging-death: Or, the things that foolish people delight in are generally called birth, and the things that those foolish people detest are generally called aging-death. Therefore, birth and aging-death are each established as a separate branch: Therefore, birth and aging-death are each established as a separate branch. Isn't there also death as a condition for birth? Why is it only said that birth is a condition for death?: Isn't there also death as a condition for birth? Why is it only said that birth is a condition for death? Because it is definite, it is said in this way. That is, those who die do not necessarily have birth, but those who are born definitely have death: Because it is definite, it is said in this way. That is, those who die do not necessarily have birth, but those who are born definitely have death. If so, birth is not necessarily a condition for aging. Because aging here is based on the conventional truth. How can it be said that birth is a condition for aging?: If so, birth is not necessarily a condition for aging. Because aging here is based on the conventional truth. How can it be said that birth is a condition for aging? Because if there is no birth, there is definitely no aging: Because if there is no birth, there is definitely no aging.
如無雲處則定無雨。非此中生定從死有無間而起。以有生支中有無間而得生故。由此佛說有情緣起。具十二支。義善成立。又諸緣起。差別說四。一者剎那。二者遠續。三者連縛。四者分位。有餘復說。顯法功能。此中剎那。謂因與果。俱時行世。如契經說。眼及色為緣生於眼識等。有餘師說。一剎那中。具十二支。實有俱起。如貪俱起發業心中。癡謂無明。思即是行。于諸境事。了別名識。識俱三蘊。總稱名色。有色諸根。說為六處。識相應觸名為觸。識相應受名為受。貪即是愛。與此相應。諸纏名取。所發身語二業名有。如是諸法。起即名生。熟變名老。滅壞名死。上座謂此非應理言。一剎那中。無因果故。違聖教故。了義說故。謂俱生品。因果定無。俱生法中。誰因誰果。又此所說。違于聖教。如世尊告阿難陀言。識若不入母胎中者。名色得成羯剌藍不。行有三種。于諸受喜。說名為取。吾當為汝說法增減。趣苦集行。趣苦滅行。非此品類可有集沒。但由掉舉無量過失。魍魎所魅。輕發此言。又此契經。是了義說。世尊決定說此為依。由佛此中自解釋故。此一類許非正所宗。設是所宗。難亦非理。一念亦有緣起義故。非專為此而造論故。已成立故。種種說故契經說故。非所許故。謂先已說。非唯十二說名緣起。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如無雲的地方必定沒有雨。如果不是從這裡產生，那麼一定是從死亡之後緊接著產生的。因為有了『生』這個支，其中有『無間』才能產生。因此，佛陀所說的有情緣起，具備十二個支，其意義才能完善成立。此外，對於緣起，有四種不同的說法：一是剎那緣起，二是遠續緣起，三是連縛緣起，四是分位緣起。還有一些人補充說，這是爲了顯示法的功用。 其中，剎那緣起指的是因和果同時在世間執行。例如，經中說：『眼和色為緣，產生眼識』等等。有些論師認為，在一個剎那中，就具備了十二個支，而且是同時生起的。比如在與貪慾同時生起的發起業的心中，愚癡就是無明（avidyā），思慮就是行（saṃskāra）。對於各種境事的了別，稱為識（vijñāna）。與識同時生起的三蘊，總稱為名色（nāmarūpa）。有色的諸根，稱為六處（ṣaḍāyatana）。與識相應的觸，稱為觸（sparśa）。與識相應的受，稱為受（vedanā）。貪慾就是愛（tṛṣṇā）。與愛相應的各種纏縛，稱為取（upādāna）。所發動的身語二業，稱為有（bhava）。像這樣的諸法，生起就稱為生（jāti），成熟變化就稱為老（jarā），滅壞就稱為死（maraṇa）。 上座部（Sthavira）認為這種說法不合理。因為一個剎那中，沒有因果關係。這違背了聖教，而且是不了義的說法。他們認為，在同時生起的法中，因果關係是無法確定的。在同時生起的法中，誰是因，誰是果呢？而且，這種說法違背了聖教。例如，世尊告訴阿難陀（Ānanda）說：『如果識不進入母親的胎中，名色能夠形成羯剌藍（kalala）嗎？』行有三種，對於各種感受的喜好，稱為取。我應當為你們說法，說明苦的集起和滅除的途徑。這種品類中不可能有集起和滅除。只是因為掉舉（auddhatya）有無量的過失，被邪魔所迷惑，才輕易地說出這種話。 而且，這部契經是不了義的說法。世尊明確地說這是依據。因為佛陀自己在這裡解釋了。這一類人的觀點不是正確的宗派。即使是他們的宗派，這種責難也是不合理的。因為一念之中也有緣起的意義。而且，造論的目的不是專門爲了這個。因為已經成立了，有種種說法，契經中也有記載。這不是我們所認可的。因為之前已經說過，不是隻有十二支才稱為緣起。
【English Translation】 English version Where there are no clouds, there will definitely be no rain. If it does not arise from here, then it must arise immediately after death. Because with the 'birth' limb, there is 'intervening' within it to be able to arise. Therefore, the arising of conditioned existence of sentient beings as spoken by the Buddha, possessing twelve limbs, its meaning can be perfectly established. Furthermore, regarding dependent origination, there are four different explanations: one is momentary (kṣaṇika) dependent origination, two is distant continuation (dūra-santāna) dependent origination, three is connected binding (sambandha-bandhana) dependent origination, and four is divisional (avasthā) dependent origination. Some others supplement that this is to reveal the function of the Dharma. Among these, momentary dependent origination refers to the cause and effect operating simultaneously in the world. For example, the sutra says: 'Eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye consciousness' and so on. Some teachers believe that in one moment, all twelve limbs are present and arise simultaneously. For example, in the mind that initiates karma arising simultaneously with greed, ignorance (avidyā) is ignorance, and thought (saṃskāra) is action. The discernment of various objects and events is called consciousness (vijñāna). The three aggregates arising simultaneously with consciousness are collectively called name and form (nāmarūpa). The sense organs with form are called the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana). Contact associated with consciousness is called contact (sparśa). Feeling associated with consciousness is called feeling (vedanā). Greed is craving (tṛṣṇā). The various entanglements associated with craving are called grasping (upādāna). The actions of body and speech that are initiated are called existence (bhava). Such dharmas, their arising is called birth (jāti), their maturing and changing is called aging (jarā), and their destruction is called death (maraṇa). The Sthavira school believes that this view is unreasonable because there is no cause and effect relationship in a single moment. This contradicts the holy teachings and is not a definitive statement. They believe that in phenomena arising simultaneously, the cause and effect relationship cannot be determined. Among phenomena arising simultaneously, who is the cause and who is the effect? Moreover, this statement contradicts the holy teachings. For example, the World Honored One told Ānanda: 'If consciousness does not enter the mother's womb, can name and form develop into kalala?' There are three types of action; the liking of various feelings is called grasping. I shall explain to you the path to the arising and cessation of suffering. There cannot be arising and cessation in this category. It is only because of restlessness (auddhatya) having immeasurable faults, being deluded by demons, that one lightly utters such words. Moreover, this sutra is not a definitive statement. The World Honored One clearly said that this is the basis. Because the Buddha himself explained it here. This type of view is not a correct school. Even if it is their school, this criticism is unreasonable. Because there is also the meaning of dependent origination in a single thought. Moreover, the purpose of writing the treatise is not specifically for this. Because it has already been established, there are various statements, and it is also recorded in the sutras. This is not what we acknowledge. Because it has been said before, it is not only the twelve limbs that are called dependent origination.
眼色為緣生眼識等。是緣起故。上座於斯。豈不忍許。又非為立俱時因果說一剎那。有緣起論。但為顯示法相應有。謂前已說。一剎那中。具十二支。實有俱起。如是十二。為展轉力生。為前因力起。別應思擇。又已成立有俱有因。后義相應當更分別。又佛種種說緣起義。不可信一。而總撥余。以契經中或說十二或十一等。如前已說。一一支緣。所說亦異。謂或有說。無明緣行。或復有處。說觸緣行。如了達經。或復有處。說愛緣行。如羯磨經。或復有處。說行緣識。或有處說名色緣識。或復有處說有緣識或有處說六處緣觸。或有處說名色緣觸。如大緣起契經中說。或復有處說二緣觸如伽他說。眼色二等。或復有說。三和緣觸。或復有處。說觸緣受。或復有處。說二緣受。即上所引伽他中說。或復有處。說受緣愛。或復有處說觸緣愛。如了達經。或有處說無明緣愛。如羯磨經。即彼契經說業緣眼。余經復說名色緣眼。有餘經說。大種緣眼。諸如是等無量契經。佛說緣起。種種差別。是故上座。所引契經。亦不違斯剎那緣起。彼此所說。理無違故。又佛自說。剎那緣起。謂剎那頃。多物相藉。如契經說。眼色為緣。生癡所生染濁作意。此中所有癡即無明。癡者希求。即名為愛。愛者所發表即名業。若於此中。復說識等為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眼色作為條件產生眼識等等，這是緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda）的體現。上座部（Sthavira nikāya）對於此，難道不應該認可嗎？而且，我們並非主張同時存在因果關係的『俱時因果』，而是在一剎那（ksana）中建立緣起論。這只是爲了顯示諸法是相應存在的。正如之前所說，一剎那中，具備十二支（nidanas），實際上是同時生起的。這十二支是相互作用而產生力量，還是由之前的因的力量而生起，應該分別加以思考。而且，我們已經成立了『俱有因』（sahabhu-hetu）。後續的意義應該進一步分別闡述。此外，佛陀以種種方式宣說緣起的意義，不能只相信一種說法，而完全否定其他的說法。因為在契經（sutra）中，有時說十二支，有時說十一支等等，正如之前已經說過的。每一支的緣，所說的內容也不同。有時說，『無明緣行』（Avidyāpratyayāḥ saṃskārāḥ），有時又說，『觸緣行』，如《了達經》。有時又說，『愛緣行』，如《羯磨經》。有時說，『行緣識』（Saṃskārapratyayaṃ vijñānam），有時說，『名色緣識』（Nāmarūpa-pratyayaṃ vijñānam）。有時說，『有緣識』（Bhava-pratyayaṃ vijñānam），有時說，『六處緣觸』（Saḷāyatana-pratyayaḥ sparśaḥ）。有時說，『名色緣觸』，如《大緣起經》中所說。有時又說，二緣觸，如伽他（gatha）中所說，『眼色二等』。有時又說，三和合緣觸。有時說，『觸緣受』（Sparśa-pratyayā vedanā）。有時說，二緣受，即上面所引用的伽他中所說。有時說，『受緣愛』（Vedanā-pratyayā tṛṣṇā）。有時說，『觸緣愛』，如《了達經》。有時說，『無明緣愛』，如《羯磨經》。該契經中說，『業緣眼』。其他經中又說，『名色緣眼』。還有其他經說，『大種緣眼』。諸如此類，無數的契經中，佛陀所說的緣起，有種種差別。因此，上座部所引用的契經，並不違背這種剎那緣起。彼此所說的道理，沒有衝突。而且，佛陀自己也說了剎那緣起，即在一剎那間，多種事物相互依存。如契經所說，『眼色為緣，生癡所生的染濁作意』。這裡所說的『癡』，就是無明（avidyā）。『癡者希求』，就叫做愛（trsna）。愛者所表達的，就叫做業（karma）。如果在這裡，又說識（vijnana）等為緣...
【English Translation】 English version Eye and form serve as conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness, and so on. This is the manifestation of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda). Venerable Sthavira, shouldn't you acknowledge this? Furthermore, we are not establishing a 'simultaneous cause and effect' (俱時因果) theory where cause and effect occur at the same time, but rather establishing the theory of dependent origination within a single moment (ksana). This is merely to demonstrate that phenomena exist in interdependence. As previously stated, within a single moment, the twelve nidanas are present and arise simultaneously. Whether these twelve factors generate power through mutual interaction or arise from the power of previous causes should be considered separately. Moreover, we have already established the 'co-existent cause' (sahabhu-hetu). The subsequent meanings should be further differentiated. Furthermore, the Buddha expounded the meaning of dependent origination in various ways. One should not believe in only one explanation while completely rejecting others. Because in the sutras, sometimes twelve factors are mentioned, sometimes eleven, and so on, as previously stated. The conditions for each factor are also described differently. Sometimes it is said, 'Ignorance conditions volitional formations' (Avidyāpratyayāḥ saṃskārāḥ), and sometimes it is said, 'Contact conditions volitional formations,' as in the 'Penetration Sutra' (了達經). Sometimes it is said, 'Craving conditions volitional formations,' as in the 'Karma Sutra' (羯磨經). Sometimes it is said, 'Volitional formations condition consciousness' (Saṃskārapratyayaṃ vijñānam), sometimes it is said, 'Name and form condition consciousness' (Nāmarūpa-pratyayaṃ vijñānam). Sometimes it is said, 'Becoming conditions consciousness' (Bhava-pratyayaṃ vijñānam), sometimes it is said, 'The six sense bases condition contact' (Saḷāyatana-pratyayaḥ sparśaḥ). Sometimes it is said, 'Name and form condition contact,' as stated in the 'Great Dependent Origination Sutra' (大緣起經). Sometimes it is said that two factors condition contact, as stated in the gatha, 'Eye and form, and so on.' Sometimes it is said that the combination of three conditions contact. Sometimes it is said, 'Contact conditions feeling' (Sparśa-pratyayā vedanā). Sometimes it is said that two factors condition feeling, as stated in the gatha quoted above. Sometimes it is said, 'Feeling conditions craving' (Vedanā-pratyayā tṛṣṇā). Sometimes it is said, 'Contact conditions craving,' as in the 'Penetration Sutra'. Sometimes it is said, 'Ignorance conditions craving,' as in the 'Karma Sutra'. That sutra states, 'Karma conditions the eye.' Other sutras state, 'Name and form condition the eye.' Still other sutras state, 'The great elements condition the eye.' In this way, in countless sutras, the Buddha spoke of dependent origination with various differences. Therefore, the sutra cited by the Venerable Sthavira does not contradict this momentary dependent origination. The principles stated by each do not conflict. Moreover, the Buddha himself spoke of momentary dependent origination, that is, in a single moment, many things depend on each other. As the sutra says, 'Eye and form condition the arising of defiled attention born of ignorance.' Here, 'ignorance' (avidyā) is precisely ignorance. 'The desire of the ignorant' is called craving (trsna). What is expressed by the craving is called karma (karma). If here, it is also said that consciousness (vijnana) etc. are conditions...
余支體。違何理教。既無所違。何不忍許。又非我等許彼所引。說緣起經。是了義說。非了義相。次後當辯。設許彼經是了義說。亦不違害剎那緣起。上座於此。非理生嫌。而作是說。無量過失。魍魎所魅。輕發此言。今於此中。依對法理。略辯彼意。彼前所說。如貪俱起發業心中。具十二支。依何而說。為依發業因等起心。為依剎那等起心說。若依發業因等起心。瞋癡相應。為因等起。亦應具足有十二支。有瞋癡為轉愛為隨轉故。不應但說貪俱起心。若依剎那等起心說。有愛為轉。何故不論。有作是言。依因等起。以此于業是決定故。非愛為轉所發業中。決定還用愛為隨轉。瞋癡等心。亦容有故。今謂此據剎那等起。即由此理。作如是言。無身語業見所斷起非因等起。心所發身語業。離剎那等起。而有未生故。若異此者。舉心起逆。爾時則應得無間罪。又因等起。時有遠故非愛為轉。業決定生。故此于業亦非決定。由此定據剎那等起。剎那緣起。如是應知遠續緣起謂前後際。有順后受及不定受業煩惱故。無始輪轉。如說。有愛等本際不可知。又應頌言。
我昔與汝等 涉生死長途 由不能如實 見四聖諦故
連縛緣起。謂同異類。因果無間。相屬而起。如契經說。無明為因。生於貪染。明為因故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『余支體』（其他支分）。違背了什麼道理和教義？既然沒有違背，為什麼不認可？而且也不是我們認可他們所引用的『說緣起經』（闡述緣起法的經典）。那是了義說（究竟的說法），不是不了義相（非究竟的表相）。之後會進行辨析。假設認可那部經是了義說，也不妨害剎那緣起（瞬間的緣起）。上座（長老）對此，無理地產生疑慮，並且這樣說，有很多過失，是被邪魔所迷惑，輕易地說出這種話。現在在這裡，依據對法（阿毗達摩）的道理，簡略地辨析他們的意思。他們之前所說，比如與貪俱起的發業心（產生業力的心）中，具有十二支（十二因緣的各個環節），是依據什麼而說的？是依據發業因等起心（以產生業力的原因為起始的心），還是依據剎那等起心（以瞬間為起始的心）說的？如果依據發業因等起心，那麼與嗔癡相應的，作為原因等起，也應該具足有十二支，因為有嗔癡作為轉（主要因素），愛作為隨轉（輔助因素）的緣故。不應該只說貪俱起心。如果依據剎那等起心說，有愛作為轉，為什麼不討論？有人這樣說，依據因等起，因為這對於業是決定的緣故。不是愛作為轉所引發的業中，決定還用愛作為隨轉，嗔癡等心，也可能存在。現在我認為這是根據剎那等起，就因為這個道理，才這樣說，無身語業（沒有身語行為的業）見所斷起（通過見道斷除而生起），不是因等起。心所發的身語業，離開剎那等起，而有未生起的緣故。如果不是這樣，舉心起逆（心中產生叛逆），那時就應該得到無間罪（立即受報的罪）。而且因等起，時間上有距離，所以不是愛作為轉，業決定產生。因此這對於業也不是決定的。因此確定是根據剎那等起。剎那緣起，應該這樣理解。遠續緣起（長遠的持續緣起）是指前後際（過去和未來），有順后受（順著以後感受果報）以及不定受業煩惱的緣故，無始以來輪迴流轉。如經中所說，有愛等的本際是不可知的。又應該用頌文來說：
『我昔與汝等，涉生死長途，由不能如實，見四聖諦故』（過去我和你們一起，經歷生死漫長的道路，由於不能如實地，見到四聖諦的緣故）。
連縛緣起（相互連線的緣起），是指同異類（相同和不同的類別），因果之間沒有間隔，相互關聯而生起。如契經（佛經）所說，無明為因，產生貪染，明為因故（光明為原因的緣故）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Yu zhi ti' (other limbs/factors). What principles and teachings does it violate? Since there is no violation, why not acknowledge it? Moreover, it is not that we acknowledge their cited 'Shuo yuan qi jing' (Sutra on Dependent Origination). That is a definitive statement (ultimate teaching), not a non-definitive appearance (non-ultimate appearance). Later, there will be analysis. Even if that sutra is acknowledged as a definitive statement, it does not harm the momentary dependent origination. The Elder (senior monk) here, unreasonably generates doubts, and says this, there are many faults, is bewitched by demons, and easily utters such words. Now here, according to the principles of Abhidharma, briefly analyze their meaning. What they said before, such as in the mind of generating karma (action) that arises together with greed, having twelve limbs (the various links of the twelve links of dependent origination), what is it based on? Is it based on the mind arising from the cause of generating karma, or is it based on the mind arising from the moment? If based on the mind arising from the cause of generating karma, then corresponding to anger and ignorance, as the cause arises, it should also have twelve limbs, because there is anger and ignorance as the turning (main factor), and love as the following turning (auxiliary factor). It should not only be said that the mind arises together with greed. If based on the mind arising from the moment, with love as the turning, why not discuss it? Some say that it is based on the cause arising, because this is decisive for karma. It is not that in the karma caused by love as the turning, love is definitely used as the following turning, and minds such as anger and ignorance may also exist. Now I think this is based on the momentary arising, and because of this principle, it is said that, karma of no body and speech (karma without physical and verbal actions) arises from what is severed by view (arises from being severed by the path of seeing), not from the cause arising. The karma of body and speech caused by the mind, apart from the momentary arising, has not yet arisen. If it is not like this, raising the mind to rebel (generating rebellion in the mind), then one should receive the uninterrupted karma (karma that receives immediate retribution). Moreover, the cause arising has a distance in time, so it is not love as the turning, and karma is definitely produced. Therefore, this is not decisive for karma either. Therefore, it is determined to be based on the momentary arising. Momentary dependent origination should be understood in this way. Long-lasting dependent origination refers to the past and future, with karma and afflictions that follow later reception (following later to receive retribution) and uncertain reception, revolving in samsara since beginningless time. As the sutra says, the origin of love and so on is unknowable. And it should be said in verse:
'I once with you, traversed the long road of birth and death, because we could not truly, see the Four Noble Truths'.
Connected dependent origination refers to the same and different categories, with no interval between cause and effect, arising in mutual relation. As the sutra says, ignorance is the cause of greed, and light is the cause (because of light).
無貪染生。又契經說。從善無間。染無記生。或復翻此。分位緣起。謂三生中。十二五蘊。無間相續。顯法功能。謂如經說。業為生因。愛為起因。如是等類。功能差別。於此五種緣起類中。世尊說何。頌曰。
傳許約位說 從勝立支名
論曰。對法諸師。咸作是說。佛依分位。說諸緣起。經主不信。說傳許言。若支支中。皆具五蘊。何緣但立無明等名。以諸位中無明等勝故。就勝立無明等名。謂若位中。無明最勝。此位五蘊。總名無明。乃至位中。老死最勝。此位五蘊。總名老死。故體雖總名別無失。如是前位。五蘊為緣。總能引生后位五蘊。隨所應說一切一切。上座於此妄彈斥言。雖有無間生。然無緣起理。初結生有。不應理故。謂結生時。所有五蘊。于有情相續。非並能為緣。契經但言識入胎故。又失生惑業次第生理故。謂從六處觸受。次第起諸煩惱。煩惱發業。業復引生。皆不成故。又因差別應不成故。謂說有情。前後諸蘊。皆總相望前為后因。則失立因差別道理。雖有前後無間而生。然非一切因能生一切果。如色法起。雖藉外緣。然自種力。無間引起。諸心心所。各別因生。若許分位。因應無別。又于無學成過失故。謂阿羅漢。若於愛位。或於取位。得阿羅漢。應無愛緣取及取緣有位。又應愛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無貪染而生。此外，《契經》（Sutra）中說，從善無間（ananantara，指無間緣，即緊接著前一法生起后一法），生起染污的無記法（avyākrta，指非善非惡，無法記別的法）。或者反過來，分位緣起（avasthāpratītyasamutpāda，指十二緣起中每一支都是一個階段）是指三世（過去、現在、未來）中，十二緣起和五蘊（skandha，色、受、想、行、識）無間相續。顯法功能（dharma-kriyā，指法的功用），如經中所說，業（karma）是生（janman）的因，愛（trsna）是起的因，像這些等等，都是功能上的差別。在這五種緣起類別中，世尊（Bhagavan，佛的尊稱）說了哪一種呢？頌文說：
『傳統上認可的是約分位而說，從殊勝的角度確立支的名義。』
論曰：對法論師們都這樣說，佛是依據分位而說諸緣起。經主（sūtra-dhāraka，指經文的作者或解釋者）不相信這種說法，所以說是『傳統上認可』的說法。如果每一支中都具備五蘊，為什麼只確立無明（avidyā，指對真理的無知）等名稱呢？因為在各個分位中，無明等最為殊勝。所以就殊勝者而立無明等名。也就是說，如果某個分位中，無明最殊勝，那麼這個分位的五蘊，總稱為無明。乃至某個分位中，老死（jarāmarana）最殊勝，這個分位的五蘊，總稱為老死。所以，體性雖然是總體的，但名稱不同並沒有過失。像這樣，前一個分位的五蘊作為緣，總能引生后一個分位的五蘊，隨其所應說一切一切。上座（sthavira，指長老）對此妄加彈斥說，雖然有無間生，但沒有緣起的道理。因為最初的結生有（pratisandhi-bhava，指投胎時的生命狀態）不應道理。也就是說，結生時所有的五蘊，對於有情（sattva，指眾生）的相續，並非都能作為緣。契經只說了識（vijnana）入胎的緣故。又喪失了生、惑、業次第生起的道理。也就是說，從六處（sadāyatana，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）生起觸（sparśa）、受（vedanā），次第生起各種煩惱（klesha），煩惱引發業，業又引生，這些都不能成立。又因的差別應該不能成立。也就是說，如果說有情前後諸蘊，都總體上以前面的為後面的因，那麼就喪失了確立因的差別道理。雖然有前後無間而生，但並非一切因都能生一切果。比如色法（rūpa-dharma，指物質現象）生起，雖然憑藉外緣，但自身種子的力量，無間地引起。各種心（citta）和心所（caitta），各自由不同的因生起。如果認可分位，因就應該沒有差別。又對於無學（asaiksa，指阿羅漢）來說，會造成過失。也就是說，阿羅漢如果於愛位（trsna-avasthā，指渴愛階段），或於取位（upādāna-avasthā，指執取階段）得阿羅漢果，那麼應該沒有愛緣取以及取緣有的分位。又應該愛
【English Translation】 English version Born without greed and attachment. Moreover, the Sutra says that from wholesome anantara (ananantara, referring to the immediate condition, i.e., the subsequent dharma arising immediately after the previous one), defiled avyākrta (avyākrta, referring to neither good nor evil, indiscernible dharma) arises. Or conversely, avasthāpratītyasamutpāda (avasthāpratītyasamutpāda, referring to each branch of the twelve links of dependent origination being a stage) refers to the uninterrupted continuity of the twelve links of dependent origination and the five skandhas (skandha, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) in the three lifetimes (past, present, future). Manifesting the function of dharma (dharma-kriyā, referring to the function of dharma), as the Sutra says, karma (karma) is the cause of birth (janman), and trsna (trsna, thirst) is the cause of arising, and so on, these are the differences in function. Among these five types of dependent origination, which one did the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Blessed One, an epithet for the Buddha) speak of? The verse says:
'Tradition acknowledges that it is spoken of in terms of stages, and the names of the branches are established from the perspective of the most prominent.'
The Treatise says: The Dharma masters all say that the Buddha spoke of the dependent origination based on stages. The sūtra-dhāraka (sūtra-dhāraka, referring to the author or interpreter of the sutra) does not believe this, so it is said to be a 'traditionally acknowledged' view. If each branch possesses all five skandhas, why are only names such as avidyā (avidyā, ignorance) established? Because avidyā and others are the most prominent in each stage. Therefore, the names of avidyā and others are established based on the most prominent. That is to say, if avidyā is the most prominent in a certain stage, then the five skandhas of this stage are collectively called avidyā. And so on, if jarāmarana (jarāmarana, old age and death) is the most prominent in a certain stage, then the five skandhas of this stage are collectively called jarāmarana. Therefore, although the essence is collective, there is no fault in having different names. In this way, the five skandhas of the previous stage, as a condition, can generally give rise to the five skandhas of the subsequent stage, saying everything as it should be. The sthavira (sthavira, elder) recklessly criticizes this, saying that although there is uninterrupted arising, there is no principle of dependent origination. Because the initial pratisandhi-bhava (pratisandhi-bhava, the state of life at the time of rebirth) is unreasonable. That is to say, the five skandhas at the time of rebirth cannot all serve as conditions for the continuity of a sattva (sattva, sentient being). The Sutra only speaks of consciousness (vijnana) entering the womb. Furthermore, the principle of the sequential arising of birth, delusion, and karma is lost. That is to say, from the six sadāyatana (sadāyatana, the six sense bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), sparśa (sparśa, contact) and vedanā (vedanā, feeling) arise, and various kleshas (klesha, afflictions) arise sequentially, and afflictions give rise to karma, and karma gives rise to birth, all of which cannot be established. Moreover, the difference in causes should not be established. That is to say, if it is said that the previous and subsequent skandhas of a sentient being are all generally regarded as the cause of the subsequent ones, then the principle of establishing the difference in causes is lost. Although there is uninterrupted arising before and after, not all causes can give rise to all effects. For example, the arising of rūpa-dharma (rūpa-dharma, material phenomena), although relying on external conditions, is uninterruptedly caused by the power of its own seed. Various citta (citta, mind) and caitta (caitta, mental factors) arise from different causes. If stages are acknowledged, the causes should have no difference. Moreover, it would cause faults for the asaiksa (asaiksa, Arhat). That is to say, if an Arhat attains Arhatship in the trsna-avasthā (trsna-avasthā, the stage of craving) or in the upādāna-avasthā (upādāna-avasthā, the stage of grasping), then there should be no stage of craving conditioning grasping and grasping conditioning existence. Moreover, there should be craving
等不數生故。謂受為緣數生於愛。惑愛為緣。數生於取。若許分位。此不應成。其位已過。無重起故。又緣起經是了義故。謂此經義。佛自決了。前際無智等名為無明。福非福不動說名為行。六識身等名為識等。世尊恒勸。依了義經。是故於中不應異釋。今謂上座所立諸因。無一能遮分位緣起。且初結生。不應理者。此非正因。就勝說故。謂初結生位。識用最強故。入母胎時。偏說其識。然非離受想等識可獨生。相應俱有因中。已廣成立。故就勝說。識入母胎。此顯所依無能依必非有。上座自說。佛以識聲。總說一切心心所法。故識支通攝一切心心所。如何廢忘。今乃引經。證結生時唯許有識。又失生惑業次第生理者。分位緣起。於此寧失。謂如識位。就勝為名。六處等位中。六處等勝故。於六處等位。說六處等名。如是六處觸受。次第起諸煩惱。煩惱發業。業復引生。此何所失。若如經說而執義者。定失如是次第生義。謂非六處獨能生觸。以說三和而有觸故。觸既非有。受從何生。受因既無。惑業寧起。惑業無者。生何所因。復有餘經。說觸生愛。應不唯說觸為受緣。則失有支次第生理。是故憎背分位有支。言失生惑業次第生理者。彼所說過。自害彼宗。又因差別應不成者。理亦不然。依分位說因差別理。乃善成故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『等不數生故』：意思是說，因為『受』（vedanā，感受）為緣，所以『愛』（taṇhā，渴愛）才得以產生。因為『惑』（moha，迷惑）和『愛』為緣，所以『取』（upādāna，執取）才得以產生。如果允許分位緣起，那麼這個說法就不應該成立，因為那個階段已經過去，不會再次生起。 『又緣起經是了義故』：意思是說，這部關於緣起的經典是究竟了義的，佛陀自己已經明確決斷了這部經典的含義。前際的『無智』等等被稱為『無明』（avijjā，無明），『福』（puñña，福業）、『非福』（apuñña，非福業）和『不動』（āneñja，不動業）被稱為『行』（saṅkhāra，行），『六識身』（chaviññāṇakāya，六識身）等等被稱為『識』（viññāṇa，識）等等。世尊總是勸誡我們，要依據了義的經典。因此，不應該對這部經典進行不同的解釋。現在我認為，上座部所建立的各種理由，沒有一個能夠阻止分位緣起的成立。 首先，關於『結生』（paṭisandhi，結生）不應理的說法，這不是一個正確的理由，因為這是就殊勝之處而言的。意思是說，在最初結生的階段，『識』的作用最強，所以在進入母胎的時候，特別強調『識』。然而，並非離開『受』、『想』（saññā，想）等等，『識』可以獨自產生。在相應俱有因中，已經廣泛地成立了這個觀點。所以，就殊勝之處而言，說『識』進入母胎，這顯示了所依（nissaya，所依）存在，能依（nissita，能依）必定存在。上座部自己也說過，佛陀用『識』這個詞，總括地說明了一切心和心所法。所以，『識』支可以統攝一切心和心所。怎麼能忘記這一點呢？現在卻引用經典，證明結生的時候只允許有『識』。 此外，關於失去『生』、『惑』、『業』次第生理的說法，分位緣起怎麼會失去這些呢？意思是說，就像『識』位，就殊勝之處而命名。在『六處』（saḷāyatana，六處）等等的階段中，『六處』等等殊勝，所以在『六處』等等的階段，說『六處』等等的名字。像這樣，『六處』、『觸』（phassa，觸）、『受』次第生起各種煩惱，煩惱引發業，業又引導生。這有什麼失去的呢？如果像經文所說的那樣執著于字面意義，一定會失去這樣的次第生義。因為並非『六處』獨自能夠生『觸』，因為經文說三和合才有『觸』。『觸』既然不存在，『受』從何而生？『受』的因既然沒有，『惑』和『業』怎麼會生起？『惑』和『業』既然沒有，『生』又以什麼為因？ 此外，還有其他的經典說『觸』生『愛』，不應該只說『觸』是『受』的緣。這樣就失去了有支次第生理。所以，憎恨和背離分位有支，說失去了『生』、『惑』、『業』次第生理，他們所說過的，反而害了他們自己的宗派。 此外，關於『因差別應不成』的說法，這個道理也不成立。依據分位來說明『因差別』的道理，反而能夠很好地成立。
【English Translation】 English version 'Et cetera, not numerous births': This means that because 'vedanā' (feeling) is the condition, 'taṇhā' (craving) arises. Because 'moha' (delusion) and 'taṇhā' are the conditions, 'upādāna' (grasping) arises. If one allows for the arising of conditions in phases, this statement should not hold, because that phase has already passed and will not arise again. 'Moreover, the Discourse on Dependent Origination is definitive': This means that this discourse on dependent origination is ultimately definitive, and the Buddha himself has clearly determined the meaning of this discourse. 'Lack of knowledge' at the prior limit, etc., is called 'avijjā' (ignorance), 'puñña' (meritorious deeds), 'apuñña' (demeritorious deeds), and 'āneñja' (imperturbable deeds) are called 'saṅkhāra' (volitional formations), 'chaviññāṇakāya' (the six bodies of consciousness), etc., are called 'viññāṇa' (consciousness), etc. The World-Honored One always advises us to rely on definitive discourses. Therefore, one should not interpret this discourse differently. Now I believe that none of the reasons established by the Theravādins can prevent the establishment of the arising of conditions in phases. Firstly, regarding the statement that 'rebirth-linking' (paṭisandhi) is unreasonable, this is not a correct reason, because it is spoken in terms of the most excellent aspect. This means that in the initial phase of rebirth-linking, the function of 'viññāṇa' is the strongest, so when entering the mother's womb, 'viññāṇa' is particularly emphasized. However, 'viññāṇa' cannot arise alone without 'vedanā', 'saññā' (perception), etc. This view has been widely established in the context of the co-existent cause. Therefore, speaking in terms of the most excellent aspect, 'viññāṇa' enters the mother's womb, which shows that if the support (nissaya) exists, the supported (nissita) must exist. The Theravādins themselves have said that the Buddha uses the term 'viññāṇa' to comprehensively describe all mental states and mental factors. Therefore, the 'viññāṇa' factor encompasses all mental states and mental factors. How can one forget this? Now they are quoting scriptures to prove that only 'viññāṇa' is allowed at the time of rebirth-linking. Furthermore, regarding the statement that the sequential physiology of 'birth', 'delusion', and 'karma' is lost, how can the arising of conditions in phases lose these? This means that, like the 'viññāṇa' phase, it is named in terms of the most excellent aspect. In the phases of 'saḷāyatana' (the six sense bases), etc., 'saḷāyatana', etc., are the most excellent, so in the phases of 'saḷāyatana', etc., the names of 'saḷāyatana', etc., are spoken. In this way, 'saḷāyatana', 'phassa' (contact), and 'vedanā' sequentially arise various afflictions, afflictions give rise to karma, and karma in turn leads to birth. What is lost in this? If one clings to the literal meaning of the scriptures, one will definitely lose this sequential meaning of arising. Because 'saḷāyatana' alone cannot give rise to 'phassa', because the scriptures say that 'phassa' arises from the confluence of three factors. Since 'phassa' does not exist, from what does 'vedanā' arise? Since the cause of 'vedanā' does not exist, how can 'delusion' and 'karma' arise? Since 'delusion' and 'karma' do not exist, what is the cause of 'birth'? Furthermore, there are other scriptures that say 'phassa' gives rise to 'taṇhā', and one should not only say that 'phassa' is the condition for 'vedanā'. In this way, the sequential physiology of the factors of existence is lost. Therefore, hating and turning away from the arising of conditions in phases, and saying that the sequential physiology of 'birth', 'delusion', and 'karma' is lost, what they have said harms their own school. Furthermore, regarding the statement that 'the difference in causes should not be established', this principle is also not established. Explaining the principle of 'difference in causes' based on phases can instead be well established.
。謂非我等許從一切還生一切。是差別因。以諸位中許有少色。于所餘色。為勝生因。或有少色。於心心所。心心所法。為因亦然。非我所宗。說一切位色心心所。皆為勝因。彼彼位生種種別故。有位色勝。有位心勝。有位心所隨一為勝。由遇彼彼差別因緣。如是如是差別生故。唯許分位緣起理中。得有如斯因果差別分明可見。何乃撥無。又于無學成過失者。此無有失。是所許故。謂于愛位。或於取位。得阿羅漢。我宗許彼無愛緣取及取緣有。上座若謂得阿羅漢。猶有愛緣取。及取緣有者。是則因有應復招生。既復招生。定有老死。如是應供當自歸依。然非此中所說緣起。總依一切補特伽羅。是故無容於此設難。豈阿羅漢有愛有取。而可說言。謂阿羅漢。若愛取位。得阿羅漢。非離轉根。有阿羅漢。得阿羅漢。是故上座所出言詞。非慧所發。豈能如實宣釋。甚深微細。難知緣起道理。又應愛等不數生者。此亦無違。非所遮故。謂非說分位緣起論者。言觸受愛取餘位不行。雖諸位中皆多法起。然隨勝者。以立支名。上座於斯。非不忍許。謂識支位。唯一剎那。亦許于中攝諸心所。我宗亦爾。何所相違。又緣起經是了義者。理最不可。上座于中種種差別。而辯釋故。謂有難言。經說三種業因緣集即貪所蔽行身惡行。乃至廣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：你們說，我們承認一切（事物）從一切（事物）產生，這是因為有差別的原因。因為在各個階段中，允許存在少量的色（rupa，物質），這些少量的色對於其餘的色來說，是更殊勝的生起之因。或者，少量的色對於心（citta，意識）、心所（caitta，心理活動），以及心心所法來說，也是生起之因，我們宗派並不這樣認為。我們說，一切階段的色、心、心所，都是殊勝的因，因為在不同的階段會產生種種差別。有的階段是色殊勝，有的階段是心殊勝，有的階段是心所中的某一個殊勝。由於遇到種種不同的因緣，才會產生這樣那樣的差別。只有在承認分位緣起的道理中，才能清楚地看到這種因果差別。為什麼你們要否認呢？ 又說，如果這樣，對於無學（arhat，阿羅漢）來說，就會有過失。這沒有過失，因為我們是這樣承認的。在愛（trsna，渴愛）的階段，或者在取（upadana，執取）的階段，證得阿羅漢果。我們宗派承認，他們沒有愛緣取，也沒有取緣有（bhava，存在）。如果上座部認為，證得阿羅漢果，仍然有愛緣取，以及取緣有，那麼，因為有（業），就應該再次產生（果報），既然再次產生（果報），就一定會有老死。這樣一來，應供（arhat，阿羅漢）就應該自己去尋求庇護了。然而，這裡所說的緣起，並不是完全依賴於一切補特伽羅（pudgala，補特伽羅，人）。所以，不能在這裡設定難題。難道阿羅漢還有愛和取嗎？所以才說，如果阿羅漢在愛和取的階段證得阿羅漢果，那麼，就不是離開了轉根（轉凡成聖）而有阿羅漢，而是阿羅漢證得阿羅漢果。所以，上座部所說的話，不是由智慧所發出的，怎麼能夠如實地解釋甚深、微細、難以理解的緣起道理呢？ 又說，愛等不只產生一次，這也是沒有違背的，因為我們並沒有遮止這種說法。我們並沒有說，分位緣起的論者認為，觸（sparsha，觸）、受（vedana，感受）、愛、取等在其他階段不行。雖然在各個階段中，都有很多法生起，但是，我們是根據最殊勝的法來建立支的名義。上座部對於這一點，應該不會不認可吧。在識（vijnana，識）支的階段，只有一個剎那，但也允許其中包含各種心所。我們宗派也是這樣，有什麼相違背的呢？ 又說，《緣起經》是了義經，這個道理最不可靠。因為上座部在其中進行了種種差別，並且進行了解釋。有人提出疑問說，經中說，三種業因緣聚集，就是貪所矇蔽而行的身惡行，乃至廣說。
【English Translation】 English version: You say that we admit that everything arises from everything, and this is because there is a differentiating cause. Because in each stage, it is admitted that there is a small amount of rupa (form, matter), and this small amount of rupa is a superior cause for the arising of the remaining rupa. Or, a small amount of rupa is also a cause for the arising of citta (mind, consciousness), caitta (mental activity), and mental phenomena. Our school does not think this way. We say that rupa, citta, and caitta in all stages are superior causes, because different stages produce various differences. In some stages, rupa is superior; in some stages, citta is superior; and in some stages, one of the caittas is superior. Because of encountering various different conditions, such and such differences arise. Only by admitting the principle of dependent origination by phases can such differences in cause and effect be clearly seen. Why do you deny it? Furthermore, you say that if this is the case, there will be a fault for the Arhat (one who has attained enlightenment). This is not a fault, because we admit it. In the stage of trsna (craving, thirst), or in the stage of upadana (grasping, clinging), one attains Arhatship. Our school admits that they do not have craving conditioning grasping, nor grasping conditioning bhava (existence, becoming). If the Sthavira school thinks that even after attaining Arhatship, there is still craving conditioning grasping, and grasping conditioning existence, then because there is existence (karma), there should be rebirth. Since there is rebirth, there will definitely be old age and death. In that case, the Arhat should seek refuge themselves. However, the dependent origination spoken of here does not completely depend on all pudgalas (persons). Therefore, it is not possible to set up difficulties here. Do Arhats still have craving and grasping? That is why it is said that if an Arhat attains Arhatship in the stage of craving and grasping, then it is not that there is an Arhat apart from the transformation of the roots (transforming from ordinary to holy), but rather that an Arhat attains Arhatship. Therefore, the words spoken by the Sthavira school are not issued from wisdom. How can they truly explain the deep, subtle, and difficult-to-understand principle of dependent origination? Furthermore, you say that craving and so on do not arise only once. This is also not contradictory, because we have not prohibited this statement. We have not said that those who discuss dependent origination by phases think that sparsha (contact), vedana (feeling), craving, grasping, and so on do not function in other stages. Although many dharmas arise in each stage, we establish the name of the limb according to the most superior dharma. The Sthavira school should not disapprove of this. In the stage of vijnana (consciousness), there is only one moment, but it is also allowed to include various caittas within it. Our school is also like this, so what is contradictory? Furthermore, you say that the Sutra on Dependent Origination is a sutra of definitive meaning. This principle is most unreliable. Because the Sthavira school has made various distinctions within it and explained it. Someone raised the question, saying that the sutra says that three kinds of karmic causes gather, which are evil bodily actions performed while obscured by greed, and so on.
說。不應但說無明緣行。上座於此。自解釋言。此中無明聲。總攝諸煩惱。然經但見以無智聲分別無明。不言余惑。又上座許。觸受二支言。亦即兼攝非理作意故。謂契經說。非理作意。為無明因。上座釋言。非理作意。觸或受攝。然經分別觸受支中。曾不說有非理作意。又彼經言。如是種類心心所法。皆即無明。然實無明心餘心所。其相各別。非總無明乍可無明。是思差別。彼許思差別為無明等故。又彼自說。無明助受。能為愛因。非唯受力。然經分別受緣愛中。唯說受因能生於愛。又彼自說。次後二支。必有無明。所以者何。非離無明煩惱轉故。然經分別愛取二支。唯說愛等次第分別生死支中。皆不盡理。又彼自難。何故無明聲。攝余煩惱。非余煩惱聲。即自釋言。非離彼故。謂非離無明余煩惱轉。有離余煩惱無明獨行。又彼更為究根源釋。為令速起斷對治故。以無明聲。說余煩惱。明慧正起。親治無明。無明斷時。諸惑皆斷。為令厭彼明慧速生。故以彼聲。說諸煩惱。自如是等。以無量門。解釋彼經深隱理趣。而數決判是了義經。詳彼但應欺東方者。或心傲逸。輕發此言。且置前後。自相違害。了不了義。其相云何。而蘊在心數數決判。此緣起教。是了義經。彼上座言。諸有聖教。佛自標釋。名了義經。所餘契
【現代漢語翻譯】 （對方）說：不應該只是說『無明緣行』（Avidyāpratyayāḥ saṃskārāḥ）。上座（長老）對此，自己解釋說：『這裡無明（Avidyā，無知）這個詞，總括了所有的煩惱。』然而經典上只見到用『無智』（Ajñāna）這個詞來區分無明，沒有說其他的迷惑。而且上座承認，『觸』（Sparśa，感覺）和『受』（Vedanā，感受）這兩個支，也兼攝了『非理作意』（Ayoniśomanaskāra，不如理作意），因為契經上說，『非理作意』是無明的原因。上座解釋說：『非理作意』包含在『觸』或『受』之中。然而經典在分別『觸』和『受』這兩個支的時候，從來沒有說過有『非理作意』。而且那部經上說：『像這樣種類的心和心所法，都屬於無明。』然而實際上無明心和其他心所，它們的相狀各自不同，不能籠統地說無明就是無明。這是思（Cetanā，意志）的差別，他們卻承認思的差別就是無明等等。而且他們自己說，無明幫助受，能夠成為愛的原因，不只是受的力量。然而經典在分別『受緣愛』（Vedanāpratyayā tṛṣṇā）的時候，只說受是產生愛的因。而且他們自己說，接下來的兩個支，一定有無明，為什麼呢？因為不離開無明，煩惱就不能轉起。然而經典在分別『愛』（Tṛṣṇā，渴愛）和『取』（Upādāna，執取）這兩個支的時候，只說了愛等等。這樣次第分別十二緣起支，都沒有完全合乎道理。而且他們自己反駁說：『為什麼無明這個詞，可以包括其他的煩惱，而其他的煩惱這個詞，就不能包括無明呢？』他們自己解釋說：『因為不離開無明，其他的煩惱就不能轉起，但是有離開其他的煩惱，無明自己單獨執行的情況。』而且他們爲了更進一步探究根源，解釋說：『爲了使（智慧）快速生起，斷除對治，所以用無明這個詞，來說其他的煩惱。明慧（Vidyā，智慧）真正生起的時候，直接對治無明，無明斷除的時候，所有的迷惑都斷除了。爲了使厭離（煩惱）的明慧快速生起，所以用無明這個詞，來說所有的煩惱。』他們像這樣，用無量的方法，解釋那部經典深奧隱秘的理趣，卻屢次決斷那是了義經（Nītārtha Sūtra，究竟了義的經典）。詳細考察他們的說法，只不過是想欺騙東方的人，或許是內心傲慢放縱，輕易說出這樣的話。暫且不說前後是否自相矛盾，了義和不了義（Neyārtha Sūtra，不了義的經典）的相狀是什麼呢？卻把（自己的想法）蘊藏在心中，屢次決斷說這個緣起教（Pratītyasamutpāda，十二緣起），是了義經。那位上座說：『凡是有聖教（Ārya Dharma，聖法），佛自己標明解釋的，就叫做了義經，其餘的契 English version: (The opponent) said: 'It should not only be said 'Avidyāpratyayāḥ saṃskārāḥ' (ignorance conditions volitional formations). The Elder (Upādhyāya) himself explains this by saying: 'Here, the term Avidyā (ignorance) encompasses all afflictions.' However, in the scriptures, we only see the term Ajñāna (non-wisdom) used to distinguish Avidyā, without mentioning other confusions. Moreover, the Elder admits that the two limbs 'Sparśa' (contact) and 'Vedanā' (feeling) also include 'Ayoniśomanaskāra' (irrational thinking), because the scriptures say that 'irrational thinking' is the cause of Avidyā. The Elder explains: 'Irrational thinking' is included in 'Sparśa' or 'Vedanā'. However, when the scriptures distinguish between the two limbs 'Sparśa' and 'Vedanā', they never mention 'irrational thinking'. Moreover, that scripture says: 'Mental and mental phenomena of this kind all belong to Avidyā.' However, in reality, Avidyā-citta (ignorance-mind) and other mental phenomena have different characteristics, and it cannot be generally said that Avidyā is Avidyā. This is the difference of Cetanā (volition), but they admit that the difference of volition is Avidyā, etc. Moreover, they themselves say that Avidyā helps Vedanā and can become the cause of Tṛṣṇā (craving), not just the power of Vedanā. However, when the scriptures distinguish between 'Vedanāpratyayā tṛṣṇā' (feeling conditions craving), they only say that Vedanā is the cause of the arising of Tṛṣṇā. Moreover, they themselves say that the next two limbs must have Avidyā. Why? Because without leaving Avidyā, afflictions cannot arise. However, when the scriptures distinguish between the two limbs 'Tṛṣṇā' (craving) and 'Upādāna' (grasping), they only talk about Tṛṣṇā, etc. This sequential distinction of the twelve links of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) is not entirely reasonable. Moreover, they themselves refute: 'Why can the term Avidyā include other afflictions, but the term other afflictions cannot include Avidyā?' They themselves explain: 'Because without leaving Avidyā, other afflictions cannot arise, but there are cases where Avidyā operates alone without leaving other afflictions.' Moreover, in order to further explore the root cause, they explain: 'In order to make (wisdom) arise quickly and eliminate the antidote, the term Avidyā is used to refer to other afflictions. When Vidyā (wisdom) truly arises, it directly counteracts Avidyā. When Avidyā is eliminated, all confusions are eliminated. In order to make the wisdom of aversion (to afflictions) arise quickly, the term Avidyā is used to refer to all afflictions.' They explain the profound and hidden meaning of that scripture in this way, using countless methods, but repeatedly decide that it is a Nītārtha Sūtra (definitive scripture). Examining their statements in detail, it is only to deceive the people of the East, or perhaps it is arrogance and indulgence in their hearts that they easily say such things. Leaving aside whether it is self-contradictory before and after, what is the characteristic of Nītārtha Sūtra (definitive scripture) and Neyārtha Sūtra (non-definitive scripture)? But they hide (their thoughts) in their hearts and repeatedly decide that this Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) is a Nītārtha Sūtra. That Elder said: 'All Ārya Dharma (noble teachings) that the Buddha himself marks and explains are called Nītārtha Sūtra, and the rest of the Ki'
【English Translation】 (The other party) said: 'It should not only be said 'Avidyāpratyayāḥ saṃskārāḥ' (ignorance conditions volitional formations). The Elder (Upādhyāya) himself explains this by saying: 'Here, the term Avidyā (ignorance) encompasses all afflictions.' However, in the scriptures, we only see the term Ajñāna (non-wisdom) used to distinguish Avidyā, without mentioning other confusions. Moreover, the Elder admits that the two limbs 'Sparśa' (contact) and 'Vedanā' (feeling) also include 'Ayoniśomanaskāra' (irrational thinking), because the scriptures say that 'irrational thinking' is the cause of Avidyā. The Elder explains: 'Irrational thinking' is included in 'Sparśa' or 'Vedanā'. However, when the scriptures distinguish between the two limbs 'Sparśa' and 'Vedanā', they never mention 'irrational thinking'. Moreover, that scripture says: 'Mental and mental phenomena of this kind all belong to Avidyā.' However, in reality, Avidyā-citta (ignorance-mind) and other mental phenomena have different characteristics, and it cannot be generally said that Avidyā is Avidyā. This is the difference of Cetanā (volition), but they admit that the difference of volition is Avidyā, etc. Moreover, they themselves say that Avidyā helps Vedanā and can become the cause of Tṛṣṇā (craving), not just the power of Vedanā. However, when the scriptures distinguish between 'Vedanāpratyayā tṛṣṇā' (feeling conditions craving), they only say that Vedanā is the cause of the arising of Tṛṣṇā. Moreover, they themselves say that the next two limbs must have Avidyā. Why? Because without leaving Avidyā, afflictions cannot arise. However, when the scriptures distinguish between the two limbs 'Tṛṣṇā' (craving) and 'Upādāna' (grasping), they only talk about Tṛṣṇā, etc. This sequential distinction of the twelve links of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) is not entirely reasonable. Moreover, they themselves refute: 'Why can the term Avidyā include other afflictions, but the term other afflictions cannot include Avidyā?' They themselves explain: 'Because without leaving Avidyā, other afflictions cannot arise, but there are cases where Avidyā operates alone without leaving other afflictions.' Moreover, in order to further explore the root cause, they explain: 'In order to make (wisdom) arise quickly and eliminate the antidote, the term Avidyā is used to refer to other afflictions. When Vidyā (wisdom) truly arises, it directly counteracts Avidyā. When Avidyā is eliminated, all confusions are eliminated. In order to make the wisdom of aversion (to afflictions) arise quickly, the term Avidyā is used to refer to all afflictions.' They explain the profound and hidden meaning of that scripture in this way, using countless methods, but repeatedly decide that it is a Nītārtha Sūtra (definitive scripture). Examining their statements in detail, it is only to deceive the people of the East, or perhaps it is arrogance and indulgence in their hearts that they easily say such things. Leaving aside whether it is self-contradictory before and after, what is the characteristic of Nītārtha Sūtra (definitive scripture) and Neyārtha Sūtra (non-definitive scripture)? But they hide (their thoughts) in their hearts and repeatedly decide that this Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) is a Nītārtha Sūtra. That Elder said: 'All Ārya Dharma (noble teachings) that the Buddha himself marks and explains are called Nītārtha Sūtra, and the rest of the Ki'
經。名不了義。彼言非理。諸聖教中。未見誠文。說如是相。唯是上座。妄為圖度。諸無聖教。雖理相應。上座每言。此非定量。況無聖教。復理相違。而執此爲了不了相。如何知此所說相非。見闕標釋。而是了義。有具標釋非了義故。謂契經說。佛告苾芻。若有說言。我不依空。能起無相及無所有。若智若見。離增上慢。無有是處。此中豈有標釋二文。而許此經是了義說。或應更釋。有何別意。又有彼亦許定是了義經。謂契經言。若有一類。于諸行法。非理思惟。能起世間第一法者。無有是處。然此經中。無別標釋。如斯等說。其類寔煩。有具標釋非了義者。謂契經言。云何內地界。謂發毛爪等。乃至廣說。地界但以堅為自性。發等具以色等合成。此中如何說假為實。此經雖具標釋二文。而復于中。應求意趣。又契經說。佛告苾芻。此彼中間言何所表。如是標已。佛自釋言。此言表觸。彼謂觸集中間。謂受非受。應在六處觸中間。又無餘經曾決判此義。此經亦具標釋二文。然亦于中。應求別意。又即於此緣起契經。雖佛于中自標自釋。而彼上座。自以多門。解釋彼經。深隱理趣。且佛意趣。結生有識。名為識支。而自釋言。識者即是眼等六識。然唯意識。能結生有。此豈不應更詳意趣。誰有智者。執著如斯。有別意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經名為『不了義』（含義：未完全闡明的經典）。他們的說法不合道理。在所有聖教經典中，我沒有看到明確的文字，像他們這樣說的。這只是上座長老們，隨意猜測揣度。即使有些沒有聖教依據的說法，在道理上說得通，上座長老們也總是說，『這不能作為定論』。更何況是沒有聖教依據，又與道理相違背的說法，卻偏要認為這是『了義』（含義：完全闡明的經典）的特徵。如何得知他們所說的特徵是錯誤的呢？因為有些經典缺少標題和解釋，卻被認為是『了義』。因為有些經典雖然有標題和解釋，卻不是『了義』。 例如，有契經（含義：佛經）說，佛告訴比丘（含義：佛教出家人）：『如果有人說，他不依靠空性（含義：佛教哲學概念，指一切事物沒有固定不變的自性），就能生起無相（含義：佛教哲學概念，指沒有具體形象）和無所有（含義：佛教哲學概念，指一無所有）的智慧和見解，並且沒有增上慢（含義：佛教心理學概念，指未證得的境界，卻自認為證得），這是不可能的。』 這段經文中，哪裡有標題和解釋這兩個部分呢？卻允許說這部經是『了義』的說法。或者應該進一步解釋，有什麼特別的含義嗎？還有，他們也認為一定是『了義經』的，有契經說：『如果有一類人，對於諸行法（含義：佛教哲學概念，指一切有為法），進行不合理的思考，就能生起世間第一法（含義：佛教哲學概念，指最高的真理），這是不可能的。』 然而，這部經中，沒有特別的標題和解釋。像這樣的說法，實在太多了。 有些經典雖然有標題和解釋，卻不是『了義』。例如，有契經說：『什麼是內地的地界（含義：佛教哲學概念，指構成身體的四大元素之一）？就是頭髮、指甲等等。』 乃至廣說。地界只是以堅硬為自性。而頭髮等，卻是以色等（含義：佛教哲學概念，指構成物質現象的元素）組合而成。這其中如何能說假為真呢？這部經雖然有標題和解釋這兩個部分，但仍然應該在其中尋求更深的含義。 又有契經說，佛告訴比丘：『此彼中間，言語表達的是什麼？』 這樣標出問題后，佛自己解釋說：『此言語表達的是觸（含義：佛教心理學概念，指根、境、識三者和合）。』 他們認為『觸』是集中在中間，指的是受（含義：佛教心理學概念，指感受）和非受。應該在六處（含義：佛教心理學概念，指六根）和『觸』的中間。又沒有其他的經典曾經明確地判定這個含義。這部經也具有標題和解釋這兩個部分，然而也應該在其中尋求別的含義。 又比如，在這部緣起契經（含義：講述緣起法的佛經）中，雖然佛在其中自己標出問題，自己進行解釋，但是那些上座長老們，卻用多種方式，解釋這部經中深奧隱秘的理趣。比如，佛的本意是，結生（含義：佛教輪迴概念，指投胎）時有『識』（含義：佛教心理學概念，指意識），稱為『識支』（含義：十二因緣之一）。而他們自己解釋說，『識』就是眼識等六識。然而只有意識，才能結生。這難道不應該更詳細地探究其中的含義嗎？誰有智慧的人，會執著于這樣的，有別的含義的解釋呢？
【English Translation】 English version: The scripture is named 'Not Definitive Meaning' (meaning: scriptures that are not fully explained). Their statements are unreasonable. Among all the holy teachings, I have not seen clear texts that say it like them. This is just the Elder monks arbitrarily guessing and speculating. Even if some statements without scriptural basis make sense in terms of reason, the Elder monks always say, 'This cannot be taken as a definitive conclusion.' Moreover, statements that have no scriptural basis and contradict reason are insisted upon as characteristics of 'Definitive Meaning' (meaning: scriptures that are fully explained). How can it be known that the characteristics they speak of are wrong? Because some scriptures lack titles and explanations, yet are considered 'Definitive Meaning'. Because some scriptures, although having titles and explanations, are not 'Definitive Meaning'. For example, there is a sutra (meaning: Buddhist scripture) that says, the Buddha told the Bhikshus (meaning: Buddhist monks): 'If someone says that without relying on emptiness (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to the absence of fixed and unchanging self-nature in all things), they can generate wisdom and views of no-form (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to the absence of concrete form) and nothingness (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to the absence of anything), and without arrogance (meaning: Buddhist psychological concept, referring to claiming to have attained a state that has not been attained), this is impossible.' Where are the two parts of title and explanation in this sutra? Yet it is allowed to say that this scripture is a 'Definitive Meaning' statement. Or should it be further explained, what special meaning is there? Also, they also consider it certainly a 'Definitive Meaning Sutra', there is a sutra that says: 'If there is a type of person who, regarding the phenomena of conditioned existence (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to all conditioned phenomena), engages in unreasonable thinking, and can generate the world's first dharma (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to the highest truth), this is impossible.' However, in this sutra, there is no special title and explanation. Such statements are really too many. Some scriptures, although having titles and explanations, are not 'Definitive Meaning'. For example, there is a sutra that says: 'What is the earth element (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to one of the four elements that constitute the body) of the inner earth? It is hair, nails, etc.' And so on. The earth element is only characterized by solidity. But hair, etc., are composed of elements such as form (meaning: Buddhist philosophical concept, referring to the elements that constitute material phenomena). How can it be said that the false is true in this? Although this scripture has the two parts of title and explanation, a deeper meaning should still be sought within it. There is also a sutra that says, the Buddha told the Bhikshus: 'What does the language in between 'this' and 'that' express?' After posing the question in this way, the Buddha himself explained: 'This language expresses contact (meaning: Buddhist psychological concept, referring to the union of root, object, and consciousness).' They believe that 'contact' is concentrated in the middle, referring to feeling (meaning: Buddhist psychological concept, referring to sensation) and non-feeling. It should be in between the six sense bases (meaning: Buddhist psychological concept, referring to the six roots) and 'contact'. And no other scripture has ever clearly judged this meaning. This scripture also has the two parts of title and explanation, but another meaning should also be sought within it. For example, in this Sutra on Dependent Origination (meaning: Buddhist scripture explaining the law of dependent origination), although the Buddha himself poses the question and explains it himself, those Elder monks use various ways to explain the profound and hidden meaning in this sutra. For example, the Buddha's original intention is that at the time of rebirth (meaning: Buddhist concept of reincarnation, referring to reincarnation), there is 'consciousness' (meaning: Buddhist psychological concept, referring to consciousness), called 'consciousness-support' (meaning: one of the twelve links of dependent origination). But they themselves explain that 'consciousness' is the six consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness. However, only consciousness can cause rebirth. Shouldn't the meaning within it be explored in more detail? Who with wisdom would cling to such an explanation with other meanings?
經。名爲了義。又經處處。以種種門。廣說緣起。多非了義。皆隨所應。當求意旨。如是不達了不了義經差別相。而稱我用經為定量。甚為非理。故招我等毗婆沙師。于彼所宗。數為嗤誚。經主於此。假作是言。經部諸師。作如是白。此中所說。為述己情。為是經義。若是經義。經義不然。所以者何。經異說故。如契經說。云何為無明。謂前際無智。乃至廣說。此了義說。不可抑令成不了義。故前所說。分位緣起。經義相違。此如上座宗應廣遮遣。又但如標舉。而解釋故。謂雖有貪等亦為行緣。而但標無明。觀別因故。又雖十二處皆為觸緣。而由觀別因。但標六處。諸如是等。其類寔多。如觀別因。但標少分。亦即由此。唯釋所標。如何執斯。爲了義說。如標三種業因緣集。但隨標釋。謂貪瞋癡。非此相應。慢等諸惑。全無為業因緣集義。然觀別因。但標三種。即由此故。唯釋此三。又如經說。應修二法。謂奢摩他毗缽舍那。豈以此中唯標釋二。正思惟等。便非所修。如是此中。隨於何位。此法最勝。用標支名。隨所標名。還如是釋。此于經義。有何相違。又非諸經皆了義說。亦有隨勝說。如象跡喻經。云何內地界。謂發毛爪等。雖于彼非無水等諸界。而唯說地界。此亦應爾。彼謂所引不可為證。非彼經中欲以地界辯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 經名為『了義』（究竟真實之義）。然而，經典在各處，以各種不同的方式，廣泛地闡述緣起（事物生起的原因和條件），其中很多並非『了義』，而是根據不同情況而作的權宜之說，應當探求其真正的意旨。如果不明白『了義經』（究竟真實之義的經典）和『不了義經』（非究竟真實之義的經典）的區別，就聲稱自己所用的經典是唯一的標準，這是非常不合理的。因此，招致我們這些毗婆沙師（論師）對他們的宗派多次嘲笑。 經主（持經者）在這裡假設說：經部（佛教部派之一）的諸位法師這樣說：『這裡所說的，是陳述自己的想法，還是經典的意義？如果是經典的意義，那麼經典的意義就不是這樣的。』為什麼呢？因為經典有不同的說法。例如，契經（佛經）中說：『什麼是無明（對事物真相的迷惑）？就是對前際（過去）的無智。』乃至廣說。這是『了義』的說法，不能強行把它變成『不了義』。所以，前面所說的分位緣起（十二緣起中每一支的生起），與經典的意義相違背。對此，應該像上座宗（佛教部派之一）那樣廣泛地進行駁斥。 而且，只是像標舉一樣，然後進行解釋。也就是說，雖然貪等煩惱也是行的緣（行為的條件），但只是標舉無明，是因為要觀察特別的原因。又比如，雖然十二處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根和色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵）都是觸（感覺）的緣，但由於要觀察特別的原因，所以只標舉六處（六根）。諸如此類的情況，實在很多。就像觀察特別的原因，只標舉少部分一樣，也因此只解釋所標舉的內容。怎麼能執著這些是『了義』的說法呢？比如標舉三種業因緣集（導致行為和結果的三種原因），只是隨著所標舉的來解釋，即貪、嗔、癡。與此相應的，慢等其他的煩惱，完全沒有作為業因緣集的意義。然而，觀察特別的原因，只標舉三種，也因此只解釋這三種。 又比如，經典中說，應該修習兩種法，即奢摩他（止，使心平靜）和毗缽舍那（觀，如實觀察）。難道因為這裡只標舉和解釋這兩種，正思惟等就不是應該修習的了嗎？像這樣，隨於哪個階段，此法最為殊勝，就用它來標示支分的名字，隨著所標示的名字，還像那樣進行解釋。這與經典的意義有什麼相違背呢？而且，並非所有的經典都是『了義』的說法，也有隨順殊勝的方面來說的。比如象跡喻經（比喻佛法如大象的足跡，能涵蓋一切）中說：『什麼是內地界（堅固的元素）？就是頭髮、指甲等。』雖然在這些事物中並非沒有水等其他的界（元素），但只說了地界。這裡也應該這樣理解。他們認為所引用的不能作為證據，因為那部經典中並不是想用地界來辯論。
【English Translation】 English version The Sutra is named 『Definitive Meaning』 (the ultimate truth). However, in various places, the Sutras extensively explain dependent origination (the causes and conditions of the arising of things) through various means, many of which are not of 『Definitive Meaning,』 but rather expedient teachings based on different circumstances, and one should seek their true intention. If one does not understand the difference between 『Definitive Meaning Sutras』 (Sutras of ultimate truth) and 『Non-Definitive Meaning Sutras』 (Sutras of non-ultimate truth), and claims that the Sutras they use are the only standard, this is very unreasonable. Therefore, it invites us, these Vaibhashika masters (commentators), to repeatedly ridicule their sect. The Sutra master (the one who upholds the Sutra) here assumes and says: 『The masters of the Sautrantika school (one of the Buddhist schools) say this: 「What is said here, is it stating one's own thoughts, or is it the meaning of the Sutra? If it is the meaning of the Sutra, then the meaning of the Sutra is not like this.」』 Why? Because the Sutras have different statements. For example, the Agama Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 『What is ignorance (delusion about the truth of things)? It is the lack of wisdom regarding the past.』 And so on. This is a 『Definitive Meaning』 statement, and it cannot be forcibly turned into a 『Non-Definitive Meaning』 statement. Therefore, the previously mentioned division of dependent origination (the arising of each branch of the twelve links of dependent origination) contradicts the meaning of the Sutra. This should be widely refuted like the Sthavira school (one of the Buddhist schools). Moreover, it is just like making a general statement and then explaining it. That is to say, although afflictions such as greed are also conditions for action (karma), only ignorance is mentioned because the special cause is being observed. Also, for example, although the twelve sense bases (the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and the six sense objects of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma) are all conditions for contact (feeling), only the six sense organs are mentioned because the special cause is being observed. There are indeed many such situations. Just as observing a special cause only mentions a small part, and therefore only explains what is mentioned. How can one cling to these as 『Definitive Meaning』 statements? For example, when mentioning the three causes and conditions for the accumulation of karma (the three causes leading to actions and results), it is only explained according to what is mentioned, namely greed, hatred, and delusion. Correspondingly, other afflictions such as pride do not have the meaning of being causes and conditions for the accumulation of karma at all. However, observing a special cause only mentions three, and therefore only explains these three. Also, for example, the Sutra says that two practices should be cultivated, namely Shamatha (calm abiding, making the mind peaceful) and Vipassana (insight, observing reality as it is). Does this mean that just because only these two are mentioned and explained here, right thought and so on are not to be cultivated? In this way, whichever stage this practice is most excellent in, it is used to indicate the name of the branch, and according to the name indicated, it is explained in that way. How does this contradict the meaning of the Sutra? Moreover, not all Sutras are of 『Definitive Meaning,』 and some speak according to what is most excellent. For example, the Elephant Footprint Sutra (a metaphor for the Buddha's teachings as encompassing everything like an elephant's footprint) says: 『What is the earth element (the solid element)? It is hair, nails, and so on.』 Although there are other elements such as water in these things, only the earth element is mentioned. It should be understood in this way here as well. They believe that what is cited cannot be used as evidence because that Sutra does not intend to argue about the earth element.
發毛等。若彼經問言。云何發毛等。答謂地界者。可判彼為非具足說。非發毛等。唯地界故。然彼經中。以發毛等。分別地界。非有地界越發毛等。故彼契經。是具足說。此經所說。無明等支。亦應如彼。是具足說。除所說外。無復有餘。此救非理。迷證意故。此中證意。謂發毛等。雖多法成。然于其中。地界勝故。總名地界。如彼聚中。地界勝故。廢余劣者。就勝為名。如是此中。雖一一位皆具五蘊。而得於此就勝者說。無明等支。如何乃言所引非證。經主於此。復作是言。雖于諸位皆有五蘊。然隨此有無彼定有無者。可立此法為彼法支。諸阿羅漢。雖有五蘊。而無有行。隨福非福不動行識乃至愛等。是故經義。即如所說。如是所識。無深理趣。俱有因義。前已成立。經主于中。非不忍許。既一果故。成俱有因。則與無明。同一果法。如無明於果隨有無定成。若阿羅漢。雖有五蘊。無無明故。而行則無。唯執無明。為行緣者。諸阿羅漢。既雖有受而無有愛應非唯受能為愛緣。然此經中。說受緣愛。更無差別。故非如說即是經義。然更于中。應求別理若無明觸所生諸受。能為愛緣。非一切受。諸阿羅漢。無無明故。雖有諸受。而無愛者。豈不經義非即如說。經無如是分別說故。由此應信順阿笈摩。不違正理。是此經義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 毛髮等等。如果那部經問到：『什麼是毛髮等等？』回答說是地界（Dhatu，四大元素之一，指堅固性）時，可以判斷那是不夠完整的說法。因為毛髮等等不僅僅是地界，而是多種元素的組合。然而，在那部經中，是通過毛髮等等來分別地界，而不是說地界超越了毛髮等等。所以那部契經（Sutra，佛經）是完整地說明了地界。這部經所說的無明（Avidya，不明白事理）等支（Anga，構成輪迴的要素），也應該像那樣，是完整地說明了。除了所說的之外，沒有其他的了。這種辯解是不合理的，因為迷惑了證明的意圖。這裡證明的意圖是，毛髮等等雖然由多種法組成，但在其中，地界佔優勢，所以總稱為地界。就像在那個集合中，地界佔優勢，廢除了其他劣勢的元素，就以優勢的元素來命名。就像這樣，雖然每一位（眾生）都具有五蘊（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素），但在這裡就優勢的要素來說，稱為無明等支。怎麼能說所引用的不是證明呢？ 經主（Sutrakara，經文的作者或解釋者）對此又說：『雖然在各個位（階段）都有五蘊，但如果隨著此（法）的有無，彼（法）必定有無，就可以將此法立為彼法的支。』諸阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得解脫的聖者），雖然有五蘊，但沒有行（Samskara，意志行為）。隨著福（Punya，善業）、非福（Apunya，惡業）和不動行（Anenja，禪定之業）的識（Vijnana，識別作用）乃至愛（Trsna，渴愛）等等都沒有。所以經文的意義，就是如所說的。像這樣所理解的，沒有深刻的道理。俱有因（Sahabhu-hetu，同時存在的因）的意義，之前已經成立。經主在其中，並非不認可。既然是同一個果（Phala，結果），就成為俱有因。那麼與無明，是同一個果法。就像無明對於果，隨著有無而必定成立。如果阿羅漢，雖然有五蘊，沒有無明，那麼行就沒有。唯獨執著于無明，作為行的緣（Hetu，原因）的人，諸阿羅漢，既然雖然有受（Vedana，感受），而沒有愛，應該不是唯獨受能成為愛的緣。然而這部經中，說受緣愛，更沒有其他的差別。所以並非如所說，就是經文的意義。然而更應該在其中，尋求其他的道理。如果無明觸（Avidya-sparsha，由無明引起的接觸）所生的諸受，能成為愛的緣，而不是一切的受。諸阿羅漢，沒有無明，雖然有諸受，而沒有愛的人。難道不是經文的意義並非如所說嗎？經文沒有像這樣分別說明。由此應該相信順應阿笈摩（Agama，聖傳），不違背正理，才是這部經的意義。
【English Translation】 English version: Hair, body hair, etc. If that sutra asks, 'What are hair, body hair, etc.?' and the answer is the earth element (Dhatu, one of the four great elements, referring to solidity), it can be judged as an incomplete explanation. Because hair, body hair, etc., are not only the earth element, but a combination of multiple elements. However, in that sutra, the earth element is distinguished through hair, body hair, etc., rather than saying that the earth element transcends hair, body hair, etc. Therefore, that Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) fully explains the earth element. The branches (Anga, elements constituting samsara) such as ignorance (Avidya, not understanding things) mentioned in this sutra should also be fully explained in that way. There is nothing else besides what is said. This defense is unreasonable because it confuses the intention of the proof. The intention of the proof here is that although hair, body hair, etc., are composed of many dharmas, the earth element is dominant among them, so they are collectively called the earth element. Just like in that collection, the earth element is dominant, and the other inferior elements are discarded, and the name is based on the dominant element. In this way, although each being has the five aggregates (Skandha, the five elements that constitute individual existence), here they are called branches such as ignorance based on the dominant element. How can it be said that what is cited is not proof? The Sutrakara (Sutrakara, the author or interpreter of the scripture) further says, 'Although there are five aggregates in each stage, if the presence or absence of the latter (dharma) is determined by the presence or absence of the former (dharma), then the former dharma can be established as a branch of the latter dharma.' Arhats (Arhat, saints who have attained liberation), although they have the five aggregates, do not have volitional activities (Samskara, volitional actions). The consciousness (Vijnana, the function of distinguishing) of merit (Punya, good karma), demerit (Apunya, bad karma), and unwavering activity (Anenja, the karma of meditation), and even craving (Trsna, thirst for desire) are absent. Therefore, the meaning of the scripture is as stated. What is understood in this way does not have profound reasoning. The meaning of co-existent cause (Sahabhu-hetu, a cause that exists simultaneously) has already been established before. The Sutrakara does not disapprove of it. Since it is the same result (Phala, consequence), it becomes a co-existent cause. Then, it is the same result dharma as ignorance. Just like ignorance is necessarily established for the result, depending on its presence or absence. If an Arhat has the five aggregates but no ignorance, then there are no volitional activities. Only those who cling to ignorance as the condition (Hetu, cause) for volitional activities, since Arhats have feeling (Vedana, sensation) but no craving, it should not be that feeling alone can be the condition for craving. However, this sutra says that feeling is the condition for craving, and there is no other difference. Therefore, it is not as said that it is the meaning of the scripture. However, one should seek other reasons in it. If the feelings born of ignorance-contact (Avidya-sparsha, contact caused by ignorance) can be the condition for craving, but not all feelings. Arhats do not have ignorance, and although they have feelings, they do not have craving. Isn't the meaning of the scripture not as said? The scripture does not explain it separately like this. Therefore, one should believe that conforming to the Agama (Agama, sacred tradition) and not violating right reason is the meaning of this scripture.
。又先已說。先說者何。謂非六處獨能生觸。故隨勝說。是此經義。則說分位緣起理成。是故頌應言。佛依分位說。無勞於此說傳許聲。詳彼但求足言成句。分位緣起。是此所明。其理既成。復應思擇。何緣於三際。建立緣起支。頌曰。
於前后中際 為遣他愚惑
論曰。依有情數。立十二支。為三際中。遣他愚惑。彼於三際愚惑者何。如契經言。我於過去世。為曾有非有。何等我曾有。云何我曾有。我于未來世。為當有非有。何等我當有。云何我當有。于現在世。何等是我。此我云何。我誰所有。我當有誰。為除如是三際愚惑。故經唯說有情緣起。三際緣起。如前已說。謂無明行。及生老死。並識至受。故契經說。若有苾芻。于諸緣起。緣已生法。能以如實正慧觀見。彼必不於三際愚惑。謂我於過去世。為曾有非有等。有餘師說。愛取有三。亦為除他后際愚惑。此三皆是后際因故。彼亦應說。識乃至受。亦為除他前際愚惑。此五皆是前際果故。則無中際。便違契經。或彼應申差別所以。然不能說。故前為勝。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：此外，之前已經說過。之前所說的是什麼呢？意思是說，並非只有六處才能產生觸，所以是根據殊勝的方面來說的。這是此經的意義。這樣說，分位緣起的道理就成立了。因此，偈頌應該說：佛是依據分位來說的，不必在這裡說傳承的音聲。詳細考察那些只求語句完整的人，分位緣起才是這裡所要闡明的。這個道理既然成立，就應該進一步思考，為什麼要在過去、現在、未來三際中建立緣起支呢？偈頌說： 『在過去、現在、未來三際，是爲了去除他人的愚昧迷惑。』 論中說：依據有情眾生的數量，建立十二支，是爲了在過去、現在、未來三際中，去除他人的愚昧迷惑。他們對於三際的愚昧迷惑是什麼呢？就像契經所說：『我在過去世，是曾經存在還是不曾存在？什麼樣的我曾經存在？我是如何曾經存在的？我在未來世，是將會存在還是不會存在？什麼樣的我將會存在？我將如何存在？在現在世，什麼是我？這個我是怎樣的？我是誰所有的？我將是誰所有的？』爲了去除像這樣的對於三際的愚昧迷惑，所以經中只說有情緣起。三際緣起，如前面已經說過，指的是無明、行，以及生、老、死，還有識到受。所以契經說：『如果有比丘，對於諸緣起，對於已經產生的法，能夠以如實的正慧觀察，那麼他必定不會對於三際感到愚昧迷惑。』也就是不會疑惑我在過去世，是曾經存在還是不曾存在等等。有其他老師說，愛、取、有這三支，也是爲了去除他人對於未來際的愚昧迷惑，因為這三支都是未來際的因。他們也應該說，識乃至受，也是爲了去除他人對於過去際的愚昧迷惑，因為這五支都是過去際的果。這樣就沒有現在際了，就違背了契經。或者他們應該說明其中的差別原因，但是他們說不出來。所以前面的說法更為殊勝。 以上是《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十七的內容。 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第二十八 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉詔翻譯
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it has already been said before. What was said before? It means that it is not only the six sense bases (六處, ṣaḍāyatana) that can produce contact (觸, sparśa), so it is spoken of according to the superior aspect. This is the meaning of this sutra. In this way, the principle of dependent origination (緣起, pratītyasamutpāda) by divisions is established. Therefore, the verse should say: The Buddha speaks according to divisions, there is no need to speak of transmitted sounds here. Examine in detail those who only seek to complete sentences with sufficient words; dependent origination by divisions is what is being clarified here. Since this principle is established, one should further consider, why are the limbs of dependent origination established in the three times (三際, tri-kāla) of past, present, and future? The verse says: 『In the past, future and present, it is to dispel the ignorance and delusion of others.』 The treatise says: Based on the number of sentient beings (有情, sattva), twelve limbs are established, in order to dispel the ignorance and delusion of others in the three times. What is their ignorance and delusion regarding the three times? As the sutra says: 『In the past, did I exist or not exist? What kind of I existed? How did I exist? In the future, will I exist or not exist? What kind of I will exist? How will I exist? In the present, what is I? What is this I like? To whom does this I belong? To whom will I belong?』 In order to dispel such ignorance and delusion regarding the three times, the sutra only speaks of the dependent origination of sentient beings. The dependent origination of the three times, as has been said before, refers to ignorance (無明, avidyā), action (行, saṃskāra), and birth (生, jāti), old age (老, jarā), and death (死, maraṇa), as well as consciousness (識, vijñāna) to feeling (受, vedanā). Therefore, the sutra says: 『If there is a Bhikṣu (苾芻, bhikṣu) who, regarding the various dependent originations, can observe the already arisen dharmas with true and correct wisdom, then he will certainly not be ignorant and deluded regarding the three times.』 That is, he will not doubt whether I existed or did not exist in the past, and so on. Some other teachers say that craving (愛, tṛṣṇā), grasping (取, upādāna), and becoming (有, bhava) are also to dispel the ignorance and delusion of others regarding the future. This is because these three are the causes of the future. They should also say that consciousness (識, vijñāna) up to feeling (受, vedanā) are also to dispel the ignorance and delusion of others regarding the past, because these five are the results of the past. In this way, there would be no present, which would contradict the sutra. Or they should explain the reasons for the difference, but they cannot. Therefore, the previous statement is superior. The above is the content of the Shuo Yi Qie You Bu Shun Zheng Li Lun (說一切有部順正理論, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra) Scroll 27. Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Scroll 28 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian (眾賢, Saṃghabhadra) Translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘, Xuánzàng) under imperial decree
辯緣起品第三之八
應知如是所說三際。唯有情數緣起義中。雖有十二支。而三二為性。三謂惑業事。二謂果與因。其義云何。頌曰。
三煩惱二業 七事亦名果 略果及略因 由中可比二
論曰。前際因無明。后際因愛取。如是三種。煩惱為性。前際因行。后際因有。如是二種。以業為性。前際識等五。后際生老死。如是七名事。惑業所依故。如是七事。即亦名果。義準餘五即亦名因。以煩惱業為自性故。何緣中際。廣說因果。后際略果。前際略因。中際易知。應廣說二。前後難了。各略說一。由中比二。具廣已成。故不別說。說便無用。如何別立愛取二支。毗婆沙師。許初念愛以愛聲說。即此相續。增廣熾盛。立以取名。相續取境。轉堅猛故。若爾應說三支剎那。何故唯言二剎那性。無斯過失。一一境中。各一剎那。合成多故正結生位。唯一剎那。於一身中。無容再結。故生與識。獨說剎那。何緣現在諸煩惱位。偏說于愛非余煩惱。于愛易了愛味過患。余煩惱中此相難了。愛是能感後有勝因。世尊偏說。令知過患。云何當令勤求治道。故唯說愛。剎那相續二位差別。非余煩惱。有餘師說。一切煩惱。初緣境時。說名為愛。后增廣位。說名為取。故佛雖說業因於愛。愛因無明。而實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 辯緣起品第三之八
應當知道，像這樣所說的三世（過去、現在、未來）。只有在有情眾生的緣起意義中，雖然有十二支（無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死），但可以歸納為三種和兩種性質。三種是指迷惑、行業和事物，兩種是指果和因。它們的意義是什麼呢？頌文說：
『三種煩惱兩種業，七事亦名果，略果及略因，由中可比二。』
論述：前世的因是無明（avidyā），後世的因是愛（tṛṣṇā）和取（upādāna）。這三種以煩惱為性質。前世的因是行（saṃskāra），後世的因是有（bhava）。這兩種以行業為性質。前世的識（vijñāna）等五支，後世的生（jāti）和老死（jarā-maraṇa）。這七支被稱為事物，因為它們是迷惑和行業所依賴的。這七件事物，也可以說是果。按照這個意義，其餘的五支也可以說是因，因為它們以煩惱和行業為自性。為什麼在現在世（中際）廣泛地說因果，而在後世（后際）簡略地說果，在前世（前際）簡略地說因呢？現在世容易理解，應該廣泛地說因果二者。而過去世和未來世難以理解，所以各自簡略地說一個。通過現在世可以類比過去世和未來世的因果，因為現在世已經完整地說明了因果，所以不需要分別說明，說了也沒有用。為什麼要特別設立愛和取這兩個支？毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）認為，最初生起的愛念用『愛』這個詞來說明，而這種愛念相續不斷，增長熾盛，就設立為『取』這個名稱，因為相續不斷地執取境界，變得更加堅固猛烈。如果這樣，應該說有三個剎那（kṣaṇa）的支，為什麼只說是兩種剎那的性質呢？沒有這個過失。因為在每一個境界中，各有一個剎那，合成了多個剎那。在真正結生的時候，只有一個剎那，在一個身體中，不可能再次結生。所以生和識單獨地說剎那。為什麼在現在的各種煩惱中，偏偏說愛，而不是其他的煩惱呢？因為對於愛來說，容易瞭解貪愛滋味所帶來的過患，而其他的煩惱中，這種相難以瞭解。愛是能夠感得後有的殊勝原因，世尊（Śākyamuni）特別說明，是爲了讓人知道它的過患，怎麼樣才能讓人勤奮地尋求對治的方法呢？所以只說愛。剎那相續的兩種狀態的差別，其他的煩惱沒有。有其他的老師說，一切煩惱，最初緣取境界的時候，就叫做愛，後來增長擴大，就叫做取。所以佛（Buddha）雖然說行業的原因是愛，愛的原因是無明，但實際上是……
【English Translation】 English version Section 3.8: Analysis of Dependent Origination
It should be understood that the three times (past, present, and future) mentioned in this way exist only within the context of sentient beings' dependent origination. Although there are twelve links (avidyā [ignorance], saṃskāra [volitional formations], vijñāna [consciousness], nāma-rūpa [name and form], ṣaḍāyatana [six sense bases], sparśa [contact], vedanā [feeling], tṛṣṇā [craving], upādāna [grasping], bhava [becoming], jāti [birth], jarā-maraṇa [old age and death]), they can be summarized into three and two natures. The three refer to delusion, karma, and things; the two refer to result and cause. What are their meanings? The verse says:
'Three are afflictions, two are actions, seven things are also called results, brief result and brief cause, the two can be compared by the middle.'
Commentary: The cause in the past is avidyā (ignorance), and the causes in the future are tṛṣṇā (craving) and upādāna (grasping). These three are characterized by afflictions. The cause in the past is saṃskāra (volitional formations), and the cause in the future is bhava (becoming). These two are characterized by karma. The five links starting with vijñāna (consciousness) in the past, and jāti (birth) and jarā-maraṇa (old age and death) in the future. These seven are called things because they are what delusion and karma rely on. These seven things can also be said to be results. According to this meaning, the remaining five links can also be said to be causes because they have the nature of affliction and karma. Why are causes and results extensively discussed in the present (middle time), while results are briefly discussed in the future (later time), and causes are briefly discussed in the past (earlier time)? The present is easy to understand, so the two, cause and result, should be extensively discussed. However, the past and future are difficult to understand, so each is briefly discussed. The causes and results of the past and future can be compared through the present because the present has fully explained the causes and results, so there is no need to explain them separately; it would be useless to do so. Why are the two links of tṛṣṇā (craving) and upādāna (grasping) specifically established? The Vaibhāṣikas (a school of Buddhism) believe that the initial thought of craving is explained by the term 'craving,' and this continuous craving, growing and intensifying, is established as the name 'grasping' because continuously grasping at objects becomes more firm and intense. If so, it should be said that there are three kṣaṇas (moments) of links, why is it only said to be the nature of two kṣaṇas? There is no such fault. Because in each object, there is one kṣaṇa each, which combines into multiple kṣaṇas. At the time of actual rebirth, there is only one kṣaṇa; it is impossible to be reborn again in one body. Therefore, jāti (birth) and vijñāna (consciousness) are separately said to be kṣaṇas. Why, among the various afflictions in the present, is craving specifically mentioned, and not other afflictions? Because it is easy to understand the faults of craving for pleasure in craving, while this aspect is difficult to understand in other afflictions. Craving is the excellent cause that can bring about future existence. Śākyamuni (the World-Honored One) specifically explained it in order to make people aware of its faults. How can people be encouraged to diligently seek methods of treatment? Therefore, only craving is mentioned. The difference between the two states of continuous kṣaṇas is not present in other afflictions. Some other teachers say that all afflictions are called craving when they initially grasp at objects, and are called grasping when they later grow and expand. Therefore, although the Buddha said that the cause of karma is craving, and the cause of craving is ignorance, in reality...
業因通一切煩惱。一切煩惱。皆無明為因。故知愛聲。通說諸惑。欲令因此總知過患。故以愛聲說諸煩惱。非余煩惱。招生劣故。有說愛聲。唯說愛體。多現行故。由此于愛分別剎那相續差別。雖非無此理。然前說為勝若緣起支唯有十二。老死無果。離修對治道。生死應有終。無明無因。無明是初故。生死應有始。或應更立余緣起支。余復有餘。成無窮過。又佛聖教。應成缺減然不應許。此難不然。未了所說緣起理故。此緣起理。云何應知。頌曰。
從惑生惑業 從業生於事 從事事惑生 有支理唯此
論曰。唯聲正顯有支數定。兼顯業與惑或俱或後生是惑。生惑時業俱或后義。由如是理。總攝有支。即已善通前所設難。從惑生惑。謂愛生取。從惑生業。謂取生有。無明生行。從業生事。謂行生識。及有生生。從事生事。謂從識支生於名色。乃至從觸生於受支。及從生支生於老死。從事生惑。謂受生愛。由立有支其理唯此。已成老死為事惑因。老死即如現四支故。及成無明為事惑果。無明即如現愛取故。豈假更立余緣起支。故經言如是純大苦蘊集。是前後二際。更相顯發義。是故無有老死無明無果無因有終始過。於此定攝因果義周。無更立支成無窮過。由佛遍說因果無遺。故無聖教成缺減失。此中上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 業的因可以通達一切煩惱。一切煩惱，都以無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）為因。所以要知道，愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）這個聲音，可以總括地代表各種迷惑。想要因此總的瞭解過患，所以用『愛』這個詞來代表各種煩惱，而不是其他的煩惱，因為其他的煩惱產生的結果比較差。有人說，『愛』這個詞，僅僅代表愛的本體，因為它經常顯現。因此，對於愛的分別，無論是剎那的、相續的、還是差別的，雖然並非沒有道理，但之前的說法更為殊勝。如果緣起支（pratītyasamutpāda-aṅga，十二因緣的各個環節）只有十二個，那麼老死（jarā-maraṇa，衰老和死亡）就沒有結果，脫離了修習對治的道路，生死（saṃsāra，輪迴）就應該有終結。無明沒有原因，因為無明是最初的，生死就應該有開始。或者應該再建立其他的緣起支，這樣一來，就會有無窮的過失。而且佛陀的聖教，也應該成為殘缺的，這是不應該允許的。這個責難是不成立的，因為沒有了解所說的緣起道理。這個緣起道理，應該如何理解呢？頌詞說： 『從惑生惑業，從業生於事，從事事惑生，有支理唯此。』 論中說：只有這個頌詞才正確地顯示了有支的數量是確定的，同時也顯示了業和惑，或者同時產生，或者惑在後產生。生惑的時候，業同時產生或者在後產生，根據這樣的道理，總括地攝取有支，就已經很好地解釋了之前提出的難題。從惑生惑，是指愛生取（upādāna，執取）。從惑生業，是指取生有（bhava，存在），無明生行（saṃskāra，行）。從業生事，是指行生識（vijñāna，意識），以及有生生（jāti，出生）。從事生事，是指從識支生於名色（nāma-rūpa，名色），乃至從觸（sparśa，觸覺）生於受支（vedanā，感受），以及從生支生於老死。從事生惑，是指受生愛。由於建立了有支，道理僅僅是這樣，已經成立了老死是事和惑的原因，老死就像現在所看到的四支一樣。以及成立了無明是事和惑的結果，無明就像現在所看到的愛和取一樣。難道還需要再建立其他的緣起支嗎？所以經中說，『這樣純粹巨大的苦蘊聚集』，是前後兩個階段，互相顯發意義。因此，沒有老死、無明無果、無因、有終始的過失。在這裡，確定地攝取因果的意義是周全的，沒有再建立支而造成無窮過失的情況。由於佛陀普遍地講述了因果，沒有遺漏，所以沒有聖教成為殘缺的缺失。這裡上面
【English Translation】 English version The cause of karma penetrates all afflictions (kleśas). All afflictions have ignorance (avidyā) as their cause. Therefore, know that the term 'craving' (tṛṣṇā) comprehensively represents all delusions. The intention is to understand the faults in general through this, hence using 'craving' to represent all afflictions, rather than other afflictions, because other afflictions produce inferior results. Some say that the term 'craving' only refers to the essence of craving, as it frequently manifests. Therefore, although it is not unreasonable to differentiate craving into momentary, continuous, and distinct aspects, the previous explanation is superior. If the limbs of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda-aṅga) were only twelve, then old age and death (jarā-maraṇa) would have no result, deviating from the path of cultivation and antidote, and samsara (saṃsāra) should have an end. Ignorance would have no cause, as it is the beginning, and samsara should have a beginning. Or, additional limbs of dependent origination should be established, leading to infinite faults. Furthermore, the Buddha's sacred teachings would become incomplete, which is unacceptable. This objection is invalid because the principle of dependent origination has not been understood. How should this principle of dependent origination be understood? The verse says: 'From delusion arises delusion and karma, from karma arises phenomena, from phenomena, phenomena and delusion arise, the principle of dependent origination is only this.' The treatise states: Only this verse correctly shows that the number of limbs of dependent origination is fixed, and also shows that karma and delusion either arise simultaneously or delusion arises later. When delusion arises, karma arises simultaneously or later. According to this principle, comprehensively grasping the limbs of dependent origination has already well explained the previously raised difficulties. From delusion arises delusion, meaning craving arises from grasping (upādāna). From delusion arises karma, meaning grasping arises from existence (bhava), and ignorance arises from formations (saṃskāra). From karma arises phenomena, meaning formations arise from consciousness (vijñāna), and existence arises from birth (jāti). From phenomena arises phenomena, meaning from the limb of consciousness arises name and form (nāma-rūpa), and from contact (sparśa) arises feeling (vedanā), and from the limb of birth arises old age and death. From phenomena arises delusion, meaning feeling arises from craving. Because the limbs of dependent origination are established, the principle is only this, it has been established that old age and death are the cause of phenomena and delusion, just as the four limbs are seen now. And it has been established that ignorance is the result of phenomena and delusion, just as craving and grasping are seen now. Is it necessary to establish additional limbs of dependent origination? Therefore, the sutra says, 'Thus, this pure great mass of suffering gathers,' which is the meaning of the two ends, past and future, mutually revealing each other. Therefore, there is no fault of old age and death, ignorance without result, without cause, having a beginning and an end. Here, the meaning of cause and effect is comprehensively grasped, and there is no situation of establishing additional limbs leading to infinite faults. Because the Buddha universally taught cause and effect without omission, there is no deficiency of the sacred teachings becoming incomplete. Here above
座。作是釋言。余經中說。非理作意。為無明因。無明覆生非理作意。非理作意。說在觸時。故余經說。眼色為緣。生癡所生染濁作意。此于受位。必引無明。故余經言。由無明觸。所生諸受為緣生愛是故觸時。非理作意。與受俱轉。無明為緣。由此無明。無無因過。亦不須立。余緣起支。又緣起支。無無窮失。非理作意。從癡生故。如契經說。眼色為緣。生癡所生染濁作意。余經雖有如是誠言。然此經中。應更須說。若由理故。不說自成。則一切支。皆不應說。設許理有。文但略標。便違自執此經了義。許此經文非盡理故。凡諸所有不盡理文。智者判為非了義故。既許理有。非載此文便證支名。從勝而立。且此經雖言六處緣觸。而上座亦許緣識作意。以契經說。眼及色為緣生於眼識。及染濁作意。雖緣六處亦生識等。而此但言六處緣觸。如是觸緣非唯六處。但六處位。六處最強。于觸位中。觸最為勝。就勝而說。余例應思。然經主言。經不別說。老死有果。無明有因。生死便成有終始者。此難非理。經意別故。亦非所說理不圓滿。所以者何。此經但欲除所化者三際愚故。由所化者唯生是疑。云何有情三世連續。謂從前世今世得生。今世復能生於後世。如來但為除彼疑情。說十二支。如前已辯。謂前後中際。為遣他愚
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 座部師這樣解釋說：其他經典中說，不如理作意（不如理的心理活動）是無明（對事物真相的迷惑）的原因，而無明又會產生不如理作意。不如理作意，是在觸（感官與對像接觸）的時候產生的。所以其他經典說，以眼和色為條件，產生由愚癡所生的染污的作意。這種作意在受（感受）的階段，必定會引發無明。所以其他經典說，由無明觸所產生的各種感受，以這些感受為條件而產生愛（貪愛）。因此，在觸的時候，不如理作意與受同時發生，以無明為條件。由於這個無明，就沒有無原因的過失，也不需要另外建立一個緣起支。而且，緣起支也不會有無窮的過失，因為不如理作意是從愚癡產生的。正如契經所說，以眼和色為條件，產生由愚癡所生的染污的作意。雖然其他經典中有這樣的明確說法，但是這部經典中，應該更需要說明。如果因為道理上是這樣，不說也能自然成立，那麼一切緣起支都不應該說了。假設承認道理上是這樣，經文只是簡略地標示，就違背了自己所堅持的這部經典是了義經（究竟的經典）的觀點，因為承認這部經典的內容並非完全窮盡真理。凡是所有沒有完全窮盡真理的經文，智者都判斷為非了義經。既然承認道理上是這樣，沒有記載在經文中，就不能證明緣起支的名稱是從最殊勝的角度建立的。而且，這部經典雖然說六處（六種感官）緣觸，但是上座部師也承認以識（意識）為條件產生作意，因為契經說，以眼和色為條件，產生眼識和染污的作意。雖然以六處為條件也能產生識等等，但是這部經典只說六處緣觸。像這樣，觸所緣的不僅僅是六處，但是在六處的階段，六處是最強的。在觸的階段中，觸是最為殊勝的。這是就最殊勝的角度來說的，其他的例子也應該這樣思考。然而，經主說，經典沒有分別說明，老死有果報，無明有原因，生死就變成了有開始和結束的。這種責難是不合理的，因為經典的意圖不同。也不是所說的道理不圓滿。這是什麼原因呢？這部經典只是想要去除被教化者對三世的愚昧。因為被教化者只是對『有情眾生如何能夠三世連續』產生懷疑，也就是從前世到今世得到出生，今世又能夠產生到後世。如來只是爲了去除他們的疑慮，才說了十二緣起支，正如前面已經辨析過的，也就是前後中間的階段，爲了遣除他人的愚昧。
【English Translation】 English version The Sthavira (Elder) explains it this way: Other sutras state that irrational attention (unwise mental activity) is the cause of ignorance (delusion about the true nature of things), and ignorance in turn gives rise to irrational attention. Irrational attention arises at the time of contact (sensory organs encountering objects). Therefore, other sutras say that with the eye and form as conditions, defiled attention born of delusion arises. This attention, at the stage of feeling (sensation), will inevitably lead to ignorance. Therefore, other sutras say that with the various feelings born of ignorant contact as conditions, craving (attachment) arises. Thus, at the time of contact, irrational attention occurs simultaneously with feeling, conditioned by ignorance. Because of this ignorance, there is no fault of having no cause, nor is it necessary to establish another link in dependent origination. Moreover, the links of dependent origination will not have the fault of being infinite, because irrational attention arises from delusion. As the sutra says, with the eye and form as conditions, defiled attention born of delusion arises. Although other sutras have such clear statements, this sutra should explain it further. If it is the case that because it is so in principle, it can be naturally established without being stated, then all the links of dependent origination should not be stated. Suppose it is admitted that it is so in principle, but the text only briefly indicates it, then it contradicts one's own insistence that this sutra is a definitive sutra (a sutra that is complete in meaning), because it is admitted that the content of this sutra does not completely exhaust the truth. All sutras that do not completely exhaust the truth are judged by the wise to be non-definitive sutras. Since it is admitted that it is so in principle, not recording it in the sutra does not prove that the name of the link of dependent origination is established from the most excellent perspective. Moreover, although this sutra says that the six sense bases (six sense organs) condition contact, the Sthavira also admits that attention arises conditioned by consciousness, because the sutra says that with the eye and form as conditions, eye consciousness and defiled attention arise. Although consciousness and so on can also arise conditioned by the six sense bases, this sutra only says that the six sense bases condition contact. In this way, what contact conditions is not only the six sense bases, but at the stage of the six sense bases, the six sense bases are the strongest. In the stage of contact, contact is the most excellent. This is speaking from the most excellent perspective, and other examples should be considered in the same way. However, the sutra master says that the sutra does not separately state that old age and death have consequences, and ignorance has causes, so birth and death become having a beginning and an end. This criticism is unreasonable, because the intention of the sutra is different. Nor is the principle stated incomplete. What is the reason for this? This sutra only wants to remove the delusion of those being taught about the three times. Because those being taught only have doubts about 'how sentient beings can be continuous through the three times', that is, obtaining birth from the past life to the present life, and the present life being able to give rise to the future life. The Tathagata (Buddha) only spoke of the twelve links of dependent origination in order to remove their doubts, as has already been analyzed earlier, that is, the stages of the past, present, and future, in order to dispel the ignorance of others.
惑。今詳經主。茍欲違背毗婆沙宗。舍自劬勞。所作如理釋疑難頌。所謂從惑生惑業等。自謂所言能免他難。今詳彼釋。于難未免。謂雖欲遣他三際愚。說緣起教。而不具說。老死有果。無明有因。非不了知前因後果相連續義。名諸所化已能除遣前後際愚。所化有情。謂中間諸位。如無明老死。因果俱無。便有斷常二見交起。豈知從前世今世生。及了從今世後世起。經既不顯。老死無明有果有因。連續不斷。所化定謂中間余支。亦因果俱無。如無明老死。則緣起教便足他疑。豈謂除他三際愚惑。故於所難。殊未能通。枉舍劬勞。自所造頌。釋難已了。如世尊言。吾當為汝說緣起法。緣已生法。此二何異。且本論言。云何為緣起。謂一切有為。復作是言。云何已生法。謂過去現在。此已生法。必應有緣。故知唯過現名緣已生法。準此緣起。亦在未來。以住未來是起法故。豈不本論亦作是言。謂一切有為。名緣已生法。此無有失。緣已生蘊。攝過去現在一切有為故。非已生法說名已生。不應正理。以相違故。然未來法。亦得名起。與有為相。不相離故。即由此理。前已說言。是起法故。得名緣起。故未來法。不名已生。如現未來。不名已滅。是滅法故。亦得滅名。此中有言。據當有義。未已生法。亦名已生。故世間言。紐
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人疑惑。現在詳細考察經文的主旨。如果想要違背《毗婆沙宗》（Vibhasa School，佛教的一個學派），捨棄自己辛勤的勞動，所作的如理釋疑難頌，例如所謂的從迷惑產生迷惑業等。自認為所說的話能夠避免他人的疑問。現在詳細考察他的解釋，對於疑問並沒有避免。說雖然想要去除他人對於過去、現在、未來三際的愚昧，宣說緣起教義，但是沒有完整地說清楚。老死有果報，無明有因。沒有完全瞭解前因後果相連續的意義，就說被教化的人已經能夠去除前後際的愚昧。被教化的有情，認為中間的各個階段，例如無明和老死，因果都沒有，於是斷見和常見兩種錯誤的見解交替產生。哪裡知道是從前世到今世的產生，以及從今世到後世的生起。經文既然沒有明顯地說清楚老死和無明有果報和原因，連續不斷，那麼被教化的人一定會認為中間其餘的各個支分，也是因果都沒有，就像無明和老死一樣。那麼緣起教義就足以引起他人的懷疑，哪裡能說去除他人對於三際的愚昧迷惑呢？所以在所提出的疑問上，終究不能通達。白白捨棄辛勤的勞動，自己所造的頌文。解釋疑問已經完畢。就像世尊所說：『我應當為你們宣說緣起法，緣已生法。』這兩者有什麼不同呢？而且本論說：『什麼是緣起？』說是『一切有為法』。又說：『什麼是已生法？』說是『過去和現在』。這個已生法，必定應該有緣。所以知道只有過去和現在叫做緣已生法。按照這個推論，緣起也存在於未來，因為存在於未來是生起法。難道不是本論也這樣說嗎？說：『一切有為法，叫做緣已生法。』這沒有錯誤。緣已生的蘊，涵蓋過去和現在的一切有為法。不是已生法說成已生，不應該合乎道理，因為相互矛盾。然而未來的法，也可以叫做起，與有為的相狀不相分離。就因為這個道理，前面已經說過，是起法，所以可以叫做緣起。所以未來的法，不叫做已生，就像現在和未來，不叫做已滅，是滅法，也可以叫做滅。這裡有人說，根據將要有的意義，沒有已生的法，也可以叫做已生。所以世間說，紐 English version: Someone is in doubt. Now, let's examine the main point of the scripture in detail. If one intends to contradict the Vibhasa School (Vibhasa School, a school of Buddhism), abandoning one's own diligent labor, and the rationally explained verses for resolving doubts, such as the so-called 'from delusion arises deluded karma,' etc., claiming that what one says can avoid others' questions. Now, examining his explanation in detail, the doubts have not been avoided. It is said that although one wants to remove others' ignorance of the three times—past, present, and future—by expounding the doctrine of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda), it is not fully explained. Old age and death have consequences, and ignorance has a cause. Not fully understanding the meaning of the continuous sequence of cause and effect, one claims that those who are being taught are already able to remove the ignorance of the past and future times. The sentient beings being taught believe that the intermediate stages, such as ignorance and old age and death, have neither cause nor effect, and thus the two erroneous views of eternalism and annihilationism arise alternately. How can they know the arising from the past life to the present life, and the arising from the present life to the future life? Since the scripture does not clearly state that old age and death and ignorance have consequences and causes, continuously and uninterruptedly, then those being taught will certainly believe that the remaining parts in the middle also have neither cause nor effect, just like ignorance and old age and death. Then the doctrine of dependent origination is sufficient to cause others to doubt, so how can it be said to remove others' ignorance and delusion about the three times? Therefore, in the questions raised, one ultimately cannot understand. One abandons diligent labor in vain, and the verses one has created. The explanation of the questions is now complete. It is like what the World Honored One (Bhagavan) said: 'I shall explain to you the law of dependent origination, the law of conditioned arising.' What is the difference between these two? Moreover, the original treatise says: 'What is dependent origination?' It says, 'All conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta).' It also says: 'What is conditioned arising?' It says, 'The past and the present.' This conditioned arising must have conditions. Therefore, it is known that only the past and present are called conditioned arising. According to this inference, dependent origination also exists in the future, because existing in the future is the arising phenomenon. Isn't it that the original treatise also says this? It says: 'All conditioned phenomena are called conditioned arising.' This is not wrong. The aggregates (skandha) of conditioned arising encompass all conditioned phenomena of the past and present. It is not reasonable to call conditioned arising as conditioned arising, because it is contradictory. However, future phenomena can also be called arising, not being separate from the characteristic of being conditioned. It is because of this reason that it has been said before that it is an arising phenomenon, so it can be called dependent origination. Therefore, future phenomena are not called conditioned arising, just as the present and future are not called extinguished, being the phenomenon of extinction, they can also be called extinction. Here, some say that according to the meaning of what will be, phenomena that have not yet arisen can also be called conditioned arising. Therefore, the world says, 'New'
【English Translation】 Someone is in doubt. Now, let's examine the main point of the scripture in detail. If one intends to contradict the Vibhasa School (Vibhasa School, a school of Buddhism), abandoning one's own diligent labor, and the rationally explained verses for resolving doubts, such as the so-called 'from delusion arises deluded karma,' etc., claiming that what one says can avoid others' questions. Now, examining his explanation in detail, the doubts have not been avoided. It is said that although one wants to remove others' ignorance of the three times—past, present, and future—by expounding the doctrine of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda), it is not fully explained. Old age and death have consequences, and ignorance has a cause. Not fully understanding the meaning of the continuous sequence of cause and effect, one claims that those who are being taught are already able to remove the ignorance of the past and future times. The sentient beings being taught believe that the intermediate stages, such as ignorance and old age and death, have neither cause nor effect, and thus the two erroneous views of eternalism and annihilationism arise alternately. How can they know the arising from the past life to the present life, and the arising from the present life to the future life? Since the scripture does not clearly state that old age and death and ignorance have consequences and causes, continuously and uninterruptedly, then those being taught will certainly believe that the remaining parts in the middle also have neither cause nor effect, just like ignorance and old age and death. Then the doctrine of dependent origination is sufficient to cause others to doubt, so how can it be said to remove others' ignorance and delusion about the three times? Therefore, in the questions raised, one ultimately cannot understand. One abandons diligent labor in vain, and the verses one has created. The explanation of the questions is now complete. It is like what the World Honored One (Bhagavan) said: 'I shall explain to you the law of dependent origination, the law of conditioned arising.' What is the difference between these two? Moreover, the original treatise says: 'What is dependent origination?' It says, 'All conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta).' It also says: 'What is conditioned arising?' It says, 'The past and the present.' This conditioned arising must have conditions. Therefore, it is known that only the past and present are called conditioned arising. According to this inference, dependent origination also exists in the future, because existing in the future is the arising phenomenon. Isn't it that the original treatise also says this? It says: 'All conditioned phenomena are called conditioned arising.' This is not wrong. The aggregates (skandha) of conditioned arising encompass all conditioned phenomena of the past and present. It is not reasonable to call conditioned arising as conditioned arising, because it is contradictory. However, future phenomena can also be called arising, not being separate from the characteristic of being conditioned. It is because of this reason that it has been said before that it is an arising phenomenon, so it can be called dependent origination. Therefore, future phenomena are not called conditioned arising, just as the present and future are not called extinguished, being the phenomenon of extinction, they can also be called extinction. Here, some say that according to the meaning of what will be, phenomena that have not yet arisen can also be called conditioned arising. Therefore, the world says, 'New'
繩造釧。外論亦說。祠火求男。此違教理。如說云何非已滅法。謂現未法。及諸無為。若未來據當名已生者。則未來現在應名已滅。如現未法。是滅法故。但得滅名。不名已滅。則未來法。是起法故。但得名起。不名已生。如是方名不違理論。又不生法。于彼成違。以彼必無當生理故。如何據當說亦得名已生。又彼理窮引俗事證。有聖教理證此義成。豈世俗言。證賢聖法。尊者望滿。說諸法內。有是緣起非緣已生。應作四句。第一句者。謂未來法。第二句者。謂阿羅漢。最後心位。過現諸法。第三句者。余過現法。第四句者。謂無為法。若未來法。非緣已生。豈不違害契經所說。如說云何緣已生法。謂無明行至生老死。生與老死。既在未來而經說為緣已生法。此無違害。且應審知。一切有支。皆有為故。一一定為三世所攝。無明行支。及生老死。如何可為現在所攝。由約生身展轉理故。約未來世二生身說。現在愛取有。得無明行名。約過去世二生身說。現在識至受。得生老死名。故過未四支。皆可現在攝。然彼尊者。復作是言。若無明行二在現在。彼餘十支在未來世。八無間當生二第三當生若生老死二在現在。彼餘十支。在過去世。八無間已滅二第三已滅。由如是理。十二有支。一切可為現在世攝。故生老死。亦名已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 用繩子製造手鐲。外道也這樣說，通過祭祀火神來祈求生兒子。這些都違背了佛教的教義和道理。如果有人問：『什麼不是已經滅掉的法？』 答：『是現在的法、未來的法，以及各種無為法。』 如果因為未來法將來會產生，就說它是『已生』的，那麼未來和現在的法也應該被稱為『已滅』的，因為現在的法和未來的法都是會滅的法。但只能說它們是『滅』，不能說是『已滅』。同樣，未來的法，因為是會生起的法，所以只能說是『起』，不能說是『已生』。這樣說才不違背理論。而且，『不生』的法，對他們來說就成了矛盾，因為他們認為一切事物最終都會產生。怎麼能根據將來的情況，就說它也可以被稱為『已生』呢？而且，他們的理論已經窮盡，卻引用世俗的事情來證明。現在有聖教的道理可以證明這個意義成立，怎麼能用世俗的言論來證明賢聖的佛法呢？ 尊者望滿說，在一切法中，有的是緣起，有的不是緣起而是已經生起的。應該分成四句來解釋：第一句，指的是未來的法。第二句，指的是阿羅漢最後的心識狀態，以及過去和現在的各種法。第三句，指的是其餘的過去和現在的法。第四句，指的是無為法。如果未來的法不是由緣而生，豈不是違背了契經所說？契經上說：『什麼是由緣而生的法？』 答：『是由無明（Avidya）和行（Samskara）到生（Jati）、老（Jara）和死（Marana）。』 生和老死既然在未來，而經中卻說是緣已生法，這並沒有矛盾。應該仔細瞭解，一切有支（Bhavaṅga），都是有為法，每一個都一定被三世所包含。無明和行，以及生和老死，怎麼能被現在所包含呢？這是因為根據生命延續的道理，是根據未來世的兩個生命體來說的。現在的愛（Trsna）、取（Upadana）和有（Bhava），可以被稱為無明和行。根據過去世的兩個生命體來說，現在的識（Vijnana）到受（Vedana），可以被稱為生老死。所以過去和未來的四支，都可以被現在所包含。然而，那位尊者又這樣說：如果無明和行在現在，那麼其餘的十支就在未來世，八支是無間當生，兩支是第三當生。如果生老死在現在，那麼其餘的十支就在過去世，八支是無間已滅，兩支是第三已滅。根據這樣的道理，十二有支，一切都可以被現在世所包含。所以生老死，也可以被稱為已生。
【English Translation】 English version Making bracelets from rope. Externalists also say this, seeking sons by worshipping the fire god. These contradict the teachings and principles of Buddhism. If someone asks, 'What is not a law that has already ceased?' The answer is, 'It is the present law, the future law, and all unconditioned laws (Asamskrta).' If, because the future law will arise in the future, it is said to be 'already arisen,' then the future and present laws should also be called 'already ceased,' because the present and future laws are all laws that will cease. But it can only be said that they are 'ceasing,' not 'already ceased.' Similarly, the future law, because it is a law that will arise, can only be said to be 'arising,' not 'already arisen.' Only by saying this can the theory not be contradicted. Moreover, the 'unborn' law becomes a contradiction for them, because they believe that all things will eventually arise. How can it be said that it can also be called 'already arisen' based on future circumstances? Moreover, their theory has been exhausted, but they cite worldly matters to prove it. Now there are the principles of the holy teachings that can prove this meaning is established, how can worldly words be used to prove the Dharma of the wise and holy? The Venerable Wangman said that among all dharmas, some are dependently originated (Pratītyasamutpāda), and some are not dependently originated but have already arisen. It should be divided into four sentences to explain: The first sentence refers to the future law. The second sentence refers to the last state of consciousness of an Arhat, and the various past and present laws. The third sentence refers to the remaining past and present laws. The fourth sentence refers to the unconditioned law. If the future law is not born from conditions, wouldn't it contradict what the sutras say? The sutras say: 'What is the law that arises from conditions?' The answer is, 'It is from ignorance (Avidya) and action (Samskara) to birth (Jati), old age (Jara), and death (Marana).' Since birth and old age and death are in the future, but the sutra says that they are laws that have arisen from conditions, there is no contradiction. It should be carefully understood that all limbs of existence (Bhavaṅga) are conditioned dharmas, and each one is certainly contained in the three times. How can ignorance and action, as well as birth and old age and death, be contained in the present? This is because, according to the principle of the continuation of life, it is based on two life forms in the future world. The present craving (Trsna), grasping (Upadana), and existence (Bhava) can be called ignorance and action. According to the two life forms in the past world, the present consciousness (Vijnana) to feeling (Vedana) can be called birth, old age, and death. Therefore, the four limbs of the past and future can all be contained in the present. However, that Venerable one said again: If ignorance and action are in the present, then the remaining ten limbs are in the future world, eight limbs will be born immediately, and two limbs will be born in the third. If birth, old age, and death are in the present, then the remaining ten limbs are in the past world, eight limbs have ceased immediately, and two limbs have ceased in the third. According to this principle, all twelve limbs of existence can be contained in the present world. Therefore, birth, old age, and death can also be called already arisen.
生。由此與經無違害失。非未已生位。可說為已生。今詳尊者所說義意。若從因已起名緣已生。若與余為因說名緣起。非無為法得緣起名。以為因相不圓滿故。因相者何。謂前已說。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。依此無彼無。此滅故彼滅。雖有無為諸法得起。而不可說此生故彼生。亦不可言此滅故彼滅。及不可說依此無彼無。無生滅故。體常有故。諸無為法。能作所緣。無障礙住。于有為法。成能作因。然于有為。無取與力。闕于因相。由此佛說。諸因諸緣。能生識者。皆無常故。有餘師說。無明名緣起。行名緣已生。如是展轉。乃至生名緣起。老死名緣已生。如是所說。不順經義。以契經中說無明等皆名緣起緣已生故。有說。無明唯說名緣起。最後老死唯名緣已生。中間十支。俱通二義。非老死位定生諸惑。是故老死唯名緣已生。無明定能發起諸行。故無明位唯說名緣起。諸對法者。有作是言。前際二支。說名緣起。此二意說。為因性故。后際兩位。名緣已生。中際八支。皆通二義。如是二說。俱不順經。經說諸支皆通二故。如是二句。決定義者頌曰。
此中意正說 因起果已生
論曰。諸支因分說名緣起。所以者何。由此為緣。能起果故。以于因果相系屬中說緣起故。此緣起義。但以緣聲而成立故。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：生。因此這與佛經沒有衝突和損害。不是未生位的法，可以說成是已生的法。現在詳細解釋尊者所說的意義：如果從因已經生起而命名為緣已生，如果作為其他法的因，就稱為緣起。無為法不能得到緣起的名稱，因為作為因的相狀不圓滿的緣故。什麼是因的相狀呢？就是前面已經說過的：依此有則彼有，此生則彼生；依此無則彼無，此滅則彼滅。雖然有無為法能夠生起，但不能說此生故彼生，也不能說此滅故彼滅，以及不能說依此無則彼無，因為無為法沒有生滅，體性常有。各種無為法，能夠作為所緣，無障礙地存在，對於有為法，成為能作因。然而對於有為法，沒有取與的力量，缺少作為因的相狀。因此佛說，各種因各種緣，能夠生起識的，都是無常的緣故。有其他老師說，無明（avidyā，ignorance）名為緣起，行（saṃskāra，volitional action）名為緣已生，這樣輾轉相生，乃至生（jāti，birth）名為緣起，老死（jarā-maraṇa，old age and death）名為緣已生。這樣所說，不順應佛經的意義，因為佛經中說無明等都名為緣起和緣已生。有人說，無明唯獨名為緣起，最後的老死唯獨名為緣已生，中間的十支，都通達兩種意義。不是老死位一定產生各種迷惑，所以老死唯獨名為緣已生。無明一定能夠發起各種行，所以無明位唯獨說名為緣起。各種對法論師，有這樣說的，前際的二支，說名為緣起，這兩種意義的說法，是因為作為因的性質的緣故。后際的兩位，名為緣已生，中際的八支，都通達兩種意義。這樣兩種說法，都不順應佛經，佛經說各種支都通達兩種意義。像這樣兩句話，決定意義的偈頌說： 『此中意正說，因起果已生。』 論曰：各種支的因分說名為緣起。為什麼呢？因為由此作為緣，能夠生起果的緣故。因為在因果相互系屬中說緣起的緣故。這種緣起的意義，只是用緣的聲音而成立的緣故，例如...
【English Translation】 English version: Birth. Therefore, this does not conflict with or harm the sutras. It is not the case that something in the un-arisen state can be said to be already arisen. Now, let's explain in detail the meaning of what the venerable one said: if something is named 'conditioned arising' (pratītyasamutpāda) because the cause has already arisen, and if it serves as a cause for other dharmas, it is called 'arising'. Unconditioned dharmas cannot be called 'conditioned arising' because their aspect as a cause is not complete. What is the aspect of a cause? It is what has been said before: when this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises; when this does not exist, that does not exist; when this ceases, that ceases. Although unconditioned dharmas can arise, it cannot be said that 'when this arises, that arises,' nor can it be said that 'when this ceases, that ceases,' nor can it be said that 'when this does not exist, that does not exist,' because unconditioned dharmas do not have arising and ceasing, and their nature is constant. Various unconditioned dharmas can serve as objects of cognition (ālambana), exist without obstruction, and become efficient causes (kāraṇa-hetu) for conditioned dharmas. However, they do not have the power to take or give with respect to conditioned dharmas, lacking the aspect of a cause. Therefore, the Buddha said that all causes and conditions that can give rise to consciousness (vijñāna) are impermanent (anitya). Some other teachers say that ignorance (avidyā) is called 'conditioned arising,' volitional action (saṃskāra) is called 'already arisen,' and so on in a cycle, until birth (jāti) is called 'conditioned arising,' and old age and death (jarā-maraṇa) is called 'already arisen.' What they say does not accord with the meaning of the sutras, because the sutras say that ignorance and so on are all called both 'conditioned arising' and 'already arisen.' Some say that only ignorance is called 'conditioned arising,' and only the final old age and death is called 'already arisen,' while the ten intermediate links have both meanings. It is not the case that various delusions necessarily arise in the state of old age and death, so old age and death is only called 'already arisen.' Ignorance can certainly initiate various volitional actions, so only ignorance is called 'conditioned arising.' Some Abhidharma masters say that the two links of the past are called 'conditioned arising,' because they have the nature of a cause. The two links of the future are called 'already arisen,' and the eight intermediate links have both meanings. Both of these views do not accord with the sutras, which say that all links have both meanings. These two phrases, which determine the meaning, say in a verse: 『Here, the correct meaning is explained: the cause arises, the effect is already arisen.』 Treatise: The causal aspect of the various links is called 'conditioned arising.' Why? Because by this as a condition, the effect can arise. Because conditioned arising is spoken of in the context of the mutual dependence of cause and effect. The meaning of this conditioned arising is established only by the sound of 'condition,' for example...
契經說。云何緣起。謂依此有彼有。及此生故彼生。即無明緣行。至生緣老死。如是說已。復作是言。此中法性。乃至最後無顛倒性。是名緣起。何等名為此中法性。謂于因果相系屬中。有因功能。皆名法性。要有因故因果方有。更相系屬。非無有因。如是性言。顯能生義。唯有為法性。得此法性名。雖此經中非正顯示。于因果相屬因性名緣起。而以緣聲。顯緣起義。故知因性得緣起名。以緣聲但于能顯義轉故因能顯果。故說名緣。由是阿羅漢最後心心所。非等無間緣。無所顯果故。即由此義。證緣起名定於因果相屬中立。故佛于彼勝義空經說。此中法假謂無明緣行。廣說乃至。生緣老死。以非勝義。故立假聲。即目因果更相屬義。諸支果分。說緣已生。所以者何。由此皆從緣已生故。果是諸法成辦名故。要已生法。此義成故。涅槃成辦。由得已生故。彼亦由已生名果。或復於此說緣起門。涅槃于中無容為難。若有為法。果義決定。是此所明。如沙門果。諸過現法。果義決定。名緣已生。法在未來。果義非定。廢而不說。此略義者。是起法性。說名緣起。過現諸法。名緣已生。果義定故。謂于因果相系屬中。據為因分說名緣起。定為果者。名緣已生。又此中因名緣起者。以能為緣起諸果故。於此中果法名緣已生者。以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：契經上說：『什麼是緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda，指事物相互依存、相互聯繫而生起的法則）？』 就是說，『依此有彼有，及此生故彼生』。即無明（Avidyā，指對事物真相的迷惑和無知）緣行（Saṃskāra，指由無明所驅動的行為），乃至生（Jāti，指出生）緣老死（Jarā-maraṇa，指衰老和死亡）。這樣說完之後，又說：『此中的法性（Dharmatā，指事物本來的性質），乃至最後沒有顛倒性（Viparyāsa，指錯誤的認知和見解），這叫做緣起。』 什麼叫做『此中的法性』？ 就是說，在因果（Hetu-phala，指原因和結果）相互聯繫的範疇中，具有因的功能，都叫做『法性』。必須要有因，因果才能存在，並且相互聯繫。如果沒有因，就不會有果。像這樣，『性』這個詞，顯示了能生的意義。只有有為法（Saṃskṛta-dharma，指由因緣和合而成的法）的性質，才能得到『法性』這個名稱。雖然這部經中沒有明確地顯示，但在因果相屬的因性上，稱之為緣起。而用『緣』這個詞，來顯示緣起的意義。所以，因性可以得到緣起這個名稱。因為『緣』這個詞，只在能顯現意義上起作用，所以因能顯現果，因此被稱為『緣』。由此，阿羅漢（Arhat，指斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）的最後心心所（Citta-caitta，指心和與心相關的心理活動），不是等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，指前後相續的心識之間的關係），因為它沒有所顯現的果。 正因為這個意義，證明了緣起這個名稱，一定是在因果相屬中建立的。所以佛在《勝義空經》中說：『此中的法假（Dharma-saṃjñā，指虛假的法），就是無明緣行，廣說乃至，生緣老死。』 因為它不是勝義（Paramārtha，指究竟的真理），所以用『假』這個詞，來指代因果相互聯繫的意義。各個支分的果，說是『緣已生』。為什麼呢？ 因為這些都是從緣已經生起而產生的。果是諸法成就的名稱。必須是已經生起的法，這個意義才能成立。涅槃（Nirvāṇa，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）的成就，也是因為得到了已經生起的果。所以涅槃也因為已經生起而被稱作果。或者，在這裡討論緣起之門，涅槃在其中沒有容身之處，難以討論。如果有為法，果的意義是確定的，這就是這裡所要說明的。比如沙門果（Śrāmaṇyaphala，指修道者的果位），過去和現在的法，果的意義是確定的，所以叫做『緣已生』。法在未來，果的意義是不確定的，所以廢而不說。這簡略的意義，就是生起法的性質，稱作緣起。過去和現在的法，叫做『緣已生』，因為果的意義是確定的。也就是說，在因果相互聯繫的範疇中，根據作為因的部分，稱作緣起。確定為果的部分，叫做『緣已生』。 另外，這裡所說的因叫做緣起，是因為它能夠作為緣，生起各種果。而這裡所說的果法叫做『緣已生』，是因為...
【English Translation】 English version: The scripture says: 'What is dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda)?' It is said, 'When this exists, that exists; from the arising of this, the arising of that.' That is, ignorance (Avidyā) conditions volitional formations (Saṃskāra), up to birth (Jāti) conditions old age and death (Jarā-maraṇa).' Having said this, it is further stated: 'The nature of phenomena (Dharmatā) herein, up to the final non-perverted nature (Viparyāsa), is called dependent origination.' What is called 'the nature of phenomena herein'? It means that within the interconnectedness of cause and effect (Hetu-phala), the function of a cause is called 'the nature of phenomena.' There must be a cause for cause and effect to exist and be interconnected. Without a cause, there would be no effect. Thus, the term 'nature' signifies the meaning of being able to produce. Only the nature of conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta-dharma) can obtain this name of 'the nature of phenomena.' Although this scripture does not explicitly show it, the causal nature within the relationship of cause and effect is called dependent origination. The term 'condition' (緣, Hetu) is used to signify the meaning of dependent origination. Therefore, the causal nature can obtain the name of dependent origination. Because the term 'condition' only functions in manifesting meaning, the cause can manifest the effect, and is therefore called a 'condition.' Hence, the final mind and mental factors (Citta-caitta) of an Arhat (聖者) are not an immediately preceding condition (Samanantarapratyaya), because they do not have a manifested effect. It is precisely because of this meaning that the name of dependent origination is established within the relationship of cause and effect. Therefore, the Buddha said in the 'Ultimate Emptiness Sutra': 'The conceptual designation of phenomena (Dharma-saṃjñā) herein is that ignorance conditions volitional formations, and so on, up to birth conditions old age and death.' Because it is not ultimate (Paramārtha), the term 'conceptual designation' is used to refer to the meaning of the interconnectedness of cause and effect. The resulting parts of each factor are said to be 'conditioned by what has already arisen.' Why? Because these all arise from conditions that have already arisen. The effect is the name for the accomplishment of all phenomena. It must be a phenomenon that has already arisen for this meaning to be established. The accomplishment of Nirvana (解脫) is also because of obtaining an effect that has already arisen. Therefore, Nirvana is also called an effect because it has already arisen. Or, in discussing the gate of dependent origination here, Nirvana has no place within it and is difficult to discuss. If conditioned phenomena have a definite meaning of effect, this is what is to be explained here. For example, the fruits of the ascetic life (Śrāmaṇyaphala), past and present phenomena, have a definite meaning of effect, and are therefore called 'conditioned by what has already arisen.' Phenomena in the future have an indefinite meaning of effect, and are therefore discarded and not discussed. This brief meaning is that the nature of arising phenomena is called dependent origination. Past and present phenomena are called 'conditioned by what has already arisen' because the meaning of the effect is definite. That is, within the interconnectedness of cause and effect, based on the part that serves as the cause, it is called dependent origination. The part that is determined to be the effect is called 'conditioned by what has already arisen.' Furthermore, the cause mentioned here is called dependent origination because it can serve as a condition to give rise to various effects. And the resulting phenomena mentioned here are called 'conditioned by what has already arisen' because...
過去現在離緣不生故。如是一切。二義俱成。諸支皆有因果性故。雖因果性實體無別。而義建立非不極成。以所觀待有差別故。謂若觀此名緣已生。非即觀斯複名緣起。譬如因果父子等名。然此契經說有密意。阿毗達磨無密意說。何等名為此經密意。謂薄伽梵。密顯生死無始有終。說斯二句。言緣起者。顯生死流無始時來旋還無斷。故說順逆諸支相生。緣已生言。為顯生死若得對治有終盡期。謂若有緣。后更續起。如其緣闕。后不續生。由是經言作苦邊際。又經中說緣起。是假因果相屬。無自性故。說緣已生。其體是實。是彼依故。如瓶所依。阿毗達磨。說二皆實。因果二體。俱實有故。如是已顯毗婆沙宗。不違契經緣起理趣。詳經主說此違經者。由未承稟毗婆沙師。或師未達毗婆沙義。或雖披覽毗婆沙文。邪執覆心。不鑒正理。有餘部師。說緣起是無為。以契經言。佛告乞士。如是緣起。非我所作。非他所作。如來出世若不出世。如是緣起。法性常住乃至廣說。由此意說。理亦可然。謂此意言。如是緣起。無別作者。故說無為。如來出世若不出世。行等常緣無明等起。非緣余法或復無緣。如是法性。非佛所作。非余所作。說為常住。此亦無疑。如是名常。理必然故若說別法。名為緣起。如擇滅等。是凝然常。此必不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 過去、現在、未來三時，因緣和合而不生。像這樣，兩種意義都成立。各個支分都有因果的性質。雖然因果的性質在實體上沒有差別，但義理的建立並非不極度成立，因為所觀察的側重點有差別。如果觀察這個，就稱之為『緣已生』（paticcasamuppannesu），不能同時又稱之為『緣起』（paticcasamuppada）。譬如因和果、父親和兒子等名稱。然而，這部契經（sutta）所說具有密意（sandha）。阿毗達磨（Abhidhamma）沒有密意的說法。 什麼叫做這部經的密意呢？就是薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）隱秘地顯示生死輪迴是無始有終的。說這兩句話，『緣起』，顯示生死之流從無始以來循環不斷，所以說順逆諸支相互生起。『緣已生』，是爲了顯示生死如果得到對治，就會有終結的時候。如果還有因緣，之後還會繼續生起；如果因緣缺失，之後就不會繼續生起。因此經上說，可以『作苦邊際』（dukkhassa antakiriya）。 另外，經中說『緣起』是虛假的因果相屬，沒有自性（svabhava）的緣故。說『緣已生』，它的體性是真實的，是『緣起』所依賴的，就像瓶子所依賴的泥土一樣。阿毗達磨說兩者都是真實的，因和果的體性都是真實存在的。 像這樣，已經顯示了毗婆沙宗（Vaibhashika）不違背契經中緣起的道理。詳細解釋經文的人說這違背了經文，是因為沒有接受毗婆沙師的教導，或者老師沒有理解毗婆沙的意義，或者雖然閱讀了毗婆沙的文字，但邪見矇蔽了內心，不能明辨正理。 有其他部派的老師說，緣起是無為（asamskrita，非造作）。因為契經上說，佛告比丘：『如是緣起，非我所作，非他所作。如來出世或不出世，如是緣起，法性常住』，乃至廣說。由此意說，道理也是可以成立的。這個意思說，像這樣的緣起，沒有別的作者，所以說是無為。如來出世或不出世，行等常緣無明等生起，不是緣于其他法或者沒有緣。像這樣的法性，不是佛所作，也不是其他所作，所以說是常住。這也沒有疑問，像這樣名為常，道理必然如此。如果說別的法，名為緣起，如擇滅（pratisamkhyanirodha）等，是凝然常，這必定不成立。
【English Translation】 English version Because past, present, and future conditions do not arise independently. Thus, both meanings are established. All branches have the nature of cause and effect. Although the nature of cause and effect is not different in essence, the establishment of meaning is not extremely established, because the observed focus is different. If one observes this, it is called 'paticcasamuppannesu' (conditions having arisen), and it cannot be called 'paticcasamuppada' (dependent origination) at the same time. For example, names such as cause and effect, father and son. However, this sutta (契經) has a hidden meaning (sandha). Abhidhamma (阿毗達磨) does not have a hidden meaning. What is the hidden meaning of this sutta? It is that the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, World-Honored One) secretly reveals that samsara (生死輪迴) is beginningless and has an end. Saying these two sentences, 'paticcasamuppada' (緣起), shows that the flow of samsara has been circulating continuously from the beginningless time, so it is said that the direct and reverse branches arise from each other. 'Paticcasamuppannesu' (緣已生) is to show that if samsara is counteracted, there will be an end. If there are still conditions, it will continue to arise later; if the conditions are missing, it will not continue to arise later. Therefore, the sutta says that one can 'make an end to suffering' (dukkhassa antakiriya). In addition, the sutta says that 'paticcasamuppada' (緣起) is a false causal relationship, because it has no self-nature (svabhava). Saying 'paticcasamuppannesu' (緣已生), its nature is real, and it is what 'paticcasamuppada' (緣起) depends on, just like the clay on which the bottle depends. Abhidhamma (阿毗達磨) says that both are real, and the nature of cause and effect are both real. In this way, it has been shown that the Vaibhashika (毗婆沙宗) does not violate the principle of dependent origination in the sutta. The person who explains the sutta in detail says that this violates the sutta because he has not received the teachings of the Vaibhashika master, or the teacher has not understood the meaning of the Vaibhashika, or although he has read the Vaibhashika text, his mind is blinded by wrong views and cannot discern the correct principle. Some teachers of other schools say that dependent origination is unconditioned (asamskrita, 非造作). Because the sutta says, the Buddha told the monks: 'Such dependent origination is not made by me, nor is it made by others. Whether the Tathagata (如來) appears in the world or not, such dependent origination, the nature of the Dharma is permanent,' and so on. According to this meaning, the principle can also be established. This means that such dependent origination has no other author, so it is said to be unconditioned. Whether the Tathagata (如來) appears in the world or not, actions and other things always arise from ignorance, not from other dharmas or without conditions. Such a nature of Dharma is not made by the Buddha, nor is it made by others, so it is said to be permanent. There is no doubt about this, and it is necessarily so that it is called permanent. If another dharma is said to be dependent origination, such as pratisamkhyanirodha (擇滅), which is a static constant, it will certainly not be established.
然。說為緣起。而言體常。理不成故。又彼所執。無為緣起。為異無明等。為即無明等。為攬彼所成。如是三執。皆不應理。自性難知故。有無常過故。體應非實故。或復如言取經義者。則四大種應亦許常。以世尊言。是四大種乍可令異。乃至廣說。此經遮彼有為相故。若不觀理趣。應執是無為。或佛出世若不出世。此地水等。恒堅濕等。何緣不執此等皆常。然彼于中。有許不許。故知但是粗心所為。且置斯事。復應廣釋。無明名色觸受四支。所以者何。行有愛取。業隨眠品。當廣釋故。識與六處。辨本事品。已廣釋故。且無明義。其相云何。為是明無。為非明攝。若取前義。無明應是無。若取后義。應眼等為體。如是二種。理皆不然。且上座言。由有此故。令明非有。是謂無明。不可無因而有是事。彼說非理。若由有此為障礙故。明不現行。惑不得明名無明者。則一切煩惱。皆應是無明。隨一有時。二俱成故。又不應執無明能與明無為因。以有與無契經不說。能為因故。又無不應是果性故。如何乃說。不可無因而有是事。非於無物可說有言。彼宗許有唯現在故。又彼宗義。雖無無明。而許有時明亦非有。不應定說。無明障明。若謂彼有無明隨界。理亦不然。非自體故。設許隨界體亦無明。此體有時明亦得起。故不應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 然（是的）。如果說緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，事物相互依存的生起），卻又說體是常（恒常不變的），這個道理是說不通的。而且他們所執著的無為（asaṃskṛta，非造作的，不依賴因緣的）緣起，是異於無明（avidyā，無知）等，還是等同於無明等，還是包含著無明等所成就的？這三種執著都是不合道理的。因為自性難以知曉，會有無常的過失，體也應該不是真實的。 或者又像有些人那樣，只按照字面意思理解佛經，那麼四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風四種基本元素）也應該被認為是常的。因為世尊說過：『這四大種尚且可以令其改變』，乃至廣說。這部經是用來遮破他們所認為的有為相（saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa，有生滅變化的現象）的。如果不觀察其中的道理，就應該執著這是無為的。或者佛出世與不出世，這地、水等，恒常堅硬、潮濕等，為什麼不執著這些都是常的呢？然而他們對於這些，有的承認，有的不承認。所以知道這只是粗淺的想法所導致的。暫且放下這些事情。 還應該廣泛解釋無明、名色（nāmarūpa，精神和物質）、觸（sparśa，感覺）、受（vedanā，感受）這四支（aṅga，組成部分）。為什麼呢？因為行（saṃskāra，意志）、有（bhava，存在）、愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）、取（upādāna，執取）這些，屬於業隨眠品（karma-anuśaya-prakaraṇa，關於業的潛在傾向的章節），應當廣泛解釋。識（vijñāna，意識）與六處（ṣaḍāyatana，六根），在辨本事品（prakaraṇa，關於辨別事物本質的章節）中已經廣泛解釋過了。暫且說無明的意義，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？是明的缺失呢？還是不屬於明呢？如果取前一種意義，無明應該是無。如果取后一種意義，應該以眼等為體。這兩種說法，道理都不對。 而且上座部（Sthavira nikāya，佛教的一個早期部派）說：『由於有這個，才使得明不存在，這就是所謂的無明。』不可能沒有原因而有這樣的事情。他們的說法不合理。如果說由於有這個作為障礙，使得明不顯現，迷惑不能得到明，所以稱為無明，那麼一切煩惱（kleśa，精神上的痛苦）都應該是無明。因為只要其中一個存在，兩者都會同時存在。而且不應該執著無明能夠作為明不存在的原因。因為經典中沒有說有能夠作為無的原因。而且無不應該是果的性質。怎麼能說不可能沒有原因而有這樣的事情呢？對於不存在的事物，不能說『有』。他們的宗義認為只有現在存在。而且他們的宗義，即使沒有無明，也承認有時明也不存在。不應該斷定說無明障礙明。如果認為無明隨著界（dhātu，構成要素）而存在，道理也是不通的。因為不是自體（svabhāva，自身本性）。即使承認隨著界而存在，體也是無明，這個體有時明也能夠生起。所以不應該這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version Indeed. If one speaks of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), yet asserts that the essence (ātman) is permanent (nitya), this reasoning is untenable. Furthermore, their adherence to unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) dependent origination—whether it is different from ignorance (avidyā) and the like, identical to ignorance and the like, or encompasses what is accomplished by ignorance and the like—all three of these views are unreasonable. This is because the inherent nature (svabhāva) is difficult to know, there would be the fault of impermanence (anitya), and the essence should not be real. Or, like some who interpret the scriptures literally, the four great elements (mahābhūta)—earth, water, fire, and wind—should also be considered permanent. Because the World-Honored One (Bhagavān) said, 'These four great elements can even be made to change,' and so on. This sutra is to refute their view of conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa). If one does not observe the underlying principle, one should hold that this is unconditioned. Or, whether a Buddha appears in the world or not, these earth, water, and the like, are constantly solid, moist, and so on. Why not hold that these are all permanent? However, they either accept or reject these. Therefore, it is known that this is only caused by a crude mind. Let us put aside these matters for now. Furthermore, one should extensively explain the four limbs (aṅga) of ignorance, name and form (nāmarūpa), contact (sparśa), and feeling (vedanā). Why? Because volitional formations (saṃskāra), existence (bhava), craving (tṛṣṇā), and grasping (upādāna), which belong to the section on latent tendencies of karma (karma-anuśaya-prakaraṇa), should be extensively explained. Consciousness (vijñāna) and the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana) have already been extensively explained in the section on discerning the nature of things (prakaraṇa). For now, let's discuss the meaning of ignorance. What is its characteristic? Is it the absence of knowledge, or is it not included in knowledge? If one takes the former meaning, ignorance should be non-existent. If one takes the latter meaning, it should have the sense organs such as the eye as its essence. Both of these views are unreasonable. Moreover, the Sthavira nikāya (a early buddhist school) says, 'Because of this, knowledge does not exist; this is called ignorance.' It is impossible for such a thing to exist without a cause. Their statement is unreasonable. If it is said that because this acts as an obstacle, knowledge does not manifest, and delusion cannot obtain knowledge, therefore it is called ignorance, then all afflictions (kleśa) should be ignorance. Because whenever one exists, both exist simultaneously. Furthermore, one should not hold that ignorance can be the cause of the non-existence of knowledge. Because the sutras do not say that existence can be the cause of non-existence. Moreover, non-existence should not be the nature of a result. How can one say that it is impossible for such a thing to exist without a cause? One cannot say 'exists' about something that does not exist. Their doctrine holds that only the present exists. Moreover, their doctrine admits that even without ignorance, sometimes knowledge does not exist. One should not definitively say that ignorance obstructs knowledge. If it is thought that ignorance exists along with the element (dhātu), this reasoning is also untenable. Because it is not its own nature (svabhāva). Even if it is admitted that it exists along with the element, the essence is still ignorance, and sometimes knowledge can arise from this essence. Therefore, one should not say this.
說能障于明。若謂此明至正生位。無明隨界至正滅時。故說無明。能為明障。則住學道。應離無明。或復應明畢竟不起。無明隨界。未曾無故。若謂如得隨界應然。謂如汝宗。諸無明得非無明體。然或有時無明雖滅。由無明得勢力所障。明不得生。或復有時雖有此得。由加行力。明亦得生。如是我宗。無明隨界。非無明體。然或有時無明雖滅。由隨界障明不得生。或時得生。斯有何過。此救非理。違自說故。太過失故。非我許故。謂彼自說。由有此故今明非有。是謂無明。而今復言。無明隨界。非無明體。然能障明。豈不後言違前自說。又無明體。滅隔多時復得生者。離無明者。亦應后時無明更起。許隨界體非無明故。俱離無明無有差別。又我不許。由無明得勢力所障。明不得生。非對法宗說障余法令不得起。是此得用。若爾此得。其用云何。謂此為因。無明不失。何名不失。亦無別體。但由得用。令所得法數容更起。立不失名。過去無明。豈容更起。不爾。若爾此得何用。雖不能令所得更起。然于未起對治道前。由此恒隨相續無斷。豈不此與無明俱滅。此雖俱滅。后復續生。謂彼滅時。有為因力。引余自類。令無間生。余復引余。乃至道起。或令所得無明與果。是此得用。謂得斷已。此無明果。不復得生。若無明得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說『能』（śakti）障礙『明』（vidyā）。如果說這個『明』到達最純正的生位，『無明』（avidyā）隨著界限到達最純正的滅時，所以說『無明』能成為『明』的障礙，那麼住在學道位的人，應該離開『無明』，或者『明』應該畢竟不生起，因為『無明』隨著界限，未曾斷絕過。 如果說如同獲得（prāpti）隨著界限應該如此，如同你們宗派，諸『無明』的獲得不是『無明』的本體，然而有時『無明』雖然滅了，由於『無明』的獲得的力量所障礙，『明』不得生。或者有時雖然有這個獲得，由於加行（prayoga）的力量，『明』也能生。如同我宗，『無明』隨著界限，不是『無明』的本體，然而有時『無明』雖然滅了，由於隨著界限障礙『明』不得生，或者有時得生，這有什麼過失？ 這種辯解不合理，因為違揹你自己的說法，因為太過分的過失，因為不是我所允許的。因為你之前自己說，由於有這個，所以現在『明』沒有，這叫做『無明』。而現在又說，『無明』隨著界限，不是『無明』的本體，然而能障礙『明』，豈不是後面的話違背了前面的說法？ 又『無明』的本體，滅隔了很長時間又得生起，離開『無明』的人，也應該後來『無明』再次生起，因為承認隨著界限的本體不是『無明』的緣故，都離開『無明』沒有差別。 又我不允許，由於『無明』的獲得的力量所障礙，『明』不得生。不是對法宗說障礙其他的法，令不得生，是這個獲得的作用。如果這樣，這個獲得，它的作用是什麼？ 說是這個作為因，『無明』不失。什麼叫做不失？也沒有別的本體，但由於獲得的作用，令所得的法，數量上容許再次生起，立名為不失。過去的『無明』，豈容許再次生起？ 不容許。如果這樣，這個獲得有什麼用？雖然不能令所得的再次生起，然而在未生起對治道之前，由此恒常隨逐相續不斷。豈不是這個與『無明』一同滅？ 這個雖然一同滅，後來又繼續生起，說是它滅的時候，有為的因的力量，引導其餘的同類，令無間地生起。其餘的又引導其餘的，乃至道生起。或者令所得的『無明』與果，是這個獲得的作用。說是獲得斷了之後，這個『無明』的果，不再得生。如果『無明』的獲得……
【English Translation】 English version It is said that 『ability』 (śakti) obstructs 『clarity』 (vidyā). If it is said that this 『clarity』 reaches the most pure state of arising, and 『ignorance』 (avidyā) follows the boundary to reach the most pure state of cessation, therefore it is said that 『ignorance』 can become an obstruction to 『clarity』, then those who dwell in the path of learning should be free from 『ignorance』, or 『clarity』 should ultimately not arise, because 『ignorance』 follows the boundary and has never been cut off. If it is said that it should be like obtaining (prāpti) following the boundary, like in your school, the obtaining of all 『ignorance』 is not the essence of 『ignorance』, but sometimes although 『ignorance』 has ceased, due to the obstruction of the power of the obtaining of 『ignorance』, 『clarity』 cannot arise. Or sometimes although there is this obtaining, due to the power of effort (prayoga), 『clarity』 can also arise. Like in my school, 『ignorance』 follows the boundary, it is not the essence of 『ignorance』, but sometimes although 『ignorance』 has ceased, due to following the boundary obstructing 『clarity』 from arising, or sometimes it can arise, what fault is there in this? This kind of defense is unreasonable, because it contradicts your own statement, because of the fault of being too excessive, because it is not what I allow. Because you yourself said before, because there is this, therefore now 『clarity』 is not, this is called 『ignorance』. And now you say again, 『ignorance』 follows the boundary, it is not the essence of 『ignorance』, but it can obstruct 『clarity』, isn't the latter statement contradicting the former statement? Also, the essence of 『ignorance』, after ceasing and being separated for a long time, can arise again, those who are free from 『ignorance』 should also have 『ignorance』 arise again later, because it is admitted that the essence following the boundary is not 『ignorance』, so being free from 『ignorance』 there is no difference. Also, I do not allow that due to the obstruction of the power of the obtaining of 『ignorance』, 『clarity』 cannot arise. It is not the Abhidharma school that says obstructing other dharmas, causing them not to arise, is the function of this obtaining. If so, what is the function of this obtaining? It is said that this is the cause, 『ignorance』 is not lost. What is called not lost? There is also no other essence, but due to the function of obtaining, allowing the obtained dharma, in number, to be able to arise again, establishing the name of not lost. How can past 『ignorance』 be allowed to arise again? It is not allowed. If so, what is the use of this obtaining? Although it cannot cause the obtained to arise again, before the arising of the antidote path, it constantly follows continuously without interruption. Isn't this ceasing together with 『ignorance』? Although this ceases together, it continues to arise again later, it is said that when it ceases, the power of the conditioned cause guides the remaining of the same kind, causing it to arise without interruption. The remaining then guides the remaining, until the path arises. Or causing the obtained 『ignorance』 and result, is the function of this obtaining. It is said that after the obtaining is cut off, the result of this 『ignorance』 will no longer be able to arise. If the obtaining of 『ignorance』...
無無明能與果。應明生已無明覆生。過去無明非無體故。既得未斷無明果生。得已斷時。彼果不起。故此差別。由得而成。如是所言。不越前相。謂令所得數容更起。成不失因說名為得。豈不有法有得。而不生如何可言法生因。謂得以所得法離得不生。故法生因。說名為得。如依眼識離眼不生。亦如汝宗。無明隨界。如汝隨界。雖恒時有。而無明果。不許恒生。我得亦然。不應為責。此例非理。以對法宗雖無明得無而無明容起。我宗離隨界無明必不生。故此隨界。非同彼得。無如是失且引彼宗。證得為因。理極成故。謂要有得。所得法可生故。得為生因。理極成立。又隨界論。亦同得故。以離隨界法亦可生。謂諸異生。無聖法隨界。正修加行。聖法容得生。又前已說差別言故。謂由得用。令所得法數容更起。成不失因。說名為得。何關已失及本未得而可為難。又舊隨界。已顯理無。彼宗無明不現前位。便為已得永離無明。如何無明。后時得起。此設不起聖道加行。何法為障。令明不生。即由此因。諸阿羅漢。明不起位。便失於明。明於后時。如何得起。設非縱逸明體終無。何法為治無明不起。是故彼說。由有此故。令明非有。是謂無明。但有虛言。都無實義。唯對法者。容作是言。朋壞法宗無容說此。上座復說。或如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無無明能與果（無明能夠產生結果）。應明生已無明覆生（如果光明已經產生，無明又重新產生）。過去無明非無體故（因為過去的無明並非沒有本體）。既得未斷無明果生（既然已經獲得了但尚未斷除，無明的果報就會產生）。得已斷時（獲得並且斷除的時候），彼果不起（那個果報就不會產生）。故此差別（所以這其中有差別），由得而成（是由『得』而成就的）。如是所言（像這樣所說），不越前相（沒有超出之前的相狀）。謂令所得數容更起（意思是說，使得所獲得的法能夠再次生起）。成不失因說名為得（成就了不失壞原因，就叫做『得』）。 豈不有法有得（難道不是有法和『得』），而不生如何可言法生因（卻不生起，怎麼能說法是生起的原因呢）？謂得以所得法離得不生（意思是說，因為憑藉『得』，所獲得的法離開『得』就不能生起）。故法生因（所以法生起的原因），說名為得（就叫做『得』）。如依眼識離眼不生（比如依靠眼識，離開眼根就不能生起）。亦如汝宗（也像你們的宗派），無明隨界（無明隨著界限）。如汝隨界（像你們的隨界），雖恒時有（雖然恒常存在），而無明果（但是無明的果報），不許恒生（不允許恒常生起）。我得亦然（我的『得』也是這樣）。不應為責（不應該責難）。 此例非理（這個例子不合理）。以對法宗雖無明得無而無明容起（因為在對法宗，雖然沒有無明的『得』，無明也可能生起）。我宗離隨界無明必不生（我的宗派離開隨界的無明一定不會生起）。故此隨界（所以這個隨界），非同彼得（不同於他們的『得』）。無如是失（沒有這樣的過失）。且引彼宗（姑且引用他們的宗派），證得為因（證明『得』是原因）。理極成故（因為道理非常成立）。謂要有得（意思是說，一定要有『得』），所得法可生故（所獲得的法才能生起）。故得為生因（所以『得』是生起的原因），理極成立（道理非常成立）。 又隨界論（而且隨界的理論），亦同得故（也和『得』相同）。以離隨界法亦可生（因為離開隨界的法也可以生起）。謂諸異生（意思是說，各種凡夫），無聖法隨界（沒有聖法的隨界），正修加行（正在修行加行），聖法容得生（聖法也可能生起）。又前已說差別言故（而且前面已經說了差別的原因）。謂由得用（意思是說，由於『得』的作用），令所得法數容更起（使得所獲得的法能夠再次生起）。成不失因（成就了不失壞原因），說名為得（就叫做『得』）。何關已失及本未得而可為難（這和已經失去以及本來沒有獲得有什麼關係，可以用來責難呢）？ 又舊隨界（而且舊的隨界），已顯理無（已經顯示道理上沒有）。彼宗無明不現前位（他們的宗派無明不現前的時候），便為已得永離無明（就已經是獲得了永遠離開無明）。如何無明（怎麼會無明），后時得起（之後又會生起呢）？此設不起聖道加行（假設不生起聖道的加行），何法為障（什麼法會成為障礙），令明不生（使得光明不生起）？即由此因（就是因為這個原因），諸阿羅漢（各位阿羅漢），明不起位（光明不生起的時候），便失於明（就失去了光明）。明於后時（光明在之後），如何得起（怎麼會生起呢）？設非縱逸明體終無（假設不是放縱，光明的本體最終會消失）。何法為治無明不起（什麼法可以治理使得無明不生起）？是故彼說（所以他們說），由有此故（因為有這個），令明非有（使得光明沒有）。是謂無明（這就是無明）。但有虛言（只有虛假的話語），都無實義（都沒有實際的意義）。唯對法者（只有對法者），容作是言（可以這樣說）。朋壞法宗無容說此（朋壞法宗沒有辦法說這個）。上座復說（上座又說），或如（或者像）。
【English Translation】 English version 'No ignorance can give rise to a result' (Avidyā cannot produce a result). 'If light has arisen, ignorance arises again' (If enlightenment has arisen, ignorance arises again). 'Past ignorance is not without substance' (Because past ignorance is not without substance). 'Since one has obtained but not severed, the result of ignorance arises' (Since one has obtained but not severed it, the result of ignorance will arise). 'When obtained and severed' (When obtained and severed), 'that result does not arise' (that result will not arise). 'Therefore, this difference' (Therefore, there is a difference), 'is accomplished by obtaining' (is accomplished by 'obtaining'). 'As such, what is said' (As such, what is said), 'does not exceed the previous appearance' (does not exceed the previous appearance). 'Meaning that what is obtained can arise again' (Meaning that what is obtained can arise again). 'Accomplishing the non-loss of cause is called obtaining' (Accomplishing the non-loss of cause is called 'obtaining'). 'Isn't it that there are dharmas and obtaining' (Isn't it that there are dharmas and 'obtaining'), 'but they do not arise, how can it be said that dharma is the cause of arising' (but they do not arise, how can it be said that dharma is the cause of arising)? 'Meaning that by obtaining, the obtained dharma cannot arise without obtaining' (Meaning that by 'obtaining', the obtained dharma cannot arise without 'obtaining'). 'Therefore, the cause of dharma arising' (Therefore, the cause of dharma arising), 'is called obtaining' (is called 'obtaining'). 'Like relying on eye consciousness, it cannot arise without the eye' (Like relying on eye consciousness, it cannot arise without the eye). 'Also like your school' (Also like your school), 'ignorance follows the realm' (ignorance follows the realm). 'Like your following the realm' (Like your following the realm), 'although it always exists' (although it always exists), 'the result of ignorance' (the result of ignorance), 'is not allowed to arise constantly' (is not allowed to arise constantly). 'My obtaining is also like that' (My 'obtaining' is also like that). 'Should not be blamed' (Should not be blamed). 'This example is unreasonable' (This example is unreasonable). 'Because in the Abhidharma school, although there is no obtaining of ignorance, ignorance can arise' (Because in the Abhidharma school, although there is no obtaining of ignorance, ignorance can arise). 'My school, without ignorance following the realm, will certainly not arise' (My school, without ignorance following the realm, will certainly not arise). 'Therefore, this following the realm' (Therefore, this following the realm), 'is not the same as their obtaining' (is not the same as their 'obtaining'). 'There is no such fault' (There is no such fault). 'Moreover, cite their school' (Moreover, cite their school), 'to prove obtaining as the cause' (to prove 'obtaining' as the cause). 'Because the reason is extremely established' (Because the reason is extremely established). 'Meaning that there must be obtaining' (Meaning that there must be 'obtaining'), 'so that the obtained dharma can arise' (so that the obtained dharma can arise). 'Therefore, obtaining is the cause of arising' (Therefore, 'obtaining' is the cause of arising), 'the reason is extremely established' (the reason is extremely established). 'Also, the theory of following the realm' (Also, the theory of following the realm), 'is also the same as obtaining' (is also the same as 'obtaining'). 'Because dharma can also arise without following the realm' (Because dharma can also arise without following the realm). 'Meaning that all ordinary beings' (Meaning that all ordinary beings), 'without the realm of holy dharma' (without the realm of holy dharma), 'are rightly cultivating the application' (are rightly cultivating the application), 'holy dharma can also arise' (holy dharma can also arise). 'Moreover, the reason for the difference has already been said before' (Moreover, the reason for the difference has already been said before). 'Meaning that by the function of obtaining' (Meaning that by the function of 'obtaining'), 'the obtained dharma can arise again' (the obtained dharma can arise again). 'Accomplishing the non-loss of cause' (Accomplishing the non-loss of cause), 'is called obtaining' (is called 'obtaining'). 'What does it have to do with what has already been lost and what has not been obtained, that it can be used to blame' (What does it have to do with what has already been lost and what has not been obtained, that it can be used to blame)? 'Moreover, the old following the realm' (Moreover, the old following the realm), 'has already shown that there is no reason' (has already shown that there is no reason). 'Their school, when ignorance is not present' (Their school, when ignorance is not present), 'is already obtained and forever separated from ignorance' (is already obtained and forever separated from ignorance). 'How can ignorance' (How can ignorance), 'arise later' (arise later)? 'If the application of the holy path does not arise' (If the application of the holy path does not arise), 'what dharma will be an obstacle' (what dharma will be an obstacle), 'causing light not to arise' (causing light not to arise)? 'That is, because of this reason' (That is, because of this reason), 'all Arhats' (all Arhats), 'when light does not arise' (when light does not arise), 'then lose the light' (then lose the light). 'How can light arise later' (How can light arise later)? 'If it is not indulgence, the substance of light will eventually disappear' (If it is not indulgence, the substance of light will eventually disappear). 'What dharma can be used to treat ignorance so that it does not arise' (What dharma can be used to treat ignorance so that it does not arise)? 'Therefore, they say' (Therefore, they say), 'because there is this' (because there is this), 'causing light not to exist' (causing light not to exist). 'This is called ignorance' (This is called ignorance). 'There are only false words' (There are only false words), 'there is no real meaning at all' (there is no real meaning at all). 'Only those who are against the Dharma' (Only those who are against the Dharma), 'can say this' (can say this). 'The school that destroys the Dharma cannot say this' (The school that destroys the Dharma cannot say this). 'The elder said again' (The elder said again), 'or like' (or like).
是類。心及心所總謂無明。若爾無明。應非實有。許依心等假建立故。如此所說。理亦不成。一切心心所。皆應無明故。謂此無明。為自性住。心等為體。為有差別。若自性住。一切善等品類心等。應皆無明。非諸無明亦有不用。非理作意為因而起。此彼為因。契經說故。非不染污心心所法。可用非理作意為因。若有差別。能差別者。可是無明。非所差別。又彼應說。此差別相。心心所法。體相各殊。如何總成一無明相。言心心所。總謂無明。詳彼心遊如來教外。上座又言。或顛倒明即謂無明。以薄伽梵亦于邪見說無明故。如契經說。于邪見中。若習若修。若多修習。癡便猛利。由是應有二種無明。一者邪智。二者黑闇。彼言非理見行癡行。差別建立。應不成故。邪見黑闇。定有差別。若異此者二種應無。非無差別。可成二種既于邪見。若習若修。若多修習。癡便猛利。則于黑闇。若習若修。若多修習。癡亦猛利。契經說癡因無明故。豈不二果無差別故。應許二因亦無差別。是則建立見行癡行差別之相。應不得成。然見行者。與癡行者。入甘露門。各有差別。故彼上座。于經義迷若爾云何。是此經義。非不愚者有倒見行。故邪見俱無明必有。故於邪見。若習若修。若多修習。癡便猛利。然非邪見即是無明。何故無明邪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：什麼是『類』？答：心及心所（Citta and Cetasika，心和心理活動）總稱為無明（Avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑和無知）。 問：如果是這樣，那麼無明應該不是真實存在的吧？答：可以認為它是依心等假立而成的。 問：如此所說，道理也講不通。一切心和心所都應該成為無明瞭。 問：這個無明是自性常住的，還是以心等為體？還是有所差別？答：如果說是自性常住的，那麼一切善等品類的心等，都應該成為無明瞭。而且，無明並非沒有作用，它是由不如理作意（ayoniso manasikara，不正確的思考方式）為因而生起的。經典中也說，此彼互為因果。 問：不是不染污的心和心所法，也可以用不如理作意作為原因嗎？答：如果說有差別，那麼能產生差別的原因，或許是無明，而不是被差別的事物。而且，還應該說明這個差別的相狀。心和心所法，體性和相狀各不相同，如何總合成為一個無明的相狀呢？ 說心和心所總稱為無明，詳細考察，他們的心已經遊離于如來的教誨之外了。上座部（Theravada，佛教的一個早期部派）又說，或者顛倒的明（viparita-smrti，錯誤的認知）就稱為無明，因為薄伽梵（Bhagavān，佛的尊稱）也在邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）中說了無明。如經典所說，對於邪見，如果習、修、多修習，愚癡（Moha，迷惑）就會變得猛烈。由此應該有兩種無明：一是邪智，二是黑暗。 他們的說法，認為見行（dṛṣṭi-carita，以知見為主的行為）和癡行（moha-carita，以愚癡為主的行為）的差別建立是不成立的。邪見和黑暗，一定是有差別的，如果不是這樣，那麼兩種無明就不應該存在。如果不是沒有差別，就可以成立兩種無明。既然對於邪見，如果習、修、多修習，愚癡就會變得猛烈，那麼對於黑暗，如果習、修、多修習，愚癡也應該變得猛烈。經典中說愚癡的原因是無明。難道不是因為兩種結果沒有差別，就應該認為兩種原因也沒有差別嗎？這樣，建立見行和癡行的差別相狀，就不能成立了。 然而，見行者和癡行者，進入甘露門（Amrita-dvāra，涅槃之門）各有差別。所以那位上座部，對於經典的意義迷惑了。如果是這樣，那麼什麼是這部經的意義呢？不是不愚癡的人會有顛倒的見行，所以與邪見相關的無明必定存在。所以對於邪見，如果習、修、多修習，愚癡就會變得猛烈。然而，邪見並不是無明。為什麼無明是邪...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is a 'category'? Answer: Mind (Citta) and mental factors (Cetasika) are collectively called ignorance (Avidyā, delusion and ignorance of the true nature of things). Question: If that's the case, then ignorance shouldn't be truly existent, right? Answer: It can be considered as being provisionally established based on mind and so on. Question: What you're saying doesn't make sense. All minds and mental factors should become ignorance. Question: Is this ignorance inherently abiding, or does it have mind etc. as its substance? Or is there a difference? Answer: If it's said to be inherently abiding, then all categories of mind etc., such as wholesome ones, should become ignorance. Moreover, ignorance is not without function; it arises from unwholesome attention (ayoniso manasikara, incorrect ways of thinking) as its cause. The scriptures also say that these are mutually causal. Question: Can non-defiled minds and mental factors also use unwholesome attention as a cause? Answer: If there's a difference, then the cause that produces the difference might be ignorance, not the things being differentiated. Furthermore, one should also explain the characteristics of this difference. Mind and mental factors have different natures and characteristics; how can they be combined into a single characteristic of ignorance? To say that mind and mental factors are collectively called ignorance, upon detailed examination, their minds have strayed from the Buddha's teachings. The Theravada (an early school of Buddhism) also says that distorted awareness (viparita-smrti, incorrect cognition) is called ignorance, because the Blessed One (Bhagavān, an honorific for the Buddha) also spoke of ignorance in relation to wrong view (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi, incorrect views). As the scriptures say, if one practices, cultivates, and repeatedly cultivates wrong view, delusion (Moha, confusion) becomes intense. Therefore, there should be two types of ignorance: one is wrong wisdom, and the other is darkness. Their statement that the distinction between conduct based on views (dṛṣṭi-carita, behavior primarily driven by views) and conduct based on delusion (moha-carita, behavior primarily driven by delusion) is not established. Wrong view and darkness are definitely different; if they were not, then the two types of ignorance should not exist. If they are not without difference, then two types of ignorance can be established. Since if one practices, cultivates, and repeatedly cultivates wrong view, delusion becomes intense, then if one practices, cultivates, and repeatedly cultivates darkness, delusion should also become intense. The scriptures say that the cause of delusion is ignorance. Isn't it the case that because the two results are not different, one should consider that the two causes are also not different? In this way, establishing the distinct characteristics of conduct based on views and conduct based on delusion cannot be established. However, those who engage in conduct based on views and those who engage in conduct based on delusion enter the gate of nectar (Amrita-dvāra, the gate of Nirvana) differently. Therefore, that Theravadin is confused about the meaning of the scriptures. If that's the case, then what is the meaning of this scripture? It's not that those who are not ignorant will have distorted conduct based on views, so ignorance associated with wrong view must exist. Therefore, if one practices, cultivates, and repeatedly cultivates wrong view, delusion becomes intense. However, wrong view is not ignorance. Why is ignorance wrong...
見俱起。言癡猛利非邪見耶。非此所明有而不說。此中意說。數數現行。利貪瞋癡。為煩惱障。謂先有問。云何貪等成猛利耶。后即答言。于貪慾中。若習若修若多修習。貪便猛利。乃至廣說。若爾所立見癡二行。應成雜亂。不爾見有三種差別。無雜亂失。謂或有見唯顛倒轉。或復有見。全增益轉。或復有見。少增益轉。於此三中。唯倒轉者癡力勝故。立癡行名。餘二見強。立為現行。故立二行。無雜亂失。貪瞋俱轉。雖有無明。劣故不言。癡便猛利。由此二惑緣有事轉。故此品中。癡非增上。惑為顯示生死無初。說煩惱生因同異類。如彼經說。諸貪瞋癡。莫不皆因無明而起。或為訶毀不正見故。言習邪見癡便增長。如彼經言。夫名智者。能滅無智。此增癡故。不名智者。乃至廣說。故應勤求契經實義。不應執見。即是無明。后釋頌中。當更遮遣。大德邏摩。作如是說。非邪見體即是無明。然諸貪慾瞋恚邪見。由異種類。貪瞋癡三。為各別根。而得增長。此亦非理。如何貪瞋。可名貪慾瞋恚異類。又癡何故但為邪見根不為根增長貪慾瞋恚。貪瞋何故非邪見根。然彼不能辯其意旨。故彼所說。非稱經義。有說無智唯是智無。是故無明非有為性。若爾除佛余無學果。應有無明。無遍智故。若謂別說前際等無智為無明故無如
【現代漢語翻譯】 見俱起。言癡猛利非邪見耶？ 問：當（貪、嗔、癡）一起生起時，如果說愚癡（癡，moha）非常強烈，難道不是因為邪見（邪見，micchā diṭṭhi）嗎？ 非此所明有而不說。此中意說。數數現行。利貪瞋癡。為煩惱障。謂先有問。云何貪等成猛利耶？后即答言。于貪慾中。若習若修若多修習。貪便猛利。乃至廣說。 答：不是因為這裡所闡明的（邪見）存在而不說。這裡的意思是說，（貪、嗔、癡）反覆出現並實際發生，貪、嗔、癡的強烈是煩惱的障礙。之前有人問，『貪等如何變得強烈？』 之後回答說，『在貪慾中，如果練習、修行、多次修行，貪就會變得強烈。』 乃至廣泛地解釋。 若爾所立見癡二行。應成雜亂。不爾見有三種差別。無雜亂失。謂或有見唯顛倒轉。或復有見。全增益轉。或復有見。少增益轉。於此三中。唯倒轉者癡力勝故。立癡行名。餘二見強。立為現行。故立二行。無雜亂失。貪瞋俱轉。雖有無明。劣故不言。癡便猛利。由此二惑緣有事轉。故此品中。癡非增上。 如果這樣，那麼所建立的『見』和『癡』兩種行為，應該會變得混亂。不是這樣的，『見』有三種差別，沒有混亂的過失。也就是說，或者有『見』只是顛倒的，或者有『見』完全是增益的，或者有『見』是少量增益的。在這三種情況中，只有顛倒的『見』，因為愚癡的力量強大，所以立為『癡行』之名。其餘兩種『見』的力量強，立為『現行』。所以建立兩種行為，沒有混亂的過失。貪和嗔一起發生時，雖然有無明（無明，Avidyā），但因為無明較弱，所以不提及。愚癡變得強烈，因為這兩種迷惑（貪和嗔）緣於事物而發生作用，所以在此品中，愚癡不是最主要的。 惑為顯示生死無初。說煩惱生因同異類。如彼經說。諸貪瞋癡。莫不皆因無明而起。或為訶毀不正見故。言習邪見癡便增長。如彼經言。夫名智者。能滅無智。此增癡故。不名智者。乃至廣說。故應勤求契經實義。不應執見。即是無明。后釋頌中。當更遮遣。 迷惑是爲了顯示生死沒有開始，說明煩惱產生的因是相同或不同的種類。正如那部經所說，所有的貪、嗔、癡，沒有不是因為無明而產生的。或者爲了呵斥不正的見解，所以說學習邪見，愚癡就會增長。正如那部經所說，被稱為有智慧的人，能夠滅除無智。因為這會增長愚癡，所以不被稱為有智慧的人。乃至廣泛地解釋。所以應該努力尋求契合經典的真實意義，不應該執著于見解，認為見解就是無明。在後面的解釋偈頌中，將會進一步駁斥。 大德邏摩。作如是說。非邪見體即是無明。然諸貪慾瞋恚邪見。由異種類。貪瞋癡三。為各別根。而得增長。此亦非理。如何貪瞋。可名貪慾瞋恚異類。又癡何故但為邪見根不為根增長貪慾瞋恚。貪瞋何故非邪見根。然彼不能辯其意旨。故彼所說。非稱經義。 大德（大德，Bhaddaanta）邏摩（Loma）這樣說，邪見的本體不是無明。然而，貪慾、嗔恚、邪見，因為是不同的種類，貪、嗔、癡三者，是各自不同的根，從而得到增長。這也是不合理的。貪和嗔怎麼能被稱為貪慾和嗔恚的不同種類呢？又為什麼愚癡只是邪見的根，而不是增長貪慾和嗔恚的根呢？貪和嗔為什麼不是邪見的根呢？然而他不能辨別其中的意義，所以他所說的，不符合經典的意義。 有說無智唯是智無。是故無明非有為性。若爾除佛余無學果。應有無明。無遍智故。若謂別說前際等無智為無明故無如 有人說，沒有智慧只是智慧的缺失，所以無明不是有為的性質。如果這樣，那麼除了佛陀之外，其餘的阿羅漢（無學果，asekha）應該有無明，因為沒有遍智的緣故。如果說特別說明過去世等沒有智慧，就是無明，所以沒有像（上述的過失）。
【English Translation】 Seeing arises together. Is intense delusion not a wrong view? Question: When (greed, hatred, and delusion) arise together, if it is said that delusion (moha) is very intense, isn't it because of wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi)? It is not that what is explained here exists but is not spoken of. The intention here is to say that it repeatedly manifests and actually occurs. The intensity of greed, hatred, and delusion is an obstacle of affliction. It is said that there was a previous question: How do greed, etc., become intense? The answer then is: In greed, if one practices, cultivates, and repeatedly cultivates, greed becomes intense, and so on, extensively explained. Answer: It is not because what is explained here (wrong view) exists but is not spoken of. The intention here is to say that (greed, hatred, and delusion) repeatedly manifest and actually occur, and the intensity of greed, hatred, and delusion is an obstacle of affliction. Previously, someone asked, 'How do greed, etc., become intense?' The answer then is, 'In greed, if one practices, cultivates, and repeatedly cultivates, greed becomes intense,' and so on, extensively explained. If so, the two established practices of 'view' and 'delusion' should become confused. It is not so; there are three differences in 'view,' so there is no fault of confusion. That is to say, there are views that are only inverted, or there are views that are entirely additive, or there are views that are slightly additive. Among these three, only the inverted view is established as the name of 'delusion practice' because the power of delusion is stronger. The other two views are strong and are established as 'manifest practice.' Therefore, establishing two practices does not have the fault of confusion. When greed and hatred occur together, although there is ignorance (Avidyā), it is not mentioned because it is weaker. Delusion becomes intense because these two defilements (greed and hatred) arise in relation to things, so in this section, delusion is not the most dominant. If so, the two established practices of 'view' and 'delusion' should become confused. It is not so; there are three differences in 'view,' so there is no fault of confusion. That is to say, there are views that are only inverted, or there are views that are entirely additive, or there are views that are slightly additive. Among these three, only the inverted view is established as the name of 'delusion practice' because the power of delusion is stronger. The other two views are strong and are established as 'manifest practice.' Therefore, establishing two practices does not have the fault of confusion. When greed and hatred occur together, although there is ignorance (Avidyā), it is not mentioned because it is weaker. Delusion becomes intense because these two defilements (greed and hatred) arise in relation to things, so in this section, delusion is not the most dominant. The delusion is to show that there is no beginning to birth and death, explaining that the causes of the arising of afflictions are the same or different kinds. As that sutra says, all greed, hatred, and delusion arise from ignorance. Or, in order to rebuke incorrect views, it is said that practicing wrong views increases delusion. As that sutra says, one who is called wise can extinguish ignorance. Because this increases delusion, one is not called wise, and so on, extensively explained. Therefore, one should diligently seek the true meaning of the sutras and not cling to views, thinking that views are ignorance. In the later explanation of the verses, it will be further refuted. The delusion is to show that there is no beginning to birth and death, explaining that the causes of the arising of afflictions are the same or different kinds. As that sutra says, all greed, hatred, and delusion arise from ignorance. Or, in order to rebuke incorrect views, it is said that practicing wrong views increases delusion. As that sutra says, one who is called wise can extinguish ignorance. Because this increases delusion, one is not called wise, and so on, extensively explained. Therefore, one should diligently seek the true meaning of the sutras and not cling to views, thinking that views are ignorance. In the later explanation of the verses, it will be further refuted. The Venerable (Bhaddaanta) Loma said that the essence of wrong view is not ignorance. However, greed, hatred, and wrong view, because they are different kinds, the three of greed, hatred, and delusion are each different roots, and thus they grow. This is also unreasonable. How can greed and hatred be called different kinds of greed and hatred? And why is delusion only the root of wrong view and not the root that increases greed and hatred? Why are greed and hatred not the root of wrong view? However, he cannot discern the meaning within, so what he says does not accord with the meaning of the sutras. The Venerable (Bhaddaanta) Loma said that the essence of wrong view is not ignorance. However, greed, hatred, and wrong view, because they are different kinds, the three of greed, hatred, and delusion are each different roots, and thus they grow. This is also unreasonable. How can greed and hatred be called different kinds of greed and hatred? And why is delusion only the root of wrong view and not the root that increases greed and hatred? Why are greed and hatred not the root of wrong view? However, he cannot discern the meaning within, so what he says does not accord with the meaning of the sutras. Some say that the absence of wisdom is only the absence of wisdom, so ignorance is not of a conditioned nature. If so, then apart from the Buddha, the remaining Arhats (asekha) should have ignorance because they do not have omniscience. If it is said that specifically stating the absence of wisdom in past lives, etc., is ignorance, then there is no such (fault as mentioned above). Some say that the absence of wisdom is only the absence of wisdom, so ignorance is not of a conditioned nature. If so, then apart from the Buddha, the remaining Arhats (asekha) should have ignorance because they do not have omniscience. If it is said that specifically stating the absence of wisdom in past lives, etc., is ignorance, then there is no such (fault as mentioned above).
是過者。不爾智無無差別故。夫言無者。性相俱無。如何可言屬此屬彼。或復彼應說二智無別相。謂以何為相名前際智等無念無間智等無復以何為相。二俱遮智。一是無明。一非無明。此有何理。故彼所說。亦非經義。有說。於是處明無謂無明如世間言。無鹽食等。亦非離色等應成無明故。若謂一切煩惱明無。說名無明。亦不應理。以于結縛隨眠等門離欲貪等別說有故。又前所說過隨逐故。又若一切煩惱為體。此無明體。亦應是見。是則與見應不相應。由此亦非貪等俱轉。執無明體即貪等故。不應即貪等與貪等相應。煩惱應無互相應理。又亦應說無明染心。以貪慾體即無明故。若謂此經據差別說。亦應據別說能染慧。是則應許別有無明。能染污慧。不應謂總以總無明。非別性故。由是應許別有無明。其義云何。頌曰。
明所治無明 如非親實等
論曰。如諸親友所對怨敵。親友相違。名非親友。非異親友。所餘一切中平等類。非親友無。諦語名實此所對治。虛誑言論。名為非實。非異於實。所餘一切。色香等類。亦非實無。等言為顯非天非白非法非愛非義事等。阿素洛等。天等相違。得非天等名。非異無天等。如是無明別有體實。是明所治。非異非無。云何知然。猶如識等。說從緣有為他緣故。復有誠證
。頌曰。
說為結等故 非惡慧見故 與見相應故 說能染慧故
論曰。經說無明。以為結縛隨眠及漏枙瀑流等。非余眼等及體全無。可得說為結縛等事。故有別法。說名無明。如惡妻子名無妻子。如是惡慧應名無明。彼非無明。有是見故。諸染污慧。名為惡慧。于中有見。故非無明。見是推尋。猛睿決斷。不可說彼名為愚癡。若爾無明。應是非見。諸染污慧。此亦非理。以許無明見相應故。無明若是慧。應見不相應。無二慧體共相應故。不可說見非無明俱非不愚癡見成倒故。又說無明能染慧故。如契經說。貪慾染心。令不解脫。無明染慧。令不清凈。非慧還能染于慧體。如貪異類能染於心。無明亦應異慧能染。亦不可說無明與慧雖不相應而能為染。如貪為染必與心俱。心心所法。無等起染。但有自性相應染故。不可自體自體相應。是故無明。定非惡慧經主於此。假作救言。如何不許諸染污慧間雜善慧。令不清凈。說為能染。如貪染心。令不解脫。豈必現起。與心相應。方說能染。然由貪力。損縛於心。令不解脫。後轉滅彼貪熏習時。心便解脫。如是無明。染污于慧。令不清凈。非慧相應。但由無明。損濁于慧。如是分別。何理相違。今詳彼言。非善分別。離相應品。不能染故。若相應貪心相應故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 頌曰： 說（無明）之所以是結等（煩惱），不是因為它本身是惡慧（邪惡的智慧），而是因為它與（錯誤的）見解相應，並且能染污智慧，所以才被稱為無明。
論曰：經中說無明，可以作為結、縛、隨眠、漏、杙、瀑流等。但眼等（五根）以及完全不存在的事物，不能被說成是結縛等。因此，必定存在一種獨立的法，被稱作無明。就像惡劣的妻子可以被稱為『沒有妻子』一樣，惡慧也應該被稱為無明。但惡慧並非無明，因為它本身就是一種見解。所有被染污的智慧，都可以被稱為惡慧，其中包含著（錯誤的）見解，因此不是無明。見解是推究、尋求、猛利、果斷的，不能說它是愚癡。如果這樣，無明就應該是非見解。但所有被染污的智慧，也不能說是無明，因為無明與見解是相應的。如果無明是智慧，那麼它就不應該與見解相應，因為兩種智慧不可能同時相應。也不能說見解不是無明，也不是愚癡，因為見解本身就是顛倒的。
而且，經中說無明能染污智慧，就像契經中說的那樣：貪慾染污心，使心不得解脫；無明染污智慧，使智慧不清凈。智慧不能染污智慧本身，就像貪慾作為異類，才能染污心一樣，無明也應該作為異於智慧的事物，才能染污智慧。也不能說無明與智慧雖然不相應，但卻能染污智慧，因為貪慾要染污心，必須與心同時存在。心和心所法，沒有等起染，只有自性相應染。自體不可能與自體相應。所以，無明一定不是惡慧。經主在這裡假裝辯解說：為什麼不允許被染污的智慧，間雜著善慧，從而變得不清凈，並被說成是能染污的呢？就像貪慾染污心，使心不得解脫一樣，難道必須是現起，與心相應，才能說是能染污嗎？實際上，是因為貪慾的力量，損害和束縛了心，使心不得解脫。後來，當貪慾的熏習滅盡時，心才能解脫。同樣，無明染污智慧，使智慧不清凈，不一定要與智慧相應，只要無明損害和擾亂了智慧就可以了。這樣的分別，有什麼道理相違背呢？現在仔細分析他的話，並不是善巧的分別，因為離開了相應的品類，就不能染污。如果貪慾相應，是因為與心相應。
【English Translation】 English version: Verse: That it is said to be a knot, etc. (klesha, etc.) is not because it is evil wisdom (akuśala-prajñā), but because it is associated with (wrong) views (dṛṣṭi), and because it can defile wisdom (prajñā); therefore, it is called ignorance (avidyā).
Treatise: The sutras say that ignorance (avidyā) can be a knot (bandhana), a bond (saṃyojana), an underlying tendency (anuśaya), a leakage (āsrava), a stake (khila), a flood (ogha), etc. But the eye, etc. (five sense organs), and things that do not exist at all, cannot be said to be knots, bonds, etc. Therefore, there must be a separate dharma (phenomenon) called ignorance (avidyā). Just as a bad wife can be called 'no wife,' evil wisdom (akuśala-prajñā) should also be called ignorance (avidyā). But evil wisdom (akuśala-prajñā) is not ignorance (avidyā), because it is itself a kind of view (dṛṣṭi). All defiled wisdom (prajñā) can be called evil wisdom (akuśala-prajñā), which contains (wrong) views (dṛṣṭi), so it is not ignorance (avidyā). Views (dṛṣṭi) are investigation, seeking, sharp, and decisive, and cannot be said to be foolishness (moha). If so, ignorance (avidyā) should be non-view (adarśana). But all defiled wisdom (prajñā) cannot be said to be ignorance (avidyā), because ignorance (avidyā) is associated with views (dṛṣṭi). If ignorance (avidyā) is wisdom (prajñā), then it should not be associated with views (dṛṣṭi), because two kinds of wisdom (prajñā) cannot be associated at the same time. Nor can it be said that views (dṛṣṭi) are not ignorance (avidyā), nor foolishness (moha), because views (dṛṣṭi) themselves are inverted.
Moreover, the sutras say that ignorance (avidyā) can defile wisdom (prajñā), just as the sutras say: greed (rāga) defiles the mind (citta), making it unable to be liberated; ignorance (avidyā) defiles wisdom (prajñā), making it impure. Wisdom (prajñā) cannot defile wisdom (prajñā) itself, just as greed (rāga) as a different kind can defile the mind (citta), ignorance (avidyā) should also be a thing different from wisdom (prajñā) to defile wisdom (prajñā). Nor can it be said that ignorance (avidyā) and wisdom (prajñā) are not associated, but can defile wisdom (prajñā), because greed (rāga) must exist with the mind (citta) to defile the mind (citta). There is no co-arising defilement (samutthāna-kleśa) in mind (citta) and mental factors (caitasika), only self-nature associated defilement (svabhāva-saṃprayukta-kleśa). The self cannot be associated with the self. Therefore, ignorance (avidyā) must not be evil wisdom (akuśala-prajñā). The sutra master pretends to argue here: Why is it not allowed that defiled wisdom (prajñā) is mixed with good wisdom (kuśala-prajñā), so that it becomes impure, and is said to be able to defile? Just as greed (rāga) defiles the mind (citta), making it unable to be liberated, must it be present and associated with the mind (citta) to be said to be able to defile? In fact, it is because of the power of greed (rāga) that it damages and binds the mind (citta), making it unable to be liberated. Later, when the habit of greed (rāga) is extinguished, the mind (citta) can be liberated. Similarly, ignorance (avidyā) defiles wisdom (prajñā), making it impure, and does not necessarily have to be associated with wisdom (prajñā), as long as ignorance (avidyā) damages and disturbs wisdom (prajñā). What is the contradiction in such a distinction? Now, after careful analysis of his words, it is not a skillful distinction, because it cannot defile if it is separated from the corresponding category. If greed (rāga) is associated, it is because it is associated with the mind (citta).
能染於心。不相應貪。以未斷故。亦能染者。則非阿羅漢應無不染心。若謂彼貪。有染不染。曾所未見。又成非愛失貪纏正現前應有不染故。又若相間雜名能染者。則諸無漏慧。亦應被染。又無染慧雜有染慧。應令有染轉成無染。能治力強。非所治故。又諸善慧。正現行時。染定非有。諸染污慧。正現行時。善定非有。說誰能染復染于誰。若現有非有能互相染則應畢竟無得解脫義。若滅熏習便解脫者。熏習本無。更何所滅。設有熏習。亦非能染。非無明體。前已說故。滅不滅位。竟有何別。故說無明能染慧故。非慧為性。理無傾動。若有別法。說名無明。應說以何為別法性。且有別法。謂不了知。此即無明。何勞推究。應定何法名不了知。方可說為無明自性。唯薄伽梵。於一切法。正知正說。若性若相。余唯總了。何苦推徴。然我於斯見如是相。謂有別法。能損慧能。是倒見因。障觀德失。于所知法。不欲行轉。蔽心心所。是謂無明。如何定知。此有別法。以如貪慾。說永離故。謂契經言。離貪慾故。心便解脫。離無明故。慧得解脫。又此如明。說為因故。謂契經說。無明為因。起諸雜染。明為因故。離諸雜染。又說如邪見有近對治故。謂契經說。諸邪見斷由正見生。諸無明離由明慧起。又契經說。是一法故。謂契經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 能染著於心。與貪不相應。因為尚未斷除的緣故。如果說也能染著，那麼阿羅漢就不應該沒有不被染著的心。如果說那貪有染著和不染著，這是前所未見的。又會變成非喜愛而失去貪的纏縛，正現前時應該有不染著的緣故。又如果相間雜合就稱為能染著，那麼所有的無漏智慧，也應該被染著。又沒有染著的智慧與有染著的智慧相雜，應該使有染著的轉變成沒有染著。因為能對治的力量強大，不是被對治的緣故。又各種善的智慧，正現行的時候，染著必定沒有；各種染污的智慧，正現行的時候，善必定沒有。說誰能染著又染著于誰呢？如果現有和非有能互相染著，那麼應該畢竟沒有得到解脫的意義。如果滅除熏習就解脫，熏習本來就沒有，更滅除什麼呢？即使有熏習，也不是能染著的，因為不是無明的本體，前面已經說過了。滅與不滅的地位，究竟有什麼區別呢？所以說無明能染著智慧的緣故，不是智慧的本性，道理上無法動搖。如果有別的法，說名為無明，應該說以什麼作為別的法的本性？姑且有別的法，說為不了知，這就是無明，何必推究？應該確定什麼法名為不了知，才可以說是無明的自性。只有薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊），對於一切法，正確地知曉和正確地說出，無論是本性還是相狀，其餘的只是總體的瞭解，何必苦苦推求呢？然而我在這裡見到這樣的相狀，認為有別的法，能損害智慧的功能，是顛倒見的因，障礙觀的功德和缺失，對於所知之法，不想要執行和轉變，遮蔽心和心所，這就是所謂的無明。如何確定知道，這有別的法呢？因為如同貪慾，說永遠離去的緣故。所謂契經（Sutra，佛經）上說：『離開貪慾的緣故，心便解脫；離開無明的緣故，智慧得到解脫。』又這如同光明，說是因的緣故。所謂契經說：『無明為因，生起各種雜染；光明為因，離開各種雜染。』又說如同邪見有近的對治的緣故。所謂契經說：『各種邪見的斷除由正見的生起；各種無明的離開由明慧的生起。』又契經說，是一法的緣故。所謂契經 （Sutra，佛經）說
【English Translation】 English version: It can be stained by the mind. It is not in accordance with greed because it has not been cut off. If it is said that it can also stain, then an Arhat (one who is free from all defilements) should not be without an unstained mind. If it is said that greed has both stained and unstained aspects, this has never been seen before. Furthermore, it would become a non-desire and lose the entanglement of greed, and when it is presently manifest, there should be no staining. Moreover, if being mixed together is called staining, then all undefiled wisdom should also be stained. Furthermore, undefiled wisdom mixed with defiled wisdom should cause the defiled to transform into undefiled because the power of the antidote is strong, not because it is being treated. Moreover, when various wholesome wisdoms are presently active, defilement is definitely absent; when various defiled wisdoms are presently active, wholesomeness is definitely absent. Who is said to be able to stain and stain whom? If existence and non-existence can stain each other, then there should ultimately be no meaning of attaining liberation. If liberation comes from extinguishing habitual tendencies, then habitual tendencies originally do not exist, so what is being extinguished? Even if there are habitual tendencies, they are not capable of staining because they are not the substance of ignorance, as has been said before. What difference is there between the state of extinction and non-extinction? Therefore, saying that ignorance can stain wisdom is not the nature of wisdom, and the principle cannot be shaken. If there is a separate dharma (teaching, principle) called ignorance, it should be said what is the nature of this separate dharma? For the time being, there is a separate dharma, which is called non-understanding. This is ignorance, so why investigate further? It should be determined what dharma is called non-understanding so that it can be said to be the nature of ignorance. Only the Bhagavan (the Blessed One, the World-Honored One) knows and speaks correctly about all dharmas, both their nature and their characteristics; the rest only have a general understanding, so why bother to seek it out? However, I see such a characteristic here, thinking that there is a separate dharma that can harm the function of wisdom, is the cause of inverted views, obstructs the merits and demerits of contemplation, does not want to operate and transform in relation to the knowable dharmas, and obscures the mind and mental factors. This is what is called ignorance. How can it be determined that there is this separate dharma? Because, like greed, it is said to be eternally abandoned. As the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'Because of leaving greed, the mind is liberated; because of leaving ignorance, wisdom is liberated.' Also, this is like light, said to be the cause. As the Sutra says: 'Ignorance is the cause of arising various defilements; light is the cause of leaving various defilements.' It is also said that like wrong views, there is a near antidote. As the Sutra says: 'The abandonment of various wrong views is due to the arising of right view; the departure of various ignorances is due to the arising of clear wisdom.' Also, the Sutra says that it is one dharma. As the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says:
說。若有苾芻。能斷一法。我正記彼。所作已辦。即是無明。又說如闇。有對治故。如伽他說。
諸有能斷愚 于所愚不惑 彼轉滅愚惑 如日出除闇
若謂闇體非別實物。但以明無。為其體者。此不應理。明應爾故。若謂明生有緣可得。闇則不爾。理亦不然。生緣各別。如水等故。謂或有水生。無外聚緣。或有水生。待外聚緣力。地等不爾。余隨所應。故法生緣。各有差別。如是明起。必待余緣。闇則但由違緣。非有同類因力及俱生緣。其體得生。有違何理。又見闇體。有品別故。非但明無可有品別。若謂是處明分有無。故闇得成。微中粗者。亦不應理。無法體無。無容得成品類別故。又有非有不同處故。又闇與影眼識境故。如青等色。其體實有。非五識身能緣假法。如前已辯。又闇與影。界所攝故。實有義成。又如煙雲。障余色故。闇亦應爾。其體非無。若謂闇中眼識不起。由明非有非闇障故。理亦不然。緣明所隔遠處暗色眼識生故。不見闇中余色物故。若謂闇處余有色物無明攝益。非闇障故。理亦不然。彼可疑故。此中理趣。如前已辨。又此如香體非非有。可久習近故。相不分明故。攝益眼因故。若謂由光損眼勢用。此光無處眼增益者。亦不應理。久住其中。觀此還能為損因故。若謂闇體非實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經中說：如果有一位苾芻（bhiksu，比丘，出家受具足戒的男子），能夠斷除一種法，我就正確地記說他，說他所應該做的已經做完。這一法就是無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑和不瞭解）。經中又說無明就像黑暗一樣，因為有對治它的方法。正如伽陀（gāthā，偈頌）所說： 『凡是能夠斷除愚癡的人，對於所愚昧的事物就不會迷惑。他們能夠轉變並滅除愚癡和迷惑，就像太陽出來驅散黑暗一樣。』 如果有人認為黑暗的本體不是一種獨立的真實存在，而僅僅是以光明的缺失作為其本體，這種說法是不合理的。因為光明也應該如此。如果有人認為光明的產生有其因緣可以獲得，而黑暗則不然，這個道理也是不成立的。因為產生的原因各有不同，就像水等等一樣。也就是說，或者有水的產生不需要外在的聚合因緣，或者有水的產生需要依賴外在的聚合因緣的力量，而地等等則不是這樣。其餘的可以根據具體情況來理解。所以，法的產生因緣各有差別。像光明生起，必定要依賴其他的因緣，而黑暗僅僅由於違逆的因緣，並非有同類的因力以及俱生的因緣，它的本體就能產生，這有什麼違背道理的呢？而且，我們看到黑暗的本體有品類的差別，並非僅僅是光明的缺失才會有品類的差別。如果有人認為是因為某個地方光明的成分有多少，所以黑暗才得以形成微細、中等、粗大的差別，這也是不合理的。因為沒有本體的事物，無法形成品類的差別。而且，有和沒有存在於不同的地方。此外，黑暗和影子都是眼識所認識的對象，就像青色等顏色一樣，它們的本體是真實存在的，並非是五識身所能認識的假法，這一點前面已經辯論過了。而且，黑暗和影子，都是界（dhātu，構成要素）所攝的，所以它們是真實存在的意義就成立了。又比如煙雲，能夠遮蔽其他的顏色，黑暗也應該如此，它的本體不是沒有的。如果有人認為在黑暗中眼識不起作用，是因為光明不存在，而不是因為黑暗的遮蔽，這個道理也是不成立的。因為被光明所隔絕的遠處暗色，眼識是可以產生的。之所以看不見黑暗中的其他顏色物體，如果有人認為在黑暗的地方，其他的有色物體沒有光明的攝益，而不是因為黑暗的遮蔽，這個道理也是不成立的，因為這是值得懷疑的。這裡面的道理，前面已經辨析過了。又比如香，它的本體不是沒有的，因為可以長久地習慣和接近它，因為它的相貌不是不分明的，因為它能夠攝益眼根。如果有人認為是因為光線損害了眼睛的勢用，而沒有光線的地方眼睛就能得到增益，這也是不合理的。因為長久地待在其中，觀察它仍然會成為損害的原因。如果有人認為黑暗的本體不是真實的，
【English Translation】 English version: It is said: 'If there is a bhiksu (monk), who can cut off one dharma (teaching, principle), I rightly acknowledge him, saying that he has done what needs to be done.' That one dharma is avidya (ignorance). It is also said that it is like darkness, because there is a remedy for it. As the gatha (verse) says: 'Those who can cut off ignorance, will not be deluded by what they are ignorant of. They can transform and extinguish ignorance and delusion, just as the sun rises and dispels darkness.' If someone claims that the substance of darkness is not a separate real entity, but merely the absence of light as its substance, this is unreasonable. Because light should be the same. If someone claims that the arising of light has its causes and conditions that can be obtained, but darkness does not, this reasoning is also not valid. Because the causes of arising are different, just like water and so on. That is, either the arising of water does not require external aggregate causes, or the arising of water requires the power of external aggregate causes, while earth and so on are not like this. The rest can be understood according to the specific situation. Therefore, the causes of arising of dharmas are different. Like the arising of light, it must rely on other causes and conditions, while darkness only arises due to adverse causes and conditions, not having the power of similar causes and the co-arising causes, its substance can arise, what is against reason in this? Moreover, we see that the substance of darkness has different categories, not just the absence of light that has different categories. If someone claims that it is because the components of light in a certain place have more or less, so darkness can form subtle, medium, and coarse differences, this is also unreasonable. Because things without substance cannot form category differences. Moreover, existence and non-existence exist in different places. In addition, darkness and shadow are both objects recognized by eye consciousness, just like blue and other colors, their substances are real, not false dharmas that can be recognized by the five consciousness bodies, this has been debated before. Moreover, darkness and shadow are both included in the dhatu (element), so the meaning of their real existence is established. Also, like smoke and clouds, which can obscure other colors, darkness should also be like this, its substance is not non-existent. If someone claims that eye consciousness does not arise in darkness because light does not exist, not because of the obstruction of darkness, this reasoning is also not valid. Because the dark color in the distance that is separated by light, eye consciousness can arise. The reason why other colored objects cannot be seen in darkness, if someone claims that in dark places, other colored objects do not have the benefit of light, not because of the obstruction of darkness, this reasoning is also not valid, because this is doubtful. The reasoning in this has been analyzed before. Also, like fragrance, its substance is not non-existent, because it can be habitually approached for a long time, because its appearance is not unclear, because it can benefit the eye root. If someone claims that it is because light damages the function of the eyes, and the eyes can be benefited in places without light, this is also unreasonable. Because staying in it for a long time, observing it can still become a cause of damage. If someone claims that the substance of darkness is not real,
有法。明不俱故。無色相故。此亦不然。雜明隔明。現可得故。豈不明處闇體必無。有對皆然。何獨明闇。又契經說。黑闇為緣。明界可了。非無有法能作他緣。故闇有體。又闇如日可出現故。如言日沒闇便出現。無法不應有出現義。又說緣杌。而現影故。杌既是假。影應非實。此難不然。如腹雖是假。而生實飢渴。前已成故。又可領觸。猶如受故。又世尊告婆澀波言。于意云何。豈不緣杌而現於影。根本若斷。此法不生。乃至廣說。非於無法可說此言。又契經言。如入密室見闇充滿。非於無體可有如斯見充滿義。又契經說。以眾光明破諸黑闇。闇若非有。其體本無。豈更須破。又契經說。若不斷本。如影必隨。乃至廣說。由如是等眾多理教。故知影闇其體實有。由此所言。無明如闇。有對治故。其理極成。是故無明。定有別法。無知為體。非但明無。然此無知。略有二種。謂染不染。此二何別。有作是說。若能障智。是染無知。不染無知。唯智非有。今詳二種無知相別。謂由此故。立愚智殊。如是名是染無知相。若由此故。或有境中。智不及愚。是第二相。又若斷已。佛與二乘。皆無差別。是第一相。若有斷已。佛與二乘。有行不行。是第二相。又若於事自共相愚。是名第一染無知相。若於諸法味勢熟德數量處時同
異等相。不能如實覺。是不染無知。此不染無知。即說名習氣。有古師說。習氣相言有不。染污心所差別。染不染法數習所引。非一切智相續現行。令心心所不自在轉。是名習氣。非唯智無。無法無容能為因故。亦不應說有如是類心及心所總名習氣。不染無知。前已說故。謂此無知為自性住。心等為體。為有差別。若自性住。心等為體。佛亦應有不染無知。若有差別。能差別者。可是無知。非所差別。現見善等品類差別心心所中。必有別法。為能差別。非即一切。如善品中。必有信等。不善品中。有無慚等。染污品中。有放逸等。如是等類。心心所中。必有別法。為能差別。故知此中亦有別法。能為差別者。是不染無知。今詳彼言。有太過失。諸異生等。心心所法。皆不如實覺味勢熟等相。然不見生余心所故。又一一念。彼心心所。差別而生。應唸唸中各有別別無知法起。若謂有異相令無知差別。即此足能差別心品。何須別計不染無知。是故即于味勢熟等不勤求。解惠與異相法俱為因。引生后同類慧。此慧于解。又不勤求。復為因引生。不勤求解慧。如是展轉無始時來。因果相仍。習以成性。故即于彼味等境中。數習於解。無堪能智。此所引劣智。名不染無知。即此俱生心心所法。總名習氣。理定應然。或諸有情。有
煩惱位。所有無染心及相續。由諸煩惱間雜所熏。有能順生煩惱氣分。故諸無染心及眷屬。似彼行相差別而生。由數習力相繼而起。故離過身中。仍名有習氣。一切智者。永斷不行。然于已斷見所斷位。通染不染心相續中。有餘順生煩惱習性。是見所斷煩惱氣分。于中染者。說名類性。金剛道斷。皆不現行。若不染者。名見所斷煩惱習氣。亦彼道斷由根差別。有行不行。若於已斷修所斷位。唯于不染心相續中。有餘順生煩惱習性。是修所斷煩惱氣分。名修所斷煩惱習氣。是有漏故。無學已斷。隨根勝劣。有行不行。世尊已得法自在故。彼如煩惱畢竟不行。故佛獨稱善凈相續。即由此故。行無誤失。得不共法。三念住等。又由此故。密意說言唯佛獨名得無學果。大德邏摩作如是說。有不染法名為習氣。如不善因所招異熟。世尊昔在菩薩位中。三無數劫修諸加行。雖有煩惱而能漸除。煩惱所引不染習氣。白法習氣漸令增長。後於永斷諸漏得時。前諸習氣有滅不滅。以于長時修加行故。證得無上諸漏永盡。然佛猶有白法習氣。言習氣有滅不滅故。如是所說理亦可然。而彼不能顯其體性。不染習氣。其體是何。非但虛言。令生實解。經言類性其體是何。有作是言。我慢為體。彼違經說。以契經中。於我慢外說類性故。經言我今
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 煩惱的『習氣位』（Vāsanā-sthāna，指煩惱殘餘的潛在狀態）。所有未受染污的心識及其相續，由於受到各種煩惱的間雜薰染，具有能夠順勢產生煩惱『氣分』（Vāsanā，煩惱的潛在影響或傾向）的能力。因此，所有未受染污的心識及其眷屬，會呈現出類似煩惱的行相差別而生起，這是由於長期的串習力量相繼作用的結果。所以，即使在遠離過失的阿羅漢身中，仍然稱之為有『習氣』。一切智者（Sarvajña，指佛陀）能夠永遠斷除這些習氣，使其不再生起作用。然而，在已經斷除『見所斷』（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的階段，在通於染污和不染污的心識相續中，還殘留著能夠順勢產生煩惱習性的餘留，這就是『見所斷』煩惱的『氣分』。其中，染污的部分被稱為『類性』（Nikāya-sabhāga，同類煩惱的性質）。通過金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）斷除后，這些煩惱都不會再現行。如果不染污的部分，則被稱為『見所斷』煩惱的『習氣』，也通過金剛喻定斷除，但由於根器的差別，有些會現行，有些不會現行。如果是在已經斷除『修所斷』（Bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的階段，僅僅在不染污的心識相續中，還殘留著能夠順勢產生煩惱習性的餘留，這就是『修所斷』煩惱的『氣分』，被稱為『修所斷』煩惱的『習氣』。因為這些習氣是有漏的，所以無學（Aśaikṣa，阿羅漢）在斷除后，會根據根器的優劣，有些會現行，有些不會現行。世尊（Bhagavān，佛陀的尊稱）已經獲得了法的自在，所以這些習氣如同煩惱一樣，畢竟不會再現行。因此，只有佛陀才被稱為具有『善凈相續』。正因為如此，佛陀的行為不會有任何錯誤，並且證得了不共法（Āveṇika-dharma，佛陀獨有的功德），如三念住等。也正因為如此，佛陀密意地說，只有佛陀才能被稱為獲得無學果。大德邏摩（Loma）這樣說：存在著不染污的法，被稱為『習氣』，就像不善業因所招感的異熟果報一樣。世尊過去在菩薩位中，經歷了三大阿僧祇劫（Asaṃkhya-kalpa，極長的時間單位）修習各種加行，雖然有煩惱，但能夠逐漸去除。煩惱所引發的不染污習氣，以及白法（Śukla-dharma，善法）的習氣，逐漸增長。後來在永遠斷除諸漏（Āsrava，煩惱的異名）的時候，之前的各種習氣，有些會滅除，有些不會滅除。因為長時間修習加行的緣故，證得了無上圓滿的諸漏永盡。然而，佛陀仍然具有白法的習氣。之所以說習氣有些會滅除，有些不會滅除，是因為這個道理也是可以成立的。但是，他不能夠顯明習氣的體性。不染污的習氣，它的體性是什麼？不能只是空泛地說說，要讓人產生真實的理解。經文中說的『類性』，它的體性是什麼？有些人說，以我慢（Asmita，對自我的執著）為體性。這種說法違背了經文，因為經文中在『我慢』之外，還說了『類性』。經文中說『我今』
【English Translation】 English version The 'Vāsanā-sthāna' (position of habit-energy) of afflictions. All undefiled minds and their continuities, due to being intermingled and perfumed by various afflictions, have the capacity to give rise to the 'Vāsanā' (habit-energy, latent influence or tendency) of afflictions. Therefore, all undefiled minds and their retinues arise with differentiations resembling the characteristics of those afflictions, due to the force of repeated practice arising in succession. Thus, even in the body of one who has abandoned faults (an Arhat), it is still called having 'habit-energy'. The Sarvajña (Omniscient One, referring to the Buddha) permanently cuts off and does not engage in these. However, in the stage of having already abandoned what is 'Darśana-heya' (abandoned by seeing, afflictions abandoned through the path of seeing), in the continuities of minds that are both defiled and undefiled, there remains a residue of the nature of habit that can give rise to afflictions, which is the 'Vāsanā' of afflictions that are 'Darśana-heya'. Among these, the defiled ones are called 'Nikāya-sabhāga' (belonging to the same category). Having been cut off by the Vajropama-samādhi (diamond-like concentration), none of these will manifest again. If they are undefiled, they are called the 'habit-energy' of afflictions that are 'Darśana-heya', and are also cut off by that path, but due to differences in faculties, some manifest and some do not. If, in the stage of having already abandoned what is 'Bhāvanā-heya' (abandoned by cultivation, afflictions abandoned through the path of cultivation), only in the continuities of undefiled minds does there remain a residue of the nature of habit that can give rise to afflictions, which is the 'Vāsanā' of afflictions that are 'Bhāvanā-heya', and is called the 'habit-energy' of afflictions that are 'Bhāvanā-heya'. Because these habit-energies are with outflows (Āsrava), after they have been abandoned by the Aśaikṣa (one beyond learning, Arhat), some manifest and some do not, depending on the superiority or inferiority of their faculties. The Bhagavan (Blessed One, epithet of the Buddha) has attained freedom in the Dharma, so these habit-energies, like afflictions, will definitely not manifest again. Therefore, only the Buddha is called having a 'well-purified continuity'. Precisely because of this, the Buddha's actions have no errors, and He attains the Āveṇika-dharma (unique qualities of a Buddha), such as the three mindfulnesses. Also, precisely because of this, the Buddha intentionally said that only the Buddha can be called having attained the fruit of no-more-learning. The great worthy Loma said thus: There exist undefiled dharmas that are called 'habit-energy', just like the Vipāka (result) brought about by an unwholesome cause. The Bhagavan, in the past, in the position of a Bodhisattva, cultivated various practices for three Asaṃkhya-kalpas (incalculable eons, extremely long units of time), and although there were afflictions, He was able to gradually remove them. The undefiled habit-energy brought about by afflictions, and the habit-energy of Śukla-dharma (white dharmas, wholesome dharmas), gradually increased. Later, at the time of permanently cutting off all Āsravas (outflows, another name for afflictions), some of the previous habit-energies are extinguished, and some are not. Because of cultivating practices for a long time, He attained the complete exhaustion of all outflows, which is unsurpassed. However, the Buddha still has the habit-energy of white dharmas. The reason for saying that some habit-energies are extinguished and some are not is because this principle can also be established. However, he cannot reveal the nature of habit-energy. What is the nature of undefiled habit-energy? It cannot just be said vaguely; it must give rise to real understanding. What is the nature of 'Nikāya-sabhāga' mentioned in the scriptures? Some say that it is Asmita (ego-consciousness, clinging to self) as its nature. This statement contradicts the scriptures, because the scriptures speak of 'Nikāya-sabhāga' in addition to 'Asmita'. The scriptures say 'I now'
如是知已。如是見已。諸所有愛。諸所有見。諸所有類性。諸我我所執。我慢執隨眠。斷遍知故。無影寂滅。故知類性異於我慢。有說余慢是類性攝。彼說不然。諸言流至我慢中故。我慢執言。攝諸慢盡。應如愛等各攝無遺。然於此中。勝者別說我我所執。是諸見根。故於見中。別顯二種。為攝疑恚。說隨眠言。勝煩惱中。無明未說為別顯。彼說類性言。遍與惑俱。遍往諸趣。故名類性。類是行義。是類之體。得類性名。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第二十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之九
已辯無明。當辯名色。色已辯名云何。頌曰名無色四蘊。
論曰。佛說無色四蘊名名。何故名名。能表召故。謂能表召種種所緣。若爾不應全攝無色不相應法。無所緣故。不爾表召唯在無色。如釋色名所說無過。佛說變礙故名為色。去來無表。及諸極微。雖無變礙。而得名色。以無色中無變礙故。變礙名色。非不極成。如是無色中容有表召。非色中有故。理亦無違。故不相應名攝無失。又微細故。彼彼義中。隨理立名。摽以名稱。非無表等亦可稱名。以彼所依現量得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如是知曉之後，如是見到之後，對於所有愛（taṇhā，渴愛），所有見（diṭṭhi，邪見），所有類性（sabhāga，相似性），所有我我所執（attā attaniya，對『我』和『我所』的執著），以及我慢執隨眠（asmimāna-anusaya，潛在的我慢），因為斷除和遍知，所以達到無影寂滅的境界。因此可知，類性不同於我慢。有人說，其餘的慢都屬於類性所攝，這種說法是不對的，因為所有的言論都流向我慢之中。『我慢執』這個詞語，已經包含了所有的慢。應該像愛等煩惱一樣，各自包含無遺。然而，在這裡，殊勝者特別說明我我所執是諸見的根本，因此在諸見之中，特別顯示這兩種執著。爲了包含疑惑和嗔恚，所以說了『隨眠』這個詞語。在殊勝的煩惱中，無明還沒有被單獨說明，爲了特別顯示無明，所以說了『類性』這個詞語。類性普遍與迷惑相伴，普遍前往各個趣（gati，輪迴的去處），所以名為類性。『類』是『行』的意思，是類性的本體，因此得到類性的名稱。 《阿毗達磨順正理論》第二十八卷 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》第二十九卷 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯緣起品第三之九 已經辨析了無明，現在應當辨析名（nāma，名）。已經辨析了名，那麼什麼是名呢？頌文說：『名是無色的四蘊。』 論曰：佛說無色的四蘊名為名。為什麼稱為名呢？因為能夠表召（prajñapti，表達和指稱）。也就是說，能夠表達和指稱種種所緣（ārambaṇa，對像）。如果這樣，那麼就不應該完全包含無色的不相應法（viprayukta-dharma，不相應法），因為它們沒有所緣。不是這樣的，表召只存在於無色之中。就像解釋色名時所說的那樣，沒有過失。佛說因為變礙（vikāra，變壞）的緣故，所以名為色。去來無表（gatyāgamana-avijñapti，行動的無表業）以及諸極微（paramāṇu，極微），雖然沒有變礙，但是也得名為色。因為在無色之中沒有變礙，所以變礙名為色，並非不極成（atyanta-asiddha，完全不成立）。像這樣，在無色中容許有表召，因為色中沒有，所以道理上也沒有違背。因此，包含不相應法沒有過失。而且因為微細的緣故，在各種意義中，根據道理來建立名稱，用名稱來標示，並非無表等也可以稱為名，因為它們的所依（āśraya，依靠）可以通過現量（pratyakṣa，現量）獲得。
【English Translation】 English version: Having thus known, having thus seen, all forms of craving (taṇhā), all forms of views (diṭṭhi), all forms of similarity (sabhāga), all clinging to 'I' and 'mine' (attā attaniya), and the latent tendency of conceit (asmimāna-anusaya), are extinguished and pacified without a trace because of their abandonment and thorough understanding. Therefore, it is known that similarity is different from conceit. Some say that the remaining forms of conceit are included within similarity. This is not correct, because all speech flows towards conceit. The term 'clinging to conceit' includes all forms of conceit. It should, like craving and other afflictions, each include everything without exception. However, in this context, the eminent ones specifically state that clinging to 'I' and 'mine' is the root of all views. Therefore, within views, these two types of clinging are specifically shown. To include doubt and hatred, the term 'latent tendency' is used. Among the eminent afflictions, ignorance has not yet been separately explained. To specifically show ignorance, the term 'similarity' is used. Similarity universally accompanies delusion and universally goes to all destinies (gati), therefore it is called similarity. 'Similarity' means 'going,' it is the essence of similarity, therefore it obtains the name of similarity. Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 28 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 29, No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 29 Composed by Venerable Saṃghabhadra Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter 3.9: Analysis of Dependent Origination Having analyzed ignorance, we should now analyze name (nāma). Having analyzed name, what is name? The verse says: 'Name is the four aggregates of the immaterial.' The treatise says: The Buddha said that the four aggregates of the immaterial are called name. Why is it called name? Because it can express and designate (prajñapti). That is to say, it can express and designate various objects (ārambaṇa). If this is the case, then it should not completely include the immaterial non-associated dharmas (viprayukta-dharma), because they have no object. It is not like that; expression and designation only exist in the immaterial. Just as it was said when explaining the name of form, there is no fault. The Buddha said that because of change and obstruction (vikāra), it is called form. The unmanifested actions of going and coming (gatyāgamana-avijñapti) and the ultimate particles (paramāṇu), although they have no change and obstruction, are also called form. Because there is no change and obstruction in the immaterial, therefore change and obstruction are called form, which is not entirely unestablished (atyanta-asiddha). In this way, it is permissible to have expression and designation in the immaterial, because it does not exist in form, so there is no contradiction in principle. Therefore, including non-associated dharmas is not a mistake. Moreover, because of its subtlety, in various meanings, names are established according to reason, and names are used to mark them. It is not that unmanifested actions and the like can also be called names, because their basis (āśraya) can be obtained through direct perception (pratyakṣa).
故。又於一切界地趣生。能遍趣求故立名稱。非無漏無色不得名名。雖非此所明而似此故。又于無色隨說者情。總說為名不勞徴詰。上座意謂順成彼彼有情相續。故說為名。是能為因。順成彼義。若爾色法應亦是名。亦能為因順成彼故。佛說地等成有情身。經說士夫即六界故。又無經說。唯無色蘊。成有情身。然有經言。因色等起。有情相續。故彼釋名。無所憑據。豈不佛說此伽他言。
名能映一切 無有過名者 是故名一法 皆隨自在行
此中引彼。何所證成。為彼頌中顯有情相續。唯用無色法為能成因。為顯無色。強能引有色。于有情相續為能成因。若謂一切有情相續。無不皆以無色為因。理亦不然。諸無心者。但以有色成相續故。無心有情。前已成立。彼無得等。為能成因。又一一有情。三界諸蘊。成一相續。故諸色法。亦是一切有情相續因。不爾則應不作而得。或作已失。便成太過。若一有情相續諸位。色不遍者。無色亦同。又應審思。此伽他意。為說受等四蘊名名。為說能詮諸別相義。如牛色等言依名名。然於此中唯應說彼能詮一切色非色名。唯此力能映一切法。以無一法非名所詮。異此何名能映一切。又十二處名一切法。受等何能映十二處。若謂皆是受等所緣。則此中名。唯目意識及相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，對於一切界、地、趣、生，能夠普遍趨向追求，所以立名為『名』（nāma，精神現象）。並非無漏（anāsrava，沒有煩惱）和無色（arūpa，沒有物質）才能稱為『名』，雖然這裡沒有明確說明，但與此類似。而且，對於無色界，隨順說法者的意願，總括地說為『名』，不必勞神詰難。上座（長老）的意思是，順應成就彼彼有情（sattva，眾生）的相續（saṃtāna，連續不斷），所以說為『名』，是能夠作為原因，順應成就那個意義。如果這樣，色法（rūpa，物質現象）也應該是『名』，也能作為原因，順應成就那個意義。佛說地等構成有情的身軀，經中說士夫（pudgala，補特伽羅，個體）就是六界（六種元素）的組合。而且沒有經文說，只有無色蘊（arūpa-skandha，非物質的聚合）構成有情的身軀。然而有經文說，因為色等生起，有情相續。所以他們解釋『名』，沒有依據。難道佛沒有說過這個伽陀（gāthā，偈頌）嗎？ 『名能映一切，無有過名者，是故名一法，皆隨自在行。』 這裡引用它，能證明什麼呢？是爲了那個頌中顯示有情相續，只用無色法作為能成的原因？還是爲了顯示無色法，能夠強力地引導有色法，對於有情相續作為能成的原因？如果認為一切有情相續，沒有不是以無色為原因的，道理也不對。那些無心者（asaṃjñika，無想有情），只是以有色成就相續。無心有情，前面已經成立。他們沒有得等（指受、想等），作為能成的原因。而且每一個有情，三界（trayo dhātavaḥ，欲界、色界、無色界）的諸蘊（skandha，聚合），成就一個相續。所以諸色法，也是一切有情相續的原因。不然就應該不作而得，或者作了已失，就成了太過分。如果一個有情相續的各個階段，色法不普遍存在，無色法也一樣。又應該審慎思考，這個伽陀的意思，是說受等四蘊（受、想、行、識）名為『名』，還是說能夠詮釋各種不同相的意義，如牛、色等言語所依據的『名』。然而在這裡，只應該說那能夠詮釋一切色非色的『名』。只有這種力量能夠映照一切法，因為沒有一個法不是『名』所詮釋的。除了這個，什麼『名』能夠映照一切？而且十二處（dvādaśa āyatanāni，內六處和外六處）名為一切法，受等怎麼能夠映照十二處？如果認為都是受等所緣（alambana，對像），那麼這其中的『名』，只是指意識（vijñāna，了別作用）以及相應的相（nimitta，表象）。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, regarding all realms, lands, destinies, and births, being able to universally tend towards and seek, the name 'nāma' (mental phenomena) is established. It is not that only the unconditioned (anāsrava, without defilements) and formless (arūpa, without matter) can be called 'nāma,' although it is not explicitly stated here, but it is similar to this. Moreover, regarding the Formless Realm, following the intention of the speaker, it is generally referred to as 'nāma,' and there is no need to laboriously question it. The Elder's (senior monk's) meaning is that, in accordance with the continuous succession (saṃtāna, continuity) of those sentient beings (sattva, beings), it is said to be 'nāma,' which is able to be a cause, in accordance with accomplishing that meaning. If that is the case, then form (rūpa, material phenomena) should also be 'nāma,' as it can also be a cause, in accordance with accomplishing that meaning. The Buddha said that earth and other elements constitute the body of sentient beings, and the scriptures say that a person (pudgala, individual) is the combination of the six elements. Moreover, there is no scripture that says that only the formless aggregates (arūpa-skandha, non-material aggregates) constitute the body of sentient beings. However, there are scriptures that say that because of the arising of form and other elements, the continuity of sentient beings arises. Therefore, their explanation of 'nāma' has no basis. Did the Buddha not say this gāthā (verse)? 'Name illuminates all, there is none that surpasses name, therefore name is one dharma, all follow its free course.' What does quoting it here prove? Is it to show that in that verse, the continuity of sentient beings is shown, using only formless phenomena as the cause of accomplishment? Or is it to show that formless phenomena can forcefully guide form phenomena, as the cause of accomplishment for the continuity of sentient beings? If it is thought that the continuity of all sentient beings is invariably caused by the formless, that reasoning is also incorrect. Those without mind (asaṃjñika, non-percipient beings) only accomplish continuity with form. Sentient beings without mind have already been established earlier. They do not have attainment, etc. (referring to feeling, thought, etc.), as the cause of accomplishment. Moreover, each sentient being, the aggregates (skandha, aggregates) of the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ, desire realm, form realm, formless realm), accomplish one continuity. Therefore, form phenomena are also the cause of the continuity of all sentient beings. Otherwise, one should obtain without effort, or lose what has been done, which would be too much. If form is not universally present in the various stages of the continuity of a sentient being, the same is true for the formless. Furthermore, one should carefully consider the meaning of this gāthā, whether it is saying that the four aggregates (feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) are called 'nāma,' or whether it is saying that the 'name' on which the meaning of various different characteristics, such as cow and color, are based. However, here, one should only say that the 'name' that can explain all form and non-form. Only this power can illuminate all dharmas, because there is no dharma that is not explained by 'name.' Apart from this, what 'name' can illuminate all? Moreover, the twelve sense bases (dvādaśa āyatanāni, six internal and six external sense bases) are called all dharmas, how can feeling, etc., illuminate the twelve sense bases? If it is thought that they are all objects (alambana, objects) of feeling, etc., then the 'name' in this context only refers to consciousness (vijñāna, discriminating function) and the corresponding appearance (nimitta, image).
應法。若謂所餘是名類故。無斯過者。則不應引此頌證名。為因順成有情相續。謂若唯意識及相應品。正是此伽他所說名者。則不應引證為因義。以五識身及相應品。亦為因順成有情相續故。又如何說無過名者。若謂名中施設多蘊。色不過者。色中施設多界多處。名豈能過。若謂名通無色有者。諸不通者。應不名名。若謂不通是通種類。無斯過者。理亦不然。前說不應引為證故。謂不通者。亦為因成有情相續。與通等故除所執名。有何余法。可說彼諸法皆隨自在行。若謂此名色隨行者。亦不應理。非極成故。謂許名色展轉相依。如何但言色隨名轉。若謂名遍色。色不能遍名。理亦不然。非情無故。又前已說。有無心有情故。亦非名色外有法隨名轉。經說所知法總有二。謂名與色。更無第三。又理不應四蘊名一。設許對色說一法言。然不見有定隨行法。不可自體隨自體行。故知此名。唯能詮想。若作此解。無假劬勞。釋此伽他。義皆明瞭。引之將證四蘊名名。成有情身。定不應理。上座於此假設難言。若名色言。總攝五蘊。世尊說識依名色故。識則應有二。謂能依所依。即自釋言。此難非理。已於名中。間出識故。謂已舉識。說為能依。準知識所依但取餘名色。今詳彼難。理自不成。等無間緣。依識定依識故。然彼上座
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果說剩餘部分因為是『名』（nāma，精神）的類別，所以沒有這個過失，那麼就不應該引用這個偈頌來證明『名』是促成有情相續的『因』（hetu，原因、條件）。如果說只有意識以及相應的心理活動才是這個偈頌所說的『名』，那麼就不應該引用它來證明『因』的意義，因為五識（pañca-vijñāna-kāyāḥ，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）及其相應的心理活動也是促成有情相續的『因』。 此外，如果說沒有『名』的過失，這是怎麼說的呢？如果說在『名』中可以安立多個『蘊』（skandha，構成要素），而『色』（rūpa，物質）不能，那麼在『色』中可以安立多個『界』（dhātu，元素）、多個『處』（āyatana，感覺來源），『名』又怎麼能超過『色』呢？如果說『名』可以通於無色界（arūpadhātu，沒有物質的境界）的有情，那麼那些不通於無色界的，就不應該稱為『名』。如果說不通於無色界的是通於無色界的種類，所以沒有這個過失，這個道理也是不成立的，因為前面已經說過不應該引用這個偈頌作為證明，因為不通於無色界的也促成有情相續，與通於無色界的相等。 除了所執著的『名』之外，還有什麼其他的法，可以說那些法都隨『名』自在執行呢？如果說這個『名』和『色』是相互隨行的，那麼這個說法也是不合理的，因為這不是一個被普遍認可的觀點。如果承認『名』和『色』是相互依存的，怎麼能只說『色』隨『名』轉呢？如果說『名』是普遍存在的，而『色』不能普遍存在於『名』中，這個道理也是不成立的，因為非有情（asaṃjñika，無心）的存在。而且前面已經說過，存在無心有情，所以也不是在『名』和『色』之外還有其他的法隨『名』轉。 經書上說，所知的法總共有兩種，就是『名』和『色』，沒有第三種。而且，四蘊（catvāri arūpaskandhāḥ，受、想、行、識）合為一個『名』在道理上也是不應該的。即使允許針對『色』說一個『法』的說法，也沒有看到有確定的隨行法。不可能自體隨自體執行。所以要知道，這個『名』只能詮釋概念。如果這樣解釋，就沒有必要費力地解釋這個偈頌，所有的意義都清楚明白了。引用它來證明四蘊是『名』，從而構成有情之身，肯定是不合理的。 上座部（Sthavira nikāya，佛教的早期部派之一）對此假設一個難題說，如果『名色』這個詞總括了五蘊，那麼世尊說識（vijñāna，意識）依賴於『名色』，那麼識就應該有兩個，一個是能依賴的，一個是所依賴的。然後自己解釋說，這個難題是不合理的，因為已經在『名』中區分出了識。也就是說，已經舉出了識，說它是能依賴的，因此可以推知識所依賴的只是剩餘的『名色』。現在詳細考察這個難題，道理本身是不成立的。等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，緊鄰的條件）依賴於識，一定是依賴於識的。然而，那位上座部...
【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that what remains is of the category of 'nāma' (name, mentality), then there is no such fault. Then, one should not cite this verse to prove that 'nāma' is the 'hetu' (cause, condition) for the continuity of sentient beings. If it is said that only consciousness and its associated mental activities are the 'nāma' mentioned in this verse, then it should not be cited to prove the meaning of 'hetu', because the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna-kāyāḥ, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) and their associated mental activities are also the 'hetu' for the continuity of sentient beings. Furthermore, how can it be said that there is no fault of 'nāma'? If it is said that multiple 'skandhas' (aggregates, constituents) can be established in 'nāma', but not 'rūpa' (form, matter), then multiple 'dhātus' (elements) and multiple 'āyatanas' (sources of sensation) can be established in 'rūpa'. How can 'nāma' surpass 'rūpa'? If it is said that 'nāma' can extend to sentient beings in the formless realm (arūpadhātu, realm without matter), then those that do not extend to the formless realm should not be called 'nāma'. If it is said that those that do not extend to the formless realm are of the same kind as those that do, then there is no such fault. This reasoning is also not valid, because it was previously said that this verse should not be cited as proof, because those that do not extend to the formless realm also contribute to the continuity of sentient beings, just like those that do. Apart from the 'nāma' that is adhered to, what other dharma (phenomenon, element) is there that can be said to follow 'nāma' freely? If it is said that 'nāma' and 'rūpa' follow each other, then this statement is also unreasonable, because it is not a universally accepted view. If it is acknowledged that 'nāma' and 'rūpa' are mutually dependent, how can it be said only that 'rūpa' follows 'nāma'? If it is said that 'nāma' is pervasive, but 'rūpa' cannot be pervasive in 'nāma', then this reasoning is also not valid, because of the existence of the non-sentient (asaṃjñika, without mind). Moreover, it was previously said that there are non-sentient beings, so it is not that there are other dharmas outside of 'nāma' and 'rūpa' that follow 'nāma'. The scriptures say that there are only two kinds of knowable dharmas, namely 'nāma' and 'rūpa', and there is no third. Moreover, it is unreasonable in principle for the four aggregates (catvāri arūpaskandhāḥ, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) to be combined into one 'nāma'. Even if it is permissible to say 'one dharma' with respect to 'rūpa', no definite following dharma is seen. It is impossible for the self to follow the self. Therefore, it should be known that this 'nāma' can only explain concepts. If it is explained in this way, there is no need to laboriously explain this verse, and all the meanings are clear. Citing it to prove that the four aggregates are 'nāma', thereby constituting the body of a sentient being, is definitely unreasonable. The Sthavira nikāya (one of the early schools of Buddhism) poses a hypothetical difficulty, saying that if the term 'nāmarūpa' encompasses the five aggregates, then the World-Honored One said that consciousness (vijñāna, awareness) depends on 'nāmarūpa', then consciousness should have two aspects, one that depends and one that is depended upon. Then he explains himself, saying that this difficulty is unreasonable, because consciousness has already been distinguished within 'nāma'. That is, consciousness has already been mentioned, saying that it is what depends, so it can be inferred that what consciousness depends on is only the remaining 'nāmarūpa'. Now, examining this difficulty in detail, the reasoning itself is not valid. The immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya, contiguous condition) depends on consciousness, and it must depend on consciousness. However, that Sthavira...
。不許同時識與名色有相依理。彼宗不許有同時因果故。如何以識無二俱生。遂令識無還依識義。又設許有俱生相依。但可識為受等所依。性不可受等與識為所依。如何識所依可取餘名色。故彼問答。皆不應理。今於此中。應更思擇。佛于城喻大緣起經說。識與名色。更互為緣義。為據前後。為約俱生。識緣名色。亦據前後。名色緣識。唯約俱生所以者何。識入母胎故。與羯剌藍合。成有情身。故識緣名色。亦得有前後。非名色合已更結餘識。非識未已起名色為緣故。唯約俱生。有名色緣識。識支唯一故。又一剎那故謂次第說緣起支中。但一識支。此唯一念。如何可執識與名色定約前後說互為緣。又契經說。如蘆束故。謂契經言。如二蘆束立在空地。展轉為依。若一倒時。余亦隨倒。如是具壽。二法相依。謂識緣名色。及名色緣識。若離俱起展轉為緣。與蘆束喻。云何相似。謂于識位。名色位未生。名色位生時。識位已滅。定無似蘆束更互相依義。況撥過去未來無者。可言如彼更互相依。隨一有時。隨一無故。非無與有或有與無。可有展轉互相依義。唯有與有。可互相依。故執相依。定前後者。是聖教外。非佛法宗。又契經說。無明作意俱時而起。展轉為緣。謂說無明因非理作意。及非理作意從癡所生。及說此二俱時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不應該認為『識』（Vijnana，了別作用）和『名色』（Namarupa，精神和物質的組合）之間存在相互依賴的關係，因為他們宗派不承認有同時存在的因果關係。如果『識』沒有同時產生的相互依賴，如何能使『識』不依賴於其他的『識』呢？即使承認有同時產生的相互依賴關係，也只能說『識』是『受』（Vedana，感受）、『想』（Samjna，表象）、『行』（Samskara，意志）等的所依，而『受』、『想』、『行』等在性質上不能作為『識』的所依。那麼，『識』的所依如何能取其他的『名色』呢？因此，他們的問答都是不合邏輯的。現在，我們應該更深入地思考這個問題。 佛在《城喻大緣起經》中說，『識』與『名色』相互為緣的意義，是指前後關係還是同時產生？『識』緣『名色』，既有前後關係，也有同時產生；而『名色』緣『識』，則只有同時產生。為什麼呢？因為『識』進入母胎，與『羯剌藍』（Kalala，受精卵）結合，形成有情之身，所以『識』緣『名色』可以有前後關係。但不是『名色』結合后又產生其他的『識』，也不是『識』還沒有產生時『名色』就作為緣。因此，只有同時產生時，才有『名色』緣『識』。『識』支只有一個，又是一剎那，所以在次第說明緣起支中，只有一個『識』支。這唯一的一念，怎麼能執著于『識』與『名色』一定是前後關係，並以此來說明它們互為緣呢？ 此外，契經中說，就像蘆葦束一樣。契經上說，就像兩束蘆葦立在空地上，互相依靠。如果一束倒了，另一束也會隨之倒下。同樣，具壽，兩種法相互依賴，即『識』緣『名色』，以及『名色』緣『識』。如果離開同時生起、互相為緣，又怎麼能像蘆葦束的比喻呢？在『識』位時，『名色』位還沒有產生；『名色』位產生時，『識』位已經滅去。這絕對沒有像蘆葦束那樣互相依靠的意義。更何況那些否定過去和未來的人，怎麼能說像蘆葦束那樣互相依靠呢？因為隨一存在時，另一就消失了。沒有和有，或者有和沒有，不可能有互相依賴的意義。只有有和有，才能互相依賴。因此，執著于相互依賴一定是前後關係，是聖教之外的觀點，不是佛法的宗旨。 此外，契經中說，『無明』（Avidya，無知）和『作意』（Manaskara，心理活動）同時生起，互相為緣。也就是說，『無明』是由於非理性的『作意』而產生的，而非理性的『作意』是從愚癡中產生的。並且說這兩者是同時的。
【English Translation】 English version: It is not permissible to assert that 『Vijnana』 (consciousness, the function of discernment) and 『Namarupa』 (name and form, the combination of mind and matter) have a relationship of mutual dependence, because their school does not accept the existence of simultaneous cause and effect. If 『Vijnana』 does not have simultaneous mutual dependence, how can it be that 『Vijnana』 does not rely on other 『Vijnana』? Even if one admits that there is simultaneous mutual dependence, one can only say that 『Vijnana』 is the support of 『Vedana』 (feeling), 『Samjna』 (perception), 『Samskara』 (volition), etc., but 『Vedana』, 『Samjna』, 『Samskara』, etc., cannot by nature serve as the support of 『Vijnana』. Then, how can the support of 『Vijnana』 take other 『Namarupa』? Therefore, their questions and answers are all illogical. Now, we should think more deeply about this issue. In the City Simile Great Dependent Origination Sutra, the Buddha said that the meaning of 『Vijnana』 and 『Namarupa』 being mutually conditioned refers to either an anterior-posterior relationship or simultaneous arising. 『Vijnana』 conditions 『Namarupa』 both anteriorly and simultaneously; while 『Namarupa』 conditions 『Vijnana』 only simultaneously. Why is this so? Because 『Vijnana』 enters the mother's womb and combines with 『Kalala』 (the fertilized egg) to form the sentient body, so 『Vijnana』 conditioning 『Namarupa』 can have an anterior-posterior relationship. But it is not that after 『Namarupa』 combines, other 『Vijnana』 arises, nor is it that 『Namarupa』 serves as a condition when 『Vijnana』 has not yet arisen. Therefore, only when they arise simultaneously does 『Namarupa』 condition 『Vijnana』. The 『Vijnana』 factor is only one, and it is only a moment, so in the sequential explanation of the factors of dependent origination, there is only one 『Vijnana』 factor. How can one cling to the idea that 『Vijnana』 and 『Namarupa』 must have an anterior-posterior relationship and use this to explain that they are mutually conditioned? Furthermore, the sutras say that it is like a bundle of reeds. The sutras say, 『Like two bundles of reeds standing in an open space, relying on each other. If one falls, the other will also fall.』 Similarly, venerable ones, two dharmas are mutually dependent, that is, 『Vijnana』 conditions 『Namarupa』, and 『Namarupa』 conditions 『Vijnana』. If they are separated from simultaneous arising and mutual conditioning, how can it be like the analogy of the bundle of reeds? When in the 『Vijnana』 state, the 『Namarupa』 state has not yet arisen; when the 『Namarupa』 state arises, the 『Vijnana』 state has already ceased. There is absolutely no meaning of mutual reliance like the bundle of reeds. Moreover, how can those who deny the past and future say that they rely on each other like the bundle of reeds? Because when one exists, the other disappears. Non-existence and existence, or existence and non-existence, cannot have the meaning of mutual dependence. Only existence and existence can rely on each other. Therefore, clinging to the idea that mutual dependence must be an anterior-posterior relationship is a view outside of the holy teachings, not the doctrine of Buddhism. Furthermore, the sutras say that 『Avidya』 (ignorance) and 『Manaskara』 (attention) arise simultaneously and are mutually conditioned. That is to say, 『Avidya』 arises from irrational 『Manaskara』, and irrational 『Manaskara』 arises from delusion. And it is said that these two are simultaneous.
而起。故契經說。眼色為緣。生癡所生染濁作意。此中癡者。即是無明。乃至廣說。言此中者。意顯即此作意生時。或即所摽。緣和合位。非同屬緣法可前後生。以二俱時起無障礙故。又如燈明同時而起有因果義。前于思擇俱有因中。已曾具辯。如是因果俱起極成。而有救言。燈明非異。此不應理。燈之與明。觸量色處用各別故。世間唯說焰為燈故。如說燈光燈能燒物。阿笈摩說。明依于燈。如日月光。明依日月輪起。又如大地依於水輪。水與地俱生方有為依義。燈明性別。由是極成。因果俱生。於斯義顯。明雖依自大種而生。然于生時。非離燈焰。若謂明焰同一因生。以即焰因是明因者。亦不應理。有差別故。非從一和合有非一果。亦非一果非一和合生。豈不一擊火聲俱起。寧無一和合有非一果生。理亦不然。依各別故。又自類因。各別生故。由此彼救。但有虛言。故燈與明。因體各別。若識與名色。展轉為緣。何故經多言識緣名色互為緣性。其理雖通。顯識用強。是故偏說。識用強者謂識為所依受等用心為所依轉故。識持精血。成羯剌藍。成有情身。其用勝故。如王臣等。雖互相依。而王得名。以最勝故。識與名色。應知亦爾。又識緣名色。據前生緣說。展轉為緣。唯約俱起。以識緣名色。通前後及俱。名色緣識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，經文中說：『眼和色為緣，產生由愚癡所生的染污作意。』這裡所說的『愚癡』，就是無明，乃至廣說。這裡所說的『此中』，意思是顯示就在這個作意產生的時候，或者就是所標示的緣和合的位置，不同於同屬緣法可以有先後產生。因為二者同時生起，沒有障礙。又如燈和光明同時生起，具有因果的意義。之前在思擇俱有因中，已經詳細辨析過。像這樣因果同時生起是極其確定的。如果有人辯解說：『燈和光明沒有差別。』這是不合理的。因為燈和光明，在觸、量、色、處、作用上各有區別。世間只說火焰是燈。如說燈光、燈能燃燒物體。阿笈摩（Agama，聖傳、經）說：光明依存於燈，如日月的光明依存於日月輪而生起。又如大地依存於水輪，水和地同時產生，才有依止的意義。燈和光明的性質不同，由此可以確定。因果同時產生，這個道理就顯現了。光明雖然依于自身的大種而生，但在產生的時候，並非離開燈焰。如果認為光明和火焰是同一原因所生，因為火焰的原因就是光的原因，這也是不合理的。因為有差別。不是從一個和合體產生非一的果，也不是一個果從非一的和合體產生。難道不是一擊之下，火和聲音同時產生嗎？難道沒有一個和合體產生非一的果嗎？道理也不是這樣，因為是依于各自的因。又因為各自的同類因，各自產生。因此，那種辯解，只是空話。所以燈和光明，因的本體是不同的。如果識和名色，輾轉為緣，為什麼經中多說識緣名色，互相為緣的性質呢？這個道理雖然通達，但顯示識的作用強大。所以偏說。識的作用強大，是指識是受等心所的所依，受等心所依識而轉。識持精血，成為羯剌藍（Kalala，凝滑），成為有情的身軀，它的作用殊勝，如國王和臣子等，雖然互相依賴，但以國王得名，因為國王最殊勝。識和名色，應該知道也是這樣。又識緣名色，是根據前生緣來說的。輾轉為緣，只是就同時生起來說。因為識緣名色，通於前後和同時，名色緣識
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the sutras say: 'Eye and form are the condition for the arising of defiled mental activity born of ignorance.' Here, 'ignorance' is precisely ignorance (Avidya), and so on, extensively explained. The term 'here' signifies that precisely at the moment this mental activity arises, or precisely at the position of the aggregation of conditions indicated, it is different from other conditioned dharmas that can arise sequentially. This is because the two arise simultaneously without obstruction. Furthermore, just as a lamp and its light arise simultaneously, they possess the meaning of cause and effect. Previously, in the consideration of co-existent causes, this has been thoroughly analyzed. Thus, the simultaneous arising of cause and effect is extremely well-established. If someone argues, 'The lamp and its light are not different,' this is unreasonable. This is because the lamp and its light differ in touch, measure, color, location, and function. The world only refers to the flame as the lamp. For example, it is said that the lamp shines light and the lamp can burn objects. The Agama (Agama, sacred tradition, sutra) says: light depends on the lamp, just as the light of the sun and moon depends on the sun and moon wheels to arise. Furthermore, just as the earth depends on the water wheel, only when water and earth arise simultaneously does the meaning of dependence exist. The nature of the lamp and its light are different, and this can be determined. The simultaneous arising of cause and effect, this principle is revealed. Although light arises dependent on its own great elements, it does not arise apart from the lamp's flame. If it is argued that light and flame arise from the same cause, because the cause of the flame is the cause of the light, this is also unreasonable. This is because there is a difference. It is not that a non-single effect arises from a single aggregate, nor that a single effect arises from a non-single aggregate. Isn't it the case that with a single strike, fire and sound arise simultaneously? Isn't there a single aggregate that produces a non-single effect? The principle is not like that, because it depends on their respective causes. Furthermore, because their respective causes of the same kind arise separately. Therefore, that argument is just empty words. So the lamp and its light, the substance of the cause is different. If consciousness (識, Vijnana) and name-and-form (名色, Nama-rupa) are mutually conditioned, why do the sutras often say that consciousness conditions name-and-form, and they are mutually conditioned in nature? Although this principle is understood, it shows that the function of consciousness is strong. So it is said partially. The function of consciousness is strong, meaning that consciousness is the basis for feelings (受, Vedana) and other mental functions, and these mental functions rely on consciousness to function. Consciousness holds the essence and blood, becoming Kalala (羯剌藍, Kalala), becoming the body of sentient beings, its function is superior, like the king and ministers, although they depend on each other, the king is named, because the king is the most superior. Consciousness and name-and-form, it should be known, are also like this. Furthermore, consciousness conditions name-and-form, according to the condition of the previous life. Mutually conditioned, only in terms of simultaneous arising. Because consciousness conditions name-and-form, it applies to before, after, and simultaneous, name-and-form conditions consciousness.
。唯有俱起。以結生識無別位故。又識緣名色。據分位名色。說展轉為緣。據剎那名色。大德邏摩率自意說。若從中有。結生有時。中有名色。為緣引起無間剎那結生類識。中有名色滅。獨有識生。此方能引起生有名色。如是推尋非應正理。所言中有名色為緣。引無間剎那結生類識者。為中有識。亦能為緣。為但餘名除中有識。若中有識亦為緣者。何理中有最後剎那心心所色為緣。但引后識令生非心所色。若謂除識餘名為緣。何理俱生識非緣性。若謂彼位無識俱生。應結生識無所依起。不應心所為心所依。復以何緣。彼位心所。但與異類識作生因。不能引生同類心所。非於諸色未得離貪。可有暫時識不依色。故中有色。定能為緣。牽續生時心俱起色。如何此位。獨有識生。若謂此時雖有色起而但說識。則應此位亦有心所。而但說心。是故不應復作是說。中有名色滅獨有識生。此方能引起生有名色。又應此獨識非中有生有。中有已滅故。生有未生故。非中有滅有位非生。故彼所言。出自邪執。又心心所前後生論。如何計度前後而起。眼識無間。眼觸所生受等生時。為與余識俱時而起。為獨受等。若有餘識受等俱生。為是意識生即緣彼境。為別是余識緣余境生。且非意識生即緣彼境。眼觸生受等。既依眼根。與此意識境時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯有俱起（同時生起）。因為結生識（投胎時的意識）沒有不同的階段。 而且，識緣名色（意識緣于名色），是根據分位的名色（生命階段的名色）來說，說明展轉為緣（輾轉相依為緣）。根據剎那名色（瞬間的名色），大德邏摩率（尊者Lomasūra）按照自己的想法說，如果從中陰（死亡到投胎之間的階段）結生（投胎）的時候，中陰的名色為緣，引起無間剎那（沒有間隔的瞬間）的結生類識（同類的結生意識）。中陰的名色滅去，只有識產生。只有這樣才能引起生有名色（出生時的名色）。這樣推究並非正確的道理。 所說的中陰名色為緣，引無間剎那結生類識，是說中陰的識也能作為緣，還是僅僅是其餘的名色，除去中陰的識？如果中陰的識也能作為緣，那麼為什麼中陰最後剎那的心心所色（心理活動和伴隨的色法）作為緣，只能引導後面的識產生，而不能引導心所色產生？如果說除去識，其餘的名色作為緣，那麼為什麼俱生的識（同時產生的意識）不是緣的性質？如果說那個階段沒有識俱生，那麼結生識應該沒有所依而生起。不應該心所（心理活動）作為心所的所依。 又以什麼緣故，那個階段的心所，只與異類的識（不同類的意識）作為生因，不能引導生起同類的心所？如果對於諸色（各種色法）沒有得到離貪（脫離貪慾），怎麼可能有暫時識不依靠色法？所以中陰的色法，一定能作為緣，牽引續生時（下一生）心俱起色（心和同時生起的色法）。為什麼這個階段，只有識產生？ 如果說這個時候雖然有色法生起，但只說識，那麼應該這個階段也有心所，但只說心。所以不應該再說，中陰的名色滅去，只有識產生，只有這樣才能引起生有名色。而且應該這個獨識（單獨的意識）不是中有生有（中陰到出生的過程），因為中陰已經滅去，生有（出生的狀態）還沒有產生。不是中陰滅去，生有未生的階段。所以他所說的話，出自邪見。 又心心所（心理活動）前後生論，如何計算前後而生起？眼識（視覺意識）無間，眼觸所生受等（由眼觸產生的感受等）生起的時候，是與其餘的識同時生起，還是隻有感受等？如果有其餘的識與感受等同時生起，是意識生起就緣取那個境界，還是另外有其餘的識緣取其餘的境界生起？而且不是意識生起就緣取那個境界。眼觸生起的感受等，既然依靠眼根（視覺器官），與這個意識的境界同時。
【English Translation】 English version Only co-arising (arising simultaneously). Because the consciousness of rebirth (consciousness at the moment of conception) has no separate stage. Moreover, 'consciousness conditions name and form' is stated based on the phases of name and form (name and form in the stages of life), explaining that they depend on each other as conditions. According to the momentary name and form, the Venerable Lomasūra said according to his own idea that if, from the intermediate state (the state between death and rebirth), rebirth occurs, the name and form of the intermediate state are the condition, causing the consciousness of the same kind of rebirth in the uninterrupted moment (the moment without interval). When the name and form of the intermediate state cease, only consciousness arises. Only in this way can the name and form of birth (name and form at birth) be caused. Such investigation is not the correct principle. The statement that the name and form of the intermediate state are the condition, leading to the consciousness of the same kind of rebirth in the uninterrupted moment, means that the consciousness of the intermediate state can also be a condition, or is it only the remaining name and form, excluding the consciousness of the intermediate state? If the consciousness of the intermediate state can also be a condition, then why can the mind and mental factors and form of the last moment of the intermediate state only guide the subsequent consciousness to arise, but not guide the mental factors and form to arise? If it is said that the remaining name and form, excluding consciousness, are the condition, then why is the co-arising consciousness (consciousness arising simultaneously) not the nature of a condition? If it is said that there is no co-arising consciousness in that stage, then the consciousness of rebirth should arise without any support. Mental factors (psychological activities) should not be the support of mental factors. Furthermore, for what reason do the mental factors in that stage only act as the cause of arising for consciousness of a different kind (consciousness of a different type), and cannot guide the arising of mental factors of the same kind? If one has not attained detachment from the various forms (various material phenomena), how can there be temporary consciousness that does not rely on form? Therefore, the form of the intermediate state must be able to act as a condition, drawing the co-arising form of the mind at the time of continued rebirth (the mind and the form arising simultaneously in the next life). Why does only consciousness arise in this stage? If it is said that although form arises at this time, only consciousness is mentioned, then there should also be mental factors in this stage, but only mind is mentioned. Therefore, it should not be said again that when the name and form of the intermediate state cease, only consciousness arises, and only in this way can the name and form of birth be caused. Moreover, this single consciousness (separate consciousness) should not be the process from the intermediate state to birth, because the intermediate state has already ceased, and the state of birth (the state of being born) has not yet arisen. It is not the stage where the intermediate state has ceased and the state of birth has not yet arisen. Therefore, what he said comes from wrong views. Also, regarding the theory of the sequential arising of mind and mental factors (psychological activities), how can one calculate the sequential arising? When eye-consciousness (visual consciousness) arises without interval, and the feeling, etc., produced by eye-contact (the feeling, etc., produced by eye-contact) arise, do they arise simultaneously with the remaining consciousness, or only feeling, etc.? If the remaining consciousness arises simultaneously with feeling, etc., does the consciousness arise and immediately grasp that object, or does another consciousness arise and grasp another object? Moreover, consciousness does not arise and immediately grasp that object. Since the feeling, etc., arising from eye-contact rely on the eye-organ (visual organ), they are simultaneous with the object of this consciousness.
別故。非依眼根所生受等。可以過去為其所緣。亦非眼觸所生受等。可以意法為緣而生。說意法為緣生意識等故。若以意法為緣生者。不可說是眼觸所生。亦非余識緣余境起。若依境異。可俱時生。則應一時得一切境。若無諸識受等獨生。則后識生。無所依。意識流斷已。復更續生。地獄曾無。彼全不許。入滅定等。識相續生。曾無間斷。彼宗許故。由此彼說。中有後心。名色無間。獨有識起。後方引起生有名色。但有虛言。違理教故。上座於此。假設難言。經不應言識緣名色。由展轉力。方得生故。即自釋言。此難非理。約生住緣有差別故。謂識能作名色生緣。由識托胎。令彼生故。彼生以後。為識住依。展轉為緣。而得安住。故亦說識名色為緣。此亦不然。違理教故。謂佛未得大菩提時。求識生緣知即名色。如契經說。菩薩尋求老死生緣。乃至名色知生至識。次第為緣求識生緣知即名色。若彼名色非識生緣。菩薩所知便為顛倒。又彼所說。彼生以後。為識住依。展轉為緣。而得安住。故亦說識名色為緣。有言無理。此所說識。名色為緣。即是為緣生名色識。如何以後方為識依。又彼經但言識依名色住。故契經說。告阿難陀。識不依名色為得住不。不也世尊。此經不言名色依識住。如何展轉。又汝不許識名色俱生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其他原因。並非依賴眼根所產生的感受等等，可以將過去（的事情）作為它所緣的對象。也不是眼觸所產生的感受等等，可以以意和法作為所緣的條件而產生。因為經中說以意和法為條件產生意識等等。如果以意和法為條件而產生，就不能說是眼觸所產生的。也不是其他的識緣取其他的境界而生起。如果依賴的境界不同，可以同時產生，那麼就應該一時獲得所有的境界。如果各種識和感受等等不是單獨產生，那麼後來的識產生時，就沒有所依賴的基礎。如果意識流斷絕之後，又重新繼續產生，這是地獄從來沒有的現象，他們完全不承認。進入滅盡定等等狀態，識的相續產生，從來沒有間斷，他們的宗派是承認的。因此他們說，中陰身（Antarabhava）的後心，名色（Namarupa）之間沒有間隔，只有識產生，之後才引起生，產生名色。這只是虛假的言論，違背了道理和教義。上座部（Sthavira Nikaya）對此假設提出疑問說，經典不應該說識緣名色，因為通過輾轉的力量，才能產生。然後他們自己解釋說，這個疑問不合理，因為生和住的緣起有差別。意思是說，識可以作為名色產生的條件，因為識投胎，使名色產生。名色產生以後，作為識住留的依靠，輾轉作為條件，才能安住。所以也說識以名色為條件。這種說法也是不對的，違背了道理和教義。意思是說，佛陀沒有獲得大菩提（Mahabodhi）的時候，尋求識產生的條件，知道就是名色。如契經所說，菩薩尋求老死產生的條件，乃至名色，知道生以至識，次第為條件，尋求識產生的條件，知道就是名色。如果名色不是識產生的條件，菩薩所知道的就成了顛倒。還有他們所說的，名色產生以後，作為識住留的依靠，輾轉作為條件，才能安住。這種說法沒有道理。這裡所說的識，以名色為條件，就是以條件產生名色識。怎麼能在以後才成為識的依靠呢？而且那部經只是說識依靠名色住留。所以契經說，告訴阿難陀（Ananda），識不依靠名色能夠住留嗎？不能，世尊。這部經沒有說名色依靠識住留。怎麼能說是輾轉呢？而且你們不承認識和名色同時產生。
【English Translation】 English version: Other reasons. Not the feelings, etc., arising from reliance on the eye faculty, which can take the past as their object. Nor are the feelings, etc., arising from eye contact, which can arise with mind and objects as conditions. Because it is said in the scriptures that consciousness, etc., arises with mind and objects as conditions. If it arises with mind and objects as conditions, it cannot be said to arise from eye contact. Nor does one consciousness arise by taking other realms as its object. If the realms relied upon are different, they can arise simultaneously, then one should obtain all realms at once. If the various consciousnesses and feelings, etc., do not arise independently, then when the later consciousness arises, there is no basis to rely on. If the stream of consciousness is cut off and then continues to arise again, this is a phenomenon that has never occurred in the lower realms, and they completely deny it. Entering into cessation meditation (Nirodha-samapatti), etc., the continuous arising of consciousness is never interrupted, which their school acknowledges. Therefore, they say that the last thought of the intermediate state (Antarabhava), with no interval between name and form (Namarupa), only consciousness arises, and only then does it cause birth, producing name and form. This is just false talk, contrary to reason and doctrine. The Sthavira Nikaya raises a question about this, saying that the scriptures should not say that consciousness conditions name and form, because it can only arise through the power of interdependence. Then they explain themselves, saying that this question is unreasonable because there is a difference in the conditions for arising and abiding. It means that consciousness can serve as a condition for the arising of name and form, because consciousness enters the womb, causing name and form to arise. After name and form arise, they serve as the basis for consciousness to abide, and through interdependence, they can abide. Therefore, it is also said that consciousness conditions name and form. This statement is also incorrect, contrary to reason and doctrine. It means that when the Buddha had not yet attained great enlightenment (Mahabodhi), he sought the conditions for the arising of consciousness and knew that it was name and form. As the sutras say, the Bodhisattva sought the conditions for the arising of old age and death, and even name and form, knowing that birth leads to consciousness, and in order, sought the conditions for the arising of consciousness, knowing that it was name and form. If name and form are not the conditions for the arising of consciousness, then what the Bodhisattva knows would be inverted. Also, what they say, after name and form arise, they serve as the basis for consciousness to abide, and through interdependence, they can abide. This statement is unreasonable. The consciousness mentioned here, with name and form as conditions, is precisely the consciousness that arises with name and form as conditions. How can it become the basis of consciousness later? Moreover, that sutra only says that consciousness abides relying on name and form. Therefore, the sutra says, tell Ananda (Ananda), can consciousness abide without relying on name and form? No, World Honored One. This sutra does not say that name and form abide relying on consciousness. How can it be said to be interdependent? Moreover, you do not admit that consciousness and name and form arise simultaneously.
如何可言展轉為緣住。又如先說。撥過未宗。隨一有時隨一無故。非無與有。或有與無。可有展轉互相依義。唯有與有可有相依。如何俱生有相依義。若隨闕一。一不立故。又佛于彼大緣起經。不說有支次第因果。亦不唯說十二有支。彼說名色為觸緣故。及說尋求等為得等緣故。然佛于彼。為阿難陀。顯示甚深緣起理趣。故彼經義。約所依緣。但說識依名色而住。意識唯托意為所依。法為所緣。而得安住。眼等五識。眼等為所依。色等為所緣。而得安住。如是意識。所依唯一。所緣通二。五識翻此。唯除意識。所依必異時。余所依所緣。有俱生理。有支諸位。此義皆通。詳上座宗。說識名色互為緣義。理必不成。然契經說。我觀緣起至識便還過此。于余心不復轉。此言何義。菩薩爾時。逆觀緣起。諸支展轉所從生緣。先觀九支生緣各別。最後觀識無別生緣。故至識還於余不轉。然結生識。有二生緣。一者前生。二者俱起。識生行有。義無別故。先觀生支。生緣謂有。即已觀識。前生緣行。今觀名色。為俱生緣。故至識還心不復轉。已具觀識二生緣故。以見今世結生位識。從前俱起二緣力生。準知余支。如應皆爾。一一念起。各具二緣。故唯于識支具顯二緣觀。如何名色為識俱緣。以於此中識住著故。如經說識住除識余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如何能夠說輾轉相依而安住呢？又如先前所說，否定過去和未來，認為只有現在才是實在的。有時認為有，有時認為無，既不是無也不是有，才能有輾轉互相依賴的意義。只有有和有之間才能互相依賴，如何能讓同時產生的有互相依賴呢？如果缺少其中一個，另一個就無法成立。而且，佛陀在那部《大緣起經》中，並沒有說十二有支（指無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死）是次第因果關係，也沒有僅僅說十二有支。經中說，名色（nama-rupa，構成存在的要素，即精神和物質）是觸（sparsha，感官與對像接觸）的緣，以及說尋求等是獲得等的緣。然而，佛陀在那部經中，是爲了阿難陀（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）顯示甚深的緣起（pratitya-samutpada，事物相互依存的法則）理趣，所以那部經的意義，是就所依賴的緣來說的，只說識（vijnana，意識）依賴名色而安住，意識（manovijnana，通過意根產生的意識）只是依託意（manas，意根）作為所依，法（dharma，事物、法則）作為所緣，才能安住。眼識（caksu-vijnana，通過眼根產生的意識）等五識（panca-vijnana，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識），以眼（caksu，視覺器官）等為所依，色（rupa，顏色和形狀）等為所緣，才能安住。像這樣，意識所依只有一個，所緣則通於兩種。五識則與此相反。只有意識所依必定是異時的，其餘的所依所緣，有同時產生的道理。有支的各個階段，都通用於這個道理。詳細考察上座部（Sthavira nikaya，原始佛教部派之一）的宗義，說識和名色互相為緣的意義，必定不能成立。然而契經（sutra，佛經）說：『我觀察緣起，到識就返回，超過這個，我的心不再運轉。』這句話是什麼意思呢？菩薩（bodhisattva，追求覺悟的修行者）那時，逆向觀察緣起，各個支（anga，組成部分）輾轉相生的緣由。先觀察九個支的生緣各自不同，最後觀察識沒有其他的生緣，所以到識就返回，不再轉向其他。然而結生識（patisandhi-vijnana，投胎時的意識），有兩種生緣，一是前生，二是俱起。識生於行（samskara，意志行為）和有（bhava，存在），意義沒有區別，先前觀察生支，生緣是有，就已經觀察了識的前生緣行。現在觀察名色，作為俱生緣，所以到識就返回，心不再運轉，因為已經完全觀察了識的兩種生緣。因為見到今世結生位的識，是從前生和俱起兩種緣的力量而生，由此推知其餘的支，也應該都是這樣。每一個念頭的生起，都具備兩種緣，所以只在識支中完全顯現兩種緣的觀察。如何說名色是識的俱緣呢？因為在此中，識安住執著于名色。如經所說，識安住于名色，除了識以外。
【English Translation】 English version How can it be said that they dwell by relying on each other in a revolving manner? Also, as previously stated, denying the past and future, considering only the present as real. Only when sometimes considering 'being' and sometimes 'non-being,' neither 'non-being' nor 'being,' can there be the meaning of revolving mutual dependence. Only between 'being' and 'being' can there be mutual dependence. How can simultaneously arising 'beings' have the meaning of mutual dependence? If one is lacking, the other cannot be established. Moreover, in that Great Dependent Origination Sutra, the Buddha did not say that the twelve nidanas (ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, name and form, the six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, old age and death) are in a sequential cause-and-effect relationship, nor did he only speak of the twelve nidanas. In the sutra, it is said that name and form (nama-rupa, the elements constituting existence, i.e., mind and matter) are the condition for contact (sparsha, the contact between the senses and objects), and that seeking, etc., are the conditions for obtaining, etc. However, in that sutra, the Buddha revealed the profound principle of dependent origination (pratitya-samutpada, the law of interdependent arising) to Ananda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), so the meaning of that sutra, in terms of the conditions relied upon, only says that consciousness (vijnana, awareness) dwells relying on name and form, and that mind consciousness (manovijnana, consciousness arising through the mind-base) only relies on the mind (manas, the mind-base) as its support and dharma (things, laws) as its object, in order to dwell. Eye-consciousness (caksu-vijnana, consciousness arising through the eye-sense), etc., the five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness), rely on the eye (caksu, the visual organ), etc., as their support and form (rupa, color and shape), etc., as their object, in order to dwell. In this way, consciousness has only one support, but its object extends to two. The five consciousnesses are the opposite of this. Only the support of consciousness must be at a different time; the remaining supports and objects have the principle of simultaneous arising. The various stages of the nidanas all apply to this principle. Examining in detail the tenets of the Sthavira nikaya (one of the early Buddhist schools), the meaning of saying that consciousness and name and form are mutual conditions must not be established. However, the sutra says: 'I observe dependent origination, and when I reach consciousness, I return; beyond this, my mind no longer turns.' What does this statement mean? At that time, the Bodhisattva (a practitioner seeking enlightenment) observed dependent origination in reverse, the causes and conditions from which each of the nidanas arises in a revolving manner. First, he observed that the arising conditions of the nine nidanas are each different, and finally, he observed that consciousness has no other arising condition, so he returned to consciousness and no longer turned to others. However, rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi-vijnana, the consciousness at the time of rebirth) has two arising conditions: one is the previous life, and the other is simultaneous arising. Consciousness arises from volitional formations (samskara, volitional actions) and becoming (bhava, existence), and the meaning is no different. Previously, observing the arising nidana, the arising condition is becoming, he had already observed the volitional formations as the previous life condition of consciousness. Now, observing name and form as the simultaneously arising condition, so he returned to consciousness and his mind no longer turned, because he had completely observed the two arising conditions of consciousness. Because he saw that the consciousness in the rebirth-linking state in this life arises from the power of the two conditions of the previous life and simultaneous arising, from this it can be inferred that the remaining nidanas should all be like this. Each arising thought possesses two conditions, so only in the consciousness nidana is the observation of the two conditions fully revealed. How can it be said that name and form are the simultaneous conditions of consciousness? Because in this, consciousness dwells and clings to name and form. As the sutra says, consciousness dwells in name and form, apart from consciousness.
名色。前以住著釋識住義。故契經說。喜愛潤識。令于蘊中增長廣大。又大緣起經亦作是說。識不依名色。為得住不。不也世尊。乃至廣說。此說識住著俱生名色中顯識俱生緣故。說四識住。是故菩薩至識便還。雖老死支即名色等。前觀老死。以生為緣。已顯識支緣生名色。而非老死。皆識為緣。為定識為緣。唯生名色故。復觀名色。以識為緣。毗婆沙師說。彼菩薩厭怖生故。再度觀生。由菩薩心厭怖流轉。不遍觀察諸流轉支。諸流轉支。皆生為本。再觀生故。為已遍知。無明行支。即愛取有。已觀愛等。故不重觀。于還滅門。菩薩欣慕。故遍觀察十二有支。已辯名當辯觸。頌曰。
觸六三和生
論曰。觸有六種。所謂眼觸。乃至意觸。此復是何三和所生。謂根境識三和合故。有別觸生。雖第六三有各別世。而因果相屬。故和合義成。或同一果。是和合義。雖根境識未必俱生。而觸果同。故名和合。觸體別有。大地中已成。雖三和生。而定識俱起。以如識說二緣生故。謂契經說。內有識身。及外名色。二二為緣。諸觸生起。乃至廣說豈不此即說觸從三和生。謂內有識。身即六根六識。及外名色即六境故。二緣生故。因不極成。經義不然。佛說二故。謂此經說。二二為緣。諸觸生起。不言三故。觀此經義。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名色（nāma-rūpa，精神和物質現象）。之前已經解釋過，識（vijñāna，意識）是依靠名色而存在的。因此，契經中說：『喜愛滋潤識，使其在蘊（skandha，構成要素）中增長廣大。』《大緣起經》也這樣說：『識不依靠名色，能獲得安住嗎？』『不能，世尊。』乃至廣說。這說明識安住在俱生的名色中，顯示了識的俱生緣故。所以菩薩觀察到識就返回。雖然老死支（jarā-maraṇa，衰老和死亡）就是名色等，但之前觀察老死時，是以生（jāti，出生）為緣。已經顯示了識支緣于生名色，而不是老死都以識為緣。爲了確定識是否僅僅以生為緣而生名色，所以再次觀察名色，以識為緣。毗婆沙師說，那位菩薩因為厭惡生，所以再次觀察生。由於菩薩的心厭惡流轉，沒有普遍觀察所有的流轉支。所有的流轉支，都以生為根本，所以再次觀察生。因為已經普遍知曉了無明（avidyā，無知）和行支（saṃskāra，行為），也就是愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）、取（upādāna，執取）、有（bhava，存在），已經觀察過愛等，所以不再重複觀察。在還滅門（nirodha，止息）方面，菩薩心生欣慕，所以普遍觀察十二有支。已經辨析了名色，下面將辨析觸（sparśa，接觸）。頌曰： 『觸由六三和生』 論曰：觸有六種，即眼觸（cakṣu-sparśa，眼根與外境的接觸）乃至意觸（mana-sparśa，意根與法境的接觸）。這又是哪三種和合所生呢？是根（indriya，感官）、境（viṣaya，對像）、識（vijñāna，意識）三種和合，因此產生不同的觸。雖然第六三者各有不同的世（時間），但因果相互關聯，所以和合的意義成立。或者同一結果，就是和合的意義。雖然根、境、識未必同時產生，但觸的結果相同，所以稱為和合。觸的自體是存在的，在大地中已經成立。雖然由三種和合而生，但一定是與識同時生起，因為如識所說，二緣而生。所謂契經中說：『內有識身，及外名色，二二為緣，諸觸生起。』乃至廣說。難道這不是說觸從三和而生嗎？所謂內有識，身即六根（ṣaḍāyatana，六種感官）六識（ṣaḍvijñāna-kāya，六種意識），及外名色即六境（ṣaḍviṣaya，六種對像）的緣故。二緣而生，因不極成。經義不是這樣。佛說二的緣故。所謂此經說：『二二為緣，諸觸生起。』沒有說三的緣故。觀察此經的意義，有
【English Translation】 English version Nāma-rūpa (name and form). It has been explained previously that consciousness (vijñāna) dwells by relying on nāma-rūpa. Therefore, the sutras say: 'Craving nourishes consciousness, causing it to grow and expand within the aggregates (skandha).' The Mahāpratītyasamutpāda Sūtra also states: 'Does consciousness, not relying on nāma-rūpa, obtain a dwelling?' 'No, O Blessed One.' and so on. This explains that consciousness dwells in co-arisen nāma-rūpa, revealing the co-arisen condition of consciousness. Therefore, the Bodhisattva returns upon observing consciousness. Although the branch of old age and death (jarā-maraṇa) is nāma-rūpa, the previous observation of old age and death was conditioned by birth (jāti). It has already been shown that the consciousness branch is conditioned by birth for nāma-rūpa, and not that old age and death are conditioned by consciousness. To determine whether consciousness is solely conditioned by birth to produce nāma-rūpa, nāma-rūpa is observed again, conditioned by consciousness. The Vaibhāṣika masters say that the Bodhisattva, because of aversion to birth, observes birth again. Because the Bodhisattva's mind is averse to wandering, he does not universally observe all the wandering branches. All the wandering branches have birth as their root, so he observes birth again. Because he has already universally known ignorance (avidyā) and the activity branch (saṃskāra), which are craving (tṛṣṇā), grasping (upādāna), and existence (bhava), and has observed craving and so on, he does not observe them again. In the aspect of cessation (nirodha), the Bodhisattva's mind is filled with joy, so he universally observes the twelve branches of existence. Nāma-rūpa has been analyzed, and now contact (sparśa) will be analyzed. The verse says: 'Contact arises from the union of the six and the three.' The treatise says: There are six types of contact, namely eye-contact (cakṣu-sparśa) up to mind-contact (mana-sparśa). From the union of which three does this arise? It is from the union of the three: sense organ (indriya), object (viṣaya), and consciousness (vijñāna), that different contacts arise. Although the sixth three each have different times, the cause and effect are related, so the meaning of union is established. Or the same result is the meaning of union. Although sense organ, object, and consciousness do not necessarily arise simultaneously, the result of contact is the same, so it is called union. The self-nature of contact exists, and has been established in the earth element. Although it arises from the union of the three, it must arise simultaneously with consciousness, because as said about consciousness, it arises from two conditions. As the sutra says: 'With the internal body of consciousness and external nāma-rūpa, two and two as conditions, various contacts arise.' and so on. Does this not say that contact arises from the union of the three? The internal body of consciousness is the six sense organs (ṣaḍāyatana) and six consciousnesses (ṣaḍvijñāna-kāya), and the external nāma-rūpa is the six objects (ṣaḍviṣaya). Arising from two conditions, the cause is not fully established. The meaning of the sutra is not like that. The Buddha said it is because of two conditions. This sutra says: 'Two and two as conditions, various contacts arise.' It does not say three. Observing the meaning of this sutra, there is
識身言。顯六內處。外名色言。顯六外處。余經亦說二緣所生。故伽他言。眼色二等。如前已說。又經說識觸俱名色為緣。生緣既同。時豈前後。緣具必起。無能障故。由此即證。眼等觸所生受等諸法。眼等識俱起。與眼識等生因同故。由此經言。是受是想是思是識。如是諸法。相雜不離。執觸是假。宗亦應許受等與觸俱起。由此經說。識雜受等故。識是觸分故。既無有識。不雜受等證成受等。是大地法。彼作是言。大地法義。非要遍與一切心俱。若爾何名大地法義。有三三地。有尋伺等善等學等。地差別故。若法於斯一切地有。名大地法。余隨所應。此但有言。違前經故。彼作是說。應審前經。彼經復言。諸所受即所思。諸所思即所想。諸所想即所識。未了于彼為約所緣。為約剎那。作如是說。有何未了。前約剎那。后約所緣。其理決定。寧知決定以余經中。約俱生法說相雜故。如契經言。壽暖與識。如是三法。相雜不離。非於此中約不俱起。及約所緣。作如是說。三必俱起故。二無所緣故。由此所說受等相雜言。定約剎那。異此不成故。謂若計彼無間而生。名為相雜。一無一有。相雜不成。如前已辯。亦不可謂同一所緣說名相雜。勿有意識與眼識等。有相雜義。故緣一境。有識生時。必有俱生。觸受等法。定無有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 辨識身（自身）和語言。顯現六內處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。外在的名和色（物質現象）稱為顯現六外處（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）。其他經典也說由二緣所生。所以伽他（偈頌）說，眼和色二者等等，如前已說。又經典說，識和觸共同以名色為緣。既然生緣相同，時間上怎麼會有先後呢？緣具足必定生起，沒有能阻礙的。由此可以證明，眼等觸所生的受等諸法，與眼等識同時生起，因為與眼識等生起的因相同。因此經典說，是受、是想、是思、是識，這些法，相互交雜不分離。如果認為觸是假立的，那麼宗義也應該承認受等與觸同時生起。因此經典說，識與受等交雜，因為識是觸的一部分。既然沒有不與受等交雜的識，就證明受等是大地的法。他們這樣說，大地法的意義，並非一定要普遍地與一切心同時生起。如果這樣，那還叫什麼大地法的意義？有三三地（欲界、色界、無色界），有尋伺等、善等、學等地的差別。如果一個法在所有這些地都有，才叫大地法，其餘的隨其所應。這種說法只是說說而已，違背了前面的經典。他們這樣說，應該仔細審視前面的經典。那部經典又說，諸所受即所思，諸所思即所想，諸所想即所識。還沒有明白那裡是就所緣說的，還是就剎那（極短的時間）說的，才這樣說。有什麼不明白的呢？前面是就剎那說的，後面是就所緣說的，這個道理是確定的。憑什麼知道是確定的呢？因為在其他的經典中，是就俱生法（同時生起的法）說相互交雜的。如契經（佛經）所說，壽、暖和識，這三種法，相互交雜不分離。不是在這裡就不同時生起，以及就所緣來說的。因為三者必定同時生起，二者沒有所緣。因此所說的受等相互交雜，一定是就剎那說的。不是這樣就不能成立。如果認為它們是無間而生，稱為相互交雜，一時有，一時無，相互交雜就不能成立，如前已辯。也不可以說同一所緣稱為相互交雜，否則意識與眼識等，也會有相互交雜的意義。所以緣一個境，有識生起時，必定有俱生的觸、受等法，這是確定的。
【English Translation】 English version Discern body and speech. Manifest the six internal sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind). External name and form (material phenomena) are called manifesting the six external sense bases (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma). Other sutras also say that they are produced by two conditions. Therefore, the Gatha (verse) says, 'Eye and form, etc., as previously stated.' Furthermore, the sutra says that consciousness and contact together take name and form as their condition. Since the conditions for arising are the same, how can there be a temporal sequence? When the conditions are complete, they will certainly arise, and nothing can obstruct them. From this, it can be proven that the feelings, etc., arising from eye-contact, etc., arise simultaneously with eye-consciousness, etc., because they have the same cause as the arising of eye-consciousness, etc. Therefore, the sutra says, 'It is feeling, it is conception, it is volition, it is consciousness,' these dharmas (phenomena) are intermingled and inseparable. If one considers contact to be a mere designation, then the tenet should also acknowledge that feeling, etc., arise simultaneously with contact. Therefore, the sutra says that consciousness is intermingled with feeling, etc., because consciousness is a part of contact. Since there is no consciousness that is not intermingled with feeling, etc., it proves that feeling, etc., are universal mental factors. They say, 'The meaning of universal mental factors does not necessarily mean that they must universally arise simultaneously with all minds.' If that were the case, then what would be the meaning of universal mental factors? There are the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), and there are distinctions between the grounds of investigation and analysis, goodness, learning, etc. If a dharma exists in all these grounds, it is called a universal mental factor; the rest are as appropriate. This statement is merely verbal and contradicts the previous sutra. They say, 'One should carefully examine the previous sutra.' That sutra also says, 'Whatever is felt is thought, whatever is thought is conceived, whatever is conceived is cognized.' It is not yet understood whether it is referring to the object of cognition or to a moment (extremely short period of time) that it speaks in this way. What is not understood? The former refers to a moment, and the latter refers to the object of cognition; this principle is certain. How do we know it is certain? Because in other sutras, it speaks of intermingling in relation to co-arising dharmas (simultaneously arising phenomena). As the sutra says, 'Life, warmth, and consciousness, these three dharmas, are intermingled and inseparable.' It is not speaking here of not arising simultaneously, nor of the object of cognition. Because the three must arise simultaneously, and two have no object of cognition. Therefore, the statement that feeling, etc., are intermingled must refer to a moment. If it were not so, it could not be established. If one considers them to arise without interval and calls it intermingling, sometimes present and sometimes absent, intermingling cannot be established, as previously discussed. Nor can one say that the same object of cognition is called intermingling, lest there be an intermingling between consciousness and eye-consciousness, etc. Therefore, when consciousness arises in relation to an object, there must be co-arising contact, feeling, etc.; this is certain.
識離觸等生。由所引經。已善成立。如何觸受二法俱生。說觸緣受。非受緣觸。故契經言。非緣種種受有種種觸。但緣種種觸。有種種受。又經但說眼觸為緣。生眼觸所生受。曾無經說。眼受為緣生眼受所生觸。豈不現見。燈明芽影。二雖俱生。但因燈芽生於明影。觸受亦爾。此例不平。隨行住變。有無有故。無有定因。證觸與受二雖俱起。而觸緣受非受緣觸。雖無現相而理必然。受必隨觸。有差別故。若猶不了。更以別門。方便開示。令義易解。謂觸有二。一假二實。所言假者。謂三和觸。如契經言。如是三法。聚集和合。說名為觸。所言實者。謂心所觸。如契經言。眼色二緣。生於眼觸。乃至廣說。又契經說。內有識身。及外名色。二二為緣。諸觸生起。又契經說。名色緣觸。六處緣觸。諸如是等。無量契經。此中假觸為緣生受。非受為緣。非根境識三法和合從受生故。非唯眼識為眼觸體。心所皆由所依顯故。雖受生位識為勝因。而說受等生亦因於眼色。是故但說眼觸為緣生眼觸所生受。曾無有說眼受為緣生眼受所生觸。此中實觸。是心所故。可說與受展轉為緣。是故二經不相違背。又約別義說亦無違。謂由此門。因觸生受。非即由此因受生觸。如契經言。我不見一法如是斷貪慾如修身念。此約異門。遮諸餘法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：識別、分離、接觸等產生（諸法）。由於所引用的經典，已經很好地確立了（觸是受的緣）。如何解釋接觸和感受兩種法同時產生，卻說接觸是感受的緣，而不是感受是接觸的緣呢？因此，《契經》上說：『不是因為有種種感受，才有種種接觸，而是因為有種種接觸，才有種種感受。』而且經典只說眼觸為緣，產生眼觸所生的感受，從來沒有經典說眼受為緣，產生眼受所生的接觸。難道不是顯而易見，燈光、萌芽、影子，這三者雖然同時產生，但是因為燈和萌芽才產生光和影嗎？接觸和感受也是這樣。這個比喻並不恰當，因為（光和影）隨著（燈和萌芽的）執行、停止、變化，而有或沒有，沒有固定的原因。證明接觸和感受雖然同時生起，但是接觸是感受的緣，而不是感受是接觸的緣。雖然沒有明顯的現象，但是道理必然如此，感受必定隨著接觸而有差別。如果仍然不明白，再用其他方法，方便地開示，使意義容易理解。所謂接觸有兩種：一是假接觸，二是真接觸。所說的假接觸，是指三和合觸（根、境、識三者和合產生的觸），如《契經》上說：『像這樣三種法，聚集和合，就叫做接觸。』所說的真接觸，是指心所觸，如《契經》上說：『眼和色兩種緣，產生眼觸。』乃至廣說。又《契經》上說：『內有識身，以及外面的名色，二者互為緣，各種接觸生起。』又《契經》上說：『名色緣觸，六處緣觸。』像這些等等，無數的《契經》。這裡面假接觸是產生感受的緣，而不是感受是（產生假）接觸的緣，因為不是根、境、識三種法和合從感受產生。不是隻有眼識才是眼觸的本體，心所都因為所依而顯現。雖然在感受產生的位置，識是殊勝的因，但是說感受等的產生也是因為眼和色。所以只說眼觸為緣，產生眼觸所生的感受，從來沒有說眼受為緣，產生眼受所生的接觸。這裡面真接觸，是心所法，所以可以說和感受輾轉互為緣。所以這兩部經典並不互相違背。又從不同的意義來說，也沒有違背。就是說通過這個途徑，因為接觸產生感受，不是通過這個途徑，因為感受產生接觸。如《契經》上說：『我沒有見到一種法像修習身念一樣，能夠斷除貪慾。』這是從不同的角度，遮止其他的法。
【English Translation】 English version: Discriminating, separating, contact, etc., arise. Based on the sutras cited, it has been well established (that contact is the condition for feeling). How can it be explained that contact and feeling arise simultaneously, yet it is said that contact is the condition for feeling, not feeling for contact? Therefore, the Agama Sutra says: 'It is not because there are various feelings that there are various contacts, but because there are various contacts that there are various feelings.' Moreover, the sutras only say that eye-contact is the condition for the arising of feeling born of eye-contact; there is never a sutra that says eye-feeling is the condition for the arising of contact born of eye-feeling. Isn't it obvious that light, sprout, and shadow arise simultaneously, but light and shadow arise because of the lamp and sprout? Contact and feeling are also like this. This analogy is not appropriate because (light and shadow) exist or do not exist depending on the (lamp and sprout's) movement, stopping, and changes; there is no fixed cause. This proves that although contact and feeling arise simultaneously, contact is the condition for feeling, not feeling for contact. Although there is no obvious phenomenon, the principle is necessarily so; feeling must vary according to contact. If you still do not understand, I will further explain it through other methods, conveniently, to make the meaning easier to understand. There are two types of contact: one is false contact, and the other is real contact. The so-called false contact refers to the contact of the three harmonies (the harmony of root, object, and consciousness), as the Agama Sutra says: 'Like these three dharmas, gathering and harmonizing, are called contact.' The so-called real contact refers to mental contact, as the Agama Sutra says: 'Eye and form, two conditions, give rise to eye-contact.' And so on. Also, the Agama Sutra says: 'Within there is the body of consciousness, and outside there are name and form; these two are mutual conditions for the arising of various contacts.' Also, the Agama Sutra says: 'Name and form are the condition for contact, the six sense bases are the condition for contact.' Like these and so on, countless Agama Sutras. Here, false contact is the condition for the arising of feeling, not feeling for the arising of (false) contact, because it is not the three dharmas of root, object, and consciousness harmonizing that arise from feeling. It is not only eye-consciousness that is the substance of eye-contact; mental factors all manifest because of what they rely on. Although in the position of feeling arising, consciousness is the superior cause, it is said that the arising of feeling, etc., is also because of eye and form. Therefore, it is only said that eye-contact is the condition for the arising of feeling born of eye-contact; there has never been a saying that eye-feeling is the condition for the arising of contact born of eye-feeling. Here, real contact is a mental factor, so it can be said that it and feeling are mutually conditioned. Therefore, these two sutras do not contradict each other. Also, from different meanings, there is no contradiction. That is to say, through this path, feeling arises because of contact, not through this path, contact arises because of feeling. As the Agama Sutra says: 'I have not seen a dharma like the practice of mindfulness of the body that can eliminate greed.' This is from a different perspective, preventing other dharmas.
非謂通約諸對治門。以次後復言如修身念息唸佛念死想等亦爾。言如是者。顯異門義。如何知受。亦為觸緣。余契經說。受緣觸故。如契經言。由身受觸。此意顯有觸身受為緣起。何故眼等亦為受等緣。但依說觸不依說受等。以和合中觸義顯故。此彼和合。得相觸名。非於自體得名為觸。世于和合。立相觸名。如二木合時。說為木相觸。是故眼等三和合中。但可說觸。非說受等。又非眼等是生觸因。故依之說觸名。何得難言亦受等因故應依說受等。若必爾者。應許一切觸因所生皆名為觸。然實一切觸果法中。多分立名。隨差別想。一隨總想。以立別名。如色處界。及行蘊等。由此善釋余處說言一切心所皆觸引發。若爾想等皆觸為緣。何故但言觸為緣受。亦說想等用觸為緣。如了達經不應為難。于觸后位。受用最強。故以受聲。總說諸行。然于緣起所說受因。但取實觸。非三和假所以者何。說所依故。謂唯實觸。就所依顯。非諸假有。于假依中。可得品量。此勝此劣。若隨闕一。無容有故。由是知此中說實觸緣受。此中所說。緣起定義。謂隨何位隨何法強即說為緣。生次後位勝法為果。故無有失。或復當來。大雜染聚。所有根本。受為近因。故緣起中。次第說觸為緣生受。令避緣故。受不現行。絕彼根本。諸心心所法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非謂通約諸對治門（指各種不同的對治法門，用於對治煩惱）。以次後復言如修身念（專注于身體的覺察）、息念（專注于呼吸的覺察）、唸佛念死想等亦爾（也與此類似）。言如是者（這樣說），顯異門義（是爲了顯示它們各自不同的意義）。 如何知受（如何理解感受）亦為觸緣（也是以觸為緣而生起的）？余契經說（其他的經典中說），受緣觸故（感受以觸為緣）。如契經言（如經典所說），由身受觸（由身體感受觸）。此意顯有觸身受為緣起（這表明存在以觸身受為緣而生起的現象）。 何故眼等（為什麼眼睛等）亦為受等緣（也是感受等的緣），但依說觸不依說受等（卻只依據觸來說，而不依據感受等來說）？以和合中觸義顯故（因為在和合之中，觸的意義最為明顯）。此彼和合（這些因素的和合），得相觸名（才得到『相觸』的名稱）。非於自體得名為觸（不是在自身上得到『觸』的名稱）。世于和合（世俗中對於和合），立相觸名（才建立『相觸』的名稱）。如二木合時（比如兩塊木頭合在一起時），說為木相觸（才說木頭相觸）。 是故眼等三和合中（因此，在眼睛等三種因素的和合中），但可說觸（只能說觸），非說受等（不能說感受等）。又非眼等是生觸因（而且眼睛等不是產生觸的原因）。故依之說觸名（所以依據它們來說『觸』這個名稱）。何得難言亦受等因故應依說受等（怎麼能反駁說，它們也是感受等的原因，所以也應該依據它們來說感受等呢）？ 若必爾者（如果一定要這樣說），應許一切觸因所生皆名為觸（就應該承認一切由觸的原因所產生的事物都叫做『觸』）。然實一切觸果法中（然而實際上，在一切觸的果法中），多分立名（大部分是根據不同的名稱），隨差別想（隨著不同的想法）。一隨總想（或者隨著總體的想法）。以立別名（來建立不同的名稱）。如色處界（比如色處界），及行蘊等（以及行蘊等）。 由此善釋余處說言一切心所皆觸引發（由此可以很好地解釋其他地方所說的一切心所都由觸引發）。若爾想等皆觸為緣（如果這樣，那麼想等都是以觸為緣），何故但言觸為緣受（為什麼只說觸為緣而生受）？亦說想等用觸為緣（也說想等以觸為緣）。如了達經不應為難（如《了達經》所說，不應該以此為難）。于觸后位（在觸之後的位置），受用最強（感受的作用最強）。故以受聲（所以用『受』這個詞），總說諸行（總括所有的行）。 然于緣起所說受因（然而在緣起中所說的感受的原因），但取實觸（只取真實的觸）。非三和假（不是三種因素和合的假觸）。所以者何（為什麼這樣說）？說所依故（因為說的是所依）。謂唯實觸（即只是真實的觸），就所依顯（就所依而顯現）。非諸假有（不是各種假有的觸）。于假依中（在假依之中），可得品量（可以得到品類的衡量）。此勝此劣（這個殊勝，那個低劣）。若隨闕一（如果隨便缺少一個），無容有故（就沒有存在的可能）。 由是知此中說實觸緣受（由此可知，這裡說的是真實的觸為緣而生受）。此中所說（這裡所說的），緣起定義（緣起的定義）。謂隨何位隨何法強（即無論在哪個位置，哪個法最強），即說為緣（就說它為緣）。生次後位勝法為果（產生緊隨其後的位置上最殊勝的法作為果）。故無有失（所以沒有過失）。 或復當來（或者，爲了將來），大雜染聚（巨大的雜染聚合），所有根本（所有的根本），受為近因（以感受為近因）。故緣起中（所以在緣起中），次第說觸為緣生受（依次說觸為緣而生受）。令避緣故（爲了避免這個緣故），受不現行（使感受不現行）。絕彼根本（斷絕那個根本）。諸心心所法（各種心和心所法）。
【English Translation】 English version These are various antidotal approaches that are not universally applicable. Similarly, practices such as mindfulness of the body (focusing on bodily sensations), mindfulness of breathing (focusing on the breath), mindfulness of the Buddha, and contemplating death are also similar. Saying 'like this' signifies the meaning of distinct approaches. How is it known that feeling (vedanā) is also conditioned by contact (sparśa)? Other sutras state that feeling is conditioned by contact. As the sutra says, 'Through bodily contact, there is feeling.' This implies that there is a arising of feeling conditioned by bodily contact. Why are the eye, etc., also conditions for feeling, etc., but only contact is mentioned, and not feeling, etc.? Because the meaning of contact is evident in the combination. The combination of these factors is named 'contact.' It is not named 'contact' in itself. In the world, the name 'contact' is established for combination. For example, when two pieces of wood are joined, it is said that the wood is in contact. Therefore, in the combination of the eye, etc., only contact can be spoken of, not feeling, etc. Furthermore, the eye, etc., are not the cause of the arising of contact. Therefore, the name 'contact' is spoken of based on them. How can it be argued that they are also causes of feeling, etc., so feeling, etc., should also be spoken of based on them? If that must be the case, it should be admitted that everything arising from the cause of contact is called 'contact.' However, in reality, in all phenomena resulting from contact, names are mostly established according to different thoughts, either according to specific thoughts or according to general thoughts, to establish different names, such as the sense bases (āyatana), elements (dhātu), and the aggregate of mental formations (saṃskāra-skandha), etc. This well explains why it is said elsewhere that all mental factors (citta-caitta) are initiated by contact. If so, if thought, etc., are all conditioned by contact, why is it only said that feeling is conditioned by contact? It is also said that thought, etc., use contact as a condition. As stated in the Sutra of Understanding, this should not be questioned. In the position after contact, the function of feeling is strongest. Therefore, the term 'feeling' is used to encompass all mental formations. However, in the dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) where the cause of feeling is mentioned, only actual contact is taken, not the false contact of the combination of three factors. Why is this? Because it speaks of the support. That is, only actual contact is manifested in terms of its support, not various false contacts. In false supports, the quality and quantity can be measured; this is superior, that is inferior. If any one is missing, there is no possibility of existence. Therefore, it is known that here it is said that actual contact conditions feeling. The definition of dependent origination spoken of here is that whichever factor is strongest in whichever position, that is said to be the condition, producing the most excellent factor in the subsequent position as the result. Therefore, there is no fault. Or, for the sake of the great accumulation of defilements (saṃkleśa) in the future, feeling is the proximate cause of all the roots. Therefore, in dependent origination, it is said in order that contact conditions feeling, so that feeling does not manifest, preventing that root, all mental and mental factors.
皆六處為緣。何故但言六處緣觸。此位觸勝。故說觸名。理實應知。諸心心所。無不皆以六處為緣。復以何緣。實觸勝位。唯說與彼勝受為緣。不說為緣生勝想等。雖觸與彼亦俱時生。而順受強。是故偏說。譬如勝解。偏順決定輕安勤等。順止觀強其理法然。不應為難。名色二六處緣觸。何差別。名色緣觸。說在何經。大緣起經。有如是說。諸有行相。諸有摽舉。施設名身。無彼行相。無彼摽舉。可得了知。增語觸不。不爾大德。諸有行相。諸有摽舉。施設色身。無彼行相。無彼摽舉。可得了知。有對觸不。不爾大德。若一切種名身色身。皆無所有。可得了知。觸或施設觸不。不爾大德。是故慶喜。觸之由緒。觸因觸緣。所謂名色。此所引經。欲辯何義。辯名與色。為觸生因。名謂意法處。色謂眼色處。乃至身觸處。此中名身名增語觸。名為身故。得名身名。如是色身名有對觸。色為身故。得色身名。是名為體。色為體義。此中意說。增語觸因。名增語觸。有對觸因。名有對觸。非二觸體。由此說言。諸有行相。諸有摽舉。施設名身。施設色身。言行相者。謂諸外處。行所行相。得行相名。言摽舉者。謂諸內處。由此摽舉。諸觸名故。謂名眼觸。乃至意觸。此意說言。于諸有名體。施設增語觸。于諸有色體。施設有對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一切（心和心所）都以六處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）為緣。為何只說六處緣觸（sparśa，接觸）？因為在此階段，觸的作用最為顯著，所以特別強調觸。實際上，應當理解，所有心和心所都以六處為緣。又因為什麼緣故，在觸的作用最顯著的階段，只說觸是勝受（vedanā，感受）的緣，而不說觸是產生勝想（saṃjñā，知覺）等的緣？雖然觸與勝受、勝想等同時生起，但觸對勝受的影響最為強烈，所以特別強調。例如，勝解（adhimokṣa，勝解）偏向于決定（niścaya，決定），輕安（praśrabdhi，輕安）和勤（vyāyāma，精進）等偏向于止觀（śamatha-vipaśyanā，止觀），這是事物本來的規律，不應以此為難。
名色（nāmarūpa，名色）與六處緣觸有什麼差別？名色緣觸在什麼經典中提到？《大緣起經》（Mahāpratītyasamutpāda-sūtra）中有這樣的說法：『如果存在某種行相（ākāra，行相），某種標舉（lakṣaṇa，標舉），可以施設名身（nāmakāya，名身），如果沒有那種行相，沒有那種標舉，可以了知增語觸（adhivacana-sparśa，增語觸）嗎？』回答：『不能，大德。』『如果存在某種行相，某種標舉，可以施設色身（rūpakāya，色身），如果沒有那種行相，沒有那種標舉，可以了知有對觸（pratigha-sparśa，有對觸）嗎？』回答：『不能，大德。』『如果一切種類的名身和色身都不存在，可以了知觸或者施設觸嗎？』回答：『不能，大德。』『所以，阿難（Ānanda），觸的由來，觸的因，觸的緣，就是名色。』
這段經文想要說明什麼？說明名與色是觸產生的因。名指的是意法處（mana-dharmāyatana，意法處），色指的是眼色處（cakṣu-rūpāyatana，眼色處），乃至身觸處（kāya-spraṣṭavyāyatana，身觸處）。這裡，名身被稱為增語觸，因為名是身，所以得名身之名。同樣，色身被稱為有對觸，因為色是身，所以得色身之名。這是名為體，色為體義。這裡的意思是說，增語觸的因，名為增語觸；有對觸的因，名為有對觸，並非兩種觸的本體。因此經文說：『如果存在某種行相，某種標舉，可以施設名身，施設色身。』所說的『行相』，指的是諸外處（bāhyāyatana，外處），行所行的行相，因此得行相之名。所說的『標舉』，指的是諸內處（ādhyātmikāyatana，內處），由此標舉諸觸之名，例如名眼觸（cakṣu-sparśa，眼觸），乃至意觸（manaḥ-sparśa，意觸）。這裡的意思是說，在諸有名體上，施設增語觸；在諸有色體上，施設有對觸。
【English Translation】 English version: All (mind and mental factors) arise from the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana, six sense bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). Why is it only said that the six sense bases are the condition for contact (sparśa)? Because at this stage, the function of contact is the most prominent, so contact is particularly emphasized. In reality, it should be understood that all minds and mental factors arise from the six sense bases. Furthermore, for what reason, at the stage where the function of contact is most prominent, is it only said that contact is the condition for feeling (vedanā), and not that contact is the condition for the arising of perception (saṃjñā) and so on? Although contact arises simultaneously with feeling, perception, etc., the influence of contact on feeling is the strongest, so it is particularly emphasized. For example, resolution (adhimokṣa) tends towards certainty (niścaya), tranquility (praśrabdhi) and effort (vyāyāma) tend towards calm abiding (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā), this is the natural law of things, and should not be questioned.
What is the difference between name and form (nāmarūpa) and the six sense bases as the condition for contact? In which scripture is name and form as the condition for contact mentioned? The Great Discourse on Dependent Arising (Mahāpratītyasamutpāda-sūtra) states: 'If there is some characteristic (ākāra), some indication (lakṣaṇa), by which a body of name (nāmakāya) can be designated, and if there is no such characteristic, no such indication, can conceptual contact (adhivacana-sparśa) be known?' The answer is: 'No, venerable one.' 'If there is some characteristic, some indication, by which a body of form (rūpakāya) can be designated, and if there is no such characteristic, no such indication, can resistant contact (pratigha-sparśa) be known?' The answer is: 'No, venerable one.' 'If all kinds of bodies of name and bodies of form do not exist, can contact or designated contact be known?' The answer is: 'No, venerable one.' 'Therefore, Ānanda, the origin of contact, the cause of contact, the condition of contact, is name and form.'
What is the meaning that this sutra intends to explain? It explains that name and form are the cause of the arising of contact. Name refers to the mind-object sense base (mana-dharmāyatana), and form refers to the eye-object sense base (cakṣu-rūpāyatana), and even the body-touch sense base (kāya-spraṣṭavyāyatana). Here, the body of name is called conceptual contact, because name is the body, so it is named the body of name. Similarly, the body of form is called resistant contact, because form is the body, so it is named the body of form. This is name as the essence, and form as the meaning of essence. The meaning here is that the cause of conceptual contact is name, and the cause of resistant contact is form, not the substance of the two contacts. Therefore, the sutra says: 'If there is some characteristic, some indication, by which a body of name can be designated, and a body of form can be designated.' The 'characteristic' refers to the external sense bases (bāhyāyatana), the characteristic of what is acted upon, hence the name characteristic. The 'indication' refers to the internal sense bases (ādhyātmikāyatana), by which the names of the contacts are indicated, such as eye contact (cakṣu-sparśa), and even mind contact (manaḥ-sparśa). The meaning here is that on the entities of name, conceptual contact is designated; on the entities of form, resistant contact is designated.
觸。隨有所闕所施設觸。皆不得成。此上經文。且辯假觸為辯緣。此所生實觸。復作是說。若一切種名身色身。皆無所有。乃至廣說。此義意言。若一切種。假觸非有。則心所觸。於三時中。自名難了。體不生故。不可了知。既不可了知。亦不可施設。若作如是分別經義。名色緣觸。即二緣觸。然名色緣觸。分位決定。若二為緣觸。分位不定。雖六處緣觸。分位亦定。而偏就有情所依顯示。名色緣觸。通就所依所緣顯示。故有差別。復有別義。此中名身名增語觸。即是以名為所依義。此以意識為所依故。此中色身。名有對觸。即是以色為所依義。此以五根為所依故。由是諸觸所依力故。摽別其名。如眼識等。所謂眼觸。乃至意觸。意識與意。是一義故。若一切種名色所依六觸非有。則定無有餘無依觸。而可了知。既無可了知。亦不可施設。此義意言。離六所依等。假觸無故。離六觸體外實觸亦無。若作如是分別經義。即六處緣觸。說名色緣觸。此中顯名色即六處差別。為辯緣起種種義門。令阿難陀知甚深義。有餘師說說名色緣觸。顯三和生。顯根境功能。說二緣觸。說六處緣觸。顯不共因用。有說三種依界處緣起門。如其次第。即前六觸。複合為二。其二者何。頌曰。
五根應有對 第六俱增語
論曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：觸。根據所缺少或所施加的觸，都不能成立。以上經文，只是爲了辨別假觸而辨別因緣。這裡所生的真實觸，又作這樣的說法：如果一切種類的名身（nāma-kāya，精神的集合）和色身（rūpa-kāya，物質的集合），都一無所有，乃至廣說。這個意思說，如果一切種類的假觸不存在，那麼心所觸，在過去、現在、未來三時中，其自身的名字難以明瞭，因為其體性不生，所以不可了知。既然不可了知，也不可施設。如果這樣分別經義，名色緣觸，就是二緣觸。然而名色緣觸，其分位是決定的。如果二者為緣的觸，其分位是不定的。雖然六處緣觸，其分位也是決定的，但偏重於就眾生所依的方面來顯示名色緣觸，則通就所依和所緣的方面來顯示，所以有差別。還有別的意義，這裡名身是指增語觸，就是以名為所依的意義。這是以意識為所依的緣故。這裡色身是指有對觸，就是以色為所依的意義。這是以五根為所依的緣故。由於這些觸的所依的力量，才標別其名，如眼識等，所謂眼觸，乃至意觸。意識與意，是一個意義。如果一切種類的名色所依的六觸不存在，那麼必定沒有其餘無所依的觸，可以了知。既然無可了知，也不可施設。這個意思說，離開六所依等，假觸不存在的緣故，離開六觸的體性之外，真實觸也沒有。如果這樣分別經義，就是六處緣觸，說為名色緣觸。這裡顯示名色就是六處的差別，爲了辨別緣起的種種義門，令阿難陀（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以記憶力強著稱）知道甚深的意義。有其他論師說，說名色緣觸，是爲了顯示三和合生，顯示根境的功能。說二緣觸，說六處緣觸，是爲了顯示不共的因用。有說三種依界處緣起門，如其次第，就是前六觸，複合為二。這二者是什麼？頌說： 五根應有對，第六俱增語。 論說：
【English Translation】 English version: Contact. Depending on what is lacking or what is applied in terms of contact, nothing can be established. The above sutra passage is merely distinguishing between false contact and distinguishing between conditions. The real contact that arises here is further explained as follows: If all kinds of nāma-kāya (aggregate of mental elements) and rūpa-kāya (aggregate of material elements) are completely non-existent, and so on. The meaning of this is that if all kinds of false contact do not exist, then the mental contact, in the three times of past, present, and future, its own name is difficult to understand, because its nature does not arise, so it cannot be known. Since it cannot be known, it also cannot be established. If the meaning of the sutra is distinguished in this way, nāma-rūpa-pratyaya-sparśa (contact conditioned by name and form) is dvaya-pratyaya-sparśa (contact conditioned by two factors). However, the position of nāma-rūpa-pratyaya-sparśa is fixed. If contact is conditioned by two factors, its position is not fixed. Although ṣaḍ-āyatana-pratyaya-sparśa (contact conditioned by the six sense bases) also has a fixed position, it emphasizes the aspect of the sentient being's support to show nāma-rūpa-pratyaya-sparśa, which generally shows both the support and the object, so there is a difference. There is also another meaning: here, nāma-kāya refers to adhivacana-sparśa (verbal designation contact), which means that it takes name as its support. This is because it takes consciousness as its support. Here, rūpa-kāya refers to pratigha-sparśa (resistant contact), which means that it takes form as its support. This is because it takes the five sense organs as its support. Because of the power of these contacts' support, their names are distinguished, such as eye consciousness, etc., so-called eye contact, and even mind contact. Consciousness and mind are the same meaning. If all kinds of six contacts supported by nāma-rūpa do not exist, then there must be no other unsupported contact that can be known. Since there is nothing to be known, it also cannot be established. The meaning of this is that apart from the six supports, etc., because false contact does not exist, apart from the nature of the six contacts, real contact also does not exist. If the meaning of the sutra is distinguished in this way, it is ṣaḍ-āyatana-pratyaya-sparśa that is called nāma-rūpa-pratyaya-sparśa. Here, it shows that nāma-rūpa is the difference of the six sense bases, in order to distinguish the various meanings of dependent origination, so that Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his strong memory) knows the profound meaning. Other teachers say that saying nāma-rūpa-pratyaya-sparśa is to show the arising of the three harmonies, to show the function of the root and object. Saying dvaya-pratyaya-sparśa, saying ṣaḍ-āyatana-pratyaya-sparśa, is to show the uncommon causal function. Some say that the three kinds of dependent origination doors based on realms and places, in order, are the previous six contacts, combined into two. What are these two? The five roots should have resistance, the sixth together has verbal designation. The treatise says:
眼等五觸。說名有對。以有對根為所依故。唯有對法為境界故。第六意觸說名增語。增語謂名。名是意觸所緣長境。故偏就此名增語觸。意識通用名義為境。五不緣名。故說為長。如說眼識但能了青不了是青。意識了青亦了是青。乃至廣說。故有對觸名從所依境。就所長境立增語觸名。有說意識名為增語。于發語中。為增上故。有言意識語為增上。方于境轉。五識不然。是故意識。獨名增語。與此相應。名增語觸故。有對觸名。從所依境。就相應主。立增語觸名。即前六觸。隨別相應。覆成八種。頌曰。
明無明非二 無漏染污余 愛恚二相應 樂等順三受
論曰。明無明等相應成三。一明觸。二無明觸。三非明非無明觸。此三如次。應知即是無漏染污余相應觸。余謂無漏及染污余。即有漏善。無覆無記。無明觸中。一分數起。依彼復立愛恚二觸。愛恚隨眠。共相應故。總攝一切。覆成三觸。一順樂受觸。二順苦受觸。三順不苦不樂受觸。云何順受觸。是樂等受所領故。或能為受行相依故。名為順受。如何觸為受所領行相。依行相極似觸。依觸而生故。又與樂等受相應故。或能引生樂等受故。名為順受。如是合成十六種觸。已辯觸當辯受。頌曰。
從此生六受 五屬身余心
論曰。從前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：眼等五觸（眼觸等五種觸覺），被稱為『有對』（sa-pratigha）。因為它們所依賴的是『有對根』（sa-pratigha indriya），並且只有『有對法』（sa-pratigha dharma）是它們的境界。第六意觸（mano-sparsha）被稱為『增語』（adhivacana），『增語』指的是『名』（nama），『名』是意觸所緣的長境。因此，特別就此『名』立為『增語觸』。意識普遍以名義為境界，而前五識不緣『名』，所以說『名』是長境。正如所說，眼識只能了別青色，不能了別『是青』，而意識既能了別青色，也能了別『是青』，乃至廣說。因此，『有對觸』是從所依的境界而得名，而『增語觸』是就其所緣的長境而立名。有人說，意識被稱為『增語』，因為它在發語中起增上作用。也有人說，意識以語為增上，才能在境界上轉動，而前五識則不然。因此，只有意識被稱為『增語』，與此相應的觸，也因此被稱為『增語觸』。『有對觸』是從所依的境界而得名，而『增語觸』是就相應的『主』（adhipati）而立名。以上所說的六觸，隨其各自的相應關係，又可以形成八種。頌曰： 『明無明非二，無漏染污余，愛恚二相應，樂等順三受。』 論曰：與『明』（vidya）、『無明』（avidya）和『非明非無明』（naiva vidya na avidya）相應的觸，可以形成三種。一是『明觸』（vidya-sparsha），二是『無明觸』（avidya-sparsha），三是『非明非無明觸』（naiva vidya na avidya-sparsha）。這三種觸，依次應知就是與『無漏』（anasrava）、『染污』（sasrava）和『余』（sesa）相應的觸。『余』指的是無漏和染污之外的，也就是有漏善（sasrava-kusala）和無覆無記（anivrita-avyakrita）。在『無明觸』中，有一部分會生起，依此又可以建立『愛觸』（priti-sparsha）和『恚觸』（dvesa-sparsha）兩種觸，因為愛和恚的隨眠（anusaya）共同相應。總攝一切，又可以形成三種觸。一是『順樂受觸』（sukha-vedaniya-sparsha），二是『順苦受觸』（duhkha-vedaniya-sparsha），三是『順不苦不樂受觸』（aduhkha-asukha-vedaniya-sparsha）。什麼是『順受觸』（vedaniya-sparsha）呢？因為它是樂等受所領納的，或者能夠作為受的行相所依賴的，所以稱為『順受』。如何觸成為受所領納的行相呢？因為行相極似觸，依觸而生。又因為它與樂等受相應，或者能夠引生樂等受，所以稱為『順受』。這樣總共合成了十六種觸。已經辨析了觸，下面應當辨析受。頌曰： 『從此生六受，五屬身余心。』 論曰：從前面的觸
【English Translation】 English version: The five contacts such as eye-contact are called 'with-resistance' (sa-pratigha), because they rely on 'with-resistance roots' (sa-pratigha indriya) and only 'with-resistance dharmas' (sa-pratigha dharma) are their objects. The sixth, mental contact (mano-sparsha), is called 'designation' (adhivacana). 'Designation' refers to 'name' (nama), and 'name' is the extended object cognized by mental contact. Therefore, specifically this 'name' is established as 'designation-contact'. Consciousness universally takes name and meaning as its objects, while the five consciousnesses do not cognize 'name', hence it is said to be an extended object. As it is said, eye-consciousness can only discern blue but not 'is blue', while consciousness discerns both blue and 'is blue', and so on extensively. Therefore, 'with-resistance contact' is named from its dependent object, while 'designation-contact' is named based on its extended object. Some say that consciousness is called 'designation' because it has an enhancing function in speech. Others say that consciousness relies on speech as an enhancement to operate on objects, unlike the five consciousnesses. Therefore, only consciousness is called 'designation', and the contact associated with it is called 'designation-contact'. 'With-resistance contact' is named from its dependent object, while 'designation-contact' is named based on its associated 'chief' (adhipati). The six contacts mentioned above, according to their respective associations, can form eight types. The verse says: 'Clarity, Unclarity, Non-dual, Uncontaminated, Contaminated, Remaining, Affection, Aversion, Two Associated, Pleasure, etc., Conform to Three Feelings.' The treatise says: Contacts associated with 'clarity' (vidya), 'unclarity' (avidya), and 'neither clarity nor unclarity' (naiva vidya na avidya) can form three types. First, 'clarity-contact' (vidya-sparsha); second, 'unclarity-contact' (avidya-sparsha); third, 'neither clarity nor unclarity-contact' (naiva vidya na avidya-sparsha). These three contacts, in order, should be understood as contacts associated with 'uncontaminated' (anasrava), 'contaminated' (sasrava), and 'remaining' (sesa). 'Remaining' refers to what is other than uncontaminated and contaminated, namely, contaminated wholesome (sasrava-kusala) and non-obscured neutral (anivrita-avyakrita). Within 'unclarity-contact', a portion arises, and based on this, 'affection-contact' (priti-sparsha) and 'aversion-contact' (dvesa-sparsha) can be established, because the latent tendencies (anusaya) of affection and aversion are jointly associated. Comprehensively, three types of contact can be formed. First, 'contact conforming to pleasant feeling' (sukha-vedaniya-sparsha); second, 'contact conforming to painful feeling' (duhkha-vedaniya-sparsha); third, 'contact conforming to neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling' (aduhkha-asukha-vedaniya-sparsha). What is 'contact conforming to feeling' (vedaniya-sparsha)? Because it is experienced by pleasant feelings, etc., or can serve as the basis for the characteristics of feeling, it is called 'conforming to feeling'. How does contact become the characteristic experienced by feeling? Because the characteristic is very similar to contact, arising dependent on contact. Also, because it is associated with pleasant feelings, etc., or can give rise to pleasant feelings, etc., it is called 'conforming to feeling'. Thus, a total of sixteen types of contact are formed. Having analyzed contact, feeling should be analyzed next. The verse says: 'From this, six feelings arise, five belong to the body, the remaining to the mind.' The treatise says: From the preceding contact
六觸生於六受。謂眼觸所生受。至意觸所生受。此合成二。一者身受。二者心受。六中前五說為身受。依色根故。意觸所生說為心受。但依心故。頌曰。
此覆成十八 由意近行異
論曰。於前所說一心受中。由意近行異。復分成十八。云何十八意近行耶。謂喜憂舍各六近行。此復何緣立為十八。由三領納。唯意相應。六境有異。故成十八。非一受體意識相應境異成六。領納異故。意近行名。為目何義。喜等有力。能為近緣。令意于境數遊行故。若說喜等。意為近緣。于境數行。名意近行。則應想等亦得此名。與意相應。由意行故。若唯意地。有意近行。豈不違經。如契經言。眼見色已。于順喜色。起喜近行。乃至廣說。此不相違。如依眼識引不凈觀。此不凈觀。唯意地攝。然契經言。眼見色已。隨觀不凈。具足安住。此亦如是。依五識身所引意地。喜等近行。故作是說。由彼經言。眼見色已。乃至廣說。故意近行。五識所引意識相應。不應為難。何緣身受。非意近行。與意近行。非同法故。以意近行唯依意識。故名為近。分別三世等自相共相境。故名為行。一切身受。與此相違。故非意近。亦不名行。豈不身受亦有此相。身受領納色等境已。意識隨行。由身受力。意識于境。數遊行故。此亦不然。已說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 六觸產生六種感受，即眼觸所生的感受，直到意觸所生的感受。這些感受可以歸納為兩種：一是身受，二是心受。六種感受中，前五種（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身觸所生）被稱為身受，因為它們依賴於色根（感覺器官）；意觸所生的感受被稱為心受，因為它只依賴於心。 頌曰： 『此覆成十八，由意近行異。』 論曰：在前面所說的一心受中，由於意的近行不同，又可以分成十八種。什麼是十八意近行呢？就是喜、憂、舍各有六種近行。為什麼要把它們分為十八種呢？因為有三種領納（喜、憂、舍），它們只與意識相應，並且六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）有所不同，所以形成了十八種。不是說一個感受的本體，因為意識所相應的境界不同而變成六種，而是因為領納不同，所以稱為意近行。『意近行』這個名稱的目的是什麼呢？喜等具有力量，能夠作為近緣，使意在境界上多次執行。如果說喜等是意的近緣，使意在境界上多次執行，就稱為意近行，那麼想等也應該得到這個名稱，因為它們也與意相應，由意執行所致。如果只有意地才有意近行，豈不是違背了經典？例如契經上說：『眼見色后，對於順喜的顏色，生起喜近行，乃至廣說。』這並不相違背。就像依靠眼識引導不凈觀一樣，這種不凈觀只屬於意地所攝。然而契經上說：『眼見色后，隨之觀察不凈，具足安住。』這也是一樣的，是依靠五識身所引導的意地喜等近行，所以才這樣說。因為那部經上說：『眼見色后，乃至廣說。』所以意近行是五識所引導的意識相應，不應該以此為難。為什麼身受不是意近行呢？因為它與意近行不是同一種法。因為意近行只依賴於意識，所以稱為『近』；它能分別三世等自相共相的境界，所以稱為『行』。一切身受都與此相反，所以不是意近行，也不稱為『行』。難道身受沒有這些特性嗎？身受領納色等境界后，意識隨之執行，由於身受的力量，意識在境界上多次執行。這也不對，因為已經說過了。
【English Translation】 English version Six contacts give rise to six feelings, namely the feeling arising from eye contact, up to the feeling arising from mind contact. These can be summarized into two types: one is bodily feeling, and the other is mental feeling. Among the six feelings, the first five (arising from contact with eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) are called bodily feelings because they depend on the sense organs (sense bases); the feeling arising from mind contact is called mental feeling because it depends only on the mind. Verse: 'These further become eighteen, due to differences in mental activity.' Treatise: Among the single type of feeling mentioned earlier, it can be further divided into eighteen types due to differences in the mind's proximate activities. What are the eighteen mental proximate activities? They are joy, sorrow, and equanimity, each having six proximate activities. Why are they divided into eighteen types? Because there are three types of reception (joy, sorrow, and equanimity), which correspond only to consciousness, and the six objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma) are different, thus forming eighteen types. It is not that the essence of a single feeling becomes six because the objects corresponding to consciousness are different, but rather because the reception is different, hence the name 'mental proximate activity.' What is the purpose of the name 'mental proximate activity'? Joy, etc., have the power to serve as proximate conditions, causing the mind to repeatedly operate on the object. If it is said that joy, etc., are proximate conditions for the mind, causing the mind to repeatedly operate on the object, and this is called mental proximate activity, then thought, etc., should also receive this name because they also correspond to the mind and are caused by the mind's operation. If only the mental realm has mental proximate activities, wouldn't this contradict the scriptures? For example, the sutra says: 'After the eye sees a form, joy proximate activity arises for pleasant colors, and so on.' This is not contradictory. Just as relying on eye consciousness to guide impure contemplation, this impure contemplation is only included in the mental realm. However, the sutra says: 'After the eye sees a form, one contemplates impurity and dwells in it completely.' This is the same, relying on the mental proximate activities of joy, etc., in the mental realm guided by the five consciousnesses, hence this is said. Because that sutra says: 'After the eye sees a form, and so on,' therefore mental proximate activity is the consciousness corresponding to the five consciousnesses, and this should not be questioned. Why is bodily feeling not a mental proximate activity? Because it is not the same kind of dharma as mental proximate activity. Because mental proximate activity relies only on consciousness, it is called 'proximate'; it can distinguish the characteristics of the three times, etc., so it is called 'activity.' All bodily feelings are contrary to this, so they are not mental proximate activities and are not called 'activity.' Don't bodily feelings have these characteristics? After bodily feeling receives objects such as form, consciousness follows, and due to the power of bodily feeling, consciousness repeatedly operates on the object. This is also incorrect, because it has already been said.
相故。謂諸身受。不依意識。無分別故。由彼不能分別境界功德過失。故非彼力。令意于境數數遊行。又不定故。謂身受后非決定有。意識續生意受俱時。必有意識。故唯意受。名意近行。又生盲等類。雖無見已。乃至觸已。而有近行故。第三靜慮。有意地樂。亦應攝在意近行中。此責不然。初界無故。又凝滯故。謂欲界中。無意地樂。第三靜慮。雖有不立。又彼地樂。凝滯于境。近行於境。數有推移。不滯一緣。方名行故。又無所對。苦根所攝。意近行故。若爾應無舍意近行。無所對故。不爾憂喜。即舍對故。第三靜慮意地樂根。無自根本地舍根為對故。然無近分等無舍等近行失。以于初界中有同地所對故。或復容有。不容有故。謂意舍等。容有同地。所敵對法。意樂定無同地敵對。故無有失。然十八中。前之十五。色等近行。名不雜緣。以各別緣色等境故。三法近行。皆通二種。若唯緣法及六內處。名不雜緣。若緣此七及五外處。或別或總。名為雜緣。若雖非見。乃至觸已。而起喜憂舍。亦是意近行。若異此者。未離欲貪。應無緣色界色等意近行。又在色界。應無緣欲香味觸境。諸意近行。若爾何故。契經中言。眼見色已。于順喜色。起喜近行。乃至廣說。隨明瞭說。故不相違。或眼等所引易可分別故。又諸近行
。亦異建立。謂眼見色已。起聲等近行。至意知法已。起色等近行。隨無雜亂。經如是說。于中建立。根境定故。于順喜色。起喜近行等。此舉現在令類解所餘。續生命終。唯舍近行。非憂與喜。舍任運得故。及順彼位故。唯有雜緣。諸舍近行。能正離染。以意近行。但有漏故。唯舍非余。諸加行道中。亦有喜近行。非無間解脫。根本定攝故。最後解脫道。容有喜近行。諸意近行中。幾欲界系。欲界意近行。幾何所緣。色無色界。為問亦爾。頌曰。
欲緣欲十八 色十二上三 二緣欲十二 八自二無色 后二緣欲六 四自一上緣 初無色近分 緣色四上一 四本及三邊 唯一緣自境
論曰。欲界所繫。具有十八。緣欲界境。其數亦然。緣色界境。唯有十二。除香味六。彼無境故。緣無色境。唯得有三。彼無色等。五所緣故。緣不繫境。亦唯有三。說欲界系已。當說色界系。初二靜慮。唯有十二。謂除六憂。若說所緣。定無染污。能緣下境。善緣欲境。亦具十二。除香味四。餘八自緣。二緣無色。謂法近行。緣不繫法。亦唯二種。三四靜慮。唯六謂舍。緣欲界境。善亦具六。除香味二。餘四自緣。一緣無色。謂法近行。緣不繫法。亦唯一種。說色界系已。當說無色系。空處近分。唯有四種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也不同於建立。意思是說，眼根見到色塵之後，生起聲等近行；乃至意根了知法塵之後，生起色等近行，各自沒有雜亂。經中是這樣說的。在其中建立，是因為根和境是決定的。對於順應喜悅的色塵，生起喜悅的近行等等。這裡舉現在的情況，是爲了讓大家以此類推理解其餘的情況。相續的生命終結時，只有舍近行，沒有憂和喜。因為舍是任運而得的，並且順應那個位次。只有雜緣，各種舍近行，能夠真正地遠離染污。因為意近行，只有有漏的緣故。只有舍，沒有其他的。各種加行道中，也有喜近行，但不是無間解脫，因為是根本定所攝的緣故。最後的解脫道，容許有喜近行。各種意近行中，有多少是欲界所繫的？欲界的意近行，有多少所緣？色界、無色界也是這樣問。頌詞說：
欲界緣欲十八，色界十二上界三； 二禪緣欲十二，八自二無色； 后二緣欲六，四自一上緣； 初無色近分，緣色四上一； 四本及三邊，唯一緣自境。
論述：欲界所繫的，具有十八種，緣欲界境的，數量也是這樣。緣色界境的，只有十二種，除去香味六種，因為那裡沒有境的緣故。緣無色界境的，只有三種，因為那裡沒有色等五種所緣的緣故。緣不繫境的，也只有三種。說完欲界所繫的，下面應當說色界所繫的。初禪和二禪，只有十二種，就是除去六種憂。如果說所緣，一定是無染污的。能夠緣地獄的，善的能夠緣欲界境的，也具有十二種，除去香味四種。其餘八種自己緣自己，兩種緣無色界，指的是法近行，緣不繫法的，也只有兩種。三禪和四禪，只有六種，指的是舍。緣欲界境的，善的也具有六種，除去香味兩種。其餘四種自己緣自己，一種緣無色界，指的是法近行。緣不繫法的，也只有一種。說完色界所繫的，下面應當說無色界所繫的。空無邊處近分，只有四種。
【English Translation】 English version: It is also different from establishment. It means that after the eye sees the form, the near-attainment of sound, etc., arises; and after the mind knows the dharma, the near-attainment of form, etc., arises, each without confusion. The sutra says so. It is established in it because the root and the object are determined. For colors that accord with joy, the near-attainment of joy, etc., arises. This example of the present is to allow everyone to understand the rest by analogy. At the end of the continuous life, there is only the near-attainment of equanimity, not sorrow and joy, because equanimity is obtained effortlessly and accords with that position. Only mixed conditions, various near-attainments of equanimity, can truly be free from defilement, because the near-attainment of mind only has outflows. Only equanimity, not others. In various paths of application, there is also the near-attainment of joy, but it is not uninterrupted liberation, because it is included in the fundamental concentration. The final path of liberation allows for the near-attainment of joy. Among the various near-attainments of mind, how many are related to the desire realm? How many objects are cognized by the near-attainment of mind in the desire realm? The same question applies to the form realm and the formless realm. The verse says:
Desire realm conditions desire eighteen, form realm twelve, upper realm three; The second dhyana conditions desire twelve, eight self, two formless; The latter two condition desire six, four self, one upper condition; The near-attainment of the initial formless realm conditions form four, upper one; Four fundamental and three bordering, only one conditions its own object.
Treatise: Those related to the desire realm have eighteen, and the number of those that condition the desire realm is the same. Those that condition the form realm have only twelve, excluding the six of smell and taste, because there are no objects there. Those that condition the formless realm have only three, because there are no five objects of form, etc., there. Those that condition the unconditioned realm also have only three. Having finished speaking about those related to the desire realm, we should now speak about those related to the form realm. The first and second dhyanas have only twelve, which is to exclude the six sorrows. If we speak of the conditioned, it must be undefiled. Those that can condition the lower realm, the virtuous ones that can condition the desire realm, also have twelve, excluding the four of smell and taste. The remaining eight condition themselves, two condition the formless realm, referring to the near-attainment of dharma, and those that condition the unconditioned dharma also have only two. The third and fourth dhyanas have only six, referring to equanimity. Those that condition the desire realm, the virtuous ones also have six, excluding the two of smell and taste. The remaining four condition themselves, one conditions the formless realm, referring to the near-attainment of dharma. Those that condition the unconditioned dharma also have only one. Having finished speaking about those related to the form realm, we should now speak about those related to the formless realm. The near-attainment of the sphere of infinite space has only four.
。謂舍但緣色聲觸法。緣第四靜慮。亦具有四種。此就許有別緣者說。若執彼地。唯總緣下。但有雜緣。法意近行。緣無色界。唯一謂法緣。不繫法亦唯一種。四根本地。及上三邊。唯一謂法。但緣自境。無色根本。不緣下故。彼上三邊。不緣色故。不緣下義。如后當辯。此緣不繫。亦唯有一。諸意近行。通無漏耶。頌曰。
十八唯有漏
論曰。無有近行通無漏者所以者何。增長有故。無漏諸法。與此相違。有說近行。有情皆有。無漏不然。故非近行。有說聖道任運而轉。故順無相界故非近行體。近行與此體相違故誰成就幾意近行耶。謂生欲界。若未獲得色界善心。成欲一切。初二定八。三四定四。無色界一。所成上界皆不下緣。唯染污故。若已獲得色界善心。未離欲貪。成欲一切。初靜慮十舍具六種。未至地中。善心得緣香味境故。喜唯有四。以但有染不緣下故。豈不意近行眼等識所引。彼既無鼻舌二識。應無緣香味近行。此責不然。生盲聾等。自性生念。及在定中。皆應無有色等近行。故非一切。五識所引成二定八。三四靜慮。無色如前。已離欲貪。若未獲得二定善心。彼成欲界初定十二。謂除六憂。二靜慮等。皆如前說。若已獲得二定善心。于初定貪未得離者。成二定十。謂喜但四。唯染污故。舍具
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 意思是說捨棄只緣於色、聲、觸、法的狀態，而緣于第四禪定（catuttha-jhāna）。也具有四種緣。這是就允許有不同緣的情況來說的。如果認為那個禪定境界，只是總體上緣于下方的境界，那麼就只有雜緣。法意近行（dhammārammaṇa-upacāra）緣于無為法（asaṅkhata），只有一種，即法緣。不繫法（visaṃyutta-dhamma）也只有一種。四根本地（catasso mūlabhūmiyo）以及上面的三個邊地（tisso antasīmāyo），只有一種，即法緣，只緣于自己的境界。因為無色根本（arūpā mūla），不緣于下方的境界。那上面的三個邊地，不緣於色法（rūpa）的緣故。不緣于下方的含義，如後面將要辨析的。這種緣于不繫法，也只有一種。那麼，所有的意近行（manoviññāṇa-upacāra），都通於無漏（anāsava）嗎？頌曰： 『十八唯有漏』 論曰：沒有近行通於無漏的原因是什麼呢？因為會增長有漏法（sāsava-dhamma）的緣故。無漏的諸法，與此相反。有人說，近行，一切有情（satta）都有。無漏不是這樣。所以不是近行。有人說，聖道（ariyamagga）是任運而轉的。所以順應無相界（animittadhātu），所以不是近行的體性。近行與此體性相反。那麼，誰成就幾種意近行呢？意思是說，生於欲界（kāmadhātu），如果未獲得色界善心（rūpāvacara-kusala-citta），成就欲界的一切近行。初禪（paṭhama jhāna）、二禪（dutiya jhāna）有八種。三禪（tatiya jhāna）、四禪（catuttha jhāna）有四種。無為法有一種。所成就的上界（upari-bhūmi）都不向下緣，只是染污的緣故。如果已經獲得了色界善心，未離欲貪（kāmarāga），成就欲界的一切近行。初禪有十種，舍受（upekkhā）具有六種。在未至地（upacāra-bhūmi）中，善心能夠緣香味境的緣故。喜受（somanassa）只有四種。因為只有染污的，不緣于下方的緣故。難道意近行不是眼識（cakkhuviññāṇa）等識所引導的嗎？既然他們沒有鼻識（ghāṇaviññāṇa）、舌識（jivhāviññāṇa）二識，應該沒有緣香味的近行。這種責難是不對的。生來就盲、聾等的人，自性生念，以及在禪定中的人，都應該沒有色等近行。所以不是一切五識（pañcaviññāṇa）所引導的。成就二禪八種。三禪、四禪，無色界（arūpadhātu）如前所說。已經離欲貪，如果未獲得二禪善心，他們成就欲界、初禪十二種，即除去六種憂受（domanassa）。二禪等，都如前所說。如果已經獲得了二禪善心，對於初禪的貪未得離者，成就二禪十種，即喜受只有四種，只是染污的緣故。舍受具有……
【English Translation】 English version: It means abandoning the state of only being conditioned by form (rūpa), sound (sadda), touch (phassa), and mental objects (dhamma), and being conditioned by the fourth jhāna (catuttha-jhāna). It also possesses four types of conditionings. This is in reference to the allowance of different conditionings. If it is believed that that state of jhāna only generally conditions the lower states, then there is only mixed conditioning. The dhamma-object proximity (dhammārammaṇa-upacāra) conditions the unconditioned (asaṅkhata), there is only one type, which is dhamma-conditioning. The unconditioned dhamma (visaṃyutta-dhamma) is also only of one type. The four fundamental planes (catasso mūlabhūmiyo) and the three border areas (tisso antasīmāyo) above, there is only one type, which is dhamma-conditioning, only conditioning its own realm. Because the formless base (arūpā mūla) does not condition the lower realms. Those three border areas above do not condition form (rūpa). The meaning of not conditioning the lower realms, as will be analyzed later. This conditioning of the unconditioned is also only of one type. Then, do all mental proximity (manoviññāṇa-upacāra) extend to the unpolluted (anāsava)? The verse says: 'Eighteen are only polluted' The treatise says: What is the reason why there is no proximity that extends to the unpolluted? Because it increases the polluted dharmas (sāsava-dhamma). The unpolluted dharmas are the opposite of this. Some say that proximity is possessed by all sentient beings (satta). The unpolluted is not like this. Therefore, it is not proximity. Some say that the noble path (ariyamagga) turns spontaneously. Therefore, it conforms to the signless realm (animittadhātu), so it is not the nature of proximity. Proximity is contrary to this nature. Then, who attains how many types of mental proximity? It means that being born in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), if one has not attained the form realm wholesome mind (rūpāvacara-kusala-citta), one attains all proximity of the desire realm. The first jhāna (paṭhama jhāna) and the second jhāna (dutiya jhāna) have eight types. The third jhāna (tatiya jhāna) and the fourth jhāna (catuttha jhāna) have four types. The unconditioned dhamma has one type. The upper realms (upari-bhūmi) that are attained do not condition downwards, only because of pollution. If one has already attained the form realm wholesome mind, but has not abandoned desire attachment (kāmarāga), one attains all proximity of the desire realm. The first jhāna has ten types, equanimity (upekkhā) possesses six types. In the proximity realm (upacāra-bhūmi), the wholesome mind is able to condition the objects of smell and taste. Joy (somanassa) has only four types. Because it is only polluted and does not condition downwards. Isn't mental proximity guided by eye consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇa) and other consciousnesses? Since they do not have nose consciousness (ghāṇaviññāṇa) and tongue consciousness (jivhāviññāṇa), they should not have proximity that conditions smell and taste. This accusation is incorrect. Those who are born blind, deaf, etc., naturally give rise to thoughts, and those who are in jhāna should not have proximity of form, etc. Therefore, it is not guided by all five consciousnesses (pañcaviññāṇa). One attains eight types of the second jhāna. The third jhāna, the fourth jhāna, and the formless realm (arūpadhātu) are as previously stated. Having already abandoned desire attachment, if one has not attained the wholesome mind of the second jhāna, they attain twelve types of the desire realm and the first jhāna, that is, removing the six types of sorrow (domanassa). The second jhāna, etc., are all as previously stated. If one has already attained the wholesome mind of the second jhāna, and has not abandoned the attachment to the first jhāna, one attains ten types of the second jhāna, that is, joy has only four types, only because of pollution. Equanimity possesses...
六種。已獲得彼近分善故。余如前說。由此道理。余準應知。若生色界。唯成欲界一舍法近行。謂通果心俱。經主此中。假為異說。謂說如是。諸意近行。毗婆沙師。隨義而立。然我所見。經義有殊。所以者何。非於此地已得離染可緣此境起意近行。故非有漏。喜憂舍三。皆近行攝。唯雜染者。與意相牽。數行所緣。是意近行。云何與意。相牽數行。或愛或憎。或不擇舍。為對治彼。說六恒住。謂見色已。不喜不憂。心恒住舍。具念正智。廣說乃至。知法亦爾。非阿羅漢。無有世間緣善法喜。但為遮止雜染近行。故作是說。未審經主以何相義。為意近行。蘊在心中。執阿羅漢。緣諸善法。有漏善喜。非意近行。非阿羅漢。有意近行。少與正理契經相違。如何定知。于諸境界。或愛或憎。或不擇舍方是近行。非如先說。諸離欲者。或阿羅漢。于有漏事。雖全分斷。而有有漏喜等現行。不名近行此有何理又以何緣。唯六恒住。遠分所治。貪等相應雜染喜等。方名近行。非余有漏善喜等受。又彼自說差別言故。非染近行。定有極成。謂彼自言。但為遮止雜染近行。故作是說。既已許有非染近行。非六恒住。正所遮遣。故毗婆沙所說近行。非與正理契經相違。又諸有漏。皆名雜染。既許雜染皆名近行。與此宗義。有何相違。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 六種。因為已經獲得了接近善法的條件。其餘的如同前面所說。根據這個道理，其餘的也應該類推得知。如果（心）產生，只成就欲界一種舍受的近行，指的是與通果心同時生起。經主（指《阿毗達磨經》的作者）在這裡，假設了一種不同的說法，說的是這些意近行。毗婆沙師（指《大毗婆沙論》的作者）根據意義而建立。然而我所見到的，經文的意義有所不同。為什麼這麼說呢？因為沒有在此地已經獲得離染，卻可以緣此境界生起意近行。所以不是有漏的。喜、憂、舍三種感受，都屬於近行所攝。只有雜染的，與意念相互牽連，多次在所緣境上活動的，才是意近行。怎樣算是與意念相互牽連，多次在所緣境上活動呢？或者愛，或者憎，或者不加選擇的舍。爲了對治這些，說了六種恒住。指的是見到色之後，不喜不憂，心恒常安住在舍的狀態，具備正念和正智，廣泛地說乃至知道法也是這樣。並非阿羅漢就沒有世間的緣善法的喜，只是爲了遮止雜染的近行，所以才這樣說。還未審視經主以什麼樣的相和意義，作為意近行。蘊藏在心中，認為阿羅漢緣諸善法，有有漏的善喜，不是意近行。阿羅漢沒有意近行，這少許與正理和契經相違背。如何確定地知道，對於各種境界，或者愛，或者憎，或者不加選擇的舍，才是近行呢？不是像先前所說的，那些已經離欲的人，或者阿羅漢，對於有漏的事物，雖然完全斷除了貪愛，但有有漏的喜等感受現行，不叫做近行，這有什麼道理呢？又因為什麼緣故，只有六種恒住，是遠離貪慾的對治方法，與貪等相應的雜染喜等，才叫做近行，而不是其餘的有漏善喜等感受呢？而且他們自己說了差別的緣故，非染污的近行，一定有極成的道理。指的是他們自己說，只是爲了遮止雜染的近行，所以才這樣說。既然已經允許有非染污的近行，不是六種恒住所真正遮止的。所以毗婆沙師所說的近行，不是與正理和契經相違背的。而且各種有漏法，都叫做雜染。既然允許雜染都叫做近行，與這個宗義，有什麼相違背的呢？又
【English Translation】 English version: Six kinds. Because one has already obtained the conditions for approaching the wholesome. The rest is as previously stated. According to this principle, the rest should also be inferred. If (the mind) arises, it only accomplishes one kind of equanimity feeling (upeksha) of the desire realm's 'near attainment' (upacara), referring to that which arises simultaneously with the fruition mind of the path of insight (phalacitta). The 'Sutra Master' (referring to the author of the Abhidharma Sutra) here, posits a different explanation, saying that these are 'mental near attainments' (mano-upacara). The Vaibhashikas (referring to the authors of the Maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) establish them according to their meaning. However, what I have seen is that the meaning of the sutra is different. Why is that? Because there is no one who has already attained detachment in this realm, yet can arise 'mental near attainment' by focusing on this object. Therefore, it is not 'with outflows' (sāsrava). The three feelings of joy (sukha), sorrow (duhkha), and equanimity (upeksha) are all included within 'near attainment'. Only the defiled (sāsrava) ones, which are interconnected with the mind, and repeatedly operate on the object, are 'mental near attainment'. How are they considered interconnected with the mind and repeatedly operating? Either with attachment (raga), or aversion (dvesha), or indiscriminate equanimity (advesha-upeksha). In order to counteract these, the six 'constant abidings' (satata-vihāra) are taught. This refers to, upon seeing a form, not being joyful or sorrowful, the mind constantly abiding in equanimity, possessing mindfulness and correct knowledge, and so on, extensively speaking, even knowing the Dharma is also like this. It is not that an Arhat does not have worldly joy arising from wholesome dharmas, but it is only to prevent defiled 'near attainment' that this is said. It is yet to be examined what characteristics and meaning the 'Sutra Master' uses as 'mental near attainment'. Concealing it in the heart, believing that Arhats, focusing on wholesome dharmas, have wholesome joy with outflows, which is not 'mental near attainment'. An Arhat not having 'mental near attainment' is slightly contradictory to reason and the sutras. How can it be definitively known that, regarding various objects, either attachment, or aversion, or indiscriminate equanimity is 'near attainment'? It is not like what was previously said, that those who have already abandoned desire, or Arhats, although they have completely severed attachment to things with outflows, still have the arising of joy and other feelings with outflows, which are not called 'near attainment'. What is the reason for this? And for what reason are only the six 'constant abidings' the means to distance oneself from desire, and only defiled joy and other feelings corresponding to greed and other defilements are called 'near attainment', and not other wholesome feelings with outflows? Moreover, they themselves speak of the reason for the difference, that non-defiled 'near attainment' certainly has an established principle. This refers to them saying themselves that it is only to prevent defiled 'near attainment' that this is said. Since it has already been admitted that there is non-defiled 'near attainment', which is not truly prevented by the six 'constant abidings'. Therefore, the 'near attainment' spoken of by the Vaibhashikas is not contradictory to reason and the sutras. Moreover, all dharmas with outflows are called defiled. Since it is admitted that all defiled dharmas are called 'near attainment', what contradiction is there with this doctrine? Furthermore,
彼所說。然我所見經義有殊。誠如所說。經義與彼所見別故。謂彼契經。為顯無學眼見色已。非如昔時起貪瞋癡。言不喜等。不言見色已不起意近行。故毗婆沙所說為善。此諸近行。獲得云何。謂離欲貪。前八無間。八解脫道。獲得初定近分地中。六舍近行。第九無間解脫道中。獲得欲界通果心俱。法舍近行。獲得初定十二近行。此初定言。兼攝眷屬。由此理趣。離上地染。如應當思。然有差別。謂離第四靜慮貪時。第九無間。及解脫道。必不獲得自地下地通果心俱法舍近行。離空處等諸地貪時。一切無間及解脫道。唯獲得一法舍近行。得無學時。獲得欲界初二靜慮十二近行。三四靜慮。六舍近行。空無邊處。四舍近行。上地各一。舍法近行。于受生位。從上地沒。生下地時。獲得當地所有近行。生諸靜慮。亦兼下地舍法近行。又即喜等十八意行。由為耽嗜出離依別。故世尊說。為三十六師句。此差別句。能表大師是師摽𢡠。故名師句。如是諸句。唯佛大師。能知能說。余無能故。有說此受應名師跡。由是諸邪師行所依地故。有說此受應名刀路。或名怨路。由此能為愛刀愛怨所著處故。有說此受應名刀跡。以契經說。意為刀故。耽嗜依者。謂諸染受。出離依者。謂諸善受。無覆無記。順善染故。隨應二攝。更不別說。
此三十六界地定者。謂欲界中。具三十六。初二靜慮。唯有二十。謂耽嗜依八。出離依十二。三四靜慮。唯有十種。謂耽嗜依四。及出離依六。空處近分。若許有別緣。便有五種。謂耽嗜依一。出離依四。若執唯總緣。但有二種。謂耽嗜依一。出離依一。無色根本。及上三邊。各唯有二。如前應知。此約界地。所緣定者。欲緣欲境。具三十六。緣色界境。唯二十四。除緣香味二依各六。緣無色境。唯有六種。謂法近行。二依各三。緣不繫境。亦唯此六。由此道理。色無色界。緣境差別。如應當思。如契經說。以六出離依喜近行。為仗為依。為建立故。於六耽嗜。依喜近行。能捨能棄。及能變吐。如是便斷。乃至廣說。此中所說。斷十八種。耽嗜依言。顯暫時斷。喜為依故。斷出離依。憂近行言。顯離欲染。舍為依故。斷出離依。喜近行言。顯離第二靜慮地染。一種性依舍為依故。斷種種性。所依舍言。顯離色染。非彼性類為依故斷一種性依舍言。顯究竟離無色界染。如是所說。受有支中。應知義門無量差別。何緣不說所餘有支。頌曰。
余已說當說
論曰。所餘有支。或有已說。或有當說。如前已辯。若爾何緣更興此頌。為於後頌遮廣釋疑。由后頌中說煩惱等。勿有於此生如是疑。前已廣明四支義訖。次應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這三十六界地定是指：在欲界中，具備三十六種。初禪和二禪，只有二十種，即耽嗜依八種，出離依十二種。三禪和四禪，只有十種，即耽嗜依四種，以及出離依六種。空無邊處近分定，如果允許有別緣，便有五種，即耽嗜依一種，出離依四種。如果執著只有總緣，則只有兩種，即耽嗜依一種，出離依一種。無色界根本定，以及上面的三邊定，各自只有兩種，如前面所說應當知道。這是關於界地所緣的定。緣欲界境，具備三十六種。緣色界境，只有二十四種，除去緣香味二依各自六種。緣無色界境，只有六種，即法近行二依各自三種。緣不繫境，也只有這六種。由此道理，色界和無色界，緣境的差別，應當如理思維。如契經所說：以六出離依喜近行作為憑藉、作為依靠、爲了建立的緣故，對於六耽嗜依喜近行，能夠捨棄、能夠拋棄以及能夠變吐，這樣便能斷除，乃至廣說。這裡所說的，斷除十八種耽嗜依，顯示是暫時斷除，因為喜為所依的緣故。斷出離依憂近行，顯示是遠離欲染，舍為所依的緣故。斷出離依喜近行，顯示是遠離第二禪定地的染污。一種性依舍為所依的緣故，斷種種性所依舍，顯示是遠離色界染污。非彼性類為所依的緣故，斷一種性依舍，顯示是究竟遠離無色界染污。如是所說，在受有支中，應當知道義理的無量差別。什麼緣故不說其餘的有支呢？頌曰： 其餘已說當說 論曰：其餘的有支，或者已經說過，或者將要說。如前面已經辨析。如果這樣，什麼緣故還要興起這個頌呢？爲了對於後面的頌遮止廣釋的疑惑。由於後面的頌中說到煩惱等，不要因此產生這樣的疑惑：前面已經詳細說明四支的意義完畢，接下來應當...
【English Translation】 English version: These thirty-six realms and grounds of concentration refer to: In the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), all thirty-six are present. The first and second dhyānas (meditative absorptions) have only twenty, namely, eight based on attachment (dhamashita-āśraya) and twelve based on detachment (nishkramana-āśraya). The third and fourth dhyānas have only ten, namely, four based on attachment and six based on detachment. The near-attainment of the sphere of infinite space (Ākāśānantyāyatana), if separate objects are allowed, has five, namely, one based on attachment and four based on detachment. If only a general object is held, there are only two, namely, one based on attachment and one based on detachment. The fundamental formless realms (arūpadhātu), and the three 'edges' above, each have only two, as should be understood from what was said earlier. This is regarding the concentration that takes realms and grounds as its object. Concentrating on the desire realm objects has all thirty-six. Concentrating on form realm (rūpadhātu) objects has only twenty-four, excluding the six each based on the two sense bases of smell and taste. Concentrating on formless realm objects has only six, namely, three each based on the two 'approaching practices' (nikata-gamana) of dharma. Concentrating on the unconditioned realm (asamskrita-dhatu) also has only these six. According to this principle, the difference in objects for the form and formless realms should be considered accordingly. As the sutra says: 'Relying on the six detachment-based approaching practices of joy (prīti-nikata-gamana), as a support and foundation, one can abandon, discard, and transform the six attachment-based approaching practices of joy, and thus sever them,' and so on, extensively. What is said here, the severing of the eighteen kinds of attachment-based supports, indicates a temporary severance, because joy is the basis. Severing the detachment-based approaching practice of sorrow (dhkha-nikata-gamana) indicates being free from desire-attachment, because equanimity (upekshā) is the basis. Severing the detachment-based approaching practice of joy indicates being free from the defilements of the second dhyāna ground. Severing the equanimity based on 'one nature' (eka-svabhāva) indicates being free from the defilements of the form realm. Severing the equanimity based on 'various natures' (nānā-svabhāva), because it is not of that nature, indicates the ultimate separation from formless realm defilements. As such, in the limb of existence of 'feeling' (vedanā), one should understand the immeasurable differences in meaning. Why are the remaining limbs of existence not discussed? The verse says: The rest has been said, will be said. The treatise says: The remaining limbs of existence have either already been discussed or will be discussed, as has been analyzed previously. If so, why is this verse raised again? It is to prevent doubts about the extensive explanation in the following verses. Because the following verses speak of afflictions (kleshas) and so on, lest there be such doubts: the meaning of the four limbs has already been explained in detail, and next should...
廣釋其餘有支。為顯後文依惑業事。寄喻總顯十二有支。故軌範師。更興此頌。如前已說。十二有支。略攝唯三。謂惑業事。此三用別。其喻云何。頌曰。
此中說煩惱 如種復如龍 如草根樹莖 及如糠裹米 業如有糠米 如草藥如花 諸異熟果事 如成熟飲食
論曰。如何此三種等相似。如從種子芽葉等生。如是從煩惱生煩惱業事。如龍鎮池水恒不竭。如是煩惱得相續鎮生池。令惑業事流注無盡。如草根未拔。苗剪剪還生。如是煩惱根。未以聖道拔。令生苗稼斷斷還起。如從樹莖頻生枝花果。如是從惑數起惑業事。如糠裹米能生芽等。非獨能生煩惱。裹業能感後有。非獨能感。如米有糠能生芽等。業有煩惱。能招異熟如諸草藥果熟為後邊。業果熟已。更不招異熟。如花于果為生近因。業為近因。能生異熟。如熟飲食。但應受用。不可轉產生余飲食。異熟果事。既成熟已。不能更招餘生異熟。若諸異熟。復感餘生。余復感余。應無解脫。
說一切有部順正理論卷第二十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之十
已辯緣起。即於此中。就
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 廣泛地解釋了其餘的有支（bhavaṅga）。爲了顯示後文所說的依惑、業而產生的事，用比喻總括地顯示十二有支。所以軌範師（ācārya，導師）再次興起這個頌。如前已說，十二有支，概括起來只有三類：惑（moha，迷惑）、業（karma，行為）、事（vastu，事物）。這三者的作用各不相同，它們所對應的比喻是什麼呢？頌說： 『此中說煩惱，如種復如龍，如草根樹莖，及如糠裹米；業如有糠米，如草藥如花，諸異熟果事，如成熟飲食。』 論曰：如何這三種等同相似呢？就像從種子生出芽葉等，同樣，從煩惱生出煩惱、業、事。就像龍鎮守池水，池水永遠不會枯竭，同樣，煩惱得到相續，鎮守著生死之池，使惑、業、事流注不盡。就像草根沒有拔除，苗剪了還會再生，同樣，煩惱的根沒有用聖道拔除，就會使生死的苗稼斷了又起。就像從樹莖頻繁地生出枝、花、果，同樣，從迷惑不斷地產生迷惑、業、事。就像糠裹著的米能生出芽等，不僅能生煩惱，裹著的業能感得後有（punarbhava，再生），不僅能感得。就像米有糠能生芽等，業有煩惱，能招感異熟（vipāka，果報），就像各種草藥果實成熟是最後階段，業果成熟后，不再招感異熟。就像花對於果實是產生的近因，業對於異熟是產生的近因。就像成熟的飲食，只能受用，不能轉變成其他的飲食，異熟果事，既然已經成熟，就不能再招感其他的異熟。如果各種異熟，又感得其他的生，其他的生又感得其他的生，那就應該沒有解脫了。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第二十九 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯 辯緣起品第三之十 已經辨析了緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，因緣生法）。就在這其中，就
【English Translation】 English version Extensively explaining the remaining limbs of existence (bhavaṅga). To reveal the matters of karma based on delusion as described later, the twelve limbs of existence are shown comprehensively through metaphors. Therefore, the ācārya (teacher) presents this verse again. As previously stated, the twelve limbs of existence can be summarized into three categories: delusion (moha), karma (action), and matter (vastu). These three have different functions. What are their corresponding metaphors? The verse says: 'Here, afflictions are like seeds and dragons, like grass roots and tree trunks, and like rice wrapped in husks; karma is like rice with husks, like herbs and flowers; the matters of different ripening fruits are like cooked food.' The treatise says: How are these three similar? Just as sprouts and leaves grow from seeds, similarly, afflictions, karma, and matters arise from afflictions. Just as a dragon guarding a pond ensures the water never dries up, similarly, afflictions, when continuous, guard the pond of existence, causing the flow of delusion, karma, and matters to be endless. Just as grass roots, if not uprooted, will regrow even when the shoots are cut, similarly, if the roots of afflictions are not uprooted by the noble path, they will cause the crops of birth and death to arise again and again. Just as branches, flowers, and fruits frequently grow from a tree trunk, similarly, delusion, karma, and matters arise repeatedly from delusion. Just as rice wrapped in husks can produce sprouts, it can not only produce afflictions, but the wrapped karma can also cause future existence (punarbhava). Just as rice with husks can produce sprouts, karma with afflictions can bring about different ripening (vipāka). Just as the ripening of various herbs and fruits is the final stage, once the fruit of karma has ripened, it no longer causes different ripening. Just as a flower is the proximate cause for the production of fruit, karma is the proximate cause for the production of different ripening. Just as cooked food can only be consumed and cannot be transformed into other food, once the matter of different ripening fruit has matured, it can no longer cause other different ripening. If various different ripenings were to cause other births, and those other births were to cause still other births, there should be no liberation. Shun Zheng Li Lun of Sarvāstivāda Volume 29 Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Volume 30 Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian Translated under imperial order by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang Chapter 3.10: Explanation of Dependent Origination Dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) has been explained. Within this context,
位差別。分成四有。中生本死。如前已釋。善等差別。三界有無。今當略辯。頌曰。
於四種有中 生有唯染污 由自地煩惱 餘三無色三
論曰。於四有中。生有唯染。決定非善。無覆無記。由何等惑。一切煩惱。諸煩惱染諸生有耶。不爾云何。但由自地。謂生此地。唯由此地中。一切煩惱。生有成染污。諸煩惱中。無一煩惱于結生位。無潤功能。然諸結生。唯煩惱力。非由纏垢。所以者何。以自力行悔覆纏等。要由思擇。方現起故。然此位中。身心昧劣。要任運惑。方可現行。唯有隨眠。數習力勝。故諸煩惱。能數現行。于結生時。任運現起。諸纏及垢。數習力劣。非不思擇。而得現前。是故結生。非諸纏垢。有餘師說。我慢我愛。諸有情類。數數現行。結生位中。隨一現起行相微細不捨相續。故染生有。唯此二能。此二非無。然非唯此。聖結生有。此不行故。亦有現起。無有愛故。此慢及愛。我見所資。或有希求。我斷滅者。故非此二。皆數現行。由此極成。但由自地諸煩惱力。染污生有。余中有等。一一通三。謂彼皆通善染無記。應知中有。初續剎那。亦必染污。猶如生有。如是四有。何界所繫。欲色具四。無色唯三。非無色業感中有果。辯中有中。已具思擇有情於此。四種有中。由何而住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 位差別。分成四有（四種存在狀態）。中生本死（中陰身產生后最終會死亡）。如前已釋（如前文已經解釋）。善等差別（善等行為的差別）。三界有無（三界是否存在）。今當略辯（現在將簡要辨析）。頌曰：
於四種有中 生有唯染污 由自地煩惱 餘三無色三
論曰（論述）：於四有中（在四種存在狀態中）。生有唯染（生有隻有染污）。決定非善（絕對不是善）。無覆無記（非覆障無記）。由何等惑（由哪些迷惑）。一切煩惱（一切煩惱）。諸煩惱染諸生有耶（各種煩惱染污各種生有嗎）？不爾云何（不是這樣，那又是怎樣）？但由自地（只由自身所處層面的）。謂生此地（即生於此地）。唯由此地中（只有此地中的）。一切煩惱（一切煩惱）。生有成染污（使生有成為染污）。諸煩惱中（在各種煩惱中）。無一煩惱于結生位（沒有一種煩惱在結生時）。無潤功能（沒有滋潤的功能）。然諸結生（然而各種結生）。唯煩惱力（只是煩惱的力量）。非由纏垢（不是由於纏和垢）。所以者何（為什麼這樣說）？以自力行悔覆纏等（因為憑藉自身力量進行的懺悔、覆藏、纏縛等）。要由思擇（需要經過思考）。方現起故（才能顯現）。然此位中（然而在此階段）。身心昧劣（身心昏昧虛弱）。要任運惑（需要任運的迷惑）。方可現行（才能顯現）。唯有隨眠（只有隨眠）。數習力勝（多次串習的力量強大）。故諸煩惱（所以各種煩惱）。能數現行（能夠多次顯現）。于結生時（在結生時）。任運現起（任運顯現）。諸纏及垢（各種纏和垢）。數習力劣（多次串習的力量弱小）。非不思擇（不是不經過思考）。而得現前（就能顯現）。是故結生（所以結生）。非諸纏垢（不是各種纏和垢）。有餘師說（有其他論師說）。我慢我愛（我慢和我愛）。諸有情類（各種有情）。數數現行（多次顯現）。結生位中（在結生時）。隨一現起（隨便哪一個顯現）。行相微細（行為狀態微細）。不捨相續（不捨棄相續）。故染生有（所以染污的生有）。唯此二能（只有這二者能夠）。此二非無（這二者不是沒有）。然非唯此（然而不只是這二者）。聖結生有（聖者的結生）。此不行故（因為這二者不行）。亦有現起（也有顯現）。無有愛故（因為沒有愛）。此慢及愛（此慢和我愛）。我見所資（以我見為資糧）。或有希求（或者有希求）。我斷滅者（我斷滅的人）。故非此二（所以不是這二者）。皆數現行（都多次顯現）。由此極成（由此完全可以證明）。但由自地（只是由自身所處層面的）。諸煩惱力（各種煩惱的力量）。染污生有（染污生有）。余中有等（其餘的中有等）。一一通三（每一個都通於三種）。謂彼皆通善染無記（即它們都通於善、染污、無記）。應知中有（應當知道中有）。初續剎那（最初相續的剎那）。亦必染污（也必定是染污的）。猶如生有（如同生有）。如是四有（如此四種存在狀態）。何界所繫（屬於哪個界）？欲色具四（欲界和色界都具有四種）。無色唯三（無色界只有三種）。非無色業感中有果（不是無色界的業感得中有的果報）。辯中有中（在辨析中有時）。已具思擇有情於此（已經詳細思考過有情在此）。四種有中（四種存在狀態中）。由何而住（由什麼而住）。
【English Translation】 English version Differences in position. Divided into four bhava (four states of existence). The intermediate being is born and then dies. As explained earlier. Differences in good and other qualities. The existence or non-existence of the three realms. Now, let's briefly discuss. A verse says:
Among the four types of existence, birth existence is only defiled. Due to the afflictions of one's own realm, the remaining three are in the three formless realms.
Commentary: Among the four types of existence, birth existence is only defiled. It is definitely not good, nor is it obscured-unspecified. By what kind of delusion? Do all afflictions defile all birth existences? If not, then how? Only by one's own realm. That is, being born in this realm, only by all the afflictions in this realm does birth existence become defiled. Among all afflictions, there is not a single affliction that does not have the function of moistening at the moment of rebirth. However, all rebirths are only due to the power of afflictions, not due to entanglements and impurities. Why is this so? Because actions such as repentance, concealment, and entanglement, which are carried out by one's own power, require deliberation before they can manifest. However, in this state, the body and mind are weak and dull, and only spontaneous delusions can manifest. Only latent tendencies have the power of repeated practice and are superior. Therefore, all afflictions can manifest repeatedly. At the time of rebirth, they arise spontaneously. All entanglements and impurities have weak power of repeated practice and cannot manifest without deliberation. Therefore, rebirth is not due to entanglements and impurities. Some teachers say that conceit and self-love are frequently manifested by sentient beings. In the state of rebirth, any one of them may arise, with subtle characteristics, not abandoning continuity. Therefore, defiled birth existence is only capable of these two. These two are not absent, but not only these two. The rebirth of a sage does not involve these two, because they do not function. There is also manifestation because there is no love. This conceit and love are supported by the view of self, or there are those who seek the annihilation of self. Therefore, not all of these two manifest repeatedly. From this, it is fully established that birth existence is defiled only by the power of afflictions of one's own realm. The remaining intermediate existence, etc., each communicates with the three. That is, they all communicate with good, defiled, and unspecified. It should be known that the initial moment of continuity in the intermediate existence is also necessarily defiled, just like birth existence. Thus, to which realm do these four types of existence belong? The desire and form realms both have all four. The formless realm only has three. It is not that formless karma causes the result of intermediate existence. In the discussion of intermediate existence, it has already been thoroughly considered how sentient beings abide in these four types of existence.
。頌曰。
有情由食住 段欲體唯三 非色不能益 自根解脫故 觸思識三食 有漏通三界 意成及求生 食香中有起 前二益此世 所依及能依 后二于當有 引及起如次
論曰。經說世尊自悟一法。正覺正說。謂諸有情。一切無非由食而住。何等為食。食有四種一段。二觸。三思。四識。段有二種。謂細及粗。細謂中有食。香為食故。及天劫初食。無變穢故。如油沃砂。散入支故。或細污蟲嬰兒等食。說名為細。翻此為粗。如是段食。唯在欲界。離段食貪。生上界故。非上界身。依外緣住。色界雖有能益大種。而非段食。如非妙欲。如色界中。雖有微妙色聲觸境。而不引生增上貪故。不名妙欲。如是雖有最勝微妙能攝益觸。而畢竟無分段吞啖。故非段食。雖非段食攝。而非無食義。如喜雖非四食中攝。而經說為食。以有食義故。如契經言。我食喜食。由喜食久住。如極光凈天。若爾欲界。亦應唯口分段吞啖。方名段食。不爾欲界吞啖為門。余可相從立此名故。非於色界少有吞啖。可令余觸從彼為名。是故二界。無相類失。若人生在北俱盧洲。離段吞啖。壽豈斷壞。雖不斷壞。而所依身。形色瘦損。若為存活。若爾如何彼由食住。香等為食。非要吞啖。彼定常嗅如意妙香。或觸可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
頌曰：
有情由食住，段欲體唯三， 非色不能益，自根解脫故。 觸思識三食，有漏通三界， 意成及求生，食香中有起。 前二益此世，所依及能依， 后二于當有，引及起如次。
論曰：經中說世尊自己領悟了一個道理，正確覺悟后正確宣說，那就是一切有情眾生，沒有不是依靠食物而存活的。什麼是食物呢？食物有四種：一是段食（kabaalaahaara，指可以分段吞食的食物），二是觸食（sparshaahaara，指通過感官接觸獲得的滋養），三是思食（manas-samcetanaahara，指意志和願望帶來的滋養），四是識食（vijnanaahara，指意識帶來的滋養）。段食有兩種，即精細的和粗糙的。精細的段食是指中陰身（antarabhava，指死亡到投胎之間的過渡狀態）所食用的食物，因為中陰身以香氣為食物。還有天界最初的食物，因為沒有變質的污穢。就像油倒入沙中，分散進入各個部分。或者像細小的污蟲、嬰兒等所食用的食物，被稱為精細的段食。與此相反的則為粗糙的段食。這樣的段食，只存在於欲界（kaamadhatu，指有情慾求的界域）。因為離開了對段食的貪戀，才能往生到更高的界域。所以上界的身體，不依靠外在的食物而存活。雖然有能夠滋養四大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風）的物質，但不是段食。就像不是美妙的慾望一樣。就像中，雖然有微妙的色、聲、觸等境界，但不會引起強烈的貪慾，所以不稱為美妙的慾望。同樣，雖然有最殊勝微妙能夠攝取滋養的觸覺，但畢竟沒有分段吞食的行為，所以不是段食。雖然不屬於段食所包含的範圍，但並非沒有食物的意義。就像喜悅雖然不屬於四種食物之中，但經典中說喜悅也是一種食物，因為它具有食物的意義。如契經所說：『我食喜食，由喜食而久住』，就像極光凈天（aabhaasvara，色界天之一）。如果這樣說，那麼欲界也應該只有用口分段吞食的才叫做段食嗎？不是的，欲界以吞食為途徑，其餘的可以依附於此而建立這個名稱。不是在中稍微有一些吞食的行為，就可以讓其他的觸覺依附於它而得名。所以這兩個界域，沒有相似的過失。如果有人出生在北俱盧洲（uttarakuru，四大部洲之一），離開了分段吞食，壽命難道會斷絕嗎？雖然不會斷絕，但所依靠的身體，形體顏色會變得瘦弱。如果爲了存活，那麼他們如何依靠食物而存活呢？香氣等就是他們的食物，不一定要吞食。他們一定會經常嗅聞如意妙香，或者接觸可意的觸覺。
【English Translation】 English version:
Verse:
Sentient beings dwell by food, the realm of desire has only three forms, Without form, there is no benefit, because of liberation from their own roots. Contact, thought, and consciousness are the three foods, with outflows pervading the three realms, Volition and seeking rebirth, the intermediate being arises by eating fragrance. The former two benefit this world, the basis and the dependent, The latter two in the future existence, lead and arise in sequence.
Treatise: The Sutra says that the World Honored One realized one Dharma (truth) by himself, and after correct enlightenment, he correctly proclaimed it, namely, all sentient beings, without exception, dwell by food. What is food? There are four kinds of food: first, kabaalaahaara (段食, coarse food, physical sustenance); second, sparshaahaara (觸食, contact, sensory impression); third, manas-samcetanaahara (思食, thought, volition); fourth, vijnanaahara (識食, consciousness). Kabaalaahaara has two kinds, namely subtle and coarse. Subtle kabaalaahaara refers to the food eaten by the antarabhava (中有, intermediate being), because the intermediate being takes fragrance as food. Also, the food at the beginning of the kalpa (劫初, cosmic cycle) in the heavens, because it has no changing impurities. It is like oil poured into sand, scattered into the branches. Or the food eaten by tiny dirty insects, infants, etc., is called subtle. The opposite of this is coarse. Such kabaalaahaara exists only in the kaamadhatu (欲界, desire realm). Because one leaves behind the craving for kabaalaahaara, one is born in the higher realms. Therefore, the bodies of the higher realms do not dwell relying on external food. Although there are substances that can nourish the four great elements (四大種, earth, water, fire, wind), they are not kabaalaahaara. Just like they are not wonderful desires. Like in , although there are subtle realms of form, sound, and touch, they do not give rise to increased craving, so they are not called wonderful desires. Likewise, although there is the most supreme and subtle contact that can gather and nourish, there is ultimately no segmented swallowing and eating, so it is not kabaalaahaara. Although it is not included in kabaalaahaara, it is not without the meaning of food. Just as joy, although not included in the four foods, is said in the scriptures to be food, because it has the meaning of food. As the Sutra says: 'I eat the food of joy, and by the food of joy, I dwell for a long time,' like the aabhaasvara (極光淨天, Heaven of Radiant Light). If that is the case, then in the desire realm, only that which is swallowed and eaten in segments by the mouth is called kabaalaahaara? No, in the desire realm, swallowing and eating is the means, and the rest can be named accordingly. It is not that there is a slight act of swallowing and eating in , which allows other contacts to be named after it. Therefore, there is no similar fault in these two realms. If a person is born in uttarakuru (北俱盧洲, North Kuru Continent), and leaves behind segmented swallowing and eating, will their lifespan be cut short? Although it will not be cut short, the body they rely on will become thin and emaciated in shape and color. If it is for survival, then how do they dwell by food? Fragrance and the like are their food, it is not necessary to swallow and eat. They will certainly often smell the wonderful fragrance of wish-fulfilling objects, or come into contact with pleasing sensations.
愛風等妙觸。又彼身中。有能益暖。或非欲界皆資段食。亦非段食。定唯欲界從多就勝。故作是言。下有上無。不應為難。然段食體。事別十三。以處總收。唯有三種。謂唯欲界香味觸三。一切皆為段食自體。可成段別而吞啖故。謂以口鼻分分受之。以少從多。故作是說。雖非吞啖。但能益身。令得久住。亦細食攝。猶如影光炎涼涂洗。又劫初位。地味等食。亦名段食。分段受故。又諸飲等。亦名段食。皆可段別而受用故。有餘師說。一切食中。此最為勝。以于攝益根大種中。強而速故。豈不求食為除飢渴。如何飢渴亦名為食。由此二種。亦于根大能增益故。如按摩等。又于飲食。無希欲心。身便瘦損。故二名食。又有飢渴。方名無病。故為食事。此二勝餘色處。應言是段食。不應言是段段別啖故。若爾何故言三處為體。以約食說故。但言三色處何緣不名為食。是不至取根所行故。以契經說。段食非在手中器中。可成食事。要入鼻口。牙齒咀嚼。津液浸潤。進度喉嚨。墮生藏中。漸漸消化。味勢熟德。流諸脈中。攝益諸蟲乃名為食。爾時方得成食事故。若在手器以當爲名。如天授名那落迦等。雖彼分段總得食名。而成食時。唯香味觸。爾時唯此為根境故。若總分段。皆名食者。聲不相應。亦應是食。非聲等物在彼段中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 愛風等微妙的觸覺。而且在他們的身體中，有能夠增加溫暖的因素。或者說，並非只有欲界才需要依靠段食（kabaalaahaara，粗糙的食物），也有可能不是段食。通常來說，只有欲界才依賴段食，這裡是從多數情況來說，所以這樣說。『下有上無』的說法不應該成為疑問。然而，段食的本體，實際上有十三種不同的情況，但如果從處（aayatana，感覺的來源）的角度來總括，就只有三種，也就是隻有欲界的香味觸三種。一切香味觸都是段食的自體，因為它們可以被分成段落來吞嚥和咀嚼。也就是說，通過口鼻一點一點地攝取。因為是從少數情況來說多數情況，所以這樣說。即使不是吞嚥咀嚼，但只要能夠增益身體，使身體能夠長久存在，也屬於細食（sukkhumaahaara，精細的食物）的範疇，就像影子、光線、炎熱、涼爽、塗抹和洗滌一樣。此外，在劫初的時候，地味等食物，也叫做段食，因為它們是被分段攝取的。還有各種飲料等，也叫做段食，因為它們都可以被分成段落來享用。有些論師認為，在一切食物中，段食是最殊勝的，因為它在攝取和增益根（indriya，感官）和大種（mahaabhuuta，四大元素）方面，作用強烈而迅速。難道不是爲了消除飢渴才去尋找食物的嗎？為什麼飢渴也被稱為食物呢？因為這兩種情況也能增益根和大種，就像**一樣。而且，如果對飲食沒有希求之心，身體就會變得瘦弱衰損，所以飢渴也被稱為食物。還有，只有在感到飢渴的時候，才算是沒有疾病，所以飢渴也是一種食物。這兩種情況比其餘的色處（ruupaayatana，視覺對像）更勝一籌，應該說它們是段食，而不應該說它們是段段別啖（分段吞食）。如果這樣說，那麼為什麼說只有三種處是段食的本體呢？因為這是從食物的角度來說的，所以只說了三種色處。為什麼不把它們稱為食物呢？因為它們不是根所能直接獲取的。因為契經（sutra，佛經）中說，段食不是在手中或器皿中就能成為食物的，必須要進入鼻口，經過牙齒的咀嚼，津液的浸潤，進入喉嚨，落入生藏之中，漸漸消化，味道和力量成熟，流入各個脈絡之中，攝益各種蟲類，才能被稱為食物。只有在那個時候，才能成為食物。如果在手中或器皿中，只是以將來的狀態來命名，就像給天授（Devadatta）命名為那落迦（Naraka，地獄）一樣。雖然它們被分成了段落，總的來說可以被稱為食物，但真正成為食物的時候，只有香味觸。因為在那個時候，只有這些才是根的境界。如果所有的分段都可以被稱為食物，那麼聲音（shabda，聽覺對像）不相應，也應該是食物。因為聲音等事物也在那些段落之中。
【English Translation】 English version The subtle sensations of touch, such as the sensation of wind. Moreover, within their bodies, there are elements that can increase warmth. Or, it's not only the desire realm that relies on kabaalaahaara (coarse food), it's also possible that it's not kabaalaahaara. Generally speaking, only the desire realm relies on kabaalaahaara, and this is said from the perspective of the majority. The statement 'present in the lower realms but not in the higher realms' should not be a point of contention. However, the essence of kabaalaahaara actually has thirteen different aspects, but if summarized from the perspective of aayatana (source of sensation), there are only three, which are the sensations of taste, smell, and touch in the desire realm. All sensations of taste, smell, and touch are the essence of kabaalaahaara, because they can be divided into segments for swallowing and chewing. That is, they are taken in bit by bit through the mouth and nose. Because it is said from the perspective of the majority, even if it is not swallowing and chewing, as long as it can benefit the body and allow the body to exist for a long time, it also belongs to the category of sukkhumaahaara (subtle food), just like shadows, light, heat, coolness, smearing, and washing. Furthermore, in the initial stages of the kalpa (aeon), foods such as earth essence are also called kabaalaahaara, because they are taken in segments. Also, various drinks, etc., are also called kabaalaahaara, because they can all be divided into segments for enjoyment. Some teachers say that among all foods, kabaalaahaara is the most excellent, because it is strong and rapid in absorbing and benefiting the indriya (sense organs) and mahaabhuuta (the four great elements). Isn't it the case that one seeks food in order to eliminate hunger and thirst? Why are hunger and thirst also called food? Because these two conditions can also benefit the indriya and mahaabhuuta, just like **. Moreover, if there is no desire for food and drink, the body will become thin and weak, so hunger and thirst are also called food. Also, only when one feels hunger and thirst is one considered to be without illness, so hunger and thirst are also a kind of food. These two conditions are superior to the remaining ruupaayatana (visual objects), and it should be said that they are kabaalaahaara, and should not be said that they are divided and swallowed. If this is the case, then why is it said that only three aayatana are the essence of kabaalaahaara? Because this is said from the perspective of food, so only three ruupaayatana are mentioned. Why are they not called food? Because they are not directly accessible to the sense organs. Because the sutra (Buddhist scripture) says that kabaalaahaara cannot become food just by being in the hand or in a vessel, it must enter the nose and mouth, be chewed by the teeth, be moistened by saliva, enter the throat, fall into the stomach, gradually digest, the taste and power mature, flow into the various channels, and benefit the various worms, only then can it be called food. Only at that time can it become food. If it is in the hand or in a vessel, it is only named in terms of its future state, just like naming Devadatta as Naraka (hell). Although they are divided into segments, they can generally be called food, but when they truly become food, there are only the sensations of taste, smell, and touch. Because at that time, only these are the objects of the sense organs. If all segments can be called food, then shabda (sound) is not corresponding, and it should also be food. Because sound and other things are also in those segments.
。可如香等亦名為食。以不相續。無形段故。非無形段。不相續物。能住持身。可成食事。又如何知色處非食。身內攝益根大功能。如香味觸。不別見故。爾時不生彼境識故。且香與味。為食極成。不待成立。見涂洗等。于身攝益。觸有功能。夫食必依味勢熟德。于身損益。思擇是非。形顯俱非味勢熟德。于身損益。無有功能。生自識時。尚不損益自根大種。況入身已。不生自識。能為食事。見日月輪等。能損益眼根。是觸功能。非形顯力。豈不苦樂與識俱生。此二能為損益事故。色處於眼亦為損益。理不應然。眼與明等。應成食故。然彼為境。順苦樂觸。能為食事。色處不然。見安繕那籌等諸色。眼不增損。要至眼中。眼方增損。是故段食定非色處。又與極成香等段食。有共不共差別相故。又諸段食。要進口中。咀嚼令碎。壞其形顯。香味觸增。方成食事。非未咀嚼香味觸增。分明可了。如已咀嚼。故唯香味觸。是真實食體。唯為此三設功勞故。若爾何故。于契經中。稱讚段食。具色香味。為令欣樂。兼贊助緣。如亦贊言。恭敬施與。豈即恭敬。亦名段食。然成段食。具正助緣。如有贊華林具華果影水。豈影與水亦即是林。或此經中。贊所舍受。不言食體。是色香味。又先已說。先說者何。謂以當爲名。爾時實非食
。贊假名食具色香味。非辯真食。有何相違。又嘆食德。非辯食體醫論所言。有可愛飲食。具色香味觸。亦得非體。又舉色相。表香味觸。亦妙可欣。故作是說。經何不讚食具觸邪。贊具色等已說觸故。非有惡觸具妙色等。故有妙觸。不說自成。又唯觸處。是真食體。贊此食體有色香味。故經說食體無缺減。然上座言。所飲啖聚。皆是食體。無別說故諸所飲啖。聚消變時。一切皆能增血肉等。任持相續。令不斷壞。是故一切。皆名為食。彼言非理。所以者何。雖無別說。應別取故。如契經說。業為生因豈此生因。通無漏業。豈余非業。並非生因。又如經言。非黑非白。無異熟業。能盡諸業。豈如是相業。皆能盡諸業。豈一切業皆是所盡。又如經言。識生住起。應知即是苦生病住老死起義。非無漏識可說此言。如是等經。其例非一。雖無別說。而應別取聚中。若有食相食用。唯應取彼為食非余故。此因不能證色亦是食。又彼所說。諸所飲啖聚消變時。一切皆能增血肉等。任持相續。令不斷壞。定知如是。應設誠言。既不說因。寧知形顯。于消變位。如香味觸。增血肉等。能任持身。是故食體。唯香味觸。非色不能益自根解脫故。夫名食者。必先資益自根大種。后乃及余。飲啖色時。于自根大。尚不為益。況能及余。由彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：讚美假名（虛假名稱）的食物器具的色香味，與辨別真實的食物，有什麼相違背呢？又讚歎食物的功德，並非辨別食物的本體，如同醫論所說，有可愛的飲食，具備色香味觸，也可能並非食物的本體。又舉例說，食物的顏色外相，代表了香味觸，也是美妙可喜的，所以才這樣說。經典為什麼不讚美食物器具的觸感呢？讚美器具的顏色等，已經包含了觸感。沒有醜惡的器具具備美好的顏色等，所以有了美好的觸感，不說自明。而且只有觸覺之處，才是真正的食物本體。讚美這個食物本體具備色香味，所以經典說食物本體沒有缺失減少。然而上座部的人說，所有飲用啖食的聚集，都是食物本體，因為沒有分別說明。所有飲用啖食的聚集，在消化變化時，一切都能增長血肉等，保持相續，使之不斷壞。所以一切都稱為食物。他們的說法沒有道理。為什麼呢？雖然沒有分別說明，也應該分別選取。如同契經所說，業是產生的原因，難道這個產生的原因，包括無漏業嗎？難道其餘不是業的，就不是產生的原因嗎？又如經所說，非黑非白的，沒有異熟果報的業，能夠斷盡所有業。難道像這樣相的業，都能斷盡所有業嗎？難道一切業都是所斷盡的嗎？又如經所說，識的生、住、起，應該知道就是苦的生、病住、老死起的意義。難道無漏識可以說這些話嗎？像這樣的經典，例子不止一個。雖然沒有分別說明，而應該分別選取。在聚集之中，如果有食物的相狀和食用價值，才應該選取它作為食物，而不是其餘的。所以這個原因不能證明顏色也是食物。而且他們所說，所有飲用啖食的聚集，在消化變化時，一切都能增長血肉等，保持相續，使之不斷壞，一定要知道是這樣的。應該設立誠實的言論。既然不說原因，怎麼知道形狀顯現，在消化變化的位置，像香味觸一樣，增長血肉等，能夠保持身體呢？所以食物的本體，只有香味觸，不是顏色，因為顏色不能利益自身的根，不能解脫。所謂食物，必定先資助利益自身的根和大種，然後才及於其餘。飲用啖食顏色時，對於自身的根和大種，尚且沒有利益，何況能夠及於其餘呢？由於那個顏色
【English Translation】 English version: Praising the color, aroma, and flavor of nominally designated (false name) food utensils, how does it contradict distinguishing true food? Furthermore, praising the virtues of food is not distinguishing the substance of food, as medical treatises say. There may be delightful food with color, aroma, flavor, and texture, which may not be the substance of food. Moreover, citing the appearance of color represents aroma, flavor, and texture, which are also wonderfully pleasing. Therefore, it is said in this way. Why doesn't the sutra praise the texture of food utensils? Praising the color, etc., of the utensils already includes texture. There are no unpleasant utensils with wonderful colors, etc., so having wonderful texture goes without saying. Moreover, only the place of texture is the true substance of food. Praising this substance of food as having color, aroma, and flavor, therefore the sutra says the substance of food is without deficiency or reduction. However, the elders say that all gatherings of what is drunk and eaten are the substance of food, because there is no separate explanation. All gatherings of what is drunk and eaten, when digested and transformed, can all increase blood, flesh, etc., maintaining continuity, preventing it from breaking down. Therefore, everything is called food. Their statement is unreasonable. Why? Although there is no separate explanation, it should be separately selected. As the sutra says, karma is the cause of birth. Does this cause of birth include non-outflow karma? Are the remaining non-karma not causes of birth? Also, as the sutra says, non-black, non-white karma without different ripening can exhaust all karmas. Can karma with such characteristics exhaust all karmas? Are all karmas to be exhausted? Also, as the sutra says, the arising, abiding, and originating of consciousness should be known as the meaning of the arising of suffering, the abiding of disease, and the originating of old age and death. Can these words be said of non-outflow consciousness? Sutras like these have many examples. Although there is no separate explanation, one should separately select. Among the gatherings, if there is the appearance and edible value of food, only that should be selected as food, not the rest. Therefore, this reason cannot prove that color is also food. Moreover, what they say, that all gatherings of what is drunk and eaten, when digested and transformed, can all increase blood, flesh, etc., maintaining continuity, preventing it from breaking down, one must know is so. One should establish honest speech. Since the cause is not stated, how is it known that the shape appears, in the position of digestion and transformation, like aroma, flavor, and texture, increasing blood, flesh, etc., able to maintain the body? Therefore, the substance of food is only aroma, flavor, and texture, not color, because color cannot benefit its own roots, cannot liberate. What is called food must first assist and benefit its own roots and great elements, and then extend to the rest. When drinking and eating color, it does not benefit its own roots and great elements, let alone extend to the rest. Because that color
諸根境各別故。有時見色。生喜樂者。緣色觸生。是食非色。如斯理趣。前已具辯。又不還者。及阿羅漢。解脫食貪。雖見妙食。而不生喜。無所益故。已說段食界系及體。觸思識三。次當顯示。觸謂根境識三和所生心所。緣起中。已廣思擇。思謂意業。識謂了境。此三唯有漏。通三界皆有。如是四食。體總有十六事。唯后三食。說有漏言。顯香等三。不濫無漏。何緣無漏觸等非食。食謂能牽能資諸有。可厭可斷。愛生長處。無漏雖資他所牽有。而自無有牽有功能。非可厭斷愛生長處。故不建立。在四食中。即由此因。望他界地。雖有漏法。亦非食體。他界地法。雖亦為因。能資現有。而不能作牽後有因。故不名食。諸無漏法。現在前時。雖能為因。資根大種。而不能作牽後有因。雖暫為因資根大種。而但為欲成已勝依。速趣涅槃。永滅諸有。自地有漏。現在前時。資現令增能招後有。由此已釋。段食為因。招後有義。謂觸等食。牽後有時。亦牽當來。內法香等。現內香等。資觸等因。令牽當有。亦能自取當來香等。為等流果。是故段食。與後有因。同一果故。亦能牽有。故名為食。然香味觸。體類有三。謂異熟生。等流長養。由外香等。覺發身中內香味觸。令成食事。故所說食。其理定成。云何應知。觸思識食。俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸根和境界各有差別，所以有時見到美好的顏色，產生喜悅快樂，這是因為緣於色觸而生，是觸食而不是色。這樣的道理，前面已經詳細辨析過了。另外，不還果（Anagamin，不再返回欲界受生者）和阿羅漢（Arhat，已斷盡煩惱者），已經解脫了對食物的貪愛，即使見到美味的食物，也不會產生喜悅，因為對他們沒有益處。前面已經說了段食的界系和本體，接下來應當顯示觸食、思食和識食。 觸食是指根、境、識三者和合所產生的心所。在緣起法中，已經廣泛地思考過這個問題。思食是指意業。識食是指了別境界。這三種食只有有漏法，並且在三界中都存在。像這樣，四種食的本體總共有十六種事物。只有后三種食，才說是有漏法，這是爲了顯示香等三種食不包括無漏法。 為什麼無漏的觸等不是食呢？食是指能夠牽引和資助諸有的，是令人厭惡和可以斷除的，是愛生長的處所。無漏法雖然資助其他所牽引的有，但自身沒有牽引有的功能，不是令人厭惡、可以斷除、愛生長的處所，所以不建立為食。正因為這個原因，相對於其他界地來說，即使是有漏法，也不是食的本體。其他界地的法，雖然也作為因，能夠資助現有的，但不能作為牽引後有的因，所以不稱為食。諸無漏法，在現在前的時候，雖然能夠作為因，資助根和大種，但不能作為牽引後有的因。雖然暫時作為因資助根和大種，但只是爲了成就已經殊勝的所依，迅速趨向涅槃，永遠滅除諸有。自地的有漏法，在現在前的時候，資助現有的，使之增長，能夠招感後有。由此已經解釋了，段食作為因，招感後有的意義。觸等食，在牽引後有的時候，也牽引當來的內法香等。現在的內香等，資助觸等因，使之牽引當有的，也能自己取得當來的香等，作為等流果。所以段食，與後有的因，是同一果，也能牽引有，所以稱為食。然而香味觸，本體類別有三種，即異熟生、等流長養。由於外香等，覺發身體中的內香味觸，使之成為食事，所以所說的食，其道理一定成立。應當如何知道，觸食、思食、識食，都是...
【English Translation】 English version Because the roots and objects are distinct, sometimes seeing a beautiful color produces joy and pleasure, which arises from the contact with color and is contact-food (sparśa-āhāra) rather than color itself. This principle has been thoroughly discussed earlier. Furthermore, Anagamins (those who do not return to the desire realm) and Arhats (those who have extinguished all defilements) have liberated themselves from the craving for food. Even if they see delicious food, they do not experience joy because it is of no benefit to them. The realm and nature of coarse food (kabaḍīkāra-āhāra) have been explained earlier. Next, contact-food, volition-food (manaḥsañcetanā-āhāra), and consciousness-food (vijñāna-āhāra) will be discussed. Contact-food refers to the mental factors (cetasikas) that arise from the combination of the root, object, and consciousness. This has been extensively considered in the context of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Volition-food refers to mental activity (karma). Consciousness-food refers to the discernment of objects. These three foods are only associated with defiled (āsrava) states and exist in all three realms (tridhātu). Thus, the nature of the four foods consists of sixteen aspects in total. Only the latter three foods are described as defiled, indicating that the three, such as smell, do not include undefiled states. Why are undefiled contact, etc., not considered food? Food refers to that which can attract and nourish existence (bhava), is repulsive and can be abandoned, and is the place where craving grows. Although undefiled states nourish other attracted existences, they themselves do not have the function of attracting existence. They are not repulsive, cannot be abandoned, and are not the place where craving grows. Therefore, they are not established as food. For this reason, even defiled states in other realms are not considered the nature of food. Although the dharmas of other realms can also serve as a cause to nourish existing states, they cannot act as a cause to attract future existence. Therefore, they are not called food. When undefiled dharmas are present, although they can serve as a cause to nourish the roots and great elements (mahābhūta), they cannot act as a cause to attract future existence. Although they temporarily serve as a cause to nourish the roots and great elements, they only aim to perfect the already superior basis, quickly approach Nirvana, and permanently extinguish all existences. When defiled states of one's own realm are present, they nourish existing states, causing them to increase and capable of attracting future existence. This explains the meaning of coarse food as a cause for attracting future existence. Contact-food, etc., when attracting future existence, also attract future internal dharmas such as smell. Present internal smells, etc., nourish the causes of contact, etc., causing them to attract future existence, and can also acquire future smells, etc., as the result of outflow (nisyanda-phala). Therefore, coarse food, being the same result as the cause of future existence, can also attract existence and is called food. However, taste, smell, and touch have three categories: resultant (vipāka-ja), outflowing (nisyanda), and nourishing (āhāra-posaka). Because external smells, etc., awaken the internal taste, smell, and touch in the body, causing them to become food, the food that is spoken of is certainly established in principle. How should one know that contact-food, volition-food, and consciousness-food are all...
時而起。事用有殊。若謂此三事用無別。三食差別應不得成。如一摶中具香味觸。用別難知。故立一段食名。觸等用別。不應同彼。共不共知。有差別故。如香味觸。世共同知。是一食性。觸等不爾。又觸思識。體用微細。故別分三。香等不爾。又雖俱起。隨一增故。果現行時。非無差別。是故三體差別極成。如契經說。食有四種。能令部多有情安住。及能資益諸求生者。言部多者。顯已生義。諸趣生已。皆謂已生。復說求生。為何所目。此目中有。由佛世尊以五種名說中有故。何等為五。一者意成。從意生故。是牽引業。所引果義。若爾此應有太過失。不爾。中有不攬外緣精血等物以成身故。二者求生。多喜尋察當生處故。生謂生有。中有多求趣生有處。三者食香身資香食。往生處故。四者中有。死生二有中間有故。五者名起。死有無間。支體無缺。身頓起故。或復對向當生決定。暫時起故。如契經說。有壞自體。起有壞世間生起謂中有。又經說有補特伽羅。已斷起結。未斷生結。何緣說食唯有四種。一切有為。皆有食用。經說涅槃。亦有食故。如契經說。涅槃有食。所謂覺支。雖諸有為。皆有食用。而就勝說。謂大仙尊。為所化者。就資有勝。唯說四食。如契經說。二因二緣。能生正見。非凈戒等。于正見生。無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 時而生起。事物的作用各有不同。如果說這三種事物的作用沒有差別，那麼三種食物的差別就不能成立。就像一個飯糰中具有香味和觸感，作用上的差別難以分辨，所以設立一個『段食』的名稱。觸等的作用有差別，不應該與飯糰相同，因為共同認知和不共同認知是有差別的。就像香味和觸感，世人共同認知，是一種食物的性質。觸等不是這樣。而且觸、思、識，本體和作用都非常細微，所以分別分為三種。香等不是這樣。而且，雖然同時生起，但隨著其中一種的增強，果報顯現時，並非沒有差別。因此，這三種本體的差別非常明顯。如契經所說，食物有四種，能夠使已存在的有情安住，以及能夠資助那些尋求出生的有情。所說的『部多』（bhuta），是顯示已經出生的意思。各趣的有情出生后，都可稱為已出生。又說『求生』，是指什麼呢？這是指『中有』（antarabhava）。因為佛世尊用五種名稱來說明中有。哪五種呢？一是『意成』（manomaya），從意念產生。是牽引業所引導的果報。如果這樣，這應該有太過失（過分推論的錯誤）。不是的。因為中有不攝取外緣的精血等物質來形成身體。二是『求生』（sambhavesin），多喜歡尋察將要出生的處所。『生』是指生有（bhava）。中有多數在尋求趣向生有的處所。三是『食香身』（gandharva），依靠香氣作為食物，前往出生的處所。四是『中有』（antarabhava），因為在死有（cyuti-bhava）和生有（upapatti-bhava）的中間存在。五是『名起』（namarupa），死有之後，支體沒有殘缺，身體立刻生起。或者面對將要出生的處所，暫時生起。如契經所說，有壞自體，生起有壞世間，生起是指中有。又有經說，有補特伽羅（pudgala，人），已經斷了起結（再生之因），但未斷生結（生存之因）。為什麼說食物只有四種呢？一切有為法（samskrta-dharma）都有食用。經中說涅槃（nirvana）也有食用。如契經所說，涅槃有食物，就是覺支（bodhyanga）。雖然各種有為法都有食用，但就殊勝而言，大仙尊（佛）爲了所教化的人，就資助生存而言，只說了四種食物。如契經所說，二因二緣，能夠產生正見（samyag-drsti），而不是清凈的戒律等，對於正見的產生，沒有...
【English Translation】 English version They arise from time to time. The functions of things are different. If it is said that these three functions are not different, then the difference of the three foods should not be established. Just as a lump of food contains flavor, smell, and touch, the difference in function is difficult to discern, so a name of 'section food' (段食, dan-shí) is established. The functions of touch, etc., are different and should not be the same as that of the lump of food, because common knowledge and uncommon knowledge are different. Just like flavor, smell, and touch, which are commonly known in the world, are the nature of one food. Touch, etc., are not like this. Moreover, touch, thought (思, sī), and consciousness (識, shí) are subtle in body and function, so they are divided into three separately. Smell, etc., are not like this. Moreover, although they arise simultaneously, as one increases, when the result appears, it is not without difference. Therefore, the difference of these three entities is extremely established. As the sutra says, there are four kinds of food that can enable existing sentient beings to abide and nourish those who seek birth. The term 'bhuta' (部多, bù duō) indicates the meaning of already born. After sentient beings are born in various realms, they are all called already born. It is also said 'seeking birth', what does this refer to? This refers to the 'intermediate existence' (中有, zhōng yǒu, antarabhava). Because the Buddha, the World Honored One, uses five names to describe the intermediate existence. What are the five? First, 'mind-made' (意成, yì chéng, manomaya), arising from the mind. It is the fruit of the karma that attracts. If so, there should be an excessive fault (over-extending the logic). No, because the intermediate existence does not take external essences such as sperm and blood to form a body. Second, 'seeking birth' (求生, qiú shēng, sambhavesin), often likes to seek out the place where it will be born. 'Birth' refers to the existence of birth (生有, shēng yǒu, bhava). The intermediate existence mostly seeks the place to go to the existence of birth. Third, 'fragrance-eating body' (食香身, shí xiāng shēn, gandharva), relies on fragrance as food to go to the place of birth. Fourth, 'intermediate existence' (中有, zhōng yǒu, antarabhava), because it exists between the existence of death (死有, sǐ yǒu, cyuti-bhava) and the existence of birth (生有, shēng yǒu, upapatti-bhava). Fifth, 'name and form arising' (名起, míng qǐ, namarupa), after the existence of death, the limbs are not lacking, and the body arises immediately. Or facing the place where it will be born, it arises temporarily. As the sutra says, there is the destruction of one's own body, the arising of the world of destruction, and the arising refers to the intermediate existence. Also, the sutra says that there is a person (補特伽羅, bǔ tè qié luó, pudgala) who has broken the knot of arising (起結, qǐ jié, the cause of rebirth) but has not broken the knot of existence (生結, shēng jié, the cause of existence). Why is it said that there are only four kinds of food? All conditioned dharmas (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ, samskrta-dharma) have food. The sutra says that nirvana (涅槃, niè pán) also has food. As the sutra says, nirvana has food, which is the limbs of enlightenment (覺支, jué zhī, bodhyanga). Although all conditioned dharmas have food, in terms of superiority, the Great Sage (大仙尊, dà xiān zūn, the Buddha), for those who are to be taught, only speaks of four kinds of food in terms of supporting existence. As the sutra says, two causes and two conditions can produce right view (正見, zhèng jiàn, samyag-drsti), but not pure precepts, etc., have no effect on the arising of right view...
因緣用。四食勝用。其相云何。謂初二食。能益此身。所依能依。后之二食。能引當有。能起當有。如次資益引起色名二種有身。故立四食所依。謂色即有根身。能依謂名。即心心所。此中段食。資益所依。以有根身由此住故。此中觸食資益能依。以心心所由此活故。如是二食。于已生有。資益功能。最為殊勝。思為引業。識為種子。引起當有。謂由業故。能引當來。名色二有。業既引已。愛潤識種。能令當有名色身起。故契經說。業為生因。愛為起因。如是二食。于未生有。引起功能。最為殊勝。故唯說此四種為食。此四食中。后二如生母。生未生故。前二如養母。養已生故。次第異者。舉現見生因果差別。為顯名色二有無始。故說前際不可了知。謂如此生已起名色。為依引起。感餘生業。愛所潤識。能為種故。令當來世名色果起。如是此生所有名色。以次前世名色為依。所引諸業。愛潤識種。為因故起。即彼前生所依名色。復以前世名色為依。所引諸業。愛潤識種。為因故起。如是展轉。前前為依。是故名色二有無始。或諸眾生。有三種別。一偏愛樂。現可愛境。二多希求。當可愛境。三于諸境。起處中舍。段食總益此三眾生。觸食別益愛現境者。思食別益希當境者。識食別益處中舍者。故唯說此四種為食。有說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『因緣用』（hetupratyaya，原因和條件的作用），『四食勝用』（catvāro āhārāḥ，四種食物的主要作用），它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？ 所謂前兩種食物，能夠滋養這個身體，『所依』（āśraya，所依賴者）和『能依』（niśraya，能依賴者）。后兩種食物，能夠引發未來的存在，能夠生起未來的存在。依次滋養和引起色（rūpa，物質）和名（nāma，精神）兩種有身（bhava-kāya，存在之身），所以建立四食所依。 所謂色，就是有根身（indriya-kāya，具有感覺器官的身體）；能依，就是名，即心（citta，意識）和心所（caitta，心理活動）。這其中，段食（kabaḍīkāra-āhāra，粗細食物）滋養所依，因為有根身由此而住。觸食（sparśa-āhāra，感覺印象）滋養能依，因為心和心所由此而活。像這樣，這兩種食物，對於已經產生的存在，滋養的功能最為殊勝。 思食（manasañcetanā-āhāra，意志）作為引發業（karma，行為）的力量，識食（vijñāna-āhāra，意識）作為種子，引起未來的存在。因為由於業的緣故，能夠引發當來的名色二有。業已經引發之後，愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）滋潤識的種子，能夠令當來的名色身生起。所以契經（sūtra，佛經）說，業是生因，愛是起因。像這樣，這兩種食物，對於未產生的存在，引起的功能最為殊勝。所以只說這四種為食。 這四食中，后兩種如同生母，因為生未生故；前兩種如同養母，因為養已生故。次第不同，是爲了揭示現見生因果的差別，爲了顯示名色二有是無始的。所以說前際（pūrvānta，過去）不可了知。所謂如此生已經生起的名色，作為所依和引起，感得其餘生的業，愛所滋潤的識，能夠作為種子，令當來世的名色果生起。 像這樣，此生所有的名色，依次以前世的名色為所依，所引發的諸業，愛滋潤的識種，作為原因而生起。即彼前生所依的名色，又以前世的名色為所依，所引發的諸業，愛滋潤的識種，作為原因而生起。像這樣輾轉，前前為所依，所以名色二有是無始的。 或者諸眾生，有三種差別：一是偏愛樂現前可愛的境界；二是多希求當來可愛的境界；三是對於諸境界，生起處中舍（upekṣā，捨棄）的心態。段食總的利益這三種眾生，觸食特別利益愛現境者，思食特別利益希當境者，識食特別利益處中舍者。所以只說這四種為食。 有人說
【English Translation】 English version What is the 'hetupratyaya' (causal condition, the function of causes and conditions) and the 'catvāro āhārāḥ' (four kinds of food, the superior function of the four foods)? What are their characteristics? The first two foods can nourish this body, the 'āśraya' (support, that which is relied upon) and the 'niśraya' (basis, that which relies). The latter two foods can bring about future existence and cause future existence to arise. They nourish and cause the arising of the two kinds of existence-bodies, rūpa (matter) and nāma (mind), respectively. Therefore, the four foods are established as supports. Rūpa (matter) refers to the body with sense organs (indriya-kāya); nāma (mind) refers to the mind (citta) and mental activities (caitta). Among these, kabaḍīkāra-āhāra (coarse food) nourishes the support, because the body with sense organs abides by it. Sparśa-āhāra (sense impression) nourishes the basis, because the mind and mental activities live by it. Thus, these two foods have the most superior function of nourishing already existing existences. Manasañcetanā-āhāra (volition) acts as the force that brings about karma (action), and vijñāna-āhāra (consciousness) acts as the seed, causing future existence to arise. Because of karma, it can bring about the future two existences of nāma and rūpa. Once karma has brought them about, tṛṣṇā (craving) moistens the seed of consciousness, enabling the future nāma-rūpa body to arise. Therefore, the sūtra (scripture) says that karma is the cause of birth, and craving is the cause of arising. Thus, these two foods have the most superior function of causing unarisen existences to arise. Therefore, only these four are called food. Among these four foods, the latter two are like a birth mother, because they give birth to the unarisen; the former two are like a nurturing mother, because they nourish the already arisen. The difference in order is to reveal the difference between the cause and effect of visible birth, and to show that the two existences of nāma and rūpa are without beginning. Therefore, it is said that the pūrvānta (past) cannot be known. The nāma and rūpa that have already arisen in this life act as support and cause, resulting in the karma of other lives. The consciousness moistened by craving can act as a seed, causing the nāma-rūpa fruit of the future life to arise. Thus, all the nāma and rūpa of this life rely on the nāma and rūpa of the previous life, and the karma brought about and the seed of consciousness moistened by craving arise as the cause. That is, the nāma and rūpa relied upon in the previous life also rely on the nāma and rūpa of the life before that, and the karma brought about and the seed of consciousness moistened by craving arise as the cause. In this way, each preceding one is the support, so the two existences of nāma and rūpa are without beginning. Or, beings have three kinds of differences: first, they particularly love present, lovable objects; second, they mostly seek future, lovable objects; third, they give rise to a state of upekṣā (equanimity, abandonment) towards all objects. Coarse food generally benefits these three kinds of beings, sense impression particularly benefits those who love present objects, volition particularly benefits those who seek future objects, and consciousness particularly benefits those who are in a state of equanimity. Therefore, only these four are called food. Some say
。受為生死根本。段食是受所受境界。觸食是受所領近因。思是遠因。識是所依。故唯說此四種為食。或復段食。能長境貪。長養諸根及大種故。如是境貪。能廣于觸和合三事。令生觸故。觸能引受。是所領故。受復能作希望思因。為受希望境及生故。希望思力。令愛增廣。由思欣樂虛妄樂故。愛能潤識。令續生有。要染污心。能結生故。識能生起名色有芽。名色由識而生長故。由斯故說。若於段食。斷遍知時。亦斷遍知五妙欲染。若於觸食斷遍知時。亦斷遍知樂等三受。若於思食斷遍知時。亦斷遍知欲等三愛。若於識食斷遍知時。亦斷遍知名色二有。有說。觀此能治四倒。故說四食。由不觀察段等四種。如次能起凈樂常我四種顛倒。經說四食。能令部多有情安住及能資益。諸求生者。此示四食能資居止三有眾生。謂居生有本有中有。如其次第。除居死有。居死有中。食無能故。言部多者。謂居生有。食持生有。故說令安。意顯生有。唯一念故。要由食持。方能牽后。言有情者。謂居本有。居本有中。可共言說。異非情故。名為有情。食持本有故說令住。住謂當位相續不斷。言求生者。謂居中有。居中有中。求生有故。食持中有。令趣當生。不可迴轉。故名資益。或復眾生略有三種。一具煩惱。二離煩惱。三餘煩惱。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：受是生死的根本。段食（食物）是受所感受的境界。觸食（感官印象）是受所領納的近因。思（意志）是遠因。識（意識）是所依賴的基礎。因此只說這四種是食。或者說，段食能增長對境界的貪戀，長養諸根和大種（四大元素），因此，對境界的貪戀能擴充套件到觸，使三事和合而生觸。觸能引導感受，是所領納的。感受又能作為希望和思的因，因為感受希望境界和產生。希望和思的力量，使愛增長擴大，因為思欣樂虛妄的快樂。愛能滋潤識，使之延續到下一生。要染污的心，才能結生。識能生起名色（精神和物質）的萌芽，名色由識而生長。因此說，如果在段食上斷除遍知，也就斷除了對五妙欲的染著。如果在觸食上斷除遍知，也就斷除了對樂等三種感受的執著。如果在思食上斷除遍知，也就斷除了對欲等三種愛的執著。如果在識食上斷除遍知，也就斷除了對名色二有的執著。 有人說，觀察這四食能對治四倒（四種顛倒的認知）。所以說四食。由於不觀察段食等四種，依次能生起凈、樂、常、我四種顛倒。經中說四食，能令部多（已生者）有情安住，及能資益諸求生者。這顯示四食能資養居住在三有（欲有、色有、無色有）的眾生，即居住在生有、本有、中有。按順序來說，除了居住在死有中的眾生，因為在死有中，食沒有作用。所說『部多』，是指居住在生有中的眾生，食維持生有，所以說令安住，意在顯示生有隻是一念之間，必須由食來維持，才能牽引到後世。所說『有情』，是指居住在本有中的眾生，居住在本有中，可以共同言說，與非情（無情）不同，所以稱為有情。食維持本有，所以說令住，住是指在當下的狀態相續不斷。所說『求生者』，是指居住在中有中的眾生，居住在中有中，尋求生有，食維持中有，使之趨向當生，不可逆轉，所以稱為資益。或者說，眾生大致有三種：一、具煩惱者；二、離煩惱者；三、余煩惱者。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Sensation (受, Vedanā) is the root of birth and death. Material food (段食, Kabalīkāra āhāra) is the realm experienced by sensation. Sense-impression food (觸食, Sparśa āhāra) is the proximate cause cognized by sensation. Volition (思, Manas-sañcetanā āhāra) is the remote cause. Consciousness (識, Vijñāna āhāra) is what they rely on. Therefore, only these four are spoken of as food. Alternatively, material food can increase craving for objects, nourishing the faculties and the great elements (大種, Mahābhūta). Thus, craving for objects can extend to contact, causing the union of three things to produce contact. Contact can lead to sensation, as it is what is cognized. Sensation can then act as a cause for hopeful volition, because sensation hopes for objects and arises. The power of hopeful volition causes love to increase and expand, because volition delights in illusory pleasure. Love can moisten consciousness, causing it to continue into the next existence. A defiled mind is necessary to bind to rebirth. Consciousness can give rise to the sprout of name and form (名色, Nāmarūpa), as name and form grow from consciousness. Therefore, it is said that if one cuts off pervasive knowledge of material food, one also cuts off pervasive knowledge of attachment to the five desirable sense objects. If one cuts off pervasive knowledge of sense-impression food, one also cuts off pervasive knowledge of the three feelings of pleasure, etc. If one cuts off pervasive knowledge of volitional food, one also cuts off pervasive knowledge of the three loves of desire, etc. If one cuts off pervasive knowledge of consciousness food, one also cuts off pervasive knowledge of the two existences of name and form.' 'Some say that observing these four can counteract the four inversions (四倒, Viparyāsa). Therefore, the four foods are spoken of. Because of not observing the four types of material food, etc., the four inversions of purity, pleasure, permanence, and self can arise in sequence. The sutras say that the four foods can enable sentient beings (有情, Sattva) who are already born (部多, Bhūta) to abide and can benefit those who seek birth. This shows that the four foods can nourish sentient beings dwelling in the three realms of existence (三有, Triyātu): the desire realm (欲有, Kāmadhātu), the form realm (色有, Rūpadhātu), and the formless realm (無色有, Arūpadhātu), namely, those dwelling in the existence of birth, the existence of being, and the intermediate existence (中有, Antarābhava), in that order, except for those dwelling in the existence of death, because food has no function in the existence of death. The term 'already born' refers to sentient beings dwelling in the existence of birth. Food sustains the existence of birth, so it is said to enable abiding, implying that the existence of birth is only a moment, and it must be sustained by food in order to lead to the next life. The term 'sentient beings' refers to sentient beings dwelling in the existence of being. In the existence of being, one can speak together, unlike non-sentient beings, so they are called sentient beings. Food sustains the existence of being, so it is said to enable dwelling. Dwelling means that the continuity of the present state is unbroken. The term 'those who seek birth' refers to sentient beings dwelling in the intermediate existence. In the intermediate existence, they seek the existence of birth. Food sustains the intermediate existence, causing it to move towards the next birth, which cannot be reversed, so it is called beneficial. Alternatively, there are roughly three types of sentient beings: those with afflictions, those without afflictions, and those with remaining afflictions.'
具煩惱者。名為部多。於五趣中。數數生故。食能持彼。故說令安。正觀既闕。無求出心。于生死中。情安止故。如闕眼者。無行動心。隨其所居。而安止故。離煩惱者。名為有情。唯世俗說有情數故。食能持彼。故說令住。如眾緣力持故壞車。暫往余方。故名為住。余煩惱者。名為求生。容有希求。當來合故。和合生有。其義無別。余煩惱者。容有希求。乃至行盡生有身故。食能持彼。故言資益。謂資益彼。至行盡位。或有情類。略有二種。所謂已生將生差別。諸已生者。名部多有情。諸將生者。唯說為求生。諸已生者。復有二種。一者受用先行業果。名為部多。二者受用現士用果。名為有情。由先世食。令現身中色力樂辯。壽得安立。由現世食。唯令現身。相續無斷。故說名住。或令安者。唯令不壞。言令住者。令成士用。持將生者。令趣正生。故言資益。諸求生者。有說。部多求生各別。為簡別故。說有情言。以說非情亦有食故。如契經說。我說大海。及大河等。悉皆有食。為簡彼故。顯此所明是有情食。非大海等。若爾此言。應成無用。說段食等。簡義已成。非段等食資海等故。唯有情類。有段等食。故有情言。無簡別用。乍可為簡別。說部多言。以部多言中兼顯實義。為欲遮遣。非實有情。執為有情。故作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 具有煩惱的人，被稱為『部多』（bhūta，鬼）。因為他們在五趣（五道輪迴）中不斷地生死流轉。食物能夠維持他們的存在，所以說食物能讓他們安住。由於缺乏正確的觀察，沒有尋求出離的心，所以在生死輪迴中，他們安於現狀。就像盲人一樣，沒有行動的意願，安於他們所居住的地方。 遠離煩惱的人，被稱為『有情』（sattva，眾生）。只是在世俗的說法中，才說有情眾生的數量。食物能夠維持他們的存在，所以說食物能讓他們住留。就像眾多的因緣和合而成的損壞的車子，暫時地前往其他地方，所以稱為住留。 還有一些具有煩惱的人，被稱為『求生』（bhaviṣyat，未來者）。他們還可能抱有希望，因為未來的因緣將會聚合。和合而生，與『有』（bhava，存在）的意義沒有區別。還有一些具有煩惱的人，還可能抱有希望，直到業行結束，產生新的身體。食物能夠維持他們的存在，所以說食物能讓他們得到資助和增長。意思是資助和增長他們，直到業行結束。 或者，有情眾生大致可以分為兩種：已出生的和將要出生的。已出生的被稱為『部多有情』，將要出生的僅僅被稱為『求生』。已出生的又可以分為兩種：一種是享受過去業力的果報，被稱為『部多』；另一種是享受現在努力的果報，被稱為『有情』。由於過去世的食物，使得現在的身體的色相、力量、快樂和辯才得以安立。由於現在世的食物，僅僅使得現在的身體相續不斷，所以說名為住留。或者說，『令安』僅僅是讓其不壞，『令住』是使其成就士用（人的作用），維持將要出生的，使之趨向于正確的出生，所以說『資益』。 對於那些『求生』者，有人說，『部多』和『求生』是各自不同的。爲了簡別，所以說『有情』。因為經典中說，非有情也有食物。例如經中說：『我說大海以及大河等，都有食物。』爲了簡別這些，所以表明這裡所說的是有情眾生的食物，而不是大海等的食物。如果這樣說，那麼這句話就應該變得沒有用處了，因為說段食等已經完成了簡別的意義，因為段食等不能資助大海等。只有有情眾生，才有段食等食物，所以說『有情』，沒有簡別的作用。或許可以爲了簡別，所以說『部多』。因為『部多』這個詞中兼有顯示真實意義的作用。爲了遮遣將非真實的有情，執著為有情，所以才這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version: Those with afflictions are called 'Bhūta' (ghost). Because they are repeatedly born in the five realms (five paths of reincarnation). Food can sustain them, so it is said that food allows them to abide. Due to a lack of correct observation and no desire to seek liberation, they are content with the cycle of birth and death. Like the blind, they have no intention to act and are content with where they live. Those who are free from afflictions are called 'Sattva' (sentient beings). Only in worldly terms is the number of sentient beings mentioned. Food can sustain them, so it is said that food allows them to dwell. Like a damaged cart held together by many causes, temporarily going to other places, so it is called dwelling. There are also some with afflictions who are called 'Bhaviṣyat' (future beings). They may still have hope because future conditions will come together. Being born from combination is no different in meaning from 'Bhava' (existence). There are also some with afflictions who may still have hope until their karma ends and a new body is produced. Food can sustain them, so it is said that food nourishes and increases them. This means nourishing and increasing them until their karma ends. Or, sentient beings can be roughly divided into two types: those who are already born and those who are about to be born. Those who are already born are called 'Bhūta Sattva', and those who are about to be born are only called 'Bhaviṣyat'. Those who are already born can be further divided into two types: one is enjoying the results of past karma, called 'Bhūta'; the other is enjoying the results of present efforts, called 'Sattva'. Because of the food of past lives, the appearance, strength, happiness, and eloquence of the present body can be established. Because of the food of the present life, only the present body continues without interruption, so it is called dwelling. Or, 'allowing to abide' only means not allowing it to be destroyed, and 'allowing to dwell' is to achieve the function of a person (human function), maintaining those who are about to be born, so that they tend towards correct birth, so it is said 'nourishment'. For those 'Bhaviṣyat', some say that 'Bhūta' and 'Bhaviṣyat' are different from each other. In order to distinguish them, it is said 'Sattva'. Because the scriptures say that non-sentient beings also have food. For example, the sutras say: 'I say that the ocean and the great rivers all have food.' In order to distinguish these, it is shown that what is said here is the food of sentient beings, not the food of the ocean, etc. If this is said, then this sentence should become useless, because saying coarse food, etc. has already completed the meaning of distinction, because coarse food, etc. cannot nourish the ocean, etc. Only sentient beings have coarse food, etc., so saying 'Sattva' has no distinguishing function. Perhaps it can be said 'Bhūta' in order to distinguish. Because the word 'Bhūta' also has the function of showing the real meaning. In order to prevent non-real sentient beings from being clung to as sentient beings, it is said in this way.
是說。謂諸外道。無明所盲。執諸叢林皆有思慮。有見等故。亦名有情。此亦必應資段食等。為簡彼故。須說實言。如是實言。顯極成義。共許有思慮。謂極成有情。此極成有情。方資段等食。非不共許。思慮有情。何故世尊。不唯略說食有四種。令有情安。部多求生二言何用。豈不已說。為顯已生中有等異。故作是說。但說由食令有情安。于義已周。何勞復說。已生中有差別等義。余契經中。已作是說。有情無不由食而存。此中為遮謗中有論。及為顯示生有近因。故說部多求生差別。或復勿有謂阿羅漢有學異生。食無差別。故說三句。顯食有殊。謂諸異生。受諸飲食。多由煩惱。諸阿羅漢。受諸飲食。但為支身。諸有學者。受諸飲食。雖多生厭。而有煩惱。為顯諸食。雖並支身有唯應受用。有亦須斷者。故須具顯如是三句。言于段食斷遍知者。前雖說斷未了。是何后說遍知。顯是此斷。或伏緣彼。煩惱名斷。永拔其根。故名遍知。若爾不應作如是說。若於段食。斷遍知時。亦斷遍知五妙欲染。五妙欲染得永斷時。段食由斯可名為斷。雖有此理。而佛為彰俱時斷故。作如是說。以于段食緣縛斷時。五妙欲貪。其體名斷。雖有此理。而不應說段食斷時五欲貪斷。色聲二種。非段食故。此責不然。色聲二種。與段食體同對
【現代漢語翻譯】 是說：爲了駁斥那些被無明矇蔽的外道（Tirthika，指不信奉佛教的修行者），他們認為所有叢林都有思慮，因為它們有可見之物等等，所以也認為它們是有情（Sattva，指有情識的生命）。因此，外道認為叢林也需要像人類一樣攝取段食（Kabalahara，指固體食物）等食物。爲了區分這些錯誤的觀點，佛陀需要說出真實的話語。這樣真實的話語，才能彰顯極成義（Prasiddhartha，指已被普遍認可的道理）。 共許有思慮的，才可稱為極成有情。只有這種極成有情，才需要攝取段食等食物，而不是那些不被普遍認可的有思慮的有情。 為什麼世尊（Bhagavan，對佛陀的尊稱）不只是簡略地說食物有四種，讓有情眾生安心呢？為什麼還要說『部多求生』（Bhuta-samudaya，指已出生的眾生）和『二言』（指『求生』和『已生』）呢？難道不是已經說過了嗎？這是爲了顯示已生眾生和中有（Antarabhava，指中陰身）等不同狀態的差別，所以才這樣說。 僅僅說依靠食物讓有情眾生安心，在意義上已經足夠周全了，為什麼還要費力地說已生眾生和中有等差別呢？這些內容在其他的契經（Sutra，佛經）中已經說過了。有情眾生沒有不是依靠食物而存活的。這裡是爲了遮止那些誹謗中有存在的理論，以及爲了顯示生有的近因，所以才說『部多求生』的差別。 或者，爲了避免有人認為阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）、有學（Siksha，還在修學的聖者）和異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）在食物上沒有差別，所以說了這三句話，來顯示食物的不同。異生攝取飲食，大多是由於煩惱；阿羅漢攝取飲食，只是爲了維持身體；有學的聖者攝取飲食，雖然大多生起厭離心，但仍然有煩惱。 爲了顯示各種食物，雖然都可以維持身體，但有些應該受用，有些則必須斷除，所以需要完整地闡述這三句話。 說到『對於段食斷遍知者』，前面雖然說了『斷』，但還沒有完全明白。後面說『遍知』，是爲了顯示這是真正的斷除，或者是爲了降伏那些以煩惱為緣的境界。這種斷除，是永遠拔除煩惱的根源，所以稱為『遍知』。 如果這樣，就不應該這樣說：『如果對於段食斷遍知時，也斷遍知五妙欲染（Panca kama guna，指色、聲、香、味、觸五種感官慾望）。』只有當五妙欲染得到永斷時，段食才能因此被稱為斷除。 雖然有這個道理，但佛陀爲了彰顯同時斷除的意義，才這樣說。因為在斷除對於段食的緣縛時，五妙欲貪的本體就被稱為斷除。 雖然有這個道理，但不應該說斷除段食時，五欲貪就被斷除，因為色和聲兩種並非段食。 這種責難是不成立的，因為色和聲兩種，與段食的本體是對立的。
【English Translation】 It is said: To refute those Tirthikas (Tirthika, non-Buddhist practitioners) who are blinded by ignorance and believe that all forests have sentience because they have visible things, etc., and therefore consider them to be sentient beings (Sattva, beings with consciousness). Therefore, the Tirthikas believe that forests also need to take Kabalahara (Kabalahara, solid food) and other foods like humans. To distinguish these erroneous views, the Buddha needs to speak the truth. Only such truthful words can reveal the meaning of Prasiddhartha (Prasiddhartha, a universally recognized principle). Only those who are universally acknowledged to have sentience can be called Prasiddhartha sentient beings. Only such Prasiddhartha sentient beings need to take Kabalahara and other foods, not those sentient beings whose sentience is not universally acknowledged. Why didn't the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, an honorific title for the Buddha) simply say that there are four kinds of food to reassure sentient beings? Why did he also say 'Bhuta-samudaya' (Bhuta-samudaya, beings that have already been born) and 'two words' (referring to 'seeking birth' and 'already born')? Hasn't it already been said? This is to show the difference between beings that have already been born and the intermediate state (Antarabhava, the intermediate state of existence), so it is said this way. Simply saying that sentient beings are reassured by food is sufficient in meaning. Why bother to say the differences between beings that have already been born and the intermediate state, etc.? These contents have already been said in other Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures). There are no sentient beings who do not survive by food. Here, it is to prevent those who slander the existence of the intermediate state, and to show the proximate cause of birth, so the difference of 'Bhuta-samudaya' is said. Or, to avoid someone thinking that there is no difference in food between Arhats (Arhat, saints who have exhausted their afflictions), Siksas (Siksha, saints who are still learning), and Prthagjanas (Prthagjana, ordinary people), these three sentences are said to show the difference in food. Ordinary people take food mostly because of afflictions; Arhats take food only to maintain the body; Siksas take food, although they mostly generate aversion, but still have afflictions. To show that although all kinds of food can maintain the body, some should be enjoyed, and some must be cut off, it is necessary to fully explain these three sentences. Speaking of 'those who have completely understood the severance of Kabalahara', although 'severance' was said earlier, it was not fully understood. Saying 'complete understanding' later is to show that this is the real severance, or to subdue those realms that are conditioned by afflictions. This severance is to eradicate the root of afflictions forever, so it is called 'complete understanding'. If so, it should not be said: 'If one completely understands the severance of Kabalahara, one also completely understands the defilement of the five sensual pleasures (Panca kama guna, the five sensory desires of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch).' Only when the five sensual pleasures are permanently severed can Kabalahara be called severed. Although there is this reason, the Buddha said this to highlight the meaning of simultaneous severance. Because when the bondage to Kabalahara is severed, the essence of the five sensual desires is called severed. Although there is this reason, it should not be said that when Kabalahara is severed, the five sensual desires are severed, because form and sound are not Kabalahara. This accusation is untenable, because form and sound are opposed to the essence of Kabalahara.
治故。諸修觀者。厭段食故。遍舍欲界。故作是說。或此中說。五妙欲染。非唯色等五境界貪。若爾是何非賢聖事。說名為欲。不離此界。諸所起貪。說名欲染。色等五境。能順增貪。名五妙欲。此五妙欲所屬之界。亦得此名。此界中貪。依此緣此五妙欲界。故名五妙欲染。此意說言。若段食斷。欲界諸貪皆悉得斷。以此與彼同對治故。非貪斷時段食必斷。段食斷時諸貪必斷。是故契經。作如是說。有釋為顯段食斷言。唯據斷除修所斷染。故說斷五妙欲染言。如是釋言。無深理趣。此中唯說聖道離染。已顯唯斷修所斷故。必無聖道於一時中。雙斷見修二所斷義。謂聖道斷見所斷時緣段食貪。決定未斷。於後正斷段食貪時。見所斷貪。必先已斷。故雖不說斷五妙欲染言。而亦知唯據斷修所斷染。又此簡別。復何所成。縱謂所言段食斷者。亦顯已斷見所斷貪。若如是知。有何過失。如說。觸等斷遍知時。亦斷遍知樂等余法。是故前釋。于理無違。豈不隨斷觸等一時受愛名色悉皆得斷。何緣如次各別說耶。以有眾生受愛後有。隨於一種深覺過患。為欲令彼速得斷除。如次為說觸等因異。又為成觸等雖同時生。而由果不同故三體別。又為顯食名稱于義。謂所能引故名為食。食誰所引。謂愛所引。經說四食。愛為緣故。食能引誰
受愛名色。為顯此義。故作是言。即顯因無果定非有。觸復如何。說名為食。以觸能有攝益用故。受是攝益。體非能攝益。觸能攝益。亦是攝益體。攝益因故。受所領故。非一切思皆是思食。要屬希望。順愛現行。意識相應。乃名為食。故饑饉世。愚癡小兒。望懸砂囊。而得存濟。又世現見。由有希望。力便增長。希望若絕。力便衰微。所為退敗。然契經說。意思食者。顯此唯與意識相應。或為遮思是我德用。經說識食。為第四者。此唯約有段食處說。識能為食。其相云何。了可愛境。能住持身故。若爾云何先作是說。識食能益處中舍者。由彼亦有可愛涅槃。聖道等境。有漏了別。能任持身。故無有過。契經說有四種食食。第二食言。復有何用。為遮食外有能食者。顯離諸食無食者故。由此佛告頗勒具那。我終不說有能食者。佛說四食名愛因緣。云何名為愛因緣義。所希愛事。為食體故。何緣于食。生於希愛。因此發生諸樂受故。緣樂受故。諸愛得生。諸愛已生。執為資具。由食是愛。鄰近生因。若愛已生。復為資具。是故說食。名愛因緣。豈不食緣亦生於苦。不應但說名愛因緣。如契經言。諸所有苦。一切無不因食而生。理實應然。而愚夫類。顛倒所覆。于苦生因。執為樂因。緣生希愛。或苦所逼。希離愛生。此愛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因受和愛而產生名色（nāmarūpa，精神和物質現象）。爲了闡明這個道理，所以這樣說。這表明如果沒有因，果必定不存在。那麼觸（sparśa，感官接觸）又如何呢？說它名為食（āhāra，滋養），是因為觸能夠有攝取和利益的作用。受（vedanā，感受）是這種攝取和利益的結果，但其本身不是能攝取和利益的。觸能夠攝取和利益，也是攝取和利益的本體。因為觸是攝取和利益的因，所以受是觸所領受的。不是所有的思（cetanā，意志）都是思食，只有那些屬於希望，順應愛慾，與意識相應的思，才被稱為食。所以饑荒的年代，愚癡的小孩，希望懸掛的沙囊，也能得以存活。又世間現見，因為有希望，力量便會增長；希望如果斷絕，力量便會衰微，所做的事情也會失敗。然而契經（sūtra，佛經）說，意思食，表明這僅僅與意識相應。或者爲了遮止思是我（ātman，自我）的德用。經中說識食（vijñāna āhāra，意識食）為第四種食，這僅僅是就存在段食（kabalīkāra āhāra，粗細食物）的地方而言的。識能夠作為食，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？了知可愛的境界，能夠住持身體的緣故。如果這樣，為什麼先前又說，識食能夠利益處中舍（upekṣā，舍受）的人呢？因為他們也有可愛的涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅），聖道（ārya-mārga，八正道）等境界，有漏的了別，能夠任持身體，所以沒有過失。契經說有四種食食，第二種食的說法，又有什麼用呢？爲了遮止在食之外還有能食者，表明離開諸食就沒有食者。因此佛告訴頗勒具那（Phalgunaka，人名），我始終沒有說有能食者。佛說四食名為愛因緣，什麼叫做愛因緣的意義呢？所希望和愛的事情，是食的本體的緣故。為什麼對於食，會產生希望和愛呢？因為從食會發生各種快樂的感受。因為緣于快樂的感受，各種愛才能產生。各種愛已經產生，就被執著為資具。因為食是愛的鄰近的生因，如果愛已經產生，又會成為資具。所以說食，名為愛因緣。難道食的緣故也會產生痛苦嗎？不應該只說名為愛因緣。如契經所說，所有一切的痛苦，沒有不是因為食而產生的。道理確實是這樣，但是愚夫之類，被顛倒所覆蓋，對於痛苦的生因，執著為快樂的生因，緣於此而產生希望和愛。或者被痛苦所逼迫，希望離開愛而生，這種愛……
【English Translation】 English version Nāmarūpa (mind and matter) arises from feeling (vedanā) and craving (tṛṣṇā). To clarify this meaning, this is said. This shows that if there is no cause, the result is definitely non-existent. Then what about sparśa (contact)? It is called āhāra (nourishment) because contact has the function of gathering and benefiting. Vedanā (feeling) is the result of this gathering and benefiting, but it is not the gatherer and benefactor itself. Sparśa (contact) can gather and benefit, and is also the substance of gathering and benefiting. Because contact is the cause of gathering and benefiting, feeling is what is received by contact. Not all cetanā (volition) is volition-food; only those that belong to hope, accord with craving, and correspond to consciousness are called food. Therefore, in times of famine, foolish children can survive by hoping for hanging sandbags. Moreover, it is seen in the world that because there is hope, strength will increase; if hope is cut off, strength will weaken, and what is done will fail. However, the sūtra (scripture) says that volition-food shows that it only corresponds to consciousness. Or to prevent volition from being my (ātman) virtue. The scripture says that vijñāna āhāra (consciousness-food) is the fourth food, which is only said in places where there is kabalīkāra āhāra (coarse food). How can consciousness be food? Because knowing the lovely realm can sustain the body. If so, why did you say earlier that consciousness-food can benefit those who are in upekṣā (equanimity)? Because they also have lovely realms such as nirvāṇa (liberation) and ārya-mārga (the Noble Eightfold Path), and the defiled discernment can sustain the body, so there is no fault. The sūtra says that there are four kinds of food. What is the use of the second food? To prevent there from being a feeder outside of food, it shows that there is no feeder apart from all foods. Therefore, the Buddha told Phalgunaka (a person's name), I never said that there was a feeder. The Buddha said that the four foods are called the cause of craving. What is the meaning of the cause of craving? The things that are hoped for and loved are the substance of food. Why do you have hope and love for food? Because various pleasant feelings arise from food. Because of pleasant feelings, various cravings can arise. Once various cravings have arisen, they are clung to as resources. Because food is the proximate cause of the arising of craving, if craving has arisen, it will become a resource again. Therefore, it is said that food is called the cause of craving. Could it be that suffering also arises from the cause of food? It should not only be called the cause of craving. As the sūtra says, all suffering arises from food. The truth is indeed so, but fools are covered by inversion, and cling to the cause of suffering as the cause of happiness, and hope and love arise from this. Or, being forced by suffering, they hope to be born away from love, this love...
為因。追求飲食。故佛說食。名愛因緣。或複果生能成食事。有漏果苦。說愛為集。是故說食。名愛因緣。若爾無學。應無有食。以無學者愛無有故。或有食者。皆應有愛。此責不然。已簡別故。謂已簡別部多求生。是有愛者。四食于彼。如其次第。安及資益。據彼說食。名愛因緣。故無無學者無食有愛失。或無學食。先愛力引。名愛因緣。亦無有失。謂先愛力。所引發故。今雖離愛。仍求飲食。故有伽他言。非無食有命。又如經說。無明所覆。愛所繫縛。愚夫智者。同得此身。然無阿羅漢有無明愛。失此亦應爾。雖知據此名愛因緣。然說此言。復有何用。為顯諸食能牽後有。諸有愛者。段食亦能為愛因緣。牽後有故。以世尊說四食皆為病癰箭根。老死緣故。此食復為先愛引生。先愛復從先食引起。如是展轉。無始時來。令生死輪旋環不絕。為生厭舍。故說此言。又諸苦生。皆因於食。但由諸食為愛因緣。為舍食緣令苦不起。如欲止病應避病緣。故說此言。深成有用。廣辯食已。今應思擇。於前所說中等四有。生死二有。唯一剎那。於此時中。何識現起。此識復與何受相應。定心無心。得死生不。住何性識。得入涅槃。于命終時。識何處滅。斷末摩者。其體是何。頌曰。
斷善根與續 離染退死生 許唯意識
中 死生唯舍受 非定無心二 二無記涅槃 漸死足臍心 最後意識滅 下人天不生 斷末摩水等
論曰。斷善續善。離界地染。從離染退。命終受生。此六位中。唯許意識。皆是意識不共法故。五識於此。無有功能。豈不最初結中有位亦唯意識。所說生言。已兼攝彼。非離所說。非此生言能攝結中有。以結中有即中有攝故。已遮中有。生所攝故。契經說有補特伽羅。已斷生結。未斷起結。廣說四句。本論亦顯中有非生。欲界命終。還生欲界。欲有續者。謂欲界沒。還受欲界中有生有。如是等文。極相違害。無相違失。諸經論文。唯據生有。說生言故。中有初念。雖亦名生。而非生有。何相違害。本論亦有以生聲說結中有位。有欲界系見修所斷。二部諸結。一時獲者。謂上界沒。欲界生時。此等生言。說中有始。以色無色死有無間。頓獲欲界。二部諸結。豈不住彼死有剎那。即獲此結且證中有始亦名生。義得成立。然彼死有。當獲非正。故頌生言。兼攝中有。意識雖具三受相應。而死生時。唯有舍受。正死名死。正生名生。如正笑時說名為笑。不苦樂受。性不明利。順死生時。苦樂二受。性極明利。不順死生。非明利識有死生義。以死生時必昧劣故。由此故說。下三靜慮。唯近分心。有死生理。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中：死亡和出生只有舍受（不苦不樂的感受）。 並非是禪定、無心二種狀態。二者都是無記（非善非惡）狀態，如同涅槃一般。 漸次死亡時，從足部、臍部到心部，最後意識才滅。 地獄的人和天界的人不會再生，因為他們斷除了末摩（脆弱點），以及水等。
論曰：斷除善業的相續，續接善業的相續，離開界地的染污，從離染的狀態退轉，命終和受生。這六種狀態中，只允許意識存在，因為這些都是意識所獨有的特性。五識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）在此沒有作用。難道最初結生中有的階段，不也是隻有意識嗎？ 所說的『生』字，已經包含了結生中有。並非脫離所說的『生』字，這個『生』字就能包含結生中有。因為結生中有本身就屬於中有。已經遮止了中有，因為它屬於『生』所包含的。契經中說，有補特伽羅（人），已經斷除了生結（導致再生的煩惱），但未斷除起結（現行的煩惱），廣說了四句。本論也顯示中有並非『生』。欲界眾生命終后，還生於欲界，欲有相續者，是指欲界死亡后，還接受欲界的中有和生有。如此等等經文，似乎互相矛盾。 沒有互相矛盾的過失。諸經和論文，只是根據生有來說『生』字。中有的最初一念，雖然也名為『生』，但並非生有。有什麼互相矛盾的呢？本論中也有用『生』字來說結生中有的情況。有欲界所繫的見惑和修惑，兩部分的煩惱，同時獲得的情況，是指上界死亡后，在欲界出生時。這些『生』字，是指中有的開始。因為色界和無色界死亡后，沒有間隔，立即獲得欲界的兩部分煩惱。難道不是在死亡的那一剎那，就獲得了這些煩惱嗎？姑且證明中有的開始也名為『生』，這個意義才能成立。然而，死亡的那一剎那所獲得的煩惱，並非是真正的獲得。所以頌文中的『生』字，也包含了中有。意識雖然具有三種感受相應（苦、樂、舍），但在死亡和出生時，只有舍受。真正的死亡才叫做死亡，真正的出生才叫做出生。如同真正笑的時候才叫做笑。不苦不樂的感受，其性質不明顯，不敏銳。順應死亡和出生時，苦和樂兩種感受，其性質極其明顯和敏銳。不敏銳的識沒有死亡和出生的意義，因為在死亡和出生時，意識必定是昧劣的。因此才說，下三禪（初禪、二禪、三禪）只有近分定心，才有死亡和出生的道理。
【English Translation】 English version In death and birth, there is only neutral feeling (neither pleasant nor unpleasant). It is not in the states of meditation or non-mind. Both are neutral states, like Nirvana. In gradual death, from the feet, navel to the heart, the final consciousness ceases. Lower realms and heavens do not arise, because they have severed the 'marmas' (vulnerable points), and water etc.
Treatise says: Cutting off the continuation of wholesome karma, continuing the continuation of wholesome karma, departing from the defilement of realms, retreating from the state of detachment, death and rebirth. In these six states, only consciousness is allowed, because these are unique characteristics of consciousness. The five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body consciousness) have no function here. Isn't it also only consciousness in the initial state of linking to the intermediate existence? The word 'birth' already includes the linking to the intermediate existence. It is not apart from the spoken 'birth' that this 'birth' can include the linking to the intermediate existence. Because the linking to the intermediate existence itself belongs to the intermediate existence. The intermediate existence has already been excluded, because it is included in 'birth'. The sutra says that there are 'pudgalas' (persons) who have cut off the fetter of birth (afflictions that lead to rebirth), but have not cut off the fetter of arising (current afflictions), extensively speaking of four sentences. This treatise also shows that the intermediate existence is not 'birth'. When beings in the desire realm die and are reborn in the desire realm, those who continue to have desire, refer to those who die in the desire realm and receive the intermediate existence and birth existence in the desire realm. Such texts seem to contradict each other. There is no fault of contradiction. The sutras and treatises only speak of the word 'birth' based on the birth existence. The initial thought of the intermediate existence, although also called 'birth', is not the birth existence. What contradiction is there? In this treatise, there are also cases where the word 'birth' is used to refer to the linking to the intermediate existence. There are afflictions of the desire realm that are bound by views and cultivation, and two parts of afflictions that are obtained at the same time, referring to when beings die in the upper realms and are born in the desire realm. These 'births' refer to the beginning of the intermediate existence. Because after dying in the form and formless realms, without interval, the two parts of afflictions of the desire realm are immediately obtained. Isn't it that these afflictions are obtained in the moment of death? Let's prove that the beginning of the intermediate existence is also called 'birth', so that the meaning can be established. However, the afflictions obtained at the moment of death are not truly obtained. Therefore, the word 'birth' in the verse also includes the intermediate existence. Although consciousness has three corresponding feelings (suffering, pleasure, neutral), at the time of death and birth, there is only neutral feeling. True death is called death, and true birth is called birth. Just as true laughter is called laughter. Feelings that are neither pleasant nor unpleasant are not obvious or sharp in nature. In accordance with death and birth, the two feelings of suffering and pleasure are extremely obvious and sharp in nature. Unclear consciousness does not have the meaning of death and birth, because consciousness must be dull at the time of death and birth. Therefore, it is said that only the 'near-access concentration' (upacāra samādhi) of the lower three 'dhyanas' (meditative states) has the principle of death and birth.
以根本地無舍受故。雖說在意識得有死生。而非在定心有死生理。非界地別有死生故。設界地同極明利故。由勝加行所引發故。又在定心能攝益故。必由損害方有命終。諸在定心。非染污故。必由染污。方得受生。異地染心。亦攝益故。加行起故。無命終理。異地染心。必勝地攝。何容樂往劣地受生。故彼亦無能受生理。一切異地。凈無記心。加行起故。無命終理。非染污故。無受生理。又非無心有命終義。理相違故。死有二種。或他所害。或任運終。無心位中。他不能害。有殊勝法。任持身故。處無心位。不任運終。入心定能引出心故。謂入心作等無間緣。取依此身心等果法。必無有別法能礙令不生。若所依身。將欲變壞。必定還起屬此身心。方得命終。更無餘理。又有契經。證無心不命終。故契經說。無想有情。由想起已。從彼處沒。非無心位可得受生。必由勝心現所引故。住昧劣位。而受生故。離起煩惱。無受生故。亦有契經。證無心不受生。故契經言。識若不入母胎中者。名色得成羯剌藍不。乃至廣說。雖死有心實通三性。而阿羅漢。必無染心。雖有善心及二無記。而強盛故。不入涅槃。入涅槃心。唯二無記。謂威儀路。或異熟生。若說欲界。有舍異熟。入涅槃心。通二無記。若說欲界。無舍異熟。入涅槃心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為根本上沒有舍受（upeksa-vedana，一種既非痛苦也非快樂的感受），所以雖然說在意識中有生死，但在禪定心中沒有生死的道理。因為界地（dhatu，構成世界的元素）的差別並不導致生死。即使界地相同，且極其明利，也是由殊勝的加行（prayoga，努力）所引發的。而且，在禪定心中能夠攝益（samgraha，支援）生命，必定要通過損害（upaghata，傷害）才會導致死亡。所有在禪定中的心，因為不是染污的，必定要通過染污（klesha，煩惱）才能受生（punarbhava，再次投生）。異地的染污心也能攝益生命，因為加行生起，所以沒有命終的道理。異地的染污心必定被勝地所攝持，怎麼可能樂意前往劣地受生呢？所以，那也沒有能夠受生的道理。一切異地的清凈無記心，因為加行生起，所以沒有命終的道理；因為不是染污的，所以沒有受生的道理。而且，沒有心識的狀態沒有命終的道理，因為這在道理上是相違背的。死亡有兩種，或者被他人所害，或者自然終結。在無心位中，他人不能加害，因為有殊勝的法（dharma，佛法）任持身體。處於無心位，不會自然終結，因為入心定（citta-samadhi，心的禪定）能夠引發出心。也就是說，入心定作為等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，緊鄰的條件），能夠取得依此身體的心等果法（phala-dharma，結果的法）。必定沒有別的法能夠阻礙它不生起。如果所依的身體將要變壞，必定還會生起屬於此身體的心，才能命終，沒有其他的道理。還有契經（sutra，佛經）證明無心不會命終。所以契經說，無想有情（asanjnasattva，無想天的眾生）由於想起之後，才從那個地方消失。沒有心識的狀態不可能受生，必定是由殊勝的心識顯現所引導，才會住在昧劣的狀態而受生。離開生起煩惱，沒有受生的道理。也有契經證明無心不受生。所以契經說，如果識（vijnana，意識）不進入母親的子宮中，名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質）能夠成為羯剌藍（kalala，受精卵）嗎？乃至廣說。雖然死有心識實際上貫通三性（tri-svabhava，三種性質：善、惡、無記），但是阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟的聖者）必定沒有染污心。雖然有善心和兩種無記心，但是因為強盛的緣故，不會進入涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）。進入涅槃的心，只有兩種無記心，即威儀路（iryapatha，行為舉止）或者異熟生（vipaka-ja，果報所生）。如果說欲界（kama-dhatu，慾望界）有舍異熟（upeksa-vipaka，舍受的果報），進入涅槃的心就貫通兩種無記心。如果說欲界沒有舍異熟，進入涅槃的心...
【English Translation】 English version Because there is fundamentally no upeksa-vedana (neutral feeling), although it is said that there is birth and death in consciousness, there is no principle of birth and death in the mind in samadhi (meditative concentration). Because the difference in dhatu (elements) does not lead to birth and death. Even if the dhatus are the same and extremely clear, it is caused by the superior prayoga (effort). Moreover, because the mind in samadhi can samgraha (support) life, death must occur through upaghata (harm). All minds in samadhi, because they are not afflicted, must be reborn through klesha (afflictions). The afflicted mind in a different realm can also support life, because prayoga arises, so there is no reason for death. The afflicted mind in a different realm must be supported by a superior realm, how can it be willing to go to an inferior realm for rebirth? Therefore, there is no reason for it to be able to be reborn. All pure and neutral minds in different realms, because prayoga arises, there is no reason for death; because they are not afflicted, there is no reason for rebirth. Moreover, there is no meaning of death without mind, because this is contradictory in principle. There are two kinds of death, either harmed by others or natural death. In the state of no-mind, others cannot harm, because there is a superior dharma (teaching) that sustains the body. Being in a state of no-mind, one does not die naturally, because citta-samadhi (mental concentration) can lead to the emergence of mind. That is to say, citta-samadhi, as samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition), can obtain the phala-dharma (resultant phenomena) such as the mind that depends on this body. There must be no other dharma that can prevent it from arising. If the body on which it depends is about to decay, the mind belonging to this body will definitely arise again before death can occur, there is no other reason. There are also sutras (scriptures) that prove that no-mind does not lead to death. Therefore, the sutra says that asanjnasattva (beings in the realm of non-perception) disappear from that place only after remembering. It is impossible to be reborn in a state of no-mind, it must be guided by the manifestation of a superior mind that one dwells in a weak state and is reborn. Without arising afflictions, there is no reason for rebirth. There are also sutras that prove that no-mind does not lead to rebirth. Therefore, the sutra says, if vijnana (consciousness) does not enter the mother's womb, can nama-rupa (name and form) become kalala (embryo)? And so on. Although the mind at death actually pervades the tri-svabhava (three natures: good, evil, neutral), an arhat (enlightened being) certainly has no afflicted mind. Although there is a good mind and two neutral minds, because of their strength, they do not enter nirvana (liberation). The mind that enters nirvana has only two neutral minds, namely iryapatha (manner of movement) or vipaka-ja (born of karmic result). If it is said that the kama-dhatu (desire realm) has upeksa-vipaka (neutral feeling as karmic result), the mind that enters nirvana pervades the two neutral minds. If it is said that the kama-dhatu has no upeksa-vipaka, the mind that enters nirvana...
。但威儀路。必無離受。而獨有心。辯業品中。當廣思擇。劣善何故不入涅槃。以彼善心有異熟故。諸阿羅漢。厭背未來諸異熟果。入涅槃故。若爾住異熟。應不入涅槃。不爾。已簡言厭背未來故。何不厭背現在異熟。知依現異熟永斷諸有故。依現異熟。證無學果。知彼有恩。不說厭患。諸阿羅漢。深厭當生。故命終時。避彼因善。唯二無記。勢力劣故。順於昧劣相續斷心。故入涅槃。唯二無記。眼等諸識。依止色根。尚無方所。況複意識。然約身根滅處說者。若頓死者。意識身根。欻然總滅。非有別處。若漸死者。往下人天。于足齊心。如次識滅。謂墮惡趣。說名往下。彼識最後兩足處滅。若往人趣。識滅于齊。若往天中。識滅心處。諸阿羅漢。說名不生。彼最後心。亦心處滅。有餘師說。彼滅在頂正命終時。于足等處。身根滅故。意識隨滅。臨命終時。身根漸滅。至足等處。欻爾都滅。如以少水置炎石上。漸減漸消。一處都盡。必無同分相續為因。能無間生所趣後有。唯漸命終者。臨命終時。有為斷末摩。苦受所逼。無有別物。名為末摩。然于身中。有異支節。觸便致死。是謂末摩。謂于身中。有別處所。風熱痰盛。所逼切時。極苦受生。即便致死。得末摩稱。如有頌曰。
身中有別處 觸便令命終 如
青蓮花須 微塵等所觸
若水火風。不平緣合。互相乖反。或總或別。勢用增盛。傷害末摩。如以利刀分解支節。因斯引發極苦受生。從此須臾。定當捨命。由茲理故。名斷末摩。非如斬薪說名為斷。如斷無覺。故得斷名。好發語言。譏刺于彼。隨實不實。傷切人心。由此當招斷末摩苦。何緣不說地斷末摩。以無第四內災患故。內三災患。謂風熱痰。水火風增。隨所應起。有說。此似外器三災。此斷末摩。天中非有。然諸天子。將命終時。先有五種小衰相現。一者衣服嚴具。絕可意聲。二者自身光明。欻然昧劣三者于沐浴位。水滴著身。四者本性囂馳。今滯一境。五者眼本凝。寂今數瞬動。此五相現。非定命終。遇勝善緣。猶可轉故。復有五種大衰相現。一者衣染埃塵。二者花鬘萎悴。三者兩腋汗出。四者臭氣入身。五者不樂本座。此五相現。決定命終。設遇強緣。亦不轉故。非此五相諸天皆有。亦非此五一一皆具。總集而說。故言有五。如何得知非一切有。由教理故。教謂經言。三十三天。有時集坐善法堂上。共受法樂。中有天子。福壽俱終。即天眾中。不起于坐。俄然殞沒。都不覺知。經說諸天五衰相現。經五晝夜。然後命終。寧不覺知。不起于坐。理謂衰相。皆是不善圓滿業果。非一切天皆同集此不善
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 青蓮花的花須，被微塵等觸碰。
如果水、火、風，因不調和的因緣聚合，互相沖突，或總體上或分別地，其勢頭和作用增強，傷害到身體的要害（末摩，Marma，指身體上的敏感點或要害）。就像用鋒利的刀分解肢體一樣，因此引發極度的痛苦感受產生。從此不久，必定會捨棄生命。由於這個道理，稱為『斷末摩』。這不像砍柴那樣可以稱為『斷』，因為柴沒有感覺，所以才稱為『斷』。喜歡惡語傷人，譏諷別人，無論真實與否，都深深地傷害人心。由此將會招致『斷末摩』的痛苦。為什麼不說地獄的『斷末摩』呢？因為地獄沒有第四種內在的災患。內在的三種災患，指的是風、熱、痰。水、火、風增強，會隨之產生相應的疾病。有人說，這類似於外在器世界的三種災難。這種『斷末摩』，在天界中是沒有的。然而，諸位天子，在將要命終的時候，會先出現五種小的衰敗之相。第一，衣服和裝飾品，不再發出悅意的聲音。第二，自身的光明，突然變得暗淡。第三，在沐浴的時候，水滴落在身上。第四，原本喜歡喧鬧嬉戲，現在卻滯留在一個地方。第五，眼睛原本凝定寂靜，現在卻頻繁眨動。這五種衰相出現，並非一定意味著命終，如果遇到殊勝的善緣，還可以轉變。又有五種大的衰敗之相出現。第一，衣服染上灰塵。第二，花鬘（花環）凋萎。第三，兩腋出汗。第四，身體發出臭氣。第五，不樂於自己的座位。這五種衰相出現，就決定了命終，即使遇到強大的因緣，也無法轉變。並非所有天人都有這五種衰相，也並非每個人都全部具備這五種衰相，只是總括起來說，所以說有五種。如何得知並非所有天人都有這些衰相呢？通過教證和理證。教證是指經文說，三十三天（Trayastrimsa，佛教宇宙觀中位於須彌山頂的天界）有時會聚集在善法堂上，共同享受佛法的快樂。其中有天子，福報和壽命都已終盡，就在天眾之中，沒有起身離開座位，突然殞命，完全沒有察覺。經文說諸天五衰相現，經過五晝夜，然後命終，難道會沒有察覺，不起身離開座位嗎？理證是指衰相，都是不善業圓滿的果報，並非所有天人都共同積累了這種不善業。
【English Translation】 English version The stamen of a blue lotus flower, touched by particles of dust and the like.
If water, fire, and wind, due to discordant conditions, come together, conflicting with each other, either collectively or individually, their force and function increase, harming the vital points of the body (Marma). It is like dissecting limbs with a sharp knife, thereby triggering the arising of extreme suffering. From this moment on, one will surely relinquish life. Due to this principle, it is called 'severing the Marma'. This is not like chopping firewood, which can be called 'severing' because firewood has no sensation, hence it is called 'severing'. Those who enjoy using harsh language, mocking others, whether true or false, deeply wound people's hearts. By doing so, they will incur the suffering of 'severing the Marma'. Why is the 'severing of the Marma' in hells not mentioned? Because hells do not have the fourth internal affliction. The three internal afflictions refer to wind, heat, and phlegm. The increase of water, fire, and wind will give rise to corresponding illnesses. Some say that this is similar to the three external calamities of the world. This 'severing of the Marma' does not exist in the heavens. However, when the sons of gods are about to die, five minor signs of decay will appear first. First, the clothes and ornaments no longer produce pleasing sounds. Second, the light of their own bodies suddenly becomes dim. Third, when bathing, water droplets stick to their bodies. Fourth, they who originally enjoyed boisterous play now linger in one place. Fifth, their eyes, which were originally still and serene, now blink frequently. The appearance of these five signs does not necessarily mean death; if they encounter superior good conditions, they can still be reversed. There are also five major signs of decay that appear. First, their clothes are stained with dust. Second, their flower garlands wither. Third, sweat comes out from their armpits. Fourth, a foul odor enters their bodies. Fifth, they are not happy in their seats. The appearance of these five signs determines death, and even if they encounter strong conditions, they cannot be reversed. Not all gods have these five signs, nor does everyone possess all five signs; it is only a general statement, so it is said that there are five. How do we know that not all gods have these signs? Through scriptural and logical proof. Scriptural proof refers to the sutras saying that the Thirty-three Heavens (Trayastrimsa, the heaven located on the summit of Mount Sumeru in Buddhist cosmology) sometimes gather in the Good Dharma Hall to jointly enjoy the bliss of the Dharma. Among them, there are sons of gods whose blessings and lifespans have come to an end, and they die suddenly in the midst of the heavenly assembly without rising from their seats, completely unaware. The sutras say that the five signs of decay appear in the heavens, and after five days and nights, they die. Would they not be aware and rise from their seats? Logical proof refers to the fact that the signs of decay are all the result of the complete fruition of unwholesome karma, and not all gods have jointly accumulated this unwholesome karma.
業故。世尊於此有情世間生住沒中。建立三聚。何謂三聚。頌曰。
正邪不定聚 聖造無間余
論曰。一正性定聚。二邪性定聚。三不定性聚。何名正性。謂世尊言。貪無餘斷。瞋無餘斷。癡無餘斷。一切煩惱。皆無餘斷。是名正性。何故唯斷。說名正性。謂此永盡邪偽法故。又體是善常智者定愛故。世尊亦說聖道名正性。經說趣入正性離生故。何名邪性。謂有三種。一趣邪性。二業邪性。三見邪性。即是惡趣。五無間業。五不正見。如次為體於二定者。學無學法。五無間業。如其次第。定趣離系地獄果故。成就此者。得此聚名。即名為聖。造無間者。正脫已脫煩惱縛故。說名為聖。聖是自在離繫縛義。或遠眾惡。故名為聖。獲得畢竟離系得故。或善所趣。故名為聖。中無間隔。故名無間。好為此因。故名為造。正邪定余。名不定性。彼待二緣。可成二故。非定屬一。得不定名。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之十一
如是已辯有情世間。器世間今當辯。頌曰。
安立器世間 風輪最居下 其量廣無數
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：業力所致。世尊對於此有情世間（指眾生居住的世界）的生、住、滅過程中，建立了三聚（三種類別）。什麼是三聚？頌文說： 『正邪不定聚，聖造無間余。』 論述：一是正性定聚（必定行善的類別），二是邪性定聚（必定作惡的類別），三是不定性聚（善惡不定的類別）。什麼叫做正性？就是世尊所說的，貪慾完全斷除，嗔恨完全斷除，愚癡完全斷除，一切煩惱都完全斷除，這叫做正性。為什麼唯有斷除煩惱才叫做正性？因為這能永遠滅盡邪惡虛偽的法。而且其體性是善良的，常為有智慧的人所喜愛。所以世尊也說聖道（通往解脫的道路）名為正性，經文說趣入正性就能遠離生死。什麼叫做邪性？有三種：一是趣邪性（傾向邪惡的性質），二是業邪性（造作惡業的性質），三是見邪性（持有邪見的性質）。也就是惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生），五無間業（殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、出佛身血、破和合僧），五不正見（身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見），依次作為其體性。對於二定者（指已證得果位的聖者和造作無間業的人），學無學法（有學位的修行者和無學位的阿羅漢），五無間業，按照次第，必定趣向脫離地獄之果。成就這些條件的人，就得到這些類別的名稱。已經證得聖果的人，造作無間業的人，正是因為已經脫離或將要脫離煩惱的束縛，所以稱為聖。聖是自在、脫離束縛的意思。或者遠離眾惡，所以稱為聖。獲得徹底的解脫，所以稱為聖。或者趨向善良，所以稱為聖。中間沒有間隔，所以叫做無間。喜好造作這些惡業，所以叫做造。正性、邪性之外剩餘的，叫做不定性。他們依賴兩種因緣，可以成就兩種結果，所以不是必定屬於哪一種，因此得到不定性的名稱。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十一 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯緣起品第三之十一 像這樣已經辨析了有情世間，現在應當辨析器世間（眾生所居住的環境）。頌文說： 『安立器世間，風輪最居下，其量廣無數，』
【English Translation】 English version: Due to karma. The World-Honored One, regarding the arising, abiding, and ceasing within this sentient world (the world where beings reside), established three categories (three types). What are the three categories? The verse says: 'The righteous, the wicked, and the undetermined, the holy and the creators of unremitting karma, and the rest.' Discussion: First, the righteous and determined category (those who are certain to do good), second, the wicked and determined category (those who are certain to do evil), and third, the undetermined category (those whose good and evil are uncertain). What is called righteousness? It is what the World-Honored One said: greed is completely eradicated, hatred is completely eradicated, ignorance is completely eradicated, all afflictions are completely eradicated. This is called righteousness. Why is only the eradication of afflictions called righteousness? Because it can forever extinguish evil and false dharmas. Moreover, its nature is good and is always loved by the wise. Therefore, the World-Honored One also said that the holy path (the path to liberation) is called righteousness. The sutra says that entering righteousness can lead to detachment from birth and death. What is called wickedness? There are three types: first, the tendency towards wickedness (a nature inclined to evil), second, the karma of wickedness (a nature of creating evil deeds), and third, the view of wickedness (a nature of holding wrong views). That is, the evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals), the five unremitting karmas (killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an Arhat, shedding the blood of a Buddha, disrupting the Sangha), and the five wrong views (the view of self, the extreme view, the wrong view, the view of attachment to views, the view of attachment to precepts and rituals), respectively, as their nature. For the two determined ones (referring to the saints who have attained the fruit and those who create unremitting karma), the learning and non-learning dharmas (practitioners with a degree of learning and Arhats without a degree of learning), the five unremitting karmas, in order, are certain to lead to the fruit of detachment from hell. Those who achieve these conditions obtain the names of these categories. Those who have attained the holy fruit, those who create unremitting karma, are called holy precisely because they have already escaped or are about to escape the bonds of affliction. Holy means freedom and detachment from bondage. Or, it means being far from all evils, so it is called holy. It means obtaining complete liberation, so it is called holy. Or, it means tending towards goodness, so it is called holy. There is no interval in between, so it is called unremitting. Liking to create these evil deeds is called creating. What remains besides righteousness and wickedness is called undetermined. They depend on two conditions and can achieve two results, so they are not necessarily belonging to one, therefore they get the name of undetermined. 'Treatise on the Abhidharma Following the Right Principle', Volume 30 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, 'Abhidharma Following the Right Principle' 'Treatise on the Abhidharma Following the Right Principle', Volume 31 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter 3.11 on Discriminating Dependent Origination Having thus discriminated the sentient world, now we should discriminate the container world (the environment where beings reside). The verse says: 'Establishing the container world, the wind wheel is at the very bottom, its measure is vast and countless,'
厚十六洛叉 次上水輪深 十一億二萬 下八洛叉水 余凝結成金 此水金輪廣 徑十二洛叉 三千四百半 周圍此三倍
論曰。此百俱胝四大洲界。如是安立。同壞同成。謂諸有情。法爾修得諸靜慮故。下命終已。生第二等靜慮地中。下器世間。三災所壞。經久遠已。依下空中。由諸有情業增上力。有微風起。後後轉增。蟠結成輪。其體堅密。假設有一大諾健那。以金剛輪。奮威懸擊。金剛有碎。風輪無損。如是風輪。廣無數厚十六億逾繕那。又諸有情業增上力。起大雲雨。澍風輪上。滴如車軸。積水成輪。如是水輪。于未凝結位。深十一億二萬逾繕那。廣稱風輪。有言狹小。有情業力。持令不散。如所食飲未熟變時終不移流墮于熟藏。有餘師說。由風所持。令不傍流。如篅持谷。有情業力。引別風起。摶擊此水。上結成金。如熟乳停上凝成膜。故水輪減。唯厚八洛叉。余轉成金。厚三億二萬。二輪界別。有百俱胝。一一二輪廣量皆等。謂徑十二億三千四百半。周圍其邊。數成三倍。謂周圍量。成三十六億一萬三百五十逾繕那。已辯三輪。山今當辯。頌曰。
蘇迷盧處中 次逾健達羅 伊沙馱羅山 朅地洛迦山 蘇達梨舍那 頞濕縛羯拏 毗那恒迦山 尼民達羅山 于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 厚十六洛叉（laksha，十萬） 次上水輪深 十一億二萬 下八洛叉水 余凝結成金 此水金輪廣 徑十二洛叉 三千四百半 周圍此三倍
論曰：此百俱胝（koti，千萬）四大洲界，如是安立，同壞同成。謂諸有情，法爾修得諸靜慮故，下命終已，生第二等靜慮地中。下器世間，三災所壞。經久遠已，依下空中，由諸有情業增上力，有微風起，後後轉增，蟠結成輪，其體堅密。假設有一大諾健那（Nokkena，大力士），以金剛輪，奮威懸擊，金剛有碎，風輪無損。如是風輪，廣無數厚十六億逾繕那（yojana，一種長度單位）。又諸有情業增上力，起大雲雨，澍風輪上，滴如車軸，積水成輪。如是水輪，于未凝結位，深十一億二萬逾繕那，廣稱風輪。有言狹小。有情業力，持令不散。如所食飲未熟變時終不移流墮于熟藏。有餘師說，由風所持，令不傍流，如篅（chuán，一種竹器）持谷。有情業力，引別風起，摶擊此水，上結成金，如熟乳停上凝成膜。故水輪減，唯厚八洛叉，余轉成金，厚三億二萬。二輪界別，有百俱胝，一一二輪廣量皆等。謂徑十二億三千四百半。周圍其邊，數成三倍。謂周圍量，成三十六億一萬三百五十逾繕那。已辯三輪，山今當辯。頌曰：
蘇迷盧（Sumeru，須彌山）處中 次逾健達羅（Yugamdhara） 伊沙馱羅山（Isadhara） 朅地洛迦山（Khadiraka） 蘇達梨舍那（Sudarsana） 頞濕縛羯拏（Asvakarna） 毗那恒迦山（Vinataka） 尼民達羅山（Nimimdhara） 于
【English Translation】 English version: Thickness: sixteen lakshas (laksha, one hundred thousand) Next, the water wheel is deep: eleven billion two hundred million Below, eight lakshas of water congeal into gold This water-gold wheel is wide, with a diameter of twelve lakshas Three thousand four hundred and a half, the circumference is three times this
Treatise says: This hundred koti (koti, ten million) four great continents realm, is established thus, simultaneously destroyed and formed. Because sentient beings naturally cultivate and attain various meditative stabilizations, upon death in the lower realms, they are born in the second level of meditative stabilization realms. The lower world is destroyed by the three calamities. After a long time, relying on the lower space, due to the increasing power of sentient beings' karma, a subtle wind arises, gradually increasing, coiling and forming a wheel, its substance firm and dense. Suppose there is a great Nokkena (Nokkena, a mighty man), wielding a vajra wheel, striking fiercely, the vajra would shatter, but the wind wheel would remain undamaged. Such a wind wheel is immeasurably wide and sixteen billion yojanas (yojana, a unit of length) thick. Furthermore, due to the increasing power of sentient beings' karma, great clouds and rain arise, pouring onto the wind wheel, dripping like cart axles, accumulating water to form a wheel. Such a water wheel, in its uncongealed state, is eleven billion two hundred million yojanas deep, its width matching the wind wheel. Some say it is narrower. The power of sentient beings' karma holds it together, preventing it from scattering. Just as food and drink, when unripe and transforming, will not shift and fall into the ripe storage. Some other teachers say that it is held by the wind, preventing it from flowing sideways, like a bamboo container holding grain. The power of sentient beings' karma causes another wind to arise, striking this water, causing it to congeal into gold on the surface, like thick milk settling and forming a film on top. Therefore, the water wheel diminishes, only eight lakshas thick, the remainder transforming into gold, three billion two hundred million thick. The boundary between the two wheels is a hundred koti, each of the two wheels having equal width and measure. The diameter is twelve billion three thousand four hundred and a half. The circumference is three times its side. The circumference measures thirty-six billion one hundred thousand three hundred and fifty yojanas. The three wheels have been discussed, now the mountains will be discussed. The verse says:
Sumeru (Sumeru, Mount Sumeru) is in the center, next is Yugamdhara (Yugamdhara) Mount Isadhara (Isadhara), Mount Khadiraka (Khadiraka) Sudarsana (Sudarsana), Asvakarna (Asvakarna) Mount Vinataka (Vinataka), Mount Nimimdhara (Nimimdhara) At
大洲等外 有鐵輪圍山 前七金所成 蘇迷盧四寶 入水皆八萬 妙高出亦然 餘八半半下 廣皆等高量
論曰。于金輪上。有九大山。妙高山王。處中而住。餘八周匝。繞妙高山。於八山中。前七名內。第七山外有大洲等。此外復有鐵輪圍山。周匝如輪。圍四洲界。持雙等七。唯金所成。妙高山王。四寶為體。謂四面如次。北東南西。金銀吠琉璃頗胝迦寶。隨寶威德。色顯于空。故贍部洲空。似吠琉璃色。如是寶等。從何而生。從諸有情業增上力。復大云起。雨金輪上。渧如車軸。經于久時。積水奔濤。深逾八萬。猛風鉆擊。寶等變生。如是變生金寶等已。復由業力。引起別風。簡別寶等。攝令聚集。成山成洲。分水甘咸。令別成立內海外海。云何一類水。別類寶等生。雨水能為異類寶等種所依藏。復為種種威德猛風之所鉆擊。生眾寶等。故無有過。如是九山。住金輪上。沒水量皆等。八萬逾繕那。蘇迷盧山。出水亦爾。如是則說妙高山王。從下金輪。上至其頂。總有十六萬逾繕那。其餘八山。出水高量。從內至外。半半漸卑。謂初持雙。出水四萬。乃至最後。鐵輪圍山。出水三百一十二半。如是九山。一一廣量。各各與自出水量同。已辯九山。海今當辯。頌曰。
山間有八海 前七名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大洲之外，有鐵輪圍山。 前七座山由黃金構成，蘇迷盧山（須彌山，世界的中心）由四寶構成。 沒入水中的深度都是八萬逾繕那（長度單位），妙高山（須彌山）露出水面的高度也是如此。 其餘八座山，高度依次減半，寬度都與各自的高度相等。
論述：在金輪之上，有九大山。妙高山王（須彌山王）位於中央，其餘八座山環繞妙高山。在這八座山中，前七座山被稱為內山，第七座山之外有大洲等。此外還有鐵輪圍山，像輪子一樣環繞四周，包圍四大洲的邊界。持雙山等七座山，完全由黃金構成。妙高山王（須彌山王）由四寶構成，即四個面依次為：北面是金，東面是銀，南面是吠琉璃（青琉璃），西面是頗胝迦（水晶）。隨著寶物的光輝，顏色顯現在空中，所以贍部洲（閻浮提，我們所居住的洲）的天空，看起來像吠琉璃的顏色。這些寶物等，是從哪裡產生的呢？是從眾生的業力增上而產生的。又由大云升起，在金輪上降雨，水滴像車軸一樣粗大，經過很長時間，積水奔騰，深度超過八萬逾繕那。猛烈的風衝擊，寶物等變化產生。這樣變化產生金寶等之後，又由業力，引起別的風，區分寶物等，聚集在一起，形成山，形成洲，區分水的甘甜和鹹淡，使之分別成立內海和外海。為什麼同一種水，能產生不同種類的寶物等呢？雨水能夠作為不同種類寶物等的種子所依藏，又被各種威德猛烈的風所衝擊，產生各種寶物等，所以沒有過失。這九座山，位於金輪之上，沒入水中的深度都相等，都是八萬逾繕那。蘇迷盧山（須彌山）露出水面的高度也是如此。這樣就說明了妙高山王（須彌山王），從下面的金輪，到上面的山頂，總共有十六萬逾繕那。其餘八座山，露出水面的高度，從內到外，依次減半。即最初的持雙山，露出水面四萬逾繕那，乃至最後的鐵輪圍山，露出水面三百一十二半逾繕那。這九座山，每一座山的寬度，都與各自露出水面的高度相同。已經辨析了九座山，現在應當辨析海。頌詞說： 山間有八海，前七（座山）名為（內海）。
【English Translation】 English version Beyond the continents, there is the Iron Encircling Mountain (Cakravāḍa Mountains). The first seven (mountains) are made of gold, and Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, the center of the world) is made of four treasures. The depth submerged in water is all 80,000 yojanas (unit of length), and the height of Mount Myoko (Sumeru) above the water is also the same. The height of the remaining eight mountains is halved successively, and the width is equal to their respective heights.
Treatise: On the golden wheel, there are nine great mountains. Mount Myoko King (Mount Sumeru King) resides in the center, and the remaining eight mountains surround Mount Myoko. Among these eight mountains, the first seven are called inner mountains, and beyond the seventh mountain are the great continents, etc. Furthermore, there is the Iron Encircling Mountain, which surrounds like a wheel, encircling the boundaries of the four continents. The Seven Mountains, starting with Dhrtarastra, are entirely made of gold. Mount Myoko King (Mount Sumeru King) is composed of four treasures, namely the four sides are, in order: gold on the north, silver on the east, crystal (vaiḍūrya) on the south, and quartz crystal (sphaṭika) on the west. With the brilliance of the treasures, the colors appear in the sky, so the sky of Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, the continent we live on) looks like the color of crystal. Where do these treasures, etc., come from? They arise from the increasing power of the karma of sentient beings. Moreover, great clouds arise and rain down on the golden wheel, with drops as thick as chariot axles, and after a long time, the accumulated water rushes, with a depth exceeding 80,000 yojanas. Fierce winds strike, and treasures, etc., transform and arise. After the gold treasures, etc., have thus transformed and arisen, then by the force of karma, other winds are caused to differentiate the treasures, etc., and gather them together, forming mountains, forming continents, and distinguishing the sweetness and saltiness of the water, causing the inner and outer seas to be established separately. Why can the same kind of water produce different kinds of treasures, etc.? Rainwater can serve as the seed repository for different kinds of treasures, etc., and is struck by various majestic and fierce winds, producing various treasures, etc., so there is no fault. These nine mountains, located on the golden wheel, have the same depth submerged in water, all 80,000 yojanas. The height of Mount Sumeru above the water is also the same. Thus, it is said that Mount Myoko King (Mount Sumeru King), from the golden wheel below to the top of the mountain above, has a total of 160,000 yojanas. The height of the remaining eight mountains above the water decreases by half successively from the inside to the outside. That is, the initial Dhrtarastra Mountain is 40,000 yojanas above the water, and the final Iron Encircling Mountain is 312.5 yojanas above the water. The width of each of these nine mountains is the same as its height above the water. Having distinguished the nine mountains, we should now distinguish the seas. The verse says: Between the mountains are eight seas, the first seven (mountains) are called (inner seas).
為內 最初廣八萬 四邊各三倍 餘六半半狹 第八名為外 三洛叉二萬 二千逾繕那
論曰。妙高為初。輪圍為后。中間八海。前七名內。七中皆具八功德水。一甘。二冷。三軟。四輕。五清凈。六不臭。七飲時不損喉。八飲已不傷腹。如是七海。初廣八萬。約持雙山內邊周量。于其四面。數各三倍。謂各成二億四萬逾繕那其餘六海。量半半狹。謂第二海。量廣四萬。乃至第七。量廣一千二百五十。此等不說周圍量者。以煩多故。準前知故。第八名外。鹹水盈滿。量廣三億二萬二千。理實應言。其量復有一千二百八十七半。已辯八海。當辯諸洲形量有異。頌曰。
于中大洲相 南贍部如車 三邊各二千 南邊有三半 東毗提訶洲 其相如半月 三邊如贍部 東邊三百半 西瞿陀尼洲 其相圓無缺 徑二千五百 周圍此三倍 北俱盧畟方 面各二千等 中洲復有八 四洲邊各二
論曰。于外海中。大洲有四。謂於四面。對妙高山。南贍部洲。北廣南狹。三邊量等。其相如車。南邊唯廣三逾繕那半。三邊各有二千逾繕那。唯此洲中。有金剛座。上窮地際。下據金輪。諸最後身菩提薩埵。將登無上正等菩提。皆坐此座上。起金剛喻定。以無餘依及余處所有堅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為內 最初廣八萬，四邊各三倍，餘六半半狹，第八名為外，三洛叉二萬，二千逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）
論曰：妙高山（Mount Meru）為最初，輪圍山（Chakravada Mountains）為最後，中間有八海。前七個海名為內海，七個海中都具有八功德水：一、甘甜；二、冷冽；三、柔軟；四、輕盈；五、清凈；六、不臭；七、飲用時不損傷喉嚨；八、飲用后不傷害腹部。像這樣的七個海，最初的廣度為八萬逾繕那，大約是持雙山（持雙山）內邊的周長。在它的四個面，數量各自是三倍，也就是各自成為二億四萬逾繕那。其餘六個海，量度一半一半地狹窄，也就是第二個海，量度廣為四萬逾繕那，乃至第七個海，量度廣為一千二百五十逾繕那。這些不說周圍量度，是因為繁瑣的緣故，根據前面可以知道。第八個海名為外海，鹹水充滿，量度廣為三億二萬二千。實際上應該說，它的量度又有一千二百八十七半。已經辨別了八個海，應當辨別各個洲的形狀和量度有所不同。頌曰：
于中大洲相，南贍部洲（Jambudvipa）如車，三邊各二千，南邊有三半，東毗提訶洲（Purva-videha）洲，其相如半月，三邊如贍部洲，東邊三百半，西瞿陀尼洲（Apara-godaniya），其相圓無缺，逕二千五百，周圍此三倍，北俱盧洲（Uttara-kuru）畟方，面各二千等，中洲復有八，四洲邊各二
論曰：在外海中，大洲有四個，就是在四個面，對著妙高山。南贍部洲，北部寬廣南部狹窄，三邊的量度相等，它的形狀像車。南邊只有廣三逾繕那半。三邊各有二千逾繕那。只有這個洲中，有金剛座（Vajrasana），向上窮盡地際，向下佔據金輪（Golden Wheel）。諸位最後身的菩薩（Bodhisattva），將要登上無上正等菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi），都坐在這個座上，升起金剛喻定（Vajropama-samadhi），因為沒有其餘的依靠和其餘地方所有堅固。
【English Translation】 English version As the Inner Initially, it is 80,000 in breadth, with each of the four sides being three times that. The remaining six gradually narrow by half, and the eighth is called the Outer, measuring 3 Laksha (ancient Indian unit of measurement) 22,000 Yojana (ancient Indian unit of length).
Treatise says: Mount Meru is the beginning, and the Chakravada Mountains are the end, with eight seas in between. The first seven seas are called inner seas, and each of the seven possesses water with eight virtues: 1. Sweet; 2. Cold; 3. Soft; 4. Light; 5. Pure; 6. Not foul-smelling; 7. Does not harm the throat when drunk; 8. Does not harm the stomach after drinking. Such are the seven seas, the first of which is 80,000 Yojana in breadth, approximately the circumference of the inner side of the 持雙山(Yugamdhara Mountain). On each of its four sides, the quantity is three times that, amounting to 240,000,000 Yojana each. The remaining six seas gradually narrow by half, with the second sea being 40,000 Yojana in breadth, and so on until the seventh, which is 1,250 Yojana in breadth. The circumference of these is not mentioned because it would be too cumbersome, and it can be inferred from the previous descriptions. The eighth sea is called the Outer Sea, filled with saltwater, and is 322,000,000 Yojana in breadth. In reality, it should be said that its quantity is also 1,287 and a half. Having discussed the eight seas, we should now discuss the different shapes and sizes of the continents. A verse says:
Among them, the shape of the great continent, Jambudvipa, is like a cart, with each of the three sides being 2,000, and the southern side being three and a half. The Purva-videha continent is shaped like a half-moon, with three sides like Jambudvipa, and the eastern side being 350. The Apara-godaniya continent is perfectly round, with a diameter of 2,500, and the circumference being three times that. The Uttara-kuru continent is square, with each side being 2,000. There are also eight middle continents, each with two on the sides of the four continents.
Treatise says: In the outer sea, there are four great continents, located on the four sides, facing Mount Meru. Jambudvipa is wide in the north and narrow in the south, with the three sides being equal in length, and its shape is like a cart. The southern side is only three and a half Yojana in breadth. Each of the three sides is 2,000 Yojana. Only in this continent is the Vajrasana (Diamond Throne), reaching to the edge of the earth above and resting on the Golden Wheel below. All the Bodhisattvas in their final bodies, who are about to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment), sit on this throne and arise the Vajropama-samadhi (Diamond-like Samadhi), because there is no other reliance or any other place that is so firm.
固力。能持此故。東勝身洲。東狹西廣。三邊量等。形如半月。東三百五十三。邊各二千。此東洲東邊廣南洲南際故。東如半月。南贍部如車。西牛貨洲。圓如滿月。徑二千五百。周圍七千半。北俱盧洲。形如方座。四邊量等。面各二千。既說畟方面各二千以其義已顯。故等言無用。或應但說圓及等。言無缺畟方。便為無用。又應說如滿月方座。不應但說圓無缺等。隨自洲相。人面亦然。復有八中洲。是大洲眷屬。謂四大洲側。各有二中洲。贍部洲邊二中洲者。一遮末羅洲。二筏羅遮末羅洲。勝身洲邊二中洲者。一提訶洲。二毗提訶洲。牛貨洲邊二中洲者。一舍搋洲。二嗢怛羅漫怛里拏洲。俱盧洲邊二中洲者。一矩拉婆洲。二憍拉婆洲。此一切洲皆人所住。由下劣業增上所生。故住彼人。身形卑陋。有餘師說。遮末羅洲。邏剎娑居。余皆人住。辯諸洲已。無熱惱池。何方幾量。頌曰。
此北九黑山 雪香醉山內 無熱池縱廣 五十逾繕那
論曰。依至教說。此贍部洲。從中印度漸次向北。三處各有三重黑山。有大雪山。在黑山北。大雪山北。有香醉山。雪北香南。有大池水。名無熱惱。出四大河。從四面流。趣四大海。一殑伽河。二信度河。三私多河。四縛芻河無熱惱池。縱廣正等。面各五十逾繕那
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 固力（Guli）。因為能夠承載這些，所以說：東勝身洲（Purvavideha）。東邊窄，西邊寬。三邊的長度相等，形狀像半月。東邊長三百五十三逾繕那（yojana），其他邊長各二千逾繕那（yojana）。這是因為東洲的東邊與南贍部洲（Jambudvipa）的南邊相接的緣故。東勝身洲（Purvavideha）像半月，南贍部洲（Jambudvipa）像車輪，西牛貨洲（Aparagodaniya）圓如滿月，直徑二千五百逾繕那（yojana），周圍七千五百逾繕那（yojana）。北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）形狀像方座，四邊長度相等，每邊長二千逾繕那（yojana）。既然已經說了『畟方』的邊長各二千逾繕那（yojana），因為它的意義已經很明顯了，所以說『等』字就沒有用處。或者應該只說『圓』和『等』，不說『缺畟方』，就顯得沒有用處。又應該說『如滿月』、『方座』，不應該只說『圓』、『無缺』、『等』。人的面貌也隨各自所居住的洲的形狀而改變。還有八個中洲，是大洲的眷屬。也就是四大洲的旁邊，各有二箇中洲。贍部洲（Jambudvipa）旁邊的二箇中洲是：一、遮末羅洲（Camara）；二、筏羅遮末羅洲（Aparacamara）。勝身洲（Purvavideha）旁邊的二箇中洲是：一、提訶洲（Deha）；二、毗提訶洲（Videha）。牛貨洲（Aparagodaniya）旁邊的二箇中洲是：一、舍搋洲（Satha）；二、嗢怛羅漫怛里拏洲（Uttaramantrina）。俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）旁邊的二箇中洲是：一、矩拉婆洲（Kurava）；二、憍拉婆洲（Kaulava）。所有這些洲都有人居住。由於下劣的業力增長所生，所以居住在那裡的人，身形卑微醜陋。有其他論師說，遮末羅洲（Camara）是羅剎娑（Rakshasa）居住的地方，其餘的洲都是人居住的地方。辨別了各個洲之後，無熱惱池（Anavatapta）在哪個方向？有多大？頌說： 『此北九黑山，雪香醉山內，無熱池縱廣，五十逾繕那（yojana）。』 論說：依據至教所說，此贍部洲（Jambudvipa），從中印度漸漸向北，三處各有三重黑山。有大雪山，在黑山的北面。大雪山北面，有香醉山。雪山北面，香山南面，有大池水，名叫無熱惱池（Anavatapta）。流出四大河，從四個方向流出，流向四大海。一、殑伽河（Ganga）；二、信度河（Sindhu）；三、私多河（Sita）；四、縛芻河（Vaksu）。無熱惱池（Anavatapta），縱橫相等，每面各五十逾繕那（yojana）。
【English Translation】 English version Guli. Because it can hold these, it is said: Purvavideha (Eastern Videha Continent). The east is narrow, and the west is wide. The lengths of the three sides are equal, and the shape is like a half-moon. The east side is 353 yojanas, and the other sides are each 2,000 yojanas. This is because the east side of the Eastern Continent connects with the south side of Jambudvipa (Southern Jambudvipa Continent). Purvavideha (Eastern Videha Continent) is like a half-moon, Jambudvipa (Southern Jambudvipa Continent) is like a wheel, Aparagodaniya (Western Godaniya Continent) is round like a full moon, with a diameter of 2,500 yojanas and a circumference of 7,500 yojanas. Uttarakuru (Northern Kuru Continent) is shaped like a square seat, with equal sides, each side being 2,000 yojanas. Since it has already been said that the sides of the 'square' are each 2,000 yojanas, because its meaning is already clear, the word 'equal' is useless. Or it should only say 'round' and 'equal', and not saying 'lacking squareness' would seem useless. It should also say 'like a full moon', 'square seat', and not just say 'round', 'without lack', 'equal'. People's faces also change according to the shape of the continent they live on. There are also eight intermediate continents, which are the retinue of the four great continents. That is, next to the four great continents, there are two intermediate continents each. The two intermediate continents next to Jambudvipa (Southern Jambudvipa Continent) are: 1. Camara; 2. Aparacamara. The two intermediate continents next to Purvavideha (Eastern Videha Continent) are: 1. Deha; 2. Videha. The two intermediate continents next to Aparagodaniya (Western Godaniya Continent) are: 1. Satha; 2. Uttaramantrina. The two intermediate continents next to Uttarakuru (Northern Kuru Continent) are: 1. Kurava; 2. Kaulava. All these continents are inhabited by people. Because of the increase of inferior karma, the people who live there are of humble and ugly form. Some other teachers say that Camara is inhabited by Rakshasas, and the rest of the continents are inhabited by people. After distinguishing the continents, in which direction is Anavatapta (Lake Anavatapta)? How big is it? The verse says: 'North of these are nine black mountains, within the snowy, fragrant, and intoxicating mountains. The length and width of Lake Anavatapta (Lake Anavatapta) are fifty yojanas each.' The treatise says: According to the supreme teaching, this Jambudvipa (Southern Jambudvipa Continent), gradually northward from Central India, has three layers of black mountains in three places. There is the Great Snow Mountain, north of the black mountains. North of the Great Snow Mountain, there is the Fragrant and Intoxicating Mountain. North of the Snow Mountain and south of the Fragrant Mountain, there is a large pool of water called Anavatapta (Lake Anavatapta). Four great rivers flow out, flowing from four directions, flowing into the four great seas. 1. Ganga (Ganges River); 2. Sindhu (Indus River); 3. Sita; 4. Vaksu (Oxus River). Anavatapta (Lake Anavatapta) is equal in length and width, each side being fifty yojanas.
量。八功德水。盈滿其中。非得通人。難至其所。於此池側。有贍部林。樹形高大。其果甘美。依此林故。名贍部洲。或依此果。以立洲號。復於何處。置㮈落伽。何量有幾。頌曰。
此下過二萬 無間深廣同 上七㮈落迦 八增皆十六 謂煻煨尸糞 鋒刃烈河增 各住彼四方 餘八寒地獄
論曰。此贍部洲下過二萬。有阿鼻旨大㮈落迦。深廣同前。謂各二萬。故彼底去此。四萬逾繕那。何緣唯此洲下。有無間獄。唯於此洲。起極重惡業故。刀兵等災。唯此有故。唯此洲人。極利根故。以無樂間。立無間名。所餘地獄中。雖無異熟樂。而無太過失。有等流樂故。有說。無隙。立無間名。雖有情少。而身大故。有情其中受苦無間。謂彼各為百釘釘身。於六觸門。恒受劇苦。居熱鐵地。鐵墻所圍。猛焰交通。曾無暫歇。身遭熱逼。苦痛難任。雖有四門遠觀開闢。而走求出。便見關閉。所求不遂。荼毒怨傷。以己身薪投赴猛火。焚燒支體。骨肉焦然。惡業所持。而不至死。餘七地獄。在無間上。重累而住。其七者何。一者極熱。二者焰熱。三者大叫。四者號叫。五者眾合。六者黑繩。七者等活。有說。此七在無間傍。八地獄因差別無量。世尊雖有委說。勝能宜聞者無。彼不委說。少有所說。具如經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 水量充沛，具有八種功德的池水盈滿其中，非得道之人難以到達。在這池塘邊，生長著茂盛的贍部林（Jambudvipa，一種樹的名字），樹木高大，果實甘甜。因為有這片樹林，所以叫做贍部洲（Jambudvipa，我們所居住的洲），或者根據這種果實來命名這個洲。那麼，㮈落迦（Naraka，地獄）又位於何處？其大小又有多少呢？頌文說：
『此下過二萬，無間深廣同， 上七㮈落迦，八增皆十六， 謂煻煨尸糞，鋒刃烈河增， 各住彼四方，餘八寒地獄。』
論述：此贍部洲之下兩萬逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位），有阿鼻旨（Avici，無間）大㮈落迦（Naraka，地獄），其深度和廣度與之前所說相同，都是兩萬逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）。因此，那個地獄的底部距離我們這裡有四萬逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）。為什麼只有這個洲的下面才有無間地獄（Avici Naraka）呢？因為只有在這個洲，才會產生極重的惡業。只有這個洲才有刀兵等災難。也只有這個洲的人，根器最為敏銳。因為沒有絲毫的快樂間隙，所以叫做無間（Avici）。其餘的地獄中，雖然沒有異熟樂（vipaka-sukha，成熟的樂果），但也沒有太大的過失，因為還有等流樂（nisyanda-sukha，由相似原因產生的樂果）。有人說，因為沒有空隙，所以叫做無間（Avici）。雖然眾生稀少，但身體巨大。眾生在其中受苦沒有間斷，他們被一百枚釘子釘在身上，在六根門頭， постоянно承受著劇烈的痛苦。他們居住在熾熱的鐵地上，被鐵墻包圍，猛烈的火焰交織在一起，沒有片刻的停歇。身體遭受熱的逼迫，痛苦難以忍受。雖然有四扇門遠遠地看起來是敞開的，但當他們跑去尋求出路時，卻發現門是關閉的，願望無法實現，感到極度的痛苦和怨恨，他們用自己的身體作為柴火投入猛烈的火焰中，焚燒肢體，骨肉焦爛，但由於惡業的支撐，他們不會死去。其餘的七個地獄，在無間地獄（Avici Naraka）之上，重重疊疊地排列著。這七個地獄是什麼呢？一是極熱地獄，二是焰熱地獄，三大叫地獄，四是號叫地獄，五是眾合地獄，六是黑繩地獄，七是等活地獄。有人說，這七個地獄在無間地獄（Avici Naraka）的旁邊。八大地獄的因緣差別無量。世尊雖然詳細地講述過，但適合聽聞這些內容的人很少，所以他沒有詳細地講述，只是稍微地提了一下，具體情況可以參考經文。
【English Translation】 English version: The water is abundant, filled with water possessing eight virtues, and it is difficult for those who have not attained enlightenment to reach it. Beside this pond, there is a flourishing Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, name of a tree) forest, with tall trees and sweet fruits. Because of this forest, it is called Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, the continent we live in), or the continent is named after this fruit. Where, then, are the Narakas (Naraka, hells) located? And what is their size? The verse says:
'Below this, past twenty thousand, Avici's (Avici, without interval) depth and breadth are the same, Above are the seven Narakas (Naraka, hells), the eight augmentations are all sixteen, Namely, hot ashes, corpses, excrement, sharp blades, fierce rivers augment, Each dwells in its four directions, the remaining eight are cold hells.'
Treatise: Below this Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, the continent we live in), past twenty thousand yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length), is the great Naraka (Naraka, hell) of Avici (Avici, without interval), its depth and breadth the same as before, both being twenty thousand yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length). Therefore, the bottom of that hell is forty thousand yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length) away from here. Why is it that only below this continent is there the Avici Naraka (Avici Naraka, hell of incessant suffering)? Because only in this continent are extremely heavy evil deeds generated. Only this continent has disasters such as war. And only the people of this continent have the sharpest faculties. Because there is no interval of happiness, it is called Avici (Avici, without interval). In the other hells, although there is no vipaka-sukha (vipaka-sukha, ripened fruit of happiness), there is no excessive fault either, because there is still nisyanda-sukha (nisyanda-sukha, happiness flowing from similar causes). Some say that because there is no gap, it is called Avici (Avici, without interval). Although sentient beings are few, their bodies are huge. The suffering of sentient beings within it is incessant; they are nailed to the body with a hundred nails, and at the six sense doors, they constantly endure intense suffering. They dwell on hot iron ground, surrounded by iron walls, with fierce flames intertwined, without a moment's rest. Their bodies are oppressed by the heat, and the pain is unbearable. Although there are four doors that appear to be open from afar, when they run to seek a way out, they find that the doors are closed, their wishes cannot be fulfilled, and they feel extreme pain and resentment. They throw their own bodies as firewood into the fierce flames, burning their limbs, and their bones and flesh are charred, but because of the support of their evil karma, they do not die. The remaining seven hells are above the Avici Naraka (Avici Naraka, hell of incessant suffering), stacked upon each other. What are these seven hells? First, the Extremely Hot Hell; second, the Blazing Hot Hell; third, the Great Crying Hell; fourth, the Howling Hell; fifth, the Crushing Hell; sixth, the Black Rope Hell; and seventh, the Reviving Hell. Some say that these seven hells are beside the Avici Naraka (Avici Naraka, hell of incessant suffering). The causes and conditions of the eight great hells are infinitely different. Although the World Honored One has explained them in detail, there are few who are suitable to hear these contents, so he did not explain them in detail, but only mentioned them briefly. The specific details can be found in the scriptures.
等。如伽他言。
多百逾繕那 周遍焰交徹 聞舉身毛豎 生極大怖畏
如是等頌。其類寔多。皆為顯成地獄因果。若外若內。自身他身。皆出猛火。互相燒害。熱中極故。名為極熱。火隨身轉。炎熾周圍。熱苦難任。故名炎熱。劇苦所逼。發大酷聲。悲叫稱怨。故名大叫。眾苦所逼。異類悲號。怨發叫聲。故名號叫。眾多苦具。俱來逼身。合黨相殘。故名眾合。先以黑索。拼量支體。後方斬鋸。故名黑繩。眾苦逼身。數悶如死。尋穌如本。故名等活。謂彼有情。雖遭種種斫刺磨搗。而彼暫遇涼風所吹。尋穌如本。等前活故。立等活名。八㮈落迦增各十六。謂四門外各有四增。以非皆異名。但標其定數。故薄伽梵。說此頌言。
此八㮈落迦 我說甚難越 以熱鐵為地 周匝有鐵墻 四面有四門 關閉以鐵扇 巧安布份量 各有十六增 多百逾繕那 滿中造惡者 周遍焰交徹 猛火恒洞然
此十六中。受苦增劇。過本地獄。故說為增。或於此中受種種苦。苦具多類。故說為增。或地獄中。適受苦已。重遭此苦。故說為增。有說。有情出地獄已。數復遭苦。故說為增。門各四增名差別者。煻煨。尸糞。鋒刃。列河。門門四增。名皆相似。彼有情類。從大門中排極艱辛。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 例如伽他（Gatha，偈頌）所說：
『多百逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位），周遍火焰交相徹照， 聽到這種景象，全身毛髮豎立，產生極大的恐怖畏懼。』
像這樣的頌文，實在很多，都是爲了顯示地獄的因果。無論是外在還是內在，自身還是他人，都發出猛烈的火焰，互相燒害。因為熱到了極點，所以叫做極熱地獄。火焰隨著身體轉動，燃燒周圍，熱的痛苦難以忍受，所以叫做炎熱地獄。被劇烈的痛苦逼迫，發出巨大的慘叫聲，悲哀地呼喊抱怨，所以叫做大叫地獄。被眾多的痛苦逼迫，不同種類的眾生悲慘地嚎叫，怨恨地發出叫聲，所以叫做號叫地獄。眾多的苦具，一起逼迫身體，互相殘殺，所以叫做眾合地獄。先用黑色的繩索，測量肢體，然後用斬鋸鋸開，所以叫做黑繩地獄。眾多的痛苦逼迫身體，多次昏悶像死去一樣，隨即又像原來一樣甦醒過來，所以叫做等活地獄。意思是說，那些有情眾生，雖然遭受各種各樣的砍刺、磨搗，但是當他們暫時遇到涼風吹拂時，隨即又像原來一樣甦醒過來，和之前一樣活過來，所以立名為等活地獄。八大地獄各自增加十六個近邊地獄，意思是四個門外各有四個增地獄。因為並非都是不同的名稱，只是標明其確定的數量，所以薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）說了這首頌：
『這八大地獄，我說非常難以超越， 以熱鐵為地面，周圍有鐵墻， 四面有四個門，用鐵扇關閉， 巧妙地安排分佈和計量，各自有十六個增地獄， 多百逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位），裡面充滿造惡業的人， 周遍火焰交相徹照，猛烈的火焰恒常燃燒。』
這十六個增地獄中，所受的痛苦更加劇烈，超過了本地獄，所以說為增地獄。或者在這裡面遭受各種各樣的痛苦，痛苦的器具種類繁多，所以說為增地獄。或者在地獄中，剛受完苦，又再次遭受這種痛苦，所以說為增地獄。有人說，有情眾生從地獄出來后，多次又遭受痛苦，所以說為增地獄。各個門各有四個增地獄，名稱有差別，分別是煻煨坑、尸糞泥、鋒刃道、烈河。每個門各有四個增地獄，名稱都很相似。那些有情眾生，從大門中掙扎出來極其艱辛。
【English Translation】 English version: For example, as the Gatha (verse) says:
'Many hundreds of Yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance), flames interpenetrate everywhere, Hearing this, the hair on the body stands on end, giving rise to great fear and dread.'
Verses like these are indeed numerous, all to reveal the cause and effect of hell. Whether external or internal, one's own body or another's, fierce flames emanate, harming each other by burning. Because the heat is extreme, it is called the Extremely Hot Hell. The flames move with the body, burning all around, the suffering of the heat is unbearable, hence it is called the Burning Hot Hell. Oppressed by intense suffering, great screams are emitted, lamenting and complaining, hence it is called the Great Screaming Hell. Oppressed by numerous sufferings, beings of different kinds cry out miserably, resentfully uttering screams, hence it is called the Screaming Hell. Numerous instruments of suffering come together to oppress the body, engaging in mutual slaughter, hence it is called the Conglomerate Hell. First, the limbs are measured with black ropes, then they are sawn apart, hence it is called the Black Rope Hell. Numerous sufferings oppress the body, repeatedly fainting as if dead, then reviving as before, hence it is called the Hell of Revival. It means that those sentient beings, although subjected to various kinds of chopping, piercing, grinding, when they temporarily encounter a cool breeze, they revive as before, living as before, hence it is named the Hell of Revival. Each of the eight great hells is augmented by sixteen, meaning that outside each of the four gates there are four additional hells. Because they are not all different names, but merely indicate their fixed number, the Bhagavan (World Honored One) spoke this verse:
'These eight great hells, I say, are extremely difficult to transcend, With hot iron as the ground, surrounded by iron walls, On four sides there are four gates, closed with iron fans, Skillfully arranged in distribution and measurement, each has sixteen augmentations, Many hundreds of Yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance), filled with those who create evil deeds, Flames interpenetrate everywhere, fierce flames constantly blaze.'
In these sixteen augmentations, the suffering endured is even more intense, exceeding that of the main hell, hence they are called augmentations. Or in these places, various kinds of suffering are endured, the instruments of suffering are of many types, hence they are called augmentations. Or in the hells, having just endured suffering, one again encounters this suffering, hence they are called augmentations. Some say that after sentient beings emerge from the hells, they repeatedly encounter suffering, hence they are called augmentations. The four augmentations at each gate have different names, namely the Pit of Hot Ashes, the Mire of Corpses, the Path of Sharp Blades, and the River of Ashes. Each gate has four augmentations, the names are all similar. Those sentient beings struggle out of the main gate with extreme difficulty.
衝門走出。求離求救。求安所居。忽復墜初煻煨增內。謂此增內。煻煨沒膝。其量寬廣。多逾繕那。有情游中。才下其足。皮肉與血俱焦爛墜。舉足還生。平復如本。經極艱阻。從煻煨出。復墮第二尸糞增中。謂此增中。尸糞泥滿。查瀨臭澀。深沒於人。又廣於前煻煨增量。于中多有娘矩吒蟲。嘴利如針。身白頭黑。有情游彼。皆為此蟲。贊皮破骨。唼食其髓。遭苦既久。從尸糞出。復涉第三鋒刃增內。謂此增內。復有三種。初刀刃路。謂於此中。仰布刀刃。以為大道。有情游踐。才下足時。皮肉與血俱斷碎墜。舉足還生。平復如本。次劍葉林。謂此林上純以铦利劍刃為葉。有情游下。風吹葉墜。斬刺支體。骨肉零落。有烏駁狗。𢷏令僵仆。嚙首咬足。䶗頸擘胛。攫腹掏心。揸掣食啖。后鐵刺林。謂此林內。鐵樹高聳。量過百人。有利鐵刺。長十六指。有情被逼。上下樹時。其刺铦鋒下上镵刺。有鐵嘴鳥。探啄有情眼睛心肝。爭競而食。刀刃路等三種雖殊。而鐵仗同。故一增攝。久經苦毒。越此增已。復溺第四烈河增中。謂此增河。其量深廣。熱咸烈水。盈滿其中。有情溺中。或浮或沒。或逆或順。或橫或轉。彼蒸被煮。骨肉糜爛。如大鑊中滿盛灰汁置麻米等猛火下然麻等於中上下回轉舉體糜爛。有情亦然。設欲逃亡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 從衝門（指地獄之門）走出來。他們尋求脫離苦難，尋求救助，尋求一個可以安身的地方。忽然又墜入最初的煻煨增（táng wēi zēng，地獄中的灰燼堆）。他們說這個煻煨增，灰燼堆沒過膝蓋，其範圍寬廣，超過了繕那（shàn nà，古代印度長度單位）。有情眾生在其中游走，才把腳放下去，皮肉和血就都燒焦爛掉墜落。抬起腳來又重新生長，恢復如初。經歷了極其艱難困苦，才從煻煨增出來，又墜入第二個尸糞增（shī fèn zēng，地獄中的屍體糞便堆）中。他們說這個尸糞增中，屍體糞便淤積滿地，腥臭污濁，深深地沒過人身，而且比之前的煻煨增更加寬廣。其中有很多娘矩吒蟲（niáng jǔ zhà chóng，地獄中的一種蟲子），嘴像針一樣鋒利，身體是白色的，頭是黑色的。有情眾生在其中游走，都被這種蟲子刺破面板，咬碎骨頭，吸食骨髓。遭受了很久的痛苦之後，才從尸糞增出來，又涉入第三個鋒刃增（fēng rèn zēng，地獄中的刀刃堆）中。他們說這個鋒刃增中，又有三種景象。第一種是刀刃路，說在這條路上，向上鋪滿了刀刃，作為道路。有情眾生在上面行走，才把腳放下去，皮肉和血就都斷裂破碎墜落。抬起腳來又重新生長，恢復如初。第二種是劍葉林，說這片樹林上全部都是用鋒利的劍刃作為樹葉。有情眾生在下面遊走，風吹落樹葉，斬刺他們的肢體，骨肉零落。有毛色駁雜的狗，咬著他們使之僵硬倒地，啃咬他們的頭和腳，撕咬他們的脖頸和肩膀，抓破他們的腹部，掏出他們的心臟，撕扯著吃掉。第三種是鐵刺林，說這片樹林里，鐵樹高高聳立，高度超過百人。樹上有鋒利的鐵刺，長十六指。有情眾生被迫上下爬樹的時候，那些鋒利的鐵刺就從下向上刺穿他們。還有鐵嘴鳥，探出頭來啄食有情眾生的眼睛和心肝，爭搶著吃。刀刃路等三種景象雖然不同，但都使用刀劍，所以用一個增來概括。經歷了長久的痛苦，越過這個增之後，又溺入第四個烈河增（liè hé zēng，地獄中的烈火河）中。他們說這條河，其範圍又深又廣，充滿著又熱又鹹的烈火水。有情眾生溺在其中，或者浮起，或者沉沒，或者逆流，或者順流，或者橫著，或者轉著。他們被蒸煮，骨肉糜爛，就像在大鍋里盛滿了灰汁，放入芝麻和米等，用猛火在下面燃燒，芝麻等在其中上下回轉，整個身體都糜爛了。有情眾生也是這樣。如果想要逃離
【English Translation】 English version: They walk out from the Iron-Bar Gate (Chōng Mén, gate of hell). Seeking escape, seeking rescue, seeking a place to dwell in peace. Suddenly, they fall again into the first Embers Mound (Táng Wēi Zēng, a heap of hot ashes in hell), saying that in this Embers Mound, the ashes submerge their knees, its expanse vast, exceeding a Yojana (Shàn Nà, an ancient Indian unit of distance). Sentient beings wander within, and as soon as they place their feet down, their skin and flesh, along with their blood, are scorched, rotten, and fall away. Lifting their feet, they are reborn, restored to their original state. Enduring extreme hardship, they emerge from the Embers Mound, only to fall into the second Corpse-Feces Mound (Shī Fèn Zēng, a heap of corpses and excrement in hell). They say that in this mound, corpse-feces are muddy and overflowing, foul and astringent, deeply submerging people, and even wider than the previous Embers Mound. Within it are many Niangjuzha insects (Niáng Jǔ Zhà Chóng, a type of insect in hell), with mouths as sharp as needles, white bodies, and black heads. Sentient beings who wander there are all pierced through their skin and bones by these insects, which devour their marrow. Having suffered for a long time, they emerge from the Corpse-Feces Mound, only to wade into the third Blade Mound (Fēng Rèn Zēng, a heap of blades in hell). They say that within this mound, there are three types of torment. First, the Blade Road, where blades are laid upwards to form a road. Sentient beings who walk upon it, as soon as they place their feet down, their skin and flesh, along with their blood, are cut, broken, and fall away. Lifting their feet, they are reborn, restored to their original state. Second, the Sword-Leaf Forest, where the trees are covered entirely with sharp sword blades as leaves. Sentient beings who wander beneath it, the wind blows the leaves down, slashing and piercing their limbs, causing their bones and flesh to scatter. There are brindle dogs that bite them, causing them to stiffen and fall, gnawing at their heads and feet, tearing at their necks and shoulders, ripping open their bellies, and gouging out their hearts, seizing, tearing, and devouring them. Third, the Iron-Spike Forest, where iron trees stand tall, exceeding the height of a hundred people. They have sharp iron spikes, sixteen fingers in length. When sentient beings are forced to climb up and down these trees, the sharp spikes pierce them from below and above. There are iron-beaked birds that probe and peck at the eyes, hearts, and livers of sentient beings, fighting over them to eat. Although the Blade Road and the other two types are different, they all involve blades, so they are grouped together as one mound. Having endured prolonged suffering, after crossing this mound, they drown in the fourth Fiery River Mound (Liè Hé Zēng, a river of fire in hell). They say that this river is deep and wide, filled with hot, salty, and fiery water. Sentient beings drown within it, sometimes floating, sometimes sinking, sometimes against the current, sometimes with the current, sometimes sideways, sometimes turning. They are steamed and boiled, their bones and flesh rotting, like sesame seeds and rice placed in a large cauldron filled with lye, with a fierce fire burning beneath, the sesame seeds and rice turning around and around, their entire bodies rotting. Sentient beings are the same. If they wish to escape
。于兩岸上。有諸獄卒。手執刀槍。御捍令回。無由得出。復有獄卒。張大鐵網。漉諸有情。置於岸上洋銅灌其口令。吞熱鐵丸。眾苦備經。還擲河內。此河如塹。前三似園。圍繞莊嚴諸大地獄。已說有八熱㮈落迦。寒㮈落迦。亦有八種。何等為八。一頞部陀。二尼剌部陀。三頞哳吒。四臛臛婆。五虎虎婆。六嗢缽羅。七缽特摩。八摩訶缽特摩。此中有情。嚴寒所逼。隨身聲瘡變。立差別想名。謂二三三。如其次第。此寒地獄。在繞四洲輪圍山外極冥闇所。于中恒有凄勁冷風。上下衝擊。縱橫旋擁。有情由此。屯聚相依。寒酷切身。膚皮皰裂。體戰僵硬。各出異聲。瘡開剖坼。如三華相。多由謗賢聖。招如。是苦果有說。此在熱地獄傍。以贍部洲上尖下闊。形如谷聚。故得苞容。是故大海漸深漸狹。十六大獄。皆諸有情。增上業感。余孤地獄。或多二一。各別業招。或近江河。山間曠野。或在地下空中余處。無間大熱及炎熱三。于中皆無獄卒防守。大叫號叫及眾合三。少有獄卒。琰魔王使。時時往來。巡檢彼故。其餘皆為獄卒防守。有情無情。異類獄卒。防守治罰。罪有情故。火不焚燒。有情卒者。彼身別稟異大種故。或由業力所遮隔故。一切地獄身形皆豎。初同聖語。曾聞有以聖語告言。汝在人中。不觀欲過。又不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在河流的兩岸，有許多獄卒手持刀槍，阻止罪人返回，使他們無法逃脫。還有獄卒張開巨大的鐵網，撈取那些受苦的眾生，將他們放置在岸上，用滾燙的銅汁灌入他們的口中，強迫他們吞下燒紅的鐵丸，讓他們飽受各種痛苦，然後又將他們拋回河中。這條河像一道深溝，前面的三條河看起來像花園一樣，圍繞著莊嚴的各大地獄。前面已經講述了八種熱㮈落迦（熱地獄），還有八種寒㮈落迦（寒地獄）。 這八種寒地獄是什麼呢？一是頞部陀（寒皰獄），二是尼剌部陀（皰裂獄），三是頞哳吒（頞哳吒獄），四是臛臛婆（臛臛婆獄），五是虎虎婆（虎虎婆獄），六是嗢缽羅（青蓮花獄），七是缽特摩（紅蓮花獄），八是摩訶缽特摩（大紅蓮花獄）。 在這些寒地獄中，受苦的眾生被嚴寒所逼迫，身體因寒冷而生出凍瘡，並根據凍瘡的程度產生不同的想法和名稱，分別是二、三、三。這些寒地獄位於圍繞四大部洲的輪圍山之外，在極其黑暗的地方。那裡經常有淒厲強勁的寒風，從上下衝擊，縱橫旋轉，受苦的眾生因此聚集在一起相互依靠，但寒冷仍然刺骨，面板凍裂，身體戰慄僵硬，各自發出不同的聲音，瘡口裂開，像三種蓮花一樣。 這些痛苦多是由於誹謗賢聖而招致的惡果。有人說，這些寒地獄位於熱地獄的旁邊。因為贍部洲（我們所居住的這個世界）上尖下寬，形狀像谷堆，所以能夠包容這些地獄。因此，大海也逐漸變得越來越深、越來越窄。這十六大地獄，都是眾生強烈的業力所感召而形成的。其餘的孤地獄，或者多二個或一個，各自由不同的業力所招感。或者靠近江河，或者在山間曠野，或者在地下空中等其他地方。 無間地獄、大熱地獄和炎熱地獄這三種地獄中，都沒有獄卒防守。大叫地獄、叫號地獄和眾合地獄這三種地獄中，很少有獄卒，只有琰魔王（閻羅王）的使者，時常往來巡視。其餘的地獄都有獄卒防守。有情的獄卒和無情的獄卒，不同種類的獄卒，防守並懲罰有罪的眾生。火不能焚燒有情的身體，是因為他們的身體稟賦了不同的大種（組成物質世界的元素），或者是因為業力的遮蔽。 一切地獄中的眾生，身體都是豎立的。最初他們能聽懂聖語（神聖的語言），曾經聽到用聖語告誡他們說：『你們在人間的時候，不觀察慾望的過患，也不……』
【English Translation】 English version On both banks of the river, there are many prison guards wielding knives and spears, preventing the condemned from returning, making it impossible to escape. There are also prison guards who spread out large iron nets to scoop up suffering beings, placing them on the shore, pouring molten copper into their mouths, and forcing them to swallow red-hot iron balls, causing them to endure all kinds of suffering, and then throwing them back into the river. This river is like a deep trench, and the three rivers in front resemble gardens, surrounding the solemn great hells. The eight hot Naraka (hot hells) have already been described, and there are also eight cold Narakas (cold hells). What are these eight cold hells? First is Arbuda (blister hell), second is Nirarbuda (blister-bursting hell), third is Atata (shivering hell), fourth is Hahava (lamenting hell), fifth is Huhuva (wailing hell), sixth is Utpala (blue lotus hell), seventh is Padma (red lotus hell), and eighth is Mahapadma (great red lotus hell). In these cold hells, suffering beings are forced by severe cold, and their bodies develop frostbite due to the cold, and they have different thoughts and names depending on the degree of frostbite, which are two, three, and three respectively. These cold hells are located outside the Chakravada Mountains (iron ring mountains) that surround the four continents, in extremely dark places. There are often mournful and strong cold winds that strike from above and below, swirling horizontally and vertically. Suffering beings therefore gather together and rely on each other, but the cold is still piercing, the skin is cracked by frostbite, the body trembles and stiffens, and each emits different sounds, and the sores split open, like three lotus flowers. These sufferings are mostly caused by the evil consequences of slandering the wise and holy. Some say that these cold hells are located next to the hot hells. Because Jambudvipa (the world we live in) is pointed at the top and wide at the bottom, shaped like a pile of grain, it can contain these hells. Therefore, the ocean also gradually becomes deeper and narrower. These sixteen great hells are all formed by the intense karma of sentient beings. The remaining solitary hells, either two or one more, are each caused by different karmas. Or they are near rivers, or in mountain wildernesses, or in underground and aerial places, etc. In the Avici Hell (uninterrupted hell), the Great Hot Hell, and the Fiery Hot Hell, there are no prison guards. In the Great Crying Hell, the Crying Hell, and the Samghata Hell (crushing hell), there are few prison guards, only the messengers of Yama (the King of Death) who often come and go to inspect. The remaining hells are guarded by prison guards. Sentient prison guards and non-sentient prison guards, different kinds of prison guards, guard and punish guilty beings. Fire cannot burn the bodies of sentient beings because their bodies are endowed with different Mahabhutas (elements that make up the material world), or because of the obstruction of karma. All beings in hell have upright bodies. Initially, they could understand the holy language (divine language), and they once heard being warned in the holy language: 'When you were in the human world, you did not observe the faults of desire, nor did you...'
承敬梵志沙門。是故於今。受斯劇苦。彼聞領解。生慚悔心。后不分明。苦所逼故。諸地獄器。安布如是。傍生所止。謂水陸空。生類顯形。無邊差別。其身行相。少豎多傍。如水邏剎娑及緊㮈落等。雖傍生攝。而形豎行。本住海中。后流五趣。初同聖語。后漸乖訛。諸鬼本住。琰魔王國。從此展轉。散趣余方。此贍部洲。南邊直下。深過五百逾繕那量。有琰魔王都。縱廣量亦爾。鬼有三種。謂無少多財。無財復三。謂炬針臭口。炬口鬼者。此鬼口中。常吐猛焰。熾然無絕。身如被燎多羅樹形。此受極慳所招苦果。鍼口鬼者。此鬼腹大量如山谷。口如針孔。雖見種種上妙飲食。不能受用。飢渴難忍。臭口鬼者。此鬼口中。恒出極惡腐爛臭氣。過於糞穢沸溢廁門。惡氣自熏。恒空歐逆。設遇飲食。亦不能受。飢渴所惱。狂叫亂奔。少財亦有三。謂針臭毛癭。針毛鬼者。此鬼身毛。堅剛铦利。不可附近。內鉆自體。外射他身。如鹿箭中毒。晞狂走。時逢不凈。少濟飢渴。臭毛鬼者。此鬼身毛。臭甚常穢。熏爛肌骨。蒸坌腸胃。沖喉變歐。荼毒難忍。攫體拔毛。傷裂面板。轉加劇苦。時逢不凈。少濟飢渴。言癭鬼者。謂此鬼咽。惡業力故。生於大癭。如大癰腫。熱晞痠疼。更相㓟䍤。臭膿涌出。爭共取食。少得充飢。多財亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 承敬梵志（婆羅門修行者）和沙門（出家修行者）。因此，如今遭受這劇烈的痛苦。他們聽聞后領悟理解，生起慚愧後悔之心。後來因為（記憶）不清晰，又被痛苦所逼迫，所以各種地獄的刑具，安置佈置就是這樣的。 傍生（畜生）所居住的地方，包括水、陸、空。眾生的種類顯現出各種各樣的形態，無邊無際，差別極大。它們的身體和行為，大多是橫著的，少數是豎著的。例如水中的羅剎娑（水鬼）和緊㮈落（人非人）等，雖然屬於傍生道，但形體是豎立行走的。他們原本居住在海中，後來流轉於五道之中。起初（語言）和聖人相同，後來逐漸變得乖謬訛誤。 諸鬼原本居住在琰魔王國（閻羅王的國度）。從此輾轉流散到其他地方。這贍部洲（我們所居住的南贍部洲），南邊直直向下，深度超過五百逾繕那（古印度長度單位）的距離，有琰魔王的都城，縱橫的量度也是如此。 鬼有三種，即無財鬼、少財鬼和多財鬼。無財鬼又分為三種，即炬口鬼、鍼口鬼和臭口鬼。炬口鬼，這種鬼的口中，常常吐出猛烈的火焰，熾熱燃燒沒有停歇。身體像被火燒焦的棕櫚樹。這是因為生前極度慳吝所招致的苦果。 鍼口鬼，這種鬼的肚子非常大，像山谷一樣，但口卻像針孔一樣細小。即使看見種種上妙的飲食，也不能享用，飢渴難忍。 臭口鬼，這種鬼的口中，經常發出極其惡臭腐爛的氣味，比糞便和充滿污穢的廁所還要難聞。惡臭的氣味熏著自己，經常嘔吐。即使遇到飲食，也不能接受，被飢渴所困擾，狂叫亂跑。 少財鬼也有三種，即針毛鬼、臭毛鬼和癭鬼。針毛鬼，這種鬼身上的毛，堅硬鋒利，難以靠近。向內鉆刺自己的身體，向外射向他人的身體，就像鹿被毒箭射中一樣，痛苦地狂奔。有時遇到不乾淨的東西，稍微緩解飢渴。 臭毛鬼，這種鬼身上的毛，臭氣熏天，腐爛肌肉和骨骼，蒸騰腸胃，衝到喉嚨引起嘔吐，痛苦難忍。抓撓身體，拔掉毛髮，使面板破裂，更加劇了痛苦。有時遇到不乾淨的東西，稍微緩解飢渴。 癭鬼，這種鬼的咽喉，因為惡業的力量，生出巨大的癭，像巨大的癰腫一樣，又熱又脹又酸又疼，互相撕咬抓撓，臭膿涌出，爭搶著食用，稍微能夠充飢。多財鬼也...
【English Translation】 English version They honored and respected the Brahmins (Brahmin ascetics) and Shramanas (wandering ascetics). Therefore, they now endure such intense suffering. Upon hearing this, they understood and comprehended, giving rise to feelings of shame and remorse. Later, due to unclear (memory) and being oppressed by suffering, the various instruments of hell are arranged and set up in this way. The places where animals (beings in the animal realm) dwell include water, land, and air. The forms of living beings manifest in various shapes, boundless and extremely diverse. Their bodies and behaviors are mostly horizontal, with only a few being vertical. For example, Rakshasas (water demons) and Kinnaras (half-human, half-divine beings) in the water, although belonging to the animal realm, have upright bodies and walk upright. They originally lived in the sea, and later transmigrated through the five realms. Initially, (their language) was the same as that of the sages, but later it gradually became distorted and corrupted. The ghosts originally resided in the kingdom of Yama (the realm of King Yama). From there, they scattered and dispersed to other places. This Jambudvipa (the continent we inhabit, also known as South Jambudvipa), directly downwards to the south, at a depth of over five hundred Yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance), has the capital city of King Yama, with the same measurement for its length and width. There are three types of ghosts: ghosts without wealth, ghosts with little wealth, and ghosts with much wealth. Ghosts without wealth are further divided into three types: Torch-mouth ghosts, Needle-mouth ghosts, and Foul-mouth ghosts. Torch-mouth ghosts are those whose mouths constantly emit fierce flames, burning intensely without ceasing. Their bodies are like scorched palm trees. This is the bitter fruit of extreme stinginess in their previous lives. Needle-mouth ghosts are those whose bellies are very large, like valleys, but whose mouths are as small as needle holes. Even when they see various exquisite foods, they cannot enjoy them, and they suffer unbearable hunger and thirst. Foul-mouth ghosts are those whose mouths constantly emit extremely foul and rotten odors, worse than feces and overflowing latrines. The foul odor熏s them, causing them to constantly vomit. Even when they encounter food, they cannot accept it, and they are tormented by hunger and thirst, screaming and running around wildly. Ghosts with little wealth are also of three types: Needle-hair ghosts, Foul-hair ghosts, and Goiter ghosts. Needle-hair ghosts are those whose body hair is hard, sharp, and difficult to approach. It pierces their own bodies inwardly and shoots at the bodies of others outwardly, like a deer shot with a poisoned arrow, running wildly in pain. Sometimes, encountering unclean things slightly alleviates their hunger and thirst. Foul-hair ghosts are those whose body hair is extremely foul-smelling, rotting their flesh and bones, steaming their intestines and stomach, rushing to their throats and causing vomiting, causing unbearable pain. They scratch their bodies and pull out their hair, causing their skin to break, further intensifying their suffering. Sometimes, encountering unclean things slightly alleviates their hunger and thirst. Goiter ghosts are those whose throats, due to the power of evil karma, develop large goiters, like large carbuncles, which are hot, swollen, sour, and painful. They bite and scratch each other, and foul pus gushes out, which they fight over to eat, barely able to satisfy their hunger. Ghosts with much wealth also...
有三。謂希祠希棄大勢。希祠鬼者。此鬼恒時。往祠祀中。饗受他祭。生處法爾。能歷異方。如鳥𣣋虛。往還無礙。由先勝解。作是希望。我若命終。諸子孫等。必當祠我。資具飲食。由勝解力。生此鬼中。乘宿善因。感此祠祭。或有先世性愛親知。為欲皆令豐足資具。如不如法。積集珍財。慳吝居心。不能佈施。乘斯惡業。生此鬼中。住本舍邊便穢等處。親知追念。為請沙門梵志孤窮。供施崇福。彼鬼見已於自親知及財物中。生己有想。又自明見慳果現前。于所施田。心生凈信。相續生長。舍相應思。由此便成順現法受。乘斯故得資具豐饒。希棄鬼者。此鬼恒欲收他所棄吐殘糞等。用充所食。亦得豐饒。謂彼宿生。慳過失故。有飲食處見穢。或空樂穢見。空樂凈見穢。亦由現福。如其所應。各得豐饒。飲食資具。生處法爾。所受不同。不可推徴。祠到所以。如地獄趣。異熟生色。斷已還續。余趣則無。於人趣中。有勝念智。修梵行等。余趣中無。天中隨欲。眾具皆現。如斯等事。生處法然。不可於中求其定量。大勢鬼者。謂諸藥叉。及邏剎娑。恭畔荼等。所受富樂。與諸天同。或依樹林。或住靈廟。或居山谷。或處空宮。然諸鬼中。無威德者。唯三洲有。除北俱盧。若有威德。天上亦有。贍部洲西。有五百渚。于中
【現代漢語翻譯】 有三種鬼。分別是希望受人祭祀的鬼（希祠鬼），希望得到人們丟棄物的鬼（希棄鬼），以及有大威勢的鬼（大勢鬼）。
希望受人祭祀的鬼（希祠鬼），這類鬼經常在祭祀場所，享用人們的祭品。這是它們天生的生存方式。它們能夠自由地往來於不同的地方，就像鳥兒在空中飛翔一樣，沒有任何阻礙。這是因為它們生前有強烈的願望，希望自己死後，子孫後代一定會祭祀自己，供養自己食物和各種資具。憑藉這種強烈的願望，它們轉生為這種鬼。又因為前世積累的善因，感得人們的祭祀。或者，有些鬼前世是（吝嗇的）親友，爲了讓家人豐衣足食，不擇手段地積聚財富，內心慳吝，不肯佈施。因為這種惡業，它們轉生為這種鬼，住在原來的住所附近，或者骯髒的地方。親友們追思他們，為他們請來沙門（指出家修道的人）、婆羅門（指祭司）以及孤兒窮人，供養他們，為他們培植福德。這些鬼看到后，對自己的親友和財物產生『這是我的』的想法。又清楚地看到自己慳吝的果報顯現，對所施的福田（指接受佈施的人）生起清凈的信心，這種信心相續增長，捨棄了與慳吝相應的想法。因此，便成就了順現法受（指現世就能感受到果報）。憑藉這種力量，它們才能得到豐饒的資具。
希望得到人們丟棄物的鬼（希棄鬼），這類鬼經常希望收集人們丟棄的嘔吐物、殘羹剩飯、糞便等，用來充當食物，也能得到豐饒的食物。這是因為它們前世犯了慳吝的過失。在有飲食的地方，它們看到的是污穢之物；或者在空曠快樂的地方，它們看到的是空曠快樂的污穢之物。也有因為現世的福報，它們看到的是空曠快樂的清凈之物。根據各自的情況，它們都能得到豐饒的飲食資具。這是它們天生的生存方式，所受用的東西各不相同，無法推測。祭祀的到來也是如此。
就像地獄道的眾生，異熟生色（指由業力所生的色身），斷滅后還會繼續產生，而其他道則沒有這種情況。在人道中，有殊勝的念力智慧，可以修行梵行（指清凈的行為）等，而其他道則沒有。在天道中，各種用具都能隨心所欲地顯現。這些事情，都是各個道的眾生天生的生存方式，無法在其中尋求固定的規律。
有大威勢的鬼（大勢鬼），指的是各種藥叉（Yaksha，一種守護神）、羅剎娑（Rakshasa，一種惡鬼）、恭畔荼（Kumbhanda，一種守宮神）等，它們所享受的富樂，與天人相同。它們或者依附於樹林，或者住在靈廟，或者居住在山谷，或者住在空曠的宮殿中。然而，在各種鬼中，沒有威德的鬼，只有在三大洲（指贍部洲、東勝身洲、西牛貨洲）才有，除了北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，又名勝生洲）。如果有威德的鬼，天上也有。在贍部洲（Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）的西部，有五百個小島，在其中……
【English Translation】 There are three types of ghosts: those who hope to be worshiped (Hicī-ghosts), those who hope to receive discarded items (Hiqi-ghosts), and those with great power (Mahāsthāma-ghosts).
Hicī-ghosts are those who constantly frequent sacrificial sites, enjoying the offerings made by others. This is their natural way of life. They can freely travel to different places, like birds flying in the sky without any hindrance. This is because they had a strong desire in their previous lives, hoping that their descendants would surely worship them and provide them with food and various necessities after their death. By virtue of this strong desire, they are reborn as such ghosts. Moreover, due to the good deeds accumulated in previous lives, they are able to receive people's sacrifices. Alternatively, some ghosts were (miserly) relatives or friends in their previous lives, who accumulated wealth by any means to provide their families with abundant resources, but were stingy and unwilling to give alms. Due to this evil karma, they are reborn as such ghosts, living near their original homes or in dirty places. Their relatives and friends remember them and invite śramaṇas (ascetics), Brahmins (priests), and orphans to make offerings and cultivate merit for them. When these ghosts see this, they develop the thought that 'this is mine' towards their relatives and wealth. They also clearly see the manifestation of the retribution for their stinginess, and they develop pure faith in the field of merit (those who receive alms), which continues to grow, abandoning thoughts associated with stinginess. Therefore, they achieve the experience of '順現法受' (receiving the reward in this very life). By virtue of this power, they are able to obtain abundant resources.
Hiqi-ghosts are those who constantly hope to collect people's discarded vomit, leftovers, feces, etc., to use as food, and they can also obtain abundant food. This is because they committed the fault of stinginess in their previous lives. In places where there is food, they see only filth; or in spacious and joyful places, they see spacious and joyful filth. Also, due to the merit of the present life, they see spacious and joyful purity. According to their respective situations, they can obtain abundant food and resources. This is their natural way of life, and what they receive is different, making it impossible to speculate. The arrival of sacrifices is also like this.
Just like the beings in the hell realm, the '異熟生色' (resultant form born from karma), will continue to arise even after it is destroyed, while other realms do not have this situation. In the human realm, there is superior mindfulness and wisdom, and one can practice '梵行' (pure conduct), while other realms do not have this. In the heaven realm, all kinds of utensils can appear at will. These things are the natural way of life for beings in each realm, and it is impossible to seek fixed rules within them.
Mahāsthāma-ghosts refer to various Yakshas (a type of guardian deity), Rakshasas (a type of demon), Kumbhandas (a type of palace guardian deity), etc., whose enjoyment of wealth and happiness is the same as that of the devas (gods). They either rely on forests, or live in sacred temples, or reside in valleys, or live in empty palaces. However, among the various ghosts, those without power are only found in the three continents (Jambudvipa, Purvavideha, Aparagodaniya), except for Uttarakuru (also known as Uttara-manussa). If there are ghosts with power, they are also found in the heavens. In the west of Jambudvipa (the world we live in), there are five hundred small islands, in which...
有二。唯鬼所居。渚各有城二百五十。有威德鬼。住一渚城。一渚城居無威德鬼。曾聞昔有大轉輪王。名曰尼彌。將欲巡境。先告御者摩怛黎言。宜引我車。從是道去。使吾現見罪福果殊。時摩怛黎。如王所敕。引車至彼二渚中間。處上空中。令王俯見有威德鬼。處妙宮臺。富樂莊嚴。𣣋下天眾。無威德鬼。處穢城村。老瘦饑窮。露形被髮。手執瓦器。乞丐支身。王睹如斯彌鑒因果。諸鬼多分形豎而行。于劫初時。皆同聖語。后隨處別。種種乖訛。日月所居量等義者。頌曰。
日月迷盧半 五十一五十 夜半日沒中 日出四洲等 雨際第二月 后九夜漸增 寒第四亦然 夜減晝翻此 晝夜增臘縛 行南北路時 近日自影覆 故見月輪缺
論曰。日月眾星。依何而住。依風而住。謂諸有情業增上力。共引風起。繞妙高山。空中旋環。運持日等。令不停墜。彼所住去此幾逾繕那。持雙山頂。齊妙高山半。日等徑量幾逾繕那。日五十一。月唯五十。星最小者。半俱盧舍。最大者十六逾繕那。日輪下面。頗胝迦寶。火珠所成。能熱能照。月輪下面。頗胝迦寶。水珠所成。能冷能照。隨有情業增上所生。能于眼身果花稼穡藥草等物。如其所應。為益為損。四洲日月。各有別耶。不爾。四洲同一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有兩種鬼居住的地方。每個地方都有二百五十座城。有些是有威德的鬼，住在其中一個地方的城裡；另一個地方的城裡住的是沒有威德的鬼。我曾聽聞過去有一位偉大的轉輪王（cakravartin-rāja，統治世界的理想君主），名叫尼彌（Nimi）。他將要巡視他的領土，先告訴他的御者摩怛黎（Mātali）說：『你應該引導我的車，從這條路走，讓我親眼看到罪與福的不同結果。』當時，摩怛黎按照國王的命令，引導車子到達那兩個地方的中間，停留在高空中，讓國王俯視：有威德的鬼，住在美妙的宮殿里，享受著富裕和快樂，非常莊嚴，天眾圍繞著他們；沒有威德的鬼，住在骯髒的村莊里，又老又瘦，飢餓貧窮，赤身裸體，披散著頭髮，手裡拿著瓦器，靠乞討來維持生活。國王看到這些景象，更加清楚地認識到因果報應的道理。這些鬼大多是人形，直立行走。在劫初的時候，他們都說同一種神聖的語言。後來隨著居住地方的不同，語言也變得各種各樣，互相差異很大。關於太陽和月亮所佔據的空間大小，頌文說： 『太陽和月亮是迷盧山（Sumeru，須彌山）的一半，分別是五十一和五十逾繕那（yojana，古印度長度單位）。 半夜是太陽沒落的時候，日出的時候四大部洲（catasro dvīpāḥ，世界的四個主要大陸）都是一樣的。 雨季是第二個月，之後九個夜晚逐漸增長。 寒冷的第四個月也是這樣，夜晚減少，白天增加，與此相反。 白天和夜晚的增長和減少，發生在向南或向北的路上。 靠近太陽時，自身的影子會遮蔽，所以看到月亮有圓缺。』 論述說：太陽、月亮和星星，依靠什麼而存在呢？它們依靠風而存在。這是因為眾生的業力增強，共同引發風的產生，圍繞著妙高山（Sumeru，須彌山）在空中旋轉，執行並支撐著太陽等，使它們不會停止墜落。它們所居住的地方距離這裡有多少逾繕那呢？持雙山（持雙山）的山頂，與妙高山的一半高度齊平。太陽等的直徑有多少逾繕那呢？太陽是五十一逾繕那，月亮只有五十逾繕那。星星最小的是半俱盧舍（krośa，古印度長度單位），最大的是十六逾繕那。太陽輪的下面，是由頗胝迦寶（sphaṭika，水晶）和火珠構成的，能夠發熱和照亮。月亮輪的下面，是由頗胝迦寶和水珠構成的，能夠製冷和照亮。隨著眾生的業力增強所產生的結果，能夠對眼睛、身體、果實、花朵、莊稼、藥草等事物，根據它們各自的情況，帶來利益或損害。四大部洲的太陽和月亮，各有不同嗎？不是的，四大部洲是同一個太陽和月亮。
【English Translation】 English version: There are two places inhabited by ghosts. Each has two hundred and fifty cities. Some are powerful ghosts, living in the cities of one place; the cities of the other place are inhabited by ghosts without power. I have heard that in the past there was a great Cakravartin-rāja (轉輪王, wheel-turning king, ideal universal ruler), named Nimi (尼彌). He was about to inspect his territory and first told his charioteer, Mātali (摩怛黎): 'You should guide my chariot and go this way, so that I can see with my own eyes the different results of sin and merit.' At that time, Mātali, according to the king's command, guided the chariot to the middle of the two places, staying in the high sky, allowing the king to look down: the powerful ghosts, living in beautiful palaces, enjoying wealth and happiness, very solemn, with heavenly beings surrounding them; the ghosts without power, living in dirty villages, old and thin, hungry and poor, naked, with disheveled hair, holding pottery, relying on begging to maintain their lives. The king saw these scenes and more clearly recognized the principle of cause and effect. Most of these ghosts are human-shaped and walk upright. At the beginning of the kalpa (劫初, cosmic age), they all spoke the same sacred language. Later, as the places of residence differed, the languages also became various and very different from each other. Regarding the size of the space occupied by the sun and moon, the verse says: 'The sun and moon are half of Mount Sumeru (迷盧山), fifty-one and fifty yojanas (逾繕那) respectively. Midnight is when the sun sets, and sunrise is the same for all four continents (四大部洲). The rainy season is the second month, and after that, the nine nights gradually increase. The cold fourth month is also like this, the nights decrease, and the days increase, and vice versa. The increase and decrease of day and night occur on the way south or north. When close to the sun, one's own shadow will obscure it, so the moon is seen to have phases.' The treatise says: What do the sun, moon, and stars rely on to exist? They rely on the wind. This is because the power of sentient beings' karma increases, jointly causing the wind to arise, revolving around Mount Sumeru (妙高山) in the air, operating and supporting the sun, etc., so that they do not stop falling. How many yojanas away from here are the places where they live? The top of Mount Dharasamdhi (持雙山) is level with half the height of Mount Sumeru. What is the diameter of the sun, etc., in yojanas? The sun is fifty-one yojanas, and the moon is only fifty yojanas. The smallest star is half a krośa (俱盧舍), and the largest is sixteen yojanas. The bottom of the sun's wheel is made of sphaṭika (頗胝迦寶, crystal) and fire pearls, which can heat and illuminate. The bottom of the moon's wheel is made of sphaṭika and water pearls, which can cool and illuminate. As a result of the increased karma of sentient beings, it can bring benefits or harm to the eyes, body, fruits, flowers, crops, herbs, etc., according to their respective situations. Are the sun and moon of the four continents different? No, the four continents share the same sun and moon.
日月。俱時四處作所作耶。不爾。云何。夜半日沒。日中日出。四洲時等。俱盧贍部牛貨勝身。隔妙高山。相對住故。若俱盧夜半。則贍部日中。勝身日沒。牛貨日出。若牛貨日中。則勝身夜半。贍部日沒。俱盧日出。此略義者。隨何洲相對。日中月中。餘二洲隨應西沒東出。第三洲處。夜中晝中。由是若時勝身牛貨。如其次第。日中月中。爾時光明四洲皆有。然光作事在東南洲。于西北洲唯明作事。俱見兩事。在北南洲。謂贍部洲。見日出月沒。見月出日沒。謂俱盧洲。東勝身洲。唯得見日。唯得見月。謂牛貨洲。如是所餘例應思擇。何緣晝夜有減有增。日行此洲。路有別故。從雨際第二月後半第九日。夜漸增。從寒際第四月後半第九日。夜漸減。晝增減位。與此相違。夜漸增時。晝便漸減。夜漸減位。晝則漸增。晝夜增時。一晝夜增幾。增一臘縛。晝夜減亦然。日行此洲。向南向北。如其次第。夜增晝增。何故月輪于黑半末白半初位。見有缺耶。世施設中作如是釋。以月宮殿行近日輪。月被日輪光所侵照。余邊發影。自覆月輪。令于爾時見不圓滿。理必應爾。以于爾時亦見不明全月輪故。由是日沒月便出時。相去極遙。見月圓滿。有餘師說。由日月輪行度不同。現有圓缺。此不應理。應無定故。或應思求余決定理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 日月同時在四個地方起作用嗎？不是的。那是怎麼回事呢？半夜日落，中午日出，四大部洲時間相同，是因為俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲）、贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，南贍部洲）、牛貨洲（Goyāna，西牛貨洲）、勝身洲（Pūrvavideha，東勝身洲）被妙高山（Sumeru，須彌山）隔開，相對而住的緣故。如果俱盧洲是半夜，那麼贍部洲就是中午，勝身洲就是日落，牛貨洲就是日出。如果牛貨洲是中午，那麼勝身洲就是半夜，贍部洲就是日落，俱盧洲就是日出。這是簡略的說法，根據哪個洲相對，是中午還是月中，其餘兩個洲就相應地是西邊日落東邊日出。第三個洲的位置，是半夜或中午。因此，如果勝身洲和牛貨洲，依次是中午和月中，那麼光明在四大部洲都有。然而，光明起作用的地方在東南方的洲，在西北方的洲只有光明的作用。南北方的洲都能看到兩種景象，也就是贍部洲，能看到日出月落，以及月出日落。俱盧洲，東勝身洲，只能看到太陽，只能看到月亮，也就是牛貨洲。其餘的情況也應該這樣思考選擇。 為什麼晝夜有長有短呢？因為太陽在這個洲執行的路線不同。從雨季第二個月的後半第九天開始，夜晚逐漸增長。從寒季第四個月的後半第九天開始，夜晚逐漸減少。白天的增長和減少與此相反。夜晚逐漸增長的時候，白天就逐漸減少。夜晚逐漸減少的時候，白天就逐漸增長。晝夜增長的時候，一個晝夜增長多少呢？增長一個臘縛（lava，極短的時間單位）。晝夜減少也是這樣。 太陽在這個洲執行，向南向北，依次是夜晚增長，白天增長。為什麼月亮在黑半月的末尾和白半月的開始時，看起來有殘缺呢？《世施設論》（Lokaprajñapti，佛教宇宙論著作）中是這樣解釋的：因為月宮殿執行靠近日輪，月亮被日輪的光芒侵照，剩餘的邊緣發出的影子，自己遮蓋了月輪，所以在那個時候看起來不圓滿。道理必定是這樣。因為在那個時候也能看到不完全明亮的月輪。因此，太陽落山月亮升起的時候，相距極遠，看到的月亮是圓滿的。有其他論師說，因為太陽和月亮的執行速度不同，所以出現圓缺。這種說法不合理，因為應該沒有定數。或者應該思考尋求其他確定的道理。
【English Translation】 English version Do the sun and moon simultaneously perform their functions in four different places? No. How is it then? Midnight sunset, midday sunrise, the times are the same for the four continents because the Kurus (Uttarakuru, Northern Kuru), Jambudvīpa (Southern Jambudvīpa), Goyāna (Western Goyāna), and Pūrvavideha (Eastern Pūrvavideha) are separated by Mount Sumeru (Sumeru), residing opposite each other. If it is midnight in Kuru, then it is midday in Jambudvīpa, sunset in Pūrvavideha, and sunrise in Goyāna. If it is midday in Goyāna, then it is midnight in Pūrvavideha, sunset in Jambudvīpa, and sunrise in Kuru. This is a simplified explanation; depending on which continent is opposite, whether it is midday or moon-center, the other two continents will correspondingly have sunset in the west and sunrise in the east. The position of the third continent is either midnight or midday. Therefore, if Pūrvavideha and Goyāna are, in order, midday and moon-center, then light exists in all four continents. However, the place where light functions is in the southeastern continent, while in the northwestern continent, only the effect of light exists. The northern and southern continents can see both phenomena, that is, Jambudvīpa can see sunrise and moonset, and moonrise and sunset. Kuru and Eastern Pūrvavideha can only see the sun, and only see the moon, which is Goyāna. The remaining situations should be considered and chosen in the same way. Why do days and nights have varying lengths? Because the path of the sun's movement across this continent is different. Starting from the ninth day of the latter half of the second month of the rainy season, the night gradually increases. Starting from the ninth day of the latter half of the fourth month of the cold season, the night gradually decreases. The increase and decrease of daytime are the opposite of this. When the night gradually increases, the daytime gradually decreases. When the night gradually decreases, the daytime gradually increases. When days and nights increase, how much does a day and night increase? It increases by one lava (lava, an extremely short unit of time). The decrease of days and nights is also the same. As the sun moves across this continent, towards the south and towards the north, the night increases and the day increases, respectively. Why does the moon appear incomplete at the end of the dark half-month and the beginning of the white half-month? The Lokaprajñapti (Lokaprajñapti, a Buddhist cosmological text) explains it this way: Because the lunar palace travels close to the solar disc, the moon is invaded by the light of the sun, and the shadow cast by the remaining edge covers the lunar disc itself, so it appears incomplete at that time. The reason must be so. Because at that time, one can also see an incompletely bright lunar disc. Therefore, when the sun sets and the moon rises, they are extremely far apart, and the moon that is seen is full. Some other teachers say that the waxing and waning are due to the different speeds of the sun and moon. This is unreasonable, because there should be no fixed pattern. Or one should contemplate and seek other definite reasons.
。日等宮殿。何有情居。四大天王所部天眾。是諸天眾。唯住此耶。若空居天。唯住如是。日等宮殿。若地居天。住妙高山諸層級等。有幾層級。其量云何。何等諸天。住何層級。頌曰。
妙高層有四 相去各十千 傍出十六千 八四二千量 堅手及持鬘 恒憍大王眾 如次居四級 亦住餘七山
論曰。蘇迷盧山。有四層級。始從水際。盡第一層。相去十千逾繕那量。如是乃至。從第三層。盡第四層。亦十千量。此四層級。從妙高山。傍出圍繞。盡其下半。最初層級。出十六千。第二第三第四層級。如其次第。八四二千。住初層天。名為堅手。持鬘居第二。恒憍處第三。四大天王及諸眷屬。各一方面住第四層。堅手等三天。皆四王眾攝。持雙山等七金山上。亦有四王所部村邑。是名依地住。四大王眾天。于欲天中。此天最廣。三十三天。住在何處。頌曰。
妙高頂八萬 三十三天居 四角有四峰 金剛手所住 中宮名善見 周萬逾繕那 高一半金城 雜飾地柔軟 中有殊勝殿 周千逾繕那 外四苑莊嚴 眾車粗雜喜 妙地居四方 相去各二十 東北圓生樹 西南善法堂
論曰。三十三天。住迷盧頂。其頂四面。各二十千。若據周圍。數成八萬。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 日宮殿等處，居住著什麼樣的有情眾生？四大天王所統領的天眾，是唯一居住於這些地方的天眾嗎？如果空居天眾只居住在日宮殿等處，那麼地居天眾居住在妙高山（Sumeru，又名須彌山，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）的各個層級等處，共有多少層級？這些層級的量度又是多少？哪些天眾居住在哪些層級？ 頌曰： 『妙高層有四，相去各十千，傍出十六千，八四二千量，堅手及持鬘，恒憍大王眾，如次居四級，亦住餘七山。』 論曰：蘇迷盧山有四層級。從水際開始，到第一層結束，相距十千逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）的量。如此乃至，從第三層到第四層結束，也是十千逾繕那的量。這四層級從妙高山旁側延伸出來，環繞其下半部分。最初的層級延伸出十六千逾繕那，第二、第三、第四層級則依次延伸出八千、四千、二千逾繕那。居住在第一層天的，名為堅手天；持鬘天居住在第二層；恒憍天處在第三層；四大天王及其眷屬，各自在一個方面居住在第四層。堅手天等三天，都屬於四大天王所統領的部眾。持雙山等七金山上，也有四大天王所統領的村邑。這被稱為依地而住的四大王眾天。在欲界天中，此天最為廣闊。三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa，佛教欲界六天中的第二天）居住在何處？ 頌曰： 『妙高頂八萬，三十三天居，四角有四峰，金剛手所住，中宮名善見，周萬逾繕那，高一半金城，雜飾地柔軟，中有殊勝殿，周千逾繕那，外四苑莊嚴，眾車粗雜喜，妙地居四方，相去各二十，東北圓生樹，西南善法堂。』 論曰：三十三天居住在迷盧山頂。其頂四面，各二十千逾繕那，如果計算周圍，總共有八萬逾繕那。
【English Translation】 English version: What kind of sentient beings reside in palaces such as the Sun's palace? Are the heavenly beings under the command of the Four Great Kings the only ones who dwell in these places? If the sky-dwelling deities only reside in places like the Sun's palace, then how many levels are there for the earth-dwelling deities who reside on the various levels of Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, also known as Mount Meru, the sacred mountain in Buddhist cosmology)? What are the measurements of these levels? Which deities reside on which levels? Verse: 'Mount Sumeru has four levels, each separated by ten thousand, extending sixteen thousand sideways, eight, four, and two thousand in measure. The Firm-Handed, Garland-Bearing, and Constant-Pride, along with the retinues of the Great Kings, reside in the four levels in order, and also dwell on the other seven mountains.' Treatise: Mount Sumeru has four levels. Starting from the edge of the water to the end of the first level, the distance is ten thousand yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length). Similarly, from the third level to the end of the fourth level, it is also ten thousand yojanas. These four levels extend sideways from Mount Sumeru, surrounding its lower half. The first level extends sixteen thousand yojanas, while the second, third, and fourth levels extend eight thousand, four thousand, and two thousand yojanas respectively. The deities residing on the first level are called the Firm-Handed; the Garland-Bearing reside on the second level; the Constant-Pride are on the third level; the Four Great Kings and their retinues each reside on one side of the fourth level. The Firm-Handed and the other three are all under the command of the Four Great Kings. On the seven golden mountains such as Mount Dhṛta, there are also villages under the command of the Four Great Kings. These are called the Four Great King's hosts who dwell on the earth. Among the desire realm heavens, this heaven is the most extensive. Where do the Thirty-Three Heavens (Trāyastriṃśa, the second of the six heavens in the desire realm of Buddhism) reside? Verse: 'On the peak of Mount Sumeru, eighty thousand, dwell the Thirty-Three Heavens. At the four corners are four peaks, where the Vajra-Handed reside. The central palace is called Good View, with a circumference of ten thousand yojanas. Half as high is the golden city, adorned with various decorations and soft ground. In the middle is a magnificent palace, with a circumference of one thousand yojanas. Outside are four adorned gardens, the Garden of Universal Chariots, the Garden of Roughness, the Garden of Variety, and the Garden of Joy. The wonderful grounds are located in the four directions, each separated by twenty. To the northeast is the Round-Born Tree, and to the southwest is the Good Dharma Hall.' Treatise: The Thirty-Three Heavens reside on the peak of Mount Meru. Each of the four sides of its peak is twenty thousand yojanas, and if the circumference is calculated, it totals eighty thousand yojanas.
余師說。面各八十千。與下際四邊。其量無別。山頂四角。各有一峰。其高廣量。各有五百。有藥叉神。名金剛手。于中止住。守護諸天。于山頂中。有宮名善見。面二千半。周萬逾繕那。金城量高。一逾繕那半。其地平坦。亦真金所成。俱用百一雜寶嚴飾。地觸柔軟。如妒羅綿。于踐躡時。隨足高下。是天帝釋。所都大城。城有千門。嚴飾壯麗。門有五百青衣藥叉。勇健端嚴。逾繕那量。各嚴鎧仗。防守城門。于其城中。有殊勝殿。種種妙寶。具足莊嚴。蔽余天宮。故名殊勝。面二百五十。周千逾繕那。是謂城中諸可愛事。城外四面四苑莊嚴。是彼諸天。共遊戲處。一眾車苑。謂此苑中。隨天福力。種種車現。二粗惡苑。天欲戰時。隨其所須。甲仗等現。三雜林苑諸天入中。所玩皆同。俱生勝喜。四喜林苑。極妙欲塵。雜類俱臻。歷觀無厭。如是四苑。形皆畟方。一一週千逾繕那量。居中各有一如意池。面各五十逾繕那量。八功德水彌滿其中。隨欲妙華寶舟好鳥。一一奇麗。種種莊嚴。四苑四邊。有四妙地。中間各去苑二十逾繕那。地一一邊量皆二百。是諸天眾。勝遊戲所。諸天于彼。捔勝歡娛。城外東北。有圓生樹。是三十三天。受欲樂勝所。盤根深廣。五逾繕那。聳𠏉上升。枝條傍布。高廣量等。百逾繕那。挺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 余師說：須彌山每一面的長度是八十千逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位，約合7-9公里）。與山腳下四邊的長度沒有區別。山頂的四個角，各有一座山峰，它們的高度和廣度，各有五百逾繕那。有藥叉神（Yaksa，一種守護神）名為金剛手（Vajrapani，手持金剛杵的護法神），在山峰中居住，守護諸天。在山頂中央，有一座宮殿名為善見（Sudarsana，意為『美好的景象』），每一面長二千五百逾繕那，周長一萬逾繕那。城墻高一逾繕那半，地面平坦，也是由純金構成，並用一百零一種雜寶裝飾。地面觸感柔軟，如同妒羅綿（Tulā，一種柔軟的棉花）。在踩踏時，會隨著腳的高度而凹陷。這是天帝釋（Indra，佛教的護法神）所居住的大城。城有千門，裝飾華麗，每一扇門有五百位身穿青衣的藥叉，勇猛健壯，容貌端正，身高一逾繕那，各自穿著鎧甲，手持兵器，防守城門。在城中，有一座殊勝殿（Vaijayanta，帝釋天的宮殿），用各種珍寶裝飾，超越了其他天宮，所以名為殊勝。每一面長二百五十逾繕那，周長一千逾繕那。這就是城中所有可愛的事物。 城外四面，有四座花園，裝飾華麗，是諸天共同遊玩的地方。第一座是眾車苑（Citraratha，意為『裝飾華麗的車』），在這座花園中，隨著天人的福報，會出現各種各樣的車乘。第二座是粗惡苑（Parusaka，意為『粗糙的』），當天人想要戰鬥時，會根據他們的需要，出現鎧甲和武器等。第三座是雜林苑（Misraka，意為『混合的』），諸天進入其中，所玩樂的事物都相同，共同產生殊勝的喜悅。第四座是喜林苑（Nandana，意為『喜悅的』），這裡有極妙的欲塵（Kama-dhatu，感官享受），各種各樣的東西都聚集在這裡，永遠不會厭倦。這四座花園，形狀都是正方形，每一座的周長都是一千逾繕那。花園中央各有一個如意池（Manasa，意為『如意的』），每一面長五十逾繕那，其中充滿八功德水（Asta-guna-samannagatam，具有八種功德的水），隨心所欲地出現美妙的蓮花、寶船和美麗的鳥類，每一樣都非常奇特美麗，用各種各樣的東西裝飾。四座花園的四邊，有四塊美妙的土地，中間距離花園各有二十逾繕那，每一邊的長度都是二百逾繕那。這是諸天眾進行殊勝遊戲的地方。諸天在那裡競爭、取勝、歡娛。城外東北方，有一棵圓生樹（Pārijāta，意為『天上的花』），是三十三天（Trayastrimsa，佛教的欲界六天之一）享受欲樂的地方。樹根深廣，有五逾繕那。樹幹聳立上升，枝條向四周伸展，高度和廣度都是一百逾繕那。
【English Translation】 English version: The teacher said: Each side of Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, the central world-mountain in Buddhist cosmology) is eighty thousand yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of distance, approximately 7-9 kilometers). It is no different in measurement from the four sides at its base. At each of the four corners of the mountain top, there is a peak, each with a height and breadth of five hundred yojanas. There is a Yaksa (Yaksa, a type of guardian deity) deity named Vajrapani (Vajrapani, a Dharma protector holding a vajra), who dwells in the middle of these peaks, protecting the devas (Deva, a type of deity). In the center of the mountain top, there is a palace named Sudarsana (Sudarsana, meaning 'beautiful to behold'), each side measuring two thousand five hundred yojanas, with a circumference of ten thousand yojanas. The city wall is one and a half yojanas high, and the ground is level, made of pure gold, adorned with one hundred and one kinds of various treasures. The ground is soft to the touch, like Tulā cotton (Tulā, a type of soft cotton). When stepped upon, it sinks according to the height of the foot. This is the great city where Indra (Indra, a protector deity in Buddhism) resides. The city has a thousand gates, adorned magnificently, each gate guarded by five hundred blue-clad Yaksas, brave and strong, with upright countenances, each one yojana in height, wearing armor and holding weapons, defending the city gates. Within the city, there is a magnificent palace called Vaijayanta (Vaijayanta, Indra's palace), adorned with various precious jewels, surpassing all other deva palaces, hence the name 'magnificent'. Each side is two hundred and fifty yojanas long, with a circumference of one thousand yojanas. These are all the delightful things within the city. Outside the city, on all four sides, are four adorned gardens, where the devas play together. The first is the Citraratha Garden (Citraratha, meaning 'adorned chariot'), in which various vehicles appear according to the merit of the devas. The second is the Parusaka Garden (Parusaka, meaning 'rough'), where armor and weapons appear according to their needs when the devas wish to fight. The third is the Misraka Garden (Misraka, meaning 'mixed'), where all the devas enjoy the same things, and together they experience supreme joy. The fourth is the Nandana Garden (Nandana, meaning 'delightful'), where the most exquisite sensory pleasures (Kama-dhatu, realm of desire) are gathered, and one never tires of beholding them. These four gardens are all square in shape, each with a circumference of one thousand yojanas. In the center of each garden is a Manasa Lake (Manasa, meaning 'wish-fulfilling'), each side measuring fifty yojanas, filled with water possessing eight qualities (Asta-guna-samannagatam, water with eight virtues), with beautiful lotuses, treasure boats, and lovely birds appearing at will, each one unique and adorned with various things. On the four sides of the four gardens, there are four exquisite lands, each twenty yojanas away from the garden, each side measuring two hundred yojanas. These are the places where the devas engage in supreme games. The devas compete, win, and rejoice there. Northeast of the city, there is a Pārijāta tree (Pārijāta, meaning 'heavenly flower'), where the thirty-three devas (Trayastrimsa, one of the six heavens of desire in Buddhism) enjoy sensual pleasures. The roots are deep and wide, measuring five yojanas. The trunk rises straight up, and the branches spread out in all directions, with a height and breadth of one hundred yojanas.
葉開花。妙香芬馥。順風熏滿百逾繕那。若逆風時。猶遍五十。若謂經遮故無逆風熏經。就人間香校量無失。謂現見故。引校德香。且對人間香。贊德香為勝。諸天福勝。感此樹香。雖天和風力所擁遏。然能相續。流趣余方。非人間香能有是事。業果差別。難可思議。不應以人貶量天福。城外西南角。有大善法堂。三十三天。時集詳辨。制伏阿素洛等。如法不如法事。如是已辨三十三天所居外器。余有色天眾所住器云何。頌曰。
此上有色天 住依空宮殿
論曰。從夜摩天。至色究竟。所住宮殿。皆但依空有說。空中密雲彌布。如地為彼宮殿所依外器世間。至色究竟。上無色故。不可施設。如是所說諸天眾中。頌曰。
六受欲交抱 執手笑視淫
論曰。梵眾天等。由對治力。于諸欲法。皆已遠離。唯六慾天。受妙欲境。六慾天者。一四大王眾天。謂彼有四大王及所領眾。或彼天眾事四大王。是四大王之所領故。二三十三天。謂彼天處。是三十三部諸天所居。三夜摩天。謂彼天處。時時多分稱快樂哉。四睹史多天。謂彼天處。多於自所受。生喜足心。五樂變化天。謂彼天處。樂數化欲境。于中受樂。六他化自在天。謂彼天處。於他所化欲境。自在受樂。六中初二依地居天。形交成淫。與人無別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 葉開花（樹名）。妙香芬芳濃郁。順風時，香氣能飄散一百多逾繕那（距離單位）。如果逆風，也能飄散五十逾繕那。如果說因為有經文遮擋，所以香氣無法逆風飄散，那麼就用人間之香來衡量，也不會有偏差。這是因為（香氣飄散）是親眼所見的事實。引用（天上的）功德之香來校量（人間的香），並且讚美功德之香更為殊勝。諸天福報殊勝，才能感得此樹之香。即使有天上的風力阻擋，香氣仍然能夠持續不斷地流向其他地方。這不是人間之香能夠做到的。業果的差別，難以思議。不應該用人間的標準來貶低衡量天上的福報。城外西南角，有大善法堂。三十三天（忉利天）的天人，時常聚集在那裡詳細辨別，制伏阿素洛（非天）等，如法不如法之事。以上已經辨析了三十三天所居住的外器（世界）。其餘有色界天眾所居住的器世界是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『此上有色天，住依空宮殿』 論述：從夜摩天（Yama Heaven）到色究竟天（Akanistha Heaven），所居住的宮殿，都只是依憑空中有這樣的說法。空中密佈的雲層，就像大地一樣，作為那些宮殿所依賴的外器世界。到了色究竟天，因為上面沒有色界，所以無法施設（器世界）。如上所說的諸天眾中，頌文說： 『六受欲交抱，執手笑視淫』 論述：梵眾天（Brahma-parisadya Heaven）等天眾，由於對治（煩惱）的力量，對於各種慾望之法，都已經遠離。只有六慾天（Six Desire Heavens），感受微妙的慾望境界。六慾天是：一、四大王眾天（Heaven of the Four Great Kings），因為那裡有四大天王以及他們所統領的部眾，或者說那些天眾侍奉四大天王，是被四大天王所統領的緣故。二、三十三天（Heaven of the Thirty-three），因為那個天處，是三十三個部的諸天所居住的地方。三、夜摩天（Yama Heaven），因為那個天處，時常多分地稱讚快樂啊。四、睹史多天（Tushita Heaven），因為那個天處，大多對自己所受用的（事物）生起喜悅滿足的心。五、樂變化天（Nirmanarati Heaven），因為那個天處，樂於變化出各種慾望境界，在其中享受快樂。六、他化自在天（Paranirmita-vasavartin Heaven），因為那個天處，對於他人所變化出來的慾望境界，自在地享受快樂。六慾天中最初的二天，依地而居的天人，以形體交合的方式行淫，與人類沒有區別。
【English Translation】 English version The Ye Kai flower (tree name) emits a wonderful and fragrant aroma. When the wind is favorable, the fragrance can spread over a hundred Yojanas (unit of distance). Even against the wind, it can still spread fifty Yojanas. If it is said that because of the obstruction of scriptures, the fragrance cannot spread against the wind, then compare it with the fragrance of the human world, and there will be no discrepancy. This is because (the spread of fragrance) is a fact that is seen with one's own eyes. Use the merit fragrance (of the heavens) to compare (the fragrance of the human world), and praise the merit fragrance as being more superior. The blessings of the heavens are superior, so one can perceive the fragrance of this tree. Even if there is heavenly wind force obstructing it, the fragrance can still continuously flow to other places. This is something that the fragrance of the human world cannot do. The differences in karmic results are difficult to fathom. One should not use human standards to belittle and measure the blessings of the heavens. Outside the southwest corner of the city, there is the Great Good Dharma Hall. The devas of the Trayastrimsa Heaven (Heaven of the Thirty-three) often gather there to carefully discern and subdue the Asuras (non-gods), and matters that are in accordance with or not in accordance with the Dharma. The external vessel (world) in which the Trayastrimsa Heaven resides has been analyzed above. What are the vessel worlds in which the other devas of the Form Realm reside? The verse says: 'Above this, the devas of the Form Realm reside, dwelling in palaces that rely on space.' Commentary: From the Yama Heaven to the Akanistha Heaven, the palaces in which they reside are said to rely only on space. The dense clouds in the air, like the earth, serve as the external vessel world upon which those palaces depend. As for the Akanistha Heaven, because there is no Form Realm above it, it is impossible to establish (a vessel world). Among the various assemblies of devas mentioned above, the verse says: 'The six experience desires through embracing, holding hands, smiling, and lustful glances.' Commentary: The devas of the Brahma-parisadya Heaven and others, due to the power of counteracting (afflictions), have already distanced themselves from all desire-related dharmas. Only the Six Desire Heavens experience subtle realms of desire. The Six Desire Heavens are: 1. The Heaven of the Four Great Kings, because there are the Four Great Kings and their retinue there, or because those devas serve the Four Great Kings and are led by the Four Great Kings. 2. The Heaven of the Thirty-three, because that heavenly abode is where the thirty-three divisions of devas reside. 3. The Yama Heaven, because in that heavenly abode, they often praise happiness. 4. The Tushita Heaven, because in that heavenly abode, they mostly generate joyful and contented minds towards what they enjoy. 5. The Nirmanarati Heaven, because in that heavenly abode, they delight in transforming various realms of desire and enjoy happiness within them. 6. The Paranirmita-vasavartin Heaven, because in that heavenly abode, they freely enjoy the realms of desire transformed by others. The first two of the Six Desire Heavens, the devas who reside on the earth, engage in sexual intercourse through physical union, which is no different from humans.
。然風氣泄。熱惱便除。非如人間有餘不凈。夜摩天眾。才抱成淫。俱起染心。暫時相抱。熱惱便息。唯一起染。雖受抱樂。而不成淫。若俱無染心。雖相執抱。如親相敬愛。而無過失。睹史多天。但由執手熱惱便息。樂變化天。唯相向笑。便除熱惱。他化自在。相視成淫。如是后三俱一無染成淫樂愛。差別如前。后二天中。唯化資具。若異此者。俱染不成。實並形交。方成淫事。施設所說。顯時不同。由上諸天欲境轉妙。貪心轉重。身觸有殊。故經少時。數成淫事。不爾天欲樂。應少於人中。隨彼諸天男女膝上。有童男童女。欻爾化生。即說為彼天所生男女。初生天眾。身量云何。頌曰。
初如五至十 色圓滿有衣
論曰。且六慾諸天初生。如次如五六七八九十歲人。生己身形。速得圓滿。色界天眾。于初生時。身量周圓。具妙衣服。一切天眾。皆作聖言。謂彼言詞。同中印度。然不由學。自解典言。欲生樂生云何差別。頌曰。
欲生三人天 樂生三九處
論曰。欲生三者。有諸有情。樂受現前諸妙欲境。彼于如是現欲境中。自在而轉。謂今人趣。及下四天。有諸有情。樂受自化諸妙欲境。彼于自化妙欲境中。自在而轉。謂唯第五樂變化天。有諸有情。樂受他化諸妙欲境。彼於他化妙欲境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：然而風氣宣泄，熱惱便消除。不像人間還有不凈之物。夜摩天（Yama Heaven，欲界六天中的第三天）的眾生，才剛相抱就成了淫事，都生起染污之心，暫時相抱，熱惱便止息，唯獨生起染污之心，雖然享受擁抱的快樂，卻不能構成淫事。如果雙方都沒有染污之心，即使互相執手擁抱，也如同親人互相敬愛，而沒有過失。兜率天（Tushita Heaven，欲界六天中的第四天）僅僅因為執手，熱惱便止息。樂變化天（Nirmanarati Heaven，欲界六天中的第五天）僅僅是相向一笑，便能消除熱惱。他化自在天（Paranirmitavasavartin Heaven，欲界六天中的第六天）互相對視就成了淫事。像這樣，後面的三層天都以沒有染污之心而成就淫樂愛慾，差別如前所述。後面的兩層天中，僅僅是變化資具，如果不是這樣，都因為有染污之心而不能成就，實際上必須形體交合，才能成就淫事。施設所說的，顯示的時間不同。由於上面的諸天欲境更加美妙，貪心更加嚴重，身體接觸有差別，所以在很短的時間內，多次成就淫事。不然的話，天上的欲樂，應該比人間少。隨著那些天上的男女膝上，有童男童女，忽然化生出來，就說他們是那層天所生的男女。最初出生的天眾，身量如何？頌說： 『最初像五到十歲，顏色圓滿有衣服。』 論說：且說六慾天的眾生最初出生時，依次像五歲、六歲、七歲、八歲、九歲、十歲的人。出生後身體迅速變得圓滿。天眾在最初出生時，身量周圓，具有美妙的衣服。一切天眾，都說聖言，所說的言詞，和中印度相同。然而不是通過學習，自然就能理解典籍的語言。欲生和樂生有什麼差別？頌說： 『欲生是三層天，樂生是三九處。』 論說：欲生是三層天，有些有情，喜歡享受眼前的各種美妙欲境，他們在這些眼前的欲境中，自在地活動，指的是現在的人道，以及下方的四層天。有些有情，喜歡享受自己變化的各種美妙欲境，他們在自己變化的妙欲境中，自在地活動，指的是第五層天樂變化天。有些有情，喜歡享受他人變化的各種美妙欲境，他們在他人變化的妙欲境中自在地活動。
【English Translation】 English version: However, when the wind (of passion) is released, the heat and vexation are removed. It is not like in the human realm where there remains impurity. The beings of the Yama Heaven (the third of the six desire realms), only upon embracing, engage in sexual activity, all arising with defiled minds. By temporarily embracing, the heat and vexation cease, but only defilement arises. Although they experience the pleasure of embracing, it does not constitute complete sexual activity. If both are without defiled minds, even if they hold each other, it is like relatives respecting and loving each other, without fault. In the Tushita Heaven (the fourth of the six desire realms), merely by holding hands, the heat and vexation cease. In the Nirmanarati Heaven (the fifth of the six desire realms), merely by smiling at each other, the heat and vexation are removed. In the Paranirmitavasavartin Heaven (the sixth of the six desire realms), looking at each other constitutes sexual activity. Thus, the latter three heavens all achieve the pleasure of sexual love without defilement, the differences being as described before. In the latter two heavens, only the transformed resources (are needed); if it is not so, it cannot be achieved due to defiled minds. In reality, physical intercourse is necessary to constitute sexual activity. The teachings are presented to show the differences in time. Because the objects of desire in the higher heavens are more exquisite, the greed is more intense, and the physical contact is different, sexual activity is frequently achieved in a short time. Otherwise, the pleasure of desire in the heavens should be less than in the human realm. Along with the men and women in those heavens, young boys and girls suddenly appear on their laps, and it is said that they are the sons and daughters born in that heaven. What is the size of the beings newly born in the heavens? The verse says: 'Initially like five to ten years old, with perfect color and clothing.' The treatise says: Let us say that the beings of the six desire heavens are initially born like people of five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten years old, respectively. Their bodies quickly become complete. The heavenly beings are born with bodies that are round and complete, and they have exquisite clothing. All the heavenly beings speak the sacred language, which is the same as that of central India. However, they do not learn it; they naturally understand the language of the scriptures. What is the difference between those who desire birth and those who desire pleasure? The verse says: 'Those who desire birth are in three heavens, those who desire pleasure are in three nines of places.' The treatise says: Those who desire birth are in three heavens. Some sentient beings enjoy experiencing the various wonderful objects of desire before them. They freely move within these present objects of desire, referring to the present human realm and the four heavens below. Some sentient beings enjoy experiencing the various wonderful objects of desire that they transform themselves. They freely move within these self-transformed wonderful objects of desire, referring only to the fifth heaven, the Nirmanarati Heaven. Some sentient beings enjoy experiencing the various wonderful objects of desire that others transform. They freely move within these other-transformed wonderful objects of desire.
中。自在而轉。謂第六他化自在天。此欲生三。依何建立。依受如生現前欲境故。依受如樂自化欲境故。依受如樂他化欲境故。又依所受下中上境故。又依受用有罪有勞現前欲境故。依樂受用無罪有勞。自化欲境故。依樂受用無罪無勞他化欲境故依如是等。故有差別。樂生三者。三靜慮中。於九處生。受三種樂。以彼所受。有樂異熟。無苦異熟。故名樂生。此樂生三。依何建立。依多安住。離生喜樂。定生喜樂。離喜樂故。或依三種災所及故。或依尋喜樂增上故。或依身想異無異故。依如是等。故有差別。大梵既有喜樂現行。名樂生天。亦無有失。所說諸天二十二處。上下相去。其量云何。頌曰。
如彼去下量 去上數亦然
論曰。一一中間逾繕那量。非易可數。但可總舉。彼去下量。去上例然。隨從何天。去下海量。彼上所至。與去下同。謂妙高山。從第四層級。去下大海。四萬逾繕那。上去三十三天。亦如去下海量。如三十三天去下大海。上去夜摩天。其量亦爾。如是乃至。如善見天去下大海。從彼上去色究竟天。其量亦爾。如是懸遠。多逾繕那。如明眼人暫見色頃。世尊能以意勢神通。運身往來。自在無礙。故佛神力。不可思議。于下處生。升見上不。頌曰。
離通力依他 下無升見上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：在自在中運轉，指的是第六他化自在天（Paranirmitavasavartin，欲界頂天的名稱）。這欲界的三種生，是依據什麼建立的呢？依據感受如實顯現的欲境而生；依據感受如樂，自己變化欲境而生；依據感受如樂，他人變化欲境而生。又依據所受的下、中、上等境界而生。又依據受用有罪、有勞的現前欲境而生；依據快樂受用無罪、有勞的自化欲境而生；依據快樂受用無罪、無勞的他化欲境而生。依據像這些原因，所以有差別。樂生三種，在三靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）中，於九處產生，感受三種快樂。因為他們所感受的，有快樂的異熟果報，沒有痛苦的異熟果報，所以名為樂生。這樂生三種，是依據什麼建立的呢？依據多安住于離生喜樂（由離開欲界而產生的喜樂）、定生喜樂（由禪定產生的喜樂）、離喜樂（捨棄喜的樂）的緣故。或者依據三種災害所能波及的範圍而建立。或者依據尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）、喜、樂增上的緣故。或者依據身想（身體的感知）有差異或沒有差異的緣故。依據像這些原因，所以有差別。大梵天（Mahabrahma，色界初禪天的天主）既然有喜樂現行，名為樂生天，也沒有什麼過失。所說的諸天二十二處，上下相距，其量有多少呢？頌說： 『如同向下量的距離，向上數的距離也是這樣。』 論說：每一處中間都超過逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）的量，不容易數清，但可以總括地說。向下量的距離，向上也是同樣的。無論從哪個天界，向下到大海的距離，向上所到達的地方，與向下相同。比如妙高山（Sumeru，須彌山），從第四層級，向下到大海，有四萬逾繕那。向上到三十三天（Trayastrimsa，忉利天），也如同向下到大海的距離。如同三十三天向下到大海的距離，向上到夜摩天（Yama，夜摩天）的距離也是這樣。像這樣乃至，如同善見天（Sudarsana，色界四禪天的天名）向下到大海的距離，從那裡向上到色究竟天（Akanistha，色界頂天的名稱），其距離也是這樣。像這樣懸遠，多逾繕那。如同明眼人暫時看到顏色的時候，世尊（Bhagavan，佛的尊稱）能以意勢神通，運身往來，自在無礙。所以佛的神力，不可思議。在下處生的眾生，能升上去見到上面的天界嗎？頌說： 『離開神通力，依靠他人，地獄眾生不能升上去見到上界。』
【English Translation】 English version: Revolving in freedom, referring to the sixth Paranirmitavasavartin heaven (the highest heaven of the desire realm). Upon what are these three births in the desire realm established? They are established based on experiencing desire realms as they truly appear; based on experiencing pleasure by transforming desire realms oneself; and based on experiencing pleasure by others transforming desire realms. Also, they are based on experiencing lower, middle, and upper realms. Furthermore, they are based on experiencing sinful and laborious present desire realms; based on experiencing pleasure in sinless but laborious self-transformed desire realms; and based on experiencing pleasure in sinless and effortless other-transformed desire realms. Based on these reasons, there are differences. The three pleasure-births, within the three Dhyanas (meditative states), arise in nine places, experiencing three kinds of pleasure. Because what they experience has pleasurable Vipaka (result), and no painful Vipaka, they are called pleasure-births. Upon what are these three pleasure-births established? They are established based on dwelling mostly in pleasure born from detachment (from the desire realm), pleasure born from Samadhi (meditative concentration), and pleasure detached from joy. Or they are established based on the reach of the three kinds of disasters. Or they are established based on the increase of Vitarka (initial application of thought), joy, and pleasure. Or they are based on whether the perception of the body is different or not. Based on these reasons, there are differences. Since Mahabrahma (the lord of the first Dhyana heaven in the form realm) has joy and pleasure manifesting, being called a pleasure-birth heaven is not a fault. How much distance is there between the twenty-two places of the heavens mentioned, above and below? The verse says: 'As the distance downwards, so is the distance upwards.' The treatise says: The distance between each place exceeds Yojana (an ancient Indian unit of distance), which is not easy to count, but can be summarized. The distance downwards is the same as the distance upwards. From whichever heaven, the distance downwards to the great ocean is the same as the distance upwards to the corresponding heaven. For example, Mount Sumeru (the central world-mountain), from the fourth level, is 40,000 Yojana downwards to the great ocean. Upwards to the Trayastrimsa heaven (the Heaven of Thirty-Three), the distance is also the same as downwards to the great ocean. As the distance from the Trayastrimsa heaven downwards to the great ocean, so is the distance upwards to the Yama heaven. Likewise, even as the distance from the Sudarsana heaven (a heaven in the fourth Dhyana of the form realm) downwards to the great ocean, so is the distance upwards from there to the Akanistha heaven (the highest heaven of the form realm). Such is the vast distance, many Yojana. Just as a clear-eyed person can see colors in an instant, the Bhagavan (the Blessed One, a title for the Buddha) can use the power of intention and supernatural abilities to travel back and forth, freely and without obstruction. Therefore, the Buddha's divine power is inconceivable. Can beings born in lower realms ascend to see the higher realms? The verse says: 'Apart from supernatural power, relying on others, beings in lower realms cannot ascend to see the higher realms.'
論曰。如四大王天眾升見三十三天。非三十三天升見夜摩天等。然彼若得定所發通。一切皆能升見於上。或依他力。升見上天。謂得神通及上天眾引接。往彼隨其所應。或上天來下亦能見。若上界地來向下時。非下化身。下眼不見。非其境界故。如不覺彼觸故。上界地來向下時。必化下身。為令下見。有餘部說。如欲界中。若往若來。下眼見上。如是色界諸地往來。設離下化身。下眼亦見上。彼說非理。以色界中諸地相望因果斷故。要離下地染。方得上生故。下地眼根。不見上色。是卑下業。所感果故。雖欲見上而無見能。依地居天。已說處量。夜摩天等處量云何。有說。四天如迷盧頂。有說。此四上倍倍增。有餘師言。初靜慮地宮殿依處。等一四洲。第二靜慮。等小千界。第三靜慮。等中千界。第四靜慮。等大千界。有餘師言。下三靜慮。如次量等小中大千。第四靜慮量無邊際。齊何量說小中大千。頌曰。
四大洲日月 蘇迷盧欲天 梵世各一千 名一小千界 此小千千倍 說名一中千 此千倍大千 皆同一成壞
論曰。千四大洲。乃至梵世。如是總說為一小千。千倍小千。名一中千界。千中千界。總名一大千。此中小千。唯舉至梵世故。少光等非小千界攝。積小千等為中大千。故中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論中說，例如四大王天（Catummaharajika-deva，四大天王所居住的天界）的眾生可以上升去拜見三十三天（Tavatimsa，帝釋天所居住的天界），但三十三天的眾生卻不能上升去拜見夜摩天（Yama，夜摩天王所居住的天界）等等。然而，如果他們獲得了禪定，生起了神通，一切眾生都能上升去拜見更高的天界。或者依靠他力，上升去拜見上層天界，這是指獲得神通或者上層天界的眾生引導接引。前往那裡，隨其所應。或者上層天界的眾生降下來，下層天界的眾生也能見到他們。如果上層天界的眾生降到地獄時，不是以化身的形式，地獄眾生的眼睛是無法看見的，因為這不是他們的境界。就像無法感覺到他們的觸覺一樣。上層天界的眾生降到地獄時，必定要化作地獄眾生的身形，才能讓地獄眾生看見。有其餘的部派說，就像在欲界中，無論是往還是來，地獄眾生的眼睛都能看見上界眾生。像這樣，諸地的眾生往來，即使不化作地獄眾生的身形，地獄眾生的眼睛也能看見上界眾生。他們的說法是不合理的，因為諸地相互之間的因果關係已經斷絕。必須要脫離地獄的染污，才能得以升到上界。地獄眾生的眼根，無法看見上界的色，這是卑下的業所感得的果報。雖然想要看見上界，卻沒有看見的能力。關於地居天的處所和量，已經說過了。夜摩天等等的處所和量又是怎樣的呢？有人說，四天王天就像須彌盧山（Sumeru，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）的山頂。有人說，這四天王天向上依次倍增。還有其他的老師說，初禪天的宮殿和所依之處，等於一個四洲（catu-dvipa，指圍繞須彌山的四大部洲）。第二禪天，等於一個小千世界（small chiliocosm）。第三禪天，等於一個中千世界（medium chiliocosm）。第四禪天，等於一個大千世界（great chiliocosm）。還有其他的老師說，下三禪天，依次量等於小千世界、中千世界、大千世界。第四禪天的量沒有邊際。以什麼量來說小千世界、中千世界、大千世界呢？頌說：
四大洲、日月、須彌盧山、欲界天、梵世各一千，名為一小千世界。 這個小千世界的一千倍，稱為一個中千世界。 這個中千世界的一千倍，總稱為一個大千世界，它們都共同經歷一個成住壞空的過程。
論中說，一千個四大洲，乃至梵世，像這樣總合起來說為一個「小千世界」。一千倍的小千世界，名為一個「中千世界」。一千個中千世界，總名為一個「大千世界」。這裡的小千世界，只舉例到梵世，所以少光天（Parittabha，二禪天之一）等不屬於小千世界所包含的範圍。積累小千世界等成為中千世界、大千世界，所以中千
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise states: For example, beings of the Catummaharajika-deva (Heaven of the Four Great Kings) can ascend to see the Tavatimsa (Heaven of the Thirty-three), but beings of the Tavatimsa cannot ascend to see the Yama (Heaven of Yama) and so on. However, if they attain Samadhi and develop supernormal powers, all beings can ascend to see the higher realms. Or, relying on the power of others, they can ascend to see the upper heavens, which means obtaining supernormal powers or being guided and received by beings of the upper heavens. They go there as appropriate. Or, when beings from the upper heavens descend, beings of the lower heavens can also see them. If beings from the upper realms descend to the lower realms, not in a manifested body, the eyes of the lower beings cannot see them, because it is not within their realm. It is like not being able to perceive their touch. When beings from the upper realms descend to the lower realms, they must transform into the form of lower beings in order to be seen by them. Some other schools say that, just as in the Desire Realm, whether going or coming, the eyes of the lower beings can see the upper beings. In this way, when beings of various realms go back and forth, even without transforming into the form of lower beings, the eyes of the lower beings can see the upper beings. Their statement is unreasonable, because the causal relationships between the realms are severed. One must be free from the defilements of the lower realms in order to be reborn in the upper realms. The eye faculty of the lower realms cannot see the forms of the upper realms, because it is the result of base karma. Although they want to see the upper realms, they do not have the ability to see. The location and extent of the earth-dwelling gods have already been discussed. What are the locations and extents of the Yama and other heavens? Some say that the Heaven of the Four Great Kings is like the summit of Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, the sacred mountain in Buddhist cosmology). Some say that these four heavens increase by multiples upwards. Other teachers say that the palaces and abodes of the First Dhyana (meditative absorption) realm are equal to one catu-dvipa (four continents, referring to the four continents surrounding Mount Sumeru). The Second Dhyana realm is equal to a small chiliocosm. The Third Dhyana realm is equal to a medium chiliocosm. The Fourth Dhyana realm is equal to a great chiliocosm. Other teachers say that the lower three Dhyana realms are equal in measure to the small, medium, and great chiliocosms, respectively. The measure of the Fourth Dhyana realm is boundless. By what measure are the small, medium, and great chiliocosms spoken of? The verse says:
One thousand of the four continents, suns and moons, Mount Sumeru, Desire Realm heavens, and Brahma worlds, are called a small chiliocosm. One thousand times this small chiliocosm is called a medium chiliocosm. One thousand times this medium chiliocosm is collectively called a great chiliocosm, and they all undergo the same process of formation, existence, destruction, and emptiness.
The treatise states: One thousand of the four continents, up to the Brahma worlds, are collectively referred to as a 'small chiliocosm.' One thousand times the small chiliocosm is called a 'medium chiliocosm.' One thousand times the medium chiliocosm is collectively called a 'great chiliocosm.' Here, the small chiliocosm only exemplifies up to the Brahma worlds, so the Parittabha (one of the heavens in the Second Dhyana realm) and others are not included within the scope of the small chiliocosm. Accumulating small chiliocosms and so on forms the medium and great chiliocosms, so the medium
大千亦不攝彼。又言小者。是卑下義。以除上故。如截角牛。積小成余。亦非攝彼。此三千界。同壞同成。其中有情。壞成亦等。如外器量別。身量亦別耶。亦別。云何。頌曰。
贍部洲人量 三肘半四肘 東西北洲人 倍倍增如次 欲天俱盧舍 四分一一增 色天逾繕那 初四增半半 此上增倍倍 唯無雲減三
論曰。贍部洲人身。多長三肘半。于中少分。有長四肘。東勝身人。身長八肘。西牛貨人。長十六肘。北俱盧人。三十二肘。欲界六天。最下身量。一俱盧舍。四分之一。如是後後一一分增。至第六天。身一俱盧舍半。色天身量。初梵眾天。半逾繕那。梵輔全一。大梵一半。少光二全。此上余天。皆增倍倍。唯無雲減三逾繕那。謂無量光天。倍增二至四。乃至色究竟。增滿萬六千。身量既殊。壽量別不。亦別。云何。頌曰。
北洲定千年 西東半半減 此洲壽不定 后十初叵量 人間五十年 下天一晝夜 乘斯壽五百 上五倍倍增 色無晝夜殊 劫數等身量 無色初二萬 後後二二增 少光上下天 大全半為劫
論曰。北俱盧人。定壽千歲。彼於人趣。福力最強。鈍根薄塵。多諸快樂。無攝受過。死必上生。少受士用果。離諸違諍濁。以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大千世界也不能包含它。又說『小』，是卑下的意思，用來排除高上的。如同截角的牛，積累小的部分成為剩餘的整體，也不能包含它。這三千大千世界，一同壞滅一同產生，其中的有情眾生，壞滅和產生也是一樣的。如同外面的器物有大小差別，身體的大小也有差別嗎？也有差別。是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『贍部洲（Jambudvipa，我們所居住的大陸）人身高，三肘半或四肘，東西北洲的人，依次加倍增長。欲界天人一俱盧舍（krosa，古代印度長度單位），四分之一遞增。色界天人超過一逾繕那（yojana，古代印度長度單位），最初四個天依次增加一半。此上的天人，都加倍增長，只有無雲天減少三逾繕那。』 論述說：贍部洲人的身高，大多是三肘半，其中少部分有四肘。東勝身洲的人，身高八肘。西牛貨洲的人，身高十六肘。北俱盧洲的人，身高三十二肘。欲界六天，最下層天的身高是一俱盧舍的四分之一。像這樣，後後的天依次增加四分之一，到第六天，身高一俱盧舍半。色界天的身高，最初的梵眾天是半逾繕那，梵輔天是一逾繕那，大梵天是一逾繕那半，少光天是二逾繕那。此上的其餘天，都加倍增長，只有無雲天減少三逾繕那。指的是無量光天，加倍增長二到四，乃至色究竟天，增長到一萬六千逾繕那。既然身高不同，壽命長短有差別嗎？也有差別。是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『北俱盧洲人壽命固定一千年，西東兩洲依次減半。此贍部洲人壽命不固定，後來是十歲，最初是不可衡量。人間五十年，是下層天的一晝夜，以此計算壽命五百歲，上面的五層天依次加倍增長。色界天沒有晝夜差別，劫數（kalpa，佛教時間單位）等於身量。無色界最初兩萬劫，後後依次增加兩萬劫。少光天上下兩層天，分別是完整的一劫和半劫。』 論述說：北俱盧洲的人，壽命固定一千年。他們在人道中，福力最強，根器遲鈍，塵垢輕薄，有很多快樂，沒有攝取的過患，死後必定上升，很少承受士用果，遠離各種違背爭訟的濁染，因為...
【English Translation】 English version The great chiliocosm also does not encompass them. Furthermore, to say 'small' is to mean inferior, to exclude the superior. Like a cow with its horns cut off, accumulating small parts to form the remaining whole, it also does not encompass them. These three thousand great chiliocosms share the same destruction and formation, and the sentient beings within them also share the same destruction and formation. Just as external vessels have different sizes, do the sizes of bodies also differ? They also differ. How so? The verse says: 'The height of people in Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, the continent we live on) is three and a half or four cubits, and the people of the east, west, and north continents increase in multiples in that order. Desire realm gods are one krosa (krosa, an ancient Indian unit of length), increasing by one-quarter each time. Form realm gods exceed one yojana (yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length), with the first four heavens increasing by half each time. The heavens above this increase by multiples, except for the Anabhraka heaven, which decreases by three yojanas.' The treatise says: The height of people in Jambudvipa is mostly three and a half cubits, with a small portion being four cubits. The people of Purvavideha are eight cubits tall. The people of Aparagodaniya are sixteen cubits tall. The people of Uttarakuru are thirty-two cubits tall. The lowest of the six heavens of the desire realm is one-quarter of a krosa in height. In this way, each subsequent heaven increases by one-quarter, until the sixth heaven, which is one and a half krosas tall. The height of the form realm heavens is as follows: the Brahmaparisadya heaven is half a yojana, the Brahmapurohita heaven is one full yojana, the Mahabrahma heaven is one and a half yojanas, and the Parittabha heaven is two full yojanas. The remaining heavens above this all increase by multiples, except for the Anabhraka heaven, which decreases by three yojanas. This refers to the Apramanabha heaven, which increases by multiples of two to four, up to the Akanistha heaven, which increases to sixteen thousand yojanas. Since the heights are different, are the lifespans also different? They are also different. How so? The verse says: 'The lifespan of people in Uttarakuru is fixed at one thousand years, with the west and east continents decreasing by half in that order. The lifespan of people in Jambudvipa is not fixed, later it is ten years, initially it is immeasurable. Fifty human years are one day and night in the lower heaven, calculating the lifespan as five hundred years, with the five heavens above increasing by multiples. The form realm has no difference between day and night, the kalpas (kalpa, a Buddhist unit of time) are equal to the body size. The first two heavens of the formless realm are twenty thousand kalpas, with each subsequent heaven increasing by twenty thousand kalpas. The heavens above and below Parittabha are one full kalpa and half a kalpa respectively.' The treatise says: The lifespan of people in Uttarakuru is fixed at one thousand years. They have the strongest merit in the human realm, dull faculties, thin dust, much happiness, no fault of appropriation, and are sure to be reborn upwards after death, rarely receiving the fruits of labor, and are far from the turbidities of conflict and contention, because...
彼有情所受種種衣服嚴具皆從樹生。諸妙花香。處處皆有。宮殿臺閣。池路橋船。婇女園林。自然華麗。其地平坦。無有丘坑荊棘瓦礫毒刺鹹鹵。亦無毒蟲諸惡禽獸。一切資具非工所成。晝夜雖恒受用無罪。諸善業果而不耽著。西牛貨人壽五百歲。東勝身人壽二百五十歲。南贍部人壽無定限。劫后增減或少或多。少極十年多極八萬。于劫初位。人壽叵量。非百千等所能計故。已說人間壽量長短。要先建立天上晝夜。方可算計天壽短長。天上云何建立晝夜。人五十歲。為六天中最在下天一晝一夜。乘斯晝夜。三十為月。十二月為歲。彼壽五百年。上五欲天。漸俱增倍。謂人百歲。為第二天一晝一夜。乘斯晝夜。成月及年。彼壽千歲。夜摩等四。隨次如人二四八百千六百歲。為一晝夜。乘斯晝夜。成月及年。如次彼壽二四八千萬六千歲。持雙以上。日月並無晝夜。光明依何而有。依華開合鳥鳴不鳴。寤寐不同。立有晝夜。外光明事。依內身成。已說欲天壽量長短。色天無有晝夜差別。但以劫數。知壽短長。彼劫壽短長。與身量數等。謂若身量半逾繕那。壽量半劫。若彼身量一逾繕那。壽量一劫。乃至身量長萬六千。壽量亦同。萬六千劫。已說色界天壽短長。無色四天。從下如次。壽量二四六八萬劫。上所說劫。為定依何。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 那些有情眾生所享用的各種衣服和裝飾品，都是從樹上自然生長出來的。各種美妙的花朵和香氣，到處都有。宮殿、樓臺、亭閣、池塘、道路、橋樑、船隻、美麗的女子和園林，都是自然而華麗的。那裡的土地平坦，沒有丘陵、坑洼、荊棘、瓦礫、毒刺或鹽堿，也沒有毒蟲和各種兇猛的禽獸。一切生活所需的物品都不是人工製造的。雖然日夜都在享用，卻沒有罪過，因為他們只是享受善業的果報，而不執著于這些享受。 西牛貨洲的人壽命五百歲，東勝身洲的人壽命二百五十歲，南贍部洲的人壽命沒有固定的期限。在劫數變化的過程中，壽命會增加或減少，有時少，有時多。壽命最短的時候是十年，最長的時候是八萬歲。在劫初的時候，人的壽命是無法估量的，不是用百千等數量可以計算的。 已經說完了人間壽命的長短，現在需要先確定天上的晝夜，才能計算天上的壽命長短。天上的晝夜是如何確定的呢？人間五十年，是六慾天中最下層天的一晝一夜。按照這樣的晝夜，三十天為一個月，十二個月為一年。那裡的壽命是五百年。越往上的五欲天，晝夜和壽命都逐漸增加一倍。也就是說，人間一百年，是第二天的一晝一夜。按照這樣的晝夜，形成月份和年份。那裡的壽命是一千年。夜摩天等四天，依次是人間的二百、四百、八百、一千六百年為一晝夜。按照這樣的晝夜，形成月份和年份。依次地，那裡的壽命是二百萬、四百萬、八百萬、一千六百萬歲。從持雙天以上，就沒有日月，也沒有晝夜。光明依靠什麼而存在呢？依靠花朵的開放和閉合，鳥鳴與否，以及眾生的醒與睡來區分晝夜。外在的光明現象，依靠內在的身體狀況而形成。 已經說完了欲界天壽命的長短。色界天沒有晝夜的差別，只是用劫數來計算壽命的長短。那裡的劫數壽命的長短，與身體的大小成正比。也就是說，如果身體的大小是半個逾繕那（yú shàn nà），壽命就是半劫。如果身體的大小是一個逾繕那（yú shàn nà），壽命就是一劫。乃至身體的大小是萬六千逾繕那（yú shàn nà），壽命也是萬六千劫。 已經說完了色界天壽命的長短。無色界的四天，從下往上依次是，壽命為二萬劫、四萬劫、六萬劫、八萬劫。上面所說的劫，是依據什麼來確定的呢？
【English Translation】 English version Those sentient beings enjoy various clothes and ornaments, all of which grow naturally from trees. Various beautiful flowers and fragrances are everywhere. Palaces, pavilions, terraces, ponds, roads, bridges, boats, beautiful women, and gardens are all natural and magnificent. The land there is flat, without hills, pits, thorns, gravel, poisonous thorns, or saline-alkali soil. There are also no poisonous insects or fierce birds and beasts. All necessities are not man-made. Although they are enjoyed day and night, there is no sin, because they are only enjoying the fruits of good karma without being attached to these enjoyments. The people of Western Gokaniya (Xī Niú Huò Zhōu) live for five hundred years, the people of Eastern Videha (Dōng Shèng Shēn Zhōu) live for two hundred and fifty years, and the people of Southern Jambudvipa (Nán Zhānbù Zhōu) have no fixed lifespan. During the changes of kalpas, lifespans will increase or decrease, sometimes less, sometimes more. The shortest lifespan is ten years, and the longest is eighty thousand years. At the beginning of a kalpa, the lifespan of humans is immeasurable, not something that can be calculated with hundreds of thousands or other such numbers. Having finished speaking about the length of human lifespans, it is now necessary to first determine the days and nights in the heavens in order to calculate the length of heavenly lifespans. How are days and nights determined in the heavens? Fifty human years are one day and night in the lowest of the six desire realms. According to these days and nights, thirty days make a month, and twelve months make a year. The lifespan there is five hundred years. The higher the five desire realms, the more the days and nights and lifespans gradually increase twofold. That is to say, one hundred human years are one day and night in the second heaven. According to these days and nights, months and years are formed. The lifespan there is one thousand years. The four heavens of Yama (Yè Mó) and so on, in order, are two hundred, four hundred, eight hundred, and one thousand six hundred human years for one day and night. According to these days and nights, months and years are formed. In order, the lifespans there are two million, four million, eight million, and sixteen million years. From the Heaven of Contentment (Chí Shuāng) and above, there are no sun, moon, days, or nights. What does light rely on to exist? It relies on the opening and closing of flowers, whether birds sing or not, and the waking and sleeping of beings to distinguish between day and night. External light phenomena are formed based on internal physical conditions. Having finished speaking about the length of lifespans in the desire realm, there is no difference between day and night in the form realm, but kalpas are used to calculate the length of lifespans. The length of kalpa lifespans there is proportional to the size of the body. That is to say, if the size of the body is half a Yojana (yú shàn nà), the lifespan is half a kalpa. If the size of the body is one Yojana (yú shàn nà), the lifespan is one kalpa. Even if the size of the body is sixteen thousand Yojanas (yú shàn nà), the lifespan is also sixteen thousand kalpas. Having finished speaking about the length of lifespans in the form realm, the four formless realms, from bottom to top in order, have lifespans of twenty thousand kalpas, forty thousand kalpas, sixty thousand kalpas, and eighty thousand kalpas. What is the basis for determining the kalpas mentioned above?
為壞為成。為中為大。少光以上。大全為劫。自下諸天。大半為劫。即由此故。說大梵王過梵輔天壽一劫半。空成住壞。各二十中。總八十中。為一大劫。取成住壞總六十中。為大梵王一劫半壽。故以大半四十中劫。為下三天所壽劫量。已說善趣壽量短長。惡趣云何。頌曰。
等活等上六 如次以欲天 壽為一晝夜 壽量亦同彼 極熱半中劫 無間中劫全 傍生極一中 鬼月日五百 頞部陀壽量 如一婆訶麻 百年除一盡 後後倍二十
論曰。惡趣亦無如人晝夜。然其壽量。比況可知。四大王等。六慾天壽。如其次第。為等活等六㮈落迦一晝一夜壽量。如次亦同彼天。謂四大王壽量五百。于等活地獄。為一晝一夜。乘此晝夜。成月及年。以如是年。彼壽五百。乃至他化。壽萬六千。于炎熱地獄。為一晝一夜。乘此晝夜。成月及年。彼壽如斯。萬六千歲。極熱地獄。壽半中劫。無間地獄。壽一中劫。傍生壽量。多無定限。若壽極長。亦一中劫。謂難陀等。諸大龍王。故世尊言。大龍有八。皆住一劫能持大地。鬼以人間一月為一日。乘此成月歲。壽五百年。寒那落迦。云何壽量。世尊寄喻。顯彼壽言。如此人間佉黎二十。成摩揭陀國一麻婆訶量。有置巨勝平滿其中。設復有能百年除一。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『為壞為成』，意為經歷壞劫和成劫。『為中為大』，意為經歷中劫和大劫。少光天以上的眾生，壽命以大劫為單位計算。自下方的諸天，其壽命大半以劫為單位計算。正因為如此，才說大梵天王（Mahābrahmā，色界初禪天之主）超過梵輔天（Brahmapurohita，大梵天王的輔臣）的壽命為一個半劫。一個大劫包含空劫、成劫、住劫和壞劫，每個階段各二十個中劫，總共八十個中劫。取成劫、住劫和壞劫的總共六十個中劫，作為大梵天王的一個半劫的壽命。因此，用大半，即四十個中劫，作為下方三天所經歷的劫的量。以上已經說明了善趣眾生的壽命長短。那麼惡趣眾生的壽命又是怎樣的呢？頌文如下：
『等活等上六，如次以欲天，壽為一晝夜，壽量亦同彼。極熱半中劫，無間中劫全。傍生極一中，鬼月日五百。頞部陀壽量，如一婆訶麻，百年除一盡，後後倍二十。』
論曰：惡趣眾生也沒有像人間一樣的晝夜。然而他們的壽命，可以通過比喻來了解。四大王天（Cāturmahārājakāyika，欲界第一天）等六慾天（kāmadhātu，欲界天）的壽命，依次作為等活地獄（Sañjīva，八熱地獄之首）等六個地獄的一晝一夜的壽命。依次也和那些天一樣。也就是說，四大王天的壽命五百年，在等活地獄裡，只相當於一晝一夜。通過這樣的晝夜，形成月份和年份。以這樣的年份計算，他們的壽命是五百年。乃至他化自在天（Paranirmita-vaśavartin，欲界頂層天），壽命一萬六千年，在炎熱地獄裡，只相當於一晝一夜。通過這樣的晝夜，形成月份和年份。他們的壽命就是這樣，一萬六千年。極熱地獄的壽命是半個中劫。無間地獄（Avīci，八熱地獄之底）的壽命是一個中劫。傍生（Tiryagyoni，畜生道）的壽命，大多沒有固定的期限。如果壽命極長，也只有一個中劫。比如難陀龍王（Nanda）等諸大龍王。所以世尊說，大龍有八種，都住一個劫，能夠承受大地。鬼道眾生以人間的一個月為一日。通過這樣形成月份和年份，壽命五百年。寒地獄（Arbuda，八寒地獄之首）的壽命又是怎樣的呢？世尊用比喻來顯示他們的壽命。就像人間用二十個佉黎（kharī，古代容量單位）可以裝滿摩揭陀國（Magadha）的一個麻婆訶（māpavāha）的量。假設有人把巨勝子（sesame seeds）裝滿其中，然後每過一百年取出一顆。
【English Translation】 English version 'For destruction, for formation,' meaning experiencing the kalpa of destruction and the kalpa of formation. 'For middle, for great,' meaning experiencing the middle kalpa and the great kalpa. Beings above the Abhasvara Heaven (少光天) calculate their lifespan in terms of great kalpas. The heavens below, the majority of their lifespans are calculated in terms of kalpas. It is precisely because of this that it is said that Mahābrahmā (大梵天王, the lord of the first dhyana heaven in the form realm) exceeds the lifespan of Brahmapurohita (梵輔天, the ministers of Mahābrahmā) by one and a half kalpas. A great kalpa includes the kalpa of emptiness, the kalpa of formation, the kalpa of abiding, and the kalpa of destruction, each stage consisting of twenty intermediate kalpas, totaling eighty intermediate kalpas. Taking the total of sixty intermediate kalpas from the kalpa of formation, the kalpa of abiding, and the kalpa of destruction, as the lifespan of Mahābrahmā for one and a half kalpas. Therefore, using the majority, which is forty intermediate kalpas, as the measure of kalpas experienced by the lower three heavens. The length of lifespan of beings in the good realms has been explained above. So, what about the lifespan of beings in the evil realms? The verse says:
'The Sañjīva (等活) and the six above, in order, using the desire heaven's (欲天) lifespan as one day and night, the lifespan is also the same as them. The Tapana (極熱) is half an intermediate kalpa, the Avīci (無間) is a full intermediate kalpa. The lifespan of animals (傍生) is at most one intermediate kalpa, the ghosts' (鬼) month is the human day, five hundred. The lifespan of the Arbuda (頞部陀) is like one māpavāha, one seed removed every hundred years, the subsequent ones are twenty times greater.'
The treatise says: The beings in the evil realms also do not have day and night like humans. However, their lifespan can be understood through analogies. The lifespan of the Four Great Kings (四大王天, Cāturmahārājakāyika, the first heaven of the desire realm) and the six desire heavens (六慾天, kāmadhātu) are, in order, the lifespan of one day and night in the Sañjīva hell (等活地獄, the first of the eight hot hells). In order, it is also the same as those heavens. That is to say, the lifespan of the Four Great Kings is five hundred years, which is equivalent to one day and night in the Sañjīva hell. Through such days and nights, months and years are formed. Calculated in such years, their lifespan is five hundred years. Even the Paranirmita-vaśavartin Heaven (他化自在天, the highest heaven of the desire realm), with a lifespan of sixteen thousand years, is equivalent to one day and night in the Tapana hell. Through such days and nights, months and years are formed. Their lifespan is like this, sixteen thousand years. The lifespan of the Tapana hell is half an intermediate kalpa. The lifespan of the Avīci hell (無間地獄, the bottom of the eight hot hells) is one intermediate kalpa. The lifespan of animals (傍生, Tiryagyoni) mostly does not have a fixed limit. If the lifespan is extremely long, it is also only one intermediate kalpa. For example, the great dragon kings such as Nanda (難陀龍王). Therefore, the World Honored One said that there are eight kinds of great dragons, all dwelling for one kalpa, capable of supporting the earth. Ghosts (鬼) take one human month as one day. Through this, months and years are formed, with a lifespan of five hundred years. What is the lifespan of the Arbuda hell (寒地獄, the first of the eight cold hells)? The World Honored One uses an analogy to reveal their lifespan. Just like in the human world, twenty kharīs (佉黎, an ancient unit of volume) can fill one māpavāha (麻婆訶) of the Magadha country (摩揭陀國). Suppose someone fills it with sesame seeds (巨勝子), and then removes one seed every hundred years.
如是巨勝。易有盡期。生頞部陀。壽量難盡。此二十倍。為第二壽。如是後後二十倍增。是謂八寒地獄壽量。此諸壽量。有中夭耶。頌曰。
諸處有中夭 除北俱盧洲
論曰。諸處壽量。皆有中夭。唯北俱盧。定壽千歲。此約處說。非別有情。有別有情。不中夭故。謂住睹史多天。一生所繫菩薩。決定盡彼天中壽量。若最後有。佛記佛使。隨信法行。菩薩輪王母。懷彼二胎時。此等有情。事未究竟。終不中夭。非謂必盡隨所生處壽量短長。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯緣起品第三之十二
如是已就逾繕那等。辯器世間身量差別。就年等辯壽量有殊。二量不同。未說應說。建立此等。無不依名。前二及名。未詳極少。今應先辯三極少量。頌曰。
極微字剎那 色名時極少
論曰。以勝覺慧。分析諸色。至一極微。故一極微。為色極少。不可析故。如是分析諸名及時。至一字剎那。為名時極少。一字名者。如說掉名。何等名為一剎那量。經主率意。作是釋言。謂眾緣合時。法得自體頃。如是所釋。理不極成。應審
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 就像巨勝子一樣，即使容易有窮盡的時候，但如果生在頞部陀（Arbuda，寒地獄之一），壽命就難以窮盡。這樣二十倍的增長，是第二種壽命。像這樣後後二十倍地增長，這就是所謂的八寒地獄的壽命長度。這些壽命長度，會有中途夭折的情況嗎？ 頌文說： 『所有地方都有中途夭折的情況，除了北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一）。』 論述說：所有地方的壽命長度，都有中途夭折的情況，只有北俱盧洲，壽命固定為一千年。這是就地點而言的，並非指個別的有情眾生。因為有特別的有情眾生，不會中途夭折。例如，住在睹史多天（Tushita Heaven，欲界天之一）的一生補處菩薩，必定會盡其天上的壽命。如果是最後有者、佛陀授記的佛使、隨信法行者、菩薩輪王之母，懷有他們二胎的時候，這些有情眾生，因為事情尚未完成，終究不會中途夭折。但這並不是說，他們必定會盡其所生之處的壽命長短。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十一 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十二 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯緣起品第三之十二 像這樣已經就逾繕那（yojana，古印度長度單位）等，辨析了器世間身量的差別，又就年等辨析了壽命長短的不同。這兩種量度不同，未說的應該說。建立這些，沒有不依據名稱的。前兩種以及名稱，未詳細說明極少量。現在應該先辨析三種極少量。 頌文說： 『極微、字、剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位），是色、名、時的極少量。』 論述說：用殊勝的覺慧，分析各種色法，直到一個極微。所以一個極微，是色的極少量，因為不可再分割。像這樣分析各種名法和時間，直到一個字和一個剎那，是名和時的極少量。一個字的名，例如說『掉』這個名稱。什麼叫做一個剎那的量呢？經部的主張者隨意地作這樣的解釋說：『所謂的眾緣聚合時，法得到自身體性的頃刻。』像這樣解釋，道理並不十分成立，應該審慎。
【English Translation】 English version: Just like mustard seeds, which are easily exhausted, if one is born in Arbuda (one of the cold hells), the lifespan is difficult to exhaust. Increasing this twentyfold is the second lifespan. Increasing in this way, twentyfold each time, is what is called the lifespan of the eight cold hells. Are there instances of premature death within these lifespans? The verse says: 'In all places there is premature death, except for Uttarakuru (one of the four great continents).' The treatise says: In all places, lifespans have instances of premature death, only in Uttarakuru is the lifespan fixed at one thousand years. This is in terms of location, not referring to individual sentient beings. Because there are special sentient beings who do not die prematurely. For example, a Bodhisattva bound to one more life, residing in Tushita Heaven (one of the heavens in the desire realm), will certainly exhaust their lifespan in that heaven. If it is the last existence, a Buddha-predicted messenger of the Buddha, one who follows the Dharma according to faith, or the mother of a Bodhisattva Chakravartin (wheel-turning king), when she is pregnant with these two, these sentient beings will ultimately not die prematurely because their affairs are not yet completed. However, this does not mean that they will necessarily exhaust the length of the lifespan, whether long or short, of the place where they are born. Shun Zheng Li Lun of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 31 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun, Volume 32 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter 3.12: Analysis of Dependent Origination Having thus analyzed the differences in the physical dimensions of the vessel world based on yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of length) and the like, and having analyzed the differences in lifespans based on years and the like, these two measurements are different, and what has not been said should be said. Establishing these is never without relying on names. The previous two, as well as names, have not been explained in detail regarding the minimal quantities. Now, we should first analyze the three minimal quantities. The verse says: 'The ultimate particle, the letter, and the kshana (an extremely short unit of time) are the minimal quantities of form, name, and time.' The treatise says: Using superior wisdom, analyze various forms until reaching an ultimate particle. Therefore, an ultimate particle is the minimal quantity of form, because it cannot be further divided. In this way, analyze various names and time until reaching a letter and a kshana, which are the minimal quantities of name and time. A letter of a name, for example, saying the name 'restlessness'. What is called the measure of a kshana? The proponent of the Sutra school arbitrarily makes this explanation, saying: 'The moment when various conditions come together, and the Dharma obtains its own nature.' Such an explanation is not very well established in reason and should be carefully considered.
法生前。體為有非有。對法者說。眾緣合時。諸法得生。非得自體。未生諸法。已有體故。法體已有。何用復生。眾緣合時。體雖已有。而能令彼至牽果位起勝作用。故說為生。至現已生。正能牽果。牽果用息。說為過去。未來何故。無牽果能。此責不然。即如有責未來何不名現在故。諸牽果用。我說現在。是故不應作如是責。何緣固執如是義宗。若異此宗。凡有所立。現與無量理教相違辯。三世中當。廣思擇去。來實有體。其理既成。彼說剎那量。定不應理。又待別舉餘量顯故。謂眾緣合。法得自體。仍未決了。此經幾時。又法剎那非世現見。故問何量名一剎那。應答剎那其量如是。法得體頃。彼謂剎那。寧舉剎那。顯剎那量。故彼所釋。其理不成。毗婆沙師。依勝義說。法剎那量。可以喻彰。然佛世尊。曾不說者。以不見有能解者故。然有為欲開曉學徒。依比量門。方便顯示。謂如壯士一彈指時。經細剎那六十五等。如是已辯三極少量。前二量殊。今次應辯逾繕那等。其量云何。頌曰。
極微微金水 兔羊牛隙塵 蟣虱麥指節 後後增七倍 二十四指肘 四肘為弓量 五百俱盧舍 此八逾繕那
論曰。一極微量。亦可喻顯。唯佛乃知。故亦不說。然為安立阿練若處。故毗奈耶。但作是說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：法生之前，其本體是有還是非有？對於提問者，可以這樣回答：當各種因緣聚合時，諸法得以產生，但並非獲得自身的本體。因為未產生的諸法，已經具有本體。如果法的本體已經存在，為何還要產生？當各種因緣聚合時，本體雖然已經存在，但能使它達到牽引結果的階段，產生殊勝的作用，所以說它是產生。至於已經產生的現在之法，正是能夠牽引結果。牽引結果的作用停止，就稱為過去。未來之法為何沒有牽引結果的能力？這樣的責難是不對的。這就好比有人責問未來為何不稱為現在一樣。我說，凡是具有牽引結果作用的，就是現在。所以不應該這樣責難。為何要固執于這樣的義理宗派？如果與此宗派不同，凡有所立，都會與無量的道理和教義相違背。在過去、現在、未來三世中，應當廣泛地思考和選擇。過去和未來確實具有本體，這個道理既然成立，那麼他們所說的剎那的量，一定是不合理的。又需要等待另外舉出其他的量來顯示，所以說各種因緣聚合，法獲得自身的本體，仍然沒有決斷了結。這部經經過了多長時間？又法的剎那不是世間人能夠親眼見到的，所以問什麼是剎那的量，應該回答剎那的量是這樣的：法獲得本體的瞬間，他們稱之為剎那。寧可舉出剎那，來顯示剎那的量。所以他們的解釋，是不成立的。毗婆沙師，依據勝義諦來說，法的剎那的量，可以用比喻來彰顯。然而佛世尊，從來沒有說過，因為沒有見到能夠理解的人。然而有人爲了開導和曉喻學徒，依據比量之門，方便地顯示。比如壯士彈指一次的時間，經過了六十五個細剎那等等。像這樣已經辨析了三種極小的量。前兩種量是特殊的，現在接下來應該辨析逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）等的量是怎樣的。頌詞說： 『極微微金水，兔羊牛隙塵，蟣虱麥指節，後後增七倍，二十四指肘，四肘為弓量，五百俱盧舍（Krosha，古印度長度單位），此八逾繕那。』 論述說：一個極微的量，也可以用比喻來顯示，只有佛才能知道，所以也沒有說。然而爲了安立阿練若（Aranya，寂靜處）之處，所以毗奈耶（Vinaya，戒律）只是這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version: Before a Dharma arises, is its substance existent or non-existent? To the questioner, one can answer this way: When various conditions come together, Dharmas are produced, but they do not obtain their own substance. This is because Dharmas that have not yet arisen already possess a substance. If the substance of a Dharma already exists, why does it need to be produced? When various conditions come together, although the substance already exists, it can cause it to reach the stage of drawing results, producing a superior function, so it is said to be produced. As for the present Dharma that has already arisen, it is precisely capable of drawing results. When the function of drawing results ceases, it is called the past. Why does the future Dharma not have the ability to draw results? Such a criticism is incorrect. This is like someone criticizing why the future is not called the present. I say that whatever has the function of drawing results is the present. Therefore, one should not make such a criticism. Why insist on such a doctrinal position? If it differs from this position, whatever is established will contradict countless principles and teachings. In the past, present, and future three times, one should extensively contemplate and choose. Since the past and future truly possess substance, this principle being established, then their so-called measure of a kshana (Kshana, an extremely short unit of time) is certainly unreasonable. Moreover, it needs to wait for another measure to be cited to show it, so it is said that when various conditions come together, the Dharma obtains its own substance, but it is still not decisively concluded. How long has this sutra (經) been going on? Moreover, the kshana of Dharma is not something that worldly people can see with their own eyes, so they ask what the measure of a kshana is. One should answer that the measure of a kshana is like this: the moment when a Dharma obtains its substance, they call it a kshana. Rather than citing a kshana to show the measure of a kshana. Therefore, their explanation is not established. The Vaibhashikas (毗婆沙師), according to the ultimate truth, say that the measure of a kshana of Dharma can be shown by analogy. However, the World Honored One, the Buddha, has never said it, because he has not seen anyone who can understand it. However, some people, in order to enlighten and instruct students, conveniently show it according to the door of analogy. For example, the time of a strong man snapping his fingers once passes through sixty-five subtle kshanas, and so on. In this way, the three extremely small measures have been analyzed. The first two measures are special, and now next, one should analyze what the measure of a yojana (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length) and so on is like. The verse says: 『The ultimate minute gold water, rabbit sheep cow window dust, nit louse wheat finger joint, each subsequent one increases sevenfold, twenty-four fingers elbow, four elbows is a bow's length, five hundred kroshas (Krosha, an ancient Indian unit of length), these eight yojanas.』 The treatise says: The measure of one ultimate minute can also be shown by analogy, only the Buddha knows it, so it is not said either. However, in order to establish the place of Aranya (Aranya, a quiet place), therefore the Vinaya (Vinaya, monastic rules) only says this.
。七極微集。名一微等。極微為初。指節為后。應知後後皆七倍增。謂七極微。為一微量。積微至七。為一金塵。積七金塵。為水塵量。水塵積至七。為一兔毛塵。積七兔毛塵。為羊毛塵量。積羊毛塵七。為一牛毛塵。積七牛毛塵。為隙游塵量。隙塵七為蟣。七蟣為一虱。七虱為穬麥。七麥為指節。三節為一指。世所極成。是故於頌中不別分別。二十四指橫布為肘。豎積四肘為弓。謂尋豎積五百弓。為一俱盧舍。毗奈耶說。此是從村至阿練若。中間道量。說八俱盧舍。為一逾繕那。已說極微漸次積整合微乃至一逾繕那。然許極微略有二種。一實二假。其相云何。實謂極成色等自相。于和集位。現量所得。假由分析。比量所知。謂聚色中。以慧漸析。至最極位。然後于中辯色聲等極微差別。此析所至。名假極微。令慧尋思極生喜故。此微即極。故名極微。極謂色中析至究竟。微謂唯是慧眼所行。故極微言。顯微極義。以何為證知有極微。以阿笈摩及理為證。阿笈摩者。謂契經說。諸所有色。或細或粗。細者謂極微。更不可析故。余有對色。說名為粗。復有餘師。作如是釋。不善無記。說名為粗。所餘善色。說名為細。如是欲色系。有漏無漏別。此不應理。以劣勝言。已攝如是性等別故。復有別釋。眼境為粗耳等余根所取
名細。此亦非善。俱通二故。又不定故。謂有細色。如析毛端。極明眼者。猶難得見。或有大聲。如雷音等。震動天地。有耳皆聞。是故細言。表極微色。理善成就。若謂經中亦說段食有粗細故。此釋非者。亦不相違。此經說色。彼經說食。意各別故。以一極微。可名為色。不可名食。故意有異。理必應爾。以伽他言。
黑白等諸色 皆有細有粗 細者謂最微 粗即余有對
由此誠證。極微定有。又先已說。先說者何。謂毗奈耶作如是說。七極微集。名一微等。如是名教。其理者何。謂如積聚有情身色。至色究竟有量最粗。準此亦應分析諸色。有究竟處。名一極微。云何知爾。以可析法分析至窮猶有餘故。謂世現見。以余聚色。析余聚色。有細聚生。析析至窮。猶有餘分。可為眼見。更不可析。如是聚色。不能析處。亦如粗聚。有可析理。謂彼可以覺慧分析。如以聚色析聚。至窮慧析至窮。應有餘在。可為慧見。更不可析。此余在者。即是極微。是故極微。其體定有。此若無者。聚色應無。聚色必由此所成故。如是已說逾繕那等。應辯年等。其量云何。頌曰。
百二十剎那 為怛剎那量 臘縛此六十 此三十須臾 此三十晝夜 三十晝夜月 十二月為年 于中半減夜
論曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名細。如果認為極微之色非常細小，所以不是善色，這種說法是不對的。因為粗色和細色都通於善與不善兩種性質。而且，極微之色是不定的。例如，有些細小的色，像分析毛髮尖端一樣，即使是視力極好的人也很難看到；有些巨大的聲音，像雷鳴一樣，震動天地，所有有耳朵的人都能聽到。因此，用『細』這個詞來表示極微之色，在道理上是能夠成立的。如果有人說，經典中也說段食有粗細之分，所以你的解釋不對。這兩種說法並不矛盾。這部經說的是色，那部經說的是食，意思各自不同。一個極微可以稱為色，但不能稱為食，所以意義不同，道理必然如此。用伽他來說： 『黑白等諸色，皆有細有粗，細者謂最微，粗即余有對。』 由此可以證明，極微肯定是存在的。而且，之前已經說過了。之前說過什麼呢？就是《毗奈耶》（Vinaya，戒律）中這樣說：七個極微聚集在一起，叫做一個微等。這樣的教義，它的道理是什麼呢？就像積聚有情的身色，直到色究竟天（Rupadhatu，色界天的最高層）有最大的粗色。按照這個道理，也應該分析各種色，直到有一個最終的處所，叫做一個極微。怎麼知道是這樣的呢？因為可以分析的事物，即使分析到最後，仍然有剩餘。就像世間所見，用剩餘的聚色，分析剩餘的聚色，會產生更細的聚色。這樣一直分析下去，直到最後，仍然有剩餘的部分，可以用眼睛看到，但不能再分析了。這樣的聚色，不能再分析的地方，就像粗大的聚色一樣，有可以分析的道理。也就是說，可以用覺慧來分析。就像用聚色分析聚色，直到最後，用智慧分析到最後，應該有剩餘存在，可以用智慧看到，但不能再分析了。這個剩餘的東西，就是極微。所以，極微的本體肯定是存在的。如果極微不存在，聚色也應該不存在，因為聚色必定是由極微組成的。像這樣已經說了逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）等等，下面應該辨別年等等，它們的量是多少呢？頌說： 『百二十剎那（Ksana，時間單位），為怛剎那（Tatksana，時間單位）量，臘縛（Lava，時間單位）此六十，此三十須臾（Muhurta，時間單位），此三十晝夜，三十晝夜月，十二月為年，于中半減夜。』 論曰：
【English Translation】 English version: 『Nama-suksma.』 This is also not good. Because both coarse and fine pervade both. Also, because it is indefinite. It means that there are fine colors, like splitting the tip of a hair, which are difficult for even the clearest eyes to see. Or there are loud sounds, like thunder, that shake the heavens and the earth, which all who have ears can hear. Therefore, the word 『fine』 represents the extremely subtle color, and the principle is well established. If it is said that the scriptures also say that coarse and fine food are divided, then this explanation is not contradictory. This scripture speaks of color, and that scripture speaks of food, and the meanings are different. An extremely small particle can be called color, but it cannot be called food, so the meanings are different, and the principle must be so. As the Gatha says: 『Black, white, and other colors, all have fine and coarse. The fine is the most subtle, and the coarse is the remaining with opposition.』 From this sincere evidence, the extremely small particle must exist. Moreover, it has already been said before. What was said before? It is said in the Vinaya (Vinaya, monastic rules) that seven extremely small particles gather together and are called one 『micro-equal.』 What is the principle of this teaching? It is like accumulating the body and color of sentient beings, until the Akanistha (Rupadhatu, the highest heaven in the realm of form) has the largest coarse color. According to this principle, all colors should also be analyzed until there is a final place called an extremely small particle. How do we know this? Because things that can be analyzed still have remnants even when analyzed to the end. As seen in the world, using the remaining aggregate of color to analyze the remaining aggregate of color will produce a finer aggregate. Analyzing and analyzing to the end, there are still remaining parts that can be seen with the eyes, but cannot be analyzed further. Such an aggregate of color, a place that cannot be analyzed, is like a coarse aggregate, with the principle of being able to be analyzed. That is to say, it can be analyzed with wisdom. Just like analyzing an aggregate of color with an aggregate, until the end, analyzing with wisdom to the end, there should be a remainder that can be seen with wisdom, but cannot be analyzed further. This remainder is the extremely small particle. Therefore, the substance of the extremely small particle must exist. If this does not exist, the aggregate of color should not exist, because the aggregate of color must be composed of this. Having said this about Yojana (Yojana, a unit of distance in ancient India) and so on, we should now discuss the years and so on, and what their quantities are. The verse says: 『One hundred and twenty Ksana (Ksana, a unit of time) is the measure of Tatksana (Tatksana, a unit of time), sixty of these is Lava (Lava, a unit of time), thirty of these is Muhurta (Muhurta, a unit of time), thirty of these is day and night, thirty day and night is a month, twelve months is a year, in which half is reduced for night.』 The treatise says:
。剎那百二十。為一怛剎那。六十怛剎那。為一臘縛。三十臘縛。為一牟呼栗多。三十牟呼栗多。為一晝夜。此晝夜有時增有時減有時等。三十晝夜為一月。總十二月為一年。於一年中分為三際。謂寒熱雨。各有四月。十二月中。六月減夜。以一年內夜總減六。云何如是。故有頌言。
寒熱雨際中 一月半已度 于所餘半月 智者知夜減
如是已辯剎那至年。劫量不同。今次當辯。頌曰。
應知有四劫 謂壞成中大 壞從獄不生 至外器都盡 成劫從風起 至地獄初生 中劫從無量 減至壽唯十 次增減十八 后增至八萬 如是成已住 名中二十劫 成壞壞已空 時皆等住劫 八十中大劫 大劫三無數
論曰。言壞劫者。謂從地獄有情不復生。至外器都盡。壞有二種。一趣壞。二界壞。復有二種。一有情壞。二外器壞。然壞與成總分四品。一者正壞。二壞已空。三者正成。四成已住。言正壞者。謂此世間。過於二十中劫住已。從此復有等住二十。壞劫便至。壞劫將起。住此洲人。壽量八萬。若時地獄有情命終。無復新生。為壞劫始。乃至地獄。無一有情。爾時名為地獄已壞。諸有地獄。定受業者。業力引置他方獄中。由此準知。傍生鬼趣。時人身內。無有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位）的一百二十倍，為一個怛剎那（tatksana）。六十個怛剎那，為一個臘縛（lava）。三十個臘縛，為一個牟呼栗多（muhurta）。三十個牟呼栗多，為一個晝夜。這個晝夜有時增長，有時減少，有時相等。三十個晝夜為一個月。總共十二個月為一年。在一年中分為三個季節，即寒冷季、炎熱季和雨季，每個季節各有四個月。在十二個月中，有六個月夜晚逐漸縮短。因為一年內夜晚總共減少六個。為什麼會這樣呢？所以有頌詞說：
『在寒冷季、炎熱季和雨季中，一個月已經過去一半，在剩餘的半個月里，智者知道夜晚在縮短。』
像這樣已經辨明了從剎那到年的時間單位。劫（kalpa，極長的時間單位）的量度各不相同。現在接下來應當辨明。頌詞說：
『應當知道有四種劫，即壞劫、成劫、中劫和大劫。壞劫從地獄不再產生有情開始，直到外在的器世界完全毀滅。成劫從風輪開始興起，直到地獄最初產生有情。中劫從人類壽命無量歲開始減少，直到壽命只有十歲。之後又開始增加和減少，經歷十八次增減，最後增加到八萬歲。像這樣形成、存在，稱為二十個中劫。成劫、壞劫和壞劫之後空無一物的時期，時間都相等，稱為住劫。八十個中劫為一個大劫，大劫有三個無數。』
論述說：所說的壞劫，是指從地獄的有情不再出生，直到外在的器世界完全毀滅。壞劫有兩種，一是趣壞，二是界壞。又有兩種，一是有情壞，二是外器壞。然而，壞劫和成劫總共分為四種狀態：一是正在壞滅，二是壞滅后空無一物，三是正在形成，四是形成后存在。所說的正在壞滅，是指這個世間，在經過二十個中劫的住劫之後，又經過相等的二十個住劫，壞劫便會到來。壞劫將要開始時，居住在這個洲的人，壽命是八萬歲。如果這時地獄的有情壽命終結，不再有新的生命產生，這就是壞劫的開始。乃至地獄中沒有一個有情，這時就稱為地獄已經壞滅。那些在地獄中必定要承受業報的有情，會被業力牽引到其他世界的地獄中。由此可以推知，傍生道和餓鬼道也是如此。這時人身之內，沒有...
【English Translation】 English version One hundred and twenty ksanas (剎那, ksana, an extremely short unit of time) make one tatksana (怛剎那). Sixty tatksanas make one lava (臘縛). Thirty lavas make one muhurta (牟呼栗多). Thirty muhurtas make one day and night. This day and night sometimes increases, sometimes decreases, and sometimes remains the same. Thirty days and nights make one month. A total of twelve months make one year. Within a year, there are three seasons: the cold season, the hot season, and the rainy season, each lasting four months. In the twelve months, the nights gradually shorten for six months. This is because the nights decrease by a total of six within a year. Why is this so? Therefore, there is a verse that says:
'In the cold, hot, and rainy seasons, half a month has passed. In the remaining half month, the wise know that the night is shortening.'
Thus, the units of time from ksana to year have been explained. The duration of kalpas (劫, kalpa, an extremely long unit of time) varies. Now, we should explain this next. The verse says:
'It should be known that there are four kalpas: the kalpa of destruction, the kalpa of formation, the intermediate kalpa, and the great kalpa. The kalpa of destruction begins when beings are no longer born in hell, until the external world is completely destroyed. The kalpa of formation begins when the wind arises, until the first beings are born in hell. The intermediate kalpa begins when human lifespan decreases from immeasurable years to only ten years. Then it increases and decreases eighteen times, eventually increasing to eighty thousand years. This formation and existence are called twenty intermediate kalpas. The kalpa of formation, the kalpa of destruction, and the period of emptiness after the kalpa of destruction are all equal in duration and are called the kalpa of abiding. Eighty intermediate kalpas make one great kalpa, and there are three countless great kalpas.'
The treatise says: The so-called kalpa of destruction refers to the period from when beings are no longer born in hell until the external world is completely destroyed. There are two types of destruction: destruction of realms and destruction of worlds. There are also two types: destruction of sentient beings and destruction of the external world. However, the kalpa of destruction and the kalpa of formation are divided into four states: one is the state of destruction, two is the state of emptiness after destruction, three is the state of formation, and four is the state of abiding after formation. The so-called state of destruction refers to this world, which, after abiding for twenty intermediate kalpas, will undergo an equal twenty intermediate kalpas, and then the kalpa of destruction will arrive. When the kalpa of destruction is about to begin, the lifespan of beings living on this continent is eighty thousand years. If, at this time, beings in hell die and no new beings are born, this is the beginning of the kalpa of destruction. Until there is not a single being in hell, this is called the destruction of hell. Those beings who are destined to receive karmic retribution in hell will be drawn by the power of karma to hells in other worlds. From this, it can be inferred that the same applies to the realms of animals and hungry ghosts. At this time, within the human body, there is no...
諸蟲。與佛身同。傍生壞故。有說二趣於人益者。壞與人俱。餘者先壞。如是二說。前說為善。若時人趣。此洲一人。無師法然。得初靜慮。從靜慮起。唱如是言。離生喜樂。甚樂甚靜。餘人聞已。皆入靜慮。命終並得生梵世中。乃至此洲有情都盡。是名已壞贍部洲人。東西二洲。例此應說。北洲命盡。生欲界天。由彼鈍根無離欲故。生欲天已。靜慮現前。轉得勝依。方能離欲。乃至人趣。無一有情。爾時名為人趣已壞。若時天趣。欲界六天。隨一法然。得初靜慮。乃至並得生梵世中。爾時名為欲天已壞。如是欲界無一有情。名欲界中有情已壞。若時梵世。隨一有情。無師法然。得二靜慮。從彼定起。唱如是言。定生喜樂。甚樂甚靜。余天聞已。皆入彼靜慮命終。並得生極光凈天。乃至梵世中。有情都盡。如是名已壞有情世間。唯器世間。空曠而住。余方世界一切有情。感此三千世界業盡。於此漸有七日輪現。諸海乾竭。眾山洞然。洲渚三輪。並從焚燎。風吹猛焰。燒上天宮。乃至梵宮。無遺灰燼。自地火焰。燒自地宮。非他地災能壞他地。由相引起。故作是言。下火風飄焚燒上地。謂欲界火。猛焰上升。為緣引生色界火焰。余災亦爾。如應當知。如是始從地獄漸減。乃至器盡。總名壞劫。所言成劫。謂從風起。乃至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸位蟲類，與佛的身軀一樣，都會因為傍生道的毀滅而壞滅。有人說，對人類有益的兩種生命形式（指天人和阿修羅），會與人類一同毀滅，其餘的則先毀滅。這兩種說法中，前一種說法更為合理。如果當人類世界，南贍部洲只有一個人，沒有老師指導，自然而然地獲得初禪的境界，從初禪中出來后，宣揚說：『脫離慾望而產生的喜悅和快樂，真是太快樂，太安靜了！』其他人聽了之後，都進入禪定，死後都一起轉生到梵天。直到這個洲的所有眾生都滅盡，這就叫做南贍部洲的人類已經毀滅。東勝身洲和西牛賀洲，可以參照這個例子來說明。北俱盧洲的眾生壽命終結后，會轉生到欲界天，因為他們根器遲鈍，沒有脫離慾望。轉生到欲界天后，禪定再次顯現，轉而獲得更好的依靠，才能脫離慾望。直到人類世界，沒有一個眾生，這時就叫做人類已經毀滅。如果當諸天世界，欲界的六層天中，有一位天人自然而然地獲得初禪，乃至都一起轉生到梵天，這時就叫做欲界天已經毀滅。像這樣，欲界沒有一個眾生，就叫做欲界中的眾生已經毀滅。 如果當梵天，有一位眾生，沒有老師指導，自然而然地獲得二禪，從禪定中出來后，宣揚說：『禪定產生的喜悅和快樂，真是太快樂，太安靜了！』其餘的天人聽了之後，都進入那個禪定，死後都一起轉生到極光凈天。乃至梵天中的眾生都滅盡，這就叫做已經毀滅了有情世間。只有器世間，空曠地存在著。其他世界的所有的眾生，感受到這個三千大千世界的業力耗盡，於是在這裡逐漸出現七個太陽。所有的海洋都乾涸，所有的山都燃燒起來，洲、渚和三輪，都被焚燒。風吹動猛烈的火焰，焚燒到上面的天宮，乃至梵天宮，沒有留下灰燼。各自地方的火焰，焚燒各自地方的宮殿，不是其他地方的災難能夠摧毀其他地方。因為相互引發，所以這樣說：『下方的火焰被風吹動，焚燒上方的土地。』指的是欲界的火焰，猛烈地上升，作為因緣引發色界的火焰。其餘的災難也應該像這樣理解。像這樣，開始從地獄逐漸減少，乃至器世間毀滅，總的叫做壞劫。所說的成劫，是從風開始產生，乃至...
【English Translation】 English version All insects are like the body of the Buddha; they are destroyed because of the destruction of the realm of animals. Some say that the two realms that benefit humans (referring to Devas and Asuras) are destroyed together with humans, while the others are destroyed first. Of these two views, the former is better. If, in the human realm, there is only one person in Jambudvipa (Southern Continent), who naturally attains the first Dhyana (meditative state) without a teacher, and after arising from that Dhyana, proclaims: 'The joy and happiness born of detachment are extremely joyful and peaceful!' Upon hearing this, the others all enter Dhyana, and upon death, are all reborn in the Brahma world (the world of pure form). Until all beings in this continent are exhausted, this is called the destruction of the people of Jambudvipa. The Eastern and Western continents should be explained in a similar manner. The beings of Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), upon the end of their lives, are reborn in the Desire Realm heavens, because they are dull-witted and have not detached from desire. After being born in the Desire Realm heavens, Dhyana manifests again, and they then gain a superior support to detach from desire. Until there is not a single sentient being in the human realm, this is called the destruction of the human realm. If, in the heavens, one of the six heavens of the Desire Realm naturally attains the first Dhyana, and eventually all are reborn in the Brahma world, this is called the destruction of the Desire Realm heavens. In this way, when there is not a single sentient being in the Desire Realm, it is called the destruction of sentient beings in the Desire Realm. If, in the Brahma world, one sentient being naturally attains the second Dhyana without a teacher, and after arising from that Samadhi (concentration), proclaims: 'The joy and happiness born of Samadhi are extremely joyful and peaceful!' Upon hearing this, the other Devas all enter that Samadhi, and upon death, are all reborn in the Abhasvara (heaven of radiant light). Until all sentient beings in the Brahma world are exhausted, this is called the destruction of the sentient world. Only the vessel world (the physical world) remains, existing in emptiness. All sentient beings in other worlds sense that the karma of this three-thousandfold great thousand world is exhausted, and gradually seven suns appear here. All the oceans dry up, all the mountains burn, and the continents, islets, and three wheels are all incinerated. The wind blows fiercely, burning the upper heavenly palaces, even the Brahma palaces, leaving no ashes. The flames of each place burn the palaces of their own place; the disasters of other places cannot destroy other places. Because they arise from each other, it is said: 'The fire below is blown by the wind, burning the land above.' This refers to the fire of the Desire Realm, rising fiercely, serving as a condition to ignite the fire of the Form Realm. The other disasters should also be understood in this way. In this way, it begins to gradually decrease from hell, until the vessel world is exhausted, which is collectively called the destruction Kalpa (aeon). The formation Kalpa that is spoken of, begins with the arising of wind, until...
地獄始有情生。謂此世間災所壞已。二十中劫。唯有虛空。過此長時。次應復有等住二十。成劫便至。一切有情業增上力。空中漸有微細風生。是器世間將成前相。風漸增盛。成立如前所說風輪水金輪等。然初成立大梵天宮。乃至夜摩宮。後起風輪等。是謂成立外器世間。器有壞成。由有情力。若有情類。久集上天。此器世間。必應漸起。令福減者。散下居故。謂極光凈。久集有情。天眾既多。居處迫迮。諸福減者。應散下居。此器世間。理應先起。故劫壞位。有情上集。于劫成時。有情下散。由罪福減及福罪增。集散旋環。理應如是。既已成立此器世間。初一有情。極光凈歿。生大梵處空宮殿中。后諸有情。亦從彼歿。有生梵輔。有生梵眾。有生他化自在天宮。漸漸下生。乃至人趣。俱盧牛貨勝身贍部。後生餓鬼傍生地獄。法爾後壞。必最初成。若初一有情生無間獄。二十中成劫應知已滿。此後復有二十中劫。名成已住。次第而起。謂從風起。造器世間。乃至後後有情漸住。初一有情。極光凈歿。生大梵宮者。即為大梵王。諸大梵王。必異生攝。以無聖者還生下故。上二界無入見道故。即由此故。無一有情無間二生為大梵義。既說大梵最後命終。極光凈天。壽八大劫。二十中劫。世界還成。如何梵王。生極光凈。受
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 地獄最初有情眾生出現。這是說這個世界被災難破壞之後，有二十個中劫的時間只有虛空。經過這段漫長的時間后，接著會有等住的二十個中劫到來。成劫開始時，一切有情眾生的業力增強，空中逐漸產生微細的風。這是器世界將要形成的先兆。風逐漸增強，形成如前所述的風輪、水輪、金輪等。然而，最初形成的是大梵天宮，乃至夜摩天宮，之後才形成風輪等。這被稱為成立外在的器世界。器的壞滅和形成，都由有情眾生的業力所致。如果眾生長期聚集在上層天界，這個器世界必然會逐漸興起。讓福報減少的眾生，散佈到下層居住。例如，極光凈天的眾生長期聚集，天眾數量眾多，居住的地方變得擁擠，那些福報減少的眾生，就會散佈到下層居住。因此，這個器世界理應先興起。所以在劫壞的時候，有情眾生向上聚集；在劫成的時候，有情眾生向下散佈。由於罪業和福報的減少以及福報和罪業的增加，聚集和散佈循環往復，理應如此。既然已經成立了這個器世界，最初有一個有情眾生從極光凈天死亡，轉生到大梵天的空曠宮殿中。後來的有情眾生，也從極光凈天死亡，有的轉生到梵輔天，有的轉生到梵眾天，有的轉生到他化自在天宮，逐漸向下轉生，乃至轉生到人道，包括俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲）、牛貨洲（Goyaniya，西牛貨洲）、勝身洲（Pubbavideha，東勝身洲）和贍部洲（Jambudvipa，南贍部洲）。最後轉生到餓鬼道、傍生道和地獄道。按照法則，最後壞滅的，必定是最先形成的。如果最初有一個有情眾生轉生到無間地獄（Avīci，阿鼻地獄），那麼就可以知道二十個中成的劫已經圓滿。此後，又有二十個中劫，名為成已住，依次興起。也就是從風的產生，建造器世界，直到後來的有情眾生逐漸居住。最初有一個有情眾生從極光凈天死亡，轉生到大梵天宮，他就是大梵天王（Mahābrahmā）。諸位大梵天王，必定屬於異生（prthag-jana，凡夫）所攝，因為沒有聖者還會轉生到地獄。因為上二界沒有進入見道的機會。正因為如此，沒有一個有情眾生在無間地獄兩次轉生而成為大梵天王。既然說大梵天王最後命終會轉生到極光凈天，而極光凈天的壽命有八大劫，二十個中劫世界才會重新形成，那麼大梵天王如何能轉生到極光凈天，享受……
【English Translation】 English version Sentient beings first arise in hell. This means that after this world has been destroyed by disasters, there are twenty intermediate kalpas (antarakalpa) of emptiness. After this long period, there will then be twenty intermediate kalpas of abiding. When the kalpa of formation (vivartakalpa) begins, the power of karma of all sentient beings increases, and subtle winds gradually arise in the sky. This is a precursor to the formation of the vessel world (bhajana-loka). The wind gradually increases, forming the wind wheel, water wheel, gold wheel, etc., as described earlier. However, the Great Brahma Heaven (Mahābrahmā) palace is formed first, followed by the Yama Heaven palace, and then the wind wheel, etc. This is called the formation of the external vessel world. The destruction and formation of the vessel are caused by the power of sentient beings. If sentient beings gather in the upper heavens for a long time, this vessel world will inevitably gradually arise. Those whose merit decreases will scatter and reside in the lower realms. For example, if sentient beings in the Ābhāsvara Heaven (Heaven of Radiance) gather for a long time, and the number of heavenly beings becomes large, the places of residence become crowded, and those whose merit decreases will scatter and reside in the lower realms. Therefore, this vessel world should arise first. So, during the kalpa of destruction (saṃvartakalpa), sentient beings gather upwards; during the kalpa of formation, sentient beings scatter downwards. Due to the decrease of demerit and merit, and the increase of merit and demerit, the gathering and scattering cycle, it should be like this. Now that this vessel world has been formed, the first sentient being to die from the Ābhāsvara Heaven is reborn in the empty palace of the Great Brahma Heaven. Later sentient beings also die from the Ābhāsvara Heaven, some are reborn in the Brahma-pāriṣadya Heaven (Heaven of Brahma's Retinue), some are reborn in the Brahma-purohita Heaven (Heaven of Brahma's Ministers), some are reborn in the Paranirmitavasavartin Heaven (Heaven of Control over others' Creations), gradually being reborn downwards, even to the human realm, including Kuru (Uttarakuru), Godānīya (Goyaniya), Videha (Pubbavideha), and Jambudvipa. Finally, they are reborn in the realm of hungry ghosts, animals, and hells. According to the Dharma, what is destroyed last must be formed first. If the first sentient being is reborn in the Avīci Hell (Hell of Incessant Suffering), then it can be known that the twenty intermediate kalpas of formation are complete. After this, there are another twenty intermediate kalpas, called 'formed and abiding', which arise in sequence. That is, from the arising of wind, the vessel world is built, until later sentient beings gradually reside. The first sentient being to die from the Ābhāsvara Heaven and be reborn in the Great Brahma Heaven palace is the Great Brahma King (Mahābrahmā). All Great Brahma Kings must belong to the category of ordinary beings (prthag-jana), because no saints are reborn in the lower realms. Because the upper two realms have no opportunity to enter the path of seeing (darśana-mārga). Precisely because of this, no sentient being is reborn twice in the Avīci Hell to become a Great Brahma King. Since it is said that the Great Brahma King will eventually die and be reborn in the Ābhāsvara Heaven, and the lifespan of the Ābhāsvara Heaven is eight great kalpas, and the world will be reformed in twenty intermediate kalpas, how can the Great Brahma King be reborn in the Ābhāsvara Heaven and enjoy...
少壽量。還從彼歿。雖彼非無有中夭義。而廣大福。方生彼天。八大劫壽中。始經少分。二十中劫頃。寧即命終。以此觀知。余來生此。此洲人壽。經無量時。至住劫初。壽方漸減。從無量減。至極十年。即名為初一住中劫。此次十八。皆有增減。謂從十年增至八萬。復從八萬減至十年。爾乃名為第二中劫。次餘十七。例皆如是於十八后。從十歲增至極八萬歲。名第二十劫。一切劫增。無過八萬。一切劫減。唯極十年。十八劫中。一增一減。時量方等。初減后增。故二十劫。時量皆等。此總名為成已住劫。所餘成壞。及壞已空。雖無減增二十差別。然由時量與住劫同。準住各成二十中劫。成中初劫。起器世間。后十九中。有情漸住。壞中后劫。減器世間。前十九中。有情漸舍。如是所說。成住壞空。各二十中。積成八十。總此八十。成大劫量。若爾且對苦苦為言。應生死中樂多非苦。壞空成劫。一向樂故。于住劫中。雖苦樂雜。而純苦少。純樂時多。時分雖然。而苦起位。增上猛利。樂則不爾。謂于熱際。烈日逼身。雖用旃檀烏施羅末及冰雪等。而為對治。便有增上身安樂生。爾時欻遭小刺所刺。頓忘眾樂。唯覺有苦。如是若遇恩愛別離。心中所生。增上苦受。重於恩愛。和合生樂。由如是等。知生死中。樂少苦多。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 壽命短促。仍然是從那個天界去世。雖然他們並非沒有中途夭折的情況，但是因為有廣大的福報，才得以生到那個天界。在八大劫的壽命中，僅僅經過了少部分，大約二十個中劫的時間，就命終了。由此可以推知，其餘眾生來到這個世界，此洲的人壽，經過無量的時間，直到住劫的初期，壽命才逐漸減少。從無量歲減少到極短的十年，這就叫做最初的一個住中劫。接下來的十八個中劫，都有增減變化，也就是從十年增加到八萬歲，又從八萬歲減少到十年，這才叫做第二個中劫。其餘的十七個中劫，情況都與此類似。在十八個中劫之後，從十歲增加到最高的八萬歲，叫做第二十劫。一切劫的增長，沒有超過八萬歲的；一切劫的減少，最低只有十年。十八個劫中，一個增加一個減少，時間長短相等。最初是減少，後來是增加，所以二十個劫的時間長短都是相等的。這總共叫做成已住劫。其餘的成劫、壞劫以及壞已空劫，雖然沒有減增的二十個中劫的差別，但是由於時間長短與住劫相同，按照住劫各自形成二十個中劫。成劫的最初一劫，開始形成器世間（有情眾生所居住的物質世界），後面的十九個中劫，有情眾生逐漸居住其中。壞劫的最後劫，減損器世間，前面的十九個中劫，有情眾生逐漸捨棄。像這樣所說的，成、住、壞、空，各自有二十個中劫，累積成為八十個中劫，總共這八十個中劫，構成一個大劫的量。如果這樣說，那麼就針對苦苦（由苦的感受所引起的苦）來說，應該是生死中的快樂多於痛苦，因為壞劫、空劫、成劫，都是一向快樂的。在住劫中，雖然苦樂交雜，但是純粹的痛苦很少，純粹的快樂時間多。時間比例雖然如此，但是痛苦生起的時候，增強且猛烈，快樂則不是這樣。比如在炎熱的時候，強烈的熱氣燒灼身體，即使使用旃檀（Candana，一種香木）、烏施羅末（Usira-maraka，一種香草）以及冰雪等來對治，從而產生增強的身體安樂。這時突然被小刺刺了一下，立刻忘記了所有的快樂，只感覺到痛苦。像這樣，如果遇到恩愛別離，心中所產生的增強的痛苦感受，重於恩愛和合所產生的快樂。由這些例子可知，生死之中，快樂少而痛苦多。
【English Translation】 English version Short lifespan. Still dying from that heaven. Although they are not without the possibility of dying young, they are born in that heaven because of their great blessings. Of the eight great kalpas of lifespan, only a small portion, about twenty intermediate kalpas, has passed before they die. From this, it can be inferred that other beings come to this world, and the lifespan of the people of this continent gradually decreases after immeasurable time, until the beginning of the dwelling kalpa. From immeasurable years to a very short ten years, this is called the first dwelling intermediate kalpa. The next eighteen intermediate kalpas have increases and decreases, that is, from ten years to eighty thousand years, and from eighty thousand years to ten years, this is called the second intermediate kalpa. The remaining seventeen intermediate kalpas are similar to this. After the eighteen intermediate kalpas, from ten years to a maximum of eighty thousand years, it is called the twentieth kalpa. The increase of all kalpas does not exceed eighty thousand years; the decrease of all kalpas is only ten years. In the eighteen kalpas, one increases and one decreases, and the time is equal. The first is decrease, and the second is increase, so the time of the twenty kalpas is equal. This is collectively called the established dwelling kalpa. The remaining formation kalpa, destruction kalpa, and destroyed empty kalpa, although there is no difference of twenty intermediate kalpas of decrease and increase, the time is the same as the dwelling kalpa, and twenty intermediate kalpas are formed according to the dwelling kalpa. In the first kalpa of the formation kalpa, the world of vessels (the material world in which sentient beings live) begins to form, and in the following nineteen intermediate kalpas, sentient beings gradually live in it. In the last kalpa of the destruction kalpa, the world of vessels is reduced, and in the previous nineteen intermediate kalpas, sentient beings gradually abandon it. As said, formation, dwelling, destruction, and emptiness each have twenty intermediate kalpas, which accumulate into eighty intermediate kalpas. In total, these eighty intermediate kalpas constitute the amount of a great kalpa. If so, then with regard to the suffering of suffering (suffering caused by the feeling of suffering), there should be more happiness than suffering in samsara, because the destruction kalpa, the empty kalpa, and the formation kalpa are always happy. In the dwelling kalpa, although suffering and happiness are mixed, there is little pure suffering, and there is more pure happiness. Although the time ratio is like this, when suffering arises, it is enhanced and intense, but happiness is not like this. For example, in hot weather, when intense heat burns the body, even if sandalwood (Candana, a kind of fragrant wood), usira-maraka (Usira-maraka, a kind of fragrant grass), and ice and snow are used to treat it, it produces enhanced physical happiness. At this time, if you are suddenly pricked by a small thorn, you immediately forget all the happiness and only feel pain. In this way, if you encounter separation from loved ones, the enhanced feeling of suffering that arises in your heart is heavier than the happiness that arises from the union of love. From these examples, it can be seen that in samsara, there is less happiness and more suffering.
其理決定。諸劫唯用五蘊為體。除此時體不可得故。經說三劫阿僧企耶精進修行得成佛者。於前所說四種劫中。積大劫成三劫無數。謂從初種大菩提種。經三大劫阿僧企耶。方乃得成大菩提果。既稱無數。何復言三。有釋此言。諸善算者。依算計論算至數窮。初不能知。名一無數。如是無數。積至第三。余復釋言。六十數內。別有一數。立無數名。謂有經中。說六十數。此言無數。當彼一名。積此至三。名三無數。非諸算計不能數知。菩薩經斯三劫無數。方乃證得無上菩提。如是已辯劫量差別。諸佛獨覺。出現世間。為劫增時。為劫減位。頌曰。
減八萬至百 諸佛現世間 獨覺增減時 麟角喻百劫
論曰。從此洲人壽八萬歲。漸減乃至壽極百年。於此中間。諸佛出現。何緣增位無佛出耶。有情樂增。難教厭故。多行妙行故。少有墮三塗。減百年時。何故無佛。現於如是壽短促時。不能具成佛所作故。謂一切佛。出現世間。決定舍于第五分壽。從定所起命行依身。非於爾時所化樂見。以設出世為佛事少。故於爾時。佛不出世。經主於此。作是釋言。五濁極增。難可化故。豈不今世人減百年五濁雖增。而有能辦入正決定離染得果。佛唯為此。應出世間。故彼所言。非為善釋。非百年位佛出世時。一切皆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其道理是確定的。所有劫都以五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）為本體。因為除了此時之外，無法得到其他本體。經書上說，經過三大阿僧祇耶（無數）劫精進修行才能成佛。在前面所說的四種劫中，積累大劫成為三大阿僧祇耶劫，指的是從最初種下大菩提種子，經過三大阿僧祇耶劫，才能成就大菩提果。既然稱為『無數』，為何又說是『三』呢？有一種解釋是，那些精於算術的人，依據算計理論，算到數字的盡頭，最初無法知道的，稱為『一無數』。像這樣的『無數』，積累到第三個。還有一種解釋是，在六十個數目中，另外有一個數，被立名為『無數』。也就是說，有的經書中說到六十個數目，這裡說的『無數』，相當於其中的一個名稱。積累到三個，稱為『三無數』，並非是算計不能數清的。菩薩經過這三大阿僧祇耶劫，才能證得無上菩提。像這樣已經辨明了劫的量上的差別。諸佛（Buddha，覺悟者）和獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）出現於世間，是在劫增長的時候，還是在劫減少的時候呢？頌詞說： 『從八萬歲減到一百歲，諸佛才出現於世間；獨覺在劫增劫減時出現，如同麟角喻示著一百劫。』 論述說：從此洲（ Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）的人壽命八萬歲開始，逐漸減少乃至壽命只有一百年。在這中間，諸佛才會出現。為什麼在壽命增長的時候沒有佛出現呢？因為有情（sentient beings，有情識的生命）喜歡增長，難以教化，而且因為多行妙行，所以很少有墮入三塗（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）的。在壽命減少到一百年的時候，為什麼沒有佛出現呢？因為在這樣壽命短促的時候，不能完全成就佛所應做的事情。也就是說，一切佛出現於世間，必定捨棄第五分壽命，從禪定中所起的命行依附於身體，不是在那個時候所化度的眾生樂於見到的。因為即使出世，所能做的佛事也很少，所以在那個時候，佛不會出世。經論的作者對此作這樣的解釋：五濁（劫濁、見濁、煩惱濁、眾生濁、命濁）極其增長，難以教化。難道現在人壽命減少到一百年的時候，五濁雖然增長，但也有能進入正定，決定離染而得到果位的，佛僅僅爲了這些人，就應該出世。所以他的說法，不是好的解釋。並非在壽命一百年的時候，一切都是……
【English Translation】 English version: The principle is definite. All kalpas (aeons) take the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) as their substance. Because apart from this time, no other substance can be obtained. The scriptures say that one attains Buddhahood through diligent practice for three great asamkhyeya (innumerable) kalpas. Among the four types of kalpas mentioned earlier, accumulating great kalpas becomes three great asamkhyeya kalpas, referring to starting from initially planting the great Bodhi seed, and after three great asamkhyeya kalpas, one can achieve the great Bodhi fruit. Since it is called 'innumerable,' why is it said to be 'three'? One explanation is that those skilled in arithmetic, based on calculation theories, calculate to the end of the numbers, and what cannot be known initially is called 'one innumerable.' Such 'innumerable' accumulates to the third. Another explanation is that among the sixty numbers, there is another number that is named 'innumerable.' That is to say, some scriptures mention sixty numbers, and the 'innumerable' mentioned here is equivalent to one of those names. Accumulating to three is called 'three innumerables,' which are not beyond the ability of calculations to count. Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings) attain unsurpassed Bodhi after passing through these three great asamkhyeya kalpas. Thus, the differences in the measure of kalpas have been distinguished. Do Buddhas (enlightened ones) and Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas) appear in the world when the kalpa is increasing or when the kalpa is decreasing? The verse says: 'From eighty thousand years decreasing to one hundred years, Buddhas appear in the world; Pratyekabuddhas appear during increasing and decreasing kalpas, like the horn of a rhinoceros symbolizing a hundred kalpas.' The treatise says: From the time when the lifespan of people in this Jambudvipa (the continent we inhabit) is eighty thousand years, it gradually decreases until the lifespan is only one hundred years. In between, Buddhas appear. Why do Buddhas not appear when the lifespan is increasing? Because sentient beings (beings with consciousness) enjoy increase, are difficult to teach, and because they perform many wonderful deeds, few fall into the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals). Why do Buddhas not appear when the lifespan decreases to one hundred years? Because at such a short lifespan, they cannot fully accomplish what Buddhas should do. That is to say, all Buddhas appearing in the world must relinquish the fifth part of their lifespan, and the life force arising from samadhi (meditative absorption) relies on the body, which is not what the beings to be transformed at that time are happy to see. Because even if they appear in the world, the Buddhist activities they can do are few, so at that time, Buddhas do not appear. The author of the sutra makes this explanation: the five turbidities (the turbidity of the kalpa, views, afflictions, beings, and life) increase extremely, making it difficult to transform beings. Is it not the case that even though the five turbidities increase when people's lifespan decreases to one hundred years, there are still those who can enter right concentration, decisively leave defilements, and attain the fruit? Buddhas should appear in the world solely for these people. Therefore, his statement is not a good explanation. It is not the case that everything is...
能遵崇聖教。入正決定。離染得果。可言減百一分。不能辦斯佛事。故無佛出。然于減百。設佛出世。亦有一分能遵教等。如百年時。佛何不出。若謂減百堪化有情極鮮少故佛不出者。是則應說前所立因。不能具成佛所作故。雖于減百五濁極增。不能具成佛所作事。由斯故佛不出世間而此親因。非彼所說。言五濁者。一壽濁。二劫濁。三煩惱濁。四見濁。五有情濁。云何濁義。極鄙下故。應棄捨故。如滓穢故。豈不壽劫有情濁三互不相離。見濁即用煩惱為體。五應不成。理實應然。但為次第顯五衰損極增盛時。何等名為五種衰損。一壽命衰損。時極短故。二資具衰損。少光澤故。三善品衰損。欣惡行故。四寂靜衰損。展轉相違成諠諍故。五自體衰損。非出世間功德器故。為欲次第顯此五種衰損不同。故分五濁。獨覺出現。通劫增減。然諸獨覺。有二種殊。一者部行。二麟角喻。部行獨覺。先是聲聞。得勝果時。轉名獨勝。有餘說彼先是異生。曾修聲聞順抉擇分。今自證道。得獨勝名。由本事中說。一山處總有五百苦行外仙。有一獼猴。曾與獨覺相近而住。見彼威儀。展轉游行。至外仙所。現先所見獨覺威儀。諸仙睹之。咸生敬慕。須臾皆證獨覺菩提。若先是聖人。不應修苦行。麟角喻者。謂必獨居。二獨覺中。麟角喻
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『能遵崇聖教，入正決定，離染得果』，即使能做到這種程度，也可以說是減少了百分之一的惡業。如果不能做到這些，就無法成就佛的事業，所以佛不出世。 然而，即使在惡業減少的百分之一的情況下，如果佛出世，也仍然有一部分眾生能夠遵從教誨等等。比如在百年時期，佛為什麼不出世呢？如果說因為惡業減少的百分之一所能教化的眾生極其稀少，所以佛不出世，那麼就應該說前面所立的因，不能完全成就佛所作的事業。即使在惡業增加的百分之一的情況下，五濁（Pañcakaṣāya）極其增盛，也不能完全成就佛所作的事業。因此，佛才不出世間。而這個親近因，並非他們所說的。 所說的五濁（Pañcakaṣāya）是：一、壽濁（āyu-kaṣāya），二、劫濁（kalpa-kaṣāya），三、煩惱濁（kleśa-kaṣāya），四、見濁（dṛṣṭi-kaṣāya），五、有情濁（sattva-kaṣāya）。什麼是濁的含義呢？就是極其鄙陋低下，應該捨棄，如同污穢一樣。 難道不是壽濁（āyu-kaṣāya）、劫濁（kalpa-kaṣāya）、有情濁（sattva-kaṣāya）這三種互相不可分離嗎？見濁（dṛṣṭi-kaṣāya）就是以煩惱為體，這樣五濁（Pañcakaṣāya）不就不能成立了嗎？道理上確實應該這樣。但爲了依次顯示五種衰損極其增盛的時候。什麼叫做五種衰損呢？一、壽命衰損，因為時間極其短暫。二、資具衰損，因為缺少光澤。三、善品衰損，因為喜歡惡行。四、寂靜衰損，因為輾轉互相違背而形成喧鬧爭端。五、自體衰損，因為不是出世間功德的器皿。 爲了依次顯示這五種衰損的不同，所以分為五濁（Pañcakaṣāya）。獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）的出現，貫通劫的增減。然而，諸獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）有兩種不同：一者是部行獨覺（varga-cārin），二者是麟角喻獨覺（khaḍga-viṣāṇa-kalpa）。部行獨覺（varga-cārin），先前是聲聞（Śrāvaka），得到殊勝的果位時，轉名為獨勝。有的人說他們先前是異生（pṛthag-jana），曾經修習聲聞（Śrāvaka）的順抉擇分（anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya），現在自己證道，得到獨勝的名稱。根據《本事經》（Itivṛttaka）中所說，在一座山裡總共有五百個苦行外道仙人，有一隻獼猴，曾經與獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）相近而住，見到他的威儀，輾轉模仿，到外道仙人那裡，展現先前所見的獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）的威儀，諸仙人看到后，都生起敬慕之心，須臾之間都證得獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）菩提。如果先前是聖人，不應該修苦行。麟角喻獨覺（khaḍga-viṣāṇa-kalpa），是指必定獨自居住的獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）。
【English Translation】 English version 'Being able to revere the holy teachings, enter into correct determination, and attain the fruit of liberation from defilements,' even if one can achieve this level, it can be said that one has reduced one percent of evil karma. If one cannot achieve these things, one cannot accomplish the Buddha's work, so the Buddha does not appear in the world. However, even in the case where evil karma is reduced by one percent, if the Buddha were to appear, there would still be a portion of beings who could follow the teachings, and so on. For example, in a time of a hundred years, why does the Buddha not appear? If it is said that because the beings who can be taught by the one percent reduction of evil karma are extremely rare, the Buddha does not appear, then it should be said that the previously established cause cannot fully accomplish the Buddha's work. Even in the case where evil karma increases by one percent, and the five turbidities (Pañcakaṣāya) are extremely intensified, it cannot fully accomplish the Buddha's work. Therefore, the Buddha does not appear in the world. And this proximate cause is not what they say. The so-called five turbidities (Pañcakaṣāya) are: 1. the turbidity of lifespan (āyu-kaṣāya), 2. the turbidity of the age (kalpa-kaṣāya), 3. the turbidity of afflictions (kleśa-kaṣāya), 4. the turbidity of views (dṛṣṭi-kaṣāya), and 5. the turbidity of beings (sattva-kaṣāya). What is the meaning of 'turbidity'? It means extremely base and inferior, something that should be abandoned, like filth. Are not the turbidity of lifespan (āyu-kaṣāya), the turbidity of the age (kalpa-kaṣāya), and the turbidity of beings (sattva-kaṣāya) these three mutually inseparable? The turbidity of views (dṛṣṭi-kaṣāya) is based on afflictions, so wouldn't the five turbidities (Pañcakaṣāya) be unable to be established? In principle, it should be so. But in order to sequentially show the times when the five kinds of decline are extremely intensified. What are the five kinds of decline? 1. The decline of lifespan, because time is extremely short. 2. The decline of resources, because they lack luster. 3. The decline of virtuous qualities, because one delights in evil deeds. 4. The decline of tranquility, because they turn against each other and form noisy disputes. 5. The decline of self, because it is not a vessel for supramundane merits. In order to sequentially show the differences between these five kinds of decline, they are divided into the five turbidities (Pañcakaṣāya). The appearance of a solitary Buddha (Pratyekabuddha) pervades the increase and decrease of the eon. However, there are two kinds of solitary Buddhas (Pratyekabuddha): one is the group-faring solitary Buddha (varga-cārin), and the other is the rhinoceros-horn-like solitary Buddha (khaḍga-viṣāṇa-kalpa). The group-faring solitary Buddha (varga-cārin) was previously a Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka), and when he attained a superior fruit, he was renamed a solitary victor. Some say that they were previously ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana) who had practiced the sequential decisive part (anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya) of the Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka), and now they have attained enlightenment on their own and have obtained the name of solitary victor. According to what is said in the Itivṛttaka (Itivṛttaka), in a mountain there were a total of five hundred ascetic heretics, and there was a monkey who had lived near a solitary Buddha (Pratyekabuddha), saw his dignified manner, imitated him in turn, went to the heretic ascetics, and displayed the dignified manner of the solitary Buddha (Pratyekabuddha) that he had seen before. When the ascetics saw it, they all developed reverence and admiration, and in a short time they all attained the Bodhi of a solitary Buddha (Pratyekabuddha). If they were previously sages, they should not practice asceticism. The rhinoceros-horn-like solitary Buddha (khaḍga-viṣāṇa-kalpa) refers to the solitary Buddha (Pratyekabuddha) who necessarily lives alone.
者。要百大劫。修菩提資糧。然後方成麟角喻獨覺。言獨覺者。謂現身中。離稟至教。唯自悟道。以能自調不調他故。何緣獨覺。言不調他。非彼無能演說正法。以彼亦得無礙解故。又能憶念過去所聞。諸佛言詞。堪為他說。得極遠境宿住智故。又不可說彼無慈悲。為攝有情現神通故。又不可說無受教機。爾時有情。亦有能起世間離染。對治道故。雖有此理。而今測量。彼知爾時有情根欲。入見諦等。不藉他教。故不說法以調伏他。除此所餘。攝有情事。無勞設教現通即成。又諸獨覺闕力無畏對。於我論堅執眾中欲說無我心便怯劣。故不說教以調伏他。有餘釋言。由彼獨覺長時數習少欲勝解。又避攝眾諠雜過失。故不說法以調伏他。若自有能。他有根欲。棄而不濟度。豈名有慈悲。是故應如前釋為善。輪王出世。為在何時。幾種幾俱何威何相。頌曰。
輪王八萬上 金銀銅鐵輪 一二三四洲 逆次獨如佛 他迎自往伏 諍陣勝無害 相不正明圓 故與佛非等
論曰。從此洲人壽無量歲。乃至八萬歲。有轉輪王生。減八萬時。有情富樂。壽量損減。非其器故。或順彼受業。定於彼時。方與果故。如感佛身業。要劫減時方能與果。王由輪寶旋轉應導。威伏一切。名轉輪王。施設足中。說有四種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『者』，指的是要經歷百大劫的時間，修集菩提資糧，然後才能成就如麟角般的獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依賴他人教導而獨自悟道的修行者）。說到獨覺，是指在現世中，不接受他人的教導，唯有自己領悟真理。因為他們能夠自我調伏，而不能調伏他人。為什麼說獨覺不能調伏他人呢？並非他們沒有能力演說正法，因為他們也證得了無礙解（unimpeded eloquence）。而且，他們還能憶念過去所聽聞的諸佛言辭，足以教導他人，因為他們獲得了能知極遠境界的宿住智（knowledge of past lives）。也不能說他們沒有慈悲心，爲了攝受有情眾生而示現神通。也不能說沒有能接受教化的對象，因為那時也有有情眾生能夠生起世間的離染之心，修習對治道。雖然有這些道理，但現在衡量來看，獨覺知道那時有情眾生的根器和意願，即使不依靠他人的教導，也能進入見諦（seeing the truth）等境界，所以他們不說法來調伏他人。除了這些之外，攝受有情眾生的事情，不需要費力教導，示現神通就能成就。而且，諸位獨覺缺乏力量和無畏的辯才，在那些對我論（theories of self）堅執的眾生中，想要宣說無我（non-self）的道理，內心便會怯懦退縮，所以他們不說法來調伏他人。 有其他的解釋說，因為獨覺長時間地修習少欲知足的勝解（superior understanding），又爲了避免攝受大眾的喧鬧和雜亂的過失，所以不說法來調伏他人。如果自己有能力，他人也有接受教化的根器和意願，卻放棄而不去救濟度化，怎麼能稱得上是有慈悲心呢？所以應該像前面的解釋那樣才好。轉輪王（Chakravartin，統治世界的理想君王）出現於何時？有幾種？各有幾種軍隊？具有什麼樣的威勢和相貌？ 頌曰： 『輪王八萬上，金銀銅鐵輪，一二三四洲，逆次獨如佛，他迎自往伏，諍陣勝無害，相不正明圓，故與佛非等。』 論曰：從這個洲的人壽命無量歲，乃至八萬歲的時候，有轉輪王出生。當壽命減少到八萬歲以下時，有情眾生缺乏福樂，壽命也減少，因為他們不是能承受轉輪王出現的根器。或者順應他們所受的業力，決定在那個時候才能給予果報。就像感得佛身（Buddha-body）的業力，要到劫減的時候才能給予果報。轉輪王因為輪寶（Cakra-ratna，轉輪王的寶輪）的旋轉引導，以威勢降伏一切，所以被稱為轉輪王。《施設足論》（Prajnapada）中說有四種轉輪王。
【English Translation】 English version: '者' (zhe), refers to the need to cultivate the accumulations of merit for Bodhi (Enlightenment) for a hundred great kalpas (aeons), and then one can become a Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha), like a rhinoceros horn. Speaking of Pratyekabuddhas, it means that in their present life, they do not receive teachings from others, but only realize the truth themselves. Because they are able to tame themselves, but not others. Why is it said that Pratyekabuddhas cannot tame others? It is not that they do not have the ability to expound the Dharma (teachings), because they have also attained unimpeded eloquence. Moreover, they can also remember the words of the Buddhas they have heard in the past, which are sufficient to teach others, because they have obtained the knowledge of past lives that can know extremely distant realms. It cannot be said that they do not have compassion, because they manifest supernatural powers to gather sentient beings. It cannot be said that there are no objects to be taught, because at that time there were also sentient beings who could generate the mind of detachment from the world and practice the antidotal path. Although there are these reasons, now considering it, the Pratyekabuddhas know the faculties and desires of sentient beings at that time, and even without relying on the teachings of others, they can enter the realm of seeing the truth, so they do not teach the Dharma to tame others. Apart from these, the matter of gathering sentient beings does not require laborious teaching, and the manifestation of supernatural powers can accomplish it. Moreover, the Pratyekabuddhas lack the power and fearless eloquence. Among those sentient beings who are attached to theories of self, they would be timid and retreat in their hearts when they want to proclaim the doctrine of non-self, so they do not teach the Dharma to tame others. Other explanations say that because the Pratyekabuddhas have long practiced the superior understanding of contentment with few desires, and also to avoid the faults of the noise and disorder of gathering a crowd, they do not teach the Dharma to tame others. If one has the ability and others have the faculties and desires to be taught, but one abandons them and does not save and liberate them, how can one be called compassionate? Therefore, it should be explained as before. When does a Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King, an ideal monarch who rules the world) appear? How many types are there? How many armies does each have? What kind of power and appearance do they possess? Verse: 'Wheel-kings above eighty thousand, have wheels of gold, silver, copper, and iron. They rule one, two, three, or four continents, in reverse order, unique like the Buddha. Others welcome them or they go themselves to subdue, winning battles without harm. Their marks are not perfectly clear and round, so they are not equal to the Buddha.' Treatise: From the time when the lifespan of people in this continent is immeasurable years, up to eighty thousand years, a Chakravartin is born. When the lifespan decreases to less than eighty thousand years, sentient beings lack blessings and happiness, and their lifespans also decrease, because they are not the vessels capable of receiving the appearance of a Chakravartin. Or, in accordance with the karma they have received, it is determined that only at that time can the result be given. Just like the karma of attaining a Buddha-body, it can only give its result when the kalpa is decreasing. The Chakravartin is called a Chakravartin because the rotation and guidance of the Cakra-ratna (Wheel Jewel, the precious wheel of the Chakravartin) subdues everything with power. The Prajnapada (Establishment of Footprints) says that there are four types of Chakravartins.
金銀銅鐵輪應別故。如其次第。勝上中下。逆次能王領一。二三四洲。謂鐵輪王。王一洲界。銅輪王二。銀輪王三。若金輪王。王四洲界。契經就勝。但說金輪。故契經言。若王生在剎帝利種。紹灌頂位。於十五日。受齋戒時。沐浴首身。受勝齋戒。升高臺殿。臣僚輔翼。東方欻有金輪寶現。其輪千輻。具足轂輞。眾相圓凈。非匠所成。舒妙光明來應王所。此王定是。轉金輪王。轉余輪王。應知亦爾輪王如佛。無二俱生。故契經言。無處無位。非前非后。有二如來應正等覺。出現於世。有處有位。唯一如來。如說如來。輪王亦爾。應審思擇。此唯一言。為據一大千。為約一切界。應說一切界。無差別言故。謂無經說。唯此世間。又無經言唯一世界。如何不說。而能定知唯據一大千。非約一切界。若爾何故。梵王經說我今於此三千大千諸世界中。得自在轉。彼有密意。密意者何。謂若世尊。不起加行。唯能觀此三千大千。若時世尊。發起加行。無邊世界。皆佛眼境。天耳通等。例此應知。若不許然。佛于余界。何緣無有自在化能。為闕大悲。為智有礙。闕大悲者。經不應言如來悲心普覆一切。智有礙者。經不應言無一爾焰佛智不轉。若佛智悲。遍於一切。無礙無闕。則應說法。普能濟度一切有情。無邊界中。如來皆有。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 金、銀、銅、鐵輪的出現各有不同，按照順序，分為最勝、上、中、下四種。按照逆序，鐵輪王統治一個洲，銅輪王統治兩個洲，銀輪王統治三個洲，金輪王統治四個洲。佛經爲了強調最殊勝的情況，只說金輪王。所以佛經上說：『如果國王出生在剎帝利種姓（Kshatriya，印度第二等級，即武士階層），繼承灌頂之位（Abhisheka，一種宗教儀式），在十五日（Upavasatha，佛教的齋戒日）受齋戒時，沐浴身體，接受殊勝的齋戒，登上高臺，臣僚輔佐。這時，東方忽然出現金輪寶（Chakra-ratna，象徵王權的輪寶），這個輪寶有一千個輻條，具備輪轂和輪輞，各種相都圓滿清凈，不是工匠所造，放射出美妙的光明來應和國王。』這位國王一定是轉金輪王。轉其他輪王的出現，應當知道也是這樣。輪王和佛陀一樣，都是獨一無二同時出現的。所以佛經上說：『沒有地方，沒有位置，不是先前，不是之後，會有兩位如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一）應正等覺（Samyak-sambuddha，完全覺悟者）出現在世上。』有地方，有位置，只有一位如來。如同說如來一樣，輪王也是如此。應當仔細思考，這個『唯一』是指一個大千世界（Tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-lokadhatu，佛教宇宙觀中的一個宇宙），還是指一切世界？應該說指一切世界，因為沒有差別之說。也就是說，沒有佛經說只有這個世間，也沒有佛經說只有一個世界。為什麼不說，卻能確定地知道只是指一個大千世界，而不是指一切世界呢？如果這樣，為什麼《梵王經》說『我現在於此三千大千諸世界中，得自在轉』？這裡有密意（Abhipraya，隱藏的含義）。密意是什麼呢？就是說，如果世尊（Bhagavan，佛的稱號之一）不發起加行（Prayoga，努力），只能觀察這三千大千世界。如果世尊發起加行，無邊世界都在佛的眼界之中。天耳通（Divya-srotra，一種神通）等等，也應該這樣理解。如果不允許這樣，佛在其他世界，為什麼沒有自在化現的能力呢？是缺少大悲心（Maha-karuna，偉大的慈悲），還是智慧有障礙？如果缺少大悲心，佛經不應該說『如來的悲心普遍覆蓋一切』。如果智慧有障礙，佛經不應該說『沒有一毫一塵的佛智不運轉』。如果佛的智慧和慈悲，遍及一切，沒有障礙沒有缺失，那麼就應該說法，普遍能夠救度一切有情（Sattva，眾生）。在無邊無際的世界中，如來都存在。
【English Translation】 English version The appearance of gold, silver, copper, and iron wheels differs accordingly. In order, they are the most excellent, superior, middling, and inferior. In reverse order, a wheel-turning king with an iron wheel rules one continent, a copper wheel king rules two, a silver wheel king rules three, and a gold wheel king rules four continents. The sutras, emphasizing the most excellent case, only speak of the gold wheel king. Therefore, the sutras say: 'If a king is born into the Kshatriya (Indian warrior caste) lineage, inherits the position of Abhisheka (consecration), on the fifteenth day (Upavasatha, Buddhist day of fasting) when observing the fast, bathes his body, accepts the excellent fast, ascends the high platform, and is assisted by ministers, then suddenly a gold wheel jewel (Chakra-ratna, a wheel symbolizing royal power) appears in the east. This wheel has a thousand spokes, complete with hub and rim, all its aspects are perfect and pure, not made by craftsmen, and it emits wonderful light to respond to the king.' This king is definitely a gold wheel-turning king. The appearance of other wheel-turning kings should be understood similarly. Wheel-turning kings and Buddhas are unique and appear simultaneously. Therefore, the sutras say: 'There is no place, no position, not before, not after, where there are two Tathagatas (one of the titles of a Buddha) who are Samyak-sambuddhas (fully enlightened ones) appearing in the world.' There is a place, there is a position, where there is only one Tathagata. Just as it is said of the Tathagata, so it is with the wheel-turning king. It should be carefully considered whether this 'only one' refers to one Tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-lokadhatu (a great thousandfold world system in Buddhist cosmology) or to all worlds. It should be said that it refers to all worlds, because there is no statement of difference. That is, there is no sutra that says only this world, nor is there a sutra that says there is only one world. Why is it that without saying so, it can be definitively known that it refers only to one Tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-lokadhatu and not to all worlds? If so, why does the Brahma Net Sutra say, 'I now, in these three thousand great thousand worlds, obtain the freedom to turn'? There is a hidden meaning (Abhipraya, hidden meaning) here. What is the hidden meaning? It is that if the Bhagavan (another title of a Buddha) does not initiate effort (Prayoga, exertion), he can only observe these three thousand great thousand worlds. If the Bhagavan initiates effort, then boundless worlds are within the Buddha's field of vision. Divine hearing (Divya-srotra, a supernatural power), etc., should be understood similarly. If this is not allowed, why does the Buddha not have the ability to freely manifest in other worlds? Is it due to a lack of great compassion (Maha-karuna, great compassion), or is his wisdom obstructed? If it is due to a lack of great compassion, the sutras should not say, 'The Tathagata's compassion universally covers everything.' If his wisdom is obstructed, the sutras should not say, 'There is not a single mote of dust where the Buddha's wisdom does not operate.' If the Buddha's wisdom and compassion pervade everything, without obstruction or deficiency, then he should teach the Dharma and be universally able to save all sentient beings (Sattva, beings). In boundless worlds, the Tathagatas all exist.
不思議力。能普化故。又佛先於三無數劫。發願度脫一切有情。令諸有情。若自所化。若他所化。皆已下種。資糧成熟。住在十方。無出世尊愿所及境。何緣此佛。不度余方。設一如來。唯化一界。亦非一界盡得涅槃。然許如來能化一界。故許一佛普化十方。雖度不盡。亦無有失。余為當來佛所度故。由斯理故。梵王經說。我今於此三千大千諸世界中。自在轉者。定有密意。為證不成。又理必然。如舍利子。總約現在。白世尊言。我得彼問。當如是答。今時無有梵志沙門得無上菩提與我世尊等。所以然者。我從世尊。親聞親持。無處無位。非前非后。有二如來應正等覺。出現於世。有處有位。唯一如來。如其他方別有佛者。非舍利子懷嫉妒心。何故不言他方雖有而一世界無二如來。豈不此經亦有密意。引證己義。亦不得成。密意者何。謂彼所引。無處位等。有二如來。如說如來。輪王亦爾。若無密意。約現總遮。則應輪王余界非有。以彼如佛遮俱生故。若余界輪王。雖遮而有。則余界諸佛。不可言無。是故此經。約一界說。不可以佛定例輪王。即此經中遮女成佛。豈亦有佛以女身成。如遮輪王俱生非定。又不可以佛例輪王。以轉輪王如業主別。所生處所。有隔別故。謂轉輪王。業有分限。故所王領。亦有隔別。非一四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不可思議力（acintya-bala）：因為能夠普遍教化眾生。而且佛陀在過去無數劫（asamkhyeya-kalpa）之前，就已發願度脫一切有情（sarva-satva），使這些有情，無論是佛陀自己所教化的，還是其他佛所教化的，都已經種下了解脫的種子，積累了足夠的資糧，安住在十方世界。沒有哪個地方超出世尊的願力所能到達的範圍。那麼，為什麼這位佛陀不度化其他地方的眾生呢？ 假設一位如來（tathagata）只教化一個世界，也不是這個世界的所有眾生都能得到涅槃（nirvana）。然而，我們承認如來能夠教化一個世界，所以也承認一位佛陀能夠普遍教化十方世界。雖然不能完全度盡所有眾生，也沒有什麼過失，因為還有未來的佛陀會來度化他們。因為這個道理，梵王經（Brahma-jala Sutra）中說：『我現在在這三千大千世界（tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-loka-dhatu）中，自在地轉法輪（dharma-cakra-pravartana），一定有其秘密的含義。』 用這個來證明你的觀點是不能成立的，而且在道理上也是不必然的。比如舍利子（Sariputra），總括現在的情況，對世尊（Bhagavan）說：『我如果得到這樣的問題，應當這樣回答：現在沒有其他的婆羅門（brahmana）或沙門（sramana）證得無上菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi），與我的世尊相等。』為什麼這樣說呢？因為我從世尊這裡親自聽聞並受持，沒有哪個地方或位置，無論是之前還是之後，會有兩位如來應正等覺（tathagata arhat samyak-sambuddha）出現在世上。在某個地方或位置，只有一位如來。 如果其他地方有其他的佛陀，那麼舍利子並非懷有嫉妒之心，為什麼不說其他地方有佛，而一個世界沒有兩位如來呢？難道這部經就沒有秘密的含義嗎？用它來引證自己的觀點，也是不能成立的。所謂的秘密含義是什麼呢？就是他們所引用的『沒有哪個地方或位置有兩位如來』，就像說如來和轉輪王（cakravartin）一樣。如果沒有秘密含義，總括現在的情況來遮止，那麼就應該說其他世界也沒有轉輪王。因為他們像佛陀一樣，遮止了同時出現的情況。 如果其他世界有轉輪王，雖然被遮止但仍然存在，那麼其他世界有佛陀，就不能說沒有。所以，這部經是就一個世界來說的，不能用佛陀來類比轉輪王。而且這部經中遮止了女人成佛，難道也有佛陀是以女身成佛的嗎？就像遮止轉輪王同時出現的情況一樣，並非是絕對的。而且不能用佛陀來類比轉輪王，因為轉輪王就像業主一樣，所出生的地方，是有隔別的。轉輪王的業力是有分限的，所以他所統治的領土，也是有隔別的，不是一個四
【English Translation】 English version Inconceivable power (acintya-bala): Because it can universally transform beings. Moreover, the Buddha made a vow to liberate all sentient beings (sarva-satva) countless eons (asamkhyeya-kalpa) ago, so that these sentient beings, whether transformed by the Buddha himself or by other Buddhas, have already planted the seeds of liberation and accumulated sufficient resources, dwelling in the ten directions. There is no place beyond the reach of the World Honored One's vow. So why doesn't this Buddha liberate beings in other places? Suppose a Tathagata (tathagata) only transforms one world, it is not that all beings in this world can attain Nirvana (nirvana). However, we acknowledge that the Tathagata can transform one world, so we also acknowledge that one Buddha can universally transform the ten directions. Although it cannot completely liberate all beings, there is no fault, because there will be future Buddhas to liberate them. Because of this reason, the Brahma-jala Sutra says: 'I am now in this three-thousand-great-thousand world system (tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-loka-dhatu), freely turning the wheel of Dharma (dharma-cakra-pravartana), there must be a secret meaning.' Using this to prove your point is untenable, and it is not necessarily true in principle. For example, Sariputra (Sariputra), summarizing the present situation, said to the World Honored One (Bhagavan): 'If I receive such a question, I should answer it this way: Now there are no other Brahmins (brahmana) or Sramanas (sramana) who have attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi), equal to my World Honored One.' Why do I say this? Because I have personally heard and received it from the World Honored One, there is no place or position, whether before or after, where two Tathagata Arhat Samyak-sambuddhas (tathagata arhat samyak-sambuddha) appear in the world. In a certain place or position, there is only one Tathagata. If there are other Buddhas in other places, then Sariputra is not harboring jealousy, why not say that there are Buddhas in other places, but there are no two Tathagatas in one world? Doesn't this sutra have a secret meaning? Using it to cite your own point is also untenable. What is the so-called secret meaning? That is, what they cited, 'There is no place or position where there are two Tathagatas,' is like saying the Tathagata and the Universal Monarch (cakravartin). If there is no secret meaning, and it is generally prohibited in the present situation, then it should be said that there are no Universal Monarchs in other worlds. Because they, like the Buddhas, prohibit simultaneous appearances. If there are Universal Monarchs in other worlds, although they are prohibited but still exist, then there are Buddhas in other worlds, and it cannot be said that there are none. Therefore, this sutra is speaking of one world, and the Buddha cannot be compared to the Universal Monarch. Moreover, this sutra prohibits women from becoming Buddhas, so are there also Buddhas who become Buddhas in female bodies? Just like prohibiting the simultaneous appearance of Universal Monarchs, it is not absolute. Moreover, the Buddha cannot be compared to the Universal Monarch, because the Universal Monarch is like a landlord, and the place of birth is separate. The karma of the Universal Monarch is limited, so the territory he rules is also separate, not one four
洲俱時二主同所王領。況得有多。是故應知。為主有隔。其所生處理有分限。由有分限。故一界中。無二輪王。余界別有佛因無有分限異故為主王化亦無分限。由此無有佛土隔別。故不可言屬此屬彼。如何此佛唯化此方。余世界中有餘佛化。云何知佛為化主無限。於一切界境皆有智故。諸界差別由二種依。謂依身殊。及法差別。佛于諸界差別相中。有能遍知殊勝智故。於一切法一切有情差別境中。無礙智轉。如契經說。佛告苾芻。我觀有情。非易可得。從久流轉生死以來。非汝父母。乃至廣說。又契經說。佛告苾芻。我觀方土。非易可得。從久流轉生死以來。非汝所居。乃至廣說。又舍利子。贊述世尊成就無上宿住念智。作如是言。大德世尊于彼彼處。曾不曾住。若有色若無色。若有想若無想。若非想非非想。即彼彼處。所有行相。所有摽舉。有無量種無上微妙宿住念智。豈不由此即成如來。于不生處。亦有智轉。能為化主。化彼有情。非轉輪王有如是德。故不可引比例世尊。又轉輪王。于大千界。為多俱出各王四洲。為一輪王總王如佛。若爾何失。二俱不然。若多俱生各別王者。如王與佛遮二言同。而許輪王于大千界同時多出。非佛世尊。如是亦應許余世界有輪王出。無佛世尊。若一輪王。生一四洲界。而能總王百
俱胝界者。輪王少福。都無妙智。而許總王三千大千。況我世尊。具大福德。於一切界。一切有情。有大堪能。無礙妙智而執所王不越大千與輪王同。斯有何理。又彼所執。都無至教。唯依少理。作如是言。現見世間。有多菩薩。俱時修習菩提資糧。一界一時。可無多佛。多界多佛。何理能遮。故無邊界中有無邊佛現。此所立理。應共尋思。俱時造修轉輪王業。及俱修習菩提資糧。二類有情。誰多誰少。又輪王果。無上菩提。無障圓成。誰遲誰速。又有何定理。無二無多造。一界同時轉輪王業。彼如是業成熟既同時。何理為遮不俱生一界。此中定理。于佛亦然。不可被徴便許一界無二多造業。或非一俱生。又賢劫中。契經定說。有五百佛。出現世間。或有說言。千佛出世。若千菩薩。菩提資糧。同一劫中。可得圓滿。何緣成佛定不同時。謂彼皆於三無數劫。精勤修習。菩提資糧。有一劫中。同處成佛。何緣無有同處同時。於一大千。無俱時理。多界唯一。理亦應同。唯佛世尊。能於此義。究竟通達。我等隨力。且於此作如是尋思。諸有智人。應詳其理。如是所說。四種輪王。威定諸方。亦有差別。謂金輪者。諸小國王。各自來迎。作如是請。我等國土。寬廣豐饒。安隱富樂。多諸人眾。唯愿天尊。親垂教敕。我等皆是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『俱胝界』（Koti-loka，無數世界）的統治者，只是轉輪聖王，福報淺薄，全無微妙智慧，卻能統治三千大千世界。何況我等世尊（Bhagavan），具足廣大的福德，對於一切世界、一切有情（Sattva），有廣大的能力和無礙的妙智，卻執著于所統治的世界不超過一個大千世界，與轉輪聖王相同，這有什麼道理呢？而且他們所執著的觀點，並沒有至高的教義作為依據，只是依據少許的道理，就說：『現在看到世間，有很多菩薩（Bodhisattva）同時修習菩提資糧（bodhi-sambhāra，成佛的資糧），一個世界一時，可以沒有多尊佛。多個世界多尊佛，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？』所以無邊界的世界中有無邊的佛顯現。這個所立的道理，應該共同尋思。 同時造作修習轉輪聖王之業，以及同時修習菩提資糧，這兩類有情，誰多誰少？又轉輪聖王的果報，與無上菩提（anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺），無障礙圓滿成就，誰遲誰速？又有什麼定理，沒有兩個或多個同時造作一個世界同時轉輪聖王之業？他們這樣的業成熟既然是同時，有什麼道理能夠阻止不同時出生在一個世界？這個道理，對於佛也是一樣。不可因為被詰難，就允許一個世界沒有兩個或多個同時造業，或者不是同時出生。而且在賢劫（bhadrakalpa）中，契經（sūtra）明確地說，有五百尊佛出現於世間，或者有人說，有一千尊佛出世。如果一千位菩薩，菩提資糧在同一個劫中可以圓滿，為什麼成佛一定不同時？說他們都在三個無數劫（asaṃkhyeya-kalpa）中，精勤修習菩提資糧，在一個劫中，同處成佛。為什麼沒有同處同時，於一個大千世界，沒有同時的道理？多個世界只有一尊佛，道理也應該相同。只有佛世尊，能夠對於這個道理，究竟通達。我等隨自己的能力，且對於此作這樣的尋思。諸有智慧的人，應該詳細考察其中的道理。 像這樣所說的，四種轉輪聖王，威懾安定各個地方，也有差別。所謂金輪王（cakravartin），各個小國王，各自來迎接，作這樣的請求：『我們的國土，寬廣豐饒，安穩富樂，有很多的人眾，唯愿天尊，親自垂示教敕，我等都是』
【English Translation】 English version The ruler of 『Koti-loka』 (innumerable worlds) is only a Wheel-Turning King (cakravartin), with shallow merit and no subtle wisdom, yet he can rule three thousand great thousand worlds. How much more so our World-Honored One (Bhagavan), who possesses vast merit and great ability and unobstructed subtle wisdom for all worlds and all sentient beings (Sattva), yet insists that the world he rules does not exceed one great thousand world, the same as a Wheel-Turning King. What reason is there for this? Moreover, their insistence has no supreme teaching as its basis, but only relies on a few reasons, saying: 『Now we see in the world that there are many Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) who simultaneously cultivate the accumulations of merit for enlightenment (bodhi-sambhāra), and in one world at one time, there may not be many Buddhas. In multiple worlds, there are multiple Buddhas, what reason can prevent this?』 Therefore, in boundless worlds, boundless Buddhas appear. This established reasoning should be jointly considered. Who are more numerous, those who simultaneously create and cultivate the deeds of a Wheel-Turning King, or those who simultaneously cultivate the accumulations of merit for enlightenment? Furthermore, regarding the fruition of a Wheel-Turning King and unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment (anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi), who is slower and who is faster? Also, what fixed principle is there that prevents two or more from simultaneously creating the deeds of a Wheel-Turning King in one world at the same time? Since the maturation of their deeds is simultaneous, what reason can prevent them from being born in the same world at the same time? This principle also applies to Buddhas. One cannot, because of being questioned, allow that there are not two or more simultaneously creating deeds in one world, or that they are not born at the same time. Moreover, in the Fortunate Aeon (bhadrakalpa), the sutras (sūtra) clearly state that five hundred Buddhas appear in the world, or some say that a thousand Buddhas appear. If a thousand Bodhisattvas can perfect their accumulations of merit for enlightenment in the same aeon, why must their attainment of Buddhahood necessarily be at different times? They say that they all diligently cultivate the accumulations of merit for enlightenment for three countless aeons (asaṃkhyeya-kalpa), and attain Buddhahood in the same place in one aeon. Why is there no simultaneous attainment of Buddhahood in the same place? There is no reason for simultaneity in one great thousand world. The reason for only one Buddha in multiple worlds should be the same. Only the World-Honored One Buddha can ultimately understand this meaning. We, according to our ability, will contemplate this in this way. Those with wisdom should examine the reasons in detail. As it is said, the four types of Wheel-Turning Kings, who awe and stabilize the various regions, also have differences. The Gold Wheel King (cakravartin) has various small kings who come to greet him and make such requests: 『Our countries are vast and fertile, peaceful and prosperous, with many people. We only wish that the Heavenly Honored One would personally bestow teachings and commands, and we are all』
天尊翼從。若銀輪王。自往彼土。威嚴近至。彼方臣伏。若銅輪王。至彼國已。宣威競德。彼方推勝。若鐵輪王。亦至彼國。現威列陣。克勝便止。一切輪王。皆無傷害。令伏得勝已。各安其所居。勸化令修十善業道。故輪王死。多得生天。經說輪王出現於世。便有七寶。出現世間。像等五寶。有情數攝。如何他業生他有情。非他有情從他業起。然由先造互相屬業。于中若一。稟自業生。余亦俱時乘自業起。如是所說。諸轉輪王。非唯有七寶與余王別。亦有三十二大士相殊。若爾輪王。與佛何異。佛大士相。處正明圓。王相不然。故有差別。言處正者。謂于佛身。眾相無偏。得其所故。言明了者。謂于佛身。相極分明。能奪意故。言圓滿者。謂于佛身。眾相周圓。無缺減故。劫初人眾。為有王無。頌曰。
劫初如色天 后漸增貪味 由惰貯賊起 為防雇守田
論曰。劫初時人。皆如色界。極光凈歿。來生人間。經于久時。漸有王出。故契經說。劫初時人。有色意成。支體圓滿。諸根無缺。形色端嚴。身帶光明。騰空自在。飲食喜樂。長時久住。有如是類。地味漸生。其味甘美。其香郁馥。時有一人。稟性耽味。嗅香起愛。取嘗便食。餘人隨學。競取食之。爾時方名。初受段食。資段食故。身漸堅重。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 天尊護衛隨從，如同銀輪王（cakravartin，擁有銀輪寶的統治者）一樣。親自前往那個地方，威嚴逼近，那個地方的臣民便會臣服。如果是銅輪王（擁有銅輪寶的統治者），到達那個國家后，宣揚威德，那個地方的人民便會推崇其勝德。如果是鐵輪王（擁有鐵輪寶的統治者），也到達那個國家，展示威勢，排列陣勢，戰勝之後便停止。所有的輪王，都不會造成傷害，讓他們臣服獲得勝利后，各自安頓在自己的居所，勸導他們修行十善業道。所以輪王死後，大多能夠昇天。《經》中說輪王出現於世，便有七寶（sapta ratna，輪王擁有的七種寶物）出現於世間。像等五寶，屬於有情眾生所攝。為什麼是他人的業產生其他的有情眾生，而不是其他的有情眾生從他人的業中產生呢？這是由於先前造作了互相聯繫的業，其中如果有一個，稟承自己的業而生，其餘的也會同時憑藉自己的業而生起。像這樣所說的，各位轉輪王，不僅僅是有七寶與其他的國王不同，也有三十二大丈夫相（mahapurusa-laksana，佛和轉輪王所具有的三十二種殊勝的身體特徵）的差別。如果這樣，輪王與佛有什麼不同呢？佛的大丈夫相，處在正位，光明圓滿。輪王的相則不然，所以有差別。所說的『處正』，是指在佛的身上，各種相沒有偏頗，得到了它們應有的位置。所說的『明瞭』，是指在佛的身上，相極其分明，能夠奪人心意。所說的『圓滿』，是指在佛的身上，各種相周遍圓滿，沒有缺少和減損。劫初的人眾，是有國王還是沒有國王呢？頌詞說： 『劫初如色天，后漸增貪味，由惰貯賊起，為防雇守田。』 論述說：劫初的時候，人們都像色界天（rupa-dhatu，佛教宇宙觀中位於欲界之上的天界）的天人一樣。從極光凈天（Abhasvara，色界第二天）去世，來到人間。經過了很久的時間，漸漸地有國王出現。所以契經上說，劫初的時候，人們有色身，意念成就，肢體圓滿，諸根沒有殘缺，形貌端正莊嚴，身上帶有光明，能夠在空中自由飛行，飲食充滿喜樂，長久地居住。有這樣的人，地味漸漸產生，它的味道甘甜美好，它的香氣濃郁芬芳。當時有一個人，稟性貪戀味道，聞到香味就生起愛著，取來品嚐便食用。其餘的人跟隨學習，爭相取來食用。這個時候才叫做，最初接受段食（kabalikahara，粗糙的食物）。因為依靠段食的緣故，身體漸漸堅固沉重。
【English Translation】 English version The honored ones are attended by followers, like a Silver-Wheel King (cakravartin, ruler possessing a silver wheel). If he personally goes to that land, his majesty approaches, and the subjects of that place will submit. If it is a Copper-Wheel King (ruler possessing a copper wheel), upon arriving in that country, he proclaims his power and virtue, and the people of that place will extol his superior virtue. If it is an Iron-Wheel King (ruler possessing an iron wheel), he also arrives in that country, displays his power, arranges his troops, and ceases after achieving victory. All Wheel Kings cause no harm, and after causing them to submit and gain victory, they each settle in their respective abodes, exhorting them to cultivate the ten wholesome paths of action. Therefore, Wheel Kings, upon death, are mostly reborn in the heavens. The sutras say that when a Wheel King appears in the world, the seven treasures (sapta ratna, the seven treasures possessed by a Wheel King) appear in the world. The five treasures such as elephants are included among sentient beings. Why is it that the karma of others produces other sentient beings, and not that other sentient beings arise from the karma of others? This is because they previously created mutually related karma. If one of them arises from their own karma, the others also arise simultaneously from their own karma. As it is said, these Wheel-Turning Kings are not only different from other kings in having the seven treasures, but also have the distinction of possessing the thirty-two major marks of a great man (mahapurusa-laksana, the thirty-two auspicious bodily marks of a Buddha or a Wheel-Turning King). If so, what is the difference between a Wheel King and a Buddha? The major marks of a Buddha are rightly positioned, clear, and complete. The marks of a Wheel King are not so, hence there is a difference. 'Rightly positioned' means that on the body of a Buddha, the various marks are without bias and have attained their proper place. 'Clear' means that on the body of a Buddha, the marks are extremely distinct and can captivate the mind. 'Complete' means that on the body of a Buddha, the various marks are perfectly complete, without any deficiency or diminution. In the beginning of the kalpa, were there kings or not? The verse says: 『In the beginning of the kalpa, like the gods of the Form Realm, later gradually increasing greed for taste, due to laziness, hoarding, and thieves arising, to prevent this, they hired guards to protect the fields.』 The treatise says: In the beginning of the kalpa, people were all like the gods of the Form Realm (rupa-dhatu, the realm of form in Buddhist cosmology, above the desire realm). Having passed away from the Abhasvara heaven (Abhasvara, the second heaven of the Form Realm), they came to be born in the human world. After a long time, kings gradually appeared. Therefore, the sutras say that in the beginning of the kalpa, people had bodies of form, their intentions were fulfilled, their limbs were complete, their faculties were without defect, their forms and appearances were upright and dignified, their bodies were adorned with light, they were free to fly in the sky, their food was filled with joy, and they lived for a long time. There were such people, and the essence of the earth gradually arose, its taste was sweet and delicious, and its fragrance was rich and fragrant. At that time, there was a person who, by nature, was greedy for taste, and upon smelling the fragrance, arose with attachment, took it, tasted it, and ate it. The rest of the people followed suit, vying to take it and eat it. Only at this time was it called the first acceptance of coarse food (kabalikahara, coarse food). Because they relied on coarse food, their bodies gradually became firm and heavy.
光明隱沒。黑闇便生。日月眾星。從茲出現。由漸耽味。地味便隱。從斯復有地皮餅生。競耽食之。地餅復隱。爾時復有林藤出現。競耽食故。林藤復隱。有非耕種香稻自生。眾共取之。以充所食。此食粗故。殘穢在身。為欲蠲除。便生二道。因斯遂有男女根生。由二根殊。形相亦異。宿習力故。便相瞻視。因此遂生非理作意。欲貪鬼魅。惑亂身心。失意猖狂。行非梵行。人中欲鬼。初發此時。爾時諸人。隨食早晚。隨取香稻。無所貯積。后時有人。稟性懶墮。長取香稻。貯擬后食。餘人隨學。漸多停貯。由此于稻生我所心。各縱貪情。多收無厭。故隨收處。無復再生。遂共分田。慮防遠盡。於己田分。生吝護心。於他分田。有懷侵奪。劫盜過起。始於此時。為欲遮防。共聚詳議。銓量眾內一有德人。各以所收六分之一。雇令防護。封為田主。因斯故立剎帝利名。大眾欽承。恩流率土。故複名大三末多王。自後諸王。此王為首。時人或有情厭居家。樂在空閑。精修戒行。因斯故得婆羅門名。后時有王。貪吝財物。不能均給國土人民。故貧匱者。多行賊事。王為禁止。行輕重罰。為殺害業。始於此時。時有罪人。心怖刑罰。覆藏其過。異想發言。虛誑語生。此時為首。于劫減位。有小三災。其相云何。頌曰。
業道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 光明隱沒，黑暗便產生。太陽、月亮和星星，從此出現。由於逐漸貪戀味道，地味便隱沒。從此又有了地皮餅產生，人們爭相食用它，地皮餅也隱沒了。那時又有了林藤出現，因為人們爭相食用，林藤也隱沒了。有無需耕種的香稻自然生長，大家共同取用，來充當食物。因為這食物粗糙，殘渣穢物留在身上，爲了想要去除，便生出大小便二道。因此就有了男女的性器官產生。由於男女器官不同，形貌也各異。因為過去世的習氣，便互相觀看。因此就產生了不如理的作意，欲貪的鬼魅，迷惑擾亂身心，失去理智而猖狂，做出不正當的男女行為。人中的欲鬼，最初就是在這個時候產生的。 那時的人們，隨著吃飯的早晚，隨意取用香稻，沒有儲存積蓄。後來有人，天性懶惰，多取香稻，儲存起來準備以後食用。其他人隨之效仿，漸漸地儲存越來越多。由此對香稻產生了『我所有』的心，各自放縱貪婪的情緒，多多收取而沒有厭足。所以隨著收取的地方，不再重新生長。於是大家共同劃分田地，考慮防備遠方耗盡。對於自己分到的田地，產生吝嗇守護的心，對於他人分到的田地，懷有侵佔掠奪的想法，劫盜的過失，開始於這個時候。 爲了想要遮蔽防備，大家共同聚集詳細商議，選拔眾人中一位有德行的人，各自用所收香稻的六分之一，僱傭他來防護，封他為田地的主人。因此就建立了剎帝利（Kshatriya，統治者或武士）的名稱。大眾欽佩順從，恩澤流佈整個國土，所以又名為大三末多王（Mahasammata，大眾推舉的國王）。自此以後的各位國王，都以這位國王為首。當時的人們，或許有人厭倦居家生活，喜歡在空閑的地方，精進修行戒律，因此就得到了婆羅門（Brahmana，祭司）的名稱。 後來的國王，貪婪吝嗇財物，不能平均供給國土人民，所以貧困匱乏的人，大多做盜賊的事情。國王爲了禁止，施行輕重不同的刑罰。殺害的行業，開始於這個時候。當時有罪的人，心中害怕刑罰，隱瞞自己的過錯，用不同的想法說話，虛假的謊言產生，從這個時候開始。在劫衰減的時期，有小的三種災難。它的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌說： 業道
【English Translation】 English version When light disappears, darkness arises. The sun, moon, and stars then appear. Due to gradually indulging in flavors, the taste of the earth disappears. From this, earth cakes arise again. People compete to eat them, and the earth cakes disappear. At that time, forest vines appear, but because people compete to eat them, the forest vines also disappear. Non-cultivated fragrant rice grows naturally, and everyone takes it to use as food. Because this food is coarse, residue remains on the body. To eliminate it, two paths (of excretion) arise. Consequently, male and female reproductive organs are produced. Due to the difference in these organs, appearances also differ. Because of past habits, they gaze at each other. From this, inappropriate intentions arise, and the demons of lust confuse and disturb their minds, causing them to lose their senses and act wildly, engaging in non-celibate behavior. The 'lust demons' among humans first arise at this time. At that time, people took fragrant rice according to when they ate, without storing it. Later, some people, being lazy by nature, took more fragrant rice and stored it for later consumption. Others followed suit, gradually storing more and more. From this, the thought of 'this is mine' arose regarding the fragrant rice, and each person indulged in greed, collecting much without satisfaction. Therefore, wherever they collected, the rice no longer grew again. So they divided the fields together, considering how to prevent them from being exhausted in the distance. Regarding their own divided fields, they developed a miserly and protective heart, and regarding the fields divided to others, they harbored thoughts of invasion and plunder. The fault of robbery began at this time. To prevent and defend against this, everyone gathered together to discuss in detail, selecting a virtuous person from among them. Each person used one-sixth of the fragrant rice they collected to hire him to protect the fields, and they appointed him as the lord of the fields. Thus, the name Kshatriya (ruler or warrior) was established. The masses admired and obeyed him, and his grace spread throughout the land, so he was also named Mahasammata (the king chosen by the masses). All the kings after this one took this king as their leader. At that time, some people became weary of domestic life and enjoyed being in secluded places, diligently practicing precepts, and thus they obtained the name Brahmana (priest). Later kings were greedy and miserly with wealth, unable to distribute it equally to the people of the land, so many impoverished people engaged in thievery. The king, in order to prohibit this, implemented punishments of varying severity. The act of killing began at this time. At that time, guilty people, fearing punishment in their hearts, concealed their faults, speaking with different intentions, and false lies arose, beginning from this time. In the period of decline of the kalpa (aeon), there are three minor calamities. What are their characteristics? The verse says: The path of karma
增壽減 至十三災現 刀疾饑如次 七日月年止
論曰。從諸有情。起虛誑語。諸惡業道。後後轉增。故此洲人。壽量漸減。乃至極十。小三災現。故諸災患。二法為本。一貪美食。二性懶墮。此小三災。中劫末起。三災者。一刀兵。二疾疫。三饑饉。謂中劫末。十歲時人。為非法貪。染污相續。不平等愛。映蔽其心。邪法縈纏。瞋毒增上。相見便起猛利害心。如今獵師見野禽獸。隨手所執。皆成利刀。各逞兇狂。互相殘害。又中劫末。十歲時人。由具如前諸過失故。非人吐毒。疾疫流行。遇輒命終。難可救療。又中劫末。十歲時人。亦具如前諸過失故。天龍忿責。不降甘雨。由是世間。久遭饑饉。既無支濟。多分命終。是故說言。由饑饉故。便有聚集。白骨運籌。由二種因。名有聚集。一人聚集。謂彼時人。由極饑羸。聚集而死。二種聚集。謂彼時人。為益後人。輟其所食。置於小篋。擬為種子。故饑饉時。名有聚集。言有白骨。亦由二因。一彼時人。身形枯燥。命終未久。白骨便現。二彼時人。饑饉所逼。聚集白骨。煎汁飲之。有運籌言亦二因故。一由糧少。傳籌食之。謂一家中。從長至幼。隨籌至日。得少粗餐。二謂以籌。挑故場蘊。得少穀粒。多用水煎。分共飲之。以濟余命。然有至教。說治彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 壽命減少，直至十三種災難顯現。 刀兵、瘟疫、饑荒依次發生，持續七日、七月、七年之久。
論述：由於眾生髮起虛妄的語言，各種惡業之道，越來越增長。因此這個洲（ Jambudvipa 贍部洲）的人，壽命逐漸減少，乃至減少到只有十歲。小三災顯現。所以各種災禍，以兩種法為根本：一是貪圖美食，二是天性懶惰。這小三災，在中劫末期發生。三災是：一刀兵，二瘟疫，三饑荒。所謂中劫末期，人們十歲的時候，因為非法的貪慾，染污相續，不平等的愛，矇蔽他們的心，邪法纏繞，嗔恨毒害增長，相見就生起猛烈的害人之心，就像現在的獵人看見野禽野獸一樣。隨手拿到的東西，都變成鋒利的刀，各自逞兇鬥狠，互相殘害。又中劫末期，人們十歲的時候，由於具備前面所說的各種過失，非人（非人類的生命）吐出毒素，瘟疫流行，遇到就死亡，難以救治。又中劫末期，人們十歲的時候，也具備前面所說的各種過失，天龍（Naga 龍族）憤怒責備，不降下甘甜的雨水。因此世間，長期遭受饑荒，既沒有供給救濟，大部分人死亡。所以說，由於饑荒的緣故，便有聚集，白骨運籌的事情。 由於兩種原因，稱為『有聚集』。一是人聚集，指的是那時的人，由於極度飢餓羸弱，聚集而死。二是物聚集，指的是那時的人，爲了利益後人，節省下他們所吃的食物，放在小箱子里，打算作為種子。所以饑荒的時候，稱為『有聚集』。說到『有白骨』，也是由於兩種原因。一是那時的人，身形枯燥，命終后沒多久，白骨就顯現出來。二是那時的人，被饑荒所逼迫，聚集白骨，煎煮汁液飲用。『有運籌』的說法也是由於兩種原因。一是因為糧食稀少，用籌碼傳遞來分配食物。說的是一家之中，從年長到年幼，按照籌碼到達的日期，得到少量粗糙的食物。二是說用籌碼，從廢棄的場地裡挑揀出殘餘的穀物，用大量的水煎煮，分給大家一起飲用，用來救濟剩餘的生命。然而有至高的教誨，說治理那些
【English Translation】 English version Lifespan decreases until thirteen calamities appear. War, disease, and famine occur in sequence, lasting for seven days, seven months, and seven years respectively.
Commentary: Because sentient beings engage in false speech and various paths of evil karma, these increase more and more. Therefore, the lifespan of people in this continent (Jambudvipa) gradually decreases, even to the point of only ten years. The minor three calamities appear. Thus, all disasters are rooted in two things: first, greed for delicious food; second, a lazy nature. These minor three calamities arise at the end of a middle kalpa (kalpa 劫波). The three calamities are: first, war; second, disease; third, famine. It is said that at the end of a middle kalpa, when people are ten years old, due to unlawful greed, defilements continuously arise, unequal love obscures their minds, evil doctrines entangle them, and hatred and poison increase. Upon seeing each other, they immediately generate intense thoughts of harm, just like hunters seeing wild animals. Whatever they hold in their hands becomes a sharp weapon, and they fiercely and cruelly harm each other. Also, at the end of a middle kalpa, when people are ten years old, due to possessing the aforementioned faults, non-humans (non-human beings) emit poison, and epidemics spread, causing death upon contact, making it difficult to cure. Furthermore, at the end of a middle kalpa, when people are ten years old, they also possess the aforementioned faults, and the Nagas (Naga 龍族) become angry and reproachful, not sending down sweet rain. Therefore, the world suffers from prolonged famine, and without support or relief, most people die. Thus, it is said that due to famine, there is gathering and counting of white bones. It is called 'gathering' for two reasons. First, people gather, referring to the people at that time who, due to extreme hunger and weakness, gather together and die. Second, things gather, referring to the people at that time who, for the benefit of future generations, save the food they eat and place it in small boxes, intending to use it as seeds. Therefore, in times of famine, it is called 'gathering'. As for 'having white bones', it is also due to two reasons. First, the bodies of the people at that time are withered and dry, and their white bones appear shortly after death. Second, the people at that time, compelled by famine, gather white bones and boil them to make juice to drink. The saying 'counting with tallies' is also due to two reasons. First, because food is scarce, tallies are passed around to distribute food. This refers to a family in which, from the eldest to the youngest, according to the date the tally arrives, they receive a small amount of coarse food. Second, it refers to using tallies to pick out leftover grains from abandoned fields, boiling them with a large amount of water, and sharing them to drink together, in order to sustain the remaining lives. However, there is supreme teaching that speaks of governing those
方。謂若有能一晝一夜持不殺戒。于未來生決定不逢刀兵災起。若能以一訶梨怛雞起殷凈心奉施僧眾。于當來世決定不逢疾疫災起。若有能以一摶之食起殷凈心奉施僧眾。于當來世決定不逢饑饉災起。此三災起。各經幾時。刀兵災起。極唯七日。疾疫災起。七月七日。饑饉七年七月七日。度此便止。人壽漸增。東西二洲。有似災起。謂瞋增盛。身力羸劣。數加飢渴。北洲總無。前說火災焚燒世界。余災亦爾。如應當知。何者為余。今當具辯。頌曰。
三災火水風 上三定為頂 如次內災等 四無不動故 然彼器非常 情俱生滅故 要七火一水 七水火后風
論曰。此大三災。逼有情類。令舍下地。集上天中。初火災興。由七日現。有說如是七日輪行。猶如雁行。分路旋運。有說如是七日輪行。上下為行。分路旋運。中間各相去。五千逾繕那。次水災興。由降瀑雨。有作是說。從三定邊空中。欻然雨熱灰水。有餘復說。從下水輪起涌沸水。上騰漂浸。決定義者。即此邊生后風災興。由風相擊。有作是說。從四定邊空中。欻然飄擊風起。有餘復說。從下風輪。起衝擊風。上騰飄鼓。此決定義。準前應知。若此三災。壞器世界。乃至無有細分為余。后粗物生。誰為種子。豈不即以前災頂風為緣引生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 方（方法）。如果有人能夠一晝夜持守不殺生戒，在未來的生命中，必定不會遭遇刀兵之災。如果有人能夠以一個訶梨怛雞（一種藥材）以虔誠清凈的心供養僧眾，在未來的世間，必定不會遭遇疾病瘟疫之災。如果有人能夠以一團食物，以虔誠清凈的心供養僧眾，在未來的世間，必定不會遭遇飢餓災荒之災。這三種災難發生，各自經歷多長時間呢？刀兵之災發生，最多隻有七天。疾病瘟疫之災發生，七個月零七天。飢餓災荒之災，七年七個月零七天。度過這些時間就會停止，人類的壽命逐漸增長。東勝身洲和西牛貨洲，有類似的災難發生，指的是嗔恨心增長旺盛，身體力量衰弱，經常感到飢餓口渴。而北俱盧洲完全沒有這些災難。前面所說的火災焚燒世界，其餘的災難也是如此，應當如實瞭解。什麼是其餘的災難呢？現在應當詳細說明。頌詞說： 『三災火水風，上三定為頂，如次內災等，四無不動故，然彼器非常，情俱生滅故，要七火一水，七水火后風。』 論述說：這三大災難，逼迫有情眾生，讓他們捨棄地獄，聚集到上方的天界之中。最初的火災興起，是因為七個太陽出現。有人說，這七個太陽像雁群一樣排列執行，分路旋轉執行。也有人說，這七個太陽像輪子一樣上下執行，分路旋轉執行，中間各自相距五千由旬（距離單位）。其次是水災興起，是因為降下瀑布般的雨水。有人這樣說，從三禪天（佛教禪定層次）的邊緣空中，忽然降下熱灰水。還有人說，從下方的水輪涌起沸騰的水，向上騰涌漂浮浸沒。最終的定論是，就在這附近產生。最後是風災興起，是因為風相互衝擊。有人這樣說，從四禪天（佛教禪定層次）的邊緣空中，忽然飄擊起風。還有人說，從下方的風輪，產生衝擊的風，向上騰涌飄動鼓盪。這個最終的定論，應該按照前面的說法來理解。如果這三種災難，毀壞了器世界（眾生所居住的環境），乃至沒有細微的部分殘留，之後粗大的物質產生，誰是種子呢？難道不是以前災難頂上的風作為因緣而引發產生的嗎？
【English Translation】 English version The method. If someone can uphold the precept of not killing for one day and one night, in future lives, they will definitely not encounter the calamity of war. If someone can offer a single Haritaki (a medicinal herb) to the Sangha (monastic community) with a sincere and pure heart, in future worlds, they will definitely not encounter the calamity of disease and pestilence. If someone can offer a handful of food to the Sangha with a sincere and pure heart, in future worlds, they will definitely not encounter the calamity of famine. How long do these three calamities last respectively? The calamity of war lasts for a maximum of seven days. The calamity of disease and pestilence lasts for seven months and seven days. The calamity of famine lasts for seven years, seven months, and seven days. After these periods, they will cease, and the lifespan of humans will gradually increase. In the East Purvavideha (one of the four continents in Buddhist cosmology) and West Godaniya (one of the four continents in Buddhist cosmology), there are similar calamities, referring to the increase and prevalence of anger, the weakening of physical strength, and frequent feelings of hunger and thirst. However, in Uttarakuru (one of the four continents in Buddhist cosmology), there are none of these calamities. The fire calamity that was previously mentioned as burning the world, and the remaining calamities are also similar, and should be understood accordingly. What are the remaining calamities? Now they should be explained in detail. The verse says: 'The three calamities are fire, water, and wind; the three higher Dhyanas (meditative states) are the peak; the internal calamities are in order; the fourth Dhyana is immovable; however, those vessels are impermanent; sentient beings are subject to birth and death; there must be seven fires and one water; after seven waters, there is fire and then wind.' The treatise says: These three great calamities force sentient beings to abandon the lower realms and gather in the upper heavens. The initial fire calamity arises because of the appearance of seven suns. Some say that these seven suns move in a formation like a flock of geese, rotating and moving along separate paths. Others say that these seven suns move up and down like wheels, rotating and moving along separate paths, with each separated by five thousand Yojanas (a unit of distance). Next, the water calamity arises because of the descent of torrential rain. Some say that from the edge of the third Dhyana (a meditative state) heaven, hot ash water suddenly rains down. Others say that from the lower water wheel, boiling water rises, surging upwards and submerging everything. The definitive conclusion is that it arises nearby. Finally, the wind calamity arises because of the collision of winds. Some say that from the edge of the fourth Dhyana (a meditative state) heaven, wind suddenly arises and strikes. Others say that from the lower wind wheel, wind arises that strikes and blows upwards. This definitive conclusion should be understood according to the previous explanation. If these three calamities destroy the vessel world (the environment inhabited by sentient beings), to the point where there are no minute parts remaining, and then coarse matter arises, who is the seed? Is it not the wind at the peak of the previous calamity that serves as the condition for its arising?
。風為種子。或先所說。由諸有情業所生風。能為種子。風中具有種種細物。為同類因。引粗物起。或諸世界。壞非一時。有他方風。具種種德。來此為種。亦無有過。故化地部契經中言。風從他方。飄種來此。如先所說。前災頂風。此中何災。以何為頂。火水風如次。上三定為頂。故世尊說。災頂有三。若時火災焚燒世界。以極光凈。為此災頂若時水災。浸爛世界。以遍凈天。為此災頂若時風災飄散世界。以廣果天。為此災頂。隨何災力。所不及處。即說名為此災之頂。何緣下三定。遭火水風災。初二三定中。內災等彼故。謂初靜慮。尋伺為內災。能燒惱心。等外火災故。第二靜慮。喜受為內災。與輕安俱。潤澤如水。故遍身粗重。由此皆除故。經說苦根第二靜慮滅。以說內心喜。得身輕安故。非唯火災尋伺止息。亦由滅苦所依識身。故說苦根二靜慮滅。雖生上地識身容現前。隨欲不行自在故無過。然經言滅苦。據正入定時。初靜慮中。猶有尋伺。無增上喜。不言苦滅。第三靜慮。動息為內災。息亦是風。等外風災故。若入此靜慮。有如是內災。生此靜慮中。遭是外災壞。故初靜慮。內具三災。外亦具遭三災所壞。第二靜慮。內有二災。故外亦遭二災所壞。第三靜慮。內唯一災。故外但遭一災所壞。何緣不立地亦為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：風作為種子。或者如先前所說，由所有有情眾生的業力所產生的風，能夠作為種子。風中包含著各種各樣的微小物質，作為同類事物的原因，引導粗大物質的產生。或者，各個世界的毀滅並非同時發生，有來自其他世界的風，具有各種各樣的特性，來到這裡作為種子，也沒有什麼不妥。所以，化地部的契經中說，風從其他地方飄來種子到這裡。如同先前所說，之前的災難的頂端之風，這裡所說的哪種災難？以什麼作為頂端？火災、水災、風災依次以上三禪天作為頂端。所以世尊說，災難的頂端有三種。如果火災焚燒世界，以極光凈天（Abhasvara）作為這次災難的頂端；如果水災浸泡腐爛世界，以遍凈天（Subhakinha）作為這次災難的頂端；如果風災飄散世界，以廣果天（Vehapphala）作為這次災難的頂端。無論哪種災難的力量所不能到達的地方，就稱作這次災難的頂端。 為什麼下三禪天會遭遇火災、水災、風災呢？因為初禪、二禪、三禪中，存在著與外在災難相似的內在災難。也就是說，初禪中，尋（Vitarka）和伺（Vicara）是內在的災難，能夠燒惱內心，類似於外在的火災。第二禪中，喜受（Piti）是內在的災難，與輕安（Prasrabdhi）一同，滋潤如同水一般，因此遍身的粗重都會因此消除。所以經中說苦根在第二禪中滅除，因為說內心喜悅，得到身體的輕安。不僅僅是火災，尋伺止息，也因為滅除了苦所依的識身。所以說苦根在二禪中滅除。雖然生於上地，識身也可能顯現，但因為隨心所欲，不行自在，所以沒有過失。然而經中說滅苦，是根據正入定時的情況。初禪中，仍然有尋伺，沒有增上的喜悅，所以不說苦滅。第三禪中，動息是內在的災難，息也是風，類似於外在的風災。如果進入這種禪定，有這樣的內在災難，生於這種禪定中，就會遭遇外在災難的破壞。所以初禪，內在具有三種災難，外在也遭遇三種災難的破壞。第二禪，內在具有兩種災難，所以外在也遭遇兩種災難的破壞。第三禪，內在只有一種災難，所以外在只遭遇一種災難的破壞。為什麼不把地也立為...
【English Translation】 English version: Wind serves as a seed. Or, as previously stated, the wind generated by the karma of all sentient beings can serve as a seed. The wind contains various subtle substances, acting as the cause for similar things, guiding the emergence of coarser substances. Alternatively, the destruction of different worlds does not occur simultaneously; wind from other worlds, possessing various qualities, can come here as a seed, and there is nothing wrong with that. Therefore, the Ksudraka Agama Sutra of the Sarvastivadins says that wind carries seeds from other places to here. As previously stated, the wind at the peak of the previous disaster, which disaster is being referred to here? What serves as the peak? The fire, water, and wind disasters respectively have the three upper Dhyana heavens as their peaks. Therefore, the World Honored One said that there are three peaks of disasters. If a fire disaster burns the world, the Abhasvara (極光凈天) heaven serves as the peak of this disaster; if a water disaster soaks and rots the world, the Subhakinha (遍凈天) heaven serves as the peak of this disaster; if a wind disaster scatters the world, the Vehapphala (廣果天) heaven serves as the peak of this disaster. Wherever the power of any disaster cannot reach is called the peak of that disaster. Why do the lower three Dhyana heavens encounter fire, water, and wind disasters? Because in the first, second, and third Dhyanas, there exist internal disasters similar to the external disasters. That is to say, in the first Dhyana, Vitarka (尋) and Vicara (伺) are internal disasters, capable of burning and afflicting the mind, similar to external fire disasters. In the second Dhyana, Piti (喜受) is an internal disaster, together with Prasrabdhi (輕安), nourishing like water, thus eliminating the coarseness throughout the body. Therefore, the sutra says that the root of suffering is extinguished in the second Dhyana, because it speaks of inner joy and obtaining bodily lightness. Not only the fire disaster, the cessation of Vitarka and Vicara, but also because the Vijnana-kaya (識身) on which suffering depends is extinguished. Therefore, it is said that the root of suffering is extinguished in the second Dhyana. Although born in higher realms, the Vijnana-kaya may still manifest, but because it is free to act as desired, there is no fault. However, the sutra speaks of extinguishing suffering based on the state of entering Samadhi. In the first Dhyana, there are still Vitarka and Vicara, without increased joy, so it is not said that suffering is extinguished. In the third Dhyana, the movement of breath is an internal disaster, and breath is also wind, similar to external wind disasters. If one enters this Samadhi, having such internal disasters, being born in this Samadhi, one will encounter the destruction of external disasters. Therefore, the first Dhyana internally possesses three disasters, and externally encounters the destruction of three disasters. The second Dhyana internally possesses two disasters, so externally it also encounters the destruction of two disasters. The third Dhyana internally possesses only one disaster, so externally it only encounters the destruction of one disaster. Why not establish earth as...
災。以器世間即是地故。但可火等與地相違。不可說言地還違地。如先所說三斷末摩。所斷末摩。即是地故。不可立地以為能斷。夫種類同。不相違故。又下三定。以火水風。如次為災。損壞外器。若復立地。為第四災。則應能損第四靜慮。然彼靜慮。必無外災。以彼定無內災患故。由此佛說。彼名不動。內外三災。所不及故。由是故說。災唯有三。毗婆沙師。說第四定攝凈居故。災不能損。由彼不可生無色天。亦復不應更往余處。由此證余界無凈居天。若余世界中。有凈居者。應如地獄移往他方。寧說不應更往余處。下三天處。由凈居天威力攝持。故無災壞。無容一地處少不同便有為災壞不壞別。若爾彼地器應是常。不爾與有情俱生俱滅故。謂彼天處。無總地形但如眾星居處。各別有情。于彼生時死時。所住天宮。隨起隨滅。是故彼器。體亦非常。所說三災。云何次第。要先無間。起七火災。其次定應。一水災起。此後無間。復七火災。度七火災。還有一水。如是乃至。滿七水災。復七火災。后風災起。如是總有八七火災。一七水災。一風災起。水風災起。皆次火災。自水風災。必火災起。故災次第。理必應然。何緣七火方一水災。極光凈天。壽勢力故。謂彼壽量。極八大劫。故至第八。方一水災。由此應知。要度
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 災難。因為器世間（一切有情眾生所依賴的物質世界）就是地大（構成物質的基本元素之一），所以只能說火等與地大相違背，不能說地大還會違背地大。如同先前所說的三種斷末摩（人體脆弱的部位），所斷的末摩就是地大，不能立地大作為能斷者。因為種類相同，不會相互違背。而且下三禪定，以火、水、風，依次作為災難，損壞外在的器世間。如果再立地大，作為第四種災難，那麼就應該能夠損壞第四禪定。然而第四禪定，必定沒有外在的災難，因為那個禪定沒有內在的災患。因此佛說，那個禪定名為『不動』，內外三種災難，都不能到達。因此說，災難只有三種。毗婆沙師（論師）說，第四禪定包含凈居天（色界天的最高處），所以災難不能損壞。因為他們不可能生到無色界天，也不應該再往其他地方去。由此證明其他世界中，沒有凈居天。如果其他世界中，有凈居天，應該像地獄一樣，可以移往其他地方。寧可說不應該再往其他地方去。下三天處（欲界六天），由凈居天的威力攝持，所以沒有災難損壞。不能容許一個地方稍微不同，便有被災難損壞和不被損壞的區別。如果這樣，那個地方的器世間應該是常住的。否則就應該與有情眾生一同生滅。所謂那個天處，沒有總的地形，但如同眾星居住的地方。各個有情眾生，在那個地方出生和死亡的時候，所住的天宮，隨著生起和滅亡。所以那個器世間的體性，也不是常住的。所說的三種災難，為什麼是這樣的次第？一定要先無間斷地，發生七次火災，其次必定應該，發生一次水災。此後無間斷地，再發生七次火災。度過七次火災，還有一次水災。像這樣乃至，滿七次水災。再發生七次火災，然後風災發生。像這樣總共有八七次火災，一七次水災，一次風災發生。水災和風災發生，都緊接著火災。自從水災和風災發生，必定有火災發生。所以災難的次第，道理必定是這樣。為什麼七次火災之後，才發生一次水災？因為極光凈天（色界第三禪天）的壽命和勢力。所謂他們的壽命，最多有八大劫，所以到第八次，才發生一次水災。由此應該知道，要度過
【English Translation】 English version Disasters. Because the vessel world (the material world upon which all sentient beings rely) is the earth element (one of the basic elements constituting matter), it can only be said that fire and other elements are contrary to the earth element, and it cannot be said that the earth element would also be contrary to the earth element. Just as the three severed marmas (vulnerable points of the human body) mentioned earlier, the severed marmas are the earth element, and the earth element cannot be established as the cutter. Because they are of the same kind, they do not contradict each other. Moreover, the lower three dhyanas (meditative states) take fire, water, and wind, in that order, as disasters, damaging the external vessel world. If the earth element is established as the fourth disaster, then it should be able to damage the fourth dhyana. However, the fourth dhyana certainly has no external disasters, because that dhyana has no internal disasters. Therefore, the Buddha said that that dhyana is called 'immovable', and the three internal and external disasters cannot reach it. Therefore, it is said that there are only three disasters. The Vibhasha masters (commentators) say that the fourth dhyana includes the Pure Abode Heavens (the highest of the Form Realm heavens), so disasters cannot damage them. Because they cannot be born in the Formless Realm heavens, nor should they go elsewhere. This proves that there are no Pure Abode Heavens in other worlds. If there are Pure Abode Heavens in other worlds, they should be able to move to other places like hells. It is better to say that they should not go elsewhere. The lower three heavens (the six Desire Realm heavens) are upheld by the power of the Pure Abode Heavens, so there is no disaster damage. It cannot be allowed that a place is slightly different, and there is a distinction between being damaged by disaster and not being damaged. If so, the vessel world of that place should be permanent. Otherwise, it should arise and cease together with sentient beings. The so-called heavenly abode has no overall terrain, but is like the dwelling place of stars. When each sentient being is born and dies in that place, the heavenly palace in which they dwell arises and ceases accordingly. Therefore, the nature of that vessel is also not permanent. Why is the order of the three disasters as described? There must first be seven uninterrupted fire disasters, and then there must be one water disaster. After that, there will be another seven uninterrupted fire disasters. After passing through seven fire disasters, there will be another water disaster. Like this, until seven water disasters are completed. Then there will be seven fire disasters, and then a wind disaster will occur. Like this, there will be a total of eight sets of seven fire disasters, one set of seven water disasters, and one wind disaster. The water and wind disasters occur immediately after the fire disasters. Since the water and wind disasters occur, there must be fire disasters. Therefore, the order of disasters must be like this. Why does one water disaster occur after seven fire disasters? Because of the lifespan and power of the Abhasvara Heaven (the third dhyana of the Form Realm). Their lifespan is at most eight great kalpas, so a water disaster occurs on the eighth time. From this, it should be known that to pass through
七水。八七火后。乃一風災。由遍凈天壽勢力故。謂彼壽量。六十四劫。故第八八方一風災。如諸有情。修定漸勝所感異熟身壽漸長。由是所居亦漸久住。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之一
此中一類。隨順造惡怯難論者。作如是言。如上所陳。諸內外事。多種差別。非業為因。現見世間。果石等物。眾多差別。無異因故。謂從一種。有多果生。無種為先。有石等異。棘鋒铦利豆皮黑等。眾相差別。是誰所為。若必情欣有因論者。應言精血為內法因。種等為因。生外芽等。見由彼差別此有差別故。如果等異。無現異因。不現見因。亦應非有。為對彼執故立宗言。頌曰。
世別由業生 思及思所作 思即是意業 所作謂身語
論曰。定由有情凈不凈業。諸內外事種種不同。云何知然。見業用故。謂世現見。愛非愛果。差別生時。定由業用。如農夫類。由勤正業。有稼穡等。可愛果生。有諸愚夫。行盜等業。便招非愛殺縛等果。復見亦有從初處胎。不由現因。有樂有苦。既見現在要業為先。方能引得愛非愛果。知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 七次水災之後，緊接著是八次火災，然後是一次風災。這是由於遍凈天（Subhakrtsna）的壽命勢力所致，他們的壽命長達六十四劫。因此，在第八次火災之後，就會發生一次風災。正如眾生通過修習禪定，逐漸提升，所感得的異熟果報和壽命也逐漸增長，因此他們所居住的世界也逐漸長久存在。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十二 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之一
這裡有一類人，他們隨順那些怯懦且難以理解的論者，這樣說：『正如上面所陳述的，諸如內外事物，存在多種差別，並非由業所導致。』現在世間可以見到，果實、石頭等事物，存在眾多差別，卻沒有不同的原因。也就是說，從同一種原因，可以產生多種結果；沒有種子作為先決條件，也會有石頭等事物的差異。荊棘的尖銳鋒利，豆皮的黑色等等，這些眾多的相狀差別，是誰造成的呢？如果一定要堅持認為有原因的論者，應該說精血是內在法的因，種子等是外在事物（如芽等）產生的因。因為看到由於它們（精血和種子）的差別，這些事物（內在法和外在事物）才會有差別。如果果實等的差異，沒有顯而易見的原因，那麼不顯而易見的原因，也應該是不存在的。』爲了駁斥他們的執著，所以立下這個宗義，頌文說：
『世界差別由業生，思及思所作； 思即是意業，所作謂身語。』
論曰：確實由於有情清凈或不清凈的業，諸如內外事物才會有種種不同。如何得知是這樣的呢？因為看到業的作用。也就是說，世間現在可以見到，可愛或不可愛的果報，在產生差別的時候，一定是由於業的作用。比如農夫，通過辛勤的正業，會有稼穡等可愛的果報產生；而那些愚蠢的人，從事盜竊等惡業，便會招致殺戮、束縛等不可愛的果報。又看到有些人從最初入胎的時候，並非由於現在的因緣，就有快樂或痛苦。既然看到現在需要以業為先決條件，才能引得可愛或不可愛的果報，那麼就知道...
【English Translation】 English version: After seven water disasters, there follow eight fire disasters, and then one wind disaster. This is due to the power of the lifespan of the Subhakrtsna (Pure Radiance) heavens, whose lifespan is sixty-four kalpas (aeons). Therefore, after the eighth fire disaster, there will be a wind disaster. Just as sentient beings, through the practice of meditation, gradually improve, the resultant Vipaka (karmic result) and lifespan they experience also gradually increase, and therefore the world they inhabit also exists for a longer duration.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 32 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 33
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Four on the Exposition of Karma, Part One
Here, a certain group, following those who are timid and difficult to understand in their arguments, say thus: 'As stated above, various differences in internal and external matters are not caused by karma.' It is now seen in the world that fruits, stones, and other things have many differences, but without different causes. That is to say, from one cause, many results can arise; without a seed as a prerequisite, there will be differences in stones and other things. The sharpness and keenness of thorns, the blackness of bean skins, and so on, who created these numerous differences in characteristics? If one must insist on the theory of causation, one should say that semen and blood are the causes of internal dharmas, and seeds and the like are the causes of external sprouts and so on. Because it is seen that due to their (semen and blood, seeds) differences, these things (internal and external things) have differences. If the differences in fruits and the like have no obvious causes, then the non-obvious causes should also not exist.' To counter their attachment, this thesis is established, the verse says:
'The world's distinctions arise from karma, from thought and what is produced by thought; Thought is mental karma, what is produced is bodily and verbal.'
Treatise says: Indeed, due to the pure or impure karma of sentient beings, various internal and external matters are different. How is it known to be so? Because the function of karma is seen. That is to say, it is now seen in the world that when the results of what is loved or not loved arise with differences, it must be due to the function of karma. For example, farmers, through diligent right action, have the production of crops and other lovable results; while those foolish people, engaging in theft and other evil deeds, will incur unlovable results such as killing and bondage. Furthermore, it is seen that some people, from the very beginning of entering the womb, have happiness or suffering not due to present causes. Since it is seen that the present requires karma as a prerequisite in order to bring about lovable or unlovable results, then it is known that...
前樂苦必業為先。故非無因。諸內外事。自然而有。種種差別。又世現見。造善者少。造惡者多。然於世間。有情樂少苦多。可得以現見為門非現見成故。謂世現見造作種種凈不凈業。為因緣故。便有種種樂苦果生。又見勤修如法行者。諸根怡悅。心寂安泰。若為貪等猛焰纏逼。行非法行。與上相違。又見世間如法行者。便得供養恭敬。附托非法行者。與此相違。由所現見法非法因。果足可比度不現見果因。亦見世間。與上相違者。此不違理。以有餘因故。謂見世間。有造眾惡而似感得心歡悅者。是先善業果。或現加行生。或有由斯招他敬養等。應知亦是現不現因生。如有智人為湯所瀹。便能了痛因火非水。如是智者。應當審思。諸樂果生。由善非惡。又世現見。久習貪等。貪等便增。慧等亦爾。然復見有不由久習而貪慧等自性猛利。智者應知。是先業果。若他敬等因惡行生應諸行惡行皆招他敬等故有許可善巧親密諸現因緣得敬養者。應知以此。助余善業。令其有力。能與自果。行獵獸等諸惡行時。由不正思。便生歡悅。妄自慶慰。謂為樂者。是造業時。非受果位。有業皆受。現在雖樂。而感當來苦異熟果。是故智者。應善觀察。勿耽小樂而招大苦。又見戰等。殺害為因。便蒙賞賴。勝財位者此亦為緣。助先善業。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：之前的快樂必定以苦為先。所以並非沒有原因。所有內外之事，都是自然而有的，因此才有種種差別。而且世間現常見到，造善業的人少，造惡業的人多。然而在世間，有情眾生快樂少而痛苦多，這可以通過現見的事實作為依據，來推論非現見的事實。也就是說，世間現常見到，造作種種清凈或不清凈的業，作為因緣，就會有種種快樂或痛苦的果報產生。又見到勤奮修行如法行為的人，諸根怡悅，內心寂靜安泰；如果被貪婪等猛烈的火焰纏繞逼迫，做出非法行為，則與上述情況相反。又見到世間如法修行的人，便能得到供養和恭敬，而依附非法行為的人，則與此相反。由此所現見的合法與非法之因，其果報足以比擬和推斷那些不現見的果報和原因。也見到世間有與上述情況相反的，這並不違背道理，因為還有其他原因。例如，見到世間有人造作種種惡業，卻似乎感受到內心的歡悅，這是因為他過去所造的善業的果報，或者是因為現在所做的行為所產生的。或者有人因此而得到他人的尊敬和供養等，應該知道這也是由現見和不現見的因所產生的。如同有智慧的人被熱水燙到，便能瞭解疼痛的原因是火而不是水。同樣，有智慧的人，應當審慎地思考，諸樂果的產生，是由善業而不是惡業所致。而且世間現常見到，長期習慣於貪婪等，貪婪等就會增長，智慧等也是如此。然而又見到有人不由長期習慣，而貪婪和智慧等自性就非常強烈，有智慧的人應該知道，這是過去業力的果報。如果他人尊敬等是由惡行所生，那麼應該說所有惡行都會招致他人的尊敬等，因此允許有善巧、親密等現前的因緣而得到尊敬和供養的人，應該知道這是以此來幫助其餘的善業，使其更有力量，能夠給予自身果報。在進行打獵野獸等各種惡行時，由於不正當的思考，便會產生歡悅，妄自慶賀安慰，認為這是快樂，這是在造業的時候，而不是在承受果報的階段。所有的業都會受到果報，現在雖然快樂，但會感召未來痛苦的異熟果報。因此，有智慧的人，應該善於觀察，不要貪圖小的快樂而招致大的痛苦。又見到戰爭等，以殺害為因，便能得到賞賜和依賴，獲得優越的財富地位，這也是一種因緣，幫助過去的善業。
【English Translation】 English version: Previous happiness must have suffering as its precursor. Therefore, it is not without cause. All internal and external matters arise naturally, hence the various differences. Moreover, it is commonly seen in the world that those who create good karma are few, while those who create evil karma are many. However, in the world, sentient beings experience little happiness and much suffering, which can be used as a basis to infer unseen facts from seen facts. That is, it is commonly seen in the world that creating various pure or impure karmas as causes and conditions leads to the arising of various happy or painful results. Furthermore, it is observed that those who diligently practice righteous conduct have joyful faculties and peaceful minds; if they are entangled and oppressed by the fierce flames of greed and other afflictions, engaging in unrighteous conduct, the opposite occurs. It is also seen that those who practice righteously in the world receive offerings and respect, while those who adhere to unrighteous conduct experience the opposite. From these visible causes of righteousness and unrighteousness, their results are sufficient to compare and infer the unseen results and causes. It is also seen that there are instances in the world that contradict the above, but this does not violate reason, because there are other causes. For example, it is seen that some people in the world create various evil deeds but seem to feel joy in their hearts; this is the result of their past good karma, or it arises from their present actions. Or some may receive respect and offerings from others because of this; it should be known that this also arises from seen and unseen causes. Just as a wise person who is scalded by hot water understands that the cause of the pain is fire, not water, so too, a wise person should carefully consider that the arising of happy results is due to good karma, not evil karma. Moreover, it is commonly seen in the world that prolonged habituation to greed and other afflictions increases them, and the same is true for wisdom and other virtues. However, it is also seen that some people, without prolonged habituation, have greed and wisdom that are naturally strong; wise people should know that this is the result of past karma. If others' respect and so on arise from evil deeds, then it should be said that all evil deeds will lead to others' respect and so on; therefore, it is permissible for those who have skillful, intimate, and other present causes to receive respect and offerings, and it should be known that this is to help the remaining good karma, making it more powerful and able to give its own result. When engaging in various evil deeds such as hunting animals, due to improper thinking, joy arises, and they falsely congratulate and comfort themselves, thinking it is happiness; this is at the time of creating karma, not at the stage of experiencing the result. All karmas will receive their results; although there is happiness now, it will lead to painful future results. Therefore, wise people should carefully observe and not indulge in small pleasures at the cost of great suffering. It is also seen that wars and other events, caused by killing, can lead to rewards and reliance, and the acquisition of superior wealth and status; this is also a condition that helps past good karma.
異此者。應俱蒙賴。或害己朋。亦應獲賞。又同事業。所獲有殊。由此應知。現士用等。但能緣助不現見因。令彼能招敬財位等。又見有造凈不凈業。而現獲得毀贊衰利。與所造因相違果者。應知此為餘業所伏。未得自果。但為他緣非例無因世間生起。又彼既許世所現見。種等為因。能生芽等。故無因論。理自不成。又不可言有情身等。但由現在加行力生。如芽等生。唯從種等。以外種等生芽等時非離有情業增上故。又若諸法無因生者。則應一切由一切物於一切時一切生起。何須計度種等別因。諸芽等生。可由業力。毒刺等物。應非業生。以非有情所須用故。此難非理。現不現見。粗細有情所須用故。又所須用。種種不同。謂令有情眾同分等。生位增長。皆名須用。設非所食。須用義成。若諸世間。內外差別。皆有情業增上所生。何緣缽特摩。嗢缽羅花等。色香美妙。非有情身。由諸有情共不共業所生諸果有差別故。謂諸有情。造共凈業。生蓮花等美妙色香。共不凈業。生毒刺等。由不共業。感有情身。雜思業生。故有凈穢。與蓮花等。不可例同。理必應然。以諸天等純凈業感。故彼內身。及外資緣。皆同美妙。然不肖者。以見世間。樂施者貧苦。慳吝者富樂。便增邪見。謂果無因。此由於田及思數習所得異熟增上等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 與此不同的是，應該一概認為（善行）會蒙受福佑，或者（惡行）會傷害自己和朋友，也應該得到懲罰。還有，同樣從事某項事業，所獲得的利益卻有差別。由此應該知道，像現在的官位俸祿等等，只能作為輔助的條件，幫助那些看不見的業因，使它們能夠招感敬重、財富、地位等等。 又看到有人造作清凈或不清凈的業，而現在卻得到譭謗或讚揚、衰敗或順利的結果，這與所造的業因不符。應該知道這是因為其他的業力所壓伏，還沒有得到自己的果報，只是作為其他業的助緣，不能作為世間事物無因而生的例子。 而且，他們既然承認世間所能見到的種子等等是產生芽等等的原因，那麼無因論在道理上就不能成立。又不能說有情的身軀等等，僅僅由現在的行為力量所產生，就像芽等等的產生，僅僅來自種子等等。因為種子等等產生芽等等的時候，並非脫離了有情的業力的增上作用。 而且，如果一切事物都是無因而生，那麼就應該一切事物由一切事物在一切時候都產生。何必還要考慮種子等等不同的原因呢？各種芽等等的產生，可以通過業力。毒刺等等事物，應該不是由業力所生，因為不是有情所需要的。 這種責難是不合理的，因為有現在能看到的和不能看到的、粗大的和細微的有情所需要的。而且，所需要的用途，種種不同。所謂使有情眾生的同類等等，在生命階段增長，都叫做需要。即使不是所食用的東西，也能成就需要的意義。 如果世間內外的一切差別，都是有情業力增上所生，那麼為什麼蓮花（缽特摩，Padma）和睡蓮（嗢缽羅，Utpala）等花朵的顏色和香味如此美妙，而有情的身軀卻不是這樣呢？這是由於有情共同和不共同的業力所產生的各種果報有差別。也就是說，有情造作共同的清凈業，產生蓮花等美妙的顏色和香味；造作共同的不清凈業，產生毒刺等。由不共同的業力，感受有情的身軀。由於夾雜著思業而生，所以有清凈和污穢的差別，不能和蓮花等同類相比。道理必然是這樣，因為諸天等等是由純凈的業力所感，所以他們的身體內部和外部的資生之物，都同樣美妙。 然而，那些不賢明的人，因為看到世間樂於佈施的人貧窮困苦，吝嗇的人卻富裕快樂，就增長邪見，認為果報沒有原因。這是由於福田、思擇、串習所得的異熟果報增上等等。
【English Translation】 English version Different from this, it should be generally accepted that (good deeds) will receive blessings, or (evil deeds) will harm oneself and friends, and should also be punished. Furthermore, those engaged in the same undertaking may receive different benefits. From this, it should be known that things like present official positions and salaries can only serve as auxiliary conditions, helping those unseen karmic causes to attract respect, wealth, status, and so on. Also, seeing that some people create pure or impure karma, but now receive results of defamation or praise, decline or prosperity, which are contrary to the karma they created, it should be known that this is because other karmic forces have suppressed it, and it has not yet received its own retribution, but only serves as an auxiliary condition for other karma, and cannot be taken as an example of things in the world arising without cause. Moreover, since they admit that seeds and so on, which can be seen in the world, are the cause of sprouts and so on, then the theory of causelessness cannot be established in reason. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the bodies of sentient beings and so on are produced solely by the power of present actions, just as the production of sprouts and so on comes solely from seeds and so on. Because when seeds and so on produce sprouts and so on, it is not apart from the increasing influence of the karma of sentient beings. Moreover, if all things arise without cause, then all things should arise from all things at all times. Why bother considering different causes such as seeds? The production of various sprouts and so on can be through karmic force. Things like poisonous thorns should not be produced by karma, because they are not needed by sentient beings. This criticism is unreasonable, because there are things needed by sentient beings, both seen and unseen, coarse and subtle. Moreover, the uses needed are various. That is to say, causing the commonality of sentient beings and so on to increase in the stage of life is called need. Even if it is not something to be eaten, it can still fulfill the meaning of need. If all the internal and external differences in the world are produced by the increasing influence of the karma of sentient beings, then why are the colors and fragrances of flowers such as the lotus (Padma) and the water lily (Utpala) so beautiful, while the bodies of sentient beings are not like this? This is because the various retributions produced by the common and uncommon karma of sentient beings are different. That is to say, sentient beings create common pure karma, producing beautiful colors and fragrances such as lotuses; create common impure karma, producing poisonous thorns and so on. Due to uncommon karma, sentient beings experience their bodies. Because they are born mixed with intentional karma, there are differences between purity and impurity, and they cannot be compared to the same category as lotuses. The principle must be so, because the gods and so on are influenced by pure karma, so their internal bodies and external resources are all equally beautiful. However, those who are not virtuous, because they see that those who are happy to give alms are poor and miserable, while the stingy are rich and happy, increase their wrong views, thinking that retribution has no cause. This is due to the increasing influence of the different retributions obtained from the field of merit, reflection, and habitual practice, and so on.
流果差別中不了達故。謂有先世。于良福田。暫植施因。故招富樂。然不數習能捨物思。故於今生。仍懷慳吝。若有先世。數施非田。則於今生。貧窮樂施。于如是義。何致愚迷。故由有情先世業力及現士用。二種世間。差別果生。理善成立。惡因論者。作是詰言。如何定知。害得非愛果不害得愛果。非此相違。應從二因各生二果。此如前釋。前釋者何。謂世現見。造善者少。造惡者多。然於世間有情樂少苦多可得。如是世間。諸有情類。多行殺害。少持不殺。如其愛果。殺害所招則應世間樂多苦少。既見不爾。是故定知。非殺害因。能招愛果。又見甘苦種子為因。如次能生甘苦二果。非相違故。如是若造苦樂他業。如次應招自苦樂果。非此相違。豈不世間毛蒲角𥯤。雖別體類而見相生。如是亦應苦樂他業如次能得自樂苦果。此喻不成。非所許故。見穀麥等。果似因故。謂許蒲𥯤。從自種生。毛角但能為其緣助。如穀麥等。雖自種生。而現見從水土等起。故彼所引。同喻不成。又見世間。求富樂者。必勤利樂有德者故。若如蒲𥯤。從異類生。應彼為求當來樂者。于有德者。令苦非樂。既為求樂。勤利樂他。故殺害因。不招樂果。又彼所說。應從二因各生二果。理不成立。因無差別。而能別招愛非愛果。曾不見故。謂曾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由於不瞭解行為和結果之間的差異，一些人認為，前世在良田中短暫地種下佈施的因，所以今生招感富裕快樂。然而，因為不經常練習捨棄財物和思量，所以今生仍然懷有慳吝之心。如果前世經常佈施，但對像不是良田，那麼今生就會貧窮但樂於佈施。對於這樣的道理，為什麼會感到愚昧迷惑呢？因此，由於有情眾生的前世業力和現在的努力，這兩種世間因素導致了不同的結果產生，這個道理是完全成立的。 持惡因論者提出這樣的詰問：如何確定殺害帶來非喜愛的結果，而不殺害帶來喜愛的結果？這難道不是相互矛盾的嗎？應該從兩種原因各自產生兩種結果。對此，可以像前面解釋的那樣。前面解釋的是什麼呢？就是世間現在所見，造善業的人少，造惡業的人多。然而，在世間，有情眾生的快樂少而痛苦多是可以觀察到的。就像這樣，世間的有情眾生，多數行殺害，少數持不殺。如果喜愛的結果是殺害所招致的，那麼世間就應該是快樂多而痛苦少。既然看到的情況不是這樣，所以可以確定，殺害的因不能招感喜愛的結果。 又看到甘味和苦味的種子作為原因，依次能夠產生甘味和苦味兩種結果，因為它們不是相互矛盾的。像這樣，如果造作痛苦和快樂的他人之業，就應該依次招感自己的痛苦和快樂的結果，這並不矛盾。難道世間的毛、蒲、角、𥯤（一種草本植物）雖然體類不同，但卻能相互生長嗎？像這樣，也應該痛苦和快樂的他人之業，依次能夠得到自己的快樂和痛苦的結果。 這個比喻不成立，因為這不是我們所認可的。看到穀子、麥子等，果實與原因相似。我們認為蒲𥯤是從自己的種子生長的，毛和角只是能作為它的輔助條件。就像穀子、麥子等，雖然是從自己的種子生長的，但現在看到是從水土等產生的。所以他們所引用的，相同的比喻是不成立的。又看到世間，追求富裕快樂的人，必定勤奮地利益和快樂有德之人。如果像蒲𥯤一樣，從不同類的事物產生，那麼那些爲了追求未來快樂的人，就應該讓有德之人痛苦而不是快樂。既然是爲了追求快樂，才勤奮地利益和快樂他人，所以殺害的因不能招感快樂的結果。 而且他們所說的，應該從兩種原因各自產生兩種結果，這個道理是不成立的。因為原因沒有差別，卻能分別招感喜愛和非喜愛的結果，這是從未見過的。他們說曾經...
【English Translation】 English version Because they do not understand the difference between actions and their results, some people claim that planting a cause of giving, even briefly, in a field of merit in a previous life leads to wealth and happiness in this life. However, because they do not frequently practice giving up possessions and contemplating, they still harbor stinginess in this life. If in a previous life they frequently gave but not to a field of merit, then in this life they will be poor but happy to give. Why would anyone be deluded about such a principle? Therefore, due to the past karmic forces of sentient beings and their present efforts, these two worldly factors lead to the production of different results. This principle is well established. Those who hold the theory of evil causes raise this question: How can it be definitively known that harming leads to undesirable results and not harming leads to desirable results? Isn't this contradictory? Two results should arise from each of the two causes. This can be explained as before. What was explained before? It is that in the world, it is currently seen that few create good karma and many create evil karma. However, it can be observed that in the world, sentient beings experience little happiness and much suffering. Likewise, the sentient beings in the world mostly engage in killing and few abstain from killing. If desirable results were caused by killing, then the world should have more happiness and less suffering. Since what is seen is not so, it is therefore certain that the cause of killing cannot bring about desirable results. Furthermore, it is seen that sweet and bitter seeds, as causes, can produce sweet and bitter results respectively, because they are not contradictory. Likewise, if one creates the karma of suffering and happiness for others, one should accordingly reap the results of one's own suffering and happiness, which is not contradictory. Are not hair, reeds, horns, and 𥯤 (a type of herbaceous plant) in the world, although different in kind, seen to grow together? Likewise, should not the karma of suffering and happiness for others be able to yield one's own happiness and suffering respectively? This analogy is not valid because it is not what we accept. It is seen that grains, wheat, etc., have fruits similar to their causes. We believe that 𥯤 grows from its own seed, and hair and horns can only serve as its auxiliary conditions. Just like grains, wheat, etc., although they grow from their own seeds, it is now seen that they arise from water, soil, etc. Therefore, the same analogy they cited is not valid. Furthermore, it is seen that those in the world who seek wealth and happiness must diligently benefit and bring happiness to those who are virtuous. If, like 𥯤, it arose from things of a different kind, then those who seek future happiness should cause suffering rather than happiness to the virtuous. Since it is to seek happiness that one diligently benefits and brings happiness to others, the cause of killing cannot bring about the result of happiness. Moreover, what they say, that two results should arise from each of the two causes, is not a valid principle. Because there is no difference in the cause, yet it can separately bring about desirable and undesirable results, this has never been seen. They said that once...
不見無差別因而能別招愛非愛果。但見無別從無別生。是故不應作如是計。凈不凈業。各招二果。若必爾者。不見有餘異熟因故。凈不凈業所感之果。無差別故。則應一切有情業果。皆無差別。然無是事。若許爾者。持戒破戒。無差別故。精勤修學。即為唐捐。然不應許。又若爾者。應殺生故。于善趣中。同時俱受長壽短壽二種異熟。離殺生者。為難亦然。如是行盜。及離盜等。並應俱時受富貧等。亦不應執雖不俱時有二果生。而更代受。非因無別生別果故。又曾未見有異熟因生異熟已。猶有功力。能招別類異熟果故。又見有處。愛非愛果壽長短等。有決定故。若攝二因各生二果。而更代受。是則應無愛及非愛壽定長短受苦樂等決定差別。然現可得。或定長壽。或定短壽。或定多樂。或定多苦。是故無容二因更代各生二果。豈不有情皆愛自命。應在地獄亦愛命長。如是便成因果翻對。無如是失。以造業時能辦多事。故受果位。亦有種種差別果生。謂造業時。諸殺生者。令他受苦。隔斷他命。令他怖畏。失壞威光。故受果時。有三相似。謂苦他故。于地獄中。受極重苦。為異熟果。斷他命故。于善趣中。受命極促。為等流果。壞他威故。感外藥物皆少精光。為增上果。故無因果成翻對失。若爾便應許殺生業感善趣果。不
爾不許感善趣中異熟果故。謂善趣壽。凈業所招。然彼殺生。為其災害。令其不遂全與自果。故說殺生能招短壽。設有惡業。感善趣中異熟果者。非愛果攝。是故亦非因果翻對。有執祠祀明咒為先。害諸有情。能招愛果。非泛爾害。故無前失。若爾咒術。或以[病-丙+猒]禱。令遭熱病。乃至命終。應許此殺能招愛果。此咒術等。非欲利樂所害有情。祠祀明咒。意欲利樂所害羊等。故能害者。雖害有情。猶如良醫。不招苦果。脫生死者。亦以利樂蟲蟻等心。害蟲蟻等。應招愛果。非以明咒。或以刀杖。同爲利樂。殺害有情。果容有異。如能殺者。要依自心善惡有殊。得福非福。如是所殺羊等蟻等。應由自心得福非福。非由強殺令彼福生。以之為因。當招愛果。如脫生死者。害他有情。不為善果因。但招惡果。如是祠祀明咒為先。亦應唯招非所愛果。良醫于彼。非同法喻。以諸良醫為欲利樂諸有病者。勤加救療。令他安樂。現非後生醫及傍人知功驗果。雖令病者暫苦觸身。而彼良醫。不生非福。然彼自許。羊等愚癡。不能了知。福與非福。既被殺害。現苦難任。雖說未來當招愛果。而能殺者及彼傍人。俱不現知。亦無理證。故所引喻。非與法同。殺者傍人。雖不現證。而由明論定量故知。祠祀害生不生非福。寧知明論
是定量耶。以明咒聲體是常故。謂諸明論。無製作者。于中咒詞。自然有故。能為定量。唯此非余。為明論聲。獨是常性。為許一切聲皆是常。若明論聲獨是常者。無定量證。理必不成。現見餘聲。耳根所取。是無常性。諸吠陀論。亦耳根得。應是無常。若一切聲。皆是常者。應非定量。唯明論聲。以許常聲。為定量故。許皆定量。便失本宗。唯明論聲。是定量攝。又非覺慧所發音聲。唯可耳聞無定詮表。既許明論非覺為先。是則亦應非定量攝。又若明論。聲體是常。誰障彼聲。令不恒得。胸胭等處。互相擊動。顯明論聲。此聲雖常。顯緣闕故。而不恒得。此聲不應為緣所顯能覆障法。不可得故。現見瓶等。被闇或余所覆障時。要假明等。除其覆障。瓶等方顯。未得聲前。能障聲法都不可得。寧容可說聲不恒得。由障未除。故彼所言。唯憑妄計。又世現見。顯因雖別。而所顯物。相無改轉。然明論聲。隨緣聞異。謂隨幼壯老胸胭等。擊動發聲。聞各有異。故不可說聲由彼顯。又聲離能顯異處可取故。謂離能顯處。別處聲可得。非所顯物。離能顯因。別處可取。故胸胭等。于吠陀論。非能顯因。又此中無同法喻故。謂如何物先隱誰顯。此如瓶等明等顯發。理不應然。非極成故。謂且應審。為即闇瓶先被闇障今為明顯為在
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是定量嗎？因為認為明咒（Mantra，真言）的聲音是永恒的。聲稱所有的明論（Veda，吠陀經）都沒有作者，其中的咒語是自然存在的，因此能夠成為可靠的知識來源（Pramana，量），只有它是，而不是其他的。是隻有明論的聲音是永恒的，還是認為所有的聲音都是永恒的？如果只有明論的聲音是永恒的，那麼就沒有可靠的證據來證明這一點，在邏輯上也是不成立的。現在可以觀察到，其他的聲音，通過耳朵聽取，是無常的。所有的吠陀論，也是通過耳朵聽取，應該也是無常的。如果所有的聲音都是永恒的，那麼明論的聲音就不應該成為可靠的知識來源，因為你認為只有永恒的聲音才能成為可靠的知識來源。如果認為所有的聲音都是可靠的知識來源，那就違背了你自己的宗義，即只有明論的聲音才是可靠的知識來源。而且，不是由覺慧（Buddhi，理智）所發出的聲音，只能被聽到，而沒有確定的意義表達。既然你認為明論不是由覺慧產生的，那麼它也就不應該成為可靠的知識來源。 而且，如果明論的聲音是永恒的，那麼是誰阻礙了它，使它不能恒常地被聽到呢？胸腔、喉嚨等部位的相互撞擊，顯現出明論的聲音。即使這個聲音是永恒的，但由於顯現的條件缺失，所以不能恒常地被聽到。這個聲音不應該是由條件所顯現的，因為沒有可以覆蓋和阻礙它的法。現在可以看到，瓶子等物體，被黑暗或其他東西覆蓋和阻礙時，需要藉助光明等來去除覆蓋和阻礙，瓶子等才能顯現。在沒有聽到聲音之前，能夠阻礙聲音的法是根本不存在的，怎麼能說聲音不能恒常地被聽到，是因為阻礙沒有被去除呢？所以他們所說的話，完全是憑空臆測。而且，世間現在可以看到，顯現的原因雖然不同，但所顯現的物體，其相貌並沒有改變。然而，明論的聲音，隨著條件的不同，聽起來也不同，比如隨著幼年、壯年、老年，胸腔、喉嚨等的撞擊發聲，聽起來各有不同。所以不能說聲音是由它們顯現的。而且，聲音可以離開顯現它的地方而被聽到，也就是說，在離開顯現它的地方，別的地方也能聽到聲音。但被顯現的物體，不能離開顯現它的原因，在別的地方被看到。所以胸腔、喉嚨等，對於吠陀論來說，不是顯現的原因。而且，這裡面沒有同法喻（Sadharmya-drshtanta，肯定例證），也就是說，什麼東西先被隱藏，然後被誰顯現？比如瓶子等被光明等顯現。這個道理是不應該成立的，因為它不是極成（ Prasiddha，公認的）。也就是說，應該審視一下，是黑暗的瓶子先被黑暗阻礙，現在被光明顯現，還是存在...
【English Translation】 English version: Is it a reliable source of knowledge (Pramana)? Because it is held that the sound of Mantras (Mingzhou, sacred formulas) is eternal. It is claimed that all Vedas (Minglun, treatises on knowledge) have no author, and the Mantra words within them exist naturally, therefore they can be a reliable source of knowledge. Is it only the sound of the Vedas that is eternal, or is it believed that all sounds are eternal? If only the sound of the Vedas is eternal, then there is no reliable evidence to prove this, and it is logically untenable. It can be observed that other sounds, perceived by the ear, are impermanent. All Vedic treatises are also perceived through the ear, and should also be impermanent. If all sounds are eternal, then the sound of the Vedas should not be a reliable source of knowledge, because you believe that only eternal sounds can be a reliable source of knowledge. If it is believed that all sounds are reliable sources of knowledge, then it contradicts your own doctrine, that only the sound of the Vedas is a reliable source of knowledge. Moreover, sounds that are not produced by intellect (Buddhi, wisdom) can only be heard and have no definite meaning. Since you believe that the Vedas are not produced by intellect, then they should not be a reliable source of knowledge. Furthermore, if the sound of the Vedas is eternal, then who is obstructing it, preventing it from being heard constantly? The mutual striking of the chest, throat, and other parts manifests the sound of the Vedas. Even if this sound is eternal, it cannot be heard constantly due to the lack of manifesting conditions. This sound should not be manifested by conditions, because there is no Dharma (law, principle) that can cover and obstruct it. It can be seen that when objects such as bottles are covered and obstructed by darkness or other things, light is needed to remove the covering and obstruction for the bottles to be revealed. Before the sound is heard, there is no Dharma that can obstruct the sound, so how can it be said that the sound cannot be heard constantly because the obstruction has not been removed? Therefore, what they say is purely based on speculation. Moreover, it can be seen in the world that although the causes of manifestation are different, the appearance of the manifested object does not change. However, the sound of the Vedas sounds different depending on the conditions, such as the sound of striking the chest, throat, etc. in childhood, adulthood, and old age. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sound is manifested by them. Moreover, sound can be heard apart from the place that manifests it, that is, sound can be heard in other places apart from the place that manifests it. But the manifested object cannot be seen in other places apart from the cause that manifests it. Therefore, the chest, throat, etc. are not the causes of manifestation for the Vedas. Moreover, there is no positive example (Sadharmya-drshtanta) here, that is, what is hidden first, and then manifested by whom? For example, bottles are manifested by light. This principle should not be established because it is not universally accepted ( Prasiddha). That is, it should be examined whether the dark bottle is first obstructed by darkness and now manifested by light, or whether it exists...
闇瓶無間滅位有別瓶體。與明合生。故此中無極成同喻。設許明論被顯如瓶。則應如瓶是無常性。以彼自說瓶是所顯。及無常性。此亦應然。又應樂等同此執故。謂此聲發現從自因。然執此聲非生唯顯樂等發起亦從自因。何故不執非生唯顯。故一切聲。從自因發。應如樂等非顯唯生。是故彼言明論中咒。無製作者。故體是常。能為定量。有言無實。若爾應說諸明論聲。至教所收。故為定量。謂明論說可愛果等。是諸大仙至聖所見。彼傳說故。至教所攝。若順便獲諸可愛果。違便現遭不可愛報。不爾汝等所敬諸仙。所證至聖。非現量得。亦不可以比量準知。故彼傳說非至教攝。謂汝所敬大仙所見。明論所說。可愛果等。汝等曾無能少現見。可以準驗所說非虛。由此比知。彼證至聖驗所傳教。是至教攝。故汝所說。是愚敬言。詎能了知真至教相。且如仁等所敬大師。所證至聖。亦非仁等。現量所得。而許至聖。彼所說教。是至教攝。余亦應然。何獨不許。此例非理。我等大師。有至聖相。現可證得。準相比度知證至聖。驗所說教。是至教攝。何等名為至聖之相。與此相合。至聖性成證彼所言。是至教攝。夫虛誑語。因貪瞋癡。我等大師。圓滿證得。貪瞋等過。皆畢竟盡。由得此盡。故成至聖。所以發言。皆至教攝。師過永
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『闇瓶無間滅位有別瓶體』（黑暗和瓶子之間沒有間隔，滅亡的位置有不同的瓶體）。與光明結合而產生。因此，這裡沒有極致的相同比喻。假設允許光明理論被顯現如同瓶子，那麼應該像瓶子一樣是無常的性質。因為他們自己說瓶子是被顯現的，並且是無常的性質，這裡也應該如此。而且，快樂等也應該和這個觀點相同，即聲音的發現是從自身的原因產生的。然而，他們認為聲音不是產生而是顯現，快樂等的發起也是從自身的原因產生的。為什麼不認為它們不是產生而是顯現呢？所以，一切聲音，從自身的原因產生，應該像快樂等一樣不是顯現而是產生。因此，他們說光明理論中的咒語，沒有製造者，所以本體是常。能夠成為可靠的依據。這種說法沒有事實依據。如果這樣，應該說所有光明理論的聲音，被至教所包含，所以是可靠的依據。所謂光明理論說可愛的果報等，是諸位大仙至聖所見。因為他們的傳說，被至教所包含。如果順從就能獲得各種可愛的果報，違背就會立刻遭遇不可愛的報應。如果不是這樣，你們所尊敬的諸位仙人，所證悟的至聖，不是通過現量得到的，也不可以通過比量來推知。所以他們的傳說不是至教所包含的。所謂你們所尊敬的大仙所見，光明理論所說的，可愛的果報等，你們從來沒有能夠稍微現見，可以用來驗證所說不是虛假的。由此比較可知，他們證悟的至聖，驗證他們所傳的教義，是至教所包含的。所以你們所說，是愚蠢的敬語。怎麼能夠了解真正的至教的相貌呢？比如你們所尊敬的大師，所證悟的至聖，也不是你們通過現量得到的，卻認為至聖所說的教義，是至教所包含的。其他情況也應該如此，為什麼唯獨不允許呢？這個例子不合理。我們的大師，有至聖的相貌，現在可以被證實得到。通過比較推度，知道他證悟了至聖，驗證他所說的教義，是至教所包含的。什麼叫做至聖的相貌？與這個相貌相符合，至聖的性質才能成立，證實他所說的話，才是至教所包含的。虛假欺騙的語言，是因為貪婪、嗔恨、愚癡。我們的大師，圓滿地證悟了，貪婪、嗔恨等的過失，都徹底地斷盡了。因為得到這種斷盡，所以成為至聖。所以說出的話，都是至教所包含的。大師的過失永遠
【English Translation】 English version 'There is no interval between darkness and the jar, and the position of destruction has a distinct jar body.' It arises in conjunction with light. Therefore, there is no ultimate similarity here. If it is allowed that the theory of light is manifested like a jar, then it should be impermanent like a jar. Because they themselves say that the jar is manifested and is impermanent, this should also be the case here. Moreover, pleasure and the like should also hold the same view, that the discovery of sound arises from its own cause. However, they believe that sound is not produced but manifested, and the arising of pleasure and the like also arises from its own cause. Why not believe that they are not produced but manifested? Therefore, all sounds, arising from their own cause, should be like pleasure and the like, not manifested but produced. Therefore, they say that the mantras in the theory of light have no creator, so the essence is permanent. It can be a reliable basis. This statement has no factual basis. If so, it should be said that all the sounds of the theory of light are included in the ultimate teaching (至教), so it is a reliable basis. The so-called theory of light says that the lovely fruits and the like are seen by all the great sages (大仙) and supreme saints (至聖). Because of their legends, it is included in the ultimate teaching. If one obeys, one can obtain various lovely fruits, and if one disobeys, one will immediately encounter unlovely retribution. If this is not the case, the sages you respect, the supreme saints you have realized, are not obtained through direct perception (現量), nor can they be inferred through inference (比量). Therefore, their legends are not included in the ultimate teaching. The so-called lovely fruits and the like seen by the great sages you respect, as described in the theory of light, you have never been able to see even a little, which can be used to verify that what is said is not false. From this comparison, it can be known that the supreme saints they have realized, verifying the teachings they have transmitted, are included in the ultimate teaching. Therefore, what you say is foolish reverence. How can you understand the true appearance of the ultimate teaching? For example, the master you respect, the supreme saint you have realized, is not obtained by you through direct perception, but you believe that the teachings spoken by the supreme saint are included in the ultimate teaching. Other situations should also be the same, why not allow it alone? This example is unreasonable. Our master has the appearance of a supreme saint, which can now be verified and obtained. Through comparison and inference, we know that he has realized the supreme saint, verifying that the teachings he speaks are included in the ultimate teaching. What is called the appearance of a supreme saint? In accordance with this appearance, the nature of the supreme saint can be established, and verifying what he says is included in the ultimate teaching. False and deceptive language is due to greed (貪), hatred (瞋), and ignorance (癡). Our master has fully realized that the faults of greed, hatred, and the like have been completely eradicated. Because of obtaining this eradication, he becomes a supreme saint. Therefore, the words spoken are all included in the ultimate teaching. The master's faults are forever
盡。何理證知。能圓滿說永盡道故。謂我大師。能圓滿說。永盡過道。由是比知。貪等諸過。皆畢竟盡。如何知此道能畢竟盡過能障解脫得因由此暫永離故。若法能障眾苦盡。得由所說道。能暫永離離此法故。便能證得。貪瞋癡等諸過永盡。此能障法。其體是何。謂能執我。即是我見。諸外道輩皆許有我。故彼不能解脫我執。以諸我執離無我見畢竟無能令止息者。然正法外。所有諸仙皆無有能正說無我。無此教故不離我執以於我執不能離故。便不能證貪等永盡。不證永盡。容有虛言。成就彼因貪瞋癡故。由是汝等所敬諸仙。實非大仙。亦非至聖。非至聖故。彼所傳說。明論等聲。非至教量。以彼非量。故我先辯。于祠祀中。明咒殺害非得愛果。其理極成。由是彼言祠祀明咒。為利羊等。雖害有情。猶如良醫。不招苦果。如是所說。理定不成。彼既不成。唯此所說。世間差別。由業理成。然此頌中。言世別者。依第六轉。謂世之別。或第七轉。謂世中別。此所由業。其體是何。謂心所思。及思所作。故契經說。有二種業。一者思業。二思已業。思已業者。謂思所作。即是由思所等起義。應知思者。即是意業。思所作者。即身語業。如是二業。于契經中。世尊說為三。謂身語意業。如是三業。隨其次第。由所依自性等起故
建立。謂業依身故名身業。業性即語故名語業。此業依意復與意俱。等起身語故名意業。此中已說意業自性。謂即是思。思如前辯。身語二業。自性云何。頌曰。
此身語二業 俱表無表性
論曰。應知如是所說諸業中。身語二業。俱表無表性。故本論言。云何身業。謂身所有表及無表。云何語業。謂語所有表及無表。復有何緣。唯身語業。表無表性。意業不然。以意業中無彼相故。謂能表示故名為表。表示自心令他知故。思無是事。故不名錶。由此但言身語二業。能表非意。何故經言。諸愛者表。即是意業。此有餘義。為顯意業。雖體非色。由愛成粗。謂愛俱思。雖體非色。相粗顯故。如身語表。能表自心。令他知故。實非表性。假說為表。故經但言。諸愛者表。即是意業。即是由愛所逼迫者。明瞭動心法。即是意業義。若此經言。愛者意業。體即是表。可舉此經以顯意業。用表為性。如是且辯意業非表。亦非無表。以無表業初起必依生因大種。此後無表生因雖滅。定有同類大種為依。故後後時。無表續起。諸意業起。必依於心。非後後時定有同類心相續起。可意無表依止彼心。多念相續。以心善等唸唸有殊。設無表思。同類續起。如何依止前心意業。可隨後念異類心轉。非有意業心不相應。故意業中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 建立（karma）。因為業依附於身體，所以稱為身業（kāya-karma，body karma）。業的性質就是語言，所以稱為語業（vak-karma，speech karma）。這種業依附於意，並且與意同時產生，從而發起身語，所以稱為意業（manas-karma，mind karma）。這裡已經說明了意業的自性，就是思（cetanā，volition）。思的討論如前所述。那麼身業和語業的自性是什麼呢？頌文說：
『此身語二業，俱表無表性。』
論曰：應當知道，如上所說的諸業中，身業和語業，都具有表色（vijñapti，manifestation）和無表色（avijñapti，non-manifestation）的性質。所以本論說：『什麼是身業？就是身體所有的表色和無表色。什麼是語業？就是語言所有的表色和無表色。』又是什麼原因，只有身業和語業具有表色和無表色的性質，而意業沒有呢？因為意業中沒有那種相。能夠表示的叫做表色，表示自己的心意讓別人知道。思沒有這種作用，所以不稱為表色。因此只說身業和語業能夠表示，而不是意業。為什麼經文說『諸愛者表』，就是意業呢？這有其他的含義，是爲了顯示意業雖然本體不是色法，但由於愛而變得粗重。也就是說，與愛相關的思，雖然本體不是色法，但相粗顯，就像身語的表色一樣，能夠表示自己的心意讓別人知道，所以實際上不是表色的性質，只是假說為表色。所以經文只說『諸愛者表』，就是意業。也就是被愛所逼迫的人，明瞭地動心法，這就是意業的含義。如果這部經說，愛者的意業，本體就是表色，就可以用這部經來顯示意業以表色為自性。像這樣，暫且辨析意業不是表色，也不是無表色。因為無表業最初生起，必定依賴於生因大種（bhūta，primary elements）。此後無表業的生因雖然滅去，但一定有同類的大種作為所依，所以後來的無表業才能持續生起。而意業的生起，必定依賴於心。並非後來的意業一定有同類的心相續生起，可以使意無表業依止於那個心。因為多個念頭相續，由於心的善等性質，唸唸都有差別。假設無表思，同類相續生起，如何依止於前一個心的意業？可以隨著后唸的異類心轉變。沒有意業與心不相應的，所以意業中
【English Translation】 English version Establishment (karma). Because karma relies on the body, it is called body karma (kāya-karma). The nature of karma is language, so it is called speech karma (vak-karma). This karma relies on the mind and arises simultaneously with the mind, thus initiating body and speech, so it is called mind karma (manas-karma). Here, the nature of mind karma has already been explained, which is volition (cetanā). The discussion of volition is as previously stated. So, what is the nature of body and speech karma? The verse says:
'These body and speech karmas both have the nature of manifestation and non-manifestation.'
Treatise: It should be known that among the karmas mentioned above, body and speech karmas both have the nature of manifestation (vijñapti) and non-manifestation (avijñapti). Therefore, this treatise says: 'What is body karma? It is all the manifestation and non-manifestation of the body. What is speech karma? It is all the manifestation and non-manifestation of language.' Furthermore, what is the reason that only body and speech karmas have the nature of manifestation and non-manifestation, while mind karma does not? Because mind karma does not have that characteristic. That which can express is called manifestation, expressing one's own mind to let others know. Volition does not have this function, so it is not called manifestation. Therefore, it is only said that body and speech karmas can express, but not mind karma. Why does the sutra say 'Those who love express,' which is mind karma? This has other meanings, to show that although the substance of mind karma is not form, it becomes coarse due to love. That is to say, volition associated with love, although its substance is not form, its appearance is coarse and obvious, like the manifestation of body and speech, which can express one's own mind to let others know, so it is actually not the nature of manifestation, but is only hypothetically called manifestation. Therefore, the sutra only says 'Those who love express,' which is mind karma. That is, those who are compelled by love, clearly moving the mind-dharma, this is the meaning of mind karma. If this sutra says that the mind karma of the lover is the substance of manifestation, then this sutra can be used to show that mind karma has manifestation as its nature. Like this, let us temporarily analyze that mind karma is neither manifestation nor non-manifestation. Because the initial arising of non-manifestation karma must rely on the primary elements (bhūta) of the cause of arising. Although the cause of arising of non-manifestation karma disappears thereafter, there must be similar primary elements as the basis, so that later non-manifestation karma can continue to arise. And the arising of mind karma must rely on the mind. It is not that later mind karma must have similar minds arising continuously, so that non-manifestation karma can rely on that mind. Because multiple thoughts continue, due to the nature of the mind's goodness, etc., each thought is different. Suppose non-manifestation volition arises continuously in the same category, how can it rely on the mind karma of the previous mind? It can change with the subsequent mind of a different category. There is no mind karma that is not corresponding to the mind, so in mind karma
。亦無無表。是故唯有身語二業。表無表性。其理善成。上座此中。作如是說。如何可說剎那滅身有動運轉名為身業。以若有法此時此處生。無動運轉即此時處滅。若不許如是無剎那滅義。如是語業。為難亦然。非對法宗許動運轉名身語表。所以者何。頌曰。
身表許別形 非行動為體 以諸有為法 有剎那盡故 應無無因故 生因應能滅 形亦非實有 應二根取故 無別極微故 語表許言聲
論曰。發毛等聚。總名為身。於此身中。有心所起。四大種果。形色差別。能表示心。名為身表。如思自體。雖剎那滅。而立意業。于理無違。如是身形。立為身業。故彼所難。非預此宗。復以何緣。不立顯色及大種等為身表耶。此等皆唯無記性故。豈不此等如能生心亦應得成善等性別。此責非理。此等不隨作者樂欲而得生故。又設離心。亦得生故。表必待心。方得生故。若大種等。一心所生。如體有差別。法亦應爾故。然不可謂一心所生有差別體成差別性。復云何知。身語二業。有善不善。契經說故。如契經言。諸有染污眼耳所識法。彼具壽為非諸有清凈。眼耳所識法。說亦如是。復云何知。四大種等。唯無記性。亦由經說。如契經言。或有一類。身住十年。乃至廣說。說心意識。異滅異生。有
設難言。諸有表業。善等性別。理不應成。自類有殊。理不成故。謂等是身業。待能起心。便成無記性。或成不善。如子或余執觸母乳。是故身業。自類相望。差別不成。唯無記性。但由心故。此有差別。即能差別。可成善等。此難非理。彼此極相似故。別相難知。如庵沒羅種等。如庵沒羅種。所有顯形。與竭樹羅種。相極相似。雖極相似。而非無別。以見彼果有差別故。身語表業。理亦應然。若待能起心說表差別。然不可說表有善等異。則應思業亦無善等。以思亦與信貪等俱。方得名為善不善故。若一果故。善等成者。理亦不然。待他同故。如思雖與信等相應。同一果性。而待信等。勢力方成。善等性別。如是表業。是善等心。所等起故。心等流故。成善等別。與思義同。若身語業。體是善等。應同外道離系者論。彼說善惡其性如火。思與不思。俱能燒故。無同彼失以善惡表離心不生。如眼等識。如眼等識。雖有差別。若離眼等。終不得生。如是表業。雖有善惡。若離於心。無容得起。故無同彼離系論失。又古諸師。已破離系所立火喻。說如是言。縛喝國人。意懷忿恚。有諸離系。起善凈心。俱以其手。拔離系發。此二罪福。豈容平等。如是身語業相雖同。而於其中。有善惡異。故非如火業無差別。由此彼說。不應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 設難言：如果所有表現出來的行為（表業），其善惡等性質無法成立，這是因為它們自身類別沒有區別，這個理由是不成立的。例如，身業（身體的行為），需要依賴能引發它的心念，才能成為無記性（非善非惡）或者不善。就像嬰兒或其他孩子觸控母親的乳房。因此，身業就其自身類別而言，沒有區別，只有無記性。但由於心念的緣故，才有了區別，而這種區別才能使身業成為善或惡等。這種反駁是不合理的，因為它們之間非常相似，難以區分。就像庵沒羅（āmra，芒果）的種子和竭樹羅（kaitha，一種水果）的種子一樣。庵沒羅種子的外形與竭樹羅種子非常相似，但即使非常相似，它們仍然有區別，因為它們的果實有差別。身語表業（身體和語言的行為）的道理也應該如此。 如果說行為的表現需要依賴能引發它的心念才能區分，那麼就不能說行為的表現有善惡等區別。如果這樣，那麼思業（思想的行為）也應該沒有善惡等區別，因為思想也需要與信心、貪婪等一起，才能被稱為善或不善。如果說因為結果相同，善惡才能成立，這個理由也是不成立的，因為它們依賴於其他因素。例如，思想雖然與信心等相應，具有相同的結果，但需要依賴信心等的力量才能形成善惡等性質。同樣，行為的表現也是因為善或惡的心念所引發，是心念的流露，所以才有了善惡的區別，這與思想的道理相同。 如果身語業的本體就是善或惡，那就應該與外道離系者（Nirgrantha，耆那教的別稱）的理論相同。他們說善惡的性質就像火一樣，無論思考與否，都能燃燒。但我們沒有像他們那樣的錯誤，因為善惡的行為表現不能脫離心念而產生，就像眼識等一樣。眼識等雖然有區別，但如果脫離眼睛等，就無法產生。同樣，行為的表現雖然有善惡，但如果脫離心念，就無法產生。所以我們沒有像離系者那樣的錯誤。而且，古代的論師已經駁斥了離系者所立的火的譬喻，他們這樣說：縛喝國（Vakka，古代印度地名）的人，心懷憤怒，而有些離系者，生起善良清凈的心念，都用手拔離系者的頭髮。這兩種行為的罪與福，難道能相同嗎？同樣，身語業的表現雖然相同，但其中有善惡的區別，所以不像火一樣沒有差別。因此，他們的說法是不應理的。
【English Translation】 English version It is difficult to argue that if all manifested actions (karma of expression), their nature of good and evil, etc., cannot be established because they have no distinction within their own category, this reason is untenable. For example, bodily action (physical behavior) needs to rely on the mind that initiates it to become neutral (neither good nor evil) or unwholesome. Like a baby or other child touching its mother's breast. Therefore, bodily action, in terms of its own category, has no distinction, only neutrality. But it is because of the mind that there is a distinction, and this distinction can make bodily action good or evil, etc. This rebuttal is unreasonable because they are very similar and difficult to distinguish. Like the seeds of āmra (mango) and kaitha (wood-apple). The appearance of āmra seeds is very similar to that of kaitha seeds, but even if they are very similar, they are still different because their fruits are different. The principle of bodily and verbal karma of expression (physical and verbal behavior) should also be the same. If it is said that the manifestation of action needs to rely on the mind that initiates it to be distinguished, then it cannot be said that the manifestation of action has distinctions such as good and evil. If so, then mental karma (the action of thought) should also have no distinctions such as good and evil, because thought also needs to be together with faith, greed, etc., to be called good or unwholesome. If it is said that good and evil can be established because the result is the same, this reason is also untenable because they depend on other factors. For example, although thought is in accordance with faith, etc., and has the same result, it needs to rely on the power of faith, etc., to form the nature of good and evil, etc. Similarly, the manifestation of action is also initiated by good or evil thoughts, and is the manifestation of the mind, so there are distinctions of good and evil, which is the same principle as thought. If the essence of bodily and verbal karma is good or evil, then it should be the same as the theory of the Nirgranthas (another name for Jainism). They say that the nature of good and evil is like fire, which can burn whether one thinks or not. But we do not have the same error as them, because the manifestation of good and evil actions cannot arise apart from the mind, just like eye consciousness, etc. Although eye consciousness, etc., have distinctions, they cannot arise if they are separated from the eyes, etc. Similarly, although the manifestation of action has good and evil, it cannot arise if it is separated from the mind. So we do not have the same error as the Nirgranthas. Moreover, ancient masters have already refuted the analogy of fire established by the Nirgranthas, saying: People of Vakka (an ancient Indian place name), harboring anger, while some Nirgranthas, giving rise to good and pure thoughts, both use their hands to pull out the hair of the Nirgranthas. Can the sin and merit of these two actions be the same? Similarly, although the manifestations of bodily and verbal karma are the same, there are distinctions of good and evil among them, so they are not like fire, which has no difference. Therefore, their statement is unreasonable.
正理。是故我宗。無同彼失。彼上座所立身語業。云何彼作是言。余緣力故。令大造聚異方生時。後果前因。無間而轉。能為攝益或為損害。即如是聚。名身表業。即以世俗補特伽羅。如是語言從緣而起。生如是果。名語表業。以約勝義。法無主宰。故多實界。合立表名。一物不能獨表示故。又無餘物名為表故。今謂彼宗所立表業。于聖教外。妄述己情。以契經中唯說眼耳二識所識。色之與聲。有染凈雜。非香等故。彼宗亦許。諸大造聚。皆唯無記。離身語業。不見別有染凈色聲。又諸大種。非眼所得。五識緣假。前已具遮。故彼所言。述己情計。若謂如是所立總聚亦無一向成無記失。隨別等起。成差別故。又見彼果。有差別故。理亦不然。但有言故。彼宗自許。等起雖殊。而大造聚。無有差別。故等起心。雖有善等。而所等起。唯無記性。設許大造聚有善等差別。是不思擇。兇亂發言。以諸聚體。不可得故。無體不應善等別故。亦不應立聚所依中一一皆有善等差別。以諸大種非眼境故。經唯說色聲有染有凈故。已遮顯色等有善等差別。故不應執隨別等起。令大造聚有善等別。設許顯色是身表性。則許身表實有義成。于實有中須興諍論。諸對法者。身表謂形。彼許顯色名為身表。是則彼此非甚相違。然顯不隨等起心轉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 正理。因此我宗（指正量部）沒有像他們那樣的過失。那位上座（指分別說部）所建立的身語業是什麼呢？他們這樣說：『由於其他因緣的力量，使得由大地微粒組成的聚合體在異地產生時，前因後果之間沒有間隔地運轉，能夠帶來利益或損害。這樣的聚合體，就叫做身表業。』又以世俗的補特伽羅（pudgala，意為『人』或『有情』）來說，這樣的語言從因緣而起，產生這樣的結果，叫做語表業。從勝義諦（paramārtha-satya，佛教的終極真理）的角度來說，法沒有主宰，所以多個真實的界（dhātu，構成要素）合在一起才成立『表』這個名稱，因為一個事物不能獨自表示。又沒有其他事物可以稱為『表』。現在我們認為，他們宗派所建立的表業，是在聖教（佛陀的教導）之外，妄自陳述自己的想法。因為契經（sūtra，佛經）中只說了眼識和耳識所認識的色（rūpa，顏色、形狀）和聲（śabda，聲音）有染污和清凈的差別，而香等沒有。他們宗派也承認，所有由大地微粒組成的聚合體，都只是無記（avyākrta，非善非惡）。除了身語業之外，沒有看到其他有染污或清凈的色聲。而且諸大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）不是眼睛所能得到的，五識（pañca-vijñāna，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）所緣的是假象，前面已經詳細駁斥過了。所以他們所說的是陳述自己的想法。如果他們說：『像這樣所建立的總聚合體，也不會完全成為無記，而是隨著不同的等起（samutthāna，動機）而產生差別。』又看到那些結果有差別，所以這個道理也是不成立的。只是說說而已。他們宗派自己也承認，雖然等起不同，但是由大地微粒組成的聚合體，並沒有差別。所以等起的心雖然有善等，但是所等起的，只是無記的性質。假設允許由大地微粒組成的聚合體有善等差別，那是不經過思考，胡亂說出來的。因為這些聚合體的自體是不可得的。沒有自體，就不應該有善等差別。也不應該認為聚合體所依賴的每一個組成部分都有善等差別。因為諸大種不是眼睛的對境。經中只說了色聲有染有凈，已經駁斥了顯色等有善等差別。所以不應該執著于隨著不同的等起，使得由大地微粒組成的聚合體有善等差別。假設允許顯色是身表的性質，那就等於承認身表是真實存在的，在真實存在的事物中需要引起爭論。那些對法者（abhidharmika，研究阿毗達摩的人）認為，身表是指形狀。他們允許顯色叫做身表。這樣看來，彼此並沒有很大的矛盾。然而顯色並不隨著等起心而轉變。
【English Translation】 English version The correct principle is thus. Therefore, our school (referring to the Sautrāntika-Vaibhāṣika) does not have the same faults as theirs. What are the body and speech karmas established by that Elder (referring to the Sarvāstivāda)? They say: 'Due to the power of other conditions, when aggregates of great elements arise in a different place, the subsequent effect and the prior cause turn without interruption, able to bring benefit or harm. Such an aggregate is called body manifestation karma.' Also, in terms of the conventional pudgala (pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'sentient being'), such language arises from conditions, producing such a result, called speech manifestation karma. From the perspective of ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, the ultimate truth in Buddhism), phenomena have no ruler, so multiple real realms (dhātu, constituent elements) combine to establish the name 'manifestation,' because one thing cannot manifest alone. Also, there is nothing else called 'manifestation.' Now we believe that the manifestation karma established by their school is a false statement of their own feelings outside of the Holy Teachings (the Buddha's teachings). Because the sūtras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures) only say that the colors (rūpa, color, shape) and sounds (śabda, sound) perceived by eye consciousness and ear consciousness have defiled and pure distinctions, while smells and so on do not. Their school also admits that all aggregates of great elements are only neutral (avyākrta, neither good nor evil). Apart from body and speech karma, no other defiled or pure colors and sounds are seen. Moreover, the great elements (mahābhūta, the four great elements) are not obtained by the eye, and the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body consciousness) perceive illusions, which has been refuted in detail earlier. So what they say is a statement of their own ideas. If they say: 'The total aggregate established in this way will not completely become neutral, but will produce differences according to different motivations (samutthāna, motivation).' Also, seeing that those results have differences, this principle is also not established. It's just talk. Their school themselves admit that although the motivations are different, the aggregates of great elements have no difference. So although the mind of motivation has good and so on, what is motivated is only of a neutral nature. Assuming that the aggregates of great elements are allowed to have good and other differences, that is reckless and chaotic speech. Because the self-nature of these aggregates is unobtainable. Without self-nature, there should be no good and other differences. Nor should it be thought that each component on which the aggregate depends has good and other differences. Because the great elements are not the objects of the eye. The scriptures only say that color and sound have defiled and pure, and have refuted that visible forms and so on have good and other differences. Therefore, one should not be attached to the idea that according to different motivations, the aggregates of great elements have good and other differences. Assuming that visible form is allowed to be the nature of body manifestation, then it is equivalent to admitting that body manifestation is truly existent, and there is a need to argue about truly existent things. Those Abhidharmikas (abhidharmika, people who study Abhidharma) believe that body manifestation refers to shape. They allow visible form to be called body manifestation. In this way, there is not much contradiction between them. However, visible form does not change with the mind of motivation.
。故非身表。如前已說。又果差別。雖有益損。而亦但應是無記性。以果差別。雖有益損。而不可言諸大種聚有善不善無記差別。有香等物。同此過故。而經但言。二有善等。雖無主宰。如有能生。故亦可言有能表性。是故上座所立身業。于聖教外。妄述己情。由此己遮所立語業。謂即世俗。如是語言。有善有染不應理故。又世俗不應說從緣而起。以世俗法非實有故。法若實有。可從緣生。異此緣生。應無自體。若爾便順壞法者宗。故不應說即以世俗。如是語言。從緣而起。若依文次第。作如是釋。世俗言但屬補特伽羅。是則不應能通二難。謂先他論有作難言。如何世俗法。能生勝義果。如何有實表。便為壞勝義。先舉世俗。從緣而起。故能生果。以通初難。次舉勝義。法無主宰。合方能表。以通后難。若謂世俗不屬語言。如何先文。能通初難。又唯許世俗屬補特伽羅。則為許有勝義語業。此即語表。何理能遮。既許業成。亦應許表。又彼上座。自立誠言。非我撥無語實有性。然但不許別有一物。獨能表示名為語表。我亦不許。離實語聲。別有一物。名為語表。上座於此。何不生欣。豈不先說。一物不能獨表示故。又無餘物。名為表故。此無深理。如語體實。表亦應然。如無一語可獨宣唱。亦無獨能生耳識理。然語實
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，身表不是實在的。正如前面已經說過的。而且，果的差別，雖然有利益和損害，但也應該是無記性的。因為果的差別，雖然有利益和損害，但不能說諸大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）的聚合有善、不善、無記的差別。有香等事物，也有同樣的過失。但是經中只說，二者有善等。雖然沒有主宰，但如有能生起的作用，所以也可以說有能表達的性質。因此，上座部（Sthavira Nikāya）所建立的身業，是在聖教之外，妄自陳述自己的想法。 由此，也遮止了他們所立的語業。認為語言就是世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）。這樣的語言，有善有染是不合理的。而且，世俗諦不應該說是從因緣而起。因為世俗法不是真實存在的。法如果是真實存在的，才可以從因緣生起。否則，因緣生起就應該沒有自體。如果是這樣，就順應了壞法者的宗派。所以不應該說就是以世俗諦，這樣的語言，從因緣而起。如果按照文句的次第，作這樣的解釋，世俗諦的說法只屬於補特伽羅（pudgala，補特伽羅），那就不能通達二難。所謂先前的他宗有作難說，如何世俗法，能生勝義果（paramārtha-phala，勝義果）？如何有實表，便會破壞勝義諦（paramārtha-satya）？先前舉出世俗諦，從因緣而起，所以能生果，以此來通達第一個難題。其次舉出勝義諦，法無主宰，合起來才能表達，以此來通達後面的難題。如果認為世俗諦不屬於語言，那麼先前的文句，如何能通達第一個難題？又只允許世俗諦屬於補特伽羅，那就是允許有勝義語業。這也就是語表，用什麼道理來遮止？既然允許業的成立，也應該允許表的成立。 而且，那位上座部自己立下誠實之言，說：『我沒有否定語言的真實存在，只是不允許另外有一個東西，單獨能夠表示，名為語表。』『我也不允許，離開真實的語言聲音，另外有一個東西，名為語表。』上座部對於此，為什麼不感到高興呢？豈不是先前說過，一個東西不能單獨表示嗎？又沒有其餘的東西，名為表。這沒有深刻的道理。如語言的體性是真實的，表也應該如此。如沒有一句話可以單獨宣唱，也沒有單獨能生起耳識的道理。然而語言是真實的。
【English Translation】 Therefore, bodily expression is not real. As previously stated. Moreover, the difference in results, although having benefit and harm, should also be of an indeterminate nature. Because the difference in results, although having benefit and harm, it cannot be said that the aggregation of the great elements (mahābhūta) has differences of good, bad, and indeterminate. Things like scents have the same fault. But the sutras only say that the two have good, etc. Although there is no lord, but as if having the ability to produce, so it can also be said to have the nature of being able to express. Therefore, the bodily karma established by the Sthavira Nikāya is outside the holy teachings, falsely stating their own ideas. From this, they also refute the verbal karma they established, considering language to be conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). Such language, having good and defilement, is unreasonable. Moreover, conventional truth should not be said to arise from conditions. Because conventional dharma is not truly existent. If dharma is truly existent, then it can arise from conditions. Otherwise, arising from conditions should have no self-nature. If that is the case, then it conforms to the sect of those who destroy dharma. So it should not be said that it is with conventional truth that such language arises from conditions. If, according to the order of the sentences, such an explanation is made, the statement of conventional truth only belongs to the individual (pudgala), then it cannot penetrate the two difficulties. The so-called previous other schools have raised the difficulty, how can conventional dharma produce ultimate results (paramārtha-phala)? How can there be a real expression, which would destroy ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya)? Previously, conventional truth was mentioned, arising from conditions, so it can produce results, thereby penetrating the first difficulty. Next, ultimate truth is mentioned, dharma has no lord, and together they can express, thereby penetrating the latter difficulty. If it is thought that conventional truth does not belong to language, then how can the previous sentences penetrate the first difficulty? Also, only allowing conventional truth to belong to the individual, then that is allowing ultimate verbal karma. This is verbal expression, what reason can be used to prevent it? Since the establishment of karma is allowed, the establishment of expression should also be allowed. Moreover, that Sthavira Nikāya himself made a sincere statement, saying: 'I have not denied the real existence of language, but I do not allow another thing to be able to express alone, called verbal expression.' 'I also do not allow, apart from the real sound of language, another thing to be called verbal expression.' Why is the Sthavira Nikāya not happy about this? Has it not been said before that one thing cannot express alone? Also, there is no other thing called expression. This has no profound reason. As the nature of language is real, expression should also be so. As there is no sentence that can be sung alone, there is also no reason for being able to produce ear consciousness alone. However, language is real.
有。不壞勝義。集從緣生。名為語業。如是雖無一實有界。獨能表示。而有實表。不壞勝義。集從緣生。名為語表。我如是立。豈同汝宗。于聖教外。擅立業理。非由和集顯色可見。不和集時。其體雖有。細故不見。便非顯色。表亦應然。故是實有。又彼自許。觸法界中。各有多物。如一一物別得界名。總亦是界。色界亦爾。總聚如別。俱得色名。表亦應爾。故對法者。立業理成。有餘部言。動是身表。動名何法。謂諸行行。行如何行。謂余方起。或時諸行。即于本方。能為生因。生所生果。或時緣合。令于余方鄰續前因。有果法起。故即諸行。余方生時。得身業名。亦名身表。雖有此理。但唯世俗。而身表業。必是勝義然非諸行實有行動。以有為法有剎那故。理雖如是。然不應言身有表業非實物有。以說諸行生滅為業諸行生滅。即諸行故。有何別理。要余方生。乃名為業。非即因處若即因處若於余方。隨有法生。即於是處無間必滅。不往余方行動既無。何有實表。又已遮遣顯等是業。故先所立。于理為勝。大德邏摩。作如是說。以諸行法即所得體。於是處生。即於是處。此體還滅。故無行動。雖有此理。然有體行。可是處滅。既執未來。法體未有。如何可說即所得體。於是處生又若得體。不應復生。既復鬚生。非已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有。不壞勝義（ परमार्थ，究竟真實）。聚集因緣而生。稱作語業。即使沒有一個真實存在的實體，單獨能夠表達意義，並且有真實的表達，不違背勝義，聚集因緣而生，稱作語表。我這樣認為，難道和你們的宗派一樣嗎？在聖教之外，擅自建立業的道理。不是由聚集而顯現的顏色可見，不聚集的時候，它的本體雖然存在，因為細微所以看不見，就不是顯現的顏色。表也應該是這樣。所以是真實存在的。而且你們自己也承認，在觸法界中，各有多種事物。如同一一事物分別得到界的名字，總體也是一個界。也是這樣。總體聚集如同分別，都得到色的名字。表也應該是這樣。所以對於論法者來說，建立業的道理是成立的。有餘部說，動是身表。動是什麼法？是諸行的執行。行如何執行？是在其他地方產生。或者有時諸行，就在原來的地方，能夠作為產生的原因，產生所產生的果。或者有時因緣聚合，使在其他地方緊接著前面的原因，有果法產生。所以就是諸行，在其他地方產生的時候，得到身業的名字，也叫身表。雖然有這個道理，但這只是世俗的說法。而身表業，一定是勝義的。然而不是諸行真實地有行動。因為有為法有剎那生滅的緣故。道理雖然是這樣，但不應該說身有表業不是實物。因為說諸行的生滅是業，諸行的生滅，就是諸行本身。有什麼不同的道理，一定要在其他地方產生，才叫做業呢？不是就在原因的地方嗎？無論是在原因的地方，還是在其他地方，只要有法產生，就在那個地方無間斷地滅亡。不往其他地方行動，既然沒有行動，哪裡有真實的表呢？而且已經否定了顯等是業。所以先前所建立的，在道理上是更勝一籌的。大德邏摩（Logama）這樣說，因為諸行法就是所得到的本體。在這個地方產生，就在這個地方，這個本體還滅。所以沒有行動。雖然有這個道理，但有本體的執行，可是就在這個地方滅亡。既然執著未來，法的本體還沒有產生，怎麼能說就是所得到的本體，在這個地方產生呢？而且如果得到了本體，就不應該再生。既然又需要產生，就不是已經得到的本體。 English version 『It exists. It does not violate the ultimate truth (Paramartha). It arises from the aggregation of conditions. It is called verbal karma. Even though there is no truly existing entity that can express meaning alone, and there is a real expression that does not violate the ultimate truth, arising from the aggregation of conditions, it is called verbal expression. Is my view the same as your school's? Outside the sacred teachings, you arbitrarily establish the principle of karma. It is not the visible color that appears from aggregation. When not aggregated, although its essence exists, it is not visible because it is subtle, and therefore not a visible color. Expression should be the same. Therefore, it is truly existent. Moreover, you yourselves admit that in the realm of touchable dharmas, there are various things. Just as each individual thing obtains the name of a realm, the totality is also a realm. It is also the same. The total aggregation, like the individual, obtains the name of color. Expression should be the same. Therefore, for those who debate the Dharma, the establishment of the principle of karma is valid. The Sarvastivadins say that movement is bodily expression. What is movement? It is the movement of all activities (samskaras). How do activities move? They arise in another place. Or sometimes, activities, in their original place, can be the cause of production, producing the resulting effect. Or sometimes, conditions come together, causing a result to arise in another place, adjacent to the previous cause. Therefore, it is these activities that, when arising in another place, obtain the name of bodily karma, also called bodily expression. Although this principle exists, it is only a conventional truth. Bodily expression karma, however, must be ultimately true. However, it is not that activities truly have movement. Because conditioned dharmas are momentary. Although the principle is thus, one should not say that bodily expression karma is not a real entity. Because saying that the arising and ceasing of activities is karma, the arising and ceasing of activities is the activities themselves. What different principle is there that requires arising in another place to be called karma? Is it not in the place of the cause? Whether in the place of the cause or in another place, wherever a dharma arises, it ceases without interruption in that place. There is no movement to another place. Since there is no movement, where is the real expression? Moreover, it has already been refuted that manifestation and so on are karma. Therefore, what was previously established is superior in principle. The Venerable Logama said, because the dharmas of activities are the very essence that is obtained. In this place they arise, and in this place, this essence ceases. Therefore, there is no movement. Although this principle exists, there is the movement of essence, but it ceases in this place. Since you cling to the future, the essence of the dharma has not yet arisen, how can you say that it is the very essence that is obtained, arising in this place? Moreover, if the essence is obtained, it should not arise again. Since it needs to arise again, it is not already obtained.'
【English Translation】 Here is the English translation
得體。故彼所說。自宗相違。若謂據當作如是說。此亦非理。以於世間不見無法。據當說故。但見於有後可改變。容據當說。如世間言。磨麨煮飯織綾絹等。非於無體可作是言。故彼所說。定非應理剎那何謂。謂極少時。此更無容前後分析。時復何謂。謂有過去未來現在。分位不同。由此數知諸行差別。于中極少諸行分位。名為剎那。故如是說。時之極促。故名剎那。此中剎那。但取諸法有作用位。謂唯現在。即現在法。有住份量。名有剎那。如有月子。或能滅壞。故名剎那。是能為因。滅諸法義。謂無常相。能滅諸法。此俱行法。名有剎那。或世間言。有剎那者。是有空義。謂現在位。無有能持。令不滅者。必不住故。名有剎那。或世間言。無剎那者。是無暇義。謂著餘事。無暇專己。名無剎那。唯現在時。必有少暇。取自果故。名有剎那。然諸有為相續分位。有臘縛等。諸差別時。于諸時中。剎那最促。法定有此。名有剎那。而經主言。剎那何謂。得體無間滅。有此剎那法。名有剎那。如有杖人名為有杖。彼釋非理。如杖異人。不可說故。喻不同法。非別有法異於得體。無間滅性。如何可說。此有剎那。如人有杖。亦不可謂約相續說。無體不應有得體故。或應無法名有剎那。非於有體便成大過。亦不應謂于似異說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不妥當。因此他們所說的話，自相矛盾。如果說應該根據『當作如此說』來解釋，這也是不合理的。因為在世間，沒有看到任何不存在的事物，可以根據『當作』來說的。只能看到存在的事物，之後可以改變，才容許根據『當作』來說。比如世間說：『磨面、煮飯、織綾絹等』，對於不存在的事物，不能這樣說。所以他們所說的，肯定是不合理的。 剎那是什麼意思呢？是指極短的時間。這更不能前後分析了。 時間又是什麼意思呢？是指有過去、未來、現在，分位不同。由此可以計算得知諸行的差別。其中極少的諸行分位，名為剎那。所以這樣說，時間極短，所以名為剎那。這裡說的剎那，只是取諸法有作用的階段，就是指現在。即現在的法，有停留的量，名為有剎那。比如有月亮的孩子，或者能夠滅壞，所以名為剎那。是能夠作為原因，滅諸法的意義，就是無常相，能夠滅諸法。這同時存在的法，名為有剎那。或者世間說，『有剎那』，是有空的意思，是指現在這個階段，沒有能夠保持，讓它不滅的，必定不能停留，所以名為有剎那。或者世間說，『無剎那』，是沒有空閑的意思，是指專注于其他事情，沒有空閑專注于自己，名為無剎那。只有現在的時候，必定有少許空閑，取自己的果，所以名為有剎那。然而諸有為相續的分位，有臘縛（lava）等諸差別的時間，在諸時間中，剎那最短。法必定有這個，名為有剎那。而經主說，剎那是什麼意思呢？是獲得自體后無間斷地滅亡。有這個剎那法，名為有剎那。比如有杖的人名為有杖。他的解釋是不合理的。因為杖和人是不同的，不能這樣說。比喻和本體不同，沒有另外的法不同於獲得自體后無間斷地滅亡的性質，怎麼能說，『這有剎那』，如同人有杖呢？也不能說約相續來說，因為沒有自體，不應該有獲得自體。或者應該沒有法名為有剎那，不是對於有自體就構成大的過失。也不應該說對於相似的差異來說。
【English Translation】 English version: It is inappropriate. Therefore, what they say contradicts itself. If it is said that it should be interpreted according to 'as if it were to be said,' this is also unreasonable. Because in the world, no non-existent thing is seen that can be said according to 'as if.' Only existent things are seen, which can be changed later, allowing them to be said according to 'as if.' For example, the world says: 'grinding flour, cooking rice, weaving silk brocade, etc.' These cannot be said of non-existent things. Therefore, what they say is definitely unreasonable. What does kshana (moment) mean? It refers to an extremely short period of time. This cannot be analyzed before and after. What does time mean? It refers to having past, future, and present, with different divisions. From this, the differences of all dharmas (phenomena) can be calculated and known. Among them, the smallest divisions of all dharmas are called kshana. Therefore, it is said that time is extremely short, so it is called kshana. Here, kshana only refers to the stage where dharmas have function, which means the present. That is, the present dharma has a measure of duration, called having kshana. For example, a child of the moon, or it can be destroyed, so it is called kshana. It is able to be the cause of destroying the meaning of all dharmas, which is the characteristic of impermanence, able to destroy all dharmas. This co-existing dharma is called having kshana. Or the world says, 'having kshana' means having emptiness, which means that in the present stage, there is nothing that can maintain it, preventing it from being destroyed, so it must not stay, so it is called having kshana. Or the world says, 'no kshana' means no leisure, which means focusing on other things, without leisure to focus on oneself, called no kshana. Only in the present time, there must be a little leisure to take one's own fruit, so it is called having kshana. However, the divisions of the continuous phases of all conditioned things, have various different times such as lava (a unit of time), among all times, kshana is the shortest. Dharma must have this, called having kshana. But the sutra master says, what does kshana mean? It is the uninterrupted destruction after obtaining its own nature. Having this kshana dharma is called having kshana. For example, a person with a staff is called having a staff. His explanation is unreasonable. Because the staff and the person are different, it cannot be said like this. The metaphor and the substance are different, there is no other dharma different from the nature of uninterrupted destruction after obtaining its own nature, how can it be said, 'this has kshana,' like a person has a staff? It cannot be said to be about continuity, because without its own nature, it should not have obtaining its own nature. Or it should be that no dharma is called having kshana, it is not a big mistake for having its own nature. It should also not be said to be about similar differences.
。引有杖人。為同喻故。或應假說言有剎那。于似說門。理應爾故。然不應許。假說有剎那。以無極成實有剎那故。謂若許有實有剎那。可許有餘依似假說既無所似實。能似假不成。故對法宗。說有為法有剎那理獨無有過。不應定言。得體無間滅。有此剎那法。名有剎那。復如何知。諸有為法。皆剎那滅。必不久住。以諸有為后必盡故。經主於此。作如是釋。謂有為法。滅不待因。所以者何。待因謂果滅無非果故。不待因滅。既不待因。才生已即滅。若初不滅。后亦應然。以後與初有性等故。彼釋非理。盡即是滅。佛說盡滅。是有為相。說有為相。是所有法。故契經說。諸行無常。有生滅法。又契經說。有為之起。亦可了知。盡及住異。亦可了知。若謂無法猶如色等。亦能為因。生識等者。則亦應許無法是果。此差別因。不可得故。何理無法是因非果。又見有法。以有為先。世所極成。有因是果。汝宗滅盡。亦有為先。必有為先。後方無故。如何不許是果有因。又法無因。許必是常。故滅若常者。法應永不生。若謂滅無。既非有體。如何成果。若非有體。如何為因。發生識等。又不應許是有為相。如許彼成。此亦應許。又譬喻者。能起異端。曾所未聞。解釋道理。執有為相。是起及無。如是則應不成三數。謂有為法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有人提出拄杖的人的比喻，爲了使比喻更貼切，或許應該假設存在『剎那』（ksana，極短的時間單位）。在相似的說法中，這在理論上是應該允許的。然而，不應該允許假設存在『剎那』，因為沒有真實的『剎那』可以作為依據。如果允許存在真實的『剎那』，那麼就可以允許有剩餘依據的相似假設。既然沒有可以作為依據的真實存在，那麼相似的假設就無法成立。因此，對法宗（Abhidharma school）認為有為法（conditioned phenomena）存在『剎那』的說法，在理論上並沒有過錯。不應該斷言，獲得自體后立即滅亡，具有這種『剎那』的法，才被稱為『有剎那』。又如何得知，所有的有為法都是『剎那』滅亡，必定不會長久存在呢？因為所有的有為法最終都會消盡。 經部（Sutra school）對此作了這樣的解釋：有為法的滅亡不需要原因。為什麼呢？因為需要原因的滅亡，是指作為結果的滅亡，而不是作為原因的滅亡。不需要原因的滅亡，既然不需要原因，那麼一生起就立即滅亡。如果最初不滅亡，那麼之後也應該如此，因為之後與最初具有相同的性質。這種解釋是不合理的。『盡』（cessation）就是滅亡。佛陀說『盡滅』是有為法的特徵。說有為法的特徵，是所有法的特徵。所以契經（sutra）說，諸行無常，有生滅法。又契經說，有為法的生起，可以了知；盡滅和變異，也可以了知。如果認為無法（non-existence），就像色等一樣，也能作為原因，產生識等，那麼也應該允許無法是結果。因為這種差別的原因，是無法獲得的。為什麼無法是原因而不是結果呢？又看到有法（existence），以有為法為先，這是世間普遍認可的。有因是果。你們宗派的滅盡，也是以有為法為先，必定以有為法為先，之後才沒有。為什麼不允許它是作為結果的有因呢？又法如果沒有原因，就必定是常。所以滅亡如果是常，那麼法就應該永遠不會產生。如果認為滅亡沒有自體，那麼如何成為結果呢？如果沒有自體，如何作為原因，發生識等呢？又不應該允許它是有為法的特徵。就像允許它成立一樣，這也應該允許。又譬喻者（the Mimamsakas），能引起不同的觀點，是以前從未聽過的。解釋道理，執著有為法的特徵，是生起和不存在。如果是這樣，那麼就不應該成立三種有為法的特徵，即有為法。
【English Translation】 English version: Someone raises the analogy of a person with a staff. To make the analogy more fitting, perhaps it should be assumed that there is a 'ksana' (an extremely short unit of time). In similar statements, this should be theoretically permissible. However, it should not be allowed to assume that there is a 'ksana' because there is no real 'ksana' to base it on. If it is allowed that there is a real 'ksana', then it can be allowed that there are similar assumptions with remaining basis. Since there is no real existence that can be used as a basis, then similar assumptions cannot be established. Therefore, the Abhidharma school believes that the statement that conditioned phenomena (samskrta-dharma) exist in 'ksana' is not theoretically wrong. It should not be asserted that obtaining the self and immediately perishing, having this 'ksana' of dharma, is called 'having ksana'. And how do you know that all conditioned phenomena perish in 'ksana' and will certainly not exist for long? Because all conditioned phenomena will eventually be exhausted. The Sutra school has made this explanation: The extinction of conditioned phenomena does not require a cause. Why? Because the extinction that requires a cause refers to the extinction as a result, not as a cause. The extinction that does not require a cause, since it does not require a cause, then it perishes immediately after it arises. If it does not perish at first, then it should be the same afterwards, because afterwards has the same nature as at first. This explanation is unreasonable. 'Cessation' (nirodha) is extinction. The Buddha said that 'cessation and extinction' is a characteristic of conditioned phenomena. Saying that the characteristic of conditioned phenomena is the characteristic of all dharmas. So the sutra says that all actions are impermanent, and there are dharmas of arising and ceasing. Also, the sutra says that the arising of conditioned phenomena can be known; cessation and change can also be known. If it is thought that non-existence (abhava), like form (rupa) and so on, can also be a cause to produce consciousness (vijnana) and so on, then it should also be allowed that non-existence is the result. Because the cause of this difference cannot be obtained. Why is non-existence the cause and not the result? Also, seeing existence (bhava), with conditioned phenomena first, this is universally recognized in the world. A cause is a result. The extinction of your sect also has conditioned phenomena first, and must have conditioned phenomena first, and then there is no existence. Why not allow it to be a cause with a result? Also, if dharma has no cause, it must be permanent. So if extinction is permanent, then dharma should never arise. If it is thought that extinction has no self, then how can it become a result? If there is no self, how can it be a cause to generate consciousness and so on? Nor should it be allowed to be a characteristic of conditioned phenomena. Just as it is allowed to be established, this should also be allowed. Also, the Mimamsakas can cause different views, which have never been heard before. Explaining the truth, clinging to the characteristics of conditioned phenomena is arising and non-existence. If this is the case, then the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena should not be established, that is, conditioned phenomena.
得體名起。盡及異相。皆是體無。非后剎那。與前有異。少有所因。如前已辯。亦不可說有為法然起。亦應同成大過故。謂諸行起。亦應無因。以執有為法皆然故。是故彼異無體理成。則應以無為有為相。然不應許。故非滅不待因。故我此中。作如是釋。現有法滅。不待客因。既不待客因。才生已即滅。若初不滅。后亦應然。以後與初主因等故。既見後有盡。知前唸唸滅。若謂不然。世現見故。謂世現見。薪等先有。由后與火客因合時。便致滅無。不復見故。定無餘量。過現量者。故非諸法滅皆不待客因。豈不應如鈴聲燈焰。如彼聲焰。雖離手風剎那剎那由主因滅而手風合余不更生后聲焰無不復可取。如是薪等。由主滅因。令唸唸滅。后與火合。便於滅位。不為余因。以後不生。不復可取。是故此義。由比量成。非現量得。何謂比量。謂應如生無無因故。以有為法不見不待客主二因。而得生者。謂羯剌藍。牙墻識等。必待精血水土根等外緣資助。然後得生。若待客因薪等滅者。則有為法。應並如生要待客因然後得滅。而世現見。覺焰音聲。不待客因。由主因滅。故一切行滅。皆不待客因。是故諸有為。才生已即滅。滅因常合。故剎那滅義成。有執覺聲前因后滅。有執燈焰滅亦住無為因。有執焰滅時。由法非法力。彼皆
非理。所以者何。法未已生。無功能故。然不應說二不俱故。以如是難。招他責言。雖二不併。而許前法為後生因。雖二不俱如何不許前因后滅。唯現有論理應答言。前為後生因。以現有體故。未來體未有。寧為前滅因。故彼立因。應如此說。又最後滅。復由何因。住無為因。亦不應理。以無體法不成因故。法與非法。亦非滅因。見空窟中。有焰轉故。又於一切有為法中。皆可計度。有此因故。應不更待火等滅因。是故不應執此因義。又若薪等滅。火合為因。于熟變生中。有下中上。應生因體即成滅因。所以者何。謂由火合。能令薪等有熟變生。中上熟生。下中熟滅。即生因體。應成滅因。然理不應因彼此有。即復因彼此法成無。若謂焰生不停住故無斯過者。理亦不然。體類不殊。無決定理。能為生滅二種因故。且於火焰差別生中。容計能生能滅因異。于灰雪酢日地水合。能令薪等熟變生中。如何計度生滅因異。若爾現見煎水減盡。火合於中為何所作。由客火合。主火界增。如如火界漸漸增長。如是如是。能令水聚漸為后位微劣水因。以火與水性相違故。乃至最後位更不能生后。是名火合於中所作。故諸法滅。不待客因。但由主因。令諸法滅。由如是理。證剎那滅義成。是故知身定無行動。
說一切有部順正理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 非理。這是什麼原因呢？因為法尚未產生，沒有作用的緣故。然而不應該說二者不能同時存在，因為如果這樣反駁，會招致他人的責難。即使二者不能並存，也允許前一個法作為后一個法產生的因。即使二者不能同時存在，為什麼不允許前因后滅呢？唯有『現有論』才應該這樣回答：前一個法是后一個法產生的因，因為它具有現有的體性。而未來之法體尚未產生，怎麼能作為前一個法滅亡的因呢？所以他們所立的因，應該這樣說。另外，最後的滅亡，又是由於什麼原因呢？說是由於『住無為』的因，也是不合理的，因為沒有實體的法不能成為因。法與非法，也不是滅亡的原因。就像在空洞中，有火焰在燃燒一樣。而且在一切有為法中，都可以推測有這樣的因，所以不應該再等待火等滅亡的因。因此，不應該執著于這種因的意義。另外，如果說柴薪等的滅亡，是由於火的結合作為原因，那麼在成熟變化產生中，有下、中、上三種情況，那麼產生的因的本體就成了滅亡的因。這是什麼原因呢？因為由於火的結合，能夠使柴薪等有成熟變化產生，中等和上等的成熟產生，下等和中等的成熟滅亡，那麼產生的因的本體，就應該成為滅亡的因。然而，道理上不應該因為彼此的存在，反而導致彼此的法不存在。如果說火焰的產生不停留，所以沒有這種過失，那麼道理也是不成立的。體類沒有差別，沒有決定的道理，能夠作為產生和滅亡兩種因。即使在火焰的差別產生中，可以認為產生和滅亡的因不同，那麼在灰、雪、醋、日、地、水結合，使柴薪等成熟變化產生中，如何推測產生和滅亡的因不同呢？如果這樣，現在看到煎水減少耗盡，火的結合在其中有什麼作用呢？由於外來的火的結合，使主要的火界增加。像這樣，火界漸漸增長，像這樣，能夠使水聚漸漸成為後來的微弱的水的因。因為火與水的性質相反。乃至最後，不能再生出後來的水。這就是火的結合在其中所起的作用。所以諸法的滅亡，不等待外來的因，只是由於主要的因，使諸法滅亡。由於這樣的道理，證明剎那滅的意義成立。所以知道身體一定沒有行動。 《說一切有部順正理論》
【English Translation】 English version: It is unreasonable. What is the reason for this? Because the dharma has not yet arisen, it has no function. However, it should not be said that the two cannot exist simultaneously, because such a refutation would invite criticism from others. Even if the two do not coexist, it is permissible for the preceding dharma to be the cause of the arising of the subsequent dharma. Even if the two do not exist simultaneously, why is it not permissible for the preceding cause to perish after the subsequent effect? Only the 'Sarvastivadins' (those who believe in the existence of all dharmas) should answer in this way: the preceding dharma is the cause of the arising of the subsequent dharma because it possesses an existing nature. But the nature of the future dharma has not yet arisen, how can it be the cause of the perishing of the preceding dharma? Therefore, the cause they establish should be stated in this way. Furthermore, what is the cause of the final perishing? To say that it is due to the cause of 'abiding unconditioned' is also unreasonable, because a dharma without substance cannot become a cause. Dharma and non-dharma are also not the cause of perishing, just as there is a flame burning in an empty cave. Moreover, in all conditioned dharmas, it can be inferred that there is such a cause, so there should be no further waiting for the cause of perishing such as fire. Therefore, one should not cling to the meaning of this cause. Furthermore, if the perishing of firewood, etc., is due to the combination of fire as a cause, then in the arising of ripening changes, there are three situations: inferior, intermediate, and superior. Then the very substance of the cause of arising becomes the cause of perishing. What is the reason for this? Because due to the combination of fire, it can cause firewood, etc., to have ripening changes arising, intermediate and superior ripening arising, and inferior and intermediate ripening perishing. Then the very substance of the cause of arising should become the cause of perishing. However, it is not reasonable that because of each other's existence, the dharmas of each other should cease to exist. If it is said that the arising of flame does not stop, so there is no such fault, then the reasoning is also not valid. The nature of the substance is not different, there is no definite reason that it can be the cause of both arising and perishing. Even in the different arising of flame, it can be considered that the causes of arising and perishing are different, then in the combination of ash, snow, vinegar, sun, earth, and water, which causes firewood, etc., to have ripening changes arising, how can it be inferred that the causes of arising and perishing are different? If so, now seeing that boiling water is reduced and exhausted, what is the function of the combination of fire in it? Due to the combination of external fire, the primary fire element increases. In this way, as the fire element gradually increases, in this way, it can cause the water aggregate to gradually become the cause of the subsequent weak water. Because the nature of fire and water are contrary. Until the very end, it cannot give rise to subsequent water. This is the function of the combination of fire in it. Therefore, the perishing of all dharmas does not wait for external causes, but only due to the primary cause, the dharmas perish. Due to such reasoning, the meaning of momentary perishing is established. Therefore, it is known that the body certainly has no movement. 《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Manifest Knowledge)》
論卷第三十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之二
于正法內。有作是言。身及山等。久住不滅。故契經說。或有一類。身住十年。乃至廣說。又說七日羯剌藍住。又說持地住經一劫。由此知身可得久住。故有行動。為表理成。此義不然。且彼亦許諸心心所有剎那滅。由此可證彼所不許。身及山等剎那滅義。應作是言。身剎那滅。見隨心等。有轉變故。謂見身相。于起苦樂貪瞋等時。隨心等轉。既隨心等。唸唸滅法。身有轉變。故剎那滅義成。又身與心等安危故。謂身既是剎那滅心所執受故。必安危等。以身有識續住多時。識若離身。即便爛壞。既與剎那滅心等安危故。身應如心必剎那滅。又身如識而宣說故。謂契經言。是心意識。剎那臘縛牟呼栗多。別異而生。別異而滅。又契經說。身於彼彼剎那等位。衰老枯竭。又契經言。苾芻諸行。無有住止。速歸壞滅。又言苾芻諸行如幻。或增或減。暫住即滅。又契經說。摩納縛迦。從入胎夜。乃至衰老。恒速逝往。無住無回。由此等經證知。諸行皆剎那滅。無久住理。而言住者。但約諸行相似相續。假說無違。亦有契經說心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷三十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之二
在正法之內，有人這樣說：身體以及山等，能夠長久存在不滅。因為契經上說：『或者有一類眾生，身體能夠住十年』，乃至廣為解說。又說『羯剌藍(kalala)（受精卵最初的凝結狀態）住七日』，又說『持地(dharani)（地神）住經一劫(kalpa)（極長的時間單位）』。由此可知身體可以長久存在，所以有行動，是爲了表明這個道理成立。 這個說法是不對的。且他們也承認諸心心所(citta-caitta)（心理活動及其附屬現象）是剎那(ksana)（極短的時間單位）滅的。由此可以證明他們所不承認的，身體以及山等是剎那滅的道理。應該這樣說：身體是剎那滅的，可以從它隨著心等而有轉變看出來。也就是說，看到身體的相狀，在生起苦樂貪瞋等情緒時，隨著心等而轉變。既然隨著心等這些唸唸滅法的轉變，身體也有轉變，所以剎那滅的道理成立。 而且身體與心等安危與共。也就是說，身體既然是被剎那滅的心所執受的，必定安危與共。因為身體有識(vijnana)（意識）相續住留很長時間，識如果離開身體，身體就會立刻腐爛壞掉。既然與剎那滅的心等安危與共，身體就應該像心一樣必定是剎那滅的。 而且身體就像識一樣被宣說。也就是說，契經上說：『是心意識(citta-manas-vijnana)（心的不同方面），剎那(ksana)、臘縛(lava)（更短的時間單位）、牟呼栗多(muhurta)（較短的時間單位），各不相同地生起，各不相同地滅去。』又契經上說：『身體在彼彼剎那等位，衰老枯竭。』又契經上說：『苾芻(bhiksu)（佛教出家人）諸行，沒有住止，迅速歸於壞滅。』又說：『苾芻諸行如幻，或增或減，暫時停留就滅亡。』又契經說：『摩納縛迦(manavaka)（年輕人），從入胎之夜，乃至衰老，恒常快速逝去，沒有停留沒有返回。』 由此等經可以證明，諸行(samskara)（一切有為法）都是剎那滅的，沒有長久存在的道理。說『住』，只不過是就諸行相似相續而言，假說而已，沒有違背。也有契經說心
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 34
Composed by Venerable Zhongxian
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Four, Part Two: Discussion on Karma
Within the Proper Dharma, some say: the body and mountains, etc., endure for a long time without ceasing. Therefore, the sutras say: 'There are beings whose bodies remain for ten years,' and so on, extensively explaining. It also says, 'The kalala (the initial coagulation state of a fertilized egg) remains for seven days,' and 'Dharani (earth deity) abides for one kalpa (an extremely long unit of time).' From this, it is known that the body can endure for a long time, hence there is action, to demonstrate that this principle is established. This view is incorrect. Furthermore, they also accept that all citta-caittas (mental activities and their associated phenomena) are momentary (ksana) ceasing. From this, it can be proven what they do not accept: the principle that the body and mountains, etc., are momentary ceasing. It should be said that the body is momentary ceasing, as can be seen from its transformations along with the mind, etc. That is to say, seeing the form of the body, when arising suffering, joy, greed, anger, etc., it transforms along with the mind, etc. Since it transforms along with the mind, etc., which are phenomena ceasing moment by moment, and the body has transformations, therefore the principle of momentary ceasing is established. Moreover, the body shares safety and danger with the mind, etc. That is to say, since the body is grasped by the momentary ceasing mind, it must share safety and danger. Because the body has consciousness (vijnana) continuously abiding for a long time, if consciousness leaves the body, the body will immediately rot and decay. Since it shares safety and danger with the momentary ceasing mind, the body should be like the mind, necessarily momentary ceasing. Furthermore, the body is spoken of like consciousness. That is to say, the sutras say: 'These citta-manas-vijnana (different aspects of the mind), in each ksana, lava (shorter unit of time), and muhurta (shorter unit of time), arise differently and cease differently.' Also, the sutras say: 'The body, in each moment, decays, ages, and withers.' Also, the sutras say: 'Bhiksus (Buddhist monks) actions have no abiding, quickly returning to destruction.' Also, it says: 'Bhiksus actions are like illusions, sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing, temporarily abiding and then ceasing.' Also, the sutras say: 'Manavaka (young man), from the night of entering the womb until old age, constantly and quickly passes away, without abiding, without returning.' From these sutras, it can be proven that all samskaras (conditioned phenomena) are momentary ceasing, without the principle of long-term existence. Saying 'abiding' is merely speaking figuratively about the similar continuous flow of phenomena, without contradiction. There are also sutras that speak of the mind
有住。如言心住不可移轉。又經說。心從初靜慮。移入第二靜慮等中。又說心調便能住上。又于苦等生已相續多時住中。假說故受。又彼雖許月輪劫住而假說新非假說中即可決定執為實有。又相有別體異義成。非一體中相可有別。現見異體相方別故。如牛有垂𩑶。馬有旋毛等。於一相續。相既有殊。由此證知。體必有異。乳酪顯色。雖復相同。俱行別故。必有異體。謂二顯色。甘酢味俱。故體必應前後各別。身亦應爾。既前後位。相有不同。由此比知。舉體界聚。前後各別。故剎那滅。其理極成。既一切行。皆剎那滅。如何業果。感赴理成。如何不成。不相及故。謂曾未見種體已滅。猶能生芽。亦非所許。然非諸業如種生芽。于正滅時。與異熟果。又非無法可能為因。是故應無業果感赴。是彼宗過。何謂彼宗。謂譬喻宗。故彼宗說。如外種果感赴理成。如是應知業果感赴。謂如外種。由遇別緣。為親傳因。感果已滅。由此後位遂起根芽莖枝葉等。諸異相法。體雖不住。而相續轉。于最後位。復遇別緣。方能為因。生於自果。如是諸業。于相續中。為親傳因。感果已滅。由此於後自相續中。有分位別異相法起。體雖不住而相續轉。于最後位。復遇別緣。方能為因。生於自果。雖彼外種非親為因令自果生。然由展轉如是諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有宗派認為，心念的安住就像所說的那樣，是不可轉移改變的。但經典中又說，心從最初的靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）轉移到第二靜慮等等之中。又說，心調伏后便能安住于更高的境界。又對於苦等感受，生起后相續很長時間的安住。這只是假說，並非真實感受。而且他們雖然承認月輪可以住劫（Kalpa，佛教時間單位），但這也是假說，不能因為假說就認定它是真實存在的。而且，相狀不同，本體各異，意義才能成立。如果本體相同，相狀不可能有區別。現在看到不同的物體，相狀才會有區別，比如牛有垂胡，馬有旋毛等。在一個相續中，相狀既然有差別，由此可以證明，本體必定不同。乳酪的顯色雖然相同，但因為作用方式不同，必定有不同的本體。比如兩種顯色，甘味和醋味同時存在，所以本體必定是前後各異的。身體也應該如此，既然前後位置的相狀不同，由此可以推知，整體的界限和聚集，前後都是不同的。所以剎那（Ksana，極短的時間單位）滅的道理是極其成立的。既然一切行（Samskara，佛教術語，指有為法）都是剎那滅的，那麼業果（Karma-phala，行為和結果）的感應如何成立呢？如何不能成立？因為它們不相互關聯。也就是說，從未見過種子本體已經滅亡，還能生出芽的，這也是不被允許的。然而，並非所有的業都像種子生芽一樣。在正要滅亡的時候，就產生異熟果（Vipaka-phala，業的成熟果報）。又不是沒有法（Dharma，佛法）可以作為原因。所以應該沒有業果的感應。這是他們的宗派的過失。什麼是他們的宗派呢？就是譬喻宗。所以他們的宗派說，就像外在的種子和果實感應成立一樣，應該知道業果的感應也是如此。就像外在的種子，由於遇到不同的因緣，作為親近傳遞的原因，感果后就滅亡了。由此，在後面的階段，就生起根、芽、莖、枝、葉等各種不同的相狀的法。本體雖然不住留，但相續不斷地運轉。在最後的階段，又遇到不同的因緣，才能作為原因，產生自己的果實。雖然外在的種子不是親自作為原因讓自己的果實產生，但由於輾轉相續，就像這樣。
【English Translation】 English version Some schools hold that the mind's abiding, as it is said, is unchangeable. But the scriptures also say that the mind moves from the first Dhyana (meditative absorption) to the second Dhyana, and so on. It is also said that when the mind is tamed, it can abide in higher realms. Furthermore, regarding feelings such as suffering, they arise and continue to abide for a long time. This is merely a provisional statement, not a real feeling. Moreover, although they admit that the moon can abide for a Kalpa (an aeon), this is also a provisional statement. We cannot, based on a provisional statement, definitively assert that it is truly existent. Furthermore, different characteristics imply different entities, and meaning can only be established if entities are distinct. If the entity were the same, the characteristics could not be different. We see that different objects have different characteristics, such as a cow having dewlap and a horse having whorls of hair. Since there are different characteristics within a single continuum, this proves that the entities must be different. Although the manifest color of milk and cheese may be the same, because their modes of operation are different, they must have different entities. For example, two manifest colors, sweetness and sourness, exist simultaneously, so the entities must be different at different times. The body should be the same. Since the characteristics of the preceding and following positions are different, we can infer that the boundaries and aggregations of the whole body are different at different times. Therefore, the principle of momentary (Ksana) cessation is extremely well-established. Since all Samskaras (conditioned phenomena) are momentarily ceasing, how can the fruition of Karma (Karma-phala) be established? How can it not be established? Because they are not interconnected. That is to say, it has never been seen that the entity of a seed, once it has ceased, can still produce a sprout, and this is not permissible. However, not all Karmas are like seeds producing sprouts. At the very moment of ceasing, they produce Vipaka-phala (ripened result). Furthermore, it is not that no Dharma (phenomenon) can serve as a cause. Therefore, there should be no fruition of Karma. This is a fault of their school. What is their school? It is the Sautrantika school (who use analogies). Therefore, their school says that just as the interaction between external seeds and fruits is established, so too should the interaction between Karma and its result be understood. Just as an external seed, due to encountering different conditions, serves as a proximate cause, and after producing the fruit, it ceases. As a result, in the subsequent stage, various phenomena with different characteristics, such as roots, sprouts, stems, branches, and leaves, arise. Although the entity does not remain, it continues to turn in a continuum. In the final stage, it encounters different conditions again, and then it can serve as a cause to produce its own fruit. Although the external seed does not personally cause its own fruit to arise, it does so through a continuous process, just like this.
業。亦非親為因令自果生。然由展轉力內外因果相續理同。外謂種根芽等。不斷名為相續。內法相續。謂前後心。恒無間斷。故無外道所難過失。今詳彼釋一切可然。謂若唯言現在有者。可有相續展轉理成。然理不成。故唯有語。彼不成理。余處已說。設許相續展轉理成。彼不應如種果道理。現見種等。展轉相續。必無間絕。方能生果。心能生果。相續有間。故種果喻。于彼所宗業果感赴。無能證力以入無想二無心定。心等不行。如前已辯。又說意行此中滅故。非至果生一業相續恒無間斷。彼宗唯許思是實業。此即意行增長功能。隨界習氣種子論等。余處已遮。故外難言。無譬喻者所說業果。猶如種果感赴道理。是為正難。阿毗達磨。無心位中。說異熟因相續無斷。得體實有。先已成立。即說此得。為相續體。若謂得體與業果別。不應說為業相續者。此難非理。一身果故。身與相續。是一義故。又如業種。業得亦然。故業相續。無有間斷。是故我宗業果感赴。同於種果。無理能遮。雖諸業得有間斷者。如已滅種。作用雖滅。而有少分與果功能。由此後時。能與自果。業亦應爾。故對法宗。無同彼宗過所隨失。后當成立已滅猶有。若謂雖爾仍有異作異受果失。不許有一能作受者。體常住故。此難不然。異有二故。觀理者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 業（Karma）。也不是親自作為原因，而令自身產生結果。然而，由於輾轉相續的力量，內外因果的道理是相同的。外在的，比如種子、根、芽等等，不間斷地稱為相續。內在的法相續，指的是前後心，恒常沒有間斷。所以沒有外道所提出的過失。現在詳細分析他們的解釋，一切都是可以成立的。如果只說現在有，可以有相續輾轉的道理成立，然而道理並不成立。所以只有『有』的說法，他們不能成立這個道理，在其他地方已經說過了。假設允許相續輾轉的道理成立，他們不應該像種子和果實的道理一樣。現在看到種子等等，輾轉相續，必須沒有間斷，才能產生果實。心能產生果實，相續卻有間斷。所以種子和果實的比喻，對於他們所宗的業果感應，沒有能證明的力量。進入無想和二無心定，心等等不行，如同前面已經辯論過的。又說意行在這裡滅盡，所以不是到果實產生時，一個業的相續恒常沒有間斷。他們宗派只允許思是真實的業，這就是意行的增長功能，隨著界、習氣、種子等等。在其他地方已經遮破了。所以外人難以反駁說，沒有譬喻的人所說的業果，如同種子和果實感應的道理，這是正確的反駁。《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，論藏）在無心位中，說異熟因相續沒有間斷，得（Prāpti，獲得）的體是真實存在的，先前已經成立了。就是說這個得，是相續的體。如果說得的體和業果不同，不應該說為業相續，這個反駁是不合理的。因為是一個身體的果報，身體和相續，是一個意思。又如業種，業得也是這樣。所以業相續，沒有間斷。因此我宗的業果感應，如同種子和果實，沒有道理可以遮蔽。雖然諸業得有間斷，如同已經滅掉的種子，作用雖然滅了，而有少部分與果實的功能。由此後時，能與自身果實。業也應該是這樣。所以對法宗，沒有和他們宗派一樣的過失。後面當成立已滅仍然存在。如果說即使這樣，仍然有異作異受果的過失，不許有一個能作能受者，體是常住的。這個反駁是不成立的。因為異有兩種。觀察道理的人
【English Translation】 English version Karma. It is also not personally acting as the cause, causing oneself to produce the result. However, due to the power of continuous transformation, the principle of internal and external cause and effect is the same. External things, such as seeds, roots, sprouts, etc., are continuously called continuity. The internal Dharma continuity refers to the preceding and following minds, which are constantly uninterrupted. Therefore, there is no fault raised by external paths. Now, analyzing their explanation in detail, everything can be established. If only the present existence is spoken of, the principle of continuous transformation can be established, but the principle is not established. Therefore, only the statement of 'existence' is made, and they cannot establish this principle, which has been discussed elsewhere. Assuming that the principle of continuous transformation is allowed to be established, they should not be like the principle of seeds and fruits. Now, seeing seeds, etc., continuously transforming, there must be no interruption in order to produce fruit. The mind can produce fruit, but the continuity is interrupted. Therefore, the analogy of seeds and fruits has no power to prove their doctrine of karmic retribution. Entering the non-thinking and two non-mind states, the mind, etc., do not function, as has been debated before. It is also said that intentional actions cease here, so it is not until the fruit is produced that the continuity of a karma is constantly uninterrupted. Their school only allows thought (思) to be the real karma, which is the increasing function of intentional actions, following the realms, habits, seeds, etc. This has been refuted elsewhere. Therefore, it is difficult for outsiders to refute that the karmic retribution spoken of by those without analogies is like the principle of seeds and fruits, which is a correct refutation. The Abhidharma (阿毗達磨, Collection of Discourses) says that in the non-mind state, the continuity of the maturation cause is uninterrupted, and the existence of attainment (得, Prāpti) is real, which has been established earlier. That is to say, this attainment is the body of continuity. If it is said that the body of attainment is different from karmic retribution, and it should not be said to be karmic continuity, this refutation is unreasonable. Because it is the retribution of one body, the body and continuity are the same meaning. Also, like karmic seeds, karmic attainment is also the same. Therefore, karmic continuity is uninterrupted. Therefore, our school's karmic retribution is like seeds and fruits, and there is no reason to obscure it. Although the attainments of various karmas are interrupted, like seeds that have been destroyed, although the function has ceased, there is a small part of the function of giving fruit. Therefore, later, it can give its own fruit. Karma should also be like this. Therefore, the Abhidharma school does not have the same faults as their school. Later, it will be established that what has been destroyed still exists. If it is said that even so, there is still the fault of different actions and different receptions of fruit, and it is not allowed that there is one who can act and receive, and the body is permanent. This refutation is not established. Because there are two kinds of difference. Those who observe the principle
說。異有二種。一者各別相續名異。二一相續體別名異。若別相續所造業因。果必不應余相續受。若一相續所造業因。其果何妨此相續受。豈如異相續無造受能則一相續中亦無造受。若謂各別相續名異。與一相續體別名異。異無別故。如彼此無造受義者。亦不應理。因果相屬。不相屬故。猶如稻種望稻麥芽。豈由稻種望稻麥芽。二種體異無差別故。即令稻種望稻麥芽。同是相屬。或不相屬。雖彼稻種望稻麥芽。體異無別。而望稻芽。因果相屬。非望麥芽。如是自他相續前後。有屬不屬。差別理成。故一相續中。無異作受失。又種果異。種滅經久。而見與果。于理無遮。業果亦然。雖異何咎。又一相續。異時為因。異時與果。許無過失。若異相續。異時為因。異時與果。便許有失。如是豈不一異相續。因果有無。分明有異。又如燒村火焰相續。謂如有一欲燎他村。持火燒他草室少分火焰相續。乃至總燒舉村屋宇。併成灰燼。村人擒獲捶撻令陪。彼自雪言。我持少火。燒少舍已。我火即滅。故我但應陪一握草。彼如是自雪。豈成無過人。智者應知。遍燒村火。皆從初火相續而生。是故彼人。有遍燒過。如是諸蘊相續轉變。所生諸果。應知皆是初蘊為因。展轉而起。是故諸業。與所依蘊。雖久謝滅。而於后蘊。彼果得生。亦
無有失。現見因已滅。果法得生故。如何不見種芽等然。且見世間枸櫞酢味。相續轉變至果熟時。酢因雖無有酢果起。應知業果理亦應然。剎那滅義成。有業果感赴。是故善說一切有為有剎那故。必無行動。若爾何故現見世間。有時身形行動可得。欲等緣力。能使身形無間異方展轉生起。不審察者。起增上慢。謂有實行。現前可取。現見不取。月輪駃行。有時由云。余方疾起便起增上慢。謂見月駃行。如是世間身急迴轉。謂諸住物。皆急返旋。是故有為皆無行動。無行動故。所說身表。是形差別。其理極成。謂從加行心所生。不住等流大種果。別類形色。不待余顯色為眼識生因。能蔽異熟生所長養形色。如是形色。名為身表。非由如是善等性故。令異熟生所長養斷。如天眼耳現在前時。余眼耳根相續無斷。諸別計有加行心生。于身聚中勢力差別。為身無間異方生因。即此生因。名為身表。若爾身表。應非眼見。勢力差別即是風故。然經主言。形非實有。謂顯色聚。一方多生。即于其中。假立長色。待此長色。于余色聚一面少中。假立短色。於四方面並多生中。假立方色。於一切處遍滿生中。假立圓色。所餘形色。隨應當知。如見火㷮於一方面無間速運。便謂為長。見彼周旋。謂為圓色。故形無實別類色體。若謂實有別
類形色。則應一色二根所取。謂於色聚長等差別。眼見身觸。俱能了知。由此應成二根取過。理無色處二根所取。然如依觸取長等相。如是依顯。能取于形。此理不然。了相別故。若一方面。唯顯多生。了相於中應無差別。既有長白二了相異。故於顯外。別有形色。現見有觸同根所取。了相異故。體有差別。如堅與冷。或暖與堅。如是白長。雖同根取。而了相異。故體應別。故知聚色。分析漸微。乃至於中。可生形覺。必有少分形覺生因。形色極微。于中猶起。理必應爾。以色聚中有唯顯生形色不起。于中唯有顯覺非形。如見空中光明等色。若即顯色說名為形。無份量顯中亦應起形覺。不相離故。如火界暖。彼火㷮喻。于證無能。余處極成可假說故。謂于余處。有長圓等。所依實因。同時無間。于多方所安布差別所成色聚。長等極成。由是故於火㷮等色。異時別處。無間轉中。計度立為假長圓等。未曾見有。世俗勝義俱不極成。而可假立應二根取難亦不成。長等但為意識境故。以諸假有唯是意識所緣境界。如前已辨。能成長等。如種極微如是安布。說為形色。是無分別眼識所取。非身能取。如是形色。如依身根了堅濕等。了長短等。不如是故。以非闇中了堅濕等。即于彼位。或次後時。即能了知長短等相。要於一面多
觸生中。依身根門。分別觸已。方能比度。知觸俱行。眼識所牽意識所受。如是相狀差別形色。如見火色及臭花香。能憶俱行火觸花色。現見眼識隨其所應。有於一時形顯俱了。意識分別。前後無定。以顯與形是一眼識所緣境故。意識分別。時差別故。了相異故。其體不同。形亦非觸。寧有身根能取形義。故不應難應二根取。經主於此。復作是言。諸有二法。定不相離。故因取一可得念余。無觸與形定不相離。如何取觸能定憶形。此亦非理。現見世間。諸觸聚中。有形定故。謂形於觸。雖無定者。而於一面多觸生中。定有長色。於一切處。觸遍生中。定有圓色。如是等類。隨應當知。故觸于形。有決定者。非觸于顯有定如形。可了觸時。能憶形色。以無有觸如是安布。于如是顯決定如形。又眼喉中。亦得煙觸。或時以鼻嗅彼煙香。因此了知煙中顯色。亦應顯色二根所取。非實物有。又此與彼。義應同故。謂暖觸於色及白色于香亦無有定。如形於觸不應因彼火色花香。便能念知火觸花色故。非由此能遮遣形異於顯色別有體義。復有因證形非實有。以諸所有有對實色必應有實別類極微。然無極微名為長等。故即多物如是安布。差別相中。假立長等。豈不已說。即形極微。如是安布。眼識所得。積集差別。假立長等。雖說有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在觸所生之處，依賴身根之門，在分別了觸之後，才能比較衡量，知道觸是與什麼一同生起的。眼識所牽引，意識所感受，就像形狀、相狀、差別、形色。例如見到火的顏色以及氣味濃郁的花香，能夠回憶起一同生起的火的觸感和花的顏色。現在所見到的眼識，根據情況，有時形狀和顯色同時明瞭，這是意識在分別，前後沒有定準。因為顯色和形狀是同一個眼識所緣的境界。意識的分別，因為時間上的差別，所了知的相狀不同，所以它們的本體不同。形狀也不是觸，哪裡有身根能夠取形狀的道理呢？所以不應該提出應該由兩個根來取的問題。 經論的作者在這裡又說，凡是有兩種法，一定是不能互相分離的，所以因為取了一種，就可以回憶起另一種。觸和形狀並不是一定不能分離的，如何因為取了觸就能一定回憶起形狀呢？這也是沒有道理的。現在可以看到世間上，在各種觸的集合中，形狀是確定的。所謂形狀對於觸，雖然沒有一定的關係，但是在很多觸的生起中，一定有長長的顏色；在一切處，觸普遍生起的地方，一定有圓圓的顏色。像這些等等，應該根據情況來了解。所以觸對於形狀，是有決定性的。觸對於顯色並沒有像形狀那樣確定，所以在瞭解觸的時候，能夠回憶起形狀和顏色。因為沒有觸是這樣安排的，對於這樣的顯色是像形狀那樣確定的。 又，在眼睛和喉嚨中，也能感受到煙的觸感，有時用鼻子聞到那煙的香味，因此瞭解煙中的顯色，也應該是顯色由兩個根所取。如果不是真實存在的物體，那麼這個和那個，道理應該相同。所謂暖的觸感對於顏色，以及白色的顏色對於香味，也沒有一定的關係，就像形狀對於觸那樣。不應該因為火的顏色和花的香味，就能回憶起火的觸感和花的顏色。所以，不能因此就否定形狀不同於顯色，有其獨立的本體意義。 還有一種論證，證明形狀不是真實存在的。因為所有有對礙的真實顏色，必定應該有真實的、不同類別的極微。然而沒有極微叫做長等等。所以就是很多物體這樣安排，在差別相中，假立長等等。難道不是已經說過，就是形狀的極微，這樣安排，眼識所得到的，積聚的差別，假立長等等。雖然說有...
【English Translation】 English version In the arising of contact (Sparsha), relying on the gate of the body sense organ, only after distinguishing the contact, can one compare and measure, knowing what accompanies the contact. The eye consciousness leads, and the mind consciousness receives, such as shapes, appearances, differences, and colors. For example, seeing the color of fire and the fragrant scent of a flower, one can recall the touch of fire and the color of the flower that arose together. The presently seen eye consciousness, according to the situation, sometimes the shape and appearance are both clear simultaneously; this is the mind consciousness distinguishing, without fixed order. Because appearance and shape are the same object of the eye consciousness. The distinction of the mind consciousness, because of the difference in time, the appearances known are different, so their essence is different. Shape is also not touch, where does the body sense organ have the ability to grasp the meaning of shape? Therefore, one should not raise the question of whether it should be grasped by two sense organs. The author of the scripture here further says, 'Whenever there are two dharmas (phenomena), they are certainly inseparable, so because one is grasped, the other can be recalled. Contact and shape are not necessarily inseparable, how can grasping contact necessarily recall shape?' This is also unreasonable. Now it can be seen in the world that in various collections of contacts, shape is definite. So-called shape for contact, although there is no fixed relationship, but in many arising of contacts, there is certainly a long color; in all places, where contact universally arises, there is certainly a round color. Like these and so on, one should understand according to the situation. Therefore, contact for shape is definite. Contact for appearance is not as definite as shape, so when understanding contact, one can recall shape and color. Because there is no contact arranged in such a way that for such an appearance it is as definite as shape. Also, in the eyes and throat, one can also feel the touch of smoke, and sometimes smell the fragrance of that smoke with the nose, thus understanding the appearance in the smoke, it should also be that appearance is grasped by two sense organs. If it is not a real object, then this and that, the principle should be the same. So-called warm touch for color, and white color for fragrance, also have no fixed relationship, just like shape for contact. One should not, because of the color of fire and the fragrance of flowers, be able to recall the touch of fire and the color of flowers. Therefore, one cannot deny that shape is different from appearance, having its independent essential meaning. There is also an argument proving that shape is not real. Because all real colors with opposition (having spatial extension), must have real, different kinds of ultimate particles (paramāṇu). However, there are no ultimate particles called long, etc. Therefore, it is that many objects are arranged in this way, in the difference of appearances, falsely establishing long, etc. Has it not already been said that it is the ultimate particles of shape, arranged in this way, obtained by the eye consciousness, the difference of accumulation, falsely establishing long, etc. Although it is said that there are...
此是朋黨言。形色極微。非極成故。謂若形色。有別極微。自相極成。可得積集。如是安布以為長等。然非形色有別極微。自相極成。如諸顯色。云何得有積集安布。如何具壽。許有極成顯色極微。非形細分。如諸顯色。一一極微。無獨起理。設有獨起。以極細故。非眼所得。于積集時。眼可得故。證知定有顯色極微。形色極微。亦應如是。寧獨不許自相極成。諸有對色。所積集處。皆決定有。極微可得。既于聚色差別生中。有形覺生。不待于顯。如不待余。顯有餘顯覺生。是故定應別有如種。能成長等。形色極微。諸顯極微。有質礙故。即應積集假立長等。此亦非理。香等極微。亦應積集為長等故。以彼香等。所有極微。亦有質礙。唯據處所。不相容納。名質礙故。若謂香等所有極微非有見故。無同彼失。則諸顯色。所有極微。亦非形故。豈成長等。如何知顯微體非形。如前已說。了相異故。不待顯色。形覺生故。或有顯聚。不見形故。非體是形有多積集。無障有眼。可不見形。是故應知。異於顯色。有色處攝。形色極微。由此整合長等假色。故形細分。非不極成。云何是形而無細分。極微無分。應體非形。若爾亦應疑于顯色。如何顯色。體是有對。而可許有。無分極微。于諸無分受等諸法。未曾見有。名顯等故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是朋黨的言論。他們認為形狀和顏色極其微小，因為它們不是由最小單位構成的。他們說，如果形狀和顏色有各自不同的最小單位（極微，kalāpa），這些極微能夠獨立存在並相互結合，那麼就可以累積起來，形成長短等形狀。然而，如果形狀和顏色沒有各自獨立存在的最小單位，就像各種顯色一樣，又怎麼能累積和排列呢？ 具壽（Ayushman，對有德者的尊稱），您怎麼能認為顯色有最小單位，而且這些最小單位不是形狀的細分呢？就像各種顯色一樣，每一個最小單位都沒有獨立存在的理由。即使假設它們可以獨立存在，因為它們極其微小，所以眼睛也無法看到。但在累積起來的時候，眼睛卻可以看見，這證明一定存在顯色的最小單位。形狀和顏色的最小單位也應該如此。為什麼偏偏不允許它們獨立存在並相互結合呢？ 凡是有對色（saparigha rūpa，有阻礙的顏色）所累積的地方，都一定可以找到最小單位。既然在聚色（samūha rūpa，集合的顏色）的差別產生中，有形狀的感覺產生，而且不需要依賴顯色，就像不需要依賴其他東西一樣。顯色產生其他顯色的感覺。因此，一定存在像種子一樣的東西，能夠成長為長短等形狀，也就是形狀的最小單位。 各種顯色的最小單位因為有質礙（pratighāta，阻礙），所以應該可以累積起來，虛假地形成長短等形狀。但這種說法是不合理的，因為香等（氣味等）的最小單位也應該可以累積起來，形成長短等形狀。因為香等的最小單位也有質礙，只是因為它們佔據的位置不能相互容納，所以才被稱為有質礙。 如果說香等的最小單位因為不可見，所以沒有和顯色一樣的錯誤，那麼各種顯色的最小單位也因為沒有形狀，怎麼能成長為長短等形狀呢？如何知道顯色的最小單位不是形狀呢？就像前面已經說過的，因為它們所呈現的相（lakṣaṇa，特徵）不同。形狀的感覺產生不需要依賴顯色。或者，有些顯色的集合，人們看不見形狀。如果本體是形狀，那麼即使有很多集合，在沒有障礙物和眼睛存在的情況下，也不應該看不見形狀。因此，應該知道，與顯色不同，形狀是被色處（rūpāyatana，色的領域）所包含的形狀的最小單位。因此，這些最小單位累積起來，形成長短等虛假的顏色。所以，形狀的細分不是非最小單位構成的。 什麼是形狀而沒有細分呢？最小單位沒有細分，那麼本體就應該不是形狀。如果這樣，也應該懷疑顯色。顯色如何能既是有對的，又可以有無分的最小單位呢？在各種無分的受等法（vedanā，感受等法）中，從未見過被稱為顯色等的法。
【English Translation】 English version: These are the words of a faction. They believe that shapes and colors are extremely subtle because they are not composed of ultimate particles (kalāpa). They argue that if shapes and colors had distinct ultimate particles, which could independently exist and combine with each other, then they could accumulate to form lengths, etc. However, if shapes and colors do not have distinct, independently existing ultimate particles, like various visible colors, how can they accumulate and arrange themselves? 'Venerable Ayushman, how can you assert that visible colors have ultimate particles, and that these ultimate particles are not subdivisions of shape? Like various visible colors, each ultimate particle has no reason to exist independently. Even if we assume they can exist independently, they are too subtle to be seen by the eye. But when they accumulate, the eye can see them, which proves that there must be ultimate particles of visible color. The ultimate particles of shape and color should be the same. Why specifically deny that they can independently exist and combine with each other?' 'Wherever there is an accumulation of tangible color (saparigha rūpa), there must be ultimate particles that can be found. Since in the differentiation of aggregate color (samūha rūpa), there is a perception of shape, and it does not depend on visible color, just as it does not depend on other things. Visible color produces the perception of other visible colors. Therefore, there must be something like a seed that can grow into lengths, etc., which are the ultimate particles of shape.' 'The ultimate particles of various visible colors, because they have resistance (pratighāta), should be able to accumulate and falsely form lengths, etc. But this argument is unreasonable, because the ultimate particles of odors, etc., should also be able to accumulate to form lengths, etc. Because the ultimate particles of odors, etc., also have resistance, they are only called resistant because the places they occupy cannot accommodate each other.' 'If you say that the ultimate particles of odors, etc., do not have the same flaw as visible colors because they are invisible, then how can the ultimate particles of various visible colors, which have no shape, grow into lengths, etc.? How do we know that the ultimate particles of visible color are not shape? As previously stated, because the characteristics (lakṣaṇa) they present are different. The perception of shape does not depend on visible color. Or, some aggregates of visible color do not allow people to see shape. If the substance is shape, then even if there are many aggregates, shape should not be invisible when there are no obstacles and the eye is present. Therefore, it should be known that, unlike visible color, shape is the ultimate particle of shape included in the realm of color (rūpāyatana). Therefore, these ultimate particles accumulate to form false colors such as lengths, etc. So, the subdivisions of shape are not composed of non-ultimate particles.' 'What is shape that has no subdivisions? If the ultimate particle has no subdivisions, then the substance should not be shape. If so, then visible color should also be doubted. How can visible color be both tangible and have indivisible ultimate particles? Among the various indivisible feelings (vedanā), etc., there has never been a dharma called visible color, etc.'
如顯極微顯相非有。如是亦有形色極微。而無形相。違何至理。夫顯相者。謂能顯示青白等性。非顯極微。能有所顯。故無顯相。若異顯色。實有形者。應如青黃了然知異。雖各實有。而法性然。故不可知了然有異。如雜余色見影光等。謂影光等。與地等合。雜生識故。別相難知。然其實體。非無有異。夜于粉壁。有凈月明。明白相資。二俱顯著。體既有異。何不智愚並能瞭然知其相別。如彼理趣。形顯亦然。若顯與形。相雜難了。應以正理勤求別相。雖與顯色相雜而生。然于其邊。能為疆界。攝持顯色。是謂為形故破青丸視訊記憶體形壞。謂圓形色但居其邊。故破青丸。圓形即滅。然青顯色。遍在丸中。故壞圓形。青顯猶在。或形色體。非顯體故。不如青黃別相易了。又諸顯色。是顯體故。與余顯色。別相易知。如是形色。是形體故。與余形色。別相易了。故形異顯。自相極成。又顯與形。雖同一聚。然其體相。決定有殊。有一壞時。一不壞故。以相違因有差別故。非體無異。可由相違。因有差別。有壞不壞。又於色處。有善等別。不應顯色有善等性。如前已辯。故有別形。若謂顯中自有差別。謂待心起或不待心則已極成。身業實有。但于名想。少有迷謬。然有色處。加行心生。於色聚邊。周遍而起。能為疆界。隔別顯色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如果說極微小的顯相（rupa-lakshana，能被感知到的最小單位）不存在，那麼就像這樣，即使存在極微小的形色（varna-rupa，顏色和形狀的最小單位），也沒有形狀可言。這違反了什麼道理呢？ 所謂的『顯相』，是指能夠顯示青、白等性質的。但極微小的顯相，並不能顯示任何東西，所以說它沒有顯相。如果與顯色（varna-rupa，顏色）不同，確實存在形狀，那麼應該像青色和黃色那樣，能夠清楚地分辨出它們的差異。即使它們各自真實存在，但法性（dharma-svabhava，事物本性）就是如此，所以無法清楚地分辨出它們的差異。就像混合了其他顏色，看到影子和光芒一樣。影子和光芒等，與地等元素結合，產生混合的意識，所以難以分辨出它們各自的特徵。然而，它們的實體並非沒有差異。夜晚在白色的墻壁上，有潔凈的月光，白色和明亮相互映襯，兩者都顯得很顯著。既然它們的本體有差異，為什麼無論聰明人還是愚笨的人，都不能清楚地分辨出它們的不同呢？就像那個道理一樣，形狀和顯相也是如此。如果顯相和形狀混合在一起難以分辨，就應該用正確的道理努力尋求它們之間的區別。 雖然形狀與顯色混合而生，但在顯色的邊緣，形狀能夠作為邊界，攝持顯色，這就是所謂的形狀。所以，打破青色的丸子，顯色仍然存在，而形狀則消失了。這是因為圓形只是存在於丸子的邊緣，所以打破青色的丸子，圓形就消失了。然而，青色的顯色遍佈于丸子之中，所以破壞圓形，青色的顯色仍然存在。或者說，形色的本體，不是顯色的本體，所以不像青色和黃色那樣容易分辨。而且，各種顯色，是顯色的本體，所以與其他顯色，容易分辨出它們的差異。就像這樣，形色是形色的本體，所以與其他形色，容易分辨出它們的差異。所以，形狀與顯相不同，它們的自相（sva-lakshana，自身獨有的特性）非常明顯。 而且，顯相和形狀，即使存在於同一個聚集體中，但它們的本體和相狀，絕對是有區別的。因為一個壞滅時，另一個不壞滅。因為有相反的原因，所以有差別，並非本體沒有差異。可以從相反的原因，有壞滅和不壞滅來判斷。而且，在色處（rupa-ayatana，視覺對像）中，有善等區別。顯色不應該有善等性質，正如前面已經辯論過的。所以存在不同的形狀。如果說顯色中自有差別，即待心而起或不待心而起，那麼就已經完全成立了。身業（kaya-karma，身體的行為）確實存在，只是在名稱和概念上，稍微有些迷惑。然而，在色處，通過加行（prayoga，努力）而生起的心，在色聚的邊緣，周遍地生起，能夠作為邊界，隔絕顯色。
【English Translation】 English version If it is said that the extremely subtle appearance (rupa-lakshana, the smallest unit that can be perceived) does not exist, then just like that, even if extremely subtle shapes and colors (varna-rupa, the smallest unit of color and shape) exist, there is no shape to speak of. What principle does this violate? The so-called 'appearance' refers to what can display properties such as blue and white. But the extremely subtle appearance cannot display anything, so it is said that it has no appearance. If there is indeed a shape that is different from the color (varna-rupa), then it should be possible to clearly distinguish their differences, just like blue and yellow. Even if they each truly exist, the nature of dharma (dharma-svabhava, the inherent nature of things) is such that it is impossible to clearly distinguish their differences. It's like seeing shadows and light when mixed with other colors. Shadows and light, etc., combine with elements such as earth, producing mixed consciousness, so it is difficult to distinguish their respective characteristics. However, their entities are not without differences. At night, on a white wall, there is clean moonlight, and white and bright complement each other, both appearing prominent. Since their entities are different, why can't both the wise and the foolish clearly distinguish their differences? Just like that principle, shape and appearance are also like that. If appearance and shape are mixed together and difficult to distinguish, one should use correct reasoning to diligently seek the differences between them. Although shape is born mixed with color, at the edge of the color, shape can serve as a boundary, holding the color. This is what is called shape. Therefore, when a blue ball is broken, the color still exists, while the shape disappears. This is because the circular shape only exists at the edge of the ball, so when the blue ball is broken, the circular shape disappears. However, the blue color is all over the ball, so when the circular shape is destroyed, the blue color still exists. Or, the substance of shape and color is not the substance of appearance, so it is not as easy to distinguish as blue and yellow. Moreover, various colors are the substance of appearance, so it is easy to distinguish their differences from other colors. Just like this, shape is the substance of shape, so it is easy to distinguish its differences from other shapes. Therefore, shape is different from appearance, and their self-characteristics (sva-lakshana, unique characteristics) are very obvious. Moreover, even if appearance and shape exist in the same aggregate, their substance and characteristics are definitely different. Because when one is destroyed, the other is not destroyed. Because there are opposite causes, there are differences, and it is not that the substance has no differences. It can be judged from the opposite causes, whether there is destruction or non-destruction. Moreover, in the visual object (rupa-ayatana, visual object), there are distinctions such as good and evil. Color should not have properties such as good and evil, as has been debated before. Therefore, there are different shapes. If it is said that there are differences in color itself, that is, arising depending on the mind or not depending on the mind, then it is already completely established. Bodily karma (kaya-karma, physical actions) does exist, but there is only slight confusion in names and concepts. However, in the visual object, the mind arising through effort (prayoga, effort) arises pervasively at the edge of the color aggregate, and can serve as a boundary, separating the color.
。此與顯色。非同法故。諸對法者。立以形名。即此說為身有表業。縱說為顯。或說名余。且是極成。實有身表。若謂業相不成就故。非實有者。理亦不然。由此如思業相成故。又形與顯。如水地風。冷等相殊了相異故。其體各別。何理能遮。又形必應異於顯色。以如顯色生異類貪別。說不凈門為彼對治故。復有至教。證有別形。如頌中說。有粗有細。有短有長。凈不凈等。又契經說。顏貌端嚴。非短非長。非粗非細。非白非黑。光潔細軟。非無別體。而可別說。又若遮遣行動及形。汝等經部宗。立何為身表。此中經主。辯彼宗言。身表即形。然假非實。如是語義。意趣難知。為長等形是假非實。為成長等如種極微說名為形。是假非實。若長等形。是假非實。與對法者所說無違。若成長等。如種極微。說名為形。是假非實。則不應理。由彼所宗以顯成形。顯非假故。顯若非實。是則經部。同壞法論。不可與言。若意說形體不異顯。故言非實。則異火界。無別有暖。亦應非實。設許說言。形非異顯。如執異實顯無別有形言形非實。如是亦應執異於假顯無別有形以執即顯色立為長等故。是則經部。應立長等非實非假。如何言假。又經部宗。若執形色有所依攬體實極微。對法諸師。亦作是說。所起諍論。為何所依。為顯極微
即是長等假所攬實為不爾耶。不爾。如前已成立故。或於顯聚有不見有長短等形差別相故由是彼說。成無用言。又彼立假形以為身表。復立何法為身業耶。彼說業依身立為身業。謂能種種運動身思。依身門行。故名身業。語業意業。隨其所應。立差別名。當知亦爾。若爾何故契經中。說有二種業。一者思業。二思已業。彼作是釋。謂前加行起思惟思我當應為如是如是所應作事。名為思業既思惟已。起作事思。隨前所思。作所作事。動身發語。名思已業。此中為攝一切業盡。為攝少分差別業耶。有言。此中攝一切業。有作是說。不攝無漏。此釋非與經義相符。此中不應攝意業故。謂為動發身語二種。起思惟思及正動發身語二種起作事思。此二俱依身語門轉。並應攝在身語業中。既爾此中。何名意業若依身語二門轉思。亦許一分名意業者。是則立業。有雜亂過。縱許為欲動發身語。起思惟思。是意業性。亦非此中總攝諸業。以有不依身語門轉有漏意業。其量無邊。皆此經中所不攝故。且必不攝依眼觸等所起諸思。以彼諸思非前所說。思惟作事。二思攝故。若謂此經所說思業。總攝一切意業皆盡。說思已業。總攝一切依身及語二門轉思。且非此經所應說義。設許皆是此經所說。為欲動發身語二種。起思惟思。何業所攝。若思
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：那麼，你所主張的『長』等概念，僅僅是虛假的設定，並非真實存在的嗎？ 答：是的，它們並非真實存在。正如之前已經論證的那樣。 問：或者說，因為在顯現的聚合體中，我們無法觀察到『長』、『短』等形狀的差別，所以你才這樣說？ 答：如果是這樣，那麼你的說法就毫無意義。因為你已經設立了虛假的形狀作為身體的表象，那麼又設立什麼法作為身業呢？ 答：我所說的『業』，是依附於身體而建立的，稱為『身業』。也就是能夠引發各種身體運動的身思，它依附於身門而執行，所以稱為身業。語業和意業，也應該根據它們各自的情況，設立不同的名稱，這一點應該明白。 問：如果這樣，那麼為什麼契經中說有兩種業：一是思業，二是思已業？ 答：他們的解釋是，之前的加行，產生思惟，思考『我應當做這樣這樣的事情』，這稱為思業。已經思惟之後，開始行動，隨著之前的思惟，做所應該做的事情，動身說話，稱為思已業。 問：那麼，這種說法是爲了涵蓋一切業，還是僅僅涵蓋少部分的差別業呢？ 答：有人說，這種說法涵蓋一切業。也有人說，不涵蓋無漏業。 答：這種解釋與經義不符。因為這種說法不應該涵蓋意業。因為爲了引發身語二種行為，而產生的思惟，以及正在引發身語二種行為而產生的行動思惟，這兩種思惟都依附於身語門而運轉，都應該被包含在身語業中。 問：既然如此，那麼這裡所說的意業是什麼呢？如果依附於身語二門運轉的思惟，也被允許一部分稱為意業，那麼設立業就會有混淆的過失。 答：即使允許爲了引發身語而產生的思惟，是意業的性質，也不能說這裡總攝了一切業。因為還有不依附於身語門運轉的有漏意業，其數量無邊無際，都不被這個經文所涵蓋。而且，必然不涵蓋依眼觸等所產生的各種思惟，因為那些思惟不是前面所說的思惟作事這兩種思惟所能涵蓋的。 問：如果說這個經文所說的思業，總攝了一切意業，說思已業，總攝了一切依附於身語二門運轉的思惟，那麼這並非這個經文應該說的意義。假設允許這些都是這個經文所說的，那麼爲了引發身語二種行為，而產生的思惟，又屬於什麼業呢？如果是思
【English Translation】 English version: Question: So, are the concepts you propose, such as 'long', merely false constructs and not actually real? Answer: Yes, they are not real. As has already been established. Question: Or is it because we cannot observe differences in shapes like 'long' and 'short' in the manifested aggregates that you say this? Answer: If that's the case, then your statement is meaningless. Since you have already established false shapes as the appearance of the body, then what dharma do you establish as bodily karma? Answer: What I call 'karma' is established in dependence on the body and is called 'bodily karma'. That is, the mental activity (cetanā) that can cause various bodily movements, which operates through the body-door, is called bodily karma. Verbal karma and mental karma should also be established with different names according to their respective situations. This should be understood. Question: If so, then why does the sutra say that there are two types of karma: one is volitional karma (思業, sīyè) and the other is karma resulting from volition (思已業, sīyǐyè)? Answer: Their explanation is that the preceding application (加行, jiāxíng) generates thought, thinking 'I should do such and such things', this is called volitional karma. After having thought, one begins to act, and according to the previous thought, one does what should be done, moving the body and speaking, this is called karma resulting from volition. Question: So, does this statement intend to encompass all karma, or only a small portion of differentiated karma? Answer: Some say that this statement encompasses all karma. Others say that it does not encompass unconditioned karma (無漏業, wúlòuyè). Answer: This explanation does not accord with the meaning of the sutra. Because this statement should not encompass mental karma. Because the thought that arises in order to initiate bodily and verbal actions, and the thought of action that arises while initiating bodily and verbal actions, both of these thoughts operate through the body and speech doors and should both be included in bodily and verbal karma. Question: If that's the case, then what is mental karma here? If thought that operates through the body and speech doors is also allowed to be partially called mental karma, then establishing karma would have the fault of confusion. Answer: Even if we allow that the thought that arises in order to initiate body and speech is the nature of mental karma, it cannot be said that all karma is encompassed here. Because there is still conditioned mental karma that does not operate through the body and speech doors, and its quantity is boundless, and it is not encompassed by this sutra. Moreover, it certainly does not encompass the various thoughts that arise based on eye contact, etc., because those thoughts cannot be encompassed by the two types of thoughts mentioned earlier, thinking about doing things. Question: If it is said that the volitional karma mentioned in this sutra encompasses all mental karma, and that the karma resulting from volition encompasses all thoughts that operate through the body and speech doors, then this is not the meaning that this sutra should be saying. Assuming that these are all what this sutra is saying, then what kind of karma does the thought that arises in order to initiate bodily and verbal actions belong to? If it is thought
業攝。理必不然。如思惟思。依身語轉。許思業攝。余亦應爾。則應但說一思業言。如是亦成業雜亂失。意業亦依身語轉故。若謂為欲動發身語。起思惟思。此思不依身語轉者。則為余境。起思惟思。彼思亦應不依余境。無異因故。是則意業。應不依境。然非所許。故理不然。若謂此如依身語門。轉名依身語非身語業者。此于意業。則應成過。于中亦容此分別故。思已業攝。亦不應理。以後但說思已言故。非所思事可名思惟。以義與名不相應故。又汝經部說。諸仙人意憤殺生。是何業攝。為是身業。為意業耶。然此中無前後所起。思惟作事二思差別。以思惟思即作事故。便不能離業雜亂失。又世尊言。修苦行者。身語意業。各有別異。是故定應許此中有。依身門轉。作事思業。由此俱時殺多生故。又殺生業。身業攝故。是則世尊。應言身業于諸業中。最為大罪。是故經部。思立諸業。復有理證。業不唯思謂才起思。欲為殺父等則應已得無間罪等故。若謂得罪要須動身。此未動身。故無失者。是則于思外有身業理成。謂有動身。方有身業。成殺等罪。若不動身。惡思雖起。罪未成故。豈不如執有別身業宗。若離惡思不成無間等。如是雖許唯思是業。若離動身不成此罪。此例非等。所以者何。以對法宗身語二業成無間等。
要由惡思。若無惡思。此業不起故身罪業。待惡思成。唯思業宗。說思業起。不待身語。即思生位。已成身業。何假動身。又對法宗。由因等起。思有善等差別性故。所起身語善等性成可言必。待思差別故。身業方成無間罪等。非經部說。思業起時。要待身語。方成善惡。彼許身語唯無記故。如何可說要待動身思業方成。無間罪等。故引此例。不遮彼失。若謂如執眼根見宗。雖眼根生非待眼識。而見色用。待識方成。如是唯言思是業者。不善思起。雖不待身。而要待動身方便無間等。此亦非例。所以者何。以識與根有俱時起。許根由識有勝用生。故眼根生。雖不待識。而見色用。待識方成。然彼惡思。要先生已。后時方有運動身義。非思生位。由后動身。少令前思起差別用。又此所救。理必不成。無法無能。令諸有法起勝用故。復有至教。遮經部宗。安立業理。如契經說。夜所尋思。至於晝時。由身語表。非此中說能表謂思。余契經中。說表即業。故余經說。諸愛者表體即是業。又佛教誡羅怙羅言。汝若由身由語造業。於此所造身語業中。應當正勤。數審觀察。非思即用身語為體。如何可言思所造業名由身語所造業耶。是故應知。契經即說身語二表。為身語業。不應如是取此經義。此經所言。由身由語。此造業者。是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 要由惡思（邪惡的想法）而產生罪業。如果不存在邪惡的想法，那麼這種罪業就不會產生，因此身體的罪業，要等待邪惡的想法形成。唯識宗認為，只有思業（意業）的產生，才算作罪業的開始，不需要身體和語言的行動。也就是說，在邪惡的想法產生的瞬間，就已經構成了身體的罪業，何必一定要有身體的行動呢？而且，對法宗認為，由於因緣等因素的作用，思業有善惡等差別，因此所產生的身語業的善惡性質也必然不同。可以說，必須等待思業的差別，身體的罪業才能構成，例如無間罪等。但經部宗並不這樣認為，他們認為思業的產生，必須等待身體和語言的行動，才能構成善或惡。因為他們認為身體和語言的行為本身是無記的（非善非惡），怎麼能說要等待身體的行動，思業才能構成無間罪等呢？所以，引用這個例子，並不能駁斥經部宗的錯誤。 如果有人說，就像執眼根見宗（一種關於眼識的理論）一樣，雖然眼根（眼睛）產生了，但並非等待眼識（視覺意識）的產生，才能看到顏色，而是要等待眼識的產生，才能發揮見色的作用。同樣，僅僅說思是業，不善的思產生，雖然不需要等待身體的行動，但要等待身體的運動，方便無間等。這種說法也是不恰當的。為什麼呢？因為眼識和眼根是同時產生的，並且承認眼根由於眼識的作用而產生更強大的功能。所以，眼根的產生，雖然不需要等待眼識，但見色的作用，要等待眼識才能完成。然而，邪惡的想法，一定是先產生，然後才會有運動身體的行為。並非在想法產生的瞬間，由於後來的身體運動，才使之前的想法產生差別作用。而且，這種辯解，在理上必然不能成立。因為沒有一種事物能夠使其他事物產生更強大的功能。此外，還有至教（佛陀的教誨）可以駁斥經部宗安立業的理論，就像契經（佛經）所說，夜晚所思考的事情，到了白天，會通過身體和語言表現出來。這裡並沒有說能表現出來的是思。其他的契經中，說表現就是業。所以其他的經中說，諸愛者（有愛慾的人）的表現，其本體就是業。而且，佛陀教誡羅怙羅說，你如果通過身體和語言造業，對於你所造的身語業，應當認真地、反覆地觀察。並非思本身就是以身語為本體，怎麼能說思所造的業，叫做由身語所造的業呢？所以，應該知道，契經所說的身語二表（身體和語言的表達），就是身語業。不應該這樣理解這部經的含義。這部經所說的，由身由語造業，是... 此造業者，是
【English Translation】 English version Evil deeds arise from evil thoughts. If there are no evil thoughts, then these evil deeds will not arise. Therefore, physical sins depend on the formation of evil thoughts. The Yogacara school believes that only the arising of mental karma (karma of thought) counts as the beginning of sin, without the need for physical and verbal actions. That is, at the moment when an evil thought arises, physical sin is already constituted, so why must there be physical action? Moreover, the Abhidharma school believes that due to the influence of causes and conditions, mental karma has differences such as good and evil, so the good and evil nature of the resulting physical and verbal karma must also be different. It can be said that physical sins can only be constituted after waiting for the difference in mental karma, such as the five heinous crimes (anantariya-karma). However, the Sautrantika school does not think so. They believe that the arising of mental karma must wait for physical and verbal actions to constitute good or evil. Because they believe that physical and verbal actions themselves are indeterminate (neither good nor evil), how can it be said that mental karma must wait for physical action to constitute the five heinous crimes? Therefore, citing this example cannot refute the errors of the Sautrantika school. If someone says that, like the theory of perceiving with the eye-sense faculty, although the eye-sense faculty (eye) arises, it does not wait for the arising of eye-consciousness (visual consciousness) to see colors, but rather it waits for the arising of eye-consciousness to exert the function of seeing colors. Similarly, merely saying that thought is karma, and that unwholesome thoughts arise, although it does not need to wait for physical action, it needs to wait for physical movement, convenient and uninterrupted, etc. This statement is also inappropriate. Why? Because eye-consciousness and eye-sense faculty arise simultaneously, and it is acknowledged that the eye-sense faculty produces a stronger function due to the effect of eye-consciousness. Therefore, although the arising of the eye-sense faculty does not need to wait for eye-consciousness, the function of seeing colors needs to wait for eye-consciousness to be completed. However, evil thoughts must arise first, and then there will be the behavior of moving the body. It is not that at the moment when the thought arises, the previous thought produces a different effect due to the subsequent physical movement. Moreover, this defense is bound to be untenable in principle. Because there is no thing that can cause other things to produce a stronger function. In addition, there are supreme teachings (the Buddha's teachings) that can refute the Sautrantika school's theory of establishing karma, just as the sutras say that the things thought about at night will be expressed through the body and language during the day. It does not say here that what can be expressed is thought. Other sutras say that expression is karma. Therefore, other sutras say that the expression of those who have desires is the essence of karma. Moreover, the Buddha taught Rahula that if you create karma through body and language, you should carefully and repeatedly observe the physical and verbal karma you have created. It is not that thought itself is based on body and language, so how can it be said that the karma created by thought is called the karma created by body and language? Therefore, it should be known that the physical and verbal expressions mentioned in the sutras are physical and verbal karma. This sutra should not be understood in this way. What this sutra says about creating karma through body and language is... This karma creator is
由依身及依語思所造業義。無如是義。所以者何。曾不說故。又不遮故。謂若有經。曾作是說。依身語思。所造諸業。名身語業。非即身語。又若有經遮身語表。即是身語二業自性。容可於此無差別言。準彼契經。作差別釋。然曾無處有如是言。又我引經不違正理。故彼非理。頻率己情。釋破諸經。令乖實義。理應名曰壞經部師。非了義經為定量故。又伽他說。
由內心粗惡 外動身發語 因此能感苦 翻此便招樂
此中說思及身語表。能感愛果。非愛果義。余經又言。諸邪見者。所有身業語業意業。一切皆能感非愛果。感愛果者。與此相違。由此證知。伽他中說。因身語二表。感愛非愛果。即是經中。說身語業能感愛果非愛果。義亦不應。謂依身語思名身語表。由彼自說形為身表。假非實故。然思不應是形非實。又契經說。起迎合掌恭敬禮拜。是身表業。余經又言。表即是業。由此證知欲作意等。展轉所起。手等別形。名為身表。即是身業。故對法宗。立身語業。符教順理。無雜亂過。由此所說四句理成。然於此中。誦者差別。謂有誦者。作是誦言。或有色聚。唯顯可了。謂青等影等大種造色聚。以于其中顯色多故。余非定取故。唯顯色可了。空一顯者。謂見空中。蘇迷盧山。所現純色。豈影等色
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "關於由依身（依靠身體）、依語（依靠語言）、依思（依靠思想）所造作的業的意義，並非如此。為什麼呢？因為（佛經）從未這樣說過，也沒有遮止過這種說法。如果有一部經書曾經這樣說：『依靠身、語、思所造作的各種業，稱為身業、語業』，而不是說身和語本身就是業；或者如果有一部經書遮止了身表（身體的表達）和語表（語言的表達），認為它們就是身業和語業的自性，那麼或許可以不加區別地說它們。可以參照那些契經，作出不同的解釋。然而，從來沒有地方這樣說過。而且，我引用的經文並沒有違背正理，所以他們的說法是不合理的。他們只是隨心所欲地解釋和曲解各種經文，使其偏離真實的意義，理應被稱為『破壞經部的老師』，因爲了義經才是衡量真理的標準。此外，伽他（偈頌）中說：", "『由於內心粗暴邪惡，外在表現爲身體的動作和語言的表達，因此能夠感受到痛苦；反之，就能招致快樂。』", "這裡說的是思想以及身語的表達能夠帶來可愛（令人喜愛）的果報和非愛（令人不喜愛）的果報。其他的經文中又說：『那些持有邪見的人，他們所有的身業、語業、意業，一切都能夠帶來非愛果。』而帶來愛果的行為，與此相反。由此可以證明，伽他中說，因為身語二表而感受愛與非愛果，這與經中所說的身語業能夠帶來愛與非愛果的意義也是不相符的。不應該說依靠身、語、思而稱為身語表，因為他們自己說形體是身表，是虛假的而非真實的。然而，思想不應該是形體，也不是虛假的。此外，契經中說，起立迎接、合掌、恭敬禮拜，是身表業。其他的經文中又說，表達就是業。由此可以證明，由欲（慾望）、作意（意圖）等輾轉所引起的手等不同的形體，稱為身表，也就是身業。因此，對法宗（佛教的論藏學派）所建立的身語業，符合教義，順應正理，沒有雜亂的過失。由此，所說的四句道理成立。然而，在這裡，誦讀者的說法有所不同。有的誦讀者這樣說：『或者有的色聚（物質的集合），只是顯現出來可以被瞭解』，例如青色等的影子等，是大種（四大元素）所造的色聚，因為在其中顯色（可見的顏色）較多，所以其他的就不一定選取，因此只是顯色可以被瞭解。『空一顯者』，指的是在空中看到須彌山（Sumeru Mountain，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）所顯現的純色，難道是影子等的顏色嗎？", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "The meaning of karma created by relying on the body (依身), speech (依語), and mind (依思) is not as such. Why? Because (the sutras) have never said this, nor have they prohibited this kind of statement. If there were a sutra that said, 'The various karmas created by relying on body, speech, and mind are called body karma, speech karma,' and not that the body and speech themselves are karma; or if there were a sutra that prohibited bodily expression (身表) and verbal expression (語表), considering them to be the very nature of body and speech karma, then perhaps one could say without distinction. One could refer to those sutras and make different interpretations. However, there has never been a place where it was said like this. Moreover, the sutras I cite do not contradict the correct principles, so their statements are unreasonable. They are merely interpreting and distorting various sutras according to their own feelings, causing them to deviate from their true meaning, and should rightly be called 'teachers who destroy the sutra school,' because definitive sutras are the standard for measuring truth. Furthermore, the Gatha (verse) says:", "'Because the inner mind is coarse and evil, outwardly expressed through bodily actions and speech, one can experience suffering; conversely, one can attract happiness.'", "Here it speaks of thoughts and the expressions of body and speech being able to bring about desirable and undesirable consequences. Other sutras also say, 'Those who hold wrong views, all their bodily, verbal, and mental actions can bring about undesirable consequences.' Actions that bring about desirable consequences are the opposite of this. From this, it can be proven that the Gatha's statement that one experiences desirable and undesirable consequences because of bodily and verbal expressions is also inconsistent with the meaning of the sutras that say body and speech karma can bring about desirable and undesirable consequences. One should not say that relying on body, speech, and mind is called bodily and verbal expression, because they themselves say that form is bodily expression, which is false and not real. However, thought should not be form, nor is it false. Furthermore, the sutras say that standing up to greet, joining palms, respectfully bowing, are bodily expressions. Other sutras also say that expression is karma. From this, it can be proven that the different forms of hands, etc., arising from desire (欲), intention (作意), etc., are called bodily expressions, which are body karma. Therefore, the Abhidharma school's (對法宗) establishment of body and speech karma is in accordance with the teachings, follows correct principles, and has no faults of confusion. Thus, the fourfold reasoning stated is established. However, here, the reciters have different opinions. Some reciters say, 'Or some aggregates of matter (色聚) are only manifested and can be understood,' such as blue shadows, etc., which are aggregates of matter created by the great elements (四大種), because visible colors (顯色) are more numerous in them, so others are not necessarily chosen, therefore only visible colors can be understood. 'The one manifested in emptiness' refers to the pure color manifested in the sky by Mount Sumeru (蘇迷盧山, Sumeru Mountain, the sacred mountain in Buddhist cosmology), is it the color of shadows, etc.?" ] }
。有種種顯。而但說此是一顯耶不爾。云何。以影等色與地等顯和雜難辯。不可別見。依不純義。說非一顯。此空界色。無別所依。以純可見。故名一顯。或有色聚。唯形可了。謂身表俱大造動聚。以動攝受相續法性。假施設故。體非真實。但身聚中心所等起等流大造。實物聚中諸形差別。是謂身表。或有色聚。二俱可了。謂所說余諸形顯聚。以非於此聚離一可取余故。此義中經主前難如何。一事有二體者。此難不成。非所許故。復有形顯。互相依屬。如說鷺非幡及幡非烏等。此中形顯俱可了知。或有色聚。俱非可了。如香味等。及無表聚。有餘誦者。作是誦言。或有色聚。唯有顯等第一句者。謂明闇聚。即此差別。說為影光。第二句者。謂如前說。第三句者。謂前所說二句不攝。俱色處聚。青等色聚。亦有長等。形量差別。現可見故。第四句者。亦如前說。豈不影等亦有形量分明可見。應名俱有。彼言影等聚中無形。以虛散故。余極礙物。來入其中。彼不壞故。現見世間。和集極礙。有形色聚。余極礙物。來入其中。彼便損壞。影等聚不爾。故於中無形。又諸和集極礙色聚。有形極微。周匝安布。由如是聚形所攝持。便有分限。孔隙可得。非於影等諸色聚邊。有形攝持。如和集等。以不見有自動搖故。然有長等形量
【現代漢語翻譯】 問：有種種顯現，但（你）說這是一種顯現嗎？ 答：不是的。為什麼呢？因為影子等顏色與地等顯現混合在一起難以分辨，無法單獨看到。依據不純粹的意義，說不是一種顯現。而空界（ākāśadhātu）的顏色，沒有其他的所依，因為純粹可見，所以稱為一種顯現。 或者有些色聚（rūpaskandha），只有形狀可以瞭解，指的是身表（kāyavijñapti），包括大種（mahābhūta）和造色（upādāyarūpa）的動聚。因為動具有攝受相續法性的作用，是假施設的，所以體性不是真實的。但身聚的中心所等起等流的大種，是實物聚中各種形狀的差別，這就是身表。 或者有些色聚，形狀和顯色都可以瞭解，指的是前面所說的其餘各種形狀和顯色的聚。因為不是在這個聚之外，可以單獨取到其餘的，所以這樣說。在這個意義中，經主（sūtra master）之前的提問如何解決？如果一件事物有兩個體性，這個提問是不成立的，因為這不是我們所允許的。 又有形狀和顯色，互相依屬，就像說鷺不是幡，幡不是烏鴉等。這裡形狀和顯色都可以瞭解。 或者有些色聚，形狀和顯色都無法瞭解，如香味等，以及無表色聚（avijñaptirūpa）。 有些誦經者這樣誦讀：或者有些色聚，只有顯色等。第一句指的是明暗聚，這種差別被稱為影光。第二句指的是如前所說。第三句指的是前面兩句沒有包括的，俱色處聚，青等色聚，也有長等形狀大小的差別，現在可以清楚地看到。第四句也如前所說。 難道影子等也有形狀大小，可以分明地看到，應該稱為俱有嗎？他們說影子等聚中沒有形狀，因為虛散的緣故，其他的極微細的障礙物，可以進入其中，而影子等不會因此損壞。現在看到世間，和合的極微細的障礙物，有形狀的色聚，其他的極微細的障礙物，進入其中，就會損壞。影子等聚不是這樣，所以在其中沒有形狀。而且各種和合的極微細的色聚，有形狀的極微，周匝安布，由於這樣的聚的形狀所攝持，便有分限，孔隙可以得到。不是在影子等各種色聚旁邊，有形狀的攝持，如和合等，因為沒有看到有自動搖動的緣故。然而有長等形狀大小。
【English Translation】 Question: There are various manifestations, but do (you) say that this is one manifestation? Answer: No. Why? Because the colors of shadows, etc., are mixed with the manifestations of earth, etc., and are difficult to distinguish, and cannot be seen separately. According to the meaning of impurity, it is said that it is not one manifestation. But the color of the space element (ākāśadhātu) has no other dependence, because it is purely visible, so it is called one manifestation. Or some aggregates of form (rūpaskandha) can only be understood by their shape, referring to bodily expression (kāyavijñapti), including the aggregates of the great elements (mahābhūta) and derived form (upādāyarūpa). Because movement has the function of receiving and maintaining the nature of continuous phenomena, it is a provisional designation, so its nature is not real. But the great elements arising from the center of the body aggregate, etc., are the differences in shape among the real aggregates of matter, and this is bodily expression. Or some aggregates of form, both shape and color can be understood, referring to the various shapes and color aggregates mentioned above. Because it is not possible to take the rest separately from this aggregate, that's why it is said so. In this sense, how to solve the previous question of the sūtra master? If one thing has two natures, this question is not valid, because this is not what we allow. There are also shapes and colors that are mutually dependent, just like saying that an egret is not a banner, and a banner is not a crow, etc. Here, both shape and color can be understood. Or some aggregates of form, neither shape nor color can be understood, such as smells, tastes, etc., and non-manifest form aggregates (avijñaptirūpa). Some reciters recite it this way: Or some aggregates of form, only color, etc. The first sentence refers to the aggregates of light and darkness, and this difference is called shadow and light. The second sentence refers to what was said before. The third sentence refers to what is not included in the previous two sentences, the aggregates of the color object, the aggregates of blue color, etc., also have differences in length and other shapes and sizes, which can now be clearly seen. The fourth sentence is also as mentioned before. Isn't it that shadows, etc., also have shapes and sizes that can be clearly seen, and should be called co-existent? They say that there is no shape in the aggregates of shadows, etc., because they are scattered, and other extremely fine obstacles can enter into them, and the shadows, etc., will not be damaged because of this. Now it is seen in the world that the combined extremely fine obstacles, the aggregates of form with shape, other extremely fine obstacles, enter into them, and will be damaged. The aggregates of shadows, etc., are not like this, so there is no shape in them. Moreover, various combined extremely fine aggregates of form, have shaped extremely fine particles, arranged all around, and because of the shape of such aggregates, there are limits, and gaps can be obtained. It is not that next to the various aggregates of color such as shadows, etc., there is a shape holding them, such as combination, etc., because it is not seen that there is automatic shaking. However, there are shapes and sizes such as length, etc.
分明現可得者。隨本質故。若爾應無鏡等中像。所以然者。如影無形。隨本質故。而形可得。如是諸像。應無顯色。隨本質故。顯色可知。又像應非形色為體。雖見有高下。而如畫無故。如隨本質及隨所依。形色雖無。而現似有。顯亦應爾似有實無。是則像非形亦非顯為體非像顯色如影形無諸像所隨。不決定故。以像隨質及所依故。謂像形顯。或時隨所依。或時隨本質。而顯現故。影顯曾無隨本質理。形亦無有隨所依義。此所住處。名曰所依。故像與影。無有同義。若謂像與影隨義同故。像應無體者。理亦不然。隨義雖同。而見別故。謂像影形。雖同隨質。而像隨質。亦有高下。影唯隨質。有粗份量。于粗份量。隨義雖同。而像隨質份量決定。影非決定與質量同。或大或小。或時等故。由此像與影隨義雖同而但影無形非像無顯。若顯亦無則無隨故。謂于影色有顯自成。此影既用顯色為體。說形隨質可無有過。像體既非形。若亦非顯者。則無像體。如何可說像隨本質。或隨所依故。像定應唯顯為體形色分齊。必依極礙。顯色分齊。唯依顯相。是故影像畫等無形。由此已遮像形同難。以彼形相隨義雖同然如高下形可取而非有。前已說形色亦比量取故。形色于中非如所取。取不定故。可謂為無顯色于中取無不定。同餘顯取故
。像唯顯為體。若爾應如影像形色隨義雖別而無義等。如是像顯及與影形。隨義雖別應無義等。此例不然。前已說故。謂像若無顯隨義亦應無。又汝何緣不作是取。如影與像形隨雖同。而於隨中非無差別。如是像顯及與影形。隨義雖同。而有無別。豈不於此應設難言。如影等中。雖無形色。而於顯色。現有份量。如是亦應于諸和集極礙色聚唯顯無形。此難不然。若諸和集極礙色聚。亦無有形影像應無份量可取。于彩畫等。諸工巧人。以余顯色。間雜余顯。摸仿本質。高下等形。實于其中。無高下等。若諸和集。極礙色聚。亦無實形。唯有顯者。應如畫等藉余顯色間余顯色。狀似有形。而實于中無高下等。然諸和集極礙色聚。不待余顯間余顯色。自有高下等實形量可取。由此證知。諸極礙聚。異諸顯色。別有實形。由此能令影像畫等雖無形色而似有形。是故彼言非為正難。豈不如從非形為體像為其質所生別像。雖現可取。而無實形。如是應從非形為體。諸極礙聚。有影像生。有顯無形。然形可取。此亦非理。隨本質形。所起像顯。似有形故。從此所生像亦似有。形量可得。理必應然。從無形質所起像顯所生別像。唯顯無形。故像無形。唯顯為體。即由如是問答分別。已遣執像影為體論。以像與影非同法故。像如本質。有
種種相。影即不然。故非同法。又諸影起。由障光明。光明有處。必無有影。像則不爾。故非同法。又見諸像入水鏡中。見影不然。故非同法。又非因影別有影生。像能為因生於別像。故像與影。定非同法。又影不隨質有高下。像則不爾。故非同法。是故不應執像即影。然初誦者。作如是言。影等聚中。非無形色。以顯增故。唯顯可瞭然諸形色。略有二種。一者謂在和集顯色極礙聚邊。周匝安布。二者謂在和集顯色無礙聚邊。周匝安布。唯在和集極礙聚邊。形之差別。是名身表。故於此中。無所說過。已辯身表業語表業。云何謂即言聲名語表業。何故語表體即語言。身表意業非即身意。以離語言無別聲能。表離身及意有色表思業故立。身業名從所依。語業約自性。意業隨等起。由此于中無相違過。
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辨業品第四之三
如是已辨二表業相。無表業相。初品已辨。然經部言。此亦非實。由先誓限。唯不作故。彼亦依過去大種施設。然過去大種體非有故。又諸無表無色相故。如是諸因。皆不應理。且非唯不作即名無表業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種種相（各種現象）。影（影子）並非如此。所以不是相同的法（規律）。而且各種影子的產生，是由於遮蔽了光明。有光明的地方，必定沒有影子。像（影像）則不是這樣。所以不是相同的法。又看見各種影像進入水或鏡子中，看見影子不是這樣。所以不是相同的法。而且不是因為影子而另外產生影子，影像能作為原因產生別的影像。所以影像和影子，必定不是相同的法。而且影子不隨著實物有高低，影像則不是這樣。所以不是相同的法。因此不應該執著影像就是影子。然而最初誦讀的人，這樣說：在影子等聚集之中，並非沒有形色，因為顯色（可見的顏色）增多的緣故。只有顯色可以清楚地瞭解。各種形色，略有二種。一種是說在和集顯色極礙聚（具有極大阻礙性的顯色聚集）旁邊，周匝安布（環繞分佈）。二種是說在和集顯色無礙聚（不具有阻礙性的顯色聚集）旁邊，周匝安布。只有在和集極礙聚旁邊，形的差別，叫做身表（身體的表達）。所以在這裡面，沒有什麼可以過分說的。已經辨析了身表業（身體的表達所產生的業）和語表業（語言的表達所產生的業）。 什麼是言聲名語表業（通過言語聲音表達的業）？為什麼語表的本體就是語言，而身表意業（身體的表達和意念的業）不是身體和意念本身？因為離開了語言，沒有別的聲音能夠表達。離開了身體和意念，有色表（有形色的表達）和思業（思考的業）才能成立。身業（身體的業）的名稱是從所依（所依賴的事物）而來的，語業（語言的業）是根據自性（自身的性質）而來的，意業（意念的業）是隨著等起（相同的起始）而來的。因此在這裡面，沒有互相違背的過失。
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辨業品第四之三
像這樣已經辨析了二表業相（兩種表達業的相）。無表業相（無表達業的相），在初品已經辨析了。然而經部（佛教部派之一）說，這也不是真實的。由於先前的誓願限制，只是不做而已。他們也是依據過去的四大種（地、水、火、風）來施設。然而過去的四大種本體並不存在。而且各種無表（無表達）沒有色相的緣故。像這樣的各種原因，都不應該成立。而且並非只是不做就叫做無表業。
【English Translation】 English version Various phenomena. Shadows are not like that. Therefore, they are not the same dharma (law/principle). Moreover, the arising of shadows is due to the obstruction of light. Where there is light, there is certainly no shadow. Images are not like that. Therefore, they are not the same dharma. Also, we see various images entering water or mirrors, but we do not see shadows doing so. Therefore, they are not the same dharma. Furthermore, a shadow does not give rise to another shadow, but an image can be the cause of another image. Therefore, images and shadows are definitely not the same dharma. Also, shadows do not vary in height according to the object, but images do. Therefore, they are not the same dharma. Therefore, one should not cling to the idea that images are the same as shadows. However, those who recite initially say this: within the aggregation of shadows, there are forms and colors, because visible colors (顯色) increase. Only visible colors can be clearly understood. There are roughly two kinds of forms and colors. One is said to be arranged around the aggregation of visible colors with extreme obstruction (極礙聚), surrounding and spreading. The other is said to be arranged around the aggregation of visible colors without obstruction (無礙聚), surrounding and spreading. Only near the aggregation of extreme obstruction, the difference in form is called body expression (身表). Therefore, there is nothing to overstate here. We have already distinguished body expression karma (身表業) and speech expression karma (語表業). What is speech expression karma (語表業) through words and sounds? Why is the substance of speech expression language itself, while body expression and mental karma (身表意業) are not the body and mind themselves? Because apart from language, there is no other sound that can express. Apart from the body and mind, colored expression (色表) and thought karma (思業) can be established. The name of body karma (身業) comes from what it relies on (所依), speech karma (語業) is based on its own nature (自性), and mental karma (意業) follows the same origin (等起). Therefore, there is no contradiction here.
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 34 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 35
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 4, Section 3: Distinguishing Karma
Thus, the characteristics of the two expression karmas have been distinguished. The characteristics of non-expression karma have been distinguished in the first chapter. However, the Sautrantika school (經部, a Buddhist school) says that this is not real. Due to the previous vow limitation, it is only non-action. They also rely on the past four great elements (四大種, earth, water, fire, wind) to establish it. However, the substance of the past four great elements does not exist. Moreover, various non-expressions (無表) do not have color and form. All such reasons should not be established. Furthermore, it is not just non-action that is called non-expression karma.
。以無表業待勝緣故。謂唯不作。于立誓先與立誓后。無差別故。未立誓位。不作已成。復立誓限。便為無用。若謂不作要待勝緣方可得成。律儀性者。是則應許有別法生。現見世間。待勝緣合。必有有體別法生故。若謂立誓故得阿世耶。應責阿世耶名何所目。謂心心所法。如是差別轉。若爾此息位。便失律儀。則應須數數重立誓受。若謂如是不作阿世耶。於一切時恒無息故者。彼言實爾。此體都無。無法無容有起息故。又獨靜處立誓要期。如此阿世耶。何非律儀性。既許此性必待勝緣。故知定應有勝法起。謂必應有殊勝法性。待如是緣。和合方起。非都無有殊勝法性。因廣大教。加行方得。若異此者。是則應同諸婆羅門及離系者。矯設大方便。而空無所得。若謂如是立誓要期要對眾前自顯心願。如證悔法方得成者。不服法衣。不落鬚髮。不持應器。但對眾前。立誓要期。從今已去。我定不作如是諸惡。應名出家受具戒者。又世現見。彼彼有情。種種施為殊勝加行。便有種種異類法生。既見出家受具戒者。施為種種殊勝加行。比知必定有勝法生。此於我宗。名無表業。縱汝立此名阿世耶。異心無心。恒隨相續。此名于理亦無有過。若全無物而立此名。則成第四業道重罪。又彼所言。彼亦依過去大種施設。然過去大種體
非有者。理亦不然。應共思擇。過去法體。為有為無。方可難故。又過去世地等大種。能為生緣。非所許故。彼曾現在與無表色。能為生緣。今雖過去所生無表。續轉無失。又言無表無色相者。理亦不然。前已說故。謂初品內。已辨斯理。無色法中。無此相故。彼約變壞及表示等諸相差別。釋總色名。無色法中。無此相故。雖非此義遍一切色。而成無過。訓釋色詞。或應識中亦有此失。以非諸識皆了別故。彼既無過。此寧有失。又釋諸色。略有三義。一示現方處義。二觸對變壞義。三約色施設義。謂有見色。可示在此在彼方所。故名為色諸有對色。可為手等觸對變壞故名為色。諸無見無對色。約色施設。故名為色。非離身語此可施設。以無色界中此施設無故。或如過去未來諸色。雖無變壞等。而亦受色名。此亦應然。故彼非難。又定應許諸無表色是實有性。所以者何。頌曰。
說三無漏色 增非作等故
論曰。以契經說。色有三種。此三為處。攝一切色。一者有色有見有對。二者有色無見有對。三者有色無見無對。除無表色。更復說何。為此中第三無見無對色。此中上座。率自妄情。改換正文。作如是誦。一者有色無見有對。謂一觸處。非所見故。是所觸故。二者有色有見無對。謂一色處。是所見故非所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 非有者，這種說法也不合理，應該共同思考選擇。過去的法體，是有還是無，才可以進行辯難。而且，過去的世間地等大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風），能夠作為產生的原因，這是你們不認可的。它們曾經存在於現在，與無表色（無法用視覺感知的色法）一起，能夠作為產生的原因。即使現在已經過去，所產生的無表仍然持續流轉，沒有缺失。再說，認為無表沒有色相，這種說法也不合理，前面已經說過了。在初品中，已經辨析過這個道理。無色法中，沒有這種色相。他們是根據變壞和表示等各種色相的差別，來解釋總體的『色』這個名稱。無色法中，沒有這些色相。即使這個意義不能遍及所有的色法，也不會有過失。訓釋『色』這個詞，或者應該說，在識中也有這個缺失，因為不是所有的識都能進行了別。既然他們沒有過失，這裡怎麼會有過失呢？
又解釋諸色，大概有三種意義：一是示現方處的意義，二是觸對變壞的意義，三是根據色法進行施設的意義。所謂有見色（可見的色法），可以指示在此處或彼處，所以稱為『色』。諸有對色（有對礙的色法），可以被手等觸碰而變壞，所以稱為『色』。諸無見無對色（不可見且無對礙的色法），是根據色法進行施設的，所以稱為『色』。如果離開身語，就無法進行這種施設，因為在虛空中無法進行這種施設。或者像過去和未來的諸色，雖然沒有變壞等特性，但也接受『色』這個名稱，這裡也應該如此，所以他們的辯難是不成立的。而且，一定要承認諸無表色是真實存在的。為什麼呢？頌文說：
『說三無漏色，增非作等故。』
論述說：因為契經（佛經）中說，色有三種，這三種色涵蓋了一切色。一是『有色有見有對』（有顏色、可見、有對礙的色法），二是『有色無見有對』（有顏色、不可見、有對礙的色法），三是『有色無見無對』（有顏色、不可見、無對礙的色法）。如果去除無表色，還能說什麼呢？這指的是第三種『無見無對色』。這裡的一些上座比丘，擅自用自己的妄想，更改了正確的經文，改成這樣誦讀：一是『有色無見有對』，指的是觸處（可以觸控的處所），因為不可見，但可以觸控。二是『有色有見無對』，指的是色處（可以看見的處所），因為可以看見，但沒有……
【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-existent' is also unreasonable. We should contemplate and choose together. Whether the nature of past dharmas is existent or non-existent is necessary for debate. Moreover, the past great elements such as earth can be a cause for arising, which is not accepted by you. They once existed in the present, together with unmanifested form (arupa-rupa, form that cannot be perceived visually), and can be a cause for arising. Even though they have passed, the resulting unmanifested form continues to flow without loss. Furthermore, to say that unmanifested form has no appearance is also unreasonable, as has been said before. In the first chapter, this principle has already been analyzed. In formless dharmas, there is no such appearance. They explain the general name 'form' based on the differences in aspects such as change and indication. In formless dharmas, there are no such aspects. Even if this meaning does not encompass all forms, there is no fault. To explain the word 'form', or rather, there should also be this deficiency in consciousness, because not all consciousnesses can discern. Since they have no fault, how can there be a fault here?
Furthermore, there are roughly three meanings in explaining forms: first, the meaning of indicating location; second, the meaning of contact and change; and third, the meaning of establishing based on form. So-called visible form (rupa-rupa, form that can be seen) can be indicated here or there, so it is called 'form'. Forms with resistance (sapratigha-rupa, form that has resistance) can be touched and changed by hands, etc., so they are called 'form'. Invisible and non-resistant forms (anidarshana-apratigha-rupa, form that cannot be seen and has no resistance) are established based on form, so they are called 'form'. If one leaves the body and speech, this cannot be established, because this establishment cannot be done in emptiness. Or like past and future forms, although they do not have characteristics such as change, they also receive the name 'form'. It should be the same here, so their debate is untenable. Moreover, it must be admitted that all unmanifested forms are truly existent. Why? The verse says:
'Say three unconditioned forms, because of increase, non-action, etc.'
The treatise says: Because the sutras (Buddha's teachings) say that there are three kinds of form, and these three kinds of form encompass all forms. First, 'visible, seeable, and resistant form' (sanidarshana-sapratigha-rupa, visible, seeable, and resistant form), second, 'invisible, unseeable, and resistant form' (anidarshana-sapratigha-rupa, invisible, unseeable, and resistant form), and third, 'invisible, unseeable, and non-resistant form' (anidarshana-apratigha-rupa, invisible, unseeable, and non-resistant form). If unmanifested form is removed, what else can be said? This refers to the third kind of 'invisible and non-resistant form'. Some senior monks here, arbitrarily using their own delusions, changed the correct text and recited it like this: first, 'invisible, unseeable, and resistant form', referring to the touch base (the place that can be touched), because it is invisible but can be touched. Second, 'visible, seeable, and non-resistant form', referring to the form base (the place that can be seen), because it can be seen, but has no...
觸故。三者有色無見無對。謂餘八處。非所見故。非所觸故。定無有色有見有對。如是誦釋。若有信受。或有正理。可許引來遮破我宗所立無表。然彼誦釋。不離前來所說過故。曾無餘經作此誦故。誰能信受。彼作是說。經部諸師。所誦經中。曾見有此。諸對法者。應專信學。對法諸師。由愛無表。令心倒亂。謬誦此經。故非無經。作如是誦。阿毗達磨諸大論師。實謂奇哉懷賢泛愛。如斯𢤱戾越路而行。一類自稱經為量者。猶能眷攝為內法人時與評論。甚深理教。然彼所誦。于諸部中。所有聖言。曾不見有。所釋義理。違背余經。寧勸智人。令專信學愛無表色。正合其儀。佛于經中。自攝受故。謂象跡喻契經中說。有法處色。故彼經言。具壽此中有諸色法。唯意識境。體是色蘊。法處所攝。無見無對。若離無表。更有何色。說是色蘊法處攝耶。何不許斯是去來色。應十處色不通三世。許眼等去來皆法處攝故。又應違背各別處經。法謂外處。是十一處所不攝法。無見無對。此經遮眼等是法處攝故。又彼過去未來眼等。隨應體是有見有對。由此不應是法處攝。又彼勿許過去未來眼等是色。以于爾時無變壞等諸色相故。是則前難。及釋此經。自互相違。非為善說。又法處色。決定應有。各別處經。說外法處非如意處。說無色
【現代漢語翻譯】 觸故（因為接觸的緣故）。三者有色無見無對（三種有色但不可見、沒有阻礙的事物）。謂餘八處（指其餘八處，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、末那、阿賴耶）。非所見故（因為它們不是可見的），非所觸故（因為它們不是可觸的）。定無有色有見有對（絕對沒有有色、可見、有阻礙的事物）。如是誦釋（像這樣誦讀解釋）。若有信受（如果有人相信接受），或有正理（或者有正確的道理），可許引來遮破我宗所立無表（可以允許引用來反駁我宗所建立的無表色）。然彼誦釋（然而他們的誦讀解釋），不離前來所說過故（沒有離開之前所說過的），曾無餘經作此誦故（從來沒有其他經典這樣誦讀），誰能信受（誰能相信接受呢）？ 彼作是說（他們這樣說），經部諸師（經部的法師們），所誦經中（所誦讀的經典中），曾見有此（曾經見過這樣的說法）。諸對法者（那些研究對法的人），應專信學（應該專門相信學習）。對法諸師（對法的法師們），由愛無表（因為喜愛無表色），令心倒亂（使心顛倒錯亂），謬誦此經（錯誤地誦讀這部經典）。故非無經（所以不是沒有經典），作如是誦（像這樣誦讀）。阿毗達磨諸大論師（阿毗達磨的各位大論師），實謂奇哉懷賢泛愛（真是奇怪啊，懷著賢能卻又氾濫的愛）。如斯𢤱戾越路而行（像這樣乖戾地越過正路而行）。一類自稱經為量者（一類自稱以經典為衡量標準的人），猶能眷攝為內法人（還能眷顧接納他們作為內部的修行人），時與評論（時常與他們評論）。甚深理教（甚深的道理教義）。然彼所誦（然而他們所誦讀的），于諸部中（在各個部派中），所有聖言（所有的聖言），曾不見有（從來沒有見過）。所釋義理（所解釋的義理），違背余經（違背了其他的經典）。寧勸智人（難道要勸說有智慧的人），令專信學愛無表色（專門相信學習喜愛無表色）？正合其儀（這正符合他們的心意）。 佛于經中（佛在經典中），自攝受故（自己攝受的緣故）。謂象跡喻契經中說（就像《象跡喻經》中說），有法處色（有法處所攝的色）。故彼經言（所以那部經說），具壽此中有諸色法（具壽，這裡面有各種色法），唯意識境（只是意識的境界），體是色蘊（本體是色蘊），法處所攝（被法處所攝）。無見無對（不可見、沒有阻礙）。若離無表（如果離開無表色），更有何色（還有什麼色），說是色蘊法處攝耶（說是色蘊被法處所攝呢）？何不許斯是去來色（為什麼不允許這些是過去和未來的色）？應十處色不通三世（應該十處所攝的色不通達三世）。許眼等去來皆法處攝故（因為允許眼等過去和未來都被法處所攝）。又應違背各別處經（又應該違背各別處經）。法謂外處（法指外處），是十一處所不攝法（是不被十一處所攝的法），無見無對（不可見、沒有阻礙）。此經遮眼等是法處攝故（這部經遮止了眼等是被法處所攝的）。又彼過去未來眼等（而且那些過去和未來的眼等），隨應體是有見有對（相應地本體是有見有阻礙的）。由此不應是法處攝（因此不應該是法處所攝）。又彼勿許過去未來眼等是色（而且他們不允許過去和未來的眼等是色），以于爾時無變壞等諸色相故（因為在那個時候沒有變壞等各種色相的緣故）。是則前難（那麼前面的責難），及釋此經（以及解釋這部經），自互相違（自己互相違背），非為善說（不是好的說法）。又法處色（而且法處所攝的色），決定應有（決定應該有）。各別處經（各別處經），說外法處非如意處（說外法處不是如意處），說無色（說沒有色）。
【English Translation】 『Because of contact.』 『The three are form, invisible, and without resistance.』 (Referring to the remaining eight sense bases, i.e., eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, manas, and alaya.) 『Because they are not seen,』 『because they are not touched.』 『There is definitely no form that is visible and has resistance.』 Thus they recite and explain. 『If someone believes and accepts this,』 『or if there is a correct reason,』 『it is permissible to cite this to refute the unmanifested form established by our school.』 However, their recitation and explanation do not depart from what has been said before, and no other sutra has ever recited it this way, so who can believe and accept it? 『They say that the teachers of the Sautrantika school have seen this in the sutras they recite. Those who study Abhidharma should exclusively believe and learn this.』 『The Abhidharma teachers, because of their love for unmanifested form, have caused their minds to be confused and have wrongly recited this sutra. Therefore, it is not that there is no sutra that recites it in this way.』 The great Abhidharma masters are truly strange, harboring virtue but also indiscriminate affection. They walk a perverse path. A group that claims to use the sutras as a measure still cherishes and accepts them as internal practitioners, often discussing profound doctrines with them. However, what they recite has never been seen in the sacred words of any school, and the meaning they explain contradicts other sutras. Would they rather persuade wise people to exclusively believe and learn to love unmanifested form? This is exactly what they want. 『Because the Buddha himself accepted it in the sutras.』 As the Elephant Footprint Sutra says, 『There is form included in the dharma base.』 Therefore, that sutra says, 『Venerable ones, here there are various forms that are only the objects of consciousness, whose substance is the form aggregate, included in the dharma base, invisible and without resistance.』 If we exclude unmanifested form, what other form is said to be included in the form aggregate and the dharma base? Why not allow these to be past and future forms? The forms included in the ten sense bases should not extend to the three times, since it is allowed that the past and future of the eye, etc., are all included in the dharma base. Furthermore, it would contradict the sutras on individual sense bases. Dharma refers to the external base, which is not included in the eleven sense bases, invisible and without resistance. This sutra prevents the eye, etc., from being included in the dharma base. Moreover, those past and future eyes, etc., should correspondingly be visible and have resistance. Therefore, they should not be included in the dharma base. Furthermore, they should not allow the past and future eyes, etc., to be form, because at that time there are no characteristics of form such as decay. Therefore, the previous difficulty and the explanation of this sutra contradict each other and are not well said. Furthermore, the form included in the dharma base should definitely exist. The sutras on individual sense bases say that the external dharma base is not the same as the mind base and that it is without form.
故。以法處中決定有色。不說無色。深為應理。辨本事品。已廣分別。如是彼誦。違教理言。但合無知經部所誦。又彼所釋。遮隔世尊教所攝受殊勝諸色。對法諸師。若信學此。便為不欲饒益自他。故彼不應勸人信學。由彼一類不樂極成聖教正理。專率己見妄為頌釋。惑亂愚人。故我從今漸當捨棄。又彼所誦。非但違經。鉅細推徴。亦無正理。謂有何理。唯一觸處。名為有對。非余礙色。諸有礙色。于自所居。障余用起。故名為對。有此對者。得有對名。現見色處。于自所居。展轉相望。能為障礙。聲等眼等。相礙亦然。現於所居。互相障礙。而言無對。意趣難知。故上座言。全無正理。又依訓釋。色取蘊名。證有對名。非唯目觸。謂為手等所觸對時。即便變壞。名色取蘊。由此足能證色處等皆是有對。所以者何。非唯大種名色取蘊及名手等。可說彼此互相觸時。便有變壞。手等總聚。互相觸對。則便變壞。是此中義。現見世間。以余聚物。觸余聚物。則便變壞。故彼所誦。違正教理。經主於此作是釋言。諸瑜伽師。作如是說。修靜慮者。定力所生。定境界色。為此第三。非眼根境。故名無見。不障處所。故名無對。此釋非理。以一切法皆是意識所緣境故。住空閑者。意識即緣諸有見色。為定境界。此色種類。異余色
等。是從定起。大種所生。無障澄清。如空界色。如是理趣。辨本事品。因釋夢境。已具分別。應如是責。如何定境。青等長等。顯形為性。如余色處非有見攝。然從定起大種所生。極清妙故。又在定中。眼識無故。非眼根境。如中有色。雖具顯形。而非生有眼所能見。或如上地色。非下地眼境。既有現在少分色處。不與少分眼根為境。如何不許有少色處。不與一切眼根為境。又于夢中所緣色處。應無見無對。唯意識境故。是故由經說有三色。證無表色。實有理成。又契經中說有無漏色。如契經說。無漏法雲何。謂於過去未來現在諸所有色。不起愛恚。乃至識亦然。是名無漏法。除無表色。何法名為此契經中諸無漏色。此中經主。亦作釋言。諸瑜伽師。作如是說。即由定力所生色中。依無漏定者。即說為無漏。未審經主。曾於何處逢事何等。諸瑜伽師數引彼言會通聖教。旦曾聞有五百阿羅漢。乃至正法住。不般涅槃。然未曾聞彼有此說。設有此說。于理無違。無漏定俱生所有諸色。以形顯為體。不應理故。若許彼非形顯為體。是無漏色。依定而生。此即應知是無表色。譬喻者說。無學身中。及外器中。所有諸色。非漏依故。得無漏名。然契經言。有漏法者。諸所有眼。乃至廣說。此非漏對治故。得有漏名。為挫彼宗廣
興諍論。具如思擇有漏相中。故於此中不重彈斥。又非眼等非漏對治得有漏名。勿有世間諸雜染道成無漏過。後於義便。當廣成立。世間道中。有能離染。又彼眼等。非如意法。意識說故。謂佛有漏無漏相中。作如是言。墮世間意。墮世間法。墮世間意識。是名有漏。出世間意。出世間法。出世間意識。是名無漏。非眼等中作如是說。故知彼說。但述邪計。然契經中。說無漏色。故無表色。實有理成。又契經說。有福增長。如契經言。諸有凈信。若善男子。或善女人。成就有依七福業事。若行若住。若寐若覺。恒時相續。福業漸增。福業續起。無依亦爾。除無表業。若起余心。或無心時。依何法說福業增長。此中上座作如是言。由所施物。福業增長。故如是言。乃至所施房舍久住。能令施主福業增長。恒相續生。又伽他中。亦作是說。
施園林池井 橋船梯隥舍 是人由此故 晝夜福常增
上座引此。殊未通經。但足自宗撥無表失。謂他先責。若無無表。染心等位。何福猶存。而契經言。福常增長。言福增長由所施物。此於他責。豈曰能通。理實福增。由所施物。然應分別。染心等位。何福不斷。而說為增。上座于中未申其理。雖有所說而成無用。又彼自設所疑難言。若於其中。施物不住。如后三種
。福云何增。即自釋言。由所施食。所生饒益。猶安住故。能令施主施福常增。此亦同前。有所說過。又彼重說。或阿世耶。不忘失故。福常增長。若爾施主染心等位。頗有緣施。憶念猶存。由此故言。不忘失故。彼言不爾。不忘者何。謂阿世耶。離心心所及無表業。此名何義。豈不如是進退推徴。彼顯佛言都無有義。又彼自問。云何無依福業事中。可作是說。由所施物。福業增長。即自答言。此乘前誦諸有依福言便故來。理實此中無福增義。上座多分。率己妄情。擅立義宗。違諸聖教。不能通釋。遂撥極成所違契經。言無實義。如是謗法。豈曰善人。若於契經。不了深義。不言為勝。何輒非撥。又言或由發起濃厚阿世耶故。福亦隨增。此亦非理。前已徴責。此阿世耶。理不成故。又應舍前所立論故。若無施物。福亦增長。前不應言由所施物相續久住福常增長。經主於此作如是言。先軌範師作如是釋。由法爾力福業增長。如如施主所施財物。如是如是。受者受用。由諸受者受用施物功德攝益有差別故。於後施主心雖異緣。而前緣施思所熏習。微細相續。漸漸轉變差別而生。由此當來。能感多果。故密意說。恒時相續。福業漸增。福業續起。應問此中何名相續。何名轉變。何名差別。彼作是答。思業為先。後後心生。說
【現代漢語翻譯】 福報如何增長？（福云何增？）他自己解釋說：由於所佈施的食物，所產生的饒益，仍然安住的緣故（由所施食。所生饒益。猶安住故。），能夠使佈施者佈施的福報常常增長（能令施主施福常增。）。這和前面所說的相同，有所遺漏。（此亦同前。有所說過。） 他又重複說：或者由於阿世耶（Āśaya，意為『意樂』，此處指深厚的意願或意圖）沒有忘失的緣故，福報常常增長（又彼重說。或阿世耶。不忘失故。福常增長。）。如果這樣，佈施者在生起染污心等狀態時，緣于佈施的憶念仍然存在嗎？（若爾施主染心等位。頗有緣施。憶念猶存。）因此才說，由於沒有忘失的緣故。（由此故言。不忘失故。） 他說不是這樣。什麼是不忘失呢？（彼言不爾。不忘者何？）是指阿世耶，遠離心和心所及無表業（謂阿世耶。離心心所及無表業。）。這叫什麼意義呢？（此名何義？）難道不是這樣進退推求嗎？（豈不如是進退推徴。）他表明佛所說的話都沒有意義。（彼顯佛言都無有義。） 他又自己問：在沒有所依靠的福業事情中，怎麼能這樣說，由於所佈施的物品，福業增長？（又彼自問。云何無依福業事中。可作是說。由所施物。福業增長。）他自己回答說：這是憑藉以前背誦的那些有依靠的福報之言，方便而來的（即自答言。此乘前誦諸有依福言便故來。）。實際上這裡沒有福報增長的意義。（理實此中無福增義。） 上座們大多憑藉自己的妄想，擅自建立義理宗派，違背各種聖教，不能通達解釋，於是否定極其成立的、所違背的契經，說沒有實際意義。（上座多分。率己妄情。擅立義宗。違諸聖教。不能通釋。遂撥極成所違契經。言無實義。）像這樣誹謗佛法，難道能說是善人嗎？（如是謗法。豈曰善人。）如果對於契經，不瞭解深刻的意義，不說比說要好，為什麼隨便否定呢？（若於契經。不了深義。不言為勝。何輒非撥。） 又說或者由於發起濃厚的阿世耶的緣故，福報也隨著增長（又言或由發起濃厚阿世耶故。福亦隨增。）。這也是沒有道理的（此亦非理。）。前面已經責問過，這個阿世耶，道理上不能成立（前已徴責。此阿世耶。理不成故。）。又應該捨棄前面所建立的論點（又應舍前所立論故。）。如果沒有佈施的物品，福報也增長，前面不應該說由於所佈施的物品相續長久安住，福報常常增長。（若無施物。福亦增長。前不應言由所施物相續久住福常增長。） 經主在這裡這樣說：先前的軌範師這樣解釋，由於法爾（Dharmatā，事物本性）的力量，福業增長（經主於此作如是言。先軌範師作如是釋。由法爾力福業增長。）。就像佈施者所佈施的財物，就像這樣，受者受用（如如施主所施財物。如是如是。受者受用。）。由於各種受者受用佈施物品的功德攝益有差別，所以在後來佈施者的心雖然改變了緣，而先前緣于佈施的思所熏習，微細相續，漸漸轉變差別而生（由諸受者受用施物功德攝益有差別故。於後施主心雖異緣。而前緣施思所熏習。微細相續。漸漸轉變差別而生。）。由此將來，能夠感得多果，所以秘密地說，恒時相續，福業漸漸增長，福業繼續生起（由此當來。能感多果。故密意說。恒時相續。福業漸增。福業續起。）。 應該問這裡什麼叫相續，什麼叫轉變，什麼叫差別？（應問此中何名相續。何名轉變。何名差別。）他這樣回答：以思業為先，後後的心生起，說...
【English Translation】 How does merit increase? (福云何增?) He himself explains: Because of the benefit produced by the food offered, remaining stable (由所施食。所生饒益。猶安住故。), it can cause the merit of the giver to increase constantly (能令施主施福常增。). This is the same as what was said before, with some omissions (此亦同前。有所說過。). He repeats again: Or, because the Āśaya (阿世耶, meaning 'intention' or 'disposition', here referring to deep wishes or intentions) is not forgotten, merit increases constantly (又彼重說。或阿世耶。不忘失故。福常增長。). If so, when the giver is in a state of defiled mind, etc., does the recollection of the offering still exist? (若爾施主染心等位。頗有緣施。憶念猶存。) Therefore, it is said that because it is not forgotten (由此故言。不忘失故。). He says it is not like that. What is not forgotten? (彼言不爾。不忘者何?) It refers to Āśaya, which is separate from the mind and mental factors, and non-revealing karma (謂阿世耶。離心心所及無表業。). What does this mean? (此名何義?) Isn't it like this, advancing and retreating to investigate? (豈不如是進退推徴。) He shows that the Buddha's words have no meaning at all (彼顯佛言都無有義。). He asks himself again: In the matter of merit without reliance, how can it be said that merit increases because of the things offered? (又彼自問。云何無依福業事中。可作是說。由所施物。福業增長。) He answers himself: This comes conveniently by relying on the words of merit with reliance that were recited before (即自答言。此乘前誦諸有依福言便故來。). In reality, there is no meaning of increasing merit here (理實此中無福增義。). The elders mostly rely on their own delusions, arbitrarily establishing doctrinal sects, violating various sacred teachings, and being unable to thoroughly explain them. Therefore, they deny the extremely established and contradictory sutras, saying that they have no real meaning (上座多分。率己妄情。擅立義宗。違諸聖教。不能通釋。遂撥極成所違契經。言無實義。). How can such slander of the Dharma be called a good person? (如是謗法。豈曰善人。) If one does not understand the profound meaning of the sutras, it is better not to speak than to speak. Why arbitrarily deny them? (若於契經。不了深義。不言為勝。何輒非撥。) It is also said that merit also increases due to the arising of a strong Āśaya (又言或由發起濃厚阿世耶故。福亦隨增。). This is also unreasonable (此亦非理。). It has already been questioned before that this Āśaya cannot be established in principle (前已徴責。此阿世耶。理不成故。). Furthermore, the previously established argument should be abandoned (又應舍前所立論故。). If merit also increases without the things offered, it should not have been said before that merit constantly increases because the things offered continue to abide for a long time (若無施物。福亦增長。前不應言由所施物相續久住福常增長。). The sutra master says here: The previous guide explained it this way: Due to the power of Dharmatā (法爾, the nature of things), merit increases (經主於此作如是言。先軌範師作如是釋。由法爾力福業增長。). Just like the wealth offered by the giver, just like this, the recipients use it (如如施主所施財物。如是如是。受者受用。). Because the merits and benefits of the various recipients using the offered things are different, although the giver's mind later changes its object, the thought that was previously conditioned by the offering continues subtly, gradually transforming and differentiating (由諸受者受用施物功德攝益有差別故。於後施主心雖異緣。而前緣施思所熏習。微細相續。漸漸轉變差別而生。). Because of this, in the future, it can bring about many results. Therefore, it is secretly said that it continues constantly, merit gradually increases, and merit continues to arise (由此當來。能感多果。故密意說。恒時相續。福業漸增。福業續起。). It should be asked, what is called continuity here, what is called transformation, and what is called differentiation? (應問此中何名相續。何名轉變。何名差別。) He answers in this way: Taking the karma of thought as the first, the subsequent minds arise, saying...
名相續。即此相續。於後后時。別別而生。說名轉變。即此無間。能生果時功力勝前。說名差別。如有取識為命終心。於此心前。雖有種種感後有業。而於此時。唯有極重。或唯串習。或近作業。感果功力。顯著非余。諸異熟因。所引相續轉變差別。與果功能。與異熟果。已此功能便息。諸同類因所引。相續轉變差別。與果功能。若染污者。至得畢竟對治道時。與等流果。功能便息。不染污者。隨心相續。至無餘依般涅槃位。與等流果。所有功能。方畢竟息。如是所說。即是前來。我所數破。舊隨界等。而今但以別異言詞。如倡伎人矯易服飾。方便通釋所引契經。然彼所言。微細相續轉變差別。無少理趣。可令智者錄在胸襟。唯有憑虛文詞假合。如勝論者所執合德同異和合。無別體故。所以者何。如說心相續有染有凈義。即心前後。染凈差別。如是相續轉變差別。亦應即心前後別義。此心差別。為因得果。此果可有前後差別。然所得果。體種種殊。彼所從因。定應有異。非一心體可有種種。若謂此如缽特摩種。亦不應理。彼多極微合成種故。可有差別。又種芽等。諸相續中。前後相望。勢用無別。一心相續。前後相望。有善惡等。勢用各別。非無細分。一念識體。可有善等勢用不同。又聖教中。許一身有順現法受等分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名相續：即是這種相續，在後來的每一個時刻，各自獨立地產生，這被稱為『轉變』。而這種無間斷的相續，在能夠產生結果的時候，其功用和力量勝過之前，這被稱為『差別』。例如，以取識（執取來世的意識）作為臨終的心識。在這個心識之前，雖然有種種能夠感得後有的業力，但在此時，只有極重的業、或者串習的業、或者臨近死亡時所造的業，其感果的功用最為顯著，其他的業則不然。 由異熟因所引發的相續的轉變和差別，在給予果報的功能，給予異熟果后，這種功能便會停止。而由同類因所引發的相續的轉變和差別，在給予果報的功能方面，如果是染污的，那麼直到獲得究竟的對治道時，給予等流果的功能才會停止；如果是不染污的，那麼隨著心識的相續，直到進入無餘依涅槃的境界，給予等流果的所有功能，才會徹底停止。 像這樣所說的，就是之前我多次破斥的，舊有的隨界等理論。而現在只不過是用不同的言辭，就像歌舞伎人更換服飾一樣，方便地解釋所引用的契經。然而他們所說的微細相續的轉變和差別，沒有絲毫的道理，值得有智慧的人銘記於心。只不過是憑空捏造的文辭，虛假的組合，就像勝論者所執著的合德、同異的和合一樣，因為沒有獨立的實體。為什麼這麼說呢？ 例如，說心識的相續有染污和清凈的含義，也就是心識前後相續的染污和清凈的差別。像這樣，相續的轉變和差別，也應該就是心識前後不同的含義。這種心識的差別，作為原因而得到結果，這種結果可以有前後的差別。然而，所得到的結果，本體上種種不同，那麼它所由來的原因，必定應該有所不同。而不是一個心識的本體可以有種種不同。 如果說這就像缽特摩（蓮花）的種子一樣，也是不合理的。因為它是多種極微（最小的物質單位）合成的種子，所以可以有差別。而且，種子、芽等，在各種相續中，前後相互比較，其勢用沒有差別。而一個心識的相續，前後相互比較，有善有惡等，其勢用各自不同，並非沒有細微的區分。一個念頭的識體，不可能有善等不同的勢用。 而且，在聖教中，允許一個身體有順現法受等分。
【English Translation】 English version Name-Continuity: This continuity, at each subsequent moment, arises separately, which is called 'transformation'. This uninterrupted continuity, when it can produce results, its function and power surpass the previous ones, which is called 'difference'. For example, taking the grasping consciousness (consciousness that grasps the next life) as the mind at the time of death. Before this mind, although there are various karmas that can cause subsequent existence, at this time, only extremely heavy karma, or habitual karma, or karma created near death, has the most significant effect on producing results, while other karmas do not. The transformation and difference of the continuity caused by the heterogeneous cause, in terms of the function of giving retribution, after giving the heterogeneous result, this function will cease. The transformation and difference of the continuity caused by the homogeneous cause, in terms of the function of giving retribution, if it is defiled, then until the ultimate antidote path is obtained, the function of giving the outflow result will cease; if it is not defiled, then along with the continuity of consciousness, until entering the state of Nirvana without remainder, all functions of giving the outflow result will completely cease. What has been said in this way is what I have repeatedly refuted before, the old theories such as following the realms. Now it is just using different words, like a Kabuki performer changing costumes, conveniently explaining the quoted sutras. However, their so-called subtle continuity of transformation and difference has no reason at all, worthy of being remembered by wise people. It is just fabricated words, false combinations, like the conjunction of qualities, sameness and difference, insisted upon by the Vaisheshika school, because there is no independent entity. Why is this so? For example, saying that the continuity of consciousness has the meaning of defilement and purity, that is, the difference between the defilement and purity of the continuous consciousness before and after. In this way, the transformation and difference of continuity should also be the different meanings of the consciousness before and after. This difference of consciousness, as a cause, obtains a result, and this result can have differences before and after. However, the result obtained is fundamentally different in various ways, then the cause from which it comes must be different. It is not that one entity of consciousness can have various differences. If it is said that this is like the seed of a 'padma' (lotus), it is also unreasonable. Because it is a seed composed of many 'paramāṇu' (smallest units of matter), so there can be differences. Moreover, seeds, sprouts, etc., in various continuities, comparing before and after, their potential is no different. The continuity of a single consciousness, comparing before and after, has good and evil, etc., and their potential is different, not without subtle distinctions. It is impossible for a single thought of consciousness to have different potentials such as good. Moreover, in the Holy Teachings, it is allowed that one body has the share of experiencing the present life, etc.
位差別業。由此為因。如其次第。感現法受等分位差別果。非一心體可能為因。感得如斯分位別果。若謂如種緣合力殊。或能生芽。或生灰等。此亦非理。善不善二因。應俱能招愛非愛果故。然契經說。無是處言。又如種等。雖一相續。而緣合位。不從芽等有芽等生。心亦應然。雖一相續。而緣合位。不從善心生非愛果。亦非愛果從噁心生。故汝應許。於一心相續同時。便有無量心俱生。或應許心如和香飲。有無量體和合而生。或應許因過去有體。或應許果無因而生。如是便成迷失路者。又彼所說。一心相續。於後后位別別而生。名為轉變。定不應理。且如有造福行無間即復造作非福行者。此二為是一類轉變。為是異類而轉變耶。若言此是一類轉變。是則應無罪福差別。若言異類而轉變者。應說更有何第三心。依之何相名福行轉變。復說何相名罪行轉變。由如是等種種推徴。所計相續轉變差別。一切不順聖教正理。又彼所宗。唯現在有。於一念法。相續不成。相續既無。說何轉變。轉變無故。差別亦無。由此彼言都無實義。故有別法。若起余心。或無心時。恒現相續。漸漸增長。說名無表。故無表色實有理成。經主此中極為恍惚。不審了達自他宗趣。欲以己過攀他令等。逆述他責。作是釋言。若謂如何由余相續德益差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 位差別業（karma that differentiates）。由此為因，如其次第，感現法受等分位差別果。非一心體可能為因，感得如斯分位別果。如果說如同種子因緣和合，力量不同，或者能生出芽，或者生出灰燼等，這也是不合理的。善與不善兩種因，應該都能招致喜愛與不喜愛的果報。然而契經（sutra）中說，沒有這樣的道理。又如種子等，雖然是一個相續，但在因緣和合的時候，不是從芽等生出芽等。心也應該如此，雖然是一個相續，但在因緣和合的時候，不是從善心生出不喜愛的果報，也不是喜愛的果報從噁心生出。所以你應該承認，在一個心相續的同時，便有無量的心同時生起。或者應該承認心如同混合的香飲，有無量的體性混合而生。或者應該承認因在過去有體性，或者應該承認果沒有因而生。這樣就成了迷失道路的人。而且他們所說的一心相續，在後后的階段分別產生，名為轉變，一定是不合理的。比如有人造作福行之後，緊接著又造作非福行，這兩種行為是一類轉變，還是異類轉變呢？如果說這是一類轉變，那麼就應該沒有罪福的差別。如果說是異類轉變，就應該說還有什麼第三種心，依靠它什麼相而名為福行轉變，又說什麼相而名為罪行轉變。由於像這樣的種種推論，所計的相續轉變差別，一切都不符合聖教的正理。而且他們所宗的，只有現在有，對於一念法，相續不能成立。相續既然沒有，說什麼轉變？轉變沒有，差別也沒有。因此他們所說的一切都沒有實際意義。所以有別法，如果生起其他心，或者沒有心的時候，恒常顯現相續，漸漸增長，說名為無表（avyakrta，unmanifested）。所以無表色（avyakrta-rupa，unmanifested form）真實存在是合理的。經主（sutra master）在此處極為恍惚，不審慎地瞭解自己和他人的宗派主張，想要用自己的過失攀比他人，反過來責備他人，作這樣的解釋說：『如果說如何由其他相續的功德利益差別』
【English Translation】 English version Karma that differentiates (Visesa-karman). Because of this as a cause, in due order, one experiences the differentiated results of manifested phenomena and reception. It is impossible for a single mind-entity to be the cause of experiencing such differentiated results. If you say that, like seeds where the combination of conditions and forces are different, they can either produce sprouts or ashes, this is also unreasonable. Both good and bad causes should be able to bring about both liked and disliked results. However, the sutras say that there is no such principle. Furthermore, like seeds, although they are a single continuum, when conditions combine, sprouts do not arise from sprouts. The mind should also be like this: although it is a single continuum, when conditions combine, disliked results do not arise from good minds, nor do liked results arise from bad minds. Therefore, you should admit that within a single mind-continuum, there are countless minds arising simultaneously. Or you should admit that the mind is like a mixed fragrant drink, with countless entities combined to arise. Or you should admit that the cause has an entity in the past, or you should admit that the result arises without a cause. In this way, you become someone who has lost their way. Moreover, what they say about a single mind-continuum arising separately in each subsequent stage, called transformation, is definitely unreasonable. For example, if someone performs meritorious actions and then immediately performs non-meritorious actions, are these two a transformation of the same type or a transformation of a different type? If you say that this is a transformation of the same type, then there should be no difference between sin and merit. If you say that it is a transformation of a different type, then you should say what third mind there is, relying on what aspect of it is called a transformation of meritorious action, and what aspect of it is called a transformation of sinful action. Because of such inferences, the differences in transformation of the continuum that are posited do not accord with the correct principles of the holy teachings. Moreover, what they uphold is that only the present exists, and for a single moment of dharma, the continuum cannot be established. Since the continuum does not exist, what transformation is there to speak of? Since there is no transformation, there is also no difference. Therefore, everything they say has no real meaning. Therefore, there is a separate dharma, and if other minds arise, or when there is no mind, the continuum constantly appears, gradually increasing, and is called unmanifested (avyakrta). Therefore, it is reasonable that unmanifested form (avyakrta-rupa) truly exists. The sutra master is extremely confused here, not carefully understanding his own and others' doctrinal positions, wanting to compare his own faults with others, and blaming others in return, making such an explanation: 'If you say how the differences in merit and benefit arise from other continuums...'
別。令余相續心雖異緣而有轉變。釋此疑難。與無表同。彼復如何由余相續德益差別。令余相續別有真實無表法生。不爾身心互相隨故。由施主有福思差別。有如是相。表及無表。前行造色。與四大種。俱時而生。生已無間。此四大種。及所造色。俱時而滅。以俱生故。從此所生。后無表色。嗣前種類。乃至未遇。舍無表緣。恒相續轉。如是施主。心雖異緣。而由受者德益差別。福常增長。理不相違。然增長言。顯下中等品類差別。諸有為法。外緣所資。法皆然故。或此意顯相續轉多。故次復言。福業續起。汝宗不爾。所以者何。施主福思差別滅已。無間便有染心續生。受者爾時德益差別。施主由彼染污心增。何用如斯福業增長。若謂別有非染法增。離染污心有何別法。名為福業。說彼漸增宜善思尋求其自體。摽之心首徐當顯示。今詳汝等無顯示能是故汝曹由未承稟妙閑聖教通正理師。大欲居心自立法想妄自舉恃。朋經部宗。捧自執塵坌穢聖教。又彼所說無表論者。無依福中。既無表業。寧有無表。此亦不然。善無表業。彼定有故。謂聞某處某方邑中。現有如來或弟子住。生歡喜故。福常增者。彼必應有增上信心。遙向彼方。敬申禮讚。起福表業。及福無表。而自莊嚴。希親奉覲。故依無表。說福常增。世尊經中。但
說能起。此于福起。為勝因故。除無表色。若起余心。或無心時。必無福業。相續增長。如前已辨。若唯許彼有歡喜心。彼則唯應有意妙行。暫起便息。無常增理。故我決定許彼爾時。必亦應有身語妙行。又非自作。但遣他為。若無無表業。不應成業道。以遣他表非彼業道攝。此業未能正作所作故。使作所作已此性無異故。經主於此作是釋言。應如是說。由本加行。使者依教。所作成時。法爾能令教者微細相續轉變差別而生。由此當來能感多果。諸有自作事究竟時。當知亦由如是道理。應知即此微細相續轉變差別。名為業道。此即于果。假立因名。是身語業。所引果故。彼釋非理。微細相續轉變差別。前已破故。無容更有釋難功能。故於此中重引無用。又彼應說。由能教者。使往余處害余有情。教者后時。若於因果相屬道理。得善了知。由此便能生深悔愧。或能發起余勝善心。使者爾時。殺事究竟。能令教者心相續中殺業道生。此心相續。為得愛果。為得非愛果。為俱得二果。理皆不然。殺業爾時。正究竟故。善心無容招苦果故。順現受等。業成雜亂過故。若謂唯教者發表業思能牽引當來非愛果者。理實應爾。然彼所執。相續轉變差別是何。能教者心。既善相續。復執何法。能感當來多非愛果。以能教者。后相續中。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『說能起。』這是指福德的生起。因為這是殊勝的原因。除了無表色（avijñapti-rūpa，不可見的業力），如果生起其他心，或者無心的時候，必定沒有福業相續增長，如前面已經辨析過的那樣。如果僅僅允許他們有歡喜心，那麼他們就只應該有意樂的妙行，暫時生起就停止，沒有恒常增長的道理。因此我決定允許他們在那個時候，必定也應該有身語的妙行。 又不是自己做，只是派遣他人去做。如果沒有無表業，不應該成就業道（karmapatha，行為的道路）。因為派遣他人所做的表業（vijñapti，可見的行為）不屬於他的業道所攝，因為這個行為未能正確地完成所要做的事情。即使完成所要做的事情，這個性質也沒有不同。經部（Sautrāntika，佛教的一個學派）的論師對此作這樣的解釋說：『應該這樣說，由於最初的加行（prayoga，努力），使者依照教導，在完成所做的事情時，自然能夠使教者產生微細相續的轉變差別，由此將來能夠感得多果。』凡是自己做的事情完成時，應當知道也是由於這樣的道理。應當知道這微細相續的轉變差別，名為業道。這即是對果，假立因的名字，因為是身語業所引的果。 他們的解釋不合理，因為微細相續的轉變差別，前面已經破斥過了，沒有容納更多解釋困難的功能，所以在這裡重新引用沒有用。而且他們應該說，由於能教者，派遣他人到其他地方去傷害其他有情（sattva，眾生），教者後來，如果對於因果相屬的道理，得到很好的瞭解，由此便能生起深深的悔愧，或者能夠發起其他殊勝的善心。使者在那個時候，殺事究竟，能夠使教者的心相續中生起殺業道。這個心相續，是爲了得到可愛果，還是爲了得到非愛果，還是爲了俱得二果？道理上都不成立。因為殺業在那個時候，正究竟的緣故，善心沒有容納招感苦果的緣故，順現受等業（drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma，現世報業）成就雜亂的過失的緣故。如果說唯有教者發表業思（karma-cetanā，行為的意圖）能夠牽引當來非愛果，道理上確實應該是這樣。然而他們所執著的相續轉變差別是什麼？能教者的心，既然是善的相續，又執著什麼法，能夠感得當來多的非愛果？因為能教者，後來的相續中。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Saying it can arise.' This refers to the arising of merit. Because it is a superior cause. Except for avijñapti-rūpa (unmanifested form, invisible karmic force), if other minds arise, or when there is no mind, there will definitely be no continuous increase of meritorious deeds, as has been analyzed before. If they are only allowed to have joyful minds, then they should only have intentional excellent conduct, arising temporarily and then ceasing, without the principle of constant increase. Therefore, I definitely allow that at that time, there must also be excellent bodily and verbal conduct. Moreover, it is not done by oneself, but only by sending others to do it. If there is no avijñapti, the karmapatha (path of action) should not be accomplished. Because the vijñapti (manifested action) done by sending others is not included in his karmapatha, because this action has not correctly completed what needs to be done. Even if what needs to be done is completed, this nature is no different. The Sautrāntika (a school of Buddhism) master explains this by saying: 'It should be said that due to the initial prayoga (effort), the messenger follows the teaching, and when completing what is to be done, it can naturally cause the teacher to produce subtle continuous changes and differences, thereby being able to sense many fruits in the future.' Whenever one's own affairs are completed, it should be known that it is also due to this principle. It should be known that this subtle continuous change and difference is called karmapatha. This is the name of the cause falsely established for the fruit, because it is the fruit drawn by bodily and verbal actions. Their explanation is unreasonable, because the subtle continuous change and difference has been refuted before, and there is no room for more explanations of difficulties, so re-quoting it here is useless. Moreover, they should say that because the teacher sends others to other places to harm other sattvas (beings), the teacher later, if he has a good understanding of the principle of the relationship between cause and effect, he can generate deep remorse or initiate other superior good minds. At that time, when the messenger completes the killing, he can cause the killing karmapatha to arise in the teacher's mind stream. Is this mind stream for obtaining a lovable fruit, or for obtaining an unlovable fruit, or for obtaining both fruits? None of these are established in principle. Because the killing karma is being completed at that time, because the good mind has no room to attract suffering fruits, and because of the fault of the drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma (immediately ripening karma) becoming chaotic. If it is said that only the karma-cetanā (intention of action) expressed by the teacher can attract the future unlovable fruit, then it should indeed be the case in principle. However, what is the subtle continuous change and difference that they cling to? Since the teacher's mind is a good continuum, what dharma (law, teaching) does he cling to that can sense many unlovable fruits in the future? Because in the teacher's later continuum.
無別法生。能多感故。如是所立。不令生喜。然由先表及能起心為加行故。后時教者。雖起善心多時相續。仍有不善。得相續生。使所作成時有力能。引如是類大種及造色生。此所造色生。是根本業道。即彼先表及能起心。在現在時。為因能取今所造色。為等流果。於今正起無表色時。彼在過去能與今果。唯彼先時所起思業。于非愛果。為牽引因。后業道生。能為助滿令所引果決定當生。如是所宗。可令生喜。非牽引力即令當來愛非愛果決定當起。除能教者能起表思。若於后時善心相續。乃至使者事究竟時。無表若無。更無別法。于非愛果。能為圓滿。助因可得。果應不生。若加行心。即能令果決定當起。不須滿因。使者或時不為殺事。教者非愛果亦應決定生。既不許然。故汝經部。于業果理。極為惡立。然上座言于所教者。加行無間。令能教者。為加行生無間罪觸。以所遣使事究竟時。教者加行果方成故。此中彼執無間是何為母等亡為所生罪。若謂無間即母等亡。應離殺思亦成無間。若謂無間是所生罪。彼所教者事究竟時。能教者思。若是染污。可為無間重罪所觸。若能教者。正起善思。使者爾時殺事究竟。彼能教者。有何罪生。如何發言。都無忌憚。說彼無間重罪所觸。是故定應許實無表。若自不作。但遣他為。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 沒有其他方法產生（無表色）。因為（表色）能夠產生很多感受。像這樣建立的理論，不能讓人感到滿意。然而，由於先前的表色以及能夠發起（殺生）之心的加行，後來的教唆者，即使生起善心並持續很長時間，仍然會有不善（業）產生，導致（惡業）相續產生。這使得所完成的行為在成熟時具有力量，能夠引導產生類似的大種（四大元素）和造色（由四大元素所造的色法）。這種所造的色法產生，是根本的業道。即先前的表色以及能夠發起（殺生）之心，在現在作為因，能夠取得現在所造的色法作為等流果。在現在正生起無表色時，它們在過去能夠給予現在的果報。只有先前所生起的思業，對於非可愛（不悅意）的果報，作為牽引因。後來的業道產生，能夠作為助滿因，使所牽引的果報決定會產生。像這樣的宗義，才能讓人感到滿意。不是牽引的力量就能使將來的可愛或非可愛果報決定產生。除非教唆者能夠生起表思。如果在後來的時間裡，善心相續，直到使者完成事情的時候，如果沒有無表色，就沒有其他方法，對於非可愛果報，能夠作為圓滿的助因，果報就不應該產生。如果加行心，就能使果報決定產生，不需要圓滿因。使者有時不進行殺戮，教唆者的非可愛果報也應該決定產生。既然不允許這樣，所以你們經部，對於業果的道理，建立得非常糟糕。然而，上座部說，對於被教唆者，在加行無間的時候，使教唆者，因為加行的產生而受到無間罪的觸犯。因為被派遣的使者完成事情的時候，教唆者的加行果才成熟。這裡他們認為無間罪是什麼？是殺母等罪還是因為死亡而產生的罪？如果說無間罪就是殺母等罪，那麼即使沒有殺生的意圖，也應該構成無間罪。如果說無間罪是所產生的罪，那麼被教唆者完成事情的時候，教唆者的思，如果是染污的，就可以因為無間重罪所觸犯。如果教唆者，正在生起善思，使者那時殺戮的事情完成，那麼教唆者有什麼罪產生？怎麼能隨便發言，毫無顧忌地說他被無間重罪所觸犯。所以一定要承認有真實的無表色。如果自己不作，只是派遣他人去做。
【English Translation】 English version: There is no other way for wu-biao-se (unmanifested form) to arise, because biao-se (manifested form) can generate many feelings. Such a theory is not pleasing. However, due to the prior biao-se and the jia-xing (preparatory action) of generating the intention to kill, the instigator, even if they generate good intentions and continue for a long time, will still have unwholesome ye (karma) arising, leading to the continuous arising of evil karma. This causes the completed action to have the power to guide the arising of similar da-zhong (four great elements) and zao-se (derived form). The arising of this derived form is the fundamental ye-dao (path of karma). That is, the prior biao-se and the intention to initiate killing, now act as a cause, capable of taking the currently created form as the deng-liu-guo (result of similar kind). When wu-biao-se is arising now, they in the past can give the present result. Only the si-ye (intentional action) that arose earlier acts as a qian-yin-yin (leading cause) for the undesirable result. The subsequent arising of ye-dao can act as a zhu-man-yin (completing cause), ensuring that the result being led will definitely arise. Such a doctrine can be pleasing. It is not the power of leading that can ensure the definite arising of future desirable or undesirable results, unless the instigator can generate biao-si (manifested intention). If, in the later time, good intentions continue until the messenger completes the matter, if there is no wu-biao-se, there is no other way for the undesirable result to have a completing auxiliary cause, and the result should not arise. If the jia-xing-xin (preparatory mind) can ensure the definite arising of the result, there is no need for a completing cause. If the messenger sometimes does not commit the killing, the instigator's undesirable result should also definitely arise. Since this is not allowed, your Sautrāntika school has established the principle of karma and result very poorly. However, the Theravāda school says that for the instigated person, at the moment of the preparatory action, the instigator is touched by the wu-jian-zui (five heinous crimes) because of the arising of the preparatory action. Because the instigator's preparatory action result matures when the dispatched messenger completes the matter. Here, they think what is wu-jian? Is it the crime of killing one's mother, etc., or the crime arising from death? If it is said that wu-jian is the crime of killing one's mother, etc., then even without the intention to kill, it should constitute wu-jian. If it is said that wu-jian is the crime that arises, then when the instigated person completes the matter, if the instigator's intention is defiled, they can be touched by the heavy crime of wu-jian. If the instigator is generating good thoughts, and the messenger completes the killing at that time, then what crime does the instigator generate? How can one speak casually and recklessly, saying that they are touched by the heavy crime of wu-jian? Therefore, one must admit that there is real wu-biao-se. If one does not act oneself, but only sends others to do it.
由無表生。成業道罪。又若無無表。應無八道。支以在定時語等無故。經主於此作如是責。且彼應說正在道時。如何得有正語業命。為於此位有發正言起正作業求衣等不。此責非理。佛語同故。經部諸師。亦應被責。正在道位。為有發言。及起作業。求衣等不。如何佛言正語業命。道支所攝。故責應同。然彼釋言。雖無無表。而在道位。獲得如斯意樂依止。故出觀后。由前勢力。能起三正。不起三邪。以于因中立果名故。可具安立八聖道支。彼釋不然。應正見等同此釋故。謂正見等。亦應可為如是計度。雖在道位無正見等。而得如斯意樂依止。故出觀后。由前勢力。起正見等。邪見等無。以于因中立果名故。可具安立八聖道支。然非觀中無正見等。若無正見等。道亦應無故。由如是理。對法諸師。應作是例。如正見等正在道時。實有自體亦應實有。正語業命。諸無漏戒。如在觀時。得正見等。于出觀后。不同異生起邪見等。如是觀中。得正語等。于出觀后。不同異生起邪語等。如何所起不同異生。謂預流等。雖起染心習欲等事。而不可說起邪思惟及邪語等。同於觀中。得彼對治。唯許別有正見等體。非正語等。斯有何理。又有何理。許依正見等假立正語等。非此相違。或應不許別有彼體。故彼所宗。非為善立。又如見
定戒亦應然。說此皆通學無學故。謂契經說。有學尸羅。無學尸羅。有學三摩地無學三摩地。有學般若無學般若。若謂尸羅于正見等假安立者。別說尸羅。通學無學。便為無用。上座意謂堪能不作身語惡行。名正語等。由聖道力。轉相續故。於二惡行。堪能不作。故正語等。非別有體。若爾正見。亦應唯是堪能不作意惡行性。所以者何。由聖道力。轉相續故。于意惡行。堪能不作。即名正見。非別有體。經說。邪見名意惡行。今於此中。有何別理。一許有體。一則不然。故彼所言。都無實義。又應問彼。堪能不作。體是何法。彼言。即是勝阿世耶。所隨善凈心心所法。此如前破。前破者何。謂彼止息起染等心。應失律儀。如未得位。非於息位。有少如前勝阿世耶。所隨逐法。可立不作殊勝想名非染等心。亦可得說名堪不作語惡行等。先所說過。皆應集此。又彼所說。言尸羅者。是串習義。是故尸羅無別實體。彼說不然。雖串習義而別說故。定別有體。如契經說。若已善修戒定慧三。修即串習。若唯串習名尸羅者。契經不應別說修戒。理不應說修串習故。若修定慧。即名尸羅。是則不應言修三種。又契經說。依住尸羅。修習二法。豈應說言依住修習。修習二法。今詳具壽覺慧所行。唯憑世典作關聖教。故無表色。實有理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 持戒也應如此，因為這樣說涵蓋了有學和無學兩種情況。正如契經所說：『有學的戒律（尸羅，Śīla，道德、戒行），無學的戒律；有學的禪定（三摩地，Samādhi，專注、禪定），無學的禪定；有學的智慧（般若，Prajñā，智慧），無學的智慧。』如果說戒律只是在正見等基礎上假立的，那麼單獨說戒律，涵蓋有學和無學，就變得沒有意義了。 上座部的意思是，能夠不做身語的惡行，就稱為正語等。由於聖道的威力，轉變了相續，所以對於身語的惡行，能夠不做。因此，正語等並非另外有實體。如果這樣，正見也應該只是能夠不做意惡行的性質。為什麼呢？因為由於聖道的威力，轉變了相續，所以對於意的惡行，能夠不做，就稱為正見，並非另外有實體。經中說，邪見就是意的惡行。那麼在這裡，有什麼區別的道理呢？一個允許有實體，一個則不允許。所以他們所說，都沒有實際意義。 又應該問他們，『能夠不做』的體是什麼法？』他們會說：『就是殊勝的意樂（阿世耶，Āśaya，意樂、意圖）所伴隨的善凈的心和心所法。』這就像前面所破斥的。前面破斥的是什麼呢？就是說，如果止息了生起染污等的心，就應該失去律儀，就像沒有得到果位一樣。因為在止息的狀態中，沒有像之前那樣殊勝的意樂所伴隨的法，可以建立『不做』的殊勝想法的名稱。非染污等的心，也可以說成是『能夠不做語惡行』等。先前所說過的，都應該集中在這裡。 而且他們所說，『戒律（尸羅，Śīla）』的意思是串習。所以戒律沒有別的實體。他們的說法不對。雖然有串習的意思，但因為是分別說的，所以一定有別的實體。正如契經所說：『如果已經很好地修習了戒、定、慧三學，』修習就是串習。如果只有串習才能稱為戒律，那麼契經就不應該分別說修戒，因為不應該說修串習。如果修定慧就稱為戒律，那麼就不應該說修三種。而且契經說：『依靠安住于戒律，修習兩種法。』怎麼能說依靠安住于修習，修習兩種法呢？ 現在詳細考察具壽覺慧（覺慧，Buddhi，智慧）的所作所為，只是憑藉世俗典籍來關閉聖教，所以無表色（無表色，Avijñapti-rūpa，無表色），實際上是有道理的。
【English Translation】 English version: The upholding of precepts (Śīla) should also be understood in the same way, because this explanation encompasses both those who are still learning (有學, śaikṣa) and those who have completed their learning (無學, aśaikṣa). As the sutras state: 'There is the Śīla of those still learning, and the Śīla of those who have completed their learning; there is the Samādhi (三摩地, concentration) of those still learning, and the Samādhi of those who have completed their learning; there is the Prajñā (般若, wisdom) of those still learning, and the Prajñā of those who have completed their learning.' If Śīla is merely a conceptual construct based on right view (正見, samyag-dṛṣṭi) and so on, then separately mentioning Śīla as encompassing both those still learning and those who have completed their learning would be pointless. The Sthavira school (上座部, Sthavira) believes that the ability to refrain from evil actions of body and speech is what is meant by right speech (正語, samyag-vāc), etc. Due to the power of the noble path, the continuum is transformed, enabling one to refrain from evil actions of body and speech. Therefore, right speech, etc., do not have a separate entity. If that's the case, then right view should also be merely the nature of being able to refrain from evil actions of mind. Why? Because due to the power of the noble path, the continuum is transformed, enabling one to refrain from evil actions of mind, which is then called right view, and does not have a separate entity. The sutras state that wrong view (邪見, mithyā-dṛṣṭi) is an evil action of mind. So, what is the difference in reasoning here? One allows for an entity, while the other does not. Therefore, what they say has no real meaning. Furthermore, they should be asked, 'What is the entity of 'being able to refrain'?' They would say, 'It is the wholesome and pure mind and mental factors that accompany the excellent intention (阿世耶, āśaya).' This is as refuted earlier. What was refuted earlier? It was said that if one ceases to generate defiled thoughts, etc., one should lose the vows, just like someone who has not attained the fruit. Because in the state of cessation, there is no law accompanied by the excellent intention as before, which can establish the name of 'not doing' with excellent thought. Non-defiled thoughts, etc., can also be said to be 'being able to refrain from evil actions of speech,' etc. All that has been said before should be gathered here. Moreover, what they say, that 'Śīla means habituation,' and therefore Śīla has no separate entity, is incorrect. Although it has the meaning of habituation, it is mentioned separately, so it must have a separate entity. As the sutras state: 'If one has well cultivated the three trainings of Śīla, Samādhi, and Prajñā,' cultivation is habituation. If only habituation is called Śīla, then the sutras should not separately mention cultivating Śīla, because one should not say cultivating habituation. If cultivating Samādhi and Prajñā is called Śīla, then one should not say cultivating three. Moreover, the sutras say: 'Relying on abiding in Śīla, cultivate two dharmas.' How can one say relying on abiding in cultivation, cultivate two dharmas? Now, examining in detail the actions of the venerable Buddhi (覺慧, Buddhi), he only relies on worldly texts to close off the holy teachings. Therefore, the unmanifest form (無表色, avijñapti-rūpa) actually has a reason.
成。雖彼有多餘無端說。而皆不越前來所破。恐文煩重不別遮遣。且由前說。無表足成。此無表名。為目何體。目遠離體。遠離非作。非造無表。一體異名。非唯遮作即名無表。如世間說。非婆羅門。世共了知。別目一類。業為因故。如彩畫業。此無表色。亦立業名。因表因思。而得生故。為諸無表皆二力生。不爾。云何。唯欲界系所有無表。可由強力二因所生。以欲界思非等引故。離身語表。無有功能。發無表業。靜慮俱思定力持故。不待于表有勝功能。發無表業。由此無表。雖非是業。業為因故。亦得業名。不可受等亦名為業。以止息表業。立無表業故。非止息業而立受等。是故受等。雖業為因。無同無表亦名業過。又諸無表。以業為因。非為業因。受等與業。互為因果。是故無有同無表失。無表亦用非業為因。何緣不許亦名非業。亦許非業以非作故。但業為因。故亦名業。世尊亦說。非作名業。如說。云何名白白異熟業。謂五尸羅七種尸羅。乃至廣說。解聲明者。亦于非作眠及住位。以業聲說。亦見世間。于非作位。同有所作。立作業名。如問天授汝作何業。答言。我今作眠或住。故同世俗言說無失。若爾欲界初念無表。不應建立無表業名。與表業俱。止息表業。理不成故。此難非理。以初無表是止息表。無表
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 成。雖然他們有很多多餘的無端言論，但都沒有超出之前所破斥的範圍。恐怕文字過於繁瑣，就不再一一駁斥。而且根據之前的論述，無表業是可以成立的。這個『無表』的名稱，是指什麼本體呢？是指遠離（身語）表業的本體。這種遠離不是造作，不是創造，無表業是一個本體的不同名稱。並非僅僅是遮止造作就稱為無表業，就像世間所說『非婆羅門』，世人普遍瞭解這是指另一類人。因為業是它的原因，所以稱為業，就像彩繪圖畫的行業一樣。這個無表色，也安立為業的名稱，因為它是由表業和思心所引發而產生的。那麼，所有的無表業都是由兩種力量產生的嗎？不是的。只有欲界所繫的無表業，可以由強大的兩種因緣所生。因為欲界的思心所不是等引（samāhita）的狀態。離開了身語表業，就沒有能力引發無表業。而靜慮（dhyāna）相應的思心所，由於禪定的力量支援，不需要依賴表業，就有強大的能力引發無表業。因此，無表業雖然不是業，但因為業是它的原因，所以也可以稱為業。不可受等（指受、想、行、識等心所）也可以稱為業，因為它們能止息表業，從而安立無表業。而不是因為止息業才安立受等。所以，受等雖然以業為因，但沒有像無表業那樣也被稱為業的過失。而且，諸無表業，是以業為因，而不是作為業的因。受等與業，是互為因果的關係。所以，沒有像無表業那樣也被稱為業的過失。無表業也使用非業作為因，為什麼不允許它也被稱為非業呢？也允許它被稱為非業，因為它不是造作的。但因為業是它的原因，所以也稱為業。世尊也說過，非作名為業。例如說：『什麼叫做白白異熟業？』就是指五戒、七戒等等，乃至廣說。精通聲明的人，也在非作（無造作）的睡眠和居住狀態，用『業』這個詞來表達。也看到世間，在非作的狀態，同樣有所作，而安立為作業的名稱。例如問天授：『你做什麼業？』回答說：『我現在在睡覺或居住。』所以，與世俗的言說沒有衝突。如果這樣，欲界最初一念的無表業，不應該建立無表業的名稱，因為它與表業同時存在，止息表業的道理不能成立。這個責難是不合理的，因為最初的無表業就是止息表業的無表業。
【English Translation】 English version Although they have many superfluous and unfounded arguments, they do not go beyond what has been refuted before. Fearing that the text would become too cumbersome, I will not refute them one by one. Moreover, according to the previous discussion, non-manifest action (aviññatti-kamma) can be established. What is the entity that this 'non-manifest' refers to? It refers to the entity that is apart from (bodily and verbal) manifest action. This separation is not creation or fabrication; non-manifest action is a different name for the same entity. It is not merely the cessation of action that is called non-manifest action, just as in the world, 'non-Brahmin' is understood by people to refer to another category. Because action is its cause, it is called action, just like the profession of painting. This non-manifest form is also established as the name of action because it arises from manifest action and thought. Are all non-manifest actions produced by two forces? No. Only the non-manifest actions associated with the desire realm can be produced by two strong causes. This is because the thought in the desire realm is not in a state of concentration (samāhita). Without bodily and verbal manifest actions, there is no ability to generate non-manifest action. However, the thought associated with meditative absorption (dhyāna), supported by the power of concentration, does not need to rely on manifest action to have the powerful ability to generate non-manifest action. Therefore, although non-manifest action is not action, it can also be called action because action is its cause. Mental factors such as feeling (vedanā), etc., can also be called action because they cease manifest action, thereby establishing non-manifest action. It is not because of the cessation of action that feeling, etc., are established. Therefore, although feeling, etc., have action as their cause, there is no fault of them being called action like non-manifest action. Moreover, all non-manifest actions have action as their cause, but they are not the cause of action. Feeling, etc., and action are mutually cause and effect. Therefore, there is no fault of them being called action like non-manifest action. Non-manifest action also uses non-action as a cause. Why is it not allowed to be called non-action as well? It is also allowed to be called non-action because it is not created. But because action is its cause, it is also called action. The World-Honored One also said that non-creation is called action. For example, he said: 'What is called white-white ripening action?' This refers to the five precepts, the seven precepts, and so on, explained extensively. Those who are proficient in grammar also use the term 'action' to describe the state of non-creation, such as sleeping and dwelling. It is also seen in the world that in the state of non-creation, something is still done, and it is established as the name of action. For example, if one asks Devadatta: 'What action are you doing?' He replies: 'I am now sleeping or dwelling.' Therefore, there is no conflict with worldly speech. If so, the initial moment of non-manifest action in the desire realm should not be established as the name of non-manifest action, because it exists simultaneously with manifest action, and the principle of ceasing manifest action cannot be established. This objection is unreasonable because the initial non-manifest action is the non-manifest action that ceases manifest action.
種類。后隨初念相續轉故。謂初剎那表俱無表。是后息表無表業類。許彼相望種類同故。雖與表業俱時而生。而得立為無表業體。皆由表業而得生故。或善無表止息惡業。不善無表止息善業故雖初念與表俱生。而亦得說名無表業。遠離非作非造業名。準斯例釋。皆無有過。無表與表。俱所造色。所依大種。為異為同。頌曰。
此能造大種 異於表所依
論曰。無表與表。雖有俱生。然能生因大種各異。粗細兩果。因必異故。生因和合有差別故。一切所造色多與生因大種俱生。然現在未來。亦有少分因過去者。少分者何。頌曰。
欲后念無表 依過大種生
論曰。唯欲界系初剎那后。所有無表從過大生。謂欲界所繫初念無表。與能生大種俱時而生。此大種生已。能為一切未來自相續無表生因。此與初剎那無表俱滅已。第二念等無表生時。一切皆是前過去大所造。此過大種。為後後念無表所依。能引發故。與後後念無表俱起。身中大種。但能為依。此大種若無。無表不轉故。如是前俱二四大種。望后諸無表。為轉隨轉因。譬如輪行因手依地。手能引發。地但為依。前俱大種。應知亦爾。大種通五地。身語業亦然。何地身語業。何地大種造。頌曰。
有漏自地依 無漏隨生處
論曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 種類。因為隨著最初的念頭相續轉變的緣故。這裡說的最初剎那的表色和無表色，是指最初的表色和無表色。後面的止息的表色和無表色，是屬於後來的表業和無表業的種類。因為允許它們相互之間種類相同。雖然與表業同時產生，但可以被立為無表業的自體，都是因為表業而得以產生。或者，善的無表業止息惡業，不善的無表業止息善業，所以即使最初的念頭與表業同時產生，也可以被稱為無表業。遠離了非作非造業的名稱。按照這個例子來解釋，都沒有過失。無表色和表色，都是所造的色法，它們所依賴的四大種，是相同還是不同呢？頌文說： 『此能造大種，異於表所依』 論述：無表色和表色，雖然有同時產生的，但能產生它們的原因——四大種是不同的。因為粗細兩種結果，原因必定不同。因為產生的原因和合有差別。一切所造的色法，大多與產生它的原因——四大種同時產生。然而，現在和未來，也有少部分是由過去的原因產生的。少部分是什麼呢？頌文說： 『欲后念無表，依過大種生』 論述：只有欲界所繫最初剎那之後的，所有無表色是從過去的大種產生的。也就是說，欲界所繫的最初念頭的無表色，與能產生它的大種同時產生。這個大種產生后，能作為一切未來自身相續的無表色的產生原因。這個大種與最初剎那的無表色一同滅去後，第二念等無表色產生時，一切都是由先前過去的大種所造。這個過去的大種，是後後念無表色所依賴的，因為它能引發後後唸的無表色，並與後後唸的無表色一同生起。身體中的大種，只能作為所依。如果這個大種不存在，無表色就不能轉變。像這樣，先前同時存在的二種或四種大種，對於後來的各種無表色來說，是轉變和隨轉變的原因。譬如車輪的執行，手是原因，地面是所依。手能引發，地面只是作為所依。先前同時存在的大種，也應該這樣理解。大種通於五地，身語業也是這樣。什麼地的身語業，由什麼地的大種所造呢？頌文說： 『有漏自地依，無漏隨生處』 論述：
【English Translation】 English version: Categories. Because it continuously transforms following the initial thought. The initial moment's 'manifest' (表, biao) and 'non-manifest' (無表, wu biao) form refer to the initial manifest and non-manifest form. The subsequent cessation of manifest and non-manifest form belongs to the category of later manifest and non-manifest karma. Because they are allowed to be of the same category in relation to each other. Although arising simultaneously with manifest karma, it can be established as the substance of non-manifest karma, all because it arises from manifest karma. Alternatively, wholesome non-manifest karma ceases unwholesome karma, and unwholesome non-manifest karma ceases wholesome karma. Therefore, even if the initial thought arises simultaneously with manifest karma, it can still be called non-manifest karma, being apart from the name of 'neither made nor created' karma. Interpreting according to this example, there is no fault. Manifest and non-manifest form are both created form (所造色, suo zao se). Are the four great elements (四大種, si da zhong) on which they rely the same or different? The verse says: 'These producing great elements, are different from what the manifest relies on.' Commentary: Although manifest and non-manifest form arise simultaneously, the four great elements that produce them are different. Because the causes of coarse and subtle results must be different. Because the combination of producing causes has differences. Most created forms arise simultaneously with the four great elements that produce them. However, in the present and future, there are also some that are caused by the past. What are the few? The verse says: 'The subsequent moment's non-manifest in the desire realm, arises relying on past great elements.' Commentary: Only the non-manifest form in the desire realm (欲界, yu jie) after the initial moment arises from past great elements. That is to say, the initial thought's non-manifest form related to the desire realm arises simultaneously with the great elements that produce it. After these great elements arise, they can be the cause of production for all future non-manifest form in its own continuum. After these great elements and the initial moment's non-manifest form cease together, when the second moment's and subsequent non-manifest form arise, all are created by the previously past great elements. These past great elements are what the subsequent moments' non-manifest form rely on, because they can induce the subsequent moments' non-manifest form and arise together with them. The great elements in the body can only serve as the basis of reliance. If these great elements do not exist, the non-manifest form cannot transform. Like this, the previously co-existent two or four great elements are the cause of transformation and subsequent transformation for the later various non-manifest forms. For example, in the movement of a wheel, the hand is the cause, and the ground is the basis of reliance. The hand can induce, and the ground only serves as the basis of reliance. The previously co-existent great elements should also be understood in this way. The great elements pervade the five realms, and so do bodily and verbal karma. What realm's bodily and verbal karma are created by what realm's great elements? The verse says: 'Defiled (有漏, you lou) karma relies on its own realm, undefiled (無漏, wu lou) karma follows the place of its arising.' Commentary:
身語二業。略有二種。一者有漏。二者無漏。若有漏者。五地所繫。欲界所繫。身語二業。唯欲界系。大種所造。如是乃至。第四靜慮。身語二業。唯是彼地。大種所造。若無漏者。依五地身。隨生此地。應起現前。即是此地大種所造。以無漏法不墮界故。必無大種。是無漏故。由所依力。無漏生故。表無表業。其類是何。復是何類。大種所造。頌曰。
無表無執受 亦等流情數 散依等流性 有受異大生 定生依長養 無受無異大 表唯等流性 屬身有執受
論曰。今此頌中。先辨無表。諸無表業。略有二種。定不定地。有差別故。然其總相。皆無執受。與有執受。相相違故。唯善不善故。非異熟生。無極微集故。非所長養。有同類因故。有是等流。亦言為顯有剎那性。謂初無漏俱生無表。待識生故。有情數攝。若就差別。分別所依。不定地中。所有無表。等流有受異大種生異大生言顯身語七。一一是別大種所造。定生無表差別有二。謂諸靜慮無漏律儀。此二俱依定所長養。無受無異。大種所生。無異大言。顯此無表。七支同一。具四大種。所造應知。有表唯是等流。此若屬身。是有執受。余義皆與散無表同。謂有情數。及依等流。有受別異。四大種起。何緣散地。所有無表。能造大種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身語二業（karma of body and speech），略有二種：一者有漏（with outflows, i.e., subject to rebirth），二者無漏（without outflows, i.e., not subject to rebirth）。若有漏者，為五地（five realms of existence）所繫縛。欲界（Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire）所繫的身語二業，唯欲界系，為大種（mahābhūta, the four great elements）所造。如是乃至第四靜慮（fourth dhyāna, fourth level of meditative absorption），身語二業，唯是彼地，為大種所造。若無漏者，依五地之身，隨生此地，應起現前，即是此地大種所造。以無漏法不墮界故，必無大種。是無漏故，由所依之力，無漏生故。表業（manifest action）與無表業（unmanifest action），其類是何？復是何類大種所造？頌曰：
無表無執受 亦等流情數 散依等流性 有受異大生 定生依長養 無受無異大 表唯等流性 屬身有執受
論曰：今此頌中，先辨無表。諸無表業，略有二種，定不定地有差別故。然其總相，皆無執受（not apprehended），與有執受相相違故。唯善不善故，非異熟生（vipāka-ja, result of past actions）。無極微集故，非所長養。有同類因故，有是等流（nisyanda, outflow）。亦言為顯有剎那性（momentariness），謂初無漏俱生無表，待識生故，有情數攝。若就差別，分別所依，不定地中，所有無表，等流有受異大種生。異大生言顯身語七（seven actions of body and speech）。一一是別大種所造。定生無表差別有二，謂諸靜慮無漏律儀（morality）。此二俱依定所長養，無受無異大種所生。無異大言，顯此無表，七支同一，具四大種所造應知。有表唯是等流，此若屬身，是有執受。余義皆與散無表同，謂有情數，及依等流，有受別異，四大種起。何緣散地所有無表，能造大種？
【English Translation】 English version The karmas of body and speech are broadly of two kinds: one is with outflows (sāsrava), and the other is without outflows (anāsrava). If with outflows, they are bound by the five realms of existence. The karmas of body and speech that are bound by the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) are only bound by the desire realm and are created by the great elements (mahābhūta). Thus, up to the fourth dhyāna (fourth level of meditative absorption), the karmas of body and speech are only of that realm and are created by the great elements. If without outflows, relying on the body of the five realms, according to birth in this realm, they should arise in the present, and are created by the great elements of this realm. Because the dharma without outflows does not fall into realms, it necessarily has no great elements. Because it is without outflows, due to the power of what it relies on, it is born without outflows. What kind are manifest action (vijñapti-karma) and unmanifest action (avijñapti-karma)? And what kind of great elements create them? The verse says:
Unmanifest, not apprehended, also outflow, sentient beings, Scattered, relying on outflow nature, apprehended, different great birth. Arising from concentration, relying on nourishment, not apprehended, no different great, Manifest only outflow nature, belonging to the body, apprehended.
Treatise says: In this verse, we first distinguish unmanifest action. All unmanifest actions are broadly of two kinds, because there are differences in the realms of concentration and non-concentration. However, their general characteristic is that they are not apprehended, which is contrary to being apprehended. Because they are only good or unwholesome, they are not results of past actions (vipāka-ja). Because they are not collections of ultimate particles, they are not nourished. Because they have causes of the same kind, they are outflows (nisyanda). 'Also' is said to show momentariness, referring to the initial unmanifest action born together with the dharma without outflows, which arises dependent on consciousness, and is included among sentient beings. If, based on differences, we distinguish what they rely on, in the realms of non-concentration, all unmanifest actions are outflows, apprehended, and born from different great elements. 'Born from different great elements' shows the seven actions of body and speech. Each one is created by a separate great element. The differences in unmanifest actions arising from concentration are two, namely, the morality without outflows of all the dhyānas. Both of these rely on concentration for nourishment, are not apprehended, and are born from no different great elements. 'No different great elements' shows that these unmanifest actions, the seven branches, are the same, and should be known to be created by all four great elements. Manifest action is only outflow nature. If this belongs to the body, it is apprehended. The remaining meanings are the same as scattered unmanifest action, namely, being included among sentient beings, relying on outflow, being apprehended differently, and arising from the four great elements. Why can the unmanifest actions in scattered realms create great elements?
唯等流性。定地無表。所長養生。以殊勝心現在前位。必能長養大種諸根。故定心俱必有殊勝長養大種。能作生因。造定心俱所有無表散地無表因等起心。不俱時故。在無心位。亦有起故。所依大種。唯是等流。因等起心。不能長養能生無表諸大種故。若爾散地無表所依。誰等流果。有作是說。是次前滅大種等流。能造無對所有大種。非造有對大種等流。果有細粗。種類別故。如是說者。從無始來。定有能造無對造色。已滅大種。為同類因。能生今時等流大種。造有表業大種亦應是無始來。同類大種之等流果。非從異類定生無表。所依大種無執受者。定心果故。必無愛心執此大種以為現在內自體故。又此大種。無有其餘執受相故。名無執受。散地無表。所依大種。有執受者。散心果故。以有愛心。執為現在內自體故。如顯色等所依大種。系屬依身。而得生故。亦可毀壞。外物觸時。可生苦樂。何緣定心所生無表。是無別異大種所生。散無表生依別異大。定生無表。七支相望。展轉力生同一果故。唯從一具四大種生。散此相違故依異大。有說。若彼同一生因。隨越一時。應舍一切定生無表。七支相望。生因既同。必頓舍故。豈不如對一切有情相續所生。遠離殺戒。雖同一具大種所生。非越一時頓舍一切。七支相對。理亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『唯等流性』（只有同類相續的性質）。『定地無表』（禪定狀態下的無表色）。所長養的生，以殊勝的心現在前位（殊勝的心現前），必定能夠長養『大種』（地、水、火、風四大元素）和『諸根』（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五根）。因此，禪定之心必然伴隨著殊勝的長養大種，能夠作為生因。而造定心俱的所有『無表』（無表色），散地無表的因等起心，因為不是同時生起，所以在無心位，也有生起。所依的大種，唯是等流。因等起心，不能長養能生無表的諸大種。如果這樣，散地無表所依，是誰的等流果呢？ 有人這樣說，是次前滅的大種的等流，能夠造無對（沒有阻礙）的所有大種，而非造有對（有阻礙）的大種的等流果。因為有細粗，種類別的緣故。這樣說的人認為，從無始以來，定有能造無對造色，已滅的大種，作為同類因，能夠生起今時的等流大種。造有表業的大種也應該是無始以來，同類大種的等流果，而非從異類定生無表所依的大種。無執受者，是定心果的緣故，必定沒有愛心執此大種以為現在內自體。又此大種，沒有其餘執受相的緣故，名為無執受。散地無表所依的大種，是有執受者，是散心果的緣故，因為有愛心，執為現在內自體，如顯色等所依的大種，系屬依身，而得生起，也可以毀壞。外物觸時，可以生苦樂。為何定心所生的無表，是無別異大種所生？散無表生依別異大，定生無表，七支相望，展轉力生同一果的緣故，唯從一具四大種生。散此相違，故依異大。 有人說，如果它們是同一生因，隨著時間推移，應該捨棄一切。定生無表，七支相望，生因既然相同，必定頓舍。豈不如對一切有情相續所生，遠離殺戒，雖然同一具大種所生，非越一時頓舍一切。七支相對，道理也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version 'Only of the same flow nature' (only of the nature of the same kind of continuity). 'Non-manifestation in the meditative state' (non-manifestation form in the state of meditation). The birth that is nourished, with a superior mind in the present position (the superior mind manifests), will surely be able to nourish the 'great elements' (earth, water, fire, wind) and the 'roots' (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body). Therefore, the meditative mind must be accompanied by the superior nourishing of the great elements, which can serve as the cause of birth. And all the 'non-manifestations' (non-manifestation form) that accompany the meditative mind, the causal arising mind of the scattered ground non-manifestations, because they do not arise simultaneously, so in the mindless state, there is also arising. The great elements on which it depends are only of the same flow. The causal arising mind cannot nourish the great elements that can give rise to non-manifestations. If so, what is the same flow result of the scattered ground non-manifestation depends on? Some say that it is the same flow of the great elements that perished before, which can create all the great elements that are unobstructed, rather than the same flow result of the great elements that are obstructed. Because there are fine and coarse, and the types are different. Those who say this believe that from beginningless time, there must be the ability to create unobstructed form, the perished great elements, as the same kind of cause, can give rise to the same flow great elements of the present time. The great elements that create manifest karma should also be the same flow result of the same kind of great elements from beginningless time, rather than the great elements on which the non-manifestation depends, which are born from different kinds. Those who are not grasped are the result of the meditative mind, so there must be no love to grasp these great elements as the present inner self. Moreover, these great elements, because there is no other grasping appearance, are called ungrasped. The great elements on which the scattered ground non-manifestation depends are grasped, because they are the result of the scattered mind, because there is love, they are grasped as the present inner self, such as the great elements on which visible forms and the like depend, are attached to the body, and can be born, and can also be destroyed. When external objects touch, they can produce suffering and happiness. Why are the non-manifestations born from the meditative mind born from the great elements that are not different? The scattered non-manifestation is born depending on different great elements, the meditative non-manifestation is born, the seven branches look at each other, and the force of transformation produces the same result, so it is born only from one set of four great elements. The scattered is contrary to this, so it depends on different great elements. Some say that if they are the same cause of birth, as time passes, everything should be abandoned. The meditative non-manifestation, the seven branches look at each other, since the cause of birth is the same, it must be abandoned all at once. Is it not like the renunciation of killing that arises from the continuous stream of all sentient beings, although it is born from the same set of great elements, it is not abandoned all at once as time passes. The seven branches look at each other, the principle is also the same.
應然。此例不然。彼雖一具大種所造。然其所對。一一有情相續異故。若七支戒。無異大生。所對有情。相續既一。何緣越一非舍一切。是故此彼為例不齊。若爾此應同命根理。如命根體。為具身依。身不具時。亦為依止。故身雖缺。隨有餘根命猶能持。令不斷壞。如是一具大種為因。能生律儀具不具果。故支雖缺。隨有餘支。大猶能持。令不斷壞。此亦非例。以彼命根先與缺身俱時而起。中間有與具身俱生。后缺減時。復有俱起。故於具缺各別任持。大種不然。一具大種。為一相續。無表生因。若與七支。為生因者。未嘗暫與缺支俱生。如何缺一時。持余令不捨。即由此理。從無貪等為因所生。離殺等戒。雖有對一有情相續。而越一時非舍一切。以是各別大種果故。大種別者。果類別故。雖對別異有情相續。發多無貪所生無表。而但一具大種為因。以所生果類無別故。由是若對一有情身。一具七支生因同者。則隨越一應舍一切。如是立證。理亦可成。故散七支。依別大種。然依不許別舍律儀。此證不成。前說為善。如天眼起非壞本形。表色生時。理亦應爾。故雖身表在身中生。而無異熟色斷已更續過。亦無一具大種聚中有二形色俱時起過。以諸身表別有等流大種新生。為所依故。隨依身份。表色生時。此一分身。應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不然，這個例子並不恰當。雖然它們都是由同一組四大種（地、水、火、風，構成物質世界的基本元素）所造，但它們所針對的，是各個不同的有情（具有感知和意識的生命）。因為每個有情的相續（生命流）都是不同的。如果說七支戒（佛教戒律的七個方面）沒有不同的大種所生，並且所針對的有情相續是同一個，那麼為什麼違犯其中一條戒，不意味著捨棄所有戒律呢？所以，這個例子和之前的例子並不相同。 如果這樣說，那麼七支戒應該和命根（維持生命的功能）的道理相同。比如命根的本體，是整個身體的依靠，即使身體不完整時，它仍然是依靠。所以，即使身體殘缺，只要還有其他根（感官），命根就能維持生命，使之不中斷。同樣，一組四大種作為原因，能夠產生具足或不具足的律儀（戒律）果報。所以，即使戒律的一個方面缺失，只要還有其他方面，四大種仍然能夠維持，使之不中斷。但這也不是一個恰當的例子，因為命根是先與殘缺的身體同時生起，中間又與完整的身體一同生起，後來身體殘缺時，又再次一同生起。所以，命根對於完整和殘缺的身體，都能分別地維持。但四大種不是這樣。一組四大種，只為一個相續（生命流）產生無表色（無形的業力）。如果它與七支戒作為生起的原因，那麼它從未曾與缺失的戒支同時生起。那麼，當戒支缺失時，它如何能維持其餘的戒支不被捨棄呢？ 正是由於這個道理，從無貪等善法作為原因所生起的，遠離殺生等惡行的戒律，即使只針對一個有情的相續，違犯其中一條戒，也不意味著捨棄所有戒律。因為它們是各自不同的大種所產生的果報。大種不同，果報的類別也不同。即使針對不同的有情相續，生起很多無貪善念所產生的無表色，但因為只有一組四大種作為原因，所以所產生的果報類別沒有區別。因此，如果針對一個有情的身心，一組七支戒的生起原因相同，那麼違犯其中一條戒，就應該捨棄所有戒律。這樣立論，道理也是可以成立的。所以，七支戒分散地依賴於不同的大種。然而，根據經律，不允許分別捨棄律儀。所以，這個論證是不成立的。之前所說的才是正確的。就像天眼生起時，不會破壞原來的形體一樣。表色（由業力產生的顏色）生起時，道理也應該是這樣。所以，即使身表色在身體中生起，也不會出現異熟色（成熟的業報之色）斷滅后又重新延續的情況，也不會出現一組四大種聚集中，同時生起兩種形色的情況。因為各種身表色，都有各自等流的大種新生，作為它們所依賴的基礎。隨著身體不同部位的表色生起，身體的這一部分應該...
【English Translation】 English version: Not so. This example is not analogous. Although they are both produced by one aggregate of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind, the basic elements constituting the material world), they are directed towards individual sentient beings (beings with perception and consciousness) with different continua (life streams). Because each sentient being's continuum is different. If the seven branches of precepts (seven aspects of Buddhist precepts) are not produced by different great elements, and the sentient beings they are directed towards have the same continuum, then why does violating one precept not mean abandoning all precepts? Therefore, this example is not the same as the previous one. If that's the case, then the seven branches of precepts should be the same as the principle of the life-faculty (the function that sustains life). For example, the substance of the life-faculty is the reliance of the entire body, and it remains a reliance even when the body is incomplete. Therefore, even if the body is incomplete, as long as there are other faculties (senses), the life-faculty can sustain life and prevent it from being interrupted. Similarly, one aggregate of the four great elements, as a cause, can produce complete or incomplete results of ethical discipline (precepts). Therefore, even if one aspect of the precepts is missing, as long as there are other aspects, the great elements can still maintain it and prevent it from being abandoned. But this is also not an appropriate example, because the life-faculty arises simultaneously with the incomplete body first, then arises together with the complete body in the middle, and then arises together again when the body becomes incomplete later. Therefore, the life-faculty can separately maintain both the complete and incomplete body. But the great elements are not like this. One aggregate of the great elements only produces non-revealing form (invisible karmic force) for one continuum (life stream). If it serves as the cause for the arising of the seven branches of precepts, then it has never arisen simultaneously with the missing branch of precepts. Then, when a branch of precepts is missing, how can it maintain the remaining branches from being abandoned? It is precisely because of this principle that the precepts of abstaining from killing and other evil deeds, which arise from wholesome qualities such as non-greed as the cause, do not mean abandoning all precepts even if they are only directed towards the continuum of one sentient being when one precept is violated. Because they are the results produced by different great elements. Different great elements result in different categories of results. Even if many non-revealing forms produced by many wholesome thoughts of non-greed arise towards different sentient beings' continua, there is no difference in the category of results produced because there is only one aggregate of the four great elements as the cause. Therefore, if the cause of the arising of one aggregate of seven branches of precepts is the same for the mind and body of one sentient being, then violating one precept should mean abandoning all precepts. Establishing the argument in this way is also logically valid. Therefore, the seven branches of precepts depend on different great elements separately. However, according to the Vinaya (monastic rules), it is not permissible to abandon the precepts separately. Therefore, this argument is not valid. What was said earlier is correct. Just as the arising of the divine eye does not destroy the original form. The principle should also be the same when revealing form (form produced by karma) arises. Therefore, even if bodily revealing form arises in the body, there will be no situation where the matured form (form of matured karmic retribution) is interrupted and then continues again, nor will there be a situation where two forms arise simultaneously in one aggregate of the four great elements. Because various bodily revealing forms have their own newly arising great elements of equal flow as the basis on which they depend. As the revealing form of different parts of the body arises, this part of the body should...
大於本大及形色極微增故。然不現見。其理如何。有釋此言。以表及大相微薄故。如染支體。然不見有大相可得。有說。身中有孔竅故。雖得相容納而。不大於本。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之四
已辯業門略有二種。謂思思已業差別故。復有三種。謂身語意業差別故。復有五種。謂身語二各表無表。及思惟一業差別故。如是五業性及界地建立云何。頌曰。
無表記餘三 不善唯在欲 無表遍欲色 表唯有伺二 欲無有覆表 以無等起故
論曰。無表唯通善不善性無有無記。所以者何。是強力心所等起故。無記心劣無有功能為因等起引強力業。令於後后余心位中。及無心時亦恒續起。所言餘者。謂二表及思三謂皆通善不善無記。于中不善在欲非余。有不善根無慚愧故。善及無記隨其所應三界皆有。不別遮故。欲色二界皆有無表。決定不在無色界中。以無色界中有伏色想故。厭背諸色入無色定。故彼定中不能生色。或隨何處有身語轉唯是處有身語律儀。有作是言。以無色界無大種故無無表色。彼但能遮有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果（事物）比它原本的大小更大，並且形色極其微小而增加，因此（事物）實際上並沒有顯現出來。這是什麼道理呢？有一種解釋說，因為（事物）的表相和大相都非常微薄。就像染色在肢體上，但看不見有大的相貌可以獲得。還有一種說法是，因為身體中有孔竅，即使能夠相容納，也不會比原本的大小更大。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十六 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之四
已經辨析了業的門類，略有二種，即思（cetanā，意願）和思已業（cetanā-kṛta karma，由意願產生的行為）的差別。又有三種，即身業（kāya-karma，身體的行為）、語業（vak-karma，語言的行為）和意業（manas-karma，意念的行為）的差別。又有五種，即身語二業各有表業（vijñapti-karma，顯露的行為）和無表業（avijñapti-karma，不顯露的行為），以及思惟一種業的差別。這五種業的性質、界（dhātu，領域）和地（bhūmi，層次）的建立是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
無表是善或不善，其餘三種通三性。 不善業只在欲界，無表業遍欲色界。 表業只有有伺定，欲界沒有無覆表， 因為沒有等起心。
論述：無表業只有善（kuśala，好的）和不善（akuśala，不好的）兩種性質，沒有無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡）的性質。為什麼呢？因為它是強力的心所（caitasika，心理活動）等起（samutthāna，生起）的緣故。無記心力弱，沒有能力作為原因等起，引發強力的業，使得在後來的其他心位中，以及沒有心的時候，也能恒常持續生起。所說的『其餘』，是指兩種表業和思惟，這三種都通於善、不善、無記三種性質。其中不善業只在欲界（kāma-dhātu，慾望的領域），不在其他界。因為有不善根（akuśala-mūla，不善的根源），沒有慚（hrī，羞恥）和愧（apatrāpya，內疚）的緣故。善和無記業則隨其所應，三界（trayo dhātavaḥ，三個領域：欲界、色界、無色界）都有，沒有特別遮止的緣故。欲界和色界都有無表業，決定不在無色界（arūpa-dhātu，沒有物質的領域）中。因為在無色界中有伏藏色想（rūpa-saṃjñā，對物質的感知）的緣故。厭惡背離各種色相而進入無色定（arūpa-samāpatti，無色界的禪定）。因此，那種禪定中不能產生色法。或者說，隨著什麼地方有身語的活動，只有那個地方才有身語的律儀（saṃvara，戒律）。有人這樣說，因為無色界沒有大種（mahābhūta，四大元素），所以沒有無表色。他們只能遮止有
【English Translation】 English version: If (something) is larger than its original size, and its form and color are extremely subtle and increased, therefore (the thing) does not actually appear. What is the reason for this? One explanation is that because (the thing's) appearance and large aspect are very thin. It's like dyeing a limb, but you can't see that a large appearance can be obtained. Another explanation is that because there are holes in the body, even if it can be accommodated, it will not be larger than its original size.
Śrī Paramārtha's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 35 T29, No. 1562, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
Śrī Paramārtha's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 36 Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 4, Section 4: Analysis of Karma
Having analyzed the categories of karma, there are briefly two types: the difference between thought (cetanā) and karma produced by thought (cetanā-kṛta karma). There are also three types: the difference between bodily karma (kāya-karma), verbal karma (vak-karma), and mental karma (manas-karma). There are also five types: the difference between manifest karma (vijñapti-karma) and non-manifest karma (avijñapti-karma) for both bodily and verbal actions, and the single category of thought. What are the nature, realm (dhātu), and level (bhūmi) establishments of these five types of karma? The verse says:
Non-manifest is moral or immoral, the other three are of three natures. Immoral karma is only in the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), non-manifest karma pervades the desire and form realms (rūpa-dhātu). Manifest karma is only in the discursive concentration, the desire realm has no neutral-unspecified manifest, because there is no arising mind.
Treatise: Non-manifest karma only has the nature of moral (kuśala) and immoral (akuśala), and does not have the nature of neutral-unspecified (avyākṛta). Why? Because it arises from strong mental factors (caitasika). A neutral-unspecified mind is weak and does not have the ability to cause and arise, leading to strong karma, so that in later other mental states, and when there is no mind, it can constantly continue to arise. The 'other' refers to the two types of manifest karma and thought, all three of which are of moral, immoral, and neutral-unspecified natures. Among them, immoral karma is only in the desire realm, not in other realms. Because there are immoral roots (akuśala-mūla), and there is no shame (hrī) or remorse (apatrāpya). Moral and neutral-unspecified karma, as appropriate, exist in all three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ), because there is no specific prohibition. Both the desire and form realms have non-manifest karma, and it is definitely not in the formless realm (arūpa-dhātu). Because in the formless realm there is a suppressed perception of form (rūpa-saṃjñā). Disgusted and turning away from various forms, one enters the formless samadhi (arūpa-samāpatti). Therefore, form cannot arise in that samadhi. Or, wherever there is bodily and verbal activity, only there is bodily and verbal discipline (saṃvara). Some say that because the formless realm does not have the great elements (mahābhūta), there is no non-manifest form. They can only prevent the existence of
漏無表。無漏無表無理能遮。謂無色中無大種故。墮界系地有漏律儀必定無容是別界地大種所造故。無色無無漏律儀。既許得為別界別地大種所造。無色界有何理能遮。是故前說于理無過。毗婆沙師作如是說。為治惡戒故起尸羅。唯欲界中有諸惡戒。無色于欲具四種遠。一所依遠。二行相遠。三所緣遠。四對治遠。所依遠者。謂于等至入出位中。等無間緣為所依體。無容有故。行相遠者。謂無色心畢竟無能于欲界法作苦粗等諸行相故。所緣遠義類此應知。由無色心但能以下第四靜慮有漏諸法。為苦粗等行相所緣。對治遠者。謂若未離欲界貪時。必定無容起無色定。能為欲界惡戒等法厭壞及斷二對治故。非不能緣可能厭壞。故無色界無無表色。表色唯在二有伺地。謂通欲界初靜慮中。非上地中可言有表。說有伺者。為顯一切初靜慮中遍有表業。若於上地表業全無。語表既無何有聲處。有外大種為因發聲不遮外聲故無有失。有餘師說。上三靜慮亦有無覆無記表業理必應爾。上三地中起三識身既無有失。如何不起發表業心。然善染心上不起下下善下染劣故斷故。由是生上無善染表。前說為善。所以者何。雖彼現前非彼系故。有覆無記表欲界定無。唯初靜慮中可得說有。曾聞大梵有誑諂言。謂自眾中為避馬勝所徴問故矯自嘆等
。復以何緣二定以上都無表業。于欲界中無有有覆無記表業。以無發業等起心故。有尋伺心能發表業。二定以上都無此心。豈不前言生上三地如亦得起下三識身。發表業心如何不起。豈不已說依上地身雖得現前而非彼系。有作是說。依餘地身非起餘地心能發身語表。若爾經說世尊一時升凈居天。彼諸天眾禮拜讚歎供養世尊。此經應成有語無義。又聞經說凈居天等來詣佛所贊禮問難。故生餘地起餘地心發身語表于理無失。然如識身等非彼地所繫。又發表心唯修所斷。見所斷惑內門轉故。以欲界中決定無有有覆無記修所斷惑。是故表業上三地都無。欲界中無有覆無記表。為但由等起令諸法成善不善性等。不爾。云何。由四種因成善性等。一由勝義。二由自性。三由相應。四由等起。何法何性由何因成。頌曰。
勝義善解脫 自性慚愧根 相應彼相應 等起色業等 翻此名不善 勝無記二常
論曰。勝義善者。謂真解脫以安隱義說名為善。謂涅槃中眾苦永寂最極安隱猶如無病。此由勝義安立善名。是故涅槃名勝義善。或真解脫是勝是義得勝義名。勝謂最尊無與等者。義謂別有真實體性。此顯涅槃無等實有故名勝義。如是勝義安隱名善。如是涅槃是善常故。於一切法其體最尊。是故獨摽為勝義善。自性善
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：又是什麼原因導致二禪及以上的禪定中都沒有表業（manifest action）呢？在欲界中，為什麼沒有有覆無記（obscured and neutral）的表業呢？因為沒有發起業的等起心（initial motivation）。有尋伺心（thought-conception mind）能夠發表業，而二禪及以上的禪定中都沒有這種心。難道不是之前說過，生於上三地（色界和無色界）的眾生，也能生起下三地（欲界）的識身（consciousness-body）嗎？那麼發表業的心為什麼不能生起呢？難道不是已經說過，依憑上地之身，雖然可以顯現，但並非屬於該地所繫嗎？ 有一種說法是，依憑其他地之身，不能生起其他地之心來發表身語表（bodily and verbal manifestations）。如果這樣說，那麼經中說世尊一時升到凈居天（Suddhavasa heavens，色界頂層），那些天眾禮拜讚歎供養世尊，這部經就應該成為有語無義了。又聽經中說，凈居天等來詣佛所贊禮問難。所以，生於其他地，生起其他地之心，發表身語表，在道理上沒有缺失。然而，如同識身等並非該地所繫。而且，發表心唯有修所斷（cultivation-to-be-abandoned）的煩惱才能阻斷，因為見所斷惑（view-to-be-abandoned）在內門運轉。因為在欲界中，決定沒有有覆無記的修所斷惑，所以表業在上三地都沒有，欲界中也沒有有覆無記的表業。 難道僅僅由等起（initial motivation）就使諸法成就善、不善等性質嗎？不是這樣的。那是怎樣呢？由四種因成就善性等：一是由勝義（ultimate meaning），二是由自性（own-nature），三是由相應（concomitance），四是由等起。什麼法、什麼性質由什麼因成就呢？頌曰： 勝義善解脫，自性慚愧根，相應彼相應，等起色業等，翻此名不善，勝無記二常。 論曰：勝義善，指的是真正的解脫，以安穩的意義來說，稱為善。指的是涅槃（Nirvana，extinction of suffering）中眾苦永遠寂滅，最為安穩，猶如沒有疾病。這由勝義安立善名。所以，涅槃名為勝義善。或者，真正的解脫是殊勝的意義，得到勝義之名。勝，指的是最尊貴，沒有可以與之相比者。義，指的是別有真實的體性。這顯示涅槃無與倫比且真實存在，所以名為勝義。如此，勝義安穩名為善。如此，涅槃是善且常住的，對於一切法來說，其體性最為尊貴。所以，單獨標舉為勝義善。自性善（own-nature good）
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, what is the reason that there are no manifest actions (表業, biǎo yè) in the second Dhyana (定, dìng) and above? In the desire realm (欲界, yù jiè), why are there no obscured and neutral (有覆無記, yǒu fù wú jì) manifest actions? It is because there is no initial motivation (等起心, děng qǐ xīn) that arises from karma. The thought-conception mind (有尋伺心, yǒu xún sì xīn) can manifest actions, but there is no such mind in the second Dhyana and above. Didn't we say earlier that beings born in the upper three realms (上三地, shàng sān dì) (form realm and formless realm) can also give rise to consciousness-bodies (識身, shí shēn) of the lower three realms (下三識身, xià sān shí shēn) (desire realm)? Then why can't the mind that manifests actions arise? Haven't we already said that although relying on the body of the upper realm can manifest, it is not bound by that realm? One explanation is that relying on the body of another realm cannot give rise to the mind of another realm to manifest bodily and verbal manifestations (身語表, shēn yǔ biǎo). If that is the case, then the sutra that says the World-Honored One (世尊, Shìzūn) once ascended to the Pure Abode Heavens (淨居天, jìng jū tiān) (Suddhavasa heavens, the highest heavens in the form realm), and those heavenly beings prostrated, praised, and made offerings to the World-Honored One, this sutra should become words without meaning. Also, we hear in the sutras that the Pure Abode Heavens and others came to the Buddha's place to praise, pay respects, and ask questions. Therefore, being born in another realm, giving rise to the mind of another realm, and manifesting bodily and verbal manifestations is not unreasonable. However, like the consciousness-body, it is not bound by that realm. Moreover, the mind that manifests actions can only be obstructed by afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation (修所斷, xiū suǒ duàn), because afflictions to be abandoned through seeing (見所斷惑, jiàn suǒ duàn huò) operate within the inner gate. Because in the desire realm, there are definitely no obscured and neutral afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation, therefore there are no manifest actions in the upper three realms, and there are no obscured and neutral manifest actions in the desire realm. Is it only due to initial motivation (等起, děng qǐ) that phenomena achieve the nature of good, unwholesome, etc.? It is not like that. Then how is it? The nature of good, etc., is achieved by four causes: one is by ultimate meaning (勝義, shèng yì), two is by own-nature (自性, zì xìng), three is by concomitance (相應, xiāng yìng), and four is by initial motivation. What dharma, what nature is achieved by what cause? The verse says: Ultimate meaning is good liberation, own-nature is shame and root, concomitance is its concomitance, initial motivation is form, action, etc., reversing this is called unwholesome, ultimate neutral is two constants. The treatise says: Ultimate meaning good refers to true liberation, which is called good in the sense of peace and security. It refers to the eternal extinction of all suffering in Nirvana (涅槃, Nièpán) (extinction of suffering), which is most peaceful and secure, like being without illness. This establishes the name of good by ultimate meaning. Therefore, Nirvana is called ultimate meaning good. Or, true liberation is the supreme meaning, obtaining the name of ultimate meaning. Supreme refers to the most honored, with nothing equal to it. Meaning refers to having a separate and real substance. This shows that Nirvana is unparalleled and truly exists, so it is called ultimate meaning. Thus, ultimate meaning peace and security is called good. Thus, Nirvana is good and constant, and its substance is the most honored among all dharmas. Therefore, it is singled out as ultimate meaning good. Own-nature good
者。謂慚愧根。以有為中唯慚與愧及無貪等三種善根。不待相應及余等起體性是善。猶如良藥。相應善者。謂彼相應以心心所要與慚愧善根相應方成善性。若不與彼慚等相應善性不成。如雜藥水。等起善者。謂身語業生等及得二無心定。以是自性及相應善所等起故立等起名。如良藥汁所引生乳。因異類心亦起諸得。如因靜慮得通果心。勝無記心現在前故。得諸染法。勝染污心現在前故。得諸善法。此等如何成善等性。以就彼法俱生得故密作是言。非異類心不作緣起故無有失。雖異類心亦為緣起。而成善等非待彼心。或復因彼諸得等起。即待彼故成善等性故。得由等起成善等性異。如說善性四種差別。不善四種與此相違。云何相違。勝義不善。謂生死法由生死中。諸法皆以苦為自性。極不安隱猶如痼疾。自性不善。謂無慚愧三不善根。由有漏中唯無慚愧及貪瞋等三不善根不待相應及余等起。體是不善猶如毒藥。相應不善。謂彼相應由心心所法。要與無慚愧不善根相應。方成不善性。異則不然如雜毒水。等起不善。謂身語業生等及得。以是自性相應不善所等起故。如毒藥汁所引生乳。若爾應無一有漏法是無記或善。皆生死攝故一切皆應是不善攝。雖據勝義理實應然。而於此中約異熟說。諸有漏法若不能記異熟果者立無記名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這裡說的是慚愧的根本。在有為法中，只有慚和愧，以及無貪等三種善根，不依賴於相應法和等起法，其體性本身就是善良的，就像良藥一樣。相應的善，指的是那些與慚愧善根相應的法，只有當心和心所與慚愧善根相應時，才能成為善性。如果不與慚愧等相應，善性就無法成立，就像混合了藥物的水。等起的善，指的是身語業的產生等，以及獲得二無心定（無想定和滅盡定）。因為這些是自性善和相應善所等起的，所以稱為等起。就像良藥汁所引生的乳汁。因為不同種類的心也能產生各種獲得（得），比如因為靜慮而獲得神通果心。當殊勝的無記心出現時，就能獲得各種染法；當殊勝的染污心出現時，就能獲得各種善法。這些是如何成為善等性質的呢？因為就這些法而言，是俱生而獲得的，所以秘密地這樣說：不是不同種類的心不能作為緣起，所以沒有過失。雖然不同種類的心也能作為緣起，但成為善等性質並不依賴於這些心。或者因為這些獲得是等起的，所以依賴於這些心，從而成為善等性質。因此，獲得通過等起而成為善等性質是不同的。就像所說的善性有四種差別一樣，不善也有四種，與此相反。如何相反呢？勝義不善，指的是生死之法。因為生死中的一切法都以苦為自性，極其不安穩，就像頑疾一樣。自性不善，指的是無慚、無愧和三種不善根。因為在有漏法中，只有無慚、無愧以及貪、嗔等三種不善根不依賴於相應法和等起法，其體性本身就是不善的，就像毒藥一樣。相應的不善，指的是那些與無慚愧不善根相應的法，只有當心和心所法與無慚愧不善根相應時，才能成為不善性，否則就不是這樣，就像混合了毒藥的水。等起的不善，指的是身語業的產生等以及獲得（得）。因為這些是自性不善和相應不善所等起的，就像毒藥汁所引生的乳汁。如果這樣，那麼應該沒有一個有漏法是無記或者善的，因為一切都屬於生死，所以一切都應該是不善的。雖然從勝義的角度來說，道理確實應該如此，但在這裡是根據異熟果來說的。那些不能記錄異熟果的有漏法，就稱為無記。
【English Translation】 English version This refers to the root of shame and embarrassment (慚愧, Cánkuì). Among conditioned (有為, Yǒuwéi) phenomena, only shame, embarrassment, and the three wholesome roots such as non-greed (無貪, Wútān) are inherently virtuous without depending on associated factors or arising from other causes, like good medicine. Associated virtue refers to those phenomena that are associated with the roots of shame and embarrassment. Only when the mind and mental factors are associated with the wholesome roots of shame and embarrassment can they become virtuous. If they are not associated with shame and embarrassment, their virtuous nature cannot be established, like water mixed with medicine. Arising virtue refers to the arising of bodily and verbal actions, etc., and the attainment (得, Dé) of the two non-mind samadhis (二無心定, Èr wúxīn dìng) [non-perception samadhi and cessation samadhi]. Because these arise from inherent virtue and associated virtue, they are called arising. It is like milk produced by good medicine juice. Because different kinds of minds can also produce various attainments, such as attaining the mind of the fruit of supernatural powers through meditative absorption (靜慮, Jìnglǜ). When a superior neutral mind manifests, one can attain various defiled dharmas; when a superior defiled mind manifests, one can attain various wholesome dharmas. How do these become virtuous, etc.? Because they are co-born and attained with those dharmas, it is secretly said that it is not that different kinds of minds cannot be the cause, so there is no fault. Although different kinds of minds can also be the cause, becoming virtuous, etc., does not depend on those minds. Or because these attainments arise from them, they depend on those minds, thus becoming virtuous, etc. Therefore, attainment becoming virtuous, etc., through arising is different. Just as it is said that there are four kinds of distinctions in virtuous nature, there are four kinds of non-virtue that are contrary to this. How are they contrary? Ultimate non-virtue refers to the dharmas of samsara (生死, Shēngsǐ). Because all dharmas in samsara have suffering as their nature, they are extremely unstable, like chronic diseases. Inherent non-virtue refers to shamelessness (無慚, Wúcán), lack of embarrassment (無愧, Wúkuì), and the three unwholesome roots. Because among conditioned dharmas, only shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, and the three unwholesome roots such as greed (貪, Tān), hatred (瞋, Chēn), etc., are inherently unwholesome without depending on associated factors or arising from other causes, like poison. Associated non-virtue refers to those phenomena that are associated with the unwholesome roots of shamelessness and lack of embarrassment. Only when the mind and mental factors are associated with the unwholesome roots of shamelessness and lack of embarrassment can they become unwholesome; otherwise, it is not so, like water mixed with poison. Arising non-virtue refers to the arising of bodily and verbal actions, etc., and attainment. Because these arise from inherent non-virtue and associated non-virtue, like milk produced by poison juice. If so, then there should be no conditioned dharma that is neutral or virtuous, because everything belongs to samsara, so everything should be unwholesome. Although from the ultimate perspective, the principle should indeed be so, here it is discussed according to the result of maturation (異熟果, Yìshú guǒ). Those conditioned dharmas that cannot record the result of maturation are called neutral.
。于中若能記愛異熟說名為善。有為無記有漏善法以起少苦猶如輕病。亦得名為勝義不善。如善不善既有勝義。亦有勝義無記法耶。亦有。云何。謂二常法以非擇滅及太虛空更無異門。唯無記性。是故獨立勝義無記。無別自性相應等起。無一心所唯無記性。與無記心遍相應故。設方便立自性等三亦攝不盡無記多故。由是無記唯有二種。一者勝義。二者自性。有為無記是自性攝。不待別因成無記故。無為無記是勝義攝。以性是常無異門故。若等起力令身語業成善不善。此身語業所依大種例亦應然。俱從一心所等起故。此難非理。以作者心本欲起業非大種故。謂無作者于大種中發起樂欲。我當引發如是種類大種現前。由此為門善惡心起。又世現見身語二業待心而生。未曾見有身語二業離心而起。然四大種離心亦生。故知彼法非待心起。又如眼等不待心生。其性便無善等差別。如是大種不待心生。故理亦無善等差別。若爾諸得及生等相。應無等起善等差別。以非本心所欲起故。無心位中亦現起故。此難非理。由法勢力安立善等差別成故。謂得四相依法而立。非如大種無待自成。有為法中無有一法不待心力成善不善。是故諸得及生等相如所屬法。要由心力成善等性其理善成。生已離心雖相續轉亦無有過。即是前心勢力所引令其
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：其中如果能夠記住異熟果報的愛，就稱之為善。有為、無記、有漏的善法，因為產生少許痛苦，就像輕微的疾病一樣，也可以稱為勝義不善。既然善和不善都有勝義，那麼也有勝義無記法嗎？也有。是什麼呢？就是二常法，即非擇滅（永遠斷滅煩惱的真理）和太虛空（無限的空間），沒有其他的差別，只有無記的性質。因此，獨立存在勝義無記，沒有其他的自性、相應等生起，沒有唯一的心所，只有無記的性質，與無記心普遍相應。假設方便地建立自性等三種，也無法完全涵蓋無記法，因為無記法太多了。因此，無記只有兩種：一是勝義，二是自性。有為無記屬於自性所攝，不需要特別的因緣就能成為無記。無為無記屬於勝義所攝，因為其性質是恒常不變的，沒有其他的差別。如果等起的力量使身語業成為善或不善，那麼這些身語業所依賴的四大種也應該如此，因為它們都是從一心所等生起的。這個責難是不合理的，因為作者的心本來想要發起業，而不是四大種。也就是說，沒有作者對四大種發起樂欲，說『我應當引發如此種類的四大種現前』。善惡之心由此而生起。而且世間現在可以看到，身語二業依賴心而生起，從未見過身語二業離開心而生起。然而，四大種離開心也能生起。所以，可以知道四大種不是依賴心而生起的。又如眼等不依賴心而生，其性質就沒有善等的差別。如此，四大種不依賴心而生，所以道理上也沒有善等的差別。如果這樣，那麼諸得（獲得）、以及生等相（生等四相），應該沒有等起善等的差別，因為它們不是本心所想要發起的，在無心位中也現起。這個責難是不合理的，因為由法的勢力安立善等差別成就。也就是說，得和四相是依法而建立的，不像四大種那樣不依賴其他而自然成就。有為法中沒有一種法是不依賴心力而成就善或不善的。所以，諸得以及生等相，如同它們所屬的法一樣，一定要由心力才能成就善等性質，這個道理才能成立。生起之後，即使離開心而相續運轉，也沒有過失，因為那是前一心勢力所引導，使它們 English version: Among them, if one can remember the love that results in different maturation (異熟, vipāka), it is called 'good'. Conditioned, indeterminate (無記, avyākrta), and defiled (有漏, sāsrava) good dharmas, because they produce a little suffering, like a minor illness, can also be called 'ultimately unwholesome' (勝義不善, paramārtha-akuśala). Since both good and unwholesome have ultimate meanings, are there also ultimately indeterminate dharmas? Yes, there are. What are they? They are the two constant dharmas, namely, non-selective cessation (非擇滅, apratisamkhyā-nirodha) and empty space (太虛空, ākāśa), which have no other distinctions but only an indeterminate nature. Therefore, ultimately indeterminate exists independently, without other self-natures, co-arising, etc., and without a single mental factor (一心所, caitasika), but only an indeterminate nature, universally corresponding with indeterminate minds. Even if we conveniently establish three aspects such as self-nature, they cannot fully encompass indeterminate dharmas because there are too many of them. Therefore, there are only two types of indeterminate: one is ultimate, and the other is self-nature. Conditioned indeterminate is included in self-nature because it becomes indeterminate without relying on specific causes. Unconditioned indeterminate is included in the ultimate because its nature is constant and without other distinctions. If the power of arising (等起, samutthāna) causes bodily and verbal actions to become good or unwholesome, then the great elements (大種, mahābhūta) on which these bodily and verbal actions depend should also be the same, because they all arise from a single mental factor, etc. This objection is unreasonable because the mind of the agent originally intends to initiate the action, not the great elements. That is, no agent initiates desire towards the great elements, saying, 'I should bring forth such kinds of great elements.' Good and unwholesome minds arise from this. Moreover, it is now seen in the world that bodily and verbal actions arise dependent on the mind, and it has never been seen that bodily and verbal actions arise independently of the mind. However, the four great elements can arise independently of the mind. Therefore, it can be known that the four great elements do not arise dependent on the mind. Furthermore, just as the eyes, etc., do not arise dependent on the mind, their nature has no distinctions of good, etc. Similarly, the great elements do not arise dependent on the mind, so logically they also have no distinctions of good, etc. If that is the case, then the acquisitions (得, prāpti) and characteristics such as arising (生, jāti), etc., should have no distinctions of arising good, etc., because they are not what the original mind intended to initiate, and they also manifest in the state of no-mind. This objection is unreasonable because the distinctions of good, etc., are established by the power of the dharma. That is, acquisition and the four characteristics are established according to the dharma, unlike the great elements, which are naturally accomplished without dependence on anything else. Among conditioned dharmas, there is not a single dharma that does not become good or unwholesome dependent on the power of the mind. Therefore, the acquisitions and characteristics such as arising, etc., like the dharmas to which they belong, must be accomplished with good, etc., natures by the power of the mind, and this principle is well established. Even if they continue to function after arising and separating from the mind, there is no fault, because they are guided by the power of the previous mind, causing them to
【English Translation】 English version: Among them, if one can remember the love that results in different maturation (異熟, vipāka), it is called 'good'. Conditioned, indeterminate (無記, avyākrta), and defiled (有漏, sāsrava) good dharmas, because they produce a little suffering, like a minor illness, can also be called 'ultimately unwholesome' (勝義不善, paramārtha-akuśala). Since both good and unwholesome have ultimate meanings, are there also ultimately indeterminate dharmas? Yes, there are. What are they? They are the two constant dharmas, namely, non-selective cessation (非擇滅, apratisamkhyā-nirodha) and empty space (太虛空, ākāśa), which have no other distinctions but only an indeterminate nature. Therefore, ultimately indeterminate exists independently, without other self-natures, co-arising, etc., and without a single mental factor (一心所, caitasika), but only an indeterminate nature, universally corresponding with indeterminate minds. Even if we conveniently establish three aspects such as self-nature, they cannot fully encompass indeterminate dharmas because there are too many of them. Therefore, there are only two types of indeterminate: one is ultimate, and the other is self-nature. Conditioned indeterminate is included in self-nature because it becomes indeterminate without relying on specific causes. Unconditioned indeterminate is included in the ultimate because its nature is constant and without other distinctions. If the power of arising (等起, samutthāna) causes bodily and verbal actions to become good or unwholesome, then the great elements (大種, mahābhūta) on which these bodily and verbal actions depend should also be the same, because they all arise from a single mental factor, etc. This objection is unreasonable because the mind of the agent originally intends to initiate the action, not the great elements. That is, no agent initiates desire towards the great elements, saying, 'I should bring forth such kinds of great elements.' Good and unwholesome minds arise from this. Moreover, it is now seen in the world that bodily and verbal actions arise dependent on the mind, and it has never been seen that bodily and verbal actions arise independently of the mind. However, the four great elements can arise independently of the mind. Therefore, it can be known that the four great elements do not arise dependent on the mind. Furthermore, just as the eyes, etc., do not arise dependent on the mind, their nature has no distinctions of good, etc. Similarly, the great elements do not arise dependent on the mind, so logically they also have no distinctions of good, etc. If that is the case, then the acquisitions (得, prāpti) and characteristics such as arising (生, jāti), etc., should have no distinctions of arising good, etc., because they are not what the original mind intended to initiate, and they also manifest in the state of no-mind. This objection is unreasonable because the distinctions of good, etc., are established by the power of the dharma. That is, acquisition and the four characteristics are established according to the dharma, unlike the great elements, which are naturally accomplished without dependence on anything else. Among conditioned dharmas, there is not a single dharma that does not become good or unwholesome dependent on the power of the mind. Therefore, the acquisitions and characteristics such as arising, etc., like the dharmas to which they belong, must be accomplished with good, etc., natures by the power of the mind, and this principle is well established. Even if they continue to function after arising and separating from the mind, there is no fault, because they are guided by the power of the previous mind, causing them to
轉故。隨定無表定等力生理亦應成。等起善性天眼天耳應善性攝。以是善心所等起故。此難非理。以彼二通解脫道心是無記故。彼二與道俱時生故。通斯似難何費劬勞。如上所言身語二業由等起力成善不善。等起有幾。何等起力令身語業成善不善。等起相望差別云何。頌曰。
等起有二種 因及彼剎那 如次第應知 名轉名隨轉 見斷識唯轉 唯隨轉五識 修斷意通二 無漏異熟非 于轉善等性 隨轉各容三 牟尼善必同 無記隨或善
論曰。身語二業等起有二。謂因等起。剎那等起。在先為因故。彼剎那有故。如次初名轉。第二名隨轉。謂因等起將作業時作是思惟。我今當作如是如是所應作業。能引發故說名為轉。剎那等起正作業時。與先轉心所引發業。俱時行故說名隨轉。若無隨轉雖有先因為能引發。如無心位或如死屍。表應不轉隨轉。于表有轉功能無表不依隨轉而轉。無心亦有無錶轉故。如上所言見所斷惑內門轉故不能發表。若爾何緣薄伽梵說由邪見故起邪思惟邪語邪業及邪命等。此不相違見所斷識于發表業但能為轉。于能起表尋伺生中為資糧故不為隨轉。于外門心正起業時此無有故。由此故說見所斷心為因等起發身語業。定不能為剎那等起見所斷識。雖能思量而無功能動身
發語。然于動發一表業中。容有多心思量動發。唯后一念與表俱行。異此表應非剎那性見所斷識。雖能為轉發有表業然非表業。於此識后無間即生內門轉心。不能引起與身語表俱行識故。若異此者見所斷心亦應于表業為剎那等起。以修所斷加行意識能無間引表俱行心。亦與表俱行為剎那等起故。見所斷雖能為因引諸表業。離修所斷因等起心表俱行心無容得起。是故欲界無有有覆無記表業。然契經中但據展轉為因等起。密作是言。由邪見故起邪語等。阿毗達磨據彼不能無間引生表俱行識。故密意說見所斷心內門轉故不能發表。是故經論理不相違。又見所斷若發表色。此色則應是見所斷。色非見斷已廣成立。若五識身唯作隨轉無分別故外門起故。修斷意識有通二種。有分別故外門起故。由此應成四句分別。有轉非隨轉。謂見所斷心。有隨轉非轉。謂眼等五識。有轉亦隨轉。謂修所斷一分意識。有非轉非隨轉。謂餘一切修所成識。以修所成無分別故。然說無漏異熟非者。此有太減及太過失。有漏定心亦俱非故。諸異熟識但可非轉能為隨轉何理能遮。然經主言。不由加行任運轉故。諸異熟識非轉隨轉。有餘復言。此唯先業勢力所引余心息位方可現前故非二種。設此能起身語表業是何性類。為異熟生為威儀路為工巧處。且非異熟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 開始討論。然而在發起一個表業（vijñapti-karma，通過身語表達的業）的過程中，可能包含多種心思的思量和發起。只有最後一個念頭與表業同時發生。如果不是這樣，表業就不應該是剎那生滅的，也就不能被見所斷（dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）所斷。識雖然能夠作為轉發有表業的原因，但它本身不是表業。在這個識之後，緊接著產生內門轉心（manas，意識），因為它不能引起與身語表業同時發生的識。如果不是這樣，見所斷的心也應該能夠作為表業的剎那生起的原因，因為修所斷（bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的加行意識能夠無間地引發與表業同時發生的心，也與表業同時發生，作為剎那生起的原因。見所斷的心雖然能夠作為引發各種表業的原因，但如果沒有修所斷的因等起心，與表業同時發生的心就無法生起。因此，欲界（kāmadhātu，欲界）中沒有有覆無記（sāvaraṇa-avyākṛta，被覆蓋的無記）的表業。 然而，契經（sūtra，佛經）中只是根據輾轉相因為因等起來說的，隱晦地說：『由於邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）的緣故，產生邪語（mithyā-vāc，虛妄的言語）等。』阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）根據見所斷的心不能無間地引發與表業同時發生的識，所以隱晦地說見所斷的心是內門轉心，所以不能發表。因此，經和論在道理上並不矛盾。而且，如果見所斷的心發表了色法（rūpa，物質現象），那麼這個色法就應該是見所斷的。但色法不是見所斷的，這一點已經廣泛地成立了。如果五識身（pañca-vijñāna-kāya，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）只是作為隨轉，沒有分別，而且是從外門生起的，那麼修所斷的意識就有通於兩種情況，因為它有分別，而且是從外門生起的。由此應該形成四句分別：有轉非隨轉，指的是見所斷的心；有隨轉非轉，指的是眼等五識；有轉也是隨轉，指的是修所斷的一部分意識；有非轉非隨轉，指的是其餘一切修所成識，因為修所成識沒有分別。 然而，如果說無漏（anāsrava，沒有煩惱）的異熟（vipāka，果報）不是轉，那麼這就有太少和太多的過失，因為有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）的定心（samādhi-citta，禪定中的心）也都不屬於這種情況。各種異熟識只能是非轉，能夠作為隨轉，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？然而，經主（sūtra-dhara，經的作者）說：『不是由加行（prayoga，努力）任運轉的緣故，各種異熟識不是轉和隨轉。』還有人說：『這只是先前的業力（karma-bala，行為的力量）所引導，其餘的心息滅的時候才能顯現，所以不是兩種。』假設這能夠引起身語表業，那麼這是什麼性質的呢？是異熟生（vipāka-ja，果報所生）、威儀路（iryāpatha，行住坐臥的姿勢）、還是工巧處（śilpasthāna，工藝技能）？首先，它不是異熟生。
【English Translation】 English version: Let's begin the discussion. However, in the process of initiating a vijñapti-karma (expressed action through body and speech), there can be multiple thoughts and deliberations involved in the initiation. Only the last thought occurs simultaneously with the expressed action. If this were not the case, the expressed action should not be momentary and thus could not be severed by what is abandoned by seeing (dṛṣṭi-heya, afflictions abandoned through the path of seeing). Although consciousness can serve as a cause for transmitting expressed actions, it is not itself an expressed action. Immediately after this consciousness, the internal mental activity (manas, mind) arises, because it cannot give rise to consciousness that occurs simultaneously with bodily and verbal expressed actions. If this were not the case, the mind that is abandoned by seeing should also be able to serve as the momentary cause for expressed actions, because the intentional consciousness that is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya, afflictions abandoned through the path of cultivation) can immediately cause the mind that occurs simultaneously with expressed actions, and also occurs simultaneously with expressed actions as a momentary cause. Although the mind that is abandoned by seeing can serve as a cause for inducing various expressed actions, without the intentional mind that is abandoned by cultivation as the cause, the mind that occurs simultaneously with expressed actions cannot arise. Therefore, in the desire realm (kāmadhātu, desire realm), there are no obscured and unspecified (sāvaraṇa-avyākṛta, obscured and indeterminate) expressed actions. However, the sūtra (Buddhist scripture) speaks only in terms of sequential causation, saying implicitly: 'Due to wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi, incorrect views), wrong speech (mithyā-vāc, false speech) and so on arise.' The Abhidharma (doctrinal commentaries) speaks implicitly because the mind that is abandoned by seeing cannot immediately cause the consciousness that occurs simultaneously with expressed actions, so it says that the mind that is abandoned by seeing is internal mental activity and therefore cannot express. Therefore, the scriptures and treatises are not contradictory in principle. Moreover, if the mind that is abandoned by seeing expresses form (rūpa, material phenomena), then this form should be abandoned by seeing. But form is not abandoned by seeing, which has already been widely established. If the aggregates of the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna-kāya, eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) only act as followers, without discrimination, and arise from the external gates, then the consciousness that is abandoned by cultivation has both possibilities, because it has discrimination and arises from the external gates. Therefore, a fourfold distinction should be formed: there is that which transforms but does not follow, referring to the mind that is abandoned by seeing; there is that which follows but does not transform, referring to the five consciousnesses such as eye consciousness; there is that which both transforms and follows, referring to a portion of the consciousness that is abandoned by cultivation; there is that which neither transforms nor follows, referring to all other consciousnesses that are accomplished by cultivation, because the consciousnesses that are accomplished by cultivation have no discrimination. However, if it is said that the unconditioned (anāsrava, without outflows) resultant (vipāka, result) is not a transformation, then this has the faults of being too little and too much, because the conditioned (sāsrava, with outflows) meditative mind (samādhi-citta, mind in meditation) also does not belong to this category. Various resultant consciousnesses can only be non-transforming and capable of following; what reason can prevent this? However, the sūtra-dhara (author of the sutra) says: 'Because they are not operated by intentional effort (prayoga, effort), various resultant consciousnesses are neither transforming nor following.' Others say: 'This is only guided by the power of previous karma (karma-bala, force of action), and can only appear when other minds have ceased, so it is not both.' Supposing this can give rise to bodily and verbal expressed actions, what is its nature? Is it resultantly born (vipāka-ja, born of result), a path of deportment (iryāpatha, posture), or a place of skill (śilpasthāna, skill in crafts)? First of all, it is not resultantly born.
生現加行起故。亦非餘二種異熟心起故。如是理趣但可能遮。異熟生心為因等起余心為轉。所發表業異熟生心外門轉故能為隨轉。何理相違。且若無心表業不轉許表業轉。用異熟識為隨轉因斯有何過。又但應說異熟生心勢微劣故非因等起。不應說言不由加行任運轉故。勿生得善亦不為因發有表業。亦非加行任運轉故。由此經主有減增失。因復非因智者應了。轉隨轉識性必同耶。不爾。云何。謂前轉識若是善性。后隨轉識通善等三。不善無記為轉亦爾。唯牟尼尊轉隨轉識多分同性少有不同。謂轉若善心隨轉亦善。轉心若無記隨轉亦然。于續剎那定無迷故。而或有位善隨無記轉。曾無有時無記隨善轉。以佛世尊于說法等心或增長無萎歇故。有餘部說。諸佛世尊常在定故心唯是善無無記心。故契經說。
那伽行在定 那伽住在定 那伽坐在定 那伽臥在定
毗婆沙師作如是釋。此顯佛意必正知生。亦無有心不隨欲起。于境無亂故立定名。非佛世尊無威儀路異熟生識及通果心。起此等心於理無失。既說善等轉隨轉各三。準此標釋中足為明證。所發諸業成善惡等。隨因等起非隨剎那。異此善心所引發業。既與不善無記心俱。何理能遮成惡無記。是則應有從別思惟為因引生別性類業。如是勤勵欲為善者。翻有不善
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為有加行（karma-forming activity）生起，所以不是其餘兩種異熟心（vipaka-born mind）生起。這樣的道理只能用來遮止。異熟生心作為因等起（hetu-samutthana）而其餘心作為轉（pravrtti）。所發表的業（karma）因為異熟生心在外門轉（bahirmukha-pravrtti），所以能夠作為隨轉（anuvrtti）。這在道理上有什麼相違背的呢？即使沒有心，表業（vijnapti-karma）也不會轉，允許表業轉，用異熟識（vipaka-vijnana）作為隨轉因，這有什麼過失呢？又，應該只說異熟生心勢力微弱，所以不是因等起，不應該說不由加行任運轉。不要讓生得的善也不作為因，而發出有表業，也不是加行任運轉。因此，經主（sutra author）有減增的過失。因和非因，智者應該明白。轉識（pravrtti-vijnana）和隨轉識（anuvrtti-vijnana）的性質必定相同嗎？不是的。那是怎樣的呢？如果前面的轉識是善性，後面的隨轉識通善等三種。不善和無記（avyakrta）作為轉也是這樣。只有牟尼尊（Muni，指佛陀）的轉識和隨轉識大部分性質相同，少部分不同。轉識如果是善心，隨轉識也是善。轉心如果是無記，隨轉也是這樣。在相續的剎那中，一定沒有迷惑的緣故。而或者有善隨無記轉的情況。從來沒有無記隨善轉的情況。因為佛世尊在說法等時，心或者增長而沒有萎歇的緣故。有其餘部派說，諸佛世尊常在定（samadhi）中，所以心唯是善，沒有無記心。所以契經（sutra）說： 『那伽（Naga，龍）行在定，那伽住在定，那伽坐在定，那伽臥在定。』 毗婆沙師（Vibhasa master）作這樣的解釋：這顯示佛意必定是正知生（samprajanya-born）。也沒有心不隨欲起。對於境界沒有錯亂，所以立為定名。佛世尊沒有威儀路（iryapatha）異熟生識以及通果心（vyakarana-phala-citta）的生起，起這些心在道理上沒有過失。既然說了善等轉隨轉各有三種，準此標釋中足以證明。所發的諸業（karma）成就善惡等，是隨因等起，不是隨剎那。與此不同，善心所引發的業，既然與不善和無記心俱，有什麼道理能夠遮止成就惡和無記？那麼，應該有從別思惟（prthak-vitarka）為因，引生別性類業（jati-karma）。像這樣勤勵想要為善的人，反而有不善。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the arising of karma-forming activity (加行, karman), it is not the arising of the other two kinds of resultant minds (異熟心, vipaka-citta). Such reasoning can only be used to negate. The resultant-born mind arises as a cause (因等起, hetu-samutthana), while the other minds act as transformation (轉, pravrtti). The expressed karma (所發表業, karma) is able to act as subsequent transformation (隨轉, anuvrtti) because the resultant-born mind transforms outwardly (外門轉, bahirmukha-pravrtti). What logical contradiction is there in this? Even if there is no mind, expressive karma (表業, vijnapti-karma) will not transform; allowing expressive karma to transform, what fault is there in using resultant consciousness (異熟識, vipaka-vijnana) as the cause of subsequent transformation? Furthermore, it should only be said that the resultant-born mind is weak and inferior, so it is not a cause for arising. It should not be said that it operates independently without karma-forming activity. Do not let innate goodness not be a cause for emitting expressive karma, nor is it karma-forming activity operating independently. Therefore, the sutra author (經主) has the faults of reduction and addition. The wise should understand what is a cause and what is not a cause. Are the natures of transforming consciousness (轉識, pravrtti-vijnana) and subsequently transforming consciousness (隨轉識, anuvrtti-vijnana) necessarily the same? No. What is it like then? If the preceding transforming consciousness is of a wholesome nature, the subsequent transforming consciousness encompasses all three: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral (善等三, kusala-akusala-avyakrta). It is the same when unwholesome and neutral act as transformation. Only the Muni (牟尼尊, referring to the Buddha) has transforming and subsequently transforming consciousnesses that are mostly of the same nature, with a few differences. If the transforming consciousness is a wholesome mind, the subsequent transforming consciousness is also wholesome. If the transforming mind is neutral, the subsequent transformation is also neutral. There is certainly no confusion in successive moments. However, there are cases where wholesome follows neutral transformation. There has never been a case where neutral follows wholesome transformation. This is because the mind of the World-Honored Buddha (佛世尊) either increases or does not diminish when teaching the Dharma. Some other schools say that the Buddhas are always in samadhi (定), so their minds are only wholesome and there are no neutral minds. Therefore, the sutra says: 『The Naga (那伽, dragon) walks in samadhi, the Naga dwells in samadhi, the Naga sits in samadhi, the Naga lies in samadhi.』 The Vibhasa master (毗婆沙師) explains it this way: This shows that the Buddha's intention is certainly born of right knowledge (正知生, samprajanya-born). There is also no mind that does not arise according to desire. There is no confusion regarding objects, so it is established as samadhi. It is not a fault in principle for the World-Honored Buddha to have the arising of resultant consciousness of deportment (威儀路, iryapatha) and minds that lead to results (通果心, vyakarana-phala-citta). Since it has been said that there are three kinds of transformation and subsequent transformation, wholesome and so on, this explanation is sufficient to prove it. The karmas (業, karma) that are emitted become wholesome, unwholesome, etc., according to the cause of arising, not according to the moment. Different from this, the karma caused by wholesome mental factors, since it is accompanied by unwholesome and neutral minds, what reason can prevent it from becoming unwholesome and neutral? Then, there should be karma of a different nature (別性類業, jati-karma) arising from separate thoughts (別思惟, prthak-vitarka) as the cause. In this way, those who diligently strive to do good may instead have unwholesome results.
無記業生。或此相違便乖正理故。業成善等定由轉力。非由隨轉力。其理善成。然隨定心諸無表業與俱時起心一果故。由隨轉力善性得成。定屬此心而得生故。經主於此標釋理中不審了知。復作是責。諸有表業成善等性。為如轉心為如隨轉。設爾何失。若如轉者則欲界中應有有覆無記表業。身見邊見能為轉故。或應簡別非一切種見所斷心皆能為轉。若如隨轉惡無記心俱得別解脫表應非善性。於此徴難應設劬勞。未審此言何密意說。為勸對法諸大論師令設劬勞為當自勸。若勸對法諸大論師。彼於此中已勤方便善思善說何復勸為。如其自勸即知經主於斯義理未設劬勞。今正見生方能自省。未能解了對法所宗。幸自精勤求標釋理。又作是說。若表不由隨轉心力成善等者。則不應言彼經但據前因等起非據剎那。故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。彼謂此說表成善等性決定。但由剎那等起力故。見所斷惑雖為因等起。而欲界定無有覆無記業。此由經主不達我宗所有言義故作是說。此說意言若見所斷惑為剎那等起與業俱行。是則不應隔修所斷能起表業因等起心。則欲界中何緣無有有覆無記身語表業。然見所斷惑。尚不能為因無間引生業俱行識。何能自作剎那等起。說不能作剎那等起。顯不能為近因等起。但有能作近因等起者。此必能為剎
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無記業產生。或者與此相反，便不合正理。因此，業成為善等性質，必定是由於『轉』的力量，而不是由於『隨轉』的力量。這個道理是成立的。然而，隨同定心的所有無表業，因為與俱時生起的心是同一個果，所以通過『隨轉』的力量，善的性質得以成立，因為它們必定屬於這個心而產生。經主在這裡對標釋理（對經文的解釋）沒有審慎瞭解，又作出了這樣的責難：所有有表業成為善等性質，是像『轉心』一樣，還是像『隨轉』一樣？如果這樣假設，會有什麼缺失？如果像『轉』一樣，那麼欲界中應該有有覆無記的有表業，因為身見、邊見能夠作為『轉』。或者應該區分，不是所有種類的見所斷的心都能作為『轉』。如果像『隨轉』一樣，那麼與惡無記心同時產生的別解脫有表業，應該不是善的性質。對於這個質疑，應該付出努力來解答。不知道這句話是什麼用意，是勸告對法（Abhidharma）的各位大論師付出努力，還是勸告自己？如果是勸告對法的大論師，他們已經在此中勤奮方便地思考和善巧地解說，又何必勸告呢？如果勸告自己，那就說明經主對於這個義理沒有付出努力。現在正見產生，才能自我反省，未能理解對法宗派的觀點。希望自己精進勤奮地尋求標釋理。又說：如果表業不是由隨轉的心力而成為善等性質，那麼就不應該說那部經只是根據前因等起，而不是根據剎那。所以欲界中一定沒有有覆無記的有表業。他認為這種說法是表業成為善等性質，完全是由於剎那等起的力量。見所斷的煩惱雖然作為因等起，但是欲界中一定沒有有覆無記的業。這是因為經主不理解我宗派的所有言語和意義，所以才這樣說。這種說法的意思是，如果見所斷的煩惱作為剎那等起，與業同時執行，那麼就不應該隔斷修所斷的煩惱，使其能夠生起有表業的因等起心。那麼欲界中為什麼沒有有覆無記的身語有表業呢？然而，見所斷的煩惱，尚且不能作為因，無間地引生與業同時執行的識，又怎麼能自己作為剎那等起呢？說不能作為剎那等起，是表明不能作為近因等起。只有能夠作為近因等起者，才必定能夠作為剎
【English Translation】 English version Unspecified karma arises. Or, if the opposite were true, it would be contrary to correct reasoning. Therefore, the formation of karma into good, etc., is definitely due to the power of 'transformation' (轉, zhuan - change, shift, turn), not due to the power of 'following transformation' (隨轉, sui zhuan - following change). This principle is well-established. However, all non-revealing karmas that accompany a mind in concentration, because they share the same result as the mind arising simultaneously, the nature of goodness is established through the power of 'following transformation', because they necessarily belong to and arise from this mind. The author of the sutra, in this explanation of the principle, did not carefully understand and made this criticism: Do all revealing karmas become good, etc., in nature like 'transforming mind' or like 'following transformation'? What would be the fault if this were assumed? If like 'transformation', then there should be obscured unspecified revealing karmas in the desire realm, because self-view and extreme views can act as 'transformation'. Or it should be distinguished that not all types of minds severed by views can act as 'transformation'. If like 'following transformation', then the revealing karma of separate liberation arising simultaneously with an evil unspecified mind should not be of a good nature. Effort should be made to answer this challenge. It is not known what the hidden meaning of this statement is, whether it is to encourage the great masters of Abhidharma (對法, duifa - Abhidharma) to make an effort, or to encourage oneself. If it is to encourage the great masters of Abhidharma, they have already diligently and skillfully contemplated and explained this, so what is the point of encouraging them further? If it is to encourage oneself, then it shows that the author of the sutra has not made an effort in this principle. Only when right view arises now can one self-reflect, failing to understand the tenets of the Abhidharma school. Hopefully, one will diligently seek the principle of explanation. It is also said: If revealing karma does not become good, etc., through the power of the mind of following transformation, then it should not be said that that sutra is only based on the preceding cause and arising, not based on the moment. Therefore, there are definitely no obscured unspecified revealing karmas in the desire realm. He believes that this statement is that the formation of revealing karma into good, etc., is entirely due to the power of momentary arising. Although afflictions severed by views act as the cause and arising, there are definitely no obscured unspecified karmas in the desire realm. This is because the author of the sutra does not understand all the words and meanings of our school, so he says this. The meaning of this statement is that if afflictions severed by views act as momentary arising and operate simultaneously with karma, then the afflictions severed by cultivation should not be separated, allowing them to give rise to the cause and arising mind of revealing karma. Then why are there no obscured unspecified bodily and verbal revealing karmas in the desire realm? However, afflictions severed by views are not even able to act as the cause, uninterruptedly giving rise to the consciousness operating simultaneously with karma, so how can they themselves act as momentary arising? Saying that they cannot act as momentary arising shows that they cannot act as proximate cause and arising. Only those who can act as proximate cause and arising can necessarily act as
那等起。故身見邊見雖為遠因引身語表。而由修斷近因勢力成不善性。是故說言彼經但據前因等起非據剎那。故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。若不爾者。則不應言彼經但據前因等起。前言為顯隔近因故。簡近因故說前因言。故彼此中不達言義辨業界地。傍論已周。復應辨前表無表相。頌曰。
無表三律儀 不律儀非二
論曰。應知無表略說有三。一者律儀。二不律儀。三者非二。謂非律儀非不律儀。能遮能滅惡戒相續故名律儀。如是律儀差別有幾。頌曰。
律儀別解脫 靜慮及道生
論曰。律儀差別略有三種一別解脫律儀。謂欲廛戒。二靜慮生律儀。謂色廛戒。三道生律儀。謂無漏戒。初律儀相差別云何。頌曰。
初律儀八種 實體唯有四 形轉名異故 各別不相違
論曰。別解脫律儀相差別有八。一苾芻律儀。二苾芻尼律儀。三正學律儀。四勤策律儀。五勤策女律儀。六鄔波索迦律儀。七鄔波斯迦律儀。八鄔波婆娑律儀。如是八種律儀相差別。總名第一別解脫律儀。此中依能修離惡行及離欲行補特伽羅。安立前五律儀差別。以如是類補特伽羅。乃至命終能離殺等諸惡行故。及能遠離非梵行故。次復依能修離惡行非離欲行補特伽羅。安立盡形在家二眾律儀差別。以如是類補特
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
那麼，等起。因此，身見（Sakkāya-ditthi，認為五蘊為我）和邊見（antagāhika-ditthi，執著于斷見或常見）雖然是引發身語表業的遠因，但由於修斷（修習斷除）的近因勢力，才成為不善的性質。所以說，那部經只是根據前因等起，而不是根據剎那（瞬間）。因此，在欲界中，絕對沒有有覆無記的表業。如果不是這樣，就不應該說那部經只是根據前因等起。前面說的話是爲了顯示隔斷近因的緣故。爲了簡別近因，所以說前因。因此，在這些問題中，不理解言語的意義，辨別界地，旁論已經結束。接下來應該辨別前表和無表的相狀。頌曰：
無表有三種，律儀不律儀，以及非二者。
論曰：應該知道，無表略說有三種：一是律儀，二是不律儀，三是非二者，即非律儀也非不律儀。能夠遮止和滅除惡戒相續的，叫做律儀。那麼，律儀的差別有幾種？頌曰：
律儀有差別，別解脫靜慮，以及道所生。
論曰：律儀的差別略有三種：一是別解脫律儀，指欲界的戒；二是靜慮生律儀，指色界的戒；三是道生律儀，指無漏戒。最初的律儀相狀差別是怎樣的？頌曰：
最初律儀八種，實體只有四種， 形轉名稱異，各自不相違。
論曰：別解脫律儀的相狀差別有八種：一、苾芻（bhikkhu，比丘）律儀，二、苾芻尼（bhikkhunī，比丘尼）律儀，三、正學（sikkhamānā，式叉摩那）律儀，四、勤策（sāmaṇera，沙彌）律儀，五、勤策女（sāmaṇerī，沙彌尼）律儀，六、鄔波索迦（upāsaka，優婆塞）律儀，七、鄔波斯迦（upāsikā，優婆夷）律儀，八、鄔波婆娑（uposatha，布薩）律儀。這八種律儀相狀的差別，總名為第一別解脫律儀。這裡，依據能夠修習遠離惡行和遠離欲行的補特伽羅（pudgala，人），安立前五種律儀的差別。因為這類補特伽羅，乃至命終都能遠離殺生等各種惡行，以及能夠遠離非梵行。其次，依據能夠修習遠離惡行但不能遠離欲行的補特伽羅，安立盡形在家的二眾律儀的差別。因為這類補特
【English Translation】 English version:
So, the arising. Therefore, although the view of self (Sakkāya-ditthi, the belief that the five aggregates are 'I' or 'mine') and the extreme views (antagāhika-ditthi, clinging to either eternalism or annihilationism) are distant causes for inducing bodily and verbal expressions, they become of an unwholesome nature due to the power of the proximate cause of cultivation and abandonment. Therefore, it is said that that sutra only refers to the arising from the prior cause, not from the moment (kṣaṇa). Thus, in the desire realm, there is definitely no obscured and indeterminate expressive karma. If it were not so, then it should not be said that that sutra only refers to the arising from the prior cause. The preceding words are to reveal the separation from the proximate cause. To distinguish the proximate cause, the prior cause is mentioned. Therefore, in these matters, not understanding the meaning of the words, distinguishing the realms and grounds, the digression has ended. Next, the characteristics of prior expression and non-expression should be distinguished. The verse says:
Non-expression has three, the vows, non-vows, and the non-two.
Treatise: It should be known that non-expression, briefly speaking, has three types: first, vows (saṃvara, restraint); second, non-vows (asaṃvara, non-restraint); and third, the non-two, which is neither vows nor non-vows. That which can prevent and extinguish the continuity of evil precepts is called vows. So, how many differences are there in vows? The verse says:
Vows have differences, individual liberation, meditative absorption, and born from the path.
Treatise: The differences in vows are briefly three types: first, individual liberation vows (prātimokṣa-saṃvara), referring to the precepts of the desire realm; second, vows born from meditative absorption (dhyāna-saṃvara), referring to the precepts of the form realm; and third, vows born from the path (mārga-saṃvara), referring to the unconditioned precepts. What are the differences in the characteristics of the initial vows? The verse says:
The initial vows are eight types, the substance is only four types, Form changes, names differ, each does not contradict.
Treatise: The differences in the characteristics of individual liberation vows are eight types: first, Bhikṣu (bhikkhu, monk) vows; second, Bhikṣuṇī (bhikkhunī, nun) vows; third, Śikṣamāṇā (sikkhamānā, probationary nun) vows; fourth, Śrāmaṇera (sāmaṇera, novice monk) vows; fifth, Śrāmaṇerī (sāmaṇerī, novice nun) vows; sixth, Upāsaka (upāsaka, lay male follower) vows; seventh, Upāsikā (upāsikā, lay female follower) vows; and eighth, Upoṣatha (uposatha, observance day) vows. These eight types of differences in the characteristics of vows are collectively called the first individual liberation vows. Here, based on the individuals (pudgala, person) who are able to cultivate the abandonment of evil conduct and the abandonment of desire, the differences in the first five types of vows are established. Because these types of individuals, until the end of their lives, are able to abandon various evil conducts such as killing, and are able to abandon non-celibate conduct. Secondly, based on the individuals who are able to cultivate the abandonment of evil conduct but are not able to abandon desire, the differences in the vows of the two assemblies of laypeople who remain in household life for their entire lives are established. Because these types of individuals
伽羅乃至命終能離殺等諸惡行故。不能遠離非梵行故。由是經中但作是說。離欲邪行非非梵行。后復依能修非全離惡行欲行補特伽羅。安立在家一晝一夜律儀差別。以如是類補特伽羅不能全離惡行諸欲。為令漸習全離惡行及諸欲行方便住。故雖名有八實體唯四。一苾芻律儀。二勤策律儀。三近事律儀。四近住律儀。唯此四種別解律儀皆有體實相各別故。所以者何。離苾芻律儀無別苾芻尼律儀。離勤策律儀無別正學勤策女律儀。離近事律儀無別近事女律儀。云何知然。由形改轉。體雖無捨得而名有異故。形謂形相即男女根。由此二根男女形別。但由形轉令諸律儀名為苾芻苾芻尼等。謂轉根位令本苾芻律儀名苾芻尼律儀。或苾芻尼律儀名苾芻律儀。令本勤策律儀名勤策女律儀。或勤策女律儀及正學律儀名勤策律儀。令本近事律儀名近事女律儀。或近事女律儀名近事律儀。非轉根位有舍先得得先未得律儀因緣。故四律儀非異三體。若從近事律儀受勤策律儀。復從勤策律儀受苾芻律儀。此三律儀為由增足遠離方便立別別名。如只雙金錢及五十二十為體各別。具足頓生三種律儀。體不相雜其相各別。具足頓生三律儀中具三離殺。一一離殺其體各異。余隨所應當知亦爾。由因緣別故體不同。如如求受多種學處。如是如是能離多種高
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 即使是伽羅（Kala，時間）乃至生命終結，能夠遠離殺生等各種惡行，但不能遠離非梵行（non-brahmacarya，不凈行）。因此，經文中只是這樣說：遠離欲邪行，而不是遠離非梵行。後來又依據能夠修行但不能完全斷離惡行和欲行的補特伽羅（pudgala，人），安立了在家居士一日一夜的律儀差別。因為這類補特伽羅不能完全斷離惡行和各種慾望，爲了讓他們逐漸習慣完全斷離惡行和各種慾望，方便安住于善法，所以雖然名義上有八種實體，但實際上只有四種：一是苾芻（bhiksu，比丘）律儀，二是勤策（sramanera，沙彌）律儀，三是近事（upasaka，優婆塞）律儀，四是近住（uposatha，齋戒）律儀。只有這四種別解律儀各有其實體和相狀。為什麼這樣說呢？因為離開了苾芻律儀，就沒有單獨的苾芻尼（bhiksuni，比丘尼）律儀；離開了勤策律儀，就沒有單獨的正學女（siksamana，式叉摩那）和勤策女（sramanerika，沙彌尼）律儀；離開了近事律儀，就沒有單獨的近事女（upasika，優婆夷）律儀。怎麼知道是這樣的呢？因為只是形體改變，實體雖然沒有捨棄和獲得，但名稱卻有不同。形體指的是形相，也就是男女的性根。由於這兩種性根，男女的形體有所區別。只是由於形體的轉變，才使得各種律儀被稱為苾芻、苾芻尼等。也就是說，轉變性根的位置，使得原本的苾芻律儀被稱為苾芻尼律儀，或者苾芻尼律儀被稱為苾芻律儀；使得原本的勤策律儀被稱為勤策女律儀，或者勤策女律儀和正學律儀被稱為勤策律儀；使得原本的近事律儀被稱為近事女律儀，或者近事女律儀被稱為近事律儀。並不是轉變性根的位置，就會捨棄先前獲得的律儀，或者獲得先前沒有獲得的律儀的因緣。所以這四種律儀實際上並不是三種不同的實體。如果從近事律儀受持勤策律儀，又從勤策律儀受持苾芻律儀，這三種律儀是因為增加了遠離惡行的方便而設立不同的名稱，就像一枚雙金幣以及五十和二十的金幣，雖然本體各不相同，但同時生起三種律儀，其本體並不混雜，其相狀各不相同。在同時生起三種律儀中，具有三種遠離殺生的戒律，每一種遠離殺生的戒律其本體各不相同。其餘的也應當按照相應的道理來理解。由於因緣不同，所以本體也不同。就像尋求受持多種學處，就像這樣能夠遠離多種高… （譯文未完，原文在此處中斷）
【English Translation】 English version: Even Kala (time), until the end of life, can abstain from evil deeds such as killing, but cannot abstain from non-brahmacarya (unclean conduct). Therefore, the sutras only say: abstain from sexual misconduct, not abstain from non-brahmacarya. Later, based on the pudgala (person) who can practice but cannot completely abandon evil deeds and sexual conduct, the difference in precepts for lay practitioners for one day and one night is established. Because this type of pudgala cannot completely abandon evil deeds and various desires, in order to gradually accustom them to completely abandoning evil deeds and various desires, and to facilitate dwelling in good dharma, although there are eight entities in name, there are actually only four: one is the bhiksu (monk) precepts, two is the sramanera (novice) precepts, three is the upasaka (layman) precepts, and four is the uposatha (observance day) precepts. Only these four types of pratimoksa (individual liberation) precepts each have their own entity and characteristics. Why is this so? Because without the bhiksu precepts, there are no separate bhiksuni (nun) precepts; without the sramanera precepts, there are no separate siksamana (probationary nun) and sramanerika (novice nun) precepts; without the upasaka precepts, there are no separate upasika (laywoman) precepts. How do we know this is the case? Because only the form changes, the entity is not abandoned or obtained, but the name is different. Form refers to the form, that is, the male and female sexual organs. Due to these two sexual organs, the forms of men and women are different. It is only due to the transformation of form that the various precepts are called bhiksu, bhiksuni, etc. That is to say, changing the position of the sexual organs causes the original bhiksu precepts to be called bhiksuni precepts, or the bhiksuni precepts to be called bhiksu precepts; causing the original sramanera precepts to be called sramanerika precepts, or the sramanerika precepts and siksamana precepts to be called sramanera precepts; causing the original upasaka precepts to be called upasika precepts, or the upasika precepts to be called upasaka precepts. It is not that changing the position of the sexual organs will abandon the precepts previously obtained, or obtain the causes and conditions for precepts not previously obtained. Therefore, these four precepts are actually not three different entities. If one receives the sramanera precepts from the upasaka precepts, and then receives the bhiksu precepts from the sramanera precepts, these three precepts are established with different names because of the increased means of abstaining from evil deeds, just like a double gold coin and fifty and twenty gold coins, although the entities are different, three precepts arise simultaneously, their entities are not mixed, and their characteristics are different. In the simultaneous arising of three precepts, there are three precepts of abstaining from killing, and each precept of abstaining from killing has a different entity. The rest should also be understood according to the corresponding principles. Because the causes and conditions are different, the entities are also different. Just like seeking to receive many training rules, just like this, one can abstain from many high...
廣床座飲諸酒等憍逸處時。即離眾多殺等緣起。以諸遠離依因緣發。故因緣別遠離有異。若無此事舍苾芻律儀。爾時則應三律儀皆舍。前二攝在後一中故。既不許然故三各別。然此三種互不相違。於一身中俱時而轉。非由受后舍前律儀勿舍苾芻戒便非近事等。先已舍彼二律儀故。若有勤策受近事律儀。或有苾芻受前二種戒為受得不。有作是言。此不應責。若前已有無更得理。先已得故。若前未有則非勤策亦非苾芻。以先不受近事律儀必無受得勤策戒理。若先不受勤策律儀亦無受得苾芻戒理。是則不可立彼二名。以此推尋受應不得。有餘師說。不受前律儀亦有即能受得后戒理。故持律者作是誦言。雖于先時不受勤策戒。而今但受具足律儀者亦名善受具足律儀。由此勤策容有受得近事律儀。苾芻容有受得勤策近事戒理。豈不勤策。不應自稱唯愿證知我是近事。苾芻亦爾不應自稱唯愿證知我是前二。非離如是自稱號言有得近事勤策戒理。此難非理俱可稱故。謂可稱言我是勤策亦是近事唯愿證知。苾芻亦應如應而說。然就勝戒顯彼二名亦無有失。若爾勤策及苾芻等。亦應受得近住律儀。如得近事許亦何過。然由下劣無欣受者。近事近住勤策苾芻四種律儀云何安立。頌曰。
受離五八十 一切所應離 立近事近住 勤
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在廣床座上飲用各種酒等放逸之處時，就會遠離眾多殺生等惡緣的生起。因為各種遠離惡緣的行為是依靠因緣而產生的，所以因緣不同，遠離惡緣的情況也會有所不同。如果因為這件事就捨棄了苾芻（bhiksu，比丘）的律儀，那麼就應該三種律儀全部捨棄，因為前兩種都包含在後一種之中。既然不允許這樣做，就說明這三種律儀是各自不同的。然而，這三種律儀之間並不互相違背，可以在同一個人的身上同時存在。不是因為受了後面的律儀就必須捨棄前面的律儀。不要因為捨棄了苾芻戒就說他不是近事（upasaka，優婆塞）等，因為他之前已經捨棄了那兩種律儀。如果有人是勤策（sramanera，沙彌）而受了近事律儀，或者有人是苾芻而受了前兩種戒，這樣能算是受得嗎？有人這樣說：『這不應該責難。如果之前已經有了，就沒有再次獲得的道理，因為之前已經得到了。』如果之前沒有，那麼就不是勤策，也不是苾芻。因為之前沒有受近事律儀，一定沒有受得勤策戒的道理。如果之前沒有受勤策律儀，也沒有受得苾芻戒的道理。這樣就不能成立那兩個名稱。用這個來推斷，受戒應該是不能得到的。有其他論師說：『不受前面的律儀，也有立即能夠受得後面戒律的道理。』所以持律者這樣誦說：『即使在之前沒有受勤策戒，而現在只是受具足律儀的人，也叫做善於受具足律儀。』由此看來，勤策有可能受得近事律儀，苾芻有可能受得勤策近事戒的道理。難道勤策不應該自稱『唯愿證知我是近事』嗎？苾芻也是這樣，不應該自稱『唯愿證知我是前二』。不是離開了像這樣自稱的話語，就有得到近事勤策戒的道理。這種責難是沒有道理的，因為都可以稱呼。可以稱呼說『我是勤策，也是近事，唯愿證知』。苾芻也應該相應地說。然而，就殊勝的戒律來顯示那兩個名稱，也沒有什麼過失。如果這樣，勤策以及苾芻等，也應該受得近住律儀。像得到近事律儀一樣，允許這樣做又有什麼過錯呢？然而因為下劣，沒有人欣然接受。近事、近住（uposatha，布薩）、勤策、苾芻四種律儀，應該如何安立呢？頌曰：受持遠離五戒、八戒、十戒，以及一切所應該遠離的，就安立為近事、近住、勤策……
【English Translation】 English version When indulging in luxurious places with wide beds and drinking various wines, one distances oneself from the arising of numerous causes for killing and other evils. Because various acts of distancing oneself from evil causes arise from conditions, differences in conditions lead to variations in distancing. If abandoning the Bhiksu (bhiksu, monk) precepts were to occur due to this, then all three sets of precepts should be abandoned, as the former two are encompassed within the latter. Since this is not permitted, it indicates that the three are distinct. However, these three do not contradict each other and can coexist within the same person simultaneously. It is not the case that receiving a later set of precepts necessitates abandoning the former. Do not claim that abandoning the Bhiksu precepts means one is no longer an Upasaka (upasaka, lay follower), etc., because they have already abandoned those two sets of precepts previously. If someone is a Sramanera (sramanera, novice) and receives the Upasaka precepts, or if someone is a Bhiksu and receives the former two sets of precepts, can this be considered as having been received? Some say: 'This should not be questioned. If one already possesses it, there is no reason to receive it again, because it has already been obtained.' If one did not have it before, then one is neither a Sramanera nor a Bhiksu. Because one has not previously received the Upasaka precepts, there is certainly no reason to receive the Sramanera precepts. If one has not previously received the Sramanera precepts, there is no reason to receive the Bhiksu precepts. Thus, those two titles cannot be established. Reasoning from this, receiving should not be possible. Other teachers say: 'Even without receiving the former precepts, there is a reason to immediately be able to receive the later precepts.' Therefore, those who uphold the Vinaya recite: 'Even if one has not previously received the Sramanera precepts, but now only receives the full Bhiksu precepts, they are still called as having well-received the full precepts.' From this, it seems possible for a Sramanera to receive the Upasaka precepts, and for a Bhiksu to receive the Sramanera Upasaka precepts. Shouldn't a Sramanera call themselves 'May you know that I am an Upasaka'? The same goes for a Bhiksu, they shouldn't call themselves 'May you know that I am the former two.' It is not the case that apart from such self-designations, there is a reason to obtain the Upasaka Sramanera precepts. This criticism is unreasonable, because both can be called. One can say 'I am a Sramanera, and also an Upasaka, may you know.' A Bhiksu should also say accordingly. However, there is no harm in highlighting those two titles in terms of the superior precepts. If so, Sramaneras and Bhiksus, etc., should also receive the Uposatha (uposatha, observance day) precepts. Just as receiving the Upasaka precepts is permitted, what fault is there in allowing this? However, because of inferiority, no one gladly accepts it. How should the four sets of precepts—Upasaka, Uposatha, Sramanera, and Bhiksu—be established? The verse says: Receiving and abstaining from the five precepts, the eight precepts, the ten precepts, and all that should be abstained from, establishes the Upasaka, Uposatha, Sramanera...
策及苾芻
論曰。應知此中如數次第依四遠離立四律儀。謂受離五所應離法。建立第一近事律儀。何等為五所應離法。一者殺生。二不與取。三欲邪行。四虛誑語。五飲諸酒。若受離八所應離法。建立第二近住律儀。何等為八所應離法。一者殺生。二不與取。三非梵行。四虛誑語。五飲諸酒。六塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽。七眠坐高廣嚴麗床座。八食非時食。若受離十所應離法。建立第三勤策律儀。何等為十所應離法。謂於前八塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽開為二種。復加受畜金銀等寶以為第十。為引怖怯眾多學處在家有情顯易受持。故於八戒合二為一。如佛為栗氏子略說學處有三。若受離一切應離身語業。建立第四苾芻律儀。別解脫律儀眾名差別者。頌曰。
俱得名尸羅 妙行業律儀 唯初表無表 名別解業道
論曰。以清涼故名曰尸羅。此中尸羅是平治義。故字相處作是釋言。平治義中置尸羅界。戒能平險業故得名尸羅。智者稱揚故名妙行。或修行此得愛果故。所作自體故名為業。雖契經中說諸無表名為非造。亦名非作。以有慚恥受無表力不造惡故。而有作義如前已辨。亦名律儀如前已釋。如是應知別解脫戒通初后位無差別名。唯初剎那表及無表。得別解脫及業道名。謂受戒時初表無表別別棄捨種種惡故。依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 策及苾芻（Ceki Bhiksu）：
論曰：應當知道，這裡按照數量和順序，依據四種遠離而建立四種律儀。也就是受持遠離五種應當遠離的法，建立第一種近事律儀。哪五種是應當遠離的法呢？第一是殺生，第二是不與取（偷盜），第三是欲邪行，第四是虛誑語，第五是飲諸酒。
如果受持遠離八種應當遠離的法，建立第二種近住律儀。哪八種是應當遠離的法呢？第一是殺生，第二是不與取（偷盜），第三是非梵行（不凈行），第四是虛誑語，第五是飲諸酒，第六是塗飾香鬘（涂香裝飾）舞歌觀聽，第七是眠坐高廣嚴麗床座，第八是食非時食。
如果受持遠離十種應當遠離的法，建立第三種勤策律儀。哪十種是應當遠離的法呢？就是在前面八種的基礎上，將塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽分為兩種。又加上受畜金銀等寶作為第十種。爲了引導那些膽小害怕眾多學處，以及在家的有情，顯示容易受持，所以將八戒中的兩種合併爲一種。如同佛陀為栗氏子（Lisi Zi）略說學處有三種。
如果受持遠離一切應當遠離的身語業，建立第四種苾芻（Bhiksu）律儀。
別解脫律儀（Biejietuo Lvyi）的各種名稱的差別是：
頌曰：
都可得名尸羅（Sila），妙行業律儀， 唯有最初的表和無表，名為別解業道。
論曰：因為清涼的緣故，叫做尸羅（Sila）。這裡尸羅（Sila）是平治的意思。所以在字相處這樣解釋說：在平治的意思中設定尸羅（Sila）的界限。戒能平復危險的行業，所以得名尸羅（Sila）。因為智者稱揚的緣故，叫做妙行。或者修行此戒能得到喜愛的果報的緣故。所作的自體叫做業。雖然契經中說各種無表名為非造，也名非作。因為有慚愧心，受無表的力量而不造惡的緣故。而有作的意義，如同前面已經辨析的。也叫做律儀，如同前面已經解釋的。像這樣應當知道，別解脫戒通於初位和后位，沒有差別名稱。只有最初剎那的表和無表，得到別解脫和業道的名稱。也就是受戒時最初的表和無表，分別棄捨種種惡的緣故。依據
【English Translation】 English version Ceki Bhiksu (Trainee Monk and Fully Ordained Monk)
Treatise: It should be known that here, according to number and sequence, four types of precepts are established based on the four types of abstentions. That is, by receiving and abstaining from the five things that should be abstained from, the first Upasaka (lay follower) precepts are established. What are the five things that should be abstained from? First is killing, second is not taking what is not given (stealing), third is sexual misconduct, fourth is false speech, and fifth is drinking intoxicants.
If one receives and abstains from the eight things that should be abstained from, the second Uposatha (observance day) precepts are established. What are the eight things that should be abstained from? First is killing, second is not taking what is not given (stealing), third is non-celibate conduct, fourth is false speech, fifth is drinking intoxicants, sixth is adorning oneself with perfumes, garlands, dancing, singing, and watching performances, seventh is sleeping and sitting on high, wide, and ornate beds and seats, and eighth is eating at improper times.
If one receives and abstains from the ten things that should be abstained from, the third Sramanera (novice monk) precepts are established. What are the ten things that should be abstained from? That is, based on the previous eight, adorning oneself with perfumes, garlands, dancing, singing, and watching performances are divided into two types. Furthermore, accepting and possessing gold, silver, and other treasures is added as the tenth. In order to guide those who are timid and fearful of many precepts, as well as sentient beings at home, it is shown to be easy to receive and uphold, so two of the eight precepts are combined into one. It is like the Buddha briefly explaining that there are three types of precepts for Lisi Zi (the son of the Licchavis).
If one receives and abstains from all bodily and verbal actions that should be abstained from, the fourth Bhiksu (fully ordained monk) precepts are established.
The differences in the various names of the Pratimoksha (code of monastic discipline) precepts are:
Verse:
All can be named Sila (moral conduct), excellent conduct precepts, Only the initial expressed and unexpressed are named separate liberation karma paths.
Treatise: Because of coolness, it is called Sila (moral conduct). Here, Sila (moral conduct) means to pacify. Therefore, in the place of the character's appearance, it is explained in this way: in the meaning of pacifying, set the boundary of Sila (moral conduct). Precepts can pacify dangerous actions, so it is named Sila (moral conduct). Because it is praised by the wise, it is called excellent conduct. Or because practicing this can obtain beloved results. The self-nature of what is done is called karma. Although the sutras say that various unexpressed things are called non-created, they are also called non-made. Because one has shame and receives the power of the unexpressed and does not create evil. But there is the meaning of making, as has been analyzed before. It is also called precepts, as has been explained before. In this way, it should be known that the Pratimoksha (code of monastic discipline) precepts are common to the initial and later stages, without different names. Only the initial moment of the expressed and unexpressed obtains the names of separate liberation and karma paths. That is, when receiving the precepts, the initial expressed and unexpressed separately abandon various evils. According to
初別舍義立別解脫名。或初所應修故名別解脫。或彼初起最能超過如獄險惡趣故名別解脫。即初剎那表與無表。亦得名為根本業道。初防身語暢思業故從第二念乃至未舍不名別解脫。名別解脫律儀。不名業道名為後起。已辨安立差別律儀。當辯律儀成就差別。誰成就何律儀。頌曰。
八成別解脫 得靜慮聖者 成靜慮道生 后二隨心轉
論曰。八眾皆成就別解脫律儀。謂從苾芻乃至近住。外道無有所受戒耶。雖有不名別解脫戒。由彼所受無有功能永脫諸惡。依著有故。靜慮生者。謂此律儀由從或依靜慮生故。若得靜慮者定成此律儀。靜慮眷屬亦名靜慮。道生律儀聖者皆成就。此復二種。謂學及無學。於前所說三律儀中。何等律儀隨心而轉。唯后二種。謂靜慮生及道生。二非別解脫。所以者何。異心無心亦恒轉故。靜慮無漏二種律儀亦名斷律儀。依何位建立。頌曰。
未至九無間 俱生二名斷
論曰。未至定中九無間道俱生靜慮無漏律儀。以能永斷欲廛惡戒及能起惑名斷律儀。唯未至定中有斷對治故。由此但攝九無間道。此中尸羅滅惡戒故。由此或有靜慮律儀非斷律儀。應作四句。第一句者。除未至定九無間道有漏律儀。所餘有漏靜慮律儀。第二句者。依未至定九無間道無漏律儀。第三句
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：最初捨棄惡行而建立的戒律，稱為別解脫（Pratimoksha，個人解脫）。或者因為這是最初應該修習的，所以稱為別解脫。或者因為這最初生起的戒律最能超越如地獄般險惡的惡趣，所以稱為別解脫。這最初一剎那所表現的有表業和無表業，也可以稱為根本業道。因為最初能防止身語意的不良行為。從第二念開始，直到未捨棄此戒，就不稱為別解脫，而稱為別解脫律儀，不稱為業道，而稱為後起。以上已經辨明了安立差別律儀，下面應當辨明律儀成就的差別。誰能成就何種律儀？頌文說： 『八眾成別解脫，得靜慮聖者，成靜慮道生，后二隨心轉。』 論述：八眾（指比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那、沙彌、沙彌尼、優婆塞、優婆夷、近住男、近住女）都能成就別解脫律儀，即從比丘到近住。外道沒有所受的戒律嗎？雖然有，但不稱為別解脫戒，因為他們所受的戒律沒有能力永遠脫離各種惡行，因為他們依附於有見。靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）所生的律儀，是指這種律儀由於從靜慮產生或依靠靜慮而產生。如果獲得靜慮，必定成就此律儀。靜慮的眷屬也稱為靜慮。道（Magga，道）所生的律儀，聖者都能成就，這又分為兩種：即有學和無學。在前面所說的三種律儀中，哪種律儀隨心而轉？只有后兩種，即靜慮生和道生。這兩種不是別解脫，為什麼呢？因為異心和無心時也恒常存在。靜慮和無漏這兩種律儀也稱為斷律儀。依據什麼位建立？頌文說： 『未至九無間，俱生二名斷。』 論述：在未至定（未到地定）中，九無間道（九種斷煩惱的智慧）同時生起的靜慮和無漏律儀，因為能夠永遠斷除欲界的惡戒以及能夠生起迷惑，所以稱為斷律儀。只有在未至定中才有斷除對治，因此只包含九無間道。這裡尸羅（Śīla，戒）能滅除惡戒。因此，或者有靜慮律儀不是斷律儀，應該作四句分析。第一句：除了未至定九無間道之外的有漏律儀，其餘的有漏靜慮律儀。第二句：依靠未至定九無間道的無漏律儀。第三句：
【English Translation】 English version: Initially, abandoning evil deeds and establishing precepts is called Pratimoksha (individual liberation). Or, because it is the first thing that should be practiced, it is called Pratimoksha. Or, because this initially arising precept is most capable of transcending the perilous evil destinies like hell, it is called Pratimoksha. The manifested and unmanifested karma expressed in this initial moment can also be called the fundamental paths of karma. Because it initially prevents bad behavior of body, speech, and mind. From the second thought onwards, until this precept is not abandoned, it is not called Pratimoksha, but Pratimoksha-śīla (precepts), not called the path of karma, but called subsequent arising. The establishment of differentiated precepts has been explained above; the differences in the accomplishment of precepts should be explained below. Who accomplishes what kind of precepts? The verse says: 'The eight assemblies accomplish Pratimoksha, those who have attained Dhyana and are noble ones, accomplish Dhyana and the path-born, the latter two follow the mind.' Treatise: The eight assemblies (referring to Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Śikṣamāṇās, Śrāmaṇeras, Śrāmaṇerikās, Upāsakas, Upāsikās, Upavāsa, Upavāsinī) can all accomplish Pratimoksha-śīla, that is, from Bhikshus to Upavāsa. Do non-Buddhists not have precepts they receive? Although they do, they are not called Pratimoksha precepts, because the precepts they receive do not have the ability to permanently escape from various evil deeds, because they are attached to views. The precepts born from Dhyana (meditative absorption) refer to these precepts arising from or relying on Dhyana. If one attains Dhyana, one will definitely accomplish this precept. The retinue of Dhyana is also called Dhyana. The precepts born from the Path (Magga, the path) can be accomplished by all noble ones, which are further divided into two types: those who are still learning and those who have completed learning. Among the three types of precepts mentioned earlier, which precepts follow the mind? Only the latter two types, namely those born from Dhyana and those born from the Path. These two are not Pratimoksha, why? Because they constantly exist even when the mind is different or absent. The two types of precepts, Dhyana and Anāsrava (without outflows), are also called severance precepts. Based on what position are they established? The verse says: 'The unarrived and the nine without interval, simultaneously born, the two are called severance.' Treatise: In the Anāgamya-samādhi (the state before entering the form realm), the Dhyana and Anāsrava precepts that arise simultaneously with the nine Anantarya-mārgas (the nine wisdoms that cut off afflictions) are called severance precepts because they can permanently sever the evil precepts of the desire realm and can generate delusion. Only in the Anāgamya-samādhi is there severance of counteractions, therefore it only includes the nine Anantarya-mārgas. Here, Śīla (moral conduct) can eliminate evil precepts. Therefore, there may be Dhyana precepts that are not severance precepts, and a fourfold analysis should be made. The first case: except for the contaminated precepts of the nine Anantarya-mārgas in the Anāgamya-samādhi, the remaining contaminated Dhyana precepts. The second case: the uncontaminated precepts of the nine Anantarya-mārgas relying on the Anāgamya-samādhi. The third case:
者。依未至定九無間道有漏律儀。第四句者。除未至定九無間道無漏律儀。所餘一切無漏律儀。如是或有無漏律儀非斷律儀。應作四句。謂前四句逆次應知。若爾世尊所說略戒。
身律儀善哉 善哉語律儀 意律儀善哉 善哉遍律儀
又契經說。應善守護應善安住眼根律儀。此意根律儀以何為自性。此二自性非無表色。若爾是何。頌曰。
正知正念合 名意根律儀
論曰。意根律儀一一各用正知正念合為自體。故契經說。眼見色已不喜不憂。恒安住舍正知正念。如是乃至意了法已。列別名已重說合言遮謂二律儀如次二為體。今應思擇表及無表誰成就何齊何時分。且辨成無表律儀不律儀。頌曰。
住別解無表 未舍恒成現 剎那后成過 不律儀亦然 得靜慮律儀 恒成就過未 聖初除過去 住定道成中
論曰。住別解脫補特伽羅從初剎那乃至未遇舍學處等諸舍戒緣恒成現世。此別解脫律儀無表初剎那后亦成過去。前未舍言遍流至后。前生所得別解脫戒。於今受戒最初剎那。如靜慮律儀何不成過去。此責非理。此戒與心非同果故。離染心等皆同一果故。彼戒如心得過去生者。又別解脫未曾得故。應如勝品靜慮律儀。非初剎那中得過去生者。如說安住別解律儀。住不
律儀應知亦爾。謂從初念乃至未過。受律儀等舍惡戒緣。恒成現世惡戒無表。初剎那后亦成過去。諸有獲得靜慮律儀。乃至未舍恒成過未。前生所失過去定律儀。今初剎那必還得彼故。此中應作簡別而說。以順抉擇分所攝定律儀。初剎那中不成過去。餘生所得命終時舍。今生無容重得彼故。又非一切有情曾起有涅槃法者方可有彼故。一切聖者無漏律儀過去未來亦恒成就。有差別者謂初剎那必成未來非成過去。此類聖道先未起故。昔曾未得創得名初。先得已失今創得時亦得過去。已曾生者初剎那后乃至未舍亦成過去。乃至未般無餘依位恒成未來。若有現住靜慮彼道如次成現在靜慮道律儀。非出觀時有成現在。理應但說在定道時。成現在世定道無表。不應言住如住果言。唯說果成非果現起。今但言住云何得知定道現前非但成就。是故彼說猶令生疑。不能定顯成現無表故應但說在定道言。雖說住言勞而無用。今詳彼意前文已說成就去來。此句正明。成就中世。故知說住顯起非成。以非唯成證成現故。定道無表隨心轉故。散心現前必無彼故。已辨安住善惡律儀。住中雲何。頌曰。
住中有無表 初成中后二
論曰。言住中者謂非律儀非不律儀。彼所起業不必一切皆有無表。若有無表即是善戒。或是惡戒種類所攝。
或非二類彼初剎那但成中世。謂成現在此是過去未來中故。初剎那后未舍以來。恒成過現二世無表。若有安住律不律儀。亦有成惡善無表不。設有成者為經幾時。頌曰。
住律不律儀 起染凈無表 初成中后二 至染凈勢終
論曰。若住律儀由勝煩惱。作殺縛等諸不善業。由此便發不善無表。住不律儀由淳凈信。作禮佛等諸勝善業。由此亦發諸善無表。乃至此二心未斷來所發無表恒時相續。然其初念唯成現在。第二念等通成過現。已辨成無表。成表業云何。頌曰。
表正作成中 后成過非未 有覆及無覆 唯成就現在
論曰。一切安住律不律儀。及住中者乃至正作。諸表業來恒成現表。初剎那后至未舍來。恒成過去必無成就。未來表者不隨心色。勢微劣故。諸散無表亦同此釋。有覆無覆二無記表。定無有能成就過未。法力劣故。唯能引起法俱行得。得力劣故。不能引生自類相續。可法滅已追得言成。亦無功能逆得當法。豈不此表如能起心。亦應有成去來世者。此表力劣由彼劣故。此責非理所起劣於能起心故。所以然者。如無記心能發表業。所發表業不生無表。故知所起劣能起心。如律儀名既有差別。不律儀號亦有別耶。亦有云何。頌曰。
惡行惡戒業 業道不律儀
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 或者不是兩類，只是在那最初的剎那成為中間世（中世）。意思是成為現在，這是因為在過去和未來之中。從最初的剎那之後，在沒有捨棄之前，總是成為過去和現在的二世無表（無表色）。如果有人安住于律儀或不律儀，也會有成就惡或善的無表嗎？如果有人成就，會經過多長時間？頌文說：
『安住律或不律儀，生起染污或清凈的無表，最初成就中間世，之後成就過去和現在二世，直到染污或清凈的勢力終結。』
論述：如果安住于律儀的人，由於強烈的煩惱，做出殺生、捆綁等各種不善業，由此便生起不善的無表。安住于不律儀的人，由於純凈的信心，做出禮佛等各種殊勝的善業，由此也生起各種善的無表。乃至這兩種心沒有斷絕之前，所生起的無表恒時相續。然而，最初的念頭只成就現在。第二個念頭等，則通於成就過去和現在。已經辨析了成就無表。成就表業（表色）又是如何呢？頌文說：
『表業正在作成時，成就中間世，之後成就過去，而非未來。有覆無記和無覆無記，唯有成就現在。』
論述：一切安住于律儀、不律儀，以及安住于中間狀態的人，乃至正在造作各種表業時，總是成就現在的表業。從最初的剎那之後，直到沒有捨棄之前，總是成就過去，必定沒有成就未來的。未來的表業不隨心色，因為勢力微弱的緣故。各種散亂的無表也同樣如此解釋。有覆無記和無覆無記這兩種無記表業，一定沒有能夠成就過去和未來的。因為法力弱小的緣故，只能引起與法俱生的『得』（prāpti），『得』的力量弱小，不能引生自類的相續。可以說法滅之後，追溯得到成就，也沒有功能逆向得到未來的法。難道不是這種表業，如果能夠生起心，也應該有成就過去和未來世的嗎？這種表業力量弱小，由於它弱小的緣故。這種責難沒有道理，所生起的弱於能生起的心的緣故。所以這樣說，如同無記心能夠發表業，所發表業不生無表。所以知道所生起的弱於能生起的心。如同律儀的名稱已經有差別，不律儀的名稱也有差別嗎？也有，是什麼呢？頌文說：
『惡行、惡戒業，業道是不律儀。』
論述：
【English Translation】 English version Or it is not of two categories, but only in that initial moment does it become the intermediate time (Madhya). Meaning, it becomes the present, because it is within the past and the future. From the initial moment onwards, until it is not abandoned, it always becomes the past and present two times of non-manifestation (avyākṛta-rūpa). If someone abides in precepts (śīla) or non-precepts (aśīla), will there also be the achievement of evil or good non-manifestations? If someone achieves them, how long will it take? The verse says:
'Abiding in precepts or non-precepts, arising defiled or pure non-manifestations, initially achieving the intermediate time, afterwards achieving the past and present two times, until the power of defilement or purity ends.'
Discussion: If someone abiding in precepts, due to strong afflictions (kleśa), commits various unwholesome actions such as killing, binding, etc., thereby giving rise to unwholesome non-manifestations. Someone abiding in non-precepts, due to pure faith (śraddhā), performs various excellent wholesome actions such as bowing to the Buddha, etc., thereby also giving rise to various wholesome non-manifestations. Until these two minds are not severed, the non-manifestations that arise are constantly continuous. However, the initial thought only achieves the present. The second thought, etc., generally achieve the past and present. The achievement of non-manifestations has been discussed. How is the achievement of manifest actions (vijñapti-rūpa)? The verse says:
'Manifest actions, while being performed, achieve the intermediate time, afterwards achieve the past, but not the future. Conditioned (sāvṛta) and unconditioned (anāvṛta), only achieve the present.'
Discussion: All those abiding in precepts, non-precepts, and those abiding in the intermediate state, even while performing various manifest actions, always achieve the present manifest actions. From the initial moment onwards, until it is not abandoned, it always achieves the past, and definitely does not achieve the future. Future manifest actions do not follow the mind-matter (citta-rūpa), because their power is weak. Various scattered non-manifestations are also explained in the same way. The two kinds of indeterminate (avyākṛta) manifest actions, conditioned and unconditioned, definitely cannot achieve the past and future. Because the power of the Dharma (dharma) is weak, they can only give rise to 'attainment' (prāpti) that arises together with the Dharma. The power of 'attainment' is weak, and cannot give rise to the continuity of its own kind. It can be said that after the Dharma has ceased, tracing back to obtain achievement, there is also no function to reverse and obtain future Dharmas. Isn't it the case that if this manifest action can give rise to mind, it should also achieve the past and future? This manifest action is weak in power, because it is weak. This criticism is unreasonable, because what arises is weaker than the mind that can give rise to it. Therefore, it is said that just as an indeterminate mind can express manifest actions, the manifest actions expressed do not give rise to non-manifestations. Therefore, it is known that what arises is weaker than the mind that can give rise to it. Just as the names of precepts are different, are the names of non-precepts also different? There are, what are they? The verse says:
'Evil conduct, evil vows, karma, the path of karma is non-precept.'
Discussion:
曰。此惡行等五種異名。是不律儀名之差別。是諸智者所訶厭故。果非愛故立惡行名。障凈尸羅故名惡戒。身語所造故名為業。根本所攝能暢業思。業所游路故名業道。不靜身語名不律儀。然業道名唯目初念。通初后位立餘四名。今應思擇若成就表亦無表耶。應作四句。頌曰。
成表非無表 住中劣思作 舍未生表聖 成無表非表
論曰。唯成就表非無表者。謂住非律非不律儀。劣善惡思造善造惡。身語二業唯能發表。此尚不能發無表業。況諸無記思所發表除有依福及成業道。彼雖劣思起亦發無表故唯成無表。非表業者謂異生聖補特伽羅。今表未生先生已舍。豈不已得靜慮異生。今表未生先生已失。亦成無表非表業耶。何故頌中但摽于聖。非異生者理亦可然。何故釋中摽異生者俱成非句。如理應思。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之五
如是建立表與無表及成就已。于中律儀三種差別云何而得。頌曰。
定生得定地 彼聖得道生 別解脫律儀 得由他教等
論曰。靜慮律儀與心俱得。若得有漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：這些惡行等五種不同的名稱，是不律儀名稱的差別嗎？ 答：是的。因為這些行為被有智慧的人所呵斥厭惡，並且其結果是不令人喜愛的，所以被稱為『惡行』。因為它們阻礙了清凈的戒律（尸羅，śīla），所以被稱為『惡戒』。因為它們是由身語所造作的，所以被稱為『業』（karma）。它們被根本所攝持，能夠暢通業的思慮，是業所執行的道路，所以被稱為『業道』（karmapatha）。不靜止的身語被稱為『不律儀』。然而，『業道』這個名稱僅僅指最初的念頭，而其他四個名稱則通用於最初和後來的階段。現在應該思考，是成就了表業（表現于外的行為）還是無表業（潛在的行為）呢？應該分為四種情況。
偈頌說： 成就表業而非無表業，是因為處於中間狀態，以低劣的善惡思慮所造作； 捨棄未生起的表業，是聖者（聖人，ārya）的狀態； 成就無表業而非表業。
論述： 只有成就表業而非無表業的情況，是指處於非律儀非不律儀的狀態，以低劣的善或惡的思慮造作善或惡的身語二業，只能表現于外。這種情況尚且不能引發無表業，更何況是那些無記的思慮所表現的（行為）呢？除了有依福和成就業道的情況。那些雖然以低劣的思慮生起，也能引發無表業，所以僅僅成就無表業。而非表業的情況，是指異生（凡夫，pṛthagjana）和聖補特伽羅（聖人，ārya-pudgala）。現在表業尚未生起，或者先生起后又捨棄了。難道已經獲得了靜慮的異生，現在表業尚未生起，或者先生起后又失去了，也能成就無表業而非表業嗎？為什麼偈頌中只標明了聖者的情況，而非異生者的情況，道理上也是可以成立的。為什麼解釋中要標明異生者的情況，使兩者都成為非的情況呢？應該如理地思考。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十六 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十七 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯業品第四之五
像這樣建立表業和無表業以及成就之後，那麼律儀（śīla）的三種差別是如何獲得的呢？
偈頌說： 靜慮律儀與禪定同時產生，彼聖者通過證得道而生起； 別解脫律儀（prātimokṣa-śīla），通過接受他人的教導等方式獲得。
論述： 靜慮律儀與禪定之心同時獲得。如果獲得了有漏（sāsrava）的禪定，
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Are these five different names, such as 'evil conduct,' different names for non-restraint (abhisamācāra)? Answer: Yes. Because these actions are condemned and disliked by the wise, and because their results are undesirable, they are called 'evil conduct.' Because they obstruct pure morality (śīla), they are called 'evil precepts.' Because they are created by body and speech, they are called 'karma.' They are encompassed by the root, able to facilitate the thoughts of karma, and are the path on which karma travels, so they are called 'path of karma' (karmapatha). Unsettled body and speech are called 'non-restraint.' However, the name 'path of karma' refers only to the initial thought, while the other four names apply to both the initial and subsequent stages. Now, it should be considered whether one achieves manifested karma (karma expressed outwardly) or unmanifested karma (latent karma). It should be divided into four cases.
The verse says: Achieving manifested karma but not unmanifested karma, is because one is in an intermediate state, creating with inferior good or evil thoughts; Abandoning unarisen manifested karma, is the state of a noble one (ārya); Achieving unmanifested karma but not manifested karma.
Discussion: The case of only achieving manifested karma but not unmanifested karma refers to being in a state of neither restraint nor non-restraint, creating good or evil actions of body and speech with inferior good or evil thoughts, which can only be expressed outwardly. This situation is not even able to trigger unmanifested karma, let alone those (actions) expressed by neutral thoughts? Except for the case of having dependent merit and achieving the path of karma. Those, although arising with inferior thoughts, can also trigger unmanifested karma, so only unmanifested karma is achieved. The case of non-manifested karma refers to ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) and noble individuals (ārya-pudgala). Now, manifested karma has not yet arisen, or it arose first and then was abandoned. Could it be that an ordinary being who has already attained dhyana (jhāna), now that manifested karma has not yet arisen, or it arose first and then was lost, can also achieve unmanifested karma but not manifested karma? Why does the verse only mark the case of noble ones, and not the case of ordinary beings, which is also logically valid? Why does the explanation mark the case of ordinary beings, making both into negative cases? It should be considered reasonably.
Shun Zheng Li Lun of Sarvastivada, Volume 36 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 37 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order Chapter Four on Distinguishing Karma, Part Five
After establishing manifested and unmanifested karma and their achievement in this way, how are the three distinctions of morality (śīla) obtained?
The verse says: Samadhi-born morality arises simultaneously with dhyana; that noble one arises through attaining the path; Prātimokṣa-śīla is obtained through receiving the teachings of others, etc.
Discussion: Samadhi-born morality is obtained simultaneously with the mind of dhyana. If one obtains defiled (sāsrava) dhyana,
近分根本。靜慮地心靜慮律儀。爾時便得彼心俱故。從無色界歿生色界時。隨得彼地中生得靜慮。即亦得彼俱行律儀。無漏律儀亦心俱故。若得無漏近分根本靜慮地心。爾時便得此復二種。謂由加行及離染故。由加行者如得勝進加行道攝。由離染者如得無間解脫道攝。彼聲為顯前靜慮心。復說聖言簡取無漏。六靜慮地有無漏心。謂未至中間及四根本定非三近分如后當辨。頌言定生得定地者。此言有失以定地言總攝此地所有諸法律儀。亦是此地所收是則得律儀。由得律儀故若作是說便無所成。經主此中應自思擇。故但應說得靜慮言。別解脫律儀由他教等得。能教他者說名為他。從如是他教力發戒故。說此戒由他教得。此復二種。謂從僧伽補特伽羅有差別故。從僧伽得者謂苾芻苾芻尼及正學戒。從補特伽羅得者謂餘五種戒。諸毗奈耶毗婆沙師說。有十種得具戒法。為攝彼故復說等言。何者為十。一由自然謂佛獨覺自然。謂智以不從師證此智時得具足戒。二由佛命善來苾芻。謂耶舍等由本願力佛威加故。三由得入正性離生。謂五苾芻由證見道得具足戒。四由信受佛為大師謂大迦葉。五由善巧酬答所問謂蘇陀夷。六由敬受八尊重法謂大生主。七由遣使謂法授尼。八由持律為第五人謂于邊國。九由十眾謂于中國。十由三說歸佛法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 近分根本（指接近根本定的狀態）。靜慮地心（指禪定狀態下的心）。靜慮律儀（指禪定狀態下所持的戒律）。在這種情況下，便能獲得與禪定之心相應的戒律。從無色界歿生（死亡和投生）時，如果隨之獲得該地的生得靜慮（與生俱來的禪定），也就獲得了與之相應的律儀。無漏律儀（指不被煩惱污染的戒律）也是與心相應的。如果獲得無漏的近分根本靜慮地心，那麼就能獲得這兩種律儀，即通過加行（努力修行）和離染（脫離煩惱）而獲得。通過加行獲得的，比如獲得勝進加行道（更殊勝的修行之道）。通過離染獲得的，比如獲得無間解脫道（沒有間隔的解脫之道）。 前面所說的『聲』是爲了彰顯之前的靜慮之心，又說了『聖言』是爲了簡別選取無漏的禪定。六靜慮地（指六種禪定境界）有無漏心，即未至定、中間定以及四根本定，但沒有三近分定，這將在後面詳細辨析。頌文說『定生得定地』，這種說法有所缺失，因為『定地』一詞總括了此地所有諸法和律儀，律儀也包含在此地之中，因此獲得律儀。如果這樣說，就顯得多餘了。經主應該自己仔細思考這個問題，所以應該只說獲得靜慮。別解脫律儀（指爲了個人解脫而持守的戒律）是通過他教等方式獲得的。能夠教導他人的人被稱為『他』。因為從這樣的他教之力而生髮的戒律，所以說這種戒律是由他教獲得的。這又分為兩種情況，即從僧伽（僧團）和補特伽羅（個人）獲得有所不同。從僧伽獲得的有比丘戒、比丘尼戒和正學戒。從補特伽羅獲得的有其餘五種戒。 諸位毗奈耶毗婆沙師（律藏和論藏的註釋者）說，有十種獲得具足戒的方法。爲了涵蓋這十種情況，所以又說了『等』字。哪十種呢？一是自然獲得，比如佛和獨覺（辟支佛）自然獲得智慧，在沒有老師的情況下證得智慧時，就獲得了具足戒。二是由佛陀命令『善來比丘』，比如耶舍等，由於本願力和佛陀的威神加持。三是由得入正性離生（證入聖道），比如五比丘通過證得見道而獲得具足戒。四是信受佛陀為大師，比如大迦葉。五是善巧地回答所提出的問題，比如蘇陀夷。六是恭敬地接受八尊重法，比如大生主（摩訶波阇波提）。七是派遣使者傳戒，比如法授尼（為尼眾授戒）。八是持律者作為第五人蔘與授戒，比如在邊遠地區。九是由十位僧眾授戒，比如在中國。十是通過三次宣說皈依佛法僧來授戒。
【English Translation】 English version 'Near-access' and 'fundamental'. 'Concentration-ground mind' (referring to the mind in a state of meditative concentration). 'Concentration-ground precepts' (referring to the precepts held in a state of meditative concentration). At that time, one obtains those precepts together with that mind. When dying and being reborn from the Formless Realm, if one then obtains the 'born-from-that-ground concentration' (innate concentration), one also obtains the precepts that accompany it. 'Non-outflow precepts' (referring to precepts that are not defiled by afflictions) also accompany the mind. If one obtains the 'non-outflow near-access fundamental concentration-ground mind', then one obtains these two types of precepts, namely, those obtained through 'application' (diligent practice) and those obtained through 'separation from defilements' (liberation from afflictions). Those obtained through application, such as obtaining the 'superior progress application path' (a more excellent path of practice). Those obtained through separation from defilements, such as obtaining the 'uninterrupted liberation path' (a path of liberation without interruption). The aforementioned 'sound' is to highlight the previous concentration mind, and the term 'holy words' is used to specifically select non-outflow concentration. The six concentration grounds (referring to the six meditative states) have non-outflow minds, namely, the 'unreached concentration', 'intermediate concentration', and the four 'fundamental concentrations', but not the three 'near-access concentrations', which will be analyzed in detail later. The verse says 'concentration gives rise to concentration ground', but this statement is somewhat lacking, because the term 'concentration ground' encompasses all dharmas and precepts of this ground, and the precepts are also included in this ground, thus obtaining the precepts. If it is said in this way, it seems redundant. The author of the sutra should carefully consider this issue himself, so it should only be said that one obtains concentration. 'Separate liberation precepts' (referring to the precepts held for personal liberation) are obtained through other teachings, etc. Those who can teach others are called 'others'. Because the precepts arise from the power of such other teachings, it is said that these precepts are obtained from other teachings. This is further divided into two situations, namely, obtaining from the Sangha (monastic community) and obtaining from the 'Pudgala' (individual) is different. Those obtained from the Sangha include the Bhikshu precepts, Bhikshuni precepts, and Shikshamana precepts. Those obtained from the Pudgala include the remaining five types of precepts. The Vinaya-Vibhasha masters (commentators on the Vinaya and Abhidharma) say that there are ten methods of obtaining full ordination. In order to cover these ten situations, the word 'etc.' is added. What are the ten? First, obtaining naturally, such as the Buddha and Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) naturally obtain wisdom, and when they attain wisdom without a teacher, they obtain full ordination. Second, by the Buddha's command 'Welcome Bhikshu', such as Yashas and others, due to the power of their original vows and the Buddha's majestic blessing. Third, by entering the 'correctly established separation from birth' (entering the holy path), such as the five Bhikshus obtaining full ordination by attaining the path of seeing. Fourth, by believing in the Buddha as the master, such as Mahakashyapa. Fifth, by skillfully answering the questions asked, such as Sudayi. Sixth, by respectfully accepting the eight heavy dharmas, such as Mahaprajapati. Seventh, by sending messengers to transmit the precepts, such as the Dharma-giving nuns (ordaining nuns). Eighth, the Vinaya holder participates in the ordination as the fifth person, such as in remote areas. Ninth, ordination by ten monks, such as in China. Tenth, ordination by reciting the Three Refuges to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha three times.
僧。謂六十賢部共集受具戒。此中或由本願力故。或阿世耶極圓滿故。或薄伽梵威所加故。隨其所應得具足戒。如是所說別解律儀。應齊幾時要期而受。頌曰。
別解脫律儀 盡壽或晝夜
論曰。七眾所依別解脫戒。唯應盡壽要期而受。近住所依別解脫戒。唯一晝夜要期而受。此時定爾何因故然非毗奈耶相應義理。非一切智者能測量其實。謂有何因別解脫戒。有于眾內執三衣等。禮眾求師審問遮難。白四羯磨為先故得。或有但籍補特伽羅教命等緣為先故得。或有得戒不籍外緣。此等必應有決定理。佛知而說非余所量。又以何因造無間者。后雖悔愧修諸善業。于因果理能定信知。而於身中戒無容發故。佛遮彼出家受具。定知別有順受戒身。以受尸羅能救惡趣。非所受戒于無間生。必定能招所應受果。亦非於后無招果能。又非彼人非佛悲境。理應定有律儀種性。唯依此處余處不生。是故不應徴其所以。有餘師說。世尊覺知戒時邊際但有二種。一壽命邊際。二晝夜邊際。重說晝夜為半月等。故佛但說二受戒時。何法名時非離諸行。但光闇位四洲不同。如次應知立為晝夜。此中經部作如是言。二邊際中盡壽可爾。于命終后雖有要期。而不能生別解脫戒。依身別故別依身中。無加行故無憶念故。一晝夜后或五或十。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 僧人問道：『六十賢部共同集會受具足戒。』這裡面，或者由於他們過去所發的誓願的力量，或者由於他們的阿世耶（ā shì yē，習氣、傾向）極其圓滿，或者由於薄伽梵（bó qié fán，佛的尊號，意為『世尊』）的威神力所加持，根據各自的情況，他們能夠得到具足戒。像這樣所說的別解脫律儀（bié jiě tuō lǜ yí，又稱波羅提木叉，是佛教戒律的核心，旨在使人從煩惱中解脫），應該以多久為期限來受持呢？ 頌文說： 『別解脫律儀，盡壽或晝夜。』 論述：七眾（比丘、比丘尼、沙彌、沙彌尼、式叉摩那、優婆塞、優婆夷）所依止的別解脫戒，應該以盡其一生為期限來受持。近住（在家修行者在特定時間段內遵守比丘戒）所依止的別解脫戒，只能以一個晝夜為期限來受持。為什麼會這樣規定呢？這不是毗奈耶（pí nài yē，律藏）相應的義理，不是一切智者（佛）所能完全測量的。也就是說，為什麼有的別解脫戒，需要在僧眾中執持三衣等，禮拜僧眾，請求師父，審問遮難（zhē nán，受戒的障礙），以白四羯磨（bái sì jié mó，一種僧團的儀式）為先才能得到？有的只需要憑藉補特伽羅（bǔ tè qié luó，人、有情）的教命等因緣才能得到？有的得到戒律不需要憑藉外在的因緣？這些必定有其決定的道理，佛知道並且說了，不是其他人所能衡量的。 又因為什麼，造作了無間罪（wú jiàn zuì，五種極重的罪行）的人，即使後來後悔慚愧，修習各種善業，對於因果的道理能夠堅定地相信和了解，但是他的身中卻無法生起戒體，所以佛禁止他們出家受具足戒。必定存在一種適合受戒的身體，因為受持戒律能夠救度惡趣（è qù，不好的輪迴道）。所受持的戒律，對於造作無間罪的人來說，必定不能招感其應得的果報，也不是說以後就完全沒有招感果報的能力。也不是說這個人不在佛的慈悲關懷之中。理應存在一種律儀的種性，只在特定的地方產生，在其他地方不產生。所以不應該追問其中的原因。 有其他論師說，世尊覺知戒律的時間界限只有兩種：一是壽命的界限，二是晝夜的界限。重複說晝夜，是爲了包括半月等情況。所以佛只說了兩種受戒的時間。什麼法可以稱為時間呢？不是離開了諸行（諸行，一切有為法）而存在的。只是光明的狀態在四大洲不同，所以相應地安立為晝夜。這裡，經部（jīng bù，佛教部派之一）這樣說：在兩種界限中，盡壽是可以理解的。在命終之後，即使有要期，也不能產生別解脫戒，因為所依止的身體不同，在不同的身體中，沒有加行（jiā xíng，修行），沒有憶念。一個晝夜之後，或者五天或者十天之後。
【English Translation】 English version A monk asked: 'The sixty worthy members gather together to receive the full ordination.' Among them, either due to the power of their original vows, or because their Āśaya (habitual tendencies, inclinations) is extremely complete, or due to the power of the Bhagavan (尊號, an epithet of the Buddha, meaning 'World-Honored One')'s majesty, they can receive the full ordination according to their respective situations. As such, how long should the Prātimokṣa (別解脫律儀, the core of Buddhist precepts, aimed at liberating people from afflictions) be observed for?' The verse says: 'The Prātimokṣa, for life or a day and night.' Discussion: The Prātimokṣa precepts relied upon by the seven assemblies (bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, śrāmaṇeras, śrāmaṇerikās, śikṣamāṇās, upāsakas, upāsikās) should be observed for the duration of one's life. The Prātimokṣa precepts relied upon by the Upavāsa (近住, a lay practitioner observing monastic precepts for a limited time) can only be observed for one day and night. Why is this the rule? This is not a principle corresponding to the Vinaya (律藏, monastic discipline), and it is not something that an omniscient being (the Buddha) can fully measure. That is to say, why do some Prātimokṣa precepts require holding the three robes in the Sangha, bowing to the Sangha, requesting a teacher, questioning obstacles (遮難, impediments to ordination), and obtaining them through the white four Karmas (白四羯磨, a Sangha ritual)? Some only need to rely on the instructions of a Pudgala (補特伽羅, person, sentient being) and other conditions to obtain them? Some obtain precepts without relying on external conditions? These must have their definite reasons, which the Buddha knows and has spoken, and are not something that others can measure. Furthermore, why is it that those who have committed the five heinous crimes (無間罪, five extremely grave offenses), even if they later repent and practice various good deeds, and can firmly believe and understand the principle of cause and effect, cannot generate the essence of precepts in their bodies, so the Buddha forbids them from leaving home and receiving full ordination? There must be a body suitable for receiving precepts, because upholding precepts can save one from the evil realms (惡趣, unfavorable realms of rebirth). The precepts received by those who have committed the five heinous crimes cannot necessarily bring about the deserved consequences, nor is it that they will have no ability to bring about consequences in the future. Nor is it that this person is not within the Buddha's compassionate care. There should be a nature of discipline that only arises in specific places and not in others. Therefore, one should not question the reasons for this. Some other teachers say that the World-Honored One perceived that there are only two kinds of time limits for precepts: one is the limit of life, and the other is the limit of day and night. Repeating day and night is to include situations such as half a month. Therefore, the Buddha only spoke of two times for receiving precepts. What Dharma can be called time? It does not exist apart from all phenomena (諸行, all conditioned phenomena). It is only that the state of light is different in the four continents, so it is correspondingly established as day and night. Here, the Sautrāntika (經部, one of the Buddhist schools) says: Among the two limits, life-long is understandable. After death, even if there is a time limit, the Prātimokṣa cannot arise, because the body relied upon is different, and in different bodies, there is no effort (加行, practice), no recollection. After one day and night, or after five or ten days.
晝夜等中受近住戒。何法為障令彼眾多。近住律儀非亦得起。彼如是說豈不違經。遍覽諸經曾不見說過晝夜受近住律儀。汝等何緣以己劣慧貶量諸佛一切智境。數言五夜等受近住律儀。以佛經中唯說晝夜故。對法者亦作是言。近住律儀唯晝夜受。必應有法能為障礙。令過晝夜彼戒不生。故佛經中唯說晝夜。然彼復說應共尋思。為佛正觀一晝夜后理無容起近住律儀。故於經中說一晝夜。為觀所化根難調者。且應授與一晝夜戒。依何理教作如是言。過此戒生不違理故。復減於此何理相違。謂所化根有難調者。已許為說晝夜律儀。何不為調漸難調者。說唯一夜一晝須臾。以難調根有多品故。由此知有近住定時。若減若增便不發戒。世尊觀見故唯說此。是故經部與正理師無諍理中橫興諍論。依何邊際得不律儀。頌曰。
惡戒無晝夜 以非如善受
論曰。要期盡壽造諸惡業得不律儀非一晝夜如近住戒。所以者何。以此非如善戒受故。謂必無有立限對師受不律儀。如近住戒我一晝夜定受不律儀。此是智人所訶厭業故。雖亦無有立限對師我當盡形造諸惡業。而由發起壞善意樂。欲永造惡得不律儀。非起暫時造惡意樂。無師而有得不律儀。故不律儀無一晝夜。然近住戒功德可欣。由現對師要期受力。雖無畢竟壞惡意樂。而
於一晝夜得近住律儀。故得不律儀與得律儀異。此俱實有已廣成立說一晝夜近住律儀。欲正受時當如何受。頌曰。
近住于晨旦 下座從師受 隨教說具支 離嚴飾晝夜
論曰。近住律儀于晨旦受。謂受此戒要日出時。此戒要經一晝夜故。諸有先作如是要期。我當恒于月八日等決定受此近住律儀。若旦有礙緣齋竟亦得受。言下座者謂在師前居卑劣座身心謙敬。身謙敬者或蹲或跪曲躬合掌唯除有病。心謙敬者于施戒師心不輕慢於三寶所生極尊重殷凈信心。以諸律儀從敬信發。若不謙敬不發律儀。此必從師無容自受。以後若遇諸犯戒緣由愧戒師能不違犯。謂彼雖闕自法增上由世增上亦能無犯。受此律儀應隨師教。受者后說勿前勿俱。如是方成從師教受。異此授受二俱不成。具受八支方成近住。隨有所闕近住不成。諸遠離支互相屬故。由是四種離殺等支。於一身中可俱時起。以諸遠離相系屬中或少或多相差別故。受此戒者必離嚴飾憍逸處故。常嚴身具不必須舍。緣彼不能生其憍逸如新異故。受此律儀必須晝夜。謂至明旦日初出時。經如是時戒恒相續。異此受者唯生妙行不得律儀。然為令招可愛果故亦應為受。又若如斯盡晝夜受。具制屠獵奸盜有情。近住律儀深成有用。言近住者謂此律儀近阿羅漢住以隨學彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在一晝夜中獲得近住律儀（Upavāsa-śīla，八關齋戒）。因此，不得律儀和得律儀是不同的。這兩種情況都是真實存在的，並且已經廣泛地確立了。如果想要正確地受持一晝夜的近住律儀，應當如何受持呢？頌文說：
『近住于晨旦，下座從師受，隨教說具支，離嚴飾晝夜。』
論中說：近住律儀應當在早晨受持。也就是說，受持此戒需要在日出之時。因為此戒需要經過一晝夜的時間。如果事先已經約定，我應當恒常在每月的初八等日子決定受持此近住律儀。如果早晨有障礙，齋戒完畢后也可以受持。』下座』是指在授戒的阿阇黎（Ācārya，導師）面前，處於卑下的座位，身心都謙卑恭敬。身體謙卑恭敬，可以蹲著或者跪著，彎腰合掌，除非有疾病。內心謙卑恭敬，對於施戒的阿阇黎，內心不輕視怠慢，對於三寶（佛、法、僧）生起極度的尊重和殷切的凈信心。因為一切律儀都是從恭敬和信心產生的。如果不謙卑恭敬，就不能生起律儀。此戒必須從阿阇黎處受持，不能自己受持。以後如果遇到各種犯戒的因緣，因為顧及阿阇黎的教誡，能夠不違犯。也就是說，即使缺少了自法的增上力，由於世間的增上力，也能不違犯。受持此律儀應當隨順阿阇黎的教導。受戒者在阿阇黎說完之後再說，不要在阿阇黎之前說，也不要和阿阇黎同時說。這樣才能算是隨順阿阇黎的教導。如果不是這樣，授戒和受戒雙方都不能成就。必須具足受持八支（Aṣṭāṅga，八條戒律）才能成就近住。如果缺少任何一支，都不能成就近住。因為諸遠離支是互相聯繫的。因此，四種遠離殺生等戒律，可以在一個身體中同時生起。因為諸遠離支在相互聯繫中，或者少或者多，存在差別。受持此戒的人必須遠離華麗的裝飾，因為這是產生驕慢的地方。平常常用的裝飾品不必須捨棄，因為它們不能產生驕慢，比如新的或者不同的裝飾品。受持此律儀必須經過晝夜。也就是說，到第二天早晨太陽初升的時候。經過這樣的時間，戒律才能恒常相續。如果不是這樣受持，只能產生妙行，不能得到律儀。然而，爲了能夠招感可愛的果報，也應當受持。又如果像這樣盡晝夜受持，能夠制止屠殺、狩獵、姦淫、偷盜等行為，近住律儀就能夠發揮很大的作用。』近住』的意思是說，此律儀接近阿羅漢（Arhat）的住處，因為是隨學阿羅漢的行為。
【English Translation】 English version One obtains the Upavāsa-śīla (observance vows) for one day and night. Therefore, not obtaining the vows and obtaining the vows are different. Both of these are real and have been widely established. If one wishes to properly receive the Upavāsa-śīla for one day and night, how should one receive it? The verse says:
'Dwelling near at dawn, receiving from the teacher below the seat, following the teaching, speaking of the complete branches, abstaining from adornments day and night.'
The treatise says: The Upavāsa-śīla should be received in the morning. That is, receiving this precept requires the time of sunrise, because this precept requires one day and night. If one has made such a prior agreement, 'I shall always decide to receive this Upavāsa-śīla on the eighth day of the month,' etc. If there is an obstacle in the morning, one may also receive it after completing the fasting. 'Below the seat' means being in front of the Ācārya (teacher), in a humble seat, with body and mind respectful. Physical humility means squatting or kneeling, bowing and joining palms, except in cases of illness. Mental humility means not being disrespectful or negligent towards the Ācārya who gives the precepts, and generating extreme respect and sincere pure faith towards the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). Because all vows arise from respect and faith. If one is not humble and respectful, one cannot generate the vows. This must be received from a teacher, and cannot be received by oneself. Later, if one encounters various causes for breaking the precepts, one can avoid violating them out of shame for the teacher. That is, even if one lacks the increase of self-law, one can still avoid violating them due to the increase of worldly law. One should follow the teacher's instructions when receiving these vows. The receiver should speak after the teacher, not before or at the same time. Only in this way can one be said to be following the teacher's instructions. Otherwise, neither the giving nor the receiving of the vows will be accomplished. One must fully receive the eight branches (Aṣṭāṅga, eight precepts) to accomplish the Upavāsa. If any branch is missing, the Upavāsa will not be accomplished, because the abstaining branches are interconnected. Therefore, the four abstaining branches, such as abstaining from killing, can arise simultaneously in one body, because the abstaining branches are interconnected, with differences in quantity or degree. One who receives this precept must abstain from luxurious adornments, because this is a place where pride arises. Commonly used ornaments do not necessarily have to be discarded, because they cannot generate pride, such as new or different ornaments. Receiving this precept must last through the day and night. That is, until the first sunrise of the next morning. After such a time, the precepts will continue constantly. Otherwise, one can only generate virtuous actions, but not obtain the vows. However, in order to attract desirable results, one should also receive them. Furthermore, if one observes them throughout the day and night, one can restrain slaughter, hunting, adultery, theft, and other sentient beings. The Upavāsa-śīla becomes very useful. 'Dwelling near' means that this precept is close to the dwelling of the Arhat, because it is following the behavior of the Arhat.
故。有說。此近盡壽戒住。有說。此戒近時而住。如是律儀或名長養。長養薄少善根有情令其善根漸增多故。何緣受此近住律儀。必具八支非增非減。頌曰。
戒不逸禁支 四一三如次 為防諸性罪 失念及憍逸
論曰。八中前四是尸羅支。謂離殺生至虛誑語。由此四種離性罪故。次有一種是不放逸支。謂離飲諸酒生放逸處。雖受尸羅若飲諸酒。心則放逸毀犯尸羅。醉必無能護余支故。後有三種是禁約支。謂離塗飾香鬘乃至食非時食。以能隨順厭離心故。厭離能證律儀果故。何緣具受如是三支。若不具支便不能離性罪失念憍逸過失。謂初離殺至虛誑語能防性罪。離貪瞋癡所起殺等諸惡業故。次離飲酒能防失念。以飲酒時能令忘失應不應作諸事業故。則不能護余遠離支。后離餘三能防憍逸。以若受用種種香鬘高廣床座習近歌舞。心便憍舉尋即毀戒。由遠彼故心便離憍。謂香鬘等若恒受用。尚順憍慢為犯戒緣。況受新奇曾未受者。故一切種皆應舍離。若有能持依時食者。以能遮止恒時食故。便憶自受近住律儀。能於世間深生厭離。若非時食二事俱無。數食能令心縱逸故。由此大義故具受三。有餘師言。離非時食名為齋體。余有八種說名齋支。塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽分為二故。若作此執便違契經。契經說離非時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，有人說，這種戒律是接近壽命終結時所持守的。也有人說，這種戒律只是在特定時間內持守的。這樣的律儀，有時也被稱為『長養』（chang yang，增長培養）。因為它可以使那些善根微薄的有情眾生，逐漸增長他們的善根。那麼，為什麼要受持這種近住律儀（jin zhu luyi，upasatha vows）呢？它必須具備八支，不能增加也不能減少。頌文說： 『戒不逸禁支，四一三如次，為防諸性罪，失念及憍逸。』 論述：在這八支中，前四支是尸羅支（shiluo zhi，precept limbs），也就是遠離殺生、偷盜、邪淫和虛妄語。因為這四種行為本身就是罪惡。第五種是不放逸支（bu fangyi zhi，non-negligence limb），也就是遠離飲用各種能使人產生放逸的酒類。即使受持了尸羅，如果飲酒，心就會放逸，從而毀犯尸羅。因為醉酒之後，就無法守護其他的戒支。后三種是禁約支（jinyue zhi，restraint limbs），也就是遠離塗飾香鬘（tu shi xiang man，adornments and garlands）、歌舞觀聽，乃至食用非時食（fei shi shi，untimely food）。因為這些行為能夠順應厭離之心，而厭離之心能夠證得律儀的果報。 為什麼要具足受持這三種禁約支呢？如果不具足這些戒支，就不能遠離性罪、失念和憍逸的過失。也就是說，最初遠離殺生等四種行為，能夠防止性罪，因為它們能防止由貪、嗔、癡所引起的殺生等各種惡業。其次，遠離飲酒能夠防止失念，因為飲酒會使人忘記應該做和不應該做的事情，從而無法守護其他的遠離支。最後，遠離塗飾香鬘等三種行為能夠防止憍逸。如果受用各種香鬘、高廣床座，以及習近歌舞，心就會變得憍慢，很快就會毀犯戒律。因為遠離這些行為，心就能遠離憍慢。如果經常受用香鬘等，尚且會順應憍慢，成為犯戒的因緣，更何況是受用新奇的、從未受用過的東西呢？所以，一切都應該舍離。如果有人能夠持守依時食（yi shi shi，timely food），因為能夠遮止恒時食（heng shi shi，constant eating），就能憶念自己所受持的近住律儀，從而對世間產生深刻的厭離。如果食用非時食，這兩者都無法做到。頻繁地進食會使心放縱。因為這個重要的原因，所以要具足受持這三種禁約支。有其他老師說，遠離非時食是齋體（zhai ti，essence of fasting），其餘八種是齋支（zhai zhi，limbs of fasting），因為塗飾香鬘、舞歌觀聽被分為兩種。如果這樣認為，就違背了契經（qijing，sutras）。契經說遠離非時
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, some say that this precept is observed near the end of one's life. Others say that this precept is observed only for a limited time. Such discipline is sometimes called 'Nourishment' (chang yang, growth and cultivation). Because it can enable sentient beings with meager roots of virtue to gradually increase their roots of virtue. So, why observe this Upasatha vows (jin zhu luyi, close dwelling precepts)? It must have eight branches, neither increasing nor decreasing. The verse says: 'Precepts, non-negligence, restraint limbs, four, one, three in order, to prevent inherent sins, forgetfulness, and arrogance.' Treatise: Among these eight branches, the first four are Sila limbs (shiluo zhi, morality limbs), namely, abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech. Because these four actions are inherently sinful. The fifth is the non-negligence limb (bu fangyi zhi, non-negligence limb), namely, abstaining from drinking various kinds of alcohol that can cause negligence. Even if one observes Sila, if one drinks alcohol, the mind will become negligent, thereby violating Sila. Because after being drunk, one will not be able to protect the other branches. The last three are restraint limbs (jinyue zhi, restraint limbs), namely, abstaining from adornments and garlands (tu shi xiang man, adornments and garlands), singing, dancing, watching performances, and even eating untimely food (fei shi shi, untimely food). Because these actions can accord with the mind of renunciation, and the mind of renunciation can attain the fruit of discipline. Why fully observe these three restraint limbs? If one does not fully observe these branches, one cannot avoid the faults of inherent sins, forgetfulness, and arrogance. That is to say, initially abstaining from killing and the other three actions can prevent inherent sins, because they can prevent various evil deeds such as killing caused by greed, hatred, and delusion. Secondly, abstaining from drinking alcohol can prevent forgetfulness, because drinking alcohol can make people forget what should and should not be done, thereby making it impossible to protect the other abstaining branches. Finally, abstaining from adornments and garlands and the other three actions can prevent arrogance. If one enjoys various garlands, high and wide beds, and is accustomed to singing and dancing, the mind will become arrogant and will soon violate the precepts. Because one is far away from these actions, the mind can be free from arrogance. If one constantly enjoys garlands and the like, it will still accord with arrogance and become a cause for violating the precepts, let alone enjoying new and never-before-enjoyed things? Therefore, everything should be abandoned. If someone can observe timely food (yi shi shi, timely food), because it can prevent constant eating (heng shi shi, constant eating), one can remember the Upasatha vows (jin zhu luyi, close dwelling precepts) that one has observed, thereby generating a deep renunciation towards the world. If one eats untimely food, neither of these can be achieved. Frequent eating can make the mind unrestrained. Because of this important reason, one must fully observe these three restraint limbs. Other teachers say that abstaining from untimely food is the essence of fasting (zhai ti, essence of fasting), and the remaining eight are the limbs of fasting (zhai zhi, limbs of fasting), because adornments and garlands, singing, dancing, and watching performances are divided into two. If one thinks this way, one violates the sutras (qijing, sutras). The sutras say abstaining from untimely
食已。便作是說。此第八支我今隨聖阿羅漢學隨行隨作。若爾有何別齋體而說此八名齋支。毗婆沙師作如是說。離非時食是齋亦齋支。所餘七支是齋支非齋。如正見是道亦道支。餘七支是道支非道。擇法覺是覺亦覺支。餘六支是覺支非覺。三摩地是靜慮亦靜慮支。所餘支是靜慮支非靜慮。經主於此謬作是責。不可正見等即正見等支。若謂前生正見等為後生正見等支。則初剎那聖道等應不具有八支等。非毗婆沙說正見等其體即是正見等支。亦非前生正見等為後生正見等支。然于俱生正見等八。唯一正見有能尋求諸法相力說名為道。以能尋求是道義故即此正見。復能隨順正思惟等故名為支。所餘七支望俱生法能隨順故說名為支。非能尋求不名為道。實義如是。若就假名。餘七皆能長養正見。故思惟等亦得道名。見名道支亦不違理。是則一切亦道亦支。余隨所應皆如是說。由此類釋齋戒八支。經主于中何憑說過。為唯近事得受近住。為余亦有受近住耶。頌曰。
近住余亦有 不受三歸無
論曰。諸有未受近事律儀。一晝夜中歸依三寶。說三歸已受近住戒。彼亦受得近住律儀。異此則無除不知者。由意樂力亦發律儀。豈不三歸即成近事。如契經說佛告大名。諸有在家白衣男子。男根成就歸佛法僧。起殷凈心發誠諦
語。自稱我是鄔波索迦。愿尊憶持慈悲護念。齋是名曰鄔波索迦。此不相違受三歸位未成近事。所以者何。要發律儀成近事故。於何時發近事律儀。頌曰。
稱近事發戒 說如苾芻等
論曰。起殷凈心發誠諦語。自稱我是鄔波索迦。愿尊憶持慈悲護念。爾時乃發近事律儀。稱近事等言方發律儀故。以經復說我從今者乃至命終護生言故。若離稱號但受三歸成近事者。自稱我是近事等言便為無用。依何義故說護生言。別解律儀護生得故。然有別誦言捨生者。此言意說舍殺生等。略去殺等但說捨生。彼雖已得近事律儀。為令了知所應學處故。復為說離殺生等五種戒相。令識堅持如得苾芻具足戒已。說重學處令識堅持勤策亦然。此亦應爾。是故近事必具律儀。非受三歸即成近事。頌曰。
若皆具律儀 何言一分等 約能持故說
論曰。經部於前所說義理心不生喜。復設是難若諸近事皆具律儀。何緣世尊言有四種。一能學一分。二能學少分。三能學多分。四能學滿分。豈不由此且已證成。非唯三歸即成近事。謂若別有但受三歸即成近事。如是近事非前所說四種所收。應更說有第五近事。此于學處全無所學。亦應說為一近事故。佛觀近事非離律儀。故契經中唯說四種。雖諸近事皆具律儀。然約能持故說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
他說：『我自稱是鄔波索迦（Upasaka，優婆塞，男居士）。愿尊者憶念並以慈悲心護念我。』這樣稱呼自己為鄔波索迦，並不意味著已經受了三歸依位，成為近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，男居士）。為什麼呢？因為要發起律儀才能成為近事。那麼，在什麼時候發起近事律儀呢？頌文說： 『稱近事發戒，說如苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘）等。』 論曰：以清凈的心發起真誠的語言，自稱『我是鄔波索迦。愿尊者憶念並以慈悲心護念我。』這時才發起近事律儀。『稱近事等』的說法，正是爲了說明發起律儀的緣故。因為經中又說『我從今乃至命終，護持生命』。如果離開這種稱謂，僅僅受三歸依就能成為近事，那麼自稱『我是近事』等等的說法就變得沒有意義了。依據什麼意義說『護生』呢？因為別解律儀能夠護持生命。然而，也有另外誦讀為『捨生』的，這意思是說捨棄殺生等等，省略了『殺』等字，只說『捨生』。他們雖然已經得到了近事律儀，但爲了讓他們瞭解所應該學習之處，所以又為他們宣說遠離殺生等五種戒相，讓他們認識並堅持。就像得到比丘具足戒后，宣說重大學處，讓他們認識並堅持，勤策（Sramanera，沙彌）也是這樣。這裡也應該如此。因此，近事必定具備律儀，不是僅僅受三歸依就能成為近事。頌文說： 『若皆具律儀，何言一分等？約能持故說。』 論曰：經部（Sautrantika）對於前面所說的義理心生不悅，又提出這樣的難題：如果所有的近事都具備律儀，那麼世尊為什麼說有四種近事呢？一是能學一分，二是能學少分，三是能學多分，四是能學滿分。難道不是由此已經證明，不是僅僅受三歸依就能成為近事嗎？如果另外存在僅僅受三歸依就能成為近事的情況，那麼這種近事就不屬於前面所說的四種近事所包含的範圍，應該另外說有第五種近事，這種近事對於學處完全沒有學習。也應該說為一種近事。佛陀觀察近事並沒有離開律儀，所以在契經中只說了四種。雖然所有的近事都具備律儀，但只是根據他們能夠持守的程度來區分。
【English Translation】 English version:
He says: 'I call myself an Upasaka (layman). May the venerable one remember and protect me with compassion.' Calling oneself an Upasaka in this way does not mean that one has already received the Three Refuges and become a lay disciple (Upasaka). Why? Because one must generate the precepts (律儀) to become a lay disciple. So, when does one generate the precepts of a lay disciple? The verse says: 'By calling oneself a lay disciple, one generates the precepts, like saying 'Bhikkhu (monk)' etc.' The treatise says: With a pure mind, one utters sincere words, calling oneself 'I am an Upasaka. May the venerable one remember and protect me with compassion.' At that time, one generates the precepts of a lay disciple. The phrase 'calling oneself a lay disciple, etc.' is precisely to explain the reason for generating the precepts. Because the sutra also says, 'From now until the end of my life, I will protect life.' If one becomes a lay disciple merely by taking the Three Refuges without this declaration, then the statement 'I am a lay disciple,' etc., becomes meaningless. According to what meaning is 'protecting life' mentioned? Because the Pratimoksha (別解律儀) can protect life. However, there are also those who recite it as 'renouncing life,' which means renouncing killing, etc., omitting the word 'killing' and simply saying 'renouncing life.' Although they have already obtained the precepts of a lay disciple, in order to make them understand what they should learn, the five precepts of abstaining from killing, etc., are explained to them, so that they can recognize and adhere to them. Just as after receiving the full ordination of a Bhikkhu, the important precepts are explained to them so that they can recognize and adhere to them, and the Sramanera (novice) is the same. It should be the same here. Therefore, a lay disciple must possess the precepts; one does not become a lay disciple merely by taking the Three Refuges. The verse says: 'If all possess the precepts, why speak of one part, etc.? It is spoken of according to the ability to uphold them.' The treatise says: The Sautrantika (經部) school is displeased with the meaning explained earlier and raises this difficult question: If all lay disciples possess the precepts, then why did the World Honored One say that there are four types of lay disciples? First, one who can learn one part; second, one who can learn a few parts; third, one who can learn many parts; and fourth, one who can learn all parts. Doesn't this already prove that one does not become a lay disciple merely by taking the Three Refuges? If there is another situation where one becomes a lay disciple merely by taking the Three Refuges, then this type of lay disciple does not belong to the four types of lay disciples mentioned earlier, and a fifth type of lay disciple should be mentioned, one who does not learn anything about the precepts. It should also be said to be a type of lay disciple. The Buddha observes that lay disciples do not depart from the precepts, so only four types are mentioned in the sutras. Although all lay disciples possess the precepts, it is only distinguished according to their ability to uphold them.
四種。謂雖具受五支律儀。而後遇緣或便毀缺。其中或有于諸學處能持一分。乃至或有具持五支故作是說。能持先所受故說能學言。不爾應言受一分等。故此四種但據能持。經主此中作如是說。如是所執違越契經。如何違經。謂無經說自稱我是近事等言便發五戒。此經不說我從今者乃至命終捨生言故。經如何說如大名經。唯此經中說近事相。余經不爾故違越經。然余經說。我從今時乃至命終捨生歸凈。是歸三寶發誠信言。此中顯示已見諦者由得證凈。舉命自要表于正法深懷愛重。乃至為救自生命緣。終不捨于如來正法。非彼為欲說近事相。故說如是捨生等言。未審此中經主說意。為欲勸勵我國諸師。受持外方經部所誦。為受持佛所說契經。然有眾經不違正理。外方經部曾不受持。有阿笈摩越于總頌。彼率意造還自受持。經主豈容令我國內善鑒聖教諸大論師。同彼背真受持偽教。且經所說我從今時。乃至命終捨生等者。何理唯說得證凈人。非諸異生亦立此誓。諸異生類將受律儀。亦有如斯堅固意樂。乃至為救自生命緣。終不虧違所受學處。如斯誓受世現可得。然此文句大名經中。現有受持不違正理。故不應舍所誦正文。設大名經無此文句。於我宗義亦無所違。非我宗言說此文句。究竟方發近事律儀。由說自稱我是近事。
【現代漢語翻譯】 四種，指的是雖然已經具足受持了五支律儀（Pañca-śīla，五戒），但後來遇到因緣可能會毀壞或缺失。其中或者有人對於各種學處（Śikṣāpada，戒條）能夠持守一部分，乃至有人能夠完全持守五支。所以才這樣說，能夠持守先前所受持的戒律，因此才說是『能學』。否則應該說『受持一部分』等等。所以這四種情況只是根據能夠持守的情況而說。經主（Sūtra Master）在這裡這樣說，這種主張違背了契經（Sūtra，佛經）。 如何違背契經呢？因為沒有契經說，自稱『我是近事（Upāsaka/Upāsikā，優婆塞/優婆夷）』等等話語，就能生起五戒。這部經沒有說『我從今時乃至命終捨生』這樣的話。契經是如何說的呢？就像《大名經（Mahānāma Sutta）》那樣。只有這部經中說了近事（Upāsaka/Upāsikā，優婆塞/優婆夷）的相狀，其他的經不是這樣，所以違背了契經。然而其他的經說，『我從今時乃至命終捨生歸凈』，這是歸依三寶（Triratna，佛法僧）發誠信的言語。這其中顯示已經見諦（Darśana，證悟）的人，由於得到證凈（Prasāda，信心），用生命來作為要約，表明對於正法（Dharma，佛法）懷有深厚的愛重，乃至爲了救自己的生命，最終也不會捨棄如來（Tathāgata，佛陀）的正法，而不是爲了要說近事（Upāsaka/Upāsikā，優婆塞/優婆夷）的相狀，才說這樣捨生等等的話。 還不清楚這裡的經主（Sūtra Master）所說的意圖，是爲了勸勉我國的諸位法師，受持外方經部所誦讀的經典，還是受持佛所說的契經（Sūtra，佛經）？然而有一些經典不違背正理，外方經部卻不曾受持。有一些阿笈摩（Āgama，聖傳）超越了總頌（Udāna，總結），他們隨意造作，還自己受持。經主（Sūtra Master）難道容許我國善於鑑別聖教的諸位大論師，和他們一樣背離真理，受持虛假的教法嗎？而且經中所說的『我從今時乃至命終捨生』等等，有什麼道理只說得到證凈（Prasāda，信心）的人才能說，而不是所有的異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）也可以立下這樣的誓言？ 各種異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）在將要受持律儀（Śīla，戒律）的時候，也有這樣堅固的意樂，乃至爲了救自己的生命，最終也不會虧損違背所受持的學處（Śikṣāpada，戒條）。這樣的誓願在世間是能夠見到的。然而這些文句在《大名經（Mahānāma Sutta）》中，現在也有受持，不違背正理，所以不應該捨棄所誦讀的正文。假設《大名經（Mahānāma Sutta）》沒有這些文句，對於我宗的義理也沒有什麼違背。不是我宗說說了這些文句，最終才能生起近事（Upāsaka/Upāsikā，優婆塞/優婆夷）律儀，而是因為說了自稱『我是近事（Upāsaka/Upāsikā，優婆塞/優婆夷）』。
【English Translation】 Four types, referring to those who, although having fully received and upheld the five precepts (Pañca-śīla), may later encounter circumstances that cause them to break or lack them. Among them, some may be able to uphold a portion of the various precepts (Śikṣāpada), while others may be able to fully uphold all five. Therefore, it is said that they are able to uphold the precepts they have previously received, hence the term 'able to learn'. Otherwise, it should be said 'upholding a portion' and so on. So these four types are only based on the ability to uphold. The Sūtra Master says here that this assertion contradicts the Sūtras. How does it contradict the Sūtras? Because no Sūtra says that by declaring 'I am a lay follower (Upāsaka/Upāsikā)' and so on, the five precepts arise. This Sūtra does not say 'From this moment until the end of my life, I take refuge'. How do the Sūtras say it? Like the Mahānāma Sutta. Only this Sūtra speaks of the characteristics of a lay follower (Upāsaka/Upāsikā), other Sūtras do not, so it contradicts the Sūtras. However, other Sūtras say, 'From this moment until the end of my life, I take refuge'. This is taking refuge in the Three Jewels (Triratna) and expressing faith. This shows that those who have attained insight (Darśana), due to gaining faith (Prasāda), use their lives as a pledge, expressing deep love and respect for the Dharma, and even to save their own lives, they will ultimately not abandon the Tathāgata's Dharma, and not to describe the characteristics of a lay follower (Upāsaka/Upāsikā), that they say such words of giving up life. It is not yet clear what the Sūtra Master intends here, whether it is to encourage the teachers of our country to uphold the scriptures recited by foreign schools, or to uphold the Sūtras spoken by the Buddha? However, there are some scriptures that do not contradict the right principle, but foreign schools have never upheld them. Some Āgamas (holy traditions) go beyond the summaries (Udāna), they create them at will and uphold them themselves. How can the Sūtra Master allow the great masters in our country who are good at distinguishing the holy teachings to abandon the truth and uphold false teachings like them? Moreover, what is said in the scriptures, 'From this moment until the end of my life, I take refuge', what reason is there to say that only those who have attained faith (Prasāda) can say it, and not all ordinary beings (Pṛthagjana) can also make such a vow? Various ordinary beings (Pṛthagjana), when they are about to receive precepts (Śīla), also have such firm intentions, and even to save their own lives, they will ultimately not violate the precepts (Śikṣāpada) they have received. Such vows can be seen in the world. However, these sentences are also upheld in the Mahānāma Sutta, and do not contradict the right principle, so the recited text should not be abandoned. Assuming that the Mahānāma Sutta does not have these sentences, there is no contradiction to the meaning of my school. It is not my school that says that by saying these sentences, the lay follower's (Upāsaka/Upāsikā) precepts ultimately arise, but because they say 'I am a lay follower (Upāsaka/Upāsikā)'.
請持護念便發律儀。以自發言表為弟子。如大迦葉得具足戒世尊既說鄔波索迦。應具受持五種學處。彼說我是鄔波索迦。必具律儀何勞致惑。如稱我是國大軍師。彼必具閑兵將事業。依如是喻智者應思。如是分明無過理教。若不忍受知奈之何。又經主言。約持犯戒說一分等。尚不應問況應為答。誰有已解近事律儀必具五支。而不能解于所學處持一非余。乃至具持名一分等。由彼未解近事律儀受量少多故應請問。凡有幾種鄔波索迦能學學處。答言有四鄔波索迦。謂能學一分等猶未能了。復問何名能學一分。乃至廣說此全無理。唯對法宗所說理中應問答故。雖知近事必具律儀而未了知。隨犯一種為越一切為一非余。由有此疑故應請問。諸部若有未見此文。於此義中迄今猶諍。若異此者佛經數言。鄔波索迦具五學處。誰有於此已善了知。而復懷疑問受多少。設許爾者疑問相違。謂彼本疑受量多少。而問有幾能學學處。答學一分等豈除本所疑。故彼義中不應問答。經主於此不正尋思。于諍理中懷朋黨執。翻言對法所說義中。問尚不應況應為答。有餘師說。由別契經證離律儀亦成近事。如契經說齊何名為鄔波索迦尸羅圓滿。謂有近事能斷殺生能離殺生乃至飲酒。故知近事有闕律儀。彼於此經甚迷義意。此經意說無漏尸羅。以此中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 請保持憶念並生起受持戒律的意願。通過自己發出的誓言表明成為弟子。就像摩訶迦葉（Mahākāśyapa，佛陀的十大弟子之一）得到具足戒一樣。世尊已經說過鄔波索迦（Upāsaka，男居士）應當具足受持五種學處（五戒）。如果有人說：『我是鄔波索迦，必定具足戒律，何必還要疑惑呢？』就像聲稱自己是國家的大軍師，那麼他必定精通軍事一樣。智者應該根據這樣的比喻來思考。像這樣分明的事理，再沒有比這更正確的教導了。如果不能接受，那又能怎麼樣呢？ 此外，經論的作者說，關於持戒和犯戒，只說一部分等等，尚且不應該提問，更何況是回答呢？誰已經理解了近事律儀（Upāsaka-śīla，居士戒）必定具足五支，卻不能理解在所學之處持守一個而非其餘的，乃至具足持守，只說一部分等等。因為他們沒有理解近事律儀受持的多少，所以才應該請問。總共有幾種鄔波索迦能夠學習學處？回答說有四種鄔波索迦，即能夠學習一部分等等，但仍然不明白。又問：『什麼叫做能夠學習一部分？』乃至廣說，這完全沒有道理。只有在論法的宗派所說的道理中才應該問答。即使知道近事必定具足戒律，但還不明白，如果違犯其中一種，是違犯了一切，還是違犯了一個而非其餘的？因為有這樣的疑問，所以才應該請問。各部派中如果有人沒有見過這段經文，對於這個意義至今還在爭論。 如果不是這樣，佛經多次說到，鄔波索迦具足五種學處。誰對這個已經完全瞭解，還會懷疑而問受持的多少呢？如果允許這樣，疑問就互相矛盾了。他們本來疑惑受持的多少，卻問有幾種能夠學習學處。回答學習一部分等等，難道能消除本來所疑惑的嗎？所以在那個意義中不應該問答。經論的作者在這裡沒有正確地思考，在爭論的道理中懷有偏袒的執著，反而說在論法宗派所說的意義中，問尚且不應該，更何況是回答呢？ 有其他論師說，因為有別的契經證明，即使沒有戒律也能成為近事。例如契經上說：『什麼叫做鄔波索迦尸羅（Upāsaka-śīla，居士戒）圓滿？』就是說有近事能夠斷除殺生，能夠遠離殺生乃至飲酒。所以知道近事有缺少戒律的情況。他們對於這部經的意義非常迷惑。這部經的意思是說無漏的尸羅（śīla，戒律），因為在這其中...
【English Translation】 English version Please hold mindfulness and generate the intention to receive and uphold the precepts. Express being a disciple through your own spoken vows, just as Mahākāśyapa (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) received the full ordination. The World Honored One has already said that an Upāsaka (male lay follower) should fully receive and uphold the five precepts (five training rules). If someone says, 'I am an Upāsaka, I must possess the precepts, why should there be any doubt?' It's like claiming to be the great military strategist of the country, then he must be proficient in military affairs. Wise people should contemplate according to such analogies. Such clear reasoning, there is no teaching more correct than this. If you cannot accept it, what can be done? Furthermore, the author of the scriptures says that regarding upholding and violating precepts, speaking of only a part, etc., should not even be questioned, let alone answered. Who has already understood that the Upāsaka-śīla (layperson's precepts) must possess five branches, yet cannot understand that in the places of learning, one should uphold one and not the others, or even uphold them completely, speaking of only a part, etc. Because they have not understood the amount of Upāsaka-śīla received, whether it is little or much, therefore they should ask. How many kinds of Upāsakas are there who can learn the training rules? The answer is that there are four kinds of Upāsakas, namely those who can learn a part, etc., but still do not understand. And then ask: 'What is called being able to learn a part?' and so on, which is completely unreasonable. Only in the reasoning spoken of in the Abhidharma (scholastic treatises) school should there be questions and answers. Even if one knows that a layperson must possess the precepts, but still does not understand, if one violates one of them, does it violate everything, or does it violate one and not the others? Because there is such a doubt, therefore one should ask. If there are those in various schools who have not seen this passage, they are still arguing about this meaning. If it is not like this, the Buddhist scriptures repeatedly say that an Upāsaka possesses five training rules. Who has fully understood this, and would still doubt and ask about the amount received? If this is allowed, the questions contradict each other. They originally doubted the amount received, but asked how many can learn the training rules. Does answering 'learning a part, etc.' eliminate the original doubt? Therefore, in that meaning, there should be no questions and answers. The author of the scriptures here did not think correctly, and in the reasoning of the argument, harbored biased attachments, and instead said that in the meaning spoken of in the Abhidharma school, asking should not even be done, let alone answering? There are other teachers who say that because there are other sutras that prove that even without precepts, one can become a layperson. For example, the sutra says: 'What is called the perfection of Upāsaka-śīla (layperson's precepts)?' It means that there are laypersons who can cut off killing, can abstain from killing, and even drinking alcohol. Therefore, it is known that laypersons have situations where they lack precepts. They are very confused about the meaning of this sutra. The meaning of this sutra is speaking of the undefiled śīla (precepts), because in this...
無盡壽聲故。又如經說齊何名為鄔波索迦信根圓滿。謂有近事于如來所住有根信乃至廣說。不可說有鄔波索迦此信不成即全無信。如此經說信圓滿言但約無漏。故知所說戒。圓滿言非據有漏。但據無漏說如是言。是故不應引此經說。證有近事不具律儀。無漏戒中無離飲酒。故此所釋。理必不然。此難不然。此經顯說無漏戒體有勝能故。謂佛顯示無漏戒力。能令所受近事律儀。乃至遮戒亦定無犯。故此經約無漏尸羅說離飲酒亦無有失。故契經說見圓滿者。終不故思犯諸學處。或此經說尸羅圓滿。欲顯尸羅遍清凈義。謂於五戒全無毀缺。方名尸羅遍清凈者。依遍清凈立圓滿名。若決定無離戒近事。便違經說。或有一類具信非戒鄔波索迦。此不相違此說近事不能具足。持五戒者名為具信非具尸羅。或此具言顯可讚義。如言此劍磨已具色。非此未磨色全非有。戒亦應爾可讚名具。戒具眾德立可讚名。與此相違名不具戒。若闕律儀亦名近事。苾芻勤策闕亦應成。然經主言何緣不許。由佛教力施設不同。雖闕律儀而成近事。苾芻勤策要具律儀。此率己情無經說故。彼前已說唯大名經說近事相余經不爾。今應定說世尊於何說離律儀而成近事。曾聞經部有作是執。亦有無戒勤策苾芻。彼執便同布剌拏等諸外道見非佛法宗。一切律儀品類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無盡壽聲故（因為無盡的壽命和聲音的緣故）。又如經中所說，什麼叫做鄔波索迦（Upasaka，男居士）信根圓滿？就是說有在家信徒在如來（Tathagata，佛陀）所住之處具有堅固的信心，乃至廣說。不能說有鄔波索迦此信不成，就完全沒有信心。如此經中所說『信圓滿』，只是就無漏（Anasrava，沒有煩惱）而言。所以可知所說的『戒圓滿』，不是指有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱）的戒，而是指無漏的戒。因此不應該引用此經來說，證明有在家信徒不具足律儀（Vinaya，戒律）。無漏戒中沒有不包括不飲酒的規定，所以這種解釋必定是不合理的。 這種反駁是不成立的。此經明顯說明無漏戒體具有殊勝的能力。佛陀顯示無漏戒的力量，能夠使所受的在家律儀，乃至遮戒（防止作惡的戒）也一定不會違犯。所以此經就無漏尸羅（Sila，戒）而言，說不飲酒也沒有過失。所以契經（Sutra，佛經）說『見圓滿』的人，最終不會故意違犯各種學處（Siksa-pada，戒條）。或者此經說『尸羅圓滿』，是爲了顯示尸羅遍及清凈的意義，就是說對於五戒（Panca-sila）完全沒有毀壞缺失，才能稱為尸羅遍清凈，依據遍清凈而立圓滿之名。如果決定沒有不離戒的在家信徒，就違背了經文所說。或者有一類具有信心但不持戒的鄔波索迦。這並不矛盾，這是說在家信徒不能完全具足持五戒的人，稱為具有信心但不具有尸羅。或者這個『具』字，是爲了顯示可讚嘆的意義，就像說這把劍磨好后，顏色很好。不是說沒磨之前，顏色就完全沒有。戒也應該是這樣，可讚嘆才稱為『具』，戒具足各種功德，才能立為可讚嘆之名。與此相反的，就稱為不具戒。如果缺少律儀，也可以稱為在家信徒，那麼比丘（Bhikkhu，出家男眾）、勤策（Sramanera，沙彌）缺少律儀也應該可以成立了。然而經文主張，為什麼不允許這樣呢？因為佛教的力量施設不同，雖然缺少律儀也可以成為在家信徒，但是比丘、勤策一定要具足律儀。這是按照自己的想法，沒有經文依據。他們前面已經說了，只有《大名經》說了在家信徒的相貌，其他經文不是這樣。現在應該確定地說，世尊在什麼地方說了離開律儀也可以成為在家信徒？曾經聽說經部有這樣的主張，也有沒有戒的勤策、比丘。他們的主張就和布剌拏（Purana）等外道（Tirthika）的見解一樣，不是佛法的宗旨。一切律儀的品類……
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the endless life and sound. Furthermore, as the Sutra says, what is called the complete root of faith of an Upasaka (male lay follower)? It means that a lay follower residing where the Tathagata (Buddha) dwells has a firm faith, and so on. It cannot be said that if an Upasaka's faith is incomplete, he has no faith at all. Thus, when the Sutra speaks of 'complete faith,' it refers only to Anasrava (without defilements). Therefore, it can be known that the 'complete precepts' mentioned are not referring to Sasrava (with defilements) precepts, but to Anasrava precepts. Therefore, one should not cite this Sutra to prove that there are lay followers who do not fully observe the Vinaya (discipline). There is no exclusion of abstaining from alcohol in Anasrava precepts, so this interpretation must be unreasonable. This objection is not valid. This Sutra clearly states that the Anasrava precepts have superior power. The Buddha shows that the power of Anasrava precepts can ensure that the lay precepts received, even the prohibitive precepts (preventing evil deeds), will definitely not be violated. Therefore, this Sutra, in terms of Anasrava Sila (morality), says that abstaining from alcohol is also without fault. Therefore, the Sutra says that those who have 'complete view' will ultimately not deliberately violate the various Siksa-pada (precepts). Or this Sutra says 'complete Sila' to show the meaning of Sila being pervasive and pure, that is, only when there is no destruction or deficiency in the Panca-sila (five precepts) can it be called pervasive purity of Sila, and the name of completeness is established based on pervasive purity. If it is determined that there are no lay followers who do not abstain from precepts, it would violate what the Sutra says. Or there is a type of Upasaka who has faith but does not observe precepts. This is not contradictory; it means that lay followers who cannot fully observe the five precepts are called those who have faith but do not have Sila. Or the word 'complete' is to show the meaning of praiseworthiness, just like saying that after this sword is polished, the color is very good. It is not that the color was completely absent before polishing. The precepts should also be like this; only when they are praiseworthy can they be called 'complete.' Precepts that possess various merits can be established as praiseworthy. The opposite of this is called incomplete precepts. If the Vinaya is lacking, one can also be called a lay follower, then Bhikkhus (monks) and Sramaneras (novices) lacking Vinaya should also be valid. However, the Sutra argues, why is this not allowed? Because the power of Buddhism is different in its provisions. Although lacking Vinaya, one can still become a lay follower, but Bhikkhus and Sramaneras must fully observe the Vinaya. This is according to one's own ideas, without Sutra evidence. They have already said before that only the 'Mahanama Sutra' speaks of the characteristics of lay followers, other Sutras do not. Now it should be determined where the World Honored One said that one can become a lay follower without observing the Vinaya? It has been heard that the Sautrantika school has such a view, and there are also Sramaneras and Bhikkhus without precepts. Their views are the same as those of the Tirthikas (non-Buddhists) like Purana, which is not the doctrine of Buddhism. All categories of Vinaya...
等不。品類非等有三品故。下中上別隨何故成。頌曰。
下中上隨心
論曰。八眾所受別解脫戒。隨受心力成上中下。由如是理諸阿羅漢。或有成就下品律儀。然諸異生或成上品。此中上座作是撥言。如是所宗違正理教。若必爾者是則應無勇猛正勤修持禁戒。世尊亦說軌則所行皆得圓滿。于微細罪見大怖畏。此但為持如先所得令不毀壞。故應發起勇猛正勤。非由修持令下中品轉成中上。亦非由起勇猛正勤。便舍下中得中上戒。由此即釋所引契經。亦但就持如先所得。能于毀犯微細罪中見大怖畏故作是說。不言由此令戒漸增。又彼所言諸有為法剎那不住。故所受戒由眾緣力及阿世耶。從下生中從中生上此亦非理。所受律儀依殊勝緣方得生故。謂所受戒必托受緣。得已無容數數重受。若先受已后離受緣。泛遇余緣可更得者。先未受戒泛遇余緣。亦應可得無差別故。雖諸有為皆托緣起。而戒必托。殊勝緣生。故彼所言定不應理。依何義說鄔波索迦彼先歸依佛法僧寶。親近承事所尊重師。便獲尸羅故名近事。或能習近如理所為。壞惡事業故名近事。或能親近事佛為師故名近事。分同諸佛得凈尸羅善意樂故。如有頌言。
居遠而近佛 由勤勇歸禮 有悲離惡想 故名為近事
今應思擇。無智世間所事
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不等同嗎？品類的不同有三種，這是什麼原因造成的下品、中品、上品之間的區別呢？ 頌詞說： 『下品、中品、上品隨心而定。』 論述：八眾所受的別解脫戒，隨著受戒時的心力而成就上品、中品、下品。由於這個道理，一些阿羅漢可能成就下品律儀，然而一些凡夫俗子可能成就上品律儀。對此，上座部的人反駁說：這樣的觀點違背了正理和教義。如果一定是這樣，那就應該沒有勇猛精進地修持禁戒了。世尊也說過，行為舉止都應圓滿，對於細微的罪過也要心生大怖畏。這只是爲了保持先前所得的戒律，使其不被毀壞，所以應該發起勇猛精進之心。不是通過修持使下品、中品轉變成中品、上品，也不是通過發起勇猛精進之心，就能捨棄下品、中品而得到中品、上品戒。因此，這也解釋了所引用的契經，只是就保持先前所得的戒律而言，能對毀犯細微罪過心生大怖畏，所以這樣說，而不是說由此能使戒律逐漸增長。而且，他們所說的諸有為法剎那不住，所以所受的戒律由於各種因緣和習氣，從下品生中品，從中品生上品，這也是不合理的。所受的律儀依靠殊勝的因緣才能產生。也就是說，所受的戒律必須依託受戒的因緣，得到之後不能多次重複受戒。如果先前受戒之後，後來離開了受戒的因緣，偶然遇到其他因緣可以再次得到，那麼先前沒有受戒的人，偶然遇到其他因緣，也應該可以得到，沒有區別。雖然諸有為法都依託因緣而生起，但是戒律必須依託殊勝的因緣才能產生，所以他們所說的肯定是不合理的。根據什麼意義說鄔波索迦（Upāsaka，近事男）呢？他們首先歸依佛、法、僧三寶，親近承事所尊重的師長，便獲得尸羅（Śīla，戒），所以稱為近事。或者能夠習近如理的行為，斷除惡劣的事業，所以稱為近事。或者能夠親近事奉佛陀為師，所以稱為近事。分擔諸佛的責任，得到清凈的尸羅和善良的意樂。正如頌詞所說： 『身居遠處心近佛，由於勤奮勇猛歸依和禮敬，具有慈悲之心遠離邪惡的想法，所以稱為近事。』 現在應該思考，無知的世間人所侍奉的...
【English Translation】 English version Isn't it unequal? There are three categories of differences in kind. What causes the distinctions between inferior, middling, and superior? The verse says: 『Inferior, middling, and superior depend on the mind.』 Commentary: The Prātimokṣa (別解脫戒, individual liberation vows) received by the eight assemblies are categorized into superior, middling, and inferior based on the strength of the mind at the time of reception. Due to this principle, some Arhats (阿羅漢, enlightened beings) may achieve inferior moral discipline (律儀, rules of conduct), while some ordinary beings may achieve superior moral discipline. In response, the Sthaviras (上座, elders) object, saying: Such a view contradicts both reason and doctrine. If it were necessarily so, then there should be no diligent and vigorous practice of upholding the precepts. The World-Honored One (世尊, Buddha) also said that conduct and behavior should be perfect, and one should have great fear of even the slightest transgression. This is only to maintain the precepts already obtained, so that they are not violated. Therefore, one should arouse a spirit of diligence and vigor. It is not through practice that inferior and middling qualities are transformed into middling and superior qualities, nor is it through arousing diligence and vigor that one can abandon inferior and middling qualities to obtain middling and superior precepts. Therefore, this also explains the cited sutra, which only refers to maintaining the precepts already obtained, being able to have great fear of even the slightest transgression, hence it is said, but not that this causes the precepts to gradually increase. Moreover, their statement that all conditioned phenomena are momentary and do not abide, so the precepts received, due to various causes and conditions and habitual tendencies, progress from inferior to middling, and from middling to superior, is also unreasonable. The moral discipline received depends on superior conditions to arise. That is to say, the precepts received must rely on the conditions of reception, and once obtained, there is no room for repeated reception. If one has previously received the precepts and later departs from the conditions of reception, and accidentally encounters other conditions and can receive them again, then those who have not previously received the precepts should also be able to receive them when they accidentally encounter other conditions, without any difference. Although all conditioned phenomena arise from conditions, the precepts must arise from superior conditions, so their statement is definitely unreasonable. According to what meaning is an Upāsaka (鄔波索迦, a male lay follower) so called? They first take refuge in the Three Jewels (佛法僧寶, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), and closely attend to and serve the respected teachers, and then obtain Śīla (尸羅, moral conduct), hence they are called Upāsaka. Or they are able to practice proper conduct and eliminate evil deeds, hence they are called Upāsaka. Or they are able to closely attend to and serve the Buddha as their teacher, hence they are called Upāsaka, sharing the responsibilities of all Buddhas, obtaining pure Śīla and good intentions. As the verse says: 『Though dwelling far away, the mind is near the Buddha, due to diligent and vigorous refuge and reverence, having a compassionate heart and being free from evil thoughts, hence they are called Upāsaka.』 Now we should consider what ignorant worldly people serve...
種種諸天神眾。為諸近事應禮彼天。如禮世尊為不應禮。何緣於此欻爾生疑。以於世間現有一類。事邪天愛染習其心。樂率己情作諸事業。不依理教妄作是言。鄔波索迦應禮天眾。佛聽許故。謂佛聽許供養天神。故契經言供養天者名奉佛教。又隨念故謂世尊說應隨念天故應禮天。如說隨唸佛法僧寶。又不遮故。謂無經遮鄔波索迦禮諸天眾。又有恩故。謂彼諸天承奉合儀能與恩福。又能損故。謂彼天神承奉失儀能為大損。故諸近事應禮天神。略敘彼宗所說如是此皆非理。且彼所言佛聽許故。應禮天者佛意不然簡別說故。謂彼經說諸凈施主。于諸應受祠祀天神。於時時間應以三事無倒供養以禮承奉。彼于施主必起善心。哀愍護念令無損惱。一於時時應施嚴凈。二於時時應施供具。三於時時應施頌愿。以標三事為決定因。證知世尊除三事外。凡所施作皆非所許。非標數名便顯定義。如說地動不犯等言。謂如經言四因緣故大地震動。非不更有四因緣外地動因緣。又如經言諸阿羅漢。能於五處畢竟不犯。非不更有餘不犯處。又如經說在家出家於五處中應數觀察。非不更有餘處應觀。如是等言其類非一。此亦應爾非決定因。此救不然如動地等。余經說有不可得故。此標定數非於余經。有不定言如動地等。以此為證知此經中標列數名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種種諸天神眾（devata）。對於那些應該禮敬諸天的近事男（upasaka）來說，他們應該禮敬那些天神，就像禮敬世尊一樣，還是不應該禮敬呢？為什麼會突然產生這樣的疑問呢？因為在世間確實存在這樣一類人，他們侍奉邪惡的天神，心中充滿了愛染，喜歡按照自己的想法去做事，不遵循正理和教義，胡亂地說：『鄔波索迦（upasaka）應該禮敬天眾（deva），因為佛陀允許這樣做。』他們認為佛陀允許供養天神，所以經典上說，供養天神就是奉行佛教。又因為隨唸的緣故，他們認為世尊說過應該隨念天神，所以應該禮敬天神，就像隨唸佛、法、僧三寶一樣。又因為沒有遮止的緣故，他們認為沒有經典禁止鄔波索迦（upasaka）禮敬諸天眾（deva）。又因為有恩惠的緣故，他們認為那些天神如果得到合乎儀軌的承奉，就能給予恩福。又因為能夠造成損害的緣故，他們認為那些天神如果承奉不合儀軌，就能造成很大的損害。所以，近事男（upasaka）應該禮敬天神。』 他們簡略地敘述了他們的宗派所說的這些道理，但這些都是不合理的。且說他們所說的『佛陀允許，所以應該禮敬天神』，佛陀的意思並非如此，因為佛陀有簡別的說法。經典上說，那些清凈的施主，對於那些應該接受祠祀的天神，應該在適當的時候用三種方式無倒地供養，以禮承奉。這樣，那些天神對於施主必定會生起善心，哀愍護念，使他們沒有損害和惱亂。這三種方式是：一，在適當的時候應該佈施嚴凈之物；二，在適當的時候應該佈施供具；三，在適當的時候應該佈施頌愿。因為標明這三種方式是決定的原因，所以可以證明世尊除了這三種方式之外，凡是其他的施作都是不允許的。不能因為標明了數字就顯示了定義，就像說『地動不犯』等話一樣。比如經典上說，由於四種因緣，大地會震動，並非沒有四種因緣之外的地動因緣。又比如經典上說，諸阿羅漢（arhat）能夠在五個地方畢竟不犯，並非沒有其他不犯之處。又比如經典上說，在家和出家眾應該在五個地方數數觀察，並非沒有其他應該觀察的地方。像這樣的說法，其種類不止一種。這裡也應該這樣理解，並非是決定的原因。 這種辯解是不成立的，就像地動等情況，因為其他的經典說了有不可得的情況。這裡標明了確定的數字，並非在其他的經典中有不確定的說法，就像地動等情況。以此為證據，可知這部經典中標列了數字名稱。
【English Translation】 English version Various hosts of gods (deva). For those lay followers (upasaka) who should venerate the gods, should they venerate those gods as they would venerate the World Honored One (Bhagavan), or should they not? Why does such doubt suddenly arise? It is because in the world there exists a class of people who serve evil gods, their minds filled with attachment, who like to act according to their own desires, not following proper reason and teachings, and who recklessly say: 'Lay followers (upasaka) should venerate the hosts of gods (deva) because the Buddha allows it.' They believe that the Buddha allows offerings to the gods, so the sutras say that offering to the gods is practicing Buddhism. Also, because of recollection, they believe that the World Honored One (Bhagavan) said that one should recollect the gods, so one should venerate the gods, just as one recollects the Three Jewels (Triratna) of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Also, because there is no prohibition, they believe that no sutra forbids lay followers (upasaka) from venerating the hosts of gods (deva). Also, because of kindness, they believe that those gods, if given offerings according to proper rites, can bestow blessings. Also, because they can cause harm, they believe that those gods, if offerings are not given according to proper rites, can cause great harm. Therefore, lay followers (upasaka) should venerate the gods.' They briefly narrate these reasons as stated by their sect, but these are all unreasonable. As for their saying 'The Buddha allows it, so one should venerate the gods,' the Buddha's intention is not so, because the Buddha has made distinctions. The sutras say that those pure donors, for those gods who should receive sacrifices, should at appropriate times offer them in three ways without error, and serve them with respect. In this way, those gods will surely generate good thoughts towards the donors, and will compassionately protect and care for them, so that they have no harm or disturbance. These three ways are: first, at appropriate times one should give pure and adorned things; second, at appropriate times one should give offerings; third, at appropriate times one should give praises and wishes. Because specifying these three ways is the definitive cause, it can be proven that the World Honored One (Bhagavan) does not allow any actions other than these three ways. One cannot show a definition just because a number is specified, just like saying 'earthquake, non-offense,' etc. For example, the sutras say that due to four causes, the earth shakes, but it is not that there are no causes of earthquakes other than these four. Also, the sutras say that the Arhats (arhat) are able to completely avoid offenses in five places, but it is not that there are no other places where they do not commit offenses. Also, the sutras say that lay and monastic practitioners should frequently observe in five places, but it is not that there are no other places to observe. Such statements are of many kinds. It should be understood in the same way here, it is not a definitive cause. This defense is not valid, just like the case of earthquakes, because other sutras say that there are unobtainable situations. Here, a definite number is specified, and it is not that there are indefinite statements in other sutras, just like the case of earthquakes. Using this as evidence, it can be known that this sutra lists numerical names.
顯決定理。除此余理無容有故。或應所說蘊處界等如此數名皆成不定。或如所說蘊處界等。動地因等數亦應定。何緣一類標列數名。所顯義中或定不定。以于余處除此所明或不見余或見余故。若一切處以言說同執事皆等便成大過。若謂經說供養等言。即已顯成應禮拜者。則佛應遣諸天神眾。亦應禮拜能祠施主。如彼經言諸天神眾。既被供養及承奉已。應反供養等以報施主恩。是故此中但據隨彼所樂欲事。皆正供承名供養等非申禮敬。諸天神眾于近事邊無敢希求禮敬事故。如國君主于諸苾芻。定無希求禮敬事者。懼損功德及壽命故。如契經說毗沙門天。請大目連舍利子等五百聖眾。至自宮中。設供養已請施頌愿。復請從今諸出家者及近事等。至我寺中一切皆應施我頌愿。我等眷屬亦從今時每以專誠護持正法。令佛弟子出家在家。於一切時恒無惱害。時二大聖許其所請。遍告一切出家在家諸有受持佛禁戒者。從今以去至天寺中皆應如法施天頌愿。然未曾令合掌敬禮。由此等證定知世尊於此經中非許禮敬。言隨念故應禮天者。亦不應理迷經義故。謂經意說應作念言。彼諸有情成就信等。從此捨命已得上生四大王天及余天眾。我亦成就信等善法亦應同彼當得生天。令隨念天與己同德。非令禮敬名隨念天。故引此經于彼非證言不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 顯決定理（通過顯現來決定的道理）。如果不是這樣，沒有其他道理可以存在。或者，如果像所說的蘊（skandha，構成要素）、處（āyatana，感覺的場所）、界（dhātu，元素）等這些數量名稱都是不確定的。或者，就像所說的蘊、處、界等，動地因（導致地震的原因）等的數量也應該是確定的。為什麼一類事物被列出數量名稱，而所顯現的意義中有些是確定的，有些是不確定的呢？因為在其他地方，除了這裡所說明的，或者沒有看到其他的，或者看到了其他的。如果所有地方都用相同的言語來執著事物，那就會造成很大的過失。如果說經文里說的供養等言語，就已經顯明瞭應該禮拜的對象，那麼佛陀就應該派遣諸天神眾，也應該禮拜能夠佈施的施主。就像經文里說的，諸天神眾既然被供養和承奉了，就應該反過來供養等來報答施主的恩情。因此，這裡只是根據他們所喜歡的事情，都正確地供奉，這被稱為供養等，而不是表達禮敬。諸天神眾對於近事（upasaka/upasika，在家信徒）來說，沒有敢於希望得到禮敬的事情。就像國王對於諸位比丘（bhiksu，出家男眾）來說，一定不會希望得到禮敬的事情，因為害怕損害功德和壽命。就像契經里說的，毗沙門天（Vaisravana，四大天王之一）邀請大目犍連（Maha Maudgalyayana，佛陀十大弟子之一）、舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一）等五百位聖眾，到自己的宮殿中，設定供養后，請求給予祝福。又請求從今以後，所有出家眾和近事等，到我的寺廟中，都應該給予我祝福。我的眷屬也從今以後，每次都以專誠之心護持正法，讓佛陀的弟子，出家和在家，在任何時候都沒有惱害。當時，兩位大聖允許了他的請求，遍告所有出家和在家的受持佛陀禁戒的人，從今以後到天寺中，都應該如法地給予天神祝福。然而，（佛陀）未曾讓他們合掌敬禮。由此等證據可以確定，世尊在這部經中並沒有允許禮敬。說因為隨唸的緣故，應該禮拜天神，這也是不合理的，因為這是誤解了經文的意義。經文的意思是說，應該這樣想：那些有情成就了信心等，從此捨棄生命后，已經得上生到四大王天（Caturmaharajika，欲界六天之一）和其餘天眾。我也成就了信心等善法，也應該像他們一樣，將來能夠得生天界。這是爲了讓隨念天神與自己擁有相同的功德，而不是爲了禮敬而稱為隨念天神。所以引用這部經文來證明禮敬是不對的，因為經文里沒有這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version The principle is determined by manifestation. Apart from this principle, there is no room for other principles. Otherwise, the number of aggregates (skandha), sense bases (ayatana), and elements (dhatu) mentioned would all become uncertain. Or, like the aggregates, sense bases, and elements mentioned, the number of causes of earthquakes should also be fixed. Why are some things listed with numerical names, while in the meaning manifested, some are fixed and some are not? Because in other places, apart from what is explained here, either nothing else is seen, or something else is seen. If in all places, clinging to things with the same words leads to great errors. If it is said that the words of offering etc. in the scriptures have already made it clear who should be worshiped, then the Buddha should send the gods and deities to also worship the donors who can give alms. As the scripture says, the gods and deities, having been offered and served, should in turn make offerings etc. to repay the kindness of the donors. Therefore, here it is only according to what they desire, that all correct offerings are called offerings etc., not expressing reverence. The gods and deities dare not hope for reverence from the lay followers. Just as a king would certainly not hope for reverence from the monks (bhiksu), for fear of harming merit and lifespan. As the sutra says, Vaisravana (one of the Four Heavenly Kings) invited Maha Maudgalyayana (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), and other five hundred saints to his palace. After making offerings, he requested blessings. He also requested that from now on, all monks and lay followers who come to my temple should give me blessings. My family will also from now on, with sincerity, protect the Dharma, so that the Buddha's disciples, both monks and lay people, will not be harmed at any time. At that time, the two great saints allowed his request and announced to all monks and lay people who observe the Buddha's precepts that from now on, when they go to the heavenly temple, they should give blessings to the gods according to the Dharma. However, (the Buddha) never asked them to put their palms together in reverence. From these evidences, it can be determined that the World Honored One did not allow reverence in this sutra. Saying that one should worship the gods because of mindfulness is also unreasonable, because it is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the sutra. The meaning of the sutra is that one should think: those sentient beings have achieved faith etc., and after abandoning this life, they have already been reborn in the Heaven of the Four Kings (Caturmaharajika) and other heavens. I have also achieved good deeds such as faith, and I should also be able to be reborn in the heavens like them. This is to make the mindfulness of the gods have the same merits as oneself, not to call it mindfulness of the gods for the sake of reverence. Therefore, quoting this sutra to prove reverence is incorrect, because the sutra does not say so.
遮故。應禮天者亦不應理義已遮故。經唯許三事供養天神。豈不此定言已遮禮敬。又準略說毗柰耶中亦已義遮禮天神故。謂佛曾說略毗柰耶告諸苾芻。我隨文句所遮制者皆不應行。所開許者汝等應行。若非所遮非所開許順穢違凈皆不應行。順凈違穢汝等應行。既執如來不遮近事禮諸天眾。亦不曾見開許近事禮諸天神。豈不此應第三聚攝。然諸近事若禮天神。如是所為順穢違凈。理應是佛所不許行。是則還成佛已遮制言不遮故。因不極成何緣禮天順穢違凈。以若近事樂禮天神。便與外道等無差別。愛樂邪徒所作業故。又若近事禮敬天神。則應愛重贊天邪論。便與愛樂敬天邪徒同稟尸羅作諸勞侶。由此方便習近邪師。墮惡趣因漸堅增盛。從此展轉乃至多生亦樂多行如是邪行。又若禮敬諸邪天神。因此便憎如來聖教。以無不敬邪天神者。聞佛功德生憤恚心。乍可處中心無憎愛。又於過失禮敬持心必定怨嫌敬功德者。何緣信奉大力天神而說名為敬過失者。以彼禮敬恒樂於他。摧伏背恩害諂誑等。有過失境為增上故。由此唯有無聞愚夫。于彼天神深生敬愛。若諸賢聖唯于斷滅遠離寂靜。大智悲等眾德整合。諸佛世尊深生敬愛。依如是義故有。頌言。
貧賤有希怖 愚類敬天神 富貴無悕求 智人唯敬佛
又若近
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 遮止的緣故。如果應理，禮敬天神者也不應被理義所遮止。經典只允許三種供養天神的方式。難道這種明確的說法沒有遮止禮敬嗎？而且根據《略說毗奈耶》中的說法，也已經從義理上遮止了禮敬天神。佛陀曾經在《略毗奈耶》中告訴諸位比丘：『凡是我用文字語句所遮止的，你們都不應該做；凡是我所開許的，你們都應該做。如果不是我所遮止的，也不是我所開許的，凡是順應污穢、違背清凈的，都不應該做；凡是順應清凈、違背污穢的，你們都應該做。』既然你認為如來沒有遮止優婆塞、優婆夷禮敬諸天，也沒有見過開許優婆塞、優婆夷禮敬諸天神，難道這不應該屬於第三類（非遮非開）嗎？然而，如果優婆塞、優婆夷禮敬天神，這樣的行為是順應污穢、違背清凈的，理應是佛陀所不允許的。這樣就仍然是佛陀已經遮止了，而不是沒有遮止。因為這個原因並不充分，為什麼禮敬天神是順應污穢、違背清凈呢？因為如果優婆塞、優婆夷喜歡禮敬天神，就和外道沒有什麼區別了，因為他們喜愛邪徒所做的事情。而且，如果優婆塞、優婆夷禮敬天神，就應該喜愛、重視讚美天神的邪說，就和喜愛、敬重天神的邪徒一樣，接受同樣的戒律，做同樣的徒勞之事。通過這種方式，逐漸接近邪師，墮入惡趣的原因逐漸堅固增長。從此輾轉，乃至多生，也喜歡多次做這樣的邪行。而且，如果禮敬諸邪天神，因此就會憎恨如來的聖教，因為沒有不敬邪天神的人，聽到佛陀的功德會生起憤恨之心。或許可以處於中間狀態，心中沒有憎恨也沒有喜愛。而且，對於有過失的人，以禮敬之心對待，必定會怨恨敬重功德的人。為什麼會信奉大力天神，而說他們是敬重有過失的人呢？因為他們禮敬天神，總是喜歡他人摧毀、背叛、忘恩負義、欺騙等等。因為這些有過失的境界會增長。因此，只有沒有見識的愚夫，才會對那些天神深深地敬愛。如果諸位賢聖，只會對於斷滅、遠離、寂靜、大智慧、大慈悲等眾多功德整合的諸佛世尊，深深地敬愛。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『貧賤之人常懷希望與恐懼，愚昧之輩才去敬拜天神； 富貴之人沒有希求，有智慧的人只敬佛陀。』 而且，如果近事
【English Translation】 English version Because of the prohibition. If it were reasonable, then those who venerate deities should not be prohibited by reason and righteousness. The scriptures only permit three types of offerings to deities. Does this definitive statement not prohibit veneration? Moreover, according to the concise Vinaya, the veneration of deities is also prohibited in meaning. The Buddha once said in the concise Vinaya to the Bhikshus: 'Whatever I have prohibited with words and phrases, you should not do; whatever I have permitted, you should do. If it is neither prohibited nor permitted, whatever accords with defilement and violates purity, you should not do; whatever accords with purity and violates defilement, you should do.' Since you maintain that the Tathagata has not prohibited lay practitioners (Upasakas and Upasikas) from venerating deities, nor have you seen the permission for lay practitioners to venerate deities, shouldn't this belong to the third category (neither prohibited nor permitted)? However, if lay practitioners venerate deities, such actions accord with defilement and violate purity, and should be disallowed by the Buddha. Thus, it still amounts to the Buddha having prohibited it, rather than not prohibiting it. Because this reason is not sufficient, why is venerating deities in accordance with defilement and violation of purity? Because if lay practitioners enjoy venerating deities, they are no different from non-Buddhists, as they love what non-Buddhist do. Moreover, if lay practitioners venerate deities, they should love and value the heretical teachings that praise deities, and like the heretical followers who love and respect deities, they accept the same precepts and engage in the same futile activities. Through this means, they gradually approach heretical teachers, and the causes for falling into evil realms gradually become firm and increase. From this, they transmigrate, and even in many lifetimes, they enjoy repeatedly engaging in such heretical practices. Moreover, if they venerate heretical deities, they will therefore hate the sacred teachings of the Tathagata, because there is no one who does not respect heretical deities who, upon hearing the Buddha's merits, will give rise to resentment. Perhaps they can remain in a neutral state, with no hatred or love in their hearts. Moreover, those who treat those with faults with reverence will surely resent those who respect merit. Why would they believe in powerful deities and say that they respect those with faults? Because in their veneration of deities, they always enjoy others destroying, betraying, being ungrateful, deceiving, and so on. Because these states of fault increase. Therefore, only ignorant fools deeply love those deities. If the virtuous and noble ones only deeply love the Buddhas, the World Honored Ones, who are composed of the multitude of virtues such as cessation, detachment, tranquility, great wisdom, and great compassion. According to this meaning, there is a verse that says: 'The poor and lowly have hope and fear, the foolish venerate deities; The rich and noble have no desires, the wise only venerate the Buddha.' Moreover, if lay followers
事禮敬天神。引多有情作大衰損。謂事天者咸作是言。鄔波索迦深閑佛教。現來禮敬我所事天。必于天神有懷敬信。善哉我等無倒歸依。又諸世間樂觀察者。推尋佛教未究其真。睹此便生如是僻執。佛教應似世間書傳。不能決定辯真義理。乃令如是解佛教人。還來歸依諸天神眾。引如是等無量有情。令增邪執名大衰損。近事如是禮敬天神。違凈順穢佛所遮止。故不應言不遮止故。又不遮止非應作因。如佛不遮苾芻舍戒。以曾無處佛作是言。苾芻不應舍所學戒。非於舍戒佛曾不遮。則諸苾芻法應舍戒。故不應說鄔波索迦應禮天神。佛不遮故言有恩故應禮天者亦不應理聞有怨故。傳聞熱病老死等苦。亦有是彼天神所作。不應定說於世有恩。又婆羅門長者居士。于苾芻眾佛說有恩。供給命緣令無乏故。豈苾芻眾應禮施主。既不應禮一切有恩。故所立因有不定失。又諸含識皆悉受用。自業所招諸異熟果。是故所說所事天神於世有恩有不成失。由此亦破能損故因。一切有情皆依自業。說誰有力能損於誰。又彼於他既能為損。誰有智者愛敬己怨。世有善人能益他者諸蒙益者應敬彼人。是諸天神性多憤恚。恒樂損惱他諸有情。如嫉己怨不應敬禮。故彼所說成相違因。又見世間歸敬天者。天神于彼有時作衰。亦有有情不敬天者。天神于
彼不能為害。故彼所說非敬天因。若謂如王亦不應理。世間依屬法應爾故。非諸近事系屬天神。自是邪徒相率歸附。世間君主眾所依投。非出家人皆應致敬。是故近事不應敬禮一切天神。理極成立。
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之六
諸有歸依佛法僧者。為歸何等。頌曰。
歸依成佛僧 無學二種法 及涅槃擇滅 是說具三歸
論曰。如本論言歸依佛者為歸何法。謂若諸法妙有現有。由想等想施設言說名為佛陀歸此能成佛。無學法言謂若者即是總標當所說義。言諸法者即是顯示無我增言。妙有言顯妙有性合。現有即明現可得義。或妙德合。故名妙有。現有即顯是所知性。想者謂名言等。想者即是能顯共立能詮標舉。能詮故名施設。何故標舉次則答言。由此能成無倒言說。覺一切法一切種相不藉他教故名佛陀。或此圓成智等眾德自然開覺故名佛陀。或佛陀名顯彼有覺。如質礙物名有質礙。或佛陀名顯彼能說己所證覺以開覺他。如婆羅門來詣佛所。以妙讚頌問世尊言。
稽首世導師 名最上覺者 何緣父母
等 號尊名佛陀
世尊哀愍彼婆羅門。亦以伽他而告之曰。
婆羅門當知 我如去來佛 成就覺者相 故我名佛陀 婆羅門當知 我觀三世行 皆有生滅法 故我名佛陀 婆羅門當知 我于應知斷 修證事已辨 故我名佛陀 婆羅門當知 我於一切境 具一切智見 故我名佛陀 婆羅門當知 我于無量劫 修諸純凈行 經無量死生 今于最後身 離塵垢毒箭 證得無上覺 故我名佛陀
能成佛言。顯彼諸法與佛施設為建立因。如何此中於無量法而總建立標一佛名。如依眾多和合人上立一僧寶一勝所歸。又于眾多無漏道上立一道蘊無有過失。或先已說先說者。何謂想等想施設言說。即佛相續無學法中立一佛名。無別一佛能成佛法。為是何等謂盡智等及彼眷屬。由得彼法能覺一切。以彼勝故身得佛名。非色等身前後等故。為歸一佛一切佛耶。理實應言歸一切佛。以諸佛道相無異故。經主此中作如是說。然尋本論不見有言唯無學法。即名為佛。但言無學法能成於佛不遮所依身亦是佛體。是故於此不可難言。若唯無學法即是佛者。如何于佛所噁心出血但損生身成無間罪。今詳經主于本論義未甚研尋能成佛言已遮佛體攝依身故。謂佛名言依佛義立。唯此所目
是真佛體。若佛名言就依身立。于未證得無學法時。已有依身應亦名佛。故知佛號不目依身。由此依身非能成佛。故本論說能成佛言已遮依身亦是佛體。已顯佛體唯無學法。或設許然亦非無難。謂佛體性略有二種。一者世俗。二者勝義。歸依佛者現對世俗。于勝義佛繫念歸依。以托依身而歸依彼。由得彼故得佛名法。故唯無學法是勝義佛體成無間罪由損勝義。然勝義佛必不可損。依如是義理可難言。如何于佛所噁心出血但損害生身成無間罪。毗婆沙者作是釋言。壞彼所依彼隨壞故。如是釋難深為應理。又彼經主作如是難。若異此者應佛與僧住世俗心。非僧非佛云何如是。以于爾時學無學法不現前故。此難不然非所許故。謂我不許學無學法。唯現在位方成佛僧。唯言佛僧得彼法故。得於諸位曾無間斷。寧住世俗心便非僧非佛。設許現在方成佛僧亦無有過。以許彼得其體亦是學無學故。得一切時常現前故。經主復言又應唯執成苾芻戒即是苾芻。是我所宗豈成過失。以得戒故假說依身亦名苾芻與前義等。是故經主于對法宗不善了知所說文義。婆雌子部作如是言。補特伽羅是所歸佛。此非應理。所以者何。彼無差別不成歸故。謂歸離系補特伽羅與歸世尊有何差別。善等差別同不記故。若謂如火隨依差別。謂如依糠名為糠火。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是真正的佛體。如果佛的名號是依據身體而立，那麼在還未證得無學法（指阿羅漢果）的時候，就已經有依據身體而存在的（眾生），也應該被稱為佛了。因此可知，佛號並不是指這個依身（指肉身）。由此可見，這個依身並不能成就佛果。所以《本論》說『能成佛』，就已經排除了依身也是佛體的說法，從而顯明佛體唯有無學法。或者假設允許依身也是佛體，也並非沒有問題。佛的體性大致有兩種：一是世俗諦，二是勝義諦。歸依佛的人，現在面對的是世俗諦的佛，而內心繫念歸依的是勝義諦的佛。因為依託依身而歸依勝義諦的佛，由於得到勝義諦的佛，才能得到佛的名號和佛法。所以只有無學法才是勝義諦的佛體。造作無間罪是因為損害了勝義諦的佛。然而，勝義諦的佛是不可損害的。依據這樣的義理可以反駁說：如何在佛的處所噁心出血，只是損害了生身，卻會構成無間罪呢？毗婆沙師解釋說：因為破壞了佛所依的身體，佛也隨之被破壞。這樣的解釋非常合理。另外，經主（指《成實論》的作者）這樣反駁：如果不是這樣，那麼佛和僧就應該住在世俗心（指凡夫心）中，既不是僧也不是佛，怎麼會這樣呢？因為在那個時候，學法和無學法都沒有現前。這個反駁是不對的，因為這不是我們所認可的。我們不認為學法和無學法只有在現在位才能成就佛和僧。只有佛和僧才能得到這些法，並且在各個位次上都沒有間斷。怎麼能說住在世俗心中就不是僧不是佛呢？即使允許只有在現在位才能成就佛和僧，也沒有過失。因為允許他們得到佛和僧的體性也是學法和無學法，所以得到一切時都常現前。經主又說：那麼就應該認為成就比丘戒就是比丘。這是我所宗奉的，怎麼會是過失呢？因為得到戒律，所以假說依身也可以稱為比丘，與前面的道理相同。因此，經主對於對法宗（指阿毗達摩宗）沒有很好地瞭解所說的文義。婆雌子部（Vātsīputrīya）這樣說：補特伽羅（Pudgala，意為人我）是所歸依的佛。這是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為補特伽羅沒有差別，不能成就歸依。歸依離系的補特伽羅與歸依世尊（Bhagavan，佛的稱號）有什麼差別呢？善等差別都是不可記說的。如果說就像火隨所依而有差別一樣，比如依附糠秕的火稱為糠火，那麼……
【English Translation】 English version: This is the true Buddha-body. If the Buddha's name were established based on the physical body, then those who already have a physical body before attaining the state of no-more-learning (an arhat) should also be called Buddhas. Therefore, it is known that the Buddha's name does not refer to this physical body. From this, it is clear that this physical body cannot achieve Buddhahood. Therefore, the 'Treatise' says 'can become Buddha,' which already excludes the idea that the physical body is also the Buddha-body, thus revealing that the Buddha-body is only the no-more-learning dharma. Or, even if we allow that the physical body is also the Buddha-body, it is not without problems. The nature of the Buddha-body is roughly of two types: one is conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), and the other is ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Those who take refuge in the Buddha are currently facing the Buddha of conventional truth, while mentally taking refuge in the Buddha of ultimate truth. Because they rely on the physical body to take refuge in the Buddha of ultimate truth, they can obtain the Buddha's name and dharma by obtaining the Buddha of ultimate truth. Therefore, only the no-more-learning dharma is the Buddha-body of ultimate truth. Committing an irreversible offense (anantariya-karma) is due to harming the Buddha of ultimate truth. However, the Buddha of ultimate truth cannot be harmed. Based on this principle, it can be argued: how can causing blood to flow with malicious intent in the Buddha's presence, which only harms the physical body, constitute an irreversible offense? The Vaibhāṣika masters explain: because the body on which the Buddha relies is destroyed, the Buddha is also destroyed along with it. This explanation is very reasonable. Furthermore, the author of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra raises this objection: if it were not so, then the Buddha and the Sangha should dwell in the conventional mind (the mind of ordinary beings), and would be neither Sangha nor Buddha. How could this be? Because at that time, the dharma of learning and no-more-learning are not present. This objection is incorrect because it is not what we accept. We do not believe that the dharma of learning and no-more-learning can only achieve Buddha and Sangha in the present state. Only the Buddha and Sangha can obtain these dharmas, and there is no interruption in any state. How can it be said that dwelling in the conventional mind means not being Sangha or Buddha? Even if we allow that only in the present state can one achieve Buddha and Sangha, there is no fault. Because we allow that obtaining the nature of Buddha and Sangha is also the dharma of learning and no-more-learning, therefore it is always present at all times. The author of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra further says: then it should be considered that achieving the Bhikṣu precepts is the Bhikṣu. This is what I uphold, how can it be a fault? Because one obtains the precepts, it is conventionally said that the physical body can also be called a Bhikṣu, which is the same as the previous principle. Therefore, the author of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra does not have a good understanding of the meaning of the texts spoken by the Abhidharma school. The Vātsīputrīya school says: the Pudgala (person) is the Buddha in whom one takes refuge. This is unreasonable. Why? Because the Pudgala has no distinction and cannot accomplish refuge. What is the difference between taking refuge in the Pudgala who is detached from afflictions and taking refuge in the Bhagavan (Buddha)? The distinctions of goodness, etc., are all unrecordable. If it is said that it is like fire varying according to what it relies on, such as fire relying on chaff being called chaff fire, then...
是依佛法彼亦得佛名。此救不然應無常故。徒設救執無所成故。謂彼所執補特伽羅既隨所依應無常性。又依糠火非即名糠補特伽羅。若依佛法但應名佛補特伽羅。補特伽羅非即名佛。如是救執竟何所成。既執補特伽羅隨法成差別。應許能差別法即是佛。非余以歸依名顯依。由此能滅所有生死災患。有如是用唯此相法。故說此法是所歸依。余皆不然是說為善。又應許佛補特伽羅成世間法。故契經說今見世尊諸根變異。汝等既執補特伽羅。由隨所依故成差別。何緣依佛法彼得佛名。非佛法為依不名非佛。此中無有差別理故。若謂如人雖有發等黑。而不隨彼可得名白人。是則應成舍前救執。謂彼前救執補特伽羅。由隨所依故成差別。今復不許補特伽羅隨其所依成差別故。豈亦有火得差別名。隨一分依不隨一分。又依有漏無漏所成補特伽羅應成二體。不爾應舍前所救執。又世尊說我於世間生非補特伽羅亦有生理。若異此者世尊應言我現世間。然說不爾是故決定法為所歸。如世尊言但應依法。不應依彼補特伽羅。又世尊言若見法者即是見我。又契經說佛雖轉變而心無異。非汝所執補特伽羅可有轉變。以汝不說補特伽羅是無常故。今乘義便且以余理破汝所歸補特伽羅。其體非實余處廣辯。尊者矩摩邏多作如是說。佛有漏無漏法皆是
佛體。故契經說今者佛身衰老朽邁。又世尊說我今重病生鄰死受。告阿難陀汝應為佛於此敷設嗢怛羅僧。又契經言。汝應以飲食如法供養佛為上首僧。又契經言諸苾芻眾受持佛語。又契經言于如來所噁心出血。又經說佛以足躡衣。又契經言我今觀佛威光熾盛如妙金臺。又世尊言我今欲往娑多山處報藥叉恩。又契經言汝等商主若得見佛獲無上利。又饒益他方得名佛。饒益他者多是俗智。又諸佛用大悲為體。此是有漏法有情相轉故。如是等類教理眾多。非無漏中可有斯事。故非唯無漏佛法為佛體。此亦非理由無學法力于身等法假立佛名故。云何知然。佛眼根等與前眼等無差別故。又如有漏名無學明。經說三明是無學故。非死生智可是無學此緣形顯故。有情相轉故無學身有得無學名。余法亦然與諸佛法墮一相續亦得佛名。又佛身等不應是佛以應斷故。夫言佛者都無過失非應斷故。又經說身無明整合故豈可說佛亦無明整合。又諸佛身是不凈境。以一切欲界色是不凈觀境故。非佛應為不凈觀境。經說緣佛增長善根生欣作意。諸不凈觀一向與厭作意相應。故知佛身非真是佛。又說業食為身因故。佛身諸處業異熟攝。是段等食之所資長。豈應於此立真佛名。若人說佛因於業有。誰有智者而不訶責。豈有智人誤發此語。后自覺察而無悔
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛陀的身體。因此，契經中說，『如今佛陀的身體衰老朽邁。』又世尊說，『我現在身患重病，面臨死亡。』告訴阿難陀（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）：『你應該為佛陀在此鋪設嗢怛羅僧（Uttarasanga，一種僧衣）。』又有契經說：『你們應該如法地用飲食供養以佛陀為首的僧團。』又有契經說：『各位比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教出家男眾），要受持佛陀的教誨。』又有契經說：『對如來（Tathagata，佛陀的稱號之一）懷有惡意，使其流血。』又有經文說，佛陀用腳踩踏衣物。又有契經說：『我現在觀看佛陀的威光熾盛，如同美妙的金臺。』又有世尊說：『我現在想去娑多山（Satadri Mountain）報答藥叉（Yaksa，一種守護神）的恩情。』又有契經說：『你們這些商人，如果能見到佛陀，就能獲得無上的利益。』又說饒益他方眾生才能被稱為佛陀。饒益他人者多是世俗的智慧。又諸佛以大悲為體。這是有漏法（Samskrta-dharma，有為法）和有情眾生的相狀轉變所致。像這樣的教理有很多，在無漏法（Asamskrta-dharma，無為法）中不可能有這些事情。所以，並非只有無漏的佛法才是佛陀的身體。這也不是因為無學法（Asaiksa-dharma，無學道）的力量，在身體等法上假立佛陀之名的理由。怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為佛陀的眼根等與之前的眼根等沒有差別。又如有漏法被稱為無學明，因為經中說三明（Trividya，宿命明、天眼明、漏盡明）是無學法。並非死生智（關於生死輪迴的智慧）可以是無學法，這是因為緣于形體的顯現。因為有情眾生的相狀轉變，所以無學之身可以得到無學之名。其餘的法也是如此，與諸佛法墮入同一相續，也能得到佛陀之名。又佛陀的身體等不應該是佛陀，因為它們應該被斷除。所謂佛陀，是沒有任何過失，不應該被斷除的。又有經文說，身體是由無明（Avidya，佛教中的根本煩惱）整合的，怎麼能說佛陀也是由無明整合的呢？又諸佛的身體是不凈的境界，因為一切欲界（Kama-dhatu，佛教三界之一）的色法都是不凈觀（Asubha-bhavana，佛教禪修方法）的境界。佛陀不應該成為不凈觀的境界。經文說，緣于佛陀增長善根，生起欣悅的作意。諸不凈觀一向與厭惡的作意相應。所以知道佛陀的身體並非真正的佛陀。又說業食（Karma-ahara，由業力產生的食物）是身體的原因。佛陀身體的各個部分都是業異熟（Karma-vipaka，業的果報）所攝，是段食（Kabali-kara-ahara，粗糙的食物）等所資養增長的。怎麼能在此建立真佛之名呢？如果有人說佛陀是因於業而有，誰有智慧而不呵責呢？難道有智慧的人會錯誤地說出這樣的話，之後自覺察而沒有後悔嗎？
【English Translation】 English version The body of the Buddha. Therefore, the sutras say, 'Now the Buddha's body is aging and decaying.' And the World Honored One (Bhagavan, an epithet of the Buddha) said, 'I am now seriously ill and facing death.' He told Ananda (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha): 'You should spread out the Uttarasanga (a type of monastic robe) for the Buddha here.' Also, a sutra says: 'You should righteously offer food to the Sangha (Buddhist monastic community) with the Buddha as the head.' Another sutra says: 'All Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks) should uphold the Buddha's teachings.' Another sutra says: 'Harboring malicious intent towards the Tathagata (another epithet of the Buddha), causing him to bleed.' Another sutra says that the Buddha stepped on his robe with his foot. Another sutra says: 'I now behold the Buddha's majestic light blazing, like a wondrous golden platform.' The World Honored One also said: 'I now wish to go to Satadri Mountain to repay the Yaksha's (a type of guardian spirit) kindness.' Another sutra says: 'You merchants, if you can see the Buddha, you will obtain unsurpassed benefit.' It is also said that benefiting others is what makes one a Buddha. Those who benefit others mostly possess worldly wisdom. Furthermore, all Buddhas have great compassion as their essence. This is due to the transformation of conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma) and sentient beings. There are many such teachings, and these things cannot exist in unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta-dharma). Therefore, it is not only unconditioned Buddha-dharma that constitutes the Buddha's body. This is also not a reason to falsely establish the name of Buddha on the body and other dharmas through the power of the Dharma of No More Learning (Asaiksa-dharma). How do we know this is so? Because the Buddha's eye-faculty, etc., are no different from the previous eye-faculties, etc. Also, conditioned dharmas are called the wisdom of No More Learning, because the sutras say that the Three Knowledges (Trividya, knowledge of past lives, divine eye, and extinction of outflows) are the Dharma of No More Learning. The knowledge of death and rebirth cannot be the Dharma of No More Learning, because it is due to the manifestation of form. Because of the transformation of the characteristics of sentient beings, the body of No More Learning can obtain the name of No More Learning. The remaining dharmas are also like this; falling into the same continuum as the Buddha-dharmas, they can also obtain the name of Buddha. Furthermore, the Buddha's body, etc., should not be the Buddha, because they should be abandoned. The term 'Buddha' implies that there are no faults and should not be abandoned. Also, a sutra says that the body is assembled from ignorance (Avidya, fundamental ignorance in Buddhism), so how can it be said that the Buddha is also assembled from ignorance? Furthermore, the bodies of all Buddhas are impure realms, because all form in the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu, one of the three realms in Buddhism) is the realm of impure contemplation (Asubha-bhavana, a Buddhist meditation practice). The Buddha should not be the realm of impure contemplation. The sutras say that by focusing on the Buddha, one increases good roots and generates joyful intention. All impure contemplations are always associated with aversion. Therefore, it is known that the Buddha's body is not the true Buddha. It is also said that karma-food (Karma-ahara, food produced by karmic force) is the cause of the body. The various parts of the Buddha's body are included in the maturation of karma (Karma-vipaka, the result of karma) and are nourished and grown by coarse food (Kabali-kara-ahara) and the like. How can the name of the true Buddha be established on this? If someone says that the Buddha exists because of karma, who with wisdom would not rebuke them? Would a wise person mistakenly utter such words and then, upon self-reflection, not feel regret?
愧。若據佛資糧依止攝益等。假說為佛于理無遮。余處亦曾見此例故。如言食是命酪是熱病等。又佛身中大悲俗智先菩薩位其體已有。此若是佛佛應先成。若有別因令此二種後轉名佛。即應許此能差別法是佛非余。破此亦應同前一類違正理教自分別執。然大眾部復作是言。如來身中所有諸法皆是無漏盡是所歸。以經說身是已修故。謂契經說已修身心。如說已修心許心是真凈身亦應爾。既說已修如何可言非真無漏。如是等證其類寔多。此一類宗辯本事品。已廣遮遣無勞重破。然契經說已修身者。約對治修故作是說。是已修習能離色染無間道義。又契經言彼已修習四種念住。復言四念住總攝一切法。則一切法應皆無漏。若謂此據自性相離二念住說余亦應同。謂契經言已修身者。何故不許修身念住。又有漏善亦是所修故引修言證無漏者。此證與理豈得相應。又彼所言若佛眼等。是煩惱境故是有漏。豈不亦是離染所緣何理能遮。是無漏性此例非等如前已辯。有漏無漏相差別故。然契經說煩惱所緣聖道所厭名有漏者應共尋求。此經意趣善逝意趣極為難識。今見此經所說意者。若所緣境煩惱味著執為己有。亦為聖道之所厭惡。是名有漏理應眼等。漏所味著執為己有可成有漏。不應例言眼等諸法無漏。所厭惡應亦成無漏。欣厭既異為
例不齊。非佛眼等為無漏。諸法作道等行相欣樂而緣。不可說言佛眼等法。無漏厭惡而成無漏。又如貪瞋于諸漏轉。于眼等轉其相亦然。故可說言眼等諸法同諸漏法亦成有漏。非如聖道于聖道轉。于眼等轉其相亦然。故不可言眼等諸法。同聖道法亦成無漏。故彼劬勞無所成者。雖複種種妄率己情。無損我宗經所說相。唯有大聖迦多衍尼子說所歸佛體無有過失。僧伽差別略有五種。一無恥僧。二啞羊僧。三朋黨僧。四世俗僧。五勝義僧。無恥僧者謂毀禁戒。而被法服補特伽羅。啞羊僧者謂於三藏無所了達補特伽羅。譬如啞羊無辯說用。或言啞者顯無說法。能復說羊言顯無聽法用。即顯此類補特伽羅。於三藏中無聽說用。朋黨僧者謂于游散營務斗諍。方便善巧結構朋黨補特伽羅。此三多分造非法業。世俗僧者謂善異生。此能通作法非法業。勝義僧者謂學無學法。及彼所依器補特伽羅。此定無容造非法業。五中最勝是所歸依。如贊歸依伽他中說。
此歸依最勝 此歸依最尊 必因此歸依 能解脫眾苦
于如是法補特伽羅二勝義僧中。迦多衍尼子意但以法為所歸僧。故本論中作如是說。歸能成僧學無學法。豈不此說與經相違。謂契經中世尊說有四雙八隻補特伽羅。是福田僧皆應供養。經有別義謂彼經中。說福
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 例不齊（沒有例子可以相比）。如果說佛眼（Buddha's Eye，佛的眼睛，象徵智慧）等是無漏（不受煩惱污染），諸法（一切事物）以作道等行相（修道的各種行為）欣樂而緣（歡喜並以此為緣），那麼就不能說佛眼等法是無漏的，因為厭惡（厭離）也能成就無漏。又如貪瞋（貪婪和嗔恨）在諸漏（各種煩惱）中流轉，在眼等（眼等感官）中流轉，其相狀也是如此。所以可以說眼等諸法和諸漏法一樣，也成為有漏（受煩惱污染）。不像聖道（通往解脫的道路）在聖道中流轉，在眼等中流轉，其相狀也是如此。所以不能說眼等諸法和聖道法一樣，也成為無漏。所以他們的努力是不會有任何成就的。即使他們用各種方式妄自揣測，也不會損害我宗（我的宗派）的經所說的相狀。只有大聖迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra，一位著名的佛教論師）所說的所歸佛體（可以歸依的佛的本質）沒有過失。僧伽（Saṃgha，僧團）的差別略有五種：一、僧（Saṃgha，一般的僧團）。二、啞羊僧（Mūka-aja-saṃgha，像啞巴羊一樣的僧團）。三、朋黨僧（Gana-saṃgha，結黨營私的僧團）。四、世俗僧（Sāṃvṛta-saṃgha，世俗的僧團）。五、勝義僧（Paramārtha-saṃgha，具有勝義諦的僧團）。僧是指那些毀壞禁戒，卻穿著法服的補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）。啞羊僧是指那些對三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教經典）一無所知的補特伽羅，就像啞巴羊一樣沒有辯說的能力。或者說，『啞』字顯示他們沒有說法的能力，『羊』字顯示他們沒有聽法的能力，即顯示這類補特伽羅在三藏中沒有聽說的能力。朋黨僧是指那些在游散、營務、鬥爭中，善於巧妙地結成朋黨的補特伽羅。這三種僧團大多造作非法之業。世俗僧是指善良的異生（凡夫），他們能共同造作合法和非法的行為。勝義僧是指有學（正在學習的聖者）和無學法（已經完成學習的聖者），以及他們所依的器補特伽羅（作為他們所依之身的補特伽羅），他們絕對不會造作非法之業。這五種僧團中，最殊勝的是可以歸依的。如贊歸依伽他（讚頌歸依的偈頌）中所說：
此歸依最勝 此歸依最尊 必因此歸依 能解脫眾苦
在如是法（Dharma，佛法）和補特伽羅二勝義僧中，迦多衍尼子的意思是隻以法為所歸僧。所以本論中作如是說：歸能成僧學無學法。難道這種說法與經（Sūtra，佛經）相違背嗎？因為契經（佛經）中世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）說有四雙八隻補特伽羅，是福田僧（可以種福田的僧團），都應該供養。經有別的意義，說彼經中說福
【English Translation】 English version: There is no equal example. If one says that Buddha's Eye (Buddha's Eye, symbolizing wisdom) and so on are unconditioned (free from defilements), and that all dharmas (all things) are delighted and conditioned by the aspects of practicing the path, then one cannot say that Buddha's Eye and other dharmas are unconditioned, because aversion (disgust) can also accomplish unconditionality. Furthermore, just as greed and hatred revolve in the various outflows (various defilements), and revolve in the eyes and other senses, their aspects are also the same. Therefore, it can be said that the dharmas of the eyes and other senses are the same as the dharmas of the outflows, and also become conditioned (subject to defilements). It is not like the Noble Path (the path to liberation) revolving in the Noble Path, and revolving in the eyes and other senses, with the same aspects. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dharmas of the eyes and other senses are the same as the dharmas of the Noble Path, and also become unconditioned. Therefore, their efforts will not achieve anything. Even if they speculate wildly in various ways, it will not harm the aspects spoken of in the scriptures of my school. Only the body of the Buddha to which one can take refuge, as spoken of by the great sage Kātyāyanīputra (a famous Buddhist master), has no faults. The differences in the Saṃgha (the monastic community) are roughly five types: 1. Saṃgha (the general monastic community). 2. Mūka-aja-saṃgha (a monastic community like a mute sheep). 3. Gana-saṃgha (a monastic community that forms factions). 4. Sāṃvṛta-saṃgha (a conventional monastic community). 5. Paramārtha-saṃgha (a monastic community with ultimate truth). 'Saṃgha' refers to those Pudgalas (persons) who have broken the precepts but wear the robes. 'Mūka-aja-saṃgha' refers to those Pudgalas who do not understand the Tripiṭaka (the Buddhist scriptures), just like a mute sheep without the ability to argue. Or, the word 'mute' shows that they have no ability to speak the Dharma, and the word 'sheep' shows that they have no ability to listen to the Dharma, which shows that this type of Pudgala has no ability to hear and speak in the Tripiṭaka. 'Gana-saṃgha' refers to those Pudgalas who are skilled at forming factions in wandering, managing affairs, and fighting. These three types of Saṃgha mostly create unlawful deeds. 'Sāṃvṛta-saṃgha' refers to good ordinary beings (common people), who can jointly create lawful and unlawful actions. 'Paramārtha-saṃgha' refers to those with learning (saints who are learning) and those without learning (saints who have completed learning), and the Pudgalas who are the basis of their bodies, who will definitely not create unlawful deeds. Among these five types of Saṃgha, the most excellent is the one to which one can take refuge. As it is said in the verses praising refuge:
This refuge is the most excellent This refuge is the most venerable Surely by this refuge One can be liberated from all suffering
Among such Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) and Pudgalas, the two Paramārtha-saṃghas, Kātyāyanīputra means to take only the Dharma as the Saṃgha to which one takes refuge. Therefore, in this treatise, it is said: 'Taking refuge in the learning and non-learning Dharma that can constitute the Saṃgha.' Does this statement contradict the Sūtra (the Buddhist scriptures)? Because in the Sūtra, the World Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) said that there are four pairs and eight individuals of Pudgalas, who are the Saṃgha of the field of merit (the monastic community in which one can plant the seeds of merit), and all should be offered to. The Sūtra has a different meaning, saying that in that Sūtra, it speaks of merit.
田僧應供養故。彼經意顯能受施僧。二勝義僧中能受他施者。非學無學法唯補特伽羅。此本論中說歸依義。真能救護方是所歸。真救護能唯在聖法。故契經言但應依法。不應依彼補特伽羅。由此論經不相違背。又此應是不了義經。待不違理別意趣故。待別意趣方可了者。此類名曰不了義經。謂此經中所立四八果向差別補特伽羅法補特伽羅定依何建立。據直言義理俱不成。若謂依法應唯立五。謂阿羅漢果及四種向。無漏法和合所成僧伽。若依補特伽羅亦非定八。以成八數定因不可得故。謂無量品別施設僧伽。依一補特伽羅乃至無量故。謂或依一施設僧伽。如說若能如其次第。以諸飲食供養一僧。便獲供養一切僧福。或有依四施設僧伽。如供養眾僧說戒羯磨等。或有依五施設僧伽如恣舉等。或有依八施設僧伽。如此經說或有依十施設僧伽。如依中國受具戒等。或依二十施說僧伽。如出衆余為羯磨等。此中後後能攝前前。非於前前能攝後後。從此以後數無決定。乃至依無量亦施設僧伽。如余處說苾芻僧伽苾芻尼僧伽。或二部僧伽。或賢聖僧伽。聲聞僧伽等。於此多種依多品別補特伽羅施設。僧內唯此依八補特伽羅名福田僧非依余品。如是差別有何定因。由此二門皆不應理。故知此是不了義經。若謂唯齊此補特伽羅總攝諸聲聞
。所有無漏功德種類所成種種。若二若三相續差別故唯約此顯示福田。此亦非理。且許施設補特伽羅僧要待法僧故。則應唯法是勝義僧補特伽羅如前已說。若前若后無差別故。又依此八補特伽羅亦不具能總得一切聲聞無漏法功德種類盡。以非唯一預流果向能得一切。此向功德如是乃至阿羅漢果。若謂向果無差別故。唯此總說一切盡者。何不說五。而說八耶。以於此中次第可得。餘三攝在此三中故。又依法立補特伽羅。唯依四雙道說八補特伽羅故。以約殊勝功德所依顯示有情八種差別故。此意說補特伽羅豈不即為唯依於法。自相共相差別理成。以於法中若總若別理皆得成立非補特伽羅。是故於此唯依於法施設僧伽分明可見。若爾何故不唯說五。為總攝法品類盡故。以非一切一來果向總攝一切預流果盡。如是乃至阿羅漢向不攝一切不還果盡。是故為顯聖道差別。應說此八補特伽羅。故此契經成不了義。由唯約法建立僧伽故。我軌範師迦多衍尼子為善成立所歸僧伽。諸勝施設中說有情故非定唯法者理亦不然。彼由法力成差別故。無餘方便令所化生能正了知佛等勝德。故佛方便依有情門立勝施設令知無過。於此義中復應思擇佛為僧攝。非僧攝耶。若僧攝者則勝施設證凈寶歸數皆應減。又與至教所說相違。如契經言。
佛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所有由無漏功德種類成就的種種功德，如果因為二種或三種相續的差別，就只根據這些來顯示福田（指僧伽），這也是不合理的。況且，如果承認設立補特伽羅僧（pudgalasangha，指由個體組成的僧團）要依賴法僧（dhammasangha，指由佛法組成的僧團），那麼就應該只有法才是勝義僧（paramarthasangha，指究竟真實的僧團），而補特伽羅僧的情況如前所述。無論先後都沒有差別。而且，依據這八種補特伽羅（pudgala，指個體），也不能完全獲得一切聲聞（sravaka，指聽聞佛法者）的無漏法功德種類。因為並非只有預流果向（srotaapannapratipannaka，指入流果的修行者）能夠獲得一切功德。這種修行者的功德，乃至阿羅漢果（arhatphala，指阿羅漢的果位）也是如此。如果說果向沒有差別，所以只用這些來總括一切，那為什麼不說五種，而要說八種呢？因為在這八種中，次第可以獲得。其餘三種包含在這三種之中。而且，依據法來設立補特伽羅，只是依據四雙道（catvari purusayugani，指四雙八輩）來說明八種補特伽羅。因為是根據殊勝功德所依來顯示有情（sattva，指眾生）的八種差別。這個意思是說，補特伽罹難道不就是僅僅依據於法嗎？自相（svalaksana，指事物自身的特性）和共相（samanyalaksana，指事物共同的特性）的差別在理上成立。因為在法中，無論是總的還是別的，在道理上都可以成立，而不是補特伽羅。因此，在這裡，僅僅依據於法來設立僧伽（sangha，指僧團）是分明可見的。如果這樣，為什麼不只說五種呢？爲了總括法的所有品類。因為並非一切一來果向（sakrdagamipratipannaka，指一來果的修行者）總括一切預流果盡。像這樣，乃至阿羅漢向（arhatpratipannaka，指趨向阿羅漢果的修行者）不總括一切不還果盡（anagamiphala，指不還果的果位）。所以，爲了顯示聖道的差別，應該說這八種補特伽羅。因此，這部契經（sutra，指佛經）是不了義的。因為僅僅根據法來建立僧伽。我的軌範師（指老師）迦多衍尼子（Katyayaniputra，論師名）爲了很好地成立所歸依的僧伽，在各種殊勝的施設中說了有情，所以說不是僅僅是法，這個道理也是不對的。他們是通過法的力量成就差別的。沒有其他方便能讓所化生的眾生正確地瞭解佛等的殊勝功德。所以佛陀方便地依據有情之門來設立殊勝的施設，讓他們瞭解，這沒有過錯。在這個意義中，還應該思考佛陀是被僧伽所攝，還是不被僧伽所攝？如果被僧伽所攝，那麼殊勝的施設、證凈寶（ratna，指佛法僧三寶）的歸屬和數量都應該減少。又與至教（指佛陀的教誨）所說的相違。如契經所說： 佛
【English Translation】 English version: All the various merits accomplished by the types of undefiled virtues, if only these are used to indicate the field of merit (referring to the Sangha) due to the differences in the two or three continuous streams, this is also unreasonable. Moreover, if it is admitted that the establishment of the Pudgala Sangha (pudgalasangha, referring to the Sangha composed of individuals) depends on the Dharma Sangha (dhammasangha, referring to the Sangha composed of the Dharma), then only the Dharma should be the ultimate Sangha (paramarthasangha, referring to the ultimately true Sangha), and the situation of the Pudgala Sangha is as previously stated. There is no difference whether it is before or after. Furthermore, based on these eight types of individuals (pudgala), it is not possible to fully obtain all types of undefiled Dharma merits of all Sravakas (sravaka, referring to those who hear the Buddha's teachings). Because it is not only the Stream-enterer aspirant (srotaapannapratipannaka, referring to the practitioner of the Stream-entry fruit) who can obtain all merits. The merits of this practitioner, and so on up to the Arhat fruit (arhatphala, referring to the state of Arhat), are the same. If it is said that there is no difference between the fruit and the path, so only these are used to encompass everything, then why speak of eight instead of five? Because within these eight, they can be obtained sequentially. The remaining three are included within these three. Moreover, the establishment of individuals based on the Dharma is only based on the four pairs of paths (catvari purusayugani, referring to the four pairs and eight types of individuals) to explain the eight types of individuals. Because it is based on the basis of superior merits to show the eight types of differences in sentient beings (sattva, referring to beings). This means, isn't the individual merely based on the Dharma? The differences between self-characteristics (svalaksana, referring to the inherent characteristics of things) and common characteristics (samanyalaksana, referring to the common characteristics of things) are logically established. Because in the Dharma, whether it is general or specific, it can be established logically, not the individual. Therefore, here, it is clearly seen that the establishment of the Sangha (sangha, referring to the monastic community) is solely based on the Dharma. If so, why not only speak of five? In order to encompass all categories of the Dharma. Because not all Once-returner aspirants (sakrdagamipratipannaka, referring to the practitioner of the Once-returner fruit) encompass all Stream-enterer fruits. Likewise, even the Arhat aspirant (arhatpratipannaka, referring to the practitioner aspiring to the Arhat fruit) does not encompass all Non-returner fruits (anagamiphala, referring to the state of Non-returner). Therefore, in order to show the differences in the noble path, these eight types of individuals should be spoken of. Therefore, this sutra (sutra, referring to Buddhist scriptures) is of provisional meaning. Because the Sangha is established solely based on the Dharma. My teacher Katyayaniputra (Katyayaniputra, name of a commentator), in order to well establish the Sangha to be relied upon, spoke of sentient beings in various superior establishments, so saying that it is not merely the Dharma is also incorrect. They achieve differences through the power of the Dharma. There is no other way to enable the beings to be transformed to correctly understand the superior merits of the Buddha and others. Therefore, the Buddha expediently established superior establishments based on the door of sentient beings, allowing them to understand, and there is no fault in this. In this meaning, it should also be considered whether the Buddha is included in the Sangha or not included in the Sangha? If included in the Sangha, then the superior establishments, the refuge of the pure jewel (ratna, referring to the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), and the number should all be reduced. It also contradicts what is said in the ultimate teachings (referring to the Buddha's teachings). As the sutra says: Buddha
告長者何謂僧寶。謂于當來此世界中有善男子。生剎帝利婆羅門家。或生吠舍戍達羅家。歸投如來應正等覺。出家修證是名僧寶。又契經說佛在僧前。又契經言佛于某處與若干數苾芻僧俱。若非僧攝契經何故作如是言。汝等若能以少施物。如次供養佛上首僧。則于僧田獲得周遍清凈施福。又契經說汝喬答彌。若奉施僧亦供養我。又經說有四雙八隻補特伽羅名福田僧。不應說佛離八而有。僧有多種謂有情人聲聞福田及聖僧等。佛於此內非聲聞僧。可是餘僧自然覺故。又不成就聲聞法故。又為聲聞制立學處。言不應受畜等佛衣量衣。若佛世尊聲聞僧攝。亦應受學如是學處。又云聲聞所有衣物世尊聽許苾芻眾分。若佛世尊聲聞僧攝世尊衣物亦應許分。既不許分。是故知佛可餘僧攝。非聲聞僧。由是極成佛僧無雜然契經說。汝等若能以少施物。如次供養佛上首僧。獲遍福者約福田說故無有過。由此已解喬答彌經。或彼經言。亦供養我亦言意顯簡佛非僧。若佛即僧亦言何用。佛所說八補特伽羅為顯聲聞僧位差別。言僧中有八位不同。不作是言八皆僧攝。或所說八皆福田僧佛亦福田故無有過。施僧施佛何得大果。有作是言。施僧果大一切無漏聖法種類。皆于僧中具可得故。又言僧是上福田故。又有施主將物施佛世尊勸令回施僧故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 長者，什麼是僧寶（Sangha-ratna，佛教三寶之一，指僧伽）？是指未來這個世界中，有善男子出生于剎帝利（Kshatriya，古印度四大種姓之一，指武士階層）、婆羅門（Brahmana，古印度四大種姓之一，指祭司階層）家，或者出生于吠舍（Vaishya，古印度四大種姓之一，指商人階層）、戍達羅（Shudra，古印度四大種姓之一，指奴隸階層）家，歸依如來應正等覺（Tathagata Arhat Samyak-sambuddha，佛的十個稱號之一），出家修行證悟，這稱為僧寶。還有契經（Sutra，佛經）說佛在僧前。又有契經說佛在某處與若干數量的比丘僧（Bhikshu-sangha，出家男眾僧團）在一起。如果佛不是僧所攝，契經為何要這樣說？你們如果能以少許施物，依次供養佛為首的僧團，就能在僧田中獲得周遍清凈的施福。 又有契經說：『喬答彌（Gautami，佛的姨母），你如果奉施僧團，也等於供養我。』又有經說有四雙八隻補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）名為福田僧。不應說佛離開了這八位而獨立存在。僧有多種，包括有情人、聲聞（Shravaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的弟子）、福田以及聖僧等。佛在此之中不是聲聞僧，而是其餘的僧，因為是自然覺悟者。而且佛不成就聲聞法。又因為佛為聲聞制定學處，說不應受畜等佛衣量衣。如果佛世尊是聲聞僧所攝，也應受學這樣的學處。又說聲聞所有的衣物，世尊允許比丘眾分。如果佛世尊是聲聞僧所攝，世尊的衣物也應允許分。既然不允許分，所以知道佛可為其餘僧所攝，而非聲聞僧。由此完全成立佛與僧沒有混雜，然而契經說：『你們如果能以少許施物，依次供養佛為首的僧團，獲得周遍福報』，這是約福田說的，所以沒有過失。由此已經解釋了喬答彌經。或者那部經說：『也供養我』，也用意顯示簡別佛非僧。如果佛就是僧，『也』字有什麼用？佛所說的八補特伽羅是爲了顯示聲聞僧位的差別，說僧中有八位不同，不是說八位都為僧所攝。或者所說的八位都是福田僧，佛也是福田，所以沒有過失。施僧和施佛為何能獲得大的果報？有人這樣說，施僧的果報大，因為一切無漏聖法種類，都能在僧中具足獲得。又說僧是上福田。又有施主將物品施給佛，世尊勸令回施僧團。
【English Translation】 English version: Elder, what is the Sangha-ratna (one of the Three Jewels of Buddhism, referring to the Sangha)? It refers to good men in this world in the future who are born into Kshatriya (one of the four varnas in ancient India, referring to the warrior class), Brahmana (one of the four varnas in ancient India, referring to the priestly class) families, or born into Vaishya (one of the four varnas in ancient India, referring to the merchant class) or Shudra (one of the four varnas in ancient India, referring to the slave class) families, who take refuge in the Tathagata Arhat Samyak-sambuddha (one of the ten titles of the Buddha), renounce their homes, and cultivate and realize enlightenment. This is called the Sangha-ratna. Furthermore, the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say that the Buddha is before the Sangha. And the Sutras say that the Buddha is in a certain place with a certain number of Bhikshu-sangha (ordained male monastic community). If the Buddha is not included in the Sangha, why do the Sutras say this? If you can offer a small amount of alms in order to the Sangha headed by the Buddha, you will obtain pervasive and pure blessings of giving in the field of the Sangha. Furthermore, the Sutras say: 'Gautami (Buddha's aunt), if you offer to the Sangha, it is also offering to me.' And the Sutras say that there are four pairs and eight Pudgalas (persons) called the Sangha of the field of merit. It should not be said that the Buddha exists independently apart from these eight. There are many kinds of Sangha, including sentient beings, Shravakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), fields of merit, and noble Sanghas. Among these, the Buddha is not a Shravaka Sangha, but the remaining Sangha, because he is a naturally enlightened one. Moreover, the Buddha does not accomplish the Shravaka Dharma. Furthermore, because the Buddha established precepts for the Shravakas, saying that they should not receive and keep robes equal to the Buddha's robe measurement. If the Buddha, the World Honored One, is included in the Shravaka Sangha, he should also learn such precepts. Furthermore, it is said that the World Honored One allows the Bhikshu community to divide the belongings of the Shravakas. If the Buddha, the World Honored One, is included in the Shravaka Sangha, the World Honored One's belongings should also be allowed to be divided. Since it is not allowed to be divided, it is known that the Buddha can be included in the remaining Sangha, but not the Shravaka Sangha. From this, it is completely established that the Buddha and the Sangha are not mixed. However, the Sutras say: 'If you can offer a small amount of alms in order to the Sangha headed by the Buddha, you will obtain pervasive blessings.' This is spoken in terms of the field of merit, so there is no fault. From this, the Gautami Sutra has already been explained. Or that Sutra says: 'Also offering to me,' also using the intention to show that the Buddha is distinct from the Sangha. If the Buddha is the Sangha, what is the use of the word 'also'? The eight Pudgalas spoken of by the Buddha are to show the differences in the positions of the Shravaka Sangha, saying that there are eight different positions in the Sangha, not saying that all eight positions are included in the Sangha. Or the eight spoken of are all Sanghas of the field of merit, and the Buddha is also a field of merit, so there is no fault. Why can offering to the Sangha and offering to the Buddha obtain great results? Some say that the result of offering to the Sangha is great because all kinds of undefiled holy dharmas can be fully obtained in the Sangha. It is also said that the Sangha is the supreme field of merit. Furthermore, when a donor gives an item to the Buddha, the World Honored One advises them to give it back to the Sangha.
然我所宗施佛果大。以契經說諸佛世尊。證得一切增上自在。殊勝功德名最尊故。又佛世尊一向無失。諸煩惱習皆無餘故。又僧所修梵行功德一切皆由佛所生故。又佛世尊自他利德皆已圓滿至究竟故。經說此德為最勝故。以能速疾引他心故。廣大愿思緣此生故。然彼所言一切無漏聖法種類。皆于僧中具可得者。此不成證。世尊身內無量無邊不共功德具可得故。如說假使諸世界中一切有情。皆阿羅漢或獨勝覺所有功德。欲比世尊不及少分。所言僧是上福田者。亦非證因有別意故。謂約僧眾其數甚多。能受用多所施財物。能令施主受用福增。是故言僧福田中上。或顯僧眾住經久時。及遍諸方故作是說。或僧雖復是上福田。然佛福田是上中極。由前所說諸因緣故。所言施主將物施佛世尊勸令回施僧者。此證非理。觀別因故。謂佛為欲令僧住持無上正法得久住故。勸以施物回施於眾。毗婆沙師作如是說。為令施主緣聖慈尊金色相身植勝因故。歸依於法謂歸愛盡離滅涅槃。如是一切是煩惱斷名之差別。或有謂愛味著門轉不應棄捨故。寄愛名通顯一切煩惱永盡。愛與余煩惱同一對治故。言愛盡者。謂見所斷諸愛永斷故。預流者。此愛盡時便自記別諸惡趣盡。謂我已盡那落迦等。所言離者。謂欲界中諸所有貪多分已斷。即是已薄欲界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 然而，我所宗奉的施佛果（Buddha-phala，佛的果位）是最大的。因為契經（Sutra，佛經）中說，諸佛世尊（Bhagavan，世尊）證得一切增上自在（adhipati-vaśitā，增上自在），殊勝功德名為最尊。又佛世尊一向沒有過失，諸煩惱習氣都已完全斷除。而且僧眾所修的梵行功德，一切都由佛所生。又佛世尊自利利他的功德都已經圓滿達到究竟。經中說此功德為最殊勝，因為它能迅速地引導他人心意，廣大願力思惟緣此而生。但是他們所說的一切無漏聖法種類，都能在僧眾中獲得，這不能作為證據。因為世尊身內有無量無邊不共功德可以獲得。例如說，假使所有世界中的一切有情（sattva，眾生），都是阿羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢）或獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛），他們所有的功德，想要與世尊相比，也比不上世尊的少分功德。 所說僧眾是上福田，也不是有別的意義的證據。這是說僧眾的數量非常多，能夠受用很多所施的財物，能夠讓施主受用的福報增加。所以說僧眾是福田中最上的。或者顯示僧眾住世時間長久，以及遍佈各方，所以這樣說。或者僧眾雖然是上福田，但是佛的福田是上中極。因為前面所說的各種因緣。所說施主將財物佈施給佛世尊，勸令回施給僧眾，這個證據是不合理的。因為要觀察別的因緣。就是佛爲了讓僧眾住持無上正法能夠長久住世，勸以施物回施給僧眾。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，毗婆沙師）這樣說，爲了讓施主緣聖慈尊金色相身種下殊勝的因。歸依於法，就是歸愛盡離滅涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）。像這樣一切都是煩惱斷滅的名稱差別。或者有人說愛味執著之門運轉不應該捨棄。寄愛之名通顯一切煩惱永盡。愛與其餘煩惱同一對治。說愛盡，是說見所斷的諸愛永遠斷除。預流者（Srotāpanna，須陀洹），在這個愛盡的時候，便自己記別諸惡趣已經斷盡。說我已經斷盡那落迦（Naraka，地獄）等。所說離，是說欲界中的所有貪慾，大部分已經斷除，就是已經薄欲界。
【English Translation】 English version However, the Buddha-phala (fruit of Buddhahood) that I uphold is the greatest. Because the Sutras (scriptures) say that the Buddhas, the Bhagavan (World-Honored Ones), have attained all adhipati-vaśitā (supreme mastery), and their excellent merits are called the most venerable. Furthermore, the Buddhas, the Bhagavan, are always without fault, and all traces of afflictions have been completely eradicated. Moreover, all the virtuous deeds of pure conduct (brahmacarya) cultivated by the Sangha (community) originate from the Buddha. Furthermore, the Buddhas, the Bhagavan, have perfected both their own benefit and the benefit of others to the ultimate degree. The Sutras say that this merit is the most excellent because it can quickly guide the minds of others, and vast aspirations arise from contemplating this. However, their statement that all types of undefiled (anāsrava) holy Dharma (teachings) can be found in the Sangha does not serve as proof. This is because the Buddha possesses immeasurable and boundless unique merits. For example, it is said that even if all sentient beings (sattva) in all worlds were Arhats (worthy ones) or Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas), their merits would not equal even a small fraction of the Buddha's. The statement that the Sangha is a supreme field of merit is also not evidence with a different meaning. It means that the Sangha is very large in number and can receive many offerings, enabling donors to increase their merit. Therefore, it is said that the Sangha is the supreme field of merit. Or it may be said this way to show that the Sangha dwells in the world for a long time and is present in all directions. Or, although the Sangha is a supreme field of merit, the Buddha's field of merit is the highest of the high. This is due to the reasons mentioned earlier. The statement that donors offer goods to the Buddha, the Bhagavan, and are encouraged to give them back to the Sangha is not reasonable evidence. This is because we must consider other reasons. That is, the Buddha encourages the return of offerings to the Sangha so that the Sangha can uphold the unsurpassed true Dharma for a long time. The Vaibhāṣikas (exponents of the Vaibhāṣika school) say this is to allow donors to plant excellent causes by associating with the sacred, compassionate, golden body of the Bhagavan. Taking refuge in the Dharma means taking refuge in the cessation of love, detachment, extinction, and Nirvana (liberation). All of these are different names for the eradication of afflictions. Or some say that the gate of attachment and craving should not be abandoned. The name 'cessation of love' generally signifies the complete eradication of all afflictions. Love and other afflictions have the same antidote. 'Cessation of love' means that all loves severed by view have been permanently eradicated. A Srotāpanna (stream-enterer) at the time of this cessation of love, distinguishes that all evil destinies have been exhausted. Saying that I have exhausted Naraka (hell) and so on. 'Detachment' means that most of the greed in the desire realm has been cut off, which means that the desire realm has been thinned.
貪義。滅謂欲界諸愛全斷。此地煩惱當於爾時決定無能繫縛義故。言涅槃者。謂色無色諸愛永斷。由此盡時諸所有苦皆永寂故。此則顯示四沙門果。或此四種如其次第。顯三界愛斷及永般涅槃。或愛盡者。三界愛斷所言離者。除愛所餘諸煩惱斷。所言滅者。顯有餘依般涅槃界。言涅槃者。顯無餘依般涅槃界。有餘師說。歸依法者。謂通歸依諸佛世尊。所說雜染及清凈法。彼說非理。所以者何。佛說涅槃名最上法。又有經說滅為最上。是故唯應歸依此法。此中何法是所歸依。能歸是何。歸依何義。所歸依者。謂滅諦全道諦一分。除獨覺乘菩薩學位無漏功德。何緣彼法非所歸依。彼不能救生死怖故。謂諸獨覺不能說法教誡。諸有情令離生死怖。菩薩學位不起期心故。亦無能教誡他義故。彼身中學無學法不能救護非所歸依。有餘師言。不和合故不顯了故。如其次第。獨覺菩薩非所歸依。緣彼亦生無漏意凈。故彼亦是證凈境攝。此中能歸語表為體。自立誓限為自性故。若並眷屬五蘊為體。以能歸依所有言說。由心等起非離於心。如是歸依救濟為義。他身聖法及善無為。如何能為自身救濟。以歸依彼。能息無邊生死苦輪大怖畏故。非如牧豎防護諸牛。提婆達多守餘人等。但令不散非所歸依。不能令息生死畏故。雖復亦有歸佛法僧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 貪的含義是：斷滅指的是欲界所有的愛全部斷除。此地的煩惱在那個時候決定沒有能夠束縛的含義。說到涅槃，指的是色界和無色界所有的愛永遠斷除。因為這個斷盡的時候，所有的痛苦都永遠寂滅。這顯示了四種沙門果。或者這四種果位按照次第，顯示了三界愛的斷除以及永遠的般涅槃。或者說愛盡，指的是三界愛的斷除，所說的『離』，指的是除了愛之外其餘煩惱的斷除。所說的『滅』，顯示的是有餘依般涅槃界。所說的『涅槃』，顯示的是無餘依般涅槃界。 有其他老師說，歸依法，指的是普遍歸依諸佛世尊所說的雜染法和清凈法。他們的說法不合理。為什麼呢？佛說涅槃是最上的法，又有經書說滅是最上的。因此，只應該歸依這個法。這裡面什麼法是所歸依的？誰是能歸依的？歸依是什麼含義？所歸依的，指的是滅諦全部和道諦的一部分，除了獨覺乘和菩薩學位的無漏功德。為什麼那些法不是所歸依的呢？因為它們不能救脫生死的怖畏。那些獨覺不能說法教誡，讓有情眾生脫離生死的怖畏。菩薩學位沒有發起期望的心，也沒有能夠教誡他人的意義。他們身上的有學法和無學法不能救護，所以不是所歸依的。 有其他老師說，因為不和合，因為不明顯，所以獨覺和菩薩不是所歸依的。因為他們也生起無漏的意凈，所以他們也是證凈的境界所包含的。這裡面能歸依的，以語表為本體，以自己立下的誓言為自性。如果加上眷屬，以五蘊為本體。因為能夠歸依的所有言說，都是由心發起的，沒有離開心。這樣的歸依，是以救濟為意義。他人身上的聖法和善的無為法，如何能夠為自身救濟呢？因為歸依它們，能夠止息無邊的生死苦輪的大怖畏。不像牧童防護牛群，提婆達多守護其他人等等，只是讓他們不散失，不是所歸依的，因為不能讓他們止息生死的怖畏。雖然也有歸依佛法僧的。
【English Translation】 English version The meaning of greed is: 'Extinction' means the complete cessation of all love in the desire realm. The afflictions of this realm, at that time, are definitely without the meaning of being able to bind. 'Nirvana' refers to the eternal cessation of all love in the form and formless realms. Because when this is exhausted, all suffering is eternally extinguished. This reveals the four Śrāmaṇa fruits (four stages of enlightenment). Or these four fruits, in order, reveal the cessation of love in the three realms and eternal Parinirvana (final liberation). Or 'exhaustion of love' refers to the cessation of love in the three realms; 'separation' refers to the cessation of afflictions other than love. 'Extinction' reveals the Nirvāṇa realm with remainder (Sa-upādisesa-nirvāṇa). 'Nirvana' reveals the Nirvāṇa realm without remainder (An-upādisesa-nirvāṇa). Other teachers say that taking refuge in the Dharma (law), refers to universally taking refuge in the defiled and pure Dharmas spoken by all Buddhas, the World Honored Ones. Their statement is unreasonable. Why? The Buddha said that Nirvana is the supreme Dharma, and other scriptures say that extinction is supreme. Therefore, one should only take refuge in this Dharma. What Dharma is to be taken refuge in here? Who is able to take refuge? What is the meaning of taking refuge? What is to be taken refuge in refers to the entirety of the Truth of Extinction (Nirodha Satya) and a portion of the Truth of the Path (Marga Satya), excluding the unconditioned merits of the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Realizer) vehicle and the Bodhisattva stages. Why are those Dharmas not to be taken refuge in? Because they cannot save from the fear of birth and death. Those Pratyekabuddhas cannot teach the Dharma, instructing sentient beings to be free from the fear of birth and death. The Bodhisattva stages do not arise with the mind of expectation, and there is no meaning of being able to instruct others. The Dharmas of learning and non-learning on their bodies cannot protect, so they are not to be taken refuge in. Other teachers say that because of non-harmony, because of non-manifestation, the Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas are not to be taken refuge in. Because they also give rise to undefiled purity of mind, they are also included in the realm of purified perception. Here, what is able to take refuge has verbal expression as its essence, and self-established vows as its nature. If including retinue, it takes the five aggregates (Skandhas) as its essence. Because all speech that is able to take refuge arises from the mind and does not depart from the mind. Such taking refuge has salvation as its meaning. How can the sacred Dharmas and virtuous unconditioned Dharmas on others save oneself? Because taking refuge in them can stop the great fear of the endless cycle of birth and death. It is not like a herdsman protecting cattle, Devadatta guarding others, etc., merely preventing them from scattering, which is not taking refuge, because it cannot stop the fear of birth and death. Although there is also taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha (community).
。然彼不蒙現救濟者。以彼違越佛教理故。如有依王而違王敕。王不救濟此亦應然。有餘師說。彼亦能與後邊善根為種子故。歸依但作正行種子。非即由此能息苦輪。故有歸依未蒙救者。有餘師說。彼雖歸依未能奉行歸所為故。歸依所為其體是何。謂見四諦故。伽他說。
諸有歸依佛 及歸依法僧 於四聖諦中 恒以慧觀察 知苦知苦集 知永超眾苦 知八支聖道 趣安隱涅槃 此歸依最勝 此歸依最尊 必因此歸依 能解脫眾苦
三所歸依有差別者。佛唯無學。法二俱非。僧體貫通學與無學。又佛體是十根少分。僧通十二。法體非根。擇滅涅槃非根攝故。又歸依佛謂但歸依一有為沙門果。歸依法者謂通歸依四無為沙門果。歸依僧者謂通歸依四有為沙門果及四果能趣向。又佛譬如能示道者。法如安隱所趣方域。僧如同涉正道伴侶。應求此等三差別因。應思何緣于余律儀處。立離非梵行為其所學。唯于近事一律儀中。但制令其離欲邪行。頌曰。
邪行最可訶 易離得不作
論曰。唯欲邪行極為能觀此他世者共所訶責。以能侵毀他妻等故。感惡趣故非非梵行。又欲邪行易遠離故。諸在家者耽著欲故。離非梵行難可受持。觀彼不能長時修學。故不制彼離非梵行。謂無始來數習
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：然而，那些沒有立即得到救濟的人，是因為他們違背了佛教的教義。這就好比依賴國王卻違背國王的命令，國王不會救濟他們一樣。有些論師說，歸依佛法僧也能為他們種下未來獲得善果的種子。歸依只是作為一種正確的行為的種子，並非僅僅通過歸依就能停止痛苦的輪迴。因此，有些人即使歸依了，也沒有立即得到救濟。還有些論師說，這些人雖然歸依了，但未能奉行歸依的宗旨。那麼，歸依的宗旨是什麼呢？就是證悟四聖諦（duhkha satya, samudaya satya, nirodha satya, marga satya）。《伽陀經》（Gatha）中說：
『凡是歸依佛（Buddha）、歸依法（Dharma）、歸依僧（Sangha）的人， 總是在智慧中觀察四聖諦， 瞭解苦（duhkha），瞭解苦的生起（duhkha samudaya）， 瞭解如何永遠超越眾苦（duhkha nirodha）， 瞭解通往安穩涅槃（nirvana）的八正道（astangika marga）。 這樣的歸依是最殊勝的，這樣的歸依是最尊貴的， 必定因為這樣的歸依，能夠解脫一切眾苦。』
三寶（triratna）所歸依的對象是有差別的：佛（Buddha）唯是無學位的聖者，法（Dharma）既不是有學位也不是無學位的聖者，僧（Sangha）的本體則貫通有學位和無學位。此外，佛的本體是十根（dasa indriya）中的少部分，僧則貫通十二根（dvadasa indriya），法的本體不是根，因為擇滅涅槃（pratisankhya-nirodha nirvana）不屬於根所攝。此外，歸依佛，是指僅僅歸依一位有為的沙門果（sramana-phala）。歸依法，是指普遍歸依四種無為的沙門果。歸依僧，是指普遍歸依四種有為的沙門果以及能夠趣向四果的修行者。此外，佛好比是能夠指示道路的人，法如同安穩的所趣向的區域，僧如同共同行走在正道上的伴侶。應當尋求這三者的差別原因。應當思考為什麼在其他的律儀（vinaya）中，要將遠離非梵行作為所學的內容，唯獨在近事（upasaka）的律儀中，只規定他們遠離欲邪行（kama-micchacara）。頌文說：
『邪淫最應受呵責，容易遠離能不作。』
論述說：唯獨欲邪行最受那些能夠觀察此世和來世的人共同呵責，因為它能夠侵犯他人的妻子等，並且會感生惡趣的果報，而非非梵行。此外，欲邪行容易遠離，因為那些在家人貪戀于慾望，遠離非梵行難以受持。考慮到他們不能長時間地修學，所以沒有規定他們遠離非梵行。這是因為無始以來，人們已經無數次地習慣了邪淫。
【English Translation】 English version: However, those who do not receive immediate salvation do so because they violate the teachings of Buddhism. It is like relying on a king but disobeying his orders; the king will not save them. Some teachers say that taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha can also plant seeds for future good results. Taking refuge is merely a seed for correct conduct; it is not that taking refuge alone can stop the cycle of suffering. Therefore, some who take refuge do not receive immediate salvation. Other teachers say that although they have taken refuge, they have failed to practice what taking refuge entails. So, what is the purpose of taking refuge? It is to realize the Four Noble Truths (duhkha satya, samudaya satya, nirodha satya, marga satya). The 'Gatha' says:
'Those who take refuge in the Buddha (Buddha), the Dharma (Dharma), and the Sangha (Sangha), Constantly observe the Four Noble Truths with wisdom, Knowing suffering (duhkha), knowing the arising of suffering (duhkha samudaya), Knowing how to transcend all suffering forever (duhkha nirodha), Knowing the Eightfold Noble Path (astangika marga) that leads to peaceful Nirvana (nirvana). This refuge is the most excellent, this refuge is the most venerable, Surely because of this refuge, one can be liberated from all suffering.'
The objects of the Three Refuges (triratna) are different: the Buddha (Buddha) is only a non-learner (asaiksa), the Dharma (Dharma) is neither a learner (saiksa) nor a non-learner, and the Sangha (Sangha) encompasses both learners and non-learners. Furthermore, the Buddha's essence is a small part of the ten faculties (dasa indriya), while the Sangha encompasses twelve faculties (dvadasa indriya). The Dharma's essence is not a faculty, because cessation through discrimination (pratisankhya-nirodha nirvana) is not included in the faculties. Moreover, taking refuge in the Buddha means taking refuge in only one conditioned fruit of a recluse (sramana-phala). Taking refuge in the Dharma means universally taking refuge in the four unconditioned fruits of a recluse. Taking refuge in the Sangha means universally taking refuge in the four conditioned fruits of a recluse and those who can approach the four fruits. Furthermore, the Buddha is like someone who can show the way, the Dharma is like a safe area to go to, and the Sangha is like companions walking together on the right path. One should seek the reasons for these three differences. One should consider why, in other precepts (vinaya), abstaining from non-celibacy is taken as something to be learned, while only in the precepts of a lay follower (upasaka) is it stipulated that they abstain from sexual misconduct (kama-micchacara). The verse says:
'Sexual misconduct is most reprehensible, easy to abandon and not do.'
The treatise says: Only sexual misconduct is most condemned by those who can observe this world and the next, because it can violate the wives of others, etc., and will cause the result of bad destinies, not non-celibacy. Furthermore, sexual misconduct is easy to abandon, because those who are householders are attached to desires, and abstaining from non-celibacy is difficult to uphold. Considering that they cannot practice for a long time, they are not required to abstain from non-celibacy. This is because from beginningless time, people have been accustomed to sexual misconduct countless times.
力故。淫慾煩惱數起現行。諸在家人隨順欲境。數易和合抑制為難。故不制彼令全遠離。又諸聖者于欲邪行一切定得不作律儀。經生聖者亦不行故。離非梵行則不如是故。于近事所受律儀但為制立離欲邪行。若異此者。經生有學應不能持近事性戒。若諸近事後復從師要期。更受離非梵行得未曾得此律儀不。有餘師說。得此律儀然不由斯方成近事。亦不由此失近事名。亦非先時戒不圓滿。有說不得未得律儀。然獲最勝杜多功德。名獲最勝遠離法者。謂能遠離淫慾法故。由此若能遠離妻室凈修梵行功不唐捐。若有先時未取妻妾。普于有情類受近事律儀。於後取時寧非犯戒。今非他攝故如用屬己財。謂於今時以咒術力。或財理等種種方便攝彼屬己。不繫於他如何難令于彼犯戒。又有別理今取彼時。於前律儀無所違犯。頌曰。
得律儀如誓 非總于相續
論曰。諸受欲者受近事戒。如本受誓而得律儀。本受誓云何。謂離欲邪行。於他所攝諸女人所。起他攝想而行非法。如是乃名犯欲邪行。非於一切有情相續。先立誓言我當於彼。離非梵行而得律儀。云何今時可名犯戒。既如本誓而得律儀。今正隨行如何名犯。先取妻妾后受律儀。于自妻等亦發此戒。以近事等別解律儀一切有情處所得故。若異此者于自妻妾。非處非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為這個原因，淫慾的煩惱會頻繁地生起並實際發生。那些在家的居士們，總是順從於慾望的境界，很容易和合，難以抑制。因此，佛陀沒有完全禁止他們，讓他們完全遠離淫慾。而且，所有的聖者對於不正當的性行為，一定能夠獲得不做的戒律。已經證得須陀洹果的聖者也不會行淫慾之事。因為離開非梵行的情況並非如此。因此，對於近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，在家男居士）所受的戒律，只是爲了制定遠離不正當的性行為。如果不是這樣，已經證得須陀洹果的學人，應該無法持守近事戒。如果有些近事後來又從師父那裡請求，進一步受持遠離非梵行的戒律，能夠獲得從未獲得過的這種戒律嗎？有些論師說，可以獲得這種戒律，但這並不是成為近事的條件，也不會因此失去近事的身份，也不是說先前的戒律不圓滿。也有人說，不能獲得未得的戒律，但可以獲得最殊勝的頭陀功德（Dhuta-guna，苦行功德），被稱為獲得最殊勝的遠離法的人，意思是能夠遠離淫慾之法。因此，如果能夠遠離妻室，清凈地修持梵行，功德不會白費。如果有人先前沒有娶妻妾，普遍地對一切有情眾生受持近事戒律，之後再娶妻妾，難道不是犯戒嗎？現在所娶的女子不是屬於他人的，就像使用屬於自己的財產一樣。意思是說，現在通過咒術的力量，或者用財物道理等各種方便，把她攝取為自己所有，不屬於他人，怎麼能說對他犯戒呢？還有另外一個道理，現在娶她的時候，並沒有違犯之前的戒律。頌曰： 『得律儀如誓，非總于相續』 論曰：那些受用慾望的人受持近事戒，就像最初發誓時那樣獲得戒律。最初發誓是什麼樣的呢？就是遠離不正當的性行為。對於他人所擁有的那些女人，生起『這是屬於他人的』想法，然後行非法之事，這樣才叫做犯了不正當的性行為。而不是對於一切有情眾生的相續，先立下誓言說：『我應當對他們遠離非梵行』，然後才獲得戒律。這樣，現在怎麼能叫做犯戒呢？既然是像最初發誓時那樣獲得戒律，現在正是隨順著誓言而行，怎麼能叫做犯戒呢？先前娶了妻妾，後來受持戒律，對於自己的妻妾也發了這個戒，因為近事等別解脫戒（Pratimoksha，波羅提木叉，別解脫戒）是在一切有情處所獲得的。如果不是這樣，對於自己的妻妾，非處非時行淫，也應該算是犯戒了。
【English Translation】 English version: For this reason, the afflictions of lust frequently arise and become active. Those householders are always compliant with the realm of desire, easily uniting and difficult to restrain. Therefore, the Buddha did not completely prohibit them, preventing them from completely abandoning lust. Moreover, all the noble ones are certain to obtain the precept of non-commission regarding improper sexual conduct. Even those who have attained the stream-entry (Srotapanna) do not engage in sexual activity, because the situation of departing from non-celibacy is not the same. Therefore, for the precepts received by a lay devotee (Upasaka), it is only to establish the abandonment of improper sexual conduct. If it were otherwise, those stream-enterers who are still learning should not be able to uphold the lay devotee's precepts. If some lay devotees later request from their teacher to further receive the precept of abandoning non-celibacy, can they obtain this precept that they have never obtained before? Some teachers say that they can obtain this precept, but this is not a condition for becoming a lay devotee, nor will they lose their status as a lay devotee because of this, nor is it that the previous precepts were incomplete. Others say that they cannot obtain a new precept, but they can obtain the most excellent ascetic qualities (Dhuta-guna), and are called those who have obtained the most excellent abandonment, meaning they are able to abandon the Dharma of lust. Therefore, if one can abandon one's wife and purely cultivate celibacy, the merit will not be in vain. If someone had not previously taken a wife or concubine, and universally took the lay devotee's precepts for all sentient beings, would it not be a violation of the precepts if they later took a wife? Now, the woman taken is not under the control of others, just like using one's own property. It means that now, through the power of mantras, or through various means such as wealth and reason, one takes her and makes her one's own, not belonging to others. How can it be said that one is violating the precepts towards her? There is another reason why taking her now does not violate the previous precepts. The verse says: 'Obtaining the precepts is like a vow, not total for the continuum.' The treatise says: Those who indulge in desires receive the lay devotee's precepts, just as they obtain the precepts when they first made the vow. What was the initial vow like? It was to abandon improper sexual conduct. Regarding those women who are possessed by others, having the thought 'this belongs to another,' and then engaging in unlawful acts, this is called violating improper sexual conduct. It is not that for the continuum of all sentient beings, one first makes a vow saying, 'I shall abandon non-celibacy towards them,' and then obtains the precepts. So how can it be called a violation of the precepts now? Since one obtained the precepts as one initially vowed, and now one is acting in accordance with the vow, how can it be called a violation of the precepts? If one had previously taken a wife or concubine, and later received the precepts, one also made this precept regarding one's own wife, because the Pratimoksha precepts (individual liberation precepts) such as the lay devotee's precepts are obtained in the presence of all sentient beings. If it were otherwise, engaging in sexual activity with one's own wife at an improper place or time should also be considered a violation of the precepts.
時非支非禮。亦應不犯欲邪行戒。于舊所受既有犯者。于新所受應有不犯。故不應為如先所難。何緣於四語業道中。立離虛誑語為近事學處。非立離余離間語等。亦由前說三種因故。謂虛誑語最可訶故。諸在家者易遠離故。一切聖者得不作故。復有別因。頌曰。
以開虛誑語 便越諸學處
論曰。越諸學處被檢問時。若開虛誑語便言我不作。因斯于戒多所違越。故佛為欲令彼堅持。於一切律儀皆遮虛誑語。云何令彼緣力犯戒。時尋即生慚如實自發露。何緣一切離性罪中。立四種為近事學處。然於一切離遮罪中。于近事律儀唯制離飲酒。頌曰。
遮中唯離酒 為護余律儀
論曰。諸飲酒者心多縱逸。不能守護諸餘律儀。故為護余令離飲酒。謂飲酒已於惡作說別悔墮落。眾余他勝五部罪中不能防守。或有是處由此普于諸學處海擾亂違越。由此世尊知飲諸酒是起一切性罪因故。能損正念及正智故。能引破戒破見愚故。於一切種離遮罪中。唯說此為近事學處。故離飲酒雖遮戒攝。而於一切立學處中。與離性罪相隨而制。有言飲酒是性罪攝。相阿笈摩及正理故。阿笈摩者謂契經言。身有四惡行。殺生至飲酒不應遮罪是惡行攝。又如上座鄔波離言。我當如何供給病者。世尊告曰。唯除性罪余隨所應皆可供
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如果行為不符合時宜、不合乎禮儀，也應該不觸犯不邪淫戒。對於之前所受的戒律已經有違犯的，對於新受的戒律應該做到不違犯，所以不應該像先前那樣提出疑問。為什麼在四種語業道中，只設立遠離虛妄語作為近事（Upasaka）學處（Siksa-pada，戒條），而不設立遠離其他如離間語等？也是由於前面所說的三種原因：因為虛妄語最應該被呵斥，諸在家修行者容易遠離，一切聖者都能做到不作虛妄語。還有一個特別的原因，頌文說： 『以開虛誑語，便越諸學處』 論述：違越諸學處，在被檢查問責時，如果說了虛妄語，就說我沒有做，因此對於戒律多有違越。所以佛爲了讓他們堅持戒律，對於一切律儀都禁止虛妄語，怎樣讓他們因為因緣和力量而犯戒呢？那時立刻就會生起慚愧心，如實地自我坦白。為什麼在一切自性罪（Prakriti-savadyam，本性為惡的罪行）中，只設立四種作為近事學處？然而在一切遮罪（Pratisedha-savadyam，佛所禁止的罪行）中，對於近事律儀只制定了遠離飲酒。頌文說： 『遮中唯離酒，為護余律儀』 論述：那些飲酒的人，心多放縱，不能守護其他的律儀。所以爲了守護其他的律儀，讓他們遠離飲酒。所謂飲酒之後，對於惡作（Duskrita，輕罪）說別悔（Pratidesana，對人懺悔），墮落（Patayantika，墮罪）。在眾余他勝（Parajika，斷頭罪）、五部罪中不能防守。或者有些情況，因此普遍地對於諸學處之海擾亂違越。因此世尊知道飲用各種酒是生起一切自性罪的原因，能夠損害正念和正智，能夠導致破戒、破見和愚癡，所以在一切種類的遮罪中，只說這個（離飲酒）作為近事學處。所以遠離飲酒雖然屬於遮戒所攝，但在一切設立的學處中，與遠離自性罪相隨而制定。有人說飲酒是自性罪所攝，因為有相（Samdhi）阿笈摩（Agama，聖教）和正理（Nyaya）為證。阿笈摩就是契經（Sutra）所說：身有四種惡行，從殺生到飲酒，不應遮罪是惡行所攝。又如上座（Sthavira）鄔波離（Upali）說：我應當如何供給病人？世尊告訴他說：除了自性罪之外，其餘的都可以根據情況供給。
【English Translation】 English version If the behavior is untimely and improper, one should also not violate the precept against sexual misconduct. Regarding previously violated precepts, one should ensure non-violation of newly undertaken precepts, so the initial question should not be repeated. Why, among the four verbal karmic paths, is only abstaining from false speech established as a Upasaka (lay follower) Siksa-pada (precept), and not abstaining from other forms like divisive speech? It is also due to the three reasons mentioned earlier: because false speech is most reprehensible, it is easier for lay practitioners to avoid, and all noble ones can refrain from it. There is also another specific reason, as the verse states: 'By opening false speech, one then transgresses all the training precepts.' Commentary: Transgressing the training precepts, when being questioned and investigated, if one utters false speech, saying 'I did not do it,' one will violate many precepts. Therefore, the Buddha, wishing them to uphold the precepts, prohibits false speech in all disciplines. How could they violate the precepts due to conditions and power? At that time, shame would immediately arise, and they would truthfully confess themselves. Why, among all Prakriti-savadyam (naturally blameworthy offenses), are only four established as Upasaka Siksa-padas? However, among all Pratisedha-savadyam (prohibitively blameworthy offenses), only abstaining from alcohol is prescribed for the Upasaka precepts. The verse states: 'Among prohibitions, only abstaining from alcohol is to protect the remaining disciplines.' Commentary: Those who drink alcohol often have unrestrained minds and cannot protect the other disciplines. Therefore, to protect the other disciplines, they are made to abstain from alcohol. After drinking alcohol, one must confess the Duskrita (minor offense) through Pratidesana (confession to another), leading to Patayantika (an offense requiring expiation). One cannot guard against Parajika (defeat, expulsion) and the five categories of offenses. Or in some cases, one universally disturbs and violates the sea of training precepts. Therefore, the World-Honored One knows that drinking various kinds of alcohol is the cause of arising all Prakriti-savadyam, can harm right mindfulness and right wisdom, and can lead to breaking precepts, wrong views, and foolishness. Therefore, among all kinds of Pratisedha-savadyam, only this (abstaining from alcohol) is said to be an Upasaka Siksa-pada. So, although abstaining from alcohol is included in the prohibitive precepts, it is established alongside abstaining from Prakriti-savadyam in all established training precepts. Some say that drinking alcohol is included in Prakriti-savadyam, because there is Samdhi (connection) Agama (scriptural authority) and Nyaya (reasoning) as evidence. Agama is what the Sutra says: the body has four evil deeds, from killing to drinking alcohol, and unprohibited offenses are included in evil deeds. Also, as Sthavira (Elder) Upali (Upali) said: How should I provide for the sick? The World-Honored One told him: Except for Prakriti-savadyam, the rest can be provided as appropriate.
給。然有染疾釋種須酒。世尊不開以酒供給。非佛于彼染疾。苾芻自說是師而不憐愍。由正理者。聖者易生亦不犯故如殺生等。又離飲酒。世尊說為。近事律儀如殺等故。正理論者作如是言。雖於此中若如理辯必遭一類愚者所譏。然彼心遊正法相外。無容枉理憚彼邪言。故我必應辯正法相。非飲諸酒是性罪攝。由此中無性罪相故。性罪遮罪其相云何。未制戒時諸離欲者決定不起是性罪相。若彼猶行。是名遮罪。又若唯托染污心行。是性罪相。若有亦托不染心行是名遮罪。為防余失佛遮止故。今於此中應共思擇。為有于酒雖極憎嫌而為良醫令飲除疾。正知強服不起染心。為無如斯無染心者。若許有者既無染心。如何可成性罪惡行。若謂無者如何為疾正知強服而有染心。豈不先知飲酒是罪無慚故飲。或於飲罪愚謂非罪即是染心。此救不然。謂飲諸酒體性是罪。理不成故應審。何緣此皆性罪諸有為疾。以無染心知量而飲能不醉亂。如為除病知量服毒。能令無損豈是罪耶。故非飲酒皆惡行攝。若為憍逸。或為歡娛。或知醉亂。而貪故飲此等皆托染污心生。約此經中說身惡行。應知此是性罪所攝。設佛不遮亦是罪故。或飲諸酒由放逸處故名惡行。非由性罪。故此獨立放逸處名。非殺生等是性罪故。然為病者總開遮戒。復于異時遮
【現代漢語翻譯】 問：如果生病的釋迦族比丘需要酒，但世尊不允許用酒來供養他們，難道佛陀對這些生病的比丘沒有慈悲心嗎？如果比丘自稱是導師，卻不憐憫他們，這合理嗎？ 答：從正理的角度來看，聖者很容易生起慈悲心，而且飲酒本身並不構成根本的罪行，比如殺生等。此外，遠離飲酒，世尊說是近事律儀（Upasaka Sila），就像遠離殺生等一樣。正理論者這樣說：雖然在這裡如果如理辨析，必定會遭到一些愚者的譏諷，但他們的心遊離於正法之外，沒有必要因為害怕他們的邪說而歪曲真理。所以我必須辨明正法的真相：並非飲用所有的酒都是自性罪（Prakriti-savadyam）。因為這裡沒有自性罪的相狀。 問：什麼是自性罪（Prakriti-savadyam）和遮罪（Pratishedha-savadyam）的相狀？ 答：在沒有制定戒律時，那些已經離欲的人決定不會去做的事情，這就是自性罪的相狀。如果他們仍然去做，這就是遮罪。或者，如果僅僅是出於染污心而做的事情，這就是自性罪的相狀。如果也有出於不染污心而做的事情，這就是遮罪。爲了防止其他的過失，佛陀才遮止它。 現在我們應該共同思考：是否有人雖然極其憎惡酒，但爲了讓良醫用酒來去除疾病，明知是強行服用，也不會生起染污心？還是根本沒有這樣沒有染污心的人？如果承認有這樣的人，既然沒有染污心，怎麼能構成自性罪的惡行呢？如果說沒有這樣的人，那麼如何能爲了疾病而明知是強行服用，卻有染污心呢？難道不是先知道飲酒是罪，因為沒有慚愧心才飲用嗎？或者因為愚昧，認為飲酒不是罪，這才是染污心。 這種辯解是不成立的。說飲用所有的酒，其體性就是罪，這個道理是不成立的。應該審察：為什麼這些都是自性罪？如果有人爲了疾病，以沒有染污心，知道適量而飲用，能不醉亂，就像爲了去除疾病，知道適量服用毒藥，能沒有損害，這怎麼是罪呢？所以，並非飲用所有的酒都是惡行。如果是爲了驕縱放逸，或者爲了歡娛，或者明知會醉亂，而貪圖飲用，這些都是出於染污心而生起的。根據經中所說的身惡行，應該知道這些是自性罪所攝。即使佛陀不遮止，也是罪。 或者飲用所有的酒，因為是放逸之處，所以稱為惡行，而不是因為是自性罪。所以這裡獨立地稱為放逸之處，而不是殺生等，因為殺生等是自性罪。然而，爲了病人，總的來說是開許遮戒，又在其他時候遮止。
【English Translation】 Question: If a sick Shakya (Sakya, referring to the clan of the Buddha) Bhikshu (Buddhist monk) needs alcohol, but the World-Honored One (世尊, a title for the Buddha) does not allow providing alcohol, isn't the Buddha without compassion for these sick Bhikshus? If a Bhikshu claims to be a teacher but does not have compassion for them, is this reasonable? Answer: From the perspective of right reasoning, a sage (聖者) easily generates compassion, and drinking alcohol itself does not constitute a fundamental transgression, like killing. Furthermore, abstaining from alcohol, the World-Honored One says, is an Upasaka Sila (近事律儀, precepts for lay practitioners), just like abstaining from killing. Those who uphold right reasoning say this: Although here, if analyzed according to reason, it will surely be ridiculed by some fools, their minds are detached from the true Dharma (正法), and there is no need to distort the truth for fear of their heretical words. Therefore, I must clarify the true nature of the Dharma: not all drinking of alcohol is a Prakriti-savadyam (自性罪, naturally blameworthy). Because there is no aspect of Prakriti-savadyam here. Question: What are the characteristics of Prakriti-savadyam (自性罪) and Pratishedha-savadyam (遮罪, prohibited transgression)? Answer: Before the precepts were established, things that those who have already detached from desire would definitely not do, this is the characteristic of Prakriti-savadyam. If they still do it, this is Pratishedha-savadyam. Or, if something is done solely out of a defiled mind, this is the characteristic of Prakriti-savadyam. If it is also done out of a non-defiled mind, this is Pratishedha-savadyam. To prevent other faults, the Buddha prohibits it. Now we should contemplate together: Is there someone who, although extremely dislikes alcohol, but in order for a good doctor to use alcohol to remove disease, knowing it is forced consumption, will not generate a defiled mind? Or is there simply no one with such a non-defiled mind? If we admit that there is such a person, since there is no defiled mind, how can it constitute an evil act of Prakriti-savadyam? If we say there is no such person, then how can one knowingly force consumption for disease, yet have a defiled mind? Isn't it first knowing that drinking alcohol is a transgression, and drinking it without shame? Or because of ignorance, thinking that drinking alcohol is not a transgression, this is the defiled mind. This defense is not valid. To say that the nature of drinking all alcohol is a transgression, this reasoning is not established. It should be examined: Why are these all Prakriti-savadyam? If someone, for the sake of disease, with a non-defiled mind, knowing the proper amount and drinking, can avoid intoxication, just like taking poison in a measured amount to remove disease, can cause no harm, how is this a transgression? Therefore, not all drinking of alcohol is included in evil actions. If it is for arrogance and indulgence, or for entertainment, or knowing it will lead to intoxication, and greedily drinking, these all arise from a defiled mind. According to the bodily evil actions mentioned in the sutras, it should be known that these are included in Prakriti-savadyam. Even if the Buddha does not prohibit it, it is still a transgression. Or drinking all alcohol, because it is a place of negligence, is called an evil action, not because it is a Prakriti-savadyam. Therefore, it is independently called a place of negligence here, not like killing, etc., because killing, etc., are Prakriti-savadyam. However, for the sick, generally speaking, the precepts are allowed and prohibited, and at other times, prohibited.
飲酒者。為防因此犯性罪故。謂勿由知飲是遮罪無多過失。便縱貪情漸次多飲遂致醉亂。因斯放逸造多性罪。為欲深防造性罪故。至茅端量亦不許飲。又令醉亂量無定限故遮。乃至飲茅端所沾量非定遮故。即謂飲酒是性罪攝。如博戲故。如說苾芻汝等決定不應博戲。非諸博戲決定遮故便是性罪。然博戲者。多過患故世極訶故。佛決定遮此。亦應然故非性罪。然彼所說。聖者易生亦不犯故。如殺生等是性罪者。何故不言有阿羅漢亦現行故。應是遮罪攝。如非時食等。若經生聖者得不作律儀。則定不應飲諸酒者。諸阿羅漢亦應定得不飲律儀如殺生等。若謂大師未制戒故容有飲者。不受律儀在家諸聖何緣不飲。非離飲酒可是無漏律儀。自性如先已說。又若聖者定不行故是性罪攝。則應一切聖者所行皆非性罪。是則非梵行應非性罪攝。然非所許故。此非因由此亦遮。有作是說。以契經說。數習能令墮惡趣故如殺生等。故飲諸酒是性罪攝。以非梵行雖是性罪而說數行不墮惡趣故。彼所說非決定因。然說數習墮惡趣者顯數飲酒。能令身中諸不善法相續轉故。又能發引惡趣業故。或能令彼轉增盛故。亦見有說斷生草等令墮惡趣。故此無能證飲諸酒是性罪攝。有餘師釋。如說修慈以密意門說墮惡趣。謂契經說能修慈心得八勝利非修慈故
。即能令其得不還果。但據得果修慈為先密作是說。飲酒亦爾。謂酒能損大種諸根便失正念尋生放逸。遂造惡業因墮惡趣依如是義故作是言。又彼所言離飲諸酒。世尊說是近事律儀。故此定應是性罪者。亦不應理以非定故。應如近住所受律儀。如八戒中非時食等。離殺等四立近住支。然彼定非性罪所攝。此亦應爾故非證因。雖彼謗言為貪飲酒矯立飲酒是遮罪攝。今應徴問。非時食等汝等許是性罪攝耶。彼答言非。豈亦汝等貪非時食。耽著博戲歌舞掘地斷生草等。矯立此等是遮罪耶。若謂不然法相爾故。是則汝等所設謗言無益自增非愛業道。如契經說。窣羅迷麗耶末陀放逸處。依何義說。言窣羅者。謂米麥等如法蒸煮。和麹孽汁投諸藥物。醞釀具成酒色香味飲已惛醉。迷麗耶者。謂諸根莖葉花果汁為前方便。不和麹孽醞釀具成酒色香味飲已惛醉。于中一類甘蔗成者得施途名。蒱桃果汁所醞成酒名為末途。即此末途令人耽醉勝於余酒故名末陀。或即窣羅迷麗耶酒。飲已令醉總名末陀。若蒱桃汁醞成酒味飲已令悶不得自在。如飲毒藥鬼魅所持失志猖狂。故不令飲非已成酢及酒。未成亦不應飲。如甘蔗汁。不應觀飲量若少若多。但真得酒名皆不應飲。多少皆是放逸處故。為遮一類愚闇增強耽味纏心。作如是說飲酒非失但遮過量
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即能使其獲得不還果（Anagami-phala，佛教果位之一）。但這是根據證得果位后修習慈心為先決條件而秘密作出的說法。飲酒也是如此。意思是說，酒能損害四大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風）和諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意），使人失去正念，隨即產生放逸，進而造作惡業，因此會墮入惡趣。依據這樣的道理，才會有這樣的說法。 此外，他們所說的『遠離各種酒』，世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）說是近事律儀（Upasatha Sila，在家居士受持的戒律）。因此，（飲酒）必定是性罪（根本罪）的說法，也是不合理的，因為它並非是絕對的。應該像近住者所受持的律儀，如八戒中的非時食等。遠離殺生等四條戒律，是作為近住支（Upasatha Angas，八關齋戒的組成部分）而設立的。然而，這些戒律並非屬於性罪的範疇。這裡的情況也應該如此，因此不能作為論證的依據。雖然他們誹謗說，爲了貪圖飲酒，而虛假地設立飲酒是遮罪（防止犯戒的戒律）。現在應該反問他們，非時食等，你們認為是性罪嗎？如果他們回答說不是，那麼難道也是你們貪圖非時食，沉迷於賭博、歌舞、挖掘土地、斷絕生草等行為，而虛假地設立這些是遮罪嗎？如果說不是，因為法相（Dharma-laksana，事物的性質）就是如此，那麼你們所設的誹謗之言，不僅無益，反而會增加不喜愛的業道（不善的行為）。 正如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『窣羅（Sura，穀物釀造的酒）、迷麗耶（Maireya，水果釀造的酒）、末陀（Madya，令人陶醉的酒）是放逸之處。』依據什麼意義這樣說呢？所說的『窣羅』，是指用米、麥等穀物，如法蒸煮，加入酒麴和谷芽汁，再投入各種藥物，醞釀而成，具備酒的顏色、香味，飲用後會昏醉的酒。『迷麗耶』，是指用各種植物的根莖、葉、花果汁作為主要原料，不加入酒麴和谷芽，醞釀而成，具備酒的顏色、香味，飲用後會昏醉的酒。其中，用甘蔗製成的一種酒，被稱為施途（Sidhu）。用葡萄汁醞釀而成的酒，名為末途。這種末途酒，比其他酒更容易使人沉迷陶醉，所以稱為末陀。或者說，窣羅和迷麗耶酒，飲用後會使人昏醉，總稱為末陀。如果用葡萄汁醞釀成酒味，飲用後會令人昏沉，不能自主，就像飲用了毒藥，或者被鬼魅所控制，失去意志，行為瘋狂。因此，不應該飲用，即使是已經變成醋或者尚未釀成酒的（果汁）也不應該飲用。例如甘蔗汁，不應該觀察飲用的量，無論是少量還是大量。只要是真正被稱為酒的，都不應該飲用。無論多少，都是放逸之處。爲了遮止一類愚昧無知的人，增強他們對酒的貪戀和執著，才這樣說，飲酒並非是根本的過失，只是遮止過量飲用。
【English Translation】 English version That is, it can enable them to attain the Anagami-phala (the fruit of Non-Returning in Buddhism). However, this is a secret statement made based on the premise that cultivating loving-kindness is prioritized after attaining the fruit. The same applies to drinking alcohol. It means that alcohol can damage the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) and the senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), causing one to lose mindfulness, which then leads to recklessness, and consequently, the creation of evil karma, resulting in falling into evil realms. Based on this reasoning, such statements are made. Furthermore, their statement that 'abstaining from all kinds of alcohol' is what the World Honored One (Sakyamuni Buddha) described as the Upasatha Sila (the precepts observed by lay practitioners). Therefore, the claim that (drinking alcohol) is definitely a Prakriti offence (fundamental transgression) is also unreasonable because it is not absolute. It should be like the precepts observed by those living nearby, such as not eating at improper times in the eight precepts. Abstaining from killing, etc., are established as Upasatha Angas (components of the eight precepts). However, these precepts do not belong to the category of Prakriti offences. The situation here should be the same, so it cannot be used as evidence. Although they slanderously claim that, in order to indulge in drinking alcohol, they falsely establish that drinking alcohol is a Pratishepa offence (precept to prevent transgression). Now, they should be asked in return whether they consider eating at improper times, etc., to be Prakriti offences. If they answer no, then is it also because you are greedy for eating at improper times, indulging in gambling, singing, dancing, digging the ground, cutting off living grass, etc., that you falsely establish these as Pratishepa offences? If they say no, because the Dharma-laksana (nature of things) is such, then your slanderous words are not only useless but will also increase the path of undesirable karma (unwholesome actions). As the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'Sura (liquor made from grains), Maireya (liquor made from fruits), and Madya (intoxicating liquor) are places of recklessness.' Based on what meaning is this said? The 'Sura' mentioned refers to liquor made from grains such as rice and wheat, properly steamed, mixed with yeast and malt juice, and then various medicinal ingredients are added, brewed to completion, possessing the color and aroma of alcohol, and causing intoxication after drinking. 'Maireya' refers to liquor made using the roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruit juices of various plants as the main ingredients, without adding yeast and malt, brewed to completion, possessing the color and aroma of alcohol, and causing intoxication after drinking. Among them, a type of liquor made from sugarcane is called Sidhu. Liquor brewed from grape juice is called Madya. This Madya liquor is more likely to cause intoxication than other liquors, so it is called Madya. Or, Sura and Maireya liquor, which cause intoxication after drinking, are collectively called Madya. If grape juice is brewed into a liquor flavor, drinking it will cause drowsiness and inability to control oneself, like drinking poison, or being controlled by demons, losing will, and behaving wildly. Therefore, it should not be drunk, even if it has turned into vinegar or has not yet been brewed into liquor (juice) should not be drunk. For example, sugarcane juice, one should not observe the amount of drinking, whether it is a small amount or a large amount. As long as it is truly called liquor, it should not be drunk. No matter how much, it is a place of recklessness. In order to prevent a class of ignorant people from enhancing their greed and attachment to alcohol, it is said that drinking alcohol is not a fundamental fault, but only prevents excessive drinking.
。能不惛醉飲亦無罪。故說諸酒名放逸處。謂雖不醉有令醉。能佛為深防皆不聽飲。故戒經說。若有苾芻飲諸酒者皆犯墮落。契經亦說。若飲諸酒感非愛果其類寔多。或於此中為欲顯示離飲酒意。說諸酒已復重說此放逸處言。意顯酒非不凈性罪是放逸處故不應飲。言放逸者。不顧應作趣不應作故名放逸。是放逸因名放逸處。有作是說。醞食成酒名為窣羅。醞余物所成名迷麗耶酒。即前二酒未熟已壞不能令醉不名末陀。若令醉時名末陀酒。簡無用位重立此名。然以檳榔及稗子等亦能令醉。為簡彼故須說窣羅迷麗耶酒。雖是遮罪而令放逸廣造眾惡墮諸惡趣。為顯彼是聖所遠離惡行應斷言放逸處。若飲酒已不吐未消彼必不能受律儀等。酒是放逸所依處故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第三十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之七
別解脫律儀從何而得。復從何而得餘二律儀。頌曰。
從一切二現 得欲界律儀 從根本恒時 得靜慮無漏
論曰。欲界律儀謂別解脫。此從一切根本業道。及從前後近分而得。從二得者。謂從二類即情非情性罪遮罪。于情性罪謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：能不昏醉地飲酒，也並非沒有罪過。所以說各種酒都是放逸之處。意思是說，即使沒有喝醉，也有可能導致醉酒。佛陀爲了深入防範，所以都不允許飲酒。因此戒經上說：『如果有比丘飲用各種酒，都會犯墮落罪。』契經也說：『如果飲用各種酒，會感得不喜歡的果報，這種情況實在太多了。』或者在這裡，爲了顯示遠離飲酒的意義，說了各種酒之後，又重複說『放逸之處』。意思是說，酒本身並非不凈之物，罪過在於放逸，所以不應該飲用。所謂『放逸』，就是不顧應該做的事情，去做不應該做的事情，所以叫做放逸。是放逸的原因，叫做放逸之處。有人這樣說：用糧食釀成的酒叫做Sura（窣羅），用其他東西釀成的酒叫做Maireya（迷麗耶）。這兩種酒，如果未成熟或者已經變壞，不能使人醉，就不叫做Madya（末陀）。如果能使人醉，就叫做Madya酒。爲了區分無用的狀態，重新設立這個名稱。然而用檳榔以及稗子等也能使人醉，爲了區分那些東西，所以需要說Sura酒和Maireya酒。雖然飲酒是遮罪，但是會使人放逸，廣泛地造作各種惡業，墮入各種惡趣。爲了顯示飲酒是被聖人遠離的惡行，應該斷除，所以說是放逸之處。如果飲酒之後不吐出來，沒有消化，那麼他必定不能接受律儀等等。酒是放逸所依賴的地方，所以是放逸之處。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十八 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第三十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之七
別解脫律儀從何處獲得？又從何處獲得其餘兩種律儀？頌文說：
『從一切二現，得欲界律儀；從根本恒時，得靜慮無漏。』
論述說：欲界律儀，也就是別解脫律儀。這種律儀從一切根本業道，以及從前後近分而獲得。從『二』獲得的意思是，從兩類罪業獲得，即情罪和非情罪（性罪和遮罪）。對於情罪來說，
【English Translation】 English version: It is not without fault to drink without becoming intoxicated. Therefore, it is said that all kinds of alcohol are places of negligence. This means that even if one is not drunk, it is possible to become intoxicated. The Buddha, in order to deeply prevent this, does not allow drinking at all. Therefore, the Vinaya Sutra says: 'If there is a Bhiksu who drinks all kinds of alcohol, he will commit a sin of downfall.' The Sutra also says: 'If one drinks all kinds of alcohol, one will experience undesirable consequences, and there are many such cases.' Or, in this context, in order to show the meaning of abstaining from alcohol, after mentioning various kinds of alcohol, it is repeated that they are 'places of negligence.' This means that alcohol itself is not impure, but the fault lies in negligence, so one should not drink it. 'Negligence' means disregarding what should be done and doing what should not be done, so it is called negligence. The cause of negligence is called a place of negligence. Some say that alcohol made from grain is called Sura (窣羅), and alcohol made from other things is called Maireya (迷麗耶). If these two kinds of alcohol are not mature or have already spoiled and cannot intoxicate, they are not called Madya (末陀). If they can intoxicate, they are called Madya alcohol. In order to distinguish the useless state, this name is re-established. However, betel nuts and barnyard millet can also intoxicate. In order to distinguish those things, it is necessary to mention Sura alcohol and Maireya alcohol. Although drinking alcohol is a prohibitive offense, it can lead to negligence, the widespread creation of various evil deeds, and falling into various evil destinies. In order to show that drinking alcohol is an evil practice that is shunned by the saints and should be abandoned, it is called a place of negligence. If one does not vomit after drinking alcohol and it is not digested, then he will certainly not be able to receive the precepts, etc. Alcohol is the place where negligence relies, so it is a place of negligence.
Sarvastivada Abhidharma Nyayanusara, Volume 38 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma Nyayanusara
Abhidharma Nyayanusara, Volume 39
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 4, Section 7: Analysis of Karma
From where is the Pratimoksha (別解脫) vow obtained? And from where are the other two vows obtained? The verse says:
'From all two manifestations, the Desire Realm (欲界) vow is obtained; from the root and constant time, the Dhyana (靜慮) and Anasrava (無漏) are obtained.'
The treatise says: The Desire Realm vow is the Pratimoksha. This vow is obtained from all fundamental paths of action and from the preceding and following proximate concentrations. 'From two' means obtained from two types of offenses, namely offenses against sentient beings and offenses against non-sentient beings (inherent offenses and prohibitive offenses). Regarding offenses against sentient beings,
殺等業。遮謂女人同室宿等。非情性罪謂盜外財。遮謂掘地斷生草等。從現得者謂從現世蘊處界得非從去來。由此律儀有情處轉。去來非是有情處故。有情處者謂諸有情及諸有情所依止處。現蘊處界內者即是有情所依。外者名為有情所止。非過未故。若得靜慮無漏律儀。應知但從根本業道。以定中唯有根本業道故。非從前後近分而得。以在定位唯有根本。在不定位中無此律儀故。從有情數所發遮罪尚不得此二種律儀。況從非情所發遮罪。從恒時者謂從過去現在未來蘊處界得。如與此戒為俱有心。由此不同應作四句。有蘊處界從彼唯得別解律儀非餘二等。第一句者謂從現世前後近分及諸遮罪。第二句者謂從去來根本業道。第三句者謂從現世根本業道。第四句者謂從去來前後近分。有言非得善律儀時。可有現世惡業道等。故應別立此四句文。謂應說言有一類法。于彼唯得別解律儀非二律儀。乃至廣說。第一句者謂于現在得前後近分及遮罪遠離。余隨所應皆如是說。于業道等處置業道等聲。故前四句義亦無失。由如是理亦通防護。過現業道等非唯防未來。以業道等聲說彼依處故。若異此者則應但說防護未來律儀。但能防未來罪令不起故。非防過現已滅已生律儀于彼無防用故。諸有獲得律不律儀。從一切有情支因皆等不。非一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 殺等業（殺生等行為）。遮謂女人同室宿等（遮戒是指與女人同屋睡覺等）。非情性罪謂盜外財（非關情慾的罪行是指偷盜他人的財物）。遮謂掘地斷生草等（遮戒是指挖掘土地、砍斷生長的草等）。從現得者謂從現世蘊處界得非從去來（從現在獲得的律儀是指從現世的五蘊、十二處、十八界中獲得，而不是從過去或未來獲得）。由此律儀有情處轉（因此，這種律儀在有情眾生所處的環境中起作用）。去來非是有情處故（過去和未來不是有情眾生所處的環境）。有情處者謂諸有情及諸有情所依止處（有情眾生所處的環境是指所有的有情眾生以及有情眾生所依賴生存的地方）。現蘊處界內者即是有情所依（現在的五蘊、十二處、十八界之內就是有情眾生所依賴的）。外者名為有情所止（之外則稱為有情眾生所居住的地方）。非過未故（因為不是過去和未來）。 若得靜慮無漏律儀。應知但從根本業道（如果獲得禪定和無漏的律儀，應當知道只是從根本的業道中獲得）。以定中唯有根本業道故（因為在禪定中只有根本的業道）。非從前後近分而得（不是從前後的方便道中獲得）。以在定位唯有根本（因為在禪定中只有根本的業道）。在不定位中無此律儀故（在沒有入定的時候沒有這種律儀）。從有情數所發遮罪尚不得此二種律儀（從與有情眾生相關的遮罪尚且不能獲得這兩種律儀）。況從非情所發遮罪（更何況是從與非有情眾生相關的遮罪）。從恒時者謂從過去現在未來蘊處界得（從恒常的時間中獲得是指從過去、現在、未來的五蘊、十二處、十八界中獲得）。如與此戒為俱有心（如同與此戒律具有共同的心）。 由此不同應作四句（因此，根據不同情況，應該分為四種情況來討論）。有蘊處界從彼唯得別解律儀非餘二等（有些五蘊、十二處、十八界，從中只能獲得別解脫律儀，而不能獲得其他兩種律儀）。第一句者謂從現世前後近分及諸遮罪（第一種情況是指從現世的前後方便道以及各種遮罪中獲得）。第二句者謂從去來根本業道（第二種情況是指從過去和未來的根本業道中獲得）。第三句者謂從現世根本業道（第三種情況是指從現世的根本業道中獲得）。第四句者謂從去來前後近分（第四種情況是指從過去和未來的前後方便道中獲得）。有言非得善律儀時（有人說，在沒有獲得善的律儀時）。可有現世惡業道等（可能會有現世的惡業道等）。故應別立此四句文（所以應該另外建立這四種情況的說法）。謂應說言有一類法（應該說，有一類法）。于彼唯得別解律儀非二律儀（從中只能獲得別解脫律儀，而不能獲得其他兩種律儀）。乃至廣說（乃至廣泛地說明）。第一句者謂于現在得前後近分及遮罪遠離（第一種情況是指在現在獲得前後方便道以及遠離遮罪）。余隨所應皆如是說（其餘的情況都應該根據實際情況這樣說）。于業道等處置業道等聲（在業道等處使用業道等的聲音）。故前四句義亦無失（所以前面四種情況的意義也沒有缺失）。 由如是理亦通防護（根據這樣的道理，也同樣可以防護）。過現業道等非唯防未來（過去和現在的業道等，不僅僅是防止未來）。以業道等聲說彼依處故（因為業道等的聲音說明了它們所依賴的地方）。若異此者則應但說防護未來律儀（如果不是這樣，就應該只說防護未來的律儀）。但能防未來罪令不起故（因為只能防止未來的罪惡不發生）。非防過現已滅已生律儀于彼無防用故（不能防止過去和現在已經滅亡和已經產生的律儀，因為對於它們來說沒有防護的作用）。諸有獲得律不律儀（那些獲得律儀和不律儀的人）。從一切有情支因皆等不（從一切有情眾生的支分和原因來說都是一樣的嗎）？非一（不是一樣的）。
【English Translation】 English version Killing and other karmas. 'Prohibition' refers to things like sleeping in the same room with a woman. 'Non-emotional offenses' refer to stealing external property. 'Prohibition' refers to things like digging the ground and cutting living grass. 'Obtained from the present' means obtained from the aggregates, sense bases, and elements of the present life, not from the past or future. Therefore, this discipline operates in the realm of sentient beings. The past and future are not the realm of sentient beings. 'The realm of sentient beings' refers to all sentient beings and the places where sentient beings dwell. What is within the present aggregates, sense bases, and elements is what sentient beings rely on. What is outside is called where sentient beings dwell. It is not the past or future. If one obtains the discipline of meditative absorption and non-outflow, it should be known that it is only from the fundamental paths of action (karma). Because in meditative absorption, there are only fundamental paths of action. It is not obtained from the preliminary practices before and after. Because in the state of meditative absorption, there are only fundamental paths of action. This discipline is not present when not in meditative absorption. Even from prohibitive offenses arising from sentient beings, one cannot obtain these two kinds of disciplines. How much less from prohibitive offenses arising from non-sentient beings. 'From constant time' means obtained from the aggregates, sense bases, and elements of the past, present, and future. It is like having a mind that is co-existent with this precept. Therefore, due to these differences, four categories should be made. There are aggregates, sense bases, and elements from which one can only obtain the Pratimoksha (individual liberation) discipline, but not the other two. The first category refers to the preliminary practices before and after the present life and all prohibitive offenses. The second category refers to the fundamental paths of action of the past and future. The third category refers to the fundamental paths of action of the present life. The fourth category refers to the preliminary practices before and after the past and future. Some say that when one has not obtained a virtuous discipline, there may be evil paths of action in the present life. Therefore, these four categories should be established separately. It should be said that there is a type of dharma from which one can only obtain the Pratimoksha discipline, but not the other two disciplines, and so on, extensively explaining. The first category refers to obtaining the preliminary practices before and after and abstaining from prohibitive offenses in the present. The rest should be explained accordingly. The term 'paths of action' should be used in the context of paths of action. Therefore, the meaning of the previous four categories is not lost. According to this principle, it also applies to protection. The paths of action of the past and present are not only for preventing the future. Because the term 'paths of action' refers to the places they rely on. If it were otherwise, then one should only speak of protecting the discipline of the future. Because it can only prevent future offenses from arising. It cannot protect the disciplines of the past and present that have already ceased and arisen, because there is no protective function for them. Do those who obtain discipline and non-discipline, are they all equal in terms of the branches and causes from all sentient beings? No, they are not the same.
切等。其相云何。頌曰。
律從諸有情 支因說不定 不律從一切 有情支非因
論曰。律儀定由調善意樂。普緣一切有情方得。非少分緣噁心隨故。支因不定支謂業道。且於別解諸律儀中有從一切支。謂苾芻戒有從四支得。謂余律儀許因不同略有二種。一無貪等三種善根。二下中上等起心。別就初因說一切律儀。由一切因一心有故。就后因說一切律儀。各由一因以下品等不俱時起如先說故。此中且就后三因說。或有一類住律儀者。於一切有情得律儀。非一切支非一切因。謂以下心或中或上受近事勤策戒。或有一類住律儀者。於一切有情得律儀。由一切支非一切因。謂以下心或中或上受苾芻戒。或有一類住律儀者。於一切有情得律儀。由一切支及一切因。謂以三心受近事勤策苾芻戒。或有一類住律儀者。於一切有情得律儀。由一切因非一切支。謂以三心受近事近住勤策戒。無有不遍於諸有情得律儀者。已說因故非於一分。諸有情所誓受律儀噁心全息。今應思擇于佛乃至蟻子身上。所得律儀為有別不。若有別者趣不定故。于諸有情所得律儀應有增減。若無別者何緣殺人犯他勝罪。殺非人者唯犯粗惡。若殺傍生犯墮落罪。非有情境身差別故。令所受戒亦有差別。然罰罪業有差別者。應知但由別加行故。殺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 切等（一切等等）。它們的相是什麼樣的？頌文說： 『律儀從諸有情得，支分和因緣說不一定。 不律儀從一切有情得，支分不是因緣。』 論述：律儀一定是由調伏善良的意樂，普遍緣及一切有情才能獲得。不是少分緣及，也不是因為噁心隨順的緣故。支分和因緣不一定，支分指的是業道。在別解脫的各種律儀中，有從一切支分獲得的，比如比丘戒；有從四支獲得的，比如其餘律儀。允許因緣不同，大致有兩種：一是無貪等三種善根，二是下、中、上等起心。特別就第一個因緣來說，一切律儀都是由一切因緣，一心具有的緣故。就後面的因緣來說，一切律儀各自由一個因緣，因為下品等等不能同時生起，如先前所說。這裡且就后三種因緣來說。或者有一類安住于律儀的人，對於一切有情獲得律儀，不是一切支分，也不是一切因緣。比如以下品心或中品心或上品心受近事戒、勤策戒。 或者有一類安住于律儀的人，對於一切有情獲得律儀，由一切支分，不是一切因緣。比如以下品心或中品心或上品心受比丘戒。 或者有一類安住于律儀的人，對於一切有情獲得律儀，由一切支分及一切因緣。比如以三種心受近事戒、勤策戒、比丘戒。 或者有一類安住于律儀的人，對於一切有情獲得律儀，由一切因緣，不是一切支分。比如以三種心受近事戒、近住戒、勤策戒。沒有不普遍於諸有情而獲得律儀的人，因為已經說了因緣，不是對於一部分有情所誓受的律儀，噁心完全止息。現在應該思考，在佛陀乃至螞蟻身上，所得的律儀是否有區別？如果有區別，那麼趣向就不定了，對於諸有情所得的律儀應該有增減。如果沒有區別，那麼為什麼殺人犯他勝罪，殺非人只犯粗惡罪，如果殺傍生犯墮落罪？不是因為有情境界的身差別，使得所受的戒也有差別。然而懲罰罪業有差別，應該知道只是因為別加行的緣故。殺
【English Translation】 English version: What are the characteristics of 'etc.' (everything etc.)? The verse says: 'The precepts are obtained from all sentient beings, the limbs and causes are said to be uncertain. Non-precepts are obtained from all sentient beings, the limbs are not the causes.' Treatise: Precepts are definitely obtained by taming and good intention, universally relating to all sentient beings. It is not obtained by relating to a small part, nor because of following evil intentions. The limbs and causes are uncertain, the limbs refer to the paths of karma. Among the various precepts of individual liberation, some are obtained from all limbs, such as the Bhikshu (monk) precepts; some are obtained from four limbs, such as other precepts. It is allowed that the causes are different, roughly there are two kinds: one is the three good roots of non-greed etc., and the other is the mind arising from inferior, intermediate, and superior levels. Especially regarding the first cause, all precepts are due to all causes, because the mind possesses them all at once. Regarding the latter cause, all precepts are each due to one cause, because inferior qualities etc. cannot arise simultaneously, as previously stated. Here, let's talk about the latter three causes. Or there are some who abide in precepts, obtaining precepts for all sentient beings, not from all limbs, nor from all causes. For example, receiving the Upasaka (layman) precepts or Sramanera (novice) precepts with an inferior, intermediate, or superior mind. Or there are some who abide in precepts, obtaining precepts for all sentient beings, from all limbs, but not from all causes. For example, receiving the Bhikshu (monk) precepts with an inferior, intermediate, or superior mind. Or there are some who abide in precepts, obtaining precepts for all sentient beings, from all limbs and all causes. For example, receiving the Upasaka (layman) precepts, Sramanera (novice) precepts, and Bhikshu (monk) precepts with the three kinds of minds. Or there are some who abide in precepts, obtaining precepts for all sentient beings, from all causes, but not from all limbs. For example, receiving the Upasaka (layman) precepts, Upavasatha (one-day vow) precepts, and Sramanera (novice) precepts with the three kinds of minds. There is no one who does not universally obtain precepts for all sentient beings, because the causes have already been stated, it is not that the precepts vowed for a portion of sentient beings completely cease evil intentions. Now it should be considered, is there a difference in the precepts obtained on the bodies of the Buddha (enlightened one) and even ants? If there is a difference, then the direction is uncertain, and the precepts obtained for all sentient beings should have increases and decreases. If there is no difference, then why does killing a person result in a Parajika (defeat) offense, killing a non-human only results in a Dukkata (wrongdoing) offense, and killing an animal results in a Patayantika (expiation) offense? It is not because of the difference in the body of the sentient being's realm that the precepts received are also different. However, the punishment for offenses is different, it should be known that it is only because of the different additional actions. Killing
人加行與殺非人。乃至殺蟻皆有差別。且殺同趣同部罪中。由加行殊業尚有異。如殺香象所獲罪多。若殺蚊虻所獲罪少。何況異趣加行有別。異部罪中而無輕重。由總意樂建立律儀。謂普于有情無有差別。起調善意樂求得律儀。非於一有情不捨惡意樂。而可求得別解律儀。故得律儀無有差別。以得律儀者必不別觀補特伽羅支處時緣故。謂定不作如是別觀于某有情我離殺等。于某支戒我定能持。于某方域我離殺等。我唯于彼一月等時除戰等緣能離殺等。如是受者不得律儀。但得律儀相似妙行。是故無有由諸有情身差別故。戒有差別。又于自身不得根本業道所攝別解律儀。勿思法等由自殺害成無間等所攝罪業。得眷屬攝於理無遮。謂離最初眾餘罪等。又此所受別解脫律儀。通於一切能不能境得。非唯于能境得此律儀。要普于有情起無損惱意樂。無別方可得故。若謂不然于睡悶等皆不可殺。故應不得律儀。若謂彼覺得本心已還可殺者此亦應然。以非所能有可改易為能境已還可殺故。有作是說。若唯于能則此律儀應有增減。以所能境與非所能二類有情有轉易故。此不成難境轉易時無此律儀得舍因故。謂所能境及非所能後轉易為不能能境。無理令彼捨得律儀。總于所能得律儀故。若必欲令能不能境有轉易故。戒有捨得則成律儀增
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 人造作行為殺害非人（指天龍八部等），乃至殺害螞蟻，其罪業都有差別。即使是殺害同一趣、同一部的眾生，由於造作行為的不同，罪業也有差異。例如，殺害香象（體型巨大的大象）所獲得的罪業較多，而殺害蚊虻（蚊子）所獲得的罪業較少。更何況殺害不同趣的眾生，其造作行為的差別就更大了。在不同部的眾生中，罪業本身並沒有輕重之分，而是由總體的意樂（動機）來建立律儀（戒律）。 也就是說，要普遍地對一切有情（眾生）沒有差別地發起調善的意樂，才能求得律儀。如果對某個有情不捨棄惡意的意樂，就無法求得別解律儀（一種特殊的戒律）。因此，獲得律儀是沒有差別的，因為獲得律儀的人必定不會分別觀察補特伽羅（人）的肢體、處所、時間和因緣。也就是說，一定不會這樣分別觀察：『對於某個有情，我遠離殺害等；對於某個肢體，我一定能持戒；在某個方域，我遠離殺害等；我只在那個地方，一個月等的時間內，除了戰爭等因緣，才能遠離殺害等。』 這樣受戒的人，無法獲得律儀，只能獲得相似的妙行（好的行為）。 因此，不會因為有情身體的差別，而導致戒律有差別。而且，對於自身，也無法獲得根本業道所攝的別解律儀。不要認為自殺等行為會構成無間罪（五逆罪之一）等所攝的罪業。得到眷屬攝（指得到某種支援或保護）在道理上沒有遮止。也就是說，遠離最初的眾餘罪等。 而且，這裡所受的別解脫律儀，通於一切能境（能夠殺害的對象）和不能境（不能殺害的對象）都能獲得，並非僅僅在能境才能獲得此律儀。要普遍地對有情發起無損惱的意樂，沒有其他方法可以獲得。如果說不是這樣，那麼在睡眠、昏迷等狀態下都不可殺，所以應該無法獲得律儀。如果說他們覺得本心已還可殺，那麼這也應該一樣。因為非所能境（不能殺害的對象）有可能改變為能境（能夠殺害的對象），然後又可以殺害。 有人這樣說：如果僅僅對於能境，那麼此律儀應該有增減，因為所能境和非所能境這兩類有情可以互相轉化。這不能構成難題，因為境轉易時沒有此律儀的捨得因。也就是說，所能境和非所能境後來轉化為不能境和能境，沒有道理令他們捨棄或獲得律儀。因為總體上是對所能境獲得律儀。如果一定要讓能不能境有轉易，所以戒有捨得，那麼就成了律儀增。
【English Translation】 English version: The karma of killing a non-human being (such as a deva, naga, or other being from the eight classes of supernatural entities) differs from that of killing even an ant. Even within the same realm and category of beings, the karma varies depending on the action. For example, the sin of killing a fragrant elephant (a large elephant) is greater than that of killing a mosquito. How much more so when killing beings of different realms, where the actions are even more distinct. Among beings of different categories, the sin itself does not have degrees of lightness or heaviness, but the precepts (律儀, lǜyí) are established by the overall intention (意樂, yìlè). That is to say, one must universally generate a well-disciplined intention without discrimination towards all sentient beings (有情, yǒuqíng) in order to obtain the precepts. If one does not abandon malicious intentions towards a certain sentient being, one cannot obtain the Pratimoksha vows (別解律儀, biéjiě lǜyí) (a specific type of precept). Therefore, obtaining the precepts is without distinction, because one who obtains the precepts will certainly not separately observe the limbs, places, times, and conditions of the Pudgala (補特伽羅, bǔtèqiéluó) (person). That is to say, one will certainly not observe in this way: 'Towards a certain sentient being, I will abstain from killing, etc.; for a certain limb, I will certainly be able to uphold the precept; in a certain region, I will abstain from killing, etc.; I will only be able to abstain from killing, etc., in that place, for a period of one month, except for reasons such as war.' One who takes the vows in this way cannot obtain the precepts, but only obtains similar virtuous conduct (妙行, miàoxíng). Therefore, the precepts do not differ due to the differences in the bodies of sentient beings. Moreover, one cannot obtain the Pratimoksha vows included in the fundamental karmic paths for oneself. Do not think that acts such as suicide constitute sins included in the Anantarika-karma (無間罪, wújiànzuì) (one of the five heinous crimes). Obtaining the support of a retinue (眷屬攝, juànshǔ shè) is not prohibited in principle. That is to say, one should abstain from the initial and subsequent remaining sins, etc. Moreover, the Pratimoksha vows received here are obtained universally for all objects that are capable (能境, néngjìng) and incapable (不能境, bùnéngjìng) of being killed, not just for objects that are capable of being killed. One must universally generate the intention of non-harm towards sentient beings; there is no other way to obtain it. If it is said that this is not the case, then one cannot kill those who are asleep or unconscious, so one should not be able to obtain the precepts. If it is said that they can still be killed once they regain their original mind, then this should be the same. Because an object that is incapable of being killed may change into an object that is capable of being killed, and then can be killed again. Some say that if it is only for objects that are capable of being killed, then these precepts should increase or decrease, because these two types of sentient beings, those that are capable and those that are incapable of being killed, can transform into each other. This does not pose a problem, because there is no cause for abandoning or obtaining these precepts when the object transforms. That is to say, if an object that is capable or incapable of being killed later transforms into an object that is incapable or capable of being killed, there is no reason for them to abandon or obtain the precepts. Because the precepts are obtained generally for objects that are capable of being killed. If one insists that the precepts are abandoned or obtained because objects that are capable or incapable of being killed transform, then it becomes an increase in the precepts.
減過者。豈不有草本無而生有諸有情永入圓寂。由此應有捨得律儀亦不離前戒增減失。是故前說于理無過。又非過去一一如來。及所化生入圓寂故。后佛于彼不得律儀。有後律儀減於前失律儀。非對一一有情各異相續別發得故。又前後佛戒支等故。謂諸律儀隨無貪等。為因差別生別類支。一一類支各一無表。總於一切有情處得。如是無表既無細分。不可分析為少為多。如何言有後減前失。又一切佛遍於有情。具一切支律儀無表。以支數等無差別故。無後佛戒減於前失。已說從彼得諸律儀得不律儀。定從一切有情業道無少分境及不具支。不律儀者此定無有由一切因下品等心無俱起故。若有一類由下品心得不律儀。後於異時由上品心斷眾生命。彼但成就下不律儀。亦成殺生上品表等。中品上品例此應知。此中應思于屠羊等事。有唯受一得不律儀。不應言亦有受一事得。若爾何故無從一切因得不律儀。如得律儀者。雖于殺等差別表中先已受一后更別受。而不律儀非更新得。謂先總望一切有情。起無所遮損害意樂。為活命故受不律儀。彼於今時復何所得。故此無有從一切因。然律儀中有從近事受勤策戒。勤策復受苾芻律儀。別別受時所受業道。眷屬異故隨要期異得先未得。由此可得從一切因。此中何名不律儀者。謂諸屠羊屠雞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 減損的情況是，難道不是有草本植物本來沒有卻突然生長出來，一切有情眾生永遠進入圓寂狀態嗎？由此應該有捨棄所得的戒律，也不離先前的戒律的增減和缺失。因此，先前的說法在道理上沒有過失。而且，並非因為過去每一位如來（Tathagata，如來）以及他們所教化出生的眾生都已進入圓寂，後來的佛陀（Buddha，覺悟者）就不能獲得戒律。如果後來的戒律比之前的減少，就喪失了戒律，因為不是針對每一個有情眾生各自不同的相續而分別生起的緣故。而且，前後佛陀的戒律條目是相等的。也就是說，各種戒律隨著無貪等善法的不同，產生不同類別的條目，每一個類別的條目都只有一個無表色（Avijñapti-rupa，無表色，一種不可見的業力形態）。總的來說，在一切有情眾生處都能獲得。像這樣的無表色既然沒有細微的區分，不可分析為少或多，怎麼能說有後來的減少，之前的喪失呢？而且，一切佛陀普遍地對有情眾生，具備一切條目的戒律無表色，因為條目的數量相等，沒有差別。所以，沒有後來的佛陀的戒律比之前的減少而喪失的情況。 已經說了從他們那裡獲得各種戒律，獲得不律儀（不善的戒律）。一定是從一切有情眾生的業道中，沒有少分境界以及不具備條目的情況。不律儀這種情況一定沒有，因為一切因緣、下品等心態不會同時生起。如果有一類人由於下品的心態獲得不律儀，後來在不同的時候由於上品的心態斷絕眾生的性命，他們只是成就了下品的不律儀，也成就了殺生的上品表色等。中品和上品的情況可以依此類推。這裡應該思考屠宰羊等事情。有隻接受一種情況而獲得不律儀的。不應該說也有接受一種事情而獲得的。如果這樣，為什麼沒有從一切因緣獲得不律儀的情況，就像獲得戒律那樣呢？雖然對於殺生等不同的表色，先前已經接受了一種，後來又分別接受，但是不律儀不是重新獲得的。也就是說，先前總的希望一切有情眾生，生起無所遮攔的損害意樂，爲了活命而接受不律儀。他們現在又有什麼可以獲得的呢？所以這裡沒有從一切因緣獲得的情況。然而，戒律中有從近事（Upasaka，在家居士）接受勤策戒（Sramanera，沙彌戒），勤策又接受苾芻律儀（Bhiksu，比丘戒）。分別接受時，所接受的業道，眷屬不同，隨著要期的不同，獲得先前沒有獲得的。由此可以獲得從一切因緣。這裡什麼叫做不律儀呢？就是那些屠宰羊、屠宰雞的人。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the reduction, isn't it the case that some plants arise from nothing, and all sentient beings enter Parinirvana (complete extinction)? Therefore, there should be the abandonment of acquired precepts, and it is not separate from the increase, decrease, and loss of the previous precepts. Thus, the previous statement has no fault in reasoning. Moreover, it is not because every past Tathagata (One Thus Gone) and the beings they transformed have entered Parinirvana that later Buddhas (Enlightened Ones) cannot obtain precepts. If later precepts are less than the previous ones, there would be a loss of precepts, because it is not generated separately for each different continuum of sentient beings. Furthermore, the items of precepts of previous and later Buddhas are equal. That is to say, various precepts, depending on the difference of non-greed and other virtues, generate different categories of items, and each category of items has only one Avijñapti-rupa (non-revealing form, a kind of invisible karmic force). In general, it can be obtained in all sentient beings. Since such Avijñapti-rupa has no subtle distinctions and cannot be analyzed into less or more, how can it be said that there is a later reduction and a previous loss? Moreover, all Buddhas universally possess all items of precept Avijñapti-rupa for sentient beings, because the number of items is equal and there is no difference. Therefore, there is no situation where the precepts of later Buddhas are less than the previous ones, resulting in loss. It has been said that various precepts are obtained from them, and non-precepts (unwholesome precepts) are obtained. It must be from the karmic paths of all sentient beings, without a small portion of the realm and without possessing the items. This situation of non-precepts certainly does not exist, because all causes, inferior states of mind, etc., do not arise simultaneously. If there is a type of person who obtains non-precepts due to an inferior state of mind, and later at different times, due to a superior state of mind, cuts off the lives of sentient beings, they only accomplish the inferior non-precepts, and also accomplish the superior revealing form of killing, etc. The middle and superior situations should be understood by analogy. Here, one should consider the matter of slaughtering sheep, etc. There are those who only accept one situation and obtain non-precepts. It should not be said that there are also those who obtain it by accepting one thing. If so, why is there no situation of obtaining non-precepts from all causes, just like obtaining precepts? Although for different revealing forms such as killing, one has already accepted one previously and later accepts them separately, non-precepts are not newly obtained. That is to say, previously, generally hoping for all sentient beings, one generates an unrestricted intention to harm, and accepts non-precepts in order to live. What can they obtain now? Therefore, there is no situation of obtaining from all causes here. However, in precepts, there is the acceptance of Sramanera (novice) precepts from Upasaka (lay practitioner), and the Sramanera again accepts Bhiksu (monk) precepts. When accepting separately, the karmic paths accepted, the retinue are different, and with the difference in the period of commitment, one obtains what was not previously obtained. From this, it is possible to obtain from all causes. What is called non-precepts here? It refers to those who slaughter sheep and slaughter chickens.
屠豬捕鳥捕魚獵獸劫盜魁膾典獄縛龍煮狗。及罝弶等。等言類顯讒構譏刺。伺求人過喜說他非。非法追求以活命者。及王典刑罰斷罪彈官等。但恒有害心名不律儀者。由如是種類住不律儀故。有不律儀故行不律儀故。巧作不律儀故數習不律儀故名不律儀者。言屠羊者。謂為活命要期盡壽恒欲害羊。余隨所應當知亦爾。諸屠羊者唯于諸羊有損害心非於余類。寧於一切得不律儀。遍於有情界得諸律儀。其理可爾。由普欲利樂勝阿世耶而受得故。非屠羊等不律儀人。於己至親有損害意。乃至為救自身命緣亦不欲殺。如何可說普於一切得不律儀。此亦可然。不律儀者遍於有情境善意樂壞故。雖無是處而假說言。設諸有情及父母等。一切皆作羊像現前。屠者遍緣皆有害意。謂彼久習不律儀心。乃至己親亦無所顧。為活命故。設己至親。現變為羊尚有害意。況命終后實受羊身。于彼能無殺害意。樂不律儀者受惡戒時必起如斯兇勃意樂。設我母等身即是羊我亦當殺況餘生類。由此意樂得不律儀。異此但應得處中罪。由此雖了親現非羊而亦有害心。故遍得惡戒雖無聖者當作羊身。而同至親亦有害意。經主於此作是例言。若觀未來羊等自體于現親等得不律儀。羊等未來有親等體。既于彼體無損害心。應觀未來至親等體。于現羊等不得惡戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 屠宰豬、捕捉鳥類、捕撈魚類、獵殺野獸、進行搶劫盜竊、擔任劊子手、管理監獄、捆綁罪犯、烹煮狗肉，以及設定各種陷阱等行為，都屬於不律儀（alaksana，不道德的行為）。『等』字是爲了概括顯示各種型別的行為。包括：讒言陷害、惡意中傷、伺機尋找別人的過失、喜歡談論別人的缺點。通過非法的手段追求以維持生計的人，以及那些執行國王的刑罰、判決罪行、彈劾官員等行為的人，只要他們心中始終懷有傷害他人的念頭，都可稱為不律儀者。由於這些種類的人安住于不律儀之中，因為有不律儀，所以他們的行為也是不律儀的，他們巧妙地製造不律儀，並且經常習染不律儀，所以被稱為不律儀者。 說到屠羊的人，是指那些爲了維持生計，終其一生都想要宰殺羊的人。其餘的情況，也應該根據具體情況來理解。那些屠羊的人，僅僅是對羊懷有損害之心，而不是對其他種類的動物。難道他們會對一切眾生都懷有不律儀之心，或者普遍地對一切有情眾生都懷有律儀之心嗎？這種說法是合理的，因為他們普遍地想要利益和快樂一切眾生，並且接受了這種殊勝的意樂，所以才能獲得律儀。而那些屠羊等不律儀的人，即使是對自己的至親，也會懷有損害之意，甚至爲了拯救自己的生命，也不惜殺害親人。怎麼能說他們普遍地對一切眾生都懷有不律儀之心呢？ 這種說法也是可以成立的，因為不律儀者普遍地對一切有情眾生的善意樂都已破壞。雖然沒有這樣的情況，但可以假設地說：如果所有的有情眾生，包括父母等，都變成羊的形象出現在屠夫面前，屠夫會對他們都懷有損害之意。這是因為他們長期習慣了不律儀之心，甚至對自己的親人也毫不顧惜，爲了維持生計，即使自己的至親變成了羊，也會懷有損害之意。更何況他們命終之後真的轉生為羊，難道他們能沒有殺害之意嗎？ 那些樂於不律儀的人，在接受惡戒的時候，必定會生起這種兇狠的意樂：即使我的母親等人的身體就是羊，我也應當宰殺，更何況是其他的眾生。由於這種意樂，他們才能獲得不律儀。否則，他們只能得到處中罪。因此，即使他們明明知道眼前的親人不是羊，也會懷有損害之心，所以才能普遍地獲得惡戒。即使沒有聖者變成羊的身體，他們也會對如同至親的人懷有損害之意。 經論的作者在這裡舉例說：如果觀察未來羊等自身的體性，對於現在的親人等，就會獲得不律儀。羊等未來會有親人等的體性，既然對於他們的體性沒有損害之心，就應該觀察未來至親等的體性，對於現在的羊等，就不會獲得惡戒。
【English Translation】 English version Slaughtering pigs, catching birds, fishing, hunting beasts, engaging in robbery and theft, serving as executioners (khal，butchers), managing prisons, binding criminals, cooking dogs, and setting up various traps, all fall under the category of alaksana (unethical conduct). The word 'etc.' is used to encompass various types of actions. These include: slanderous accusations, malicious defamation, seeking out others' faults, and enjoying talking about their shortcomings. Those who pursue a livelihood through illegal means, as well as those who execute the king's punishments, judge crimes, impeach officials, etc., as long as they harbor harmful intentions in their hearts, can be called alaksana. Because these types of people dwell in alaksana, because there is alaksana, their actions are also alaksana, they skillfully create alaksana, and they frequently practice alaksana, so they are called alaksana. Speaking of those who slaughter sheep, it refers to those who, in order to maintain their livelihood, want to slaughter sheep throughout their lives. The remaining situations should also be understood according to the specific circumstances. Those who slaughter sheep only harbor harmful intentions towards sheep, not towards other types of animals. Could they harbor alaksana towards all sentient beings, or universally harbor laksana towards all sentient beings? This statement is reasonable because they universally want to benefit and bring happiness to all sentient beings, and they have accepted this supreme intention, so they can obtain laksana. As for those alaksana people who slaughter sheep, even towards their closest relatives, they will harbor harmful intentions, and even to save their own lives, they will not hesitate to kill their relatives. How can it be said that they universally harbor alaksana towards all sentient beings? This statement can also be established because the alaksana person has universally destroyed the good intentions towards all sentient beings. Although there is no such situation, it can be hypothetically said: if all sentient beings, including parents, etc., appear in front of the butcher in the form of sheep, the butcher will harbor harmful intentions towards them all. This is because they have long been accustomed to the alaksana mind, and they do not even care about their own relatives. In order to maintain their livelihood, even if their closest relatives turn into sheep, they will harbor harmful intentions. Moreover, after they die and are reborn as sheep, how can they not have the intention to kill? Those who delight in alaksana will surely generate this fierce intention when accepting evil precepts: even if the bodies of my mother, etc., are sheep, I should slaughter them, let alone other sentient beings. Because of this intention, they can obtain alaksana. Otherwise, they can only obtain a neutral offense. Therefore, even if they clearly know that the relatives in front of them are not sheep, they will still harbor harmful intentions, so they can universally obtain evil precepts. Even if no holy person transforms into the body of a sheep, they will still harbor harmful intentions towards those who are like their closest relatives. The author of the scripture gives an example here: if one observes the nature of the future sheep, etc., one will obtain alaksana towards the present relatives, etc. Sheep, etc., will have the nature of future relatives, etc. Since there is no intention to harm their nature, one should observe the nature of future close relatives, etc., and one will not obtain evil precepts towards the present sheep, etc.
。如是等例于理不齊。無善意樂故有惡意樂故。謂彼正受不律儀時。無正思惟調善意樂。我當不害一切有情。有邪思惟兇勃意樂。我當普害一切有情。事雖主羊而心寬遍。是故容有觀未來羊。于現聖親亦發惡戒。非觀來世聖及至親。于現羊身不發惡戒。或無勞諍理應同許。且如有一受屠羊人。雖一生中不與不取。於己妻妾住知足心。啞不能言無語四過。而因羊壞善阿世耶。具得七支不律儀罪。如是于親等雖無害心。而善阿世耶因羊壞故。遍有情界得不律儀。若先要期受善學處。后不全損善阿世耶。由遇別緣唯受殺者得處中罪非不律儀。但得不律儀必應全損善阿世耶故具得七支。經部諸師於此僻執。隨所期限支具不具。及全分一分皆得不律儀。律儀亦然唯除八戒。由隨彼量善惡尸羅性相相違互相遮故。若爾應受不律儀人亦名近事。應諸近事亦得名為不律儀者。云何應爾理逼應然。謂屠羊人立如是誓。我為活命雖受殺羊。然受離余不與取等。或諸近事作是誓言。我定受持離殺生戒。為活命故唯受盜等。無如是理一相續中二阿世耶互相違故理應如是。所以者何。不律儀人若於是處阿世耶壞。唯於是處勿有律儀近事亦然。若於是處阿世耶不壞。唯於是處勿有不律儀。許隨彼量善惡尸羅性相相違互相遮故。若一一處得不律儀。即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：像這樣的例子在道理上是不一致的。因為沒有善良的意樂，所以有惡意的意樂。也就是說，當他們正式接受不律儀時，沒有正確的思考和調伏善良的意樂，想著『我應當不傷害一切有情』，卻有邪惡的思考和兇狠暴戾的意樂，想著『我應當普遍傷害一切有情』。事情雖然只是針對羊，但心卻寬廣而普遍。因此，有可能觀察未來的羊，對現在的聖者親屬也生起惡戒。而不是觀察來世的聖者和至親，對現在的羊身不生起惡戒。或者沒有必要爭論，道理上應該都認可。比如有一個屠羊人，雖然一生中不偷盜，對自己的妻子妾室安於知足，即使是啞巴不能說話，沒有語言上的四種過失，但因為羊而破壞了善良的阿世耶（āshìyē，意為意樂、心），完全獲得了七支不律儀罪。像這樣，即使對親屬等沒有傷害的心，但善良的阿世耶因為羊而破壞，普遍對有情界獲得不律儀。如果事先約定接受善良的學處，後來沒有完全損壞善良的阿世耶，因為遇到其他因緣，只有接受殺生的人得到中間罪，而不是不律儀。但是，得到不律儀必定應該完全損壞善良的阿世耶，所以完全獲得七支。經部的諸位法師對此有偏頗的執著，無論所限定的時間長短，支分具足與否，以及是全部分還是一部分，都得到不律儀。律儀也是這樣，只有八關齋戒除外。因為隨著那個程度，善惡戒的自性互相違背，互相遮止的緣故。如果這樣，那麼接受不律儀的人也應該叫做近事（upāsaka，優婆塞，意為親近事奉三寶的在家男女），應該所有的近事也可以被稱為不律儀者，怎麼會這樣呢？道理上應該如此。比如屠羊人立下這樣的誓言：『我爲了活命，雖然接受殺羊，但接受遠離其餘的不偷盜等。』或者各位近事作出這樣的誓言：『我一定受持遠離殺生戒，爲了活命的緣故，只接受偷盜等。』沒有這樣的道理，因為在一個相續中，兩種阿世耶互相違背的緣故，道理上應該是這樣。為什麼這樣說呢？不律儀的人如果在這個地方阿世耶壞了，只有在這個地方不要有律儀，近事也是這樣。如果在這個地方阿世耶沒有壞，只有在這個地方不要有不律儀。允許隨著那個程度，善惡戒的自性互相違背，互相遮止的緣故。如果每一個地方都得到不律儀，那麼 English version: Such examples are inconsistent in principle. Because there is no virtuous intention, there is malicious intention. That is, when they formally accept non-restraint, there is no right thinking and taming virtuous intention, thinking 'I should not harm all sentient beings,' but there is evil thinking and fierce and violent intention, thinking 'I should universally harm all sentient beings.' Although the matter is only directed at sheep, the mind is broad and universal. Therefore, it is possible to observe future sheep and generate evil precepts towards present holy relatives. Rather than observing future saints and close relatives, not generating evil precepts towards the present sheep body. Or there is no need to argue, and it should be agreed upon in principle. For example, there is a sheep butcher who, although he does not steal in his lifetime and is content with his wives and concubines, even if he is mute and cannot speak, without the four faults of speech, but because of the sheep, he destroys the virtuous āshìyē (意樂、心, intention, mind), and fully obtains the seven branches of non-restraint. Like this, even if there is no intention to harm relatives, etc., but the virtuous āshìyē is destroyed because of the sheep, universally obtaining non-restraint towards the realm of sentient beings. If one agrees in advance to accept virtuous precepts, and later does not completely damage the virtuous āshìyē, because of encountering other conditions, only those who accept killing receive an intermediate offense, not non-restraint. However, obtaining non-restraint must completely damage the virtuous āshìyē, so one fully obtains the seven branches. The teachers of the Sutra school have a biased attachment to this, whether the limited time is long or short, whether the branches are complete or not, and whether it is the whole or a part, all obtain non-restraint. The same is true for restraint, except for the eight precepts. Because with that extent, the nature of good and evil precepts contradict each other and mutually obstruct each other. If so, then those who accept non-restraint should also be called upāsaka (優婆塞, meaning lay practitioners who are close to and serve the Three Jewels), and all upāsakas should also be called non-restrained, how could this be? It should be so in principle. For example, a sheep butcher makes such a vow: 'Although I accept killing sheep to make a living, I accept abstaining from the rest, such as not stealing, etc.' Or the upāsakas make such a vow: 'I will definitely uphold the precept of abstaining from killing, and only accept stealing, etc. for the sake of making a living.' There is no such principle, because in one continuum, the two āshìyē contradict each other, so it should be so in principle. Why is this so? If the āshìyē of a non-restrained person is destroyed in this place, only in this place should there be no restraint, and the same is true for upāsakas. If the āshìyē is not destroyed in this place, only in this place should there be no non-restraint. It is allowed that with that extent, the nature of good and evil precepts contradict each other and mutually obstruct each other. If one obtains non-restraint in every place, then
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese translation: Examples like these are inconsistent in principle. This is because there is no virtuous intention, and therefore there is malicious intention. That is to say, when they formally accept non-restraint, there is no right thinking and taming of virtuous intention, thinking 'I should not harm all sentient beings,' but there is evil thinking and fierce and violent intention, thinking 'I should universally harm all sentient beings.' Although the matter is only directed at sheep, the mind is broad and universal. Therefore, it is possible to observe future sheep and generate evil precepts towards present holy relatives. Rather than observing future saints and close relatives, not generating evil precepts towards the present sheep body. Or there is no need to argue, and it should be agreed upon in principle. For example, there is a sheep butcher who, although he does not steal in his lifetime and is content with his wives and concubines, even if he is mute and cannot speak, without the four faults of speech, but because of the sheep, he destroys the virtuous āshìyē (意樂、心, meaning intention, mind), and fully obtains the seven branches of non-restraint. Like this, even if there is no intention to harm relatives, etc., but the virtuous āshìyē is destroyed because of the sheep, universally obtaining non-restraint towards the realm of sentient beings. If one agrees in advance to accept virtuous precepts, and later does not completely damage the virtuous āshìyē, because of encountering other conditions, only those who accept killing receive an intermediate offense, not non-restraint. However, obtaining non-restraint must completely damage the virtuous āshìyē, so one fully obtains the seven branches. The teachers of the Sutra school have a biased attachment to this, whether the limited time is long or short, whether the branches are complete or not, and whether it is the whole or a part, all obtain non-restraint. The same is true for restraint, except for the eight precepts. Because with that extent, the nature of good and evil precepts contradict each other and mutually obstruct each other. If so, then those who accept non-restraint should also be called upāsaka (優婆塞, meaning lay practitioners who are close to and serve the Three Jewels), and all upāsakas should also be called non-restrained, how could this be? It should be so in principle. For example, a sheep butcher makes such a vow: 'Although I accept killing sheep to make a living, I accept abstaining from the rest, such as not stealing, etc.' Or the upāsakas make such a vow: 'I will definitely uphold the precept of abstaining from killing, and only accept stealing, etc. for the sake of making a living.' There is no such principle, because in one continuum, the two āshìyē contradict each other, so it should be so in principle. Why is this so? If the āshìyē of a non-restrained person is destroyed in this place, only in this place should there be no restraint, and the same is true for upāsakas. If the āshìyē is not destroyed in this place, only in this place should there be no non-restraint. It is allowed that with that extent, the nature of good and evil precepts contradict each other and mutually obstruct each other. If one obtains non-restraint in every place, then
能總遮一切善戒及一一處。得善律儀即能總遮一切惡戒。是故無有不律儀人亦名近事。及無近事亦得名為不律儀者。此亦非理違前說故。雖屠羊人為欲活命但受殺業。然于有情意樂壞故。亦應成就不與取等諸不律儀。由是理應離盜等者。亦應遮止殺不律儀。若汝意謂諸屠羊者。於他物等意樂不壞不應獲得彼不律儀。豈不亦應離盜等者。有于羊所意樂既壞。不應遮遏殺不律儀。如是還應不免前過。若於是處有善意樂。即於是處唯得善尸羅。及於是處有惡意樂。即於是處唯得惡尸羅。則不應許由隨彼量善惡尸羅互相遮止。此顯所受善惡尸羅。非一一支遍能遮故。若汝意謂如善律儀有不具支此亦應爾。謂如有受近事近住勤策律儀。雖不具支而亦得彼缺支攝戒。受不律儀亦應如是。此例非等律儀不律儀用功不用功得有異故。謂諸善戒要藉用功善阿世耶方能受得。以難得故理數必應非受一時總得一切。若諸惡戒不藉用功惡阿世耶便能受得。非難得故理數必應隨受一時總得一切。以于欲界不善力強。惡阿世耶任運而起。造諸重惡不待用功。善阿世耶易毀壞故。隨受一種便總得余。善則不然故例非等。現見穢草不用功生。要設劬勞嘉苗方起。又如有受不律儀人作是要期我於盡壽。每晝或夜半月月等。一度屠羊等亦得不律儀。由不律儀
易受得故。以于欲界不善力強。雖不恒為而得惡戒。諸有欲受出家律儀。若作要期我於盡壽每晝或夜半月月等。一度離殺等不得善律儀。由善律儀難受得故。以于欲界善法力劣。若不恒持不得善戒此亦應爾為例不齊故。經部師避無根過。而反墮在難拔過中。智者應詳無倒取捨。已說從彼得不律儀。得不律儀及余無表。如何方便未說當說。頌曰。
諸得不律儀 由作及誓受 得所餘無表 由田受重行
論曰。不律儀人總有二種。一者生在不律儀家。二生余家后受此業諸有生在不律儀家。若初現行殺等加行。是人由作得不律儀。若生余家後方立誓。謂我當作如是事業。以求財物養活自身。初立誓時便發惡戒。是人由受得不律儀。由三種因得余無表。余無表者。謂非律儀非不律儀處中攝故。由三因者。一者由田。謂于如斯有德田所。初施園林等善無表便生。如說。有依諸福業事。二者由受。謂自要期言。我從今若不供養佛及僧眾不先食等。或作誓限於齋日月半月及年常施食等。由此有善無表續生。三由重行。謂起如是殷重作意行善行惡。謂淳凈信或猛利纏。造善惡時能發無表。長時相續乃至信纏勢力終盡。如前已說。如是已說得律儀等。舍律儀等今次當說。且云何舍別解律儀。頌曰。
舍別解調伏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：容易獲得不律儀的緣故，是因為在欲界中不善的力量強大。即使不是一直如此，也能得到惡戒。那些想要接受出家戒律的人，如果預先約定『我終身在每天的白天或夜晚，每月或每半個月等，進行一次遠離殺生等行為』，也無法獲得好的戒律。因為好的戒律難以獲得，是因為在欲界中善法的力量薄弱。如果不是一直堅持，就無法獲得好的戒律，這種情況也應該如此，因為情況並不相同。經部師爲了避免無根的過失，反而陷入了難以擺脫的過失之中。智者應該詳細瞭解，做出沒有錯誤的取捨。已經說了從那裡獲得不律儀，獲得不律儀以及其他的無表業，用什麼方法，還沒有說，下面將要說。偈頌說： 『諸得不律儀，由作及誓受，得所餘無表，由田受重行。』 論述：不律儀的人總共有兩種。一種是生在不律儀的家庭，另一種是生在其他家庭後來接受這種行業。那些生在不律儀家庭的人，如果最初現行殺生等行為，這個人通過『作』而獲得不律儀。如果生在其他家庭後來才立下誓言，說『我將要做這樣的事業，以此來求取財物養活自己』，在最初立下誓言的時候，就產生了惡戒，這個人通過『受』而獲得不律儀。通過三種原因獲得其餘的無表業。其餘的無表業，是指非戒律、非不律儀，屬於中間狀態的。通過三種原因，一是通過『田』，指在這樣的有德之『田』中，最初佈施園林等，好的無表業便產生。如經中所說，有依靠各種福業之事。二是通過『受』，指自己約定說，『我從今以後如果不供養佛和僧眾，就不先吃飯』等，或者發誓限定在齋日、月半月以及每年經常佈施食物等，由此有好的無表業持續產生。三是通過『重行』，指發起這樣殷重的作意，行善行惡，指以淳凈的信心或者猛烈的煩惱，造善造惡的時候，能夠引發無表業，長時間相續，乃至信心或煩惱的力量終結。如前面已經說過。像這樣已經說了獲得戒律等，捨棄戒律等，現在接下來應當說。那麼，如何捨棄別解脫律儀呢？偈頌說： 『舍別解調伏，』
【English Translation】 English version: It is easy to acquire non-restraint because the power of unwholesome deeds is strong in the desire realm. Even if it is not constant, one can still obtain evil precepts. Those who wish to receive the monastic precepts, if they stipulate, 'For the rest of my life, every day or night, every month or half-month, etc., I will once abstain from killing, etc.,' they will not obtain good precepts. This is because good precepts are difficult to obtain, as the power of wholesome deeds is weak in the desire realm. If one does not constantly uphold them, one will not obtain good precepts. This case should also be similar, as the circumstances are not the same. The Sautrāntika masters, in order to avoid the fault of being without a basis, instead fall into a fault that is difficult to escape. The wise should carefully understand and make choices without error. It has been said how to obtain non-restraint from that. How to obtain non-restraint and other non-revealing karmas, what methods to use, has not yet been said; it will be discussed below. The verse says: 'Those who obtain non-restraint, do so through action and vows; the remaining non-revealing karmas are obtained through fields, acceptance, and repeated actions.' Commentary: There are generally two types of people with non-restraint. One is born into a family with non-restraint, and the other is born into another family and later takes up this profession. Those who are born into a family with non-restraint, if they initially engage in actions such as killing, obtain non-restraint through 'action'. If they are born into another family and later make a vow, saying, 'I will do such and such a business in order to obtain wealth to support myself,' at the moment of making the vow, they generate evil precepts; they obtain non-restraint through 'acceptance'. The remaining non-revealing karmas are obtained through three causes. The remaining non-revealing karmas refer to those that are neither precepts nor non-restraint, belonging to the intermediate state. The three causes are: first, through 'fields', referring to such virtuous 'fields' where, upon initially offering gardens, etc., good non-revealing karmas arise. As it is said in the scriptures, there are things that rely on various meritorious deeds. Second, through 'acceptance', referring to oneself stipulating, 'From now on, if I do not make offerings to the Buddha and the Sangha, I will not eat first,' etc., or vowing to limit offerings to fasting days, half-months, and annual regular offerings of food, etc., thereby continuously generating good non-revealing karmas. Third, through 'repeated actions', referring to generating such earnest intention, performing good and evil deeds, referring to pure faith or intense afflictions, when creating good and evil, one can trigger non-revealing karmas, continuing for a long time until the power of faith or afflictions ends. As previously stated. Thus, it has been said how to obtain precepts, etc.; now, we should discuss how to abandon precepts, etc. So, how does one abandon individual liberation precepts (Prātimokṣa)? The verse says: 'Abandoning individual liberation restraint,'
由故舍命終 及二形俱生 斷善根夜盡 有說由犯重 余說由法滅 迦濕彌羅說 犯二如負財
論曰。調伏聲顯律儀異名。由此能令根調伏故。由五緣舍別解律儀。一由故舍謂于律儀由阿世耶不懷欣慕。為舍學處對有解人發起相違表業差別。非但由起舍學處心。如得律儀心無能故。又在夢中舍不成故。非但由起表業差別忿癲狂等舍不成故。非但由二對傍生等起心發表舍不成故。二由命終。謂眾同分增上勢力得律儀故。三由依止二形俱生。謂身變時心隨變故。又二形者非增上故。四由斷滅所因善根。謂表無表業等起心斷故。是此律儀因緣斷義。舍盡壽戒由上四緣。近住律儀亦由夜盡。謂近住戒由上四緣。及夜盡舍過期限故。夜盡者。謂明相出時。諸軌範師多分共許如是五種舍律儀緣。有餘部師執。隨犯一感墮重罪捨出家戒有餘部執。正法滅時別解律儀無不皆舍。以諸學處結界羯磨所有聖教皆息滅故。爾時雖無得未得律儀。而先得律儀無有舍義。迦濕彌羅國毗婆沙師。蘊理教於心作如是說。非犯隨一根本罪時一切律儀有皆舍義。然犯重者有二種名。一名具尸羅。二名犯戒者。若於所犯應可悔除發露。悔除唯名具戒。如有財者負他債時。名為富人及負債者。若還債已但名富人。此亦應然故非舍戒。以何理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由故意捨棄（律儀）而舍戒，或者因為壽命終結，以及兩種性器官同時出現，或者斷滅善根，或者夜晚結束。 有的人說，因為觸犯重罪而舍戒；另一些人說，因為正法滅亡而舍戒。 迦濕彌羅的論師說，觸犯兩種罪就像欠債一樣。
論曰：調伏的聲音，彰顯了律儀的另一個名稱。因為律儀能夠使根（指六根）得到調伏。由於五種因緣，會捨棄別解脫律儀：第一，由於故意捨棄，指的是對於律儀，由於內心不懷有欣慕之情，爲了捨棄學處，針對能夠理解的人，發起與律儀相違背的身語行為。不僅僅是因為生起捨棄學處的心，就像得到律儀時，僅僅有心是不能得到的。而且在夢中捨棄也是不能成立的。不僅僅是因為生起身語的行為，因為忿怒、癲狂等情況，捨棄也是不能成立的。不僅僅是因為針對畜生等對像生起心和表達行為，捨棄也是不能成立的。第二，由於壽命終結。指的是眾生的共同命運的增上勢力，使得律儀消失。第三，由於依止兩種性器官同時出現的情況。指的是身體變化時，心也隨之變化。而且兩種性器官的人，不是增上的（狀態）。第四，由於斷滅了作為律儀所依的善根。指的是表業和無表業等生起的心斷滅。這是此律儀的因緣斷滅的意思。捨棄盡壽戒，由於以上四種因緣。近住律儀也由於夜晚結束而捨棄。指的是近住戒由於以上四種因緣，以及夜晚結束而捨棄，因為超過了期限。夜晚結束，指的是明相出現的時候。各位軌範師大多共同認可這五種捨棄律儀的因緣。有些部派的老師認為，只要觸犯一種會導致墮落的重罪，就會捨棄出家戒。有些部派認為，正法滅亡的時候，別解脫律儀沒有不捨棄的。因為各種學處、結界、羯磨，所有的聖教都息滅了。這個時候，即使沒有得到或未得到的律儀，而先前得到的律儀也沒有捨棄的道理。 迦濕彌羅國的毗婆沙師，運用道理和教義在心中這樣認為：並非觸犯任何一種根本罪時，所有的律儀都會捨棄。然而觸犯重罪的人，有兩種名稱：一個名稱是具尸羅（持戒者），另一個名稱是犯戒者。如果對於所犯的罪行，應該可以懺悔消除，並且發露懺悔，那麼仍然只是名為具戒。就像有錢人欠別人錢的時候，被稱為富人以及欠債者。如果還清了債務，就只被稱為富人。這裡也應該這樣理解，所以並非舍戒。以什麼道理呢？
【English Translation】 English version Abandoning the precepts occurs due to intentional relinquishment, or due to the end of life, or due to the simultaneous presence of two sexual organs, or due to the severing of roots of virtue, or due to the end of the night. Some say that abandoning the precepts occurs due to committing a grave offense; others say that it occurs due to the extinction of the True Dharma. The Kashmira masters say that committing two offenses is like being in debt.
The Treatise says: 'Subduing' is another name that manifests the precepts. Because the precepts are able to subdue the roots (referring to the six senses). There are five conditions under which one abandons the Pratimoksha precepts: First, due to intentional relinquishment, which refers to not cherishing admiration for the precepts in one's heart. In order to abandon the precepts, one initiates bodily and verbal actions that contradict the precepts, directed towards someone who can understand. It is not merely because of generating the thought of abandoning the precepts, just as one cannot obtain the precepts merely by having the thought. Moreover, abandoning the precepts in a dream is not valid. It is not merely because of generating bodily and verbal actions, as abandoning the precepts due to anger, madness, etc., is not valid. It is not merely because of generating thoughts and expressing actions towards animals, etc., as abandoning the precepts is not valid. Second, due to the end of life. This refers to the increasing power of the common destiny of beings, which causes the precepts to disappear. Third, due to relying on the simultaneous presence of two sexual organs. This refers to when the body changes, the mind also changes accordingly. Moreover, a person with two sexual organs is not in an augmented (state). Fourth, due to severing the roots of virtue upon which the precepts rely. This refers to the cessation of the mind that arises from manifest and unmanifest actions. This is the meaning of the severance of the causes and conditions of these precepts. Abandoning the lifelong precepts is due to the above four conditions. The Upavasatha precepts are also abandoned due to the end of the night. This refers to the Upavasatha precepts being abandoned due to the above four conditions, as well as the end of the night, because the time limit has been exceeded. The end of the night refers to the time when the signs of dawn appear. Most preceptors commonly acknowledge these five conditions for abandoning the precepts. Some schools of teachers believe that as long as one commits a grave offense that leads to downfall, one will abandon the monastic precepts. Some schools believe that when the True Dharma becomes extinct, there is no Pratimoksha precept that is not abandoned. Because all the places of learning, boundaries, karmas, and all the sacred teachings are extinguished. At this time, even if there are no precepts that have been obtained or not yet obtained, there is no reason for the precepts that were previously obtained to be abandoned. The Vibhasha masters of the country of Kashmira, using reason and doctrine, think in their hearts like this: It is not the case that all the precepts are abandoned when one commits any of the fundamental offenses. However, a person who commits a grave offense has two names: one name is Shila-possessor (one who holds the precepts), and the other name is offender. If, for the offense committed, one should be able to repent and eliminate it, and express repentance, then one is still only called a Shila-possessor. Just like when a rich person owes money to others, they are called a rich person and a debtor. If they pay off the debt, they are only called a rich person. It should be understood in the same way here, so it is not abandoning the precepts. For what reason?
教蘊在心中。且辨心中所蘊正理。謂如受一一非遍得律儀。應犯一一時非遍舍一切。本於一切有情處所受得律儀。不應今時於一犯罪便舍一切。若汝意謂出家律儀必無別受還別得義。如何可說如非別受遍得律儀。應無犯一遍舍一切故例非等此詰不然。自所許故。謂汝亦許在家律儀非犯根本便舍一切。或汝自許別解律儀。隨別受時還得爾所。如是應許犯律儀時。隨所犯舍非舍一切。且所受戒有是極成。非犯一時頓舍一切。苾芻勤策理亦應然。設犯重時無容皆舍。或先已說。先說者何。謂𨵗律儀若名近事。苾芻勤策𨵗亦應成。故無近事𨵗律儀者。如彼別犯非舍一切。苾芻勤策例亦應然。或於此中有何理趣。於四重罪隨犯一時。出家律儀一切頓舍。非於三種有善意樂。乃至為救自身命緣亦不欲犯非舍一切。如汝宗說得不律儀。若爾何緣薄伽梵說。犯四重者不名苾芻。不名沙門非釋迦子。破苾芻體害沙門性。壞滅墮落立他勝名。依勝義苾芻密意作是說。且汝應說何緣犯重便舍一切非犯所餘。以犯所餘可悔除故。若犯餘罪未悔除時不失苾芻性。悔除何所益。更求何益此令苾芻性不缺漏。不朽不雜能令如是成何功德。若令如是便得生天。若爾諸天對持戒者應極可供養。執于尸羅無違犯者專求生彼故。然非聖教專為生天。令苾芻等清
凈持戒故。非悔者專為生天。既爾應言非犯戒者。可能現證出世功德。故悔除者異不悔除。豈不對於出世功德。可悔除罪未悔除時。彼亦非全破苾芻體。何緣不許犯重苾芻。犯不可除他勝罪故。雖亦成就所餘律儀。于出世德畢竟非器。故世尊言非苾芻等。又可除罪未悔除時。如何有餘苾芻性在。以彼于入正性離生。及餘一切無漏功德皆能為障。乃至為修不凈觀等。尚不能令心住一境。況能成就。若如是類有苾芻體當自歸禮。如是苾芻與犯重人有何差別。是故應許犯重苾芻如無子能子說非子。于無人用人說非人。于無形男說非男等。于苾芻事既不能成。雖有餘律儀說非苾芻等。佛如是說于義何違。非唯能持別解脫戒。于佛聖教少有所成。由此律儀招有果故。然諸佛意憎背有果。持戒無缺尚未稱情。況犯重人能適佛意。以違佛意如子違父。所作事業不稱本期。由此故言非苾芻等。此言非證舍律儀因。毗婆沙師以如是理。蘊在心首決判此言。依勝義苾芻密意作是說。此中經主作如是說。此言兇勃兇勃者何謂。於世尊了義所說以別義釋令成不了。與多煩惱者為犯重罪緣。寧知此言是了義說。由律自釋有四苾芻。一名相苾芻。二自稱苾芻。三乞丐苾芻。四破戒苾芻。此義中言非苾芻者。謂非白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。非此苾芻先是
勝義。後由犯重成非苾芻。故知此言是了義說。豈唯白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。有犯重罪非由三歸三說。受具足戒苾芻亦犯重罪。何理遮此三歸得戒。令不犯重成非苾芻。設許此言是了義說。唯白四羯磨受具戒者。若有犯重罪成非苾芻。由此苾芻于生聖法無苾芻用名非苾芻。非舍律儀失苾芻號。故廣論者作是判言。依勝義苾芻密意作是說此為善說。以犯重人無生聖道苾芻用故。非由執此是了義言。能遮我宗決判意趣。若異此者復有何緣同犯尸羅。于中則有失戒不失戒苾芻非苾芻故。離對法宗無令生喜。理雖作是謗與多煩惱者為犯重罪緣。然應詳審誰最能作犯重罪緣為作是言。雖犯一戒而有餘戒應勤護者為作是言。既犯一戒余戒皆失。任造惡者非對法者。此決判言少障生天解脫愛果。然唯示導令彼修因。如何謗言勸他犯重。謂我但作如是誡言。犯一戒時余戒不捨應于余戒專精護持。如是真名遮他犯重。汝說犯一頓舍一切豈不專作犯重罪緣。故造罪緣在汝非我。雖作是說非此苾芻先是勝義後由犯重成非苾芻。此言粗淺雖先未證望當證能。若后無能亦名失故。如契經說觀此世間及天放逸退失聖慧。又先已說。先說者何。謂彼永非出世德器故。于勝義言非苾芻。寧知大師有斯密意。由此中說彼非沙門余處復言沙門有四更無第五。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 勝義（究竟的意義）。後來由於犯重罪而成為非苾芻（比丘）。因此可知這句話是了義說（究竟的說法）。難道只有通過白四羯磨（一種受戒儀式）受具足戒（圓滿的戒律）的苾芻（比丘），才會因犯重罪而成為非苾芻嗎？不是的，即使是通過三歸三說（皈依佛、法、僧三次）受具足戒的苾芻，也會因犯重罪而成為非苾芻。有什麼道理可以阻止這三歸得戒，使之不犯重罪而成為非苾芻呢？ 假設允許這句話是了義說，那麼只有通過白四羯磨受具足戒的人，如果犯了重罪才會成為非苾芻。這是因為這樣的苾芻對於生起聖法（超脫世俗的修行方法）沒有苾芻的作用，所以被稱為非苾芻，而不是因為捨棄了律儀（戒律）而失去苾芻的稱號。因此，《廣論》的作者這樣判斷說：依據勝義苾芻的密意（深層含義）而這樣說，這是善說。因為犯重罪的人沒有生起聖道的苾芻作用。不是因為執著于這句話是了義說，就能阻止我宗（我們的宗派）的決判意趣（最終的判斷）。 如果不是這樣，又有什麼緣故同樣犯了尸羅（戒律），其中卻有失去戒律和不失去戒律的苾芻，以及非苾芻呢？離開對法宗（阿毗達摩宗），就無法令人歡喜。道理雖然是這樣，但誹謗和多煩惱的人是犯重罪的因緣。然而，應該詳細審查誰最能成為犯重罪的因緣，是說『雖然犯了一條戒律，但還有其他的戒律應該努力守護』，還是說『既然犯了一條戒律，其他的戒律都失去了，可以任意造惡』？非對法者（不遵循阿毗達摩的人）的這種決判之言，會稍微阻礙生天和解脫愛果（解脫對世俗的貪愛）。然而，這只是爲了引導他們修因（修行因果）。 怎麼能誹謗說勸他人犯重罪呢？我說的是這樣的告誡：犯一條戒律時，其他的戒律並沒有捨棄，應該對其他的戒律專精守護。這樣才是真正地阻止他人犯重罪。你說犯一條戒律就全部捨棄，難道不是專門製造犯重罪的因緣嗎？所以，製造罪緣的是你，不是我。 雖然這樣說，但並非這個苾芻先是勝義（究竟意義上的），後來由於犯重罪才成為非苾芻。這句話很粗淺，雖然先前沒有證悟，但希望將來能夠證悟。如果後來沒有能力證悟，也叫做失去。如契經（佛經）所說：觀察這個世間和天界，放逸會退失聖慧（聖人的智慧）。 又先前已經說過。先前說的是什麼呢？就是說，他們永遠不是出世功德的器皿，所以在勝義上說他們不是苾芻。怎麼知道大師（佛陀）有這樣的密意呢？因為這裡說他們不是沙門（修行人），其他地方又說沙門有四種，沒有第五種。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Supreme meaning'. Later, due to committing a grave offense, one becomes a non-Bhikkhu (monk). Therefore, it is known that this statement is a definitive teaching. Is it only the Bhikkhu who has received the full precepts through the 'white four karmas' (a type of ordination ceremony) who becomes a non-Bhikkhu due to committing a grave offense? No, even the Bhikkhu who has received the full precepts through the 'three refuges and three declarations' (taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha three times) will also become a non-Bhikkhu due to committing a grave offense. What reason is there to prevent this 'three refuges' ordination from causing one to commit a grave offense and become a non-Bhikkhu? Suppose it is allowed that this statement is a definitive teaching, then only those who have received the full precepts through the 'white four karmas' will become non-Bhikkhus if they commit a grave offense. This is because such a Bhikkhu has no Bhikkhu function for generating noble Dharma (transcendental practices), so they are called non-Bhikkhus, not because they have abandoned the Vinaya (code of conduct) and lost the title of Bhikkhu. Therefore, the author of 'Lamrim' (Stages of the Path) judges in this way: based on the hidden meaning of the Bhikkhu in the supreme sense, it is good to say this. Because a person who has committed a grave offense has no Bhikkhu function for generating the noble path. It is not because one clings to this statement as a definitive teaching that one can prevent the final judgment of our school. If it were not so, what reason would there be that those who commit the same 'sila' (precepts) would include Bhikkhus who have lost their precepts and those who have not, as well as non-Bhikkhus? Apart from the Abhidharma school (school of higher knowledge), there is no way to please people. Although the reasoning is like this, slandering and having many afflictions are the causes of committing a grave offense. However, it should be examined in detail who is most likely to cause a grave offense, whether it is saying 'Although one precept has been violated, there are other precepts that should be diligently protected,' or saying 'Since one precept has been violated, all other precepts are lost, and one can do evil at will.' This definitive statement of non-Abhidharmists slightly hinders birth in heaven and liberation from the fruit of love (liberation from attachment to the world). However, it is only to guide them to cultivate the cause (cultivate the cause and effect). How can it be slander to say that one is encouraging others to commit a grave offense? What I am saying is this admonition: when one precept is violated, the other precepts are not abandoned, and one should diligently protect the other precepts. This is the true way to prevent others from committing a grave offense. You say that violating one precept means abandoning everything. Aren't you specifically creating the cause for committing a grave offense? Therefore, the one who creates the cause of sin is you, not me. Although it is said in this way, it is not that this Bhikkhu was first a Bhikkhu in the supreme sense and later became a non-Bhikkhu due to committing a grave offense. This statement is superficial. Although one has not attained enlightenment before, one hopes to attain it in the future. If one is unable to attain it in the future, it is also called loss. As the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: observe this world and the heavens, and negligence will cause the loss of holy wisdom (wisdom of the saints). And it has already been said before. What was said before? It is said that they are never vessels for transcendental merit, so in the supreme sense, they are not Bhikkhus. How do we know that the Master (Buddha) has such a hidden meaning? Because it says here that they are not 'Sramanas' (ascetics), and in other places it says that there are four types of Sramanas, and there is no fifth.
故知於此唯就勝義言非苾芻。由彼補特伽羅名污道沙門故。非彼先證道后污如何成。經主釋言雖有此說而彼唯有餘沙門相故名沙門。如被燒材假鸚鵡嘴涸池敗種火輪死人。此但有言所引眾喻皆無能故。以諸材木少被火燒。世間說名被燒材木。非全成炭名被燒材。若謂隨燒全分一分二種皆許名被燒材。則喻及法二俱猶豫。喻于所喻無證功德。名涸池中容有少水但無池用故立涸名。設水全無亦名涸者同前猶豫。于證無能由此已遮死人敗種。謂雖猶有少種功能而諸世間亦說敗種。或雖不敗被損功能不復生芽亦名敗種。有同死法亦名死人。故契經中言放逸者。常死假鸚鵡嘴及旋火輪二喻皆違契經所說。沙門有四更無第五。若唯形相得名沙門。如世有人須沙門相矯設方便作沙門形。應名沙門說為第五。非彼假嘴及旋火輪可得說名嘴輪。余相非實嘴輪為其先故。如是應有先非沙門作沙門形立為第五。然佛說四無第五言。為止如斯相沙門執故引眾喻皆無證能。又經主寧知佛如是意說。以余處說不名苾芻不名沙門非釋子等。豈不數勸應審尋思。寧隨一文便為固執。又先已說。先說者何。謂此沙門名污道故。知此唯約勝義苾芻密意說言非苾芻等。故非頓舍一切律儀。名非苾芻理極成立。非此唯有餘沙門相故名沙門。如被燒材鸚鵡嘴等理可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此可知，這裡只是就勝義（paramārtha，究竟真實）而言，才說『非苾芻』（abhikṣu，不是比丘）。因為那補特伽羅（pudgala，人）被稱為『污道沙門』（dūṣita-mārga-śramaṇa，玷污了道的沙門）。如果他先證得道，後來才被玷污，又怎麼會變成這樣呢？經主解釋說，雖然有這種說法，但他只是具有沙門的表相，所以才被稱為沙門。就像被燒的木材、假的鸚鵡嘴、乾涸的池塘、壞掉的種子、火輪和死人一樣。這些比喻都沒有作用，因為這些事物都失去了其應有的功能。例如，木材只要稍微被火燒過，世間就會稱之為『被燒的木材』，而不是完全燒成炭才叫『被燒的木材』。如果說，無論是燒了全部還是燒了一部分，都可以稱為『被燒的木材』，那麼比喻和所要比喻的事物都會變得不確定。比喻對於所要比喻的事物沒有證明的功德。『乾涸的池塘』中可能還有少量的水，但已經失去了池塘的作用，所以才被稱為『乾涸』。如果說即使完全沒有水也叫『乾涸』，那就和前面的情況一樣，變得不確定了。因此，用『死人』和『壞掉的種子』來證明也是沒有說服力的。雖然可能還有少許種子的功能，但世間也會說這是『壞掉的種子』。或者即使沒有壞掉，但功能受損，不再發芽，也被稱為『壞掉的種子』。有類似死亡狀態的，也被稱為『死人』。所以契經中說，放逸的人，常常是死的。假的鸚鵡嘴和旋轉的火輪這兩個比喻都違背了契經所說。沙門有四種，沒有第五種。如果僅僅因為外形相似就稱為沙門，就像世間有人裝出沙門的樣子，假裝方便，做出沙門的形狀，就應該被稱為沙門，說成是第五種。但假的鸚鵡嘴和旋轉的火輪不能被稱為嘴和輪。其餘的相貌不是真實的，嘴和輪是它們的前提。這樣就應該有先不是沙門，後來裝出沙門的樣子，而被立為第五種的情況。然而，佛陀說有四種沙門，沒有第五種，是爲了阻止人們執著于這種外表相似的沙門。因此，引用的這些比喻都沒有證明的能力。而且，經主怎麼知道佛陀是這樣說的呢？因為在其他地方說，不叫比丘，不叫沙門，不是釋子等等。難道不應該仔細思考嗎？怎麼能只根據一句話就固執己見呢？而且，之前已經說過了。之前說什麼呢？就是說這個沙門被稱為『污道』。因此，要知道這只是就勝義比丘的密意而言，才說『非比丘』等等。所以，不是完全捨棄一切律儀，才被稱為『非比丘』，這個道理是完全成立的。不是僅僅因為具有沙門的表相，才被稱為沙門，就像被燒的木材、鸚鵡嘴等等，這個道理是講不通的。 English version: Therefore, it is known that here, it is only in terms of the ultimate meaning (paramārtha, the ultimate truth) that it is said 'not a bhikṣu' (abhikṣu, not a monk). Because that pudgala (person) is called a 'defiled-path śramaṇa' (dūṣita-mārga-śramaṇa, a śramaṇa who has defiled the path). If he first attained the path and then became defiled, how could he become like this? The Sūtra Master explains that although there is this statement, he is only called a śramaṇa because he has the appearance of a śramaṇa. It's like burnt wood, a fake parrot's beak, a dried-up pond, a spoiled seed, a fire wheel, and a dead person. These metaphors are all ineffective because these things have lost their proper function. For example, if wood is slightly burned, the world will call it 'burnt wood,' not only when it is completely burned into charcoal. If it is said that whether the whole or a part is burned, it can be called 'burnt wood,' then both the metaphor and what is being compared become uncertain. The metaphor has no merit in proving what is being compared. In a 'dried-up pond,' there may still be a small amount of water, but it has lost the function of a pond, so it is called 'dried-up.' If it is said that even if there is no water at all, it is called 'dried-up,' then it becomes uncertain like the previous case. Therefore, using 'dead person' and 'spoiled seed' to prove it is also unconvincing. Although there may still be a little seed function, the world will also say that it is a 'spoiled seed.' Or even if it is not spoiled, but the function is damaged and it no longer sprouts, it is also called a 'spoiled seed.' Someone in a state similar to death is also called a 'dead person.' Therefore, the sūtra says that a negligent person is often dead. The two metaphors of a fake parrot's beak and a rotating fire wheel both violate what the sūtra says. There are four types of śramaṇas, not a fifth. If someone is called a śramaṇa simply because of their appearance, just like someone in the world pretends to be a śramaṇa, pretends to be convenient, and makes the shape of a śramaṇa, they should be called a śramaṇa and said to be the fifth type. But a fake parrot's beak and a rotating fire wheel cannot be called a beak and a wheel. The remaining appearances are not real, and the beak and wheel are their premise. In this way, there should be a situation where someone who was not a śramaṇa before later pretends to be a śramaṇa and is established as the fifth type. However, the Buddha said that there are four types of śramaṇas, not a fifth, in order to prevent people from clinging to this śramaṇa who is similar in appearance. Therefore, the cited metaphors have no ability to prove anything. Moreover, how does the Sūtra Master know that the Buddha said this? Because in other places it is said that they are not called bhikṣus, not called śramaṇas, not Śākyas, etc. Shouldn't you think carefully? How can you be stubborn based on just one sentence? Moreover, it has been said before. What was said before? It is said that this śramaṇa is called 'defiled path.' Therefore, it should be known that this is only in terms of the secret intention of the ultimate meaning bhikṣu that it is said 'not a bhikṣu,' etc. Therefore, it is not that one is called 'not a bhikṣu' only by completely abandoning all precepts; this principle is completely established. It is not that one is called a śramaṇa simply because one has the appearance of a śramaṇa, like burnt wood, a parrot's beak, etc.; this principle is untenable.
【English Translation】 Therefore it is known that here it is only in terms of the ultimate meaning (paramārtha, ultimate reality) that it is said 'not a bhikṣu' (abhikṣu, not a monk). Because that pudgala (person) is called a 'defiled-path śramaṇa' (dūṣita-mārga-śramaṇa, a śramaṇa who has defiled the path). If he first attained the path and then became defiled, how could he become like this? The Sūtra Master explains that although there is this statement, he is only called a śramaṇa because he has the appearance of a śramaṇa. Like burnt wood, a fake parrot's beak, a dried-up pond, a spoiled seed, a fire wheel, and a dead person. These metaphors are all ineffective because these things have lost their proper function. For example, if wood is slightly burned, the world will call it 'burnt wood,' not only when it is completely burned into charcoal. If it is said that whether the whole or a part is burned, it can be called 'burnt wood,' then both the metaphor and what is being compared become uncertain. The metaphor has no merit in proving what is being compared. In a 'dried-up pond,' there may still be a small amount of water, but it has lost the function of a pond, so it is called 'dried-up.' If it is said that even if there is no water at all, it is called 'dried-up,' then it becomes uncertain like the previous case. Therefore, using 'dead person' and 'spoiled seed' to prove it is also unconvincing. Although there may still be a little seed function, the world will also say that it is a 'spoiled seed.' Or even if it is not spoiled, but the function is damaged and it no longer sprouts, it is also called a 'spoiled seed.' Someone in a state similar to death is also called a 'dead person.' Therefore, the sūtra says that a negligent person is often dead. The two metaphors of a fake parrot's beak and a rotating fire wheel both violate what the sūtra says. There are four types of śramaṇas, not a fifth. If someone is called a śramaṇa simply because of their appearance, just like someone in the world pretends to be a śramaṇa, pretends to be convenient, and makes the shape of a śramaṇa, they should be called a śramaṇa and said to be the fifth type. But a fake parrot's beak and a rotating fire wheel cannot be called a beak and a wheel. The remaining appearances are not real, and the beak and wheel are their premise. In this way, there should be a situation where someone who was not a śramaṇa before later pretends to be a śramaṇa and is established as the fifth type. However, the Buddha said that there are four types of śramaṇas, not a fifth, in order to prevent people from clinging to this śramaṇa who is similar in appearance. Therefore, the cited metaphors have no ability to prove anything. Moreover, how does the Sūtra Master know that the Buddha said this? Because in other places it is said that they are not called bhikṣus, not called śramaṇas, not Śākyas, etc. Shouldn't you think carefully? How can you be stubborn based on just one sentence? Moreover, it has been said before. What was said before? It is said that this śramaṇa is called 'defiled path.' Therefore, it should be known that this is only in terms of the secret intention of the ultimate meaning bhikṣu that it is said 'not a bhikṣu,' etc. Therefore, it is not that one is called 'not a bhikṣu' only by completely abandoning all precepts; this principle is completely established. It is not that one is called a śramaṇa simply because one has the appearance of a śramaṇa, like burnt wood, a parrot's beak, etc.; this principle is untenable.
成立。以世尊說彼人應名犯戒苾芻惡苾芻故。若彼頓舍一切律儀。應但名為無尸羅等。寧標犯戒惡苾芻名。上座此中作如是詰。若言無者無何尸羅。以尸羅名亦目串習善惡戒。外亦見有言此善尸羅惡尸羅者作如是說何理相違。彼最應言無尸羅者。以一切有串習尸羅。然說彼為無尸羅者。則知彼闕凈戒尸羅。故彼詰言無深理趣。經主於此自問答言。若犯重人非苾芻者則應無有授學苾芻不說犯重人皆成他勝罪。但成他勝罪定說非苾芻。對法諸師豈不應說。經部定是極兇勃人。兇勃者何。謂作是說有犯重者非成他勝。以世尊說犯四重者不名苾芻乃至廣說。若謂彼據住覆藏心故佛說為非苾芻等。何緣不許犯重苾芻無苾芻勝能。言非苾芻等非由頓舍一切律儀。我國諸師不作是說。諸犯重者非非苾芻。但作是言有餘戒在。本於一切受得律儀。非犯一時余便頓舍。如汝宗說得不律儀。經主此中欲排正理。言彼所說非犯一邊一切律儀應遍舍者。彼言便是徴詰大師。大師此中立如是喻。如多羅樹若被斷頭必不復能生長廣大。此喻意顯犯一重時余戒不能生長廣大。戒根既斷理遍舍故。彼于喻意非能善釋。此喻但遮餘生長故。若異此者喻應不成。然我分明見此喻意。謂余學處如彼枝葉雖越而可得余律儀。四重如頭若隨犯一必不復得所餘律儀。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 成立。因為世尊說過，那個人應該被稱為『犯戒苾芻』（持戒僧人）或『惡苾芻』（行為不端的僧人）。如果他完全捨棄一切律儀，應該只被稱為『無尸羅』（沒有戒律）等等，而不應該標上『犯戒惡苾芻』的名稱。上座部在此提出這樣的詰問：如果說『無』，那麼『無』的是什麼尸羅？因為『尸羅』這個名稱也指串習的善惡戒，外面也看到有人說『這是善尸羅，那是惡尸羅』。這樣說有什麼道理相違背嗎？他們最應該說『無尸羅』的人，是因為一切都有串習的尸羅，然而說他是『無尸羅』，就知道他缺少清凈戒律的尸羅。所以他們的詰問沒有深刻的道理。經部的主張者在此自問自答說：如果犯了重罪的人不是苾芻，那麼就應該沒有授學苾芻，而不是說犯了重罪的人都成了他勝罪（被判決定罪）。只有成了他勝罪才能肯定地說不是苾芻。對法藏的諸位法師難道不應該這樣說嗎？經部一定是極其兇惡的人。什麼是兇惡？就是說有人犯了重罪，但沒有成為他勝罪。因為世尊說過，犯了四重罪的人不名為苾芻，乃至廣說。如果說那是根據他懷著覆藏罪過的心，所以佛才說他不是苾芻等等，那麼為什麼不允許犯了重罪的苾芻沒有苾芻的殊勝能力呢？說『不是苾芻』等等，不是因為他完全捨棄了一切律儀。我國的法師們不這樣說。犯了重罪的人不是『非苾芻』，只是說還有剩餘的戒律存在。本來對於一切受持的律儀，不是因為一時犯戒，其餘的就全部捨棄了，就像你們宗派所說的那樣，得到了不律儀。經部的主張者在此想要駁斥正理，說他們所說的不是犯了一邊，一切律儀就應該全部捨棄。他們的話就是在詰問大師。大師在此立了這樣的比喻：就像多羅樹，如果被砍斷了頭，必定不能再繼續生長廣大。這個比喻的意思是說，犯了一個重罪，其餘的戒律就不能生長廣大，戒律的根已經斷了，道理上就應該全部捨棄。他們對於比喻的意義沒有很好地解釋。這個比喻只是遮止其餘的生長，如果不是這樣，比喻就應該不成立。然而我分明地看到這個比喻的意義，是說其餘的學處就像樹的枝葉，即使違越了還可以得到其餘的律儀，而四重罪就像頭，如果犯了一個，必定不能再得到其餘的律儀。
【English Translation】 English version: It is established. Because the World Honored One said that person should be called a 'bhikshu who has violated the precepts' (a monk who holds precepts) or an 'evil bhikshu' (a monk with bad behavior). If he completely abandons all the precepts, he should only be called 'without shila' (without precepts) etc., and should not be labeled with the name 'bhikshu who has violated the precepts'. The Sthavira school raises such a question here: If you say 'without', then what shila is 'without'? Because the name 'shila' also refers to the habituation of good and bad precepts, and it is also seen outside that some people say 'this is good shila, that is bad shila'. Is there any contradiction in saying this? They should most say that the person 'without shila' is because everyone has habituated shila, but saying that he is 'without shila' means that he lacks the pure precepts of shila. So their question has no deep meaning. The master of the Sutra school here asks and answers himself: If a person who has committed a serious crime is not a bhikshu, then there should be no bhikshu receiving instruction, rather than saying that a person who has committed a serious crime has become defeated (convicted). Only when one becomes defeated can it be definitely said that he is not a bhikshu. Shouldn't the Dharma masters of the Abhidharma say this? The Sutra school must be an extremely fierce person. What is fierce? It means saying that someone has committed a serious crime, but has not become defeated. Because the World Honored One said that a person who has committed the four major offenses is not called a bhikshu, and so on. If it is said that it is because he has a mind of concealing his sins, so the Buddha said that he is not a bhikshu, etc., then why not allow a bhikshu who has committed a serious crime to have no superior abilities of a bhikshu? Saying 'not a bhikshu' etc. is not because he has completely abandoned all the precepts. The masters of our country do not say this. A person who has committed a serious crime is not 'not a bhikshu', but only says that there are remaining precepts. Originally, for all the precepts received, it is not because of committing a precept once that all the rest are abandoned, just like what your sect says, obtaining non-precepts. The master of the Sutra school here wants to refute the correct reasoning, saying that what they said is not that if one side is violated, all the precepts should be abandoned. Their words are questioning the master. The master here sets up such a metaphor: Like a tala tree, if its head is cut off, it will definitely not be able to continue to grow large. The meaning of this metaphor is that if one commits a serious crime, the remaining precepts cannot grow large, and since the root of the precepts has been cut off, it should be abandoned in principle. They did not explain the meaning of the metaphor well. This metaphor only prevents the rest from growing, if not, the metaphor should not be established. However, I clearly see the meaning of this metaphor, which is that the remaining trainings are like the branches and leaves of a tree, even if they are violated, the remaining precepts can be obtained, while the four major offenses are like the head, if one is committed, the remaining precepts can no longer be obtained.
由此定無入見道等。故契經說依住尸羅方能進修殊勝止觀。若異此釋喻便不成。且汝所宗四重學處。為總如一多羅樹頭。為一樹頭喻一學處。若四學處總喻一頭。應犯一時非舍一切。見斷少分多羅樹頭余分無妨猶生長故。若一學處如一樹頭。亦犯一時非舍一切。以見斷一多羅樹頭餘頭無妨猶生長故。如前已說。前說者何。謂於此中有何理趣。隨犯一重頓舍律儀。非護餘三不捨一切。如多羅頂斷一餘存。既見世間多羅樹頂雖斷一分余分猶生。四重總如多羅樹頂。應知犯一無損餘三。又諸多羅一頭被斷一不生長余樹不然。汝執尸羅一相續斷則余亦斷故喻不成。由此亦遮上座立喻。彼說如大樹具根莖枝葉。若根被斷便總乾枯。如是戒根若隨犯一則便頓壞一切律儀。誰於此中言余不壞。已說犯一余無勝能。謂必不能入見道等。然就彼喻非失律儀。以見世間或有一樹四根齊等深入堅牢。非斷一時一切枯死。唯損一分戒亦應然。就別樹論準前應說故彼立喻于證無能。經主此中復作是說。於此無義苦救何為。若如是人猶有苾芻性應自歸禮。如是類苾芻此言便為輕調于佛。以佛說彼亦是沙門。雖得污道名而有尸羅故。經主此中應作是說。於此無義何苦救為。若如是人猶有沙門性應自歸禮。如是類沙門余相沙門。如前已破非苾芻等。亦已
【現代漢語翻譯】 由此確定沒有通過持戒而進入見道的可能性。因此，契經中說，依靠並安住于尸羅（śīla，戒律）才能進一步修習殊勝的止觀。如果對此有不同的解釋，這個比喻就不成立了。而且，你所宗奉的四重學處，是總合起來像一棵多羅樹頭，還是一個樹頭比喻一個學處？如果四個學處總合起來比喻一個樹頭，那麼應該只是犯了一時，而不是捨棄一切。就像砍斷多羅樹頭的一小部分，其餘部分仍然可以生長一樣。如果一個學處像一個樹頭，那麼也只是犯了一時，而不是捨棄一切。因為砍斷一個多羅樹頭，其餘的樹頭仍然可以生長。正如前面已經說過的。前面說的是什麼呢？就是說，這裡面有什麼道理，會因為隨便犯了一重戒就完全捨棄律儀，而不是守護其餘的三重戒而不捨棄一切呢？就像多羅樹頂被砍斷一個，其餘的仍然存在一樣。既然看到世間上多羅樹頂即使被砍斷一部分，其餘部分仍然生長，那麼四重戒總合起來像多羅樹頂，就應該知道犯了一重戒不會損害其餘的三重戒。而且，很多多羅樹的一個樹頭被砍斷，這棵樹不會生長，其餘的樹卻不是這樣。你認為尸羅（śīla，戒律）一旦有一個相續斷了，其餘的也會斷，所以這個比喻不成立。由此也駁斥了上座部的比喻。他們說，就像一棵大樹具有根莖枝葉，如果根被砍斷，就會全部乾枯。就像戒根如果隨便犯了一個，就會立刻破壞一切律儀。誰會說犯了一個其餘的不會壞呢？已經說了犯了一個其餘的沒有殊勝的能力，就是說一定不能進入見道等等。然而就那個比喻來說，並非失去律儀。因為看到世間上或者有一棵樹四個根一樣深地深入地下，非常堅固，不是砍斷一個就會全部枯死。僅僅是損害了一部分，戒也應該是這樣。就別的樹來說，應該按照前面所說的來解釋，所以他們立的比喻不能證明什麼。經主在這裡又這樣說，對於這個沒有意義的事情，何苦要救呢？如果這樣的人還有苾芻（bhikṣu，比丘）的性質，應該自己去歸依禮敬。像這樣的苾芻（bhikṣu，比丘），這樣說就成了輕慢佛陀。因為佛陀說他們也是沙門（śrāmaṇa，修行者），雖然得到了污道的名字，但還是有尸羅（śīla，戒律）的。經主在這裡應該這樣說，對於這個沒有意義的事情，何苦要救呢？如果這樣的人還有沙門（śrāmaṇa，修行者）的性質，應該自己去歸依禮敬。像這樣的沙門（śrāmaṇa，修行者），其餘相似的沙門（śrāmaṇa，修行者）。正如前面已經駁斥過的，不是苾芻（bhikṣu，比丘）等等，也已經...
【English Translation】 Hence, it is determined that there is no possibility of entering the path of seeing (見道) through adhering to the precepts (śīla). Therefore, the scripture says that only by relying on and abiding in śīla (戒律, precepts) can one further cultivate the superior samatha-vipassanā (止觀, tranquility and insight). If there is a different interpretation of this, the analogy will not hold. Moreover, are the four weighty precepts (四重學處) that you uphold collectively like one top of a tala tree (多羅樹頭), or does one tree top represent one precept? If the four precepts collectively represent one tree top, then it should only be a temporary offense, not the abandonment of everything. Just as cutting off a small part of the tala tree top does not prevent the rest from growing. If one precept is like one tree top, then it is also only a temporary offense, not the abandonment of everything. Because cutting off one tala tree top does not prevent the other tops from growing. As has been said before. What was said before? It means, what is the reason here that one would completely abandon the precepts for casually violating one precept, rather than guarding the remaining three precepts and not abandoning everything? Just as if one tala tree top is cut off, the rest still exists. Since it is seen in the world that even if a part of the tala tree top is cut off, the rest still grows, then the four weighty precepts collectively like the tala tree top, it should be known that violating one precept does not harm the remaining three. Moreover, if one top of many tala trees is cut off, that tree will not grow, but the other trees are not like that. You believe that once one continuum of śīla (戒律, precepts) is broken, the rest will also be broken, so this analogy does not hold. This also refutes the analogy of the Sthavira school (上座部). They say that just like a large tree has roots, trunk, branches, and leaves, if the root is cut off, it will all wither. Just like if one precept root is casually violated, it will immediately destroy all precepts. Who would say that violating one does not harm the rest? It has already been said that violating one does not have the superior ability to do the rest, that is, it is certainly impossible to enter the path of seeing (見道) and so on. However, in terms of that analogy, it is not losing the precepts. Because it is seen in the world that there may be a tree with four roots equally deep and firmly rooted, not cutting off one will cause it to wither completely. It is only damaging a part, and the precepts should be like that too. In terms of other trees, it should be explained according to what was said before, so the analogy they established cannot prove anything. The scripture master (經主) says here again, why bother to save this meaningless thing? If such a person still has the nature of a bhikṣu (比丘, monk), he should go and take refuge and pay homage himself. Saying this about such a bhikṣu (比丘, monk) becomes disrespectful to the Buddha. Because the Buddha said that they are also śrāmaṇa (沙門, ascetic), although they have obtained the name of the defiled path, they still have śīla (戒律, precepts). The scripture master (經主) should say here, why bother to save this meaningless thing? If such a person still has the nature of a śrāmaṇa (沙門, ascetic), he should go and take refuge and pay homage himself. Like this śrāmaṇa (沙門, ascetic), the remaining similar śrāmaṇa (沙門, ascetic). As has been refuted before, not bhikṣu (比丘, monk) and so on, also already...
釋通由此理成。顯彼所引諸餘聖教為證無能。又彼不能少說正理。證唯犯一便舍一切。又于無義徒致推徴。實有律儀強言已舍。勸已犯者縱情造惡。豈名持法利樂有情。若犯重人有餘戒在。何緣擯出苾芻眾外。何用如是無勢用人。于清眾中速擯彌善。若由犯重便舍律儀。應如二形生時能捨。性相違故如闇與明。不犯律儀應容更受。非無慚愧永障尸羅。勿舍彼人不得受戒。故知重罪得與戒俱。由污尸羅不容更受。既無勝用故應擯出。上座於此更有多言。由前理教已總遮遣。恐文煩廣不別彈斥。然彼堅固煩惱纏心。于自論中造文作頌。說粗惡語謗讟聖賢。無故自傷深為可愍。我國眾聖惑業已除。所製法言憑真理教。而彼兇勃謗法毀人。既造深愆當招劇苦。我豈于彼更致酬言。唯愿當來彼惡無報。靜慮無漏二律儀等云何當舍。頌曰。
舍定生善法 由易地退等 舍聖由得果 練根及退失
論曰。諸靜慮地所繫善法由二緣舍一由易地。謂上下生。二由退失。謂退勝定舍眾同分。及離染時亦舍。暖等及退分定為攝此故復說等言。經主釋中應加離染。如舍色善由易地退及離染。三無色亦爾。舍無漏善由三種緣。一由得果總舍前道。二由練根舍鈍根道。三由退失舍諸勝道。此或是果或勝果攝。經主於此應說二緣。以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 釋通由此理成立。顯示他們所引用的其他聖教不能作為證據。而且他們也不能稍微說出正理，證明僅僅犯一次就捨棄一切。又在沒有意義的事情上徒勞地進行推測。明明有律儀卻強行說已經捨棄。勸說已經犯戒的人放縱地作惡。這怎麼能叫做持法，利益安樂有情呢？如果犯了重罪的人還有剩餘的戒律在，為什麼要把他驅逐出比丘僧團之外呢？要這種沒有勢力和作用的人有什麼用呢？在清凈的僧團中迅速驅逐他才好。如果因為犯了重罪就捨棄律儀，應該像二形人在出生時就能捨棄一樣，因為性相是相違背的，就像黑暗與光明一樣。沒有犯律儀的人應該允許他再次受戒，不要因為沒有慚愧就永遠障礙尸羅（śīla，戒律）。不要捨棄那些不能受戒的人。所以知道重罪可以和戒律同時存在。因為玷污了尸羅，所以不允許再次受戒。既然沒有殊勝的作用，所以應該驅逐出去。上座對此還有很多話要說，但是已經被前面的道理和教義完全駁斥了。恐怕文字繁瑣冗長，就不一一駁斥了。然而他們堅固的煩惱纏繞著內心，在自己的論著中造文作頌，說粗惡的語言誹謗聖賢。無緣無故地自我傷害，真是可憐。我國的眾多聖者已經消除了迷惑和業障，所制定的法言依據真實的道理和教義。而他們兇狠暴戾，誹謗佛法，詆譭他人。既然造下了深重的罪過，應當招致巨大的痛苦。我難道還要對他們進行辯駁嗎？只希望將來他們不要遭受惡報。靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）、無漏（anāsrava，沒有煩惱）二律儀等，應當如何捨棄呢？頌曰：
舍定生善法 由易地退等
舍聖由得果 練根及退失
論曰：各種靜慮地所繫的善法，由兩種因緣捨棄：一是由於改變了所處的地，比如上下生；二是由於退失，比如退失殊勝的禪定，捨棄了眾同分，以及離開染污的時候也會捨棄。暖等以及退分定，爲了包含這些，所以又說了『等』字。經主的解釋中應該加上『離染』。就像捨棄色界的善法，由於改變所處的地，退失以及離開染污。三個無色界也是這樣。捨棄無漏的善法，由三種因緣：一是由於獲得果位，完全捨棄了之前的道；二是由練根，捨棄了鈍根的道；三是由退失，捨棄了各種殊勝的道。這些或者屬於果位，或者屬於殊勝的果位。經主在這裡應該說兩種因緣，因為
【English Translation】 English version: Release through this principle is established. It shows that the other holy teachings they cite cannot be used as evidence. Moreover, they cannot even slightly state the correct reasoning to prove that abandoning everything after committing only one offense. Furthermore, they engage in futile speculation on meaningless matters. They strongly assert that they have abandoned the precepts when they actually possess them. They encourage those who have already violated the precepts to indulge in evil deeds. How can this be called upholding the Dharma and benefiting sentient beings with joy? If someone who has committed a serious offense still has remaining precepts, why should they be expelled from the Bhikṣu (monk) Sangha (community)? What is the use of such powerless individuals? It is better to quickly expel them from the pure Sangha. If one abandons the precepts upon committing a serious offense, it should be like a hermaphrodite abandoning them at birth, because their natures are contradictory, like darkness and light. Those who have not violated the precepts should be allowed to receive them again, and one should not be permanently obstructed from Śīla (precepts) due to a lack of shame. Do not abandon those who cannot receive the precepts. Therefore, it is known that serious offenses can coexist with the precepts. Because one has defiled Śīla, one is not allowed to receive them again. Since there is no superior function, one should be expelled. The Elder has much more to say on this matter, but it has already been completely refuted by the preceding principles and teachings. Fearing that the text would be tedious and lengthy, I will not refute it one by one. However, their firm afflictions entangle their minds, and they create texts and verses in their own treatises, speaking harsh words and slandering the sages. They harm themselves for no reason, which is truly pitiable. The many saints in our country have already eliminated delusion and karma, and the Dharma words they have established are based on true principles and teachings. But they are fierce and violent, slandering the Dharma and defaming others. Since they have committed deep transgressions, they should suffer great pain. Should I engage in further debate with them? I only hope that they will not suffer evil retribution in the future. How should one abandon Dhyāna (meditative absorption), Anāsrava (non-outflow) and the two sets of precepts? The verse says:
Abandoning good Dharma arising from Samādhi (concentration) due to changing realms, regression, etc.
Abandoning holiness due to attaining fruition, cultivating roots, and loss.
The treatise says: The good Dharmas associated with the various Dhyāna realms are abandoned due to two conditions: one is due to changing realms, such as being born in higher or lower realms; the other is due to loss, such as losing superior Samādhi, abandoning the commonality of the aggregates, and also abandoning them when leaving defilement. Warmth, etc., and regressive Samādhi, to include these, the word 'etc.' is added. The explanation of the Sūtra Master should add 'leaving defilement'. Just as abandoning the good Dharmas of the form realm is due to changing realms, loss, and leaving defilement. The three formless realms are also the same. Abandoning Anāsrava good Dharmas is due to three conditions: one is due to attaining fruition, completely abandoning the previous path; two is due to cultivating roots, abandoning the path of dull roots; and three is due to loss, abandoning the various superior paths. These either belong to fruition or to superior fruition. The Sūtra Master should state two conditions here, because
得果言攝練根言。謂練根位必還得果棄捨鈍果勝果道故。我於此中應少分別。若舍見道及道類智。當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無所餘無漏容具二種。如是已說舍諸律儀。不律儀云何舍。頌曰。
舍惡戒由死 得戒二形生
論曰。諸不律儀由三緣舍。一者由死舍所依故。二由得戒。謂若受得別解律儀。或由獲得靜慮律儀惡戒便舍。對治力勝舍不律儀。三由相續二形俱起。以于爾時所依變故。住惡戒者雖或有時由善意樂舍刀網等。若不得律儀終不捨惡戒。現見雖避諸發病緣。不服良藥病終難愈。不律儀者。受近住戒至夜盡位舍律儀時。為得不律儀為名處中者。有餘師說。得不律儀惡阿世耶非永舍故。如停熱鐵赤滅青生。有餘師言。若不更作無緣令彼得不律儀。以不律儀依表得故。前說應理。先受戒時惡阿世耶非永舍故。依前表業惡戒還起。處中無表舍復云何。頌曰。
舍中由受勢 作事壽根斷
論曰。處中無表舍由六緣。一由受心斷壞故舍。謂先誓受恒于某時敬禮制多。及讚頌等今作是念。后更不為彼阿世耶。從茲便息由彼棄捨本意樂故。或復別作勢用增強與先現行相違。事業本意樂息無表便斷。二由勢力斷壞故舍。謂由凈信煩惱勢力所引無表。彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便舍。如所放箭及
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『得果』（證得果位）和『攝練根』（收攝磨練根器）的說法，指的是磨練根器的階段必定會證得果位，因為要捨棄遲鈍的果位，追求殊勝的果位之道。對此我應當稍作辨析。如果捨棄見道和道類智（Dharmakaya-jnana，證悟真如的智慧），應當知道僅僅因為證得果位而不會退轉。如果是不動法（不退轉之法）和無學（Arhat，阿羅漢），那麼就完全沒有剩餘的無漏功德，具備兩種情況。像這樣已經說了捨棄各種律儀（戒律）。那麼，不律儀（非戒）又該如何捨棄呢？頌文說： 『舍惡戒由死，得戒二形生。』 論述：各種不律儀由三種因緣捨棄。一是由於死亡，捨棄了所依之處。二是由於獲得戒律。如果受持別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha，波羅提木叉），或者由於獲得靜慮律儀（Dhyana，禪定），惡戒便會捨棄。因為對治的力量勝過不律儀。三是由於相續中出現兩種性別。因為在那個時候所依之處發生了變化。安住于惡戒的人，即使有時由於善良的意樂而捨棄刀網等，如果不得律儀，最終也不會捨棄惡戒。現在可以看到，即使躲避各種引發疾病的因素，如果不服用良藥，疾病最終難以痊癒。對於不律儀者，受持近住戒（Upavasatha，八關齋戒）到夜晚結束捨棄律儀時，是爲了獲得不律儀還是名為處中者呢？有其他老師說，獲得了不律儀，惡劣的意樂並非永遠捨棄，就像停止加熱的鐵，紅色消失而青色產生。還有其他老師說，如果不再次造作，就沒有因緣使他獲得不律儀，因為不律儀是依靠表業（身語行為）而獲得的。前面的說法應該更合理。因為先前受戒時，惡劣的意樂並非永遠捨棄，依靠先前的表業，惡戒還會再次生起。那麼，處中無表（既非善亦非惡的無表業）的捨棄又是如何呢？頌文說： 『舍中由受勢，作事壽根斷。』 論述：處中無表由六種因緣捨棄。一是由受心斷壞而捨棄。比如先前發誓要經常在某個時間敬禮制多（Chaitya，佛塔）以及讚頌等，現在產生這樣的想法，以後不再為此事而生起意樂。從此便停止，因為他捨棄了原本的意樂。或者另外造作勢力增強的行為，與先前的現行行為相違背，事業的原本意樂停止，無表便會斷滅。二是由勢力斷壞而捨棄。比如由凈信（清凈的信心）和煩惱的勢力所引發的無表，這二者的限度勢力如果斷壞時，無表便會捨棄。就像所放出的箭和...
【English Translation】 English version The statements about 'Gaining the Fruit' (realizing the fruit of practice) and 'Gathering and Refining the Roots' (collecting and refining the faculties) refer to the stage of refining the faculties where one inevitably attains the fruit, because one must abandon dull fruits and pursue the path of superior fruits. I should make a slight distinction here. If one abandons the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga) and Knowledge of Types of Paths (Dharmakaya-jnana), know that there is no regression solely due to gaining the fruit. If it is the Immovable Dharma (non-regressing dharma) and the No-More-Learning (Arhat), then there are absolutely no remaining unwholesome qualities, possessing both conditions. Thus, it has been said how to abandon various vows (precepts). How then is non-vow (non-precept) abandoned? The verse says: 'Abandoning evil vows through death, gaining vows through two-sex birth.' Treatise: Various non-vows are abandoned through three conditions. First, through death, abandoning the basis of reliance. Second, through gaining vows. If one receives the Pratimoksha vows, or through gaining the vows of meditative absorption (Dhyana), evil vows are abandoned. Because the power of the antidote surpasses non-vows. Third, through the arising of two genders in the continuum. Because at that time, the basis of reliance changes. Those who abide in evil vows, even if sometimes abandoning knives and nets due to virtuous intention, ultimately do not abandon evil vows if they do not gain vows. It can be seen that even if one avoids various causes that trigger illness, the illness is ultimately difficult to cure without taking good medicine. For those with non-vows, when taking the Upavasatha vows until the end of the night and abandoning the vows, is it to gain non-vows or is it called being in between? Some teachers say that having gained non-vows, the evil intention is not abandoned forever, like stopping heating iron, where red disappears and blue arises. Other teachers say that if one does not create it again, there is no condition for him to gain non-vows, because non-vows are gained through expressive actions (body and speech). The previous statement should be more reasonable. Because when taking vows previously, the evil intention is not abandoned forever, and relying on the previous expressive actions, evil vows arise again. Then, how is the abandonment of neutral non-expression (neither good nor evil non-manifest action)? 'Abandoning the neutral through receiving power, performing actions, and cutting off the root of life.' Treatise: Neutral non-expression is abandoned through six conditions. First, it is abandoned through the destruction of the mind of receiving. For example, previously vowing to regularly pay homage to the Chaitya and chant praises at a certain time, now having the thought that one will no longer generate intention for this matter. From this point on, it ceases because he abandons the original intention. Or, additionally creating actions with increased power that contradict the previous current actions, the original intention of the action ceases, and the non-expression is destroyed. Second, it is abandoned through the destruction of power. For example, the non-expression induced by the power of pure faith and afflictions, if the limit of these two powers is destroyed, the non-expression is abandoned. Like an arrow that has been shot and...
陶家輪。故軌範師作如是說。由等起力所引發故。雖舍加行及阿世耶無表。或容盡壽隨轉。乃至發起極猛利纏捶擊禽獸應知亦爾。或先立限齊爾所時今限勢過無表便斷。三由作業斷壞故舍。謂雖不捨根本受心。然更不為所受作業。唯除忘念而不作者以此無表期加行生。絕加行時無表便舍。四由事物斷壞故舍。謂所舍施制多園林。及所施為罝網等事。本由彼事引無表生。彼事壞時無表便舍。五由壽命斷壞故舍。謂所依止有轉易故。六由依根斷壞故舍。謂起加行斷善惡時。各舍彼根所引無表。非至斷善得靜慮時方舍。處中善惡無表以羸劣故起加行時便舍。處中善惡無表如何。經主於此義中說第六緣名為斷善。若作是說斷善加行亦名斷善為第六緣。是則應言靜慮加行亦名靜慮。便成七緣靜慮加行中舍惡無表故。應言根者通善惡根。所說斷言是斷加行由依根斷為第六緣。此釋頌文于理無失。欲非色善及餘一切非色染法舍復云何。頌曰。
舍欲非色善 由根斷上生 由對治道生 舍諸非色染
論曰。欲界一切非色善法舍由二緣。一斷善根。二生上界。應言少分亦離染舍。如憂根等非色善法。三界一切非色染法舍由一緣。謂起治道若此品類能斷道生。舍此品中惑及助伴。何有情有善惡律儀。頌曰。
惡戒人除
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 陶家輪（Tāojiālún）。故軌範師（guǐfàn shī，行爲準則的老師）作如是說：『由等起力（děng qǐ lì，動機的力量）所引發，雖舍加行（jiāxíng，努力）及阿世耶無表（ā shì yē wú biǎo，潛在的無表業），或容盡壽隨轉，乃至發起極猛利纏（jí měnglì chán，非常強烈的煩惱）捶擊禽獸應知亦爾。』或先立限齊爾所時，今限勢過無表便斷。三、由作業斷壞故舍。謂雖不捨根本受心，然更不為所受作業，唯除忘念而不作者，以此無表期加行生。絕加行時無表便舍。四、由事物斷壞故舍。謂所舍施制多（zhì duō，精舍）園林，及所施為罝網（jū wǎng，捕獸網）等事，本由彼事引無表生，彼事壞時無表便舍。五、由壽命斷壞故舍。謂所依止有轉易故。六、由依根斷壞故舍。謂起加行斷善惡時，各舍彼根所引無表。非至斷善得靜慮（jìng lǜ，禪定）時方舍。處中善惡無表以羸劣故，起加行時便舍。處中善惡無表如何？經主於此義中說第六緣名為斷善。若作是說，斷善加行亦名斷善為第六緣，是則應言靜慮加行亦名靜慮，便成七緣靜慮加行中舍惡無表故。應言根者通善惡根，所說斷言是斷加行由依根斷為第六緣。此釋頌文于理無失。欲非色善及餘一切非色染法舍復云何？頌曰：
舍欲非色善 由根斷上生 由對治道生 舍諸非色染
論曰：欲界一切非色善法舍由二緣：一、斷善根；二、生上界。應言少分亦離染舍，如憂根等非色善法。三界一切非色染法舍由一緣：謂起治道若此品類能斷道生，舍此品中惑及助伴。何有情有善惡律儀？頌曰：
惡戒人除
【English Translation】 English version Tāojiālún. The former guide teacher (guǐfàn shī, teacher of conduct) said: 'Because it is initiated by the power of motivation (děng qǐ lì, the power of motivation), although abandoning effort (jiāxíng, effort) and Āshìyē unmanifest karma (ā shì yē wú biǎo, potential unmanifest karma), it may continue to transform throughout life, even to the point of initiating extremely fierce afflictions (jí měnglì chán, extremely fierce afflictions) to strike animals, it should be understood that it is also like that.' Or first set a limit to that time, now the limit has passed and the unmanifest karma is cut off. Three, it is abandoned because the action is broken. Although the fundamental receptive mind is not abandoned, no further actions are performed for the received karma, except for those who forget and do not act, because this unmanifest karma arises from the effort. When the effort ceases, the unmanifest karma is abandoned. Four, it is abandoned because the object is broken. The donated Jeta (zhì duō, monastery) gardens, and the donated hunting nets (jū wǎng, hunting nets) and other things, originally caused the unmanifest karma to arise from those things, and when those things are broken, the unmanifest karma is abandoned. Five, it is abandoned because life is broken. Because the support has changed. Six, it is abandoned because the root is broken. When effort is made to cut off good and evil, the unmanifest karma caused by each root is abandoned. It is not abandoned until the time of cutting off good and attaining meditation (jìng lǜ, meditation). The neutral good and evil unmanifest karma is abandoned when effort is made because it is weak. What about the neutral good and evil unmanifest karma? The master of the scriptures says in this meaning that the sixth condition is called cutting off good. If it is said that the effort to cut off good is also called cutting off good as the sixth condition, then it should be said that the effort of meditation is also called meditation, and it becomes seven conditions because the evil unmanifest karma is abandoned in the effort of meditation. It should be said that the root refers to both good and evil roots, and the so-called cutting off refers to the effort to cut off, and the sixth condition is the breaking of the root. This explanation of the verse is reasonable. How is the abandonment of desire, non-form good, and all other non-form defiled dharmas? The verse says:
Abandon desire, non-form good, by cutting off the root and ascending. By the arising of the antidote path, abandon all non-form defilements.
The treatise says: The abandonment of all non-form good dharmas in the desire realm is due to two conditions: first, cutting off the root of good; second, being born in the upper realm. It should be said that a small part is also abandoned from defilement, such as the root of sorrow and other non-form good dharmas. The abandonment of all non-form defiled dharmas in the three realms is due to one condition: the arising of the antidote path. If this category of path that can cut off arises, abandon the delusions and their companions in this category. Which sentient beings have good and evil precepts? The verse says:
Except for those with evil precepts.
北 二黃門二形 律儀亦在天 唯人具三種 生欲天色界 有靜慮律儀 無漏並無色 除中定無想
論曰。唯於人趣有不律儀。然除北洲唯三方有。於三方內復除扇搋及半擇迦具二形者。律儀亦爾。謂於人中除前所除並天亦有故。於二趣容有律儀。復以何緣知扇搋等所有相續非律儀。依由經律中有誠證故。謂契經說佛告大名。諸有在家白衣男子男根成就乃至廣說。毗奈耶中亦作是說。汝應除棄此色類人。故知律儀非彼類有。復由何理彼無律儀。由二所依所起煩惱於一相續俱增上故。于正思擇無堪能故。彼起貪慾相續行時不能伏除故非戒器。又有猛利慚愧現前。此類方能為戒依止。彼類無故非律儀依。若爾何緣彼無惡戒。于彼相續惡阿世耶性羸劣故不堅住故。謂扇搋等淫愛多行。無暫伏除對治道故。非諸數起猛利愛人能于有情。起極猛利勃惡意樂令現在前。設暫能生亦不堅住。身無能故心亦無能故彼類身亦無惡戒。即由此理善阿世耶。于彼身中劣不堅住。要有強盛堅住噁心方有惡戒。及有強盛堅住善心方有善戒。彼俱闕故二戒俱無。然二形生舍善惡戒二依。貪慾極增上故。非成扇搋等舍善惡律儀。起二依貪非極重故。由如是理已釋北洲。二阿世耶非猛利故。又不順起三摩地故。彼身無有善惡律儀。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 北洲之人，以及具有二種性別的黃門（宦官）之人，不具律儀。 律儀也存在於天界，只有人類同時具備三種（律儀、不律儀、非律儀非不律儀）。 生欲天（指欲界天）具有靜慮律儀。 無漏律儀和無色界天也具有律儀，除了中間禪定和無想定。
論曰：只有在人道中存在不律儀。然而，除了北俱盧洲，只有在其他三個洲存在。在這三個洲內，還要除去扇搋（不能行淫之人）、以及具有兩種性別的半擇迦（太監），他們不具律儀。律儀也是如此，在人類中除了前面所排除的，天界也存在律儀，所以在兩個道（人道和天道）中可能存在律儀。又根據什麼原因知道扇搋等人的相續不是律儀呢？根據經律中有明確的證據。比如契經中說，佛告訴大名，凡是有在家白衣男子，男根成就，乃至廣說。毗奈耶中也這樣說，你應該除去此類人。所以知道律儀不是他們所具有的。又根據什麼道理他們沒有律儀呢？因為兩種所依（指身和心）所產生的煩惱，在同一個相續中都非常強烈。對於正確的思考沒有能力。他們在產生貪慾相續的時候，不能夠降伏和去除，所以不是持戒的法器。又有強烈的慚愧心出現，這樣的人才能作為戒的所依止。他們沒有這些，所以不是律儀的所依。 如果這樣，為什麼他們沒有惡戒呢？因為在他們的相續中，惡劣的意樂（阿世耶，心態）本性羸弱，不能夠堅固地安住。比如扇搋等人，淫愛行為很多，沒有暫時降伏和去除的對治方法。不是那些經常生起強烈愛慾的人，能夠對有情，生起極其強烈的憤怒和惡意，令其現在生起。即使暫時能夠生起，也不能夠堅固地安住。身體沒有能力，心也沒有能力，所以他們這類人身也沒有惡戒。也因為這個道理，善良的意樂，在他們的身中也是羸弱而不堅固的。一定要有強盛而堅固的噁心，才會有惡戒。以及有強盛而堅固的善心，才會有善戒。他們都缺少這些，所以兩種戒都沒有。然而，具有兩種性別的人，捨棄善惡戒的兩種所依，因為貪慾極其強烈。不是成為扇搋等人就捨棄善惡律儀，因為生起兩種所依的貪慾不是非常嚴重。由於這樣的道理，已經解釋了北俱盧洲的情況。兩種意樂不是非常強烈。又不順應生起三摩地（禪定），所以他們身中沒有善惡律儀。
【English Translation】 English version The people of Uttarakuru (North Continent), and eunuchs (Huangmen) with two genders do not possess moral discipline (Lv Yi). Moral discipline also exists in the heavens, only humans possess all three (moral discipline, non-moral discipline, neither moral discipline nor non-moral discipline). The heavens of the desire realm (Sheng Yu Tian) possess meditative moral discipline. The undefiled moral discipline and the formless realm heavens also possess moral discipline, except for the intermediate dhyana (Zhong Ding) and non-perception (Wu Xiang).
Treatise says: Only in the human realm does non-moral discipline exist. However, except for Uttarakuru, it only exists in the other three continents. Within these three continents, those who are excluded are eunuchs (Shanchai, those who cannot engage in sexual activity) and hermaphrodites (Banzhejia, eunuchs with two genders), who do not possess moral discipline. Moral discipline is also the same; among humans, excluding those previously excluded, the heavens also possess it, so moral discipline may exist in the two realms (human and heaven). Furthermore, by what reason do we know that the mental continuum of eunuchs, etc., is not moral discipline? Because there is clear evidence in the sutras and vinaya. For example, the sutra says that the Buddha told Damana, 'All laymen who are men with complete male organs,' and so on. The Vinaya also says, 'You should exclude these types of people.' Therefore, it is known that moral discipline is not possessed by them. Furthermore, by what principle do they not have moral discipline? Because the afflictions arising from the two bases (body and mind) are both very strong in the same mental continuum. They do not have the ability for correct contemplation. When they generate a continuous stream of desire, they cannot subdue and remove it, so they are not vessels for holding precepts. Furthermore, the presence of strong shame and remorse is what allows one to rely on precepts. They do not have these, so they are not a basis for moral discipline. If so, why do they not have immoral discipline? Because in their mental continuum, the nature of evil intentions (Ashaya, mindset) is weak and cannot firmly abide. For example, eunuchs, etc., engage in many acts of lust and love, without temporary subduing and removing antidotes. It is not that those who frequently generate strong desire can generate extremely strong anger and malice towards sentient beings, causing it to arise in the present. Even if it can arise temporarily, it cannot firmly abide. The body has no ability, and the mind has no ability, so their bodies do not have immoral discipline either. Also, for this reason, good intentions are also weak and not firm in their bodies. There must be a strong and firm evil mind to have immoral discipline. And there must be a strong and firm good mind to have good moral discipline. They lack both of these, so they have neither type of discipline. However, those with two genders abandon the two bases of good and immoral discipline because their greed is extremely strong. It is not that becoming a eunuch, etc., abandons good and immoral discipline, because the greed arising from the two bases is not very serious. Due to these reasons, the situation of Uttarakuru has already been explained. The two types of intentions are not very strong. And they do not accord with the arising of samadhi (meditative concentration), so there is no good or immoral discipline in their bodies.
惡趣無能覺耶正理。又非猛利慚愧所依。要此相應及損壞者。方可得有善惡律儀。故惡趣中無善惡戒。又扇搋等如鹹鹵田。故不能生善戒惡戒。世間現見諸鹹鹵田。不能滋生嘉苗穢草。若爾何故契經中言。有卵生龍半月八日每從宮出來至人間。求受八支近住齋戒此得妙行非得律儀。是故律儀唯人天有。然唯人具三種律儀。謂別解脫靜慮無漏。若生欲天及生色界皆容得有靜慮律儀。然無想天但容成就。生無色界彼俱非有無漏律儀亦在無色。謂若生在欲界天中及生色界中。除中定無想皆容得有無漏律儀。生無色中唯得成就。以無色故必不現起。無漏上生得成下故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第三十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辨業品第四之八
因辨諸業性相不同。當釋經中所摽諸業。且經中說業有三種。善惡無記其相云何。頌曰。
安不安非業 名善惡無記
論曰。諸安隱業說名為善。能得可愛異熟涅槃。暫永二時濟眾苦故。不安隱業名為不善。由此能招非愛異熟。極能遮止趣涅槃故。非前二業立無記名。不可記為善不善故。是非安隱不安隱義。又經中說業有三種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：惡趣（指地獄、餓鬼、畜生三惡道）眾生無法覺悟正確的道理，而且沒有強烈的慚愧心作為依靠。只有與慚愧相應，以及能夠破壞戒律者，才有可能得到善或惡的律儀（戒律）。因此，惡趣中沒有善惡戒。此外，像扇搋（指閹人）等，如同鹹鹵田（鹽堿地），所以不能產生善戒或惡戒。世間現常見到，鹹鹵田不能滋生好的苗或壞的草。如果這樣，為什麼契經（佛經）中說，有卵生的龍，每月兩次，在初八和二十三日，從龍宮出來到人間，求受八支近住齋戒（八關齋戒）？這是得到妙行，不是得到律儀。所以，律儀只有人和天人才有。然而，只有人才具有三種律儀，即別解脫律儀（聲聞戒）、靜慮律儀（禪定戒）和無漏律儀（無學戒）。如果生在欲界天或生在（此處原文如此，疑為『色界』），都可能得到靜慮律儀。然而，無想天（色界天之一）只是容許成就靜慮律儀。生在無（此處原文如此，疑為『色界』）天，則兩者都沒有。無漏律儀也在無色界天中。如果生在欲界天中，或生在**（此處原文如此，疑為『色界』）中，除了中定（中間禪定）和無想天，都可能得到無漏律儀。生在無色界中，只能得到成就，因為無色界沒有形色，所以必定不會現起。無漏律儀是上界能成就地獄的律儀。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第三十九 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辨業品第四之八
因為要辨別各種業的性質和相狀的不同，所以應當解釋經中所標示的各種業。且經中說業有三種，即善、惡、無記，它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌曰：
安隱、不安隱、非業，名為善、惡、無記。
論曰：諸安隱的業，說名為善。因為它能得到可愛的異熟果報和涅槃，在暫時和永久兩個時間段都能救濟眾生的痛苦。不安隱的業，名為不善。由此能招感不可愛的異熟果報，並且極大地遮止趣向涅槃。不是前兩種業的，就立為無記名。因為它不可記為善或不善。是非安隱和不安隱的意思。又經中說業有三種。
【English Translation】 English version: Beings in the evil destinies (referring to the three evil paths of hell, hungry ghosts, and animals) are incapable of awakening to the correct principles, and they lack strong feelings of shame and remorse to rely on. Only those who are associated with shame and remorse, and those who are capable of breaking precepts, have the possibility of obtaining good or evil l律儀 (śīla, precepts). Therefore, there are no good or evil precepts in the evil destinies. Furthermore, beings like 扇搋 (paṇḍaka, eunuchs), are like saline and alkaline land, so they cannot produce good or evil precepts. It is commonly seen in the world that saline and alkaline land cannot nurture good seedlings or bad weeds. If this is the case, why does the 契經 (sūtra, Buddhist scripture) say that there are oviparous dragons who, twice a month, on the eighth and twenty-third days, come from the dragon palace to the human world to seek and receive the eight-branch 近住齋戒 (upavāsa, eight precepts)? This is obtaining excellent conduct, not obtaining l律儀 (śīla, precepts). Therefore, l律儀 (śīla, precepts) only exist in humans and gods. However, only humans possess the three types of l律儀 (śīla, precepts), namely, 別解脫律儀 (prātimokṣa-saṃvara, precepts of individual liberation), 靜慮律儀 (dhyāna-saṃvara, precepts of meditative concentration), and 無漏律儀 (anāsrava-saṃvara, precepts of non-outflow). If one is born in the desire realm heavens or in the 色界 (rūpadhātu, form realm), it is possible to obtain 靜慮律儀 (dhyāna-saṃvara, precepts of meditative concentration). However, the 無想天 (asaṃjñā-sattva, heaven of non-perception) only allows for the attainment of 靜慮律儀 (dhyāna-saṃvara, precepts of meditative concentration). Those born in the 無色界 (arūpadhātu, formless realm) do not have either. 無漏律儀 (anāsrava-saṃvara, precepts of non-outflow) is also in the formless realm. If one is born in the desire realm heavens, or in the 色界 (rūpadhātu, form realm), except for the 中定 (dhyāna-antarika, intermediate meditation) and the 無想天 (asaṃjñā-sattva, heaven of non-perception), it is possible to obtain 無漏律儀 (anāsrava-saṃvara, precepts of non-outflow). Those born in the formless realm can only attain it, because the formless realm has no form, so it will definitely not manifest. 無漏律儀 (anāsrava-saṃvara, precepts of non-outflow) is that the higher realm can accomplish the precepts of the lower realm.
《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》 Volume 39 Taishō Tripiṭaka Volume 29, No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》
《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》 Volume 40
Composed by Venerable Master Saṃghabhadra
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Four on Distinguishing Karma, Part Eight
Because we need to distinguish the different natures and characteristics of various karmas, we should explain the various karmas indicated in the scriptures. Furthermore, the scriptures say that there are three types of karma, namely, good, evil, and neutral. What are their characteristics? The verse says:
Peaceful, unpeaceful, non-karma, are called good, evil, and neutral.
Commentary: Peaceful karma is called good. Because it can obtain desirable 異熟 (vipāka, resultant) rewards and 涅槃 (nirvāṇa, nirvana), and can relieve the suffering of sentient beings in both temporary and permanent time periods. Unpeaceful karma is called evil. Because it can cause undesirable 異熟 (vipāka, resultant) rewards, and greatly prevents one from approaching 涅槃 (nirvāṇa, nirvana). What is not either of the previous two types of karma is established as neutral. Because it cannot be recorded as good or evil. This is the meaning of non-peaceful and unpeaceful. Furthermore, the scriptures say that there are three types of karma.
。福非福等其相云何。頌曰。
福非福不動 欲善業名福 不善名非福 上界善不動 約自地處所 業果無動故
論曰。欲界善業說名為福。非福相違招愛果故。諸不善業說名非福招非愛果違福業故。上二界善說名不動。豈不世尊說下三定皆名有動。聖說此中有尋伺喜樂受動故。由下三定有尋伺等災患未息故立動名不動。經中據能感得不動異熟說名不動。如何有動定招無動異熟。雖此定中有災患動而業對果非如欲界有動轉故立不動名。謂欲界中余趣處滿業。由別緣力可異趣處受。以或有業能感外內財位形量色力樂等。于天等中此業應熟。由別緣力所引轉故。於人等中此業便熟。色無色界餘地處業。無容轉令異地處受業果處所。無改動故等引地攝無散動故。依如是義立不動名。應知此中由於因果相屬愚故造非福業。以非福業純染污故。要依粗重相續無明。由此無明現在前位。不能解信因果相屬。是故發起諸非福行。由真實義愚故造福及不動業。真實義者。謂四聖諦。若於彼愚諸異生類。于善心位亦得間起。由此勢力令於三界。不如實知其性皆苦。起福不動行為後有因。若已見諦者則無是事。乘先行力漸離染時。如次得生欲色無色。又經中說業有三種。順樂受等其相云何。頌曰。
順樂苦非二
【現代漢語翻譯】 福與非福的差別在於它們的相狀如何？頌文說：
『福非福不動，欲善業名福， 不善名非福，上界善不動， 約自地處所，業果無動故。』
論述：欲界的善業被稱為『福』，因為與『非福』相反，它能招感可愛的果報。諸不善業被稱為『非福』，因為它招感不可愛的果報，與『福』業相反。色界和無色界的善業被稱為『不動』。難道世尊不是說過下三禪定都名為『有動』嗎？聖者說這是因為此中有尋、伺、喜、樂等感受的動搖。由於下三禪定有尋伺等災患尚未止息，所以立名為『動』。經中是根據它們能夠感得不動的異熟果報而說為『不動』。如何能說有動的禪定招感無動的異熟果報呢？雖然這些禪定中有災患的動搖，但業對果報的影響不像欲界那樣有動轉，所以立名為『不動』。也就是說，欲界中在其他趣處圓滿的業，由於其他因緣的力量，可以在不同的趣處感受果報。例如，有些業能夠感得外在或內在的財富、地位、形體、容量、顏色、力量、快樂等。在天界等處，這些業本應成熟，但由於其他因緣的力量牽引轉變，這些業便在人界等處成熟。色界和無色界其餘地處的業，沒有容許轉變到其他地處感受果報的可能性，因為業果的處所沒有改變和動搖，等引地攝持，沒有散動。根據這樣的意義，立名為『不動』。應當知道，這裡由於對因果關係愚昧，所以造作『非福』業。因為『非福』業是純粹染污的，必須依靠粗重的相續無明。由於這種無明現在前位，不能理解和相信因果關係，所以發起諸『非福』行為。由於對真實義理的愚昧，所以造作『福』和『不動』業。真實義理指的是四聖諦。如果對四聖諦愚昧，各種異生類在善心位也可能間斷地生起煩惱。由於這種力量，使得他們對於三界的本質不能如實地知曉，認為其本質都是苦，從而發起『福』和『不動』行為，作為後有的原因。如果已經見諦，就不會有這樣的事情發生。憑藉先前的修行力量，逐漸遠離染污時，就能依次得生欲界、色界和無色界。又有經中說，業有三種，順樂受等，它們的相狀如何？頌文說：
『順樂苦非二，』
【English Translation】 How are 'merit' (福, fu), 'non-merit' (非福, fei fu), and 'immovable' (不動, bu dong) distinguished by their characteristics? The verse says:
'Merit, non-merit, immovable; good deeds in the desire realm are called merit, Non-good is called non-merit; good in the upper realms is immovable, Referring to their respective locations; the result of karma is without movement.'
Treatise: Good karma in the desire realm is called 'merit' because, in contrast to 'non-merit,' it brings about desirable results. Non-good karma is called 'non-merit' because it brings about undesirable results, contrary to meritorious karma. Good karma in the upper two realms (色界, se jie - form realm and 無色界, wu se jie - formless realm) is called 'immovable.' Didn't the World-Honored One say that the lower three dhyanas (定, ding - meditative states) are all called 'with movement'? The sages say this is because there are movements of seeking (尋, xun), investigation (伺, si), joy (喜, xi), and pleasure (樂, le) in them. Because the calamities of seeking and investigation have not ceased in the lower three dhyanas, they are established with the name 'movement.' In the sutras, they are called 'immovable' based on their ability to bring about immovable fruition. How can dhyanas with movement bring about immovable fruition? Although there are movements of calamities in these dhyanas, the influence of karma on the result is not like the movement and transformation in the desire realm, so they are established with the name 'immovable.' That is to say, in the desire realm, karma that is fulfilled in other destinies can be experienced in different destinies due to the power of other conditions. For example, some karma can bring about external or internal wealth, status, form, capacity, color, strength, happiness, etc. In the heavens, this karma should ripen, but due to the attraction and transformation of other conditions, this karma ripens in the human realm. Karma in other locations of the form and formless realms cannot be transformed to be experienced in other locations because the location of the karma's result is not changed or moved; it is held by the samadhi (等引地, deng yin di - state of meditative absorption) and is without scattering. According to this meaning, the name 'immovable' is established. It should be known that here, due to ignorance of the relationship between cause and effect, non-meritorious karma is created. Because non-meritorious karma is purely defiled, it must rely on heavy, continuous ignorance. Because this ignorance is present, one cannot understand and believe in the relationship between cause and effect, so non-meritorious actions are initiated. Due to ignorance of the true meaning, meritorious and immovable karma are created. The true meaning refers to the Four Noble Truths (四聖諦, si sheng di). If one is ignorant of the Four Noble Truths, various ordinary beings may intermittently generate afflictions even in a state of good mind. Due to this power, they cannot truly know the nature of the three realms, thinking that their nature is all suffering, thus initiating meritorious and immovable actions as causes for future existence. If one has already seen the truth, such things will not happen. Relying on the power of previous practice, when gradually departing from defilement, one can successively be born in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm. Furthermore, it is said in the sutras that there are three types of karma: karma leading to pleasant feeling, etc. What are their characteristics? The verse says:
'Leading to pleasure, suffering, and neither;'
善至三順樂 諸不善順苦 上善順非二 余說下亦有 由中招異熟 又許此三業 非前後熟故 順受總有五 謂自性相應 及所緣異熟 現前差別故
論曰。諸善業中始從欲界。至第三靜慮名順樂受業。以諸樂受唯至此故。諸不善業名順苦受。第四靜慮及無色善業說名為順不苦不樂受。此上都無苦樂受故。非此諸業唯感受果。應知亦感彼受資糧。受及資糧此中名受。隨所化欲總立受名。下諸地中為亦許有順非二業為決定無。有餘師言。下地亦有順非二業。以定中間既無苦樂應無業故。豈不中定與初靜慮同一縛故。此中定業感初定中樂根異熟。理不應爾違本論故。謂本論言。頗有業感心受異熟非身耶。曰有。謂善無尋業中間定業既是無尋。若感根本樂根異熟應無尋業。通感身心二受異熟便違本論。然應此業唯感心受。如不善業唯感身受。設許通感無違本論。本論應言善無伺故。或非諸業皆感受果故。彼應感色心不相應行。然於一切無尋業中。有業唯能感心受果。偏就彼說故無有過。是故中定業感異熟非證。下地有順非二業因。若爾此中更有餘證。謂本論說。頗有三業非前非后受異熟耶。曰有。謂順樂受業。色順苦受業。心心所法順不苦不樂受業。心不相應行乃至廣說。由此證知下地亦有順
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 善業帶來快樂的感受，惡業帶來痛苦的感受，而更高級的善業則帶來非苦非樂的感受。 其餘的（善業和惡業）據說在地獄也有。由禪定所招感的果報是特殊的。 又允許這三種業，因為它們並非前後相續成熟的緣故。 順受業總共有五種，即自性、相應、所緣、異熟和現前差別。
論曰：各種善業中，從欲界開始，到第三禪（Dhyana，禪那）被稱為順樂受業。因為各種樂受只到這裡為止。各種不善業被稱為順苦受業。第四禪和無色界的善業被稱為順不苦不樂受業。因為這些地方都沒有苦樂的感受。這些業不僅僅感受果報，還應知道也感受這些感受的資糧。感受和資糧在這裡被稱為受。根據所化眾生的慾望，總的建立受的名稱。在地獄中，是否也允許有順非二業，還是決定沒有呢？有些老師說，地獄也有順非二業。因為在禪定中間，既沒有苦也沒有樂，應該沒有業。難道中間禪定和初禪（Prathama Dhyana，第一禪）不是同一束縛嗎？這中間禪定的業感受初禪中的樂根異熟。道理上不應該是這樣，因為這違反了本論。本論說：『有沒有業感受心受的異熟，而不是身受的異熟呢？』回答是：『有。』即善的無尋業（avitarka-avicara，無尋無伺）和中間禪定業。既然是無尋，如果感受根本的樂根異熟，那麼無尋業就應該通感身心二受的異熟，這就違反了本論。然而，這種業應該只感受心受，就像不善業只感受身受一樣。即使允許通感，也不違反本論。本論應該說善的無伺業。或者並非所有的業都感受果報。它們應該感受色法和心不相應行法。然而，在一切無尋業中，有業只能感受心受的果報。偏就這些業來說，所以沒有過失。因此，中間禪定業感受異熟，不能證明地獄有順非二業的原因。如果這樣，這裡還有其他的證據。本論說：『有沒有三種業，不是前也不是後感受異熟呢？』回答是：『有。』即順樂受業，色法；順苦受業，心心所法；順不苦不樂受業，心不相應行法，乃至廣說。由此證明地獄也有順非二業。
【English Translation】 English version Good deeds lead to pleasant feelings, unwholesome deeds lead to painful feelings, and superior good deeds lead to neither painful nor pleasant feelings. The remaining (good and unwholesome deeds) are said to exist in the lower realms as well. The result of meditation is unique. Furthermore, these three types of karma are permitted because they do not mature sequentially. There are five types of karma that accord with feeling: nature, association, object, result, and present distinction.
Treatise says: Among various wholesome karmas, starting from the desire realm up to the third Dhyana (禪那, meditation), it is called karma that accords with pleasant feeling. Because various pleasant feelings only reach this point. Various unwholesome karmas are called karma that accords with painful feeling. The wholesome karmas of the fourth Dhyana and the formless realm are called karma that accords with neither painful nor pleasant feeling. Because there are no painful or pleasant feelings in these places. These karmas not only experience the result, but it should also be known that they also experience the resources for these feelings. Feeling and resources are called feeling here. According to the desires of the beings to be transformed, the name of feeling is generally established. In the lower realms, is it also permitted to have karma that accords with neither of the two feelings, or is it definitely not? Some teachers say that there is also karma that accords with neither of the two feelings in the lower realms. Because in the middle of meditation, there is neither pain nor pleasure, there should be no karma. Isn't the middle meditation and the first Dhyana (第一禪, first meditation) the same bondage? The karma of this middle meditation experiences the result of the root of pleasure in the first Dhyana. It shouldn't be like this in principle, because it violates the original treatise. The original treatise says: 'Is there karma that experiences the result of mental feeling, but not the result of physical feeling?' The answer is: 'Yes.' That is, wholesome non-discursive karma (無尋無伺, avitarka-avicara) and middle meditation karma. Since it is non-discursive, if it experiences the result of the fundamental root of pleasure, then non-discursive karma should generally experience the result of both physical and mental feelings, which violates the original treatise. However, this karma should only experience mental feeling, just like unwholesome karma only experiences physical feeling. Even if it is allowed to generally experience, it does not violate the original treatise. The original treatise should say wholesome non-investigative karma. Or not all karmas experience the result. They should experience form and non-associated mental formations. However, among all non-discursive karmas, there is karma that can only experience the result of mental feeling. It is specifically about these karmas, so there is no fault. Therefore, the middle meditation karma experiences the result, which cannot prove the reason why there is karma that accords with neither of the two feelings in the lower realms. If so, there is other evidence here. The original treatise says: 'Are there three karmas that do not experience the result before or after?' The answer is: 'Yes.' That is, karma that accords with pleasant feeling, form; karma that accords with painful feeling, mental factors; karma that accords with neither painful nor pleasant feeling, non-associated mental formations, and so on. This proves that there is also karma that accords with neither of the two feelings in the lower realms.
非二業。非離欲界有此三業俱時熟故。此亦非證。以本論中說三界業如三受故。然非三界所繫諸業可俱時受。此亦應然。而本論言有三界業俱時熟者。為欲試驗于對法宗解不解故。或於增上果說受異熟聲。色無色思資下異熟。令其久住故作是言。順三受業文亦容作此釋。故彼所引非定證因。何苦推徴彼所計執。見彼所計執違品類足故。如說。云何順樂受業。謂從欲界系至三定善業。無違彼失無定言故。謂彼不言唯順樂受。然下雖有順非二業而由少故彼文不顯。不可準此便作是言。上地亦應有順苦樂。離苦樂染方生彼故。由此唯說從廣果天乃至非想有順非苦非樂受業。不說下地以上地無相違受故。于下地有相違受故。以于下地容有非苦非樂異熟。不可如彼三界系業定判。此文無容有容實俱受故。此業為善為不善耶。有作是言。是善而劣。又不可別示而可總言。于諸善業中或有一類能感樂受及受資糧或有一類能感非二。應知此業能益樂受名順樂受如順馬處。或復此業能受於樂名順樂受如順浴散。順余受業應知亦然。順樂受業唯感樂受異熟果耶。唯感樂受異熟果者一切皆是順樂受業。或有諸業名順樂受而不能感樂受異熟。謂此若感色不相應。順余受業應知亦爾。此業非唯感受異熟。如何總得順受業名。諸業為因所感異熟皆似
于受得受名故。所以者何。彼皆如受為身益損及平等故。如水火等於樹枝等為益為損為等義成。又順受多略說有五。一自性順受。謂諸受體。如契經說。受樂受時。如實了知受於樂受乃至廣說。二相應順受。謂一切觸。如契經言。順樂受觸乃至廣說。三所緣順受。謂一切境。如契經言。眼見色已。唯受於色不受色貪乃至廣說。由色等是受所緣故。四異熟順受。謂感異熟業。如契經說。順樂受業乃至廣說。五現前順受。謂現行受。如契經說。受樂受時二受便滅乃至廣說。非此樂受現在前時。有餘受能受此樂受。但據樂受自體現前即說名為受。於樂受由所順受有多種故。雖業異熟非皆是受而可總立順受業名。謂諸善業為因所感。色不相應能為所緣生樂受故。是諸樂受所領納故。可愛異熟順樂受故亦名樂受。由此善業所招諸果。雖非樂受順樂受故。招彼業名順樂受業。順苦非二理亦應然。如是三業有定不定其相云何。頌曰。
此有定不定 定三順現等 或說業有五 余師說四句
論曰。此上所說順樂受等應知各有定不定異。非定受故立不定名。謂順樂業非必定熟。若熟必應受樂異熟。順餘二業說亦如是。定復有三。一順現法受。二順次生受。三順后次受。此三定業定感異熟。並前不定總成四種。或有欲令不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為感受而獲得感受之名。為什麼這樣說呢？因為它們都像感受一樣，對於身體有益、有害或平等。就像水火對於樹枝等，能產生利益、損害或平等的作用一樣。此外，順著感受的類別，簡略地說有五種：第一是自性順受（Svalakṣaṇa-anubhava），指的是諸受的自體。如契經所說：『感受樂受時，如實了知感受於樂受』，乃至廣說。第二是相應順受（Samprayukta-anubhava），指的是一切觸。如契經所說：『順樂受觸』，乃至廣說。第三是所緣順受（Alambana-anubhava），指的是一切境。如契經所說：『眼見色已，唯受於色，不受色貪』，乃至廣說。因為色等是感受的所緣。第四是異熟順受（Vipāka-anubhava），指的是感受異熟業。如契經所說：『順樂受業』，乃至廣說。第五是現前順受（Pratyutpanna-anubhava），指的是現行之受。如契經所說：『受樂受時，二受便滅』，乃至廣說。不是說此樂受現在前時，有其餘的受能夠感受此樂受，只是就樂受的自體顯現於前，就說名為受。對於樂受，由於所順的感受有多種，所以雖然業的異熟並非都是受，但可以總立為順受業之名。指的是諸善業作為因所感得的，色不相應行能作為所緣而生樂受，是因為這些樂受被領納，可愛的異熟順著樂受，所以也名為樂受。由此，善業所招感的諸果，雖然不是樂受，但因為順著樂受，所以招感此果的業名為順樂受業。順苦受和順不苦不樂受的道理也應該這樣理解。像這樣，三種業有決定和不決定的，它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌說： 『此有定不定，定三順現等，或說業有五，余師說四句。』 論說：此上所說的順樂受等，應該知道各有決定和不決定的差異。因為不是決定的受，所以立為不決定之名。指的是順樂業並非必定成熟，如果成熟，必定應該感受樂的異熟。順其餘兩種業，說法也像這樣。決定的又有三種：第一是順現法受（Dṛṣṭadharma-vedanīya-karma），第二是順次生受（Upapadyavedanīya-karma），第三是順后次受（Aparāparyāyavedanīya-karma）。這三種定業必定感得異熟。加上前面的不決定業，總共成為四種。或者有人想要令不...
【English Translation】 English version It is named 'feeling' because of experiencing (anubhava). Why is that? Because they are all like feeling, beneficial, harmful, or neutral to the body. Just as water and fire can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral to branches, etc. Furthermore, broadly speaking, there are five types of 'following feeling' (anubhava): First, 'self-nature following feeling' (Svalakṣaṇa-anubhava), referring to the essence of all feelings. As the scripture says: 'When experiencing pleasant feeling, one truly knows that one is experiencing pleasant feeling,' and so on. Second, 'associated following feeling' (Samprayukta-anubhava), referring to all contacts. As the scripture says: 'Contact that follows pleasant feeling,' and so on. Third, 'object following feeling' (Alambana-anubhava), referring to all objects. As the scripture says: 'Having seen a form with the eye, one only experiences the form, not the craving for the form,' and so on. Because form, etc., are the objects of feeling. Fourth, 'resultant following feeling' (Vipāka-anubhava), referring to experiencing the result of karma. As the scripture says: 'Karma that follows pleasant feeling,' and so on. Fifth, 'present following feeling' (Pratyutpanna-anubhava), referring to the feeling that is currently arising. As the scripture says: 'When experiencing pleasant feeling, the two feelings cease,' and so on. It is not that when this pleasant feeling is present, there is another feeling that can experience this pleasant feeling, but rather that the essence of the pleasant feeling manifests itself, and this is called feeling. Regarding pleasant feeling, because there are many types of 'following feeling,' although the result of karma is not always feeling, it can be generally established as the name of 'karma that follows feeling.' This refers to the wholesome karma that is the cause of the arising of pleasant feeling, which is not associated with form, and can serve as an object. Because these pleasant feelings are received, and the agreeable result follows pleasant feeling, it is also called pleasant feeling. Therefore, although the results brought about by wholesome karma are not pleasant feeling, because they follow pleasant feeling, the karma that brings about these results is called 'karma that follows pleasant feeling.' The same principle applies to unpleasant feeling and neutral feeling. In this way, what are the characteristics of the three types of karma, which are either definite or indefinite? The verse says: 'These are either definite or indefinite; the definite are the three: following the present, etc. Or it is said that there are five types of karma; other teachers say there are four categories.' The treatise says: Regarding the 'following pleasant feeling,' etc., mentioned above, it should be understood that each has definite and indefinite differences. Because it is not a definite feeling, it is given the name 'indefinite.' This refers to the fact that karma that follows pleasant feeling does not necessarily ripen; if it does ripen, it must experience the result of pleasantness. The same applies to the other two types of karma. The definite is further divided into three types: First, 'karma to be experienced in the present life' (Dṛṣṭadharma-vedanīya-karma); second, 'karma to be experienced in the next life' (Upapadyavedanīya-karma); and third, 'karma to be experienced in subsequent lives' (Aparāparyāyavedanīya-karma). These three types of definite karma will definitely bring about a result. Adding the previous indefinite karma, there are a total of four types. Or some may want to make it not...
定受業復有二種。謂于異熟有定不定。並定業三合成五種。順現法受業體云何。謂於此生造作增長。唯此生受異熟非余。於此生言顯眾同分。為顯加行根本業道。說造作言為顯後起故說增長。或造作者顯牽引業。言增長者顯圓滿業。或造作者。謂率爾為。言增長者。謂思已作。或造作者追悔所損。言增長者歡喜攝受。或以同類為助伴業。名為造作亦名增長。如善還以善為助伴。與此相違唯名造作。或有堅執而造作者名為造作亦名增長。與此相違唯名造作。或依具足名為造作。若由具足名為增長。如是等釋義有多門。言唯此生受異熟者顯時分定。然或有謂於人生中造作增長。還唯於此人生余身受異熟者。亦得名為順現法受。為遮此執復說非余。此則顯示有死生者。可言唯此不名非余。由此顯業時分不壞。令極分明絕諸疑網。如何由此說非余言。便令定知非余身受。以或可釋此非余言。是遮非人生非遮余身故。此釋非理前唯此言遮非人生義已成故。謂前既說唯此生言。已定顯成非非人類。然復於後說非余言。為遮余身義極明瞭。若異此者重說何為。故此業名順現法受。以現法者是現身義。順次生受業體云何。謂此生造業于無間生受。所言生者是生處義。造業生后無間而生故名次生。是次後生義順彼生業名順次生受。順后次
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 定受業還有兩種，即異熟果報有決定和不決定兩種。加上定業三種，合起來共有五種。 什麼是順現法受業的體性呢？ 就是在這一生造作增長的業，只在此生感受果報，不在其他生感受。『於此生』這句話是爲了顯示眾同分（指同一類眾生）。爲了顯示加行根本業道，所以說『造作』。爲了顯示後起（指後續行為），所以說『增長』。或者，『造作』顯示牽引業，『增長』顯示圓滿業。或者，『造作』是指率爾（倉促）而為，『增長』是指思慮之後才做。或者，『造作』是指因追悔而有所損失，『增長』是指歡喜攝受。或者，以同類（善或惡）作為助伴的業，稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』，比如善業以善業為助伴。與此相反的情況，只稱為『造作』。或者，有堅固執著而造作的業，稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』。與此相反的情況，只稱為『造作』。或者，依靠具足的條件而造作的業，稱為『造作』；如果由具足的條件而增長的業，稱為『增長』。像這樣的解釋有很多種。 『只在此生受異熟』這句話顯示了時分是決定的。然而，或許有人認為，在人生中造作增長的業，仍然只在此人生中的其他身體感受果報，也可以稱為順現法受。爲了遮止這種執著，所以又說『非余』。這顯示了有死亡和出生的眾生，可以說『唯此』，不能說『非余』。由此顯示業的時分不會壞滅，使之非常分明，斷絕各種疑惑。 如何由此說『非余』，就能確定知道不是在其他身體感受果報呢？因為或許可以解釋『非余』是遮止非人（非人類）的出生，而不是遮止其他身體。 這種解釋不合理，因為前面『唯此』已經明確了遮止非人類的意義。前面既然說了『唯此生』，就已經確定顯示了不是非人類。然後在後面又說『非余』，是爲了遮止其他身體的意義，非常明顯。如果不是這樣，重複說有什麼用呢？所以這種業稱為順現法受，因為『現法』就是現身的意思。 什麼是順次生受業的體性呢？ 就是此生造業，在無間（緊接著）的下一生感受果報。所說的『生』是指生處（出生的處所）。造業之後緊接著出生，所以稱為『次生』。是緊接著后一生的意思，順著那個生處所造的業，稱為順次生受。 順后次
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, there are two types of definitely experienced karma (定受業): those where the fruition (異熟) is definite and those where it is indefinite. Combining these with definitely fixed karma (定業), there are five types in total. What is the nature of karma experienced in the present life (順現法受業)? It refers to karma that is created and increased in this life, and whose fruition is experienced only in this life, and not in any other life. The phrase 'in this life' (於此生) is to indicate the commonality of beings (眾同分). The term 'created' (造作) is used to show the fundamental path of action (加行根本業道). The term 'increased' (增長) is used to show the subsequent actions (後起). Alternatively, 'created' shows the karma that draws one towards a result (牽引業), while 'increased' shows the karma that completes the result (圓滿業). Or, 'created' refers to actions done impulsively (率爾而為), while 'increased' refers to actions done after deliberation (思已作). Or, 'created' refers to actions that are diminished by regret (追悔所損), while 'increased' refers to actions that are embraced with joy (歡喜攝受). Or, karma that has similar actions as its companions is called both 'created' and 'increased,' such as good karma having good karma as its companion. The opposite of this is only called 'created.' Or, karma created with strong attachment is called both 'created' and 'increased.' The opposite of this is only called 'created.' Or, karma that relies on complete conditions is called 'created,' while karma that is increased by complete conditions is called 'increased.' There are many interpretations like these. The phrase 'only in this life is the fruition experienced' (唯此生受異熟) shows that the time is fixed. However, perhaps some might think that karma created and increased in a human life is still only experienced in another body within that same human life, and that this can also be called karma experienced in the present life. To prevent this misconception, it is further stated 'not in any other' (非餘). This shows that for beings who have death and rebirth, one can say 'only this' (唯此), and not 'not any other' (非餘). This demonstrates that the timing of karma does not decay, making it extremely clear and eliminating all doubts. How can saying 'not in any other' lead to the definite knowledge that the fruition is not experienced in another body? Because it could be interpreted that 'not in any other' prevents rebirth as a non-human (非人), rather than preventing experience in another body. This interpretation is unreasonable because the previous 'only this' (唯此) has already clearly established the meaning of preventing non-human rebirth. Since it was previously stated 'only in this life,' it has already definitely shown that it is not a non-human. Then, the subsequent statement 'not in any other' is to clarify the meaning of preventing experience in another body, which is extremely clear. If it were not so, what would be the point of repeating it? Therefore, this karma is called karma experienced in the present life, because 'present life' (現法) means the present body. What is the nature of karma experienced in the next life (順次生受業)? It refers to karma created in this life that is experienced in the immediately following life (無間生). The term 'life' (生) refers to the place of birth (生處). Because one is born immediately after creating the karma, it is called 'next life' (次生). It means the immediately following life, and karma created in accordance with that place of birth is called karma experienced in the next life. Following after next (順後次)
受業體云何。謂此生造業無間生后受。所言後者是無間生后眾同分。所言次者顯于多生次第別受。此言意顯順后受業決定次第各招一生。為避言詞繁廣過失。故於多業總立一名。云何名為順不定受。謂薄伽梵見一類業。或由尸羅或由正愿或由梵行或由等持或由智力。令全無果或令輕微。或令移位。說此一切名不定業。為轉此業應修凈行。諸有情類此業最多。然契經言或有諸業應現法受。而或轉于地獄受者。非此中辨順現受業。意說有業順不定受。若能精修身戒心慧。此所造業應人間受。由不精修身戒心慧。便乘此業墮㮈落迦。契經又言或有諸業應地獄受。而或轉於人中受者。此亦非辨時分定業但說不定釋義準前。或釋前經意說有業。雖是造作而非增長。若任其力應現法受。若后復造感地獄業。資助令增往地獄受。故契經說有業應於人中現受。由后復造感地獄業令增長故。轉彼令于地獄中受。是故知彼說不定業。譬喻者說。順現受業等於餘生中亦得受異熟。然隨初熟位立順現等名。非但如名招爾所果。謂彼意說諸所造業。若從此生即能為因。與異熟果者名順現法受。若從次生方能為因。與異熟果者名順次生受。若越次生從第三生方與異熟者名順后次受。何緣彼作如是執耶。勿強力業異熟少故。彼執非善。所以者何。彼業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼是決定受業？指的是這一生所造的業，沒有間隔地在下一生承受果報。這裡所說的『後者』，指的是緊接著這一生之後的眾生種類相同的一生。所說的『次者』，表明在多生之中，按照次第分別承受果報。這句話的意思是說，決定在下一生承受果報的業，決定按照次第各自招感一生。爲了避免言辭繁瑣的過失，所以對多種業總共設立一個名稱。 什麼叫做順不定受業？指的是薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）看到有一類業，或者由於戒律（Śīla），或者由於正確的願望（praṇidhāna），或者由於梵行（Brahmacarya），或者由於等持（Samādhi），或者由於智慧的力量，使得完全沒有果報，或者使得果報輕微，或者使得果報轉移。世尊說這一切都叫做不定業。爲了轉變這種業，應當修習清凈的行為。眾生之中，這種業最多。然而，契經（Sūtra，佛經）上說，或者有某些業應當在現世承受果報，卻轉為在地獄中承受果報。這並不是辨別決定在現世承受果報的業，而是說有業是順不定受業。如果能夠精進修習身戒心慧，這種業本來應該在人間承受果報，由於不精進修習身戒心慧，就憑藉這種業墮入地獄（Naraka）。 契經又說，或者有某些業應當在地獄中承受果報，卻轉為在人間承受果報。這也不是辨別時分已定的業，只是說不定業，解釋的意義與前面相同。或者解釋前面的經文，意思是說有某些業，雖然是造作了，但是沒有增長。如果任憑它的力量，本來應該在現世承受果報，如果後來又造作了感生地獄的業，資助它增長，就往地獄承受果報。所以契經說，有業本來應該在人間現世承受果報，由於後來又造作了感生地獄的業，使它增長，就轉變它，使它在地獄中承受果報。因此，就知道那是說的不定業。譬喻者說，決定在現世承受果報的業，等於在其餘的生中也可以承受異熟果報。然而，隨著最初成熟的地位，而立決定在現世等名稱，並不是僅僅像名稱那樣招感那麼多的果報。他們的意思是說，各種所造的業，如果從這一生就能作為原因，給予異熟果報的，叫做順現法受；如果從下一生才能作為原因，給予異熟果報的，叫做順次生受；如果超過下一生，從第三生才能給予異熟果報的，叫做順后次受。什麼緣故他們作出這樣的執著呢？恐怕強有力的業，異熟果報少的原因。他們的執著是不好的。什麼緣故呢？他們的業。
【English Translation】 English version: What is karma that is definitely experienced? It refers to the karma created in this life that is experienced without interruption in the next life. The term 'latter' refers to the next life of the same kind of being immediately following this life. The term 'subsequent' indicates that in multiple lives, the retribution is experienced separately according to the order. This statement means that karma that is definitely experienced in the next life definitely causes each life according to the determined order. To avoid the fault of verbose language, a single name is established for multiple karmas. What is called karma that is experienced indefinitely? It refers to the Bhagavan (Blessed One) seeing a type of karma that, either due to Śīla (morality), or due to praṇidhāna (right aspiration), or due to Brahmacarya (celibate conduct), or due to Samādhi (concentration), or due to the power of wisdom, causes it to have no result at all, or causes the result to be slight, or causes the result to be transferred. The Bhagavan says that all of this is called indefinite karma. To transform this karma, one should cultivate pure conduct. Among sentient beings, this type of karma is the most numerous. However, the Sūtra (scripture) says that there are some karmas that should be experienced in the present life, but are transformed to be experienced in hell. This is not distinguishing karma that is definitely experienced in the present life, but rather saying that there is karma that is experienced indefinitely. If one can diligently cultivate body, morality, mind, and wisdom, this karma should originally be experienced in the human realm. Due to not diligently cultivating body, morality, mind, and wisdom, one falls into Naraka (hell) by relying on this karma. The Sūtra also says that there are some karmas that should be experienced in hell, but are transformed to be experienced in the human realm. This is also not distinguishing karma that is fixed in time, but simply speaking of indefinite karma, the meaning of the explanation is the same as before. Or, interpreting the previous scripture, it means that there are some karmas that, although created, have not increased. If left to their own power, they should originally be experienced in the present life. If later, one creates karma that leads to hell, assisting it to increase, then one goes to hell to experience the retribution. Therefore, the Sūtra says that there is karma that should originally be experienced in the human realm in the present life, but due to later creating karma that leads to hell, causing it to increase, it is transformed to be experienced in hell. Therefore, it is known that it is speaking of indefinite karma. Those who use analogies say that karma that is definitely experienced in the present life can also be experienced as a different maturation in other lives. However, according to the state of the initial maturation, the name 'definitely in the present' is established, not merely causing that much result as the name suggests. Their meaning is that the various karmas created, if they can be the cause from this life, giving the result of different maturation, are called 'experienced in the present life'; if they can be the cause from the next life, giving the result of different maturation, are called 'experienced in the next life'; if they exceed the next life, and give the result of different maturation from the third life, are called 'experienced after the next life'. What is the reason they make such an attachment? Perhaps because the powerful karma has little result of different maturation. Their attachment is not good. What is the reason? Their karma.
先時已生異熟。中間間斷異熟復生理必不然如種芽故。若謂無間而生後身。應無死生業無異故。或身無異應數死生。又一業招二三生等。是諸果相為異為同相。若異者應如別業所感相續非一業果。或一業果其相應同。應說何緣前後相別。若謂滿業助力使然。應唯一生前後有別。現見引業所引一生。雖有眾多滿業果異。而引業一但名一生。此亦應然無別因故。相若同者應是一生。非一生中前後相等。而可見有前後生殊。此亦應然一業果故。然不可謂唯一生身。便是眾多引業所感。以能引業有差別故。或於本有應有死生。或應畢竟無死生理。又彼一業所感多生。為一趣中為在多趣。若在一趣過如前說。謂前與后應是一生。或一生中應數生死。以一業果無差別故。若在多趣諸趣相望有上中下品類別故。同一業果理必不成。以一剎那所造一業。有上中下理不成故。又若爾者趣應相雜。然趣無雜如前已辨。若謂餘業所引生中。有於前生已得果業。感果勢力猶未盡故。寄此生中更受異熟故。雖一業能感多生。而有死生果相差別此亦非理。所以者何。寄他生中更受果業。牽引圓滿俱不成故。謂寄他生所受異熟。為是引果為滿果耶。且不應言寄受引果。此生引果餘業引故。一果不應引已復引。應隨一業唐捐其功。后業于中極為無用。亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 先前已經產生的異熟果報（Vipāka，指善惡業成熟后所感得的果報），中間如果間斷，異熟果報再次產生，必然是不可能的，就像種子發芽一樣。如果說沒有間斷而產生後世的身體，那麼應該沒有死亡和出生，因為業力沒有差別。或者身體沒有差別，應該多次死亡和出生。又或者一個業力招感二三次的生命等等，這些果報的相狀是相同還是不同呢？如果不同，應該像其他業力所感得的果報一樣，相續不斷，而不是一個業力的果報。或者一個業力的果報，其相應的果報是相同的，應該說明是什麼原因導致前後果報有差別。如果說是圓滿業力的助力所致，那麼應該只有一生，前後有差別。現在看到引業（Karma，能引導眾生投生到特定趣向的業力）所引導的一生，雖然有眾多圓滿業力的果報不同，但引業只有一個，只能算作一生。這裡也應該如此，沒有其他原因。如果相狀相同，應該是一生。不是一生中前後相等，而是可以看到前後生命有差別。這也應該如此，因為是一個業力的果報。然而，不能說只有一個身體，便是眾多引業所感。因為能引導的業力有差別。或者在本有（Bhava，指生命存在的狀態）中應該有死亡和出生。或者應該永遠沒有死亡和出生。又或者那一個業力所感得的多個生命，是在一個趣向（Gati，指眾生輪迴的六道）中，還是在多個趣向中？如果在一個趣向中，過失如前所述。即前世和後世應該是一生。或者一生中應該多次生死。因為一個業力的果報沒有差別。如果在多個趣向中，各個趣向相互比較有上品、中品、下品的類別。同一個業力的果報，道理上必然不能成立。因為一個剎那所造的一個業力，有上品、中品、下品，道理上不能成立。又如果這樣，趣嚮應該相雜。然而趣向沒有混雜，如前已經辨明。如果說是其他業力所引導的生命中，有在前世已經得到果報的業力，感果的勢力還沒有窮盡，寄託在這個生命中再次接受異熟果報，所以一個業力能夠感得多個生命，而有死亡和出生果報的差別，這也是不合理的。為什麼呢？寄託在其他生命中再次接受果報，牽引和圓滿都不能成立。即寄託在其他生命中所接受的異熟果報，是引果還是滿果呢？且不應該說是寄託接受引果。因為這個生命的引果是其他業力所引導的。一個果報不應該引導之後又引導。應該隨著一個業力而唐捐其功。後來的業力在其中極為無用。也是不合理的。
【English Translation】 English version The previously produced Vipāka (異熟, the result of good or bad karma maturing), if interrupted in the middle, the re-emergence of Vipāka is certainly impossible, just like the sprouting of a seed. If it is said that the subsequent body arises without interruption, then there should be no death and birth, because the karma is no different. Or if the body is no different, there should be multiple deaths and births. Or one karma causes two or three lives, etc. Are these aspects of the results the same or different? If different, it should be like the results felt by other karmas, continuous and not the result of one karma. Or if the corresponding results of one karma are the same, it should be explained why the previous and subsequent results are different. If it is said that it is due to the assistance of the complete karma, then there should only be one life with differences in the previous and subsequent stages. Now we see that the life led by the leading karma (引業, the karma that leads beings to be reborn in a specific realm), although there are many different results of complete karma, there is only one leading karma, so it can only be counted as one life. It should be the same here, with no other reason. If the aspects are the same, it should be one life. It is not that the previous and subsequent stages are equal in one life, but it can be seen that there are differences in the previous and subsequent lives. This should also be the case, because it is the result of one karma. However, it cannot be said that there is only one body, which is felt by many leading karmas. Because the leading karmas are different. Or there should be death and birth in the Bhava (本有, the state of existence). Or there should be no death and birth at all. Or the multiple lives felt by that one karma, are they in one Gati (趣, the six realms of reincarnation), or in multiple Gatis? If in one Gati, the fault is as mentioned before. That is, the previous and subsequent lives should be one life. Or there should be multiple deaths and births in one life. Because the result of one karma is no different. If in multiple Gatis, the various Gatis have upper, middle, and lower categories when compared to each other. The result of the same karma cannot be established in principle. Because one karma created in one moment has upper, middle, and lower grades, which cannot be established in principle. Also, if so, the Gatis should be mixed. However, the Gatis are not mixed, as has been explained before. If it is said that in the life led by other karmas, there is karma that has already received its result in the previous life, and the power of feeling the result has not yet been exhausted, so it is entrusted to this life to receive Vipāka again, so one karma can feel multiple lives, and there are differences in the results of death and birth, this is also unreasonable. Why? Entrusting the acceptance of results in other lives, neither the leading nor the complete can be established. That is, is the Vipāka accepted in other lives a leading result or a complete result? And it should not be said that it is entrusted to accept the leading result. Because the leading result of this life is led by other karmas. One result should not lead again after leading. It should follow one karma and waste its effort. The later karma is extremely useless in it. It is also unreasonable.
不應說於一生中有二引果勿有所受。一相續中便有多生多趣異熟俱時受過。亦不應言寄受滿果。勿有引業於前生中已得引果。有餘引力至於今生轉成滿過。謂有一類順生受業。感次生中所引果。已今于餘業所引生中變成順后受感滿果異熟。是則一業亦引亦滿。便有引滿雜亂過失。又一切業展轉相資是則皆成造作增長。則應畢竟無有一業不受異熟而至涅槃。然彼此宗俱非所許。于譬喻者其過偏多。以彼宗中順現受等所有諸業皆非決定。然許諸業展轉相資理應皆成造作增長。諸有造作亦增長業。世尊經中說為決定。而言諸業皆不定者。當知彼是佛教外人。又於此中彼據何理許于餘業所引生中。已於前生引果餘業。能為助滿資令久住。非於前世自所引生能為滿因資令相續。又若有業順天生受。從天死已生地獄中。如何令天順生受業。今于地獄受后樂果。從地獄死生於天中。順彼生業責亦如是。非於天中順生受業。可於無間地獄受果亦非無間順生受業。可於天中有受果義。若謂越他趣于自類趣中。此業方能重受果者前已說過。前說者何。謂業先時已生異熟中間間斷異熟復生。理必不然如種芽故。雖彼立理證自義言勿強力業異熟果少此亦非證。所以者何。非要果多業名強力。順現受業名強力者。能速得果故立此名。若一事中起多
思愿。于中前後勝劣有殊。能感現生后異熟果言招多果亦無有失。又若執業要感多果方得名強。則感輪王異熟果業。望感佛業應說名強感多果故。若感佛業妙故名強是則名強。業有多種以業強理有多品故。謂或有業果近名強。或由果多或由果妙。然順現受果近名強。寧以強名證感多果故。對法者說。諸業中順現等三各別生果。業果無雜。于理為勝。譬喻者說。業有四句。一者有業於時分定異熟不定。謂順現等三非定得異熟。二者有業于異熟定時分不定。謂不定業定得異熟。三者有業於二俱定。謂順現等定得異熟。四者有業於二俱不定。謂不定業非定得異熟。彼說諸業總成八種。謂順現受有定不定。乃至不定亦有二種。於此所說業差別中。頌曰。
四善容俱作 引同分唯三 諸處造四種 地獄善除現 堅于離染地 異生不造生 聖不造生后 並欲有頂退
論曰。此中唯顯順樂等業。于現等時有定不定。釋經所說順現受等四業相殊故。定業中分為三種並不定業合而為四。是說為善。理必無有異熟不定時分定業。時定唯是異熟定中位差別故。非離異熟別有時體。如何時定非異熟耶。此中但依異熟定業得果位差別立順現等故。若謂有業於時定者。謂熟必在此時非余。若越此時畢竟不受。故於時定非於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 思愿（意願）。其中前後勝劣有所不同。能夠感得現世和來世不同成熟果報的業，說成招感多種果報也沒有錯。又如果執著認為業一定要感得多種果報才能稱為『強』，那麼感得轉輪王異熟果的業，相比于感得佛的業，應該說成是『強』，因為它感得的果報更多。如果說感得佛的業因為殊勝才稱為『強』，那麼『強』只是一個名稱。業有多種，以業力強弱的道理來說，有多種品類。也就是說，有的業因為果報來得近而稱為『強』，有的因為果報多，有的因為果報殊勝。然而，順現受業因為果報來得近而稱為『強』，難道能用『強』這個名稱來證明它感得多果嗎？對法者說，各種業中，順現受等三種業各自產生不同的果報，業和果不會混雜，這個道理更為殊勝。譬喻者說，業有四種情況：一是有的業在時間上是確定的，而異熟果是不確定的，比如順現受等三種業，不一定能得到異熟果；二是有的業在異熟果上是確定的，而時間是不確定的，比如不定的業，一定能得到異熟果；三是有的業在時間和異熟果上都是確定的，比如順現受等業，一定能得到異熟果；四是有的業在時間和異熟果上都是不確定的，比如不定的業，不一定能得到異熟果。他們說各種業總共有八種，即順現受業有定和不定兩種，乃至不定業也有兩種。在以上所說的業的差別中，頌文說： 『四種善業可以同時造作，能引生同分果的只有三種。在各個地方可以造作四種業，地獄中行善可以消除現世的果報。在遠離染污的境界中，（凡夫）不能造作生業，聖者不能造作生業和後有業，以及欲界和有頂天的退業。』 論述說：這裡只顯示順樂受等業，在現世等時間有確定和不確定的情況。解釋經中所說的順現受等四種業的相狀差別。定業中分為三種，加上不定業合起來共有四種，這是說善業。道理上一定沒有異熟不確定而時間確定的業。時間確定只是異熟確定中的一種位置差別，不是離開異熟果另外有時體。如果時間確定，怎麼能說不是異熟果呢？這裡只是依據異熟定業得到果報的位置差別，而建立順現受等業。如果說有的業在時間上是確定的，是指成熟一定在這個時候，而不是其他時候。如果超過這個時候，就一定不會受報。所以說時間是確定的，而不是說異熟果是確定的。
【English Translation】 English version Desires and aspirations. Among them, there are differences in superiority and inferiority between the former and the latter. The karma that can cause different results of maturation in the present and future lives can be said to bring about multiple results without error. Furthermore, if one insists that karma must bring about multiple results to be called 'strong,' then the karma that brings about the result of a Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King) should be called 'strong' compared to the karma that brings about Buddhahood, because it brings about more results. If the karma that brings about Buddhahood is called 'strong' because it is excellent, then 'strong' is just a name. There are many types of karma, and according to the principle of the strength of karma, there are many categories. That is, some karma is called 'strong' because the result is near, some because the result is abundant, and some because the result is excellent. However, the karma of experiencing the result in the present life is called 'strong' because the result is near. Can we use the name 'strong' to prove that it brings about multiple results? The Abhidharma masters say that among all karmas, the three types of karma, such as experiencing the result in the present life, each produce different results, and karma and result are not mixed. This principle is more excellent. The Sautrantikas (Illustrators) say that there are four possibilities for karma: First, there is karma that is definite in time but indefinite in its result of maturation, such as the three types of karma of experiencing the result in the present life, which do not necessarily obtain the result of maturation. Second, there is karma that is definite in its result of maturation but indefinite in time, such as indefinite karma, which will definitely obtain the result of maturation. Third, there is karma that is definite in both time and result of maturation, such as the karma of experiencing the result in the present life, which will definitely obtain the result of maturation. Fourth, there is karma that is indefinite in both time and result of maturation, such as indefinite karma, which will not necessarily obtain the result of maturation. They say that there are a total of eight types of karma, that is, the karma of experiencing the result in the present life has two types, definite and indefinite, and even indefinite karma has two types. Among the differences in karma mentioned above, the verse says: 'The four wholesome karmas can be performed simultaneously, but only three can lead to the result of commonality. In various places, four types of karma can be performed. Performing good deeds in hell can eliminate the results in the present life. In the realm of detachment, ordinary beings cannot create the karma of birth, and the sages cannot create the karma of birth and subsequent existence, as well as the karma of decline in the Desire Realm and the Peak of Existence (highest heaven) .' The treatise says: Here, only the karma of experiencing pleasant feelings, etc., is shown to have definite and indefinite situations in the present life, etc. Explaining the differences in the characteristics of the four types of karma, such as experiencing the result in the present life, as described in the sutra. The definite karma is divided into three types, and together with the indefinite karma, there are four types. This is speaking of wholesome karma. In principle, there is definitely no karma that has an indefinite result of maturation but a definite time. The definite time is only a difference in position within the definite result of maturation, and it is not a separate entity apart from the result of maturation. If the time is definite, how can it be said that it is not the result of maturation? Here, the karma of experiencing the result in the present life, etc., is established only based on the difference in the position of obtaining the result of the definite karma of maturation. If it is said that some karma is definite in time, it means that maturation will definitely occur at this time and not at other times. If this time is exceeded, the retribution will definitely not be received. Therefore, it is said that the time is definite, but not that the result of maturation is definite.
異熟。此于異熟亦應決定義相似故。相似者何。謂如於時有或非理而名時分定。如是于熟有或非理應名異熟定。或復應許二俱不定。是故若業於時分定彼于異熟亦應決定。若於異熟名不定者。彼於時分亦應不定。由此理故定無八業。以于諸業中有不定義者。應總立一順不定受。所以者何。義相似故。謂如熟定時不定業。時不定故既共許為順不定受。如是時定熟不定業。熟不定故何不許為順不定受。故譬喻者於此義中安立八業極為雜亂。又譬喻者說一切業。乃至無間皆悉可轉。若無間業不可轉者。應無有能越第一有。今觀彼說有如是意。若謂諸業中少有不可轉。則有頂業定為其先。以諸業中第一有業是極微細。諸生死本力能攝受廣大異熟。無始生死流轉有情。曾無有能越于彼者。若有能轉如是類業。則無間業寧不可轉。此亦但是虛妄僻執。以無間業異熟分位二俱決定。有頂不然故所引例無能證力。若有頂業皆不可轉。起彼定者應定招生。是則無容起彼定已。證無學果及般涅槃。若一切業皆可轉者。世尊不應說有定業。頗有四業俱時作耶。容有。云何遣三使已自行邪欲俱時究竟。順現受等四種業中幾業有能引眾同分。唯三能引除順現業。以順現業必依先業所引同分而得起故。即于現生必與果故。何界何趣能造幾業。諸界諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 異熟（Vipāka，果報）。關於異熟，也應該像定義時分一樣定義它，因為它們相似。什麼是相似呢？就像有時存在不合理的時分決定一樣，對於果報，也可能存在不合理的異熟決定。或者，應該承認兩者都是不確定的。因此，如果業在時分上是確定的，那麼它在異熟上也應該是確定的。如果異熟是不確定的，那麼時分也應該是不確定的。由於這個道理，所以不存在八種業。因為在所有業中，存在不確定的業，所以應該總共設立一種『順不定受業』。為什麼呢？因為它們的意義相似。就像果報確定但時間不確定的業，被共同認為是『順不定受業』一樣，那麼時間確定但果報不確定的業，為什麼不被認為是『順不定受業』呢？因此，譬喻者（Vaibhāṣika，分別論者）在這種意義上安立八種業是非常混亂的。 此外，譬喻者說一切業，乃至無間業（Ānantarika-karma，五逆罪）都可以轉變。如果無間業不可轉變，那麼應該沒有人能夠超越第一有（Bhavāgra，有頂天）。現在觀察他們的說法，有這樣的意思：如果說諸業中只有少部分不可轉變，那麼有頂天的業一定是排在最前面的。因為在所有業中，第一有業是最微細的，是生死根本，有能力攝受廣大的異熟。無始生死流轉的有情，從來沒有人能夠超越它。如果有人能夠轉變這類業，那麼無間業難道就不能轉變嗎？這仍然是虛妄的偏執。因為無間業的異熟和分位都是確定的，而有頂天的業並非如此，所以所引用的例子沒有證明的力量。如果所有有頂天的業都不可轉變，那麼發起這種禪定的人應該一定會感招果報。這樣一來，就沒有可能在發起這種禪定之後，證得無學果（Arahant，阿羅漢）以及般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。如果一切業都可以轉變，那麼世尊就不應該說有定業。 有沒有可能四種業同時產生呢？有可能。例如，在捨棄三種結使（Saṃyojana，煩惱的束縛）之後，自行邪欲（Kāma，慾望）同時究竟。順現受業（Dṛṣṭadharma-vedanīya-karma，現世報業）等四種業中，哪幾種業能夠引發眾同分（Nikāya-sabhāga，同類眾生的共性）？只有三種業能夠引發，除了順現受業。因為順現受業必定依賴於先前業所引發的同分才能生起，並且必定在現生給予果報。在哪個界（Dhātu，三界）哪個趣（Gati，六道）能夠造作幾種業？在各個界和各個趣中...
【English Translation】 English version Vipāka (Resultant Effect). Regarding Vipāka, it should also be defined similarly to how time is defined, because they are similar. What is similar? Just as there are sometimes irrational determinations of time, similarly, there might be irrational determinations of Vipāka. Or, it should be admitted that both are undetermined. Therefore, if an action is determined in time, it should also be determined in Vipāka. If Vipāka is said to be undetermined, then time should also be undetermined. Because of this principle, there are no eight types of karma. Because among all karmas, there are undetermined karmas, one should establish a single 'Indefinite-Sequence-Experiencing Karma' in total. Why? Because their meanings are similar. Just as karma with a definite result but an indefinite time is commonly regarded as 'Indefinite-Sequence-Experiencing Karma,' why isn't karma with a definite time but an indefinite result regarded as 'Indefinite-Sequence-Experiencing Karma'? Therefore, the Vaibhāṣikas (Exemplifiers) are extremely confused in establishing eight types of karma in this sense. Furthermore, the Vaibhāṣikas say that all karmas, even Ānantarika-karma (Karma of Immediate Retribution, the five heinous crimes), can be transformed. If Ānantarika-karma cannot be transformed, then no one should be able to transcend Bhavāgra (Peak of Existence, the highest heaven). Now, observing their statement, it has this meaning: if it is said that only a small portion of karmas cannot be transformed, then the karma of the Peak of Existence must be the foremost. Because among all karmas, the karma of the Peak of Existence is the most subtle, is the root of Samsara (cycle of rebirth), and has the ability to encompass vast Vipāka. No sentient being transmigrating in beginningless Samsara has ever been able to transcend it. If someone can transform this type of karma, then why can't Ānantarika-karma be transformed? This is still a false and biased view. Because the Vipāka and position of Ānantarika-karma are both determined, while the karma of the Peak of Existence is not, so the cited example has no power to prove anything. If all karmas of the Peak of Existence cannot be transformed, then those who initiate this Samadhi (meditative state) should definitely attract retribution. In that case, it would be impossible to attain the fruit of Arhant (Worthy One, liberated being) and Parinirvana (Complete Nirvana, final liberation) after initiating this Samadhi. If all karmas can be transformed, then the World-Honored One (Buddha) should not have said that there are definite karmas. Is it possible for four types of karma to arise simultaneously? It is possible. For example, after abandoning the three Saṃyojanas (Fetters, bonds of affliction), the self-indulgence in Kāma (Desire) is simultaneously completed. Among the four types of karma, such as Dṛṣṭadharma-vedanīya-karma (Immediately Effective Karma, karma ripening in the present life), which karmas can generate Nikāya-sabhāga (Community of Kind, the commonality of beings of the same type)? Only three types of karma can generate it, except for Dṛṣṭadharma-vedanīya-karma. Because Dṛṣṭadharma-vedanīya-karma must rely on the Sabhāga generated by previous karma to arise, and it must give retribution in the present life. In which Dhātu (Realm, the three realms) and which Gati (Course, the six paths) can how many types of karma be created? In each realm and each course...
趣或善或惡。隨其所應皆容造四。總開如是。若就別遮捺落迦中。善除順現無愛果故余皆得造。有餘師說。色無色界決定無有順現受業。以順現業必依殊勝境界加行方可成立謂于父母佛阿羅漢及余勝德。所熏修身為損益事能招現果。或於余境發起猛利堅執加行亦招現果。如是類業上界俱無。故二界中無順現業。彼執非理余容起故。謂上二界亦有勝業。勢力速疾能招現果。故上二界雖無如前緣勝境等順現受業。而有勝定能招現果。順現受業類非一故。由是攝中作如是說。順現等四業皆欲界。一切色無色遍行修所斷隨眠之所隨增故。一切處皆具能造如是四業。不退性名堅彼于離染地。若異生類除順生受可造餘三。聖者雙除順生后受可造餘二。異生不退若離彼染。無容於彼無間受生。故彼應除順生受業。于上地歿必還生下。故容造彼順后受業。聖者不退若離彼染。必無容有于彼更生。故彼雙除順生順后。隨所生地容造順現受。造不定業一切處無遮。然諸聖者若於欲界及有頂處。已得離染雖有退墮。而亦不造順生后業。從彼退者必退果故。諸退果已必不命終還得本果。住中有位亦造業耶亦造云何。頌曰。
欲中有能造 二十二種業 皆順現受攝 類同分一故
論曰。于欲界中住中有位。容有能造二十二業。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 趣，無論是善是惡，都可能造作四種業。總的來說是這樣。如果就個別情況來遮止，在地獄中，因為善業無法帶來順現受（立即體驗）的可愛果報，所以其餘三種業都可以造作。有些論師認為，色界和無色界絕對沒有順現受業。因為順現受業必須依靠殊勝的境界和精勤的加行才能成立，例如對父母、佛、阿羅漢以及其他具有殊勝功德者，通過損害或利益他們的行為，才能招感現世的果報；或者對其他境界發起猛烈而堅定的執著和加行，也能招感現世的果報。像這樣的業，上界都沒有。所以色界和無色界中沒有順現受業。但他們的觀點不合理，因為其他情況也可能產生順現受業。也就是說，上二界也有殊勝的業，其勢力迅速猛烈，能夠招感現世的果報。所以上二界雖然沒有像前面所說的緣殊勝境界等順現受業，但有殊勝的禪定能夠招感現世的果報。順現受業的種類並非只有一種。因此，《攝論》中這樣說：順現受等四種業，都是欲界、一切色界和無色界中遍行、修所斷的隨眠煩惱所隨增的。所以，一切處都具備造作這四種業的能力。不退性，指的是堅固，他們在離染地。如果是異生（凡夫）類，除了順生受業，可以造作其餘三種。聖者則同時排除順生受和順后受，可以造作其餘兩種。不退轉的異生如果離開了那個染污，不可能在那個地方無間受生。所以他們應該排除順生受業。在上地死亡后必定還會生到下地，所以可以造作順后受業。不退轉的聖者如果離開了那個染污，絕對不可能再在那裡受生。所以他們同時排除順生受和順后受。無論生到哪裡，都可以造作順現受業。造作不定業在任何地方都沒有遮止。然而，諸位聖者如果在欲界和有頂處，已經獲得了離染，即使有退墮，也不會造作順生受和順后受業。因為從那裡退墮的人必定會退失果位。已經退失果位的人必定不會死亡，還會重新獲得原本的果位。住在中有位（中陰身）也會造業嗎？會造什麼業呢？頌詞說： 『欲中有能造，二十二種業，皆順現受攝，類同分一故。』 論曰：在欲界中，住在中有位的眾生，可以造作二十二種業。也就是說，
【English Translation】 English version Whether it is pleasant, good, or evil, all can create the four types of karma. This is the general explanation. If we specifically restrict it, in Naraka (hell), because good karma cannot bring about a pleasant result of 'immediately experienced' (順現受 - shun xian shou), all other three types of karma can be created. Some teachers say that the Form Realm and Formless Realm absolutely do not have 'immediately experienced' karma. This is because 'immediately experienced' karma must rely on superior circumstances and diligent effort to be established. For example, actions of harming or benefiting parents, Buddhas, Arhats (阿羅漢 - a luo han), and other beings with superior virtues can bring about present results; or initiating fierce and firm attachment and effort towards other circumstances can also bring about present results. Such karma does not exist in the higher realms. Therefore, the Form Realm and Formless Realm do not have 'immediately experienced' karma. However, their view is unreasonable because other situations can also generate 'immediately experienced' karma. That is to say, the upper two realms also have superior karma, whose power is swift and strong, capable of bringing about present results. Therefore, although the upper two realms do not have 'immediately experienced' karma like the aforementioned karma arising from superior circumstances, they have superior samadhi (禪定 - chan ding) capable of bringing about present results. The types of 'immediately experienced' karma are not just one. Therefore, the Compendium of Abhidharma says: the four types of karma, such as 'immediately experienced' karma, are all increased by the pervasive and cultivation-abandoned latent afflictions in the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm. Therefore, all places possess the ability to create these four types of karma. 'Non-regression' refers to firmness; they are in the realm of detachment. If they are ordinary beings, they can create the other three types of karma except for 'subsequently experienced in the next life' karma. Sages simultaneously exclude 'subsequently experienced in the next life' and 'subsequently experienced after next life' karma, and can create the other two types. Non-regressing ordinary beings, if they leave that defilement, cannot be reborn there without interruption. Therefore, they should exclude 'subsequently experienced in the next life' karma. After dying in the upper realm, they will definitely be reborn in the lower realm, so they can create 'subsequently experienced after next life' karma. Non-regressing sages, if they leave that defilement, can never be reborn there again. Therefore, they simultaneously exclude 'subsequently experienced in the next life' and 'subsequently experienced after next life' karma. Wherever they are born, they can create 'immediately experienced' karma. Creating indefinite karma is not prohibited anywhere. However, if the sages in the Desire Realm and the Peak of Existence have already attained detachment, even if they regress, they will not create 'subsequently experienced in the next life' and 'subsequently experienced after next life' karma. This is because those who regress from there will definitely lose their attainment. Those who have lost their attainment will definitely not die but will regain their original attainment. Do beings dwelling in the intermediate state (中陰身 - zhong yin shen) also create karma? What kind of karma do they create? The verse says: 『In the intermediate state of the Desire Realm, one can create twenty-two types of karma, all of which are included in 'immediately experienced' karma, because they are of the same category and share the same nature.』 The treatise says: In the Desire Realm, beings dwelling in the intermediate state can create twenty-two types of karma. That is to say,
中有位及處胎中。出胎以後各有五位。胎中五者。一羯剌藍。二頞部曇。三閉尸。四鍵南。五缽羅奢佉。胎外五者。一嬰孩。二童子。三少年。四中年。五老年。此十一位一生所攝。住中有位能造中有。定不定業乃至能造。老年二業應知亦爾。當知如是中有所造十一種。定業皆順現受攝。由類同分無差別故。謂此中有位與自類十位一眾同分一業引故。由此不別說順中有受業。即順生等業所引故。類同分者。謂人等類非趣非生。以約趣生中有生有同分異故。諸定受業其相云何。頌曰。
由重惑凈心 及是恒所造 于功德田起 害父母業定
論曰。若所造業由重煩惱。或淳凈心或常所作。或於增上功德田起。功德田者。謂佛法僧。或增上補特伽羅。謂證世出世勝德。於此田所雖無重惑及淳凈心亦非常行。若善不善所起諸業。或於父母設起下纏行損害事。如是一切皆定業攝。有餘師說。若以猛利意樂所造。或有造已起歡喜心。或一切時數數串習。或勝願力事力所起業皆決定。現法果業其相云何。頌曰。
由田意樂勝 及定招異熟 得永離地業 定招現法果
論曰。由田勝者聞有苾芻。于僧眾中作女人語。彼須臾頃轉作女人。此等傳聞其類非一。意樂勝者聞有黃門救脫諸牛黃門事故。彼須臾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 中有階段以及處胎中各有階段。出胎以後各有五個階段。胎中五個階段是：一、羯剌藍（kalala，受精卵）；二、頞部曇（arbuda，凝結期）；三、閉尸（peshi，肉芽期）；四、鍵南（ghana，凝固期）；五、缽羅奢佉（prashakha，肢體分化期）。胎外五個階段是：一、嬰孩；二、童子；三、少年；四、中年；五、老年。這十一個階段都包含在一生之中。住于中有階段能夠造作中有之業，無論定業還是不定業，乃至能夠造作。老年階段的兩種業也應當知道是這樣的。應當知道像這樣中有階段所造作的十一種業，定業都屬於順現受業。因為種類相同，同分沒有差別。意思是說，這中有階段與自己同類的十個階段，具有相同的眾同分，由相同的業所牽引。因此，不另外說明順中有受業，就是順生等業所牽引的緣故。類同分，指的是人等種類，不是趣，也不是生，因為就趣和生來說，中有和生有是同分而不同的。各種定受業的相是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
『由重惑凈心，及是恒所造，于功德田起，害父母業定。』
論述說：如果所造的業是由深重的煩惱，或者純凈的心，或者經常所作，或者在殊勝的功德田中生起。功德田指的是佛、法、僧，或者殊勝的補特伽羅（pudgala，人），指的是證得世間和出世間殊勝功德的人。在這種田中，即使沒有深重的煩惱和純凈的心，也不是經常的行為，如果善業或不善業所生起的各種業，或者對父母施行下劣的行為，損害父母的事情，像這樣的一切都屬於定業。有其他老師說，如果是以猛利的意樂所造作的，或者有造作之後生起歡喜心的，或者一切時經常串習的，或者殊勝的願力、事力所生起的業都是決定的。現法果業的相是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
『由田意樂勝，及定招異熟，得永離地業，定招現法果。』
論述說：由於田殊勝，聽說有比丘在僧眾中說女人話，他須臾之間就轉變成了女人。這類傳聞不止一個。意樂殊勝，聽說有太監救脫了許多牛，因為救牛的緣故，他須臾之間
【English Translation】 English version: There are stages in the intermediate state (antarabhava) and stages in the womb. After leaving the womb, there are five stages. The five stages in the womb are: 1. Kalala (the zygote); 2. Arbuda (the stage of coagulation); 3. Peshi (the stage of fleshy bud); 4. Ghana (the stage of solidification); 5. Prashakha (the stage of limb differentiation). The five stages outside the womb are: 1. Infant; 2. Child; 3. Adolescent; 4. Middle-aged; 5. Old age. These eleven stages are all encompassed within one lifetime. Dwelling in the intermediate state allows one to create the karma of the intermediate state, whether it is fixed karma or unfixed karma, and even allows one to create it. The two types of karma in old age should also be understood in this way. It should be known that the eleven types of karma created in the intermediate state are all included in karma that is experienced in the present life (dṛṣṭadharmavedanīya-karma). This is because the type is the same, and there is no difference in the commonality. This means that this intermediate state has the same commonality with the ten stages of its own type, and is drawn by the same karma. Therefore, the karma experienced in the intermediate state is not explained separately, because it is drawn by the karma of future lives, etc. 'Type commonality' refers to the type of humans, etc., which is neither a destiny (gati) nor a birth (jati), because in terms of destiny and birth, the intermediate existence and the future existence are of the same category but different. What are the characteristics of the various fixedly experienced karmas? The verse says:
'Due to heavy afflictions, pure mind, and constant creation, Arising in fields of merit, karma of harming parents is fixed.'
The treatise says: If the karma created is due to heavy afflictions, or a purely pure mind, or is constantly performed, or arises in a supreme field of merit. 'Field of merit' refers to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, or a supreme individual (pudgala), referring to one who has attained supreme worldly and transmundane virtues. In this field, even if there are no heavy afflictions or a purely pure mind, and it is not a constant practice, if various karmas arise from good or non-good, or if one engages in inferior conduct towards parents, harming them, all such things are included in fixed karma. Some other teachers say that if it is created with intense intention, or if one feels joy after creating it, or if one constantly practices it at all times, or if the karma arising from the power of supreme vows and actions is all fixed. What are the characteristics of karma that bears fruit in the present life? The verse says:
'Due to the superiority of the field and intention, and fixedly inviting maturation, Obtaining karma that permanently leaves the ground, fixedly invites fruit in the present life.'
The treatise says: Due to the superiority of the field, it is heard that there was a bhikshu who spoke in the manner of a woman in the Sangha, and he transformed into a woman in an instant. There are more than one of these kinds of rumors. Due to the superiority of intention, it is heard that a eunuch rescued many cows, and because of the act of rescuing cows, he in an instant
頃轉作丈夫。此等傳聞事亦非一。或有餘業亦得現果。謂生此地永離此地染。於此地中諸善不善業必應現受不重生故。如阿羅漢及不還者。未離染時已造彼業。今離染故成現法受。彼是何業。謂異熟定。應知此中所說業者。是異熟定非時定業。若有餘位順定受業。彼必定無永離染義。必于餘位受異熟果。若於異熟亦不定者。永離染故不受異熟。諸不還者及阿羅漢。于欲三界設退起染。必不生下定涅槃故。異熟定業皆成現受。余隨所應類此當說。何田起業定即受耶。頌曰。
于佛上首僧 及滅定無諍 慈見修道出 損益業即受
論曰。于如是類功德田中。為善惡業定即受果。功德田者謂佛上首僧。約補特伽羅差別有五。一從滅定出。謂此定中得心寂靜。此定寂靜以涅槃故。若從此定初起心時如入涅槃。還復出者勝靜功德莊嚴其身。為殷凈心生長依處。二從無諍出。謂此定中已能永拔一切煩惱災患相續。有緣一切有情為境。所起無邊增上意樂。無諍功德積集熏身。從此出時彼心相續。不為一切世間定心。及不定心之所勝伏。是福非福近果勝田。三從慈定出。謂此定中有緣無量有情為境。利益安樂增上意樂積集熏身。出此定時有為無量最勝功德。所熏修身相續而轉能生勝業。四從見道出。謂此道中能超一分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 或者（眾生）頃刻間轉變為男子。這類傳聞並非只有一件。或者有過去所造的業，也能得到現世的果報。意思是說，生於此地就能永遠脫離此地的染污，在此地所造的善業或惡業必定會立刻承受果報，因為不會再有來生。例如阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）和不還者（Anagamin，不再返回欲界的聖者），在未脫離染污時已經造作了某些業，現在因為脫離了染污，這些業就變成了現世受報的業。這些是什麼業呢？是指異熟定業（Vipaka-niyata-karma，果報確定的業）。應當知道，這裡所說的業，是指異熟定業，而不是指非時定業（非到一定時間才受報的業）。如果還有其他順定受業（順著次序受報的業），那麼必定沒有永遠脫離染污的道理，必定會在其他時候承受異熟果報。如果對於異熟果報也不確定，那麼因為永遠脫離了染污，就不會承受異熟果報。那些不還者和阿羅漢，即使在欲界、色界、無色界中退轉而生起染污，也必定不會墮落到地獄，因為他們已經決定會入涅槃。所以，他們的異熟定業都會變成現世受報的業。其餘的情況，可以根據這些例子類推說明。在什麼樣的福田中造業，會決定立刻受報呢？頌文說：
『于佛上首僧，及滅定無諍，慈見修道出，損益業即受。』
論中說：在這些功德田中，造作善業或惡業，必定會立刻承受果報。功德田是指佛（Buddha，覺悟者）、上首僧（chief Sangha，僧團中的領導者）。從補特伽羅（Pudgala，個體）的差別來說，有五種情況：第一種是從滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種高級禪定狀態）中出來。在這種禪定中，心已經得到寂靜。這種禪定的寂靜是因為接近涅槃的緣故。如果從這種禪定中初起心時，就像從涅槃中出來一樣，那麼殊勝的寂靜功德就會莊嚴其身，成為殷重清凈心生長的依靠之處。第二種是從無諍定（Arana-samapatti，一種止息爭論的禪定狀態）中出來。在這種禪定中，已經能夠永遠拔除一切煩惱和災患的相續。以有緣一切有情為境界，所生起的無邊增上意樂。無諍的功德積聚熏習其身。從這種禪定中出來時，他的心相續不會被一切世間的定心和不定心所勝伏。是福德和非福德的近果殊勝福田。第三種是從慈定（Maitri-samapatti，慈心禪定）中出來。在這種禪定中，以有緣無量有情為境界，利益安樂的增上意樂積聚熏習其身。從這種禪定中出來時，有為無量最殊勝的功德所熏修的身相續而轉，能夠產生殊勝的業。第四種是從見道（Darshana-marga，見諦之道）中出來。在這種道中，能夠超越一部分
【English Translation】 English version Or (beings) may instantly transform into men. Such accounts are not unique. Alternatively, past karma may yield immediate results, meaning that being born in this place allows one to permanently escape the defilements of this realm. Good or bad deeds committed here will inevitably be met with immediate retribution, as there will be no rebirth. Examples include Arhats (those who have attained Nirvana) and Anagamins (those who do not return to the desire realm), who, before shedding defilements, had already accumulated certain karma. Now, having shed defilements, this karma becomes immediately ripened. What karma is this? It refers to Vipaka-niyata-karma (karma with a fixed result). It should be understood that the karma mentioned here refers to Vipaka-niyata-karma, not Aniyata-karma (karma with unfixed time of ripening). If there are other karmas to be experienced in sequence, then there is certainly no possibility of permanently escaping defilements, and the results will inevitably be experienced at other times. If even the results are uncertain, then, having permanently escaped defilements, no results will be experienced. Those Anagamins and Arhats, even if they regress and generate defilements in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm, will certainly not fall into lower realms, as they are destined for Nirvana. Therefore, their Vipaka-niyata-karma will all become immediately ripened. Other situations can be explained by analogy. In what fields of merit does karma lead to immediate retribution? The verse says:
'Towards the Buddha, the foremost Sangha, and those emerging from Nirodha-samapatti and Arana-samapatti, from Maitri and Darshana-marga, deeds of benefit or harm are immediately ripened.'
The treatise states: In these fields of merit, good or bad deeds will inevitably lead to immediate retribution. Fields of merit refer to the Buddha (the Awakened One), and the foremost Sangha (the leaders of the monastic community). From the perspective of Pudgala (individuals), there are five situations: The first is emerging from Nirodha-samapatti (a high state of meditative absorption). In this samapatti, the mind has attained tranquility. This tranquility is due to the proximity of Nirvana. If, when the mind first arises from this samapatti, it is as if emerging from Nirvana, then the supreme merit of tranquility will adorn the body, becoming a source of reliance for earnest and pure minds. The second is emerging from Arana-samapatti (a state of non-contention). In this samapatti, one has been able to permanently eradicate the continuity of all afflictions and calamities. With all sentient beings as the object, boundless superior intention arises. The merit of non-contention accumulates and permeates the body. When emerging from this samapatti, the continuity of their mind will not be overcome by any worldly fixed or unfixed mind. It is a superior field of merit for the near results of merit and demerit. The third is emerging from Maitri-samapatti (loving-kindness meditation). In this samapatti, with boundless sentient beings as the object, the superior intention of benefiting and bringing happiness accumulates and permeates the body. When emerging from this samapatti, the body-continuity, cultivated by boundless supreme merit, transforms and is able to generate superior karma. The fourth is emerging from Darshana-marga (the path of seeing). In this path, one is able to transcend a portion of
。無始流轉所不能超。三界輪迴生死根本。從此道出有勝凈身。相續而生能生勝業。五從修道出。謂此道中能超一分生死根本。余如前說。從如是五初出位中。乘前所修勝功德勢。心猶反顧專念不舍。諸根寂靜特異於常。世出世間定不定福。無能勝伏映奪彼者。故說此五名功德田。若有于中為損益業。此業必定能招即果。若從余定余果出時。由前所修定非殊勝。修所斷惑未畢竟盡。故彼相續非勝福田。異熟果中受最為勝。今應思擇于諸業中。頗有唯招心受異熟。或招身受非心受耶。亦有云何。頌曰。
諸善無尋業 許唯感心受 惡唯感身受 是感受業異
論曰。善無尋業謂從中定乃至有頂所有善業。于中能招受異熟者。應知但感心受非身。于彼地中無身受故。身受必定與尋相應。非無尋業感有尋果。諸不善業能感受者。應知但感身受非心。以不善因苦受為果。意地苦受決定名憂。憂受必非異熟果攝。故不善業唯感身受。若執憂根定非異熟。諸有情類所發心狂。在何識中何因所感。依何處起非異熟耶。頌曰。
心狂唯意識 由業異熟生 及怖害違憂 除北洲在欲
論曰。有情心狂唯在意識。若在五識必無心狂。以五識身無分別故。由何因故有情心狂。由諸有情業異熟起。由何等業異熟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：無始以來的流轉無法超越它，它是三界輪迴生死的根本。從這個道中出來，會有殊勝清凈的身體，相續不斷地產生，能夠產生殊勝的善業。第五種是從修道中出來，意思是說，在這個道中能夠超越一部分生死根本。其餘的如同前面所說。從這五種最初的出定位置中，憑藉先前所修的殊勝功德的力量，心仍然會回顧，專心憶念而不捨棄。諸根寂靜，特別異於平常。世間和出世間的定福和不定福，沒有能夠勝過和掩蓋它們的。所以說這五種定是功德田。如果有人在其中造作損益的業，這種業必定能夠立即招感果報。如果從其他的定和其他的果報中出來，由於先前所修的定不是殊勝的，所修斷的惑還沒有畢竟斷盡，所以他們的相續不是殊勝的福田，在異熟果中，所受用的最為殊勝。現在應該思考，在各種業中，有沒有僅僅招感心受的異熟，或者招感身受而不是心受的呢？也有，是怎麼樣的呢？頌說： 『諸善無尋業，許唯感心受，惡唯感身受，是感受業異。』 論中說：善的無尋業，指的是從中間定（Dhyana，禪定的一種）乃至有頂天（Akanistha，色界最高的禪定天）的所有善業。在這些善業中，能夠招感受的異熟的，應當知道僅僅感受心受，而不是身受。因為在那些地方沒有身受。身受必定與尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）相應，沒有尋的業不會感受有尋的果報。各種不善業能夠感受的，應當知道僅僅感受身受，而不是心受。因為不善的因以苦受為果。意地的苦受必定名為憂（Duhkha，痛苦）。憂受必定不是異熟果所攝。所以不善業僅僅感受身受。如果認為憂根（Duhkha-indriya，苦受的根源）一定不是異熟，那麼各種有情所發的心狂，在哪個識中？由什麼因所感？依靠什麼地方生起而不是異熟呢？頌說： 『心狂唯意識，由業異熟生，及怖害違憂，除北洲在欲。』 論中說：有情的心狂僅僅在意識中。如果在五識中必定沒有心狂。因為五識身沒有分別的緣故。由什麼原因有情會心狂？由各種有情的業異熟生起。由什麼樣的業異熟？
【English Translation】 English version: The beginningless wandering cannot transcend it; it is the root of Samsara (三界, Three Realms) and birth and death. Emerging from this path, one will have a superior and pure body, continuously arising and capable of generating superior virtuous deeds. The fifth is emerging from the path of cultivation, meaning that within this path, one can transcend a portion of the root of birth and death. The rest is as previously stated. From these five initial positions of emerging from Samadhi (定, concentration), relying on the power of the superior merits previously cultivated, the mind still looks back, focusing intently and not abandoning. The senses are tranquil, exceptionally different from usual. Worldly and other-worldly fixed and unfixed blessings cannot overcome or overshadow them. Therefore, these five Samadhis are called fields of merit (功德田). If someone engages in actions of harm or benefit within them, this action will certainly bring about immediate consequences. If one emerges from other Samadhis and other consequences, because the Samadhi previously cultivated is not superior, and the afflictions (惑, Kleshas) severed through cultivation have not been completely exhausted, their continuation is not a superior field of merit. In the Vipaka (異熟, fruition) result, what is received is the most superior. Now, one should consider whether, among all actions, there are any that only bring about the Vipaka of mental feeling (心受, mental sensation), or bring about physical feeling (身受, physical sensation) but not mental feeling? There are; how are they? The verse says: 'All virtuous non-seeking actions, it is accepted, only feel mental sensation; evil only feels physical sensation; this is the difference in feeling actions.' The treatise says: Virtuous non-seeking actions refer to all virtuous actions from the intermediate Dhyana (禪定的一種, a type of meditation) up to Akanistha (有頂天, the highest heaven in the Realm of Form). Among these virtuous actions, those that can bring about the Vipaka of feeling should be known to only feel mental sensation, not physical sensation. This is because there is no physical sensation in those realms. Physical sensation must be associated with Vitarka (尋, coarse thought); actions without Vitarka do not feel the result of having Vitarka. All unwholesome actions that can be felt should be known to only feel physical sensation, not mental sensation. This is because the cause of unwholesomeness has suffering (苦受, Duhkha) as its result. Suffering in the mental realm is definitely called distress (憂, Dukkha). Distress is definitely not included in the Vipaka result. Therefore, unwholesome actions only feel physical sensation. If it is held that the root of suffering (苦受的根源, Duhkha-indriya) is definitely not Vipaka, then in which consciousness does the madness that various sentient beings develop reside? By what cause is it felt? Relying on what place does it arise and not as Vipaka? The verse says: 'Madness is only in consciousness, arising from the Vipaka of karma, and fear, harm, opposition, and distress, except for those in Uttarakuru (北洲, Northern Continent) desiring pleasure.' The treatise says: The madness of sentient beings is only in consciousness. If it were in the five consciousnesses, there would definitely be no madness. This is because the five consciousnesses do not have discrimination. By what cause do sentient beings become mad? It arises from the Vipaka of the karma of various sentient beings. From what kind of karma Vipaka?
起耶。謂由彼用藥物咒術令他心狂。或復令他飲非所欲若毒若酒。或現威嚴怖禽獸等。或放猛火焚燒山澤。或作坑阱陷墜眾生。或餘事業令他失念。由此業因於當來世。感得異類大種異熟。由彼勢力令心發狂。由此心狂體非異熟。善惡心等皆容狂故。由斯但說業異熟生。謂惡業因感不平等異熟大種。依此大種心便失念故說為狂。如是心狂對於心亂應作四句。謂有心狂而非心亂。乃至廣說。狂非亂者。謂諸狂者不染污心。亂非狂者。謂不狂者諸染污心。狂亦亂者。謂諸狂者諸染污心。非狂亂者。謂不狂者不染污心。有情心狂為但由此。更由四種。其四者何。一由驚怖。謂非人等現可怖形來相逼迫。有情見已遂致心狂。二由傷害。謂因事業惱非人等。由彼瞋故傷其支節遂致心狂。有情身中有別支節。若被打觸心即發狂。三由乖違。謂由身內風熱痰界互相違反。大種乖適故致心狂。四由愁憂。謂因喪失親愛等事。愁毒纏懷心遂發狂如婆私等。何有情類有此心狂。除北俱盧所餘欲界諸有情類容有心狂。謂欲天心尚有狂者。況人惡趣得離心狂。地獄恒狂眾苦逼故。謂諸地獄恒為種種異類苦具傷害。末摩猛利難忍苦受所逼尚不自識況了是非。故地獄中怨心傷嘆猖狂馳叫。世傳有文。欲界聖中唯除諸佛。大種乖適容有心狂無異熟生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼是『狂』呢？就是因為有人使用藥物或咒術使他人精神錯亂。或者強迫他人飲用不想要的東西，比如毒藥或酒。或者顯現威嚴恐嚇禽獸等等。或者放猛火焚燒山澤。或者設定陷阱使眾生墜落。或者做其他使人喪失理智的事情。由於這些惡業的因，在未來的世間，會感得不同種類的大種（四大元素）的異熟果報。由於這些大種的力量，導致精神錯亂。這種精神錯亂的身體並非異熟果報，因為善心和噁心都可能導致精神錯亂。因此，只能說是惡業的異熟果報所生。也就是說，惡業的因感得不平等的大種異熟果報。依靠這種大種，心便喪失了理智，所以稱為『狂』。 像這樣，對於『心狂』和『心亂』，應該作四句分析：有心狂但不是心亂的，乃至廣說。狂但不是亂的，是指那些精神錯亂但沒有被染污的心。亂但不是狂的，是指沒有精神錯亂但有染污的心。既狂又亂的，是指那些精神錯亂且有染污的心。既不狂也不亂的，是指沒有精神錯亂也沒有染污的心。 有情眾生的精神錯亂僅僅由此而來嗎？不是的，還有四種原因。是哪四種呢？一是由於驚嚇。比如非人（鬼神等）顯現可怕的形象來逼迫，有情眾生看到后就導致精神錯亂。二是由於傷害。比如因為某些事情惱怒了非人等，由於他們的嗔恨，傷害了有情眾生的肢體，導致精神錯亂。有情眾生的身體中有一些特殊的部位，如果被打到或觸碰到，心就會發狂。三是由於不調和。比如由於身體內的風、熱、痰等元素互相違反，四大種不調和，導致精神錯亂。四是由於愁憂。比如因為喪失親人或所愛的事物等，愁苦毒害纏繞在心中，導致精神錯亂，比如婆私（Vasistha）等。 哪些有情眾生會有這種精神錯亂呢？除了北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）以外，其餘欲界（Kamadhatu）的有情眾生都可能發生精神錯亂。也就是說，欲界天（Kama Heaven）的心都可能有錯亂的時候，更何況是人道和惡趣呢？地獄（Naraka）中的眾生總是處於精神錯亂的狀態，因為他們被各種痛苦所逼迫。也就是說，地獄中的眾生總是被各種不同種類的痛苦刑具所傷害，被猛烈難忍的痛苦所逼迫，甚至不能認識自己，更何況辨別是非呢？因此，在地獄中，充滿怨恨、傷心嘆息、瘋狂叫喊。世間流傳的說法是，在欲界的聖人中，只有諸佛（Buddha）不會精神錯亂。大種不調和可能會導致精神錯亂，但不是異熟果報所生。
【English Translation】 English version: What is 'madness'? It is caused by someone using drugs or spells to make another person's mind go insane. Or forcing them to drink something they don't want, such as poison or alcohol. Or displaying威嚴 (wei yan, imposing power) to frighten birds and beasts, etc. Or setting猛火 (meng huo, fierce fire) to burn mountains and marshes. Or setting up pits to trap sentient beings. Or doing other things that cause people to lose their minds. Due to the cause of these evil deeds, in future lives, one will experience the異熟 (yi shu, vipaka) retribution of different kinds of大種 (da zhong, mahabhuta, the four great elements). Due to the power of these elements, mental derangement occurs. This deranged body is not the異熟 (yi shu, vipaka) retribution, because both good and evil minds can lead to derangement. Therefore, it can only be said that it is born from the異熟 (yi shu, vipaka) retribution of evil deeds. That is, the cause of evil deeds results in the unequal異熟 (yi shu, vipaka) retribution of the great elements. Relying on these elements, the mind loses its reason, so it is called 'madness'. In this way, regarding 'mental derangement' and 'mental confusion', four statements should be made: there is mental derangement but not mental confusion, and so on. Madness but not confusion refers to those who are mentally deranged but whose minds are not defiled. Confusion but not madness refers to those who are not mentally deranged but have defiled minds. Both mad and confused refers to those who are mentally deranged and have defiled minds. Neither mad nor confused refers to those who are not mentally deranged and do not have defiled minds. Does the mental derangement of sentient beings come only from this? No, there are four other reasons. What are these four? First, due to fright. For example,非人 (fei ren, non-human beings, such as ghosts and spirits) appear in terrifying forms to逼迫 (bi po, force) them, and sentient beings become mentally deranged after seeing them. Second, due to harm. For example, because of certain things,非人 (fei ren, non-human beings) are angered, and due to their anger, they harm the limbs of sentient beings, leading to mental derangement. There are special parts in the bodies of sentient beings that, if hit or touched, will cause the mind to go mad. Third, due to disharmony. For example, due to the mutual violation of elements such as wind, heat, and phlegm in the body, the四大種 (si da zhong, the four great elements) are not in harmony, leading to mental derangement. Fourth, due to sorrow and worry. For example, because of the loss of relatives or loved ones, sorrow and poison entangle the mind, leading to mental derangement, such as婆私 (Vasistha). Which sentient beings are prone to this mental derangement? Except forUttarakuru (北俱盧洲), the remaining sentient beings in the欲界 (Kamadhatu, Desire Realm) are prone to mental derangement. That is, even the minds of theKama Heaven (欲界天) may have times of confusion, let alone humans and evil destinies? Beings inNaraka (地獄, Hell) are always in a state of mental derangement because they are forced by all kinds of suffering. That is, beings in Hell are always harmed by various kinds of painful instruments, and are forced by intense and unbearable suffering, so that they cannot even recognize themselves, let alone distinguish right from wrong. Therefore, in Hell, there is resentment, heartbroken sighs, and frantic cries. The worldly saying is that among the saints in the Desire Realm, onlyBuddhas (諸佛) do not have mental derangement. Disharmony of the大種 (da zhong, mahabhuta, the four great elements) may lead to mental derangement, but it is not born from異熟 (yi shu, vipaka) retribution.
若有定業必應先受後方得聖。若非定業得聖道故。能令無果亦無驚怖。以諸聖者超五畏故。亦無傷害以諸聖者。無非人等憎嫌事故。亦無愁憂以諸聖者證法性故。一切如來心無狂亂。無漸捨命無破音聲。亦無發白面皺等事。以極淳凈妙業所生。又經中說業有三種。謂曲穢濁。其相云何。頌曰。
說曲穢濁業 依諂瞋貪生
論曰。身語意三各有三種。謂曲穢濁如其次第。應知依諂瞋貪所生。謂依諂生身語意業。名為曲業。諂曲類故。實曲謂見故契經言。實曲者何。謂諸惡見諂是彼類故得曲名。從諂所生身語意業曲為因故果受因名。是故世尊說彼為曲。若依瞋生身語意業名為穢業。瞋穢類故瞋名穢者。謂瞋現前如熱鐵丸。隨所投處便能燒害自他身心。諸煩惱中為過最重故。薄伽梵重立穢名。是諸穢中之極穢故。從瞋所生身語意業穢為因故果受因名。是故世尊說彼為穢。若依貪生身語意業名為濁業。貪濁類故貪名濁者。謂貪現前染著所緣是染性故。從彼生等準前應釋。又真直道。謂八聖支。能障彼生三業名曲。真實無病。謂永涅槃障證彼因三業名穢。依外道見於佛教中障凈信心不信名濁。以能擾濁凈信心故。信從彼所起三業名濁。又墮斷常違處中行。從彼所起身語意業違直道義故立曲名。由損減見所起諸業能穢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果存在既定的業力，必定是先承受果報，之後才能證得聖果。如果不是既定的業力，因為證得聖道，就能使業力沒有結果，也不會有驚慌恐懼。因為諸聖者超越了五種畏懼的緣故。也不會有傷害，因為諸聖者沒有被非人等憎恨嫌棄的事情。也不會有憂愁，因為諸聖者證悟了法性的緣故。一切如來心不會狂亂，不會逐漸捨棄壽命，不會破損音聲，也不會有頭髮變白、面容起皺等事情。因為是由極其純凈美好的業力所生。經典中又說業有三種，分別是曲業（deceitful karma）、穢業（defiled karma）和濁業（turbid karma）。它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 『所說的曲業、穢業、濁業，是依靠諂媚、嗔恨、貪婪而生起的。』 論述：身、語、意三者各自有三種業，分別是曲業、穢業、濁業，應當按照順序知道它們是依靠諂媚、嗔恨、貪婪所生起的。也就是說，依靠諂媚生起身、語、意業，稱為曲業。因為諂媚是虛偽彎曲的。真實的虛偽彎曲是指（錯誤的）見解，所以契經上說：『真實的虛偽彎曲是什麼？』是指各種惡見，諂媚是它們的同類，所以得到曲業的名稱。從諂媚所生起身、語、意業，因為曲業是因，所以果報承受因的名稱。因此，世尊說它們是曲業。如果依靠嗔恨生起身、語、意業，稱為穢業。因為嗔恨是污穢的。嗔恨被稱為污穢，是因為嗔恨現前就像熾熱的鐵丸，無論投向哪裡，都能燒害自己和他人的身心。在各種煩惱中，嗔恨的過失最為嚴重，所以薄伽梵（Bhagavan）特別設立了穢業的名稱。這是各種污穢中最污穢的。從嗔恨所生起身、語、意業，因為穢業是因，所以果報承受因的名稱。因此，世尊說它們是穢業。如果依靠貪婪生起身、語、意業，稱為濁業。因為貪婪是渾濁的。貪婪被稱為渾濁，是因為貪婪現前會染著所緣境，因為它具有染污的性質。從貪婪生起（身語意業）等，可以參照前面的解釋。另外，真正的正直之道，是指八聖道支（Eightfold Noble Path），能夠障礙它們生起的三業稱為曲業。真實沒有疾病，是指永恒的涅槃（Nirvana），障礙證得涅槃之因的三業稱為穢業。依靠外道的見解，在佛教中障礙清凈的信心，不相信，稱為濁業。因為它能夠擾亂渾濁清凈的信心。從不信心所生起的三業稱為濁業。又或者墮入斷見、常見，違背中道而行。從這些（斷見、常見）所起身、語、意業，違背正直之道的意義，所以立為曲業的名稱。由損減的見解所生起的各種業，能夠污穢（身心）。
【English Translation】 English version: If there is fixed karma, one must first receive the consequences before attaining sainthood. If it is not fixed karma, because of attaining the holy path, it can cause the karma to have no result and there will be no fear or dread. Because the saints have transcended the five fears. There will also be no harm because the saints have no cause for hatred or dislike from non-humans. There will also be no sorrow because the saints have realized the nature of Dharma. The minds of all Tathagatas (如來, one who has thus come) are not deranged, they do not gradually abandon life, their voices are not broken, and they do not have white hair or wrinkled faces. Because they are born from extremely pure and wonderful karma. Moreover, the sutras say that there are three types of karma, namely deceitful karma (曲業), defiled karma (穢業), and turbid karma (濁業). What are their characteristics? The verse says: 'The deceitful, defiled, and turbid karmas are said to arise from flattery, anger, and greed.' Commentary: The three, body, speech, and mind, each have three types of karma, namely deceitful, defiled, and turbid, in that order. It should be known that they arise from flattery, anger, and greed. That is to say, the karma of body, speech, and mind that arises from flattery is called deceitful karma. Because flattery is deceitful and crooked. True deceitfulness refers to (wrong) views, so the sutra says: 'What is true deceitfulness?' It refers to various evil views, and flattery is of their kind, so it is given the name deceitful karma. The karma of body, speech, and mind that arises from flattery, because deceitful karma is the cause, the result receives the name of the cause. Therefore, the World Honored One (世尊, another name for Buddha) said that they are deceitful karma. If the karma of body, speech, and mind arises from anger, it is called defiled karma. Because anger is defiled. Anger is called defiled because when anger arises, it is like a hot iron ball, and wherever it is thrown, it can burn and harm the body and mind of oneself and others. Among all the afflictions, the fault of anger is the most serious, so the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, the Blessed One) specially established the name of defiled karma. It is the most defiled of all defilements. The karma of body, speech, and mind that arises from anger, because defiled karma is the cause, the result receives the name of the cause. Therefore, the World Honored One said that they are defiled karma. If the karma of body, speech, and mind arises from greed, it is called turbid karma. Because greed is turbid. Greed is called turbid because when greed arises, it clings to the object of attachment, because it has the nature of defilement. The arising of (karma of body, speech, and mind) from greed, etc., can be explained according to the previous explanation. In addition, the true and straight path refers to the Eightfold Noble Path (八聖道支), and the three karmas that can hinder their arising are called deceitful karma. True freedom from disease refers to eternal Nirvana (涅槃), and the three karmas that hinder the cause of attaining Nirvana are called defiled karma. Relying on the views of external paths, hindering pure faith in Buddhism, and not believing, is called turbid karma. Because it can disturb and muddy pure faith. The three karmas that arise from disbelief are called turbid karma. Or falling into nihilism and eternalism, violating the Middle Way. The karma of body, speech, and mind that arises from these (nihilism and eternalism) violates the meaning of the straight path, so it is given the name deceitful karma. The various karmas that arise from diminished views can defile (the body and mind).
凈法故立穢名。穢名必依極穢義故。薩迦耶見所起諸業能障無我真實凈見。依障凈義故立濁名。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之九
又經中說業有四種。謂或有業黑黑異熟。或復有業白白異熟。或復有業黑白黑白異熟。或復有業非黑非白無異熟。業能盡諸業。經雖略示而不廣釋。今應釋彼。其相云何。頌曰。
依黑黑等殊 所說四種業 惡色慾界善 能盡彼無漏 應知如次第 名黑白俱非
論曰。佛依業果性類不同。所治能治殊說黑黑等四。諸不善業一向名黑。以具染污黑不可意黑故。異熟亦黑。不可意故色界善業一向名白。不為一切不善煩惱。及不善業所𣣋雜故。異熟亦白。是可意故。依何意趣除無色善有說此中舉初顯后或色界中有可意白。及明瞭白可施設故。獨立白名。無色界中有可意白。無明瞭白可施設故。不立白名。或色界中具中生有二白性故。獨立白名。如契經言。或男或女成身妙行。廣說乃至。死後感得有色意成如白衣光。或明白夜。或於色界具足三業。及十業道。無色不然。而契經中有說靜
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為清凈的法存在，所以才安立了『穢』（不凈）這個名稱。而『穢』這個名稱必然是依據極其污穢的意義而建立的。薩迦耶見（Sakkāya-ditthi，身見，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）所產生的各種業，能夠障礙無我的真實清凈的見解。因為障礙清凈的意義，所以安立了『濁』（不清凈）這個名稱。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之九
另外，經中說業有四種，分別是：有的業是黑的，其異熟果也是黑的；有的業是白的，其異熟果也是白的；有的業是黑白的，其異熟果也是黑白的；有的業既非黑非白，也沒有異熟果。這種業能夠滅盡其他的業。經文雖然簡略地揭示了這些，但沒有詳細解釋。現在應該解釋它們。它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
依據黑、黑等差別，所說的四種業；惡業是黑的，**界（欲界）的善業是黑白的，能滅盡它們的無漏業，應知如次第，名為非黑非白。
論述：佛陀依據業果的性質和種類不同，以及所要對治的和能夠對治的不同，而說了黑黑等四種業。各種不善業一概稱為『黑』，因為它具有染污的黑色和不可意的黑色。它的異熟果也是黑的，因為是不可意的。善業一概稱為『白』，因為它不被一切不善的煩惱以及不善業所混雜。它的異熟果也是白的，因為是可意的。依據什麼意趣，除了無色界的善業之外，而說這裡舉出初業是爲了顯示后業呢？或者因為界中有可意的白業，以及明瞭的白業可以施設，所以獨立安立了『白』這個名稱。無界中沒有可意的白業，也沒有明瞭的白業可以施設，所以不安立『白』這個名稱。或者因為界中具有中生和有這兩種白業的性質，所以獨立安立『白』這個名稱。如契經所說：『或者男子或者女子成就身體的妙行，廣泛地說乃至死後感得有色的意生身，如同白衣的光，或者明白的夜晚。』或者在**界中具足身、語、意三業，以及十業道，無色界不是這樣。而契經中有說靜
【English Translation】 English version: Because pure Dharma exists, the name 'impurity' is established. And the name 'impurity' must be established based on the meaning of extreme impurity. The various karmas arising from Sakkāya-ditthi (self-view, the view that the aggregation of the five skandhas is a real self) can obstruct the true and pure view of no-self. Because of the meaning of obstructing purity, the name 'turbidity' (impurity) is established.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 40 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 41
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 4.9: Discrimination of Karma
Furthermore, the sutras say that there are four types of karma: some karma is black with black results; some karma is white with white results; some karma is black and white with black and white results; and some karma is neither black nor white and has no results. This karma can exhaust all other karmas. Although the sutras briefly reveal these, they do not explain them in detail. Now we should explain them. What are their characteristics? The verse says:
Based on the differences of black, black, etc., the four types of karma are spoken of; evil karma is black, good karma in the **-realm (desire realm) is black and white, the non-outflow karma that can exhaust them, should be known as neither black nor white in order.
Commentary: The Buddha, based on the different natures and types of karmic results, and the differences between what is to be treated and what can treat, spoke of the four types of karma: black, black, etc. All unwholesome karmas are generally called 'black' because they possess defiled blackness and undesirable blackness. Their results are also black because they are undesirable. ** wholesome karmas are generally called 'white' because they are not mixed with all unwholesome afflictions and unwholesome karmas. Their results are also white because they are desirable. Based on what intention, except for the good karma of the Formless Realm, is it said that mentioning the initial karma here is to reveal the subsequent karma? Or because there is desirable white karma in the -realm, and clear white karma can be established, the name 'white' is independently established. There is no desirable white karma in the Formless Realm, and no clear white karma can be established, so the name 'white' is not established. Or because the -realm possesses the nature of both intermediate existence and existence, the name 'white' is independently established. As the sutra says: 'Whether a man or a woman accomplishes the wonderful actions of the body, broadly speaking, even after death, they obtain a colored mind-made body, like the light of a white robe, or a clear night.' Or in the **-realm, the three karmas of body, speech, and mind, and the ten paths of karma are complete, but the Formless Realm is not like this. And there are sutras that speak of quiet
慮無量無色。皆名白白異熟業者。彼據純凈可意異熟通立白名。然彼契經非了義說。以于上界四蘊五蘊一切善法說業聲故。諸異熟因由業所顯。故非業者亦立業名。證知彼經非了義。說欲界善業名為黑白。惡所雜故。異熟亦黑白。非愛果雜故。此黑白名依相續立非據自性。所以者何。以無一業及一異熟是黑亦白互相違故。若爾惡業果善業果雜故。是則亦應名為白黑。此難非理。以欲界中不善數行力能伏善故。彼苦果雜樂異熟。欲界善劣無有功能。𣣋伏不善。故彼樂果亦無功能雜苦異熟。故惡業果得純黑名。有餘師言。欲界善業意樂加行黑白雜起。由此故立黑白二名。非一業體有善有惡。云何如一為誑害他。意欲令他信附於己。先矯行施乃至出家如是名為雖意樂黑而加行白或復有一于子門人。為欲遮防非利樂事。及令安住利樂事中。以憐愍心起粗身語。楚撻訶罵逼迫有情。如是名為雖加行黑而意樂白。若爾不善應名白黑。以如善業亦有如前意樂加行白黑雜起。然非所許前說無失。諸無漏業能永斷盡前三業者名第四業。此無漏業非染污故得非黑名于理無失。不墮界故。斷異熟故。名無異熟亦無有失。既是勝義白。何故名非白。佛亦于彼大空經中告阿難陀。諸無學法純善純白一向無罪。本論亦言云何白法謂諸善法無覆無記。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 慮無量無色（指色界和無色界），都稱為『白白異熟業』，是因為它們具有純凈且令人愉悅的異熟果報，所以稱為『白』。然而，那部契經並非了義之說，因為它將上界（指色界和無色界）的四蘊（色、受、想、行）、五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）以及一切善法都稱為『業』。各種異熟果報的因由都是由業所顯現，因此即使不是業本身，也被稱為『業』。由此可知，那部經並非了義之說。 說欲界的善業稱為『黑白』，是因為它與惡業混雜，其異熟果報也因此既有黑（苦）也有白（樂），並非純粹的愛果，所以是混雜的。這種『黑白』的名稱是依相續而立，而非根據自性。為什麼這麼說呢？因為沒有一種業或一種異熟果報既是黑的又是白的，這兩種性質是互相違背的。 如果惡業的果報和善業的果報混雜在一起，那麼是否也應該稱為『白黑』呢？這種說法是不合理的。因為在欲界中，不善的勢力能夠壓伏善，所以苦果會混雜樂的異熟果報。而欲界的善業微弱，沒有能力壓伏不善，因此樂果也沒有能力混雜苦的異熟果報。所以惡業的果報才會被稱為『純黑』。 有其他論師認為，欲界的善業在起心動念（意樂）和實際行動（加行）上，黑白混雜而起，因此才有了『黑白』這兩個名稱。並非一個業的本體既有善又有惡。例如，有些人爲了欺騙和傷害他人，想要讓別人相信並依附自己，就先假裝行善佈施，甚至出家。這種情況就是意樂是黑的，而加行是白的。或者有些人爲了保護自己的孩子或門人，防止他們遭受損害，或者爲了讓他們安住在有益的事情中，出於憐憫之心，用粗暴的言語或行為，鞭打、呵斥、逼迫他們。這種情況就是加行是黑的，而意樂是白的。 如果這樣，那麼不善業也應該被稱為『白黑』，因為就像善業一樣，也可能有意樂和加行黑白混雜的情況。但這種說法是不被允許的，之前所說的並沒有錯誤。那些能夠永遠斷盡前三種業（黑業、白業、黑白業）的無漏業，被稱為第四種業（非黑非白業）。這種無漏業因為沒有染污，所以被稱為『非黑』，在道理上沒有錯誤。因為它不屬於任何界，並且能夠斷除異熟果報，所以被稱為『無異熟』，也沒有錯誤。既然它是勝義諦的白，為什麼又被稱為『非白』呢？佛陀也在《大空經》中告訴阿難陀，諸無學法是純善純白，一向沒有罪過的。本論也說，什麼是白法？就是指那些善法和無覆無記法。
【English Translation】 English version Considering the immeasurable and formless realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm), all are called 'White-White Vipaka Karma' because they possess pure and pleasant Vipaka (result), hence the name 'White'. However, that Sutra is not definitive, as it refers to the four Skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations) and five Skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) of the upper realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm), as well as all good Dharmas, as 'Karma'. The causes of various Vipaka are manifested by Karma, so even if it is not Karma itself, it is called 'Karma'. From this, it can be known that that Sutra is not definitive. Saying that good Karma in the Desire Realm is called 'Black-White' is because it is mixed with evil Karma, and its Vipaka is therefore both black (suffering) and white (happiness), not purely a pleasant result, so it is mixed. This 'Black-White' name is established according to the continuum, not according to its own nature. Why is this so? Because there is no Karma or Vipaka that is both black and white; these two natures are mutually contradictory. If the result of evil Karma and the result of good Karma are mixed together, should it also be called 'White-Black'? This statement is unreasonable. Because in the Desire Realm, the power of unwholesome forces can subdue the good, so the bitter result will be mixed with the pleasant Vipaka. And the good Karma of the Desire Realm is weak and has no ability to subdue the unwholesome, so the pleasant result has no ability to mix with the bitter Vipaka. Therefore, the result of evil Karma is called 'Pure Black'. Other teachers believe that good Karma in the Desire Realm arises with a mixture of black and white in intention (mental intention) and action (application), hence the two names 'Black-White'. It is not that the substance of one Karma is both good and evil. For example, some people, in order to deceive and harm others, want to make others believe and rely on themselves, so they pretend to do good deeds and give alms, even becoming monks. This situation is that the intention is black, while the action is white. Or some people, in order to protect their children or disciples, prevent them from suffering harm, or to keep them in beneficial things, out of compassion, use rude words or actions, whipping, scolding, and forcing them. This situation is that the action is black, while the intention is white. If so, then unwholesome Karma should also be called 'White-Black', because, like good Karma, there may also be a mixture of black and white in intention and action. But this statement is not allowed, and what was said before is not wrong. Those unconditioned Karmas that can forever cut off the first three types of Karma (Black Karma, White Karma, Black-White Karma) are called the fourth type of Karma (Neither Black nor White Karma). This unconditioned Karma is called 'Non-Black' because it is not defiled, and there is no error in reason. Because it does not belong to any realm and can cut off Vipaka, it is called 'No Vipaka', and there is no error. Since it is the ultimate truth of white, why is it called 'Non-White'? The Buddha also told Ananda in the 'Great Emptiness Sutra' that all unconditioned Dharmas are purely good and purely white, and have always been without fault. This treatise also says, what is white Dharma? It refers to those good Dharmas and uncovered and unrecorded Dharmas.
此有密意說非白聲密意者何。謂此中說治前三業立為第四。勿所化者生如是疑。如何此中白能治白。為顯能治勝所治故。約招異熟立非白名。以不能招白異熟故。或無學法于超一切染身中可得故。立純白名。非如學法非超一切染身中可得故。不名純白。故彼經中依如是義。于無學法說純白聲。今此經中以無漏業非順愛故。又不能感白異熟故說名非白諸無漏業為皆能盡前三業不。不爾。云何。頌曰。
四法忍離欲 前八無間俱 十二無漏思 唯盡純黑業 離欲四靜慮 第九無間思 一盡雜純黑 四令純白盡
論曰。于見道中四法智忍。及於修道離欲染位。前八無間聖道俱行有十二思唯盡純黑。離欲界染第九無間聖道俱行。一無漏思雙令黑白及純黑盡。此時總斷欲界善故。亦斷第九不善業故。離四靜慮一一地染。第九無間道俱行無漏思。此四唯令純白業盡。所餘諸業無異熟故。非所明故於此不論。故於此中唯說十七。與無間道俱行聖思。能永盡前三有漏業。雖盡諸業是聖慧能。然於此中說近對治。雖身語業亦近治三。非慧相應故此不說。何緣諸地有漏善業。唯最後道能斷非余。以諸善法非自性斷。已斷有容現在前故。然由緣彼煩惱盡時方說名為斷彼善法。爾時善法得離系故。由此乃至緣彼煩惱余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：此中說『非白聲』（Aśukla，指非白業）的密意是什麼？ 答：這是指經中說，以對治前三種業（指身、語、意三業）而建立第四種業（指無漏業）。爲了避免被教化者產生這樣的疑問：『為什麼這裡說白業（Śukla，指白業）能對治白業？』爲了彰顯能對治的勝過所對治的，所以從招感不同果報的角度，建立了『非白』這個名稱。因為它不能招感白色的果報。 或者說，因為在超越一切染污的身體中可以得到無學法，所以建立『純白』（Śuddhāśukla，指純白業）這個名稱。不像見道和修道中的有學法，不能在超越一切染污的身體中得到，所以不稱為『純白』。因此，那部經中依據這樣的意義，對於無學法說了『純白』這個詞。 現在這部經中，因為無漏業不順從愛慾，又不能感得白色的果報，所以說它名為『非白』。那麼，所有的無漏業都能完全斷盡前三種業嗎？不，不是這樣的。那是怎麼樣的呢？ 頌曰： 『四法忍離欲，前八無間俱，十二無漏思，唯盡純黑業。 離欲四靜慮，第九無間思，一盡雜純黑，四令純白盡。』 論曰：在見道中，四法智忍（指苦法忍、集法忍、滅法忍、道法忍），以及在修道中，處於離欲染的地位，前八個無間道（指八個無間解脫道）同時生起的十二個思（指思惟），僅僅能斷盡純黑業。離開欲界染污的第九個無間道同時生起的一個無漏思，能同時斷盡黑白雜業和純黑業。因為此時完全斷除了欲界的善業，也斷除了第九個不善業。 離開四禪定（指色界四禪）每一地的染污，第九個無間道同時生起的無漏思，這四個思僅僅能斷盡純白業。其餘的各種業，因為沒有異熟果報，也不是所要說明的內容，所以這裡不討論。因此，這裡只說了十七個與無間道同時生起的聖思，能夠永遠斷盡前三有（指欲有、色有、無色有）的有漏業。雖然斷盡各種業是聖慧（指聖者的智慧）的功能，但這裡說的是最接近的對治。雖然身語業也接近對治三業，但因為它們不與智慧相應，所以這裡不說。為什麼各地的有漏善業，只有最後一道（指無間道）才能斷除，而不是其他的道？因為各種善法不是自性斷除，已經斷除的善法有可能再次現前。然而，由於緣彼煩惱斷盡的時候，才說名為斷除彼善法。那時，善法獲得了離系（指脫離束縛）的緣故。由此乃至緣彼煩惱剩餘
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is the hidden meaning of saying 'Aśukla' (non-white karma)? Answer: It refers to the statement in the scriptures that the fourth karma (referring to the unwholesome karma) is established by counteracting the previous three karmas (referring to body, speech, and mind). To prevent those being taught from having doubts such as, 'Why does the white karma (Śukla, referring to white karma) counteract white karma here?' To highlight that the counteracting is superior to what is being counteracted, the name 'non-white' is established from the perspective of attracting different retributions. Because it cannot attract white retribution. Or, because the unlearning dharma can be obtained in a body that transcends all defilements, the name 'Śuddhāśukla' (pure white karma) is established. Unlike the learning dharma in the path of seeing and cultivation, it cannot be obtained in a body that transcends all defilements, so it is not called 'pure white'. Therefore, in that scripture, the word 'pure white' is used for unlearning dharma based on this meaning. Now, in this scripture, because unwholesome karma does not follow desire and cannot attract white retribution, it is called 'non-white'. Then, can all unwholesome karmas completely cut off the previous three karmas? No, it is not like that. What is it like? Verse: 'The four forbearance of dharma, free from desire, the first eight uninterrupted together, the twelve unwholesome thoughts, only exhaust pure black karma. Free from desire, the four meditations, the ninth uninterrupted thought, one exhausts mixed black and pure black, four exhaust pure white.' Treatise: In the path of seeing, the four forbearance of dharma wisdom (referring to suffering dharma forbearance, accumulation dharma forbearance, cessation dharma forbearance, path dharma forbearance), and in the path of cultivation, in the position of being free from desire, the twelve thoughts that arise simultaneously with the first eight uninterrupted paths (referring to the eight uninterrupted liberation paths) can only exhaust pure black karma. The one unwholesome thought that arises simultaneously with the ninth uninterrupted path, which is free from the defilement of the desire realm, can simultaneously exhaust mixed black and white karma and pure black karma. Because at this time, the good karma of the desire realm is completely cut off, and the ninth unwholesome karma is also cut off. Leaving the defilement of each of the four dhyanas (referring to the four dhyanas of the form realm), the unwholesome thoughts that arise simultaneously with the ninth uninterrupted path, these four thoughts can only exhaust pure white karma. The remaining various karmas, because they have no different retribution and are not the content to be explained, are not discussed here. Therefore, only seventeen holy thoughts that arise simultaneously with the uninterrupted path are mentioned here, which can forever cut off the wholesome karma of the previous three existences (referring to the desire existence, form existence, and formless existence). Although exhausting various karmas is the function of holy wisdom (referring to the wisdom of the saints), what is said here is the closest counteraction. Although body and speech karma are also close to counteracting the three karmas, they are not mentioned here because they are not in accordance with wisdom. Why can only the last path (referring to the uninterrupted path) cut off the wholesome karma of each place, and not the other paths? Because various wholesome dharmas are not cut off by their own nature, and the wholesome dharmas that have been cut off may appear again. However, because it is said to be cutting off that wholesome dharma when the afflictions related to it are exhausted. At that time, the wholesome dharma obtains detachment (referring to being free from bondage). From this, even to the extent that the afflictions related to it remain
一品在斷義不成。善法爾時猶被縛故。頌曰。
有說地獄受 余欲業黑雜 有說欲見滅 余欲業黑俱
論曰。第一第三皆有異說。有餘師說。順地獄受及欲界中順余受業。如次名為純黑雜業。謂地獄異熟唯不善業感。故順彼受名純黑業。唯除地獄余欲界中異熟皆通善惡業感。故順彼受名黑白業。如是所說前已遮遣。謂善無能雜不善故。有餘師說。欲見所斷及欲界中所有餘業。如次名為純黑俱業。謂見所斷無善雜故名純黑業。欲修所斷有善不善故名俱業。此亦非理。二所斷中俱有業不能感異熟果故。若謂此中所說三業。據有異熟說非無異熟者。不應簡言欲見所滅。又強力業理必不應為力劣者之所𣣋雜。是故不應說修所斷諸不善業亦得雜名。亦不應言欲界有善。力勝不善。𣣋伏惡業非所許故。所以者何。以欲界善非數行故。無有能感一劫果故。又經中說有三牟尼。又經中言有三清凈。俱身語意相各云何。頌曰。
無學身語業 即意三牟尼 三清凈應知 即諸三妙行
論曰。無學身業名身牟尼。無學語業名語牟尼。即無學意名意牟尼。非意牟尼意業為體。何緣唯說色識蘊中有是牟尼非於余蘊。有餘師說。舉后及初類顯中間亦有此義。如實義者。勝義牟尼唯心為體。故契經說。心寂靜故有情
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第一品在判斷意義上沒有成立。因為善法在那個時候仍然被煩惱束縛。頌文說： 『有人說地獄感受，其餘欲界業有黑有雜。 有人說欲界見所斷，其餘欲界業黑白都有。』 論中說：第一種和第三種說法都有不同的解釋。有其他老師說，順應地獄感受的業，以及欲界中順應其他感受的業，依次被稱為純黑業和雜業。意思是，地獄的異熟果報僅僅由不善業所感得，所以順應地獄感受的業稱為純黑業。除了地獄之外，其餘欲界的異熟果報都通於善業和惡業所感得，所以順應這些感受的業稱為黑白業。像這樣所說的，前面已經駁斥過了，因為善業不能與不善業相混雜。有其他老師說，欲界見所斷的業，以及欲界中所有其餘的業，依次被稱為純黑業和俱業（黑白業）。意思是，見所斷的業沒有善業混雜，所以稱為純黑業。欲界修所斷的業有善業也有不善業，所以稱為俱業。這種說法也不合理，因為二種所斷的業中，都有不能感得異熟果報的業。如果說這裡所說的三種業，是根據有異熟果報的業來說的，而不是沒有異熟果報的業，那麼就不應該簡略地說『欲界見所滅』。而且，強有力的業理應不會被力量弱小的業所混雜。因此，不應該說修所斷的諸不善業也得到雜業的名稱。也不應該說欲界有善業，力量勝過不善業，能夠制伏惡業，因為這不是我們所認可的。為什麼呢？因為欲界的善業不是經常修行的，沒有能夠感得一劫果報的力量。另外，經中說有三種牟尼（Muni，寂靜者），經中又說有三種清凈。這三種牟尼的身、語、意相各是什麼？頌文說： 『無學的身語業，以及意業是三種牟尼。 三種清凈應該知道，就是三種妙行。』 論中說：無學的身業稱為身牟尼，無學的語業稱為語牟尼，無學的意業稱為意牟尼。不是說意牟尼以意業為體。為什麼只說色蘊和識蘊中有這種牟尼，而其餘的蘊中沒有呢？有其他老師說，這是舉出後面的和最初的，來類推顯示中間的也有這種意義。如實的意義是，勝義的牟尼唯以心為體，所以契經中說：『心寂靜的緣故，有情』
【English Translation】 English version: The first chapter is not established in judging the meaning. Because good dharmas are still bound by afflictions at that time. The verse says: 『Some say the suffering of hell, the remaining desires and karma are black and mixed. Some say the annihilation of views in the desire realm, the remaining desires and karma are both black and white.』 The treatise says: There are different interpretations of the first and third statements. Some other teachers say that the karma that accords with the suffering of hell, and the karma that accords with other sufferings in the desire realm, are respectively called purely black karma and mixed karma. This means that the fruition of hell is only felt by unwholesome karma, so the karma that accords with that suffering is called purely black karma. Except for hell, the fruition of the remaining desire realm is felt by both wholesome and unwholesome karma, so the karma that accords with these sufferings is called black and white karma. What has been said like this has already been refuted, because wholesome karma cannot be mixed with unwholesome karma. Some other teachers say that the karma severed by views in the desire realm, and all the remaining karma in the desire realm, are respectively called purely black karma and mixed karma (both black and white karma). This means that the karma severed by views is not mixed with wholesome karma, so it is called purely black karma. The karma severed by cultivation in the desire realm has both wholesome and unwholesome karma, so it is called mixed karma. This statement is also unreasonable, because among the two types of karma to be severed, there is karma that cannot cause fruition. If it is said that the three types of karma mentioned here are based on karma that has fruition, and not karma that does not have fruition, then it should not be simply said 『the annihilation of views in the desire realm.』 Moreover, powerful karma should not be mixed with karma of lesser power. Therefore, it should not be said that the unwholesome karma severed by cultivation also obtains the name of mixed karma. Nor should it be said that there is wholesome karma in the desire realm, which is more powerful than unwholesome karma, and can subdue evil karma, because this is not what we acknowledge. Why is that? Because the wholesome karma of the desire realm is not frequently practiced, and does not have the power to cause the fruition of one kalpa. Furthermore, the sutra says that there are three Munis (Muni, silent one), and the sutra also says that there are three purities. What are the characteristics of these three Munis in terms of body, speech, and mind? The verse says: 『The body and speech karma of the non-learner, and the mind, are the three Munis. The three purities should be known as the three excellent practices.』 The treatise says: The body karma of the non-learner is called body Muni, the speech karma of the non-learner is called speech Muni, and the mind of the non-learner is called mind Muni. It is not that mind Muni has mind karma as its essence. Why is it only said that there is this Muni in the form aggregate and the consciousness aggregate, and not in the remaining aggregates? Some other teachers say that this is to show, by mentioning the latter and the beginning, that the middle also has this meaning. The true meaning is that the ultimate Muni has only the mind as its essence, so the sutra says: 『Because the mind is tranquil, sentient beings』
寂靜此心牟尼。由身語業離眾惡故。可以比知。意業于中無能比用。唯能所比合立牟尼。何故牟尼唯在無學。以阿羅漢是實牟尼。諸煩惱言永寂靜故。諸身語意三種妙行。可名身語意三種清凈無漏妙行。永離惡行煩惱垢故可名清凈。有漏妙行猶為惡行。煩惱垢污如何清凈。此亦暫時能離惡行煩惱垢故得清凈名。或此力能引起無漏勝義清凈故立凈名。若謂此亦能引煩惱垢故。謂作煩惱等無間緣。是則不應名清凈者。此亦非理。善心起時非為染心起加行故。染心無間無漏不生。有漏善心能引無漏。故有漏善得清凈名。順無漏心能除穢故。說此二者為息有情。計邪牟尼邪清凈故。又經中說有三惡行。又經中言有三妙行。俱身語意相各云何。頌曰。
惡身語意業 說名三惡行 及貪瞋邪見 三妙行翻此
論曰。一切不善身語二業。前後近分及與根本。並不善思如次名身語意惡行。然意惡行復有三種。謂非意業貪瞋邪見。豈不契經亦說貪等名為意業。如何今說貪瞋邪見非意業耶。是業資糧故亦名業。如漏資糧亦名漏等。寧知貪等非意業耶。由阿笈摩及正理故。阿笈摩者。謂契經言。貪瞋邪見是業緣集故知貪等非即業性。又契經言。諸愛者表即是意業。故知非愛即意業體。余例應然。勿有計言業即業集。故契經說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：寂靜此心即是牟尼（Muni，聖者），因為身、語、意三業遠離一切惡行，所以可以通過身語二業來推知。意業無法與身語二業相比。只有能知和所知相結合才能成立牟尼。為什麼說牟尼只存在於無學果位（指阿羅漢果）？因為阿羅漢才是真正的牟尼，他們的一切煩惱都已永遠寂靜。身、語、意三種微妙的行為，可以稱為身、語、意三種清凈無漏的微妙行為。因為永遠離開了惡行和煩惱的染污，所以可以稱為清凈。有漏的微妙行為仍然屬於惡行，被煩惱垢染污，怎麼能說是清凈的呢？這是因為有漏的妙行暫時能夠遠離惡行和煩惱的染污，所以才得到清凈的名稱。或者說，這種力量能夠引發無漏的殊勝清凈，所以才被立為清凈之名。如果說有漏的妙行也能引發煩惱的染污，成為產生煩惱等的無間緣，那麼就不應該被稱為清凈了。這種說法也是不合理的。因為善心生起的時候，不是染污心生起的加行。染污心生起時，無漏的智慧不會生起。有漏的善心能夠引發無漏的智慧，所以有漏的善行可以得到清凈的名稱，因為它順應無漏的心，能夠去除污穢。說這兩種（有漏善和無漏善）能夠使有情止息煩惱，是因為他們計度邪見的牟尼和邪見的清凈。此外，經中說有三種惡行，又說有三種妙行，身、語、意三者各自的相狀是什麼呢？頌文說： 『惡身語意業，說名三惡行，及貪瞋邪見，三妙行翻此。』 論中說：一切不善的身語二業，包括前後近分和根本，以及不善的思，依次稱為身惡行、語惡行和意惡行。然而，意惡行又有三種，即非意業的貪、嗔、邪見。難道經典中沒有說貪等也稱為意業嗎？這是因為貪等是意業的資糧，所以也稱為業，就像煩惱的資糧也稱為煩惱一樣。憑什麼知道貪等不是意業呢？根據阿笈摩（Agama，聖教）和正理。阿笈摩中說：經典中說，貪、嗔、邪見是業的緣起集合，因此知道貪等不是業的自性。又，經典中說，諸愛者表就是意業，因此知道非愛就不是意業的本體。其餘的可以類推。不要有人認為業就是業的集合，所以經典中這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version: This tranquil mind is Muni (Muni, Sage), because the actions of body, speech, and mind are free from all evils, it can be inferred through the actions of body and speech. The actions of mind cannot be compared to those of body and speech. Only the combination of the knower and the known can establish Muni. Why is it said that Muni only exists in the state of No-More-Learning (referring to the state of Arhat)? Because an Arhat is the true Muni, all their afflictions are forever tranquil. The three subtle actions of body, speech, and mind can be called the three pure and undefiled subtle actions of body, speech, and mind. Because they are forever free from evil actions and the defilement of afflictions, they can be called pure. Defiled subtle actions still belong to evil actions, defiled by the filth of afflictions, how can they be said to be pure? This is because defiled subtle actions can temporarily be free from evil actions and the defilement of afflictions, so they receive the name of purity. Or it can be said that this power can induce the supreme purity of the undefiled, so it is established as the name of purity. If it is said that defiled subtle actions can also induce the defilement of afflictions, becoming the immediate cause of the arising of afflictions, then they should not be called pure. This statement is also unreasonable. Because when a wholesome mind arises, it is not the preparatory action for the arising of a defiled mind. When a defiled mind arises, undefiled wisdom does not arise. Defiled wholesome mind can induce undefiled wisdom, so defiled wholesome actions can receive the name of purity, because it accords with the undefiled mind and can remove filth. Saying that these two (defiled wholesome and undefiled wholesome) can cause sentient beings to cease afflictions is because they calculate the heretical Muni and heretical purity. Furthermore, the sutras say there are three evil actions, and also say there are three subtle actions. What are the respective characteristics of body, speech, and mind? The verse says: 'Evil actions of body, speech, and mind, are called the three evil actions, and greed, hatred, and wrong views, the three subtle actions are the opposite of these.' The treatise says: All unwholesome actions of body and speech, including the preceding and subsequent proximate actions and the fundamental actions, as well as unwholesome thoughts, are respectively called evil actions of body, evil actions of speech, and evil actions of mind. However, there are three types of evil actions of mind, namely greed, hatred, and wrong views, which are not actions of mind themselves. Didn't the scriptures also say that greed, etc., are called actions of mind? This is because greed, etc., are the resources for actions of mind, so they are also called actions, just as the resources for afflictions are also called afflictions. How do we know that greed, etc., are not actions of mind themselves? According to the Agamas (Agama, Holy Teachings) and correct reasoning. The Agamas say: The sutras say that greed, hatred, and wrong views are the collection of causes and conditions for actions, therefore we know that greed, etc., are not the nature of actions themselves. Also, the sutras say that the expressions of those who love are actions of mind, therefore we know that non-love is not the substance of actions of mind. The rest can be inferred by analogy. Do not let anyone think that actions are the collection of actions, so the sutras say this.
。愛業有殊。然經主言許有煩惱即是意業。斯有何過。如是所許違。前契經及后正理豈非大過。若謂如說貪能令意造諸惡行。此經雖說貪即是意惡行因緣。非不許貪意惡行攝。如是雖說愛為業因。此愛亦應非不是業。彼例非等此經不言愛能令心起表業故。謂如彼說貪能令意造諸惡行。非此經言愛能令心起諸表業。如何引彼以例此經。證表業因愛亦是業。如經中說諸癡即無明。此經但示癡是無明體。顯非癡者即非無明。如是此經說諸希求即愛。諸愛者表即是意業。辯相差別義已顯成。若非希求便非是愛。若非表者亦非意業。唯除假說則無有過。意業名錶如前已釋。正理者何。謂若煩惱即是業者。十二緣起及三障等差別應無。由此證知貪等非業是聰慧者所訶厭故。又能感得非愛果故。此行即惡故名惡行。三妙行者翻此應知。謂一切善。身語二業前後近分及與根本並諸善思。如次名身語意妙行。然意妙行復有三種。非業無貪無瞋正見智所贊故。感愛果故。此行即妙故名妙行。正見邪見雖非益損他。而為彼本故亦成善惡。又經中言有十業道。或善或惡其相云何。頌曰。
所說十業道 攝惡妙行中 粗品為其性 如應成善惡
論曰。於前所說惡妙行中。若粗顯易知攝為十業道。如應若善攝前妙行。不善業道攝前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：愛業有差別。然而經文主張，只要有煩惱就是意業，這有什麼問題呢？如果這樣認可，就違背了之前的契經和之後的正理，難道不是大錯嗎？如果說，就像經文所說，貪能使意識產生各種惡行，這部經雖然說貪是意惡行的因緣，但並沒有否認貪屬於意惡行。同樣，雖然說愛是業的起因，但這愛也應該不是業。這個比喻並不恰當，因為這部經沒有說愛能使心產生表業。就像之前所說，貪能使意識產生各種惡行，但這部經並沒有說愛能使心產生各種表業。怎麼能用之前的例子來比喻這部經，證明表業的起因愛也是業呢？就像經文中所說，各種愚癡就是無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）。這部經只是表明愚癡是無明的本體，表明不是愚癡的就不是無明。同樣，這部經說各種希求就是愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛，慾望）。各種愛的表現就是意業。辨別相狀的差別意義已經顯現成立。如果不是希求，就不是愛；如果不是表現，也不是意業。除非是假說，否則就沒有過失。意業被稱為表現，之前已經解釋過了。什麼是正理呢？如果煩惱就是業，那麼十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，佛教關於生命輪迴的理論）和三障（業障、煩惱障、報障）等的差別就應該不存在了。由此可以證明，貪等不是業，而是聰明人所厭惡的。而且，它能感得不喜歡的果報。這種行為就是惡，所以叫做惡行。三種妙行，反過來理解就知道了。也就是一切善，身語二業的前後近分以及根本，還有各種善思。依次稱為身語意妙行。然而意妙行又有三種：非業、無貪、無瞋、正見，被智慧所讚歎。因為它能感得喜愛的果報。這種行為就是妙，所以叫做妙行。正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）和邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）雖然不能直接利益或損害他人，但因為是善惡的根本，所以也成為善或惡。還有經文說有十業道（daśa karmapatha，十種行爲準則），有善有惡，它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 所說的十業道，包含在惡妙行中，粗顯的部分是它們的性質，相應地成為善或惡。 論述說：在前面所說的惡妙行中，如果粗顯易知的，就歸納為十業道。相應地，善的業道包含在前面的妙行中，不善的業道包含在前面的惡行中。
【English Translation】 English version: The karma of love is distinct. However, if the scripture's main point is that having afflictions is equivalent to mental karma, what is wrong with that? If this is accepted, wouldn't it be a great fault to contradict the previous sutras and subsequent correct reasoning? If it is said, as the sutra states, that greed can cause the mind to create various evil deeds, although this sutra says that greed is the cause and condition for evil mental actions, it does not deny that greed is included in evil mental actions. Similarly, although love is said to be the cause of karma, this love should also not be considered karma. The analogy is not equal because this sutra does not say that love can cause the mind to generate physical actions. Just as it was said before that greed can cause the mind to create various evil deeds, this sutra does not say that love can cause the mind to generate various physical actions. How can the previous example be used to compare with this sutra to prove that love, as the cause of physical karma, is also karma? As it is said in the sutra, all ignorance (avidyā, delusion about the true nature of things) is equivalent to lack of understanding. This sutra only shows that ignorance is the essence of lack of understanding, indicating that what is not ignorance is not lack of understanding. Similarly, this sutra says that all craving (tṛṣṇā, thirst, desire) is equivalent to love. All expressions of love are mental karma. The meaning of distinguishing the characteristics has already been clearly established. If it is not craving, it is not love; if it is not an expression, it is not mental karma. Unless it is a hypothetical statement, there is no fault. Mental karma is called expression, as explained before. What is correct reasoning? If afflictions were karma, then the distinctions of the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda, the Buddhist theory of the cycle of life) and the three hindrances (karma obstacle, affliction obstacle, retribution obstacle) should not exist. From this, it can be proven that greed, etc., are not karma but are detested by the wise. Moreover, it can bring about undesirable consequences. This action is evil, so it is called an evil action. The three excellent actions can be understood by reversing this. That is, all good, the proximate and fundamental divisions before and after physical and verbal karma, and all good thoughts. These are respectively called excellent physical, verbal, and mental actions. However, there are three types of excellent mental actions: non-karma, non-greed, non-hatred, and right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi, correct understanding), which are praised by wisdom. Because it can bring about desirable consequences. This action is excellent, so it is called an excellent action. Although right view and wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi, incorrect understanding) cannot directly benefit or harm others, they become good or evil because they are the root of good and evil. Furthermore, the sutra says that there are ten paths of karma (daśa karmapatha, ten precepts), some good and some evil. What are their characteristics? The verse says: The ten paths of karma that are spoken of are included in evil and excellent actions; the coarse aspects are their nature, and they become good or evil accordingly. The treatise says: Among the evil and excellent actions mentioned earlier, those that are coarse, obvious, and easy to know are summarized as the ten paths of karma. Accordingly, good paths of karma are included in the previous excellent actions, and unwholesome paths of karma are included in the previous evil actions.
惡行。不攝何等惡妙行耶。加行後起等彼非粗顯故。且於不善十業道中。若身惡行令他有情。失命失財失妻妾等。說為業道。令遠離故。若語惡行過失尤重。說為業道。令遠離故。若意惡行重貪瞋等。說為業道。令遠離故。加行後起及余過輕。並不善思皆非業道。善業道中身善業道。于身妙行不攝一分。謂加行後起及余善身業。即離飲酒斷莫施等。語善業道于語妙行不攝一分。謂愛語等。意善業道于意妙行不攝一分。謂諸善思。十業道中前七業道。為皆定有表無表耶。不爾。云何頌曰。
惡六定無表 彼自作淫二 善七受生二 定生唯無表
論曰。七惡業道中六定有無表謂殺生等。除欲邪行非如是六。若遣他為至根本時有表生故。若有自作彼六業道則六皆有表無表二。謂起表時彼便死等後方死等。與遣使同。根本成時唯無表故。唯欲邪行必具二種。要是自身所究竟故。非遣他作如自生喜。七善業道若從受生必皆具二。謂表無表。受生尸羅必依表故。靜慮無漏所攝律儀名為定生。此唯無表但依心力而得生故。加行後起如根本耶。不爾。云何。頌曰。
加行定有表 無表或有無 後起此相違
論曰。業道加行必定有表。此位無表或有或無。若猛利纏淳凈心起。則有無表異此則無。後起翻前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 惡行。哪些惡妙行不包括在內呢？加行（指開始行動前的準備）、後起（指完成行動后的行為）等，因為它們不那麼粗顯。例如，在不善的十業道中，如果身體的惡行導致其他有情眾生失去生命、財產、妻妾等，這就被稱為業道，目的是讓人遠離這些行為。如果語言的惡行，其過失尤其嚴重，也被稱為業道，目的是讓人遠離這些行為。如果意念的惡行，比如強烈的貪婪、嗔恨等，也被稱為業道，目的是讓人遠離這些念頭。加行、後起以及其他較輕微的過失，以及不善的思慮，都不是業道。在善業道中，身體的善業道並不包括身體妙行的一部分，比如加行、後起以及其他善的身業，例如遠離飲酒、斷絕佈施等。語言的善業道也不包括語言妙行的一部分，比如愛語等。意念的善業道也不包括意念妙行的一部分，比如各種善的思慮。十業道中的前七種業道，是否都一定有表（表現于外的行為）和無表（潛在的業力）呢？不是這樣的。為什麼這樣說呢？頌文說： 『惡六定無表，彼自作淫二，善七受生二，定生唯無表。』 論曰：七種惡業道中，有六種一定有無表，即殺生等。除了邪淫（Kama Mithyacara）不是這樣，如果派遣他人去做，直到根本完成時，才會有表產生。如果自己做這六種業道，那麼這六種都有表和無表兩種。也就是說，在產生表的時候，對方就死了等等，或者之後才死等等，這和派遣他人去做是一樣的。根本完成時，只有無表。只有邪淫一定具備兩種，因為必須是自身所完成的。不是派遣他人去做，就像自己產生喜悅一樣。七種善業道，如果是從受戒而生，那麼一定具備兩種，即表和無表。因為受戒必須依靠表。靜慮（Dhyana）和無漏（Anasrava）所包含的律儀（Sila），被稱為定生，這隻有無表，因為僅僅依靠心力而產生。加行和後起與根本相同嗎？不是這樣的。為什麼這樣說呢？頌文說： 『加行定有表，無表或有無，後起此相違。』 論曰：業道的加行一定有表，這個階段的無表，或者有或者沒有。如果猛烈的煩惱纏繞，或者純凈的心生起，那麼就有無表，否則就沒有。後起與之前相反。
【English Translation】 English version: Evil Actions. What kind of evil and excellent actions are not included? Preparatory actions (referring to preparations before starting an action), subsequent actions (referring to behaviors after completing an action), etc., because they are not so obvious. For example, in the ten unwholesome paths of action, if the evil actions of the body cause other sentient beings to lose their lives, property, spouses, etc., this is called a path of action, with the aim of keeping people away from these behaviors. If the evil actions of speech, whose faults are particularly serious, are also called paths of action, with the aim of keeping people away from these behaviors. If the evil actions of the mind, such as strong greed, hatred, etc., are also called paths of action, with the aim of keeping people away from these thoughts. Preparatory actions, subsequent actions, and other minor faults, as well as unwholesome thoughts, are not paths of action. In the wholesome paths of action, the wholesome path of action of the body does not include a portion of the excellent actions of the body, such as preparatory actions, subsequent actions, and other wholesome bodily actions, such as abstaining from drinking alcohol, ceasing from giving, etc. The wholesome path of action of speech does not include a portion of the excellent actions of speech, such as loving speech, etc. The wholesome path of action of the mind does not include a portion of the excellent actions of the mind, such as various wholesome thoughts. Among the ten paths of action, do the first seven paths of action necessarily have both 'manifestation' (behavior that is outwardly expressed) and 'non-manifestation' (latent karmic force)? It is not so. Why is it said this way? The verse says: 'Of the six evils, non-manifestation is definite; in them, self-performed and sexual misconduct are two. Of the seven good deeds, two arise from vows; only non-manifestation arises from fixed states.' Commentary: Among the seven evil paths of action, six definitely have non-manifestation, namely killing, etc. Except for sexual misconduct (Kama Mithyacara), it is not like these six. If one sends others to do it, manifestation arises when the fundamental act is completed. If one performs these six paths of action oneself, then all six have both manifestation and non-manifestation. That is to say, when manifestation arises, the other person dies, etc., or dies later, etc., which is the same as sending others to do it. When the fundamental act is completed, there is only non-manifestation. Only sexual misconduct necessarily possesses both, because it must be completed by oneself. It is not like sending others to do it, like generating joy oneself. If the seven wholesome paths of action arise from taking vows, then they necessarily possess both, namely manifestation and non-manifestation, because taking vows must rely on manifestation. The precepts (Sila) included in meditative absorption (Dhyana) and non-outflow (Anasrava) are called 'fixed arising,' and this only has non-manifestation, because it arises solely relying on the power of the mind. Are preparatory actions and subsequent actions the same as the fundamental act? It is not so. Why is it said this way? The verse says: 'Preparatory actions definitely have manifestation; non-manifestation may or may not exist. Subsequent actions are the opposite of this.' Commentary: The preparatory actions of a path of action definitely have manifestation. In this stage, non-manifestation may or may not exist. If intense afflictions entangle, or a pure mind arises, then there is non-manifestation; otherwise, there is not. Subsequent actions are the opposite of the former.
定有無表。此位表業或有或無。第二剎那無表為始名為後起。故此定有。若於爾時起隨前業則亦有表。異此便無。於此義中如何建立加行根本後起位耶。且不善中最初殺業。如屠羊者將行殺時。先發殺心經求價直。為買羊故食己赍糧游涉遠途訪牧羊所。至已揣觸酬直牽還系養令肥。將入屠處執刀求穴。斫刺其身至命未終。皆名加行。隨此表業彼正命終。此剎那頃表無表業。是謂殺生根本業道。此剎那后殺無表業隨轉不絕名殺後起。及於后時剝截治洗稱賣收利以活己親。此等表業亦名後起。如屠羊者三分既然。余不律儀如應當說。不與取業有三分者。且如竊者將行盜時。先發盜心遣人或自往來伺聽他物所在。為往竊取食飲裝束。赍持盜具密至他家。穿壁登梯方便而入。徐行申手探摸他財。未離處前皆名加行。物正離處。此剎那中表無表業。名本業道。此剎那后隨無表業。及持財出藏受用等。所有表業皆名後起。欲邪行業有三分者。且如男子於他女人先起愛心將行非禮。命使瞻察媒媾往來嚴身赴彼。言笑執觸事未果前皆名加行。事正究竟。此剎那中表無表業名本業道。有說。究竟謂入瘡門。有餘師言。謂泄不凈。此剎那后隨無表業。及余敘愧執觸言辭所有表業皆名後起。虛誑語業有三分者。且如一類善行誑術。因求財物而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『定有無表』（是否一定有無表業）。這個階段的表業或者有或者沒有。第二剎那的無表業開始，被稱為『後起』。因此，這個階段一定有無表業。如果在那個時候，產生了隨順先前業的表業，那麼也有表業。否則就沒有。在這個意義中，如何建立『加行』（準備階段）、『根本』（核心階段）和『後起』（後續階段）呢？ 以不善業中的最初殺業為例。比如屠羊的人，在將要殺羊的時候，先發起殺心，然後通過各種途徑瞭解羊的價格。爲了買羊，自己帶食物，長途跋涉去尋找放羊的地方。到了之後，觸控羊身，商量價格，牽羊回來，繫起來餵養，讓羊長肥。然後帶到屠宰的地方，拿著刀尋找下刀的地方，砍刺羊的身軀，直到羊斷氣。這些都叫做『加行』。隨著這些表業，羊正好斷氣的那一剎那，所產生的表業和無表業，就叫做殺生的『根本業道』。 在這個剎那之後，殺生的無表業隨著持續不斷地產生，叫做殺生的『後起』。以及在之後的時間裡，剝皮、分割、處理、清洗、稱重、售賣，並用獲得的利益來養活自己和親人。這些表業也叫做『後起』。屠羊者的這三種階段已經說完了。其餘的不律儀（不如法的行為），應當按照類似的方式來說明。 不與取業（偷盜）也有三種階段。比如小偷將要偷盜的時候，先發起盜心，然後派人或者自己去來回偵查，打聽他人財物所在的地方。爲了去偷取財物，準備食物和飲水，穿戴好衣物，攜帶偷盜工具，秘密地來到他人的家中。然後鑿墻、爬梯，想方設法地進入。小心地行走，伸出手去摸索他人的財物。在財物還沒有離開原來的地方之前，這些都叫做『加行』。財物正好離開原來的地方的那一剎那，所產生的表業和無表業，叫做『根本業道』。 在這個剎那之後，隨著無表業的產生，以及拿著財物出來，藏起來，享用等等，所有這些表業都叫做『後起』。 欲邪行業（不正當的性行為）也有三種階段。比如男子對其他女人先產生愛慕之心，然後想要進行不正當的性行為。於是命令使者去觀察情況，找媒人來說合，自己也精心打扮去見那個女人。在言語、嬉笑、接觸等事情還沒有成功之前，這些都叫做『加行』。事情正好完成的那一剎那，所產生的表業和無表業，叫做『根本業道』。有人說，『究竟』是指進入瘡門（性器官）。也有其他老師說，是指泄出不凈之物。在這個剎那之後，隨著無表業的產生，以及之後感到羞愧，或者有執持、接觸、言語等行為，所有這些表業都叫做『後起』。 虛誑語業（說謊）也有三種階段。比如有一類人，用善行的名義來行騙，爲了求取財物而...
【English Translation】 English version On the 'definitely having or not having manifestation' (定有無表): Whether or not there is manifestation karma (表業) in this stage. The manifestation karma in this stage may or may not exist. The non-manifestation karma (無表業) from the second moment onward is called 'subsequent arising' (後起). Therefore, there is definitely non-manifestation karma in this stage. If at that time, manifestation karma arises that follows the previous karma, then there is also manifestation karma. Otherwise, there is none. In this meaning, how are the stages of 'preparatory action' (加行), 'fundamental action' (根本), and 'subsequent arising' (後起) established? Take the initial act of killing in unwholesome karma as an example. For instance, when a butcher is about to kill a sheep, he first generates the intention to kill, and then inquires about the price of the sheep through various means. In order to buy the sheep, he brings his own food, travels a long distance to find a place where sheep are grazing. Upon arrival, he touches the sheep's body, negotiates the price, leads the sheep back, ties it up, and feeds it to fatten it up. Then he takes it to the slaughtering place, holds the knife, looks for a place to strike, and cuts and stabs the sheep's body until it dies. All of these are called 'preparatory action'. Along with these manifestation karmas, the moment the sheep dies, the manifestation and non-manifestation karmas that arise are called the 'fundamental karma path' (根本業道) of killing. After this moment, the non-manifestation karma of killing continues to arise incessantly, which is called the 'subsequent arising' of killing. And in the subsequent time, skinning, cutting, processing, washing, weighing, selling, and using the obtained benefits to support oneself and one's relatives. These manifestation karmas are also called 'subsequent arising'. The three stages of the butcher have been explained. The remaining unwholesome behaviors (不律儀) should be explained in a similar manner. The karma of not giving (stealing) also has three stages. For example, when a thief is about to steal, he first generates the intention to steal, and then sends someone or goes himself to scout back and forth, inquiring about the location of other people's belongings. In order to steal the belongings, he prepares food and drink, dresses up, carries stealing tools, and secretly comes to other people's homes. Then he chisels through the wall, climbs the ladder, and tries to enter by any means. He walks carefully, reaches out to feel for other people's belongings. Before the belongings have left their original place, all of these are called 'preparatory action'. The moment the belongings leave their original place, the manifestation and non-manifestation karmas that arise are called the 'fundamental karma path'. After this moment, along with the arising of non-manifestation karma, and taking the belongings out, hiding them, enjoying them, etc., all these manifestation karmas are called 'subsequent arising'. The karma of sexual misconduct (欲邪行) also has three stages. For example, a man first develops affection for another woman, and then wants to engage in improper sexual behavior. So he orders a messenger to observe the situation, finds a matchmaker to negotiate, and he himself dresses up carefully to meet that woman. Before the matters of speech, joking, touching, etc., have succeeded, all of these are called 'preparatory action'. The moment the matter is accomplished, the manifestation and non-manifestation karmas that arise are called the 'fundamental karma path'. Some say that 'accomplishment' refers to entering the wound gate (sexual organ). Other teachers say that it refers to the emission of impure substances. After this moment, along with the arising of non-manifestation karma, and the subsequent feelings of shame, or the behaviors of holding, touching, speaking, etc., all these manifestation karmas are called 'subsequent arising'. The karma of false speech (虛誑語) also has three stages. For example, there is a type of person who deceives in the name of good deeds, in order to seek wealth and...
活命者。先受情求許為偽證。發行誑意往詣眾中。為述己身堪為誠證。言我于彼非怨非親。知諸惡中無過虛誑。知眾善內無過實語。我既于彼無所希求。豈自無辜為擔毒刺。但恐賢直濫被刑科。未成證前皆名加行。若正對眾背想發言。不見等中詐言見等所誑領解。此剎那中表無表業名本業道。有說。所誑印可方成。若爾應無誑賢聖理。然誑賢聖為過既深。由此應知前說為善。此剎那后隨無表業。及獲財利以養己親。所有表業皆名後起。離間語業有三分者。且如一類發壞他心。遣使通傳。或身自往詐為親附。冀信己言未壞他前皆名加行。發離間語他領剎那表無表業名本業道。有餘師說。他壞方成。若爾聖交深固難壞。應無壞聖離間語罪。然壞聖者獲罪既深。由此應知前說為善。此剎那后隨無表業。及今所壞無再合心。所有表業皆名後起。粗惡語業有三分者。且如一類將發粗言。起憤恚心扼腕頓足。揚眉努目囓齒動唇。未發語前皆名加行。正發粗語他領剎那表無表業名本業道。有餘師說。他惱方成。若爾聖人具忍力者。既不可惱罵應無過。然罵賢聖獲罪既深。由此應知前說為善。此剎那后隨無表業及背所罵重述惡言。所有表業皆名後起。雜穢語業有三分者。且如一類發戲調心。先取他財集諸綺論。赍持戲具來詣眾中。發戲
言前皆名加行。正發戲語樂眾剎那表無表業名本業道。此剎那后隨無表業及獲財利收用舉藏。所有表業皆名後起。有餘師說。貪瞋邪見才現在前即名業道。故無加行後起差別。如是說者。亦具三分有不善思。于貪瞋等能為前後助伴事故。又諸業道展轉相望容有互為加行後起。如有一類欲害怨敵。設諸謀策合構殺緣。或殺眾生祈請助力。或盜他物以資殺事。或淫彼婦令殺其夫。或知彼怨親友強盛。自力微劣殺計難成。是故先於怨親友所起語四過破壞其心。令于彼怨無心救護方便誘引令入己朋。或於彼財心生貪著。或即于彼起瞋恚心。或起邪見長養殺業。然後方殺既殺彼已。復於後時誅其所親。奪其財物淫其所愛。乃至後起邪見現前。如是名為殺生業道。以十惡業道為加行後起。所餘業道如應當知。有餘師說。貪等不應能為加行。非唯心起加行即成未作事故。如是說者。貪等雖非所作業性。然彼貪等緣境生時非無力用。由有力用得加行名。方便引生諸業道故。今應詳議如前所說。隨此表業彼正命終。此剎那頃表無表業是謂殺生根本業道。此應非理。所以者何。為所殺生住死有位。能殺生者彼剎那中表無表業即成業道。為彼死後成業道耶。若所殺生住死有位。能殺生者業道即成。雖前所言且似無失。而於宗義決定相違。以所
【現代漢語翻譯】 在正式開始之前的所有行為都稱為『加行』（preparatory actions）。在娛樂或炫耀的瞬間，通過語言、身體等方式表達出來的，以及那些無形的業力，被稱為『本業道』（root karmic path）。在這個瞬間之後，隨之而來的無表業（unmanifested karma），以及獲取的財富利益、使用和儲存，所有這些外在的行為都稱為『後起』（subsequent actions）。 有些老師認為，貪婪（greed）、嗔恨（hatred）、邪見（wrong views）一旦產生，就已經是業道，因此沒有加行和後起的區別。這樣說的人，也具備了三種不善的思考，因為他們對貪婪、嗔恨等情緒起到了前後的輔助作用。此外，各種業道之間相互關聯，也可能互為加行和後起。例如，有人想要加害怨敵，於是設下各種計謀，製造殺害的條件。或者殺害其他眾生來祈求助力，或者偷盜他人的財物來資助殺害行動，或者與怨敵的妻子通姦以促使她殺害自己的丈夫。或者知道怨敵的親友強大，自己力量微弱，難以成功殺害，因此先在怨敵的親友面前散佈謠言，破壞他們的關係，使他們不願幫助怨敵，然後引誘他們加入自己的陣營。或者對怨敵的財產產生貪婪之心，或者直接對怨敵產生嗔恨之心，或者產生邪見，助長殺業。然後在殺害怨敵之後，又在之後的時間裡誅殺他的親屬，奪取他的財物，姦淫他所愛的人，甚至產生邪見。這就被稱為殺生業道，以十惡業道作為加行和後起。其餘的業道也應該按照類似的方式理解。 有些老師認為，貪婪等不應該能作為加行，因為僅僅是心中產生貪婪，加行並沒有完成，因為還沒有實際行動。這樣說的人認為，貪婪等雖然不是所作的業的性質，但是當這些貪婪等情緒緣于外境產生時，並非沒有力量。因為具有力量，所以可以被稱為加行，因為它方便地引導了各種業道的產生。現在應該詳細討論一下，就像前面所說的那樣，隨著這個外在行為的發生，那個人正好死亡，在這個瞬間，外在的以及無形的業力，這就是所謂的殺生根本業道。這應該是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為被殺的人處於死亡的狀態，能殺的人在那一瞬間所產生的表業和無表業就成爲了業道嗎？還是在他死後才成為業道呢？如果被殺的人處於死亡的狀態，能殺的人的業道就成立了，雖然前面所說的話似乎沒有錯誤，但是與宗義（doctrinal principles）是絕對相違背的。因為所...
【English Translation】 All actions before the actual deed are called 'preparatory actions' (加行, jia xing). The expressed actions through speech, body, etc., in moments of entertainment or display, and those unmanifested karmas, are called 'root karmic path' (本業道, ben ye dao). After this moment, the unmanifested karma (無表業, wu biao ye) that follows, as well as the acquisition of wealth and benefits, their use and storage, all these external actions are called 'subsequent actions' (後起, hou qi). Some teachers believe that greed (貪, tan), hatred (瞋, chen), and wrong views (邪見, xie jian) are already karmic paths once they arise, so there is no distinction between preparatory and subsequent actions. Those who say this also possess the three unwholesome thoughts, because they assist the emotions of greed, hatred, etc., both before and after. Furthermore, various karmic paths are interconnected and may serve as preparatory and subsequent actions to each other. For example, someone wants to harm an enemy, so they devise various schemes and create conditions for killing. Or they kill other beings to seek assistance, or steal others' property to fund the killing, or commit adultery with the enemy's wife to induce her to kill her husband. Or knowing that the enemy's relatives and friends are strong and their own strength is weak, making it difficult to succeed in killing, they first spread rumors among the enemy's relatives and friends, damaging their relationships, so that they are unwilling to help the enemy, and then lure them into joining their own camp. Or they develop greed for the enemy's property, or directly develop hatred towards the enemy, or develop wrong views, fostering the karma of killing. Then, after killing the enemy, they later kill his relatives, seize his property, and defile his loved ones, even developing wrong views. This is called the karmic path of killing, using the ten unwholesome karmic paths as preparatory and subsequent actions. The remaining karmic paths should be understood in a similar way. Some teachers believe that greed, etc., should not be able to serve as preparatory actions, because merely having greed in the mind does not complete the preparatory action, as there has been no actual action. Those who say this believe that although greed, etc., are not the nature of the action being performed, when these emotions of greed, etc., arise from external circumstances, they are not without power. Because they have power, they can be called preparatory actions, as they conveniently guide the generation of various karmic paths. Now, we should discuss in detail, as mentioned earlier, that as this external action occurs, that person happens to die, and in that moment, the external and unmanifested karmas, this is the so-called root karmic path of killing. This should be unreasonable. Why? Because the person being killed is in a state of death, do the expressed and unmanifested karmas generated by the person who can kill at that moment become the karmic path? Or does it become the karmic path after he dies? If the person being killed is in a state of death, the karmic path of the person who can kill is established, although what was said earlier seems to be without error, it is absolutely contrary to the doctrinal principles (宗義, zong yi). Because the...
殺生與能殺者俱時捨命。亦應可說能殺生者殺業道成。許所殺猶存殺業道成故。此能殺者住死有時。所殺爾時既名正死。則能殺者應許獲得此一剎那殺生業道。然宗不許與所殺生俱時命終成業道罪。若彼死後業道方成。則前所言為不應理。非所殺者正命終時可得名為彼命已斷。如何先說彼正命終此剎那頃表無表業。是謂殺生根本業道。而今言死後殺業道方成。如是二途應善詳定。決定死後業道方成。而前所言正命終者。于已往事卻說現聲。如有大王自遠已至。而問今者從何所來。或此于因假說為果。謂所殺者正命終時。能殺有情加行表業。于殺有用非業道表。此業道表續加行生。彼所引故名加行果。然因於殺有勝功能。是故於因假說為果。實非業道說業道聲。豈不此時表業有用。即應立此為業道耶。非要有能方成業道。勿無表業失業道名。此于殺中有何功用。如無表業表亦應然。又理不應立加行表即為業道。所殺有情于命終位命猶有故。要加行表與所殺生命俱時滅。彼死有後無同類命。一剎那中表無表業可成業道。此後念表于殺無能尚非殺生。何況是罪。但應無表得業道名。雖無殺能是殺果故。豈不后表理亦應然。殺表為因所引起故。謂由加行果圓滿時。此二俱成根本業道。雖於他命斷此二無能。而有取當來非愛果用
。暢殺思故名殺業道。如本論說頗有已害生殺生未滅耶。曰有。如已斷生命彼加行未息。此言何義。此中義者。以殺生時起殺加行總有三種。一唯由內。謂拳擊等。二唯由外。謂擲石等。三俱由二。謂揮刀等。於此三種殺加行中。有所殺生命雖已斷而能殺者生想未除。故於殺生不捨加行。由此本論作如是言。如已斷生命彼加行未息。于殺加行說殺生聲。故得說為殺生未滅。此亦業道后。如何名加行。毗婆沙師作如是釋。此於後起說加行聲。所以者何。以能殺者殺加行想猶未息故。于所殺生已命終想猶未生故立加行名。如何但言此於後起應作是說及於根本。所以者何。以所殺者次死有。后一剎那時及此後時多剎那頃。能殺加行皆容未息。是故應言此於後起。及於根本說加行聲。無勞復說。及於根本。以於後起聲亦攝根本故。要于所殺死有後時能殺方成殺生根本。豈不根本及其後起皆于所殺死有後生。俱可名為殺生後起。是故應信毗婆沙師于本論言極為善釋。又經中說。苾芻當知。殺有三種。一從貪生。二從瞋生。三從癡生。乃至邪見有三亦爾。豈諸業道于究竟時皆由三根。佛作是說。非諸業道于究竟時皆由三根。加行有異。云何有異。頌曰。
加行三根起 彼無間生故 貪等三根生
論曰。不善業道加行
生時。一一由三不善根起。依先等起故作是說。殺生加行由貪起者。如有貪彼齒髮身份。或為得財。或為戲樂。或為拔濟親友自身。從貪引起殺生加行。從瞋起者。如為除怨發憤恚心起殺加行。從癡起者。如波剌斯。作如是說。父母老病若令命終便生勝福。以令解脫現在眾苦。新得勝身明利根故。又謂是法祠中殺生。又諸王等依世法律誅戮怨敵除剪兇徒。謂成大福起殺加行。又外道言蛇蝎蜂等為人毒害。殺便獲福。羊鹿水牛及余禽獸。本擬供食故殺無罪。又因邪見殺害眾生。此等加行皆從癡起。偷盜加行從貪起者。如為財利恭敬名譽。或為救拔自身親友。從貪引起偷盜加行。從瞋起者。如為降怨。發憤恚心起盜加行。從癡起者。如諸王等依世法律奪惡人財。謂法應爾無偷盜罪。又婆羅門作如是說。世間財物于劫初時大梵天王施諸梵志。於後梵志勢力微。劣為諸卑族侵奪受用。今諸梵志於世他財。若奪若偷充衣充食。或充余用或轉施他。皆用己財無偷盜罪。然彼取時有他物想。又因邪見盜他財物。此等皆名從癡所起。邪淫加行從貪起者。如於他室起染習心。或為求財或求恭敬。此等加行從貪所生。從瞋生者。如為除怨發憤恚心起淫加行。從癡起者。如波剌斯贊于母等行非梵行。又諸外道作如是言。一切女人如臼花果熟食
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
當（殺生、偷盜、邪淫）行為發生時，都是由貪、嗔、癡這三種不善根引起的。之所以說『依先等起故作是說』，是因為最初的動機很重要。殺生行為的預備階段（加行）如果是由於貪心而起，例如貪圖動物的牙齒、毛髮、身體，或者爲了獲得錢財，或者爲了娛樂嬉戲，或者爲了救助親友自身，這些都是從貪心引起的殺生預備行為。如果是從嗔恨心而起，例如爲了消除怨恨，發怒而產生的殺生預備行為。如果是從愚癡心而起，例如波剌斯（Paras，一種外道）這樣說：『父母年老生病，如果讓他們死亡，就能讓他們獲得更大的福報，因為這能讓他們解脫現在的痛苦，重新獲得更好更聰明的身體。』他們還說這是祭祀中的殺生。還有一些國王等，依據世俗法律誅殺敵人，剷除兇惡之徒，認為這是成就大福報，從而產生殺生的預備行為。還有外道說，蛇、蝎、蜜蜂等會毒害人，殺了它們就能獲得福報。羊、鹿、水牛以及其他禽獸，本來就是用來食用的，所以殺了它們沒有罪過。還有因為邪見而殺害眾生的。這些預備行為都是從愚癡心而起的。
偷盜行為的預備階段如果是從貪心而起，例如爲了錢財利益、恭敬名譽，或者爲了救助自身親友，從貪心引起偷盜的預備行為。如果是從嗔恨心而起，例如爲了降伏怨敵，發怒而產生偷盜的預備行為。如果是從愚癡心而起，例如一些國王等，依據世俗法律奪取惡人的財產，認為法律就應該這樣，所以沒有偷盜的罪過。還有婆羅門這樣說：『世間的財物在劫初的時候，大梵天王（Mahābrahmā）賜予了所有的婆羅門（Brāhmaṇa），後來婆羅門的力量衰弱了，被一些低賤的種族侵佔奪取享用。現在婆羅門從世間其他人那裡，無論是搶奪還是偷盜，用來充當衣食，或者用來做其他用途，或者轉送給其他人，都是使用自己的財物，沒有偷盜的罪過。』然而他們在拿取的時候，認為那是別人的東西。還有因為邪見而偷盜他人財物的。這些都叫做從愚癡所引起的。
邪淫行為的預備階段如果是從貪心而起，例如對別人的妻子產生染污的念頭，或者爲了求取錢財，或者爲了求取恭敬。這些預備行為都是從貪心所產生的。如果是從嗔恨心而生，例如爲了消除怨恨，發怒而產生邪淫的預備行為。如果是從愚癡心而起，例如波剌斯讚美對母親等人行非梵行（不凈的行為）。還有一些外道這樣說：『所有的女人就像石臼、花朵、成熟的食物』
【English Translation】 English version:
When (killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct) occur, they all arise from the three unwholesome roots: greed, hatred, and delusion. The reason for saying 'depending on the prior arising' is that the initial motivation is important. If the preparatory stage (application) of killing arises from greed, such as being greedy for the teeth, hair, or body parts of an animal, or for obtaining wealth, or for amusement, or for saving relatives or oneself, these are all preparatory actions of killing arising from greed. If it arises from hatred, such as generating anger to eliminate enemies, leading to preparatory actions of killing. If it arises from delusion, such as the Paras (a type of heretic) saying: 'If parents are old and sick, letting them die will bring them greater blessings, because it will liberate them from their present suffering and allow them to obtain a better and more intelligent body.' They also say that this is killing in sacrifice. Furthermore, some kings, based on secular laws, execute enemies and eliminate wicked individuals, believing that this achieves great merit, thus leading to preparatory actions of killing. Some heretics also say that snakes, scorpions, bees, etc., are poisonous to people, and killing them brings blessings. Sheep, deer, buffalo, and other birds and animals are originally intended for food, so killing them is not a sin. There are also those who kill living beings due to wrong views. These preparatory actions all arise from delusion.
If the preparatory stage of stealing arises from greed, such as for financial gain, respect, or fame, or for saving oneself or relatives, the preparatory actions of stealing arise from greed. If it arises from hatred, such as generating anger to subdue enemies, leading to preparatory actions of stealing. If it arises from delusion, such as some kings seizing the wealth of wicked people based on secular laws, believing that the law should be like this, so there is no sin of stealing. Some Brahmins also say: 'The worldly possessions were given to all Brahmins by Mahābrahmā at the beginning of the kalpa (aeon). Later, the power of the Brahmins weakened, and they were invaded and usurped by some lower castes. Now, whether Brahmins seize or steal from others in the world, using it for clothing, food, or other purposes, or transferring it to others, they are all using their own property, and there is no sin of stealing.' However, when they take it, they think it is someone else's property. There are also those who steal the property of others due to wrong views. These are all called arising from delusion.
If the preparatory stage of sexual misconduct arises from greed, such as generating defiled thoughts towards another's wife, or for seeking wealth, or for seeking respect. These preparatory actions all arise from greed. If it arises from hatred, such as generating anger to eliminate enemies, leading to preparatory actions of sexual misconduct. If it arises from delusion, such as the Paras praising non-brahmacarya (impure conduct) with mothers and others. Some heretics also say: 'All women are like mortars, flowers, and ripe food.'
階隥道路橋船。世間眾人應共受用。又如梵志贊牛祠中。有諸女男受持牛禁吸水嚙草。或住或行不簡疏親隨遇隨合。此等加行從癡所生。虛誑語等從貪生者。如為財利恭敬名譽濟己及親起四加行。從瞋生者。如為除怨發憤恚心起四加行。從癡起者。如因邪見起誑語等四種加行。又虛誑語從癡起者。如外論言。
若人因戲笑 嫁娶對女王 及救命救財 虛誑語無罪
又雜穢語從癡起者。如依吠陀及余邪論習學諷詠。傳授於他謂無罪愆。皆從癡起。貪等加行如何從三。以從三根無間生故。謂從貪等三不善根無間各容生三業道。由此已顯從貪瞋癡無間相應生三加行。依無間義亦生業道。已說不善從三根生。善復云何。頌曰。
善於三位中 皆三善根起
論曰。諸善業道所有加行根本後起。皆從無貪無瞋無癡善根所起。以善三位皆是善心所等起故。善心必與三種善根共相應故。此善三位其相云何。謂遠離前不善三位。所有三位應知是善。且如勤策受具戒時。來入戒壇禮苾芻眾。至誠發語請親教師。乃至一白二羯磨等。皆名為善業道加行。第三羯磨竟一剎那中表無表業名。根本業道。從此以後至說四依。及余依前相續隨轉。表無表業皆名後起。如先所說非諸業道于究竟位皆由三根。應說由何根究竟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 階梯、道路、橋樑、船隻，世間的眾人都應該共同享用。又如婆羅門（梵志，指古印度祭司）讚美牛的祭祀中，有許多男女遵守牛的禁忌，吸水啃草，或住或行，不分疏遠親近，隨意相遇結合。這些行為的努力（加行）是從愚癡產生的。虛假的謊言等是從貪婪產生的，例如爲了財物利益、恭敬名譽，幫助自己和親人而產生的四種努力（加行）。從嗔恨產生的，例如爲了消除怨恨，發怒生氣而產生的四種努力（加行）。從愚癡產生的，例如因為邪惡的見解而產生的說謊等四種行為的努力（加行）。又虛假的謊言是從愚癡產生的，就像外道理論所說：
『如果有人因為戲笑， 嫁娶時對女王， 以及爲了救命救財， 說謊是沒有罪的。』
又雜亂污穢的言語是從愚癡產生的，例如依據《吠陀經》（Veda）以及其他邪惡的理論學習吟誦，傳授給他人，認為沒有罪過，這些都是從愚癡產生的。貪婪等的行為努力（加行）如何從三種根源產生？因為是從三種不善的根源無間斷地產生的。也就是說，從貪婪等三種不善的根源無間斷地各自能夠產生三種身語意的行為。由此已經顯示出從貪婪、嗔恨、愚癡無間斷地相應產生三種行為努力（加行）。依靠無間斷的意義，也產生行為（業）的道路。已經說了不善是從三種根源產生的，那麼善又是如何產生的呢？頌詞說：
『善在三種情況下， 都是從三種善根產生的。』
論述說：所有善的行為道路，其所有的行為努力（加行），無論是根本的還是後起的，都是從無貪、無嗔、無癡這三種善根產生的。因為善的三種情況都是善心所等產生的，善心必定與三種善根共同相應。這善的三種情況是什麼樣的呢？就是遠離前面不善的三種情況，所有的三種情況應該知道是善的。比如，勤策（指沙彌）受具足戒的時候，來到戒壇，禮拜比丘眾，至誠懇切地說，請求親教師，乃至一白二羯磨（羯磨指僧團的議事方式）等，都叫做善的行為道路的努力（加行）。第三次羯磨結束的一剎那，表現出來的有表業和無表業，叫做根本的行為道路。從此以後，直到說四依（指出家人所依的四種生活必需品），以及其他依靠前面相續隨順運轉的，有表業和無表業都叫做後起的。就像先前所說的，不是所有的行為道路在究竟的階段都是由三種根源產生的，應該說是由什麼根源究竟呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Stairs, roads, bridges, and boats should be used by everyone in the world. Furthermore, like in the Brahman's (梵志, refers to ancient Indian priests) praise of the cow sacrifice, there are many men and women who observe the cow's prohibitions, drinking water and chewing grass, whether staying or traveling, without distinguishing between distant and close relatives, meeting and joining together at will. These efforts (加行, adhimoksha) arise from ignorance (癡). False lies, etc., arise from greed (貪), such as the four efforts (加行) that arise for the sake of material gain, respect, fame, and helping oneself and relatives. Those arising from anger (瞋) are like the four efforts (加行) that arise to eliminate resentment and generate anger. Those arising from ignorance (癡) are like the four efforts (加行) that arise from false views, such as lying. Furthermore, false lies arise from ignorance (癡), as the externalist theories say:
'If someone lies because of jest, To the queen during marriage, And to save life or property, Lying is not a sin.'
Furthermore, mixed and impure speech arises from ignorance (癡), such as learning to recite and transmit to others based on the Vedas (吠陀經) and other evil theories, thinking there is no fault, all of which arise from ignorance (癡). How do the efforts (加行) of greed, etc., arise from the three roots? Because they arise without interruption from the three unwholesome roots. That is to say, from the three unwholesome roots of greed, etc., each can give rise to the three actions of body, speech, and mind without interruption. From this, it is already shown that the three efforts (加行) arise in accordance with greed, anger, and ignorance without interruption. Relying on the meaning of non-interruption, the path of action (業, karma) also arises. It has been said that unwholesome deeds arise from the three roots, so how do wholesome deeds arise? The verse says:
'Good in the three situations, All arise from the three wholesome roots.'
The treatise says: All wholesome paths of action, all their efforts (加行), whether fundamental or subsequent, arise from the three wholesome roots of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-ignorance. Because the three situations of goodness are all produced by wholesome mental factors, etc., and the wholesome mind must correspond with the three wholesome roots. What are these three situations of goodness like? That is, being away from the three previous unwholesome situations, all three situations should be known as good. For example, when a śrāmaṇera (勤策, novice monk) receives the full precepts, he comes to the ordination platform, bows to the bhikṣu (苾芻, monks) assembly, sincerely speaks, requests the preceptor, and so on, up to the first and second karmas (羯磨, refers to the procedures of monastic assembly), all of which are called the efforts (加行) of the wholesome path of action. At the moment the third karma ends, the expressed and unexpressed actions are called the fundamental path of action. From then on, until the four supports (四依, the four requisites of a monk) are mentioned, and the other expressed and unexpressed actions that rely on the previous ones and continue to turn are all called subsequent. As previously said, not all paths of action in the ultimate stage are produced by the three roots; what root should be said to be ultimate?
何業道。頌曰。
殺粗語瞋恚 究竟皆由瞋 盜邪行及貪 皆由貪究竟 邪見癡究竟 許所餘由三
論曰。惡業道中殺生粗語瞋恚業道。由瞋究竟要無所顧。極粗惡心現在前時此三成故。諸不與取欲邪行貪。此三業道由貪究竟要有所顧。極染污心現在前時此三成故。邪見究竟要由愚癡。由上品癡現前成故。虛誑離間雜穢語三。一一許容由三究竟。以貪瞋等現在前時一一能令此三成故。貪瞋業道即貪瞋根。如何說由貪瞋究竟。如欲邪行業道生時。定有貪根能為究竟。非貪瞋二業道生時。別有貪瞋能為究竟。是故應說貪瞋等三一一皆由癡根究竟。非無癡者此三起故。有餘於此作是釋言。即說此法由此究竟。自體生時即業道故。彼理窮故作如是釋。然實貪等正現前時。幸有癡根能為究竟。何緣不許執自體耶。餘業道中他究竟故。雖有此義而不許者。勿諸業道皆癡究竟。諸業道成時定有癡俱故無如是失。以殺盜等時雖皆有癡而瞋貪強故。若爾邪見應不由癡。以邪見俱癡不強故。不爾邪見俱起癡強。爾時無餘不善根故。非邪見體是不善根。故此俱癡根義為勝。若爾貪等應不由癡。以貪及瞋是根是勝。俱行癡劣應不可言貪瞋業道由癡究竟。約能究竟爾時癡強。更無餘根究竟貪等。自體于自無助力能。寧可說言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 何為業道？頌曰：
殺生、粗語和瞋恚，最終都源於瞋恚； 偷盜、邪淫和貪婪，最終都源於貪婪； 邪見最終源於愚癡，其餘的（妄語、離間語、惡語）則允許由三者（貪、瞋、癡）導致。
論曰：惡業道中，殺生、粗語、瞋恚這三種業道，是由瞋恚達到最終完成的，因為要毫無顧忌，極其粗暴惡劣的心念出現時，這三種業道才能成立。不予而取的偷盜、欲邪行以及貪婪，這三種業道是由貪婪達到最終完成的，因為要有所顧忌，極其染污的心念出現時，這三種業道才能成立。邪見是由愚癡達到最終完成的，因為上品愚癡現前才能成立。虛妄語、離間語、雜穢語這三種，每一種都允許由貪、瞋、癡三者達到最終完成，因為貪、瞋等現前時，每一種都能使這三種業道成立。
貪和瞋的業道就是貪和瞋的根本，怎麼能說是由貪和瞋達到最終完成呢？就像欲邪行的業道產生時，一定有貪根能夠作為最終完成的原因。但貪和瞋這兩種業道產生時，並沒有另外的貪和瞋能夠作為最終完成的原因。所以應該說貪、瞋等三種，每一種都是由愚癡的根本達到最終完成的，因為沒有愚癡，這三種業道就不會產生。
有些人對此解釋說，就是說這個法由此達到最終完成，它自身產生時就是業道。因為這個道理行不通，所以才這樣解釋。然而實際上，貪等真正現前時，幸好有愚癡的根本能夠作為最終完成的原因，為什麼不允許執著於它自身呢？因為其餘的業道是由其他（貪、瞋、癡）達到最終完成的。雖然有這個道理而不允許這樣說，是爲了避免所有的業道都由愚癡達到最終完成。因為每個業道成立時，一定有愚癡同時存在，所以沒有這樣的過失。因為在殺生、偷盜等行為發生時，雖然都有愚癡，但瞋恚和貪婪更強烈。如果這樣，邪見就不應該由愚癡導致，因為與邪見同時存在的愚癡並不強烈。不是這樣的，與邪見同時生起的愚癡很強烈，因為那時沒有其餘的不善根。不是說邪見本身是不善根，所以這種與愚癡根本相關的說法更為殊勝。如果這樣，貪等就不應該由愚癡導致，因為貪和瞋是根本，是更強烈的。同時存在的愚癡較弱，不應該說貪和瞋的業道是由愚癡達到最終完成的。這是就能夠達到最終完成而言，那時愚癡更強烈，沒有其他的根本能夠使貪等達到最終完成。自身對自己沒有幫助的能力，怎麼能說呢？
【English Translation】 English version What are the paths of karma? The verse says:
'Killing, coarse speech, and anger, ultimately all arise from anger; Stealing, sexual misconduct, and greed, ultimately all arise from greed; Wrong views ultimately arise from ignorance, the rest (false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech) are allowed to arise from the three (greed, anger, ignorance).'
The treatise says: Among the paths of evil karma, the paths of killing, coarse speech, and anger are ultimately completed by anger, because they require recklessness and extremely coarse and evil thoughts to be present for these three to be established. Stealing, sexual misconduct, and greed are ultimately completed by greed, because they require a certain amount of consideration and extremely defiled thoughts to be present for these three to be established. Wrong views are ultimately completed by ignorance, because they require the presence of superior ignorance to be established. False speech, divisive speech, and harsh speech are each allowed to be ultimately completed by the three (greed, anger, and ignorance), because when greed, anger, etc., are present, each can cause these three paths of karma to be established.
The paths of karma of greed and anger are the roots of greed and anger, so how can it be said that they are ultimately completed by greed and anger? Just as when the path of karma of sexual misconduct arises, there must be a root of greed that can serve as the ultimate cause. But when the two paths of karma of greed and anger arise, there is no separate greed and anger that can serve as the ultimate cause. Therefore, it should be said that each of the three, greed, anger, etc., is ultimately completed by the root of ignorance, because without ignorance, these three paths of karma would not arise.
Some people explain this by saying that this dharma is said to be ultimately completed by this, and when it arises itself, it is the path of karma. Because this reasoning does not work, this is how it is explained. However, in reality, when greed, etc., are truly present, fortunately there is a root of ignorance that can serve as the ultimate cause, so why is it not allowed to cling to itself? Because the remaining paths of karma are ultimately completed by others (greed, anger, ignorance). Although there is this reason, it is not allowed to say this in order to avoid all paths of karma being ultimately completed by ignorance. Because when each path of karma is established, there must be ignorance present at the same time, so there is no such fault. Because when killing, stealing, etc., occur, although there is ignorance in all of them, anger and greed are stronger. If so, wrong views should not be caused by ignorance, because the ignorance that exists simultaneously with wrong views is not strong. It is not like that; the ignorance that arises simultaneously with wrong views is very strong, because at that time there are no other unwholesome roots. It is not that wrong view itself is an unwholesome root, so this statement related to the root of ignorance is more superior. If so, greed, etc., should not be caused by ignorance, because greed and anger are the roots and are stronger. The ignorance that exists simultaneously is weaker, so it should not be said that the paths of karma of greed and anger are ultimately completed by ignorance. This is in terms of being able to achieve ultimate completion; at that time, ignorance is stronger, and there are no other roots that can cause greed, etc., to achieve ultimate completion. Oneself has no ability to help oneself, so how can it be said?
自究竟自。故癡究竟於理無失。有餘於此復作釋言。與貪瞋俱一果諸法。皆可隨勝立貪瞋名。彼與貪瞋俱時生故。亦可說彼究竟貪瞋。於此釋中亦容徴難。恐文煩雜。故應且止。諸惡業道何處起耶。頌曰。
有情具名色 名身等處起
論曰。如前所說四品業道。三三一三隨其次第。于有情等四處而生。謂殺等三有情處起。偷盜等三眾具處起。唯邪見一名色處起。虛誑語等三名身等處起。由何建立殺業道成。謂由加行及由果滿。於此二分隨闕一時。不為殺生根本罪觸。頗有殺者起殺加行及令果滿。而彼不為殺罪觸耶。曰有。云何。頌曰。
俱死及前死 無根依別故
論曰。若能殺者起殺加行。定欲殺他與所殺生俱時捨命或在前死。彼能殺者業道不成。所以者何。以所殺者其命猶在。不可即令能殺有情殺罪所觸。以所殺者命未斷故。非能殺者其命已終可得殺罪。別依生故。謂殺加行所依止身今已斷滅。雖有別類身同分生非罪依止。此曾未起殺生加行成殺業道理不應然。若爾此中為問非理。既殺加行所依止身。非即能令殺生果滿。於前二分便為闕一。如何以此蘊在心中。而可問言頗有殺者起殺加行及令果滿。若謂此中約一相續。言此起加行即此果滿者。是則亦應殺罪所觸。許前後生相續一故。又所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自究竟自（自己最終還是自己）。故癡（無明，佛教中指對事物真相的迷惑）究竟於理無失（從道理上來說並沒有錯）。有餘於此復作釋言（還有人對此進一步解釋說）：與貪瞋（貪婪和嗔恨）俱一果諸法（所有與貪婪和嗔恨一起產生結果的法），皆可隨勝立貪瞋名（都可以根據哪一個更強而命名為貪婪或嗔恨）。彼與貪瞋俱時生故（因為它們與貪婪和嗔恨同時產生），亦可說彼究竟貪瞋（也可以說它們最終就是貪婪或嗔恨）。於此釋中亦容徴難（對於這種解釋也可能存在疑問），恐文煩雜（恐怕文字過於繁瑣），故應且止（所以應該暫時停止討論）。諸惡業道（各種惡業的途徑）何處起耶（從哪裡產生呢）？頌曰： 有情具名色（有情眾生具備名色），名身等處起（從名身等處產生）。 論曰（論述道）：如前所說四品業道（如前面所說的四種業道），三三一三隨其次第（按照三、三、一、三的順序），于有情等四處而生（在有情等四個地方產生）。謂殺等三有情處起（即殺生等三種惡業從有情處產生），偷盜等三眾具處起（偷盜等三種惡業從眾具處產生），唯邪見一名色處起（只有邪見從名色處產生），虛誑語等三名身等處起（虛妄語等三種惡業從名身等處產生）。由何建立殺業道成（通過什麼來確定殺業道的成立）？謂由加行及由果滿（通過加行和果滿）。於此二分隨闕一時（在這兩個部分中，無論缺少哪一個），不為殺生根本罪觸（都不會構成殺生的根本罪）。頗有殺者起殺加行及令果滿（有沒有這樣的人，他開始了殺生的加行並且導致了結果的完成），而彼不為殺罪觸耶（但他卻沒有觸犯殺生的罪業呢）？曰有（回答說：有）。云何（為什麼呢）？頌曰： 俱死及前死（同時死亡或者先死亡），無根依別故（因為沒有根本，所依賴的也不同）。 論曰（論述道）：若能殺者起殺加行（如果能殺的人開始了殺生的加行），定欲殺他與所殺生俱時捨命或在前死（並且想要殺死對方，但被殺者與他同時死亡或者在他之前死亡），彼能殺者業道不成（那麼這個能殺的人的殺業道就不成立）。所以者何（為什麼呢）？以所殺者其命猶在（因為被殺者還活著），不可即令能殺有情殺罪所觸（不可能立即讓能殺的有情觸犯殺生的罪業）。以所殺者命未斷故（因為被殺者的生命沒有斷絕），非能殺者其命已終可得殺罪（如果能殺的人已經死亡，也不可能得到殺生的罪業）。別依生故（因為是依賴於不同的東西而產生的）。謂殺加行所依止身今已斷滅（即殺生加行所依賴的身體現在已經斷滅），雖有別類身同分生非罪依止（即使有其他同類的身體產生，也不是罪業所依賴的）。此曾未起殺生加行成殺業道理不應然（這種沒有開始殺生加行就構成殺業的道理是不應該成立的）。若爾此中為問非理（如果這樣，那麼在這裡提問就沒有道理了）。既殺加行所依止身（既然殺生加行所依賴的身體），非即能令殺生果滿（不能立即導致殺生結果的完成）。於前二分便為闕一（在前面的兩個部分中就缺少了一個）。如何以此蘊在心中（如何將這個道理放在心中），而可問言頗有殺者起殺加行及令果滿（然後問有沒有這樣的人，他開始了殺生的加行並且導致了結果的完成）？若謂此中約一相續（如果說這裡指的是同一個相續），言此起加行即此果滿者（說的是這個開始了加行，也就是這個完成了結果），是則亦應殺罪所觸（那麼也應該觸犯殺生的罪業）。許前後生相續一故（因為承認前後生的相續是一樣的）。又所（而且）
【English Translation】 English version 'Self ultimately is self.' Therefore, ignorance (delusion, in Buddhism, referring to the confusion about the true nature of things) ultimately does not err in principle. Others further explain this by saying: 'All dharmas (phenomena) that arise together with greed and hatred, sharing a common result, can be named greed or hatred depending on which is stronger.' Because they arise simultaneously with greed and hatred, it can also be said that they are ultimately greed or hatred. There may be doubts about this explanation, but fearing that the text would become too complicated, we should stop here for now. Where do the paths of evil karma arise from? Verse: 'Sentient beings possess name and form; they arise from name, body, and other places.' Treatise: As mentioned earlier, the four types of karmic paths arise in the four places of sentient beings, etc., in the order of three, three, one, and three. That is, the three such as killing arise from the place of sentient beings; the three such as stealing arise from the place of possessions; only wrong view arises from the place of name and form; and the three such as false speech arise from the place of name, body, etc. How is the establishment of the path of killing karma determined? It is determined by the application of effort and the fulfillment of the result. If either of these two parts is missing, it does not constitute a fundamental transgression of killing. Is there someone who initiates the effort of killing and brings about the fulfillment of the result, but is not touched by the sin of killing? Yes, there is. How so? Verse: 'Simultaneous death or prior death, because there is no root and the reliance is different.' Treatise: If the potential killer initiates the effort of killing, intending to kill another, but the one to be killed dies simultaneously or before the potential killer, then the karmic path of the potential killer is not established. Why? Because the life of the one to be killed is still present, it is impossible to immediately cause the potential killer to be touched by the sin of killing. Because the life of the one to be killed has not been severed, and if the potential killer has already died, it is impossible to incur the sin of killing. It is because it arises from different dependencies. That is, the body on which the effort of killing relies has now been destroyed. Although there may be other similar bodies arising, they are not the basis for the sin. The principle that the karma of killing is formed without initiating the effort of killing should not be valid. If so, it is unreasonable to ask this question here. Since the body on which the effort of killing relies cannot immediately lead to the fulfillment of the result of killing, one of the two parts is missing. How can one keep this principle in mind and then ask whether there is someone who initiates the effort of killing and brings about the fulfillment of the result? If it is said that this refers to the same continuum, and that the one who initiates the effort is the same one who fulfills the result, then they should also be touched by the sin of killing, because it is acknowledged that the continuum of past and future lives is the same. Furthermore,
說因無能證力。以能殺者死活不殊。謂就依身設彼活位。亦有唸唸異滅異生。非起加行身即能令果滿。何言依別故非殺罪所觸。若謂死後同分異故。與活有殊是。則還成闕於一分。為問非理。此問應理因有證能。所以者何。義有別故。謂先問者作是問言。頗一相續起殺加行亦令果滿。而彼不為殺罪觸耶。既前後生相續是一非闕一分。於後答者作是答言。以前後生身及同分是別業果。別依生故。不為前生所作罪觸。若不許爾害非父母應成無間。又非人趣應成逆罪。而不許然。故依別因有能證力。若有多人集為軍眾欲殺怨敵。或獵獸等。于中隨有一殺生時。何人得成殺生業道。頌曰。
軍等若同事 皆成如作者
論曰。于軍等中若隨有一作殺生事如自作者。一切皆成殺生業道。由彼同許為一事故。如為一事展轉相教故。一殺生余皆得罪。若有他力逼入此中。因即同心亦成殺罪。唯除若有立誓要期。救自命終亦不行殺。無殺心故不得殺罪。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之十
今應思擇成業道相。謂齊何量名自殺生。乃至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果說因為沒有能力而不能證明這種力量，是因為能殺者無論死活都沒有區別。假設就依靠身體設定那個活的位置，也有唸唸之間異滅異生。不是發起加行（kriya-yoga）的身體就能使果報圓滿。為什麼說依靠不同，所以不是殺罪所能觸及的呢？如果說死後同分（sabhāga）不同，與活著的時候有區別，那麼就仍然會缺少一部分，成為不合理的提問。這個提問是合理的，因為有能夠證明的能力。為什麼這樣說呢？因為意義上有區別。先提問的人這樣問：『如果一個相續（saṃtāna）發起殺的加行，也能使果報圓滿，而他卻不被殺罪所觸及嗎？』既然前後生相續是一體的，沒有缺少一部分。後面的回答者這樣回答：『因為前後生身以及同分是不同的業果，依靠不同的而生，所以不被前生所作的罪所觸及。』如果不允許這樣，那麼傷害非父母的人就應該成為無間（ānantarika）罪，又非人趣（amanuṣya-gati）也應該成為逆罪（ānantarika-karma），但是不允許這樣。所以依靠不同，有能夠證明的力量。如果有多人聚整合為軍隊，想要殺死怨敵，或者獵殺野獸等，其中只要有一個人殺死生命，什麼人能夠成就殺生的業道（karma-patha）呢？頌（gāthā）說： 『軍隊等如果共同做事，都像作者一樣成就（殺生業道）。』 論（śāstra）說：在軍隊等中，如果隨便有一個人做了殺生的事情，就像自己做的一樣，一切人都成就殺生的業道。因為他們共同允許做這件事，就像爲了同一件事輾轉相教一樣。一個人殺生，其餘的人都得到罪。如果有人被其他力量逼迫進入其中，因為心意相同，也成就殺罪。只有如果有人立下誓言，要救自己的性命而最終沒有殺人，因為沒有殺心，所以不得殺罪。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十二 尊者眾賢（Vasubandhu）造 三藏法師玄奘（Xuanzang）奉 詔譯 辯業品第四之十 現在應該思考辨析成就業道的相狀。所謂達到什麼程度才叫做自己殺生，乃至……
【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that the power cannot be proven because of the lack of ability, it is because there is no difference between the killer being alive or dead. Suppose that the position of being alive is set based on the body, there are also moments of difference in extinction and difference in arising. It is not that the body that initiates the kriya-yoga can make the fruition complete. Why is it said that because it relies on difference, it cannot be touched by the sin of killing? If it is said that the sabhāga after death is different, and there is a difference from being alive, then it will still lack a part, becoming an unreasonable question. This question is reasonable because there is the ability to prove it. Why is this said? Because there is a difference in meaning. The person who asks the question first asks: 'If a saṃtāna initiates the kriya-yoga of killing, and can also make the fruition complete, but he is not touched by the sin of killing?' Since the continuous arising of the previous and subsequent lives is one, and there is no lack of a part. The person who answers later answers: 'Because the previous and subsequent lives and the sabhāga are different karma results, relying on different ones to arise, so they are not touched by the sin committed by the previous life.' If this is not allowed, then harming non-parents should become ānantarika karma, and the amanuṣya-gati should also become ānantarika-karma, but this is not allowed. Therefore, relying on difference, there is the power to prove it. If many people gather to form an army, wanting to kill enemies, or hunting beasts, etc., among them, as long as one person kills a life, who can achieve the karma-patha of killing? The gāthā says: 'If armies, etc., do things together, they all achieve (the karma-patha of killing) like the author.' The śāstra says: In armies, etc., if anyone does the act of killing, just like doing it themselves, everyone achieves the karma-patha of killing. Because they jointly allow this to be done, just like teaching each other in turn for the same thing. If one person kills, the rest all get the sin. If someone is forced into it by other forces, because their minds are the same, they also achieve the sin of killing. Only if someone makes a vow to save their own life and ultimately does not kill, because they have no intention to kill, they do not get the sin of killing. 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》Volume 41 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》Volume 42 Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order Chapter Four, Section Ten on Discriminating Karma Now we should contemplate and analyze the characteristics of achieving the karma-patha. What extent is called killing oneself, and so on...
齊何名為邪見。且先分別殺生相者。頌曰。
殺生由故思 他想不誤殺
論曰。要由先發欲殺故思。於他有情他有情想作殺加行不誤而殺。謂唯殺彼不漫殺余。齊此名為殺生業道。有懷猶豫為杌為人。設復是人為彼非彼因起決志。若是若非我定當殺。由心無顧。若殺有情亦成業道。如是業道若定若疑。但具殺緣皆有成理。于剎那滅行殺罪。如何成如何不成。無殺義故。謂眾生命過去已滅現在自滅未來未至。是故必無殺生命理。如何說滅。燈焰鈴聲準彼亦應通殺生義。謂障當命應生不生。以起噁心行殺加行。令所殺者現命滅時。不能為因引同類命。障應生命令永不生。故名殺生。由斯獲罪。此所斷命為屬於誰。謂命若無彼名死者。即是此命所依附身。標第六聲顯相屬義。如伽他說壽暖等言。故有命身名有命者。非實有我其理決然。已分別殺生。當辯不與取。頌曰。
不與取他物 力竊取屬己
論曰。前不誤等言如應流至后。謂要先發欲盜故思。於他物中起他物想。或力或竊起盜加行。不誤而取令屬己身。齊此名為不與取罪。若有盜取窣堵波物于佛得罪。佛將涅槃總受世間所施物故。有說。此罪于能護人。則彼自恣應無有罪。是故前說于理為勝。盜亡僧物已作羯磨。于界內僧得偷盜罪。羯磨未了
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼叫做邪見？首先來分別殺生的行為。
頌文說：
『殺生由於事先的意圖，對他人產生殺意，並且沒有誤殺。』
論述：一定要由於事先產生想要殺生的意圖，對於其他的有情眾生，認為是他人的有情眾生，進行殺害的行為，並且沒有誤殺，指的是隻殺了他，沒有誤殺其他人。這才叫做殺生的業道。如果心中猶豫不決，分不清是樹樁還是人，假設真的是人，因為分不清是他還是不是他而產生決斷，無論是還是不是，我一定要殺了他，因為心中沒有顧忌。如果殺害了有情眾生，也構成了業道。像這樣的業道，無論是確定還是懷疑，只要具備了殺生的因緣，都有可能構成罪業。在剎那間滅亡的行為和殺生的罪業，如何成立，如何不成立？因為沒有殺生的意義。所謂的眾生命，過去的已經滅亡，現在的自己滅亡，未來還沒有到來。所以一定沒有殺害生命這種道理。如何說是滅？就像燈焰一樣，按照那個標準也應該貫通殺生的意義。指的是阻礙將要出生的生命，應該出生卻沒有出生，因為產生了噁心，進行了殺生的行為，讓被殺者現有的生命滅亡的時候，不能作為原因引導同類的生命，阻礙了應該出生的生命，讓它永遠不能出生，所以叫做殺生。因為這樣而獲得罪過。這裡所斷絕的生命是屬於誰的？所謂的生命如果沒有了，那個人就被叫做死者，也就是這個生命所依附的身體。用第六格來顯示所屬的關係，就像伽他所說的壽命、溫暖等等。所以有生命和身體的叫做有命者。實際上沒有我，這個道理是確定的。已經分別了殺生，下面來辨析不與取（偷盜）。
頌文說：
『不給予就拿走他人的財物，用暴力或偷偷地佔為己有。』
論述：前面所說的『沒有誤殺』等等，應該相應地沿用到後面。指的是一定要事先產生想要偷盜的意圖，對於他人的財物產生是他人的財物的想法，或者用暴力，或者偷偷地進行偷盜的行為，沒有錯誤地拿走，並且讓它歸屬於自己。這才叫做不與取的罪過。如果有偷盜窣堵波（佛塔）的財物，就對佛犯了罪。因為佛將要涅槃，總共接受了世間所施捨的財物。有人說，這個罪過是對能夠保護（窣堵波）的人犯的。那麼那些自己隨意使用（窣堵波財物）的人，就應該沒有罪過。所以前面所說的（佛將涅槃總受世間所施捨物）在道理上是更勝一籌的。偷盜僧眾的財物，已經做了羯磨（一種佛教儀式），在界內的僧眾就犯了偷盜罪，羯磨還沒有完成。
【English Translation】 English version: What is called wrong view? Let's first distinguish the act of killing.
The verse says:
'Killing arises from prior intention, thinking of the other, and not killing by mistake.'
The treatise says: It must arise from the prior intention to kill, thinking of the other sentient being as another sentient being, performing the act of killing, and not killing by mistake, meaning only killing that one and not killing others indiscriminately. This is called the path of the karma of killing. If one is hesitant, unsure whether it is a tree stump or a person, and if it is indeed a person, one makes a decision based on whether it is him or not. 'Whether it is or not, I will definitely kill him,' because there is no regard in the mind. If one kills a sentient being, it also constitutes a karmic path. Such a karmic path, whether certain or doubtful, as long as the conditions for killing are present, there is a possibility of committing the offense. How can the act of killing and the sin of killing be established or not established in an instant? Because there is no meaning of killing. The so-called life of a being, the past has already perished, the present is self-perishing, and the future has not yet arrived. Therefore, there is definitely no such thing as killing a life. How can it be said to be extinguished? Like the flame of a lamp, according to that standard, the meaning of killing should also be understood. It refers to obstructing a life that is about to be born, should be born but is not born, because of generating evil thoughts and performing the act of killing, causing the life of the one being killed to cease, unable to serve as a cause to lead to a similar life, obstructing the life that should be born, causing it to never be born. Therefore, it is called killing. One incurs sin because of this. To whom does this severed life belong? If there is no life, that person is called dead, which is the body to which this life is attached. The sixth case is used to show the meaning of belonging, like the words 'lifespan, warmth,' etc., in the Gatha. Therefore, having life and body is called having life. In reality, there is no self; this principle is certain. Having distinguished killing, let's now discuss not-giving-taking (stealing).
The verse says:
'Taking others' property without permission, taking it by force or secretly, making it one's own.'
The treatise says: The previous words 'not by mistake,' etc., should be applied accordingly to the latter. It means that one must first have the intention to steal, thinking of others' property as others' property, and then, either by force or secretly, perform the act of stealing, taking it without mistake and making it belong to oneself. This is called the sin of not-giving-taking. If one steals property from a Stupa (Buddhist shrine), one commits an offense against the Buddha. Because the Buddha, about to enter Nirvana, accepts all the offerings given to the world. Some say that this offense is committed against the person who can protect (the Stupa). Then those who use (Stupa property) at will should not be guilty. Therefore, the previous statement (that the Buddha, about to enter Nirvana, accepts all the offerings given to the world) is superior in reason. Stealing the property of the Sangha (monastic community), after having performed the Karma (a type of Buddhist ritual), one commits the sin of stealing against the Sangha within the boundary; the Karma is not yet completed.
。於一切僧。若盜他人及象馬等。出所住處業道方成。已辯不與取。當辯欲邪行。頌曰。
欲邪行四種 行所不應行
論曰。總有四種行不應行。皆得名為欲邪行罪。一于非境。謂他所護。或母或父或父母親。乃至或夫所守護境。二于非道。謂設己妻口及余道。三于非處。謂于制多寺中迥處。四于非時。謂懷胎時。飲兒乳時。受齋戒時。有說。若夫許受齋戒而有所犯。方謂非時。既不誤言亦流至此。若於他婦謂是己妻。或於己妻謂為他婦。道非道等但有誤心。雖有所行而非業道。若於此他婦作余他婦想行非梵行。有說。亦成加行受用時並於他境故。有說。如殺業道不成加行。究竟時前境各別故。苾芻尼等如有戒妻。若有侵𣣋亦成業道。有說。此罪于所住王。以能護持及不許故。若王自犯業道亦成。故前所說于理為勝。已辯欲邪行。當辯虛誑語。頌曰。
染異想發言 解義虛誑語
論曰。說聽力故成虛誑語謂于所說異想發言。及所誑者解所說義。染心不誤方成業道。所誑未解雜穢語收。語多字成要最後念表無表業方成業道。或隨所誑解義即成。前字俱行皆此加行。此中解義據所誑者能解名解非正解義。齊何名為能解正解。前謂解者住耳識時。后謂正能分別其義。若正解義義意識知。語表耳識俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對於所有僧人，如果偷盜他人財物以及大象、馬匹等，離開所居住的地方，偷盜的業道才能成立。已經辨析了不與取（偷盜），接下來辨析欲邪行。頌文說：
『欲邪行有四種，行於不應行之處。』
論述：總共有四種行為是不應該做的，都可以稱為欲邪行罪。一是于非境，即侵犯他人所守護的，比如母親、父親、父母親屬，乃至丈夫所守護的。二是于非道，即便是自己的妻子，也以口或其他非正道行淫。三是于非處，即在佛塔寺廟等清凈場所。四是于非時，即在懷孕期間、哺乳期間、受齋戒期間。有人說，如果丈夫答應受齋戒卻犯戒，才算非時。既然沒有誤說，也應包含在此。如果把別人的妻子誤認為自己的妻子，或者把自己的妻子誤認為別人的妻子，或者道與非道等，只要是誤解，即使有所行為，也不構成業道。如果對別人的妻子，想成是其他的女人，行非梵行。有人說，這也構成加行，因為受用時，對象是他人。也有人說，如同殺業，業道不成立，因為加行和究竟時的對象不同。比丘尼等如果也有持戒的丈夫，如果被侵犯，也構成業道。有人說，這種罪過是針對所居住的國王，因為國王有守護和禁止的責任。如果國王自己犯戒，業道也成立。所以前面所說的更有道理。已經辨析了欲邪行，接下來辨析虛誑語。頌文說：
『心懷染污異想而說話，對方理解了含義，就是虛誑語。』
論述：因為說話和聽話的力量，虛誑語才能成立，即對於所說的話，心懷異想而說，並且被欺騙的人理解了所說的話的含義。心懷染污，沒有誤解，才能構成業道。如果被欺騙的人沒有理解，就只能算是雜穢語。話說了很多字才能成立，關鍵在於最後念頭的表達，有表業和無表業才能構成業道。或者隨著被欺騙的人理解了含義，立即成立。前面的字句都是加行。這裡所說的理解含義，是指被欺騙的人能夠理解，而不是正確理解含義。什麼叫做能夠理解，什麼叫做正確理解？前者是指理解者停留在耳識的時候，後者是指能夠正確地分辨其中的含義。如果正確理解含義，是義意識知道，說話的表達和耳識同時發生。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding all Sangha members, if they steal others' belongings, as well as elephants, horses, etc., the karmic path of stealing is only established upon leaving the place of residence. Having discussed 'not giving what is taken' (stealing), we will now discuss 'sexual misconduct'. The verse says:
'Sexual misconduct has four types, acting in places where one should not act.'
Discussion: There are a total of four types of actions that should not be done, and all can be called the sin of sexual misconduct. First, with regard to an improper object, that is, violating what is protected by others, such as a mother, father, parents, or even a wife protected by her husband. Second, with regard to an improper path, even with one's own wife, using the mouth or other improper paths for sexual acts. Third, with regard to an improper place, such as in stupas or temples, or secluded places. Fourth, with regard to an improper time, such as during pregnancy, breastfeeding, or observing precepts. Some say that if a husband agrees to observe precepts but violates them, it is considered an improper time. Since there is no mistaken speech, it should also be included here. If one mistakes another's wife for one's own, or one's own wife for another's, or the path as proper or improper, as long as there is a misunderstanding, even if there is action, it does not constitute a karmic path. If one thinks of another's wife as another woman and engages in non-celibate conduct, some say that this also constitutes an action, because at the time of enjoyment, the object is another person. Others say that, like the karmic path of killing, the karmic path is not established because the objects of the preparatory action and the ultimate action are different. If Bhikshunis (nuns), etc., also have wives who observe precepts, if they are violated, it also constitutes a karmic path. Some say that this sin is directed at the residing king, because the king has the responsibility to protect and prohibit. If the king himself violates the precepts, the karmic path is also established. Therefore, what was said earlier is more reasonable. Having discussed sexual misconduct, we will now discuss false speech. The verse says:
'Speaking with defiled and different thoughts, and the listener understanding the meaning, is false speech.'
Discussion: Because of the power of speaking and listening, false speech can be established, that is, speaking with different thoughts about what is said, and the person being deceived understands the meaning of what is said. Having a defiled mind and no misunderstanding are necessary to constitute a karmic path. If the person being deceived does not understand, it can only be considered impure speech. Many words are needed to establish it, and the key lies in the expression of the final thought. Expressed and unexpressed karma are needed to constitute a karmic path. Or, as soon as the person being deceived understands the meaning, it is immediately established. The preceding words and phrases are all preparatory actions. The understanding of meaning here refers to the ability of the person being deceived to understand, not the correct understanding of meaning. What is called being able to understand, and what is called correctly understanding? The former refers to when the understander remains in the ear consciousness, and the latter refers to being able to correctly distinguish the meaning. If the meaning is correctly understood, it is known by the meaning consciousness, and the expression of speech and ear consciousness occur simultaneously.
時滅故。應此業道唯無表成。是故理應善義言者住耳識位業道即成。能誑具足表無表故。有言。所誑隨解不解。但異想說業道即成。不爾此同離間語故。隨忍不忍要解方成。經說諸言略有十六。謂于不見不聞不覺不知事中言實見等。所見等中言不見等。如是八種名非聖言。不見等中言不見等。所見等中言實見等。如是八種名為聖言。何等名為所見等相。頌曰。
由眼耳意識 並餘三所證 如次第名為 所見聞知覺
論曰。若境由眼耳意余識所證。如次名所見等。鼻舌身根取至境故總名為覺余。經定說三根所取為所覺故。經言。大母。汝意云何。諸所有色非汝眼見。非汝曾見非汝當見非希求見汝。為因此起欲起貪起親起愛起阿賴耶起尼延底起耽著不。不爾大德。諸所有聲非汝耳聞。廣說乃至。諸所有法非汝意知。廣說乃至。不爾大德。復告大母汝於此中應知所見唯有所見。應知所聞所覺所知。唯有所聞所覺所知。此經既於色聲法境說為所見所聞所知。準此于余定立所覺。若不許爾。所覺是何又香等三。在所見等外。于彼三境應不起言說。經主撥言。此不成證。經義別故。非此經中佛欲決判四所言相然見此經所說義者。謂佛勸彼於六境中。及於見等四所言事。應知但有所見等言。不應增益愛非愛相。若爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 時滅的緣故。應此業道唯有無表才能成就。因此，從道理上講，善義的言語者停留在耳識的位置，業道就能成就。因為能夠欺騙具足表和無表。有人說，被欺騙的人無論理解與否，只要有不同的想法，業道就能成就。否則，這與離間語相同，必須隨順忍受並理解才能成就。經中說，諸言大致有十六種。即對於不見、不聞、不覺、不知的事情，說成實際見到等等；對於實際見到等等的事情，說成沒有見到等等。這八種稱為非聖言。對於沒有見到等等的事情，說成沒有見到等等；對於實際見到等等的事情，說成實際見到等等。這八種稱為聖言。什麼叫做實際見到等等的相呢？頌詞說：
由眼耳意識 並餘三所證
如次第名為 所見聞知覺
論曰：如果境界由眼、耳、意識以及其他識所證，依次稱為所見等等。鼻、舌、身根接觸到境界，總稱為覺，其餘的也一樣。經中明確說，三根所取為所覺。經中說：『大母（Mahāmāyā，摩訶摩耶，佛母）。你認為如何？所有色法不是你眼睛所見，不是你曾經見過，不是你將要見到，不是你希望見到的。你因此生起慾望、生起貪婪、生起親近、生起愛戀、生起阿賴耶（Ālaya，藏識）、生起尼延底（Niyanti，趣入）、生起耽著嗎？』『不是的，大德。』所有聲音不是你耳朵所聞，廣說乃至。所有法不是你意識所知，廣說乃至。『不是的，大德。』又告訴大母，你於此中應當知道所見唯有所見，應當知道所聞、所覺、所知，唯有所聞、所覺、所知。』此經既然在色、聲、法境上說為所見、所聞、所知，據此，對於其餘的，應當確定為所覺。如果不允許這樣，那麼所覺是什麼呢？又香等三種，在所見等等之外，對於那三種境界，應該不產生言說。經主反駁說，這不能成立為證據，因為經義不同。這部經中，佛陀並非要決斷四種所言之相，而是看到這部經所說的意義的人，認為佛陀勸告她，在六境中，以及在見等等四種所言之事中，應當知道只有所見等等的言說，不應當增加愛與非愛的相。如果這樣……
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the cessation of time. Corresponding to this karma path, only non-manifestation can accomplish it. Therefore, logically speaking, when a speaker of good meaning dwells in the position of ear-consciousness, the karma path is accomplished. Because it can deceive both manifest and non-manifest completely. Some say that whether the deceived person understands or not, as long as there is a different thought, the karma path is accomplished. Otherwise, this is the same as divisive speech, and it must be in accordance with forbearance and understanding to be accomplished. The sutra says that there are roughly sixteen kinds of speech. That is, regarding things not seen, not heard, not felt, not known, saying that they are actually seen, etc.; regarding things actually seen, etc., saying that they are not seen, etc. These eight are called non-holy speech. Regarding things not seen, etc., saying that they are not seen, etc.; regarding things actually seen, etc., saying that they are actually seen, etc. These eight are called holy speech. What are the characteristics of what is actually seen, etc.? The verse says:
By eye, ear, consciousness And the other three that prove
In order, they are named What is seen, heard, known, felt
Treatise says: If a realm is proven by eye, ear, consciousness, and other consciousnesses, they are called what is seen, etc., in order. The nose, tongue, and body roots contact the realm and are collectively called feeling, and the rest are the same. The sutra clearly states that what is taken by the three roots is what is felt. The sutra says: 'Great Mother (Mahāmāyā). What do you think? All forms are not seen by your eyes, not seen by you before, not to be seen by you, not desired to be seen by you. Do you therefore arise desire, arise greed, arise intimacy, arise love, arise Ālaya (storehouse consciousness), arise Niyanti (inclination), arise attachment?' 'No, Great Worthy.' All sounds are not heard by your ears, and so on. All dharmas are not known by your mind, and so on. 'No, Great Worthy.' Again, tell Great Mother, you should know in this that what is seen is only what is seen, you should know what is heard, felt, and known, only what is heard, felt, and known.' Since this sutra speaks of what is seen, heard, and known in the realms of form, sound, and dharma, according to this, it should be determined as what is felt for the rest. If this is not allowed, then what is what is felt? Also, the three of smell, etc., are outside of what is seen, etc., and for those three realms, there should be no speech produced. The sutra master refutes, saying that this cannot be established as evidence, because the meaning of the sutra is different. In this sutra, the Buddha does not intend to decide the four aspects of what is spoken, but those who see the meaning of what is said in this sutra believe that the Buddha advises her that in the six realms, and in the four things spoken of as seeing, etc., one should know that there is only the speech of what is seen, etc., and one should not increase the aspects of love and non-love. If so...
何相名所見等。有餘師說。若是五根現所證境名為所見。若他傳說名為所聞。若運自心以種種理比度所許名為所覺。若意現證名為所知。於五境中皆容起四。于第六境除見有三。由此覺名非無所目。香等三境言說非無。復引古師別釋此四。今謂經主唯申自執非我許此。經判所言相故但言經證。三根所取名為所覺。起所覺言故。我師宗隨此經立所見等相。于理無違。雖說為遮于彼增益愛非愛相。非不應理言六四別於理不然。前經后經義相似故。我見此經所說義者謂教大母如於三時色等境中。若不見等不希求故。欲等不生如是。若知所見等境唯有所見等。欲等亦不生欲等。但由自分別故。我隨經義解此經文。非如經主隨自分別。故后大母領佛教言。我解世尊所說義者。
見色已失念 妄增愛相者 心便受愛染 及住于耽著 彼由起此受 眾多相現前 故彼心恒時 為諸貪害惱 如是集眾苦 便遠於涅槃 愛盡故涅槃 日親之所說 見色已正念 不增愛相者 心不受愛染 及不住耽著 彼由不起受 眾多相現前 故彼心恒時 離諸貪害惱 如是滅眾苦 便近於涅槃 愛盡故涅槃 日親之所說
如是于聲香味觸法一一廣說。世尊亦贊能如是解。善哉善哉。故經主言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『所見』等名稱的含義，其他老師有不同的說法。他們認為，如果是五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）直接證得的境界，就稱為『所見』。如果是聽取他人傳說的，就稱為『所聞』。如果是運用自己的心，通過種種道理來比量推度的，就稱為『所覺』。如果是意識直接證得的，就稱為『所知』。在五種境界（色、聲、香、味、觸）中，每一種都可能產生四種認知（見、聞、覺、知）。在第六種境界（法）中，除了『見』之外，有三種認知（聞、覺、知）。因此，『覺』這個名稱並非沒有明確的指向。香等三種境界（香、味、觸）的言說並非沒有依據。 還有人引用古代老師的說法，對這四種認知（見、聞、覺、知）進行不同的解釋。但我認為，經文的作者只是在闡述自己的觀點，並非我所認可的。經文是根據所言之『相』來判定的，所以只說經文的證明。三根（鼻、舌、身）所取之境名為『所覺』，因為經文中有『起所覺言』的說法。我的老師遵循這部經的觀點，來確立『所見』等的『相』，在道理上沒有衝突。雖然說是爲了遮止對愛與非愛之『相』的增益，但並非不合道理。說六種境界和四種認知有所區別，在道理上是不成立的，因為前後的經文意義相似。我認為這部經所說的意義是，教導大母（Mahaprajapati，摩訶波阇波提）在三種時態（過去、現在、未來）的色等境界中，如果不見等，就不會產生希求，這樣，慾望等就不會產生。如果知道所見等境界僅僅是所見等，慾望等也不會產生。慾望等只是由於自己的分別而產生。我根據經文的意義來解釋這部經文，不像經文的作者那樣隨自己的分別。所以，後來的大母（Mahaprajapati，摩訶波阇波提）領悟佛教的教義說，我理解世尊所說的意義是： 『見到色相后，如果失去正念，妄加增益愛染之相，心就會受到愛染的污染，並且執著于其中。由於生起這種感受，眾多的相就會顯現出來。所以，他的心總是受到各種貪慾的損害和惱亂。這樣聚集眾多的痛苦，就會遠離涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。愛慾斷盡才能達到涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅），這是日親（Adityabandhu，阿迭多 बंधु）所說的。見到色相后，如果保持正念，不增益愛染之相，心就不會受到愛染的污染，也不會執著于其中。由於不生起這種感受，眾多的相就不會顯現出來。所以，他的心總是遠離各種貪慾的損害和惱亂。這樣消滅眾多的痛苦，就會接近涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。愛慾斷盡才能達到涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅），這是日親（Adityabandhu，阿迭多 बंधु）所說的。』 像這樣，對於聲、香、味、觸、法，一一廣泛地闡述。世尊（Buddha，佛陀）也讚歎能夠這樣理解。『善哉！善哉！』所以經文的作者說：
【English Translation】 English version What are the meanings of terms like 『what is seen』? Other teachers have different explanations. They say that if it is a realm directly perceived by the five senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), it is called 『what is seen』. If it is something heard from others, it is called 『what is heard』. If it is something inferred by one's own mind through various reasons and comparisons, it is called 『what is felt』. If it is directly perceived by consciousness, it is called 『what is known』. In the five realms (form, sound, smell, taste, touch), each can give rise to all four cognitions (seeing, hearing, feeling, knowing). In the sixth realm (dharma), there are three cognitions (hearing, feeling, knowing) excluding 『seeing』. Therefore, the name 『feeling』 is not without a clear reference. The statements about the three realms (smell, taste, touch) are not without basis. Some also cite the sayings of ancient teachers to provide different explanations for these four cognitions (seeing, hearing, feeling, knowing). However, I believe that the author of the scripture is only expounding their own views, which I do not necessarily endorse. The scripture is judged based on the 『characteristics』 of what is said, so it only mentions the scripture's proof. What is taken by the three senses (nose, tongue, body) is called 『what is felt』, because the scripture mentions 『arising of what is felt』. My teacher follows the view of this scripture to establish the 『characteristics』 of 『what is seen』 and so on, which is not contradictory in principle. Although it is said to prevent the increase of the characteristics of love and non-love, it is not unreasonable. Saying that there is a distinction between the six realms and the four cognitions is not valid in principle, because the meanings of the preceding and following scriptures are similar. I believe that the meaning of this scripture is that the Great Mother (Mahaprajapati, 摩訶波阇波提) is taught that in the realms of form, etc., in the three times (past, present, future), if there is no seeing, etc., there will be no seeking, and thus, desires, etc., will not arise. If it is known that the realms of what is seen, etc., are only what is seen, etc., desires, etc., will also not arise. Desires, etc., arise only from one's own discriminations. I interpret this scripture according to the meaning of the scripture, not according to my own discriminations like the author of the scripture. Therefore, the later Great Mother (Mahaprajapati, 摩訶波阇波提), understanding the teachings of Buddhism, said, 『I understand that what the World Honored One (Buddha, 佛陀) said is:』 『Having seen form, if one loses mindfulness and falsely increases the appearance of attachment, the mind will be stained by attachment and dwell in clinging. Because of the arising of this feeling, many appearances manifest. Therefore, his mind is always harmed and troubled by various desires. Thus, accumulating many sufferings, one becomes far from Nirvana (Nirvana, 寂滅). Nirvana (Nirvana, 寂滅) is attained by the exhaustion of attachment, as said by Adityabandhu (Adityabandhu, 阿迭多 बंधु). Having seen form, if one maintains mindfulness and does not increase the appearance of attachment, the mind will not be stained by attachment and will not dwell in clinging. Because of the non-arising of this feeling, many appearances do not manifest. Therefore, his mind is always free from the harm and trouble of various desires. Thus, extinguishing many sufferings, one becomes close to Nirvana (Nirvana, 寂滅). Nirvana (Nirvana, 寂滅) is attained by the exhaustion of attachment, as said by Adityabandhu (Adityabandhu, 阿迭多 बंधु).』 In this way, each of sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma is extensively explained. The World Honored One (Buddha, 佛陀) also praised the ability to understand in this way. 『Excellent! Excellent!』 Therefore, the author of the scripture says:
經義別者。誠如所說以經義別。經主于中異分別故。又何意趣朋彼二師違理教釋。而偏憎背毗婆沙者順理教言。且彼二師所釋違教。所見等相佛于經中於色等境分明別說。而彼棄捨異建立故。亦與隨教正理相違。說五境中各具有四。第六境上唯有三等。然法最可立所見名。非聲等中可名所見。如言佛見去來世等。此皆意識不共境故。曾無聖教言耳見聲鼻見香等。如何五境皆名所見唯非第六。又彼自說若意現證名為所知。法既所知應名所見。現所證故猶如色等。此有何理唯五所證。立所見名。又后師釋。自內所受及自所證。名為所知。若爾見何緣非自內所受。是則所見應即所知。又所覺知應無差別。俱是意識自所證故。又諸比量現量為先達正理人皆所共許。若比量境方名所覺。不應所覺在所知先。故彼二師義無端緒。今謂經主僻執居心。背此正宗黨彼邪說。頗有由身表異想義成妄語不。有。故論言頗有不動身殺生罪觸耶。曰有。謂發語。頗有不發語妄語罪觸耶。曰有。謂動身。頗有不動身不發語二罪所觸耶。曰有。謂仙人意憤。及長養業時。經主於此作如是難。若不動身亦不發語。欲無無表離表而生。此二如何得成業道。于如是難應設劬勞。彼謂實無表無表業。豈容不立此二業道。彼亦應辯觸二罪因。非但起惡思有太過
失故。若要依身語二門轉思。起欲殺誑心即應成逆。彼不成者仙等應同。既不動身亦不發語。如何成業道。及依身語門應設劬勞。釋如是難。然我且釋布灑他時。如由動身能表語義生語業道。若身不動能表語義業道亦生。然說戒時彼有所犯。默然表凈令眾咸知。如何不生妄語業道。仙人意憤義等教他。彼于有情心無所顧。非人敬彼知有噁心。動身為殺彼生業道。仙以何表令鬼知心。彼由意憤身語必變。或由咒詛必動身語。有餘師說。非於欲界一切無表悉依表生。如得果時五苾芻等得別解脫戒。不善亦應然然彼先時決定有表。余亦應爾。仙如前說。布灑他時得妄語者。謂不清凈詐入僧中坐現威儀。或有所說。此謂先表。余例應思。已辯虛誑語。當辯餘三語。頌曰。
染心壞他語 說名離間語 非愛粗惡語 諸染雜穢語 余說異三染 佞歌邪論等
論曰。若染污心發壞他語。若他壞不壞俱成離間語。解義不誤流至此中。若以染心發非愛語。毀訾於他名粗惡語。前染心語流至此故。解義不誤亦與前同。一切染心所發諸語。名雜穢語。皆雜穢故。唯前語字流至此中。有說。異前三餘染心所發佞歌邪論等方雜穢語收。佞謂苾芻邪求名利發諂愛語。歌謂倡伎染心悅他作諸詞曲。及染心者諷吟相調。邪論者。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
失誤之處在於，如果想要依靠身語二門來轉變思緒，生起想要殺害或欺騙的心，那就應該構成逆罪。但實際上並沒有構成，那麼仙人等也應該一樣。既然沒有動身，也沒有說話，如何構成業道呢？以及依靠身語二門應該設定勤勞。爲了解釋這樣的難題，我且解釋布薩（Posadha）的時候，如同通過動身能夠表達語義，從而產生語業道。如果身體不動，能夠表達語義，業道也會產生。然而在誦戒的時候，如果有所違犯，默然表示清凈，讓大眾都知道，如何不產生妄語業道呢？仙人因為憤怒，用義等來教導他人，他們對於有情眾生毫不顧惜。非人（amanussa）敬畏他們，知道他們有噁心。動身是爲了殺害，因此產生業道。仙人通過什麼來表達，讓鬼知道他們的心意呢？他們因為憤怒，身語必定會改變，或者通過詛咒，必定會動身動語。有些論師說，並非在欲界一切無表業都依靠表業而生。如同獲得果位的時候，五位比丘等獲得別解脫戒（Pratimoksha），不善業也應該如此。然而他們在先前已經決定有表業。其餘情況也應該如此。仙人如同前面所說。在布薩的時候，獲得妄語罪的人，是指不清凈的人，假裝進入僧團中，端坐著裝出威儀，或者說些什麼。這指的是先前的表業。其餘情況應該類推思考。已經辨析了虛誑語，接下來辨析其餘三種語。頌文說：
『染心壞他語， 說名離間語。 非愛粗惡語， 諸染雜穢語。 余說異三染， 佞歌邪論等。』
論述說：如果以染污心發出破壞他人關係的言語，無論他人關係是否被破壞，都構成離間語。解釋意義沒有錯誤，流傳到這裡。如果以染污心發出不友善的言語，譭謗他人，就叫做粗惡語。前面的染心語流傳到這裡，所以解釋意義沒有錯誤，也與前面相同。一切以染污心所發出的言語，都叫做雜穢語，因為都是雜染污穢的。只有前面的『語』字流傳到這裡。有人說，與前面三種不同的，其餘以染污心所發出的諂媚的歌聲、邪惡的言論等，都歸入雜穢語。諂媚是指比丘爲了不正當地追求名利，發出諂媚的愛語。歌聲是指倡伎以染污心取悅他人，創作各種詞曲，以及以染污心的人諷刺吟唱相互調笑。邪論是指。
【English Translation】 English version:
The mistake lies in that if one were to transform thoughts based on the two doors of body and speech, and generate the intention to kill or deceive, it should constitute a heinous crime. But in reality, it does not. Then, ascetics and others should be the same. Since there is no movement of the body and no utterance of speech, how can it constitute a path of karma? And based on the doors of body and speech, diligent effort should be established. To explain such a difficulty, let me explain the time of Posadha (布灑他, Uposatha, fortnightly observance). It is like how, through the movement of the body, one can express meaning and generate the path of speech karma. If the body does not move but can express meaning, the path of karma will also arise. However, during the recitation of the precepts, if there is a violation, remaining silent to indicate purity, letting the assembly know, how can it not generate the path of false speech karma? Ascetics, out of anger, use righteousness and other means to teach others, but they have no regard for sentient beings. Non-humans (非人, amanussa, beings that are not human) fear them, knowing they have evil intentions. Moving the body is for the sake of killing, thus generating the path of karma. How do ascetics express themselves so that ghosts know their intentions? Because of their anger, their body and speech will inevitably change, or through curses, they will inevitably move their body and speech. Some teachers say that not all unmanifested karmas in the desire realm arise solely from manifested karmas. Just as when attaining the fruit, the five bhikshus (五苾芻, monks) and others attain the Pratimoksha (別解脫戒, individual liberation vows), unwholesome karma should also be the same. However, they must have already determined to have manifested karma beforehand. The rest should be the same. Ascetics are as previously stated. Those who commit false speech during Posadha refer to those who are impure, falsely enter the Sangha (僧中, monastic community), sit and pretend to be dignified, or say something. This refers to the previous manifested karma. The rest should be considered analogously. Having discussed false speech, we will now discuss the remaining three types of speech. The verse says:
'Speech that harms others with a defiled mind, Is called divisive speech. Unkind and harsh speech, All defiled and impure speech. Others say, different from the three defilements, Flattering songs, evil doctrines, and so on.'
The treatise says: If one utters speech that damages the relationships of others with a defiled mind, whether the relationships are damaged or not, it constitutes divisive speech. The explanation of the meaning is not mistaken, flowing to this point. If one utters unkind speech with a defiled mind, slandering others, it is called harsh speech. The previous defiled speech flows to this point, so the explanation of the meaning is not mistaken, and it is the same as before. All speech uttered with a defiled mind is called impure speech because it is all defiled and impure. Only the word 'speech' from before flows to this point. Some say that, different from the previous three, the remaining flattering songs, evil doctrines, and so on, uttered with a defiled mind, are all included in impure speech. Flattery refers to bhikshus who improperly seek fame and profit, uttering flattering and affectionate words. Songs refer to entertainers who please others with defiled minds, creating various lyrics and melodies, and those with defiled minds who satirize and sing to each other. Evil doctrines refer to.
勝數明等述惡見言等。謂染心所發悲嘆及戲論語。輪王現時歌詠等語。隨順出離與染相違。故彼皆非雜穢語攝。有說。彼有嫁娶等言。雜穢語收非業道攝。薄塵類故。不引無表非無無表可業道攝。已辯三語。當辯意三。頌曰。
惡欲他財貪 憎有情瞋恚 撥善惡等見 名邪見業道
論曰。於他財物非理耽求欲令屬己。或力或竊。如是惡欲名貪業道。豈不欲愛皆名為貪。如五蓋經。依貪慾蓋佛說應斷。此世間貪雖皆名貪非皆業道。由前已說諸惡行中攝粗品為十業道故。唯於他物起惡欲貪名貪業道。若異此者貪著己物業道應成。輪王北洲為難亦爾。于有情類起憎恚心。欲為逼迫。名瞋業道。于善惡等惡見撥無。此見名為邪見業道。舉初攝后故說等言。具足應如契經所說謗因謗果。二世尊等總十一類邪見不同。謂無施與。乃至廣說。如是已辯十業道相。依何義釋諸業道名。頌曰。
此中三唯道 七業亦道故
論曰。十業道中后三唯道。業之道故立業道名。彼相應思說名為業。彼轉故轉。彼行故行。如彼勢力而造作故。前七是業身。語業故。亦業之道。思所游故。由能等起身語業思。託身語業為境轉故。業業之道立業道名。故於此中言業道者。具顯業道業業道業。雖不同類而一為余。世記論中俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『勝數明等述惡見言等』，指的是由染污心所引發的悲嘆和戲論之語。而輪王在世時所作的歌詠等言語，是隨順於出離，與染污心念相違背的，因此這些都不屬於雜穢語的範疇。有人說，其中包含的嫁娶之言，可以歸入雜穢語，但不屬於業道，因為它們屬於輕微的過失，不會引發無表業，而沒有無表業就不能構成業道。以上已經辨析了三種語業，下面應當辨析三種意業。偈頌說： 『惡欲他財貪，憎有情瞋恚，撥善惡等見，名邪見業道。』 論述：對於他人的財物，以不正當的手段貪求，希望據爲己有，或用武力，或用偷竊，這種惡劣的慾望就叫做貪業道。難道不是所有的慾望和愛都叫做貪嗎？比如在《五蓋經》中，佛陀說應該斷除貪慾蓋。世間的貪慾雖然都叫做貪，但並非都屬於業道。因為前面已經說過，諸惡行中攝取的粗重品類才屬於十業道。所以只有對於他人的財物生起惡劣的貪慾，才叫做貪業道。如果不是這樣，那麼貪著自己的財物也應該成為業道了，輪王和北俱盧洲的情況也是如此。對於有情眾生生起憎恨之心，想要加以逼迫，叫做瞋業道。對於善惡等事物的道理，以錯誤的見解加以否定，這種見解就叫做邪見業道。這裡只舉出『撥善惡』作為代表，實際上包含了更廣泛的內容，應該像契經中所說的那樣，包括誹謗因、誹謗果、誹謗二世尊（過去和未來的佛）等總共十一類不同的邪見，即：無施與，乃至廣說。以上已經辨析了十業道的相狀。那麼，依據什麼意義來解釋這些業道的名稱呢？偈頌說： 『此中三唯道，七業亦道故。』 論述：在十業道中，后三種（貪、瞋、邪見）僅僅是道，因為它們是業的道路，所以稱為業道。與它們相應的思，可以稱為業，因為思能使身語行為發生轉變，思的行動能引發身語的行動，思的力量能驅使造作。前七種（殺生、不與取、邪淫、妄語、離間語、粗惡語、雜穢語）是身語的業，也是業的道路，因為它們是思所執行的場所。由於思能夠引發身語的業，並且依託身語的業作為境界而運轉，所以稱為業業之道，因此稱為業道。所以在這裡說『業道』，就既包含了業道（貪、瞋、邪見），也包含了業業之道（殺生等）。雖然它們不同類別，但一個是爲了另一個。在《世記論》中，它們都被包含在內。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Superior Numbers, Brightness, and others describe evil views, words, etc.' This refers to lamentations and frivolous speech arising from a defiled mind. However, the songs and praises of a Wheel-Turning King (Chakravartin) in his time are in accordance with liberation and contrary to defilement; therefore, they are not included in the category of impure speech. Some say that words related to marriage, etc., are included in impure speech but are not considered paths of action (karma-patha) because they are minor offenses and do not lead to non-manifest karma (avyakta). Without non-manifest karma, they cannot be considered paths of action. Having discussed the three verbal actions, we should now discuss the three mental actions. The verse states: 'Coveting others' wealth is greed (lobha), hating sentient beings is hatred (dvesha), denying good and evil is wrong view (mithya-drishti); these are called paths of evil action.' Commentary: To improperly seek others' wealth, desiring to possess it, either by force or by theft, such evil desire is called the path of greed. Is it not the case that all desires and love are called greed? For example, in the 'Sutra of the Five Hindrances,' the Buddha said that the hindrance of greed should be abandoned. Although all worldly greed is called greed, not all of it is a path of action. As previously stated, only the grosser forms of evil actions are included in the ten paths of action. Therefore, only the arising of evil desire for others' wealth is called the path of greed. If it were otherwise, then attachment to one's own property should also become a path of action, as in the case of the Wheel-Turning King and Uttarakuru (Northern Continent). To harbor hatred towards sentient beings, desiring to oppress them, is called the path of hatred. To deny the existence of good and evil with wrong views, this view is called the path of wrong view. Mentioning 'denying good and evil' is representative, and it encompasses a broader range of content. It should be as stated in the sutras, including the slander of cause, the slander of effect, and the slander of the two Lords (Buddhas of the past and future), totaling eleven types of different wrong views, namely: 'There is no giving,' and so on, extensively explained. The characteristics of the ten paths of action have now been discussed. According to what meaning are the names of these paths of action explained? The verse states: 'Among these, the last three are solely paths, the first seven are also paths of action.' Commentary: Among the ten paths of action, the last three (greed, hatred, and wrong view) are solely paths because they are the paths of action, hence the name 'path of action.' The thought (cetanā) associated with them is called action (karma) because thought causes the transformation of body and speech, the actions of thought initiate the actions of body and speech, and the power of thought drives the creation. The first seven (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, and frivolous speech) are actions of body and speech and are also paths of action because they are the places where thought operates. Because thought can initiate the actions of body and speech and relies on the actions of body and speech as objects of operation, they are called paths of action of action. Therefore, when we say 'path of action' here, it includes both the path of action (greed, hatred, and wrong view) and the path of action of action (killing, etc.). Although they are of different categories, one is for the sake of the other. In the 'Treatise on the Cosmos' (Lokasthiti-śāstra), they are both included.
極成故。或業之道故名業道。亦業亦道故名業道。具足應言業道業道。以一為余但言業道。善業道義類此應知。加行後起應名業道。思亦緣彼為境轉故。理亦應說而不說者。為本依本彼方轉故。先說粗品為業道故。又由根本有減增故。令內外物有減有增。二分不然。故非業道。一切惡業道皆現善相違。斷諸善根由何業道。斷續善相差別云何。頌曰。
唯邪見斷善 所斷欲生得 撥因果一切 漸斷二俱舍 人三洲男女 見行斷非得 續善疑有見 頓現除逆者
論曰。惡業道中唯有上品圓滿邪見能斷善根。若爾何緣本論中說。云何上品諸不善根。謂諸不善根能斷善根者。或離欲位最初所除。由不善根能引邪見。故邪見事推在彼根。如火燒村。火由賊起。故世間說被賊燒村。何等善根為此所斷。謂唯欲界生得善根。色無色善先不成故。施設足論當云何通。如彼論言唯由此量是人已斷三界善根。依上善根得更遠說。令此相續非彼器故。何緣唯斷生得善根。加行善根先已退故。如說。如是補特伽羅成就善法。乃至廣說。此中所言成善法者。總說成就加行生得。復言善法隱沒者。此言唯說加行善。將斷善時最初舍故。言有隨俱行善根未斷者。此顯猶有生得善根。彼於後時一切悉斷。由此斷故名斷善根。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為是極成（Paramārtha-satya，究竟真實）的緣故。或者因為是業的道路的緣故，所以名為業道。既是業也是道路的緣故，所以名為業道。完整地說應該是『業道業道』。因為以一為余，所以只說『業道』。善業道的意義也應該像這樣理解。加行（prayoga，預備行為）和後起（prstha-labdha，完成行為）應該名為業道。因為思（cetanā，意志）也緣彼為境而轉的緣故。道理上也應該說，但是沒有說，因為根本（mūla，基礎）是依靠根本，彼方才得以運轉的緣故。先說粗品（sthūla，粗顯）是因為是業道的緣故。又因為由根本有減少和增加的緣故，使得內外之物有減少和增加。二分（dvidhā，兩種）不是這樣，所以不是業道。一切惡業道都與現善（pratyaksa-kusala，現前的善）相違。斷諸善根是由什麼業道呢？斷續善（santāna-kusala，相續的善）的差別是什麼呢？
頌曰：
『唯邪見斷善，所斷欲生得，撥因果一切，漸斷二俱舍，人三洲男女，見行斷非得，續善疑有見，頓現除逆者。』
論曰：
在惡業道中，只有上品圓滿的邪見（mithyā-drsti，錯誤的見解）才能斷善根。如果這樣，為什麼本論中說：『什麼是上品諸不善根？謂諸不善根能斷善根者，或離欲位最初所除。』因為不善根能引生邪見，所以邪見的事情推在彼根上，如同火燒村莊，火是由賊引起的，所以世間說被賊燒村。什麼善根被此所斷呢？是說只有欲界生得（upapatti-labdha，生而具有）的善根。因為色界和無色界的善根先前沒有成就的緣故。《施設足論》（Prajñāpti-pāda-śāstra）應當如何解釋呢？如彼論所言：『唯由此量是人已斷三界善根。』是依靠上善根（adhisthāna-kusala，增上的善根）才能更遠地說，使得此相續不是彼器（bhājana，容器）的緣故。為什麼只斷生得善根呢？因為加行善根先前已經退失的緣故。如說：『如是補特伽羅（pudgala，人）成就善法，乃至廣說。』此中所言成就善法者，總說成就加行和生得。又說善法隱沒者，此言唯說加行善，因為將要斷善時最初捨棄的緣故。言有隨俱行（anubandha，伴隨）善根未斷者，此顯示還有生得善根。彼於後時一切悉斷。由此斷的緣故，名為斷善根。此
【English Translation】 English version: It is because of being ultimately true (Paramārtha-satya). Or, it is named 'path of karma' because it is the path of karma. It is named 'path of karma' because it is both karma and a path. To say it completely, it should be 'path of karma, path of karma'. Because one is taken for the rest, it is only said 'path of karma'. The meaning of the path of good karma should be understood similarly. Preparatory actions (prayoga) and subsequent actions (prstha-labdha) should be named 'path of karma'. Because thought (cetanā) also turns by taking that as its object. It should also be said in principle, but it is not said, because the root (mūla) relies on the root, and that side can then operate. The reason for first speaking of the coarse (sthūla) is because it is the path of karma. Also, because the root has decrease and increase, it causes internal and external things to have decrease and increase. The two divisions (dvidhā) are not like this, so they are not the path of karma. All paths of bad karma are contrary to manifest good (pratyaksa-kusala). By what path of karma are all roots of good severed? What is the difference between severing and continuing good (santāna-kusala)?
Verse:
'Only wrong view severs good, what is severed is the innate of the desire realm, denying cause and effect entirely, gradually abandoning both, humans, the three continents, male and female, sever by view and practice, not by attainment, continuing good with doubt and view, suddenly appearing except for those who commit heinous crimes.'
Treatise:
Among the paths of bad karma, only the supreme and complete wrong view (mithyā-drsti) can sever the roots of good. If so, why does the treatise say: 'What are the supreme roots of unwholesome? They are the roots of unwholesome that can sever the roots of good, or those initially removed in the stage of detachment from desire.' Because the roots of unwholesome can lead to wrong view, the matter of wrong view is attributed to those roots, like a fire burning a village, the fire is started by thieves, so the world says the village was burned by thieves. What roots of good are severed by this? It is said that only the innate (upapatti-labdha) roots of good in the desire realm are severed. Because the good of the form and formless realms has not been previously achieved. How should the Prajñāpti-pāda-śāstra be explained? As that treatise says: 'Only by this measure has a person severed the roots of good in the three realms.' It is by relying on the superior roots of good (adhisthāna-kusala) that one can speak further, making this continuum not a vessel (bhājana) for that. Why only sever the innate roots of good? Because the roots of good from effort have already declined. As it is said: 'Thus, the pudgala (person) achieves good dharmas, and so on.' What is said here about achieving good dharmas refers generally to achieving both effort and innate. Furthermore, when it is said that good dharmas are hidden, this refers only to the good of effort, because it is the first to be abandoned when good is about to be severed. When it is said that there are accompanying (anubandha) roots of good that have not been severed, this shows that there are still innate roots of good. All of them are severed later. Because of this severance, it is called severing the roots of good. This
斷善根何因何位。謂有一類先成暴惡意樂隨眠。后逢惡友緣力所資轉復增盛。故善根減不善根增。後起撥因撥果邪見。令一切善皆悉隱沒。由此相續離善而住。此因此位斷諸善根。何名撥因撥果邪見。謗妙惡行名為撥因。謗果異熟名為撥果。邪見有二。謂自界緣及他界緣。或有漏緣及無漏緣。誰能斷善。應言一切能斷善根。九品善根為可頓斷。如見道斷見所斷耶。不爾云何。謂漸次斷九品邪見。九品善根順逆相望漸次斷故。如修道斷修所斷惑。謂下下品斷上上品。至上上品斷下下品。故本論說。云何名微俱行善根。謂斷善根時最後所舍者。由舍彼故名斷善根。若爾彼文何理。復說云何上品諸不善根。謂諸不善根能斷善根者。不應於此微其理趣。乘前為問其理已成。謂此乘前所斷微善。即問能斷上不善根。前微善根既下品攝。后能斷者理上品收。故於此中不勞徴難。既如修道斷所斷惑。理于中間通起不起。諸律儀果有從加行。有從生得善心所生。若從加行善心生者。律儀先舍后斷善根。然斷善根加行根本皆名斷善。依此故說斷善根位舍諸律儀。若從生得善心生者。隨斷何品能生善根。所生律儀爾時便舍。舍能等起彼隨舍故。為在何處能斷善根。人趣三洲非在惡趣亦非天趣。所以者何。以惡趣中染不染慧不堅牢故。以天趣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 斷善根的原因和階段是什麼？是指有一類眾生，他們先前已經形成了強烈的邪惡意樂和隨眠（煩惱的潛在傾向）。後來又遇到惡友，受到外緣的資助，使得這種邪惡意樂更加增長。因此，善根減少，不善根增加。之後，他們生起否定因果的邪見，使得一切善行都完全隱沒。由於這個原因，他們的相續（生命流）就脫離了善而存在。這就是斷絕一切善根的原因和階段。 什麼叫做否定因果的邪見？誹謗微妙的善惡行為，稱之為否定因（hetu）。誹謗果報的成熟，稱之為否定果（phala）。邪見有兩種：一種是關於自身領域的，一種是關於其他領域的；或者一種是關於有漏的，一種是關於無漏的。 誰能夠斷絕善根？應該說一切眾生都可能斷絕善根。 九品的善根可以一下子全部斷絕嗎？就像見道（darśanamārga）斷除見所斷惑（darśana-heya）那樣嗎？不是這樣的。那是怎樣斷的呢？是逐漸地斷除九品的邪見。九品的善根，按照順逆的順序，逐漸地被斷除。就像修道（bhāvanāmārga）斷除修所斷惑（bhāvanā-heya）一樣，即以下下品斷除上上品，直到以上上品斷除下下品。所以《本論》中說：『什麼叫做微弱的俱行善根？』是指在斷絕善根的時候，最後所捨棄的善根。由於捨棄了它，所以叫做斷絕善根。 如果是這樣，那麼那段經文是什麼道理呢？又說：『什麼叫做上品的不善根？』是指那些能夠斷絕善根的不善根。不應該在這裡對它的道理感到疑惑。承接前面的問題，它的道理已經成立。即這裡承接前面所斷的微弱善根，就問能夠斷除的上品不善根。前面的微弱善根既然屬於下品，那麼後面能夠斷除的，理應屬於上品。所以在這裡不需要再提出疑問。 既然像修道斷除所斷惑一樣，那麼在中間階段，是否可以發起或不發起（善根）呢？各種律儀（śīla）的果報，有的從加行（prayoga）的善心所生，有的從生得（upapatti-labdha）的善心所生。如果從加行的善心所生，那麼律儀先捨棄，然後斷絕善根。然而，斷絕善根的加行和根本，都叫做斷善。依據這個原因，所以說在斷絕善根的階段，捨棄各種律儀。如果從生得的善心所生，那麼隨著斷絕哪一品能夠產生善根的善根，所產生的律儀，在那個時候就捨棄。因為捨棄了能夠等起（samutthāna）律儀的善根，所以律儀也隨之捨棄。 在什麼地方能夠斷絕善根？在人趣（manuṣya-gati）的三洲（tridvīpa），不在惡趣（durgati），也不在天趣（deva-gati）。這是什麼原因呢？因為在惡趣中，染污和不染污的智慧都不堅固。在天趣中...
【English Translation】 English version What are the causes and stages of severing roots of virtue (kuśala-mūla)? It refers to a type of being who has previously developed strong evil intentions and latent tendencies (anusaya). Later, encountering bad friends and being influenced by external conditions, these evil intentions further increase. Consequently, the roots of virtue diminish, and the roots of non-virtue increase. Subsequently, they develop wrong views that deny cause and effect, causing all good deeds to be completely obscured. Due to this reason, their continuum (saṃtāna) exists apart from virtue. This is the cause and stage of severing all roots of virtue. What is meant by wrong views that deny cause and effect? Slandering subtle good and bad actions is called denying the cause (hetu). Slandering the maturation of karmic results is called denying the effect (phala). There are two types of wrong views: one concerning one's own realm and one concerning other realms; or one concerning the contaminated (sāsrava) and one concerning the uncontaminated (anāsrava). Who is capable of severing roots of virtue? It should be said that all beings are capable of severing roots of virtue. Can the nine grades (nava-prakāra) of roots of virtue be severed all at once? Like the path of seeing (darśanamārga) severing what is to be severed by seeing (darśana-heya)? It is not like that. How is it severed then? It is gradually severing the nine grades of wrong views. The nine grades of roots of virtue are gradually severed in a progressive and regressive order. It is like the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) severing what is to be severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya), that is, severing the highest of the highest grade with the lowest of the lowest grade, until severing the lowest of the lowest grade with the highest of the highest grade. Therefore, the 'Treatise' says: 'What is called the subtle co-occurring root of virtue?' It refers to the last root of virtue that is abandoned when severing the roots of virtue. Because of abandoning it, it is called severing the roots of virtue. If that is the case, then what is the reason for that passage? It also says: 'What are the highest grades of non-virtuous roots?' It refers to those non-virtuous roots that are capable of severing the roots of virtue. One should not doubt its reason here. Continuing from the previous question, its reason has already been established. That is, here continuing from the subtle root of virtue that was severed previously, it asks about the highest grade of non-virtuous root that is capable of severing it. Since the previous subtle root of virtue belongs to the lowest grade, then what is capable of severing it should logically belong to the highest grade. Therefore, there is no need to raise further questions here. Since it is like the path of cultivation severing what is to be severed, then in the intermediate stage, can one arise or not arise (roots of virtue)? The fruits of various vows (śīla) arise from either the virtuous mind of effort (prayoga) or the virtuous mind of spontaneous arising (upapatti-labdha). If it arises from the virtuous mind of effort, then the vows are abandoned first, and then the roots of virtue are severed. However, both the effort and the fundamental act of severing the roots of virtue are called severing virtue. Based on this reason, it is said that in the stage of severing the roots of virtue, all vows are abandoned. If it arises from the virtuous mind of spontaneous arising, then as one severs whichever grade of root of virtue that is capable of producing virtuous roots, the vows that arise are abandoned at that time. Because the root of virtue that is capable of initiating (samutthāna) the vows is abandoned, the vows are also abandoned accordingly. Where can the roots of virtue be severed? In the three continents (tridvīpa) of the human realm (manuṣya-gati), not in the lower realms (durgati), nor in the heavenly realms (deva-gati). What is the reason for this? Because in the lower realms, the contaminated and uncontaminated wisdom are not firm. In the heavenly realms...
中現見善惡諸業果故。言三洲者。除北俱盧。彼無極惡阿世耶故。有餘師說。唯贍部洲。若爾便違本論所說。如本論說。贍部洲人極少成八根。東西洲亦爾。如是斷善依何類身。唯男女身志意定故。有餘師說。亦非女身欲勤慧等皆昧鈍故。若爾便違本論所說。如本論說若成女根定成八根。男根亦爾。為何行者能斷善根。唯見行人非愛行者。諸見行者惡阿世耶極堅深故。彼惡意樂推求相續。故名極堅。見遠隨入故名極深。以極堅深故能斷善。諸愛行者惡阿世耶極躁動故。由斯理趣非扇𢮎等能斷善根。又此類人如惡趣故。此善根斷其體是何。善斷應知非得為體。以重邪見現在前時。能令善根成就得滅。不成就得相續而生。此位名為善根已斷。故善斷體即是非得。前已成立非得實有。善根斷已由何復續。由疑有見謂續善位或由因力或依善友。有于因果欻復生疑。所招後世為無為有。有于因果欻生正見。定有後世先執是邪。爾時善根成就得還起。不成就得滅名續善根。九品善根頓續漸起。如頓除病氣力漸增。于現身中能續善不。亦有能續除造逆人。有餘師言。斷見增者亦非現世。能續善根依彼二人。經作是說。彼定於現法不能續善根。彼人定從地獄將沒。或即于彼將受生時能續善根非餘位。故言將生位謂中有中。將歿時言謂彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為（我們）在中（間）可以親眼見到善惡諸業的果報。所說的三洲，是除去北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以享樂著稱）。因為那裡沒有極端的惡劣習性（Āśaya，潛在的傾向或習慣）。有其他論師說，只有贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，我們所居住的洲）。如果這樣說，就違背了本論的說法。如本論所說，贍部洲的人極少能成就八根（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、末那、阿賴耶識八種識根）。東西洲也是這樣。像這樣斷善根是依何種身？唯有男女之身，因為他們的意志堅定。有其他論師說，也不是女身，因為她們的慾望、精勤和智慧等都比較遲鈍。如果這樣說，就違背了本論的說法。如本論所說，如果成就女根，必定成就八根，男根也是這樣。什麼樣的人能夠斷善根？唯有見行者（Dṛṣṭi-carita，執著于錯誤見解的人），而不是愛行者（Rāga-carita，受貪愛支配的人）。因為這些見行者的惡劣習性極其堅固深刻。他們的惡意樂於推求相續，所以叫做『極堅』。因為他們的見解深遠且容易隨之深入，所以叫做『極深』。因為極其堅固深刻，所以能夠斷善根。那些愛行者的惡劣習性極其躁動。因為這個道理，所以像扇子等不能斷善根。而且這類人就像惡趣一樣。這種善根斷了，它的本體是什麼？應當知道善斷不是以『得』（Prāpti，獲得）為本體。因為當嚴重的邪見現在前時，能夠使善根的成就之『得』滅失，不成就之『得』相續而生。這個狀態叫做善根已斷。所以善斷的本體就是『非得』（Aprāpti，未獲得）。之前已經成立了『非得』是真實存在的。善根斷了之後，由什麼恢復相續？由懷疑有見，認為可以延續善位，或者由因的力量，或者依靠善友。有人對於因果突然產生懷疑，所招感的後世是無還是有。有人對於因果突然產生正確的見解，確定有後世，之前執著的是邪見。這時，善根的成就之『得』還會生起，不成就之『得』滅失，叫做延續善根。九品善根是頓續還是漸起？就像頓除疾病，氣力逐漸增強一樣。在現世中能夠延續善根嗎？也有能夠延續的，除了造作逆罪的人。有其他論師說，斷見增長的人，也不是在現世能夠延續善根。依靠這兩種人，經書是這樣說的：他們一定在現世不能延續善根。這些人一定會從地獄將要沒入，或者就在他們將要受生的時候，能夠延續善根，不是其他時候。所以說『將生位』是指中有（Antarābhava，中陰身）之中，『將歿時』是指他們（死亡）的時候。
【English Translation】 English version: Because we can directly see the results of good and evil deeds in the middle (realm). The 'three continents' refers to all except Uttarakuru (one of the four great continents, known for its enjoyment). This is because it lacks extreme evil tendencies (Āśaya, latent tendencies or habits). Some other teachers say that it is only in Jambudvīpa (the continent we inhabit). If this were the case, it would contradict what is stated in the original treatise. As the original treatise says, very few people in Jambudvīpa can achieve the eight roots (referring to the eight consciousness roots: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, Manas, and Ālaya consciousness). The same is true for the eastern and western continents. In what kind of body is the root of goodness severed in this way? Only in the bodies of men and women, because their will is firm. Some other teachers say that it is not the female body either, because their desires, diligence, and wisdom are dull. If this were the case, it would contradict what is stated in the original treatise. As the original treatise says, if one achieves the female root, one must achieve the eight roots, and the same is true for the male root. What kind of practitioner can sever the root of goodness? Only those who are view-followers (Dṛṣṭi-carita, those who cling to wrong views), not those who are desire-followers (Rāga-carita, those who are dominated by greed). Because the evil tendencies of these view-followers are extremely firm and deep. Their evil mind delights in seeking continuity, so it is called 'extremely firm'. Because their views are far-reaching and easily followed deeply, it is called 'extremely deep'. Because it is extremely firm and deep, it can sever the root of goodness. The evil tendencies of those who are desire-followers are extremely agitated. Because of this reason, things like fans cannot sever the root of goodness. Moreover, these kinds of people are like evil destinies. What is the substance of this severed root of goodness? It should be known that the severance of goodness is not based on 'attainment' (Prāpti, acquisition). Because when severe wrong views are present, they can cause the 'attainment' of the accomplishment of the root of goodness to be destroyed, and the 'attainment' of non-accomplishment arises in succession. This state is called the root of goodness being severed. Therefore, the substance of the severance of goodness is 'non-attainment' (Aprāpti, non-acquisition). It has already been established that 'non-attainment' is real. After the root of goodness is severed, by what is it restored to continuity? By doubting the existence of views, thinking that the position of goodness can be continued, or by the power of cause, or by relying on good friends. Some people suddenly doubt cause and effect, and whether the future life they attract is non-existent or existent. Some people suddenly have correct views on cause and effect, and are certain that there is a future life, having previously clung to wrong views. At this time, the 'attainment' of the accomplishment of the root of goodness will arise again, and the 'attainment' of non-accomplishment will be destroyed, which is called continuing the root of goodness. Is the continuation of the nine grades of the root of goodness sudden or gradual? It is like suddenly removing a disease, and the strength gradually increases. Can the root of goodness be continued in this present life? There are also those who can continue, except for those who commit heinous crimes. Some other teachers say that those whose severed views increase cannot continue the root of goodness in this present life either. Relying on these two kinds of people, the scriptures say this: they will definitely not be able to continue the root of goodness in this present life. These people will definitely sink from hell, or they will be able to continue the root of goodness at the time when they are about to be born, not at other times. Therefore, 'the position of about to be born' refers to the intermediate state (Antarābhava, the intermediate state of existence), and 'the time of about to die' refers to the time when they (die).
將死。若由因力彼斷善根。將死時續。若由緣力彼斷善根將生時續。由自他力應知亦爾。又意樂壞非加行壞。斷善根者是人現世能續善根。若意樂壞加行亦壞。斷善根者要身壞後方續善根。謂世有人撥無後世名意樂壞。而不隨彼意樂所作非加行壞。見壞戒不壞。見壞戒亦壞。斷善根者應知亦爾。非劫將壞及劫初成有斷善根。壞器世間增上力故。相續潤故。行妙行者不斷善根。以心堅牢有所樂故。斷善邪定四句差別。謂補剌拏未生怨王提婆達多所餘人等。如其次第應知差別。斷善邪見破僧妄語。當知定招無間異熟。余無間業或招無間。或招所餘地獄異熟。已乘義便辯斷善根。今應復明本業道義。所說善惡二業道中。有幾並生與思俱轉。頌曰。
業道思俱轉 不善一至八 善總開至十 別遮一八五
論曰。于諸業道思俱轉中。且不善與思從一唯至八。一俱轉者。謂離所餘貪等三中隨一現起。若先加行所造惡業。貪等余染及不染心現在前時隨一究竟。經主唯說不染污心此言太減。以慢疑等染心起時亦有由先加行所起業道成故。又說加行造惡色業色言太增。無色無容先加行造不染心起業道方成。須簡別故。后如是類例應彈斥。有餘師說。身三業道一一思俱轉。謂殺盜邪淫。理不應然。邪淫必二無遣他為故。必
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：將死之時，如果由於因的力量，那個人斷了善根，那麼善根的延續將在他將死時中斷。如果由於緣的力量，那個人斷了善根，那麼善根的延續將在他將要投生時中斷。由自己和他人的力量導致斷善根的情況，應該知道也是如此。此外，意樂（動機）壞了，但加行（行為）沒有壞，這樣斷善根的人，在現世仍然能夠延續善根。如果意樂壞了，加行也壞了，這樣斷善根的人，要等到身壞命終之後，才能延續善根。意思是說，世上有人否定有後世，這叫做意樂壞了。但是，不隨順那種意樂所做的行為，不算是加行壞了。見解壞了，戒律沒有壞；見解壞了，戒律也壞了。斷善根的情況，應該知道也是這樣。在劫將要壞滅以及劫初形成的時候，不會有斷善根的情況發生，因為器世間增上力的緣故，以及相續得到滋潤的緣故。修行妙行的人不會斷善根，因為他們的心堅固牢靠，有所喜樂的緣故。斷善根和邪定的四句差別是：補剌拏（Purana，六師外道之一）、未生怨王（Ajatasattu，古印度摩揭陀國國王）、提婆達多（Devadatta，釋迦牟尼佛的堂兄弟）以及其餘的人等，應該按照次序瞭解他們的差別。斷善根、邪見、破僧、妄語，應當知道必定會招感無間地獄的異熟果報。其餘的無間業，或者招感無間地獄的果報，或者招感其餘地獄的異熟果報。已經憑藉文義的方便闡述了斷善根，現在應該進一步闡明本業道的意義。在所說的善惡兩種業道中，有幾種是同時產生並且與思（意志）一同運轉的？頌說： 『業道思俱轉，不善一至八，善總開至十，別遮一八五。』 論曰：在各種業道與思一同運轉的情況中，且說不善業，與思一同運轉的，從一種到最多八種。只有一種一同運轉的情況是：離開其餘的貪等三種煩惱，只是其中的一種現起。如果是先前通過加行所造的惡業，貪等其餘的染污心以及不染污心現在生起時，其中的一種達到究竟。經主只說了不染污心，這種說法太少了，因為慢、疑等染污心生起時，也有由先前加行所引起的業道成就的情況。又說加行造作惡的色業，說『色』這個詞太多了，因為無色無容，先前通過加行造作，不染污心生起時，業道才能夠成就。需要加以簡別，後面的類似情況也應該加以駁斥。有其餘的老師說，身的三種業道，每一種都與思一同運轉，也就是殺、盜、邪淫。道理上不應該是這樣，因為邪淫必定是兩種，沒有不涉及他人的情況，必定...
【English Translation】 English version: At the time of death, if due to the power of cause, that person severs their roots of virtue, then the continuation of virtue will be interrupted at the time of their death. If due to the power of conditions, that person severs their roots of virtue, then the continuation of virtue will be interrupted at the time of their rebirth. It should be understood that the situation is the same when the severance of virtue is caused by oneself and others. Furthermore, if the intention (motivation) is corrupted, but the action (conduct) is not, then a person who severs their roots of virtue can still continue their roots of virtue in this present life. If the intention is corrupted and the action is also corrupted, then a person who severs their roots of virtue must wait until after their body is destroyed and their life ends before they can continue their roots of virtue. This means that if someone in the world denies the existence of a future life, this is called a corrupted intention. However, actions that do not follow that intention do not count as corrupted actions. If one's view is corrupted but one's precepts are not, or if one's view is corrupted and one's precepts are also corrupted, it should be understood that the situation is the same for severing roots of virtue. There is no severance of roots of virtue when a kalpa (aeon) is about to be destroyed or when a kalpa is just beginning to form, because of the increasing power of the vessel world and because the continuum is being nourished. Those who practice sublime conduct do not sever their roots of virtue because their minds are firm and they have something they delight in. The fourfold distinction between severing roots of virtue and wrong views is: Purana (one of the six non-Buddhist teachers), Ajatasattu (king of Magadha in ancient India), Devadatta (cousin of Shakyamuni Buddha), and other people, and their differences should be understood in that order. Severing roots of virtue, wrong views, causing schism in the Sangha (Buddhist community), and false speech, it should be known, will definitely bring about the Vipaka (result) of uninterrupted hell. Other uninterrupted karmas may bring about the Vipaka of uninterrupted hell or the Vipaka of other hells. Having already explained the severance of roots of virtue by means of the meaning of the text, now we should further clarify the meaning of the fundamental paths of karma. Among the good and bad paths of karma that have been spoken of, how many arise simultaneously and turn together with thought (volition)? The verse says: 『Paths of karma turn together with thought, unwholesome from one to eight, wholesome generally opens to ten, specifically excluding one, eight, and five.』 The treatise says: Among the various paths of karma that turn together with thought, let us first consider unwholesome karma. The number that turns together with thought ranges from one to a maximum of eight. The situation where only one turns together is when one of the three afflictions of greed, etc., arises, leaving the others. If it is an evil karma created by prior action, when other defiled minds such as greed, etc., or undefiled minds arise, one of them reaches completion. The Sutra master only spoke of undefiled minds, which is too limited, because when defiled minds such as pride and doubt arise, there are also cases where the path of karma arises due to prior action. Furthermore, saying that the action creates evil form karma is too much, because without form or appearance, the path of karma can only be accomplished when an undefiled mind arises through prior action. It is necessary to distinguish this, and similar cases later should also be refuted. Some other teachers say that each of the three bodily karmas turns together with thought, namely killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. This should not be the case, because sexual misconduct must involve two, there is no case where it does not involve another person, it must...
貪究竟故。殺盜自為。亦必二故。設據遣他作應差別言。謂于究竟時貪等不起。又說。雜穢語及貪瞋等三。隨一現前名一俱轉。此亦非理。闕唯言故。如我先說于理為善。二俱轉者。謂行邪行若自行殺盜雜穢語。或遣他為隨一成位。貪瞋邪見隨一現前。若先加行所造惡業貪等余染。及不染心現在前時隨二究竟。經主於此作如是言。謂瞋心時究竟殺業。若起貪位成不與取。或欲邪行或雜穢語。此亦非理。若自究竟則應于殺無勞說瞋。此更無容余究竟故。于盜邪行說貪亦然。說起貪時成雜穢語。此言闕減。容三成故。若先加行於究竟時一一應言貪等隨一。有餘師說。於他命財起欲殺盜心令死時即取。或他婢等住船等中。犯邪行時。盜離本處。此非唯二。以貪瞋中隨其所應必有一故。又說虛誑離間粗惡隨起一時亦二俱轉。此亦非理貪瞋等。三隨其所應容有一故。由此先說于理為善。三俱轉者。謂先加行所造惡業貪等起時隨二究竟。若遣一使作殺等一。自行淫等。俱時究竟。若自作二如理應思。若先加行所造惡業。貪等余染及不染心現在前時隨三究竟。若起貪等余染心時。自成攝離間虛誑語業等使作一等如理應思。有餘師言。遣二使已自行邪行俱究竟時。及語前三隨俱起二此亦非理。淫究竟時定有貪故。發語業道貪等三中容有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為貪求究竟的緣故，親自進行殺生和偷盜。這也必定是兩種原因共同作用的結果。如果根據指使他人作惡的情況來區分，那就是說在達到究竟時，貪等煩惱不一定生起。又有人說，雜穢語以及貪、嗔等三種煩惱，只要其中一種現前，就稱為『一俱轉』。這種說法也不合理，因為它缺少了唯一的言語行為。正如我先前所說，從道理上來說是合理的。『二俱轉』指的是，進行邪淫行為，無論是自己進行殺生、偷盜、雜穢語，還是指使他人去做，只要其中一種行為完成，貪、嗔、邪見中的任何一種現前。如果先前通過加行所造的惡業，以及貪等其他染污，或者是不染污的心現在前時，就會有兩種行為達到究竟。經論的作者對此作了這樣的解釋，認為在生起嗔心時，就完成了殺業；如果生起貪心，就構成了不予而取（偷盜），或者欲邪行，或者雜穢語。這種說法也是不合理的。如果自己完成了殺業，那麼就不需要再說嗔心了，因為沒有其他究竟的可能了。在偷盜和邪淫行為中說貪心也是如此。說生起貪心時，就構成了雜穢語，這種說法缺少了內容，因為可能三種行為同時完成。如果先前通過加行所造的惡業，在達到究竟時，應該說貪等煩惱中的任何一種。還有其他論師說，對於他人的生命或財產，生起想要殺害或偷盜的心，導致他人死亡或被盜取時；或者對於他人的婢女等，在船上等地方，犯邪淫行為時，偷盜行為離開了原來的地方。這不僅僅是兩種行為，因為在貪和嗔之中，必然有一種存在。又有人說，虛誑語、離間語、粗惡語，在生起時也會有兩種行為同時發生。這種說法也是不合理的，因為貪、嗔等三種煩惱中，根據情況，可能有一種存在。因此，先前所說的從道理上來說是合理的。『三俱轉』指的是，先前通過加行所造的惡業，在貪等煩惱生起時，有兩種行為達到究竟。如果指使一個使者去進行殺生等行為，自己進行邪淫等行為，同時達到究竟。如果自己做了兩種行為，應該如理思維。如果先前通過加行所造的惡業，以及貪等其他染污，或者是不染污的心現在前時，就會有三種行為達到究竟。如果生起貪等其他染污心時，自己完成了包括離間語、虛誑語等在內的語業，指使使者去做一件事情等，應該如理思維。還有其他論師說，指使兩個使者，自己進行邪淫行為，同時達到究竟時；以及在說前面三種（虛誑語、離間語、粗惡語）時，同時生起兩種行為，這種說法也是不合理的，因為在淫行達到究竟時，一定有貪心存在。在發出語業之道時，貪等三種煩惱中可能存在。
【English Translation】 English version Due to the nature of ultimate greed (貪究竟故), one personally commits killing and stealing (殺盜自為). This must also be due to two causes (亦必二故). If we differentiate based on instructing others to act, it means that greed and other afflictions do not necessarily arise at the moment of completion. Furthermore, it is said that coarse speech (雜穢語) and greed, hatred, and delusion (貪瞋等三), any one of which manifests is called 'one co-arising' (一俱轉). This is also unreasonable because it lacks the sole verbal action (闕唯言故). As I said before, it is reasonable to say that 'two co-arise' (二俱轉), meaning engaging in wrong conduct (邪行), whether personally committing killing, stealing, or coarse speech, or instructing others to do so, as soon as one of these actions is completed, any one of greed, hatred, or wrong view (貪瞋邪見) manifests. If previously, through preparatory actions (加行), evil deeds were created, and greed and other defilements (貪等余染), or even a non-defiled mind (不染心), are now present, then two actions are completed. The author of the scripture (經主) explains this by saying that when anger (瞋心) arises, the act of killing (殺業) is completed; if greed (貪位) arises, it constitutes taking what is not given (不與取, stealing), or wrong sexual conduct (欲邪行), or coarse speech (雜穢語). This explanation is also unreasonable. If one personally completes the act of killing, then there is no need to mention anger, as there is no other possibility for completion. The same applies to mentioning greed in the context of stealing and wrong sexual conduct. Saying that coarse speech is completed when greed arises is incomplete, as it is possible for all three actions to be completed simultaneously. If previously, through preparatory actions, evil deeds were created, then at the moment of completion, one should say that any one of greed and other afflictions is present. Other teachers (余師) say that when one desires to kill or steal another's life or property (他命財), causing death or theft; or when one commits wrong sexual conduct with another's servant girl (他婢) on a boat (船等中), the act of stealing leaves its original location (盜離本處). This is not just two actions, as there must be either greed or hatred (貪瞋) present, as appropriate. Furthermore, it is said that false speech (虛誑), divisive speech (離間), and harsh speech (粗惡) can also co-arise in pairs. This is also unreasonable, as there could be any one of greed, hatred, or delusion (貪瞋等三), as appropriate. Therefore, as said before, it is reasonable to say that 'three co-arise' (三俱轉), meaning that when greed and other afflictions arise from evil deeds created through preparatory actions, two actions are completed. If one instructs a messenger (使) to commit killing or other actions, and personally engages in wrong sexual conduct, they are completed simultaneously. If one personally commits two actions, one should contemplate this accordingly. If previously, through preparatory actions, evil deeds were created, and greed and other defilements, or even a non-defiled mind, are now present, then three actions are completed. If greed and other defiled thoughts arise, and one personally completes verbal actions including divisive speech and false speech, and instructs a messenger to do one thing, one should contemplate this accordingly. Other teachers say that when one instructs two messengers and personally engages in wrong sexual conduct, and they are completed simultaneously; and when the first three (false speech, divisive speech, and harsh speech) are spoken, and two actions arise simultaneously, this is also unreasonable, because when sexual misconduct is completed, there must be greed present. When the path of verbal action is initiated, there may be any of the three: greed, hatred, or delusion.
一故。設起余心應差別故。四俱轉者。謂欲壞他說虛誑言。或粗惡語。意業道一。語業道三若遣二使自行淫等。若先加行所造惡業。貪等起時隨三究竟。如是等類準例應思。有餘師言。俱說四語。此說非理。應分別故。如是五六七皆如理應思。八俱轉者。謂先加行作六惡業。自行邪欲俱時究竟。余例應思。后三不俱故無九十。何緣邪欲要自究竟非如殺等。遣他亦成殺等遣他染心定故。謂若遣使行殺生等定有染心。遣他行淫容心無染。如嫁女等。又此類惑必現前故。謂由此類煩惱現起。自行殺等令他亦然。非遣他淫惑必如自又自遠離行不應行。非遣他行名自犯故。謂有遠離行不應行。授女與夫自非犯者。若於此境自離殺生。遣他殺時自名殺者。曾聞菩薩將女施他便獲愛果。然非梵行不善業攝。若遣他犯與自作同。豈容安住惡業加行能招福果。或諸菩薩應犯邪行。又離殺等依遮境成。離行邪淫遮己身故。由此非殺一切有情。皆成他勝隨於一切。但有行淫皆名犯重。又理必爾以諸苾芻但遣殺人必成他勝。雖行媒嫁而不犯重。何緣遣離殺不得離殺戒。但遣他殺生便得殺生罪。此例非等非無殺思有遣他殺有無離殺思。而遣他離殺義不同故。又受持戒於此處強舍犯尸羅於他處勝故於犯戒有遣他犯名自犯。若於持戒無遣他持名自持。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一故。如果生起其他心念，就應該有所區別。四者同時發生的情況，是指想要詆譭他人而說虛妄之語，或者說粗暴惡劣的語言。意業道只有一種，語業道有三種。如果派遣兩個使者自己去行淫等行為，或者先前通過努力所造的惡業，在貪等煩惱生起時，隨著三種行為的完成而完成。像這樣的情況，應該按照例子進行思考。有其他老師說，同時說四種語言，這種說法是不合理的，應該加以區分。像五、六、七種情況，都應該按照道理進行思考。八者同時發生的情況，是指先前通過努力做了六種惡業，自己行邪淫的同時完成。其餘情況可以按照例子進行思考。後面的三種情況不會同時發生，所以沒有九種、十種的情況。 為什麼邪淫一定要自己完成，不像殺生等行為，派遣他人也可以完成殺生等行為呢？因為派遣他人殺生等行為，一定會有染污之心。如果派遣他人行淫，有可能心中沒有染污，就像嫁女兒等情況。而且這類迷惑一定會現前，因為由此類煩惱現起，自己行殺生等行為，也會讓他人這樣做。如果派遣他人行淫，迷惑不一定像自己一樣。而且自己遠離不應該做的事情，派遣他人去做，不能算作自己犯戒。因為有遠離不應該做的事情，把女兒嫁給丈夫，自己不是犯戒者。如果對於此種情況，自己遠離殺生，派遣他人殺生時，自己也算作殺生者。曾經聽說菩薩把女兒施捨給他人，便獲得了愛的果報，但這不屬於梵行，不屬於不善業的範疇。如果派遣他人犯戒，和自己做一樣，怎麼能安住在惡業的加行中，還能招來福報呢？或者諸位菩薩應該犯邪行。而且遠離殺生等行為，是依據遮止的對象而成立的，遠離行邪淫是遮止自己的身體，因此不是殺害一切有情，都算作他勝罪。只要對於一切，有行淫的行為，都算作犯重罪。而且道理一定是這樣，因為諸位比丘只要派遣他人殺人，一定會構成他勝罪，即使做媒嫁的事情，也不算犯重罪。 為什麼派遣他人遠離殺生，不能算作遠離殺生戒呢？但是派遣他人殺生，便會得到殺生罪。這個例子不相等，因為沒有殺生的想法，卻有派遣他人殺生的行為；有遠離殺生的想法，而派遣他人遠離殺生的意義不同。而且受持戒律，在此處強烈，捨棄犯戒律，在其他地方殊勝，因此在犯戒方面，有派遣他人犯戒，算作自己犯戒。如果在持戒方面，沒有派遣他人持戒，算作自己持戒。
【English Translation】 English version One reason. If other thoughts arise, there should be a distinction. 'Four occurring simultaneously' refers to wanting to slander others with false speech or harsh language. Mental karma is only one, while verbal karma is three. If one sends two messengers to engage in sexual misconduct, or if evil karma is created through effort, it is completed with the arising of greed and other afflictions, along with the completion of the three actions. Such cases should be considered according to the examples. Some teachers say that speaking four languages simultaneously is unreasonable and should be distinguished. Cases of five, six, and seven should be considered reasonably. 'Eight occurring simultaneously' refers to previously engaging in six evil deeds through effort, with the simultaneous completion of one's own engagement in sexual misconduct. Other examples can be considered accordingly. The last three do not occur simultaneously, so there are no cases of nine or ten. Why must sexual misconduct be completed by oneself, unlike killing, where sending others can accomplish the act? Because sending others to kill involves defilement. Sending others to engage in sexual misconduct may not involve defilement, like marrying off a daughter. Moreover, such delusion will definitely manifest, because with the arising of such afflictions, one's own killing will cause others to do the same. Sending others to engage in sexual misconduct may not involve delusion like one's own. Furthermore, refraining from what should not be done oneself, but sending others to do it, does not count as one's own transgression. Because refraining from what should not be done, like giving a daughter to her husband, is not a transgression. If one refrains from killing in a certain situation, but sends others to kill, one is considered a killer. It has been heard that a Bodhisattva giving his daughter away obtained the fruit of love, but this does not belong to pure conduct and is not included in unwholesome karma. If sending others to transgress is the same as doing it oneself, how can one abide in the effort of evil karma and still reap the fruit of blessings? Or should Bodhisattvas commit sexual misconduct? Moreover, refraining from killing is established based on the object being prevented; refraining from sexual misconduct prevents one's own body. Therefore, not killing all sentient beings constitutes a defeat. As long as there is sexual misconduct, it is considered a grave offense. And the principle must be so, because if monks send others to kill, it will definitely constitute a defeat, even if they act as matchmakers, they do not commit a grave offense. Why does sending others to refrain from killing not count as refraining from the precept of killing? But sending others to kill incurs the sin of killing. This example is not equal, because there is no thought of killing, but there is the act of sending others to kill; there is the thought of refraining from killing, but the meaning of sending others to refrain from killing is different. Moreover, upholding precepts is strong in this place, and abandoning precepts is superior in other places. Therefore, in terms of transgressing precepts, sending others to transgress counts as one's own transgression. If in terms of upholding precepts, there is no sending others to uphold precepts, it counts as one's own upholding.
又先已說。先說者何。謂欲界中惡勝善劣。又緣起法有種種殊不可為難。且如眼識不住色中。亦非住眼隨眼增損而不隨色。又如從心生大顯等不隨心力成善等性。而形善等差別隨心。又語業聲性隨心轉。彈指聲等性不隨心。又他命終方成殺業。他壞不壞成離間等。如是于戒遣他受持無自受持。若於犯戒遣他毀犯有自毀犯。于中遣殺成能殺人。遣他行淫不成淫者。如是已說不善業道與思俱轉數有不同。善業道與思總開容至十。別據顯相遮一八五。二俱轉者。謂善五識及依無色。盡無生智現在前時無散善七。此相應慧非見性故。無色定俱無律儀故。三俱轉者。謂與正見相應。意識現在前時無七色善。四俱轉者謂惡無記心現在前位。得近住近事勤策律儀。六俱轉者。謂善五識現在前時得上三戒。七俱轉者謂善意識無隨轉色正見相應現在前時得上三戒。或惡無記心現前時得苾芻戒。九俱轉者。謂善五識及依無色。盡無生智現在前時得苾芻戒。或靜慮攝盡無生智相應意識現在前時。十俱轉者。謂善意識無隨轉色。正見相應現在前時得苾芻戒。或餘一切有隨轉色正見相應心正起位。別據顯相所遮如是。通據隱顯則無所遮。謂離律儀有一八五。一俱轉者。謂惡無記心現在前時得一支遠離。五俱轉者。謂善意識無隨轉色正見相應現在前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此外，之前已經說過。之前所說的是什麼呢？指的是欲界中惡的力量勝過善的力量，善的力量弱於惡的力量。而且，緣起法有種種不同，難以一一駁斥。例如，眼識不住在色塵中，也不是住在眼根中，而是隨著眼根的增強或減弱而變化，不隨色塵而變化。又如，從心所生的大顯等，不隨心力而成就善等性質，而形體的善等差別則隨心而變化。還有，語業的聲音性質隨心而轉變，但彈指的聲音等性質不隨心而轉變。此外，他人死亡才能構成殺業，他人損壞或不損壞，才能構成離間等罪業。像這樣，對於戒律，勸他人受持，自己卻沒有受持；如果對於犯戒，勸他人毀犯，自己也有毀犯。其中，勸他人殺人，能構成殺人者；勸他人行淫，卻不能構成行淫者。像這樣，已經說過不善業道與思俱轉，數量有所不同。善業道與思總括起來，可以容納至十種。分別根據顯相，遮止一種、八種、五種。兩種俱轉的情況，指的是善的五識以及依于無色界的識。當盡智、無生智現在前時，沒有散善的七種。與此相應的慧，不是見性的緣故。無色定中沒有律儀的緣故。三種俱轉的情況，指的是與正見相應的意識現在前時，沒有七種色界的善。四種俱轉的情況，指的是惡的無記心現在前時，得到近住、近事、勤策律儀。六種俱轉的情況，指的是善的五識現在前時，得到上品的三個戒律。七種俱轉的情況，指的是善的意識沒有隨轉的色法，與正見相應，現在前時，得到上品的三個戒律。或者惡的無記心現在前時，得到苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘）戒。九種俱轉的情況，指的是善的五識以及依于無色界的識，盡智、無生智現在前時，得到苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘）戒。或者靜慮所攝的盡智、無生智相應的意識現在前時。十種俱轉的情況，指的是善的意識沒有隨轉的色法，與正見相應，現在前時，得到苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘）戒。或者其餘一切有隨轉的色法，與正見相應的心的正確生起位。分別根據顯相所遮止的情況就是這樣。通盤根據隱顯，則沒有什麼遮止。指的是離開律儀有一種、八種、五種。一種俱轉的情況，指的是惡的無記心現在前時，得到一支遠離。五種俱轉的情況，指的是善的意識沒有隨轉的色法，與正見相應，現在前時。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, it has already been said. What has been said before? It refers to the fact that in the desire realm, evil prevails over good, and good is inferior to evil. Moreover, the law of dependent origination (緣起法) has various aspects that are difficult to refute one by one. For example, eye consciousness (眼識) does not reside in the object of sight (色), nor does it reside in the eye (眼); rather, it changes with the increase or decrease of the eye, not with the object of sight. Also, like the great manifestations (大顯) arising from the mind (心), they do not achieve the nature of goodness (善) etc. according to the power of the mind, but the differences in form, goodness, etc., change according to the mind. Furthermore, the nature of sound in verbal karma (語業) changes according to the mind, but the nature of the sound of snapping fingers, etc., does not change according to the mind. In addition, the act of killing (殺業) is only completed when another person dies, and the act of sowing discord (離間) etc. is only completed when another person is harmed or not harmed. Like this, regarding precepts (戒), one encourages others to uphold them, but does not uphold them oneself; if regarding breaking precepts, one encourages others to violate them, and one also violates them oneself. Among these, encouraging others to kill constitutes a killer (能殺人); encouraging others to commit adultery does not constitute an adulterer (淫者). Like this, it has been said that unwholesome paths of action (不善業道) and thought (思) occur together, but their numbers differ. Wholesome paths of action and thought, taken together, can encompass up to ten. Separately, according to manifest appearances, one, eight, or five are excluded. Two occurring together refers to wholesome five consciousnesses (五識) and those based on the formless realm (無色). When the exhaustion of knowledge (盡智) and non-arising knowledge (無生智) are present, there are no seven kinds of scattered goodness (散善). The wisdom (慧) corresponding to this is not of the nature of seeing. There are no precepts in the formless samadhi (無色定). Three occurring together refers to when consciousness (意識) corresponding to right view (正見) is present, there are no seven kinds of goodness in the form realm (色善). Four occurring together refers to when an evil, non-specified mind (惡無記心) is present, one obtains the precepts of near-dwelling (近住), near-attending (近事), and diligent training (勤策律儀). Six occurring together refers to when wholesome five consciousnesses are present, one obtains the three superior precepts (上三戒). Seven occurring together refers to when wholesome consciousness without transformed form (無隨轉色), corresponding to right view, is present, one obtains the three superior precepts. Or when an evil, non-specified mind is present, one obtains the Bhikkhu (苾芻, monk) precepts. Nine occurring together refers to when wholesome five consciousnesses and those based on the formless realm, the exhaustion of knowledge and non-arising knowledge are present, one obtains the Bhikkhu precepts. Or when consciousness corresponding to the exhaustion of knowledge and non-arising knowledge, encompassed by meditative absorption (靜慮), is present. Ten occurring together refers to when wholesome consciousness without transformed form, corresponding to right view, is present, one obtains the Bhikkhu precepts. Or when all other minds with transformed form, corresponding to right view, are correctly arising. The exclusions based on manifest appearances are as described. Comprehensively, based on hidden and manifest, there are no exclusions. It refers to being apart from precepts, there are one, eight, or five. One occurring together refers to when an evil, non-specified mind is present, one obtains one branch of renunciation (一支遠離). Five occurring together refers to when wholesome consciousness without transformed form, corresponding to right view, is present.
時得二支等。八俱轉者。謂此意識現在前時。得五支等。善惡業道。於何界趣處。幾唯成就。幾亦通現行。頌曰。
不善地獄中 粗雜瞋通二 貪邪見成就 北洲成后三 雜語通現成 余欲十通二 善於一切處 后三通現成 無色無想天 前七唯成就 除處通成現 除地獄北洲
論曰。且於不善十業道中。那落迦中三通二種。謂粗惡語雜穢語瞋。三種皆通現行成就。苦逼相罵故有粗惡語。怨嘆悲叫故有雜穢語。身心粗強𢤱戾不調由互相憎故有瞋恚。貪及邪見成而不行。無可愛境故。現見業果故。無相害法故無殺生。謂彼但由業盡故死。無攝財女故無盜淫。以無用故無虛誑語。或虛誑語令他想倒。彼想常倒故無誑語。彼常離故。或無用故。無離間語。北俱盧洲貪瞋邪見皆定成就而不現行。不攝我所故。身心柔軟故。無惱害事故。無惡意樂故。唯雜穢語彼通現成。由彼有時染心歌詠。壽量定故無有殺生。無攝財物及女人故無不與取及欲邪行。無誑心故無虛誑語。或無用故常和穆故無離間語。言清美故無粗惡語。彼人云何行非梵行。謂彼男女互起染時。執手相牽往詣樹下。樹枝垂覆知是應行樹不垂枝兩愧而別。除前地獄北俱盧洲。余欲界中十皆通二。謂于欲界天鬼傍生及人三洲。十惡業道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『時得二支等。八俱轉者』，指的是當意識呈現時，會獲得五支等（五種相應的心理活動）。善惡業道在哪些界、趣、處，哪些只是成就，哪些既成就又現行？頌文說：
『不善地獄中，粗雜瞋通二；貪邪見成就，北洲成后三；雜語通現成，余欲十通二；善於一切處，后三通現成；無色無想天，前七唯成就；除處通成現，除地獄北洲。』
論述：在不善的十業道中，地獄中有三種既是成就又是現行，即粗惡語、雜穢語和瞋恚。因為受苦逼迫而互相謾罵，所以有粗惡語；因為怨恨嘆息和悲慘叫喊，所以有雜穢語；因為身心粗暴強硬、乖戾不調，又因為互相憎恨，所以有瞋恚。貪慾和邪見只是成就而不現行，因為沒有可愛的境界。因為親眼見到業報的後果，所以沒有殺生，因為他們只是因為業報耗盡而死亡。沒有可以佔有的財物和女人，所以沒有偷盜和邪淫。因為沒有用處，所以沒有虛誑語，或者說虛誑語會使他人產生顛倒的想法，但他們的想法常常是顛倒的，所以沒有虛誑語。他們總是分離的，或者因為沒有用處，所以沒有離間語。
北俱盧洲的人，貪慾、瞋恚和邪見都是必定成就而不現行。因為他們不執著于『我所』，身心柔軟，沒有惱害的事情，也沒有惡意的快樂。只有雜穢語是既成就又現行，因為他們有時會用染污的心唱歌。因為壽命是固定的，所以沒有殺生。因為沒有可以佔有的財物和女人，所以沒有不予取和欲邪行。因為沒有欺騙的心，所以沒有虛誑語。或者因為沒有用處，而且總是和睦相處，所以沒有離間語。因為言語清晰美好，所以沒有粗惡語。北俱盧洲的人如何行非梵行（非清凈行）呢？當男女之間產生染污心時，他們會牽手前往樹下。如果樹枝垂下來覆蓋著他們，就知道這是應該行淫的樹；如果樹不垂枝，他們就會感到羞愧而分開。
除了地獄和北俱盧洲，其餘欲界中，十種惡業道都是既成就又現行。這裡指的是欲界天、鬼、傍生以及人間的三洲，都有這十種惡業道。
【English Translation】 English version 『When two branches, etc., are obtained, and the eight operate together,』 refers to when this consciousness is present, five branches, etc., are obtained (five corresponding mental activities). In which realms, destinies, and places are wholesome and unwholesome paths of action only accomplished, and which are both accomplished and manifest?
The verse says:
『In unwholesome hells, coarse, mixed, and anger both; greed and wrong views are accomplished; in Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), the latter three are accomplished; mixed speech is both manifest and accomplished; in other desire realms, all ten are both; wholesome in all places, the latter three are both manifest and accomplished; in the Formless and Non-Perception Heavens, the first seven are only accomplished; except for places, both accomplished and manifest; except for hells and Uttarakuru.』
Treatise: Among the ten unwholesome paths of action, in Naraka (hell), three are both accomplished and manifest, namely, coarse speech, mixed speech, and anger. Because of being tormented by suffering and cursing each other, there is coarse speech; because of resentment, lamentation, and miserable cries, there is mixed speech; because of the body and mind being coarse, strong, perverse, and unharmonious, and because of mutual hatred, there is anger. Greed and wrong views are only accomplished and not manifest, because there are no lovely objects. Because the consequences of karma are directly seen, there is no killing, as they only die when their karma is exhausted. There are no possessions or women to seize, so there is no stealing or sexual misconduct. Because there is no use, there is no false speech, or false speech would cause others to have inverted thoughts, but their thoughts are always inverted, so there is no false speech. They are always separated, or because there is no use, there is no divisive speech.
In Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), greed, anger, and wrong views are all definitely accomplished but not manifest. Because they do not cling to 『mine,』 their bodies and minds are gentle, there are no harmful events, and there is no malicious joy. Only mixed speech is both accomplished and manifest, because they sometimes sing with defiled minds. Because their lifespan is fixed, there is no killing. Because there are no possessions or women to seize, there is no taking what is not given or sexual misconduct. Because there is no deceitful mind, there is no false speech. Or because there is no use, and they are always harmonious, there is no divisive speech. Because their speech is clear and beautiful, there is no coarse speech. How do people in Uttarakuru engage in non-brahmacharya (impure conduct)? When a man and a woman develop defiled minds, they hold hands and go under a tree. If the branches of the tree droop down and cover them, they know it is a tree where they should engage in sexual activity; if the tree does not droop its branches, they feel ashamed and separate.
Except for hells and Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), in the remaining desire realms, all ten unwholesome paths of action are both accomplished and manifest. This refers to the desire realm heavens, ghosts, animals, and the three continents of the human realm, all of which have these ten unwholesome paths of action.
皆通成現。然有差別。謂天鬼傍生。前七業道唯有處中攝無不律儀。人三洲中二種俱有。雖諸天眾無有殺天。而或有時殺害余趣。有餘師說。天亦殺天。雖天身支斷已還出。斬首中截則不更生。故欲天中有殺業道。已說不善。善業道中無貪等三。於三界五趣皆通二種。謂成就現行。身語七支無色無想但容成就必不現行。謂聖有情生無色界成就過未無漏律儀。無想有情必成過未第四靜慮靜慮律儀。然聖隨依何靜慮地曾起曾滅無漏尸羅。生無色時成彼過去。若未來世六地皆成。二處皆無現起義者。無色唯有四蘊性故。無想有情無定心故。律儀必託大種。定心二處互無故不現起。余界趣處除地獄北洲。七善皆通現行及成就。然有差別。謂鬼傍生有離律儀處中業道。若於色界唯有律儀。三洲欲天皆具二種。善惡業道得果云何。頌曰。
皆能招異熟 等流增上果 此令他受苦 斷命壞威故
論曰。且先分別十惡業道各招三果。其三者何。異熟等流增上別故。謂於十種若習若修若多所作。由此力故生捺落迦。是異熟果。從彼出已來生此間人同分中受等流果。謂殺生者壽量短促。不與取者資財乏匱。欲邪行者妻不貞良。虛誑語者多遭誹謗。離間語者親友乖穆。粗惡語者恒聞惡聲。雜穢語者言不威肅。貪者貪盛。瞋者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 都通於成就和現行。然而存在差別。即天、鬼、傍生（畜生），前七種惡業道只有處中，沒有不律儀。人類的三洲中兩種都有。雖然諸天眾沒有殺天的情況，但有時會殺害其他道的眾生。有其他論師說，天也會殺天。雖然天的身體肢體斷裂後會恢復，但如果被斬首或攔腰截斷就不會再生。因此欲界天中有殺業道。以上已經說明了不善業道。在善業道中，沒有貪等三（貪嗔癡），於三界五趣都通於兩種，即成就和現行。身語七支在無色界和無想天中只容許成就，必定不會現行。所謂聖者（證悟者）的有情，如果生於無色界，則成就過去和未來的無漏律儀。無想有情必定成就過去和未來的第四禪的靜慮律儀。然而聖者隨其所依的任何靜慮地，曾經生起和滅去的無漏尸羅（戒律），在生於無色界時，成就那些過去的。如果未來世，六地都成就。這兩個地方都沒有現起之義，因為無色界只有四蘊的性質。無想有情沒有定心。律儀必定依託于大種（地水火風），定心和二處互相沒有，所以不現起。其餘的界、趣、處，除了地獄和北俱盧洲，七種善業都通於現行和成就。然而存在差別，即鬼和傍生有離律儀和處中業道。如果對於**，只有律儀。三洲的人和欲界天都具備兩種。善惡業道如何得到果報？頌曰：
皆能招異熟 等流增上果 此令他受苦 斷命壞威故
論曰：首先分別十惡業道各自招感的三種果報。這三種是什麼？即異熟果、等流果、增上果的差別。如果對於十種惡業，經常練習、修習、多次造作，由於這種力量，會生於捺落迦（地獄），這是異熟果。從地獄出來后，來生於此世間人類同分之中，會受到等流果。即殺生者壽命短促，不與取者（偷盜）資財匱乏，欲邪行者妻子不貞良，虛誑語者（說謊）多遭誹謗，離間語者親友不和睦，粗惡語者經常聽到惡聲，雜穢語者言語沒有威嚴，貪婪者貪慾熾盛，嗔怒者
【English Translation】 English version: All are common to both attainment and manifestation. However, there are differences. Namely, gods, ghosts, and animals (tiryak), the first seven karmic paths of evil only have the intermediate, without non-restraint. In the three continents of humans, both types exist. Although the gods do not kill other gods, they sometimes harm beings of other realms. Some teachers say that gods also kill gods. Although the limbs of a god's body can be restored after being severed, if the head is cut off or the body is severed in the middle, they will not be reborn. Therefore, there is the karmic path of killing in the desire realm gods. The above has explained the unwholesome karmic paths. In the wholesome karmic paths, there are no three poisons such as greed, etc. (greed, hatred, delusion), and they are common to both types in the three realms and five destinies, namely attainment and manifestation. The seven branches of body and speech in the formless realm and the non-perceptual realm only allow attainment and will definitely not manifest. So-called noble (enlightened) beings, if born in the formless realm, attain the past and future unconditioned restraints. Non-perceptual beings definitely attain the past and future meditative restraints of the fourth dhyana. However, the noble one, depending on whichever dhyana ground they rely on, the unconditioned shila (precepts) that have arisen and ceased, when born in the formless realm, attain those past ones. If in the future, all six grounds are attained. In both places, there is no meaning of manifestation, because the formless realm only has the nature of the four aggregates. Non-perceptual beings do not have a fixed mind. Restraint must rely on the great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), and fixed mind and the two places mutually lack each other, so they do not manifest. In the remaining realms, destinies, and places, except for hell and Uttarakuru, the seven wholesome karmas are all common to manifestation and attainment. However, there are differences, namely ghosts and animals have the karmic paths of non-restraint and the intermediate. If regarding **, there is only restraint. Humans in the three continents and the desire realm gods all possess both types. How do wholesome and unwholesome karmic paths obtain their results? The verse says:
All can bring about the Vipaka (result of maturation), The Nisyananda (result of outflow) and Adhipati (result of dominance). These cause suffering to others, By taking life and destroying power.
The treatise says: First, distinguish the three results that each of the ten unwholesome karmic paths brings about. What are these three? Namely, the differences of Vipaka (result of maturation), Nisyananda (result of outflow), and Adhipati (result of dominance). If one constantly practices, cultivates, and repeatedly engages in the ten unwholesome karmas, due to this power, one will be born in Naraka (hell), which is the Vipaka (result of maturation). After coming out of hell, one will be born in the human realm and experience the Nisyananda (result of outflow). Namely, those who kill have short lifespans, those who steal lack wealth, those who engage in sexual misconduct have unchaste wives, those who lie are often slandered, those who sow discord have disharmonious friends, those who speak harshly often hear unpleasant sounds, those who speak frivolously lack dignity in their speech, those who are greedy have intense greed, and those who are angry
瞋增。邪見者癡增上。何緣邪見令癡轉增。習異不應令異增長。經主作是釋。彼品癡增故。豈不邪見相應無明。非相用增依邪見故。今觀此義邪見起時。于有事中無行相轉壞現見事。此與貪瞋相應無明。彼癡增重貪瞋于有境有行相轉故。或見行者由邪見力。能令真智遠而更遠。以癡增者邪見便增由癡轉令倒推求故。邪見增者癡復轉增。由見轉令障真智故。由此說邪智是正智近怨。以與無明為朋黨故。是名業道等流果別。如何短壽是殺等流。人壽必應是善業果。經主於此作如是釋。不言人壽即殺業果。但言由殺人壽量短。應知殺業與人命根作障礙因令不久住。此所言義極難了知。若殺為因能招壽短。短名目何法是殺果非壽。譬如金鋌短即是金。壽亦應然短豈非壽。如何可說壽非殺果。若謂殺業能感命災故殺為因非感壽者。此中應辯。何謂命災不可說言。謂刀毒等。刀等但是災之緣故。又不應說是殺等流。彼是有情增上果故。命災命障其義是一。既說殺業作命障因。應辯此中命障何謂若謂命障。即壽不生此復應思為有非有若非有者果。體不成非住本心人。說無為有果若是有者此非異壽便違所說壽非殺果。理應釋言。不說人壽是殺異熟。但應說言是殺生業近增上果。謂雖人壽是善業招。而由殺生增上力故。令彼相續唯經少時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：什麼情況下嗔恨會增長？答：邪見者（認為事物是顛倒的、錯誤的）的愚癡會增長。 問：為什麼邪見會導致愚癡增長？按照常理，不應該讓不同的事物增長。答：經主（論師）是這樣解釋的：因為邪見那一類（與邪見相應的）愚癡會增長。難道邪見不與無明（對事物真相的迷惑）相應嗎？答：不是因為它們的作用而增長，而是因為它們依賴於邪見。 現在觀察這個道理，邪見產生時，對於存在的事物，沒有正確的行相（運作方式），顛倒了對事物的認知。這與貪婪、嗔恨相應的無明不同，後者的愚癡更加嚴重，貪婪、嗔恨對於存在的對象有正確的行相。 或者說，看到修行者由於邪見的力量，使得真正的智慧越來越遠。因為愚癡增長，邪見也會隨之增長，由於愚癡的緣故，導致顛倒的推求。 邪見增長，愚癡又會反過來增長，由於邪見的緣故，障礙了真正的智慧。因此說，邪智是正智的近敵，因為它與無明結為朋黨。這叫做業道（行為的道路）的等流果（相似的結果）的差別。 問：為什麼短壽是殺生的等流果？人的壽命必定是善業的結果。答：經主是這樣解釋的：不是說人的壽命就是殺業的結果，而是說由於殺生，人的壽命會縮短。應該知道，殺業與人的命根（維持生命的根本）作障礙，導致生命不能長久。 這個說法很難理解。如果殺生是導致短壽的原因，那麼『短』這個名稱指的是什麼？如果是殺生的結果而不是壽命，那麼就像金條的『短』就是金子一樣，壽命的『短』難道不是壽命本身嗎？怎麼能說壽命不是殺生的結果呢？ 如果說殺業能感召生命的災難，所以殺生是原因，而不是感召壽命，那麼這裡應該辨析，什麼是生命的災難？不能說是刀、毒等，因為刀等只是災難的緣而已。 也不應該說它是殺生的等流果，因為它是（其他）有情增上果（主要由其他有情造成的果報）。生命的災難和生命的障礙，它們的意義是一樣的。既然說殺業是造成生命障礙的原因，那麼應該辨析，這裡說的生命障礙是什麼？ 如果說生命障礙就是壽命不產生，那麼應該思考，這是有還是沒有？如果說沒有，那麼果的本體就不成立，不是安住于本心的人所說的『無為有果』。如果說有，那麼這就不是另一種壽命，便違背了所說的『壽命不是殺生的結果』。 合理的解釋應該是：不說人的壽命是殺生的異熟果（不同的成熟果報），而應該說是殺生業的近增上果。也就是說，雖然人的壽命是善業招感的，但是由於殺生的增上力的緣故，使得這個（善業的）相續只能維持很短的時間。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Under what circumstances does hatred increase? Answer: The ignorance of those with wrong views (those who perceive things in a distorted or incorrect way) increases. Question: Why does wrong view lead to an increase in ignorance? According to common sense, one shouldn't allow different things to increase. Answer: The Sutra Master (commentator) explains it this way: because the category of ignorance (associated with wrong view) increases. Doesn't wrong view correspond to ignorance (delusion about the true nature of things)? Answer: It doesn't increase because of their function, but because they rely on wrong view. Now, observing this principle, when wrong view arises, regarding existing things, there is no correct characteristic (mode of operation), distorting the perception of things. This is different from the ignorance associated with greed and hatred, where the latter's ignorance is more severe, and greed and hatred have correct characteristics regarding existing objects. Or, it can be said that seeing practitioners, due to the power of wrong view, causes true wisdom to become increasingly distant. Because ignorance increases, wrong view also increases, leading to distorted pursuits due to ignorance. When wrong view increases, ignorance in turn increases, obstructing true wisdom due to wrong view. Therefore, it is said that wrong wisdom is a close enemy of right wisdom because it allies with ignorance. This is called the difference in the outflowing result (similar result) of the path of action (the path of behavior). Question: Why is short life the outflowing result of killing? Human lifespan must be the result of good karma. Answer: The Sutra Master explains it this way: it's not that human lifespan is the result of killing, but that due to killing, human lifespan is shortened. It should be understood that the act of killing obstructs the life-force (the root of maintaining life), causing life to not last long. This statement is difficult to understand. If killing is the cause of short life, then what does the name 'short' refer to? If it is the result of killing and not lifespan, then just as the 'shortness' of a gold bar is gold itself, isn't the 'shortness' of lifespan lifespan itself? How can it be said that lifespan is not the result of killing? If it is said that the act of killing can summon life's calamities, so killing is the cause, not summoning lifespan, then it should be analyzed here, what is life's calamity? It cannot be said to be knives, poisons, etc., because knives, etc., are only the conditions for calamity. Nor should it be said that it is the outflowing result of killing, because it is the predominant result (the main result caused by other sentient beings). Life's calamity and life's obstacle have the same meaning. Since it is said that the act of killing is the cause of life's obstacle, then it should be analyzed, what is the life's obstacle mentioned here? If it is said that life's obstacle is the non-arising of lifespan, then it should be considered, is this existent or non-existent? If it is said to be non-existent, then the substance of the result is not established, not what those who abide in the original mind say, 'non-action has a result'. If it is said to be existent, then this is not another lifespan, contradicting what was said, 'lifespan is not the result of killing'. The reasonable explanation should be: it is not said that human lifespan is the different ripening result (different mature result) of killing, but it should be said that it is the near predominant result of the act of killing. That is to say, although human lifespan is summoned by good karma, due to the predominant power of killing, this (good karma's) continuum can only be maintained for a short time.
。以欲界中不善勝善。有增上力能伏善故。若爾何故說名等流果。顯增上果中有最近故。若二俱立增上果名。則不顯果有近遠別。若謂不然如何不善。以修所斷無覆無記為等流果。與理無違是故可言即人短壽是殺生業所引等流。此十所招增上果者。謂外所有諸資生具。由殺生故光澤鮮少。不與取故多遭霜雹。稼穡微薄果實希小。欲邪行故多諸塵埃。虛誑語故多諸臭穢。離間語故所居險曲。粗惡語故多諸惡觸。田豐荊棘磽確鹹鹵。雜穢語故時候變改。貪故果少。瞋故果辣。由邪見故果少或無。是名業道增上果別。為一殺業感地獄已。復感短壽外惡果耶。有餘師言。即一殺業先受異熟。次近增上后遠增上故有三果。理實殺時能令所殺受苦命斷壞失威光。令他苦故生於地獄。斷他命故人中壽短。先是加行果。后是根本果。根本近分俱命殺生。由壞威光感惡外具。是故殺業得三種果。余惡業道如理應思。由此應準知。善業道三果且於離殺。若習若修若多所作。由此力故生於天中受異熟果。從彼沒已來生人中。受極長壽近增上果。即復由此感諸外具。有大威光遠增上果。余善三果翻惡應說。又契經說八邪支中分色業為三謂邪語業命離邪語業邪命是何。雖離彼無而別說者。頌曰。
貪生身語業 邪命難除故 執命資貪生
【現代漢語翻譯】 以欲界中不善勝善，有增上力能伏善故。如果這樣，為什麼又說它是等流果呢？這是爲了顯示增上果中也有最接近的。如果把二者都稱為增上果，就不能顯示果有遠近的區別。如果說不是這樣，為什麼修所斷的無覆無記不是不善的等流果呢？這與道理沒有衝突，所以可以說某人短壽是殺生業所導致的等流果。這十種業所招感的增上果是：外在的所有資生之具，由於殺生，光澤鮮少；由於不與取（偷盜），多遭霜雹，稼穡微薄，果實稀少；由於欲邪行（不正當的性行為），多諸塵埃；由於虛誑語（說謊），多諸臭穢；由於離間語（挑撥離間），所居住的地方險峻彎曲；由於粗惡語（粗魯惡毒的語言），多諸惡觸，田地充滿荊棘，土地貧瘠且含鹽堿；由於雜穢語（無意義的廢話），氣候變化無常；貪婪導致果實稀少；嗔恨導致果實辛辣；由於邪見（錯誤的見解），果實稀少甚至沒有。這些就是業道增上果的區別。 難道一個殺業在感生地獄之後，還會感生短壽和外在的惡果嗎？有其他論師說，就是一個殺業，先感受異熟果，然後是近增上果，最後是遠增上果，所以有三種果報。實際上，殺生的時候，能讓被殺者受苦、喪命、威光壞滅。使他人受苦，所以會生於地獄；斷他人命，所以在人中短壽。先是加行果，后是根本果。根本近分俱命殺生，由於壞滅威光，感得惡劣的外在資生之具。所以殺業能得到三種果報。其餘的惡業道也應該按照這個道理來思考。由此應該知道，善業道的三種果報，以離殺為例，如果經常練習、修行、多做，由此力量，就能生於天中，感受異熟果。從天界去世后，來生人中，感受極其長壽的近增上果。也因此感得外在資生之具有大威光的遠增上果。其餘善業的三種果報，可以反過來推斷惡業的情況來說明。還有契經中說，八邪支中把色業分為三種，即邪語業、命離邪語業、邪命，這是什麼意思？即使離開了那些（邪語等），而單獨說邪命的原因是什麼呢？頌文說： 『貪愛生命導致身語業，邪命難以去除的緣故，執著生命，資助貪愛生命。』
【English Translation】 In the desire realm, unwholesome deeds overcome wholesome deeds because they have a superior power to subdue the wholesome. If that is the case, why is it called a 'result of outflow' (等流果)? It is to show that among the results of superior power (增上果), there is one that is the closest. If both were called 'results of superior power,' it would not show the difference between near and far results. If you say it is not so, how is it that the uncovered and neutral (無覆無記) that is severed by cultivation is not a result of outflow of unwholesome? This is not contrary to reason, so it can be said that a person's short life is a result of outflow caused by the karma of killing. The results of superior power caused by these ten are: all external necessities of life. Due to killing, their luster is diminished. Due to not giving (不與取, stealing), they often suffer from frost and hail, crops are meager, and fruits are scarce. Due to sexual misconduct (欲邪行), there is much dust. Due to false speech (虛誑語, lying), there is much stench. Due to divisive speech (離間語, sowing discord), the place of residence is dangerous and winding. Due to harsh speech (粗惡語, coarse and malicious language), there are many unpleasant touches, fields are full of thorns, and the land is barren and saline. Due to frivolous speech (雜穢語, meaningless chatter), the weather changes erratically. Greed leads to few fruits. Anger leads to spicy fruits. Due to wrong views (邪見, incorrect views), there are few or no fruits. These are the differences in the results of superior power of the paths of karma. Does one act of killing, after causing rebirth in hell, also cause short life and external bad results? Some teachers say that it is the same act of killing that first experiences the result of maturation (異熟), then the near result of superior power, and finally the far result of superior power, so there are three results. In reality, when killing, it can cause the killed to suffer, lose their life, and destroy their majesty. Causing others to suffer leads to rebirth in hell. Taking others' lives leads to a short life in the human realm. First is the karma of preparation, then the fundamental karma. The fundamental and near aspects both involve killing. Due to destroying majesty, one experiences bad external necessities of life. Therefore, the karma of killing can obtain three results. The other paths of evil karma should be considered in the same way. From this, it should be known that the three results of the paths of wholesome karma, taking abstaining from killing as an example, if one practices, cultivates, and does it often, by this power, one can be born in the heavens and experience the result of maturation. After dying from the heavens, one is reborn in the human realm and experiences the near result of superior power of extreme longevity. Also, due to this, one experiences the far result of superior power of great majesty in external necessities of life. The three results of other wholesome karmas can be explained by reversing the situation of evil karmas. Furthermore, the sutras say that among the eightfold path of wrongness (八邪支), the karma of form (色業) is divided into three: wrong speech karma (邪語業), life apart from wrong speech karma (命離邪語業), and wrong livelihood (邪命). What does this mean? Even if one is separated from those (wrong speech, etc.), what is the reason for separately mentioning wrong livelihood? The verse says: 'Attachment to life leads to karma of body and speech, wrong livelihood is difficult to remove, clinging to life, supporting attachment to life.'
違經故非理
論曰。瞋癡所生語身二業。如次唯名邪語邪業。從貪所生身語二業名邪語邪業。亦說名邪命。以難除故異二別立。貪細能奪諸有情心。極聰慧人猶難禁護。故此對二為極難除。諸在家人邪見難斷。以多妄執吉祥等故。諸出家者邪命難除。所有命緣皆屬他故。為于正命令殷重修。故佛離前別說為一。有餘師執。緣命資具貪慾所生。身語二業方名邪命非余貪生。所以者何。為自戲樂作歌舞等。非資命故。此違經故。理定不然。戒蘊經中觀象斗等。世尊亦立在邪命中。邪受外塵虛延命故。由此非獨命資糧。貪所發身語方名邪命。正語業命翻此應知。何緣業道中先身後語。於八道支內先語後身。以業道中隨粗細說。道支次第據順相生。故契經中言尋伺已發語。
說一切有部順正理論第四十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之十一
如前所說果有五種。何等業有幾果。頌曰。
斷道有漏業 具足有五果 無漏業有四 謂唯除異熟 余有漏善惡 亦四除離系 余無漏無記 三除前所除
論曰。道能證斷及能斷惑得斷道名即無間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 違背佛經的說法是不合道理的。
論述：由嗔恚和愚癡所產生的身語二業，依次只能稱為邪語和邪業。由貪慾所產生的身語二業，可以稱為邪語和邪業，也可以稱為邪命（不正當的謀生手段）。因為貪慾難以去除，所以與前兩者區別開來單獨設立。貪慾非常細微，能夠奪取所有有情眾生的心，即使非常聰明的人也難以禁止和守護。因此，貪慾相對於嗔恚和愚癡來說，是極難去除的。對於在家之人來說，邪見難以斷除，因為他們大多錯誤地執著于吉祥等等。對於出家之人來說，邪命難以斷除，因為所有的生活來源都依賴於他人。爲了使他們重視並修行正命（正當的謀生手段），所以佛陀將邪命與前面的邪語和邪業區別開來單獨說明。有些論師認為，由貪慾所產生的、與維持生命有關的資具，所導致的身語二業才能稱為邪命，其他的貪慾所生則不能。為什麼這樣說呢？因為爲了自我娛樂而作歌舞等行為，不是爲了維持生命。這種說法違背了佛經，所以從道理上來說肯定是不對的。《戒蘊經》中，觀看象斗等行為，世尊也將其歸為邪命，因為這是以不正當的方式來延續生命。由此可見，並非只有與維持生命有關的資糧，由貪慾所發動的身語才能稱為邪命。正語、正業、正命與此相反，應該知道。
為什麼在業道中先說身業，后說語業，而在八正道中先說正語，后說正身呢？因為在業道中是按照粗細的順序來說的，而在八正道中是根據相互順應產生的順序來說的。所以契經中說，在尋伺之後才會有語言。
《說一切有部順正理論》第四十二 《大正藏》第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之十一
如前面所說，果報有五種。什麼樣的業有幾種果報呢？頌詞說：
斷道（能斷煩惱的道）所攝的有漏業，具足有五種果報； 無漏業有四種果報，就是唯獨沒有異熟果； 其餘的有漏善業和惡業，也有四種果報，除去離系果； 其餘的無漏無記業，有三種果報，除去前面所除去的果報。
論述：道能夠證得斷滅，以及能夠斷除煩惱，得到斷道的名稱，也就是無間道（無間道，指修行者在證悟過程中，直接、無間隔地斷除煩惱的智慧）。
【English Translation】 English version Contradicting the Sutras is Unreasonable
Discussion: The two karmas of speech and body arising from anger and ignorance are only called 'wrong speech' and 'wrong action' respectively. The two karmas of body and speech arising from greed are called 'wrong speech' and 'wrong action', and also 'wrong livelihood' (incorrect means of making a living). Because greed is difficult to remove, it is established separately from the previous two. Greed is very subtle and can seize the minds of all sentient beings; even the most intelligent people find it difficult to restrain and guard against it. Therefore, greed is extremely difficult to remove compared to anger and ignorance. For laypeople, wrong views are difficult to eradicate because they mostly cling to auspiciousness and so on. For monks, wrong livelihood is difficult to eradicate because all sources of livelihood depend on others. In order to make them value and practice right livelihood (correct means of making a living), the Buddha distinguished wrong livelihood from the previous wrong speech and wrong action and explained it separately. Some teachers believe that only the karmas of body and speech arising from greed related to the means of sustaining life can be called wrong livelihood; other greed-born actions cannot. Why is this so? Because performing songs and dances for self-entertainment is not for sustaining life. This statement contradicts the Sutras, so it is definitely unreasonable. In the Vinaya Sutra, the World Honored One also classified watching elephant fights and other activities as wrong livelihood because it is an improper way to prolong life. Thus, it is not only the resources related to sustaining life that, when motivated by greed, the resulting actions of body and speech are called wrong livelihood. Right speech, right action, and right livelihood are the opposite of this, and should be understood.
Why is body karma mentioned before speech karma in the path of karma, while right speech is mentioned before right action in the Eightfold Path? Because the path of karma is described in order of coarseness, while the Eightfold Path is described in order of the sequence of mutual arising. Therefore, the Sutra says that speech arises after thinking and contemplating.
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Section 42 by the Sarvastivada School Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 43
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 4.11: Discussion on Karma
As mentioned earlier, there are five types of results. What kind of karma has how many results? The verse says:
Leaky karma associated with the path of severance (the path that severs afflictions) has all five results; Leakless karma has four results, namely, only excluding the result of 'vipaka' (ripening); The remaining leaky good and bad karma also has four results, excluding the result of 'visamyoga' (separation); The remaining leakless neutral karma has three results, excluding the results previously excluded.
Discussion: The path is able to attain severance and is able to sever afflictions, obtaining the name 'path of severance', which is the 'anantharya-marga' (path of immediate consequence, referring to the wisdom that directly and without interval severs afflictions in the process of enlightenment).
道。此道有二種。謂有漏無漏。有漏道業具有五果。等流果者。謂自地中后等。若增諸相似法。異熟果者。謂自地中斷道所招可愛異熟。離系果者。謂此道力。斷惑所證擇滅無為。士用果者。謂道所牽俱有解脫所修及斷。言俱有者。謂俱生法。言解脫者。謂無間生。即解脫道。言所修者。謂未來修。斷謂擇滅。由道力故彼得方起。增上果者。有如是說。謂離自性余有為法。唯除前生。有作是言。斷亦應是道增上果。道增上力能證彼故。若爾何故毗婆沙中。唯說欲界十隨眠斷。為苦法智忍離系士用果。曾不說是增上果耶。非由不說便非彼果。以即彼文說苦法智。為苦法智忍等流士用果。曾不說是增上果故。然實苦法智是彼增上果。而不說者義極成故。此亦應然舉士用果。理則已舉增上果故。非唯可生是增上果。說非擇滅是心果故。離此更無餘果義故。即斷道中無漏道業。唯有四果謂除異熟。余有漏善及不善業亦有四果謂除離系。異前斷道故說為余。次後余言例此應釋。謂余無漏及無記業。唯有三果除前所除。謂除前所除異熟及離系。已總分別諸業有果。次辯果門業有果相。于中先辯善等三業。頌曰。
善等於善等 初有四二三 中有二三四 后二三三果
論曰。最後所說皆如次言。顯隨所應遍前門義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道。此道有二種，即有漏和無漏。有漏的道業具有五種果報：等流果，指的是在同一層次中，後來的狀態與之前的狀態相似，或者增長了類似的法；異熟果，指的是在同一層次中，通過斷除煩惱之道所獲得的令人喜愛的異熟果報；離系果，指的是通過此道的力量，斷除迷惑所證得的擇滅無為；士用果，指的是道所牽引的俱有解脫所修以及斷除。『俱有』指的是俱生法，『解脫』指的是無間生，也就是解脫道，『所修』指的是未來所修，『斷』指的是擇滅，由於道的力量，擇滅才能生起；增上果，有人這樣說，指的是除了自性以外的其他有為法，唯獨不包括前一生。也有人說，斷也應該是道的增上果，因為道的力量能夠證得它。如果這樣，為什麼在《毗婆沙論》中，只說欲界的十種隨眠的斷除，是苦法智忍的離系士用果，卻從來沒有說是增上果呢？並非因為沒有說就不是它的果報，因為在那段經文中，也只說了苦法智是苦法智忍的等流士用果，也從來沒有說是增上果。但實際上，苦法智是它的增上果，只是因為意義已經很明顯了所以沒有說。這裡也應該這樣理解，舉出士用果，道理上就已經包含了增上果。並非只有可以生起的才是增上果，因為經中說了非擇滅是心的果報。除了這些，沒有其他的果報意義了。在斷道中，無漏的道業只有四種果報，即除去了異熟果。其餘的有漏善業和不善業也有四種果報，即除去了離系果。因為與之前的斷道不同，所以說是『其餘』。後面的『其餘』也應該這樣解釋，指的是其餘的無漏業和無記業，只有三種果報，除去了之前所除去的，即除去了異熟果和離系果。已經總的分別了各種業的果報，接下來辨別果報的類別，業的果報的相狀。其中先辨別善、不善、無記三種業。頌說： 『善等於善等，初有四二三，中有二三四，后二三三果』 論說：最後所說的都按照次序來說，顯示了隨所應遍及前面的含義。
【English Translation】 English version The Path. There are two kinds of paths: defiled (with outflows) and undefiled (without outflows). Defiled paths have five kinds of results. The 'equal flow' result refers to subsequent states in the same realm being similar to previous states, or the increase of similar dharmas. The 'result of maturation' refers to the pleasant result of maturation obtained in the same realm by severing the path of afflictions. The 'result of separation' refers to the cessation of suffering (Nirvana) attained by the power of this path, through the eradication of delusion. The 'result of effort' refers to the co-existent liberation cultivated and severed by the path. 'Co-existent' refers to co-arisen dharmas. 'Liberation' refers to the immediately following birth, which is the path of liberation. 'Cultivated' refers to future cultivation. 'Severance' refers to cessation through wisdom (Pratisankhya-nirodha), which arises due to the power of the path. The 'result of increase' is said by some to refer to all conditioned dharmas other than one's own nature, excluding the previous life. Others say that severance should also be a result of increase of the path, because the power of the path can realize it. If so, why does the Vibhasha only say that the severance of the ten latent tendencies (anusaya) of the desire realm is the result of separation and effort of the forbearance of the knowledge of the Dharma of suffering (苦法智忍, kufazhiren), and never says it is a result of increase? It is not that because it is not mentioned, it is not its result. Because in that passage, it only says that the knowledge of the Dharma of suffering is the result of equal flow and effort of the forbearance of the knowledge of the Dharma of suffering, and never says it is a result of increase. But in reality, the knowledge of the Dharma of suffering is its result of increase, but it is not mentioned because the meaning is extremely clear. This should also be understood in the same way. By mentioning the result of effort, the result of increase is already included in principle. It is not only what can arise that is a result of increase, because the sutras say that non-selective cessation (非擇滅, feizemie) is a result of the mind. Apart from these, there is no other meaning of results. Among the paths of severance, undefiled paths have only four kinds of results, namely, excluding the result of maturation. The remaining defiled wholesome and unwholesome actions also have four kinds of results, namely, excluding the result of separation. Because it is different from the previous path of severance, it is called 'remaining'. The subsequent use of 'remaining' should be explained in the same way, referring to the remaining undefiled and neutral actions, which have only three kinds of results, excluding what was previously excluded, namely, excluding the result of maturation and the result of separation. Having generally distinguished the results of various actions, next, we will discuss the categories of results and the characteristics of the results of actions. Among them, we will first distinguish the three kinds of actions: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. The verse says: 'Wholesome is equal to wholesome, etc., initially having four, two, three; in the middle having two, three, four; and finally having two, three, three results.' The treatise says: What is said last is all in order, showing that it applies to the meaning of the previous categories as appropriate.
且善不善無記三業一一為因。如其次第對善不善無記。三法辯有果數后例應知。謂初善業以善法為四果除異熟。以不善為二果。謂士用及增上。以無記為三果除等流及離系。中不善業以善法為二果。謂士用及增上。以不善為三果除異熟及離系。以無記為四果除離系。等流果者。謂見苦所斷一切不善業及見集所斷遍行不善業。以欲界中身邊見品。諸無記法為等流故。后無記業以善法為二果。謂士用及增上。以不善為三果除異熟及離系。等流果者。謂身邊見品。諸無記業以五部不善為等流故。以無記為三果如不善。已辯三性當辯三世。頌曰。
過於三各四 現於未亦爾 現於現二果 未于未果三
論曰。過去現在未來三業一一為因。如其所應以過去等為果。別者謂過去業以三世法各為四果除離系。現在世業以未來為四果如前說。以現在為二果。謂士用及增上。未來世業以未來為三果。除等流及離系。不說后業有前果者。前法定非后業果故。已辯三世當辯諸地。頌曰。
同地有四果 異地二或三
論曰。于諸地中隨何地業。以同地法為四果除離系。若是有漏以異地法為二果。謂士用及增上。若是無漏以異地法為三果。除異熟及離系不墮界故。不遮等流。已辯諸地當辯學等。頌曰。
學於三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 而且，善、不善、無記這三種業，每一種都可以作為因。按照順序，它們分別對應善、不善、無記這三種法，辨析它們所產生的果的數量，後面的情況可以依此類推。也就是說，最初的善業以善法為四種果，除去異熟果（Vipāka-phala，指由業力直接產生的果報）；以不善法為兩種果，即士用果（Puruṣakāra-phala，指通過努力獲得的果報）和增上果（Adhipati-phala，指對其他事物產生影響的果報）；以無記法為三種果，除去等流果（Niṣyanda-phala，指與因相似的果報）和離系果（Visamyoga-phala，指通過修行斷除煩惱而獲得的解脫果）。中間的不善業以善法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果；以不善法為三種果，除去異熟果和離系果；以無記法為四種果，除去離系果。等流果指的是，見苦所斷（Dṛṣṭi-heya，指通過觀察苦諦而斷除的煩惱）的一切不善業，以及見集所斷（Dṛṣṭi-heya，指通過觀察集諦而斷除的煩惱）的遍行不善業，因為欲界（Kāmadhātu，指眾生有情慾和物質慾望的界域）中，身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的我）邊見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi，執著于斷常二邊的錯誤見解）品類的各種無記法是它們的等流果。後面的無記業以善法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果；以不善法為三種果，除去異熟果和離系果。等流果指的是，身見邊見品類的各種無記業，因為五部（Pañca-bhāga，指五種煩惱類別）的不善法是它們的等流果。以無記法為三種果，情況與不善業相同。 已經辨析了三種性質的業，下面辨析三種時態的業。頌曰： 過去於三各四，現在於未亦爾； 現在於現二果，未來於未果三。 論曰：過去、現在、未來這三種業，每一種都可以作為因。按照它們各自的情況，以過去等時態的法作為果。具體來說，過去業以三世（過去、現在、未來）的法各為四種果，除去離系果。現在世的業以未來世的法為四種果，如前面所說。以現在世的法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果。未來世的業以未來世的法為三種果，除去等流果和離系果。不說後面的業有前面的果，是因為前面的法已經確定不是後面業的果。 已經辨析了三種時態的業，下面辨析諸地的業。頌曰： 同地有四果，異地二或三。 論曰：在諸地（Bhūmi，指不同層次的禪定境界）中，無論在哪一地的業，以同一地的法為四種果，除去離系果。如果是有漏（Sāsrava，指有煩惱和業力的）的業，以不同地的法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果。如果是無漏（Anāsrava，指沒有煩惱和業力的）的業，以不同地的法為三種果，除去異熟果和離系果，因為它不墮入界（Dhātu，指三界：欲界、色界、無色界）的範圍。不排除等流果。 已經辨析了諸地的業，下面辨析學等（Śaikṣa，指還在學習階段的聖者）的業。頌曰： 學於三
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, each of the three karmas—wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral—can serve as a cause. In sequence, they correspond to the three dharmas—wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. Analyze the number of fruits they produce, and subsequent cases should be understood analogously. That is, the initial wholesome karma has wholesome dharmas as four fruits, excluding the Vipāka-phala (result of maturation, referring to the direct retribution produced by karma); it has unwholesome dharmas as two fruits, namely Puruṣakāra-phala (result of effort, referring to the retribution obtained through effort) and Adhipati-phala (result of dominance, referring to the retribution that influences other things); it has neutral dharmas as three fruits, excluding Niṣyanda-phala (result of outflow, referring to the retribution similar to the cause) and Visamyoga-phala (result of separation, referring to the liberation obtained by eliminating afflictions through practice). The intermediate unwholesome karma has wholesome dharmas as two fruits, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala; it has unwholesome dharmas as three fruits, excluding Vipāka-phala and Visamyoga-phala; it has neutral dharmas as four fruits, excluding Visamyoga-phala. The Niṣyanda-phala refers to all unwholesome karmas severed by seeing suffering (Dṛṣṭi-heya, referring to afflictions eliminated by observing the truth of suffering) and the pervasive unwholesome karmas severed by seeing origination (Dṛṣṭi-heya, referring to afflictions eliminated by observing the truth of origination), because the neutral dharmas of the Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self, the mistaken view that the aggregate of five skandhas is a real self) and Antagrahadṛṣṭi (extreme views, the mistaken views clinging to the extremes of permanence and annihilation) categories in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm, the realm of beings with sensual and material desires) are their Niṣyanda-phala. The subsequent neutral karma has wholesome dharmas as two fruits, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala; it has unwholesome dharmas as three fruits, excluding Vipāka-phala and Visamyoga-phala. The Niṣyanda-phala refers to the various neutral karmas of the Satkāya-dṛṣṭi and Antagrahadṛṣṭi categories, because the unwholesome dharmas of the five categories (Pañca-bhāga, referring to the five categories of afflictions) are their Niṣyanda-phala. Neutral dharmas have three fruits, the situation is the same as unwholesome karma. Having analyzed the three natures of karma, let's analyze the three times of karma. The verse says: Past in three each four, present in future also thus; Present in present two fruits, future in future fruit three. Commentary: Each of the three karmas—past, present, and future—can serve as a cause. According to their respective situations, they take dharmas of past and other times as fruits. Specifically, past karma takes dharmas of the three times (past, present, and future) each as four fruits, excluding Visamyoga-phala. Present karma takes dharmas of the future as four fruits, as mentioned earlier. It takes dharmas of the present as two fruits, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala. Future karma takes dharmas of the future as three fruits, excluding Niṣyanda-phala and Visamyoga-phala. It is not said that later karma has earlier fruits, because the earlier dharmas are already determined not to be the fruits of the later karma. Having analyzed the three times of karma, let's analyze the karmas of the various grounds. The verse says: Same ground has four fruits, different ground two or three. Commentary: Among the various grounds (Bhūmi, referring to different levels of meditative states), whichever ground the karma is in, it takes dharmas of the same ground as four fruits, excluding Visamyoga-phala. If it is Sāsrava (with outflows, referring to having afflictions and karmic forces) karma, it takes dharmas of different grounds as two fruits, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala. If it is Anāsrava (without outflows, referring to not having afflictions and karmic forces) karma, it takes dharmas of different grounds as three fruits, excluding Vipāka-phala and Visamyoga-phala, because it does not fall into the scope of the Dhātu (realm, referring to the three realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm). Niṣyanda-phala is not excluded. Having analyzed the karmas of the various grounds, let's analyze the karmas of the Śaikṣa (trainee, referring to a holy person still in the learning stage) and others. The verse says: Trainee in three
各三 無學一三二 非學非無學 有二二五果
論曰。學等三業一一為因。如其次第各以三法為果。別者謂學業以學法為三果。除異熟及離系。以無學法為三亦爾。以非二為三果。除異熟及等流。無學業以學法為一果謂增上。理應言二謂加等流。以無學為三果。除異熟及離系。以非二為二果。謂士用及增上。非二業以學法為二果。謂士用及增上。以無學法為二亦爾。以非二為五果已辯學等當辯見所斷等。頌曰。
見所斷業等 一一各於三 初有三四一 中二四三果 後有一二四 皆如次應知
論曰。見所斷等三業如次。一一為因各以三法為果。別者初見所斷業。以見所斷法為三果。除異熟及離系。以修所斷法為四果除離系。以非所斷法為一果。謂增上。中修所斷業以見所斷法為二果。謂士用及增上。以修所斷。法為四果除離系。以非所斷法為三果。除異熟及等流。后非所斷業以見所斷法為一果。謂增上。以修所斷法為二果。謂士用及增上。以非所斷法為四果除異熟。皆如次者隨其所應遍上諸門。略法應爾因辯諸業應復問言。如本論中所說三業。謂應作業不應作業。及非應作非不應作業。其相云何。頌曰。
染業不應作 有說亦壞軌 應作業翻此 俱相違第三
論曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 各三：學、無學各三種業 無學一三二：無學業以學法為一果，無學法為三種果，非學非無學法為兩種果 非學非無學：非學非無學業 有二二五果：以學法為二果，以無學法為二果，以非學非無學法為五果
論曰：學等三種業，每一種都各自作為因，依次以三種法作為果。具體來說，學業以學法為三種果，除去異熟果和離系果。以無學法為三種果也是如此。以非學非無學法為三種果，除去異熟果和等流果。無學業以學法為一種果，即增上果，理應說兩種，即加上等流果。以無學法為三種果，除去異熟果和離系果。以非學非無學法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果。非學非無學業以學法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果。以無學法為兩種果也是如此。以非學非無學法為五種果。已經辨析了學等業，下面應當辨析見所斷等業。 頌曰： 見所斷業等：見所斷業等三種業 一一各於三：每一種都各自以三種法為果 初有三四一：最初的見所斷業，以見所斷法為三種果，以修所斷法為四種果，以非所斷法為一種果 中二四三果：中間的修所斷業，以見所斷法為兩種果，以修所斷法為四種果，以非所斷法為三種果 後有一二四：最後的非所斷業，以見所斷法為一種果，以修所斷法為兩種果，以非所斷法為四種果 皆如次應知：都應當按照順序來理解
論曰：見所斷等三種業，依次每一種都各自作為因，以三種法作為果。具體來說，最初的見所斷業，以見所斷法為三種果，除去異熟果和離系果。以修所斷法為四種果，除去離系果。以非所斷法為一種果，即增上果。中間的修所斷業，以見所斷法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果。以修所斷法為四種果，除去離系果。以非所斷法為三種果，除去異熟果和等流果。最後的非所斷業，以見所斷法為一種果，即增上果。以修所斷法為兩種果，即士用果和增上果。以非所斷法為四種果，除去異熟果。都按照順序，隨其所應地普遍應用於上面的各種情況。簡略地講法應當如此。因為已經辨析了各種業，應當進一步提問，就像本論中所說的三種業，即應作業、不應作業，以及非應作非不應作業，它們的相狀是什麼？ 頌曰： 染業不應作：染污的業是不應作的 有說亦壞軌：有人說，也是破壞軌則的 應作業翻此：應作業與此相反 俱相違第三：與兩者都相違的是第三種業
論曰：
【English Translation】 English version Each Three: Three types of deeds for both learners and non-learners. Non-learner One Three Two: Non-learner deeds have one result from the learning dharma, three results from the non-learning dharma, and two results from the neither-learning-nor-non-learning dharma. Neither Learning nor Non-learning: Deeds that are neither learning nor non-learning. Have Two Two Five Results: Have two results from the learning dharma, two results from the non-learning dharma, and five results from the neither-learning-nor-non-learning dharma.
Treatise says: The three types of deeds, namely learning deeds (學業), etc., each serves as a cause, and each sequentially has three dharmas as results. Specifically, learning deeds have the learning dharma as three results, excluding the Vipāka (異熟) and Vairāgya (離系). Having the non-learning dharma as three results is also the same. Having the neither-learning-nor-non-learning dharma as three results, excluding the Vipāka and Niṣyanda (等流). Non-learning deeds have the learning dharma as one result, namely Adhipati-phala (增上果). It should be said that there are two, namely adding Niṣyanda. Having the non-learning dharma as three results, excluding the Vipāka and Vairāgya. Having the neither-learning-nor-non-learning dharma as two results, namely Puruṣakāra-phala (士用果) and Adhipati-phala. Neither-learning-nor-non-learning deeds have the learning dharma as two results, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala. Having the non-learning dharma as two results is also the same. Having the neither-learning-nor-non-learning dharma as five results. Having already distinguished the learning deeds, etc., we should now distinguish the deeds to be abandoned by seeing (見所斷) etc. Verse says: Deeds to be Abandoned by Seeing, etc.: The three types of deeds to be abandoned by seeing, etc. Each One in Three: Each one individually has three dharmas as results. Initially Having Three Four One: Initially, the deeds to be abandoned by seeing have the dharma to be abandoned by seeing as three results, the dharma to be abandoned by cultivation as four results, and the dharma that is not to be abandoned as one result. In the Middle Two Four Three Results: In the middle, the deeds to be abandoned by cultivation have the dharma to be abandoned by seeing as two results, the dharma to be abandoned by cultivation as four results, and the dharma that is not to be abandoned as three results. Finally Having One Two Four: Finally, the deeds that are not to be abandoned have the dharma to be abandoned by seeing as one result, the dharma to be abandoned by cultivation as two results, and the dharma that is not to be abandoned as four results. All Should Be Understood in Sequence: All should be understood in sequence, as appropriate.
Treatise says: The three types of deeds to be abandoned by seeing, etc., each sequentially serves as a cause, with three dharmas as results. Specifically, initially, the deeds to be abandoned by seeing have the dharma to be abandoned by seeing as three results, excluding Vipāka and Vairāgya. Having the dharma to be abandoned by cultivation as four results, excluding Vairāgya. Having the dharma that is not to be abandoned as one result, namely Adhipati-phala. In the middle, the deeds to be abandoned by cultivation have the dharma to be abandoned by seeing as two results, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala. Having the dharma to be abandoned by cultivation as four results, excluding Vairāgya. Having the dharma that is not to be abandoned as three results, excluding Vipāka and Niṣyanda. Finally, the deeds that are not to be abandoned have the dharma to be abandoned by seeing as one result, namely Adhipati-phala. Having the dharma to be abandoned by cultivation as two results, namely Puruṣakāra-phala and Adhipati-phala. Having the dharma that is not to be abandoned as four results, excluding Vipāka. All in sequence, as appropriate, universally applied to the above situations. Briefly speaking, the dharma should be like this. Because the various deeds have already been distinguished, we should further ask, as the three types of deeds mentioned in this treatise, namely deeds that should be done, deeds that should not be done, and deeds that are neither should be done nor should not be done, what are their characteristics? Verse says: Defiled Deeds Should Not Be Done: Defiled deeds are those that should not be done. Some Say Also Break the Rules: Some say that they also break the rules. Deeds That Should Be Done Are the Opposite of This: Deeds that should be done are the opposite of this. The Third Is Contrary to Both: The third type of deeds is contrary to both.
Treatise says:
。有說染污身語意業名不應作。以從非理作意生故。有餘師言。諸壞軌則身語意業。設是不染亦不應作。由彼不合世軌則故。謂諸無覆無記身業。若住若行若飲食等。諸有不合世俗禮儀。皆說名為壞軌身業。諸有無覆無記語業。壞形言時及作者等。但有不合世俗禮儀皆說名為壞軌。語業等起前二思名壞軌。意業此及染業名不應作。應作業者與此相翻。俱違前二是第三業。若依世俗后亦可然。若就勝義前說為善。謂唯善業名為應作。唯諸染業名不應作。無覆無記身語意業。名非應作非不應作。然非一切不應作業皆惡行攝。唯有不善是惡性故得惡行名。以招愛果名為妙行。招非愛果名為惡行。有覆無記雖是不應作而非惡行攝。由此所行決定不能招愛非愛果故。今於此中復應思擇。為由一業但引一生。為引多生。又為一生但一業引。為多業引。頌曰。
一業引一生 多業能圓滿
論曰。若依正理應決定說。但由一業唯引一生。此一生言顯眾同分。以得同分方說名生。若說一生由多業引。或說一業能引多生。如是二言于理何失。且初有失。謂一生中前業果終后業果起。業果別故應有死生。或應多生無死生。理業果終起如一生故。二俱有過。一本有中應有眾多死生有故。或應乃至無餘涅槃中間永無死及生故。何緣定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人說，染污的身語意業不應該做，因為它從不如理作意產生。還有其他老師說，凡是破壞規矩的身語意業，即使是不染污的，也不應該做，因為它不符合世俗的規矩。例如，那些無覆無記的身業，如站立、行走、飲食等，凡是不符合世俗禮儀的，都叫做破壞規矩的身業。那些無覆無記的語業，如改變形狀的言語，以及作者等等，只要不符合世俗禮儀，都叫做破壞規矩的語業。等起前二者的思，叫做破壞規矩的意業。這些以及染污的意業，都不應該做。應該做的業，與此相反。兩者都違背前二者，是第三種業。如果依據世俗的觀點，後者也可以這樣認為。如果就勝義的觀點來說，前者是好的，也就是說，只有善業才叫做應該做的。只有染污的業才叫做不應該做的。無覆無記的身語意業，叫做非應該做，也非不應該做。然而，並非所有不應該做的業都屬於惡行。只有不善的業才是惡性的，才叫做惡行。因為招感可愛果的叫做妙行，招感不可愛果的叫做惡行。有覆無記雖然是不應該做的，但不屬於惡行，因為這種行為決定不能招感可愛或不可愛的果報。現在在這裡應該進一步思考，是由一個業只引發一生，還是引發多生？又或者，一生只由一個業引發，還是由多個業引發？頌文說： 『一個業引發一生，多個業能夠圓滿。』 論述說：如果依據正理，應該確定地說，只由一個業引發一生。這裡說的一生，顯示的是眾同分（samatābhāga，同一類眾生的共性），因為得到同分才叫做生。如果說一生由多個業引發，或者說一個業能引發多生，那麼這兩種說法在道理上有什麼缺失呢？首先，第一種說法有缺失，即一生中前一個業的果報結束，后一個業的果報生起，由於業的果報不同，應該有死亡和出生。或者應該有多次出生而沒有死亡和出生，因為業的果報結束和生起就像一生一樣。兩種說法都有過失，即在一個本有（bhava，存在）中應該有眾多的死亡和出生，或者應該乃至無餘涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）中間永遠沒有死亡和出生。為什麼確定說...
【English Translation】 English version: Some say that defiled actions of body, speech, and mind should not be done, because they arise from irrational attention. Other teachers say that any actions of body, speech, and mind that violate the rules, even if they are not defiled, should not be done, because they do not conform to worldly norms. For example, those indeterminate actions of body that are uncovered, such as standing, walking, eating, etc., all those that do not conform to worldly etiquette are called actions of body that violate the rules. Those indeterminate actions of speech that are uncovered, such as words that distort forms, and authors, etc., as long as they do not conform to worldly etiquette, are called actions of speech that violate the rules. The intention that initiates the former two is called an action of mind that violates the rules. These, as well as defiled actions of mind, should not be done. Actions that should be done are the opposite of these. Both violate the former two, and are the third type of action. If based on the worldly view, the latter can also be considered in this way. If based on the ultimate view, the former is good, that is, only virtuous actions are called actions that should be done. Only defiled actions are called actions that should not be done. Indeterminate actions of body, speech, and mind that are uncovered are called neither actions that should be done nor actions that should not be done. However, not all actions that should not be done are included in evil conduct. Only unwholesome actions are evil in nature and are called evil conduct. Because actions that bring about desirable results are called excellent conduct, and actions that bring about undesirable results are called evil conduct. Actions that are covered and indeterminate, although they should not be done, are not included in evil conduct, because such actions definitely cannot bring about desirable or undesirable results. Now, in this context, we should further consider whether one action only leads to one lifetime, or leads to multiple lifetimes? Or, does one lifetime only arise from one action, or from multiple actions? The verse says: 『One action leads to one lifetime; multiple actions can fulfill.』 The treatise says: If based on correct reasoning, it should be definitively said that only one action leads to one lifetime. The term 'one lifetime' here refers to the commonality of beings (samatābhāga, the common nature of beings of the same kind), because only by obtaining commonality is it called a birth. If it is said that one lifetime arises from multiple actions, or that one action can lead to multiple lifetimes, then what are the faults in these two statements in terms of reason? First, the first statement has a fault, that is, in one lifetime, the result of the previous action ends, and the result of the subsequent action arises. Because the results of the actions are different, there should be death and birth. Or there should be multiple births without death and birth, because the ending and arising of the results of actions are like one lifetime. Both statements have faults, that is, in one existence (bhava, existence), there should be numerous deaths and births, or there should be no death and birth forever until complete nirvana (nirvāṇa, cessation). Why is it certain that...
限一趣處中。有異業果生便有生死。有異業果起而無死生。一業果終餘業果起。理定應立有死有生。又許一生定為多種造作增長業所引故。則應決定無中夭者。或應不受果而永棄彼業。然先已說先說者何。謂理必無時分定業。所感異熟轉余時受。又理必無時分定業非造作增長必受異熟故。若謂有生由定不定多種業引。或復有生唯為多種。定業所引故有中夭。及有盡壽此亦不然。時分果業定不定受無決定故。若有一類中年老年時分果業決定應受嬰孩童子少年果業。不定受者彼復如何。理必無容離前有後。或應前位所有果業必是定受定受果故。然於此中無決定理。令前位業決定受果。令后位業受果不定。故無一生多業所引。后亦有失一業引多生時分定業應成雜亂故。此無雜亂如先已辯。故無一業能引多生。若爾何緣尊者無滅自言。我憶昔於一時于殊勝福田一施食異熟。從茲七返生三十三天。七生人中為轉輪聖帝。最後生在大釋迦家。豐足珍財多受快樂。毗婆沙者已釋此言。一施食為依起多勝思愿。能引位別多異熟生。故作如是言。一施食異熟。不應異熟能復感生。但為顯依一施食境。起多思愿所招異熟分位差別故作是言。或顯初基故作是說。彼由一業感一生中大貴多財及宿生智。乘斯更造感餘生福。如是展轉至最後身。生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在一個趣處（kshetra，處所，領域）中，如果存在不同的業果產生，就會有生死。如果存在不同的業果生起卻沒有生死，那是因為一個業果終結而另一個業果生起。因此，從道理上來說，應該承認有死有生。此外，如果承認一生是由多種造作增長的業所引導，那麼就應該沒有中途夭折的人，或者應該有不受果報而永遠拋棄那些業的情況。然而，之前已經說過，先說的是什麼呢？那就是道理上絕對沒有時分決定的業，所感受的異熟（vipāka，果報，成熟）會轉移到其他時間接受。而且，道理上絕對沒有時分決定的業，不是造作增長就一定會接受異熟。如果說有生命是由決定和不決定的多種業所引導，或者有些生命僅僅是由多種決定業所引導，所以有中途夭折和壽命長短的情況，這也是不對的。因為時分果報的業，決定接受和不決定接受是沒有定論的。如果有一類人在中年或老年時分，果報的業決定應該接受，那麼嬰孩、童子、少年時期的果報的業，不決定接受的那些又該如何呢？道理上絕對不允許離開前一有（bhava，存在，生命）而有後一有，或者應該前一階段所有的果報的業一定是決定接受的，因為是決定接受果報的緣故。然而，在這裡沒有決定的道理，讓前一階段的業決定接受果報，讓后一階段的業接受果報不決定。所以沒有一生是由多種業所引導的說法。如果這樣，後面也會有缺失，一個業引導多個生命，時分決定的業應該會變得雜亂。這種雜亂是不存在的，就像之前已經辨析過的那樣。所以沒有一個業能夠引導多個生命的情況。如果這樣，為什麼尊者無滅（尊者，佛教術語，指受人尊敬的出家人）自己說：『我回憶過去某個時候，在殊勝的福田（punya-kshetra，指可以種福報的場所，如寺廟、僧人等）中，一次佈施食物的異熟，從此七次轉生到三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa，佛教宇宙觀中的一個天界），七次在人間成為轉輪聖王（cakravartin，擁有統治世界的輪寶的理想君王），最後出生在大釋迦（Śākya，釋迦族）家族，擁有豐厚的珍寶財富，享受諸多快樂。』毗婆沙者（Vibhaṣā，論師，註釋家）已經解釋過這句話，一次佈施食物是依靠生起多種殊勝的思愿，能夠引導不同階段的多種異熟生。所以才這樣說，一次佈施食物的異熟。不應該是異熟能夠再次感生，只是爲了顯示依靠一次佈施食物的境，生起多種思愿所招感的異熟分位的差別，所以才這樣說。或者顯示最初的基礎，所以才這樣說。他因為一個業而感得一生中的大富大貴和宿世的智慧，憑藉這些又造作感得其他生命的福報，這樣輾轉直到最後一生。 English version Within a single kshetra (place, field), if different karma results arise, there will be birth and death. If different karma results arise without birth and death, it is because one karma result has ended and another has arisen. Therefore, logically, it should be acknowledged that there is death and birth. Furthermore, if it is accepted that a single lifetime is guided by various accumulated and increasing karma, then there should be no one who dies prematurely, or there should be cases of abandoning those karma without experiencing their results. However, what was said earlier? It is that there is absolutely no karma with a fixed time, and the vipāka (result, maturation) experienced will be transferred to another time to be received. Moreover, there is absolutely no karma with a fixed time, and it is not that if it is accumulated and increased, it will definitely receive vipāka. If it is said that some lives are guided by various fixed and unfixed karma, or some lives are guided only by various fixed karma, so there are premature deaths and varying lifespans, this is also incorrect. Because there is no certainty about whether the karma of time-bound results will be received fixedly or unfixedly. If there is a category of people who, in their middle or old age, should definitely receive the karma of time-bound results, then what about those who do not definitely receive the karma of infants, children, and adolescents? Logically, it is absolutely not permissible to have a subsequent bhava (existence, life) without leaving the previous one, or all the karma of the previous stage should definitely be received, because it is the reason for definitely receiving the result. However, there is no definite reason here to make the karma of the previous stage definitely receive the result, and to make the karma of the later stage receive the result unfixedly. Therefore, there is no saying that one lifetime is guided by various karma. If so, there will also be a deficiency later, and if one karma guides multiple lives, the time-bound karma should become chaotic. This chaos does not exist, just as it has been analyzed before. Therefore, there is no situation where one karma can guide multiple lives. If so, why did Venerable Aniruddha (respected monk) himself say: 'I recall that at one time, in a supreme punya-kshetra (field of merit, referring to places where merit can be cultivated, such as temples, monks, etc.), the vipāka of a single offering of food caused me to be reborn seven times in the Trāyastriṃśa (a heaven in Buddhist cosmology), and seven times as a cakravartin (ideal king with a world-ruling wheel) in the human realm, and finally born into the great Śākya (the clan of Shakyamuni Buddha) family, possessing abundant treasures and enjoying much happiness.' The Vibhaṣā (commentator, exegete) has already explained this statement, that a single offering of food relies on generating various supreme thoughts and aspirations, which can guide the various vipāka births in different stages. That is why it is said that the vipāka of a single offering of food. It should not be that the vipāka can cause rebirth again, but only to show that relying on the circumstance of a single offering of food, the differences in the vipāka stages caused by generating various thoughts and aspirations are why it is said in this way. Or it shows the initial foundation, so it is said in this way. Because of one karma, he experienced great wealth and nobility and past-life wisdom in one lifetime, and relying on these, he created merit to experience the blessings of other lives, and so on until the last life.
【English Translation】 English version Within a single kshetra (place, field), if different karma results arise, there will be birth and death. If different karma results arise without birth and death, it is because one karma result has ended and another has arisen. Therefore, logically, it should be acknowledged that there is death and birth. Furthermore, if it is accepted that a single lifetime is guided by various accumulated and increasing karma, then there should be no one who dies prematurely, or there should be cases of abandoning those karma without experiencing their results. However, what was said earlier? It is that there is absolutely no karma with a fixed time, and the vipāka (result, maturation) experienced will be transferred to another time to be received. Moreover, there is absolutely no karma with a fixed time, and it is not that if it is accumulated and increased, it will definitely receive vipāka. If it is said that some lives are guided by various fixed and unfixed karma, or some lives are guided only by various fixed karma, so there are premature deaths and varying lifespans, this is also incorrect. Because there is no certainty about whether the karma of time-bound results will be received fixedly or unfixedly. If there is a category of people who, in their middle or old age, should definitely receive the karma of time-bound results, then what about those who do not definitely receive the karma of infants, children, and adolescents? Logically, it is absolutely not permissible to have a subsequent bhava (existence, life) without leaving the previous one, or all the karma of the previous stage should definitely be received, because it is the reason for definitely receiving the result. However, there is no definite reason here to make the karma of the previous stage definitely receive the result, and to make the karma of the later stage receive the result unfixedly. Therefore, there is no saying that one lifetime is guided by various karma. If so, there will also be a deficiency later, and if one karma guides multiple lives, the time-bound karma should become chaotic. This chaos does not exist, just as it has been analyzed before. Therefore, there is no situation where one karma can guide multiple lives. If so, why did Venerable Aniruddha (respected monk) himself say: 'I recall that at one time, in a supreme punya-kshetra (field of merit, referring to places where merit can be cultivated, such as temples, monks, etc.), the vipāka of a single offering of food caused me to be reborn seven times in the Trāyastriṃśa (a heaven in Buddhist cosmology), and seven times as a cakravartin (ideal king with a world-ruling wheel) in the human realm, and finally born into the great Śākya (the clan of Shakyamuni Buddha) family, possessing abundant treasures and enjoying much happiness.' The Vibhaṣā (commentator, exegete) has already explained this statement, that a single offering of food relies on generating various supreme thoughts and aspirations, which can guide the various vipāka births in different stages. That is why it is said that the vipāka of a single offering of food. It should not be that the vipāka can cause rebirth again, but only to show that relying on the circumstance of a single offering of food, the differences in the vipāka stages caused by generating various thoughts and aspirations are why it is said in this way. Or it shows the initial foundation, so it is said in this way. Because of one karma, he experienced great wealth and nobility and past-life wisdom in one lifetime, and relying on these, he created merit to experience the blessings of other lives, and so on until the last life.
富貴家得究竟果。如有緣一迦栗沙缽拏。方便勤求息利成千倍。言我本由一迦栗沙缽拏。遂至今時成大富貴。是故一業唯引一生。雖言一生由一業引。而許圓滿由多業成。譬如畫師先以一色圖其形狀后填眾彩。今於此中一色所喻為一類業。為一剎那。若喻一類違此宗理。以非一業引一生。言可約一類類必多故。多引一生不應理故。若言一色喻一剎那。非一剎那能圖形狀。即所立喻于證無能。今見此中喻一類業。如何引業約類得成引一趣業有眾多故。此言意顯一類業中唯一剎那引眾同分同類異類。多剎那業能為圓滿故。說為多故如一色先圖形狀。后填眾彩此言應理。是故雖有同稟人身。而於其中有具支體諸根形量色力莊嚴。或有於前多缺減者。為但由業能引滿生。不爾一切業一果法勢力強故。亦引滿生與此相違能滿非引。如是二類其體是何。頌曰。
二無心定得 不能引余通
論曰。二無心定雖有異熟。而無勢力引眾同分。以與諸業非俱有故。一切不善善有漏得。亦無勢力引眾同分。以與諸業非一果故。諸餘不善善有漏法。皆容通二謂引及滿。薄伽梵說重障有三。謂業障煩惱障異熟障。如是三障其體是何。頌曰。
三障無間業 及數行煩惱 並一切惡趣 北洲無想天
論曰。業障體者。謂
五無間。一者害母。二者害父。三者害阿羅漢。四者破和合僧。五者噁心出佛身血。煩惱障體者。謂數行煩惱下品煩惱。若有數行雖欲伏除難得其便。由彼展轉令上品生。難可伏除故亦名障。上品煩惱若不數行。對治道生易得其便。雖極猛利而非障攝。雖住欲界具縛有情。平等皆成一切煩惱。而現行別為障不同。故煩惱中隨品上下。但數行者名煩惱障。異熟障體者。謂三惡趣全及善趣一分。即北洲無想。何故名障能障聖道。及道資糧並離染故。非唯無間是業障體。所有定業能障見諦一切皆應是業障攝。謂有諸業造作增長。能感惡趣卵生濕生。女身人天第八有等。並感大梵順后受業或色無色一處二生。有此皆無入見諦理。何緣不說是業障收見。此類中有非定故。謂于如是業種類中。皆有強緣可令迴轉。不障聖道及道資糧故。於此中雖有少業不可轉者不立為障。無間種類皆不可轉故。唯於此立為業障。毗婆沙說此五因緣。易見易知說為業障。謂處趣生果及補特伽羅。處謂此五定以母等為起處故。趣謂此五定以地獄為所趣故。生謂此五定無間生感異熟故。果謂此五決定能招非愛果故。補特伽羅謂此五逆依行重惑補特伽羅。共了此人能害母等。餘業不爾不立為障。余障廢立如應當知。此三障中煩惱最重。以能發業業感果故。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五無間罪。一是殺害母親。二是殺害父親。三是殺害阿羅漢（梵文：Arhat，指斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）。四是破壞僧團的和合。五是懷著惡意使佛陀流血。 煩惱障的本體，指的是經常發生的煩惱，以及下品的煩惱。如果煩惱經常發生，即使想要降伏消除，也很難找到機會。因為這些煩惱會輾轉相生，導致上品煩惱產生，難以降伏消除，所以也稱為『障』。上品煩惱如果不經常發生，當對治之道生起時，就容易找到機會。雖然極其猛烈，但並不屬於『障』的範疇。雖然住在欲界的具縛有情（指被煩惱束縛的眾生），平等地具有一切煩惱，但現行的煩惱不同，所造成的障礙也不同。因此，在各種煩惱中，只有那些經常發生的，才稱為煩惱障。 異熟障的本體，指的是三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）的全部，以及善趣（人、天）的一部分，即北俱盧洲和無想天。為什麼稱為『障』呢？因為它能障礙聖道（指通往解脫的道路），以及修道的資糧，並且遠離染污。並非只有五無間罪才是業障的本體。所有能障礙見諦（指證悟真理）的定業，都應該屬於業障的範疇。也就是說，有些業造作增長，能感得惡趣、卵生、濕生、女身、人天中的第八有（指生命存在的第八個階段）等等，並且能感得大梵天、順后受業（指在來世才成熟的業），或者色界、無色界中的一處或二生。有這些業存在，就沒有證入見諦的道理。 為什麼不把這些業也歸為業障呢？因為這類業中有不定的因素。也就是說，在這些業的種類中，都有強大的因緣可以使其轉變，不障礙聖道和修道的資糧。因此，在這些業中，即使有少部分不可轉變，也不被立為『障』。而五無間罪的種類都是不可轉變的，所以只有這些才被立為業障。《毗婆沙論》中說，這五種因緣容易見到，容易知道，所以說為業障。這五種因緣是：處、趣、生、果、補特伽羅（梵文：Pudgala，指人或眾生）。『處』是指這五種罪業必定以母親等為起始之處。『趣』是指這五種罪業必定以地獄為所趣之處。『生』是指這五種罪業必定感得無間地獄的異熟果報。『果』是指這五種罪業決定能招感不喜愛的果報。『補特伽羅』是指這五逆罪依附於具有深重迷惑的補特伽羅。共同瞭解這個人能殺害母親等。其餘的業不是這樣，所以不立為『障』。其餘的障礙的廢立，應當如實了知。這三種障礙中，煩惱最重，因為它能引發業，業能感得果報。存在。
【English Translation】 English version The five heinous offenses (Panca-anantarya): 1. Harming one's mother. 2. Harming one's father. 3. Harming an Arhat (one who has attained liberation from suffering). 4. Disrupting the harmony of the Sangha (the monastic community). 5. With malicious intent, drawing blood from the body of a Buddha. The substance of the obstacle of afflictions (Klesa-avarana) refers to frequently occurring afflictions and lower-grade afflictions. If afflictions occur frequently, even if one wishes to subdue and eliminate them, it is difficult to find an opportunity. This is because these afflictions give rise to higher-grade afflictions, making them difficult to subdue and eliminate, hence they are also called 'obstacles'. If higher-grade afflictions do not occur frequently, when the antidote arises, it is easy to find an opportunity. Although extremely intense, they are not included in the category of 'obstacles'. Although sentient beings bound by desires (those bound by afflictions) in the desire realm equally possess all afflictions, the afflictions that are currently active differ, and the obstacles they create also differ. Therefore, among the various afflictions, only those that occur frequently are called the obstacle of afflictions. The substance of the obstacle of retribution (Vipaka-avarana) refers to the entirety of the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals) and a portion of the good realms (humans, gods), namely Uttarakuru (the northern continent) and the realm of non-perception (Asamjnasattva). Why is it called an 'obstacle'? Because it can obstruct the holy path (the path to liberation), the resources for practice, and separation from defilements. It is not only the five heinous offenses that are the substance of karmic obstacles. All fixed karma that can obstruct the seeing of truth (Darshana-satya) should be included in the category of karmic obstacles. That is to say, some karma is created and increased, which can cause rebirth in the evil realms, as born from eggs, born from moisture, as a female, the eighth existence in the human and heavenly realms (the eighth stage of existence), etc., and can cause rebirth in the Great Brahma realm, karma that matures later, or one or two births in the form or formless realms. With these karma present, there is no possibility of entering the understanding of truth. Why are these karmas not also classified as karmic obstacles? Because there are uncertain factors in these types of karma. That is to say, within these types of karma, there are strong conditions that can cause them to be reversed, not obstructing the holy path and the resources for practice. Therefore, among these karmas, even if there are a few that cannot be reversed, they are not established as 'obstacles'. However, the types of the five heinous offenses are all irreversible, so only these are established as karmic obstacles. The Vibhasa says that these five causes are easy to see and easy to know, so they are called karmic obstacles. These five causes are: place, destination, birth, result, and person (Pudgala). 'Place' refers to the fact that these five offenses definitely begin with one's mother, etc., as the starting point. 'Destination' refers to the fact that these five offenses definitely have hell as their destination. 'Birth' refers to the fact that these five offenses definitely cause the retribution of uninterrupted hell. 'Result' refers to the fact that these five offenses definitely cause undesirable results. 'Person' refers to the fact that these five heinous offenses are attached to a person with deep delusion. Together, it is understood that this person can harm their mother, etc. Other karmas are not like this, so they are not established as 'obstacles'. The establishment and rejection of other obstacles should be understood accordingly. Among these three obstacles, afflictions are the heaviest, because they can give rise to karma, and karma can cause retribution. Exists.
余師言。煩惱與業二障皆最重。以有此者第二生中亦不可治故。無間何義。此無間業于無間生必受果故。無餘生果業能隔故。有說造逆補特伽羅。從此命終定墮地獄中無間隔故名無間。彼有無間得無間名與無間法合故名無間。如與沙門合故名沙門。三障應知何趣中有。頌曰。
三洲有無間 非余扇𢮎等 少恩少羞恥 除障通五趣
論曰。非一切障諸趣皆有。且無間業唯人三洲。非北俱盧余趣余界。於三洲內唯女及男。非扇𢮎等如無惡戒。有說父母于彼少恩彼于父母少羞恥故。謂彼父母生不具身愛念。又微故言恩少彼于父母慚愧亦微。要壞重慚愧方觸無間罪。然上座言彼扇𢮎等若害母等亦成無間。彼愚癡類作不應作業。豈容乘此生睹史多天。豈但有人作不應作不。生彼天處。即定生地獄故。雖徴責而詞乖理。都無思慮闇發此言。又彼自徴傍生趣等。亦害父母何非無間。便自釋言覺慧劣故。想變壞故。慈愛薄故。豈不此因於扇𢮎等亦容得有故無無間。設許彼類有無間罪。非上座說令少信知故。我所宗于理為善。若有人害非人父母。亦不成逆罪少恩羞恥故。謂彼于子無如人恩子于彼無如人慚愧。已辯業障唯人三洲。余障應知五趣皆有然煩惱障遍一切處。若異熟障全三惡趣。人唯北洲。天唯無想。豈不三洲處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 我的老師說，煩惱障和業障這兩種障礙最為嚴重，因為一旦有了這些障礙，在下一世中也難以消除。什麼是『無間』的含義呢？這是因為造作了無間業，必定在死後立即（無間隔）承受果報。沒有其他的業可以阻隔這個果報的產生。有人說，造作了五逆罪（指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧、出佛身血）的補特伽羅（pudgala，人），從此命終后必定墮入地獄，中間沒有任何間隔，所以稱為『無間』。他們具有無間業，因此得到『無間』的名稱，與無間法相應，所以稱為『無間』，就像與沙門（śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）相應，所以稱為『沙門』一樣。應當瞭解，這三種障礙存在於哪些趣（gati，生命輪迴的去處）中呢？頌文說： 『三洲有無間，非余扇搋等，少恩少羞恥，除障通五趣。』 論述說，不是所有的障礙在所有趣中都有。首先，無間業只存在於人類的三洲（指東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲），而不是北俱盧洲以及其他的趣和其他世界。在三洲之內，只有女人和男人會造作無間業，而不是扇搋（paṇḍaka，不男）等，就像沒有惡戒一樣。有人說，父母對扇搋等的恩情很少，他們對父母的羞恥心也很少。這是因為他們的父母生下不具足的身體，愛念也比較少，所以說恩情少；他們對父母的慚愧也很微弱。必須要摧毀深重的慚愧心，才會觸犯無間罪。然而，上座部（Theravada）的論師說，如果扇搋等殺害母親等，也會構成無間罪。他們這些愚癡的人，做了不應該做的事情，怎麼可能因此而生到兜率天（Tuṣita）呢？豈止是有人做了不應該做的事情，卻能生到兜率天呢？這必定是會直接墮入地獄的緣故。雖然進行了責問，但是言辭不合道理，完全沒有經過思考就隨意發表這種言論。而且，他們自己責問說，傍生趣（畜生道）等也會殺害父母，為什麼不是無間罪呢？然後自己解釋說，是因為覺慧低劣，想念變壞，慈愛淡薄。難道這些原因在扇搋等身上就不可能存在嗎？所以扇搋等沒有無間罪。即使允許他們有無間罪，也不是上座部所說的，這會讓少部分人失去信心。我所宗的觀點在道理上是正確的。如果有人殺害非人類的父母，也不會構成逆罪，因為他們之間的恩情和羞恥心都很少。這是因為非人類的父母對子女沒有像人類父母那樣的恩情，子女對非人類的父母也沒有像人類子女那樣的慚愧。已經辨析了業障只存在於人類的三洲，其他的障礙應當知道五趣都有，然而煩惱障遍佈一切地方，異熟障（vipāka-āvaraṇa，果報障）完全存在於三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生），人類只有在北俱盧洲才有，天人只有在無想天（Asaññasatta）才有。難道三洲之處
【English Translation】 English version: My teacher said that the two hindrances, afflictions and karma, are the most serious, because once you have them, they are incurable in the next life. What does 'Avīci' (uninterrupted) mean? It is because if you commit Avīci karma, you will definitely receive the result immediately (without interruption) after death. No other karma can block the production of this result. Some say that the pudgala (person) who commits the five rebellious acts (killing father, killing mother, killing an Arhat, disrupting the Sangha, shedding the blood of a Buddha) will definitely fall into hell without any interruption after death, so it is called 'Avīci'. They have Avīci karma, so they get the name 'Avīci', and they are in accordance with the Avīci Dharma, so they are called 'Avīci', just like being in accordance with the śrāmaṇa (ascetic), so they are called 'śrāmaṇa'. Which gatis (destinations of rebirth) should we know that these three hindrances exist in? The verse says: 'Avīci exists in the three continents, not in others like paṇḍakas (hermaphrodites), with little kindness and little shame, except for hindrances that pervade the five gatis.' The treatise says that not all hindrances exist in all gatis. First of all, Avīci karma only exists in the three continents of humans (referring to Pūrvavideha, Jambudvīpa, Aparagodānīya), not in Uttarakuru and other gatis and other worlds. Within the three continents, only women and men commit Avīci karma, not paṇḍakas (hermaphrodites) etc., just like there are no evil precepts. Some say that parents have little kindness towards them, and they have little shame towards their parents. This is because their parents gave birth to an incomplete body, and their love is less, so it is said that kindness is less; their shame towards their parents is also very weak. One must destroy deep shame in order to commit Avīci karma. However, the Theravada masters say that if paṇḍakas etc. kill their mothers etc., they will also constitute Avīci karma. These foolish people do things that should not be done, how can they be born in Tuṣita heaven? Not only do people do things that should not be done, but they can be born in that heavenly realm? This must be the reason for falling directly into hell. Although there was questioning, the words were unreasonable, and these words were uttered without any thought. Moreover, they themselves questioned why beings in the animal realm also kill their parents, why is it not Avīci karma? Then they explained that it was because their wisdom was inferior, their thoughts were corrupted, and their compassion was weak. Could it be that these reasons cannot exist in paṇḍakas etc.? Therefore, paṇḍakas etc. do not have Avīci karma. Even if they are allowed to have Avīci karma, it is not what the Theravada school says, which will cause a small number of people to lose faith. My doctrine is correct in reason. If someone kills non-human parents, it will not constitute a rebellious crime, because there is little kindness and shame between them. This is because non-human parents do not have the same kindness towards their children as human parents, and children do not have the same shame towards non-human parents as human children. It has already been analyzed that karma hindrances only exist in the three continents of humans. Other hindrances should be known to exist in all five gatis, but affliction hindrances pervade everywhere, and vipāka-āvaraṇa (result hindrance) completely exists in the three evil gatis (hell, hungry ghosts, animals), humans only have it in Uttarakuru, and devas only have it in Asaññasatta (the realm of non-perception). Could it be that the places in the three continents
扇𢮎等身非聖道器故異熟障攝。無如是理。以于彼生引業所牽同分相續。可成男等為聖道器唯三惡趣。無想北洲決定無容證聖道義。故唯于彼立異熟障。有說彼處唯屬異生。余處皆容與聖者共故不說是異熟障攝。於前所辯三重障中。說五無間為業障體。五無間業其體是何。且上座言三業為體。身業語業一一獨能招異熟果。理難成故以但意業所作事重故。許能感殊勝異熟。此極疏恍。疏恍者何汝已許思依身語轉名身語業。今許意業為無間體。便應暫起欲造逆思即成無間。又言意業所作事重許感殊勝異熟果者。此唯妄許違自宗故。謂若有思動發身語。此思可說所作事重然彼不可說為意業。以依身語二門轉故。若思不能動發身語彼許是意業。然所作非重寧說意業所作事重。若謂動發身語二思是意業思所作重事故。說意業所作重者此亦非理。事非重故唯思不成身語二業。意業引彼事重豈成所作事重。言顯動發身語故所作重非意業思。若觀果思所作重故。亦說意業所作重者。意業前思能引意業果。果事重故亦應名事重。如是則應有大過失。又非意業與身語思。因果性故共感異熟。勿彼意業與彼前思亦因果故同感異熟。如是則應有非愛過。又彼先說證此因。言身業語業獨招異熟難成故者。此言何義豈與意業共招異熟。即令此彼體類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 扇搋（扇子）等身並非聖道之器，因此屬於異熟障所攝，這種說法沒有道理。因為在彼處所生，由引業所牽引的同分相續，可以成就男子等作為聖道之器。只有三惡趣和無想北洲絕對不可能證得聖道，所以才只在這些地方設立異熟障。有人說，這些地方只屬於異生（凡夫），其他地方都可能與聖者共處，所以不說屬於異熟障所攝。在前面所辯論的三重障礙中，說五無間罪為業障的本體。那麼，五無間業的本體是什麼呢？且上座部說，三業（身、語、意）為體，身業和語業各自單獨能夠招感異熟果，這個道理難以成立，因為僅僅是意業所作的事情重大，所以才允許它能感得殊勝的異熟。這種說法極其疏忽恍惚。什麼是疏忽恍惚呢？你已經允許思依身語而轉，名為身語業，現在又允許意業為無間罪的本體，那麼就應該暫時生起想要造逆罪的念頭，就立即成為無間罪。又說意業所作的事情重大，允許感得殊勝異熟果，這只是妄加允許，違背了自己的宗義。如果說有思動發身語，這種思可以說所作的事情重大，然而它不可說是意業，因為它依身語二門而轉。如果思不能動發身語，那麼它被認為是意業，然而所作的事情並不重大，怎麼能說意業所作的事情重大呢？如果認為動發身語的思是意業思所作的重大事情，所以說意業所作的事情重大，這也是沒有道理的，因為事情並不重大。僅僅是思不能成就身語二業，意業引導它們，事情重大，怎麼能成就所作的事情重大呢？說顯現動發身語，所以所作的事情重大，不是意業思。如果觀察果思所作的事情重大，所以也說意業所作的事情重大，意業前思能夠引導意業果，果的事情重大，也應該名為事情重大。如果這樣，就應該有很大的過失。又不是意業與身語思，因為因果關係共同感得異熟，不要讓意業與它前面的思也因為因果關係而共同感得異熟。如果這樣，就應該有不悅意的過失。又他先前說，證明這個原因，說身業語業單獨招感異熟難以成立，這句話是什麼意思呢？難道是與意業共同招感異熟，即使這個和那個體類
【English Translation】 English version The statement that 'a fan or a body of equal size is not a vessel for the holy path, and therefore is included in the obstruction of maturation' is unreasonable. This is because, in those realms, the continuous flow of shared characteristics, driven by the karma that leads to rebirth there, can establish beings like men as vessels for the holy path. Only the three evil realms and the Northern Kurus (Uttarakuru) (a mythical continent where beings are said to live without suffering) are absolutely incapable of attaining the holy path. Therefore, only in those places is the obstruction of maturation established. Some say that those places belong only to ordinary beings (prthagjana), while other places may be shared with holy beings, so they are not said to be included in the obstruction of maturation. Among the three types of obstructions discussed earlier, the five heinous offenses (panca-anantarya) are said to be the essence of karmic obstruction. What is the essence of the five heinous offenses? The Sthavira school (an early Buddhist school) says that the three karmas (body, speech, and mind) are the essence, but it is difficult to establish that bodily and verbal karmas each individually can bring about the fruit of maturation. Because the actions done by mental karma alone are weighty, it is allowed that they can bring about superior maturation. This is extremely careless and confused. What is careless and confused? You have already allowed that thought that relies on body and speech and manifests through them is called bodily and verbal karma. Now, if you allow mental karma to be the essence of the heinous offenses, then merely arising a thought to commit a rebellious act should immediately constitute a heinous offense. Furthermore, saying that mental karma is weighty and allowed to bring about superior maturation is merely a false allowance, contradicting your own tenets. If there is thought that motivates body and speech, this thought can be said to be weighty, but it cannot be said to be mental karma, because it manifests through the doors of body and speech. If thought cannot motivate body and speech, then it is considered mental karma, but the action is not weighty. How can it be said that mental karma is weighty? If it is thought that the thought that motivates body and speech is the weighty action done by mental karma, and therefore it is said that mental karma is weighty, this is also unreasonable, because the action is not weighty. Merely thought cannot accomplish bodily and verbal karmas. Mental karma guides them, and the action is weighty. How can it accomplish a weighty action? Saying that manifesting and motivating body and speech makes the action weighty is not mental karma. If observing the fruit makes the thought weighty, and therefore it is also said that mental karma is weighty, and the preceding thought of mental karma can guide the fruit of mental karma, and the fruit is weighty, then it should also be called a weighty action. If so, there should be a great fault. Furthermore, mental karma and bodily and verbal thoughts are not related as cause and effect in jointly experiencing maturation. Do not let mental karma and its preceding thought also jointly experience maturation because of their cause-and-effect relationship. If so, there should be an undesirable fault. Furthermore, he previously said, proving this reason, that bodily and verbal karmas individually bringing about maturation is difficult to establish. What does this statement mean? Is it jointly bringing about maturation with mental karma, even if this and that are of the same type?
是同。獨思離心能招異熟亦難成故。則應許心是無間體或體是思。又應推徴說有意業是無間者。且害母者由何思力引地獄生。為思惟思為業道思。若思惟思如何于母全未有損害定引地獄生若業道思如何可說非身語業獨能感果。非由思惟思彼方取果故。又彼自許先思惟思后業道思。先是意業後身語業前後相望時相各異無一果理如何可言身業語業獨感異熟。其理難成故彼所言在聖教外。然我所宗決定義者。頌曰。
此五無間中 四身一語業 三殺一誑語 一殺生加行
論曰。五無間中四是身業。一是語業。三是殺生。一虛誑語根本業道。一是殺生業道加行。以如來身不可害故。破僧無間是虛誑語。既是虛誑語何緣名破僧。因受果名或能破故。若爾僧破其體是何。能所破人誰所成就。頌曰。
僧破不和合 心不相應行 無覆無記性 所破僧所成
論曰。僧破體是不和合。性無覆無記。心不相應行蘊所攝豈成無間。如是僧破因誑語生。故說破僧是無間果。非能破者成。此僧破但是所破僧眾所成。此能破人何所成就。破僧異熟何處幾時。頌曰。
能破者唯成 此虛誑語罪 無間一劫熟 隨罪增苦增
論曰。能破僧人成破僧罪。此破僧罪誑語為性。即僧破俱生語表無表業。此必
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果（心）是相同的，那麼僅僅依靠離心（獨思離心）就能招感異熟果報也是難以成立的。因此，應該承認心是無間業的本體，或者說本體就是思。還應該進一步推究，說明意業也是無間業。那麼，殺害母親的人，是依靠什麼樣的思的力量牽引他墮入地獄呢？是思惟思，還是業道思？如果是思惟思，那麼在對母親完全沒有造成損害的情況下，如何能確定會牽引墮入地獄呢？如果是業道思，又如何能說不是身業和語業獨自感果，而是由思惟思在其中起作用才取得果報呢？而且，他們自己也承認先有思惟思，後有業道思。先是意業，后是身語業，前後相望，時間各異，沒有同時產生果報的道理，如何能說身業和語業獨自感得異熟果報呢？這個道理難以成立，所以他們的說法是在聖教之外的。然而，我所宗的決定義是：頌曰： 『此五無間中，四身一語業，三殺一誑語，一殺生加行。』 論曰：五無間業中，四種是身業，一種是語業。三種是殺生（業），一種是虛誑語的根本業道，一種是殺生業道的加行。因為如來的身體不可損害，所以破僧（Sangha）無間是虛誑語。既然是虛誑語，為什麼稱作破僧呢？因為承受果報的名稱，或者因為能夠破壞僧團。如果這樣，僧團被破壞的本體是什麼？能破壞的人和被破壞的人，是誰成就了（破僧業）？頌曰： 『僧破不和合，心不相應行，無覆無記性，所破僧所成。』 論曰：僧團被破壞的本體是不和合，性質是無覆無記，屬於心不相應行蘊所攝，怎麼能成為無間業呢？像這樣，僧團的破壞是因為誑語而產生，所以說破僧是無間果。不是能破壞的人成就了（破僧業），而是被破壞的僧眾成就了（破僧業）。那麼，這個能破壞的人成就了什麼呢？破僧的異熟果報在何處，何時成熟呢？頌曰： 『能破者唯成，此虛誑語罪，無間一劫熟，隨罪增苦增。』 論曰：能破壞僧團的人成就了破僧的罪業。這個破僧的罪業以誑語為性質，即與僧團破裂同時產生的語表業和無表業。這必定（感果）。
【English Translation】 English version: If (the mind) is the same, then it is difficult to establish that merely relying on a separated mind (獨思離心, dusi lixin) can attract different ripening (異熟, yishu) results. Therefore, it should be admitted that the mind is the substance of uninterrupted karma, or that the substance is thought. Furthermore, it should be investigated and explained that mental karma is also uninterrupted. Then, by what power of thought does one who harms their mother get drawn into hell? Is it conceptual thought (思惟思, siwei si) or karmic path thought (業道思, yedaosi)? If it is conceptual thought, how can it be certain to draw one into hell when no harm has been done to the mother? If it is karmic path thought, how can it be said that it is not the physical and verbal actions alone that bring about the result, but that the conceptual thought plays a role in obtaining the result? Moreover, they themselves admit that there is conceptual thought first and then karmic path thought. First is mental karma, then physical and verbal karma. They are different in time, one after the other. There is no reason for them to produce results simultaneously. How can it be said that physical and verbal karma alone bring about different ripening results? This reasoning is difficult to establish, so their statement is outside the teachings of the saints. However, the definitive meaning of what I uphold is: The verse says: 'Among these five uninterrupted (無間, wujian) karmas, four are physical and one is verbal. Three are killing, one is lying, and one is the preparatory act of killing.' The treatise says: Among the five uninterrupted karmas, four are physical karmas and one is verbal karma. Three are killing (業, ye), one is the fundamental karmic path of false speech, and one is the preparatory act of the karmic path of killing. Because the body of the Tathagata cannot be harmed, the uninterrupted karma of destroying the Sangha (僧伽, Sengqie) is false speech. Since it is false speech, why is it called destroying the Sangha? Because of the name of receiving the result, or because it can destroy the Sangha. If so, what is the substance of the destroyed Sangha? Who accomplishes (the karma of destroying the Sangha), the one who destroys and the one who is destroyed? The verse says: 'The destruction of the Sangha is disharmony, a mental non-corresponding formation, of the nature of uncovered and unspecified, accomplished by the Sangha that is destroyed.' The treatise says: The substance of the destruction of the Sangha is disharmony, its nature is uncovered and unspecified, and it is included in the aggregate of mental non-corresponding formations. How can it become an uninterrupted karma? In this way, the destruction of the Sangha arises from false speech, so it is said that destroying the Sangha is an uninterrupted result. It is not the one who destroys who accomplishes (the karma of destroying the Sangha), but the Sangha that is destroyed that accomplishes (the karma of destroying the Sangha). Then, what does this one who destroys accomplish? Where and when does the different ripening result of destroying the Sangha mature? The verse says: 'The one who destroys only accomplishes this sin of false speech. It matures in one kalpa (劫, jie) in the uninterrupted realm. As the sin increases, the suffering increases.' The treatise says: The one who destroys the Sangha accomplishes the sin of destroying the Sangha. This sin of destroying the Sangha is characterized by false speech, that is, the verbal expression and non-expression karma that arise simultaneously with the destruction of the Sangha. This certainly (brings about results).
無間大地獄中經一中劫受極重苦余逆不必生於無間。然此不經一大劫者。欲界無有此壽量故。一中劫時亦不滿足。經說天授人壽四萬歲時。來生人中證獨覺菩提故。然不違背壽一劫言。一劫少分中立一劫名故。現有一分亦立全名。如言此日我有障礙。或如說言賊燒村等。若造多逆初一已招無間獄生余應無果。無無果失造多逆人。唯一能引余助滿故。隨彼罪增苦還增劇。謂由多逆感地獄中大柔軟身。多猛苦具受二二四五倍重苦。或無中夭受苦多時。如何可言余應無果。上座於此作如是釋。或於地獄死已更生。若爾寧非順后受業。彼於此難反詰答言若有先造余不善業已引地獄。后造無間此復云何成無間業。為有天世于中間耶。豈不隨前無間即受。我先已辯時分定業。無轉餘位受異熟理。由此不應作如是詰。有說先造余定惡業引次地獄生后不造無間。有說設造唯成滿業如造多逆先引后滿。非唯能引名無間業。故彼反詰于答無能。然彼所言為有天世于中間者。此極粗疏於感次生無用同故。如為天世善業所間隔。惡業無力感次地獄生。便說名為順后受業。如是地獄餘業所間無力能感次地獄生。云何不如天世所隔。令后造逆成順后受。故對法宗所釋無失。經說五逆順生受故。誰於何處能破于誰。破在何時。經幾時破。頌曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使造作極重罪業的人，也不一定都會墮入無間大地獄中經歷完整的一個中劫，承受極其深重的痛苦。這是因為，即使沒有墮入無間地獄，也不代表他們不會經歷一個大劫的苦難。之所以說不經歷一個大劫，是因為欲界眾生的壽命沒有那麼長，即使經歷一個中劫的時間，也仍然不足以償還罪業。經典中說，當人壽達到四萬歲時，曾經的天授（Devadatta，提婆達多）會轉生到人間證得獨覺菩提。這並不違背提婆達多要經歷一個劫難的說法，因為在一個劫難的少部分時間裡，也可以用一個劫難來命名。就像現在只有一部分，也可以用整體的名字來稱呼。例如，我們會說『今天我有障礙』，或者說『強盜燒燬了整個村莊』等等。如果有人造作多種逆罪，最初的一種已經招感了無間地獄的果報，那麼其餘的逆罪是否就沒有果報了呢？並非如此，造作多種逆罪的人，並非其餘的逆罪就沒有果報。因為最初的逆罪是主要的，其餘的逆罪是輔助，共同促成果報的圓滿。隨著罪業的增加，痛苦也會更加劇烈。這是因為多種逆罪會感得在地獄中產生巨大而柔軟的身體，從而能夠承受二倍、四倍、五倍的劇烈痛苦。或者不會中途夭折，從而能夠長時間地承受痛苦。怎麼能說其餘的逆罪就沒有果報呢？上座部的論師對此作了這樣的解釋：或者在地獄中死亡之後，還會再次轉生。如果這樣，難道不是順后受業嗎？對於這個疑問，可以反問：如果有人先造作了其餘的不善業，已經牽引他墮入地獄，之後又造作了無間罪，那麼這個無間罪又如何能成為無間業呢？難道中間還有天界的間隔嗎？難道不是隨著之前的罪業，立即就承受果報嗎？我之前已經辨析過，時分已定的業，沒有轉變到其他位置去承受異熟果報的道理。因此，不應該這樣詰難。有人說，先造作了其餘的決定惡業，牽引他墮入下一個地獄，之後不再造作無間罪。也有人說，即使造作了無間罪，也只是成就了之前的業，就像造作多種逆罪，先是牽引，后是圓滿。並非只有能牽引的才能稱為無間業。因此，他的反問對於回答是無能為力的。然而，他所說的『中間有天界的間隔』，這種說法極其粗疏，因為對於感得下一次的轉生來說，沒有起到相同的作用。就像被天界的善業所間隔，惡業沒有力量感得下一次的地獄轉生，於是就說這是順后受業。這樣，地獄的其餘業力所間隔，沒有力量感得下一次的地獄轉生，怎麼能不如同天界的間隔呢？使得之後造作的逆罪成為順后受呢？因此，對法宗的解釋沒有錯誤。經典中說，五逆罪是順生受的果報，誰在什麼地方能夠駁倒誰呢？駁倒發生在什麼時候？經過多長時間駁倒呢？頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version: Even those who commit extremely grave offenses do not necessarily fall into the Avīci (無間) Great Hell to endure immense suffering for a full intermediate kalpa (中劫). The reason is that even if they do not fall into Avīci Hell, it does not mean they will not experience the suffering of a great kalpa (大劫). The reason for saying they do not experience a great kalpa is that the lifespan of beings in the Desire Realm (欲界) is not that long; even experiencing an intermediate kalpa is still insufficient to repay their karmic debts. The scriptures say that when human lifespan reaches forty thousand years, Devadatta (天授, meaning 'God-given') will be reborn in the human realm and attain Pratyekabuddhahood (獨覺菩提). This does not contradict the statement that Devadatta will experience a kalpa of suffering, because a small portion of a kalpa can still be named a kalpa. It is like using the name of the whole for a part, as when we say, 'Today I have obstacles,' or 'Thieves burned down the village,' etc. If someone commits multiple heinous offenses (逆罪), and the first one has already caused rebirth in Avīci Hell, do the remaining offenses have no consequences? It is not so; for those who commit multiple heinous offenses, the remaining offenses do have consequences. The first offense is the primary cause, and the remaining offenses are auxiliary, together contributing to the fulfillment of the retribution. As the offenses increase, the suffering becomes more intense. This is because multiple heinous offenses cause the formation of a large and soft body in hell, enabling the being to endure two, four, or five times the intense suffering. Or, the being does not die prematurely, thus enduring suffering for a long time. How can it be said that the remaining offenses have no consequences? The Sthavira (上座) masters explain it this way: or, after dying in hell, the being is reborn again. If so, is this not karma to be experienced in a subsequent life (順后受業)? To this question, one can retort: if someone first commits other unwholesome deeds that lead to hell, and then commits an Avīci offense, how can this Avīci offense become Avīci karma? Is there an interval of a heavenly realm in between? Is it not that one immediately experiences the consequences following the previous karma? I have already explained that karma with a fixed time cannot be transferred to another position to experience its different maturation. Therefore, one should not raise such a question. Some say that one first commits other definite evil deeds that lead to rebirth in the next hell, and then does not commit an Avīci offense. Others say that even if one commits an Avīci offense, it only completes the previous karma, just as committing multiple heinous offenses first leads and then completes. It is not only what can lead that is called Avīci karma. Therefore, his retort is powerless to answer. However, his statement that 'there is an interval of a heavenly realm in between' is extremely crude, because it does not have the same effect on causing the next rebirth. Just as being separated by the wholesome karma of a heavenly realm, evil karma does not have the power to cause the next hell rebirth, and thus it is said to be karma to be experienced in a subsequent life. In this way, being separated by the remaining karma of hell, there is no power to cause the next hell rebirth. How can it not be like being separated by a heavenly realm, causing the subsequent Avīci offense to become karma to be experienced in a subsequent life? Therefore, the explanation of the Abhidharma (對法) school is without error. The scriptures say that the five heinous offenses (五逆罪) are the retribution to be experienced in the next life (順生受), who can refute whom, where, and when? When does the refutation occur? After how long does the refutation occur? Verse:
苾芻見凈行 破異處愚夫 忍異師道時 名破不經宿
論曰。能破僧者要大苾芻。必非在家苾芻尼等。以彼依止無威德故。唯見行人非愛行者。以惡意樂極堅深故。于染凈品俱躁動故。要住凈行方能破僧。以犯戒人無威德故。即由此證造余逆后不能破僧。以造余逆及受彼果處無定故。於斯且舉凈行為初類。顯端嚴語具圓等。醜陋訥等無破能故。要異處破非對大師。以諸如來不可輕逼。言詞威肅對必無能。唯破異生非破聖者。他不能引得證凈故。有說得忍亦不可破。由決定忍佛所說故。為含二義說愚夫言。要所破僧忍師異佛。忍異佛說有餘聖道。應說僧破在如是時。此夜必和不經宿住。如是名曰破法輪僧。能障佛法輪。壞僧和合故。謂由僧壞邪道轉時。聖道被遮暫時不轉。言邪道者。提婆達多妄說五事為出離道。一者不應受用乳等。二者斷肉。三者斷鹽四者應被不截衣服。五者應居聚落邊寺眾。若忍許彼所說時名破法輪。亦名僧破。何洲人幾破法輪僧破羯磨僧。何洲人幾。頌曰。
贍部洲九等 方破法輪僧 唯破羯磨僧 通三洲八等
論曰。唯贍部洲人少至九。或復過此能破法輪。非於余洲以無佛故。要有佛處可立異師。要八苾芻分為二眾以為所破能破第九故眾極少猶須九人。等言為明過
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 比丘見持戒清凈的修行者，能破斥那些持異見的愚癡之人。 當有人忍受與佛陀教導相異的師承之道時，這就被稱為『破不經宿』（意為當晚必須解決，不留過夜）。
論述：能夠破壞僧團的人必須是資深的比丘，絕不可能是居士或比丘尼等，因為他們缺乏依止的威望和德行。必須是見到清凈行為的人，而不是貪愛世俗行為的人，因為後者懷有極深的惡意，並且在清凈和染污之間都躁動不安。必須安住于清凈的行為，才能破壞僧團，因為犯戒的人沒有威望和德行。由此可以證明，即使犯下其他重罪之後，也不能破壞僧團，因為犯下其他重罪以及承受那些罪果的人，其處境是不確定的。這裡暫且以清凈行為作為第一類，顯示其端莊的儀容和善辯的口才等。醜陋和口齒笨拙的人沒有破壞僧團的能力。必須在持異見之處進行破斥，而不是針對大師（佛陀）。因為諸佛如來不可輕視和逼迫，他們的言辭威嚴，對抗他們必定無能為力。只能破斥凡夫，不能破斥聖者，因為他人無法引導他們獲得證悟和清凈。有人說，即使是獲得了『忍』（對佛法真理的確認）的人，也是不可破斥的，因為『忍』是佛陀所說的，具有決定性的意義。爲了包含這兩種含義，所以說『愚夫』。要被破斥的僧團，其所忍受的師承之道與佛陀相異，忍受與佛陀所說相異的，並且認為有其他的成聖之道。應當說，僧團的破裂就在這樣的時刻。這種破裂必須在當晚解決，不能留過夜。這種情況被稱為破壞法輪僧，因為它能夠阻礙佛陀的法輪運轉，破壞僧團的和合。這是因為，由於僧團的破壞，邪道得以傳播，聖道暫時被遮蔽而無法弘揚。這裡所說的邪道，是指提婆達多（Devadatta）妄稱的五件事為解脫之道：一是不應食用乳製品等；二是斷絕肉食；三是斷絕鹽；四是應穿未裁剪的衣服；五是應居住在聚落邊緣的寺廟中。如果有人認可並允許他所說的這些，就稱為破壞法輪，也稱為僧團破裂。什麼洲的人，需要多少人才能破壞法輪僧？什麼洲的人，需要多少人才能破壞羯磨僧？
頌曰： 在贍部洲（Jambudvipa，四大部洲之一，我們所居住的洲），至少需要九人才能破壞法輪僧。 只有破壞羯磨僧（指僧團的羯磨，即僧團的事務處理），可以遍及三大洲，需要八人。
論述：只有贍部洲的人，至少需要九人，或者超過九人，才能破壞法輪。在其他洲則不能，因為那裡沒有佛陀。必須有佛陀在的地方，才能樹立異師。需要八個比丘分為兩派，作為被破斥者和破斥者，第九個人才能進行破斥。因此，即使人數極少，也需要九個人。『等』字是爲了說明人數可以超過九人。
【English Translation】 English version: A Bhikshu (monk) who sees pure conduct can refute the foolish who hold different views. When someone endures a teacher's path that differs from the Buddha's teachings, it is called 'broken without overnight' (meaning it must be resolved that night, not left overnight).
Treatise: One who can break the Sangha (monastic community) must be a senior Bhikshu, certainly not a layperson or Bhikshuni (nun), etc., because they lack the authority to rely on. It must be someone who sees pure conduct, not someone who loves worldly behavior, because the latter harbors extremely deep malice and is restless in both purity and defilement. One must abide in pure conduct to be able to break the Sangha, because a person who violates precepts has no authority. From this, it can be proven that even after committing other grave offenses, one cannot break the Sangha, because the situation of those who commit other grave offenses and bear those consequences is uncertain. Here, pure conduct is temporarily taken as the first category, showing its dignified appearance and eloquent speech, etc. Those who are ugly and inarticulate do not have the ability to break the Sangha. The refutation must be carried out in a place where different views are held, not against the Master (Buddha). Because the Tathagatas (Buddhas) cannot be despised and forced, their words are dignified, and it is certainly impossible to resist them. One can only refute ordinary people, not refute sages, because others cannot guide them to attain enlightenment and purity. Some say that even those who have attained 'Kshanti' (acceptance of the truth of the Dharma) cannot be refuted, because 'Kshanti' is what the Buddha said and has decisive significance. To include these two meanings, the term 'foolish' is used. The Sangha to be refuted endures a teacher's path that differs from the Buddha, endures what differs from what the Buddha said, and believes that there are other paths to becoming a saint. It should be said that the breaking of the Sangha is at such a moment. This breaking must be resolved that night and not left overnight. This situation is called breaking the Dharma wheel Sangha, because it can hinder the turning of the Buddha's Dharma wheel and destroy the harmony of the Sangha. This is because, due to the breaking of the Sangha, the evil path can spread, and the holy path is temporarily obscured and cannot be promoted. The evil path here refers to the five things falsely claimed by Devadatta (提婆達多) as the path to liberation: first, one should not consume dairy products, etc.; second, one should abstain from meat; third, one should abstain from salt; fourth, one should wear uncut clothes; fifth, one should live in temples on the edge of settlements. If someone approves and allows what he said, it is called breaking the Dharma wheel, also called breaking the Sangha. What continent's people, how many people are needed to break the Dharma wheel Sangha? What continent's people, how many people are needed to break the Karma Sangha?
Verse: In Jambudvipa (贍部洲, one of the four major continents, the continent we live on), at least nine people are needed to break the Dharma wheel Sangha. Only breaking the Karma Sangha (referring to the Sangha's Karma, that is, the Sangha's affairs), can spread throughout the three continents, requiring eight people.
Treatise: Only people from Jambudvipa need at least nine people, or more than nine people, to break the Dharma wheel. It is not possible in other continents because there is no Buddha there. There must be a place where the Buddha is present to establish a different teacher. Eight Bhikshus are needed to be divided into two factions, as those who are refuted and those who refute, and the ninth person can carry out the refutation. Therefore, even if the number of people is extremely small, nine people are needed. The word 'etc.' is to indicate that the number of people can exceed nine.
此無限。唯破羯磨通在三洲。極少八人多亦無限。通三洲者。以有聖教及有出家弟子眾故。要一界中僧分二部別作羯磨故須八人。過此無遮故亦言等於何時分容有破僧破羯磨僧。從結界后迄今亦有至法未滅破法輪僧。除六時分。何等為六。頌曰。
初后皰雙前 佛滅未結界 于如是六位 無破法輪僧
論曰。初謂世尊成佛未久有情有善阿世耶故惡阿世耶猶未起故。后謂善逝將般涅槃。聖教增廣善安住故。必僧和合佛方涅槃。有餘師言。證法性定故。眾咸憂戚故。非初非後於聖教中戒見二皰。若未起位亦無破僧。要見皰生方敢破故。未立止觀第一雙時。法爾由彼速還合故佛滅后時他不信受。無有真佛為敵對故。未結界時無一界內。僧分二部可名僧破。於此六位無破法輪。如是破僧諸佛皆有。不爾要有宿破他業。於此賢劫迦葉波佛時。釋迦牟尼曾破他眾故。具止傍論應辯逆緣。頌曰。
棄壞恩德田 轉形亦成逆 母謂因彼血 誤等無或有 打心出佛血 害后無學無
論曰。何緣害母等成無間非余。由棄恩田壞德田故。謂害父母是棄恩田。如何有恩身生本故。如何棄彼謂舍彼恩德田。謂余阿羅漢等。具諸勝德及能生故。壞德所依故成逆罪。若有父母子初生時。為殺棄于豺狼路等。或於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此（破羯磨）無限。唯有破羯磨的行為通常發生在三洲（指欲界、色界、無色界）。人數極少時為八人，多則無限。之所以說通於三洲，是因為這些地方有聖教存在，並且有出家的弟子僧眾。要在一個界內，僧眾分為兩部分，分別進行羯磨，因此需要八人。超過這個人數就沒有限制了，所以說等於何時都有可能發生破僧破羯磨的情況。從結界之後到現在，甚至到佛法將要滅盡之時，都有可能出現破壞法輪的僧眾。以下六種情況除外。 頌曰： 初后皰雙前，佛滅未結界，于如是六位，無破法輪僧。 論曰： 初，指的是世尊成佛后不久，有情眾生具有善良的阿世耶（傾向），因此惡的阿世耶尚未生起。后，指的是善逝（佛陀）將要般涅槃的時候，聖教得到增廣，善法得以安住，必定僧眾和合，佛陀才會涅槃。有其他論師認為，這是因為佛陀證得法性定，所以大眾都感到憂愁悲慼。非初非后，在聖教中出現戒律和見解上的兩種『皰』（指錯誤或衝突），如果尚未生起，也不會有破僧的情況。一定要等到見解上的『皰』產生，才敢于破僧。未建立止觀的第一雙（指止觀雙運）時，法爾（自然而然）地會因為止觀雙運而迅速恢復和合。佛滅度后，他人不信受佛法，沒有真正的佛陀作為敵對。未結界時，沒有在一個界內，僧眾分為兩部分，可以稱為破僧。在這六種情況下，不會有破壞法輪的情況。像這樣的破僧行為，諸佛時代都有可能發生。否則，必定要有宿世破壞他人的業力。在這個賢劫中，迦葉波佛時代，釋迦牟尼佛曾經破壞過其他僧眾。爲了完整起見，應該辨析逆緣。 頌曰： 棄壞恩德田，轉形亦成逆，母謂因彼血，誤等無或有，打心出佛血，害后無學無。 論曰： 為什麼殺害母親等會構成無間罪，而不是其他罪？因為捨棄了恩田，破壞了德田。殺害父母是捨棄恩田，因為父母是身體出生的根本，如何能捨棄他們的恩德？德田，指的是其他的阿羅漢等，他們具有各種殊勝的功德，並且能夠產生功德，破壞了功德的所依，因此構成逆罪。如果父母在孩子剛出生時，爲了殺害孩子而將他丟棄在豺狼出沒的路上等地方，或者在...
【English Translation】 English version: This (breaking the Karma) is limitless. Only the act of breaking the Karma usually occurs in the three realms (referring to the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm). The number is extremely small, as few as eight people, but can be limitless when many. The reason it is said to occur in the three realms is because these places have the Holy Teachings and have ordained disciples and Sangha. To be within one boundary, the Sangha must be divided into two parts, each performing Karma separately, thus requiring eight people. Beyond this number, there are no restrictions, so it is said that breaking the Sangha and breaking the Karma can occur at any time. From after the establishment of the boundary until now, even until the Dharma is about to perish, there may be Sangha who destroy the Wheel of Dharma. Except for the following six situations. Verse: 'Beginning, end, blisters, pair, before, Buddha's demise, before boundary establishment, in these six situations, there is no Sangha that breaks the Wheel of Dharma.' Treatise: 'Beginning' refers to shortly after the World Honored One attained Buddhahood, when sentient beings had virtuous 'Ālayas' (tendencies), so evil 'Ālayas' had not yet arisen. 'End' refers to when the Well-Gone One (Buddha) was about to enter Parinirvana, when the Holy Teachings were expanded and virtuous Dharma was securely established, and the Sangha must be harmonious for the Buddha to enter Nirvana. Some other teachers believe that this is because the Buddha attained the Dharma-nature Samadhi, so the masses felt sorrow and grief. Neither beginning nor end, in the Holy Teachings, there are two types of 'blisters' (referring to errors or conflicts) in precepts and views. If they have not yet arisen, there will be no breaking of the Sangha. It is necessary to wait until the 'blisters' in views arise before daring to break the Sangha. When the first pair of cessation and contemplation (referring to the union of cessation and contemplation) is not established, it will naturally and quickly return to harmony due to the union of cessation and contemplation. After the Buddha's demise, others do not believe in the Dharma, and there is no true Buddha as an opponent. When the boundary is not established, there is no division of the Sangha into two parts within one boundary that can be called breaking the Sangha. In these six situations, there will be no breaking of the Wheel of Dharma. Such acts of breaking the Sangha can occur in the times of all Buddhas. Otherwise, there must be karmic force from past lives of destroying others. In this fortunate Kalpa, in the time of Kashyapa Buddha, Shakyamuni Buddha once destroyed other Sangha. For the sake of completeness, the adverse conditions should be distinguished. Verse: 'Abandoning, destroying the field of kindness and virtue, transforming the form also becomes a rebellious act, mother refers to because of that blood, mistake etc. without or with, striking the heart drawing Buddha's blood, harming the latter no-learner without.' Treatise: Why does killing one's mother, etc., constitute an unpardonable crime (Avīci hell), and not other crimes? Because one abandons the field of kindness and destroys the field of virtue. Killing one's parents is abandoning the field of kindness, because parents are the root of one's physical birth. How can one abandon their kindness? The field of virtue refers to other Arhats, etc., who possess various supreme merits and are able to generate merit, destroying the basis of merit, thus constituting a rebellious crime. If parents abandon their child on the road frequented by jackals, etc., in order to kill the child at the time of the child's birth, or...
胎內方便欲殺。由定業力子不命終。彼有何恩棄之成逆。彼定由有不活等畏於子事急起欲殺心。然棄等時必懷悲愍數數緣子愛戀纏心。若棄此恩下逆罪觸。為顯逆罪有下中上故說棄恩皆成逆罪。或由母等田器法。然設彼無恩但害其命。必應無間生地獄中。諸聰慧人咸作是說。世尊於法了達根源。作如是言但應深信。父母形轉殺成逆邪。逆罪亦成依止一故。由如是義故有問言。頗有令男離命根。非父阿羅漢而為無間罪觸不。有謂母轉形與此相違。問女亦爾設有女人羯剌藍墮。余女收取置產門中生子。殺何成害母逆因。彼血生者識托方增故。第二女人但如養母。雖諸所作皆應咨決。而害但成無間同類。上座於此作如是言。若羯剌藍有命無墮。若有墮者必已命終。有情必無住糞穢故。由無是事為問唐捐。設有如斯害后成逆棄重恩故。害前不然于子重恩非關彼故。上座決定於業趣中。不能審知功能差別如何中有穿度金剛。母腹所拘不往余處。母腹中火能消金石。而羯剌藍于中增長。地獄中有現母腹中而不能燒腹。及同類此亦應爾業力難思。雖此腹中羯剌藍墮。何妨轉至余腹中增。曾聞經中說有尊者童子迦葉。如是而生既置產門。吸至胎處故不可說住糞穢中。或有但從口飲入腹。亦由業力轉至胎處。有情業用不可思議。雖無慾心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 胎兒在母體中，母親因為生活不便想要墮胎。由於過去世的業力，孩子沒有因此喪命。那麼，母親遺棄孩子的行為，有什麼恩情可言，以至於墮胎會構成逆罪呢？母親一定是由於擔心孩子無法存活等原因，才會緊急地想要墮胎。然而，在遺棄等行為發生時，母親必然懷有悲憫之心，並且常常因為對孩子的愛戀而心煩意亂。如果遺棄孩子也算是違背恩情，觸犯下逆罪，這是爲了顯示逆罪有下、中、上三種等級，所以說遺棄恩情也構成逆罪。或者，這可以從母親等同於田地和器皿的角度來理解。 假設母親確實沒有恩情，但僅僅是傷害了孩子的性命，也必然會因此墮入無間地獄。所有聰明人都這樣認為。世尊對佛法的根源徹底明瞭，所以才會這樣說，我們應該對此深信不疑。父母的身體發生變化，墮胎就構成了逆罪嗎？逆罪的成立，也是因為依賴於同一個身體。由於這個道理，所以有人問：有沒有可能使一個男孩失去生命，而並非是父親殺害了阿羅漢，卻仍然觸犯了無間罪？有人說，母親的身體發生變化，情況就與此相反。如果墮胎的對象是女孩呢？假設有女人流產，羯剌藍（Kalala，受精卵最初的凝結狀態）掉落，被其他女人撿起，放置在產門中，生下了孩子。那麼，殺死這個孩子，算是犯了哪種殺母的逆罪呢？因為這個孩子是由前一個女人的血所生，意識寄託才得以增長，所以第二個女人只是像養母一樣。雖然所有的事情都應該和她商量，但殺害這個孩子，只能算是犯了同類的無間罪。 上座部對此的解釋是：如果羯剌藍有生命，就不會掉落；如果掉落了，必然已經死亡。有情眾生不可能住在糞便污穢之中。由於沒有這樣的事情發生，所以這個問題是白費力氣。假設真的發生了這樣的事情，殺害後來的孩子，就構成了逆罪，因為違背了重大的恩情。殺害之前的孩子則不然，因為對孩子的重大恩情與她無關。上座部認為，在業的趣向中，無法仔細瞭解功能上的差別。比如，中有（Antarabhava，死亡到投胎之間的過渡狀態）能夠穿透金剛，而母腹卻能束縛住它，使它無法前往其他地方。母腹中的火焰能夠融化金石，而羯剌藍卻能在其中生長。地獄中有時會顯現出母腹的景象，但卻無法燒燬腹部以及同類的東西，這也應該是業力不可思議的緣故。即使這個腹中的羯剌藍掉落了，又有什麼妨礙它轉移到其他腹中生長呢？曾經聽經中說，有位尊者名叫童子迦葉（Kumara-Kasyapa），就是這樣出生的。既然能被放置在產門中，就能被吸到胎處，所以不能說它住在糞便污穢之中。或者，它只是從口中喝水進入腹部，也因為業力的作用而轉移到胎處。有情眾生的業力作用是不可思議的，即使沒有慾望之心。
【English Translation】 English version If a mother, due to inconvenience, desires to abort a fetus in the womb, but the child does not die due to the force of past karma, what kindness has she shown that aborting the child constitutes a heinous offense (逆罪, nìzuì)? It must be that the mother, fearing the child's inability to survive, urgently desires to abort. However, in the act of abandonment, the mother inevitably harbors compassion and is often troubled by affection for the child. If abandoning the child is considered a violation of kindness, incurring a heinous offense, it is to show that heinous offenses have lower, middle, and upper degrees, so abandoning kindness also constitutes a heinous offense. Alternatively, this can be understood from the perspective that mothers are equivalent to fields and vessels. Suppose the mother truly has no kindness, but merely harms the child's life, she will inevitably fall into the Avici Hell (無間地獄, Wújiān dìyù). All wise people say this. The World-Honored One (世尊, Shìzūn) thoroughly understands the root of the Dharma, so he says this, and we should deeply believe it. Does abortion constitute a heinous offense because the parents' bodies change? The establishment of a heinous offense also depends on relying on the same body. Because of this principle, someone asks: Is it possible to cause a boy to lose his life, not by the father killing an Arhat (阿羅漢, Āluóhàn), but still incurring the offense of Avici? Some say that the mother's body changing is the opposite of this. What if the object of abortion is a girl? Suppose a woman miscarries, and the Kalala (羯剌藍, Jiélàlán, the initial state of a fertilized egg) falls out, and another woman picks it up, places it in the birth canal, and gives birth to a child. Then, killing this child, which heinous offense of killing the mother is committed? Because this child is born from the blood of the previous woman, and the consciousness relies on it to grow, the second woman is only like a foster mother. Although all matters should be discussed with her, killing this child only counts as committing a similar offense of Avici. The Theravada (上座部, Shàngzuò bù) explains this as follows: If the Kalala has life, it will not fall out; if it falls out, it must have already died. Sentient beings cannot live in filth and excrement. Since such a thing does not happen, this question is a waste of effort. Suppose such a thing really happens, killing the later child constitutes a heinous offense because it violates a great kindness. Killing the previous child is not the same, because the great kindness to the child is not related to her. The Theravada believes that in the tendency of karma, it is impossible to carefully understand the differences in function. For example, the Antarabhava (中有, zhōngyǒu, the intermediate state between death and rebirth) can penetrate diamonds, but the mother's womb can bind it, preventing it from going elsewhere. The fire in the mother's womb can melt gold and stone, but the Kalala can grow in it. Sometimes the appearance of the mother's womb appears in hell, but it cannot burn the abdomen and similar things, which should also be due to the inconceivable power of karma. Even if the Kalala in this abdomen falls out, what prevents it from transferring to another abdomen to grow? It has been heard in the scriptures that there was a venerable one named Kumara-Kasyapa (童子迦葉, Tóngzǐ Jiāshè), who was born in this way. Since it can be placed in the birth canal, it can be sucked to the womb, so it cannot be said that it lives in filth and excrement. Or, it just drinks water from the mouth into the abdomen, and it is also transferred to the womb by the action of karma. The karmic actions of sentient beings are inconceivable, even without the desire mind.
而由業力。有吸至腹即成胎藏。後母雖有持養等恩而於子身非能生本。若持養等害便成逆。殺養母人應成無間。故彼所立棄重恩田。便有不成或不定失。前母雖闕持養等恩。而於子身是能生本。若非持養害不成逆。如前所說于子有怨。子反害之應無無間。故彼所立非關彼因。亦有不成及不定失。故唯人趣結生勝緣。害成害母逆非唯持養者。若於父母起殺加行。誤殺餘人無無間罪。于非父母起殺加行。誤殺父母亦不成逆。若一加行害母及余。二無表生表唯逆罪。以無間業勢力強故。妙音尊者作如是言。於此位中亦有二表。表是積集極微成故。今觀彼意表有多微。有逆罪收有餘罪攝。有于阿羅漢無阿羅漢想。亦無決定解此非阿羅漢。無簡別故害成逆罪。非於父母全與此同。以易識知而不識者雖行殺害無棄恩心。阿羅漢人無別標相既難識是亦難知非故漫心殺亦成無間。若有害父父是阿羅漢。得一逆罪以依止一故。若爾喻說當云何通。佛告始欠持。汝已造二逆所謂害父殺阿羅漢。彼顯一逆由二緣成。或以二門訶責彼罪。若於佛所噁心出血。一切皆得無間罪耶。要以殺心方成逆罪。打心出血無間則無。無決定心壞福田故。若殺加行位彼未成無學。將死方得阿羅漢果。能殺彼者有逆罪耶。無。于無學身無殺加行故。若造無間加行不
【現代漢語翻譯】 而且是由業力所致，才會被吸引到母腹中形成胎兒。後母雖然有撫養等恩情，但對於孩子的身體來說，並非是生命的根本來源。如果對後母進行傷害等行為，就會構成忤逆之罪。如果殺害養母的人應該構成無間地獄之罪，那麼他們所主張的拋棄重恩之田的說法，就會有不成立或者不確定的過失。前母雖然缺少撫養等恩情，但對於孩子的身體來說，卻是生命的根本來源。如果不是因為撫養關係而進行傷害，就不會構成忤逆之罪。就像前面所說的那樣，如果孩子對父母懷有怨恨，孩子反過來傷害父母，應該不會構成無間地獄之罪。所以他們所主張的並非是造成這種結果的原因，也會有不成立或者不確定的過失。因此，只有在人道中結生時，傷害才構成殺母的逆罪，而不僅僅是針對撫養者。如果對父母生起殺害的意圖並實施殺害行為，即使誤殺了其他人，也不會構成無間地獄之罪。如果對非父母的人產生殺害的意圖並實施殺害行為，即使誤殺了父母，也不會構成逆罪。如果一個行為同時傷害了母親和其他人，只會產生逆罪的無表業（無表色），因為無間業的力量強大。妙音尊者這樣說：『在這個情況下，也會有兩種無表業。』無表業是由積聚的極微組成的。現在看來，無表業有很多微粒，有些屬於逆罪，有些屬於其他罪。如果對於阿羅漢沒有阿羅漢的想法，也沒有確定這就是阿羅漢的認知，因為沒有加以區分，所以殺害就會構成逆罪。對於父母的情況，不能完全與此相同，因為父母容易辨認，而不認識父母的人即使實施殺害行為，也沒有拋棄恩情的心。阿羅漢沒有特別的標誌，既難以辨認，也難以知道不是故意殺害，所以漫不經心地殺害阿羅漢也會構成無間地獄之罪。如果有人殺害了父親，而父親是阿羅漢，那麼只會得到一種逆罪，因為只依止了一個對象。如果這樣，比喻應該如何解釋呢？佛告訴始欠持：『你已經造了兩種逆罪，即殺父和殺阿羅漢。』這表明一種逆罪是由兩種因緣造成的，或者用兩種方式來呵責他的罪過。如果在佛的處所，以噁心使佛出血，一切都會得到無間地獄之罪嗎？必須要以殺害的心才能構成逆罪。如果是打的心而出血，就不會有無間地獄之罪，因為沒有決意之心去破壞福田。如果在實施殺害行為時，那個人還沒有證得無學果位，而將要死亡時才證得阿羅漢果位，那麼殺害他的人會有逆罪嗎？沒有。因為對於無學之身，沒有殺害的行為。
【English Translation】 Moreover, it is due to karmic force that one is drawn into the mother's womb and forms a fetus. Although the stepmother has the kindness of nurturing, she is not the fundamental source of the child's body. If harm is done to the stepmother, it constitutes a rebellious act. If killing the nurturing mother should constitute the karma of uninterrupted hell (Avīci), then their assertion of abandoning the field of great kindness would have the fault of being unfounded or uncertain. Although the birth mother lacks the kindness of nurturing, she is the fundamental source of the child's body. If harm is not done due to the nurturing relationship, it does not constitute a rebellious act. As mentioned earlier, if the child harbors resentment towards the parents, and the child harms the parents in return, it should not constitute the karma of uninterrupted hell. Therefore, their assertion is not the cause of this result, and it also has the fault of being unfounded or uncertain. Thus, only when rebirth occurs in the human realm does harm constitute the heinous crime of killing one's mother, and not merely against the nurturer. If one generates the intention to kill one's parents and carries out the act of killing, even if one mistakenly kills another person, it does not constitute the karma of uninterrupted hell. If one generates the intention to kill someone who is not one's parents and carries out the act of killing, even if one mistakenly kills one's parents, it does not constitute a heinous crime. If one action simultaneously harms the mother and another person, only the unmanifested karma (avyākṛta) of the heinous crime is produced, because the power of the karma of uninterrupted hell is strong. The Venerable Myōon (Melody Sound) said: 'In this situation, there are also two unmanifested karmas.' Unmanifested karma is composed of accumulated extremely subtle particles. Now, observing his intention, unmanifested karma has many subtle particles, some belonging to the heinous crime, and some belonging to other offenses. If one does not have the thought of an Arhat (one who has attained enlightenment) towards an Arhat, and there is no definite understanding that this is not an Arhat, because there is no distinction made, killing constitutes a heinous crime. The situation with parents cannot be completely the same as this, because parents are easily recognizable, and those who do not recognize their parents, even if they commit the act of killing, do not have the intention of abandoning kindness. Arhats do not have special marks, and it is difficult to recognize them, and it is also difficult to know that it is not intentional killing, so carelessly killing an Arhat also constitutes the karma of uninterrupted hell. If someone harms their father, and the father is an Arhat, then only one heinous crime is obtained, because one relies on one object. If so, how should the analogy be explained? The Buddha told Ajātasattu (one of the Buddha's contemporary kings): 'You have already committed two heinous crimes, namely killing your father and killing an Arhat.' This shows that one heinous crime is caused by two conditions, or uses two ways to rebuke his sins. If, in the presence of the Buddha, one causes the Buddha to bleed with malicious intent, will everyone obtain the karma of uninterrupted hell? It is necessary to have the intention to kill in order to constitute a heinous crime. If it is the intention to strike and cause bleeding, there will be no karma of uninterrupted hell, because there is no determined intention to destroy the field of merit. If, at the time of committing the act of killing, that person has not yet attained the state of no-more-learning (Arhatship), and only attains the fruit of Arhatship when about to die, does the person who kills them have a heinous crime? No. Because there is no act of killing towards the body of one who has no-more-learning.
可轉。為有離染及得聖果耶。頌曰。
造逆定加行 無離染得果
論曰。無間加行若必定成中間決無離染得果。余惡業道加行中間。若聖道生業道不起。轉得相續定違彼故。非已見諦者業道罪所觸。無間加行為有可轉。而言若彼不可轉耶。有作是言。皆不可轉故本論說。頗有未害生殺生未滅。此業受異熟定生地獄耶。曰有。如作無間業加行位命終指鬘。雖發欲害母心而未正興害母加行。於世尊所雖有害心亦未正興害佛加行。彼作是意近方下手。世尊為遮彼業障故。至未生信不令得近室利鞠多。于薄伽梵亦不全起。無所顧心以發意言。世尊若是一切智者自知避故。有餘師說。亦有可轉本論不言無間加行皆不可轉。但說加行不息。死者定生地獄。加行息者非彼所論。然我所宗無間加行總說有二。一近二遠。于中近者不可轉故。本論依之而興問答。謂有于母起害加行。才擊無間母命未終。或母力強反害其子。或為王等擒捉而殺。或子壽儘自致命終。本論依斯作如是說。于中遠者由尚未至不可轉位容有可轉。若不爾者世尊應說無間加行亦無間罪。譬喻者言。五無間業尚有可轉況彼加行。故契經言若有一類。於五無間造作增長。無間必墮㮏落迦中。準此一類言知別有一類。雖造無間不生地獄。不爾一類成無用言。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是否可以轉變（業），從而得以離染並獲得聖果呢？頌文說： 『造作逆罪的決定加行，無法離染並獲得聖果。』 論述說：如果無間業的加行必定完成，那麼中間絕對沒有離染得果的可能。其餘惡業道的加行，如果在中間生起聖道，那麼（之前的）業道就不會再生起，因為（聖道）的相續必定違背（惡業道）。已經見諦的人不會再被業道的罪所觸及。無間業的加行，有些是可以轉變的。如果說它們都不可轉變，那麼本論為什麼說：『有沒有人，沒有殺生，殺生的行為沒有停止，此業所受的異熟果報必定會生在地獄？』回答是：有。例如造作無間業加行時死亡的指鬘（Angulimala，意為『指鬘』，以殺人後將手指串成花鬘而得名）。雖然他發起了想要殺害母親的心，但還沒有真正開始殺害母親的加行；對於世尊（Bhagavan，佛的稱號），雖然他有加害之心，但也沒有真正開始加害佛陀的加行。他心想靠近下手，世尊爲了遮止他的業障，在他沒有生起信心之前不讓他靠近。室利鞠多（Srigupta）對於薄伽梵（Bhagavan）也沒有完全生起無所顧忌的心，因為他曾發誓說：『如果世尊是一切智者，他自己就會知道躲避。』 有其他論師說，也有可以轉變的，本論並沒有說無間業的加行都不可轉變，只是說加行不停止，死者必定會生在地獄。加行停止的，不是本論所討論的。然而我所宗的觀點是，無間業的加行總的來說有兩種：一是近的，二是遠的。其中近的不可轉變，所以本論依據這一點而提出問答，即有人對母親生起殺害的加行，剛一擊打，母親的生命還沒有結束，或者母親力氣大反而殺死了兒子，或者被國王等人擒捉而殺，或者兒子壽命已儘自己死亡。本論依據這種情況而這樣說。其中遠的，由於尚未達到不可轉變的階段，容許有可以轉變的可能。如果不這樣，世尊應該說無間業的加行也是無間罪。譬喻者說，五無間業尚且有可以轉變的，何況是它們的加行。所以契經說，如果有一類人，對於五無間業造作增長，必定會墮入㮏落迦（Naraka，地獄）中。根據『一類』這個詞，就知道還有別的一類人，雖然造作了無間業，但不會生在地獄。否則，『一類』這個詞就變得沒有意義了。而且……
【English Translation】 English version: Can (karma) be transformed, so as to be able to be free from defilements and attain the holy fruit? The verse says: 'Creating the determined effort of heinous crimes, one cannot be free from defilements and attain the fruit.' The treatise says: If the effort of an uninterrupted karma is bound to be completed, then there is absolutely no possibility of being free from defilements and attaining the fruit in between. For the effort of other evil karmic paths, if the holy path arises in between, then the (previous) karmic path will not arise again, because the continuity of (the holy path) is bound to contradict (the evil karmic path). Those who have already seen the truth will no longer be touched by the sins of the karmic paths. The effort of uninterrupted karma, some can be transformed. If it is said that they are all untransformable, then why does this treatise say: 'Is there anyone who has not killed, the act of killing has not stopped, and the retribution of this karma is bound to be born in hell?' The answer is: yes. For example, Angulimala (meaning 'garland of fingers', named for killing people and stringing their fingers into a garland) who died while making the effort of uninterrupted karma. Although he initiated the intention to kill his mother, he had not yet truly begun the effort to kill his mother; for the Bhagavan (title of the Buddha), although he had the intention to harm, he had not yet truly begun the effort to harm the Buddha. He thought of getting close to start, and the Bhagavan, in order to prevent his karmic obstacles, did not let him get close until he had faith. Srigupta also did not fully develop a reckless heart towards the Bhagavan, because he had vowed: 'If the Bhagavan is omniscient, he will know to avoid it himself.' Other teachers say that there are also those that can be transformed, and this treatise does not say that all efforts of uninterrupted karma are untransformable, but only says that if the effort does not stop, the deceased will definitely be born in hell. Those whose efforts have stopped are not discussed in this treatise. However, my school's view is that the efforts of uninterrupted karma are generally of two types: one is near, and the other is far. Among them, the near ones cannot be transformed, so this treatise raises questions and answers based on this point, that is, someone has the effort to kill his mother, and as soon as he strikes, the mother's life has not ended, or the mother is strong and kills the son instead, or is captured and killed by the king, etc., or the son's life is exhausted and he dies himself. This treatise says this based on this situation. Among them, the far ones, since they have not yet reached the stage where they cannot be transformed, may be transformed. If not, the Bhagavan should say that the effort of uninterrupted karma is also an uninterrupted sin. The metaphorists say that even the five uninterrupted karmas can be transformed, let alone their efforts. Therefore, the sutra says that if there is a class of people who create and increase the five uninterrupted karmas, they will definitely fall into Naraka (hell). According to the word 'class', it is known that there is another class of people who, although they have created uninterrupted karma, will not be born in hell. Otherwise, the word 'class' becomes meaningless. Moreover...
世尊言娑羅設解。我所說義但無解能。此中既唯說不解語是決定障。故知世尊說一切業皆悉可轉。又世尊記旋繞制多一切皆當得生天故。又世尊記提婆達多。斷善根后不可治故。又如煩惱障業障亦可轉。如是所言皆非能立。于經及理不善了故。且彼所引有一類經。意顯有人具造五逆。無間必墮㮏落迦中。或有乃至唯造一逆。或有造訖多門增長。或有唯造后更不增。皆無間生墮于地獄。且舉初故說一類言。或顯有人乘無間業無間必墮㮏落迦中。有乘餘業故言一類。不說一類便謂唯乘無間業因無間生彼。婆羅經意顯造逆人不解如來所說深義。業障礙故當所獲得。彼異熟果增上力故。觀諦善根因被損故。或有悔憂所損惱故。于佛所說不能深解。若執經義但如其文。是則極成無間不轉。言無間者顯無隔故。又彼天授粗解佛言。何緣必生無間地獄。故知此據解深說解。記生天證理亦不成。佛于彼經差別說故。謂彼經說諸有依人旋繞制多皆生天故。有方便者名有依人。即是有容生天理義。然譬喻者略引彼經便開有情多造惡行。以許造作猛利極重。諸惡行者起下善心。或無記心於制多所。暫時旋繞便總滅故。斷善後證理亦不成。唯斷善根亦可迴轉。佛不應說彼不可治。故知彼言更有別義。謂彼天授先起惡欲。由此已應墮于惡趣。次起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 世尊（Bhagavan）說：『娑羅設解（Sarasetkha，一種樹名）。我所說的意義，沒有理解能力的人是無法理解的。』這裡僅僅說不理解佛語是決定性的障礙。因此可知，世尊說一切業都是可以轉變的。而且，世尊授記說，旋繞制多（Caitya，佛塔）的人都將得生天界。另外，世尊授記提婆達多（Devadatta，佛陀的堂兄弟）斷善根后不可救治。又如煩惱障、業障也是可以轉變的。像這樣所說的話，都不能成立，因為對經文和道理不善於理解。且他們所引用的經文，意思是說，有些人造作五逆罪（matricide, patricide, killing an Arhat, injuring a Buddha, creating schism in the Sangha），必定會墮入㮏落迦（Naraka，地獄）中。或者有些人乃至只造作一種逆罪，或者造作之後又多方面增長，或者只造作一次之後不再增加，都會無間地墮入地獄。這裡僅僅舉出最初的情況，所以說『一類』。或者顯示有些人憑藉無間業，必定會無間地墮入㮏落迦中；有些人憑藉其他的業，所以說『一類』。如果不說『一類』，就以為僅僅憑藉無間業的因，就會無間地生到那裡。婆羅（Bhāra，負擔）經的意思是說，造作逆罪的人不理解如來所說的深奧意義，因為業障的緣故，應當獲得的異熟果（Vipāka，果報）的增上力，觀察真諦的善根因被損害的緣故，或者因為後悔憂愁所損害的緣故，對於佛所說的不能深刻理解。如果執著經文的意義僅僅按照字面意思，那麼就極大地證明了無間業是不可轉變的。說『無間』，是顯示沒有間隔的緣故。而且，那位天授（Devadatta）粗淺地理解佛的話，問：『什麼緣故必定會生到無間地獄？』因此可知，這是根據理解深刻的人來解釋理解。授記生天的證據也不能成立，因為佛在那部經中做了區別的說明。那部經說，諸位依靠佛法的人旋繞制多，都會生到天界。有方便的人，才叫做依靠佛法的人，這就是有容許生到天界的道理。然而，譬喻者（Dṛṣṭāntika，論師）簡略地引用那部經，就開啟了有情造作很多惡行的方便之門，因為他們允許造作猛烈、極其嚴重的各種惡行的人，生起低劣的善心，或者無記心，對於制多暫時地旋繞，就全部滅除了罪業。斷善根后不可救治的證據也不能成立，即使斷了善根也是可以迴轉的，佛不應該說他不可救治。因此可知，這句話還有別的意義，就是說，那位天授（Devadatta）先起了惡欲，由此已經應當墮入惡趣。接著又起了 現代漢語譯本 世尊（Bhagavan）：佛的尊稱 娑羅設解（Sarasetkha）：一種樹名 制多（Caitya）：佛塔 提婆達多（Devadatta）：佛陀的堂兄弟 㮏落迦（Naraka）：地獄 五逆罪：殺父，殺母，殺阿羅漢，出佛身血，破和合僧 異熟果（Vipāka）：果報 譬喻者（Dṛṣṭāntika）：論師
【English Translation】 English version The Blessed One (Bhagavan) said: 'Sarasetkha (a type of tree). Those who lack the ability to understand cannot comprehend the meaning of what I say.' Here, it is stated that not understanding the Buddha's words is a definitive obstacle. Therefore, it is known that the Blessed One said that all karma can be transformed. Moreover, the Blessed One prophesied that all who circumambulate a Caitya (stupa) will be reborn in the heavens. Furthermore, the Blessed One prophesied that Devadatta (Buddha's cousin) could not be cured after severing his roots of goodness. Also, just as afflictive obstructions and karmic obstructions can be transformed, these statements cannot be established because of a lack of understanding of the scriptures and principles. Moreover, the scriptures they cite mean that some people who commit the five heinous crimes (matricide, patricide, killing an Arhat, injuring a Buddha, creating schism in the Sangha) will inevitably fall into Naraka (hell). Or some may commit only one heinous crime, or after committing it, they increase it in many ways, or they commit it only once and do not increase it afterward, and they will all be reborn in hell without interruption. Here, only the initial situation is mentioned, so it is said 'a category'. Or it shows that some people, relying on uninterrupted karma, will inevitably fall into Naraka without interruption; some people rely on other karma, so it is said 'a category'. If it is not said 'a category', it is assumed that only by relying on the cause of uninterrupted karma will one be born there without interruption. The meaning of the Bhāra (burden) Sutra is that those who commit heinous crimes do not understand the profound meaning of what the Tathagata (Buddha) said, because of karmic obstructions, the increased power of the Vipāka (resultant fruit) that should be obtained, and because the root cause of observing the truth is damaged, or because of the damage caused by regret and sorrow, they cannot deeply understand what the Buddha said. If one clings to the meaning of the scriptures only according to the literal meaning, then it is greatly proven that uninterrupted karma cannot be transformed. Saying 'uninterrupted' shows that there is no interval. Moreover, that Devadatta superficially understood the Buddha's words and asked: 'For what reason will one inevitably be born in the uninterrupted hell?' Therefore, it is known that this is based on those who understand deeply to explain understanding. The evidence of prophesying rebirth in heaven cannot be established either, because the Buddha made a distinction in that sutra. That sutra says that all those who rely on the Dharma and circumambulate the Caitya will be reborn in the heavens. Those who have skillful means are called those who rely on the Dharma, which is the principle of allowing rebirth in the heavens. However, the Dṛṣṭāntika (logician) briefly quoted that sutra and opened the door for sentient beings to commit many evil deeds, because they allow those who commit fierce and extremely serious evil deeds to generate inferior good thoughts, or neutral thoughts, and temporarily circumambulating the Caitya will eliminate all sins. The evidence that he cannot be cured after severing the roots of goodness cannot be established either, even if the roots of goodness are severed, they can be turned around, and the Buddha should not say that he cannot be cured. Therefore, it is known that this sentence has another meaning, that is, that Devadatta first arose evil desires, and therefore he should have fallen into the evil realms. Then he arose
加行將破僧時。由此已應墮于地獄。次後妄語破壞僧時。由此已招無間劫壽。後起邪見斷善根已。定不可令現起白法。故說此後必不可治。非謂彼爾時方定墮地獄。然於此位容有生疑。提婆達多雖至此位佛何不療。如未生怨為遣彼疑。陳不療意言。我不見提婆達多可令現身起少白法。故我棄捨不欲療治。少白法言顯善悔愧。此中意顯佛曉諸親。天授如斯造重惡業。斷諸善本都無愧心。我當如何能救療彼。言可療者謂可化令生善。悔心伏惡行病。若未增者令其不增。若有已增令漸微薄。非要絕本方名療治。如世良醫療病法爾。煩惱障喻證亦不成。我亦不許彼可轉故。謂煩惱障發時定業。必護異熟皆不可轉。故譬喻者不善了知經及理趣。以大無義蘊在己心妄興邪辯。于諸惡行無間業中何罪最重。于諸妙行世善業中何最大果。頌曰。
破僧虛誑語 于罪中最大 感第一有思 世善中大果
論曰。為破僧故發虛誑語。諸惡行中此罪最大。如何此罪虛誑語收。由所發言依異想故。謂彼於法有法想。于非法有非法想。于大師有大師想。於己身有非一切智想。然由深固惡阿世耶。隱覆此想作別異說。設有不以異想破僧。則不能生劫壽重罪。何緣此罪惡行中最。由此毀傷佛法身故。障世生天解脫道故。謂僧已破乃至未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 當有人開始破壞僧團時，他就已經應該墮入地獄了。之後，如果他用虛妄的言語破壞僧團，那將會招致無間地獄的劫壽之苦。再之後，如果他生起邪見，斷絕了善根，那就一定不可能再讓他生起任何白法（善法）。所以說，這種情況之後，這個人必定是不可救治的。但這並不是說他那時才註定要墮入地獄。然而，在這個階段，人們可能會產生疑問：提婆達多（Devadatta，佛陀的堂兄弟，後背叛佛陀）雖然到了這種地步，佛陀為什麼不救治他呢？就像阿阇世王（Ajatasattu，頻婆娑羅王之子，后弒父篡位）一樣。爲了消除這種疑問，佛陀陳述了不救治的原因，說：『我沒有看到提婆達多能夠現身生起哪怕一點點的白法。』所以，我放棄了他，不想去救治他。『少白法』這個詞語顯示了善、懺悔和慚愧。這裡的意思是說，佛陀明白諸位親屬的想法，提婆達多如此造作深重的惡業，斷絕了一切善的根本，完全沒有慚愧之心，我又能如何救治他呢？所說的『可療治』，是指可以教化他，使他生起善心，懺悔，降伏惡行病。如果（惡行）還沒有增長，就讓它不要增長；如果已經增長，就讓它逐漸減少。並非一定要完全斷絕根本才叫做療治，就像世間的良醫治療疾病一樣。用煩惱障來比喻（提婆達多）的情況也是不成立的，因為我也不認為煩惱障是可以轉變的。煩惱障發生時，定業一定會保護異熟果報，這是不可轉變的。所以，用這個比喻的人沒有很好地理解經文和道理。以巨大的無意義蘊藏在自己的心中，妄自興起邪辯。在各種惡行和無間業中，什麼罪最重？在各種妙行和世間善業中，什麼果報最大？頌曰：
破壞僧團的虛誑語，在罪惡中最為嚴重； 感得第一有頂天的思，在世間善業中果報最大。
論曰：爲了破壞僧團而說虛誑的言語，在各種惡行中，這種罪過最大。為什麼這種罪過被歸為虛誑語呢？因為所說的話是依據錯誤的認知。也就是說，他對法產生非法想，對非法產生法想，對大師（佛陀）產生非大師想，對自己產生並非一切智者的想法。然而，由於深固的惡劣阿世耶（心態），他隱藏了這些想法，而說了別異的話。即使沒有用錯誤的認知來破壞僧團，也不會產生劫壽的重罪。為什麼這種罪過在惡行中最為嚴重呢？因為它毀壞了佛法的法身，阻礙了世間眾生生天和解脫的道路。也就是說，僧團一旦被破壞，直到……
【English Translation】 English version When someone is about to destroy the Sangha (community of monks), they are already destined to fall into hell. Subsequently, if they use false speech to destroy the Sangha, they will incur the suffering of kalpas (aeons) in Avici hell (the hell of uninterrupted suffering). Furthermore, if they develop wrong views and sever their roots of goodness, it will definitely be impossible to make them generate any white dharmas (wholesome qualities). Therefore, it is said that after this point, such a person is certainly incurable. However, this does not mean that they are only then destined to fall into hell. Nevertheless, at this stage, doubts may arise: Although Devadatta (Buddha's cousin who later betrayed him) reached this state, why didn't the Buddha cure him? Similar to Ajatasattu (son of King Bimbisara who later murdered his father to usurp the throne). To dispel this doubt, the Buddha explained the reason for not curing him, saying: 'I do not see that Devadatta can manifest even a little bit of white dharma.' Therefore, I abandoned him, not wanting to cure him. The term 'little white dharma' indicates goodness, repentance, and shame. The meaning here is that the Buddha understood the thoughts of all relatives, that Devadatta had committed such grave evil deeds, severed all roots of goodness, and had no sense of shame at all. How could I possibly save him? The term 'curable' refers to being able to teach and transform him, enabling him to generate good thoughts, repent, and subdue the illness of evil deeds. If (the evil deeds) have not yet increased, prevent them from increasing; if they have already increased, gradually diminish them. It is not necessary to completely sever the root to be called a cure, just like how a good doctor treats illnesses in the world. Using the obstacle of afflictions as an analogy (to Devadatta's situation) is also not valid, because I do not consider the obstacle of afflictions to be transformable. When the obstacle of afflictions arises, fixed karma will definitely protect the fruition of its results, which is untransformable. Therefore, the person who uses this analogy does not understand the sutras and the principles well. With great meaninglessness stored in their heart, they vainly raise wrong arguments. Among all evil deeds and uninterrupted karmas, which is the most severe sin? Among all wonderful deeds and worldly wholesome actions, what is the greatest result? The verse says:
The false speech that destroys the Sangha, is the most severe among sins; To experience the thought of the highest heaven, is the greatest result among worldly wholesome actions.
The treatise says: Speaking false words to destroy the Sangha, among all evil deeds, this sin is the greatest. Why is this sin categorized as false speech? Because the words spoken are based on wrong perceptions. That is, they have the perception of what is not Dharma as Dharma, and the perception of what is not Dharma as Dharma, the perception of the Master (Buddha) as not the Master, and the perception of themselves as not all-knowing. However, due to deeply rooted evil asaya (mindset), they conceal these thoughts and speak differently. Even without destroying the Sangha with wrong perceptions, one would not incur the heavy sin of kalpas. Why is this sin the most severe among evil deeds? Because it destroys the Dharma body of the Buddha's teachings, and obstructs sentient beings from being reborn in heavens and the path to liberation. That is, once the Sangha is destroyed, until...
合。力能遮遏諸異生等。未入正定令不得入。若已入正定令不得余果。若已得余果令不得離染。若已得離染令不證漏盡。習定溫誦思等業息。以要言之由僧被破。大千世界法輪不轉。天人龍等身心擾亂。由此定招無間地獄一劫異熟。非余惡行故惡行中此罪最重。若爾何故世尊或時于諸罪中說邪見重。又說意業罪中最大。據五無間說破僧重。據五僻見說邪見重。據一切業說意業大。或約修見俱所斷罪。如其次第說為最重。或依廣果斷諸善根害多有情。如次說重。感第一有異熟果思。於世善中為最大果。能感最極靜異熟故。約異熟果故作是說。如其通就五果說者。是則應說與金剛喻定相應思能得大果。謂此能得異熟果外諸有為無為四阿羅漢果。雖諸無漏無間道思。皆除異熟得餘四果。然此所得最為殊勝。諸結永斷為此果故。為簡此故說世善言。為唯無間罪定生地獄。諸無間同類亦定生彼。非定無間生。非無間業故。無間同類其相云何。頌曰。
污母無學尼 殺住定菩薩 及有學聖者 奪僧和合緣 破壞窣堵波 是無間同類
論曰。言同類者是相似義。若有于母阿羅漢尼行非梵行。為極污辱是名第一同類業相。若有殺害住定菩薩。是名害父同類業相。若有殺害有學聖者。是名第三同類業相。若有侵奪僧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 合。這種力量能夠阻止各種異生（指凡夫俗子）等，對於那些尚未進入正定的人，使他們無法進入；對於那些已經進入正定的人，使他們無法獲得其他果位；對於那些已經獲得其他果位的人，使他們無法脫離染污；對於那些已經脫離染污的人，使他們無法證得漏盡（指煩惱斷盡）。修習禪定、溫習經文、思維法義等善業都會停止。總而言之，由於僧團被破壞，整個大千世界的法輪（指佛法）不再運轉，天人、龍等眾生的身心都會受到擾亂。因此，這種行為必定會招感無間地獄一劫的異熟果報（指成熟的果報），這是其他惡行所不能比的，所以在各種惡行中，這種罪過最為嚴重。如果這樣，為什麼世尊有時在各種罪過中說邪見最為嚴重，又說意業（指思想行為）的罪過最大呢？這是因為從五無間罪（指極重的罪行）的角度來說，破壞僧團的罪過最重；從五種邪僻見解的角度來說，邪見的罪過最重；從一切業的角度來說，意業的罪過最大。或者可以從修所斷和見所斷的罪過來說，按照它們各自的次第，說為最重。或者可以依據廣果天（色界天之一）斷滅各種善根，損害眾多有情，按照次第說為重罪。能夠感得第一有（指地獄）的異熟果的思（指思想），在世間善法中是最大的果報，因為它能夠感得最極寂靜的異熟果。這是從異熟果的角度來說的。如果從通達五果（指五種果報）的角度來說，那麼就應該說與金剛喻定相應的思能夠得到最大的果報，因為這種思能夠得到異熟果之外的各種有為和無為的四種阿羅漢果。雖然各種無漏的無間道思，都能夠去除異熟果，得到其餘四種果報，但是這種思所得到的果報最為殊勝，因為各種煩惱的永遠斷除都是爲了這個果報。爲了簡別這一點，所以說世間善。是否只有無間罪必定會生在地獄中呢？各種無間罪的同類罪也會必定生在那裡嗎？不是必定會生在無間地獄，因為它們不是無間業。那麼，無間罪的同類罪的相狀是什麼呢？頌文說： 『污母無學尼，殺住定菩薩，及有學聖者，奪僧和合緣，破壞窣堵波，是無間同類。』 論中說：所說的同類，是相似的意思。如果有人對母親阿羅漢尼行非梵行（指性行為），這是極大的污辱，這是第一種同類業的相狀。如果有人殺害住于禪定的菩薩，這是殺害父親的同類業的相狀。如果有人殺害有學的聖者，這是第三種同類業的相狀。如果有人侵奪僧
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, this power can restrain various 'isheng' (異生) (ordinary beings), preventing those who have not yet entered 'zhengding' (正定) (right concentration) from entering, preventing those who have already entered 'zhengding' (正定) from attaining other fruits, preventing those who have already attained other fruits from detaching from defilements, and preventing those who have already detached from defilements from attaining the exhaustion of outflows. The activities of practicing 'ding' (定) (concentration), reciting scriptures, contemplating the Dharma, and other virtuous deeds will cease. In short, due to the disruption of the Sangha, the 'falun' (法輪) (Dharma wheel) of the entire 'daqian shijie' (大千世界) (great chiliocosm) will no longer turn, and the minds and bodies of 'tianren' (天人) (gods and humans), dragons, and other beings will be disturbed. Therefore, this action will inevitably bring about the 'yishu guobao' (異熟果報) (matured karmic retribution) of one 'jie' (劫) (kalpa) in 'wujian diyü' (無間地獄) (Avici Hell), which cannot be compared to other evil deeds. Therefore, among all evil deeds, this sin is the most serious. If so, why did the World Honored One sometimes say that 'xiejian' (邪見) (wrong views) are the most serious among all sins, and also say that the sin of 'yiye' (意業) (mental actions) is the greatest? This is because, from the perspective of the five 'wujian zui' (無間罪) (unpardonable sins), the sin of disrupting the Sangha is the most serious; from the perspective of the five perverse views, 'xiejian' (邪見) is the most serious; from the perspective of all actions, 'yiye' (意業) is the greatest. Or, it can be said that from the perspective of the sins that are severed by cultivation and those that are severed by view, they are said to be the most serious in their respective order. Or, based on the 'guangguo tian' (廣果天) (Bṛhatphala heaven) severing various good roots and harming many sentient beings, they are said to be serious in order. The 'si' (思) (thought) that can cause the 'yishu guo' (異熟果) (matured karmic result) of the first existence (hell) is the greatest reward among worldly good deeds, because it can cause the most extremely tranquil 'yishu guo' (異熟果). This is said from the perspective of the 'yishu guo' (異熟果). If one speaks from the perspective of understanding the five fruits, then it should be said that the 'si' (思) corresponding to the 'jingang yu ding' (金剛喻定) (Vajropama Samadhi) can obtain the greatest fruit, because this 'si' can obtain the four 'arahan guo' (阿羅漢果) (Arhat fruits) of various conditioned and unconditioned things other than the 'yishu guo' (異熟果). Although various non-outflow 'wujian dao si' (無間道思) (paths of immediate result) can remove the 'yishu guo' (異熟果) and obtain the remaining four fruits, the fruit obtained by this 'si' is the most supreme, because the eternal severance of various afflictions is for this fruit. In order to distinguish this, it is said that it is a worldly good. Is it only the 'wujian zui' (無間罪) that will definitely be born in hell? Will the similar sins of various 'wujian zui' (無間罪) also definitely be born there? It is not certain that they will be born in 'wujian diyü' (無間地獄), because they are not 'wujian ye' (無間業) (karmas of immediate result). So, what are the characteristics of the similar sins of 'wujian zui' (無間罪)? The verse says: 'Defiling a mother 'wuxue ni' (無學尼) (arhat nun), killing a 'zhuding' (住定) (abiding in samadhi) Bodhisattva, and 'youxue shengzhe' (有學聖者) (holy beings still in training), depriving the Sangha of the cause of harmony, destroying 'sudupa' (窣堵波) (stupas), these are similar to 'wujian' (無間) (unpardonable)'. The treatise says: What is said to be similar means similar in meaning. If someone commits non-brahmacharya (sexual misconduct) with a mother 'arahan ni' (阿羅漢尼) (arhat nun), this is extreme defilement, and this is the characteristic of the first type of similar karma. If someone kills a Bodhisattva abiding in 'chan ding' (禪定) (dhyana), this is the characteristic of the similar karma of killing a father. If someone kills a 'youxue shengzhe' (有學聖者) (holy being still in training), this is the characteristic of the third type of similar karma. If someone encroaches upon the Sangha
和合緣。是名破僧同類業相。若有破壞佛窣堵波。是名第五同類業相。有異熟業於三時中極能為障。言三時者。頌曰。
將得忍不還 無學業為障
論曰。若從頂位將得忍時。感惡趣業皆極為障。以忍超彼異熟地故。如人將離本所居國。一切債主皆極為障。若有將得不還果時。欲界系業皆極為障。若有將得無學果時。色無色業皆極為障。此後二位喻說如前。然於此中除順現受。及順不定受異熟。不定業並異熟定中非異處熟者。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯業品第四之十二
如上所言住定菩薩為從何位。得住定名。彼復於何說名為定。頌曰。
從修妙相業 菩薩得定名 生善趣貴家 具男念堅故
論曰。從修能感妙三十二大士夫相異熟果業。菩薩方得立住定名。以從此時乃至成佛常生善趣。及貴家等。生善趣者。謂生人天。由此趣中多行善故。妙可稱故立善趣名。于善趣內常生貴家。謂婆羅門。或剎帝利。巨富長者。大婆羅門家。于貴家中根有具缺。然彼菩薩恒具勝根。恒受男身尚不為女。何況有受扇𢮎等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 和合緣，這被稱為破壞僧團同類業（samghabheda，分裂僧團）的業相。如果有人破壞佛塔（stupa，佛塔），這被稱為第五種同類業相。有異熟業（vipāka-karma，果報業）在三個時間段中極能成為障礙。所說的三個時間段，頌文說： 『將得忍不還，無學業為障』 論曰：如果從頂位（mūrdhan，修行位階）將要獲得忍位（kṣānti，安忍）時，感生惡趣的業都極為障礙。因為忍位超越了那些異熟果報之地。就像一個人將要離開他所居住的國家，所有的債主都會成為極大的障礙。如果有人將要獲得不還果（anāgāmin，不還果）時，欲界系的業都會成為極大的障礙。如果有人將要獲得無學果（arhat，阿羅漢果）時，色界和無色界的業都會成為極大的障礙。後面這兩種情況的比喻就像前面所說的那樣。然而，在這裡面，要排除順現受業（dṛṣṭadharmavedanīya karma，現報業）和順不定受異熟業（aniyatavedanīya vipāka，不定時受報業），以及異熟不定業中非異處成熟的業。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十三 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十四 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯業品第四之十二 如上所說，安住于禪定的菩薩從哪個位階開始，可以得到『住定』的名稱？他又在什麼情況下被稱為『定』呢？頌文說： 『從修妙相業，菩薩得定名，生善趣貴家，具男念堅故。』 論曰：從修習能夠感得殊妙的三十二大丈夫相（dvātrimśat mahāpuruṣa lakṣaṇāni，三十二大丈夫相）的異熟果報之業開始，菩薩才能夠被安立為『住定』之名。因為從這個時候開始，直到成佛，菩薩常常出生在善趣（sugati，善道）以及貴族之家等等。出生在善趣，指的是出生在人道和天道。因為在這些道中多行善事，美好值得稱讚，所以立名為善趣。在善趣之內，常常出生在貴族之家，比如婆羅門（brāhmaṇa，婆羅門），或者剎帝利（kṣatriya，剎帝利），巨富長者，大婆羅門家。在貴族之家，根器有具足和殘缺的，然而那位菩薩總是具有殊勝的根器，總是受生為男身，尚且不會成為女人，更何況是受生為閹人等等。
【English Translation】 English version 『Causing harmonious conditions』 is called the karma-aspect of breaking the Sangha into factions (samghabheda). If someone destroys a Buddha's stupa (stupa), this is called the fifth karma-aspect of the same kind. There is ripening karma (vipāka-karma) that is extremely obstructive in three periods of time. Regarding the three periods of time, the verse says: 『When about to attain forbearance or non-return, the karma of non-learning is an obstacle.』 The treatise says: If, from the peak position (mūrdhan), one is about to attain forbearance (kṣānti), the karma that causes rebirth in evil destinies is extremely obstructive. This is because forbearance transcends those lands of ripening. It is like a person who is about to leave the country where he lives, all the creditors become a great obstacle. If someone is about to attain the fruit of non-return (anāgāmin), the karma of the desire realm becomes a great obstacle. If someone is about to attain the fruit of non-learning (arhat), the karma of the form and formless realms becomes a great obstacle. The metaphors for the latter two positions are as described before. However, in this context, we exclude karma that ripens in the present life (dṛṣṭadharmavedanīya karma) and karma with indeterminate ripening (aniyatavedanīya vipāka), as well as karma with indeterminate ripening that does not ripen in a different place. Shun zheng li lun (Treatise on Accordance with the Right Principle) by the Sarvāstivāda school, Volume 43 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 44 Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian Translated under imperial decree by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang Chapter 4.12: Discussion on Karma As mentioned above, from what stage does a Bodhisattva abiding in samadhi get the name 'abiding in samadhi'? And in what situation is he called 'in samadhi'? The verse says: 『From cultivating the karma of excellent marks, a Bodhisattva gets the name of being in samadhi; he is born in good destinies and noble families, possessing maleness and firm mindfulness.』 The treatise says: Only from cultivating the karma that can bring about the ripening result of the thirty-two excellent marks of a great man (dvātrimśat mahāpuruṣa lakṣaṇāni), can a Bodhisattva be established with the name 'abiding in samadhi'. Because from this time until becoming a Buddha, he is always born in good destinies (sugati) and noble families, etc. Being born in good destinies refers to being born in the realms of humans and gods. Because in these realms, much good is done, and they are wonderfully praiseworthy, they are named good destinies. Within the good destinies, he is always born in noble families, such as Brahmins (brāhmaṇa), or Kshatriyas (kṣatriya), immensely wealthy elders, or great Brahmin families. Within noble families, faculties may be complete or incomplete, but that Bodhisattva always possesses superior faculties, and is always born as a male, and will certainly not be born as a female, let alone being born as a eunuch, etc.
身。生生常能憶念宿命。所作善事常無退屈。謂于利樂一切有情。一切時中一切方便。心無厭倦名無退屈。由無退屈故說為堅豈不未修妙相業位菩提心不退應立住定名。何故要修妙相業位。菩薩方受住定位名。爾時人天方共知故。先時但為諸天所知。或於爾時趣等覺定。先唯等覺決定非余。何相應知修妙相業。頌曰。
贍部男對佛 佛思思所成 余百劫方修 各百福嚴飾
論曰。菩薩要在贍部洲中。方能造修引妙相業。此洲覺慧最明利故。唯是男子非女等身。爾時已超女等位故。此不應說於前頌中。恒受男身義已顯故。若謂先說造此業。已恒受男身。今說為明初造此業亦非女等故。此與前義有差別。此救非理義已成故。謂先已說造此業已。非女等身已顯造時。亦非女等以非女等。適造此業即轉形故。能招善逝殊妙相業。必依凈身方能引起。故由先說此義已成。造此業時唯現對佛。謂親見佛不共色身相好端嚴種種奇特。有欲引起感此類思。不對如來無容起故。此妙相業唯緣佛思。佛是可欣順德境故。感妙相業唯思所成。非修所成不定界故。所感異熟此所繫故。非聞所成彼羸劣故。亦非生得加行起故。謂彼唯於三無數劫。修行施等波羅蜜多圓滿身中方可得故。唯是加行非生得善。唯余百劫造修非多。諸佛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身。生生世世常常能夠憶念前世的經歷。所做的善事常常沒有退縮。爲了利益安樂一切有情眾生，在任何時間，用任何方法，內心都沒有厭倦，這叫做沒有退縮。因為沒有退縮，所以說這是堅固的。難道不是沒有修習妙相業位，菩提心不退轉，就應該安立住于決定之名嗎？為什麼一定要修習妙相業位，菩薩才能接受住于決定之名呢？因為那時人天才能共同知曉。先前只是被諸天所知。或者在那時趣向等覺的決定。先前只有等覺是決定的，而不是其他的。什麼相應知道修習妙相業呢？頌詞說： 『贍部洲男子面對佛陀，佛陀的思念所成就，其餘百劫方才修習，各自用百福來莊嚴。』 論述：菩薩一定要在贍部洲中，才能造作修習引生妙相的業。因為這個洲的覺悟智慧最為明利。只有男子，而不是女人等身。因為那時已經超越了女人等的地位。這不應該在前面的頌詞中說，恒常受生為男子之義已經顯明瞭。如果說先前說造作此業，已經恒常受生為男子之身，現在說是爲了說明最初造作此業也不是女人等，所以這與前面的意義有差別。這種辯解是不合理的，因為意義已經成立了。先前已經說了造作此業，不是女人等身，已經顯示了造作之時，也不是女人等，因為不是女人等，剛剛造作此業就轉變了形體。能夠招感善逝殊勝妙相的業，必須依靠清凈之身才能引起。所以由於先前說了這個意義已經成立。造作此業時，唯有顯現面對佛陀。就是親眼見到佛陀不共的色身相好端嚴種種奇特，有想要引起感應此類思念的，不對著如來是無法生起的。這種妙相業唯有緣于佛陀的思念。佛陀是可喜的順德之境。感應妙相的業唯有思念所成就，不是修習所成就，因為是不定界。所感應的異熟是與此相關的。不是聽聞所成就，因為聽聞是羸弱的。也不是生來就有的，而是通過加行而生起的。就是在三個無數劫中，修行佈施等波羅蜜多圓滿之身中才可以得到。唯有加行而不是生來就有的善。只有其餘百劫造作修習，不是很多。諸佛
【English Translation】 English version Body. Being born again and again, one can always remember past lives. The good deeds done are always without regression. This means that in benefiting and bringing happiness to all sentient beings, at all times and with all means, the mind is without weariness, which is called 'without regression.' Because of 'without regression,' it is said to be firm. Shouldn't one who has not cultivated the excellent marks and signs karma position, whose Bodhi mind does not regress, be established with the name of 'abiding in certainty'? Why is it necessary to cultivate the excellent marks and signs karma position for a Bodhisattva to receive the name of 'abiding in certainty'? Because only then will humans and gods jointly know it. Previously, it was only known by the gods. Or at that time, one proceeds towards the certainty of complete enlightenment. Previously, only complete enlightenment was certain, not anything else. What should one know corresponds to cultivating the excellent marks and signs karma? The verse says: 'A man in Jambudvipa faces the Buddha, the Buddha's thoughts accomplish it, the remaining hundred kalpas are then cultivated, each adorned with a hundred blessings.' Commentary: A Bodhisattva must be in Jambudvipa (the continent south of Mount Meru) to create and cultivate the karma that leads to excellent marks and signs. This is because the wisdom and intelligence of this continent are the most sharp and keen. Only a man, not a woman or other such body. Because at that time, one has already transcended the position of women and others. This should not be said in the previous verse, as the meaning of constantly receiving a male body has already been revealed. If it is said that previously it was said that creating this karma already results in constantly receiving a male body, and now it is said to clarify that the initial creation of this karma is also not by women or others, then this has a difference from the previous meaning. This defense is unreasonable because the meaning has already been established. Previously, it was already said that creating this karma is not done by women or others, which has already shown that at the time of creation, it is also not by women or others, because if it were not women or others, the form would transform immediately upon creating this karma. The karma that can attract the Sugata's (Buddha's) excellent marks and signs must rely on a pure body to be aroused. Therefore, because the previous meaning has already been established. At the time of creating this karma, only the appearance of facing the Buddha is present. That is, personally seeing the Buddha's uncommon form, the adornments of the marks and signs, the uprightness, and all kinds of uniqueness, if one wants to arouse the feeling of responding to such thoughts, it cannot arise without facing the Tathagata (Buddha). This excellent marks and signs karma only arises from thoughts of the Buddha. The Buddha is a pleasing and virtuous object. The karma that responds to the excellent marks and signs is only accomplished by thought, not by cultivation, because it is an indefinite realm. The resultant maturation that is felt is related to this. It is not accomplished by hearing, because hearing is weak. It is also not innate, but arises through effort. That is, it can only be obtained in the body that has perfected the practice of generosity and other Paramitas (perfections) over three countless kalpas. It is only effort and not innate goodness. Only the remaining hundred kalpas are used for creation and cultivation, which is not much. The Buddhas
因中法應如是。唯薄伽梵釋迦牟尼。精進滿時能超九劫。九十一劫妙相業成。是故如來告聚落主。我憶九十一劫以來。不見一家因施我食。有少傷損唯成大利。從此自性恒憶宿生。故說齊斯非前不憶。一一妙相百福莊嚴。此中百思名為百福。謂將造一一妙相業時先起五十思凈治身器。其次方起引一相業。於後復起五十善思。莊嚴引業令得圓滿。五十思者依十業道。一一業道各起五思。且依最初離殺業道。有五思者一離殺思。二勸導思。三讚美思。四隨喜思。五迴向思。謂回所修向解脫故。乃至正見各五亦然。有餘師言。依十業道各起下等五品善思。前後各然如熏靜慮。有餘師說。依十業道各起五思。一加行凈。二根本凈。三後起凈。四非尋害。五念攝受。復有師言。一一相業各為緣佛。未曾習思具百現前而為嚴飾。百福一一其量云何。有說以依三無數劫增長功德。所整合身發起如斯。無對無數殊勝福德量唯佛知。有說若由業增上力。感輪王位王四大洲自在而轉是一福量。有說若由業增上力得為帝釋王。二欲天自在而轉是一福量。有說唯除近佛菩薩所餘一切有情。所修富樂果業是一福量。有餘師言。此量太少應言世界將欲成時。一切有情感大千土。業增上力是一福量。今薄伽梵昔菩薩時。三無數劫中各供養幾佛。頌曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因（hetu）中法應如是。唯有薄伽梵（Bhagavan）釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni），精進圓滿之時能夠超越九劫（kalpa）。九十一劫的妙相（lakshana）之業得以成就。因此，如來（Tathagata）告訴聚落主：『我回憶九十一劫以來，未曾見過一家因為佈施食物給我而有絲毫的損傷，反而成就了巨大的利益。』從此，自性恒常憶念宿世的因緣。所以說，從那時開始並非之前不憶念。每一個妙相都由百福（sukhāvati）來莊嚴。這裡所說的『百思』被稱為『百福』。意思是說，在將要造作每一個妙相之業時，先發起五十種思，來清凈身器。然後才發起引生一個相的業。之後又發起五十種善思，來莊嚴引業，使之圓滿。這五十種思是依據十業道（karma-patha），每一個業道各發起五種思。且依據最初的離殺業道，有五種思：一是離殺思，二是勸導思，三是讚美思，四是隨喜思，五是迴向思。所謂迴向，就是將所修的功德迴向于解脫。乃至正見（samyag-drsti）也是各有五種思。有其他老師說，依據十業道，各發起下、中、上等五品善思，前後都是這樣，就像熏習靜慮（dhyana）一樣。還有其他老師說，依據十業道，各發起五種思：一是加行清凈，二是根本清凈，三是後起清凈，四是非尋害，五是念攝受。又有老師說，每一個相業都是爲了緣佛（Buddha），未曾習思，具足百種顯現，而作為莊嚴。百福的每一個的量是多少呢？有人說，以依靠三無數劫（asamkhyeya kalpa）增長的功德，所整合之身，發起這樣的無對無數殊勝的福德，其量唯有佛才能知曉。有人說，如果由業的增上力，感得輪王（chakravartin）之位，統治四大洲，自在而轉，這就是一福的量。有人說，如果由業的增上力，得以成為帝釋（Indra），統治二欲天（kama-avacara）自在而轉，這就是一福的量。有人說，除了接近佛的菩薩（Bodhisattva）之外，其餘一切有情所修的富樂果業，這就是一福的量。還有其他老師說，這個量太少了，應該說世界將要形成的時候，一切有情充滿大千世界（tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-loka-dhatu），由業的增上力，這就是一福的量。現在薄伽梵過去作為菩薩的時候，在三無數劫中，各供養了多少佛呢？頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version The law of cause and effect should be understood in this way. Only Bhagavan Shakyamuni, through diligent effort, can transcend nine kalpas (aeons). After ninety-one kalpas, the karma of excellent marks (lakshana) is perfected. Therefore, the Tathagata (Thus Gone One) told the village chief: 'I recall that in the ninety-one kalpas since then, I have not seen a single family suffer any loss from giving me food; on the contrary, they have achieved great benefit.' From then on, the self-nature constantly remembers past lives. Therefore, it is said that from that time on, it is not that he did not remember before. Each excellent mark is adorned with a hundred blessings (sukhāvati). Here, 'a hundred thoughts' are called 'a hundred blessings.' This means that when about to create the karma of each excellent mark, one first generates fifty thoughts to purify the body. Then one generates the karma that produces a mark. After that, one generates another fifty good thoughts to adorn the karma and make it complete. These fifty thoughts are based on the ten paths of karma (karma-patha), with each path generating five thoughts. Taking the first path of abstaining from killing as an example, there are five thoughts: first, the thought of abstaining from killing; second, the thought of encouraging others to abstain from killing; third, the thought of praising those who abstain from killing; fourth, the thought of rejoicing in the abstention from killing; and fifth, the thought of dedicating the merit to liberation. Similarly, even right view (samyag-drsti) has five thoughts. Some teachers say that based on the ten paths of karma, one generates five kinds of good thoughts of lower, middle, and upper quality, both before and after, like perfuming meditative concentration (dhyana). Other teachers say that based on the ten paths of karma, one generates five thoughts: first, purity of preparation; second, fundamental purity; third, purity of subsequent action; fourth, non-harmful thought; and fifth, mindfulness. Still other teachers say that each mark-karma is for the sake of being connected to the Buddha (Buddha), without previous practice, fully manifesting a hundred aspects as adornments. How great is the measure of each of the hundred blessings? Some say that it is based on the merit accumulated over three asamkhyeya kalpas (incalculable aeons), which manifests in the body and generates such incomparable and immeasurable superior blessings, the measure of which only the Buddha knows. Some say that if, through the power of karma, one attains the position of a wheel-turning king (chakravartin), ruling the four continents with freedom, that is the measure of one blessing. Some say that if, through the power of karma, one becomes Indra (Indra), the king of the two desire realms (kama-avacara), ruling with freedom, that is the measure of one blessing. Some say that, except for Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) close to the Buddha, the wealth and happiness resulting from the karma cultivated by all other sentient beings is the measure of one blessing. Other teachers say that this measure is too small; it should be said that when the world is about to form, all sentient beings fill the tri-sahasra-maha-sahasra-loka-dhatu (great trichiliocosm), and through the power of karma, that is the measure of one blessing. Now, how many Buddhas did Bhagavan, as a Bodhisattva in the past, make offerings to during the three asamkhyeya kalpas? The verse says:
於三無數劫 各供養七萬 又如次供養 五六七千佛
論曰。初無數劫中供養七萬五千佛。次無數劫中供養七萬六千佛。后無數劫中供養七萬七千佛。三無數劫一一滿時。及初發心各逢何佛。頌曰。
三無數劫滿 逆次逢勝觀 然燈寶髻佛 初釋迦牟尼
論曰。言逆次者自後向前。謂于第三無數劫滿。所逢事佛名為勝觀。第二劫滿所逢事佛名曰然燈。第一劫滿所逢事佛名為寶髻。初無數劫首逢釋迦牟尼。謂我世尊初發心位。逢一薄伽梵號釋迦牟尼。彼佛出時正居末劫。滅后正法唯住千年。時我世尊為陶師子。于彼佛所起殷凈心。涂以香油浴以香水。設供養已發弘誓願。愿我當作佛一如今世尊。故今如來一一同彼。我釋迦菩薩於何位中。何波羅蜜多修習圓滿。頌曰。
但由悲普施 被析身無忿 讚歎底沙佛 次無上菩提 六波羅蜜多 于如是四位 一二又一二 如次修圓滿
論曰。菩薩發願初修施時。未能遍於一切含識。施一切物唯運悲心。彼於後時串習力故。悲心轉盛能遍施與。一切有情非一切物。若時菩薩普於一切。能捨一切但由悲心。非自希求勝生差別。齊此佈施波羅蜜多修習圓滿。有說菩薩觀諸世間。匱乏資財貧苦所逼。為欲饒益亦帶悲心。發願
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 於三無數劫（Asamkhya kalpa，無法計算的劫），各自供養七萬尊佛 又依次供養五萬、六萬、七萬尊佛
論曰：最初的無數劫中供養七萬五千尊佛，其次的無數劫中供養七萬六千尊佛，最後的無數劫中供養七萬七千尊佛。這三個無數劫各自圓滿時，以及最初發心時，分別遇到哪尊佛？頌曰：
三無數劫滿，逆次逢勝觀（勝觀佛） 然燈（燃燈佛）寶髻佛（寶髻佛），初釋迦牟尼（釋迦牟尼佛）
論曰：所說的『逆次』是指從後向前。意思是說，在第三個無數劫圓滿時，所遇到的佛名為勝觀。第二個劫圓滿時所遇到的佛名為燃燈。第一個劫圓滿時所遇到的佛名為寶髻。最初的無數劫開始時遇到釋迦牟尼佛。意思是說，我世尊最初發心的時候，遇到一位薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊），名為釋迦牟尼。那位佛出現時正處於末劫，滅度后正法只住世一千年。當時我世尊是一位陶師之子，在那位佛的處所生起慇勤恭敬之心，用香油塗抹，用香水沐浴，設定供養后發下弘大的誓願：『愿我將來成佛時，一切都像如今的世尊一樣。』所以如今的如來（Tathagata，如來）一切都與那位佛相同。我釋迦菩薩在什麼位次中，哪種波羅蜜多（paramita，到彼岸）修習圓滿？頌曰：
但由悲普施，被析身無忿 讚歎底沙佛（底沙佛），次無上菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺） 六波羅蜜多，于如是四位 一二又一二，如次修圓滿
論曰：菩薩發願最初修習佈施時，未能遍及一切含識（有情眾生），佈施一切事物，只是運用悲心。他在後來的時間裡，由於串習的力量，悲心逐漸增強，能夠普遍施與一切有情，但不是一切事物。如果菩薩普遍地對於一切眾生，能夠捨棄一切，只是由於悲心，而不是自己希求殊勝的果報差別，到這個時候，佈施波羅蜜多才算修習圓滿。有人說，菩薩觀察到世間眾生，匱乏資財，被貧窮困苦所逼迫，爲了想要饒益他們，也帶著悲心，發願
【English Translation】 English version For three Asamkhya kalpas (innumerable eons), each offered to seventy thousand Buddhas. And successively offered to fifty thousand, sixty thousand, and seventy thousand Buddhas.
Treatise says: In the first Asamkhya kalpa, offerings were made to seventy-five thousand Buddhas. In the next Asamkhya kalpa, offerings were made to seventy-six thousand Buddhas. In the last Asamkhya kalpa, offerings were made to seventy-seven thousand Buddhas. When each of these three Asamkhya kalpas was completed, and at the initial aspiration, which Buddhas were encountered? The verse says:
When three Asamkhya kalpas are complete, in reverse order, one encounters Sheng Guan (Surpassing Vision Buddha), Ran Deng (Dipamkara Buddha), Bao Ji Buddha (Ratnaketu Buddha), and initially Shakyamuni (Shakyamuni Buddha).
Treatise says: 'In reverse order' means from back to front. It means that upon the completion of the third Asamkhya kalpa, the Buddha encountered is named Sheng Guan. Upon the completion of the second kalpa, the Buddha encountered is named Ran Deng. Upon the completion of the first kalpa, the Buddha encountered is named Bao Ji. At the beginning of the first Asamkhya kalpa, Shakyamuni Buddha was encountered. It means that when our World-Honored One first made the aspiration, he encountered a Bhagavan (Blessed One) named Shakyamuni. When that Buddha appeared, it was during the degenerate age, and after his extinction, the Proper Dharma only remained for one thousand years. At that time, our World-Honored One was the son of a potter, and at that Buddha's place, he arose with earnest and pure mind, anointed him with fragrant oil, bathed him with fragrant water, and after making offerings, made a great vow: 'May I become a Buddha in the future, just like the World-Honored One now.' Therefore, the Tathagata (Thus Come One) now is the same as that Buddha in every way. In what stage was our Shakyamuni Bodhisattva, and which paramita (perfection) did he cultivate to perfection? The verse says:
Solely through compassion and universal giving, even when the body is dissected, there is no anger. Praising Tisha Buddha (Tishya Buddha), then Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unsurpassed complete enlightenment). The six paramitas, in these four stages, One, two, then one, two, are cultivated to perfection in that order.
Treatise says: When the Bodhisattva initially aspires and cultivates giving, he is not yet able to universally give to all sentient beings, nor give all things, but only employs compassion. Later, due to the power of habituation, compassion gradually increases, and he is able to universally give to all sentient beings, but not all things. If the Bodhisattva universally, for all beings, is able to give up everything, solely due to compassion, and not seeking superior rebirths for himself, then the paramita of giving is considered to be cultivated to perfection. Some say that the Bodhisattva observes that the beings of the world are lacking in resources and oppressed by poverty, and in order to benefit them, he also has compassion and makes vows.
自求勝生差別。以諸菩薩曾無一時不運悲心而行施故。若時菩薩被析身支雖未離欲。貪而心無少忿齊此戒忍波羅蜜多修習圓滿。忍圓滿者。于彼有情心無忿。故戒圓滿者不起害他身語業故。心無忿故身語無惡故。無忿時戒忍圓滿。若時菩薩勇猛精進。讚歎底沙便超九劫。齊此精進波羅蜜多修習圓滿。謂昔有佛號曰底沙。彼佛有二菩薩弟子。一名釋迦牟尼。一名梅怛儷藥。佛因觀察自所化田。分明照知此二弟子。能寂所化先熟非自身。慈氏自身先熟非所化。知已復作如是思惟。速熟一身其事少易。遂以方便入寶龕中。結加趺坐依殊勝定。不共佛法普現在前。能寂因行遇見彼佛。威光赫奕特異於常。欻為凈心執持舉體。一足而立經七晝夜。以妙伽他贊彼佛曰。
天地此界多聞室 逝宮天處十方無 丈夫牛王大沙門 尋地山林遍無等
如是贊已便超九劫。于慈氏前證無上果。若時菩薩處金剛座。將登無上正等菩提。次無上覺前住金剛喻定。齊此定慧波羅蜜多修習圓滿。理應此位無間方圓得盡智時此方滿故。別別能到圓德彼岸故。此六名波羅蜜多。契經說有三福業事。一施類福業事。二戒類福業事。三修類福業事。此云何立福業事名。頌曰。
施戒修三類 各隨其所應 受福業事名 差別如業道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自求勝生差別。因為諸位菩薩沒有一時不運用悲心而行佈施的緣故。如果菩薩在被肢解身體的時候，即使還沒有斷除慾望，只要心中沒有絲毫的嗔恨，就表示此戒忍波羅蜜多（Śīla-kṣānti-pāramitā，持戒忍辱到彼岸）修習圓滿。忍辱圓滿的人，對於其他眾生心中沒有嗔恨。持戒圓滿的人，不會發起傷害他人身語的行為。心中沒有嗔恨，所以身語沒有惡行。沒有嗔恨的時候，持戒和忍辱就圓滿了。如果菩薩勇猛精進，讚歎底沙佛（Tīṣa Buddha），便超越九劫。就表示此精進波羅蜜多（Vīrya-pāramitā，精進到彼岸）修習圓滿。過去有一尊佛，名叫底沙佛。這位佛有兩位菩薩弟子，一位名叫釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni），一位名叫梅怛儷藥（Maitreya）。佛觀察自己所教化的眾生，清楚地知道這兩位弟子，能寂（Śamatha）所教化的眾生先成熟，而不是自身；慈氏（Maitreya）自身先成熟，而不是所教化的眾生。知道后又這樣思考，快速成熟自身比較容易。於是用方便法門進入寶龕中，結跏趺坐，依靠殊勝的禪定，不共佛法普遍顯現。能寂因為行走遇見了那尊佛，威光赫奕，特別不同於平常。忽然生起清凈心，執持身體，單足站立了七個晝夜，用美妙的伽他讚歎那尊佛說： 『天地此界多聞室，逝宮天處十方無，丈夫牛王大沙門，尋地山林遍無等。』 這樣讚歎后便超越了九劫，在慈氏之前證得了無上正果。如果菩薩處於金剛座（Vajrāsana），將要證得無上正等菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi），在無上覺悟之前安住于金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）。就表示此定慧波羅蜜多（Dhyāna-prajñā-pāramitā，禪定智慧到彼岸）修習圓滿。理應在這個位置上，無間斷地獲得盡智的時候，此方才圓滿。分別能夠到達圓滿功德的彼岸。這六個名稱是波羅蜜多。契經上說有三種福業事，一是佈施類的福業事，二是持戒類的福業事，三是修習類的福業事。這三種為什麼稱為福業事呢？頌詞說： 『施戒修三類，各隨其所應，受福業事名，差別如業道。』
【English Translation】 English version Differences in seeking superior rebirth arise because all Bodhisattvas constantly act with compassion and give alms. If a Bodhisattva is being dismembered, even if they have not yet abandoned desire, as long as there is no anger in their heart, it signifies the complete cultivation of the Śīla-kṣānti-pāramitā (Perfection of Morality and Patience). One who has perfected patience has no anger towards other sentient beings. One who has perfected morality does not initiate harmful actions of body and speech towards others. Because there is no anger in the heart, there are no evil deeds of body and speech. When there is no anger, morality and patience are perfected. If a Bodhisattva is courageous and diligent, praising Tīṣa Buddha, they will transcend nine kalpas. This signifies the complete cultivation of the Vīrya-pāramitā (Perfection of Diligence). In the past, there was a Buddha named Tīṣa. This Buddha had two Bodhisattva disciples, one named Śākyamuni and one named Maitreya. The Buddha observed the beings he was to teach and clearly knew that the beings to be taught by Śamatha would mature first, not himself; and that Maitreya himself would mature first, not the beings to be taught. Knowing this, he further contemplated that it was easier to quickly mature oneself. Therefore, he skillfully entered a jeweled chamber, sat in the lotus position, and relied on supreme samādhi, with the unique Buddha-dharmas universally manifesting. Śamatha, while walking, encountered that Buddha, whose majestic light was exceptionally different from usual. Suddenly, with a pure heart, he held his body and stood on one foot for seven days and nights, praising that Buddha with a wonderful gatha: 『Heaven and earth, this realm, a chamber of vast learning, the departed palace, heavenly abode, nowhere in the ten directions, a hero, bull-king, great śrāmaṇa, searching the earth, forests, everywhere unequaled.』 Having praised in this way, he transcended nine kalpas and attained unsurpassed enlightenment before Maitreya. If a Bodhisattva is at the Vajrāsana (Diamond Throne), about to attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment), abiding in Vajropama-samādhi (Diamond-like Samādhi) before the unsurpassed awakening, it signifies the complete cultivation of the Dhyāna-prajñā-pāramitā (Perfection of Meditation and Wisdom). It is reasonable that in this position, one continuously obtains exhaustive knowledge, and only then is this side perfected, being able to separately reach the other shore of perfect virtue. These six are called pāramitās. The sutras say there are three meritorious deeds: the meritorious deed of giving, the meritorious deed of morality, and the meritorious deed of cultivation. Why are these three called meritorious deeds? The verse says: 『Giving, morality, and cultivation, each according to its appropriateness, receives the name of meritorious deed, with differences like the paths of karma.』
論曰。三類皆福或業或事隨其所應如業道說。謂如分別十業道中。有業亦道。有道非業。此中有福亦業亦事。有福業非事。有福事非業。有唯是福非業非事。且施類中身語二業。具福業事三種義名。善故是福。作故亦業。是能等起身語業思。轉所依門故亦名事。彼等起思唯名福業。思俱有法唯受福名。戒類既唯身語業性。故皆具受福業事名。修類中慈唯名福事。業之事故慈相應思。以慈為門而造作故。慈俱思戒唯名福業。余俱有法唯受福名。悲等準此皆應思擇。有說福業顯作福義。謂福加行事顯所依。謂施戒修是福業之事。為成彼三起福加行故。有說唯思是真福業。福業之事謂施戒修。以三為門福業轉故。何法名施施招何果。頌曰。
由此舍名施 謂為供為益 身語及能發 此招大富果
論曰。雖所舍物及能捨具皆可名施。而於此中所立施名但依舍具。謂由此具舍事得成故。舍所由是真施體。如所度境不得量名。所立量名依能度具。或為角勝貯藏稱譽。傳習隨他親愛親附。由如是等舍事亦成。然非此中正意所說。為簡彼故說為供為益。言于已涅槃唯為。供養于余亦為益。彼大種諸根有行施時。但為益彼具名何謂。謂身語業及此能發。能發謂何謂。無貪俱能起此聚即身語業。及能起心並此俱行總
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論中說，這三類都屬於福，或者屬於業，或者屬於事，應根據它們各自的情況，如業道中所說的那樣。就像在分別十業道中，有的屬於業也屬於道，有的屬於道但不屬於業。這裡面，有的福既是業也是事，有的福是業但不是事，有的福是事但不是業，有的僅僅是福，既不是業也不是事。比如，在佈施這一類中，身和語兩種行為，同時具備福、業、事三種含義。因為是善行，所以是福；因為是造作，所以是業；因為是能夠發起身語業思的轉變所依之門，所以也是事。而與佈施相應的思，僅僅被稱為福業。與思同時存在的其他法，僅僅接受福的名稱。持戒這一類，因為僅僅是身語的行為，所以都同時接受福、業、事的名稱。在修行這一類中，慈愛僅僅被稱為福事，因為是業的事，與慈愛相應的思，因為以慈愛為門徑而造作，所以慈愛以及相應的思和戒，僅僅被稱為福業。其餘同時存在的法，僅僅接受福的名稱。悲等也應該按照這個原則來思考。有人說，福業是顯示造福的意義，也就是福的加行；事是顯示所依，也就是佈施、持戒、修行是福業的事，爲了成就這三者而發起福的加行。也有人說，只有思才是真正的福業，福業的事是指佈施、持戒、修行，因為以這三者為門徑，福業才能得以運轉。什麼法被稱為佈施？佈施會招來什麼果報？頌詞說： 『由此舍名施，謂為供為益；身語及能發，此招大富果。』 論中說，雖然所捨棄的物品以及能捨棄的工具都可以稱為佈施，但是這裡所確立的佈施之名，僅僅依據捨棄的工具。因為憑藉這個工具，捨棄的事情才能得以成就，所以捨棄所憑藉的才是真正的佈施的本體。就像所度量的境界不能得到量這個名稱一樣，所確立的量這個名稱，是依據能度量的工具。或者爲了角勝、貯藏、稱譽、傳習、隨順他人、親愛、親附，通過這些方式，捨棄的事情也能得以成就，然而這些不是這裡所要說的真正含義。爲了簡別這些，所以說『為供為益』。對於已經涅槃的人，僅僅是爲了供養；對於其他人，也是爲了利益。那些大種諸根在施行佈施的時候，僅僅是爲了利益他們，具備什麼名稱呢？就是身語業以及發起這些行為的因素。發起這些行為的因素是什麼呢？就是無貪以及能夠發起這些行為的聚合，也就是身語業，以及能夠發起的心，以及與此心同時存在的總和。
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise states that all three categories are blessings, or karma, or actions, according to their respective natures, as described in the paths of karma. Just as in distinguishing the ten paths of karma, some are both karma and path, while some are path but not karma. Here, some blessings are both karma and action, some blessings are karma but not action, some blessings are action but not karma, and some are only blessings, neither karma nor action. For example, in the category of giving (dana), the two actions of body and speech possess the three meanings of blessing, karma, and action. Because they are virtuous, they are blessings; because they are actions, they are karma; because they are the means by which the thoughts of body, speech, and mind arise and transform, they are also actions. The thought (citta) associated with giving is only called blessing-karma. The co-existent dharmas with the thought only receive the name of blessing. The category of precepts (sila), being only the nature of body and speech actions, all receive the names of blessing, karma, and action. In the category of cultivation (bhavana), loving-kindness (metta) is only called blessing-action, because it is the action of karma. The thought associated with loving-kindness, because it is created through the gateway of loving-kindness, loving-kindness, the associated thought, and precepts are only called blessing-karma. The remaining co-existent dharmas only receive the name of blessing. Compassion (karuna) and the others should be considered in the same way. Some say that blessing-karma reveals the meaning of creating blessings, that is, the application of blessings; action reveals the basis, that is, giving, precepts, and cultivation are the actions of blessing-karma, and the application of blessings is initiated to accomplish these three. Others say that only thought is true blessing-karma, and the actions of blessing-karma refer to giving, precepts, and cultivation, because blessing-karma operates through these three gateways. What dharma is called giving? What result does giving bring? The verse says: 『By this relinquishing is called giving, meaning for offering or for benefit; body, speech, and the ability to initiate, these bring the result of great wealth.』 The treatise states that although the objects relinquished and the means of relinquishing can both be called giving, the name of giving established here only relies on the means of relinquishing. Because the act of relinquishing is accomplished through this means, that by which relinquishing is accomplished is the true essence of giving. Just as the object measured does not receive the name of measure, the name of measure established relies on the means of measuring. Or for competition, storage, praise, transmission, following others, affection, attachment, the act of relinquishing can also be accomplished through these means, but these are not the true meanings intended here. To distinguish these, it is said 『for offering or for benefit.』 For those who have already attained nirvana (Nirvana), it is only for offering; for others, it is also for benefit. When those great elements (Mahabhuta) and faculties (Indriya) perform giving, it is only for benefiting them. What names do they possess? They are the actions of body and speech, and the factors that initiate these actions. What are the factors that initiate these actions? They are non-greed (alobha) and the aggregate that can initiate these actions, that is, the actions of body and speech, and the mind that can initiate them, and the totality of what co-exists with this mind.
名施體。如有頌曰。
若人以凈心 輟己而行施 此剎那善蘊 總立以施名
應知如是施類福業事。迴向解脫亦得離系果。而且就近決定為言但說能招大財富果。依何立此大財富名。以財妙廣不可奪故。角勝等施毒刺所傷。雖施而無大財富果。言施類福者。顯施為體義。如泥類器木類柱等。亦見類言非顯體義。如聞類智非今所許。戒修類言準此應釋。為何所益而行施耶。頌曰。
為益自他俱 不為二行施
論曰。施主施時觀於二益。一為自益感果善根。二為益他諸根大種。施主有二。一有煩惱。二無煩惱。有煩惱者。復有二種。一未離欲貪。二已離欲貪。於此二中各有二種。一諸聖者。二諸異生。此中未離欲貪聖者。及已未離欲貪異生。奉施制多唯為自益。謂自增長二種善根。一者能招大富為果。二者為得上義資糧。諸有已離欲貪聖者。奉施制多除順現受不招大富。由彼已能畢竟超彼異熟地故。而容為得上義資糧。是故亦名唯為自益。非此能益他根大種故。不益他無煩惱者。施他有情唯為益他。謂能益他諸根大種非自增長二種善根故。非自益有煩惱者。施他有情為二俱益無煩惱者。奉施制多除順現受不為二益。有師唯約施招大富分別施果。彼作是說此中一切。未離欲貪及離欲貪。諸異生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：名為施體。如有頌說：
『若人以清凈心，捨棄己有而行佈施，此剎那間的善業積累，總的來說就立名為施。』
應當知道這樣的佈施，是屬於福業之事。如果迴向解脫，也能得到離系之果。而且就近而言，決定地說它能招感巨大的財富果報。依據什麼而立下這『大財富』之名呢？因為財富美好廣大，不可被奪走。而角勝等佈施，是被毒刺所傷的，雖然佈施了，卻沒有大財富的果報。說到『施類福』，是顯示佈施的體性意義，如同泥土之於器皿，木頭之於柱子等。也可見到『類』字並非顯示體性的意義，如同聽聞之於智慧，這不是我們現在所認可的。戒修等『類』字的解釋，可以參照這個來理解。爲了什麼利益而行佈施呢？頌說：
『爲了利益自己和他人，不爲了二者而不行佈施。』
論述：佈施者在佈施時，觀察到兩種利益。一是為自己獲得利益，感得果報的善根；二是為利益他人，使他人的諸根大種得到增長。佈施者有兩類：一類是有煩惱的，一類是沒有煩惱的。有煩惱的佈施者，又分為兩種：一是未離欲貪的，一是已離欲貪的。在這兩種人中，又各有兩種：一是諸聖者，二是諸凡夫。這裡，未離欲貪的聖者，以及已離或未離欲貪的凡夫，供奉佛塔（制多，指佛塔或佛像）唯為自己獲得利益，即增長兩種善根：一是能招感大富為果報，二是為獲得殊勝意義的資糧。諸位已離欲貪的聖者，供奉佛塔，除了順現受之外，不招感大富，因為他們已經能夠徹底超越那異熟地（指輪迴）。但可以作為獲得殊勝意義的資糧。因此也稱為唯為自己獲得利益，因為這不能利益他人的諸根大種。不利益他人，沒有煩惱的人，佈施給其他有情，唯為利益他人，即能利益他人的諸根大種，而不是為自己增長兩種善根。不是爲了自己獲得利益。有煩惱的人，佈施給其他有情，是爲了自己和他人都能獲得利益。沒有煩惱的人，供奉佛塔，除了順現受之外，不為自己和他人獲得利益。有論師只就佈施招感大富來分別佈施的果報。他們這樣說，這裡的一切，未離欲貪和已離欲貪的諸凡夫……
English version: It is called 'Giving as Substance'. As a verse says:
'If a person with a pure mind, relinquishes their own and practices giving, this accumulation of merit in that instant, is generally established as 'Giving'.'
It should be known that such giving is a matter of meritorious activity. If dedicated to liberation, it can also attain the fruit of detachment. Moreover, in the near term, it is definitively said that it can attract the fruit of great wealth. Upon what is this name of 'great wealth' established? Because the wealth is wonderful, vast, and cannot be taken away. Giving in competitions, etc., is wounded by poisonous thorns. Although giving, there is no fruit of great wealth. The term 'category of giving as merit' reveals the meaning of giving as substance, like clay for vessels, wood for pillars, etc. It is also seen that the term 'category' does not reveal the meaning of substance, like hearing for wisdom, which is not what is accepted here. The terms 'discipline category' and 'cultivation category' should be explained accordingly. For what benefit is giving practiced? The verse says:
'To benefit both oneself and others, not to give for neither.'
Treatise: The giver, at the time of giving, observes two benefits. One is for one's own benefit, to gain the root of goodness that brings about the fruit; the other is to benefit others, so that the great elements of others are increased. There are two types of givers: one with afflictions, and one without afflictions. Those with afflictions are further divided into two types: one who has not departed from desire and greed, and one who has departed from desire and greed. Within these two, there are two types: the noble ones (Aryas) and ordinary beings (Prthagjanas). Here, the noble ones who have not departed from desire and greed, and the ordinary beings who have or have not departed from desire and greed, offering to stupas (Caitya, referring to stupas or Buddha images) is solely for their own benefit, namely, increasing two types of roots of goodness: one that can attract great wealth as a result, and the other as a resource for attaining higher meaning. Those noble ones who have already departed from desire and greed, offering to stupas, apart from the immediately received benefit, do not attract great wealth, because they are already able to completely transcend that Vipaka-bhumi (the realm of karmic retribution, referring to samsara). But it can serve as a resource for attaining higher meaning. Therefore, it is also called solely for one's own benefit, because it cannot benefit the great elements of others. Not benefiting others, those without afflictions, giving to other sentient beings, is solely for the benefit of others, namely, it can benefit the great elements of others, but not increase the two types of roots of goodness for oneself. Not for one's own benefit. Those with afflictions, giving to other sentient beings, is for the benefit of both oneself and others. Those without afflictions, offering to stupas, apart from the immediately received benefit, is not for the benefit of both. Some teachers only distinguish the results of giving based on attracting great wealth. They say that everything here, those ordinary beings who have not departed from desire and greed and those who have departed from desire and greed...
【English Translation】 Named Giving as Substance. As a verse says:
'If a person with a pure mind, relinquishes their own and practices giving, this accumulation of merit in that instant, is generally established as 'Giving'.'
It should be known that such giving is a matter of meritorious activity. If dedicated to liberation, it can also attain the fruit of detachment. Moreover, in the near term, it is definitively said that it can attract the fruit of great wealth. Upon what is this name of 'great wealth' established? Because the wealth is wonderful, vast, and cannot be taken away. Giving in competitions, etc., is wounded by poisonous thorns. Although giving, there is no fruit of great wealth. The term 'category of giving as merit' reveals the meaning of giving as substance, like clay for vessels, wood for pillars, etc. It is also seen that the term 'category' does not reveal the meaning of substance, like hearing for wisdom, which is not what is accepted here. The terms 'discipline category' and 'cultivation category' should be explained accordingly. For what benefit is giving practiced? The verse says:
'To benefit both oneself and others, not to give for neither.'
Treatise: The giver, at the time of giving, observes two benefits. One is for one's own benefit, to gain the root of goodness that brings about the fruit; the other is to benefit others, so that the great elements of others are increased. There are two types of givers: one with afflictions, and one without afflictions. Those with afflictions are further divided into two types: one who has not departed from desire and greed, and one who has departed from desire and greed. Within these two, there are two types: the noble ones (Aryas) and ordinary beings (Prthagjanas). Here, the noble ones who have not departed from desire and greed, and the ordinary beings who have or have not departed from desire and greed, offering to stupas (Caitya, referring to stupas or Buddha images) is solely for their own benefit, namely, increasing two types of roots of goodness: one that can attract great wealth as a result, and the other as a resource for attaining higher meaning. Those noble ones who have already departed from desire and greed, offering to stupas, apart from the immediately received benefit, do not attract great wealth, because they are already able to completely transcend that Vipaka-bhumi (the realm of karmic retribution, referring to samsara). But it can serve as a resource for attaining higher meaning. Therefore, it is also called solely for one's own benefit, because it cannot benefit the great elements of others. Not benefiting others, those without afflictions, giving to other sentient beings, is solely for the benefit of others, namely, it can benefit the great elements of others, but not increase the two types of roots of goodness for oneself. Not for one's own benefit. Those with afflictions, giving to other sentient beings, is for the benefit of both oneself and others. Those without afflictions, offering to stupas, apart from the immediately received benefit, is not for the benefit of both. Some teachers only distinguish the results of giving based on attracting great wealth. They say that everything here, those ordinary beings who have not departed from desire and greed and those who have departed from desire and greed...
類持己所有。奉施制多此施名為唯為自益。非彼由此有獲益故。若諸聖者已離欲貪。施諸有情除順現受。此施名曰唯為益他。以彼由此獲饒益故。非為自益超果地故。若彼一切未離欲貪及離欲貪。諸異生類持己所有施諸有情。此施名為為二俱益。若彼聖者已離欲貪。奉施制多除順現受。此施名曰不為益二。以此唯為供養報恩。前已總明施招大富。今次當辯施果別因。頌曰。
由主財田異 故施果差別
論曰。施有差別由三種因謂。主財田有差別故。施差別故果有差別。言主財田有差別者。謂如是類施主財田勝劣與余主財田異。且由施主有差別者。頌曰。
主異由信等 行敬重等施 得尊重廣愛 應時難奪果
論曰。或有施主于因果中得決定信。或有施主于因果中心懷猶豫。或有施主率爾隨欲。或有施主具凈尸羅。或少虧違。或全無戒。或有施主于佛教法具足多聞。或有少聞。或無聞等。而行惠施由施主具信戒聞等。差別功德故名主異。由主異故施成差別。由施差別得果有異。諸有施主具如是德。能如法行敬重等四施。如次便得尊重等四果。謂若施主行敬重施。便感常為他所尊重。若自手施便能感得於廣大財愛樂受用。若應時施感應時財。所須應時非余時故。若無損他施便感資財。不為王
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果有人把自己的東西佈施給制多（Chaitya，佛塔），這種佈施被稱為只為自己獲益，因為接受佈施的人並沒有因此獲得利益。如果諸位聖者已經脫離了慾望和貪婪，將東西佈施給其他有情眾生，除了爲了順應當下的感受，這種佈施被稱為只為利益他人，因為接受佈施的人由此獲得了巨大的利益，而不是爲了自己獲益，因為他們已經超越了果報之地。如果那些尚未脫離慾望和貪婪，以及已經脫離慾望和貪婪的凡夫俗子，把自己的東西佈施給其他有情眾生，這種佈施被稱為爲了雙方的利益。如果那些已經脫離慾望和貪婪的聖者，奉獻佈施給制多（Chaitya，佛塔），除了爲了順應當下的感受，這種佈施被稱為不為雙方的利益，因為這僅僅是爲了供養和報恩。前面已經總體說明了佈施能夠招致巨大的財富，現在接下來應當辨析佈施果報的個別原因。頌詞說： 『由於施主、財物、福田不同，所以佈施的果報也有差別。』 論述：佈施的差別在於三種原因，即施主、財物、福田的差別。由於這些差別，佈施的果報也有差別。所說施主、財物、福田的差別，是指這類施主、財物、福田的殊勝或低劣與其他施主、財物、福田不同。首先，由施主的差別來說，頌詞說： 『施主的差異在於信心等，恭敬等行為的佈施，能得到尊重和廣大的愛，以及應時和難以被奪取的果報。』 論述：有些施主對於因果關係有堅定的信心，有些施主對於因果關係心懷猶豫，有些施主只是隨意而為，有些施主具備清凈的戒律，有些施主稍微違犯戒律，有些施主完全沒有戒律，有些施主對於佛教的教法具備充分的聞法，有些施主聽聞較少，有些施主沒有聽聞等等。由於施主具備信心、戒律、聞法等不同的功德，所以稱為施主的差異。由於施主的差異，佈施就產生了差別。由於佈施的差別，得到的果報也有不同。那些具備這些功德的施主，能夠如法地進行恭敬等四種佈施，依次就能得到尊重等四種果報。也就是說，如果施主進行恭敬的佈施，就能感得常常被他人所尊重；如果親自佈施，就能感得對於廣大的財富愛樂受用；如果應時佈施，就能感得應時的財富，所需要的財富會在需要的時候出現，而不是其他時候；如果沒有損害他人的佈施，就能感得資財，不被國王
【English Translation】 English version: If someone offers their possessions to a Chaitya (Buddhist shrine), this offering is called solely for one's own benefit, because the recipient does not gain any benefit from it. If the noble ones have already detached from desire and greed, and give offerings to sentient beings, except for the sake of immediate gratification, this offering is called solely for the benefit of others, because the recipients gain great benefit from it, and not for their own benefit, because they have already transcended the realm of karmic results. If those who have not yet detached from desire and greed, as well as those who have detached from desire and greed, ordinary beings offer their possessions to sentient beings, this offering is called for the benefit of both. If those noble ones who have already detached from desire and greed offer to Chaityas (Buddhist shrines), except for the sake of immediate gratification, this offering is called not for the benefit of either, because it is solely for the purpose of making offerings and repaying kindness. The previous section has generally explained that giving leads to great wealth. Now, we should discuss the specific causes of the different results of giving. The verse says: 'Due to the differences in the giver, the wealth, and the field of merit, the results of giving are also different.' Discussion: The differences in giving arise from three causes, namely the differences in the giver, the wealth, and the field of merit. Due to these differences, the results of giving are also different. The differences in the giver, the wealth, and the field of merit refer to the superiority or inferiority of these givers, wealth, and fields of merit compared to others. First, regarding the differences in the giver, the verse says: 'The differences in the giver lie in faith, etc. Giving with respect, etc., leads to the results of being respected and greatly loved, as well as timely and unseizable rewards.' Discussion: Some givers have firm faith in cause and effect, some givers have doubts about cause and effect, some givers act impulsively, some givers possess pure precepts, some givers slightly violate the precepts, some givers have no precepts at all, some givers have fully heard the teachings of Buddhism, some givers have heard little, some givers have not heard at all, and so on. Because the givers possess different merits such as faith, precepts, and learning, they are called different givers. Due to the differences in the giver, the giving becomes different. Due to the differences in the giving, the results obtained are also different. Those givers who possess these merits and are able to perform the four types of giving, such as giving with respect, will in turn obtain the four results such as being respected. That is, if the giver gives with respect, they will be constantly respected by others; if they give with their own hands, they will be able to enjoy great wealth and love; if they give at the right time, they will receive timely wealth, and the wealth needed will appear when it is needed, not at other times; if they give without harming others, they will receive wealth that is not seized by kings.
火等之所侵壞。由所施財有差別者。頌曰。
財異由色等 得妙色好名 眾愛柔軟身 有隨時樂觸
論曰。由所施財或闕或具色香味觸。如次便得或闕或具妙色等果。謂所施財色具足故。便感妙色香具足故。便感好名如香芬馥。遍諸方故味具足故。便感眾愛如味美妙。眾所愛故觸具足故。感柔軟身及有隨時生樂受觸。若有所闕隨應果減。如是亦由具色香等。故名財異由財異故。施體及果皆有差別。由所施田有差別者。頌曰。
田異由趣苦 恩德有差別
論曰。由所施田趣苦恩德各有差別。故名田異由田異故施果有殊。由趣別者如世尊說。若施傍生受百倍果。施犯戒人受千倍果。百倍千倍果量如何。隨所施田由受食等。令其壽等增爾所量。施主由斯於人天中受等過彼百倍千倍。故世尊說。施主施時施所施田壽等五事。施主由此於人天中還當獲得壽等五果。由苦別者如七有依福業事中。先說應施客行病侍園林常食。及寒風等隨時衣藥。復說若有具足凈信男子女人。成此所說七種有依福業事者。所獲福德不可取量。今於此中由緣差別故苦有異。由除受者差別苦故果有差別。由恩別者如父母師及余有恩。如熊鹿等本生經說。諸有恩類于有恩所。起諸惡業果現可知由此比知行報恩善其果必定由德別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 火災等災害所侵蝕毀壞。由於所施捨的財物有差別，頌文如下：
『財物不同因色等，獲得美妙的容色好名聲， 眾人喜愛柔軟的身軀，以及隨時生起的快樂觸感。』
論述：由於所施捨的財物，或者缺少或者具備色、香、味、觸等特性，因此依次獲得或者缺少美妙的容色等果報。也就是說，所施捨的財物如果顏色具足，便感得美妙的容色；香氣具足，便感得好的名聲，就像香氣芬芳，遍佈四方；味道具足，便感得眾人喜愛，就像味道美好，為大眾所喜愛；觸感具足，便感得柔軟的身軀以及隨時生起的快樂感受。如果有所欠缺，相應的果報也會減少。像這樣，也是由於具備顏色、香氣等特性，所以稱為財物不同。由於財物不同，施捨的本體和果報都有差別。 由於所施捨的福田有差別，頌文如下：
『福田不同因所救濟的痛苦，恩情和德行有差別。』
論述：由於所施捨的福田，在所救濟的痛苦、恩情和德行方面各有差別，所以稱為福田不同。由於福田不同，施捨的果報也有差異。由於所救濟的對象不同，如世尊所說，如果施捨給傍生（動物），會得到百倍的果報；施捨給犯戒的人，會得到千倍的果報。百倍千倍的果報數量是如何計算的呢？隨著所施捨的福田，由於接受食物等，使其壽命等增長相應的數量。施主因此在人天之中所受到的待遇，超過他們百倍千倍。所以世尊說，施主在施捨時，施捨給所施捨的福田壽命等五事，施主因此在人天之中，還會獲得壽命等五種果報。由於痛苦的差別，如七種有依靠的福業事中，先說應該施捨給旅客、病人、侍者、園林、常食，以及寒風等天氣需要的衣物和藥物。又說，如果有具足清凈信心的男子女人，成就這所說的七種有依靠的福業事，所獲得的福德是不可估量的。現在在這裡，由於因緣的差別，所以痛苦有差異。由於消除接受施捨者的不同痛苦，果報也有差別。由於恩情的差別，如父母、師長以及其他有恩情的人，如熊、鹿等本生經所說。對於有恩情的人，如果做出惡業，果報很快就會顯現，由此可以類比得知，施行報恩的善行，其果報必定是殊勝的。由於德行的差別
【English Translation】 English version are destroyed by fire and other calamities. Because of the differences in the wealth given, the verse says:
'Differences in wealth arise from color, etc., obtaining wonderful color and a good name, a body loved by the multitude, soft and yielding, and pleasant tactile sensations arising at will.'
Commentary: Because the wealth given either lacks or possesses color, fragrance, taste, and touch, one obtains, in sequence, fruits that either lack or possess wonderful color, etc. That is to say, if the wealth given is complete in color, one experiences wonderful color; if complete in fragrance, one experiences a good name, like a fragrant scent spreading in all directions; if complete in taste, one experiences being loved by the multitude, like a delicious taste loved by all; if complete in touch, one experiences a soft body and pleasant tactile sensations arising at will. If something is lacking, the corresponding fruit will be diminished. Thus, it is also because of possessing color, fragrance, etc., that it is called differences in wealth. Because of differences in wealth, both the act of giving and the results have differences. Because of the differences in the field of merit to which one gives, the verse says:
'Differences in the field of merit arise from the suffering relieved, and differences in kindness and virtue.'
Commentary: Because the field of merit to which one gives has differences in the suffering relieved, kindness, and virtue, it is called differences in the field of merit. Because of differences in the field of merit, the results of giving are different. Because of the difference in the object of relief, as the World-Honored One said, if one gives to animals (傍生), one receives a hundredfold reward; if one gives to those who have broken precepts (犯戒人), one receives a thousandfold reward. How are the hundredfold and thousandfold rewards calculated? According to the field of merit to which one gives, by receiving food, etc., their lifespan, etc., increases by that amount. The giver, therefore, receives treatment in the human and heavenly realms that exceeds them by a hundredfold or a thousandfold. Therefore, the World-Honored One said, when the giver gives, he gives the five things of lifespan, etc., to the field of merit to which he gives; the giver, therefore, will receive the five fruits of lifespan, etc., in the human and heavenly realms. Because of the difference in suffering, as in the seven kinds of meritorious deeds with reliance, it is first said that one should give to travelers, the sick, attendants, gardens, regular food, and clothing and medicine needed for cold winds and other weather. It is also said that if there are men and women who possess pure faith and accomplish these seven kinds of meritorious deeds with reliance, the merit they obtain is immeasurable. Now, here, because of the difference in conditions, there is a difference in suffering. Because of eliminating the different suffering of the recipients, there is a difference in the result. Because of the difference in kindness, such as parents, teachers, and others who have been kind, as the Jataka tales of bears and deer say. If one commits evil deeds against those who have been kind, the results will appear quickly; from this, one can infer that performing good deeds of repaying kindness, its results will surely be excellent. Because of the difference in virtue
者如契經言。施持戒人果百千倍。乃至施佛果最無量。雖皆無量亦有少多。如殑伽河大海水滴。如望財施法施為尊。就財施中何為最勝。頌曰。
脫于脫菩薩 第八施最勝
論曰。若已解脫者施已解脫田。于財施中此最為勝。若諸菩薩以勝意樂等欲利樂一切有情。為大菩提而行惠施。雖非解脫施解脫田。而施福中此最為勝。除此更有八種施中。第八施福亦最為勝。八施者何。一隨至施。二怖畏施。三報恩施。四求報施。五習先施。六希天施。七要名施。八為莊嚴心。為資助心為資瑜伽。為得上義而行惠施。隨至施者。謂隨有情投造已來隨宜。施與衣服飲食非深敬重。怖畏施者。謂睹災厄為令靜息而行惠施。或見此物壞相現前。寧施不亡故行惠施。習先施者。謂習先人父祖家法而行惠施。為嚴心者。謂為引發信等聖財故行惠施。資助心者。謂欲滅除諸慳吝垢而行惠施。資瑜伽者。謂求定樂展轉生因而行惠施。謂由施故便得無悔。展轉乃至心一境性。得上義者。謂得涅槃。由初舍財乃至展轉一切生死皆能捨故。又行惠施是勝生因。依此能引發證涅槃法故。余施易了故不別釋。如世尊說施聖果無量。頗施非聖果亦無量耶。頌曰。
父母病法師 最後生菩薩 設非證聖者 施果亦無量
論曰。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 正如契經所說：佈施給持戒的人，果報是百千倍；乃至佈施給佛，果報是最無量的。雖然都說是無量，但其中也有多少的差別，就像殑伽河（Ganga River，恒河）和大海中的一滴水。如果比較財施和法施，法施更為尊貴。那麼在財施中，什麼是最殊勝的呢？頌文說： 『脫于脫菩薩，第八施最勝。』 論述：如果已經解脫的人佈施給已經解脫的福田，在財施中這是最為殊勝的。如果諸位菩薩以殊勝的意樂，想要利益安樂一切有情眾生，爲了證得大菩提而行佈施，即使不是解脫者佈施給解脫的福田，這種佈施的福德也是最為殊勝的。除了這種情況，還有八種佈施中，第八種佈施的福德也是最為殊勝的。這八種佈施是什麼呢？一是隨至施，二是怖畏施，三是報恩施，四是求報施，五是習先施，六是希天施，七是要名施，八是爲了莊嚴心、爲了資助心、爲了資瑜伽、爲了得上義而行佈施。 隨至施是指：隨著有情眾生投奔而來，根據情況適宜地施與衣服飲食，但沒有深深的敬重之心。怖畏施是指：看到災厄發生，爲了使災難平息而行佈施；或者看到此物將要損壞，寧願佈施出去也不願讓它消失，所以行佈施。習先施是指：沿襲先人、父祖的家法而行佈施。爲了莊嚴心而佈施是指：爲了引發信心等聖財而行佈施。資助心是指：想要滅除各種慳吝的垢染而行佈施。資瑜伽是指：爲了求得禪定的快樂，輾轉相生而行佈施。這是說，由於佈施的緣故，便能得到無悔，輾轉乃至心一境性。得上義是指：得到涅槃。由於最初捨棄財物，乃至輾轉一切生死都能捨棄的緣故。而且行佈施是殊勝的生因，依靠這個能夠引發證得涅槃之法。其餘的佈施容易理解，所以不另外解釋。 正如世尊所說，佈施聖者果報無量。那麼佈施給非聖者，果報也是無量的嗎？頌文說： 『父母病法師，最後生菩薩，設非證聖者，施果亦無量。』 論述：如...
【English Translation】 English version: As stated in the sutras: Giving to those who uphold the precepts yields a hundred thousandfold reward; even giving to the Buddha yields immeasurable rewards. Although both are said to be immeasurable, there are still differences in magnitude, like the Ganga River (Ganga River) compared to a drop of water in the ocean. If comparing material giving and Dharma giving, Dharma giving is more尊貴. Among material giving, what is the most supreme? The verse says: 'Giving to those liberated by liberated Bodhisattvas, the eighth type of giving is the most supreme.' Commentary: If one who is already liberated gives to a field of merit that is already liberated, this is the most supreme among material giving. If Bodhisattvas, with supreme intention, desire to benefit and bring happiness to all sentient beings, and practice giving for the sake of attaining great Bodhi, even if it is not a liberated being giving to a liberated field of merit, the merit of this giving is the most supreme. Besides this, among the eight types of giving, the merit of the eighth type of giving is also the most supreme. What are these eight types of giving? First is giving as it comes, second is giving out of fear, third is giving in gratitude, fourth is giving seeking reward, fifth is giving following custom, sixth is giving hoping for heavenly rebirth, seventh is giving for fame, and eighth is giving to adorn the mind, to support the mind, to support yoga, and to attain the supreme meaning. Giving as it comes refers to: giving clothes and food to sentient beings who come seeking help, according to their needs, but without deep respect. Giving out of fear refers to: seeing a disaster occur, giving to quell the disaster; or seeing that something is about to be destroyed, preferring to give it away rather than let it disappear, so giving is practiced. Giving following custom refers to: following the family traditions of ancestors and forefathers in giving. Giving to adorn the mind refers to: giving to generate holy wealth such as faith. Supporting the mind refers to: wanting to eliminate various stains of stinginess and practicing giving. Supporting yoga refers to: seeking the joy of samadhi, giving to create the cause for continuous rebirth. This means that because of giving, one can obtain no regret, and gradually reach a state of one-pointedness of mind. Attaining the supreme meaning refers to: attaining Nirvana. Because one initially gives up wealth, and gradually can give up everything in all rebirths. Moreover, practicing giving is a supreme cause of birth, relying on this one can generate the Dharma of attaining Nirvana. The remaining types of giving are easy to understand, so they are not explained separately. As the World Honored One said, giving to holy beings yields immeasurable rewards. Then, is giving to non-holy beings also immeasurable? The verse says: 'Parents, sick people, Dharma teachers, Bodhisattvas in their last life, even if they are not enlightened, the fruit of giving is also immeasurable.' Commentary: As...
是五種設是異生施者。亦能招無量果。住最後有名最後生法師。四田中是何田所攝是恩田攝。所以者何。以說法師能示將墮諸惡趣者。安隱城門開示生天解脫道故。能令已作非理行者轉于如理所作中行。能善宣揚黑白品法自性及果對治等故。能施無智盲者慧眼。由說法師所說教力。無倒觀察染凈品故。以要說者。善說法師乃至能為佛所作事。故唯此是勝義恩田施者。必應招無量果。一切能感無量果業。上下品類皆平等耶。不爾云何。由六因故令一切業成輕重品。其六者何。頌曰。
後起田根本 加行思意樂 由此下上故 業成下上品
論曰。後起者。謂作此業已。或頓或數隨前而作。田謂于彼造善造惡。根本者謂根本業道。加行者謂引彼身語。思謂由彼業道究竟。意樂者謂所有意趣。我應當造如是如是。若有六因皆是上品。此業最重翻此最輕。除此中間非最輕重。謂或有業唯由後起所攝受。故得成重品定安立彼異熟果故。乃至或有唯由意樂。由二三等如理應知。如契經言。審思作業名為造作。亦名增長。何因說業名增長耶。由五種因何等為五。頌曰。
由審思圓滿 無惡作對治 有伴異熟故 此業名增長
論曰。由審思故者。謂審思而作非率爾思作。亦非全不思。由圓滿故者。謂齊
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果佈施的對象是五種異生（指非聖者），也能招感無量的果報。住在最後有（指即將證得阿羅漢果位的菩薩）的、名為最後生的法師，屬於四種福田中的哪一種？屬於恩田。為什麼呢？因為說法師能夠向那些將要墮入惡趣的人，展示安穩的城門，開示生天和解脫的道路。能夠使已經做出不如理行為的人，轉而行於如理的行為中。能夠很好地宣揚黑品法（惡業）和白品法（善業）的自性以及果報和對治方法等等。能夠施予沒有智慧的盲人以智慧的眼睛，通過說法師所說的教法的力量，能夠無顛倒地觀察染品（不清凈的法）和凈品（清凈的法）。總而言之，善於說法的法師甚至能夠做佛所做的事情。因此，只有這種法師才是勝義的恩田，佈施者必定能夠招感無量的果報。一切能夠感得無量果報的業，其上下品類都是平等的嗎？不是這樣的。為什麼呢？由於六種原因，使一切業成為輕重品。這六種原因是什麼呢？頌詞說： 『後起田根本，加行思意樂，由此下上故，業成下上品。』 論中說：後起，是指造作此業之後，或者立即或者多次隨著先前而造作。田，是指對於此人造善或者造惡。根本，是指根本業道。加行，是指引發彼身語（的行為）。嗯，是指由彼業道而究竟（完成）。意樂，是指所有的意趣，『我應當造作如此如此』。如果六種原因都是上品，那麼此業最重，反之則最輕。除了這些，中間的就不是最輕或者最重。也就是說，或者有的業僅僅由後起所攝受，因此得以成為重品，決定安立彼異熟果（成熟的果報）。乃至或者有的業僅僅由意樂所決定。由二三種等等，應當如理地瞭解。如契經所說：『審慎思考後作業，名為造作，也名為增長。』因為什麼原因說業名為增長呢？由五種原因。哪五種呢？頌詞說： 『由審思圓滿，無惡作對治，有伴異熟故，此業名增長。』 論中說：由審思故，是指審慎思考後才做，不是輕率思考後做，也不是完全不思考。由圓滿故，是指齊...
【English Translation】 English version: If the object of giving is the five kinds of 'diyi sheng' (異生) [different beings, referring to non-saints], one can also attract immeasurable results. A Dharma master who dwells in the 'zui hou you' (最後有) [last existence, referring to a Bodhisattva about to attain Arhatship], named 'zui hou sheng' (最後生) [last birth], belongs to which of the four fields of merit? He belongs to the field of grace ('en tian' 恩田). Why? Because the Dharma master can show those who are about to fall into the evil realms the secure city gate, and reveal the path to being born in the heavens and liberation. He can enable those who have already engaged in irrational conduct to turn to engaging in rational conduct. He can well proclaim the nature of black karma and white karma, as well as their respective retributions and antidotes, etc. He can bestow the eye of wisdom upon the blind who lack wisdom. Through the power of the teachings spoken by the Dharma master, one can observe the defiled and pure qualities without inversion. In short, a Dharma master who is skilled in speaking the Dharma can even do what the Buddha does. Therefore, only this kind of Dharma master is a field of grace in the ultimate sense, and the giver will surely attract immeasurable results. Are all the karmas that can bring about immeasurable results equal in their superior and inferior categories? No, they are not. Why? Because of six reasons, all karmas become light or heavy. What are these six reasons? The verse says: 'Subsequent action, field, root, effort, thought, intention; due to these being superior or inferior, karma becomes superior, intermediate, or inferior.' The treatise says: 'Subsequent action' refers to, after performing this karma, either immediately or repeatedly performing it following the previous action. 'Field' refers to creating good or evil towards that person. 'Root' refers to the root karmic path. 'Effort' refers to initiating that body and speech (actions). 'Thought' refers to the completion (accomplishment) of that karmic path. 'Intention' refers to all intentions, 'I should create such and such.' If all six reasons are superior, then this karma is the heaviest; conversely, it is the lightest. Apart from these, the intermediate is neither the lightest nor the heaviest. That is to say, or some karmas are only encompassed by subsequent action, therefore they can become heavy, and the maturation result ('yi shu guo' 異熟果) is definitely established. And so on, or some karmas are only determined by intention. One should understand the two or three, etc., according to reason. As the sutra says: 'Deliberately thinking and acting is called creation, and is also called growth.' For what reason is karma called growth? Due to five reasons. What are the five? 'Due to deliberation, completeness, no remorse, antidote, and associated maturation, this karma is called growth.' The treatise says: 'Due to deliberation' means acting after careful consideration, not acting after rash thought, nor acting without any thought at all. 'Due to completeness' means reaching...
此量業應墮惡趣。此業圓滿名為增長。余唯造作。如有一類于惡行中。由一為因便墮惡趣。或有一類乃至由三。十業道中或有由一或乃至十方墮惡趣。由無惡作對治故者。謂無追悔無對治業。由有伴故者。謂作不善業不善為助伴。如盜他財。復污他室。殺他子等。由異熟故者。謂時不定業定。與異熟善上相違。異此應知唯名造作。如上所說。未離欲等奉施制多。唯為自益既無受用者。施福如何成。頌曰。
制多舍類福 如慈等無受
論曰。非我唯許所舍財物。受者受用施福方成。所許者何謂。諸施福略有二類。一舍二受。舍類福者。謂由善心但舍資財施福便起。受類福者謂所施田受用施物施福方起。于制多所奉施供具。雖無受類有舍類福。然舍類福初舍資財此福即成對治貪故。無貪俱思所等起故。舍資財已隨所施田受用。或不施福無失。若不爾者有施僧伽。或別人等諸資生具。或彼未用物便壞失。如是施主物應唐捐施福不生無當果故。彼既未用福由何生。用福雖無而有受福制多無受福由何生。復何因證知福生要由受不受于彼無攝益故。此非定證。所以者何。如修慈等福亦生故。謂修慈定於諸有情平等發起與樂意樂。雖無受者亦無攝益。而勝解力有多福生。修悲等定得福亦爾。施制多福類亦應然。于有德田
追生勝解起極尊敬。奉施制多雖無受者亦無攝益。由自思力有多福生然不唐捐。起施敬業要因起業方起勝思。勝思方能生勝福故。如有一類欲害怨家。怨命雖終猶懷怨想。發起種種惡身語業。生多非福非但起心。如是大師雖已過去追申敬養。起身語業方生多福非但起心。有設難言于善田所。殖施業種既愛果生。殖在惡田果應非愛。此難非理。所以者何。頌曰。
惡田有愛果 果種無倒故
論曰。現見田中種果無倒。從未度迦種苦果終不生。賃婆種中不生甘果。非由田力種果有倒。然由田過令所殖種。或生果少或果全無。如是雖于惡田殖施。而由施主利樂他心。唯愛果生不招非愛。已辯施類戒類當辯。頌曰。
離犯戒及遮 名戒各有二 非犯戒因壞 依治滅凈等
論曰。言犯戒者。謂諸不善色即從殺生。乃至雜穢語此中性罪立犯戒名遮。謂佛所遮即非時食等。雖非性罪而佛為護正法有情。別意遮止受戒者犯亦名犯戒。簡性罪故但立遮名。離性及遮俱說名戒。此各有二。謂表無表。以身語業為自性故。戒具四德得清凈名。隨有所減不名清凈。言四德者。一者不為犯戒所壞。言犯戒者謂審思犯。二者不為彼因所壞。彼因謂貪等煩惱隨煩惱。三者依治謂依念住等。此能對治犯戒及因故。四者依滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 追隨以往的勝妙理解而生起極大的尊敬。供奉佛塔（制多，指佛塔或佛像）即使沒有接受者，也沒有實際的利益，但由於自己內心的思力，仍然會產生許多福德，不會白白浪費。發起佈施的恭敬行為，是因為要發起行為才能產生殊勝的思念，殊勝的思念才能產生殊勝的福德。例如，有一類人想要加害怨家，即使怨家的性命已經終結，仍然懷有怨恨的想法，發起種種惡劣的身語行為，產生許多非福德，不僅僅是起心動念而已。同樣，對於已經過去的大師（指佛陀），追隨以往而表達恭敬供養，起身語行為，才能產生許多福德，不僅僅是起心動念而已。 有人可能會提出疑問：在良田中種植佈施的善業種子，既然希望產生喜愛的果實，那麼種植在惡田中，果實應該是不喜愛的。這個疑問是不合理的。為什麼呢？頌文說： 『惡田有愛果，果種無倒故』 論述說：現在可以見到，在田中種植果樹，果實的種子沒有顛倒。從未度迦（一種苦澀的果樹）的種子中，最終不會生出苦果。賃婆（另一種苦澀的果樹）的種子中不會生出甘甜的果實。這不是因為田地的力量導致果實的種子顛倒，而是因為田地的過失，使得所種植的種子，或者產生的果實很少，或者完全沒有果實。同樣，即使在惡田中進行佈施，由於佈施者有利樂他人的心，只會產生喜愛的果實，不會招致不喜愛的果實。 已經辨析了佈施的種類，接下來應當辨析戒律的種類。頌文說： 『離犯戒及遮，名戒各有二，非犯戒因壞，依治滅凈等』 論述說：所說的『犯戒』，是指各種不善的身語行為，即從殺生開始，乃至雜穢語。其中，本質上就是罪過的行為，稱為『犯戒』。『遮』，是指佛陀所禁止的行為，即非時食等。雖然不是本質上的罪過，但佛陀爲了守護正法和有情眾生，特別禁止受戒者犯，也稱為『犯戒』。爲了區分本質上的罪過，隻立『遮』這個名稱。離開本質上的罪過和佛陀所禁止的行為，都稱為『戒』。這各有兩種，即表色和無表色，以身語行為作為其自性。戒具有四種功德，才能得到清凈的名稱，缺少任何一種都不能稱為清凈。所說的四種功德是：一是沒有被犯戒所破壞。所說的『犯戒』，是指審慎思考後故意犯戒。二是沒有被犯戒的原因所破壞。犯戒的原因是指貪等煩惱和隨煩惱。三是依靠對治，即依靠念住等。這能夠對治犯戒及其原因。四是依靠滅盡。
【English Translation】 English version Following past excellent understanding, arises utmost respect. Offering stupas (制多, refers to stupas or Buddha images), even without a receiver or actual benefit, still generates much merit due to one's own mental effort, not wasted in vain. Initiating the respectful act of giving arises because initiating action is necessary to generate superior thought, and superior thought is necessary to generate superior merit. For example, there are those who wish to harm their enemies; even if the enemy's life has ended, they still harbor resentment, initiating various evil actions of body and speech, generating much non-merit, not just mental thoughts. Similarly, for the past masters (referring to the Buddha), expressing respectful offerings following the past, with actions of body and speech, generates much merit, not just mental thoughts. Someone might raise a question: If planting seeds of virtuous deeds of giving in a good field is done with the hope of producing beloved fruits, then planting in a bad field should produce unloved fruits. This question is unreasonable. Why? The verse says: 'In a bad field, there are beloved fruits, because the seed of the fruit is not inverted.' The treatise says: It is evident that when planting fruit trees in a field, the seeds of the fruits are not inverted. From the seed of a Nimba (從未度迦, a type of bitter fruit tree), bitter fruits will never grow. From the seed of a Melia azedarach (賃婆, another type of bitter fruit tree), sweet fruits will not grow. It is not due to the power of the field that the seeds of the fruits are inverted, but rather due to the faults of the field, causing the planted seeds to produce few fruits or no fruits at all. Similarly, even if giving is done in a bad field, due to the giver's mind of benefiting and bringing happiness to others, only beloved fruits will arise, and unloved fruits will not be incurred. Having discussed the types of giving, the types of precepts should be discussed next. The verse says: 'Apart from transgressions and prohibitions, precepts are named, each having two; not destroyed by the cause of transgression, relying on remedies, extinction, purity, etc.' The treatise says: What is meant by 'transgressions' refers to various unwholesome actions of body and speech, starting from killing and extending to frivolous speech. Among these, actions that are inherently sinful are called 'transgressions'. 'Prohibitions' (遮) refer to what the Buddha has prohibited, such as eating at improper times. Although not inherently sinful, the Buddha, in order to protect the Dharma and sentient beings, specifically prohibits those who have taken vows from committing them, and these are also called 'transgressions'. To distinguish them from inherent sins, only the name 'prohibition' is established. Apart from inherent sins and what the Buddha has prohibited, all are called 'precepts'. Each of these has two aspects: visible form (表色) and invisible form (無表色), with actions of body and speech as their nature. A precept has four qualities to be called pure; lacking any one of them, it cannot be called pure. The four qualities are: first, not being destroyed by transgressions. 'Transgressions' refer to deliberately violating precepts after careful consideration. Second, not being destroyed by the cause of transgressions. The cause of transgressions refers to afflictions such as greed and secondary afflictions. Third, relying on remedies, such as relying on the four applications of mindfulness. This can counteract transgressions and their causes. Fourth, relying on extinction.
謂依涅槃迴向涅槃非有財故。等言為顯復有異說。有說戒凈由五種因。一根本凈。二眷屬凈。三非尋害。四念攝受。五迴向寂。有餘師說。戒有四種。一怖畏戒。謂怖不活惡名治罰惡趣畏故受護尸羅。二希望戒。謂貪諸有勝位多財恭敬稱譽受持凈戒。三順覺支戒。謂為求解脫及止觀故受持凈戒。四清凈戒。謂無漏戒。彼能永離業惑垢故。已辯戒類修類當辯。頌曰。
等引善名修 極能熏心故
論曰。等引善者謂于定中等持自性。及彼俱有即此名修。極熏心故修是熏義如花熏麻。謂諸定善於心相續。極能熏習令成德類。非不定善故獨名修。前辯施福能招大富。戒修二類所感云何。頌曰。
戒修勝如次 感生天解脫
論曰。戒感生天。修感解脫。勝言為顯就勝為言。謂施亦能感生天果就勝說戒。持戒亦能感離系果。就勝說修。如是戒修亦感大富。就勝說施準例應知。經說四人能生梵福。一為供養如來馱都。建窣堵波于未曾處。二為供養四方僧伽。造寺施園四事供給。三佛弟子破已能和。四于有情普修慈等。如是梵福其量云何。頌曰。
感劫生天等 為一梵福量
論曰。有餘師說。隨福能感一劫生天。受諸快樂齊是名曰一梵福量。由彼所感受快樂時。同梵輔天一劫壽故。以于餘部有伽
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 意思是說，憑藉涅槃迴向涅槃，是因為沒有財富的緣故。『等』字是爲了表明還有其他的說法。有人說，戒的清凈源於五種原因：一是根本清凈，二是眷屬清凈，三是不尋伺損害，四是正念攝受，五是迴向寂靜。還有其他論師說，戒有四種：一是怖畏戒，因為害怕不能活命、惡名、懲罰和墮入惡趣而受持尸羅（Śīla，戒律）；二是希望戒，因為貪圖諸有的殊勝地位、眾多財富、恭敬和稱譽而受持凈戒；三是順覺支戒，爲了求解脫以及止觀而受持凈戒；四是清凈戒，也就是無漏戒，因為它能夠永遠脫離業和煩惱的垢染。已經辨析了戒的種類，下面應當辨析修的種類。頌文說： 『等引善名修，極能熏心故。』 論述說，等引善，指的是在禪定中等持的自性，以及與它相應的法，這就叫做修。因為極能熏習心的緣故，修就是熏習的意思，就像用花熏麻一樣。意思是說，各種禪定之善，對於心的相續，極能熏習，使之成為功德之類。不是禪定之善的，不能單獨稱為修。前面辨析了佈施的福報能夠招感巨大的財富，那麼戒和修這兩類所感得的果報是什麼呢？頌文說： 『戒修勝如次，感生天解脫。』 論述說，戒感得生天的果報，修感得解脫的果報。『勝』字是爲了表明就殊勝的方面來說。意思是說，佈施也能感得生天的果報，但就殊勝的方面來說是戒。持戒也能感得脫離繫縛的果報，但就殊勝的方面來說是修。像這樣，戒和修也能感得巨大的財富，就殊勝的方面來說是佈施，準此例推應該知道。經中說，有四種人能夠產生梵福：一是為供養如來（Tathāgata）的馱都（Dhātu，舍利），在未曾有的地方建造窣堵波（Stūpa，佛塔）；二是為供養四方僧伽（Saṃgha，僧團），建造寺廟，佈施園林，提供四事供養；三是佛弟子破裂之後能夠和合；四是對有情普遍修習慈等。像這樣的梵福，它的量有多少呢？頌文說： 『感劫生天等，為一梵福量。』 論述說，有其他論師說，隨其福報能夠感得一劫生天的果報，享受各種快樂，這叫做一個梵福的量。因為他們所感受的快樂的時間，與梵輔天（Brahmapāriṣadya）一劫的壽命相同。因為在其他部分有伽陀（Gāthā，頌）說。
【English Translation】 English version: It means that relying on Nirvāṇa (涅槃) to dedicate towards Nirvāṇa is because there is no wealth involved. The word 'etc.' indicates that there are other views. Some say that the purity of precepts (戒) arises from five causes: first, fundamental purity; second, purity of retinue; third, non-harming through thought; fourth, mindfulness and reception; and fifth, dedication to tranquility. Other teachers say that there are four types of precepts: first, precepts of fear, which involve upholding Śīla (尸羅, moral discipline) out of fear of not surviving, bad reputation, punishment, and falling into evil destinies; second, precepts of hope, which involve upholding pure precepts out of greed for superior positions, abundant wealth, respect, and praise; third, precepts conducive to enlightenment factors, which involve upholding pure precepts for the sake of seeking liberation and for the sake of cessation and contemplation; fourth, pure precepts, which are undefiled precepts, because they can permanently separate from the defilements of karma and afflictions. Having discussed the types of precepts, we should now discuss the types of cultivation. The verse says: 'Equanimity-induced goodness is called cultivation, because it extremely perfumes the mind.' The treatise says that equanimity-induced goodness refers to the nature of equanimity in meditation, as well as the things associated with it, which is called cultivation. Because it extremely perfumes the mind, cultivation means perfuming, like using flowers to perfume hemp. It means that various meditative goodnesses, in the continuum of the mind, are extremely capable of perfuming, causing it to become a category of merit. Non-meditative goodness is not solely called cultivation. Earlier, it was discussed that the merit of giving can attract great wealth. What are the results of the two categories of precepts and cultivation? The verse says: 'Precepts and cultivation are superior in order, causing birth in heaven and liberation.' The treatise says that precepts cause birth in heaven, and cultivation causes liberation. The word 'superior' is to indicate that it is speaking in terms of superiority. It means that giving can also cause the result of birth in heaven, but it is precepts that are superior. Upholding precepts can also cause the result of separation from bondage, but it is cultivation that is superior. In this way, precepts and cultivation can also cause great wealth, but it is giving that is superior, as should be known by analogy. The sutra says that four types of people can generate Brahma-merit: first, those who build Stūpas (窣堵波, stupas) in previously unbuilt places to offer to the Dhātu (馱都, relics) of the Tathāgata (如來); second, those who build monasteries, donate gardens, and provide the four requisites to offer to the Saṃgha (僧伽, monastic community) of the four directions; third, Buddhist disciples who can reconcile after discord; and fourth, those who universally cultivate loving-kindness, etc., towards sentient beings. How much is such Brahma-merit? The verse says: 'Causing eons of birth in heaven, etc., is the measure of one Brahma-merit.' The treatise says that other teachers say that, according to the merit, it can cause an eon of birth in heaven, enjoying various pleasures, which is called the measure of one Brahma-merit. Because the time of their enjoyment of pleasure is the same as the one eon lifespan of the Brahmapāriṣadya (梵輔天) gods. Because in other sections there is a Gāthā (伽陀, verse) that says.
他言。
有信正見人 修十勝行者 便為生梵福 感劫天樂故
已離欲者修四無量。生上界天受劫壽樂。若未離欲建窣堵波。造寺和僧能勤修習慈等加行。彼亦如修無量根本感劫天樂。豈不前說欲界無有善業能招一劫異熟。無一善業猶如不善。唯一剎那能招劫壽。依如是理故作是說。然於一事發起多思。次第能招劫量天樂。謂于彼死復于中生。故劫樂言無違前失。有餘師說。此如所辯妙相業中所說福量。謂說唯除後有菩薩。所餘一切有情所修。感富樂果業是一福量等。契經說施略有二種。一者財施。二者法施。財施已辯。法施云何。頌曰。
法施謂如實 無染辯經等
論曰。若能如實為諸有情。以無染心辯契經等。令生正解名為法施。說如實言顯法施主。于契經等解無顛倒。說無染言顯法施主。不希利養恭敬名譽。不爾便為自他俱損。契經等者等餘十一。即顯契經乃至論議。言契經者。謂能總攝容納隨順世俗勝義堅實理言。如是契經是佛所說。或佛弟子佛許故說。言應頌者。謂以勝妙緝句言詞。隨述贊前契經所說。有說亦是不了義經。言記別者。謂隨余問酬答辯析。如波羅衍拏等中辯。或諸所有辯曾當現。真實義言皆名記別。有說是佛諸了義經。言諷頌者。謂以勝妙緝句言詞。非隨述前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他說。
有具足信心、持正見的人，修行十種殊勝行為，便能獲得生於梵天的福報，感得長達一劫的天界快樂。
已經離欲的人，修習四無量心，便能往生上界天，享受長達一劫的壽命和快樂。如果尚未離欲，但建造佛塔（窣堵波），建造寺廟，供養僧眾，並且能夠勤奮修習慈心等加行，他們也像修習無量心根本一樣，感得長達一劫的天界快樂。難道不是之前說過欲界沒有善業能夠招感一劫的異熟果報嗎？沒有一種善業像不善業那樣，僅僅一個剎那就能招感一劫的壽命。依據這樣的道理，所以才這樣說。然而，對於一件事發起多次思惟，次第能夠招感劫量般的天界快樂，指的是在那一生死去後又在那一生中出生。所以說『劫樂』並沒有違背之前的說法。有些論師說，這就像在辨別妙相業中所說的福報數量一樣，說除了後有菩薩之外，其餘一切有情所修的，感得富樂果報的業是一種福報數量等等。《契經》說佈施略有二種：一是財施，二是法施。財施已經辨析過了，法施是什麼呢？頌文說：
法施是指如實、無染地講說經典等。
論中說：如果能夠如實地為眾生，以沒有染污的心講說《契經》等，使他們產生正確的理解，就叫做法施。說『如實』，是爲了顯示法施的主持者對於《契經》等的理解沒有顛倒。說『無染』，是爲了顯示法施的主持者不希望得到利益供養、恭敬名譽，否則就會自他兩傷。《契經》等，是包括其餘的十一種，即顯示了從《契經》乃至《論議》。《契經》，是指能夠總括、容納、隨順世俗勝義的堅實道理的言語。這樣的《契經》是佛所說的，或是佛的弟子因為佛的允許而說的。《應頌》，是指用殊勝美妙的語句言辭，隨著敘述讚美之前的《契經》所說。有人說也是不了義經。《記別》，是指隨著別人的提問而回答辨析，如《波羅衍拏》等中所辨析的，或者所有辨析過去、現在、未來的真實義的言語都叫做記別。有人說是佛所說的了義經。《諷頌》，是指用殊勝美妙的語句言辭，不是隨著敘述之前的
【English Translation】 English version: He said.
A person with faithful right view, who practices the ten superior practices, will then generate the merit of being born in the Brahma realm, experiencing the joy of a kalpa (劫) (aeon) in the heavenly realm.
Those who have already abandoned desire, cultivate the Four Immeasurables (四無量). They are born in the upper realm heavens and receive the joy of a kalpa (劫) of life. If one has not yet abandoned desire but builds stupas (窣堵波), constructs temples, and supports the Sangha (僧), and is able to diligently cultivate loving-kindness and other preliminary practices, they too, like those who cultivate the root of the Immeasurables, will experience the joy of a kalpa (劫) in the heavenly realm. Was it not previously said that there are no wholesome deeds in the desire realm that can bring about a kalpa (劫) of ripened results? No wholesome deed is like an unwholesome deed, where a single moment can bring about a kalpa (劫) of life. Based on this principle, this is why it is said. However, by repeatedly contemplating one thing, one can gradually bring about heavenly joy equal to a kalpa (劫), referring to dying in that life and being born in that life again. Therefore, the term 'kalpa (劫) of joy' does not contradict the previous statement. Some teachers say that this is like the amount of merit described in the analysis of the marks of excellence, which states that, except for bodhisattvas (菩薩) in their final existence, all other sentient beings cultivate deeds that bring about wealth and joy, and this is considered one unit of merit, and so on. The Sutras (契經) say that there are roughly two types of giving: material giving and Dharma (法) giving. Material giving has already been discussed. What is Dharma (法) giving? The verse says:
Dharma (法) giving is speaking of the Sutras (經) and so on, truthfully and without defilement.
The treatise says: If one is able to truthfully explain the Sutras (契經) and so on to sentient beings with an undefiled mind, causing them to generate correct understanding, this is called Dharma (法) giving. Saying 'truthfully' shows that the giver of Dharma (法) has no inverted understanding of the Sutras (契經) and so on. Saying 'without defilement' shows that the giver of Dharma (法) does not hope for profit, offerings, respect, or fame; otherwise, it would harm both oneself and others. 'Sutras (契經) and so on' includes the other eleven, which shows that it includes everything from the Sutras (契經) to the treatises (論議). 'Sutras (契經)' refers to words that can comprehensively gather, contain, and accord with the firm principles of conventional and ultimate truth. Such Sutras (契經) are spoken by the Buddha (佛), or by the Buddha's (佛) disciples with the Buddha's (佛) permission. 'Verses' refers to using excellent and wonderful words to follow and praise what was said in the previous Sutras (契經). Some say it is also the Sutras (經) of incomplete meaning. 'Predictions' refers to answering and analyzing questions, such as in the analysis in the Pārāyana (波羅衍拏), or all words that analyze the true meaning of the past, present, and future are called predictions. Some say they are the Sutras (經) of complete meaning spoken by the Buddha (佛). 'Stanzas' refers to using excellent and wonderful words, not following and narrating the previous
而為讚詠。或二三四五六句等。言自說者。謂不因請世尊欲令正法久住。睹希奇事悅意自說妙辯等流。如說此那伽由彼那伽等。言緣起者。謂說一切起說所由。多是調伏相應論道。彼由緣起之所顯故。言譬喻者。為令曉悟所說義宗。廣引多門比例開示。如長喻等契經所說。有說此是除諸菩薩。說餘本行能有所證示所化。言言本事者。謂說自昔展轉傳來。不顯說人談所說事。言本生者。謂說菩薩本所行行。或依過去事起諸言論。即由過去事言論究竟是名本事。如曼馱多經。若依現在事起諸言論。要由過去事言論究竟是名本生。如邏剎私經。言方廣者。謂以正理廣辯諸法。以一切法性相眾多。非廣言詞不能辯故。亦名廣破。由此廣言。能破極堅無智闇故。或名無比。由此廣言理趣幽博余無比故。有說此廣辯大菩提資糧。言希法者謂於此中唯說希奇出世間法。由此能正顯三乘希有故。有餘師說辯三寶言世所罕聞故名希法。言論議者。謂于上說諸分義中。無倒顯示釋難抉擇。有說于經所說深義已見真者。或余智人隨理辯釋亦名論議。即此名曰摩怛理迦。釋余經義時此為本母故。此又名為阿毗達磨。以能現對諸法相故。無倒顯示諸法相故。如是所說十二分教略說應知三藏所攝。言三藏者。一素怛纜藏。二毗柰耶藏。三阿毗達磨藏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以及讚美的歌頌。或者兩句、三句、四句、五句、六句等等。『言自說者』，是指不因他人請求，世尊爲了讓正法長久住世，見到稀奇的事情，心生喜悅而自然宣說的巧妙辯才等。例如，像經中所說的『此那伽（龍）由彼那伽（龍）』等等。『言緣起者』，是指講述一切事物產生的緣由。大多是與調伏相應的論道，因為這些都是由緣起所顯現的。『言譬喻者』，是爲了使人明白所說義理的宗旨，廣泛引用多種方式進行比喻開示，如《長喻經》等契經中所說。有人說，這（譬喻）是除了諸位菩薩之外，講述其他人過去的行為，能夠有所證悟，以此來教導所化之人。『言本事者』，是指講述自古以來輾轉相傳的故事，不明顯地說出人物，只談論所說的事情。『言本生者』，是指講述菩薩過去所行的行為，或者依據過去的事情引發各種言論，即由過去的事情使言論最終得以完成，這叫做本事，如《曼馱多經》。如果依據現在的事情引發各種言論，一定要由過去的事情使言論最終得以完成，這叫做本生，如《邏剎私經》。『言方廣者』，是指以正確的道理廣泛地辨析諸法。因為一切法的體性和現象眾多，不用廣博的言辭就不能辨析清楚。也叫做『廣破』，因為用廣博的言辭，能夠破除極其堅固的無知黑暗。或者叫做『無比』，因為用廣博的言辭，其理趣幽深廣博，沒有可以相比的。有人說，這（方廣）是廣泛地闡述大菩提的資糧。『言希法者』，是指在這其中只說稀奇的出世間法。因此能夠正確地顯示三乘的稀有之處。有其他論師說，辯論三寶的言論世間罕見，所以叫做希法。『言論議者』，是指在上面所說的各個部分義理中，毫無顛倒地顯示、解釋疑難、做出決斷。有人說，對於經中所說的深刻義理，已經見到真理的人，或者其他有智慧的人，隨順道理進行辨析解釋，也叫做論議。這也就是所謂的摩怛理迦（梵文：Mātrka，意為『根本』或『母』），在解釋其他經義的時候，這作為根本的依據。這又叫做阿毗達磨（梵文：Abhidharma，意為『論』或『殊勝法』），因為它能夠直接地呈現諸法的體相，毫無顛倒地顯示諸法的體相。像這樣所說的十二分教，簡略地說，應當知道是三藏所包含的內容。『言三藏者』，一是素怛纜藏（梵文：Sūtrānta-pitaka，經藏），二是毗柰耶藏（梵文：Vinaya-pitaka，律藏），三是阿毗達磨藏（梵文：Abhidharma-pitaka，論藏）。
【English Translation】 English version: And also praises and hymns. Or two, three, four, five, six verses, etc. 'Words of self-explanation' refer to the World Honored One, not upon request, but desiring to make the True Dharma abide long, seeing rare events, and naturally expounding wonderful eloquence, etc. For example, as it is said in the sutras, 'This Nāga (dragon) from that Nāga (dragon),' etc. 'Words of origination' refer to explaining the causes and conditions of all things. Mostly, it is discourse corresponding to taming, because these are manifested by dependent origination. 'Words of metaphors' are to make people understand the purpose of the meaning being explained, extensively citing various methods for analogy and exposition, such as what is said in the Dirghāgama Sutra and other sutras. Some say that this (metaphor) is, apart from the Bodhisattvas, telling the past actions of others, being able to have some realization, and using this to teach those to be transformed. 'Words of past events' refer to telling stories transmitted from ancient times, not explicitly stating the characters, only discussing the matters being spoken of. 'Words of birth stories' refer to telling the actions that Bodhisattvas performed in the past, or initiating various discussions based on past events, that is, the discussions are ultimately completed by past events, which is called past events, such as the Mandhata Sutra. If various discussions are initiated based on present events, the discussions must be ultimately completed by past events, which is called birth stories, such as the Rakshasi Sutra. 'Words of Vaipulya' refer to widely analyzing all dharmas with correct reasoning. Because the nature and phenomena of all dharmas are numerous, they cannot be clearly analyzed without extensive words. It is also called 'extensive destruction,' because with extensive words, it can destroy the extremely firm darkness of ignorance. Or it is called 'incomparable,' because with extensive words, its principles are profound and broad, and there is nothing comparable. Some say that this (Vaipulya) extensively expounds the resources for great Bodhi. 'Words of rare dharmas' refer to only speaking of rare, transcendent dharmas in this. Therefore, it can correctly reveal the rarity of the Three Vehicles. Other teachers say that the discourse on the Three Jewels is rare in the world, so it is called rare dharmas. 'Words of discussion' refer to displaying, explaining difficulties, and making decisions without inversion in the meanings of the various parts mentioned above. Some say that for the profound meanings spoken of in the sutras, those who have seen the truth, or other wise people, analyze and explain according to reason, which is also called discussion. This is what is called Mātrka (Sanskrit: Mātrka, meaning 'root' or 'mother'), which serves as the fundamental basis when explaining other sutra meanings. This is also called Abhidharma (Sanskrit: Abhidharma, meaning 'treatise' or 'superior Dharma'), because it can directly present the characteristics of all dharmas, displaying the characteristics of all dharmas without inversion. The twelve divisions of teachings spoken of in this way, briefly speaking, should be known to be contained in the Three Pitakas. 'The Three Pitakas' are: first, the Sūtrānta-pitaka (Sanskrit: Sūtrānta-pitaka, Sutra Pitaka), second, the Vinaya-pitaka (Sanskrit: Vinaya-pitaka, Vinaya Pitaka), and third, the Abhidharma-pitaka (Sanskrit: Abhidharma-pitaka, Abhidharma Pitaka).
。如是三藏差別云何。未種善根未欣勝義。令種欣故為說契經。已種已欣令熟相續。作所作故為說調伏。已熟已作令悟解脫。正方便故為說對法。或以廣略清妙文詞。綴緝雜染及清凈法。令易解了名為契經。宣說修行尸羅軌則。凈命方便名為調伏。善能顯示諸契經中。深義趣言名為對法。或依增上心戒惠學所興論道。如其次第名為契經調伏對法。或素怛纜藏是力等流。以諸經中所說義理。畢竟無有能屈伏故。毗柰耶藏是大悲等流辯說尸羅濟惡趣故。阿毗達磨藏是無畏等流。真法相中能善安立。問答抉擇無所畏故。如是等類三藏不同。毗婆沙中已廣分別。前已別釋三福業事。今釋經中順三分善。頌曰。
順福順解脫 順抉擇分三 感愛果涅槃 聖道善如次
論曰。順福分善。謂感世間人天等中愛果種子。由此力故能感世間高族大宗大富妙色。輪王帝釋魔王梵王。如是等類諸可愛果。順解脫分善。謂安立解脫善阿世耶令無傾動。由此決定當般涅槃。辯此善根自性地等。應知如辯賢聖處說。順抉擇分善。謂暖等四此亦如后辯賢處說。如世間所說書印算文數。此五自體云何應知。頌曰。
諸如理所起 三業並能發 如次為書印 算文數自體
論曰。如理起者正加行生。三業應知即身語意。能
發即是能起此三。如其所應受想等法。此中書印以前身業及彼能發五蘊為體。非諸字像即名為書。所雕印文即名為印。然由業造字像印文。應知名為此中書印次算及文。以前語業及彼能發五蘊為體。后數應知以前意業。及彼能發四蘊為體。但由意思能數法故。應辯聖教諸法相中。少分異名令不迷謬。頌曰。
善無漏名妙 染有罪覆劣 善有為應習 解脫名無上
論曰。善無漏法亦名為妙。勝染無記及有漏法故唯此法獨受妙名。諸染污法亦名有罪。是諸智者所訶厭故亦名有覆。以能覆障解脫道故。亦名為劣極鄙穢故應棄捨故。準此妙劣余中已成。故頌不辯即有漏善。無覆無記總名為中。諸有為善亦名應習。余非應習義準已成。何故無為不名應習。以不可說在相續中。數習令增及無果故。謂若有法于相續中。可數令生習令增長。如聖道等可名應習。無為不爾故不立應習名。然勸以涅槃置在心中者。教有情類令趣涅槃。勸令數現起緣涅槃善智。故作是言非謂應習。又為果故習無為無果故。不善無記非應習者。以彼體非升進法故。解脫涅槃亦名無上。以無一法能勝涅槃。是善是常超眾法故。涅槃是善何理。應知以契經言極安隱故。又說安隱是善義故。余法有上義準已成。即一切有為虛空非擇滅。
說一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『發』（Pravrtti）即是能引發書、印、算、文這四種行為。如其所應，伴隨受、想等心所法。其中，書寫和印刻以先前的身業以及引發這些身業的五蘊為本體。並非字型的形象本身就叫做『書』，所雕刻的印章文字本身就叫做『印』。然而，由於業力創造了字型的形象和印章文字，應當知道這就是這裡所說的『書』和『印』。其次，算術和文辭以先前的語業以及引發這些語業的五蘊為本體。後面的計數應當知道是以先前的意業以及引發這些意業的四蘊為本體。僅僅通過意思就能計數各種法。應當辨明聖教（Aryadharma）中各種法的不同名稱，以免產生迷惑和謬誤。頌文說：
『善』且『無漏』名為『妙』，『染』且『有罪』為『覆』為『劣』。 『善』且『有為』應修習，『解脫』名為『無上』。
論述：『善』且『無漏』的法也叫做『妙』，因為它勝過『染污』、『無記』以及『有漏』的法，所以只有這種法才能獨享『妙』這個名稱。各種『染污』的法也叫做『有罪』，因為它們是被有智慧的人所呵斥和厭惡的；也叫做『有覆』，因為它能夠覆蓋和障礙解脫的道路；也叫做『劣』，因為它極其鄙陋和污穢，應當被捨棄。依照這個標準，『妙』和『劣』的相對含義已經在其他地方闡明。所以頌文沒有辨明，即『有漏』的『善』、『無覆』的『無記』，總的來說都叫做『中』。各種『有為』的『善』也叫做『應習』，其他不應該修習的含義已經通過類比而成立。為什麼『無為』不叫做『應習』呢？因為它無法被說成是在相續中，通過計數、修習來使其增長，並且沒有結果。也就是說，如果有一種法在相續中，可以通過計數使其產生，通過修習使其增長，比如聖道等，就可以叫做『應習』。『無為』不是這樣，所以不建立『應習』這個名稱。然而，勸說將涅槃（Nirvana）置於心中，是爲了教導有情眾生趨向涅槃，勸導他們多次生起緣于涅槃的善的智慧，所以才這樣說，並非說應該修習。而且，爲了結果而修習『有為』，『無為』沒有結果。不『善』和『無記』不是應該修習的，因為它們的本體不是升進之法。解脫（Moksha）和涅槃也叫做『無上』，因為沒有一種法能夠勝過涅槃，它是『善』且『常』，超越了所有其他的法。涅槃是『善』，有什麼道理呢？應當知道，因為契經（Agama）說它是『極安隱』的。又說『安隱』是『善』的含義。其他法有『上』的含義已經通過類比而成立，即一切『有為』、虛空（Akasa）、非擇滅（Apratisamkhyanirodha）。
說『一』。
【English Translation】 English version 'Pravrtti' (發) is what can initiate these four actions: writing, printing, calculation, and literature. As appropriate, it is accompanied by mental factors such as feeling, perception, etc. Among these, writing and printing have as their essence the previous physical karma and the five aggregates that give rise to this physical karma. It is not the form of the characters themselves that is called 'writing,' nor is it the engraved text of the seal itself that is called 'printing.' However, because karma creates the form of the characters and the text of the seal, it should be known that this is what is referred to here as 'writing' and 'printing.' Secondly, calculation and literature have as their essence the previous verbal karma and the five aggregates that give rise to this verbal karma. The subsequent counting should be understood as having as its essence the previous mental karma and the four aggregates that give rise to this mental karma. It is only through thought that one can count various dharmas. One should distinguish the different names of various dharmas in the Holy Teachings (Aryadharma) to avoid confusion and error. The verse says:
'Good' and 'untainted' are called 'sublime,' 'tainted' and 'sinful' are 'covered' and 'inferior.' 'Good' and 'conditioned' should be cultivated, 'liberation' is called 'supreme.'
Commentary: 'Good' and 'untainted' dharmas are also called 'sublime' because they surpass 'tainted,' 'neutral,' and 'tainted' dharmas, so only this dharma can exclusively enjoy the name 'sublime.' Various 'tainted' dharmas are also called 'sinful' because they are rebuked and detested by the wise; they are also called 'covered' because they can cover and obstruct the path to liberation; they are also called 'inferior' because they are extremely base and impure and should be abandoned. According to this standard, the relative meanings of 'sublime' and 'inferior' have already been clarified elsewhere. Therefore, the verse does not distinguish, that is, 'tainted' 'good,' 'uncovered' 'neutral,' are generally called 'middle.' Various 'conditioned' 'good' are also called 'should be cultivated,' the meaning of others that should not be cultivated has already been established through analogy. Why is 'unconditioned' not called 'should be cultivated'? Because it cannot be said to be in the continuum, to be increased through counting and cultivation, and it has no result. That is to say, if there is a dharma in the continuum that can be produced through counting and increased through cultivation, such as the noble path, it can be called 'should be cultivated.' 'Unconditioned' is not like this, so the name 'should be cultivated' is not established. However, encouraging placing Nirvana (Nirvana) in the heart is to teach sentient beings to move towards Nirvana, to encourage them to repeatedly generate good wisdom that arises from Nirvana, so it is said in this way, not that it should be cultivated. Moreover, 'conditioned' is cultivated for the sake of results, 'unconditioned' has no results. 'Unwholesome' and 'neutral' are not what should be cultivated because their essence is not a progressive dharma. Liberation (Moksha) and Nirvana are also called 'supreme' because there is no dharma that can surpass Nirvana, it is 'good' and 'eternal,' surpassing all other dharmas. Nirvana is 'good,' what is the reason? It should be known because the Agama (Agama) says it is 'extremely peaceful.' It is also said that 'peaceful' is the meaning of 'good.' The meaning of other dharmas having 'superiority' has already been established through analogy, that is, all 'conditioned,' space (Akasa), non-selective cessation (Apratisamkhyanirodha).
Say 'one'.
切有部順正理論卷第四十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之一
廣辯諸業並抉擇已。諸契經中說感有處。皆言諸業能為引因。然見世間有離染者。雖亦造善身語意業。而無功能招後有果。故於感有業應非因。業獨為因非我所許。要隨眠助方有感能。非離隨眠業獨能感。故緣起教初說隨眠。此復何因隨眠有幾。頌曰。
隨眠諸有本 此差別有六 謂貪瞋亦慢 無明見及疑
論曰。由此隨眠是諸有本。故業離此無感有能。何故隨眠能為有本。諸煩惱現起為十六事故。一堅固根本令得堅牢。對治遠故煩惱根本謂煩惱得。二生依粗重能辯所依中無堪任性故。三建立相續能數令余連續起故。四修治自田令所依止順彼住故。五憎背功德性相能違諸功德故。六為厭訶本發智所。厭訶身語意業故。七引毒等流能引如自隨煩惱故。八擁解脫路棄背親近正說者故。九能發業有發起能招後有業故。十攝自資糧能數數攝。起非理作意故。十一迷於所緣能害自身正覺慧故。十二殖眾苦種能生一切生死苦故。十三將導識流於後有所緣能引發識故。十四違越善品令諸善法皆退失故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十四
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之一
廣泛地辨析了各種業，並作了抉擇之後，在各種契經中說到能感生有之處，都說諸業能夠作為引發的原因。然而，看到世間有遠離染污的人，即使也造作了善的身語意業，也沒有功能招感後有的果報。因此，對於能感生有的業，不應是唯一的原因。業單獨作為原因，不是我所允許的。一定要有隨眠的幫助，才會有感生的能力。如果離開了隨眠，業就不能單獨感生。所以緣起教義最初就說到了隨眠。那麼，這是什麼原因呢？隨眠有幾種呢？頌文說：
『隨眠諸有本，此差別有六，謂貪瞋亦慢，無明見及疑。』
論述說：由於這些隨眠是各種生有的根本，所以業離開了這些隨眠，就沒有感生生有的能力。為什麼隨眠能夠成為生有的根本呢？因為各種煩惱現起，是爲了十六種事故：一、堅固根本，使之得到堅牢。因為對治遙遠，煩惱的根本指的是煩惱的獲得。二、產生所依的粗重，能夠辨別所依中沒有堪任性。三、建立相續，能夠數數令其餘的煩惱連續生起。四、修治自己的田地，使所依止的煩惱順著它而安住。五、憎恨違背功德的性相，能夠違背各種功德。六、成為厭惡呵斥的根本，引發對身語意業的厭惡呵斥。七、引生毒的等流，能夠引生像自己一樣的隨煩惱。八、擁塞解脫的道路，拋棄違背親近正說的人。九、能夠發起業有，發起能夠招感後有的業。十、攝取自己的資糧，能夠數數攝取，生起非理作意。十一、迷惑于所緣，能夠損害自身正確的覺悟智慧。十二、種植眾苦的種子，能夠生起一切生死之苦。十三、將導意識的流注，於後有的所緣，能夠引發意識。十四、違越善品，使各種善法都退失。
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra Volume 44
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra Volume 45
Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5.1: Discussion on the Anusaya (Latent Tendencies)
After extensively discussing and determining the various karmas, the sutras state that all karmas can be the cause of rebirth. However, we see in the world that there are those who have abandoned defilements, and even though they also create good deeds of body, speech, and mind, they do not have the ability to attract the fruit of future existence. Therefore, karma that can cause existence should not be the only cause. Karma alone as the cause is not what I allow. It must be with the help of anusaya (latent tendencies) that there is the ability to cause existence. Without anusaya, karma alone cannot cause existence. Therefore, the teaching of dependent origination initially speaks of anusaya. So, what is the reason for this? How many anusayas are there? The verse says:
'Anusaya is the root of all existence; these differences are six in number, namely greed (lobha), hatred (dvesa), pride (mana), ignorance (avidya), views (drsti), and doubt (vicikitsa).'
The treatise says: Because these anusayas are the root of all existence, karma without them has no ability to cause existence. Why can anusaya be the root of existence? Because the arising of various kleshas (afflictions) is for sixteen reasons: 1. To strengthen the root, making it firm. Because the antidote is far away, the root of klesha refers to the attainment of klesha. 2. To produce the heaviness of the basis, able to discern the lack of competence in the basis. 3. To establish continuity, able to repeatedly cause the continuous arising of other kleshas. 4. To cultivate one's own field, causing the basis of reliance to abide in accordance with it. 5. To hate and turn against the characteristics of merit, able to violate various merits. 6. To become the root of aversion and reproach, causing aversion and reproach towards the karma of body, speech, and mind. 7. To draw out the outflow of poison, able to draw out the secondary afflictions like oneself. 8. To block the path of liberation, abandoning and turning away from those who are close to the correct teachings. 9. To be able to initiate karma, initiating the karma that can attract future existence. 10. To gather one's own resources, able to repeatedly gather and give rise to irrational thinking. 11. To be deluded about the object, able to harm one's own correct wisdom of enlightenment. 12. To plant the seeds of suffering, able to give rise to all the suffering of samsara (cycle of rebirth). 13. To guide the flow of consciousness, in the object of future existence, able to initiate consciousness. 14. To violate the qualities of goodness, causing all good dharmas to be lost.
。十五廣繫縛義令不能越自界自地。以能長養染污界故。十六攝世非愛諸增上果。因此外物皆衰變故。由是隨眠能為有本。故業因此有感有能雖離染者亦造善業。而無勢力能招後有。是故智者應勤精進。思擇隨眠速令除滅。以何門義思擇隨眠。謂觀隨眠此見所斷。此修所斷。此唯一部此二此四此通五部。此是遍行此非遍行。此自界遍此他界遍。此有漏緣此無漏緣。此有為緣此無為緣。此云何起云何隨增。此由遍知所緣故斷此由斷滅所緣故斷。此由永害助伴故斷。此由清凈相續故斷。此與彼相應此與彼不相應。此斷已可退此斷已不可退。此有非愛異熟此全無異熟。此是彼等無間此是彼所緣。此因所緣斷此因所緣不斷。此體雖已斷而所緣故縛。此于定地無容得有。此非世間治道所滅。此唯意識身此通六識身。此能等起身語二業。此能斷善根此能續善根。此是見性此非見性。此唯九品斷此唯一品斷。此一品斷或九品斷此田彼故成就。此由彼故不成就。此由彼故相應。此由彼故不相應。此于彼位容有現行。此雖未斷而不現行。此唯在欲界斷此亦在上界斷。有成就此果有不成就此果。此同對治此別對治。以如是等眾多義門應善思擇。諸隨眠相如是。善知隨眠相已方能決定除滅隨眠。亦能為他無倒顯說。自他相續善品更生。能速了
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十五、廣泛的束縛之義，使（煩惱）不能超越自身的界限和範圍。因為它能增長和滋養染污的境界。 十六、攝取世間不悅意的各種增上果報。因為這個緣故，外在的事物都會衰敗變異。由此可知，隨眠是存在的根本。因此，業因此而有感受，有能力（產生果報），即使是已經遠離染污的人也會造作善業，但沒有力量招感後有（未來的生命）。 因此，有智慧的人應該勤奮精進，思考如何迅速地斷除隨眠。用什麼方法來思考隨眠呢？ 觀察隨眠：哪些是見所斷（通過見道斷除的），哪些是修所斷（通過修道斷除的）；哪些只屬於一個部類（指五部：苦、集、滅、道、下），哪些屬於兩個部類，哪些屬於四個部類，哪些通於五個部類；哪些是遍行（普遍存在的），哪些不是遍行；哪些在自身界限內是遍行的，哪些在他界限內是遍行的；哪些以有漏法為緣，哪些以無漏法為緣；哪些以有為法為緣，哪些以無為法為緣；這些隨眠是如何生起的，如何增長的；哪些是通過遍知所緣而斷除的，哪些是通過斷滅所緣而斷除的；哪些是通過永遠摧毀助伴而斷除的，哪些是通過清凈相續而斷除的；哪些與彼（其他法）相應，哪些與彼不相應；哪些斷除后可以退轉，哪些斷除后不可退轉；哪些有不悅意的異熟果報，哪些完全沒有異熟果報；哪些是彼（其他法）的等無間緣，哪些是彼所緣緣；哪些因所緣而斷，哪些因所緣不斷；哪些本體雖然已經斷除，但因為所緣的緣故仍然被束縛；哪些在禪定之地不可能存在；哪些不是世間的對治道所能滅除的；哪些只存在於意識身中，哪些通於六識身；哪些能夠等起（引發）身語二業；哪些能夠斷除善根，哪些能夠延續善根；哪些是見性的，哪些不是見性的；哪些只有九品斷，哪些只有一品斷；哪些一品斷或九品斷；哪些因為彼（其他法）的緣故而成就，哪些因為彼的緣故而不成就；哪些因為彼的緣故而相應，哪些因為彼的緣故而不相應；哪些在彼（其他法）的位次上容許現行，哪些雖然未斷而不現行；哪些只在欲界斷除，哪些也在上界斷除；有成就此果的，有不成就此果的；哪些是對治相同的，哪些是對治不同的。 像這樣通過眾多義門，應該好好地思考。這些就是隨眠的相狀。善於瞭解隨眠的相狀之後，才能決定斷除隨眠，也能為他人無誤地闡述，使自己和他人的相續中善品不斷產生，能夠迅速地瞭解（真理）。
【English Translation】 English version Fifteen, the meaning of extensive binding, causing (afflictions) to be unable to transcend their own boundaries and limits. Because it can grow and nourish the realm of defilement. Sixteen, grasping the various superior results of worldly unpleasantness. Because of this reason, external things will decay and change. From this, it can be known that latent tendencies (Sui Mian) are the root of existence. Therefore, karma has feeling and ability (to produce results) because of this. Even those who have already distanced themselves from defilement will create good karma, but they do not have the power to attract future existence. Therefore, wise people should diligently strive and contemplate how to quickly eliminate latent tendencies. What method should be used to contemplate latent tendencies? Observe the latent tendencies: which are severed by seeing (Duan) (severed by the path of seeing), which are severed by cultivation (severed by the path of cultivation); which belong to only one category (referring to the five categories: suffering, accumulation, cessation, path, and lower), which belong to two categories, which belong to four categories, which are common to five categories; which are pervasive, which are not pervasive; which are pervasive within their own boundaries, which are pervasive within other boundaries; which take conditioned dharmas as their object, which take unconditioned dharmas as their object; which take conditioned phenomena as their object, which take unconditioned phenomena as their object; how do these latent tendencies arise, how do they increase; which are severed by completely knowing the object, which are severed by ceasing the object; which are severed by permanently destroying the companions, which are severed by purifying the continuum; which are in accordance with that (other dharmas), which are not in accordance with that; which can regress after being severed, which cannot regress after being severed; which have unpleasant results, which have no results at all; which are the immediately preceding condition of that (other dharmas), which are the object-condition of that; which are severed because of the object, which are not severed because of the object; which, although the substance has already been severed, are still bound because of the object; which cannot exist in the realm of meditation; which cannot be eliminated by worldly antidotes; which only exist in the consciousness-body, which are common to the six consciousness-bodies; which can equally arise (initiate) the two karmas of body and speech; which can sever the roots of goodness, which can continue the roots of goodness; which are of the nature of seeing, which are not of the nature of seeing; which are only severed in nine grades, which are only severed in one grade; which are severed in one grade or nine grades; which are accomplished because of that (other dharmas), which are not accomplished because of that; which are in accordance because of that, which are not in accordance because of that; which are allowed to manifest in the position of that (other dharmas), which do not manifest even though they have not been severed; which are only severed in the desire realm, which are also severed in the upper realms; some accomplish this result, some do not accomplish this result; which have the same antidotes, which have different antidotes. Like this, through many meanings, one should contemplate well. These are the characteristics of latent tendencies. After being good at understanding the characteristics of latent tendencies, one can determine to eliminate latent tendencies, and can also explain to others without error, so that good qualities are constantly produced in one's own and others' continuums, and one can quickly understand (the truth).
知遣除方便。是故若欲利樂自他。應于隨眠如是思擇。隨眠差別略有六種。謂貪瞋慢無明見疑。經主於此作如是釋。頌說亦言意顯慢等亦由貪力于境隨增。謂契經言因愛生恚。如瞋由貪力于境隨增。慢等亦由貪故復言亦。此釋無理非文意故。謂此本為標數列名。不明此因彼于境隨增義。今詳亦字為滿句言。若必欲令此有別義。更為方便作無過釋。謂瞋如貪雖有多類。而可總說為一隨眠。慢等亦然故復言亦。或此為顯如貪與瞋行相不同是故別立。如是慢等。行相雖同餘義有殊故亦別立。及聲為顯釋據相違。或顯總攝隨眠類盡。若諸隨眠數唯有六。何緣經說有七隨眠。頌曰。
六由貪異七 有貪上二界 于內門轉故 為遮解脫想
論曰。即前所說六隨眠中。分貪為二故經說七。何等為七。一欲貪隨眠。二瞋隨眠。三有貪隨眠。四慢隨眠。五無明隨眠。六見隨眠。七疑隨眠。欲貪隨眠依何義釋為欲貪。體即是隨眠為是欲貪之隨眠義。于餘六義徴問亦爾。經主於此作是釋言。此是欲貪之隨眠義。然隨眠體非心相應。非不相應無別物故。煩惱睡位說名隨眠。于覺位中即名纏故。何名為睡。謂不現行種子隨逐。何名為覺。謂諸煩惱現起纏心。何等名為煩惱種子。謂自體上差別功能。從煩惱生能生煩惱。如念種子是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
瞭解去除煩惱的方法。因此，如果想要利益自己和他人，應該像這樣思維這些隨眠（suimian，煩惱的潛在狀態）。隨眠的差別大致有六種，即貪（tan，貪婪）、瞋（chen，嗔恨）、慢（man，傲慢）、無明（wuming，無知）、見（jian，錯誤的見解）和疑（yi，懷疑）。經主（jingzhu，註釋經典的作者）對此作了這樣的解釋，頌（song，偈頌）中也說，意思是說傲慢等也是由於貪的力量而在境界上隨之增長。就像契經（qijing，佛經）所說，因愛而生恨，就像嗔恨由於貪的力量而在境界上隨之增長一樣，傲慢等也是由於貪的緣故。又說『亦』字，這種解釋沒有道理，不符合原文的意思。因為這裡原本是爲了標明數列名稱，並沒有說明這個因為那個而在境界上隨之增長的含義。現在詳細考察，『亦』字是爲了使句子完整。如果一定要讓這個字有別的意義，可以更方便地做一個沒有過失的解釋，即嗔恨就像貪婪一樣，雖然有很多種類，但可以總的來說是一種隨眠。傲慢等也是這樣，所以又說『亦』字。或者這是爲了顯示貪婪和嗔恨的行相不同，所以分別設立。像這樣，傲慢等的行相雖然相同，但其餘的意義有差別，所以也分別設立。『及』字是爲了顯示解釋依據相互違背，或者顯示總括了所有隨眠的種類。如果各種隨眠的數量只有六種，為什麼經典上說有七種隨眠呢？頌說：
『六由貪異七，有貪上二界，于內門轉故，為遮解脫想。』
論（lun，論述）中說：就是前面所說的六種隨眠中，把貪分為兩種，所以經典上說有七種。哪七種呢？一、欲貪隨眠（yutan suimian，對慾望的貪著的潛在狀態）；二、嗔隨眠（chen suimian，嗔恨的潛在狀態）；三、有貪隨眠（yutan suimian，對存在的貪著的潛在狀態）；四、慢隨眠（man suimian，傲慢的潛在狀態）；五、無明隨眠（wuming suimian，無知的潛在狀態）；六、見隨眠（jian suimian，錯誤見解的潛在狀態）；七、疑隨眠（yi suimian，懷疑的潛在狀態）。欲貪隨眠依據什麼意義解釋為欲貪呢？是它的本體就是隨眠，還是欲貪的隨眠的意義呢？對於其餘六種意義的征問也是這樣。經主對此作了這樣的解釋：這是欲貪的隨眠的意義。然而隨眠的本體不是心相應（xinxiangying，與心同時生起），也不是心不相應（xinbuxiangying，不與心同時生起），沒有別的物體。煩惱處於睡眠狀態時，稱為隨眠；在覺醒狀態中，就稱為纏（chan，纏縛）。什麼叫做睡眠？就是不現行，種子隨逐。什麼叫做覺醒？就是各種煩惱現起纏縛內心。什麼叫做煩惱種子？就是自體上的差別功能，從煩惱產生，能產生煩惱，就像唸的種子一樣。
【English Translation】 English version
Knowing the means of eliminating afflictions. Therefore, if one wishes to benefit oneself and others, one should contemplate these latent tendencies (suimian, latent tendencies of afflictions) in this way. The differences in latent tendencies are roughly six types, namely greed (tan, greed), hatred (chen, hatred), pride (man, arrogance), ignorance (wuming, ignorance), wrong views (jian, wrong views), and doubt (yi, doubt). The Sutra Master (jingzhu, commentator of scriptures) explains this as follows, and the verse (song, verse) also says, meaning that arrogance and the like also increase in relation to objects due to the power of greed. Just as the scripture (qijing, Buddhist scripture) says, hatred arises from love, just as hatred increases in relation to objects due to the power of greed, arrogance and the like are also due to greed. The word 'also' is added again. This explanation is unreasonable and does not conform to the meaning of the original text. Because this was originally intended to mark the names of the series, it does not explain the meaning of this increasing in relation to that due to that. Now, upon detailed examination, the word 'also' is to complete the sentence. If one must give this word a different meaning, it is more convenient to make an explanation without fault, that is, hatred, like greed, although there are many types, can be generally said to be one latent tendency. The same is true for arrogance and the like, so the word 'also' is added again. Or this is to show that the characteristics of greed and hatred are different, so they are established separately. In this way, although the characteristics of arrogance and the like are the same, the remaining meanings are different, so they are also established separately. The word 'and' is to show that the explanations are based on contradictions, or to show that all types of latent tendencies are included. If there are only six types of latent tendencies, why do the scriptures say there are seven latent tendencies? The verse says:
'Six differ from greed to seven, greed exists in the upper two realms, turning within the gate, to prevent the thought of liberation.'
The Treatise (lun, treatise) says: Among the six latent tendencies mentioned earlier, greed is divided into two, so the scriptures say there are seven. What are the seven? First, the latent tendency of desire-greed (yutan suimian, latent tendency of attachment to desires); second, the latent tendency of hatred (chen suimian, latent tendency of hatred); third, the latent tendency of existence-greed (yutan suimian, latent tendency of attachment to existence); fourth, the latent tendency of pride (man suimian, latent tendency of arrogance); fifth, the latent tendency of ignorance (wuming suimian, latent tendency of ignorance); sixth, the latent tendency of wrong views (jian suimian, latent tendency of wrong views); seventh, the latent tendency of doubt (yi suimian, latent tendency of doubt). According to what meaning is the latent tendency of desire-greed explained as desire-greed? Is its essence the latent tendency, or the meaning of the latent tendency of desire-greed? The same is true for the questioning of the remaining six meanings. The Sutra Master explains this as follows: This is the meaning of the latent tendency of desire-greed. However, the essence of the latent tendency is neither mind-associated (xinxiangying, arising simultaneously with the mind) nor mind-unassociated (xinbuxiangying, not arising simultaneously with the mind), there is no other object. When afflictions are in a dormant state, they are called latent tendencies; in the awakened state, they are called entanglements (chan, entanglements). What is called dormancy? It is non-manifestation, with seeds following. What is called awakening? It is the arising of various afflictions that entangle the mind. What is called the seed of affliction? It is the differential function on the self-nature, arising from affliction, capable of producing affliction, like the seed of thought.
證智生能生當念功能差別。又如芽等有前果生能生後果功能差別。今詳彼釋于理不然。自許隨眠離諸煩惱無別物故。不染污法為煩惱體理不成故。不可說為睡隨眠體。故無少物名睡隨眠。又若隨眠是煩惱種。離諸煩惱無別有物。則不應說謂自體上差別功能。從煩惱生能生煩惱名煩惱種。又彼所執煩惱功能。若是煩惱以生為性則不可說此睡煩惱。離覺煩惱無別有物。若非煩惱以生為性。如是生性豈非別物。又不應說煩惱睡位說名隨眠。若此功能即是煩惱亦非煩惱。如是言義曾所未聞。若此功能非煩惱性。亦非余性而說是生。此極希有無體而許。是現在故非無體法。可得說言從煩惱生能生煩惱。又彼所立宗因相違。所以者何。謂彼所說然隨眠體。非心相應非不相應無別物故。今應責彼無別物言。為離覺時諸纏自體。為離睡位所依自體。為離異二第三聚法無別物耶。然皆非理彼法非此品類性故。又此離彼無別體故。又離相應不相應外。應別有一違二法生。然此第三必不可得。故彼所說但有虛言。又彼初言然隨眠體非心。相應非不相應。此言誠實都無體故。后不應說差別功能。從煩惱生能生煩惱。以無體法非因果故。又彼此中據何別理。唯執煩惱不現行位種子隨逐說名隨眠非余法種亦立斯號。如彼所執亦有心等差別功能。從心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 證智生能生當念功能差別。又如芽等有前果生能生後果功能差別。今詳彼釋于理不然。自許隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在狀態）離諸煩惱無別物故。不染污法為煩惱體理不成故。不可說為睡隨眠體。故無少物名睡隨眠。又若隨眠是煩惱種。離諸煩惱無別有物。則不應說謂自體上差別功能。從煩惱生能生煩惱名煩惱種。又彼所執煩惱功能。若是煩惱以生為性則不可說此睡煩惱。離覺煩惱無別有物。若非煩惱以生為性。如是生性豈非別物。又不應說煩惱睡位說名隨眠。若此功能即是煩惱亦非煩惱。如是言義曾所未聞。若此功能非煩惱性。亦非余性而說是生。此極希有無體而許。是現在故非無體法。可得說言從煩惱生能生煩惱。又彼所立宗因相違。所以者何。謂彼所說然隨眠體。非心相應非不相應無別物故。今應責彼無別物言。為離覺時諸纏自體。為離睡位所依自體。為離異二第三聚法無別物耶。然皆非理彼法非此品類性故。又此離彼無別體故。又離相應不相應外。應別有一違二法生。然此第三必不可得。故彼所說但有虛言。又彼初言然隨眠體非心。相應非不相應。此言誠實都無體故。后不應說差別功能。從煩惱生能生煩惱。以無體法非因果故。又彼此中據何別理。唯執煩惱不現行位種子隨逐說名隨眠非余法種亦立斯號。如彼所執亦有心等差別功能。從心 證明智慧的產生，能夠產生當下的念頭，這是功能上的差別。又比如，像種子發芽等，有前一個結果產生，能夠產生后一個結果，這是功能上的差別。現在詳細考察他們的解釋，在道理上是不成立的。因為他們自己承認隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在狀態）離開各種煩惱沒有別的實體。不染污法作為煩惱的本體，這個道理是不成立的。所以不能說睡眠是隨眠的本體。因此，沒有什麼東西可以叫做睡眠隨眠。而且，如果隨眠是煩惱的種子，離開各種煩惱沒有別的實體，那麼就不應該說在自體上有差別的功能。從煩惱產生，能夠產生煩惱，才叫做煩惱的種子。而且，他們所認為的煩惱的功能，如果是煩惱，以產生為特性，那麼就不能說這是睡眠煩惱。離開覺醒的煩惱，沒有別的實體。如果不是煩惱，以產生為特性，那麼這樣的產生特性難道不是別的實體嗎？也不應該說煩惱在睡眠狀態叫做隨眠。如果這個功能就是煩惱，也不是煩惱。這樣的言語意義，從來沒有聽說過。如果這個功能不是煩惱的性質，也不是其他的性質，卻說是產生，這極其稀有，沒有實體卻允許存在。因為是現在存在的，所以不是沒有實體的法。可以這樣說，從煩惱產生，能夠產生煩惱。而且，他們所建立的宗和因是相互矛盾的。為什麼這樣說呢？因為他們所說，隨眠的本體，非心相應，非不相應，沒有別的實體。現在應該責問他們，沒有別的實體這句話，是離開覺醒時的各種纏縛的自體，還是離開睡眠狀態所依賴的自體，還是離開不同於這二者的第三種聚合的法，沒有別的實體呢？然而，這些都不成立，因為那些法不是這種品類的性質。而且，這些離開那些，沒有別的實體。而且，離開相應和不相應之外，應該另外有一種違背這二者的法產生。然而，這第三種法必定不能得到。所以他們所說，只不過是虛妄的言語。而且，他們最初說，隨眠的本體，非心相應，非不相應。這句話誠實，因為根本沒有實體。後面不應該說差別的功能。從煩惱產生，能夠產生煩惱。因為沒有實體的法，不是因果關係。而且，彼此之中根據什麼特別的道理，只認為煩惱不現行的時候，種子隨之而行，叫做隨眠，而不是其他的法種也立這個名稱。就像他們所認為的，也有心等等差別的功能，從心......
【English Translation】 English version The arising of proving wisdom is able to generate the function of present moment thought, which is a difference in function. Furthermore, just as sprouts and the like have the arising of a prior result that is able to generate a subsequent result, which is a difference in function. Now, upon detailed examination, their explanation is not reasonable. Because they themselves admit that Anusaya (latent tendencies of afflictions) has no separate entity apart from the various afflictions. The principle that undefiled dharmas are the substance of afflictions is not established. Therefore, it cannot be said that sleep is the substance of Anusaya. Hence, there is nothing that can be called sleep Anusaya. Moreover, if Anusaya is a seed of afflictions, and there is no separate entity apart from the various afflictions, then it should not be said that there is a differential function on the self-nature. That which arises from afflictions and is able to generate afflictions is called a seed of afflictions. Furthermore, the function of afflictions that they hold, if it is an affliction with arising as its characteristic, then it cannot be said that this is sleep affliction. Apart from the afflictions of wakefulness, there is no separate entity. If it is not an affliction with arising as its characteristic, then is such a characteristic of arising not a separate entity? Nor should it be said that the state of affliction in sleep is called Anusaya. If this function is the affliction itself, then it is also not an affliction. Such a meaning has never been heard of. If this function is not the nature of affliction, nor is it any other nature, yet it is said to arise, this is extremely rare, allowing existence without substance. Because it is presently existing, it is not a dharma without substance. It can be said that it arises from afflictions and is able to generate afflictions. Moreover, the proposition and reason they establish contradict each other. Why is this so? Because what they say is that the substance of Anusaya is neither associated with mind nor not associated with mind, having no separate entity. Now, they should be questioned about the statement 'no separate entity.' Is it that there is no separate entity apart from the self-nature of the various entanglements during wakefulness, or is it that there is no separate entity apart from the self-nature relied upon in the state of sleep, or is it that there is no separate entity apart from a third aggregate of dharmas different from these two? However, none of these are established, because those dharmas are not of this category of nature. Moreover, these, apart from those, have no separate entity. Moreover, apart from association and non-association, there should be a separate dharma arising that contradicts these two. However, this third dharma is certainly unattainable. Therefore, what they say is merely empty words. Moreover, they initially said that the substance of Anusaya is neither associated with mind nor not associated with mind. This statement is true because there is no substance at all. Later, it should not be said that there is a differential function. It arises from afflictions and is able to generate afflictions. Because a dharma without substance is not a cause and effect relationship. Moreover, according to what particular principle among these do they only hold that when afflictions are not manifest, the seed follows along and is called Anusaya, and not other dharma seeds also establish this name. Just as they hold, there are also differential functions of mind and so on, from mind...
等生能生心等名為種子。何不亦說心等隨眠。上座此中立多因證。謂隨眠者。是諸有情相續所持煩惱類故。不由功力恒隨逐故。由遍知彼息眾苦故。觀彼速能依對治故。智者恒觀為病性故。如是所立皆非證因。許有情身中具五蘊類故。或且彼許有業類故。心等功能不由功力亦恒隨故。契經中言遍知諸法息眾苦故。若觀現行纏過失者。彼最能速依對治故。經言有智應常觀察五種取蘊為病性故。誰有鑑者于彼所立證隨眠因心能生喜。又隨眠體于自相續既恒隨逐何非現行。以現行名目現在故。由此經主惡立隨眠。又所立喻如念種子是證智生能生當念功能差別。亦不相似以我宗言念種子者。即于證智后初重緣實念。從先證智俱起念生能生后時憶智俱念。此顯即念前後相引為能赴感差別功能。彼自體俱生無別實煩惱。從前纏起能生后纏可名隨眠。煩惱種子故喻於法相去極遙。由此應知彼第二喻。于所況法亦無證能。謂芽等中有實色等。從前果位實色等生生後果時實色等法。彼宗所立煩惱隨眠差別功能無如是事。又無芽等同類相續因果俱時。有自體中煩惱種子。與纏俱義則不應計。于自體中煩惱功能。從前已滅諸煩惱起。猶如芽等從前果生功能差別。如斯乃是食米臍宗豈得引來摸托聖旨惡說法者妄所執故。況經主論劣甚彼宗。謂彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 等生能生心等，如果說心等生起時是相等的，這可以被稱作『種子』（bīja，潛在力量，或潛伏狀態）。那麼，為什麼不也說心等是『隨眠』（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）呢？ 上座部（Sthavira，佛教部派之一）在此設立多種理由來證明隨眠的存在。他們認為，隨眠是：與有情（satva，眾生）相續相連的煩惱種類；不依賴外力而恒常伴隨；通過遍知（parijñā，完全理解）它們可以止息眾苦；觀察它們能迅速找到對治方法；智者恒常視它們為病性。 然而，這些理由都不能作為有效的證明。因為我們承認有情身中具有五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素）的種類；或者，他們或許承認有業（karma，行為）的種類；心等的功能也不依賴外力而恒常伴隨。經典中說，通過遍知諸法可以止息眾苦。如果觀察現行的纏（paryavasthāna，煩惱的粗顯形式）的過失，就能最快地找到對治方法。經典中說，有智慧的人應當經常觀察五種取蘊（upādāna-skandha，執取的五蘊）為病性。 誰有見識的人會因為他們所立的證明隨眠的理由而心生歡喜呢？而且，隨眠的本體既然恒常伴隨於自身的相續，為什麼不是現行（pariyuṭṭhāna，煩惱的顯現）呢？因為現行是指現在發生的。因此，經主（Sūtra Master，佛經的作者或權威）錯誤地設立了隨眠。 他們所立的比喻，如唸的種子（smṛti-bīja，記憶的種子），是證明智慧生起時，能生起當下念頭的功能差別，這也不相似。因為我宗（svātantrika，自續派）認為，唸的種子是指在證智（jñāna，智慧）之後，最初重新緣取真實的念頭。從先前的證智同時生起的念頭，能夠生起後來的憶智（smṛti-jñāna，回憶的智慧）同時生起的念頭。這表明念頭前後相引，是能引發感受差別的功能。而隨眠的自體是俱生的，沒有別的真實的煩惱。從先前的纏生起，能夠生起後來的纏，可以稱作隨眠，是煩惱的種子。因此，這個比喻與所要說明的法相去甚遠。 由此應該知道，他們的第二個比喻，對於所要說明的法也沒有證明能力。比如，芽等中有真實的色等（rūpa，物質），從先前的果位真實的色等生起，生起後來的果時真實的色等法。他們宗派所立的煩惱隨眠的差別功能沒有這樣的事情。而且，沒有芽等同類相續，因果同時存在的情況。在自體中存在煩惱的種子，與纏同時存在，這種說法是不應該有的。在自體中存在煩惱的功能，從先前已經滅除的煩惱生起，猶如芽等從先前的果生起的功能差別。 像這樣說是『食米臍宗』（bāla，愚笨之人），怎麼能拿來摸索聖旨呢？這些惡說法者妄加執著。況且經主的論述比他們的宗派還要差勁，他們說...
【English Translation】 English version The equal arising of mind etc. that can give rise to further mind etc. is called a 'seed' (bīja, potential or latent state). Why not also say that mind etc. are 'latent tendencies' (anuśaya, latent tendencies of afflictions)? The Sthaviras (one of the early Buddhist schools) establish various reasons to prove the existence of latent tendencies. They argue that latent tendencies are: the type of afflictions held by the continuum of sentient beings (satva, beings); constantly accompanying without relying on external effort; through complete understanding (parijñā, complete understanding) of them, suffering can be ceased; observing them allows one to quickly find antidotes; the wise constantly view them as a disease. However, these reasons cannot serve as valid proof. Because we admit that sentient beings possess the types of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates that constitute an individual); or, they might admit the types of karma (action). The functions of mind etc. also constantly accompany without relying on external effort. The scriptures say that through complete understanding of all phenomena, suffering can be ceased. If one observes the faults of manifest entanglements (paryavasthāna, the gross form of afflictions), one can quickly find antidotes. The scriptures say that the wise should constantly observe the five aggregates of clinging (upādāna-skandha, the five aggregates of clinging) as a disease. Who with discernment would rejoice at their reasons for proving the existence of latent tendencies? Moreover, since the essence of latent tendencies constantly accompanies one's own continuum, why are they not manifest (pariyuṭṭhāna, the manifestation of afflictions)? Because 'manifest' refers to what is happening now. Therefore, the Sūtra Master (author or authority of the Buddhist scriptures) wrongly establishes latent tendencies. Their analogy, such as the seed of memory (smṛti-bīja, seed of memory), which proves that when wisdom arises, it can give rise to the functional difference of the present thought, is also dissimilar. Because our school (svātantrika, the Autonomist school) believes that the seed of memory refers to the initial re-grasping of a real thought after wisdom. The thought that arises simultaneously from the previous wisdom can give rise to the thought that arises simultaneously from the subsequent memory-wisdom (smṛti-jñāna, wisdom of memory). This shows that the sequential attraction of thoughts is the function that can trigger the difference in feeling. The essence of latent tendencies is co-emergent, without other real afflictions. Arising from the previous entanglement, it can give rise to the subsequent entanglement, which can be called latent tendencies, the seed of afflictions. Therefore, this analogy is very far from the dharma to be explained. From this, it should be known that their second analogy also has no ability to prove the dharma to be explained. For example, in sprouts etc. there are real forms etc. (rūpa, matter), arising from the real forms etc. of the previous fruit position, giving rise to the real forms etc. of the subsequent fruit time. The functional difference of the latent tendencies of afflictions established by their school does not have such a thing. Moreover, there is no situation where sprouts etc. of the same type continue, with cause and effect existing simultaneously. The existence of the seed of afflictions in the self, coexisting with entanglement, should not be said. The function of afflictions exists in the self, arising from the previously extinguished afflictions, like the functional difference of sprouts etc. arising from the previous fruit. To say it like this is like the 'rice-eating navel school' (bāla, foolish person), how can it be used to explore the holy will? These evil speakers cling to it falsely. Moreover, the Sūtra Master's argument is even worse than their school, they say...
宗中許有別法說名為行是智果因。然經主宗無別實物名為種子。如何說是煩惱果因故為甚劣。上座於此謂佛世尊自說諸纏與隨眠異。謂諸煩惱現起名纏以能現前縛相續故。煩惱隨界說名隨眠。因性恒隨而眠伏故。以契經說幼稚童子嬰孩眠病。雖無染欲而有欲貪隨眠隨增。此唯說有諸隨眠性。又說一類于多時中為欲貪纏纏心而住。此文唯說有煩惱纏。又說一類非於多時為欲貪纏纏心而住。設心暫爾起欲貪纏尋如實知出離方便。彼由此故於欲貪纏能正遣除並隨眠斷。此文通說纏及隨眠由此故知。現起煩惱煩惱隨界名纏隨眠。若隨眠聲目煩惱得此不應理曾無說故。又已除遣別有得故如是隨眠以何為體。若彼隨眠以彼為體。是隨彼法功能性故。或此通用四蘊為體功能隨逐心心所故。此相應性亦不相應如諸心所。然其自體不可說故而不記別。遣此多同破經主義。再詳仍有粗過未除。且彼敘前宗隨眠聲目得。便作是斥此不應理。復辨因言曾無說故。又已除遣別有得故。此因無能隨界同故。謂曾無處說隨界名隨眠。不說雖同而許得理勝。以契經說並隨眠斷故非無實體。法可與有俱斷。由此已遣已遣得言。離得說何為隨眠性。而說遣纏位並隨眠斷耶。非經部師能定顯示。此隨眠性是有可斷又非隨眠體。有說。隨眠聲故隨眠聲目得無失。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 你們宗派中允許有另外一種說法，稱之為『行』（karma）是『智』（jnana）的果和因。然而，經部師（Sautrantika）的宗派認為，沒有一種獨立的實體可以被稱為『種子』（bija）。如果這樣，怎麼能說煩惱是果和因呢？因此這種說法非常低劣。 上座部的觀點是，佛陀（Buddha）親自說過，『纏』（paryavasthana）和『隨眠』（anusaya）是不同的。所謂的『纏』，是指那些已經生起的煩惱，因為它們能夠直接束縛相續。而『隨眠』，則是指那些潛在的煩惱，因為它們具有潛在的性質，總是潛伏著。 例如，經中說，年幼的兒童，即使沒有染污的慾望，也有對慾望的貪婪的『隨眠』在增長。這僅僅說明了『隨眠』的性質存在。經中又說，有些人長期被慾望的『纏』所纏繞。這僅僅說明了煩惱的『纏』存在。經中還說，有些人不會長期被慾望的『纏』所纏繞，如果心中暫時生起慾望的『纏』，他們會立即如實地知道出離的方法。因此，他們能夠正確地去除慾望的『纏』，並斷除『隨眠』。這段經文同時說明了『纏』和『隨眠』。 由此可知，已經生起的煩惱和潛在的煩惱分別被稱為『纏』和『隨眠』。如果『隨眠』這個詞指的是煩惱的『得』（prapti），這是不合理的，因為從來沒有這種說法。而且，已經去除之後，還有另外的『得』存在。那麼，『隨眠』的本體是什麼呢？如果『隨眠』以彼法為本體，那是因為它是彼法的功能性質。或者，它可以是通用的四蘊（skandha）為本體，因為功能隨著心和心所（citta-caitta）而存在。這種相應的性質既不相應也不不相應，就像各種心所一樣。然而，它的自體是不可說的，因此沒有被記別。 駁斥這種觀點與經部師的觀點有很多相同之處。再次詳細審查，仍然存在粗略的過失沒有去除。而且，他們敘述前宗『隨眠』這個詞指的是『得』，然後就斥責說這是不合理的。又用『因』來說明，因為從來沒有這種說法。而且，已經去除之後，還有另外的『得』存在。這個『因』沒有能力，因為它與『隨界』（anusaya-dhatu）相同。也就是說，從來沒有地方說過『隨界』這個詞指的是『隨眠』。雖然沒有說，但允許『得』的道理更勝一籌。因為經中說，『並隨眠斷』，所以並非沒有實體。法可以與『有』（bhava）一起斷除。因此，已經駁斥了『已遣』和『已遣得』的說法。如果不說『得』，那麼如何說明『隨眠』的性質呢？又怎麼能說在去除『纏』的時候，『並隨眠斷』呢？經部師無法明確地顯示這一點。這種『隨眠』的性質是可以斷除的，但又不是『隨眠』的本體。有人說，因為有『隨眠』這個詞，所以『隨眠』這個詞指的是『得』沒有錯誤。
【English Translation】 English version: In your school, it is permissible to have another explanation, which is called 'karma' as the result and cause of 'jnana' (wisdom). However, the Sautrantika school believes that there is no independent entity that can be called 'bija' (seed). If so, how can it be said that afflictions are the result and cause? Therefore, this statement is very inferior. The view of the Sthavira school is that the Buddha himself said that 'paryavasthana' (entanglement) and 'anusaya' (latent tendency) are different. The so-called 'entanglement' refers to those afflictions that have already arisen, because they can directly bind the continuum. And 'anusaya' refers to those potential afflictions, because they have a potential nature and are always latent. For example, the sutra says that young children, even without defiled desires, have the 'anusaya' of greed for desires increasing. This only illustrates the existence of the nature of 'anusaya'. The sutra also says that some people are entangled by the 'entanglement' of desires for a long time. This only illustrates the existence of the 'entanglement' of afflictions. The sutra also says that some people are not entangled by the 'entanglement' of desires for a long time. If the 'entanglement' of desires arises temporarily in their minds, they will immediately know the method of liberation as it is. Therefore, they can correctly remove the 'entanglement' of desires and cut off 'anusaya'. This passage illustrates both 'entanglement' and 'anusaya'. From this, it can be known that the afflictions that have arisen and the potential afflictions are respectively called 'entanglement' and 'anusaya'. If the word 'anusaya' refers to the 'prapti' (attainment) of afflictions, this is unreasonable, because there has never been such a statement. Moreover, after it has been removed, there is another 'attainment' existing. So, what is the essence of 'anusaya'? If 'anusaya' takes that dharma as its essence, it is because it is the functional nature of that dharma. Or, it can be the common four skandhas (aggregates) as its essence, because the function exists with the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta). This corresponding nature is neither corresponding nor non-corresponding, just like various mental factors. However, its self-nature is unspeakable, so it has not been distinguished. Refuting this view has many similarities with the view of the Sautrantika school. After reviewing it in detail again, there are still rough faults that have not been removed. Moreover, they narrated that the word 'anusaya' in the previous school refers to 'attainment', and then criticized it as unreasonable. They also used 'cause' to explain, because there has never been such a statement. Moreover, after it has been removed, there is another 'attainment' existing. This 'cause' has no ability, because it is the same as 'anusaya-dhatu' (anusaya-element). That is to say, nowhere has it been said that the word 'anusaya-dhatu' refers to 'anusaya'. Although it has not been said, allowing the principle of 'attainment' is even better. Because the sutra says, 'and cut off anusaya', it is not without substance. The dharma can be cut off together with 'bhava' (existence). Therefore, the statements of 'already removed' and 'already removed attainment' have been refuted. If 'attainment' is not mentioned, then how can the nature of 'anusaya' be explained? And how can it be said that when removing 'entanglement', 'and cut off anusaya'? The Sautrantika school cannot clearly show this. The nature of this 'anusaya' can be cut off, but it is not the essence of 'anusaya'. Some say that because there is the word 'anusaya', there is no mistake that the word 'anusaya' refers to 'attainment'.
謂佛但說有七隨眠而隨眠聲有處說色。如契經說。有色隨眠。若覺若思便隨增故。如是隨眠得雖非隨眠。而說隨眠聲理亦為善。又彼所釋前後相違。許貪等言說隨眠故。謂彼先釋貪等非隨眠。后釋經言隨眠即貪等。又審思擇上座所宗。纏與隨眠斷俱非理。是故應舍隨眠異纏俱非理因如后當辯。今引違彼前所引經。謂有經言汝今何故喬答摩所修梵行耶。為求斷故。求斷何法。斷貪瞋癡及三結等。此中不別說斷隨眠。上座此中作如是釋。此中貪等即是隨眠。豈不前言並隨眠者。是隨眠得非目隨眠。不爾二經應相違害。曾無說故已顯非理。非經部宗經有斷義心相應故。去來無故非隨眠斷故纏后不生名斷經說並斷言顯二俱時斷故。又此經說纏勝隨眠。先說遣纏並隨眠故。不爾應說隨眠並纏。若斷隨眠纏方斷者。則隨眠勝理應先說。又隨眠未斷纏容有不生。故非不生即名為斷。或纏不生位即得斷名。非隨眠斷故纏方名斷。或應隨眠斷纏方不生。非於未斷時有不生理。彼隨眠體亦無斷義。無別物故。如空花等。又彼所說若彼隨眠以彼為體。是隨彼法功能性故此亦非善。若欲貪纏所引隨眠即欲貪者學心應與欲貪體一。與彼隨眠無別體故。學心是學諸欲貪纏非學無學。如何可說若彼隨眠以彼為體。又隨眠位諸欲貪纏已滅無體。如何可說
【現代漢語翻譯】 有人說，佛陀只說了有七種隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式），但『隨眠』這個詞有時也用來指稱色（rūpa，物質現象）。例如，在契經（sūtra，佛經）中說：『有色隨眠，若覺若思，便隨增故』。意思是，如果對色產生感覺或思念，隨眠就會增長。這樣，即使隨眠的『得』（prāpti，獲得）本身不是隨眠，但用『隨眠』這個詞來指稱它也是合理的。而且，他們的解釋前後矛盾，因為他們允許貪等言說是隨眠。他們先前解釋說貪等不是隨眠，後來又解釋經文中的『隨眠』就是貪等。仔細思考上座部（Sthavira Nikāya，原始佛教部派之一）的觀點，認為纏（paryavasthāna，煩惱的粗顯形式）和隨眠同時斷除是不合理的。因此，應該捨棄隨眠不同於纏的觀點，以及它們同時斷除的理由，這將在後面辯論。現在引用與他們先前引用的經文相違背的經文。經中說：『你現在為什麼要在喬答摩（Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛的姓）那裡修行梵行（brahmacarya，清凈的修行生活）呢？』『爲了求斷（prahāṇa，斷除）的緣故。』『求斷什麼法？』『斷貪（rāga，貪慾）、瞋（dveṣa，嗔恚）、癡（moha，愚癡）以及三結（trisaṃyojana，三種束縛）等。』這裡沒有特別說斷隨眠。上座部對此解釋說：『這裡說的貪等就是隨眠。』難道不是先前說過，『並隨眠者』是指隨眠的『得』，而不是指隨眠本身嗎？如果不是這樣，這兩部經就會互相矛盾。因為從來沒有這樣說過，所以已經表明這種解釋是不合理的。經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）不認為經文中有『斷』的意義，因為心是相應的。因為過去和未來不存在，所以不是隨眠的斷除。因此，纏在隨眠之後不生起，這被稱為『斷』。經文說『並斷』，表明兩者同時斷除。而且，這部經說明纏勝於隨眠，因為它先說遣除纏，然後說並隨眠。如果不是這樣，就應該說隨眠並纏。如果斷除隨眠后纏才能斷除，那麼隨眠就更勝一籌，應該先說。而且，在隨眠未斷除時，纏有可能不生起，所以不生起不能直接稱為斷除。或者，纏不生起的狀態可以稱為斷除，而不是因為隨眠斷除后纏才被稱為斷除。或者，應該是隨眠斷除后纏才不生起，而不是在未斷除時就有不生起的道理。隨眠的本體也沒有斷除的意義，因為它沒有獨立的實體，就像空中的花朵一樣。而且，他們所說的『如果彼隨眠以彼為體，是因為隨彼法的功能性』也是不合理的。如果欲貪纏所引發的隨眠就是欲貪本身，那麼學心（śaikṣa-citta，有學之心）應該與欲貪的本體相同，因為它與彼隨眠沒有區別。學心是學習諸欲貪纏，而不是學習無學。怎麼能說『如果彼隨眠以彼為體』呢？而且，在隨眠位，諸欲貪纏已經滅盡，沒有實體，怎麼能說呢？ 現代漢語譯本
【English Translation】 Some say that the Buddha only spoke of the seven anuśayas (latent tendencies of defilements), but the term 'anuśaya' is sometimes used to refer to rūpa (material phenomena). For example, the sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'There is anuśaya of rūpa; if one feels or thinks about it, the anuśaya increases.' Thus, even if the 'prāpti' (attainment) of anuśaya is not itself anuśaya, it is reasonable to use the term 'anuśaya' to refer to it. Moreover, their explanation is self-contradictory, because they allow that speech about rāga (greed), etc., is anuśaya. They previously explained that rāga, etc., are not anuśaya, but later explained that the 'anuśaya' in the scripture is rāga, etc. Carefully considering the view of the Sthavira Nikāya (one of the early Buddhist schools), the idea that paryavasthānas (manifestations of defilements) and anuśayas are eliminated simultaneously is unreasonable. Therefore, the view that anuśayas are different from paryavasthānas, and the reasons for their simultaneous elimination, should be abandoned, as will be debated later. Now, I quote a scripture that contradicts the scripture they previously quoted. The scripture says: 'Why are you now practicing the brahmacarya (pure spiritual life) under Gautama (the family name of Shakyamuni Buddha)?' 'For the sake of seeking prahāṇa (elimination).' 'Seeking the elimination of what dharma (teachings)?' 'Eliminating rāga (greed), dveṣa (hatred), moha (delusion), and the three saṃyojanas (fetters), etc.' Here, there is no specific mention of eliminating anuśayas. The Sthavira Nikāya explains this by saying: 'The rāga, etc., mentioned here are anuśayas.' Didn't you previously say that 'those with anuśayas' refers to the 'prāpti' of anuśayas, not the anuśayas themselves? If not, these two scriptures would contradict each other. Because it has never been said that way, it has already been shown that this explanation is unreasonable. The Sautrāntika (one of the Buddhist schools) does not think that the scripture has the meaning of 'elimination', because the mind is corresponding. Because the past and future do not exist, it is not the elimination of anuśayas. Therefore, paryavasthānas do not arise after anuśayas, which is called 'elimination'. The scripture says 'eliminated together', indicating that both are eliminated simultaneously. Moreover, this scripture shows that paryavasthānas are superior to anuśayas, because it first says to eliminate paryavasthānas and then says 'together with anuśayas'. If not, it should say 'anuśayas together with paryavasthānas'. If paryavasthānas can only be eliminated after anuśayas are eliminated, then anuśayas are superior and should be mentioned first. Moreover, when anuśayas have not been eliminated, paryavasthānas may not arise, so not arising cannot be directly called elimination. Alternatively, the state of paryavasthānas not arising can be called elimination, not because paryavasthānas are called elimination after anuśayas are eliminated. Or, it should be that paryavasthānas do not arise after anuśayas are eliminated, not that there is a reason for not arising when they have not been eliminated. The essence of anuśayas also has no meaning of elimination, because it has no independent entity, like flowers in the sky. Moreover, what they say, 'If that anuśaya has that as its essence, it is because of the functionality of that dharma,' is also unreasonable. If the anuśaya caused by the paryavasthāna of desire-greed is desire-greed itself, then the śaikṣa-citta (mind of a learner) should be the same as the essence of desire-greed, because it is no different from that anuśaya. The śaikṣa-citta is learning the paryavasthānas of desire-greed, not learning the non-learner. How can it be said that 'if that anuśaya has that as its essence'? Moreover, in the state of anuśaya, all the paryavasthānas of desire-greed have already been extinguished and have no essence, how can it be said? English version
有欲貪隨眠。以欲貪為體故彼所說有言無義。又彼所言或此通用四蘊為體。功能隨逐心心所故亦不應理。欲貪隨眠體無差別。執差別法以為自體。非觀理者生喜處故。又受想識欲貪所隨。即說名為欲貪自體。亦非鑒者生喜處故。又彼所說此相應性亦不相應如諸心所。彼言如有不識槃豆時縛迦花。拘枳羅鳥有作是問。拘枳羅鳥其色如何。答言。鮮白正似槃豆時縛迦花。曾無處說亦無理證。諸心所體是不相應。寧說隨眠如諸心所。是相應性亦不相應。若作是言心所自體異類行相則不相應所許。隨眠與隨眠體異類行相既得相應則不應言諸隨眠體。如諸心所亦不相應。又不應許諸心所法有不相應。非待相應方建立有不相應故。又彼所言隨眠自體不可說故而不記別。誠如所言。彼宗隨眠猶如馬角不可說故。以要言之。彼宗所執多分無有實體可記。欲于佛教求正解者。不應習近如是論師。以聰慧人習彼論者。所有覺慧皆漸昧劣。彼論所說多不定故。前後義文互相違故。不任詰故。越聖教故。對法諸師咸作是說。欲貪等體即是隨眠。如契經言。若觸樂受便生欣悅。慶慰耽著堅執而住。即於樂受有貪隨眠。此中隨眠聲即說欣悅等。經主此中作如是釋。經但說有不言爾時。即有隨眠何所違害。於何時有。于彼睡時。或假于因立隨眠想。此
釋非理。爾時隨眠說現有聲理不成故。謂非正起貪纏剎那有貪隨眠可說現有。即於樂受有貪隨眠言顯樂受中現有隨眠故。又隨眠自體應不可知故。謂經所說有隨眠聲若有性俱。若即有性于無體法理俱不成。無非有俱及有性故。又經但說有隨眠言。寧知非爾時于余時方有。有謂有體。是現有義。如契經說。于諸欲中若有欲貪心被縛住。乃至廣說。又如經說。有諸有情于可愛境有欲有貪。乃至廣說。豈亦執此有及縛言。非於爾時余時有縛。又如經說。此無故彼無。豈亦可言是余時無義。故經主釋定為非理。由此已遣于因假立。謂經但說有隨眠言。寧知說因非隨眠體。又隨眠體爾時無故。不應于有立非有名。故知隨眠即欲貪等。于自相續隨增眠故。然我今釋大母經中欲貪隨眠即欲貪體。非此意辯諸隨眠得。欲貪隨眠所隨增者是隨縛義。如何隨縛非由自體由起得故。如強怨敵雖住遠方密遣使隨伺求瑕隙。故本論釋總隨眠名。謂恒隨行及恒隨縛。此說起得非顯得體。又即彼經言並隨眠斷者。顯欲貪纏無餘盡義。謂斷八品修所斷時。一品隨眠猶能隨縛。為顯體斷說正遣除。並隨眠斷言顯隨縛皆盡。如契經說。於此所生無量種類惡不善法。無餘永滅並隨縛斷。此意亦顯並隨眠滅。是故隨眠即欲貪等非隨界等。其理善成。分別論師作如
【現代漢語翻譯】 釋非理（駁斥不合理的解釋）。當時，認為隨眠是實際存在的說法，在邏輯上是不成立的。因為不可能說，在生起貪慾纏縛的剎那，貪隨眠是實際存在的。因為在感受快樂時，說有貪隨眠，這僅僅是說明在樂受中存在隨眠。而且，隨眠的自體應該是不可知的。因為經文中所說的『有隨眠』，如果『有』是指與『性』同時存在，或者『有』就是『性』本身，那麼對於沒有實體的法來說，在邏輯上都是不成立的。因為沒有既非『有』又非『俱』，以及『有』就是『性』的情況。而且，經文中只是說『有隨眠』，怎麼能知道不是在那個時候，而是在其他時候才存在呢？『有』是指有實體，是實際存在的意義。例如，契經中說：『在各種慾望中，如果有人被欲貪之心束縛住』，等等。又如經中說：『有些有情對於可愛的境界有慾望有貪婪』，等等。難道也要認為這裡的『有』和『縛』，不是指在那個時候，而是在其他時候才有束縛嗎？又如經中說：『因為這個沒有，所以那個也沒有』，難道也可以說是其他時候沒有的意思嗎？所以，經主的解釋肯定是不合理的。由此已經駁斥了對於『因』的假立。因為經文中只是說『有隨眠』，怎麼能知道說的是『因』而不是隨眠的本體呢？而且，隨眠的本體在那個時候並不存在，不應該對於『有』建立『非有』的名義。所以要知道，隨眠就是欲貪等等，因為它們在自己的相續中不斷增長和潛伏。然而，我現在解釋《大母經》中的欲貪隨眠，就是指欲貪的本體。這並不是在討論各種隨眠的獲得。欲貪隨眠所隨逐增長的，是隨縛的意義。如何隨縛不是由自體，而是由生起而獲得呢？就像強大的怨敵雖然住在遠方，也會秘密派遣使者伺機尋找機會。所以，本論解釋總的隨眠名稱，是指恒常隨行和恒常隨縛。這裡說的是生起而獲得，而不是顯現本體。而且，在那部經中說『並隨眠斷』，顯示的是欲貪纏縛完全斷除的意義。也就是說，在斷除八品修所斷的時候，一品隨眠仍然能夠隨縛。爲了顯示本體的斷除，所以說『正遣除』。『並隨眠斷』這句話顯示的是隨縛全部斷盡。如同契經所說：『由此所生的無量種類的惡不善法，完全永遠滅除，連同隨縛也斷除』。這個意思也顯示了連同隨眠一起滅除。因此，隨眠就是欲貪等等，而不是隨界等等。這個道理是完全成立的。分別論師這樣認為 師作如是說。
【English Translation】 Refutation of the Unreasonable (Refuting unreasonable explanations). At that time, the assertion that latent tendencies (Sui Mian) are actually existing is logically untenable. Because it is impossible to say that at the moment of arising of the entanglement of greed (Tan Chan), the latent tendency of greed (Tan Sui Mian) is actually existing. Because when experiencing pleasure, saying that there is a latent tendency of greed, this merely indicates that there is a latent tendency in the feeling of pleasure. Moreover, the self-nature of latent tendencies should be unknowable. Because the phrase 'there is latent tendency' in the scriptures, if 'there is' refers to co-existence with 'nature', or 'there is' is 'nature' itself, then for a dharma without substance, it is logically untenable. Because there is no situation where it is neither 'there is' nor 'co-existing', and 'there is' is 'nature'. Moreover, the scriptures only say 'there is latent tendency', how can one know that it is not at that time, but at other times that it exists? 'There is' refers to having substance, it is the meaning of actually existing. For example, the Sutra says: 'Among all desires, if someone is bound by the mind of greed for desires', and so on. Also, as the Sutra says: 'Some sentient beings have desires and greed for lovely realms', and so on. Should it also be considered that the 'there is' and 'bound' here do not refer to that time, but that bondage only exists at other times? Also, as the Sutra says: 'Because this does not exist, therefore that does not exist', can it also be said that it means non-existence at other times? Therefore, the explanation of the Sutra master is definitely unreasonable. This has already refuted the false establishment of 'cause'. Because the scriptures only say 'there is latent tendency', how can one know that it is referring to 'cause' rather than the essence of latent tendency? Moreover, the essence of latent tendency does not exist at that time, it should not establish the meaning of 'non-existence' for 'existence'. So one must know that latent tendencies are greed, etc., because they constantly increase and lie dormant in one's own continuum. However, I am now explaining the latent tendency of greed in the Great Mother Sutra, which refers to the essence of greed. This is not discussing the attainment of various latent tendencies. What the latent tendency of greed follows and increases is the meaning of being bound. How is it that being bound is not obtained by the self-nature, but by arising? Just like a powerful enemy, even if living far away, will secretly send messengers to seek opportunities to find flaws. Therefore, this treatise explains the general name of latent tendency, which refers to constantly following and constantly binding. This refers to arising and obtaining, not manifesting the essence. Moreover, in that Sutra it says 'and latent tendencies are cut off', which shows the meaning of completely cutting off the entanglements of greed. That is to say, when cutting off the eight categories of what is to be abandoned by cultivation, one category of latent tendency can still bind. In order to show the cutting off of the essence, it is said 'correctly eliminate'. The phrase 'and latent tendencies are cut off' shows that all binding is completely exhausted. Just as the Sutra says: 'The immeasurable kinds of evil and unwholesome dharmas arising from this are completely and permanently extinguished, and the binding is also cut off'. This meaning also shows that latent tendencies are extinguished together. Therefore, latent tendencies are greed, etc., not realms of latent tendencies, etc. This principle is completely established. The Differentiation Theorists say as follows. 師作如是說。(The Differentiation Theorists say as follows.)
是說。諸隨眠體是不相應。不覺不思有隨眠故。謂契經說。不覺不思亦為隨眠隨增隨縛。又道煩惱應俱時故。謂聖道起與心相應。若斷與心相應煩惱。則應聖道有煩惱俱。又應非無學亦無煩惱故。謂執隨眠心相應者。異生有學善無記心現在前時應無煩惱。然非所許。故知隨眠是不相應行蘊所攝。此可破經部非預我宗。我宗許去來有實體故。謂雖現在不覺不思。而為去來覺思所引。諸隨眠體與心相應實相隨眠隨增隨縛。乃至未斷覺思等前。于相續中恒現起得隨增隨縛曾無間斷。由此亦無道惑俱失。亦無非無學有無煩惱過。以煩惱得非煩惱故。由此去來煩惱縛故。如汝宗聖者現起煩惱時無煩惱道俱及成異生過。我宗有學起聖道時無道煩惱俱及無煩惱失。又何用執此不相應以能為因生諸纏故。此不應理。曾無說故。佛說煩惱但以無明相不律儀。非理作意邪分別等為因故生。不說隨眠為因故起。然分別論及經部師妄執隨眠為纏因性。又此所計有太過失。謂若隨眠為纏因故。執隨眠體是不相應。經說無明因謂非理作意。此非理作意應是不相應。此不許然彼云何爾。又隨眠體若許相應。可能為纏隨眠因性。非余妄計不相應者。以契經說。諸有苾芻。于彼彼事中。若多起尋伺。由此由此心便沉著。又如是理世現可知。以下欲貪先數現
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有人說：諸隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）的自體是不相應的（Asamskrta，不與心識同時生起）。因為不覺（無知）和不思（無念）的狀態也有隨眠存在。這是因為契經（Sutra，佛經）中說，不覺不思的狀態也會被隨眠增長和束縛。而且，如果煩惱和聖道（Aryamarga，證悟的道路）同時存在，就會有問題。因為聖道生起時是與心相應的，如果斷除與心相應的煩惱，那麼就意味著聖道本身也帶有煩惱。此外，還會導致非無學（Asaiksa，未證阿羅漢果位者）也無煩惱的過失。因為如果認為隨眠是與心相應的，那麼異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）、有學（Saiksa，正在修學的聖者）在善心或無記心（不善不惡的心）生起時，應該沒有煩惱，但這顯然是不被允許的。因此，可知隨眠是不相應行蘊（Asamskrta-dharma-skandha，不相應的行蘊）所攝。 這種說法可以用來反駁經部宗（Sautrantika），但不能反駁我們的宗義（指說一切有部Sarvastivada）。因為我們宗義認為過去和未來是有實體的。雖然現在是不覺不思的狀態，但這是由過去和未來的覺和思所引發的。諸隨眠的自體與心相應，以實相（真實存在的狀態）隨眠、隨增、隨縛，乃至在未斷除覺思等之前，在相續（Samtan，心識的連續）中恒常現起，獲得隨增隨縛，從未間斷。由此，也不會有聖道和煩惱同時存在，以及非無學沒有煩惱的過失。因為煩惱的獲得（Prapti，獲得煩惱的狀態）並非煩惱本身。由此，過去和未來的煩惱也能束縛眾生。就像你們宗義認為聖者現起煩惱時，沒有煩惱和聖道同時存在，以及會變成異生的過失一樣，我們宗義認為有學生起聖道時，沒有聖道和煩惱同時存在，也不會失去煩惱。 又何必執著隨眠是不相應的，認為它能作為生起諸纏（Paryavasthana，煩惱的粗顯形式）的原因呢？這種說法是不合理的，因為從來沒有這樣說過。佛陀說煩惱的生起，只是以無明（Avidya，對真理的無知）、不律儀（Asamvara，不守護根門）、非理作意（Ayoniśo manaskāra，不如理的思維）、邪分別（Mithya-vikalpa，錯誤的分別）等為原因，並沒有說隨眠是生起的原因。然而，分別論者（Vibhajyavadin，分別說部）和經部師妄自認為隨眠是纏的因性。而且，這種說法還有太過（Ativyapti，範圍過大）的過失。如果隨眠是纏的原因，那麼執著隨眠的自體是不相應的，而經中說無明的原因是非理作意，那麼這個非理作意也應該是不相應的。這是不被允許的。他們又該如何解釋呢？而且，如果隨眠的自體被認為是相應的，那麼它可能成為纏和隨眠的原因。而不是其他妄自認為的不相應者。因為契經中說：『諸位比丘，在各種事情中，如果多起尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的思考），由此由此心便會沉著（Adhyavasaya，執著）。』而且，這個道理在世間也很容易理解，比如地獄的欲貪（Kama-raga，對慾望的貪著）會先多次顯現。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said: The entities of all Anusayas (latent tendencies of defilements) are Asamskrta (not associated with consciousness). Because there are Anusayas even in states of non-awareness and non-thinking. That is, the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say that non-awareness and non-thinking are also increased and bound by Anusayas. Moreover, there would be a problem if defilements and the Aryamarga (Noble Path) were to occur simultaneously. Because the arising of the Noble Path is associated with the mind. If defilements associated with the mind are eliminated, then it would mean that the Noble Path itself has defilements. Furthermore, it would lead to the fault that even those who are not Asekhas (beyond learning, i.e., Arhats) would have no defilements. Because if it is held that Anusayas are associated with the mind, then when the minds of Prthagjanas (ordinary beings) and Saikshas (those still in training) are in states of wholesome or neutral consciousness, there should be no defilements, which is not permissible. Therefore, it is known that Anusayas are included in the Asamskrta-dharma-skandha (aggregate of non-associated formations). This argument can be used to refute the Sautrantikas (Sutra School), but not our own school (Sarvastivada). Because our school holds that the past and future have real existence. Although the present may be a state of non-awareness and non-thinking, it is caused by past and future awareness and thinking. The entities of all Anusayas are associated with the mind, and they really exist as Anusayas, increasing and binding, until the awareness and thinking are eliminated. They constantly arise in the Samtan (mindstream), obtaining increase and bondage without interruption. Therefore, there is no fault of the simultaneous existence of the Noble Path and defilements, nor the fault of non-Asekhas having no defilements. Because the Prapti (attainment) of defilements is not the defilement itself. Therefore, past and future defilements can bind beings. Just as your school has the fault of a saintly person having defilements without the simultaneous existence of the Noble Path and defilements, and becoming an ordinary being, our school holds that when a Saiksha arises the Noble Path, there is no simultaneous existence of the Noble Path and defilements, and there is no loss of defilements. Moreover, why insist that Anusayas are Asamskrta, thinking that they can be the cause of the arising of all Paryavasthanas (manifestations of defilements)? This is unreasonable, because it has never been said. The Buddha said that the arising of defilements is only caused by Avidya (ignorance), Asamvara (non-restraint of the senses), Ayoniśo manaskāra (unwise attention), Mithya-vikalpa (wrong conceptualization), etc., and did not say that Anusayas are the cause of arising. However, the Vibhajyavadins (Distinctionists) and the Sutra Masters wrongly believe that Anusayas are the cause of the nature of Paryavasthanas. Moreover, this view has the fault of Ativyapti (overextension). If Anusayas are the cause of Paryavasthanas, then holding that the entity of Anusayas is Asamskrta, and the Sutras say that the cause of ignorance is unwise attention, then this unwise attention should also be Asamskrta. This is not permissible. How would they explain it? Moreover, if the entity of Anusayas is considered to be associated, then it may be the cause of Paryavasthanas and Anusayas, but not those others who wrongly believe it to be Asamskrta. Because the Sutras say: 'Monks, in various matters, if one frequently engages in Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought), the mind will become Adhyavasaya (attached) because of this.' Moreover, this principle is easily understood in the world, such as the Kama-raga (desire-attachment) of the lower realm will first appear many times.
起。后便數起上品欲貪。又若隨眠非相應性。唯此能作貪等纏因。未離欲貪諸有情類。若遇境界纏起應同。以現生因無差別故。既不許爾。故執隨眠與纏為因。定為橫計。然隨眠體定是相應。以經說隨眠為歡悅等故。謂前所引契經中說。若觸樂受生歡悅等。即於樂受有貪隨眠。非不相應名歡悅等。又經說隨眠映蔽心等。故謂契經說貪映蔽心。由此便能行身語意惡行。若隨眠體是不相應。應一切時造諸惡行。又契經說。心受貪染若隨眠體。是不相應應不染心。或應恒染。若謂所引皆是諸纏。此中並無隨眠聲故。如何不謂皆是隨眠。以於此中無纏聲故。又彼所釋違害自宗。若無隨眠聲即執為纏者。如契經說。無明為因生貪瞋癡。亦應執纏為因生纏。非隨眠力。是則違害先所立宗隨眠為因生諸纏義。又隨眠體若不相應。彼與善心為相違不。若相違者。則諸善心應畢竟不生隨眠恒有故。不相違者。則諸隨眠應不染惱心。然經說染惱。如契經說。貪染惱心令不解脫。無明染慧令不清凈。若謂貪染惱非貪隨眠。以何理為因證知如是。如貪染為效能染惱心。如是貪隨眠亦染為性。如何不說能染惱心。又如愛結體即是愛能染惱心。應貪隨眠體即是貪亦能染惱。或彼應辨差別因緣。由何愛結是相應性。貪隨眠體是不相應。佛觀有情意樂差
【現代漢語翻譯】 起。然後便開始細數上品欲貪（指對上等慾望的貪戀）。又如果隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）不是相應性（與心識相應的性質），那麼只有它才能作為貪等煩惱的根源。對於那些尚未脫離欲貪的有情眾生來說，如果遇到外境，煩惱生起的情況應該相同，因為現生的因沒有差別。既然你們不認可這種情況，所以認為隨眠是煩惱的因，這一定是橫加臆測。然而，隨眠的本體一定是相應的，因為經典中說隨眠是歡悅等感受的來源。例如，前面引用的契經中說，如果接觸到快樂的感受，就會產生歡悅等情緒，這說明對於快樂的感受存在貪隨眠。非相應的事物不能被稱為歡悅等。此外，經典中說隨眠會矇蔽心識等。例如，契經中說貪會矇蔽心識，因此會導致身語意三方面的惡行。如果隨眠的本體是不相應的，那麼應該時時刻刻都在造作各種惡行。此外，契經中說，心受到貪的染污。如果隨眠的本體是不相應的，那麼它應該不能染污心識，或者應該一直都在染污心識。 如果你們認為，我所引用的經文都只是在說煩惱，其中並沒有提到隨眠這個詞，那麼我也可以反駁說，為什麼你們不認為這些經文都是在說隨眠呢？因為這些經文中也沒有提到煩惱這個詞。而且，你們的解釋也與你們自己的宗義相悖。如果因為沒有提到隨眠這個詞就認為是煩惱，那麼就像契經中說，無明（對事物真相的迷惑）是產生貪嗔癡的原因一樣，也應該認為煩惱是產生煩惱的原因，而不是隨眠的力量。這樣就違背了你們先前所立的宗義，即隨眠是產生各種煩惱的原因。此外，如果隨眠的本體是不相應的，那麼它與善心是相違背的嗎？如果相違背，那麼所有的善心應該都不會產生，因為隨眠是恒常存在的。如果不相違背，那麼所有的隨眠應該都不會染污和惱亂心識。然而，經典中說隨眠會染污和惱亂心識，例如契經中說，貪染污和惱亂心識，使人無法解脫；無明染污智慧，使人不清凈。如果你們認為，貪的染污和惱亂不是貪隨眠的作用，那麼你們用什麼理由來證明這一點呢？就像貪的染污是能夠染污和惱亂心識的性質一樣，貪隨眠也具有染污的性質，為什麼不能說它能夠染污和惱亂心識呢？又比如，愛結（束縛眾生的愛慾）的本體就是愛，能夠染污和惱亂心識，那麼貪隨眠的本體就是貪，也應該能夠染污和惱亂心識。或者你們應該辨別其中的差別因緣，說明為什麼愛結是相應性的，而貪隨眠的本體是不相應的。佛觀察到有情眾生的意樂存在差異。
【English Translation】 Then, they begin to enumerate the superior forms of desire-attachment (referring to the attachment to higher desires). Furthermore, if anusaya (latent tendencies of affliction) is not a co-existing nature (a nature that exists in conjunction with consciousness), then only it can act as the cause of afflictions like greed. For sentient beings who have not yet detached from desire-attachment, if they encounter external objects, the arising of afflictions should be the same, because there is no difference in the present cause. Since you do not accept this, your insistence that anusaya is the cause of afflictions is certainly a baseless assumption. However, the essence of anusaya is definitely co-existing, because the sutras say that anusaya is the source of joy and other feelings. For example, the previously cited sutra says that if one comes into contact with pleasant feelings, joy and other emotions arise, which indicates that there is a latent tendency of greed towards pleasant feelings. Something that is not co-existing cannot be called joy or other similar emotions. Moreover, the sutras say that anusaya obscures the mind and so on. For example, the sutra says that greed obscures the mind, which leads to evil actions in body, speech, and mind. If the essence of anusaya is not co-existing, then one should be constantly committing all kinds of evil deeds. Furthermore, the sutra says that the mind is tainted by greed. If the essence of anusaya is not co-existing, then it should not be able to taint the mind, or it should always be tainting the mind. If you argue that the sutras I have cited are only talking about afflictions and do not mention the word anusaya, then I can retort by asking why you don't consider these sutras to be talking about anusaya, since they don't mention the word affliction either. Moreover, your explanation contradicts your own doctrine. If you consider something to be an affliction simply because the word anusaya is not mentioned, then just as the sutra says that ignorance (delusion about the true nature of things) is the cause of greed, hatred, and delusion, you should also consider afflictions to be the cause of afflictions, rather than the power of anusaya. This would contradict your previously established doctrine that anusaya is the cause of various afflictions. Furthermore, if the essence of anusaya is not co-existing, then is it contradictory to wholesome states of mind? If it is contradictory, then all wholesome states of mind should never arise, because anusaya is constantly present. If it is not contradictory, then all anusayas should not taint or disturb the mind. However, the sutras say that anusaya taints and disturbs the mind, for example, the sutra says that greed taints and disturbs the mind, preventing liberation; ignorance taints wisdom, making it impure. If you argue that the tainting and disturbing caused by greed is not the action of greed anusaya, then what reason do you have to prove this? Just as the tainting of greed is the nature that can taint and disturb the mind, greed anusaya also has the nature of tainting, so why can't it be said to be able to taint and disturb the mind? Furthermore, just as the essence of attachment (the bond that binds sentient beings to desire) is attachment itself, which can taint and disturb the mind, then the essence of greed anusaya is greed itself, which should also be able to taint and disturb the mind. Or you should distinguish the causal conditions, explaining why attachment is co-existing, while the essence of greed anusaya is not co-existing. The Buddha observed that the inclinations of sentient beings differ.
別。于諸煩惱立種種名。如一欲貪說名欲漏欲取欲扼欲貪隨眠欲瀑流貪慾蓋愛結等種種名。於一欲貪差別名內。若隨眠體是不相應。執是欲貪之隨眠者。則欲漏等應不相應。亦應執為欲之漏等。若欲漏等非不相應。應許隨眠是相應法。等是欲貪名差別故。由此理證欲貪隨眠體即欲貪能為染惱。以契經說貪染惱心令不解脫。故不可執隨眠恒有。是不相應。以諸善心容有起位。故隨眠體定是相應。經主此中先敘尊者法勝所說。以諸隨眠染惱心故。覆障心故。能違善故。非不相應。后即斥言。此皆非證。許隨眠體是不相應。不許隨眠為上三事。但許三事是纏所為。此都未詳彼大德意。彼大德意如我先辯。若謂隨眠如煩惱得。體雖恒有不障善心。此亦不然。隨眠煩惱差別名體曾無說故。且分別論執隨眠體是不相應可少有用。彼宗非撥過去未來。勿煩惱生無有因故。然犢子部信有去來。執有隨眠非相應法。如是所執極為無用。如彼論言。諸欲貪纏一切皆是欲貪隨眠。有欲貪隨眠非欲貪纏。謂不相應行欲貪隨眠。何緣彼部作如是執。以經論文俱可得故。釋彼一切皆如前說。若但如文而取義者。如契經說。有色隨眠。此文亦應不別觀察。解釋理趣如文而取。則隨眠體非唯可執。通相應性及不相應。亦應執通有色無色。有見無見等種種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 別。對於各種煩惱，安立種種不同的名稱。例如，對於一種『欲貪』（desire and attachment），就說它是『欲漏』（kāma-āsava，欲的漏失）、『欲取』（kāmūpādāna，對欲的執取）、『欲扼』（kāma-ogha，欲的束縛）、『欲貪隨眠』（kāmarāgānusaya，潛藏的欲貪）、『欲瀑流』（kāma-ogha，欲的洪流）、『貪慾蓋』（abhijjhā-vyāpāda，貪慾的覆蓋）、『愛結』（prema-granthi，愛的束縛）等等不同的名稱。對於一種『欲貪』，在名稱上有這些差別。如果『隨眠』（anusaya，潛在的煩惱）的體性是『不相應』（visamyoga，不相應行），那麼執著『隨眠』是『欲貪』的『隨眠』，那麼『欲漏』等等也應該是不相應的，也應該執著它們是『欲』的『漏』等等。如果『欲漏』等等不是不相應的，就應該承認『隨眠』是『相應法』（sampayutta-dhamma，與心相應的法），因為它們只是『欲貪』的名稱差別而已。由此道理可以證明，『欲貪隨眠』的體性就是『欲貪』本身，能夠成為染污和惱害的原因。因為契經上說，『貪』染污和惱害心，使心不得解脫。所以，不可執著『隨眠』恒常存在，並且是不相應的。因為各種善心容許有生起的時候，所以『隨眠』的體性必定是相應的。 經主在這裡首先敘述了尊者法勝（Dharmavijaya）所說：因為各種『隨眠』染污和惱害心，覆蓋和障礙心，能夠違背善法，所以不是不相應的。然後就駁斥說：這些都不能證明『隨眠』的體性是不相應的。我們只承認『隨眠』的體性是不相應的，不承認『隨眠』是以上三種情況的原因，只承認以上三種情況是『纏』（paryavasthāna，纏縛）所造成的。這完全沒有理解那位大德的用意。那位大德的用意就像我先前辯論的那樣。如果說『隨眠』就像『煩惱得』（kilesa-lābha，煩惱的獲得）一樣，體性雖然恒常存在，但不會障礙善心，這也是不對的。因為『隨眠』和『煩惱』在名稱和體性上的差別，從來沒有這樣的說法。而且，分別論者（Vibhajyavāda）執著『隨眠』的體性是不相應的，或許還有一些用處，因為他們的宗派不否認過去和未來，以免煩惱的生起沒有原因。然而，犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）相信有過去和未來，卻執著『隨眠』不是相應法，這樣的執著就極為無用了。就像他們的論典所說：所有的『欲貪纏』都是『欲貪隨眠』，但有『欲貪隨眠』卻不是『欲貪纏』，指的是不相應行的『欲貪隨眠』。為什麼他們要這樣執著呢？因為經典和論典都可以找到依據。對於他們的一切解釋，都可以像前面所說的那樣解釋。如果只是按照字面意思來取義，就像契經上說：『有色隨眠』。那麼，對於這句話也應該不加分別地觀察，按照字面意思來解釋。那麼，『隨眠』的體性就不僅僅可以執著為相應性，以及不相應性，也應該執著為既有色又有無色，既有見又有無見等等各種情況。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, various names are established for various afflictions. For example, for one 'desire-attachment' (kāma-rāga), it is called 'desire-leakage' (kāma-āsava), 'desire-grasping' (kāmūpādāna), 'desire-fetter' (kāma-ogha), 'desire-attachment latent tendency' (kāmarāgānusaya), 'desire-flood' (kāma-ogha), 'attachment-ill will cover' (abhijjhā-vyāpāda), 'love-bond' (prema-granthi), and so on. These are different names for one 'desire-attachment'. If the nature of 'latent tendency' (anusaya) is 'non-concomitant' (visamyoga), then those who hold that 'latent tendency' is the 'latent tendency' of 'desire-attachment' should also hold that 'desire-leakage' etc. are non-concomitant, and should also hold them to be 'leakages' etc. of 'desire'. If 'desire-leakage' etc. are not non-concomitant, then it should be admitted that 'latent tendency' is a 'concomitant dharma' (sampayutta-dhamma), because they are merely different names for 'desire-attachment'. From this reasoning, it can be proven that the nature of 'desire-attachment latent tendency' is 'desire-attachment' itself, capable of causing defilement and affliction. Because the sutras say that 'greed' defiles and afflicts the mind, preventing it from attaining liberation. Therefore, it cannot be held that 'latent tendency' is always present and non-concomitant. Because various wholesome minds can arise, the nature of 'latent tendency' must be concomitant. Here, the master of the treatise first narrates what the venerable Dharmavijaya said: because various 'latent tendencies' defile and afflict the mind, cover and obstruct the mind, and can violate wholesome dharmas, they are not non-concomitant. Then he refutes, saying: these cannot prove that the nature of 'latent tendency' is non-concomitant. We only admit that the nature of 'latent tendency' is non-concomitant, and do not admit that 'latent tendency' is the cause of the above three situations, only admitting that the above three situations are caused by 'entanglement' (paryavasthāna). This completely misunderstands the intention of that great worthy. The intention of that great worthy is as I previously argued. If it is said that 'latent tendency' is like 'affliction-attainment' (kilesa-lābha), its nature, although constantly present, does not obstruct wholesome mind, this is also incorrect. Because there has never been such a saying about the difference between 'latent tendency' and 'affliction' in terms of name and nature. Moreover, the Vibhajyavāda (distinctionists) holding that the nature of 'latent tendency' is non-concomitant may have some use, because their school does not deny the past and future, so as to avoid the arising of afflictions without a cause. However, the Vātsīputrīya (犢子部) believe in the past and future, but hold that 'latent tendency' is not a concomitant dharma, such a holding is extremely useless. As their treatises say: all 'desire-attachment entanglements' are 'desire-attachment latent tendencies', but there are 'desire-attachment latent tendencies' that are not 'desire-attachment entanglements', referring to the non-concomitant 'desire-attachment latent tendencies'. Why do they hold this way? Because both sutras and treatises can be found as evidence. All their explanations can be explained as said before. If one only takes the meaning according to the literal meaning, as the sutras say: 'form latent tendency'. Then, for this sentence, one should also observe without distinction, and explain according to the literal meaning. Then, the nature of 'latent tendency' should not only be held as concomitant and non-concomitant, but also should be held as both having form and without form, both having visibility and without visibility, and so on.
差別門。又彼何緣憎背諸得。若信有得具能釋通。諸聖教中幽隱文義。諸邪執類不能如實設難彈斥信有得宗。執不相應隨眠論者。常為無量過難所隨。不能釋通聖教文義。而固方便背正執邪。未審蘊何在心故爾。何勞徴問。以諸世間得及前因無始皆等。而現見有唯貪猛利。廣說乃至。有雜行者。非無別因有如是事故。應由別有不相應隨眠此亦不然。若信實有去來二世。雖不別立不相應行名為隨眠。貪猛利等皆得成就。謂由近遠二同類因境等別緣資助覺發。令其引果勢力別故。且止廣諍。如契經言。有貪隨眠此何為體色無色愛。佛說有貪此名何因唯于彼立彼貪。多托內門轉故。謂欲界貪多於欲境外門而轉。不名有貪。上二界貪多於定境內門而轉。故名有貪。又由有人於色無色起解脫想。為遮彼故。謂上二界有求解脫。妄想為先得生於彼。故有計彼為真解脫。佛為遮其真解脫想。故於上界立以有名。貪二界貪立有貪想。夫言有者是生身義。此則顯示欲求解脫。於一切有不應希求。經主於斯復作是釋。此中自體立以有名。彼諸有情多於等至及所依止深生味著。故說彼唯味著自體非味著境。離欲貪故。由此唯彼立有貪名。此釋與前義有何別。謂前已說上二界貪多於定境內門而轉。又說有人於色無色生身有境起解脫想。則為已說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 差別門。又是什麼原因導致他們憎恨和背離那些『得』（成就）呢？如果相信存在『得』，就能充分解釋和融會貫通諸聖教中那些幽深隱晦的文義。那些持邪見的人，不能如實地提出問題、反駁和彈劾相信『得』的宗派。而那些執著于不相應隨眠論者，常常被無量的過失和責難所困擾，不能解釋和融會貫通聖教的文義，卻固執地背離正道而執著于邪見。不知道他們心中蘊藏著什麼，才會這樣？ 何必追問呢？因為世間所有的『得』以及前因，都是無始以來就存在的，並且都是平等的。但現在卻看到只有貪慾最為強烈。廣而言之，乃至那些有雜染行為的人，並非沒有特別的原因才會有這樣的行為。所以，應該是因為存在著特別的不相應隨眠。但這種說法也是不對的。如果相信確實存在過去和未來二世，即使不特別設立不相應行，並將其命名為隨眠，貪慾的強烈等現象也都能得到合理的解釋。這是因為，由於近和遠兩種同類原因，以及境界等不同的因緣資助和覺醒引發，使得它們引生結果的力量有所不同。暫且停止這些廣泛的爭論。 正如契經所說：『有貪隨眠』，它的本體是什麼呢？是色界和無色界的愛。佛陀說『有貪』，這是因為什麼原因只在這兩個界別中設立『有貪』這個名稱呢？因為這兩個界的貪慾更多地依託于內在的禪定之門而運轉。也就是說，欲界的貪慾更多地在欲界之外的境界之門運轉，所以不稱為『有貪』。而色界和無色界的貪慾更多地在禪定之內的境界之門運轉，所以稱為『有貪』。另外，也因為有人對色界和無色界生起身解脫的想法，爲了遮止這種想法。 也就是說，上二界有人求解脫，以虛妄的想像為先導而生於彼處，所以有人認為那裡是真正的解脫。佛陀爲了遮止他們認為那是真正解脫的想法，所以在上二界設立了『有』這個名稱，用貪著二界的貪慾來建立『有貪』的觀念。所謂『有』，是生身的意思。這也就顯示了，想要求解脫的人，不應該對一切『有』產生希求。 經主對此又作了解釋：這裡用『有』這個名稱來指代自體。那些有情大多對禪定以及禪定所依止的自體深深地產生味著，所以說他們只是味著自體，而不是味著境界，因為他們已經離開了欲界的貪慾。因此，只有他們才被賦予『有貪』的名稱。這種解釋和前面的解釋有什麼區別呢？前面的解釋已經說了上二界的貪慾更多地在禪定之內的境界之門運轉。又說了有人對色界和無色界的生身和境界產生解脫的想法。這實際上已經包含了後面的解釋。
【English Translation】 English version The Chapter on Distinctions. Furthermore, what causes them to hate and turn away from those 'attainments' (deeper understanding)? If one believes in the existence of 'attainments,' one can fully explain and thoroughly understand the profound and obscure meanings within the various sacred teachings. Those who hold wrong views cannot truthfully raise questions, refute, or impeach the sect that believes in 'attainments.' However, those who cling to the doctrine of non-corresponding latent tendencies are constantly plagued by countless faults and criticisms, unable to explain and thoroughly understand the meanings of the sacred teachings, yet stubbornly turn away from the right path and cling to wrong views. I wonder what is hidden in their hearts that makes them act this way? Why bother asking? Because all 'attainments' and prior causes in the world have existed since the beginningless past and are all equal. But now we see that only greed is the most intense. Broadly speaking, even those who engage in defiled actions do not do so without a specific reason. Therefore, it must be due to the existence of a special non-corresponding latent tendency. But this statement is also incorrect. If one believes that the past and future exist, even without specifically establishing non-corresponding actions and naming them latent tendencies, the intensity of greed and other phenomena can be reasonably explained. This is because, due to the assistance and awakening caused by similar causes, both near and far, and different conditions such as realms, the power of their resulting effects differs. Let us stop these extensive debates for now. As the sutra says: 'The latent tendency of attachment to existence (有貪隨眠, You Tan Sui Mian),' what is its essence? It is the love of the Form Realm (色界, Se Jie) and the Formless Realm (無色界, Wu Se Jie). The Buddha said 'attachment to existence,' what is the reason for establishing the name 'attachment to existence' only in these two realms? Because the greed of these two realms relies more on the inner gate of meditative concentration to operate. That is to say, the greed of the Desire Realm (欲界, Yu Jie) operates more in the realm outside the Desire Realm, so it is not called 'attachment to existence.' But the greed of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm operates more in the realm within meditative concentration, so it is called 'attachment to existence.' Also, because some people develop the idea of liberation from the body in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm, in order to prevent this idea. That is to say, in the upper two realms, some people seek liberation, taking false imagination as a precursor to being born there, so some people think that is true liberation. The Buddha, in order to prevent them from thinking that it is true liberation, established the name 'existence' in the upper two realms, using the greed for the two realms to establish the concept of 'attachment to existence.' The so-called 'existence' refers to the meaning of a living body. This shows that those who want to seek liberation should not have any desire for all 'existence.' The sutra master further explained this: Here, the name 'existence' is used to refer to the self. Those sentient beings mostly develop a deep attachment to meditative concentration and the self on which meditative concentration relies, so it is said that they only savor the self, not the realm, because they have already left the greed of the Desire Realm. Therefore, only they are given the name 'attachment to existence.' What is the difference between this explanation and the previous explanation? The previous explanation already said that the greed of the upper two realms operates more in the realm within meditative concentration. It also said that some people develop the idea of liberation from the body and the realm in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm. This actually includes the later explanation.
定及生身皆得有名俱自體故。詳經主釋。義不異前。但構浮詞似有少異。上座說有二類隨眠。一唯欲纏。二通三界。自興疑問。豈不有貪。有論說言。唯上二界都無聖教。於色無色偏說有聲。故難依信。然于處處諸聖教中。皆以有聲通說三界。豈不于境亦說有聲。欲貪隨眠不應別立。此難非理。轉有異故。謂諸欲貪于外門轉。內門轉者說名有貪。又如耽境與耽有異。所引隨眠差別亦爾。又緣境界緣生身貪。對治不同故別立二。又必損伏欲貪及瞋。外仙方能入色無色。故欲貪體非即有貪。以彼有情緣自相續。我愛隨逐恒無斷故。上座於斯極為惡立隨眠差別。以欲貪聲容說一切欲界貪故。欲界生身亦欲界攝。如何緣彼貪非欲貪。如說色貪非唯緣色。總說一切緣色界貪。如是欲貪非唯緣欲總說一切緣欲界貪。上座所持契經亦說。若緣欲界起染起貪。起阿賴耶起尼延底。起諸耽著。是欲貪相。故執有貪通三界者。非為善執。又非佛說唯通三界可說有聲。所以者何。有聲或說一界少分二界少分三界少分。如七有經極七有等。如應配釋。故此所說欲貪隨眠。通攝一切欲界貪盡。餘二界愛總名有貪。立名因緣。如先已辨。若唯緣內貪名有貪。則色界中色聲觸愛。非緣內起應非有貪。則諸隨眠應立有八。又言有者。不唯生身。以契經中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 定和生身都可有名，因為它們都有各自的自體。詳細解釋經文和註釋，意義與之前沒有不同，只是構詞上略有差異。上座部認為有兩類隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）：一類僅限於欲界（Kāmadhātu），另一類則通於三界（Tridhātu）。他們自己提出疑問：難道沒有有貪（Bhava-rāga，對存在的貪愛）嗎？有論典說，上界（指色界Rūpadhātu和無色界Arūpadhātu）完全沒有聖教（Ārya-dharma，聖者的教導），在色界和無色界中偏說有聲音，因此難以令人信服。然而，在各處的聖教中，都以有聲音通說三界。難道對於境界（Viṣaya）也說有聲音嗎？欲貪隨眠（Kāma-rāga-anuśaya，對欲的貪愛隨眠）不應單獨設立。這種質疑沒有道理，因為轉起的方式不同。所謂的諸欲貪是在外門轉起，而在內門轉起的則稱為有貪。又如耽著境界與耽著存在不同，所引生的隨眠差別也是如此。此外，緣于境界的貪和緣于生身的貪，它們的對治方法不同，所以分別設立為二。而且，必須損伏欲貪和嗔恚（Dveṣa），外道仙人才能進入色界和無色界。因此，欲貪的體性並非就是有貪，因為那些有情緣于自己的相續，我愛（Ātma-sneha，對自我的愛）隨逐，恒常不斷。上座部對於這種隨眠的差別設立極為不妥，因為欲貪一詞可以涵蓋一切欲界的貪愛。欲界生身也屬於欲界所攝，如何緣於它的貪愛不是欲貪呢？正如所說，色貪並非僅僅緣於色，而是總說一切緣於色的貪愛。同樣，欲貪並非僅僅緣于欲，而是總說一切緣于欲界的貪愛。上座部所持的契經也說，如果緣于欲界生起染污、生起貪愛、生起阿賴耶（Ālaya，執著）、生起尼延底（Niyanti，引導），生起各種耽著，這就是欲貪的相狀。因此，認為有貪通於三界的觀點，並非正確的觀點。而且，佛陀並沒有說只有通於三界才能說有聲音。原因是什麼呢？有聲音或者說一界少分，或者說二界少分，或者說三界少分，如《七有經》、《極七有》等，應根據情況進行解釋。因此，這裡所說的欲貪隨眠，涵蓋了一切欲界的貪愛。其餘二界的愛，總稱為有貪，設立名稱的因緣，如先前已經辨明。如果只有緣于內在的貪才名為有貪，那麼**中的色、聲、觸愛，並非緣于內在生起，應該不是有貪。那麼，諸隨眠應該設立為八種。而且，所說的『有』，不只是生身，因為契經中
【English Translation】 English version Both 'Dhyana' (meditative absorption) and 'birth-body' can be named because they each have their own self-nature. Refer to the detailed explanations in the sutras and commentaries; the meaning is not different from before, only the construction of the words seems slightly different. The Sthavira school (Theravada) says there are two types of Anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements): one is limited to the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), and the other pervades the Tridhātu (three realms). They themselves raise the question: Isn't there Bhava-rāga (craving for existence)? Some treatises say that the higher realms (referring to the Rūpadhātu (form realm) and Arūpadhātu (formless realm)) completely lack the Ārya-dharma (teachings of the noble ones), and they selectively speak of sound in the Rūpadhātu and Arūpadhātu, which is difficult to believe. However, in various places in the holy teachings, sound is generally said to pervade the three realms. Is sound also spoken of in relation to Viṣaya (objects)? Kāma-rāga-anuśaya (latent tendency of desire-attachment) should not be established separately. This objection is unreasonable because the way they arise is different. The so-called desires arise externally, while those that arise internally are called Bhava-rāga. Moreover, just as attachment to objects is different from attachment to existence, the differences in the resulting latent tendencies are also different. Furthermore, attachment to objects and attachment to the birth-body have different antidotes, so they are established separately as two. Moreover, one must subdue desire-attachment and Dveṣa (hatred) in order for external ascetics to enter the Rūpadhātu and Arūpadhātu. Therefore, the nature of desire-attachment is not the same as Bhava-rāga, because those sentient beings are attached to their own continuum, and Ātma-sneha (self-love) follows them constantly without ceasing. The Sthavira school's establishment of these differences in latent tendencies is extremely inappropriate because the term 'desire-attachment' can encompass all attachments in the desire realm. The birth-body in the desire realm is also included in the desire realm, so how can attachment to it not be desire-attachment? Just as it is said that attachment to form is not only to form but generally to all attachments to form, similarly, desire-attachment is not only to desire but generally to all attachments to the desire realm. The sutras held by the Sthavira school also say that if one arises with defilement, attachment, Ālaya (clinging), Niyanti (guidance), and various clingings in relation to the desire realm, this is the characteristic of desire-attachment. Therefore, the view that Bhava-rāga pervades the three realms is not a correct view. Moreover, the Buddha did not say that only what pervades the three realms can be said to have sound. Why is that? Sound can be said to be a small part of one realm, a small part of two realms, or a small part of three realms, such as in the 'Sutra of Seven Existences' and 'Extremely Seven Existences,' etc., which should be explained accordingly. Therefore, the desire-attachment latent tendency mentioned here encompasses all attachments in the desire realm. The attachment in the other two realms is generally called Bhava-rāga, and the reasons for establishing the name have already been explained. If only attachment to what is internal is called Bhava-rāga, then the attachment to form, sound, and touch in ** should not be Bhava-rāga because they do not arise internally. Then, the latent tendencies should be established as eight. Moreover, the 'existence' mentioned is not only the birth-body, because in the sutras
說業有中有。故如欲有聲兼說欲境。如是欲界緣生身貪亦是欲貪隨眠所攝。是故一切欲界系貪。皆以欲貪隨眠聲說。或於欲境亦說有聲。欲貪隨眠別說無用。言轉異故。理亦不然。說多分言容可爾故。謂約多分理則可。然以欲界貪多外門。轉色無色愛多於內門。非執欲貪。唯緣外起。唯緣內起。方名有貪。可說二貪轉異故別。或彼應許色無色貪一向無緣外門轉者。又諸耽境即是耽有。以諸境界亦名有故。或諸耽有即是耽境。諸有亦為境界攝故。由此所言。又如耽境與耽有異。非為善說。又彼所說由境身貪對治不同別立二者。此言對治為別為通。若謂此言約別對治。即境界貪應分多種。謂色聲等諸境界貪。制伏對治各有異故。若謂此言約通對治。此二對治有異有同。如何定言對治有異。或色無色二界中貪治有不同。應亦分二。又言損伏欲貪及瞋。外仙方能入色無色。故欲貪體非即有貪。以彼有情緣自相續。我愛隨逐恒無斷者。此言極與聖教理違。唯不現行名為損伏。若欲界系緣生身貪。亦名有貪亦名我愛。若此我愛恒隨現行。彼定無容入色無色。若不損伏下生身貪。而諸外仙容入上地。則不應說伏欲貪瞋。外仙方能入色無色。若謂現起欲境貪瞋。能障外仙入色無色。非欲界系緣生身貪。能障外仙此有何理。厭下身境方生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為說業有中有（bhava，存在），所以就像說欲有（kāmadhātu，欲界）的聲音時，也兼說了欲境（kāmaguṇa，欲的境界）。同樣，欲界緣生身貪（指對欲界生命體的貪愛）也屬於欲貪隨眠（kāmarāga-anuśaya，對欲的貪慾潛在傾向）所攝。因此，一切欲界系的貪，都可以用『欲貪隨眠』這個詞來表達。或者對於欲境，也可以用『有』這個詞來表達。單獨說『欲貪隨眠』沒有用處，因為只是說法不同而已。但這種說法在理上並不成立，因為說『多分』（bhūyastva，多數）或許可以。也就是說，從多數情況來看，這個道理或許成立。然而，因為欲界的貪多從外門（指對外在事物的執著）而入，而色界和無色界的愛多從內門（指對自身存在的執著）而入。不能執著地認為欲貪只緣外境而起，或者只緣內境而起，才叫做『有貪』。可以說這兩種貪因為轉異（指對像和方式不同）所以才有所區別。或者他們應該承認色界和無色界的貪完全沒有緣外門而起的。而且，耽著境界就是耽著存在，因為諸境界也叫做『有』。或者耽著存在就是耽著境界，因為諸有也被境界所攝。因此，說『耽著境界』和『耽著存在』不同，並不是正確的說法。還有他們所說的，因為對境界的貪和對身體的貪，它們的對治方法不同，所以才分別設立這二者。這裡所說的『對治』是指個別對治還是普遍對治？如果說這裡指的是個別對治，那麼對境界的貪就應該分為多種，比如對色、聲等諸境界的貪，它們的制伏對治各有不同。如果說這裡指的是普遍對治，那麼這兩種對治有相同之處也有不同之處，怎麼能斷定說對治方法不同呢？或者色界和無色界中的貪，它們的對治方法不同，也應該分為兩種。還有，說『損伏欲貪和嗔恨，外道仙人才能進入色界和無色界』，所以欲貪的本體不是有貪。因為那些有情緣著自己的相續（santāna，生命流），我愛（ātmasneha，對自我的愛）隨逐，恒常不斷。這種說法極其違背聖教和道理。只有不現行才叫做『損伏』。如果欲界系的緣生身貪，也叫做有貪，也叫做我愛，如果這種我愛恒常隨逐現行，那麼他們一定沒有可能進入色界和無色界。如果不損伏下生身貪，而那些外道仙人能夠進入上地，那麼就不應該說『伏欲貪嗔，外道仙人才能進入色界和無色界』。如果說現起的對欲境的貪和嗔恨，能夠障礙外道仙人進入色界和無色界，而不是欲界系的緣生身貪，能夠障礙外道仙人，這有什麼道理呢？厭惡下身境才能生起。
【English Translation】 English version: Because it is said that karma has an intermediate existence (bhava), it is like when speaking of the sound of the desire realm (kāmadhātu), one also speaks of the objects of desire (kāmaguṇa). Similarly, the greed for the arising body in the desire realm is also included in the latent tendency of desire-greed (kāmarāga-anuśaya). Therefore, all greed associated with the desire realm can be expressed by the term 'latent tendency of desire-greed'. Or, regarding the objects of desire, one can also use the term 'existence' (bhava). It is useless to separately mention 'latent tendency of desire-greed' because it is merely a different way of speaking. But this statement is not logically valid, because saying 'mostly' (bhūyastva) might be acceptable. That is, from the perspective of the majority of cases, this reasoning might hold. However, because greed in the desire realm mostly enters through external doors (referring to attachment to external things), while love in the form and formless realms mostly enters through internal doors (referring to attachment to one's own existence). One cannot stubbornly believe that desire-greed only arises from external objects, or only arises from internal objects, to be called 'greed for existence'. It can be said that these two types of greed are distinguished because they are different (referring to the difference in object and method). Or they should admit that greed in the form and formless realms never arises from external doors. Moreover, clinging to objects is the same as clinging to existence, because all objects are also called 'existence'. Or clinging to existence is the same as clinging to objects, because all existences are also included in objects. Therefore, saying that 'clinging to objects' and 'clinging to existence' are different is not a correct statement. Furthermore, what they say, that because the antidotes for greed towards objects and greed towards the body are different, these two are established separately. Does the 'antidote' mentioned here refer to individual antidotes or universal antidotes? If it is said that this refers to individual antidotes, then greed towards objects should be divided into many types, such as greed towards form, sound, and other objects, because their methods of subduing and counteracting them are different. If it is said that this refers to universal antidotes, then these two antidotes have similarities and differences, how can it be definitively said that the methods of counteracting them are different? Or, the greed in the form and formless realms, their methods of counteracting them are different, so they should also be divided into two types. Furthermore, it is said that 'by subduing desire-greed and hatred, external ascetics can enter the form and formless realms', so the essence of desire-greed is not greed for existence. Because those sentient beings are attached to their own continuum (santāna), and self-love (ātmasneha) follows them constantly without ceasing. This statement is extremely contrary to the sacred teachings and reason. Only non-manifestation is called 'subdued'. If the greed for the arising body in the desire realm is also called greed for existence, and also called self-love, if this self-love constantly follows and manifests, then they certainly have no possibility of entering the form and formless realms. If the greed for the lower arising body is not subdued, and those external ascetics can enter the higher realms, then it should not be said that 'by subduing desire-greed and hatred, external ascetics can enter the form and formless realms'. If it is said that the greed and hatred towards objects of desire that arise can obstruct external ascetics from entering the form and formless realms, but not the greed for the arising body in the desire realm, what is the reason for this? Disgust for the lower bodily realm arises only when...
上故。雖彼復言。豈不乃至阿羅漢向住欲界者。于欲界身有我慢愛必無是事。或何不許阿羅漢果亦有是事。若離欲界染不斷欲界貪。離有頂染時亦應無斷理。由彼於此非對治故。或應一切下地煩惱與有頂染俱時斷滅。修前治道便為無用。或應說彼差別因緣。等欲界貪斷有漸頓。若謂此證由安隱經。不爾。不了彼經義故。謂彼具壽已見諦理。依修所斷欲界所繫我愛我慢。故作是言。我色等中不隨執我。然于如是五取蘊中。有我慢愛隨眠未斷。謂此煩惱隨身見行。身見斷故此不現起。然猶未永斷。未得對治故。作如是釋。何所相違有所相違。謂彼經說。佛為彼說此法門時具壽安隱成阿羅漢。諸漏永盡心善解脫。由此知彼先是不還。曾已進修阿羅漢向。于出觀位作如是言。我色等中乃至廣說佛為說法。經但言成阿羅漢果。不言余故。此不成證。彼契經中偏舉所得最勝果故。如拊掌喻契經等說。非諸聖者作是尋思。我我似何。乃至廣說。世尊方便開悟其心。經但言成阿羅漢果。謂經說彼悟佛所言成阿羅漢心善解脫。非說異生聞法頓證阿羅漢果。作是說者。偏舉最勝。此亦應然。或彼契經約取蘊類作如是說。然于如是五取蘊中。有我慢愛隨眠未斷。理實但有上取蘊中我慢我愛。自稱釋子必不應言已離欲貪。猶有欲界我慢我愛隨眠
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，即使他們反駁說：『難道乃至住于欲界的阿羅漢向，對於欲界的身體還會有我慢和愛嗎？』這絕對不可能。或者，為什麼不允許阿羅漢果也有這種情況呢？如果離開欲界的染污，卻不斷除欲界的貪慾，那麼在離開有頂天的染污時，也應該沒有斷除的道理，因為它們彼此不是對治關係。或者，應該一切下地的煩惱與有頂天的染污同時斷滅，那麼修習之前的對治道就變得沒有用了。或者，應該說明它們之間差別的因緣，就像欲界的貪慾斷除有漸斷和頓斷一樣。如果說這個證據來自《安隱經》，那是不對的，因為不瞭解那部經的含義。意思是說，具壽安隱已經見到了真諦，依據修所斷的欲界所繫的我愛和我慢，所以才這樣說：『我在色等之中不隨之執著為我。』然而，在這樣的五取蘊中，有我慢和愛的隨眠沒有斷除。這些煩惱是隨身見而行的，因為身見斷除了，這些煩惱就不會現起，但仍然沒有永遠斷除，因為沒有得到對治。這樣解釋，有什麼相違背的嗎？是有所相違背的。因為那部經說，佛為他說這個法門時，具壽安隱成就了阿羅漢，諸漏永遠斷盡，心得到善解脫。由此可知，他先前是不還果，曾經已經進修阿羅漢向，在出觀位時這樣說：『我在色等之中』乃至廣說。佛為他說法，經中只說成就了阿羅漢果，沒有說其他的，所以這不能作為證據。那部契經中只是偏舉了所得到的最佳果位，就像拍手比喻的契經等所說的那樣。不是所有的聖者都會這樣尋思：『我，我像什麼？』乃至廣說。世尊方便地開悟了他的心，經中只說成就了阿羅漢果。意思是說，經中說他領悟了佛所說的話，成就了阿羅漢，心得到善解脫，而不是說異生聽聞佛法就立刻證得阿羅漢果。這樣說，只是偏舉了最殊勝的果位，這裡也應該這樣理解。或者，那部契經是就取蘊的種類而這樣說的：『然而，在這樣的五取蘊中，有我慢和愛的隨眠沒有斷除。』實際上，只有上取蘊中才有我慢和我愛。自稱是釋迦牟尼佛的弟子，絕對不應該說已經離開了欲貪，卻還有欲界我慢和我愛的隨眠。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, even if they retort: 'Could it be that even an Arhat-marga (one who is on the path to becoming an Arhat) dwelling in the Kamadhatu (desire realm) still has mana (pride) and raga (attachment) towards the body in the Kamadhatu?' That is absolutely impossible. Or, why not allow that the Arhat-phala (fruit of Arhatship) also has this situation? If one departs from the defilements of the Kamadhatu but does not cut off the greed of the Kamadhatu, then when departing from the defilements of the Arupadhatu (realm of no form), there should also be no reason for cutting it off, because they are not antidotal to each other. Or, all the lower realm afflictions should be extinguished simultaneously with the defilements of the Arupadhatu, then cultivating the previous antidotal path would become useless. Or, the causal conditions of their differences should be explained, just like the cutting off of greed in the Kamadhatu has gradual and sudden aspects. If it is said that this evidence comes from the Ananda Sutra, that is not correct, because the meaning of that sutra is not understood. It means that the venerable Ananda had already seen the truth, based on the atma-raga (self-love) and atma-mana (self-pride) associated with the Kamadhatu that are severed by cultivation, so he said: 'I do not cling to myself in form, etc.' However, in these five skandhas (aggregates of clinging), there are mana (pride) and raga (attachment) that have not been cut off. These afflictions follow the satkayadrishti (view of self), because when the satkayadrishti is cut off, these afflictions will not arise, but they are still not permanently cut off, because they have not obtained the antidote. Explaining it this way, is there any contradiction? There is a contradiction. Because that sutra says that when the Buddha spoke this Dharma to him, the venerable Ananda attained Arhatship, all the outflows were permanently extinguished, and his mind was well liberated. From this, it can be known that he was previously an Anagamin (non-returner), and had already progressed in cultivating the path to Arhatship, and said this when emerging from meditative absorption: 'I in form, etc.' and so on. The Buddha spoke the Dharma to him, and the sutra only says that he attained the fruit of Arhatship, and does not say anything else, so this cannot be used as evidence. That sutra only mentions the best fruit obtained, like the sutra with the analogy of clapping hands, etc. It is not that all the aryas (noble ones) would contemplate like this: 'I, what am I like?' and so on. The Tathagata (Thus Come One) skillfully enlightened his mind, and the sutra only says that he attained the fruit of Arhatship. It means that the sutra says that he realized what the Buddha said, attained Arhatship, and his mind was well liberated, not that an ordinary being immediately attains the fruit of Arhatship upon hearing the Dharma. Saying it this way, it only mentions the most excellent fruit, and it should be understood this way here as well. Or, that sutra speaks in terms of the types of skandhas: 'However, in these five skandhas, there are mana (pride) and raga (attachment) that have not been cut off.' In reality, only the higher skandhas have mana (pride) and raga (attachment). One who calls himself a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha should absolutely not say that he has already departed from desire-greed, but still has mana (pride) and raga (attachment) of the Kamadhatu.
未斷。況言此二恒隨現行。是故有貪唯色無色非於欲界。其理極成。既說有貪在上二界。義準欲界貪名欲貪。故於頌中不別顯示。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之二
如前所說六種隨眠。復約異門建立為十。如何成十。頌曰。
六由見異十 異謂有身見 邊執見邪見 見取戒禁取
論曰。六隨眠中見行異為五餘非見。五積數總成十故。於十中五是見性。一有身見。二邊執見。三邪見。四見取。五戒禁取。五非見性。一貪。二瞋。三慢。四無明五疑。見與非見合成十種。又即六種復約異門建立。便成九十八種。依何門建立成九十八耶。頌曰。
六行部界異 故成九十八 欲見苦等斷 十七七八四 謂如次具離 三二見見疑 色無色除瞋 余等如欲說
論曰。六種隨眠由行部界門差別故成九十八。謂於六中由見行異建立為十如前已辯。即此所辯十種隨眠。部界不同成九十八。部謂見四諦修所斷五部。界謂欲色無色三界。且於欲界五部不同乘十隨眠成三十六。謂見苦諦至修所斷。如次有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 未斷。況且說這兩種（貪和無明）恒常相隨，現在還在起作用。因此，說有貪只存在於色界（Rūpadhātu）和無色界（Arūpadhātu），而不在欲界（Kāmadhātu），這個道理是完全成立的。既然說在上二界有貪，那麼按照這個意思，欲界的貪就叫做欲貪。所以在頌文中就不另外顯示了。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十五 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之二
如前面所說的六種隨眠（Anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式），再根據不同的角度建立為十種。如何成為十種呢？頌文說：
六種隨眠因見解不同而分為十種，不同之處在於有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊為我）、邊執見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi，執著于斷常二邊）、邪見（Mithyādṛṣṭi，否定因果的錯誤見解）、見取（Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa，認為自己的見解是最好的）、戒禁取（Śīlavrataparāmarśa，執著于不正確的戒律和禁忌）。
論述：六種隨眠中，見行不同而分為五種，其餘為非見。五種見和五種非見總共構成十種。在這十種中，五種是見性的：一、有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi）；二、邊執見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi）；三、邪見（Mithyādṛṣṭi）；四、見取（Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa）；五、戒禁取（Śīlavrataparāmarśa）。五種是非見性的：一、貪（Rāga）；二、瞋（Dveṣa）；三、慢（Māna）；四、無明（Avidyā）；五、疑（Vicikitsā）。見和非見合起來構成十種。又，就是這六種隨眠，根據不同的角度建立，就成為九十八種。根據什麼角度建立而成為九十八種呢？頌文說：
六種隨眠由於行相、部類和界的不同，所以形成九十八種。在欲界（Kāmadhātu），見苦諦（Dukkha-satya）等所斷的隨眠各有十七、七、八、四種。也就是說，依次具有或不具有三見（有身見、邊執見、邪見）、二見（見取、戒禁取）、見（五見）和疑。在色界（Rūpadhātu）和無色界（Arūpadhātu）中，去除瞋（Dveṣa），其餘的（貪、慢、無明、疑、以及五見）和欲界一樣。
論述：六種隨眠由於行相、部類和界的不同，就形成了九十八種。在六種隨眠中，由於見行不同而建立為十種，如前面已經辨析過。就是前面所辨析的這十種隨眠，由於部類和界的不同，就成為九十八種。部類是指見四諦（Satya，真理）所斷和修所斷五部。界是指欲界（Kāmadhātu）、色界（Rūpadhātu）、無色界（Arūpadhātu）三界。且在欲界，五部不同，乘以十種隨眠，成為三十六種。也就是說，見苦諦（Dukkha-satya）乃至修所斷，依次有
【English Translation】 English version: Not severed. Moreover, it is said that these two (greed and ignorance) constantly accompany and are currently active. Therefore, the statement that greed exists only in the Rūpadhātu (form realm) and Arūpadhātu (formless realm), and not in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), is perfectly established. Since it is said that greed exists in the upper two realms, by implication, greed in the desire realm is called 'desire-greed' (kāma-rāga). Therefore, it is not separately shown in the verse.
Treatise on the Establishment of Right Principle According to the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 45 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Treatise on the Establishment of Right Principle According to the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 46
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5, Part 2: Discussion on Latent Afflictions (Anuśaya)
As previously stated, the six latent afflictions (Anuśaya, the latent forms of afflictions) are further established as ten based on different perspectives. How do they become ten? The verse says:
Six become ten due to differences in views, namely, Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self), Antagrahadṛṣṭi (extreme views), Mithyādṛṣṭi (wrong views), Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa (view of holding), and Śīlavrataparāmarśa (view of precepts and vows).
Commentary: Among the six latent afflictions, the views differ into five, and the rest are non-views. The five views and the five non-views together constitute ten. Among these ten, five are of the nature of views: 1. Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self); 2. Antagrahadṛṣṭi (extreme views); 3. Mithyādṛṣṭi (wrong views); 4. Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa (view of holding); 5. Śīlavrataparāmarśa (view of precepts and vows). Five are of the nature of non-views: 1. Rāga (greed); 2. Dveṣa (hatred); 3. Māna (pride); 4. Avidyā (ignorance); 5. Vicikitsā (doubt). Views and non-views together constitute ten types. Furthermore, these six types are established into ninety-eight types based on different perspectives. Based on what perspective are they established into ninety-eight types? The verse says:
Six become ninety-eight due to differences in conduct, category, and realm. In the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), those severed by seeing the Dukkha-satya (truth of suffering), etc., are seventeen, seven, eight, and four respectively. That is to say, they successively possess or lack the three views (Satkāya-dṛṣṭi, Antagrahadṛṣṭi, Mithyādṛṣṭi), the two views (Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa, Śīlavrataparāmarśa), the view (five views), and doubt. In the Rūpadhātu (form realm) and Arūpadhātu (formless realm), hatred (Dveṣa) is removed, and the rest (greed, pride, ignorance, doubt, and the five views) are the same as in the desire realm.
Commentary: The six latent afflictions become ninety-eight due to differences in conduct, category, and realm. Among the six latent afflictions, they are established as ten due to differences in views, as previously discussed. These ten latent afflictions, as previously analyzed, become ninety-eight due to differences in category and realm. Category refers to the five categories of what is severed by seeing the four truths (Satya, truths) and what is severed by cultivation. Realm refers to the three realms: Kāmadhātu (desire realm), Rūpadhātu (form realm), and Arūpadhātu (formless realm). Furthermore, in the desire realm, the five categories differ, multiplied by the ten latent afflictions, resulting in thirty-six. That is to say, from seeing the Dukkha-satya (truth of suffering) to what is severed by cultivation, there are successively
十七七八。四即上五部於十隨眠。一二一一如其次第。具離三見二見見疑。謂見苦諦所斷具十。一切皆違見苦諦故。見集滅諦所斷各七。離有身見邊見戒取。見道諦所斷八。於前七增戒取。修所斷四。離見及疑。如是合成三十六種。前三十二名見所斷。才見諦時彼則斷故。最後有四名修所斷。見四諦已後後時中數數習道彼方斷故。由此已顯十隨眠中。薩迦耶見唯在一部。謂見苦所斷邊執見亦爾。戒禁取通在二部。謂見苦見道所斷。邪見通四部。謂見苦集滅道所斷。見取疑亦爾。余貪等四各通五部。謂見四諦及修所斷。如是總說見分十二。疑分為四餘四各五。故欲界中有三十六。經主於此自問答言。此中何相見苦所斷。乃至何相是修所斷。若緣見此所斷為境名見。此所斷餘名修所斷。此不應理。所以者何。遍行隨眠緣五部故。則見苦集所斷隨眠。亦應通是見集苦等所斷。又見滅道所斷隨眠。緣非所斷法。當言何所斷。故彼非善立所斷相應言。若見緣苦為境名為見苦。即是苦法苦類智忍。此二所斷總說名為見苦所斷。乃至見道所斷亦然。數習名修。謂見跡者為得上義。于苦等智數數熏習。說名為修。此道所除名修所斷。是名為善立所斷相。色無色界五部各除瞋。余與欲同。故各三十一。由是一切正理論師。以六隨眠約行部
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十七七八。四即上五部於十隨眠：見、愛、慢、無明、有身見（薩迦耶見，認為五蘊是『我』）、邊見（常見或斷見）、邪見（否定因果的錯誤見解）、見取（執著于錯誤的見解）、戒禁取（執著于錯誤的戒律和苦行）、疑（對真理的懷疑）。一二一一如其次第：指有身見、邊見各一部，戒禁取二部，邪見、見取、疑各一部。具離三見二見見疑：指在不同階段斷除不同的『見』，包括有身見、邊見、戒禁取、邪見、見取和疑。 謂見苦諦所斷具十：指見苦諦（Dukkha Satya，關於苦的真理）時所斷除的具有全部十種隨眠。一切皆違見苦諦故：因為所有隨眠都違背見苦諦的智慧。 見集滅諦所斷各七：指見集諦（Samudaya Satya，關於苦的起因的真理）和見滅諦（Nirodha Satya，關於苦的止息的真理）時，各自斷除七種隨眠。離有身見邊見戒取：因為已經斷除了有身見、邊見和戒禁取。 見道諦所斷八：指見道諦（Magga Satya，關於通往苦的止息的道路的真理）時所斷除的八種隨眠。於前七增戒取：在前七種隨眠的基礎上增加了戒禁取。 修所斷四：指通過修行所斷除的四種隨眠。離見及疑：因為已經斷除了各種『見』和『疑』。 如是合成三十六種：這樣總共合成了三十六種隨眠。 前三十二名見所斷：前面的三十二種隨眠被稱為『見所斷』。才見諦時彼則斷故：因為在初次證悟真諦時，它們就被斷除了。 最後有四名修所斷：最後的四種隨眠被稱為『修所斷』。見四諦已後後時中數數習道彼方斷故：因為在證悟四聖諦之後，需要通過反覆修行才能斷除它們。 由此已顯十隨眠中：由此可以明顯看出，在十種隨眠中。 薩迦耶見唯在一部：有身見只存在於見苦諦所斷這一部分。謂見苦所斷邊執見亦爾：邊見也是如此，只存在於見苦諦所斷這一部分。 戒禁取通在二部：戒禁取則貫通於兩部分。謂見苦見道所斷：即見苦諦所斷和見道諦所斷。 邪見通四部：邪見貫通於四部分。謂見苦集滅道所斷：即見苦諦、見集諦、見滅諦和見道諦所斷。 見取疑亦爾：見取和疑也是如此。 余貪等四各通五部：其餘的貪、嗔、慢、無明四種隨眠，各自貫通於五部分。謂見四諦及修所斷：即見四聖諦所斷和修所斷。 如是總說見分十二：這樣總的來說，『見』的部分有十二種。 疑分為四餘四各五：疑分為四種，其餘四種（貪、嗔、慢、無明）各有五種。 故欲界中有三十六：因此，在欲界中有三十六種隨眠。 經主於此自問答言：經文的主持者在這裡自問自答道。 此中何相見苦所斷：這其中，什麼樣的相是見苦諦所斷？乃至何相是修所斷：乃至什麼樣的相是通過修行所斷？ 若緣見此所斷為境名見：如果以『見』所斷的境界為所緣，就稱為『見』。此所斷餘名修所斷：除此之外，其餘的就稱為『修所斷』。 此不應理：這種說法是不合理的。所以者何：為什麼呢？ 遍行隨眠緣五部故：因為遍行隨眠可以緣於五部（見四諦和修所斷）。則見苦集所斷隨眠：那麼，見苦諦和見集諦所斷的隨眠。 亦應通是見集苦等所斷：也應該貫通於見集諦、見苦諦等所斷。 又見滅道所斷隨眠：而且，見滅諦和見道諦所斷的隨眠。 緣非所斷法：緣于非所斷的法。 當言何所斷：應當說是什麼所斷呢？ 故彼非善立所斷相應言：所以，那種建立所斷相應的說法是不完善的。 若見緣苦為境名為見苦：如果『見』以苦為境界，就稱為見苦。 即是苦法苦類智忍：即是苦法智忍和苦類智忍。 此二所斷總說名為見苦所斷：這兩種所斷總的來說稱為見苦所斷。 乃至見道所斷亦然：乃至見道所斷也是如此。 數習名修：反覆練習稱為修。 謂見跡者為得上義：指修行者爲了獲得更高的意義。 于苦等智數數熏習：對於苦等智反覆熏習。 說名為修：這被稱為修。 此道所除名修所斷：通過這種道路所斷除的，稱為修所斷。 是名為善立所斷相：這才是完善地建立了所斷的相。 色無**五部各除瞋：在色界和無色界五部中，各自去除了嗔。余與欲同：其餘的與欲界相同。故各三十一：所以各有三十一種。 由是一切正理論師：因此，所有正確的理論家。 以六隨眠約行部：用六種隨眠來概括行部。
【English Translation】 English version Seventeen, seven, eight. The four are the above five categories in the ten Samyojanas (fetters): view, attachment, pride, ignorance, self-view (Sakkayaditthi, the view that the five aggregates are 'I'), extreme view (either eternalism or annihilationism), wrong view (denying cause and effect), view-attachment (clinging to wrong views), morality-attachment (clinging to wrong precepts and asceticism), and doubt (doubt about the truth). One, two, one, one in that order: referring to self-view and extreme view each having one category, morality-attachment having two categories, and wrong view, view-attachment, and doubt each having one category. Fully abandoning the three views, two views, and doubt: referring to abandoning different 'views' at different stages, including self-view, extreme view, morality-attachment, wrong view, view-attachment, and doubt. That which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya) possesses all ten: referring to having all ten Samyojanas that are abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering. Because all contradict the Truth of Suffering: because all Samyojanas contradict the wisdom of seeing the Truth of Suffering. That which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Origin (Samudaya Satya) and the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya) each has seven: referring to abandoning seven Samyojanas each upon seeing the Truth of Origin and the Truth of Cessation. Abandoning self-view, extreme view, and morality-attachment: because self-view, extreme view, and morality-attachment have already been abandoned. That which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of the Path (Magga Satya) has eight: referring to abandoning eight Samyojanas upon seeing the Truth of the Path. Adding morality-attachment to the previous seven: adding morality-attachment to the previous seven Samyojanas. That which is abandoned through cultivation has four: referring to the four Samyojanas that are abandoned through cultivation. Abandoning views and doubt: because various 'views' and 'doubt' have already been abandoned. Thus, combining into thirty-six types: thus, a total of thirty-six Samyojanas are combined. The first thirty-two are called 'abandoned by seeing': the first thirty-two Samyojanas are called 'abandoned by seeing'. Because they are abandoned upon first seeing the Truth: because they are abandoned upon the initial realization of the Truth. The last four are called 'abandoned by cultivation': the last four Samyojanas are called 'abandoned by cultivation'. Because they are only abandoned through repeated cultivation after seeing the Four Noble Truths: because they need to be abandoned through repeated cultivation after realizing the Four Noble Truths. From this, it is clear that among the ten Samyojanas: Self-view exists only in one category: self-view exists only in the category of that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering. The same is true for extreme view: the same is true for extreme view, existing only in the category of that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering. Morality-attachment pervades two categories: morality-attachment pervades two categories. Namely, that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Path: namely, that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Path. Wrong view pervades four categories: wrong view pervades four categories. Namely, that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering, the Truth of Origin, the Truth of Cessation, and the Truth of the Path. View-attachment and doubt are also the same: view-attachment and doubt are also the same. The remaining four, such as attachment, each pervade five categories: the remaining four, such as attachment, aversion, pride, and ignorance, each pervade five categories. Namely, that which is abandoned upon seeing the Four Noble Truths and that which is abandoned through cultivation. Thus, generally speaking, the 'view' portion has twelve types: thus, generally speaking, the 'view' portion has twelve types. Doubt is divided into four, and the remaining four each have five: doubt is divided into four types, and the remaining four (attachment, aversion, pride, and ignorance) each have five types. Therefore, there are thirty-six in the Desire Realm: therefore, there are thirty-six Samyojanas in the Desire Realm. The master of the sutra asks and answers himself here: Among these, what is the characteristic of that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering? And what is the characteristic of that which is abandoned through cultivation?: Among these, what is the characteristic of that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering? And what is the characteristic of that which is abandoned through cultivation? If that which is abandoned by 'seeing' is taken as an object, it is called 'seeing': if the object is that which is abandoned by 'seeing', it is called 'seeing'. The rest of that which is abandoned is called 'abandoned by cultivation': other than that, the rest is called 'abandoned by cultivation'. This is not reasonable: this statement is not reasonable. Why is that?: Why is that? Because pervasive Samyojanas can be related to five categories: because pervasive Samyojanas can be related to five categories (seeing the Four Noble Truths and abandoned through cultivation). Then, the Samyojanas abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origin: Should also pervade that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Origin, the Truth of Suffering, etc.: should also pervade that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Origin, the Truth of Suffering, etc. Moreover, the Samyojanas abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path: Are related to non-abandoned dharmas: What should be said to be abandoned by what?: What should be said to be abandoned by what? Therefore, that establishment of the corresponding abandoned is not perfect: therefore, that establishment of the corresponding abandoned is not perfect. If 'seeing' takes suffering as its object, it is called seeing suffering: if 'seeing' takes suffering as its object, it is called seeing suffering. That is, the knowledge-acceptance of the Dharma of Suffering and the knowledge-acceptance of the Category of Suffering: that is, the knowledge-acceptance of the Dharma of Suffering and the knowledge-acceptance of the Category of Suffering. These two abandoned are generally called abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering: these two abandoned are generally called abandoned upon seeing the Truth of Suffering. The same is true for that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of the Path: the same is true for that which is abandoned upon seeing the Truth of the Path. Repeated practice is called cultivation: repeated practice is called cultivation. Referring to practitioners who see the path in order to obtain higher meaning: referring to practitioners who see the path in order to obtain higher meaning. Repeatedly cultivating the wisdom of suffering, etc.: Repeatedly cultivating the wisdom of suffering, etc. This is called cultivation: This is called cultivation. That which is removed by this path is called abandoned through cultivation: That which is removed by this path is called abandoned through cultivation. This is the perfect establishment of the characteristics of the abandoned: This is the perfect establishment of the characteristics of the abandoned. In the Form Realm and Formless Realm, each of the five categories removes aversion: In the Form Realm and Formless Realm, each of the five categories removes aversion. The rest is the same as in the Desire Realm: The rest is the same as in the Desire Realm. Therefore, each has thirty-one: Therefore, each has thirty-one. Therefore, all correct theorists: Summarize the categories of conduct with six Samyojanas: Summarize the categories of conduct with six Samyojanas.
界門差別故立九十八。於此所辯九十八中。八十八見所斷忍所害故。十隨眠修所斷智所害故。何緣於此約界不同建立隨眠非約地異。如無慾色異界隨眠於一事中俱隨增理。初二靜慮異地亦然。若謂地雖殊而有同對治。非欲色界對治有同。是則不應別立無色。以無色與色有同對治故。若修所斷對治漸生。故色無色應別立者。諸地亦爾。何不別說。故應立二百八十四隨眠。設許如斯亦無有過。且約界異立九十八。所以然者。由離界貪建立遍知沙門果故。謂立此二由斷隨眠。此斷隨眠約界非地。故不約地建立隨眠。宿舊師言。佛於法性明瞭通達能說示他。定應善觀四靜慮地諸煩惱法性少相似雖有四地而合說一。於四無色合說亦然。經但說色貪無色貪等故。由此義故正理論師建立隨眠約界非地。如何四地性少相似。有說。同是攝支地故。此釋非理。所以者何。諸近分地中有生煩惱故。有說。同是遍照地攝故。有說。等是色貪類惑故。我說。此中少相似者。唯薄伽梵明瞭通達。要于永斷第四靜慮下下品惑方立遍知。下位不然。故知四地必有少分性類相似。非上地煩惱能緣縛下地。下三靜慮得離系時。寧不別立斷遍知體。定知一類煩惱未除。雖已離系與系相似。要同類惑永斷無餘。方得名為究竟離系。故唯約界建立隨眠不約地立。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為界的不同，所以建立了九十八種隨眠（煩惱）。在這所辨析的九十八種隨眠中，八十八種是見所斷，會被忍（無漏智）所損害；十種是修所斷，會被智（無漏智）所損害。為什麼在這裡是根據界的不同來建立隨眠，而不是根據地的不同呢？比如，無色界的隨眠和色界的隨眠，在同一件事情中會一起增長。初禪和二禪不同的地也是這樣。如果說，雖然地不同，但有相同的對治法；不是說欲界的對治法有相同的。那麼就不應該單獨建立無色界，因為無色界和色界有相同的對治法。如果修所斷的對治法是逐漸產生的，所以色界和無色界應該單獨建立，那麼各個地也應該這樣，為什麼不分別說明呢？所以應該建立二百八十四種隨眠。假設允許這樣，也沒有什麼過失。暫且根據界的不同建立九十八種隨眠。之所以這樣，是因為離開對界的貪愛，才能建立遍知和沙門果。也就是說，建立這二者是通過斷除隨眠。而斷除隨眠是根據界，而不是根據地。所以不根據地來建立隨眠。宿舊的老師說，佛對於法性明瞭通達，能夠向他人開示。一定能夠很好地觀察四禪定地的各種煩惱，雖然有四地，但可以合起來說成一種。對於四無色定，合起來說也是這樣。經中只說色貪、無色貪等等。因為這個原因，正理論師建立隨眠是根據界，而不是根據地。四地的性質為什麼稍微相似呢？有人說，因為它們同屬于攝支地。這種解釋不合理。為什麼呢？因為在近分地中也會產生煩惱。有人說，因為它們同屬于遍照地所攝。有人說，因為它們等於是色貪一類的迷惑。我說，這裡所說的稍微相似，只有薄伽梵（佛）才能明瞭通達。一定要在永遠斷除第四靜慮下下品的迷惑之後，才能建立遍知，下位不是這樣。所以知道四地必定有少部分性質相似。不是上地的煩惱能夠緣縛下地。下三靜慮得到離系時，難道不應該單獨建立斷遍知的體嗎？一定知道一類煩惱沒有除掉，雖然已經離系，但與繫縛相似。一定要同類的迷惑永遠斷除乾淨，才能稱為究竟離系。所以只根據界來建立隨眠，不根據地來建立。 English version Due to the difference in realms, ninety-eight anusayas (latent tendencies) are established. Among these ninety-eight that are being distinguished, eighty-eight are abandoned by seeing, and are harmed by ksanti (forbearance, a type of non-outflow wisdom); ten are abandoned by cultivation, and are harmed by jnana (wisdom). Why is it that here, anusayas are established according to the difference in realms, and not according to the difference in bhumis (planes or levels of existence)? For example, anusayas of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm can increase together in the same matter. This is also the case for the different bhumis of the first and second dhyanas (meditative absorptions). If it is said that although the bhumis are different, they have the same antidote; it is not that the antidote for the Desire Realm is the same. Then the Formless Realm should not be established separately, because the Formless Realm and the Form Realm have the same antidote. If the antidote for what is abandoned by cultivation arises gradually, so the Form Realm and the Formless Realm should be established separately, then the various bhumis should also be like that. Why not explain them separately? Therefore, two hundred and eighty-four anusayas should be established. Even if this is allowed, there is no fault. For now, ninety-eight are established according to the difference in realms. The reason for this is that by abandoning craving for realms, parijnana (complete understanding) and the sramana (ascetic) fruits are established. That is to say, establishing these two is through abandoning anusayas. And abandoning anusayas is according to realms, not according to bhumis. Therefore, anusayas are not established according to bhumis. The old teachers said that the Buddha, being clear and thoroughly understanding of dharmata (the nature of phenomena), is able to show and teach it to others. He must be able to observe well the various afflictions of the four dhyana bhumis. Although there are four bhumis, they can be combined and spoken of as one. For the four Formless dhyanas, combining them and speaking of them is also like that. The sutras only speak of craving for form, craving for the formless, and so on. Because of this reason, the Vaibhasikas (a school of Buddhist thought) establish anusayas according to realms, not according to bhumis. How are the natures of the four bhumis slightly similar? Some say that it is because they all belong to the samgraha-sthana (bases of collection). This explanation is not reasonable. Why is that? Because afflictions can arise in the upacara (access) bhumis. Some say that it is because they all belong to the prabhasa-sthana (bases of illumination). Some say that they are equally delusions of the category of craving for form. I say that the slight similarity here, only the Bhagavan (Buddha) can clearly and thoroughly understand. Only after permanently abandoning the lowest grade of afflictions of the fourth dhyana can parijnana be established; it is not like that in the lower levels. Therefore, it is known that the four bhumis must have a small portion of similar natures. It is not that the afflictions of the higher bhumis can bind the lower bhumis. When the lower three dhyanas attain nihsarana (escape), shouldn't the parijnana body of abandonment be established separately? It must be known that a category of afflictions has not been removed. Although it has already escaped, it is similar to being bound. Only when the same category of delusions is permanently and completely removed can it be called ultimate nihsarana. Therefore, anusayas are only established according to realms, not established according to bhumis.
【English Translation】 English version Due to the difference in realms, ninety-eight anusayas (latent tendencies) are established. Among these ninety-eight that are being distinguished, eighty-eight are abandoned by seeing, and are harmed by ksanti (forbearance, a type of non-outflow wisdom); ten are abandoned by cultivation, and are harmed by jnana (wisdom). Why is it that here, anusayas are established according to the difference in realms, and not according to the difference in bhumis (planes or levels of existence)? For example, anusayas of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm can increase together in the same matter. This is also the case for the different bhumis of the first and second dhyanas (meditative absorptions). If it is said that although the bhumis are different, they have the same antidote; it is not that the antidote for the Desire Realm is the same. Then the Formless Realm should not be established separately, because the Formless Realm and the Form Realm have the same antidote. If the antidote for what is abandoned by cultivation arises gradually, so the Form Realm and the Formless Realm should be established separately, then the various bhumis should also be like that. Why not explain them separately? Therefore, two hundred and eighty-four anusayas should be established. Even if this is allowed, there is no fault. For now, ninety-eight are established according to the difference in realms. The reason for this is that by abandoning craving for realms, parijnana (complete understanding) and the sramana (ascetic) fruits are established. That is to say, establishing these two is through abandoning anusayas. And abandoning anusayas is according to realms, not according to bhumis. Therefore, anusayas are not established according to bhumis. The old teachers said that the Buddha, being clear and thoroughly understanding of dharmata (the nature of phenomena), is able to show and teach it to others. He must be able to observe well the various afflictions of the four dhyana bhumis. Although there are four bhumis, they can be combined and spoken of as one. For the four Formless dhyanas, combining them and speaking of them is also like that. The sutras only speak of craving for form, craving for the formless, and so on. Because of this reason, the Vaibhasikas (a school of Buddhist thought) establish anusayas according to realms, not according to bhumis. How are the natures of the four bhumis slightly similar? Some say that it is because they all belong to the samgraha-sthana (bases of collection). This explanation is not reasonable. Why is that? Because afflictions can arise in the upacara (access) bhumis. Some say that it is because they all belong to the prabhasa-sthana (bases of illumination). Some say that they are equally delusions of the category of craving for form. I say that the slight similarity here, only the Bhagavan (Buddha) can clearly and thoroughly understand. Only after permanently abandoning the lowest grade of afflictions of the fourth dhyana can parijnana be established; it is not like that in the lower levels. Therefore, it is known that the four bhumis must have a small portion of similar natures. It is not that the afflictions of the higher bhumis can bind the lower bhumis. When the lower three dhyanas attain nihsarana (escape), shouldn't the parijnana body of abandonment be established separately? It must be known that a category of afflictions has not been removed. Although it has already escaped, it is similar to being bound. Only when the same category of delusions is permanently and completely removed can it be called ultimate nihsarana. Therefore, anusayas are only established according to realms, not established according to bhumis.
于理為勝有餘師說。如有為怨禁在囹圄。方便走出乃至未到。與怨城林田空閑等不相似處。雖越怨獄未大安隱。如是若斷下三定貪。未到彼貪不相似處。雖越少分未大安隱。故唯約界建立隨眠。有餘師言。若越欲界便為已越。多趣多生大蘊處界無量苦法。若越色界。便為已越一取蘊全多處多界。若越無色界。便為已越一切生死攝蘊處界盡。離下三定所越不然故立隨眠約界非地。然諸古昔正理論師。亦許隨眠約地建立。故設如是假問答言。頗有異生於九十八隨眠永斷具成就耶。有。謂異生生在欲界得第三定未離彼貪。頗有異生得第三定。于向所說九十八種隨眠永斷不具成耶。有謂彼異生從欲界已歿。頗有住見道苦法智忍位。具成九十八隨眠永斷耶。有。謂彼異生得入正決定。頗有諸聖補特伽羅。於十智中唯成就四而得八十二隨眠永斷耶。有。謂具縛入正決定。于正住在苦類智時。若色界中四靜慮地同一繫縛如欲何過。此則善順約斷界貪建立遍知及沙門果。又順本論說。遍行因為因能生自界染法。不爾經論理相違故。且引經文證四靜慮非同一系。如契經言。彼作是思。我當安住尋伺寂靜第二定中。雖作是思而不能入。復作是念。何因何緣。我於此中心不能入。作是念已。便自了知。以我猶于尋伺過患未識未達。未見未知于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 于理，勝過其他老師的說法。例如，有人因為仇怨而被囚禁在監獄裡，即使通過方便法門走出了監獄，但只要還沒有到達與充滿怨恨的城市、森林、田地等不相似的地方，即使逃離了怨恨的監獄，也仍然不能算是完全安穩。同樣，如果斷除了欲界、色界、無色界這下三界的貪慾，但還沒有到達與這些貪慾不相似的地方，即使超越了一小部分，也不能算是完全安穩。所以，只能根據界來建立隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）。 有其他老師說，如果超越了欲界（Kāmadhātu），就等於超越了許多趣、許多生、大的蘊、處、界以及無量的苦法。如果超越了色界（Rūpadhātu），就等於超越了一個取蘊（Upādānakkhandha）的全部，以及許多處、許多界。如果超越了無色界（Arūpadhātu），就等於超越了一切生死所攝的蘊、處、界。如果僅僅是離開了下三禪定，所超越的就不是這樣，所以建立隨眠是根據界而不是根據地。 然而，古代的正理論師也認可隨眠可以根據地來建立。因此，假設了這樣的問答：有沒有異生（未開悟的凡夫）能夠永遠斷除並完全成就九十八種隨眠？有。指的是生在欲界，得到了第三禪定但還沒有離開對該禪定貪慾的異生。 有沒有異生得到了第三禪定，但對於前面所說的九十八種隨眠，沒有完全斷除併成就？有。指的是那個異生已經從欲界死亡。 有沒有安住在見道（Darśanamārga）的苦法智忍位（Kṣāntijñāna）的人，完全成就了九十八種隨眠的永斷？有。指的是那個異生已經進入了正決定（Samyaktva-niyata）。 有沒有聖補特伽羅（Āryapudgala，聖者），在十智（Daśa jñānāni）中只成就了四種，卻能夠得到八十二種隨眠的永斷？有。指的是具縛（Ju fu，仍然被煩惱束縛）的人進入正決定，並且安住在苦類智（Dukkhe 'nvayajñāna）的時候。 如果在色界中的四靜慮地（Catasra dhyānāni）是同一繫縛，就像欲界一樣，那有什麼過失呢？這樣就能夠很好地順應根據斷除界貪來建立遍知（Parijñā）和沙門果（Śrāmaṇyaphala）。 又順應了本論的說法，遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu）作為因，能夠產生自己界內的染污法。否則，經典和理論就會互相矛盾。先引用經文來證明四靜慮並非同一繫縛，如契經所說：『他這樣想：我應當安住在尋伺寂靜的第二禪定中。』雖然這樣想，卻不能進入。又這樣想：『什麼原因，什麼緣故，我於此中心不能進入？』這樣想了之後，便自己了知，因為我對於尋伺的過患還沒有認識、沒有通達、沒有見到、沒有知道。
【English Translation】 English version In reason, it surpasses the teachings of other masters. For example, if someone is imprisoned due to enmity, even if they manage to escape through expedient means, they are not truly safe until they reach a place dissimilar to the hateful city, forest, fields, etc. Even escaping the prison of hatred does not guarantee complete security. Similarly, if one eliminates the greed of the lower three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), but has not yet reached a place dissimilar to that greed, even if one transcends a small portion, it cannot be considered completely secure. Therefore, Anusaya (latent defilements) can only be established in relation to the realms (Dhātu). Other teachers say that if one transcends the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), it is equivalent to transcending many destinies, many births, great aggregates, bases, realms, and immeasurable suffering. If one transcends the form realm (Rūpadhātu), it is equivalent to transcending the entirety of one grasping aggregate (Upādānakkhandha), and many bases and realms. If one transcends the formless realm (Arūpadhātu), it is equivalent to transcending all aggregates, bases, and realms encompassed by birth and death. Merely departing from the lower three Dhyanas (meditative absorptions) is not the same as transcending in this way, so the establishment of Anusaya is based on realms, not grounds. However, ancient masters of Abhidharma also acknowledged that Anusaya could be established in relation to the grounds. Therefore, they posed the following hypothetical question: Is there an ordinary being (Pṛthagjana, unenlightened being) who has permanently eradicated and fully accomplished the ninety-eight Anusayas? Yes. This refers to an ordinary being born in the desire realm who has attained the third Dhyana but has not yet detached from the greed for that Dhyana. Is there an ordinary being who has attained the third Dhyana but has not fully eradicated and accomplished the aforementioned ninety-eight Anusayas? Yes. This refers to that ordinary being who has died from the desire realm. Is there someone abiding in the Kṣāntijñāna (patience-knowledge) of Dukkhe 'nvayajñāna (knowledge of suffering) on the path of seeing (Darśanamārga) who has fully accomplished the permanent eradication of the ninety-eight Anusayas? Yes. This refers to that ordinary being who has entered Samyaktva-niyata (the state of being assured of enlightenment). Is there an Āryapudgala (noble person, saint) who has only accomplished four of the ten jñānāni (ten knowledges) but has attained the permanent eradication of eighty-two Anusayas? Yes. This refers to a Ju fu (bound by fetters) person who enters Samyaktva-niyata and abides in Dukkhe 'nvayajñāna. If the four Dhyanas (Catasra dhyānāni) in the form realm are bound by the same fetters, just like the desire realm, what fault is there? This would well accord with establishing Parijñā (full understanding) and Śrāmaṇyaphala (fruits of the ascetic life) based on the eradication of greed for the realms. Furthermore, it accords with the statement in the original treatise that Sarvatraga-hetu (omnipresent cause) as a cause can generate defiled dharmas within its own realm. Otherwise, the sutras and treatises would contradict each other. Let us first cite a sutra to prove that the four Dhyanas are not bound by the same fetters, as the sutra says: 'He thought, "I should abide in the second Dhyana, which is tranquil from investigation and analysis." Although he thought this, he could not enter it. He then thought, "What is the cause, what is the reason, that my mind cannot enter this?" After thinking this, he realized that he had not yet recognized, understood, seen, or known the faults of investigation and analysis.'
無尋伺靜慮功德。未能修習多修習故。于第二定心不能入。廣說乃至。我由住此數數發動尋伺俱行。諸想作意過患令起。今定應斷。乃至廣說。此中意顯。如越欲界。如是當越靜慮地等。下地所有諸想作意能障離染。及能退故。說為過患非自地者。故知色界非一系縛。又見過患能為厭因。厭為離因。離故解脫。若同一縛此應唐捐。又說尋等漸次息故。謂契經說。若瑜伽師入第二定尋伺便息。廣說乃至。得入無邊虛空處定色想便息。色界諸地若同一縛。諸瑜伽者。既無力能頓舍尋伺喜樂色想。以心怖怯極重擔故。應畢竟無舍尋等者。又說離喜斷樂言故。謂契經言。離喜斷樂非同一縛。欲界諸處有毛端量未得離貪。可說名為全離欲系。唯除已斷見所斷法。雖永未離修所斷貪而名離縛。非彼境故。色界諸地若同一縛。應有餘縛。離斷不成。此等名為經相違故。次引論文證四靜慮非同一系。如本論言。誰成樂根。謂生遍凈若生下地。若聖上生。誰於此不成。謂異生生上非下地法。生上地時。雖曰不成。而不由斷于同一縛。欲界等中不見如斯定成等理。然于本論說遍行因為因能生自界染者。且就約界建立隨眠辯遍行因。故作是說。亦有本說生自地染。此等名為論相違故。如何一系與理相違。且與隨經理相違者。不應於二定說內等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無尋伺的靜慮（dhyana）功德，因為未能充分修習，所以無法進入第二禪定。乃至廣說。我因為安住於此，屢屢發動尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）伺（vicara，細緻的觀察）俱行的諸想作意，導致過患生起，現在應當斷除。乃至廣說。此中的意思是說，如同超越欲界一樣，也應當超越靜慮地等。下地所有能障礙離染以及導致退轉的諸想作意，被稱為過患，而非自地的過患。因此可知，並非同一繫縛。又，見到過患能成為厭離的原因，厭離成為脫離的原因，因為脫離所以解脫。如果屬於同一繫縛，那麼這些就應該毫無作用。又說尋等逐漸止息的緣故，也就是契經所說，如果瑜伽師進入第二禪定，尋伺便會止息。乃至廣說，如果證入無邊虛空處定，色想便會止息。如果諸地屬於同一繫縛，那麼瑜伽師既沒有能力頓然捨棄尋伺喜樂色想，因為內心怖畏極重的負擔，那麼就應該始終沒有捨棄尋等的人。又說離喜斷樂的緣故，也就是契經所說，離喜斷樂並非同一繫縛。欲界諸處有毛髮端那麼多的量沒有得到離貪，可以說名為全離欲系，唯獨除了已經斷除見所斷法，雖然永遠沒有脫離修所斷貪，也名為離縛，因為不是那個境界的緣故。如果諸地屬於同一繫縛，應該有剩餘的繫縛，離斷不能成立。這些都名為與經文相違背的緣故。其次引用論著的文句來證明四靜慮並非同一系。如本論所說，誰成就樂根？是指生於遍凈天（Subhakrtsna）或者生於下地，或者聖者向上生。誰於此不成就？是指異生生於上地，而非下地法。生於上地時，雖然說不成就，但不是通過斷除同一繫縛。在欲界等中，沒有見到如此決定成就等的道理。然而在本論中說遍行因為因能生自界染，且就約界建立隨眠來辯論遍行因，所以這樣說。也有本論說生自地染。這些都名為與論著相違背的緣故。如何同一系與道理相違背？且與隨順經文的道理相違背，不應該在二禪定中說內等。
【English Translation】 English version The merits of dhyana (meditative absorption) without vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicara (sustained application of thought) are not attained because one has not sufficiently practiced. Therefore, one cannot enter the second dhyana. And so on. Because I dwell in this state, I repeatedly activate thoughts and mental activities associated with vitarka and vicara, causing faults to arise, which should now be abandoned. And so on. The meaning here is that, just as one transcends the desire realm (Kama-dhatu), one should also transcend the dhyana realms and so on. All thoughts and mental activities in the lower realms that obstruct detachment and cause regression are called faults, not faults of one's own realm. Therefore, it is known that they are not a single bond. Furthermore, seeing faults can be a cause for aversion, aversion can be a cause for detachment, and because of detachment, there is liberation. If they were a single bond, then these would be in vain. It is also said that vitarka and so on gradually cease, as the sutra says, 'If a yogi enters the second dhyana, vitarka and vicara cease.' And so on, 'If one attains the station of boundless space, the perception of form ceases.' If the realms were a single bond, then yogis, lacking the power to suddenly abandon vitarka, vicara, joy, and the perception of form, because their minds are fearful of extremely heavy burdens, should never be able to abandon vitarka and so on. It is also said that joy is abandoned and pleasure is severed, as the sutra says, 'Abandoning joy and severing pleasure are not a single bond.' In the desire realm, even a hair's breadth of greed that has not been abandoned can be called 'completely detached from the desire realm,' except for the dharmas severed by view. Although one has never permanently detached from greed severed by cultivation, it is still called 'detached from the bond' because it is not that realm. If the realms were a single bond, there should be remaining bonds, and severance and abandonment could not be established. These are all called contradictions to the sutras. Next, I will cite passages from treatises to prove that the four dhyanas are not a single bond. As the treatise says, 'Who attains the root of pleasure?' It refers to those born in the Subhakrtsna (Pure Radiance) heaven, or those born in a lower realm, or noble ones born upwards. 'Who does not attain this?' It refers to ordinary beings born in a higher realm, not dharmas of a lower realm. When one is born in a higher realm, although it is said that one does not attain it, it is not through severing a single bond. In the desire realm and so on, one does not see such a principle of definite attainment and so on. However, in the treatise, it is said that pervasive causes are the causes that can generate defilements in one's own realm, and it is in the context of establishing latent tendencies based on realms that the pervasive causes are discussed. There are also treatises that say that defilements are generated in one's own realm. These are all called contradictions to the treatises. How is a single bond contradictory to reason? It is contradictory to the reason that accords with the sutras. It should not be said that there is inner equality in the second dhyana.
凈支。未斷尋伺俱諸煩惱濁故。又生第四靜慮有情。亦應成染尋伺喜樂。然契經說尋等息言。又契經言。離喜斷樂與隨本論理相違者。謂本論中說。第二等味相應定。能與初等味相應定。唯作二緣。謂增上緣及等無間。色界諸地若同一縛。諸上地貪于下地愛。亦應能作因及所緣。又除受生時。應為等無間。又初定愛乃至應與第四定貪為等無間。又應從初味定無間。乃至第四凈定現前。又除受生。應從第四凈定無間初味定起。如是上下等無間緣。展轉相生應立多難。又不應于第四業內。說四思能斷白白異熟業。又不應說上近分定能斷下惑。同一縛故。又得初定諸不還者。與得四定所斷應同。是故定應許上下地如界業惑因果皆殊。由理不同。一系縛故。如前所說上界除瞋。以何因緣彼瞋非有。彼瞋隨眠事非有故。謂于苦受有瞋隨增。苦受彼無。故瞋非有。又瞋隨眠乾澀相故。謂此煩惱其相干澀猶如風病。彼有情類由奢摩他潤滑相續。故彼無有乾澀相瞋。又彼非瞋異熟因故。謂瞋必感非愛異熟。上二界無諸非愛事。外無毒刺茅灰等緣。內無熱風癲癇等故。有說。彼無惱害事故。慈等善根所居處故。諸所攝受皆遠離故。有餘師說。瞋性躁急速可遠離。故瑜伽師離欲貪時即能止息。如不居穴諸乾澀垢。才加洗拭速可遣除。分別論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 凈支（姓）。因為沒有斷除尋伺以及各種煩惱的染污的緣故。而且生於第四禪的有情，也應該被尋伺、喜樂所染污。然而契經上說，尋伺等止息。而且契經上說，離開喜斷絕樂，這與隨本論的道理相違背。本論中說，第二禪等味相應的禪定，能夠與初禪等味相應的禪定，僅僅作為兩種緣，即增上緣和等無間緣。如果諸地都屬於同一個繫縛，那麼上地對下地的貪愛，也應該能夠作為因和所緣。而且除了受生的時候，應該作為等無間緣。而且初禪的愛乃至應該與第四禪的貪作為等無間緣。而且應該從初禪味定無間，乃至第四凈定現前。而且除了受生，應該從第四凈定無間初禪味定生起。像這樣上下等無間緣，輾轉相生應該建立很多困難。而且不應該在第四禪的業中，說四種思能夠斷除白業白異熟業。而且不應該說上界的近分定能夠斷除地獄的迷惑，因為屬於同一個繫縛的緣故。而且得到初禪的那些不還果的人，與得到四禪所斷除的應該相同。因此，禪定應該允許上下地像界、業、惑、因果那樣都不同，因為道理不同，卻因為一個繫縛的緣故。像前面所說的上界沒有嗔恚，因為什麼因緣那裡沒有嗔恚呢？因為那裡的嗔恚隨眠的事物不存在的緣故。因為對於苦受有嗔恚隨之增長，而苦受在那裡是沒有的，所以嗔恚不存在。而且嗔恚隨眠具有乾澀的相狀，因為這種煩惱它的相狀乾澀，猶如風病。那些有情因為奢摩他的潤滑相續，所以他們沒有乾澀的嗔恚。而且那裡不是嗔恚的異熟因的緣故，因為嗔恚必定感得非可愛的異熟果報。上二界沒有各種非可愛的事物，外面沒有毒刺、茅草灰塵等緣，內部沒有熱風、癲癇等。有人說，那裡沒有惱害的事情的緣故，因為慈等善根所居住的地方的緣故，所有攝受的都遠離的緣故。有其他論師說，嗔恚的性質躁動急速可以遠離，所以瑜伽師在離開欲貪的時候就能夠止息。就像不居住在洞穴里的各種乾澀污垢，才加以洗滌擦拭就能夠迅速去除。《分別論》
【English Translation】 English version Jingzhi (surname). Because the seeking and thought processes (尋伺, xún sì) and all the defilements (煩惱, fán nǎo) have not been cut off, hence they are turbid. Moreover, beings born in the Fourth Dhyana (第四靜慮, dì sì jìng lǜ) should also be defiled by seeking, thought, joy, and pleasure. However, the sutras say that seeking and thought cease. Furthermore, the sutras say, 'Leaving joy and cutting off pleasure,' which contradicts the principles of the Abhidharma. The Abhidharma states that the samadhi (定, dìng) corresponding to the second dhyana (第二禪, dì èr chán) and its flavors can only act as two conditions for the samadhi corresponding to the first dhyana (初禪, chū chán) and its flavors: the dominant condition (增上緣, zēng shàng yuán) and the immediately preceding condition (等無間緣, děng wú jiàn yuán). If all the realms (地, dì) are bound by the same bond (縛, fù), then the greed (貪, tān) of the higher realms for the love (愛, ài) of the lower realms should also be able to act as cause (因, yīn) and object (所緣, suǒ yuán). Moreover, except during the time of rebirth, it should be an immediately preceding condition. Furthermore, the love of the first dhyana should even be an immediately preceding condition for the greed of the fourth dhyana. Moreover, from the samadhi of the first dhyana and its flavors, without interruption, the pure samadhi of the fourth dhyana should manifest. Moreover, except during rebirth, from the pure samadhi of the fourth dhyana, without interruption, the samadhi of the first dhyana and its flavors should arise. Such immediately preceding conditions, both above and below, arising in turn, should establish many difficulties. Moreover, it should not be said that within the karma (業, yè) of the fourth dhyana, the four thoughts (思, sī) can cut off white karma with white vipaka (異熟, yì shú). Moreover, it should not be said that the higher realms' proximate samadhi (近分定, jìn fēn dìng) can cut off the lower realms' delusions (惑, huò), because they are bound by the same bond. Moreover, those non-returners (不還者, bù huán zhě) who have attained the first dhyana should have the same things cut off as those who have attained the fourth dhyana. Therefore, it should be acknowledged that the dhyanas of the upper and lower realms are different, like the realms, karma, delusions, causes, and effects, because the principles are different, yet they are bound by one bond. As mentioned before, the upper realms are without anger (瞋, chēn). For what reason is there no anger there? Because the object of anger's latent tendencies (隨眠, suí mián) does not exist there. Because anger increases with painful feelings (苦受, kǔ shòu), and painful feelings do not exist there, therefore anger does not exist. Moreover, anger's latent tendencies have a dry and rough characteristic, because this defilement has a dry and rough characteristic, like a wind disease. Those beings have a continuous flow of smoothness due to shamatha (奢摩他, shē mó tuō), therefore they do not have dry and rough anger. Moreover, it is not a cause for the vipaka of anger, because anger necessarily brings about an undesirable vipaka. The upper two realms do not have various undesirable things; externally, there are no poisonous thorns, thatch ashes, etc.; internally, there are no hot winds, epilepsy, etc. Some say that there are no harmful things there, because it is a place where loving-kindness (慈, cí) and other wholesome roots reside, and all that is embraced is far away. Other teachers say that the nature of anger is restless and quick to be abandoned, so yogis can stop it when they leave desire and greed. Like various dry and rough stains that do not reside in caves, they can be quickly removed with washing and wiping. Vibhajyavada (分別論, Fēnbié Lùn) [Analysis and Discrimination]
師作如是說。無九十八所立隨眠。經說隨眠唯有七故。謂契經說。若欲永斷七種隨眠。汝等從今應於我所勤修梵行。由此故知正理論者唯依自計立九十八隨眠。若離聖言依自計立。則應許有無量隨眠。無量有情身中轉故。今觀具壽于聖教理不能審諦。如實觀察於此所立理教極成。隨眠數中能固非撥。且非彼所引七隨眠經有證定數能非了義故謂余經言。若欲於色厭離欲滅永解脫者。應於我所勤修梵行。乃至於識說亦如是。此經唯說欲斷隨眠。應於我所勤修梵行。故知此經非了義說。又于余處亦有唯依欲離一界染。一隨眠少分說。應於我所勤修梵行言如契經言。若於樂受欲永害貪隨眠應於我所勤修梵行。又契經言。若於苦受欲永害瞋隨眠。應於我所勤修梵行。豈以彼經所說極少便應非撥說七隨眠。故知此經文同彼非了義。今應詳辯。此契經中欲斷七隨眠應修梵行。意謂此經意為顯隨眠種類有殊故標七數。如契經說。法有二種。非離二種別有余法。豈由此不許說十八界耶。然意類中說餘六界。故二十八互不相違。又如經中說蓋有五。非無明體非蓋所攝。經說無明能覆蓋故。又即五蓋余經說十。如契經說。苾芻當知。貪慾蓋體差別有二。一內二外。乃至廣說。又如經說。由四因故大地振動非無餘因。又如經言。世有三法宜應開
發。然有說四。又如經言。諦唯有一更無第二。然為梵志說諦有三及說四等。又如經說智有二種。謂盡無生非無餘智。又如經說。心有二種謂善不善。非無無記。如是等類無量契經佛順機宜說意各別。不能了達聖教理趣。唯計損壞他宗為德。此類豈能逮善說果。如世尊告鄔陀夷言。若於如來異門所說。一切一切物一切一切種。不欲于中求解義者。汝應知彼于聖教中求斗諍住。乃至廣說。又彼所說則應許有無量隨眠。許亦何失。約依身別數無量故。然就體類分別隨眠但成六種。此六約門異成十六。或十或二十八或三十六。或七十四或九十八。謂佛處處約界行部諸門差別顯示隨眠。正理論師隨佛所說約界等異立九十八隨眠。且諸隨眠體類有六。謂貪瞋慢無明見疑。體類別故如前已辨。以薄伽梵于契經中說三界貪總名愛結故知體類唯六隨眠。即六隨眠約界差別世尊且說貪分二種。謂欲有貪隨眠異故。由貪差別可類解余。為顯隨眠定不定界各成二故作如是說。然唯說貪界差別者。以多處說貪為首故。謂諸建立煩惱教中。處處說貪以為上首。如說九結三不善根五蓋。上分三業道縛業緣集等無量。契經以貪隨眠是生死本故。于諸處多說在初。既說最初分為二種。由此類顯余亦應然。然不可說瞋亦約界分二。由欲有貪顯余差別。此非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 發。然而有四種說法。又如經中所說：『真諦只有一個，沒有第二個。』然而，爲了梵志（Brahmin，古印度婆羅門）說了真諦有三種以及四種等等。又如經中所說，智慧有兩種，即盡智（knowledge of destruction）和無生智（knowledge of non-arising），並非沒有無餘智（knowledge without remainder）。又如經中所說，心有兩種，即善和不善，並非沒有無記（neutral）。像這樣等等無數的契經（sutra，佛經），佛陀順應不同根器的眾生而說，意旨各有不同。不能瞭解聖教的真正理趣，只以詆譭其他宗派為美德。這類人怎麼能獲得善說的果報呢？正如世尊告訴鄔陀夷（Udayi，人名）所說：『如果對於如來（Tathagata，佛陀的稱號）用不同方式所說的一切事物、一切種類，不想要從中尋求意義，你應該知道那些人在聖教中尋求爭鬥。』乃至廣說。而且他們所說的，就應該承認有無量隨眠（latent tendencies）。承認又有何損失呢？因為依據身體的不同，數量是無量的。然而就本體種類來分別，隨眠只有六種。這六種依據門徑的不同，可以變成十六種，或者十種，或者二十八種，或者三十六種，或者七十四種，或者九十八種。佛陀在各處依據界（realm）、行（conduct）、部（group）等門徑的差別來顯示隨眠。正理論師（Abhidharma masters）依據佛陀所說，依據界等的不同，建立了九十八種隨眠。而且各種隨眠的本體種類有六種，即貪（greed）、嗔（hatred）、慢（pride）、無明（ignorance）、見（wrong views）、疑（doubt）。本體種類不同，如前面已經辨析。因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀的稱號）在契經中說三界（three realms）的貪總稱為愛結（bond of affection），因此知道本體種類只有六種隨眠。這六種隨眠依據界的差別，世尊且說貪分為兩種，即欲有貪（desire realm greed）和有貪（form and formless realm greed），因為隨眠不同。由於貪的差別，可以類推理解其餘的隨眠。爲了顯示隨眠在不同界是決定或不決定的，所以這樣說。然而只說貪的界的差別，因為很多地方都說貪為首要。在各種建立煩惱的教義中，處處都說貪為首要。如說九結（nine bonds）、三不善根（three unwholesome roots）、五蓋（five hindrances）、上分三業道（three higher fetters）、縛（bondage）、業緣集（accumulation of karmic conditions）等等無數的契經，都以貪隨眠是生死根本。所以在很多地方都說在最初。既然說最初分為兩種，由此類推顯示其餘的也應該這樣。然而不能說嗔也依據界分為兩種，通過欲有貪來顯示其餘的差別，這並非……
【English Translation】 English version It is said that there are four. Moreover, as the sutra says, 'There is only one Truth, and there is no second.' However, for the Brahmins (梵志), it was said that there are three Truths, and four, etc. Furthermore, as the sutra says, there are two kinds of wisdom: the knowledge of destruction (盡智) and the knowledge of non-arising (無生智), not without the knowledge without remainder (非無餘智). Moreover, as the sutra says, there are two kinds of mind: wholesome and unwholesome, not without neutral (無記). Like these and other countless sutras (契經), the Buddha spoke according to the different capacities of beings, and the meanings are different. Unable to understand the true meaning of the holy teachings, they only consider slandering other schools as a virtue. How can such people attain the fruit of good speech? Just as the World Honored One (世尊) told Udayi (鄔陀夷): 'If you do not want to seek meaning in all things and all kinds spoken by the Tathagata (如來) in different ways, you should know that those people seek strife in the holy teachings.' And so on. Moreover, what they say should admit that there are countless latent tendencies (隨眠). What loss is there in admitting it? Because according to the difference of bodies, the number is countless. However, according to the classification of the essence, there are only six kinds of latent tendencies. These six can become sixteen, or ten, or twenty-eight, or thirty-six, or seventy-four, or ninety-eight, according to the difference of the gates. The Buddha reveals the latent tendencies in various places according to the differences of realms (界), conduct (行), groups (部), and other gates. The Abhidharma masters (正理論師) established ninety-eight latent tendencies according to the Buddha's words, according to the differences of realms, etc. Moreover, the essence of various latent tendencies is six kinds: greed (貪), hatred (嗔), pride (慢), ignorance (無明), wrong views (見), and doubt (疑). The essence is different, as has been analyzed before. Because the Bhagavan (薄伽梵) said in the sutra that the greed of the three realms (三界) is collectively called the bond of affection (愛結), therefore it is known that there are only six kinds of latent tendencies in essence. According to the difference of realms, the World Honored One said that greed is divided into two kinds: desire realm greed (欲有貪) and form and formless realm greed (有貪), because the latent tendencies are different. Because of the difference of greed, the rest of the latent tendencies can be understood by analogy. In order to show that the latent tendencies are definite or indefinite in different realms, it is said like this. However, only the difference of the realm of greed is mentioned, because in many places greed is said to be the most important. In various teachings that establish afflictions, greed is said to be the most important everywhere. For example, the nine bonds (九結), the three unwholesome roots (三不善根), the five hindrances (五蓋), the three higher fetters (上分三業道), bondage (縛), the accumulation of karmic conditions (業緣集), and countless other sutras all say that greed is the root of birth and death. Therefore, in many places, it is said to be the first. Since it is said that the first is divided into two kinds, it can be inferred that the rest should also be like this. However, it cannot be said that hatred is also divided into two kinds according to the realm. The difference of the rest is shown through desire realm greed, which is not...
如慢等說上亦有故。由如是教已顯隨眠。隨其所應定散界別。佛余處復約有貪異門。顯定界隨眠亦有差別。謂世尊說上分結中色無色貪別立為二。由貪差別可類解余。為顯隨眠。于諸定界色無色異故作是說。然非上分結唯修所斷故。則唯修所斷有貪界。有別見所斷惑。與修所斷種類既同。必亦異故前總顯示見修所斷定散界別。今別顯示唯修所斷色無色殊。以無漏道如是斷故。謂色無色見所斷貪同一對治。修所斷貪各別對治。故於定界見所斷貪不顯界別。修所斷貪則顯界別。如是別引二經證貪有三界殊。顯余亦別。今復總引一經為證。如契經言。愛有三種。一欲愛。二色愛。三無色愛。由愛差別可類解余。為顯隨眠欲色無色界差別故作如是說。已舉聖教證諸隨眠界有差別理亦有異。謂有一類補特伽羅。于欲界法總得離系非色無色。彼由斷此諸隨眠故不欲界生。此所斷隨眠應知欲界系。色無色界類此應知。是故隨眠由聖教理。界定有異數成十六。已顯界別。行異云何。即六隨眠見由行異。世尊處處說見有五。有身見等如前已列。故六隨眠約行有異敷積成十如前已辨。行界合分成二十八。已顯行別。部異云何。部謂隨眠約別對治。謂有一類由見苦斷。有由見集滅道亦然。有由后時隨於一智數數修習增勝故斷。若異此者立四諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 如慢等說法中也有這個原因。因為這樣教導已經顯示了隨眠（Suimian，潛在的煩惱）。根據情況，確定散亂和禪定的界限。佛陀在其他地方又根據有貪的不同方面，顯示了禪定境界的隨眠也有差別。也就是說，世尊說上分結（Shangfenjie，上界煩惱）中，色界貪和無色界貪分別設立為兩種。由於貪的差別，可以類推理解其他的隨眠。爲了顯示隨眠在各種禪定境界，即色界和無色界中的不同，所以這樣說。然而，並非上分結僅僅是由修所斷的。因此，僅僅由修所斷的有貪境界，有不同於見所斷惑。由於修所斷和見所斷的種類相同，必定也有不同。所以之前總的顯示了見所斷和修所斷的禪定和散亂的界限差別。現在分別顯示僅僅由修所斷的色界和無色界的差別。因為無漏道（Wuloudao，無漏的修行道路）是這樣斷除的。也就是說，色界和無色界的見所斷貪用同一種對治方法，而修所斷貪用不同的對治方法。所以在禪定境界中，見所斷貪不顯示界限差別，而修所斷貪則顯示界限差別。這樣分別引用兩部經來證明貪有三界（San jie，欲界、色界、無色界）的差別，顯示其他的隨眠也有差別。現在再總的引用一部經來證明，如契經（Qijing，佛經）所說：『愛有三種，一欲愛，二色愛，三無色愛。』由於愛的差別，可以類推理解其他的隨眠。爲了顯示隨眠在欲界、色界和無色界的差別，所以這樣說。已經舉出聖教（Shengjiao，佛教的教義）證明各種隨眠的界限有差別，道理也有不同。也就是說，有一類補特伽羅（Puteqieluo，人），對於欲界法總的得到了解脫，但沒有解脫色界和無色界。他們由於斷除了這些隨眠，所以不再生於欲界。這些所斷的隨眠，應該知道是欲界系的。色界和無色界的隨眠，可以類推得知。因此，隨眠由於聖教和道理，界限的確定有不同，數量成為十六種。已經顯示了界限的差別，行為的差別是什麼呢？就是六隨眠（Liu suimian，六種潛在的煩惱）的見，由於行為的不同，世尊在各處說見有五種，有身見等，如前已經列出。所以六隨眠按照行為的不同，敷積成為十種，如前已經辨明。行為和界限合起來，分成二十八種。已經顯示了行為的差別，部類的差別是什麼呢？部類是指隨眠按照不同的對治方法。也就是說，有一類隨眠由於見苦（Jianku，觀察苦諦）而斷除，有的由於見集（Jianji，觀察集諦）、見滅（Jianmie，觀察滅諦）、見道（JianDao，觀察道諦）而斷除。有的由於後來隨著一種智慧，數數修習增勝而斷除。如果不是這樣，就設立四諦（Sidi，苦、集、滅、道）。
【English Translation】 As the saying 'like arrogance' also has a reason. Because such teachings have revealed Suimian (latent afflictions). According to the situation, determine the boundaries of distraction and Samadhi. The Buddha, in other places, also shows the differences in Suimian in the realm of Samadhi based on the different aspects of greed. That is, the World Honored One said that in the Shangfenjie (higher realm fetters), the greed of the form realm and the formless realm are separately established as two types. Due to the difference in greed, other Suimian can be understood by analogy. In order to show the differences in Suimian in various Samadhi realms, namely the form realm and the formless realm, it is said in this way. However, not all Shangfenjie are only severed by cultivation. Therefore, in the realm of greed that is only severed by cultivation, there are delusions that are different from those severed by views. Since the types of delusions severed by cultivation and those severed by views are the same, there must also be differences. Therefore, the differences between the realms of Samadhi and distraction that are severed by views and those severed by cultivation were generally shown before. Now, the differences between the form realm and the formless realm that are only severed by cultivation are shown separately. Because the Wuloudao (path of non-outflow) is severed in this way. That is, the greed severed by views in the form realm and the formless realm uses the same antidote, while the greed severed by cultivation uses different antidotes. Therefore, in the realm of Samadhi, the greed severed by views does not show the difference in realms, while the greed severed by cultivation shows the difference in realms. In this way, two sutras are cited separately to prove that greed has the difference of the San jie (three realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm), showing that other Suimian also have differences. Now, another sutra is cited in general to prove that, as the Qijing (sutra) says: 'There are three kinds of love: one is desire love, the second is form love, and the third is formless love.' Due to the difference in love, other Suimian can be understood by analogy. In order to show the differences in Suimian in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm, it is said in this way. It has been cited that the Shengjiao (Buddhist teachings) proves that the boundaries of various Suimian have differences, and the principles are also different. That is to say, there is a type of Puteqieluo (person) who has generally attained liberation from the laws of the desire realm, but has not liberated the form realm and the formless realm. Because they have severed these Suimian, they are no longer born in the desire realm. It should be known that these severed Suimian belong to the desire realm. The Suimian of the form realm and the formless realm can be known by analogy. Therefore, due to the Shengjiao and the principles, the determination of the boundaries of Suimian is different, and the number becomes sixteen. The difference in boundaries has been shown, what is the difference in behavior? That is, the views of the Liu suimian (six latent afflictions) are different due to the difference in behavior. The World Honored One said in various places that there are five kinds of views, such as the view of self, etc., as have been listed before. Therefore, the six Suimian are accumulated into ten types according to the difference in behavior, as has been explained before. Behavior and boundaries are combined and divided into twenty-eight types. The difference in behavior has been shown, what is the difference in categories? Categories refer to Suimian according to different antidotes. That is to say, there is a type of Suimian that is severed by Jianku (seeing suffering), and some are severed by Jianji (seeing accumulation), Jianmie (seeing cessation), and JianDao (seeing the path). Some are severed because they later follow a kind of wisdom and repeatedly cultivate and increase it. If not, the Sidi (Four Noble Truths) are established.
見及後果智則為唐捐。然見道中於四聖諦必漸現觀如后當辯。如是五部決定差別。佛于經中自正顯示。如世尊言。
我昔與汝等 涉生死長途 由不能如實 見四聖諦故 若能見四諦 永斷諸有縛 則生死都滅 便無後諸有
此中若能見四諦者。顯斷見四諦所斷四無明。復言永斷諸有縛者。顯斷修道所斷無明。豈不此中有縛說愛。如何引證五部無明。此中無明不說成故。謂諸世間無有一物愛結所繫非無明者。但修所斷許有愛結有無明結豈更須成非不愚癡有愛生故。復有別證顯諸煩惱諸部差別。如契經言。于苦無智于集無智于滅無智于道無智。此中總收前際愚等。約四諦境立四無智。應知此處以無明聲顯一切隨眠。如緣起中辯。故諸煩惱有部差別。然非無明有五部故。類顯余惑皆有五部。以余煩惱有遮說故。謂世尊說永斷見疑得預流果。由此為證遮見及疑是修所斷。又經但說。斷往惡趣。貪瞋癡慢得預流果。故預流果無見及疑。有修所斷貪瞋癡慢。由此為證知六隨眠。約部不同成二十八。部行合分成三十六。部界合分成七十四。約部行界總分隨眠成九十八如前已辨。故對法者隨佛聖教。推求正理分別隨眠。立九十八不可傾動。然彼朽昧上座復言。雖經非無所引名相。而曾無處說此隨眠。是見苦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果僅憑智慧見到（惡業的）後果，那將是徒勞無功的。然而，在見道（初果）的過程中，對四聖諦的觀察必然會逐漸顯現，這將在後面詳細闡述。以上就是五部煩惱的決定性差別。佛陀在經典中親自明確地揭示了這一點，正如世尊所說：
『我過去和你們一起，經歷了漫長的生死輪迴，就是因為不能如實地見到四聖諦的緣故。如果能夠見到四聖諦，就能永遠斷除各種存在的束縛，那麼生死就會完全滅盡，也就不會再有未來的各種存在。』
這裡，『若能見四諦者』，顯示斷除見道所斷的四種無明。再次說『永斷諸有縛者』，顯示斷除修道所斷的無明。難道這裡面有束縛說是愛嗎？如何引證五部無明呢？這是因為這裡沒有說（愛）是『成』（所斷）的緣故。也就是說，世間沒有哪一樣東西是被愛結所束縛而不是無明的。但是，修道所斷的，允許有愛結，也有無明結，難道還需要證明不是愚癡才會有愛產生嗎？
還有其他的證據可以顯示各種煩惱在不同部類上的差別，如契經所說：『于苦無智，于集無智，于滅無智，于道無智。』這裡總括了對前際的愚癡等等，根據四聖諦的境界設立了四種無智。應當知道，這裡用『無明』這個詞來顯示一切隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態），正如在緣起中辨析的那樣。所以，各種煩惱有部類的差別，然而並非無明才有五部，而是以此類推，顯示其餘的迷惑都有五部。
因為其餘的煩惱有遮止的說法。世尊說，永遠斷除見（邪見）和疑（懷疑），就能獲得預流果（初果）。由此可以證明，遮止見和疑是修道所斷的。而且，經典只說，斷除前往惡趣（三惡道）的貪、嗔、癡、慢，就能獲得預流果。所以，預流果沒有見和疑，但有修道所斷的貪、嗔、癡、慢。由此可以證明，六種隨眠，根據部類的不同，可以分成二十八種。部和行的結合可以分成三十六種。部和界的結合可以分成七十四種。根據部、行、界總共可以把隨眠分成九十八種，這在前面已經辨析過了。所以，對法論師們遵循佛陀的聖教，推求正確的道理，分別隨眠，建立九十八種，這是不可動搖的。然而，那些愚昧的上座部論師卻說，雖然經典並非沒有所引用的名相，但從來沒有地方說過這些隨眠是見苦（所斷）。
【English Translation】 English version: If wisdom only perceives the consequences (of evil deeds), it would be in vain. However, in the path of seeing (Sotapanna, the first stage of enlightenment), the observation of the Four Noble Truths will inevitably gradually manifest, as will be elaborated later. The above is the definitive difference of the five categories of afflictions (five bhagas). The Buddha himself clearly revealed this in the scriptures, as the World Honored One said:
'In the past, I and you together, traversed the long path of samsara (cycle of birth and death), precisely because we could not truly see the Four Noble Truths. If we could see the Four Noble Truths, we could forever cut off the bonds of all existences, then samsara would be completely extinguished, and there would be no future existences.'
Here, 'If one can see the Four Noble Truths' shows the cutting off of the four types of ignorance (avidya) that are cut off by the path of seeing. Again, saying 'forever cut off the bonds of all existences' shows the cutting off of the ignorance that is cut off by the path of cultivation. Is there not a bond here that is said to be attachment (raga)? How can the five categories of ignorance be cited as evidence? This is because it is not said here that (attachment) is 'accomplished' (to be cut off). That is to say, there is nothing in the world that is bound by the knot of attachment that is not ignorance. However, what is cut off by the path of cultivation allows for the existence of the knot of attachment, and also the knot of ignorance. Is it still necessary to prove that attachment arises not from foolishness?
There is other evidence to show the differences of various afflictions in different categories, as the sutra says: 'Without knowledge of suffering, without knowledge of the cause of suffering, without knowledge of the cessation of suffering, without knowledge of the path to the cessation of suffering.' Here, it encompasses the ignorance of the past, etc., and establishes four types of non-knowledge based on the realm of the Four Noble Truths. It should be known that here the term 'ignorance' is used to show all latent afflictions (anusaya). Just as it is analyzed in dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Therefore, various afflictions have differences in categories, however, it is not that only ignorance has five categories, but by analogy, it shows that the remaining delusions all have five categories.
Because the remaining afflictions have statements of prevention. The World Honored One said that by forever cutting off wrong views (dṛṣṭi) and doubt (vicikitsa), one can attain the Sotapanna fruit (first stage of enlightenment). From this, it can be proven that preventing wrong views and doubt is what is cut off by the path of cultivation. Moreover, the sutra only says that by cutting off greed (lobha), hatred (dveṣa), delusion (moha), and pride (māna) that lead to evil destinies (three lower realms), one can attain the Sotapanna fruit. Therefore, the Sotapanna fruit does not have wrong views and doubt, but has greed, hatred, delusion, and pride that are cut off by the path of cultivation. From this, it can be proven that the six latent afflictions, according to the differences in categories, can be divided into twenty-eight types. The combination of category and practice can be divided into thirty-six types. The combination of category and realm can be divided into seventy-four types. According to category, practice, and realm, the latent afflictions can be divided into ninety-eight types in total, as has been analyzed before. Therefore, the Abhidharma masters follow the Buddha's teachings, seek the correct principles, and distinguish the latent afflictions, establishing ninety-eight types, which is unshakable. However, those ignorant Theravada masters say that although the scriptures are not without the names and terms cited, there is never a place where it is said that these latent afflictions are what is cut off by seeing suffering.
所斷乃至修所斷。今應徴詰入見道時。已見苦諦未見集等。為有現起見所斷惑。而言未拔彼隨眠耶不爾何煩張戲論網。又如汝執煩惱相緣。不見所緣而得永斷。如是煩惱雖緣三諦。見苦諦時何妨頓斷。然有徴難。若見苦時便能頓斷見所斷惑。見后三諦應無用者。理亦不然。彼於此位。不求見集等。不欲斷隨眠。然由先智展轉引發。法爾次第見於集等。若不爾者。現觀中間求見等心應為間雜。又曾無處佛說隨眠有九十八。若有應說佛有說處。我則信受上座如是徴詰隨眠。鉅細推尋未為切中。且先已辨。佛于經中說諸隨眠見苦斷等。謂契經說。不見四諦久涉生死。見便都滅。如何可說佛曾無處。說有隨眠見苦斷等。又說于苦等有四無智。如何四無智唯見苦斷。故知定有五部隨眠。又彼詰言。已見苦諦未見集等。為有現起見所斷惑。而言未拔彼隨眠者。此甚浮詞。未見苦時見苦斷惑亦不現起。應言已拔。則不應說見苦時斷。若未見苦既不能拔見苦所斷一切隨眠。余亦應然。未見集等亦不能斷彼所斷得。能治彼得道未生故。或彼應辯二差別因。何故隨眠等不現起。而一未拔余已拔耶。故彼所詰有言無理。又言。如汝煩惱相緣不見所緣而得永斷。如是煩惱雖緣三諦。見苦諦時容頓斷者非我宗許。諸煩惱相緣皆不見所緣而得永斷。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於所斷的，乃至修所斷的。現在應該詰問，在入見道時，已經見了苦諦，但未見集諦等，是否還有現起的見所斷惑，卻說還沒有拔除那些隨眠呢？如果不是這樣，又何必大費周章地設定戲論之網？又如你所執著的，煩惱相互緣起，即使不見所緣也能得到永斷。這樣，煩惱雖然緣於三諦（苦諦，集諦，滅諦），在見苦諦時，為什麼不能頓斷呢？ 然而有人提出疑問：如果見苦諦時就能頓斷見所斷惑，那麼見后三諦應該就沒有用了。但這個道理也不對。因為在那時，他並不尋求見集諦等，也不想斷除隨眠。然而由於先前的智慧逐漸引發，自然而然地依次見到集諦等。如果不是這樣，在現觀中間，尋求見集諦等的心就應該是間雜的。 而且從來沒有地方佛陀說過隨眠有九十八種。如果有，應該說出佛陀說過的地方，我就會信受。上座部這樣詰問隨眠，鉅細地推尋，並沒有切中要害。而且先前已經辨明，佛陀在經中說過諸隨眠見苦斷等。比如契經說，不見四諦（苦諦，集諦，滅諦，道諦）就長久地沉溺於生死，見到四諦就全部滅盡。怎麼能說佛陀從來沒有說過有隨眠見苦斷等呢？ 又說對於苦諦等有四種無智，為什麼四種無智只在見苦諦時斷除呢？所以知道一定有五部隨眠（見苦所斷，見集所斷，見滅所斷，見道所斷，修所斷）。 而且他們詰問說，已經見了苦諦，但未見集諦等，是否還有現起的見所斷惑，卻說還沒有拔除那些隨眠？這真是空洞的言辭。未見苦諦時，見苦諦所斷的惑也不會現起，應該說已經拔除了，那麼就不應該說見苦諦時斷除。如果未見苦諦就不能拔除見苦諦所斷的一切隨眠，其餘的也應該一樣。未見集諦等，也不能斷除那些所斷的，因為能對治那些所斷的道還沒有生起。 或者他們應該辨別這二者的差別原因，為什麼隨眠等不現起，而一個是未拔除，其餘的已經拔除了呢？所以他們的詰問是有言無理。又說，『如你所說煩惱相互緣起，不見所緣也能得到永斷，這樣，煩惱雖然緣於三諦，見苦諦時也可能頓斷』，這不是我宗派所允許的。不是所有的煩惱相互緣起，不見所緣都能得到永斷。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding what is to be abandoned, even what is to be abandoned by cultivation. Now, it should be questioned, at the time of entering the path of seeing, having already seen the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya), but not yet having seen the Truth of Origin (Samudaya Satya) etc., are there still afflictions to be abandoned by seeing that are arising, yet it is said that those latent tendencies (anusaya) have not been uprooted? If not, why bother setting up a network of sophistry? Also, as you hold, afflictions arise interdependently, even without seeing the object of dependence, they can be permanently severed. Thus, although afflictions are related to the Three Truths (Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha), why can't they be instantly severed when seeing the Truth of Suffering? However, someone raises a question: If one can instantly sever the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing when seeing the Truth of Suffering, then seeing the latter Three Truths should be useless. But this reasoning is also incorrect. Because at that time, he does not seek to see the Truth of Origin etc., nor does he want to eliminate the latent tendencies. However, due to the gradual arising of previous wisdom, he naturally sees the Truth of Origin etc. in sequence. If not, in the middle of direct realization (abhisamaya), the mind seeking to see the Truth of Origin etc. should be mixed up. Moreover, nowhere has the Buddha ever said that there are ninety-eight types of latent tendencies. If there were, one should point out where the Buddha said it, and I would believe it. The Sthavira school's questioning of latent tendencies, scrutinizing them in detail, does not hit the mark. Moreover, it has already been clarified earlier that the Buddha said in the sutras that the latent tendencies are severed upon seeing the Truth of Suffering etc. For example, the sutra says that not seeing the Four Noble Truths (Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha, Magga) leads to prolonged involvement in samsara, and seeing the Four Noble Truths leads to complete cessation. How can it be said that the Buddha never said that there are latent tendencies severed upon seeing the Truth of Suffering etc.? It is also said that there are four types of ignorance regarding the Truth of Suffering etc. Why are the four types of ignorance only severed when seeing the Truth of Suffering? Therefore, it is known that there are definitely five categories of latent tendencies (to be abandoned by seeing the Truth of Suffering, to be abandoned by seeing the Truth of Origin, to be abandoned by seeing the Truth of Cessation, to be abandoned by seeing the Truth of the Path, and to be abandoned by cultivation). Moreover, they question, 'Having already seen the Truth of Suffering, but not yet having seen the Truth of Origin etc., are there still afflictions to be abandoned by seeing that are arising, yet it is said that those latent tendencies have not been uprooted?' These are truly empty words. When not seeing the Truth of Suffering, the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing the Truth of Suffering will also not arise, and it should be said that they have already been uprooted, then it should not be said that they are severed when seeing the Truth of Suffering. If not seeing the Truth of Suffering cannot uproot all the latent tendencies to be abandoned by seeing the Truth of Suffering, the rest should be the same. Not seeing the Truth of Origin etc. also cannot sever those to be abandoned, because the path that can counteract those to be abandoned has not yet arisen. Or they should distinguish the reasons for the difference between these two, why the latent tendencies etc. do not arise, and one is not uprooted while the rest have been uprooted? Therefore, their questioning is verbal but without reason. Also, saying, 'As you say, afflictions arise interdependently, even without seeing the object of dependence, they can be permanently severed, thus, although afflictions are related to the Three Truths, they may also be instantly severed when seeing the Truth of Suffering,' this is not allowed by my school. Not all afflictions arise interdependently, and not seeing the object of dependence can lead to permanent severance.
雖見滅道所斷惑中。有漏緣隨眠不見所緣斷。而彼煩惱依滅道生。明無漏緣諸煩惱起。是彼煩惱所長養故。義說亦名迷於滅道。故是緣彼道力所滅。非緣三諦所有隨眠。有苦等中計為樂等。亦無明托迷苦惑生。寧見苦時彼便頓斷。故彼引此例彼不齊。又彼所言彼於此位。不求見集等。不欲斷隨眠。然由先智展轉引發。法爾次第見集等者。此亦無理。彼於此位亦不求見苦不欲斷隨眠。然由先時暖等位智。展轉引發法爾見苦。爾時應不斷見苦斷隨眠。此既斷隨眠見余亦應爾。又非我等說現觀時。起加行心求見求斷。然我亦說現觀位中。于見集等離別加行。但由先智展轉引發法爾次第見於集等。即于見時有斷有證。深成有用非類汝宗。若謂定無見餘三諦所斷煩惱。則見集等習彼境智應全無用。大師說此豈不唐捐。法爾自應能見集等。佛但應說習見苦智。又四聖諦其相不同。如何解余諦斷迷余諦惑。故非見苦頓斷隨眠。又彼所說曾無有處。佛說隨眠有九十八。若有應說佛有說處我則信者。此亦不然。我不見汝曹有信佛教相。以我先據聖教正理。建立隨眠有九十八。汝等都無信受心故。又復汝等具吉祥倫。今時何從逮殊勝智。知曾無處佛說隨眠。行部界殊有九十八。傳聞增一阿笈摩中從一法增乃至百法。佛滅度后此土有情。內慧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 雖然在見道和滅道所斷的煩惱中，有有漏的緣隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）不是通過所緣境的斷除而斷除的。但是，這些煩惱是依賴於見道和滅道而產生的。這表明無漏的緣能引發各種煩惱生起，因為這些煩惱是由它們所滋養的。因此，從這個意義上說，也可以說它們是迷惑于見道和滅道的。所以，這些煩惱是被見道和滅道的力量所滅除的，而不是緣於三諦（苦、集、滅、道）中所有的隨眠。如果有人在苦等諦中執著于快樂等，那是因為無明（Avidya，根本的迷惑）作為依託，才產生了迷惑于苦諦的煩惱。既然如此，當見到苦諦時，這些煩惱就應該立刻斷除。所以，用這種情況來類比是不恰當的。 此外，你們所說的，他們在那個階段不尋求見到集諦等，也不想斷除隨眠，而是由於先前的智慧逐漸引發，自然而然地依次見到集諦等，這也是沒有道理的。他們在那個階段也不尋求見到苦諦，也不想斷除隨眠，而是由於先前在暖位等階段的智慧逐漸引發，自然而然地見到苦諦。那麼，那時就應該不能斷除見苦所斷的隨眠。既然見到苦諦時能斷除隨眠，那麼見到其他諦時也應該如此。而且，我們並沒有說在現觀（Abhisamaya，證悟）的時候，要生起加行心（努力的心）去尋求見到或斷除。但我們確實說在現觀位中，對於見到集諦等，有離別的加行，只是由於先前的智慧逐漸引發，自然而然地依次見到集諦等。在見到的時候，既有斷除，也有證悟，這非常有用，與你們的宗派不同。 如果你們認為絕對沒有見到其餘三諦所斷的煩惱，那麼，修習集諦等境界的智慧就應該完全沒有用處。大師（佛陀）所說的話豈不是白費了嗎？自然而然地就應該能見到集諦等，佛陀只需要說修習見苦的智慧就可以了。而且，四聖諦的體相各不相同，如何通過了解一個諦來斷除迷惑于其他諦的煩惱呢？所以，不是見到苦諦就能立刻斷除所有隨眠。 還有，你們所說的，從來沒有地方，佛陀說過隨眠有九十八種。如果有，就應該說佛陀在某個地方說過，我就會相信。這也是不對的。我沒有看到你們有相信佛教的樣子。因為我先前是根據聖教（佛陀的教導）和正理（正確的道理），建立了隨眠有九十八種的說法，而你們根本沒有信受的心。而且，你們這些具吉祥倫（可能是指某種身份或地位）的人，現在是從哪裡獲得了殊勝的智慧，知道從來沒有地方佛陀說過隨眠，按照行部（不同的修行方式）的界限，有九十八種呢？傳聞在《增一阿笈摩》（Ekottara Agama，一部佛教經典）中，是從一法逐漸增加到百法。佛陀滅度后，這個國土的有情，內在的智慧...
【English Translation】 English version Although among the afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga) and the Path of Cultivation (Bhavana-marga), the defiled latent tendencies (Anusaya) associated with conditioned existence (Samsara) are not severed by the object of severance (Alambana-prahana). However, these afflictions arise dependent on the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation. This clarifies that undefiled conditions give rise to various afflictions because these afflictions are nourished by them. Therefore, in this sense, it can also be said that they are deluded regarding the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation. Thus, these afflictions are extinguished by the power of the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation, not by the latent tendencies associated with the Three Truths (Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha, Marga). If someone clings to pleasure etc. in the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha) etc., it is because ignorance (Avidya) serves as the basis for the arising of afflictions deluded about the Truth of Suffering. Since this is the case, when the Truth of Suffering is seen, these afflictions should be immediately severed. Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw a parallel using this situation. Furthermore, what you say, that in that stage they do not seek to see the Truth of Origin (Samudaya) etc., nor do they wish to sever the latent tendencies, but rather, due to the gradual arising of prior wisdom, they naturally see the Truth of Origin etc. in sequence, is also unreasonable. In that stage, they also do not seek to see the Truth of Suffering, nor do they wish to sever the latent tendencies, but rather, due to the gradual arising of wisdom from the prior stages of Heat (Ushmagata) etc., they naturally see the Truth of Suffering. Then, at that time, they should not be able to sever the latent tendencies severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering. Since the latent tendencies can be severed when seeing the Truth of Suffering, then it should be the same when seeing the other Truths. Moreover, we do not say that at the time of direct realization (Abhisamaya), one generates an effortful mind (Prayoga-citta) to seek to see or sever. But we do say that in the stage of direct realization, there is separate effort for seeing the Truth of Origin etc., but only due to the gradual arising of prior wisdom, they naturally see the Truth of Origin etc. in sequence. At the time of seeing, there is both severance and realization, which is very useful and different from your doctrine. If you believe that there are absolutely no afflictions severed by seeing the remaining Three Truths, then the wisdom of cultivating the objects of the Truth of Origin etc. should be completely useless. Wouldn't the words of the Master (Buddha) be in vain? One should naturally be able to see the Truth of Origin etc., and the Buddha would only need to say to cultivate the wisdom of seeing the Truth of Suffering. Moreover, the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths are different from each other. How can one sever the afflictions deluded about other Truths by understanding one Truth? Therefore, one cannot immediately sever all latent tendencies by seeing the Truth of Suffering. Also, what you say, that there has never been a place where the Buddha said that there are ninety-eight latent tendencies. If there were, one should say that the Buddha said it somewhere, and I would believe it. This is also incorrect. I do not see that you have the appearance of believing in Buddhism. Because I previously established the statement that there are ninety-eight latent tendencies based on the sacred teachings (Buddha's teachings) and correct reasoning (Yukti), but you have no mind to accept it at all. Moreover, you people with auspicious lineage (possibly referring to a certain status or position), from where did you now obtain the superior wisdom to know that there has never been a place where the Buddha said that there are ninety-eight latent tendencies, according to the boundaries of the practices (different ways of practicing)? It is rumored that in the Ekottara Agama (a Buddhist scripture), it gradually increases from one Dharma to one hundred Dharmas. After the Buddha's Parinirvana, the sentient beings of this land, the inner wisdom...
念命日日損減。外藥草等味勢熟德漸漸衰退功能鮮少。人多為惡事業牽纏。豈能具持如來聖教。故今增一阿笈摩中。唯從一增至十法在。于中猶有多分零落。況於過十能有受持。故知經中說隨眠處。定有具說九十八文。如是傳聞理必應爾。故佛于彼十應經中說甚深經漸當隱沒乃至最後隱沒無餘又自古來諸聖造論。處處皆說有九十八隨眠。兼有明文釋有理趣。故知根本阿笈摩中。定有誠文標此名數。今更略引諸阿笈摩。證多契經今已隱沒。如佛于彼婆拖梨經告婆拖梨。我于往昔為苾芻眾。宣說少年賢良馬法。爾時汝類於此法門少不實有。彼經今者已沒不現。又佛于彼苦蘊經中。為釋種大名說。我于往昔一時住在王舍大城游廣脅山。見諸離系皆高舉手。自苦求常。便告之言。乃至廣說。彼經今者已沒不現。又彼慶喜大空經中作如是言。我于往昔佛一時住釋種大城。居彼所營大客館內。時告我曰。汝阿難陀。我所住空汝欲知不。我便請問。佛為我說。我尋解佛所說義趣。彼經今者亦已隱沒。又佛于彼鄔陀夷經作如是言。我于往昔說有四受更代現前。彼經今時亦已隱沒。又薄伽梵於他經中作如是言。我于往昔一時住在王舍大城游于山谷。時有眾多出家外道。來至我所請問我義。乃至廣說。彼經今者亦沒不現。又佛于彼出愛王經
告言。大王。我憶往昔曾作是說。非去來今有諸沙門婆羅門等。於一切法頓見頓知。能頓見知無有是處。彼經今者亦已隱沒。又雨相外道于瞿博迦經作如是言。我憶往昔曾見釋氏喬答摩尊。住那地迦城郡市迦林內。贊靜慮等一切法門。彼經今時亦沒不現。又彼慶喜于滿經中言。我幼時見滿慈子。為眾廣說甚深法門。彼經今時亦已隱沒。又佛于彼藍薄迦經作如是言。我于往昔一時曾告五苾芻言。我未出家恒樂觀察居家迫迮多諸過患。應速厭離。乃至廣說。彼經今者亦沒不現。又彼聖者護國經中。彼言。大王。有四厭道。唯薄伽梵正見正知。雖諸如來應正等覺曾廣宣說。而諸世間不能精勤修厭離行。當知定是竭愛馱娑。彼經今時亦已隱沒。又給孤獨于趣經中言。我曾於薄伽梵所親聞親受如是法門。若有有情施園林等。由此因力身壞命終。生於天中受妙快樂。廣說乃至。法施為因。彼經今時亦沒不現。又彼慶喜涅槃經中白無滅言。我曾佛所親聞親受如是法門。佛世尊依無動寂靜第四靜慮明眼涅槃。彼經今時亦已隱沒。有如是等無量契經。皆於今時隱沒不現。本所結集多分凋零。上座何容輒作是說。佛曾無處說九十八隨眠。已辯隨眠差別理趣。本所說義今次應辯。前說八十八見所斷等。此見修所斷為定爾耶。不爾。云何。頌曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他說道：『大王，我回憶過去曾這樣說過：『無論是過去、現在還是未來，都不存在任何沙門（Śrāmaṇa，指修行者）或婆羅門（Brāhmaṇa，指祭司），能夠對一切法頓悟頓知。』那部經現在已經隱沒了。 又，雨相外道在《瞿博迦經》中這樣說：『我回憶過去曾見過釋迦牟尼·喬達摩尊者（釋氏喬答摩尊，Śākya-muni Gautama），住在那地迦城（Nādika）郡市迦林（Kālin），讚揚靜慮等一切法門。』那部經現在也已經消失不見了。 又，阿難陀（慶喜，Ānanda）在《滿經》中說：『我小時候見過滿慈子（Pūrṇa），為大眾廣泛宣說甚深法門。』那部經現在也已經隱沒了。 又，佛陀在《藍薄迦經》中這樣說：『我過去曾對五位比丘（苾芻，bhikṣu）說過：我未出家時，常常觀察到居家生活充滿逼迫和諸多過患，應當迅速厭離。』等等。那部經現在也已經消失不見了。 又，聖者在《護國經》中說：『大王，有四種厭離之道，只有薄伽梵（Bhagavān，指佛陀）才能正確地瞭解和認識。雖然諸如來應正等覺（Tathāgata Arhat Samyak-saṃbuddha，指佛陀的稱號）曾廣泛宣說，但世間眾生不能精勤地修習厭離之行，應當知道這是因為愛慾已經枯竭。』那部經現在也已經隱沒了。 又，給孤獨（Anāthapiṇḍada）在《趣經》中說：『我曾經在薄伽梵那裡親自聽聞和接受這樣的法門：如果有眾生布施園林等，因此因緣，身壞命終后，會生到天界享受美妙的快樂。』等等，以法佈施為因。那部經現在也已經消失不見了。 又，阿難陀在《涅槃經》中對無滅（Aniruddha）說：『我曾經在佛陀那裡親自聽聞和接受這樣的法門：佛世尊依靠無動寂靜的第四靜慮（dhyāna）明眼涅槃。』那部經現在也已經隱沒了。 有如此等等無量的契經，都在現在隱沒不現，最初結集的經典大多凋零散失。上座怎麼能隨便說佛陀從未說過九十八隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的異名）呢？已經辨析了隨眠的差別理趣，現在應當辨析先前所說的八十八見所斷等，這些見解是修所斷的嗎？不是的。那是怎樣的呢？』頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version: He said: 'Great King, I recall in the past having said this: 'Whether in the past, present, or future, there are no Śrāmaṇas (ascetics) or Brāhmaṇas (priests) who can instantaneously see and know all dharmas.' That sutra is now hidden. Furthermore, the heretic Rain-Appearance said in the 'Gopaka Sutra': 'I recall in the past having seen the Blessed Śākya-muni Gautama residing in the Kālin grove in the city of Nādika, praising all the dharma gates such as dhyana (meditation).' That sutra has now also disappeared. Furthermore, Ānanda (Joyful One) said in the 'Pūrṇa Sutra': 'When I was young, I saw Pūrṇa (Full One) extensively expounding profound dharma gates to the assembly.' That sutra has now also vanished. Furthermore, the Buddha said in the 'Lambaka Sutra': 'In the past, I once told five bhikṣus (monks): Before I renounced the household life, I constantly observed that the household life is full of oppression and many faults, and one should quickly become weary of it.' And so on. That sutra has now also disappeared. Furthermore, the Holy One said in the 'Protecting the Country Sutra': 'Great King, there are four paths of weariness, which only the Bhagavan (Blessed One, referring to the Buddha) can correctly understand and know. Although the Tathāgatas Arhats Samyak-saṃbuddhas (titles of the Buddha) have extensively expounded them, the beings of the world cannot diligently cultivate the practice of weariness. Know that this is because the love and desire have been exhausted.' That sutra has now also vanished. Furthermore, Anāthapiṇḍada (Giver of Alms) said in the 'Approach Sutra': 'I once personally heard and received such a dharma gate from the Bhagavan: If sentient beings donate gardens and so on, due to this cause, after their bodies are destroyed and their lives end, they will be born in the heavens and enjoy wonderful happiness.' And so on, with the giving of dharma as the cause. That sutra has now also disappeared. Furthermore, Ānanda said to Aniruddha (Undiminished) in the 'Nirvana Sutra': 'I once personally heard and received such a dharma gate from the Buddha: The World-Honored One, relying on the immovable and tranquil fourth dhyana (meditation), attained bright-eyed nirvana.' That sutra has now also vanished. There are countless such sutras that are now hidden and do not appear. Most of the originally compiled scriptures have withered and been lost. How can the Elder arbitrarily say that the Buddha never spoke of the ninety-eight anuśayas (latent tendencies, another name for afflictions)? The rationale for the differences in anuśayas has already been discussed. Now, we should discuss what was previously said about the eighty-eight that are severed by seeing, etc. Are these views severed by cultivation? No. What are they like?' The verse says:
。
忍所害隨眠 有頂唯見斷 余通見修斷 智所害唯修
論曰。于忍所害諸隨眠中。有頂地攝唯見所斷。唯類智忍方能斷故。餘八地攝通見修斷。謂聖者斷唯見非修。法類智忍如應斷故。若異生斷唯修非見。數習世俗智所斷故。智所害諸隨眠。一切地攝唯修所斷。以諸聖者及諸異生。如其所應皆由數習無漏世俗智所斷故。頌言余通見修斷者。此言不說義準可知。云何可知。由前後故。謂前別說忍所害隨眠有頂唯見斷。后復總說智所害唯修。余通準知故。令義顯故正說無失。有餘師說。外道諸仙不能伏斷見所斷惑。如大分別諸業契經。說離欲貪諸外道類。有緣欲界邪見現行。及梵網經亦說彼類。有緣欲界諸見現行。謂於前際分別論者有執全常。有執一分。有執諸法無因生等。非色界惑緣欲界生。于欲界境已離貪故。定是欲界諸見未斷。此說不然。見修所斷皆能連續欲界生故。雖斷一分余分亦應續自界生如預流等。然諸外道亦有乃至生有頂天。彼有欲界煩惱現行必不應理。又有何理彼諸外仙。由斷修惑名離欲者。非由不斷見所斷惑亦說名為不離欲者。又先因釋能安隱經。已顯如斯所說理趣。故彼所引二種契經。與理相違成不了義。毗婆沙者釋彼經言。彼起見時從離欲暫退。猶如天授暫退已還得。若唯二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 忍所害的隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式），在有頂天（色界最高的禪定層次）中，僅僅是見所斷（通過見道斷除的煩惱）。 其餘八地（指欲界和色界的其他八個層次）中，通於見所斷和修所斷（通過修道斷除的煩惱）。 智所害的隨眠，僅僅是修所斷。
論曰：在忍所害的各種隨眠中，有頂天所攝的僅僅是見所斷。因為只有類智忍（一種高級智慧）才能斷除。 其餘八地所攝的，通於見所斷和修所斷。對於聖者來說，斷除的是見所斷而非修所斷，因為他們通過法智忍和類智忍相應地斷除。 如果對於異生（凡夫）來說，斷除的是修所斷而非見所斷，因為他們通過數數串習世俗智慧來斷除。 智所害的各種隨眠，在一切地中都是僅僅修所斷。因為諸位聖者和諸位異生，都如其所應地通過數數串習無漏世俗智慧來斷除。 頌文說『其餘通見修斷』，這句話雖然沒有明說，但義理上可以推知。如何推知？通過前後文的對比。 前面分別說了忍所害的隨眠，在有頂天僅僅是見所斷；後面又總說了智所害的僅僅是修所斷，那麼其餘的就可以推知是通於見修所斷。爲了使義理更加明顯，這樣正確地敘述並沒有過失。 有其他老師說，外道諸仙不能夠伏斷見所斷的迷惑。正如《大分別諸業契經》所說，離開了欲貪的各種外道，有緣于欲界的邪見現行。以及《梵網經》也說他們有緣于欲界的各種見解現行。 也就是說，對於前際分別論者，有的執著于全常（一切都是永恒不變的），有的執著於一分常（一部分是永恒不變的），有的執著于諸法無因生等等。這些迷惑並非因為惑緣欲界而生，因為他們對於欲界的境界已經離開了貪慾。 一定是欲界的各種見解沒有斷除。這種說法是不對的，見所斷和修所斷都能夠連續欲界的生。 即使斷除了一部分，其餘的部分也應該繼續自己界限的生，如同預流果等。然而各種外道也有乃至生到有頂天的，他們有欲界的煩惱現行，一定是不合道理的。 又有什麼道理說，這些外道仙人，因為斷除了修惑而名為離欲者，而不是因為沒有斷除見所斷惑也被說成是不離欲者呢？ 而且先前的因釋能安穩經，已經顯示瞭如此所說的理趣。所以他們所引用的兩種契經，與道理相違背，成爲了不了義。 毗婆沙論者解釋那部經說，他們生起見解的時候，是從離欲的狀態暫時退失，猶如天授暫時退失之後又重新獲得。如果只有兩種
【English Translation】 English version 『N忍所害隨眠』 (Sufferings harmed by forbearance), in 『有頂』 (highest realm of existence), are only 『見斷』 (severed by insight). The remaining eight realms universally include 『見斷』 (severed by insight) and 『修斷』 (severed by cultivation). 『智所害』 (Sufferings harmed by wisdom) are only 『修斷』 (severed by cultivation).
Treatise states: Among the 『隨眠』 (latent tendencies) harmed by forbearance, those pertaining to the 『有頂』 (highest realm of existence) are exclusively severed by insight, as only 『類智忍』 (wisdom of categories) can sever them. Those pertaining to the remaining eight realms universally include severances by insight and cultivation. For the noble ones, what is severed is by insight, not cultivation, as they sever them appropriately through 『法智忍』 (wisdom of dharma) and 『類智忍』 (wisdom of categories). If, for ordinary beings, what is severed is by cultivation, not insight, it is because they sever them through repeated practice of worldly wisdom. The various 『隨眠』 (latent tendencies) harmed by wisdom, in all realms, are exclusively severed by cultivation, because all noble ones and ordinary beings, as appropriate, sever them through repeated practice of non-defiled worldly wisdom. The verse states, 『The remaining universally include severances by insight and cultivation.』 Although this statement is not explicit, it can be inferred from the meaning. How can it be inferred? Through the contrast of the preceding and following statements. The preceding statement specifically mentions that the 『隨眠』 (latent tendencies) harmed by forbearance, in the 『有頂』 (highest realm of existence), are exclusively severed by insight; the following statement generally mentions that what is harmed by wisdom is exclusively severed by cultivation. Therefore, it can be inferred that the remaining universally include severances by insight and cultivation. To make the meaning clearer, there is no fault in stating it correctly in this way. Some other teachers say that non-Buddhist ascetics cannot subdue and sever the delusions severed by insight. Just as the 『大分別諸業契經』 (Great Differentiation of Karma Sutra) states, various non-Buddhists who have abandoned desire have wrong views pertaining to the desire realm manifesting. And the 『梵網經』 (Brahma Net Sutra) also states that they have various views pertaining to the desire realm manifesting. That is to say, for those who differentiate and discuss the past, some are attached to 『全常』 (complete permanence), some are attached to 『一分常』 (partial permanence), and some are attached to the idea that all dharmas arise without cause, and so on. These delusions do not arise because of delusion-conditions pertaining to the desire realm, because they have already abandoned desire for the objects of the desire realm. It must be that the various views of the desire realm have not been severed. This statement is incorrect; what is severed by insight and cultivation can both continue the birth in the desire realm. Even if a part is severed, the remaining part should continue the birth in its own realm, like the 『預流果』 (stream-enterer) and so on. However, various non-Buddhist ascetics also exist who are born in the 『有頂』 (highest realm of existence). It is certainly unreasonable for them to have afflictions of the desire realm manifesting. Furthermore, what reason is there to say that these non-Buddhist ascetics are called those who have abandoned desire because they have severed the afflictions of cultivation, and not because they have not severed the afflictions severed by insight, and are also said to be not those who have abandoned desire? Moreover, the previous 『因釋能安穩經』 (Sutra on the Explanation of Causes Leading to Peace) has already revealed the rationale of what has been said in this way. Therefore, the two types of sutras they cited contradict reason and become incomplete in meaning. The 『毗婆沙』 (Vibhasha) commentators explain that sutra by saying that when they give rise to views, they temporarily regress from the state of abandoning desire, just as 『天授』 (Devadatta) temporarily regressed and then regained it. If there are only two
十八定見所斷。何緣處處經說八十八耶。彼文遍依次第者說。此據盡理故不相違。又彼意明聖道用勝。又設先離下八地貪。要由見道起無漏得。得彼擇滅故說無過。見修所斷異相云何。若由唯見慧所斷惑名見所斷。若由見智慧所斷惑名修所斷。如是若由一品頓斷。若由九品漸漸而斷。若聖斷已畢竟不退。若聖斷已或退不退。若斷容證四三二果。若斷容證三二一果。若聖斷時彼非擇滅。必定應在擇滅前證。若前或后或俱時證。如是等類異相眾多。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之三
如前所辯六隨眠中。由行有殊見分為五。名先已列。自體如何。頌曰。
我我所斷常 撥無劣謂勝 非因道妄謂 是五見自體
論曰。由因教力有諸愚夫。五取蘊中執我我所。此見名為薩迦耶見。有故名薩。聚謂迦耶。即是和合積聚為義。迦耶即薩名薩迦耶。即是實有非一為義。此見執我。然我實無。勿無所緣而起此見。故於見境立以有聲。復恐因斯執有是我。為遮彼執復立身聲。謂執我者於一相續。或多相續計有一我。此皆非身。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 十八種定見所斷的煩惱，為什麼處處經典中說有八十八種呢？那是因為那些經文是按照次第普遍地說的，而這裡是根據窮盡事理來說的，所以不相違背。而且那些經文的意圖在於說明聖道的功用殊勝。又假設先離開了下八地的貪慾，一定要通過見道生起無漏智慧才能獲得。因為獲得了那種擇滅，所以說沒有過失。見所斷和修所斷的差別是什麼呢？如果是由純粹的見慧所斷的迷惑，就叫做見所斷；如果是通過修習智慧所斷的迷惑，就叫做修所斷。像這樣，有的是通過一品頓然斷除，有的是通過九品漸漸斷除。有的是聖者斷除后就畢竟不退轉，有的是聖者斷除后或者退轉或者不退轉。有的是斷除后可以證得四果、三果、二果，有的是斷除后可以證得三果、二果、一果。有的是聖者斷除時，那種非擇滅必定應該在擇滅之前證得，有的是之前、之後或者同時證得。像這些等等，差別相狀有很多。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十六 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十七
尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之三
如前面所辨析的六種隨眠中，由於行相有差別，見被分為五種，名稱已經列出。它們的自體是什麼呢？頌詞說：
『我我所斷常，撥無劣謂勝，非因道妄謂，是五見自體。』
論述：由於因和教的力量，有些愚夫在五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha）中執著于『我』（Atman）和『我所』（Atmiya）。這種見解叫做薩迦耶見（Satkayadristi）。『有』叫做『薩』，『聚合』叫做『迦耶』，也就是和合積聚的意思。『迦耶』即是『薩』，叫做『薩迦耶』，也就是真實存在而非單一的意思。這種見解執著于『我』，然而『我』實際上是不存在的。爲了避免沒有所緣而生起這種見解，所以在見解的境界上立一個『有』字。又恐怕因此執著于『有』就是『我』，爲了遮止那種執著，又立一個『身』字。意思是說，執著于『我』的人，對於一個相續或者多個相續，認為有一個『我』。這些都不是『身』。
【English Translation】 English version: The eighteen kinds of afflictions severed by fixed views, why are there eighty-eight mentioned everywhere in the scriptures? That is because those scriptures speak universally according to the order, while this speaks according to exhausting the principles, so there is no contradiction. Moreover, the intention of those scriptures is to explain the superior function of the Noble Path. Furthermore, suppose one first departs from the greed of the lower eight realms, one must generate non-outflow wisdom through the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga) in order to attain it. Because one attains that cessation through discrimination (Pratisankhya-nirodha), it is said there is no fault. What are the differences between what is severed by seeing (Darshana-heya) and what is severed by cultivation (Bhavana-heya)? If it is a delusion severed purely by the wisdom of seeing, it is called what is severed by seeing; if it is a delusion severed through the cultivation of wisdom, it is called what is severed by cultivation. Thus, some are severed suddenly by one grade, and some are severed gradually by nine grades. Some, once severed by a sage, are ultimately irreversible, and some, once severed by a sage, either regress or do not regress. Some, upon severance, can realize the four fruits (Phala), three fruits, or two fruits; some, upon severance, can realize the three fruits, two fruits, or one fruit. Some, when severed by a sage, that non-cessation through discrimination (Apratisankhya-nirodha) must necessarily be realized before the cessation through discrimination. Some are realized before, after, or simultaneously. Like these and so on, there are many different aspects.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 46 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 47
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5.3: Discrimination of Latent Afflictions (Anusaya)
Among the six latent afflictions (Anusaya) previously analyzed, due to the differences in characteristics, views are divided into five, and their names have already been listed. What are their own natures? The verse says:
'The view of self (Atman), the view of what belongs to self (Atmiya), the view of permanence (Sasvata), the denial of existence (Uccheda), the inferior regarded as superior (Adhimana), the false assumption of non-cause (Ahetuka), the deluded view of the path (Marga) are the natures of the five views.'
Commentary: Due to the power of causes and teachings, some foolish people cling to 'self' (Atman) and 'what belongs to self' (Atmiya) in the five aggregates of clinging (Panca-upadanakkhandha). This view is called Satkayadristi (薩迦耶見). 'Existing' is called 'Sat', 'aggregate' is called 'Kaya', which means combination and accumulation. 'Kaya' is 'Sat', called 'Satkaya', which means truly existing and not singular. This view clings to 'self', but 'self' actually does not exist. To avoid this view arising without an object, the word 'existing' is established in the realm of view. Furthermore, fearing that one might cling to 'existing' as 'self', the word 'body' (Kaya) is established to prevent that clinging. It means that those who cling to 'self' consider that there is a 'self' in one continuum or multiple continuums. These are not 'body'.
身非一故。由如是見緣薩迦耶。故說名為薩迦耶見。即是唯緣五取蘊義。如契經說。苾芻當知世間沙門。婆羅門等諸有執我等。隨觀見一切。唯於五取蘊起。由此但於我我所見。世尊標別薩迦耶名。勿以我無許智緣無境。或智緣有執我體非無。不爾則應緣有漏見無不建立薩迦耶名。經主此中作如是釋。壞故名薩。聚謂迦耶。即是無常和合蘊義。迦耶即薩名薩迦耶。此薩迦耶即五取蘊。為遮常一想故立此名。要此想為先方執我故。若爾何用標以薩聲。但迦耶聲足遮常故。則應但立迦耶見名。無法是常而可聚集。何用身上標以壞聲。即于所執我我所事。執斷執常名邊執見。以妄執取斷常邊故。于實有體苦等諦中。起見撥無名為邪見。五種妄見皆顛倒轉。並應名邪。而但撥無名邪見者。以過甚故。如說臭酥惡執惡等此唯損減余增益故。於劣謂勝名為見取。有漏名劣。聖所斷故。執劣為勝總名見取。理實應立見等取名。略去等言但名見取。或見勝故但舉見名。以見為初取余法故。于非因道謂因道見。一切總說名戒禁取。謂大自在時性。或余實非苦因妄起因執。道有二種。一增上生道。二決定勝道。投水火等種種邪行。非生天因妄執為因名第一道。唯受持戒禁性士夫智等。非解脫因妄執為因。名第二道。如前際等或戒禁勝。是故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身見並非單一的，而是因為像這樣觀察而緣于薩迦耶（有身見，認為五蘊是『我』的錯誤見解），所以稱之為薩迦耶見。它僅僅是緣於五取蘊的意義。正如契經所說：『比丘們應當知道，世間的沙門、婆羅門等所有執著于『我』的人，都是隨順觀察一切，僅僅在五取蘊上生起。』因此，世尊特別標明薩迦耶這個名稱，是爲了避免人們認為『我』不存在，從而認為智慧緣于沒有對象；或者認為智慧緣于存在，從而執著于『我』的實體並非不存在。否則，就應該對所有緣于有漏的見解都建立薩迦耶的名稱，而不僅僅是現在這樣。 經部的主張者對此作了這樣的解釋：『壞』的意思是『薩』，『聚』的意思是『迦耶』，指的是無常的和合蘊的意義。『迦耶』就是『薩』，名為『薩迦耶』。這個薩迦耶就是五取蘊。爲了遮止常和一的妄想，所以設立這個名稱。必須以這種妄想為先導，才能執著于『我』。如果這樣，為什麼還要用『薩』這個詞呢？僅僅用『迦耶』這個詞就足以遮止常的妄想了。那麼就應該隻立『迦耶見』這個名稱。沒有什麼是常的而可以聚集的，為什麼要在『身』上標上『壞』這個詞呢？ 對於所執著的『我』和『我所』的事物，執著于斷滅或常存，稱為邊執見。因為錯誤地執取斷滅和常存的邊見。對於真實存在的苦等諦，產生見解並否定其存在，稱為邪見。五種錯誤的見解都是顛倒的，都應該稱為邪見。但是隻把否定存在的稱為邪見，是因為這種錯誤最為嚴重。就像說臭酥、惡執、惡等，這僅僅是損減，其餘的都是增益。對於低劣的認為是殊勝的，稱為見取。有漏是低劣的，因為會被聖人所斷除。執著低劣的為殊勝的，總稱為見取。理應設立『見等取』這個名稱，省略了『等』字，只稱為『見取』。或者因為『見』是殊勝的，所以只舉出『見』這個名稱，因為『見』是最初的，然後才取其他的法。 對於非因之道認為是因之道，一切總的來說稱為戒禁取。例如，認為大自在天、時性，或者其他的並非是痛苦的原因，卻錯誤地執著為原因。道有兩種：一是增上生道，二是決定勝道。投水火等種種邪行，並非是生天的原因，卻錯誤地執著為原因，稱為第一種道。僅僅受持戒律和禁制，以及性士夫的智慧等，並非是解脫的原因，卻錯誤地執著為原因，稱為第二種道。例如，前際等或者戒禁殊勝，就是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version The view of self is not singular, but arises from observing in this way and being conditioned by Sakkaya (薩迦耶, the view of individuality, the false view that the five aggregates are 'I'), hence it is called Sakkaya-ditthi (薩迦耶見, the view of individuality). It solely concerns the meaning of the five aggregates of clinging. As the sutra says: 'Monks, you should know that all the shramanas (沙門, wandering ascetics) and brahmanas (婆羅門, priests) in the world who cling to 'I' observe everything and arise solely in the five aggregates of clinging.' Therefore, the World-Honored One specifically designated the name Sakkaya to avoid people thinking that 'I' does not exist, thereby thinking that wisdom is conditioned by the absence of an object; or thinking that wisdom is conditioned by existence, thereby clinging to the idea that the entity of 'I' is not non-existent. Otherwise, the name Sakkaya should be established for all views conditioned by defilements, not just as it is now. The proponents of the Sutra school explain it this way: 'Sat (薩)' means 'decaying,' and 'kaya (迦耶)' means 'gathering,' referring to the meaning of the impermanent and composite aggregates. 'Kaya' is 'Sat,' named 'Sakkaya.' This Sakkaya is the five aggregates of clinging. To prevent the delusion of permanence and oneness, this name is established. This delusion must precede the clinging to 'I.' If so, why use the word 'Sat'? The word 'kaya' alone is sufficient to prevent the delusion of permanence. Then only the name 'Kaya-ditthi' should be established. Nothing is permanent and can be gathered, so why mark the word 'decaying' on 'body'? Regarding the things clung to as 'I' and 'mine,' clinging to annihilation or permanence is called Antagrahadrishti (邊執見, extreme views). Because of falsely clinging to the extreme views of annihilation and permanence. Regarding the truly existing truths of suffering, etc., generating views and denying their existence is called Mithyadrishti (邪見, wrong view). All five wrong views are inverted and should be called wrong views. But only denying existence is called wrong view because this error is the most serious. Like saying smelly ghee, evil clinging, evil, etc., this is only diminishing, and the rest are increasing. Considering the inferior as superior is called Drishtiparమర్శa (見取, holding onto views). Defilements are inferior because they will be cut off by the saints. Clinging to the inferior as superior is generally called Drishtiparమర్శa. The name 'Drishti-adi-parమర్శa' should be established, omitting the word 'adi,' and only called 'Drishtiparమర్శa.' Or because 'Drishti' is superior, only the name 'Drishti' is mentioned, because 'Drishti' is the first, and then other dharmas are taken. Considering the non-causal path as the causal path is generally called Silavrataparamarsa (戒禁取, holding onto precepts and vows). For example, thinking that Mahadeva (大自在天, Great God), time, or other things that are not the cause of suffering are mistakenly clung to as the cause. There are two kinds of paths: one is the path of higher rebirth, and the other is the path of definite victory. Throwing oneself into water and fire and other evil practices are not the cause of rebirth in heaven, but are mistakenly clung to as the cause, called the first path. Merely upholding precepts and prohibitions, as well as the wisdom of the Purusha (性士夫, cosmic man), etc., are not the cause of liberation, but are mistakenly clung to as the cause, called the second path. For example, the past, etc., or the superiority of precepts and prohibitions, is like this.
但立戒禁取名。應知五見自體如是。若於自在等非因計因。如是戒禁取迷於因義。此見何故非見集斷。頌曰。
于大自在等 非因妄執因 從常我倒生 故唯見苦斷
論曰。于自在等非因計因。彼必不能觀察深理。但于自在等諸蘊粗果義。妄謂是常一我作者。此為上首方執為因。是故此執見苦所斷。謂執我者是有身見。于苦果義妄執為我。故現觀苦我見即除。無我智生非於后位。若有身見見集等斷。于相續中我見隨故。則無我智應不得生。以見唯法時我見則滅故。無我智起我見已除。然有身見於自在等相續法中計一我已。次即于彼相續法上。起邊執見計度為常。由此應知于自在等法。常我二執唯見苦所斷。故有頌言。
未如實見苦 便見彼為我 若如實見苦 則不見為我
由此已顯滅邊執見。以無我論宗斷見是正見攝。執有我論者斷見是邊執見。故知二見俱見苦斷。以無常等諸無漏行見苦諦時二見既滅。于自在等非因計因。隨二見生亦俱時滅。故說計因執唯見苦所斷。然于非道計為道中。若違見道強則見道所斷。豈不如計自在等為因。執苦為因。唯許見苦斷非見集斷。如是亦應于非道計道執苦為道。唯許見苦斷非見道斷。此難不然以于苦諦見為無常等非彼對治故。謂若有執自在等為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 然後建立戒禁取見（Śīlabbataparāmarsa），之所以這樣命名。應該瞭解五見（Pañca-dṛṣṭi）的自性就是如此。如果對於自在天（Īśvara）等非因計為因，這樣的戒禁取見就迷惑了因的意義。為什麼這種見不是見集所斷呢？頌文說：
『對於大自在天等， 將非因錯誤地執為因， 從常、我顛倒產生， 所以唯有見苦才能斷。』
論述：對於自在天（Īśvara）等非因計為因，他們必定不能觀察深刻的道理，只是對於自在天等諸蘊（Skandha）粗淺的果報之義，錯誤地認為是常、一、我的作者。以此為首要才執著為因。因此，這種執著是見苦所斷。所謂執著我（Ātman）者，就是有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi），對於苦果之義錯誤地執著為我，所以在現觀苦諦時，我見（Ātma-dṛṣṭi）立即消除，無我智（Anātman-jñāna）生起，而不是在後面的階段。如果說有身見是見集等所斷，在相續中我見隨之而生，那麼無我智就應該不能生起。因為見到唯是法時，我見才會滅除，所以無我智生起時，我見已經消除。然而，有身見在自在天等相續法中計度為一我之後，接著就在那些相續法上，生起邊執見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi），計度為常。由此應該知道，對於自在天等法，常、我二執唯有見苦才能斷。所以有頌文說：
『如果未能如實地見到苦， 便會見到彼為我， 如果如實地見到苦， 就不會見到為我。』
由此已經顯示了滅除邊執見。以無我論為宗，斷見是正見所攝。執著有我論者，斷見是邊執見。所以知道二見都是見苦所斷。以無常等諸無漏行見苦諦時，二見既然滅除，對於自在天等非因計因，隨著二見生起，也同時滅除。所以說計因執唯有見苦才能斷。然而，對於非道計為道中，如果違背見道，強大，則是見道所斷。難道不像計自在天等為因，執苦為因，只允許見苦斷，不允許見集斷嗎？這樣也應該對於非道計道，執苦為道，只允許見苦斷，不允許見道斷。這種責難是不成立的，因為對於苦諦見到無常等，不是彼的對治。如果有人執著自在天等為
【English Translation】 English version Then one establishes the Śīlabbataparāmarsa (clinging to rules and rituals), hence the name. One should understand that the self-nature of the Pañca-dṛṣṭi (five views) is like this. If one considers Īśvara (the Lord) and other non-causes as causes, such Śīlabbataparāmarsa is deluded about the meaning of cause. Why is this view not severed by the insight into the origin (of suffering)? The verse says:
'Regarding the great Īśvara and others, Falsely clinging to non-causes as causes, Arising from the perverted notions of permanence and self, Therefore, only the insight into suffering can sever it.'
Treatise: Regarding Īśvara (the Lord) and other non-causes as causes, they are certainly unable to observe profound principles, but only regarding the coarse resultant meaning of the Skandhas (aggregates) of Īśvara and others, they falsely consider them as the constant, singular, and self-acting agent. Taking this as the foremost, they then cling to it as a cause. Therefore, this clinging is severed by the insight into suffering. The so-called clinging to Ātman (self) is Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of a real self in the aggregates), falsely clinging to the meaning of the result of suffering as self. Therefore, when directly perceiving the truth of suffering, Ātma-dṛṣṭi (the view of self) is immediately eliminated, and Anātman-jñāna (the wisdom of no-self) arises, not in a later stage. If Satkāya-dṛṣṭi is severed by the insight into the origin (of suffering) and so on, and the view of self follows in the continuum, then the wisdom of no-self should not arise. Because when one sees only the Dharma (teachings), the view of self is eliminated, so when the wisdom of no-self arises, the view of self has already been eliminated. However, after Satkāya-dṛṣṭi has measured a self in the continuous Dharma of Īśvara and others, then on those continuous Dharmas, Antagrahadṛṣṭi (the extreme view) arises, measuring it as permanent. From this, it should be known that regarding the Dharma of Īśvara and others, the two clingings of permanence and self can only be severed by the insight into suffering. Therefore, there is a verse that says:
'If one has not truly seen suffering, Then one will see it as self, If one truly sees suffering, Then one will not see it as self.'
From this, the elimination of the extreme view has already been shown. Taking the doctrine of no-self as the principle, the severance of views is included in the right view. Those who cling to the doctrine of self, the severance of views is the extreme view. Therefore, it is known that both views are severed by the insight into suffering. When seeing the truth of suffering with impermanence and other undefiled practices, since the two views are eliminated, regarding Īśvara and other non-causes as causes, along with the arising of the two views, they are also eliminated simultaneously. Therefore, it is said that clinging to the cause is only severed by the insight into suffering. However, regarding considering a non-path as the path, if it contradicts the path of seeing and is strong, then it is severed by the path of seeing. Is it not like considering Īśvara and others as causes, clinging to suffering as the cause, only allowing the insight into suffering to sever it, and not allowing the insight into the origin to sever it? In this way, one should also consider a non-path as the path, clinging to suffering as the path, only allowing the insight into suffering to sever it, and not allowing the insight into the path to sever it. This difficulty is not established, because seeing impermanence and so on in the truth of suffering is not the antidote to that. If someone clings to Īśvara and others as
因。必先計為無始無終等故。此因執唯見苦斷。以無常等想治常等想故非見苦諦。無常等時。能治非道計為道執。故彼道執非見苦斷。由此亦遮見集所斷。由見因等非彼治故。謂非於集見因等時能治非道計為道執。要于道諦見道等時。方能治彼非道道執故。彼道執應見道斷。若爾如是非道道執。理必應通見集滅斷。謂如邪見撥無真道。后即計此能得清凈。此戒禁取許見道斷。如是邪見撥無集滅。后亦計為能得清凈。彼二戒禁取應見集滅斷。此難不然。體不成故。謂戒禁取其體有二。一非因計因。二非道計道。若有計彼謗集邪見能得清凈。豈不此見無斷集用則不應生。以都無心信有因故。又苦與集無別物故。自在等蘊亦應被撥。若有計彼謗滅邪見能得清凈。豈不此見無證滅用則不應生。如何撥無滅諦見後計滅方便非不唐捐。如是不成戒禁取體而言應有。故彼非難。如何非難。見道所斷戒禁取體亦應不成。以于撥無道諦見后即計有道應不成故。謂緣道諦邪見或疑。若撥若疑無解脫道。如何即執此能得永清凈。此戒禁取體非不成。以許有于謗道邪見執為能證永清凈道。由彼計為如理解故。謂彼先以余解脫道蘊在心中。后執非謗真道邪見為如理覺。言如理者。彼謂撥疑真解脫道是不顛倒。以如理故執為凈因。由此得成戒禁取體
。彼心所蘊余解脫道非見道所斷。戒禁取所緣以彼唯緣自部法故。道有多類于理無失。由此經主所作是言。若彼撥無真解脫道。妄執別有余清凈因。是則執余能得清凈非邪見等。此緣見道所斷諸法理亦不成。彼全未詳對法宗義。若爾見滅諦所斷戒禁取。體亦應成。與道同故。謂有先以余解脫處蘊在心中后執謗真解脫邪見為如理覺。以如理故執為凈因。如前應成戒禁取體。無如是理。總計解脫是常是寂執謗彼心為清凈因。理不成故。如計涅槃體實非實。謂若希求解脫方便。彼應必定計有解脫。諸計解脫決定有者。必應許彼體是常寂。若不許爾不應希求。如正法中於涅槃體。雖有謂實謂非實異。而同許彼是常是寂故。于非撥俱見為過如是。若有以余解脫蘊在心中。彼必總計涅槃常寂。由此不執謗解脫見為如理解。故見滅所斷戒禁取定無。又如天授。雖總許有常寂涅槃。而離八支別計五法為解脫道。外道所計理亦應然。是故有於八支聖道能謗邪見。謂如理覺無于謗滅。謂如理解以戒禁等自體行相與聖道殊。無謂涅槃常寂體相。有差別者。是故無滅與道同義。有餘師言。有執于道謂非道邪見為道戒禁取。不言此是彼滅道故。設執于滅謂非滅邪見。言此是道戒禁取不成。謂執此為所撥滅道定不應理。適撥無故。若執此為余涅槃道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果內心所蘊含的其他解脫之道不是見道（Darsanamarga）所能斷除的，那麼戒禁取（Silabbataparamasa）的所緣就只能是自己宗派的法，因為戒禁取僅僅緣于自己宗派的法。解脫道有很多種類，這在道理上沒有錯誤。因此，經部（Sautrantika）的作者所說的是：如果有人否定真正的解脫之道，錯誤地認為有其他的清凈之因，那就是執著于其他事物能夠獲得清凈，而不是邪見等。這種認為見道所斷除的諸法在道理上也是不成立的說法，完全不瞭解對法（Abhidharma）的宗義。 如果這樣，那麼見滅諦（Nirodhasatya）所斷除的戒禁取，其本體也應該成立，因為它與道（Marga）相同。也就是說，如果有人先將其他的解脫之處蘊藏在心中，然後執著于誹謗真正解脫的邪見，認為這是如理的覺悟，因為是如理的，所以執著於它是清凈之因，那麼就像前面所說的那樣，戒禁取的本體應該成立。但沒有這樣的道理，因為總的來說，如果認為解脫是常恒寂靜的，那麼誹謗這種想法的心就不能成為清凈之因，這在道理上是不成立的。就像計度涅槃的本體是實有還是非實有一樣。如果有人希望尋求解脫的方便，那麼他應該必定認為有解脫。那些認為解脫必定存在的人，必定應該承認它的本體是常恒寂靜的。如果不承認這一點，就不應該希望尋求解脫。就像在正法中，對於涅槃的本體，雖然有認為是實有和認為是非實有的不同，但都承認它是常恒寂靜的。因此，對於不否定常恒寂靜的涅槃的見解，不會有過失。如果有人將其他的解脫蘊藏在心中，那麼他必定會總的認為涅槃是常恒寂靜的。因此，他不會執著于誹謗解脫的見解，認為這是如理的。所以，見滅所斷除的戒禁取必定不存在。 又比如天授（Devadatta），雖然總的承認有常恒寂靜的涅槃，但卻離開八支聖道（Astangika-marga），另外認為五種法是解脫之道，外道的計度在道理上也應該是這樣。因此，有人會對於八支聖道產生誹謗的邪見，認為這是如理的覺悟，但不會對於誹謗滅諦（Nirodha）產生如理的理解，因為戒禁等的自體行相與聖道不同，沒有人認為涅槃的常恒寂靜的本體和行相有差別。因此，滅諦與道沒有相同的意義。有其他的老師說，有人會執著于道，認為不是道的邪見是道，從而產生戒禁取，但不會說這是滅道。假設有人執著于滅諦，認為不是滅諦的邪見是道，那麼戒禁取就不會成立，因為執著於此為所否定之滅道是不合道理的，因為已經否定了它。如果執著於此為其他的涅槃之道。
【English Translation】 English version: If the other paths to liberation contained in the mind are not severed by the Path of Seeing (Darsanamarga), then the object of clinging to rules and vows (Silabbataparamasa) can only be the doctrines of one's own sect, because it only focuses on the doctrines of its own sect. There are many kinds of paths to liberation, and there is nothing wrong with this in principle. Therefore, what the author of Sautrantika says is: if someone denies the true path to liberation and falsely believes that there are other causes of purity, then he is clinging to other things that can attain purity, rather than wrong views, etc. This view that the dharmas severed by the Path of Seeing are also untenable does not understand the tenets of Abhidharma at all. If so, then the clinging to rules and vows that is severed by the cessation of suffering (Nirodhasatya) should also be established, because it is the same as the Path (Marga). That is, if someone first contains other places of liberation in his mind, and then clings to the wrong view of slandering true liberation, thinking that this is a rational awakening, because it is rational, so he clings to it as a cause of purity, then, as mentioned earlier, the substance of clinging to rules and vows should be established. But there is no such reason, because in general, if one thinks that liberation is permanent and tranquil, then the mind that slanders this idea cannot be a cause of purity, which is untenable in principle. It is like speculating whether the substance of Nirvana is real or unreal. If someone hopes to seek a means of liberation, then he should definitely think that there is liberation. Those who think that liberation must exist should definitely admit that its substance is permanent and tranquil. If you do not admit this, you should not hope to seek liberation. Just as in the true Dharma, although there are differences in whether the substance of Nirvana is considered real or unreal, they all admit that it is permanent and tranquil. Therefore, there is no fault in the view that does not deny the permanent and tranquil Nirvana. If someone contains other liberations in his mind, then he will definitely think that Nirvana is permanent and tranquil in general. Therefore, he will not cling to the view of slandering liberation, thinking that this is rational. Therefore, the clinging to rules and vows that is severed by the cessation of suffering must not exist. Also, like Devadatta, although he generally admits that there is permanent and tranquil Nirvana, he separately considers five dharmas as the path to liberation apart from the Eightfold Path (Astangika-marga), and the speculation of the heretics should also be like this in principle. Therefore, some people will have a slanderous wrong view of the Eightfold Path, thinking that this is a rational awakening, but they will not have a rational understanding of slandering the cessation of suffering (Nirodha), because the self-characteristics of precepts and vows are different from the Noble Path, and no one thinks that the permanent and tranquil substance and characteristics of Nirvana are different. Therefore, the cessation of suffering does not have the same meaning as the Path. Other teachers say that some people will cling to the Path, thinking that the wrong view that is not the Path is the Path, thus producing clinging to rules and vows, but they will not say that this is the path of cessation. Suppose someone clings to the cessation of suffering, thinking that the wrong view that is not the cessation of suffering is the Path, then clinging to rules and vows will not be established, because it is unreasonable to cling to this as the cessation of suffering that is denied, because it has been denied. If you cling to this as another path to Nirvana.
。則應一體有二解能。見此是彼得方便故。又無見滅所斷諸法。用餘部法為所緣義。然彼外道必應計度余苦差別為解脫故。今應思擇非道計道。謂執戒禁為解脫因。或執我見能證解脫。此為見苦斷。為見道斷耶。若執二俱見苦斷者。則見道斷畢竟應無。或應說別因等。非道計道何緣此二見苦所斷。所餘乃是見道斷耶。若執二俱見道斷者。應說何故見道斷耶。非見道時能了彼境。或了彼自體。或斷彼所緣。或應遍知建立理壞。謂若見道所斷隨眠。能緣見苦所斷為境。誰遮遍知建立壞失。如現觀位苦智已生集智未生。見苦所斷猶為見集所斷緣縛。雖已永斷未立遍知。如是乃至滅智已生道智未生。見苦所斷猶為見道所斷緣縛。亦應雖斷未立遍知。然非所許應辯理趣。我宗說二俱見苦斷。如本論言有諸外道起如是見立如是論。若有士夫補特伽羅。受持牛戒鹿戒狗戒。便得清凈解脫出離。永超眾苦樂至超苦樂處。如是等類非因執因。一切應知是戒禁取見苦所斷如彼廣說。此復何因見苦所斷。唯見苦所斷緣牛戒等故。但計粗果為彼因故。由此己遮經主所難。迷苦諦故有太過失。緣有漏惑皆迷苦故。以非一切緣有漏惑皆以果苦為所緣故。如何得有太過失耶。非許二俱見苦所斷。見道所斷便畢竟無。非道計道有二類故。一緣戒禁等。二
【現代漢語翻譯】 那麼，一個整體應該有兩種理解能力。因為看到這個是獲得那個的方便途徑。而且，沒有被『見滅』所斷的諸法，會用其他宗派的法作為所緣的意義。然而，那些外道一定會計算其他痛苦的差別作為解脫的緣故。現在應該思考『非道計道』（認為不是正道的方法是正道），也就是執著于戒律禁忌是解脫的原因，或者執著於我見能夠證得解脫。這屬於『見苦』所斷，還是『見道』所斷呢？如果認為兩者都是『見苦』所斷，那麼『見道』所斷就應該完全沒有了，或者應該說有其他的因等。『非道計道』為什麼這兩個是『見苦』所斷，而其餘的是『見道』所斷呢？如果認為兩者都是『見道』所斷，應該說為什麼是『見道』所斷呢？難道不是在『見道』的時候能夠了解那個境界，或者瞭解那個自體，或者斷除那個所緣嗎？或者應該說遍知的建立道理被破壞了。如果『見道』所斷的隨眠，能夠以『見苦』所斷的為境界，誰能阻止遍知建立的破壞和喪失呢？比如在現觀位，苦智已經生起，集智還沒有生起，『見苦』所斷仍然被『見集』所斷所束縛。雖然已經永遠斷除，但還沒有建立遍知。像這樣，乃至滅智已經生起，道智還沒有生起，『見苦』所斷仍然被『見道』所斷所束縛，也應該雖然斷除了，但還沒有建立遍知。然而，這不是所允許的，應該辯論其中的道理。我宗認為兩者都是『見苦』所斷。如本論所說：『有一些外道生起這樣的見解，立下這樣的理論，如果有人，也就是補特伽羅（pudgala，人），受持牛戒、鹿戒、狗戒，就能得到清凈解脫，出離，永遠超越眾苦，到達超越苦樂的地方。』像這些非因執因，都應該知道是戒禁取見，是『見苦』所斷，如彼廣說。這又是什麼原因呢？因為是『見苦』所斷，僅僅緣于牛戒等，只是把粗淺的果報當作彼因的緣故。由此已經遮止了經主的責難，因為迷惑苦諦而有太過失。因為緣于有漏的迷惑，都是迷惑苦的緣故。因為不是一切緣于有漏的迷惑，都是以果苦為所緣的緣故，怎麼會有太過失呢？不是允許兩者都是『見苦』所斷，『見道』所斷就完全沒有了。因為『非道計道』有兩類，一類是緣于戒禁等，另一類是緣于
【English Translation】 Then, one entity should have two abilities of understanding. Because seeing this is a convenient way to obtain that. Moreover, the dharmas that are not severed by 'seeing cessation' use the dharmas of other schools as the meaning of what is cognized. However, those heretics will certainly calculate the differences of other sufferings as the reason for liberation. Now, one should consider 'taking the non-path as the path' (thinking that methods that are not the right path are the right path), that is, being attached to precepts and prohibitions as the cause of liberation, or being attached to the view of self that can prove liberation. Does this belong to what is severed by 'seeing suffering' or what is severed by 'seeing the path'? If it is thought that both are severed by 'seeing suffering', then what is severed by 'seeing the path' should be completely non-existent, or it should be said that there are other causes, etc. Why are these two, 'taking the non-path as the path', severed by 'seeing suffering', while the rest are severed by 'seeing the path'? If it is thought that both are severed by 'seeing the path', it should be said why they are severed by 'seeing the path'? Is it not that at the time of 'seeing the path', one can understand that realm, or understand that self, or cut off that which is cognized? Or it should be said that the establishment of omniscience is destroyed. If the latent tendencies severed by 'seeing the path' can take what is severed by 'seeing suffering' as the object, who can prevent the destruction and loss of the establishment of omniscience? For example, in the position of direct perception, the wisdom of suffering has already arisen, and the wisdom of accumulation has not yet arisen, and what is severed by 'seeing suffering' is still bound by what is cognized by what is severed by 'seeing accumulation'. Although it has been permanently severed, omniscience has not yet been established. Likewise, until the wisdom of cessation has arisen and the wisdom of the path has not yet arisen, what is severed by 'seeing suffering' is still bound by what is cognized by what is severed by 'seeing the path', and it should also be that although it has been severed, omniscience has not yet been established. However, this is not what is allowed, and the reasons should be debated. My school believes that both are severed by 'seeing suffering'. As the original treatise says: 'There are some heretics who give rise to such views and establish such theories that if someone, that is, a pudgala (pudgala, person), upholds the cow vow, the deer vow, or the dog vow, they can attain pure liberation, escape, and forever transcend all suffering and reach a place beyond suffering and joy.' Like these, taking the non-cause as the cause, all should know that it is the view of attachment to precepts and prohibitions, which is severed by 'seeing suffering', as explained in detail there. What is the reason for this? Because it is severed by 'seeing suffering', it is only related to the cow vow, etc., and only takes the superficial result as the cause. From this, the criticism of the master of the scriptures has been prevented, because there is too much loss due to being confused about the truth of suffering. Because being related to defilements with outflows is all confusion about suffering. Because not all defilements with outflows are related to suffering as the object of the result of suffering, how can there be too much loss? It is not allowed that both are severed by 'seeing suffering', and what is severed by 'seeing the path' is completely non-existent. Because there are two types of 'taking the non-path as the path', one type is related to precepts and prohibitions, etc., and the other type is related to
緣親迷道。緣戒禁等違悟道信。力不如緣親迷道者。緣戒禁等者。行相極粗故。不遠隨逐故。意樂不堅故。少設劬勞即便斷滅。緣親迷道與此相違。由此應知非道計道。諸戒禁取有二類別。一見苦斷。二見道斷。如前所說常我倒生。為但有斯二種顛倒。不爾。顛倒總有四種。一于無常執常顛倒。二于諸苦執樂顛倒。三于不凈執凈顛倒。四于無我執我顛倒。如是四倒其體云何。頌曰。
四顛倒自體 謂從於三見 唯倒推增故 想心隨見力
論曰。從於三見立四倒體。謂邊見中唯取常見以為常倒。諸見取中取計樂凈為樂凈倒。有身見中唯取我見以為我倒。如是所說是一師宗。然毗婆沙決定義者。約部分別十二見中。唯二見半是顛倒體。謂有身見苦見取全。邊執見中取計常分。斷常二見行相互違。故可說言二體各別。諸計我論者。即執我于彼有自在力是我所見。此即我見由二門轉。豈不諸煩惱皆顛倒轉。故應皆是倒非唯四種。不爾建立倒相異故。何謂倒相。謂具三因。何謂三因。一向倒故。推度性故。妄增益故。增聲亦顯體增勝故。非余煩惱具此三因。謂戒禁取非一向倒所計。容有能離欲染等故。少分別時得清凈故。斷見邪見非妄增益。于壞事門此二轉故。餘部見取非增勝故。所餘煩惱非推度故。由此顛倒
唯四非余。豈不經中說諸顛倒總有十二。如契經言。于無常計常有想心見倒。于苦不凈無我亦然。不爾想心非推度故。隨見倒力亦立倒名。與見相應。行相同故。然非受等亦如想心。可立倒名。有別因故。謂于無常等起常等見時。必由境中取常等相。能取相者是想非余。故立倒名非於受等。又治倒慧亦立想名。謂無常等行中。說為無常等想。由慧與想近相資故。相從立名。受等不爾。由所依力有倒推增。取境相成故心名倒。如契經說。心引世間于惑瀑流處處漂溺。毗婆沙說。唯想與心可立倒名。世極成故。謂心想倒世間極成。受等不然。故經不說。由此心想隨見倒力立顛倒名非於受等。上座於此言以何緣。顛倒唯三不增不減。唯有爾所應成倒故。謂此三倒。想倒攝想。心倒攝識。見倒攝行。不可說受亦倒所攝。觸為因生如應領故。豈不行蘊更有所餘作意等法彼何非倒。不爾但由彼顛倒故。令心想見成顛倒體。故契經言。所有無量惡不善法。一切皆由非理作意為根本起。廣說乃至。一切皆是作意所生觸為其集。由此證知想心見倒。皆非理作意無明觸所生。由彼倒故此成倒體。今觀彼說前後相違。由是定知非契經義。若想心見由從非理作意等生。彼顛倒故此成倒體。受亦非理作意等生何緣非倒。若受從倒作意等生非顛倒者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：只有四種非余法（Vaisaheshika），難道不是經中說顛倒共有十二種嗎？例如契經中說，于無常的事物計為常，有想、心、見三種顛倒。于苦、不凈、無我也有同樣的顛倒。 答：不是這樣的。想和心不是推度，而是隨見顛倒的力量而建立顛倒之名，因為它們與見相應，行為相同。然而，受等法不像想和心那樣可以建立顛倒之名，因為有不同的原因。當於無常等事物生起常等見解時，必定是從境界中取常等之相，而能取相的是想而不是其他。因此，建立顛倒之名是在想而不是在受等法上。此外，能對治顛倒的智慧也建立想之名，例如在無常等行中，說為無常等想，這是因為智慧與想接近而互相資助，所以互相依從而立名，受等法不是這樣。 由於所依的力量，有顛倒的推增，取境界之相而成就，所以心被稱為顛倒。如契經所說，心引導世間在迷惑的瀑流中處處漂溺。毗婆沙論說，只有想和心可以建立顛倒之名，這是世間普遍認可的。受等法不是這樣，所以經中沒有說。由此，想和心隨見顛倒的力量而建立顛倒之名，而不是在受等法上。 上座部對此說，以什麼因緣，顛倒只有三種，不增不減？因為只有這三種應該成為顛倒。這三種顛倒，想顛倒包含想，心顛倒包含識，見顛倒包含行。不能說受也包含在顛倒中，因為觸是生起的原因，應該如實領受。 問：難道行蘊中還有作意等其他法，它們為什麼不是顛倒？ 答：不是這樣的，只是因為那些顛倒，才使心、想、見成為顛倒的本體。所以契經說，所有無量惡不善法，一切都是由於非理作意為根本而生起，廣說乃至，一切都是作意所生，觸是它們的集合。由此可以證明，想、心、見顛倒，都是非理作意、無明、觸所生。由於那些顛倒，這些才成為顛倒的本體。現在看來，那種說法前後矛盾，由此可以確定那不是契經的意義。如果想、心、見是從非理作意等生起，由於那些顛倒，這些才成為顛倒的本體，那麼受也是從非理作意等生起，為什麼不是顛倒？如果受從顛倒的作意等生起，不是顛倒的話...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Are there only four Vaisaheshika (non-residual) elements? Doesn't the scripture say that there are twelve types of inversions in total? For example, the scripture says that regarding impermanent things as permanent, there are three inversions: perception (saṃjñā), thought (citta), and view (dṛṣṭi). The same inversions apply to suffering, impurity, and non-self. Answer: That's not the case. Perception and thought are not inferences, but rather the name of inversion is established according to the power of the inversion of view, because they correspond to the view and have the same behavior. However, feelings (vedanā) and other elements cannot be given the name of inversion like perception and thought, because there is a different reason. When permanent views arise regarding impermanent things, it is necessary to take the characteristics of permanence from the object, and it is perception, not other elements, that can take the characteristics. Therefore, the name of inversion is established in perception, not in feelings and other elements. Furthermore, the wisdom that cures inversion is also given the name of perception. For example, in the practice of impermanence, it is said to be the perception of impermanence, because wisdom and perception are close and mutually supportive, so they are named after each other. Feelings and other elements are not like this. Due to the power of the basis, there is an increase in inversion, and the characteristics of the object are taken to be accomplished, so the mind is called inversion. As the scripture says, the mind leads the world to drown everywhere in the torrent of delusion. The Vibhasha says that only perception and thought can be given the name of inversion, which is universally recognized in the world. Feelings and other elements are not like this, so the scripture does not say so. Therefore, perception and thought are given the name of inversion according to the power of the inversion of view, not in feelings and other elements. The Sthavira (Elders) say about this, by what cause are there only three inversions, neither increasing nor decreasing? Because only these three should become inversions. These three inversions, the inversion of perception includes perception, the inversion of thought includes consciousness (vijñāna), and the inversion of view includes formations (saṃskāra). It cannot be said that feeling is also included in the inversion, because contact (sparśa) is the cause of arising, and it should be received as it is. Question: Are there other dharmas such as attention (manaskāra) in the aggregate of formations, why are they not inversions? Answer: That's not the case, it is only because of those inversions that thought, perception, and view become the essence of inversion. Therefore, the scripture says that all immeasurable evil and unwholesome dharmas all arise from irrational attention as the root, and so on, everything is born of attention, and contact is their collection. From this, it can be proved that the inversions of perception, thought, and view are all born of irrational attention, ignorance (avidyā), and contact. Because of those inversions, these become the essence of inversion. Now it seems that that statement is contradictory, and from this it can be determined that that is not the meaning of the scripture. If thought, perception, and view arise from irrational attention, etc., and because of those inversions, these become the essence of inversion, then feeling also arises from irrational attention, etc., why is it not an inversion? If feeling arises from the inverted attention, etc., and is not an inversion...
。想心見三應非倒體。無別因故。又言不可受亦倒。攝觸為因生如應領故。豈不想倒亦應不成。觸為因生如應想故。由說想等倒無明觸所生。豈不觸為因如應領。故彌能證受體是顛倒攝。受亦無明觸所生故。由此彼說唯有爾所應成倒故。倒唯有三不增減者。言成無義。又若非理作意力故。想等成倒非理作意。亦應是倒然曾不說。故彼所言從自執起。或雖許彼體是顛倒。而不說為顛倒體者。則應想等亦不說倒。是則違害經說倒名。若謂如仁有別因故。雖由見力諸心心所皆有倒義。而經但說想心倒名。非余受等。我宗亦爾。即由此因。是故定無想等非倒。或余是倒違經過失。此亦非理。不相似故。謂如我宗由見勢力。雖心心所皆有倒義。由別因故唯于想心立顛倒名。非於受等。然所由見正立倒名。如是汝宗由作意力。令心心所皆有倒義。所由作意應立倒名。又如我宗想等體非倒。但由見力假立以倒名。真實倒名目所由見。汝宗應亦爾。由作意力。想等實非倒假立倒名。則真實倒名目所由作意。不應由非倒諸法勢力。令余非倒法得倒名故。又何不許由想勢力。能令作意成顛倒體。要由妄想取相勢力。方起俱生非理作意。故契經說。由取相勢力能令貪等惡不善法生。又契經言。由想亂倒故心焦熱。不言心熱由於非理作意故生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：認為心識所見的三種境界（三應）不是顛倒的本體，因為沒有其他的理由。又說，『不可受』也是顛倒，因為感受（攝觸）是產生它的原因，應該這樣理解。難道認為想蘊（想倒）不應該成立嗎？因為觸是產生如理作意的因。因為經中說，想蘊等顛倒是由無明和觸所生。難道不是觸作為原因，應該這樣理解嗎？因此更能證明感受的本體是顛倒所攝。因為感受也是由無明和觸所生。由此，他們說只有這些（想、心、見）才構成顛倒，因此顛倒只有三種，不能增減，這種說法毫無意義。又如果因為不如理作意的力量，想蘊等成為顛倒，那麼不如理作意也應該是顛倒，但經典中從未這樣說過。所以他們的說法是從自己的執著出發。或者即使承認不如理作意的本體是顛倒，但不說它是顛倒的本體，那麼想蘊等也不應該被稱為顛倒。這樣就違背了經中關於顛倒的說法。如果說，像我們一樣有其他的理由，雖然由於見解的力量，所有的心和心所都有顛倒的意義，但經典只說了想蘊和心識是顛倒，而不是其他的感受等。我們宗派也是這樣。就是因為這個原因，所以一定沒有想蘊等不是顛倒，或者其他的（感受等）是顛倒而違背經典的過失。這也是不合理的，因為不相似。就像我們宗派，由於見解的力量，雖然心和心所都有顛倒的意義，但由於其他的原因，只在想蘊和心識上安立顛倒的名稱，而不是在感受等上。然而，正是由於見解才安立顛倒的名稱。像這樣，你們宗派由於作意的力量，使心和心所都有顛倒的意義，那麼應該把作意安立為顛倒的名稱。又像我們宗派，想蘊等的本體不是顛倒，但由於見解的力量，假立為顛倒的名稱，真實的顛倒名稱是指見解。你們宗派也應該這樣，由於作意的力量，想蘊等實際上不是顛倒，只是假立為顛倒的名稱。那麼真實的顛倒名稱是指作意。不應該由非顛倒的諸法力量，使其他的非顛倒法得到顛倒的名稱。又為什麼不允許由想蘊的力量，能使作意成為顛倒的本體？只有通過妄想取相的力量，才能產生俱生的不如理作意。所以契經說，由取相的力量，能使貪婪等惡不善法產生。又契經說，由於想蘊的擾亂顛倒，所以內心焦熱。沒有說內心焦熱是由於不如理作意而產生的。
【English Translation】 English version: To think that the 'three responses' (三應) seen by the mind are not the essence of delusion because there is no other reason. Furthermore, to say that 'unacceptable' is also a delusion because feeling (攝觸) is the cause of its arising, and it should be understood as such. Shouldn't the perception aggregate (想倒) also be considered not established? Because contact is the cause of the arising of appropriate attention. Because the sutras say that delusions such as perception arise from ignorance and contact. Isn't it that contact, as a cause, should be understood as such? Therefore, it further proves that the essence of feeling is included in delusion. Because feeling also arises from ignorance and contact. Therefore, their saying that only these (perception, mind, view) constitute delusion, and thus there are only three types of delusion, neither increasing nor decreasing, is meaningless. Furthermore, if perception, etc., become delusions due to the power of irrational attention, then irrational attention should also be a delusion, but it has never been said so in the scriptures. Therefore, their statement arises from their own attachment. Or even if they admit that the essence of irrational attention is delusion, but do not say that it is the essence of delusion, then perception, etc., should also not be called delusion. This would violate the sutras' statements about the name of delusion. If it is said that, like us, there is another reason, although all minds and mental factors have the meaning of delusion due to the power of views, the sutras only say that perception and mind are delusions, not other feelings, etc. Our school is also like this. It is because of this reason that there is definitely no fault of perception, etc., not being delusions, or others (feelings, etc.) being delusions and violating the scriptures. This is also unreasonable because they are not similar. Just like our school, although the mind and mental factors all have the meaning of delusion due to the power of views, we establish the name of delusion only on perception and mind, not on feelings, etc., due to other reasons. However, it is precisely because of views that the name of delusion is established. In this way, your school makes the mind and mental factors all have the meaning of delusion due to the power of attention, then attention should be established as the name of delusion. Also, like our school, the essence of perception, etc., is not delusion, but we falsely establish the name of delusion due to the power of views, and the true name of delusion refers to views. Your school should also be like this, due to the power of attention, perception, etc., are actually not delusions, but only falsely established as the name of delusion. Then the true name of delusion refers to attention. It should not be that the power of non-delusional dharmas causes other non-delusional dharmas to obtain the name of delusion. Furthermore, why not allow the power of perception to make attention become the essence of delusion? Only through the power of deluded grasping of characteristics can co-arising irrational attention arise. Therefore, the sutras say that the power of grasping characteristics can cause greed and other evil unwholesome dharmas to arise. Also, the sutras say that the mind is scorched due to the disturbance and delusion of perception. It is not said that the mind is scorched because it arises from irrational attention.
又理應由勝倒法力。令想心體亦名顛倒理非作意倒勝想等。如何但言由作意力想等成倒非想等力。能令作意成顛倒耶。故彼所言唯憑自執。又經亦說欲為法本。或說煩惱無明為根。如何不言由彼勢力。能令想等亦成顛倒。但說顛倒由作意成。是故應知依對法理。立顛倒體最為殊勝。如是諸倒何所斷耶。正理論者言。唯見苦所斷。以常顛倒等唯于苦轉故。了無常等覺唯緣苦生。故不應后見集滅道時。方舍常樂我凈見故。若爾便違經論正理。且違經者。謂契經言。若有多聞諸聖弟子。于苦聖諦如實見知。如是于集滅道聖諦如實見知。當於爾時彼聖弟子。無常計常想心見倒皆已永斷。乃至廣說。若諸顛倒唯見苦斷。經不應說。如實見知集等諦時皆已永斷。又契經說。若聞如來說苦集滅道四聖諦法已。便能永斷常等四倒。非諸顛倒唯見苦斷。佛為斷彼可說餘三見集等覺非彼治故。又慶喜告辯自在言。
由有想亂倒 故汝心焦熱 遠離彼想已 貪息心便凈
言違論者。如本論言。此四顛倒諸預流者。幾種已斷幾未斷耶。應作是言。一切已斷。若四顛倒唯見苦斷。則隨信法行亦有已斷者。何故唯說預流已斷。違正理者。未離欲聖若離樂凈想。如何起欲貪。我宗於三皆無違害。且我今見初經義者。若聖弟子於四聖諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此外，按照勝倒（viparyāsa，顛倒）的法力，想心（saṃjñā-citta，感受和思想）的本體也應被稱為顛倒，例如顛倒的理非作意（ayoniśo manasikāra-viparyāsa，不如理作意）和勝想（adhimokṣa，勝解）等。為什麼只說由作意的力量，想等才成為顛倒，而不是說想等的力量能使作意成為顛倒呢？因此，他們的說法只是憑自己的執見。而且，經典也說欲（kāma，慾望）為法本，或者說煩惱和無明為根本。為什麼不說由這些勢力，能使想等也成為顛倒，而只說顛倒由作意而成呢？所以，應該知道，依照對法（abhidharma，阿毗達磨）的道理，建立顛倒的本體最為殊勝。 那麼，這些顛倒在什麼階段斷除呢？正理論者說：『只在見苦（duḥkha-darśana，見苦諦）時斷除。因為常顛倒等只在苦中轉動，了知無常等覺也只緣苦而生。所以，不應該在後來見集（samudaya-darśana，見集諦）、滅（nirodha-darśana，見滅諦）、道（mārga-darśana，見道諦）時，才捨棄常樂我凈的見解。』如果這樣，就違背了經論的正理。首先是違背經典，例如契經說：『如果有多聞的聖弟子，對苦聖諦如實地見知，像這樣對集、滅、道聖諦如實地見知，當那時，這位聖弟子，無常計常的想心見倒都已永遠斷除。』乃至廣說。如果諸顛倒只在見苦時斷除，經典不應該說，如實見知集等諦時都已永遠斷除。而且，契經說，如果聽聞如來說苦集滅道四聖諦法后，便能永遠斷除常等四倒。不是諸顛倒只在見苦時斷除，佛爲了斷除它們，可以說其餘三諦，因為見集等覺不是它們的對治法。 而且，慶喜（Ānanda，阿難陀）告訴辯自在（Pratibhāṇa，辯才）說： 『由於有想亂倒，所以你心焦熱；遠離那些想后，貪息心便清凈。』 違背論典的例子，如本論說：『這四種顛倒，對於諸預流者（srota-āpanna，須陀洹），有幾種已斷，幾種未斷呢？』應該這樣回答：『一切已斷。』如果四種顛倒只在見苦時斷除，那麼隨信行（śraddhānusārin，隨信行）和隨法行（dharmānusārin，隨法行）也有已斷的。為什麼只說預流已斷呢？違反正理的例子，未離欲的聖者如果捨棄樂凈想，如何生起欲貪？我宗對於這三種情況都沒有違背。而且我現在理解最初的經義是，如果聖弟子對於四聖諦
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, according to the power of viparyāsa (顛倒, inversion), the very essence of saṃjñā-citta (想心, perception-mind) should also be called inverted, such as ayoniśo manasikāra-viparyāsa (理非作意, irrational attention) and adhimokṣa (勝想, superior thought), etc. Why is it only said that it is by the power of attention that perception and so on become inverted, and not that the power of perception and so on can cause attention to become inverted? Therefore, their statement is based solely on their own adherence. Moreover, the scriptures also say that kāma (欲, desire) is the root of dharma, or that afflictions and ignorance are the root. Why not say that by these forces, perception and so on can also become inverted, but only say that inversion is caused by attention? Therefore, it should be known that establishing the essence of inversion according to the principles of abhidharma (對法, higher knowledge) is the most excellent. Then, at what stage are these inversions severed? The proponents of the Satyasiddhi Śāstra say: 'They are severed only upon seeing suffering (duḥkha-darśana, 見苦). Because the inversion of permanence, etc., only revolves around suffering, and the realization of impermanence, etc., only arises from suffering. Therefore, one should not abandon the views of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity only when later seeing the origin (samudaya-darśana, 見集), cessation (nirodha-darśana, 見滅), and path (mārga-darśana, 見道).' If this is the case, it would contradict the correct principles of both the scriptures and the treatises. First, it contradicts the scriptures, such as the sutra saying: 'If there are learned noble disciples who truly know and see the noble truth of suffering, and in this way truly know and see the noble truths of origin, cessation, and path, then at that time, these noble disciples will have permanently severed the inversions of perception, mind, and view that regard impermanence as permanence,' and so on. If all inversions are severed only upon seeing suffering, the scriptures should not say that they are all permanently severed upon truly knowing and seeing the truths of origin, etc. Moreover, the sutra says that if one hears the Four Noble Truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path spoken by the Tathagata, one can permanently sever the four inversions of permanence, etc. It is not that all inversions are severed only upon seeing suffering; the Buddha can speak of the other three truths in order to sever them, because the realization of origin, etc., is not their antidote. Moreover, Ānanda (慶喜) said to Pratibhāṇa (辯自在): 'Because of the confusion and inversion of perception, your heart is scorched; when you are away from those perceptions, greed ceases and your heart becomes pure.' An example of contradicting the treatises is, as the treatise says: 'Of these four inversions, how many have been severed and how many have not been severed for the srota-āpanna (預流者)?' The answer should be: 'All have been severed.' If the four inversions are severed only upon seeing suffering, then the śraddhānusārin (隨信行) and dharmānusārin (隨法行) would also have some that have been severed. Why is it only said that the srota-āpanna has severed them? An example of contradicting correct reasoning is, if a saint who has not yet abandoned desire abandons the perception of pleasure and purity, how can desire and greed arise? My school has no contradiction with these three situations. Moreover, my understanding of the meaning of the initial sutra is that if a noble disciple, regarding the Four Noble Truths,
得現觀時。無始時來所集四倒皆已永斷。不可由此便證四倒。一一皆由見四諦斷。前已成立身邊二見。唯見苦斷常我倒體。即是身邊二見所攝。如何見集等斷常我倒耶。然此經中於具見諦說已永斷。何所相違。于第二經無違害者。非薄伽梵說四諦法唯為斷。斯四種顛倒總為畢竟靜息眾苦。然有聞已隨對治力永斷四倒。何所相違。理實應然。故彼經說。
佛說此法時 為永寂眾苦 有聞已知實 無常樂我凈
非四顛倒總攝眾苦。故知彼經義如我釋。又彼經說。若諸有情為此四種想心見倒亂倒其心。彼心便於彼彼迷亂。乃至廣說。此中可說由想見倒亂倒其心。心相應故。如何心倒能亂倒心。是故彼經應觀密意。不可如說執為定依所引伽他。于對法理亦無違害。所以者何。非我等言欲貪映蔽想無亂倒。但作是言。非諸亂倒皆名顛倒。所以然者。見倒俱行亂倒想心方名倒故。若諸亂倒皆成倒者。則諸煩惱皆應成倒。諸阿羅漢游衢路時。想亂倒力心便迷謬。或想亂倒見繩謂蛇。故亂倒中少分立倒。以要最勝方立倒名。最勝因緣如先已辯。故有染想學位現行。非得倒名。何所違害。又經不說彼辯自在。定居學位為證不成。論說預流已斷倒者。為除疑故作如是言。勿諸世間見預流者。以花嚴體用香薰衣。貯畜珍財耽
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "當獲得現觀（Dṛṣṭi，對真理的直接洞察）時，從無始以來積累的四種顛倒（Viparyāsa，對事物本質的錯誤認知）都已被永遠斷除。但不能因此就說這四種顛倒可以通過其他方式來證得，它們一一都是通過見四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，苦、集、滅、道）來斷除的。之前已經成立了身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊是真實自我的錯誤見解）和邊見（antagrahadṛṣṭi，執斷常二邊的極端見解）。只有通過見苦諦（duḥkha-satya，關於苦的真理）才能斷除常倒（nitya-viparyāsa，認為無常的事物是常的）和我倒（ātma-viparyāsa，認為無我的事物是我的），而常倒和我倒的本體，實際上是被身見和邊見所包含的。那麼，如何通過見集諦（samudaya-satya，關於苦的起因的真理）等來斷除常倒和我倒呢？", "然而，這部經中說，當具備了見諦（dṛṣṭi-satya，見四聖諦的智慧）時，這些顛倒就已經被永遠斷除了，這與什麼相違背呢？對於第二部經來說，並沒有違背之處。薄伽梵（Bhagavān，佛陀的尊稱）並沒有說四聖諦法僅僅是爲了斷除這四種顛倒，而是爲了徹底平息一切痛苦。然而，有些人聽聞后，會根據對治的力量，永遠斷除這四種顛倒，這又有什麼相違背的呢？道理確實應該是這樣。所以那部經中說：", "『佛說此法時，為永寂眾苦，有聞已知實，無常樂我凈。』", "並非四種顛倒總括了一切痛苦。因此，應該知道那部經的意義就像我解釋的那樣。另外，那部經中說：『如果那些有情（sattva，眾生）因為這四種想、心、見、倒、亂倒而擾亂了他們的心，那麼他們的心就會在那些事物上迷亂。』乃至廣說。這裡可以說，由於想倒（saṃjñā-viparyāsa，認為不凈的事物是凈的）、見倒（dṛṣṭi-viparyāsa，錯誤的見解）和亂倒（vikṣepa，心識散亂），擾亂了他們的心，因為這些都與心相應。那麼，心倒（citta-viparyāsa，認為無樂的事物是樂的）如何能夠擾亂心呢？因此，應該觀察那部經的密意，不能像字面意思那樣執著，將其作為固定的依據。所引用的偈頌，對於對法（Abhidharma，佛教哲學）的道理也沒有違背。為什麼呢？因為我們並沒有說，欲貪（kāma-rāga，對感官享樂的貪求）遮蔽了想法，就沒有亂倒。我們只是說，並非所有的亂倒都叫做顛倒。原因在於，見倒和亂倒同時發生時，想法和心識才叫做顛倒。如果所有的亂倒都成為顛倒，那麼所有的煩惱（kleśa，使人煩惱的心理狀態）都應該成為顛倒。當阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）在街道上行走時，由於想亂倒的力量，心識可能會迷亂，或者由於想亂倒，將繩子看成蛇。因此，在亂倒中，只有少部分被立為顛倒。只有最殊勝的才能被立為顛倒之名，最殊勝的因緣如先前已經辨析過的那樣。因此，有染污的想法在有學位的聖者中現行，但不能得到顛倒之名，這又有什麼違背的呢？另外，經中並沒有說，那些辯才自在、安住在學位的聖者，他們的證悟是不成立的。論中說預流（Srotāpanna，已證得須陀洹果的聖者）已經斷除了顛倒，是爲了消除疑惑而這樣說的。不要讓世人看到預流聖者，用華麗的身體和香薰的衣服，貯藏珍貴的財物，沉溺於…", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ], "english_translations": [ "English version:", "When direct realization (Dṛṣṭi, direct insight into the truth) is attained, the four inversions (Viparyāsa, incorrect perceptions of the nature of things) accumulated from beginningless time are permanently severed. However, it cannot be said that these four inversions can be realized through other means; each one is severed by seeing the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation). Previously, the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi, the erroneous view that the five aggregates are a real self) and the extreme views (antagrahadṛṣṭi, clinging to the extreme views of permanence and annihilation) have been established. Only by seeing the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya, the truth about suffering) can the inversion of permanence (nitya-viparyāsa, perceiving impermanent things as permanent) and the inversion of self (ātma-viparyāsa, perceiving selfless things as self) be severed, and the essence of the inversions of permanence and self is actually encompassed by the view of self and the extreme views. So, how can the inversions of permanence and self be severed by seeing the truth of the origin of suffering (samudaya-satya, the truth about the origin of suffering), etc.?", "However, this sutra states that when one possesses the wisdom of seeing the truth (dṛṣṭi-satya, the wisdom of seeing the Four Noble Truths), these inversions are already permanently severed. What does this contradict? There is no contradiction with the second sutra. The Blessed One (Bhagavān, an honorific title for the Buddha) did not say that the teachings of the Four Noble Truths are solely for severing these four inversions, but rather for completely pacifying all suffering. However, some people, after hearing them, will permanently sever these four inversions according to the power of the antidotes. What contradiction is there in this? The principle should indeed be like this. Therefore, that sutra says:", "『When the Buddha taught this Dharma, it was to permanently pacify all suffering; those who hear it and know the truth realize impermanence, non-bliss, non-self, and non-purity.』", "The four inversions do not encompass all suffering. Therefore, one should know that the meaning of that sutra is as I have explained. Furthermore, that sutra says: 『If those sentient beings (sattva, beings) disturb their minds because of these four inversions of perception, mind, view, and confusion, then their minds will be confused about those things.』 And so on. Here, it can be said that due to the inversions of perception (saṃjñā-viparyāsa, perceiving impure things as pure), view (dṛṣṭi-viparyāsa, incorrect views), and confusion (vikṣepa, mental distraction), their minds are disturbed, because these are all associated with the mind. So, how can the inversion of mind (citta-viparyāsa, perceiving non-blissful things as blissful) disturb the mind? Therefore, one should observe the hidden meaning of that sutra and not cling to it literally as a fixed basis. The quoted verses do not contradict the principles of Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy) either. Why? Because we do not say that desire and attachment (kāma-rāga, craving for sensual pleasures) obscure thoughts, and there is no confusion. We only say that not all confusions are called inversions. The reason is that when the inversion of view and confusion occur simultaneously, thoughts and consciousness are called inversions. If all confusions were to become inversions, then all afflictions (kleśa, mental states that cause suffering) should become inversions. When Arhats (Arhat, a saint who has attained Nirvana) walk on the streets, their consciousness may be confused due to the power of the inversion of thought and confusion, or they may see a rope as a snake due to the inversion of thought and confusion. Therefore, in confusion, only a small part is established as inversion. Only the most supreme can be established as the name of inversion, and the most supreme causes have been analyzed previously. Therefore, impure thoughts manifest in those with learning, but they cannot be called inversions. What contradiction is there in this? Furthermore, the sutra does not say that the enlightenment of those who are eloquent and reside in learning is not established. The treatise says that Stream-enterers (Srotāpanna, a saint who has attained the fruit of Stream-entry) have already severed inversions, and this is said to eliminate doubts. Do not let the people of the world see Stream-enterers with gorgeous bodies and incense-scented clothes, storing precious wealth, indulging in…" ] }
淫嗜味便疑顛倒仍未全除。無知覆心故為此事。為除如是世間所疑。故說預流諸倒已斷。或預流者已斷無別。隨信法行有斷未斷。顯定已斷故說預流。正理無違如伽他釋。或太過失。謂何不言諸聖猶應我想現起。非於女等及於自身離有情想心有起欲貪故。不應許聖有我想心。于唯有法智已生故。由此顛倒唯見苦斷。分別論者作如是言。常我各三樂凈見倒。如是八倒唯見所斷。四通見修斷。謂樂凈想心。破此如前釋伽陀理。故彼所說唯憑妄計。彼上座言。諸預流者。見倒已全斷。心想倒有餘。非於無常樂我凈想不忘失者煩惱可行。故安隱經作如是說。聖者安隱作如是言。我色等中不隨執我。然于如是五取蘊中。有我慢愛隨眠未斷。故知聖者有我想心。常樂凈三準亦定有。上座此說違自意趣。違經違理不可信依。言彼說違自意趣者。且彼自釋倒經起因言。為有愚流轉還滅次第理者。欲令于彼解無顛倒。故說此經非善遍知四聖諦理。于諸生死已作分齊。諸煩惱障極少為余。將得涅槃如臨至掌。具如是德補特伽羅。可有愚于流轉還滅次第理趣。起顛倒者聖智照明在身中故。又彼自辯諸倒體中。問言見倒何見為體。即自答言。且苦謂樂。不凈謂凈。邪見為體復自問言。豈不邪見撥無施與。乃至廣說。還自答言。若於生死計樂計凈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
『淫慾的嗜好』意味著仍然存在顛倒的認知，尚未完全消除。無知矇蔽了內心，所以才會產生這樣的想法。爲了消除世人這樣的疑惑，所以說預流果（Sotapanna，入流者）已經斷除了所有的顛倒。或者說，預流果已經斷除了，沒有其他區別。隨信行（Saddhanusari）和法行（Dhammanusari）可能已經斷除，也可能尚未斷除。說預流果已經確定斷除，所以才說是預流。這個道理與伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）的解釋沒有衝突。或者說，如果太過分，為什麼不說聖者仍然會有『我』想生起呢？因為他們不會對女人等以及自身產生有情眾生的想法，心中也不會生起貪慾。不應該允許聖者有『我』想，因為他們已經生起了對唯有法的智慧。因此，這種顛倒只有見道才能斷除。分別論者這樣說：常、我各有三種，樂、凈各有三種，像這樣的八種顛倒只有見道才能斷除，四種通於見道和修道斷除，指的是樂想和凈想。像這樣駁斥之前解釋伽陀的道理。所以他們所說的只是憑空的臆測。那些上座部（Theravada）的人說，預流果已經完全斷除了見道的顛倒，但心想的顛倒還有剩餘。如果對無常、樂、我、凈的想法沒有忘記，煩惱仍然可以生起。所以《安穩經》（Anupada Sutta）這樣說，聖者安穩地說，我在色等之中不會執著于『我』，然而在這樣的五取蘊（Pancakkhandha，五蘊）中，有我慢和愛著的隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）尚未斷除。所以知道聖者有『我』想，常、樂、凈三種也一定存在。上座部的這種說法違背了自己的意趣，違背了佛經，違背了道理，不可信賴。說他們的說法違背了自己的意趣，而且他們自己解釋顛倒經（Vipallasa Sutta）的起因時說，爲了讓那些對流轉還滅次第的道理感到愚昧的人，能夠理解沒有顛倒的道理，所以才說了這部經。那些沒有完全通達四聖諦的道理，對於生死已經做出了區分，煩惱的障礙極少，即將獲得涅槃，就像東西已經到了手掌邊一樣。具有這樣功德的補特伽羅（Puggala，人），怎麼會對流轉還滅次第的道理感到愚昧，生起顛倒呢？因為聖智的光明就在他們的身上。而且他們自己辨別各種顛倒的體性時，問到：見道的顛倒以什麼見為體性？他們自己回答說：暫且認為苦是樂，不凈是凈，邪見是其體性。又自己問道：難道邪見不是否定佈施等等嗎？然後又自己回答說：如果對於生死認為是快樂的、清凈的……
【English Translation】 English version
'The taste for sensual pleasures' implies that there is still a distorted perception, which has not been completely eliminated. Ignorance obscures the mind, which is why such thoughts arise. To dispel such doubts in the world, it is said that the Sotapanna (stream-enterer) has already severed all distortions. Or rather, the Sotapanna has already severed them, and there is no other distinction. The Saddhanusari (one who follows by faith) and Dhammanusari (one who follows by Dharma) may or may not have severed them. Saying that the Sotapanna has definitively severed them is why they are called Sotapanna. This principle does not conflict with the explanation of the Gatha (verse). Or, if it goes too far, why not say that even the saints still have the thought of 'I' arising? Because they do not generate the thought of sentient beings towards women, etc., or towards themselves, and greed does not arise in their minds. It should not be allowed that saints have the thought of 'I', because they have already generated the wisdom of the Dharma alone. Therefore, this distortion can only be severed by the path of seeing. The Abhidharmikas (those who analyze the Dharma) say this: permanence, self each have three, pleasure, purity each have three, like these eight distortions can only be severed by the path of seeing, four are common to the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, referring to the thought of pleasure and the thought of purity. Refute it like the previous explanation of the principle of the Gatha. So what they say is just speculation. Those Theravadins (Elders) say that the Sotapanna has completely severed the distortions of the path of seeing, but the distortions of thought still remain. If the thoughts of impermanence, pleasure, self, and purity are not forgotten, afflictions can still arise. So the Anupada Sutta (Uninterrupted Discourse) says this, the saint says peacefully, I will not cling to 'I' in form, etc., but in such five aggregates (Pancakkhandha, five aggregates), there are still latent tendencies (Anusaya, latent afflictions) of conceit and attachment that have not been severed. So know that the saint has the thought of 'I', and permanence, pleasure, and purity must also exist. This statement of the Theravadins contradicts their own intentions, contradicts the sutras, contradicts reason, and cannot be trusted. Saying that their statement contradicts their own intentions, and when they themselves explain the cause of the Vipallasa Sutta (Distortions Discourse), they say that in order to allow those who are ignorant of the principle of the order of transmigration and cessation to understand the principle of no distortion, this sutra was spoken. Those who have not fully understood the principle of the Four Noble Truths, who have already made distinctions about birth and death, whose obstacles of affliction are very few, who are about to attain Nirvana, as if something is already in the palm of their hand. How can a Puggala (person) with such merits be ignorant of the principle of the order of transmigration and cessation, and generate distortions? Because the light of holy wisdom is in their bodies. And when they themselves distinguish the nature of various distortions, they ask: What is the nature of the distortions of the path of seeing? They themselves answer: For the time being, think that suffering is pleasure, impurity is purity, and wrong view is its nature. They also ask themselves: Doesn't wrong view deny giving, etc.? Then they answer themselves: If one thinks that birth and death are happy and pure...
。彼定撥無真阿羅漢正至正行。豈不此言便顯聖者。既于生死有樂凈想。彼定應有撥阿羅漢正至正行邪想現行。若謂聖者邪見斷故無邪想者。則應聖者見倒斷故無顛倒想。言違經者。謂契經說。想心見倒皆見諦斷。二經證此具引如前。若謂此八想心顛倒。于修位中終由如實見知聖諦方得永斷。離此無餘永斷方便。故此所說不違經者。豈不見倒應同彼執。同想心說見諦斷故。若謂諸見有餘經中遮修所斷故。但應說想心二倒通修斷者。余經合說心想見三有四倒故。何緣不許離見倒時心想非倒。若謂經說有學聖者有想亂倒。此前已釋。前釋者何。謂非亂倒皆名顛倒或非彼經說辯自在定居學位。言違理者。且有學聖為求樂故受用境時。境中雖無諦理樂凈。而有事樂凈能引想心。故樂凈想心聖容現起都無。常我諸行聚中常我想心何容現起。以樂凈倒托有事生托無事生。常我二倒由有樂受是勝義攝。此義決定如后當辯。有漏法中有少分凈。契經說有三凈業故。凈解脫境。經所說故。樂凈實有世極成故。諸行聚中若事若理。都無常我實體可得。故未見諦者。于諸行中妄起執常我想心見倒。亦托少分事樂凈中。一向執為理實樂凈故。有執樂凈想心見倒成。已見諦者。於行聚中以畢竟無常我事故。亦定不起常我想心。由此應知聖者相續。
常我二倒決定非有。樂凈想心托有事故。于聖相續亦得現行。有得亂倒名無。名顛倒者。倒唯迷理分別起故。然彼所引安隱契經不能證聖有常我想心倒。不成倒義如前已辯。如是詳察上座所言。于聖教理無不違害。故彼所說不可信依。辯見隨眠差別相已。為余亦有差別相耶。亦有。云何。頌曰。
慢七九從三 皆通見修斷 聖如殺纏等 有修斷不行
論曰。有愚癡者。先於有事非有事中。校量自他心生高舉。說名為慢。由行轉異分為七種。一慢二過慢。三慢過慢。四我慢。五增上慢。六卑慢。七邪慢。於他劣等族朋等中。謂己勝等高舉名慢。豈不此二俱于境中如實而轉不應成慢。方劣言勝。方等言等。稱量而知。何失名慢。于可愛事心生愛染如實而轉。如何成貪。此既耽求諸可意事。無有顛倒應非煩惱。然由此起能染惱心。既許成貪是煩惱性。如是雖實勝劣處生。而能令心高舉染惱。名慢煩惱。于理何失。故先略述慢。總相中說訖。有非有二俱容起慢。如於處非處憤恚俱名瞋。於他等勝族朋等中。謂己勝等。名為過慢。於他殊勝族朋等中。謂己勝彼。名慢過慢。於五取蘊執我我所心便高舉。名為我慢。由此證知于未缺減有身見位。可言有我想心二倒。非缺減時于未證得地道斷等殊勝得中謂已證得。名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『常我二倒決定非有』（常恒的和自我的兩種顛倒，聖者決定沒有）。『樂凈想心托有事故』（快樂、清凈、思想和心識，依託于實有的事物）。『于聖相續亦得現行』（在聖者的相續中也能顯現）。『有得亂倒名無』（獲得錯亂顛倒的名稱，是沒有的）。『名顛倒者』（被稱為顛倒的），『倒唯迷理分別起故』（顛倒只是因為迷惑真理，分別而生起的緣故）。『然彼所引安隱契經不能證聖有常我想心倒』（然而，他們所引用的《安隱契經》不能證明聖者有常恒、自我、思想和心識的顛倒）。『不成倒義如前已辯』（不成顛倒的意義，如前面已經辨析）。『如是詳察上座所言』（這樣詳細考察上座部的言論），『于聖教理無不違害』（對於聖教的道理沒有不違背損害的）。『故彼所說不可信依』（所以他們所說的不可信賴依靠）。『辯見隨眠差別相已』（辨別了見隨眠的差別相之後），『為余亦有差別相耶』（對於其他的，也有差別相嗎）？『亦有』（也有）。『云何』（是什麼）？頌曰： 『慢七九從三 皆通見修斷』（慢有七種或九種，都通於見道和修道所斷）。 『聖如殺纏等 有修斷不行』（聖者如殺害、纏縛等，有修道所斷的，不行）。 論曰：『有愚癡者』（論說：有愚癡的人），『先於有事非有事中』（先在實有的事物和非實有的事物中），『校量自他心生高舉』（比較自己和他人，心中產生高舉），『說名為慢』（說這叫做慢）。『由行轉異分為七種』（由於行為轉變不同，分為七種）。『一慢二過慢』（第一種是慢，第二種是過慢）。『三慢過慢』（第三種是慢過慢）。『四我慢』（第四種是我慢）。『五增上慢』（第五種是增上慢）。『六卑慢』（第六種是卑慢）。『七邪慢』（第七種是邪慢）。『於他劣等族朋等中』（在他人低劣或相等的家族朋友等之中），『謂己勝等高舉名慢』（認為自己勝過或相等，心生高舉，叫做慢）。『豈不此二俱于境中如實而轉不應成慢』（難道不是這兩種情況都在境界中如實地運轉，不應該成為慢嗎）？『方劣言勝』（在對方低劣時說自己勝過），『方等言等』（在對方相等時說自己相等），『稱量而知』（稱量而知道），『何失名慢』（有什麼過失叫做慢）？『于可愛事心生愛染如實而轉』（對於可愛的事物，心中產生愛染，如實地運轉），『如何成貪』（如何成為貪）？『此既耽求諸可意事』（這既然是貪求各種可意的事物），『無有顛倒應非煩惱』（沒有顛倒，應該不是煩惱）。『然由此起能染惱心』（然而由此生起能夠染污惱亂心識的），『既許成貪是煩惱性』（既然允許成為貪，是煩惱的性質）。『如是雖實勝劣處生』（這樣即使在真實的勝過或低劣之處產生），『而能令心高舉染惱』（而能夠使心高舉染污惱亂），『名慢煩惱』（叫做慢煩惱）。『于理何失』（在道理上有什麼過失）？『故先略述慢』（所以先前簡略地敘述慢），『總相中說訖』（在總相中說完）。『有非有二俱容起慢』（實有和非實有，兩種情況都可能生起慢）。『如於處非處憤恚俱名瞋』（比如對於適宜和不適宜的事情，憤恨惱怒都叫做瞋）。『於他等勝族朋等中』（在他人相等或勝過的家族朋友等之中），『謂己勝等』（認為自己勝過或相等），『名為過慢』（叫做過慢）。『於他殊勝族朋等中』（在他人特別勝過的家族朋友等之中），『謂己勝彼』（認為自己勝過他們），『名慢過慢』（叫做慢過慢）。『於五取蘊執我我所心便高舉』（對於五取蘊執著為我或我所，心中便高舉），『名為我慢』（叫做我慢）。『由此證知于未缺減有身見位』（由此可以證明，在沒有缺少有身見的位置），『可言有我想心二倒』（可以說有我、想、心二種顛倒）。『非缺減時』（不是缺少的時候）。『于未證得地道斷等殊勝得中謂已證得』（對於沒有證得的地位、道、斷等殊勝的獲得中，認為已經證得），『名』（叫做）
【English Translation】 English version 'The two inversions of permanence and self are definitely non-existent' (The two inversions of permanence and self, the sages definitely do not have). 'Joy, purity, thought, and consciousness rely on real things' (Joy, purity, thought, and consciousness rely on real things). 'They can also manifest in the continuum of the sages' (They can also manifest in the continuum of the sages). 'Obtaining confused inversions is called non-existent' (Obtaining confused inversions is called non-existent). 'Those called inversions' (Those called inversions), 'inversions only arise from being confused about the truth and discriminating' (inversions only arise from being confused about the truth and discriminating). 'However, the Ananya Sutra they cited cannot prove that the sages have the inversions of permanence, self, thought, and consciousness' (However, the Ananya Sutra they cited cannot prove that the sages have the inversions of permanence, self, thought, and consciousness). 'It does not constitute the meaning of inversion as previously discussed' (It does not constitute the meaning of inversion as previously discussed). 'Thus, examining the words of the elders in detail' (Thus, examining the words of the elders in detail), 'there is nothing that does not violate and harm the principles of the holy teachings' (there is nothing that does not violate and harm the principles of the holy teachings). 'Therefore, what they say is not trustworthy and reliable' (Therefore, what they say is not trustworthy and reliable). 'Having distinguished the different aspects of the latent tendencies of views' (Having distinguished the different aspects of the latent tendencies of views), 'are there also different aspects for the others?' (are there also different aspects for the others?) 'There are' (There are). 'What are they?' (What are they?) The verse says: 'Pride, seven or nine, all connect to what is severed by the path of seeing and the path of cultivation' (Pride, seven or nine types, all connect to what is severed by the path of seeing and the path of cultivation). 'Sages, like killing and bondage, have what is severed by the path of cultivation, but do not practice it' (Sages, like killing and bondage, have what is severed by the path of cultivation, but do not practice it). The treatise says: 'Some foolish people' (The treatise says: Some foolish people), 'first, in real and unreal things' (first, in real and unreal things), 'compare themselves with others and give rise to arrogance' (compare themselves with others and give rise to arrogance), 'which is called pride' (which is called pride). 'Due to the difference in the transformation of actions, it is divided into seven types' (Due to the difference in the transformation of actions, it is divided into seven types). 'First is pride, second is excessive pride' (First is pride, second is excessive pride). 'Third is pride over pride' (Third is pride over pride). 'Fourth is self-pride' (Fourth is self-pride). 'Fifth is increased pride' (Fifth is increased pride). 'Sixth is humble pride' (Sixth is humble pride). 'Seventh is wrong pride' (Seventh is wrong pride). 'Among others who are inferior or equal in family, friends, etc.' (Among others who are inferior or equal in family, friends, etc.), 'thinking that oneself is superior or equal, and giving rise to arrogance, is called pride' (thinking that oneself is superior or equal, and giving rise to arrogance, is called pride). 'Isn't it that these two situations both operate truthfully in the realm, and should not become pride?' (Isn't it that these two situations both operate truthfully in the realm, and should not become pride?) 'When the other is inferior, saying that oneself is superior' (When the other is inferior, saying that oneself is superior), 'when the other is equal, saying that oneself is equal' (when the other is equal, saying that oneself is equal), 'measuring and knowing' (measuring and knowing), 'what fault is called pride?' (what fault is called pride?) 'For lovable things, the mind gives rise to love and attachment, and operates truthfully' (For lovable things, the mind gives rise to love and attachment, and operates truthfully), 'how does it become greed?' (how does it become greed?) 'Since this is craving for various desirable things' (Since this is craving for various desirable things), 'without inversion, it should not be affliction' (without inversion, it should not be affliction). 'However, from this arises what can defile and disturb the mind' (However, from this arises what can defile and disturb the mind), 'since it is allowed to become greed, it is the nature of affliction' (since it is allowed to become greed, it is the nature of affliction). 'Thus, even if it arises in a truly superior or inferior place' (Thus, even if it arises in a truly superior or inferior place), 'it can cause the mind to be arrogant, defiled, and disturbed' (it can cause the mind to be arrogant, defiled, and disturbed), 'which is called the affliction of pride' (which is called the affliction of pride). 'What fault is there in principle?' (What fault is there in principle?) 'Therefore, I first briefly described pride' (Therefore, I first briefly described pride), 'and finished speaking in the general characteristics' (and finished speaking in the general characteristics). 'Both real and unreal things can give rise to pride' (Both real and unreal things can give rise to pride). 'For example, for appropriate and inappropriate things, anger and resentment are both called hatred' (For example, for appropriate and inappropriate things, anger and resentment are both called hatred). 'Among others who are equal or superior in family, friends, etc.' (Among others who are equal or superior in family, friends, etc.), 'thinking that oneself is superior or equal' (thinking that oneself is superior or equal), 'is called excessive pride' (is called excessive pride). 'Among others who are particularly superior in family, friends, etc.' (Among others who are particularly superior in family, friends, etc.), 'thinking that oneself is superior to them' (thinking that oneself is superior to them), 'is called pride over pride' (is called pride over pride). 'Clinging to the five aggregates as self or what belongs to self, the mind then becomes arrogant' (Clinging to the five aggregates as self or what belongs to self, the mind then becomes arrogant), 'is called self-pride' (is called self-pride). 'From this, it can be proven that in the position where the view of a body is not lacking' (From this, it can be proven that in the position where the view of a body is not lacking), 'it can be said that there are the two inversions of self, thought, and mind' (it can be said that there are the two inversions of self, thought, and mind). 'Not when it is lacking' (Not when it is lacking). 'Thinking that one has already attained the superior attainments of the stages, paths, severance, etc., that have not been attained' (Thinking that one has already attained the superior attainments of the stages, paths, severance, etc., that have not been attained), 'is called' (is called)
增上慢。未得得言。其義何別。前得后得義無異故。此言為顯未得德得。得復有得宗所許故。諸有在家或出家者。於他工巧尸羅等德多分勝中。謂己少劣心生高舉。名為卑慢。此中於己心高舉者。於他多勝謂己少劣。有增己故亦說為高。有餘師言。於己功力不信謂劣。名為卑慢。如是謂劣高舉不成。是故應知前說為勝。于無德中謂己有德。名為邪慢。言無德者。謂諸惡行。違功德故立無德名。猶如不善彼于成此無德法中。謂己有斯殊勝功德。恃惡高舉。故名邪慢。若謂無德者。是遮有德言。于實無德中謂有名邪慢。彼辯增上邪慢別中。說無種子名增上慢。有種子者名為邪慢。或全增益名增上慢。少分增益名為邪慢如是差別理應不成。是故應知前說為勝。有說。唯除我我所見。以余邪見為先。所生令心高舉。名為邪慢。有餘師說。恃全實事高舉名慢。恃少實事心生高舉。名為過慢。恃無實事心生高舉。名慢過慢。於五取蘊我愛為先。恃我高舉。名為我慢。于證少德謂已證多。心生高舉。名增上慢。攝受少事心謂為足。恃生高舉。名為卑慢。實鄙惡類。自謂有德。心生高舉。名為邪慢。然本論說慢類有九。類是品類義。即慢之差別。九類者何。一我勝慢類。二我等慢類。三我劣慢類。四有勝我慢類。五有等我慢類。六有劣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『增上慢』（Adhimāna，未證得殊勝之德，卻自以為已證得），『未得得言』（Alabdhe labdhavādī，未獲得的，卻說已獲得），它們的意義有什麼區別？因為『前得』和『后得』的意義沒有差別。說『未得得言』是爲了顯示未獲得的德行，卻說已獲得，因為『得』之後還可以有『得』，這是宗派所允許的。有些在家或出家的人，在他人于工巧、戒律等德行方面大多勝過自己的情況下，認為自己稍微差一點，心中生起高舉，這叫做『卑慢』（avamāna）。這裡，對於自己心中高舉的人來說，他人大多勝過自己，而自己稍微差一點。因為有增加自己的成分，所以也說為『高』。有其他老師說，對於自己的功力不相信，認為自己差，這叫做『卑慢』。如果這樣認為自己差，高舉就不能成立。所以應該知道前面說的為勝。在沒有德行的情況下，認為自己有德行，這叫做『邪慢』（mithyāmāna）。說『無德』，是指各種惡行。因為違背功德，所以立名為『無德』。猶如不善，他們在成就這些無德法中，認為自己有這種殊勝的功德，憑藉惡行而高舉，所以叫做『邪慢』。如果認為『無德』，是遮止有德的說法。在實際上沒有德行的情況下，認為自己有名，是『邪慢』。他們在辨別增上慢和邪慢的差別中，說沒有種子叫做『增上慢』，有種子叫做『邪慢』。或者完全增益叫做『增上慢』，少部分增益叫做『邪慢』。這樣的差別道理應該不能成立。所以應該知道前面說的為勝。有人說，唯獨排除我見和我所見，以其餘邪見為先導，所產生的令心高舉，叫做『邪慢』。有其他老師說，憑藉完全真實的事情而高舉叫做『慢』（māna）。憑藉少量真實的事情，心中生起高舉，叫做『過慢』（atimāna）。憑藉沒有真實的事情，心中生起高舉，叫做『慢過慢』（mānātimāna）。對於五取蘊，以我愛為先導，憑藉『我』而高舉，叫做『我慢』（asmimāna）。對於證得少許德行，認為自己已經證得很多，心中生起高舉，叫做『增上慢』。攝取很少的事情，心中認為足夠，憑藉此而生起高舉，叫做『卑慢』。實際上是鄙陋惡劣之類，自己認為有德行，心中生起高舉，叫做『邪慢』。然而本論說慢的種類有九種。『類』是品類的意思，也就是慢的差別。九類是什麼？一、我勝慢類。二、我等慢類。三、我劣慢類。四、有勝我慢類。五、有等我慢類。六、有劣我慢類。
【English Translation】 English version What is the difference between 『Adhimāna』 (exaggerated pride, thinking one has attained superior qualities when one has not) and 『Alabdhe labdhavādī』 (claiming to have attained what has not been attained)? Because there is no difference in meaning between 『prior attainment』 and 『subsequent attainment』. Saying 『Alabdhe labdhavādī』 is to show that one claims to have attained virtues that have not been attained, because there can be 『attainment』 after 『attainment』, which is permitted by the school. Some laypeople or monastics, when others surpass them in skill, morality, and other virtues, think that they are only slightly inferior and become arrogant, which is called 『avamāna』 (inferiority conceit). Here, for those who are arrogant in their hearts, others mostly surpass them, and they are only slightly inferior. Because there is an element of exaggerating oneself, it is also called 『high』. Other teachers say that not believing in one's own abilities and thinking oneself inferior is called 『avamāna』. If one thinks oneself inferior in this way, arrogance cannot be established. Therefore, it should be known that the former statement is superior. In the absence of virtue, thinking that one has virtue is called 『mithyāmāna』 (false conceit). Saying 『absence of virtue』 refers to various evil deeds. Because they violate virtue, they are named 『absence of virtue』. Just like unwholesome actions, they think that they have such superior merits in accomplishing these non-virtuous dharmas, and they become arrogant based on evil deeds, so it is called 『mithyāmāna』. If one thinks 『absence of virtue』 is a way of negating the existence of virtue. In the absence of actual virtue, thinking that one has a name is 『mithyāmāna』. In distinguishing between Adhimāna and Mithyāmāna, they say that the absence of a seed is called 『Adhimāna』, and the presence of a seed is called 『Mithyāmāna』. Or complete exaggeration is called 『Adhimāna』, and partial exaggeration is called 『Mithyāmāna』. Such a distinction should not be established. Therefore, it should be known that the former statement is superior. Some say that only excluding the view of self and what belongs to self, with other wrong views as a precursor, the arrogance that arises is called 『Mithyāmāna』. Other teachers say that arrogance based on completely true things is called 『māna』 (conceit). Arrogance arising from a small amount of true things is called 『atimāna』 (excessive conceit). Arrogance arising from no true things is called 『mānātimāna』 (conceit beyond conceit). Regarding the five aggregates of clinging, with love of self as a precursor, arrogance based on 『self』 is called 『asmimāna』 (I am conceit). Regarding attaining a small amount of virtue, thinking that one has attained a lot, arrogance arises, which is called 『Adhimāna』. Taking very little as sufficient, arrogance arises based on this, which is called 『avamāna』. In reality, being base and evil, one thinks oneself virtuous, and arrogance arises, which is called 『Mithyāmāna』. However, the original treatise says that there are nine types of conceit. 『Type』 means category, which is the difference of conceit. What are the nine types? 1. Conceit of being superior. 2. Conceit of being equal. 3. Conceit of being inferior. 4. Conceit of being superior to the superior. 5. Conceit of being equal to the equal. 6. Conceit of being superior to the inferior.
我慢類。七無勝我慢類。八無等我慢類。九無劣我慢類。此九皆依有身。見起我勝者是過慢類。我等者是慢類。我劣者是卑慢類。有勝我者是卑慢類。有等我者是慢類有劣我者是過慢類。無勝我者是慢類。無等我者是過慢類。無劣我者是卑慢類。是故此九從三慢出。謂慢過慢及卑慢。三行次有殊成三三類。無劣我慢類高舉如何成。謂有如斯于自所樂勝有情聚。雖於己身知極下劣。而自尊重如呈瑞者。或旃荼羅。彼雖自知世所共惡。然于呈瑞執所作時。尊重自身故成高舉。如是七慢何所斷耶。有餘師言。我慢邪慢唯見所斷。余通見修。理實應言七皆通二。故能安隱作如是言。我色等中不隨執我。然于如是五取蘊中。有我慢愛隨眠未斷。謂修所斷聖未斷時。定可現行此不決定。謂有已斷而可現行。如已離欲貪信苦眠眼等。有雖未斷而定不行。如未離欲貪聖者殺纏等。言殺纏者。謂由此纏發起故思斷眾生命。等者等取盜淫。誑纏無有愛全。有愛一分。無有名何法。謂三界無常。於此貪求名無有愛。由此已簡無漏無常。彼定非貪安足處故。有愛一分。謂愿當爲藹羅筏拏大龍王等。等言為顯阿素洛王北俱盧洲無想天等。此殺纏等雖修所斷。而諸聖者定不現行。此修斷不行言成無用。以當說聖有而不起故。若聖身中有容現起。遮言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 我慢類：分為九種。七、無勝我慢類（認為沒有人勝過自己而產生的我慢）。八、無等我慢類（認為沒有人與自己相等而產生的我慢）。九、無劣我慢類（認為沒有人不如自己而產生的我慢）。這九種我慢都依附於有身見而生起。認為自己勝過他人的是過慢類。認為自己與他人相等的是慢類。認為自己不如他人的是卑慢類。認為有人勝過自己的是卑慢類。認為有人與自己相等的是慢類。認為有人不如自己的是過慢類。認為沒有人勝過自己的是慢類。認為沒有人與自己相等的是過慢類。認為沒有人不如自己的是卑慢類。因此，這九種我慢都從三種根本的我慢中產生，即慢、過慢和卑慢。這三種我慢由於行相的差異而形成三種三類。 無劣我慢類的高舉是如何形成的呢？譬如，有些人身處自己所喜愛的、勝妙的有情眾聚之中，雖然明知自己極其下劣，卻仍然自我尊重，如同呈瑞者（身份低賤卻自視甚高的人），或者旃荼羅（賤民）。他們雖然自知為世人所厭惡，但在呈瑞時，仍然尊重自身，因此形成高舉。 這七種慢應該斷除哪些呢？有些論師說，我慢和邪慢僅僅是見道所斷除的，其餘的慢則通於見道和修道。但實際上應該說，這七種慢都通於見道和修道。因此，可以安心地說，我在色等五蘊中不隨之執著為我，然而，在這五取蘊中，我慢和愛隨眠還沒有斷除。也就是說，修道所斷的聖者在沒有斷除時，這些我慢和愛隨眠一定會現行，但這並不一定。也就是說，有些已經斷除的我慢和愛隨眠仍然可以現行，比如已經遠離欲貪的信苦眠眼等。有些雖然沒有斷除，但一定不會現行，比如沒有遠離欲貪的聖者，其殺纏等。 所說的殺纏，是指由此纏縛而發起思慮，斷絕眾生的性命。『等』字包括盜、淫。誑纏沒有完全的愛，只有一部分愛。什麼是無有愛呢？是指對三界無常的貪求，這稱為無有愛。由此可以區分無漏的無常，因為它一定不是貪愛的安足之處。什麼是有愛的一部分呢？是指希望將來成為藹羅筏拏（Airavata，帝釋天的坐騎）大龍王等等。『等』字是爲了顯示阿素洛王（Asura，阿修羅）和北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲）以及無想天（Asankhyata，無想天）等等。這些殺纏等雖然是修道所斷除的，但諸位聖者一定不會現行。這種修道所斷除而不現行的說法是無用的，因為當說聖者有殺纏等而不生起時，如果聖者的身中容許現起殺纏等，那麼遮止的說法...
【English Translation】 English version Conceit Category: There are nine types. 7. No-Superiority Conceit (thinking that no one is superior to oneself). 8. No-Equality Conceit (thinking that no one is equal to oneself). 9. No-Inferiority Conceit (thinking that no one is inferior to oneself). These nine types of conceit all arise based on the view of a substantial self. Considering oneself superior to others is the category of excessive conceit. Considering oneself equal to others is the category of conceit. Considering oneself inferior to others is the category of abject conceit. Considering others superior to oneself is the category of abject conceit. Considering others equal to oneself is the category of conceit. Considering others inferior to oneself is the category of excessive conceit. Considering no one superior to oneself is the category of conceit. Considering no one equal to oneself is the category of excessive conceit. Considering no one inferior to oneself is the category of abject conceit. Therefore, these nine types of conceit all arise from three fundamental types of conceit: conceit, excessive conceit, and abject conceit. These three types of conceit form three sets of three due to differences in their characteristics. How is the elevation of the No-Inferiority Conceit formed? For example, some people, being in a gathering of sentient beings that they like and consider superior, although knowing that they are extremely inferior, still respect themselves, like a candalas (outcaste) or preśya (a low-status person who considers himself important). Although they know that they are despised by the world, they still respect themselves when presenting themselves, thus forming elevation. Which of these seven types of conceit should be eliminated? Some teachers say that self-conceit and wrong conceit are only eliminated by the path of seeing, while the remaining conceits are common to both the paths of seeing and cultivation. But in reality, it should be said that all seven are common to both. Therefore, one can say with peace of mind, 'I do not cling to the aggregates of form, etc., as self.' However, within these five aggregates of clinging, self-conceit and the latent tendencies of attachment have not yet been eliminated. That is to say, when the saint who is cultivating the path has not eliminated them, these self-conceits and latent tendencies of attachment will definitely manifest, but this is not certain. That is, some self-conceits and latent tendencies of attachment that have already been eliminated can still manifest, such as the eyes of faith and suffering that have already been separated from desire. Some, although not eliminated, will definitely not manifest, such as the saint who has not separated from desire, his entanglement with killing, etc. The so-called entanglement with killing refers to the thought that arises from this entanglement, severing the lives of sentient beings. The word 'etc.' includes stealing and sexual misconduct. Entanglement with deception does not have complete attachment, only a portion of attachment. What is non-attachment? It refers to the craving for the impermanence of the three realms, which is called non-attachment. From this, one can distinguish the unconditioned impermanence, because it is definitely not a place of rest for attachment. What is a portion of attachment? It refers to the desire to become the great dragon king Airavata (Indra's mount), etc. The word 'etc.' is to show the Asura (demi-god) king and Uttarakuru (a continent) and Asankhyata (the realm of non-perception), etc. Although these entanglements with killing, etc., are eliminated by the path of cultivation, the saints will definitely not manifest them. This statement that what is eliminated by the path of cultivation does not manifest is useless, because when it is said that the saint has entanglement with killing, etc., but does not arise, if the saint's body allows the arising of entanglement with killing, etc., then the statement of prevention...
不起是有用言。非聖身中有見所斷。容可現起而更須遮。既有而遮已知修斷。及不行義何煩預說。若謂前說慢通見修。勿殺等纏亦通見斷故說修斷。此亦不然。說殺纏等言已簡見斷故。又觀后釋義足可知。如慢類等見所增故。由是此言但應在法。又釋中言。此諸纏愛。一切皆緣修所斷故。唯修斷者此非定因。見所斷亦緣修所斷法故。若作是釋。此含唯言是則此因能為定證。豈不見所斷亦有無常無有愛。何緣唯修所斷。實亦見斷。且隨經說。謂契經中說有三愛。欲愛有愛無有愛三。於此經中說無有愛取緣眾同分無常為境者。貪求異熟相續斷故。如契經言。一類苦逼作如是念。愿我死後斷壞無有無病樂哉。今且據斯說唯修斷非見所斷。無無有愛。如前已說。慢類我慢有修所斷。聖者猶有不說自成。此等何緣聖者猶有而不現起。頌曰。
慢類等我慢 惡作中不善 聖有而不起 見疑所增故
論曰。等言為顯殺等諸纏。無有愛全有愛一分。以諸聖者善修空故。善知業果相屬理故。此慢類等我慢惡悔。聖雖未斷而定不行。又此見疑親所增故。見疑已斷故不復行。謂慢類我慢有身見所增。殺生等纏邪見所增。諸無有愛斷見所增。有愛一分常見所增。不善惡作是疑所增。故聖身中雖有未斷。而由背折皆定不行。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果說『不起』是有用的話，那麼非聖者身中由『見』所斷的煩惱，也容易現起，難道還需要遮止嗎？既然已經存在而需要遮止，那就已經知道是『修』所斷的煩惱了。以及『不行』的意義，又何必預先說明呢？如果說前面所說的『慢』通於『見』和『修』，如同『勿殺』等煩惱也通於『見』所斷，所以說是『修』所斷。這樣說也是不對的。因為說『殺』等煩惱的時候，已經簡擇了『見』所斷的煩惱。而且觀察後面的解釋，其意義也足以知曉。比如『慢』這類煩惱，是由『見』所增長的。因此，這句話只應該在『法』上說。而且解釋中說：『這些煩惱和愛，一切都是因為『修』所斷的緣故。』只有『修』所斷的，這並非是確定的原因。因為『見』所斷的，也緣于『修』所斷的法。如果這樣解釋，這句話包含『唯』字，那麼這個原因才能作為確定的證據。難道沒有見到『見』所斷的也有無常和無有愛嗎？為什麼只有『修』所斷的呢？實際上也是『見』所斷的。且隨經文所說，經文中說有三種愛：欲愛（kāma-taṇhā，對感官享樂的渴求），有愛（bhava-taṇhā，對存在的渴求），無有愛（vibhava-taṇhā，對斷滅的渴求）。在這部經中說，『無有愛』以『取緣眾同分無常』為境界，貪求異熟相續斷滅的緣故。如同經文所說：『一類人被痛苦逼迫，作這樣的念頭：愿我死後斷壞，沒有病痛，快樂啊！』現在且根據這個來說，只有『修』所斷的，不是『見』所斷的。沒有『無有愛』，如同前面已經說過的。『慢』這類我慢（asmimāna，認為『我』比別人優越的傲慢），有『修』所斷。聖者仍然有，不說自成。這些為什麼聖者仍然有而不現起呢？頌說： 『慢』這類等同我慢，以及『惡作』（kaukṛtya，對已做之事的後悔）中的不善，聖者有這些煩惱，但是不起現行，是因為『見』和『疑』所增長的緣故。 論說：『等』字是爲了顯示殺生等諸煩惱，無有愛全部，有愛（bhava-taṇhā，對存在的渴求）的一部分。因為諸聖者善於修習空性（śūnyatā，空無自性），善於知道業果相互關聯的道理。這些『慢』這類我慢和惡悔，聖者雖然沒有斷除，但是一定不會現行。而且這些煩惱是『見』和『疑』親近增長的緣故。『見』和『疑』已經斷除，所以不再現行。所謂『慢』這類我慢，是由有身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的錯誤見解）所增長的。殺生等煩惱，是由邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）所增長的。諸『無有愛』，是由斷見（uccheda-dṛṣṭi，認為生命死後斷滅的錯誤見解）所增長的。『有愛』的一部分，是由常見（śāśvata-dṛṣṭi，認為生命永恒存在的錯誤見解）所增長的。不善的『惡作』，是由疑（vicikitsā，對佛法僧三寶的懷疑）所增長的。所以聖者身中雖然有未斷的煩惱，但是由於背離和折伏，都一定不會現行。
【English Translation】 English version: If 'non-arising' is useful, then the afflictions severed by 'view' in the body of a non-saint are also easily aroused. Is it still necessary to prevent them? Since they already exist and need to be prevented, it is already known that they are afflictions severed by 'cultivation'. And the meaning of 'non-practice', why bother to explain it in advance? If it is said that the 'conceit' mentioned earlier is common to 'view' and 'cultivation', just as afflictions such as 'do not kill' are also common to what is severed by 'view', so it is said to be severed by 'cultivation'. This is also incorrect. Because when mentioning afflictions such as 'killing', it has already distinguished the afflictions severed by 'view'. Moreover, observing the later explanation, its meaning is sufficient to know. For example, afflictions like 'conceit' are increased by 'view'. Therefore, this statement should only be said about 'dharma'. Moreover, the explanation says: 'These afflictions and attachments are all severed by 'cultivation'.' Only what is severed by 'cultivation' is not a definite cause. Because what is severed by 'view' is also related to the dharma severed by 'cultivation'. If explained in this way, this sentence contains the word 'only', then this reason can serve as definite evidence. Haven't you seen that what is severed by 'view' also includes impermanence and non-existence of attachment? Why is it only severed by 'cultivation'? In reality, it is also severed by 'view'. And according to the sutra, the sutra says there are three types of attachment: desire attachment (kāma-taṇhā, craving for sensual pleasures), existence attachment (bhava-taṇhā, craving for existence), and non-existence attachment (vibhava-taṇhā, craving for annihilation). In this sutra, it is said that 'non-existence attachment' takes 'impermanence of the aggregates conditioned by grasping' as its object, because it craves the cessation of the continuous ripening of results. Just as the sutra says: 'A certain type of people, oppressed by suffering, have this thought: I wish that after my death, I would be completely destroyed, without illness, and happy!' Now, let's say that only what is severed by 'cultivation' is not severed by 'view'. There is no 'non-existence attachment', as has been said before. 'Conceit' such as self-conceit (asmimāna, arrogance that considers 'I' to be superior to others) is severed by 'cultivation'. Saints still have it, which is self-evident. Why do these still exist in saints but do not arise? The verse says: 'Conceit' and similar self-conceit, as well as the unwholesome in 'remorse' (kaukṛtya, regret for what has been done), saints have these afflictions, but they do not arise, because they are increased by 'view' and 'doubt'. The treatise says: The word 'similar' is to show all the afflictions such as killing, all of non-existence attachment, and a part of existence attachment (bhava-taṇhā, craving for existence). Because the saints are good at cultivating emptiness (śūnyatā, emptiness of inherent existence), and are good at knowing the principle of the interconnectedness of karma and its results. These 'conceit' and similar self-conceit and remorse, although the saints have not eliminated them, they will definitely not manifest. Moreover, these afflictions are increased by close association with 'view' and 'doubt'. 'View' and 'doubt' have already been eliminated, so they no longer manifest. The so-called 'conceit' and similar self-conceit are increased by the view of a real self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi, the mistaken view that the body composed of the five aggregates is truly existent). Afflictions such as killing are increased by wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi, incorrect views). All 'non-existence attachment' is increased by annihilationism (uccheda-dṛṣṭi, the mistaken view that life ceases after death). A part of 'existence attachment' is increased by eternalism (śāśvata-dṛṣṭi, the mistaken view that life is eternally existent). Unwholesome 'remorse' is increased by doubt (vicikitsā, doubt about the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha). Therefore, although there are uneliminated afflictions in the body of a saint, they will definitely not manifest due to turning away and subduing them.
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之四
九十八隨眠中幾是遍行。幾非遍行頌曰。
見苦集所斷 諸見疑相應 及不共無明 遍行自界地 于中除二見 餘九能上緣 除得余隨行 亦是遍行攝
論曰。唯見苦集所斷隨眠。力能遍行。然非一切。謂唯諸見疑彼相應不共無明非余貪等。見有七見。疑有二疑。相應無明即攝屬彼。不共有二。故成十一。如是十一。于諸界地中各能遍行。自界地五部。謂自界地五部法中。遍緣隨眠為因生染。是故唯此立遍行名。且約界說言三十三是遍然有師說。三十三中二十七是遍。餘六應分別。彼師於此唐設劬勞。以相應無明如所相應惑。遍非遍理不說成故。由是此中標別數者取自力起。不共無明非此無明。見苦集所斷有非是遍。是故但言三十三是遍。此說為善。依何義立此不共名。如是說者。相雜名共。以非共故立不共名即是彼此各別為義。如契經說。不共佛僧。此顯佛僧二寶各別。以不共行故名不共無明。非余隨眠相雜行故。或普名共。即是遍義。由非共故立不共名。此不共
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十七 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十八
尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之四
九十八隨眠中，哪些是遍行（能普遍生起煩惱），哪些不是遍行？頌文說：
『見苦集所斷 諸見疑相應 及不共無明 遍行自界地 于中除二見 餘九能上緣 除得余隨行 亦是遍行攝』
論曰：只有見苦諦和見集諦所斷的隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式），才有力量普遍生起煩惱。但並非所有這些隨眠都是遍行，而是指諸見（各種錯誤的見解）、疑（懷疑）、與它們相應的無明（愚昧），以及不共無明（獨特的不共其他煩惱的愚昧），而不是其餘的貪等煩惱。
見有七種見，疑有兩種疑，相應的無明包含在它們之中，不共無明有兩種。因此，總共有十一種。這十一種隨眠，在各個界地（欲界、色界、無色界）中，都能普遍生起煩惱。在各自的界地中，對五部（五種型別的煩惱）來說，也就是說，在各自界地的五部法中，普遍地以隨眠為因，產生染污。因此，只有這些才能被稱為遍行。
暫且按照界來說，三十三種隨眠是遍行。然而，有論師說，三十三種隨眠中，二十七種是遍行，其餘六種應該分別討論。那位論師在這裡白費力氣，因為相應的無明，就像它所相應的煩惱一樣，遍行或非遍行的道理並沒有說明清楚。因此，這裡標明數量的人，取的是自身的力量生起煩惱。不共無明並非指此處的無明。見苦諦和見集諦所斷的隨眠，有不是遍行的。因此，只說三十三種是遍行。這種說法是好的。
根據什麼意義，設立這種不共（獨特）的名稱呢？如此說來，相雜稱為共，因為不是共有的，所以設立不共的名稱，也就是彼此各別的意思。如同契經所說，『不共佛僧』，這顯示佛寶和僧寶是各別的。因為不共同執行，所以稱為不共無明，而不是其餘的隨眠相雜執行。或者，普遍稱為共，也就是遍的意思。因為不是普遍的，所以設立不共的名稱。這個不共……
【English Translation】 English version Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhaṣā-śāstra, Volume 47 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 48
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5, Part 4: On Latent Afflictions (Anuśaya)
Among the ninety-eight latent afflictions (anuśaya), how many are pervasive (sarvatraga), and how many are not? The verse says:
'Those severed by seeing suffering and origination, The views and doubts associated with them, And the unshared ignorance, Are pervasive in their own realm and ground. Among these, excluding two views, The remaining nine can condition higher realms. Excluding attainment, the remaining accompanying factors, Are also included among the pervasive.'
Commentary: Only the latent afflictions severed by seeing the truths of suffering (duḥkha) and origination (samudaya) have the power to be pervasive. However, not all of these are pervasive; rather, it refers to the views (dṛṣṭi), doubts (vicikitsā), the ignorance (avidyā) associated with them, and the unshared ignorance (asaṃskṛtāvidyā), not the remaining afflictions such as greed (rāga).
There are seven types of views, two types of doubts, the associated ignorance is included within them, and there are two types of unshared ignorance. Therefore, there are eleven in total. These eleven latent afflictions can be pervasive in each realm and ground (dhātu and bhūmi). Within their own realm and ground, for the five categories (of afflictions), that is, within the five categories of dharmas in their own realm and ground, defilement arises pervasively with latent afflictions as the cause. Therefore, only these are designated as pervasive.
For the time being, speaking in terms of realms, thirty-three latent afflictions are pervasive. However, some teachers say that among the thirty-three, twenty-seven are pervasive, and the remaining six should be discussed separately. That teacher is exerting effort in vain here, because the principle of whether associated ignorance is pervasive or not, like the afflictions it is associated with, has not been clearly explained. Therefore, those who specify the number here are referring to the power of the afflictions themselves to arise. Unshared ignorance does not refer to the ignorance here. Among the latent afflictions severed by seeing the truths of suffering and origination, some are not pervasive. Therefore, it is only said that thirty-three are pervasive. This explanation is good.
According to what meaning is this 'unshared' (asaṃskṛta) name established? As it is said, 'mixed' is called 'shared' (saṃskṛta), and because it is not shared, the name 'unshared' is established, which means 'separate from each other'. As the sutra says, 'unshared Buddha and Sangha', this shows that the Buddha Jewel and the Sangha Jewel are separate. Because it does not operate in common, it is called unshared ignorance, and not because the remaining latent afflictions operate in a mixed manner. Or, 'universal' is called 'shared', which means 'pervasive'. Because it is not universal, the name 'unshared' is established. This unshared...
名顯非共有。即是不遍諸煩惱義。與諸隨眠不相應故。有餘師說。與余煩惱不相關涉。名為不共。即是惛重無動搖義。相應無明與余煩惱共相應故。相有警動。不共無明由自力起。于諸事業皆不欲為惛重無動搖。如珊若娑病。是故名曰不共無明。何故唯于見苦集斷諸隨眠內有遍行耶。唯此普緣諸有漏法。意樂無別勢力堅牢。故能為因遍生五部見滅見道所斷隨眠。唯有能緣有漏一分。所緣有別勢不堅牢。不能為因遍生五部。故唯前二部有遍行隨眠。何緣得知修斷染法。以見所斷遍行為因。如何不知世間現見有我見者。由我見力外境貪增。我見若無。便於外境貪微薄故。又由至教。如說。云何見斷為因法。謂諸染污法。又說。云何無記為因法。謂不善法無記有為法。由此等證知彼為因。若遍行因生修斷染。已斷未斷有何差別。彼已斷時修所斷染。亦得現起如未斷故。又若一切修所斷染。皆用見斷為遍行因。因已斷時修所斷染既得現起。何故聖者慢類等法必不現行。且初難言。已斷未斷何差別者。甚有差別。謂未斷位。于自身中能為遍因取果與果。后已斷位。雖能為因不能取果。唯除先時已取果者。今有與義。又已斷位。雖能為因不障聖道。于自相續不復能引自得令生。與此相違是未斷位。何故聖者慢類等法。必不行者前已
【現代漢語翻譯】 名顯非共有，即是不遍諸煩惱義，意思是說這種無明不是普遍存在於所有煩惱之中的。因為它與諸隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）不相應。有其他老師說，與其餘煩惱沒有關聯，就叫做『不共』，也就是惛沉遲鈍，沒有動搖改變的力量。與（其他煩惱）相應的無明，是與其他煩惱共同相應而生起的，所以有警覺和動搖。不共無明是依靠自身的力量生起的，對於各種事業都不想去做，表現爲惛沉遲鈍，沒有動搖。就像珊若娑病（Shanruosha，一種疾病）一樣。所以叫做『不共無明』。 為什麼只有在見苦、見集所斷的諸隨眠之內，有遍行隨眠呢？因為只有這種隨眠能夠普遍地緣取所有的有漏法（Sasrava dharma，有煩惱的法），意樂沒有差別，勢力堅固，所以能夠作為原因，普遍地產生五部（五種不同的煩惱類別）中見滅、見道所斷的隨眠。只有能夠緣取有漏法的一部分，所緣的對象有差別，勢力不堅固，不能作為原因普遍地產生五部隨眠。所以只有前面兩部（見苦、見集）有遍行隨眠。 根據什麼得知修斷的染法，是以見所斷的遍行為原因呢？如果不是這樣，怎麼解釋世間上現在看到有我見（Atma-drishti，認為有『我』的錯誤見解）的人，因為我見的力量，對外境的貪愛會增長。如果我見不存在，那麼對外境的貪愛就會很微弱。而且還有聖教量的證明，比如經中說：『什麼是以見斷為原因的法？』回答是：『就是諸染污法。』又說：『什麼是無記為原因的法？』回答是：『就是不善法和無記的有為法。』通過這些證據可以知道見斷是修斷的原因。 如果遍行因生起了修斷的染法，已斷和未斷有什麼區別呢？因為即使（遍行因）已經斷除，修所斷的染法仍然可以像未斷除時一樣現起。而且，如果一切修所斷的染法，都用見斷作為遍行因，那麼在（見斷的）因已經斷除的時候，修所斷的染法既然可以現起，為什麼聖者（Arya，證悟者）的慢類等法一定不會現行呢？ 首先回答第一個問題，已斷和未斷有什麼區別？區別很大。在未斷除的時候，它在自身中能夠作為普遍的原因，取果和與果。在斷除之後，雖然能夠作為原因，但是不能取果，只能對先前已經取果的法，現在具有給予果報的意義。而且，在斷除之後，雖然能夠作為原因，但是不會障礙聖道，對於自身的相續，不再能夠引發和產生（新的）自體。與此相反的就是未斷除的狀態。 為什麼聖者的慢類等法一定不會現行呢？這個問題前面已經回答過了。
【English Translation】 The term 'non-common' indicates that it does not pervade all afflictions. This is because it is not associated with the Anusayas (latent defilements). Some teachers say that 'non-common' means not being related to other afflictions, implying a state of dullness and immobility. Ignorance that is associated (with other afflictions) arises in conjunction with them, thus exhibiting alertness and movement. Non-common ignorance arises from its own power, and one is unwilling to engage in various activities, resulting in dullness and immobility, like the Shanruosha disease (a type of illness). Therefore, it is called 'non-common ignorance'. Why is it that only within the defilements severed by seeing suffering and seeing origination are there pervasive Anusayas? Because only these Anusayas can universally grasp all Sasrava dharmas (defiled phenomena), with no difference in intention and with firm strength. Therefore, they can serve as the cause for the pervasive generation of the Anusayas severed by seeing cessation and seeing the path in the five categories (of afflictions). Only that which can grasp a portion of defiled phenomena, with differences in the objects grasped and with un-firm strength, cannot serve as the cause for the pervasive generation of the five categories. Therefore, only the first two categories (seeing suffering and seeing origination) have pervasive Anusayas. How is it known that the defilements severed by cultivation have as their cause the pervasive defilements severed by seeing? If this were not the case, how could it be explained that in the world, it is currently seen that those who have Atma-drishti (the false view of 'self') increase their attachment to external objects due to the power of Atma-drishti? If Atma-drishti were absent, then the attachment to external objects would be very weak. Moreover, there is the proof of the sacred teachings, such as when it is said in the sutras: 'What is the dharma that has severance by seeing as its cause?' The answer is: 'It is all defiled dharmas.' It is also said: 'What is the dharma that has the indeterminate as its cause?' The answer is: 'It is unwholesome dharmas and indeterminate conditioned dharmas.' From these proofs, it is known that severance by seeing is the cause of severance by cultivation. If the pervasive cause generates defilements severed by cultivation, what is the difference between having severed it and not having severed it? Because even if (the pervasive cause) has been severed, the defilements severed by cultivation can still arise as if they had not been severed. Moreover, if all defilements severed by cultivation use severance by seeing as their pervasive cause, then since the cause (of severance by seeing) has been severed, and the defilements severed by cultivation can still arise, why is it that the pride and similar dharmas of the Arya (noble beings) certainly do not manifest? Firstly, to answer the first question, what is the difference between having severed it and not having severed it? There is a great difference. In the state of not having severed it, it can serve as a pervasive cause within itself, taking the result and giving the result. After having severed it, although it can serve as a cause, it cannot take the result, but only has the meaning of giving a result to the dharmas that have already taken a result previously. Moreover, after having severed it, although it can serve as a cause, it does not obstruct the noble path, and it is no longer able to induce and generate (new) self-entities in its own continuum. The opposite of this is the state of not having severed it. Why is it that the pride and similar dharmas of the Arya certainly do not manifest? This question has already been answered previously.
說因。修斷既同寧有起不起。此難非理。因有近遠故。謂修斷染有以見疑為鄰近因連續而起見疑。若斷彼必不行。與彼相違容有起義。又非擇滅得未得殊。故有現行不現行者。由此所說二過俱無。此遍行名為目何義。但於一切有漏法中。能周遍緣是遍行義。謂上所說三十三隨眠。自界地中各能緣五部。雖有于受偏起我執。而此非唯緣自身受。以兼緣此種類法故。若起邪見。謂所修行妙行惡行皆空無果。此亦非唯緣自身業。總撥一切業生果能。由此準知余遍緣義。貪等煩惱唯托見聞。所思量事方得現起。以于妻等起貪等時緣顯非形緣形非顯。故知貪等皆非遍緣。且據隨眠能遍緣義釋遍行義。故作是說。若據隨眠同聚諸法所有遍義。釋遍行名。則諸隨眠具三遍義。謂於五部遍緣隨眠。及能為因遍生染法。彼相應法具二遍義。謂於三義唯闕隨眠。彼俱有法具一遍義。謂但為因遍生染法。故前所釋無缺減過。雖爾無一能遍隨眠。于自體等不隨眠故。則應無有遍行隨眠。此難不然。以於五部無礙轉故。立遍行名。非頓隨眠諸有漏故。又于自體俱有法中。由於去來彼種類法。有隨眠故遍義亦成。何因無明修所斷者。唯名自相惑非見所斷耶。由此無明所緣少故。見所斷法非所緣故。又此但隨貪等轉故。貪等唯是自相惑故。見斷無明有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如果修斷（xiu duan，指通過修行斷除煩惱）相同，為什麼有些煩惱會生起，有些不會生起？ 答：這個疑問不合理。因為因有遠近之分。也就是說，修斷染污（ran wu，指煩惱）時，以見疑（jian yi，指錯誤的見解和懷疑）為鄰近的因，會連續生起見疑。如果斷除了見疑，它必然不會生起。與見疑相反的，則容許生起。而且，非擇滅（fei ze mie，指不通過修行自然斷滅煩惱）的得與未得不同，所以有現行（xian xing，指已經生起的煩惱）和不現行（bu xian xing，指尚未生起的煩惱）的差別。由此可見，前面所說的兩種過失都不存在。 問：這個遍行（bian xing，指普遍存在的煩惱）的名稱是什麼意思？ 答：只是對於一切有漏法（you lou fa，指有煩惱的法）中，能夠周遍緣取，這就是遍行的意義。也就是說，上面所說的三十三種隨眠（sui mian，指潛在的煩惱），在各自的界地中，都能緣取五部（wu bu，指五種煩惱）。雖然有對於受（shou，指感受）偏起我執（wo zhi，指對自我的執著），但這並非僅僅緣取自身的感受，而是兼緣這種種類的法。如果生起邪見（xie jian，指錯誤的見解），認為所修行的妙行（miao xing，指善行）和惡行（e xing，指惡行）都是空無果報的，這也不是僅僅緣取自身的業（ye，指行為），而是總的否定一切業所生的果報能力。由此可以類推其他的遍緣意義。貪等煩惱只有依託見聞（jian wen，指見和聽），所思量的事物才能現起。因為在對妻子等生起貪等煩惱時，緣取的是顯色而非形色，緣取的是形色而非顯色。所以知道貪等都不是遍緣。這裡只是根據隨眠能夠普遍緣取的意義來解釋遍行的意義，所以才這樣說。如果根據隨眠同聚諸法（tong ju zhu fa，指聚集在一起的法）所有遍義來解釋遍行名，那麼諸隨眠具有三種遍義：即對於五部遍緣隨眠，以及能夠作為因遍生染法。彼相應法（bi xiang ying fa，指與隨眠相應的法）具有兩種遍義：即對於三種意義只缺少隨眠。彼俱有法（bi ju you fa，指與隨眠共同存在的法）具有一種遍義：即只是作為因遍生染法。所以前面所解釋的沒有缺減的過失。雖然如此，沒有一個能夠遍緣的隨眠，對於自體等不隨眠，那麼就應該沒有遍行隨眠。 答：這個疑問不對。因為對於五部沒有障礙地運轉，所以立名為遍行。並非頓時隨眠諸有漏，又于自體俱有法中，由於去來彼種類法，有隨眠故遍義亦成。為什麼無明（wu ming，指對真理的無知）修所斷者，唯名自相惑（zi xiang huo，指對自身相狀的迷惑），而非見所斷呢？由此無明所緣少故，見所斷法非所緣故。又此但隨貪等轉故，貪等唯是自相惑故。見斷無明有
【English Translation】 English version Question: If the severance through cultivation (xiu duan) is the same, why do some afflictions arise while others do not? Answer: This question is unreasonable. Because causes have near and far distinctions. That is, when severing defilements (ran wu) through cultivation, taking wrong views and doubts (jian yi) as the proximate cause, wrong views and doubts arise continuously. If wrong views and doubts are severed, they will certainly not arise. What is contrary to wrong views and doubts is allowed to arise. Moreover, the attainment and non-attainment of non-selective cessation (fei ze mie) are different, so there are differences between manifest (xian xing) and non-manifest afflictions. From this, it can be seen that the two faults mentioned earlier do not exist. Question: What is the meaning of the name 'pervasive' (bian xing)? Answer: It simply means that among all contaminated dharmas (you lou fa), it can pervasively grasp, and this is the meaning of 'pervasive'. That is, the thirty-three latent tendencies (sui mian) mentioned above can each grasp the five categories (wu bu) in their respective realms. Although there is a biased attachment to self (wo zhi) regarding feelings (shou), this does not only grasp one's own feelings, but also grasps dharmas of this kind. If wrong views (xie jian) arise, believing that the wonderful practices (miao xing) and evil deeds (e xing) that are cultivated are empty and without karmic consequences, this does not only grasp one's own karma (ye), but generally denies the ability of all karma to produce consequences. From this, the meaning of other pervasive grasps can be inferred. Afflictions such as greed only arise when relying on what is seen and heard (jian wen) and what is contemplated. Because when greed and other afflictions arise towards one's wife, etc., what is grasped is color rather than shape, and what is grasped is shape rather than color. Therefore, it is known that greed, etc., are not pervasive grasps. Here, the meaning of 'pervasive' is explained only according to the meaning of latent tendencies being able to grasp pervasively, so it is said in this way. If the name 'pervasive' is explained according to the pervasive meaning of all dharmas gathered together with latent tendencies (tong ju zhu fa), then the latent tendencies have three pervasive meanings: that is, pervasively grasping latent tendencies in the five categories, and being able to pervasively produce defiled dharmas as a cause. The corresponding dharmas (bi xiang ying fa) have two pervasive meanings: that is, they only lack latent tendencies in the three meanings. The co-existent dharmas (bi ju you fa) have one pervasive meaning: that is, they only pervasively produce defiled dharmas as a cause. Therefore, the previous explanation does not have the fault of being incomplete. Even so, there is not a single latent tendency that can pervasively grasp, because it does not latently grasp itself, etc., so there should be no pervasive latent tendencies. Answer: This question is not correct. Because it operates without obstruction in the five categories, it is named 'pervasive'. It is not that all contaminated things are latently grasped at once, and in the co-existent dharmas of oneself, etc., because there are latent tendencies in the dharmas of that kind that come and go, the meaning of 'pervasive' is also established. Why is ignorance (wu ming) that is severed through cultivation only called self-aspect delusion (zi xiang huo), and not severed through views? Because the object grasped by this ignorance is small, and the dharmas severed through views are not the object grasped. Moreover, this only follows greed, etc., so greed, etc., are only self-aspect delusions. Ignorance severed through views has
是不共。彼唯行在異生身中。聞思位中修觀行者。以苦等行觀諸行時。由彼無明損翳慧眼。令起多品諸顛倒見。故應舉喻顯彼過失。如日初沒。有一丈夫。遙見怨家便作是念。彼有怨家我不應往。正思念已。至黃昏時。夜前行闇損翳其目。不能記憶怨相狀故。便於怨所起是杌覺或謂非怨或謂親友。如是應了不共無明。修斷無明則不如是。但由因力或境逼故。以貪瞋等為上首生。能遮障愛味過患出離覺。于所逼境唯不能知。非於諸境中皆無慾行轉。如珊若娑病惛重無動搖故。此無明唯自相惑若遍行惑能緣五部薩迦耶見。緣見滅道所斷法生為見何斷。若見苦斷貪等亦應緣五部故唯見苦斷又如見取緣見滅道所斷。能緣無漏境者。以彼親迷迷滅道故。亦是見滅見道所斷。如是身見亦是親迷迷滅道故應見彼斷。或應辯此差別因緣。又如見滅見道斷見取。要由遍知境所緣故斷。如是身見例亦。應然。復如身見遍知所緣斷。如是見取例亦應然。如是二途宗皆不許。是故所立於理不然。理必應然。義有別故。且初所例貪等亦應緣五部故唯見苦斷。或且舉此反例身見。理亦應通五部攝者。此例非理。貪等亦應一念頓緣五部法故。謂有身見一剎那中頓緣五部。受乃至識為我我所。理不應言一念身見體分五部。貪等皆是自相惑故。尚無一念頓
緣二部。況能緣五。故例不成。后所例言。如見滅道所斷。見取身見亦然。俱是親迷迷滅道故。應亦見滅見道斷者。亦不應理薩迦耶見不能稱譽。謗彼見故。又所緣境無分限故。非有身見要先稱譽謗滅道見。方計為我。亦非於境作分限緣。見取必由稱譽能謗滅道邪見。方計第一于所緣境作分限緣。義既有殊不可為例。然有身。見見苦諦時。遍知所緣即全永斷。非見取者此有別因所緣行解等不等故。謂如三界見苦所斷諸蘊無我。乃至修斷諸蘊無我其相亦然。故見苦時無我見起。緣所見苦我見皆除。計勝不然。有于少法觀余少法計為勝故。由此身見隨行見取。雖緣見滅道所斷法生粗。故如身見唯見苦斷。如緣修道所斷法生。謗滅道見隨行見取。雖亦緣彼所斷法生。而彼望前極微細故。樂凈行解所不攝故。親執不欲滅道無明。所引邪見為最勝故。雖見苦位遍知所緣。而要所緣永斷方斷。是故見取非如身見唯見苦時即全永斷。故所說斷差別理成。或緣見滅見道所斷見取各三。謂見苦集及見滅道隨一斷故。若於見滅見道所斷。執果分勝是見苦斷。執因分勝是見集斷。若唯執彼為真實覺。不偏執彼因分果分。隨緣何生與彼俱斷。故見取斷非如身見。雖爾應說見苦見集所斷見取差別。云何非由所緣行相有別。俱緣一切有漏為境。並執
【現代漢語翻譯】 緣二部（兩種緣）。況且能緣五部（五種緣），所以這個例子不成立。後面所舉的例子說，如同見到滅諦、道諦所斷的煩惱，見取見（認為錯誤的見解才是正確的）和身見（認為五蘊的身心是『我』）也是這樣。因為它們都是直接迷惑于滅諦和道諦的緣故。那麼，是否也應該像見到滅諦、見到道諦時斷除煩惱那樣斷除它們呢？這也是不合理的，因為薩迦耶見（有身見）不能稱揚讚美，反而會誹謗滅諦和道諦的見解。而且，所緣的境界沒有界限的緣故，並非一定要先稱揚讚美和誹謗滅諦、道諦的見解，才執計為『我』。也不是在所緣的境界上作分別的緣。見取見必定要通過稱揚讚美和誹謗滅諦、道諦的邪見，才執計為最殊勝，在所緣的境界上作分別的緣。意義既然有差別，就不能作為例子。然而，有身見在見到苦諦時，通過遍知所緣境就能完全、永遠地斷除。見取見則不是這樣，這是因為它們有不同的原因，所緣、行相、理解等等都不相同。比如，三界中見苦諦所斷的諸蘊無我，乃至修道所斷的諸蘊無我，它們的情況也是這樣。所以在見到苦諦時，無我見生起，緣于所見苦諦的我見都被去除。執計為殊勝則不然，因為有人會對少許法觀察其餘少許法，就執計為殊勝。由此，隨行於身見的見取見，雖然緣于見滅諦、道諦所斷的法而生起，顯得粗顯。所以就像身見一樣，僅僅在見苦諦時斷除。如果緣于修道所斷的法而生起，誹謗滅諦、道諦的見解，隨行於此的見取見，雖然也緣于那些所斷的法而生起，但那些法相對於前面的法來說極其微細，不被樂、凈的行相和理解所包含，直接執著于不欲滅諦、道諦的無明所引發的邪見為最殊勝的緣故，即使在見到苦諦的階段遍知所緣境，也要所緣境永遠斷除才能斷除。因此，見取見不像身見那樣僅僅在見到苦諦時就能完全、永遠地斷除。所以，所說的斷除的差別道理是成立的。或者，緣于見滅諦、見道諦所斷的見取見各有三種，即見苦諦、集諦以及見滅諦、道諦隨一而斷除的緣故。如果對於見滅諦、見道諦所斷的法，執著于果分殊勝，這是見苦諦所斷。執著于因分殊勝，這是見集諦所斷。如果僅僅執著於它們是真實覺悟，不偏執於它們的因分、果分，那麼隨緣于什麼而生起，就與那個一起斷除。所以，見取見的斷除不像身見那樣。即使這樣，也應該說見苦諦、見集諦所斷的見取見的差別。為什麼不是由於所緣的行相有差別呢？它們都緣於一切有漏法為境界，並且執著。 現代漢語譯本 English version Relating to two categories of conditions. Moreover, it can relate to five. Therefore, this example is not valid. The subsequent example states that, like the afflictions severed by seeing the cessation and path, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana, clinging to views) and the view of self (satkayaditthi, belief in a permanent self) are also similar. This is because they are directly deluded by the cessation and path. Then, should they also be severed like severing afflictions upon seeing the cessation and path? This is also unreasonable because the view of self (satkayaditthi) cannot praise; instead, it slanders the views of cessation and path. Furthermore, because the objects of relation have no limitations, it is not necessary to first praise and slander the views of cessation and path before clinging to 'self'. Nor is it creating distinctions in the objects of relation. The view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) must rely on praising and slandering the wrong views of cessation and path to cling to the most superior, creating distinctions in the objects of relation. Since the meanings are different, they cannot be used as examples. However, when the view of self (satkayaditthi) sees the truth of suffering (dukkha), it can be completely and permanently severed through the thorough knowledge of the object of relation. This is not the case for the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana), because they have different causes, and the objects of relation, characteristics, understanding, etc., are not the same. For example, the aggregates without self (anatta) severed by seeing the truth of suffering in the three realms, and even the aggregates without self severed by cultivation, are also similar in their characteristics. Therefore, when seeing the truth of suffering, the view of no-self arises, and the view of self related to the seen suffering is removed. Clinging to superiority is not the case, because some people observe a small amount of dharma and cling to the superiority of the remaining small amount of dharma. Therefore, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) that follows the view of self (satkayaditthi), although arising from the dharma severed by seeing the cessation and path, appears coarse. So, like the view of self (satkayaditthi), it is severed only when seeing the truth of suffering. If it arises from the dharma severed by cultivation, slandering the views of cessation and path, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) that follows it, although also arising from those severed dharmas, those dharmas are extremely subtle compared to the previous ones, and are not included in the characteristics and understanding of pleasure and purity. Because it directly clings to the wrong views induced by ignorance that does not desire cessation and path as the most superior, even if the object of relation is thoroughly known at the stage of seeing the truth of suffering, it can only be severed when the object of relation is permanently severed. Therefore, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) is not like the view of self (satkayaditthi) that can be completely and permanently severed only when seeing the truth of suffering. Therefore, the stated difference in severance is established. Alternatively, there are three types of view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) severed by seeing the cessation and path, namely, severed by seeing any one of the truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path. If one clings to the superiority of the result aspect of the dharma severed by seeing the cessation and path, it is severed by seeing the truth of suffering. If one clings to the superiority of the cause aspect, it is severed by seeing the truth of origin. If one only clings to them as true enlightenment, without clinging to their cause or result aspects, then it is severed together with whatever it arises from. Therefore, the severance of the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) is not like the view of self (satkayaditthi). Even so, the difference between the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) severed by seeing the truths of suffering and origin should be explained. Why is it not due to the difference in the characteristics of the objects of relation? They all relate to all conditioned dharmas as their objects, and they cling.
【English Translation】 Relating to two categories of conditions. Moreover, it can relate to five. Therefore, this example is not valid. The subsequent example states that, like the afflictions severed by seeing the cessation and path, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) and the view of self (satkayaditthi) are also similar. This is because they are directly deluded by the cessation and path. Then, should they also be severed like severing afflictions upon seeing the cessation and path? This is also unreasonable because the view of self (satkayaditthi) cannot praise; instead, it slanders the views of cessation and path. Furthermore, because the objects of relation have no limitations, it is not necessary to first praise and slander the views of cessation and path before clinging to 'self'. Nor is it creating distinctions in the objects of relation. The view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) must rely on praising and slandering the wrong views of cessation and path to cling to the most superior, creating distinctions in the objects of relation. Since the meanings are different, they cannot be used as examples. However, when the view of self (satkayaditthi) sees the truth of suffering (dukkha), it can be completely and permanently severed through the thorough knowledge of the object of relation. This is not the case for the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana), because they have different causes, and the objects of relation, characteristics, understanding, etc., are not the same. For example, the aggregates without self (anatta) severed by seeing the truth of suffering in the three realms, and even the aggregates without self severed by cultivation, are also similar in their characteristics. Therefore, when seeing the truth of suffering, the view of no-self arises, and the view of self related to the seen suffering is removed. Clinging to superiority is not the case, because some people observe a small amount of dharma and cling to the superiority of the remaining small amount of dharma. Therefore, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) that follows the view of self (satkayaditthi), although arising from the dharma severed by seeing the cessation and path, appears coarse. So, like the view of self (satkayaditthi), it is severed only when seeing the truth of suffering. If it arises from the dharma severed by cultivation, slandering the views of cessation and path, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) that follows it, although also arising from those severed dharmas, those dharmas are extremely subtle compared to the previous ones, and are not included in the characteristics and understanding of pleasure and purity. Because it directly clings to the wrong views induced by ignorance that does not desire cessation and path as the most superior, even if the object of relation is thoroughly known at the stage of seeing the truth of suffering, it can only be severed when the object of relation is permanently severed. Therefore, the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) is not like the view of self (satkayaditthi) that can be completely and permanently severed only when seeing the truth of suffering. Therefore, the stated difference in severance is established. Alternatively, there are three types of view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) severed by seeing the cessation and path, namely, severed by seeing any one of the truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path. If one clings to the superiority of the result aspect of the dharma severed by seeing the cessation and path, it is severed by seeing the truth of suffering. If one clings to the superiority of the cause aspect, it is severed by seeing the truth of origin. If one only clings to them as true enlightenment, without clinging to their cause or result aspects, then it is severed together with whatever it arises from. Therefore, the severance of the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) is not like the view of self (satkayaditthi). Even so, the difference between the view of attachment to views (ditthupadana) severed by seeing the truths of suffering and origin should be explained. Why is it not due to the difference in the characteristics of the objects of relation? They all relate to all conditioned dharmas as their objects, and they cling.
第一行相轉故。有作是言。若緣見苦見集所斷。見為最勝如其次第。見苦集斷彼越所宗許遍行故。若必爾者應許見苦所斷。見取有見集斷。見集所斷有見苦斷。然不許爾故不可依。今詳此二有差別者。若由常樂我凈等見力近引生。于諸行中執為最勝是見苦斷。若由撥無後有因見力近引生。于諸行中執為最勝是見集斷。有餘師言。所有見取若異熟果為門而入。于諸行中執為最勝是見苦斷。若業煩惱為門而入。于諸行中執為最勝是見集斷若有身見戒取見取。頓緣五部名為遍行。是則遍行非唯爾所。以於是處有我見行。是處必應起我愛慢。若於是處凈勝見行。是處必應希求高舉。是則愛慢應亦遍行。此難不然。雖見力起而此二種分限緣故。謂雖是處我見等行。是處必應起我愛慢而不可說愛慢頓緣。先已說為自相惑故。是故遍行唯此十一。余非準此不說自成。前說十一于諸界地中。各能遍行自界地五部為有他界他地遍行。簡彼故言自界自地。亦有他界他地遍行。謂十一中除身邊見。所餘九種亦能上緣。上言正明上界上地。兼顯無有緣下隨眠。緣下則應遍知界壞。上境勝故。緣無此失。且欲見苦所斷邪見。謗色無色苦果為無。見取于中執為最勝。戒取于彼非因計因疑懷猶豫。無明不了見集所斷。如應當說色緣無色。倒此應知準界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第一行相轉故（因為相互轉化）。有人這樣說：如果緣于見苦（Dukkha Satya，苦諦）見集（Samudaya Satya，集諦）所斷的煩惱，見解是最殊勝的，如同次第一樣。見苦集斷（斷除苦諦和集諦的見惑）是因為他們所宗許的遍行（Sarvatraga，遍行煩惱）的緣故。如果必定是這樣，那麼應該允許見苦所斷的煩惱，見取（Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，見取）有見集斷（斷除集諦的見惑），見集所斷的有見苦斷（斷除苦諦的見惑）。然而，因為不允許這樣，所以不可依賴。現在詳細考察這兩個的差別：如果由常樂我凈（Nitya-sukha-atma-subha，常樂我凈）等見解的力量，靠近牽引而產生，在諸行（Saṃskāra，行蘊）中執著為最殊勝，這是見苦斷。如果由撥無後有因（否認來世和因果）的見解力量，靠近牽引而產生，在諸行中執著為最殊勝，這是見集斷。有其他老師說：所有見取，如果以異熟果（Vipāka-phala，異熟果）為門而進入，在諸行中執著為最殊勝，這是見苦斷。如果以業煩惱為門而進入，在諸行中執著為最殊勝，這是見集斷。如果有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，有身見）、戒禁取（Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa，戒禁取）、見取，同時緣於五部（五種煩惱類別）名為遍行。那麼，遍行不僅僅是這些，因為在這些地方有我見（Ātma-dṛṣṭi，我見）的行相，在這些地方必定應該生起我愛（Ātma-sneha，我愛）我慢（Ātma-māna，我慢）。如果在這些地方有清凈殊勝的見解行相，在這些地方必定應該希望高舉自己。那麼，愛慢也應該遍行。這個責難不然。雖然見解的力量生起，而這兩種有分限的緣故。意思是，雖然在這些地方有我見等行相，在這些地方必定應該生起我愛我慢，而不可說愛慢同時緣于。先前已經說為自相迷惑的緣故。所以，遍行只有這十一種。其餘的並非以此為準，不說自明。前面說的十一種，在諸界地中，各自能夠遍行自界地五部。爲了簡別那些，所以說自界自地。也有他界他地遍行。意思是，十一種中除了身邊見，其餘九種也能向上緣。上，正是說明上界上地。兼且顯示沒有緣下隨眠（Anuśaya，隨眠）。緣下則應該遍知界壞。上境殊勝的緣故，緣上沒有這個過失。且說想要見苦所斷的邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，邪見），誹謗色界（Rūpadhātu，色界）無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界）的苦果為沒有。見取在其中執著為最殊勝。戒取在那些中，非因為因，懷疑猶豫。無明（Avidyā，無明）不了見集所斷。應當像這樣說色緣無色。顛倒過來應該知道準界。
【English Translation】 English version The first line is due to mutual transformation. Some say: If the afflictions severed by seeing the truth of suffering (Dukkha Satya) and seeing the truth of origin (Samudaya Satya) are considered, then the views are the most superior, in due order. The severance of views related to suffering and origin is because of the pervasive (Sarvatraga) nature that they adhere to. If this is necessarily the case, then it should be allowed that the afflictions severed by seeing the truth of suffering, the clinging to views (Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), include the severance of views related to the origin; and the afflictions severed by seeing the truth of origin include the severance of views related to suffering. However, this is not allowed, so it is not reliable. Now, examining the differences between these two in detail: if it is generated by the power of views such as permanence, pleasure, self, and purity (Nitya-sukha-atma-subha), closely leading to attachment to the most superior among all conditioned things (Saṃskāra), this is severance by seeing the truth of suffering. If it is generated by the power of views denying future existence and causality, closely leading to attachment to the most superior among all conditioned things, this is severance by seeing the truth of origin. Some other teachers say: All clinging to views, if entering through the door of the maturation result (Vipāka-phala), leading to attachment to the most superior among all conditioned things, this is severance by seeing the truth of suffering. If entering through the door of karma and afflictions, leading to attachment to the most superior among all conditioned things, this is severance by seeing the truth of origin. If there is the view of self (Satkāya-dṛṣṭi), clinging to rules and rituals (Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa), and clinging to views, simultaneously related to the five categories (of afflictions), it is called pervasive. Then, the pervasive is not only these, because in these places there is the activity of the view of self (Ātma-dṛṣṭi), in these places there must arise self-love (Ātma-sneha) and self-conceit (Ātma-māna). If in these places there is the activity of pure and superior views, in these places there must be a desire to exalt oneself. Then, love and conceit should also be pervasive. This objection is not valid. Although the power of views arises, these two have limited conditions. That is, although in these places there is the activity of the view of self, etc., in these places there must arise self-love and self-conceit, but it cannot be said that love and conceit are simultaneously related to. It has been previously said that they are confused about their own characteristics. Therefore, only these eleven are pervasive. The rest are not based on this, and it is self-evident without saying. The eleven mentioned earlier, in all realms and grounds, each can pervasively operate within its own realm and ground's five categories. To distinguish those, it is said 'own realm and own ground.' There is also pervasiveness in other realms and grounds. That is, among the eleven, except for the view of self, the remaining nine can also relate upwards. 'Up' specifically indicates the upper realm and upper ground. It also shows that there is no latent tendency (Anuśaya) related to the lower. Relating to the lower would mean knowing the destruction of the realm. Because the upper realm is superior, there is no such fault in relating upwards. Furthermore, let's talk about the wrong view (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi) that one wants to sever by seeing the truth of suffering, which slanders the suffering results of the form realm (Rūpadhātu) and formless realm (Arūpadhātu) as non-existent. Clinging to views clings to the most superior among them. Clinging to rules and rituals, in those, takes non-causes as causes, doubts and hesitates. Ignorance (Avidyā) does not understand what is severed by seeing the truth of origin. It should be said like this about form relating to the formless. Reversing this, one should know the standard for the realms.
應思約地分別。然諸界地決定異者。欲界乃至第四靜慮。有緣上界上地遍行。三無色中闕緣上界。有頂一地二種俱無。雖有隨眠通緣自上。然理無有自上頓緣。以自地中諸境界事。是所緣境亦所隨眠。若上地中諸境界事。是所緣境非所隨眠。不可一念煩惱緣境。有隨眠處有不隨眠。勿于相應亦有爾故。于上界地必頓緣耶。非必頓緣或別或總。故本論說。有諸隨眠是欲界系緣色界系。有諸隨眠是欲界系緣無色界系。有諸隨眠是欲界系緣色無色界系。有諸隨眠是色界系緣無色界系。約地分別準界應知。身邊見何緣不緣上界地。緣他界地執我我所。及計斷常理不成故。謂非於此界此地中。生他界地蘊中有計為我。執有二我理不成故。執我不成故執我所不成。所執必依我執起故。邊見隨從有身見生。故亦無容緣他界地。由此唯九緣上理成。有餘師言。身邊二見愛力起故取有執受為己有故。以現見法為境界故必不上緣。生欲界中若緣大梵。起有情常見為何見攝耶。理實應言。此二非見。是身邊見所引邪智現見蘊中執我常已。于不現見比謂如斯故。有先觀有執受蘊為無我已。后亦于彼非執受蘊無我智生。知一一身皆無有我。若爾身見應非遍行。唯于執受蘊方計為我故。非他相續自所執受。不爾亦取種類法故。謂于受中計為我者。不
言我受是我非余。但作是思。此受是我。非大梵受有同此失。無惑頓緣自上地故。身見唯自界自地遍行故。經主於此作是責言。何緣所餘緣彼是見。此亦緣彼而非見耶。以欲界生不作是執我是大梵。亦不執言梵是我所。故非身見。身見無故邊見亦無。邊見必隨身見起故。非有餘見作此行相。故是身見所引邪智。諸作是說。生欲界中緣梵計常。此非邊見於劣計勝是見取攝。彼說非理。違本論故。如本論說。無常見常是邊見中常邊見攝。上座應計此我常見。如樂凈見邪見所攝。以上座執於四倒中樂凈二倒邪見為體。彼自釋言。若於生死計樂計凈。彼定撥無真阿羅漢正至正行。是故於苦不凈境中計樂計凈。是邪見攝。今詳彼說理亦應許。若於生死計我計常。彼定撥無真阿羅漢。無差別因故應亦邪見攝。然彼所說理定不然。於事增減是別見故。謂諸邪見實有事中。定撥為無。寧執樂凈。樂凈二見實無事中定執為有。寧是邪見。是故上座諸法相中背理兇言不應收采。傍論已了。應申正論。為遍行體唯是隨眠。不爾。云何。並隨行法謂上所說遍行隨眠。並彼隨行受等生等。皆遍行攝。同一果故。然隨行中唯除諸得。得與所得非一果故。由是遍行因與隨眠相對具成四句差別。九十八隨眠中。幾緣有漏。幾緣無漏。頌曰。
見滅道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 說『我』的感受是『我』，而不是其他的。只是這樣思考：『這個感受是「我」』。如果認為大梵天的感受與此相同，那就錯了。因為沒有疑惑會立即緣于更高的境界。身見只在自己的界和地中普遍存在。經論的主人在這裡責問道：『為什麼其餘的緣于彼者是見解，而這個緣于彼者卻不是見解呢？』因為欲界眾生不會執著『我是大梵天』，也不會執著說『梵天是我的』，所以這不是身見。沒有身見，也就沒有邊見，因為邊見必定隨著身見而生起。沒有其他的見解會這樣運作，所以這是由身見所引導的邪惡智慧。有些人說，生在欲界中，緣于梵天而認為是常，這不是邊見，而是于低劣的境界中執著為殊勝的見取。他們的說法不合理，因為與本論相違背。如本論所說，認為無常為常，是邊見中的常邊見所攝。上座部應該認為這種『我』的常見，就像樂見和凈見一樣，屬於邪見所攝。因為上座部執著於四顛倒中的樂倒和凈倒，以邪見為本體。他們自己解釋說，如果在生死中認為有樂、有凈，那他們必定否定真正的阿羅漢已經正確地到達和正確地修行。所以，在苦和不凈的境界中認為有樂、有凈，是邪見所攝。現在詳細考察他們的說法，道理上也應該允許。如果在生死中認為有『我』、有常，那他們必定否定真正的阿羅漢，因為沒有差別的原因，所以也應該屬於邪見所攝。然而，他們所說的道理一定不對。對於事物的增減是不同的見解。邪見是在真實存在的事物中，一定否定為不存在；寧願執著於樂和凈。樂見和凈見是在真實不存在的事物中，一定執著為存在；寧願是邪見。所以，上座部在諸法相中背離道理的兇惡言論不應該採納。旁論已經結束，應該闡述正論。遍行（Sarvatraga）的本體只是隨眠（Anusaya）嗎？不是。那是什麼？是隨行法，也就是上面所說的遍行隨眠，以及那些隨之而行的受（Vedana）等和生（jati）等，都屬於遍行所攝，因為它們有相同的結果。然而，在隨行法中，唯獨不包括諸得（prapti），因為得與所得不是同一個結果。因此，遍行因與隨眠相對，完全形成了四句差別。在九十八種隨眠中，有多少緣于有漏（sāsrava），有多少緣于無漏（anāsrava）？頌曰： 見滅道
【English Translation】 English version: To say 'my' feeling is 'me' and not something else. Just to think like this: 'This feeling is "me".' If one thinks that the feeling of Mahabrahma (Great Brahma) is the same as this, then that is wrong. Because no doubt immediately arises from a higher realm. Self-view (Satkayadristi) only exists universally in its own realm and plane. The master of the scriptures here questions: 'Why is it that the rest that are based on that are views, but this one based on that is not a view?' Because beings in the desire realm do not cling to 'I am Mahabrahma,' nor do they cling to saying 'Brahma is mine,' so this is not self-view. Without self-view, there is also no extreme view (antagrahadristi), because extreme view necessarily arises with self-view. No other views operate in this way, so this is an evil wisdom guided by self-view. Some say that being born in the desire realm and considering Brahma to be permanent is not an extreme view, but rather a clinging to what is inferior as superior, which is included in view-attachment (dristi-paramarsa). Their statement is unreasonable because it contradicts the original treatise. As the original treatise says, considering impermanence as permanence is included in the permanence-extreme view within extreme views. The Sthavira school should consider this common view of 'self' as being like the views of pleasure and purity, which are included in wrong views. Because the Sthavira school clings to the perversions of pleasure and purity among the four perversions, taking wrong view as their essence. They themselves explain that if one considers pleasure and purity in samsara (cycle of rebirth), then they will definitely deny that the true Arhat has correctly arrived and correctly practiced. Therefore, considering pleasure and purity in the realms of suffering and impurity is included in wrong view. Now, examining their statement in detail, it should also be allowed in principle. If one considers 'self' and permanence in samsara, then they will definitely deny the true Arhat, because there is no differentiating cause, so it should also be included in wrong view. However, what they say is definitely not right. Increasing or decreasing things are different views. Wrong views definitely deny the existence of things that actually exist; they would rather cling to pleasure and purity. The views of pleasure and purity definitely cling to the existence of things that do not actually exist; they would rather be wrong views. Therefore, the unreasonable and evil words of the Sthavira school in the characteristics of dharmas should not be adopted. The digression is over, and the correct argument should be presented. Is the essence of Sarvatraga (universal) only Anusaya (latent tendencies)? No. What is it then? It is the accompanying dharmas, that is, the Sarvatraga Anusaya mentioned above, as well as the accompanying Vedana (feeling), etc., and jati (birth), etc., are all included in Sarvatraga, because they have the same result. However, among the accompanying dharmas, only prapti (attainment) is excluded, because attainment and what is attained are not the same result. Therefore, the Sarvatraga cause and Anusaya are relatively complete, forming four different sentences. Among the ninety-eight Anusayas, how many are based on sasrava (with outflows), and how many are based on anasrava (without outflows)? Verse says: View, cessation, path
所斷 邪見疑相應 及不共無明 六能緣無漏 于中緣滅者 唯緣自地滅 緣道六九地 由別治相因 貪瞋慢二取 並非無漏緣 應離境非怨 靜凈勝性故
論曰。唯見滅道所斷邪見疑。彼相應不共無明各三成六。能緣無漏。謂見滅道斷。二邪見二疑相應無明。即攝屬彼不共有二故合成六。如是六種諸界地中。能緣滅道名緣無漏。余緣有漏不說自成。有說。無明無所緣故非緣無漏。何緣知此定無所緣。無智性故。非無智性可說緣境。譬如世間非智外闇。謂如外闇有損見能。不可說言彼能取境。無智亦爾。障解境智。不可說言與智俱轉。是故知此定無所緣。定有所緣心相應故。且已成立無明實有。若無明體非心相應。譬如外闇障心心所。令于境中不能取者。則心心所應永不生。應相續中恒現有故。如無心定無想異熟。不應說彼名迷所緣。非外黑闇障心心所。令于諸境皆不得生。色處所攝眼識境故。但于余境有損見能。無明亦然。但于苦等四聖諦理障真見生。非於境中障我等見。既不能障一切見生。故知無明有所緣境。又如眠體應有所緣。如眠但能損覆智用。非不與智于境俱轉。以眠亦有取境用故。然于所緣令心昧鈍。無明亦爾。非無所緣。何故無緣見滅道斷。見滅道斷不共無明。見苦集時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所斷煩惱是與邪見、疑相應的，以及不共無明（指獨立存在的愚昧）。這六種煩惱能夠緣取無漏法（指超脫世俗的智慧）。 在這六種煩惱中，緣取滅諦（Nirvana，指解脫）的煩惱，只能緣取自身所在地的滅諦。緣取道諦（Magga，指通往解脫的道路）的煩惱，能夠緣取六個或九個地的道諦，這是因為通過不同的方法來對治不同的煩惱。 貪、嗔、慢和二取（我執和法執）並非無漏法所緣取的對象。 應該遠離貪慾的境界，不要心懷怨恨，因為（無漏法）具有寂靜、清凈和殊勝的性質。
論曰：只有在見道（見四聖諦之理）和修道（通過修行斷除煩惱）時所斷的邪見和疑，以及與它們相應的、不共的無明，各有三種，總共六種，能夠緣取無漏法。也就是說，見道和修道時所斷的兩種邪見、兩種疑，以及與它們相應的無明，再加上兩種不共無明，總共六種。這六種煩惱在各個界地中，能夠緣取滅諦和道諦，因此被稱為緣無漏。其餘的煩惱緣取有漏法（指世俗的、受煩惱污染的法），這一點無需說明，自然成立。有人說，無明沒有所緣取的對象，因此不能緣取無漏法。憑什麼知道無明一定沒有所緣取的對象呢？因為無明沒有智慧的性質。沒有智慧的性質，就不能說它能夠緣取境界。比如世間的黑暗，雖然能夠損害視覺能力，但不能說它能夠取境。無明也是如此，它能夠障礙理解境界的智慧，因此不能說它與智慧同時運轉。所以，可以知道無明一定沒有所緣取的對象。無明一定有所緣取的對象，因為它與心相應。而且，已經成立了無明是真實存在的。如果無明的本體不是與心相應的，那麼就像外面的黑暗一樣，障礙心和心所，使它們不能在境界中取境，那麼心和心所就應該永遠不生起，因為它們在相續中恒常存在。就像無心定（指滅盡定）和無想異熟（指無想天的果報）一樣，不能說它們迷惑了所緣取的對象。外面的黑暗不能障礙心和心所，使它們在一切境界中都不能生起，因為它只是色處所攝的眼識的境界。它只是在其餘的境界中損害視覺能力。無明也是如此，它只是在苦等四聖諦的道理上，障礙真實的見解生起，而不是在境界中障礙我等見解的生起。既然它不能障礙一切見解的生起，所以就知道無明有所緣取的境界。又比如睡眠的本體，應該有所緣取的對象。睡眠只是能夠損害和覆蓋智慧的作用，而不是不與智慧在境界中同時運轉，因為睡眠也有取境的作用。只是在所緣取的對象上，使心變得昏昧遲鈍。無明也是如此，並非沒有所緣取的對象。為什麼說沒有緣取見道和修道時所斷的不共無明呢？因為在見苦諦和集諦（Samudaya，指苦的根源）時，
【English Translation】 English version The afflictions to be severed are those associated with wrong views and doubt, as well as uncommon ignorance (Avidya, referring to independently existing ignorance). These six can apprehend the unconditioned (Anasrava, referring to wisdom transcending the mundane). Among these six, the afflictions that apprehend cessation (Nirvana, liberation) can only apprehend the cessation of their own realm. The afflictions that apprehend the path (Magga, the path to liberation) can apprehend the path of six or nine realms, because different methods are used to counteract different afflictions. Greed, hatred, pride, and the two attachments (attachment to self and attachment to phenomena) are not objects apprehended by the unconditioned. One should stay away from the realm of desire and not harbor resentment, because (the unconditioned) has the nature of tranquility, purity, and excellence.
Treatise says: Only the wrong views and doubt severed during the path of seeing (Darshana-marga, seeing the truth of the Four Noble Truths) and the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga, cultivating the path to eliminate afflictions), and the uncommon ignorance associated with them, each having three aspects, totaling six, can apprehend the unconditioned. That is to say, the two wrong views and two doubts severed during the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, and the ignorance associated with them, plus the two types of uncommon ignorance, total six. These six afflictions, in various realms, can apprehend cessation and the path, and are therefore called apprehending the unconditioned. The remaining afflictions apprehend the conditioned (Sasrava, referring to mundane phenomena tainted by afflictions), which is self-evident without needing to be stated. Some say that ignorance has no object to apprehend, and therefore cannot apprehend the unconditioned. How do we know that ignorance definitely has no object to apprehend? Because ignorance has no nature of wisdom. Without the nature of wisdom, it cannot be said to be able to apprehend an object. For example, worldly darkness, although it can impair visual ability, cannot be said to be able to grasp an object. Ignorance is also like this; it can obstruct the wisdom of understanding objects, so it cannot be said to operate simultaneously with wisdom. Therefore, it can be known that ignorance definitely has no object to apprehend. Ignorance definitely has an object to apprehend, because it is associated with the mind. Moreover, it has already been established that ignorance is real. If the substance of ignorance is not associated with the mind, then like external darkness, it obstructs the mind and mental factors, preventing them from grasping objects in the realm, then the mind and mental factors should never arise, because they are constantly present in the continuum. Like mindless concentration (Nirodha-samapatti, cessation attainment) and unconscious fruition (Asanjnika-karma-vipaka, the result of the unconscious realm), it cannot be said that they are deluded about the objects they apprehend. External darkness cannot obstruct the mind and mental factors, preventing them from arising in all realms, because it is only the realm of eye consciousness contained in the sense sphere. It only impairs visual ability in other realms. Ignorance is also like this; it only obstructs the arising of true insight into the principles of the Four Noble Truths, such as suffering, etc., but does not obstruct the arising of views such as self in the realm. Since it cannot obstruct the arising of all views, it is known that ignorance has an object to apprehend. Furthermore, like the substance of sleep, it should have an object to apprehend. Sleep only impairs and covers the function of wisdom, but does not operate simultaneously with wisdom in the realm, because sleep also has the function of grasping objects. It only makes the mind dull and slow in the object it apprehends. Ignorance is also like this; it is not without an object to apprehend. Why is it said that it does not apprehend the uncommon ignorance severed during the path of seeing and the path of cultivation? Because when seeing the truth of suffering and the truth of origin (Samudaya, the cause of suffering),
彼皆斷故。謂如見取于諸有漏法。由因果門樂凈行等轉。如是見取雖亦能緣見滅道斷。而真實見苦集諦時一切永斷。迷因果理對治生故。如是能障八行覺生。不共無明苦集現觀對治生故一切皆斷。除此更無緣見所斷諸法為境。不共無明豈不此應如彼見取。非全如彼行相別故。謂于有漏見取生時。行相眾多迷謬而轉。修觀行者見苦集時于見滅道所斷諸法見為苦等。雖已能違計樂凈等迷因果行。而於見滅見道所斷。見為功德余最勝行。所有見取猶未能違。是故雖于苦集二諦已得現觀。猶有見滅見道所斷見取未除。不共無明無別行相。唯有惛重不欲行轉。於四聖諦各別親迷。除此更無餘別行相。緣見所斷非迷苦集。何須固訪不共無明。有別行相緣見滅道斷。令見滅道斷同見取耶。何緣此中緣見所斷。所起一切不共無明。見苦集時悉皆永斷。非緣修斷不共無明。見苦集時一切永斷。不應於此重責其緣。許不共無明有修所斷者。彼必應許不共無明。有唯能緣修所斷法。非迷苦集二聖諦理。說此無明緣見斷法。及無漏法理不成故。又必應許聖思法時離染恚高有染障故。謂彼修習正法觀時。應有惛迷不欲行轉。如眠惛昧障蔽其心。不共無明是修所斷。故知聖者集智已生。猶有唯緣修所斷法障思正法。不共無明見苦集時此何不斷。此無
明是智所害故。諸忍非彼對治道故。不迷苦集二諦理故。不緣親迷諦理法故。謗滅邪見為見滅耶。不見滅耶。若見滅者。如何見滅謗言無滅。若不見滅者。如何無漏緣。又如何言此物非有應言見滅。但尋教見即謗如是所說滅無。豈不此見親能緣滅。如何即撥此滅為無。如有目者于多杌處。遙見人立撥為非人。雖親緣人而非不謗。故有見滅而撥為無。然非所有謗滅道慧。皆是見滅見道所斷謂若有慧非審察生。聞說滅道便生誹謗。唯緣名故非見彼斷。若慧于境因審尋伺推度而生。決定撥無。所說滅道方見彼斷。如為離系說如是言。若能知風為水所鎮。即知尋伺所引諸見生起可息。乃至廣說。此無漏緣於一一地。各緣幾地滅道為境。諸緣滅者緣自地滅。謂欲界系緣滅隨眠。唯緣欲界諸行擇滅。乃至有頂緣滅隨眠。唯緣有頂諸行擇滅。諸緣道者緣六九地。謂欲界系緣道隨眠。唯緣六地法智品道。若治欲界若能治余。諸法智品皆能緣故。色無色界八地所有緣道隨眠。一一唯能通緣九地類智品道。若治自地若能治余。諸類智品皆能緣故。何緣謗苦謗集邪見。欲界系者能緣九地。初靜慮者能緣八地。乃至有頂唯緣彼地。謗滅邪見於九地中。一一唯能緣自地滅此有所以。所以者何。謂若有法此地愛所潤。此地身見執為我我所。彼諸法滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 明智反而被（錯誤的知見）所損害。因為各種忍（智慧）並非是（錯誤知見）的對治之道。因為（錯誤的知見）不明白苦、集二諦的道理。因為（錯誤的知見）不以親近的方式迷惑對諦理的理解。那麼，誹謗寂滅的邪見，是『見滅』（已經理解寂滅）呢？還是『不見滅』（尚未理解寂滅）呢？如果說是『見滅』，那麼既然已經理解寂滅，又怎麼會誹謗說沒有寂滅呢？如果說是『不見滅』，那麼又怎麼會成為無漏智的所緣境呢？又怎麼能說『此物非有』，而應該說是『見滅』呢？只是通過教理來理解，就誹謗所說的寂滅不存在，難道不是這種見解親身能夠緣到寂滅嗎？怎麼能立刻否定寂滅為不存在呢？就像有眼睛的人在很多樹樁的地方，遠遠地看到有人站立，就斷定那不是人。雖然親身緣到了人，但並非沒有誹謗。所以，存在已經理解寂滅卻誹謗寂滅不存在的情況。然而，並非所有誹謗寂滅之道的智慧，都是見滅道所斷除的。如果有的智慧並非通過審察而產生，只是聽到寂滅之道就產生誹謗，那只是緣于名相，並非真正理解寂滅之道而被斷除。如果有的智慧對於所緣境，通過審慎的尋伺、推理度量而產生，從而斷定寂滅之道不存在，那才是真正理解寂滅之道而被斷除。就像爲了遠離束縛而說的那樣：如果能夠知道風是被水鎮伏的，就能知道尋伺所引發的各種見解生起是可以止息的，乃至廣說。 這種無漏智的所緣境，在每一地中，各自以幾地的寂滅之道為境界呢？那些緣寂滅的，緣自地的寂滅。也就是說，欲界系的緣寂滅隨眠，只緣欲界諸行的擇滅。乃至有頂天的緣寂滅隨眠，只緣有頂天諸行的擇滅。那些緣道的，緣六地或九地。也就是說，欲界系的緣道隨眠，只緣六地的法智品道。無論是能對治欲界的，還是能對治其他地的，各種法智品道都能緣到。色界和無色界的八地所有緣道隨眠，每一個都只能普遍地緣九地的類智品道。無論是能對治自地的，還是能對治其他地的，各種類智品道都能緣到。為什麼誹謗苦、誹謗集的邪見，欲界系的能夠緣九地，初禪的能夠緣八地，乃至有頂天只能緣彼地呢？誹謗寂滅的邪見，在九地中，每一個都只能緣自地的寂滅，這是有原因的。原因是什麼呢？就是說，如果有的法是被此地的愛所滋潤的，被此地的身見執著為我或我所的，那麼這些法的寂滅
【English Translation】
Intelligence is harmed by (incorrect views). Because various kshanti (patience, wisdom) are not the antidote to them. Because (incorrect views) do not understand the truth of suffering and its origin (the Two Noble Truths). Because (incorrect views) do not intimately obscure the understanding of the truth. Then, is the heretical view that slanders cessation, 'seeing cessation' (already understanding cessation)? Or 'not seeing cessation' (not yet understanding cessation)? If it is 'seeing cessation,' then how can one who has already understood cessation slander and say there is no cessation? If it is 'not seeing cessation,' then how can it be an object of anāsrava-jñāna (undefiled wisdom)? And how can one say 'this thing does not exist,' but should say 'seeing cessation'? Merely understanding through doctrine, one slanders the spoken cessation as non-existent. Isn't this view able to intimately perceive cessation? How can one immediately deny cessation as non-existent? It's like a person with eyes, seeing someone standing far away among many tree stumps, concludes that it is not a person. Although intimately perceiving a person, there is still slander. Therefore, there is a situation where one understands cessation but slanders that cessation does not exist. However, not all wisdom that slanders the path to cessation is severed by seeing the path to cessation. If some wisdom is not born from careful examination, but merely hears about the path to cessation and then slanders, that is only based on names and forms, and is not truly severed by understanding the path to cessation. If some wisdom, regarding the object of perception, arises through careful investigation, deliberation, and inference, and then concludes that the path to cessation does not exist, that is truly severed by understanding the path to cessation. It's like saying, to be free from bondage: If one can know that the wind is subdued by water, then one can know that the arising of various views caused by investigation and deliberation can be stopped, and so on.
This object of undefiled wisdom, in each realm, takes the cessation of how many realms as its object? Those who perceive cessation, perceive the cessation of their own realm. That is, the kāmadhātu (desire realm) bound by anusaya (latent tendencies) of cessation, only perceives the nirodha (cessation) of actions in the desire realm. And so on, the bhavāgra (peak of existence) bound by anusaya of cessation, only perceives the nirodha of actions in the peak of existence. Those who perceive the path, perceive six or nine realms. That is, the kāmadhātu bound by anusaya of the path, only perceives the dharma-jñāna (knowledge of dharma) path of the six realms. Whether it can cure the desire realm or cure other realms, all dharma-jñāna paths can be perceived. All anvaya-jñāna (inferential knowledge) paths of the eight realms of the rūpadhātu (form realm) and arūpadhātu (formless realm) can only universally perceive the anvaya-jñāna path of the nine realms. Whether it can cure its own realm or cure other realms, all anvaya-jñāna paths can be perceived. Why is it that the heretical views that slander suffering and slander origin, the kāmadhātu can perceive nine realms, the first dhyāna (meditative absorption) can perceive eight realms, and so on, the peak of existence can only perceive that realm? The heretical view that slanders cessation, in each of the nine realms, can only perceive the cessation of its own realm, and there is a reason for this. What is the reason? That is, if some dharma is nourished by the attachment of this realm, and is clung to as self or belonging to self by the satkāya-dṛṣṭi (self-view) of this realm, then the cessation of these dharmas
還為此地見滅所斷。邪見所緣此所以非未遣疑。故謂何理故邪見緣滅。非如緣苦集通緣自他地。或諸邪見緣苦集者。何不如緣滅但緣于自地。故上所以未遣此疑。非未遣疑但不了意。然上意顯若諸行中。此地我愛我見轉者。彼由耽著此地行故。若聞說有此地行滅。便起此地邪見撥無。非上行中有下耽著。寧下邪見撥彼滅無。雖界地相望因果隔絕。而九地苦集展轉相牽。又生依立因更互為因故。一地邪見容有緣多滅。無相牽及相因理故。謗滅邪見唯緣自地滅。若爾善智緣滅諦時。應分齊緣如謗滅見。不應一念智頓緣多地滅。此二所緣理無別故。且有善智緣一地滅。然有頓緣多地滅者。由於前理與邪見異。謂前已說若諸行中。有耽著者聞此行滅。便起此地邪見撥無。非上行中有下耽著。寧下邪見撥彼滅無。善智不由耽著引起。緣多地滅于理何違。然善智生觀諸行過。審觀過已希求彼滅。故一地智緣多地境。且如暖等以總行相。觀諸行過欣求彼滅。不應執彼同於邪見。于所緣境有分限緣。迷悟理殊。不應為例。謂修觀者觀自地中過失所惱。欣自地滅。由此亦能觀於他地。諸行出離過失功德故。善智起悟境理通容有頓緣多地行滅。諸邪見起于境迷謬。固執所隔不能總緣。何緣邪見緣苦集滅。有通唯別緣道不然。由治有殊互相因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：還因此地的見解斷滅而斷滅。邪見的所緣，這正是為何疑問沒有被消除的原因。所以說，因為什麼道理邪見會緣于滅？不像緣于苦和集那樣，可以普遍地緣于自身和他人的境界。或者說，如果有些邪見是緣于苦和集的，為什麼不像緣于滅那樣，只緣于自身的境界呢？所以上面的解釋並沒有消除這個疑問。並非沒有消除疑問，只是沒有理解其中的含義。然而上面的意思是明顯的，如果有些行為中，此地的我愛和我見在運轉，那麼他們由於貪戀此地的行為，如果聽說有此地行為的斷滅，就會產生此地的邪見，否定它的存在。而不是上層的行為中有下層的貪戀，怎麼會有下層的邪見否定上層行為的斷滅呢？雖然境界和地域相互之間，因果關係隔絕，但是九地的苦和集是相互牽連的。又因為生依立因，相互之間互為因果。所以一地的邪見可以緣于多個滅。沒有相互牽連和相互為因的道理，所以誹謗斷滅的邪見只緣于自身的斷滅。如果這樣，那麼善智緣于滅諦（Nirvana，佛教四聖諦之一，指滅苦之真理）的時候，應該像誹謗斷滅的見解一樣，有範圍的緣取，不應該一念智慧頓然緣于多個境界的斷滅。這兩種所緣的道理沒有區別。姑且認為有善智緣於一個境界的斷滅，然而有頓然緣于多個境界斷滅的情況，這是由於前面的道理與邪見不同。前面已經說過，如果有些行為中，有貪戀者聽說此行為的斷滅，就會產生此地的邪見，否定它的存在。而不是上層的行為中有下層的貪戀，怎麼會有下層的邪見否定上層行為的斷滅呢？善智不是由貪戀引起的，緣于多個境界的斷滅在道理上有什麼違背呢？然而善智產生時，觀察各種行為的過失，仔細觀察過失后，希望斷滅它們。所以一個境界的智慧可以緣于多個境界的境地。比如暖位（Ushmagata，佛教修行中的一種境界）等，以總體的行為相狀，觀察各種行為的過失，欣求斷滅它們。不應該認為它們和邪見一樣，對於所緣的境界有範圍的緣取。迷惑和覺悟的道理不同，不應該作為例子。修習觀行的人，觀察自身境界中的過失所帶來的困擾，欣求自身境界的斷滅。由此也能觀察到其他境界，各種行為的出離過失和功德。所以善智生起，覺悟的境界道理上可以容許頓然緣于多個境界的行為斷滅。各種邪見產生於對境界的迷惑，固執的阻礙不能總體的緣取。為什麼邪見緣于苦集滅，有普遍和唯一的緣取，緣于道卻不是這樣呢？因為治療的方法不同，互相之間互為因果。 English version: Furthermore, it is severed by the cessation of views pertaining to this realm. The object of attachment for wrong views is precisely why the doubt has not been dispelled. Therefore, for what reason do wrong views focus on cessation? Unlike focusing on suffering and its origin, which can universally focus on both one's own and others' realms, if some wrong views focus on suffering and its origin, why don't they, like focusing on cessation, only focus on one's own realm? Thus, the above explanation has not dispelled this doubt. It's not that the doubt hasn't been dispelled, but rather that the meaning hasn't been understood. However, the above meaning is clear: if, within certain actions, the attachment to self and the view of self in this realm are operating, then, due to their attachment to the actions of this realm, if they hear of the cessation of these actions, they will generate wrong views in this realm, denying its existence. It's not that there is attachment to lower realms within the actions of higher realms; how could lower wrong views deny the cessation of those higher actions? Although the realms and territories are separated by cause and effect, the suffering and its origin in the nine realms are interconnected. Moreover, because of the establishment of dependent origination, mutually acting as causes, wrong views in one realm can focus on multiple cessations. There is no principle of mutual connection or causation, so wrong views that slander cessation only focus on the cessation of their own realm. If that's the case, then when wise understanding focuses on the Truth of Cessation (Nirvana, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the truth of the cessation of suffering), it should have a limited scope of focus, like the view that slanders cessation. It shouldn't be that a single moment of wisdom suddenly focuses on the cessation of multiple realms. There is no difference in the principle of these two objects of focus. Let's assume that there is wise understanding that focuses on the cessation of one realm, but there are also cases where it suddenly focuses on the cessation of multiple realms. This is because the preceding principle differs from wrong views. It has already been said that if, within certain actions, there are those who are attached, upon hearing of the cessation of these actions, they will generate wrong views in this realm, denying its existence. It's not that there is attachment to lower realms within the actions of higher realms; how could lower wrong views deny the cessation of those higher actions? Wise understanding is not caused by attachment; what contradiction is there in focusing on the cessation of multiple realms? However, when wise understanding arises, it observes the faults of various actions, and after carefully observing the faults, it hopes to cease them. Therefore, the wisdom of one realm can focus on the territory of multiple realms. For example, the stage of 'heat' (Ushmagata, a stage in Buddhist practice), with the general characteristics of actions, observes the faults of various actions and seeks to cease them. It shouldn't be considered the same as wrong views, which have a limited focus on the object of attachment. The principles of delusion and enlightenment are different and shouldn't be taken as examples. Those who practice contemplation observe the troubles caused by the faults in their own realm and seek the cessation of their own realm. From this, they can also observe other realms, the faults and merits of liberation from various actions. Therefore, when wise understanding arises, the principle of the enlightened realm can allow for the sudden focus on the cessation of actions in multiple realms. Various wrong views arise from delusion about the realm, and stubborn obstruction prevents overall focus. Why do wrong views focus on suffering, its origin, and cessation, with both universal and unique focus, but not on the path? Because the methods of treatment are different and mutually act as causes.
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it is severed by the cessation of views pertaining to this realm. The object of attachment for wrong views is precisely why the doubt has not been dispelled. Therefore, for what reason do wrong views focus on cessation? Unlike focusing on suffering and its origin, which can universally focus on both one's own and others' realms, if some wrong views focus on suffering and its origin, why don't they, like focusing on cessation, only focus on one's own realm? Thus, the above explanation has not dispelled this doubt. It's not that the doubt hasn't been dispelled, but rather that the meaning hasn't been understood. However, the above meaning is clear: if, within certain actions, the attachment to self and the view of self in this realm are operating, then, due to their attachment to the actions of this realm, if they hear of the cessation of these actions, they will generate wrong views in this realm, denying its existence. It's not that there is attachment to lower realms within the actions of higher realms; how could lower wrong views deny the cessation of those higher actions? Although the realms and territories are separated by cause and effect, the suffering and its origin in the nine realms are interconnected. Moreover, because of the establishment of dependent origination, mutually acting as causes, wrong views in one realm can focus on multiple cessations. There is no principle of mutual connection or causation, so wrong views that slander cessation only focus on the cessation of their own realm. If that's the case, then when wise understanding focuses on the Truth of Cessation (Nirvana, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the truth of the cessation of suffering), it should have a limited scope of focus, like the view that slanders cessation. It shouldn't be that a single moment of wisdom suddenly focuses on the cessation of multiple realms. There is no difference in the principle of these two objects of focus. Let's assume that there is wise understanding that focuses on the cessation of one realm, but there are also cases where it suddenly focuses on the cessation of multiple realms. This is because the preceding principle differs from wrong views. It has already been said that if, within certain actions, there are those who are attached, upon hearing of the cessation of these actions, they will generate wrong views in this realm, denying its existence. It's not that there is attachment to lower realms within the actions of higher realms; how could lower wrong views deny the cessation of those higher actions? Wise understanding is not caused by attachment; what contradiction is there in focusing on the cessation of multiple realms? However, when wise understanding arises, it observes the faults of various actions, and after carefully observing the faults, it hopes to cease them. Therefore, the wisdom of one realm can focus on the territory of multiple realms. For example, the stage of 'heat' (Ushmagata, a stage in Buddhist practice), with the general characteristics of actions, observes the faults of various actions and seeks to cease them. It shouldn't be considered the same as wrong views, which have a limited focus on the object of attachment. The principles of delusion and enlightenment are different and shouldn't be taken as examples. Those who practice contemplation observe the troubles caused by the faults in their own realm and seek the cessation of their own realm. From this, they can also observe other realms, the faults and merits of liberation from various actions. Therefore, when wise understanding arises, the principle of the enlightened realm can allow for the sudden focus on the cessation of actions in multiple realms. Various wrong views arise from delusion about the realm, and stubborn obstruction prevents overall focus. Why do wrong views focus on suffering, its origin, and cessation, with both universal and unique focus, but not on the path? Because the methods of treatment are different and mutually act as causes.
故。謂所緣道雖諸地別。而展轉相屬互為因果故。因此邪見六九總緣。滅不相因唯緣自地。豈不法類二智品道。亦互相因下上邪見。應俱能緣法類品道。如緣苦集諸地無遮。此責不然。非對治故。若爾六地法智品道。應非欲界邪見總緣。上五地中法智品道。于欲界法非對治故。未至地亦非全屬上地者非欲治故治欲者亦非全邪見。唯是忍所治故。色無色界謗道邪見。應亦能緣法智品道。有法智品道治色無色故。若謂法智非全治彼。苦集法智品非彼對治故。亦非全能治色無色。不能治彼見所斷故。初品法智不能治彼初品煩惱。非此所治故法智品非彼所緣。是則應許色無色邪見。不能總緣九地類智品。非類智品總能對治上二界中諸煩惱故。謂非第二靜慮地等類智品道。亦能為初靜慮地等煩惱對治。初靜慮等亦非全。兩節推徴如前說。又緣道諦三界隨眠。非苦集滅忍所對治。故謗道見理應無能下上總緣。六九地道如是過網理實皆無。法類相望種類別故。法類智品治類同故。互相因故。互相緣故。謂法智品道同是欲界中。緣道諦惑對治種類。此同斷道由互相因互相緣故。設非對治亦欲緣道煩惱所緣。類智品道與法智品。雖互相因。由對治門種類別故。不相緣故。非欲緣道煩惱所緣。準此已遮色無色界緣道煩惱。亦應能緣治色無色
法智品過。謂於此中雖有少分法智品道。能治上界少分煩惱亦互相因。而由治門種類別故。與類智品不相緣故。非上緣道煩惱所緣。於九地中類智品道。由一種類展轉相因。更互相緣治類同故。雖非對治而可總為上八地中緣道惑境。是故如頌所說理成。何故貪瞋慢及二取見。無漏斷不緣無漏。以諸欣求真解脫者。于貪煩惱定應舍離。若緣無漏如善法欲。希求涅槃及聖道故。求解脫者不應離貪。又滅道諦應是所斷。佛說離貪境名斷故。如契經說。汝於色中。若能斷貪色亦名斷。又于貪境見過失故方得離貪。若許有貪緣無漏者。應于滅道見過失時。貪方得離。此見非凈。豈能盡惑。又于貪境見功德故貪方得生。若許有貪緣無漏者。滅靜等行觀無漏時貪應增長。如何因此能盡諸惑。既俱不盡惑。生死應無窮。是故知貪不緣無漏。緣怨害事方得生瞋。無漏事中離怨害相。故緣無漏瞋必不生。又瞋隨眠其相粗惡。諸無漏法最極微妙。故瞋于彼無容得行。諸慢隨眠高舉相故性不寂靜。諸無漏法極寂靜故不生高舉。又生慢者作是念言。我得此法。非無漏法力能為緣起如是慢。以無漏法能治慢故。二取若能緣無漏者。是則應與正見相同。無漏是真凈勝性故。二取既無倒。應非見所斷。是故二取非無漏緣。若爾有于謗涅槃者。邪見等上起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法智品（Dharmajñāna-prakaraṇa）已經討論完畢。意思是說，雖然在這裡有少部分的法智品道（dharmajñāna-prakaraṇa-mārga），能夠對治上界少分的煩惱，並且這些煩惱也互相影響。但是，由於對治的方式和種類不同，並且與類智品（anvayajñāna-prakaraṇa）不相關聯，所以法智品道不是上緣道（adhyāropamārga）煩惱所緣的對象。在九地（nine grounds）中，類智品道由於種類相同而相互影響，並且互相作為所緣，因為它們對治的種類相同。雖然它們不是直接的對治，但可以總括地作為上八地（upper eight grounds）中緣道惑（mārgamoha）的境界。因此，正如頌文所說，這個道理是成立的。 為什麼貪（rāga）、瞋（dveṣa）、慢（māna）以及二取見（dvitīyābhiniveśa-dṛṣṭi）的無漏斷（anāsrava-prahāṇa）不緣無漏法（anāsrava-dharma）呢？因為那些尋求真正解脫的人，對於貪煩惱必定應當捨棄。如果貪緣無漏法，就像善法欲（kuśaladharmacchanda）一樣，因為希求涅槃（nirvāṇa）和聖道（āryamārga）。如果這樣，求解脫的人就不應該舍離貪了。而且，滅諦（nirodha-satya）和道諦（mārga-satya）應該是所斷的。佛陀說過，舍離貪的境界才叫做斷。正如契經（sūtra）所說：『你如果能夠斷除對色的貪，那麼色也就可以說是被斷除了。』而且，只有在貪的境界中看到過失，才能舍離貪。如果允許有貪緣無漏法，那麼應該在滅諦和道諦中看到過失時，貪才能被舍離。這種見解是不清凈的，怎麼能夠斷盡煩惱呢？而且，只有在貪的境界中看到功德，貪才能生起。如果允許有貪緣無漏法，那麼在觀察滅靜等行（nirodha-śānta-ādi-gati）的無漏法時，貪應該增長。這樣怎麼能夠因此斷盡諸惑呢？既然兩者都不能斷盡煩惱，生死就應該是無窮無盡的。所以，要知道貪不緣無漏法。 只有緣怨恨的事情才能生起瞋。無漏法中沒有怨恨的相狀，所以緣無漏法，瞋必定不會生起。而且，瞋隨眠（dveṣānuśaya）的相狀粗暴惡劣，而無漏法最極微妙，所以瞋不可能在無漏法上執行。 諸慢隨眠（mānānuśaya）具有高舉的相狀，所以本性不寂靜。諸無漏法極其寂靜，所以不會生起高舉。而且，生起慢的人會這樣想：『我得到了這個法。』不是無漏法的力量能夠作為緣而生起這樣的慢，因為無漏法能夠對治慢。 如果二取見能夠緣無漏法，那麼就應該與正見（samyagdṛṣṭi）相同。因為無漏法是真實、清凈、殊勝的本性。二取見既然沒有顛倒，就不應該是見所斷的。所以，二取見不是無漏法所緣的對象。 如果這樣，那麼對於誹謗涅槃的人，邪見（mithyādṛṣṭi）等就會生起。
【English Translation】 English version The Dharmajñāna-prakaraṇa (Analysis of Knowledge of Dharma) has been discussed. This means that although there is a small portion of the Dharmajñāna-prakaraṇa-mārga (path of knowledge of Dharma) here, which can counteract a small portion of the afflictions of the upper realms, and these afflictions also influence each other, the Dharmajñāna-prakaraṇa-mārga is not the object of the afflictions of the Adhyāropamārga (path of superimposition) because the methods and types of counteraction are different and are not related to the Anvayajñāna-prakaraṇa (Analysis of Consequent Knowledge). In the nine grounds, the Anvayajñāna-prakaraṇa-mārga influences each other due to the same type, and they mutually serve as objects because they counteract the same type. Although they are not direct antidotes, they can be collectively regarded as the realm of Mārgamoha (delusion about the path) in the upper eight grounds. Therefore, as stated in the verse, this principle is established. Why is it that the Anāsrava-prahāṇa (untainted abandonment) of Rāga (greed), Dveṣa (hatred), Māna (pride), and Dvitīyābhiniveśa-dṛṣṭi (views of clinging to duality) does not relate to Anāsrava-dharma (untainted dharma)? Because those who seek true liberation must abandon the affliction of greed. If greed relates to untainted dharma, it would be like Kuśaladharmacchanda (desire for wholesome dharma), because it seeks Nirvāṇa (liberation) and Āryamārga (noble path). If this were the case, those seeking liberation should not abandon greed. Moreover, Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation) and Mārga-satya (truth of the path) should be abandoned. The Buddha said that the state of abandoning greed is called abandonment. As the Sūtra says: 'If you can abandon greed for form, then form can also be said to be abandoned.' Furthermore, only by seeing faults in the object of greed can one abandon greed. If it is allowed that greed relates to untainted dharma, then greed should only be abandoned when faults are seen in Nirodha-satya and Mārga-satya. This view is impure; how can it exhaust afflictions? Moreover, greed can only arise when merits are seen in the object of greed. If it is allowed that greed relates to untainted dharma, then greed should increase when observing the untainted dharma of Nirodha-śānta-ādi-gati (cessation, tranquility, etc.). How can this exhaust all afflictions? Since neither can exhaust afflictions, Saṃsāra (cyclic existence) should be endless. Therefore, know that greed does not relate to untainted dharma. Hatred only arises when relating to hateful things. There is no aspect of hatred in untainted dharma, so hatred will certainly not arise when relating to untainted dharma. Moreover, the aspect of Dveṣānuśaya (latent tendency of hatred) is coarse and evil, while untainted dharma is extremely subtle, so hatred cannot operate on it. The Mānanuśaya (latent tendency of pride) has the aspect of arrogance, so its nature is not tranquil. Untainted dharma is extremely tranquil, so arrogance will not arise. Moreover, those who generate pride think: 'I have attained this dharma.' The power of untainted dharma cannot be the cause of such pride, because untainted dharma can counteract pride. If Dvitīyābhiniveśa-dṛṣṭi (views of clinging to duality) could relate to untainted dharma, then it should be the same as Samyagdṛṣṭi (right view). Because untainted dharma is the nature of truth, purity, and excellence. Since Dvitīyābhiniveśa-dṛṣṭi is not inverted, it should not be abandoned by view. Therefore, Dvitīyābhiniveśa-dṛṣṭi is not an object of untainted dharma. If so, then for those who slander Nirvāṇa (liberation), Mithyādṛṣṭi (wrong view) and others will arise.
瞋隨眠。既稱所緣應無有過。于有過法起憎背心。正合其儀應遠離故。則應瞋恚非見滅斷。無如是失。愚滅相者于能謗者方起瞋故。謂于余處執解脫已。于謗真解脫方起不忍心。是故要愚真滅相者。方于謗滅邪見等上。起極憎背見滅斷瞋。諸有不愚真滅相者。于能謗滅邪見等上。若生厭背非瞋隨眠。乃是無貪善根所攝。又如腹內積多病者。為活命故雖食美食。病所雜故皆成衰損。腹無病者。凡有所食一切于身有益無損。如是若有于非滅中妄謂是滅生貪愛者。相續穢故。于邪見等所起憎嫌。皆說名為緣見滅斷。邪見等法所起瞋恚。若有如理于真滅中知是真滅。無貪愛者相續凈故。于能謗滅邪見等中。所生厭背皆無過失。若於知有涅槃正見。所起瞋恚見何所斷。此不應責見所斷瞋。理必無容緣善法故。此緣正見。定修所斷。然已見諦者此不復行。緣謗滅見貪已永斷故。寧不信有緣無漏瞋。豈不此瞋世現知有。謂有外道言。涅槃中永滅諸根。是大衰損故。我於此定不欣求。此本非瞋乃是邪見。故本論說。於樂計苦。是見滅斷邪見所攝。理必應然。以一切苦至極樂處方得永滅。極樂處者。唯真涅槃。此極樂言。顯勝義樂。彼不能了此樂相故。又不能知生死過故。耽著諸有不樂出離。故起邪見非撥涅槃。寧執此為緣滅瞋恚。然上
座說。許邪見疑及二無明緣無漏者。則應滅道俱成有漏。若謂滅道非惑所魅。要有漏事惑所魅者。是則若有于彼事中。有所求得可起煩惱。定無滅道成有漏失。由彼不成有漏相故。以佛說有漏唯是愛恚事。滅道既非愛恚事攝。故彼雖被邪見等緣。而決定無成有漏失。若爾不許貪瞋隨眠是共相惑。非一切境皆為貪瞋所繫縛故。應有有漏事亦成無漏失。彼定不了對法義宗。以許未來自相煩惱。定能繫縛諸有漏事。非滅道諦與三時中貪瞋隨眠為依為境。故與彼事不可例同。豈不世間諸外道類。現於無漏亦有起瞋。謂現有於他正見等真涅槃道。及涅槃中起極憎嫌。經中處處亦見廣說憎滅道者。又諸煩惱依總相說。皆入貪瞋二品攝故。如說三隨眠。復說七隨眠。有說三結。復說九結。非三隨眠不攝七隨眠。非三結不攝九結。又如經說大病有三。豈身見等非大病攝。若彼品攝亦名大病。貪瞋亦然。總攝無失。謂貪能總攝樂相應煩惱。瞋復能總攝苦相應煩惱。故許邪見疑二無明能緣滅道。則應滅道亦是瞋事成有漏失。如是所說理皆不然。且初所言諸外道類。現於無漏有起瞋者。彼由不了無漏相故。但闕樂欲非謂起瞋。謂彼深心樂著生死不樂出離。故起邪見。非謗滅道豈即名瞋。彼或撥無或謂有過。故於無漏唯不忍許。非不忍許即名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如果說邪見（錯誤的見解）和疑（懷疑）以及兩種無明（對四聖諦的無知）能夠緣于無漏法（沒有煩惱的法），那麼滅諦（煩惱止息的真理）和道諦（通往滅諦的道路）豈不都成了有漏法（有煩惱的法）？ 如果說滅諦和道諦不是由迷惑所控制，而必須是有漏的事物才會被迷惑所控制，那麼如果有人在那些事物中有所求得，就可能生起煩惱。這樣就一定不會有滅諦和道諦變成有漏法的過失，因為它們本身不具有有漏法的相狀。 因為佛陀說過，有漏法只是與愛（貪）和恚（嗔）相關的事物。滅諦和道諦不屬於愛和恚的範疇，所以即使它們被邪見等所緣，也絕對不會變成有漏法。 問：如果這樣，那麼不承認貪（貪慾）和瞋（嗔恨）的隨眠（潛在的煩惱）是共相惑（普遍存在的迷惑），因為不是所有的境界都會被貪和瞋所束縛，那麼是否會有有漏的事物也變成無漏法的過失？ 答：你一定不瞭解《對法》的義理和宗旨。我們承認未來具有自相的煩惱一定能夠束縛所有的有漏事物。滅諦和道諦與過去、現在、未來三世中的貪和瞋的隨眠沒有依存關係，也不是它們的對象，所以不能與那些有漏事物相提並論。 問：難道世間的那些外道（不信佛教的人）不是也會對無漏法生起嗔恨嗎？他們現在對於他人的正見（正確的見解）等真正的涅槃（煩惱止息的境界）之道，以及涅槃本身，都極度憎恨和厭惡。經典中也處處廣泛地講述了憎恨滅諦和道諦的人。 而且，所有的煩惱，如果從總相上來說，都屬於貪和瞋這兩類。例如，說有三種隨眠，又說有七種隨眠；有說三種結（束縛），又說有九種結。並非三種隨眠不能涵蓋七種隨眠，也並非三種結不能涵蓋九種結。又如經中說大病有三種，難道身見（認為身體是真實存在的錯誤見解）等不屬於大病嗎？如果它們屬於大病這一類，也可以稱為大病。貪和瞋也是這樣，總括起來沒有錯誤。貪能夠總括與快樂相應的煩惱，瞋能夠總括與痛苦相應的煩惱。所以，如果承認邪見、疑和兩種無明能夠緣于滅諦和道諦，那麼滅諦和道諦也應該是與瞋相關的事物，從而變成有漏法，你這樣說，道理都是不成立的。 首先，你所說的那些外道現在對無漏法生起嗔恨，是因為他們不瞭解無漏法的相狀，只是缺乏樂欲（喜愛和慾望），不能說是生起嗔恨。他們內心深處喜愛執著于生死輪迴，不喜愛出離，所以生起邪見。並非誹謗滅諦和道諦就叫做嗔恨。他們或者否定滅諦和道諦的存在，或者認為它們有過失，所以對於無漏法只是不忍心認可，並非不忍心認可就叫做嗔恨。
【English Translation】 English version Question: If it is said that wrong views (evil views), doubt (hesitation), and the two kinds of ignorance (avidya) (ignorance of the Four Noble Truths) can be conditions for unconditioned dharmas (dharmas without afflictions), then wouldn't Nirodha-satya (the truth of cessation of suffering) and Marga-satya (the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering) both become conditioned dharmas (dharmas with afflictions)? If it is said that Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya are not controlled by delusion, and that only conditioned things can be controlled by delusion, then if someone seeks something in those things, afflictions may arise. In that case, there would definitely be no fault of Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya becoming conditioned dharmas, because they themselves do not have the characteristics of conditioned dharmas. Because the Buddha said that conditioned dharmas are only things related to love (greed) and hatred (anger). Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya do not belong to the category of love and hatred, so even if they are conditioned by wrong views, etc., they will definitely not become conditioned dharmas. Question: If so, then not admitting that the latent tendencies (anusaya) of greed (lobha) and hatred (dvesha) are common delusions (universal delusions), because not all realms are bound by greed and hatred, then would there be a fault of conditioned things also becoming unconditioned dharmas? Answer: You certainly do not understand the meaning and purpose of the Abhidharma. We admit that future afflictions with their own characteristics can definitely bind all conditioned things. Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya have no dependence on the latent tendencies of greed and hatred in the past, present, and future, nor are they their objects, so they cannot be compared to those conditioned things. Question: Don't those non-Buddhist (tirthika) in the world also generate hatred towards unconditioned dharmas? They now have extreme hatred and aversion towards others' right views (samyag-drishti) and other true paths to Nirvana (the state of cessation of afflictions), as well as Nirvana itself. The sutras also widely describe people who hate Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya in many places. Moreover, all afflictions, if speaking from a general perspective, belong to the two categories of greed and hatred. For example, it is said that there are three latent tendencies, and then it is said that there are seven latent tendencies; it is said that there are three bonds (samyojana), and then it is said that there are nine bonds. It is not that the three latent tendencies cannot encompass the seven latent tendencies, nor that the three bonds cannot encompass the nine bonds. Also, as the sutra says that there are three major illnesses, doesn't self-view (satkaya-drsti) (the wrong view that the body is real) belong to the major illnesses? If they belong to the category of major illnesses, they can also be called major illnesses. Greed and hatred are also like this, encompassing them all is not a mistake. Greed can encompass afflictions corresponding to pleasure, and hatred can encompass afflictions corresponding to pain. Therefore, if it is admitted that wrong views, doubt, and the two kinds of ignorance can be conditions for Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya, then Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya should also be things related to hatred, thus becoming conditioned dharmas. What you say is not reasonable. First of all, what you said about those non-Buddhists now generating hatred towards unconditioned dharmas is because they do not understand the characteristics of unconditioned dharmas, and they simply lack desire (chanda) and longing, and cannot be said to generate hatred. Deep in their hearts, they love and are attached to samsara (the cycle of birth and death) and do not like liberation, so they generate wrong views. It is not that slandering Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya is called hatred. They either deny the existence of Nirodha-satya and Marga-satya, or think that they have faults, so they simply cannot bear to acknowledge unconditioned dharmas, and not bearing to acknowledge them is not called hatred.
瞋。如佛弟子于外道說。自性士夫時方我等。亦不忍許豈即是瞋。又彼所言依總相說。貪瞋總攝一切煩惱。以邪見等緣滅道故。滅道則應瞋事所攝。成有漏者理亦不然。違自意故。太過失故。不決定故。應異說故。謂彼上座處處自言。世尊不應作迷謬說。若佛於此但舉貪瞋。意欲總攝一切煩惱。豈不此言極為迷謬。或若舉二便能攝余。則后說余便為無用。故彼所說自意相違。如何彼言有太過失。謂先已釋貪慢二取。不緣滅道其理極成。準汝所言應有緣義。以有邪見與樂相應。滅道亦應成貪事故。或雖許二總攝諸惑。而非總能緣滅道者。則應唯許邪見等緣。不應許瞋離怨相故。又約余義有太過失。謂應但說大病有二。以許貪瞋總攝諸惑。業因緣集應無有三。如是等門數皆應減。不決定者。謂彼所言唯說貪瞋能攝諸惑。如隨眠等少能攝多。此不定然有處說少唯如名攝不攝余故。有說總名許攝別故。如緣起處說愛緣取。彼宗唯許愛為取緣。非攝所餘樂相應惑。取名雖總唯許攝愛。又契經言。吾當為汝說諸愛網。此中唯說貪求相故攝愛非余。又見余經總說煩惱而不攝見。如五濁中或舉別名而總攝惑。如契經說無明緣行。又於此中三隨眠等。亦容說彼非攝一切。應異說者。謂若世尊欲依總相說諸煩惱。不應於此說貪與瞋。但應說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 嗔（Dvesha）。如果佛弟子對外道說，『自性士夫（Atman-purusha，一種靈魂概念），時間，方位，自我』等等，我們尚且不能容忍，難道這就是嗔嗎？而且他們所說的，是依據總相來說的。貪（Lobha）和嗔總括了一切煩惱，因為邪見等會使滅道（Nirodha-marga，通往涅槃的道路）消失。如果滅道被嗔所包含，那麼成為有漏（Sasrava，受煩惱影響）的說法在道理上也是不成立的，因為這違背了他們自己的意思，犯了『太過』的錯誤，不確定，並且應該有不同的說法。也就是說，那位上座（長老）到處都說，世尊不應該作出令人迷惑的說法。如果佛陀在這裡只提到貪和嗔，意圖總括一切煩惱，那麼這種說法難道不是非常令人迷惑嗎？或者如果提到這兩個就能涵蓋其餘的，那麼之後再說其他的就變得沒有用了。所以他們的說法與自己的意思相違背。他們所說的『太過』的錯誤是什麼呢？就是之前已經解釋過，貪和慢（Mana）這二者所取（Upadana，執取）的，不會緣于滅道，這個道理已經非常明確了。按照你們的說法，應該有緣于滅道的意義，因為有與快樂相應的邪見，滅道也應該成為貪的對象。或者即使允許貪和嗔總括了所有的迷惑，但並非總能緣于滅道，那麼就應該只允許邪見等緣于滅道，不應該允許嗔離開怨恨的相狀。而且，從其他的意義上來說，也有『太過』的錯誤，就是應該只說大病有兩種，因為允許貪和嗔總括了所有的迷惑，業（Karma）的因緣集合應該沒有三種。像這樣，數量都應該減少。所謂『不確定』，是指他們所說的，只說貪和嗔能夠涵蓋所有的迷惑，就像隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）等少量能夠涵蓋多種。這種說法是不確定的，因為有些地方說少量僅僅像名稱一樣涵蓋，不涵蓋其餘的。有些地方說總的名稱允許涵蓋個別的。例如，在緣起（Pratitya-samutpada，因緣生法）之處說，愛（Trsna）緣于取。他們的宗派只允許愛作為取的緣，不涵蓋其餘的與快樂相應的迷惑。取這個名稱雖然是總的，但只允許涵蓋愛。而且，契經（Sutra）上說，『我將為你們說各種愛網』。這裡面只說了貪求的相狀，所以只涵蓋了愛，不涵蓋其他的。而且，看到其他的經典總說煩惱，而不涵蓋見（Drsti，錯誤的見解）。例如，在五濁（Panca Kasaya，五種污濁）中，或者舉出個別的名稱而總括迷惑。例如，契經上說，無明（Avidya）緣於行（Samskara）。而且，在這裡面，三隨眠等等，也容許說它們不涵蓋一切。所謂『應該有不同的說法』，是指如果世尊想要依據總相來說明各種煩惱，就不應該在這裡說貪和嗔，而應該只說煩惱。
【English Translation】 English version Anger (Dvesha). If a Buddhist disciple were to say to non-Buddhists about 'Atman-purusha (the self-essence person), time, direction, self,' etc., we would not even tolerate that, so how could this be anger? Moreover, what they say is based on the general characteristic. Greed (Lobha) and anger encompass all afflictions, because wrong views, etc., cause the cessation path (Nirodha-marga, the path to Nirvana) to disappear. If the cessation path is included in anger, then the statement that it becomes tainted (Sasrava, influenced by afflictions) is also not logically valid, because it contradicts their own meaning, commits the error of 'excessiveness,' is uncertain, and there should be different statements. That is to say, that elder (Upadhyaya) says everywhere that the World Honored One should not make confusing statements. If the Buddha only mentioned greed and anger here, intending to encompass all afflictions, wouldn't this statement be extremely confusing? Or if mentioning these two can cover the rest, then saying the rest later becomes useless. Therefore, their statement contradicts their own meaning. What is the error of 'excessiveness' that they mentioned? It is that it has already been explained before that greed and pride (Mana), which are taken (Upadana, clinging), will not be related to the cessation path, and this principle is very clear. According to your statement, there should be a meaning related to the cessation path, because there are wrong views that correspond to happiness, and the cessation path should also become an object of greed. Or even if it is allowed that greed and anger encompass all delusions, but they cannot always be related to the cessation path, then only wrong views, etc., should be allowed to be related, and anger should not be allowed to be separated from the appearance of resentment. Moreover, from other meanings, there is also the error of 'excessiveness,' which is that it should only be said that there are two major diseases, because it is allowed that greed and anger encompass all delusions, and the causal collection of karma (Karma) should not have three types. Like this, the numbers should all be reduced. The so-called 'uncertainty' refers to what they said, only saying that greed and anger can encompass all delusions, just like latent tendencies (Anusaya, potential afflictions), a small amount can encompass many. This statement is uncertain, because some places say that a small amount only encompasses like a name, not encompassing the rest. Some places say that the general name allows encompassing the individual. For example, in the place of dependent origination (Pratitya-samutpada, the law of dependent arising), it is said that craving (Trsna) is the condition for grasping. Their sect only allows craving as the condition for grasping, not encompassing the rest of the delusions corresponding to happiness. Although the name grasping is general, it only allows encompassing craving. Moreover, the Sutra says, 'I will tell you about the various nets of craving.' Only the appearance of greed is mentioned here, so it only encompasses craving, not encompassing the rest. Moreover, seeing other scriptures generally talk about afflictions without encompassing views (Drsti, wrong views). For example, in the five defilements (Panca Kasaya, five kinds of turbidity), or mentioning individual names to encompass delusions in general. For example, the Sutra says, ignorance (Avidya) is the condition for formations (Samskara). Moreover, in this, the three latent tendencies, etc., are also allowed to be said that they do not encompass everything. The so-called 'there should be different statements' means that if the World Honored One wants to explain various afflictions based on the general characteristic, he should not say greed and anger here, but should only say afflictions.
無明如無明緣行。此能總攝一切煩惱。與諸煩惱相隨行故。若說貪瞋唯能自攝彼前所說。是則若有于彼事中。有所求得可起煩惱者。此言有何義非我宗說。要于境中有所求得方起煩惱。但由於境不能了知。起背起求起中煩惱。若爾寧說惑所魅言。謂若境中惑得自在。能攝受境令順生增。非惑生時攝取于境。置於心首寶玩名魅。但是境中惑得自在。攝令順已得生增義。若非所魅惑于境中。雖緣彼生而不增長。如人舉目觀日月輪。能令眼根損減增長。是故貪等不緣無漏其理極成。滅道雖為邪見等境。而非有漏。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第四十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之五
為顯上義復應思擇九十八隨眠中。幾由所緣故隨增。幾由相應故隨增。頌曰。
未斷遍隨眠 于自地一切 非遍於自部 所緣故隨增 非無漏上緣 無攝有違故 隨於相應法 相應故隨增
論曰。遍行隨眠差別有二。謂于自界地他界地遍行。不遍隨眠差別亦二。謂有漏無漏緣。且遍行中自界地者。普於五部自界地法所緣隨增。不遍行中有漏緣者。唯于自部自界地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無明』（Avidya，指對事物真相的無知）就像『無明緣行』（Avidya-pratyaya-samskara，十二因緣中的第一支和第二支，無明是行的緣起）。這能夠總括一切煩惱，因為它與所有煩惱相伴隨。如果說貪和瞋只能各自攝取（煩惱），那麼之前所說的（無明能總攝一切煩惱）又有什麼意義呢？如果有人在所求的事物中，能夠生起煩惱，那麼這句話又有什麼意義呢？這並非我宗的觀點。煩惱的生起，並非一定要在所緣境中有所求得，而是由於對所緣境不能如實了知，才會生起背離、求取和中間的煩惱。如果這樣，為什麼說『惑所魅』呢？意思是說，如果『惑』（Klesha，煩惱）在所緣境中得到自在，就能攝受該境，使其順從並增長（煩惱）。並非是煩惱生起時，攝取該境，將其置於心首，像珍寶一樣玩賞，才叫做『魅』。而是說，煩惱在所緣境中得到自在，攝受該境使其順從，從而達到生起和增長煩惱的目的。如果不是『所魅』，那麼煩惱即使緣於該境而生起，也不會增長。就像人舉目觀看日月，能使眼根損減或增長一樣。因此，貪等煩惱不緣于無漏法，這個道理是極其成立的。『滅』（Nirodha，寂滅）和『道』（Marga，通往寂滅的道路）雖然是邪見等的所緣境，但並非有漏法。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十八 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第四十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之五
爲了闡明上述意義，還應該思考九十八隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）中，有多少是由所緣（Alambana，對像）的緣故而隨之增長，有多少是由相應（Samprayukta，與心識同時生起）的緣故而隨之增長。頌曰：
未斷遍隨眠 于自地一切 非遍於自部 所緣故隨增 非無漏上緣 無攝有違故 隨於相應法 相應故隨增
論曰：遍行隨眠（Paritrana-anusaya，普遍存在的煩惱潛在形式）的差別有兩種，即于自界地（Sva-bhumi，自身所處的界和地）遍行和他界地遍行。不遍隨眠的差別也有兩種，即有漏緣和無漏緣。首先，遍行隨眠中，自界地者，普遍地於五部（五種煩惱類別）的自界地法作為所緣而隨之增長。不遍行隨眠中，有漏緣者，僅僅于自部的自界地法。
【English Translation】 English version 'Avidya' (ignorance of the true nature of things) is like 'Avidya-pratyaya-samskara' (ignorance conditioning volitional formations, the first and second links in the twelve links of dependent origination). This can encompass all afflictions because it accompanies all afflictions. If it is said that greed and hatred can only each encompass (afflictions), then what is the meaning of what was said before (that ignorance can encompass all afflictions)? If someone can generate afflictions in the things they seek, then what is the meaning of this statement? This is not the view of our school. The arising of afflictions does not necessarily require something to be sought in the object of perception. Rather, it is because of not truly understanding the object of perception that aversion, seeking, and intermediate afflictions arise. If so, why is it said 'bewitched by delusion'? It means that if 'delusion' (Klesha, affliction) gains freedom in the object of perception, it can control that object, making it compliant and increasing (afflictions). It is not that when afflictions arise, they seize the object, place it at the head of the mind, and cherish it like a treasure, which is called 'bewitched'. Rather, it is that delusion gains freedom in the object of perception, controlling it to be compliant, thereby achieving the purpose of arising and increasing afflictions. If it is not 'bewitched', then even if afflictions arise based on that object, they will not increase. It is like a person raising their eyes to look at the sun and moon, which can cause the eye faculty to decrease or increase. Therefore, the principle that greed and other afflictions do not arise based on unconditioned dharmas is extremely established. 'Cessation' (Nirodha, extinction) and 'Path' (Marga, the path to extinction), although they are the objects of perception for wrong views and others, are not conditioned dharmas.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 48 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 49
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5, Part 5: Analysis of Latent Afflictions
To clarify the above meaning, it should also be considered among the ninety-eight latent afflictions (Anusaya, the latent forms of afflictions), how many increase due to the object (Alambana, the object of perception), and how many increase due to association (Samprayukta, arising simultaneously with consciousness). The verse says:
Unabandoned pervasive latent afflictions, in all of their own realm, Non-pervasive, in their own category, increase due to the object. Not unconditioned or higher objects, because of non-inclusion and contradiction. According to associated dharmas, they increase due to association.
Commentary: There are two differences in pervasive latent afflictions (Paritrana-anusaya, universally present latent forms of afflictions): pervasive in their own realm (Sva-bhumi, the realm and plane they belong to) and pervasive in other realms. There are also two differences in non-pervasive latent afflictions: conditioned objects and unconditioned objects. First, among pervasive latent afflictions, those in their own realm universally increase with the five categories (five types of afflictions) of dharmas in their own realm as the object. Among non-pervasive latent afflictions, those with conditioned objects only increase with the dharmas of their own category in their own realm.
法所緣隨增。不遍行中無漏緣者。及遍行中他界緣者。于所緣境無隨增義。所以者何。彼所緣境非所攝受及相違故。謂若有法為此地中身見及愛攝為己有。可有為此身見愛。地中所有隨眠所緣隨增理。言隨增者。謂諸隨眠於此法中隨住增長。即是隨縛增惛滯義。如衣有潤塵隨住中。如有潤田種子增長。非諸無漏及上地法。為諸下身見愛攝為己有故。緣彼下惑非所緣隨增。以不隨縛增惛滯故。若下地生求上地等。是善法欲非謂染污。為求離染此欲生故。聖道涅槃及上地法。與能緣彼下惑相違。故彼二亦無所緣隨增理。如於炎石足不隨住。如火焰中鵝不增長。此隨眠起親由所依。然正起時兼托彼境。如是已辯所緣隨增。隨何隨眠于相應法。由相應故於彼隨增。所說隨增謂至未斷故。初頌首摽未斷言。由此應知諸緣無漏。他界他煩惱唯相應隨增。諸緣有漏自界地遍具有所緣相應隨增。如何隨眠于相應法。及所緣境有隨增義。先軌𥰳師作如是說。如城邑側有雜穢聚。糞水土等所共合成。於此聚中由糞過失。令水土等亦成不凈。由水等力令糞轉增。更互相依皆甚可惡。如是煩惱相應聚中。由煩惱力染心心所。煩惱由彼勢力轉增。更互相依皆成穢污。此聚相續穢污漸增。亦令隨行生等成染。如豬犬等居雜穢聚。生極耽樂眠戲其中。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法所緣隨增：指諸隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式）緣于所緣境而增長。但並非所有情況都如此。不遍行（指非在一切心中生起的煩惱）中的無漏緣（指以無漏法為所緣），以及遍行（指在一切心中生起的煩惱）中的他界緣（指以其他世界的法為所緣），對於所緣境沒有隨增的意義。為什麼呢？因為這些所緣境不是它們所攝受的，並且與它們相違背。 也就是說，如果有一種法被此地的身見（認為五蘊為我）和愛（貪愛）攝取為己有，那麼此身見和愛所在地的所有隨眠，才有可能緣於此法而隨增。所謂『隨增』，是指各種隨眠於此法中隨之安住和增長，也就是隨之束縛、增長和昏昧的意思。就像衣服潮濕時塵土容易附著，就像田地濕潤時種子容易生長一樣。但無漏法和上地（指更高的禪定層次）的法，不會被下地的身見和愛攝取為己有，所以緣於它們的下地煩惱，不會有所緣隨增，因為它們不會隨之束縛、增長和昏昧。 如果下地眾生尋求上地等等，這是善法欲，而不是染污。因為是爲了求離染才生起這種慾望。聖道（指八正道）、涅槃（指解脫）以及上地法，與能緣它們的下地煩惱相違背，所以這兩種情況也沒有所緣隨增的道理。就像腳不會停留在燃燒的石頭上，就像鵝不會在火焰中生長一樣。這些隨眠的生起，主要依賴於所依（指煩惱生起的根源），但真正生起時，也會藉助所緣境。 以上已經辨析了所緣隨增。至於隨何種隨眠緣于相應的法，由於相應（指同時生起、互相作用）的緣故，就會於此法隨增。這裡所說的隨增，是指直到未斷除煩惱為止。所以初頌開頭標明『未斷』二字。由此應該知道，緣于無漏法、他界法、其他煩惱的，只有相應隨增。而緣于有漏法、自界地（指自身所處的境界）的，則遍具有所緣隨增和相應隨增。 那麼，隨眠如何于相應的法和所緣境有隨增的意義呢？先軌範師（指古代的論師）是這樣說的：就像城邑旁邊有一堆雜穢之物，由糞便、水、土等共同構成。在這堆雜穢中，由於糞便的過失，使得水、土等也變得不乾淨；而由於水等的力量，又使得糞便更加增多。它們互相依賴，都變得非常可惡。同樣，在煩惱相應的聚合中，由於煩惱的力量，染污了心和心所（指心理活動）；煩惱又由於心和心所的力量而轉為增長。它們互相依賴，都變得污穢不堪。這種污穢的聚合相續不斷，逐漸增長，也使得隨之而來的生等（指生、老、病、死等）也成為染污。就像豬、狗等居住在雜穢的聚集地，非常貪戀，沉溺其中一樣。
【English Translation】 English version 'Object-condition increase': This refers to the latent tendencies (Sanskrit: anuśaya, potential forms of afflictions) increasing due to the object they cognize. However, this is not always the case. In the non-pervasive (those afflictions that do not arise in every mind), the anāsrava condition (referring to taking anāsrava dharmas as objects), and in the pervasive (those afflictions that arise in every mind), the other-realm condition (referring to taking dharmas of other realms as objects), there is no meaning of increase with respect to the object. Why? Because these objects are not taken as their own, and they are contrary to them. That is to say, if a dharma is taken as one's own by the satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self in the five aggregates) and rāga (attachment) of this realm, then it is possible for all the latent tendencies in the realm of this satkāya-dṛṣṭi and rāga to increase due to this dharma. The so-called 'increase' means that the various latent tendencies abide and grow in this dharma, which means they are bound, increased, and obscured. It's like dust easily adhering to damp clothes, or seeds easily growing in moist fields. However, anāsrava dharmas and dharmas of higher realms (referring to higher levels of dhyāna) are not taken as one's own by the satkāya-dṛṣṭi and rāga of lower realms, so the lower realm afflictions that cognize them will not have object-condition increase, because they will not be bound, increased, and obscured by them. If beings in the lower realm seek the higher realm, etc., this is kuśala-chanda (wholesome desire), not defilement. Because this desire arises in order to seek liberation from defilement. The ārya-mārga (noble eightfold path), nirvāṇa (liberation), and dharmas of higher realms are contrary to the lower realm afflictions that cognize them, so there is no reason for object-condition increase in these two cases. It's like feet not staying on burning stones, or geese not growing in flames. The arising of these latent tendencies mainly depends on the āśraya (basis, the root cause of the arising of afflictions), but when they truly arise, they also rely on the object. The above has already distinguished the object-condition increase. As for which latent tendencies increase due to the corresponding dharmas, they will increase in this dharma due to the condition of saṃprayoga (concomitance, simultaneous arising and mutual interaction). The increase mentioned here refers to the period until the afflictions are not cut off. Therefore, the beginning of the first verse indicates the words 'not cut off'. From this, it should be known that only concomitant increase exists for those that cognize anāsrava dharmas, other-realm dharmas, and other afflictions. And for those that cognize sāsrava dharmas and dharmas of one's own realm, both object-condition increase and concomitant increase are pervasive. So, how do latent tendencies have the meaning of increase in corresponding dharmas and objects? The former ācārya (ancient teacher) said this: It's like there is a pile of miscellaneous filth next to a city, composed of feces, water, soil, etc. In this pile of filth, due to the fault of the feces, the water, soil, etc., also become unclean; and due to the power of the water, etc., the feces increase even more. They rely on each other and become very disgusting. Similarly, in the aggregate of concomitant afflictions, due to the power of the afflictions, the mind and mental factors (Sanskrit: citta-caitta) are defiled; and the afflictions increase due to the power of the mind and mental factors. They rely on each other and become extremely defiled. This continuous aggregate of defilement gradually increases, and also makes the subsequent birth, etc. (birth, old age, sickness, death, etc.) become defiled. It's like pigs, dogs, etc., living in a gathering place of miscellaneous filth, being very greedy and indulging in it.
糞穢所涂轉增不凈。復由豬等穢聚漸增。如是所緣自地有漏。由煩惱力有漏義成。彼復有能順煩惱力。令其三品相次漸增。如滑凈人誤墮穢聚。雖觸糞穢而非所增。人亦無能增彼穢聚。如是無漏異界地法。雖有亦被煩惱所緣。而彼相望互無增義。此緣無漏異地隨眠。但由相應有隨增理。有餘於此復作是說。如酒雜毒酷烈轉增。毒勢亦增功能等故。如是有漏與諸煩惱。相助俱增功能等故。如以良藥。置諸毒中。令毒功能有損無益。如是無漏雖被惑緣。令惑功能有損無益。故緣無漏有邪見生。而彼無能斷善根力。亦有至教顯諸隨眠。有無漏緣無隨增理。如契經說苾芻當知。疑食者何。所謂三世於過去世有惑有疑。現在未來說亦如是。無為雖是煩惱所緣非所隨增故此不說。既不說此無漏有為。準此亦應非疑所食。如經總說諸行無常。理實于中唯說有漏法以於後說彼寂為樂。故本論亦言無漏緣煩惱隨增。唯有相應非所緣。去來隨眠有隨增。不應言定有能發得故。若異此者諸異生類。無染心位應離隨眠。然世尊言幼稚童子嬰孩眠病。雖無染欲而有欲貪隨眠隨增。故說隨增乃至未斷。若彼已斷則無所緣相應隨增隨眠。寧有彼猶不失隨眠相故。謂由對治壞其勢力故不隨增。然彼隨眠體相不失。故言猶有。或據曾當有此用故。今雖無用
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 被糞便塗抹的地方會變得更加不乾淨。而且由於豬等動物的糞便聚集，不凈會逐漸增加。同樣，有為法（Sāsrava-dharma，指有煩惱和業力的法）作為所緣境，由於煩惱的力量而成為有漏的。這些有漏法又能夠順應煩惱的力量，使其三品（指欲界、色界、無色界的三種煩惱）依次逐漸增長。就像一個乾淨的人不小心掉進糞堆，雖然接觸了糞便，但糞便並不會因此增加。人也沒有能力增加糞堆。同樣，無漏法（Anāsrava-dharma，指沒有煩惱和業力的法）雖然存在於不同的界域，即使被煩惱作為所緣境，但它們之間相互沒有增長的意義。這種緣于無漏異地的隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在狀態），僅僅因為相應（Samprayoga，與心識同時生起）才會有隨之增長的道理。 還有一些人對此提出這樣的說法：就像酒中摻雜毒藥，會變得更加劇烈，毒性也會增強，因為它們的功能等同。同樣，有漏法與各種煩惱相互幫助，共同增長，因為它們的功能等同。就像用良藥放在毒藥中，會使毒藥的功能受到損害而沒有益處。同樣，無漏法雖然被迷惑作為所緣境，會使迷惑的功能受到損害而沒有益處。所以，緣于無漏法會產生邪見，但邪見沒有能力斷除善根。也有聖教經典表明，有些隨眠沒有無漏法作為緣而隨之增長的道理。例如契經中說：『比丘們，你們應當知道，什麼是疑食（Vicikiccha-ahara，以懷疑為食）？』就是說，對於過去世有迷惑有懷疑，現在和未來也是如此。無為法（Asamskrta-dharma，指不生不滅的法，如涅槃）雖然是煩惱所緣境，但不會隨之增長，所以這裡沒有說。既然沒有說這種無漏有為法（Anasrava-samskrta-dharma），那麼按照這個道理，它也不應該是疑食。 正如經中總說諸行無常（Anitya，一切事物都是無常變化的），實際上只是說了有漏法，因為後面說以寂靜為樂。所以本論也說，無漏法作為煩惱的所緣境，煩惱隨之增長，只有相應才會增長，而不是所緣境。過去和未來的隨眠會隨之增長，不應該說一定有能力引發獲得。如果不是這樣，那麼各種異生（Prthag-jana，指凡夫）在沒有染污心的時候，應該脫離隨眠。然而世尊說，年幼的兒童和嬰兒，即使沒有染欲，也有欲貪隨眠隨之增長。所以說隨之增長，直到沒有斷除。如果他們已經斷除了隨眠，那麼就沒有所緣境和相應隨之增長的隨眠。怎麼能說他們仍然沒有失去隨眠的相呢？這是因為通過對治（Pratipaksa，指與煩惱相反的修行方法）破壞了隨眠的力量，所以不隨之增長。然而隨眠的體相併沒有失去，所以說仍然有。或者根據曾經或將會有這種作用的緣故，現在即使沒有作用。
【English Translation】 English version: Being smeared with filth, it becomes even more impure. Moreover, due to the accumulation of filth from pigs and other creatures, impurity gradually increases. Similarly, conditioned dharmas (Sāsrava-dharma), which are subject to outflows, become tainted due to the power of afflictions. These tainted dharmas, in turn, have the ability to accord with the power of afflictions, causing their three categories (referring to the three realms of desire, form, and formlessness) to gradually increase in succession. It is like a clean person accidentally falling into a pile of filth; although they come into contact with the filth, the filth does not increase because of it. Nor does the person have the ability to increase the pile of filth. Likewise, untainted dharmas (Anāsrava-dharma) in different realms, even if they are objects of affliction, do not have a mutually increasing effect. These latent tendencies (Anusaya, the dormant state of afflictions) that arise from untainted dharmas in different realms only increase due to association (Samprayoga, arising simultaneously with consciousness). Some others further state that it is like mixing poison with wine, which makes it more potent, and the toxicity also increases because their functions are equivalent. Similarly, tainted dharmas and various afflictions assist each other and increase together because their functions are equivalent. It is like placing good medicine in poison, which impairs the function of the poison without benefiting it. Likewise, untainted dharmas, although they are objects of delusion, impair the function of delusion without benefiting it. Therefore, wrong views arise from focusing on untainted dharmas, but they do not have the power to sever the roots of goodness. There are also sacred teachings that reveal that some latent tendencies do not increase due to untainted dharmas as objects. For example, the sutra says: 'Monks, you should know, what is the food of doubt (Vicikiccha-ahara, nourishment through doubt)?' It means that there is delusion and doubt about the past, present, and future. Unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta-dharma, dharmas that are neither produced nor destroyed, such as Nirvana), although they are objects of affliction, do not increase with it, so they are not mentioned here. Since these untainted conditioned dharmas (Anasrava-samskrta-dharma) are not mentioned, then according to this principle, they should also not be the food of doubt. Just as the sutra generally says that all conditioned things are impermanent (Anitya, everything is subject to change), it actually only refers to tainted dharmas, because it later says that tranquility is happiness. Therefore, this treatise also says that when untainted dharmas are objects of affliction, the afflictions increase; only association causes increase, not the object. Latent tendencies of the past and future increase with it; it should not be said that they necessarily have the ability to trigger attainment. If it were not so, then various ordinary beings (Prthag-jana, common people) should be free from latent tendencies when they are without defiled minds. However, the World Honored One said that young children and infants, even without defiled desires, still have latent tendencies of desire and greed that increase with them. Therefore, it is said that they increase until they are not severed. If they have already severed the latent tendencies, then there are no objects or associations that cause the latent tendencies to increase. How can it be said that they still have not lost the characteristics of latent tendencies? This is because the power of the latent tendencies is destroyed through antidotes (Pratipaksa, methods of practice that counteract afflictions), so they do not increase. However, the essence of the latent tendencies is not lost, so it is said that they still exist. Or it is based on the reason that they once had or will have this function, even if they do not have a function now.
亦號隨眠。如失國王猶存王號。工匠停作其名尚存。上座此中作如是說。隨眠無有相應所緣二隨增義。但有自性于相續中。隨縛不捨為有自體。隨縛相續為有有性無自體耶。彼自答言唯有有性。諸纏可有相應所緣。若爾亦應執有我性及瓶等性。異蘊色等如是僻執宜自隱覆。九十八隨眠中幾不善幾無記。頌曰。
上二界隨眠 及欲身邊見 彼俱癡無記 此余皆不善
論曰。色無色界一切隨眠。四支五支定所伏故。無有勢力招異熟果故。彼皆是無記性攝。若謂彼能招異熟果。應上二界有非愛受。染招愛受理不成故。然無聖道成無記失。唯有漏法有異熟故。此種類中無異熟者。方可說為無記性故。豈不經言諸聖弟子。若有能入第四靜慮。能捨不善修習善法此亦何失。如契經言諸聖弟子。已證不動心善解脫。具末尼寶能捨不善修習善法。非諸阿羅漢有不善可舍。又已永斷諸不善者。亦許勤修四正斷故。當知皆約厭壞對治。遠分對治說無有失。云何知然以契經說。離諸欲惡不善法故。上座釋言約定位說。彼釋非理欲界亦應如彼說故。欲界亦有善三摩地。應言離欲惡不善法無差別故。又諸異生入初靜慮。亦說離欲惡不善法。非汝所宗諸異生類。有漏相續離諸煩惱。彼許有學法尚有隨眠故。契經既說入初靜慮。離諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也叫做隨眠（Sui Mian，潛在的煩惱）。就像失去國王，但仍然保留著國王的稱號一樣；工匠停止工作，但他的名字仍然存在。上座部（Theravada）在此處這樣說：隨眠沒有相應和所緣（Suo Yuan，對像）這兩種隨增（Sui Zeng，增長）的意義，只有自性（Zi Xing，本性）在相續（Xiang Xu，連續）中，隨縛（Sui Fu，伴隨束縛）而不捨棄，才具有自體（Zi Ti，自身）。隨縛相續才具有有性（You Xing，存在性），沒有自體嗎？他們自己回答說，只有有性。諸纏（Zhu Chan，各種束縛）可以有相應和所緣。如果這樣，也應該執著於我性（Wo Xing，自我的本性）以及瓶子等的本性，異蘊（Yi Yun，不同的蘊）的色（Se，顏色）等，這種錯誤的執著應該自己隱藏起來。九十八種隨眠中，有多少是不善的，有多少是無記的？頌文說：
上二界隨眠 及欲身邊見 彼俱癡無記 此余皆不善
論述說：色界（Se Jie，色界）和無色界（Wu Se Jie，無色界）的一切隨眠，因為四禪支（Si Chan Zhi，四種禪定的組成部分）和五禪支（Wu Chan Zhi，五種禪定的組成部分）的禪定所降伏，所以沒有力量招感異熟果（Yi Shu Guo，成熟的果報），因此它們都是無記性（Wu Ji Xing，非善非惡的性質）所攝。如果說它們能夠招感異熟果，那麼上二界應該有非可愛的感受，因為染污招感可愛的感受的道理不能成立。然而，沒有聖道（Sheng Dao，通往解脫的道路）會造成無記的過失，只有有漏法（You Lou Fa，有煩惱的法）才有異熟果。這種種類中沒有異熟果的，才可以被說成是無記性。難道經中沒有說，諸聖弟子（Zhu Sheng Di Zi，聖人的弟子），如果有能力進入第四靜慮（Di Si Jing Lu，第四禪定），能夠捨棄不善，修習善法嗎？這又有什麼過失呢？就像契經（Qi Jing，佛經）所說，諸聖弟子已經證得不動心（Bu Dong Xin，不動搖的心）的善解脫（Shan Jie Tuo，好的解脫），具有末尼寶（Mo Ni Bao，如意寶珠），能夠捨棄不善，修習善法。並非所有的阿羅漢（A Luo Han，已證得解脫的聖人）都有不善可以捨棄，而且已經永遠斷除諸不善的人，也被允許勤奮修習四正斷（Si Zheng Duan，四種正確的努力），應當知道這都是就厭壞對治（Yan Huai Dui Zhi，通過厭惡和破壞來進行對治）和遠分對治（Yuan Fen Dui Zhi，從遠處開始的對治）來說的，沒有過失。怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為契經說，遠離諸欲惡不善法。上座部解釋說，這是就禪定的位置來說的。他們的解釋不合理，因為欲界（Yu Jie，慾望界）也應該像他們那樣說。欲界也有善的三摩地（San Mo Di，禪定），應該說遠離欲惡不善法，沒有差別。而且，諸異生（Zhu Yi Sheng，凡夫）進入初靜慮（Chu Jing Lu，初禪）時，也說遠離欲惡不善法，並非你們所宗的諸異生類，有漏的相續遠離諸煩惱。他們承認有學法（You Xue Fa，還在學習的法）尚有隨眠，契經既然說進入初靜慮，遠離諸……
【English Translation】 English version: It is also called Sui Mian (latent afflictions). Just as losing a king but still retaining the title of king; a craftsman stopping work but his name still existing. The Theravada school says here: Sui Mian has neither the meaning of corresponding nor the meaning of Suo Yuan (object) for Sui Zeng (growth), only the Zi Xing (nature) in the Xiang Xu (continuity), Sui Fu (accompanying bondage) without abandoning, has Zi Ti (self-nature). Does Sui Fu continuity have You Xing (existence) without self-nature? They themselves answer that it only has existence. The various Zhu Chan (bondages) can have correspondence and object. If so, one should also cling to Wo Xing (the nature of self) and the nature of bottles, etc., the Se (form) of different Yi Yun (skandhas), etc., such wrong clinging should be hidden by oneself. Among the ninety-eight Sui Mian, how many are unwholesome and how many are neutral? The verse says:
The Sui Mian of the upper two realms and the view of self in the desire realm They are both ignorance and neutral The rest are all unwholesome
The treatise says: All Sui Mian of the Se Jie (form realm) and Wu Se Jie (formless realm), because they are subdued by the four Chan Zhi (components of the four dhyanas) and the five Chan Zhi (components of the five dhyanas), they have no power to attract Yi Shu Guo (mature karmic results), therefore they are all included in the Wu Ji Xing (neutral nature). If it is said that they can attract Yi Shu Guo, then the upper two realms should have non-lovable feelings, because the principle that defilements attract lovable feelings cannot be established. However, the absence of Sheng Dao (the path to liberation) will not cause the fault of being neutral, only You Lou Fa (defiled dharmas) have Yi Shu Guo. Those without Yi Shu Guo in this category can be said to be neutral. Does the sutra not say that the Zhu Sheng Di Zi (noble disciples), if they have the ability to enter the Di Si Jing Lu (fourth dhyana), can abandon unwholesome and cultivate wholesome dharmas? What fault is there in this? Just as the Qi Jing (sutra) says, the noble disciples have already attained the Shan Jie Tuo (good liberation) of the Bu Dong Xin (unwavering mind), possessing the Mo Ni Bao (wish-fulfilling jewel), able to abandon unwholesome and cultivate wholesome dharmas. Not all A Luo Han (arhats) have unwholesome to abandon, and those who have permanently cut off all unwholesome are also allowed to diligently cultivate the Si Zheng Duan (four right efforts), it should be known that this is all in terms of Yan Huai Dui Zhi (counteracting through aversion and destruction) and Yuan Fen Dui Zhi (counteracting from a distance), there is no fault. How do we know this? Because the sutra says, to be apart from all desires, evils, and unwholesome dharmas. The Theravada school explains that this is in terms of the position of dhyana. Their explanation is unreasonable, because the Yu Jie (desire realm) should also say like them. The desire realm also has wholesome San Mo Di (samadhi), it should be said to be apart from desires, evils, and unwholesome dharmas, there is no difference. Moreover, when the Zhu Yi Sheng (ordinary beings) enter the Chu Jing Lu (first dhyana), it is also said to be apart from desires, evils, and unwholesome dharmas, it is not that the ordinary beings of your school, the defiled continuity is apart from all afflictions. They admit that You Xue Fa (dharmas of learning) still have Sui Mian, since the sutra says to enter the first dhyana, to be apart from all...
欲惡不善法言。故上二界定無不善。若異此者異生現入初靜慮時。應如欲界非離自地惡不善法。又生此界上界煩惱亦容現行。應定位中亦有不離惡不善法。惑所發業能招後有。故知生此容起彼惑。既曾無說彼不離言。由此定知彼釋非理。又言上界煩惱亦應感非愛果如欲界惑。謂如欲界不善煩惱。雖助施等感人天生。然彼非無所招異熟。色無色界煩惱亦然。煩惱功能有差別故。非唯能感苦受異熟。理亦不然欲界中有諸惡趣故。諸處皆同一隨眠故。他化自在煩惱亦能招惡趣果。非色無色有別處所。可受煩惱非愛異熟故。彼應執惡異熟因有無果者。或彼應執上界有受非愛果處。又于欲界人天趣中。有受不善圓滿果義。非色無色可與此同。又如汝宗一切煩惱。雖同不善功能別故。有感苦受有無感能。如是亦應許諸煩惱雖同於境亂倒而緣。而彼功能有差別故。有是無記有是不善。又彼煩惱若不善性。既不許招苦受異熟。許彼能感樂受果耶。不爾。若然應成無記諸有漏業。若不能招愛非愛果。一切皆許是無記性寧獨言非。又言無知性非善巧。一切煩惱彼攝受故。由此皆應是不善者亦不應理。雖彼皆同非善巧性無知攝受。而許其中有差別故。如汝雖許不善性同。而望苦受因非因異。又彼學法應成不善。謂彼自許諸有學法。望不善巧所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於『欲惡不善法』的說法，是因為上二界（色界和無色界）的禪定中沒有不善法。如果不是這樣，那麼異生（凡夫）在剛進入初禪時，應該像欲界一樣，不能脫離自身所處地的不善法。而且，如果生於色界和無色界，欲界的煩惱也可能現行，那麼在禪定中也會有不能脫離惡和不善法的情況。因為煩惱所引發的業能夠招感後世的果報，所以可以知道生於色界和無色界也可能生起欲界的煩惱。既然從來沒有說過色界和無色界的眾生不會脫離欲界的煩惱，由此可以確定之前的解釋是不合理的。 還有人說，上界的煩惱也應該像欲界的煩惱一樣，能夠感得非可愛的果報。就像欲界的不善煩惱，雖然能夠幫助佈施等善行感得人天果報，但它們並非不能招感異熟果。色界和無色界的煩惱也是如此，因為煩惱的功能有差別，所以並非只能感得苦受的異熟果。 但這個道理也是不成立的，因為欲界中有惡趣的存在，而且各個地方都有相同的隨眠（煩惱的種子）。他化自在天的煩惱也能招感惡趣的果報。色界和無色界沒有特別的地方可以承受煩惱所帶來的非可愛異熟果。所以他們應該認為惡的異熟果的因有而無果，或者他們應該認為上界有承受非可愛果報的地方。而且在欲界的人天道中，有承受不善圓滿果報的情況，色界和無色界不能與此相同。 又如你們宗派所認為的，一切煩惱雖然都是不善的，但因為功能不同，有的能感得苦受，有的不能感得苦受。同樣，也應該允許各種煩惱雖然在境上是相同的，都會擾亂和顛倒認知，但它們的功能有差別，有的屬於無記性，有的屬於不善性。 而且，如果那些煩惱是不善的，既然不允許它們招感苦受的異熟果，那麼允許它們感得樂受的果報嗎？如果不是這樣，那麼就應該承認無記的有漏業，如果不能招感可愛和非可愛的果報，一切都應該被認為是無記性，為什麼只說非呢？ 還有人說，無知性是不善巧的，一切煩惱都屬於無知性所攝受，因此都應該是不善的，這種說法也是不合理的。雖然它們都同樣屬於非善巧性和無知性的攝受，但允許其中有差別，就像你們雖然承認不善性相同，但對於苦受來說，有的是因，有的不是因。 而且，有學法（正在修行的法）也應該成為不善的，因為他們自己承認所有的有學法，對於不善巧性來說，是...
【English Translation】 English version The statement 'desire, evil, and unwholesome dharmas' is made because there are no unwholesome dharmas in the two upper realms (the Form Realm and the Formless Realm) of meditative absorption (dhyana). If it were otherwise, when an ordinary being (prthagjana) initially enters the first dhyana, they should be like those in the Desire Realm, unable to separate themselves from the evil and unwholesome dharmas of their own realm. Furthermore, if one is born in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm, the afflictions (kleshas) of the Desire Realm could still manifest. Then, even in the state of meditative absorption, there would be instances of not being able to separate oneself from evil and unwholesome dharmas. Because actions (karma) arising from afflictions can bring about future existence (bhava), it can be known that one born in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm can still give rise to the afflictions of the Desire Realm. Since it has never been said that beings in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm do not separate themselves from the afflictions of the Desire Realm, it can be concluded that the previous explanation is unreasonable. Furthermore, some say that the afflictions of the upper realms should also be able to bring about undesirable results, just like the afflictions of the Desire Realm. Just as the unwholesome afflictions of the Desire Realm, although they can assist in meritorious deeds such as giving (dana) to bring about rebirth in the human or heavenly realms, they are not incapable of bringing about maturation results (vipaka). The afflictions of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm are also like this, because the functions of afflictions differ, so they are not only capable of bringing about the maturation result of suffering. However, this reasoning is also not valid, because there are evil destinies (durgati) in the Desire Realm, and all places have the same latent tendencies (anusaya). The afflictions of Paranirmita-vasavartin (the highest of the six heavens of the Desire Realm) can also bring about the results of evil destinies. The Form Realm and the Formless Realm do not have separate places where one can experience the undesirable maturation results of afflictions. Therefore, they should hold that the cause of evil maturation results exists without the result, or they should hold that there are places in the upper realms where one can experience undesirable results. Moreover, in the human and heavenly realms of the Desire Realm, there are instances of experiencing the complete results of unwholesome deeds, which cannot be the same in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm. Furthermore, just as your school holds that all afflictions are unwholesome, but because their functions differ, some can bring about suffering, while others cannot. Similarly, it should also be accepted that although afflictions are the same in terms of their object, causing disturbance and distorted perception, their functions differ, with some being indeterminate (avyakrta) and others being unwholesome. Moreover, if those afflictions are unwholesome, since you do not allow them to bring about the maturation result of suffering, do you allow them to bring about the result of pleasurable sensations? If not, then it should be admitted that indeterminate defiled actions (karma), if they cannot bring about desirable or undesirable results, should all be considered indeterminate. Why only say 'undesirable'? Furthermore, the statement that ignorance (ajnana) is unskillful (akusala), and that all afflictions are included within ignorance, and therefore should all be unwholesome, is also unreasonable. Although they are all equally included within unskillfulness and ignorance, it is permissible to have differences among them, just as you admit that although unwholesomeness is the same, some are causes of suffering while others are not. Moreover, the dharmas of those who are still learning (saiksa-dharma) should also become unwholesome, because they themselves admit that all the dharmas of those who are still learning, with respect to unskillfulness, are...
攝隨眠。亦得名為有隨眠故。又彼不應說諸煩惱。皆非善巧無知攝受。攝受自體理不成故。理無二思同時起故。若謂引生名為攝受。則諸善行應成不善。無明為緣引彼生故。由此不可以彼為因。證色無色廛煩惱是不善。身邊二見及相應癡。欲界系者。亦無記性顛倒轉故寧非不善。且有身見順善行故。違斷善故定非不善。若謂亦能順不善故應成不善。以身見后一切煩惱容現行故。由此但是有覆無記。非我說彼順善行故即成善性。如何難言順不善故成不善性。如有漏善雖順兩邊不失善性此亦應爾。若謂貪求天上快樂。順福行故應無記者此例不然。即我見力于天快樂起希求故。謂為我當受天快樂。即此為門能造福行。然貪于彼斷善根時。說為強因故是不善。或由我見天愛方行。謂由見我當受天樂。方于彼樂起貪求故。我慢亦隨身見後起。令心高舉故不順修善業。又違親近善友等故。謂由我慢心自舉恃。近善友等皆難得成。邊執見中執斷邊者。計生斷故不違涅槃。順厭離門故非不善。如世尊說若起此見。我於一切皆不忍受。當知此見不順貪慾隨順無貪乃至廣說。又世尊說。于諸外道諸見趣中此見最勝。謂我不有我所亦不有。我當不有我所當不有。又此不畏大怖處故。如契經說愚夫異生無正聞者。有能不畏大可怖處。謂我不有我
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 攝隨眠（Samatha Vipassana，止觀）。也可以稱為有隨眠，因此不應該說所有煩惱都不是善巧無知的攝受。因為攝受自身這個道理不成立，因為沒有兩種思想同時生起的道理。如果說引生叫做攝受，那麼所有善行都應該變成不善，因為無明是緣而引生它們的。因此，不可以用這個作為理由，來證明色界和無色界的煩惱是不善的。身見（Sakkāya-ditthi，認為五蘊為我）和邊見（Antagāhika-ditthi，常見和斷見）以及相應的癡，如果是欲界系的，也是無記性（不善不惡），因為是顛倒的。難道不是不善嗎？而且有身見是順著善行的，違背斷善，所以一定不是不善。如果說它也能順著不善，就應該變成不善，因為在身見之後，一切煩惱都可能現行。因此，這只是有覆無記（被無明覆蓋的無記），我不是說它順著善行就變成善性。怎麼能說順著不善就變成不善性呢？如有漏的善雖然順著兩邊，也不失去善性，這個也應該這樣。如果說貪求天上快樂，順著福行，就應該沒有記性，這個例子不對。是因為我見的緣故，才對天上快樂生起希望，認為我應當享受天上的快樂。就是以此為門才能造福行。然而貪著於它，斷善根的時候，說是強因，所以是不善。或者因為我見，才去愛天上的快樂，認為因為見到我應當享受天上的快樂，才對那個快樂生起貪求。我慢也隨著身見之後生起，使心高舉，所以不順著修善業。又違背親近善友等等，因為因為我慢，心自高舉，親近善友等等都難以成就。邊執見中執斷邊的人，因為計生斷，所以不違背涅槃。順著厭離之門，所以不是不善。如世尊說，如果生起這個見，我對一切都不能忍受，應當知道這個見不順著貪慾，隨順無貪，乃至廣說。又世尊說，在所有外道的見解中，這個見解最殊勝，就是我不有，我所也不有，我當不有，我所當不有。而且這個不畏懼大恐怖之處，如契經說，愚夫異生沒有聽聞正法的人，有能不畏懼大可怖之處，就是我不有，我 English version It is called Samatha Vipassana (cessation and insight). It can also be called having Samatha Vipassana, therefore it should not be said that all afflictions are not received by skillful ignorance. Because the principle of receiving oneself is not established, because there is no principle of two thoughts arising at the same time. If it is said that arising is called receiving, then all good deeds should become bad, because ignorance is the cause of their arising. Therefore, this cannot be used as a reason to prove that the afflictions of the form and formless realms are not good. Sakkāya-ditthi (the view of self in the five aggregates) and Antagāhika-ditthi (the view of eternalism and annihilationism) and the corresponding ignorance, if they belong to the desire realm, are also neutral (neither good nor bad), because they are inverted. Isn't it bad? Moreover, Sakkāya-ditthi is in accordance with good deeds, and violates the cutting off of good, so it must not be bad. If it is said that it can also follow bad, it should become bad, because after Sakkāya-ditthi, all afflictions may manifest. Therefore, this is only covered neutral (neutral covered by ignorance), I am not saying that it becomes good because it follows good deeds. How can it be said that it becomes bad because it follows bad? If leaky good follows both sides, it will not lose its goodness, and this should be the same. If it is said that greed for heavenly happiness follows good fortune, it should not be recorded, this example is not correct. It is because of the power of my view that I hope for heavenly happiness, thinking that I should enjoy heavenly happiness. It is with this as the door that good fortune can be created. However, when clinging to it and cutting off the roots of good, it is said to be a strong cause, so it is bad. Or because of my view, I love heavenly happiness, thinking that because I see that I should enjoy heavenly happiness, I become greedy for that happiness. Conceit also arises after Sakkāya-ditthi, making the heart high, so it does not follow the cultivation of good deeds. It also violates close friends, etc., because because of conceit, the heart is self-elevated, and it is difficult to achieve close friends, etc. Those who hold the view of annihilationism in the view of eternalism and annihilationism do not violate Nirvana because they count life and death. Following the door of disgust, it is not bad. As the World Honored One said, if this view arises, I cannot bear everything, and it should be known that this view does not follow greed, follows non-greed, and so on. Also, the World Honored One said that among all the views of external ways, this view is the most outstanding, that is, I do not have, and what I have does not have, I should not have, and what I have should not have. Moreover, this is not afraid of great terror, as the scriptures say, foolish ordinary people who have not heard the right Dharma have the ability not to fear great terror, that is, I do not have, I
【English Translation】 Samatha Vipassana (Cessation and Insight). It can also be called having Samatha Vipassana, therefore it should not be said that all afflictions are not received by skillful ignorance. Because the principle of receiving oneself is not established, because there is no principle of two thoughts arising at the same time. If it is said that arising is called receiving, then all good deeds should become bad, because ignorance is the cause of their arising. Therefore, this cannot be used as a reason to prove that the afflictions of the Form and Formless realms are not good. Sakkāya-ditthi (the view of self in the five aggregates) and Antagāhika-ditthi (the view of eternalism and annihilationism) and the corresponding ignorance, if they belong to the desire realm, are also neutral (neither good nor bad), because they are inverted. Isn't it bad? Moreover, Sakkāya-ditthi is in accordance with good deeds, and violates the cutting off of good, so it must not be bad. If it is said that it can also follow bad, it should become bad, because after Sakkāya-ditthi, all afflictions may manifest. Therefore, this is only covered neutral (neutral covered by ignorance), I am not saying that it becomes good because it follows good deeds. How can it be said that it becomes bad because it follows bad? If leaky good follows both sides, it will not lose its goodness, and this should be the same. If it is said that greed for heavenly happiness follows good fortune, it should not be recorded, this example is not correct. It is because of the power of my view that I hope for heavenly happiness, thinking that I should enjoy heavenly happiness. It is with this as the door that good fortune can be created. However, when clinging to it and cutting off the roots of good, it is said to be a strong cause, so it is bad. Or because of my view, I love heavenly happiness, thinking that because I see that I should enjoy heavenly happiness, I become greedy for that happiness. Conceit also arises after Sakkāya-ditthi, making the heart high, so it does not follow the cultivation of good deeds. It also violates close friends, etc., because because of conceit, the heart is self-elevated, and it is difficult to achieve close friends, etc. Those who hold the view of annihilationism in the view of eternalism and annihilationism do not violate Nirvana because they count life and death. Following the door of disgust, it is not bad. As the World Honored One said, if this view arises, I cannot bear everything, and it should be known that this view does not follow greed, follows non-greed, and so on. Also, the World Honored One said that among all the views of external ways, this view is the most outstanding, that is, I do not have, and what I have does not have, I should not have, and what I have should not have. Moreover, this is not afraid of great terror, as the scriptures say, foolish ordinary people who have not heard the right Dharma have the ability not to fear great terror, that is, I do not have, I
所亦不有。我當不有。我所當不有而不驚怖。上座於此作如是言。何有如斯下劣邊見能順解脫。以諸有情一切妄見皆入此攝。然我不知有何意趣。執此邊見能順解脫。此見下劣誠如所言。非方便門執生斷故。然此行相。世尊有時為諸苾芻無問自說。或有一類作是思惟。謂我不有我所亦不有。我當不有我所當不有。如是勝解時便斷下分結。故知此見能順解脫。由是應知非不善性。又于如是邊執見中。無非方便中執為方便見。無于下劣執為勝見。無于實有撥為無見。無非我常執我常見。如何乃說以諸有情一切妄見皆入此攝。執常邊見順我見生。是無記理如我見說。然彼未得證真理智。又未承奉達真理師。恒起我能為梯隥慢自作是說。然我不知有何意趣。執此邊見能順解脫實如所言。有餘復言。身邊二見生死本故應是不善彼說不然因有三故。一者起因。二者生因。三異熟因。由起因故不越界地。由生因故令得受生。由異熟因故生已受異熟。身邊二見是起生因。非異熟因名生死本。故本論說身見能令三有相續。乃至廣說。然經主言俱生身見是無記性。如禽獸等身見現行。若分別生是不善性。此不應理不能分別而言見攝。見道所斷理不成故。此不應言是修所斷。與無我解正相違故。應知但是修道所斷。不染無記邪智所攝。若不許
然有太過失。謂禽獸等前際等中不能分別。亦應得有疑等現行如有身見。色無色界亦有分別煩惱現行應是不善。彼有不善如前已遮。故欲界中身邊二見。唯是有覆無記性攝。余欲界系一切隨眠。與上相違皆不善性。此謂欲界顯欲界中上所說余皆是不善頌。無煩說此余皆不善故。于上所說不善惑中。有幾能為不善根體。頌曰。
不善根欲界 貪瞋不善癡
論曰。唯欲界系一切貪瞋。及不善癡不善根攝。如其次第世尊說為貪瞋癡三不善根。體唯不善煩惱為不善法。根名不善根宗義如是。豈不一切已生惡法。皆為后因非唯三種。無越三理以不善根翻對善根而建立故。何緣不建立不慢等善根佛於法中知而建立。有餘師說。五識身中無惡慢等可翻對故。又具五義立不善根。謂通五部。遍依六識。是隨眠性。發惡身語。斷善根時為強加行。慢等不爾非不善根。義準已成故頌不說。如不善惑有不善根。無記惑中有是根不。亦有何謂。頌曰。
無記根有三 無記愛癡慧 非餘二高故 外方立四種 中愛見慢癡 三定皆癡故
論曰。迦濕彌羅國諸毗婆沙師。說無記根亦有三種。謂諸無記愛癡慧三。一切應知無記根攝。慧根通攝有覆無覆。根是因義無覆無記慧。亦能為因故無記根攝。此三有力生諸無記。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 然而，如果太過，也會出現錯誤。例如，如果禽獸等眾生不能區分過去、現在等時段，那麼它們也應該像有身見（Sakkāya-ditthi，認為五蘊為我）一樣，產生懷疑等心理活動。如果色界和無色界沒有（像欲界一樣的）分別，那麼煩惱的現行也應該是不善的，但它們的不善性已經在前面被否定了。因此，在欲界中，有身見和邊見（Antaggāhika-ditthi，執著于斷見或常見）這兩種見解，都屬於有覆無記性（Sāvaraṇa-avyākata，有覆蓋的、非善非惡的性質）。欲界所繫的其他一切隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向），與上述情況相反，都屬於不善性。這裡所說的是欲界，表明在欲界中，以上所說的其餘煩惱都是不善的。頌文說『其餘皆是不善』，就是爲了避免繁瑣的解釋。在以上所說的不善惑中，有哪些能夠作為不善根的本體呢？頌文說： 『不善根欲界，貪瞋不善癡。』 論曰：只有欲界所繫的一切貪（Lobha，貪慾）、瞋（Dosa，嗔恨）以及不善癡（Moha，愚癡）屬於不善根。世尊按照順序將它們說為貪、瞋、癡這三種不善根。它們的本體只是不善煩惱，作為不善法的根源，這就是不善根的宗義。難道不是一切已經產生的惡法，都是後來的原因嗎？為什麼只有這三種？因為沒有超出這三種道理，不善根是與善根相對而建立的。為什麼不建立不慢（Māna，我慢）等善根呢？佛陀在佛法中知道卻不建立。有其他論師說，因為五識身中沒有惡慢等可以相對比。而且，具備五種含義才能立為不善根：即通於五部（五種煩惱類別），遍依六識（六種意識），是隨眠性，引發惡身語（惡的身體和語言行為），斷善根時是強烈的加行（Kamma，行為）。我慢等不具備這些條件，所以不是不善根。這些含義已經包含在義理之中，所以頌文沒有說。正如不善惑中有不善根一樣，無記惑中也有是根的嗎？也有，是什麼呢？頌文說： 『無記根有三，無記愛癡慧，非餘二高故，外方立四種，中愛見慢癡，三定皆癡故。』 論曰：迦濕彌羅國的諸位毗婆沙師說，無記根也有三種，即諸無記愛（Pema，愛）、癡（Moha，愚癡）、慧（Pañña，智慧）。一切都應該知道，它們屬於無記根。慧根通攝有覆無覆（Sāvaraṇa-avyākata，有覆蓋的、非善非惡的性質；Anāvaraṇa-avyākata，無覆蓋的、非善非惡的性質）。根是原因的意思，無覆無記慧也能作為原因，所以屬於無記根。這三種有力量產生各種無記法。
【English Translation】 English version: However, there can be excess and error. For example, if beings such as animals cannot distinguish between past, present, and future, they should also have doubt and other mental activities arising, just like having the view of self (Sakkāya-ditthi, the view that the five aggregates are 'I' or 'mine'). If there were no distinctions in the Form Realm and Formless Realm, then the manifestation of afflictions should also be unwholesome, but their unwholesomeness has already been negated. Therefore, in the Desire Realm, the two views of the view of self and extreme views (Antaggāhika-ditthi, clinging to eternalism or annihilationism) are both included in the category of obscured and indeterminate (Sāvaraṇa-avyākata, obscured and neither good nor bad). All other latent tendencies (Anusaya, dormant defilements) pertaining to the Desire Realm, contrary to the above, are all of an unwholesome nature. This refers to the Desire Realm, indicating that in the Desire Realm, the remaining afflictions mentioned above are all unwholesome. The verse says 'the rest are all unwholesome' to avoid tedious explanation. Among the unwholesome afflictions mentioned above, which ones can serve as the substance of unwholesome roots? The verse says: 'Unwholesome roots in the Desire Realm are greed, hatred, and unwholesome ignorance.' Commentary: Only all greed (Lobha, craving), hatred (Dosa, aversion), and unwholesome ignorance (Moha, delusion) pertaining to the Desire Realm are included in the unwholesome roots. The World-Honored One sequentially described them as the three unwholesome roots of greed, hatred, and ignorance. Their substance is only unwholesome afflictions, and as the root of unwholesome dharmas, this is the doctrine of unwholesome roots. Aren't all evil dharmas that have already arisen causes for later ones? Why only these three? Because there is nothing beyond these three principles, and unwholesome roots are established in contrast to wholesome roots. Why are wholesome roots such as pride (Māna, conceit) not established? The Buddha knew but did not establish them in the Dharma. Some teachers say that there is no evil pride, etc., in the five consciousnesses that can be contrasted. Moreover, to establish an unwholesome root, it must possess five meanings: it pervades the five categories (of afflictions), relies on the six consciousnesses, is of the nature of latent tendencies, initiates evil actions of body and speech, and is a strong effort when severing wholesome roots. Pride and the like do not possess these conditions, so they are not unwholesome roots. These meanings are already implied, so the verse does not mention them. Just as there are unwholesome roots in unwholesome afflictions, are there also roots in indeterminate afflictions? There are, what are they? The verse says: 'There are three indeterminate roots: indeterminate love, ignorance, and wisdom. The others are not superior to these two. External schools establish four kinds: love, views, pride, and ignorance. All three concentrations are due to ignorance.' Commentary: The Vaibhāṣika masters of Kashmir say that there are also three indeterminate roots: indeterminate love (Pema, affection), ignorance (Moha, delusion), and wisdom (Pañña, knowledge). All should know that they are included in the indeterminate roots. The root of wisdom encompasses both obscured and unobscured (Sāvaraṇa-avyākata, obscured and indeterminate; Anāvaraṇa-avyākata, unobscured and indeterminate). A root means a cause, and unobscured indeterminate wisdom can also be a cause, so it is included in the indeterminate roots. These three have the power to generate various indeterminate dharmas.
何緣疑慢非無記根。疑二趣轉慢高轉故。謂疑猶豫二趣動轉。故不立根根堅住故。慢高舉相向上而轉。故不立根根趣下故。世間共見根相如是。隱於土下故名為根。是體下垂上生苗義。此三如彼故亦名根。余非隨眠惑無勝用。故不立彼為無記根。外方諸師立此有四。謂諸無記愛見慢癡。無記名中遮善惡故。何緣此四立無記根。以諸愚夫修上定者。不過依託愛見慢三。此三皆依無明力轉。故立此四為無記根。彼作是言無覆無記。慧力劣故非無記根。根義必依堅牢立故。由慢力故諸瑜伽師。退失百千殊勝功德。故慢力勝立無記根。此四能生無記染法。上座於此作如是言。無無記根無聖教故。善惡猛利起必由根。無記羸劣不由功用。任運而起何藉根為。無聖教言且為非理。無記煩惱有極成故。謂何緣故少分染起。藉同類根少分不爾。無記染法有同類根。是染法故如不善法。又何定執此無聖教。非彼上座耳所未聞。便可撥言此非聖教。無量聖教皆已滅沒。上座不聞豈非聖教。然于古昔諸大論師。皆共詳論無說根義。故知必有聖教明文摽以總名無別名數。由斯諍論或四或三。又聖教中處處說有記無記法。又處處說記無記法從根而生。有處亦依有記根上。方便建立無記根名。故不應言此無聖教。又羸劣法轉應計為由根力生非猛利者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 何種原因導致疑（懷疑，猶豫）和慢（傲慢）不是無記根（既非善亦非惡的心理活動之根本）？因為疑使眾生在二趣（地獄和畜生）中流轉，而慢則使眾生高舉而流轉。也就是說，疑使人在二趣中猶豫不定，動盪不安，因此不能被立為根，因為根是堅固安住的。慢則表現爲高舉自大，向上攀比，因此也不能被立為根，因為根是向下紮根的。世間普遍認為根的相狀就是如此：隱藏在土壤之下，因此被稱為『根』，其本體是向下延伸，向上生出苗芽。疑、慢、癡三者與此相似，所以也被稱為『根』。其餘的非隨眠（潛在的煩惱）之惑沒有強大的作用，因此不被立為無記根。 外道的諸位論師認為有四種無記根，即無記的愛（貪愛）、見（錯誤的見解）、慢（傲慢）和癡（愚癡）。因為『無記』這個名稱可以遮止善和惡。為什麼這四種可以被立為無記根呢？因為那些修習上定（高級禪定）的愚夫，其所依託的不過是愛、見、慢這三者。這三者都依靠無明（對事物真相的迷惑）的力量而運轉，所以將這四者立為無記根。 他們這樣說：有覆無記（被煩惱覆蓋的無記），因為慧力（智慧的力量）弱，所以不是無記根。根的意義必須依靠堅牢才能成立。由於慢的力量，許多瑜伽師（修行者）會退失百千種殊勝的功德，所以慢的力量強大，可以被立為無記根。這四者能夠產生無記的染污法。 上座部的論師對此提出異議，認為沒有無記根，因為聖教（佛陀的教導）中沒有明確說明。善和惡的猛利生起必定由根而生，而無記的煩惱羸弱，不需要通過功用（努力）就能任運（自然而然）生起，又何必需要根呢？ 『沒有聖教』這種說法是不合理的。因為無記的煩惱是真實存在的。為什麼少部分的染污生起需要依靠同類的根，而少部分卻不需要呢？無記的染法有同類的根，因為它也是染污法，就像不善法一樣。又憑什麼斷定說沒有聖教呢？難道僅僅因為上座部的論師沒有聽說過，就可以否認它不是聖教嗎？無量的聖教都已經滅沒了，上座部的論師沒有聽說過，難道就不是聖教了嗎？ 然而在古代，諸位大論師都共同詳細討論過無說根的意義。由此可知，必定有聖教的明文，只是用總的名稱來標示，沒有特別的名稱和數量。因此，才會有關於無記根是四種還是三種的爭論。而且，聖教中處處都說有記法（善或惡的心理活動）和無記法。又處處都說有記法和無記法是從根而生的。有些地方也依據有記根，方便地建立無記根的名稱。所以不應該說沒有聖教。而且，羸弱的法更應該被認為是由於根的力量而生，而不是猛利的法。
【English Translation】 English version What is the reason why doubt (Skt: vicikitsa, uncertainty, hesitation) and pride (Skt: mana, arrogance) are not unwholesome roots? Because doubt causes beings to transmigrate in the two destinies (hell and animal realms), and pride causes beings to transmigrate in a state of elevation. That is, doubt causes people to hesitate and be unstable in the two destinies, therefore it cannot be established as a root, because a root is firm and abiding. Pride manifests as self-exaltation and upward comparison, therefore it cannot be established as a root, because a root goes downwards. The common understanding of the nature of a root in the world is like this: it is hidden beneath the soil, therefore it is called 'root,' and its essence is to extend downwards and sprout upwards. Doubt, pride, and ignorance (Skt: moha) are similar to this, so they are also called 'roots.' The remaining afflictions that are not latent (Skt: anusaya) do not have a strong function, therefore they are not established as unwholesome roots. The teachers of other schools of thought assert that there are four unwholesome roots, namely, unwholesome attachment (Skt: raga), views (Skt: drsti, wrong views), pride, and ignorance. Because the term 'unwholesome' can prevent both good and evil. Why can these four be established as unwholesome roots? Because those foolish people who cultivate higher samadhi (advanced meditative states) rely on nothing more than attachment, views, and pride. These three all operate based on the power of ignorance, so these four are established as unwholesome roots. They say this: covered unwholesome (Skt: avyakrta, neither good nor bad), because the power of wisdom (Skt: prajna) is weak, is not an unwholesome root. The meaning of a root must be established based on firmness. Because of the power of pride, many yogis (practitioners) lose hundreds of thousands of extraordinary merits, so the power of pride is strong and can be established as an unwholesome root. These four can generate unwholesome defiled dharmas (phenomena). The Sthavira school (Theravada) teachers raise objections to this, arguing that there are no unwholesome roots because there is no explicit statement in the Agamas (Buddhist scriptures). The strong arising of good and evil must be caused by roots, while unwholesome afflictions are weak and arise naturally without the need for effort, so why would they need roots? The statement 'there are no Agamas' is unreasonable. Because unwholesome afflictions are real. Why do some defilements arise by relying on similar roots, while some do not? Unwholesome defilements have similar roots, because they are also defilements, just like unwholesome dharmas. And why do you definitively say that there are no Agamas? Just because the Sthavira school teachers have not heard of it, can you deny that it is not an Agama? Countless Agamas have already disappeared, just because the Sthavira school teachers have not heard of them, does that mean they are not Agamas? However, in ancient times, all the great masters have jointly discussed the meaning of unspoken roots in detail. From this, it can be known that there must be explicit statements in the Agamas, but they are indicated by general names, without specific names and numbers. Therefore, there will be disputes about whether unwholesome roots are four or three. Moreover, the Agamas everywhere say that wholesome or unwholesome dharmas and unwholesome dharmas exist. And everywhere it is said that wholesome or unwholesome dharmas and unwholesome dharmas arise from roots. In some places, the names of unwholesome roots are conveniently established based on wholesome roots. So it should not be said that there are no Agamas. Moreover, weak dharmas should be considered to arise from the power of roots, rather than strong ones.
。是故非彼所立理趣。能遮我等立無記根。諸契經中說有十四諸無記事。彼為同此非善不善名無記耶。不爾。云何應舍置故。謂問記論總有四種其四者何。頌曰。
應一向分別 反詰舍置記 如死生殊勝 我蘊一異等
論曰。等言為攝有約異門。且問四者。一應一向記。二應分別記。三應反詰記。四應舍置記。此四如次如有問者。問死生勝劣一異等。記有四者。謂答四問。若作是問。一切生者皆當死耶。應一向記。一切生者皆定當死。若作是問。一切死者皆當生耶。應分別記。有煩惱者死已當生。無煩惱者死已不生。若作是問。人為勝劣。應反詰記。為何所方為方諸天為方惡趣。若言方天應記人劣。若言方惡應記人勝。若作是問。蘊與有情為一為異。應舍置記有情無實故。一異性不成如馬角等利鈍等性。有作是說。彼第二問不應分別應一向記。謂問死者皆當生耶。此應一向記言不爾。設彼復問誰當生耶。應一向記有煩惱者。或彼復問誰不當生應一向記無煩惱者彼第三問不應反詰。應一向記謂問人趣為勝劣耶。應一向記亦勝亦劣所待異故。如有問識為果因耶。應一向記亦果亦因所待異故。彼第四問既全不記。蘊與有情若異若一不應名記。豈不如彼生聞梵志問世尊言。喬答摩氏我有親愛先已命終。今欲為
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，他們所建立的理論依據不能推翻我們所建立的『無記根』（avyākrta-mūla，既非善非惡的根源）。在許多契經（sūtra，佛經）中，提到了十四種『無記事』（avyākrta-vastu，不可回答的問題）。他們所說的『無記』，是指與此相同，既非善也非不善，而稱為『無記』嗎？如果不是，那麼為什麼應該捨棄不答呢？因為對於提問的回答，總共有四種方式，這四種方式是什麼呢？頌文說：
『應一向分別，反詰舍置記，如死生殊勝，我蘊一異等。』
論述：『等』字是爲了包含有通過不同角度提出的問題。首先討論這四種方式。第一種是『應一向記』（ekāṃśa-vyākaraṇīya，應該直接回答的問題），第二種是『應分別記』（vibhajya-vyākaraṇīya，應該分別回答的問題），第三種是『應反詰記』（pratipṛcchā-vyākaraṇīya，應該反問的問題），第四種是『應舍置記』（sthāpanīya，應該擱置的問題）。這四種方式依次對應于如有提問者問：死亡和出生哪個更好？『我』（ātman，靈魂）和『蘊』（skandha，構成個體的要素）是一還是異？等問題。對於這四種問題的回答如下：如果有人這樣問：一切活著的人都會死嗎？應該直接回答：一切活著的人都一定會死。如果有人這樣問：一切死去的人都會再生嗎？應該分別回答：有煩惱的人死後會再生，沒有煩惱的人死後不會再生。如果有人這樣問：人是更殊勝還是更低劣？應該反問：與什麼相比？是與諸天相比還是與惡趣相比？如果說是與天相比，就應該回答人是低劣的；如果說是與惡趣相比，就應該回答人是殊勝的。如果有人這樣問：『蘊』與有情（sattva，眾生）是一還是異？應該擱置不答，因為有情沒有實體，所以一異的性質無法成立，就像馬角等事物一樣，沒有利鈍等性質。有人這樣說：第二個問題不應該分別回答，而應該直接回答。如果問：死去的人都會再生嗎？應該直接回答：不是的。如果他繼續問：誰會再生呢？應該直接回答：有煩惱的人。或者他繼續問：誰不會再生呢？應該直接回答：沒有煩惱的人。第三個問題不應該反問，而應該直接回答。如果問：人趣（manuṣya-gati，人道）是殊勝還是低劣？應該直接回答：既殊勝也低劣，因為所比較的對象不同。例如有人問：識（vijñāna，意識）是果還是因？應該直接回答：既是果也是因，因為所看待的角度不同。第四個問題既然完全不回答，『蘊』與有情是異還是同，就不應該稱為『記』（vyākaraṇa，回答）。難道不像生聞梵志（Śravaṇa Brahmin，一位婆羅門）問世尊（Bhagavān，佛陀）說：喬答摩（Gautama，佛陀的姓氏）啊，我有一位親愛的人已經去世了，現在想為他……』
【English Translation】 Therefore, the reasoning established by them cannot refute our established 'unspecified root' (avyākrta-mūla, neither good nor bad root). In many sutras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures), fourteen kinds of 'unspecified matters' (avyākrta-vastu, unanswerable questions) are mentioned. Do they mean by 'unspecified' the same as this, neither good nor bad, and call it 'unspecified'? If not, then why should it be abandoned without answering? Because there are four kinds of answers to questions in general, what are these four?
The verse says:
'One should answer directly, distinguish, question back, or set aside; like death and birth being superior or inferior, the 'self' (ātman, soul) and 'skandhas' (skandha, aggregates constituting an individual) being one or different, and so on.'
Commentary: The word 'and so on' is to include questions raised from different perspectives. Let's first discuss these four ways. The first is 'should answer directly' (ekāṃśa-vyākaraṇīya, questions that should be answered directly), the second is 'should answer by distinguishing' (vibhajya-vyākaraṇīya, questions that should be answered by distinguishing), the third is 'should answer by questioning back' (pratipṛcchā-vyākaraṇīya, questions that should be countered with a question), and the fourth is 'should set aside' (sthāpanīya, questions that should be set aside). These four ways correspond to questions such as: Is death or birth superior? Are the 'self' (ātman, soul) and the 'skandhas' (skandha, aggregates constituting an individual) one or different? etc. The answers to these four questions are as follows: If someone asks: Will all living beings die? One should answer directly: All living beings will certainly die. If someone asks: Will all dead beings be reborn? One should answer by distinguishing: Those with afflictions will be reborn after death, those without afflictions will not be reborn after death. If someone asks: Are humans superior or inferior? One should question back: Compared to what? Compared to the gods or compared to the evil realms? If one says compared to the gods, then one should answer that humans are inferior; if one says compared to the evil realms, then one should answer that humans are superior. If someone asks: Are the 'skandhas' and sentient beings (sattva, beings) one or different? One should set aside the question, because sentient beings have no inherent existence, so the nature of being one or different cannot be established, just like the horns of a horse, which have no qualities of sharpness or dullness. Some say that the second question should not be answered by distinguishing, but should be answered directly. If one asks: Will all dead beings be reborn? One should answer directly: No. If he continues to ask: Who will be reborn? One should answer directly: Those with afflictions. Or if he continues to ask: Who will not be reborn? One should answer directly: Those without afflictions. The third question should not be countered with a question, but should be answered directly. If one asks: Is the human realm (manuṣya-gati, human realm) superior or inferior? One should answer directly: Both superior and inferior, because the object of comparison is different. For example, if someone asks: Is consciousness (vijñāna, consciousness) a result or a cause? One should answer directly: Both a result and a cause, because the perspective is different. Since the fourth question is not answered at all, whether the 'skandhas' and sentient beings are different or the same, it should not be called an 'answer' (vyākaraṇa, explanation). Isn't it like the Śravaṇa Brahmin (Śravaṇa Brahmin, a Brahmin) asked the Blessed One (Bhagavān, the Buddha): Gautama (Gautama, the Buddha's family name), I have a loved one who has passed away, and now I want to...
其施所信食。彼為得此所施食耶。世尊告言。此非一向。若汝親愛生於如是餓鬼族中有得此食。既許彼是應分別記。此中亦問一切死者皆當生耶。於此亦應不一向記。應為分別有煩惱者生非無煩惱者。如何此非應分別記。一向為問非一向答。此與經說文義既同。俱應名為應一向記。或應俱名應分別記理所逼故。必應許同於人趣中。差別問故應差別記。謂有問言人趣為勝。此應反詰汝何所方。問劣亦應如是反詰。若雙問者應一向記亦勝亦劣。非於此中勝劣雙問。但隨問一說一。為聲意顯別問。為勝為劣故此問成應反詰記。應舍置中難定非有。問記四種經所說故。不爾問記應但說三。若爾何緣經列四處。前三有記第四無耶。不記問者意所問故。若爾何故亦立記名以說。此中如所應故謂此亦說應舍置言。應置問中應言應置。若作余語記便不成。此中如何說有四問。誰言於此問有四耶。以問唯一相無別故。但約四記顯問有殊。是故說為四應記。問何謂問相。有作是說。依二無遮是謂問相。此非問相。是扇帙略所造論中所說疑相。實問相者謂有相違或無相違。為欲了達所未了義。有所陳請設無陳請但依二義隨觀遮一。有所躊躇未能決了是名疑相。以實問相蘊在心中。對法諸師安立問記。一向記者。若有問言行無常耶。應一向記。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 他所施捨的食物，他所相信的食物，是爲了讓他得到這些施捨的食物嗎？世尊（Buddha，佛教創始人）告訴他說：『這並非一概而論。如果你的親人愛人投生到這樣的餓鬼（Preta，六道輪迴之一）族中，他們就能得到這些食物。』既然允許這樣，就應該分別記述。這裡也問到，一切死去的人都會投生嗎？對此也應該不一概而論地記述，應該分別記述有煩惱的人會投生，沒有煩惱的人不會投生。為什麼這不應該一概而論地記述呢？因為一概而論地提問，而非一概而論地回答。這與經書所說的文義既然相同，都應該被稱為『應一概而論地記述』。或者應該都稱為『應分別記述』，這是理所當然的。必定應該允許與人道（Manushya-gati，六道輪迴之一）中相同，因為有差別的提問，所以應該有差別的記述。比如有人問人道是否殊勝，這應該反問他『你以什麼為標準？』問人道是否低劣也應該這樣反問。如果同時問到殊勝和低劣，應該一概而論地記述『既殊勝又低劣』。但在這裡，沒有同時問到殊勝和低劣，只是隨著所問的一個方面說一個方面。爲了使聲音和意思明顯區別，所以提問是『是殊勝還是低劣』，因此這個提問成立，應該反問記述。應該捨棄置之不理，難以確定，並非沒有。提問和記述有四種，這是經書所說的。不然的話，提問和記述應該只說三種。如果這樣，為什麼經書列出四種情況，前三種有記述，第四種沒有呢？因為不記述提問者的意圖。如果這樣，為什麼也設立『記』這個名稱來說明呢？因為這裡如所應地說，即這裡也說『應該捨棄置之不理』。應該在『應置問』中說『應該置之不理』。如果說其他的話，記述便不能成立。這裡如何說有四種提問呢？誰說在這裡提問有四種呢？因為提問只有一種相狀，沒有區別。只是根據四種記述來顯示提問的不同，所以說為四種『應記』。提問的相狀是什麼呢？有人這樣說，依靠二種無遮（否定）就是提問的相狀。這不是提問的相狀，這是扇帙略（Shan Zhilue，人名）所造的論中所說的疑相。真正的提問相狀是指有相違或無相違，爲了瞭解尚未了解的意義，有所陳述請求，即使沒有陳述請求，只是依靠二種意義隨意觀察遮止一種，有所躊躇未能決斷，這叫做疑相。因為真正的提問相狀蘊藏在心中，對法（Abhidharma，佛教術語）諸師安立了問記。『應一概而論地記述』是指，如果有人問『行（Samskara，佛教術語，指有為法）是無常的嗎？』應該一概而論地記述。
【English Translation】 English version He gives food that he believes in. Is it so that he can obtain this given food? The World-Honored One (Bhagavan, an epithet of the Buddha) said, 'This is not always the case. If your loved ones are born into such a hungry ghost (Preta, one of the six realms of reincarnation) realm, they can obtain this food.' Since this is permitted, it should be recorded separately. Here it is also asked, will all the dead be reborn? This should also be recorded not uniformly, but separately, that those with afflictions will be reborn, and those without afflictions will not be reborn. Why should this not be recorded uniformly? Because the question is asked uniformly, but the answer is not given uniformly. Since this is the same as the meaning of the scriptures, both should be called 'should be recorded uniformly.' Or both should be called 'should be recorded separately,' which is logically necessary. It must be allowed to be the same as in the human realm (Manushya-gati, one of the six realms of reincarnation), because there are different questions, so there should be different records. For example, if someone asks whether the human realm is superior, this should be countered with the question, 'By what standard do you measure?' Asking whether the human realm is inferior should also be countered in the same way. If both superiority and inferiority are asked at the same time, it should be recorded uniformly as 'both superior and inferior.' But here, superiority and inferiority are not asked at the same time, but only one aspect is spoken of according to what is asked. In order to clearly distinguish the sound and meaning, the question is 'is it superior or inferior,' therefore this question is valid and should be countered with a record. It should be abandoned and ignored, difficult to determine, not non-existent. There are four types of questions and records, as stated in the scriptures. Otherwise, there should only be three types of questions and records. If so, why do the scriptures list four situations, with the first three having records and the fourth not? Because the questioner's intention is not recorded. If so, why is the name 'record' also established to explain it? Because here it is said as it should be, that is, here it is also said 'should be abandoned and ignored.' In the 'should be abandoned question,' it should be said 'should be ignored.' If other words are said, the record cannot be established. How is it said here that there are four types of questions? Who says that there are four types of questions here? Because there is only one aspect of the question, without distinction. It is only according to the four types of records that the difference of the question is shown, so it is said to be four types of 'should be recorded.' What is the aspect of the question? Some say that relying on two non-affirmations (negations) is the aspect of the question. This is not the aspect of the question, this is the aspect of doubt mentioned in the treatise created by Shan Zhilue (a person's name). The true aspect of the question refers to having contradiction or no contradiction, in order to understand the meaning that has not yet been understood, there is a statement of request, even if there is no statement of request, just relying on two meanings to casually observe and prevent one, hesitating and unable to decide, this is called doubt. Because the true aspect of the question is hidden in the heart, the Abhidharma (Buddhist term) masters established the question record. 'Should be recorded uniformly' refers to, if someone asks 'are conditioned things (Samskara, Buddhist term, referring to conditioned phenomena) impermanent?' it should be recorded uniformly.
分別記者。若有直心請言愿尊為我說法。應為分別法有眾多。謂去來今欲說何者。若言為我說過去法。應復分別過去法中亦有眾多色乃至識。若請說色應分別言。色中有三善惡無記。若請說善應分別言。善中有七謂離殺生廣說乃至離雜穢語。若彼復請說離殺生。應分別言。此有三種。謂無貪瞋癡三善根所發。若彼請說無貪發者。應分別言。此復有二。謂表無表欲說何者。如是分別至究竟時。便令問者了所問義。故此分別記相即成。由此已遮有作是難。于分別后既更無容有餘記言不應成記。以即分別說為記故。謂分別時問者自了所欲問義。分別終時已能影顯所記義故。由是分別記相得成。未分別時彼未能解。分別已解故名為記。此于能記立以記名。然於此中置訖埵者。唯為顯后不離前義。如世間說度山至河。非此為明山前河后。但欲令解非離度山有至河義。置訖埵緣如是此中。要有分別方成記義。非離分別故唯為顯后不離前。非為顯成前後別義。反詰記者。若有諂心請言。愿尊為我說法。應反詰彼法有眾多。欲說何者不應分別。過去未來現在等異。所以然者。記者知其心懷諂曲求非故。問不應為彼分別諸法。但應反詰令默然住。或令自記無便求非。反詰終時已能影顯所說義故。由是亦應許此反詰即名為記。由反詰言記被
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 分別記者：如果有人以正直的心請求說：『愿尊者為我說法。』應當為他分別解說法有很多種，即過去、現在、未來，您想聽哪一種？如果他說：『請為我說過去法。』應當進一步分別，過去法中也有很多種，即色、受、想、行、識。如果他請求說色，應當分別說：色中有三種，善、惡、無記。如果他請求說善，應當分別說：善中有七種，即離殺生，廣說乃至離雜穢語。如果他再次請求說離殺生，應當分別說：這有三種，即由無貪、無嗔、無癡三種善根所引發。如果他請求說無貪所引發的，應當分別說：這又有兩種，即表業和無表業，您想聽哪一種？像這樣分別到最終，就能讓提問者明白所問的意義。因此，這種分別的記相就成立了。由此已經遮止了有人提出的疑問：在分別之後，既然沒有餘地再有其他的記，就不應該成立為記。因為就是把分別說成是記。也就是說，在分別的時候，提問者自己明白了想要問的意義，分別結束的時候，已經能夠隱約地顯示所記的意義。因此，分別的記相得以成立。在未分別的時候，他不能理解，分別之後就理解了，所以稱為記。這是在能記上建立了記的名稱。然而，在這裡放置『訖埵』，只是爲了顯示後面的不離前面的意義。就像世間所說『度山至河』，不是爲了說明山前河后，只是爲了讓人理解並非離開度山才有至河的意義。放置『訖埵』的緣由就是這樣。在這裡，一定要有分別才能成就記的意義，並非離開分別。所以只是爲了顯示後面的不離前面的，不是爲了顯示成就前後不同的意義。 反詰記者：如果有人以諂媚的心請求說：『愿尊者為我說法。』應當反詰他：法有很多種，您想聽哪一種？不應該分別過去、未來、現在等的不同。之所以這樣，是因為記者知道他心懷諂曲，尋求過失，所以提問不應該為他分別諸法，只應當反詰讓他沉默不語，或者讓他自己記住，沒有機會尋求過失。反詰結束的時候，已經能夠隱約地顯示所說義了。因此，也應該允許這種反詰就稱為記。由於反詰的言語被記住了。
【English Translation】 English version: The Reporter by Differentiation: If someone with a sincere heart requests, 'May the Venerable One explain the Dharma to me,' one should differentiate for him that there are many kinds of Dharma, namely past, present, and future. Which one do you wish to hear? If he says, 'Please explain the past Dharma to me,' one should further differentiate that there are also many kinds of past Dharma, namely form (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formations (samskara), and consciousness (vijnana). If he requests to speak of form, one should differentiate and say: Within form, there are three kinds: good (kusala), evil (akusala), and neutral (avyakrta). If he requests to speak of good, one should differentiate and say: Within good, there are seven kinds, namely abstaining from killing, and so forth, extensively speaking, abstaining from frivolous speech. If he again requests to speak of abstaining from killing, one should differentiate and say: This has three aspects, namely arising from the three good roots of non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (advesha), and non-delusion (amoha). If he requests to speak of that arising from non-greed, one should differentiate and say: This again has two aspects, namely expressed action (vijnapti) and unexpressed action (avijnapti). Which one do you wish to hear? Differentiating in this way until the end will enable the questioner to understand the meaning of what is being asked. Therefore, this characteristic of the reporter by differentiation is established. This has already prevented someone from raising the question: After the differentiation, since there is no room for any other record, it should not be established as a record. Because the differentiation itself is spoken of as the record. That is to say, during the differentiation, the questioner himself understands the meaning of what he wants to ask, and at the end of the differentiation, he is already able to vaguely reveal the meaning of what is being recorded. Therefore, the characteristic of the reporter by differentiation is established. Before the differentiation, he could not understand; after the differentiation, he understands, so it is called a record. Here, the name of 'record' is established on the recorder. However, placing 'krtva' (having done) here is only to show that the latter meaning is not separate from the former meaning. Just as the world says 'crossing the mountain to the river,' it is not to explain that the mountain is before and the river is after, but only to let people understand that there is no meaning of reaching the river apart from crossing the mountain. The reason for placing 'krtva' is like this. Here, there must be differentiation to accomplish the meaning of the record, not apart from differentiation. Therefore, it is only to show that the latter is not separate from the former, not to show the different meanings of before and after. The Reporter by Counter-Questioning: If someone with a flattering heart requests, 'May the Venerable One explain the Dharma to me,' one should counter-question him: There are many kinds of Dharma, which one do you wish to hear? One should not differentiate the differences between past, future, and present, etc. The reason for this is that the reporter knows that he has a flattering heart and seeks faults, so asking should not differentiate the Dharmas for him, but should only counter-question him to remain silent, or let him remember it himself, with no opportunity to seek faults. At the end of the counter-questioning, he is already able to vaguely reveal the meaning of what is being said. Therefore, it should also be allowed that this counter-questioning is called a record. Because the words of the counter-questioning are recorded.
問故。有作是難此記亦不成詰。后無容有餘記言故。問俱不與問相相應。請言愿尊為我說法。此不成問但應名請。此中前難應準前遮。然此與前有差別者。謂若反詰令彼自然。有正解生方得名記。如契經說我還問汝。如汝所忍應如實答。又如經說。汝意云何。色為無常為是常等。非佛於此自為分別。但由反詰令彼自解。豈不此中名佛為記。若能記者默無所言。令他解生名最勝記。又此中說反詰記者。有以反詰為記方便。如是應知依二義釋反詰記名。一由反詰即名為記。二由反詰為方便已方記彼問。問與問相不相應者。此亦非理。依二無遮得問相名。非我許故汝雖許爾然自違宗。敘彼宗中當顯違理。有雖不以二道為依而但希望知諸道相。作如是問為我說道。此豈不是問于道相。此依何二言無所遮。故汝所言唯能顯己憎他善說愛自妄計豈由此故能破我宗。又彼云何安立問記。彼亦少分採取正宗。兼率己情作如是說。若問諸行常無常耶。應一向記言皆是無常性。問有兩向謂常無常。然于記中唯有一向。如是一切皆應準知。如是名為應一向記。應分別記者。如生聞梵志問世尊言。喬答摩氏我有親愛先已命終。今欲為其施所信食。彼為得此所施食耶。世尊告言。此非一向趣有五種。謂那落迦傍生餓鬼天人別故。若汝親愛生地獄中
。爾時唯應食地獄食。汝所施食彼不能受廣說乃至。若生人中爾時唯應食人中食。汝所施食亦不能受。然有處所名餓鬼族。若汝親愛生彼族中。則能受汝所施飲食。若據我宗如是所問。應分別記理實無違。然據汝宗如是所問。應一向記不應分別。進退推徴如前已辨。應反詰記者。彼謂若問我常無常耶。應反詰言。依何我問若依色我乃至識。我應答無常若有問我有耶無耶。應反詰言依何我問。若言依彼十二處中隨一我問。應答言有。若依余問應答言無。今謂此中反詰非理。且初問我常無常耶。應一向答是無常性。以唯于蘊執有我故。諸蘊唯是無常性故。以契經說。苾芻當知世間沙門婆羅門等。諸有執我等隨觀見一切。唯於五取蘊起。無容更有第二記故。應一向記不應反詰。設彼答言不依色我乃至識我。當如何記離蘊必無起我見者所問非理。當如何記以不應記非常無常。亦不可言我是常性。必無如是種類蘊故。離蘊必無起我見故。由此定是應一向記第二問我有耶無耶。亦不應反詰。汝依何我問。以諸我見必定唯於十二處中隨一處起。離此無容有我見故。唯應一向答言是有。然於此中容可反詰。汝向所問我有無者。為問常我為無常耶。若問無常應記言有。彼于取蘊說我聲故。若問常我應記言。無諸取蘊中皆無常故。如是理趣
聖教所顯。故拊掌喻契經中說。苾芻尋伺我我是何。佛知其心廣為摽釋十八界已。告言苾芻。汝等若謂此法是我。當言此我無常無恒廣說乃至。苾芻汝等意謂此眼為常無常。白言大德。是無常性。既是無常為苦非苦。白言大德。亦是苦性。既無常苦即變易法為有。多聞諸聖弟子於此執有我我所耶。苾芻白言。不爾大德。此中意說若執無常法為無常。我應言我是有。若執眼等諸無常法。以為常我應言我無。又離如斯眼等法外。無別少分常住之法可計為我。故常我無。由此余經亦作是說。所有諸行皆空無常。無恒無住無不變易。亦復空無我我所性。又前說我無常無恒。不可保信有變易法。余處復說苾芻。汝今亦生亦老乃至廣說。此等意顯常住我空。無常不空故作是說。如上所引經說。世尊反詰苾芻。汝等意謂此眼等界無常無常。以此為問於後方記無常常我是有是無。又閻莫迦西膩迦等契經亦說。反詰苾芻諸蘊常無常記我為無有。以此準彼理亦應然。謂於此中有作是問。我體為有為是無耶。應反詰言。所問我者為問常我為無常耶。若問無常應記言有。若問常我應記言無。故彼所言皆不應理。應舍置者。彼謂苾芻問世尊言。大德應說過去諸劫其數有幾。佛告苾芻。過去諸劫數有爾所不易可說。此中苾芻不知劫數故以問佛世尊。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：聖教所闡明的就是這個道理。所以在《拊掌喻契經》中說，有比丘尋思：『我』（ātman）和『我是』（aham asmī）是什麼？佛陀知道他的心意后，廣泛地解釋了十八界（dhātu），然後告訴比丘：『你們如果認為這個法是我，就應當說這個我是無常的，沒有恒常性。』（廣說其無常性）。比丘，你們認為這眼（cakṣus）是常還是無常？比丘回答說：『大德，是無常的。』既然是無常，是苦還是非苦？比丘回答說：『大德，也是苦的。』既然是無常和苦，是變易之法，那麼有見多識廣的聖弟子會執著於此，認為有『我』或『我所』（mama）嗎？比丘回答說：『不會的，大德。』這裡的意思是說，如果執著無常法為無常，我就應該說『我是有的』。如果執著眼等諸無常法，以為是常我，我就應該說『我沒有』。又離開了像眼等這些法之外，沒有其他少分的常住之法可以被認為是『我』，所以常我是沒有的。因此，其他的經典也這樣說：『所有諸行（saṃskāra）皆是空（śūnya），無常，沒有恒常性，沒有住處，沒有不變易性，也空無我及我所性。』又前面說『我是無常的，沒有恒常性，不可靠，會變易的法。』其他地方又說：『比丘，你現在也生，也老』（廣說生老病死）。這些都顯示了常住我是空的，無常不是空的，所以這樣說。如上面所引用的經文所說，世尊反問比丘：『你們認為這眼等界是常還是無常？』用這個問題在後面才記錄『無常，常我，是有還是沒有？』又《閻莫迦西膩迦經》等契經也說，反問比丘諸蘊（skandha）是常還是無常，記錄『我是沒有的』。以此類推，道理也應該是這樣。就是說，如果有人問：『我的本體是有還是沒有？』應該反問說：『所問的我是問常我還是無常我？』如果問無常我，應該回答說『有』。如果問常我，應該回答說『沒有』。所以他們所說的不合道理，應該捨棄。他們認為比丘問世尊說：『大德，應該說過去諸劫（kalpa）的數目有多少。』佛告訴比丘：『過去諸劫的數目有這麼多，不容易說清楚。』這裡比丘不知道劫數，所以問佛世尊。
【English Translation】 English version: This is what the sacred teachings reveal. Therefore, in the 'A Hand Clapping Analogy Sutra,' it says that a Bhikshu (monk) pondered: 'What is 'I' (ātman) and 'I am' (aham asmī)?' Knowing his thoughts, the Buddha extensively explained the eighteen realms (dhātu) and then told the Bhikshu: 'If you consider this dharma (teaching) to be 'I,' then you should say that this 'I' is impermanent and without permanence.' (Elaborating on its impermanence). Bhikshu, do you consider this eye (cakṣus) to be permanent or impermanent?' The Bhikshu replied: 'Venerable Sir, it is impermanent.' Since it is impermanent, is it suffering or not suffering?' The Bhikshu replied: 'Venerable Sir, it is also suffering.' Since it is impermanent and suffering, and a changing dharma, would a learned and noble disciple cling to it, thinking there is an 'I' or 'mine' (mama)?' The Bhikshu replied: 'No, Venerable Sir.' The meaning here is that if one clings to impermanent dharma as impermanent, I should say 'I exist.' If one clings to impermanent dharmas such as the eye, thinking it is a permanent 'I,' I should say 'I do not exist.' Furthermore, apart from these dharmas such as the eye, there is no other small portion of permanent dharma that can be considered 'I,' so the permanent 'I' does not exist. Therefore, other sutras also say: 'All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are empty (śūnya), impermanent, without permanence, without a dwelling place, without change, and also empty of 'I' and 'mine.'' Furthermore, it was previously said that 'I am impermanent, without permanence, unreliable, and a changing dharma.' Elsewhere it is said: 'Bhikshu, you are now born, and you age' (elaborating on birth, old age, sickness, and death). These all show that the permanent 'I' is empty, and impermanence is not empty, so it is said this way. As mentioned in the sutra quoted above, the World-Honored One questioned the Bhikshu: 'Do you consider these realms such as the eye to be permanent or impermanent?' This question was used to record later 'impermanence, permanent 'I,' does it exist or not?' Furthermore, the 'Yamaka Sannika Sutra' and other sutras also say, questioning the Bhikshu whether the aggregates (skandha) are permanent or impermanent, recording 'I do not exist.' By analogy, the reasoning should also be the same. That is to say, if someone asks: 'Does my essence exist or not?' one should ask in return: 'Is the 'I' being asked about the permanent 'I' or the impermanent 'I'?' If asking about the impermanent 'I,' one should answer 'it exists.' If asking about the permanent 'I,' one should answer 'it does not exist.' Therefore, what they say is unreasonable and should be discarded. They believe that the Bhikshu asked the World-Honored One: 'Venerable Sir, one should say how many kalpas (aeons) there have been in the past.' The Buddha told the Bhikshu: 'There have been so many kalpas in the past that it is not easy to say clearly.' Here, the Bhikshu did not know the number of kalpas, so he asked the World-Honored One.
答彼過去劫數不可了知。如應舍置而為記別。是故說此名應舍置。此中何有依二無遮。而汝於斯許有問相。世尊未說有何未遮。可說為問世尊說已。有何所遮可說為記。苾芻先問由總不知。世尊說已仍未了達。於此有可問記二相。而汝亦許成問記耶。及契經言有四問記。然彼自說即由此因。列四名中前三有記。唯于第四不說記聲。若爾何緣先作是解如應舍置而為記別。豈不前後自互相違。若隨應置而為記者。應許第四亦有記聲。若謂此中無記相故。于列名處不說記聲。如何復言隨應舍置。而為記別故。自相違。又於他宗不應設難。既全不記蘊與有情。若異若一不應名記。是故彼宗極為惡立。諸問記相前釋可依。
說一切有部順正理論卷第四十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之六
因辯隨眠不善無記傍論已了。今應思擇何等隨眠於何事系。何名為事。事雖非一而於此中辯所繫事。此復有二。其二者何。謂就依緣及部類辯。就依緣者。謂眼識俱所有隨眠。唯於色處為所緣系。于自相應諸心心所意處法處為相應系。如是乃至若身識俱所有隨眠。唯于觸處為所緣系。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：回答說，過去的劫數是不可知曉的。應該捨棄而不要去分別記述。所以說這叫做『應舍置』。這裡面哪裡有依靠二種『無遮』（否定）的情況呢？而你卻在這裡允許有提問的相狀。世尊沒有說過什麼，又有什麼沒有遮止的呢？可以稱之為提問。世尊已經說過了，又有什麼可以遮止的呢？可以稱之為記別（回答）。比丘先提問，是因為總體上不了解。世尊說過了，仍然沒有理解通達。對於這種情況，有可以提問和記別兩種相狀。而你也允許成立提問和記別嗎？以及契經上說有四種提問和記別。然而經文自己說，就是因為這個原因，在列舉的四種名稱中，前三種有『記』（回答）這個詞，唯獨在第四種中沒有說『記』這個字。如果這樣，為什麼先前要這樣解釋『如應舍置而為記別』呢？豈不是前後自相矛盾？如果隨著應該放置的而作為回答，就應該允許第四種也有『記』這個字。如果說這裡面沒有『記』的相狀，所以在列舉名稱的地方沒有說『記』這個字，又如何說『隨應舍置，而為記別』呢？所以是自相矛盾。而且對於其他宗派，不應該設定難題。既然完全不記述蘊和有情是相異還是相同，就不應該叫做『記』。所以他們的宗派是非常錯誤的立論。各種提問和記別的相狀，可以依據前面的解釋。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第四十九 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之六
因為辯論隨眠、不善、無記的傍論已經結束。現在應該思考什麼隨眠與什麼事物相繫縛。什麼叫做『事』（事物）？事物雖然不是單一的，但是在這裡辯論所繫縛的事物。這又有兩種。這兩種是什麼呢？就是就所依之緣和部類來辯論。就所依之緣來說，與眼識共同生起的所有隨眠，僅僅對於色處（rupa-ayatana）作為所緣而繫縛。對於與自身相應的各種心、心所、意處（mano-ayatana）、法處（dharma-ayatana）作為相應而繫縛。像這樣乃至如果身識共同生起的所有隨眠，僅僅對於觸處（sparsha-ayatana）作為所緣而繫縛。
【English Translation】 English version: The answer is that the past kalpas are unknowable. They should be abandoned and not distinguished and recorded. Therefore, it is said that this is called 'should be abandoned'. Where in this is there reliance on two 'non-assertions' (negations)? Yet you allow for the appearance of a question here. What has the World-Honored One not said, and what has not been prevented? It can be called a question. What has the World-Honored One already said, and what can be prevented? It can be called a vyākaraṇa (answer). The bhikshu asks first because he does not understand in general. Even after the World-Honored One has spoken, he still does not understand thoroughly. In this situation, there are two aspects of questioning and answering. And you also allow the establishment of questioning and answering? And the sutras say that there are four types of questions and answers. However, the sutra itself says that it is for this reason that among the four names listed, the first three have the word 'vyākaraṇa' (answer), but only the fourth does not have the word 'vyākaraṇa'. If so, why did you previously explain it as 'should be abandoned and answered accordingly'? Isn't this self-contradictory? If it is answered according to what should be placed, then it should be allowed that the fourth also has the word 'vyākaraṇa'. If it is said that there is no aspect of 'vyākaraṇa' here, so the word 'vyākaraṇa' is not mentioned in the list of names, then how can it be said 'should be abandoned and answered accordingly'? Therefore, it is self-contradictory. Moreover, one should not set difficult questions for other schools. Since it does not record at all whether the skandhas and sentient beings are different or the same, it should not be called 'vyākaraṇa'. Therefore, their school's establishment is extremely wrong. The aspects of various questions and answers can be based on the previous explanation. Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhaṣā-śāstra, Volume 49 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 50
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 5, Section 6: On Latent Afflictions
Since the collateral discussion on latent afflictions, unwholesome, and indeterminate has ended, now it should be considered what latent afflictions are bound to what things. What is called 'thing'? Although things are not singular, here we discuss the things that are bound. There are two types of these. What are these two? They are discussed in terms of the basis of dependence and the categories. In terms of the basis of dependence, all latent afflictions that arise together with eye consciousness are bound only to the rupa-ayatana (sense-sphere of form) as the object of dependence. They are bound as corresponding to the various minds, mental factors, mano-ayatana (sense-sphere of mind), and dharma-ayatana (sense-sphere of phenomena) that correspond to themselves. Likewise, if all latent afflictions arise together with body consciousness, they are bound only to the sparsha-ayatana (sense-sphere of touch) as the object of dependence.
自相應諸心心所意處法處為相應系。若意識俱所有隨眠。於十二處為所緣系。于自相應諸心心所意處法處為相應系。就部類者。謂見苦斷遍行隨眠。於五部法為所緣系。于自相應諸心心所為相應系。見苦所斷非遍隨眠。唯于自部為所緣系。于自相應諸心心所為相應系。如是一切隨應當說就三世辯何等有情有何隨眠能系何事。頌曰。
若於此事中 未斷貪瞋慢 過現若已起 未來意遍行 五可生自世 不生亦遍行 余過未遍行 現正緣能系
論曰。若有情類於此事中隨眠隨增名系此事。夫為能系必是未斷。故初未斷如應遍流。且諸隨眠總有二種。一者自相謂貪瞋慢。二者共相謂見疑癡。貪瞋慢三是自相惑如前已辯。諸聖教中處處見有分明文證。且如經言告衣袋母。汝眼於色若不見時。彼色為緣起欲貪不。不爾大德乃至廣說。又契經說佛告大母。汝意云何。諸所有色。非汝眼見非汝曾見。非汝當見非希求見。汝為因此起欲起貪起親起愛起阿賴耶起尼延底起耽著不不爾大德。乃至廣說。故此事中有貪瞋慢於過去世已生未斷。現在已生能系此事以貪瞋慢是自相惑。非諸有情定遍起故。豈不已斷系義便無。既說系言已顯未斷。何緣說此被未斷系。復說過去已生未斷。此未斷言應成無用。無無用過。此未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：自相應的心和心所，以及意處（Manas-ayatana，意根）和法處（Dharma-ayatana，法境）之間存在相應系（Samprayukta-bandha，相應之系）。如果意識（Vijnana，了別作用）相應的所有隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式），對於十二處（Dvadasha-ayatana，十二處）來說是所緣系（Alambana-bandha，所緣之系），對於自相應的心和心所，以及意處和法處來說是相應系。就部類（Nikaya，部類）而言，見苦斷遍行隨眠（Dukkha-darshana-prahātavya-sarvatraga-anuśaya，見苦所斷的遍行隨眠）對於五部法（Panca-nikaya-dharma，五部法）來說是所緣系，對於自相應的心和心所來說是相應系。見苦所斷非遍隨眠（Dukkha-darshana-prahātavya-na-sarvatraga-anuśaya，見苦所斷的非遍行隨眠）僅僅對於自部（Sva-nikaya，自部）來說是所緣系，對於自相應的心和心所來說是相應系。像這樣，一切都應當根據情況說明。就三世（Tri-adhvan，過去、現在、未來）來辨別，什麼樣的有情（Sattva，眾生）有什麼樣的隨眠能夠繫縛什麼樣的事物。頌（Gatha，偈頌）說： 『如果對於這件事中，沒有斷除貪、嗔、慢，過去和現在如果已經生起，未來是意遍行（Manovijnana-sarvatraga，意識遍行），五可生於自世（Sva-bhumi，自地），不生也是遍行，其餘過去和未來是遍行，現在正緣能夠繫縛。』 論（Shastra，論述）說：如果有情眾生對於這件事中隨眠隨增，就名為繫縛這件事。作為能繫縛的一定是未斷的，所以最初未斷的如應遍流。而且諸隨眠總共有兩種：一種是自相（Svalaksana，自性），即貪、嗔、慢；一種是共相（Samanya-laksana，共相），即見、疑、癡。貪、嗔、慢這三種是自相惑（Svalaksana-klesha，自性煩惱），如前已經辨析。在諸聖教（Arya-shasana，聖教）中，處處可見有分明的文證。比如經（Sutra，經）中說，告訴衣袋母（Civara-matrka，衣袋母）：『你的眼睛對於色（Rupa，顏色、形色）如果不見的時候，彼色為緣會生起欲貪（Kama-tanha，對欲的渴愛）嗎？』回答說：『不會的，大德。』乃至廣說。又契經（Samhita-sutra，相應經典）說，佛（Buddha，覺者）告訴大母（Maha-matrka，大母）：『你的意思如何？所有那些色，不是你眼睛所見，不是你曾經見過，不是你將要見到的，不是你希望見到的，你會因此生起欲（Kama，慾望）、生起貪（Tanha，渴愛）、生起親（Priti，親愛）、生起愛（Sneha，愛戀）、生起阿賴耶（Alaya，執著）、生起尼延底（Nikanti，喜好）、生起耽著（Adhyavasana，沉迷）嗎？』回答說：『不會的，大德。』乃至廣說。所以這件事中有貪、嗔、慢，在過去世（Atita-adhvan，過去世）已經生起而未斷除，現在（Vartamana-adhvan，現在）已經生起能夠繫縛這件事，因為貪、嗔、慢是自相惑，不是諸有情一定普遍生起的緣故。難道已經斷除，繫縛的意義便沒有了嗎？既然說了『系』這個字，就已經顯示是未斷。什麼緣故說此被未斷繫縛，又說過去已經生起而未斷除，這個『未斷』的說法應該成為無用嗎？沒有無用的過失，這個未
【English Translation】 English version: The self-corresponding mind and mental factors, as well as the Manas-ayatana (mind-base) and Dharma-ayatana (dharma-base), have a Samprayukta-bandha (association bond). If all the Anusaya (latent tendencies) associated with consciousness (Vijnana) are Alambana-bandha (object-bond) in relation to the twelve ayatanas (twelve sense-bases), they are Samprayukta-bandha in relation to the self-corresponding mind and mental factors, as well as the Manas-ayatana and Dharma-ayatana. In terms of Nikaya (categories), the Dukkha-darshana-prahātavya-sarvatraga-anuśaya (afflictions that are universally present and must be eliminated by seeing suffering) are Alambana-bandha in relation to the five Nikaya-dharma (five categories of teachings), and Samprayukta-bandha in relation to the self-corresponding mind and mental factors. The Dukkha-darshana-prahātavya-na-sarvatraga-anuśaya (afflictions that are not universally present and must be eliminated by seeing suffering) are only Alambana-bandha in relation to their own Nikaya (category), and Samprayukta-bandha in relation to the self-corresponding mind and mental factors. In this way, everything should be explained according to the circumstances. Discriminating based on the Tri-adhvan (three times), what kind of Sattva (sentient being) has what kind of Anusaya that can bind what kind of things? The Gatha (verse) says: 『If, in this matter, greed, hatred, and pride have not been severed, if they have arisen in the past and present, the future is Manovijnana-sarvatraga (consciousness that is all-pervasive), the five can arise in their own Sva-bhumi (realm), non-arising is also all-pervasive, the remaining past and future are all-pervasive, and the present right condition can bind.』 The Shastra (treatise) says: If sentient beings increase their Anusaya in this matter, it is called binding this matter. To be a binder, it must be unsevered, so the initially unsevered flows appropriately everywhere. Moreover, there are two types of Anusaya in general: one is Svalaksana (own-characteristic), namely greed, hatred, and pride; the other is Samanya-laksana (common-characteristic), namely views, doubt, and ignorance. Greed, hatred, and pride are three Svalaksana-klesha (afflictions of own-characteristic), as previously analyzed. In the Arya-shasana (noble teachings), there are clear textual proofs everywhere. For example, the Sutra (discourse) says, telling Civara-matrka (Robe-mother): 『If your eyes do not see Rupa (form), will Kama-tanha (craving for desire) arise based on that form?』 She replied: 『No, Venerable One.』 And so on, extensively. Also, the Samhita-sutra (connected discourse) says, the Buddha (awakened one) told Maha-matrka (Great-mother): 『What do you think? All those forms that your eyes have not seen, have never seen, will not see, do not wish to see, will you therefore generate Kama (desire), generate Tanha (craving), generate Priti (affection), generate Sneha (love), generate Alaya (attachment), generate Nikanti (delight), generate Adhyavasana (obsession)?』 She replied: 『No, Venerable One.』 And so on, extensively. Therefore, in this matter, there are greed, hatred, and pride, which have already arisen in the Atita-adhvan (past) and have not been severed. Now (Vartamana-adhvan, present) they have already arisen and can bind this matter, because greed, hatred, and pride are Svalaksana-klesha, and not all sentient beings necessarily generate them universally. Is it that if they have already been severed, the meaning of binding no longer exists? Since the word 『bind』 has been spoken, it already indicates that it is unsevered. For what reason is it said that this is bound by the unsevered, and it is also said that it has already arisen in the past and has not been severed? Should this statement of 『unsevered』 become useless? There is no fault of uselessness, this un-
斷言顯有品別漸次斷故。即於此論。次下文中。亦說未來意遍行等。謂彼貪等九品不同。修道斷時九品別斷有緣此事。上品隨眠已起已滅已得永斷。彼於此事尚有未來余品隨眠。未起未滅未得永斷猶能為系。是故本論於此義中。雖說未來愛等所繫。而於過去說未斷言。故未斷言深成有用。然過去世此品隨眠得永斷時未來亦斷。容有餘品未來隨眠能系此事未得永斷。以未來世意識相應貪瞋慢三遍緣三世。雖於此事或生不生。但未斷時皆名能系。未來五識相應貪瞋。若未斷可生唯系未來世。由此已顯五識相應可生隨眠。若至過去唯系過去至現亦爾。義準若與意識相應可生隨眠。若至過現未斷容系非自世法。非唯意識相應隨眠。若在未來能縛三世。諸與五識相應隨眠。若定不生亦縛三世。謂彼境界或在未來或在現在或在過去。彼雖已得畢竟不生。而未斷時效能繫縛。所餘一切見疑無明。去來未斷遍縛三世。由此三種是共相惑。一切有情俱遍縛故。若現在世正緣境時。隨其所應能縛此事。以何為證知貪等惑。緣過去等三世境生。即于其中能為繫縛。由聖教證故契經言。欲貪處法總有三種。一者過去欲貪處法。二者未來欲貪處法。三者現在欲貪處法。若緣過去欲貪處法生於欲貪。此欲貪生當言于彼過去諸法系非離系。乃至廣說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 斷言顯現存在的事物有品類差別，因此斷除也是有次第的。就在這部論中，接下來的文中也說了未來意遍行等等。意思是說，貪等煩惱有九品不同，修道斷除時，九品分別斷除是有原因的。上品隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）已經生起、已經滅除、已經得到永斷。對於這件事，尚有未來其餘品類的隨眠，未生起、未滅除、未得到永斷，仍然能夠成為繫縛。所以本論在這個意義中，雖然說了未來愛等所繫縛，而對於過去，則說『未斷』。所以『未斷』這個詞意義深遠，很有用處。 然而，過去世此品隨眠得到永斷時，未來也斷了。但容許有其餘品類的未來隨眠能夠繫縛這件事，而未得到永斷。因為未來世意識相應的貪、瞋、慢三種煩惱，能夠普遍緣於三世。雖然對於這件事，或許生起或許不生起，但未斷除時，都稱為能夠繫縛。未來五識相應的貪、瞋，如果未斷除，可能生起，只繫縛未來世。 由此已經顯示，五識相應的可能生起的隨眠，如果到了過去，只繫縛過去，到了現在也是這樣。按照這個道理，如果與意識相應的可能生起的隨眠，如果到了過去和現在，未斷除，容許繫縛非自身所在世的法。不僅僅是意識相應的隨眠，如果在未來，能夠束縛三世。那些與五識相應的隨眠，如果必定不生起，也束縛三世。意思是說，它們的境界或者在未來，或者在現在，或者在過去。它們雖然已經得到，畢竟不生起，但未斷除時，效能夠繫縛。 其餘一切見（錯誤的見解）、疑（懷疑）、無明（對真理的無知），過去和未來未斷除，普遍束縛三世。由此三種是共同的迷惑，因為一切有情都被普遍束縛。如果現在世正在緣取境界時，隨著情況，能夠束縛這件事。用什麼來證明貪等煩惱，緣於過去等三世的境界而生起，就在其中能夠成為繫縛？ 由聖教的證明，所以契經說，欲貪處法總共有三種：一是過去欲貪處法，二是未來欲貪處法，三是現在欲貪處法。如果緣於過去欲貪處法生起欲貪，這個欲貪生起，應當說對於那些過去的諸法是繫縛而不是解脫，乃至廣說。
【English Translation】 English version It is asserted that manifested existents have different categories, and therefore severance is also gradual. In this treatise itself, in the subsequent text, future '意遍行' (yi bian xing, mental pervasive actions) etc. are also mentioned. This means that '貪' (tan, greed) etc. have nine different categories. When cultivating the path to sever them, the nine categories are severed separately for a reason. The '上品隨眠' (shang pin sui mian, superior latent tendencies) have already arisen, already ceased, and have been permanently severed. Regarding this matter, there are still future remaining categories of '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) that have not arisen, not ceased, and not been permanently severed, and they can still become bonds. Therefore, in this treatise, in this meaning, although it speaks of being bound by future '愛' (ai, craving) etc., it says '未斷' (wei duan, not severed) regarding the past. Therefore, the term '未斷' (wei duan, not severed) is profound and useful. However, when this category of '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) is permanently severed in the past, the future is also severed. But it is possible that there are remaining categories of future '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) that can bind this matter, and have not been permanently severed. Because the '貪' (tan, greed), '瞋' (chen, hatred), and '慢' (man, pride) that are associated with consciousness in the future, can universally cognize the three times. Although regarding this matter, they may or may not arise, when they are not severed, they are all called capable of binding. The '貪' (tan, greed) and '瞋' (chen, hatred) that are associated with the five consciousnesses in the future, if not severed, may arise and only bind the future. From this, it is already shown that the '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) that can arise in association with the five consciousnesses, if they reach the past, only bind the past, and it is the same when they reach the present. According to this principle, if the '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) that can arise in association with consciousness, if they reach the past and present, and are not severed, they are allowed to bind dharmas that are not in their own time. It is not only the '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) associated with consciousness that, if they are in the future, can bind the three times. Those '隨眠' (sui mian, latent tendencies) that are associated with the five consciousnesses, if they are certain not to arise, also bind the three times. This means that their objects are either in the future, or in the present, or in the past. Although they have already been obtained and will definitely not arise, when they are not severed, their nature is capable of binding. All the remaining '見' (jian, wrong views), '疑' (yi, doubt), and '無明' (wu ming, ignorance), if not severed in the past and future, universally bind the three times. Therefore, these three are common delusions, because all sentient beings are universally bound by them. If in the present, when directly cognizing an object, according to the situation, they are capable of binding this matter. What is the proof that '貪' (tan, greed) etc. arise from cognizing objects of the three times such as the past, and are capable of binding within them? From the proof of the holy teachings, therefore the sutras say that there are three types of '欲貪處法' (yu tan chu fa, objects of desire and greed): first, the '過去欲貪處法' (guo qu yu tan chu fa, objects of desire and greed in the past), second, the '未來欲貪處法' (wei lai yu tan chu fa, objects of desire and greed in the future), and third, the '現在欲貪處法' (xian zai yu tan chu fa, objects of desire and greed in the present). If '欲貪' (yu tan, desire and greed) arises from cognizing '過去欲貪處法' (guo qu yu tan chu fa, objects of desire and greed in the past), it should be said that this '欲貪' (yu tan, desire and greed) binds those past dharmas, and does not liberate them, and so on.
又契經言。若於過去未來現在所見色中起愛起恚。應知於此非色系眼非眼系色。此中欲貪是真能系。如是等類聖教非一。今應思擇過去未來。為實有無方可辯系。然於過未實有無中。自古諸師懷朋黨執互相彈斥競興論道。俱申教理成立己宗。處處傳聞如斯諍論。實有論者廣引理教。種種方便破無立有。實無論者廣引理教。種種方便破有立無。由是俱生大過失聚。故我今者發大正勤。如理思惟立去來世。異於現在非畢竟無。謂立去來非如現有。亦非如彼馬角等無。而立去來體具是有。唯此符會對法正宗。於此先應辯諸有相。以此有相蘊在心中。方可了知去來定有。由所辯相顯了易知。令固執者亦能契實。此中一類作如是言。已生未滅是為有相。彼說不然已生未滅即是現在差別名故。若說現世為有相者。義準己說去來是無理。於此中復應徴責。何緣有相唯現非余。故彼所辯非真有相。我於此中作如是說。為境生覺是真有相。此總有二。一者實有。二者假有。以依世俗及勝義諦而安立故。若無所待于中生覺。是實有相如色受等。若有所待于中生覺。是假有相如瓶軍等有餘於此更立第三。謂相待有如此彼岸。此即攝在前二有中。名雖有殊所目無異。又彼所執違越契經。契經唯言有二有故。實有復二。其二者何。一唯有體。二有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 又《契經》（Sutra）中說，如果對於過去、未來、現在所見之『色』（Rupa, 物質現象）中生起愛或嗔恨，應當知道這不是『色』束縛了『眼』（Caksu, 視覺器官），也不是『眼』束縛了『色』。其中『欲貪』（raga, 強烈的慾望）才是真正能束縛的。像這樣的聖教（Aryadharma, 聖者的教誨）不止一種。現在應當思考過去和未來，是真實存在還是不存在，才可以辨明是否被束縛。然而對於過去和未來是實有還是虛無，自古以來的諸位論師懷著各自的偏見和執著，互相攻擊和排斥，爭相闡述論點，都宣揚自己的教理來成立自己的宗派。到處都流傳著這樣的爭論。『實有論』者廣泛引用經文和道理，用各種方法來破斥『無』而成立『有』。『實無論』者廣泛引用經文和道理，用各種方法來破斥『有』而成立『無』。因此，雙方都產生了巨大的過失。所以我現在發起大精進，如理如實地思維，認為過去和未來不同於現在，但也不是畢竟空無。也就是說，成立過去和未來，不是像現在這樣實實在在的存在，也不是像馬角那樣完全不存在。而是成立過去和未來，其體性是存在的。只有這樣才符合佛法的正宗。在此之前，首先應當辨明諸『有相』（Lakshana, 存在的特徵），因為這些『有相』蘊藏在心中，才可以瞭解過去和未來確實存在。由於所辨明的『有相』顯明易懂，能使固執的人也能契合實際。其中有一類人這樣說：『已經產生但尚未滅亡』就是『有相』。他們的說法不對，『已經產生但尚未滅亡』是現在的差別名稱。如果說現世是『有相』，那麼按照這個意思，就可以推斷出過去和未來是不存在的。對於這一點，應該反問他們：為什麼『有相』只有現在，而不是過去和未來？所以他們所辨明的不是真正的『有相』。我在這裡這樣說：『對於境界生起覺知』才是真正的『有相』。這總共有兩種：一是『實有』（dravyasat, 真實存在），二是『假有』（prajnasat, 假想存在）。這是根據世俗諦（samvriti-satya, 相對真理）和勝義諦（paramartha-satya, 絕對真理）而安立的。如果不需要依靠任何條件，就能在其中生起覺知，這就是『實有相』，如『色』（rupa, 物質現象）、『受』（vedana, 感受）等。如果需要依靠其他條件，才能在其中生起覺知，這就是『假有相』，如瓶子、軍隊等。有些人在此之外又立第三種，即『相待有』，如『此岸』和『彼岸』。這實際上包含在前面的兩種『有』之中，名稱雖然不同，但所指的意義沒有差別。而且他們所執著的觀點違背了《契經》，《契經》只說了兩種『有』。『實有』又有兩種，這兩種是什麼？一是『唯有體』，二是『有… English version Furthermore, the Sutra states: 'If one generates love or hatred towards the 'rupa' (form, material phenomenon) seen in the past, future, or present, one should know that it is not 'rupa' that binds the 'eye' (caksu, visual organ), nor is it the 'eye' that binds 'rupa'. It is 'raga' (desire, intense longing) that truly binds.' Such teachings of the 'Aryadharma' (teachings of the noble ones) are not singular. Now, one should contemplate whether the past and future are real or unreal in order to discern whether one is bound. However, regarding whether the past and future are real or unreal, teachers from ancient times have harbored partisan attachments, criticizing and rejecting each other, eagerly expounding doctrines, all proclaiming their own teachings to establish their own schools. Such disputes are heard everywhere. Those who argue for 'real existence' (dravyasat) extensively cite scriptures and reasoning, using various means to refute 'non-existence' and establish 'existence'. Those who argue for 'non-existence' extensively cite scriptures and reasoning, using various means to refute 'existence' and establish 'non-existence'. Consequently, both sides generate great clusters of faults. Therefore, I now initiate great diligence, contemplating truthfully and rightly, considering the past and future as different from the present, but not as utterly non-existent. That is to say, establishing the past and future is not like establishing the present as truly existing, nor is it like establishing the horn of a horse as completely non-existent. Rather, it is establishing the past and future as having a nature that exists. Only this aligns with the true doctrine of the Dharma. Before this, one should first discern the various 'lakshana' (characteristics, signs of existence), because these 'lakshana' are contained within the mind, one can then understand that the past and future certainly exist. Because the discerned 'lakshana' are clear and easy to understand, they can enable even the obstinate to align with reality. Among them, one type of person says: 'That which has arisen but has not yet ceased' is a 'lakshana'. Their statement is incorrect; 'that which has arisen but has not yet ceased' is merely a different name for the present. If one says that the present is a 'lakshana', then according to this meaning, it can be inferred that the past and future do not exist. Regarding this point, one should question them: Why is 'lakshana' only present and not past or future? Therefore, what they discern is not a true 'lakshana'. I say here: 'The arising of awareness towards an object' is the true 'lakshana'. This is generally of two types: one is 'dravyasat' (real existence), and the other is 'prajnasat' (conceptual existence). This is established according to 'samvriti-satya' (conventional truth) and 'paramartha-satya' (ultimate truth). If awareness can arise within it without relying on any conditions, this is a 'real lakshana', such as 'rupa' (form, material phenomenon), 'vedana' (feeling, sensation), etc. If awareness can arise within it only by relying on other conditions, this is a 'conceptual lakshana', such as a pot, an army, etc. Some people establish a third type beyond this, namely 'dependent existence', such as 'this shore' and 'that shore'. This is actually included in the previous two types of 'existence'; although the names are different, the meanings they refer to are not different. Moreover, their adhered-to view contradicts the Sutra, as the Sutra only speaks of two types of 'existence'. 'Real existence' is again of two types; what are these two? One is 'existence of essence only', and the other is 'existence of...
【English Translation】 English translation line 1 English translation line 2
作用。此有作用復有二種一有功能。二功能闕。由此已釋唯有體者。假有亦二其二者何。一者依實。二者依假。此二如次如瓶如軍。諸聖教中總集一切說有言教。略有四種。一實物有。二緣合有。三成就有。四因性有。如契經說有色無常。我于其中等隨知見。又如經說世間所無。我知我見無有是處如是等文說實物有。如契經說。要由有樹方得有影。汝等苾芻若有和合。更無有師與我等者。如是等文說緣合有如契經說。有隨俱行善根未斷又如經言有內眼結。又如經說彼二無暖。又如經說非有愛者名有眼人。如是等文說成就有。如契經說此有彼有此無彼無如是等文說因性有。如契經說無有淤泥。如諸欲者設欲施設終無理趣。如是等教說畢竟無。非諸唯執有現世者。能具正辯聖教有言。如斯理趣后當具顯。是謂我宗所辯有相譬喻論者作如是言。此亦未為真實有相許非有亦能為境生覺故。謂必應許非有亦能為境生覺。旋火輪我二覺生時境非有故又有遍處等勝解作意故。若一切覺皆有所緣。是則應無勝解作意。又幻網中說緣非有見故。又契經說知非有故。如契經言。于無慾欲則能如實了知為無。又諸世間夢中翳目多月識等境非有故。又于非有了知為無。此覺以何為所緣境又若緣聲先非有者。此能緣覺為何所緣。是故應知有及非有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 作用。此有作用復有兩種：一，有功能；二，功能闕如。由此已經解釋了唯有實體的情況。假有也分為兩種：第一種是依附於實體的，第二種是依附於假象的。這兩種情況分別像瓶子和軍隊一樣。在所有聖教中，總括一切關於『有』的言教，大致有四種：一，實物有（指真實存在的物體）；二，緣合有（指因緣和合而產生的現象）；三，成就有（指通過修行或某種行為而成就的狀態）；四，因性有（指作為原因而存在的性質）。例如，在契經中說：『色是無常的，我于其中等隨知見。』又如經中說：『世間所無，我知我見無有是處。』這些經文說的是實物有。例如，契經中說：『要由有樹，方得有影。汝等比丘，若有和合，更無有師與我等者。』這些經文說的是緣合有。例如，契經中說：『有隨俱行善根未斷。』又如經中說：『有內眼結。』又如經中說：『彼二無暖。』又如經中說：『非有愛者，名有眼人。』這些經文說的是成就有。例如，契經中說：『此有彼有，此無彼無。』這些經文說的是因性有。例如，契經中說：『無有淤泥，如諸欲者設欲施設，終無理趣。』這些教義說的是畢竟無。那些只執著于現世存在的人，不能完全正確地辨析聖教中關於『有』的言論。這些道理以後會詳細闡述。這就是我宗所辨析的『有』的相狀。譬喻論者這樣說：『這還不能算是真實的『有』的相狀，因為『非有』也能作為對像產生覺知。』也就是說，必須承認『非有』也能作為對像產生覺知。比如，旋轉的火輪和『我』的第二種覺知產生時，其對象並非真實存在。此外，還有遍處等勝解作意。如果一切覺知都有所緣，那麼就不應該有勝解作意。而且，幻網中說的是緣于非有而見。此外，契經中也說要『知非有』。例如，契經中說：『于無慾，欲則能如實了知為無。』此外，世間夢中、翳目、多月識等的對象都不是真實存在的。而且，對於『非有』，了知其為『無』，那麼這種覺知以什麼作為所緣境呢？此外，如果緣聲在先不是存在的，那麼這種能緣的覺知又以什麼作為所緣呢？所以，應該知道『有』和『非有』。
【English Translation】 English version Action. This action has two types: first, having function; second, lacking function. Thus, the case of only having substance has been explained. Hypothetical existence is also divided into two types: the first is dependent on reality, and the second is dependent on illusion. These two cases are like a vase and an army, respectively. In all the sacred teachings, summarizing all the teachings about 'existence,' there are roughly four types: first, real existence (referring to truly existing objects); second, conditional existence (referring to phenomena arising from the combination of conditions); third, accomplished existence (referring to states achieved through practice or certain actions); fourth, causal existence (referring to the nature of being a cause). For example, in the Sutras, it is said: 'Form is impermanent, and I understand and see it accordingly.' Also, as the Sutra says: 'What does not exist in the world, I know and see that there is no such place.' These Sutra passages speak of real existence. For example, the Sutra says: 'Only when there is a tree can there be a shadow. You monks, if there is harmony, there will be no teacher equal to me.' These Sutra passages speak of conditional existence. For example, the Sutra says: 'There are accompanying good roots that have not been severed.' Also, as the Sutra says: 'There is an internal eye knot.' Also, as the Sutra says: 'Those two are without warmth.' Also, as the Sutra says: 'Those without attachment are called people with eyes.' These Sutra passages speak of accomplished existence. For example, the Sutra says: 'This exists, that exists; this does not exist, that does not exist.' These Sutra passages speak of causal existence. For example, the Sutra says: 'There is no mud, and if those with desires try to create it, there is ultimately no reason.' These teachings speak of absolute non-existence. Those who only cling to the existence of the present world cannot fully and correctly discern the statements about 'existence' in the sacred teachings. These principles will be explained in detail later. This is the aspect of 'existence' that my school analyzes. The example theorists say: 'This cannot be considered a true aspect of 'existence' because 'non-existence' can also serve as an object to generate awareness.' That is, it must be admitted that 'non-existence' can also serve as an object to generate awareness. For example, when the rotating fire wheel and the second awareness of 'I' arise, their objects do not truly exist. Furthermore, there are the superior comprehension mental activities such as the spheres of pervasion. If all awareness has an object, then there should be no superior comprehension mental activity. Moreover, the illusion net speaks of seeing based on non-existence. Furthermore, the Sutras also say to 'know non-existence.' For example, the Sutra says: 'Regarding non-desire, desire can truly be known as non-existent.' Furthermore, the objects of dreams, blurred vision, and multiple moon perceptions in the world are not truly existing. Moreover, knowing 'non-existence' as 'non-existence,' then what serves as the object of this awareness? Furthermore, if the sound being cognized did not exist beforehand, then what serves as the object of this cognizing awareness? Therefore, it should be known that 'existence' and 'non-existence'...
。二種皆能為境生覺故此所說非真有相。對法諸師作如是說。無無境覺二緣定故。以契經中說六種覺。皆決定有所依所緣。謂眼覺生依眼緣色至意覺生依意緣法。無第七覺離境而生。可執彼為緣無境覺。若許有覺離境而生。亦應許有離所依覺。則應生盲等有眼等。覺生差別因緣不可得故。又非無法可說名為是六境中隨一所攝故執有覺緣無而生。違理背教極為疏野。有餘於此作是難言。若見少分有所緣覺。謂一切覺皆有所緣。既見少分緣去來覺。應眼等覺亦緣去來。若不許然亦不應許。以見少分有所緣覺。謂一切覺皆有所緣。是故不應立斯比量。或立便有不定過失。故無境覺實有極成。此但有言都無理趣。要由有境為別所緣。覺方有殊如眼等覺。謂如現在差別境中。眼等覺生而非一切。皆以一切現在為境。如是于有差別境中。一切覺生而非一切。皆以一切有法為境。又見少分有所緣覺。彼此極成以此例余。皆應有境可無過失。不見少分無所緣覺。彼此極成如何能證。有覺無境可無過失。然譬喻者先作是言。有非有皆能為境生覺者此不應理。覺對所覺要有所覺覺方成故。謂能得境方立覺名。所得若無誰之能得。又能了境是識自性。所識若無識何所了。故彼所許無所緣識。應不名識無所了故。夫言非有謂體都無。無必越于自
相共相。何名所覺或所識耶。若謂即無是所覺識。不爾覺識必有境故。謂諸所有心心所法。唯以自相共相為境。非都無法為境而生。辯涅槃中已略顯示。又執有覺緣無境生。此覺應是狂亂性故。謂執有覺無境論者。彼所執有緣無境覺。此覺定應狂亂為性。如世尊說。世間所無我若觀之我應狂亂。非薄伽梵有狂亂理。故知定無緣無境覺。理不應說容有少分。可生心處非佛所緣。又必定無緣無境覺說。無不可知及不可得故。如契經說前際不可知。又契經言。作者不可得。此意顯覺必定有境。以彼無故不可知得。若許有覺緣無境生。前際應可知作者。應可得無所有中無障礙故。亦不可說于非有中。少分是境少分非境。以此非有與彼非有。不可說言有勝劣故。又說定無知見無故。如契經說世間所無。我知我見無有是處。經主釋此契經義言。意說他人懷增上慢。亦于非有現相謂有。我唯于有方觀為有。若異此者則一切覺皆有所緣何緣于境得有猶豫。或有差別如是解釋。但率己情非於非有。有所現相如何可說。增上慢人亦于非有現相觀有。若於非有可得現相。于第十三處應現相。可得如是所說非有之相。超十二種所知聚故。定無有能觀彼相者理趣闕故。經意不然理實應言增上慢者。亦于未現相謂已現相。我唯于現相觀為現相。理應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 相共相（共同的特徵）。什麼叫做所覺或所識呢？如果說沒有東西是所覺識，那是不對的，因為覺識必定有其對象。所謂一切心和心所法，都只以自相（自身的特徵）和共相（共同的特徵）作為對象，不是在沒有任何對象的情況下產生。在《辯涅槃經》中已經略微顯示了這個道理。而且，如果認為有覺（認知）產生而沒有對象，那麼這種覺就應該是狂亂的。也就是說，那些認為有認知產生而沒有對象的人，他們所認為的這種認知，一定是狂亂的。正如世尊所說：『世間所沒有的，如果我觀察它，我應該會狂亂。』薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛的稱號）不可能有狂亂的情況，所以可以知道一定沒有認知產生而沒有對象。不應該說可能有少部分認知產生而沒有對象。可以產生心的處所不是佛所緣的。而且，必定沒有認知產生而沒有對象，因為沒有不可知和不可得的東西。如契經所說：『前際（過去）是不可知的。』又如契經所說：『作者（造物者）是不可得的。』這意思是說，認知必定有對象，因為沒有對象，所以不可知、不可得。如果允許有認知產生而沒有對象，那麼前際就應該是可知的，作者就應該是可得的，因為在空無所有中沒有障礙。也不能說在非有（不存在）之中，少部分是對象，少部分不是對象，因為這種非有和那種非有，不能說有勝劣之分。又說一定沒有知見，因為沒有這樣的地方。如契經所說：『世間所沒有的，我知道我見到，沒有這樣的地方。』經的作者解釋這段經文的意義說：意思是說，其他人懷著增上慢（未得謂得，未證謂證），對於不存在的現象也認為是存在的。我只對於存在的現象才認為是存在的。如果不是這樣，那麼一切認知都應該有所緣，為什麼對於對像會有猶豫或有差別呢？這樣的解釋只是按照自己的想法，對於不存在的現象，怎麼能說有所顯現呢？懷著增上慢的人，對於不存在的現象也認為是存在的。如果在非有之中可以得到顯現，那麼在第十三處（超出十二處之外的地方）應該可以得到顯現。可以得到這樣所說的非有的現象，超過了十二種所知聚（認識的集合），一定沒有人能夠觀察到那種現象，因為缺乏道理。經文的意思不是這樣，正確的說法應該是，懷著增上慢的人，對於沒有顯現的現象認為是已經顯現的。我只對於已經顯現的現象才認為是已經顯現的，這才是道理。
【English Translation】 English version What is called 'that which is perceived' or 'that which is cognized'? If it is said that there is nothing that is perceived or cognized, that is not correct, because cognition must have an object. All mental events (citta) and mental factors (cetasika) only take their own characteristics (svalaksana) and common characteristics (samanya-laksana) as objects; they do not arise without any object at all. This has been briefly shown in the Debate on Nirvana Sutra. Moreover, if one asserts that cognition arises without an object, then that cognition should be of a deluded nature. That is, those who assert that cognition arises without an object, that cognition they assert must be of a deluded nature. As the World-Honored One said: 'If I were to observe what does not exist in the world, I would be driven mad.' It is impossible for the Bhagavan (Buddha) to be deluded, so it is known that there is definitely no cognition that arises without an object. It should not be said that there could be a small portion of cognition that arises without an object. A place where the mind can arise is not what the Buddha cognizes. Moreover, it is certain that there is no cognition that arises without an object, because there is nothing unknowable or unattainable. As the sutra says: 'The beginning of time is unknowable.' And as the sutra says: 'The creator is unattainable.' This means that cognition must have an object, because without an object, it is unknowable and unattainable. If it is allowed that cognition arises without an object, then the beginning of time should be knowable, and the creator should be attainable, because there is no obstruction in emptiness. It also cannot be said that in non-existence, a small portion is an object and a small portion is not an object, because this non-existence and that non-existence cannot be said to have superiority or inferiority. Furthermore, it is said that there is definitely no knowledge or vision, because there is no such place. As the sutra says: 'There is no place in the world where I know and I see what does not exist.' The author of the sutra explains the meaning of this sutra as follows: It means that others, harboring conceit (thinking they have attained what they have not, or realized what they have not), consider even non-existent phenomena to be existent. I only consider existent phenomena to be existent. If it were otherwise, then all cognitions should have an object, so why would there be hesitation or difference regarding the object? Such an explanation is merely according to one's own feelings; how can it be said that there is a manifestation in non-existence? Those who harbor conceit also consider non-existent phenomena to be existent. If a manifestation could be obtained in non-existence, then a manifestation should be obtainable in the thirteenth place (a place beyond the twelve sense bases). Such a so-called phenomenon of non-existence could be obtained, exceeding the twelve aggregates of knowledge, and certainly no one could observe that phenomenon, because the reasoning is lacking. The meaning of the sutra is not like that; the correct way to say it is that those who harbor conceit consider phenomena that have not manifested to have already manifested. I only consider phenomena that have already manifested to be already manifested; that is the correct reasoning.
容有顛倒境智。必無有智無境而生。故一切覺皆緣有境。由此于境得有猶豫。謂我於此所見境中為是正知為是顛倒。即由此故差別理成。同有相中見有別故。非無與有少有相同。如何于中得有差別。唯于有法有差別故。但于有境覺有差別故。唯有境覺有差別理成。非於有無可辯差別。經主於此重決斷言理必應然。以薄伽梵于余處說。善來苾芻汝等若能為我弟子。無諂無誑有信有勤。我旦教汝令暮獲勝。我暮教汝令旦獲勝。便知薩是薩非薩是非薩。彼謂此顯知有無義。由不詳審故作是言。此中薩聲正顯妙義。非薩聲顯非妙義故。謂有世間由邪教力。令其弟子起顛倒解。非妙謂妙妙謂非妙。佛則不然由正教力。令諸弟子解無顛倒。于妙不妙能如實知。如是名為此中經意理必應爾故。次復言有上是有上。無上是無上。勿有謂上知薩非薩言。正顯弟子知有非有義故。次後復說知有上無上。為令解上知薩非薩言。正顯弟子知妙非妙義。言妙非妙者是無失有失。有失是有上無失是無上。故有上無上顯妙非妙義。或為顯此妙非妙中有勝有劣。故復為說有上無上令其了知。若作如斯釋經義者。顯佛說法有大義利。謂令弟子于諸法中了妙非妙勝劣差別。能于諸法發大正勤。有斷有修逮殊勝法。非唯令知有及非有。可名說法有大義利。又此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 容許有顛倒的境和智，但絕不會有無境而生的智。因此，一切覺知都依賴於所緣的境。正因為如此，對於境才會有猶豫，例如，『我對於所見的這個境，是正確的認知還是顛倒的認知？』正是因為這樣，差別的道理才能成立，因為在相同的現象中，人們的見解會有不同。如果『有』和『無』之間沒有絲毫相同之處，又如何能產生差別呢？只有在『有』的法中，才會有差別；只有對於『有』的境的覺知，才會有差別。因此，只有對於『有』的境的覺知，差別的道理才能成立，而不是在『有』和『無』之間辨別差別。 經主在此重申，這個道理必然是這樣的。因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在其他地方說過：『善來的比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教出家男眾），你們如果能做我的弟子，沒有諂媚，沒有欺騙，有信心，有精進，我早上教導你們，讓你們晚上就能獲得殊勝的成就；我晚上教導你們，讓你們早上就能獲得殊勝的成就。』這樣就能知道『薩』（Sat，真，實有）是『薩』，『非薩』（Asat，非真，虛無）是『非薩』。他們認為這顯示了知『有』和『無』的意義。由於沒有詳細審察，所以這樣說。這裡『薩』的聲音，正是顯示『妙』的意義，因為『非薩』的聲音，顯示的不是『妙』的意義。也就是說，有些世間人，由於邪教的力量，使他們的弟子產生顛倒的理解，把非妙的當成妙的，把妙的當成非妙的。佛陀則不是這樣，佛陀通過正教的力量，使弟子們理解沒有顛倒，對於妙和非妙，能夠如實地瞭解。像這樣才是這段經文的意義，道理必然是這樣的。 接下來又說，『有上』（superior）是『有上』，『無上』（unsurpassed）是『無上』。不要認為『知薩非薩』這句話，只是顯示弟子知道『有』和『非有』的意義。接下來又說，知道『有上』和『無上』，是爲了讓理解『知薩非薩』這句話，正是顯示弟子知道『妙』和『非妙』的意義。說『妙』和『非妙』，就是『有失』和『無失』，『有失』是『有上』，『無失』是『無上』。所以『有上』和『無上』顯示的是『妙』和『非妙』的意義。或者爲了顯示這『妙』和『非妙』之中，有殊勝和低劣的差別，所以又說了『有上』和『無上』，讓人們瞭解。 如果這樣解釋經文的意義，就顯示了佛陀說法有很大的意義和利益，就是讓弟子們對於諸法，瞭解妙和非妙、殊勝和低劣的差別，能夠在諸法中發起大的精進，有斷除，有修習，獲得殊勝的法。如果僅僅是讓人們知道『有』和『非有』，不能稱之為說法有很大的意義和利益。還有，這個...
【English Translation】 English version There can be inverted states of object (境, viṣaya) and wisdom (智, jñāna), but there can never be wisdom arising without an object. Therefore, all awareness is dependent on an object. Because of this, there is hesitation regarding the object, such as, 'Is my perception of this object correct knowledge or inverted knowledge?' It is precisely because of this that the principle of differentiation is established, because views differ even within the same phenomena. If there is no similarity whatsoever between 'being' (有, bhāva) and 'non-being' (無, abhāva), how can there be differentiation? Only within the dharma (法, dharma) of 'being' can there be differentiation; only in the awareness of the object of 'being' can there be differentiation. Therefore, only in the awareness of the object of 'being' can the principle of differentiation be established, not in distinguishing between 'being' and 'non-being'. The master of the scripture (經主) reiterates here that this principle must be so. Because the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, Bhagavān, the Blessed One) said elsewhere: 'Welcome, Bhikkhus (苾芻, Buddhist monks)! If you can be my disciples, without flattery, without deceit, with faith, and with diligence, I will teach you in the morning so that you can attain supreme achievement in the evening; I will teach you in the evening so that you can attain supreme achievement in the morning.' Then you will know that 'Sat' (薩, Sat, truth, reality) is 'Sat', and 'Asat' (非薩, Asat, non-truth, unreality) is 'Asat'. They think this reveals the meaning of knowing 'being' and 'non-being'. Because of not examining in detail, they say this. Here, the sound of 'Sat' precisely reveals the meaning of 'wonderful' (妙, adbhuta), because the sound of 'Asat' does not reveal the meaning of 'wonderful'. That is to say, some people in the world, due to the power of false teachings, cause their disciples to have inverted understandings, considering the non-wonderful as wonderful, and the wonderful as non-wonderful. The Buddha (佛) is not like this; the Buddha, through the power of correct teachings, enables disciples to understand without inversion, and to truly understand the wonderful and the non-wonderful. This is the meaning of this scripture, and the principle must be so. Next, it is said, 'Superior' (有上, sa-uttara) is 'superior', 'unsurpassed' (無上, an-uttara) is 'unsurpassed'. Do not think that the phrase 'knowing Sat and Asat' only reveals the meaning of disciples knowing 'being' and 'non-being'. Next, it is said that knowing 'superior' and 'unsurpassed' is to enable understanding that the phrase 'knowing Sat and Asat' precisely reveals the meaning of disciples knowing 'wonderful' and 'non-wonderful'. Saying 'wonderful' and 'non-wonderful' is 'having fault' (有失) and 'having no fault' (無失), 'having fault' is 'superior', 'having no fault' is 'unsurpassed'. Therefore, 'superior' and 'unsurpassed' reveal the meaning of 'wonderful' and 'non-wonderful'. Or, in order to show that within this 'wonderful' and 'non-wonderful', there are differences of excellence and inferiority, 'superior' and 'unsurpassed' are spoken again to enable understanding. If the meaning of the scripture is explained in this way, it shows that the Buddha's teaching has great meaning and benefit, which is to enable disciples to understand the differences between wonderful and non-wonderful, excellence and inferiority, in all dharmas, and to generate great diligence in all dharmas, having abandonment and cultivation, and attaining supreme dharmas. If it is only to let people know 'being' and 'non-being', it cannot be called teaching with great meaning and benefit. Also, this...
經文前後所說。無不皆與我釋相符。謂此經中前作是說。若有諸法令諸有情。能證不能證彼彼勝解跡。如來於中得無所畏。能正了知如是諸法。云何於此能正了知。謂正了知如是諸法。此于彼彼勝解跡中。有能作證有不能者。于正了知得無畏者。以善通達諸法性故。此中意顯佛知諸法。此是能障礙此是出離道。于如是法無倒了知。經次復言。若有於我正師子吼。有惑有疑善來苾芻。乃至廣說。於此經后復作是言。苾芻當知。此是定道。此非定道。乃至廣說。是故經主所釋經義極為迷謬意趣粗淺于緣無識為證不成。故說定無知見無故。無緣無覺其理極成。又彼所言自相違害。謂說有覺非有為境。若覺有境則不應言此境非有。若境非有則不應言此覺有境。以非有者是都無故。若謂此覺境體都無。則應直言此覺無境。何所怯怖懷諂詐心。矯說有覺非有為境。是故定無緣非有覺。又彼所說旋火輪我。二覺生時境非有者。亦不應理許二覺生。如人等覺亦有境故。謂如世間于遠闇處。見杌色已便起人覺。作如是說。我今見人。非所見人少有實體。非所起覺緣無境生。即以杌色為所緣故。若不爾者何不亦于無杌等處起此人覺。旋火輪覺理亦應然。謂輪覺生非全無境。即火㷮色速于余方周旋而生為此覺境。然火㷮色體實非輪。而覺生時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經文前後所說，沒有不與我的解釋相符的。經中前面這樣說：『如果有各種法能夠使有情眾生，能證得或不能證得種種不同的勝解（adhimoksha，深刻的理解）的途徑，如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一）對此能夠無所畏懼，能夠正確地瞭解這些法。』如何才能正確地瞭解這些法呢？就是正確地瞭解這些法，在種種不同的勝解途徑中，哪些能夠作證，哪些不能。對於正確瞭解而得到無畏的人，是因為他善於通達諸法的自性。這裡的意思是說，佛知道各種法，哪些是障礙，哪些是出離之道，對於這些法能夠毫無顛倒地瞭解。 經中接著又說：『如果有人對我作真正的獅子吼（simhanada，比喻佛陀的教法如獅子吼般威猛），有疑惑的善來比丘（bhiksu，出家修行的男子），』乃至廣說。在這部經的後面又這樣說：『比丘們應當知道，這是定的道路，這不是定的道路，』乃至廣說。因此，經的主講者所解釋的經義極其迷惑，意趣粗淺，對於因緣沒有認識，作為證據不能成立。所以說，確定沒有知見，因為沒有因緣，沒有覺知，這個道理非常成立。而且他所說的話自相矛盾，說有覺知，但不是以有為法（samskrta，由因緣和合而成的法）為對象。如果覺知以有為法為對象，就不應該說這個對像不是實在的。如果對像不是實在的，就不應該說這個覺知以這個對像為對象。因為非實在的東西是完全沒有的。如果說這個覺知的對象體性完全沒有，就應該直接說這個覺知沒有對象，為什麼要害怕，懷著諂媚欺詐的心，虛假地說有覺知，但不是以有為法為對象。所以確定沒有緣于非實在之物的覺知。 而且他所說的旋轉的火輪（alata-cakra，快速旋轉的火把造成的視覺現象）和我（atman，通常指個體靈魂或自我）的覺知產生時，對像不是實在的，也是不合道理的。應當承認這兩種覺知是產生的，就像人覺一樣也有對象。比如世間的人在遠處昏暗的地方，看到樹樁的顏色后，就產生人的覺知，這樣說：『我現在看到人了。』但所看到的人很少有實體，並非所產生的覺知是緣于沒有對象的而產生的，而是以樹樁的顏色作為所緣的對象。如果不是這樣，為什麼不在沒有樹樁等的地方也產生這種人覺呢？旋轉的火輪的覺知道理也應該這樣。就是輪的覺知產生並非完全沒有對象，而是火的㷮色快速地在其他方向上旋轉而產生，作為這個覺知的對象。然而火的㷮色體性實際上不是輪，而覺知產生時
【English Translation】 English version: What is said before and after the sutra is entirely in accordance with my interpretation. The sutra states earlier: 'If there are various dharmas that can enable sentient beings to attain or not attain various distinct paths of profound understanding (adhimoksha), the Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha) can be fearless about this and can correctly understand these dharmas.' How can one correctly understand these dharmas? It is by correctly understanding these dharmas, knowing which of the various distinct paths of profound understanding can lead to realization and which cannot. One who attains fearlessness through correct understanding does so because they are skilled in comprehending the nature of all dharmas. The meaning here is that the Buddha knows all dharmas, which are obstacles and which are paths to liberation, and has a non-inverted understanding of these dharmas. The sutra then continues: 'If anyone roars a true lion's roar (simhanada) at me, a well-come bhikshu (a male monastic practitioner) with doubts,' and so on. Later in this sutra, it is stated: 'Bhikkhus should know, this is the path of samadhi (concentration), this is not the path of samadhi,' and so on. Therefore, the sutra's speaker's interpretation of the sutra's meaning is extremely confusing, the intention is shallow, and the lack of recognition of conditions cannot be established as evidence. Therefore, it is said that there is definitely no knowledge or perception, because there is no condition, no awareness; this principle is very well established. Moreover, what he says is self-contradictory, saying there is awareness, but it is not directed towards conditioned phenomena (samskrta). If awareness is directed towards conditioned phenomena, then it should not be said that this object is not real. If the object is not real, then it should not be said that this awareness is directed towards this object. Because what is unreal is completely non-existent. If it is said that the essence of this awareness's object is completely non-existent, then it should be said directly that this awareness has no object. Why be afraid, harboring a flattering and deceitful mind, falsely saying there is awareness, but it is not directed towards conditioned phenomena? Therefore, there is definitely no awareness that is conditioned by non-existent things. Moreover, what he says about the awareness of a rotating fire wheel (alata-cakra, a visual phenomenon caused by a rapidly rotating torch) and the self (atman, usually referring to the individual soul or self) arising when the object is not real is also unreasonable. It should be admitted that these two types of awareness do arise, just like the awareness of a person also has an object. For example, when people in the world see the color of a tree stump in a distant, dark place, they develop the awareness of a person, saying: 'I see a person now.' But the person seen has very little substance, and the awareness that arises is not conditioned by the absence of an object, but by the color of the tree stump as the object of awareness. If this were not the case, why wouldn't this awareness of a person arise in places where there are no tree stumps, etc.? The principle of the awareness of a rotating fire wheel should also be like this. That is, the awareness of a wheel arises not entirely without an object, but the color of the fire's embers rotates rapidly in other directions, serving as the object of this awareness. However, the essence of the fire's embers is not actually a wheel, but when awareness arises
謂為輪者。是覺于境行相顛倒。非此輪覺緣無境生。我覺亦應準此而釋。謂此我覺即緣色等蘊為境故。唯有行相非我謂我顛倒而生。非謂所緣亦有顛倒。故契經說苾芻當知。世間沙門婆羅門等。諸有執我等隨觀見一切唯於五取蘊起。理必緣蘊而起我見。以于諸蘊如實見時。一切我見皆永斷故。勝解作意準此應知謂瑜伽師見少相已。自勝解力于所見中。起廣行相生如是覺。此覺即緣諸蘊為境。住空閑者作如是言。如是相生是勝定果。謂勝定力于定位中。引廣相生如所變化。又彼所言幻網中說。緣非有見理亦不然。即彼經中說緣有故。謂彼經說見幻事者。雖所執無非無幻相。若不許爾幻相應無。幻相是何謂幻術果。如神通者所化作色。如是幻相有實顯形。從幻術生能為見境。所執實事是畢竟無。故彼經中說為非有。由諸幻事有相無實。能惑亂他名能亂眼。又引經說知非有故。如契經言。于無慾欲。則能如實了知無者。此亦不然知對治故。又約斷滅說為無故。謂彼永斷說為彼無。非此無言顯無體性。又說世間夢中翳目多月識等境非有者理亦不然。且夢中識緣非有境非極成故。謂由將睡計度思惟。或正睡時天神加被。或由身內諸界互違。故睡位中於過去境。起追念覺說之為夢。過去非有理不極成。如何引證有緣無覺。夢所見境
【現代漢語翻譯】 所謂『輪』（chakra）是指對於境界的覺知，其行相是顛倒的。但並非說這種『輪』的覺知是緣于無境而生。我對『我』（ātman）的覺知也應該按照這個原則來解釋。也就是說，這種『我』的覺知是緣於色、受、想、行、識五蘊（pañca-skandha）為境界的。它僅僅具有行相上的顛倒，而非說所緣的境界也有顛倒。所以契經（sūtra）中說，『比丘（bhikṣu），你應該知道，世間的沙門（śrāmaṇa）、婆羅門（brāhmaṇa）等，所有執著于『我』的人，都是隨順於五取蘊（pañca-upādāna-skandha）而生起的。』從道理上說，必定是緣於五蘊而生起『我見』（ātma-dṛṣṭi）。因為當如實地觀察五蘊時，一切『我見』都會永遠斷除。 對於『勝解作意』（adhimokṣa-manaskāra），也應該按照這個原則來理解。也就是說，瑜伽師（yogācāra）在見到少量現象后，憑藉自己的勝解力，在所見到的事物中，生起廣大的行相，產生這樣的覺知。這種覺知是緣于諸蘊為境界的。住在空閑處的人會這樣說：『這樣的現象產生是殊勝禪定（dhyāna）的結果。』也就是說，憑藉殊勝禪定的力量，在禪定中，引生廣大的行相，就像變化出來的事物一樣。而且他們所說的在幻網（māyājāla）中說，緣于非有而見，這個道理也是不成立的。因為那部經中說了是緣于『有』（bhāva）的。那部經中說，見到幻事的人，雖然所執著的事物是『無』（abhāva），但並非沒有幻相。如果不允許這樣說，那麼幻相就應該不存在了。幻相是什麼呢？是幻術（māyā）的結果。就像神通（ṛddhi）者所變化出來的色（rūpa）一樣。這樣的幻相有真實的顯現，從幻術產生，能夠成為見（darśana）的境界。所執著的真實事物，是畢竟空無的。所以那部經中說它是『非有』。由於各種幻事有相而無實，能夠迷惑他人，所以叫做『能亂眼』。 又引用經文說，『知道非有』，就像契經所說，『對於無慾（niricchatā）生起欲（icchatā），就能如實了知無（abhāva）』。這也是不成立的，因為這是爲了對治（pratipakṣa）的緣故。而且這是就斷滅（uccheda）來說『無』的緣故。也就是說，將永遠斷除說成是『彼無』，並非說這個『無』字顯示了沒有體性。 又說世間上，夢中、翳目（timira）、多月（dvai-cāndra）等，識（vijñāna）所緣的境界是非有的，這個道理也是不成立的。且說夢中的識緣于非有的境界，這個道理並不極成。因為由於將要入睡時的計度思惟，或者正在睡覺時天神的加被，或者由於身體內部諸界的互相違背，所以在睡眠狀態中，對於過去的境界，生起追念的覺知，稱之為夢。過去的境界並非『有』，這個道理並不極成。如何能引證有緣于『無』的覺知呢？夢中所見的境界。
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese version: The so-called 'wheel' (chakra) refers to the awareness of objects, the characteristics of which are inverted. However, it is not that this awareness of the 'wheel' arises from the absence of objects. My awareness of 'self' (ātman) should also be explained according to this principle. That is, this awareness of 'self' arises from the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) of form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness as its object. It only has inversion in its characteristics, not that the object also has inversion. Therefore, the sutra (sūtra) says, 'Bhikkhus (bhikṣu), you should know that all those in the world, such as śrāmaṇas (śrāmaṇa) and brāhmaṇas (brāhmaṇa), who are attached to 'self' arise in accordance with the five aggregates of clinging (pañca-upādāna-skandha).' Logically, the view of 'self' (ātma-dṛṣṭi) must arise from the five aggregates. Because when the five aggregates are observed truthfully, all views of 'self' will be permanently cut off. The 'resolution-intention' (adhimokṣa-manaskāra) should also be understood according to this principle. That is, after a yogi (yogācāra) sees a small number of phenomena, relying on his own power of resolution, he generates vast characteristics in what he sees, producing such awareness. This awareness arises from the aggregates as its object. Those who live in secluded places will say: 'The emergence of such phenomena is the result of superior meditation (dhyāna).' That is, by the power of superior meditation, vast characteristics are generated in meditation, just like things that are transformed. Moreover, what they say in the net of illusion (māyājāla), that seeing arises from the absence of existence, is also not valid. Because that sutra says that it arises from 'existence' (bhāva). That sutra says that those who see illusory things, although what they are attached to is 'non-existence' (abhāva), it is not that there is no illusory appearance. If this is not allowed, then the illusory appearance should not exist. What is the illusory appearance? It is the result of illusion (māyā). It is like the form (rūpa) transformed by those with supernatural powers (ṛddhi). Such illusory appearances have real manifestations, arise from illusion, and can become the object of seeing (darśana). The real things that are clung to are ultimately empty. Therefore, that sutra says that it is 'non-existence'. Because various illusory things have appearance but no reality, they can confuse others, so they are called 'eye-confusing'. Furthermore, quoting the sutra, 'knowing non-existence', just as the sutra says, 'If desire (icchatā) arises for non-desire (niricchatā), one can truly know non-existence (abhāva)'. This is also not valid, because it is for the sake of counteracting (pratipakṣa). Moreover, it is because 'non-existence' is spoken of in terms of annihilation (uccheda). That is, saying that permanent cessation is 'that non-existence' does not mean that the word 'non-existence' shows that there is no essence. Furthermore, saying that the objects of consciousness (vijñāna) in the world, such as in dreams, blurred vision (timira), and double moon (dvai-cāndra), are non-existent is also not valid. Moreover, saying that the consciousness in dreams arises from non-existent objects is not well-established. Because due to the deliberation and thought when about to fall asleep, or the blessing of the gods while sleeping, or due to the mutual conflict of the elements within the body, in the state of sleep, a recollection of past objects arises, which is called a dream. The principle that past objects are 'existent' is not well-established. How can it be cited as evidence that awareness arises from 'non-existence'? The objects seen in dreams.
皆所曾更。然所曾更非唯所見。如菩薩夢是所曾聞。而有夢中見兔角者。曾於異處見兔見角。令于夢中由心惛倒。謂於一處和合追憶。或大海中有此形獸曾見聞故今夢追憶。所餘夢境準此應思。故夢不能證緣無覺。依翳目識境亦非無。謂此識生亦緣形顯。由根有翳取境不明。故於境中起顛倒解。行相雖倒境實非無。以翳目人要有色處。見種種相非色全無。異此則應無色處見。緣多月識境亦非無。謂眼識生但見一月。由根變異發識不明。迷亂覺生謂有多月。非謂此覺緣非有生。即以月輪為所緣境。若不爾者無處應見。既無月處此識不生。故此即緣月輪為境。然夢等識緣有境生行相分明有差別故。如覺等位緣青等心。寧引證成有緣無識言于非有了知為無。此覺以何為所緣者。此緣遮有能詮而生。非即以無為所緣境。謂遮于有能詮名言。即是說無能詮差別。故於非有能詮名言。若了覺生便作無解。是故此覺非緣無生。豈不說無能詮是有。如何了覺撥彼為無。非了覺生撥名言體。但能了彼所詮為無。謂了覺生緣遮有境。不以非有為境而生。何等名為能遮有境。謂于非有所起能詮。此覺既緣能詮為境。不應執此緣無境生理必應爾。如世間說非婆羅門及無常等。雖遮余有而體非無。此中智生緣遮梵志及常等性。能詮所詮即此能詮能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這些都是曾經經歷過的。然而，曾經經歷過的不僅僅是所見。例如，菩薩的夢是曾經聽聞過的，但有人在夢中見到兔角。這是因為曾經在其他地方見過兔子和角，在夢中由於心識昏亂，認為它們在一個地方結合並回憶起來。或者，大海中存在這種形狀的野獸，曾經見過或聽聞過，所以現在在夢中回憶起來。其餘的夢境也應該按照這個思路來思考。因此，夢不能證明緣起是無覺的。 依靠翳眼（有眼疾的眼睛）所產生的識，其所緣的境也不是不存在的。這是因為這種識的產生也依賴於形狀和顯色。由於眼根有翳障，所以取境不明，因此在境中產生顛倒的理解。雖然行相是顛倒的，但境的實體並非不存在。因為翳眼的人一定會在有色之處見到種種相，而不是完全沒有色。如果不是這樣，就應該在沒有色之處也能見到東西了。 緣于多月（看到多個月亮）的識，其所緣的境也不是不存在的。這是因為眼識產生時，本來只能見到一個月亮，但由於根的變異，導致識不清晰，產生了迷亂的覺知，認為有多個月亮。但這並不是說這種覺知是緣于不存在的事物而產生的，而是以月輪為所緣境。如果不是這樣，那麼在沒有月亮的地方也應該能見到月亮。既然沒有月亮，這種識就不會產生。所以，這種識就是緣于月輪為境。 然而，夢等識是緣于存在的境而產生的，並且行相分明，有差別。就像覺等位是緣于青色等心一樣。怎麼能引用這些來證明有緣于不存在的識呢？如果說對於不存在的事物有知，認為『無』也是一種了知，那麼這種了知是以什麼為所緣的呢？這種了知是緣于遮遣『有』的能詮（能表達『有』的語言符號）而產生的，而不是直接以『無』為所緣境。也就是說，遮遣對於『有』的能詮名言，就是說明『無』的能詮差別。因此，如果了知覺產生，就理解為『無』。所以，這種覺不是緣于『無』而產生的。 難道不是說『無』的能詮是存在的嗎？如何了知覺產生就否定它為『無』呢？並不是了知覺產生就否定名言的本體，而是了知它所詮釋的內容為『無』。也就是說，了知覺產生是緣于遮遣『有』的境，而不是以『非有』為境而產生的。什麼叫做能遮遣『有』的境呢？就是對於『非有』所產生的能詮。這種覺既然緣于能詮為境，就不應該執著於它緣于無境而產生。事理必定是這樣的，就像世間說『非婆羅門』和『無常』等，雖然遮遣了其他『有』，但本體並非『無』。這裡，智慧產生是緣于遮遣梵志（婆羅門）和常等性質，能詮和所詮，就是這個能詮所能……
【English Translation】 English version These are all things that have been experienced. However, what has been experienced is not only what has been seen. For example, a Bodhisattva's dream is something that has been heard, but someone may see rabbit horns in a dream. This is because they have seen rabbits and horns in different places before, and in the dream, due to mental confusion, they think they are combined in one place and recall them. Or, there may be animals of this shape in the ocean that have been seen or heard before, so they are recalled in the dream. Other dream states should be considered in this way. Therefore, dreams cannot prove that dependent origination is without awareness. The object cognized by the consciousness arising from an eye with cataracts is also not non-existent. This is because the arising of this consciousness also depends on shape and appearance. Because the eye root has cataracts, the object is not clearly perceived, so a distorted understanding arises in relation to the object. Although the appearance is distorted, the substance of the object is not non-existent. Because a person with cataracts will definitely see various forms in a place with color, not that there is no color at all. If this were not the case, one should be able to see things in a place without color. The object cognized by the consciousness of seeing multiple moons is also not non-existent. This is because when eye consciousness arises, it can only see one moon, but due to the transformation of the root, the consciousness is not clear, and a confused perception arises, thinking there are multiple moons. But this does not mean that this perception arises from something that does not exist, but takes the lunar disc as its object. If this were not the case, one should be able to see the moon in a place where there is no moon. Since there is no moon, this consciousness will not arise. Therefore, this consciousness takes the lunar disc as its object. However, dream consciousness and other consciousnesses arise from existing objects, and their appearances are clear and have differences. Just like the positions of awareness and others are related to blue and other minds. How can these be cited to prove that there is consciousness that arises from non-existence? If it is said that there is knowledge of non-existent things, and that 'non-existence' is also a kind of knowledge, then what does this knowledge take as its object? This knowledge arises from negating the signifier (the linguistic symbol that can express 'existence'), not directly taking 'non-existence' as its object. That is, negating the signifier of 'existence' is to explain the difference in the signifier of 'non-existence'. Therefore, if the awareness of knowledge arises, it is understood as 'non-existence'. Therefore, this awareness does not arise from 'non-existence'. Isn't it said that the signifier of 'non-existence' exists? How can the awareness of knowledge arise and deny it as 'non-existence'? It is not that the awareness of knowledge arises and denies the substance of the signifier, but that it knows that what it signifies is 'non-existence'. That is, the awareness of knowledge arises from negating the object of 'existence', not arising from taking 'non-existence' as its object. What is called the object that can negate 'existence'? It is the signifier that arises for 'non-existence'. Since this awareness takes the signifier as its object, it should not be insisted that it arises from a non-existent object. The matter must be like this, just like the world says 'non-Brahmin' and 'impermanent', although it negates other 'existences', the substance is not 'non-existence'. Here, the arising of wisdom is related to negating the qualities of Brahmin and permanence, the signifier and the signified, that is, what this signifier can...
遮梵志及常等性。于自所詮剎帝利身諸行等轉。然諸所有遮詮名言。或有有所詮有無所詮者。有所詮者如非梵志無常等言。無所詮者如說非有無物等言。因有所詮而生智者。此智初起但緣能詮。便能了知所遮非有。後起亦有能緣所詮。知彼體中所遮非有。因無所詮而生智者。初起後起但緣能詮。于中了知所遮非有。然非有等能詮名言。都無所詮亦無有失。以非有等都無體故。若都無體亦是所詮。則應世間無無義語。有作是說。一切名言皆有所詮名能詮故。若爾非有無物等言。及第二頭第三手等。能表無法所有名言何為所詮。而言皆有以緣此想為此所詮。若無所詮有能詮者。應無所覺有能覺生。此既不然彼云何爾。此例非等以覺生時要托所緣。如羸憑杖諸心心所。法爾生時必托四緣非如色等。諸能詮起非托所詮。由因剎那等起力發。隨自心想所欲而生。非要憑托所詮方起。故經說有無義言聲。心心所法起必托境。故經說彼名有所緣。非有不應說名為有。了達無我正覺生時。此覺即緣諸法為境。如契經說。當於爾時。以慧正觀諸法無我。經主敘彼所設難言。若有緣聲先非有者。此能緣識為何所緣。若謂即緣彼聲為境。求聲無者應更發聲。若謂聲無住未來位。未來實有如何謂無。若謂去來無現世者此亦非理其體一故。若有少
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 遮梵志（指婆羅門）及常等性：駁斥了婆羅門以及認為事物是恒常不變的觀點。針對他們所宣揚的剎帝利（古代印度社會等級之一，指武士和統治者）的身體行為等變化，進行了辯駁。 然而，所有用於遮止的言語表達，有些是有所指的，有些是沒有所指的。有所指的，例如『非婆羅門』、『無常』等詞語。沒有所指的，例如說『非有』、『無物』等詞語。 因為有所指而產生智慧的人，這種智慧最初生起時，只是專注于能指（能表達的詞語），就能明白所遮止的事物是不存在的。後來生起的智慧，也可能專注于所指（詞語所代表的含義），知道在事物本體中所遮止的事物是不存在的。 因為沒有所指而產生智慧的人，無論是最初生起還是後來生起，都只是專注于能指，從而明白所遮止的事物是不存在的。然而，像『非有』等沒有所指的言語表達，即使完全沒有所指，也沒有什麼問題。因為『非有』等本身就沒有實體。 如果完全沒有實體也算是所指，那麼世間就不應該有無意義的語言了。有人這樣說：一切言語表達都有所指，因為它們是能表達的。 如果這樣，那麼像『非有』、『無物』等詞語，以及『第二個頭』、『第三隻手』等，這些表達不存在事物的詞語，它們所指的又是什麼呢？如果說它們都有所指，是因為人們會緣著這些詞語產生某種想法，就認為這種想法是它們所指的。如果沒有任何所指，卻有能表達的詞語，那麼就應該出現沒有所覺知對象，卻能產生覺知的情況。既然這種情況不會發生，那麼上述說法又怎麼能成立呢？ 這個例子並不恰當，因為覺知的產生需要依賴所緣（覺知的對象），就像體弱的人需要依靠枴杖一樣。所有心和心所（心理活動）的生起，按照法則，必定依賴四個條件，而不是像顏色等事物那樣。而能表達的詞語的產生，並不依賴所指。而是由於因緣、剎那等力量的推動，隨著自己的想法而產生。並不需要依賴所指才能產生。所以經典中說有無意義的言語聲音。而心和心所的產生，必定依賴於所緣境。所以經典中說它們是有所緣的。 不應該把『非有』說成『有』。當領悟到無我的正確覺悟產生時，這種覺悟就是以諸法為對象的。就像契經（佛經）所說：『當於爾時，以智慧正確地觀察諸法無我。』 經論作者敘述了對方提出的難題：如果所緣的聲音先前不存在，那麼這個能緣的意識以什麼為所緣呢？如果說它就是以那個聲音為對象，那麼當尋求聲音而找不到時，應該再次發出聲音。如果說聲音存在於尚未到來的未來狀態，那麼未來是真實存在的，怎麼能說是沒有呢？如果說過去和未來沒有現在的體性，這也是不合理的，因為它們的本體是一樣的。如果有一點點...
【English Translation】 English version Refuting the Brahman and the Notion of Permanence: This refutes the Brahmanas (a priestly class in ancient India) and the idea that things are constant and unchanging. It argues against their claims regarding the changing actions and behaviors of the Kshatriyas (a warrior and ruling class in ancient India). However, among all the negating expressions, some have referents, and some do not. Those with referents include words like 'non-Brahmana' and 'impermanent.' Those without referents include phrases like 'non-being' and 'nothingness.' For those who generate wisdom based on what has a referent, this wisdom, when initially arising, focuses solely on the signifier (the word expressing the meaning), and can then understand that what is negated does not exist. Later arising wisdom may also focus on the signified (the meaning represented by the word), knowing that what is negated does not exist within the entity itself. For those who generate wisdom based on what has no referent, whether initially or later arising, they focus solely on the signifier, thereby understanding that what is negated does not exist. However, expressions like 'non-being,' even if they have no referent at all, are not problematic. This is because 'non-being' and the like have no inherent substance. If having no substance at all were considered a referent, then there should be no meaningless language in the world. Some say that all expressions have referents because they are capable of signifying. If so, then what do words like 'non-being,' 'nothingness,' 'second head,' 'third hand,' and other expressions that denote non-existent things refer to? If it is said that they all have referents because people associate certain thoughts with these words and consider those thoughts to be their referents, then if there were no referents but there were signifiers, there should be awareness arising without any object of awareness. Since this does not happen, how can the above statement be valid? This example is not appropriate because the arising of awareness requires reliance on an object (the object of awareness), just as a weak person needs to rely on a cane. All mental states (citta) and mental factors (cetasika) necessarily rely on four conditions when arising, unlike things like colors. The arising of signifiers, however, does not rely on referents. Rather, it arises due to the force of causes, moments, and so on, according to one's own thoughts. It does not need to rely on a referent to arise. Therefore, the scriptures say that there are meaningless sounds. Mental states and mental factors necessarily rely on an object. Therefore, the scriptures say that they have objects. One should not call 'non-being' as 'being.' When the correct realization of no-self arises, this realization takes all phenomena as its object. As the sutra says: 'At that time, one should correctly observe all phenomena as being without self with wisdom.' The author of the treatise narrates the difficulty posed by the other party: If the sound that is the object of awareness did not exist previously, then what does this awareness that is aware take as its object? If it is said that it takes that sound as its object, then when seeking the sound and not finding it, the sound should be produced again. If it is said that the sound exists in the future state that has not yet arrived, then the future is truly existent, how can it be said to be non-existent? If it is said that the past and future do not have the nature of the present, this is also unreasonable, because their essence is the same. If there is a little...
分體差別者。本無今有其理自成。故識通緣。有非有者此亦非理。前于思擇涅槃體中已辯釋故。彼于彼處已作是言。如說有聲有先非有有後非有。乃至廣說。我先已釋。為於畢竟非有物上說此有言。為此有言。即于有上遮余而立。若別有物居聲先後。可遮聲故說非有言。謂彼物中此聲非有。諸互非有定依有說。若於畢竟非有物中。而說有言何不違理。既爾經主不應復言。若謂即緣彼聲為境。乘斯展轉起多釋難。準先所釋有非有言。此中緣聲先非有識。緣聲依處非即緣聲。謂但緣聲所依眾具。未發聲位為聲非有。如於非有了知為無。即緣有法遮余而起。此亦應爾寧為別釋。設許即緣彼聲為境。所設過難理亦不成以許去來。雖體是有而與現在有義不同。然不即成本無今有。作用與體非一異故。如是等義后當廣辯。又如何知聲先非有。以未生故此亦同疑。謂於此中正共思擇。聲未生位為有為無。故問寧知聲先非有。如何但答以聲未生。未生與先義無別故。既未生故不能為因。證聲未生都無有體。如何可以聲未生無。證能緣識以無為境。又后當辯。一切識生無不皆緣有法為境。且無非有為所緣覺。由前抉擇其理極成。此覺既無我先所說。為境生覺有相理成。若有諸師以此有相。摽於心首應固立宗。過去未來決定是有。以能為境
生諸覺故。復應思擇如上所言。實有假有俱能生覺。既緣過未亦有覺生。過去未來為實為假。有說唯假彼說不然。假法所依去來無故。若謂現在是彼所依。理亦不然不相待故。謂不待現亦有能緣去來為境諸智轉故。先作是說。若有所待。于中覺生是假有相。又世現見諸假所依。若都盡時假不轉故。謂世現見補特伽羅瓶衣車等諸假有法。所依盡時彼則不轉。然見現在諸法盡時。過去未來猶可施設。故彼所救理定不然又假所依與能依假。現見展轉不相違故。諸有為法行於世時。過去未來與現不併。如何依現假立去來。是故去來非唯假有。又未曾見前後位中。轉假為實實為假故。若執未來唯是假有。應許現在亦假非實。或許現在是實有故。應許過去亦實非假。如是彼言極違理故。宜速捨棄不應固執。又假定非聖道境故。謂非假有補特伽羅瓶衣等事是聖道境然諸聖道亦以去來諸有為法為所緣境。若異此者過去未來諸有為法。則不應為現觀忍智之所了知。又現觀時若不許以去來受等為其所緣。則自身中受等諸法。畢竟不為現觀所緣。彼執不能緣過未故。無二受等俱現行故。是則聖道于諸有為。不能遍知便違經說。若於一法未達未知。我說不能作苦邊際。是故聖道必緣去來。如就應知證去來世。非唯假有可成所知。如是就余應斷應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爲了生起諸覺悟，還應像前面所說的那樣進行思擇：真實存在和假象存在是否都能生起覺悟？既然緣於過去和未來也能生起覺悟，那麼過去和未來是真實存在還是假象存在呢？ 有人說過去和未來僅僅是假象存在，但那種說法是不對的，因為假象存在沒有所依賴的過去和未來。如果說現在是過去和未來所依賴的，那在道理上也是不成立的，因為它們互不依賴。也就是說，即使不依賴於現在，也有能夠緣於過去和未來作為對境的各種智慧在運轉。 先前已經說過，如果有所依賴，那麼在這種依賴關係中生起的覺悟就是假象存在的相。而且世間現在所見的各種假象存在所依賴的事物，如果完全消失，那麼假象存在也就不存在了。也就是說，世間現在所見的補特伽羅（pudgalā，人）、瓶子、衣服、車子等各種假象存在的法，當它們所依賴的事物消失時，它們也就不存在了。然而，我們看到現在的各種法消失時，過去和未來仍然可以被施設（假立）。所以，他們所堅持的道理肯定是不對的。而且，假象存在所依賴的事物與能依賴的假象存在，現在所見是輾轉不相違背的。 各種有為法在世間執行的時候，過去、未來與現在不會同時並存。如何依賴現在而假立過去和未來呢？因此，過去和未來不僅僅是假象存在。 而且，我們從未見過在前後不同的階段中，假象存在轉變為真實存在，或者真實存在轉變為假象存在的情況。如果執著于未來僅僅是假象存在，那麼就應該承認現在也是假象存在而不是真實存在。或者，如果承認現在是真實存在的，那麼就應該承認過去也是真實存在而不是假象存在。像這樣的話極其不合道理，所以應該迅速捨棄，不應該固執堅持。 而且，假象存在不是聖道的境界。也就是說，並非假象存在的補特伽羅、瓶子、衣服等事物是聖道的境界。然而，各種聖道也以過去和未來的各種有為法作為所緣境。如果不是這樣，那麼過去和未來的各種有為法，就不應該被現觀（abhisamaya，直接的證悟）的忍（kṣānti，接受）和智（jñāna，智慧）所了知。 而且，在現觀的時候，如果不允許以過去和未來的受（vedanā，感受）等作為它的所緣，那麼自身中的受等各種法，就畢竟不能被現觀所緣。因為他們執著于不能緣於過去和未來，而且沒有兩個受等同時現行。這樣一來，聖道就不能遍知各種有為法，這便違背了經文的說法：『如果對於一法沒有通達和了解，我說就不能作苦的邊際。』所以，聖道必定緣於過去和未來。就像就應知（parijñeya，應該完全瞭解的事物）而言，證得過去和未來世，並非僅僅是假象存在就可以成就所知。像這樣，就其餘的應斷（pahātabba，應該斷除的事物）而言
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, to generate all kinds of enlightenment, one should also contemplate as mentioned above: Can both real existence and illusory existence generate enlightenment? Since enlightenment can arise from contemplating the past and the future, are the past and the future real or illusory? Some say that the past and the future are merely illusory existences, but that view is incorrect because illusory existences have no past and future to rely on. If it is said that the present is what the past and the future rely on, that is also not logically sound because they do not depend on each other. That is to say, even without relying on the present, there are various wisdoms that can function by taking the past and the future as their objects. It has been said before that if there is something to rely on, then the enlightenment that arises in this dependent relationship is the aspect of illusory existence. Moreover, the things that various illusory existences rely on in the world, if they completely disappear, then the illusory existences will also cease to exist. That is to say, the various illusory existences such as pudgalā (person), bottles, clothes, carts, etc., that are seen in the world, when the things they rely on disappear, they also cease to exist. However, when we see the various phenomena of the present disappear, the past and the future can still be postulated. Therefore, the reasoning they adhere to is definitely incorrect. Moreover, the things that illusory existences rely on and the illusory existences that can rely on them are seen to be mutually non-contradictory. When various conditioned phenomena operate in the world, the past, the future, and the present do not coexist simultaneously. How can the past and the future be falsely established based on the present? Therefore, the past and the future are not merely illusory existences. Moreover, we have never seen a situation where, in different stages before and after, an illusory existence transforms into a real existence, or a real existence transforms into an illusory existence. If one insists that the future is merely an illusory existence, then one should admit that the present is also an illusory existence and not a real existence. Or, if one admits that the present is a real existence, then one should admit that the past is also a real existence and not an illusory existence. Such words are extremely unreasonable, so they should be quickly abandoned and not stubbornly adhered to. Moreover, illusory existences are not the realm of the noble path. That is to say, it is not the case that illusory existences such as pudgalā, bottles, clothes, etc., are the realm of the noble path. However, the various noble paths also take the various conditioned phenomena of the past and the future as their objects. If this were not the case, then the various conditioned phenomena of the past and the future should not be known by the kṣānti (acceptance) and jñāna (wisdom) of abhisamaya (direct realization). Moreover, at the time of abhisamaya, if it is not allowed to take vedanā (feeling) etc. of the past and the future as its object, then the various phenomena such as feeling etc. in oneself will ultimately not be taken as objects by abhisamaya. Because they insist that they cannot be related to the past and the future, and there are no two feelings etc. that occur simultaneously. In this way, the noble path cannot fully know the various conditioned phenomena, which contradicts the saying in the scriptures: 'If one has not understood and known one phenomenon, I say that one cannot make an end to suffering.' Therefore, the noble path must be related to the past and the future. Just as, in terms of what should be known (parijñeya), attaining the past and future worlds, it is not the case that merely illusory existence can accomplish what is to be known. Likewise, in terms of the remaining things that should be abandoned (pahātabba)
證。及應修等差別法門。隨其所應皆證過未非唯假有義可得成。假法定非所斷等故。又假與實不可定言。是一是異如世伊字。三點所成一異難說。去來今世前後位殊。如何可言去來二世。體唯是假依現在立。是故彼論與理相違。不順聖言無可收采。即說定有過去未來。云何應知彼定有相。如對法者所說應知。對法諸師如何說有。由有因果染離染事。自性非虛說為實有。非如現在得實有名。謂彼去來非如馬角。及空花等是畢竟無非。如瓶衣軍林車室數取趣等。唯是假有非如現在是實有性。所以者何。非如馬角及空花等。諸畢竟無瓶衣軍林。車室等假可得名有因果等性。又非已滅及未已生。可得說言同現實有。以如是理蘊在心中。應固立宗去來定有。諸有為法歷三世時。體相無差有性寧別。豈不現見有法同時。體相無差而有性別。如地界等內外性殊。受等自他樂等性別。此性與有理定無差。性既有殊有必有別。由是地等體相雖同。而可說為內外性別。受等領等體相。雖同而可說為樂等性別。又如眼等在一相續。清凈所造色體相同。而於其中有性類別。以見聞等功能別故。非於此中功能異有。可有性等功能差別。然見等功能即眼等有。由功能別故有性定別。故知諸法有同一時。體相無差有性類別。既現見有法體同時。體相無
差有性類別。故知諸法歷三世時。體相無差有性類別。如是善立對法義宗。經主于中朋附上座。所立宗趣作是詰言。過去未來若俱是有。如何可說是去來性。此詰于義都不相關。同實有中許有種種。有性差別理極成故。三世有論亦可詰言。過去未來若俱非有。如何可說此去此來。說常有宗依有體法。由自性異因緣不同。容可立有性類差別。說去來世無體論者。去來世體既決定無。自性因緣不可說異。如何分判去來世別。如彼唯托實無體中。矯立言詞尚能說有去來世異。況此憑托實有體中。以正道理不能說有去來世別。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之七
如是略述三世有無理趣正邪有差別已。為令此義決定增明覆依頌文廣顯宗趣。頌曰。
三世有由說 二有境果故 說三世有故 許說一切有
論曰。實有過去未來現在。了教正理俱極成故。若爾三世由何有別。如是徴責起何非次。且應詰問何謂教理。我引教理成立己宗。過去未來現在實有。有義既顯別易思擇。既爾現在實有極成。何教理證去來實有。且由經中世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 存在著性質類別的差異。因此可知，諸法經歷三世時，其體性和表相沒有差異，但存在性質類別的差異。像這樣善巧地建立對法義理的宗派。經部師（Sautrāntika）在其中依附於上座部（Sthavira），對於所立的宗趣，作出這樣的詰問：『過去和未來如果都是存在的，如何能說是具有『去』和『來』的性質呢？』這種詰問在義理上根本不相關聯。在同一個實有中，允許存在種種性質的差別，這是極有道理的。對於三世有論，也可以詰問說：『過去和未來如果都不是存在的，如何能說『此去』和『此來』呢？』 宣說『常有』宗派的人，依據具有實體的法，由於自性不同、因緣不同，可以建立性質類別的差別。而宣說『去來世』沒有實體的人，『去來世』的實體既然決定是沒有的，自性和因緣就不可說有差異，如何區分判斷『去來世』的差別呢？就像他們僅僅依託于實際上沒有實體的法中，虛假地建立言辭，尚且能說有『去來世』的差異。更何況我們是憑藉依託于實際存在的實體中，以正當的道理，反而不能說有『去來世』的差別呢？
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之七
像這樣簡略地敘述了三世有無的理趣，以及正邪的差別之後，爲了使這個義理更加明確地增進和闡明，再次依據頌文廣泛地闡述宗趣。頌文說：
『三世有由說，二有境果故， 說三世有故，許說一切有。』
論述說：過去、未來、現在是真實存在的，這是佛陀的教導和正當的道理都極力證明的。如果這樣，三世由什麼而有差別呢？像這樣提出質問，有什麼不合順序的呢？且應該反問，什麼叫做『教』和『理』？我引用佛陀的教導和正當的道理來成立自己的宗派，過去、未來、現在是真實存在的。存在的意義既然已經顯明，差別就容易思擇了。既然這樣，現在是真實存在的，這是極力證明的。用什麼教導和道理來證明過去和未來是真實存在的呢？且由於經文中說：
【English Translation】 English version There exist differences in the nature of categories. Therefore, it is known that when all dharmas (phenomena) pass through the three times (past, present, and future), their essence and appearance are not different, but there are differences in the nature of categories. In this way, the Sautrāntikas (Sautrāntika: a school of Buddhist philosophy) skillfully establish the tenets of Abhidharma (Abhidharma: Buddhist philosophical treatises). The Sautrāntikas, adhering to the Sthaviras (Sthavira: elders, a conservative early Buddhist school) within it, make the following objection to the established tenets: 'If the past and future both exist, how can it be said that they have the nature of 'going' and 'coming'?' This objection is completely irrelevant in terms of meaning. Within the same real existence, it is permissible to have various differences in nature, which is extremely reasonable. Regarding the theory of the existence of the three times, it can also be objected: 'If the past and future both do not exist, how can it be said 'this goes' and 'this comes'?' Those who proclaim the 'eternal existence' school, based on dharmas (phenomena) that have substance, can establish differences in the nature of categories due to differences in self-nature and different conditions. However, those who proclaim that the 'past and future times' have no substance, since the substance of the 'past and future times' is definitely non-existent, self-nature and conditions cannot be said to be different. How can the differences between the 'past and future times' be distinguished and judged? Just like they, relying solely on dharmas (phenomena) that actually have no substance, falsely establish words and still can say that there are differences in the 'past and future times'. How much more so should we, relying on actually existing substances, be unable to say that there are differences in the 'past and future times' using proper reasoning?
Shun Zheng Li Lun (Treatise on Following the Right Principle) of the Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda: the ' সর্বং অস্তি' school, which believes that 'everything exists') School, Volume 50 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun
Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun, Volume 51
Composed by Venerable Zhongxian
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5, Section 7: Distinguishing Latent Afflictions
Having briefly described the principles of the existence or non-existence of the three times and the differences between right and wrong, in order to further clarify and illuminate this meaning, the tenets are widely explained again based on the verses. The verses say:
'The three times exist because it is said, Because of the two existences of object and result, Because it is said that the three times exist, It is permissible to say that everything exists.'
The treatise says: The past, future, and present are truly existent, which is strongly proven by both the Buddha's teachings and proper reasoning. If so, what causes the differences between the three times? What is inappropriate about raising such a question? One should first ask, what is meant by 'teaching' and 'reasoning'? I cite the Buddha's teachings and proper reasoning to establish my own tenets: the past, future, and present are truly existent. Since the meaning of existence has already been clarified, the differences are easy to discern. Since the present is truly existent, which is strongly proven, what teachings and reasoning prove that the past and future are truly existent? It is because the sutras say:
尊說故謂世尊說過去未來。色尚無常何況現在。若能如是觀色無常。則諸多聞聖弟子眾。於過去色勤修厭舍。于未來色勤斷欣求。現在色中勤厭離滅。若過去色非有。不應多聞聖弟子眾。於過去色勤修厭舍。以過去色是有故。應多聞聖弟子眾。於過去色勤修厭舍。若未來色非有。不應多聞聖弟子眾。于未來色勤斷欣求。以未來色是有故。應多聞聖弟子眾。于未來色勤斷欣求。又契經言。告舍利子。杖髻外道恍惚發言不善尋求不審思擇。彼由愚戇不明不善。作如是言若業過去盡滅變壞都無所有。所以者何。業雖過去盡滅變壞。而猶是有何緣知。此所引契經說有去來。定是了義曾無餘處決定遮止。猶如補特伽羅等故。謂雖處處說有補特伽羅。而可說為實無有體人。契經等分明遮故由此說有。補特伽羅所有契經皆非了義。又如經說應害父母。理亦應是不了義經。以余經言是無間業。無間必墮捺落迦故。又如經言諸習欲者。無有惡業而不能作。此亦應是不了義經。以余經中遮諸聖者。由故思造諸惡業故。如是等類隨應當知非此分明決定說有去來世。已復于余處分明決定遮有去來。可以準知此非了義。然此決定是了義說。以越余經不了相故。恍惚論者何太輕言。但違己宗經便判為不了。豈不亦有遮去來經。如勝義空契經中說。眼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 尊者說，之所以說世尊宣說了過去和未來，是因為色（Rupa，物質現象）尚且是無常的，更何況是現在呢？如果能夠這樣觀察色是無常的，那麼博學多聞的聖弟子們，對於過去的色會勤奮地修習厭離和捨棄，對於未來的色會勤奮地斷除欣求，對於現在的色會勤奮地厭離和滅除。如果過去的色不存在，那麼博學多聞的聖弟子們就不應該對過去的色勤奮地修習厭離和捨棄。正因為過去的色是存在的，所以博學多聞的聖弟子們才應該對過去的色勤奮地修習厭離和捨棄。如果未來的色不存在，那麼博學多聞的聖弟子們就不應該對未來的色勤奮地斷除欣求。正因為未來的色是存在的，所以博學多聞的聖弟子們才應該對未來的色勤奮地斷除欣求。 此外，契經中說：『告訴舍利子（Sariputra），杖髻外道（Dandin）恍惚而言，不善於尋求，不審慎地思擇。他們由於愚昧無知，不明事理，不善於思考，所以才這樣說：如果業（Karma）已經過去，盡滅變壞，那就都一無所有了。』為什麼這樣說呢？業雖然已經過去，盡滅變壞，但仍然是存在的。根據什麼知道呢？這裡所引用的契經說明了有過去和未來，這一定是了義（Nitartha，究竟真實義）的，沒有其他地方明確地遮止。這不像補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』）等概念那樣。雖然處處都說有補特伽羅，但可以說實際上並沒有一個實在的『人』，因為契經等經典已經明確地遮止了。因此，說有補特伽羅的那些契經都不是了義的。又比如，經中說應該殺害父母，這在道理上也應該是不了義的經，因為其他的經中說這是無間業（Anantariya-kamma，五逆罪），無間業必定會墮入捺落迦（Naraka，地獄）之中。又比如，經中說那些習慣於貪慾的人，沒有惡業是做不出來的。這也應該是不了義的經，因為其他的經中遮止了聖者（Arya）由於故意思考而造作各種惡業。像這些等等，都應該根據情況來理解，而不是說這裡分明地、決定地說有過去和未來世，就已經在其他地方分明地、決定地遮止了有過去和未來，可以據此推知這不是了義。然而，這裡決定是了義的說法，因為它超越了其他經的不了義之處。恍惚論者為什麼如此輕率地說，只要是違背自己宗派的經文，就判定為不了義呢？難道就沒有遮止過去和未來的經文嗎？比如在勝義空（Paramartha-sunyata，勝義空性）的契經中就說，眼（Eye）...
【English Translation】 English version: The Venerable one said, the reason it is said that the World Honored One (Bhagavan) spoke of the past and the future is because even form (Rupa) is impermanent, how much more so is the present? If one can thus contemplate that form is impermanent, then the learned and noble disciples will diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards past form, diligently cut off seeking and desire towards future form, and diligently cultivate aversion, detachment, and cessation towards present form. If past form did not exist, then the learned and noble disciples should not diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards past form. Precisely because past form exists, the learned and noble disciples should diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards past form. If future form did not exist, then the learned and noble disciples should not diligently cut off seeking and desire towards future form. Precisely because future form exists, the learned and noble disciples should diligently cut off seeking and desire towards future form. Furthermore, the sutra says: 'Tell Sariputra, the ascetic Dandin speaks in a daze, not good at seeking, not carefully considering. They, due to ignorance, not understanding, not good at thinking, thus say: If karma has passed, been exhausted, changed, and decayed, then it is all non-existent.' Why is this said? Although karma has passed, been exhausted, changed, and decayed, it still exists. How is this known? The sutra quoted here explains that there are past and future, and this must be definitive (Nitartha), with no other place clearly prohibiting it. This is not like concepts such as Pudgala. Although it is said everywhere that there is a Pudgala, it can be said that there is actually no real 'person', because the sutras have clearly prohibited it. Therefore, those sutras that say there is a Pudgala are not definitive. Furthermore, for example, the sutra says that one should kill one's parents, this should also be a non-definitive sutra in principle, because other sutras say that this is an Anantariya-kamma, which will inevitably lead to falling into Naraka. Furthermore, for example, the sutra says that those who are accustomed to desire, there is no evil karma that they cannot do. This should also be a non-definitive sutra, because other sutras prohibit the Aryas from deliberately creating various evil karmas. Like these and so on, should be understood according to the situation, rather than saying that here it is clearly and definitively said that there are past and future lives, and it has already been clearly and definitively prohibited elsewhere that there are past and future, which can be inferred that this is not definitive. However, this is definitely a definitive statement, because it transcends the non-definitive aspects of other sutras. Why do those who speak in a daze so lightly say that as long as the sutra violates their own sect, they judge it to be non-definitive? Are there not sutras that prohibit the past and the future? For example, in the sutra on Paramartha-sunyata, it says that the eye...
根生位無所從來。眼根滅時無所造集。本無今有有已還去。若未來世先有眼根。則不應言本無今有。奇哉凡鄙朋執覆心。粗淺義中不能明見。且置我釋汝云何知。由后契經前成非了義。非由前故后經成不了。然依此說勝義空經。依此不能遮去來有。非遮離行有作者言。能遮去來是實有故。然此眼根生位無所從來等言。應審尋思此言何義。若眼生位許體是有。則未來有其義已成。若執猶無何所疑慮。而言生位無所從來。非諸體無有從來處。何勞於此遮所從來。但應明言生位非有。既遮生位有所從來。故知大師不許別有。現積集處眼從彼來次後說滅時無所造集故。以世間有邪論者。說眼根生位從火輪來。眼根滅時還造集彼。遮彼故說此兩句經。或遮眼根出從自性。沒還歸彼故說此言。或遮眼根自在所作。故說如是兩句經文。謂遮眼根有勝作者。顯彼唯有因果相屬。已遣他宗為顯自意故。次復說本無今有。有已還去兩句經文。謂此中所言本無今有者。顯本無集處。從自因緣生。或有欲令因是果藏。故佛說果因中本無。但由彼因有別果起。或此為顯眼根生時。能至本來所未至位。依此義說本無今有。此經文意理必應然。故次復言有已還去。此顯起作用牽自果。已還去至如本無作用位。若佛為遮去來是有。方便說此本無等言。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根的生起處無所從來（眼根生起時沒有特定的來源）。眼根滅去時也沒有造作積聚（眼根滅去時不會積累任何東西）。本來沒有現在有了，有了之後又會消失（眼根的生滅是一種自然現象）。如果未來世先有眼根，那就不應該說本來沒有現在有了。真是奇怪啊，那些凡夫俗子心懷偏見，被矇蔽了內心，在粗淺的義理中都不能明白看見。且先放下我所說的，你又是如何理解的呢？由於後來的契經（佛經）才成就了之前的非了義（不究竟的教義）。不是因為之前的契經，後來的契經才成為不了義。然而依據此勝義空經（宣揚空性的經典），不能以此來否定過去和未來的存在。不是否定離開行為的作者（否定因果關係），而是能夠否定過去和未來是真實存在的。然而，這句『眼根生起處無所從來』等話，應該仔細思考這句話的含義。如果眼根生起時，你認為它的本體是存在的，那麼未來有眼根的說法就已經成立了。如果認為它仍然不存在，又有什麼可懷疑的呢？為什麼要說生起處無所從來呢？沒有什麼本體是從無到有的，何必在這裡否定它的來源呢？只需要明確地說生起處不是真實存在的就可以了。既然否定了生起處有所來源，就知道大師（佛陀）不承認有單獨的來源。現在積聚的地方，眼根從那裡來，接下來又說滅去時沒有造作積聚。因為世間有一些邪見者，說眼根生起時從火輪而來，眼根滅去時又會造作積聚到那裡。爲了否定他們，所以說了這兩句經文。或者否定眼根從自性中產生，消失後又迴歸到自性中，所以說了這句話。或者否定眼根是自在天所創造的，所以說了這兩句經文。這是爲了否定眼根有一個至高無上的創造者，顯示它只有因果相屬的關係。已經駁斥了其他宗派的觀點，爲了闡明自己的觀點，所以接下來又說了『本來沒有現在有了，有了之後又會消失』這兩句經文。這裡所說的『本來沒有現在有了』，是說本來沒有積聚的地方，是從自身的因緣而生。或者有人認為因是果的儲藏，所以佛說果在因中本來就沒有。只是由於那個因，才會有不同的果產生。或者這是爲了顯示眼根生起時，能夠到達本來沒有到達的位置。依據這個意義來說，就是『本來沒有現在有了』。這句經文的含義必定應該是這樣。所以接下來又說『有了之後又會消失』。這顯示了產生作用，牽引著自己的果，已經消失回到像本來沒有作用的狀態。如果佛陀爲了否定過去和未來的存在，方便地說了『本來沒有』等話，就像...
【English Translation】 English version The arising of the eye-faculty comes from nowhere (when the eye-faculty arises, it has no specific origin). When the eye-faculty ceases, there is no accumulation or creation (when the eye-faculty ceases, it does not accumulate anything). Originally non-existent, now existent, and having existed, it returns to non-existence (the arising and ceasing of the eye-faculty is a natural phenomenon). If in the future there were already an eye-faculty, then it should not be said that it was originally non-existent and now existent. How strange, those vulgar people with prejudiced minds, obscured hearts, unable to clearly see even in shallow meanings. Let's put aside what I say, how do you understand it? Because later sutras (Buddhist scriptures) complete the earlier non-definitive meanings (incomplete teachings). It is not because of the earlier sutras that the later sutras become non-definitive. However, according to this Sutra on Ultimate Emptiness (a scripture that promotes emptiness), one cannot use it to deny the existence of the past and future. It does not deny the agent apart from action (denying the law of cause and effect), but is able to deny that the past and future are truly existent. However, the statement 'the arising of the eye-faculty comes from nowhere,' etc., should be carefully considered for its meaning. If you believe that when the eye-faculty arises, its essence exists, then the statement that there will be an eye-faculty in the future is already established. If you believe that it still does not exist, then what is there to doubt? Why say that the arising comes from nowhere? No essence comes from non-existence, why bother denying its origin here? One only needs to clearly say that the arising is not truly existent. Since the arising from somewhere is denied, it is known that the Master (Buddha) does not acknowledge a separate origin. The place of present accumulation, the eye-faculty comes from there, and then it is said that when it ceases, there is no accumulation or creation. Because there are some heretics in the world who say that when the eye-faculty arises, it comes from the fire wheel, and when the eye-faculty ceases, it will accumulate and create there. To deny them, these two lines of scripture are spoken. Or denying that the eye-faculty arises from its own nature and returns to its own nature after disappearing, so this statement is made. Or denying that the eye-faculty is created by Ishvara (a supreme god), so these two lines of scripture are spoken. This is to deny that the eye-faculty has a supreme creator, showing that it only has a relationship of cause and effect. Having refuted the views of other schools, to clarify one's own views, the two lines of scripture 'originally non-existent, now existent, and having existed, it returns to non-existence' are spoken next. The 'originally non-existent, now existent' spoken here means that there was originally no place of accumulation, and it arises from its own conditions. Or some people think that the cause is the storehouse of the effect, so the Buddha said that the effect was originally not in the cause. It is only because of that cause that different effects arise. Or this is to show that when the eye-faculty arises, it can reach a position that it had not originally reached. According to this meaning, it is 'originally non-existent, now existent.' The meaning of this scripture must be like this. Therefore, it is said next, 'having existed, it returns to non-existence.' This shows that producing an effect, pulling its own result, has disappeared and returned to a state like originally without effect. If the Buddha conveniently said 'originally non-existent,' etc., to deny the existence of the past and future, like...
前句言本無今有後句應說有已還無。既不言無但言還去。則知不許過去是無。非汝所宗許過去有。唯言無有未來眼根。如何引斯契經為證。說是語已。世尊復觀當有。迷斯契經意趣。便謂無有過去未來。增長謗因謗果邪見。為遮彼故復作是言。有業有異熟作者不可得。此顯要有過去業因。方有未來異熟果起。非更別有作者作用。故為顯示無有實我。唯決定有因果相屬。如來說此勝義空經。非為欲遮去來實有。與前所引經義無違。故前契經是了義說。有說定有遮去來經。如契經言。于無內眼結如實了知我無內眼結。又契經說。此無彼無。又契經言彼二無暖。彼經非證即彼經中。有文證成去來有故。如彼經言。于有內眼結如實了知我有內眼結。非善心位有結現行。故知彼經說有過未。又彼經說行有識有。非異熟果異熟因俱。故知彼經說有過未。又彼經說告二苾芻。有四句法門我當爲汝說。此證身內定有未來。語文等體為當所說。故知彼經說有過未。然彼經說結等無者。顯不成就不造不得。如決定說有去來經。決定遮經曾不見有故。我所引有去來經理應許為真了義說。於前所引真了義經。已正遣除非了義執。此與彼計決定相違。經主于中欲以強力逼令非了。作是釋言。我等亦說有去來世。謂過去世曾有名有。未來當有有果因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：前一句說本來沒有現在有，后一句應該說有了又還無。既然不說沒有，只說還去，就知道不允許過去是無。這與你所宗的允許過去有不同。你只說沒有未來的眼根，如何引用這個契經作為證據？ 說完這話后，世尊又觀察到有人會迷惑這個契經的意趣，便認為沒有過去未來，增長謗因謗果的邪見。爲了遮止這種邪見，又這樣說：有業，有異熟（vipāka，果報），但作者不可得。這顯示一定要有過去的業因，才會有未來的異熟果生起，並非另外有作者的作用。所以，是爲了顯示沒有實在的『我』（ātman），只是決定有因果相屬。如來說這部勝義空經，不是爲了要遮止過去未來的實有，與前面所引用的經義沒有違背。所以，前面的契經是了義說。 有人說一定有遮止過去未來的經，如契經所說：『對於沒有內在的眼結（saṃyojana，煩惱），如實了知我沒有內在的眼結。』又契經說：『此無彼無。』又契經說：『彼二無暖。』這些經不能作為證據，因為就在這些經中，有文句證明過去未來是有的。如那部經說：『對於有內在的眼結，如實了知我有內在的眼結。』不是在善心位有結現行，所以知道那部經說的是過去未來。 又那部經說行有、識有，不是異熟果和異熟因同時存在，所以知道那部經說的是過去未來。又那部經說告訴兩位比丘：『有四句法門，我當爲你們說。』這證明身內一定有未來，語文等體是應當要說的。所以知道那部經說的是過去未來。然而那部經說結等沒有，是顯示不成就不造不得。像決定說有過去未來的經，決定遮止的經從來沒有見過。所以我所引用的有過去未來的經，理應許為真正的了義說。對於前面所引用的真正了義經，已經正確地遣除了非了義的執著。這與他們的計較決定是相反的。經主在其中想要用強力逼迫使它成為非了義，這樣解釋說：『我們也說有過去未來世，說過去世曾經有名有，未來當有有果因。』
【English Translation】 English version: The previous sentence says that originally there was nothing, but now there is; the following sentence should say that having been, it returns to nothing. Since it doesn't say 'nothing,' but only 'returns,' it is known that it doesn't allow the past to be nothing. This is different from your doctrine, which allows the past to exist. You only say that there is no future eye-faculty (cakṣurindriya), how can you cite this sutra (sūtra, a discourse of the Buddha) as evidence? Having said this, the World-Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) further observed that some would be confused about the meaning of this sutra, and would think that there is no past or future, increasing the wrong view of slandering cause and effect. In order to prevent this wrong view, he further said: 'There is karma (karma, action), there is vipāka (vipāka, result), but the doer is unattainable.' This shows that there must be past karmic causes for future vipāka to arise, and there is no separate action of a doer. Therefore, it is to show that there is no real 'self' (ātman), but only a definite connection of cause and effect. The Tathāgata (Tathāgata, 'the one who has thus come', an epithet of the Buddha) spoke this sutra on ultimate emptiness (śūnyatā), not to deny the real existence of the past and future, and there is no contradiction with the meaning of the sutra quoted earlier. Therefore, the previous sutra is a definitive teaching (nītārtha). Some say that there must be a sutra that prohibits the past and future, such as the sutra that says: 'Regarding the inner fetter (saṃyojana, bond) of the eye that does not exist, one truly knows that I do not have the inner fetter of the eye.' Also, the sutra says: 'This is not, that is not.' Also, the sutra says: 'Those two have no warmth.' These sutras cannot be used as evidence, because in these very sutras, there are sentences that prove that the past and future exist. As that sutra says: 'Regarding the inner fetter of the eye that exists, one truly knows that I have the inner fetter of the eye.' It is not that fetters are active in the state of wholesome mind, so it is known that that sutra speaks of the past and future. Also, that sutra says that there is existence of becoming (bhava), there is existence of consciousness (vijñāna), it is not that the result of vipāka and the cause of vipāka exist simultaneously, so it is known that that sutra speaks of the past and future. Also, that sutra says to tell the two bhikṣus (bhikṣu, a Buddhist monk): 'There are four phrases of Dharma (Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha) that I will speak for you.' This proves that there must be a future within the body, and language and other entities are what should be spoken. So it is known that that sutra speaks of the past and future. However, that sutra says that fetters and the like do not exist, which shows that they are not accomplished, not created, and not obtained. Like the sutra that definitely says that there is past and future, a sutra that definitely prohibits it has never been seen. Therefore, the sutra that I quoted that has past and future should be allowed to be a true definitive teaching. Regarding the truly definitive sutra quoted earlier, the attachment to the non-definitive has been correctly refuted. This is definitely contrary to their calculations. The master of the sutra wants to force it to be non-definitive by force, explaining it this way: 'We also say that there are past and future worlds, saying that the past world once had name and existence, and the future will have the cause of the fruit.'
故。依如是義說有去來。非謂去來如現實有。故說彼有但據曾當因果二性非體實有。世尊為遮謗因果見。據曾當義說有去來。有聲通顯有無法故。如世間說。有燈先無有燈后無。又如有言。有燈已滅非我今滅。說有去來其義亦應爾。若不爾者。去來性不成。此釋有言定非善說。不許實有去來世故。假有如前理不成故。無容更有餘有義故。如何決判經中有言。而言我說有去來世。雖言過去曾有名有。未來當有有果因故。而實方便矯以異門說。現在有何關過未故。彼所言我等亦說有去來者。但有虛言竟不能伸去來有義。若去來世但是曾當。法體實無不應名有。或若許有則不應說去來二世但是曾當。又若實無以曾有故。亦說過去為實有者則應現在。雖實有性非曾有故。應執為無過去應通曾有非有。即由此理類說未來。彼亦應通當有非有。然于實有過去體上。亦有少分可名曾有。由此得成過去有性。如是實有未來體上。亦有少分可名當有。由此得成未來有性。世間現見於實有法可說曾當。曾不見於非實有法說曾當義。如舍利子白世尊言。闡陀苾芻昔曾於一婆羅門邑。往乞食家說此語時彼家現有。世尊亦說。慶喜苾芻當爲上座。乃至廣說。說此語時慶喜現有故。于實有過去未來說有曾當理善成立。又若無實過去未來。則無所遮謗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，根據這樣的意義來說，存在『過去』和『未來』。但這並不是說『過去』和『未來』是真實存在的。所以說它們存在，只是根據『曾經』和『將要』的因果關係，而不是實體真實存在。世尊爲了遮止人們誹謗因果的邪見，才根據『曾經』和『將要』的意義來說『過去』和『未來』存在。『有』這個詞可以普遍地顯示『有』和『沒有』兩種情況。就像世間人說，『燈曾經沒有，現在有了，燈以後又會沒有』。又比如有人說，『燈已經熄滅了，但並不是我現在讓它熄滅的』。說『過去』和『未來』的意義也應該像這樣理解。如果不是這樣，『過去』和『未來』的性質就不能成立。 這種解釋『有』的說法肯定是不正確的。因為他們不承認『過去』和『未來』是真實存在的。如果說『過去』和『未來』是假有的，就像前面所說的，道理上是不能成立的。因為不可能再有其他的『有』的意義了。如何判斷經典中說，『我說有過去、未來世』呢？雖然說『過去』是曾經存在過的，『未來』是將要存在的，因為有果的因，但實際上這只是方便的說法，用不同的方式來表達。現在的存在和過去、未來有什麼關係呢？ 他們所說的『我們也說有過去、未來』，只不過是空話，最終不能闡明『過去』和『未來』存在的意義。如果『過去』和『未來』只是『曾經』和『將要』，法的本體實際上並不存在，就不應該稱為『有』。或者如果承認它們存在，就不應該說『過去』和『未來』只是『曾經』和『將要』。又如果實際上不存在，因為曾經存在過，就說『過去』是真實存在的，那麼現在雖然是真實存在的，但因為不是曾經存在過的，就應該認為是『沒有』。『過去』應該既包括『曾經有』，也包括『沒有』。根據同樣的道理，可以類推到『未來』。『未來』也應該既包括『將要有』，也包括『沒有』。 然而，在真實存在的『過去』的本體上，也有少部分可以稱為『曾經有』。因此，可以成立『過去』的存在性。像這樣，在真實存在的『未來』的本體上，也有少部分可以稱為『將要有』。因此，可以成立『未來』的存在性。世間上現在可以看到，對於真實存在的法，可以說『曾經』和『將要』。從來沒有看到對於非真實存在的法，說『曾經』和『將要』的意義。 比如，舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）對世尊（Buddha，佛教創始人）說，闡陀比丘（Chanda Bhikkhu，比丘名）過去曾經在一個婆羅門（Brahmin，古印度社會中的祭司階層）的村落里，到乞食的人家說這些話的時候，那家人是存在的。世尊也說，慶喜比丘（Ananda Bhikkhu，佛陀的堂弟和侍者）將來會成為上座。乃至更廣泛地說，說這些話的時候，慶喜是存在的。所以，對於真實存在的過去和未來，說『曾經』和『將要』的道理是可以成立的。又如果不存在真實的過去和未來，那就沒有什麼可以遮止誹謗的了。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, according to this meaning, it is said that there is 'past' and 'future'. But this does not mean that 'past' and 'future' are real. So to say they exist is only based on the causal relationship of 'having been' and 'going to be', not as a real entity. The World Honored One (Buddha) spoke of the existence of 'past' and 'future' based on the meaning of 'having been' and 'going to be' in order to prevent people from slandering the law of cause and effect. The word 'exists' can universally show both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Just as people in the world say, 'The lamp did not exist before, now it exists, and the lamp will not exist later.' Or, for example, someone says, 'The lamp has gone out, but it is not I who made it go out now.' The meaning of saying 'past' and 'future' should also be understood in this way. If it is not like this, the nature of 'past' and 'future' cannot be established. This explanation of the word 'exists' is definitely incorrect. Because they do not admit that 'past' and 'future' are real. If 'past' and 'future' are said to be hypothetical, as mentioned earlier, it cannot be established logically. Because there can be no other meaning of 'existence'. How to judge that the scriptures say, 'I say there are past and future worlds'? Although it is said that the 'past' once existed and the 'future' will exist, because there is a cause for the fruit, it is actually just a convenient way of speaking, expressing it in different ways. What does the existence of the present have to do with the past and the future? What they say, 'We also say there is past and future,' is just empty talk, and ultimately cannot clarify the meaning of the existence of 'past' and 'future'. If 'past' and 'future' are only 'having been' and 'going to be', and the substance of the Dharma (law) does not actually exist, then they should not be called 'exists'. Or if they admit that they exist, they should not say that 'past' and 'future' are only 'having been' and 'going to be'. Also, if it does not actually exist, and because it once existed, it is said that the 'past' is real, then although the present is real, but because it has not existed before, it should be considered 'non-existent'. The 'past' should include both 'having been' and 'non-existence'. According to the same principle, it can be analogized to the 'future'. The 'future' should also include both 'going to be' and 'non-existence'. However, on the substance of the real 'past', there is also a small part that can be called 'having been'. Therefore, the existence of the 'past' can be established. In this way, on the substance of the real 'future', there is also a small part that can be called 'going to be'. Therefore, the existence of the 'future' can be established. In the world, it can now be seen that for real dharmas (things), it can be said 'having been' and 'going to be'. It has never been seen that for non-real dharmas (things), the meaning of 'having been' and 'going to be' is said. For example, Sariputra (Sariputra, one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom) said to the Buddha (Buddha, the founder of Buddhism), when Chanda Bhikkhu (Chanda Bhikkhu, a Bhikkhu's name) used to say these words to the family begging for food in a Brahmin (Brahmin, the priestly class in ancient Indian society) village, that family existed. The World Honored One (Buddha) also said that Ananda Bhikkhu (Ananda Bhikkhu, Buddha's cousin and attendant) will become an elder in the future. And so on, when these words were said, Ananda existed. Therefore, for the real past and future, the principle of saying 'having been' and 'going to be' can be established. Also, if there is no real past and future, then there is nothing to prevent slander.
因果見。謂若實有過去為因。能感未來實有為果。而撥為無者名謗因果見。若去來世因果實無。于無見無豈名為謗。寧為遮彼說有去來。豈不先言曾當是有。我亦先說應通有無。又於此中有何別理。唯據曾當有說有去來。非據非曾當說無現在。說此亦有遮常見能。故彼所言無深理趣。又我先說曾當有言。但以異門說現在有非關過未。如何能遮。言有聲通顯有無者。此亦非理不極成故。執能通顯應設誠言。然世極成有唯顯有。曾不見有有聲顯無。如何乃言有聲通顯。而世間說有燈先無。有燈后無。如聲理釋此前已說后當更辯言。若不爾者。去來性不成。理亦不然彼不成故。非彼過去有過去性。非彼未來有未來性。非無自體可立性名。故彼去來性不成立。或彼應設種種劬勞。成立去來是實有性。不爾二世性必不成。如是且如彼宗所說。定不能釋去來有經。非以彼宗不能釋故。便舍善逝所說契經。故應信知去來實有。經主又釋杖髻經言。業雖過去而猶有者。依彼所引現相續中。與果功能密說為有。若不爾者。彼過去業。現實有性過去豈成理必應爾。以薄伽梵于勝義空契經中說。眼根生位無所從來。乃至廣說。此如愚者于駃流中。以船繫於乘船者足。望船停止終無是處。且彼所執現相續中。與果功能智者審諦。推尋其相竟不可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因果見：如果確實存在過去作為因，能夠感得未來真實存在的果，卻否定它，這被稱為謗因果見。如果過去和未來的因果確實不存在，那麼在無中見無，怎麼能說是誹謗呢？寧可爲了遮止那些說有過去和未來的人，難道不是先說曾經和將來是存在的嗎？我也先說了應該通達有和無。而且在這裡面有什麼特別的道理呢？僅僅根據曾經和將來有來說有過去和未來，而不是根據非曾經和非將來有來說沒有現在。這樣說也有遮止常見的能力。所以他們所說沒有深刻的道理。 而且我先說了曾經和將來有，只是用不同的方式來說現在有，與過去和未來無關，怎麼能遮止呢？說『有』這個聲音能夠普遍顯示有和無，這也是不合理的，因為這沒有得到充分的證明。如果堅持說能夠普遍顯示，就應該設定誠實的語言。然而世間普遍認為『有』只能顯示『有』，從來沒有見過『有』這個聲音顯示『無』。怎麼能說『有』這個聲音普遍顯示呢？而世間說有燈之前沒有，有燈之後沒有，像聲音的道理一樣解釋，這之前已經說過，之後應當再辯論。如果不是這樣，過去和未來的性質就不能成立。道理也不是這樣，因為他們的觀點不能成立。不是說過去的事物有過去的性質，不是說未來的事物有未來的性質，沒有自身實體，就不能建立性質的名稱。所以他們的過去和未來的性質不能成立。或者他們應該設定種種努力，來成立過去和未來是真實存在的性質。否則，過去和未來的性質必定不能成立。像這樣，暫且按照他們的宗派所說，一定不能解釋過去和未來存在的經典。不能因為他們的宗派不能解釋，就捨棄善逝（Sugata）所說的契經（Sutra）。所以應該相信過去和未來確實存在。 經主（Master of the Sutra）又解釋《杖髻經》（Stabaka Sutra）說，業（Karma）雖然過去了，但仍然存在，這是依據他們所引用的現相續中，與果的功能秘密地說是存在。如果不是這樣，那麼過去的業，現實存在的性質，過去怎麼能成立？道理必定應該是這樣。因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在《勝義空契經》（Paramartha-sunyata Sutra）中說，眼根（eye faculty）產生的時候無所從來，乃至廣說。這就像愚蠢的人在湍急的河流中，用船繫在乘船者的腳上，希望船停止，最終是不可能的。而且他們所執著的現相續中，與果的功能，智者仔細地推尋它的相狀，最終是不可得的。
【English Translation】 English version The view of cause and effect: If there truly exists a past as a cause, capable of producing a future that truly exists as an effect, yet it is denied, this is called the view of slandering cause and effect. If the cause and effect of the past and future truly do not exist, then seeing non-existence in non-existence, how can it be called slander? Rather than preventing those who say there is past and future, isn't it first said that the past and future will exist? I also said earlier that one should understand both existence and non-existence. Moreover, what special principle is there in this? Merely based on the past and future existing, one says there is past and future, but not based on the non-past and non-future existing, one says there is no present. Saying this also has the ability to prevent the view of eternalism. Therefore, what they say has no profound meaning. Moreover, I said earlier that the past and future exist, but only using different ways to say the present exists, which is unrelated to the past and future, how can it be prevented? Saying that the sound 'exists' can universally reveal existence and non-existence, this is also unreasonable because it has not been fully proven. If one insists that it can universally reveal, one should set up honest language. However, the world universally believes that 'exists' can only reveal 'exists'; one has never seen the sound 'exists' reveal 'non-existence.' How can one say that the sound 'exists' universally reveals? And the world says there was no lamp before there was a lamp, and there is no lamp after there is a lamp, explaining it like the principle of sound, this has been said before, and should be debated again later. If it is not like this, the nature of the past and future cannot be established. The principle is also not like this, because their view cannot be established. It is not that past things have past nature, it is not that future things have future nature, without its own entity, one cannot establish the name of nature. Therefore, their past and future nature cannot be established. Or they should set up various efforts to establish that the past and future are truly existing natures. Otherwise, the nature of the past and future must not be established. Like this, temporarily according to what their sect says, one certainly cannot explain the sutras (Sutra) where the past and future exist. One cannot abandon the sutras spoken by the Sugata (善逝) because their sect cannot explain them. Therefore, one should believe that the past and future truly exist. The Master of the Sutra (經主) also explains the Stabaka Sutra (杖髻經), saying that although karma (業) has passed, it still exists, this is based on what they cited in the present continuum, with the function of the result secretly said to exist. If it is not like this, then the past karma, the nature of real existence, how can the past be established? The principle must be like this. Because the Bhagavan (薄伽梵) said in the Paramartha-sunyata Sutra (勝義空契經) that when the eye faculty (眼根) arises, it comes from nowhere, and so on. This is like a foolish person in a rapid river, tying a boat to the feet of the person riding the boat, hoping the boat will stop, which is ultimately impossible. Moreover, in the present continuum that they cling to, with the function of the result, the wise carefully examine its appearance, and ultimately it is unattainable.
得。如何過去業自體已無。依與果功能可說為有。諸巧偽者所執。隨界功能熏習種子增長。不失法等處處已破。彼豈能障此了義經。所說有言令成不了。設許有彼所引功能。亦不應由斯說無法為有。勿彼因無故亦說功能無。差別因緣不可得故。又世尊說與彼不同。謂佛明言業雖過去盡滅變壞。而猶是有彼業所引與果功能。于相續中設許現有。體非過去盡滅變壞。如何依彼可說是言。若必定然佛應明說。業雖過去盡滅變壞。而於相續有彼功能佛既但言彼業猶有。故知實有彼過去業。又佛但說過去有言。如何定知約功能說。豈不已說。若不爾者。彼過去業。現實有性過去豈成。我於前文豈不已說。前文何說謂說體相。雖復無差而於其中見有性別。如是所說有性不同。汝等於中誰能說過。依如是義故。有頌言。
諸法體相一 功能有性多 若不如實知 名居佛教外
然彼所引勝義空經。如前通釋于彼非證。又彼宗不許實有過去業。而經不說有已還無。如何可引證成彼義。故率己情巧為謬釋不能違害去來實有。上座於此釋前經言。若過去色非有。不應多聞聖弟子眾於過去色勤修厭舍。乃至廣說。此說意言若過去色非過去者。不應多聞聖弟子眾。於過去色勤修厭舍。應如現在勤厭離滅。或若過去色自他相續中非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果過去的業的自體已經不存在了，那麼如何說明它存在呢？ 答：可以依據它所產生的果的功能來說明它存在。那些狡猾虛偽的人所執著的觀點，認為隨著界的功能熏習，種子增長，不失法等等，已經在很多地方被駁斥了。他們怎麼能夠阻礙這部了義經，使得經中所說的『有』變成『無』呢？ 即使假設他們所引用的功能存在，也不應該因此就說『無法』變成『有』。不要因為那個『因』不存在，就說它的『功能』也不存在，因為差別因緣是不可得的。 而且，世尊（指釋迦牟尼佛）所說的與他們的觀點不同。佛明確地說，業雖然已經過去、盡滅、變壞，但仍然存在它所引發的果的功能。在相續（santāna）中，即使假設現在存在這種功能，它的本體也不是過去、盡滅、變壞的。如何依據它來說『是』呢？ 如果一定是這樣，佛就應該明確地說，業雖然已經過去、盡滅、變壞，但在相續中有它的功能。但佛只是說『彼業猶有』，所以可知實際上存在那個過去的業。 而且，佛只是說了『過去有』，怎麼能確定是約功能來說的呢？難道不是已經說過了嗎？如果不是這樣，那個過去的業，現實地具有『有性』，過去又怎麼能成立呢？我已經在前面的文章中說過了。 前面說了什麼呢？說的是體相（rūpa）。雖然體相沒有差別，但在其中卻能看到有性別。像這樣所說的『有性』不同，你們誰能反駁呢？依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『諸法體相一，功能有性多，若不如實知，名居佛教外。』 然而，他們所引用的勝義空經，可以像前面那樣通盤解釋，不能作為他們的證據。而且，他們的宗派不承認實有過去的業，而經中並沒有說『有已還無』，怎麼能引用來證明他們的意義呢？所以，憑藉自己的想法巧妙地進行錯誤的解釋，不能違害過去和未來的真實存在。 上座部（Sthavira）對此解釋前面的經文說：如果過去的色（rūpa）不存在，那麼博學多聞的聖弟子眾就不應該對過去的色勤修厭舍，乃至廣說。這段話的意思是說，如果過去的色不是過去的，那麼博學多聞的聖弟子眾就不應該對過去的色勤修厭舍，應該像對現在一樣勤于厭離和滅盡。或者如果過去的色在自己和他人的相續中不是……
【English Translation】 English version: Objection: If the past karma's (karma) own nature (svabhāva) is already non-existent, how can it be said to exist? Reply: It can be said to exist based on the function of the fruit it produces. Those cunning and deceitful individuals who adhere to the view that, with the function of the element (dhātu) influencing, the seed (bīja) grows, and the non-loss of dharma (dharma) etc., have been refuted in many places. How can they obstruct this definitive meaning sūtra (nītārtha-sūtra), causing the 'existence' spoken of in the sūtra to become 'non-existence'? Even if we assume that the function they cite exists, it should not be said that 'non-existence' becomes 'existence' because of it. Do not say that because that 'cause' (hetu) is non-existent, its 'function' (kārya) is also non-existent, because the differentiating conditions (viśeṣa-pratyaya) are unobtainable. Moreover, what the World-Honored One (Bhagavān, referring to the Buddha) said is different from their view. The Buddha clearly stated that although karma has passed, ceased, decayed, and been destroyed, the function of the fruit it produces still exists. In the continuum (santāna), even if we assume that this function exists now, its essence (svabhāva) is not past, ceased, decayed, or destroyed. How can it be said to 'be' based on that? If it were necessarily so, the Buddha should have clearly stated that although karma has passed, ceased, decayed, and been destroyed, its function exists in the continuum. But the Buddha only said 'that karma still exists,' so it can be known that the past karma actually exists. Moreover, the Buddha only said 'past existence,' how can it be determined that it is spoken of in terms of function? Has it not already been said? If it were not so, that past karma, realistically possessing 'existence,' how could it be past? I have already said it in the previous text. What was said earlier? It was said about the essence (svabhāva) and characteristics (lakṣaṇa). Although the essence and characteristics are not different, gender can be seen within them. The 'existence' spoken of in this way is different; who among you can refute it? Based on this meaning, there is a verse that says: 'The essence of all dharmas is one, the functions have many existences; if one does not know this truthfully, one is said to dwell outside the Buddha's teachings.' However, the sūtra on ultimate emptiness (śūnyatā) that they cite can be explained comprehensively as before and cannot be used as their evidence. Moreover, their school does not acknowledge the real existence of past karma, and the sūtra does not say 'having existed, it ceases to exist,' so how can it be cited to prove their meaning? Therefore, relying on one's own ideas and cleverly making erroneous interpretations cannot contradict the real existence of the past and future. The Sthavira (Elder) school explains the previous sūtra in this way: If the past form (rūpa) does not exist, then the learned and wise noble disciples should not diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards the past form, and so on. The meaning of this statement is that if the past form is not past, then the learned and wise noble disciples should not diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards the past form, but should diligently cultivate aversion, separation, and cessation as they do towards the present. Or if the past form in one's own and others' continuums is not...
曾領納。不應多聞聖弟子眾勤修厭舍。要曾領納方可厭舍。未曾領納何所厭舍。以彼色是過去及過去曾領受故。應多聞聖弟子眾。於過去色勤修厭舍。又釋第二杖髻經言。彼過去業亦可說有。有因緣故有隨界故。未有能遮彼相續故。彼異熟果未成熟故。最後方能牽異熟故。然去來世非實有體。可笑如是解釋經義。此豈能遮去來實有。如是謬釋一切智經豈能莊嚴印度方域。且彼初釋前所引經。若謂前經有如是義。若過去色非是過去。不應于中勤修厭舍。應如現在勤厭離滅。此非經意徒設劬勞。以若彼色非是過去。應是現在或是未來。是則不應但如現在。此言翻是擾亂契經。豈得名為釋經意趣。又若爾者。經但應言。若過去色非過去非若過去色非有。又經次後應作是言。以過去色是過去非。以過去色是有文。既不爾彼釋定非。若謂前經有如是義。若過去色非有過去。不應于中勤修厭舍。非於無法可修厭舍。要過去色有過去性。方可於中勤修厭舍。如現在色有現在性。方可於中勤厭離滅。則與我釋其義無差。彌更顯成過去實有。由此彼釋徒設劬勞。定不能遮過去實有。彼第二釋前所引經。少有彼經所說義趣。謂曾領納應勤厭舍。未曾領納何所厭舍。然不知彼作是釋經。欲如何遮過去實有。若非實有厭舍唐捐。釋杖髻經亦不應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 曾領納的（事物）。不應（說）多聞的聖弟子眾勤奮修習厭離捨棄（之法）。一定要曾領納過，才可以厭離捨棄。未曾領納過，又厭離捨棄什麼呢？因為那些色（rupa，物質現象）是過去（已經存在）以及過去曾領受過的緣故。應（說）多聞的聖弟子眾，對於過去的色，勤奮修習厭離捨棄（之法）。 又（有人）解釋第二《杖髻經》說：『那些過去的業（karma，行為）也可以說是存在的，因為有因緣的緣故，有隨順於界的緣故，沒有能夠遮止那些相續的緣故，那些異熟果（vipaka-phala，果報）還沒有成熟的緣故，最後才能夠牽引異熟的緣故。』然而（他們認為）過去和未來世並非真實存在。這樣解釋經義真是可笑。這怎麼能夠遮止過去和未來是真實存在的呢？如此謬誤地解釋一切智者的經典，怎麼能夠莊嚴印度這片土地呢？ 且說他們最初解釋前面所引用的經文，如果說前面的經文有這樣的含義：如果過去的色不是過去（的），就不應在其中勤奮修習厭離捨棄（之法），應該像對現在（的色）一樣勤奮地厭離滅盡。這不是經文的本意，只是徒勞無功。因為如果那些色不是過去（的），就應該是現在或是未來（的）。這樣就不應該僅僅像對現在（的色）一樣（厭離滅盡）。這種說法反而擾亂了契經（sutra，佛經）。怎麼能稱得上是解釋經文的本意呢？ 又如果這樣，經文就應該只說：『如果過去的色不是過去（的），如果過去的色不是存在（的）。』又經文接下來應該這樣說：『因為過去的色是過去（的），因為過去的色是存在（的）。』既然不是這樣，他們的解釋必定是錯誤的。如果說前面的經文有這樣的含義：如果過去的色沒有過去（的性質），就不應在其中勤奮修習厭離捨棄（之法），因為對於沒有（的事物）無法修習厭離捨棄（之法）。一定要過去的色有過去（的性質），才可以對它勤奮修習厭離捨棄（之法），就像現在的色有現在（的性質），才可以對它勤奮地厭離滅盡。』那麼這和我（的）解釋在意義上就沒有差別了，反而更加顯明地成就了過去是真實存在的。由此可見，他們的解釋只是徒勞無功，必定不能遮止過去是真實存在的。 他們第二種解釋前面所引用的經文，稍微有些經文所說的意義，即曾領納過（的事物）應該勤奮厭離捨棄，未曾領納過（的事物）又厭離捨棄什麼呢？然而不知道他們這樣解釋經文，想要如何遮止過去是真實存在的。如果（過去）不是真實存在的，厭離捨棄（的努力）就是白費。解釋《杖髻經》也不應該（那樣解釋）。
【English Translation】 English version: That which has been experienced. It is not appropriate (to say) that well-learned noble disciples diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment. Only that which has been experienced can be subject to aversion and abandonment. What can be abandoned if it has not been experienced? Because those 'rupa' (form, material phenomena) are past (already existing) and have been experienced in the past. It is appropriate (to say) that well-learned noble disciples diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards past 'rupa'. Furthermore, (someone) explains the second 'Staff-Bearer Sutra' saying: 'Those past 'karma' (actions) can also be said to exist, because there are causes and conditions, because there is accordance with the realm, because there is no ability to prevent those continuities, because those 'vipaka-phala' (result of actions) have not yet matured, and only finally can they draw forth the 'vipaka'. However, (they believe) that the past and future are not truly existent. Such an explanation of the sutra is laughable. How can this prevent the past and future from being truly existent? Such a mistaken interpretation of the sutras of the All-Knowing One, how can it adorn the land of India? Moreover, regarding their initial explanation of the previously cited sutra, if they say that the previous sutra has such a meaning: if past 'rupa' is not past, one should not diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards it, but should diligently abandon and extinguish it as with the present. This is not the intention of the sutra, it is merely a futile effort. Because if those 'rupa' are not past, they should be present or future. In that case, one should not merely (abandon and extinguish) as with the present. This statement instead disrupts the 'sutra' (Buddhist scripture). How can it be called an explanation of the sutra's intention? Furthermore, if that were the case, the sutra should only say: 'If past 'rupa' is not past, if past 'rupa' does not exist.' And the sutra should then say: 'Because past 'rupa' is past, because past 'rupa' exists.' Since it is not so, their explanation must be wrong. If they say that the previous sutra has such a meaning: if past 'rupa' does not have pastness, one should not diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards it, because one cannot cultivate aversion and abandonment towards that which does not exist. Only if past 'rupa' has pastness can one diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards it, just as present 'rupa' has presentness, so one can diligently abandon and extinguish it.' Then there is no difference in meaning between this and my explanation, and it further clearly establishes that the past is truly existent. From this, it is clear that their explanation is merely a futile effort and cannot prevent the past from being truly existent. Their second explanation of the previously cited sutra has a slight connection to the meaning spoken of in the sutra, namely that one should diligently abandon and relinquish that which has been experienced, and what should one abandon and relinquish if it has not been experienced? However, it is not known how they intend to prevent the past from being truly existent by explaining the sutra in this way. If (the past) is not truly existent, the effort of aversion and abandonment is in vain. The explanation of the 'Staff-Bearer Sutra' should not (be explained in that way) either.
理。無法不成因緣性故。彼隨界言無所詮故。一剎那宗無相續故。無法不能招異熟故。不爾生死應無窮故。由此我說實有去來。又具二緣識方生故。謂契經說識二緣生。如契經言。眼色為緣生於眼識。如是乃至意法為緣生於意識。若去來世非實有者。能緣彼識應闕二緣經主此中作如是說。今於此義應共尋思。意法為緣生意識者。為法如意作能生緣。為法但能作所緣境。若法如意作能生緣。如何未來百千劫后當有彼法。或當亦無為能生緣生今時識。又涅槃性違一切生。立為能生不應正理。若法但能為所緣境。我說過未亦是所緣。經主此言乖于論道。謂對法者作如是言。佛說二緣能生於識。此則唯說實及假依。為根為境方能生識。二唯用彼為自性故。非無可為二緣所攝。由此知佛已方便。遮無為所緣識亦得起。既緣過未識亦得生。故知去來體是實有宗承既爾。而經主言。如有無亦能為所緣境者。但違戾佛非對法宗。對法諸師承佛意旨。置於心首咸作是言。過去未來決定實有。所言此義應共尋思。應共此中尋思何法。意為意識所依生緣。法為所緣能生意識。所依緣別生緣義同。佛說二緣能生識故。如所依闕識定不生。所緣若無識亦不起。二種俱是識生緣故。于明瞭義何所尋思。若謂意根與所生識。一類相續無間引生可名能生
。法不爾者。眼根及色望眼識生。應非能生彼非眼識。一類相續無間引故。又未來世近當生法。應望意識亦非能生。以彼亦非與所生識。一類相續無間引故。然彼自許亦是能生。由彼自言百千劫后。當有非有及與涅槃。如何為緣能生今識。若未來世近當生法。望今意識亦非能生。如何但言百千劫后。當有非有及與涅槃。如何為緣能生今識。故彼所說。語亦有過。此中善逝決定判言。所依所緣皆能生識。各別相續亦是能生。母是能生世極成故。又彼所說如何未來百千劫后當有諸法。為能生緣生今識者。亦應詰彼如何未來近當生法能生今識以據因果染離染事。若遠若近性皆等故。又一切法自性皆無作者作用。不應於此定執能生所生差別。故一切法有自體者。皆但為識所依所緣。非說但聲能顯有識。以無體法為所緣境。經主於此自難釋言。若無如何成所緣境。我說彼有如成所緣。如何成所緣謂曾有當有。非憶過去色受等時。如現分明觀彼為有。但追憶彼曾有之相。逆觀未來當有亦爾。謂如曾現在所領色相。如是追憶過去為有。亦如當現在所領色相。如是逆觀未來為有。若如現有應成現世。若體現無則應許有緣無境識其理自成。譬喻師徒情參世俗。所有慧解俱粗淺故。非如是類爾焰稠林。可以世間淺智為量。唯是成就清凈覺者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果法不是這樣，那麼眼根和色塵期望眼識產生，應該不能產生眼識。因為它們不是與所生眼識同一類別的相續，也沒有無間斷的引導作用。此外，未來世即將產生的法，期望意識產生，也應該不能產生意識。因為它們也不是與所生意識同一類別的相續，也沒有無間斷的引導作用。然而他們自己承認，未來世的法也是能產生意識的。因為他們自己說，百千劫后，將會有『非有』以及『涅槃』，這些如何能作為緣來產生現在的意識呢？如果未來世即將產生的法，期望現在的意識產生，也不能產生意識，那麼為什麼只說百千劫后，將會有『非有』以及『涅槃』，這些如何能作為緣來產生現在的意識呢？所以他們的說法，也有過失。對此，善逝（Sugata，佛陀的稱號）明確地判定說，所依和所緣都能產生識，各自不同的相續也能產生識，就像母親能夠生育一樣，這是世間普遍認可的。此外，他們所說的，如果未來百千劫后將有的諸法，能夠作為能生之緣來產生現在的意識，那麼也應該反問他們，未來即將產生的法如何能夠產生現在的意識？因為就因果、染污和清凈的事情來說，無論是遠的還是近的，性質都是一樣的。而且，一切法的自性都沒有作者和作用，不應該對此執著于能生和所生的差別。所以，一切法如果有自體，都只是作為識的所依和所緣。不能說僅僅因為有『但』這個詞，就能顯示有識，因為沒有實體的法也可以作為所緣境。經論作者對此自己提出疑問並解釋說：如果沒有，如何成為所緣境呢？我說它有，所以能成為所緣。如何成為所緣呢？就是曾經有或者將要有。當回憶過去色、受等時，不像現在這樣清晰地觀察它們為存在，而只是追憶它們曾經存在的相狀，反過來推測未來將有的也是這樣。就像曾經和現在所領受的色相一樣，這樣追憶過去為存在；也像現在和將來所領受的色相一樣，這樣推測未來為存在。如果像現在存在一樣，就應該成為現在世。如果實體根本不存在，那麼就應該承認有緣而無境，這樣識的道理才能成立。譬喻師徒的情識摻雜了世俗的觀念，所有的智慧和理解都粗淺，不像這樣的『爾焰稠林』（指深奧的佛法），可以用世間的淺薄智慧來衡量。只有成就清凈覺悟的人才能理解。 English version: If the Dharma were not so, then the eye-faculty (eye-organ) and the visual object, expecting eye-consciousness to arise, should not be able to produce eye-consciousness. This is because they are not of the same continuous stream as the eye-consciousness being produced, nor do they have uninterrupted guiding influence. Furthermore, a Dharma about to arise in the future, expecting consciousness to arise, should also not be able to produce consciousness, because it is also not of the same continuous stream as the consciousness being produced, nor does it have uninterrupted guiding influence. However, they themselves admit that future Dharmas can produce consciousness, because they themselves say that hundreds of thousands of kalpas (aeons) later, there will be 'non-existence' and 'Nirvana', how can these serve as conditions to produce present consciousness? If a Dharma about to arise in the future, expecting present consciousness to arise, cannot produce consciousness, then why only say that hundreds of thousands of kalpas later, there will be 'non-existence' and 'Nirvana', how can these serve as conditions to produce present consciousness? Therefore, their statement also has faults. In this regard, the Sugata (Buddha's epithet) definitively judges that both the support (所依, substratum) and the object (所緣, objective condition) can produce consciousness, and different continuous streams can also produce consciousness, just as a mother can give birth, which is universally acknowledged in the world. Moreover, regarding their statement that if future Dharmas hundreds of thousands of kalpas later can serve as the productive cause to produce present consciousness, then they should also be questioned how a Dharma about to arise in the near future can produce present consciousness? Because in terms of cause and effect, defilement and purification, whether far or near, the nature is the same. Moreover, all Dharmas by their nature have no agent or action, and one should not be attached to the difference between what produces and what is produced. Therefore, if all Dharmas have self-nature, they only serve as the support and object of consciousness. It cannot be said that merely because of the word 'only', it can be shown that there is consciousness, because a Dharma without substance can also be taken as an objective condition. The author of the treatise raises a question here and explains it himself: If there is nothing, how can it become an objective condition? I say it exists, so it can become an objective condition. How does it become an objective condition? It is what once existed or will exist. When recalling past forms, feelings, etc., one does not observe them as existing as clearly as in the present, but only recalls their past appearance, and infers the future in the same way. Just like the forms experienced in the past and present, one recalls the past as existing; also like the forms experienced in the present and future, one infers the future as existing. If it were like the present existence, it should become the present world. If the substance does not exist at all, then one should admit that there is a condition without an object, so that the principle of consciousness can be established. The emotions and understanding of the teachers and disciples of the example are mixed with worldly views, and all their wisdom and understanding are shallow, unlike this 'dense forest of Er Yan' (指深奧的佛法, referring to the profound Dharma), which cannot be measured by worldly shallow wisdom. Only those who have achieved pure enlightenment can understand.
【English Translation】 If the Dharma were not so, then the eye-faculty (eye-organ) and the visual object, expecting eye-consciousness to arise, should not be able to produce eye-consciousness. This is because they are not of the same continuous stream as the eye-consciousness being produced, nor do they have uninterrupted guiding influence. Furthermore, a Dharma about to arise in the future, expecting consciousness to arise, should also not be able to produce consciousness, because it is also not of the same continuous stream as the consciousness being produced, nor does it have uninterrupted guiding influence. However, they themselves admit that future Dharmas can produce consciousness, because they themselves say that hundreds of thousands of kalpas (aeons) later, there will be 'non-existence' and 'Nirvana', how can these serve as conditions to produce present consciousness? If a Dharma about to arise in the future, expecting present consciousness to arise, cannot produce consciousness, then why only say that hundreds of thousands of kalpas later, there will be 'non-existence' and 'Nirvana', how can these serve as conditions to produce present consciousness? Therefore, their statement also has faults. In this regard, the Sugata (Buddha's epithet) definitively judges that both the support (所依, substratum) and the object (所緣, objective condition) can produce consciousness, and different continuous streams can also produce consciousness, just as a mother can give birth, which is universally acknowledged in the world. Moreover, regarding their statement that if future Dharmas hundreds of thousands of kalpas later can serve as the productive cause to produce present consciousness, then they should also be questioned how a Dharma about to arise in the near future can produce present consciousness? Because in terms of cause and effect, defilement and purification, whether far or near, the nature is the same. Moreover, all Dharmas by their nature have no agent or action, and one should not be attached to the difference between what produces and what is produced. Therefore, if all Dharmas have self-nature, they only serve as the support and object of consciousness. It cannot be said that merely because of the word 'only', it can be shown that there is consciousness, because a Dharma without substance can also be taken as an objective condition. The author of the treatise raises a question here and explains it himself: If there is nothing, how can it become an objective condition? I say it exists, so it can become an objective condition. How does it become an objective condition? It is what once existed or will exist. When recalling past forms, feelings, etc., one does not observe them as existing as clearly as in the present, but only recalls their past appearance, and infers the future in the same way. Just like the forms experienced in the past and present, one recalls the past as existing; also like the forms experienced in the present and future, one infers the future as existing. If it were like the present existence, it should become the present world. If the substance does not exist at all, then one should admit that there is a condition without an object, so that the principle of consciousness can be established. The emotions and understanding of the teachers and disciples of the example are mixed with worldly views, and all their wisdom and understanding are shallow, unlike this 'dense forest of Er Yan' (指深奧的佛法, referring to the profound Dharma), which cannot be measured by worldly shallow wisdom. Only those who have achieved pure enlightenment can understand.
。稱境妙覺所觀境故。若諸世間覺不凈者。要曾領受方能追憶。因此尋思去來世異理必應爾。彼于未來由未領納觀極闇昧。清凈覺者觀于去來。脫未領納觀極明瞭。若過未有如成所緣。于杌緣人于塊緣鴿。豈可彼有如成所緣。故於去來緣異有異。不可彼有如成所緣。有據曾當緣據現故。又彼自語前後相違。謂先既說非憶過去色受等時。如現分明觀彼為有。但追憶彼曾有之相。后不應言如曾現在所領色相。如是追憶過去為有。以非現在領色相時領曾有相。唯領現有亦非追憶過去色時。憶現有相唯憶曾有故。領現在與憶過去。現曾有相條然差別。若如現有追憶過去。而說彼有如成所緣。是則極成過去實有。以如現在領實有相。如是追憶過去為有。既許彼有如所追憶。如何過去體非實有。故彼后說自違前宗。又彼所言若如現有應成現世。若體現無則應許有緣無境識。此先已說先說者何。謂非去來有如現在。以於一切同實有中。許有種種有性別故。又一切識必有境故。謂見有境識方得生。如世尊言。各各了別。彼彼境相名識取蘊。所了者何。謂色至法非彼經說有識無境。由此應知緣去來識。定有境故。實有去來。此中所應與經主諍。如前已辯故不重述。此中上座作如是言。智緣非有亦二決定。推尋因果展轉理故。其義云何。要
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為稱合於境界的妙覺所觀察的境界的緣故。如果世間之人覺知不凈之物，必須曾經領受過才能追憶。因此，尋思過去、未來世的道理必然是這樣的。他們對於未來，因為沒有領納，所以觀察極其闇昧。清凈覺悟的人觀察過去和未來，即使沒有領納，觀察也極其明瞭。如果過去和未來有如成就所緣，那麼對於木樁而誤以為是人，對於土塊而誤以為是鴿子的人來說，難道他們也能有如成就所緣嗎？所以，對於過去和未來的緣，因為有差異而有不同，不可能像成就所緣那樣。因為有根據曾經作為緣，根據現在之故。而且，他們自己說的話前後矛盾。他們先前已經說過，不是憶念過去色、受等的時候，像現在一樣分明地觀察它們為有，只是追憶它們曾經有過的相狀。後來不應該說像曾經現在所領受的色相一樣，這樣追憶過去為有。因為不是在現在領受色相的時候領受曾經有過的相狀，只是領受現在有的，也不是在追憶過去色的時候，憶念現在有的相狀，只是憶念曾經有過的。所以，領受現在和憶念過去，現在有的相狀和曾經有過的相狀，條理分明地有差別。如果像現在有一樣追憶過去，而說它們有如成就所緣，那麼就極大地證明了過去是真實存在的。因為像現在領受真實存在的相狀一樣，這樣追憶過去為有，既然允許它們有如所追憶，那麼過去之體怎麼能不是真實存在的呢？所以，他們後來的說法自相矛盾于先前的宗義。而且，他們所說的如果像現在有一樣，就應該成為現世，如果體現在沒有，那就應該允許有緣無境的識。這些先前已經說過了，先前說的是什麼呢？就是過去和未來不像現在一樣，因為在一切同樣真實存在的事物中，允許有種種有性別之故。而且，一切識必然有境界的緣故，就是說，見到有境界，識才能產生。就像世尊所說，『各各了別，彼彼境相，名為識取蘊』。所了別的是什麼呢？就是色乃至法，不是那部經說有識而沒有境界。由此應該知道，緣過去和未來的識，一定有境界的緣故，所以過去和未來是真實存在的。這裡所應該與經主爭論的，像前面已經辯論過一樣，所以不重複敘述。這裡，上座部的人這樣說，智慧緣非有也是兩種決定，因為推尋因果展轉的道理的緣故。它的意義是什麼呢？要 English version: Because it accords with the realm that the wondrous awareness observes. If worldly people perceive impurity, they must have experienced it before they can recall it. Therefore, contemplating the principles of the past and future must be like this. They are extremely obscure in their observation of the future because they have not experienced it. Those with pure awareness observe the past and future, and even if they have not experienced it, their observation is extremely clear. If the past and future were like accomplished objects of perception, then for those who mistake a stump for a person or a clod for a pigeon, could they also have accomplished objects of perception? Therefore, the conditions for the past and future are different because of their differences, and they cannot be like accomplished objects of perception, because there is a basis for having been a condition, based on the present. Moreover, their own words contradict each other. They said earlier that it is not when recalling past forms, sensations, etc., that they observe them as existing as clearly as the present, but only recall their past appearances. Later, they should not say that they recall the past as existing in the same way as the forms and appearances they once experienced in the present. Because it is not when experiencing forms in the present that they experience past appearances, but only experience what exists now, and it is not when recalling past forms that they recall present appearances, but only recall what once existed. Therefore, there is a clear difference between experiencing the present and recalling the past, between present appearances and past appearances. If one recalls the past as existing in the same way as the present, and says that they have accomplished objects of perception, then it would greatly prove that the past is real. Because just as one experiences real appearances in the present, one recalls the past as existing in this way. Since it is allowed that they exist as they are recalled, how can the substance of the past not be real? Therefore, their later statement contradicts their earlier doctrine. Moreover, what they say, 'If it were like the present, it should become the present world; if the substance is non-existent, then one should allow consciousness that conditions without an object.' This has already been said before, so what was said before? It is that the past and future are not like the present, because among all things that exist equally in reality, it is allowed that there are various kinds of existential differences. Moreover, all consciousness must have an object, that is, consciousness can only arise when an object is seen. Just as the World Honored One said, 'Each distinguishes, each object appearance, is called the aggregate of consciousness.' What is distinguished? It is form up to dharma, it is not that the sutra says there is consciousness without an object. From this, it should be known that the consciousness that conditions the past and future must have an object, therefore the past and future are real. What should be argued with the sutra master here is the same as what has been argued before, so it will not be repeated. Here, the elders of the Sthavira school say this: 'Wisdom conditioning the non-existent is also a twofold certainty, because of the principle of investigating the causes and effects in turn.' What is its meaning? To
【English Translation】 Because it accords with the realm that the wondrous awareness observes. If worldly people perceive impurity, they must have experienced it before they can recall it. Therefore, contemplating the principles of the past and future must be like this. They are extremely obscure in their observation of the future because they have not experienced it. Those with pure awareness observe the past and future, and even if they have not experienced it, their observation is extremely clear. If the past and future were like accomplished objects of perception, then for those who mistake a stump for a person or a clod for a pigeon, could they also have accomplished objects of perception? Therefore, the conditions for the past and future are different because of their differences, and they cannot be like accomplished objects of perception, because there is a basis for having been a condition, based on the present. Moreover, their own words contradict each other. They said earlier that it is not when recalling past forms, sensations, etc., that they observe them as existing as clearly as the present, but only recall their past appearances. Later, they should not say that they recall the past as existing in the same way as the forms and appearances they once experienced in the present. Because it is not when experiencing forms in the present that they experience past appearances, but only experience what exists now, and it is not when recalling past forms that they recall present appearances, but only recall what once existed. Therefore, there is a clear difference between experiencing the present and recalling the past, between present appearances and past appearances. If one recalls the past as existing in the same way as the present, and says that they have accomplished objects of perception, then it would greatly prove that the past is real. Because just as one experiences real appearances in the present, one recalls the past as existing in this way. Since it is allowed that they exist as they are recalled, how can the substance of the past not be real? Therefore, their later statement contradicts their earlier doctrine. Moreover, what they say, 'If it were like the present, it should become the present world; if the substance is non-existent, then one should allow consciousness that conditions without an object.' This has already been said before, so what was said before? It is that the past and future are not like the present, because among all things that exist equally in reality, it is allowed that there are various kinds of existential differences. Moreover, all consciousness must have an object, that is, consciousness can only arise when an object is seen. Just as the World Honored One said, 'Each distinguishes, each object appearance, is called the aggregate of consciousness.' What is distinguished? It is form up to dharma, it is not that the sutra says there is consciousness without an object. From this, it should be known that the consciousness that conditions the past and future must have an object, therefore the past and future are real. What should be argued with the sutra master here is the same as what has been argued before, so it will not be repeated. Here, the elders of the Sthavira school say this: 'Wisdom conditioning the non-existent is also a twofold certainty, because of the principle of investigating the causes and effects in turn.' What is its meaning? To
取現已於前後際能速推尋。謂能推尋現如是果。從如是類過去因生。此因復從如是因起。乃至久遠隨其所應。皆由推尋如現證得。或推尋現如是類因。能生未來如是類果。此果復引如是果生。隨其所應乃至久遠。皆推尋故如現證得。如是展轉觀過去因。隨其所應乃至久遠。如現證得皆無顛倒。雖於此位境體非有。而智非無二種決定。彼謂如是因智生時。自相續中因緣有故。謂昔曾有如是智生。傳因生今如是相智。今智既以昔智為因。故今智生如昔而解。即以昔境為今所緣。然彼所緣今時非有。今雖非有而成所緣。故不可言無二決定。如是展轉觀于未來。果傳傳生準前應說。上座於此自難釋言。若智緣前曾所取境。可以昔境為今所緣。若緣過去曾未取境。或逆思惟未來世事。寧以昔境為其所緣。于相續中必定應有因智果智。先時已生今智生時。亦以彼智曾所緣境為其所緣。彼智為因生今智故。今智如彼亦能推尋。從如是因生如是果。或如是果從如是因。隨其所應皆能證得。隨所證得皆無顛倒。雖於此位境體非有。而智非無二種決定。如是一切上座所言皆如啞人夢有所說。辯四緣處已廣推徴。應準彼文例破此說。此說但可誘誑愚蒙。智者推尋都無實義。今仍於此略重思擇。且應詰彼自釋難中。言相續中必定應有因智果智。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他們現在能夠迅速地推斷和尋找過去和未來的因果關係。他們認為能夠推斷出現在的這種結果，是從過去相似的因產生的。而這個因又是從另一個相似的因產生的，甚至可以追溯到很久以前，所有這些都是通過推斷而像親眼所見一樣確定的。或者，他們推斷出現在的這種因，能夠產生未來相似的果，而這個果又會引發另一個果的產生，甚至可以推斷到很久以後，所有這些都是通過推斷而像親眼所見一樣確定的。就這樣，他們輾轉觀察過去的因，甚至可以追溯到很久以前，就像親眼所見一樣確定，而且沒有顛倒。雖然在這個階段，所觀察的境並非真實存在，但智慧並非不存在，這兩種確定性是存在的。他們認為，當這種因的智慧產生時，是因為自己的相續中存在因緣。也就是說，過去曾經產生過這樣的智慧，通過因的傳遞，現在產生了具有相似特徵的智慧。現在的智慧既然以過去的智慧為因，所以現在的智慧產生時，就像過去一樣理解。也就是以過去的境作為現在所緣的對象。然而，這個所緣的對象在現在並不存在，但現在雖然不存在，卻成爲了所緣的對象。所以不能說沒有兩種確定性。就這樣，輾轉觀察未來，果的傳遞和產生，應該按照前面的說法來解釋。 上座部的論師對此提出了質疑並自己解釋說：『如果智慧緣於之前曾經獲取的境，那麼可以用過去的境作為現在所緣的對象。但如果緣於過去從未獲取的境，或者逆向思維未來世的事情，怎麼能用過去的境作為所緣的對象呢？在相續中必定應該有因智和果智。先前的因智和果智已經產生，現在智慧產生時，也應該以那些智慧曾經緣過的境作為現在所緣的對象。因為那些智慧是產生現在智慧的原因，所以現在的智慧也像那些智慧一樣能夠推斷，從這樣的因產生這樣的果，或者這樣的果從這樣的因產生，所有這些都能夠確定。所有確定的東西都沒有顛倒。雖然在這個階段，所觀察的境並非真實存在，但智慧並非不存在，這兩種確定性是存在的。』 像這樣，上座部所說的一切，就像啞巴在夢裡說話一樣。在辨析四緣的地方已經廣泛地推究和考證過，應該參照那裡的文章來駁斥這種說法。這種說法只能用來誘騙愚昧無知的人，對於有智慧的人來說，推斷沒有任何實際意義。現在仍然要在這裡稍微重新思考一下。首先應該反駁他們自己解釋疑問時所說的：『相續中必定應該有因智和果智。』
【English Translation】 English version: They are now able to quickly infer and seek out the causal relationships of the past and future. They claim to be able to infer that the present result arises from a similar cause in the past. And this cause arises from another similar cause, even tracing back to the distant past, all of which are determined through inference as if witnessed directly. Alternatively, they infer that the present cause can produce a similar result in the future, and this result will lead to the generation of another result, even inferring far into the future, all of which are determined through inference as if witnessed directly. In this way, they observe the past causes in a roundabout way, even tracing back to the distant past, determining them as if witnessed directly, and without any inversion. Although at this stage, the observed object is not truly existent, wisdom is not non-existent, and these two certainties exist. They believe that when this wisdom of cause arises, it is because there are conditions in their own continuum (相續, samtāna). That is to say, such wisdom once arose in the past, and through the transmission of cause, wisdom with similar characteristics now arises. Since the present wisdom takes the past wisdom as its cause, the present wisdom arises understanding as it did in the past. That is, it takes the past object as the object of present cognition. However, this object of cognition does not exist in the present, but although it does not exist in the present, it becomes the object of cognition. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no two certainties. In this way, observing the future in a roundabout way, the transmission and generation of results should be explained according to the previous statement. The Sthavira (上座, Elder) school of thought raises a question and explains it themselves: 'If wisdom is conditioned by an object that was previously apprehended, then the past object can be used as the object of present cognition. But if it is conditioned by an object that was never apprehended in the past, or if it retroactively contemplates matters of the future, how can the past object be used as the object of cognition? In the continuum (相續, samtāna), there must necessarily be wisdom of cause (因智, hetu-jñāna) and wisdom of result (果智, phala-jñāna). The previous wisdom of cause and wisdom of result have already arisen, and when present wisdom arises, it should also take the objects that those wisdoms were previously conditioned by as the objects of present cognition. Because those wisdoms are the cause of the arising of present wisdom, the present wisdom, like those wisdoms, is also able to infer, that such a result arises from such a cause, or that such a result arises from such a cause, all of which can be determined. All that is determined is without inversion. Although at this stage, the observed object is not truly existent, wisdom is not non-existent, and these two certainties exist.' Like this, everything that the Sthavira (上座, Elder) school says is like a mute person speaking in a dream. In the place of analyzing the four conditions (四緣, catuḥpratyaya) , extensive investigation and verification have already been carried out, and this statement should be refuted by referring to the text there. This statement can only be used to deceive the ignorant and foolish, and for the wise, inference has no practical meaning. Now, it is still necessary to slightly reconsider this here. First, they should be refuted for what they said when they themselves explained the question: 'In the continuum (相續, saṃtāna), there must necessarily be wisdom of cause (因智, hetu-jñāna) and wisdom of result (果智, phala-jñāna).'
先時已生今智生時。亦以彼智曾所緣境為所緣者。何謂已生因智果智。而言今智緣彼所緣。為即曾緣今智境者。為更別有緣余境智若即曾緣今智境者。此境既為昔智所緣。如何名為曾未取境。若更別有緣余境智既執彼境為今所緣。今智如何名以過未曾未取境為其所緣。謂先已生因智果智所緣因果。為今所緣此境先時已為智取。如何複名曾未取境。曾即未曾不應正理。又設許彼有舊隨界因果。展轉相續力故。雖經多劫久已滅境。而今時取理可無違。若於未來百千劫后。當有境界今如何取。不可說言因果展轉相續力故。彼亦可取未來體無。如馬角故於相續中無隨界故。又若展轉尋過去因。于曾取境中方有識生者則于近遠曾取境中。應有速遲取時差別。非身現住波吒厘城。憶昔所更縛喝國事。尋因展轉方有識生。率爾便生緣彼識故。又從耳識無間便生。緣于先時曾所取識。如是識起用何為因。且不可因當時隨界。耳識不緣彼境界故。亦不可因曾取彼識。曾取彼識爾時無故。不可無法為因生無。勿馬角等亦有生故。辯四緣中已廣徴遣。故唯說有一剎那宗。緣去來識生必無二決定若信實有過去未來二決定義方可成立。又已謝業有當果故。謂先所造善不善業。待緣招當愛非愛果。思擇業處已廣成立。非業無間異熟果生。非當果生時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 先前已經生起的智慧，在現在生起智慧的時候，也是以先前那個智慧曾經緣過的境界作為所緣嗎？ 什麼是已生因智（hetu-paccaya-ñāṇa，作為原因的智慧）和果智（phala-paccaya-ñāṇa，作為結果的智慧），而說現在的智慧緣于那個所緣呢？ 是說先前曾經緣過的就是現在智慧的境界嗎？ 還是另外有緣于其他境界的智慧呢？ 如果說先前曾經緣過的就是現在智慧的境界，那麼這個境界既然已經被過去的智慧緣過了，怎麼能叫做『曾經未取之境』呢？ 如果另外有緣于其他境界的智慧，既然執取那個境界作為現在所緣，那麼現在的智慧怎麼能叫做以過去未來曾經未取之境作為它的所緣呢？ 如果說先前已經生起的因智和果智所緣的因和果，是現在所緣的，那麼這個境界先前已經被智慧取過了，怎麼能又叫做『曾經未取之境』呢？ 『曾經』和『未曾』不應該同時成立。 又假設允許有舊的隨界（anusaṃsāra，相續）因果，因為輾轉相續的力量，即使經過很多劫已經滅亡的境界，而現在取它在道理上也可以沒有違背。 如果對於未來百千劫之後，將要有的境界，現在如何取呢？ 不可以說因為因果輾轉相續的力量，它也可以被取，因為未來的體性不存在，就像馬角一樣，因為在相續中沒有隨界。 另外，如果輾轉尋找過去的因，在曾經取過的境界中才有識生起，那麼對於近的和遠的曾經取過的境界，應該有快慢不同的取時差別。 不是身體現在住在波吒厘城（Pāṭaliputra，印度古城），回憶過去在縛喝國（Bakkala，古代地名）經歷的事情，尋找原因輾轉才有識生起，而是立刻就生起緣于那個識。 另外，從耳識無間斷地生起，緣于先前曾經取過的識，這樣的識生起用什麼作為原因呢？ 而且不可以因為當時隨界，因為耳識不緣于那個境界。 也不可以因為曾經取過那個識，因為曾經取過那個識當時不存在。 不可以沒有法作為原因而生起有，不要讓馬角等也能夠生起。 在辨析四緣的時候已經廣泛地征問駁斥過了，所以只能說有一剎那宗（ekakṣaṇavāda，主張一切法只存在一剎那）。 緣於過去未來的識生起必定沒有兩種決定，如果確實有過去未來兩種決定才能成立。 另外，已經消逝的業有將來的果報，就是說先前所造的善和不善業，等待因緣招感將來的可愛和不可愛果報。 在思擇業處的時候已經廣泛地成立了，不是業無間斷地生起異熟果（vipāka-phala，果報），不是當果生起的時候。
【English Translation】 English version: When a prior wisdom has already arisen, does the present arising wisdom also take as its object that which was previously cognized by that wisdom? What are the 'wisdom of cause already arisen' (hetu-paccaya-ñāṇa) and the 'wisdom of result' (phala-paccaya-ñāṇa), that it is said the present wisdom cognizes that object? Is it that what was previously cognized is the object of the present wisdom? Or is there another wisdom that cognizes a different object? If what was previously cognized is the object of the present wisdom, how can this object, having already been cognized by the past wisdom, be called an 'object never before taken'? If there is another wisdom that cognizes a different object, since that object is taken as the present object, how can the present wisdom be said to take as its object a past or future object 'never before taken'? If the cause and result cognized by the prior wisdom of cause and result are what is now cognized, how can this object, having already been taken by wisdom, be called an 'object never before taken'? 'Previously' and 'never before' should not both be true. Furthermore, if it is allowed that there is an old 'continuity' (anusaṃsāra) of cause and result, then because of the power of continuous succession, even an object that has perished for many eons can be taken now without logical contradiction. But how can we take an object that will exist hundreds of thousands of eons in the future? It cannot be said that because of the power of continuous succession of cause and result, it can also be taken, because the future has no substance, like a horse's horn, because there is no continuity in the succession. Moreover, if one seeks the past cause in a roundabout way, and consciousness arises only in an object that has been taken before, then there should be a difference in the speed of taking objects that are near and far that have been taken before. It is not that one's body is now dwelling in Pāṭaliputra (ancient city in India), recalling events experienced in Bakkala (ancient place name), and consciousness arises only after seeking the cause in a roundabout way, but rather that consciousness arises immediately, cognizing that consciousness. Furthermore, from the ear-consciousness arising without interruption, cognizing the consciousness that was previously taken, what is the cause for the arising of such consciousness? Moreover, it cannot be because of the continuity at that time, because the ear-consciousness does not cognize that object. Nor can it be because that consciousness was previously taken, because that consciousness that was previously taken did not exist at that time. It is not possible for something to arise from nothing, lest horse's horns and the like could also arise. In the analysis of the four conditions, extensive questioning and refutation have already been made, so it can only be said that there is the 'doctrine of one moment' (ekakṣaṇavāda, which asserts that all phenomena exist only for one moment). The arising of consciousness cognizing past and future consciousnesses must not have two certainties; only if there are indeed two certainties of past and future can it be established. Furthermore, karma that has passed has future consequences, that is, the good and bad karma previously created awaits conditions to bring about future desirable and undesirable consequences. In the consideration of the place of karma, it has already been extensively established that the result of maturation (vipāka-phala) does not arise without interruption from karma, not when the future result arises.
異熟因。現在若過去法其體已無。則應無因有果生義。或應彼果畢竟不生。由此應知過去實有。經主於此作如是言。非經部師作如是說。即過去業能生當果。然業為先所引相續。轉變差別令當果生。譬如世間種生當果。謂如從種有當果生。非當果生從已壞種。非種無間有當果生。然種為先所引相續。轉變差別能生當果。謂初從種次有芽生。葉乃至花後後續起。從花次第方有果生。而言果生從於種者。由種所引展轉傳來。花中功能生於果故。若花無種所引功能。應不能生如是類果。如是從業有當果生。非當果生從已壞業。非業無間有當果生。然業為先所引相續。轉變差別能生當果。業相續者謂業為先。後後剎那心相續起。即此相續後后剎那。異異而生名為轉變。即此轉變于最後時。有勝功能無間生果。異余轉變故名差別。如是等理準前應知。此說如前思擇業處已曾遮遣。今因義便理未盡者復應廣破。且業為先心後續起名業相續。理必不然以業與心有差別故。言差別者。謂業與心體類及因皆有異故。體有異者相各別故。類有異者心心所法類各別故。因有異者因二因三而得生故。此既有異如何可言後心續生是業相續。又心與業俱時而生。辯俱有因及於余處已廣成立。于思相續識相續中。曾不見有自類相續俱時而起。故知業心
非一相續。又汝宗執滅定有心。佛言滅定諸意行滅。如何心業一相續耶。若許業心同一相續。如心不滅意行應然。如意行滅心亦應爾。然在滅定必無有心。不相應中已廣成立。業相續斷故後果應不生。非種芽等次第相續。後果生中有如是理。故彼唯有虛妄分別。又彼所說果從華生理不極成。諸已滅種體猶實有。我宗許故設許極成。如彼相續此業相續理亦不成。由前所辯差別理故。又愛非愛果因定故。謂諸惡行決定為因招非愛果。若諸愛果決定應以妙行為因。若執如花是種相續轉變差別能生果者。有何定理妙惡行因。各別能招愛非愛果。惡行無有感愛果能。妙行無能感非愛果。無記於二俱無感能應說此中有何定理。如是三種所有功能。一切與心體不異故。亦不應說種類有異。非別種類而可說言無有別體。曾不見故。又花由與芽等相續。容可執有種子功能。功能與花無別體故。非善不善可體無別。勿此中有大過失故。又種芽等是一相續。既執花有種子功能。芽等功能花亦應有。此彼差別不可得故。是則芽等及種功能。一切與花無別體故。既從花內所有功能。花為助緣能生於果。即由此故芽等應生。然于爾時唯能生果不生芽等。此有何因非於花中。可有細分種等所引功能別居。由此爾時唯種所引。花為緣助能引果生。非於花
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非一相續：此外，你們宗派認為滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti，一種高級禪定狀態）中存在心識。但佛陀說過，在滅盡定中，所有的意行（manasikara，心理活動）都已止滅。那麼，你們的心識和業（karma）如何能保持單一相續呢？ 如果你們承認業和心識是同一相續，那麼就像心識不滅一樣，意行也應該不滅。反之，如果意行止滅，心識也應該止滅。然而，在滅盡定中，必然沒有心識。這在『不相應』（visamyoga）的討論中已經充分成立。由於業的相續中斷，因此後續的果報不應該產生。這不同於種子和芽等次第相續，後者有其產生後果的道理。因此，你們的觀點僅僅是虛妄分別（kalpana）。 此外，你們所說的果報從花朵中產生的理論並不完全成立。因為你們認為已經滅去的種子仍然具有實體。即使我們承認你們的觀點成立，就像花朵的相續一樣，業的相續的道理也無法成立，因為之前已經辯論過其中的差別。 此外，可愛和不可愛的果報是由確定的因所導致的。也就是說，惡行（duḥcarita）必定是招致不可愛果報的原因。如果可愛果報必定是由妙行（sucarita）為因，那麼如果像花朵一樣是種子相續轉變的差別而能生果，有什麼定理能說明妙行和惡行各自能招致可愛和不可愛的果報呢？惡行沒有產生可愛果報的能力，妙行也沒有產生不可愛果報的能力，無記行（avyākata）對兩者都沒有產生果報的能力。應該說明這其中有什麼定理？ 像這樣，所有三種（善、惡、無記）的功能，都與心識的本體沒有區別。因此，也不應該說種類有差異。因為沒有看到過沒有不同本體卻能說種類不同的情況。 此外，花朵由於與芽等相續，或許可以認為具有種子的功能，因為功能與花朵沒有不同的本體。但是，善和不善的本體不能沒有區別，否則會產生很大的過失。 此外，種子和芽等是同一相續。既然你們認為花朵具有種子的功能，那麼芽等也應該具有花朵的功能，因為無法找到它們之間的差別。那麼，芽等和種子的功能，都與花朵沒有不同的本體。既然從花朵內部的所有功能，以花朵為助緣能夠產生果報，那麼由此芽等也應該產生。然而，在那個時候，只能產生果報，不能產生芽等。這是什麼原因呢？難道在花朵中，有細微的部分，種子等所引導的功能分別存在？因此，在那個時候，只有種子所引導的功能，以花朵為助緣，才能引導果報產生，而不是花朵本身。
【English Translation】 English version Non-Single Continuity: Furthermore, your school asserts that there is mind in Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment). However, the Buddha said that in Nirodha-samāpatti, all mental activities (manasikara) cease. How, then, can your mind and karma maintain a single continuity? If you admit that karma and mind are the same continuity, then just as the mind does not cease, mental activities should also not cease. Conversely, if mental activities cease, the mind should also cease. However, in Nirodha-samāpatti, there is certainly no mind. This has been fully established in the discussion of 'non-association' (visamyoga). Since the continuity of karma is interrupted, the subsequent result should not arise. This is different from the sequential continuity of seeds and sprouts, which has its own logic for producing results. Therefore, your view is merely conceptual proliferation (kalpana). Furthermore, your theory that results arise from flowers is not entirely established. This is because you believe that the seeds that have already ceased still possess substance. Even if we concede that your view is established, the logic of the continuity of karma cannot be established like the continuity of flowers, because the differences between them have already been debated. Moreover, pleasant and unpleasant results are caused by definite causes. That is, evil actions (duḥcarita) are certainly the cause of bringing about unpleasant results. If pleasant results are certainly caused by virtuous actions (sucarita), then if, like flowers, it is the difference in the transformation of the seed continuity that can produce results, what principle can explain that virtuous and evil actions can each bring about pleasant and unpleasant results? Evil actions do not have the ability to produce pleasant results, and virtuous actions do not have the ability to produce unpleasant results. Undetermined actions (avyākata) do not have the ability to produce either. What principle can explain this? Like this, all three types (virtuous, evil, and undetermined) of functions are no different from the essence of the mind. Therefore, it should not be said that there are differences in kind. Because it has never been seen that there can be different kinds without different essences. Furthermore, since flowers are continuous with sprouts, etc., it may be thought that they have the function of seeds, because the function and the flower have no different essence. However, the essence of good and bad cannot be without difference, otherwise, a great fault will arise. Furthermore, seeds and sprouts are the same continuity. Since you believe that flowers have the function of seeds, then sprouts, etc., should also have the function of flowers, because it is impossible to find a difference between them. Then, the functions of sprouts, etc., and seeds have no different essence from flowers. Since all the functions from within the flower, with the flower as a supporting condition, can produce results, then sprouts, etc., should also be produced by this. However, at that time, only results can be produced, not sprouts, etc. What is the reason for this? Could it be that in the flower, there are subtle parts, and the functions guided by seeds, etc., exist separately? Therefore, at that time, only the function guided by the seed, with the flower as a supporting condition, can guide the production of results, not the flower itself.
中芽等所引。若謂芽等所引功能。雖住花中而要待果。或芽等起芽等方生。若爾如先種子所引。生自果已復為因生后芽等中。種子相續則應先業所引功能。生自所招異熟果已。復為因起后業相續。然汝宗說異熟後邊。別業為因引業相續。非前業種引后業能。是故不應以種相續。喻業相續能生於果。又種芽等無始時來。一一種類各一相續。初未曾聞稻種芽等展轉乃至引稗果生。然汝所宗一業相續。愛非愛果俱能引生。故彼不應為同法喻。又若識體帶思功能。思體復帶識功能者。功能與法無別體故。此識此思由何相別。又若爾者順現等業應成雜亂。如是等過於處處文。我數數說由此憎背。去來有者業果感赴其理定無故。諸愚蒙隱滅經者。計有相續轉變差別。能招當果理必不成。經主此中又作是難。若執實有過去未來則一切時果體常有。業于彼果有何功能。此難至時當如理釋。且汝業果感赴不成。然應去來定是實有。說有相故猶如現在。如契經說。過去未來色尚無常何況現在。無常即是有為相故。現有彼相實有極成。若執去來非實有者。應非如現在說有有為相。非畢竟無空花馬角。亦容可說彼有無常。故知去來定是實有。謂據曾當說有相者此亦非理。言無別故非契經說。過去未來色曾無常當無常故。由此彼救但率己情。又彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中芽等所引：如果說幼芽等所引發的功能，即使存在於花中，也必須要等待果實的出現；或者幼芽等生起，新的幼芽等才能產生。如果這樣，就像先前的種子所引發的，在產生了自己的果實后，又作為原因產生後來的幼芽等，種子就這樣相續不斷。那麼，先前的業所引發的功能，在產生了自己所招感的異熟果后，又作為原因引發後來的業相續。然而，你們宗派說，在異熟果之後，由其他的業作為原因來引發業的相續，而不是先前的業的種子引發後來的業的功能。因此，不應該用種子相續來比喻業相續能夠產生果報。 而且，從無始以來，種子、幼芽等，每一種類都各自形成一種相續。從來沒有聽說過稻子的種子、幼芽等輾轉相生，最終卻引生出稗子的果實。然而，你們宗派認為，一種業的相續，既能引發可愛的果報，也能引發不可愛的果報。所以，它不應該被用作同法之喻。 此外，如果識的本體帶有思的功能，思的本體又帶有識的功能，那麼，功能與法沒有不同的本體，這個識和這個思又通過什麼來區分呢？如果這樣，順現受業等應該變得雜亂無章。像這樣的過失，我在很多地方都說過，因此我對此感到厭惡和背離。 認為過去和未來存在的觀點，業果感應的道理必定是不成立的。那些愚昧無知、隱瞞經義的人，認為存在相續轉變的差別，能夠招感未來的果報，這個道理必定不能成立。 經主在這裡又提出了這樣的難題：如果執著於過去和未來是真實存在的，那麼一切時候果實的本體都是常有的，業對於那個果實有什麼作用呢？這個難題到時會如理地解釋。且不說你們的業果感應不成立，但過去和未來應該是真實存在的，因為經典中說它們存在，就像現在一樣。就像契經所說：『過去和未來的色尚且是無常的，更何況現在呢？』無常就是有為的相狀，現在存在這種相狀，真實存在是極其確定的。如果執著於過去和未來不是真實存在的，那麼就不應該像現在一樣說它們存在有為的相狀。不能因為它們畢竟不存在，就像空中的花朵和馬的角一樣，就認為可以說它們具有無常的性質。所以，要知道過去和未來一定是真實存在的。 認為根據曾經存在和將要存在來說它們存在，這也是不合理的，因為沒有區別。契經並沒有說：『過去和未來的色曾經是無常的，將來是無常的。』由此可見，他們的辯解只是按照自己的想法而已。 而且，他們...
【English Translation】 English version Those cited by Madhyamaka and others. If you say that the function induced by sprouts etc., although residing in the flower, must await the fruit; or that sprouts etc. arise and then sprouts etc. are produced, then, like that induced by the previous seed, after producing its own fruit, it again becomes the cause for the production of later sprouts etc., the seed continuing in this way. Then, the function induced by the previous karma, after producing the Vipaka (result of actions) it has summoned, again becomes the cause for the continuation of later karma. However, your school says that after Vipaka, other karma is the cause for inducing the continuation of karma, not that the previous karma seed induces the ability of later karma. Therefore, one should not use the seed continuum as an analogy for the karma continuum being able to produce fruit. Moreover, from beginningless time, each kind of seed, sprout, etc., has had its own continuum. It has never been heard that rice seeds, sprouts, etc., transform and eventually lead to the production of barnyard grass fruit. However, your school holds that a single karma continuum can induce both desirable and undesirable fruits. Therefore, it should not be used as an example of the same principle. Furthermore, if the nature of consciousness carries the function of thought, and the nature of thought carries the function of consciousness, then, since the function and the dharma have no separate entity, how are this consciousness and this thought distinguished? Moreover, if that were the case, karma ripening in the present, etc., should become confused. Such faults, etc., I have repeatedly stated in various places, and therefore I detest and turn away from them. The view that the past and future exist, the principle of karma and its result responding to each other is definitely not established. Those who are ignorant and conceal the meaning of the scriptures, believing that there is a difference in the transformation of the continuum, which can summon future results, this principle is definitely not established. The Sutra master here again raises this difficulty: If one clings to the past and future as truly existing, then at all times the essence of the fruit is permanent, what function does karma have on that fruit? This difficulty will be explained reasonably when the time comes. Let alone that your karma and its result responding to each other is not established, but the past and future should definitely be real, because it is said that they exist, just like the present. As the Sutra says: 'The past and future form are impermanent, let alone the present?' Impermanence is the characteristic of conditioned phenomena, and the present has this characteristic, and its real existence is extremely certain. If one clings to the past and future as not really existing, then one should not say that they exist with the characteristic of conditioned phenomena like the present. One cannot say that they have the nature of impermanence just because they ultimately do not exist, like flowers in the sky and horns of a horse. Therefore, one should know that the past and future must be real. To say that they exist based on having existed and being about to exist is also unreasonable, because there is no difference. The Sutra does not say: 'The past and future form was impermanent and will be impermanent.' From this, it can be seen that their defense is only according to their own ideas. Moreover, they...
所言曾無常等。但方便說現在無常。謂說曾當現無常故。若爾已說現在無常。不應復言何況現在。或應唯說現在無常。去來無常。由此已了。即現已滅未生位故。若一切時體恒有者。則無常性不應得成。辯世別中當如理釋。且不應說無法無常。上座此中作如是釋。即體無故名為無常。若體非無無無常理若爾現在應體是常。若現非無是無常者。則不應說無故無常。彼復難言若經三世自性恒住應說為常。此難不然。為如何等非有別法經於三世。自性恒住共許是常。一切是常皆不經世。又不應說性恒住言。許去來今有性異故。由此彼設過難不成。又彼釋經說去來色是無常者現無體故。此釋不然。由次後說何況現在。應許現在色非無常現有體故。由此為證非現無體故。是無常彼此極成。現在有體而無常故理必應爾。以契經言諸行無常。有生滅法非於無法。佛說無常然諸去來體雖實有。而可說是有生滅法。如是理趣我后當辯。且非無體亦可得說有無常相其理極成。是故應知去來實有。又布剌拏契經說故。知去來世決定實有。謂彼經說此滿苾芻。眼見色已能了知色。了知色貪彼于有。內眼所識色貪能如實了知。我有內眼所識色貪乃至廣說。非如實見與貪俱生。謂見相續中有貪隨眠者此亦非理。有不成故設有成者見亦不成。實見隨眠
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於過去、未來諸法無常等問題，（佛陀）只是爲了方便才說現在是無常的，意思是說過去、未來也都是無常的。如果這樣說，既然已經說了現在是無常的，就不應該再說『何況現在』。或者應該只說現在是無常的，過去和未來也是無常的，這樣就已經明白了，因為現在即是已經滅去和尚未生起的狀態。（如果）一切時候體性都是恒常存在的，那麼無常的性質就不可能成立。《辯世別論》中將會如理地解釋這個問題。 而且不應該說沒有法就沒有無常。上座部在此處這樣解釋：因為體性不存在，所以叫做無常。如果體性不是沒有，就沒有無常的道理。如果這樣，那麼現在的體性應該是常。如果現在不是沒有，而是無常的，那麼就不應該說因為沒有所以是無常。 他們又反駁說，如果經歷三世自性恒常住，就應該說是常。這個反駁是不對的。有什麼不是別的法，而是經歷三世，自性恒常住，大家公認是常的呢？一切是常的事物都不經歷時間的變化。也不應該說『自性恒常住』，因為承認過去、現在、未來有體性的差別。因此，他們所設的過失和責難不能成立。 他們又解釋經文說，過去和未來的色是無常的，因為現在沒有體性。這種解釋是不對的，因為後面說『何況現在』，就應該承認現在的色不是無常的，因為現在有體性。由此可以證明，不是因為現在沒有體性，所以才是無常的，這是彼此都承認的。現在有體性，但是無常，道理必然是這樣。因為契經上說『諸行無常，有生滅法』，而不是說沒有法。佛陀說無常，雖然過去和未來的體性確實存在，但是也可以說是有生滅法的。這樣的道理我以後會辯論。而且不是沒有體性，也可以說是具有無常的相狀，這個道理是極其成立的。所以應該知道過去和未來確實存在。 而且因為《布剌拏經》（Purana Sutra）這樣說，所以知道過去和未來世決定是真實存在的。那部經上說，這位具足比丘，眼睛看到色之後，能夠了解色，瞭解對色的貪愛，他對於存在，用內在的眼睛所認識的對色的貪愛，能夠如實地瞭解。我有內在的眼睛所認識的對色的貪愛，乃至廣說。不是如實地見到和貪愛一起產生。說在見相續中有貪的隨眠，這也是不合理的，因為沒有成立。即使成立了，見也不成立。真實的見和隨眠。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the impermanence of past and future dharmas, etc., (the Buddha) only spoke of the present as impermanent for convenience, meaning that the past and future are also impermanent. If this is the case, since it has already been said that the present is impermanent, it should not be said 'how much more so the present.' Or it should only be said that the present is impermanent, and that the past and future are also impermanent, which is already understood, because the present is the state of having already ceased and not yet arisen. (If) the nature of the entity were constantly existent at all times, then the nature of impermanence could not be established. This issue will be explained rationally in the Treatise on the Differentiation of Worlds. Moreover, it should not be said that without a dharma, there is no impermanence. The Sthaviras (Elders) explain it this way: because the entity does not exist, it is called impermanent. If the entity is not non-existent, there is no reason for impermanence. If this is the case, then the present entity should be permanent. If the present is not non-existent, but is impermanent, then it should not be said that it is impermanent because it is non-existent. They further argue that if the self-nature constantly abides through the three times, it should be said to be permanent. This argument is incorrect. What is not a separate dharma, but passes through the three times, and whose self-nature constantly abides, that everyone acknowledges as permanent? Everything that is permanent does not undergo changes in time. Nor should it be said 'self-nature constantly abides,' because it is acknowledged that the past, present, and future have different natures. Therefore, the faults and criticisms they have set up cannot be established. They further explain the sutra, saying that the past and future rupa (form) are impermanent because the present has no entity. This explanation is incorrect, because the later statement 'how much more so the present' should acknowledge that the present rupa is not impermanent, because the present has an entity. This proves that it is not because the present has no entity that it is impermanent, which is mutually acknowledged. The present has an entity, but is impermanent, and the reason must be so. Because the sutra says 'All samskaras (conditioned things) are impermanent, having the nature of arising and ceasing,' rather than saying there is no dharma. The Buddha said impermanent, although the entities of the past and future do exist, it can also be said that they have the nature of arising and ceasing. I will discuss this reasoning later. Moreover, it is not that without an entity, it can be said to have the characteristic of impermanence, and this reasoning is extremely established. Therefore, it should be known that the past and future truly exist. Moreover, because the Purana Sutra says so, it is known that the past and future worlds definitely exist. That sutra says that this fully ordained bhiksu (monk), after seeing rupa with his eyes, is able to understand rupa, understand the craving for rupa, and regarding existence, he is able to truly understand the craving for rupa recognized by the inner eye. I have the craving for rupa recognized by the inner eye, and so on. It is not that truly seeing and craving arise together. Saying that there is latent craving in the continuum of seeing is also unreasonable, because it is not established. Even if it were established, seeing would not be established. True seeing and latent tendencies.
體無別故。非許有智緣自體境。如何可說能見隨眠。若謂未修貪對治故。信有貪者理亦不然。應說此貪在何位故。謂設許彼信知有貪。應說信貪於何位有。若言貪有非去來今。應說如何信貪為有。不可常法說名為貪。是故必應信去來有。又契經說。于內受中隨觀而住。乃至廣說。有如是等眾多至教。能證去來決定是有。復有別理證有去來。謂彼若無無殺生理。以現在世命根剎那。離設劬勞滅相能滅。若未來世其體實無。應說如何成殺生事。能礙何法令其非有。為已生者為當生耶。且法已生必不可礙如前說故。其當生者亦不可礙都無有故。過去已滅殺義不成。故無去來定無殺理。又去來世體實非無。能緣彼覺有差別故。如現在世色聲等法。諸非有法無差別故。緣彼不能起差別覺。諸有處俗及出家人。信有如前所辯三世。及有真實三種無為。方可自稱說一切有。以唯說有如是法故。許彼是說一切有宗。余則不然有增減故。謂增益論者。說有真實補特伽羅及前諸法。分別論者唯說有現。及過去世未與果業。剎那論者唯說有現一剎那中十二處體。假有論者說現在世所有諸法亦唯假有。都無論者說一切法都無自性皆似空花。此等皆非說一切有。經主此中作如是謗。若說實有過去未來。于聖教中非為善說。若欲善說一切有者。應如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 體性沒有差別的原因。如果不承認有智慧的因緣自體境，又怎麼能說能見到隨眠（Sui眠，煩惱的潛在形式）呢？如果說因為沒有修習貪慾的對治法，所以相信有貪慾，這個理由也是不成立的。應該說這種貪慾存在於哪個階段？假使承認他們相信知道有貪慾，應該說相信貪慾存在於哪個階段？如果說貪慾的存在不涉及過去、現在、未來，應該說如何相信貪慾是存在的？不可能把常法說成是貪慾。因此，必定應該相信貪慾存在於過去和未來。而且，契經上說，『在內在的感受中，隨順觀察而安住』，乃至廣說。有像這樣眾多的至理名言，能夠證明過去和未來肯定是存在的。還有其他的道理可以證明過去和未來是存在的。如果過去和未來不存在，就不會有殺生的行為。因為現在世的命根剎那，即使沒有費力，其滅亡的相狀也能滅亡。如果未來世的體性實際上不存在，應該說如何能構成殺生的行為？能障礙什麼，使它不能存在？是已經產生的，還是將要產生的？如果法已經產生，必定無法阻礙，就像前面所說的那樣。如果是將要產生的，也無法阻礙，因為它根本不存在。過去已經滅亡，殺的意義不能成立。所以，如果沒有過去和未來，就一定沒有殺生的道理。而且，過去和未來世的體性實際上不是沒有，因為能緣取它們的覺知是有差別的。就像現在世的色、聲等法一樣。那些不存在的法沒有差別，所以緣取它們不能產生差別的覺知。那些存在於世俗和出家的人，相信有像前面所辯論的三世，以及有真實的三種無為法（無為法，指不生不滅、無造作的法），才可以自稱是『說一切有部』。因為只說有這些法，才承認他們是『說一切有宗』。其他的則不是，因為有增減。所謂增益論者，說有真實的補特伽羅（補特伽羅，一種常一不變的『我』的假設），以及前面的各種法。分別論者只說有現在，以及過去世未給予果報的業。剎那論者只說有現在一剎那中的十二處（十二處，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根及其對應的六境）的體性。假有論者說現在世的所有法也只是假有。都無論者說一切法都沒有自性，都像是空中的花朵。這些都不是『說一切有部』。經主在這裡這樣誹謗：如果說過去和未來是真實存在的，在聖教中就不是好的說法。如果想要好好地說一切有，應該像……
【English Translation】 English version Because there is no difference in essence. If one does not acknowledge the existence of the self-nature realm of wisdom-related causes, how can one speak of being able to see the latent tendencies (Sui眠, potential forms of afflictions)? If it is said that it is because one has not cultivated the antidote to greed, then believing in the existence of greed is also unreasonable. One should say in which stage this greed exists. Supposing it is acknowledged that they believe and know there is greed, one should say in which stage does this belief in greed exist? If it is said that the existence of greed does not involve the past, present, or future, one should say how can one believe that greed exists? It is impossible to call a permanent phenomenon greed. Therefore, one must believe that greed exists in the past and future. Moreover, the sutras say, 'In internal sensations, abide by observing accordingly,' and so on extensively. There are many such supreme teachings that can prove that the past and future definitely exist. There are also other reasons to prove that the past and future exist. If the past and future did not exist, there would be no act of killing. Because the moment of the life force in the present world, even without effort, can perish in its aspect of extinction. If the nature of the future world does not actually exist, one should say how can it constitute the act of killing? What can obstruct it, preventing it from existing? Is it what has already arisen, or what is about to arise? If the dharma has already arisen, it is certainly impossible to obstruct it, as mentioned before. If it is about to arise, it is also impossible to obstruct it, because it does not exist at all. The past has already perished, and the meaning of killing cannot be established. Therefore, if there is no past and future, there is certainly no principle of killing. Moreover, the nature of the past and future worlds is not actually non-existent, because the awareness that apprehends them is different. Just like the phenomena of form, sound, etc., in the present world. Those non-existent phenomena have no difference, so apprehending them cannot produce different awareness. Those who exist in the secular and monastic worlds, believing in the three times as debated before, and having the three true unconditioned dharmas (無為法, unconditioned dharmas, referring to dharmas that are not produced or extinguished, and are not created), can then call themselves 'Sarvāstivādins' (說一切有部, the 'All Exists' school). Because they only say that these dharmas exist, they are acknowledged as the 'Sarvāstivāda school'. Others are not, because they have additions and subtractions. The augmentationists (增益論者) say that there is a real pudgala (補特伽羅, pudgala, a hypothetical 'self' that is constant and unchanging), as well as the various dharmas mentioned before. The distinctionists (分別論者) only say that there is the present, and the karma of the past that has not yet given its result. The momentarists (剎那論者) only say that there are the natures of the twelve ayatanas (十二處, twelve ayatanas, the six sense organs and their corresponding six objects) in one moment of the present. The illusionists (假有論者) say that all dharmas in the present world are also only illusory. The nihilists (都無論者) say that all dharmas have no self-nature, and are all like flowers in the sky. These are not 'Sarvāstivādins'. The sutra master here slanders in this way: If one says that the past and future are truly existent, it is not a good saying in the holy teachings. If one wants to properly say that all exists, one should...
契經所說而說。經如何說。如契經言。梵志當知一切有者唯十二處。或唯三世如其所有而說有言。為彼經中說唯有現十二處體非過未耶。不爾。若然為于余處見有明教遮過未耶。不見不聞處處經說。去來二世亦是有耶。我聞何緣違背聖教。謗說有者為非善說。又汝等說現十二處。少分實有少分實無。如上座宗色聲觸法如何是說一切有宗。有餘但由煩惱增上。說一切法唯是假有。豈亦是說一切有宗。有餘復由邪見增上。說一切法自性都無。彼亦說言現虛幻有。豈如此有而說有言。亦得名為說一切有。故為遮有補特伽羅。及為總開有所知法。佛為梵志說此契經。非為顯成唯有現在一剎那頃十二處法。故諸憎厭實有去來。不應自稱說一切有。以此與彼都無論宗。唯隔一剎那見未全同故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之八
如是所許一切有宗。自古師承差別有幾。誰所立世最善可依。頌曰。
此中有四種 類相位待異 第三約作用 立世最為善
論曰。尊者法救作如是說。由類不同三世有異彼謂諸法。行於世時。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
經文里是按照契經所說的內容來講述。那麼契經是如何說的呢？比如契經上說，『婆羅門（梵志，指修行者）應當知道，一切存在的事物只有十二處（十二處，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根，以及色、聲、香、味、觸、法六境）。』或者說只有三世（三世，指過去、現在、未來），依照它們各自存在的狀態來說『有』。那麼，在那部契經中，是說只有現在的十二處是真實存在的，而過去和未來不存在嗎？』
『不是這樣的。』
『如果不是這樣，那麼在其他地方，你是否見到有明確的教義來否定過去和未來呢？』
『沒有見到，也沒有聽到。在很多契經中都說，過去和未來二世也是存在的。』
『我聽了這些，為什麼還要違背聖教，誹謗說『有』是不正確的說法呢？而且你們說現在的十二處，一部分是真實存在的，一部分是不真實存在的，就像上座部的宗義那樣，這怎麼能說是『說一切有』的宗義呢？』
『還有一些人，只是由於煩惱的增上，就說一切法都只是虛假的，這難道也算是『說一切有』的宗義嗎？還有一些人，又由於邪見的增上，就說一切法的自性根本不存在，他們也說現在的事物是虛幻存在的。難道像這樣說『有』，也可以稱作是『說一切有』嗎？』
『所以，爲了遮止認為存在補特伽羅（補特伽羅，指人或眾生），以及爲了總括性地開示所有可以被認識的法，佛陀才為婆羅門說了這部契經，而不是爲了表明只有現在這一剎那的十二處法才是存在的。所以，那些憎恨和厭惡真實存在的過去和未來的人，不應該自稱是『說一切有』。因為這樣一來，你們和那些主張一切都不存在的宗派，僅僅是隔著一個剎那的見解不同而已，並沒有完全相同。』 《說一切有部順正理論》第五十一卷 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》第五十二卷 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯隨眠品第五之八 像這樣被認可的『說一切有』宗，自古以來師承的差別有多少種？誰所建立的理論最完善，最值得遵循？頌文說： 『這其中有四種，類、相、位、待各不相同，第三種關於作用的理論，是建立得最為完善的。』 論述說：尊者法救（Dharmatrāta）是這樣說的：由於種類不同，三世的『有』也不同。他認為諸法在世間執行的時候，由於...
【English Translation】 English version:
The scriptures are spoken according to what the sutras say. How do the sutras say it? For example, the sutras say, 'Brahmin (梵志, refers to practitioners), you should know that all existing things are only the twelve āyatanas (十二處, refers to the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and the six sense objects of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma).' Or it says that there are only the three times (三世, refers to past, present, and future), and 'existence' is spoken according to their respective states of existence. Then, in that sutra, does it say that only the present twelve āyatanas are truly existent, while the past and future do not exist?' 'It is not like that.' 'If it is not like that, then in other places, have you seen any clear teachings that deny the past and future?' 'I have not seen or heard of any. In many sutras, it is said that the past and future two times also exist.' 'Having heard these, why do you still go against the holy teachings and slander that 'existence' is not a correct statement? Moreover, you say that the present twelve āyatanas, some are truly existent, and some are not truly existent, just like the Sthavira (上座部) school's doctrine. How can this be said to be the doctrine of 'Sarvāstivāda (說一切有)'?' 'There are also some people who, merely due to the increase of afflictions, say that all dharmas are only false. Can this also be considered the doctrine of 'Sarvāstivāda'? There are also some people who, due to the increase of wrong views, say that the self-nature of all dharmas does not exist at all. They also say that present things are illusory existences. Can saying 'existence' like this also be called 'Sarvāstivāda'?' 'Therefore, in order to prevent the belief that a Pudgala (補特伽羅, refers to a person or sentient being) exists, and in order to comprehensively reveal all knowable dharmas, the Buddha spoke this sutra for the Brahmin, not to show that only the twelve āyatana dharmas of the present moment exist. Therefore, those who hate and detest the truly existent past and future should not call themselves 'Sarvāstivāda'. Because in this way, you and those schools that advocate that everything does not exist are only separated by a difference in view of one moment, and are not completely the same.' Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra (說一切有部順正理論), Volume 51 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 52 Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra (眾賢) Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘) under Imperial Order Chapter 5.8 on the Analysis of Latent Afflictions How many kinds of differences in lineage have there been since ancient times in this Sarvāstivāda school, which is recognized in this way? Whose established theory is the most complete and worthy of following? The verse says: 'There are four kinds in this, differing in class, characteristic, position, and dependence. The third theory about function is the most well-established.' The treatise says: Venerable Dharmatrāta (法救) said this: Because of the difference in class, the 'existence' of the three times is also different. He believes that when dharmas operate in the world, due to...
類有殊非體有異。如破金器作余物時。形雖有殊而體無異。又如乳變成於酪時。舍味勢等非舍顯色。如是諸法行於世時。從未來至現在。從現在入過去雖捨得類非捨得體。尊者妙音作如是說。由相有別三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時。過去正與過去相合。而不名為離現未相。未來正與未來相合。而不名為離過現相。現在正與現在相合。而不名為離過未相。如人正染一妻室時。于余姬媵不名離染。尊者世友作如是說。由位不同三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時。至位位中作異異說。由位有別非體有異。如運一籌置一名一。置百名百。置千名千。尊者覺天作如是說。由待有別三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時。前後相待立名有異。非體非類非相有殊。如一女人待前待后。如其次第名女名母。如是諸法行於世時。待現未名過去。待過現名未來。待過未名現在。此四種說一切有中傳說。最初執法轉變故應置在數論朋中。今謂不然。非彼尊者說有為法其體是常。歷三世時法隱法顯。但說諸法行於世時。體相雖同而性類異。此與尊者世友分同。何容判同數論外道。第二第四立世相雜。故此四中第三最善。以約作用位有差別。由位不同立世有異。如我所辯實有去來。不違法性聖教所許。若撥去來便違法性。譭謗聖教有多過失。由此應知尊者世友
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種類有不同，但本體沒有差異。例如，當打破金器製作成其他物品時，形狀雖然不同，但本體沒有差異。又如牛奶變成奶酪時，捨棄了味道和力量等，但沒有捨棄顏色。同樣，諸法在世間流轉時，從未來到現在，從現在進入過去，雖然捨棄和獲得種類，但沒有捨棄和獲得本體。尊者妙音這樣說：由於現象有差別，所以三世有差異。他認為諸法在世間流轉時，過去與過去相應合，但不叫做離開現在和未來相。未來與未來相應合，但不叫做離開過去和現在相。現在與現在相應合，但不叫做離開過去和未來相。就像一個人正在親近一個妻子時，對於其他的姬妾不叫做離開親近。尊者世友這樣說：由於位置不同，所以三世有差異。他認為諸法在世間流轉時，到達不同的位置就做出不同的說明。由於位置有差別，但本體沒有差異。就像移動一個籌碼，放在個位叫做一，放在百位叫做百，放在千位叫做千。尊者覺天這樣說：由於對待不同，所以三世有差異。他認為諸法在世間流轉時，前後相互對待，建立名稱有差異，但本體、種類、現象都沒有差別。就像一個女人，對待之前和對待之後，依次叫做女兒和母親。同樣，諸法在世間流轉時，對待現在和未來叫做過去，對待過去和現在叫做未來，對待過去和未來叫做現在。這四種說法是一切有部的傳說。最初的說法執著于轉變，所以應該放在數論的朋黨中。現在我認為不是這樣。不是那位尊者說有為法的本體是常恒的，經歷三世時，法隱沒或顯現。只是說諸法在世間流轉時，本體和現象雖然相同，但性質和種類不同。這與尊者世友的觀點相同。怎麼能判斷為與數論外道相同呢？第二種和第四種說法建立世間相混雜。所以這四種說法中，第三種最好。因為它大約作用和位置有差別。由於位置不同，建立世間有差異。正如我所辯論的，確實有過去和未來，不違反法性和聖教所允許的。如果否定過去和未來，就違反法性，譭謗聖教，有很多過失。由此應該知道尊者世友的觀點是正確的。
【English Translation】 English version Classes are distinct, but the substance is not different. For example, when a golden vessel is broken and made into other things, although the shape is different, the substance is not different. Also, when milk turns into cheese, it abandons taste and strength, but does not abandon color. Similarly, when all dharmas proceed in the world, from the future to the present, and from the present to the past, although they abandon and acquire classes, they do not abandon and acquire substance. Venerable Myoyin (Wonderful Sound) said: Because phenomena are different, the three times are different. He believes that when all dharmas proceed in the world, the past corresponds to the past, but it is not called being apart from the present and future aspects. The future corresponds to the future, but it is not called being apart from the past and present aspects. The present corresponds to the present, but it is not called being apart from the past and future aspects. Just as a person is intimate with one wife, he is not said to be apart from intimacy with other concubines. Venerable Vasumitra (World Friend) said: Because the positions are different, the three times are different. He believes that when all dharmas proceed in the world, different explanations are made when they reach different positions. Because the positions are different, the substance is not different. It is like moving a counter; when placed in the ones place, it is called one; when placed in the hundreds place, it is called one hundred; when placed in the thousands place, it is called one thousand. Venerable Buddhadeva (God of Awakening) said: Because the conditions are different, the three times are different. He believes that when all dharmas proceed in the world, the names are established differently based on the mutual dependence of before and after, but the substance, class, and phenomena are not different. It is like a woman, who is called daughter and mother in sequence, depending on whether she is considered before or after. Similarly, when all dharmas proceed in the world, they are called the past in relation to the present and future, the future in relation to the past and present, and the present in relation to the past and future. These four views are traditions within the Sarvastivada (Doctrine that Everything Exists). The first view clings to transformation, so it should be placed among the party of Samkhya (Enumeration). Now I say it is not so. It is not that the venerable one said that the substance of conditioned dharmas is constant, and that dharmas are hidden or manifest as they pass through the three times. It is only said that when all dharmas proceed in the world, although the substance and phenomena are the same, the nature and class are different. This is the same as the view of Venerable Vasumitra. How can it be judged to be the same as the Samkhya heretics? The second and fourth views establish a mixture of worldly phenomena. Therefore, among these four views, the third is the best. It is approximately because the function and position are different. Because the positions are different, the world is established as different. As I have argued, there are indeed past and future, which do not violate the Dharma-nature and are permitted by the Holy Teachings. If the past and future are denied, it violates the Dharma-nature and slanders the Holy Teachings, which has many faults. From this, it should be known that the view of Venerable Vasumitra is correct.
。所立實有過去未來。符理順經無能傾動。謂彼尊者作如是言。佛于經中說有三世。此三世異云何建立。約作用立三世有異。謂一切行作用未有名為未來。有作用時名為現在。作用已滅名為過去非體有殊。此作用名為何所目。目有為法引果功能。即余性生時能為因性義。若能依此立世有殊。或能作余無過辯異。智者應許名鑑理人。若有由迷立世別理。怖他難故棄捨聖言。或了義經撥為不了。許有現在言無去來。或許唯現仍是假有。或總非撥三世皆無此等皆違聖教。正理智者應斥為迷理人。諸有謗無實三世者。為無量種過失所涂。多設劬勞難令解脫。諸說三世實有論師。設有小違易令解脫。故有智者勿謗言無。然我且依尊者世友。約作用立三世有殊。隨己堪能排諸過難。旦彼經主作是難言。若約作用立三世別。彼同分攝眼等諸根。現在前時有何作用。若謂彼能取果與果。是則過去同類因等。既能與果應有作用。有半作用世相應雜。此難都由不了法性。諸法勢力總有二種。一名作用。二謂功能。引果功能名為作用。非唯作用總攝功能。亦有功能異於作用。且闇中眼見色功能為闇所違非違作用。謂有闇障違見功能。故眼闇中不能見色。引果作用非闇所違。故眼闇中亦能引果。無現在位作用有闕。現在唯依作用立故。諸作用滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所設立的三世（過去、現在、未來）是真實存在的。符合真理，順應佛經，任何人都無法動搖。那位尊者這樣說：佛在經中說有三世，這三世的差別是如何建立的呢？是根據作用的不同來建立三世的差別。一切行為，在作用尚未產生時，稱為未來；產生作用時，稱為現在；作用已經消失時，稱為過去，而不是本體有所不同。這個作用指的是什麼呢？指的是有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma）引發結果的功能，也就是在其他性質產生時，能夠作為因的性質。如果能夠根據這個來建立三世的差別，或者能夠做出其他的辯論，就沒有超過辨別事理的人。如果有人因為迷惑而建立三世的差別，因為害怕被詰難而拋棄聖言，或者把理解了義的經典說成不了義，或者承認有現在而否認過去和未來，或者認為只有現在仍然是虛假的，或者乾脆否認三世都是不存在的，這些都違背了佛教的教義。有正理和智慧的人應該斥責他們是迷惑事理的人。那些誹謗沒有真實三世的人，被無數種過失所矇蔽，即使付出很多努力也很難解脫。那些說三世真實存在的論師，即使有小的錯誤也容易解脫。所以有智慧的人不要誹謗說沒有三世。然而我且依據尊者世友（Vasumitra），根據作用的不同來建立三世的差別，盡我所能來排除各種過失和詰難。但是那位經主提出了這樣的詰難：如果根據作用的不同來建立三世的差別，那麼屬於同一類別的眼等諸根（indriya），在現在呈現時有什麼作用呢？如果說它們能夠取得結果和給予結果，那麼過去的同類因等，既然能夠給予結果，就應該有作用，有半作用，與世相應混雜。這個詰難完全是因為不瞭解法的性質。諸法的勢力總共有兩種：一種叫作用（kriyā），一種叫功能（sāmarthya）。引發結果的功能叫做作用，但不是隻有作用才總攝功能，也有功能不同於作用的情況。比如，在黑暗中，眼睛看見顏色的功能被黑暗所阻礙，但黑暗並沒有阻礙作用。也就是說，有黑暗的障礙阻礙了看見的功能，所以眼睛在黑暗中不能看見顏色。引發結果的作用沒有被黑暗所阻礙，所以眼睛在黑暗中也能引發結果。沒有現在位，作用就有缺失，現在只是根據作用來建立的，各種作用都消失了。
【English Translation】 English version The established three times (past, present, and future) are real. Conforming to the truth and according with the sutras, no one can shake them. That venerable one said: The Buddha said in the sutras that there are three times. How are the differences of these three times established? The differences of the three times are established according to the difference of function (kriyā). All actions, when the function has not yet arisen, are called future; when the function arises, it is called present; when the function has disappeared, it is called past, but not that the substance is different. What does this function refer to? It refers to the function of conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) to cause results, that is, the nature of being able to act as a cause when other natures arise. If one can establish the difference of the three times according to this, or can make other arguments, then one has not exceeded the person who distinguishes things. If someone establishes the difference of the three times because of confusion, abandons the holy words because of fear of being questioned, or says that the sutras that understand the meaning are not understood, or admits that there is a present but denies the past and future, or thinks that only the present is still false, or simply denies that the three times do not exist, these all violate the teachings of Buddhism. Those who have right reason and wisdom should rebuke them as people who are confused about things. Those who slander that there are no real three times are obscured by countless kinds of faults, and it is difficult to be liberated even if they put in a lot of effort. Those teachers who say that the three times are real are easy to be liberated even if they have small mistakes. Therefore, wise people should not slander that there are no three times. However, I will rely on the venerable Vasumitra, and establish the difference of the three times according to the difference of function, and do my best to eliminate various faults and questions. But that sutra master raised such a question: If the difference of the three times is established according to the difference of function, then what is the function of the sense organs (indriya) such as the eye, which belong to the same category, when they appear in the present? If it is said that they can obtain results and give results, then the past causes of the same kind, since they can give results, should have function, have half function, and be mixed with the corresponding times. This question is entirely because of not understanding the nature of dharmas. There are two kinds of powers of dharmas in total: one is called function (kriyā), and the other is called potential (sāmarthya). The potential to cause results is called function, but it is not only function that encompasses potential, and there are also potentials that are different from function. For example, in the dark, the potential of the eye to see colors is hindered by the darkness, but the darkness does not hinder the function. That is to say, the obstacle of darkness hinders the function of seeing, so the eye cannot see colors in the dark. The function of causing results is not hindered by the darkness, so the eye can also cause results in the dark. There is no present position, and the function is missing, and the present is only established according to the function, and all kinds of functions disappear.
不至無為。于余性生能為因性。此非作用但是功能。唯現在時能引果故。無為不能引自果故。唯引自果名作用故。由此經主所舉釋中。與果功能亦是作用。良由未善對法所宗。以過去因雖能與果無作用故世相無雜。然彼經主於此義中。迷執情深復廣興難。謂廣論者不能善通。矯為我宗作理窮釋。頌曰。
何礙用云何 無異世便壞 有誰未生滅 此法性甚深
論曰。彼言若法自體恒有。應一切時能起作用。以何礙力令此法體。所起作用時有時無。此難意言。諸法體相既恒無別。以何礙力非一切時唯一性類。此難非理體相無別。于性類一非證因故。謂不可以體相無別。于性類一為能證因。現見世間體相無別。性類有別如前已辯。謂地界等受等眼等。或難意言。我宗諸行眾緣和合本無而生。然彼眾緣種種差別。有時和合有不合時。法不恒生可無過失。汝宗諸行及彼眾緣。於一切時許常有體。勿許諸法本無今有。應常現在何能為礙。此亦不然前義成故。謂且前說體相雖同。而性類殊義已成立。而言諸行自體眾緣於一切時許常有體。何礙令彼作用非恒。非一切時常現在者。若解前義此難應無。以體雖同而性類別。足能成立作用非恒。故彼不應作如是難。若猶固執應反詰言。汝宗眾緣及所生行。亦有前後體相無差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不至於成為『無為』（Asamskrita，非造作的，不依賴因緣的）。對於其餘的『自性生』（Svabhavika，自然生起的）來說，『能為因性』（Samarthya-hetu-svabhava，具有能力的因的自性）並非作用，而僅僅是功能。這是因為只有現在時才能引生結果，而『無為』不能引生自身的結果。只有引生自身結果的才叫做『作用』。因此，經部的論主在解釋中認為，給予結果的功能也是作用。這是因為他們沒有很好地理解對法宗（Abhidharma，論藏）的宗旨。因為過去的因雖然能夠給予結果，但沒有作用，所以世間的現象不會混雜。然而，那位經部的論主在這個意義上，迷戀執著很深，又廣泛地提出難題，說廣大學者不能很好地理解，假裝為我的宗派（指說一切有部）作出窮盡的解釋。頌文說：
『有什麼障礙作用呢？如果（體性）沒有差異，世界就會壞滅。 有誰沒有生滅呢？這種法性非常深奧。』
論曰：他們說，如果法的自體恒常存在，就應該在一切時候都能產生作用。有什麼障礙的力量，使得這個法體的作用有時有，有時沒有呢？這個難題的意思是說，諸法的體相既然恒常沒有差別，有什麼障礙的力量，使得它不是在一切時候都只有一種性質和類別呢？這個難題是不合理的，因為體相沒有差別，並不能作為證明性質和類別是同一的證據。也就是說，不能以體相沒有差別，作為能夠證明性質和類別是同一的證據。現在可以看到，世間的體相沒有差別，而性質和類別卻有差別，正如前面已經辨析過的，比如地界等等，受等等，眼等等。或者，這個難題的意思是說，我宗（指經部）的諸行（Samskara，造作），是眾緣和合而本來沒有而生起的。然而，那些眾緣有種種差別，有時和合，有時不和合，所以法不是恒常生起的，可以沒有過失。你們宗派（指說一切有部）的諸行以及那些眾緣，在一切時候都承認有常住的體性，不要承認諸法本來沒有而現在有，應該常時存在，有什麼能夠阻礙它呢？這也是不對的，因為前面的意義已經成立。也就是說，前面已經說過，體相雖然相同，而性質和類別不同，這個意義已經成立。說諸行的自體和眾緣在一切時候都承認有常住的體性，有什麼障礙使得它們的作用不是恒常的，不是在一切時候都常時存在呢？如果理解了前面的意義，這個難題就應該不存在了。因為體相雖然相同，而性質和類別不同，就足以成立作用不是恒常的。所以他們不應該作出這樣的難題。如果仍然固執己見，就應該反問說，你們宗派的眾緣以及所生起的行，也有前後，體相沒有差別。
【English Translation】 English version It does not lead to 'Asamskrita' (unconditioned, not dependent on causes and conditions). For the remaining 'Svabhavika' (naturally arising), 'Samarthya-hetu-svabhava' (the nature of a capable cause) is not an action but merely a function. This is because only the present time can produce a result, while 'Asamskrita' cannot produce its own result. Only that which produces its own result is called 'action'. Therefore, the Sūtra master, in his explanation, believes that the function of giving a result is also an action. This is because they have not well understood the tenets of the Abhidharma. Because the past cause, although able to give a result, has no action, the phenomena of the world will not be mixed up. However, that Sūtra master, in this meaning, is deeply infatuated and attached, and widely raises difficulties, saying that broad scholars cannot understand well, pretending to make an exhaustive explanation for my school (Sarvastivada). The verse says:
'What hinders the action? If there is no difference (in essence), the world would be destroyed. Who is there without birth and death? This Dharma nature is very profound.'
The treatise says: They say, if the self-nature of a Dharma is constantly present, it should be able to produce action at all times. What hindering force causes the action of this Dharma body to sometimes exist and sometimes not exist? The meaning of this difficulty is that since the body and characteristics of all Dharmas are constantly without difference, what hindering force causes it not to be of only one nature and category at all times? This difficulty is unreasonable because the body and characteristics are not different, and cannot be used as evidence to prove that the nature and category are the same. That is to say, one cannot use the fact that the body and characteristics are not different as evidence that can prove that the nature and category are the same. Now it can be seen that the body and characteristics of the world are not different, but the nature and category are different, as has been analyzed before, such as the earth element, etc., feeling, etc., eye, etc. Or, the meaning of this difficulty is that the Samskaras (formations) of my school (Sautrantika) arise from the combination of many causes and conditions, and originally did not exist. However, those causes and conditions have various differences, sometimes combining and sometimes not combining, so the Dharma does not arise constantly and can be without fault. Your school's (Sarvastivada) Samskaras and those causes and conditions, at all times, admit that there is a permanent nature, do not admit that Dharmas originally did not exist and now exist, should always exist, what can hinder it? This is also not right, because the previous meaning has already been established. That is to say, it has been said before that although the body and characteristics are the same, the nature and category are different, and this meaning has been established. Saying that the self-nature of the Dharmas and the causes and conditions are admitted to have a permanent nature at all times, what hinders their action from not being constant, from not always existing at all times? If the previous meaning is understood, this difficulty should not exist. Because although the body and characteristics are the same, the nature and category are different, which is enough to establish that the action is not constant. Therefore, they should not make such a difficulty. If they still insist, they should ask back, the causes and conditions of your school and the arising formations also have before and after, and the body and characteristics are not different.
。而剎那剎那許漸漸有異。既前後念彼緣無差。何礙令其非無異起。而許後後轉轉有異。謂前念行與緣俱生。體相無虧與緣俱滅。由此因力后念果生應與前因品類無別。別無別類二種生緣。前後剎那無差別故。何緣為礙令后異前。若謂有為法性應爾。如何不許作用亦然。又受不應緣雖有異。而損益相無有差別。余心心所例亦應然。薪糠等緣雖有差別。而現見火暖相無異。故有為法體類多途。不可責令總為一例。於一切位性類無差。又說眾緣許常有故。所生作用應常有者。亦不應理緣雖常合。而見有時緣果無故。如汝熏習或如眼等。謂汝不許從已滅因。隔中間時而有果起。多因所引種子差別。于相續中同時現有。而非彼果恒俱時生。然或有因所引種子。經多劫後方有果生。設於中間有果生者。生時及果俱不決定。既一切時一切因。有何礙諸果不恒俱生。而或一因此時生果此時不生。或有一時此因生果此因不生。又眼等緣雖恒現有。而眼等識非恒時生。是故不應作如是難。既許緣常有作用亦應常。若謂我宗相續轉變。待別緣故方能生果。是則應許作用亦然。諸引果緣總有二種。一者俱生。二者前生。俱生緣中復有二種。一同聚生。二異聚生。異聚生緣復有二種。一有情數。二無情數。前生緣中亦有二種。一同相續。二異相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 然而剎那剎那之間，實際上是逐漸存在差異的。既然前後唸的生起，其所依賴的因緣沒有差別，那麼為什麼會妨礙它們產生不同的結果呢？而你卻承認后念與后念之間是逐漸存在差異的。這是因為前唸的行為與因緣共同產生，其體性和狀態沒有虧損，並且與因緣共同消滅。由於這種因的力量，后念產生的果，應該與前因的品類沒有差別。既然沒有差別和沒有類別這兩種生起的因緣，前後剎那之間沒有差別，那麼是什麼原因妨礙后念不同於前念呢？如果說有為法的性質本來就應該是這樣，那麼為什麼不允許作用也是這樣呢？ 此外，感受不應該因為所緣境雖然有差異，而其損益的性質卻沒有差別。其餘的心和心所也應該如此。薪和糠等因緣雖然有差別，但現在看到的火焰和溫暖的性質卻沒有差異。所以，有為法的體性和類別有很多種，不能強求它們都遵循一個例子，在所有位置上性質和類別都沒有差別。 又有人說，既然承認眾多的因緣是常有的，那麼所產生的作用也應該是常有的，這也是不合理的。即使因緣經常聚合在一起，但有時也會看到因緣和果沒有同時產生，比如你的熏習，或者像眼睛等。你不是不允許從已經滅去的因，隔著中間的時間而有果產生嗎？多種因所引發的種子差別，在相續中同時存在，但這些種子的果並非總是同時產生。然而，有些因所引發的種子，經過很多劫后才產生果。即使在中間有果產生，產生的時間和果都是不確定的。既然一切時間和一切因都存在，那麼有什麼妨礙諸果不恒常同時產生呢？或者因為一個因在這個時候產生果，而在那個時候不產生果；或者在一個時候，這個因產生果，而那個因不產生果。此外，眼睛等因緣雖然恒常存在，但眼識等並非恒常產生。所以不應該提出這樣的責難：既然承認因緣是常有的，那麼作用也應該是常有的。如果說我宗認為相續的轉變，需要等待特別的因緣才能產生果，那麼就應該承認作用也是這樣。諸引果的因緣總共有兩種：一是俱生緣，二是前生緣。俱生緣中又有兩種：一是同聚生，二是異聚生。異聚生緣又有兩種：一是有情數，二是無情數。前生緣中也有兩種：一是同相續，二是異相續。
【English Translation】 English version: However, moment by moment, there are actually gradual differences. Since the arising of the preceding and subsequent thoughts relies on the same conditions, what prevents them from producing different results? Yet, you admit that there are gradual differences between subsequent thoughts. This is because the action of the preceding thought arises together with the conditions, its essence and state are not diminished, and it ceases together with the conditions. Due to the power of this cause, the result produced by the subsequent thought should be no different from the category of the preceding cause. Since there are neither different nor non-different types of arising conditions, and there is no difference between the preceding and subsequent moments, what prevents the subsequent thought from being different from the preceding thought? If you say that the nature of conditioned phenomena should be like this, then why not allow actions to be like this as well? Furthermore, feeling should not be such that although the objects of perception are different, the nature of their benefit and harm is not different. The remaining mental factors should also be like this. Although the conditions such as firewood and chaff are different, the nature of the fire and warmth that are seen now is not different. Therefore, there are many types of conditioned phenomena, and it cannot be forced that they all follow one example, and that there is no difference in nature and category in all positions. Moreover, some say that since it is admitted that the many conditions are constant, then the actions produced should also be constant, which is also unreasonable. Even if the conditions are often gathered together, sometimes it is seen that the conditions and the result do not arise simultaneously, such as your habitual tendencies (熏習, xūn xí, habitual tendencies), or like the eyes, etc. Don't you not allow a result to arise from a cause that has already ceased, separated by an intermediate time? The differences in seeds caused by multiple causes exist simultaneously in the continuum, but the results of these seeds do not always arise simultaneously. However, some seeds caused by a cause produce a result only after many kalpas. Even if a result arises in the middle, the time of arising and the result are uncertain. Since all times and all causes exist, what prevents the results from not constantly arising simultaneously? Or because a cause produces a result at this time, but does not produce a result at that time; or at one time, this cause produces a result, but that cause does not produce a result. Furthermore, although the conditions such as the eyes are constantly present, the eye consciousness, etc., do not constantly arise. Therefore, such a criticism should not be made: since it is admitted that the conditions are constant, then the actions should also be constant. If you say that my school believes that the transformation of the continuum needs to wait for special conditions to produce a result, then it should be admitted that actions are also like this. There are two types of conditions that lead to results: co-arising conditions and preceding conditions. There are two types of co-arising conditions: those that arise in the same group and those that arise in different groups. There are two types of conditions that arise in different groups: sentient beings and non-sentient beings. There are also two types of preceding conditions: those that are in the same continuum and those that are in different continuums.
續。異相續緣復有二種。一同相續聚生。二不同相續聚生。不同相續聚生復有二種。一有情數。二無情數。待如是等同不同時。自他相續眾緣力故。諸法乃有引果功能。如是功能名為作用。故不應說許常有緣。作用亦應一切時有。眾緣不可常和合故。又我未了具壽所言。意欲取何名為作用。而今徴詰過去未來。何礙令其作用非有。即未來法眾緣合時。起勝功能名為作用。此有作用名為現在。此作用息名為過去。非彼法體前後有殊。如何難言由何礙力。令去來世作用非有。此義意言即未來法。眾緣合位有作用起。作用起已不名未來。此于爾時名已來故。作用息位不名現在。此于爾時已過去故。若作用猶在未得過去名。此法爾時名現在故。由此約作用辯三世差別。故彼設難由未了宗。如是我宗善安立已彼猶不了。又責作用云何得說為去來今。此難意言法由作用。可得建立為去來今。作用由誰有三世別。豈可說此復有作用。若此作用非去來今。而復說言作用是有則無為故應常非無。故不應言作用已滅。及此未有法名去來。對法諸師豈亦曾有成立作用為去來耶而汝今時責非無理。即未來法作用已生名為現在。即現在法作用已息名為過去。于中彼難豈理相應。非我說去來亦有作用。如何責作用得有去來。若說去來無有作用。應說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 續。異相續緣復有兩種：一同相續聚生，二不同相續聚生。不同相續聚生復有兩種：一有情數，二無情數。依賴於這些相同或不同的時間，以及自身和他人的相續眾緣的力量，諸法才具有引發結果的功能。這種功能被稱為作用。所以不應該說允許常有的緣，作用也應該在一切時間都有。因為眾緣不可能常和合。而且我還不明白具壽（Bhikkhu，比丘）所說，想要取什麼叫做作用，而現在詰問過去和未來，有什麼妨礙使得作用不存在呢？就是未來的法在眾緣聚合時，產生殊勝的功能，這叫做作用。這有作用的叫做現在。這作用止息的叫做過去。不是那法體的前後有什麼不同。怎麼能責難說由什麼妨礙的力量，使得過去和未來世的作用不存在呢？這個意思就是說，未來的法在眾緣聚合的位置有作用生起。作用生起后就不叫做未來，因為在這個時候已經到來了。作用止息的位置不叫做現在，因為在這個時候已經過去了。如果作用還在，沒有得到過去的名字，這法在這個時候就叫做現在。由此通過作用來辨別三世的差別。所以他的設難是因為不瞭解宗義。像我這樣宗義已經善巧安立，他還是不瞭解。又責難作用，怎麼能說成為過去、未來、現在？這個責難的意思是，法可以通過作用，可以建立為過去、未來、現在。作用由誰而有三世的差別？難道可以說這作用還有作用嗎？如果這作用不是過去、未來、現在，而又說作用是有，那麼就是無為，應該常有，不是沒有。所以不應該說作用已經滅，以及這還沒有的法叫做過去、未來。對法（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩）的諸位論師難道也曾有成立作用為過去、未來嗎？而你現在責難並非沒有道理。就是未來的法作用已經生起叫做現在。就是現在的法作用已經止息叫做過去。對於其中他的責難，哪裡有道理相應呢？我沒有說過去、未來也有作用。怎麼能責難作用會有過去、未來？如果說過去、未來沒有作用，應該說...
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the conditions for the continuation of different streams are of two kinds: first, arising from the convergence of similar streams; second, arising from the convergence of dissimilar streams. The arising from the convergence of dissimilar streams is again of two kinds: sentient beings and non-sentient things. Depending on such similar or dissimilar times, and due to the power of the collective causes and conditions of one's own and others' streams, phenomena possess the function of producing results. This function is called 'activity' (kriya, 作用). Therefore, one should not assert that a permanent cause is permissible, and that activity should exist at all times, because collective causes and conditions cannot always converge. Moreover, I do not yet understand what the Venerable (ayushman, 具壽) intends to take as 'activity' when he speaks of it. And now, questioning the past and future, what prevents activity from existing? It is when future phenomena converge with collective causes and conditions that a superior function arises, and this is called 'activity'. That which has activity is called the 'present'. That which has ceased activity is called the 'past'. It is not that the essence of the phenomena is different before and after. How can one object, saying, 'What hindering force prevents activity from existing in the past and future?' The meaning of this is that future phenomena have activity arising in the position where collective causes and conditions converge. Once activity has arisen, it is no longer called the 'future', because at that time it has already arrived. The position where activity has ceased is not called the 'present', because at that time it has already passed. If activity is still present and has not yet obtained the name 'past', then the phenomena at that time are called the 'present'. Therefore, the distinction between the three times is discerned through activity. Thus, his objection is due to a lack of understanding of the doctrine. Even though my doctrine has been well established, he still does not understand. Furthermore, he objects to activity, saying, 'How can it be said to be past, future, and present?' The meaning of this objection is that phenomena can be established as past, future, and present through activity. By whom does activity have the distinction of the three times? Can it be said that this activity has activity? If this activity is not past, future, or present, and yet it is said that activity exists, then it is unconditioned (asamskrita, 無為), and should be permanent, not non-existent. Therefore, one should not say that activity has ceased, and that this non-existent phenomena is called past or future. Have the masters of Abhidharma (對法) ever established activity as past or future? And your current objection is not without reason. It is that the activity of future phenomena has already arisen and is called the 'present'. It is that the activity of present phenomena has already ceased and is called the 'past'. In this, where is his objection reasonable? I did not say that the past and future also have activity. How can one object that activity can have past and future? If one says that the past and future have no activity, one should say...
作用本無今有有已還無。如仁所言我決定說。諸法作用本無今有有已還無。作用唯于現在有故。若爾作用是法差別。應說與法為異不異。若異應言別有自體。本無今有有已還無。諸行亦應同此作用。若言不異應說如何。非異法體而有差別。又寧作用本無今有有已還無。非彼法體我許作用。是法差別而不可言與法體異。如何不異而有差別。如何汝宗于善心內。有不善等別類諸法。所引差別種子功能。非異善心而有差別。又何種子非同品類。又彼上座即苦受體。如何說有攝益差別。又如諸受領納相同。于中非無樂等差別。又如汝等於相續住。雖前後念法相不殊。外緣亦同而前後異。若不爾者異相應無。如火等緣所合之物。雖前後念粗住相同。而諸剎那非無細異。我宗亦爾法體雖住而遇別緣。或法爾力於法體上差別用起本無今有有已還無。法體如前自相恒住。此于理教有何相違。前已辯成體相無異。諸法性類非無差別。體相性類非異非一。故有為法自相恒存。而勝功能有起有息。若謂我許法相續時。剎那剎那自相差別。本無今有有已還無。汝許有為自相恒住。唯有差別本無今有有已還無。如何為喻。若我亦許自相本無。或汝亦言自相本有義則是一。豈應為喻。喻謂彼此分異分同。今於此中所引喻者。謂法相續自相雖同。而於
其中非無差別。自相差別體無有異。且舉自相相續恒存。不論法體住與不住。其中差別待緣而有。故非恒時許有差別。汝雖許法本無而生。不許唸唸有別相起。如何不應為同法喻。然汝許法前後剎那自相雖同而有差別。我亦許法前後位中。自相雖同而有差別。故為同喻其理善成。由此已成作用與體。雖無有異而此作用待緣而生。非法自體待緣生故。本無今有有已還無。亦善釋通契經所說。本無今有亦善符順。有去來經亦善遣除應常住難。以有為法體雖恒存。而位差別有變異故。此位差別從緣而生。一剎那后必無有住。由此法體亦是無常。以與差別體無異故。要于有法變異可成。非於無中可有變異。如是所立世義善成。經主于中復作是說。若爾所立世義便壞。謂若作用即是法體。體既恒有用亦應然。何得有時名為過未。故彼所立世義不成。此與我宗不相關預。謂我不說作用即體。如何令用與體俱恒。又我不言用所附體。一切時有即名過未。如何所立世義不成。汝說云何如我宗說。諸有為法差別作用。未已生位名為未來。此才已生名為現在。此若已息名為過去。差別作用與所附體不可說異。如法相續如有為法。剎那剎那無間而生名為相續。此非異法無別體故亦非即法。勿一剎那有相續故不可說無。見於相續有所作故。如是
現在差別作用。非異於法無別體故亦非即法。有有體時作用無故不可說無。作用起已能引果故。依如是義故。有頌曰。
相續無異體 許別有所作 作用理亦然 故世義成立
因果相屬和合相應。心凈性等皆可為喻。是故過去現在未來。體相雖同性類各別。由是所立三世義成。經主此中復作是說。彼復應說若如現在法體實有去來亦然。誰未已生誰復已滅。謂有為法體實恒有。如何可得成未已生已滅。先何所闕彼未有故名未已生。后復闕何彼已無故名為已滅。故不許法本無今有有已還無。則三世義。應一切種皆不成立。奇哉鮮福感如是果。所發覺慧大不聰明。不能諦觀數無義語。寧于實義及聖教中。不設劬勞思惟簡擇能懷𢤱戾。于實義中發勇悍心。指存違逆屢申正理曾不似聞。今更勵聲啟滅經者。諸大德聽非我宗言。過去未來如現實有。三世實有性各別故。大德不應隨己所解。訕謗如理釋佛教師。古昔大仙無不皆是一切智者。所垂光明善釋契經。破諸愚闇令一切智名稱普聞。大德何緣與迷聖教及正理者共結惡朋。訕謗如斯具勝功德增上覺慧佛聖弟子。陷無量眾置惡見坑。幸愿從今絕無義語。如其不絕深有損傷。違逆牟尼至教理故。定不能證諸法真實。又未審知汝如何解我現在義。言如現在法體實有去來
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 現在的作用。與法（Dharma，佛法）並非不同，因為沒有不同的實體，因此也不是與法相同。當存在實體時，作用是不存在的，因此不能說沒有作用。作用產生后能夠引生結果。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說：
『相續沒有不同的實體，允許有不同的作用產生，作用的道理也是這樣，所以世俗的意義得以成立。』
因果相互關聯、和合相應。心的清凈自性等都可以作為比喻。因此，過去、現在、未來，本體和現象雖然相同，但性質和類別各不相同。由此，所建立的三世的意義得以成立。經主（Sūtra Master，佛經的作者或註釋者）在這裡又這樣說：他們應該說，如果像現在的法體是真實存在的，那麼過去和未來也應該是這樣。誰還沒有出生？誰又已經滅亡？如果說有為法的本體是真實恒常存在的，那麼怎麼可能成立未出生和已滅亡呢？先前缺少什麼，因為那個法還沒有，所以叫做未出生？後來又缺少什麼，因為那個法已經沒有了，所以叫做已滅亡？所以，如果不允許法本來沒有現在有，有了以後又還無，那麼三世的意義，應該一切種類都不能成立。真是奇怪，多麼稀少的福報才會感受到這樣的結果。所發覺的智慧非常不聰明，不能仔細觀察數量上的沒有意義的言語。寧願對於真實的意義以及聖教中，不設定勤勞的思考和簡擇，卻能懷有乖戾。在真實的意義中發出勇悍之心，指著存在的事物進行違逆，屢次陳述正理卻好像沒有聽過一樣。現在更加大聲地啓發滅經的人。各位大德聽著，不是我宗派的言論，過去和未來就像現在一樣真實存在。三世真實存在，性質各不相同。大德不應該隨著自己的理解，誹謗如理地解釋佛陀教義的老師。古時候的大仙沒有不是一切智者（Sarvajna，佛陀）的，他們所垂下的光明，善於解釋契經（Sūtra，佛經），破除各種愚昧黑暗，使一切智者的名稱普遍傳揚。大德為什麼與迷惑聖教和正理的人共同結成惡友，誹謗像這樣具有殊勝功德、增長覺悟智慧的佛陀聖弟子，使無量眾生陷入惡見的深坑。希望從今以後停止沒有意義的言語，如果不能停止，就會有很深的損害。因為違逆牟尼（Muni，釋迦牟尼佛）的至高教理，必定不能證得諸法的真實。又沒有審慎地知道您如何理解我現在的意義，說像現在的法體是真實存在的，那麼過去和未來
【English Translation】 English version: The function of the present. It is not different from the Dharma (law, teachings of the Buddha), because there is no separate entity, and therefore it is also not the same as the Dharma. When there is an entity, the function does not exist, so it cannot be said that there is no function. Once the function arises, it can lead to results. Based on this meaning, there is a verse that says:
'Continuity has no different entity, it is allowed that different functions arise, the principle of function is also like this, therefore the worldly meaning is established.'
Cause and effect are related, harmoniously united and corresponding. The pure nature of the mind, etc., can all be used as metaphors. Therefore, past, present, and future, although the essence and phenomena are the same, their nature and categories are different. From this, the meaning of the three times established. The Sūtra Master (author or commentator of the Buddhist scriptures) says here again: They should say that if the entity of the present Dharma is truly existent, then the past and future should also be so. Who has not yet been born? Who has already perished? If it is said that the entity of conditioned dharmas is truly constant, then how can it be established that they have not yet been born and have already perished? What was lacking before, because that Dharma was not yet there, so it is called not yet born? What is lacking later, because that Dharma is already gone, so it is called already perished? Therefore, if it is not allowed that Dharma originally did not exist but now exists, and after existing returns to non-existence, then the meaning of the three times should not be established in any way. How strange, how little merit is felt to experience such a result. The wisdom that is awakened is very unintelligent, unable to carefully observe the meaningless words of quantity. Rather than putting diligent thought and discernment into the true meaning and the holy teachings, one is able to harbor perversity. In the true meaning, one raises a courageous heart, pointing to existing things to oppose them, repeatedly stating correct principles as if one has never heard them before. Now even more loudly, one inspires those who destroy the scriptures. Listen, great virtues, these are not the words of my sect, the past and future are as truly existent as the present. The three times are truly existent, their natures are different. Great virtues should not, according to their own understanding, slander the teachers who explain the Buddha's teachings according to reason. The great immortals of ancient times were all omniscient (Sarvajna, Buddha), the light they shed skillfully explained the Sūtras (Buddhist scriptures), dispelling all ignorance and darkness, making the name of the omniscient one universally known. Why do great virtues form evil friendships with those who are confused about the holy teachings and correct principles, slandering the holy disciples of the Buddha who possess such excellent merits and increasing awakened wisdom, causing countless beings to fall into the pit of evil views. It is hoped that from now on, meaningless words will cease, and if they do not cease, there will be deep harm. Because of opposing the supreme teachings of Muni (Shakyamuni Buddha), one will certainly not be able to realize the truth of all dharmas. Furthermore, it has not been carefully considered how you understand the meaning of the present, saying that like the entity of the present Dharma is truly existent, then the past and future
亦然。然我宗言諸有為法。能引果位名為現在。此引果位先無後無。前已約斯立三世異。寧言過未如現實有。又略說者如諸有為。實體雖同而功能別。如是三世實體雖同。于中非無作用差別。以有性類有無量種。故於我宗不可為難。依如是義故有頌言。
如色等皆苦 許多苦性異 三世有亦然 未生有差別
是故現在過去未來。三種有性條然差別。寧如現在去來亦然依有可言有未生滅。約所無故未生滅成。謂于有中先闕作用。彼未有故名未已生。有法后時復闕作用。彼已無故名為已滅。故唯有中有未生滅。由斯建立三世理成。無中如何可立三世。謂若過未其體都無。誰未已生誰復已滅。故依彼立三世不成。又無不應名言依故。經說三世皆是言依。故知去來亦實有體。彼又輕調對法者曰。許體恒有說性非常。如是義言所未曾有。依如是義故有頌言。
許法體恒有 而說性非常 性體復無別 此真自在作
彼于非處為輕調言。以佛世尊亦作是說。如來出世若不出世。如是緣起法性常住。而佛復說緣起無常。豈佛世尊亦可輕調。許法常住復說無常。如是義言所未曾有。若據別義說常無常。是故不應輕調佛者。豈不於此例亦應然。法體恒存法性變異。謂有為法行於世時。不捨自體隨緣起用。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也是這樣。然而我宗認為，諸有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，指由因緣和合而生的事物）能夠引生果位的，稱之為現在。這種引生果位的作用，先前沒有，之後也沒有。前面已經根據這個建立了三世（tri-kāla，指過去、現在、未來）的差別，怎麼能說過去和未來像現在一樣真實存在呢？而且簡略地說，就像諸有為法，實體雖然相同，但功能不同。這樣，三世實體雖然相同，其中並非沒有作用的差別。因為有性的種類有無量種，所以在我們宗派看來，這不能構成難題。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『如色等皆苦，許多苦性異，三世有亦然，未生有差別。』 因此，現在、過去、未來，三種有性的狀態截然不同。怎麼能像現在一樣，過去和未來也是依據『有』才能說有未生和已滅呢？是根據『所無』的緣故，未生和已滅才能成立。意思是說，在『有』之中，先缺少作用，因為沒有這個作用，所以叫做『未已生』。有法在之後的時間又缺少作用，因為它已經沒有了，所以叫做『已滅』。所以只有在『有』之中才有未生和已滅。由此建立三世的道理才能成立。在『無』之中怎麼能建立三世呢？如果過去和未來，它們的體性完全沒有，誰是未已生，誰又是已滅呢？所以依據它們建立三世不能成立。而且『無』不應該成為名言的依據。經中說三世都是言語的依據，所以知道過去和未來也確實有體性。 他們又輕率地嘲諷對法者說：『允許體性恒常存在，卻說自性非常。這樣的說法前所未有。』依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『許法體恒有，而說性非常，性體復無別，此真自在作。』 他們在不恰當的地方進行輕率的嘲諷。因為佛世尊（Buddha-Śākyamuni，佛教的創始人）也這樣說過：如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號之一）出世或者不出世，這樣的緣起法性（pratītyasamutpāda-dharmatā，事物依因緣而生的法則）是常住的。而佛又說緣起是無常的，難道佛世尊也可以被輕率地嘲諷嗎？允許法是常住的，又說它是無常的，這樣的說法前所未有。如果根據不同的意義說常和無常，所以不應該輕率地嘲諷佛。難道不應該在這裡也這樣類比嗎？法的體性恒常存在，法的自性會變化。意思是說，有為法在世間執行的時候，不捨棄它自身的體性，而是隨著因緣而生起作用。
【English Translation】 English version: It is also thus. However, our school asserts that conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, referring to things arising from the combination of causes and conditions) that can lead to the fruition are called the present. This function of leading to fruition is neither present before nor after. The distinction of the three times (tri-kāla, referring to past, present, and future) has already been established based on this. How can it be said that the past and future are as real as the present? Moreover, to put it briefly, like conditioned dharmas, although the substance is the same, the functions are different. Thus, although the substance of the three times is the same, there is no lack of difference in function among them. Because there are countless kinds of natures, it cannot be a problem in our school. According to this meaning, there is a verse that says: 'Like form, etc., all are suffering, many suffering natures are different, the existence of the three times is also thus, the unarisen has differences.' Therefore, the states of existence of the present, past, and future are distinctly different. How can it be said that, like the present, the past and future are also based on 'existence' to say that there is unarisen and ceased? It is because of 'what is not' that the unarisen and ceased can be established. It means that in 'existence', the function is first lacking; because there is no this function, it is called 'not yet arisen'. A dharma later lacks function again; because it is already gone, it is called 'ceased'. Therefore, only in 'existence' are there unarisen and ceased. By this, the principle of establishing the three times can be established. How can the three times be established in 'non-existence'? If the past and future have no substance at all, who is not yet arisen, and who is already ceased? Therefore, establishing the three times based on them cannot be established. Moreover, 'non-existence' should not be the basis of verbal expression. The scriptures say that the three times are all based on language, so we know that the past and future also have real substance. They also lightly ridicule the Abhidharma practitioners, saying: 'Allowing the substance to be constant, yet saying that the nature is impermanent. Such a statement has never been heard before.' According to this meaning, there is a verse that says: 'Allowing the substance of dharma to be constant, yet saying that the nature is impermanent, the nature and substance are not different, this is truly acting freely.' They make frivolous ridicule in an inappropriate place. Because the Buddha-Śākyamuni (Buddha-Śākyamuni, the founder of Buddhism) also said this: Whether the Tathāgata (Tathāgata, one of the titles of the Buddha) appears in the world or does not appear, such the nature of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda-dharmatā, the law that things arise depending on causes and conditions) is constant. But the Buddha also said that dependent origination is impermanent. Can the Buddha be ridiculed lightly? Allowing the dharma to be constant, yet saying that it is impermanent, such a statement has never been heard before. If we speak of permanence and impermanence according to different meanings, then we should not lightly ridicule the Buddha. Shouldn't we also make such an analogy here? The substance of dharma is constant, the nature of dharma changes. It means that when conditioned dharmas operate in the world, they do not abandon their own substance, but arise and function according to conditions.
從此無間所起用息。由此故說法體恒有。而非是常性變異故。如何譏是自在所為。對法諸師容作是調。許有三世撥無去來。如是義言所未曾有。雖言過未有據曾當。而但異門說現在有非關過未如先已說。依如是義故有頌曰。
雖許有三世 撥已滅未生 有更無第三 豈非天幻惑
經主於此復作是言。又應顯成雨眾外道所黨邪論。彼作是說。有必常有無必常無。無必不生有必不滅。此亦非處置貶斥言。已滅未生約異門說。俱許通有及非有故。謂去來世色等諸法。有有生滅所知法性。及有前生俱行果性。而無現在能引果性。有引果用名為現在。過去未來無如是性。此豈同彼雨眾所說。唯有現在一念論宗。必定不能離同彼過。以說現世決定唯有。過未二世決定唯無。非許去來亦容是有。非許現在亦容是無。故同彼宗過極難離。若謂現有轉成過無。從未來無轉成現有。此亦非理有無別故。非有與無可轉成一。如何現有轉成過無。如何未無轉成現有。非汝現在是有亦無。非汝去來是無亦有。現在唯有去來唯無。有無條然寧相轉作。是故唯汝同雨眾宗。然我所宗決定唯有。定唯無者皆不可生。現在馬角不可生故。若謂馬角由無因故不可生者。理亦不然招馬果業應是角因。許角及身俱本無故。非無與無可有差別。彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 從此，從無間地獄所產生的業力止息。因此，才說法的本體是恒常存在的。但這不是說它是常住不變的，而是說它不是一種會變異的常性。怎麼能譏諷這是自在天（Īśvara，印度教主神之一，被認為是宇宙的創造者和主宰）所為呢？對法論師們或許會這樣調和：承認有過去、現在、未來三世，卻否定過去和未來的作用。這樣的說法是前所未有的。雖然說過去和未來有其依據，但只是用不同的方式來說明現在存在，與過去和未來無關，正如先前已經說過的。依據這樣的道理，所以有頌文說： 『雖然承認有三世，卻否定已滅和未生，除了現在之外沒有第三者，這難道不是像天神或幻術師的迷惑嗎？』 經部師（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）在此又這樣說：『這又應該明顯地成就雨眾外道（Varṣagaṇa，古印度外道之一）所贊同的邪論。他們這樣說：有必定永遠是有，無必定永遠是無。無必定不會生出有，有必定不會滅亡。』 這也不是一種可以隨意貶斥的說法。已滅和未生，只是用不同的方式來說明。我們都承認過去、未來和現在是相互貫通的，既有存在，也有非存在。所謂過去和未來的色等諸法，具有生滅的所知法性，以及具有前生俱行的果性，但沒有現在所具有的能引生果的性質。具有引生果的作用，才叫做現在。過去和未來沒有這樣的性質。這怎麼能和雨眾外道所說的一樣呢？唯有現在一念論的宗派，必定不能擺脫與他們相同的過失。因為他們說現在世是決定存在的，過去和未來二世是決定不存在的。既不承認過去和未來也可能存在，也不承認現在也可能不存在。所以和他們的宗派相同，這個過失極難擺脫。如果說現在有可以轉變成過去無，從未來無可以轉變成現在有，這也是不合理的，因為有和無是不同的。有和無不可能互相轉化。怎麼能說現在有可以轉變成過去無？怎麼能說未來無可以轉變成現在有？你們的現在不是有也不是無，你們的過去和未來不是無也不是有。現在只有有，過去和未來只有無，有和無截然不同，怎麼能互相轉化呢？所以只有你們才和雨眾外道相同。然而我所宗承認決定存在的，和決定不存在的，都是不可能產生的。因為現在的馬角是不可能產生的。如果說馬角因為沒有原因所以不可能產生，這個道理也是不成立的，招感馬的果報之業應該是角的因。因為你們承認角和身體都是本來沒有的。沒有和沒有之間不可能有差別。他們（雨眾外道）……』
【English Translation】 English version From this, the karmic force arising from Avīci (無間, the lowest level of hell in Buddhist cosmology) ceases. Therefore, it is said that the essence of Dharma is eternally existent. However, this does not mean it is a static permanence, but rather that it is not a mutable constant. How can one criticize this as the doing of Īśvara (自在天, a Hindu deity considered the creator and ruler of the universe)? The Dharma masters might reconcile this by acknowledging the three times—past, present, and future—while denying the function of the past and future. Such a statement is unprecedented. Although it is said that the past and future have their basis, it is merely a different way of explaining that the present exists, unrelated to the past and future, as previously stated. Based on this reasoning, there is a verse that says: 'Although acknowledging the three times, denying the extinguished and the unarisen, with no third besides the present, is this not like the delusion of gods or illusionists?' The Sautrāntika (經部師, a Buddhist school) then says here: 'This should also clearly establish the heretical views espoused by the Varṣagaṇa (雨眾外道, an ancient Indian heretical sect). They say: what exists must always exist, and what does not exist must always not exist. What does not exist will certainly not arise, and what exists will certainly not perish.' This is not a statement that can be arbitrarily dismissed. 'Extinguished' and 'unarisen' are merely different ways of explaining. We all acknowledge that the past, future, and present are interconnected, having both existence and non-existence. The rūpa (色, form) and other dharmas (法, phenomena) of the past and future possess the knowable nature of arising and ceasing, as well as the resultant nature that accompanies the previous life, but they do not possess the nature of being able to produce results that the present possesses. Having the function of producing results is called the present. The past and future do not have such a nature. How can this be the same as what the Varṣagaṇa say? The school of thought that only believes in the present moment certainly cannot escape the same fault as them. Because they say that the present world is definitely existent, and the past and future two worlds are definitely non-existent. They neither acknowledge that the past and future may also exist, nor do they acknowledge that the present may also not exist. Therefore, being the same as their school, this fault is extremely difficult to escape. If it is said that the present existence can transform into the past non-existence, and from the future non-existence can transform into the present existence, this is also unreasonable, because existence and non-existence are different. Existence and non-existence cannot transform into one another. How can it be said that the present existence can transform into the past non-existence? How can it be said that the future non-existence can transform into the present existence? Your present is neither existence nor non-existence, and your past and future are neither non-existence nor existence. The present only has existence, and the past and future only have non-existence. Existence and non-existence are distinctly different, how can they transform into one another? Therefore, only you are the same as the Varṣagaṇa. However, my school acknowledges that what is definitely existent and what is definitely non-existent are both impossible to arise. Because the horns of a present horse are impossible to arise. If it is said that the horns of a horse are impossible to arise because there is no cause, this reasoning is also not valid, the karma that attracts the result of a horse should be the cause of the horns. Because you acknowledge that both the horns and the body are originally non-existent. There can be no difference between non-existence and non-existence. They (the Varṣagaṇa)...'
因何故一有一無。經主此中復作是說。若執實有過去未來。則一切時果體常有。業于彼果有何功能。此亦不然體雖恒有。而於位別有功能故。謂業能令果起殊勝。引果作用是業功能。作用已生名現在位。故於位別業有功能。若業能令無轉成有。招馬果業何不為因。能令本無馬角成有。依如是義故有頌曰。
若無可成有 及有可成無 許從色色生 寧非馬角受 如馬角與受 非因果相屬 因色與果色 無相屬亦然 相屬理同無 許從色生色 非受與馬角 此真自在作
是故決定無體之法。必無有因亦無生理。何有憎背去來有宗。可有因果感赴相屬。又若去來非實有者。能系所系如何得成。經主於此作是釋言。彼所生因隨眠有故。說有去來能系煩惱。緣彼煩惱隨眠有故。說有去來所繫縛事。此釋意言。過去煩惱所生隨眠。現在有故說有過去。能系煩惱未來煩惱。所因隨眠現在有故。說有未來能系煩惱。緣過未事煩惱隨眠。現在有故說有去來。所繫縛事如是一切皆無義言。以相續中過去煩惱。所生現在煩惱隨眠。理實都無如前已辯。如何由彼可得說言成就過去能系煩惱。設許現在有彼隨眠。寧由有法說無成就以有與無不相屬故。又若有果說成就因。異熟果生因應成就然汝不許。以汝宗言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為什麼緣故說『一有一無』？ 經論作者（經主）對此又作這樣的解釋：如果執著地認為過去和未來是真實存在的，那麼一切時候果的本體都是常有的。業對於那個果有什麼作用呢？ 這種說法也是不成立的，雖然本體是恒常存在的，但是在不同的階段有不同的作用。 也就是說，業能夠使果產生殊勝的變化，引發果的作用是業的功能。作用已經產生就叫做現在的階段，所以在不同的階段業是有功能的。如果業能夠使『無』轉變成『有』，那麼招感馬的果報的業，為什麼不能作為原因，使本來沒有的馬角變成『有』呢？ 依據這樣的道理，所以有頌說： 『如果無可成有，以及有可成無，允許從**產生，難道不是馬角承受？ 如馬角與承受，非因果相屬，因色與果色，無相屬亦然。 相屬道理相同于無，允許從色產生色，非承受與馬角，這真是自在造作。』 因此，可以斷定沒有本體的法，必定沒有原因，也沒有產生的道理。哪裡會有憎恨背離去來有宗，可以有因果感應相屬呢？ 又如果過去未來不是真實存在的，能繫縛和所繫縛怎麼能夠成立呢？ 經論作者（經主）對此解釋說：因為它們所生的原因——隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）存在，所以說有過去未來能繫縛煩惱。因為緣于那些煩惱的隨眠存在，所以說有過去未來所繫縛的事物。 這種解釋的意思是，過去煩惱所產生的隨眠，現在存在，所以說有過去能繫縛的煩惱；未來煩惱所依的原因——隨眠，現在存在，所以說有未來能繫縛的煩惱；緣於過去未來事物的煩惱隨眠，現在存在，所以說有過去未來所繫縛的事物。像這樣的一切說法都是沒有意義的。因為在相續中，過去煩惱所產生的現在煩惱隨眠，實際上根本不存在，正如前面已經辨析過的。怎麼能因為它們的存在，就可以說成就了過去能繫縛的煩惱呢？ 假設允許現在存在那些隨眠，難道能因為有法就說沒有成就嗎？因為『有』和『無』是不相關的。 又如果有果就說成就了因，異熟果（Vipāka-phala，由善惡業產生的果報）產生，因就應該成就，然而你們是不允許的。因為你們宗派說：
【English Translation】 English version: For what reason is it said that 'one exists and one does not'? The author of the scripture (the Sutra Master) further explains this by saying: If one stubbornly believes that the past and the future are truly existent, then the essence of the result is always constant at all times. What function does karma have on that result? This statement is also untenable. Although the essence is constantly existent, it has different functions at different stages. That is to say, karma can cause the result to produce excellent changes, and triggering the function of the result is the function of karma. The function that has already been produced is called the present stage, so karma has a function at different stages. If karma can transform 'non-existence' into 'existence', then why can't the karma that attracts the result of a horse be the cause of transforming the originally non-existent horse horns into 'existence'? Based on this reasoning, there is a verse that says: 'If non-existence can become existence, and existence can become non-existence, allowing it to arise from **, wouldn't the horse horns receive it? Like horse horns and reception, they are not related as cause and effect. The cause of color and the result of color are also unrelated. The principle of relationship is the same as non-existence, allowing color to arise from color, not reception and horse horns, this is truly self-created.' Therefore, it can be determined that a dharma without substance definitely has no cause and no principle of arising. Where would there be hatred and aversion to the doctrine of the existence of past and future, where cause and effect can respond and be related? Furthermore, if the past and future are not truly existent, how can the bound and the binding be established? The author of the scripture (the Sutra Master) explains this by saying: Because the underlying cause of what they produce—Anusaya (隨眠, the latent form of affliction)—exists, it is said that the past and future can bind afflictions. Because the Anusaya of those afflictions exists, it is said that the past and future are the things that are bound. The meaning of this explanation is that the Anusaya produced by past afflictions exists now, so it is said that there are past afflictions that can bind; the cause on which future afflictions rely—Anusaya, exists now, so it is said that there are future afflictions that can bind; the Anusaya of afflictions related to past and future things exists now, so it is said that there are past and future things that are bound. All such statements are meaningless. Because in the continuum, the present Anusaya produced by past afflictions does not actually exist at all, as has been analyzed earlier. How can it be said that the past afflictions that can bind are accomplished because of their existence? Suppose it is allowed that those Anusayas exist now, can it be said that there is no accomplishment because of the existence of dharma? Because 'existence' and 'non-existence' are unrelated. Furthermore, if there is a result, it is said that the cause is accomplished. When Vipāka-phala (異熟果, the result produced by good and evil karma) arises, the cause should be accomplished, but you do not allow it. Because your school says:
諸異熟因所引能與。諸異熟果現在功能。異熟生時已滅無故。若無用故不成就者。彼亦應爾如何成就。不應過去煩惱已無。可言今時彼猶有用。今有用者唯是隨眠。過去煩惱成何所用。設許有現未來煩惱。所因隨眠亦不應說成就未來能系煩惱。勿因此有非愛過故。謂若有因說成果者。諸有已斷善根有情。許有能生善根因故。亦應說彼成就善根。既彼善根亦成亦斷。應定說彼是何有情。為斷善根為不斷者。又有學者有無學因。應說彼成阿羅漢果。則應有學是阿羅漢。若彼雖成阿羅漢果。而不說彼名阿羅漢。則阿羅漢成無學果。亦應不說名阿羅漢。或阿羅漢反應不成阿羅漢果。無差別故。是則一切聖教正理。由彼所言皆彼違害。是故若撥去來為無。定不應成去來煩惱。如何說有去來能系。又彼所言緣彼煩惱隨眠有故。說有去來所繫縛事。此亦違彼所立義宗。彼執去來體非實有事不成故。去來非有而名為事。如是言義曾所未聞。設許彼宗于現相續。有緣彼事煩惱隨眠。此應條然與煩惱異。能引煩惱久已滅故。所引隨眠現在有故。既條然異如何可言由現隨眠系過未事。緣過未事現在隨眠。曾未已生非能系故。又諸現在善無記心體非是結。不應能系過去未來所繫事境。離心無有隨眠可得。故彼所說都無有義。經主於此詭設謗言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸異熟因（Vipāka-hetu，導致異熟果的因）所引生的，能夠給予異熟果的，其異熟果的現在功能，在異熟果產生時已經滅盡，因為它們已經不存在了。如果因為沒有用處就不算成就，那麼過去、未來之法也應該如此，如何能算成就呢？不應該說過去的煩惱已經不存在了，就可以說現在它們仍然有用。現在有用的只是隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式）。過去的煩惱成就了什麼用處呢？ 假設承認有現在和未來的煩惱，那麼作為這些煩惱之因的隨眠，也不應該被說成是成就了未來能夠束縛的煩惱，因為這樣會導致不悅意的過失。如果因為有因就說有果，那麼對於那些已經斷了善根的有情，如果承認他們有能夠產生善根的因，也應該說他們成就了善根。既然他們的善根既成就又斷滅，那麼應該明確地說他們是哪種有情？是斷了善根的還是沒有斷的？ 此外，有學者有無學（aśaikṣa，無須再學的聖者）之因，應該說他們成就了阿羅漢果（Arhat-phala，斷盡煩惱的果位）。那麼，有學者就應該是阿羅漢了。如果他們雖然成就了阿羅漢果，但不被稱為阿羅漢，那麼阿羅漢成就了無學果，也應該不被稱為阿羅漢。或者阿羅漢反而不應該成就阿羅漢果，因為沒有差別。這樣一來，一切聖教正理，都會被他們的言論所違背。因此，如果否定過去和未來為不存在，就一定不應該成就過去和未來的煩惱，又怎麼能說有過去和未來的束縛呢？ 而且，他們所說的因為有緣於過去煩惱的隨眠，所以說有過去和未來所束縛的事，這也違背了他們自己所建立的義理和宗旨。他們認為過去和未來的體性不是真實存在的，所以事情不能成立。過去和未來不存在卻被稱為事情，這樣的言論和意義，前所未聞。 假設承認他們的宗義，在現在的相續中，有緣於過去事情的煩惱隨眠，那麼這應該與煩惱截然不同，因為能夠引發煩惱的因已經滅盡了，而所引發的隨眠現在存在。既然截然不同，怎麼能說由現在的隨眠來束縛過去和未來的事情呢？緣於過去和未來事情的現在的隨眠，因為過去和未來的事情從未產生，所以不能束縛。 而且，諸多的現在善心和無記心，其體性不是結（bandhana，煩惱的別名），不應該能夠束縛過去和未來所束縛的事境。離開了心，就沒有隨眠可以獲得。所以他們所說的一切都沒有意義。經主（Sūtra-dhāra，佛經的作者或權威）在這裡詭辯並設定誹謗之言。
【English Translation】 English version Those that are produced by the causes of various Vipāka (Vipāka-hetu, causes leading to maturation), which are able to give Vipāka fruits, their present functions of Vipāka fruits have already ceased when the Vipāka fruit arises, because they no longer exist. If it is not considered accomplished because it is useless, then the past and future dharmas should also be like this, how can it be considered accomplished? It should not be said that past afflictions no longer exist, so it can be said that they are still useful now. What is useful now is only anuśaya (anuśaya, latent forms of afflictions). What use do past afflictions accomplish? Suppose it is admitted that there are present and future afflictions, then the anuśaya that are the causes of these afflictions should also not be said to have accomplished the afflictions that can bind in the future, because this would lead to unpleasant faults. If it is said that there is a result because there is a cause, then for those sentient beings who have cut off their roots of goodness, if it is admitted that they have the cause that can produce roots of goodness, it should also be said that they have accomplished roots of goodness. Since their roots of goodness are both accomplished and extinguished, then it should be clearly stated what kind of sentient beings they are? Are they those who have cut off their roots of goodness or those who have not? In addition, a śaikṣa (śaikṣa, one who is still learning) has the cause of aśaikṣa (aśaikṣa, a saint who no longer needs to learn), it should be said that they have accomplished Arhat-phala (Arhat-phala, the fruit of completely eradicating afflictions). Then, a śaikṣa should be an Arhat. If they have accomplished the Arhat fruit, but are not called Arhats, then Arhats have accomplished the aśaikṣa fruit, and should also not be called Arhats. Or Arhats should not accomplish the Arhat fruit, because there is no difference. In this way, all the sacred teachings and correct principles will be violated by their words. Therefore, if the past and future are denied as non-existent, then the past and future afflictions should definitely not be accomplished, so how can it be said that there is past and future bondage? Moreover, what they say, because there is anuśaya that is related to past afflictions, so it is said that there are things bound by the past and future, this also violates the righteousness and purpose they established themselves. They believe that the nature of the past and future is not real, so things cannot be established. The past and future do not exist but are called things, such words and meanings have never been heard before. Suppose it is admitted that their doctrine, in the present continuum, has anuśaya of afflictions related to past things, then this should be completely different from afflictions, because the cause that can cause afflictions has been extinguished, and the anuśaya that has been caused now exists. Since they are completely different, how can it be said that the present anuśaya binds past and future things? The present anuśaya related to past and future things, because past and future things have never arisen, so they cannot bind. Moreover, many present good minds and neutral minds, their nature is not bandhana (bandhana, another name for afflictions), and should not be able to bind the realms of things bound by the past and future. Without the mind, there is no anuśaya that can be obtained. So everything they say is meaningless. The Sūtra-dhāra (Sūtra-dhāra, the author or authority of the Buddhist scriptures) here quibbles and sets up slanderous words.
毗婆沙師作如是說。如現實有過去未來所有于中不能通釋。諸自愛者應如是知。法性甚深非尋思境豈不能釋。便撥為無今定謂仁。竊自造論矯托題以毗婆沙名。真毗婆沙都無此語。又不如彼自率己情。妄說去來如現實有。三世實有性各別故。詳彼意欲為聖教災。詭設虛言謗正論者。豈由如是所設謗言。令我義宗有所虧損。寧有我部諸大論師。博究精通聖教正理。具包眾德名稱普聞。于小難中不能通釋。故於非處詭設謗言。既率己情妄標宗致。似未披覽真毗婆沙。所設難詞我已通釋。更有何難言不能通。我於前來正對經主抉擇過未。盡彼所能隨彼言詞皆已徴遣。兼略徴遣上座言詞。然不隨文廣徴遣者。以彼所說少有依俙。可準前來義徴遣故。或有極浮淺不任推究故。或唯謗聖賢妄自誇誕故。若隨彼說一一酬言。誰有智人聞不嗤誚。設不鑒者復托彼宗。矯飾文詞妄興過難。諸有達鑒好觀論者。今應詳審留心諦聽。我從今去還依舊宗。隨彼所言縱辯酬遣。且有一類鑒智盲徒。謂我所宗同黃仙執。此不應理以彼所宗。執因轉變即為果體。果還隱沒入自性中。故去來今其體是一。我宗所立世無雜亂。謂有作用唯現剎那。此位定非二世攝故。因果條然不相作故。諸法滅已不還生故。果不隱入自性中故。因無始故多因生故。因果非我
所住持故。如是等類差別無邊。寧謂我宗同黃仙執。有餘復說定無去來。契經說為曾當有故。謂世尊說。諸聰慧者於過去世懷猶豫時。應為決言過去曾有。于未來世懷猶豫時。應為決言未來當有。曾不于彼說實有言。故知去來定非實有。此亦非理以曾當聲。有時見於現在說故。然不可說現在亦無。又勝功能過去曾有。唯于現在有作用故。由此過去應得二名。自相實有用曾有故。由此準釋未來二名。現在應名實有現有。現於實體有作用故。然三世事皆是言依。且於去來說不共義。為無雜亂故作是說。豈由此說非實有成。有餘復言。若去來世是實有者。何緣不許染凈二識俱時而生。此二識因皆實有故。此亦非理。諸識生時。要托所依所緣合故。設一切識所依所緣俱和合者。亦不應許眼等諸識俱時而生。如彼理趣此中亦爾。又汝亦應同此責故。汝宗既許本無而生。染凈相違何不俱起。若作是說有因者生。豈不前言俱本無故。不可分別有因無因。差別因緣曾未說故。又說過未無體論者。舊隨界等染凈二因。現相續中恒俱有故。如是過難極切彼宗。我宗諸因非恒現故。有言。過去決定實無。已舍現在行自相故。不爾諸行體應是常。由此則應無解脫理。此亦非理。若言過去舍行自相。應非行攝。非體今無可名為行。既許是行則不應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為他們所居住和執持的緣故。像這樣等等的類別差別是無邊無際的。怎麼能說我的宗派和黃仙的執著相同呢？還有一些人又說，過去和未來一定是虛無的，因為契經上說是『曾經有』和『將會有』的緣故。他們說，世尊說過，那些聰明的人對於過去世懷有疑慮的時候，應該果斷地說過去曾經存在；對於未來世懷有疑慮的時候，應該果斷地說未來將會存在。世尊從來沒有對他們說過『真實存在』這樣的話，所以知道過去和未來一定不是真實存在的。這種說法也是沒有道理的，因為『曾經』和『將要』這些詞，有時也見於描述現在的事情。然而，不能說現在也是虛無的。而且，殊勝的功能過去曾經存在，只是在現在才發揮作用。因此，過去應該得到兩個名稱：『自相真實』和『曾經有』。由此可以類推解釋未來這兩個名稱。現在應該被稱為『真實存在』和『現在有』，因為它在實體上發揮作用。然而，三世的事情都是言語所依賴的對象，姑且就過去和未來來說它們不共有的意義，爲了沒有混雜錯亂，才這樣說。難道因為這樣說，就能成立它們不是真實存在的嗎？還有人說，如果過去和未來世是真實存在的，為什麼不允許染污和清凈兩種識同時產生呢？因為這兩種識的因都是真實存在的。這種說法也是沒有道理的。各種識產生的時候，需要依託所依和所緣聚合在一起。即使一切識的所依和所緣都聚合在一起，也不應該允許眼等各種識同時產生。就像那個道理一樣，這裡也是一樣的。而且，你也應該受到同樣的責難，因為你的宗派既然允許本來沒有而產生，那麼染污和清凈相互違背，為什麼不一起產生呢？如果說有因的才能產生，難道不是之前說過它們都是本來沒有的嗎？不能分別有因和沒有因，因為差別因緣從來沒有說過。而且，那些說過過去和未來沒有實體的理論家，舊有的隨界等等染污和清凈兩種因，在現在的相續中恒常同時存在。像這樣的過失對於他們的宗派來說是非常嚴重的，而我的宗派的各種因不是恒常顯現的。有人說，過去一定是虛無的，因為它已經捨棄了現在的行和自相。如果這樣，那麼諸行的體性應該是常恒不變的，這樣就應該沒有解脫的道理了。這種說法也是沒有道理的。如果說過去捨棄了行的自相，就不應該屬於行所包含的範圍。如果它的體性現在不存在，就不能稱之為行。既然承認它是行，就不應該說它捨棄了現在的行和自相。
【English Translation】 English version Because of what they dwell in and uphold. Such categories of differences are boundless. How can it be said that my school is the same as the attachment of the Huangxian (name of a heretical sect)? Some others say that the past and future are definitely non-existent, because the sutras say 'once existed' and 'will exist'. They say that the World Honored One said that when wise people have doubts about the past, they should decisively say that the past once existed; when they have doubts about the future, they should decisively say that the future will exist. The World Honored One never said to them 'truly exists', so it is known that the past and future are definitely not truly existent. This statement is also unreasonable, because the words 'once' and 'will' are sometimes seen in describing present matters. However, it cannot be said that the present is also non-existent. Moreover, superior functions once existed in the past, but only function in the present. Therefore, the past should get two names: 'self-nature is real' and 'once existed'. By this analogy, the two names of the future can be explained. The present should be called 'truly existent' and 'now existent', because it functions in substance. However, the affairs of the three times are all objects that language relies on. For the time being, let's talk about the uncommon meanings of the past and future. This is said to avoid confusion. Can it be established that they are not truly existent because of this statement? Some others say that if the past and future are truly existent, why are defiled and pure consciousnesses not allowed to arise simultaneously? Because the causes of these two consciousnesses are truly existent. This statement is also unreasonable. When various consciousnesses arise, they need to rely on the aggregation of what is relied upon and what is cognized. Even if everything that consciousness relies on and cognizes is aggregated together, the various consciousnesses such as eye consciousness should not be allowed to arise simultaneously. Just like that principle, it is the same here. Moreover, you should also be subject to the same accusation, because since your school allows something to arise from nothing, why don't defilement and purity, which contradict each other, arise together? If it is said that only what has a cause can arise, haven't you said before that they are all originally non-existent? It is impossible to distinguish between having a cause and not having a cause, because the causal conditions of difference have never been said. Moreover, those theorists who say that the past and future have no substance, the old following realms (Sui Jie) and other defiled and pure causes, constantly exist simultaneously in the present continuum. Such faults are extremely serious for their school, while the various causes of my school are not constantly manifested. Some say that the past is definitely non-existent, because it has abandoned the present conduct and self-nature. If so, then the nature of all conducts should be constant, and there should be no reason for liberation. This statement is also unreasonable. If it is said that the past has abandoned the self-nature of conduct, it should not belong to the scope of conduct. If its nature does not exist now, it cannot be called conduct. Since it is admitted that it is conduct, it should not be said that it has abandoned the present conduct and self-nature.
言舍行自相。非離自相別有行體。可得說言已舍自相唯有行體。又先已說。先說者何。非全無中有無常性。過去無體應非無常。我宗何故無解脫理。契經但言現苦已滅余苦不續。先取涅槃不言涅槃。要舍法相不捨法相。而有行滅名為涅槃如先已辯。又言過去若實有者應無涅槃。說阿羅漢有諸蘊時無涅槃故。又若過去苦常有者。則諸有情應無解脫。此亦非理。若言過去苦蘊有故則無涅槃。汝宗既言去來無體。苦蘊無故應恒涅槃。或諸有情本應解脫。過去眾苦皆無有故。若謂但由現苦已滅余苦不續即名涅槃。則不應言由有過去眾苦蘊故應無涅槃。又言去來定非實有。行相無故。行相者何。謂有初後去來二世。由各闕一故行相無。此亦不然。譬如生死雖闕一種行相成故。有情生死雖復無初。而不可言彼無行相。又彼現在過亦應同。謂撥實無去來論者。所執現在無初后故。又我過去具有初后。過去初者作用已生。從此後時說名為后。未來亦是有初有後。法性類故不應為難。又言去來若是實有。已斷未斷應無差別。不爾現在亦應同故。謂現在世已斷未斷。既無差別亦應是無。然諸染法不染一分斷已不成不染一分斷已雖成而無愚縛已斷未斷是謂差別。又言去來有便違教。謂聖教說此有彼有此無彼無。不應現有故未來有。不應過無故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 言說捨棄『行』（saṃskāra）的『自相』（svalakṣaṇa）。並非離開『自相』，另外存在一個『行』的實體，可以這樣說：已經捨棄了『自相』，唯有『行』的實體存在。而且之前已經說過。之前說的是什麼呢？並非完全沒有『有』（bhāva）中存在『無常性』（anityatā）。如果過去沒有實體，那麼就不應該說『無常』。我宗（指有部）為什麼沒有解脫的道理呢？契經只是說現在的苦已經滅盡，其餘的苦不再延續。先取證『涅槃』（nirvāṇa），而不是說『涅槃』。一定要捨棄『法相』（dharma-lakṣaṇa），不捨棄『法相』，而有『行』的滅盡，這叫做『涅槃』，如先前已經辨析過。又說，如果過去是真實存在的，那麼就不應該有『涅槃』。因為說阿羅漢有諸蘊的時候，沒有『涅槃』的緣故。又如果過去的苦常有的話，那麼所有的有情就不應該有解脫。這也是不合理的。如果說因為過去的苦蘊存在，所以沒有『涅槃』，那麼你們宗派既然說過去和未來沒有實體，苦蘊沒有的緣故，就應該恒常處於『涅槃』。或者所有的有情本來就應該解脫，因為過去的眾苦都沒有的緣故。如果認為只是因為現在的苦已經滅盡，其餘的苦不再延續，就叫做『涅槃』，那麼就不應該說因為有過去的眾苦蘊，所以不應該有『涅槃』。 又說過去和未來一定不是真實存在的，因為沒有『行相』（ākāra）的緣故。『行相』是什麼呢？是指有開始和結束，過去和未來二世，因為各自缺少一個，所以『行相』不存在。這也是不對的。譬如生死，雖然缺少一種，『行相』仍然成立。有情的生死雖然沒有開始，但是不能說它沒有『行相』。而且那個現在也應該相同。那些否定真實存在，討論過去和未來的人，所執著的現在沒有開始和結束的緣故。而且我的過去具有開始和結束。過去的開始是指作用已經產生。從此之後的時間，說名為結束。未來也是有開始有結束。因為法性相同，不應該以此為難。又說過去和未來如果是真實存在的，已經斷和未斷應該沒有差別。不是這樣的，現在也應該相同。說現在世，已經斷和未斷，既然沒有差別，也應該是沒有。然而諸多的染法，不染一分，斷了也不能成就，不染一分，斷了雖然能成就，但是沒有愚癡的束縛，已經斷和未斷，這就是差別。又說過去和未來存在，就違背了聖教。聖教說此有彼有，此無彼無。不應該現在有，所以未來有。不應該過去沒有的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version It is said that the 'self-characteristic' (svalakṣaṇa) of 'formations' (saṃskāra) is relinquished. It is not the case that apart from the 'self-characteristic', there exists a separate entity of 'formations', such that one can say: the 'self-characteristic' has already been relinquished, and only the entity of 'formations' remains. Moreover, it has been said before. What was said before? It is not that within the complete absence of 'existence' (bhāva), there exists 'impermanence' (anityatā). If the past has no entity, then it should not be said to be 'impermanent'. Why does our school (referring to the Sarvāstivāda) not have the principle of liberation? The sutras only say that the present suffering has ceased, and the remaining suffering does not continue. One first attains 'nirvāṇa' (nirvāṇa), rather than speaking of 'nirvāṇa'. One must relinquish the 'characteristics of phenomena' (dharma-lakṣaṇa); without relinquishing the 'characteristics of phenomena', the cessation of 'formations' is called 'nirvāṇa', as has been previously discussed. Furthermore, it is said that if the past is truly existent, then there should be no 'nirvāṇa', because it is said that when an Arhat has aggregates, there is no 'nirvāṇa'. Also, if past suffering is always existent, then all sentient beings should not have liberation. This is also unreasonable. If it is said that because past aggregates of suffering exist, there is no 'nirvāṇa', then since your school says that the past and future have no entity, and because the aggregates of suffering do not exist, there should be constant 'nirvāṇa'. Or all sentient beings should inherently be liberated, because all past sufferings do not exist. If it is thought that 'nirvāṇa' is merely the cessation of present suffering and the non-continuation of remaining suffering, then it should not be said that because there are past aggregates of suffering, there should be no 'nirvāṇa'. Furthermore, it is said that the past and future are definitely not truly existent because they lack 'characteristics' (ākāra). What are 'characteristics'? They refer to having a beginning and an end; the past and future two times, because each lacks one, the 'characteristics' do not exist. This is also incorrect. For example, although birth and death lack one aspect, the 'characteristics' are still established. Although the birth and death of sentient beings have no beginning, it cannot be said that they have no 'characteristics'. Moreover, the present should also be the same. Those who deny true existence and discuss the past and future hold that the present lacks a beginning and an end. Furthermore, my past has both a beginning and an end. The beginning of the past is when the function has already arisen. From that time onwards, it is called the end. The future also has a beginning and an end. Because the nature of phenomena is the same, it should not be difficult to understand. Furthermore, it is said that if the past and future are truly existent, there should be no difference between what has been severed and what has not been severed. This is not so; the present should also be the same. If in the present, there is no difference between what has been severed and what has not been severed, then it should also be non-existent. However, the many defiled dharmas, not defiling one part, cannot be accomplished by severing; not defiling one part, although it can be accomplished by severing, there is no bondage of ignorance; what has been severed and what has not been severed, this is the difference. Furthermore, it is said that the existence of the past and future contradicts the sacred teachings. The sacred teachings say that if this exists, that exists; if this does not exist, that does not exist. It should not be that because the present exists, therefore the future exists. It should not be because the past does not exist.
現在無。以執去來體恒有故。唯應現在或有或無。由此去來定非實有。今應審察經彼有言。為顯有體顯有生義。若顯有體。汝宗有失。謂前經言此有彼有。汝彼現有此過去無。許行滅無識現有故。后經所說此無彼無。汝彼未無此現在有。許現行有識猶無故。汝引此教欲破我宗。如咒起尸自被害者。若謂彼有顯有生義。謂有此因故方有彼果生。如說此因有彼舍利。不顯有體但顯有生。此於我宗全無有難。故去來世實有理成。對法諸師釋彼有者。謂此有故令彼有生。非因能令法體成有。但能令法有作用生。若謂眾緣所令有者。唯此是果法體應非。此難不然。無異體故。若爾體用應俱因成。此亦不然。如先已說。先何所說。作用與體雖無別體而有差別。謂眾緣合能令法體有異分位差別而生。此差別生非異法體。故彼法體假說生義。依如是義故有頌言。
從眾緣方有 此有是世俗 雖生體無別 此有是勝義
又言無未來受用無盡故。非未來世受用可盡。此亦非理。如生死法用無盡期有極成故。無有情類本無而生。無數有情久已滅度。而生死法受用無盡。以此現在比知未來。雖無盡期而非不有。又言去來有相無故。謂變礙故說名為色。去來不然。故非實有。此亦非理。約少分故。謂非一切現在諸色皆有變礙。然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在不存在，因為執著於過去和未來，認為它們是恒常存在的。因此，只有現在可能存在或不存在。由此可見，過去和未來肯定不是真實存在的。現在應該仔細考察經文中的『彼有』這句話，是爲了顯示實體的存在，還是爲了顯示產生的意義？如果顯示實體的存在，那麼你的宗派就有過失。因為之前的經文說『此有彼有』，你們認為彼現在存在，而此過去不存在，因為允許行滅時，識仍然存在。而後面的經文說『此無彼無』，你們認為彼未來不存在，而此現在存在，因為允許現在行存在時，識仍然不存在。你引用這些教義來駁斥我的宗派，就像用咒語喚起屍體，結果反而傷害了自己。如果說『彼有』顯示的是產生的意義，意思是說因為有此因，所以才有彼果的產生，就像說因為有此因，所以才有彼舍利（Śarīra，佛陀或高僧火化后的遺物）。這並不顯示實體的存在，而只是顯示產生的意義。這對我的宗派來說完全沒有困難。所以，過去和未來是真實存在的，這個道理是成立的。對法論師解釋『彼有』，認為是因為此有，所以才使彼有產生。因不能使法的實體成為存在，但能使法有作用產生。如果說是由眾緣所使而存在的，那麼只有此是果，法的實體應該不是。這個反駁是不成立的，因為沒有不同的實體。如果這樣，那麼實體和作用都應該由因產生。這也是不成立的，就像之前已經說過的。之前說了什麼？作用和實體雖然沒有不同的實體，但有差別。意思是說，眾緣聚合能使法的實體有不同的分位差別而產生。這種差別的產生不是不同的法體。所以，那個法體只是假說為產生。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『從眾緣方有，此有是世俗；雖生體無別，此有是勝義。』 又說，沒有未來，因為受用沒有窮盡的時候。未來世的受用是無法窮盡的。這也是不合理的。就像生死法，它的作用沒有窮盡的期限，這是有明確證明的。沒有有情眾生本來不存在而突然產生。無數的有情眾生早已滅度，而生死法的受用卻沒有窮盡。用現在的例子來比照未來，即使沒有窮盡的期限，也不是不存在的。又說，過去和未來沒有相，所以不是真實存在的。因為變礙的緣故，所以稱為色（Rūpa，物質）。過去和未來不是這樣，所以不是真實存在的。這也是不合理的，因為只說了一部分。意思是說，不是所有的現在色都有變礙，然而
【English Translation】 English version: It does not exist now, because of attachment to the past and future, considering them to be constant. Therefore, only the present may exist or not exist. From this, it is certain that the past and future are not truly existent. Now, one should carefully examine the phrase 'that exists' (彼有, bǐ yǒu) in the scriptures, whether it is to show the existence of a substance or to show the meaning of arising. If it shows the existence of a substance, then your school has a fault. Because the previous scripture said 'this exists, that exists,' you believe that that exists now, while this did not exist in the past, because you allow that when action ceases, consciousness still exists. And the later scripture said 'this does not exist, that does not exist,' you believe that that does not exist in the future, while this exists now, because you allow that when present action exists, consciousness still does not exist. You cite these teachings to refute my school, like using a spell to raise a corpse, only to harm yourself. If you say that 'that exists' shows the meaning of arising, meaning that because there is this cause, there is the arising of that effect, like saying because there is this cause, there is that Śarīra (舍利, relics of the Buddha or high monks after cremation). This does not show the existence of a substance, but only shows the meaning of arising. This poses no difficulty for my school at all. Therefore, the past and future are truly existent, and this principle is established. The Abhidharma (對法, Duì Fǎ) masters explain 'that exists' as meaning that because this exists, it causes that to arise. The cause cannot make the substance of the Dharma (法, law, principle) become existent, but it can make the Dharma have a function arise. If you say that it exists because of the confluence of conditions, then only this is the result, and the substance of the Dharma should not be. This rebuttal is not valid, because there is no different substance. If so, then both substance and function should be produced by the cause. This is also not valid, as has been said before. What was said before? Although function and substance do not have different substances, they have differences. Meaning that the confluence of conditions can cause the substance of the Dharma to have different positional differences and arise. This arising of difference is not a different Dharma-body. Therefore, that Dharma-body is only hypothetically said to arise. According to this meaning, there is a verse that says: 『From the confluence of conditions, there is existence; this existence is conventional truth; although arising, the substance is not different; this existence is ultimate truth.』 It is also said that there is no future because enjoyment has no end. The enjoyment of the future world cannot be exhausted. This is also unreasonable. Like the Dharma of birth and death, its function has no end date, which is clearly proven. No sentient beings are born without originally existing. Countless sentient beings have long since passed away, but the enjoyment of the Dharma of birth and death has not been exhausted. Use the present example to compare with the future, even if there is no end date, it is not non-existent. It is also said that the past and future have no characteristics, so they are not truly existent. Because of change and obstruction, it is called Rūpa (色, form, matter). The past and future are not like this, so they are not truly existent. This is also unreasonable, because it only speaks of a part. Meaning that not all present forms have change and obstruction, however
非是無或應如識許是實有。如契經言。了別了別故名為識。何所了別謂了別色。至了別法非汝所宗。識緣過未有所了別然許識體是有非無現在有故。由此彼說遮有不成。又言去來體非實有。若是實有應障礙故。謂有色物必據處所。互相障礙已滅未生。色若實有應有障礙。既無障礙應非是色。由有此失故知實無。此亦非理如汝宗說。非有而生彼法闕故。謂如汝說非有而生唯未來生定非過去。如是我說有法障礙。唯現有礙定非去來。現在位中有別用故。有餘師說。未來世燈為已然不。若已然者與現在燈應無差別。若不然者應體非燈。此責不然。唯有體故。謂去來世體有用無體。謂去來所知法性有所知性。故說為有。非謂去來有然等用。或應如識許是實有。如汝許有無所緣識無所了別而體非無。我未來燈亦復如是。雖無然用而體非無。又言去來非眼取故。若去來色是實有者。何故不為眼所取耶。此亦不然。眼根唯以有勝用色為境界故。三世諸法體相雖同。而有性異。如前已辯。不可以眼色為境故。便抑難令取一切色。一極微色不可取故。由此取現不取去來。位別用殊不應為難。又言彼無有為相故。謂去來世有為相無。又非無為故非實有。此亦非理。彼法性故。謂未來是可滅法性。現在世是正滅法性。過去世是已滅法性。故彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非不存在，或者應該像你所承認的『識』（vijñāna，了別作用）那樣，雖然沒有實際作用，但確實存在。正如契經（sūtra，佛經）所說：『了別、了別，因此名為識。』了別什麼呢？就是了別色（rūpa，物質現象），乃至了別法（dharma，事物、法則）。這並非你所贊同的。識緣於過去和未來，有所了別，然而你承認識的本體是存在的，並非不存在，因為它現在存在。因此，你之前的說法不能成立。 你又說，過去和未來的本體不是真實存在的。如果真實存在，就應該有障礙。也就是說，有色之物必然佔據處所，互相障礙。已經滅去的和尚未產生的色，如果真實存在，就應該有障礙。既然沒有障礙，就應該不是色。因為有這樣的過失，所以知道過去和未來不是真實存在的。這也是不合理的，就像你所說的『非有而生』，缺少了那個法。也就是說，就像你所說，非有而生，只有未來生是確定的，過去生不是。同樣，我說有法有障礙，只有現在有障礙是確定的，過去和未來不是。因為在現在位中有不同的作用。 有其他論師說：『未來的燈是已經點燃了嗎？如果已經點燃，和現在的燈應該沒有差別。如果不是點燃的，它的本體應該不是燈。』這種責難是不對的，因為它只有本體。也就是說，過去和未來世的本體是有用處的，沒有本體。也就是說，過去和未來所知的法性，有所知性，所以說為有，不是說過去和未來有燃燒等作用。或者應該像你所承認的『識』那樣，雖然沒有所緣，沒有了別，但本體並非不存在，我未來的燈也是如此，雖然沒有燃燒的作用，但本體並非不存在。 你又說，過去和未來不是眼睛所能取到的。如果過去和未來的色是真實存在的，為什麼不能被眼睛所取到呢？這也是不對的，眼根只能以有殊勝作用的色為境界。三世諸法的本體和相貌雖然相同，但有其性質的差異，正如之前已經辯論過的。不能因為眼睛以色為境界，就強求它取一切色。因為一個極微小的色是不可取的。因此，眼睛取現在，不取過去和未來。位別用殊，不應該以此為難。 你又說，過去和未來沒有有為相。也就是說，過去和未來世沒有有為相，又不是無為，所以不是真實存在的。這也是不合理的，因為那是法的性質。也就是說，未來是可滅的法性，現在世是正在滅的法性，過去世是已經滅的法性。所以，它們...
【English Translation】 English version It is not non-existent, or it should be like the 『consciousness』 (vijñāna, the function of discernment) that you acknowledge, which, although without actual function, truly exists. As the sutra (sūtra, Buddhist scripture) says: 『Discernment, discernment, therefore it is called consciousness.』 What does it discern? It discerns form (rūpa, material phenomena), and even discerns dharma (dharma, things, laws). This is not what you agree with. Consciousness is conditioned by the past and future, and there is discernment, yet you admit that the substance of consciousness exists, it is not non-existent, because it exists now. Therefore, your previous statement cannot be established. You also say that the substance of the past and future is not truly existent. If it truly exists, there should be obstruction. That is to say, things with form must occupy a place and obstruct each other. The form that has already ceased and has not yet arisen, if it truly exists, should have obstruction. Since there is no obstruction, it should not be form. Because of this fault, it is known that the past and future are not truly existent. This is also unreasonable, just like what you say 『arising from non-existence,』 lacking that dharma. That is to say, just as you say, arising from non-existence, only future arising is certain, past arising is not. Similarly, I say that there is obstruction of dharma, only the present has certain obstruction, the past and future do not. Because there are different functions in the present position. There are other teachers who say: 『Is the future lamp already lit? If it is already lit, there should be no difference from the present lamp. If it is not lit, its substance should not be a lamp.』 This accusation is incorrect, because it only has substance. That is to say, the substance of the past and future worlds is useful, without substance. That is to say, the knowable nature of the past and future, has knowable nature, so it is said to exist, not that the past and future have burning and other functions. Or it should be like the 『consciousness』 that you acknowledge, although there is no object, no discernment, but the substance is not non-existent, my future lamp is also like this, although there is no burning function, but the substance is not non-existent. You also say that the past and future cannot be taken by the eye. If the past and future form is truly existent, why can't it be taken by the eye? This is also incorrect, the eye-sense can only take form with superior function as its object. Although the substance and appearance of the three-time dharmas are the same, they have differences in their nature, as has been debated before. One cannot force it to take all forms because the eye takes form as its object. Because a single extremely small form cannot be taken. Therefore, the eye takes the present, not the past and future. The position is different and the function is different, one should not make it difficult with this. You also say that the past and future have no conditioned characteristics. That is to say, the past and future worlds have no conditioned characteristics, and are not unconditioned, so they are not truly existent. This is also unreasonable, because that is the nature of the dharma. That is to say, the future is the nature of the dharma that can be destroyed, the present world is the nature of the dharma that is being destroyed, and the past world is the nature of the dharma that has been destroyed. Therefore, they...
皆非離有為相。諸可生法因力故生。此法生義如前已辯。諸不生法是生法種類。故彼亦受可生法性名。所以不生由緣闕故。此緣闕義如前已辯。或應以識為同法喻。如汝許有緣無境識。無所了別而體非無。如是汝心謂去來世無有為相何。妨是有。又汝現在不應有生。體已生故。非有住異才生無間許即滅故。亦無有滅。以汝所宗。滅名為無。現是有故。又汝宗許諸有為相依相續立。非一剎那故。汝剎那亦應非有。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之九
因辯隨眠。于如是位系如是事。傍論已了。今於此中復應思擇。諸事未斷彼必被系耶。設事被系彼必未斷耶。若事未斷彼必被系。有事被系而非未斷。系非未斷其相云何。頌曰。
于見苦已斷 余遍行隨眠 及前品已斷 余緣此猶系
論曰。且見道位苦智已生集智未生。見苦所斷諸事已斷。見集所斷遍行隨眠。若未永斷能緣此者於此猶系。及修道位隨何道生。九品事中前品已斷余未斷品。所有隨眠能緣此者於此猶系。及聲兼明。前前已斷。後後未斷。皆能系義。此中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 都不是脫離『有為相』（Samskrta-laksana，conditioned characteristics）而存在的。所有可以產生的法，都是因為因緣力量而產生。這種法產生的道理，前面已經辨析過了。所有不產生的法，是產生法的種類。所以它們也接受了可以產生法的性質的名稱。它們之所以不產生，是因為因緣缺失的緣故。這種因緣缺失的道理，前面也已經辨析過了。或者應該用『識』作為同類法的比喻。就像你允許有緣而沒有境的『識』，雖然沒有所了別的對象，但其本體並非不存在。這樣，你的心認為過去和未來世沒有『有為相』，又有什麼妨礙它們存在呢？而且，你現在不應該有產生，因為本體已經產生過了。因為沒有住和異，才產生無間就允許立即滅亡。也沒有滅亡，因為你所宗的，滅亡名為沒有，現在是存在的。而且，你所宗允許所有『有為相』依靠相續而建立，不是一個剎那。所以，你的剎那也應該不存在。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十二 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之九
因為辨析『隨眠』（Anusaya，latent tendencies），在這樣的位置繫縛這樣的事情，旁論已經結束。現在在這裡應該再次思考，所有事情沒有斷除，就一定會被繫縛嗎？假設事情被繫縛，就一定沒有斷除嗎？如果事情沒有斷除，就一定會被繫縛。有些事情被繫縛，但並非沒有斷除。被繫縛但並非沒有斷除，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌說：
『于見苦已斷 余遍行隨眠 及前品已斷 余緣此猶系』
論說：暫且在見道位，『苦智』（Dukkha-jnana，knowledge of suffering）已經產生，『集智』（Samudaya-jnana，knowledge of the origin of suffering）還沒有產生。見苦所斷的諸事已經斷除。見集所斷的『遍行隨眠』（Sarvatraga-anusaya，all-pervasive latent tendencies），如果還沒有永遠斷除，能夠緣取此事的，對此事仍然會被繫縛。以及修道位，隨著任何道產生，九品事中前品已經斷除，其餘沒有斷除的品，所有『隨眠』能夠緣取此事的，對此事仍然會被繫縛。以及『聲』兼明，前前已經斷除，後後沒有斷除，都能繫縛的意義。這裡面
【English Translation】 English version: None of them exist apart from the 『Samskrta-laksana』 (conditioned characteristics). All dharmas that can arise, arise because of the power of causes and conditions. The principle of the arising of these dharmas has been discussed earlier. All dharmas that do not arise are of the same kind as those that do arise. Therefore, they also receive the name of the nature of dharmas that can arise. The reason they do not arise is because of the lack of causes and conditions. The principle of this lack of causes and conditions has also been discussed earlier. Or, 『consciousness』 should be used as a metaphor for similar dharmas. Just as you allow for 『consciousness』 that has conditions but no object, although it has no object to be distinguished, its essence is not non-existent. In this way, your mind thinks that the past and future do not have 『Samskrta-laksana』, what prevents them from existing? Moreover, you should not have arising now, because the essence has already arisen. Because there is no abiding and change, immediately after arising, it is allowed to perish immediately. There is also no cessation, because according to your doctrine, cessation is called non-existence, and the present exists. Moreover, your doctrine allows all 『Samskrta-laksana』 to be established based on continuity, not a single moment. Therefore, your moment should also not exist.
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》 Volume 52 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》 Volume 53
Composed by Venerable Zhongxian
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5.9 on Distinguishing Anusaya (latent tendencies)
Because of distinguishing 『Anusaya』 (latent tendencies), at such a position, such things are bound, and the digression has ended. Now, we should consider again, are all things that have not been cut off necessarily bound? Suppose things are bound, are they necessarily not cut off? If things are not cut off, they are necessarily bound. Some things are bound, but not not cut off. What is the characteristic of being bound but not not cut off? The verse says:
『Having cut off seeing suffering, remaining all-pervasive Anusaya, And having cut off the previous category, the remaining conditions are still bound.』
The treatise says: For the time being, in the stage of the path of seeing, 『Dukkha-jnana』 (knowledge of suffering) has arisen, and 『Samudaya-jnana』 (knowledge of the origin of suffering) has not yet arisen. The things that are cut off by seeing suffering have been cut off. 『Sarvatraga-anusaya』 (all-pervasive latent tendencies) that are cut off by seeing the origin of suffering, if they have not been permanently cut off, those who can take this as a condition will still be bound to this. And in the stage of cultivation, as any path arises, in the nine categories of things, the previous category has been cut off, and the remaining categories that have not been cut off, all 『Anusaya』 that can take this as a condition will still be bound to this. And the 『sound』 also clarifies that the previous has been cut off, and the latter has not been cut off, and both can bind. Inside here
何用說緣此言。修斷九品必相緣故。非是所緣者有時非所緣。故緣此言定為無用。若謂別說有不能緣即遍行中亦應簡別。以有見集所斷遍行。不緣見苦所斷事故。經主何意簡此非彼。今詳經主或作是思。此中所言前品已斷。約世俗道隨其所應。總分見修所斷煩惱。以為九品漸次斷除。前品已斷中有餘未斷品。遍行煩惱亦能為系。簡緣他地遍行隨眠。說緣此言可成有用。然於前說余遍行中。闕緣此言義不成立。或應以後所說及聲。兼顯前文攝緣此義。謂於前說見苦已斷。及此前品已斷事中。皆有所餘緣此猶系。此文雜亂于見位中。余及遍行應隨去一。然此煩說闕緣此言。應問慈尊自言意趣。何事有幾隨眠隨增。此中但應辯所緣相。謂辯何法何識所緣。則易了知此所繫事。定有爾所隨眠隨增。且法與識數各有幾。諸法雖多略為十六。三界五部及諸無漏。能緣彼識名數亦然。此中何法為幾識境。頌曰。
見苦集修斷 若欲界所繫 自界三色一 無漏識所行 色自下各三 上一凈識境 無色通三界 各三凈識行 見滅道所斷 皆增自識行 無漏三界中 后三凈識境
論曰。若欲界系見苦見集修所斷法各五識緣。謂自界三即如前說。及色界一即修所斷。無漏第五皆容緣故。且欲界系見苦斷法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為什麼要說『緣此』這個詞呢？因為修斷九品必定是相互關聯的。如果不是所緣之法，有時就不是所緣，所以說『緣此』這個詞肯定沒有用處。如果說分別說明有不能緣的情況，那麼在遍行煩惱中也應該進行簡別，因為有見集所斷的遍行煩惱，不緣見苦所斷的事情。經主為什麼簡別這個而不簡別那個呢？現在詳細考慮經主的想法，或許是這樣認為的：這裡所說的前品已經斷除，是按照世俗道，根據其所應，總的分為見修所斷的煩惱，作為九品逐漸斷除。前品已經斷除，其中有剩餘未斷的品，遍行煩惱也能成為繫縛。簡別緣他地的遍行隨眠，說『緣此』這個詞就可以變得有用。然而在前說剩餘的遍行煩惱中，缺少『緣此』這個詞，意義就不能成立。或者應該以後面所說的『及』字，兼顯前面文章包含『緣此』的意義。就是在前面說見苦已經斷除，以及此前品已經斷除的事情中，都有所剩餘的緣此仍然繫縛。這段文字雜亂，在見位中，剩餘和遍行應該去掉一個。然而這段煩瑣的說明缺少『緣此』這個詞，應該問慈尊（佛陀的尊稱）自己所說的意趣。什麼事情有幾種隨眠隨增？這裡只應該辨別所緣的相狀，就是辨別什麼法是什麼識所緣，就容易瞭解這裡所繫縛的事情，一定有那麼多的隨眠隨增。而且法與識的數量各有幾種？諸法雖然多，但略分為十六種，三界（欲界、色界、無色界）五部（見苦、見集、見滅、見道、修）以及諸無漏法。能緣這些法的識，名稱和數量也是這樣。這裡什麼法是幾種識的境界？頌說：
『見苦集修斷，若欲界所繫，自界三色一，無漏識所行，色自下各三，上一凈識境，無色通三界，各三凈識行，見滅道所斷，皆增自識行，無漏三界中，后三凈識境』
論說：如果欲界所繫的見苦、見集、修所斷的法，各有五種識緣。就是自界的三種，即如前面所說，以及修所斷的一種，無漏的第五種都容許緣故。且欲界所繫的見苦斷法。
【English Translation】 English version: Why is it necessary to say the word 'conditioned by this'? Because the cultivation and severance of the nine categories are necessarily interconnected. If it were not the object of conditioning, sometimes it would not be the object of conditioning, so saying 'conditioned by this' would definitely be useless. If it is said that separate explanations are given for cases where conditioning is not possible, then distinctions should also be made within pervasive afflictions, because there are pervasive afflictions severed by the view of the origin, which do not condition matters severed by the view of suffering. Why does the author of the scripture distinguish this and not that? Now, upon detailed consideration of the author's thought, perhaps it is thought that what is said here about the previous category being severed is in accordance with the worldly path, according to what is appropriate, generally dividing afflictions severed by view and cultivation, as the nine categories are gradually severed. The previous category has been severed, but among them, there are remaining unsevered categories, and pervasive afflictions can also become a bond. Distinguishing the pervasive latent tendencies that condition other realms, saying 'conditioned by this' can become useful. However, in the previous discussion of the remaining pervasive afflictions, the meaning cannot be established without the word 'conditioned by this'. Or perhaps the word 'and' used later should also reveal the meaning of 'conditioned by this' contained in the previous text. That is, in the previous statement that the view of suffering has been severed, and in the matter of the previous category having been severed, there are still remaining conditions that still bind. This passage is confusing; in the stage of view, the remaining and pervasive should have one removed. However, this tedious explanation lacks the word 'conditioned by this', and the Venerable One (a respectful term for the Buddha) should be asked about the intention of his own words. What matters have how many latent tendencies increasing along with them? Here, only the characteristics of the conditioned should be distinguished, that is, distinguishing what dharma is conditioned by what consciousness, then it will be easy to understand the matters bound here, and there will definitely be so many latent tendencies increasing along with them. Moreover, how many kinds of dharmas and consciousnesses are there respectively? Although there are many dharmas, they are briefly divided into sixteen kinds: the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), the five categories (view of suffering, view of origin, view of cessation, view of path, cultivation), and all unconditioned dharmas. The consciousnesses that can condition these dharmas also have such names and numbers. What dharma here is the realm of how many kinds of consciousnesses? The verse says:
'Severed by the view of suffering, origin, and cultivation, if related to the desire realm, the three of its own realm, one of the form realm, are objects of unconditioned consciousness. The form realm, each of the lower realms has three, the pure consciousness of the upper realm is its object. The formless realm pervades the three realms, each has three kinds of pure consciousness as its object. Severed by the view of cessation and path, all increase the activity of their own consciousness. Among the three unconditioned realms, the latter three are the objects of pure consciousness.'
The treatise says: If the dharmas related to the desire realm that are severed by the view of suffering, the view of origin, and cultivation, each has five kinds of consciousnesses conditioning them. That is, the three of its own realm, as mentioned before, and one severed by cultivation, and the fifth unconditioned one are all allowed to condition them. Moreover, the dharma severed by the view of suffering related to the desire realm.
為自界三識所緣者。謂欲見苦所斷一切。及欲見集所斷遍行。欲修所斷善無記識。色修所斷善識非余。無漏識中唯法智品。見集修斷如應當知。若色界系即前所說。三部諸法各八識緣。謂自下三。皆如前說。及上界一即修所斷。無漏第八皆容緣故。且色界系見苦斷法。為自界三及上界一識所緣者。準前應知。為地獄三識所緣者。謂欲見苦見集所斷。上緣相應修斷善識。若無漏識唯類智品。見集修斷如應當知。若無色系即前所說。三部諸法各十識緣。謂三界三。皆如前說。無漏第十皆容緣故。準色界系如應當知。見滅見道所斷諸法。應知一一增自識緣。此復云何。謂欲界系見滅所斷為六識緣。五識即如前增欲見滅斷。見道所斷義準應知。色無色系見滅道斷隨應為九。十一識緣八十如前各增自識。若無漏法為十識緣。謂三界中各后三部。即見滅道修所斷識。無漏第十皆容緣故。不委釋者如應當思。應以如前所略建立十六法。識蘊在心中。思擇隨眠所隨增事。恐文煩廣略示方隅。且有問言。所繫事肉眼根有幾隨眠隨增。應觀眼根總唯有二。謂欲色界各修所斷。此隨所應欲色修斷。及彼遍行隨眠隨增若有問言。緣眼根識。復有幾種隨眠隨增應觀此識總有八種。謂欲色界各有三識。即見苦集所斷遍俱。及修所斷合而成六。無色界
【現代漢語翻譯】 為自界三識所緣者：指的是欲界見苦所斷的一切，以及欲界見集所斷的遍行，欲界修所斷的善和無記識，色界修所斷的善識（不包括其他）。無漏識中只有法智品。見集、修所斷的，應當如其所應地瞭解。 若系，即前面所說的三部諸法，各有八識緣。指的是自身、下二界，都如前面所說，以及上界一界，即修所斷。無漏第八識都能夠作為所緣的緣故。且系見苦斷法，為自界三及上界一識所緣的，參照前面應當知道。為地獄三識所緣的，指的是欲界見苦、見集所斷，上緣相應修斷善識。如果無漏識，只有類智品。見集、修所斷的，應當如其所應地瞭解。 若無色系，即前面所說的三部諸法，各有十識緣。指的是三界的三界，都如前面所說。無漏第十識都能夠作為所緣的緣故。參照系，應當如其所應地瞭解。見滅、見道所斷的諸法，應當知道每一個都增加自身的識作為所緣。 這又是什麼意思呢？指的是欲界系見滅所斷的，為六識緣。五識就像前面所說的，增加欲界見滅所斷。見道所斷的意義，參照應當知道。色界、無色界系見滅道斷，根據情況分別為九識、十一識緣。八識、十識如前，各自增加自身的識。如果無漏法，為十識緣。指的是三界中各自後三部，即見滅、道、修所斷識。無漏第十識都能夠作為所緣的緣故。沒有詳細解釋的，應當如其所應地思考。應當用前面所略述建立的十六法，識蘊在心中，思擇隨眠所隨增加的事情。恐怕文字繁瑣冗長，所以簡略地指示方向。 且有人問：所繫的事物，肉眼根有幾種隨眠隨增？應當觀察眼根總共有兩種，指的是欲界和界各自修所斷。這些根據所應，欲界、色界修所斷，以及它們的遍行隨眠隨增。如果有人問：緣眼根的識，又有幾種隨眠隨增？應當觀察這種識總共有八種，指的是欲界和界各有三種識，即見苦、集所斷的遍行都包括在內，以及修所斷的合起來成為六種。無
【English Translation】 Those that are cognized by the three consciousnesses of their own realm refer to all that is severed by 'seeing suffering' (Dukkha) in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), as well as the pervasive (遍行, sarvatraga) that is severed by 'seeing origination' (Samudaya) in the Desire Realm, the wholesome (善, kuśala) and neutral (無記, avyākrta) consciousnesses severed by 'cultivation' (Bhāvanā) in the Desire Realm, and the wholesome consciousness severed by 'cultivation' in the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu), excluding others. Among the unconditioned (無漏, anāsrava) consciousnesses, only the 'category of Dharma-wisdom' (法智品, dharma-jñāna). Those severed by 'seeing origination' and 'cultivation' should be understood as appropriate. If it is of the ** realm, it refers to the previously mentioned three categories of dharmas, each cognized by eight consciousnesses. This refers to itself and the two realms below, all as previously mentioned, as well as one realm above, namely that severed by 'cultivation'. Because the tenth unconditioned consciousness can all be objects of cognition. Moreover, the dharmas severed by 'seeing suffering' in the ** realm, which are cognized by the three consciousnesses of its own realm and one realm above, should be understood by referring to the previous explanation. Those cognized by the three consciousnesses of the realms below refer to those severed by 'seeing suffering' and 'seeing origination' in the Desire Realm, and the wholesome consciousnesses severed by 'cultivation' that are associated with the higher conditions. If it is an unconditioned consciousness, it is only the 'category of inferential wisdom' (類智品, anvaya-jñāna). Those severed by 'seeing origination' and 'cultivation' should be understood as appropriate. If it is of the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu), it refers to the previously mentioned three categories of dharmas, each cognized by ten consciousnesses. This refers to the three realms of the three realms, all as previously mentioned. Because the tenth unconditioned consciousness can all be objects of cognition. Refer to the ** realm and understand as appropriate. For the dharmas severed by 'seeing cessation' (Nirodha) and 'seeing the path' (Mārga), it should be known that each increases its own consciousness as an object of cognition. What does this mean? It refers to those severed by 'seeing cessation' in the Desire Realm, which are cognized by six consciousnesses. The five consciousnesses are like those previously mentioned, increasing those severed by 'seeing cessation' in the Desire Realm. The meaning of those severed by 'seeing the path' should be understood by reference. Those severed by 'seeing cessation' and 'seeing the path' in the Form Realm and Formless Realm are cognized by nine or eleven consciousnesses, respectively, depending on the situation. The eight and tenth consciousnesses are as before, each increasing its own consciousness. If it is an unconditioned dharma, it is cognized by ten consciousnesses. This refers to the latter three categories in each of the three realms, namely the consciousnesses severed by 'seeing cessation', 'seeing the path', and 'cultivation'. Because the tenth unconditioned consciousness can all be objects of cognition. Those not explained in detail should be contemplated as appropriate. One should use the sixteen dharmas that were briefly established earlier, with the aggregate of consciousness (識蘊, vijñāna-skandha) in mind, contemplating the increasing matters that accompany the latent tendencies (隨眠, anuśaya). Fearing that the text would be cumbersome and lengthy, I have briefly indicated the direction. Furthermore, someone asks: For the things that are bound, how many latent tendencies increase along with the physical eye-faculty (肉眼根, māṃsa-cakṣus)? It should be observed that there are only two types of eye-faculty in total, referring to those severed by 'cultivation' in the Desire Realm and the ** Realm, respectively. These, according to what is appropriate, are those severed by 'cultivation' in the Desire Realm and Form Realm, as well as their pervasive latent tendencies that increase along with them. If someone asks: How many types of latent tendencies increase along with the consciousness that cognizes the eye-faculty? It should be observed that there are eight types of consciousness in total, referring to three types of consciousness in each of the Desire Realm and the ** Realm, namely those severed by 'seeing suffering' and 'seeing origination', including the pervasive ones, and those severed by 'cultivation', which together make six. Without **
一即修所斷。空處近分所攝善識。無漏第八皆緣眼根。且應了知一切無漏。決定不為隨眠隨增。前七隨應欲色各三部。無色修斷遍隨眠隨增。謂欲界系見苦所斷遍行俱識。欲見苦斷見集斷遍隨眠隨增。翻此應知見集斷識。修所斷識欲修所斷。及諸遍行隨眠隨增。準此應知。色界三識無色善識。能緣第四靜慮眼根。無色修斷及彼遍行隨眠隨增。若復有問言。緣緣眼根識。復有幾種隨眠隨增。應觀此識有十三種。謂於三界各有四識。除見滅斷合成十二。並諸無漏識能緣緣眼根。此隨所應三界四部。除見滅斷隨眠隨增。謂欲界系見苦所斷。遍行俱識能緣眼根。此識容為欲見苦斷見集斷遍。修道所斷善無記識。及色界系修斷善識。並法智品無漏識。緣此諸能緣緣眼根識。隨應欲界見苦見集。修道所斷色修所斷。及彼遍行隨眠隨增。余隨所應當如理釋。乃至無漏緣眼根識。此識容為三界所繫。見道所斷無漏緣識修所斷善無漏識。緣此諸能緣緣眼根識。隨應三界見道所斷。修所斷遍隨眠隨增。若別疏條前十二種。各有爾所隨眠隨增。應言欲界見苦所斷諸緣緣識欲見苦斷見集斷遍隨眠隨增。翻此應知見集斷識修所斷識。欲修所斷及諸遍行隨眠隨增。見道斷識欲見道斷。及諸遍行隨眠隨增。然無漏緣唯相應縛。所餘但作所緣隨增。準此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一、修所斷（Bhavana-pahatabba，通過修行斷除的煩惱）：空無邊處近分所攝的善識（kusala citta，善心）。無漏第八識（Anāsava aṭṭhama，無煩惱的第八識）都緣于眼根（cakkhāyatana，視覺器官）。並且應當瞭解，一切無漏識（Anāsava citta，無煩惱的識）絕對不會被隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱）所增長。 前七識（pubba sattaviññāṇa，之前的七個識）隨其相應，欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）、色界（rūpadhātu，色界）各有三部（tebhūmaka，三地）。無色界（arūpadhātu，無色界）的修所斷遍隨眠（Bhavana-pahatabba anusayā，通過修行斷除的潛在煩惱）會隨之增長。也就是說，欲界系（kāmadhātu，慾望界）的見苦所斷（dassanapahātabba，通過見苦諦斷除的煩惱）的遍行俱識（pariyāyika citta，遍行心）。欲界的見苦所斷、見集所斷（dassanapahātabba，通過見集諦斷除的煩惱）的遍隨眠會隨之增長。反過來，應該知道見集所斷的識。 修所斷識（Bhavana-pahatabba viññāṇa，通過修行斷除的識）、欲界的修所斷，以及各種遍行隨眠會隨之增長。依此準則應該知道，三識（tayo viññāṇā，三種識）和無色界的善識（arūpadhātu kusala citta，無色界的善心），能夠緣于第四禪（catuttha jhāna，第四禪那）的眼根。無色界的修所斷以及那些遍行隨眠會隨之增長。 如果有人問：『緣緣眼根的識（cakkhāyatanārammaṇa，以眼根為對象的識），又有幾種隨眠會隨之增長？』應該觀察這個識有十三種。也就是說，在三界（tiloka，三界）中各有四種識，除去見滅所斷（dassanapahātabba，通過見滅諦斷除的煩惱），合成為十二種。加上各種無漏識能夠緣緣眼根。這些隨其相應，三界的四部（catubhūmaka，四地），除去見滅所斷的隨眠會隨之增長。也就是說，欲界系的見苦所斷的遍行俱識能夠緣眼根。這個識可能成為欲界的見苦所斷、見集所斷的遍隨眠，修道所斷（Bhavana-pahatabba，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的善無記識（kusala abyākata citta，善的無記心），以及色界的修所斷的善識，以及法智品（dhammacakkhu，法眼）的無漏識。緣于這些能夠緣緣眼根的識，隨其相應，欲界的見苦、見集，修道所斷，色界的修所斷，以及那些遍行隨眠會隨之增長。其餘的隨其相應，應當如理分析。乃至無漏緣眼根識，這個識可能成為三界所繫的見道所斷（dassanapahātabba，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的無漏緣識，修所斷的善無漏識。緣于這些能夠緣緣眼根的識，隨其相應，三界的見道所斷，修所斷的遍隨眠會隨之增長。如果分別疏理前面的十二種，各有如此多的隨眠會隨之增長。應該說欲界的見苦所斷的各種緣緣識，欲界的見苦所斷、見集所斷的遍隨眠會隨之增長。反過來，應該知道見集所斷的識，修所斷識，欲界的修所斷以及各種遍行隨眠會隨之增長。見道斷識（dassanapahātabba，通過見道斷除的煩惱），欲界的見道所斷，以及各種遍行隨眠會隨之增長。然而無漏緣（Anāsava paccaya，無煩惱的緣）僅僅是相應縛（sampayutta，相應的束縛），其餘的只是作為所緣隨之增長。依此準則。
【English Translation】 English version Firstly, what is abandoned by cultivation (Bhavana-pahatabba): The wholesome consciousness (kusala citta) associated with the proximate access (upacāra) of the sphere of nothingness (Ākiñcaññāyatana). All the undefiled (Anāsava) eighth consciousness (aṭṭhama viññāṇa) cognize the eye-base (cakkhāyatana). And it should be understood that all undefiled consciousness is definitely not increased by latent tendencies (anusaya). The preceding seven consciousnesses (pubba sattaviññāṇa), according to their suitability, have three divisions (tebhūmaka) each in the desire realm (kāmadhātu) and the form realm (rūpadhātu). Latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation (Bhavana-pahatabba anusayā) in the formless realm (arūpadhātu) increase accordingly. That is to say, the consciousness associated with pervasive tendencies (pariyāyika citta) that is abandoned by seeing suffering (dassanapahātabba) in the desire realm. The pervasive latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering and seeing the origin (dassanapahātabba) in the desire realm increase accordingly. Conversely, one should understand the consciousness abandoned by seeing the origin. Consciousness abandoned by cultivation (Bhavana-pahatabba viññāṇa), what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, and various pervasive latent tendencies increase accordingly. According to this principle, it should be known that the three consciousnesses (tayo viññāṇā) and the wholesome consciousness (kusala citta) of the formless realm (arūpadhātu) can cognize the eye-base of the fourth jhana (catuttha jhāna). What is abandoned by cultivation in the formless realm and those pervasive latent tendencies increase accordingly. If someone asks: 'How many kinds of latent tendencies increase with the consciousness that cognizes the eye-base as its object (cakkhāyatanārammaṇa)?' One should observe that there are thirteen kinds of this consciousness. That is to say, there are four kinds of consciousness in each of the three realms (tiloka), excluding what is abandoned by seeing cessation (dassanapahātabba), making twelve in total. Together with the various undefiled consciousnesses that can cognize the eye-base as its object. These, according to their suitability, the four divisions (catubhūmaka) of the three realms, excluding the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation, increase accordingly. That is to say, the consciousness associated with pervasive tendencies that is abandoned by seeing suffering in the desire realm can cognize the eye-base. This consciousness can become the pervasive latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering and seeing the origin in the desire realm, the wholesome indeterminate consciousness (kusala abyākata citta) abandoned by cultivation, and the wholesome consciousness abandoned by cultivation in the form realm, as well as the undefiled consciousness of the faculty of wisdom (dhammacakkhu). According to their suitability, the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering, seeing the origin, and cultivation in the desire realm, and what is abandoned by cultivation in the form realm, and those pervasive latent tendencies increase with these consciousnesses that can cognize the eye-base as their object. The rest, according to their suitability, should be analyzed accordingly. Even the undefiled consciousness that cognizes the eye-base, this consciousness can become the undefiled consciousness associated with what is abandoned by seeing the path (dassanapahātabba) in the three realms, and the wholesome undefiled consciousness abandoned by cultivation. According to their suitability, the pervasive latent tendencies abandoned by seeing the path and cultivation in the three realms increase with these consciousnesses that can cognize the eye-base as their object. If the preceding twelve kinds are separately analyzed, each has so many latent tendencies that increase. It should be said that the various consciousnesses that cognize the object of the desire realm abandoned by seeing suffering, the pervasive latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering and seeing the origin in the desire realm increase. Conversely, one should know the consciousness abandoned by seeing the origin, the consciousness abandoned by cultivation, what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, and the various pervasive latent tendencies increase. The consciousness abandoned by seeing the path (dassanapahātabba), what is abandoned by seeing the path in the desire realm, and the various pervasive latent tendencies increase. However, the undefiled condition (Anāsava paccaya) is merely the associated bond (sampayutta), the rest only increase as the object. According to this principle.
應知色無色界有差別者。見道斷識欲界上界如次應知。緣法類品緣眼根識余所繫事例眼應思。今於此中復應思擇。若心由彼名有隨眠。彼於此心定隨增不此不決定。謂彼隨眠未斷隨增非已斷故。如本論說。彼於此心或有隨增或不隨增。云何隨增。謂彼隨眠與此心相應及緣心未斷。云何不隨增。謂彼隨眠與此心相應已得永斷。何等名曰有隨眠心。有隨眠名依何義立。復由何等名有隨眠。且前所言三界各五部十五種識名有隨眠心。如是諸心各有二種。謂遍非遍行有漏無漏。緣染不染心有差別故。依二義立有隨眠名。一是隨眠所隨增故。二以隨眠為助伴故。由隨眠故名有隨眠。相應隨眠通斷未斷。所緣唯未斷心名有隨眠。云何與心相應煩惱。乃至未斷於心隨增。謂彼隨眠能引起得。於心相續能為拘礙。又與來世為同類因。引相續中心等流起故。乃至未斷說於心隨增。斷則不然無隨。增義非由斷故令彼離心。故雖已斷而名有彼。以助伴性不可壞故。謂對治力于相續中。能遮隨眠令不現起。及能遮彼所引起得。於心相續不為拘礙。故說已斷相應隨眠無隨增理。非對治力能遮隨眠俱行伴性故。彼雖已斷心名有隨眠。若諸隨眠緣心未斷。隨心斷未斷於心隨增故。恒令心得有隨眠名。若彼緣心隨眠已斷。心不由彼名有隨眠。道力令心離
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應當知道色界（Rūpadhātu，色界）沒有差別。見道（Darśanamārga，見道）所斷的識，欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界）和上界（Āgama-bhūmi，上界）應當依次瞭解。關於緣法類品，緣眼根識以及其他相關事例，應該像觀察眼根一樣進行思考。現在在這裡進一步思考：如果心因為某個隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）而被稱為『有隨眠』，那麼那個隨眠是否一定會在此心中增長？不一定，這並不確定。因為那個隨眠未斷時才會增長，如果已經斷除就不會增長。正如《本論》所說，那個隨眠對於此心，或者會增長，或者不會增長。什麼情況下會增長？就是那個隨眠與此心相應，並且所緣的心未斷。什麼情況下不會增長？就是那個隨眠與此心相應，但已經獲得永斷。什麼叫做『有隨眠心』？『有隨眠』這個名稱是依據什麼意義而建立的？又因為什麼被稱為『有隨眠』？前面所說的三界（trayo dhātu，三界）各有五部（pañca-vastūni，五部），總共十五種識，這些被稱為『有隨眠心』。這些心各有兩種，即遍行（sarvatraga，遍行）和非遍行（asarvatraga，非遍行），有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱的）和無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱的）。因為所緣的染污心和不染污心有差別。依據兩種意義建立『有隨眠』這個名稱：一是隨眠所隨順增長的緣故；二是以隨眠作為助伴的緣故。因為隨眠的緣故，所以稱為『有隨眠』。相應隨眠通於已斷和未斷。所緣的唯有未斷的心，才被稱為『有隨眠』。什麼叫做與心相應的煩惱，乃至未斷，對於心會增長？就是那個隨眠能夠引起（utpāda，產生）獲得（adhigama，獲得），對於心的相續能夠成為拘礙（pratibandha，障礙）。又與來世（āgāmin，未來）作為同類因（sabhāga-hetu，同類因），引導相續中的心等流（niḥṣyanda，等流）生起的緣故。乃至未斷，所以說對於心會增長。斷除則不然，沒有隨順增長的意義，不是因為斷除的緣故就讓它離開心。所以即使已經斷除，仍然稱為『有彼』，因為助伴的性質不可破壞。就是對治力（pratipakṣa-bala，對治力）在相續中，能夠遮止隨眠令其不現起，以及能夠遮止它所引起的獲得，對於心的相續不成為拘礙。所以說已經斷除的相應隨眠沒有隨順增長的道理。不是對治力能夠遮止隨眠的俱行伴性（sahacāri-samprajñāta，共同生起的伴隨性質），所以它雖然已經斷除，心仍然被稱為『有隨眠』。如果各種隨眠所緣的心未斷，隨心斷或者未斷，對於心都會增長，所以恒常令心得到『有隨眠』的名稱。如果那個所緣的心，隨眠已經斷除，心就不因為那個隨眠而被稱為『有隨眠』，道力（mārga-bala，道的力量）令心遠離。
【English Translation】 English version: It should be known that there is no difference in the Realm of Form (Rūpadhātu). It should be understood sequentially that the afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing (Darśanamārga) in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) and the Upper Realms (Āgama-bhūmi). Regarding the categories of objects of mind, the consciousnesses associated with the eye faculty, and other related instances, one should contemplate as one would observe the eye faculty. Now, in this context, further reflection is needed: If a mind is called 'having latent afflictions' (anuśaya) because of a certain latent affliction, does that latent affliction necessarily increase in this mind? Not necessarily; it is not definite. Because that latent affliction increases when it is not yet severed, but not when it has been severed. As stated in the original treatise, that latent affliction either increases or does not increase in this mind. Under what circumstances does it increase? It is when that latent affliction is associated with this mind and the object of mind it clings to is not yet severed. Under what circumstances does it not increase? It is when that latent affliction is associated with this mind, but has been permanently severed. What is called a 'mind with latent afflictions'? Upon what meaning is the name 'having latent afflictions' established? And why is it called 'having latent afflictions'? The fifteen types of consciousness in the five categories (pañca-vastūni) of each of the three realms (trayo dhātu) mentioned earlier are called 'minds with latent afflictions'. Each of these minds has two aspects: pervasive (sarvatraga) and non-pervasive (asarvatraga), defiled (sāsrava) and undefiled (anāsrava). This is because there is a difference between the defiled and undefiled minds that are the objects of clinging. The name 'having latent afflictions' is established based on two meanings: first, because it is followed and increased by latent afflictions; second, because it takes latent afflictions as its companion. Because of latent afflictions, it is called 'having latent afflictions'. Associated latent afflictions apply to both severed and unsevered states. Only minds clinging to unsevered objects are called 'having latent afflictions'. What are the afflictions that are associated with the mind and, until severed, increase in the mind? It is when that latent affliction can cause (utpāda) attainment (adhigama), and can become an obstruction (pratibandha) to the continuity of the mind. Also, it serves as a cause of the same kind (sabhāga-hetu) for the future (āgāmin), guiding the arising of the mind's outflow (niḥṣyanda) in the continuum. Until severed, it is said to increase in the mind. It is not so when severed; there is no meaning of increasing, and it is not because of severance that it leaves the mind. Therefore, even if it has been severed, it is still called 'having it', because the nature of being a companion cannot be destroyed. That is, the power of the antidote (pratipakṣa-bala) in the continuum can prevent latent afflictions from arising and can prevent the attainment caused by them, and does not become an obstruction to the continuity of the mind. Therefore, it is said that associated latent afflictions that have been severed have no reason to increase. It is not that the power of the antidote can prevent the co-occurring companion nature (sahacāri-samprajñāta) of latent afflictions, so even though it has been severed, the mind is still called 'having latent afflictions'. If the minds clung to by various latent afflictions are not severed, whether the mind is severed or unsevered, they will increase in the mind, so they constantly cause the mind to have the name 'having latent afflictions'. If the mind clung to by that latent affliction has been severed, the mind is not called 'having latent afflictions' because of that latent affliction; the power of the path (mārga-bala) causes the mind to be free.
隨眠故。雖為助伴及能所緣。俱非道力能令相離。而對助伴能所緣疏故。此有名唯據未斷助伴性親斷亦名有。此中身見相應之心。由所相應無明身見。隨增伴性名有隨眠由自部余見集斷遍。唯隨增性名有隨眠。所餘俱非故非有彼。其餘見苦見集所斷。遍不遍心如理應思。見滅所斷邪見俱心。由所相應無明邪見。隨增伴性名有隨眠。由自部攝有漏緣遍。唯隨增性名有隨眠。所餘俱非故非有彼。其餘見滅見道所斷若緣無漏緣有漏心。如其所應例應思擇。修道所斷貪相應心。由所相應無明及愛。隨增伴性名有隨眠。由自部余及諸遍行。唯隨增性名有隨眠。所餘俱非故非有彼。余修所斷煩惱俱心。如其所應例應思擇。諸修所斷不染污心。由自部攝隨眠及遍。唯隨增性名有隨眠。如是所論皆約未斷。彼若斷已有伴性者。唯由伴性名有隨眠。依此義門應作是說。頌曰。
有隨眠心二 謂有染無染 有染心通二 無染局隨增
論曰。有隨眠心總有二種。有染無染心差別故。于中有染所有隨眠。若未斷時相應具二所緣唯一。若已斷時相應有一所緣都無。彼無染心所有煩惱。唯未斷位名有隨眠。斷已都無非助伴故。此緣無染所有隨眠。在有心前或俱時斷。斷緣染者通前後俱。相應與心必俱時斷。故染通二名有隨眠。無染
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為隨眠的緣故，即使是助伴和能所緣，都無法通過道的威力使之分離。但因為對於助伴和能所緣比較疏遠，所以這種『有』只是根據未斷的助伴性質而言，徹底斷除也稱為『有』。這裡，與身見相應的內心，由於所相應的無明和身見，隨增伴隨的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。由自部其餘見集斷遍，只有隨增的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。其餘情況都不是，所以沒有那些。其餘見苦、見集所斷，遍與不遍的內心，應該如理如實地思考。見滅所斷的邪見俱心，由於所相應的無明和邪見，隨增伴隨的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。由自部所攝的有漏緣遍，只有隨增的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。其餘情況都不是，所以沒有那些。其餘見滅、見道所斷，如果緣無漏、緣有漏的內心，應該如其所應地類推思考。修道所斷的貪相應心，由於所相應的無明和愛（Trsna），隨增伴隨的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。由自部其餘以及諸遍行，只有隨增的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。其餘情況都不是，所以沒有那些。其餘修所斷的煩惱俱心，應該如其所應地類推思考。諸修所斷的不染污心，由自部所攝的隨眠以及遍，只有隨增的性質，稱為『有隨眠』。以上所說的，都是就未斷的情況而言。如果已經斷除，只有伴隨性質的，僅僅由於伴隨性質稱為『有隨眠』。依據這個意義，應該這樣說頌：
有隨眠心二 謂有染無染 有染心通二 無染局隨增
論曰：有隨眠心總共有兩種，因為有染心和無染心的差別。其中有染的所有隨眠，如果未斷時，相應具備兩種，所緣只有一種。如果已經斷除，相應只有一種，所緣都沒有。那些無染心所有的煩惱，只有在未斷的時候才稱為『有隨眠』。斷除之後都沒有，因為不是助伴的緣故。這種緣無染的所有隨眠，在有心之前或者同時斷除。斷除緣染的，包括前後和同時。相應和內心必定是同時斷除。所以染通兩種，稱為『有隨眠』。無染
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the anusaya (latent tendencies), even the assistants and the object-cognition (alambana), cannot be separated by the power of the path. But because of the distance from the assistants and the object-cognition, this 'existence' is only based on the nature of the un-abandoned assistants; complete abandonment is also called 'existence'. Here, the mind associated with satkayadristi (view of self), due to the associated avidya (ignorance) and satkayadristi, with the nature of increasing accompaniment, is called 'having anusaya'. From the rest of the views abandoned by the darsanamarga (path of seeing) of its own category, only the nature of increasing accompaniment is called 'having anusaya'. The rest are not, so they do not have those. The rest, abandoned by the darsanamarga of suffering and origination, the minds that are pervasive and non-pervasive, should be considered as appropriate. The mind associated with wrong view (mithyadristi) abandoned by the darsanamarga of cessation, due to the associated avidya and mithyadristi, with the nature of increasing accompaniment, is called 'having anusaya'. From the asravas (influxes) pervaded by its own category, only the nature of increasing accompaniment is called 'having anusaya'. The rest are not, so they do not have those. The rest, abandoned by the darsanamarga of cessation and the darsanamarga of the path, if the mind cognizes the anasrava (non-influx) or the sasrava (influx), should be considered as appropriate. The mind associated with raga (attachment) abandoned by the bhavanamarga (path of cultivation), due to the associated avidya and trsna (craving), with the nature of increasing accompaniment, is called 'having anusaya'. From the rest of its own category and all the pervasive ones, only the nature of increasing accompaniment is called 'having anusaya'. The rest are not, so they do not have those. The rest of the klesas (afflictions) associated with the bhavanamarga, should be considered as appropriate. The non-defiled mind abandoned by the bhavanamarga, from the anusaya and the pervasive ones included in its own category, only the nature of increasing accompaniment is called 'having anusaya'. All the above are discussed in terms of the un-abandoned state. If it has been abandoned, only the accompanying nature is called 'having anusaya'. According to this meaning, it should be said in verse:
The mind with anusaya is twofold, namely defiled and non-defiled. The defiled mind is common to both, while the non-defiled is limited to increasing accompaniment.
Treatise says: The mind with anusaya is generally of two kinds, because of the difference between the defiled and non-defiled minds. Among them, all the anusaya of the defiled, if un-abandoned, the corresponding has two kinds, and the object-cognition has only one kind. If it has been abandoned, the corresponding has only one kind, and there is no object-cognition at all. Those afflictions of the non-defiled mind are only called 'having anusaya' when they are un-abandoned. After abandonment, there are none, because they are not assistants. All the anusaya that cognizes the non-defiled, are abandoned before or at the same time as the mind. The abandonment of the defiled includes before, after, and at the same time. The corresponding and the mind must be abandoned at the same time. Therefore, the defiled is common to both and is called 'having anusaya'. The non-defiled
局一有隨增性如上所辯。十種隨眠次第生時誰前誰后。諸隨眠起無定次第。可一切后一切生故。然有一類煩惱現行。前後相牽非無次第。今且就彼辯次第者。謂有一類不善觀察。由邪聞力宿習力故。因緣所引無我行中。最初欻生我我所見。次於如是所計行中。迷因謂常。迷果謂斷。墮斷邊者便增邪見。執為最勝。即是見取。墮常邊者為我得樂離眾苦故。事自在等修勝生因及解脫道。起戒取已。于諸邪師。執因道中有差別故。無師為決遂復生疑。諸所執中誰真誰妄。隨謂一勝於彼起貪。計為己朋恃而生慢。於他朋見陵蔑起瞋。若於其中不決真妄。疑所擾亂于觀生勞。起厭怠心便自諫止。終難決定何用觀察。勝仙能了非我所知。彼既自摧勤觀察志。便背觀察愛樂無知。由此息心憩無明室。是為一類十種隨眠相牽現行前後次第。復有一類稟性愚癡。于諸沙門梵志所說。不能審察勝劣有殊。遂復生疑。此中誰勝。因此觀察墮我見者。由我見力便執斷常。為我當來得樂離苦。便妄計執顛倒果因。若觀察時墮無我者。不了真實無我理故。便撥無有施等果因。於此見中執為最勝。由見勝德于中起貪。因此于中陵他起慢。于余見趣憎背起瞋。彼由如斯順違歡戚。便起無量煩惱雜染。遠正等覺所說聖教。沉淪苦海拔濟為難。復有於斯別立
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於隨增性，如前面所辨析的那樣。十種隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式）次第生起時，哪個在前哪個在後呢？各種隨眠的生起沒有固定的次第，因為可以一切同時生起，也可以一切先後生起。然而，有一類煩惱現行時，前後相牽連，並非沒有次第。現在就針對這種情況來辨析次第： 有一類人，因為不善於觀察，由於邪聞（錯誤的聽聞）的力量和宿習（過去的習氣）的力量，在因緣所生的無我行中，最初忽然生起我見和我所見（認為有『我』和『我所擁有』的錯誤觀念）。接著，對於如此執著的行中，迷惑于因，認為它是常（永恒不變的）；迷惑于果，認為它是斷（斷滅的）。墮入斷邊的人，便會增長邪見，執著它為最殊勝的，這就是見取（執著于錯誤的見解）。墮入常邊的人，爲了『我』能夠得到快樂、遠離眾苦，便會崇拜自在天等，修習能夠獲得殊勝果報的因，以及解脫之道，從而生起戒禁取（執著于錯誤的戒律和修行方法）。 由於對各種邪師所說的因和道存在差別，沒有老師來決斷，於是又產生懷疑：這些所執著的東西中，哪個是真哪個是假呢？隨便認為哪個殊勝，就對它生起貪愛，認為它是自己的同伴，從而生起慢心。對於其他人的見解，輕蔑而生起嗔恨。如果對於這些見解不能決斷哪個是真哪個是假，被疑惑所擾亂，對於觀察產生疲勞，生起厭倦懈怠之心，於是自己勸阻自己：最終難以決定，觀察有什麼用呢？殊勝的仙人能夠了知，不是我所能知道的。 他既然自己摧毀了勤奮觀察的志向，便背離觀察，喜愛無知。由此停止用心思考，安住在無明的黑暗之中。這就是一類人十種隨眠相牽連現行的前後次第。 還有一類人，稟性愚癡，對於各種沙門（出家修行者）和梵志（婆羅門修行者）所說的話，不能審察哪個殊勝哪個低劣，於是又產生懷疑：這些人中，誰更殊勝呢？因此，觀察時如果墮入我見，由於我見的力量，便會執著斷常（認為『我』是斷滅的或常恒不變的）。爲了『我』將來能夠得到快樂、遠離痛苦，便會妄加計執，顛倒果和因。 如果觀察時墮入無我見，因為不瞭解真實的無我之理，便會否定佈施等的果報和因。對於這種見解，執著為最殊勝，由於認為它有殊勝的功德，因此對它生起貪愛。因此，在這種見解中輕蔑他人，生起慢心。對於其他的見解，憎恨背離，生起嗔恨。他們由於如此順從和違背，歡喜和憂愁，便會生起無量煩惱雜染，遠離正等覺（佛陀）所說的聖教，沉淪在痛苦的深淵中，難以解脫。 還有人對於這些，另外建立...
【English Translation】 English version The tendency to increase is as discussed above. When the ten kinds of Anuśaya (latent tendencies) arise in sequence, which comes before and which comes after? The arising of the various Anuśayas has no fixed order, as they can all arise simultaneously or all arise sequentially. However, there is a type of affliction that, when manifest, is interconnected and not without order. Now, let's discuss the order based on this situation: There is a type of person who, due to unskilled observation, the power of wrong hearing (Śruta) and the power of past habits (Vāsanā), initially and suddenly generates the view of 'I' and 'mine' (Ātma-dṛṣṭi and Ātmīya-dṛṣṭi) in the impermanent (Anātman) phenomena arising from conditions. Then, in these phenomena that they cling to, they are confused about the cause, thinking it is permanent (Nitya); and confused about the result, thinking it is annihilation (Uccheda). Those who fall into the extreme of annihilation then increase their wrong views (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi), clinging to it as the most superior, which is View-attachment (Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa). Those who fall into the extreme of permanence, in order for 'me' to obtain happiness and be free from suffering, worship gods like Īśvara (the Lord), cultivate causes for superior rebirth, and paths to liberation, thus generating Morality-and-ritual-attachment (Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa). Because of the differences in the causes and paths taught by various heretical teachers, and without a teacher to make a judgment, they then generate doubt (Vicikitsā): among these things they cling to, which is true and which is false? Casually thinking one is superior, they develop attachment (Rāga) to it, considering it their companion, thus generating pride (Māna). Towards the views of others, they despise and generate anger (Dveṣa). If they cannot determine which of these views is true and which is false, disturbed by doubt, they become weary of observation, generating a sense of weariness and laziness, and then dissuade themselves: it is ultimately difficult to decide, what is the use of observing? The superior sages can understand, it is not something I can know. Since they have destroyed their aspiration for diligent observation, they turn away from observation and love ignorance (Avidyā). Thus, they stop using their mind to think and dwell in the darkness of ignorance. This is the sequential order of the ten Anuśayas arising in connection with each other for one type of person. There is also a type of person who is inherently foolish, unable to discern the superiority or inferiority of what is said by various Śramaṇas (wandering ascetics) and Brāhmaṇas (Brahmins), and then generates doubt: among these people, who is more superior? Therefore, if they fall into the view of 'I' when observing, due to the power of the view of 'I', they will cling to permanence and annihilation (thinking 'I' am annihilated or eternally unchanging). In order for 'me' to obtain happiness and be free from suffering in the future, they will falsely cling to and invert the cause and effect. If they fall into the view of no-self (Anātman) when observing, because they do not understand the true principle of no-self, they will deny the results and causes of giving (Dāna) and so on. Regarding this view, they cling to it as the most superior, and because they think it has superior merits, they generate attachment to it. Therefore, in this view, they despise others and generate pride. Towards other views, they hate and turn away, generating anger. Because of their compliance and opposition, joy and sorrow, they generate countless afflictions and defilements, and are far from the holy teachings of the Perfectly Enlightened One (Buddha), sinking into the abyss of suffering, difficult to liberate. There are also those who establish something different regarding these...
次第。頌曰。
無明疑邪身 邊見戒見取 貪慢瞋如次 由前引後生
論曰。謂諸煩惱次第生時。先由無明於諦不了。不欲觀苦乃至道諦。由不了故無觀察能。既聞二途便懷猶豫。為苦非苦乃至廣說。若遇邪說便生邪見。撥無苦諦乃至廣說。于取蘊中既撥無苦。因此便起薩迦耶見。從此復執我有斷常。隨執一邊計為能凈。于如是計執為第一。見已見德緣之起貪。謂此勝他恃而生慢。於他所起違見生瞋。如執我徒憎無我見。或於己見取捨位中。必應起瞋憎嫌所舍。此依一類辯十隨眠。相牽現行前後次第。理實煩惱行相無邊以所待緣有差別故。無有決定次第而生。故上所論略標一二諸煩惱起。由幾同緣此起因緣乃有多種。或同分是此起因緣。謂見有情隨眾同分。定有此類煩惱現行。如鴿鴛鴦貪最猛盛。蚖蛇蝮蝎瞋最熾然。如是所餘隨類應說。或富樂是此起因緣。謂多有情具善意樂。堪逮殊勝。由獲富樂。起諸煩惱便無堪能。要舍富樂方堪逮勝。或方域是此起因緣。謂生南方貪多猛盛。生北方者瞋多熾然。如是余方隨應當說。或邪論是此起因緣。謂習兵書便增瞋恚。聽倡逸論便長欲貪。學外道書愚癡轉盛。若聞正法煩惱不生。由怖生死貪等息故。或寡聞是此起因緣。謂無知人煩惱熾盛。諸多聞者煩惱輕微。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 次第。頌曰： 『無明疑邪身，邊見戒見取，貪慢瞋如次，由前引後生。』 論曰：謂諸煩惱次第生時，先由無明於諦不了（諦：真諦，佛教用語，指佛教所說的真理）。不欲觀苦乃至道諦（苦諦、集諦、滅諦、道諦，合稱四聖諦，是佛教的基本教義）。由不了故無觀察能。既聞二途便懷猶豫。為苦非苦乃至廣說。若遇邪說便生邪見。撥無苦諦乃至廣說。于取蘊中既撥無苦，因此便起薩迦耶見（薩迦耶見：身見，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）。從此復執我有斷常。隨執一邊計為能凈。于如是計執為第一。見已見德緣之起貪。謂此勝他恃而生慢。於他所起違見生瞋。如執我徒憎無我見。或於己見取捨位中，必應起瞋憎嫌所舍。此依一類辯十隨眠（十隨眠：佛教術語，指貪、瞋、癡、慢、疑、身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見這十種煩惱）。相牽現行前後次第。理實煩惱行相無邊以所待緣有差別故。無有決定次第而生。故上所論略標一二諸煩惱起。由幾同緣此起因緣乃有多種。或同分是此起因緣。謂見有情隨眾同分。定有此類煩惱現行。如鴿鴛鴦貪最猛盛。蚖蛇蝮蝎瞋最熾然。如是所餘隨類應說。或富樂是此起因緣。謂多有情具善意樂。堪逮殊勝。由獲富樂。起諸煩惱便無堪能。要舍富樂方堪逮勝。或方域是此起因緣。謂生南方貪多猛盛。生北方者瞋多熾然。如是余方隨應當說。或邪論是此起因緣。謂習兵書便增瞋恚。聽倡逸論便長欲貪。學外道書愚癡轉盛。若聞正法煩惱不生。由怖生死貪等息故。或寡聞是此起因緣。謂無知人煩惱熾盛。諸多聞者煩惱輕微。
【English Translation】 English version: Sequence. A Gatha says: 'Ignorance, doubt, wrong views, identity view, extreme views, holding to views, greed, pride, anger, in that order, the former leads to the latter.' Treatise says: When various afflictions arise in sequence, initially, ignorance prevents understanding of the Truths (Truths: In Buddhism, refers to the truths expounded by the Buddha). One does not wish to contemplate suffering, up to the Truth of the Path (The Four Noble Truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, are the fundamental teachings of Buddhism). Because of this lack of understanding, there is no ability to observe. Having heard of two paths, one harbors doubt, questioning whether suffering is truly suffering, and so on. If one encounters wrong teachings, wrong views arise, denying the Truth of Suffering, and so on. Having denied suffering in the aggregates of grasping, the view of a self (Sakkāya-ditthi: the view of self, believing the body composed of the five aggregates to be a real self) arises. From this, one clings to the idea of a self that is either permanent or impermanent. Clinging to one side, one considers it to be purifying. Regarding such clinging as the foremost, seeing the virtue of one's own views, greed arises. Thinking oneself superior to others, pride arises. Towards those who hold opposing views, anger arises, like those who cling to the self hating those who hold the view of no-self. Or, in the position of accepting or rejecting one's own views, one will inevitably generate anger, hatred, and dislike towards what is rejected. This explains the ten latent tendencies (Ten latent tendencies: Buddhist term referring to the ten afflictions of greed, hatred, delusion, pride, doubt, identity view, extreme views, wrong views, holding to views, and holding to precepts) based on one category. They influence each other, manifesting in a sequential order. In reality, the characteristics of afflictions are boundless because the conditions they depend on are different. There is no fixed order in which they arise. Therefore, the above discussion briefly outlines one or two ways in which afflictions arise. The causes of their arising are diverse, depending on several shared conditions. Or, shared characteristics are the cause of their arising. Seeing sentient beings with shared characteristics, one can be certain that such afflictions will manifest. For example, greed is most intense in pigeons and mandarin ducks, while anger is most intense in vipers, snakes, and scorpions. The remaining ones should be explained accordingly. Or, wealth and pleasure are the cause of their arising. Many sentient beings possess good intentions and are capable of attaining excellence. However, upon obtaining wealth and pleasure, they become incapable of it. Only by relinquishing wealth and pleasure can they attain excellence. Or, geographical location is the cause of their arising. Those born in the south are prone to intense greed, while those born in the north are prone to intense anger. The remaining directions should be explained accordingly. Or, wrong teachings are the cause of their arising. Studying military texts increases anger, listening to licentious discussions increases desire, and studying non-Buddhist texts increases delusion. If one hears the correct Dharma, afflictions do not arise because the fear of birth and death causes greed and other afflictions to subside. Or, limited learning is the cause of their arising. Ignorant people have intense afflictions, while those who have learned much have mild afflictions.
以習多聞伏煩惱故。或多眠是此起因緣。謂多睡眠煩惱增長。或樂等是此起因緣。謂樂增貪苦增瞋等。或飲食是此起因緣。謂飲酒等煩惱熾盛。或年位是此起因緣。謂少壯老起煩惱異。或數習是此起因緣。謂習此惑此便增盛。或身境是此起因緣。謂遇與身相稱境界。隨應便發此類煩惱。或時分是此起因緣。謂有有情於此時分。隨應便發此類煩惱。如是等類因緣無邊。然于其中勝唯三種。頌曰。
由未斷隨眠 及隨應境現 非理作意起 說惑具因緣
論曰。由三因緣諸煩惱起。且如將起欲貪隨眠。未斷未遍知欲貪隨眠故。順欲貪境現在前故。緣彼非理作意起故。余隨眠起類此應知。未斷未遍知欲貪隨眠者。三緣故說未斷遍知。謂得未斷故。對治未生故。未遍知境故。又斷有二。一有分斷。二無分斷。故說未斷未遍知言。此說隨眠由因力起。順欲貪境現在前者。且應徴問此境是何。若謂于中有欲貪系。亦瞋所繫應名瞋境。則順瞋境亦順欲貪。如是欲貪境無定故。不應說有順境現前。若謂可意名順貪境。此可意境亦非決定。一所愛境余不愛故。若謂遍依一相續說。非不決定亦不應理。現見一色於一有情。有時順情有時違故。然必應許有定境界。緣彼方有欲貪現前。由此故言順貪境現。向所設難后當通釋。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為經常學習佛法可以降伏煩惱。或者，睡眠過多是煩惱產生的因緣，因為睡眠過多會增長煩惱。或者，貪圖安逸享樂是煩惱產生的因緣，因為貪圖安逸享樂會增長貪慾，遭受痛苦會增長嗔恨等等。或者，飲食不節制是煩惱產生的因緣，因為飲酒等行為會使煩惱更加熾盛。或者，年齡和地位是煩惱產生的因緣，因為少年、壯年和老年會產生不同的煩惱。或者，反覆串習是煩惱產生的因緣，因為經常串習某種迷惑，這種迷惑就會更加強烈。或者，身體和外境是煩惱產生的因緣，因為遇到與自身相應的境界，就會相應地引發這類煩惱。或者，時節因緣是煩惱產生的因緣，因為有些有情在特定的時節，會相應地引發這類煩惱。像這樣的因緣有無量無邊。然而，在這些因緣中，最重要的只有三種。頌詞說：
『由於沒有斷除隨眠（Sui Mian，煩惱的潛在狀態），以及與（煩惱）相應的境界出現，加上不如理作意（Bu Ru Li Zuo Yi，不正確的思維方式）的產生，所以說煩惱具備了產生的因緣。』
論述：由於這三種因緣，各種煩惱才會產生。例如，將要生起欲貪時，因為沒有斷除、沒有完全瞭解欲貪的隨眠，因為順應欲貪的境界出現在眼前，因為緣于這些境界而產生不如理作意。其餘隨眠的生起也應該像這樣理解。『沒有斷除、沒有完全瞭解欲貪的隨眠』，是因為三種原因而說沒有斷除和完全瞭解：一是沒有獲得斷除，二是對治煩惱的方法沒有生起，三是沒有完全瞭解對境。而且，斷除有兩種：一是有部分斷除，二是完全斷除。所以說『沒有斷除、沒有完全瞭解』。這裡說的是隨眠由因緣的力量而生起。『順應欲貪的境界出現在眼前』，首先應該提問：這個境界是什麼？如果說對於眾生來說，有被欲貪束縛的，也有被嗔恨束縛的，那麼（這個境界）也應該叫做嗔恨的境界。這樣，順應嗔恨的境界也順應欲貪。像這樣，欲貪的境界沒有確定性，所以不應該說有順應（欲貪）的境界出現。如果說可愛的境界叫做順應貪慾的境界，那麼這個可愛的境界也不是確定的，因為對於一個人來說是可愛的境界，對於另一個人來說卻不是。如果說普遍地依據一個相續（Xiang Xu，生命流）來說，就不是不確定的，這也是不合理的。現在看到一種顏色，對於一個有情來說，有時是順應心意的，有時是違背心意的。然而，必須承認有確定的境界，緣于這些境界，才會有欲貪的顯現。因此才說順應貪慾的境界出現。先前所提出的疑問，之後會統一解釋。
【English Translation】 English version Because of diligently studying and hearing the Dharma, one can subdue afflictions. Or, excessive sleep is a cause and condition for the arising of afflictions, because excessive sleep increases afflictions. Or, delighting in pleasure is a cause and condition for the arising of afflictions, because delighting in pleasure increases greed, and experiencing suffering increases hatred, and so on. Or, immoderate eating and drinking is a cause and condition for the arising of afflictions, because drinking alcohol and other such behaviors intensify afflictions. Or, age and status are causes and conditions for the arising of afflictions, because youth, adulthood, and old age give rise to different afflictions. Or, repeated practice is a cause and condition for the arising of afflictions, because frequently practicing a particular delusion strengthens that delusion. Or, the body and external environment are causes and conditions for the arising of afflictions, because encountering an environment that suits the body will correspondingly trigger that type of affliction. Or, seasonal conditions are a cause and condition for the arising of afflictions, because some sentient beings at specific times will correspondingly trigger that type of affliction. Such causes and conditions are boundless. However, among these causes and conditions, the most important are only three. The verse says:
'Because the latent tendencies (Sui Mian, dormant states of afflictions) have not been severed, and because corresponding objects appear, and because of the arising of inappropriate attention (Bu Ru Li Zuo Yi, incorrect mental activity), it is said that afflictions have the necessary causes and conditions.'
Treatise: Because of these three causes and conditions, various afflictions arise. For example, when about to generate desire and greed, it is because the latent tendency of desire and greed has not been severed or fully understood, because an object that accords with desire and greed appears before one, and because inappropriate attention arises in relation to that object. The arising of other latent tendencies should be understood similarly. 'The latent tendency of desire and greed has not been severed or fully understood' is said because of three reasons: first, severance has not been attained; second, the antidote has not arisen; and third, the object has not been fully understood. Moreover, severance is of two types: partial severance and complete severance. Therefore, it is said 'has not been severed or fully understood.' This speaks of the latent tendency arising from the power of causes and conditions. 'An object that accords with desire and greed appears before one,' one should first ask: what is this object? If it is said that for sentient beings, there are those bound by desire and greed, and also those bound by hatred, then (this object) should also be called an object of hatred. Thus, an object that accords with hatred also accords with desire and greed. In this way, the object of desire and greed has no certainty, so it should not be said that an object that accords with (desire and greed) appears. If it is said that a pleasing object is called an object that accords with greed, then this pleasing object is also not certain, because an object that is pleasing to one person is not pleasing to another. If it is said that it is universally based on one continuum (Xiang Xu, stream of consciousness), then it is not uncertain, but this is also unreasonable. Now we see that a color, for one sentient being, is sometimes pleasing and sometimes displeasing. However, it must be admitted that there are definite objects, and only in relation to these objects will desire and greed manifest. Therefore, it is said that an object that accords with greed appears. The questions raised earlier will be explained together later.
則說隨眠由境界力起。緣彼非理作意起者。謂有如木境界現前。及有如鉆燧非理作意起。鉆境界木欲貪火生。此中何名非理作意。謂于上妙衣服花鬘嚴具。涂香雕妝彩飾嬌姿所顯女想糞聚。起有情想所住持心俱。顛倒警覺名非理作意。此則說隨眠由加行力起。若諸隨眠起皆具三因緣。云何許有阿羅漢退。非阿羅漢隨眠未斷。且非定許煩惱現前。方得名為阿羅漢退。或此且據從前煩惱無間引生故說無過。以煩惱生總有二種。一從煩惱無間引生。二次所餘非煩惱起。若異此者善無記心無間不應有煩惱起。此中不據次所餘生。是故不應舉退為難。或此且據具因緣說。實有唯托境界力生。譬喻部師作如是說。由分別力苦樂生故。知諸境界體不成實。以佛于彼摩建地迦契經中說。諸癩病者觸苦火時以為樂故。又說一色於一有情。名可意境。非於余故。又如凈穢不成實故。謂別生趣同分有情。於一事中取凈穢異。既凈穢相非定可得。故無成實凈穢二境。正理論者作如是言。一切境界無不成實。經說有色樂隨行故。又說貪著可愛色故。又言有可愛眼所識色故。又意近行境決定故。又契經說。如是色中。凈妙相沒過患相現。然為斷貪說于可愛可瞋癡事。應斷貪者。此依不凈了知凈界。由於此中有凈界故。說諸母邑為可愛境。又離貪者不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論述說隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）由境界的力量而生起。由緣于不如理的作意而生起的情況是：當有如木頭的境界顯現，以及有如鉆木取火般不如理的作意生起時，從鉆木的境界中，欲貪之火便會產生。這裡所說的『不如理作意』是指：對於上等的妙衣、花鬘、莊嚴的器具、涂香、精細的妝容、彩色的裝飾以及嬌媚的姿態所展現的女性形象，將其視為糞聚，併產生有情眾生的想法，以及由此所住持的心，這種顛倒的警覺就叫做不如理作意。這說明隨眠是由加行的力量而生起。 如果所有的隨眠生起都具備三種因緣，那麼怎麼能允許阿羅漢（已證悟的聖者）退轉呢？因為阿羅漢的隨眠尚未斷除。而且並非一定要煩惱現前，才能被稱為阿羅漢退轉。或者這裡只是根據從先前的煩惱無間斷地引發而說的，所以沒有過失。因為煩惱的生起總共有兩種：一種是從煩惱無間斷地引發，另一種是從其餘非煩惱的狀態生起。如果不是這樣，那麼善心和無記心（非善非惡的心）之後，就不應該有煩惱生起。這裡不考慮從其餘狀態生起的情況，所以不應該用阿羅漢退轉來作為詰難。 或者這裡只是根據具備因緣的情況來說的，實際上存在僅僅依靠境界的力量而生起的情況。譬喻部的論師是這樣說的：由於分別的力量，苦和樂才會產生，因此可知諸境界的體性並非真實。因為佛陀在《摩建地迦經》（Māgaṇḍika Sūtra）中說，那些患有癩病的人在接觸到痛苦的火焰時，反而覺得快樂。又說同一種顏色，對於一個有情來說，是可意的境界，但對於其他有情來說則不然。又如清凈和污穢並非真實存在，因為不同的眾生，對於同一件事物，會產生清凈或污穢的不同看法。既然清凈和污穢的相狀並非固定不變，所以沒有真實存在的清凈和污穢的境界。 正理論者是這樣說的：一切境界沒有不是不真實的。經中說，有色會伴隨著快樂。又說貪著可愛的顏色。又說有可愛的眼睛所能識別的顏色。又因為意識的活動範圍是確定的。又契經中說：在這樣的顏色中，清凈美妙的相狀消失，過患的相狀顯現。然而爲了斷除貪慾，應該斷除對於可愛、可嗔、可癡的事物的貪著。這是依據不凈觀來了解清凈的境界。由於這裡有清凈的境界，所以說諸多的城市是可愛的境界。而且遠離貪慾的人不會...
【English Translation】 English version It is said that latent tendencies (Sanskrit: anusaya, the underlying state of afflictions) arise from the power of objects. They arise from inappropriate attention to those objects, such as when a wooden object is present, and inappropriate attention arises like drilling wood to make fire. From the object of drilling wood, the fire of desire arises. What is meant by 'inappropriate attention' here? It refers to the thought of a woman, adorned with exquisite clothes, garlands, ornaments, fragrant perfumes, elaborate makeup, colorful decorations, and charming postures, being seen as a heap of filth, and the thought of sentient beings arising, along with the mind that dwells on this. This inverted awareness is called inappropriate attention. This explains that latent tendencies arise from the power of effort. If all arising latent tendencies require three causes, how can Arhats (liberated beings) be allowed to regress? It is because the latent tendencies of Arhats have not been completely eradicated. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that afflictions must manifest for an Arhat to be considered regressed. Alternatively, this statement refers to the uninterrupted arising from previous afflictions, so there is no fault. There are two types of arising afflictions: one arises uninterruptedly from previous afflictions, and the other arises from other non-afflictive states. If this were not the case, then afflictions should not arise after wholesome and neutral states of mind. This does not consider arising from other states, so the regression of Arhats should not be used as an objection. Or this statement refers to the presence of causes and conditions. In reality, there are cases where they arise solely from the power of objects. The Sautrantika (Exemplar) school of teachers says that suffering and happiness arise from the power of discrimination, so it is known that the nature of objects is not real. Because the Buddha said in the Māgaṇḍika Sūtra that lepers find pleasure in touching painful fire. It is also said that the same color is a desirable object for one sentient being but not for another. Furthermore, purity and impurity are not real because different beings perceive the same thing as either pure or impure. Since the characteristics of purity and impurity are not fixed, there are no real pure or impure objects. The Vaibhashika (Abhidharma) theorists say that all objects are unreal. The sutras say that pleasure accompanies color. It also says to be attached to lovely colors. It also says that there are colors cognizable by the lovely eye. Also, the scope of the mind is definite. Also, the sutras say that in such colors, the aspects of purity and beauty disappear, and the aspects of faults appear. However, to cut off desire, one should cut off attachment to things that are lovely, hateful, and delusive. This is based on contemplating impurity to understand the realm of purity. Because there is a realm of purity here, it is said that many cities are lovely objects. Moreover, those who are free from desire do not...
觀彼故。又契經說。諸色聚中。皆有愛味過患相故。理亦應爾。見諸事中。諸煩惱生有差別故。謂于可意諸境事中。雖有生瞋非如貪重。未離貪者遇可意事時。任運生貪。分別起瞋故。以因加行雖無差別。而見煩惱現行別故。知諸境體非不成實。由境界力令彼別故。豈不已顯境不成實。許一事中起貪瞋故。不爾一聚中容有二境故。謂可意聚中有少可瞋相。如妙衣服少被糞涂。諸樂凈人總生憎惡。又如於蒜憎其香者。于其味等亦總生嫌。于彼味中有生貪者。于彼香等亦總生愛。故知諸法同聚俱生。謂一聚中有可貪等法。故於一聚容起貪瞋癡。非起貪境即起餘二。故諸境界無不成實。若爾既有成實凈相。隨觀凈見應皆如實。乘如實見應不生貪。然于境中無實凈相。妄計為凈乘此生貪。故知諸境皆不成實。不爾說境非成實者。取不凈見同此失故。謂無成實不凈相中。隨觀不凈應非如實。此復如何能伏煩惱。若伏煩惱由勝解力。是則不應作如是計。要如實見方能離貪。起貪要由不如實見。然應境事雖亦實有少分凈相。由勝解力觀為不凈能伏煩惱。雖亦實有少分不凈。而增益故於中起貪。又若諸法無成實性。但由分別力起貪或離貪。聖教如何可作是說。此事可厭此事可欣。此事順結此不順結。此事應修此不應修。又若一事或有起
愛起恚起癡。即言境中可愛等相。不成實者豈不曾聞。有懷僻見所作頌義理亦應成。如彼論中有如是頌。
以有於一事 見常見無常 見俱見俱非 故法皆無性
若爾顛倒亦應不成。于實凈中取為凈故。不爾此中於少凈種。由作意力增益轉故。謂于可意不可意境。作意增益不凈凈相。由此顛倒起瞋起貪。非增益依亦不成實。故於少種由作意力。增益而轉非不顛倒。又貪等樂等於境界生無有決定故。境雖成實而顛倒體非不得成。若爾善心亦應成倒。有取可意境為不可意故。不爾如是勝解作意。能斷煩惱故非顛倒。有善作意由勝解力。于境界中唯取凈相。云何非倒。非此勝解于諸煩惱有斷力故。彼為自觀于貪已斷有勢力不。故雖于境取凈相轉而非顛倒。或今但念如昔染心所取境相。為自觀察所得修果為成不成。無別增益故非顛倒。或善作意于諸事中。隨應但緣凈不凈相故非顛倒。貪等作意于諸事中。隨應總緣為凈不凈故不同善。然彼所言由分別力。苦樂生故境不成實。摩建地迦經為證者理必不然。現見有于非所欲境亦生貪故。不爾便為撥境界力又現見有由根過故。于甘等味顛倒而取。于冷暖等顛倒亦然。彼不可言此由境界不成實故遂致如是。又說一色於一有情名可意境。非於余故。知諸境界不成實者。理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 愛、瞋（huī，嗔怒）、癡（chī，愚昧）生起。即是說在境界中，對於可愛的等相。如果這些相不是真實的，難道你沒有聽說過嗎？如果有人懷有偏頗的見解，那麼他所作的頌的義理也應該成立。就像那部論典中有這樣的頌： 『因為對於一件事，有人見為常，有人見為無常；有人見為俱（jù，兩者都有），有人見為俱非（兩者都不是），所以一切法都是無自性的。』 如果這樣說，那麼顛倒見也應該不能成立，因為在真實的清凈中取為清凈的緣故。不是這樣的，這是因為在少許清凈的種子中，由於作意的力量，增益而轉變的緣故。也就是說，對於可意和不可意的境界，作意增益不凈和清凈的相。由此顛倒而生起瞋恨和貪愛。如果不是增益所依，也不能成立真實。所以在少許的種子中，由於作意的力量，增益而轉變，並非不是顛倒。而且，貪等對於境界生起快樂，並沒有決定性。所以境界雖然是真實的，但是顛倒的體性並非不能成立。 如果這樣說，那麼善心也應該成為顛倒，因為有人取可意的境界為不可意的緣故。不是這樣的，因為這樣的勝解（shèng jiě，殊勝的理解）作意，能夠斷除煩惱，所以不是顛倒。因為有善的作意，由勝解的力量，在境界中只取清凈的相，怎麼能說不是顛倒呢？因為這種勝解對於諸煩惱有斷除的力量。他自己觀察對於貪愛已經斷除，是否有力量？所以雖然在境界中取清凈的相而轉變，也不是顛倒。或者現在只是憶念像過去染污心所取的境界相，爲了自己觀察所得的修行的結果是成就還是不成就。沒有別的增益，所以不是顛倒。或者善的作意對於諸事中，隨應只是緣清凈和不凈的相，所以不是顛倒。貪等作意對於諸事中，隨應總緣為清凈和不凈，所以和善不同。 然而他們所說，由於分別的力量，苦樂生起，所以境界不是真實的。《摩建地迦經》（Mó jiàn dì jiā jīng）可以作為證據，這種說法必定不然。現在看見有人對於非所欲的境界也生起貪愛。如果不是這樣，那就是否定境界的力量。又現在看見由於根的過失，對於甘甜等的味道顛倒而取，對於冷暖等顛倒也是這樣。他們不能說這是由於境界不是真實的，才導致這樣。又說一種顏色，對於一個有情來說是可意的境界，對於其餘的有情就不是，知道諸境界不是真實的，這個道理。
【English Translation】 English version: Love, anger (huī, resentment), and delusion (chī, ignorance) arise. That is to say, in the realm of objects, regarding the aspects of loveliness and so on. If these aspects are not real, haven't you heard? If someone holds biased views, then the meaning of the verses they compose should also be valid. Just like there is such a verse in that treatise: 'Because regarding one thing, some see it as permanent, some see it as impermanent; some see it as both (jù, both exist), some see it as neither (neither exists), therefore all dharmas are without inherent nature.' If that's the case, then inverted views should also not be established, because taking purity as purity in true purity. It's not like that, it's because in a small amount of pure seed, due to the power of attention (作意, zuòyì), it is increased and transformed. That is to say, regarding pleasant and unpleasant objects, attention increases the aspects of impurity and purity. From this inversion, hatred and craving arise. If it is not based on augmentation, it cannot establish reality. Therefore, in a small amount of seed, due to the power of attention, it is increased and transformed, it is not not inverted. Moreover, there is no certainty that greed and other feelings of pleasure arise in relation to objects. Therefore, although the object is real, the nature of inversion cannot be established. If that's the case, then good intention should also become inverted, because some people take pleasant objects as unpleasant. It's not like that, because such superior understanding (勝解, shèng jiě) and attention can cut off afflictions, so it is not inverted. Because there is good attention, by the power of superior understanding, it only takes the pure aspect in the object, how can it be said that it is not inverted? Because this superior understanding has the power to cut off all afflictions. Does he observe himself whether he has the power to cut off greed? Therefore, although he takes the pure aspect in the object and transforms, it is not inverted. Or now just remember the aspect of the object taken by the past defiled mind, in order to observe whether the result of cultivation obtained is accomplished or not. There is no other augmentation, so it is not inverted. Or good attention, in all things, only focuses on the pure and impure aspects as appropriate, so it is not inverted. Greed and other attentions, in all things, generally focus on purity and impurity as appropriate, so it is different from good. However, what they say, because of the power of discrimination, suffering and happiness arise, so the object is not real. The Māgandika Sūtra (摩建地迦經, Mó jiàn dì jiā jīng) can be used as evidence, this statement must not be true. Now it is seen that some people also generate craving for unwanted objects. If it is not like this, then it is denying the power of the object. Also, it is now seen that due to the fault of the senses, the taste of sweetness and so on is taken in an inverted way, and the same is true for cold and warmth. They cannot say that this is because the object is not real, which leads to this. It is also said that a color is a pleasant object for one sentient being, but not for others, knowing that all objects are not real, this is the principle.
亦不然前己說故。前說一聚容有二境。謂一聚中容有可意不可意種。于中增益遂總謂為可不可意有說。約位境體成實。謂於此時境成可意非不可意。餘位相違。又如凈穢不成實故。知無成實凈穢境者理亦不然。于不凈中計凈顛倒應不成故。謂若都無成實不凈。設取為凈如何得成。于不凈中凈想顛倒。既許一境亦凈不凈。于中起想何倒非倒。又如於非常常想成倒。故知不凈性決定成實。或於有漏行通取常非常應非常性亦不成實。或如非常性不凈性亦爾。故凈不凈非不成實。言別生趣同分有情。於一事中取凈穢異。知無成實凈穢境者。理亦不然。前釋一聚容有二境義已成故。言凈穢相非定可得。故無成實凈穢境者。理亦不然。準前說故。謂非無相有凈穢性。性若無者顛倒不成。故不應言相不可得。便為凈穢不成實因。又佛世尊于有漏法。決定成立有不凈性。其義云何。謂有漏法為煩惱所染名勝義不凈。故知凈穢非不成實。若爾豈不諸有漏法皆是不凈。或有于中起凈妙覺。此覺境界既不成實。余例應然此覺所增雖不成實。而不凈境是成實故。于中謂凈顛倒義成。后貪起時隨此凈見。故所增相雖不成實。而無所緣非成實過。又先已說不凈聚中有少凈種。凈種凈性無異體故。凈境非無但由於中總增成倒。又色等法有凈自體。但由
有漏立不凈名。故一切境非不成實。有餘師說。依五識身所起煩惱境界成實。非於一境二心轉故。五識唯取現在境故。所取色等剎那性故。所餘煩惱境不成實。由一剎那取色等已。后相續起異分別故。此亦應就總聚遮遣。謂於過去可愛聚中。有可增境能發瞋恚。先緣可愛于聚生貪。后憶可憎于聚生恚。是故意地所起煩惱所緣境界非不成實。即上所說隨眠並伴。佛說為漏瀑流軛取。漏謂三漏一欲漏。二有漏。三無明漏。言瀑流者。謂四瀑流。一欲瀑流。二有瀑流。三見瀑流。四無明瀑流。軛謂四軛。如瀑流說。取謂四取。一欲取。二見取。三戒禁取。四我語取。如是漏等其體云何。頌曰。
欲煩惱並纏 除癡名欲漏 有漏上二界 唯煩惱除癡 同無記內門 定地故合一 無明諸有本 故別為一漏 瀑流軛亦然 別立見利故 見不順住故 非於漏獨立 欲有軛並癡 見分二名取 無明不別立 以非能取故
論曰。欲界煩惱並纏除癡。四十一物總名欲漏。謂欲界系根本煩惱三十一併十纏。色無色界煩惱除癡。五十二物總名有漏。謂上二界根本煩惱各二十六。色無色界雖復亦有惛沉掉舉。而纏不應依界分別。上界纏少不自在故。由是有漏唯說煩惱。若纏亦依界分別者。則有漏體有五
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為有『漏』（煩惱）的存在，所以才會有『不凈』的說法。因此，一切境界並非不真實。有些老師說，依賴於五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）所產生的煩惱境界是真實的，因為不會在同一個境界上出現兩種不同的心識活動。五識只取現在的境界，所取的色等都是剎那生滅的。其餘的煩惱境界則不是真實的，因為在某一剎那取了色等之後，後續會產生不同的分別。這也應該從總體上進行否定。例如，在過去可愛的聚集體中，有可以增加的境界能夠引發嗔恚。先是緣于可愛之物對聚集體產生貪慾，後來回憶起可憎之物對聚集體產生嗔恚。所以，意識所產生的煩惱所緣的境界並非不真實。上面所說的隨眠（潛在的煩惱）及其伴隨物，佛陀稱之為『漏』、『瀑流』、『軛』、『取』。『漏』指的是三種漏：一、欲漏（Kāma-āsava），二、有漏（Bhava-āsava），三、無明漏（Avijjā-āsava）。『瀑流』指的是四種瀑流：一、欲瀑流（Kāma-ogha），二、有瀑流（Bhava-ogha），三、見瀑流（Diṭṭhi-ogha），四、無明瀑流（Avijjā-ogha）。『軛』指的是四種軛，與瀑流相同。『取』指的是四種取：一、欲取（Kāmupādāna），二、見取（Diṭṭhupādāna），三、戒禁取（Sīlabbatupādāna），四、我語取（Attavādupādāna）。那麼，這些漏等的本體是什麼呢？頌文說： 『欲煩惱並纏，除癡名欲漏；有漏上二界，唯煩惱除癡；同無記內門，定地故合一；無明諸有本，故別為一漏；瀑流軛亦然，別立見利故；見不順住故，非於漏獨立；欲有軛並癡，見分二名取；無明不別立，以非能取故。』 論述說，欲界的煩惱和纏（煩惱的附屬品）加在一起，除去愚癡（無明），總共四十一項，稱為欲漏。也就是說，欲界所繫縛的三十一種根本煩惱加上十種纏。色界和無色界的煩惱，除去愚癡，總共五十二項，稱為有漏。雖然色界和無色界也有惛沉和掉舉，但是纏不應該按照界來區分，因為上界的纏比較少，不自在。因此，有漏只說是煩惱。如果纏也按照界來區分，那麼有漏的本體就有五十二項了。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the existence of 『āsavas』 (defilements), there is the notion of 『impurity』. Therefore, all realms are not unreal. Some teachers say that the realms of affliction arising from the five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) are real, because two different mental activities do not occur in the same realm. The five consciousnesses only grasp the present realm, and the forms etc. that are grasped are momentary. The remaining realms of affliction are not real, because after grasping forms etc. in one moment, different discriminations arise in the subsequent continuation. This should also be negated in general. For example, in a past collection of lovable things, there are increasing realms that can provoke anger. First, greed arises towards the collection due to the lovable things, and later, hatred arises towards the collection when recalling hateful things. Therefore, the realms of affliction that arise from the mind are not unreal. The aforementioned latent defilements (anusaya) and their companions are called 『āsavas』, 『oghas』, 『yogas』, and 『upādānas』 by the Buddha. 『Āsava』 refers to the three āsavas: 1. Kāma-āsava (sense-desire āsava), 2. Bhava-āsava (existence āsava), 3. Avijjā-āsava (ignorance āsava). 『Ogha』 refers to the four oghas: 1. Kāma-ogha (sense-desire flood), 2. Bhava-ogha (existence flood), 3. Diṭṭhi-ogha (view flood), 4. Avijjā-ogha (ignorance flood). 『Yoga』 refers to the four yogas, which are the same as the oghas. 『Upādāna』 refers to the four upādānas: 1. Kāmupādāna (sense-desire clinging), 2. Diṭṭhupādāna (view clinging), 3. Sīlabbatupādāna (ritual clinging), 4. Attavādupādāna (self-doctrine clinging). So, what is the nature of these āsavas etc.? The verse says: 『Sense-desire afflictions and entanglements, excluding ignorance, are called sense-desire āsava; existence āsava is the upper two realms, only afflictions excluding ignorance; they are the same within the neutral gate, combined as one because of the meditative grounds; ignorance is the root of all existence, therefore it is separately one āsava; the floods and yokes are also like this, separately established because of the benefit of views; views do not accord with abiding, therefore they are not independent of the āsavas; sense-desire and existence yokes along with ignorance, views are divided into two names as clinging; ignorance is not separately established, because it is not capable of clinging.』 The treatise says that the afflictions and entanglements (paryavasthāna) of the desire realm, excluding ignorance (avidyā), a total of forty-one items, are called the sense-desire āsava (Kāma-āsava). That is, the thirty-one fundamental afflictions bound to the desire realm plus the ten entanglements. The afflictions of the form and formless realms, excluding ignorance, a total of fifty-two items, are called the existence āsava (Bhava-āsava). Although the form and formless realms also have drowsiness (styāna) and excitement (auddhatya), the entanglements should not be distinguished according to the realm, because the entanglements of the upper realms are fewer and not independent. Therefore, the existence āsava only speaks of afflictions. If the entanglements are also distinguished according to the realm, then the substance of the existence āsava would be fifty-two items.
十六。故品類足作如是言。云何有漏。謂除無明。余色無色二界所繫。結縛隨眠隨煩惱纏。何緣合說二界煩惱為一有漏。同無記性。于內門轉依定地生。由三義同故合為一。彼界煩惱亦于外門有緣色聲觸境轉故。應更別說第二合因謂彼隨眠同一對治。設依此義無壞頌文。謂此應言何緣合說。二界煩惱為一有漏同無記對治定地故。合一何緣唯彼得有漏名此即如前名有貪釋義準三界十五無明。為無明漏體故頌不別說。何緣唯此別立漏名為顯無明過患勝故。謂獨能作生死根本。如契經說。無明為因生於貪染乃至廣說。又如頌曰。
諸所有惡趣 此及他世間 皆無明為根 貪慾所等起
已辯三漏復應思擇。如本論說。結縛隨眠隨煩惱纏為前二漏。若具五義方得漏名。是則十纏應非漏體。若隨具一便得漏名。染思恨等亦應名漏。則上所結物數唐捐今於此中唯據勝顯說一百八諸惑為漏。謂非染污思等恨等非漏所攝。唯此諸惑稽留有情久住生死。或令流轉于生死中從有頂天至無間獄。用強易了。是故偏說。瀑流及軛體與漏同。然于其中見亦別立。謂前欲漏即欲瀑流及欲軛。如是有漏即有瀑流及有軛。析出諸見為見瀑流及見軛者。以猛利故。謂漂合執義立瀑流軛取。如余煩惱但除無明總互相資能漂合執。諸見亦爾由猛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十六。品類足論這樣說：『什麼是有漏？』答：除了無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑），其餘色界（rūpadhātu，物質存在的境界）和無色界（arūpadhātu，純精神存在的境界）所繫縛的，結（saṃyojana，束縛眾生的煩惱）、縛（bandhana，束縛）、隨眠（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）、隨煩惱（upakleśa，細微的煩惱）、纏（paryavasthāna，纏繞身心的煩惱）。 為什麼將色界和無色界的煩惱合說為『一個』有漏？因為它們都屬於無記性（avyākṛta，非善非惡的性質），在內在的禪定之門中運轉，依于禪定之地而生。由於這三種相同之處，所以合為一個。那些境界的煩惱也在外在的感官之門中，緣於色、聲、觸等境界而運轉，所以應該另外分別說明第二種合說的原因，即那些隨眠具有相同的對治（pratipakṣa，對抗煩惱的方法）。 即使依據這個意義，也不會破壞頌文的結構。也就是說，應該這樣說：『為什麼將色界和無色界的煩惱合說為『一個』有漏？因為它們都屬於無記性，具有相同的對治，依于禪定之地。』因為這三種原因，所以合為一個。為什麼只有它們才能被稱為『有漏』呢？這就像前面解釋『有貪』的意義一樣，可以推知三界（tridhātu，欲界、色界、無色界）的十五種無明是無明漏的本體，所以頌文中沒有另外說明。 為什麼唯獨對無明另外設立『漏』這個名稱？是爲了顯示無明的過患最為嚴重。也就是說，唯獨無明能夠作為生死輪迴的根本。正如契經（sūtra，佛經）所說：『以無明為因，產生貪染……』乃至廣說。又如頌文所說： 『所有惡趣（durgati，不好的輪迴），無論是在此世還是他世，都是以無明為根，由貪慾等煩惱所引發。』 已經辨析了三種漏，還應該進一步思考。正如本論所說：結、縛、隨眠、隨煩惱、纏是前兩種漏。如果具備五種條件，才能被稱為『漏』。如果是這樣，那麼十纏（daśa paryavasthānāni，十種纏縛）就不應該是漏的本體。如果只要具備一種條件，就能被稱為『漏』，那麼染污的思（cetanā，意志）、恨（krodha，憤怒）等也應該被稱為『漏』，那麼上面所總結的煩惱數量就白費了。現在在這裡，只是根據最重要和最明顯的方面，說一百零八種煩惱是漏。也就是說，非染污的思等，以及恨等，不屬於漏所攝。只有這些煩惱才會使有情（sattva，眾生）長久地停留在生死輪迴中，或者使他們在生死輪迴中從有頂天（abhavāgra，三界最高的境界）一直流轉到無間地獄（avīci，最苦的地獄）。 因為這些煩惱的作用強烈且容易理解，所以特別說明。瀑流（ogha，急流）和軛（yoga，束縛）的本體與漏相同。然而，在其中，見（dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）也被單獨設立。也就是說，前面的欲漏（kāma-āsrava，對慾望的執著）就是欲瀑流和欲軛。同樣，有漏（bhava-āsrava，對存在的執著）就是有瀑流和有軛。將各種見解分析出來，作為見瀑流和見軛，是因為它們非常猛烈。也就是說，瀑流和軛的含義是漂流、聚合和執著。就像其餘的煩惱一樣，除了無明之外，總的來說，互相資助，能夠漂流、聚合和執著。各種見解也是如此，由於猛烈……
【English Translation】 English version Sixteen. The Prakaraṇapāda states: 'What is an āsrava (leakage, outflow)?' Answer: Except for avidyā (ignorance), the remaining afflictions pertaining to the rūpadhātu (realm of form) and arūpadhātu (formless realm), saṃyojana (fetters), bandhana (bonds), anuśaya (latent tendencies), upakleśa (secondary afflictions), and paryavasthāna (entanglements). Why are the afflictions of the rūpadhātu and arūpadhātu combined and spoken of as 'one' āsrava? Because they share the characteristic of being avyākṛta (indeterminate), operate within the internal gate of dhyāna (meditation), and arise from the ground of dhyāna. Due to these three similarities, they are combined into one. The afflictions of those realms also operate in the external gate of the senses, arising from objects of sight, sound, and touch. Therefore, a second reason for combining them should be separately explained, namely that those anuśaya share the same pratipakṣa (antidote). Even if based on this meaning, the structure of the verse would not be damaged. That is to say, it should be stated: 'Why are the afflictions of the rūpadhātu and arūpadhātu combined and spoken of as 'one' āsrava? Because they share the characteristic of being avyākṛta, have the same pratipakṣa, and are based on the ground of dhyāna.' Due to these three reasons, they are combined into one. Why is it that only they can be called 'āsrava'? This is just like the previous explanation of the meaning of 'attachment to existence' (bhava-rāga). It can be inferred that the fifteen kinds of avidyā in the three realms (tridhātu, realm of desire, realm of form, and formless realm) are the substance of the avidyā-āsrava, so the verse does not separately mention them. Why is the name 'āsrava' specifically established only for avidyā? It is to show that the fault of avidyā is the most serious. That is to say, only avidyā can serve as the root of saṃsāra (cyclic existence). As the sūtra (scripture) says: 'Due to avidyā as the cause, attachment arises...' and so on. Also, as the verse says: 'All the evil destinies (durgati), whether in this world or other worlds, all have avidyā as their root and are caused by attachment and other afflictions.' Having distinguished the three āsravas, further consideration should be given. As the treatise states: saṃyojana, bandhana, anuśaya, upakleśa, and paryavasthāna are the first two āsravas. If five conditions are met, then it can be called 'āsrava'. If this is the case, then the ten paryavasthānāni (entanglements) should not be the substance of āsrava. If only one condition needs to be met to be called 'āsrava', then defiled cetanā (volition), krodha (anger), etc., should also be called 'āsrava', then the number of afflictions summarized above would be in vain. Now here, only based on the most important and obvious aspects, it is said that the one hundred and eight afflictions are āsravas. That is to say, undefiled cetanā, etc., and krodha, etc., are not included in the āsravas. Only these afflictions cause sentient beings (sattva) to remain in saṃsāra for a long time, or cause them to transmigrate in saṃsāra from the abhavāgra (peak of existence) down to the avīci (hell of incessant suffering). Because the function of these afflictions is strong and easy to understand, it is specifically explained. The ogha (flood) and yoga (yoke) have the same substance as the āsravas. However, among them, dṛṣṭi (wrong views) is also separately established. That is to say, the previous kāma-āsrava (āsrava of desire) is the kāma-ogha and kāma-yoga. Similarly, the bhava-āsrava (āsrava of existence) is the bhava-ogha and bhava-yoga. Analyzing out the various views as dṛṣṭi-ogha and dṛṣṭi-yoga is because they are very intense. That is to say, the meaning of ogha and yoga is drifting, aggregating, and clinging. Just like the remaining afflictions, except for avidyā, in general, they mutually support each other and are able to drift, aggregate, and cling. The various views are also like this, due to their intensity...
利故離余相助能漂合執故亦別立瀑流軛取。又諸煩惱皆令眾生漂淪染法。離諸善品無解邪解。涌泛波濤漂激眾生。于善更遠。故無明見於此別立。若爾何不別立見漏令住名漏。如后當說。見不順彼義有別故。謂令異生及諸聖者。等住生死故名為漏。諸見無有令聖住能。漏義不全故不別立。漂合執義聖異生殊。故后三門皆別立見。謂此諸惑能漂異生。容有令離一切善品。漂諸聖者則不可然。漂已能令諸異生類。遍與非愛界趣生合。令聖者合則不可然。合已能令諸異生類。無不依執令聖不然。由此三門異生異聖。于中見勝是故別立。有餘師說。見躁利故於令住義獨不能辯。故於漏門與余合立。若與余合便有住能。如於調象王繫縛生象子。如是已顯二十九物名欲瀑流。謂貪瞋慢各有五種。疑四纏十二。十八物名有瀑流。謂貪與慢各十疑八。三十六物名見暴流。謂三界中各十二見。十五物名無明暴流。謂三界無明各有五。應知四軛與瀑流同。四取應知體同四軛。然欲我語各並無明。見分為二。與前軛別即前欲軛並欲無明三十四物總名欲取。謂貪瞋慢無明各五。疑有四並十纏即前有軛並二界無明三十八。物總名我語。取謂貪慢無明各十疑有八。于見軛中除戒禁取。餘三十物總名見取。所除六物名戒禁取。由此獨為聖道怨故。雙誑
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為貪圖利益，所以將『離余相助能漂合執』（離開、剩餘、互相幫助、能夠漂流、結合、執著）這些概念區分開來，並特別設立『瀑流』（Ogha，暴流）和『軛』（Yoga，軛）。此外，各種煩惱都會使眾生漂流沉淪於染污之法，遠離各種善行，沒有正確的理解，只有邪惡的理解。煩惱像洶涌的波濤一樣衝擊著眾生，使他們離善良越來越遠。因此，對於無明，要特別區分出來。如果這樣，為什麼不單獨設立『見漏』（Dṛṣṭi-āsrava，見煩惱的漏）而讓它歸於『名漏』（Nāma-āsrava，名煩惱的漏）呢？就像後面將要說的那樣，因為『見』不符合『令住』（使停留）的含義，所以要區分開來。也就是說，『漏』能使凡夫和聖者都停留在生死輪迴中，所以稱為『漏』。而各種『見』沒有使聖者停留的能力，『漏』的含義不完整，所以不單獨設立。『漂流』、『結合』、『執著』的含義在聖者和凡夫身上有所不同，所以後面的三個『門』（指后三種暴流）都要單獨設立『見』。也就是說，這些迷惑能夠使凡夫漂流，或許能使他們遠離一切善行。但要使聖者漂流是不可能的。漂流之後，能夠使凡夫遍佈于不喜歡的界、趣、生中，使他們結合。但要使聖者結合是不可能的。結合之後，能夠使凡夫無不依賴和執著，但聖者不會這樣。由於這三個『門』在凡夫和聖者身上有所不同，其中『見』的作用更強，所以要單獨設立。有其他老師說，『見』過於躁動和犀利，所以在『令住』的含義上無法與其他煩惱區分開來，所以在『漏』的『門』中與其他的煩惱合併設立。如果與其他的煩惱合併，就有了『令住』的能力，就像用鎖鏈束縛住大象，然後用小象來馴服它一樣。像這樣，已經闡明了二十九種事物被稱為『欲瀑流』（Kāma-ogha，欲暴流），也就是貪、嗔、慢各有五種，疑有四種，纏有十二種。十八種事物被稱為『有瀑流』（Bhava-ogha，有暴流），也就是貪和慢各有十種，疑有八種。三十六種事物被稱為『見暴流』（Dṛṣṭi-ogha，見暴流），也就是三界中各有十二種『見』。十五種事物被稱為『無明暴流』（Avidyā-ogha，無明暴流），也就是三界中的無明各有五種。應該知道，四『軛』（Yoga，軛）與『瀑流』相同。四『取』（Upādāna，取）應該知道本體與四『軛』相同。然而，『欲』、『我語』各自與『無明』合併，『見』分為兩種，與前面的『軛』有所不同。也就是前面的『欲軛』與『欲無明』合併，三十四種事物總稱為『欲取』，也就是貪、嗔、慢、無明各有五種，疑有四種，加上十種『纏』。也就是前面的『有軛』與兩界的『無明』合併，三十八種事物總稱為『我語取』，也就是貪、慢、無明各有十種，疑有八種。在『見軛』中，除去『戒禁取』（Śīlavrata-upādāna，戒禁取），剩餘的三十種事物總稱為『見取』（Dṛṣṭi-upādāna，見取）。所除去的六種事物稱為『戒禁取』，因為『戒禁取』是聖道的獨特怨敵，會雙重地欺騙眾生。 現代漢語譯本
【English Translation】 English version Because of the pursuit of benefits, the concepts of 'leaving, remaining, mutually assisting, being able to drift, combining, and clinging' are distinguished, and 'Ogha (flood)' and 'Yoga (yoke)' are specifically established. Furthermore, all kinds of afflictions cause sentient beings to drift and sink in defiled dharmas, away from all kinds of good deeds, without correct understanding, only with evil understanding. Afflictions, like surging waves, impact sentient beings, making them further and further away from goodness. Therefore, ignorance (Avidyā) must be specifically distinguished. If so, why not establish 'Dṛṣṭi-āsrava (the leakage of views)' separately and let it belong to 'Nāma-āsrava (the leakage of name)'? As will be said later, because 'views' do not conform to the meaning of 'causing to stay', they must be distinguished. That is to say, 'leakages' can cause ordinary people and sages to stay in the cycle of birth and death, so they are called 'leakages'. However, various 'views' do not have the ability to make sages stay, and the meaning of 'leakage' is incomplete, so they are not established separately. The meanings of 'drifting', 'combining', and 'clinging' are different in sages and ordinary people, so the latter three 'gates' (referring to the latter three floods) must separately establish 'views'. That is to say, these delusions can cause ordinary people to drift, perhaps enabling them to stay away from all good deeds. But it is impossible to make sages drift. After drifting, they can cause ordinary people to spread throughout the disliked realms, destinies, and births, causing them to combine. But it is impossible to make sages combine. After combining, they can cause ordinary people to invariably rely on and cling, but sages will not do this. Because these three 'gates' are different in ordinary people and sages, and the role of 'views' is stronger, they must be established separately. Some other teachers say that 'views' are too restless and sharp, so they cannot be distinguished from other afflictions in the meaning of 'causing to stay', so they are established together with other afflictions in the 'gate' of 'leakages'. If they are combined with other afflictions, they have the ability to 'cause to stay', just like using chains to bind an elephant and then using a small elephant to tame it. In this way, it has been clarified that twenty-nine things are called 'Kāma-ogha (flood of desire)', that is, greed, hatred, and pride each have five kinds, doubt has four kinds, and entanglement has twelve kinds. Eighteen things are called 'Bhava-ogha (flood of existence)', that is, greed and pride each have ten kinds, and doubt has eight kinds. Thirty-six things are called 'Dṛṣṭi-ogha (flood of views)', that is, each of the three realms has twelve kinds of 'views'. Fifteen things are called 'Avidyā-ogha (flood of ignorance)', that is, ignorance in each of the three realms has five kinds. It should be known that the four 'Yogas (yokes)' are the same as the 'floods'. The four 'Upādānas (graspings)' should be known to have the same substance as the four 'Yogas'. However, 'desire' and 'self-utterance' are each combined with 'ignorance', and 'views' are divided into two kinds, which are different from the previous 'yokes'. That is, the previous 'desire yoke' is combined with 'desire ignorance', and thirty-four things are collectively called 'desire grasping', that is, greed, hatred, pride, and ignorance each have five kinds, doubt has four kinds, plus ten kinds of 'entanglement'. That is, the previous 'existence yoke' is combined with the 'ignorance' of the two realms, and thirty-eight things are collectively called 'self-utterance grasping', that is, greed, pride, and ignorance each have ten kinds, and doubt has eight kinds. In the 'view yoke', except for 'Śīlavrata-upādāna (grasping at precepts and vows)', the remaining thirty things are collectively called 'Dṛṣṭi-upādāna (grasping at views)'. The six things that are removed are called 'grasping at precepts and vows', because 'grasping at precepts and vows' is the unique enemy of the holy path and will doubly deceive sentient beings. English version
在家出家眾故。何緣無明不別立取依能取義建立取名。然諸無明非能取故。謂不了相說名無明。彼非能取不猛利故。但可與余合立為取。余建立取及廣抉擇。如緣起中應如理解。瀑流軛取若能總攝一切煩惱便違契經。如契經言。云何欲軛謂愚夫類。無聞異生不如實知。諸欲集沒愛味過患。及與出離。乃至廣說。彼于諸欲欲貪慾欲。欲親欲愛慾樂欲悶。欲耽欲嗜慾喜欲藏欲隨欲著。纏壓於心是名欲軛。有軛見軛應知亦爾。此于愛體說三軛名。又余經說欲貪名取。由此故知于欲等四所起欲貪名欲等取。如何具攝諸煩惱耶。此不相違經意別故。就所化者機行差別。密意說故猶如瀑流。謂契經說。有四瀑流。然余經中佛觀所化機行差別說如是言。苾芻若能多住於此。便為已渡前五瀑流。第六瀑流亦當能渡。云何知此是密意言非唯以愛為三軛體。以契經中說有九結。結之與軛義類相似。故知煩惱皆有軛相。佛觀所化機行所須。于多體中且略舉一。又如經說。若斷一法。我能保汝得不還果。一法者。謂薩迦耶見。非唯斷此得不還果。又如經說。應斷害忿非余煩惱不應斷害。又如說無明能蓋有情類。然于余處說蓋有五。此經亦爾。隨所化生現相續中。為愛所惱故略為彼說愛無失。欲有二軛可略舉愛愛彼攝故。見軛云何。愛與見軛性各
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在家出家眾的緣故。什麼原因無明不單獨建立『取』，依靠能取之義建立『取』這個名稱呢？因為各種無明並非能取之法。所謂不了知諸法實相，就叫做無明。它不是能取，因為不夠強烈。但可以與其他的法合起來建立為『取』。關於『取』的建立以及詳細的解釋，應當像在緣起法中那樣如理理解。 如果瀑流、軛、取能夠總括一切煩惱，就與契經相違背。例如契經上說：『什麼是欲軛？就是愚夫之類，沒有聽聞佛法的外道凡夫，不如實地了知諸欲的集起、滅沒、愛味、過患以及出離。』乃至廣說。他們對於諸欲，生起欲貪、欲欲、欲親、欲愛、欲樂、欲悶、欲耽、欲嗜、欲喜、欲藏、欲隨、欲著，這些纏繞壓迫他們的心，這就叫做欲軛。有軛、見軛，應當知道也是這樣。這是在愛的本體上安立了三種軛的名稱。另外，其他的經典中說，欲貪名為取。由此可知，對於欲等四種境界所生起的欲貪，就叫做欲等取。如何能夠完全涵蓋所有的煩惱呢？ 這並不矛盾，因為經文的意義不同。這是就所教化眾生的根機和修行差別，以秘密的方式來說的，就像瀑流一樣。例如契經上說，有四種瀑流。然而，其他的經典中，佛觀察所教化眾生的根機和修行差別，這樣說：『比丘，如果能夠多安住於此，就能夠渡過前面的五種瀑流，第六種瀑流也應當能夠渡過。』怎麼知道這是密意之說，而不是僅僅以愛為三種軛的本體呢？因為契經中說有九種結，結和軛的意義類似。所以知道煩惱都有軛的相狀。佛觀察所教化眾生的根機和修行所需，在多種法中，且略舉一種。 又如經上說：『如果斷除一種法，我能保證你得到不還果。』這一種法，就是薩迦耶見（有身見）。並非僅僅斷除這個才能得到不還果。又如經上說，應當斷除害和忿，不是說其他的煩惱不應當斷除害。又如說無明能夠覆蓋有情眾生，然而在其他地方說覆蓋有五種。這個經典也是這樣，隨所教化的眾生，現在相續中，被愛所惱害，所以略微為他們說愛，沒有過失。欲有二軛，可以略舉愛，因為愛包含它們。見軛是什麼呢？愛和見軛的體性各不相同。
【English Translation】 English version Because of the distinction between householders and renunciates. What reason is there that 'ignorance' (avidyā) is not separately established as 'grasping' (upādāna), relying on the meaning of 'that which can grasp' to establish the name 'grasping'? It is because the various forms of ignorance are not capable of grasping. That which does not understand the true nature of things is called ignorance. It is not 'grasping' because it is not forceful enough. However, it can be combined with other factors to establish 'grasping'. The establishment of 'grasping' and its detailed explanation should be understood as explained in the context of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). If the 'torrents' (ogha), 'yokes' (yoga), and 'grasping' could encompass all afflictions (kleśa), it would contradict the sūtras. For example, the sūtra says: 'What is the yoke of desire (kāma-yoga)? It is the ignorant, unlearned ordinary people who do not truly know the arising, cessation, allure, danger, and escape from desires.' And so on. Regarding desires, they generate desire-greed (kāma-rāga), desire-desire, desire-closeness, desire-love, desire-pleasure, desire-infatuation, desire-indulgence, desire-craving, desire-joy, desire-hoarding, desire-following, and desire-attachment. These entangle and oppress their minds, and this is called the yoke of desire. The yoke of existence (bhava-yoga) and the yoke of views (dṛṣṭi-yoga) should also be understood in the same way. These three yokes are established on the essence of love (tṛṣṇā). Furthermore, other sūtras say that desire-greed is called grasping. From this, it is known that the desire-greed arising from the four objects of desire, etc., is called grasping of desire, etc. How can it completely encompass all afflictions? This is not contradictory because the meaning of the sūtras is different. It is spoken in a concealed way based on the capacity and practice of those being taught, like the torrents. For example, the sūtra says that there are four torrents. However, in other sūtras, the Buddha, observing the capacity and practice of those being taught, says: 'Bhikkhus, if you can abide much in this, you will be able to cross the first five torrents, and you should also be able to cross the sixth torrent.' How do we know that this is a concealed meaning and not just that love is the essence of the three yokes? Because the sūtra says that there are nine fetters (saṃyojana), and the meaning of fetter and yoke are similar. Therefore, it is known that afflictions all have the aspect of a yoke. The Buddha, observing the capacity and needs of those being taught, briefly mentions one among many. Moreover, as the sūtra says: 'If you cut off one thing, I can guarantee that you will attain the state of non-returning (anāgāmin).' This one thing is the view of a self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi). It is not only by cutting off this that one attains the state of non-returning. Furthermore, as the sūtra says, one should cut off harm and anger, not that other afflictions should not be cut off. Also, as it is said that ignorance can cover sentient beings, yet in other places it is said that there are five coverings. This sūtra is also like that. According to the sentient beings being taught, in their present continuum, they are afflicted by love, so it is briefly spoken to them about love, and there is no fault in this. Desire has two yokes, and love can be briefly mentioned because love includes them. What is the yoke of views? The nature of love and the yoke of views are different.
別故舉亦無失。以見軛名依訓釋門通二義故。若見即軛名為見軛如無明軛。若於見軛名為見軛。猶如有軛佛令弟子知二義故。雖亦于愛立見軛名。而亦無有違法性失如是已辯隨眠並纏。經說為漏瀑流軛取。此隨眠等名有何義。頌曰。
微細二隨增 隨逐與隨縛 住流漂合執 是隨眠等義
論曰。根本煩惱現在前時。行相難知故名微細。是故聖者阿難陀言。我今不知于同梵行起慢心不。不說全無以慢隨眠行相微細。彼尚不了慢心有無。況諸異生余例應爾。有釋。於一剎那極微亦有隨增故名微細。二隨增者。謂于所緣及所相應。皆隨增故。如何煩惱有于所緣相應隨增。如前已辯。或如怨害伺求瑕隙。及如見毒。應知煩惱于自所緣有隨增義。如熱鐵丸能令水熱及如觸毒。應知煩惱于自相應有隨增義。二皆同乳母令嬰兒隨增。乳母能令嬰兒增長。及令伎藝漸次積集。所緣相應令諸煩惱相續增長及得積集。言隨逐者。謂無始來於相續中起得隨逐。言隨縛者。極難離故。如四日瘧及鼠毒等。有說。隨縛謂得恒隨。如海水行隨空行影。由此所說諸因緣故。十種煩惱立隨眠名。依訓詞門釋此名者。謂隨流者相續中眠故名隨眠。即順流者身中安住增惛滯義。或隨勝者相續中眠故名隨眠。即是趣入如實解位為惛迷義。或有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 即使另外舉例也不會有錯，這是因為『軛』（yoga）這個名稱，依據訓釋之門，可以通達兩種含義。如果『見』（dṛṣṭi）本身就是『軛』，那麼就稱為『見軛』，比如『無明軛』（avidyā-yoga）。如果對於『見』是『軛』，那麼就稱為『見軛』，就像『有軛』一樣，佛陀讓弟子們瞭解這兩種含義。雖然也可以在『愛』（rāga）的基礎上建立『見軛』這個名稱，但也不會有違反法性的過失。像這樣已經辨析了隨眠（anuśaya）和纏（paryavasthāna）。經文中說這些隨眠等是『漏』（āsrava）、『瀑流』（ogha）、『軛』（yoga）、『取』（upādāna）。這些隨眠等名稱有什麼含義呢？頌文說： 『微細二隨增，隨逐與隨縛，住流漂合執，是隨眠等義。』 論曰：根本煩惱（mūlakleśa）現在前的時候，行相難以察覺，所以叫做『微細』。因此聖者阿難陀（Ānanda）說：『我現在不知道對於同梵行的人是否生起了慢心。』這並不是說完全沒有，而是因為慢隨眠（māna-anuśaya）的行相非常微細。他尚且不瞭解慢心是否存在，更何況是其他的凡夫俗子呢？其他的例子也應該如此類推。有一種解釋是，在一剎那極微（kṣaṇika paramāṇu）中也有隨增，所以叫做『微細』。『二隨增』是指對於所緣（ālambana）和所相應（samprayukta）都隨增。煩惱如何對於所緣和相應隨增呢？這在前面已經辨析過了。或者像怨家伺機報復，又像毒藥，應該知道煩惱對於自己的所緣有隨增的含義。就像燒紅的鐵丸能讓水變熱，又像接觸毒藥，應該知道煩惱對於自己的相應有隨增的含義。這兩種情況都像乳母讓嬰兒隨增一樣。乳母能讓嬰兒增長，並且讓技藝逐漸積累。所緣和相應能讓諸煩惱相續增長並且得到積累。『隨逐』是指從無始以來，在相續中生起並且得到隨逐。『隨縛』是指極難脫離，就像四日瘧和鼠毒等。有人說，『隨縛』是指得到后恒常相隨，就像海水流動，天空執行，影子跟隨一樣。由於以上所說的種種因緣，十種煩惱被立為隨眠之名。依據訓詞之門來解釋這個名稱，就是說，隨著（anu）流者（srota）在相續中眠伏（śayana），所以叫做隨眠。也就是順著（anukūla）流者（srota）在身中安住，增長昏沉滯礙的含義。或者隨著（anu）勝者（śreṣṭha）在相續中眠伏（śayana），所以叫做隨眠。也就是對於趣入如實解的位置，是昏迷的含義。或者有
【English Translation】 English version: Even citing another example would not be a mistake, because the name 'yoga' (yoke), according to the etymological explanation, can convey two meanings. If 'seeing' (dṛṣṭi) itself is the 'yoke', then it is called 'seeing-yoke', like 'ignorance-yoke' (avidyā-yoga). If it is 'yoke' in relation to 'seeing', then it is called 'seeing-yoke', just like 'having a yoke', the Buddha lets his disciples understand these two meanings. Although the name 'seeing-yoke' can also be established on the basis of 'desire' (rāga), there will be no fault of violating the nature of Dharma. Thus, the latent tendencies (anuśaya) and entanglements (paryavasthāna) have been distinguished. The scriptures say that these latent tendencies, etc., are 'outflows' (āsrava), 'floods' (ogha), 'yokes' (yoga), and 'graspings' (upādāna). What are the meanings of these names of latent tendencies, etc.? The verse says: 'Subtle, twofold increase, following and binding, abiding, flowing, drifting, combining, holding, these are the meanings of latent tendencies, etc.' Treatise says: When fundamental afflictions (mūlakleśa) manifest, their characteristics are difficult to discern, so they are called 'subtle'. Therefore, the venerable Ānanda said: 'I do not know now whether I have arisen pride towards those practicing the same Brahmacharya.' This is not to say that there is none at all, but because the characteristics of pride latent tendency (māna-anuśaya) are very subtle. He does not even understand whether pride exists or not, let alone other ordinary beings? Other examples should be inferred in the same way. One explanation is that there is also increase in an extremely small moment (kṣaṇika paramāṇu), so it is called 'subtle'. 'Twofold increase' refers to the increase in relation to both the object (ālambana) and the associated (samprayukta). How do afflictions increase in relation to the object and the associated? This has been distinguished earlier. Or like enemies seeking revenge, and like poison, it should be known that afflictions have the meaning of increasing in relation to their own object. Just like a red-hot iron ball can make water hot, and like touching poison, it should be known that afflictions have the meaning of increasing in relation to their own associated. Both of these situations are like a wet nurse causing an infant to increase. A wet nurse can cause an infant to grow, and allow skills to gradually accumulate. The object and the associated can cause the afflictions to continuously increase and be accumulated. 'Following' refers to arising and being followed in the continuum from beginningless time. 'Binding' refers to being extremely difficult to separate from, like quartan malaria and rat poison, etc. Some say that 'binding' refers to constantly following after being obtained, just like the movement of seawater, the movement of the sky, and the shadow following. Due to all the causes and conditions mentioned above, the ten afflictions are established as the name of latent tendencies. Explaining this name according to the etymological explanation means that following (anu) the stream (srota), they lie dormant (śayana) in the continuum, so they are called latent tendencies. That is, conforming (anukūla) to the stream (srota), they abide in the body, increasing the meaning of dullness and stagnation. Or following (anu) the superior (śreṣṭha), they lie dormant (śayana) in the continuum, so they are called latent tendencies. That is, in relation to entering the position of true understanding, it is the meaning of confusion. Or there are
獄中長時隨逐。覆有情類故名隨眠。何緣隨眠唯貪等十。非余忿等。唯此十種習氣堅牢非忿等故。謂唯此十習氣堅牢。起便難歇如擔山火。或如怨結。故名隨眠。若爾恨應是隨眠性。不爾隨眠任運轉故。要設功用恨方隨轉。然諸隨眠性尤重故。不設功用亦堅固轉。或恨隨瞋有所作故。謂諸恨垢是瞋等流隨瞋所為方有所作。憶念種種瞋恚相時。隨瞋所為結恨不捨。故無恨垢成隨眠失是為訓釋。建立隨眠稽留有情久住生死。或令流轉于生死中。從有頂天至無間獄。由彼相續於六瘡門泄過無窮。故名為漏。極漂善品故名瀑流。于界趣生和合名軛。執取彼彼自體名取。經主此中復作是說。若善釋者應作是言。諸境界中流注相續泄過不絕。故名為漏。若勢增上說名瀑流。謂諸有情若墜于彼。唯可隨順無能違逆。涌泛漂激難違拒故。于現行時非極增上。說名為軛。但令有情與種種類苦和合故。或數現行故名為軛。執欲等故說名為取。彼有何善。釋四名中。二與我同。二違理故。謂彼所說諸境界中。流注相續泄過不絕。故名為漏。即我宗說由彼相續。於六瘡門泄過無窮。故名為漏。非離諸漏有別相續。由彼勢力于境泄過。即諸煩惱或總或別。流注不絕得相續名。說於六瘡門即說於六境。彼言不絕即我無窮。與我何殊獨言彼善。彼勢增
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 長時間在牢獄中跟隨相伴，覆蓋有情眾生，因此稱為隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）。為什麼隨眠只有貪（Raga，貪慾）等十種，而不是忿（Krodha，憤怒）等其他煩惱？因為只有這十種煩惱的習氣堅固，而忿等煩惱則不然。也就是說，只有這十種煩惱的習氣堅固，一旦生起就難以停止，就像揹負山火，或者像怨恨的結一樣，所以稱為隨眠。如果這樣，那麼恨（Upanaha，怨恨）應該也是隨眠的性質嗎？不是的，因為隨眠能夠自行運轉，而恨需要施加功用才能隨之運轉。然而，各種隨眠的性質尤其嚴重，因此即使不施加功用也能堅固地運轉。或者說，恨是隨著瞋（Dvesha，嗔恨）而有所作為的。也就是說，各種怨恨的污垢是瞋恨的等流（Nisyanda，結果），隨著瞋恨的行為才有所作為。當憶念種種瞋恚的景象時，隨著瞋恨的行為而結恨不捨。因此，沒有怨恨的污垢成為隨眠的過失，這是對隨眠的訓釋。建立隨眠是爲了稽留有情眾生，使其長久地停留在生死輪迴中，或者使他們在生死中流轉，從有頂天（Akanistha，色界最高天）到無間地獄（Avici，八大地獄中最苦之處）。由於這些煩惱相續不斷地從六瘡門（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根）泄過無窮，所以稱為漏（Asrava，煩惱的異名）。極度漂流善法，所以稱為瀑流（Ogha，四瀑流：欲瀑流、有瀑流、見瀑流、無明瀑流）。在界（Dhatu，界）、趣（Gati，去處）、生（Jati，出生）中和合，稱為軛（Yoga，四軛：欲軛、有軛、見軛、無明軛）。執取種種自體，稱為取（Upadana，四取：欲取、見取、戒禁取、我語取）。 經主（Sutrakara，佛經的作者）在此處又這樣說：如果善於解釋的人應該這樣說：在各種境界中，流注相續，泄過不絕，所以稱為漏。如果勢力增強，就稱為瀑流。也就是說，各種有情如果墜入其中，只能隨順，無法違逆，因為涌泛漂激，難以違拒。在現行時，如果不是極度增強，就稱為軛。只是使有情與種種苦和合，或者多次現行，所以稱為軛。執取欲等，所以稱為取。他有什麼善妙之處呢？在解釋這四個名稱中，有兩個與我的觀點相同，有兩個違背道理。也就是說，他所說的在各種境界中，流注相續，泄過不絕，所以稱為漏，這與我宗所說的由於這些煩惱相續不斷地從六瘡門泄過無窮，所以稱為漏相同。並非離開各種漏有別的相續，而是由於這些煩惱的勢力在境界中泄過。這些煩惱，或者總的，或者別的，流注不絕，就得到了相續的名稱。說在六瘡門，就是說在六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法六境）。他說不絕，就是我說無窮。與我有什麼不同，而獨獨說他善妙呢？他的勢力增強...
【English Translation】 English version: They constantly accompany [beings] in the prison [of Samsara]. They cover sentient beings, hence they are called Anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements). Why are only ten Anusayas, such as Raga (lust), and not others like Krodha (anger)? Because only these ten have firmly established habits, unlike anger and others. That is, only these ten have firmly established habits, and once they arise, they are difficult to stop, like carrying a mountain of fire, or like a knot of resentment, hence they are called Anusaya. If so, should Upanaha (resentment) also be considered an Anusaya? No, because Anusayas operate on their own, while resentment requires effort to operate. However, the nature of the Anusayas is particularly heavy, so they operate firmly even without effort. Alternatively, resentment acts with anger. That is, the stains of resentment are the result of anger, and they act according to what anger does. When recalling various aspects of anger, resentment clings and does not let go, following the actions of anger. Therefore, there is no fault in not considering the stain of resentment as an Anusaya. This is the explanation of establishing Anusayas to detain sentient beings, causing them to dwell long in Samsara, or causing them to transmigrate in Samsara, from Akanistha (the highest heaven in the Form Realm) to Avici (the most painful of the eight great hells). Because they continuously leak endlessly from the six sense doors (the six roots: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), they are called Asrava (outflows, another name for defilements). They extremely drift away from wholesome qualities, hence they are called Ogha (floods, the four floods: the flood of desire, the flood of existence, the flood of views, and the flood of ignorance). Being combined in Dhatu (realms), Gati (destinations), and Jati (births) is called Yoga (yokes, the four yokes: the yoke of desire, the yoke of existence, the yoke of views, and the yoke of ignorance). Grasping various self-identities is called Upadana (grasping, the four graspings: grasping of desire, grasping of views, grasping of precepts and vows, and grasping of self-assertion). The Sutrakara (author of the Sutra) further says here: If one is good at explaining, one should say: In various realms, the continuous flow leaks without ceasing, hence it is called Asrava. If the power increases, it is called Ogha. That is, if sentient beings fall into them, they can only follow and cannot resist, because the surging and drifting are difficult to resist. When currently active, if not extremely increased, it is called Yoga. It simply combines sentient beings with various kinds of suffering, or it occurs frequently, hence it is called Yoga. Grasping desire and so on is called Upadana. What good is there in his explanation? In explaining these four names, two are the same as my view, and two are contrary to reason. That is, what he says, 'In various realms, the continuous flow leaks without ceasing, hence it is called Asrava,' is the same as what my school says, 'Because these defilements continuously leak endlessly from the six sense doors, hence it is called Asrava.' It is not that there is a separate continuity apart from the various outflows, but it is because of the power of these defilements that they leak in the realms. These defilements, either generally or specifically, flow continuously and obtain the name of continuity. Saying 'at the six sense doors' is the same as saying 'at the six objects (the six objects of sense: form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma).' What he says 'without ceasing' is the same as what I say 'endlessly.' What is the difference between me and him, that he alone is said to be good? His increased power...
上說名瀑流。即我宗言極漂善品。與我何別。彼獨善耶。言現行時非極增上說名為軛。令與種種苦和合故。此與理違。于現行時若非增上。何能令與種種苦合。如何可說彼釋為善。又諸善法數數現行。亦令有情與眾苦合。應與煩惱俱立軛名。若言我釋亦同此過。此難非理。我說煩惱由發業門。有此能故所釋取義亦與理違。謂若取名唯因愛者。說取緣有義如何成。應但說言愛緣有故。又如前際后際業緣。亦應通攝一切煩惱。如緣起中已廣思擇。由彼所釋違正理故。毗婆沙師不作是說。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之十
如是已辯隨眠並纏。世尊說為漏瀑流等。為唯爾所為更有餘。頌曰。
由結等差別 復說有五種
論曰。即諸煩惱結縛隨眠。隨煩惱纏義有別故。復說五種且結云何。頌曰。
結九物取等 立見取二結 由二唯不善 及自在起故 纏中唯嫉慳 建立為二結 或二數行故 為賤貧困故 遍顯隨惑故 惱亂二部故
論曰。結有九種。一愛結二恚結三慢結四無明結五見結六取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 上文說，如果瀑流（Ogha，煩惱的激流）只是指那些被命名的瀑流，那麼按照你們宗派的說法，『極漂善品』（極度漂流的善行）又是什麼呢？它和瀑流有什麼區別？難道只有瀑流才是惡的嗎？如果說煩惱在現行時不是極度增上的，所以才被稱為『軛』（Yoga，束縛），因為它使眾生與種種痛苦結合，這與道理相悖。如果在現行時不是增上的，又怎麼能使眾生與種種痛苦結合呢？怎麼能說那種解釋是正確的呢？而且，諸多的善法如果頻繁地現行，也會使有情與眾苦結合，那麼也應該和煩惱一樣，被立為『軛』。如果你們說我的解釋也有同樣的過失，這種責難是不合理的。我說煩惱是由『發業門』（引發業力的途徑）而產生的，具有這種能力，所以我的解釋是符合道理的。如果說『取』（Upadana，執取）的定義僅僅是因為愛（Trsna，渴愛），那麼說『取緣有』（Upadana paccaya bhava，以執取為緣而有）的意義又如何成立呢？應該只說『愛緣有』（Trsna paccaya bhava，以愛為緣而有）就可以了。而且，像前際（過去）和后際（未來）的業緣，也應該包括所有的煩惱。正如在緣起（Paticcasamuppada，緣起法）中已經廣泛思考過的那樣，因為他們的解釋違背了正確的道理，所以毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，分別說者）沒有這樣說。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十三 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十四 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯隨眠品第五之十
像這樣已經辨析了隨眠（Anusaya，隨眠）和纏（Paryavasthana，纏）。世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀）說它們是漏（Asrava，漏）、瀑流等。是隻有這些，還是還有其他的呢？頌曰：
『由結等差別，復說有五種。』
論曰：就是說，諸多的煩惱，包括結（Samyojana，結）、縛（Bandhana，縛）、隨眠（Anusaya，隨眠）、隨煩惱（Upaklesha，隨煩惱）、纏（Paryavasthana，纏），因為它們的意義有所區別，所以又說了五種。首先說結是什麼？頌曰：
『結九物取等，立見取二結，由二唯不善，及自在起故。纏中唯嫉慳，建立為二結，或二數行故，為賤貧困故，遍顯隨惑故，惱亂二部故。』
論曰：結有九種。一、愛結（Raga-samyojana，貪愛之結），二、恚結（Pratigha-samyojana，嗔恚之結），三、慢結（Mana-samyojana，驕慢之結），四、無明結（Avidya-samyojana，無明之結），五、見結（Dristi-samyojana，邪見之結），六、取結（Upadana-samyojana，執取之結）。
【English Translation】 English version: The above says, if 'Ogha' (瀑流, torrents of defilements) only refers to those named torrents, then according to your school, what is 'extreme drifting of wholesome qualities' (極漂善品)? What is the difference between it and the torrents? Is it only the torrents that are evil? If it is said that defilements are not extremely increasing when they are currently active, so they are called 'Yoga' (軛, yoke), because it causes sentient beings to be combined with various sufferings, this contradicts reason. If it is not increasing when it is currently active, how can it cause sentient beings to be combined with various sufferings? How can it be said that such an explanation is correct? Moreover, if many wholesome dharmas frequently manifest, they will also cause sentient beings to be combined with various sufferings, then they should also be established as 'Yoga' like defilements. If you say that my explanation also has the same fault, this accusation is unreasonable. I say that defilements are produced by the 'door of generating karma' (發業門), and have this ability, so my explanation is in accordance with reason. If it is said that the definition of 'Upadana' (取, grasping) is only because of 'Trsna' (愛, craving), then how can the meaning of 'Upadana paccaya bhava' (取緣有, conditioned by grasping) be established? It should only be said 'Trsna paccaya bhava' (愛緣有, conditioned by craving). Moreover, like the karmic conditions of the past (前際) and future (后際), all defilements should also be included. As has been extensively considered in 'Paticcasamuppada' (緣起, dependent origination), because their explanation violates the correct reason, the 'Vaibhashika' (毗婆沙師, the exponents of Vaibhashika) did not say this.
Shun Zheng Li Lun of Sarvastivada, Volume 53 T29, No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 54 Composed by Venerable Zhongxian Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order Chapter 5.10: Discussion on Latent Defilements
Having thus discussed the latent defilements (Anusaya, 隨眠) and entanglements (Paryavasthana, 纏), the World-Honored One (Bhagavan, 世尊) said that they are outflows (Asrava, 漏), torrents, etc. Are there only these, or are there others? The verse says:
'Due to the differences of fetters, etc., five more are spoken of.'
The treatise says: That is to say, the various defilements, including fetters (Samyojana, 結), bonds (Bandhana, 縛), latent defilements (Anusaya, 隨眠), secondary defilements (Upaklesha, 隨煩惱), and entanglements (Paryavasthana, 纏), because their meanings are different, five more are spoken of. First, what are the fetters? The verse says:
'Fetters are nine, grasping of objects, etc., establishing view and grasping as two fetters, because the two are only unwholesome, and arise independently. Among the entanglements, only jealousy and stinginess are established as two fetters, either because the two are frequently practiced, or because of lowliness, poverty, and distress, universally revealing the secondary defilements, afflicting both groups.'
The treatise says: There are nine kinds of fetters. 1. Raga-samyojana (愛結, fetter of attachment), 2. Pratigha-samyojana (恚結, fetter of aversion), 3. Mana-samyojana (慢結, fetter of pride), 4. Avidya-samyojana (無明結, fetter of ignorance), 5. Dristi-samyojana (見結, fetter of views), 6. Upadana-samyojana (取結, fetter of grasping).
結七疑結八嫉結九慳結。以此九種于境于生。有繫縛能故名為結。如契經說。苾芻當知。非眼系色非色系眼。系謂此中所有欲貪。又契經說。諸愚夫類。無聞異生結縛故生。結縛故死。由結縛故從此世間往彼世間。或有此故令諸有情合衆多苦故名為結。是眾苦惱安足處故此中愛結謂三界貪。此約所依及所緣故。所言貪者。謂有心所樂。可意想所攝受行。即于諸有及諸有具。所起樂著說名為貪。何緣此貪說名為愛。此染心所隨樂境故。恚謂于違想及別離欲所攝。受行中令心增背。慢謂七慢。如前已釋。言無明結者。謂三界無知。此約所依非所緣故。以諸無漏法不墮界故。無明亦用彼為所緣故。此廣分別如緣起中。見結取結俱邪推度相。別顯彼相廣如五見中。於前分別邊執見處。見計為我有漏行中。計斷計常名邊執見。于中斷見名何所目。謂執死後行不續生。豈不此即是撥後有邪見。雖有此責現見世間。有行相同而體差別。如慈與愛體異行同如何行同而體差別。如起加行欲饒益他。若屬染心從愛所起。若從慈起屬不染心。是謂行同而體差別。如是於行見不續生。從邪方便生此屬斷見。離方便而起此屬邪見。亦是行同而體差別。此斷常見由何而生。且斷見生或由尋伺。見諸行法有窮盡故。于緣起理不覺了故。或由定力於他有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 結七疑結（疑惑）結八嫉（嫉妒）結九慳（吝嗇）結。這九種結，對於境界和眾生，有繫縛和障礙的作用，所以稱為結。如同契經所說：『比丘們應當知道，不是眼睛繫縛了顏色，也不是顏色系縛了眼睛，所謂的繫縛，是指其中所存在的慾望和貪婪。』 又如契經所說：『那些愚昧無知的凡夫俗子，因為被結縛，所以才會有生；因為被結縛，所以才會有死；因為被結縛，所以才從此世間前往彼世間。』 或者因為這些結的存在，使得眾多的有情眾生聚合在一起承受眾多的痛苦，所以稱為結。這些結是眾多痛苦和煩惱的安身之處。這裡所說的愛結，指的是三界之內的貪愛。這是從所依和所緣的角度來說的。所說的貪，指的是一種心所，它喜歡那些令人愉悅、可愛的想法，並且會去攝取和接受它們。也就是說，對於各種存在以及存在的工具，所產生的喜愛和執著，就叫做貪。為什麼這種貪又被稱為愛呢？因為這種染污的心所會隨著令人愉悅的境界而產生。嗔恚，指的是對於那些違背自己意願的想法以及與自己分離的慾望所產生的反應，它會使內心產生強烈的牴觸情緒。慢，指的是七種慢，就像前面已經解釋過的那樣。所說的無明結，指的是對於三界之內的無知。這是從所依的角度來說的，而不是從所緣的角度來說的。因為那些沒有煩惱的法不會墮入三界之內，所以無明也用它們作為所緣。關於這方面的詳細解釋，可以參考緣起的內容。見結和取結，都是邪惡的推測和判斷。想要更清楚地瞭解它們，可以參考五見中的內容。在前面分別邊執見的地方，認為有漏的行是『我』，這就是計斷計常的邊執見。那麼，對於中斷的見解，又該如何理解呢？指的是執著于死亡之後，行不會繼續產生。難道這不就是撥無後有的邪見嗎？雖然有這樣的責難，但現在可以看到，世間上有些行為相同，但本質卻有差別。比如慈和愛，它們的本質不同，但行為卻相同。那麼，如何理解行為相同但本質卻有差別呢？比如，想要利益他人，如果這種行為是屬於染污的心，那麼它就是從愛所產生的；如果這種行為是從慈所產生的，那麼它就是不染污的心。這就是所謂的行為相同但本質卻有差別。同樣的，對於行不會繼續產生的見解，如果是從邪惡的方便法門所產生的，那麼它就屬於斷見；如果是離開方便法門而產生的，那麼它就屬於邪見。這也是行為相同但本質卻有差別。這種斷見和常見，又是從何而產生的呢？首先，斷見的產生，或者是因為尋伺，看到各種行法都有窮盡的時候；或者是因為對於緣起的道理沒有覺悟；或者是因為通過禪定的力量，看到了其他的存在。
【English Translation】 English version 'The seventh is the doubt knot, the eighth is the jealousy knot, and the ninth is the stinginess knot.' These nine knots, with respect to realms and beings, have the ability to bind and obstruct, hence they are called knots. As the sutra says: 'Monks, you should know that it is not the eye that binds the color, nor the color that binds the eye. The so-called binding refers to the desire and greed that exist within them.' Furthermore, as the sutra says: 'Those ignorant and unlearned ordinary beings, because they are bound by knots, are born; because they are bound by knots, they die; because they are bound by knots, they go from this world to another world.' Or because of the existence of these knots, many sentient beings gather together to endure many sufferings, hence they are called knots. These knots are the dwelling place of many sufferings and afflictions. The love knot mentioned here refers to the greed and love within the three realms. This is from the perspective of what is relied upon and what is cognized. What is called greed refers to a mental state that likes pleasant and lovely thoughts, and will take and accept them. That is to say, the love and attachment that arise towards various existences and the tools of existence are called greed. Why is this greed also called love? Because this defiled mental state arises along with pleasant realms. Anger refers to the reaction to thoughts that go against one's wishes and the desire to be separated from oneself, which causes the mind to have a strong sense of resistance. Conceit refers to the seven types of conceit, as explained earlier. The ignorance knot refers to ignorance within the three realms. This is from the perspective of what is relied upon, not from the perspective of what is cognized. Because those undefiled dharmas do not fall within the three realms, ignorance also uses them as what is cognized. For a detailed explanation of this, refer to the content on dependent origination. The view knot and the grasping knot are both evil speculations and judgments. To understand them more clearly, refer to the content in the five views. In the place where the extreme view is distinguished earlier, the view that the defiled act is 'I' is the extreme view of counting permanence and counting annihilation. So, how should the view of interruption be understood? It refers to the attachment that after death, the act will not continue to arise. Isn't this the evil view of denying the afterlife? Although there is such a criticism, it can now be seen that some actions in the world are the same, but their essence is different. For example, loving-kindness (慈, Ci) and love (愛, Ai), their essence is different, but their actions are the same. So, how can it be understood that actions are the same but their essence is different? For example, wanting to benefit others, if this action belongs to the defiled mind, then it arises from love; if this action arises from loving-kindness, then it is the undefiled mind. This is what is called actions are the same but their essence is different. Similarly, the view that the act will not continue to arise, if it arises from evil expedient means, then it belongs to the annihilation view; if it arises apart from expedient means, then it belongs to the evil view. This is also the same action but different essence. Where do these annihilation and permanence views arise from? First of all, the annihilation view arises either because of seeking and contemplating, seeing that all actions have an end; or because of not being enlightened to the principle of dependent origination; or because of seeing other existences through the power of meditation.
情許有煩惱。彼命終后不見中生二有續故。宿住隨念智有礙故。由如是等有斷見生。若常見生或由尋伺。見行相似相續轉故。能憶先時所更事故。受持外道常見論故。或由定力隨念宿住所更事故。如有頌言。
由觀見死生 或憶念前際 以闕正道故 外仙我見增
此中三見名為見結。見戒禁取名為取結。依如是理故有說言。頗有見相應法為愛結系非見結系。非不有見隨眠隨增。曰有。云何集智已生滅智未生。見滅道所斷二取相應法。自部愛結為所緣系非見結系。遍行見結已永斷故。自部見結所緣相應二俱無故。非不有見隨眠隨增。二取見隨眠于彼隨增故。何緣三見別立見結。二取別立為取結耶。三見二取物取等故。謂彼三見有十八物。二取亦然故名物等。說此物等於義何益。于結義中見有益故。此言意說如貪瞋等。一一獨能成一結事。三見二取各十八物。和合各成一結事故。若異此者應說五見各為一結。如貪瞋等故見及取各十八物。共立一結方敵貪等。若爾身見邊見見取有十八物。戒取邪見十八亦然。豈非物等。不爾本釋其理決定。所以者何。以取等故三見等所取二取等能取。所取能取有差別故。謂于諸行計我斷常。或撥為無後起二取執見第一。或執為凈不雜亂故本釋為善。有說。由物及聲等故。有
說。貪著有及財者見結于彼系用增上。若有貪著涅槃樂者。取結于彼系用增上。疑結謂於四諦猶豫。此異於慧有別法體。於四諦者。謂于苦諦心懷猶豫為苦非苦。乃至於道猶豫亦然。前四能牽正決定起。后四能引邪決定生。自外事中邪猶豫轉。非迷諦故不名為疑。已見諦者彼猶未滅。簡彼故言于諦猶豫。令心不喜說名為嫉。此異於瞋有別法體。故有釋嫉不耐他榮。謂此於他諸興盛事。專求方便破壞為先。令心焦熱故名不喜。是瞋隨眠等流果故。專心為欲損壞他故。正隨憂根而現行故。唯欲界系非色無色。欲界諸處皆通現成。唯除北洲成而不現。令心吝著說名為慳。謂勿令斯舍離於我。令心堅執故名為慳。耽著法財以為上首。不欲離己故名吝著。此是欲貪等流性故。專心護己資具等故。唯欲界系非色無色。何故纏中嫉慳二種。建立為結非余纏耶。若立八纏應作是釋。二唯不善自在起故。謂唯此二兩義具足。餘六無一具兩義者。無慚無愧雖唯不善非自在起。悔自在起非唯不善余兩皆無。若立十纏應作是釋。唯嫉慳二過失尤重。故十纏中立二為結。由此二種數現行故。謂生欲界雖有九六三結無結。而經唯說嫉慳二結惱亂人天。以勝趣中二數行故。又二能為賤貧因故。謂雖生在二善趣中。而為賤貧重苦所軛。現見卑賤及諸乏財
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說：貪著于『有』（bhava，存在）及財物的人，會因此產生束縛，並加劇這種束縛的作用。如果有人貪戀涅槃的快樂，也會因此產生執取，並加劇這種執取的作用。『疑結』（vicikiccha-samyojana，懷疑之結）是指對於四聖諦（catu-ariya-sacca）的猶豫不決。這與智慧不同，它有其獨特的法體。對於四聖諦的懷疑，是指對於苦諦（dukkha-sacca）懷疑，心中猶豫這到底是苦還是非苦，乃至對於道諦（magga-sacca）也同樣猶豫。前面的四種結（身見、戒禁取、疑、欲貪）能夠牽引正確的決定生起，而後面的四種結（無明、有貪、掉舉、慢）能夠導致錯誤的決定產生。在自身之外的事情中，錯誤的猶豫會發生，但因為不是迷惑于真諦，所以不稱為『疑』。已經證悟真諦的人，這種『疑』仍然沒有完全滅除。爲了區分這種情況，所以說『對於真諦的猶豫』。 使內心不悅，這被稱為『嫉』（issa，嫉妒）。這與嗔恨不同，它有其獨特的法體。因此，有些解釋說，嫉妒是不能忍受他人的榮耀。這是指對於他人興盛的事情，專門尋求破壞的方法作為先導，使內心焦灼，所以稱為『不喜』。這是嗔恨隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱）的等流果（nissyanda-phala，由煩惱產生的後果），因為專心想要損害他人，並且總是伴隨著憂根（domanassa-indriya，憂的感受）而現行，所以它只屬於欲界（kama-dhatu）所繫縛，不屬於色界（rupa-dhatu）和無色界（arupa-dhatu）。色界和無色界的所有地方都可能現行，只有北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）是已經成就但不會現行。 使內心吝惜執著，這被稱為『慳』（macchariya，吝嗇）。意思是不要讓這些東西離開我。使內心堅固執著，所以稱為『慳』。貪戀法（dhamma，佛法）和財物作為最重要的，不希望離開自己，所以稱為吝惜執著。這是欲貪（kama-raga）的等流性質，因為專心守護自己的資具等等，所以它只屬於欲界所繫縛，不屬於色界和無色界。 為什麼在纏（paryavasthana，粗猛的煩惱）中，嫉妒和慳吝這兩種被建立為結（samyojana，束縛），而不是其他的纏呢？如果建立八纏，應該這樣解釋：因為這兩種都是不善的，並且是自在生起的。意思是隻有這兩種同時具備這兩個條件。其餘的六種纏沒有一種具備這兩個條件。無慚（ahirikam）和無愧（anottappam）雖然是不善的，但不是自在生起的。後悔（kukkucca）是自在生起的，但不是不善的。其餘兩種情況都不具備。 如果建立十纏，應該這樣解釋：只有嫉妒和慳吝這兩種過失尤其嚴重。所以在十纏中，將這兩種建立為結。因為這兩種經常現行。意思是說，即使生在欲界，可能有九結、六結、三結，或者沒有結，但經典中只說嫉妒和慳吝這兩種結惱亂人天。因為在殊勝的善趣中，這兩種經常發生。而且這兩種能夠成為卑賤貧窮的原因。意思是說，即使生在兩個善趣中，也會被卑賤貧窮的巨大痛苦所束縛，經常看到卑賤和缺乏財富。
【English Translation】 English version It is said: Those who are attached to 『bhava』 (existence) and wealth see a bond arising, and this attachment intensifies the effect of that bond. If someone is attached to the pleasure of Nibbana (Nirvana), they will also generate an attachment, and this attachment will intensify its effect. 『Doubt-fetter』 (vicikiccha-samyojana) refers to hesitation regarding the Four Noble Truths (catu-ariya-sacca). This is different from wisdom; it has its own distinct nature. Doubt regarding the Four Noble Truths means doubting the Truth of Suffering (dukkha-sacca), hesitating in one's mind whether it is suffering or not suffering, and similarly hesitating regarding the Truth of the Path (magga-sacca). The first four fetters (self-view, clinging to rites and rituals, doubt, and sensual desire) can lead to the arising of correct determination, while the latter four fetters (ignorance, craving for existence, restlessness, and conceit) can lead to the arising of wrong determination. Wrong hesitation occurs in matters external to oneself, but because it is not confusion about the Truth, it is not called 『doubt』. Even for those who have seen the Truth, this 『doubt』 is still not completely eradicated. To distinguish this situation, it is said 『hesitation regarding the Truth』. Causing displeasure in the mind is called 『jealousy』 (issa). This is different from hatred; it has its own distinct nature. Therefore, some explain that jealousy is the inability to tolerate the glory of others. This refers to the fact that, regarding the prosperity of others, one specifically seeks ways to destroy it as a priority, causing mental anguish, hence it is called 『displeasure』. This is the outflowing result (nissyanda-phala) of the underlying tendency (anusaya) of hatred, because one is focused on wanting to harm others, and it is always accompanied by the feeling of sorrow (domanassa-indriya), so it is only bound to the desire realm (kama-dhatu), not to the form realm (rupa-dhatu) and the formless realm (arupa-dhatu). It can manifest in all places of the form and formless realms, except for Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), where it is already accomplished but does not manifest. Causing the mind to be stingy and attached is called 『miserliness』 (macchariya). It means not letting these things leave me. Causing the mind to be firmly attached, hence it is called 『miserliness』. Craving for the Dhamma (teachings) and wealth as the most important, not wanting to leave oneself, hence it is called stingy attachment. This is the outflowing nature of sensual desire (kama-raga), because one is focused on protecting one's possessions, etc., so it is only bound to the desire realm, not to the form and formless realms. Why, among the defilements (paryavasthana), are jealousy and miserliness established as fetters (samyojana), and not the other defilements? If eight defilements are established, it should be explained like this: because these two are both unwholesome and arise spontaneously. It means that only these two possess both conditions simultaneously. None of the other six defilements possess both conditions. Shamelessness (ahirikam) and lack of conscience (anottappam), although unwholesome, do not arise spontaneously. Regret (kukkucca) arises spontaneously, but is not unwholesome. The other two situations do not possess either condition. If ten defilements are established, it should be explained like this: only jealousy and miserliness have particularly serious faults. Therefore, among the ten defilements, these two are established as fetters. Because these two frequently manifest. It means that, even if one is born in the desire realm, there may be nine fetters, six fetters, three fetters, or no fetters, but the scriptures only say that jealousy and miserliness are the two fetters that trouble humans and devas. Because in the superior realms of existence, these two frequently occur. Moreover, these two can be the cause of lowliness and poverty. It means that, even if one is born in the two good realms, one will be bound by the great suffering of lowliness and poverty, and one will often see baseness and lack of wealth.
。乃至極親亦不敬愛。又二遍顯隨煩惱故。謂隨煩惱總有二種。一戚俱行。二歡俱行。嫉慳遍顯如是二相。又此二能惱二部故。謂在家眾于財位中。由嫉及慳極為惱亂。若出家眾于教行中。由嫉及慳極為惱亂。或能惱天阿素洛眾。謂因色味極相擾惱。或此能惱人天二眾。如世尊告憍尸迦言。由嫉慳結人天惱亂。或此二能惱自他眾。謂由嫉故惱亂他朋。由內懷慳惱亂自侶。故十纏內立二為結。佛于余處依差別門。即以結聲說有五種。頌曰。
又五順下分 由二不超欲 由三複還下 攝門根故三 或不欲發趣 迷道及疑道 能障趣解脫 故唯說斷三
論曰。何等為五謂有身見戒禁取疑欲貪瞋恚。如是五種于下分法。能為順益故名下分。然下分法略有二種。一地獄謂欲界。二下有情謂諸異生。雖得聖法而不能超下分界者。由為欲貪瞋恚二結所繫縛故。雖離欲貪而不能越。下有情者由為身見戒取疑結所繫縛故。諸有情住欲界獄中。欲貪及瞋猶如獄卒。由彼禁約不越獄故。身見等三如防邏者。設有方便超欲界獄。彼三執還置獄中故。順下分結由此唯五。已見諦者由欲貪瞋。不超地獄其義可爾。唯此但是欲界系故。離欲貪者見斷一切皆令不越下分有情。何故世尊唯說三種。雖有此責而佛世尊略攝門根且說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：乃至對於至親的人，也不敬重愛護。嫉妒和慳吝這兩種煩惱普遍顯現，因為隨煩惱總共有兩種：一種是與憂戚相伴隨，另一種是與歡喜相伴隨。嫉妒和慳吝普遍顯現這兩種狀態。而且，這二者能惱亂兩類眾生：在家眾在財富和地位方面，因為嫉妒和慳吝而極度煩惱；出家眾在教法和修行方面，因為嫉妒和慳吝而極度煩惱。或者，它們能惱亂天人和阿修羅眾，因為對美好的色和味道極度互相擾亂。或者，這二者能惱亂人天兩類眾生，正如世尊告訴憍尸迦（Kausika，帝釋天）所說：『由於嫉妒和慳吝的束縛，人天眾生互相惱亂。』或者，這二者能惱亂自己和他人：因為嫉妒而惱亂他人朋友，因為內心懷有慳吝而惱亂自己的同伴。因此，在十纏中，設立嫉妒和慳吝這二者為結。佛陀在其他地方依據差別的角度，用『結』這個詞來說明有五種結。 頌曰： 又有五種順下分結，因為兩種結而不能超越欲界；因為三種結而再次墮落到地獄；因為攝取總門和根本的緣故，所以說是三種。 或者因為不希望發起（修行），或者因為迷惑于道路和懷疑道路，這些能障礙趣向解脫，所以只說斷除三種結。 論曰：什麼是五種順下分結呢？它們是有身見（Satkayadristi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）、戒禁取（Silavrataparamarsa，錯誤地執取不正確的戒律和禁制）、疑（Vicikitsa，對佛法僧三寶的懷疑）、欲貪（Kamaraga，對欲界的貪愛）和瞋恚（Pratigha，嗔恨和憤怒）。這五種結對於下分法（指向地獄的法）能夠起到順益的作用，所以稱為順下分結。然而，下分法大致有兩種：一是地獄，指欲界；二是下有情，指各種異生（尚未證得聖果的眾生）。即使獲得了聖法，但不能超越下分界的人，是因為被欲貪和瞋恚這兩種結所束縛。即使離開了欲貪，但不能超越下有情的人，是因為被有身見、戒禁取和疑這三種結所束縛。那些居住在欲界牢獄中的有情，欲貪和瞋恚就像獄卒一樣，因為它們的禁錮而不能越獄。有身見等三種結就像防守巡邏者一樣，即使有方便超越了欲界牢獄，它們也會抓住你，把你放回牢獄中。順下分結因此只有這五種。已經見諦（Dristisatya，證悟真諦）的人，因為欲貪和瞋恚而不超越地獄，這個道理可以成立，因為這兩種結只是欲界所繫縛的緣故。離開了欲貪的人，見斷（Dristiprahana，通過見道斷除的煩惱）一切都會導致不超越下分有情。為什麼世尊只說了三種結呢？雖然有這樣的責難，但佛陀世尊只是簡略地攝取總門和根本，所以只說了三種結。
【English Translation】 English version: Even towards the closest relatives, they show no respect or love. Furthermore, jealousy and stinginess manifest in two ways, because there are two types of accompanying defilements in general: one associated with sorrow, and the other associated with joy. Jealousy and stinginess manifest in these two aspects. Moreover, these two can trouble two kinds of beings: householders are extremely troubled by jealousy and stinginess in matters of wealth and status; renunciants are extremely troubled by jealousy and stinginess in matters of teachings and practice. Or, they can trouble the gods and Asuras (demi-gods), because of extreme mutual disturbance over beautiful forms and tastes. Or, these two can trouble both humans and gods, as the World-Honored One told Kausika (Indra, the lord of gods): 'Due to the bonds of jealousy and stinginess, humans and gods trouble each other.' Or, these two can trouble oneself and others: because of jealousy, one troubles the friends of others; because of harboring stinginess internally, one troubles one's own companions. Therefore, among the ten entanglements, jealousy and stinginess are established as two bonds. The Buddha, in other places, based on the aspect of difference, uses the term 'bond' to explain that there are five kinds of bonds. Verse: There are also five lower fetters, because of two bonds one cannot transcend the desire realm; because of three bonds, one falls back down to the lower realms; because of encompassing the general category and the root, therefore it is said to be three. Or because of not wishing to initiate (practice), or because of being confused about the path and doubting the path, these can obstruct the path to liberation, therefore it is only said to sever three bonds. Treatise: What are the five lower fetters? They are self-view (Satkayadristi, the view that the aggregates of body and mind are a real self), attachment to rites and rituals (Silavrataparamarsa, wrongly grasping incorrect precepts and prohibitions), doubt (Vicikitsa, doubt about the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), desire-attachment (Kamaraga, attachment to the desire realm), and hatred (Pratigha, aversion and anger). These five fetters are conducive to the lower realms, therefore they are called lower fetters. However, the lower realms are roughly of two kinds: one is the lower realm, referring to the desire realm; the other is lower beings, referring to various ordinary beings (those who have not yet attained the fruit of sainthood). Even if one has attained the holy Dharma, but cannot transcend the lower realms, it is because they are bound by the two fetters of desire-attachment and hatred. Even if one has abandoned desire-attachment, but cannot transcend lower beings, it is because they are bound by the three fetters of self-view, attachment to rites and rituals, and doubt. Those beings who dwell in the prison of the desire realm, desire-attachment and hatred are like prison guards, because of their confinement, one cannot escape the prison. The three fetters of self-view, etc., are like patrolling guards, even if there is a way to escape the prison of the desire realm, they will seize you and put you back in the prison. Therefore, there are only these five lower fetters. For those who have already seen the truth (Dristisatya, realized the truth), the reason why they do not transcend the lower realms because of desire-attachment and hatred can be established, because these two fetters are only bound to the desire realm. For those who have abandoned desire-attachment, the abandonment of views (Dristiprahana, the defilements severed through the path of seeing) will cause one not to transcend lower beings. Why did the World-Honored One only speak of three fetters? Although there is such a question, the World-Honored One only briefly encompassed the general category and the root, therefore only spoke of three fetters.
三種。言攝門者見所斷惑類總有三。唯一通二通四部故。說此二種攝彼三門類顯彼故。言攝根者身見等三。是餘三根以邊執見見取邪見。如其次第隨有身見戒禁取疑三種勝根而得轉故。說此三種攝彼三根。故順下分唯有此五。若唯此五名順下分結。何故世尊訶具壽大母。癡人何故如是受持唯立爾所名下分結。以彼唯立如是五種。正現行時名下分結。世尊意立設不現行亦順下分。是故訶彼顯身見等。若行不行但未斷時皆順下分。依如是理故責彼言。若爾汝同嬰兒外道所解庸淺乃至廣說。若已斷便失順下分性耶。順下分相雖斷不失然若被斷失彼結名。若已斷時不名結者。三結先斷已失結名。契經不應作如是說。斷五下分結得成不還果。以不還果總說有二。一次第證二超越成。斷二斷三如次得果。由不定故說五無失。約容有說可斷五故。諸得預流六煩惱斷。何緣但說斷三結耶。此亦如前攝門根故。雖但有一通於二部。即舉彼相以顯彼體。由此故說攝彼三門。或有餘師作如是釋。趣異方者有三種障。一不欲發。謂見此余方功德過失故息心不往。二迷正道。謂雖發趣而依邪路不至彼方。三疑正道。謂不諳悉見有二路人皆數游。便於正道心懷猶豫。此于趣彼為是為非。如是應知趣解脫者。亦有如是相似三障。謂由身見於蘊涅槃。見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三種。關於攝門，所斷煩惱總共有三種類型。因為只有一類是共通於二界和四部。說這兩種是爲了涵蓋那三種類型，並顯現它們的性質。關於攝根，有身見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，認為五蘊為我）、戒禁取（Sīlabbata-parāmāsa，執著于不正確的戒律和苦行）和疑（Vicikicchā，懷疑）。這是因為邊執見（Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi，執著于斷見和常見）、見取（Diṭṭhi-parāmāsa，執著于自己的錯誤見解）和邪見（Micchā-diṭṭhi，錯誤的見解）這三種，依次隨著有身見、戒禁取和疑這三種主要的根本而得以轉化。說這三種涵蓋了那三種根本。因此，順下分結只有這五種。如果只有這五種被稱為順下分結，那麼為什麼世尊要呵斥具壽大母呢？愚癡之人為什麼會這樣認為，只設立這幾個名為下分結呢？因為他們只設立這五種在正現行時才名為下分結。世尊的意思是，即使不現行，也屬於順下分。因此呵斥他們，顯明身見等，無論行不行，只要未斷除，都屬於順下分。依據這樣的道理，所以責備他們說，『如果這樣，你就和嬰兒外道所理解的一樣庸俗淺薄』，乃至廣說。如果已經斷除了，就失去順下分的性質了嗎？順下分的相雖然斷除了，但不會失去，然而如果被斷除了，就失去了結的名稱。如果已經斷除時就不名為結，那麼三結先斷，已經失去了結的名稱，經典就不應該這樣說：『斷五下分結，得成不還果』。因為不還果總的說來有兩種：一種是次第證得，一種是超越成就。斷除二結或三結，依次獲得果位，因為不確定，所以說五種沒有錯誤。就容許的情況來說，可以斷除五種。那些證得預流果的人，斷除了六種煩惱，為什麼只說斷除了三結呢？這也和前面一樣，是因為攝門和攝根的緣故。雖然只有一種共通於二部，但舉出它的相，就可以顯明它的體性。因此說涵蓋了那三種類型。或者有其他論師這樣解釋：前往異方的人有三種障礙：一是不想出發，因為看到此地以外的地方的功德和過失，所以停止了前往的念頭；二是迷失正道，雖然出發了，但依據邪路，不能到達彼方；三是懷疑正道，因為不熟悉，看到有兩條路，人們都在行走，於是對正道心懷猶豫，認為前往那裡是對還是錯。應該知道，趣向解脫的人，也有這樣相似的三種障礙。就是由於身見，對於蘊和涅槃，認為
【English Translation】 English version Three. Regarding the categories of what is to be abandoned, there are three types of afflictions to be severed. This is because only one is common to the two realms and the four parts. Saying these two is to encompass those three types and to reveal their nature. Regarding the categories of roots, there are Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (belief in a self), Sīlabbata-parāmāsa (attachment to rites and rituals), and Vicikicchā (doubt). This is because Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi (holding to extreme views), Diṭṭhi-parāmāsa (grasping at views), and Micchā-diṭṭhi (wrong view) these three, in that order, are transformed by the three primary roots of Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, Sīlabbata-parāmāsa and Vicikicchā. Saying these three encompasses those three roots. Therefore, only these five are lower fetters. If only these five are called lower fetters, then why did the Blessed One rebuke the Venerable Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī? Why do foolish people hold that only these are established as lower fetters? Because they only establish these five as lower fetters when they are actively present. The Blessed One's intention is that even if they are not actively present, they still belong to the lower fetters. Therefore, he rebuked them, clarifying that Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, etc., whether active or not, as long as they are not abandoned, all belong to the lower fetters. According to this principle, he rebuked them, saying, 'If so, you are as shallow as the understanding of infant heretics,' and so on. If they have already been abandoned, do they lose the nature of lower fetters? Although the characteristics of lower fetters are abandoned, they are not lost, but if they are abandoned, they lose the name of fetters. If they are not called fetters when they have already been abandoned, then the three fetters are abandoned first, and the name of fetters has already been lost, the scriptures should not say: 'Abandoning the five lower fetters, one attains the state of Non-Returner (Anāgāmin)'. Because there are two types of Non-Returners in general: one is attained sequentially, and the other is attained transcendently. Abandoning two or three fetters, one attains the fruit in sequence, because it is uncertain, so saying five is not wrong. In terms of what is permissible, five can be abandoned. Those who attain the Stream-Enterer (Sotāpanna) have abandoned six afflictions, why is it only said that they have abandoned three fetters? This is also the same as before, because of the categories of doors and roots. Although only one is common to the two parts, by mentioning its characteristics, its nature can be clarified. Therefore, it is said that it encompasses those three types. Or other teachers explain it this way: there are three obstacles for those who go to another place: one is not wanting to depart, because seeing the merits and demerits of places other than this one, they stop the thought of going; two is getting lost on the right path, although they have departed, they rely on the wrong path and cannot reach the other place; three is doubting the right path, because they are not familiar with it, seeing that there are two roads, and people are walking on both, so they hesitate about the right path, thinking whether going there is right or wrong. It should be known that those who are heading towards liberation also have three similar obstacles. That is, due to Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, regarding the aggregates and Nirvana, thinking that
執我斷功德過失。故於解脫不欲發趣。由戒禁取雖求解脫。而迷正路依世間道。徒經辛苦不至涅槃。由疑不能善自觀察。見諸邪道有多人修。便於正道心懷猶豫。于趣解脫為是為非。佛顯預流永斷如是。趣解脫障故說斷三。雖見行常亦不趣解脫。見世道勝亦迷失正道。撥無聖道者亦不信正道。而前三種是后三根后三必隨前三轉故。舉本攝末但說前三。佛于余經如順下分。說順上分亦有五種。頌曰。
順上分亦五 色無色二貪 掉舉慢無明 令不超上故
論曰。如是五種體有八物。掉舉等三亦界別故。唯修所斷名順上分。順益上分故名順上分結。要斷見所斷彼方現行故。見所斷惑未永斷時。亦能資彼令順下分。故要永斷見所斷惑。方現行者名順上分。此中既說色無色貪及順上言。知掉舉等亦色無色非欲界系。品類足論既作是言。結法雲何。謂九結。非結法雲何。謂除九結所餘法。由此證成掉舉一種。少分是結謂二界系。少分非結謂欲界系。于少是結謂聖者。于少非結謂異生。有位是結謂已離欲貪。有位非結謂未離欲貪。由如是等差別不定。品類足論不說為結。掉舉擾惱三摩地故。于順上分建立為結。即由此理順上分中。不說惛沈順等持故。已辯結縛云何。頌曰。
縛三由三受
論曰。以能系
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 執著於我，會斷滅功德，產生過失。因此對於解脫不願發起追求。由於持戒禁取見（Śīlabbata-parāmāsa，認為持戒和苦行可以達到解脫的錯誤見解），雖然尋求解脫，卻迷惑于正確的道路，依賴於世間的道路，徒勞地經歷辛苦而不能到達涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）。由於懷疑，不能很好地自我觀察，看到許多人修行邪道，便對於正道心懷猶豫，對於趨向解脫，不知是對是錯。佛陀開示預流果（Srota-āpanna，入流者）能永遠斷除這些趨向解脫的障礙，所以說斷除三結（即身見、戒禁取見、疑）。即使見到修行是常有的，也不趨向解脫。見到世間道殊勝，也會迷失正道。否定聖道的人，也不相信正道。而前面的三種結是後面三種結的根本，後面三種必定隨著前面的三種而轉動，所以舉出根本而攝取末端，只說前面的三種。佛陀在其他的經典中，如順下分結（Orambhāgiyāni，使眾生流轉于欲界的五種煩惱），也說了順上分結（Uddhambhāgiyāni，使眾生流轉於色界和無色界的五種煩惱），有五種。
偈頌說：
順上分亦五 色無色二貪 掉舉慢無明 令不超上故
論述說：這五種結，本體有八種事物。掉舉（Auddhatya，心神不定）等三種也是因為界別的緣故。只有修所斷（Bhāvanā-pahātabba，通過修行才能斷除的煩惱）才能稱為順上分結。順益於上分，所以名為順上分結。必須要斷除見所斷（Dṛṣṭi-pahātabba，通過見道才能斷除的煩惱），它才能現行。見所斷的迷惑沒有永遠斷除的時候，也能資助它們，使之順於下分。所以要永遠斷除見所斷的迷惑，才能現行的，名為順上分。這裡既然說了色界貪（Rūpa-rāga，對色界的貪愛）和無色界貪（Arūpa-rāga，對無色界的貪愛）以及順上分，就知道掉舉等也是色界和無色界，不是欲界所繫的。品類足論（Dharmaskandha，佛教論書）既然這樣說：結法是什麼？就是九結。非結法是什麼？就是除了九結以外的其餘的法。由此證明掉舉這一種，少部分是結，是指二界所繫的；少部分不是結，是指欲界所繫的。對於少部分是結，是指聖者；對於少部分不是結，是指異生。在某個階段是結，是指已經離開了欲貪；在某個階段不是結，是指沒有離開欲貪。由於像這樣的差別不定，品類足論沒有說它是結。掉舉擾亂三摩地（Samādhi，禪定）的緣故，所以在順上分中建立為結。也就是由於這個道理，順上分中，沒有說惛沈（Styāna，精神萎靡）是順於等持的緣故。已經辨析了結和縛是什麼。偈頌說：
縛三由三受
論述說：因為能夠繫縛
【English Translation】 English version Attachment to 'self' severs merit and generates faults. Therefore, one is unwilling to embark on the path to liberation. Due to Śīlabbata-parāmāsa (clinging to rites and rituals as a means to liberation), although seeking liberation, one is deluded about the correct path, relying on worldly paths, vainly enduring hardship without reaching Nirvāṇa (cessation). Due to doubt, one cannot properly observe oneself, seeing many people practicing wrong paths, and thus harbors hesitation about the right path, unsure whether pursuing liberation is right or wrong. The Buddha reveals that a Srota-āpanna (stream-enterer) permanently severs these obstacles to liberation, hence the saying of severing the three bonds (Saṃyojana, i.e., self-view, clinging to rites and rituals, and doubt). Even seeing that practice is constant, one does not pursue liberation. Seeing worldly paths as superior, one also loses the right path. Those who deny the holy path also do not believe in the right path. The first three bonds are the root of the latter three, and the latter three inevitably follow the former three, so by mentioning the root, the end is included, and only the first three are mentioned. In other scriptures, the Buddha also spoke of the five Uddhambhāgiyāni (higher fetters, which bind beings to the realms of form and formlessness), just as with the five Orambhāgiyāni (lower fetters, which bind beings to the realm of desire).
The verse says:
The higher fetters are also five, Greed for the realms of form and formlessness, Restlessness, conceit, and ignorance, Preventing transcendence.
The treatise says: These five fetters have eight entities in their essence. Auddhatya (restlessness) and the other three are also due to the distinction of realms. Only what is to be abandoned by cultivation (Bhāvanā-pahātabba) is called a higher fetter. Benefiting the higher realms, it is called a higher fetter. It is necessary to sever what is to be abandoned by seeing (Dṛṣṭi-pahātabba) for it to manifest. When the delusions to be abandoned by seeing are not permanently severed, they can also assist them, causing them to be in accordance with the lower realms. Therefore, it is necessary to permanently sever the delusions to be abandoned by seeing for what manifests to be called a higher fetter. Since greed for the realms of form (Rūpa-rāga) and greed for the realms of formlessness (Arūpa-rāga) and higher fetters are mentioned here, it is known that restlessness and the like also belong to the realms of form and formlessness, and are not related to the realm of desire. The Dharmaskandha (collection of teachings) says: What are binding dharmas? They are the nine bonds. What are non-binding dharmas? They are the remaining dharmas other than the nine bonds. This proves that restlessness is partly a bond, referring to what is related to the two realms; partly not a bond, referring to what is related to the realm of desire. For a small part, it is a bond, referring to the noble ones; for a small part, it is not a bond, referring to ordinary beings. In a certain stage, it is a bond, referring to those who have left desire; in a certain stage, it is not a bond, referring to those who have not left desire. Due to such uncertain differences, the Dharmaskandha does not say it is a bond. Restlessness disturbs Samādhi (concentration), so it is established as a bond in the higher fetters. It is also due to this reason that in the higher fetters, Styāna (sloth and torpor) is not said to be in accordance with equanimity. The bonds and fetters have been distinguished. The verse says:
Three fetters are due to three feelings.
The treatise says: Because they are able to bind
縛故立縛名。即是能遮趣離染義。結縛二相雖無差別。而依本母說縛有三。一者貪縛。二者瞋縛。三者癡縛。所餘諸結品類同故攝在三中。謂五見疑同癡品類。慢慳二結貪品類同。嫉結同瞋故皆三攝。又為顯示已見諦者。余所應作故說三縛。通縛六識身置生死獄故。又佛偏為覺慧劣者。顯粗相煩惱故但說三縛。有餘師說。由隨三受勢力所引說縛有三。謂貪多分于自樂受。所緣相應二種隨增。少分亦于不苦不樂。于自他苦及他樂舍。唯有一種所緣隨增。瞋亦多分于自苦受。所緣相應二種隨增。少分亦于不苦不樂。于自他樂及他苦舍。唯有一種所緣隨增。癡亦多分于自舍受。所緣相應二種隨增。少分亦於樂受苦受。於他一切受唯所緣隨增。是故世尊依多分理。說隨三受建立三縛。何類貪等遮趣離染說名為縛。謂唯現行。若異此者皆成三故。則應畢竟遮趣離染。若爾諸有非一切智。欲為有情說對治者。如何方便得如實知。所化有情貪等行別。而為如實說對治門。如何不知貪等行別。諸貪行者有如是相謂多言論面色熙怡。含笑先言多為愛語。離忿能忍黠慧好奇。耽話樂詩愛歌著舞。喜以妝服嚴具瑩身。好事朋從數加沐浴。性多淫逸輕躁歡娛。多笑舒顏軟心愍物。錄德鄙吝怯弱隨媚。欣多知友厭背寂靜。性無沉密不察所作。輕有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為束縛而建立『縛』（Bandhana）這個名稱，意思是能夠遮蔽趨向遠離染污。結（Klesha）和縛（Bandhana）這兩種相雖然沒有差別，但依據根本的母經，說縛有三種：第一是貪縛（Lobha-bandhana），第二是瞋縛（Dvesha-bandhana），第三是癡縛（Moha-bandhana）。其餘的各種結，因為品類相同，所以都攝在這三種之中。也就是說，五見（五種錯誤的見解）、疑（Vicikitsa）與癡（Moha）屬於同一品類；慢（Mana）、慳（Matsarya）這兩種結與貪（Lobha）屬於同一品類；嫉（Irshya）結與瞋（Dvesha）相同，所以都歸於這三種。另外，爲了顯示已經見到真諦的人，還有應該做的事情，所以說三種縛。這三種縛能夠貫通地束縛六識身，使其處於生死牢獄之中。而且，佛陀特別為那些覺悟智慧較弱的人，顯示粗顯的煩惱相，所以只說三種縛。還有其他論師說，由於隨著三種感受的勢力所引導，所以說縛有三種。也就是說，貪（Lobha）大多與自己的樂受（Sukha vedana）相應，所緣和相應兩種都會增長；少部分也與不苦不樂受（Adhukhaasukha vedana）相應，對於自己和他人的苦受（Dukkha vedana）以及他人的樂受（Sukha vedana）和舍受（Upeksha vedana），只有一種所緣會增長。瞋（Dvesha）也大多與自己的苦受（Dukkha vedana）相應，所緣和相應兩種都會增長；少部分也與不苦不樂受（Adhukhaasukha vedana）相應，對於自己和他人的樂受（Sukha vedana）以及他人的苦受（Dukkha vedana）和舍受（Upeksha vedana），只有一種所緣會增長。癡（Moha）也大多與自己的舍受（Upeksha vedana）相應，所緣和相應兩種都會增長；少部分也與樂受（Sukha vedana）和苦受（Dukkha vedana）相應，對於他人的一切感受，只有所緣會增長。因此，世尊依據大多數情況的道理，說隨著三種感受建立三種縛。哪一類貪（Lobha）等遮蔽趨向遠離染污，被說為『縛』（Bandhana）呢？就是唯有現行的貪等。如果不是這樣，那麼一切都成了三種縛，那就應該畢竟遮蔽趨向遠離染污。如果是這樣，那麼那些並非一切智者，想要為有情眾生說對治方法的人，如何方便才能如實地知道所教化的有情眾生貪（Lobha）等行為的差別，而為他們如實地說對治之門呢？如何才能不知道貪（Lobha）等行為的差別呢？那些貪（Lobha）行者有這樣的相：就是多言論，面色喜悅，含笑先說話，多說愛語，遠離忿怒能夠忍耐，聰明狡猾好奇，沉迷於談話喜歡詩歌，喜愛唱歌跳舞，喜歡用妝飾品和裝飾物來修飾身體，喜歡結交朋友，經常洗澡，性情多淫逸輕浮，喜歡嬉戲，多笑舒展顏面，心腸柔軟憐憫事物，記錄恩德鄙視吝嗇，膽怯軟弱隨聲附和，喜歡多交朋友厭惡寂靜，性情不沉穩不考察所做的事情，輕率有為。
【English Translation】 English version: The name 'Bandhana' (bond) is established because of bondage, meaning it can obstruct the path to detachment from defilements. Although there is no difference between Klesha (affliction) and Bandhana (bond) in their nature, according to the fundamental Sutra, there are three types of bonds: first, Lobha-bandhana (the bond of greed); second, Dvesha-bandhana (the bond of hatred); and third, Moha-bandhana (the bond of delusion). All other Kleshas are categorized into these three because they share similar characteristics. That is, the five views (five kinds of wrong views), doubt (Vicikitsa), and delusion (Moha) belong to the same category; pride (Mana) and stinginess (Matsarya) belong to the same category as greed (Lobha); and jealousy (Irshya) is the same as hatred (Dvesha), so they are all included in these three. Furthermore, to show what remains to be done by those who have already seen the truth, three bonds are mentioned. These three bonds universally bind the six consciousnesses, placing them in the prison of Samsara. Moreover, the Buddha specifically reveals the gross aspects of afflictions for those with weaker wisdom, so only three bonds are mentioned. Some other teachers say that because they are guided by the power of the three feelings, there are three bonds. That is, greed (Lobha) mostly corresponds to one's own pleasant feeling (Sukha vedana), with both the object and the corresponding aspects increasing; a small part also corresponds to the neutral feeling (Adhukhaasukha vedana), and for one's own and others' painful feeling (Dukkha vedana), as well as others' pleasant feeling (Sukha vedana) and equanimity (Upeksha vedana), only one object increases. Hatred (Dvesha) also mostly corresponds to one's own painful feeling (Dukkha vedana), with both the object and the corresponding aspects increasing; a small part also corresponds to the neutral feeling (Adhukhaasukha vedana), and for one's own and others' pleasant feeling (Sukha vedana), as well as others' painful feeling (Dukkha vedana) and equanimity (Upeksha vedana), only one object increases. Delusion (Moha) also mostly corresponds to one's own feeling of equanimity (Upeksha vedana), with both the object and the corresponding aspects increasing; a small part also corresponds to pleasant feeling (Sukha vedana) and painful feeling (Dukkha vedana), and for all feelings of others, only the object increases. Therefore, the World Honored One, based on the principle of the majority of cases, established three bonds according to the three feelings. Which kind of greed (Lobha), etc., that obstructs the path to detachment from defilements is called 'Bandhana' (bond)? It is only the greed, etc., that is currently active. If it were not so, then everything would become three bonds, and then it should ultimately obstruct the path to detachment from defilements. If that were the case, then how could those who are not omniscient, and who want to teach sentient beings the methods of counteracting afflictions, conveniently and truly know the differences in the behavior of greed (Lobha), etc., of the sentient beings they are teaching, and truly teach them the methods of counteracting them? How can one not know the differences in the behavior of greed (Lobha), etc.? Those who practice greed (Lobha) have these characteristics: they are talkative, have a cheerful expression, smile and speak first, speak loving words, are far from anger and can endure, are clever and curious, are addicted to talking and like poetry, love singing and dancing, like to adorn their bodies with makeup and ornaments, like to make friends, bathe frequently, are often lewd and frivolous, like to play, laugh often and have a soft heart and pity for things, record kindness and despise stinginess, are timid and weak and follow others, like to have many friends and hate solitude, are not calm and do not examine what they do, and are rash.
悲哀多無義語。肌膚軟膩容貌端嚴。巧為怨傷好樂忌苦。輕交薄行多汗體溫。身臭處形纖軟爪齒。鮮鬚髮美面易皺發早白。于巧明術性好存功。欣說有宗多喜樂福。好居眾首愛集明鑑。喜自顧瞻近尋分賞。恭施愛視目送淺觀。通俗別機多覺少恚。不能久制身四威儀。輕能棄捨財法友欲。而復因斯尋生追悔。聞智巧術欲習速成。才得成已尋復忘失。此等名為貪行者相。諸瞋行者有如是相。謂性躁烈卒暴兇險。多懷忿恨難與共居。樂譏他多憂戚。無慈喜鬥。怒目低精少睡少言。沉思難喜堅持所受。固友固怨所為急躁。黠慧沉密難壞知恩。剛決勤勇無悲樂斷。志猛念強堅銳難當。好多觀察性欣出離。樂施利根多正直言。意懷難得是處見過。觸事猜疑嫉妒形殘。多諸病惱寡知友饒。怨結慘容色信堅固。少驚無畏大勇多愁。頭項臂粗難可摧伏。強額多力為性佷戾。巧術聞智欲習易成。既得成已卒難忘失。財法友欲舍已不追。此等名為瞋行者相。諸癡行者有如是相。謂多猶豫樂說無宗。雖無能為而多高舉。不敬闕信樂闇多沈。不樂審觀伏眠難覺。多樂敬奉外道邪天。所作兇勃所作左僻。勝解劣多忘失。懶墮無策心昧𧄼瞢。破壞法橋常喜閉目。所作不了蹙面顰眉。不聰明不相委。不相信不別機。憎嫉賢良所為專執。于善惡說不鑒是非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 悲哀的人多說無意義的話。肌膚柔軟細膩，容貌端正莊嚴。擅長抱怨傷感，喜愛享樂，嫉妒他人，害怕痛苦。輕率交往，行為輕薄，容易出汗，體溫偏高。身上有異味，身形纖細柔弱，指甲牙齒不堅固。鬍鬚稀疏，頭髮不美，面容容易衰老起皺紋，頭髮容易早白。對於精巧的技藝和明智的法術，喜歡追求功效。喜歡談論有宗派歸屬的事情，多喜歡快樂和福報。喜歡身居眾人之首，喜愛聚集在一起評論是非。喜歡自我欣賞，經常尋找可以分給自己賞賜的東西。恭敬地佈施，喜愛用目光注視，用眼睛護送，觀察事物膚淺。通曉世俗之事，不善於隨機應變，容易覺察，很少發怒。不能長久地保持身體的四種威儀（行、住、坐、臥）。輕易地捨棄錢財、佛法、朋友和慾望，但又因此而後悔。聽到精巧的技藝和明智的法術，希望快速學會。剛學會就很快忘記。這些叫做貪慾者的相貌。 嗔怒者的相貌是這樣的：性格急躁暴烈，行為粗魯兇險。心中多懷有忿恨，難以與人和睦相處。喜歡譏諷他人，多有憂愁。沒有慈悲喜捨之心，喜歡爭鬥。怒目而視，目光低沉，睡眠少，話語少。沉思不語，難以高興，堅持自己所接受的觀點。對朋友和仇人都很執著，做事急躁。狡猾聰明，心思深沉，難以被擊敗，懂得感恩。剛強果斷，勤奮勇敢，沒有悲憫之心，喜歡斷絕關係。意志勇猛，念頭強烈，堅硬銳利難以抵擋。喜歡觀察事物，性格喜歡出離世俗。喜歡佈施，根器敏利，多說正直的話。心中懷有難以得到的想法，喜歡在別人身上找過錯。對任何事情都猜疑，嫉妒他人，身體有殘疾。多有疾病困擾，很少有知心朋友，容易結下怨仇，面容愁苦，臉色陰沉，信念堅定。很少感到驚訝，沒有畏懼，非常勇敢，多愁善感。頭頸和手臂粗壯，難以被摧毀。額頭寬大，力氣大，性格兇暴。對於精巧的技藝和明智的法術，容易學會。一旦學會就很難忘記。錢財、佛法、朋友和慾望捨棄后不會追悔。這些叫做嗔怒者的相貌。 愚癡者的相貌是這樣的：多疑猶豫，喜歡談論沒有宗派歸屬的事情。即使沒有能力，也喜歡高談闊論。不恭敬，缺乏信心，喜歡黑暗，多沉溺其中。不喜歡審視觀察，喜歡趴著睡覺，難以叫醒。喜歡敬奉外道和邪惡的天神。所作所為兇惡悖逆，所作所為偏頗不正。理解能力差，容易忘記。懶惰懈怠，沒有主意，內心昏昧糊塗。破壞佛法之橋，經常喜歡閉著眼睛。做事不徹底，經常皺著眉頭。不聰明，不信任他人，不相信他人，不善於隨機應變。憎恨嫉妒賢良之人，所作所為固執己見。對於善惡之說，不能明辨是非。
【English Translation】 English version The sorrowful often speak meaningless words. Their skin is soft and smooth, and their appearance is dignified and proper. They are skilled at complaining and being sentimental, they love pleasure, are jealous of others, and fear suffering. They engage in casual relationships, their behavior is frivolous, they sweat easily, and their body temperature is high. They have body odor, their figure is slender and weak, and their nails and teeth are not strong. Their beard is sparse, their hair is not beautiful, their face is prone to aging and wrinkles, and their hair is prone to premature graying. They like to pursue the effects of skillful techniques and wise Dharmas. They like to talk about things that have sectarian affiliations, and they like happiness and blessings. They like to be at the head of the crowd, and they like to gather together to comment on right and wrong. They like to admire themselves, and they often look for things that can be divided and rewarded to them. They give alms respectfully, they like to look at others with their eyes, they escort others with their eyes, and they observe things superficially. They are familiar with worldly affairs, they are not good at adapting to circumstances, they are easy to perceive, and they rarely get angry. They cannot maintain the four dignities of the body (walking, standing, sitting, and lying down) for a long time. They easily give up wealth, Dharma, friends, and desires, but then regret it. When they hear about skillful techniques and wise Dharmas, they hope to learn them quickly. They forget quickly after they have just learned them. These are called the characteristics of the greedy. The characteristics of the angry are as follows: their personality is impatient and violent, and their behavior is rude and dangerous. They harbor resentment in their hearts and are difficult to get along with. They like to ridicule others and are often worried. They have no compassion, joy, or equanimity, and they like to fight. They glare angrily, their eyes are low, they sleep little, and they speak little. They are pensive and difficult to please, and they insist on their own views. They are stubborn with both friends and enemies, and they are impatient in their actions. They are cunning and intelligent, their minds are deep, they are difficult to defeat, and they know how to be grateful. They are strong and decisive, diligent and brave, they have no compassion, and they like to sever relationships. Their will is brave, their thoughts are strong, and they are hard and sharp and difficult to resist. They like to observe things, and their personality likes to be detached from the world. They like to give alms, their roots are sharp, and they speak honest words. They harbor unattainable ideas in their hearts, and they like to find fault with others. They are suspicious of everything, they are jealous of others, and their bodies are disabled. They are troubled by many diseases, they have few close friends, they easily make enemies, their faces are sad, their complexion is gloomy, and their beliefs are firm. They are rarely surprised, they have no fear, they are very brave, and they are melancholy. Their head, neck, and arms are thick, and they are difficult to destroy. Their forehead is broad, they are strong, and their personality is violent. They easily learn skillful techniques and wise Dharmas. Once they have learned them, they are difficult to forget. They do not regret giving up wealth, Dharma, friends, and desires. These are called the characteristics of the angry. The characteristics of the ignorant are as follows: they are suspicious and hesitant, and they like to talk about things that have no sectarian affiliation. Even if they have no ability, they like to talk big. They are disrespectful, they lack faith, they like darkness, and they are often immersed in it. They do not like to examine and observe, they like to lie down and sleep, and they are difficult to wake up. They like to worship heretics and evil gods. Their actions are evil and perverse, and their actions are biased and incorrect. Their understanding is poor, they are forgetful. They are lazy and懈怠, they have no ideas, and their hearts are昏昧糊塗. They destroy the bridge of the Dharma, and they often like to close their eyes. They do not do things thoroughly, and they often frown. They are not intelligent, they do not trust others, they do not believe others, and they are not good at adapting to circumstances. They hate and are jealous of virtuous people, and their actions are stubborn. They cannot distinguish between right and wrong when it comes to good and evil.
。戾若狻貌卒難開曉。不能了別怨親處中。鬚髮毛爪多長堅利。眼口衣服眵垢可厭。不好花鬘嚴具莊飾。所作昧略輕有所為。多食多愁少慚少愧。不教便作令作不為。應怖情安應安反怖。應傷反悅應悅反傷。應笑反啼應啼反笑。于所應作難勸修行。不應作中難令止息。少福德煩惱羸。不能別知酢淡等味。多寱語唾齘齒好舐。唇齒穢密。能久安住身四威儀。此等名為癡行者相。諸慢行者有如是相。謂心高身矬小。體實堅硬好物參譽。于可遵崇不能敬重。夸炫自德樂毀他能。不可引導堅持可受。不樂聽聞師友教敕。於他所有多不印順。貪敬殉名大眉耐苦。少親友薄風範心廣。大志勇決少懷憂戚。多樂出家言論知量。所為不躁知足大欲。具妙辯才不諂不柔難可迴轉。有大勝解不可摧伏。發言質直不曲順情。此等名為慢行者相。諸見行者有如是相。謂執堅固鈍根諂曲。樂惡喜福輕爾發言。好談論愛思擇。難屈伏強習誦。凡有所作不隨他緣。難得意懷難令生喜。少厭舍闕正信好持齋戒。厭報災祥。親惡朋疏善友。性無悲愍懷聰睿慢。亂顧視慘姿顏多惡。夢多分別喜懷猜阻。心恒擾亂耽惡所作。性好尋思樂施少憂。堅守難厭見行共相。總述如是別相。一一如理應思。諸疑行者有如是相。謂多不會遍見過失。喜懷愁戚志性剛決。無善
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 愚癡行者的外貌行為難以理解，不能分辨怨親，鬚髮毛爪生長過多且堅硬鋒利，眼口周圍的污垢令人厭惡，不喜歡用花鬘和華麗的裝飾品打扮自己。所作所為遲鈍而輕率，吃得多，愁悶也多，少有慚愧之心。不教導的事情反而去做，應該做的事情反而不做。應該感到恐懼的事情反而覺得安穩，應該感到安穩的事情反而感到恐懼。應該悲傷的事情反而高興，應該高興的事情反而悲傷。應該笑的時候反而哭，應該哭的時候反而笑。對於應該做的事情，難以勸說其修行；對於不應該做的事情，難以令其停止。少有福德，煩惱纏身，身體虛弱。不能分辨酸甜等味道，多說夢話，吐唾沫，磨牙，喜歡用舌頭舔東西，嘴唇和牙齒污穢且排列緊密。能夠長久地安住于身體的四種威儀（行、住、坐、臥）。這些被稱為愚癡行者的特徵。 傲慢行者有這樣的特徵：內心高傲，身形矮小，體格堅硬，喜歡別人讚美自己。對於應該尊敬的人和事物，不能夠敬重。誇耀自己的優點，樂於詆譭他人的才能。不可引導，堅持自己所接受的。不喜歡聽聞師長和朋友的教誨。對於他人所擁有的東西，多不贊同。貪圖尊敬，追逐名聲，眉毛濃重，能忍受痛苦。親友很少，缺乏風範，心胸狹窄。有遠大的志向，勇敢果決，很少憂愁。喜歡出家，言論有分寸。所作所為不急躁，知足少欲。具備巧妙的辯才，不諂媚不柔順，難以被改變。有強大的勝解（adhimoksha，勝妙的理解），不可摧毀。發言坦率正直，不曲意順從他人。這些被稱為傲慢行者的特徵。 邪見行者有這樣的特徵：執著頑固，根器遲鈍，諂媚虛偽。喜歡邪惡，厭惡福德，輕易發表言論。喜歡談論，愛好思辨。難以屈服，強烈地學習背誦。凡是所做的事情，不隨順他人的因緣。難以使其滿意，難以令其高興。很少厭離，缺少正信，喜歡持齋戒。厭惡報應和災禍，親近惡友，疏遠善友。天性沒有悲憫之心，懷有聰明的傲慢。眼神散亂，面容陰沉，多有惡相。做夢時多有分別，喜歡猜疑阻撓。內心恒常擾亂，沉迷於惡劣的行為。天性喜歡尋思，樂於佈施，很少憂愁。堅守難以令人滿意的邪見，這是邪見行者的共同特徵。以上總述了各種不同的特徵，應該如理如實地進行思考。 疑惑行者有這樣的特徵：多不理解，到處看到過失。喜歡憂愁，意志剛強果決，沒有善良。
【English Translation】 English version: The appearance and behavior of a deluded practitioner are difficult to understand. They cannot distinguish between enemies and loved ones. Their hair, body hair, and nails grow excessively long, hard, and sharp. The discharge around their eyes and mouth is repulsive. They dislike adorning themselves with garlands and elaborate ornaments. Their actions are slow and careless. They eat a lot, worry a lot, and have little shame or remorse. They do what they are not taught to do, and do not do what they should do. They feel secure in situations where they should be afraid, and afraid in situations where they should feel secure. They are happy when they should be sad, and sad when they should be happy. They cry when they should laugh, and laugh when they should cry. It is difficult to persuade them to practice what they should practice, and difficult to stop them from doing what they should not do. They have little merit, are plagued by afflictions, and are physically weak. They cannot distinguish between sour, sweet, and other flavors. They talk in their sleep, spit, grind their teeth, and like to lick things. Their lips and teeth are dirty and closely spaced. They can remain in the four postures of the body (walking, standing, sitting, and lying down) for a long time. These are called the characteristics of a deluded practitioner. Arrogant practitioners have these characteristics: They are arrogant in their hearts, short in stature, and have a hard physique. They like others to praise them. They cannot respect those who should be respected. They boast of their own merits and are happy to denigrate the talents of others. They are unteachable and cling to what they have accepted. They do not like to listen to the teachings of teachers and friends. They often disagree with what others have. They crave respect, pursue fame, have thick eyebrows, and can endure suffering. They have few friends and lack demeanor, and are narrow-minded. They have great ambitions, are brave and decisive, and rarely worry. They like to leave home, and their speech is measured. Their actions are not hasty, they are content and have few desires. They possess skillful eloquence, are not flattering or gentle, and are difficult to change. They have great adhimoksha (勝妙的理解, superior understanding), which cannot be destroyed. Their speech is frank and straightforward, and they do not bend to please others. These are called the characteristics of arrogant practitioners. Practitioners with wrong views have these characteristics: They are stubbornly attached, dull-witted, and deceitful. They like evil, dislike merit, and speak lightly. They like to talk and love to speculate. They are difficult to subdue and study and recite intensely. Whatever they do, they do not follow the conditions of others. It is difficult to please them and difficult to make them happy. They have little renunciation, lack right faith, and like to observe fasts and precepts. They dislike retribution and disasters, are close to bad friends, and distant from good friends. By nature, they have no compassion and harbor clever arrogance. Their eyes are scattered, their faces are gloomy, and they often have an evil appearance. They have many discriminations in their dreams and like to suspect and obstruct. Their minds are constantly disturbed and they are addicted to evil deeds. By nature, they like to ponder, are happy to give, and rarely worry. They stubbornly cling to unsatisfactory wrong views. These are the common characteristics of practitioners with wrong views. The above summarizes the various different characteristics, which should be considered rationally and truthfully. Doubtful practitioners have these characteristics: They often do not understand and see faults everywhere. They like to worry, and their will is strong and decisive, but they lack goodness.
懈怠樂著睡眠。好不定言事無專一。數生追悔難得意懷。少語遠尋營私堪忍。恒為謀略鮮有歡娛。不躁不明不知方便。交友易壞難喜忘恩。凝視低睛多不信順。所習論智不究根源。微覽枝條狀如遍悉。凡有所作多不成功。此等名為疑行者相。若於如是六種相中。有具二三乃至皆具。應知此類名雜行者。余隨煩惱諸行者相。此等流故準此應釋。已分別縛。隨眠雲何。頌曰。
隨眠前已說
論曰。隨眠有六或七或十或九十八。如前已說。隨眠既已說。隨煩惱云何。頌曰。
隨煩惱此余 染心所行蘊
論曰。能為擾亂故名煩惱。隨諸煩惱轉得隨煩惱名。有古師言。若法不具滿煩惱相名隨煩惱。如月不滿得隨月名。然諸隨眠名為煩惱。即此亦得隨煩惱名。以是圓滿煩惱品故。由此故說即諸煩惱。有結縛隨眠隨煩惱纏義。所餘染污心所行蘊。隨煩惱起隨惱心故得隨煩惱名。不得名煩惱。以闕圓滿煩惱相故。若爾染污思等心所。一切應是隨煩惱攝理實應然。若爾何故別說行蘊。勿如思等受想亦應隨煩惱攝。此彼何別非無別義。謂煩惱相應煩惱同蘊法。由二義相似得隨煩惱名。染心所言顯染思等得名隨煩惱。由煩惱相應說行蘊言。為簡受等要煩惱同蘊名隨煩惱故。由此本論作如是言。除諸煩惱余染心所。行蘊
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 懈怠且貪戀睡眠，做事沒有定性，說話不專一。經常後悔，難以實現願望。很少說話，遠離人群，只顧營私，並且能夠忍受。總是算計，很少有快樂。不果斷，不明智，不知道方便之法。結交的朋友容易變壞，難以感到喜悅，容易忘恩負義。總是凝視，眼睛向下看，大多不相信和順從。學習和討論智慧，卻不探究根源。稍微瀏覽一些枝節，就裝作全部瞭解。凡是所做的事情，大多不能成功。這些叫做疑行者的表現。如果在這六種表現中，具備兩種或三種，乃至全部具備，應當知道這類人叫做雜行者。其餘隨煩惱的行者表現，因為與這些相似，所以應該參照這些來解釋。以上已經分別解釋了結縛。 隨眠是什麼呢？頌文說： 『隨眠前面已經說過』 論述說：隨眠有六種、七種、十種或九十八種，如前面已經說過。隨眠既然已經說過，隨煩惱是什麼呢？頌文說： 『隨煩惱是其餘的，染污的心所行蘊』 論述說：能夠擾亂身心，所以叫做煩惱。隨著各種煩惱而生起，所以得到隨煩惱的名稱。有古老的論師說：如果某種法不具備完整的煩惱相，就叫做隨煩惱。就像月亮不圓滿時，叫做隨月。然而各種隨眠也叫做煩惱，因此它們也可以叫做隨煩惱，因為它們是圓滿的煩惱品類。因此才說各種煩惱有結、縛、隨眠、隨煩惱、纏的含義。其餘染污的心所行蘊，因為隨著煩惱生起而惱亂內心，所以得到隨煩惱的名稱，但不能叫做煩惱，因為缺少圓滿的煩惱相。如果這樣，那麼染污的思等心所，都應該屬於隨煩惱所攝，實際上也應該是這樣。如果這樣，為什麼單獨說行蘊呢？難道像受、想也應該屬於隨煩惱所攝嗎？這二者有什麼區別呢？並非沒有區別。所謂與煩惱相應、與煩惱同蘊的法，由於這兩種意義的相似，所以得到隨煩惱的名稱。『染心所』這句話，顯示染污的思等得到隨煩惱的名稱。由於與煩惱相應，所以說『行蘊』，是爲了簡別受等，只有與煩惱同蘊的才叫做隨煩惱。因此本論這樣說：除了各種煩惱，其餘染污的心所行蘊。
【English Translation】 English version Lazy and attached to sleep, indecisive in actions, and inconsistent in speech. Frequently regretful, finding it difficult to achieve desires. Speak little, stay away from people, only care about personal gain, and are able to endure. Constantly scheming, rarely experiencing joy. Not decisive, not wise, and unaware of expedient means. Friends easily turn bad, difficult to feel joy, and easily forget kindness. Always staring, eyes looking down, mostly distrustful and disobedient. Study and discuss wisdom without exploring the root causes. Briefly browse some branches and pretend to understand everything. Whatever is done, mostly unsuccessful. These are called the characteristics of a doubtful practitioner (疑行者). If among these six characteristics, one possesses two or three, or even all of them, one should know that this type of person is called a mixed practitioner (雜行者). The remaining characteristics of practitioners with secondary afflictions (隨煩惱) should be explained in accordance with these, as they are similar. The bonds (縛) have already been explained separately. What are the latent tendencies (隨眠)? The verse says: 'Latent tendencies have been explained earlier.' The treatise says: Latent tendencies are of six, seven, ten, or ninety-eight kinds, as explained earlier. Since latent tendencies have been explained, what are the secondary afflictions (隨煩惱)? The verse says: 'Secondary afflictions are the remaining defiled mental factors (染心所) within the aggregate of mental formations (行蘊).' The treatise says: That which can disturb the mind is called affliction (煩惱). Arising along with various afflictions, they are called secondary afflictions (隨煩惱). Some ancient teachers say: If a dharma does not possess the complete characteristics of an affliction, it is called a secondary affliction. Just as the moon is called a partial moon when it is not full. However, the various latent tendencies are also called afflictions, therefore they can also be called secondary afflictions, because they are complete categories of afflictions. Therefore, it is said that various afflictions have the meanings of bonds (結), ties (縛), latent tendencies (隨眠), secondary afflictions (隨煩惱), and entanglements (纏). The remaining defiled mental factors within the aggregate of mental formations, because they arise along with afflictions and disturb the mind, are called secondary afflictions, but cannot be called afflictions, because they lack the complete characteristics of afflictions. If so, then defiled thought (思) and other mental factors should all be included within secondary afflictions, and in reality, they should be. If so, why separately mention the aggregate of mental formations? Should feeling (受) and perception (想) also be included within secondary afflictions? What is the difference between these? There is indeed a difference. That which is associated with afflictions and is of the same aggregate as afflictions, due to the similarity of these two meanings, obtains the name secondary affliction. The phrase 'defiled mental factors' indicates that defiled thought and others obtain the name secondary affliction. Because of association with afflictions, the phrase 'aggregate of mental formations' is used to distinguish feeling and others; only that which is of the same aggregate as afflictions is called secondary affliction. Therefore, this treatise says: Apart from the various afflictions, the remaining defiled mental factors within the aggregate of mental formations.
所攝名隨煩惱。或若有法從煩惱起。煩惱相應行蘊所攝。與諸煩惱相極相鄰。方可建立名隨煩惱。然兼為遣隨煩惱中。有異論師謬作是解。慳即是愛沈即無明忿即瞋等。說此余言顯彼皆是此之餘義。有於此義仍復生疑。謂此余言亦應攝受。為遮彼故說行蘊言。不爾但應言此余染心所。本論不應說行蘊所攝言。以決定無餘蘊所攝從煩惱起。是故於此說行蘊言。還顯此義。由此若法與諸煩惱要三義相似。得隨煩惱名。一是煩惱垢。二煩惱相應。三煩惱同蘊故我於此明見頌中有如是義。謂此煩惱亦名隨煩惱。及此之餘染心所行蘊。此之餘者顯相屬義。意顯若余是此所起方可建立隨煩惱名。然兼為遮慳即愛等。若爾何故說行蘊言。說此余言義已成故。不爾遮濫說行蘊言。謂貪瞋癡如次所起染樂苦舍。容濫此余故行蘊言。還為顯示無餘蘊攝是煩惱垢。若不爾者但說此余。以何言遮前所說濫。故復須說行蘊攝言。隨煩惱名為目幾法。經種種說故有眾多。謂憤發不忍及起惡言類。如世尊告婆羅門言。有二十一諸隨煩惱能惱亂心。乃至廣說后當略辯。纏煩惱垢攝者。且應先辯。纏相云何。頌曰。
纏八無慚愧 嫉慳並悔眠 及掉舉惛沈 或十加忿覆 無慚慳掉舉 皆從貪所生 無愧眠惛沈 從無明所起 嫉忿從瞋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所攝之法，名為隨煩惱（Upaklesha，次要的煩惱）。或者說，如果有一種法從煩惱生起，屬於與煩惱相應的行蘊（Samskara-skandha，心理活動之集合）所攝，並且與各種煩惱極其鄰近相似，才可以建立為隨煩惱。然而，爲了排除某些異論師的錯誤理解（他們認為慳吝就是愛，昏沉就是無明，忿怒就是嗔恨等），所以說『此之餘』，是爲了表明這些（隨煩惱）都是那些（煩惱）的其餘意義。有人對此意義仍然產生懷疑，認為『此之餘』也應該攝受（其他蘊）。爲了遮止這種觀點，所以說『行蘊言』。否則，只應該說『此余染心所』，本論不應該說『行蘊所攝言』。因為絕對沒有其他蘊所攝的、從煩惱生起的法。因此，在這裡說『行蘊言』，還是爲了顯明這個意義。由此可見，如果一種法要與各種煩惱在三個方面相似，才能得到隨煩惱的名稱：一是煩惱垢，二是煩惱相應，三是煩惱同蘊。所以我在此明見頌中有這樣的意義：這些煩惱也名為隨煩惱，以及這些煩惱的其餘染污心所行蘊。『此之餘者』，顯示相屬的意義，意思是說，如果其餘的法是從這些煩惱所生起，才可以建立隨煩惱的名稱。然而，這也是爲了遮止『慳吝就是愛』等觀點。 『如果這樣，為什麼還要說『行蘊言』呢？』因為說了『此余言』，意義已經成立了。』不是的，說『行蘊言』是爲了遮止氾濫。因為貪、嗔、癡依次所引起的染污的樂受、苦受、舍受，容易氾濫到『此余』中，所以『行蘊言』還是爲了顯示沒有其他蘊所攝，是煩惱垢。如果不這樣，只說『此余』，用什麼言語來遮止前面所說的泛濫呢？所以又必須說『行蘊攝言』。 隨煩惱這個名稱是用來指稱幾種法的呢？因為經典中有種種說法，所以有很多種。比如憤、發、不忍以及說惡言等等。正如世尊告訴婆羅門說：『有二十一種隨煩惱能夠惱亂心』，乃至廣說，後面會略作辨析。纏（Paryavasthana，束縛）是煩惱垢所攝的，所以應該先辨析纏的相狀是什麼。頌曰： 『纏有八種：無慚（Ahrikya，不知羞恥）、無愧（Anapatrapya，不畏懼罪惡）、嫉（Irshya，嫉妒）、慳（Matsarya，吝嗇）、並悔（Kaukutya，後悔）、眠（Styana，睡眠）、及掉舉（Auddhatya，躁動）、惛沈（Middha，精神萎靡）。或者有十種，加上忿（Krodha，憤怒）和覆（Mraksha，隱藏罪過）。』 『無慚、慳、掉舉，都是從貪（Lobha，貪婪）所生。無愧、眠、惛沈，是從無明（Avidya，無知）所起。嫉、忿，是從嗔（Dvesha，嗔恨）所起。』
【English Translation】 English version: The phenomena included are called Upakleshas (minor defilements). Alternatively, if a phenomenon arises from a Klesha (affliction), is included within the Samskara-skandha (aggregate of mental formations) that corresponds to the Kleshas, and is extremely similar and adjacent to the various Kleshas, then it can be established as an Upaklesha. However, to refute the erroneous interpretations of some dissenting teachers (who claim that stinginess is the same as attachment, dullness is the same as ignorance, anger is the same as hatred, etc.), it is said 'the remainder of these' to indicate that these (Upakleshas) are all the remaining meanings of those (Kleshas). Some still doubt this meaning, thinking that 'the remainder of these' should also include (other skandhas). To prevent this view, it is said 'Samskara-skandha'. Otherwise, it should only be said 'the remaining defiled mental factors', and this treatise should not say 'included within the Samskara-skandha'. Because there is absolutely no phenomenon arising from Kleshas that is included within other skandhas. Therefore, saying 'Samskara-skandha' here is still to clarify this meaning. From this, if a phenomenon is similar to the various Kleshas in three aspects, it can be called an Upaklesha: first, it is a defilement; second, it corresponds to the Kleshas; and third, it is in the same skandha as the Kleshas. Therefore, I clearly see that there is such a meaning in the verse: these Kleshas are also called Upakleshas, as well as the remaining defiled mental formations of these Kleshas. 'The remainder of these' indicates the meaning of belonging, meaning that if the remaining phenomena arise from these Kleshas, then the name Upaklesha can be established. However, this is also to refute views such as 'stinginess is the same as attachment'. 'If so, why is it still said 'Samskara-skandha'?' Because by saying 'the remainder of these', the meaning has already been established.' No, saying 'Samskara-skandha' is to prevent overgeneralization. Because the defiled pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings that arise from greed (Lobha), hatred (Dvesha), and delusion (Moha) respectively can easily be overgeneralized into 'the remainder of these', so 'Samskara-skandha' is still to show that it is not included within other skandhas, and is a defilement. If not, if only 'the remainder of these' is said, what words can be used to prevent the overgeneralization mentioned earlier? Therefore, it is necessary to say 'included within the Samskara-skandha' again. How many phenomena does the name Upaklesha refer to? Because there are various statements in the scriptures, there are many kinds. For example, anger (Krodha), fury, intolerance, and speaking evil words, etc. Just as the World Honored One told the Brahmin: 'There are twenty-one Upakleshas that can disturb the mind', and so on, which will be briefly analyzed later. Since Paryavasthanas (fetters) are included within the defilements, the characteristics of the fetters should be analyzed first. The verse says: 'There are eight fetters: Ahrikya (shamelessness), Anapatrapya (lack of fear of wrongdoing), Irshya (jealousy), Matsarya (stinginess), Kaukutya (remorse), Styana (sloth), Auddhatya (restlessness), and Middha (torpor). Or there are ten, adding Krodha (anger) and Mraksha (concealment of faults).' 'Ahrikya (shamelessness), Matsarya (stinginess), and Auddhatya (restlessness) all arise from Lobha (greed). Anapatrapya (lack of fear of wrongdoing), Styana (sloth), and Middha (torpor) arise from Avidya (ignorance). Irshya (jealousy) and Krodha (anger) arise from Dvesha (hatred).'
起 悔從疑覆諍
論曰。根本煩惱亦名為纏。經說欲貪纏為緣故。若異此者貪等云何可得名為圓滿煩惱。然諸論者離諸隨眠。就勝說纏或八或十。謂品類足說有八纏。毗婆沙宗說纏有十。即於前八更加忿覆。如是十種繫縛含識置生死獄故名為纏。或十為因起諸惡行。令拘惡趣故名為纏。無慚無愧嫉慳並悔。掉舉惛沈如前已辯。令心昧略惛沈相應。不能持身是為眠相。眠雖亦有惛不相應。此唯辯纏故作是說。於此頓說眠三相者。此三與眠義相順故。解字義者作是釋言。眠謂于身能為滋潤。即是有力能長養身。由心安眠身增益故。此善等別略有四種。謂善不善有覆無覆。諸瑜伽師久善思擇。諸誦習者勞役長時。施主多時行益他事。此等加行憩息位中。所引睡眠皆名為善。然于加行聞思善心。眠不現行性相違故。此于加行修所成心亦不現行彼能治故。唯於一類生得善心。眠可現行性羸劣故。諸屠羊等不律儀人。專心久行不善加行。諸耽欲者于欲境中。專心久行不善加行。諸餘一切習惡行者。長時數起不善加行。此等加行憩息位中。所引睡眠皆名不善。一切煩惱于睡位中。無不皆容現在前故。有覆無記準此應釋。無覆無記唯異熟生。起工巧等眠便壞故。有餘師說。于眠位中亦威有儀工巧心起。然非初位彼可即行。於後
夢中方可行故。因自友損怨益而生。瞋恚為先心憤名忿。有餘師說。因處非處違逆而生。力能令心無顧而轉。乃至子上令心憤發說名為忿。隱藏自罪說名為覆。罪謂可訶即是毀犯尸羅軌則。及諸凈命隱藏即是匿罪欲因。有餘釋言。抆拭名覆。謂內懷惡抆拭外邊。是欲令他不覺察義。前說若法從煩惱起。方可建立名隨煩惱。此中何法何煩惱起。無慚慳掉舉是貪等流。要貪為近因方得生故。無愧眠惛沈是無明等流。此與無明相極相鄰近故。嫉忿是瞋等流。由此相同瞋故。悔是疑等流。因猶豫生故。覆有說是貪等流。有說。是無明等流。有說。是俱等流。諸有知者因愛生故。諸無知者因癡生故。即由此相故。有說言。心著稱譽利養恭敬。不了惡行所招當果。是于自罪隱匿欲因為愛無明二等流果。隨惱心法說名為覆。如是十種從煩惱生。是煩惱等流故名隨煩惱。余煩惱垢其相云何。頌曰。
煩惱垢六惱 害恨諂誑憍 誑憍從貪生 害恨從瞋起 惱從見取起 諂從諸見生
論曰。于可毀事決定堅執。難令舍因說名為惱。由有此故世間說為不可導引。執惡所執於他有情。非全不顧擬重攝受為損惱因。悲障惱心說名為害。于非愛相隨念分別生續。忿後起心結怨名恨。有餘師言。欲舍怨結不能解脫。此因名恨。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：只有在夢中才能實現，因為它們源於對朋友的損害和對敵人的增加。以嗔恚為先導，心中憤恨被稱為忿（krodha，憤怒）。有些論師說，忿（krodha）產生於不適當的處境和違逆。這種力量能使內心毫無顧忌地運轉，甚至在孩子身上也能引發憤怒，這被稱為忿（krodha）。隱藏自己的罪過被稱為覆（mraksha，覆藏）。罪是指應該受到責備的行為，即是毀犯了戒律和清凈的生活方式。隱藏罪過是想要掩蓋罪行的原因。有些解釋說，『抆拭』被稱為覆（mraksha），意思是內心懷有惡意，卻擦拭外表，這是爲了不讓別人察覺。前面說過，如果某種法是從煩惱產生的，才能被建立為隨煩惱。這裡，什麼法是從什麼煩惱產生的呢？無慚（ahrikya，無慚）、慳（matsarya，慳吝）、掉舉（auddhatya，掉舉）是貪（lobha，貪婪）的等流，因為必須以貪為近因才能產生。無愧（anapatrapya，無愧）、睡眠（styana，睡眠）、惛沉（middha，昏沉）是無明（avidya，無明）的等流，因為它們與無明非常接近。嫉（irshya，嫉妒）和忿（krodha，憤怒）是嗔（dvesha，嗔恨）的等流，因為它們與嗔恨相似。悔（kaukritya，後悔）是疑（vichikitsa，懷疑）的等流，因為它因猶豫而產生。覆（mraksha，覆藏）有人說是貪（lobha，貪婪）的等流，有人說是無明（avidya，無明）的等流，也有人說是兩者都是等流。有知者因愛（preman，愛）而生覆（mraksha），無知者因癡（moha，愚癡）而生覆（mraksha），這就是覆（mraksha）的相狀。有人說，內心執著于稱譽、利益、供養和恭敬，不瞭解惡行所招致的惡果，這就是隱匿自己罪過的原因，是愛（preman）和無明（avidya）兩種等流的結果。隨順惱亂心意的法被稱為覆（mraksha）。像這樣，這十種法從煩惱產生，是煩惱的等流，所以被稱為隨煩惱。其餘煩惱垢的相狀是什麼呢？頌曰： 煩惱垢六惱，害恨諂誑憍，誑憍從貪生，害恨從瞋起，惱從見取起，諂從諸見生。 論曰：對於應該被毀壞的事情，決定且堅固地執著，難以使其捨棄，這被稱為惱（pradasha，惱）。因為有這種惱（pradasha），世間才說這個人是不可引導的。執著于惡劣的執著，對於其他有情，並非完全不顧，而是想要重新攝受，這是損惱的原因，阻礙悲心，這被稱為害（vihesa，損害）。對於非可愛的事物，隨念分別，持續不斷地產生，在忿（krodha）之後生起，結下怨恨，這被稱為恨（upanaha，怨恨）。有些論師說，想要捨棄怨恨的結，卻無法解脫，這種因被稱為恨（upanaha）。由於...
【English Translation】 English version: They can only be realized in dreams because they arise from harming friends and increasing enemies. With anger (dvesha) as the precursor, resentment in the mind is called Krodha (忿, anger). Some teachers say that Krodha (忿) arises from inappropriate situations and opposition. This force can make the mind operate without regard, even causing anger to erupt in children, which is called Krodha (忿). Concealing one's own faults is called Mraksha (覆, concealment). Faults refer to actions that should be blamed, that is, violating precepts and pure ways of life. Concealing faults is the cause of wanting to hide wrongdoing. Some explanations say that 'wiping away' is called Mraksha (覆), meaning that one harbors evil intentions internally but wipes the exterior clean, intending to prevent others from noticing. It was previously said that if a certain dharma arises from afflictions, it can be established as a secondary affliction. Here, what dharma arises from what affliction? Ahrikya (無慚, shamelessness), Matsarya (慳, stinginess), and Auddhatya (掉舉, restlessness) are outflows of Lobha (貪, greed), because they must have greed as a proximate cause to arise. Anapatrapya (無愧, lack of shame), Styana (睡眠, sleep), and Middha (惛沉, drowsiness) are outflows of Avidya (無明, ignorance), because they are extremely close to ignorance. Irshya (嫉, jealousy) and Krodha (忿, anger) are outflows of Dvesha (瞋, hatred), because they are similar to hatred. Kaukriitya (悔, regret) is an outflow of Vichikitsa (疑, doubt), because it arises from hesitation. Some say that Mraksha (覆, concealment) is an outflow of Lobha (貪, greed), some say it is an outflow of Avidya (無明, ignorance), and some say it is an outflow of both. Those with knowledge generate Mraksha (覆) from Preman (愛, love), and those without knowledge generate Mraksha (覆) from Moha (癡, delusion), and this is the characteristic of Mraksha (覆). Some say that the mind is attached to praise, profit, offerings, and respect, and does not understand the consequences of evil deeds, which is the cause of concealing one's own faults, and is the result of the two outflows of Preman (愛) and Avidya (無明). Dharmas that follow and afflict the mind are called Mraksha (覆). Like this, these ten dharmas arise from afflictions and are outflows of afflictions, so they are called secondary afflictions. What are the characteristics of the remaining affliction defilements? The verse says: The six affliction defilements are: Pradasha (惱), Vihesa (害), Upanaha (恨), Shathya (諂), Maya (誑), and Mada (憍). Maya (誑) and Mada (憍) arise from Lobha (貪), Vihesa (害) and Upanaha (恨) arise from Dvesha (瞋), Pradasha (惱) arises from Drsti-paramarsa (見取), and Shathya (諂) arises from all views. The treatise says: To be determined and firmly attached to things that should be destroyed, making it difficult to abandon them, is called Pradasha (惱, annoyance). Because of this Pradasha (惱), the world says that this person is unmanageable. Holding onto evil attachments, not completely disregarding other sentient beings, but wanting to re-embrace them, is the cause of harm and annoyance, obstructing compassion, which is called Vihesa (害, harm). Continuously generating thoughts and discriminations about non-lovable things, arising after Krodha (忿), forming resentment, is called Upanaha (恨, resentment). Some teachers say that wanting to abandon the knot of resentment but being unable to be liberated, this cause is called Upanaha (恨). Due to...
有此故怨結纏心。自惱長時空無有果。于可愛境令不隨順。于策勵事令心忘失。于諸有恩令不能報。令于喜事似有所憂。令于友朋不相委信。令于親屬懷棄捨心。令于面上易發慘色。於美談話慶慰軟言。令心悵悒都無所顧。事不獲免示有歡娛。是諸賢良所遠離處。能為株杌壞實福田。此等名為恨所有法。恨與忿相有差別者。如樺皮火其相猛利。而餘勢弱說名為忿。如冬室熱其相輕微。而餘勢強說名為恨。由此故有說恨相言。忿息已續生令心濁名恨。於己情事方便隱匿。矯以謀略誘取他情。實智相違心曲名諂。于名利等貪為先故。欲令他惑邪示現因。正定相違心險名誑。釋此名者。謂先籌度設此方便。令彼后時生顛倒解故名為誑。然世間說為利為名。現相惑他名為誑事。說誑所引身語業事。是誑果故假立誑名。如以通名說通果事。心險心曲相差別者。如道如杖於他于自因貪因見故有差別。謂如險道于諸有情。欲趣余方能為損礙。如是行者欲趣涅槃。心與誑俱能為損礙。如捲曲杖雖斷其根。而於稠林難挽令出。如是信闕有諂曲者。雖以方便斷欲界根。仍難引接令出生死。又幻惑他說名為誑。匿自情事說名為諂。又誑與諂如次是貪諸見等流。如后當辯。憍相如前已廣分別。有餘師說。從貪所生恃己少年無病壽等諸興盛事。心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，怨恨像繩結一樣纏繞在心中，徒勞地自我煩惱，長期沒有結果。對於喜愛的事物，會使其不順心；對於應該努力的事情，會使其忘記；對於有恩于自己的人，會使其不能報答；對於喜慶的事情，會使其顯得憂愁；對於朋友，會使其不信任；對於親屬，會使其懷有拋棄之心；會使其臉上容易顯出愁容。對於美好的談話、慶賀和安慰的柔和言語，會使其心中悵惘，毫不顧及。即使無法避免地要表現出歡娛，也是勉強為之。這些都是賢良之人所遠離的地方，能像樹樁一樣破壞真實的福田。這些都叫做怨恨所包含的法。 怨恨和忿怒的區別在於：像樺樹皮燃燒的火焰，其勢猛烈，但餘勢微弱，這叫做忿怒；像冬天房間里的熱氣，其勢輕微，但餘勢強勁，這叫做怨恨。因此，有說法認為怨恨的相狀是：忿怒平息后，繼續產生使心渾濁的狀態，這叫做怨恨。巧妙地隱藏自己的真實情感，用虛假的計謀來引誘獲取他人的真實情感，這種與真實智慧相違背的彎曲的心叫做諂媚（flattery）。因為貪圖名利等，想要迷惑他人而邪惡地示現某種原因，這種與正確定相違背的險惡的心叫做欺誑（deceit）。解釋這個名稱是說，事先籌劃設定某種方便，使對方在之後產生顛倒的理解，所以叫做欺誑。然而世俗所說的爲了利益和名聲，用虛假的表象迷惑他人叫做欺誑的行為。所說的欺誑所引發的身語行為，是欺誑的結果，所以假借欺誑之名，就像用通用的名稱來說明通用的結果一樣。險惡的心和彎曲的心的區別在於：像道路和枴杖一樣，對於他人和自己，因為貪婪和錯誤的見解而有所不同。就像險惡的道路對於想要去往其他地方的有情眾生，能夠造成損害和阻礙一樣，修行者想要去往涅槃，心與欺誑同在，也能夠造成損害和阻礙。就像彎曲的枴杖，即使砍斷了它的根，在茂密的樹林中也很難拉出來一樣，像這樣缺乏信任而有諂媚的人，即使用方便法門斷除了欲界的根本，仍然難以引導他出生死輪迴。 另外，用幻術迷惑他人叫做欺誑，隱藏自己的真實情感叫做諂媚。另外，欺誑和諂媚依次是貪婪和各種邪見的流露，就像後面將要辨析的那樣。驕慢的相狀，前面已經廣泛地分別說明了。還有其他老師說，從貪婪所產生，依仗自己的年輕、無病、長壽等各種興盛的事情，心生驕慢。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, resentment binds the heart like a knot, vainly tormenting oneself, with no result in the long run. Towards beloved things, it causes non-compliance; towards matters that require effort, it causes the mind to forget; towards those who have been kind, it causes inability to repay; towards joyous occasions, it causes an appearance of sorrow; towards friends, it causes distrust; towards relatives, it causes a mind of abandonment; it causes a gloomy expression to easily appear on the face. Towards beautiful conversations, celebrations, and comforting soft words, it causes the heart to be despondent and uncaring. Even when one cannot avoid showing joy, it is done reluctantly. These are places that virtuous people avoid, capable of destroying the real field of merit like a tree stump. These are all called the dharmas possessed by resentment. The difference between resentment and anger is: like the flame of burning birch bark, its intensity is fierce, but its remaining force is weak, this is called anger; like the warmth in a winter room, its intensity is mild, but its remaining force is strong, this is called resentment. Therefore, there is a saying that the characteristic of resentment is: after anger subsides, it continues to produce a state that makes the heart turbid, this is called resentment. Skillfully concealing one's true feelings, using false schemes to entice and obtain the true feelings of others, this crooked mind that contradicts true wisdom is called flattery. Because of greed for fame and profit, wanting to delude others and evilly manifesting some cause, this treacherous mind that contradicts right concentration is called deceit. Explaining this name means that one plans and sets up some expedient beforehand, causing the other person to have a reversed understanding later, so it is called deceit. However, what the world says is that using false appearances to deceive others for the sake of profit and fame is called the act of deceit. The bodily and verbal actions caused by deceit are the result of deceit, so the name of deceit is borrowed, just like using a general name to explain a general result. The difference between a treacherous mind and a crooked mind is: like a road and a cane, they differ in relation to others and oneself, because of greed and wrong views. Just as a treacherous road can cause harm and obstruction to sentient beings who want to go to other places, so too, a practitioner who wants to go to Nirvana, with a mind accompanied by deceit, can also cause harm and obstruction. Just like a crooked cane, even if its root is cut off, it is difficult to pull it out in a dense forest, so too, a person who lacks faith and has flattery, even if he cuts off the root of the desire realm with expedient means, it is still difficult to guide him to be born out of samsara. Furthermore, using illusions to deceive others is called deceit, concealing one's true feelings is called flattery. Furthermore, deceit and flattery are, in order, the outflows of greed and various wrong views, as will be discussed later. The characteristics of pride have already been extensively explained earlier. There are other teachers who say that from greed arises pride, relying on one's youth, freedom from illness, longevity, and other flourishing things, the mind becomes proud.
傲名憍。有餘師言。于自相續興盛諸行。耽染為先不顧於他。謂己為勝心自舉恃。說名為憍。由不顧他與慢有異。如是六種從煩惱生。穢污相粗名煩惱垢。於此六種煩惱垢中。誑憍是貪等流。害恨是瞋等流。惱是見取等流。諂是諸見等流。如言何曲。謂諸惡見故。諂定是諸見等流。此六亦從煩惱生故。如纏亦得隨煩惱名。已說諸纏及煩惱垢。今次應辯彼斷對治。諸纏垢中誰何所斷。頌曰。
纏無慚愧眠 惛掉見修斷 余及煩惱垢 自在故唯修
論曰。且十纏中無慚無愧。通與一切不善心俱。眠欲界中通與一切意識俱起。惛沉掉舉通與一切染污心俱。故五皆通見修所斷。余嫉慳悔忿覆並垢。自在起故唯修所斷。唯與修斷他力無明共相應故名自在起。與自在起纏垢相應。所有無明唯修斷故。此諸纏垢誰通何性。頌曰。
欲三二餘惡 上界皆無記
論曰。欲界所繫眠惛掉三。皆通不善無記二性。所餘一切皆唯不善。即欲界系七纏六垢。上二界中隨應所有。一切唯是無記性攝。即諂誑憍惛沉掉舉。此諸纏垢誰何界系。頌曰。
諂誑欲初定 三三界余欲
論曰。諂誑唯在欲界初定。寧知梵世有諂誑耶。以大梵王匿己情事現相誑惑馬勝苾芻。傳聞此唯異生所起。非諸聖者亦可現前。惛掉
憍三通三界系。所餘一切皆唯在欲。謂十六中五如前辯。所餘十一唯欲界系。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之十一
所辯隨眠及隨煩惱。于中有幾唯依意地。有幾通依六識地起。頌曰。
見所斷慢眠 自在隨煩惱 皆唯意地起 余通依六識
論曰。略說應知諸見所斷。及修所斷一切慢眠隨煩惱中自在起者。如是一切皆依意識。依五識身無容起故。所餘一切通依六識。謂修所斷貪瞋無明。及彼相應諸隨煩惱。即無慚愧惛掉及余大煩惱地法所攝隨煩惱。即是放逸懈怠不信。依六識身皆容起故。理應通說諸隨煩惱。今此且依粗顯者說。復應思擇如先所辯。樂等五受根。對今此中所辯一切煩惱隨煩惱。何煩惱等何根相應。於此先應辯諸煩惱。頌曰。
欲界諸煩惱 貪喜樂相應 瞋憂苦癡遍 邪見憂及善 疑憂餘五喜 一切舍相應 上地皆隨應 遍自識諸受
論曰。欲界所繫諸煩惱中。貪喜樂相應以歡行轉遍六識故。瞋憂苦相應以戚行轉遍六識故。無明遍與前四相應。歡戚行轉遍六識故。與
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『憍三』（Kausāmbi，地名）通於三界之繫縛，其餘一切煩惱都只存在於欲界。在十六種煩惱中，五種如前文所辨析。剩餘的十一種都屬於欲界所繫。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十四 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之十一
所辨析的隨眠（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）及隨煩惱（upakleśa，較輕微的煩惱），其中有多少是僅僅依于意地（manodhātu，意識的領域）生起的？又有多少是能通於依六識地（ṣaṭ-vijñāna-kāya，六種意識的領域）生起的？頌文說：
『見所斷慢眠，自在隨煩惱，皆唯意地起，余通依六識。』
論曰：簡略地說，應當知道諸見所斷（darśana-prahātavya，通過見道斷除的）及修所斷（bhāvanā-prahātavya，通過修道斷除的）的一切慢（māna，驕慢）、隨眠、隨煩惱中自在生起者，像這樣的一切都依于意識。因為依於五識身（pañca-vijñāna-kāya，五種感官意識的領域）沒有生起的可能。其餘的一切都能通於依六識生起。所謂修所斷的貪（rāga，貪慾）、瞋（dveṣa，嗔恨）、無明（avidyā，無知），以及與它們相應的諸隨煩惱，即無慚（āhrīkya，無恥）、無愧（anapatrāpya，無愧）、惛沉（styāna，精神遲鈍）、掉舉（auddhatya，精神散亂），以及其餘大煩惱地法（mahākleśabhūmika，與主要煩惱相關的心理因素）所攝的隨煩惱，即是放逸（pramāda，放縱）、懈怠（kausīdya，懶惰）、不信（āśraddhya，不信任）。依於六識身都可能生起。理應通說諸隨煩惱，現在這裡且依粗顯者來說。還應思考如先前所辨析的，樂（sukha，快樂）等五受根（pañca vedanā，五種感受）對於現在這裡所辨析的一切煩惱、隨煩惱，哪些煩惱等與哪些根相應？對此，首先應辨析諸煩惱。頌文說：
『欲界諸煩惱，貪喜樂相應，瞋憂苦癡遍，邪見憂及善，疑憂餘五喜，一切舍相應，上地皆隨應，遍自識諸受。』
論曰：欲界所繫的諸煩惱中，貪與喜（prīti，喜悅）、樂相應，以歡行（harṣa-carita，快樂的方式）運轉，遍於六識的緣故。瞋與憂（daurmanasya，憂愁）、苦（duḥkha，痛苦）相應，以戚行（śoka-carita，悲傷的方式）運轉，遍於六識的緣故。無明普遍地與前四者相應，歡戚行運轉，遍於六識的緣故。與
【English Translation】 English version 『Kausāmbi』 (a place name) is connected to the bonds of the Three Realms. All other afflictions exist only in the Desire Realm. Among the sixteen afflictions, five are as discussed previously. The remaining eleven are all related to the Desire Realm.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 54 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 55
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5, Section 11: Analysis of Latent Afflictions
Among the latent afflictions (anuśaya) and secondary afflictions (upakleśa) that are being analyzed, how many arise solely in the mind realm (manodhātu)? And how many can arise in dependence on the six consciousness realms (ṣaṭ-vijñāna-kāya)? The verse says:
『Latent afflictions severed by view, pride, and independent secondary afflictions, all arise solely in the mind realm; the rest can arise in dependence on the six consciousnesses.』
Treatise: Briefly speaking, it should be known that among all pride (māna), latent afflictions, and independent secondary afflictions that are severed by view (darśana-prahātavya) and severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya), all such arise in dependence on consciousness. Because there is no possibility of arising in dependence on the five sense consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna-kāya). All the rest can arise in dependence on the six consciousnesses. That is, greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), and ignorance (avidyā) that are severed by cultivation, as well as the secondary afflictions corresponding to them, namely, shamelessness (āhrīkya), lack of embarrassment (anapatrāpya), lethargy (styāna), agitation (auddhatya), and the secondary afflictions included in the mental factors associated with major afflictions (mahākleśabhūmika), namely, indulgence (pramāda), laziness (kausīdya), and lack of faith (āśraddhya). All of these can arise in dependence on the six consciousnesses. It is reasonable to speak generally of all secondary afflictions, but here we speak only of the more obvious ones. It should also be considered, as analyzed previously, which of the five feeling aggregates (pañca vedanā), such as pleasure (sukha), correspond to all the afflictions and secondary afflictions analyzed here? To this end, the afflictions should first be analyzed. The verse says:
『Afflictions of the Desire Realm, greed corresponds to joy and pleasure, hatred corresponds to sorrow and suffering, ignorance pervades, corresponding to the previous four, wrong view corresponds to sorrow and goodness, doubt corresponds to sorrow, the remaining five correspond to joy, all correspond to equanimity, the higher realms all correspond accordingly, pervading the feelings of their own consciousness.』
Treatise: Among the afflictions related to the Desire Realm, greed corresponds to joy (prīti) and pleasure, operating in a joyful manner (harṣa-carita), pervading the six consciousnesses. Hatred corresponds to sorrow (daurmanasya) and suffering (duḥkha), operating in a mournful manner (śoka-carita), pervading the six consciousnesses. Ignorance universally corresponds to the previous four, operating in both joyful and mournful manners, pervading the six consciousnesses. Corresponding to
余煩惱遍相應故。邪見通與憂喜相應。歡戚行轉唯意地故。何緣邪見歡戚行轉。如次先造罪福業故。疑憂相應以戚行轉唯意地故。懷猶豫者求決定知心愁戚故。餘四見慢與喜相應。以歡行轉唯意地故。有餘師說。不應此五唯喜相應。現見此五現行位中亦有憂故。謂世現見執有我者。亦自感傷我受苦故。執我斷者亦生憂戚。故契經言諸愚夫類。於我斷壞心生驚恐。執自苦行為凈勝者。內心必懷極愁戚故。已之聞智族等下劣。每為他人所輕陵者。與慢俱起必有戚故。由是此五亦憂相應。彼說不然異心起故。謂自感傷我受苦者。此但緣苦而自感傷。當於爾時不執有我。若起我見現在前時。於我必應有歡行轉。懷斷見者見斷德故。不因斷相而生驚恐。懷常見者于斷生怖。然生怖位則不計常。執自苦行為凈勝者。必異心中緣自所受。種種苦事而生愁戚。若執苦行為凈勝時。必應生歡見彼德故。為他輕陵而生戚者。如是憂戚必在異心。誰有為他輕陵生戚。而即起慢侮蔑於他。故五喜俱誠為善說。如是別說欲界隨眠。歡戚行殊四受俱已。通說皆與舍受相應。所以者何。以說舍受癡隨增故。無明遍與煩惱相應無簡別故。煩惱相續至究竟時。取境賒緩起處中欲。漸漸衰微相續便斷。爾時煩惱與舍相順。是故皆與舍受相應。豈不捨根非歡非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由於其餘的煩惱普遍相應，所以邪見能夠與憂和喜兩種感受相應。歡快和悲傷的心理活動，僅僅在意識層面運作。為什麼邪見會伴隨歡快和悲傷的心理活動呢？這是因為之前造作了善業和惡業。疑惑與憂愁相應，因為悲傷的心理活動僅僅在意識層面運作。心懷猶豫的人，尋求確定性的認知，內心充滿憂愁和悲傷。其餘的四種見解和驕慢與喜悅相應，因為歡快的心理活動僅僅在意識層面運作。 有些其他的老師說，這五種（邪見、四種見解和驕慢）不應該僅僅與喜悅相應，因為現在可以觀察到這五種在實際運作時，也會有憂愁的情況。例如，世間上可以見到執著于『有我』（Sattvadrsti，認為存在永恒不變的『我』）的人，也會因為『我』受苦而感到悲傷。執著于『我斷滅』（Ucchedadrsti，認為人死後一切皆無）的人，也會產生憂愁和悲傷。所以契經上說，那些愚昧的人，對於『我』的斷滅和壞滅，內心會感到驚恐。執著于以自我折磨為清凈和殊勝修行的人，內心必定懷有極大的愁苦和悲傷。那些因為出身、知識、家族等低劣，經常被他人輕視和欺凌的人，與驕慢同時生起時，必定會有悲傷。 因此，這五種（邪見、四種見解和驕慢）也與憂愁相應。但那種說法是不對的，因為那是不同的心理活動。例如，因為『我』受苦而感到悲傷，這只是因為緣于痛苦而感到悲傷，當他感到悲傷的時候，他並沒有執著于『有我』。如果『我見』（Atma-drsti，認為『我』是真實存在的）生起並呈現時，對於『我』必定會有歡快的心理活動。懷有斷滅見的人，是因為看到了斷滅的益處，而不是因為斷滅的現象而感到驚恐。懷有常見（Sasvata-drsti，認為『我』是永恒存在的）的人，會對斷滅感到恐懼。然而，在感到恐懼的時候，他並沒有執著于常。執著于以自我折磨為清凈和殊勝修行的人，必定是在不同的心理狀態下，緣于自己所遭受的種種痛苦而產生愁苦和悲傷。如果執著于以自我折磨為清凈和殊勝修行時，必定會因為看到自我折磨的益處而感到歡快。因為被他人輕視和欺凌而產生悲傷，這樣的憂愁必定是在不同的心理狀態下產生的。誰會因為被他人輕視和欺凌而感到悲傷，同時又生起驕慢來侮辱和輕蔑他人呢？所以說這五種（邪見、四種見解和驕慢）都與喜悅相應，才是正確的說法。 像這樣分別說明欲界的隨眠煩惱，歡快和悲傷的心理活動各有不同，四種感受（苦、樂、憂、喜）都已說明。總的來說，這些煩惱都與舍受（Upeksha，不苦不樂的感受）相應。這是什麼原因呢？因為經中說，舍受會增長愚癡。無明（Avidya，對事物真相的迷惑）普遍與所有煩惱相應，沒有例外。當煩惱持續到最終階段時，對境界的執取變得緩慢和遲緩，最初生起貪慾的地方，漸漸衰微，最終斷滅。這時，煩惱與舍受相順應，所以都與舍受相應。難道舍根（Upekseindriya，舍受的根源）不是非歡快也非悲傷嗎？
【English Translation】 English version Because the remaining afflictions are universally associated, wrong views can be associated with both sorrow and joy. Joyful and sorrowful mental activities operate solely at the level of consciousness. Why do wrong views accompany joyful and sorrowful mental activities? This is because of previously created good and bad karma. Doubt is associated with sorrow, as sorrowful mental activity operates solely at the level of consciousness. Those who harbor doubts seek definitive knowledge, and their hearts are filled with worry and sadness. The remaining four views and pride are associated with joy, as joyful mental activity operates solely at the level of consciousness. Some other teachers say that these five (wrong views, the four views, and pride) should not be associated solely with joy, because it can be observed that these five also have sorrowful aspects in their actual operation. For example, it can be seen in the world that those who are attached to 'having a self' (Sattvadrsti, the view that there is a permanent and unchanging 'self') also feel sadness because 'I' am suffering. Those who are attached to 'self-annihilation' (Ucchedadrsti, the view that after death, everything ceases to exist) also experience sorrow and sadness. Therefore, the sutras say that those foolish people are terrified in their hearts at the annihilation and destruction of 'self'. Those who are attached to self-mortification as pure and superior practice must harbor extreme sorrow and sadness in their hearts. Those who are often despised and bullied by others because of their inferior birth, knowledge, family, etc., will inevitably have sadness when pride arises. Therefore, these five (wrong views, the four views, and pride) are also associated with sorrow. But that statement is incorrect because those are different mental activities. For example, feeling sad because 'I' am suffering is only because of feeling sad about suffering; when he feels sad, he is not attached to 'having a self'. If 'self-view' (Atma-drsti, the view that 'self' is real) arises and manifests, there must be joyful mental activity regarding 'self'. Those who hold the annihilation view see the benefit of annihilation, not because they are terrified by the phenomenon of annihilation. Those who hold the eternalist view (Sasvata-drsti, the view that 'self' is eternal) are afraid of annihilation. However, when they are afraid, they are not attached to permanence. Those who are attached to self-mortification as pure and superior practice must be in a different mental state, arising from the various sufferings they have endured, and producing sorrow and sadness. If they are attached to self-mortification as pure and superior practice, they must feel joy because they see the benefit of self-mortification. Feeling sad because of being despised and bullied by others, such sorrow must arise in a different mental state. Who would feel sad because of being despised and bullied by others, and at the same time, arise pride to insult and despise others? Therefore, it is correct to say that these five (wrong views, the four views, and pride) are all associated with joy. Explaining the latent afflictions of the desire realm in this way, joyful and sorrowful mental activities are different, and the four feelings (suffering, pleasure, sorrow, joy) have all been explained. Generally speaking, these afflictions are all associated with equanimity (Upeksha, the feeling of neither suffering nor pleasure). What is the reason for this? Because the sutras say that equanimity increases ignorance. Ignorance (Avidya, delusion about the true nature of things) is universally associated with all afflictions, without exception. When afflictions continue to the final stage, attachment to objects becomes slow and sluggish, and the place where desire first arises gradually declines and eventually ceases. At this time, afflictions are in accordance with equanimity, so they are all associated with equanimity. Isn't the root of equanimity (Upekseindriya, the source of equanimity) neither joyful nor sorrowful?
戚。如何歡戚煩惱相應。如處中人俱無違故。謂歡與戚俱起相違。舍于兩邊俱能隨順。是故舍受通與歡戚。煩惱相應亦無有過。又貪瞋性非即歡戚。與歡戚法相隨順故。容可與彼歡戚法相應。由彼相應說為歡戚行。如是舍受性非即歡戚。與欣戚品法相隨順故。容可與彼歡戚品相應。由彼相應說為歡戚行。欲界既爾上地云何。皆隨所應遍與自地。自識俱起諸受相應。謂若地中具有四識。彼一一識所起煩惱。各遍自識諸受相應。若諸地中唯有意識。即彼意識所起煩惱。遍與意識諸受相應。上諸地中識有多少。謂初靜慮具四餘一受有多少。謂初二三四等如次。具喜樂舍。喜舍樂舍唯舍應知。隨諸地中所有煩惱。如應與彼識受相應。何緣二疑俱不決定。而上得與喜樂相應。非欲界疑喜受俱起。以諸煩惱在離欲地。雖不決定亦不憂戚。雖懷疑網無廢情怡。如在人間求得所愛。雖多勞倦而生樂想。有說色界喜樂與疑得相應者。俱寂靜故依平等義。建立相應既等寂靜相應無失。如欲喜根非處生故。相不寂靜疑則不然。由此喜疑無相應理。謂世現見有貧賤人。頭面身支垢膩臭穢。手足皴裂匱食乏衣。復為重擔之所鎮壓。雖遭此等種種艱辛。而有歡娛歌舞嘯詠。或見他苦而反生歡。如是喜根有非處起。疑則不爾故無等義。由不等故無相應
理。有說色界雖復懷疑。而於疑中生善品想。故彼得與喜樂相應。謂彼現見諸離欲者。多分因疑能引正定。有說初二三靜慮中與疑俱生。應全無受故但應與本性受俱。已辯煩惱諸受相應。今次復應辯隨煩惱。頌曰。
諸隨煩惱中 嫉悔忿及惱 害恨憂俱起 慳喜受相應 諂誑及眠覆 通憂喜俱起 憍喜樂皆舍 餘四遍相應
論曰。隨煩惱中嫉等六種。一切皆與憂根相應。以戚行轉唯意地故。有餘師說。惱喜相應見取等流應歡行故。慳喜相應以歡行轉唯意地故。歡行轉者慳相與貪極相似故。諂誑眠覆憂喜相應。歡戚行轉唯意地故。歡戚行者。謂或有時以歡喜心而行諂等。或時有以憂戚心行。有餘師言。既說誑是貪等流故。但應歡行不應說與憂根相應。是歡等流不應戚故。又正誑時不應戚故。或應說誑是癡等流。憍喜樂相應歡行唯意故。在第三靜慮與樂相應。若在下諸地與喜相應。此上所說諸隨煩惱。一切皆與舍受相應。相續斷時皆住舍故。有通行在唯舍地故。舍於一切相應無遮譬如無明遍相應故。余無慚愧惛沉掉舉。四皆遍與五受相應。前二是大不善地法攝故。后二是大煩惱地法攝故。說二及聲顯難及釋。謂于惱誑設難如前。理應釋言果因相別如無慚掉。雖貪等流而與憂苦有相應義。故知所說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 理。有人說，即使是懷疑，也能在懷疑中產生善良的想法，因此他們能夠與喜樂相應。這是因為他們親眼見到許多遠離慾望的人，大多是因為懷疑才能進入正確的禪定。也有人說，在初禪、二禪、三禪中，如果與懷疑同時產生，應該完全沒有感受，所以只應該與本性感受同在。 已經辨析了煩惱與各種感受的相應關係，現在接下來應該辨析隨煩惱。頌文說： 『在各種隨煩惱中，嫉妒、後悔、憤怒和惱怒，以及傷害、怨恨都與憂苦一同生起；慳吝與喜樂感受相應；諂媚、欺誑和昏睡、覆藏，普遍與憂苦和喜樂一同生起；驕慢與喜樂和舍受相應，其餘四種（無慚、無愧、掉舉、昏沉）普遍與五種感受相應。』 論述說：在隨煩惱中，嫉妒等六種，都與憂苦的根本相應，因為憂戚的執行和轉變只在意識層面。有其他老師說，惱怒與喜樂相應，因為惱怒是見取的等流，應該以歡喜執行。慳吝與喜樂相應，因為歡喜的執行只在意識層面。之所以說歡喜執行，是因為慳吝的相狀與貪婪非常相似。 諂媚、欺誑、昏睡、覆藏與憂苦和喜樂相應，因為歡喜和憂戚的執行和轉變只在意識層面。之所以說歡喜和憂戚的執行，是因為有時以歡喜心而行諂媚等，有時也有以憂戚心而行。有其他老師說，既然說欺誑是貪婪的等流，就應該只是歡喜的執行，不應該說與憂苦的根本相應，因為它是歡喜的等流，不應該是憂戚的。而且，真正進行欺誑的時候不應該是憂戚的。或者應該說欺誑是愚癡的等流。 驕慢與喜樂和舍受相應，因為歡喜的執行只在意識層面。在第三禪中與樂受相應，如果在較低的各層境界中則與喜受相應。以上所說的各種隨煩惱，都與舍受相應，因為相續斷絕的時候都處於舍受的狀態。因為有普遍執行只在舍受境界中。舍受與一切相應沒有阻礙，譬如無明普遍相應一樣。其餘的無慚、無愧、昏沉、掉舉，這四種都普遍與五種感受相應。前兩種屬於大不善地法所攝，后兩種屬於大煩惱地法所攝。說『二』以及『聲』，是爲了顯示難以理解並加以解釋。比如對於惱怒和欺誑設定的難題如前所述，應該解釋說果和因的相別，就像無慚和掉舉一樣，雖然是貪婪的等流，但與憂苦有相應的意義，所以要知道所說的是正確的。
【English Translation】 English version Reason. Some say that even with doubt, one can generate good thoughts within that doubt, and therefore they can be associated with joy and happiness. This is because they directly see many who are free from desires, mostly because doubt can lead to correct samadhi (正定, correct concentration). Some say that in the first, second, and third dhyanas (靜慮, meditative states), if doubt arises simultaneously, there should be no feeling at all, so it should only be associated with the inherent feeling. Having discussed the association of afflictions with various feelings, now we should discuss the secondary afflictions. The verse says: 'Among the various secondary afflictions, jealousy, regret, anger, and annoyance, as well as harm and resentment, all arise together with sorrow; stinginess is associated with joy and happiness; flattery, deceit, drowsiness, and concealment are universally associated with sorrow and joy; pride is associated with joy, happiness, and equanimity, and the remaining four (shamelessness, lack of shame, agitation, and torpor) are universally associated with the five feelings.' The treatise says: Among the secondary afflictions, the six, such as jealousy, are all associated with the root of sorrow, because the operation and transformation of sorrow only occur in the realm of consciousness. Some other teachers say that annoyance is associated with joy and happiness, because annoyance is a derivative of clinging to views (見取, clinging to views), and should operate with joy. Stinginess is associated with joy and happiness, because the operation of joy only occurs in the realm of consciousness. The reason for saying that joy operates is that the characteristic of stinginess is very similar to greed. Flattery, deceit, drowsiness, and concealment are associated with sorrow and joy, because the operation and transformation of joy and sorrow only occur in the realm of consciousness. The reason for saying the operation of joy and sorrow is that sometimes flattery, etc., are practiced with a joyful mind, and sometimes they are practiced with a sorrowful mind. Some other teachers say that since deceit is said to be a derivative of greed, it should only be the operation of joy, and should not be said to be associated with the root of sorrow, because it is a derivative of joy, and should not be sorrowful. Moreover, one should not be sorrowful when actually deceiving. Or it should be said that deceit is a derivative of ignorance. Pride is associated with joy, happiness, and equanimity, because the operation of joy only occurs in the realm of consciousness. In the third dhyana (靜慮, meditative state) it is associated with the feeling of pleasure, and if in the lower realms, it is associated with the feeling of joy. All the secondary afflictions mentioned above are associated with the feeling of equanimity, because when the continuum is interrupted, they are all in the state of equanimity. Because there is a universal operation only in the realm of equanimity. Equanimity is associated with everything without obstruction, just like ignorance is universally associated. The remaining shamelessness, lack of shame, torpor, and agitation are all universally associated with the five feelings. The former two are included in the category of greatly unwholesome mental factors, and the latter two are included in the category of great afflictive mental factors. Saying 'two' and 'sound' is to show the difficulty of understanding and to explain it. For example, the difficulties set up for annoyance and deceit are as mentioned before, and it should be explained that the difference between cause and effect is like shamelessness and agitation. Although it is a derivative of greed, it has the meaning of being associated with sorrow, so know that what is said is correct.
與受相應。不唯同因但據相別。許有憂戚而行誑者。情有所憂而行誑故。所說煩惱隨煩惱中。有依異門佛說為蓋。今次應辯蓋相云何。頌曰。
蓋五唯在欲 食治用同故 雖二立一蓋 障蘊故唯五
論曰。如契經言。若說五蓋為不善聚是為正說。所以者何。如是五種純是圓滿不善聚故。其五者何。一欲貪蓋。二瞋恚蓋。三惛眠蓋。四掉悔蓋。五疑蓋。契經既說蓋唯不善。故知唯在欲非色無色界。由此為證知惛掉疑體。雖皆通欲色無色。而但欲界有得蓋名。為顯惛沉掉舉二種唯欲界者。有立為蓋故與眠悔和合而立。眠悔唯是欲界系故。為顯眠悔唯染污者有得蓋名。故與惛沉掉舉二種和合而立。惛掉唯是染污性故。疑準前四在欲可知。何緣欲貪瞋恚疑蓋。各於一體別立蓋名。而彼惛眠掉悔二蓋。各於二體合立蓋名。欲貪瞋疑食治各別。是故一一別立蓋名。由惛與眠及掉與悔。所食能治事用皆同。故體雖殊俱合立一。欲貪蓋食謂可愛相。此蓋對治謂不凈想。瞋恚蓋食謂可憎相。此蓋對治謂慈善根。疑蓋食謂三世。如契經說於過去世生如是疑。乃至廣說此蓋對治。謂若有能如實觀察。緣性緣起惛眠蓋食。謂五種法一𧄼瞢。二不悅。三頻申。四食不平性。五心昧劣性。此蓋對治謂光明想。此蓋事用謂俱能令心性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：與（指煩惱）相應。不只是因為相同的因，而是根據它們各自的差別。允許存在因為憂愁而說謊的情況，因為情緒上有憂慮才會說謊。在所說的煩惱和隨煩惱中，有些是根據不同的角度，佛陀說是蓋（Nivarana，障礙）。現在應該辨析蓋的相狀是怎樣的。頌文說：
『五蓋唯在欲界，因為食、對治、作用相同。 雖然兩種（煩惱）合立一個蓋，因為它們障礙蘊，所以只有五蓋。』
論述：如契經所說：『如果說五蓋是不善的集合，這是正確的說法。』為什麼呢？因為這五種蓋完全是圓滿的不善集合。這五種是什麼呢？一是欲貪蓋（Kāmacchanda-nivaraṇa，對感官快樂的貪求），二是瞋恚蓋（Vyāpāda-nivaraṇa，嗔恨和惡意），三是惛眠蓋（Thīna-middha-nivaraṇa，昏沉和睡眠），四是掉悔蓋（Uddhacca-kukkucca-nivaraṇa，掉舉和後悔），五是疑蓋（Vicikicchā-nivaraṇa，懷疑）。契經既然說蓋只有不善，所以知道蓋只存在於欲界，不存在於色界和無色界。由此可以證明，惛沉、掉舉、疑的本體雖然都通於欲界、色界、無色界，但只有欲界才能得到蓋的名稱。爲了顯示惛沉和掉舉這兩種蓋只存在於欲界，所以將它們立為蓋，因此與睡眠和後悔結合而立。睡眠和後悔只是欲界所繫縛的。爲了顯示睡眠和後悔只有染污的才能得到蓋的名稱，所以將它們與惛沉和掉舉這兩種結合而立。惛沉和掉舉只是染污的性質。疑蓋可以參照前面四種蓋，可知它存在於欲界。為什麼欲貪蓋、瞋恚蓋、疑蓋，各自在一個自體上分別立蓋名，而惛眠蓋、掉悔蓋，各自在兩個自體上合立蓋名呢？因為欲貪、瞋恚、疑的食（滋養）、對治（克服）、作用（效果）各自不同，所以一一分別立蓋名。由於惛沉與睡眠，以及掉舉與後悔，所食（滋養）、能治（克服）、事用（效果）都相同，所以本體雖然不同，卻合立為一個蓋。欲貪蓋的食，是指可愛的相。此蓋的對治，是不凈想。瞋恚蓋的食，是指可憎的相。此蓋的對治，是慈悲的根本。疑蓋的食，是指三世。如契經所說，對於過去世產生這樣的懷疑，乃至廣說。此蓋的對治，是指如果有人能夠如實地觀察緣性緣起。惛眠蓋的食，是指五種法：一是頻頻打哈欠，二是不悅，三是頻繁伸懶腰，四是飲食不調，五是心識昧劣。此蓋的對治，是光明想。此蓋的事用，是指都能使心性
【English Translation】 English version: They correspond with (referring to afflictions). It's not only because of the same cause, but based on their respective differences. It is permissible to have someone who lies because of sorrow, because they lie due to emotional distress. Among the afflictions and secondary afflictions mentioned, some are described as Nivarana (hindrances) by the Buddha from different perspectives. Now, we should discuss what the characteristics of the hindrances are. The verse says:
'The five hindrances exist only in the desire realm, because their nourishment, antidotes, and functions are the same. Although two (afflictions) are combined to form one hindrance, because they obstruct the skandhas (aggregates), there are only five hindrances.'
Treatise: As the sutra says, 'If it is said that the five hindrances are a collection of unwholesome qualities, this is a correct statement.' Why is that? Because these five are purely complete collections of unwholesome qualities. What are these five? First, Kāmacchanda-nivaraṇa (sensual desire hindrance), second, Vyāpāda-nivaraṇa (ill-will hindrance), third, Thīna-middha-nivaraṇa (sloth and torpor hindrance), fourth, Uddhacca-kukkucca-nivaraṇa (restlessness and remorse hindrance), and fifth, Vicikicchā-nivaraṇa (doubt hindrance). Since the sutra says that the hindrances are only unwholesome, it is known that they only exist in the desire realm and not in the form or formless realms. From this, it can be proven that although the substance of sloth, restlessness, and doubt are all present in the desire, form, and formless realms, only the desire realm can obtain the name of hindrance. To show that sloth and restlessness only exist in the desire realm, they are established as hindrances, and therefore combined with sleep and remorse. Sleep and remorse are only bound to the desire realm. To show that only defiled sleep and remorse can obtain the name of hindrance, they are combined with sloth and restlessness. Sloth and restlessness are only of a defiled nature. Doubt can be understood by referring to the previous four hindrances, knowing that it exists in the desire realm. Why are Kāmacchanda (sensual desire), Vyāpāda (ill-will), and Vicikicchā (doubt) each established as a separate hindrance on one self-entity, while Thīna-middha (sloth and torpor) and Uddhacca-kukkucca (restlessness and remorse) are each established as a combined hindrance on two self-entities? Because the nourishment, antidotes, and functions of Kāmacchanda (sensual desire), Vyāpāda (ill-will), and Vicikicchā (doubt) are different, each is established as a separate hindrance. Because the nourishment, antidotes, and functions of sloth and torpor, and restlessness and remorse, are the same, although their substances are different, they are combined to form one hindrance. The nourishment of Kāmacchanda (sensual desire) is the lovely appearance. The antidote to this hindrance is the contemplation of impurity. The nourishment of Vyāpāda (ill-will) is the hateful appearance. The antidote to this hindrance is the root of loving-kindness. The nourishment of Vicikicchā (doubt) is the three times. As the sutra says, such doubts arise about the past, and so on. The antidote to this hindrance is if one can truly observe the nature of dependent origination. The nourishment of Thīna-middha (sloth and torpor) is the five kinds of phenomena: one is frequent yawning, two is displeasure, three is frequent stretching, four is imbalanced diet, and five is dullness of mind. The antidote to this hindrance is the thought of light. The function of this hindrance is that it can cause the nature of the mind to
沈昧。掉悔蓋食謂四種法。一親里尋二國土尋。三不死尋。四隨念昔種種所更。戲笑歡娛承奉等事。此蓋對治謂奢摩他。此蓋事用謂俱能令心不寂靜。由此說食治用同故。惛眠掉悔二合為一。或貪瞋疑是滿煩惱。一一能荷一覆蓋用。惛眠掉悔非滿煩惱。二合方荷一覆蓋用。此五名蓋其義云何。謂決定能覆障聖道。聖道加行故立蓋名。若爾則應諸煩惱等皆得名蓋。一切皆能覆障聖道及加行故。如世尊告諸苾芻言。若為一法所覆障者。則不能了眼是無常一法。謂貪乃至廣說一一別說如雜事中。何故世尊說蓋唯五。理實應爾然佛世尊。于立蓋門唯說五者。唯此於五蘊能為勝障故。謂貪恚蓋能障戒蘊。如次令遠離欲惡故。惛沉睡眠能障慧蘊。此二俱令遠毗缽舍那故。掉舉惡作能障定蘊。此俱令遠奢摩他故。如是四蓋漸次令超出離白法。由此於後令于業果四諦生疑。疑故能令乃至解脫解脫智見皆不得起。故唯此五建立為蓋。若爾掉悔蓋應惛眠。前說順戒定慧蘊。次第而說故不爾。此中壞次第者。世尊意欲顯別義故。謂契經中佛依正理說惛眠蓋毗缽舍那能治非止。說掉悔蓋唯奢摩他能治非觀。此依伏斷說觀止門。別治惛眠掉悔二蓋。若依永斷此觀止門對治一切用無差別。為顯此理故壞次第。豈不契經作如是說。修等持者怖畏惛眠。
【現代漢語翻譯】 沈昧（昏沉）：掉悔蓋（掉舉和後悔）以四種方式作為食物（助長因素）：一是親里尋（對親屬的尋思），二是國土尋（對國土的尋思），三是不死尋（對不死的尋思），四是隨念昔種種所更，戲笑歡娛承奉等事（回憶過去經歷的各種事情，如嬉笑歡樂和承奉之事）。此蓋的對治方法是奢摩他（止），此蓋的作用是使心不能寂靜。因此說，食物的治療作用是相同的，所以昏沉和掉悔二者合為一體。或者，貪、瞋、疑是滿煩惱（強烈的煩惱），每一個都能承擔一個覆蓋的作用。昏沉和掉悔不是滿煩惱，二者合起來才能承擔一個覆蓋的作用。這五種煩惱被稱為蓋，它們的含義是什麼呢？意思是它們決定性地能夠覆蓋和障礙聖道（解脫之道）和聖道加行（為證得聖道所做的努力），因此立名為蓋。如果這樣說，那麼所有的煩惱等都應該被稱為蓋，因為一切煩惱都能覆蓋和障礙聖道及加行。正如世尊告訴諸位比丘說：『如果被一種法所覆蓋和障礙，就不能了知眼是無常的。』這『一法』指的是貪，乃至廣說，一一分別在《雜事》中已經說過。 為什麼世尊只說了五蓋呢？實際上應該是這樣，但佛世尊在建立蓋的範疇時只說了五種，是因為只有這五種對五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）能造成最大的障礙。具體來說，貪和瞋蓋能障礙戒蘊（持戒的功德），因為它們會使人遠離對慾望的厭惡。昏沉和睡眠能障礙慧蘊（智慧的功德），因為它們會使人遠離毗缽舍那（觀）。掉舉和惡作（後悔）能障礙定蘊（禪定的功德），因為它們會使人遠離奢摩他（止）。這四蓋逐漸使人超出和遠離白法（善良的法）。因此，在之後，會讓人對業果和四諦產生懷疑。因為懷疑，能使人乃至解脫和解脫智見都不能生起。所以只有這五種被建立為蓋。如果這樣說，掉悔蓋應該在昏眠之前。因為前面說是順著戒、定、慧蘊的次第而說的，所以不是這樣。這裡破壞次第，是世尊想要顯示不同的意義。也就是說，契經中佛依據正理說，昏眠蓋毗缽舍那（觀）能治療，而非止（奢摩他）。說掉悔蓋只有奢摩他（止）能治療，而非觀（毗缽舍那）。這是依據伏斷（通過壓制來斷除）來說的，觀和止的門徑分別治療昏眠和掉悔二蓋。如果依據永斷（通過徹底根除來斷除），那麼觀和止的門徑在對治一切煩惱的作用上沒有差別。爲了顯示這個道理，所以破壞了次第。難道契經中不是這樣說的嗎？修等持（禪定）的人怖畏昏眠。
【English Translation】 『Stiffness (lethargy)』: Distraction and remorse are nourished by four kinds of 『food』: firstly, seeking within one's relatives; secondly, seeking within one's country; thirdly, seeking immortality; and fourthly, recollecting past experiences, such as amusement, laughter, joy, and acts of service. The antidote to this obscuration is Śamatha (tranquility). The function of this obscuration is to prevent the mind from becoming tranquil. Therefore, it is said that the therapeutic effects of 『food』 are the same, so lethargy and distraction-remorse are combined into one. Alternatively, greed, hatred, and doubt are 『full afflictions』 (intense afflictions), each capable of bearing the burden of one obscuration. Lethargy and distraction-remorse are not 『full afflictions』; only when combined do they bear the burden of one obscuration. These five are called obscurations. What is their meaning? It means they decisively cover and obstruct the Noble Path (the path to liberation) and the preliminary practices for the Noble Path; hence, they are named obscurations. If that is the case, then all afflictions should be called obscurations, as all afflictions can cover and obstruct the Noble Path and its preliminary practices. As the Blessed One told the monks, 『If one is covered and obstructed by one thing, one cannot understand that the eye is impermanent.』 This 『one thing』 refers to greed, and so on, as explained in detail in the Miscellaneous Matters. Why did the Blessed One only mention five obscurations? In reality, it should be so, but the Buddha, when establishing the category of obscurations, only mentioned five because only these five can cause the greatest obstruction to the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Specifically, greed and hatred obscure the skandha of morality (the merit of upholding precepts), as they cause one to turn away from aversion to desires. Lethargy and sleep obscure the skandha of wisdom (the merit of wisdom), as they cause one to turn away from Vipassanā (insight). Distraction and regret obscure the skandha of concentration (the merit of meditation), as they cause one to turn away from Śamatha (tranquility). These four obscurations gradually cause one to transcend and turn away from white dharmas (wholesome qualities). Therefore, afterward, they cause one to doubt the results of karma and the Four Noble Truths. Because of doubt, one cannot generate liberation and the wisdom of liberation. Therefore, only these five are established as obscurations. If that is the case, distraction and remorse should come before lethargy. Because the previous explanation followed the order of the skandhas of morality, concentration, and wisdom, it is not so. Here, the disruption of the order is because the Blessed One wanted to reveal a different meaning. That is, in the sutras, the Buddha, based on right reasoning, said that lethargy can be treated by Vipassanā (insight), not by Śamatha (tranquility). He said that distraction and remorse can only be treated by Śamatha (tranquility), not by Vipassanā (insight). This is based on suppression (overcoming by suppression), the paths of insight and tranquility separately treat the two obscurations of lethargy and distraction-remorse. If based on permanent eradication (overcoming by complete eradication), then the paths of insight and tranquility have no difference in their function of counteracting all afflictions. To reveal this principle, the order is disrupted. Doesn't the sutra say, 『One who cultivates samadhi (meditative concentration) fears lethargy』?
修擇法者怖畏掉悔。由此證知惛眠障定。掉悔障慧其理必然。理必不然互相順故。惛沈順定順上分中。因言已辯掉舉順慧以性捷利似擇法故。非順彼法可言障彼。又若惛眠能障定者。則應許定能治惛眠。不應契經作如是說。惛眠對治謂光明想。掉悔障慧為難亦然。故彼所言唯陳自執。然契經說。修等持者怖畏惛眠。修擇法者怖畏掉悔。此言意別。謂惛眠蓋相順等持。欲修等持惛眠易起。故修定者怖畏惛眠。非謂惛眠近能障定。怖畏掉悔準此應知。若謂契經作如是說。心昧劣位修定非時。心輕躁位修慧非時。故知惛眠近能障定。掉悔障慧理必應然。理亦不然就近說故。謂此經意正說惛眠。於法相中不能簡擇。是故擇法為彼近治惛眠。亦能近障擇法。故昧劣位修定非時。定非惛眠近對治故。惛悔于慧準此應知。若謂經說彼現起位。修此非時故知唯彼但為此障。則不說者障義既無便應非蓋。非不障勝法。而蓋義可成。由此應知俱為俱障。俱為俱治其理必然。但於此中就近障治。故作如是差別而說。有餘別說唯立五因彼說云何。謂在行位先於色等種種境中。取可愛憎二種相故。后在住位由先為因。便起欲貪瞋恚二蓋。此二能障將入定心。由此後時正入定位。于止及觀不能正習。由此便起惛眠掉悔。如其次第障奢摩他毗缽舍那令
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 修習擇法（Dharmapravicaya，選擇和辨別法）的人會怖畏掉舉（Audhatya，心神不定）和追悔（Kaukṛtya，後悔）。由此可以得知，昏沉（Styāna，精神萎靡）和睡眠（Middha，嗜睡）會障礙禪定（Samādhi，專注）。掉舉和追悔會障礙智慧（Prajñā，洞察力），這個道理是必然的。這個道理不必然，因為它們是互相順益的。昏沉和睡眠順益於禪定，因為它們順益於上分（更高的禪定狀態）。 通過以上論述已經辨明，掉舉順益於智慧，因為它具有敏捷和犀利的特性，類似於擇法。但不能因為順益於智慧就說它會障礙智慧。而且，如果昏沉和睡眠能夠障礙禪定，那麼就應該承認禪定能夠對治昏沉和睡眠。但是契經（Sūtra，佛經）中不應作這樣的說法：對治昏沉和睡眠的方法是光明想（Ālokasaṃjñā，觀想光明）。掉舉和追悔會障礙智慧，這個反駁也是一樣的。所以他們所說的話只是陳述自己的執見。 然而，契經中說：『修習等持（Samatā，平靜）的人會怖畏昏沉和睡眠，修習擇法的人會怖畏掉舉和追悔。』這句話的意思是不同的。意思是說，昏沉和睡眠蓋（Āvaraṇa，覆蓋）與等持是相順的。想要修習等持時，昏沉和睡眠容易生起。所以修習禪定的人會怖畏昏沉和睡眠，但不是說昏沉和睡眠直接障礙禪定。怖畏掉舉和追悔也應該按照這個道理來理解。 如果說契經中這樣說：『心識昧劣的時候，修習禪定不是時候；心識輕躁的時候，修習智慧不是時候。』所以可知昏沉和睡眠直接障礙禪定，掉舉和追悔障礙智慧，這個道理必然是這樣。這個道理也不必然是這樣，因為這是就近來說的。意思是說，這部經的本意是說昏沉和睡眠在法的體相中不能進行簡擇。因此，擇法是直接對治昏沉和睡眠的方法，也能直接障礙擇法。所以在心識昧劣的時候，修習禪定不是時候，因為禪定不是直接對治昏沉和睡眠的方法。追悔對於智慧也應該按照這個道理來理解。 如果說經中說，在它們現起的時候，修習這個就不是時候，所以可知只有它們才是這些的障礙。那麼沒有說到的那些，障礙的意義既然不存在，就應該不是蓋。如果不是障礙殊勝之法，那麼蓋的意義就不能成立。由此應該知道，它們互相都是對方的障礙，互相都是對方的對治，這個道理是必然的。但是在這裡，只是就近的障礙和對治來說，所以才這樣差別地進行說明。 還有其他人特別提出，只建立五種原因，他們是怎麼說的呢？他們說：在行位（修行階段）的時候，先在顏色等種種境界中，取可愛和可憎兩種相。然後在住位（安住階段）的時候，由於先前的原因為因，便生起欲貪（Kāmacchanda，對感官快樂的渴望）和瞋恚（Vyāpāda，嗔恨）兩種蓋。這兩種蓋能夠障礙將要進入禪定的心。因此，在之後真正進入禪定的時候，對於止（Śamatha，止息）和觀（Vipaśyanā，內觀）不能正確地修習。因此，便生起昏沉睡眠和掉舉追悔，按照次第障礙奢摩他（Śamatha，止）和毗缽舍那（Vipaśyanā，觀），使它們減弱。
【English Translation】 English version Those who cultivate Dharmapravicaya (selection and discrimination of Dharma) fear Audhatya (restlessness) and Kaukṛtya (remorse). From this, it can be known that Styāna (torpor) and Middha (drowsiness) obstruct Samādhi (concentration). Audhatya and Kaukṛtya obstruct Prajñā (wisdom), which is necessarily the case. This is not necessarily the case, because they are mutually beneficial. Torpor and drowsiness benefit Samādhi because they benefit the higher states of Samādhi. It has been clarified through the above discussion that Audhatya benefits wisdom because it has the characteristics of being quick and sharp, similar to Dharmapravicaya. However, it cannot be said that it obstructs wisdom just because it benefits wisdom. Moreover, if torpor and drowsiness can obstruct Samādhi, then it should be admitted that Samādhi can counteract torpor and drowsiness. However, the Sūtra (Buddhist scripture) should not say that the antidote to torpor and drowsiness is Ālokasaṃjñā (the perception of light). The refutation that Audhatya and Kaukṛtya obstruct wisdom is the same. Therefore, what they say is merely stating their own views. However, the Sūtra says: 'Those who cultivate Samatā (equanimity) fear torpor and drowsiness, and those who cultivate Dharmapravicaya fear Audhatya and Kaukṛtya.' The meaning of this statement is different. It means that the torpor and drowsiness cover (Āvaraṇa) are in accordance with Samatā. When one wants to cultivate Samatā, torpor and drowsiness easily arise. Therefore, those who cultivate Samādhi fear torpor and drowsiness, but it is not said that torpor and drowsiness directly obstruct Samādhi. The fear of Audhatya and Kaukṛtya should also be understood according to this principle. If it is said that the Sūtra says: 'When the mind is dull, it is not the time to cultivate Samādhi; when the mind is restless, it is not the time to cultivate wisdom.' Therefore, it can be known that torpor and drowsiness directly obstruct Samādhi, and Audhatya and Kaukṛtya obstruct wisdom, which is necessarily the case. This is also not necessarily the case, because it is said in the near sense. It means that the intention of this Sūtra is to say that torpor and drowsiness cannot make distinctions in the characteristics of the Dharma. Therefore, Dharmapravicaya is a direct antidote to torpor and drowsiness, and it can also directly obstruct Dharmapravicaya. Therefore, when the mind is dull, it is not the time to cultivate Samādhi, because Samādhi is not a direct antidote to torpor and drowsiness. Remorse towards wisdom should also be understood according to this principle. If it is said that the Sūtra says that when they arise, it is not the time to cultivate this, so it can be known that only they are the obstacles to these. Then, since the meaning of the obstacles that are not mentioned does not exist, they should not be covers. If they do not obstruct the superior Dharma, then the meaning of the covers cannot be established. From this, it should be known that they are mutually obstacles to each other, and they are mutually antidotes to each other, which is necessarily the case. However, here, it is only in terms of the near obstacles and antidotes that these distinctions are made and explained. There are others who specifically propose that only five causes should be established. What do they say? They say that in the stage of practice (行位), one first takes the two kinds of aspects, lovely and hateful, in various realms such as colors. Then, in the stage of abiding (住位), due to the previous causes, the two covers of Kāmacchanda (desire for sensual pleasure) and Vyāpāda (hatred) arise. These two covers can obstruct the mind that is about to enter Samādhi. Therefore, when one truly enters Samādhi later, one cannot correctly cultivate Śamatha (tranquility) and Vipaśyanā (insight). Therefore, torpor and drowsiness, and Audhatya and Kaukṛtya arise, obstructing Śamatha and Vipaśyanā in order, causing them to weaken.
不得起。由此於後出定位中。思擇法時疑復為障。故建立蓋唯有此五。乍可枉謗當聖慈尊。以聖慈尊猶一生隔。未證無等大我智故。寧可枉謗現能寂尊。彼說何緣名枉謗佛。以彼所說前後相違。及與契經理相違故。如何彼說前後相違。謂若欲貪瞋恚二蓋。現起能障將入定心。障既現前何能入定。若別修治伏已入者。則不應言正入定位。于止及觀不能正習。又不能習止及觀者。云何名為正入定位。又彼所說正入定言。為聞思所成。為修所成定。若言我說聞思所成名正入定。則不應說后出定位。思擇法時聞思所成有分別故。即思擇法何待出時。若說我言修所成定。名正入定理亦不然。修所成心正現前位。惛眠掉悔何容現前。若不現前寧障止觀。如何彼說經理相違。謂彼所言惛眠掉悔。如其次第障奢摩他毗缽舍那。違前教理故彼所說。唯立五因無有功能證蓋唯五。由此前說理善可依。何故無明不立為蓋不說成故。如契經說無明所覆覆即是蓋。有餘師說。等荷擔者立諸蓋中。無明於中所荷偏重是故不說。若立無明為一蓋者。一切煩惱所荷障能。合比無明猶不能及。故不立在諸蓋聚中。慢復何緣不立為蓋。以有由慢能修勝法。為蓋義劣不立蓋中。有餘師言。夫為蓋者令心趣下。慢則不然以能令心趣上法故。非慢有力能壓伏心。令
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不得起。因此，在之後出定的狀態中，如果思擇佛法時產生疑惑，就會成為障礙。所以說，蓋障只有這五種（欲貪、瞋恚、惛沉睡眠、掉舉惡作、疑）。 怎麼可以隨意誹謗當今的聖慈尊（指彌勒菩薩，未來佛）呢？因為聖慈尊還隔著一生才能成佛，尚未證得無與倫比的大我智。 更不能隨意誹謗現在能夠寂滅煩惱的世尊（指釋迦牟尼佛）。他們說憑什麼原因說誹謗佛呢？因為他們所說的話前後矛盾，並且與佛經的道理相違背。 他們所說的如何前後矛盾呢？如果說欲貪和瞋恚這兩種蓋障，在將要入定的時候現起，能夠障礙入定之心。既然障礙已經出現，又怎麼能夠入定呢？如果說是通過特別的修行已經降伏了這些蓋障而入定的人，那麼就不應該說正在入定的狀態。對於止（奢摩他，samatha，止息雜念）和觀（毗缽舍那，vipassana，如實觀察）不能正確地修習。又不能修習止和觀的人，怎麼能稱為正在入定的狀態呢？ 而且他們所說的『正入定』，是指通過聽聞和思考所成就的定，還是通過修習所成就的定呢？如果說我說的是通過聽聞和思考所成就的定，稱為『正入定』，那麼就不應該說之後出定的狀態，因為思擇佛法的時候，聽聞和思考所成就的定是有分別的，既然在思擇佛法，又何必等到出定之後呢？如果說我說的是通過修習所成就的定，稱為『正入定』，這個道理也是不成立的。在修習所成就的定正在現前的狀態，惛沉睡眠和掉舉惡作怎麼可能現前呢？如果不現前，又怎麼能障礙止和觀呢？ 他們所說的如何與佛經的道理相違背呢？他們所說惛沉睡眠和掉舉惡作，按照次第障礙奢摩他（止）和毗缽舍那（觀），這與之前的教理相違背。所以他們所說的，僅僅設立五種原因，沒有能力證明蓋障只有五種。因此，之前所說的道理是完全可以依靠的。 為什麼無明（avidya，對事物真相的迷惑）不被立為蓋障呢？因為佛經沒有說無明能夠『成』為蓋障。如佛經所說，『無明所覆』，『覆』就是蓋障。有些論師說，在等同於荷擔重物的那些蓋障中，無明所荷擔的偏重，所以不說它。如果把無明立為一種蓋障，那麼一切煩惱所荷擔的障礙能力，加起來也比不上無明。所以不把無明立在蓋障的集合中。 慢（mana，傲慢）又是什麼原因不被立為蓋障呢？因為有些人可以通過慢來修習殊勝的佛法，作為蓋障的意義就顯得薄弱，所以不把它立為蓋障。有些論師說，凡是作為蓋障的，都會使心趨向低劣。而慢則不然，因為它能夠使心趨向高上的佛法。慢沒有力量能夠壓伏內心，使內心...
【English Translation】 English version Cannot arise. Therefore, in the subsequent state of emerging from samadhi, doubt becomes an obstacle when contemplating the Dharma. Hence, only these five hindrances (desire and craving, aversion and hatred, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt) are established. How can one arbitrarily slander the current Holy Compassionate One (referring to Maitreya Bodhisattva, the future Buddha)? Because the Holy Compassionate One is still separated by one lifetime from becoming a Buddha, and has not yet attained the unparalleled Great Self-Wisdom. Even more so, one cannot arbitrarily slander the World-Honored One (referring to Shakyamuni Buddha) who is now able to pacify afflictions. Why do they say that it is slander against the Buddha? Because what they say is self-contradictory and contradicts the principles of the sutras. How is what they say self-contradictory? If they say that the two hindrances of desire and craving, and aversion and hatred, arise when one is about to enter samadhi, and can obstruct the mind from entering samadhi. Since the obstruction has already appeared, how can one enter samadhi? If it is someone who has already subdued these hindrances through special practice and entered samadhi, then it should not be said that they are currently in the state of entering samadhi. They cannot correctly practice cessation (samatha) and insight (vipassana). And those who cannot practice cessation and insight, how can they be called being in the state of entering samadhi? Moreover, what they say about 'correctly entering samadhi', does it refer to samadhi achieved through hearing and thinking, or samadhi achieved through practice? If they say that what I am talking about is samadhi achieved through hearing and thinking, called 'correctly entering samadhi', then it should not be said that it is a state of emerging from samadhi later, because when contemplating the Dharma, samadhi achieved through hearing and thinking has distinctions. Since one is contemplating the Dharma, why wait until after emerging from samadhi? If they say that what I am talking about is samadhi achieved through practice, called 'correctly entering samadhi', this principle is also not established. In the state where samadhi achieved through practice is currently present, how can sloth and torpor, and restlessness and remorse, possibly arise? If they do not arise, how can they obstruct cessation and insight? How does what they say contradict the principles of the sutras? What they say about sloth and torpor, and restlessness and remorse, obstructing samatha (cessation) and vipassana (insight) in sequence, contradicts the previous teachings. Therefore, what they say, merely establishing five reasons, does not have the ability to prove that there are only five hindrances. Therefore, the principles stated earlier are completely reliable. Why is ignorance (avidya, delusion about the true nature of things) not established as a hindrance? Because the sutras do not say that ignorance can 'become' a hindrance. As the sutras say, 'covered by ignorance', 'covered' is a hindrance. Some teachers say that among those hindrances that are equivalent to bearing heavy burdens, ignorance bears the heaviest burden, so it is not mentioned. If ignorance were established as a hindrance, then the obstructive power borne by all afflictions combined would not be comparable to ignorance. Therefore, ignorance is not included in the collection of hindrances. What is the reason why pride (mana, arrogance) is not established as a hindrance? Because some people can cultivate superior Dharma through pride, the meaning of being a hindrance is weakened, so it is not established as a hindrance. Some teachers say that whatever serves as a hindrance causes the mind to tend towards inferiority. But pride is not like that, because it can cause the mind to tend towards superior Dharma. Pride does not have the power to subdue the mind, causing the mind to...
其趣下故不立蓋。諸見何故不立蓋中。見諸有情闕無我見者。雖執有我而能離染故。有說諸見慧為體故。性捷利故不順蓋義。為蓋必與此義相違。隨煩惱中余不立蓋。準前所說應如理思。上二界惑不立蓋者。離三界染初非障故。初為障故建立蓋名。又上界惑唯無記故。蓋唯不善如前已說。今應思擇諸隨眠等由何而斷。由慧觀見彼所緣故隨眠等斷。若爾欲界他界遍行。及三界中見滅道斷。有漏緣惑應無斷義。緣苦集諦法智忍生。唯緣欲界苦集諦故。緣滅道諦諸智忍生。唯緣無漏為境界故。無如是失。我許諸惑永斷方便有多種故。為有幾種總有四種。何等為四。頌曰。
遍知所緣故 斷彼能緣故 斷彼所緣故 對治起故斷
論曰。斷見所斷惑由前三方便。一由遍知所緣故斷。謂欲界系見苦集斷自界緣惑。色無色界見苦集斷所有諸惑。以上二界他界地緣。亦由遍知所緣斷故。緣苦集諦類智忍生。俱能頓觀二界境故。及通三界見滅道斷。無漏緣惑如是諸惑。皆由遍知所緣斷故。二由斷彼能緣故斷。謂欲界系他界緣惑。以欲界系見苦集斷。自界緣惑能緣于彼。此惑于彼能作依持。依持斷時彼隨斷故。如羸病者卻倚而立。去所倚時彼隨倒故。如何于彼能作依持。由此于彼能為因故。豈不此即說由害因故斷。實爾此
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "因為它們的傾向是低下的，所以不設立蓋（Nivarana，五蓋，即貪慾蓋、嗔恚蓋、睡眠蓋、掉舉惡作蓋、疑蓋）。為什麼在諸見（Drishti，各種錯誤的見解）中不設立蓋呢？因為見到那些缺乏無我見（Anatmadrsti，認為沒有『我』的見解）的有情，即使他們執著于『我』，也能遠離染污。有一種說法是，諸見以智慧為本體，性質敏捷銳利，不符合蓋的定義。成為蓋必定與此定義相違背。在隨煩惱（Upaklesha，細微的煩惱）中，其餘的煩惱不設立蓋，應該按照前面所說的道理來思考。上二界（色界和無色界）的迷惑不設立蓋，是因為它們最初不是修行的障礙。最初是障礙，所以才建立蓋的名稱。而且，上界的迷惑只有無記性（既非善也非惡），而蓋只有不善性，正如前面已經說過的。現在應該思考，諸如隨眠（Anushaya，潛在的煩惱）等煩惱是通過什麼方式斷除的？通過智慧觀見它們所緣的境界，隨眠等煩惱才能斷除。如果這樣，那麼欲界（Kama-dhatu，眾生有情慾唸的界域）和他界（指其他界，如色界、無色界）遍行的，以及三界（Triloka，欲界、色界、無色界）中見滅道所斷的，有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱）緣的迷惑，應該沒有斷除的意義。因為緣苦集諦（Duhkha-satya, Samudaya-satya，苦諦和集諦）的法智忍（Dharma-jnana-ksanti，對苦諦和集諦的智慧忍可）生起，僅僅緣于欲界的苦集諦。緣滅道諦（Nirodha-satya, Marga-satya，滅諦和道諦）的諸智忍生起，僅僅緣于無漏（Anasrava，沒有煩惱）作為境界。沒有這樣的過失。我承認永遠斷除諸惑的方法有多種。總共有幾種？總共有四種。是哪四種？頌曰：
遍知所緣故，斷彼能緣故， 斷彼所緣故，對治起故斷。
論曰：斷見所斷的迷惑，通過前三種方便。第一種是通過遍知所緣的境界來斷除。即欲界系的見苦集所斷的自界緣的迷惑。色界和無色界的見苦集所斷的所有諸惑。以上二界和他界地緣的迷惑，也是通過遍知所緣來斷除的。緣苦集諦的類智忍（Anvaya-jnana-ksanti，對苦諦和集諦的類比智慧忍可）生起，能夠同時觀二界的境界。以及通於三界的見滅道所斷的無漏緣的迷惑，這些迷惑都是通過遍知所緣來斷除的。第二種是通過斷除它們的能緣來斷除。即欲界系的他界緣的迷惑，以欲界系的見苦集斷除自界緣的迷惑，能緣於它們。這些迷惑對於它們能夠作為依靠和支援。依靠和支援斷除時，它們也隨之斷除。就像虛弱的病人靠著東西站立，去掉所依靠的東西時，他們也隨之倒下。如何對於它們能夠作為依靠和支援？因為它們對於它們能夠作為原因。難道這不是說通過損害原因來斷除嗎？確實如此。" ], "english_translations": [ "English version", "Therefore, because their tendency is inferior, no cover (Nivarana, the five hindrances: sensual desire, ill-will, sloth-torpor, restlessness-worry, and doubt) is established. Why are no covers established among the views (Drishti, various wrong views)? Because seeing those sentient beings who lack the view of no-self (Anatmadrsti, the view that there is no 'self'), even if they cling to 'self', they can still be free from defilement. One explanation is that views have wisdom as their essence, and their nature is quick and sharp, which does not accord with the meaning of a cover. To be a cover must contradict this meaning. Among the secondary defilements (Upaklesha, subtle defilements), the remaining defilements are not established as covers, and one should contemplate this according to the principles stated earlier. The afflictions of the upper two realms (the Form Realm and the Formless Realm) are not established as covers because they are not initially obstacles to practice. It is because they are initially obstacles that the name 'cover' is established. Moreover, the afflictions of the upper realms are only neutral (neither good nor evil), while covers are only unwholesome, as has been said before. Now, one should contemplate by what means afflictions such as latent tendencies (Anushaya, latent afflictions) are severed. Latent tendencies and other afflictions are severed by wisely observing the objects they cling to. If so, then the afflictions of the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu, the realm of beings with sensual desires) and other realms (referring to other realms, such as the Form Realm and the Formless Realm) that are pervasive, and those severed by seeing cessation and the path in the three realms (Triloka, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), the afflictions conditioned by outflows (Sasrava, with afflictions), should have no meaning of severance. Because the forbearance of knowledge of the Dharma (Dharma-jnana-ksanti, the acceptance of the wisdom of suffering and its origin) arises in relation to the truths of suffering and its origin (Duhkha-satya, Samudaya-satya), it only relates to the suffering and its origin in the Desire Realm. The arising of the forbearance of knowledge of the other kinds of wisdom (Anvaya-jnana-ksanti, the acceptance of the wisdom of suffering and its origin by analogy) in relation to the truths of cessation and the path (Nirodha-satya, Marga-satya) only relates to the unconditioned (Anasrava, without afflictions) as its object. There is no such fault. I admit that there are many ways to permanently sever afflictions. How many are there in total? There are four in total. What are the four? The verse says:
'By fully knowing the object, by severing their cause, By severing their object, by arising of the antidote, they are severed.'
The treatise says: The afflictions severed by seeing are severed through the first three means. The first is to sever them by fully knowing the object. That is, the afflictions of the Desire Realm that are severed by seeing suffering and its origin, which are conditioned by their own realm. All the afflictions severed by seeing suffering and its origin in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm. The afflictions of the upper two realms and those conditioned by other realms are also severed by fully knowing the object. The forbearance of knowledge of the other kinds of wisdom (Anvaya-jnana-ksanti, the acceptance of the wisdom of suffering and its origin by analogy) arises in relation to the truths of suffering and its origin, and it can simultaneously observe the objects of the two realms. And the afflictions conditioned by the unconditioned that are severed by seeing cessation and the path, which are common to the three realms, all these afflictions are severed by fully knowing the object. The second is to sever them by severing their cause. That is, the afflictions of the Desire Realm that are conditioned by other realms, by severing the afflictions of the Desire Realm that are severed by seeing suffering and its origin, which are conditioned by their own realm, can cause them. These afflictions can serve as a support and basis for them. When the support and basis are severed, they are also severed accordingly. It is like a weak patient standing by leaning on something; when the thing they are leaning on is removed, they also fall down. How can they serve as a support and basis for them? Because they can serve as a cause for them. Isn't this saying that they are severed by harming the cause? Indeed it is." ] }
彼但是異名。然為止濫故作是說。謂欲界惑自他界緣。皆有此彼互為因義。然無此彼展轉相緣。故於此中說能緣斷。欲令易了唯他界緣。由斷此因彼便隨斷。三由斷彼所緣故斷。謂見滅道斷諸有漏緣惑。以無漏緣惑能為彼所緣。所緣斷時彼隨斷故。如羸病者杖策而行。去彼杖時彼隨倒故。何緣於此所斷惑中。有斷能緣故說所緣斷。如緣欲苦集起現觀時。有斷所緣故說能緣斷。如緣諸滅道起現觀時。雖實爾時此彼俱斷。而由所斷有勝有劣。故勝斷時言劣隨斷。謂若於彼惑所緣中。無漏慧生能為對治。彼惑名勝所餘名劣。何緣彼惑偏得勝名。于彼所緣無漏慧起。專為敵彼發功用故。依如是義故可說言。緣欲苦集所起現觀。于自所斷煩惱等中。以自界緣為勝怨敵。緣諸滅道所起現觀。于自所斷煩惱等中。以無漏緣為勝怨敵。由勝斷故余劣隨斷。若許惑斷方便有多。有由能緣斷故隨斷。有由所緣斷故隨斷。何故前說由慧觀見彼所緣故隨眠等斷。但應於此先立宗言。永斷諸惑由多方便。勿先立宗與后解釋言義各異。前後相違如先立宗后釋無異。寧謂我說前後相違。謂我宗言由慧觀見彼所緣故諸惑斷者。此言意顯由慧觀見。欲界所繫見苦集斷。自界緣惑所緣境故。一切欲界見苦見集所斷諸惑皆得永斷。由慧觀見上二界系見苦集斷。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『彼但』是不同的名稱。然而，爲了防止混淆，才這樣說。意思是說，欲界的迷惑，無論是來自自身還是其他界，都有『此』和『彼』互相作為原因的意義。然而，沒有『此』和『彼』輾轉互相作為所緣的情況。因此，在這裡說能緣的斷除，是爲了容易理解只有他界的所緣。因為斷除了這個原因，『彼』就隨之斷除。第三，因為斷除了『彼』的所緣，所以『彼』也被斷除。也就是說，見滅道時斷除各種有漏的所緣惑，因為無漏的所緣惑能夠成為『彼』的所緣。當所緣斷除時，『彼』就隨之斷除。就像體弱多病的人拄著枴杖行走，去掉他的枴杖時，他就隨之倒下。為什麼在這裡所斷除的迷惑中，有斷除能緣而說所緣斷除的情況呢？就像緣欲苦集生起現觀時，有斷除所緣而說能緣斷除的情況。就像緣各種滅道生起現觀時。雖然實際上此時『此』和『彼』都斷除了，但是由於所斷除的有殊勝和低劣之分，因此殊勝的斷除時就說低劣的隨之斷除。也就是說，如果對於那個迷惑的所緣中，生起無漏的智慧能夠作為對治，那個迷惑就稱為殊勝，其餘的稱為低劣。為什麼那個迷惑偏偏得到殊勝的名稱呢？因為對於那個所緣，無漏的智慧生起，專門爲了對抗它而發揮作用。依據這樣的意義，所以可以說，緣欲苦集所生起的現觀，在自身所斷除的煩惱等中，以自身界的所緣作為殊勝的怨敵。緣各種滅道所生起的現觀，在自身所斷除的煩惱等中，以無漏的所緣作為殊勝的怨敵。由於殊勝的斷除，其餘低劣的就隨之斷除。如果允許迷惑的斷除有多種方便，有因為能緣斷除而隨之斷除的，有因為所緣斷除而隨之斷除的。為什麼前面說由於智慧觀見那個所緣，所以隨眠等斷除呢？但應該在這裡先立下宗義說，永遠斷除各種迷惑有多種方便。不要先立下宗義，而後面的解釋的言語意義各不相同。前後互相矛盾，就像先立下宗義，後面解釋沒有不同。寧可說我說前後互相矛盾。我說宗義說由於智慧觀見那個所緣，所以各種迷惑斷除，這句話的意思是顯示由於智慧觀見欲界所繫的見苦集斷，自身界的所緣迷惑的所緣境，一切欲界的見苦見集所斷除的各種迷惑都能夠永遠斷除。由於智慧觀見上二界所繫的見苦集斷。
【English Translation】 English version 'Pidata' (彼但) are different names. However, this is said to prevent confusion. It means that the delusions of the desire realm, whether from oneself or other realms, have the meaning of 'this' and 'that' mutually acting as causes. However, there is no case of 'this' and 'that' mutually acting as objects. Therefore, saying that the cessation of the 'knower' here is to make it easy to understand that it is only the object of other realms. Because this cause is cut off, 'that' is cut off accordingly. Third, because the object of 'that' is cut off, 'that' is also cut off. That is to say, when seeing extinction and the path, various contaminated objects of delusion are cut off, because uncontaminated objects of delusion can become the objects of 'that'. When the object is cut off, 'that' is cut off accordingly. It is like a weak and sick person walking with a cane; when the cane is taken away, he falls accordingly. Why, among the delusions cut off here, is there a case of cutting off the 'knower' and saying that the object is cut off? It is like when the contemplation of suffering and its origin in the desire realm arises, there is a case of cutting off the object and saying that the 'knower' is cut off. It is like when the contemplation of various extinctions and paths arises. Although in reality 'this' and 'that' are both cut off at this time, because there are superior and inferior distinctions in what is cut off, it is said that when the superior is cut off, the inferior is cut off accordingly. That is to say, if uncontaminated wisdom arises in the object of that delusion and can act as an antidote, that delusion is called superior, and the rest are called inferior. Why does that delusion particularly receive the name of superior? Because for that object, uncontaminated wisdom arises and specifically exerts its function to counteract it. According to this meaning, it can be said that the contemplation of suffering and its origin in the desire realm, among the afflictions etc. cut off by oneself, takes the object of one's own realm as the superior enemy. The contemplation of various extinctions and paths, among the afflictions etc. cut off by oneself, takes the uncontaminated object as the superior enemy. Because of the superior cutting off, the remaining inferior is cut off accordingly. If it is allowed that there are many means of cutting off delusions, some are cut off because the 'knower' is cut off, and some are cut off because the object is cut off. Why was it said earlier that because of the wisdom that sees that object, latent tendencies etc. are cut off? But here, one should first establish the thesis that there are many means to permanently cut off various delusions. Do not first establish the thesis, and then have the words and meanings of the later explanation be different. If there are contradictions between the beginning and the end, it is as if there is no difference between establishing the thesis first and explaining it later. It is better to say that I say there are contradictions between the beginning and the end. I say that the thesis says that because of the wisdom that sees that object, various delusions are cut off, and the meaning of this sentence is to show that because of the wisdom that sees the suffering and origin cut off in the desire realm, the object of the delusions of one's own realm, all the various delusions cut off by the suffering and origin seen in the desire realm can be permanently cut off. Because of the wisdom that sees the suffering and origin cut off in the upper two realms.
所有諸惑所緣境故。一切上界見苦集斷諸惑永斷。由慧觀見三界所繫。見滅道斷無漏緣惑所緣境故。一切見滅見道所斷諸惑永斷。非此意顯所有惑斷。二由慧見彼所緣。而後復言我許諸惑永斷方便有多種別。如何可說我先立宗。與后解釋言義各異。故不應謂前後相違。或我但言由慧觀見彼所緣故諸惑斷者。顯余兼斷不說自成。謂若但能由慧觀見彼所緣故彼惑斷時。所餘諸惑能緣斷故。所緣斷故無不斷理。是故從首且略立宗。若由慧見少惑所緣。則一切惑皆隨斷者。何故乃言我許諸惑永斷方便有多種別。但應立有一。謂遍知所緣。非唯立遍知所緣故斷。即能顯所斷惑有二類。一謂與慧所緣境同。二謂與慧所緣境別。由此必有生如是疑。諸惑所緣與慧同者。慧見彼境彼斷可然。余惑所緣與慧異者。彼惑永斷由何方便。由此故說多方便言。顯理遣疑深成有用。或復斷惑定有多門。然立宗中且舉勝者。顯余皆屬此初門故已說三方便。斷見所斷惑斷修所斷惑。由第四方便。謂彼但由治起故斷。以若此品對治道生。即此品中諸惑頓斷。如下下品治道起時。上上品惑即皆頓斷。至上上品治道起時。下下品惑即皆頓斷。如是理趣后當廣辯。豈不一切見所斷惑斷時。亦由對治道起。以若此部對治道生。則此部中諸惑斷故。理實應爾。然于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為所有煩惱都有其所緣的境界。一切上界（指色界和無色界）見苦、見集所斷的各種煩惱都被永遠斷除。這是由於通過智慧觀察並認識到三界所繫縛的（事物）。見滅、見道所斷的無漏緣的煩惱，因為它們所緣的境界被認識到，所以一切見滅、見道所斷的各種煩惱都被永遠斷除。這並非意味著所有煩惱的斷除都僅限於此。 其次，由於通過智慧觀察並認識到那些煩惱所緣的境界，然後又說『我承認永遠斷除各種煩惱的方法有多種不同』。怎麼能說我先立宗，而後面的解釋與前面的言辭意義各不相同呢？因此，不應該說前後矛盾。 或者，我只是說由於通過智慧觀察並認識到那些煩惱所緣的境界，所以那些煩惱被斷除，這表明其餘的煩惱也一併被斷除，而不是說它們自己就能斷除。也就是說，如果僅僅能夠通過智慧觀察並認識到那些煩惱所緣的境界，從而使那些煩惱被斷除，那麼其餘的煩惱因為能緣的（煩惱）被斷除，所緣的（境界）被斷除，就沒有不斷除的道理。 因此，從一開始就先簡略地立宗。如果由於通過智慧觀察並認識到少許煩惱所緣的境界，那麼一切煩惱都會隨之斷除，為什麼還要說『我承認永遠斷除各種煩惱的方法有多種不同』呢？只應該立一種方法，即遍知所緣。不僅僅是立遍知所緣就能斷除，就能顯示所斷的煩惱有兩類：一類是與智慧所緣的境界相同，另一類是與智慧所緣的境界不同。由此必然會產生這樣的疑問：那些煩惱所緣的境界與智慧相同，智慧認識到那些境界，那些煩惱被斷除是可以理解的。但其餘的煩惱所緣的境界與智慧不同，那些煩惱被永遠斷除是通過什麼方法呢？ 因此，才要說多種方法，來顯示道理，消除疑問，從而使其更加深刻和有用。或者，斷除煩惱肯定有很多途徑，但在立宗中先舉出最殊勝的途徑，表明其餘的途徑都屬於這個最初的途徑。已經說了三種方便，斷除見所斷的煩惱，斷除修所斷的煩惱。通過第四種方便，即那些煩惱僅僅通過對治生起而被斷除。如果這一品的對治道生起，那麼這一品中的各種煩惱就會立刻被斷除。如下下品的對治道生起時，上上品（煩惱）就會立刻全部被斷除。到上上品對治道生起時，下下品（煩惱）就會立刻全部被斷除。這樣的道理以後會詳細闡述。 難道不是一切見所斷的煩惱斷除時，也是由於對治道生起嗎？如果這一部的對治道生起，那麼這一部中的各種煩惱就會被斷除。道理確實應該如此。然而，在...
【English Translation】 English version Because all afflictions have their respective objects of cognition. All afflictions severed by insight into suffering and its origin in the upper realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) are permanently eliminated. This is because, through wisdom, one observes and recognizes what binds the Three Realms. Afflictions associated with the unconditioned (無漏) that are severed by insight into cessation and the path, because their objects of cognition are recognized, all afflictions severed by insight into cessation and the path are permanently eliminated. This does not mean that the elimination of all afflictions is limited to this alone. Secondly, because through wisdom one observes and recognizes the objects of cognition of those afflictions, and then it is said, 'I admit that there are many different methods for permanently eliminating various afflictions.' How can it be said that I first establish a thesis, and the subsequent explanation differs in meaning from the preceding words? Therefore, it should not be said that there is a contradiction between the beginning and the end. Or, I merely say that because through wisdom one observes and recognizes the objects of cognition of those afflictions, those afflictions are severed, which indicates that the remaining afflictions are also severed along with them, rather than saying that they can be severed by themselves. That is, if one can merely sever those afflictions by observing and recognizing their objects of cognition through wisdom, then the remaining afflictions, because the cognizing (afflictions) are severed and the objects of cognition are severed, there is no reason why they would not be severed. Therefore, from the beginning, a thesis is first briefly established. If, because through wisdom one observes and recognizes the objects of cognition of a few afflictions, all afflictions are severed along with them, why is it still said, 'I admit that there are many different methods for permanently eliminating various afflictions'? Only one method should be established, namely, completely knowing the objects of cognition. It is not merely that establishing complete knowledge of the objects of cognition can sever them, but it can reveal that there are two types of afflictions to be severed: one type is the same as the objects of cognition of wisdom, and the other type is different from the objects of cognition of wisdom. From this, such a doubt will inevitably arise: those afflictions whose objects of cognition are the same as wisdom, it is understandable that those afflictions are severed when wisdom recognizes those objects. But the objects of cognition of the remaining afflictions are different from wisdom, by what method are those afflictions permanently severed? Therefore, it is necessary to speak of multiple methods to reveal the principle, eliminate doubts, and thereby make it more profound and useful. Or, there are certainly many paths to severing afflictions, but in establishing the thesis, the most excellent path is first mentioned, indicating that the remaining paths all belong to this initial path. Three methods have already been mentioned: severing afflictions that are severed by insight, severing afflictions that are severed by cultivation. Through the fourth method, namely, those afflictions are severed merely because the antidote arises. If the antidote of this category arises, then the various afflictions in this category will be immediately severed. When the antidote of the lowest category arises, the highest category (of afflictions) will be immediately and completely severed. When the antidote of the highest category arises, the lowest category (of afflictions) will be immediately and completely severed. Such a principle will be elaborated on in detail later. Isn't it also because the antidote arises when all afflictions that are severed by insight are severed? If the antidote of this division arises, then the various afflictions in this division will be severed. The principle should indeed be so. However, in...
此中為顯三界修所斷惑。無不皆由九品道。斷治道決定故。說此言見所斷中唯有頂惑對治決定。如前已辯。或見所斷諸惑斷時。方便定三故就別說。修所斷惑能斷方便。不決定故就總而說。豈不所明第四方便。與前宗義有不相關。謂修位中以滅道智。能斷三界修所斷惑。慧非見此惑所緣故。此與宗義實不相關。前宗唯辯見所斷故。設彼總攝亦不相違。見彼惑所緣此惑治生故。所言對治總有幾種。頌曰。
對治有四種 謂斷持遠厭
論曰。諸對治門總有四種。一斷對治。謂道親能斷諸惑得即無間道。二持對治。謂道初與斷得俱生即解脫道。由如是道持斷得故。令諸惑得不相續生。三遠分對治。謂道能令前所斷惑得轉更成遠。即勝進道于解脫道。后所起道名為勝進。乃至彼得俱起生等亦得道名。令與惑得相違諸得相續增故。四厭患對治。謂道隨於何界何地中。見諸過失深生厭患。即是于彼以種種門觀過失義。此唯諸厭作意聚攝。由此勢力設於后時。屬妙境界亦不貪著。應知多分是加行道。若爾何緣于最後說。阿毗達磨非次第求。豈不曾聞何煩徴詰。或不定故說不在初。謂彼非如無間道后定有解脫。解脫道後方有勝進。是故不定以加行道。或有起在無間道前。或有生於勝進道后非決定故。又不定者。謂或有一補
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這裡是爲了闡明三界中通過修行所斷除的迷惑。沒有不是通過九品道來斷除的，因為斷除和治理的道路是確定的。說這句話是因為在見所斷的迷惑中，只有有頂天的迷惑的對治是確定的，這在前面已經辯論過了。或者說，在斷除見所斷的各種迷惑時，方便是確定的，所以就個別地說明。而修所斷的迷惑，能夠斷除的方便是不確定的，所以就總括地說明。難道所闡明的第四種方便，與前面的宗義沒有關聯嗎？也就是說，在修位中，用滅道智慧夠斷除三界中通過修行所斷除的迷惑，因為智慧不是見到這些迷惑所緣的。這與宗義確實沒有關聯，因為前面的宗義只是辯論見所斷的迷惑。假設它總括了，也不相違背，因為見到那些迷惑所緣，這些迷惑的對治就產生了。所說的對治總共有幾種？頌詞說：
『對治有四種，謂斷持遠厭』
論述說：各種對治的方法總共有四種。第一種是斷對治，指的是道親能夠斷除各種迷惑的獲得，也就是無間道（Anantarya-marga）。第二種是持對治，指的是道最初與斷除的獲得同時產生，也就是解脫道（Vimukti-marga）。由於這樣的道保持著斷除的獲得，所以使各種迷惑的獲得不再相續產生。第三種是遠分對治，指的是道能夠使先前所斷除的迷惑的獲得變得更加遙遠，也就是勝進道（Visesa-marga），在解脫道之後所產生的道被稱為勝進道，乃至那些獲得同時產生等等，也都可以稱為道，因為它使與迷惑的獲得相違背的各種獲得相續增長。第四種是厭患對治，指的是道隨著在哪個界、哪個地中，見到各種過失，深深地產生厭惡，也就是在那裡用各種方法觀察過失的意義。這只是各種厭惡的作意所包含的。由於這種力量，即使在以後，屬於美妙的境界，也不會貪戀執著。應該知道大部分是加行道（Prayoga-marga）。如果這樣，為什麼在最後說呢？阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）不是按次第來尋求的。難道不曾聽說過嗎？何必煩惱地追問呢？或者因為不確定，所以不在最初說。也就是說，它不像無間道之後一定有解脫道，解脫道之後才有勝進道。所以是不確定的，因為加行道，或者有在無間道之前產生的，或者有在勝進道之後產生的，不是確定的。又說不確定，指的是或者有一個補特伽羅（Pudgala）
【English Translation】 English version: Here, it is to elucidate the afflictions severed by cultivation in the Three Realms. None are not severed by the Ninefold Path, because the path of severance and governance is definite. Saying this is because, among the afflictions severed by view, only the counteractive force against the afflictions of the Peak of Existence is definite, as has been debated earlier. Or, when severing the various afflictions severed by view, the means are definite, so it is explained individually. But the means to sever the afflictions severed by cultivation are indefinite, so it is explained collectively. Does not the fourth means elucidated have no connection with the previous tenet? That is, in the stage of cultivation, the afflictions severed by cultivation in the Three Realms can be severed by the Wisdom of Cessation and the Wisdom of the Path, because wisdom does not see what these afflictions take as their object. This truly has no connection with the tenet, because the previous tenet only debated the afflictions severed by view. Supposing it encompasses them all, it is not contradictory, because seeing what those afflictions take as their object, the counteractive force against these afflictions arises. How many kinds of counteractive forces are there in total? The verse says:
'Counteractive forces are of four kinds, namely, severance, maintenance, distance, and aversion.'
The treatise says: The methods of counteractive forces are generally of four kinds. The first is the counteractive force of severance, referring to the path that is close and able to sever the attainment of various afflictions, which is the Immediate Path (Anantarya-marga). The second is the counteractive force of maintenance, referring to the path that initially arises simultaneously with the attainment of severance, which is the Path of Liberation (Vimukti-marga). Because this path maintains the attainment of severance, it prevents the attainment of various afflictions from arising continuously. The third is the counteractive force of distance, referring to the path that makes the attainment of the previously severed afflictions become more distant, which is the Path of Superior Progress (Visesa-marga). The path that arises after the Path of Liberation is called the Path of Superior Progress, and even those attainments that arise simultaneously, etc., can also be called paths, because it continuously increases the various attainments that are contrary to the attainment of afflictions. The fourth is the counteractive force of aversion, referring to the path that, in whatever realm or plane, sees various faults and deeply generates aversion, which is the meaning of observing faults in various ways there. This is only encompassed by the various mental fabrications of aversion. Because of this power, even later, belonging to wonderful realms, one will not be greedy or attached. It should be known that most of it is the Preparatory Path (Prayoga-marga). If so, why is it said last? The Abhidharma (Abhidharma) is not sought in sequence. Have you not heard this before? Why bother to question it annoyingly? Or, because it is indefinite, it is not said at the beginning. That is, it is not like the Path of Liberation that necessarily follows the Immediate Path, and the Path of Superior Progress that only follows the Path of Liberation. Therefore, it is indefinite, because the Preparatory Path either arises before the Immediate Path or arises after the Path of Superior Progress, it is not definite. Furthermore, saying it is indefinite refers to either a Pudgala (Pudgala)
特伽羅由一加行。乃至證得阿羅漢果。或二或多是故不定。又不定者無間道等如前加行。亦能與后為加行故不可定言。唯爾所是加行道攝說多分言。應知為顯無間解脫勝進道中緣苦集諦者。亦厭患對治已說惑對治。當辯斷惑理諸惑永斷為定從何。為從所緣。為從相應。為從自性。何故生疑。於此三種皆見過故。且不應說斷從所緣。謂若此法是彼所緣。未曾有時非所緣故。亦不可說斷從相應。謂相應法互為因故。此法無時非因性故。又由此惑令心成染。此心無時成不染故。亦不可說斷從自性。謂法無容舍自性故。以斷惑時不可令彼所斷諸法失所斷性。是故應思惑從何斷。頌曰。
應知從所緣 可令諸惑斷
論曰。諸惑永斷定從所緣。以于所緣遍知力故。令惑永斷如前已說。然惑所緣總有二種。謂有系事及無系事。緣有系事為境諸惑。及從此惑力所引生。不緣此事為境諸惑。如是二惑於一有情。現相續中引起諸得。設無染污心現在前。此得恒行無有間斷。為去來世諸惑果因。如是應知緣無系事為境諸惑及因此惑勢力所引。隨後現行不緣此事。為境諸惑所引起得類亦同前。言為去來惑果因者。謂此諸得在現世時。是過去惑等流性故說之為果。是未來惑生緣性故說之為因。然此諸得與斷對治。等流諸得現行相違。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：特伽羅（Tegalo，一種修行方法）通過一次加行，乃至證得阿羅漢果（Arahan Fruit，佛教修行的最高果位），或者兩次或者多次，所以是不定的。又說不定者，如無間道（Anantarika-marga，直接通往解脫的道路）等，如之前的加行，也能為之後的加行，所以不可確定地說只有那些是加行道所攝。說『多分』，應當知道是爲了顯示在無間解脫勝進道中，緣苦集諦（Dukkha-samudaya-satya，苦和苦的根源的真理）者，也厭患對治，已經說了惑的對治，當辨析斷惑的道理，諸惑的永斷決定是從哪裡開始的？是從所緣（alambana，對像）？是從相應（samprayukta，伴隨）？是從自性（svabhava，自身性質）？為什麼會產生疑問？因為對於這三種都見過過失。而且不應該說斷是從所緣開始的，如果這個法是那個所緣，那麼未曾有哪個時候不是所緣的緣故。也不可說斷是從相應開始的，因為相應法互為因的緣故，這個法沒有哪個時候不是因性的緣故。又因為這個惑令心成為染污，這個心沒有哪個時候不是染污的緣故。也不可說斷是從自性開始的，因為法沒有容捨棄自身性質的緣故。因為斷惑時不可令那些所斷的諸法失去所斷的性質。所以應該思考惑是從哪裡斷的。頌曰： 『應知從所緣，可令諸惑斷。』 論曰：諸惑的永斷決定是從所緣開始的。因為對於所緣的遍知力，令惑永斷，如前已經說過。然而惑的所緣總共有兩種，即有系事（saṃyojana-vastu，束縛之事物）和無系事（asaṃyojana-vastu，非束縛之事物）。緣有系事為境的諸惑，以及從此惑的力量所引發的，不緣此事為境的諸惑，像這樣的兩種惑，在一個有情的現相續中引起諸得（lābha，獲得）。假設沒有染污心現在面前，這個得恒常執行沒有間斷，作為去來世諸惑的果和因。像這樣應該知道緣無系事為境的諸惑，以及因此惑勢力所引發的，隨後現行不緣此事為境的諸惑所引起的得的種類也和前面一樣。說作為去來惑的果和因，是指這些得在現世時，是過去惑的等流性，所以說之為果；是未來惑的生緣性，所以說之為因。然而這些得與斷的對治，等流的諸得現行相違。
【English Translation】 English version: Tegalo (Tegalo, a type of practice) through one application, up to attaining the Arahan Fruit (Arahan Fruit, the highest fruit of Buddhist practice), or two or more times, so it is uncertain. Furthermore, the uncertain ones, such as the Anantarika-marga (Anantarika-marga, the path directly leading to liberation), like the previous applications, can also be applications for the subsequent ones, so it cannot be definitively said that only those are included in the path of application. Saying 'mostly' should be understood as to show that in the path of uninterrupted liberation and progress, those who contemplate the Dukkha-samudaya-satya (Dukkha-samudaya-satya, the truth of suffering and the origin of suffering) also detest the counteractions. The counteractions to afflictions have already been discussed. The principle of cutting off afflictions should be analyzed. From where does the permanent cutting off of afflictions definitively begin? Is it from the alambana (alambana, object)? Is it from the samprayukta (samprayukta, associated)? Is it from the svabhava (svabhava, self-nature)? Why does doubt arise? Because faults have been seen in all three of these. Moreover, it should not be said that cutting off begins from the alambana, because if this dharma is that alambana, then there has never been a time when it was not the alambana. Nor can it be said that cutting off begins from the samprayukta, because associated dharmas are mutually causal, and this dharma is never without the nature of being a cause. Furthermore, because this affliction causes the mind to become defiled, and this mind is never not defiled. Nor can it be said that cutting off begins from the svabhava, because dharmas cannot relinquish their own nature. Because when cutting off afflictions, it is impossible to make those dharmas that are being cut off lose their nature of being cut off. Therefore, it should be considered from where afflictions are cut off. The verse says: 『It should be known that from the alambana, afflictions can be cut off.』 The treatise says: The permanent cutting off of afflictions definitively begins from the alambana. Because of the power of complete knowledge of the alambana, afflictions are permanently cut off, as has been said before. However, the alambana of afflictions are generally of two types, namely saṃyojana-vastu (saṃyojana-vastu, things that bind) and asaṃyojana-vastu (asaṃyojana-vastu, things that do not bind). The afflictions that take saṃyojana-vastu as their object, and those that are induced by the power of these afflictions, and do not take this thing as their object, these two types of afflictions, in the present continuum of a sentient being, give rise to gains (lābha, acquisition). Even if a defiled mind is not present, this gain constantly operates without interruption, as the fruit and cause of afflictions in the past and future. In this way, it should be known that the types of gains caused by the afflictions that take asaṃyojana-vastu as their object, and those that are induced by the power of these afflictions, and subsequently operate without taking this thing as their object, are also the same as before. Saying that they are the fruit and cause of afflictions in the past and future means that these gains, when they are in the present, are of the nature of being an outflow of past afflictions, so they are called the fruit; they are of the nature of being the cause of future afflictions, so they are called the cause. However, these gains are contrary to the counteractions of cutting off, and the present operation of gains that are of the same outflow.
能持去來所得諸惑故。令一切緣此事惑及緣余惑相續而轉。緣此事境諸斷對治。等流起時惑得便絕。所得諸惑于自所緣。雖體猶有而由因果得永絕故可說名斷。以于少境若未遍知。緣此境惑及因此惑力所引起。緣余境惑所引去來。惑果因得現相續中無間而轉。若於少境得遍知時。惑所引得便不復轉。故知惑斷定從所緣。然於此中雖惑與道無俱行理。而道觀見苦等境故諸惑便斷。此義難了應舉喻明。譬如有人為鼠所嚙。雖無熱悶迷亂等時。而由熱等因毒在身故。恒名有病者非無病人。要服毒相違阿揭陀藥方名無病者非有病人。雖阿揭陀與熱等病。不俱時在一身中行。而阿揭陀威德力故。滅身中毒熱等不生。說阿揭陀能除眾病。如是聖道雖與諸惑。不俱時在一身中行。而聖道生威德力故。滅果因得諸惑不生。能令行者身器清凈。惑不續故說名為斷。已說諸惑永斷所從。如前所言遠分對治。一切遠性總有幾種。頌曰。
遠性有四種 謂相治處時 如大種尸羅 異方二世等
論曰。一切遠性總有四種。一相遠性如四大種。雖復俱在一聚中生。以相異故亦名為遠。二治遠性如持犯戒。雖復俱在一身中行。以相治故亦名為遠。三處遠性如海兩岸。雖復俱在一大海邊。方處隔故亦名為遠。四時遠性如去來世。雖復俱
依一法上立。時分隔故亦名為遠。望何說遠望。現在世無間已滅。及正生時。與現相鄰如何名遠。彼非一切五識境故。亦非一分意識境故。或時分中有作用者。說名為近過去未來。定無作用故說名遠。不可難言諸無為法。永無作用應名為遠。以時遠近依時而立。故於三時若有作用說名為近。若無作用說名為遠。諸無為法越一切時。如何約時難令成遠。如處遠近依處而立非處不然。若難無為相有異故。應成相遠理亦無遮。相遠貫通一切法故。若爾何故無為名近。且虛空體遍一切處。相無礙故說名為近。非擇滅體不由功用。於一切體一切處時。皆可得故說名為近。擇滅無為諸有精進。正修行者斷諸惑時。於一切體無有差別。速證得故說名為近。無為名近理趣既然。而經主說去來二世例亦應然。謂在去來靜慮等法。如無為法等速得故亦應近者。由先釋理為例不成。無多有情於一切體。無有差別共得義故。或許例然亦無有失。如一切法雖互相望。相有異故皆名相遠。而依余理許說少分名近無失。如是去來雖約時分。無作用故皆名時遠。而依余理許說少分名近無失。非依余理名為遠故。與相時分遠義相違。有餘師言。由近勝解所證得故解脫名近。謂現勝解觀解脫時。如對目前而證得故。如何現世說名為近。以與時遠相有異故。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 基於一種法而建立。因為時間間隔的緣故，也被稱為『遠』。根據什麼來說『遠』呢？已滅的過去世和正在產生的現在世，與現在相鄰，為什麼稱為『遠』呢？因為它們不是一切五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的境界，也不是一部分意識的境界。或者說，在時間段中有作用的，就稱為『近』，過去和未來，因為確定沒有作用，所以稱為『遠』。不能用『所有的無為法，永遠沒有作用，應該稱為遠』來反駁。因為時間的遠近是根據時間而建立的，所以在過去、現在、未來這三時中，如果有作用就稱為『近』，如果沒有作用就稱為『遠』。無為法超越一切時間，怎麼能用時間來使它成為『遠』呢？就像處所的遠近是根據處所而建立，不是處所就不是這樣。如果反駁說無為法的相狀有差異，應該成為相狀上的『遠』，這個道理也沒有什麼可以阻礙的，因為相狀上的『遠』貫通一切法。如果這樣，為什麼無為法被稱為『近』呢？暫且說虛空的本體遍及一切處所，相狀上沒有障礙，所以稱為『近』。非擇滅（通過智慧力量使煩惱永不生起的無為法）的本體，不依賴於任何功用，在一切本體、一切處所、一切時間，都可以得到，所以稱為『近』。擇滅（通過智慧抉擇而證得的涅槃）這種無為法，那些精進修行的修行者，在斷除各種迷惑的時候，對於一切本體沒有差別，迅速證得，所以稱為『近』。無為法被稱為『近』，道理就是這樣。而經論的作者說，過去和未來二世的情況也應該如此，即存在於過去和未來的靜慮等法，像無為法一樣容易獲得，也應該稱為『近』。因為先前的解釋，這個比喻是不成立的，因為沒有很多有情對於一切本體，沒有差別地共同獲得。或許可以這樣比喻，也沒有什麼過失。就像一切法雖然互相觀望，相狀有差異，都稱為相狀上的『遠』，但是根據其他的道理，允許說少部分是『近』，也沒有什麼過失。像這樣，過去和未來雖然根據時間，沒有作用，都稱為時間上的『遠』，但是根據其他的道理，允許說少部分是『近』，也沒有什麼過失。不是根據其他的道理稱為『遠』，所以與相狀和時間上的『遠』的意義相違背。 有其他老師說，因為通過接近殊勝的勝解所證得的緣故，解脫稱為『近』。即現在通過殊勝的勝解觀察解脫的時候，就像面對面一樣證得。為什麼現在世被稱為『近』呢？因為它與時間上的『遠』的相狀有差異。也就是說，
【English Translation】 English version: It is established based on a single dharma. Due to the separation of time, it is also called 'distant'. Based on what is 'distant' spoken of? The past world that has ceased and the present world that is just arising, being adjacent to the present, how are they called 'distant'? Because they are not the realm of all five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness), nor are they the realm of a portion of consciousness. Or, those that have function in a period of time are said to be 'near'; the past and future, because they are determined to have no function, are said to be 'distant'. It cannot be refuted by saying that 'all unconditioned dharmas, having no function forever, should be called distant'. Because the nearness and distance of time are established based on time, therefore, in the three times of past, present, and future, if there is function, it is called 'near'; if there is no function, it is called 'distant'. Unconditioned dharmas transcend all time; how can time be used to make them 'distant'? Just as the nearness and distance of a place are established based on the place, it is not so if it is not a place. If it is refuted that the characteristics of unconditioned dharmas are different, and they should become 'distant' in terms of characteristics, there is nothing to prevent this reasoning, because 'distance' in terms of characteristics pervades all dharmas. If so, why are unconditioned dharmas called 'near'? Let us say that the essence of space pervades all places, and there is no obstruction in terms of characteristics, so it is called 'near'. The essence of Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment, an unconditioned dharma achieved through wisdom that prevents afflictions from arising again) does not depend on any effort; it can be attained in all essences, all places, and all times, so it is called 'near'. Nirodha-samāpatti, this unconditioned dharma, when those diligent practitioners are cutting off various delusions, there is no difference in relation to all essences, and they quickly attain it, so it is called 'near'. The reason why unconditioned dharmas are called 'near' is thus. And the author of the sutra says that the situation of the past and future two worlds should also be the same, that is, the dhyanas (meditative states) and other dharmas that exist in the past and future, being as easy to attain as unconditioned dharmas, should also be called 'near'. Because of the previous explanation, this analogy is not valid, because there are not many sentient beings who, in relation to all essences, attain them together without difference. Perhaps this analogy can be made, and there is no fault. Just as all dharmas, although looking at each other, have differences in characteristics and are all called 'distant' in terms of characteristics, but according to other reasons, it is permissible to say that a small portion is 'near', and there is no fault. In this way, although the past and future are based on time, having no function, they are all called 'distant' in terms of time, but according to other reasons, it is permissible to say that a small portion is 'near', and there is no fault. It is not called 'distant' based on other reasons, so it contradicts the meaning of 'distance' in terms of characteristics and time. Other teachers say that because liberation is attained through approaching superior adhimukti (conviction), liberation is called 'near'. That is, when observing liberation through superior adhimukti in the present, it is attained as if face to face. Why is the present world called 'near'? Because it has a difference in characteristics from 'distance' in terms of time. That is to say,
現在世可有普為一切識境有作用故。經主此中作如是說。若依正理應說去來。離法自相故名為遠。未來未得法自相故。過去已舍法自相故。彼說偏與正理相違。諸自相無皆非遠性。此成遠性必有自相。遠性攝故如余遠性。謂見所餘相遠性等。是遠性攝自相非無。既許去來是遠性攝。必應許彼自相非無。說自相無而名遠性。故彼偏與正理相違。等聲為明舉法未盡。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之十二
如是已辯諸惑對治。修能對治勝進位中。所斷諸惑為再斷不。所得離繫有重得耶。頌曰。
諸惑無再斷 離繫有重得 謂治生得果 練根六時中
論曰。所斷諸惑由得自分。無間道故便頓永斷。離退後時無再斷義。斷已復斷則為唐捐。所得離系雖無隨道漸勝進理。而道進時容有重起彼勝得理。以離系得道所攝故舍得道時彼亦捨得。故諸離繫有重得理此依容有。時總有六謂治道起得果練根。說治生言通目二義。若據住此能證離系目無間道。若據住此正證離系目解脫道。言得果者。謂得預流一來不還阿羅漢果。言練根
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 現在世是否普遍對一切識境起作用呢？經論作者在這裡這樣說：如果依據正理，應該說過去和未來，因為它們離開了法的自相，所以稱為『遠』。未來是因為尚未獲得法的自相，過去是因為已經捨棄了法的自相。他們的說法完全與正理相違背。所有自相不存在的事物都不是『遠』的性質。如果成立為『遠』的性質，必定有其自相。因為被『遠』的性質所包含，就像其餘的『遠』的性質一樣，比如可見的其餘相的『遠』的性質等。既然被『遠』的性質所包含，自相就不是不存在的。既然允許過去和未來是被『遠』的性質所包含，就必定應該允許它們的自相不是不存在的。說自相不存在卻稱為『遠』的性質，所以他們的說法完全與正理相違背。『等』字是爲了表明所舉的法還沒有窮盡。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十五 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯隨眠品第五之十二
像這樣已經辨析了各種煩惱的對治。在修習能對治的殊勝進階位中，所斷的各種煩惱是否會被再次斷除呢？所獲得的離系（Visesa：解脫）是否會重新獲得呢？頌文說：
『諸惑無再斷，離繫有重得，謂治生得果，練根六時中。』
論述：所斷的各種煩惱，由於獲得了自己的部分，通過無間道（anantarya-marga：無間道）的緣故，便立即永遠斷除。在退轉之後，沒有再次斷除的道理。斷除之後又再次斷除，那就成了徒勞無功。所獲得的離系，雖然沒有隨著道（marga：道）的漸次殊勝進階的道理，但是當道進階時，容許有重新生起那殊勝獲得的道理。因為離系被道所攝持，所以在捨棄獲得道的時候，它也捨棄獲得。所以各種離繫有重新獲得的道理，這依據的是容許有的情況。總共有六個時機，分別是治道生起、獲得果位、鍛鍊根器。說『治生』一詞，概括了兩種含義。如果根據安住於此能夠證得離系來說，指的是無間道。如果根據安住於此正在證得離系來說，指的是解脫道（vimukti-marga：解脫道）。說『得果』，指的是獲得預流（srota-apanna：預流）、一來（sakrd-agamin：一來）、不還（anagamin：不還）、阿羅漢（arhat：阿羅漢）果。
【English Translation】 English version: Does the present time universally operate on all cognitive realms? The author of the treatise says here: If according to right reason, one should speak of the past and the future, because they are separated from the self-nature of dharmas, therefore they are called 'distant'. The future is because the self-nature of dharmas has not yet been obtained, and the past is because the self-nature of dharmas has already been abandoned. Their statement completely contradicts right reason. All things whose self-nature does not exist are not of the nature of 'distance'. If it is established as the nature of 'distance', it must have its self-nature. Because it is included in the nature of 'distance', just like the remaining natures of 'distance', such as the visible remaining aspects of the nature of 'distance', etc. Since it is included in the nature of 'distance', the self-nature is not non-existent. Since it is allowed that the past and the future are included in the nature of 'distance', it must be allowed that their self-nature is not non-existent. Saying that the self-nature does not exist but calling it the nature of 'distance', therefore their statement completely contradicts right reason. The word 'etc.' is to indicate that the dharmas mentioned are not yet exhausted.
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 55 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 56
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 5.12: Discussion on Latent Defilements
Having thus discussed the antidotes to various afflictions, in the stage of superior progress of cultivating the antidotes, are the various afflictions that have been severed severed again? Is the obtained separation (Visesa: liberation) obtained again? The verse says:
'Afflictions are not severed again; separation can be obtained again; namely, the arising of the path of treatment, obtaining the fruit, and cultivating the roots in six times.'
Commentary: The various afflictions that have been severed, because one obtains one's own part, are immediately and permanently severed due to the path of immediate succession (anantarya-marga: path of immediate succession). After regression, there is no reason for severing again. Severing again after severing would be in vain. The obtained separation, although there is no reason for gradual superior progress along with the path (marga: path), when the path progresses, it is permissible to have the reason for the superior attainment of re-arising. Because separation is included in the path, when abandoning the attainment of the path, it also abandons the attainment. Therefore, various separations have the reason for being obtained again, which is based on permissible situations. There are a total of six occasions, namely, the arising of the path of treatment, obtaining the fruit, and cultivating the roots. The term 'arising of treatment' encompasses two meanings. If based on abiding in this, one can realize separation, it refers to the path of immediate succession. If based on abiding in this, one is currently realizing separation, it refers to the path of liberation (vimukti-marga: path of liberation). 'Obtaining the fruit' refers to obtaining the fruit of stream-enterer (srota-apanna: stream-enterer), once-returner (sakrd-agamin: once-returner), non-returner (anagamin: non-returner), and arhat (arhat: arhat).
者謂增進根。由此六時得未曾道。有舍曾道得離系故。說得果言既無差別。如攝四果應攝練根。以轉根時必得果故。何勞長說此練根言。為顯練根異斷惑得果故。得果外說練根無失。然得離系隨其所應。有具六時乃至唯二。謂欲界系見四諦斷。及色無色見三諦斷。所得離系得具六時。色無色界見道諦斷。所得離系得唯五時。由治生時即得果故。說得果已不說治生。欲界修斷五品離系。亦五時得除預流果。第六離系得唯四時。得果治生時無別故第七八品亦唯四時。得果四中除前二故。第九離系得唯三時。亦治生時即得果故。色無色界修所斷中。唯除有頂第九離系。所餘離系亦唯三時。得果四中除前三故。有頂第九得唯二時。得果治生同一時故。此約鈍說若就利根。前諸位中除練根得。豈不八地容世俗道斷。應分二種對治生時得不爾。此說漸次得故。惑此唯約無漏得故。若依越次通有漏得。則世俗道八地染中隨離少多。入聖道者彼得離系。隨其所應有具六時。乃至唯一以利根故除練根時。謂欲界中先斷五品入見諦者。彼見所斷五品離系。具六時得。謂有二種自治生時。及得果時復四成六。彼修所斷五品離系。唯五時得除預流果。先斷六品入見諦者。彼見所斷六品離系。亦五時得除一如前。彼修所斷六品離系。唯世俗道治生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這被稱為增進根（zēngjìn gēn，furthering of the roots of good）。由此，六個時段都能獲得未曾獲得的道（dào，path）。因為捨棄了曾經獲得的道，從而獲得了解脫束縛，所以說獲得果位（guǒwèi，fruition）。既然沒有差別，如同包含四果（sì guǒ，four fruits of liberation），就應該包含練根（liàngēn，cultivation of roots）。因為轉根（zhuǎngēn，transformation of roots）之時必定獲得果位。何必多說這練根之言呢？爲了顯示練根不同於斷惑（duànhuò，severing of afflictions）而獲得果位。在獲得果位之外說練根沒有過失。然而，獲得解脫束縛，根據情況，有的具足六個時段，乃至只有兩個時段。 所謂欲界（yùjiè，desire realm）所繫的見四諦（jiàn sìdì，seeing the Four Noble Truths）而斷除的，以及色界（sèjiè，form realm）和無色界（wúsèjiè，formless realm）所見的見三諦（jiàn sāndì，seeing the three truths）而斷除的，所獲得的解脫束縛，能具足六個時段。色界和無色界見道諦（jiàn dàodì，seeing the truth of the path）而斷除的，所獲得的解脫束縛，只有五個時段。因為在對治生起之時就獲得了果位，所以說了獲得果位之後，就不再說對治生起。欲界修斷（xiūduàn，cultivation to be abandoned）的五品離系（wǔpǐn líxì，five categories of fetters），也是五個時段獲得，除了預流果（yùliú guǒ，stream-enterer fruit）。第六個離系只有四個時段獲得，因為獲得果位和對治生起之時沒有區別。第七和第八品也只有四個時段，獲得果位的四個時段中，除了前兩個。第九個離系只有三個時段，也是對治生起之時就獲得了果位。 色界和無色界修所斷中，唯獨有頂（yǒudǐng，peak of existence）的第九個離系除外，其餘的離系也只有三個時段獲得，獲得果位的四個時段中，除了前三個。有頂的第九個離系只有兩個時段，獲得果位和對治生起是同一時段。這是就鈍根（dùngēn，dull faculties）而言，如果就利根（lìgēn，sharp faculties）而言，前面的各個位次中，可以除去練根的獲得。難道八地（bādì，eight grounds）容許世俗道（shìsúdào，mundane path）的斷除嗎？應該分為兩種，對治生起之時獲得嗎？不是這樣的，這是說漸次獲得。惑，這只是就無漏（wúlòu，without outflows）的獲得而言。如果依據越次（yuècì，transcending the order），通於有漏（yǒulòu，with outflows）的獲得，那麼世俗道在八地染中，隨著斷除的多少，進入聖道（shèngdào，noble path）的人，他所獲得的解脫束縛，根據情況，有的具足六個時段，乃至只有一個時段，因為是利根，所以除去練根的時段。所謂欲界中，先斷除五品而進入見諦（jiàndì，seeing the truth）的人，他見所斷的五品離系，具足六個時段獲得。所謂有兩種，對治生起之時，以及獲得果位之時，再加四成六。他修所斷的五品離系，只有五個時段獲得，除了預流果。先斷除六品而進入見諦的人，他見所斷的六品離系，也是五個時段獲得，除了一個如同前面所說。他修所斷的六品離系，只有世俗道對治生起。
【English Translation】 English version: This is called 'augmenting the roots' (zēngjìn gēn, furthering of the roots of good). By this, one obtains the path (dào, path) that was previously unobtained in six periods. Because one abandons the path that was once obtained, thereby gaining liberation from fetters, it is said that one attains fruition (guǒwèi, fruition). Since there is no difference, just as the four fruits of liberation (sì guǒ, four fruits of liberation) are included, so too should the cultivation of roots (liàngēn, cultivation of roots) be included. Since the transformation of roots (zhuǎngēn, transformation of roots) necessarily leads to the attainment of fruition, why elaborate on this cultivation of roots? It is to show that the cultivation of roots is different from severing afflictions (duànhuò, severing of afflictions) to attain fruition. There is no fault in speaking of the cultivation of roots in addition to the attainment of fruition. However, the attainment of liberation from fetters, according to the circumstances, may have all six periods, or even only two. That which is related to the desire realm (yùjiè, desire realm), severed by seeing the Four Noble Truths (jiàn sìdì, seeing the Four Noble Truths), and that which is seen in the form realm (sèjiè, form realm) and formless realm (wúsèjiè, formless realm), severed by seeing the three truths (jiàn sāndì, seeing the three truths), the liberation from fetters obtained can have all six periods. That which is severed by seeing the truth of the path (jiàn dàodì, seeing the truth of the path) in the form and formless realms, the liberation from fetters obtained has only five periods. Because one attains fruition at the time of counteractive arising, after saying that one attains fruition, one does not speak of counteractive arising. The five categories of fetters (wǔpǐn líxì, five categories of fetters) to be abandoned through cultivation (xiūduàn, cultivation to be abandoned) in the desire realm are also obtained in five periods, except for the stream-enterer fruit (yùliú guǒ, stream-enterer fruit). The sixth fetter is obtained in only four periods, because there is no difference between the time of attaining fruition and the time of counteractive arising. The seventh and eighth categories are also only four periods, excluding the first two of the four periods of attaining fruition. The ninth fetter is only three periods, also because one attains fruition at the time of counteractive arising. Among those to be abandoned through cultivation in the form and formless realms, except for the ninth fetter of the peak of existence (yǒudǐng, peak of existence), the remaining fetters are also obtained in only three periods, excluding the first three of the four periods of attaining fruition. The ninth fetter of the peak of existence is only two periods, because the attainment of fruition and counteractive arising are at the same time. This is speaking of those with dull faculties (dùngēn, dull faculties). If speaking of those with sharp faculties (lìgēn, sharp faculties), the attainment of cultivation of roots can be removed from the previous stages. Is it not the case that the eight grounds (bādì, eight grounds) allow for the severance of the mundane path (shìsúdào, mundane path)? Should it be divided into two, obtained at the time of counteractive arising? It is not so; this is speaking of gradual attainment. This only refers to attainment without outflows (wúlòu, without outflows). If based on transcending the order (yuècì, transcending the order), encompassing attainment with outflows (yǒulòu, with outflows), then the mundane path, in the eight grounds of defilement, depending on how much is severed, for those who enter the noble path (shèngdào, noble path), the liberation from fetters they obtain, according to the circumstances, may have all six periods, or even only one period, because they have sharp faculties, so the period of cultivating the roots is removed. In the desire realm, for those who first sever the five categories and enter seeing the truth (jiàndì, seeing the truth), the five categories of fetters severed by seeing, are obtained in all six periods. There are two types: the time of counteractive arising, and the time of attaining fruition, plus four, making six. The five categories of fetters to be abandoned through cultivation are obtained in only five periods, except for the stream-enterer fruit. For those who first sever the six categories and enter seeing the truth, the six categories of fetters severed by seeing are also obtained in five periods, except for one as mentioned before. The six categories of fetters to be abandoned through cultivation only have the counteractive arising of the mundane path.
時得。必不起彼無漏對治。是一來果向道攝故。非住果時起彼向道。以住勝果不起劣故。先斷八品入見諦者。彼見所斷八品離系。亦五時得除一如前。彼修所斷前六離系。唯一時得如前應知。七八離系唯四時得。謂二治生及二得果。先斷九品依未至地入見諦者。彼見所斷九品離系。亦四時得如前應知。依根本地入見諦者。彼見所斷九品離系。亦一時得如前應知。根本非欲斷對治故。若依未至若依根本。彼修所斷九品離系。亦一時得如前應知。必不起彼無漏對治。是不還果向道攝故。先斷上七地入見諦者。彼見三諦斷七地。離系亦四時得如前應知。見道諦斷七地離系。唯三時得謂一治生。及二得果無漏治生即得果故。彼修所斷七地離系唯三時得。謂二治生及一得果。具離八地入聖道者。見修位中斷有頂惑。見三諦斷離系三時。謂一治生及二得果。見道諦斷離系二時。由治生時即得果故。修斷八品離系二時。謂一治生及一得果。第九離系唯一時得。以治生時即得果故。諸分離染見修位中。進斷所餘準此應說。以何因證得後果時。重得先時所斷離系。由至教故。謂契經中依正證得阿羅漢果。說如是言應如是知應如是見。彼從欲漏心得解脫。乃至廣說。由此位中亦得欲界。厭患對治等無學法智故。知彼離系亦應重得前言。斷欲
【現代漢語翻譯】 時得。必定不會生起彼無漏對治（無漏的對治法），因為這是指一來果（Sakrdagami-phala）的向道（向著果位的道路）所包含的。不住在果位時，不會生起彼向道，因為住在殊勝的果位，不會生起低劣的（道）。 先斷除八品（煩惱）而入見諦（Darsana-satya）的人，他們見所斷的八品離系（脫離束縛），也是五時得（五種情況下獲得），除了一個情況如前所述。他們修所斷的前六離系，只有一時得，應該如前瞭解。第七和第八離系只有四時得，即兩種治生（準備階段）和兩種得果（獲得果位）。 先斷除九品（煩惱），依靠未至地（未至定）而入見諦的人，他們見所斷的九品離系，也是四時得，應該如前瞭解。依靠根本地（根本定）而入見諦的人，他們見所斷的九品離系，也是一時得，應該如前瞭解，因為根本地不是欲斷的對治。 如果依靠未至地或依靠根本地，他們修所斷的九品離系，也是一時得，應該如前瞭解。必定不會生起彼無漏對治，因為這是指不還果（Anagami-phala）的向道所包含的。 先斷除上七地（色界和無色界的前七地）而入見諦的人，他們見三諦（苦、集、滅）斷七地（的煩惱），離系也是四時得，應該如前瞭解。見道諦（道諦）斷七地的離系，只有三時得，即一種治生和兩種得果，因為無漏的治生即是得果。 他們修所斷的七地離系只有三時得，即兩種治生和一種得果。具足脫離八地（的煩惱）而入聖道的人，在見修位中，斷有頂惑（最高層的煩惱）。見三諦斷離系三時，即一種治生和兩種得果。見道諦斷離系二時，因為治生時即得果。 修斷八品離系二時，即一種治生和一種得果。第九離系只有一時得，因為治生時即得果。諸分離染（逐漸脫離煩惱）在見修位中，進一步斷除剩餘的（煩惱），應該準照此理來說明。 以什麼原因證明獲得後果時，重新獲得先前所斷的離系？由於至教（佛陀的教導）的緣故。即在契經中，依據正證（正確的證悟）獲得阿羅漢果（Arahan-phala），說如下的言語：『應該如是知，應該如是見。』他從欲漏（Kama-asava）心得解脫，乃至廣說。由此位中，也獲得欲界的厭患對治等無學法智（無學位的智慧），所以知道彼離系也應該重新獲得。前言斷欲。
【English Translation】 At that time, the corresponding Anāsrava-pratipakṣa (non-outflow antidote) will certainly not arise, because it is included in the Mārga (path) leading to Sakṛdāgāmi-phala (Once-Returner Fruit). The Mārga will not arise while dwelling in the Phala (fruit), because one dwelling in a superior Phala will not give rise to an inferior one. For those who first sever the eight categories (of afflictions) and enter Darśana-satya (Truth of Seeing), their eight categories of Viyoga (separation from bondage) severed by Darśana are also obtained at five times, except for one case as mentioned before. Their first six Viyogas severed by Bhāvanā (cultivation) are obtained only at one time, as should be understood before. The seventh and eighth Viyogas are obtained only at four times, namely, two Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) and two obtaining of Phala. For those who first sever the nine categories (of afflictions), relying on Anāgamya-bhūmi (Unreached Realm), and enter Darśana-satya, their nine categories of Viyoga severed by Darśana are also obtained at four times, as should be understood before. For those who rely on Mūla-bhūmi (Fundamental Realm) and enter Darśana-satya, their nine categories of Viyoga severed by Darśana are also obtained at one time, as should be understood before, because Mūla-bhūmi is not the antidote for severing desires. If relying on Anāgamya-bhūmi or relying on Mūla-bhūmi, their nine categories of Viyoga severed by Bhāvanā are also obtained at one time, as should be understood before. The corresponding Anāsrava-pratipakṣa will certainly not arise, because it is included in the Mārga leading to Anāgāmi-phala (Non-Returner Fruit). For those who first sever the upper seven realms (the first seven realms of the Rūpadhātu and Arūpadhātu) and enter Darśana-satya, their Viyoga of severing the seven realms by seeing the three Satyas (Duḥkha, Samudaya, Nirodha) are also obtained at four times, as should be understood before. The Viyoga of severing the seven realms by seeing the Mārga-satya (Truth of the Path) is obtained only at three times, namely, one Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha and two obtaining of Phala, because Anāsrava-pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is the obtaining of Phala. Their Viyoga of severing the seven realms by Bhāvanā is obtained only at three times, namely, two Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha and one obtaining of Phala. Those who fully separate from the eight realms (of afflictions) and enter the Ārya-mārga (Noble Path), in the Darśana and Bhāvanā stages, sever the Bhavāgra-moha (delusion of the peak of existence). The Viyoga of severing by seeing the three Satyas is obtained at three times, namely, one Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha and two obtaining of Phala. The Viyoga of severing by seeing the Mārga-satya is obtained at two times, because obtaining Phala occurs at the time of Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. The Viyoga of severing the eight categories by Bhāvanā is obtained at two times, namely, one Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha and one obtaining of Phala. The ninth Viyoga is obtained only at one time, because obtaining Phala occurs at the time of Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Those who gradually separate from defilements in the Darśana and Bhāvanā stages should explain the further severing of the remaining (afflictions) according to this principle. By what reason is it proven that when obtaining a subsequent Phala, one re-obtains the Viyoga severed at an earlier time? Because of the Āpta-vacana (teaching of the Buddha). That is, in the Sutras, based on the correct realization of obtaining Arhat-phala (Arhat Fruit), it is said: 'One should know thus, one should see thus.' He is liberated in mind from Kāma-āsrava (outflow of desire), and so on. In this stage, one also obtains the Anāsrava-jñāna (non-outflow wisdom) of aversion to the realm of desire, so it is known that the Viyoga should also be re-obtained. The previous statement severed desire.
六品九品入見諦者。彼先修斷六九離系無無漏得。為永不得暫不得耶。應決定言彼永不得。豈不證得阿羅漢。時必得先時見修所斷。一切離系諸無漏得。若彼先時所斷離系。有無漏得今時舍者。于彼今應得無漏得。若先無者今時亦無。得離系時唯自治起。及舍劣道得勝時故。諸有先依根本靜慮入見諦者。得無學時寧從欲漏心得解脫。就依未至入見諦者。及次第者說故無失。或諸證得阿羅漢者。定得無學法智品攝。厭患對治由此數能厭患欲界。令欲界結無復系能。依此故言彼從欲漏心得解脫。由此即釋契經所言。阿羅漢果永斷瞋恚。就厭患彼說為斷故。若爾何故引此契經。證後果時。得前離系。經言從欲漏心得解脫者。有具二因有一因故。謂于欲離系得。無漏得者二因故言心脫欲漏。一得彼無學離系得故。二得彼無學厭患治故。若不得者唯由一因。故此契經義皆成立。此中理趣如前已辯。復云何知得阿羅漢二界離系。必舍學得得無學得非欲界耶。學位定應先得彼故。謂設先離無所有染。隨依何地入見諦時。必得二界諸見所斷無漏斷治。彼見所斷是一斷治頓所斷故。上地見道現在前時。必修未來下地道故。下靜慮遍能為上斷治故。豈不已離無所有處染。依第三定等入見諦時。應修未來上地見道。同爲有頂斷對治故。不爾未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 六品和九品入見諦（dṛṣṭi-satya，見道）者，他們先前修斷了六品和九品的離系（visaṃyoga，解脫），獲得了無漏得（anāsrava-prāpti，無漏之得）。是永遠不會得到，還是暫時不會得到呢？應該肯定地說他們永遠不會得到。難道他們證得阿羅漢（arhat）時不會得到嗎？那時必定會得到先前見道和修道所斷的一切離系和諸無漏得。如果他們先前所斷的離系，有無漏得現在捨棄了，那麼現在就應該得到那些無漏得。如果先前沒有，現在也不會有。得到離系時，唯有自治生起，以及捨棄劣道獲得勝道的時候。那些先前依靠根本靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）入見諦者，證得無學（aśaikṣa，無學果）時，難道是從欲漏（kāma-āsrava，欲漏）心得解脫嗎？這是就依靠未至定（anāgamya-samādhi，未至定）入見諦者，以及次第而入者說的，所以沒有過失。或者說，那些證得阿羅漢者，必定得到無學法智品所攝的厭患對治（virāga-pratisaṃkhyāna-nirodha，離欲對治），由此數數能夠厭患欲界（kāma-dhātu，欲界），使欲界的煩惱不再有繫縛的能力。依據這個原因，才說他們是從欲漏心得解脫。由此就解釋了契經所說，阿羅漢果永遠斷除了瞋恚（dveṣa，嗔）。這是就厭患瞋恚而說為斷除。如果這樣，為什麼引用這個契經，來證明證得後果時，得到先前的離系呢？經文說從欲漏心得解脫，是因為具有兩種原因或一種原因。所謂對於欲界的離系，得到無漏得，是因為兩種原因，所以說心脫離欲漏：一是得到無學的離系得，二是得到無學的厭患對治。如果不得，就只有一種原因。所以這個契經的意義都成立。其中的道理，前面已經辨析過了。 又怎麼知道證得阿羅漢時，二界的離系，必定捨棄學得（śaikṣa-prāpti，有學之得），得到無學得，而不是欲界呢？因為學位（śaikṣa-bhūmi，有學地）必定應該先得到那些離系。假使先前已經離開了無所有處染（ākiṃcanyāyatana-rāga，無所有處貪），無論依靠哪一地入見諦時，必定得到二界（指色界和無色界）諸見所斷的無漏斷治（anāsrava-prahāṇa-pratisaṃkhyāna-nirodha，無漏斷滅）。因為那些見所斷是一斷治，頓所斷的緣故。上地見道現在前時，必定修未來下地的道，因為下靜慮普遍能夠作為上地的斷治。難道不是已經離開了無所有處染，依靠第三禪定等入見諦時，應該修未來上地的見道，同樣作為有頂（bhava-agra，有頂天）的斷對治嗎？不是這樣的，因為沒有...
【English Translation】 English version Those who enter the path of seeing (dṛṣṭi-satya) through the sixth and ninth grades, having previously cultivated the abandonment of the six and nine grades of separation (visaṃyoga), and attained the unconditioned attainments (anāsrava-prāpti). Will they never attain them, or will they only temporarily not attain them? It should be definitively stated that they will never attain them. Will they not attain them when they realize Arhatship (arhat)? At that time, they will certainly attain all the separations and unconditioned attainments that were previously abandoned through the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. If they abandon the unconditioned attainments of the separations that they previously abandoned, then they should attain those unconditioned attainments now. If they did not have them before, they will not have them now either. When separation is attained, it only arises through self-governance, and when inferior paths are abandoned to attain superior paths. Those who previously relied on the fundamental meditative absorptions (dhyāna) to enter the path of seeing, when they attain the state of no-more-learning (aśaikṣa), do they attain liberation from the defilements of desire (kāma-āsrava) in their minds? This is said with regard to those who rely on the access concentration (anāgamya-samādhi) to enter the path of seeing, and those who enter in sequence, so there is no fault. Or, those who attain Arhatship will certainly attain the abandonment-counteractive (virāga-pratisaṃkhyāna-nirodha) included in the wisdom of the unconditioned Dharma, and through this, they are able to repeatedly renounce the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), so that the afflictions of the desire realm no longer have the ability to bind. Based on this reason, it is said that they attain liberation from the defilements of desire in their minds. This explains the statement in the sutras that the fruit of Arhatship permanently cuts off anger (dveṣa). This is said to be cut off in terms of renouncing anger. If so, why is this sutra cited to prove that when the fruit is attained, the previous separations are attained? The sutra says that liberation from the defilements of desire in the mind is because of having two causes or one cause. The so-called attainment of unconditioned attainments for the separation from desire is because of two causes, so it is said that the mind is liberated from the defilements of desire: first, the attainment of the unconditioned separation; second, the attainment of the unconditioned abandonment-counteractive. If they do not attain it, there is only one cause. Therefore, the meaning of this sutra is all established. The reasoning in this is already discussed earlier. Furthermore, how do we know that when Arhatship is attained, the separations of the two realms (referring to the form realm and the formless realm) must abandon the attainments of the learners (śaikṣa-prāpti) and attain the attainments of the no-more-learners, and not the desire realm? Because the stage of the learners (śaikṣa-bhūmi) must first attain those separations. Suppose that one has already left the attachment to the realm of nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana-rāga), and when entering the path of seeing relying on any ground, one must attain the unconditioned abandonment-counteractive of the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing in the two realms (anāsrava-prahāṇa-pratisaṃkhyāna-nirodha). Because those afflictions to be abandoned by seeing are a single abandonment-counteractive, and are abandoned all at once. When the path of seeing of the higher ground is present, one must cultivate the path of the future lower ground, because the lower meditative absorptions are universally able to serve as the abandonment-counteractive of the higher ground. Isn't it the case that having already left the attachment to the realm of nothingness, when entering the path of seeing relying on the third meditative absorption, one should cultivate the path of seeing of the future higher ground, similarly serving as the abandonment-counteractive of the peak of existence (bhava-agra)? It is not so, because there is no...
離此地染者。即依此地入見諦時。自及上諸地見諦所斷。見一一諦時能頓斷故。如有未離第四定染。依第四定入見諦時。頓斷五地見所斷染。乃至未離初靜慮染。依初靜慮入見諦時。頓斷八地見所斷染。上地曾無斷下地故。非第四等與第三等。所對治法一切皆同。由是已離第三等染。依第三等入見諦時。雖上地能治自上地。而非與下所治恒同。故依下時不能修上。諸異生位以世俗道斷見所斷。所有離系唯由下地。見道勢力于自上地無漏得起。謂依上地見道現前。必修未來下地見道。由彼勢力于下離系。得無漏得非上地故。由此學位定應遍於色無色攝。見斷離系得無漏得非欲理成。欲唯未至地見道所斷故。豈不應如第四定等。非第三等下地對治。然第四等見道現前。能修未來下地所攝。一切見道由彼道力。于諸下地見斷離系。得無漏得。如是根本雖非欲治。然根本地見道現前應修未來。未至地攝一切見道。由彼道力應于欲界見斷離系得無漏得。此例不齊。見道有二。一欲界對治。二上界對治。欲治有三。謂斷對治厭患對治遠分對治。色無色治三種亦然。欲治三中初斷對治。唯未至攝余通六地。上治三種皆通六地。然上二界斷治見道。唯能對治自上地染。余治見道亦治下地。上地雖非下地斷治。而上見道現在前時。遍修未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如果有人尚未脫離某個地方的染污，當他依靠這個地方進入見諦（dṛṣṭi-satya，證悟真理）時，就能頓斷自身以及更高層次的諸地見諦所斷的煩惱。這是因為在證悟每一個諦（satya，真理）時，能夠頓然斷除煩惱。例如，如果有人尚未脫離第四禪定（dhyāna，禪定）的染污，當他依靠第四禪定進入見諦時，就能頓斷五地（即欲界、未至定、初禪、二禪、三禪）所斷的見惑（dṛṣṭi-heya，見道所斷的煩惱）。乃至如果有人尚未脫離初禪的染污，當他依靠初禪進入見諦時，就能頓斷八地（即欲界、未至定、四根本定）所斷的見惑。這是因為上地禪定從未有斷除下地煩惱的情況。 第四禪定等與第三禪定等，它們所對治的法並非完全相同。因此，已經脫離第三禪定等染污的人，當他依靠第三禪定等進入見諦時，雖然上地禪定能夠對治自身上地的煩惱，但並非與下地所對治的煩惱完全相同。所以，依靠下地禪定時，不能修習上地禪定的法門。所有異生位（pṛthag-jana，凡夫）的人，以世俗道（laukika-mārga，世間道）斷除見所斷的煩惱，所有離系（visaṃyoga，解脫）的獲得，唯有通過下地禪定的見道（dṛṣṭi-mārga，見道）的力量，才能在自身上地生起無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）的功德。也就是說，依靠上地禪定的見道現前時，必定要修習未來下地禪定的見道，通過這種力量，才能在下地獲得離系的無漏功德，而不是依靠上地禪定。 由此可見，有學位（śaikṣa，有學）的人，必定應當遍及色界和無色界。見斷的離係獲得無漏功德，並非在欲界就能成就。因為欲界僅僅是未至定（anāgamya-samādhi，未到地定）的見道所斷的煩惱。難道不應該像第四禪定等一樣嗎？雖然第三禪定等下地禪定並非對治煩惱的根本，然而第四禪定等的見道現前時，能夠修習未來下地所攝的一切見道，通過這種道力，在諸下地獲得見斷的離系無漏功德。如此一來，雖然根本禪定並非對治欲界的煩惱，然而根本禪定的見道現前時，也應該修習未來未至定所攝的一切見道，通過這種道力，應該在欲界獲得見斷的離系無漏功德。 這個例子並不相同。見道有兩種：一種是對治欲界的煩惱，另一種是對治上界的煩惱。對治欲界的煩惱有三種：即斷對治（prahāṇa-pratipakṣa，斷除煩惱的對治）、厭患對治（nirveda-pratipakṣa，厭離煩惱的對治）和遠分對治（dūraṃgama-pratipakṣa，遠離煩惱的對治）。對治色界和無色界的煩惱，這三種對治也是如此。對治欲界的三種對治中，最初的斷對治僅僅是未至定所攝，其餘兩種則通於六地。對治上界的煩惱的三種對治，都通於六地。然而，上二界（色界和無色界）的斷對治見道，僅僅能夠對治自身上地的煩惱，其餘兩種對治的見道也能對治下地的煩惱。上地禪定雖然並非下地煩惱的斷對治，而上地禪定的見道現在前時，能夠普遍修習未來。
【English Translation】 English version If someone is not yet detached from the defilements of a certain realm, when they enter the stage of seeing the truth (dṛṣṭi-satya, realization of truth) based on that realm, they can instantly sever the afflictions that are severed by seeing the truth in themselves and in the higher realms. This is because when realizing each truth (satya, truth), one can instantly cut off afflictions. For example, if someone is not yet detached from the defilements of the fourth dhyāna (dhyāna, meditation), when they enter the stage of seeing the truth based on the fourth dhyāna, they can instantly sever the afflictions severed by seeing in the five realms (namely, the desire realm, the unestablished concentration, the first dhyāna, the second dhyāna, and the third dhyāna). Even if someone is not yet detached from the defilements of the first dhyāna, when they enter the stage of seeing the truth based on the first dhyāna, they can instantly sever the afflictions severed by seeing in the eight realms (namely, the desire realm, the unestablished concentration, and the four fundamental dhyānas). This is because the higher dhyānas have never severed the afflictions of the lower realms. The fourth dhyāna and the third dhyāna, etc., do not have exactly the same phenomena to be counteracted. Therefore, when someone who has already detached from the defilements of the third dhyāna, etc., enters the stage of seeing the truth based on the third dhyāna, etc., although the higher dhyāna can counteract the afflictions of its own higher realm, it is not exactly the same as the afflictions counteracted by the lower realm. Therefore, when relying on the lower dhyāna, one cannot cultivate the practices of the higher dhyāna. All ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana, common people) sever the afflictions severed by seeing through mundane paths (laukika-mārga, worldly path), and the attainment of all detachment (visaṃyoga, liberation) can only arise from the power of the path of seeing (dṛṣṭi-mārga, path of seeing) in the lower dhyāna, which allows the arising of non-outflow (anāsrava, without defilements) merits in its own higher realm. That is, when the path of seeing in the higher dhyāna is present, one must cultivate the path of seeing in the future lower dhyāna, and through this power, one can obtain the non-outflow merits of detachment in the lower realm, not by relying on the higher dhyāna. From this, it can be seen that those in the stage of learning (śaikṣa, one under training) must be pervasive in the form realm and the formless realm. The attainment of detachment from the afflictions severed by seeing and obtaining non-outflow merits cannot be achieved in the desire realm. This is because the desire realm only severs the afflictions severed by the path of seeing in the unestablished concentration (anāgamya-samādhi, unreached concentration). Shouldn't it be like the fourth dhyāna, etc.? Although the lower dhyānas such as the third dhyāna are not the root of counteracting afflictions, when the path of seeing in the fourth dhyāna, etc., is present, it can cultivate all the paths of seeing included in the future lower realms, and through this power, one can obtain the non-outflow merits of detachment from the afflictions severed by seeing in all the lower realms. In this way, although the fundamental dhyāna is not the counteraction of the afflictions of the desire realm, when the path of seeing in the fundamental dhyāna is present, one should also cultivate all the paths of seeing included in the future unestablished concentration, and through this power, one should obtain the non-outflow merits of detachment from the afflictions severed by seeing in the desire realm. This example is not the same. There are two types of paths of seeing: one is to counteract the afflictions of the desire realm, and the other is to counteract the afflictions of the higher realms. There are three types of counteractions for the afflictions of the desire realm: namely, the counteraction of severance (prahāṇa-pratipakṣa, counteraction of severing afflictions), the counteraction of aversion (nirveda-pratipakṣa, counteraction of aversion to afflictions), and the counteraction of distance (dūraṃgama-pratipakṣa, counteraction of distancing from afflictions). The three types of counteractions for the afflictions of the form realm and the formless realm are also the same. Among the three types of counteractions for the desire realm, the initial counteraction of severance is only included in the unestablished concentration, while the other two types are common to the six realms. The three types of counteractions for the afflictions of the higher realms are all common to the six realms. However, the path of seeing for the counteraction of severance in the upper two realms (the form realm and the formless realm) can only counteract the afflictions of its own upper realm, while the path of seeing for the other two types of counteractions can also counteract the afflictions of the lower realms. Although the higher dhyāna is not the counteraction of severance for the afflictions of the lower realm, when the path of seeing in the higher dhyāna is present, it can universally cultivate the future.
來下地見道。下與上地同所治故。無有欲界斷治見道。能與根本同一所治。可根本地見道現前。能修未來未至地攝。欲見斷法斷治見道。由彼道力能于欲界見斷離系得無漏得故彼所引為例不齊。諸根本地欲界厭患遠分對治。色無色界三種對治。見道現前還修未來未至地攝。如是二種三種對治非由未來。欲界厭遠對治力故。便於欲界見斷離系得無漏得。唯斷對治力能斷系得故諸先離欲。若依未至入見諦者。欲界厭患遠分對治。見道現前亦修未來。欲斷對治欲斷治地道正現在前故。由如是理非先。離欲入見諦者。皆于欲界見斷離系得無漏得。諸先離欲入見諦者。畢竟無容於欲修斷。所有離系得無漏得。以未至攝欲界修斷。斷對治收無漏修道。于不還果身中現前。及未來修俱非理故。理無容有不還果身中。有一來不還二向道。故諸有先離無所有染入聖道者唯除菩薩。余亦定於二界一切修斷離系得無漏得。彼皆必於二界修斷。自勝果道遍現前故。如是理趣以何證知。說聖者生第四靜慮。以上諸地定成樂根。及說聖者生於無色。定有色貪盡斷遍知得故。菩薩何緣不亦如是。不由加行一切功德。能現前故如滅定等。謂聲聞獨覺無自在功力。能超間起諸對治道。欲證后道必藉前道。以為加行方能證故。菩薩亦有超起功力。以于諸法相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 來下地見道（在較低的層次上證悟真理）。因為較低的層次和較高的層次在同一處被調伏。所以，沒有欲界的斷治見道（通過斷除煩惱來證悟真理的道路）能夠和根本地（禪定）在同一處被調伏。當根本地的見道現前時，能夠修習未來地（尚未到來的層次）和未至地（接近禪定的層次）所包含的內容。欲界的見斷法（通過見道斷除的煩惱）斷治見道，由於這種道路的力量，能夠在欲界中獲得見斷的離系（脫離束縛），獲得無漏（沒有煩惱）的功德。因此，它所引導的例子並不一致。諸根本地對欲界的厭患和遠分對治（遠離煩惱的對治），以及色無色界的三種對治。見道現前時，仍然可以修習未來地和未至地所包含的內容。像這樣，兩種或三種對治並非由於未來地對欲界的厭遠對治的力量，就能在欲界中獲得見斷的離系，獲得無漏的功德。只有斷除煩惱的對治力量才能斷除束縛，獲得解脫。因此，那些先前已經脫離欲界的人，如果依靠未至定進入見諦（證悟真理）的境界，那麼欲界的厭患和遠分對治，在見道現前時，也會修習未來地。因為欲斷對治（想要斷除煩惱的對治）和欲斷治地之道（想要斷除煩惱的道路）正在現前。由於這樣的道理，並非所有先前脫離欲界而進入見諦的人，都能在欲界中獲得見斷的離系，獲得無漏的功德。那些先前脫離欲界而進入見諦的人，最終不可能在欲界修斷（通過修行斷除煩惱），所有離系（脫離束縛）都獲得無漏的功德。因為未至定包含欲界的修斷，斷對治（斷除煩惱的對治）包含無漏的修道，在不還果（不再返回欲界）的身中現前，以及未來修習都是不合理的。道理上不可能在不還果的身中，同時存在一來向（將要返回欲界一次）和不還向（不再返回欲界）兩種道路。因此，那些先前脫離無所有染（對無所有處的執著）而進入聖道的人，除了菩薩之外，其餘的人必定在色界和無色界的一切修斷中，獲得離系和無漏的功德。他們必定在色界和無色界修斷，因為他們自身殊勝的果道已經普遍現前。這樣的道理依據什麼來證明呢？根據聖者生於第四禪定以上的境界，必定成就樂根（快樂的根本），以及聖者生於無色界，必定對色貪完全斷除和遍知而獲得。菩薩為什麼不能像這樣呢？因為不由加行（努力修行），一切功德都能現前，就像滅盡定等等。聲聞（聽聞佛法而證悟的人）和獨覺（獨自證悟的人）沒有自在的功力，能夠超越間斷而發起各種對治之道。想要證得後面的道路，必須藉助前面的道路作為加行，才能證得。菩薩也有超越發起功力的能力，因為對於諸法的真相
【English Translation】 English version Coming to the lower grounds to see the Path (to realize the truth at a lower level). Because the lower and higher grounds are governed in the same place. Therefore, there is no Desire Realm's severance-and-cure Path of Seeing (the path of realizing the truth by severing afflictions) that can be governed in the same place as the fundamental ground (dhyana). When the Path of Seeing of the fundamental ground manifests, it can cultivate what is contained in the future ground (the level that has not yet arrived) and the Unarrived Ground (the level close to dhyana). The Desire Realm's severance-and-cure Path of Seeing, due to the power of this path, can obtain severance from bondage in the Desire Realm, and obtain undefiled (without afflictions) merits. Therefore, the examples it leads are not consistent. The fundamental grounds' aversion to the Desire Realm and the distant-part counteraction (counteracting afflictions by staying away from them), as well as the three types of counteractions of the Form and Formless Realms. When the Path of Seeing manifests, one can still cultivate what is contained in the future ground and the Unarrived Ground. Like this, the two or three types of counteractions are not due to the power of the future ground's aversion and distance counteraction to the Desire Realm, that one can obtain severance from bondage in the Desire Realm, and obtain undefiled merits. Only the power of the counteraction of severing afflictions can sever bondage and obtain liberation. Therefore, those who have previously detached from the Desire Realm, if they rely on the Unarrived Samadhi to enter the realm of Seeing the Truth, then the aversion and distant-part counteraction of the Desire Realm, when the Path of Seeing manifests, will also cultivate the future ground. Because the severance-counteraction (the counteraction of wanting to sever afflictions) and the path of the ground to be severed (the path of wanting to sever afflictions) are currently manifesting. Due to this reason, not all those who have previously detached from the Desire Realm and entered the realm of Seeing the Truth can obtain severance from bondage in the Desire Realm, and obtain undefiled merits. Those who have previously detached from the Desire Realm and entered the realm of Seeing the Truth, ultimately cannot cultivate severance in the Desire Realm (severing afflictions through cultivation), and all severance (liberation from bondage) obtains undefiled merits. Because the Unarrived Samadhi contains the cultivation and severance of the Desire Realm, the severance-counteraction (the counteraction of severing afflictions) contains the undefiled path of cultivation, manifesting in the body of the Non-Returner (one who will not return to the Desire Realm), and future cultivation is unreasonable. It is logically impossible for the body of the Non-Returner to simultaneously have the path of the Once-Returner (one who will return to the Desire Realm once) and the path of the Non-Returner (one who will not return to the Desire Realm). Therefore, those who have previously detached from the attachment to Nothingness and entered the Noble Path, except for Bodhisattvas, the rest will definitely obtain severance from bondage and undefiled merits in all cultivation and severance of the Form and Formless Realms. They will definitely cultivate and sever in the Form and Formless Realms, because their own superior path of fruition has universally manifested. What evidence is there to prove this reasoning? According to the fact that the Noble Ones are born in the realm above the Fourth Dhyana, they will definitely achieve the root of happiness, and that the Noble Ones are born in the Formless Realm, they will definitely completely sever and know all attachment to form. Why can't Bodhisattvas be like this? Because without effort (diligent cultivation), all merits can manifest, just like the Cessation of Perception and Sensation and so on. Sravakas (those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) and Pratyekabuddhas (those who attain enlightenment independently) do not have the power of freedom to transcend interruptions and initiate various paths of counteraction. If they want to attain the later path, they must rely on the previous path as effort in order to attain it. Bodhisattvas also have the ability to transcend and initiate power, because for the truth of all dharmas
連線中。得殊勝智加行廣故。若爾菩薩應見道中。不起法智品唯起類智品。因同前故無如是事。於色無色蘊有無我智生。必以有執受蘊無我智為先故。或初業地於法類品次第觀中。曾極串習后次觀苦。世第一法有苦現觀。見道續生一切如前任運起故。或異生位從無始來。數以世間有欺誑智。觀察欲色苦集滅道。故雖已斷欲色二界見所斷或。為以出世無欺誑智重遍觀察。菩薩亦修彼對治道。諸先離染隨其所應。后見道生至住果位。勝果道障既先已除。得勝果道斯有何失。許如是義便為善通。十門品說亦善安立。菩薩成下修斷無為理不應然。且住果者得非果道違毗婆沙。非住果時未趣後果。可有已得非果道義。又理必然非此斷治現在前位。如何由彼能得未來此斷治道。又見具縛漸得果者。於後成就勝果道時。果所攝道必不行故。諸先離染至得果時。若有亦得勝果道理。彼果攝道應永不行。又非住有頂見道諦斷斷對治時。亦有得欲界諸修所斷斷對治理。又諸獲得勝果道時。隨應亦得諸世俗道。世出世道相系屬故。若先離染隨其所應。后見道生至住果位。必亦獲得勝果道者。得預流時應修俗智。同對治故等離障故。由此我說得離系等。符教順理為善安立。即諸離系彼彼位中。得遍知名隨勝立故。遍知有二。一智遍知。二斷遍知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為獲得了殊勝智慧的加行廣大。如果這樣，菩薩在見道中，不應生起法智品，只應生起類智品。因為原因和前面一樣，但沒有這樣的情況。在色界和無色界的蘊中生起無我智，必定以對有執受蘊的無我智為先導。或者初業地在對法類品次第觀察中，曾經極其串習，然後依次觀察苦，世第一法有苦現觀，見道續生一切如前，自然而然地生起。或者異生位從無始以來，多次以世間的有欺誑的智慧，觀察欲界、色界的苦、集、滅、道。所以即使已經斷除了欲界、色界二見的所斷，或者爲了用出世的無欺誑的智慧重新普遍地觀察，菩薩也修習那些對治道。那些先離染者，根據他們各自的情況，在後來見道生起直到住果位時，殊勝果道的障礙既然先前已經去除，獲得殊勝果道又有什麼損失呢？允許這樣的意義，就可以很好地理解，十門品所說的也能很好地安立。菩薩成就下修斷無為的道理是不應該這樣的。而且住果者獲得非果道，違背了毗婆沙的說法。不是住果時，還沒有趣向後果，可以有已經獲得非果道的說法。而且道理必然是，不是這個斷治現在前位，如何由它能獲得未來這個斷治道。而且見具縛者逐漸獲得果位，在後來成就殊勝果道時，果所攝的道必定不行故。那些先離染直到獲得果位時，如果也有獲得殊勝果道的道理，那麼那個果所攝的道應該永遠不行。而且不是住在有頂，見道諦斷斷對治時，也有獲得欲界諸修所斷斷對治的道理。而且諸位獲得殊勝果道時，根據情況也獲得諸世俗道，因為世出世道相互聯繫。如果先離染，根據他們各自的情況，後來見道生起直到住果位，必定也獲得殊勝果道，那麼在獲得預流果時，應該修習俗智，因為相同的對治，相同的離障。因此我說獲得離系等，符合教義，順應道理，是很好的安立。就是諸位離系者，在他們各自的位中，獲得遍知名，因為隨殊勝而立名。遍知有兩種：一是智遍知，二是斷遍知。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the vastness of the preparatory practice of special wisdom. If so, in the Path of Seeing (見道, Jiàn Dào), Bodhisattvas should not generate the Dharma-wisdom category (法智品, Fǎ Zhì Pǐn), but only the inferential-wisdom category (類智品, Lèi Zhì Pǐn), because the reason is the same as before. But this is not the case. The arising of the no-self wisdom (無我智, Wú Wǒ Zhì) in the aggregates of the Form Realm (色界, Sè Jiè) and Formless Realm (無色界, Wúsè Jiè) must be preceded by the no-self wisdom regarding the aggregates with clinging. Or, in the initial stage of practice, having extremely cultivated the sequential observation of the Dharma and inferential categories, then sequentially observing suffering, the World's Supreme Dharma (世第一法, Shì Dì Yī Fǎ) has the direct realization of suffering. The continuation of the Path of Seeing arises naturally as before. Or, from beginningless time, ordinary beings have repeatedly observed the suffering, accumulation, cessation, and path of the Desire Realm (欲界, Yù Jiè) and Form Realm with worldly deceptive wisdom. Therefore, even if they have already severed what is to be severed by the views of the Desire Realm and Form Realm, or in order to re-observe universally with transcendental non-deceptive wisdom, Bodhisattvas also cultivate those antidotal paths. Those who have previously detached from desire, according to their respective situations, when the Path of Seeing arises later until the stage of abiding in the fruition, since the obstacles to the superior fruition path have already been removed, what loss is there in obtaining the superior fruition path? Allowing such a meaning can be well understood, and what is said in the Ten Doors Chapter (十門品, Shí Mén Pǐn) can also be well established. It is unreasonable for Bodhisattvas to accomplish the unconditioned state of lower cultivation and severance. Moreover, for those abiding in the fruition to obtain a non-fruition path contradicts the Vibhasha (毗婆沙, Pí Pó Shā). It is not when abiding in the fruition, not yet approaching the subsequent fruition, that there can be the statement of already obtaining a non-fruition path. Moreover, it is necessarily the case that it is not in the present position of this severance and antidote that one can obtain this future severance and antidotal path. Moreover, those who are bound by views gradually obtain the fruition, and when they later accomplish the superior fruition path, the path included in the fruition will necessarily not be practiced. If those who have previously detached from desire also have the reason for obtaining the superior fruition path when they obtain the fruition, then that path included in the fruition should never be practiced. Moreover, it is not when abiding in the Summit of Existence (有頂, Yǒu Dǐng) and severing the antidotes to the Path of Seeing and Truth of Suffering (見道諦斷斷對治, Jiàn Dào Dì Duàn Duàn Duì Zhì) that one also obtains the severances and antidotes to what is to be severed by cultivation in the Desire Realm (欲界諸修所斷斷對治, Yù Jiè Zhū Xiū Suǒ Duàn Duàn Duì Zhì). Moreover, when all obtain the superior fruition path, they also obtain all worldly paths accordingly, because the worldly and transcendental paths are interconnected. If those who have previously detached from desire, according to their respective situations, later have the Path of Seeing arise until the stage of abiding in the fruition, and necessarily also obtain the superior fruition path, then when obtaining the Stream-enterer fruition (預流, Yù Liú), they should cultivate worldly wisdom, because of the same antidote and the same detachment from obstacles. Therefore, I say that obtaining detachment, etc., accords with the teachings and follows reason, and is well established. That is, all those who are detached obtain the name of universal knowledge in their respective positions, because the name is established according to superiority. There are two types of universal knowledge: one is intellectual universal knowledge, and the other is severance universal knowledge.
。智遍知者體即是慧。有說此通有漏無漏。有漏慧者謂除勝解作意相應。所餘世間分別法性。能取諸法自相共相。聞思所成及暖頂忍。世第一等修所成慧無漏慧者謂出世間。見道修道無學道慧。前有漏慧順無漏智。現觀性故亦名遍知。如契經說。我作如是如理思時。實現觀生便知老死由生故有。又言於一法未達未遍知。我說不能作苦邊際。非無漏慧遍知一切法故。智遍知亦通有漏慧。唯無漏慧為智遍知。是我宗中正意所許。如說為于未現觀法起現觀故。思惟取蘊非由聞等所成俗慧可證。得預流至阿羅漢果。說預流等九根得故。又轉法輪契經中說。以無漏慧遍知苦等。應知此即是未知當知根。然菩薩言實現觀生者。於世間慧假立現觀名。彼行相轉似現觀故。言於一法未達等者。依於此法若未遍知。障苦盡者密說無過。故定無漏慧方得遍知名。斷遍知者體即離系。能遍知故名為遍知。是智異名如何目斷。是智果故如業解果。謂契經說六處名業是業果故。又說無為應果名解是解果故。如是遍知目斷無失。若爾忍果應非遍知。毗婆沙師作如是釋。諸忍皆是智眷屬故。于忍所作立智作名。如臣所為亦名王作。有餘師釋。諸解脫道于所得斷。亦有功能以于斷得能任持故。令諸系得不復生故。由此忍果有智果義。此釋不然。以說諸斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 智遍知（jnana-parijna）的本體就是智慧。有人說這種通達包含有漏和無漏兩種。有漏的智慧，是指除了與勝解作意相應的智慧之外，其餘世間分別法性的智慧，能夠把握諸法的自相和共相，包括通過聽聞和思考獲得的智慧，以及暖位、頂位、忍位、世第一位等通過修習獲得的智慧。無漏的智慧，是指超世間的見道、修道、無學道中的智慧。前面的有漏智慧，順應無漏的智慧，因為具有現觀的性質，所以也稱為遍知。如同契經所說：『我作這樣的如理思惟時，實現了現觀的生起，便知道老死是因為有生而產生的。』又說：『對於一個法，如果未能通達和遍知，我說不能達到苦的邊際。』這並非說無漏的智慧不能遍知一切法，而是說智遍知也包含有漏的智慧。只有無漏的智慧才是智遍知，這是我宗派中正確的觀點。如同所說，爲了對於未現觀的法生起現觀，思惟取蘊，不是通過聽聞等獲得的世俗智慧可以證得的，而是可以證得預流果乃至阿羅漢果的。這是因為預流等九根已經獲得。又在轉法輪契經中說，以無漏的智慧遍知苦等，應當知道這就是未知當知根。然而菩薩所說的實現現觀生起，是對世間的智慧假立現觀的名稱，因為它的行相轉變類似於現觀。所說的對於一個法未能通達等，是依據于這個法，如果未能遍知，就會障礙苦的止息，這是一種隱秘的說法，並沒有過失。所以，只有無漏的智慧才能獲得遍知的名稱。斷遍知（prahana-parijna）的本體就是離系（visamyoga），因為能夠普遍地斷除煩惱，所以稱為遍知。這是智慧的異名，怎麼能說是斷呢？這是智慧的果，如同六處被稱為業的果一樣，因為契經中說六處是業，是業的果。又說無為應果被稱為解脫的果，是解脫的果。這樣，遍知被稱為斷就沒有錯誤。如果這樣，忍的果就不應該是遍知了。毗婆沙師這樣解釋：所有的忍都是智慧的眷屬，所以在忍所作的事情上，也立為智慧所作的名稱，如同臣子所做的事情也稱為國王所做的一樣。還有其他論師解釋說：所有的解脫道，對於所獲得的斷，也有功能，因為對於斷的獲得能夠任持，使得諸多的繫縛不再產生。由此，忍的果具有智慧果的意義。這種解釋是不對的，因為說諸多的斷
【English Translation】 The essence of Jnana-parijna (智遍知, wisdom-omniscience) is wisdom itself. Some say this understanding encompasses both contaminated (有漏, asrava) and uncontaminated (無漏, anasrava) wisdom. Contaminated wisdom refers to the worldly discernment of the nature of phenomena, excluding that associated with adhimoksa (勝解, superior intention) and manaskara (作意, attention). It grasps the self-nature (自相, svalaksana) and common nature (共相, samanya-laksana) of all dharmas, including wisdom gained through hearing (聞, sruta) and thinking (思, cinta), as well as the wisdom attained through cultivation (修, bhavana) in the stages of warmth (暖, usmagata), peak (頂, murdhan), forbearance (忍, ksanti), and the highest worldly dharma (世第一, laukikagradharma). Uncontaminated wisdom refers to the wisdom in the supramundane paths of seeing (見道, darsanamarga), cultivation (修道, bhavanamarga), and no-more-learning (無學道, asaiksamarga). The former, contaminated wisdom, aligns with uncontaminated wisdom and is also called 'parijna' (遍知, omniscience) because of its nature of direct realization (現觀, abhisamaya). As the sutra says, 'When I thought thus, according to reason, the arising of direct realization was realized, and I knew that old age and death exist because of birth.' It also says, 'If one dharma is not understood and not fully known, I say that the end of suffering cannot be made.' This does not mean that uncontaminated wisdom cannot fully know all dharmas, but rather that jnana-parijna also includes contaminated wisdom. Only uncontaminated wisdom is jnana-parijna, which is the correct view in my school. As it is said, in order to generate direct realization for dharmas that have not yet been directly realized, contemplating the aggregates (蘊, skandha) is not something that can be proven by mundane wisdom attained through hearing, etc., but it can be proven to attain the fruits of stream-enterer (預流, srotapanna) up to arhat (阿羅漢, arhat). This is because the nine roots (根, indriya) of stream-enterer, etc., have been obtained. Furthermore, in the sutra of turning the wheel of dharma (轉法輪, dharmacakra-pravartana sutra), it is said that suffering, etc., are fully known with uncontaminated wisdom. It should be known that this is the root of the unknown that should be known (未知當知根, ajnatam ajnatasyami indriyam). However, the bodhisattva's statement that the arising of direct realization is realized is a provisional establishment of the name of direct realization for worldly wisdom, because its mode of operation is similar to direct realization. The statement that one dharma is not understood, etc., is based on the fact that if this dharma is not fully known, it will obstruct the cessation of suffering, which is a secret saying without fault. Therefore, only uncontaminated wisdom can obtain the name of 'parijna' (遍知, omniscience). The essence of prahana-parijna (斷遍知, abandonment-omniscience) is visamyoga (離系, separation), because it can universally abandon afflictions, it is called 'parijna' (遍知, omniscience). This is a different name for wisdom, how can it be said to be abandonment? This is the fruit of wisdom, just as the six sense bases (六處, sadayatana) are called the fruit of karma, because the sutra says that the six sense bases are karma, and are the fruit of karma. It is also said that the unconditioned (無為, asamskrta) appropriate fruit is called the fruit of liberation, and is the fruit of liberation. Thus, there is no error in calling 'parijna' (遍知, omniscience) abandonment. If so, the fruit of forbearance (忍, ksanti) should not be 'parijna' (遍知, omniscience). The Vaibhasika masters explain it this way: all forbearances are the retinue of wisdom, so the actions done by forbearance are also established as the name of actions done by wisdom, just as the actions done by ministers are also called the actions done by the king. Other teachers explain that all paths of liberation also have a function for the abandonment obtained, because they can maintain the attainment of abandonment, so that many bondages no longer arise. Therefore, the fruit of forbearance has the meaning of the fruit of wisdom. This explanation is incorrect, because it says that many abandonments
唯是諸無間道。離系士用果故。或金剛喻等持相應無漏。睿智力能總集諸斷。無漏離系得故。忍果爾時亦成智果。漸得果等得一來不還忍果。無為已成智果故。許身見等三順下結。永斷無為名智果故。當說餘三是智果故。為一一斷道所得離系各立一遍知。為一切斷道所得離系總立一遍知。二俱不然。以有極廣極略過故。若爾云何。頌曰。
斷遍知有九 欲初二斷一 二各一合三 上界三亦爾 餘五順下分 色一切斷三
論曰。諸斷總立九種遍知。唯立九緣如后當辯。何等名曰九種遍知。且三界系見諦所斷煩惱等。斷立六遍知。謂欲界系初二部斷立一遍知。初二部言即顯見苦見集所斷。次二部斷各立一遍知。次二部言顯見滅道斷。如欲界三上界亦爾。謂色無色二界所繫。亦初二斷一二各一合三。餘三界系修道所斷。煩惱等斷立三遍知。謂欲界系修道所斷。煩惱等斷立一遍知。應知即是五順下分結盡遍知並前立故。色界所繫修道所斷。煩惱等斷立一遍知。應知此即是色愛盡遍知。無色界系修道所斷。煩惱等斷立一遍知。即一切結永盡遍知。此亦並前合立一故。此三前六總九遍知。如見道中唯見所斷煩惱等斷得遍知名。如是修道中亦唯修斷不一。唯修斷二通見修。已說並前而建立故。當說二時集遍知故
。若異此者則不應說。五順下分盡一切盡遍知。以何因緣色無色界。見斷法斷合立遍知。修斷斷中各別建立。如對治起而建立故。謂如色界諸蘊無我。無色諸蘊無我亦然。以彼見所斷無事同故。等非身俱故對治亦同。如無色中等至殊勝。色界等至則不如是。彼修所斷有事別故。對治不同是故別立。如是所立九種遍知。應辯于中幾何道果。頌曰。
于中忍果六 餘三是智果 未至果一切 根本五或八 無色邊果一 三根本亦爾 俗果二聖九 法智三類二 法智品果六 類智品果五
論曰。於此九中且應先辯。與忍智道為果差別。忍果有六謂三界系。見斷法斷六種遍知。智果有三。謂順下分色愛一切結盡遍知。由此三遍知是修道果故。由此已辯見修道果。與靜慮地為果別者。未至靜慮果具有九。謂此為依斷一切故。根本靜慮果五或八所言五者毗婆沙師說。根本靜慮非欲斷治故。所言八者尊者妙音說。根本靜慮亦欲斷治故。除順下分結盡遍知。以彼唯是未至果故。無容修彼斷對治故。中間靜慮如根本說。豈不依止根本慮靜。入見諦時亦修未來。依未至地欲斷治道。得斷治故亦應證彼。欲見斷法斷無漏離系得。寧說根本唯得五果。此責不然。爾時所修依未至地斷對治者。唯色無色斷對治故。根本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果不是這樣，就不應該這樣說。五順下分結（Orambhagiya-samyojanas，導致眾生輪迴于欲界的五種煩惱結）的斷盡、一切結的斷盡、普遍的了知，是因為什麼因緣而使色界和無色界沒有呢？見所斷的法（Dṛṣṭi-heya-dharma，通過見道斷除的煩惱）和修所斷的法（Bhāvanā-heya-dharma，通過修道斷除的煩惱）合起來建立普遍的了知。修所斷的法在斷除的過程中各自建立，就像對治生起而建立一樣。也就是說，就像色界的諸蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）是無我的，無色界的諸蘊也是無我的，因為它們在見所斷的法上沒有差別。等同於不是與身體俱生的，所以對治也是相同的。就像在無色界中，等至（Samāpatti，禪定）殊勝，色界的等至就不如這樣。因為它們在修所斷的法上有差別，所以對治也不同，因此分別建立。像這樣所建立的九種普遍的了知，應該辨別其中有多少是道（Mārga，通往解脫的道路）的果（Phala，修道的成果）。偈頌說： 『于中忍果六，餘三是智果，未至果一切，根本五或八，無色邊果一，三根本亦爾，俗果二聖九，法智三類二，法智品果六，類智品果五。』 論曰：在這九種普遍的了知中，首先應該辨別的是，以忍（Kṣānti，安忍）和智（Jñāna，智慧）道為果的差別。忍的果有六種，即三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）所繫的，見所斷的法和修所斷的法這六種普遍的了知。智的果有三種，即順下分結的斷盡、色愛（Rūparāga，對色界的貪愛）的斷盡、一切結的斷盡這三種普遍的了知。因為這三種普遍的了知是修道的果。由此已經辨別了見道和修道的果。與靜慮地（Dhyāna-bhūmi，禪定境界）作為果的差別是，未至靜慮（Anāgamya-dhyāna，未至定）的果具有九種，因為依靠它可以斷除一切。根本靜慮（Mūla-dhyāna，根本定）的果有五種或八種，所說的五種是毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，說一切有部論師）所說的，根本靜慮不是欲界斷除的對治。所說的八種是尊者妙音（Bhadanta Svara）所說的，根本靜慮也是欲界斷除的對治。除了順下分結的斷盡這種普遍的了知，因為它只是未至靜慮的果。沒有容許修習它來斷除對治。中間靜慮（Dhyānāntara，中間禪）如根本靜慮所說。難道不是依止根本靜慮，在入見諦（Darśana-satya，見真理）時也修習未來，依未至地欲界斷除的對治道，得到斷除的對治，也應該證得它嗎？得到欲界見所斷的法和修所斷的法，無漏的離系得（Visamyoga-prāpti，解脫的獲得），怎麼能說根本靜慮只得到五種果呢？這種責難是不對的。那時所修習的依未至地斷除的對治，只是色界和無色界斷除的對治，根本靜慮
【English Translation】 English version: If it is otherwise, then it should not be said. The exhaustion of the five lower fetters (Orambhagiya-samyojanas, the five fetters that cause beings to be reborn in the desire realm), the exhaustion of all fetters, and the universal knowledge, by what cause and condition do the form realm and the formless realm not have them? The Dharma to be abandoned by seeing (Dṛṣṭi-heya-dharma, afflictions to be eliminated through the path of seeing) and the Dharma to be abandoned by cultivation (Bhāvanā-heya-dharma, afflictions to be eliminated through the path of cultivation) are combined to establish universal knowledge. The Dharma to be abandoned by cultivation is established separately in the process of abandonment, just as the antidote arises and is established. That is to say, just as the aggregates (Skandha, the five elements that constitute an individual, namely form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) of the form realm are without self, so are the aggregates of the formless realm, because they have no difference in the Dharma to be abandoned by seeing. Equivalent to not being born with the body, so the antidote is also the same. Just as in the formless realm, the attainments (Samāpatti, meditative absorption) are superior, the attainments of the form realm are not like this. Because they have differences in the Dharma to be abandoned by cultivation, so the antidotes are also different, therefore they are established separately. The nine kinds of universal knowledge established in this way should be distinguished as to how many of them are the fruit (Phala, the result of practice) of the path (Mārga, the path to liberation). The verse says: 『Among them, six are the fruit of forbearance, the remaining three are the fruit of wisdom, all are the fruit of the unreleased, the fundamental five or eight, one is the fruit of the formless border, the three fundamentals are also like this, two are the mundane fruits and nine are the noble fruits, three are the Dharma-wisdom and two are the class-wisdom, six are the fruits of the Dharma-wisdom category, and five are the fruits of the class-wisdom category.』 The treatise says: Among these nine kinds of universal knowledge, the difference between forbearance (Kṣānti, patience) and wisdom (Jñāna, knowledge) as the fruit of the path should be distinguished first. There are six fruits of forbearance, namely the six kinds of universal knowledge that are bound by the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), the Dharma to be abandoned by seeing, and the Dharma to be abandoned by cultivation. There are three fruits of wisdom, namely the exhaustion of the lower fetters, the exhaustion of the love of form (Rūparāga, attachment to the form realm), and the exhaustion of all fetters. Because these three kinds of universal knowledge are the fruit of the path of cultivation. The fruits of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation have already been distinguished. The difference between the meditative absorption ground (Dhyāna-bhūmi, the state of meditative absorption) as the fruit is that the fruit of the unreleased meditative absorption (Anāgamya-dhyāna, the unreleased concentration) has nine kinds, because everything can be abandoned by relying on it. The fruit of the fundamental meditative absorption (Mūla-dhyāna, the fundamental concentration) has five or eight kinds, the five kinds mentioned are what the Vaibhāṣika (Vaibhāṣika, Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma masters) said, the fundamental meditative absorption is not the antidote to the abandonment of the desire realm. The eight kinds mentioned are what the Venerable Svara (Bhadanta Svara) said, the fundamental meditative absorption is also the antidote to the abandonment of the desire realm. Except for the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of the lower fetters, because it is only the fruit of the unreleased meditative absorption. There is no allowance to cultivate it to abandon the antidote. The intermediate meditative absorption (Dhyānāntara, intermediate concentration) is as the fundamental meditative absorption said. Isn't it relying on the fundamental meditative absorption, and also cultivating the future when entering the seeing of truth (Darśana-satya, seeing the truth), relying on the path of the antidote to the abandonment of the desire realm in the unreleased ground, obtaining the antidote to the abandonment, and should also attain it? Obtaining the Dharma to be abandoned by seeing and the Dharma to be abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, the unconditioned separation attainment (Visamyoga-prāpti, the attainment of liberation), how can it be said that the fundamental meditative absorption only obtains five fruits? This accusation is not correct. The antidote to the abandonment cultivated at that time relying on the unreleased ground is only the antidote to the abandonment of the form realm and the formless realm, the fundamental meditative absorption
地道既不能為欲斷對治。彼現起位如何能修欲斷治道。由彼所修未至斷治。唯治上界故果唯五。復云何知起余對治。必不能修余對治道宗所說故。謂于思擇先離色染入見諦者。至修位中色盡遍知。得不得處如是說故。有言既說離空處染時。亦修未來諸靜慮地故。豈不已說余治修余。此責不然。非誠證故。說斷空處修靜慮時。但修未來無色對治。非色對治為證。豈成此乃證余不修余治。有作是說。此證俱不成。見修道中所修相異故。謂第四定見道現前。唯修未來六地見道。修道現起所修不然。又見道中一無間道。頓斷八地修道不然。又彼所修同不同分智行相異。是故見道與彼修道所修各別。又修道中亦有餘治現在前位修余治道。如離欲時修諸類智。離色無色時修苦集法智故。見道位理亦應然。又根本靜慮亦能治欲界。如世尊言六出離依。喜為因依住。便能捨離六出離依憂。乃至廣說。此舍離言說離欲染。非宗邊地許有喜根。由此極成根本靜慮能治欲界。是故根本靜慮地果有八遍知。此中有餘作如是斥。非不現起斷治道力。能引無漏離系得生名得遍知。如沙門果如世俗道得二果時。雖修未來無漏斷治。而不名曰得沙門果。如是根本靜慮現前。縱修未來欲斷治道。而不由彼引離系得。故不可得八遍知果。此無深理以許聖位用
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 地道既然不能作為欲界煩惱的直接對治，那麼在見道位現起時，如何能夠修習欲界煩惱的對治之道呢？這是因為在見道位所修習的，尚未達到斷除欲界煩惱的程度，而主要是對治上界（色界和無色界）的煩惱，所以見道位的果只有五種（五解脫分）。 又如何得知在見道位發起其他對治呢？這是因為宗義中說，必定不能修習其他的對治之道。宗義中說，對於那些在思擇之後，先離開色界染污而入見諦的人來說，在修道位中，能夠完全遍知色界的煩惱，並且能夠得到相應的果位，就像經中所說的那樣。 有人說，既然經中說在離開空無邊處染污的時候，也修習未來諸靜慮地的對治，那麼豈不是已經說明了修習其他的對治呢？這種責難是不成立的，因為沒有確鑿的證據。經中說斷除空無邊處的染污時，修習的是未來無色界的對治，而不是色界的對治，這不能作為證據。難道這能證明在見道位不修習其他的對治嗎？ 有人這樣解釋說，這個證據都不成立，因為見道和修道中所修習的對治是不同的。例如，在第四禪定見道現前時，只修習未來六地的見道，而修道現起時所修習的就不是這樣了。而且，在見道中，一個無間道能夠頓斷八地的煩惱，而修道則不是這樣。此外，見道和修道所修習的同分智和行相也不同。因此，見道和修道所修習的內容是各不相同的。 而且，在修道中，也有在現在位修習其他對治之道的例子，例如在離欲界染污時，修習諸類智；在離色界和無色界染污時，修習苦集法智。因此，見道位的道理也應該是這樣。 而且，根本靜慮也能對治欲界煩惱，就像世尊所說的六出離依，以喜為因，安住于喜，就能捨離六出離依的憂，乃至廣說。這裡的『舍離』是指舍離欲界染污。宗喀巴大師的宗義中，邊地（指欲界）允許有喜根。由此可以充分證明，根本靜慮能夠對治欲界煩惱。因此，根本靜慮地的果有八遍知。 這裡有人這樣反駁說，不是沒有現起的斷治道的力量，能夠引生無漏的離系得，從而產生遍知。就像沙門果，就像世俗道得到二果時，雖然修習未來無漏的斷治，但不能被稱為得到沙門果。同樣，根本靜慮現前時，縱然修習未來欲界煩惱的對治，也不能由此引生離系得，所以不可能得到八遍知的果。 這種說法沒有深刻的道理，因為我們承認聖位的作用。
【English Translation】 English version Since the path of the earth (Dìdào) cannot directly counteract the afflictions of the desire realm (Yùjiè), how can the path of counteracting desire (Yùduàn) be cultivated when the stage of seeing the path (Jiàndào) manifests? This is because what is cultivated at the stage of seeing the path has not yet reached the level of eradicating the afflictions of the desire realm, but mainly counteracts the afflictions of the upper realms (the form realm (Sèjiè) and the formless realm (Wúsèjiè)), so the fruit of the stage of seeing the path is only five (five aspects of liberation). Furthermore, how can it be known that other counteractions are initiated at the stage of seeing the path? This is because the tenets state that other paths of counteraction cannot be cultivated. The tenets state that for those who, after contemplation, first abandon the defilements of the form realm and enter the truth of seeing (Jiàndì), in the stage of cultivation (Xiūdào), they can completely and universally know the afflictions of the form realm and obtain the corresponding fruit, as stated in the scriptures. Some say that since the scriptures state that when abandoning the defilements of the sphere of infinite space (Kōngwúbiānchù), one also cultivates the counteractions of the future meditative absorptions (Jìnglǜ) realms, doesn't this already indicate the cultivation of other counteractions? This criticism is not valid because there is no conclusive evidence. The scriptures state that when eradicating the defilements of the sphere of infinite space, one cultivates the counteractions of the future formless realms, not the form realm, which cannot be used as evidence. Does this prove that other counteractions are not cultivated at the stage of seeing the path? Some explain it this way: this evidence is not valid because the counteractions cultivated in the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation are different. For example, when the fourth dhyana (dì sì chándìng) of the stage of seeing the path manifests, one only cultivates the seeing path of the future six realms, but what is cultivated when the stage of cultivation arises is not like this. Moreover, in the stage of seeing the path, one uninterrupted path (wújiàndào) can instantly eradicate the afflictions of eight realms, but this is not the case in the stage of cultivation. Furthermore, the similar wisdom (tóngfēnzhì) and aspects (xíngxiàng) cultivated in the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation are also different. Therefore, what is cultivated in the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation are distinct. Moreover, in the stage of cultivation, there are also examples of cultivating other paths of counteraction in the present stage, such as cultivating various types of wisdom (zhū lèi zhì) when abandoning the defilements of the desire realm; and cultivating the wisdom of the Dharma of suffering and origin (kǔ jí fǎ zhì) when abandoning the defilements of the form and formless realms. Therefore, the principle of the stage of seeing the path should also be the same. Furthermore, the fundamental meditative absorptions (gēnběn jìnglǜ) can also counteract the afflictions of the desire realm, just as the World Honored One (Shìzūn) said regarding the six bases of renunciation (liù chūlí yī): relying on joy (xǐ) as the cause, abiding in joy, one can abandon the sorrow of the six bases of renunciation, and so on. The 'abandonment' here refers to abandoning the defilements of the desire realm. In Tsongkhapa's (Zōngkābā) tenets, the borderland (biāndì) (referring to the desire realm) allows for the root of joy (xǐ gēn). From this, it can be fully proven that the fundamental meditative absorptions can counteract the afflictions of the desire realm. Therefore, the fruit of the fundamental meditative absorption realms is eightfold universal knowledge (bā biànzhī). Here, some refute it by saying that it is not that the power of the path of eradication that has not manifested can give rise to the non-outflow (wúlòu) detachment (líxì dé), thereby producing universal knowledge. Just like the fruit of a Shramana (shāmén guǒ), just like the worldly path obtaining the second fruit, although one cultivates the future non-outflow eradication, one cannot be said to have obtained the fruit of a Shramana. Similarly, when the fundamental meditative absorption manifests, even if one cultivates the future counteraction of the afflictions of the desire realm, one cannot thereby give rise to detachment, so it is impossible to obtain the fruit of eightfold universal knowledge. This statement does not have profound reasoning because we acknowledge the function of the holy stages.
世俗道。離諸染時得無漏世俗二離系得故。非俗無漏二智俱行故。由未來無漏道力能引無漏離系得生。非沙門果亦不成證。安立因果與得無漏。離系得理各有別故。言世俗道得二果時。有不名為沙門果者。是現非彼未來果義。無漏斷得障得斷故。爾時必起無漏斷得。此無漏得亦由未來。無漏引起如何成證。又世俗道得二果時。亦許所得名沙門果。未來無漏解脫道等。亦得名為沙門果故。謂世俗道得二果時。未來無漏解脫道等。障得斷故得皆現起。彼為是誰沙門之果。是現未來沙門之果。謂世俗道現在前時。有無漏得名現在道。彼是此道之等流果。亦未來道之士用果。相應俱有因通三世故。彼以士用果為其果故。諸無為法越三世故名沙門果何理能遮。由此彼執根本靜慮。八遍知果其理還成。然實不成彼證非故。且彼所說謂第四定。見道現前唯修未來六地見道。修道現起所修異者此不成證。謂所修地雖復不同。然俱唯修上界治故。雖所修地少有不同。何理即令修余對治。以離有頂治道起時。雖修未來依九地道。而不可以所修異故。即令彼能修余對治。不爾彼應修世俗道。又即由此于見道中。雖一剎那頓斷八地。而修八地治道非余。隨斷少多恒修同治。又由同分不同分修。見修道中修相有異。即證見道不修未來。余對治道理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 世俗道。當遠離各種染污時，可以獲得無漏的世俗二離系（Visesa，特殊的解脫）的獲得，因為這兩種離系是同時獲得的。這不是因為世俗和無漏兩種智慧同時執行的緣故，而是因為未來無漏道的威力能夠引導無漏離系的獲得產生。如果不是這樣，沙門果（Sramana-phala，修道者的果位）也無法成就證得。安立因果關係與獲得無漏離系的道理各有不同。 如果說世俗道獲得二果（斯陀含和阿那含）時，有不被稱為沙門果的情況，那是指現在而非未來的果。因為無漏斷除了障礙，才能獲得。那時必定會生起無漏的斷得。這種無漏的獲得也是由未來無漏引起的，如何能成為證成呢？而且，世俗道獲得二果時，也允許所得的果被稱為沙門果，因為未來的無漏解脫道等，也可以被稱為沙門果。 所謂世俗道獲得二果時，未來無漏解脫道等，因為障礙斷除的緣故，獲得都會立即生起。那麼，這些果位是誰的沙門果呢？是現在還是未來的沙門果呢？當世俗道現在前時，有無漏的獲得被稱為現在的道，那是此道的等流果（Nisyanda-phala，同類相續的果報），也是未來道的士用果（Purusakara-phala，由努力產生的果報），因為相應俱有因通達三世的緣故。因為彼以士用果作為其果的緣故，各種無為法超越三世，被稱為沙門果，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？ 由此，他們執著于根本靜慮（Dhyana，禪定），八遍知果（Astau-vijnana-phala，八種認知之果），他們的道理仍然成立。然而實際上並不成立，因為他們的論證是錯誤的。且他們所說的是第四禪定，見道（Darsana-marga，見真理之道）現前時，唯有修未來六地（欲界，色界和無色界）的見道，修道（Bhavana-marga，通過修行培養智慧之道）現起時，所修的對治不同，這不能成為證明。因為所修的地雖然不同，但都是修上界的對治。 即使所修的地稍微有些不同，有什麼道理就立即令其修習其他的對治呢？當遠離有頂（Bhavagra，三有之頂）的對治道生起時，即使修未來依於九地的道，也不可以因為所修的不同，就立即令其能夠修習其他的對治。如果不是這樣，他們應該修習世俗道。 而且，正因為如此，在見道中，即使一剎那間頓斷八地（欲界，色界和無色界），而修習八地的對治道，而不是其他的。隨著斷除的多少，始終修習相同的對治。而且，由於同分和不同分的修習，見道和修道中修習的相狀有所不同，就證明見道不修未來其他的對治，這個道理...
【English Translation】 English version The mundane path. When one is separated from all defilements, one obtains the two Visesa (distinctive liberation) of the mundane and supramundane, because these two liberations are obtained simultaneously. This is not because the two wisdoms, mundane and supramundane, operate together, but because the power of the future supramundane path can lead to the arising of the supramundane Visesa. If this were not the case, the Sramana-phala (fruits of the ascetic path) would not be accomplished either. The establishment of cause and effect and the principle of obtaining supramundane Visesa are different. If it is said that when the mundane path obtains the two fruits (Sakrdagamin and Anagamin), there are cases where it is not called Sramana-phala, that refers to the present fruit, not the future fruit. Because the supramundane cuts off the obstructions, it can be obtained. At that time, the supramundane cutting-off-acquisition will necessarily arise. This supramundane acquisition is also caused by the future supramundane, how can it be a proof? Moreover, when the mundane path obtains the two fruits, it is also permissible for the obtained fruit to be called Sramana-phala, because the future supramundane liberation path, etc., can also be called Sramana-phala. When the mundane path obtains the two fruits, the future supramundane liberation path, etc., because the obstructions are cut off, the acquisitions all arise immediately. Then, whose Sramana-phala are these fruits? Are they the present or future Sramana-phala? When the mundane path is present, there is a supramundane acquisition called the present path, which is the Nisyanda-phala (result of outflow, i.e., a result of the same kind) of this path, and also the Purusakara-phala (result of effort) of the future path, because the corresponding co-existent cause pervades the three times. Because it takes the Purusakara-phala as its fruit, what reason can prevent the various unconditioned dharmas, which transcend the three times, from being called Sramana-phala? Therefore, their attachment to the fundamental Dhyana (meditative absorption), the eight Astau-vijnana-phala (fruits of eightfold knowledge), their reasoning still holds. However, in reality, it does not hold, because their argument is incorrect. Moreover, what they say is the fourth Dhyana, when the Darsana-marga (path of seeing) is present, only the Darsana-marga of the future six realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) is cultivated, when the Bhavana-marga (path of cultivation) arises, the antidotes cultivated are different, this cannot be a proof. Because although the realms cultivated are different, they are all cultivating the antidotes of the upper realms. Even if the realms cultivated are slightly different, what reason immediately causes them to cultivate other antidotes? When the antidote path of separating from Bhavagra (peak of existence) arises, even if one cultivates the path based on the future nine realms, it is not permissible to immediately cause them to be able to cultivate other antidotes because what is cultivated is different. If not, they should cultivate the mundane path. Moreover, precisely because of this, in the Darsana-marga, even if one suddenly cuts off the eight realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) in an instant, one cultivates the antidote path of the eight realms, not others. With the amount of cutting off, one always cultivates the same antidote. Moreover, due to the cultivation of the same division and different divisions, the aspects of cultivation in the Darsana-marga and Bhavana-marga are different, which proves that the Darsana-marga does not cultivate other future antidotes, this reasoning...
善成立。見道所修唯同分故。如集等忍現在前時。雖先已得苦等忍智。非見集等所斷治故。於此位中不能修彼。然餘地道於此能修。是此位道同對治故。或見道位雖修未來無量功德。而在忍位修忍非余。于智位中唯能修智。如是忍智尚不互修況修未來。余對治道義可成立。又修道中亦定無有。余治現起修余治義。雖諸類智離欲時。修離色無色時。修苦集法智。而非斷對治。非對治故修此何緣修由因長養。辯智品中當廣顯示。又彼所引意近行經。約加行中現見憂喜。相對治故說亦無失。或修觀者由先現見。耽嗜依憂能為逼惱。后例觀彼出離依憂。行既同前亦為逼惱。遂欣初定妙喜現前。因此勤修斷憂治道。故說因喜能捨離憂。或出離依憂斷對治無間。容初靜慮妙喜現前。蘊此於心密說現在。出離依憂喜近能相對治。為欲慰喻遭出離憂。所逼惱者令安泰故根本靜慮於一切種。定無能為欲斷對治。誰棄樂行依苦勤修。為欲證得三沙門果。由如是理毗婆沙師。說根本靜慮遍知果唯五。我能此中更廣抉擇。恐遠本義故應且止。與無色地為果別者。無色邊地果唯有一。謂依空處近分地道。得色愛盡遍知果故。聖依俗道離諸染位。所得斷果亦名遍知。以得無漏離系得故。前三根本果亦唯一。謂依無色前三根本。得一切盡遍知果。故由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 善成立。因為見道所修的只是同分（指同一類別的法）。例如在集法忍等生起的時候，雖然先前已經獲得了苦法忍等智慧，但因為它們不是見集法等所斷除和對治的，所以在這個階段不能修習它們。然而，其他地的道可以在這個階段修習，因為它們是對治同一類煩惱的。或者，在見道位雖然可以修習未來無量的功德，但在忍位只能修習忍，不能修習其他的。在智位中只能修習智。像這樣，忍和智尚且不能互相修習，更何況是修習未來的道呢？修習其他對治道的道理是可以成立的。 又，在修道中也絕對沒有同時生起修習一種對治道，又修習另一種對治道的道理。雖然諸類智在離欲界染時，修習離色界和無色界染的道，修習苦法智和集法智，但那不是斷除對治，因為不是對治的緣故，修習這個（指苦集法智）又怎麼能修習那個（指離色無色染的道）呢？這是因為因的增長和培養。在辯智品中將會廣泛地顯示。 而且，他們所引用的《意近行經》，是就加行位中現見憂和喜，因為它們是相對的對治，所以這樣說也沒有過失。或者，修習觀的人由於先前現見了耽著所依的憂能帶來逼惱，後來類比地觀察那些出離所依的憂，因為行為和先前一樣，也會帶來逼惱，於是欣喜于初禪的微妙喜樂現前，因此勤奮地修習斷除憂愁的對治道，所以說因為喜樂能夠舍離憂愁。或者，出離所依的憂愁的斷除和對治之間，容許初禪的微妙喜樂現前，將這個蘊藏在心中，秘密地說現在。出離所依的憂愁和喜樂是近似的相對對治，爲了安慰那些遭受出離憂愁所逼惱的人，讓他們安泰的緣故，根本靜慮在一切情況下，都不能作為斷除欲界染的對治。誰會捨棄快樂的修行，依靠苦行勤奮地修習，爲了證得三沙門果呢？ 由於這樣的道理，毗婆沙師說根本靜慮的遍知果只有五種。我能在這裡更廣泛地抉擇，但恐怕遠離了原本的意義，所以應該暫時停止。至於和無色地作為果的區別，無色邊地的果只有一種，就是依靠空無邊處近分地的道，獲得色愛盡的遍知果的緣故。聖者依靠世俗道離開各種染污的階段，所獲得的斷果也叫做遍知，因為獲得了無漏的離系得的緣故。 前三個根本靜慮的果也只有一種，就是依靠無色界前三個根本靜慮，獲得一切盡的遍知果的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version Well established. Because what is cultivated in the path of seeing is only the same category (referring to the same type of dharma). For example, when the forbearance of the dharma of suffering arises, although one has already obtained the wisdom of the forbearance of suffering, etc., because they are not what is severed and counteracted by the seeing of the dharma of suffering, etc., one cannot cultivate them in this stage. However, the paths of other grounds can be cultivated in this stage, because they are the counteractions to the same type of afflictions. Or, although one can cultivate immeasurable merits of the future in the stage of the path of seeing, one can only cultivate forbearance in the stage of forbearance, and cannot cultivate others. In the stage of wisdom, one can only cultivate wisdom. Like this, forbearance and wisdom cannot even cultivate each other, let alone cultivate the paths of the future? The principle of cultivating other counteracting paths can be established. Moreover, in the path of cultivation, there is absolutely no principle of simultaneously arising to cultivate one counteracting path and also cultivating another counteracting path. Although the various types of wisdom cultivate the path of detachment from the realms of form and formlessness when detaching from the desire realm, and cultivate the wisdom of the dharma of suffering and the dharma of accumulation, that is not severing the counteraction, because it is not the reason for the counteraction, how can cultivating this (referring to the wisdom of the dharma of suffering and accumulation) cultivate that (referring to the path of detachment from the realms of form and formlessness)? This is because of the growth and cultivation of the cause. It will be extensively shown in the chapter on distinguishing wisdom. Moreover, the Yi Jin Xing Sutra (Intimate Conduct Sutra) that they cited refers to the joy and sorrow seen in the stage of application, because they are relative counteractions, so there is no fault in saying that. Or, those who cultivate contemplation, because they have previously seen that the sorrow based on attachment can bring about oppression, later analogously observe those sorrows based on detachment, because the behavior is the same as before, it will also bring about oppression, so they rejoice in the subtle joy of the first dhyana arising, therefore they diligently cultivate the counteracting path of severing sorrow, so it is said that because of joy one can abandon sorrow. Or, between the severance and counteraction of the sorrow based on detachment, the subtle joy of the first dhyana is allowed to arise, concealing this in the heart, secretly saying now. The sorrow and joy based on detachment are approximate relative counteractions, in order to comfort those who are oppressed by the sorrow of detachment, to make them peaceful, the fundamental dhyana cannot be used as a counteraction to sever the defilements of the desire realm in all cases. Who would abandon the practice of happiness, rely on ascetic practices and diligently cultivate, in order to attain the three sramana fruits? Due to such a principle, the Vaibhasika masters say that the pervasive knowledge fruit of the fundamental dhyana is only five types. I can make a more extensive determination here, but I am afraid of deviating from the original meaning, so I should stop for now. As for the difference between the ground of formlessness as a fruit, there is only one fruit of the border of formlessness, that is, relying on the path of the near-access ground of the sphere of infinite space, because one obtains the pervasive knowledge fruit of the exhaustion of love for form. The severance fruit obtained by the sage relying on the mundane path to leave the various stages of defilement is also called pervasive knowledge, because one obtains the non-outflow detachment gain. There is also only one fruit of the first three fundamental dhyanas, that is, relying on the first three fundamental dhyanas of the formless realm, because one obtains the pervasive knowledge fruit of the exhaustion of everything.
此已辯靜慮無色。總得遍知果多少別。與俗聖道為果別者。俗道果二謂俗道力。唯能獲得順下分盡。及色愛盡遍知果故聖道果九。謂聖道力乃至能越。三有頂故。應知九中二是共果七不共果。唯聖果故與法類智為果別者。法智果三謂法智。力能斷三界修所斷故。類智果二。謂類智力斷色無色修所斷故。與法類品為果別者。法智品果六。謂即是前法智法忍所得六果。類智品果五。謂即是前類智類忍所得五果。品言通攝智及忍故。法品六中四不共果。三屬法忍一屬法智。二是共果。謂最後二雙屬法類二種智故。類品五中三不共果皆屬類忍。二是共果謂最後二義如前釋。何緣一一道所得斷。不各各立為一遍知。以永斷時說遍知故。如契經說吾今為汝宣說遍知。乃至廣說。此中何等名為遍知。謂貪永斷瞋永斷癡永斷。乃至廣說。說永斷言顯所得斷。都無隨縛方名遍知。云何名為有隨縛斷。云何名為無隨縛斷。斷具三種或四種緣。名無隨縛不具名有。謂或有斷雖得離系得。而闕余得故容還永舍。或復有斷余得雖生。未缺堅牢生死之首。以八地染雖數曾離。未能缺彼故還墜惡趣獄。或復有斷雖亦缺彼。而余煩惱繫縛未除。于永斷義未得圓滿。或復有斷余縛亦除。而猶未能越所屬界。以同類惑未斷無餘。于永斷義亦未圓滿。如是諸斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此段已經辨析了靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）和無色定（Arūpa-samāpatti，無色界的禪定）。總的來說，要了解通過遍知（Parijñā，完全的理解）所獲得的果報有多少種區別。與世俗道（俗道）和聖道（聖道）相比，果報的區別是什麼呢？世俗道的果報有兩種，即世俗道的力量，只能獲得斷除下分結（五種束縛眾生於欲界的煩惱）和斷除對色界貪愛的遍知果。聖道的果報有九種，即聖道的力量，乃至能夠超越三有頂（三界之頂）。應該瞭解這九種果報中有兩種是共通的果報，七種是不共通的果報，因為它們僅僅是聖道的果報。與法智（Dharma-jñāna，對四諦的知見）和類智（Anvaya-jñāna，對四諦的推論知見）相比，果報的區別是什麼呢？法智的果報有三種，即法智的力量，能夠斷除三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的修所斷（通過修行才能斷除的煩惱）。類智的果報有兩種，即類智的力量，斷除色界和無色界的修所斷。 與法智品（Dharma-jñāna-kṣānti，對四諦的知見之忍）和類智品（Anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti，對四諦的推論知見之忍）相比，果報的區別是什麼呢？法智品的果報有六種，即前面所說的法智和法忍（Dharma-kṣānti，對四諦的忍）所獲得的六種果報。類智品的果報有五種，即前面所說的類智和類忍（Anvaya-kṣānti，對四諦的推論之忍）所獲得的五種果報。這裡說『品』，是通用於包含智和忍的。法智品的六種果報中有四種是不共通的果報，三種屬於法忍，一種屬於法智，兩種是共通的果報，即最後兩種果報同時屬於法智和類智這兩種智慧。類智品的五種果報中有三種是不共通的果報，都屬於類忍，兩種是共通的果報，即最後兩種果報的含義如前所述。 為什麼每一種道所獲得的斷除，不各自建立為一種遍知呢？因為在永遠斷除的時候才說遍知。正如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『我現在為你們宣說遍知』，乃至廣說。這裡面什麼叫做遍知呢？就是貪永斷、嗔永斷、癡永斷，乃至廣說。說『永斷』，是爲了顯示所獲得的斷除，完全沒有隨縛（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）才叫做遍知。什麼叫做有隨縛的斷除？什麼叫做沒有隨縛的斷除？斷除具備三種或四種因緣，叫做沒有隨縛，不具備就叫做有隨縛。也就是說，或者有的斷除雖然獲得了離系得（Visamyoga-prāpti，脫離束縛的獲得），但是缺少其他的獲得，所以容許還會永遠捨棄。或者有的斷除，其他的獲得雖然生起，但是沒有斷絕堅牢的生死之首，因為八地（指色界和無色界的八個禪定層次）的染污雖然多次曾經脫離，但是未能斷絕它，所以還會墮落到惡趣（Durgati，不好的去處，如地獄）。或者有的斷除，雖然也斷絕了生死之首，但是其他的煩惱束縛還沒有去除，對於永遠斷除的意義還沒有得到圓滿。或者有的斷除，其他的束縛也去除了，但是仍然未能超越所屬的界限，因為同類的迷惑還沒有斷除乾淨，對於永遠斷除的意義也沒有得到圓滿。像這樣的各種斷除。
【English Translation】 English version This passage has already distinguished between Dhyana (meditative absorption) and Arūpa-samāpatti (formless attainments). In general, it is necessary to understand how many differences there are in the fruits obtained through Parijñā (complete understanding). What are the differences in fruits compared to mundane paths (俗道) and noble paths (聖道)? There are two fruits of mundane paths, namely the power of mundane paths, which can only obtain the Parijñā fruit of abandoning the lower fetters (五下分結, the five fetters that bind beings to the desire realm) and abandoning attachment to the form realm. There are nine fruits of the noble path, namely the power of the noble path, even being able to transcend the peak of the three existences (三有頂, the summit of the three realms). It should be understood that among these nine fruits, two are common fruits and seven are uncommon fruits, because they are solely fruits of the noble path. What are the differences in fruits compared to Dharma-jñāna (法智, knowledge of the Four Noble Truths) and Anvaya-jñāna (類智, inferential knowledge of the Four Noble Truths)? There are three fruits of Dharma-jñāna, namely the power of Dharma-jñāna, which can sever the afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation (修所斷) in the three realms (desire, form, and formless realms). There are two fruits of Anvaya-jñāna, namely the power of Anvaya-jñāna, which severs the afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation in the form and formless realms. What are the differences in fruits compared to Dharma-jñāna-kṣānti (法智品, forbearance regarding the knowledge of the Four Noble Truths) and Anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti (類智品, forbearance regarding the inferential knowledge of the Four Noble Truths)? There are six fruits of Dharma-jñāna-kṣānti, namely the six fruits obtained by the aforementioned Dharma-jñāna and Dharma-kṣānti (法忍, forbearance regarding the Four Noble Truths). There are five fruits of Anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti, namely the five fruits obtained by the aforementioned Anvaya-jñāna and Anvaya-kṣānti (類忍, forbearance regarding the inferential knowledge of the Four Noble Truths). Here, '品' (category) is used generically to include both knowledge and forbearance. Among the six fruits of Dharma-jñāna-kṣānti, four are uncommon fruits, three belong to Dharma-kṣānti, one belongs to Dharma-jñāna, and two are common fruits, namely the last two fruits that belong to both Dharma-jñāna and Anvaya-jñāna. Among the five fruits of Anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti, three are uncommon fruits, all belonging to Anvaya-kṣānti, and two are common fruits, the meaning of the last two being as explained before. Why is it that the abandonment obtained by each path is not individually established as a type of Parijñā? Because Parijñā is spoken of at the time of complete abandonment. As the Sutra (契經, Buddhist scripture) says, 'I will now explain Parijñā to you,' and so on. What is called Parijñā here? It is the complete abandonment of greed, the complete abandonment of hatred, the complete abandonment of delusion, and so on. Saying 'complete abandonment' is to show that the abandonment obtained, with absolutely no Anusaya (隨縛, latent tendencies of afflictions) remaining, is called Parijñā. What is called abandonment with Anusaya? What is called abandonment without Anusaya? Abandonment that possesses three or four conditions is called without Anusaya, and abandonment that does not possess them is called with Anusaya. That is to say, or there is abandonment that, although it obtains Visamyoga-prāpti (離系得, attainment of detachment), lacks other attainments, so it is permissible that it will be abandoned forever. Or there is abandonment where, although other attainments arise, the firm head of samsara (生死之首, cycle of birth and death) has not been severed, because the defilements of the eight grounds (八地, the eight levels of meditative absorption in the form and formless realms) have been abandoned many times but have not been severed, so one will still fall into the evil destinies (惡趣, Durgati, bad realms such as hell). Or there is abandonment that, although it has also severed the head of samsara, other afflictive bonds have not been removed, and the meaning of complete abandonment has not been fulfilled. Or there is abandonment that has also removed other bonds, but has still not transcended the realm to which it belongs, because similar delusions have not been completely abandoned, and the meaning of complete abandonment has also not been fulfilled. Such are these various abandonments.
名有隨縛。是故於彼不立遍知。唯九位中三四緣具。斷無隨縛可立遍知。何謂具緣。頌曰。
得無漏斷得 及缺第一有 滅雙因越界 故立九遍知
論曰。見斷法斷具三緣故便立遍知。修斷法斷具四緣故方立遍知。見斷法斷具三緣者。謂得無漏離系得故。缺有頂故。滅雙因故。此中異生雖復亦有離八地染名滅雙因。而斷非遍知闕餘二緣故。見聖諦位第二三剎那諸斷。雖有無漏離系得。餘二緣闕未立遍知。第四五剎那雖亦缺有頂。雙因未滅不立遍知。見集斷因有未滅故。集法智位欲二部斷。具三緣故得遍知名。后五剎那法類智位。斷具三緣故皆得遍知名。修斷法斷具四緣者。三緣如上越界第四。謂諸界中聖未越地。彼所得斷唯具二緣。若已越地未越界者。彼所得斷猶闕一緣。若越界時四緣方具。隨應彼斷得遍知名。豈不應五緣謂加離俱系。有餘說此即滅雙因。及越界緣故不別說。若爾亦勿立越界緣。越界亦即滅雙因故。雙因俱系雖依一物。而系與因其義各異。謂於五部令起名因。即于其中能縛名系。且苦智生集智未生。二部雖無互令起力。而有展轉能為因性。見集斷惑縛義如本。見苦所斷縛義都無。故非滅雙因即是離俱系。又不可說因義即系。以無漏緣惑不繫他聚故。由此我宗二種俱說。今不說者但可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名為『隨縛』（隨煩惱的束縛）。因此，對於這種斷，不設立『遍知』（徹底的知曉）。只有在九種情況中，具備三種或四種因緣，斷除了『無隨縛』（沒有隨煩惱的束縛）時，才能設立『遍知』。什麼是具備因緣呢？頌文說：
『得無漏斷得，及缺第一有，滅雙因越界，故立九遍知。』
論曰：見斷（通過見道斷除的煩惱）和法斷（通過修道斷除的煩惱），具備三種因緣，因此設立『遍知』。修斷的法斷，具備四種因緣，才能設立『遍知』。見斷的法斷具備三種因緣，是指獲得無漏的離系得（脫離束縛的獲得），缺少有頂（最高禪定），滅除雙因（同時滅除兩個原因）。這裡，異生（凡夫）雖然也有脫離八地染污，名為滅雙因，但因為斷除並非『遍知』，缺少其餘兩種因緣。在見聖諦位（證悟聖道的階段）的第二、第三剎那，雖然有無漏的離系得，但其餘兩種因緣缺失，所以沒有設立『遍知』。第四、第五剎那，雖然也缺少有頂，但雙因沒有滅除，所以沒有設立『遍知』，因為見集（對集諦的見解）斷除的原因沒有滅除。集法智位（對集諦的法智）斷除欲界二部的煩惱，具備三種因緣，因此獲得『遍知』的名稱。后五剎那，法類智位（對法和類的智慧）的斷除，具備三種因緣，因此都獲得『遍知』的名稱。修斷的法斷具備四種因緣，三種因緣如上所述，第四種是越界（超越界限）。指諸界中的聖者沒有超越地界，他們所獲得的斷除只具備兩種因緣。如果已經超越地界，但沒有超越界限，那麼他們所獲得的斷除仍然缺少一種因緣。如果超越界限時，四種因緣才具備。根據情況，他們的斷除獲得『遍知』的名稱。難道不應該是五種因緣嗎？即加上離俱系（脫離共同的束縛）。有人說這包含在滅雙因和越界中，所以沒有單獨說明。如果這樣，也不要設立越界這個因緣了，因為越界也包含在滅雙因中。雙因和俱系雖然依據同一事物，但繫縛和原因的意義各不相同。使五部煩惱生起名為因，在其中能夠束縛名為系。而且苦智生起，集智沒有生起，二部雖然沒有互相生起的力量，但有輾轉能作為原因的性質。見集斷惑的束縛意義如前所述，見苦所斷的束縛意義完全沒有。所以滅雙因不是脫離共同的束縛。又不能說原因的意義就是繫縛，因為無漏的因緣，煩惱不束縛其他的聚合。因此，我宗兩種都說。現在不說，只是可以……
【English Translation】 English version: It is called 'Suyanubandha' (the bondage of accompanying defilements). Therefore, 'Parijnana' (complete knowledge) is not established for that severance. Only in nine instances, when three or four conditions are complete, and 'Niranubandha' (without accompanying defilements) is severed, can 'Parijnana' be established. What does it mean to have complete conditions? The verse says:
'Attainment of undefiled severance, and lack of the highest existence, extinction of dual causes, transcendence of realms, hence nine Parijnanas are established.'
Commentary: Severance by seeing (severance of afflictions through the path of seeing) and severance by dharma (severance of afflictions through the path of cultivation) have three conditions complete, hence 'Parijnana' is established. Severance of dharma by cultivation has four conditions complete, then 'Parijnana' is established. Severance of dharma by seeing has three conditions complete, which means obtaining undefiled detachment, lacking the peak of existence (Bhavagra), and extinguishing dual causes. Here, although ordinary beings also have detachment from the defilements of the eight realms, called extinguishing dual causes, the severance is not 'Parijnana' because the other two conditions are lacking. In the second and third moments of the stage of seeing the noble truths, although there is undefiled detachment, the other two conditions are lacking, so 'Parijnana' is not established. In the fourth and fifth moments, although the peak of existence is also lacking, dual causes are not extinguished, so 'Parijnana' is not established, because the cause of severance by seeing the origin (Samudaya) has not been extinguished. In the position of Dharma-knowledge of Origin (Samudaya-dharma-jnana), the severance of the two parts of the desire realm has three conditions complete, hence it obtains the name 'Parijnana'. In the subsequent five moments, the severance in the position of Dharma-knowledge of Kind (Dharma-anvaya-jnana) has three conditions complete, hence they all obtain the name 'Parijnana'. Severance of dharma by cultivation has four conditions complete, the three conditions are as mentioned above, and the fourth is transcendence of realms. It refers to the saints in the realms who have not transcended the earth realm; their obtained severance only has two conditions complete. If they have transcended the earth realm but have not transcended the realm, then their obtained severance still lacks one condition. When they transcend the realm, the four conditions are complete. According to the situation, their severance obtains the name 'Parijnana'. Shouldn't there be five conditions? That is, adding detachment from common bondage (Sahabhava-samyojana). Some say that this is included in the extinction of dual causes and transcendence of realms, so it is not explained separately. If so, then don't establish the condition of transcendence of realms either, because transcendence of realms is also included in the extinction of dual causes. Although dual causes and common bondage rely on the same thing, the meanings of bondage and cause are different. Causing the arising of the five afflictions is called cause, and being able to bind within them is called bondage. Moreover, when the knowledge of suffering arises, and the knowledge of origin has not arisen, although the two parts do not have the power to arise mutually, they have the nature of being able to be causes in turn. The meaning of the bondage of severance by seeing the origin is as mentioned before, and the meaning of the bondage of severance by seeing suffering is completely absent. Therefore, the extinction of dual causes is not detachment from common bondage. Also, it cannot be said that the meaning of cause is the same as bondage, because with undefiled conditions, afflictions do not bind other aggregates. Therefore, our school speaks of both. Now, not speaking of it is just permissible...
說言。說此彼自成不可言無異。體義寬故且說雙因。雖諸越界位皆滅雙因。而滅雙因時非皆越界。故滅雙因外別立越界緣。滅三地雙因未立遍知故。誰成就幾遍知。頌曰。
住見諦位無 或成一至五 修成六一二 無學唯成一
論曰。異生位中雖能離染。乃至八地不成遍知。于聖位中依未至定入見諦者。從初乃至集法忍位亦無遍知。至集法智集類忍位唯成就一。至集類智滅法忍位便成就二。至滅法智滅類忍位便成就三。至滅類智道法忍位便成就四。至道法智道類忍位便成就五。依根本定入見諦者。至集類忍亦無遍知。后位隨應如理思擇。住修道位未離欲者。道類智為初乃至未得全離欲界染。及離欲退皆成就六。至全離欲以離欲第九解脫道為初。乃至離色界最後無間道。先離欲者從道類智。乃至未起色盡道前唯成一遍知。謂順下分盡。從色愛盡及無學位。起色纏退亦一如前。有色愛者從色愛永盡。先離色者從起色盡道。至未全離無色愛前。成下分盡色愛盡二。從無學退起無色纏成二遍知名。如前說住無學位唯成就一。謂一切結永盡遍知。若依根本入正決定道類智時。彼所有斷亦得順下分斷遍知名者。寧許根本果唯有五遍知。唯色無色界見斷法斷。得彼遍知名故無有失。何緣唯此亦得彼名。以漸次得不還
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
說言：說的是『此』和『彼』各自獨立，不可言說，沒有差異。因為『體』和『義』寬廣，所以暫且說『雙因』（duayin）。雖然所有超越界限的位次都滅除了『雙因』，但滅除『雙因』的時候並非都超越了界限。因此，在滅除『雙因』之外，另外設立『越界緣』。因為滅除三地（sandi）的『雙因』時，還沒有建立『遍知』（bianzhi），所以，誰成就了幾個『遍知』呢？
頌曰：
住見諦位無，或成一至五；
修成六一二，無學唯成一。
論曰：
在異生位（yishengwei）中，即使能夠遠離染污，乃至八地（badi）也不能成就『遍知』。在聖位（shengwei）中，依靠未至定（weizhiding）進入見諦（jiandi）的人，從最初乃至集法忍位（jifarenwei）也沒有『遍知』。到集法智（jifazhi）、集類忍位（jileirenwei）才成就一個『遍知』。到集類智（jileizhi）、滅法忍位（miefarenwei）便成就兩個『遍知』。到滅法智（miefazhi）、滅類忍位（mieleirenwei）便成就三個『遍知』。到滅類智（mieleizhi）、道法忍位（daofarenwei）便成就四個『遍知』。到道法智（daofazhi）、道類忍位（daoleirenwei）便成就五個『遍知』。依靠根本定（genbending）進入見諦的人，到集類忍位也沒有『遍知』。後面的位次，根據情況如理思擇。
住在修道位（xiudaowei）還沒有離開欲界染污的人，以道類智（daoleizhi）為開始，乃至沒有完全脫離欲界染污，以及脫離欲界後退轉的人，都成就六個『遍知』。到完全脫離欲界，以脫離欲界的第九解脫道（jiedaodao）為開始，乃至脫離色界（sejie）的最後無間道（wujiandao）。先脫離欲界的人，從道類智開始，乃至沒有生起色盡道（sejindao）之前，只成就一個『遍知』，指的是順下分盡（shunxiafenjin）。從色愛盡（seaijin）以及無學位（wuxuewei），生起色纏（sechan）退轉也和前面一樣。
有色愛（seai）的人，從色愛永遠斷盡。先脫離色界的人，從生起色盡道，到沒有完全脫離無色愛（wuseai）之前，成就下分盡（xiafenjin）、色愛盡兩個『遍知』。從無學（wuxue）退轉，生起無色纏，成就兩個『遍知』，名稱如前所說。住在無學位只成就一個『遍知』，指的是一切結（jie）永遠斷盡的『遍知』。如果依靠根本定進入正決定（zhengjueding）的道類智時，他所有斷除的也得到順下分斷的『遍知』名稱。寧可允許根本定的果只有五個『遍知』，只有色界、無色界、見斷法斷（jianduanfaduan）得到那些『遍知』的名稱，所以沒有過失。為什麼只有這些也得到那些名稱呢？因為是漸次得到的，不還（buhuan）。
【English Translation】 English version:
It speaks of 'this' and 'that' as being independently self-existent, inexpressible, and without difference. Because the 'essence' and 'meaning' are broad, let's provisionally discuss 'dual causes' (duayin). Although all positions that transcend boundaries eliminate 'dual causes,' the elimination of 'dual causes' does not always imply transcendence of boundaries. Therefore, beyond the elimination of 'dual causes,' a separate 'condition for transcendence' is established. Because 'omniscience' (bianzhi) is not established when eliminating the 'dual causes' of the three realms (sandi), who attains how many 'omniscient knowledges'?
Verse:
Dwelling in the position of seeing the truth, none,
Or attains one to five;
Cultivation attains six, one, two,
The non-learner attains only one.
Treatise:
In the position of an ordinary being (yishengwei), even if one can be free from defilements, one cannot attain 'omniscience' until the eighth ground (badi). Among the holy beings (shengwei), those who enter the seeing of truth (jiandi) relying on the Unreached Concentration (weizhiding), from the very beginning up to the stage of Acceptance of the Dharma of the Collection (jifarenwei), also have no 'omniscience'. Upon reaching the Wisdom of the Collection (jifazhi) and the stage of Acceptance of the Category of the Collection (jileirenwei), only one 'omniscience' is attained. Upon reaching the Wisdom of the Category of the Collection (jileizhi) and the stage of Acceptance of the Dharma of Cessation (miefarenwei), two 'omniscient knowledges' are attained. Upon reaching the Wisdom of the Dharma of Cessation (miefazhi) and the stage of Acceptance of the Category of Cessation (mieleirenwei), three 'omniscient knowledges' are attained. Upon reaching the Wisdom of the Category of Cessation (mieleizhi) and the stage of Acceptance of the Dharma of the Path (daofarenwei), four 'omniscient knowledges' are attained. Upon reaching the Wisdom of the Dharma of the Path (daofazhi) and the stage of Acceptance of the Category of the Path (daoleirenwei), five 'omniscient knowledges' are attained. Those who enter the seeing of truth relying on the Fundamental Concentration (genbending) also have no 'omniscience' until the stage of Acceptance of the Category of the Collection. Later positions should be considered accordingly with reason.
Dwelling in the stage of cultivation (xiudaowei) and not yet detached from desire, beginning with the Wisdom of the Category of the Path (daoleizhi), until one has not completely detached from the defilements of the desire realm, and those who regress after detaching from desire, all attain six 'omniscient knowledges'. Upon completely detaching from desire, beginning with the ninth path of liberation (jiedaodao) from desire, up to the final uninterrupted path (wujiandao) of detaching from the form realm (sejie). Those who detached from desire earlier, from the Wisdom of the Category of the Path, until before arising the Path of Exhaustion of Form (sejindao), only attain one 'omniscience', referring to the Exhaustion of the Lower Divisions (shunxiafenjin). From the Exhaustion of Attachment to Form (seaijin) and the stage of Non-Learning (wuxuewei), arising the Form Entanglements (sechan) and regressing is also the same as before.
Those with attachment to form (seai), from the permanent exhaustion of attachment to form. Those who detached from the form realm earlier, from arising the Path of Exhaustion of Form, until not completely detaching from attachment to the formless realm (wuseai), attain two 'omniscient knowledges': the Exhaustion of the Lower Divisions (xiafenjin) and the Exhaustion of Attachment to Form. Those who regress from Non-Learning (wuxue) and arise the Formless Entanglements, attain two 'omniscient knowledges,' the names being as previously stated. Dwelling in the stage of Non-Learning, only one 'omniscience' is attained, referring to the 'omniscience' of the permanent exhaustion of all fetters (jie). If, relying on the Fundamental Concentration, one enters the Wisdom of the Category of the Path of Right Determination (zhengjueding), then all that he has severed also obtains the name of 'omniscience' of the Severance of the Lower Divisions. It is preferable to allow that the fruit of the Fundamental Concentration has only five 'omniscient knowledges,' only the form realm, the formless realm, and the severance of views and severance of dharma (jianduanfaduan) obtain those names of 'omniscient knowledges,' so there is no fault. Why do only these also obtain those names? Because they are attained gradually, the Non-Returner (buhuan).
果者。於此斷上立彼名故。又先俗道所斷下分。今聖道力令永不生。故彼所得斷假說為此果。今實不得欲斷遍知。是故此中應作四句。謂若將得斷者。亦將得遍知耶。或有將得斷非將得遍知。謂諸位中將所得斷未于彼斷將立遍知。或將得遍知非將得斷。謂未離欲入見諦者。于集法忍正滅位中。欲界見苦所斷法斷。將得遍知眾緣具故。非將得斷先已得故。于集類忍正滅位中。二界見苦所斷法斷。諸先離欲若依根本入見諦者。后三類忍正滅位中。隨其所應彼先所斷。色無色界見斷法斷。彼欲見修所斷法斷。於一切位非將得斷先已得故。非將得遍知此非彼治故。若依未至入見諦者。三法類忍正滅位中。隨其所應彼先所斷。欲色無色見斷法斷。于修道位離欲界染第九無間正滅位中。三界見斷及欲八品修斷法斷。離第四定第九無間正滅位中。前三九品第四八品。先離色者四地九品修斷法斷。金剛喻定正滅位中。一切前位所斷法斷。或將得斷亦將得遍知。謂諸位中將所得斷。亦于彼斷將立遍知。此諸位言顯無間道。自所斷法斷將得遍知名。如未離欲入見諦者。于集法忍正滅位中。欲界見集所斷法斷。于集類忍正滅位中。二界見集所斷法斷。如是乃至於道類忍正滅位中。二界見道所斷法斷。諸先離染入見諦者如應當思。修道位中於離
欲界。第四靜慮有頂染時。第九無間所斷法斷。或非將得斷非將得遍知。謂除如前所說諸相。何故不還阿羅漢果。總集諸斷立一遍知。頌曰。
越界得果故 二處集遍知
論曰。具二緣故於所得斷。總集建立為一遍知。一者越界。二者得果。所言集者是合一義。若於無色分離染故得預流果。全離染故得阿羅漢。若於欲界分離染故得一來果。全離染故得不還果。若於色界分離全離俱不得果。唯於二處具足二緣。謂得果時亦即越界故。阿羅漢及不還果。集所得斷立一遍知。爾時總起一味得故。餘二果時得雖一味而未越界。色愛盡時雖是越界無一味得故。于彼位不集遍知。要具二緣方總集故。誰舍誰得幾種遍知。頌曰。
舍一二五六 得亦然除五
論曰。言舍一者謂從無學及色愛盡。全離欲退。言舍二者謂諸不還。從色愛盡起欲纏退。及彼獲得阿羅漢時。諸先離欲依根本定。入見諦者道類忍時。言舍五者經主釋言。謂先離欲道類智位。此但應說道類忍時。道類智時彼已舍故。夫言得舍據將說故。又應簡言依未至定入見諦者。若依根本入見諦者。于欲界斷不得無漏離系得故。不得欲界見斷法斷三種遍知。非先不得可言今舍。言舍六者謂未離欲所有聖者。得不還時。得亦然者謂有得一得二得六。言得一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 于欲界中，當第四禪靜慮的有頂天生起貪染時，第九無間道所斷之法便被斷除，或者說，並非通過『將得斷』的方式，而是通過『將得遍知』的方式斷除。這是指除了前面所說的各種相之外的情況。為什麼不還果的阿羅漢果位，要總集所有的斷除而建立一個『遍知』呢？頌文說： 『越界得果故，二處集遍知。』 論曰：具備兩種因緣，才能對所得的斷除，總集建立為一個『遍知』。一是『越界』，二是『得果』。所謂的『集』，是合一的意思。如果在無色界分離貪染而獲得預流果，完全分離貪染而獲得阿羅漢果；如果在欲界分離貪染而獲得一來果，完全分離貪染而獲得不還果；如果在**界分離或完全分離貪染都不能獲得果位。只有在兩個地方具備這兩種因緣，即在得果的同時也越界，所以阿羅漢果和不還果，總集所得的斷除而建立一個『遍知』。因為那時總共生起一種無漏的獲得。其餘兩種果位，雖然獲得是同一種無漏，但沒有越界；色愛滅盡時，雖然是越界，卻沒有同一種無漏的獲得。所以在那個位次不總集『遍知』。必須具備兩種因緣才能總集。誰捨棄了什麼，又獲得了幾種『遍知』呢？頌文說： 『舍一二五六，得亦然除五。』 論曰：所說的『舍一』，是指從無學果位以及色愛滅盡時，完全脫離欲界退轉的情況。所說的『舍二』，是指不還果的聖者，從色愛滅盡生起欲界纏縛退轉的情況，以及他們獲得阿羅漢果時，先前脫離欲界，依靠根本定，進入見諦位的人，在道類忍位時。所說的『舍五』，經主解釋說，是指先前脫離欲界，在道類智位時。這裡應該只說道類忍位，因為道類智位時，他們已經捨棄了。凡是說『得』或『舍』，都是根據『將要』來說的。還應該簡要說明，是依靠未至定進入見諦位的人。如果依靠根本定進入見諦位的人，對於欲界的斷除，不能獲得無漏的離系得，所以不能獲得欲界見斷法斷的三種『遍知』。如果先前沒有獲得，就不能說現在捨棄。所說的『舍六』，是指未脫離欲界的所有聖者，獲得不還果時。『得亦然』，是指有獲得一種、獲得兩種、獲得六種的情況，除了獲得五種的情況。
【English Translation】 English version In the Desire Realm, when attachment arises in the Summit of Existence of the Fourth Dhyana, the Dharma severed by the ninth immediate path is cut off, or rather, it is not severed through 'future severance,' but through 'future comprehensive knowledge.' This refers to cases other than the aforementioned characteristics. Why is the Arhat fruit of the Non-Returner established with a 'comprehensive knowledge' that encompasses all severances? The verse says: 'Because of transcending realms and attaining fruit, comprehensive knowledge is gathered in two places.' The treatise says: Possessing two conditions allows for the establishment of a 'comprehensive knowledge' that encompasses all severances. The first is 'transcending realms,' and the second is 'attaining fruit.' The term 'gathering' means unification. If one separates from attachment in the Formless Realm and attains the Stream-Enterer fruit, or completely separates from attachment and attains Arhatship; if one separates from attachment in the Desire Realm and attains the Once-Returner fruit, or completely separates from attachment and attains the Non-Returner fruit; if one separates or completely separates from attachment in the ** Realm, one cannot attain any fruit. Only in two places are both conditions met, that is, when attaining fruit and also transcending realms. Therefore, the Arhat fruit and the Non-Returner fruit gather the severances attained and establish a 'comprehensive knowledge.' This is because at that time, a single, undefiled attainment arises. In the other two fruits, although the attainment is a single, undefiled one, there is no transcending of realms. When the attachment to form ceases, although there is a transcending of realms, there is no single, undefiled attainment. Therefore, 'comprehensive knowledge' is not gathered in that position. Both conditions must be met for a complete gathering. Who abandons what, and attains how many kinds of 'comprehensive knowledge'? The verse says: 'Abandoning one, two, five, or six; attainment is also the same, except for five.' The treatise says: 'Abandoning one' refers to the case of retreating from Arhatship or the cessation of attachment to form, completely abandoning the Desire Realm. 'Abandoning two' refers to the case of a Non-Returner retreating from the cessation of attachment to form, giving rise to attachment to the Desire Realm, and when they attain Arhatship, those who previously abandoned the Desire Realm, relying on the fundamental dhyana, and entered the stage of seeing the truth, at the moment of the forbearance of the knowledge of the path. 'Abandoning five,' as explained by the sutra master, refers to those who previously abandoned the Desire Realm, at the stage of the knowledge of the path. It should only be said at the moment of the forbearance of the knowledge of the path, because at the moment of the knowledge of the path, they have already abandoned it. Whenever 'attainment' or 'abandonment' is mentioned, it is based on 'what is about to happen.' It should also be clarified that it refers to those who enter the stage of seeing the truth relying on the preliminary dhyana. If one enters the stage of seeing the truth relying on the fundamental dhyana, they cannot attain the undefiled separation from attachment for the severances of the Desire Realm, so they cannot attain the three kinds of 'comprehensive knowledge' of the severances of the Desire Realm. If one did not attain it previously, one cannot say that they are abandoning it now. 'Abandoning six' refers to all the holy ones who have not abandoned the Desire Realm, when they attain the Non-Returner fruit. 'Attainment is also the same' means that there are cases of attaining one, attaining two, or attaining six, except for the case of attaining five.
者謂勝進位。集類忍等九種位中。及從無色起色纏退。言得二者。謂從無學起無色界諸纏退時。言得六者。謂不還退無得五者理無容故。謂先離欲依未至定入見諦者。道類忍時舍五遍知得不還果。此果若退可得五遍知。此退既無故無容得五。豈不勝進得聖果時。于諸無為更起勝得乍可名得。寧舍遍知約斷實然恒成就故。但今且據九遍知中。若得異名本名便失。說名為舍亦無有過。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之一
如是已辯隨眠等性。雖有無量。總建立為三界五部隨眠等斷。隨所繫事雖亦無量。就勝位立九種遍知。然斷必由道力故得。此所由道其相云何。頌曰。
已說煩惱斷 由見諦修故 見道唯無漏 修道通二種
論曰。世尊唯說煩惱有二。一見所斷。二修所斷。如契經言諸漏有二。謂有諸漏是見所斷。或有諸漏是修所斷。然諸論中開二為五。即五所斷如先已說。先何處說。謂先頌言欲見苦等斷十七七八四。彼二頌中已具分別。然就略攝唯二如經。斷彼但由見修道故。道唯無漏亦有漏耶。見道應知唯是無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這裡所說的『勝進位』，指的是集類忍等九種位次中，以及從無色界退回到色界繫縛的狀態。所說的『得二』，指的是從無學位退回到無漏諸纏縛的時候。所說的『得六』，指的是不還果位退失時，得到六種遍知。說『無得五』，是因為道理上不可能。指的是先已遠離欲界，依靠未至定進入見諦的人，在道類忍的時候，捨棄五種遍知，得到不還果。如果這個果位退失，可以得到五種遍知。但因為這種退失不存在，所以不可能得到五種遍知。難道在勝進得到聖果的時候，對於諸無為法，重新生起殊勝的獲得，可以勉強稱之為『得』嗎？寧可說是捨棄了遍知。因為就斷滅的實性而言，遍知是恒常成就的。但現在且就九種遍知中，如果得到不同的名稱，原本的名稱就會消失，所以說『舍』也沒有過錯。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之一
像這樣已經辨析了隨眠等的體性。雖然有無量種，總的可以建立為三界五部的隨眠等斷。隨所繫縛的事物雖然也無量，就殊勝的位次建立九種遍知。然而斷滅必定要通過道的力量才能得到。那麼，這所依靠的道，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
『已說煩惱斷，由見諦修故，見道唯無漏，修道通二種。』
論述：世尊只說了煩惱有兩種，一是見所斷，二是修所斷。如契經所說，諸漏有兩種，即有諸漏是見所斷，或者有諸漏是修所斷。然而在各種論典中，將二種開立為五種，即五種所斷，如先前已經說過。先前在何處說過？即先前的頌文說：『欲見苦等斷十七七八四。』在那兩個頌文中，已經詳細地分別了。然而就簡略地概括而言，只有兩種，如經文所說。斷滅它們只能通過見道和修道。道只有無漏道，也有有漏道嗎？見道應當知道唯是無漏。
【English Translation】 English version: Here, 'superior progress position' refers to the nine positions such as the forbearance of the assembly of kinds, and the regression from the formless realm to the form-bound state of the form realm. 'Obtaining two' refers to the time when one regresses from the state of no-learning to the defilements of the unconditioned. 'Obtaining six' refers to obtaining six kinds of pervasive knowledge when the state of non-return regresses. Saying 'no obtaining of five' is because it is logically impossible. It refers to someone who has already separated from the desire realm, relies on the preliminary concentration, and enters the seeing of truth. At the time of the forbearance of the kinds of the path, they abandon five kinds of pervasive knowledge and obtain the fruit of non-return. If this fruit regresses, one can obtain five kinds of pervasive knowledge. But because this regression does not exist, it is impossible to obtain five kinds. Could it be that when one makes superior progress and obtains the holy fruit, one newly arises superior attainment for the unconditioned dharmas, which can be勉強 be called 'obtaining'? It is better to say that one abandons pervasive knowledge. Because in terms of the reality of cessation, pervasive knowledge is constantly accomplished. But now, let's just say that among the nine kinds of pervasive knowledge, if one obtains a different name, the original name will disappear, so there is no fault in saying 'abandoning'.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 56 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 57
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Six on Discriminating the Worthy and the Holy, Part One
Having thus discriminated the nature of latent tendencies, etc., although there are countless kinds, they can be generally established as the severance of latent tendencies, etc., of the three realms and five categories. Although the things bound are also countless, nine kinds of pervasive knowledge are established based on the superior position. However, severance must be obtained through the power of the path. So, what is the nature of this path that is relied upon? The verse says:
'Having spoken of the severance of afflictions, it is due to seeing the truth and cultivation. The path of seeing is only unconditioned, the path of cultivation encompasses two kinds.'
Treatise: The World-Honored One only said that there are two kinds of afflictions, one severed by seeing, and the other severed by cultivation. As the sutra says, there are two kinds of outflows, namely, some outflows are severed by seeing, and some outflows are severed by cultivation. However, in various treatises, the two are opened up into five, namely, the five severed, as previously said. Where was it said previously? Namely, the previous verse said: 'Desire, seeing suffering, etc., sever seventeen, seven, eight, four.' In those two verses, they have already been distinguished in detail. However, in terms of brief summary, there are only two, as the sutra says. Severing them can only be done through the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. Is the path only unconditioned, or is there also a conditioned path? The path of seeing should be known to be only unconditioned.
漏。修道通二此中問答。俱不應說前已說故。謂前說忍所害隨眠。有頂地攝唯見斷等。彼言已顯有頂見修所斷隨眠。如其次第唯聖見道。修道所斷下八地攝。見斷隨眠聖見道斷凡修道斷。修斷聖凡俱修道斷。既說見道唯依聖身。豈不已成唯是無漏。既說修道通依凡聖身。豈不已成通有漏無漏。是則今說義不異前。由此不應造頌再說。說已復說成無用故。所說見道唯無漏因。謂一剎那斷九品故。此因非證有漏亦能一剎那中斷五部故豈能頓斷便無漏攝。如向所言由見諦故。此所見諦其相云何。頌曰。
諦四名已說 謂苦集滅道 彼自體亦然 次第隨現觀
論曰。佛于經中說諦有四。一苦二集三滅四道。於此論中亦先已說。於何處說謂初品中。分別有漏無漏法處。彼如何說謂彼頌言。及苦集世間此說苦集諦。擇滅謂離系此說滅諦。無漏謂聖道此說道諦。如是彼處已顯諦名。應知彼文亦已顯體。謂除聖道余有為法。為果性邊皆名苦諦。為因性邊皆名集諦。物雖無異數分無失。依彼建立現觀位中。諸忍智等行相別故。如四正斷出離尋等。擇滅無為名為滅諦。學無學法皆名道諦。有說名色名為苦諦。以五取蘊為其體故。唯業煩惱名為集諦。由煩惱力能繫縛心。令屬余趣由業力故。能令自體差別而生。唯煩惱滅名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
漏。修道通二此中問答。俱不應說前已說故。意思是關於『漏』（asrava，煩惱）和『修道』（bhāvanāmārga，修行之道）是否共通有漏和無漏的問題，這裡不應該再討論，因為前面已經說過了。 謂前說忍所害隨眠。有頂地攝唯見斷等。彼言已顯有頂見修所斷隨眠。如其次第唯聖見道。修道所斷下八地攝。見斷隨眠聖見道斷凡修道斷。修斷聖凡俱修道斷。意思是前面已經說過，『忍』（kṣānti，忍位）所斷的『隨眠』（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱），屬於『有頂地』（abhavāgra，非想非非想處），是『見斷』（darśana-heya，見道所斷）等。那段話已經表明，有頂地所斷的見斷和修斷的隨眠，分別只能由聖者的見道和修道所斷。下八地所攝的見斷隨眠，由聖者的見道所斷，凡夫的修道所斷；修斷的隨眠，聖者和凡夫都可以通過修道來斷除。既然說見道只能依聖者之身，豈不已經說明見道唯是無漏？既然說修道可以依凡夫和聖者之身，豈不已經說明修道通於有漏和無漏？ 是則今說義不異前。由此不應造頌再說。說已復說成無用故。因此，現在所說的意思和前面沒有區別。因此，不應該再作頌重述，說了又說，就變得沒有意義了。 所說見道唯無漏因。謂一剎那斷九品故。這裡說見道只是無漏的因，因為見道可以在一剎那間斷除九品煩惱。 此因非證有漏亦能一剎那中斷五部故豈能頓斷便無漏攝。如向所言由見諦故。這個理由不能證明見道是無漏的，因為有漏也能在一剎那間斷除五部煩惱。難道能因為頓斷就歸為無漏嗎？就像前面所說，是因為見諦的緣故。 此所見諦其相云何。那麼，這個所見的『諦』（satya，真理）的相狀是什麼呢？ 頌曰：
諦四名已說 謂苦集滅道 彼自體亦然 次第隨現觀 論曰。佛于經中說諦有四。一苦二集三滅四道。於此論中亦先已說。於何處說謂初品中。分別有漏無漏法處。論中說，佛在經中說過有四諦：苦（duḥkha，苦諦）、集（samudaya，集諦）、滅（nirodha，滅諦）、道（mārga，道諦）。在論中也已經說過了。在什麼地方說的呢？在第一品中，分別有漏和無漏法的地方。 彼如何說謂彼頌言。及苦集世間此說苦集諦。擇滅謂離系此說滅諦。無漏謂聖道此說道諦。那裡是怎麼說的呢？就是那裡的頌文說：『及苦集世間』，這是說苦集諦；『擇滅謂離系』，這是說滅諦；『無漏謂聖道』，這是說道諦。如是彼處已顯諦名。應知彼文亦已顯體。這樣，那裡已經顯示了四諦的名稱，應該知道那段文字也已經顯示了四諦的體性。 謂除聖道余有為法。為果性邊皆名苦諦。為因性邊皆名集諦。物雖無異數分無失。依彼建立現觀位中。諸忍智等行相別故。意思是，除了聖道以外，其餘的有為法，從果的性質來說，都叫做苦諦；從因的性質來說，都叫做集諦。事物雖然沒有不同，但從數量上區分並沒有錯。依據這些建立在現觀位中，諸如忍、智等的行相不同。 如四正斷出離尋等。比如四正斷（samyakprahāṇa，四正勤）、出離尋（naiṣkramya-saṃkalpa，離欲覺）等。 擇滅無為名為滅諦。學無學法皆名道諦。『擇滅』（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅無為）這種無為法叫做滅諦。『學』（śaikṣa，有學）和『無學』（aśaikṣa，無學）的法都叫做道諦。 有說名色名為苦諦。以五取蘊為其體故。有人說，『名色』（nāmarūpa，名色）叫做苦諦，因為五取蘊（pañca upādānaskandha，五取蘊）是它的體性。 唯業煩惱名為集諦。由煩惱力能繫縛心。令屬余趣由業力故。能令自體差別而生。只有業（karma，業）和煩惱（kleśa，煩惱）叫做集諦。由於煩惱的力量能夠繫縛心識，使之屬於其他的趣向；由於業的力量，能夠使自體產生差別。 唯煩惱滅名為滅
【English Translation】 English version:
Asrava. The question of whether the Path of Cultivation is common to both defiled and undefiled should not be discussed here, as it has already been discussed before. That is, it was previously said that the latent defilements harmed by forbearance, included in the Peak of Existence, are only those to be abandoned by seeing, etc. That statement has already made clear that the latent defilements to be abandoned by seeing and cultivation in the Peak of Existence can only be abandoned by the Noble Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation, respectively. The latent defilements to be abandoned by seeing, included in the lower eight realms, are abandoned by the Noble Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation of ordinary beings; the latent defilements to be abandoned by cultivation are abandoned by both noble and ordinary beings through the Path of Cultivation. Since it is said that the Path of Seeing relies only on the body of a noble being, has it not already been established that it is only undefiled? Since it is said that the Path of Cultivation can rely on the bodies of both ordinary and noble beings, has it not already been established that it is common to both defiled and undefiled? Therefore, what is being said now is no different from what was said before. Therefore, a verse should not be composed and repeated, as saying it again after it has already been said becomes useless. It is said that the Path of Seeing is only a cause of the undefiled, because it can sever nine categories of defilements in a single moment. This reason cannot prove that the Path of Seeing is undefiled, because the defiled can also sever five aggregates of defilements in a single moment. How can it be categorized as undefiled simply because it is severed suddenly? As was said before, it is because of seeing the Truth. What is the nature of this Truth that is seen? Verse:
The names of the Four Truths have already been spoken, namely suffering, accumulation, cessation, and path. Their own nature is also thus, in sequence, according to direct perception. Treatise: The Buddha said in the sutras that there are Four Truths: suffering (duḥkha), accumulation (samudaya), cessation (nirodha), and path (mārga). They have also been spoken of previously in this treatise. Where were they spoken of? In the first chapter, in the section distinguishing between defiled and undefiled dharmas. How were they spoken of there? That is, the verse there said: 'And suffering and accumulation in the world,' this speaks of the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Accumulation; 'Cessation through discrimination is called detachment,' this speaks of the Truth of Cessation; 'The undefiled is called the Noble Path,' this speaks of the Truth of the Path. Thus, the names of the Truths have already been revealed there. It should be known that the nature of the Truths has also been revealed in that text. That is, all conditioned dharmas other than the Noble Path, from the perspective of their nature as effects, are all called the Truth of Suffering; from the perspective of their nature as causes, they are all called the Truth of Accumulation. Although the things are not different, there is no loss in distinguishing them in number. Based on these, in the stage of direct perception, the characteristics of forbearance, wisdom, etc., are different. Such as the Four Right Exertions (samyakprahāṇa), the thought of renunciation (naiṣkramya-saṃkalpa), etc. Cessation through discrimination, the unconditioned, is called the Truth of Cessation. The dharmas of the learner (śaikṣa) and the non-learner (aśaikṣa) are all called the Truth of the Path. Some say that name and form (nāmarūpa) are called the Truth of Suffering, because the five aggregates of clinging (pañca upādānaskandha) are their nature. Only karma (karma) and defilements (kleśa) are called the Truth of Accumulation. Because the power of defilements can bind the mind, causing it to belong to other destinies; because of the power of karma, it can cause the self to arise with differences. Only the cessation of defilements is called the Truth of Cessation.
滅諦。由煩惱滅故於色等解脫。唯觀與止名為道諦。此二攝受諸聖道故。此非諦相別意說故。謂說法者為應時機。勝解堪能分位差別。依別意趣密作是言。非謂此文依諦相說。善對法者勿執此文。有餘復言唯八苦相。是苦是苦諦除此所餘。諸有漏法是苦非苦諦。唯順後有愛是集是集諦。余愛余有漏是集非集諦。唯順後有愛。滅是滅是滅諦。余愛余有漏滅是滅非滅諦。唯有學八道支是道是道諦。余有學無學全是道非道諦。此說違教及違正理。經說有漏法皆是苦諦故。謂諸有漏皆取蘊攝。佛說取蘊名為苦諦。云何知然。略說一切五取蘊苦契經說故。又說有苦非苦諦言于理有闕相無別故。又彼何緣不作是執。有眼等是色非色蘊。有青等是色非色處。然此俱名身非身。念住境既不可爾故理有闕。又愛非苦諦與至教相違。如說云何苦滅聖諦。謂即諸愛究竟斷盡。非愛自性苦諦不攝。可愛斷盡名苦滅諦。若謂諸愛是眾苦因故。愛斷盡時說眾苦皆滅此亦無失。許殊勝苦得永斷時眾苦滅故。如取蘊一分得永斷盡時。可說一切取蘊皆滅。如說於色應斷貪慾。貪慾斷時便名色斷。乃至於識說亦如是。復有何理決定說愛非苦諦攝。若謂經言是集故者有太過失。如說道諦名趣苦滅。應不能斷集執義如言故。又詳至教意愛亦苦諦攝。如契經中問見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 滅諦（Nirodha Satya）：由於煩惱止滅，因此從色（rupa，物質）等法中解脫出來。只有觀（vipassana，內觀）與止（samatha，止禪）才可稱為道諦（Magga Satya）。這是因為觀和止能夠包含和引導所有聖道（ariya magga）。這並非是就諦的表相而說的另一種解釋，而是說法者爲了適應聽眾的根器和能力，根據他們理解和接受能力的差別，而採取的一種方便說法。這是一種秘密的意趣，並非是依據諦的真實相狀而說的。善於研究阿毗達摩（Abhidhamma，論藏）的人不應執著于這種說法。 還有人說，只有八苦（eight sufferings）的相狀才是苦，才是苦諦（Dukkha Satya），除此之外，所有有漏法（asava，煩惱）是苦，但不是苦諦。只有順後有愛（bhava-tanha，對存在的渴愛）才是集，才是集諦（Samudaya Satya），其餘的愛和其他有漏法是集，但不是集諦。只有順後有愛的滅才是滅，才是滅諦，其餘的愛和其他有漏法的滅是滅，但不是滅諦。只有有學（sekha，還在修行的聖者）的八道支（ariya atthangika magga，八正道）才是道，才是道諦，其餘的有學和無學（arahant，阿羅漢）的道全是道，但不是道諦。 這種說法既違背了佛陀的教導，也違背了正理。經典中說，所有有漏法都是苦諦。因為所有有漏法都包含在五取蘊（panca-upadanakkhandha，五種執著的對象）中。佛陀說，五取蘊就是苦諦。怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為契經中略說一切五取蘊都是苦。 又說有苦但不是苦諦，這在道理上有缺失，因為相狀沒有差別。而且，他們為什麼不這樣執著呢？比如，有眼等是色，但不是色蘊（rupa-kkhandha）；有青等是色，但不是色處（rupa-ayatana）。然而，這些都叫做身，而不是身念住（kaya-satipatthana）的境界。既然這樣是不可以的，那麼道理上就有缺失。而且，愛不是苦諦，這與佛陀的教導相違背。比如，經中說，什麼是苦滅聖諦（dukkha-nirodha ariya sacca）？就是指諸愛的究竟斷盡。如果愛不是苦諦的自性所包含的，那麼愛的斷盡怎麼能稱為苦滅諦呢？如果說，諸愛是眾苦的原因，所以愛的斷盡就意味著眾苦的滅盡，這也沒有問題。因為當殊勝的苦得到永斷時，眾苦也會滅盡。就像取蘊的一部分得到永斷時，就可以說一切取蘊都滅盡了。就像經中說，對於色應該斷除貪慾，當貪慾斷除時，就稱為色斷，乃至對於識（vijnana，意識）也這樣說。 又有什麼道理可以決定說愛不是苦諦所包含的呢？如果說，因為經中說愛是集諦，所以愛不是苦諦，那麼這就有太過失了。比如，說道諦的名字是趣向苦滅，那麼就應該不能斷除集諦的執著，就像說名字一樣。而且，詳細考察佛陀的教導，愛的確包含在苦諦中。比如，契經中問到見（ditthi，邪見）...
【English Translation】 English version Cessation of Truth (Nirodha Satya): Due to the cessation of afflictions, one is liberated from form (rupa, matter) and other phenomena. Only insight (vipassana, insight meditation) and tranquility (samatha, calming meditation) are called the Truth of the Path (Magga Satya). This is because insight and tranquility can encompass and guide all Noble Paths (ariya magga). This is not another explanation regarding the appearance of the Truth, but rather a skillful means employed by the speaker to adapt to the faculties and capacities of the audience, based on the differences in their understanding and acceptance. This is a secret intention, not based on the true nature of the Truth. Those skilled in the study of Abhidhamma (the philosophical teachings) should not cling to this statement. Some also say that only the aspects of the eight sufferings are suffering, and are the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya). Apart from this, all defiled phenomena (asava, taints) are suffering, but not the Truth of Suffering. Only craving for future existence (bhava-tanha, craving for being) is the cause, and is the Truth of the Origin (Samudaya Satya). Other cravings and other defiled phenomena are the cause, but not the Truth of the Origin. Only the cessation of craving for future existence is cessation, and is the Truth of Cessation. The cessation of other cravings and other defiled phenomena is cessation, but not the Truth of Cessation. Only the eight factors of the path (ariya atthangika magga, the Noble Eightfold Path) of a trainee (sekha, a holy person still under training) are the path, and are the Truth of the Path. The paths of other trainees and the fully liberated ones (arahant, a perfected being) are all paths, but not the Truth of the Path. This statement contradicts both the teachings of the Buddha and right reasoning. The scriptures say that all defiled phenomena are the Truth of Suffering. Because all defiled phenomena are included in the five aggregates of clinging (panca-upadanakkhandha, the five aggregates of attachment). The Buddha said that the five aggregates of clinging are the Truth of Suffering. How do we know this? Because the scriptures briefly state that all five aggregates of clinging are suffering. Furthermore, saying that there is suffering but it is not the Truth of Suffering is deficient in reason, because there is no difference in appearance. Moreover, why don't they cling to this? For example, the eye and other sense organs are form, but not the aggregate of form (rupa-kkhandha); blue and other colors are form, but not the sense sphere of form (rupa-ayatana). However, these are all called the body, but not the object of mindfulness of the body (kaya-satipatthana). Since this is not permissible, there is a deficiency in reason. Moreover, craving is not the Truth of Suffering, which contradicts the Buddha's teachings. For example, the scriptures say, what is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha ariya sacca)? It refers to the complete cessation of all cravings. If craving is not included in the nature of the Truth of Suffering, how can the cessation of craving be called the Truth of Cessation? If it is said that cravings are the cause of all suffering, so the cessation of craving means the cessation of all suffering, this is also not a problem. Because when the supreme suffering is permanently ceased, all suffering will also cease. Just as when a part of the aggregates of clinging is permanently ceased, it can be said that all aggregates of clinging are ceased. Just as the scriptures say that one should abandon greed for form, and when greed is abandoned, it is called the abandonment of form, and so on for consciousness (vijnana, awareness). Furthermore, what reason can definitively say that craving is not included in the Truth of Suffering? If it is said that because the scriptures say that craving is the Truth of the Origin, therefore craving is not the Truth of Suffering, then this is too much of a fault. For example, the name of the Truth of the Path is to lead to the cessation of suffering, so it should not be able to cut off the clinging to the Truth of the Origin, just like saying the name. Moreover, upon detailed examination of the Buddha's teachings, craving is indeed included in the Truth of Suffering. For example, the scriptures ask about views (ditthi, wrong views)...
諦者。汝于眼觸所生諸愛。復等隨觀見為我我所不。彼便答言不爾大德。又伽他言未如實見苦便見彼為我。乃至廣說。頌顯身見唯見苦所斷。前經顯愛為身見所緣。故知契經意許愛苦諦攝。又說愛之集應如實了知。若愛定非苦諦攝者。則愛唯是苦果之集。如何復勸知愛之因。愛既有因故亦是果。既亦是果亦苦諦攝。故有漏法為果性邊。皆是苦諦理善成立。諸有漏法為因性邊。皆集諦攝非唯是愛。以契經說是應斷故。謂世尊言集諦應斷。復作是說苾芻當知。若有於色乃至於識。未達未遍知未斷未離染。彼定不能永盡眾苦。既於五蘊皆說斷言。故非唯愛是集諦攝。此非誠證以愛斷時假於色等說斷言故。如說於色應斷貪慾。貪慾斷時便名色斷。乃至於識說亦如是。此是誠證所以者何。愛雖行蘊攝而是集諦故豈說於行應斷貪慾。便謂愛體非集諦收故。雖于彼說應斷貪色等無妨是集諦攝。又應斷言無簡別故。謂色等蘊若自體斷。若於彼體能緣愛斷。皆可於彼說應斷言。契經復言集諦應斷。故五取蘊為因性邊。皆集諦攝法相似故。又說眼等是因性故。如經說眼為因色為緣生眼識。眼識既是苦諦自性。所言因者是集異名。義準識因是集諦攝由此證眼等是集諦理成。又於一物說苦集故。謂契經言生等是苦。復言生集故老死集。又契經說
【現代漢語翻譯】 諦者（D諦者：有智慧的人）。你對於眼觸所生的各種愛，是否仍然觀察到它們是『我』或『我的』？』 他回答說：『不是的，大德。』 還有伽陀（Gāthā：偈頌）說：『如果不如實地見到苦，就會認為它是『我』。』乃至廣說。頌文顯示身見（Sakkāya-ditthi：認為五蘊是『我』的邪見）僅僅是被對苦的認知所斷除的。之前的經文顯示愛是身見所緣的對象。因此，可以知道契經（Sutta：佛經）的意旨是允許愛被攝入苦諦（Dukkha-sacca：苦的真理）之中。經中又說，對於愛的集起應該如實了知。如果愛一定不是苦諦所包含的，那麼愛就僅僅是苦果的集起。為什麼要勸人瞭解愛的起因呢？愛既然有起因，也就是一種結果。既然它既是結果，也就被包含在苦諦之中。因此，有漏法（Sāsava-dhamma：與煩惱相關的法）作為結果的方面，都是苦諦，這個道理是能夠成立的。各種有漏法作為起因的方面，都被包含在集諦（Samudaya-sacca：苦的根源的真理）之中，不僅僅是愛。因為契經中說，集諦是應該斷除的。世尊（Bhagavān：佛陀的尊稱）說：『集諦應該斷除。』 又這樣說：『比丘（Bhikkhu：佛教僧侶）們應當知道，如果有人對於色（Rūpa：物質）、乃至識（Viññāṇa：意識），沒有通達、沒有完全瞭解、沒有斷除、沒有離染，那麼他一定不能永遠地滅盡眾苦。』 既然對於五蘊（Pañcakkhandha：構成個體的五種要素）都說了『斷除』，所以不僅僅是愛被包含在集諦之中。 這並非確鑿的證據，因為在斷除愛的時候，假借對色等的斷除來說明。例如說，對於色應該斷除貪慾（Rāga：貪婪）。貪慾斷除的時候，就稱為色斷。乃至對於識也這樣說。這才是確鑿的證據。為什麼呢？愛雖然屬於行蘊（Saṅkhāra-kkhandha：心理活動），但是它是集諦。難道會因為說對於行應該斷除貪慾，就認為愛的本體不被集諦所包含嗎？雖然對於那裡說應該斷除貪色等，但是不妨礙它們被集諦所包含。而且，『應該斷除』這句話沒有簡別。無論是色等蘊的自體斷除，還是對於它們的本體所能緣的愛斷除，都可以對它們說『應該斷除』。契經又說，集諦應該斷除。所以，五取蘊（Pañcupādānakkhandha：導致執取的五蘊）作為起因的方面，都被包含在集諦之中，因為它們的法相似。經中又說，眼等是起因。例如經中說，眼為因，色為緣，產生眼識（Cakkhu-viññāṇa：視覺意識）。眼識既然是苦諦的自性，那麼所說的『因』就是『集』的另一種說法。按照這個意思，識的起因也被包含在集諦之中。由此可以證明，眼等被包含在集諦之中，這個道理是成立的。而且，對於一個事物，既說它是苦，又說它是集。例如契經說，生等是苦，又說生集，所以老死集。契經又說
【English Translation】 Truth-speaker (D諦者: one who possesses wisdom). Do you still observe the various forms of craving arising from eye contact as 'I' or 'mine?' He replied, 'No, venerable sir.' Furthermore, the Gāthā (Gāthā: verse) says, 'If one does not truly see suffering, one will consider it as 'I.'' And so on. The verse reveals that the view of self (Sakkāya-ditthi: the false view that the five aggregates are 'I') is only severed by the recognition of suffering. The previous sutra reveals that craving is the object of the view of self. Therefore, it can be known that the meaning of the Sutta (Sutta: Buddhist scripture) allows craving to be included within the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha-sacca: the truth of suffering). The sutra also states that the arising of craving should be truly understood. If craving is definitely not included within the Truth of Suffering, then craving is merely the accumulation of the result of suffering. Why then advise understanding the cause of craving? Since craving has a cause, it is also a result. Since it is both a result, it is included within the Truth of Suffering. Therefore, conditioned phenomena (Sāsava-dhamma: phenomena associated with defilements) as the aspect of result, are all suffering, and this principle can be established. Various conditioned phenomena as the aspect of cause, are all included within the Truth of Origin (Samudaya-sacca: the truth of the origin of suffering), not just craving. Because the sutra states that the Truth of Origin should be abandoned. The World-Honored One (Bhagavān: a respectful title for the Buddha) said, 'The Truth of Origin should be abandoned.' He also said, 'Monks (Bhikkhu: Buddhist monks) should know that if someone has not penetrated, not fully understood, not abandoned, not become detached from color (Rūpa: matter), and so on up to consciousness (Viññāṇa: consciousness), then they will definitely not be able to completely extinguish all suffering.' Since 'abandonment' is spoken of in relation to all five aggregates (Pañcakkhandha: the five elements that constitute an individual), it is not just craving that is included within the Truth of Origin. This is not conclusive evidence, because the abandonment of craving is described by borrowing the abandonment of color, etc. For example, it is said that greed (Rāga: greed) should be abandoned in relation to color. When greed is abandoned, it is called the abandonment of color. And so on up to consciousness. This is conclusive evidence. Why? Although craving belongs to the aggregate of mental formations (Saṅkhāra-kkhandha: mental activities), it is the Truth of Origin. Would we say that because it is said that greed should be abandoned in relation to mental formations, that the essence of craving is not included within the Truth of Origin? Although it is said there that the greed for color, etc., should be abandoned, it does not prevent them from being included within the Truth of Origin. Moreover, the phrase 'should be abandoned' has no distinction. Whether it is the self-abandonment of the aggregates of color, etc., or the abandonment of the craving that can be conditioned by their essence, it can be said of them that they 'should be abandoned.' The sutra also says that the Truth of Origin should be abandoned. Therefore, the five aggregates of clinging (Pañcupādānakkhandha: the five aggregates that lead to clinging) as the aspect of cause, are all included within the Truth of Origin, because their dharmas are similar. The sutra also says that the eye, etc., are causes. For example, the sutra says that with the eye as the cause and color as the condition, eye consciousness (Cakkhu-viññāṇa: visual consciousness) arises. Since eye consciousness is the nature of the Truth of Suffering, then the 'cause' that is spoken of is another way of saying 'origin.' According to this meaning, the cause of consciousness is also included within the Truth of Origin. From this, it can be proven that the principle that the eye, etc., are included within the Truth of Origin is established. Moreover, for one thing, it is said to be both suffering and origin. For example, the sutra says that birth, etc., are suffering, and also says that birth is the origin, therefore old age and death are the origin. The sutra also says
如實了知。此是老死此老死集。故知苦集一物分二。不可說言此經所說。雖名苦集非苦集諦。此依異門說聖諦故。謂此經文前作是說。如實知苦知苦集等。次彼尊者大俱祉羅作是問言。唯舍利子更有異門說聖諦不。彼答言有。謂如實知此是老死。老死集等此中雖闕說聖諦聲。而乘前言知說聖諦。於此文后彼復問言。齊何名為諸聖弟子。於此正法毗柰耶中。正見神通皆得圓滿成就正見乃至廣說非聖弟子。離見聖諦可於正法毗柰耶中。正見神通得圓滿等。故知於此意說聖諦。又若不說是聖諦言。便非聖諦有太過失。謂契經說于苦無知。如是乃至於道無知。非此中闕說聖諦聲。便謂無知不迷聖諦。于諦現觀無為障能。若爾彼無知應非見諦斷。又契經說知苦並因。此中雖無聖諦言說。而此非不說見苦集聖諦。又契經言彼見諸諦。見諸諦故名現觀者。此雖說諦不說聖言。而彼定名見聖諦者。又于余經見有此例謂如有處具說欲貪。有餘處但言由欲往諸趣。雖闕貪想知即欲貪故。闕聖諦言亦知說聖諦。由此於一物說苦集。故集諦。非唯愛其理極成。又于食等說有二故。謂契經說諸聖弟子。如實知食及知食集。廣說乃至。云何名為如實知食。謂食有四廣說乃至。如是名為如實知食。云何名為如實知食集。謂愛後有愛喜俱行愛。彼彼喜愛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如實了知。這是老死，這是老死的生起。因此可知苦和集是一體而分為二。不可說這部經所說的，雖然名為苦集，但不是苦集諦（duhkha-samudaya-satya，苦之集起真理）。這是依據不同的角度來說明聖諦（arya-satya，四聖諦）的緣故。也就是說，這部經文前面這樣說：如實知苦，知苦的生起等等。接著，尊者大俱絺羅（Mahakotthita）這樣發問：『舍利子（Sariputra），還有其他不同的方式來說明聖諦嗎？』他回答說：『有。』也就是如實知這是老死，老死的生起等等。這裡雖然缺少了『說聖諦』這個詞語，但憑藉前面的話語，可知就是在說明聖諦。在這段經文之後，他又發問：『達到什麼程度才能稱為諸聖弟子，在這正法（saddharma，正法）毗奈耶（vinaya，戒律）中，正見（samyag-drsti，正見）神通都能圓滿成就，成就正見乃至廣說？』不是聖弟子的，離開了對聖諦的見解，可以在正法毗奈耶中，正見神通得到圓滿等等。因此可知，這裡的意思就是在說聖諦。而且，如果不說是聖諦的話，就會有太過失的過失，也就是說，契經（sutra，佛經）中說對於苦沒有了解，像這樣乃至於對於道（marga，道路）沒有了解。不是因為這裡缺少了『說聖諦』這個詞語，就認為沒有了解，不迷惑于聖諦。對於諦（satya，真理）的現觀（abhisamaya，現觀）沒有障礙。如果這樣，那麼他的無知就不應該是見諦（darsana-satya，見諦）所斷除的。而且，契經中說了解苦和苦因（hetu，原因）。這裡雖然沒有『聖諦』的言說，但這並非沒有說見苦集聖諦。而且，契經中說他見諸諦（satya，真理）。因為見諸諦的緣故，被稱為現觀者。這裡雖然說了諦，但沒有說『聖』這個字，但他一定被稱為見聖諦者。而且在其他的經典中，也有這樣的例子，比如有的地方完整地說了欲貪（kama-tanha，對慾望的渴求），有的地方只說由於慾望而前往諸趣（gati，輪迴的去處）。雖然缺少了貪的想法，但知道就是欲貪的緣故，缺少了『聖諦』這個詞語，也知道就是在說聖諦。因此，對於一件事物說了苦和集，所以集諦不僅僅是愛，這個道理非常明確。而且，對於食物等等，也說了有二，也就是說，契經中說諸聖弟子，如實地瞭解食物，以及瞭解食物的生起，廣泛地說乃至。怎樣才能稱為如實地瞭解食物呢？也就是食物有四種，廣泛地說乃至。這樣才能稱為如實地瞭解食物。怎樣才能稱為如實地瞭解食物的生起呢？也就是對於後有的愛，伴隨著喜悅的愛，對於各個地方的喜愛。
【English Translation】 English version: To truly know. This is old age and death, this is the arising of old age and death. Therefore, it is known that suffering and its origin are one thing divided into two. It cannot be said that what is spoken in this sutra, though named suffering and its origin, is not the Truth of Suffering's Origin (duhkha-samudaya-satya). This is because it explains the Noble Truths (arya-satya) from a different perspective. That is to say, this sutra states earlier: to truly know suffering, to know the arising of suffering, and so on. Then, the Venerable Mahakotthita asked: 'Venerable Sariputra, are there other ways to explain the Noble Truths?' He replied: 'Yes.' That is, to truly know this is old age and death, the arising of old age and death, and so on. Although the phrase 'explaining the Noble Truths' is missing here, it is known from the preceding words that the Noble Truths are being explained. After this passage, he further asked: 'To what extent are those called noble disciples, in this true Dharma (saddharma) and Vinaya (vinaya), who have perfected Right View (samyag-drsti) and supernormal powers, achieving Right View and so on?' Those who are not noble disciples, lacking the understanding of the Noble Truths, can achieve perfection in Right View and supernormal powers in the true Dharma and Vinaya, and so on. Therefore, it is known that the intention here is to explain the Noble Truths. Moreover, if it is not said to be the Noble Truths, there would be the fault of overstatement, that is, the sutra says there is no understanding of suffering, and so on, up to no understanding of the path (marga). It is not because the phrase 'explaining the Noble Truths' is missing here that it is considered there is no understanding, no delusion about the Noble Truths. There is no obstacle to the direct realization (abhisamaya) of the Truths. If so, then his ignorance should not be what is eliminated by seeing the Truths (darsana-satya). Furthermore, the sutra says to know suffering and its cause (hetu). Although there is no mention of 'Noble Truths' here, it is not that the Truth of Suffering's Origin is not being explained. Moreover, the sutra says that he sees the Truths (satya). Because he sees the Truths, he is called one who has direct realization. Although it speaks of Truths but does not say 'Noble,' he is definitely called one who sees the Noble Truths. Moreover, there are similar examples in other sutras, such as where craving for desire (kama-tanha) is fully explained, and in other places it is only said that one goes to various realms (gati) due to desire. Although the thought of craving is missing, it is known that it is craving for desire, and although the phrase 'Noble Truths' is missing, it is known that the Noble Truths are being explained. Therefore, suffering and its origin are spoken of as one thing, so the Truth of Origin is not only love; this principle is extremely clear. Moreover, it is also said that there are two aspects to food, and so on. That is, the sutra says that noble disciples truly know food and know the arising of food, and so on extensively. What is called truly knowing food? That is, food has four aspects, and so on extensively. This is called truly knowing food. What is called truly knowing the arising of food? That is, craving for future existence, craving accompanied by joy, craving for this and that.
廣說乃至。齊此名為諸聖弟子。於此正法毗柰耶中。正見神通得圓滿等。食既如苦諦說愛等為因。由此證知食亦苦諦。復有經說食是苦集。如說眾苦皆由食生。又如經言食集故身集。觸集故受集。非身及受非苦諦攝。既於一物說苦苦因。故知取蘊皆是集諦。經何唯說愛為集諦。依別意趣故作是說。謂契經說喜俱行愛。喜即是愛理定無有愛與愛俱。故知此經以愛聲說。愛俱取蘊理必應爾。現見余經有非彼體說為彼故。謂契經言依愛斷愛。此于善法欲說以愛聲。又契經言離愛離熱。此于觸一分說以愛聲。此中於渴說愛名故。又契經言愛增為取。又經說業以愛為因。此二經愛名說一切煩惱。然契經說起四種愛。此經但以愛聲說貪。經說愛聲義非一故。執經說愛為集諦言。謂唯目貪非為善說。又此經說定有別意。以伽他說業愛無明皆能為因。招后諸行一切煩惱。皆能為因招後有故。愛聲通說一切煩惱非唯目貪。由此證知喜俱行愛非即目愛。后更當辯。復有契經證成此義。謂佛于彼有因有緣。有緒經中說業因愛。余經復說一切煩惱皆是業因。以契經言取緣有故知前說業愛為因緣。愛聲通詮一切煩惱。譬如經說無明緣行。故非唯愛是集諦攝理必應爾。以世尊告西膩迦言。我昔與今皆定施設。慢類為苦慢即是集。若謂如上所引契經。
【現代漢語翻譯】 廣說乃至。總而言之，這就叫做諸聖弟子，於此正法毗柰耶（Vinaya，戒律）中，正見神通得到圓滿等等。食物既然如苦諦所說，以愛等為因，由此可以證明食物也是苦諦。又有經典說食物是苦集，如說眾苦都由食物而生。又如經上所說，食物聚集，身體就聚集；觸覺聚集，感受就聚集。如果身體和感受不是苦諦所包含的，既然在一件事物上說了苦和苦的原因，所以可知五取蘊（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）都是集諦。經典為何只說愛是集諦呢？這是依據特別的意趣才這樣說的。所謂契經上說喜俱行愛，喜就是愛，道理上一定沒有愛與愛同時存在的情況。所以可知這部經用愛的名義來說愛俱的五取蘊，道理上必定應該是這樣。現在看到其他經典有不是那個本體卻說成是那個本體的情況。所謂契經上說依靠愛來斷愛，這是對於善法欲用愛的名義來說。又契經上說離愛離熱，這是對於觸覺的一部分用愛的名義來說，這裡是用愛的名義來說渴愛。又契經上說愛增長成為取，又有經上說業以愛為因，這兩部經用愛的名義來說一切煩惱。然而契經上說生起四種愛，這部經只是用愛的名義來說貪愛。經典上說愛的名義不是唯一的。如果執著經典上說愛是集諦的說法，認為只是指貪愛，那就不是正確的說法。而且這部經的說法一定有別的用意，因為伽他（Gatha，偈頌）中說業、愛、無明都能作為原因，招感後世的諸行，一切煩惱都能作為原因，招感後世的有。愛的名義可以通用於一切煩惱，不只是指貪愛。由此可以證明喜俱行愛不是指貪愛，後面會進一步辨析。還有契經可以證明這個意義，就是佛在有因有緣有緒經中說業因愛，其他經典又說一切煩惱都是業因。因為契經上說取緣有，所以可知前面所說業愛為因緣，愛的名義可以通用於一切煩惱。譬如經上說無明緣行，所以不是隻有愛是集諦所包含的，道理上必定應該是這樣。因為世尊告訴西膩迦說，我過去和現在都一定施設，慢類是苦，慢就是集。如果認為如上面所引用的契經。
【English Translation】 Extensively speaking, up to this point, they are called 'holy disciples.' In this true Dharma-Vinaya (Vinaya, discipline), right view and supernatural powers are perfected, and so on. Since food, as stated in the Dukkha Satya (Truth of Suffering), has causes such as attachment, it can be inferred that food is also Dukkha Satya. Furthermore, some sutras state that food is the origin of suffering, such as saying that all suffering arises from food. Also, as stated in the sutras, when food accumulates, the body accumulates; when contact accumulates, sensation accumulates. If the body and sensation are not included in the Dukkha Satya, and since suffering and the cause of suffering are mentioned in relation to one thing, it can be known that all five Skandhas (Skandha, the five aggregates that constitute individual existence: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are Samudaya Satya (Truth of the Origin of Suffering). Why do the sutras only say that attachment is Samudaya Satya? This is said based on a specific intention. The sutra says 'attachment accompanied by joy.' Joy is attachment, and logically, there can never be a situation where attachment and attachment exist simultaneously. Therefore, it can be known that this sutra uses the term 'attachment' to refer to the Skandhas accompanied by attachment, which logically should be the case. It is now seen in other sutras that something that is not that entity is referred to as that entity. The sutra says 'relying on attachment to sever attachment,' which is using the term 'attachment' to refer to the desire for good Dharma. Also, the sutra says 'liberation from attachment, liberation from heat,' which is using the term 'attachment' to refer to a portion of contact. Here, the term 'attachment' is used to refer to thirst. Furthermore, the sutra says 'attachment increases to become grasping,' and another sutra says that karma has attachment as its cause. These two sutras use the term 'attachment' to refer to all afflictions. However, the sutra says that four types of attachment arise; this sutra only uses the term 'attachment' to refer to greed. The meaning of the term 'attachment' in the sutras is not singular. If one clings to the statement in the sutras that attachment is Samudaya Satya, thinking that it only refers to greed, then that is not a correct statement. Moreover, the statement in this sutra must have a different intention, because the Gatha (Gatha, verse) says that karma, attachment, and ignorance can all be causes, inviting future actions; all afflictions can be causes, inviting future existence. The term 'attachment' can be generally applied to all afflictions, not just greed. From this, it can be proven that attachment accompanied by joy does not refer to greed; this will be further analyzed later. There are also sutras that prove this meaning, namely, the Buddha said in the sutra on causes, conditions, and continuity that karma is caused by attachment, and other sutras say that all afflictions are the cause of karma. Because the sutra says that existence is conditioned by grasping, it can be known that the previously mentioned karma and attachment are causes and conditions, and the term 'attachment' can generally explain all afflictions. For example, the sutra says that actions are conditioned by ignorance, so it is not only attachment that is included in Samudaya Satya; logically, it must be so. Because the World Honored One told Sini迦 (西膩迦) that I have always established, and still establish, that pride is suffering, and pride is the origin. If it is thought that the sutras quoted above...
非五取蘊皆名集諦。故於所立為證不成。此亦不然遮汝所許我義成故。謂所引經證諸煩惱。皆是集諦遮汝所許。集諦唯攝順後有愛。既遮汝義我宗所說。諸有漏法為因性邊。皆是集諦無能遮止。故上所引為證理成。設許彼經愛唯說愛亦無有失。于招後有愛為勝因就勝說故。謂愛最是不厭有因。以愛力能莊飾諸有。令成種種美妙相故。如密怨敵現相詐親。令諸有情不見其過。諸有情類愛行最多。愛力能令難趣離欲。故於招有愛是勝因。以愛為因力能引起。不別離欲和合欲故。法爾力能違逆解脫。故於宣說眾苦因時。為令有情見彼過失。就勝說彼以為集諦。非謂所餘異彼相法無集諦性。若但如文而作解者有太過失。或由此故其義亦成。謂契經說。愛集故苦集愛集即無明。故契經言。云何為愛因謂即無明。是既說苦集即是愛因。應但無明為集諦性。或即執愛為愛集者。豈非即苦亦是苦因。由此便成即於一物。由因果別立苦集諦。又契經言。受集故愛集。觸集故受集。豈非愛受亦苦亦集。由此苦集非物故異。是故一切有漏五蘊。為因性邊皆集諦攝。上座於此意謂不然。由契經中無此說故。說苦應知集應斷故。謂廣分別聖諦經中。曾不說言五種取蘊。皆集諦攝唯說是愛。又薄伽梵明二諦別說苦應知說集應斷。是故唯愛是集諦攝。
又諸無學者後有不續故。謂阿羅漢有五取蘊。有苦集故應續後有。然無是事故知唯愛。是集諦攝非余取蘊。此雖有語而實無義。言契經中無此說者。且不應理違自宗故。謂彼上座自作是言。苦因理通一切煩惱。以愛勝故說愛非余。非契經中辯聖諦處。說諸煩惱皆是苦因但作是言愛為集諦。故彼所說唯率己情。若謂余經說余煩惱。是集性故知諸煩惱。皆是苦因並集諦攝。但就勝故說愛非余。豈不所言經不說故。唯愛是集言有義空。又非此經不說取蘊。愛聲通顯諸有漏故。此前已說后更當辯。故彼所言空無有義。又彼所說應知應斷。二諦別者理亦不然。二諦俱通由此成故。謂契經說五種取蘊。一切應斷前已顯成。既說皆是苦諦所攝。故非苦集由物故異。又佛于苦亦說斷言。謂說世醫拔毒箭者。不能了達一切世間。生為本苦永斷良藥。廣說乃至。唯有諸佛究竟了達。一切世間生為本苦永斷良藥。又經說苦滅滅是斷異名。又應知言亦通集諦。經說眾苦盡由遍知法。故由此不應就應知斷。辯苦集諦二相差別。言諸無學者後有不續。故證知唯愛是集諦者。理亦不然余因闕故。後有不續猶如愛等。謂如經中說受緣愛。諸阿羅漢非無有受。但余緣闕故愛不生又如經中說。眼及色為因緣故眼識得生。而或有時雖有眼色余緣闕故眼識不生。
應知此中理趣亦爾。馬鳴尊者亦作是言。煩惱業身能取後有。為因引發後有續生。設壞業身後有難絕。若煩惱闕後有便無。要闕能趣因生身方盡故。如闕種子有地無苗。又契經言識為種子。業為因故後有得生。非應果身無識無業。是故不必因皆無故。方令後果不相續生。應果身中雖有眼等。余因闕故後有不續。有作是言。現世諸蘊展轉力生。故但可互為緣。要由彼力令識種子住後有田方名集諦。此亦非理除愛余法亦後有因。契經說故如契經說。一類有情余慢未斷未遍知故。彼類便作生般涅槃。又契經說。若有于慢未現觀。是慢我記有後生。又說無明愛結覆系。愚夫智者同感有身。又契經言諸有情類種種非一。眾多苦生皆欲為因。乃至廣說。又愚癡類愛樂諸有。由愛久處生死瀑流。是則無明為生死本。乍可唯說彼為集諦。不應唯愛是集諦體。或復何緣定知唯愛。能續後有非諸惑耶。若謂唯愛名順後有。非余法者理亦不然先已說故。先何所說。謂先說愛聲說一切煩惱。通說余法理亦如前。又業亦能招感後有。亦順後有寧唯說愛。若謂唯愛所引發業能感後有。理亦不然。一切煩惱所引發業。無不能為後有因故。以契經說無明緣行。許此無明聲總說諸惑故。或愛亦由無明引發。方有勢力能續後有。經說無明為愛因故。乍可集諦
唯是無明。無明總為諸有本故。由此為證非唯愛力。令識種子住後有因。故不應言集諦唯愛。又應責彼有漏法中。何緣唯執愛為集諦。若是煩惱故瞋等何不然。若通三界故慢等何不然。若牽後有故業行何不然。如契經言。若造福行便能引起隨福行識非福不動。廣說亦然。若希求相故何緣不說欲。若說為集故何不說食等。若執取性故何非身見等。如是余法亦有彼相。而執集諦唯是愛者。但由於經闕觀察智。又未曾見有處決定。說集諦唯是續後有因愛。豈不經說後有愛言。雖爾不言此愛唯是。能令後有相續因性。如說云何如實知食集。謂愛後有愛。乃至廣說。非引段食名續後有。是故知此後有愛言。為簡別前非續後有。謂薄伽梵觀所化宜。且以愛聲顯集諦體。然于多法皆有愛聲。為簡所餘說後有愛。謂若有愛未永斷時。後有可生方名集諦。是此經義非續後有。豈不但說喜俱行愛。彼彼喜愛足能簡別。皆許無失彼此同故。謂如唯執續後有因愛。名集諦論者。後有愛言已能簡余愛。復說余重簡我宗亦然不應為難。或愛是總後有愛言簡取無明及一果法。以後有愛聲說無明等。故後有愛聲亦容通說一切煩惱。或取蘊故。未了今說何等無明。故次復言喜俱行愛。即是意地貪相應義。意貪名喜有分別故彼彼意愛。謂于諸境或於自體起差
別貪。此中貪名通目一切貪俱生品。為欲建立貪等行俱有差別故。由此與彼相應無明。亦得說名彼彼喜愛。故薄伽梵隨所化宜。以別意說愛為集諦。不應隨名便興固執。謂集諦唯是續後有因愛。有言聖道為苦三緣聖道現前。亦能長養諸根大種應集諦攝。此亦不然。以諸聖道力能永斷眾苦道故。非能畢竟斷苦道法。可名苦集義相違故。又若彼是此集離彼法此不生。聖道雖無而苦恒起。故知聖道定非苦集。又不可說苦是聖道等流。謂等流言顯因同類。有漏無漏類既有別。為因非同類為果非等流。故不應言聖道是集。又非聖道是長養因。然聖道現前根大長養者。道能遮止損害緣故。今彼自類前為勝因。後果轉增名為長養。由此聖道定非集諦。故唯有漏為因性邊。皆集諦攝理得成就。契經所說業為生因。愛為起因斯有何義。謂於後有差別芽生。業能為因如所殖種。愛非愛異熟隨業差別故。若於後有無別芽生。愛能為因如能潤水。愛潤諸後有令無別起故。如稻等芽隨自類種故有差別。諸芽無別皆得滋長由水為因。應知二因義別如是理必應許愛為起因見有愛者後有起故。謂有愛離愛二俱命終。唯見有愛者後有更起。由此理證愛為起因。起有起無定隨愛故。又世現見有希求者能攝受故。謂世現見有所希求便能攝受。于現既爾于當亦然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不要貪婪。這裡所說的『貪』，總括了所有與生俱來的貪慾。爲了說明貪等行為的差別，所以這樣說。因此，與這些貪慾相應的無明（avidyā，不瞭解真理的迷惑），也可以被稱為對那些事物的喜愛。所以，薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）根據所教化對象的不同，用不同的方式說『愛』是集諦（samudaya-satya，苦的根源）。不應該只根據字面意思就固執地認為，集諦僅僅是導致未來存在的『愛』。有人說，聖道（ārya-mārga，八正道）是苦的三種緣（過去、現在、未來），聖道顯現時，也能增長諸根（indriya，感覺器官）和大種（mahā-bhuta，地、水、火、風），所以應該歸入集諦。這種說法是不對的。因為聖道的力量能夠永遠斷除眾苦之道，如果它能夠徹底斷除苦之道，就不能被稱為『苦集』，因為這在意義上是矛盾的。而且，如果彼是此之集，那麼離開彼法，此就不會產生。即使沒有聖道，苦仍然會產生。所以，聖道一定不是苦集。而且，不能說苦是聖道的等流（nisyanda-phala，同類因所生的果）。所謂『等流』，是指原因和結果是同類的。有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱的）和無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱的）在類別上是不同的。作為原因，它們不是同類的；作為結果，它們不是等流的。所以，不應該說聖道是集。而且，聖道不是增長的原因。然而，聖道顯現時，諸根和大種之所以能夠增長，是因為聖道能夠阻止損害的因緣。現在，它們自己的類別之前是殊勝的原因，之後結果逐漸增加，這被稱為『增長』。因此，聖道一定不是集諦。所以，只有有漏的法作為原因，才屬於集諦，這個道理才能成立。契經（sūtra，佛經）所說，『業（karma，行為）是生的原因，愛是起的原因』，這是什麼意思呢？這是指在未來存在的差別之芽產生時，業能夠作為原因，就像所種植的種子一樣。愛和非愛（憎恨）的異熟果（vipāka-phala，果報）隨著業的差別而不同。如果未來存在的差別之芽沒有產生，那麼愛能夠作為原因，就像能夠滋潤的水一樣。愛滋潤所有的未來存在，使它們沒有差別地產生。就像稻等芽隨著自己種類的種子而有差別一樣，所有的芽沒有差別，都能得到滋長，這是因為水作為原因。應該知道這兩種原因的意義是不同的。因此，必須承認愛是『起』的原因，因為看到有愛的人，未來存在才會產生。也就是說，有愛和離愛（沒有愛）的兩種人死去，只有看到有愛的人，未來存在才會再次產生。由此可以證明，愛是『起』的原因。存在的產生與否，取決於愛。而且，世間現在可以看到，有希求的人能夠攝受（grahaṇa，接受）。既然在現在是這樣，那麼在未來也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version: Do not be greedy. Here, 'greed' encompasses all innate desires. This is stated to highlight the distinctions among actions driven by greed and similar emotions. Consequently, the ignorance (avidyā, delusion about the true nature of reality) associated with these desires can also be termed as fondness for those things. Therefore, the Bhagavan (the Blessed One) speaks of 'craving' as the origin of suffering (samudaya-satya, the truth of the origin of suffering) according to the suitability of those being taught. One should not rigidly adhere to the literal meaning and insist that the origin of suffering is solely the 'craving' that leads to future existence. Some argue that the Noble Path (ārya-mārga, the Eightfold Path) is one of the three conditions for suffering (past, present, future), and when the Noble Path is present, it can also nourish the faculties (indriya, sense organs) and the great elements (mahā-bhuta, earth, water, fire, wind), thus it should be included in the origin of suffering. This is incorrect. Because the power of the Noble Path can permanently cut off the path of suffering, if it could completely cut off the path of suffering, it could not be called 'the origin of suffering,' as this is contradictory in meaning. Moreover, if that is the origin of this, then without that, this would not arise. Even without the Noble Path, suffering still arises. Therefore, the Noble Path is definitely not the origin of suffering. Furthermore, it cannot be said that suffering is the outflow (nisyanda-phala, result from a similar cause) of the Noble Path. The term 'outflow' indicates that the cause and effect are of the same kind. Defiled (sāsrava, with afflictions) and undefiled (anāsrava, without afflictions) are different in category. As a cause, they are not of the same kind; as an effect, they are not an outflow. Therefore, it should not be said that the Noble Path is the origin of suffering. Moreover, the Noble Path is not a cause of nourishment. However, when the Noble Path is present, the reason why the faculties and great elements can grow is because the Noble Path can prevent the conditions that cause harm. Now, their own category is a superior cause before, and the result gradually increases afterward, which is called 'nourishment.' Therefore, the Noble Path is definitely not the origin of suffering. So, only defiled dharmas as a cause belong to the origin of suffering, and this principle can be established. What is the meaning of the sutra (sūtra, Buddhist scripture) that says, 'Action (karma, volitional action) is the cause of birth, and craving is the cause of arising'? This refers to when the sprout of difference in future existence arises, action can be the cause, like the seeds that are planted. The results of love and hate (vipāka-phala, karmic results) differ according to the differences in action. If the sprout of difference in future existence does not arise, then craving can be the cause, like water that can nourish. Craving nourishes all future existences, causing them to arise without difference. Just as the sprouts of rice and other plants have differences according to the seeds of their own kind, all sprouts without difference can be nourished, because water is the cause. It should be known that the meanings of these two causes are different. Therefore, it must be admitted that craving is the cause of 'arising,' because it is seen that those who have craving will have future existence. That is to say, when two kinds of people die, those with craving and those without craving, only those who are seen to have craving will have future existence again. From this, it can be proven that craving is the cause of 'arising.' Whether existence arises or not depends on craving. Moreover, it can be seen in the world now that those who have desires are able to grasp (grahaṇa, to take hold of). Since this is the case in the present, it will also be so in the future.
。必希求為因能攝受後世。若於後有愛必馳趣于彼。故知愛體能為后因。何緣證知有離愛者。現見可盡法由因永盡故。謂見水等與火等合。漸減漸微乃至都盡。又見數習不凈觀等。貪等漸減善法漸增。由此比知無漏智火。至極盛位愛等永亡。是故證知有離愛者。有餘師說。愛非愛境現在前時。諸根凝寂不變異者是離愛相。如不見有風等所生。變異相者比知無病。又如闇壞及了境時。知日輪出及諸根有。如是行者雖處闇中。身語意業亦清凈者。應比知彼必已離愛。心懷過者若處闇中。諸根定應有變異故。又如游履所未行處。離能引導及所策杖。盲者定應不正失路。遙觀彼相知彼定盲。如是心中懷過失者。身語意業必不清凈。諸根定應有變異轉。善比量者於他相續。可如是比知離愛未離愛。如是唯有對法者宗。辯集諦體理善成立。彼立滅諦亦不應理。諸煩惱等滅皆寂靜相故等。寂靜相有滅是滅諦。有滅非滅諦。理不成故由此不應作如是說。順後有愛滅是滅諦非余。由此應知諸有漏斷。皆是滅諦理善成立。言唯有學八聖道支。名為道諦亦不應理。說一切善法皆聖諦攝故。如契經言所有善法。一切攝在四聖諦中。由此彼應許除有學八道支外。所有聖道亦道諦攝。或非善性。又應已見四聖諦者。猶未獲得佛證凈故。以于道諦得現
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：必定希望以某種原因為因，能夠攝受後世。如果對於後有愛戀，必定會奔向那個方向。因此可知，愛的本體能夠成為後世的原因。通過什麼原因可以證明存在脫離愛的人呢？因為現在可以見到，可以通過因的永遠斷絕而使法完全斷絕。例如，看到水等與火等結合，逐漸減少、逐漸微弱，乃至完全消失。又例如，看到反覆修習不凈觀等，貪慾等逐漸減少，善法逐漸增加。由此可以推知，無漏智慧之火達到極盛的地位，愛等就會永遠消失。所以可以證明存在脫離愛的人。有些老師說，當愛或非愛的境界出現在面前時，如果諸根凝定寂靜，沒有變化，這就是脫離愛的相狀。就像沒有看到風等所產生的變化相狀，就可以推知沒有疾病一樣。又像黑暗消失以及瞭解境界時，知道太陽出現以及諸根存在一樣。像這樣，修行者即使身處黑暗之中，身語意業也清凈，就應該推知他必定已經脫離了愛。心中懷有罪過的人，如果身處黑暗之中，諸根必定會有變化。又像在沒有走過的地方行走，如果沒有引導和扶持的枴杖，盲人必定會走錯路。遠遠觀察他的樣子，就知道他一定是盲人。像這樣，心中懷有罪過的人，身語意業必定不清凈，諸根必定會有變化。善於比量的人，對於他人的相續，可以這樣來推知是否脫離了愛。像這樣，只有對法者的宗派，辯論集諦的本體，道理才能很好地成立。他們所立的滅諦也不合理。因為諸煩惱等的滅，都是寂靜的相狀等等。寂靜的相狀，有的是滅諦，有的不是滅諦，道理不能成立。因此不應該這樣說：順著後有的愛滅才是滅諦，而不是其他的。由此應該知道，所有有漏的斷滅，都是滅諦，道理才能很好地成立。說只有有學的八聖道支才名為道諦，也是不合理的。因為經典中說，一切善法都包含在四聖諦之中。如契經所說：『所有善法，一切都包含在四聖諦中。』由此他們應該承認，除了有學的八道支外，所有的聖道也都是道諦所包含的。或者不是善的性質。又應該說，已經見到四聖諦的人，仍然沒有獲得佛的證凈，因為對於道諦獲得了現... English version: It is necessary to hope that a certain cause can be the reason for embracing the future life. If there is love for future existence, one will surely rush towards it. Therefore, it can be known that the essence of love can be the cause of future existence. What reason proves that there are those who are free from love? Because it can now be seen that the Dharma can be completely extinguished through the permanent cessation of its cause. For example, seeing water, etc., combined with fire, etc., gradually decreasing, gradually weakening, until completely disappearing. Also, for example, seeing the repeated practice of contemplating impurity, etc., greed, etc., gradually decreasing, and virtuous Dharmas gradually increasing. From this, it can be inferred that when the fire of non-outflow wisdom reaches its peak, love, etc., will be permanently extinguished. Therefore, it can be proven that there are those who are free from love. Some teachers say that when the realm of love or non-love appears before one, if the senses are concentrated and still, without change, this is the characteristic of being free from love. Just as not seeing the changing characteristics produced by wind, etc., one can infer that there is no illness. Also, like when darkness disappears and one understands the realm, one knows that the sun has risen and the senses exist. Like this, if a practitioner, even when in darkness, has pure actions of body, speech, and mind, it should be inferred that they must have already been freed from love. If someone harbors faults in their heart, their senses will surely change if they are in darkness. Also, like walking in a place one has never been before, if there is no guidance or supporting staff, a blind person will surely go astray. Observing their appearance from afar, one knows that they must be blind. Like this, if someone harbors faults in their heart, their actions of body, speech, and mind will surely be impure, and their senses will surely change. Those skilled in analogy can infer whether others have been freed from love in this way. Like this, only the school of Abhidharma masters can debate the essence of the truth of suffering, and their reasoning can be well established. Their established truth of cessation is also unreasonable. Because the cessation of all afflictions, etc., are all characteristics of tranquility, etc. Of the characteristics of tranquility, some are the truth of cessation, and some are not the truth of cessation, so the reasoning cannot be established. Therefore, it should not be said that only the cessation of love that leads to future existence is the truth of cessation, and not others. From this, it should be known that the cessation of all outflows is the truth of cessation, and the reasoning can be well established. Saying that only the eightfold noble path of those still learning is called the truth of the path is also unreasonable. Because the scriptures say that all virtuous Dharmas are included in the Four Noble Truths. As the sutras say: 'All virtuous Dharmas are all included in the Four Noble Truths.' Therefore, they should admit that in addition to the eightfold path of those still learning, all noble paths are also included in the truth of the path. Or they are not of a virtuous nature. Also, it should be said that those who have already seen the Four Noble Truths have still not attained the pure proof of the Buddha, because they have obtained the present...
【English Translation】 It is necessary to hope that a certain cause can be the reason for embracing the future life. If there is love for future existence, one will surely rush towards it. Therefore, it can be known that the essence of love can be the cause of future existence. What reason proves that there are those who are free from love? Because it can now be seen that the Dharma can be completely extinguished through the permanent cessation of its cause. For example, seeing water, etc., combined with fire, etc., gradually decreasing, gradually weakening, until completely disappearing. Also, for example, seeing the repeated practice of contemplating impurity, etc., greed, etc., gradually decreasing, and virtuous Dharmas gradually increasing. From this, it can be inferred that when the fire of non-outflow wisdom reaches its peak, love, etc., will be permanently extinguished. Therefore, it can be proven that there are those who are free from love. Some teachers say that when the realm of love or non-love appears before one, if the senses are concentrated and still, without change, this is the characteristic of being free from love. Just as not seeing the changing characteristics produced by wind, etc., one can infer that there is no illness. Also, like when darkness disappears and one understands the realm, one knows that the sun has risen and the senses exist. Like this, if a practitioner, even when in darkness, has pure actions of body, speech, and mind, it should be inferred that they must have already been freed from love. If someone harbors faults in their heart, their senses will surely change if they are in darkness. Also, like walking in a place one has never been before, if there is no guidance or supporting staff, a blind person will surely go astray. Observing their appearance from afar, one knows that they must be blind. Like this, if someone harbors faults in their heart, their actions of body, speech, and mind will surely be impure, and their senses will surely change. Those skilled in analogy can infer whether others have been freed from love in this way. Like this, only the school of Abhidharma masters can debate the essence of the truth of suffering, and their reasoning can be well established. Their established truth of cessation is also unreasonable. Because the cessation of all afflictions, etc., are all characteristics of tranquility, etc. Of the characteristics of tranquility, some are the truth of cessation, and some are not the truth of cessation, so the reasoning cannot be established. Therefore, it should not be said that only the cessation of love that leads to future existence is the truth of cessation, and not others. From this, it should be known that the cessation of all outflows is the truth of cessation, and the reasoning can be well established. Saying that only the eightfold noble path of those still learning is called the truth of the path is also unreasonable. Because the scriptures say that all virtuous Dharmas are included in the Four Noble Truths. As the sutras say: 'All virtuous Dharmas are all included in the Four Noble Truths.' Therefore, they should admit that in addition to the eightfold path of those still learning, all noble paths are also included in the truth of the path. Or they are not of a virtuous nature. Also, it should be said that those who have already seen the Four Noble Truths have still not attained the pure proof of the Buddha, because they have obtained the present...
觀時。許未現觀無學道故。由此已見四聖諦者。有未獲得佛證凈失。緣佛信根猶未得故。又道皆有道等相故。謂余有學無學聖道。若趣生死應非無漏。若趣涅槃應道諦攝。若俱不趣應不名道。如何彼乃言是道非道諦。是故一切學無學道。皆道諦收理善成立。若謂無學不能滅苦。如何說是苦滅道攝此難不然。道相既等於苦亦有滅功能故。然已滅故不勞更滅。非無學道無滅功能。又對治道有多種故。由此契經言。不動心解脫珍寶具足能捨不善。即由此故諸無學者。修習正斷亦無有失。是故最初立諦為勝。因前果后理數必然。由此定應列諦名處。苦居集后道在滅前。何故此中果前因后。隨現觀位次第而說。謂隨行者現觀位中。前觀前說后觀后說。然或有法說次隨生如念住等。或復有法說次隨便如正勝等。謂此中無決定理趣。發勤精進先斷已生。后遮未生但隨言便。所應斷法已生易施設非未生。所應修法未生易施設非已生。斷必自粗修必從細。言隨此便故作是說。何緣現觀次第必然。加行位中如是觀故。何緣加行必如是觀。謂若有法最為逼惱。修加行位理應先觀。次求彼因次求彼脫。后應求彼解脫方便。譬如良醫先觀病者。所患病狀次尋其因。次思病癒后求良藥。故契經言夫醫王者。謂具四德能拔毒箭。一善知病狀。二善知病
因。三善知病癒。四善知良藥。如來亦爾為大醫王。如實了知苦集滅道。故加行位依此次觀。現觀位中觀次亦爾。由加行力所引發故。如縱心誦先所誦文。故列聖諦名隨現觀次第。現等覺故立現觀名。正覺所緣故唯無漏。此覺真凈故得正名。此聖諦名為目何義。經言聖者諦故得聖諦名。此義意言。唯諸聖者於四諦理。能如實見無有虛妄。非聖相違故理雖通而名聖諦。依如是義故有頌言。
聖者說是樂 非聖說為苦 聖者說為苦 非聖說是樂
然四諦理無有差別。在聖在凡皆如實故。依能見者偏立聖名。或義意言。唯諸聖者於四諦理。以聖行觀於一切時。行相無別聖行諦理極相稱故。以諦隨行立聖諦名。非如世間六非聖行。先觀此地為靜等三。后復觀為粗等三相。非相稱故不隨彼名。或義意言。唯諸聖者於四諦理。以聖智觀一得正決定無還不定理。故諦隨智得聖諦名。即由此理聖智觀諦。得立苦集滅道智名。凡智雖能見四諦理。得決定已容不定故。諦不隨彼得凡諦名。由此但應名世俗智。唯受一分是苦自體所餘並非。如何可言諸有漏行皆是苦諦。頌曰。
苦由三苦合 如所應一切 可意非可意 余有漏行法
論曰。有三苦性。一苦苦性。二行苦性。三壞苦性。諸有漏行如其所應。與此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因。四種善巧：一善知病，二善知病因，三善知病癒，四善知良藥。如來也像這樣，是大醫王，如實了知苦、集、滅、道（四聖諦）。因此，在加行位（修行階段），依照這個次第來觀察。在現觀位（證悟階段）中，觀察的次第也是這樣，因為是由加行位的力量所引發的。就像背誦時，能流暢地誦出先前背誦過的文章一樣。所以，列出四聖諦的名稱，是按照現觀的次第。因為是現前等同於覺悟，所以建立『現觀』這個名稱。因為是正覺所緣的境界，所以唯有無漏（沒有煩惱）。這個覺悟是真實清凈的，所以得到『正』這個名稱。這個聖諦的名稱，是爲了說明什麼意義呢？經中說，因為是聖者的真諦，所以得到『聖諦』這個名稱。這個意思是指，只有聖者對於四聖諦的道理，能夠如實地見到，沒有虛妄。因為與非聖者的見解相反，所以雖然這個道理普遍存在，但稱為聖諦。根據這個意義，所以有頌詞說： 聖者說是樂，非聖說為苦； 聖者說為苦，非聖說是樂。 然而，四諦的道理並沒有差別，在聖者和凡夫那裡都是真實的。只是根據能見者的不同，而偏重於建立『聖』這個名稱。或者，另一種解釋是，只有聖者對於四聖諦的道理，以聖者的行為來觀察，在任何時候，其行相都沒有差別，聖者的行為與真諦的道理極其相稱，所以用真諦來隨順聖者的行為，而建立『聖諦』這個名稱。不像世間六種非聖者的行為，先觀察此地為靜等三種，之後又觀察為粗等三種相，因為不相稱，所以不隨順他們的名稱。或者，另一種解釋是，只有聖者對於四聖諦的道理，以聖智來觀察，一旦得到正確的決定，就不會再有不確定的情況，所以真諦隨順聖智，而得到『聖諦』這個名稱。也正因為這個道理，聖智觀察真諦，才得以建立苦智、集智、滅智、道智（四種智慧）的名稱。凡夫的智慧雖然也能見到四諦的道理，但得到決定之後，仍然可能出現不確定的情況，所以真諦不隨順凡夫的智慧，而不能得到『凡諦』這個名稱。因此，只能稱為世俗智。僅僅接受一部分是苦的自體，其餘的並非如此，怎麼能說所有有漏的行為都是苦諦呢？頌詞說： 苦由三苦合，如所應一切； 可意非可意，余有漏行法。 論中說，有三種苦的性質：一是苦苦性，二是行苦性，三是壞苦性。所有有漏的行為，根據其相應的性質，與這三種苦
【English Translation】 English version Cause. Four kinds of skillful means: 1. Knowing the disease well; 2. Knowing the cause of the disease well; 3. Knowing the recovery from the disease well; 4. Knowing the good medicine well. The Tathagata (the thus-gone one, an epithet of the Buddha) is also like this, being a great physician king, truly knowing suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path (the Four Noble Truths). Therefore, in the stage of application (practice stage), one observes according to this order. In the stage of direct realization (stage of enlightenment), the order of observation is also like this, because it is induced by the power of the application stage. Just like reciting, one can fluently recite the previously recited text. Therefore, listing the names of the Four Noble Truths follows the order of direct realization. Because it is directly equivalent to enlightenment, the name 'direct realization' is established. Because it is the object of perfect enlightenment, it is only without outflows (free from defilements). This enlightenment is truly pure, so it gets the name 'perfect'. What meaning does the name 'Noble Truth' aim to explain? The sutra says that because it is the truth of the noble ones, it gets the name 'Noble Truth'. This means that only the noble ones can truly see the truth of the Four Noble Truths without falsehood. Because it is contrary to the views of non-noble ones, although this truth is universal, it is called Noble Truth. According to this meaning, there is a verse saying: The noble ones say it is happiness, the non-noble ones say it is suffering; The noble ones say it is suffering, the non-noble ones say it is happiness. However, the truth of the Four Noble Truths has no difference; it is true for both noble ones and ordinary beings. It is only based on the difference of the seer that the name 'noble' is emphasized. Or, another explanation is that only the noble ones observe the truth of the Four Noble Truths with the conduct of noble ones. At any time, their characteristics are not different. The conduct of noble ones is extremely consistent with the truth, so the truth follows the conduct of noble ones, and the name 'Noble Truth' is established. It is not like the six non-noble conducts of the world, first observing this place as the three of stillness, etc., and then observing the three aspects of coarseness, etc. Because they are inconsistent, their names are not followed. Or, another explanation is that only the noble ones observe the truth of the Four Noble Truths with noble wisdom. Once a correct decision is obtained, there will be no more uncertainty. Therefore, the truth follows noble wisdom, and the name 'Noble Truth' is obtained. It is also because of this reason that noble wisdom observes the truth, and the names of suffering-wisdom, origin-wisdom, cessation-wisdom, and path-wisdom (the four wisdoms) are established. Although the wisdom of ordinary beings can also see the truth of the Four Noble Truths, after obtaining a decision, there may still be uncertainty. Therefore, the truth does not follow the wisdom of ordinary beings, and the name 'ordinary truth' cannot be obtained. Therefore, it can only be called conventional wisdom. Only accepting a part as the self-nature of suffering, and the rest is not, how can it be said that all conditioned actions are the truth of suffering? The verse says: Suffering is combined by the three sufferings, as appropriate; Agreeable, disagreeable, the remaining conditioned dharmas (phenomena). The treatise says that there are three kinds of suffering: the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of pervasive conditioning. All conditioned actions, according to their corresponding nature, are related to these three sufferings.
三種苦性合故。皆是苦諦亦無有失。所以者何。諸有漏行有三可意非可意。余可意者。何謂諸樂受。及彼資具餘二類然。此中可意有漏行法。由壞苦合故名為苦。未離染者于彼壞時。必定應生憂愁等故。以薄伽梵契經中言。諸樂受生時樂住時樂壞時。苦順樂受諸行如樂受。應知諸非可意有漏行法。由苦苦合故名為苦。苦受自體及順苦法現前。必能惱身心故。以薄伽梵契經中言。諸苦受生時苦住時苦壞時樂順苦受諸行如苦受。應知除此所餘有漏行法。由行苦合故名為苦。因緣所造皆是無常。有漏無常無非是苦。故有漏法皆是苦性。豈不一切有漏行法。據此皆容是行苦性。不應但說非苦樂受。及彼資糧為行苦性。雖有此理然於此中。依不共故作如是說。謂初后苦如其所應。唯在可意非可意法。余有漏法唯是行苦。不共所依故作是說。然薄伽梵契經中言。苦受生時住時苦者。由彼苦受性是苦故。壞時樂者苦受壞時。設無樂受由苦受息。似樂顯現故亦名樂於相續息位立以壞名故。苦受息時名苦受壞。此于欲界。二界漏盡如次暫時長時。畢竟樂受生時住時樂者。由彼樂受性是樂故。壞時苦者。謂諸有情未離染時心恒求樂。於樂壞位起憂愁等。故說樂受為壞苦性。樂受壞時設無苦受。似苦顯現亦名為苦。不苦不樂受生時住時。皆非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三種苦性結合的緣故，都可以說是苦諦，沒有錯失。為什麼這樣說呢？因為有漏的行（saṃskṛta，有為法）有三種：可意的、非可意的。可意的又是什麼呢？就是各種樂受（sukha vedanā）以及它們的資具，其餘兩種也是這樣。這其中，可意的有漏行法，因為與壞苦（vipariṇāma-duḥkha）結合，所以被稱為苦。沒有脫離染污的人，在樂受壞滅的時候，必定會產生憂愁等等。就像薄伽梵（Bhagavat，佛）在契經（sūtra，經）中說的那樣：『各種樂受生起時是樂，住留時是樂，壞滅時是苦。順應樂受的各種行，應當像樂受一樣理解。』各種非可意的有漏行法，因為與苦苦（duḥkha-duḥkha）結合，所以被稱為苦。苦受本身以及順應苦法的現前，必定能夠惱亂身心。就像薄伽梵在契經中說的那樣：『各種苦受生起時是苦，住留時是苦，壞滅時是樂。順應苦受的各種行，應當像苦受一樣理解。』除了這些以外，其餘的有漏行法，因為與行苦（saṃskāra-duḥkha）結合，所以被稱為苦。因緣所造作的都是無常的，有漏的無常沒有不是苦的。所以有漏法都是苦的性質。難道不是一切有漏行法，根據這個道理都容許是行苦的性質嗎？不應該只說非苦樂受以及它們的資糧是行苦的性質。雖然有這個道理，但是在這裡，因為不共的緣故，才這樣說。就是說，最初和最後的苦，如其所應，只在可意的和非可意的法中。其餘的有漏法只是行苦，因為是不共的所依，所以才這樣說。然而薄伽梵在契經中說：『苦受生起時、住留時是苦』，是因為苦受的性質是苦的緣故。『壞滅時是樂』，是說苦受壞滅時，即使沒有樂受，因為苦受的止息，好像樂顯現，所以也稱為樂。在相續止息的位置上，安立壞滅的名稱的緣故。苦受止息時，名為苦受壞滅。這在欲界（kāmadhātu），二界（色界和無色界）漏盡（āsrava-kṣaya）的眾生，如次第是暫時、長時、畢竟的。樂受生起時、住留時是樂，是因為樂受的性質是樂的緣故。『壞滅時是苦』，是說各種有情沒有脫離染污時，內心恒常追求快樂，在快樂壞滅的位置，生起憂愁等等。所以說樂受是壞苦的性質。樂受壞滅時，即使沒有苦受，好像苦顯現，也稱為苦。不苦不樂受生起時、住留時，都不是 現代漢語譯本 三種苦性結合的緣故，都可以說是苦諦，沒有錯失。為什麼這樣說呢？因為有漏的行（saṃskṛta，有為法）有三種：可意的、非可意的。可意的又是什麼呢？就是各種樂受（sukha vedanā）以及它們的資具，其餘兩種也是這樣。這其中，可意的有漏行法，因為與壞苦（vipariṇāma-duḥkha）結合，所以被稱為苦。沒有脫離染污的人，在樂受壞滅的時候，必定會產生憂愁等等。就像薄伽梵（Bhagavat，佛）在契經（sūtra，經）中說的那樣：『各種樂受生起時是樂，住留時是樂，壞滅時是苦。順應樂受的各種行，應當像樂受一樣理解。』各種非可意的有漏行法，因為與苦苦（duḥkha-duḥkha）結合，所以被稱為苦。苦受本身以及順應苦法的現前，必定能夠惱亂身心。就像薄伽梵在契經中說的那樣：『各種苦受生起時是苦，住留時是苦，壞滅時是樂。順應苦受的各種行，應當像苦受一樣理解。』除了這些以外，其餘的有漏行法，因為與行苦（saṃskāra-duḥkha）結合，所以被稱為苦。因緣所造作的都是無常的，有漏的無常沒有不是苦的。所以有漏法都是苦的性質。難道不是一切有漏行法，根據這個道理都容許是行苦的性質嗎？不應該只說非苦樂受以及它們的資糧是行苦的性質。雖然有這個道理，但是在這裡，因為不共的緣故，才這樣說。就是說，最初和最後的苦，如其所應，只在可意的和非可意的法中。其餘的有漏法只是行苦，因為是不共的所依，所以才這樣說。然而薄伽梵在契經中說：『苦受生起時、住留時是苦』，是因為苦受的性質是苦的緣故。『壞滅時是樂』，是說苦受壞滅時，即使沒有樂受，因為苦受的止息，好像樂顯現，所以也稱為樂。在相續止息的位置上，安立壞滅的名稱的緣故。苦受止息時，名為苦受壞滅。這在欲界（kāmadhātu），二界（色界和無色界）漏盡（āsrava-kṣaya）的眾生，如次第是暫時、長時、畢竟的。樂受生起時、住留時是樂，是因為樂受的性質是樂的緣故。『壞滅時是苦』，是說各種有情沒有脫離染污時，內心恒常追求快樂，在快樂壞滅的位置，生起憂愁等等。所以說樂受是壞苦的性質。樂受壞滅時，即使沒有苦受，好像苦顯現，也稱為苦。不苦不樂受生起時、住留時，都不是
【English Translation】 English version Because of the combination of the three kinds of suffering, all can be said to be the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya), and there is no mistake. Why is this so? Because conditioned existences (saṃskṛta, conditioned phenomena) have three types: agreeable, disagreeable. What are the agreeable ones? They are various pleasant feelings (sukha vedanā) and their requisites, and the other two are similar. Among these, agreeable conditioned phenomena are called suffering because they are combined with the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkha). Those who have not detached from defilements will inevitably generate sorrow and so on when pleasant feelings cease. As the Bhagavat (Bhagavat, the Buddha) said in the sutra (sūtra, scripture): 'Various pleasant feelings are pleasant when they arise, pleasant when they remain, and painful when they cease. Conditioned phenomena that accord with pleasant feelings should be understood like pleasant feelings.' Various disagreeable conditioned phenomena are called suffering because they are combined with the suffering of suffering (duḥkha-duḥkha). The feeling of suffering itself and the arising of phenomena that accord with suffering will inevitably afflict body and mind. As the Bhagavat said in the sutra: 'Various painful feelings are painful when they arise, painful when they remain, and pleasant when they cease. Conditioned phenomena that accord with painful feelings should be understood like painful feelings.' Apart from these, the remaining conditioned phenomena are called suffering because they are combined with the suffering of conditioning (saṃskāra-duḥkha). All that is created by causes and conditions is impermanent, and there is no conditioned impermanence that is not suffering. Therefore, all conditioned phenomena are of the nature of suffering. Isn't it the case that all conditioned phenomena, according to this principle, can be considered to be of the nature of the suffering of conditioning? It should not be said only that neither pleasant nor painful feelings and their requisites are of the nature of the suffering of conditioning. Although this principle exists, here, it is said in this way because of the uncommonness. That is to say, the initial and final suffering, as appropriate, are only in agreeable and disagreeable phenomena. The remaining conditioned phenomena are only the suffering of conditioning, and it is said in this way because it is an uncommon basis. However, the Bhagavat said in the sutra: 'Painful feelings are painful when they arise and remain,' because the nature of painful feelings is suffering. 'Pleasant when they cease,' means that when painful feelings cease, even if there are no pleasant feelings, because the cessation of painful feelings seems like pleasure, it is also called pleasure. Because the name of cessation is established in the position of continuous cessation. When painful feelings cease, it is called the cessation of painful feelings. This is for beings in the desire realm (kāmadhātu) and the two realms (form realm and formless realm) who have exhausted their outflows (āsrava-kṣaya), in order, temporarily, for a long time, and ultimately. Pleasant feelings are pleasant when they arise and remain because the nature of pleasant feelings is pleasure. 'Painful when they cease,' means that when various sentient beings have not detached from defilements, their minds constantly seek pleasure, and in the position of the cessation of pleasure, sorrow and so on arise. Therefore, it is said that pleasant feelings are of the nature of the suffering of change. When pleasant feelings cease, even if there are no painful feelings, it seems like suffering and is also called suffering. Neither pleasant nor painful feelings are neither
苦非樂性是彼故。即彼壞時苦樂隨一容現前故。可言俱有苦樂壞時無容有二。故佛於此作別異說。謂無智苦智生為樂。以於此受無智增廣。此受無明所隨增故。由無智故惡趣等中。具有無邊行苦生起。極微細故甚為難覺。唯聖能覺。故有頌言。
如以一睫毛 置掌人不覺 若置眼睛上 為損及不安 愚夫如手掌 不覺行苦睫 智者如眼睛 緣極生厭怖
是故此中無智便苦。若永斷此得阿羅漢。由此故言智生為樂。薄伽梵說應果樂故。此三苦性其體是何。應定判言三受為體。由三受故順三受法。如應亦得三苦性名。壞苦亦應是行苦攝。壞是無常差別名故。無常所隨名行苦故。由此所立三苦不成。此難不然。義有異故於可意行。剎那無常亦名行苦。唯相續斷得壞苦名故義有別。又障三樂建立三苦。謂苦苦性障無逼惱樂。行苦性障涅槃樂。壞苦性障受樂。是故行苦與壞苦性。其義各異無雜亂失。即由此理聖道雖有為非行苦攝。順涅槃樂故。聖道能引涅槃得故理必應爾。以本論中先約三界辯三苦別。此言為遮有執聖道墮苦相攝。以諸聖道理決定非墮界法故。既爾欲界苦應無三。於色界中苦應無二。由是次約可意等三。諸行不同辯三苦別。此何苦合皆得苦名。由此復依樂等三受。自性有異辯三苦別。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 苦並非樂的本性，因為它們是彼此對立的。當樂壞滅時，苦或樂的其中一種可能會顯現。因此，可以說苦和樂同時存在，但在壞滅時，兩者不可能同時存在。所以，佛陀對此作了特別的說明：無智慧產生苦，智慧產生樂。因為對於這種感受，無智慧會使其增長，這種感受會隨著無明而增長。由於無智慧，惡趣等地方會產生無邊無際的行苦。這種苦非常細微，難以察覺，只有聖者才能覺察到。所以有偈頌說：
『就像用一根睫毛放在手掌上，人們不會察覺；如果放在眼睛上，就會造成損害和不安。愚夫就像手掌，不察覺行苦這根睫毛；智者就像眼睛，因為極細微的苦而生起厭惡和恐懼。』
因此，在這裡，無智慧就是苦。如果永遠斷除無智慧，就能證得阿羅漢果（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證入涅槃的聖者）。因此說智慧產生樂。薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛的尊號，意為『世尊』）說應果之樂就是這個意思。這三種苦的體性是什麼呢？應該確定地說，以三種感受為體性。因為有三種感受，所以順應三種感受的法，也相應地得到三種苦的名稱。壞苦也應該被攝入行苦之中，因為『壞』是無常的另一種說法。被無常所隨的就稱為行苦。因此，所建立的三苦是不成立的。這種責難是不對的，因為意義有所不同。對於可意的行為，剎那的無常也稱為行苦，只有相續斷滅才能得到壞苦的名稱，所以意義有所區別。另外，障礙三種樂，從而建立三種苦。也就是說，苦苦的體性障礙沒有逼惱的樂，行苦的體性障礙涅槃樂（Nirvana，解脫生死輪迴的境界），壞苦的體性障礙感受的樂。因此，行苦和壞苦的體性，它們的意義各自不同，沒有混雜的過失。正因為這個道理，聖道雖然是有為法，但不被攝入行苦之中，因為它順應涅槃樂。聖道能夠引導人們獲得涅槃，所以理應如此。因為本論中，先是根據三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）來辨別三種苦的不同。這裡說這些話是爲了遮止有人認為聖道也屬於苦的範疇。因為諸聖道的道理決定不屬於界內的法。既然如此，欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生有情慾和物質慾望的界）的苦應該沒有三種，在**中苦應該沒有兩種。因此，接下來根據可意等三種不同的行為來辨別三種苦的不同。這些苦和什麼結合才能得到苦的名稱呢？因此，又根據樂等三種感受，因為它們的自性不同，來辨別三種苦的不同。
【English Translation】 English version Suffering is not the nature of pleasure, because they are opposed to each other. When pleasure ceases, either suffering or pleasure may arise. Therefore, it can be said that suffering and pleasure exist simultaneously, but when they cease, both cannot exist together. Thus, the Buddha made a special statement about this: ignorance gives rise to suffering, and wisdom gives rise to pleasure. Because with regard to this feeling, ignorance increases it, and this feeling increases along with ignorance. Due to ignorance, endless suffering arises in the evil realms and so on. This suffering is very subtle and difficult to perceive; only the noble ones can perceive it. Therefore, there is a verse that says:
'Just as a single eyelash placed on the palm of the hand is not felt, but if placed on the eye, it causes harm and discomfort. The foolish are like the palm of the hand, not feeling the eyelash of the suffering of conditioned existence; the wise are like the eye, feeling aversion and fear because of the extremely subtle suffering.'
Therefore, here, ignorance is suffering. If ignorance is permanently eliminated, one can attain Arhatship (Arhat, a noble one who has extinguished all defilements and entered Nirvana). Hence it is said that wisdom gives rise to pleasure. The Blessed One (Bhagavan, an epithet of the Buddha meaning 'World-Honored One') said that the pleasure of the fruition of the path is what is meant by this. What is the nature of these three kinds of suffering? It should be definitively said that they are based on the three kinds of feelings. Because there are three kinds of feelings, the dharmas that accord with the three kinds of feelings also correspondingly receive the names of the three kinds of suffering. The suffering of change should also be included within the suffering of conditioned existence, because 'change' is another name for impermanence. That which is accompanied by impermanence is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Therefore, the established three kinds of suffering are not valid. This criticism is incorrect, because the meanings are different. For agreeable actions, momentary impermanence is also called the suffering of conditioned existence, but only the cessation of continuity receives the name of the suffering of change, so the meanings are different. Furthermore, the three kinds of suffering are established by obstructing the three kinds of pleasure. That is to say, the nature of the suffering of suffering obstructs the pleasure of non-affliction, the nature of the suffering of conditioned existence obstructs the pleasure of Nirvana (Nirvana, the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), and the nature of the suffering of change obstructs the pleasure of feeling. Therefore, the nature of the suffering of conditioned existence and the suffering of change, their meanings are different and there is no confusion. Precisely because of this reason, although the noble path is conditioned, it is not included within the suffering of conditioned existence, because it accords with the pleasure of Nirvana. The noble path can lead people to attain Nirvana, so it must be so. Because in this treatise, the differences between the three kinds of suffering are first distinguished according to the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm). These words are said to prevent some from thinking that the noble path also belongs to the category of suffering. Because the principles of the noble paths are definitely not within the realm of conditioned existence. Since this is the case, the suffering of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, the realm of beings with desires for sense objects and material things) should not have three kinds, and in ** the suffering should not have two kinds. Therefore, next, the differences between the three kinds of suffering are distinguished according to the three different kinds of actions, such as agreeable ones. What must these sufferings combine with in order to receive the name of suffering? Therefore, again, according to the three kinds of feelings, such as pleasure, the differences between the three kinds of suffering are distinguished because their natures are different.
如是理故本論中。前後三重辯三苦相。有說道諦非唯行苦亦是壞苦。現見退法退聖道時亦憂愁故。又諸聖道是可意攝。聖所愛故應是壞苦。又既許有無漏樂受。不苦樂受亦應是苦。所以者何。以契經說諸所有受無非苦故。又許道諦體是有為理應是苦。經言諸有所造所為皆是苦故。此說非理所以者何。處無明趣諸無智者。于諸因果相屬理愚。不善了知諸法性相。于有為法別離位中。發生憂愁失所著故。如是無智者無聖道可失。若處明趣諸有智者。于諸因果相屬不迷能善了知諸法性相。于有為法別離位中。不生憂愁無所著故。彼聖道設退亦不生壞苦。若以聖道聖所愛故。名為可意執為壞苦。如是聖道有不愛故。亦名非可意應執為苦苦。是則聖道應苦諦攝三苦合故。然非所許故可意攝非壞苦因。契經所言諸所有受。所造所為皆是苦者。依有漏法密說無過。如世間說一切燒等。皆依少分說一切言。此亦應然理極成故。或此經說其義有餘。如別經言我聖弟子。以慧為劍能斷一切。結縛隨眠隨煩惱纏。非染無記有漏善慧。力能永斷一切結等。故以慧言顯以聖慧。又如經說樂與樂俱行。理不應言受與受俱起。此顯除受有為有漏。諸可意法與樂受俱。應知此經義亦如是。聖道非苦由此極成。有餘師言。聖道非苦以能違逆是苦相故。非聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：正因為這個道理，本論中前後三重辯論三苦的相狀。有人說，道諦不僅僅是行苦，也是壞苦。因為現見退法者退失聖道時也會憂愁。而且，諸聖道是可意的，因為被聖者所愛，所以應該是壞苦。既然允許有無漏的樂受，那麼不苦不樂的受也應該是苦。為什麼呢？因為契經上說，所有受都是苦。又允許道諦的體是有為法，理應是苦。經上說，所有被造作、被作為的事物都是苦。 這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為在無明（avidyā，對事物真相的無知）中，那些愚昧無知的人，對於諸因果之間的關係不明白，不能很好地瞭解諸法的性質和相狀，在有為法分離的時候，因為失去所執著的事物而產生憂愁。像這樣無知的人，沒有聖道可以失去。如果在明（vidyā，智慧）中，那些有智慧的人，對於諸因果之間的關係不迷惑，能夠很好地瞭解諸法的性質和相狀，在有為法分離的時候，不產生憂愁，因為沒有什麼可以執著的。他們的聖道即使退失，也不會產生壞苦。如果因為聖道被聖者所愛，就認為它是可意的，執著它是壞苦，那麼聖道也有不被愛的時候，也可以認為它不是可意的，應該執著它是苦苦。這樣的話，聖道就應該被苦諦所包含，與三苦相合。但這是不允許的，所以可意的事物不是壞苦的原因。契經上所說的『所有受』、『所有被造作、被作為的事物都是苦』，是依據有漏法而秘密地說的，沒有過失。就像世間說『一切燒』等等，都是依據少部分而說『一切』。這裡也應該這樣理解，道理非常明顯。或者這部經所說的意義還有剩餘。比如別的經上說，我的聖弟子，以智慧為劍，能夠斷除一切結縛（saṃyojana，煩惱的束縛）、隨眠（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）、隨煩惱纏（upakleśa，細微的煩惱）。不是染污、無記的有漏善慧，有力量永遠斷除一切結等等。所以用『慧』這個詞，顯示是用聖慧。又比如經上說，樂與樂一起執行，不應該說受與受一起生起。這顯示除了受之外，有為有漏的、可意的法與樂受一起生起。應該知道這部經的意義也是這樣。聖道不是苦，由此可以明確。有其他老師說，聖道不是苦，因為它能夠違逆苦的相狀。不是聖
【English Translation】 English version: It is precisely for this reason that the original treatise discusses the aspects of the three sufferings in three layers, both before and after. Some say that the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya) is not only the suffering of suffering (duḥkha-duḥkhatā) but also the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā). This is because it is evident that those who regress from the Dharma (dharma) and lose the Noble Path (ārya-mārga) also experience sorrow. Moreover, the Noble Paths are desirable because they are loved by the Noble Ones (ārya), so they should be the suffering of change. Since the acceptance of undefiled (anāsrava) pleasant feeling (sukha-vedanā) is allowed, then neither painful nor pleasant feeling (adukha-asukha-vedanā) should also be suffering. Why? Because the sutras (sūtra) say that all feelings are nothing but suffering. Furthermore, since the nature of the Truth of the Path is admitted to be conditioned (saṃskṛta), it should be suffering. The sutras say that all that is created and conditioned is suffering. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because in ignorance (avidyā), those who are ignorant do not understand the relationship between causes and effects, and they do not understand the nature and characteristics of phenomena (dharma). When conditioned phenomena are separated, they experience sorrow because they lose what they are attached to. Such ignorant people have no Noble Path to lose. But in knowledge (vidyā), those who are wise are not confused about the relationship between causes and effects, and they can understand the nature and characteristics of phenomena well. When conditioned phenomena are separated, they do not experience sorrow because they have nothing to be attached to. Even if their Noble Path regresses, it does not cause the suffering of change. If the Noble Path is considered desirable because it is loved by the Noble Ones, and it is clung to as the suffering of change, then the Noble Path is also sometimes not loved, and it can be considered undesirable, and it should be clung to as the suffering of suffering. In this case, the Noble Path should be included in the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya), combined with the three sufferings. But this is not allowed, so desirable things are not the cause of the suffering of change. The sutras that say 'all feelings' and 'all that is created and conditioned is suffering' are secretly spoken based on defiled (sāsrava) phenomena, and there is no fault. Just as the world says 'all burning' etc., it is based on a small part to say 'all'. It should be understood in this way, and the reason is very clear. Or the meaning of this sutra has something remaining. For example, another sutra says that my Noble disciples, with wisdom (prajñā) as a sword, can cut off all bonds (saṃyojana), latent tendencies (anuśaya), and afflictive entanglements (upakleśa). It is not defiled, indeterminate, defiled wholesome wisdom that has the power to permanently cut off all bonds etc. Therefore, the word 'wisdom' shows that it is Noble wisdom. Also, for example, the sutra says that pleasure and pleasure run together, and it should not be said that feeling and feeling arise together. This shows that apart from feeling, conditioned and defiled desirable phenomena arise together with pleasant feeling. It should be known that the meaning of this sutra is also like this. The Noble Path is not suffering, and this can be clearly established. Some other teachers say that the Noble Path is not suffering because it can oppose the aspect of suffering. Not Noble
道起違逆聖心。由此能令眾苦盡故。有餘師言。諸有漏法其性樂住。無常逼時違其所樂。是故生苦聖道不然故非苦攝。去來世法是現種類。同現說苦理亦無失。如契經說一切受生皆名苦生。又契經說樂受生時名為樂生。二經如何不相違背。前依行苦皆名苦生。后辯受自相名樂生無失。或前契經對還滅樂。密說一切受生皆苦。第二契經依流轉樂。說樂受起名為樂生。或前契經從多說苦。后經依少亦說有樂。謂生死中苦多樂少。如蜜一滴在毒瓶中。故經多言諸受皆苦。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之二
此中餘部有作是言定無實樂受唯是苦。云何知然由理教故。由何等理后苦增故。謂於一切所作事業及威儀中。若久習住皆於後位苦增可得。理必無有習住樂因。令於後時苦漸增盛。故知決定無實樂受。又處生死有動作故。謂有動作是生死法。身有沐浴飲食等事心有于境了別等業。事業驅迫嘗不安寧。故生死中無非是苦。又由微苦伏勝樂故。謂少苦因蚊虻㭰等。所生微苦現在前位。力能摧伏廣大樂因。沐浴涂香飲食眠等。所生勝樂令
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道起于違背聖人的心意。因為這樣能夠使所有的痛苦都消失。還有其他學派的人說，所有有缺陷的法，其本性是喜歡安住的。當無常逼迫時，就違背了它們所喜歡的，所以產生痛苦。聖道不是這樣，因此不屬於痛苦的範疇。過去和未來的法是現在的種類，和現在說痛苦的道理也沒有衝突。如經文所說，一切感受的產生都叫做苦的產生。又有經文說，快樂的感受產生時叫做快樂的產生。這兩部經文怎麼沒有互相違背呢？前一部經文是依據行苦，都叫做苦的產生。后一部經文辨別感受的自相，叫做快樂的產生，沒有錯誤。或者前一部經文是針對還滅的快樂，秘密地說一切感受的產生都是苦。第二部經文是依據流轉的快樂，說快樂的感受產生叫做快樂的產生。或者前一部經文是從多數來說痛苦，后一部經文依據少數也說有快樂。就是說在生死輪迴中，痛苦多快樂少，就像一滴蜂蜜在毒藥瓶中。所以經文大多說各種感受都是痛苦。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十七 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十八
尊者眾賢 著
三藏法師玄奘 奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之二
這裡，其他一些部派有這樣的說法，認為確實沒有真實的快樂感受，只有痛苦。怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為有道理和教義的緣故。因為什麼道理呢？因為後來的痛苦會增加。就是說，對於一切所做的事業和威儀中，如果長久地習慣和安住，那麼在後來的階段，痛苦的增加是可以得到的。道理上一定沒有習慣和安住快樂的原因，使得在後來的時間裡，痛苦逐漸增加。所以知道確實沒有真實的快樂感受。又因為處在生死輪迴中有動作的緣故。就是說，有動作是生死輪迴的法則。身體有沐浴、飲食等事情，心有對境界的了別等業。事業驅使逼迫，常常不安寧。所以在生死輪迴中沒有不是痛苦的。又因為微小的痛苦壓制了殊勝的快樂的緣故。就是說，少許痛苦的原因，比如蚊子、虻蟲、刺等所產生的微小痛苦，在現在這個階段，力量能夠摧毀廣大的快樂的原因，比如沐浴、涂香、飲食、睡眠等所產生的殊勝快樂，使得...
【English Translation】 English version The path arises from opposing the mind of the saints. Because of this, it can cause all suffering to cease. Other teachers say that all defiled dharmas (phenomena subject to suffering) by nature like to abide. When impermanence presses, it goes against what they like, so suffering arises. The holy path is not like this, so it is not included in the category of suffering. Past and future dharmas are of the same kind as the present; saying they are suffering is also not a mistake. As the sutra says, all arising of sensations is called the arising of suffering. Also, the sutra says that when a pleasant sensation arises, it is called the arising of pleasure. How are these two sutras not contradictory? The former sutra is based on suffering of formation (saṃskāra-duḥkha), and all are called the arising of suffering. The latter sutra distinguishes the self-nature of sensation, and it is called the arising of pleasure, which is not a mistake. Or, the former sutra is directed at the pleasure of cessation (nirodha-sukha), secretly saying that all arising of sensations is suffering. The second sutra is based on the pleasure of transmigration (saṃsāra-sukha), saying that the arising of pleasant sensations is called the arising of pleasure. Or, the former sutra speaks of suffering from the majority perspective, while the latter sutra speaks of pleasure from the minority perspective. That is to say, in birth and death, there is more suffering and less pleasure, like a drop of honey in a bottle of poison. Therefore, the sutras often say that all sensations are suffering.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 57 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma Nyayanusara Sastra
Abhidharma Nyayanusara Sastra, Volume 58
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Six, Part Two: Distinguishing the Wise and the Holy
Here, some other schools say that there is definitely no real pleasant sensation, only suffering. How do we know this? Because of reason and doctrine. What reason? Because later suffering increases. That is to say, in all actions and deportments, if one is accustomed to and dwells in them for a long time, then in the later stage, the increase of suffering can be obtained. In principle, there is definitely no cause of pleasure from habituation and dwelling that would cause suffering to gradually increase later on. Therefore, we know that there is definitely no real pleasant sensation. Also, because being in birth and death involves activity. That is to say, having activity is the law of birth and death. The body has things like bathing and eating, and the mind has activities like distinguishing objects. The driving force of activities constantly causes unrest. Therefore, in birth and death, there is nothing that is not suffering. Also, because slight suffering suppresses superior pleasure. That is to say, a slight cause of suffering, such as the slight suffering produced by mosquitoes, gadflies, thorns, etc., in the present stage, has the power to destroy the cause of great pleasure, such as the superior pleasure produced by bathing, applying fragrant substances, eating, sleeping, etc., causing...
不現前。故有漏蘊唯是苦性。又于對治重苦逼中。愚夫起樂增上慢故。謂若未遇飢渴寒熱。疲欲等苦所逼迫時。于能治中不生樂覺。是故樂覺由治苦生。非緣樂生故無實樂。又于眾苦易脫位中。世間有情樂覺生故。依如是義故有頌言。
如擔重易肩 及疲勞止息 世間由此苦 脫彼苦亦然
故愚夫類于辛苦中。有樂覺生實無有樂。由何等教。如世尊言。諸所有受無非是苦。又契經說。此生時苦生此滅時苦滅又契經言。于苦謂為樂名想顛倒等。又契經言。汝應以苦觀於樂受。此謂他宗對法諸師咸作是說定有實樂。云何知然苦樂生因功能別故。體實有異猶如貪瞋。現見貪瞋生因各別。別因生已功能復異。因能異故體別極成。苦樂生因既亦有別。世間現見大種互違。便有苦生調和生樂別因生已功能亦異。苦能損害樂能攝益。生因功能見有別故。定知苦外實有樂體。上座於此亦作是言。雖現非無攝益受位。而於苦類未為超越。以有漏法唯是苦因。故生死中受唯是苦。此亦非理所以者何。言相違故。唯立宗故。成非愛故不極成故。言相違者。謂若非無攝益受位不應唯苦。若言唯苦不應攝益。理但應言下苦受位。有劣損害無容攝益。唯立宗者。謂彼但說未越苦類竟不說因。以何證知攝益受位。于苦受類未為超越成
【現代漢語翻譯】 不現前。因此，有漏蘊（Yǒu lòu yùn，subject to outflows aggregates）僅僅是苦的性質。而且，在對治重苦逼迫的情況下，愚昧的人會產生快樂的增上慢（zēng shàng màn，exaggerated pride）。他們認為，如果未曾遇到飢渴、寒熱、疲勞、慾望等痛苦的逼迫，就不會在能夠治療這些痛苦的事物中產生快樂的感覺。因此，快樂的感覺是由治療痛苦而產生的，並非由快樂本身產生，所以沒有真實的快樂。此外，在容易擺脫各種痛苦的境地中，世間的有情（shì jiān yǒu qíng，sentient beings）會產生快樂的感覺。根據這樣的道理，所以有頌（sòng，verse）說：
『如同卸下重擔輕鬆了肩膀，以及疲勞停止休息，世間由此苦，擺脫那些痛苦也是如此。』
因此，愚昧的人在辛苦中會產生快樂的感覺，但實際上並沒有真正的快樂。根據什麼樣的教義呢？正如世尊（Shì zūn，World Honored One，指釋迦牟尼佛）所說：『所有感受沒有不是苦的。』又契經（qì jīng，sutra）說：『此生時苦生，此滅時苦滅。』又契經說：『對於苦，認為是樂，是名想顛倒（míng xiǎng diān dǎo，perverted perceptions）等。』又契經說：『你應該以苦來觀察樂受。』
這是其他宗派的對法（duì fǎ，Abhidharma）諸位法師都這樣說，肯定有真實的快樂。如何得知呢？因為苦樂的生因（shēng yīn，cause of arising）和功能（gōng néng，function）不同，所以本體（tǐ，essence）實際上是有差異的，就像貪（tān，greed）和瞋（chēn，hatred）一樣。現在可以明顯看到貪和瞋的生因各自不同，不同的因產生后，功能也不同。因為因和功能不同，所以本體的差異非常明顯。苦樂的生因既然也有不同，世間現在可以明顯看到四大種（sì dà zhǒng，four great elements）互相違背，就會產生痛苦，調和就會產生快樂。不同的因產生后，功能也不同，苦能夠損害，樂能夠攝益。因為生因和功能可以明顯看到有差別，所以一定知道在苦之外，確實有快樂的本體。上座（shàng zuò，elder monk）對此也這樣說，即使現在並非沒有攝益的感受，但對於苦的種類來說，還沒有超越。因為有漏法（yǒu lòu fǎ，defiled dharmas）僅僅是苦的原因，所以在生死（shēng sǐ，samsara）中，感受僅僅是苦。這也是不合理的，為什麼呢？因為言語互相矛盾，僅僅是立宗（lì zōng，establishing a thesis），成就非愛（chéng fēi ài，achieving what is undesirable），不極成（bù jí chéng，not fully established）。言語互相矛盾是指，如果並非沒有攝益的感受，就不應該僅僅是苦；如果說僅僅是苦，就不應該有攝益。道理上應該說下苦受的地位，有劣等的損害，沒有容納攝益。僅僅是立宗是指，他們只是說沒有超越苦的種類，最終沒有說原因。用什麼來證明攝益的感受，對於苦受的種類沒有超越呢？成就
【English Translation】 It does not manifest. Therefore, the contaminated aggregates (Yǒu lòu yùn) are solely of the nature of suffering. Moreover, in the face of intense suffering, foolish individuals develop an exaggerated pride (zēng shàng màn) in pleasure. They believe that unless they have experienced the pressures of hunger, thirst, cold, heat, fatigue, or desire, they do not perceive pleasure in what alleviates these sufferings. Thus, the sensation of pleasure arises from the alleviation of suffering, not from pleasure itself, so there is no real pleasure. Furthermore, in situations where it is easy to escape various sufferings, sentient beings (shì jiān yǒu qíng) experience a sense of pleasure. Based on this principle, there is a verse (sòng) that says:
'Like easing a heavy burden from the shoulders, and the cessation of fatigue, the world experiences suffering, and escaping from that suffering is also like this.'
Therefore, foolish people experience a sense of pleasure in hardship, but in reality, there is no true pleasure. According to what teachings? As the World Honored One (Shì zūn, referring to Shakyamuni Buddha) said: 'All feelings are nothing but suffering.' Also, the sutra (qì jīng) says: 'When this arises, suffering arises; when this ceases, suffering ceases.' Also, the sutra says: 'To regard suffering as pleasure is called perverted perceptions (míng xiǎng diān dǎo).' Also, the sutra says: 'You should contemplate pleasure as suffering.'
This is what the Abhidharma (duì fǎ) masters of other schools say, asserting that there is definitely real pleasure. How is this known? Because the causes of arising (shēng yīn) and functions (gōng néng) of suffering and pleasure are different, their essence (tǐ) is actually different, just like greed (tān) and hatred (chēn). It is evident that the causes of greed and hatred are different, and after different causes arise, their functions are also different. Because the causes and functions are different, the difference in their essence is very clear. Since the causes of suffering and pleasure are also different, it is evident in the world that the four great elements (sì dà zhǒng) contradict each other, which leads to suffering, while harmony leads to pleasure. After different causes arise, their functions are also different; suffering can harm, while pleasure can benefit. Because the causes of arising and functions are visibly different, it is certain that there is a real essence of pleasure apart from suffering. The elder monk (shàng zuò) also says that even if there is a state of feeling that is not without benefit, it has not transcended the category of suffering. Because contaminated dharmas (yǒu lòu fǎ) are solely the cause of suffering, feelings in samsara (shēng sǐ) are solely suffering. This is also unreasonable. Why? Because the words contradict each other, it is merely establishing a thesis (lì zōng), achieving what is undesirable (chéng fēi ài), and not fully established (bù jí chéng). The contradiction in words means that if there is a state of feeling that is not without benefit, it should not be solely suffering; if it is said to be solely suffering, it should not have benefit. Logically, it should be said that in the state of lower suffering, there is inferior harm, and there is no room for benefit. Merely establishing a thesis means that they only say that it has not transcended the category of suffering, and ultimately do not state the reason. What is the proof that the feeling of benefit has not transcended the category of suffering? Achieving
非愛者。謂彼宗中執信與貪不越思類。是則彼二體應成一。染凈二品更相雜故。解脫應無成非愛失。彼既無雜此亦應然。受類雖同而苦樂異。不極成者。謂生死中樂受定無非極成故。是則有漏亦是樂因。以我宗許有樂受故。如何可言諸有漏法唯苦因故。證樂是苦故彼所說有言無義。又應決定有實樂受異於苦受。以苦與樂有愛非愛相差別故。若謂樂受可愛性不成。以離染時覆成非愛故。此亦非理于離染時由異門觀為非愛故。非觀行者觀樂性邊以為非愛。但以余相厭患樂受如后當說。又離苦外實有樂受。以契經中佛說有故。如契經說受有三種。謂樂及苦不苦不樂。若受自性實皆苦者。佛說三受有何勝利。若謂世尊隨世故說。謂世于苦下上中位。如其次第起樂等覺。世尊隨彼說樂等三。理亦不然非極成故。謂第三受世不極成。如何世尊隨世說有。故說三受唯依真見。又于觀樂受說如實言故。不應隨世說有三受。非下苦受如實是樂。又樂亦有下等三故。不應言樂唯是下苦。又應非福感愛果故。謂非福業許有三品。下品能招下苦受果。汝言下苦體即是樂。豈不非福應感愛果。又如如苦成下品時。如是如是成上品樂。下品非福既感下苦。汝宗下苦即是上樂。豈不下因能招上果。便與因果感赴理違。又如如苦成下下時。如是如是樂成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『非愛者』（反對者）說：在你們的宗派中，認為『信』（śraddhā）與『貪』（rāga）沒有超出『思』（citta）的範疇。如果是這樣，那麼『信』和『貪』的本體應該成為一體。因為染污和清凈兩種性質相互混雜的緣故，解脫（moksha）應該無法成就，導致『非愛』的過失。既然『信』和『貪』沒有混雜，那麼『思』也應該如此。雖然感受（vedanā）的類別相同，但苦（duhkha）和樂（sukha）不同。 『不極成者』（反駁者）說：在生死輪迴中，樂受（sukha-vedanā）必定不存在，這是不成立的，因為這並非普遍認可的事實。因此，有漏法（sāsrava-dharma）也是快樂的原因，因為我方承認有樂受的存在。怎麼能說所有有漏法僅僅是痛苦的原因呢？因為你們證明快樂就是痛苦，所以你們所說的話毫無意義。而且，應該確定存在一種真實的樂受，它不同於苦受，因為苦和樂有『愛』和『非愛』的差別。 如果你們認為樂受的『可愛性』（priyatva）不能成立，因為在脫離染污時，它又變成『非愛』的了。這種說法也是不合理的，因為在脫離染污時，是通過不同的角度觀察才認為它是『非愛』的。修行者並非從樂的自性方面觀察而認為它是『非愛』，而是通過其他方面厭惡樂受，正如後面將要說的那樣。而且，在痛苦之外，確實存在樂受，因為在契經（sūtra）中，佛陀（Buddha）是這樣說的。例如，契經中說，感受有三種，即樂、苦和不苦不樂（aduhkhāsukha）。如果感受的自性實際上都是痛苦，那麼佛陀說三種感受有什麼意義呢？ 如果你們認為世尊（Bhagavān）是隨順世俗的說法，即世俗認為在痛苦的下、上、中位，依次產生快樂等感覺，世尊隨順他們而說樂等三種。這種說法也是不合理的，因為第三種感受（不苦不樂）在世俗中並不普遍認可。世尊怎麼會隨順世俗而說有這種感受呢？因此，說三種感受是僅僅依據真實的見解。而且，在觀察樂受時，佛陀說了『如實』的話，不應該隨順世俗而說有三種感受。下位的痛苦感受並非如實地就是快樂。 而且，快樂也有下等三種，不應該說快樂僅僅是下位的痛苦。而且，非福業（apuṇya-karma）不應該感得『愛』的果報。你們認為非福業有三種，下品能招感下位的痛苦果報。你們說下位的痛苦本體就是快樂，難道非福業不應該感得『愛』的果報嗎？而且，正如痛苦成為下品時，快樂也隨之成為上品。下品的非福業既然能感得下位的痛苦，你們的宗派認為下位的痛苦就是上位的快樂，難道下因能招感上位的果報嗎？這便與因果感應的道理相違背。而且，正如痛苦成為下下品時，快樂也隨之成為...
【English Translation】 English version The 'Non-Affectionate' (opponent) says: In your school, it is held that 'faith' (śraddhā) and 'greed' (rāga) do not go beyond the category of 'thought' (citta). If this is the case, then the essence of 'faith' and 'greed' should become one. Because the two qualities of defilement and purity are mixed together, liberation (moksha) should not be achieved, leading to the fault of 'non-affection'. Since 'faith' and 'greed' are not mixed, then 'thought' should also be the same. Although the categories of feeling (vedanā) are the same, suffering (duhkha) and pleasure (sukha) are different. The 'Unestablished' (refuter) says: In the cycle of birth and death, pleasurable feeling (sukha-vedanā) certainly does not exist, which is untenable because it is not a universally accepted fact. Therefore, defiled dharmas (sāsrava-dharma) are also the cause of happiness, because our side admits the existence of pleasurable feeling. How can it be said that all defiled dharmas are only the cause of suffering? Because you prove that pleasure is suffering, what you say is meaningless. Moreover, it should be determined that there is a real pleasurable feeling that is different from suffering, because suffering and pleasure have the difference between 'affection' and 'non-affection'. If you think that the 'lovability' (priyatva) of pleasurable feeling cannot be established, because when it is separated from defilement, it becomes 'non-affectionate' again. This statement is also unreasonable, because when it is separated from defilement, it is considered 'non-affectionate' through observation from a different perspective. Practitioners do not consider it 'non-affectionate' from the perspective of the nature of pleasure, but rather dislike pleasurable feeling through other aspects, as will be said later. Moreover, there is indeed pleasurable feeling outside of suffering, because in the sūtras, the Buddha (Buddha) said so. For example, the sūtras say that there are three kinds of feeling, namely pleasure, suffering, and neither-pleasure-nor-suffering (aduhkhāsukha). If the nature of feeling is actually all suffering, then what is the meaning of the Buddha saying three kinds of feeling? If you think that the Blessed One (Bhagavān) is speaking according to worldly conventions, that is, the world thinks that in the lower, upper, and middle positions of suffering, feelings such as happiness arise in sequence, and the Blessed One speaks of the three kinds of feelings such as pleasure according to them. This statement is also unreasonable, because the third kind of feeling (neither-pleasure-nor-suffering) is not universally recognized in the world. How could the Blessed One speak of this feeling according to worldly conventions? Therefore, it is said that the three kinds of feeling are based solely on true insight. Moreover, when observing pleasurable feeling, the Buddha spoke 'truthfully', and should not speak of three kinds of feeling according to worldly conventions. Lower suffering is not truthfully pleasure. Moreover, pleasure also has three kinds, lower, etc., and it should not be said that pleasure is only lower suffering. Moreover, non-meritorious actions (apuṇya-karma) should not cause the result of 'affection'. You think that non-meritorious actions have three kinds, and the lower kind can cause the result of lower suffering. You say that the essence of lower suffering is pleasure, shouldn't non-meritorious actions cause the result of 'affection'? Moreover, just as suffering becomes lower, pleasure also becomes higher. Since lower non-meritorious actions can cause lower suffering, and your school thinks that lower suffering is higher pleasure, can lower causes cause higher results? This contradicts the principle of cause and effect. Moreover, just as suffering becomes the lowest, pleasure also becomes...
上上。是則下下非福為因。能感上上樂受為果。誰復為善設大功用。又福非福各有九品。如何下下非福為因。能感上上樂受為果。又上上福下下非福。同感下下苦受為果。則福非福應無差別。于餘八品徴難亦爾。又應一果二因所感。或應許福即是非福。是則違害如來至教。又下三定許有樂受。上地唯有不苦不樂。誰知苦受下下上中。設大劬勞厭下欣上。又定漸勝執苦漸增。于非理中誰復過此。又若下苦即名為樂。樂受領納應不猛利。理非下受領納分明。執下分明中翻闇昧。誰有智者能忍此執。故知苦外實有樂受。又彼容起余執過故。謂若苦樂無異體者。是則容他更起異執。唯許可愛別離位中。於樂受無起于苦覺。無別苦受名余執過。或容有計唯有樂受。是真實有餘受實無。但於樂受上下中位。如次立為樂等三受。彼與此執理無別故。如彼但由自分別力執唯有苦。約品立三此亦應然故彼非善。又苦樂受定實有異說六觸處。為天世間及那落迦有差別故。謂契經說。苾芻當知有六觸處名天世間。若諸有情得生彼者。眼所見色一向可意。于彼都無不可意色。廣說乃至由此因緣。彼處一向受諸喜樂。有六觸處名那落迦。與上相違亦應廣說。下苦名樂如前已遮。故不可言假說喜樂。若無實樂經但應言。天世間唯下苦。那落迦唯上苦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果這樣，那麼下下品的不善業（非福）作為原因，能夠感得上上品快樂的感受作為結果。那麼誰還會努力行善呢？而且善業（福）和不善業各有九品，為什麼下下品的不善業作為原因，能夠感得上上品快樂的感受作為結果呢？又，如果上品善業和下品不善業，同樣都感受下品痛苦的感受作為結果，那麼善業和不善業應該沒有差別。對於其餘八品的質疑也是一樣。又，這樣就應該是一個結果由兩個原因所感。或者應該承認善業就是不善業。這就有違背如來至教的嫌疑。又，下三禪定允許有快樂的感受，而上地只有不苦不樂的感受。誰會知道痛苦的感受在下下、上中品中，會付出巨大的努力去厭惡下品而欣求上品呢？而且禪定逐漸殊勝，卻認為痛苦逐漸增加，在不合理的認知中，誰又能超過這種認知呢？又，如果下品的痛苦就叫做快樂，那麼快樂的感受的領納應該不強烈。道理上不應該下品的感受領納分明，而認為中品反而變得闇昧。誰有智慧的人能夠忍受這種執著呢？所以知道在痛苦之外確實有快樂的感受。 又，他們可能產生其他的執著，因為有之前的過失。如果認為痛苦和快樂沒有不同的本體，那麼就可能讓其他人產生不同的執著，只允許在可愛的別離位中，對於快樂的感受沒有產生痛苦的覺受，沒有其他的痛苦感受，這叫做其他的執著過失。或者可能有人認為只有快樂的感受是真實存在的，其他的感受實際上沒有，只是對於快樂感受的上下中位，依次建立為快樂等三種感受。他們的這種執著和之前的執著在道理上沒有區別。就像他們只是由於自己的分別力量，執著認為只有痛苦，按照品位建立三種感受，這種說法也應該如此，所以他們的說法是不正確的。又，痛苦和快樂的感受確實有不同，六觸處（Sadayatana）的說法，對於天界、世間以及地獄（Naraka）有差別。就像契經所說：『比丘們，應當知道有六觸處名為天世間。如果眾生能夠生到那裡，眼睛所見到的顏色都是可意的，在那裡都沒有不可意的顏色。』廣泛地說，乃至由於這個因緣，那個地方一直感受各種喜樂。有六觸處名為地獄，與上面相反，也應該廣泛地說。下品的痛苦叫做快樂，之前已經駁斥過了。所以不能說假說喜樂。如果沒有真實的快樂，經典就應該只說，天世間只有下品的痛苦，地獄只有上品的痛苦。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If that's the case, then the lowest level of non-virtue (non-fortune) as a cause can result in the highest level of pleasurable feeling as a result. Then who would bother to do good deeds? Moreover, virtue (fortune) and non-virtue each have nine levels. How can the lowest level of non-virtue as a cause result in the highest level of pleasurable feeling as a result? Also, if the highest level of virtue and the lowest level of non-virtue both result in the lowest level of painful feeling, then there should be no difference between virtue and non-virtue. The same question applies to the remaining eight levels. Furthermore, it would mean that one result is caused by two causes. Or it should be admitted that virtue is the same as non-virtue. This would be contrary to the teachings of the Tathagata (Tathāgata). Also, the lower three Dhyanas (Jhānas) are said to have pleasurable feelings, while the higher realms only have neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feelings. Who would know that painful feelings in the lowest, highest, and middle levels would involve great effort to厭惡(dislike) the lower and seek the higher? Moreover, if Dhyana gradually becomes superior, yet it is believed that pain gradually increases, who could surpass this in irrational cognition? Also, if the lowest level of pain is called pleasure, then the reception of pleasurable feelings should not be intense. It is not reasonable that the reception of lower feelings is clear, while the middle level is considered obscure. Who with wisdom could tolerate this view? Therefore, it is known that there is indeed pleasurable feeling outside of pain. Furthermore, they may develop other attachments because of previous faults. If it is believed that pain and pleasure have no different essence, then it may allow others to develop different attachments, only allowing that in the position of separation from the beloved, there is no arising of painful perception from pleasurable feeling, and there is no other painful feeling, which is called the fault of other attachments. Or it may be thought that only pleasurable feeling is truly existent, and other feelings are actually non-existent, but for the upper, middle, and lower levels of pleasurable feeling, the three feelings such as pleasure are established in order. Their attachment is no different in principle from the previous attachment. Just as they only rely on their own discriminating power to cling to the idea that there is only pain, and establish three feelings according to the levels, this statement should also be the same, so their statement is incorrect. Moreover, painful and pleasurable feelings are indeed different, and the teaching of the six sense bases (Sadayatana) has differences for the heavens, the world, and hell (Naraka). Just as the Sutra says: 'Bhikkhus (Bhikkhus), you should know that there are six sense bases called the heavenly world. If beings can be born there, the colors seen by the eyes are all pleasing, and there are no displeasing colors there.' Broadly speaking, even to the extent that because of this cause, that place always experiences various joys and pleasures. There are six sense bases called hell, which should also be broadly described as the opposite of the above. Calling the lowest level of pain pleasure has been refuted before. Therefore, it cannot be said that joy and pleasure are falsely stated. If there were no real pleasure, the scriptures should only say that the heavenly world only has the lowest level of pain, and hell only has the highest level of pain.'
。又數說一向應成無用言。謂先已言一向可意。后說一向受諸喜樂。若於下苦假立樂名。則一受中有苦有樂。如何可說一向樂言。故彼所計不應正理。又契經說如實言故。證知決定實有樂受。如契經說。受樂受時如實了知受於樂受。苦非二受亦如是說。又如經說。所有樂根所有喜根。應知此二皆是樂受。乃至廣說。復作是說。若以正慧如實觀見。如是五根三結永斷乃至廣說。若受唯苦如何可言。如實了知此是樂受。故知樂受自相是樂。然彼所言后苦增故。無實樂者其理不然。生苦樂因非唯境故。謂我不許唯外境力能生苦樂。若唯境者初與事業。威儀合時便應發生增上苦受。謂由此境于最後時。為緣發生增上苦受。初時已與如是境合。若唯境力生苦樂者。境才合時應生上苦。既不如是故知觀身。相續分位轉變差別。外境方作苦樂生因。謂至所依如是分位。冷暖等觸能為樂因。無至此時非樂因理。為苦因者理亦應然。故觀別因便令外境。為苦樂受各別生因。是故不應由事業等。後生增上苦便撥無實樂。現見世間地水糞等。觀種芽等相續分位。轉變差別為芽葉等諸果生因。何緣后時諸威儀等。方能生苦非於初時。以經久時身心勞倦。身中便有異大種生。由此後時方生苦受。以諸外境要待別因。方能為因生苦樂受。故生苦樂因
【現代漢語翻譯】 此外，他們還多次辯駁說，之前所說的『一向應成無用言』（Sarvāstivāda，一切皆實有宗）是無用的。他們認為，既然之前已經說過『一向可意』，後來又說『一向受諸喜樂』，如果把下位的痛苦假立為快樂之名，那麼一次感受中既有苦又有樂，怎麼能說『一向樂言』呢？所以他們的觀點是不合道理的。 而且，《契經》（Sutra，佛經）中說『如實言故』，證明確實存在真實的樂受。比如《契經》中說：『感受樂受時，如實了知受於樂受。』對於苦和非苦非樂的感受，也同樣這樣說。還有經中說：『所有樂根（sukha-indriya，產生快樂的根源），所有喜根（saumanasya-indriya，產生喜悅的根源），應當知道這二者都是樂受。』乃至廣說。又說：『如果以正慧如實觀見，就能永斷五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）和三結（身見、戒禁取見、疑），乃至廣說。』如果感受只有痛苦，怎麼能說『如實了知此是樂受』呢？所以，樂受的自相就是快樂。然而，他們所說的『因為後來的痛苦增加，所以沒有真實的快樂』，這個道理是不成立的。因為產生苦樂的原因不僅僅是外境。 我不認為只有外境的力量才能產生苦樂。如果只有外境的力量，那麼一開始接觸事業（karma，行為）或威儀（iryapatha，行住坐臥）時，就應該產生強烈的痛苦感受。因為這個外境在最後的時候，是產生強烈痛苦感受的因緣。既然一開始就已經和這樣的外境結合，如果只有外境的力量產生苦樂，那麼外境一結合就應該產生強烈的痛苦。既然不是這樣，所以要知道，觀察身體、相續、分位、轉變的差別，外境才能成為產生苦樂的原因。也就是說，只有到達所依（ashraya，身體）的某種分位，冷暖等觸才能成為快樂的原因，沒有到達這種時候，就沒有成為快樂原因的道理。成為痛苦原因的道理也應該一樣。所以，觀察不同的原因，才能使外境成為苦樂感受各自產生的原因。因此，不應該因為事業等後來產生強烈的痛苦，就否定真實快樂的存在。現在世間可以清楚地看到，土地、水、糞等，觀察種子、幼芽等的相續、分位、轉變的差別，才能成為幼芽、葉子等各種果實產生的原因。為什麼後來的時候，各種威儀等才能產生痛苦，而不是一開始的時候呢？因為經過長時間，身心勞累，身體中就會產生不同的大種（mahābhūta，組成物質世界的元素）。因此，後來的時候才會產生痛苦感受。因為各種外境需要等待不同的原因，才能成為產生苦樂感受的原因。所以，產生苦樂的原因...
【English Translation】 Furthermore, they repeatedly argued that the previous statement of 'Sarvāstivāda (一切皆實有宗, the doctrine that all exists), invariably leads to useless words' is invalid. They reasoned that since it was previously stated 'invariably agreeable,' and later stated 'invariably experiencing all joys and pleasures,' if one were to falsely establish the name of pleasure upon lower suffering, then in one experience there would be both suffering and pleasure. How could one then say 'invariably pleasure'? Therefore, their view is not logically sound. Moreover, the Sutra (契經, Buddhist scripture) states 'because of truthful words,' proving that there truly exists the feeling of pleasure. For example, the Sutra states: 'When experiencing the feeling of pleasure, one truthfully knows that one is experiencing the feeling of pleasure.' The same is said for suffering and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure. Also, the Sutra states: 'All pleasure-roots (sukha-indriya, the root of pleasure), all joy-roots (saumanasya-indriya, the root of joy), one should know that these two are both feelings of pleasure,' and so on extensively. It is also said: 'If one observes with right wisdom and truthfully sees, then these five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and three fetters (身見, belief in a self; 戒禁取見, attachment to rituals; 疑, doubt) will be permanently severed,' and so on extensively. If the feeling were only suffering, how could one say 'truthfully knowing this is the feeling of pleasure'? Therefore, the self-nature of the feeling of pleasure is pleasure. However, their statement that 'because later suffering increases, there is no real pleasure' is not logically sound. Because the causes of suffering and pleasure are not solely external objects. I do not assert that only the power of external objects can produce suffering and pleasure. If it were only the power of external objects, then upon initial contact with actions (karma, behavior) or deportment (iryapatha, modes of conduct), one should immediately experience intense suffering. Because this external object, in the end, is the condition for the arising of intense suffering. Since one has already combined with such an external object from the beginning, if only the power of external objects produced suffering and pleasure, then intense suffering should arise as soon as the object is combined. Since this is not the case, one should know that observing the body, continuity, divisions, and differences in transformation, external objects can then become the cause of suffering and pleasure. That is, only upon reaching a certain division of the support (ashraya, the body), can cold, warmth, and other sensations become the cause of pleasure. Without reaching this point, there is no reason for them to be the cause of pleasure. The reason for them to be the cause of suffering should be the same. Therefore, observing different causes allows external objects to become the separate causes for the arising of suffering and pleasure. Thus, one should not deny the existence of real pleasure simply because intense suffering arises later from actions, etc. It is clearly seen in the world that earth, water, manure, etc., observing the continuity, divisions, and differences in transformation of seeds, sprouts, etc., can become the cause for the arising of sprouts, leaves, and other fruits. Why is it that only later can various deportments, etc., produce suffering, and not from the beginning? Because after a long time, the body and mind become fatigued, and different great elements (mahābhūta, the elements that make up the material world) arise in the body. Therefore, suffering arises later. Because various external objects must await different causes to become the cause for the arising of suffering and pleasure. Therefore, the causes of suffering and pleasure...
非不定。亦不可以後時苦增。便謂初時已生苦受。若見威儀等后引苦生。便謂彼初時已生苦受。見異生后位有聖樂生。應執彼先時已生聖樂。此中亦可作如是計。先有聖樂微故不知。后時漸增方覺為有。則有畢竟無異生失。若謂不可習住樂因。令於後時苦漸增盛。故知決定無實樂受。既爾若有習住樂因。而於后時苦不增盛。如下三靜慮應實有樂受。若三定中亦無實樂。則不應說后苦增故。知決定無真實樂受非畢竟故。契經中說。靜慮無色亦名有苦。非由彼有損害性故。又觀下過得離染時。非必由觀為損害性。觀為粗障亦得離染。又非唯厭下是離染因。欣上德亦為離染因故。謂上諸地功德漸增。欣彼亦能離下地染。故不應說彼苦。若無世道不應能離彼染。既或有處有定樂因。故有漏中有自相樂。是故彼說后苦增故。無實樂者非如理因。言處生死有動作故。受唯苦者理亦不然。聖道亦應有動作故。謂若樂受動作為先。然後獲得名有動作。聖道亦以勤勇為先。然後證得應有動作。若以樂受有所攀緣。聖道亦然。應有動作是則道諦亦應是苦。然非所許先已辯故。又彼論中先許諸法皆無動作。後言生死有動作故都無有樂。是則彼說前後相違。故所立因無能證力。言由微苦伏勝樂故。知無樂者理亦不然觀待別因前已說故。謂先已說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非不定。也不可以因為後來的痛苦增加，就說最初的時候已經產生了苦受。如果看到威儀等後來引發痛苦產生，就說那最初的時候已經產生了苦受。看到異生（與聖人不同的眾生）後來的階段有聖樂產生，就應該認為他們先前的時候已經產生了聖樂。這裡也可以這樣認為，先前有聖樂，因為太微弱所以不知道，後來逐漸增加才感覺到有。這樣就有畢竟沒有異生的過失。如果說不可以修習安住于快樂的原因，導致後來的痛苦逐漸增加，所以知道決定沒有真實的樂受。既然這樣，如果有修習安住于快樂的原因，而在後來痛苦不增加，如下面三靜慮（色界三禪天）就應該有真實的樂受。如果三定中也沒有真實的快樂，那麼就不應該說因為後來的痛苦增加，就知道決定沒有真實的樂受，因為不是畢竟沒有。契經中說，靜慮（禪定）、無色界也叫做有苦，不是因為它們有損害性。又觀察地獄過患而得到離染的時候，不一定是因為觀察到損害性，觀察到粗糙的障礙也可以離染。而且不只是厭惡地獄是離染的原因，欣求上界的功德也是離染的原因。就是說，上界諸地的功德逐漸增加，欣求它們也能離開地獄的染污。所以不應該說它們是苦。如果沒有世間道，就不應該能夠離開那些染污。既然或者有地方有禪定的快樂的原因，所以有漏（有煩惱）中有自相的快樂。因此，他們說因為後來的痛苦增加，就沒有真實的快樂，這不是如理的理由。 說處在生死中有動作，所以感受只有痛苦，這個道理也不對。聖道也應該有動作。如果說快樂的感受以動作為先，然後獲得才叫做有動作，那麼聖道也以勤奮努力為先，然後證得，也應該有動作。如果說快樂的感受有所攀緣，聖道也是這樣，應該有動作，那麼這樣道諦也應該是苦，但這不是所允許的，先前已經辯論過了。而且那部論中先前允許諸法都沒有動作，後來又說生死有動作，所以沒有快樂，那麼他們所說的前後矛盾，所以所立的理由沒有能證明的力量。說因為微小的痛苦壓伏了殊勝的快樂，所以知道沒有快樂，這個道理也不對，因為觀待其他的因，先前已經說過了。就是說，先前已經說過。
【English Translation】 English version It is not indefinite. Nor can it be said that because suffering increases later, it means that suffering was already produced in the beginning. If one sees that suffering arises later due to demeanor, etc., one then says that suffering was already produced at that initial time. If one sees that holy bliss arises in the later stages of ordinary beings (those different from the holy ones), one should then hold that they had already produced holy bliss at an earlier time. One can also make such a calculation here: that there was holy bliss earlier, but because it was subtle, it was not known; later, it gradually increased and then it was felt to exist. In this way, there would be no fault of ultimately having no ordinary beings. If it is said that one cannot practice dwelling in the cause of bliss, causing suffering to gradually increase later, then one knows for certain that there is no real feeling of bliss. Since this is the case, if there is practice dwelling in the cause of bliss, and suffering does not increase later, then the three dhyanas (the three meditation heavens of the Form Realm) below should truly have a feeling of bliss. If there is no real bliss in the three samadhis, then it should not be said that because suffering increases later, one knows for certain that there is no real feeling of bliss, because it is not ultimately non-existent. The sutras say that dhyana (meditation) and the Formless Realm are also called having suffering, not because they have a harmful nature. Furthermore, when observing the faults of the lower realms and attaining detachment, it is not necessarily because of observing a harmful nature; observing a coarse obstacle can also lead to detachment. Moreover, it is not only disliking the lower realms that is the cause of detachment; rejoicing in the virtues of the higher realms is also a cause of detachment. That is to say, as the merits of the higher realms gradually increase, rejoicing in them can also lead to detachment from the lower realms. Therefore, it should not be said that they are suffering. If there were no worldly path, one should not be able to detach from those defilements. Since there are places where there is a cause for the bliss of samadhi, there is self-characteristic bliss in the contaminated (with afflictions). Therefore, their saying that because suffering increases later, there is no real bliss, is not a reasoned cause. Saying that being in samsara (cycle of birth and death) has activity, therefore feeling is only suffering, this reasoning is also not correct. The holy path should also have activity. If it is said that the feeling of bliss is preceded by activity, and then attainment is called having activity, then the holy path is also preceded by diligent effort, and then attainment, so it should also have activity. If it is said that the feeling of bliss has something to cling to, the holy path is also like that, it should have activity, then the Truth of the Path should also be suffering, but this is not allowed, as it has been debated earlier. Moreover, that treatise previously allowed that all dharmas have no activity, and later said that samsara has activity, so there is no bliss, then what they said is contradictory, so the established reason has no power to prove. Saying that because subtle suffering subdues superior bliss, one knows there is no bliss, this reasoning is also not correct, because it depends on other causes, as has been said before. That is to say, it has been said before.
境為樂因。要待所依大種差別。故蚊㭰等正所害身。非能為因助沐浴等生於樂受。不應爾時唯受苦故。便撥無樂。有助因時能生樂故。若有漏蘊唯是苦性。應沐浴等時常生苦非樂。以身有時待緣生苦。有時復待別緣生樂。故知苦樂因緣決定。因緣定故必有別體。若謂何理鋸解身等時。雖與樂因涂香等和合。而不生樂但生苦受。與涂香等樂因合時。若與苦因蚊㭰等合便不生樂。轉生苦受此如前解。謂見有處所有樂因。唯能生樂曾不生苦。如三靜慮以于欲界苦著樂微。故遇樂緣不能奪苦。然或有位苦因生樂。謂見世間增苦味者。由數習等於彼生欣。又見世間燒鐵石等。初觸身份能為樂因。若爾後時極習近彼。寧即由彼復能生苦。我先說境為苦樂因。要待所依分位差別。其義已顯寧更徴難。或苦與樂種類有殊。故彼生時法爾差別。不應於此相例推徴。故有漏蘊非皆苦性。以契經說。佛告大名。若色一向是苦非樂。非樂所隨廣說乃至。有情於色不應生染。言于對治重苦逼中。愚夫起樂增上慢故。無實樂者理亦不然。由對治門證有樂故。謂為無彼而求此法。即有實法為彼對治既為無苦。起勝方便而求於樂即有實樂。能對治苦何理相違。又苦先除后入三定。三定樂覺治何苦生。又因殊勝聲香等境。起增上樂治何苦生。故彼所立因無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 境界之所以成為快樂的原因，是因為依賴於構成身體的各種元素（大種）的差異。因此，蚊蟲叮咬等直接傷害身體的行為，不能成為產生快樂感受的原因，而沐浴等行為則可以。如果蚊蟲叮咬時只能感受到痛苦，就不能因此否定快樂的存在，因為在有輔助因素（助因）的情況下，是可以產生快樂的。如果說有漏蘊（有煩惱的五蘊）的本質都是痛苦，那麼沐浴等行為應該總是產生痛苦而不是快樂。因為身體有時依賴於某種因緣而產生痛苦，有時又依賴於另一種因緣而產生快樂。因此，痛苦和快樂的因緣是確定的，因緣確定就必然有不同的本體。如果有人問，為什麼用鋸子鋸開身體時，即使與產生快樂的涂香等結合，也不會產生快樂，而只會產生痛苦？這是因為在與涂香等快樂之因結合時，如果同時與蚊蟲叮咬等痛苦之因結合，就不會產生快樂，反而會產生痛苦，這就像前面解釋的那樣。也就是說，有些地方的某些事物只能產生快樂，而不會產生痛苦，例如三禪定的境界，因為對欲界的痛苦執著很深，對快樂的感受很微弱，所以即使遇到快樂的因緣，也不能消除痛苦。然而，在某些情況下，痛苦之因反而會產生快樂，例如，有些人覺得增加痛苦的味道反而會讓他們感到快樂，因為他們經常習慣於這種味道，並從中產生欣喜。又例如，有些人覺得燒紅的鐵石等物，剛接觸身體時能成為快樂的原因。如果長期習慣於接近這些事物，難道它們反而會產生痛苦嗎？我先前說過，境界是痛苦和快樂的原因，但需要依賴於所依身體的不同狀態，這個道理已經很明顯了，為什麼還要提出疑問呢？或者說，痛苦和快樂的種類不同，所以在產生時自然會有差別，不應該用類比的方式來推斷。因此，有漏蘊並非都是痛苦的本質，因為契經（佛經）中說，佛告訴大名（Mahānāma）：『如果色（物質）完全是痛苦而不是快樂，沒有快樂伴隨，那麼眾生就不應該對色產生貪染。』（廣說乃至）因為在對治嚴重的痛苦逼迫時，愚夫會產生快樂的增上慢（錯誤的認知），所以說沒有真實的快樂，這個道理也是不成立的。因為通過對治的方法可以證明快樂的存在。也就是說，爲了消除痛苦而尋求這種方法，就存在真實的法來對治痛苦；既然爲了消除痛苦，通過殊勝的方法來尋求快樂，就存在真實的快樂來對治痛苦，這有什麼矛盾呢？而且，痛苦先被消除，然後進入三禪定，那麼三禪定的快樂感受又對治了什麼痛苦呢？又因為殊勝的聲音、香味等境界，產生增上的快樂，又對治了什麼痛苦呢？所以他們所建立的因（理由）是無效的。
【English Translation】 English version The reason why a state becomes a cause of happiness is due to the differences in the elements (mahābhūta) that constitute the body. Therefore, actions like mosquito bites, which directly harm the body, cannot be the cause of pleasant sensations, while actions like bathing can. If only suffering is felt when bitten by mosquitoes, one cannot deny the existence of happiness, because happiness can arise when there are auxiliary factors (hetu). If the contaminated aggregates (āsrava-skandha) are entirely of the nature of suffering, then bathing etc. should always produce suffering instead of happiness. Because the body sometimes depends on certain conditions to produce suffering, and sometimes depends on other conditions to produce happiness. Therefore, the causes and conditions of suffering and happiness are definite, and if the causes and conditions are definite, there must be different entities. If someone asks, why is it that when sawing open the body, even if combined with fragrant ointments etc. that produce happiness, happiness is not produced, but only suffering? This is because when combined with the causes of happiness such as fragrant ointments, if at the same time combined with the causes of suffering such as mosquito bites, happiness will not be produced, but suffering will be produced instead, just as explained earlier. That is to say, there are some things in some places that can only produce happiness and will never produce suffering, such as the state of the third dhyana (third level of meditative absorption), because the attachment to the suffering of the desire realm is very deep, and the feeling of happiness is very subtle, so even if encountering the causes of happiness, it cannot eliminate suffering. However, in some cases, the cause of suffering can produce happiness, for example, some people feel that increasing the taste of suffering makes them happy, because they are often accustomed to this taste and produce joy from it. Also, for example, some people feel that red-hot iron stones etc. can be a cause of happiness when they first touch the body. If one is accustomed to approaching these things for a long time, will they instead produce suffering? I said earlier that the state is the cause of suffering and happiness, but it needs to depend on the different states of the body on which it depends, this principle is already obvious, why ask questions? Or rather, the types of suffering and happiness are different, so there will naturally be differences when they arise, and one should not infer by analogy. Therefore, the contaminated aggregates are not all of the nature of suffering, because the sutra (Buddhist scripture) says that the Buddha told Mahānāma: 'If form (matter) were entirely suffering and not happiness, and there was no happiness accompanying it, then sentient beings should not be greedy for form.' (and so on) Because when dealing with severe suffering, fools will produce an increase in pride (wrong perception) of happiness, so it is not reasonable to say that there is no real happiness. Because the existence of happiness can be proven through the method of counteracting. That is to say, in order to eliminate suffering, seeking this method, there is a real dharma to counteract suffering; since in order to eliminate suffering, seeking happiness through excellent methods, there is real happiness to counteract suffering, what contradiction is there? Moreover, suffering is eliminated first, and then one enters the third dhyana, so what suffering does the feeling of happiness in the third dhyana counteract? Also, because of the excellent sounds, fragrances, etc., an increase in happiness is produced, so what suffering does it counteract? Therefore, the cause (reason) they have established is invalid.
能遮實樂言。于眾苦易脫位中。世間有情樂覺生故。無實樂者理亦不然先已說故。先何所說。謂苦樂因非唯境故。若唯境者初荷擔時。肩應即生增上苦受。既不如是故易肩時。擔觀所依分位差別。乃至未滅能為樂因。亦不應言諸愚夫類。于新起苦有樂覺生。初遭鞭等時應生樂覺故。現見彼苦亦有重輕。初受輕時應生樂覺。或彼應說以何因緣。重擔在肩久不易脫。便生重苦初易不然。理不應言唯此重擔。未易肩位為重苦緣。于易肩時便生輕苦。緣既是一苦何重輕。由此證知別有所待。身位差別為苦樂因。故生死中有少實樂。然世尊說諸所有受。無非苦者亦不相違。佛于經中自釋通故。謂如慶喜問世尊言。佛于余經說有三受。謂樂及苦不苦不樂依何密意。此經復言諸所有受無非是苦。佛言。慶喜我依諸行皆是無常。及諸有為皆是變壞。密作是說諸所有受無非是苦。故知此經依二苦說。不依苦苦說皆苦言。由此定知實有三受。以彼尊者不問佛言。依何密意說有三受。佛亦不說我密說三。但言密意我說皆苦。既言皆苦是密意說。非了義故不可為依。寧即憑斯撥無實樂。又契經說。此生時苦生此滅時苦滅亦不相違。有漏法隨應三苦性合故。如色想等體雖非苦。猶如苦受而說為苦。如是樂等體雖非苦。猶如苦受說苦何違。或諸有漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能遮蔽真實的快樂之說。在眾苦容易脫離的狀態中，世間眾生之所以產生快樂的感覺，是因為實際上並非沒有真實的快樂，這個道理之前已經說過了。之前說了什麼呢？就是苦和樂的產生，不僅僅是由於外境的原因。如果僅僅是外境的原因，那麼最初扛起重擔的時候，肩膀就應該立即產生強烈的痛苦感受。既然不是這樣，所以在換肩膀的時候，觀察所依靠的身體部位的差別，乃至在沒有卸下重擔之前，它也能成為快樂的原因。也不應該說那些愚昧的人，對於新產生的痛苦會有快樂的感覺，因為最初遭受鞭打等痛苦的時候，應該產生快樂的感覺。現在看到那些痛苦也有輕重之分，最初感受輕微的痛苦時，應該產生快樂的感覺。或者他們應該說，因為什麼原因，重擔在肩膀上很久沒有卸下，就會產生強烈的痛苦，而最初換肩膀的時候不是這樣。道理上不應該說僅僅是這個重擔，在沒有換肩膀的時候是產生強烈痛苦的原因，而在換肩膀的時候就產生輕微的痛苦。原因既然是同一個，痛苦怎麼會有輕重之分呢？由此可以證明，一定有其他的因素在起作用，身體部位的差別是苦和樂的原因。所以，在生死輪迴中，存在少許真實的快樂。然而，世尊說一切感受，沒有不是痛苦的，這也不矛盾。佛在經中自己解釋說明了原因。比如阿難（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）問世尊說，佛在其他的經典中說有三種感受，即快樂、痛苦和不苦不樂，是依據什麼秘密的含義說的？而這部經中又說一切感受沒有不是痛苦的。佛說：『阿難（Ananda），我是依據一切行都是無常的，以及一切有為法都是會變壞的，秘密地這樣說的，一切感受沒有不是痛苦的。』所以，知道這部經是依據行苦（suffering of conditioned existence）和壞苦（suffering of change）說的，不是依據苦苦（suffering of suffering）說的，所以才說一切都是痛苦。由此可以確定，實際上存在三種感受。因為阿難（Ananda）沒有問佛說，依據什麼秘密的含義說有三種感受，佛也沒有說我秘密地說有三種感受，只是說秘密的含義我說一切都是痛苦。既然說一切都是痛苦是秘密的含義，不是究竟的含義，所以不可以作為依據。怎麼可以憑藉這個就否定沒有真實的快樂呢？而且，契經（Sutra，佛經）上說，出生的時候是苦，死亡的時候是苦，這也不矛盾。有漏法（tainted dharmas）隨著情況的不同，具有三種痛苦的性質，結合在一起的緣故。比如色（form）、想（conception）等，本體雖然不是痛苦，但就像痛苦的感受一樣，所以說成是痛苦。這樣，快樂等本體雖然不是痛苦，但就像痛苦的感受一樣，說成是痛苦有什麼矛盾呢？或者，一切有漏法
【English Translation】 English version It can obscure the statement of real happiness. In the state where it is easy to escape from the multitude of sufferings, sentient beings in the world generate a feeling of happiness because there is actually not no real happiness. This principle has already been stated before. What was said before? It is that the arising of suffering and happiness is not only due to external objects. If it were only due to external objects, then when initially carrying a heavy load, the shoulders should immediately generate intense suffering. Since this is not the case, when changing shoulders, observe the differences in the positions of the body parts being relied upon. Even before the load is removed, it can be a cause of happiness. It should also not be said that those foolish people have a feeling of happiness towards newly arising suffering, because when initially suffering whipping and other pains, they should generate a feeling of happiness. Now it is seen that those sufferings also have varying degrees of severity. When initially experiencing slight suffering, they should generate a feeling of happiness. Or they should say, for what reason, when a heavy load has been on the shoulders for a long time without being removed, it generates intense suffering, while initially changing shoulders is not like this. It is not reasonable to say that only this heavy load, when not changing shoulders, is the cause of intense suffering, while changing shoulders generates slight suffering. Since the cause is the same, how can the suffering have varying degrees of severity? From this it can be proven that there must be other factors at play, and the differences in body positions are the cause of suffering and happiness. Therefore, in the cycle of birth and death, there is a small amount of real happiness. However, the World Honored One (Bhagavan, an epithet of the Buddha) said that all feelings are nothing but suffering, and this is not contradictory. The Buddha himself explained the reason in the sutras. For example, Ananda (Ananda, one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha) asked the World Honored One, 'In other sutras, the Buddha said that there are three kinds of feelings, namely happiness, suffering, and neither happiness nor suffering. According to what secret meaning was this said? And in this sutra, it is said that all feelings are nothing but suffering.' The Buddha said, 'Ananda (Ananda), I said this secretly based on the fact that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, and all conditioned dharmas are subject to change. All feelings are nothing but suffering.' Therefore, it is known that this sutra is based on the suffering of conditioned existence (samskara-duhkha) and the suffering of change (viparinama-duhkha), not based on the suffering of suffering (duhkha-duhkha), which is why it is said that everything is suffering. From this it can be determined that there are actually three kinds of feelings. Because Ananda (Ananda) did not ask the Buddha, 'According to what secret meaning did you say that there are three kinds of feelings?' The Buddha also did not say, 'I secretly said that there are three kinds of feelings,' but only said, 'The secret meaning is that I say everything is suffering.' Since saying that everything is suffering is a secret meaning, not an ultimate meaning, it cannot be taken as a basis. How can one rely on this to deny that there is no real happiness? Moreover, the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) says that birth is suffering and death is suffering, and this is not contradictory. Tainted dharmas (asrava-dharmas) have the nature of three kinds of suffering depending on the situation, and they are combined together. For example, form (rupa), conception (samjna), etc., although their essence is not suffering, they are like the feeling of suffering, so they are said to be suffering. In this way, although happiness and other things are not suffering in essence, what contradiction is there in saying that they are suffering, just like the feeling of suffering? Or, all tainted dharmas
皆苦諦攝。依如是理說亦無違。豈不由斯即證無樂。不爾前已說非苦說苦故。謂如色等非苦說苦。樂等亦爾非苦說苦。若爾觀樂苦諦攝時。如何不成顛倒作意。此先已說先說者何。謂是行苦壞苦性故。依如是義故有頌言。
諸佛正遍覺 知諸行無常 及有為變壞 故說受皆苦
然有漏樂難成易壞。行者厭患觀之為苦。不由樂受是苦性故。謂苦易成隨欲便得。如暫屏氣生極苦受。然極難壞為欲令滅。多設劬勞猶相續住。樂則不爾雖多設劬勞。仍難令其現前及久住。故修行者於樂受中。生極厭患觀之為苦。由此樂受亦苦諦攝。故不可以契經中言。此生時苦生此滅時苦滅。便定非撥樂受自性。又契經言。于苦謂樂名顛倒者亦不相違一向謂樂成顛倒故。謂有漏樂理亦名苦。生住時樂壞時苦故。性是無常行苦攝故。一向謂樂如何非倒。又諸愚夫由見取力。于煩惱火遍所燒然。有漏行中計寂靜德。故於苦計樂成想等顛倒。若謂此如常我想等。於一向苦計樂成倒。理亦不然。遮色等蘊一向是苦。契經說故。即由此故我先已許。全及分增益俱得名顛倒。故非由此無樂理成。又契經言。汝應以苦觀樂受者理亦無違。即由此經有樂成故。謂此經說汝等苾芻。應以毒箭觀于苦受。應以苦觀樂受。應以無常觀非二受。若謂三受
唯一苦性。佛不應勸作差別觀。既勸別觀故知性異。此中苦受體非毒箭。然為惱害與毒箭同。故勸觀苦猶如毒箭。如是樂受體非是苦性是樂故。由當變壞雖體是樂勸觀如苦。后變壞時必當苦故。如擲壞器未至地時。雖體尚全已說為壞。非苦樂受亦非無常性是受故。由必被滅雖非無常性勸觀如無常。生已后時必當滅故。又無常相恒隨逐故。以非二受能引愚癡。由癡故於多劫已壞執為常住。及我我所為欲違彼常我見故。勸以無常觀非二受。今詳經意勸如是觀。令於三界法起離染加行。謂初以毒箭觀于苦受者。是于欲界法起離染加行。以欲界中苦受多故。次應以苦觀樂受者。是於色界法起離染加行。以色界中樂受勝故。樂是欣樂生死本故。佛於樂受勸觀為苦。然諸樂受自性是樂能攝益故。亦得名苦以是無常變壞法故。觀為樂時能為繫縛。以欣樂樂法是生死本故。觀為苦時能令解脫。以厭患苦法能越生死故。佛以觀苦能令解脫。故勸有情觀樂為苦。后應以無常觀非二受者。是于無色法起離染加行。以彼壽限極長遠故。恐有情類執彼為常故。勸觀無常如假借嚴具。是故知佛勸如是觀。令於三界法起離染加行。不可引斯撥無樂受。由此樂受于生死中。定實有宗不可傾動。傍論已了應復正論。如是所說四聖諦中。幾是世俗幾是勝義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 唯一是苦的自性。佛陀不應該勸人作差別觀。既然勸人作差別觀，就知道自性是不同的。這裡，苦受的本體並非毒箭，但因為它能帶來惱害，所以與毒箭相似。因此，勸人觀苦受猶如毒箭。同樣，樂受的本體並非苦性，而是樂性。由於它終將變壞，所以勸人觀樂受猶如苦。因為在變壞之後，必定會帶來痛苦。就像投擲一個損壞的器物，即使它尚未落地，其本體尚且完整，也已經被說成是損壞的。非苦非樂受也不是無常的，因為它的自性是受。由於它必定會被滅盡，所以即使它並非無常，也勸人觀它猶如無常。因為它在生起之後，必定會滅盡。而且，無常的相狀恒常伴隨著它。因為非苦非樂受不能引發愚癡，而由於愚癡，眾生在多劫以來都錯誤地執著它為常住，以及執著『我』和『我所』。爲了破除這種常我見，所以勸人以無常的觀點來看待非苦非樂受。現在詳細考察經文的意義，勸人作這樣的觀想，是爲了使人對三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的法生起遠離染污的修行。首先，以毒箭來觀苦受，這是爲了對欲界的法生起遠離染污的修行，因為欲界中苦受很多。其次，應該以苦來觀樂受，這是爲了對法生起遠離染污的修行，因為中樂受殊勝。樂是欣樂生死的根本，所以佛陀勸人觀樂受為苦。然而，各種樂受的自性是樂，能夠攝取利益，所以也可以稱為苦，因為它是無常變壞之法。觀樂受為樂時，會成為繫縛，因為欣樂樂法是生死的根本。觀樂受為苦時，能夠令人解脫，因為厭患苦法能夠超越生死。佛陀以觀苦能夠令人解脫，所以勸有情觀樂為苦。最後，應該以無常來觀非苦非樂受，這是爲了對無色界的法生起遠離染污的修行，因為無色界的壽命極其長遠，恐怕有情執著它為常，所以勸人觀它為無常，猶如借來的莊嚴器具。因此，要知道佛陀勸人作這樣的觀想，是爲了使人對三界法生起遠離染污的修行，不可因此而否定樂受的存在。由此可見，樂受在生死之中，是真實存在的，這種宗義是不可動搖的。旁論已經結束，現在應該回到正題。像這樣所說的四聖諦中，哪些是世俗諦，哪些是勝義諦？
【English Translation】 English version: Only suffering by nature. The Buddha should not encourage differential observation. Since differential observation is encouraged, it is known that the nature is different. Here, the substance of painful feeling is not a poisonous arrow, but it is the same as a poisonous arrow because it is harmful. Therefore, it is advised to view suffering as a poisonous arrow. Likewise, the substance of pleasant feeling is not the nature of suffering, but is pleasant. Because it will eventually deteriorate, it is advised to view pleasant feeling as suffering. Because it will surely be suffering after deterioration. Like throwing a broken vessel, even if its substance is still intact before it reaches the ground, it is already said to be broken. Neither painful nor pleasant feeling is impermanent, because its nature is feeling. Because it will surely be destroyed, even if it is not impermanent, it is advised to view it as impermanent. Because the appearance of impermanence constantly follows it. Because neither of the two feelings can induce ignorance. Because of ignorance, beings have wrongly clung to it as permanent and abiding for many kalpas, as well as clinging to 'I' and 'mine'. In order to counteract this view of permanence and self, it is advised to view neither painful nor pleasant feeling as impermanent. Now, examining the meaning of the sutra in detail, it advises such contemplation in order to cause beings to generate the practice of detachment from the defilements of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). First, contemplating painful feeling as a poisonous arrow is to generate the practice of detachment from the defilements of the desire realm, because there is much painful feeling in the desire realm. Second, one should contemplate pleasant feeling as suffering, which is to generate the practice of detachment from the defilements of the ** realm, because pleasant feeling is superior in the ** realm. Pleasure is the root of delighting in birth and death, so the Buddha advises contemplating pleasant feeling as suffering. However, the nature of various pleasant feelings is pleasure, which can gather benefits, so it can also be called suffering, because it is a law of impermanence and deterioration. When contemplating pleasant feeling as pleasure, it will become bondage, because delighting in pleasant dharmas is the root of birth and death. When contemplating pleasant feeling as suffering, it can lead to liberation, because aversion to suffering dharmas can transcend birth and death. The Buddha uses the contemplation of suffering to lead to liberation, so he advises sentient beings to contemplate pleasure as suffering. Finally, one should contemplate neither painful nor pleasant feeling as impermanent, which is to generate the practice of detachment from the defilements of the formless realm, because the lifespan of the formless realm is extremely long, and it is feared that sentient beings will cling to it as permanent, so it is advised to contemplate it as impermanent, like borrowed adornments. Therefore, it should be known that the Buddha advises such contemplation in order to cause beings to generate the practice of detachment from the defilements of the three realms, and it is not permissible to deny the existence of pleasant feeling because of this. From this, it can be seen that pleasant feeling is truly existent in birth and death, and this doctrine is unshakable. The digression is over, and now we should return to the main topic. Among the Four Noble Truths spoken of in this way, which are conventional truths and which are ultimate truths?
此中一類作如是言。二是世俗二是勝義。有一類言三是世俗。有為皆是亡失法故。有言二諦約教有別。謂諸宣說補特伽羅。城園林等相應言教皆世俗攝。此為顯示實義為先。非從誑他作意引起故名為諦。諸有宣說蘊處界等。相應言教皆勝義攝。此為詮辯諸法實相。破壞一合有情想等。能詮真理故名為諦。此四諦教能令有情。證真實理故是勝義。此中上座作如是言。三諦皆通世俗勝義。謂一苦諦假是世俗。所依實物名為勝義。集諦道諦例亦應然。唯滅諦體不可說故。同諸無記不可說有。如契經說。具壽慶喜六觸處盡。離滅靜沒有異無異。皆不可論汝欲論耶。乃至廣說今詳上座所說義宗。違害世俗勝義諦相。如是二諦其相云何。頌曰。
彼覺破便無 慧析余亦爾 如瓶水世俗 異此名勝義
論曰。諸和合物隨其所應。總有二種性類差別。一可以物破為細分。二可以慧析除余法。謂且於色諸和合聚破為細分。彼覺便無名世俗諦猶如瓶等。非破瓶等為瓦等時。復可於中生瓶等覺。有和合聚雖破為多。彼覺非無猶如水等。若以勝慧析除余法。彼覺方無亦世俗諦。非水等被慧析除色等時復可於中生水等覺故。于彼物未破析時以世想名施設為彼施設有故名為世俗。依世俗理說有瓶等。是實非虛名世俗諦。如世俗理說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其中有一類人這樣說：『有兩種諦，即世俗諦和勝義諦。』又有一類人說：『有三種諦是世俗諦，因為有為法都是會壞滅的。』還有人說：『二諦的區別在於教義不同。』 他們認為，凡是宣說補特伽羅（pudgala，人）、城、園林等相應的言教，都屬於世俗諦。因為這些言教以顯示實際意義為先，不是爲了欺騙他人而產生的，所以稱為『諦』。 而凡是宣說蘊（skandha，構成要素）、處（āyatana，感覺器官和對像）、界（dhātu，元素）等相應的言教，都屬於勝義諦。因為這些言教是爲了詮釋諸法的真實相狀，破除將五蘊和合視為一個有情眾生的想法，能夠詮釋真理，所以稱為『諦』。這四諦之教能夠使有情眾生證悟真實的道理，所以是勝義諦。 對此，上座部（Sthavira Nikāya）的人這樣說：『三種諦都通於世俗諦和勝義諦。』也就是說，苦諦（duhkha-satya）中的假名是世俗諦，所依賴的真實事物是勝義諦。集諦（samudaya-satya）和道諦（marga-satya）也應該這樣理解。只有滅諦（nirodha-satya）的本體是不可說的，如同那些不可記說的東西一樣，不能說它存在。 正如契經（sūtra）所說：『具壽慶喜（Ānanda）的六觸處（sadāyatana，六種感覺的來源）已經滅盡，離滅、寂靜，沒有異，沒有不異，這些都是不可討論的，你想討論嗎？』等等，廣為宣說。現在詳細考察上座部所說的義理，是違背世俗諦和勝義諦的相狀的。 那麼，這二諦的相狀是什麼呢？頌文說： 『彼覺破便無，慧析余亦爾，如瓶水世俗，異此名勝義。』 論述說：各種和合物，根據它們的情況，總共有兩種性質上的差別：一種是可以被外物破壞，分解成細小的部分；另一種是可以被智慧分析，去除剩餘的法。 也就是說，對於色（rupa，物質）的各種和合聚集體，如果將它破壞，分解成細小的部分，那麼對於它的感覺就會消失，這稱為世俗諦，就像瓶子等東西一樣。因為當瓶子等東西被破壞，變成瓦片等的時候，人們不可能再從中產生對於瓶子的感覺。有些和合聚集體，即使被破壞成很多部分，對於它的感覺也不會消失，就像水等東西一樣。如果用殊勝的智慧分析，去除剩餘的法，那麼對於它的感覺才會消失，這也是世俗諦。 因為水等東西在被智慧分析，去除色等的時候，人們不可能再從中產生對於水的感覺。因此，在這些東西沒有被破壞和分析的時候，用世間的想法和名稱來施設它們，因為這種施設是存在的，所以稱為世俗。依據世俗的道理來說，有瓶子等東西，這是真實的，不是虛假的，所以稱為世俗諦。就像依據世俗的道理來說……
【English Translation】 English version: Among them, one group says: 'There are two truths: conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya).' Another group says: 'Three truths are conventional, because conditioned phenomena are subject to destruction.' Still others say: 'The difference between the two truths lies in the difference in teachings.' They believe that all teachings that speak of the pudgala (person), cities, gardens, etc., are included in conventional truth. Because these teachings prioritize showing actual meaning and are not produced with the intention of deceiving others, they are called 'truths'. And all teachings that speak of the skandhas (aggregates), āyatanas (sense bases), dhātus (elements), etc., are included in ultimate truth. Because these teachings are for explaining the true nature of phenomena, destroying the idea of considering the aggregation of the five skandhas as a single sentient being, and are able to explain the truth, they are called 'truths'. These teachings of the Four Noble Truths enable sentient beings to realize the true principle, so they are ultimate truth. In response, the Sthavira Nikāya (Elders School) says: 'Three truths are common to both conventional truth and ultimate truth.' That is, the nominal existence of duhkha-satya (the truth of suffering) is conventional truth, and the real things on which it depends are ultimate truth. Samudaya-satya (the truth of the origin of suffering) and marga-satya (the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering) should also be understood in this way. Only the essence of nirodha-satya (the truth of the cessation of suffering) is inexpressible, like those things that cannot be specified, and it cannot be said to exist. As the sūtra (scripture) says: 'The six sense bases (sadāyatana) of the venerable Ānanda have been extinguished, apart from cessation and tranquility, there is no difference, no non-difference, these are all undiscussable, do you want to discuss them?' and so on, widely proclaimed. Now, examining in detail the meaning of what the Sthavira Nikāya says, it contradicts the characteristics of conventional truth and ultimate truth. So, what are the characteristics of these two truths? The verse says: 'When that perception is broken, it is gone; when wisdom analyzes the remainder, it is also gone; like a pot and water, it is conventional; different from this is called ultimate.' The treatise says: All compounded things, according to their circumstances, generally have two kinds of differences in nature: one can be broken by external objects and decomposed into small parts; the other can be analyzed by wisdom and the remaining phenomena removed. That is, for the various compounded aggregates of rupa (form), if it is broken down into small parts, then the perception of it will disappear, this is called conventional truth, like pots and other things. Because when pots and other things are broken and turned into tiles, etc., people can no longer generate the perception of pots from them. Some compounded aggregates, even if broken into many parts, the perception of them will not disappear, like water and other things. If analyzed with superior wisdom and the remaining phenomena removed, then the perception of it will disappear, this is also conventional truth. Because when water and other things are analyzed by wisdom and the form, etc., are removed, people can no longer generate the perception of water from them. Therefore, when these things have not been broken and analyzed, they are established with worldly thoughts and names, because this establishment exists, it is called conventional. According to worldly reasoning, there are pots and other things, this is real, not false, so it is called conventional truth. Just like according to worldly reasoning...
為有故。若物異此名勝義諦。謂彼物覺彼破不無及慧析余。彼覺仍有名勝義諦。猶如色等如色等物。碎為細分漸漸破析乃至極微。或以勝慧析除味等。彼色等覺如本恒存。受等亦然但非色法。無細分故不可碎彼。以為細分乃至極微。然可以慧析至剎那。或可析除余想等法。彼受等覺如本恒存。此真實有故名勝義。以一切時體恒有故。依勝義理說有色等。是實非虛名勝義諦。如勝義理說為有故。由彼上座所說義宗。違此所立二諦相故不應正理。且彼所言謂一苦諦。假是世俗特乖正理。所以者何。非於苦諦可以蘊等。漸漸分析乃至極微。或一剎那令舍苦覺。以析乃至極微剎那。一一恒與苦相合故。云何可謂如瓶水等。于所依物未破析時。假施設有名世俗諦。又如觸法界。苦諦亦應然。謂彼自言蘊唯世俗。所依實物方是勝義。處亦如是。界唯勝義豈不觸法界亦依多立一。理應如蘊是世俗有所依實物方是勝義。則應許界體兼二種。亦是世俗亦是勝義若謂二界于破析時。界相不捨故唯勝義。非如蘊處是聚是門。于破析時舍聚門義。是則苦諦例亦應然于破析時不捨相故。又彼自說二諦相言。若於多物施設為有名為世俗。但於一物施設為有名為勝義。又細分別所目法時。便失本名名為世俗。若細分別所目法時。不失本名名為勝義。于
彼所說且就初門。觸法二界應成假有。非但於一物施設為有故。由此彼應作如是說。但于多物施設為有名為世俗。亦於一物施設為有名為勝義。如是可言二界實有。便與說苦諦是世俗義。違非但于多物施設為有故。所以者何。于多物一物皆施設有。如觸法界故就第二門亦違彼說。苦諦通是世俗有義。謂細分別苦諦體時。不失本名如觸法界。故知上座于諦義中所說所書不觀前後。彼諸弟子披后忘前。重覽前文後文已失。由是所立前後相違。應例推徴集諦道諦。又彼所說唯滅諦體。不可說故同諸無記。不可說有理亦不然。既爾應成世俗有故。謂佛所說如來死後為有為無。命者與身為一異等諸無記事一切皆是世俗有攝。以如來等與色等法。非即非離是世俗有。滅諦既同彼應世俗有攝。謂如瓶等與色等物。非即非離是世俗有。又說。依蘊施設有情。許諸有情世俗有故。知如來等世俗有攝滅諦亦應然同不可記故然不可謂涅槃俗有非俗有理。如前已說。是故不可定說涅槃。同無記事體非實有定應許是勝義諦攝。若爾何故尊者舍利子。不為慶喜分明記耶豈不後文亦分明記。乃至六處有可有諸戲論。六處既滅絕諸戲論。薄伽梵說此謂涅槃。由此證知離有戲論。必定別有無戲論滅。然彼慶喜不作是問。六觸處滅為有為無故。亦不酬是有無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他們所說的僅限於初步的理解。觸界（Sparsha Ayatana，感覺的領域）和法界（Dharma Ayatana，法的領域）應被認為是假有。不能僅僅因為對多個事物進行施設才認為其存在。因此，他們應該這樣說：僅僅對多個事物進行施設才有名為世俗諦（Samvriti Satya，俗諦，世俗諦），而對一個事物進行施設也可能有名為勝義諦（Paramartha Satya，勝義諦，第一義諦）。如果這樣說，就可以認為這兩個界是實有的。但這與宣說苦諦（Dukkha Satya，苦諦）是世俗諦的意義相違背，因為苦諦不僅僅是對多個事物進行施設才有的。為什麼呢？因為無論對多個事物還是一個事物，都可以進行施設，就像觸界和法界一樣。因此，從第二個角度來看，也與他們的說法相違背。苦諦普遍具有世俗諦的意義，也就是說，當仔細分析苦諦的本體時，它不會失去原有的名稱，就像觸界和法界一樣。因此，可知上座部（Sthavira，原始佛教的長老派）在關於諦的意義上所說所寫，沒有前後貫通。他們的弟子們讀了後面忘了前面，重新閱讀前面的文章后又忘記了後面的內容。因此，他們所建立的觀點前後矛盾。應該以此類推地考察集諦（Samudaya Satya，集諦）和道諦（Marga Satya，道諦）。 此外，他們所說的只有滅諦（Nirodha Satya，滅諦）的本體是不可說的，這與那些無記事（Avyakrta，不可記說的問題）相同。認為不可說就是存在的理由也是不對的。如果這樣，滅諦就應該成為世俗諦。佛陀所說的如來死後是有還是無，命與身是一還是異等等這些無記事，都屬於世俗諦的範疇。因為如來等與色等法，既非相同也非相異，所以是世俗諦。滅諦既然與它們相同，就應該屬於世俗諦的範疇。就像瓶子等與色等事物，既非相同也非相異，所以是世俗諦。他們還說，依據五蘊（Skandha，蘊）施設了有情（Sattva，眾生），並且承認諸有情是世俗諦。可知如來等屬於世俗諦的範疇，滅諦也應該如此，因為它與不可記說的事物相同。然而，不能說涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）是世俗諦，因為沒有理由說它不是勝義諦，正如前面已經說過的。因此，不能斷定說涅槃與無記事相同，其本體不是實有的，而應該承認它是勝義諦所攝。 如果這樣，為什麼尊者舍利子（Sariputra，舍利弗）沒有為慶喜（Ananda，阿難）分明地記說呢？難道後面的經文中也沒有分明地記說嗎？乃至六處（Sadayatana，六處）存在，就可能存在各種戲論（Prapancha，戲論）。六處既然滅絕，各種戲論也就滅絕了，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）說這就是涅槃。由此可以證明，離開有戲論，必定存在沒有戲論的滅。然而，慶喜並沒有這樣問：六觸處（Sparsha Ayatana，觸處）滅后是有還是無。因此，佛陀也沒有回答是有還是無。
【English Translation】 English version: What they say only addresses the initial understanding. The Sparsha Ayatana (sphere of touch) and Dharma Ayatana (sphere of phenomena) should be considered conventionally existent. It is not the case that something exists merely because it is designated upon multiple things. Therefore, they should say it this way: it is only when designated upon multiple things that it is called conventional truth (Samvriti Satya), but when designated upon a single thing, it can also be called ultimate truth (Paramartha Satya). If it is said this way, then it can be considered that these two spheres are truly existent. However, this contradicts the statement that the truth of suffering (Dukkha Satya) is a conventional truth, because it is not only when designated upon multiple things that suffering exists. Why is that? Because designation can be made upon both multiple things and a single thing, just like the Sparsha Ayatana and Dharma Ayatana. Therefore, from the second perspective, it also contradicts their statement. The truth of suffering universally has the meaning of conventional truth, that is, when the essence of the truth of suffering is carefully analyzed, it does not lose its original name, just like the Sparsha Ayatana and Dharma Ayatana. Therefore, it can be known that what the Sthaviras (Elders, the early Buddhist school) say and write about the meaning of the truths is not consistent from beginning to end. Their disciples forget the beginning after reading the end, and forget the end after rereading the beginning. Therefore, the views they establish are contradictory from beginning to end. The same should be inferred for the truth of the origin (Samudaya Satya) and the truth of the path (Marga Satya). Furthermore, what they say is that only the essence of the truth of cessation (Nirodha Satya) is inexpressible, which is the same as those unrecordable matters (Avyakrta). It is also incorrect to think that being inexpressible is a reason for existence. If that were the case, then the truth of cessation should become a conventional truth. The unrecordable matters that the Buddha spoke of, such as whether the Tathagata (Tathagata, Thus Come One) exists or does not exist after death, whether life and body are the same or different, all belong to the category of conventional truth. Because the Tathagata and other things are neither the same nor different from form and other phenomena, they are conventional truths. Since the truth of cessation is the same as them, it should belong to the category of conventional truth. Just like a pot and other things are neither the same nor different from form and other phenomena, so they are conventional truths. They also say that sentient beings (Sattva) are designated based on the five aggregates (Skandha), and they acknowledge that sentient beings are conventional truths. It can be known that the Tathagata and other things belong to the category of conventional truth, and the truth of cessation should also be the same, because it is the same as unrecordable matters. However, it cannot be said that Nirvana (Nirvana) is a conventional truth, because there is no reason to say that it is not an ultimate truth, as has been said before. Therefore, it cannot be definitively said that Nirvana is the same as unrecordable matters and that its essence is not truly existent, but it should be acknowledged that it is included in the ultimate truth. If that is the case, why did the Venerable Sariputra (Sariputra) not clearly record it for Ananda (Ananda)? Is it not also clearly recorded in the later scriptures? Even when the six sense bases (Sadayatana) exist, there may be various elaborations (Prapancha). Since the six sense bases are extinguished, various elaborations are also extinguished, and the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, Blessed One) said that this is Nirvana. From this, it can be proven that apart from the existence of elaborations, there must be an extinction without elaborations. However, Ananda did not ask whether the six spheres of contact (Sparsha Ayatana) exist or do not exist after they are extinguished. Therefore, the Buddha did not answer whether they exist or do not exist.
義。但作是問滅與六處。為有別異為無異耶。是故答言。此無戲論。若謂滅體假實都無。豈不定應答言無異所以然者。謂畢竟無。據理皆應如是說故。無有少分畢竟無法。不可定言有異無異。亦有異亦無異。非有異非無異。應作是言此定無異。然舍利子不作是說故知彼滅非畢竟無。亦不可言是世俗有。無所依故如前已說。故知滅諦唯勝義有。離二諦外諸聖教中無容說有第三有故。若爾何故言不可論。理但應言此定有異。亦無有過不可論言。但顯不應復推徴義謂此有異義已顯成。不應于中復為徴問以六觸處有諸戲論。六處永滅絕諸戲論。薄伽梵說此謂涅槃。即已顯成別有滅諦又契經說滅界是有由如是等不應復問。或顯慶喜發問無端故。以此言止其所問。謂諸弟子歸投世尊長時精勤修諸梵行。究竟唯為證得涅槃。不應今時復為疑問或彼慶喜作是尋思。六處既無滅依何立。若有六處滅義應無。故寄彼言以申此難。由此故答此不可論。以涅槃中絕戲論故。或應方便別求此經。不可論言所有意趣。理必不可定執涅槃。其體是無同無記事。由此我等於彼所言。定不信依有過失故。彼必應許寂滅涅槃。於二諦中隨一諦攝。然我宗說四皆勝義。諸世俗諦依勝義理。世俗自體為有為無若言是有諦應唯一。若言是無諦應無二此應決定判言是
【現代漢語翻譯】 義。但作是問：『滅（Nirvana，寂滅）與六處（六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）是有區別還是沒有區別？』因此回答說：『這不可戲論。』如果說滅的本體，無論是假是真，都是完全沒有，豈不應該直接回答說『沒有區別』嗎？之所以這樣說，是因為如果畢竟是空無，按照道理都應該這樣說。沒有絲毫的畢竟空無之法，不可斷定說是有區別還是沒有區別，或者說既有區別又沒有區別，或者說非有區別也非沒有區別。應該這樣說：『這一定沒有區別。』然而，舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）沒有這樣說，所以知道那個滅並非畢竟空無。也不可說是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）有，因為它沒有所依，如前面已經說過的那樣。所以知道滅諦（Nirodha-satya，滅苦之真理）唯有勝義諦（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理）才有。在二諦（Two Truths，勝義諦和世俗諦）之外，諸聖教中沒有容許說有第三種有的。如果這樣，為什麼說不可論呢？按道理應該說『這一定有區別』，也沒有過失，說『不可論』，只是爲了顯示不應該再推究探尋其意義，意思是說『這有區別』的意義已經很明顯成立了，不應該再對此進行探尋疑問，因為六觸處（六根與六境接觸產生的感受）有諸多的戲論，而六處永滅則斷絕了所有的戲論。薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）說這叫做涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅），就已經明顯成立了別有滅諦。而且契經（Sutra，佛經）說滅界（Nirodha-dhatu，寂滅之界）是有。由於這些原因，不應該再問。或者顯示阿難（Ananda，佛陀十大弟子之一，以多聞第一著稱）發問沒有緣由，所以用這句話阻止他的提問，意思是說諸弟子歸投世尊（Shakyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）長時精勤地修習諸梵行（Brahma-caryā，清凈行），最終只是爲了證得涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅），不應該現在又提出疑問。或者阿難（Ananda，佛陀十大弟子之一，以多聞第一著稱）這樣尋思：『六處（六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）既然沒有，滅依什麼而立？如果還有六處（六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意），滅的意義應該就沒有。』所以借用他的話來申明這個疑問。因此回答說『這不可論』，因為在涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）中斷絕了戲論的緣故。或者應該方便地另外尋求此經中『不可論』這句話的所有意趣，道理上一定不可執著地認為涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）的本體是空無，如同無記事（Avyākrta，不可記說之事）。因此，我們對於他們所說的，一定不相信，因為有『依』的過失。他們必定應該承認寂滅涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）包含在二諦（Two Truths，勝義諦和世俗諦）中的一個諦中。然而我宗認為四諦（Four Noble Truths，苦、集、滅、道）都是勝義諦（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理），諸世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）依勝義諦（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理）而存在。世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）的自體是有還是沒有？如果說是『有』，那麼諦就應該只有一個。如果說是『無』，那麼諦就不應該有兩個。這應該明確地判定說是 現代漢語譯本
【English Translation】 The meaning. But the question is asked: 'Is there a difference between extinction (Nirvana) and the six sense bases (six roots, namely eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), or is there no difference?' Therefore, the answer is: 'This is not to be speculated upon.' If it is said that the essence of extinction, whether false or real, is completely non-existent, shouldn't the answer be directly 'no difference'? The reason for saying this is that if it is ultimately empty, according to reason, it should be said that way. There is not the slightest bit of ultimately non-existent dharma, and it cannot be definitively said whether there is a difference or no difference, or whether there is both a difference and no difference, or whether there is neither a difference nor no difference. It should be said: 'There is definitely no difference.' However, Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) did not say this, so it is known that that extinction is not ultimately non-existent. Nor can it be said to be conventionally existent (Samvriti-satya), because it has no basis, as has been said before. Therefore, it is known that the truth of extinction (Nirodha-satya) exists only in the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya). Outside of the two truths (Two Truths, Paramartha-satya and Samvriti-satya), there is no allowance in the holy teachings to say that there is a third existence. If so, why is it said that it cannot be discussed? According to reason, it should be said 'There is definitely a difference,' and there is no fault. Saying 'cannot be discussed' is only to show that one should not further investigate and explore its meaning, meaning that the meaning of 'there is a difference' has already been clearly established, and one should not further investigate and question it, because the six sense contacts (feelings arising from the contact of the six roots with the six objects) have many speculations, while the eternal extinction of the six sense bases cuts off all speculations. The Bhagavan (the Buddha's honorific title) said that this is called Nirvana, which has clearly established that there is a separate truth of extinction. Moreover, the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says that the realm of extinction (Nirodha-dhatu) exists. For these reasons, one should not ask again. Or it shows that Ananda's (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known as the foremost in hearing) question has no cause, so this sentence is used to stop his question, meaning that the disciples have turned to the World Honored One (Shakyamuni) and diligently cultivated the Brahma-caryā (pure conduct) for a long time, ultimately only to attain Nirvana, and one should not raise questions now. Or Ananda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known as the foremost in hearing) thought: 'Since the six sense bases (six roots, namely eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) do not exist, what does extinction rely on? If there are still six sense bases (six roots, namely eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), the meaning of extinction should not exist.' Therefore, he used his words to state this question. Therefore, the answer is 'This cannot be discussed,' because speculation is cut off in Nirvana. Or one should conveniently seek the meaning of the sentence 'cannot be discussed' in this Sutra separately. In principle, one must not cling to the idea that the essence of Nirvana is non-existent, like an unrecordable matter (Avyākrta). Therefore, we certainly do not believe what they say, because there is a fault of 'reliance'. They must admit that quiescent Nirvana is included in one of the two truths (Two Truths, Paramartha-satya and Samvriti-satya). However, our school believes that the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, extinction, and path) are all ultimate truths (Paramartha-satya), and all conventional truths (Samvriti-satya) exist based on the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya). Is the self-nature of conventional truth (Samvriti-satya) existent or non-existent? If it is said to be 'existent', then there should only be one truth. If it is said to be 'non-existent', then there should not be two truths. This should be clearly judged to be English version
有。以彼尊者世友說言無倒顯義名是世俗諦。此名所顯義是勝義諦。名是實物如先已辯。豈不已言諦應唯一理實應爾。所以者何非勝義空可名諦故既爾何故立二諦耶即勝義中依少別理。立為世俗非由體異。所以爾者。名是言依。隨世俗情流佈性故。依如此義應作是言諸是世俗必是勝義。有是勝義而非世俗。謂但除名余實有義。即依勝義是有義中。約少分理名世俗諦。約少別理名勝義諦。謂無簡別總相所取。一合相理名世俗諦。若有簡別別相所取。或類或物名勝義諦。如於一體有漏事中。所取果義名為苦諦。所取因義名為集諦。或如一體心心所法。有具六因及四緣性。然依此義名相應因。非即由斯名俱有等。由如是理于大仙尊。所說諦中無有違害。如說。一諦更無第二。諸勝生類于中無諍。有謂異諦頻顯示故。我定說彼非真沙門。謂於世間有諸外道。學窮諸論見仍未決。至佛法中聞說二諦。謂亦不定倍復生疑。世尊為令得決定解。哀愍為說一諦等言。此一諦言總顯聖教所說諦義無第二言是重審決顯諦唯一。何謂一諦故次復言。謂諸勝生類于中無諍者。勝生言顯內法有情。已見諦跡言于中者。顯勝義諦即四聖諦。彼於此諦一切無疑。由此故言于中無諍。此則善順脅尊者言。唯聖教中有苦聖諦。非余亦有乃至廣說。世尊亦說
唯有一道。更無餘道能得清凈。復言究竟唯一無別。然諸世俗依勝義理。有世俗體亦無有諍。以見諦者于諸世間。方域言詞不堅執故。謂彼了達如是諸名。隨世俗情假施設轉。取蘊一分攝於中何所諍。言有謂異諦頻顯示故者。有言顯示有諸外道。謂聲為顯彼情妄。謂以彼所執諦相有乖。而妄謂為我立是諦。頻自顯示言勝義攝異諦聲顯乖于諦義。謂諸聖諦義無乖違苦。真無常非不無常滅。真寂靜非不寂靜。彼所立諦與此相違。于諦義乖故言異諦。為顯因義復說故聲。謂唯佛法中有真聖諦。彼說異諦故知是外道。以彼所說聖諦義乖。故非真沙門定是外道攝。由此後文復作是說。我定說彼非真沙門。以彼所言異真聖諦。故是外道非真沙門。如說。苾芻諸有舍我。所說苦諦別立苦諦。此但有言乃至廣說。說顯示言顯諸外道。持己所執宣暢授他。以妄文詞增益實義。頻言為顯數起異端。別別頒宣所執諦理。此顯外道未證勝義。所說言詞不決定故。由此說彼非真沙門。故佛眾中正師子吼。他論無有梵志沙門。凡所自稱空無實義。以世俗諦亦勝義攝。不違大師所說一諦。即由此義為婆羅門。說真婆羅門必具有三諦。說不殺害一切有情。是諦非虛名第一諦說諸集法皆是滅法。是諦非虛名第二諦。說我我所無處誰物。是諦非虛名第三諦。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯有一道（Ekayana，唯一道路）。更無餘道能得清凈。復言究竟唯一無別。然諸世俗依勝義理（Paramartha-satya，勝義諦）。有世俗體（Samvriti-satya，世俗諦）亦無有諍。以見諦者于諸世間。方域言詞不堅執故。謂彼了達如是諸名。隨世俗情假施設轉。取蘊一分攝於中何所諍。言『有謂異諦頻顯示故』者。有言顯示有諸外道。謂聲為顯彼情妄。謂以彼所執諦相有乖。而妄謂為我立是諦。頻自顯示言勝義攝異諦聲顯乖于諦義。謂諸聖諦義無乖違苦。真無常非不無常滅。真寂靜非不寂靜。彼所立諦與此相違。于諦義乖故言異諦。為顯因義復說『故』聲。謂唯佛法中有真聖諦。彼說異諦故知是外道。以彼所說聖諦義乖。故非真沙門定是外道攝。由此後文復作是說。『我定說彼非真沙門。以彼所言異真聖諦。故是外道非真沙門。』如說。苾芻諸有舍我。所說苦諦別立苦諦。此但有言乃至廣說。說顯示言顯諸外道。持己所執宣暢授他。以妄文詞增益實義。頻言為顯數起異端。別別頒宣所執諦理。此顯外道未證勝義。所說言詞不決定故。由此說彼非真沙門。故佛眾中正師子吼。他論無有梵志沙門。凡所自稱空無實義。以世俗諦亦勝義攝。不違大師所說一諦。即由此義為婆羅門。說真婆羅門必具有三諦。說不殺害一切有情。是諦非虛名第一諦說諸集法皆是滅法。是諦非虛名第二諦。說我我所無處誰物。是諦非虛名第三諦。
【English Translation】 English version There is only one path (Ekayana). There is no other path that can lead to purification. It is further stated that ultimately it is unique and without distinction. However, all worldly matters rely on the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya). There is no dispute that worldly entities (Samvriti-satya) exist. Because those who have seen the truth do not cling to regions, languages, or words in the world. They understand that such names are merely conventional designations that change according to worldly sentiments. Why dispute over taking a portion of the aggregates and including it within? The statement 'because it is said that different truths are frequently displayed' means that it is said that there are other paths that display their delusions. They wrongly believe that their established truth is in accordance with the true nature of reality. They frequently display that the sound of different truths included in the ultimate truth contradicts the meaning of truth. That is, the meaning of the noble truths does not contradict suffering. True impermanence is not non-impermanence, and true tranquility is not non-tranquility. The truth they establish contradicts this, and therefore it is said to be a different truth because it contradicts the meaning of truth. To clarify the reason, the word 'because' is added. It means that only in the Buddha's teachings is there true noble truth. Because they speak of different truths, it is known that they are outside the path. Because the meaning of the noble truths they speak of is contradictory, they are definitely not true ascetics but are included among those outside the path. Therefore, the following text further states, 'I definitely say that they are not true ascetics. Because their words differ from the true noble truths, they are outside the path and not true ascetics.' As it is said, 'Bhikkhus, those who abandon the suffering truth I have spoken and establish a separate suffering truth, this is merely words,' and so on. The word 'display' reveals those outside the path. They hold onto their own views and proclaim them to others, adding false words to increase the true meaning. The word 'frequently' is to show that they frequently create different views, separately proclaiming the truths they hold. This shows that those outside the path have not realized the ultimate truth, and their words are not decisive. Therefore, it is said that they are not true ascetics. Therefore, in the Buddha's assembly, there is a true lion's roar. In other theories, there are no Brahmins or ascetics; all their claims are empty and without real meaning. Because worldly truth is also included in ultimate truth, it does not contradict the one truth spoken by the great teacher. It is with this meaning that the Brahmin is told that a true Brahmin must possess three truths. To say not to harm all sentient beings is a true and not false truth, called the first truth. To say that all conditioned phenomena are subject to cessation is a true and not false truth, called the second truth. To say that there is no place, person, or thing that is 'mine' is a true and not false truth, called the third truth.
以諸先代婆羅門說真修行者有三種諦。說稟祠禮殺生為法。是諦非虛名第一諦。說己所作皆得常果。是諦非虛名第二諦。說己身等屬自在天是諦非虛名第三諦。謂彼先代諸婆羅門施設此三。誑求脫者依之行者空無所獲。佛為遮彼如次說三。以諸世間盲闇所覆。不能簡別所說是非。信婆羅門所傳明論。謂此三種是諦非虛。蔽執修行皆墮惡趣世尊哀愍斥彼言虛。贊己所立。三種名諦。今詳三諦應知為起。三解脫門前加行道。謂第一空緣有情故。第二無愿緣起盡故。第三無相緣相無故。以處誰物名為相故。或即為起三解脫門。或顯加行學無學地。有言此三為顯三蘊。如是三諦隨其所應三聖諦攝。由此定知如是三諦勝義諦攝。言聖諦者為簡余諦故說聖言。謂一切法自相非虛亦得名諦。然成聖性不由覺彼緣自相境所有智生。無力能令入見道故。於法自相得善巧已。別有所覺方成聖性。此所覺諦是諸聖者。同意所許故名聖諦。諸法共相名此所覺。謂覺取蘊苦等相故。覺能生法因等相故。覺彼寂滅滅等相故。覺滅方便道等相故。方得成聖余則不然。不可說言治五部故。所覺聖諦應有五種。即由修習緣四諦道。漸增盛時治修斷故。此四聖諦總體云何。一切有為及諸擇滅以是煩惱聖道境故。染凈因果性差別故。空非擇滅有自體故。正見境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以過去的婆羅門宣稱，真正的修行者有三種真諦。他們說，依照祭祀儀式殺生是正法，這是真實不虛的，稱為第一諦。他們說，自己所做的一切都能得到永恒的果報，這是真實不虛的，稱為第二諦。他們說，自己的身體等都屬於自在天（Ishvara，印度教神祇），這是真實不虛的，稱為第三諦。這些過去的婆羅門設立這三種真諦，欺騙那些尋求解脫的人，使他們依此修行卻一無所獲。 佛陀爲了破斥他們的說法，依次宣說了三種真諦。因為世間被盲昧和黑暗所覆蓋，不能分辨他們所說的是非，相信婆羅門所傳授的明論，認為這三種真諦是真實不虛的。被矇蔽而執著于這些修行，都會墮入惡趣。世尊（Bhagavan，佛的尊稱）哀憫他們，斥責他們的說法是虛妄的，讚揚自己所建立的三種真諦。現在詳細說明這三種真諦，應當知道它們是為發起三解脫門（Three Doors of Liberation）而設的前行道。 第一種是空解脫門（Emptiness），因為緣于有情眾生而生起。第二種是無愿解脫門（Signlessness），因為緣于生起的止息而生起。第三種是無相解脫門（Wishlessness），因為緣于相的空無而生起。因為以處所和事物作為相的緣故。或者，這三種真諦就是爲了發起三解脫門而設。或者，它們是爲了顯示加行位、有學位和無學位而設。有人說，這三種真諦是爲了顯示三蘊（Three Aggregates）。 像這樣，這三種真諦根據其相應的關係，可以被攝入三聖諦（Three Noble Truths）之中。由此可以確定，這三種真諦屬於勝義諦（Ultimate Truth）。說到聖諦，是爲了區別于其他的諦，所以用『聖』這個詞。也就是說，一切法的自性並非虛假，也可以稱為諦。然而，成就聖性並非通過覺察這些自性，因為緣于自性之境所產生的智慧，沒有力量使人進入見道（Path of Seeing）。 只有在對法的自性有了透徹的瞭解之後，再有所覺察，才能成就聖性。這種所覺察的諦，是諸位聖者一致認可的，所以稱為聖諦。諸法的共相就是這種所覺察的內容。也就是說，覺察到蘊的苦等相，覺察到能生法的因等相，覺察到寂滅的滅等相，覺察到滅的方便道等相，才能成就聖性，否則就不能成就。不能說爲了對治五部煩惱（Five Categories of Afflictions）的緣故。 所覺察的聖諦應該有五種，這是由於修習緣於四聖諦（Four Noble Truths）的道，逐漸增長旺盛時，對治修所斷的煩惱的緣故。這四聖諦的總體是什麼呢？一切有為法（Conditioned Phenomena）以及諸擇滅（Selective Cessation），因為它們是煩惱和聖道的境界。染污和清凈的因果性質不同。空無和非擇滅（Non-selective Cessation）有其自體，是正見的境界。
English version The ancient Brahmanas claimed that true practitioners have three truths. They said that performing sacrifices and killing living beings according to ritual is the right law, which is true and not false, called the first truth. They said that everything they do can obtain eternal rewards, which is true and not false, called the second truth. They said that their bodies and so on belong to Ishvara (Hindu deity), which is true and not false, called the third truth. These ancient Brahmanas established these three truths, deceiving those who seek liberation, causing them to practice accordingly but gaining nothing. The Buddha (Bhagavan, title of the Buddha) refuted their claims and successively proclaimed three truths. Because the world is covered by blindness and darkness, unable to distinguish between right and wrong, they believe in the clear treatises taught by the Brahmanas, thinking that these three truths are true and not false. Being blinded and clinging to these practices will lead to evil destinies. The World-Honored One (Bhagavan, title of the Buddha) had compassion for them, rebuking their claims as false and praising the three truths established by himself. Now, let's explain these three truths in detail. It should be known that they are the preliminary practices set up to initiate the Three Doors of Liberation. The first is the Emptiness (Sunyata) Door of Liberation, because it arises from sentient beings. The second is the Signlessness (Animitta) Door of Liberation, because it arises from the cessation of arising. The third is the Wishlessness (Apranihita) Door of Liberation, because it arises from the emptiness of signs. Because places and things are taken as signs. Or, these three truths are set up to initiate the Three Doors of Liberation. Or, they are set up to show the stages of preliminary practice, learning, and non-learning. Some say that these three truths are set up to show the Three Aggregates (Skandhas). In this way, these three truths can be included in the Three Noble Truths (Arya Satyas) according to their corresponding relationships. From this, it can be determined that these three truths belong to the Ultimate Truth (Paramartha Satya). Speaking of the Noble Truths is to distinguish them from other truths, so the word 'Noble' is used. That is to say, the self-nature of all dharmas is not false and can also be called truth. However, achieving nobility is not through perceiving these self-natures, because the wisdom arising from the realm of self-nature does not have the power to lead people into the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga). Only after having a thorough understanding of the self-nature of dharmas, and then having some perception, can one achieve nobility. This perceived truth is unanimously recognized by all the noble ones, so it is called the Noble Truth. The common characteristics of all dharmas are what is perceived. That is to say, perceiving the suffering and other characteristics of the aggregates, perceiving the causes and other characteristics of the dharmas that can arise, perceiving the cessation and other characteristics of cessation, and perceiving the path and other characteristics of the means of cessation, can one achieve nobility, otherwise one cannot. It cannot be said that it is for the sake of counteracting the Five Categories of Afflictions. There should be five kinds of perceived Noble Truths, which is due to the fact that when practicing the path based on the Four Noble Truths (Chatur Arya Satyas), and gradually increasing in strength, one counteracts the afflictions that are to be abandoned through cultivation. What is the totality of these Four Noble Truths? All conditioned phenomena (Samskrta dharmas) and selective cessation (Pratisankhya-nirodha), because they are the realms of afflictions and the noble path. The causal nature of defilement and purity is different. Emptiness and non-selective cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha) have their own nature and are the realm of right view.
【English Translation】 English version The ancient Brahmanas claimed that true practitioners have three truths. They said that performing sacrifices and killing living beings according to ritual is the right law, which is true and not false, called the first truth. They said that everything they do can obtain eternal rewards, which is true and not false, called the second truth. They said that their bodies and so on belong to Ishvara (Hindu deity), which is true and not false, called the third truth. These ancient Brahmanas established these three truths, deceiving those who seek liberation, causing them to practice accordingly but gaining nothing. The Buddha (Bhagavan, title of the Buddha) refuted their claims and successively proclaimed three truths. Because the world is covered by blindness and darkness, unable to distinguish between right and wrong, they believe in the clear treatises taught by the Brahmanas, thinking that these three truths are true and not false. Being blinded and clinging to these practices will lead to evil destinies. The World-Honored One (Bhagavan, title of the Buddha) had compassion for them, rebuking their claims as false and praising the three truths established by himself. Now, let's explain these three truths in detail. It should be known that they are the preliminary practices set up to initiate the Three Doors of Liberation. The first is the Emptiness (Sunyata) Door of Liberation, because it arises from sentient beings. The second is the Signlessness (Animitta) Door of Liberation, because it arises from the cessation of arising. The third is the Wishlessness (Apranihita) Door of Liberation, because it arises from the emptiness of signs. Because places and things are taken as signs. Or, these three truths are set up to initiate the Three Doors of Liberation. Or, they are set up to show the stages of preliminary practice, learning, and non-learning. Some say that these three truths are set up to show the Three Aggregates (Skandhas). In this way, these three truths can be included in the Three Noble Truths (Arya Satyas) according to their corresponding relationships. From this, it can be determined that these three truths belong to the Ultimate Truth (Paramartha Satya). Speaking of the Noble Truths is to distinguish them from other truths, so the word 'Noble' is used. That is to say, the self-nature of all dharmas is not false and can also be called truth. However, achieving nobility is not through perceiving these self-natures, because the wisdom arising from the realm of self-nature does not have the power to lead people into the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga). Only after having a thorough understanding of the self-nature of dharmas, and then having some perception, can one achieve nobility. This perceived truth is unanimously recognized by all the noble ones, so it is called the Noble Truth. The common characteristics of all dharmas are what is perceived. That is to say, perceiving the suffering and other characteristics of the aggregates, perceiving the causes and other characteristics of the dharmas that can arise, perceiving the cessation and other characteristics of cessation, and perceiving the path and other characteristics of the means of cessation, can one achieve nobility, otherwise one cannot. It cannot be said that it is for the sake of counteracting the Five Categories of Afflictions. There should be five kinds of perceived Noble Truths, which is due to the fact that when practicing the path based on the Four Noble Truths (Chatur Arya Satyas), and gradually increasing in strength, one counteracts the afflictions that are to be abandoned through cultivation. What is the totality of these Four Noble Truths? All conditioned phenomena (Samskrta dharmas) and selective cessation (Pratisankhya-nirodha), because they are the realms of afflictions and the noble path. The causal nature of defilement and purity is different. Emptiness and non-selective cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha) have their own nature and are the realm of right view.
故亦是諦攝然非煩惱聖道境故。亦非染凈因果性故。亦非欣厭所行境故。非覺悟彼得成聖故。不預此中聖諦所攝。何緣煩惱不緣彼生。以彼二法是無漏故不能違害有漏法故。謂愛但緣有漏為境。欣無漏法違諸有故。不名為愛是善法欲。若境極能順生貪愛此境遍是煩惱所緣。由愛所緣便於彼滅。及彼滅道不欲疑謗。空非擇滅與此相違。故定不為煩惱境界。豈不於二譬喻等師緣之亦生不欲疑謗。寧說緣彼煩惱不生。非緣彼生無智疑見。障證苦滅及苦滅道。如緣苦等成染污性。如阿羅漢于道路等。亦有無智疑謗現行。豈可說為染污煩惱。是故皆是不染污性。由此說無緣彼煩惱。有說。非謗空非擇滅但謗其名不緣其體。此二唯善俗智境界。于苦等諦何不亦然。是故應知前說無失。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第五十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之三
今應思擇。于聖諦中求真見者初修何行。求見聖諦初業地中。所習行儀極為繁廣。欲遍解者當於眾聖。所集觀行諸論中求。以要言之初修行者。應于解脫具深意樂觀涅槃德背生死過。先應方便親近善友。善友能為眾行本故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，『空』（Śūnyatā，佛教中的空性概念）和『非擇滅』（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力量實現的滅盡）也屬於真諦所包含的範圍，但它們不是煩惱和聖道的境界。因為它們不是染污或清凈的因果性質，也不是引起欣求或厭惡的對象。證悟它們並不能使人成就聖果，所以它們不屬於聖諦所包含的範圍。為什麼煩惱不會緣於它們而生起呢？因為這兩種法是無漏的，不能損害有漏法。也就是說，愛慾只會緣于有漏法作為對象，欣求無漏法是違背各種有漏法的。因此，欣求無漏法不稱為愛，而是善法欲。如果某個境界極易引發貪愛，那麼這個境界普遍是煩惱所緣的。由於愛所緣的境界，人們便會對於該境界的滅盡以及滅盡之道產生不欲、懷疑和誹謗。『空』和『非擇滅』與此相反，所以它們必定不是煩惱的境界。難道不是有人緣于『空』和『非擇滅』，比如譬喻者和外道師，也會產生不欲、懷疑和誹謗嗎？怎麼能說緣於它們不會生起煩惱呢？不是緣於它們會生起無智、懷疑和邪見，從而障礙證得苦滅和苦滅之道嗎？就像緣于苦等諦會成為染污的性質一樣。就像阿羅漢對於道路等，也會有無智、懷疑和誹謗的行為出現，難道可以說這些是染污的煩惱嗎？因此，這些都是不染污的性質。由此可知，說沒有緣于『空』和『非擇滅』而生起的煩惱。有人說，不是誹謗『空』和『非擇滅』的本體，而是誹謗它們的名相，這兩種法只是世俗智慧的境界。那麼對於苦等諦為什麼不能這樣說呢？所以應該知道，前面的說法沒有錯誤。 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十八 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第五十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之三
現在應該思考，在聖諦中尋求真見的人，最初應該修習什麼行為？在尋求證見聖諦的最初階段，所學習的行儀非常廣泛。想要全面瞭解的人，應當在眾多聖者所集結的觀行論著中尋求。簡要來說，最初的修行者，應該對解脫具有深刻的意樂，觀察涅槃的功德，背離生死的過患。首先應該方便地親近善友，因為善友是各種修行的根本。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, 'Emptiness' (Śūnyatā, the Buddhist concept of emptiness) and 'Cessation by Discrimination' (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, cessation achieved through the power of wisdom) are also included within the scope of the Truth, but they are not the realm of afflictions and the Noble Path. Because they are not of the nature of defiled or pure causes and effects, nor are they objects that give rise to seeking or aversion. Awakening to them does not lead to the attainment of sainthood, so they are not included within the scope of the Noble Truths. Why do afflictions not arise in relation to them? Because these two dharmas are unconditioned (anāsrava), and cannot harm conditioned (sāsrava) dharmas. That is to say, craving only takes conditioned dharmas as its object, and seeking unconditioned dharmas is contrary to all conditioned dharmas. Therefore, seeking unconditioned dharmas is not called craving, but is the desire for good dharmas. If a certain realm is extremely likely to give rise to craving, then this realm is universally the object of afflictions. Because of the object of craving, people will have aversion, doubt, and slander towards the cessation of that realm and the path to its cessation. 'Emptiness' and 'Cessation by Discrimination' are the opposite of this, so they are definitely not the realm of afflictions. Is it not the case that some people, in relation to 'Emptiness' and 'Cessation by Discrimination', such as those who use parables and non-Buddhist teachers, also give rise to aversion, doubt, and slander? How can it be said that afflictions do not arise in relation to them? Is it not the case that in relation to them, ignorance, doubt, and wrong views arise, thereby obstructing the attainment of the cessation of suffering and the path to the cessation of suffering? Just as in relation to the Truth of Suffering, etc., it becomes a defiled nature. Just as Arhats, in relation to roads, etc., also have ignorance, doubt, and slander arising, can it be said that these are defiled afflictions? Therefore, these are all of an undefiled nature. From this, it can be known that there are no afflictions arising in relation to 'Emptiness' and 'Cessation by Discrimination'. Some say that it is not the essence of 'Emptiness' and 'Cessation by Discrimination' that is slandered, but their names, and these two dharmas are only the realm of conventional wisdom. Then why can't this be said for the Truth of Suffering, etc.? Therefore, it should be known that the previous statement is without error. Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 58 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 59
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter Six on Discriminating the Worthy and the Saints, Part Three
Now it should be considered, what practices should those who seek true vision in the Noble Truths initially cultivate? In the initial stage of seeking to see the Noble Truths, the practices that are learned are extremely extensive. Those who wish to understand them fully should seek them in the treatises on contemplation compiled by many saints. In short, the initial practitioner should have a deep interest in liberation, observe the virtues of Nirvana, and turn away from the faults of birth and death. First, one should skillfully draw near to good friends, because good friends are the root of all practices.
具聞等力得善友名。譬如良醫于療疾位。先審觀察諸有病者。何等本性如何變異。何所規度有何勢力。何處何時習何成性。何志何失何法所隨。何食何業住何分位。彼從先來串服何藥。次觀諸藥味勢熟德。隨應授與令熱令膩。或令進湯引諸病出。凡所授藥功不唐捐。具悲智尊亦復如是。先觀煩惱重病所逼。初欲習業諸弟子眾。何等本性為貪行耶。廣說乃至為雜行耶。如何變異誰令變耶。為經久住為暫爾耶。令違本性有何德耶。何所規度為求世榮為求出世堅固功德。有何勢力彼所依身。為極堅固堪耐勞苦。獨處閑居專精受行。杜多功德為極懦軟。為居何處有居此處。此德失生處亦順生諸得失。故理須觀察為在何時。有在此時欣樂於此時。亦順生欣樂心故理須觀察或根熟位說名為時。習何成性彼于先來。串習何德今成此性。有何志性為性怯劣為性強勇。堪處閑居為性劬勞。為極勇猛堪能擔荷大劬勞擔。有何過失為增上慢。為被他言之所牽引。為多尋伺為性愚蒙。為多諂曲為性躁擾。為貪敬奉為愛利養。為多邪解為多疑惑。何法所隨為何煩惱。堅所隨逐何可動耶。彼宜何食順益彼身。身依食住故應觀察。彼有何業是先所為令順先修故應觀察住何分位。功德過失隨年位殊。故應觀察彼宜授與。何等法藥為應舍置。為應訶擯為應
贊勵為應誨示。次應觀察諸對治門。隨其所應授與令學。各令獲益功不唐捐。由此世尊契經中說。親近善友名全梵行。行者既為能說正法。善友攝持應修何行。頌曰。
將趣見諦道 應住戒勤修 聞思修所成 謂名俱義境
論曰。諸有發心將趣見諦。應先安住清凈尸羅。然後勤修聞所成等。故世尊說依住尸羅。於二法中能勤修習。謂先安住清凈戒已。複數親近諸瑜伽師。隨瑜伽師教授誡勖。精勤攝受順見諦聞。聞已勤求所聞法義。令師教誡所生慧增。漸勝漸明乃至純熟。非唯於此生喜足心。復於法義自專思擇。如是如是決定慧生。自思為因決慧生已。能勤修習諸煩惱等。自相共相二對治修。今於此中略攝義者。謂修行者住戒勤修。依聞所成慧起思所成慧。依思所成慧起修所成慧。此三慧相差別云何。謂如次緣名俱義境。理實三慧于成滿時。一切皆唯緣義為境。爾時難辯三慧相別。故今且約加行位。辯說聞思修緣名俱義。非唯緣名境有決定慧生故。聞所成慧不但緣名境。然隨師說名句文身故。于義差別有決定慧生。此慧名為聞所成慧。約入方便說但緣名。聞慧成已為知別義。復加精勤自審思擇。欲令思擇無謬失故。復念師教名句文身。由此後時于義差別。生決定慧名思所成。此加行時由思義力。引念名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：應當讚揚和鼓勵他，並教導他。接下來，應當觀察各種對治法門（duì zhì fǎ mén，antidote methods）。根據他的情況，傳授適合他的法門，讓他學習，使他獲得利益，不至於徒勞無功。因此，世尊（Shìzūn，the World-Honored One）在契經（qì jīng，sutra）中說，親近善友（shàn yǒu，virtuous friend）被稱為是完全的梵行（fàn xíng，pure conduct）。修行者既然能夠宣說正法（zhèng fǎ，true Dharma），又受到善友的攝持，應當修習什麼行為呢？頌（sòng，verse）說： 將要趣向見諦之道（jiàn dì zhī dào，path of seeing the truth），應當安住于戒律（jiè lǜ，precepts）並勤奮修習，通過聽聞（wén，hearing）、思惟（sī，thinking）、修習（xiū，meditation）所成就的智慧，分別以名（míng，name）、俱（jù，collection）、義境（yì jìng，meaning of the object）為所緣。 論（lùn，treatise）中說：凡是發心將要趣向見諦的人，應當首先安住于清凈的尸羅（shī luó，śīla，moral conduct/discipline）。然後勤奮修習聽聞所成慧等。所以世尊說，依靠安住于尸羅，能夠勤奮修習兩種法。也就是先安住于清凈的戒律后，再多次親近瑜伽師（yú jiā shī，yogācāra，yoga master）。隨著瑜伽師的教授和告誡，精勤地攝取順應見諦的聽聞。聽聞后，勤奮地尋求所聽聞的法義，使從老師教誡中所產生的智慧增長，逐漸變得殊勝和明瞭，乃至純熟。不要僅僅因此而感到滿足，還要自己專注地思擇法義。像這樣，決定的智慧就會產生。因為自己思擇的原因，決定的智慧產生后，就能勤奮地修習各種煩惱等的自相（zì xiàng，own-characteristic）和共相（gòng xiàng，common-characteristic）這兩種對治法。現在在這裡簡略地概括其意義，就是修行者安住于戒律並勤奮修習，依靠聽聞所成慧生起思惟所成慧，依靠思惟所成慧生起修習所成慧。這三種智慧的差別是什麼呢？就是依次以名、俱、義境為所緣。實際上，這三種智慧在成就圓滿時，一切都只是以義為所緣。那時難以分辨三種智慧的差別。所以現在暫且就加行位（jiā xíng wèi，stage of application）來辨別說明聽聞、思惟、修習所緣的是名、俱、義。不是隻有緣名境才能產生決定的智慧。所以聽聞所成慧不僅僅緣名境，而是隨著老師所說的名句文身（míng jù wén shēn，names, sentences, and syllables），對於意義的差別產生決定的智慧。這種智慧稱為聽聞所成慧。就進入的方便來說，只是緣名。聽聞慧成就后，爲了瞭解不同的意義，再加以精勤，自己審慎地思擇。爲了使思擇沒有謬誤，又憶念老師所教的名句文身。因此，之後對於意義的差別，產生決定的智慧，稱為思惟所成慧。在這個加行位，由於思惟意義的力量，引導憶念名
【English Translation】 English version: One should praise and encourage him, and instruct him. Next, one should observe the various antidote methods (duì zhì fǎ mén). According to his situation, impart the appropriate Dharma gate to him, let him learn, so that he may obtain benefit and not labor in vain. Therefore, the World-Honored One (Shìzūn) said in the sutra (qì jīng), that associating with virtuous friends (shàn yǒu) is called complete pure conduct (fàn xíng). Since the practitioner is able to expound the true Dharma (zhèng fǎ) and is supported by virtuous friends, what conduct should he cultivate? The verse (sòng) says: Those who are about to approach the path of seeing the truth (jiàn dì zhī dào), should abide in precepts (jiè lǜ) and diligently cultivate. The wisdom attained through hearing (wén), thinking (sī), and meditation (xiū), takes name (míng), collection (jù), and the meaning of the object (yì jìng) as its respective objects. The treatise (lùn) says: All those who aspire to approach the seeing of truth, should first abide in pure moral conduct (śīla, shī luó). Then diligently cultivate the wisdom attained through hearing, etc. Therefore, the World-Honored One said that by relying on and abiding in moral conduct, one can diligently cultivate two dharmas. That is, after first abiding in pure precepts, one should frequently associate with yoga masters (yú jiā shī). Following the yoga master's teachings and admonitions, diligently embrace the hearing that accords with seeing the truth. After hearing, diligently seek the meaning of what was heard, so that the wisdom arising from the teacher's instructions increases, gradually becoming superior and clear, until it is pure. Do not merely be content with this, but also focus on contemplating the meaning of the Dharma. In this way, decisive wisdom will arise. Because of one's own contemplation, after decisive wisdom arises, one can diligently cultivate the two antidotes of the own-characteristic (zì xiàng) and common-characteristic (gòng xiàng) of various afflictions, etc. Now, to briefly summarize the meaning here, the practitioner abides in precepts and diligently cultivates, relying on the wisdom attained through hearing to generate the wisdom attained through thinking, and relying on the wisdom attained through thinking to generate the wisdom attained through meditation. What is the difference between these three wisdoms? It is that they respectively take name, collection, and the meaning of the object as their objects. In reality, when these three wisdoms are fully accomplished, all of them only take meaning as their object. At that time, it is difficult to distinguish the differences between the three wisdoms. Therefore, for now, let us distinguish and explain that hearing, thinking, and meditation take name, collection, and meaning as their objects, based on the stage of application (jiā xíng wèi). It is not only by taking name as the object that decisive wisdom can arise. Therefore, the wisdom attained through hearing does not only take name as its object, but following the names, sentences, and syllables (míng jù wén shēn) spoken by the teacher, decisive wisdom arises regarding the differences in meaning. This wisdom is called the wisdom attained through hearing. In terms of the means of entry, it only takes name as its object. After the wisdom of hearing is accomplished, in order to understand different meanings, one further exerts diligence and carefully contemplates. In order to ensure that the contemplation is without error, one also remembers the names, sentences, and syllables taught by the teacher. Therefore, later on, decisive wisdom arises regarding the differences in meaning, which is called the wisdom attained through thinking. In this stage of application, due to the power of contemplating meaning, it guides the recollection of name.
故說緣俱境。思慧成已等引現前。不待名言證義差別。此決定慧名修所成。諸瑜伽師此中立喻。如彩畫者習彩畫時。最初從師敬受畫本。審諦瞻相臨本仿學。數毀數習乃至刮真。然後背本數思數習。為令所習無謬失故。復將比校所仿畫本。令己所造等本或增。不爾所習無增進理。由此後時所作轉勝。無勞觀本隨欲皆成。習三慧法應知亦爾。毗婆沙師復別立喻。如有一類浮深駛水。曾未學者不能離岸。及浮所依曾學未成。能暫舍離去之不遠。恐乏沉溺復還趣岸。或執所依曾善學者。能無勞倦不顧岸依。雖經極深險難洄澓。能免淪沒自在浮渡。如是應知三慧相別。經主謂此思慧不成。謂此既通緣名緣義。如次應是聞修所成。今詳三相無過別者。謂修行者依聞至教。所生勝慧名聞所成。依思正理所生勝慧名思所成。依修等持所生勝慧名修所成。彼由未達毗婆沙意故作是言。然毗婆沙辯三相別意不如是。謂若有慧于加行時。由緣名力引生義解。此所引慧名聞所成。若加行時由思義力引念名解。由此於後生決定慧名思所成。若不待名唯觀于義。起內證慧名修所成。如彼所宗辯此三慧。雖皆決定相無差別。而依至教正理等持。為因不同三相有別。如是我宗辯此三慧成時緣義。相雖無別而依緣名緣俱緣義。加行別故三相有別。且思所
成是思正理。所生決慧為此加行。勢力堅強無有謬失。重念師教名句文身。是思所成加行助伴。約加行說通緣名義。非成滿位亦可通緣。是故於三決慧生位。雖俱緣義相無差別。而加行中有差別故。毗婆沙者約之顯別。既爾思慧非為不成。閑居者言聞所成慧現在前位。輕安光明未遍所依。亦不堅住思慧行位。輕安光明未遍所依。少得堅住修慧行位。定力所引殊勝大種。遍身中故便有殊勝。輕安光明遍滿身中。相續堅住由此行者。所依極輕容貌光鮮。特異常位三慧之相差別如是。余不定位亦有光明。然非皆是聞思慧攝。此中二慧名所成者。是因聞思力所生義。第三修慧名所成者。是即以修為自性義。如言命器食寶所成。諸有欲于修精勤學者。如何凈身器令修速成。頌曰。
俱身心遠離 無不足大欲 謂已得未得 多求名所無 治相違界三 無漏無貪性 四聖種亦爾 前三唯喜足 三生具后業 為治四愛生 我所我事欲 暫息永除故
論曰。身器清凈略由三因。何等謂三因。一身心遠離。二喜足少欲。三住四聖種。謂若欲令修速成者。要先精勤清凈身器。欲令身器得清凈者。要先修習身心遠離。身遠離者。謂遠惡朋心遠離者。謂離惡尋由身心離惡朋尋故。身器清凈心易得定。此二由何易
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：成就來自於對正理的思考。由此產生的決斷智慧是為此而做的加行（指為達到目標所做的準備和努力）。這種智慧力量堅強，不會有謬誤。反覆憶念師父的教導，將名句刻在心中，這是思考所成就的加行助伴。從加行的角度來說，它普遍地關聯著名稱和意義。即使不是在成就圓滿的階段，也可以普遍地關聯。因此，在三種決斷智慧生起的階段，雖然它們所關聯的意義沒有差別，但加行中卻有差別。毗婆沙師（論師）們正是基於這一點來顯明區別。既然如此，思考的智慧並非沒有成就。閑居者說，聞所成慧（通過聽聞佛法而獲得的智慧）現在前的時候，輕安（身心輕快安適）和光明還沒有遍及所依（指身心）。思所成慧（通過思考佛法而獲得的智慧）行位的時候，輕安和光明還沒有遍及所依，只是稍微得到堅固。修所成慧（通過修行而獲得的智慧）行位的時候，由於禪定之力所引發的殊勝大種（指構成身體的元素）遍佈全身，因此便有殊勝的輕安和光明遍滿身中，並且相續不斷地堅固。由此，修行者所依的身心極其輕快，容貌光鮮。這三種智慧的差別就是這樣。其他不定的情況也有光明，但並非都是聞所成慧和思所成慧所攝。這裡，聞所成慧和思所成慧被稱為『所成』，是因為它們是因聽聞和思考的力量而產生的。第三種修所成慧被稱為『所成』，是因為它本身就是以修行為自性的。就像說『命器』、『食』、『寶』所成一樣。那些想要精勤修學的人，應該如何清凈身器，使修行迅速成就呢？頌詞說： 『身心俱遠離，無不足大欲，謂已得未得，多求名所無，治相違界三，無漏無貪性，四聖種亦爾，前三唯喜足，三生具后業，為治四愛生，我所我事欲，暫息永除故。』 論曰：身器的清凈，大致由三個原因造成。哪三個原因呢？一是身心遠離，二是喜足少欲，三是安住於四聖種（四種高尚的生活方式）。如果想要修行迅速成就，就要先精勤地清凈身器。想要身器得到清凈，就要先修習身心遠離。身遠離，是指遠離惡友；心遠離，是指遠離惡念。由於身心遠離惡友和惡念，身器才能清凈，心也容易得到禪定。這二者又通過什麼容易得到呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Achievement comes from thinking about the correct principles. The decisive wisdom that arises from this is the preliminary practice (referring to the preparation and effort made to achieve a goal). This wisdom is strong and free from errors. Repeatedly recalling the teacher's teachings and engraving the famous phrases in the mind are the assisting companions of the preliminary practice achieved through thinking. From the perspective of preliminary practice, it universally relates to names and meanings. Even if it is not in the stage of complete achievement, it can also universally relate. Therefore, in the stages where the three decisive wisdoms arise, although there is no difference in the meanings they relate to, there are differences in the preliminary practices. The Vibhasha masters (commentators) distinguish them based on this point. Since this is the case, the wisdom of thinking is not without achievement. Those who live in seclusion say that when the wisdom attained through hearing (Dharma) arises, lightness and clarity have not yet pervaded the support (referring to the body and mind). When the wisdom attained through thinking (Dharma) is practiced, lightness and clarity have not yet pervaded the support, but are only slightly solidified. When the wisdom attained through cultivation (Dharma) is practiced, due to the excellent elements (referring to the elements that make up the body) induced by the power of meditation pervading the whole body, there is excellent lightness and clarity that fills the body and continuously solidifies. As a result, the practitioner's body and mind are extremely light, and their appearance is radiant. The differences between these three wisdoms are like this. Other uncertain situations also have light, but not all of them are included in the wisdom attained through hearing and the wisdom attained through thinking. Here, the wisdom attained through hearing and the wisdom attained through thinking are called 'attained' because they are produced by the power of hearing and thinking. The third type, the wisdom attained through cultivation, is called 'attained' because it is inherently characterized by cultivation. It's like saying 'life vessel', 'food', and 'treasure' are attained. Those who want to diligently study and practice, how should they purify their body vessel so that practice can be quickly achieved? The verse says: 『Both body and mind are detached, without insatiable desires, referring to what has been obtained and what has not been obtained, seeking much that is without name, treating the three conflicting realms, without outflows and without greed, the four noble lineages are also like this, the first three are content with joy, the three lives possess subsequent karma, to treat the arising of the four loves, the desires for what is mine and my affairs, temporarily cease and are permanently eliminated.』 The treatise says: The purity of the body vessel is roughly caused by three reasons. What are the three reasons? First, detachment of body and mind; second, contentment and few desires; and third, abiding in the four noble lineages (four noble ways of living). If you want practice to be quickly achieved, you must first diligently purify the body vessel. If you want the body vessel to be purified, you must first cultivate detachment of body and mind. Detachment of body refers to staying away from bad friends; detachment of mind refers to staying away from evil thoughts. Because the body and mind are detached from bad friends and evil thoughts, the body vessel can be purified, and the mind can easily attain samadhi (meditative concentration). Through what are these two easily attained?
可成者。由於衣等喜足少欲。言喜足者無不喜足。少欲者無大欲。諸有多求資生具者。晝狎惡朋侶。夜起惡尋思。由此無容令心得定。所無二種差別云何。謂于已得妙多衣等。恨不得此倍妙倍多。即於此中顯等倍勝。更欣欲故名不喜足。若於未得妙多衣等。求得故名大欲。諸所有物足能治苦。若更多求便越善品是此中義。如契經言。隨有所得身安樂者。令心易定及能說法。故有希求治苦物者。是為助道非為過失。故經主言。應作是說于所已得。不妙不多悵望不歡名不喜足。于所未得衣服等事。求妙求多名為大欲不應正理。所以者何。若已得物未能治苦悵望不歡。若都未得能治苦物。希求得者此不障定有何過失。又彈對法所辯相言。豈不更求亦緣未得。此二差別便應不成。理亦不然非對法者。言于已得妙多衣等。更別欣求余所未得。妙多衣等名不喜足。如何說二差別不成。若爾所言有何意趣。謂于已得足能治苦妙多衣等。即於此中顯等倍勝。更生欣欲恨先不得。此衣服等倍妙倍多名不喜足。于已獲得足能治苦。更倍希求方能障定。非於已得未能治苦。更倍希求便能障定。故對法者所說無失。或不喜足雖更希求與大欲殊故無有失。謂先已得諸資生具無所乏少。而更希求如是希求。從於已得心不喜足。所引生故果受因名名不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 可成者：由於對衣服等感到滿足，知足少欲。說到知足，就是沒有不滿足的。說到少欲，就是沒有大欲望。那些有很多需求生活必需品的人，白天親近惡友，夜晚生起惡念。因此，沒有辦法讓心安定下來。 所說的兩種差別是什麼呢？就是對於已經得到的精妙眾多的衣服等，遺憾沒有得到更加精妙更加眾多的。就在這已經得到的衣物中，還想要更好更多，更加欣羨貪求，這叫做不知足。如果對於沒有得到的精妙眾多的衣服等，想要得到，這叫做大欲。凡是擁有的東西足夠用來治療痛苦，如果再貪求更多，就超過了善的範圍，這就是其中的含義。如同契經所說：『隨有所得，身體安樂，就能讓心容易安定，以及能夠說法。』所以，對於希望得到能夠治療痛苦的物品，這是爲了幫助修行，不是過失。 所以經主說，應該這樣說：對於已經得到的，不夠精妙不夠多，感到失望不快樂，這叫做不知足。對於沒有得到的衣服等事物，追求精妙追求眾多，這叫做大欲，這不合道理。為什麼呢？如果已經得到的物品不能夠治療痛苦，感到失望不快樂；如果完全沒有得到能夠治療痛苦的物品，希望得到，這不會障礙禪定，有什麼過失呢？ 另外，彈對法（論辯者）所辯論的相說：難道不是進一步的追求也是緣于未得到嗎？這兩種差別就應該不能成立。道理也不是這樣，不是對法者說對於已經得到的精妙眾多的衣服等，還另外欣求其餘沒有得到的精妙眾多的衣服等，叫做不知足。怎麼能說兩種差別不能成立呢？如果這樣說，有什麼意義呢？就是對於已經得到的足夠用來治療痛苦的精妙眾多的衣服等，就在這已經得到的衣物中，還想要更好更多，更加欣羨貪求，遺憾先前沒有得到這些更加精妙更加眾多的衣服等，這叫做不知足。對於已經獲得的足夠用來治療痛苦的物品，更加倍地希望得到，才能障礙禪定。不是對於已經得到的不能治療痛苦的物品，更加倍地希望得到，就能障礙禪定。所以對法者所說沒有過失。或者不知足雖然更加希望得到，與大欲不同，所以沒有過失。就是先前已經得到各種生活必需品，沒有什麼缺乏，而更加希望得到，這樣的希望得到，是從對於已經得到的心不喜足所引發產生的，所以用結果來命名原因，叫做不知足。
【English Translation】 English version What can be accomplished is due to contentment and few desires regarding clothing, etc. Speaking of contentment, it means having no discontent. Speaking of few desires, it means having no great desires. Those who have many needs for livelihood items associate with bad companions during the day and generate evil thoughts at night. Therefore, there is no way to allow the mind to become stable. What are the two kinds of differences mentioned? It is regretting not having obtained even more exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., despite already having obtained exquisite and numerous ones. Within these already obtained items, one desires even better and more, further admiring and craving, which is called 'not being content.' If one seeks to obtain exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., that have not yet been obtained, this is called 'great desire.' If what one possesses is sufficient to cure suffering, seeking more than that exceeds the realm of goodness; this is the meaning here. As the sutra says, 'Whatever one obtains, if the body is comfortable, it makes the mind easy to stabilize and able to teach.' Therefore, having the desire to obtain things that can cure suffering is to aid the path, not a fault. Therefore, the sutra master says that one should say: 'Being disappointed and unhappy with what one has already obtained, which is not exquisite or numerous enough, is called 'not being content.' Seeking exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., that have not yet been obtained is called 'great desire,' which is unreasonable. Why? If the items already obtained cannot cure suffering, one feels disappointed and unhappy; if one has not obtained items that can cure suffering at all, desiring to obtain them does not obstruct samadhi (定, meditative concentration), so what fault is there?' Furthermore, the debater argues that further seeking also arises from what has not been obtained. These two differences should not be established. The reasoning is not so; it is not that the debater says that desiring other exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., that have not been obtained, in addition to the exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., that have already been obtained, is called 'not being content.' How can one say that the two differences cannot be established? If that is the case, what is the meaning? It means that with regard to the exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., that have already been obtained and are sufficient to cure suffering, one desires even better and more within these already obtained items, further admiring and craving, regretting not having obtained these even more exquisite and numerous clothes, etc., earlier, which is called 'not being content.' For what has already been obtained and is sufficient to cure suffering, desiring even more obstructs samadhi. It is not that desiring even more of what has already been obtained but cannot cure suffering obstructs samadhi. Therefore, what the debater says is without fault. Or, although 'not being content' involves further desire, it is different from 'great desire,' so there is no fault. It means that one has already obtained various necessities of life and lacks nothing, but one desires even more. Such desire arises from the mind's discontent with what has already been obtained, so the result is used to name the cause, and it is called 'not being content.'
喜足。于先未得諸資生具。心無所顧過量希求。如是希求名為大欲。二種差別其相如是。喜足少欲能治此故。與此相違應知相別。謂治不喜足不喜足相。違是喜足相能治大欲。大欲相違是少欲相是于已得能治苦物。不更希求名為喜足。于所未得能治苦物。不過量求名少欲義。喜足少欲界系通三。亦有越三無漏攝者。謂欲界系善心相應。喜足少欲是欲界系二界無漏例此應說。所治二種唯欲界系。以何證知色無色界亦有能治喜足少欲。以現見有生在欲界。從色無色等引起時。所治二種現行遠故。能治二種現行增故。已說喜足少欲別相二種通相。所謂無貪以二俱能對治貪故。所治通相所謂欲貪。聖種應知如能治說。謂亦通三界無漏是無貪。如無色中雖無怨境。而亦得有無瞋善根。故無色中雖無衣等。而亦得有無貪善根。如彼不貪身亦不貪資具故。無色界具四聖種受欲聖者。于聖種中有阿世耶。而無加行眾聖種故名為聖種。聖眾皆從此四生故。展轉承嗣次第不絕。前為后種世所極成。眾聖法身皆從於衣生。喜足等力所引起。是聖族姓得聖種名。四中前三體唯喜足。謂于衣服飲食臥具。隨所得中皆生喜足。此三喜足即三聖種。無貪善根有多品類。于中若治不喜足貪。此乃名為前三聖種。第四聖種謂樂斷修斷。謂離系修。謂聖道樂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 喜足（知足）是指對於尚未獲得的各種生活必需品，內心不會過度地貪求，不會超出自己所需的量。像這樣過度的貪求就叫做『大欲』。喜足和『大欲』這兩種狀態的差別就像上面所說的那樣。喜足和少欲能夠對治『大欲』，與此相反的狀態就應該知道是『不喜足』。也就是說，能夠對治『不喜足』的是『喜足』，『不喜足』的相反狀態是『喜足』；能夠對治『大欲』的是『少欲』，『大欲』的相反狀態是『少欲』。對於已經獲得的、能夠對治痛苦的物品，不再進一步貪求，這叫做『喜足』。對於尚未獲得的、能夠對治痛苦的物品，不過分地貪求，這叫做『少欲』的含義。 『喜足』和『少欲』所包含的範圍遍及三界（欲界、色界、無色界），也有超出三界、屬於無漏的範疇。例如，欲界所繫縛的、與善心相應的『喜足』和『少欲』，就屬於欲界所繫縛。色界、無色界和無漏的『喜足』和『少欲』，可以依此類推。而『大欲』和『不喜足』這兩種狀態，則僅僅屬於欲界所繫縛。 用什麼來證明在色界和無色界中也有能夠對治『大欲』和『不喜足』的『喜足』和『少欲』呢？因為我們能夠看到，有些眾生雖然生在欲界，但他們的（喜足和少欲）是從色界或無色界等更高層次的境界所引發的。這是因為『大欲』和『不喜足』這兩種狀態，在這些眾生身上並不明顯；而『喜足』和『少欲』這兩種狀態，在他們身上卻更加明顯。 上面已經分別說明了『喜足』和『少欲』各自的特點，現在來說明這二者的共同特點，那就是『無貪』，因為二者都能夠對治貪慾。而它們所要對治的共同目標，就是『欲貪』。 『聖種』（聖人的種性）應該像上面所說的『能治』（喜足和少欲）那樣理解，也就是說，也遍及三界和無漏，都屬於『無貪』。就像在無色界中，雖然沒有怨恨的對象，但也可能有不嗔恨的善根一樣；所以在無色界中，雖然沒有衣服等資生之物，但也可能有不貪婪的善根。就像他們不貪戀自己的身體，也不貪戀各種資生之物一樣。 沒有生活必需品，卻具備四種聖種，享受生活卻能符合聖人的標準，這樣的人，在聖種中具有『阿世耶』（習性），但沒有後天的努力，所以被稱為『聖種』。聖眾都是從這四種聖種中產生的，輾轉相承，次第不斷。前一種聖種是后一種聖種的根基，這是世間普遍認可的道理。眾聖的法身都是從對衣服的喜足等力量所引發的。這就是聖人的族姓，所以被稱為『聖種』。 在這四種聖種中，前三種的本體都是『喜足』，也就是對於衣服、飲食、臥具，無論得到什麼都感到滿足。這三種『喜足』就是三種聖種。『無貪』的善根有很多種，其中如果能夠對治『不喜足』的貪慾，這就叫做前三種聖種。 第四種聖種是指樂於斷除煩惱和修習聖道。『斷』是指脫離束縛，『修』是指修習聖道，而『樂』則是指樂於這樣做。
【English Translation】 English version Contentment (Santuṣṭi). Regarding the various necessities of life that have not yet been obtained, the mind does not excessively crave or desire beyond what is needed. Such excessive craving is called 'great desire'. The difference between contentment and 'great desire' is as described above. Contentment and having few desires can counteract 'great desire'; the opposite of this should be understood as 'non-contentment'. That is, what can counteract 'non-contentment' is 'contentment', and the opposite of 'non-contentment' is 'contentment'; what can counteract 'great desire' is 'having few desires', and the opposite of 'great desire' is 'having few desires'. Regarding things already obtained that can alleviate suffering, not seeking further is called 'contentment'. Regarding things not yet obtained that can alleviate suffering, not seeking excessively is the meaning of 'having few desires'. The scope of 'contentment' and 'having few desires' extends throughout the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), and there are also instances that transcend the three realms and belong to the unconditioned (anāsrava) category. For example, 'contentment' and 'having few desires' that are bound to the desire realm and correspond to wholesome mind belong to the desire realm. 'Contentment' and 'having few desires' in the form realm, formless realm, and unconditioned realm can be inferred similarly. However, the two states of 'great desire' and 'non-contentment' are only bound to the desire realm. How do we know that in the form realm and formless realm there are also 'contentment' and 'having few desires' that can counteract 'great desire' and 'non-contentment'? Because we can see that some beings, although born in the desire realm, have their (contentment and few desires) arising from higher realms such as the form realm or formless realm. This is because the two states of 'great desire' and 'non-contentment' are not obvious in these beings; while the two states of 'contentment' and 'having few desires' are more obvious in them. The individual characteristics of 'contentment' and 'having few desires' have been explained above. Now, let's explain the common characteristic of these two, which is 'non-greed' (alobha), because both can counteract greed. And their common target to be counteracted is 'desire-greed' (kāma-rāga). The 'noble lineage' (ārya-vaṃśa) should be understood like the 'counteracting factors' (contentment and few desires) mentioned above, that is, it also extends throughout the three realms and the unconditioned realm, and all belong to 'non-greed'. Just as in the formless realm, although there is no object of resentment, there may also be wholesome roots of non-hatred; so in the formless realm, although there are no necessities of life such as clothing, there may also be wholesome roots of non-greed. Just as they are not attached to their own bodies, nor are they attached to various necessities of life. Having no necessities of life but possessing the four noble lineages, enjoying life but being able to conform to the standards of the noble ones, such people have 'āśaya' (habitual tendencies) in the noble lineages, but without acquired effort, so they are called 'noble lineage'. The noble assembly (ārya-saṃgha) all arise from these four noble lineages, passing on in succession without interruption. The former noble lineage is the foundation of the latter noble lineage, which is a universally recognized principle in the world. The dharma-kāya (body of dharma) of all noble ones is all aroused from the power of contentment with clothing, etc. This is the lineage of the noble ones, so it is called 'noble lineage'. Among these four noble lineages, the essence of the first three is all 'contentment', that is, being content with whatever one obtains in terms of clothing, food, and bedding. These three 'contentments' are the three noble lineages. There are many kinds of wholesome roots of 'non-greed', among which, if one can counteract the greed of 'non-contentment', this is called the first three noble lineages. The fourth noble lineage refers to being delighted in abandoning afflictions and cultivating the noble path. 'Abandoning' (prahāṇa) refers to being free from bondage, 'cultivating' (bhāvanā) refers to cultivating the noble path, and 'delight' (rati) refers to being delighted in doing so.
。謂于彼情深欣慕。以樂斷及脩名樂斷。修即是欣慕滅及道義。或樂斷之脩名樂斷。修即是欣慕滅之道義為證惑滅樂修道故。由此能治有無有貪故此亦以無貪為性。豈不第四亦能治瞋等。則應亦以無瞋等為性非無此義。然以前三為資糧故。前三唯是無貪性故。此亦自能對治貪故從顯偏說。何緣唯立喜足為聖種非少欲耶。以少欲者容於衣等物有希求故。謂有意樂性下劣者。于未得境不敢多求。設已得多容求不歇。見喜足者少有所得。尚不更求。況復多得。故唯喜足建立聖種。或為遮止苦行者欲。不說少欲以為聖種。非彼外道心有勝欲。恒有劣欲熏相續故或隨所得生歡喜心。不更欣求名為喜足。斷樂欲樂此為最勝。欲界有情多樂欲樂。此樂欲樂違出家心。于離惑中令心闇鈍。能障梵行靜慮現前。為過最深喜足能治。故唯喜足建立聖種。非於未得多衣等中。起希求時心生歡喜。何況于少是故少欲。于能對治樂欲樂中。非最勝故不立聖種。緣衣服等所生喜足。如何可說是無漏耶。誰言如是喜足是無漏。若爾聖種寧皆通無漏。由彼增上所生聖道。彼所引故從彼為名。故言聖種皆通無漏。不作是言緣衣服等。所有喜足皆通無漏。少欲無漏準此應釋。謂彼增上所生聖道。彼所引故從彼為名。非聖道生緣衣等境。世尊何故說四聖種。以
諸弟子舍俗生具。及俗事業歸佛出家。為彼顯示于佛聖法。毗奈耶中有能助道生具事業。謂有厭離生死居家。出家求脫有何生具。于隨所得衣服等中深生喜足。作何事業深樂斷修。異此無能證涅槃故。何緣唯四不增不減齊此滿足聖生因故。謂聖生因略有二種。一棄捨過。二攝持德。如次即是前三第四。是故唯四不增不減。或聞思修所成諸善。皆是聖種解脫依故。然為對治四種愛生。是故世尊略說四種。以契經說有四愛生。故契經言。苾芻諦聽愛因衣服。應生時生應住時住應執時執。如是愛因飲食臥具。及有無有皆如是說。為治此四故唯說四聖種。于藥喜足何非聖種。不說于彼有愛生故。為治愛生建立聖種。經唯說有四種愛生。是故於藥不立聖種。或即攝在前三中故。謂藥有在衣服中攝。有在飲食中攝有在臥具中攝。故於藥喜足不別立聖種。或若於中引憍等過。對治彼故建立聖種于藥無引憍等過生。故聖種無于藥喜足。或一切人皆受用者。于彼喜足可立聖種。非彼尊者縛矩羅等。曾無有病受用藥故。或一切時應受用者。于彼喜足可立聖種。非一切時受用藥故。或醫方論亦見說有于藥喜足。毗奈耶中方見說有。衣等喜足聖種唯在內法有故。有言雖有于藥喜足而不建立為聖種者。諸藥有能順梵行故。謂世現見樂學戒者。于藥
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸位弟子捨棄世俗的生計用具，以及世俗的事業，歸依佛陀出家。爲了他們開示佛陀神聖的教法。《毗奈耶》（Vinaya，戒律）中，有什麼能夠幫助修道的生計用具和事業？就是厭倦生死和居家生活，出家尋求解脫的人，對於隨手得到的衣服等物，深深地感到喜悅和滿足。做什麼事業能夠深深地喜愛斷除煩惱和修行？如果不是這樣，就無法證得涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。 為什麼只有四種聖種，不多也不少，剛好滿足神聖的生計所需？因為神聖的生計所需，大致有兩種：一是捨棄過失，二是攝取功德。依次就是前面的三種和第四種。所以只有四種，不多也不少。或者說，通過聽聞、思考、修行所成就的各種善行，都是神聖的種子，是解脫的依靠。 然而，爲了對治四種因愛而生的執著，所以世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）簡略地說有四種聖種。因為契經（Sutra，佛經）中說有四種因愛而生的執著。所以契經上說：『比丘（Bhiksu，出家男眾），仔細聽著，因為對衣服的愛，應該生起時就生起，應該安住時就安住，應該執著時就執著。』像這樣，因為對飲食、臥具，以及有和沒有的愛，都像這樣說。爲了對治這四種愛，所以只說四種聖種。 對於藥物的喜悅和滿足，為什麼不是聖種？因為沒有說對於藥物有因愛而生的執著。爲了對治因愛而生的執著，才建立聖種。經文中只說了四種因愛而生的執著，所以對於藥物不建立聖種。或者說，藥物已經包含在前面的三種之中了。有的藥物包含在衣服中，有的包含在飲食中，有的包含在臥具中。所以對於藥物的喜悅和滿足，不另外建立聖種。 或者說，如果在其中會引起驕慢等過失，爲了對治這些過失，才建立聖種。對於藥物沒有引起驕慢等過失的產生，所以聖種中沒有對於藥物的喜悅和滿足。或者說，如果一切人都會受用的東西，對於它的喜悅和滿足可以建立為聖種。但是尊者縛矩羅（Bakula）等，從來沒有生病而受用藥物。 或者說，如果一切時候都應該受用的東西，對於它的喜悅和滿足可以建立為聖種。但是不是一切時候都受用藥物。或者說，在醫方論中也看到有對於藥物的喜悅和滿足，在《毗奈耶》（Vinaya，戒律）中才看到有對於衣服等的喜悅和滿足。聖種只存在於內法之中。 有人說，即使有對於藥物的喜悅和滿足，也不建立為聖種，是因為各種藥物能夠順應梵行。世間現在看到喜歡學習戒律的人，對於藥物...
【English Translation】 English version Disciples renounce their worldly livelihoods and possessions, and their worldly affairs, taking refuge in the Buddha and becoming monks. For them, what in the Vinaya (Vinaya, monastic discipline) can aid the path with regards to livelihood and activities? It is that those who are weary of birth, death, and household life, and who have left home seeking liberation, should find deep joy and contentment in whatever clothing and other necessities they obtain. What activities should they deeply cherish: the cessation of afflictions and the practice of meditation? Without this, one cannot attain Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation). Why are there only four Noble Lineages, neither more nor less, just enough to fulfill the needs of a holy life? Because the needs of a holy life are roughly of two kinds: abandoning faults and embracing virtues. In order, these are the first three and the fourth. Therefore, there are only four, neither more nor less. Or rather, all the virtues accomplished through hearing, thinking, and meditating are holy seeds, the basis for liberation. However, in order to counteract the four kinds of attachments born of love, the World-Honored One (Śākyamuni, the Buddha) briefly spoke of four Noble Lineages. Because the Sutras (Sutra, discourses of the Buddha) say that there are four kinds of attachments born of love. Therefore, the Sutras say: 'Bhiksus (Bhiksu, a Buddhist monk), listen carefully, because of love for clothing, it should arise when it should arise, abide when it should abide, and be clung to when it should be clung to.' Likewise, love for food, bedding, and existence or non-existence is spoken of in the same way. To counteract these four loves, only four Noble Lineages are spoken of. Why is contentment with medicine not a Noble Lineage? Because it is not said that there is attachment born of love for medicine. Noble Lineages are established to counteract attachments born of love. The Sutras only speak of four kinds of attachments born of love, so contentment with medicine is not established as a Noble Lineage. Or rather, medicine is already included in the first three. Some medicines are included in clothing, some in food, and some in bedding. Therefore, contentment with medicine is not separately established as a Noble Lineage. Or rather, if something can lead to faults such as arrogance, Noble Lineages are established to counteract those faults. Medicine does not lead to the arising of faults such as arrogance, so contentment with medicine is not included in the Noble Lineages. Or rather, if something is used by everyone, contentment with it can be established as a Noble Lineage. But the Venerable Bakula (Bakula), for example, never used medicine because he was never sick. Or rather, if something should be used at all times, contentment with it can be established as a Noble Lineage. But medicine is not used at all times. Or rather, contentment with medicine is also seen in medical treatises, while contentment with clothing, etc., is only seen in the Vinaya (Vinaya, monastic discipline). Noble Lineages only exist within the inner Dharma. Some say that even though there is contentment with medicine, it is not established as a Noble Lineage because various medicines can accord with pure conduct. It is now seen in the world that those who enjoy learning the precepts, with regard to medicine...
喜足障梵行故。或佛為欲暫息永除我我所事欲故說四聖種。謂為暫息我所事欲故說前三聖種為永滅除及我事欲故說第四聖種。經主於此自作釋言。我所事者。謂衣服等。我事者。謂自身緣彼貪名為欲。若作此釋義不異前。頌中不應別為文句。與前所說治四愛生。言雖有殊義無別故。由此我部毗婆沙師。更約異門釋此文句。我所我執立以欲名。謂為暫時息我所執。故世尊說前三聖種。即于衣等所生喜足。及彼增上所引聖道。為永滅除及我事執。故世尊說第四聖種。即樂斷修及彼增上。所引聖道皆名聖種。此門意顯令有身見。暫息永除說四聖種。如是已說將趣見諦所應修行及修行已。為修速成凈治身器。既集如是聖道資糧。欲正入修由何門入。頌曰。
入修要二門 不凈觀息念 貪尋增上者 如次第應修
論曰。諸有情類行別眾多。故入修門亦有多種。然彼多分依二門入。一不凈觀。二持息念。故唯此二名曰要門。為諸有情入皆由二。不爾如次貪尋增者。謂貪增者入依初門。尋增上者入依息念。如非一病一藥能除。就近治門說不凈觀。能治貪病非不治余。息念治尋應知亦爾。然持息念緣無差別微細境故。所緣系屬自相續故。非如不凈觀緣多外境故。能止亂尋既已總說。貪尋增者入修如次。由前二門此中先
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為對梵行感到滿足而產生障礙。或者佛陀爲了暫時止息和永遠去除對『我』和『我所』的貪求，宣說了四聖種。爲了暫時止息對『我所』的貪求，宣說了前三種聖種；爲了永遠滅除對『我』和『我』的貪求，宣說了第四種聖種。經論的作者在這裡自己解釋說：『我所』指的是衣服等物，『我』指的是自身，因緣于這些而產生的貪愛就叫做『欲』。如果這樣解釋，意義和前面所說就沒有區別。頌文中不應該另外為此設立文句，因為它和前面所說的對治四種愛生的意義沒有差別。因此，我們有部的毗婆沙師，從另一個角度解釋這段文句：把『我所』和『我執』都稱為『欲』。爲了暫時止息對『我所』的執著，世尊宣說了前三種聖種，也就是對於衣服等物所產生的喜足，以及由此增上所引發的聖道。爲了永遠滅除對『我』和『我事』的執著，世尊宣說了第四種聖種，也就是樂於斷除煩惱的修行以及由此增上所引發的聖道，這些都叫做聖種。這個角度的意義在於顯示，爲了讓有身見暫時止息和永遠去除，宣說了四聖種。像這樣已經說完了將要趣向見諦所應該修行的，以及修行以後，爲了讓修行迅速成就，清凈身器。既然已經積聚了這樣的聖道資糧，想要正式進入修行，應該從哪個門徑進入呢？頌文說： 『進入修行的主要有兩個門徑：不凈觀和持息念。對於貪慾和尋思增上的人，應該按照次第修習。』 論述說：眾生的行為類別有很多種，所以進入修行的門徑也有很多種。然而，其中大部分是依靠這兩個門徑進入的：一個是不凈觀，一個是持息念。所以只有這兩個被稱為『要門』，因為眾生進入修行大多由此二門。如果不是這樣，那麼對於貪慾增上的人，就應該依靠第一個門徑（不凈觀）進入；對於尋思增上的人，就應該依靠持息念進入。正如一種疾病不能只用一種藥物來去除一樣，只是就最接近的對治方法來說，不凈觀能夠對治貪慾的疾病，但並非不能對治其他的疾病。持息唸對治尋思，也應該知道是同樣的道理。然而，持息念所緣的境界沒有差別而且非常微細，所緣的境界系屬於自身的相續，不像不凈觀所緣的是很多外在的境界。既然已經總的說了，貪慾和尋思增上的人進入修行應該按照次第，通過前面的兩個門徑，這裡先說。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the hindrance caused by contentment with ascetic practices (brahmacarya). Or, the Buddha spoke of the Four Noble Lineages (catu ārya vaṃśa) because he wished to temporarily cease and permanently eliminate the desire for 'self' and 'what belongs to self' (ātma and ātmiya). To temporarily cease the desire for 'what belongs to self,' he spoke of the first three Noble Lineages; to permanently eliminate the desire for 'self' and 'what belongs to self,' he spoke of the fourth Noble Lineage. The author of the scripture here explains himself, saying: 'What belongs to self' refers to things like clothing, etc. 'Self' refers to one's own body; the craving that arises from these is called 'desire'. If explained in this way, the meaning is no different from what was said before. The verse should not separately establish a sentence for this, because its meaning is no different from what was said before about counteracting the four kinds of arising love. Therefore, the Vaibhāṣika masters of our school explain this sentence from a different perspective: 'What belongs to self' and 'self-grasping' are both established as 'desire'. To temporarily cease the clinging to 'what belongs to self,' the World-Honored One spoke of the first three Noble Lineages, which are contentment with things like clothing, and the noble path that arises from this increase. To permanently eliminate the clinging to 'self' and 'self-related matters,' the World-Honored One spoke of the fourth Noble Lineage, which is the practice of delighting in abandonment and the noble path that arises from this increase; all of these are called Noble Lineages. The meaning of this perspective is to show that the Four Noble Lineages were spoken to temporarily cease and permanently eliminate the view of a self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi). Having thus spoken of what should be practiced to approach the realization of truth (darśana-satya), and after practice, to quickly accomplish practice and purify the vessel of the body. Since such accumulations of the resources of the noble path have been gathered, from which gate should one enter to formally enter practice? The verse says: 'There are two essential gates for entering practice: the contemplation of impurity (aśubha-bhāvanā) and mindfulness of breathing (ānāpānasmṛti). Those with increased greed (rāga) and discursive thought (vitarka) should practice in that order.' The treatise says: The types of beings are numerous and diverse, so there are also many gates for entering practice. However, most of them enter through these two gates: one is the contemplation of impurity, and the other is mindfulness of breathing. Therefore, only these two are called 'essential gates,' because most beings enter practice through these two. If this is not the case, then those with increased greed should enter relying on the first gate (contemplation of impurity); those with increased discursive thought should enter relying on mindfulness of breathing. Just as one disease cannot be cured by only one medicine, it is only in terms of the closest remedy that the contemplation of impurity can cure the disease of greed, but it is not that it cannot cure other diseases. It should be understood that mindfulness of breathing is the same for curing discursive thought. However, because mindfulness of breathing focuses on an object that is undifferentiated and very subtle, and the object of focus belongs to one's own continuum, it is not like the contemplation of impurity, which focuses on many external objects. Since it has already been generally said that those with increased greed and discursive thought should enter practice in that order, through the previous two gates, here we will first speak of...
應辯不凈觀。如是觀相云何。頌曰。
為通治四貪 且辯觀骨鎖 廣至海復略 名初習業位 除足至頭半 名為已熟修 繫心在眉間 名超作意位
論曰。修不凈觀正為治貪。然貪差別略有四種。一顯色貪。二形色貪。三妙觸貪。四供奉貪。對治四貪依二思擇。一觀內尸。二觀外尸。利根初依前。鈍根初依后。謂利根者先於內身。皮為邊際足上頂下。周遍觀察令心厭患。為欲伏治顯色貪者。應專隨念內身份中。膿血脂精涎洟髓腦。大小便等變異顯色。及應隨念眾病所生。內身皮上變異顯色。黃白青黑如雲如煙。斑駁黧黯不明不凈。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣顯色貪。以知此身為如是等。非愛顯色所依止處。故於一切皆得離染。為欲伏治形色貪者。應別觀察諸內身支。是發毛等三十六物。聚集安立和合所成。離此都無毛等形色。復以勝解分割身支。為二或多散擲于地。種種禽獸爭共食啖。骨肉零落支體分離。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣形色貪。為欲伏治妙觸貪者。應以勝解除去皮肉。唯觀骸骨澀如瓦礫。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣妙觸貪。為欲伏治供奉貪者。應以勝解觀察內身。如眠醉悶顛癇病等。不能自在運動身支。如老病時或至未至。被如是事纏縛其身。又觀內身不自在行。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應辯論不凈觀。那麼，這種觀想的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
『爲了普遍對治四種貪慾，首先辨析觀想骨鎖。 從廣闊到大海再到簡略，這被稱為初習業位。 從去除腳部到頭部一半，這被稱為已熟修位。 將心繫在眉間，這被稱為超作意位。』
論述：修習不凈觀正是爲了對治貪慾。然而，貪慾的差別略有四種：一是顯色貪（對顏色的貪戀），二是形色貪（對形狀的貪戀），三是妙觸貪（對美妙觸感的貪戀），四是供奉貪（對供養和服侍的貪戀）。對治這四種貪慾，依賴於兩種思擇：一是觀想內在的屍體，二是觀想外在的屍體。利根之人最初依賴前者，鈍根之人最初依賴後者。所謂利根之人，首先對於自身，以面板為邊界，從腳向上到頭頂向下，周遍觀察，使內心厭惡。爲了伏除和對治顯色貪，應當專注于隨念自身內部的膿、血、脂肪、精液、唾液、鼻涕、腦髓、大小便等變異的顏色，以及應當隨念各種疾病所生的、自身面板上變異的顏色，如黃、白、青、黑，如雲、如煙，斑駁、黧黑、黯淡、不明、不凈。由此使內心極度產生厭惡，便能伏除和對治緣于顯色的貪慾。因為知道此身是如是等等，不是可愛顏色的依止之處，所以對於一切都能遠離染著。爲了伏除和對治形色貪，應當分別觀察自身內部的各個部分，是頭髮、毛髮等三十六種不凈之物聚集安立、和合所成的。離開這些，就都沒有毛髮等的形狀和顏色。再以殊勝的理解分割身體的各個部分，分成兩份或多分，散落在地上，各種禽獸爭相吞食，骨肉零落，肢體分離。由此使內心極度產生厭惡，便能伏除和對治緣于形色的貪慾。爲了伏除和對治妙觸貪，應當以殊勝的理解除去面板和肌肉，只觀察骸骨，粗澀如瓦礫。由此使內心極度產生厭惡，便能伏除和對治緣于妙觸的貪慾。爲了伏除和對治供奉貪，應當以殊勝的理解觀察自身，如睡眠、醉酒、昏迷、癲癇等狀態，不能自在地運動身體的各個部分，如衰老、生病時，或者將要到來、尚未到來時，被這些事情纏縛其身。又觀察自身不能自主地行動。
【English Translation】 English version: One should discuss the contemplation of impurity (不凈觀, Bu Jing Guan). What are the characteristics of this contemplation? The verse says:
'To universally cure the four types of greed, first discuss contemplating the skeleton (骨鎖, Gu Suo).' 'From broad to the ocean and then to concise, this is called the initial stage of practice (初習業位, Chu Xi Ye Wei).' 'From removing the feet up to half of the head, this is called the stage of accomplished practice (已熟修位, Yi Shu Xiu Wei).' 'Focusing the mind between the eyebrows, this is called the stage of transcending intention (超作意位, Chao Zuo Yi Wei).'
Discussion: Cultivating the contemplation of impurity is precisely for curing greed. However, the differences in greed are roughly four types: first, greed for attractive colors (顯色貪, Xian Se Tan); second, greed for attractive forms (形色貪, Xing Se Tan); third, greed for pleasant touch (妙觸貪, Miao Chu Tan); and fourth, greed for offerings (供奉貪, Gong Feng Tan). Curing these four types of greed relies on two types of reflection: first, contemplating the internal corpse; second, contemplating the external corpse. Those with sharp faculties initially rely on the former; those with dull faculties initially rely on the latter. Those with sharp faculties first, regarding their own body, with the skin as the boundary, from the feet upwards to the top of the head downwards, observe comprehensively, causing the mind to feel disgusted. In order to subdue and cure greed for attractive colors, one should focus on contemplating the pus, blood, fat, semen, saliva, mucus, marrow, brain, feces, urine, etc., within the body, which are changing colors, and one should contemplate the changing colors on the skin of the body caused by various diseases, such as yellow, white, blue, black, like clouds, like smoke, mottled, dark, dim, unclear, and impure. By this, the mind will generate extreme disgust, and one will be able to subdue and cure greed for attractive colors. Because one knows that this body is like this and is not a place where attractive colors reside, one can be free from attachment to everything. In order to subdue and cure greed for attractive forms, one should separately observe the various parts of the internal body, which are the thirty-six impure things such as hair, assembled, established, and harmoniously formed. Apart from these, there are no forms or colors of hair, etc. Furthermore, with superior understanding, divide the parts of the body, into two or more parts, scattering them on the ground, where various birds and beasts compete to devour them, bones and flesh scattered, limbs separated. By this, the mind will generate extreme disgust, and one will be able to subdue and cure greed for attractive forms. In order to subdue and cure greed for pleasant touch, one should, with superior understanding, remove the skin and flesh, and only observe the skeleton, rough like tiles. By this, the mind will generate extreme disgust, and one will be able to subdue and cure greed for pleasant touch. In order to subdue and cure greed for offerings, one should, with superior understanding, observe the internal body, such as in states of sleep, drunkenness, unconsciousness, epilepsy, etc., unable to freely move the parts of the body, such as in old age, sickness, or when these states are about to arrive or have not yet arrived, being bound by these things. Furthermore, observe that the body cannot act independently.
無不繫屬眾緣故生。于中都無少許身份。可為供奉威儀所依。徒妄執為能供奉者。彼決定有能供奉事。然供奉名所目義者。謂以彼彼身份為緣。決定能為舞歌笑睇。含啼戲等威儀事業。觀彼事業都無定性。如箜篌等所發音曲。一切皆類幻化所為。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣供奉貪。是名利根初習業者。思所成慧觀察內身。能伏四貪令不現起。若鈍根者由根鈍故。煩惱猛利難可摧伏。藉外緣力方能伏治。故先明瞭觀察外尸。漸令自心煩惱摧伏。謂彼初欲觀外尸時。先起慈心往施身處。如世尊說。初修行者欲求方便速滅欲貪當起慈心之澹泊路。精勤修觀乃至廣說。至彼處已為欲伏治四種貪故。應如四種澹泊路經。修不凈觀觀外尸相。以況內身。彼相既然。此亦應爾。由此方便。漸能令心亦于內身深生厭患。便能伏治前說四貪。由於內身見自性故。為不凈觀速得成滿。應修八想伏治四貪。為欲伏治顯色貪故。修青瘀想及異赤想。為欲伏治形色貪故。修被食想及分離想。為欲伏治妙觸貪故。修破壞想及骸骨想。為欲伏治供奉貪故。修膀脹想及膿爛想。許緣骨鎖修不凈觀通能伏治如是四貪。以一骨瑣中具離四貪境故。應且辯修骨瑣觀。然于引發諸善根時。補特伽羅約所修行。說有三位。一初習業。二已熟修。三超作意。且觀
行者欲修如是不凈觀時。應先繫心于自身分。或於足指或於眉間。或鼻頞中或於額等。隨所樂處專注不移為令等持得堅牢故。從入已去名初習業。入言為顯最初繫心。假想自身足指等處。下至能見錢量白骨。由勝解力漸廣漸增乃至具見全身骨瑣謂於此位諸瑜伽師。假想思惟皮肉爛墜。漸令骨凈初量如錢。乃至遍身皆成白骨。彼於此位有多想轉。想轉言顯不捨所緣。數數轉生余勝解想。有餘師說。觀行未成作意但由想力故轉。觀行成已便由慧力。此位未成故由想轉。應知此中所言作意。總顯一切心心所法。皆由想力相續而轉。見全身已複方便入。緣外白骨不凈觀門。謂為漸令勝解增故。觀外骨瑣在己身邊。漸遍一床一房一寺。一園一邑一田一國。乃至遍地以海為邊。于其中間骨瑣充滿。為令勝解漸復增故。于所廣事漸略而觀。乃至唯觀自身骨瑣。齊此漸略不凈觀成。名瑜伽師初習業位為令略觀勝解轉增。于自骨中復除足骨。思惟余骨繫心而住。漸次乃至除頭半骨。思惟半骨繫心而住。齊此轉略不凈觀成名瑜伽師已熟修位。為令略觀勝解自在。除半頭骨繫心眉間。專注一緣湛然而住。齊此極略不凈觀成。名瑜伽師超作意位。應知至此不凈觀成。諸所應為皆究竟故。住空閑者作如是言。此觀爾時有究竟相。謂有凈相欻爾現前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：行者想要修習這樣的不凈觀時，應該首先將心專注于自身的部分，或者在足趾，或者在眉間，或者在鼻樑中，或者在額頭等處，隨自己喜歡的地方專注不移，爲了使等持（Samadhi）得到堅固的緣故。從『入』開始就叫做初習業。『入』這個詞是爲了顯示最初繫心，假想自身足趾等處，下至能夠看見錢幣大小的白骨。由於殊勝的理解力，逐漸擴大增加，乃至完全看見全身的骨骼。在這個階段，瑜伽師假想思維皮肉腐爛墜落，逐漸使骨骼潔凈，最初的量如錢幣大小，乃至遍佈全身都變成白骨。他于這個階段有很多想法轉變。『想轉』這個詞顯示不捨棄所緣，數數轉生其餘殊勝的理解想法。有其他老師說，觀行沒有成就時，作意（Manasikara）僅僅由想法的力量而轉變；觀行成就后，便由智慧的力量。這個階段沒有成就，所以由想法轉變。應當知道這裡所說的作意，總的顯示一切心和心所法，都由想法的力量相續而轉變。看見全身後，再方便進入緣外白骨的不凈觀門，是爲了逐漸使殊勝的理解力增加的緣故。觀察外面的骨骼在自己的身邊，逐漸遍佈一張床、一間房、一座寺廟、一個園林、一個村邑、一塊田地、一個國家，乃至遍佈大地以大海為邊界，在其中間骨骼充滿。爲了使殊勝的理解力逐漸增加的緣故，對於所廣大的事物逐漸簡略地觀察，乃至只觀察自身骨骼。到此簡略不凈觀成就，叫做瑜伽師初習業位。爲了使簡略觀察的殊勝理解力轉變增加，在自己的骨骼中除去足骨，思維其餘的骨骼，繫心而住。逐漸乃至除去頭部的半塊骨頭，思維半塊骨頭，繫心而住。到此轉變簡略不凈觀成就，叫做瑜伽師已熟修位。爲了使簡略觀察的殊勝理解力自在，除去半塊頭骨，繫心于眉間，專注一緣，湛然而住。到此極其簡略的不凈觀成就，叫做瑜伽師超作意位。應當知道到此不凈觀成就，所有應該做的都究竟的緣故。住在空閑地方的人這樣說，這個觀想在這個時候有究竟的相，就是有清凈的相忽然顯現出來。 English version: When a practitioner wishes to cultivate such Impurity Contemplation (Asubha-bhavana), they should first focus their mind on a part of their own body, either on the toes, or between the eyebrows, or in the bridge of the nose, or on the forehead, etc., focusing unmovingly on whatever place they prefer, for the sake of making the Samadhi (concentration) firm. From the 'entering' onwards, it is called the initial practice. The word 'entering' is to show the initial focusing of the mind, imagining one's own toes, etc., down to being able to see a coin-sized white bone. Due to the power of superior understanding, gradually expand and increase it, until fully seeing the entire skeleton. At this stage, the yogi imagines and contemplates the skin and flesh rotting and falling away, gradually making the bones clean, initially the size of a coin, until the entire body becomes white bones. At this stage, he has many thought transformations. The term 'thought transformation' shows not abandoning the object of focus, repeatedly generating other superior understanding thoughts. Some teachers say that when the contemplation practice is not accomplished, the attention (Manasikara) transforms only by the power of thought; when the contemplation practice is accomplished, it then transforms by the power of wisdom. This stage is not accomplished, so it transforms by thought. It should be known that the attention mentioned here generally shows that all mental and mental factors transform continuously by the power of thought. After seeing the entire body, then conveniently enter the Impurity Contemplation gate of focusing on external white bones, in order to gradually increase superior understanding. Observe the external skeletons around oneself, gradually spreading to cover a bed, a room, a temple, a garden, a village, a field, a country, and even the entire earth with the sea as its boundary, with skeletons filling the space in between. In order to gradually increase superior understanding, gradually observe the vast matter in a simplified way, until only observing one's own skeleton. When this simplified Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, it is called the yogi's initial practice stage. In order to transform and increase the superior understanding of simplified observation, remove the foot bones from one's own bones, contemplate the remaining bones, and dwell with the mind focused. Gradually, even remove half of the skull, contemplate the half skull, and dwell with the mind focused. When this transformed simplified Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, it is called the yogi's accomplished practice stage. In order to make the superior understanding of simplified observation free, remove half of the skull, focus the mind between the eyebrows, concentrate on one object, and dwell serenely. When this extremely simplified Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, it is called the yogi's transcended attention stage. It should be known that at this point, the Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, because all that should be done is completed. Those who dwell in secluded places say that this contemplation has an ultimate sign at this time, which is that a pure sign suddenly appears before them.
【English Translation】 English version: When a practitioner wishes to cultivate such Impurity Contemplation (Asubha-bhavana), they should first focus their mind on a part of their own body, either on the toes, or between the eyebrows, or in the bridge of the nose, or on the forehead, etc., focusing unmovingly on whatever place they prefer, for the sake of making the Samadhi (concentration) firm. From the 'entering' onwards, it is called the initial practice. The word 'entering' is to show the initial focusing of the mind, imagining one's own toes, etc., down to being able to see a coin-sized white bone. Due to the power of superior understanding, gradually expand and increase it, until fully seeing the entire skeleton. At this stage, the yogi imagines and contemplates the skin and flesh rotting and falling away, gradually making the bones clean, initially the size of a coin, until the entire body becomes white bones. At this stage, he has many thought transformations. The term 'thought transformation' shows not abandoning the object of focus, repeatedly generating other superior understanding thoughts. Some teachers say that when the contemplation practice is not accomplished, the attention (Manasikara) transforms only by the power of thought; when the contemplation practice is accomplished, it then transforms by the power of wisdom. This stage is not accomplished, so it transforms by thought. It should be known that the attention mentioned here generally shows that all mental and mental factors transform continuously by the power of thought. After seeing the entire body, then conveniently enter the Impurity Contemplation gate of focusing on external white bones, in order to gradually increase superior understanding. Observe the external skeletons around oneself, gradually spreading to cover a bed, a room, a temple, a garden, a village, a field, a country, and even the entire earth with the sea as its boundary, with skeletons filling the space in between. In order to gradually increase superior understanding, gradually observe the vast matter in a simplified way, until only observing one's own skeleton. When this simplified Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, it is called the yogi's initial practice stage. In order to transform and increase the superior understanding of simplified observation, remove the foot bones from one's own bones, contemplate the remaining bones, and dwell with the mind focused. Gradually, even remove half of the skull, contemplate the half skull, and dwell with the mind focused. When this transformed simplified Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, it is called the yogi's accomplished practice stage. In order to make the superior understanding of simplified observation free, remove half of the skull, focus the mind between the eyebrows, concentrate on one object, and dwell serenely. When this extremely simplified Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, it is called the yogi's transcended attention stage. It should be known that at this point, the Impurity Contemplation is accomplished, because all that should be done is completed. Those who dwell in secluded places say that this contemplation has an ultimate sign at this time, which is that a pure sign suddenly appears before them.
。由此或令入息減少。或令發起不欣樂心。了知所修地究竟故。凈色相起擾亂心故。如人溫誦所熟誦文。又由得先所未得故。進證得余勝善根故。如畦中水泛溢漫流。如是相名為此觀究竟相。有餘師說。若於爾時不于外緣起加行覺名不凈觀。究竟圓滿所緣自在。若小若大應作四句。如理應思今應思擇。此不凈觀既是勝解作意所攝。理應名為顛倒作意。則應此觀體非是善。非此所緣體皆是骨。皆作骨解豈非顛倒。此不凈觀且不可言。皆是勝解作意所攝。以不凈觀總有二種。一依自實。二依勝解。依自實者。謂由作意相應慧力。如實觀察自內身支所有不凈。若形若顯差別諸色。如九仙骨二商佉等。或如身中發毛爪等。廣說具有三十六物。此等名為依自實觀。由與自相作意相應。是故不能永斷煩惱。依勝解者。謂勝解力假想思惟。諸不凈相此非顛倒作意所攝。以與煩惱性相違故。夫顛倒者本所欲為不能成辦。此隨所欲能伏煩惱。如何顛倒若謂此境非皆是骨。謂皆是骨寧非倒者。理亦不然如應解故。謂諸于杌起人覺者。不作是解我今于杌以人相觀故是顛倒。今觀行者作如是思。諸境界中雖非皆骨。我今為伏諸煩惱故。應以勝解遍觀為骨。既隨所欲如應而解。能伏煩惱寧是顛倒。此觀勢力能伏煩惱令暫不行。既有如斯巧方便力如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由此可能導致入息減少，或者使人產生不欣悅的心情。這是因爲了知所修習的禪定已經達到究竟的緣故，也因為清凈的色相引起了內心的擾亂。這就像一個人溫習非常熟悉的文章一樣。又因為獲得了先前未曾獲得的境界，進一步證得了其他殊勝的善根，就像田埂中的水氾濫漫流一樣。這樣的狀態被稱為此不凈觀的究竟之相。 有其他論師說，如果在這個時候，不對外在的因緣生起額外的覺知，那麼這種不凈觀就是究竟圓滿，能夠自在地觀想所緣境。對於所緣境的大小，應該用四句來分析。應該如理如實地思考，現在應該仔細辨別。這種不凈觀既然屬於勝解作意所攝，那麼按理說應該屬於顛倒作意，那麼這種觀法的本質就應該不是善的。因為此觀所緣的境並非全部是骨頭，卻全部觀想成骨頭，這難道不是顛倒嗎？ 這種不凈觀不能簡單地說全部屬於勝解作意所攝。因為不凈觀總共有兩種：一種是依于自身真實的，一種是依于勝解的。依于自身真實的，是指通過作意相應的智慧力量，如實地觀察自己身體內部的各個部分的不凈，無論是形狀還是顯現的各種差別顏色，比如九種仙骨、二種商佉等，或者像身體中的頭髮、毛髮、指甲等，廣泛地說有三十六種不凈之物。這些被稱為依于自身真實的觀。因為與自身的實相作意相應，所以不能永遠斷除煩惱。 依于勝解的，是指通過勝解的力量，假想思惟各種不凈的景象，這不屬於顛倒作意所攝，因為它與煩惱的性質相反。所謂的顛倒，是指本來想要做的事情不能成功。而不凈觀隨心所欲，能夠降伏煩惱，怎麼能說是顛倒呢？如果說此境並非全部是骨頭，卻觀想成全部是骨頭，難道不是顛倒嗎？這個道理也是不成立的，應該如理如實地理解。就像有人把樹樁看成人一樣，他不會這樣想：『我現在把樹樁當作人來看，所以這是顛倒。』現在觀行者這樣思考：『這些境界中雖然並非全部是骨頭，但我現在爲了降伏各種煩惱，應該用勝解的力量普遍地觀想成骨頭。』既然隨心所欲，如理如實地理解，能夠降伏煩惱，怎麼能說是顛倒呢？這種觀想的力量能夠降伏煩惱，使煩惱暫時不起作用，既然有如此巧妙方便的力量，比如...
【English Translation】 English version: From this, it may cause the reduction of incoming breath, or cause the arising of a displeased mind. This is because of knowing that the cultivated meditation has reached its ultimate state, and also because the pure appearances cause disturbance in the mind. It is like a person reviewing a very familiar text. Furthermore, because one has obtained what was previously unobtainable, and further attained other superior roots of goodness, like water overflowing and spreading from the ridges in a field. Such a state is called the ultimate aspect of this contemplation of impurity (Asubha-bhavana). Some other teachers say that if at that time, one does not generate additional awareness of external conditions, then this contemplation of impurity is ultimately complete, and one can freely contemplate the object of contemplation. Regarding the size of the object of contemplation, one should analyze it using four statements. One should think reasonably and truthfully, and now one should carefully discern. Since this contemplation of impurity is included in the category of 'resolution-based attention' (adhimoksha-manaskara), it should logically belong to 'inverted attention' (viparyasta-manaskara), then the essence of this contemplation should not be good. Because the object of this contemplation is not entirely bones, yet one contemplates it entirely as bones, is this not inverted? This contemplation of impurity cannot be simply said to belong entirely to 'resolution-based attention'. Because there are two types of contemplation of impurity in general: one is based on one's own reality, and the other is based on resolution. The one based on one's own reality refers to observing the impurity of various parts of one's own body, such as the shape or the various colors that appear, such as the nine types of celestial bones (nava-asthi) and the two types of shankha (shankha), or like the hair, body hair, and nails in the body, broadly speaking, there are thirty-six impure things. These are called contemplation based on one's own reality. Because it corresponds to the attention of one's own reality, it cannot permanently eliminate afflictions. The one based on resolution refers to using the power of resolution to imagine and contemplate various impure appearances. This does not belong to 'inverted attention', because it is contrary to the nature of afflictions. The so-called inversion refers to the inability to accomplish what one originally intended to do. But the contemplation of impurity can subdue afflictions as one wishes, how can it be called inversion? If one says that this object is not entirely bones, yet one contemplates it as entirely bones, is this not inversion? This reasoning is also not valid, and should be understood reasonably and truthfully. Just like someone who sees a tree stump as a person, he would not think: 'I am now seeing the tree stump as a person, so this is inverted.' Now the practitioner thinks like this: 'Although these objects are not entirely bones, but now in order to subdue various afflictions, I should use the power of resolution to universally contemplate them as bones.' Since one understands it as one wishes, reasonably and truthfully, and can subdue afflictions, how can it be called inversion? The power of this contemplation can subdue afflictions and prevent them from arising temporarily, since there is such a skillful means, such as...
何非善。是故無有如所難失。此不凈觀何性幾地緣。何境何處生何行相。緣何世為有漏為無漏。為離欲得為加行得。頌曰。
無貪性十地 緣欲色人生 不凈自世緣 有漏通二得
論曰。如先所問今次第答。謂此觀以無貪為性。違逆作意為因所引。厭惡棄背與貪相翻。應知此中名不凈觀。名不凈觀應是慧者。理亦不然。觀所順故謂不凈觀能近治貪故。應正以無貪為性。貪因凈相由觀力除。故說無貪為觀所順。諸不凈觀皆是無貪。非諸無貪皆不凈觀。唯能伏治顯色等貪。方說名為此觀體故。此約自性若兼隨行。具以四蘊五蘊為性。通依十地謂四靜慮。及四近分中間欲界。唯爾所地此容有故。此觀唯緣欲界色處境。欲界顯形為此觀境故。若爾何故契經中言。耳根律儀所防護者。住不凈觀乃至廣說。此言為說諸為色貪所摧伏者。彼必由為緣聲等貪之所摧伏故。欲摧伏緣色貪者。必先應住耳根律儀。由此方能住不凈觀。有說。此觀唯依意識能引。所餘違逆行相故若有住耳根律儀彼必應先住不凈觀。此不凈觀力能遍緣。欲界所攝一切色處。若謂尊者阿泥律陀。不能觀天以為不凈。舍利子等於佛色身亦不能觀以為不凈。如何此觀遍緣欲色。此難不然。勝無滅者能觀天色為不凈故。佛能觀佛微妙色身為不凈故。由是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：什麼不是善的呢？因此，沒有像難以失去的東西那樣的東西。這種不凈觀的自性是什麼？屬於哪幾個地？緣于什麼境界？在什麼地方產生？具有什麼行相？緣于哪個世？是有漏還是無漏？是離欲所得還是加行所得？頌文說： 『無貪為自性，十地皆可依，緣于欲色界，人生得此觀。 不凈觀自世，有漏通二得。』 論中說：如先前所問，現在依次回答。這種觀以無貪為自性。違逆作意是其生起的原因。厭惡、拋棄與貪慾相反。應當知道，這裡稱為『不凈觀』。如果說不凈觀應該是具有智慧的人才能修習的，道理也並非如此。因為觀是順應智慧的，也就是說，不凈觀能夠近似地對治貪慾，所以應當正確地以無貪為自性。貪慾的起因是凈相，通過觀的力量可以去除。所以說無貪是觀所順應的。所有不凈觀都是無貪，但並非所有無貪都是不凈觀。只有能夠降伏和對治顯色等貪慾的，才被稱為這種觀的本體。這是從自性上來說的，如果兼顧隨行，那麼就具備了四蘊或五蘊的自性。普遍依於十地，也就是四禪定，以及四近分定、中間定和欲界。只有這些地方才容許此觀存在。這種觀只緣于欲界的色處（Rūpadhātu）境界。欲界的顯色和形色是這種觀的境界。如果這樣，為什麼契經中說，『耳根律儀所防護者，住不凈觀』等等？這是爲了說明那些被色貪所摧伏的人，他們必定也會被緣于聲音等的貪慾所摧伏。想要摧伏緣於色的貪慾，必須首先安住于耳根律儀。由此才能安住于不凈觀。有人說，這種觀只能依靠意識來引導，因為其餘的都是違逆的行相。如果有人安住于耳根律儀，那麼他必定應該先安住于不凈觀。這種不凈觀的力量能夠普遍地緣于欲界所攝的一切色處。如果說尊者阿泥律陀（Aniruddha）不能觀天為不凈，舍利子（Śāriputra）等人對於佛陀的色身也不能觀為不凈，那麼這種觀如何能夠普遍地緣于欲色界呢？這種責難是不成立的。因為勝過無滅者能夠觀天色為不凈，佛陀能夠觀佛陀微妙的色身為不凈。因此。
【English Translation】 English version: What is not wholesome? Therefore, there is nothing like what is difficult to lose. What is the nature of this contemplation of impurity (Aśubha-bhāvanā)? To how many realms does it pertain? What is its object? Where does it arise? What are its characteristics? To what world does it relate? Is it with outflows (sāsrava) or without outflows (anāsrava)? Is it attained through detachment (vītarāga-prāpta) or through effort (prayoga-prāpta)? The verse says: 'It has the nature of non-greed, it relies on ten realms, it is related to the realm of desire and form, and human beings attain this contemplation. The contemplation of impurity is of its own world, it is with outflows and attained through both means.' The treatise says: As previously asked, now I will answer in order. This contemplation has non-greed (alobha) as its nature. Opposing intention (pratipakṣa-manaskāra) is the cause that leads to it. Disgust and rejection are the opposite of greed. It should be known that this is called 'contemplation of impurity'. If it is said that contemplation of impurity should be practiced by those with wisdom, that is not necessarily the case. Because contemplation is in accordance with wisdom, that is to say, contemplation of impurity can closely counteract greed, so it should rightly have non-greed as its nature. The cause of greed is the appearance of purity, which can be removed by the power of contemplation. Therefore, it is said that non-greed is in accordance with contemplation. All contemplations of impurity are non-greed, but not all non-greed are contemplations of impurity. Only that which can subdue and counteract greed for visible forms, etc., is said to be the essence of this contemplation. This is from the perspective of its nature; if also considering what accompanies it, then it possesses the nature of the four aggregates (skandha) or five aggregates. It universally relies on the ten realms, which are the four dhyānas (jhānas), as well as the four proximity concentrations (upacāra-samādhi), the intermediate concentration (madhyadhyāna), and the desire realm (kāmadhātu). Only in these places is this contemplation possible. This contemplation only focuses on the object of the form element (rūpa-āyatana) of the desire realm. The visible forms and shapes of the desire realm are the object of this contemplation. If so, why does the sutra say, 'Those protected by the discipline of the ear faculty abide in the contemplation of impurity,' and so on? This is to explain that those who are overwhelmed by greed for forms will also be overwhelmed by greed for sounds, etc. Those who wish to subdue greed for forms must first abide in the discipline of the ear faculty. Only then can they abide in the contemplation of impurity. Some say that this contemplation can only be guided by consciousness (vijñāna), because the rest are opposing characteristics. If someone abides in the discipline of the ear faculty, then he must first abide in the contemplation of impurity. The power of this contemplation of impurity can universally focus on all form elements included in the desire realm. If it is said that Venerable Anuruddha (Aniruddha) cannot contemplate the heavens as impure, and Śāriputra (Śāriputra) and others cannot contemplate the Buddha's body as impure, then how can this contemplation universally focus on the realms of desire and form? This objection is not valid. Because those who have overcome annihilation can contemplate the form of the heavens as impure, and the Buddha can contemplate the Buddha's subtle form as impure. Therefore.
此觀定能遍緣欲色為境。由此已顯緣義非名。亦已顯成通緣三性。初習業者唯依人趣。能生此觀非北俱盧。天趣中無青瘀等故不能初起。先於此起後生彼處亦得現前。此觀行相唯不凈轉。是善性故體應是凈。約行相故說為不凈。是身念住攝加行非根本。雖與喜樂舍三根相應。而厭俱行如苦集忍智。隨在何世緣自世境。若不生法通緣三世。此觀行相非無常等十六行攝。故唯有漏通加行得及離染得。離彼彼地染得彼彼定時。亦即獲得彼地此觀。離染得已於後後時。亦由加行令得現起。未離染者唯加行得。此中一切聖最後有異生皆通未曾。余唯曾得。
說一切有部順正理論卷第五十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之四
說不凈觀相差別已。次應辯持息念。此差別相云何。頌曰。
息念慧五地 緣風依欲身 二得實外無 有六謂數等
論曰。言息念者。即契經中所說阿那阿波那念。言阿那者。謂持息入是引外風令入身義。阿波那者。謂持息出是引內風令出身義。如契經說。苾芻當知。持息入者。飲吸外風令入身內。持息出者。驅擯內風令出身外。慧由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這種觀想禪定能夠普遍地以欲界和色界作為觀想的對象。由此已經顯示了『緣』（alambana，對像）的意義並非只是名稱，也顯示了它能夠普遍地緣於三種性質（善、惡、無記）。最初修習這種禪定的人只能依靠人道，北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以享樂著稱）不能生起這種觀想。天道中沒有青瘀等現象，所以不能最初生起這種觀想。先在此處生起，之後生到彼處也能使此觀想現前。這種觀想的行相唯有不凈的轉變，因為是善的性質，所以本體應該是清凈的。因為就其行相而言，所以說是不凈。這是身念住（kayasmrti-upasthana，四念住之一）所攝的加行，不是根本。雖然與喜、樂、舍三種感受相應，但與厭惡一同生起，就像苦集忍智（duhkha-samudaya-ksanti-jnana，苦集滅道四聖諦的忍與智）一樣。無論在哪個時代，都緣于自己時代的境界。如果不生法，就能普遍地緣於三世。這種觀想的行相不屬於無常等十六行相所攝。所以只有有漏的禪定才能通過加行獲得以及通過離染獲得。通過離開某個地的染污而獲得某個定時，也就獲得了那個地的這種觀想。離開染污獲得之後，在之後的時間裡，也可以通過加行使之現起。沒有離開染污的人只能通過加行獲得。這裡面一切聖者和最後有異生都通達未曾獲得和曾經獲得，其餘的只能是曾經獲得。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第五十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之四
說完不凈觀的行相差別之後，接下來應該辨析持息念。這種差別的行相是怎樣的呢？頌詞說：
息念慧五地 緣風依欲身 二得實外無 有六謂數等
論述：所說的息念，就是契經中所說的阿那阿波那念（anapanasmrti，入出息念）。所說的阿那（ana，入息），是指持息進入，是引導外面的風進入身體的意思。阿波那（apana，出息），是指持息出去，是引導裡面的風離開身體的意思。如契經所說：『苾芻（bhiksu，比丘）當知，持息入者，飲吸外面的風使之進入身體裡面；持息出者，驅趕裡面的風使之離開身體外面。』慧由
【English Translation】 English version: This contemplation can universally take the desire realm and form realm as its objects. From this, it is already shown that the meaning of 'alambana' (object) is not merely a name, and it also shows that it can universally cognize the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). Those who initially practice this contemplation can only rely on the human realm; Uttarakuru (one of the four great continents, known for its enjoyment) cannot generate this contemplation. In the heavenly realms, there are no phenomena such as bluish-purple discoloration, so this contemplation cannot initially arise there. If it arises here first, then being born in that place can also bring this contemplation into the present. The aspect of this contemplation only transforms into impurity. Because it is of a wholesome nature, its essence should be pure. Because of its aspect, it is said to be impure. This is the application (加行, karman) included in the contemplation of the body (kayasmrti-upasthana, one of the four foundations of mindfulness), not the fundamental one. Although it is associated with the three feelings of joy, pleasure, and equanimity, it arises together with aversion, just like the forbearance and knowledge of suffering and the arising of suffering (duhkha-samudaya-ksanti-jnana, the forbearance and knowledge of the Four Noble Truths of suffering, the arising of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering). No matter in which age, it cognizes the realm of its own age. If it does not produce phenomena, it can universally cognize the three times. The aspect of this contemplation is not included in the sixteen aspects such as impermanence. Therefore, only contaminated contemplation can be obtained through application and through detachment. By detaching from the defilements of a certain ground and obtaining a certain samadhi, one also obtains this contemplation of that ground. After obtaining it through detachment, in later times, one can also cause it to arise through application. Those who have not detached from defilements can only obtain it through application. Here, all noble ones and the last existence of ordinary beings universally understand what has never been obtained and what has been obtained before; the rest can only have obtained it before.
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》Volume 59 T29, No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》Volume 60 Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter Six, Part Four: Discriminating the Wise and the Holy
After explaining the differences in the aspects of the contemplation of impurity, next, one should discuss mindfulness of breathing. What are the aspects of these differences? The verse says:
Mindfulness of breathing, wisdom, five grounds, cognizes wind, relies on desire body, two attainments, real, external, non-existent, there are six, namely counting, etc.
Commentary: What is called mindfulness of breathing is the anapanasmrti (mindfulness of breathing) mentioned in the sutras. What is called ana (入息, inhalation) refers to holding the breath in, which means guiding external wind to enter the body. Apana (出息, exhalation) refers to holding the breath out, which means guiding internal wind to leave the body. As the sutra says: 'Bhikkhus (比丘, monks), know that holding the breath in means drinking and inhaling external wind to enter the body; holding the breath out means driving internal wind to leave the body.' Wisdom from
念力觀此為境。故名阿那阿波那念。有餘師說。言阿那者。謂能持來。阿波那者。謂能持去。此言意顯入息出息有能持義。慧由念觀此故得此念名。辯屬身風略有六種。一入息風。二出息風。三發語風。四除棄風。五隨轉風。六動身風。謂諸有情處胎卵位。先於臍處業生風起。穿身成穴如藕根莖。最初有風來入身內。乘茲口鼻餘風續入。此初及后名入息風。此入息風適至身內。有風續出名出息風。如鍛金師開㰆囊口自然風入。風性法爾但有孔隙。必隨入故入已按之其風還出。入息出息次第亦然。理實此風無入無出。但如是轉能損益身。相續道中假名入出。入息轉位能逐身中。腐敗污垢諸臭穢物。增長火界令身輕舉。出息轉時能除鬱蒸。損減火界令身沉重。發語風者。謂有別風是欲為先。展轉所引發語心起。所令增盛生從臍處。流轉沖喉擊異熟生。長養大種引等流性。風大種生鼓動齒唇。舌腭差別由此勢力。引起未來顯名句文。造色自性此居口內。名語亦業流出外時。但名為語。心生大種其理極成。謂見貪瞋癡心起者。面有潤慘亂色異常。又亦傳聞懷瞋毒者。面門生焰非有慈心。貪引火生焚身等故。除棄風者。謂有別風。隨便路行能蠲二穢。由穢內逼有苦受生。由苦受生髮除棄欲。由除棄欲引起風心。此心起風成除棄業
。又此風力令身安隱。隨轉風者。謂有別風遍隨身支諸毛孔轉。由此故得隨轉風名。此不依心但依業力。隨身孔隙自然流行。由此能除依孔隙住。腐敗污垢諸臭穢物。動身風者。謂有別風。能擊動身引起表業。應知此起以心為因。遍諸身支能為擊動。因顯風義乘辯六風。然於此中正明二息。此中意辯持息念故。此念自性是慧非余。以契經說了知言故。此品念勝故得念名。由念力記持入出息量。故為顯緣息定慧得成。由念功能故說爲念。並隨行性應準前門。此念所依唯通五地。謂依欲界靜慮中間。及初二三靜慮近分。由此但與舍根相應為對治尋。修此念故樂苦等受。能順引發親里等尋故對治尋。要任運受現在前位。若爾何故辯息念中言覺喜樂。此亦無過以諸勤修持息念位。中間有彼無色相生。諸瑜伽師雖覺彼相。于持息念不名乖越。約此密說覺喜樂言。不可由斯執持息念。亦容得與余受相應。理實此中亦覺余法以身念住。加行位中亦說觀于多六法故。謂若諸法隨屬於身。于彼法相如理觀察。亦名于身住循身觀。或彼行者轉緣風覺。暫時觀察喜受樂受。是故說言覺喜覺樂。由此故說諸聖弟子。爾時于受住循受觀。豈不此位出持息念。不爾彼加行意樂不息故。速復更起緣風念故。若爾何故唯覺喜樂不覺余受。由此二受為貪染
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此外，這種風力能使身體安穩舒適。所謂的『隨轉風』（Anuvāta-vāyu），是指有一種特殊的風，它遍佈全身的各個毛孔並隨之轉動。因此，它才被稱為『隨轉風』。這種風不依賴於心，而是依賴於業力，在身體的孔隙中自然流動。因此，它能夠清除依附在孔隙中的腐敗污垢和各種臭穢之物。 『動身風』（Udīraṇa-vāyu），是指有一種特殊的風，它能夠擊動身體，引起表面的活動。應當知道，這種風的產生是以心為因。它遍佈全身，能夠進行擊動。因為要彰顯風的意義，所以才分辨出六種風。然而，在這裡主要說明的是兩種呼吸（入息和出息）。 之所以在這裡討論呼吸，是因為要辨析『持息念』（ānāpānasmṛti）。這種唸的自性是智慧，而不是其他。因為契經中說了知（jñāna）這個詞。這一品以念為主，所以才稱為『念』。通過唸的力量，可以記住入息和出息的量。因此，爲了顯示因緣，呼吸的禪定和智慧才能成就。由於唸的功能，所以說它是念，並且隨行之性應該按照前面的方式理解。 這種念所依賴的，只通於五地，即欲界、靜慮中間、以及初禪、二禪、三禪的近分。因此，它只與舍受相應，作為對治尋（vitarka）的方法。修習這種念，是因為樂受、苦受等能夠順著引發親里尋（jñāti-vitarka）等，所以要對治尋。需要任運受在現在前位。 如果這樣，為什麼在辨析呼吸念中說『覺喜樂』（prīti-sukha）呢？這也沒有過失，因為在勤奮修習持息唸的過程中，中間會有無色相產生。瑜伽師們雖然覺察到這些相，但對於持息念來說，並不算是違背。只是就此秘密地說『覺喜樂』。不能因此就認為持息念也可能與其他的感受相應。實際上，這裡也覺察到其他的法，因為在身念住的加行位中，也說了要觀察多種六法。 也就是說，如果各種法隨屬於身體，就要如理觀察這些法的相，這也叫做于身住循身觀。或者，修行者轉變所緣，覺察風，暫時觀察喜受和樂受。因此說覺喜覺樂。因此說諸聖弟子，那時于受住循受觀。難道這個階段不是出離持息唸了嗎？不是的，因為他的加行意樂沒有停止，所以迅速地再次生起緣風的念。如果這樣，為什麼只覺察喜樂，而不覺察其他的感受呢？因為這兩種感受容易引起貪染。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, this force of wind brings peace and comfort to the body. The 'Anuvāta-vāyu' (following-wind) refers to a special kind of wind that pervades and circulates through all the pores of the body. Hence, it is called 'Anuvāta-vāyu'. This wind does not depend on the mind but on the force of karma, flowing naturally through the body's apertures. Therefore, it can remove the decaying filth and various foul substances that reside within these pores. The 'Udīraṇa-vāyu' (stirring-wind) refers to a special kind of wind that can strike and move the body, causing external activities. It should be known that the arising of this wind is caused by the mind. It pervades the entire body and is capable of striking and moving. Because the meaning of wind needs to be clarified, six types of wind are distinguished. However, the main focus here is on the two breaths (inhalation and exhalation). The reason for discussing breath here is to analyze 'ānāpānasmṛti' (mindfulness of breathing). The nature of this mindfulness is wisdom (jñāna), not something else. This is because the scriptures mention the word 'knowing' (jñāna). This section emphasizes mindfulness, hence it is called 'mindfulness'. Through the power of mindfulness, one can remember the quantity of inhalation and exhalation. Therefore, to reveal the causal conditions, the samādhi and wisdom of breath can be accomplished. Due to the function of mindfulness, it is said to be mindfulness, and its accompanying nature should be understood in the same way as before. This mindfulness only extends to five realms: the desire realm, the intermediate state of dhyāna, and the proximate states of the first, second, and third dhyānas. Therefore, it only corresponds to neutral feeling (upekṣā-vedanā), as a method to counteract discursive thoughts (vitarka). Cultivating this mindfulness is because pleasant and painful feelings can easily lead to thoughts about relatives (jñāti-vitarka), so discursive thoughts need to be counteracted. It is necessary for the feeling to be effortlessly present. If so, why does the analysis of breath mindfulness mention 'experiencing joy and pleasure' (prīti-sukha)? This is not a fault, because in the process of diligently practicing breath mindfulness, formless phenomena may arise in between. Although yogis may perceive these phenomena, it is not considered a deviation from breath mindfulness. It is only in this secret way that 'experiencing joy and pleasure' is mentioned. It should not be assumed that breath mindfulness can also correspond to other feelings. In reality, other dharmas are also perceived here, because in the preliminary stage of mindfulness of the body, it is also said that one should observe various six dharmas. That is, if various dharmas belong to the body, one should observe the characteristics of these dharmas as they truly are, which is also called dwelling in the contemplation of the body. Alternatively, the practitioner may shift their focus, perceiving the wind, and temporarily observe pleasant and joyful feelings. Therefore, it is said that one experiences joy and pleasure. Therefore, it is said that noble disciples at that time dwell in the contemplation of feelings. Does this stage not deviate from breath mindfulness? No, because their preliminary intention has not ceased, so the mindfulness of the wind quickly arises again. If so, why only perceive joy and pleasure, and not perceive other feelings? Because these two feelings are prone to causing attachment.
因力最勝故。行者欲令心於貪染。速解脫故偏觀喜樂。有餘師說。此非息念是彼加行所生功德。故覺喜樂立息念名有說。下三根本靜慮正在定位亦有舍受。彼說此念通依八地。上定現前息便無故。此念但緣息風為境。非通緣上所說六風。此念初依欲界身起。唯人天趣除北俱盧。唯加行得非離染得。未離染者定由加行現在前故。非離染得地所攝故。已說皆是近分地攝非根本故。又此念唯是勝加行引故。不應說此有離染得。此唯真實作意相應。有說。亦通勝解作意。正法有情方能修習。外道無有無說者故。彼不能覺微細法故。此與我執極相違故。彼我執有故此念無。由具六因此相圓滿。何等為六。一數二隨三止四觀五轉六凈。數謂繫心數入出息。從一至十不減不增。恐心於境極聚散故。然於此中容有三失。一數減失。二數增失。三雜亂失。數減失者。於二等謂一等。數增失者於一等謂二等。雜亂失者。於五入數為出於五。出數為入是于入謂出於出謂入義。離此三失名為正數。
或三失者。一太緩失。二太急失。三散亂失。太緩失者。謂由加行太慢緩故。便有懈怠惛睡纏心。或復縱心馳散外境。太急失者。謂由加行太躁急故。便令身心不平等起。若時力勵數入出息。息被逼迫便令身中不和風起。由此風故初令身支諸脈
洪數。此風增位能引病生。以身支病生名身不平等。或由力勵數入出息。心被逼切便致狂亂。或為重憂之所摧伏。如是名曰心不平等。故有說言。諸有一切美妙飲食長養身支。無如有方便調入出息者。諸有一切毒刺刀火烈灰坑等損壞身支。無如無方便調入出息者。散亂失者。謂由心散便為一切煩惱摧伏。若十中間心散亂者。復應從一次第數之。終而復始乃至得定。凡數息時應先數入。以初生位入息在先。乃至死時出息最後。如是覺察死生位故。于無常想漸能修習隨謂繫心。隨入出息念入出息。為短為長為遠至何。復還旋返且念入息。為行遍身為行一分。隨彼息入。行至喉心臍髖髀膝。脛踝足指念恒隨逐。有餘師言。念此入息從足下出。穿度金輪下至風輪復還旋返。若念出息離身為至一磔一尋。隨所至方念恒隨逐。有餘師說。念出息風至吠嵐婆復還旋返。經主於此斥彼師言。此念真實作意俱起。不應念息至風輪等。彼言息念本根雖與實作意俱。中間有餘勝解作意相應起者。為令真實作意速成。故於中間起斯假想。雖爾無有出息念失。以息念加行意樂不歇故。止謂繫念唯在鼻端或在眉間乃至足指。隨所樂處安止其心。觀息住身如珠中縷。為冷為暖為損為益。觀謂觀察此息風已。兼觀息俱大種造色。及依色住心及心所。具觀
五蘊以為境界。轉謂移轉緣息風覺。安置後後勝善根中。謂念住為初至世第一法。凈謂升進入見道等。有餘師說。念住為初金剛喻定為后名轉。盡智等方名凈。息相差別云何應知。頌曰。
入出息隨身 依二差別轉 情數非執受 等流非下緣
論曰。隨身生地息彼地攝。以息是身一分攝故。此入出息轉依身心差別故。本論說息依身轉。亦依心轉隨其所應。若入出息唯依身轉不依心轉。則入無想定或入滅盡定。及生無想天息亦應轉。乃至廣說。具四緣故息方得轉。依此理說隨所應言。顯息必依身心差別。言四緣者。一入出息所依身。二毛孔開。三風道通。四入出息地粗心現前。於此四中隨有所闕息便不轉。無心位中心無有故。生無色界四種皆無故息不轉。處卵胎中羯剌藍等。毛孔未開風道未通故息不轉。若處卵胎羯剌藍位。入出息轉則應躁動。身微薄故便應散壞。頞部曇等位身雖漸厚。而無孔隙故息猶不轉。入第四定毛孔不開。無現粗心故息不轉。何緣但說入定非生。豈不已說生如說生。無想有本不說生無想者。但言入定生彼已成以契經中作如是說。此先入定後方生彼。有餘師說。生第四定能發表業心現前時亦有息轉。生彼容有息現前義故不說生。毗婆沙師不許此義。若爾生彼如何發言。彼亦有風然不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）為境界。『轉』是指移轉緣息風覺。安置在後后勝善根中，即以念住為開始，直至世第一法。『凈』是指升進入見道等境界。有些論師認為，從念住開始，到金剛喻定結束，稱為『轉』。只有盡智等才能稱為『凈』。息相的差別應該如何理解？頌文說： 『入出息隨身，依二差別轉，情數非執受，等流非下緣。』 論述說：隨身所生的息，屬於其所生之地所攝。因為息是身體的一部分。這入息和出息的轉變，依賴於身和心的差別。因此，本論說息依身而轉，也依心而轉，隨其所應。如果入息和出息僅僅依賴於身而轉，而不依賴於心而轉，那麼進入無想定或進入滅盡定，以及生於無想天時，息也應該轉變，乃至廣說。具備四種因緣，息才能得以轉變。依據這個道理，說『隨所應』，顯示息必定依賴於身和心的差別。所說的四種因緣是：一、入息和出息所依賴的身體；二、毛孔的開啟；三、風道的暢通；四、入息和出息時粗顯的心識現前。在這四種因緣中，只要缺少任何一種，息便不能轉變。在無心位中，因為沒有心識的緣故。生於無想天時，這四種因緣都沒有，所以息不能轉變。在卵胎中的羯剌藍（kalala，受精卵）等階段，毛孔沒有開啟，風道沒有暢通，所以息不能轉變。如果在卵胎的羯剌藍階段，入息和出息能夠轉變，那麼身體就應該躁動，因為身體非常微薄，就應該散壞。在頞部曇（arbuda，胚胎初期）等階段，身體雖然逐漸增厚，但是沒有孔隙，所以息仍然不能轉變。進入第四禪定時，毛孔沒有開啟，也沒有粗顯的心識現前，所以息不能轉變。為什麼只說入定，而不說生呢？難道不是已經說了『生』，如同說了『生』嗎？無想定的根本沒有說生於無想天的人，只是說進入禪定，生於彼處已經成就，因為契經中是這樣說的：先進入禪定，然後才生於彼處。有些論師認為，生於第四禪定時，能夠發表業的心識現前時，也有息的轉變。生於彼處容許有息現前的意義，所以沒有說『生』。毗婆沙師不認可這種說法。如果這樣，那麼生於彼處如何發言呢？他們也有風，但是不...
【English Translation】 English version The five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are taken as the realm. 'Transformation' refers to the shifting and changing of the conditions of breath, wind, and sensation. It is established in the successive superior roots of goodness, starting with the four foundations of mindfulness and extending to the highest mundane dharma. 'Purification' refers to ascending and entering the path of seeing, and so on. Some teachers say that 'transformation' begins with the four foundations of mindfulness and ends with the Vajra-like Samadhi. Only the knowledge of exhaustion, and so on, can be called 'purification'. How should the differences in the characteristics of breath be understood? The verse says: 'In-breath and out-breath follow the body, transformation depends on two kinds of differences, feeling and number are not objects of clinging, homogenous flow is not a lower condition.' The treatise says: The breath that arises with the body is included within the realm where it arises. Because breath is included as a part of the body. The transformation of this in-breath and out-breath depends on the differences between body and mind. Therefore, this treatise says that breath depends on the body for its transformation, and also depends on the mind for its transformation, as appropriate. If in-breath and out-breath only depend on the body for their transformation and do not depend on the mind, then when entering the non-perceptual samadhi or entering the cessation samadhi, and when being born in the realm of non-perception, the breath should also transform, and so on. Breath can only transform when it possesses four conditions. According to this principle, the phrase 'as appropriate' indicates that breath must depend on the differences between body and mind. The four conditions are: first, the body on which in-breath and out-breath depend; second, the opening of the pores; third, the passage of wind; fourth, the manifestation of coarse consciousness during in-breath and out-breath. Among these four conditions, if any one is lacking, breath cannot transform. In the state of no-mind, breath does not transform because there is no mind. When born in the realm of non-perception, all four conditions are absent, so breath does not transform. In the kalala (fertilized egg) stage in the womb, the pores are not open and the passage of wind is not clear, so breath does not transform. If in-breath and out-breath could transform in the kalala stage in the womb, then the body should be agitated, and because the body is very thin, it should disintegrate. In the arbuda (early embryo) stage, although the body gradually thickens, there are no pores, so breath still cannot transform. When entering the fourth dhyana, the pores are not open and there is no manifest coarse consciousness, so breath does not transform. Why only mention entering samadhi and not being born? Hasn't 'being born' already been mentioned, just like saying 'being born'? The root of non-perception does not mention those born in the realm of non-perception, but only says entering samadhi, being born there is already accomplished, because the sutras say it this way: first enter samadhi, then be born there. Some teachers say that when being born in the fourth dhyana, when the consciousness that can express karma manifests, there is also a transformation of breath. Being born there allows for the meaning of breath manifesting, so 'being born' is not mentioned. The Vaibhashika masters do not accept this view. If so, how do they speak when born there? They also have wind, but it is not...
名息。無損益果故無有失。言諸根熟諸根滿者。此言不顯眼等諸根。現見彼闕息亦轉故。但於四緣具說根熟滿聲。以諸根聲顯增上義。四緣于息轉有增上力。論假說為根亦無有過。如是諸根。處卵等位名未成熟。諸有正入第四定等名未圓滿。言入第四定毛孔不開。如何有色身而無毛孔。毛孔者謂空界。豈有色聚離空界耶。理實應然但今於此約通息道說有色身。而無毛孔亦無有失。何緣但入第四靜慮。身無毛孔非余定耶。以彼等持極淳厚故。引第四定大種遍身即由此緣。尊者世友說。入彼定身毛孔合。若入世俗第四靜慮。身無毛孔其理可然。以彼定能引彼地攝。微密大種充滿身故。若入無漏第四定時。此身如何亦無毛孔。以彼但引隨所生地。大種現前造無表故。彼無漏定所引大種。雖生處攝而極微密。與彼相似故無有過。若生彼地身無毛孔。如何生彼能發語言。非發語言要由毛孔。但由頷動亦得發聲。如機關聲豈由毛孔。有餘師說。生於彼地咽喉以上亦有毛孔。有說。生彼能發語心。現在前時暫開毛孔。此入出息有情數收。無覺身中息無有故。是雖從外來而系屬內義。此入出息非有執受。以息闕減執受相故。身中雖有有執受風。而此息風唯無執受。此入出息體是等流。是同類因所生果故。身中雖有長養異熟風。而此息風
唯是等流性。身增長位息便損減。身損減時息增長故。非所長養斷已於后更相續故。非異熟生余異熟色無此相故。唯自上地心之所觀。非下地心所緣境故。謂生欲界起欲界心。彼欲界身欲界息。依欲界心轉即彼心所觀。若生欲界起初定心。彼欲界身欲界息。依初定心轉即彼心所觀。起二三定心皆準前應說。生初靜慮起三地心。生二生三起二起自準生欲界如理應說。若生上地起下地心。彼上地身上地息。依下地心轉非彼心所觀。如是欲界息四地心所觀。初二三定息如其次第。為三二地自地心所觀。有息地四無息地五。住有息地起無息地心息必不轉。住無息地起有息地心息亦不轉。住有息地起有息地心。隨其所應有入出息轉。所辯持息念成滿相云何。應作是言。若觀行者注想觀息微細徐流。謂想遍身如筒一穴。息風連續如貫末尼。不能動身不發身識。齊此應說持息念成。有餘師言。增長自在所作事辦名此念成。初增長言顯持息念。下中上品次第成立。乃至若時隨其所樂。能入能出名為自在。若於此位能攝益身。遠耽嗜依尋名所作事辦。有餘師說。若具六相遠離三失。或若具足修十六種殊勝行相。齊此應說持息念成。經說息念有十七種。謂念入出息了知我已念入出息。短入出息長覺遍身。止身行覺喜覺樂覺。心行止心行覺心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯是等流性（指性質相同）。身體增長時，呼吸減弱；身體減弱時，呼吸增強。因為不是被長養之物，斷滅之後又會相續。不是異熟生（指由業力產生的果報），因為其他的異熟色（指由業力產生的物質現象）沒有這種現象。唯有上地的心才能觀察到，不是下地心所能緣取的境界。也就是說，如果生在欲界，生起欲界的心，那麼欲界的身和欲界的呼吸，依隨欲界的心而運轉，就是那個心所能觀察到的。如果生在欲界，生起初禪定心，那麼欲界的身和欲界的呼吸，依隨初禪定心而運轉，就是那個心所能觀察到的。生起第二禪、第三禪定心，都按照前面的說法類推。生在初禪天，生起三地的心；生在第二禪天、第三禪天，生起二地或者自己的心，都按照生在欲界的情況，如理應說。如果生在上地，生起下地的心，那麼上地的身和上地的呼吸，依隨下地的心而運轉，不是那個心所能觀察到的。像這樣，欲界的呼吸可以被四種地的心所觀察到。初禪、二禪、三禪的呼吸，依次可以被三種地、兩種地、自己地的心所觀察到。有呼吸的地有四種，沒有呼吸的地有五種。住在有呼吸的地，生起沒有呼吸的地的心，呼吸一定不會運轉。住在沒有呼吸的地，生起有呼吸的地的心，呼吸也不會運轉。住在有呼吸的地，生起有呼吸的地的心，隨著情況的不同，有入息和出息的運轉。辯論持息念（指專注于呼吸的禪修）的成就和圓滿的相狀是怎樣的呢？應該這樣說，如果觀行者專注地觀察呼吸，使其微細而緩慢地流動，想像遍滿全身，像竹筒只有一個孔，呼吸的風連續不斷，像用線貫穿末尼寶珠（指珍貴的寶珠），不能動搖身體，不引發身體的覺識，達到這種程度，就可以說是持息念成就。有其他老師說，增長自在，所作之事辦成，就叫做持息念成就。最初的『增長』一詞，顯示了持息念下品、中品、上品次第成立。乃至到了能夠隨心所欲地入息和出息的時候，就叫做自在。如果在這個階段能夠攝益身體，遠離貪戀，依靠尋伺，就叫做所作之事辦成。有其他老師說，如果具足六種相狀，遠離三種過失，或者如果具足修習十六種殊勝的行相，達到這種程度，就可以說是持息念成就。經中說，息念有十七種，就是念入息、出息，了知我已經念入息、出息，短入息、出息，長入息，覺遍全身，止息身行，覺喜，覺樂，心行，止心行，覺心
【English Translation】 English version It is only of the nature of being an outflow (meaning of the same nature). When the body grows, the breath weakens; when the body weakens, the breath strengthens. Because it is not something that is nourished, it continues to arise after being interrupted. It is not born of different maturation (referring to the result of karma), because other colors born of different maturation (referring to material phenomena arising from karma) do not have this characteristic. Only the mind of a higher realm can observe it, not the realm that the mind of a lower realm can grasp. That is to say, if one is born in the Desire Realm and arises a mind of the Desire Realm, then the body and breath of the Desire Realm, following the mind of the Desire Realm, are what that mind can observe. If one is born in the Desire Realm and arises a mind of the First Dhyana, then the body and breath of the Desire Realm, following the mind of the First Dhyana, are what that mind can observe. Arising the mind of the Second and Third Dhyanas should be inferred according to the previous explanation. Being born in the First Dhyana Heaven and arising the mind of the three realms; being born in the Second and Third Dhyana Heavens and arising the mind of two realms or one's own realm, should be explained reasonably according to the situation of being born in the Desire Realm. If one is born in a higher realm and arises a mind of a lower realm, then the body and breath of the higher realm, following the mind of the lower realm, are not what that mind can observe. In this way, the breath of the Desire Realm can be observed by the minds of four realms. The breath of the First, Second, and Third Dhyanas can be observed by the minds of three, two, and one's own realm, respectively. There are four realms with breath, and five realms without breath. Abiding in a realm with breath and arising the mind of a realm without breath, the breath will definitely not function. Abiding in a realm without breath and arising the mind of a realm with breath, the breath will also not function. Abiding in a realm with breath and arising the mind of a realm with breath, depending on the situation, there is the functioning of incoming and outgoing breath. What is the debated characteristic of the accomplishment and fulfillment of mindfulness of breathing (referring to meditation focused on breath)? It should be said that if the practitioner focuses on observing the breath, making it flow subtly and slowly, imagining it pervading the whole body, like a bamboo tube with only one hole, the breath flowing continuously, like threading Mani jewels (referring to precious jewels) on a string, unable to move the body, not triggering the body's consciousness, reaching this level, it can be said that mindfulness of breathing is accomplished. Some other teachers say that increasing freedom and accomplishing what needs to be done is called the accomplishment of mindfulness of breathing. The initial word 'increasing' shows the gradual establishment of the lower, middle, and upper grades of mindfulness of breathing. Until one can inhale and exhale at will, it is called freedom. If at this stage one can benefit the body, stay away from craving, and rely on investigation, it is called accomplishing what needs to be done. Some other teachers say that if one possesses six characteristics and is free from three faults, or if one fully cultivates sixteen excellent aspects, reaching this level, it can be said that mindfulness of breathing is accomplished. The sutras say that there are seventeen types of mindfulness of breathing, which are mindfulness of inhaling and exhaling, knowing that I am mindful of inhaling and exhaling, short inhaling and exhaling, long inhaling, being aware of the whole body, stopping bodily activity, being aware of joy, being aware of pleasure, mental activity, stopping mental activity, being aware of the mind.
令心歡喜。令心攝持令心解脫。隨觀無常隨觀斷隨觀離隨觀滅。如是一一皆自了知。此十七中初是總觀。后十六種是差別觀。約四念住如次應知。各有四門成十六種。如何覺心行可受念住攝。因受果名故無有過。非此中說心行謂思。應知此中受名心行。謂由耽著樂受味故。便於彼彼境界。或生思造作心名為心行。受是思因故名心行無失。或但能覺受自體者。義準亦于思等自體。次第能覺生住壞相。如嘗大海一渧水咸。則亦遍知大海水味。故唯覺受名覺心行。廣解一一相如經釋中辯。如是已說入修二門。由此二門心便得定。心得定已復何所修。頌曰。
依已修成止 為觀修念住 以自相共相 觀身受心法 自性聞等慧 余相雜所緣 說次第隨生 治倒故唯四
論曰。已修成止以為所依。為觀速成修四念住。非不得定者能如實見故。如何修習四念住耶。以自相共相觀身受心法。謂修觀者專心一趣。以自共相於身等境。一一別觀修四念住。分別此法與所餘法。有差別義名觀自相。分別此法與所餘法。無差別義名觀共相。且身念住觀自相者。謂觀察身內外十處。自性各別從眼至觸。一一皆有處自相故。如是于彼各別法中。有正智生名觀自相。此自相觀得成滿時。有道色起爾時方立。自相種性身念住名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
使內心歡喜，使內心攝持，使內心解脫。隨順觀察無常，隨順觀察斷滅，隨順觀察遠離，隨順觀察寂滅。像這樣，每一樣都要自己了知。這十七種觀法中，最初的是總觀，後面的十六種是差別觀。關於四念住（catu-smṛtyupasthāna），應當知道它們依次各有四種門徑，從而構成十六種。如何覺察心行才能被攝入念住之中呢？因為受是果，而以果來命名，所以沒有過失。這裡所說的心行不是指思（cetanā），應當知道這裡受被稱為心行。這是因為耽著于快樂的感受，所以對於種種境界，或者產生思，造作心，這被稱為心行。受是思的原因，所以稱為心行沒有錯誤。或者僅僅能夠覺察感受的自體，那麼按照這個意義，也應該能夠次第覺察思等等的自體，以及生、住、壞的相狀。就像嚐到大海中的一滴水是鹹的，那麼也就普遍知道大海水的味道。所以僅僅覺察感受，就稱為覺察心行。詳細解釋每一種相狀，就像經文解釋中所辨析的那樣。像這樣，已經說了進入和修習的兩種門徑。通過這兩種門徑，心就能得到禪定。心得到禪定之後，還要修習什麼呢？頌文說：
『依靠已經修成的止（śamatha），爲了觀（vipaśyanā）而修習念住（smṛtyupasthāna），以自相和共相來觀察身（kāya）、受（vedanā）、心（citta）、法（dharma）。自性是聽聞等等的智慧，其餘的相是雜亂的所緣。說次第隨著產生，爲了對治顛倒，所以只有四種。』
論述說：依靠已經修成的止作為所依，爲了快速成就觀，而修習四念住。因為沒有得到禪定的人不能如實地看見。如何修習四念住呢？以自相和共相來觀察身、受、心、法。意思是說，修習觀的人專心一意，以自相和共相來觀察身等等的境界，一一分別地修習四念住。分別這種法和其餘的法，有差別意義，這叫做觀察自相。分別這種法和其餘的法，沒有差別意義，這叫做觀察共相。且說身念住（kāya-smṛtyupasthāna）觀察自相，就是觀察身體內外十處，自性各自不同，從眼到觸，每一樣都有處的自相。像這樣，在那些各自不同的法中，有正智產生，這叫做觀察自相。這種自相觀得到成就圓滿的時候，有道色生起，那時才成立自相種性的身念住的名稱。
【English Translation】 English version:
Causing the mind to rejoice, causing the mind to be restrained, causing the mind to be liberated. Observing impermanence, observing cessation, observing detachment, observing extinction. Thus, each and every one should be known by oneself. Among these seventeen types of observation, the first is the general observation, and the latter sixteen are the specific observations. Regarding the four foundations of mindfulness (catu-smṛtyupasthāna), it should be known that they each have four paths, thus forming sixteen types. How can the awareness of mental activities be included in the foundations of mindfulness? Because 'feeling' (vedanā) is the result, and it is named after the result, there is no fault. The 'mental activities' spoken of here do not refer to 'volition' (cetanā); it should be known that 'feeling' is called 'mental activity' here. This is because, being attached to the taste of pleasant feelings, one generates thoughts and mental constructions towards various objects, which are called 'mental activities'. Feeling is the cause of volition, so it is correct to call it 'mental activity'. Or, if one can only be aware of the self-nature of feeling, then, according to this meaning, one should also be able to sequentially be aware of the self-nature of volition and so on, as well as the characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Just as tasting one drop of seawater reveals the saltiness of the entire ocean, so too, merely being aware of feeling is called being aware of mental activities. A detailed explanation of each characteristic is elaborated in the sutra commentaries. Thus, the two paths of entering and practicing have been explained. Through these two paths, the mind can attain samādhi (concentration). After the mind attains samādhi, what else should be practiced? The verse says:
'Relying on the already cultivated śamatha (tranquility), one cultivates the smṛtyupasthāna (foundations of mindfulness) for vipaśyanā (insight). One observes the body (kāya), feeling (vedanā), mind (citta), and dharma (phenomena) with their own characteristics and common characteristics. The self-nature is the wisdom of hearing and so on, and the remaining characteristics are mixed objects of focus. It is said that the sequence arises accordingly; to counteract the inversions, there are only four.'
The treatise says: Relying on the already cultivated śamatha as a basis, one cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness to quickly achieve vipaśyanā. This is because those who have not attained samādhi cannot see things as they really are. How should one cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness? One observes the body, feeling, mind, and dharma with their own characteristics and common characteristics. This means that the practitioner, with focused attention, observes the objects of the body and so on with their own and common characteristics, separately cultivating the four foundations of mindfulness. Distinguishing that this dharma is different from other dharmas is called observing its own characteristic. Distinguishing that this dharma is not different from other dharmas is called observing its common characteristic. For example, in the foundation of mindfulness of the body (kāya-smṛtyupasthāna), observing its own characteristic means observing the ten internal and external places of the body, each with its own distinct nature, from the eye to touch, each having the self-characteristic of a place. In this way, when right knowledge arises in those distinct dharmas, it is called observing its own characteristic. When this observation of its own characteristic is accomplished and perfected, the dharma of the path arises, and only then is the name of the foundation of mindfulness of the body of its own characteristic established.
。此亦遍知彼法自相。由此各別有正智生。非諸境中總生一智。有說。非此自相觀中觀無表色。以無表色與無色品極相似故。有說。此觀亦觀無表。亦別於無表有道色生故。次身念住觀共相者。謂觀察身一一處相。雖有差別而身相同。又于爾時觀十一處。俱是色相無有差別。謂皆不越大種所造。如是于彼一類法中。有正智生名觀共相。此共相觀得成滿時。有道色起爾時方立。共相種性身念住名。此亦遍知彼法共相。由此總有一正智生。非諸境中各生一智。或身念住觀自相者。謂觀于身各別自性。次身念住觀共相者。謂觀身上與余有為。俱無常性與余有漏。俱是苦性。與餘一切法俱空無我性。若時觀身無二念住故。唯極微集故。一一差別爾時名曰身念住成。如是應知受等念住相及成滿隨其所應。體皆非色故無極微差別。或如前說觀究竟相。謂後後位善根增長。如畦中水泛溢漫流。有說。欻然非愛相起。此有二種。其二者何。一能發瞋。二令不樂。此中但有令不樂相。以所習事若未自在。為求成滿故起欣樂。此于所習已得自在。止息希求故無欣樂。此四念住各有三種。自性相雜所緣別故。自性念住以慧為體。契經說為一趣道故。一是獨義求戰勝者。由此執此害煩惱怨。依此而行能趣圓寂。是故於此立趣道名。唯此獨尊名一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此亦普遍了知那些法的自性。因此，各個不同的法會產生正確的智慧。並非在所有境界中都產生同一種智慧。有人說，在這種自性觀中，不觀察無表色（沒有形狀和顏色的色法），因為無表色與無色界的性質非常相似。也有人說，這種觀察也觀察無表色，並且與無表色不同，會產生道色（通往解脫的色法）。 接下來，身念住（對身體的覺察）觀察共相（共同的性質），指的是觀察身體各個部位的共同特徵。雖然各個部位有所不同，但身體是相同的。此外，在那個時候，觀察身體的十一個部位，都是色相，沒有差別，都不能超出四大種（地、水、火、風）所造。像這樣，在同一類法中，產生正確的智慧，稱為觀察共相。這種共相觀得到圓滿時，會產生道色，那時才成立共相種性的身念住之名。這也普遍了知那些法的共相。因此，總體上產生一種正確的智慧，而不是在各個境界中分別產生智慧。 或者，身念住觀察自相（自身的性質），指的是觀察身體各個不同的自性。接下來，身念住觀察共相，指的是觀察身體與其他的有為法（因緣和合而成的法）一樣，都是無常的；與其他的有漏法（有煩惱的法）一樣，都是苦的；與一切法一樣，都是空無我的。如果觀察身體時沒有兩種念住，只是極微（最小的物質單位）的集合，一一有所差別，那時就稱為身念住成就。應該像這樣瞭解受念住（對感受的覺察）等的相和成就，根據情況而定。它們的體性都不是色法，所以沒有極微的差別。或者像前面所說，觀察究竟相，指的是後後階段善根增長，就像田埂中的水氾濫漫流一樣。 有人說，突然產生非喜愛之相。這有兩種，哪兩種呢？一種是能引發嗔恨，另一種是令人不快樂。這裡只有令人不快樂之相，因為所學習的事情如果還沒有自在，爲了求得成就圓滿，所以會產生欣樂。對於所學習的事情已經得到自在，停止希求，所以沒有欣樂。這四念住各有三種，因為自性、相雜和所緣不同。自性念住以智慧為體，契經（佛經）說這是唯一通往涅槃的道路。『一』是唯一的意思，就像尋求戰鬥勝利的人一樣。因此，執持這種念住可以傷害煩惱怨敵。依靠這種念住而行，能夠通往圓寂（涅槃）。所以，對於這種念住，安立『趣道』之名。只有這種念住最尊貴，所以稱為『一』。
【English Translation】 English version This is also to universally know the individual characteristics of those dharmas (phenomena). Because of this, correct wisdom arises for each distinct dharma. It is not that a single wisdom arises in all realms. Some say that in this contemplation of individual characteristics, one does not contemplate formless matter (avyakrita-rupa), because formless matter is extremely similar to the qualities of the formless realm. Others say that this contemplation also contemplates formless matter, and different from formless matter, the path-form (marga-rupa) arises. Next, mindfulness of the body (kaya-smrti) contemplates the common characteristics (samanya-laksana), which refers to observing the common features of each part of the body. Although the parts are different, the body is the same. Furthermore, at that time, observing the eleven parts of the body, they are all form, without any difference, and do not exceed what is created by the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind). In this way, in the same category of dharmas, correct wisdom arises, which is called contemplating the common characteristics. When this contemplation of common characteristics is perfected, path-form arises, and then the name of mindfulness of the body of the common characteristic nature is established. This also universally knows the common characteristics of those dharmas. Therefore, a single correct wisdom arises in general, rather than wisdom arising separately in each realm. Alternatively, mindfulness of the body contemplates the individual characteristics (svalaksana), which refers to observing the different individual natures of the body. Next, mindfulness of the body contemplates the common characteristics, which refers to observing that the body, like other conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharmas), is impermanent (anitya); like other defiled dharmas (sasrava-dharmas), is suffering (duhkha); and like all dharmas, is empty and without self (sunya and anatma). If, when observing the body, there are not two mindfulnesses, but only an aggregation of extremely small particles (paramanu), each with its own difference, then it is called the accomplishment of mindfulness of the body. One should understand the characteristics and accomplishment of mindfulness of feelings (vedana-smrti) and so on in this way, as appropriate. Their essence is not form, so there is no difference in extremely small particles. Or, as mentioned earlier, contemplate the ultimate characteristic, which refers to the growth of wholesome roots in later stages, like water overflowing and spreading in a field. Some say that a non-desirable appearance suddenly arises. There are two types of this, what two? One is capable of arousing anger, and the other causes unhappiness. Here, there is only the appearance of causing unhappiness, because if what is being practiced is not yet mastered, one will generate joy in order to achieve perfection. For what has been practiced and mastered, there is no joy because the desire has ceased. These four mindfulnesses each have three types, because their nature, mixture, and object are different. Mindfulness of nature has wisdom as its essence, and the sutras (scriptures) say that this is the one path to nirvana. 'One' means unique, like someone seeking victory in battle. Therefore, holding onto this mindfulness can harm the enemy of afflictions. Relying on this mindfulness and practicing, one can reach parinirvana (complete nirvana). Therefore, for this mindfulness, the name 'path' is established. Only this mindfulness is the most venerable, so it is called 'one'.
趣道。此即是慧于斷煩惱。趣涅槃中慧最勝故。如契經說。姊妹當知諸聖弟子執智慧劍。能斷一切結縛隨眠。直趣涅槃無掛礙故。又契經說。若有于身住循身觀名身念住。于受心法說亦如是。諸循觀名唯目慧體。非慧無有循觀用故本論亦說。身念住云何。謂緣身慧餘三說亦爾。故知唯慧得念住名。慧中何等名自性念住。應知唯取聞思修所成。此中隨聞加行所起。緣別義慧名聞所成。若隨思義加行所起。非不待名亦非在定。緣別義慧名思所成。若在定中隨觀別義。不待名慧名修所成。即此亦名三種念住。相雜念住以慧所餘俱有為體。慧俱有法與慧俱時相雜住故。如契經說。苾芻當知說善法聚言即說四念住。既于念住說善聚言。故以慧俱多法為體。本論亦說由身增上所生善道。通有漏無漏亦名身念住。乃至廣說。此文總說與慧相應。俱有諸法名爲念住。此文不言緣身道者。勿謂此如自性念住。體唯取相應道為其體故。所緣念住以慧所緣諸法為體。以一切法無不皆是。慧所緣故應名慧住。何故經中標以異名作異廣釋。此亦無失。約前三種釋念住名皆唯慧故。且就自性釋念住名。謂諸法中若有一法。由念得住彼名念住。此是何法是慧非余。寧知慧住要由念力。以有念者慧增明故。謂慧得住由念所持。是念力資方得住義。如是標
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問道：什麼才是斷除煩惱的智慧？在趨向涅槃的道路上，哪種智慧最為殊勝？正如契經所說：『諸位姊妹應當知道，聖弟子手持智慧之劍，能夠斬斷一切束縛和隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式），直接趨向涅槃，沒有任何阻礙。』 此外，契經還說：『如果有人對身體保持正念，觀察身體的實相，這被稱為身念住（專注于身體的念住）。對於感受、心和法（一切事物）的觀察也是如此。』這些正念的觀察，實際上都是智慧的作用。因為沒有智慧，就沒有正念的觀察。本論也說：『什麼是身念住？就是以身體為對象的智慧。』對於其餘三種念住（受念住、心念住、法念住）的解釋也是如此。因此，我們知道只有智慧才能被稱爲念住。 在這些智慧中，哪一種被稱為自性念住？應當知道，只有通過聽聞、思考和修習所獲得的智慧才能被稱為自性念住。其中，隨著聽聞的加行而生起的，以不同的意義為對象的智慧，被稱為聞所成慧。如果隨著思考意義的加行而生起的，不依賴於名相，也不一定在禪定中的，以不同的意義為對象的智慧，被稱為思所成慧。如果在禪定中，隨著觀察不同的意義，不依賴於名相的智慧，被稱為修所成慧。這些智慧也被稱為三種念住。 相雜念住以智慧以及與智慧同時生起的其他法為體。因為與智慧同時生起的法與智慧同時存在，相互混合。正如契經所說：『諸位比丘應當知道，說善法聚集，就是說四念住（身念住、受念住、心念住、法念住）。』既然在念住中提到了善法聚集，那麼它就以智慧以及與智慧同時生起的眾多法為體。本論也說：『由身體的增上力所產生的善道，包括有漏和無漏，也被稱為身念住。』乃至廣說。這段文字總括地說，與智慧相應的，同時生起的諸法，都被稱爲念住。這段文字沒有說以身體為對象的道，是爲了避免誤認為它像自性念住一樣，其體僅僅取與道相應的智慧。 所緣念住以智慧所緣的諸法為體。因為一切法沒有不是智慧所緣的，所以應該被稱為慧住。為什麼經典中要用不同的名稱來標示，並作不同的廣泛解釋呢？這也沒有什麼過失。從前面三種念住的解釋來看，念住的名稱都只是智慧。暫且就自性來解釋念住的名稱，就是說在諸法中，如果有一種法，由於唸的作用而得以安住，那麼這種法就被稱爲念住。這種法是什麼呢？是智慧，而不是其他。怎麼知道智慧的安住一定要依靠唸的力量呢？因為有了念，智慧才能更加明亮。也就是說，智慧的安住是由於唸的扶持，這是念的力量資助才能安住的意義。就這樣標示。
【English Translation】 English version Question: What is the wisdom that cuts off afflictions? Among those who strive for Nirvana, which wisdom is the most supreme? As the sutra says: 'Sisters, know that the noble disciples wield the sword of wisdom, which can cut off all bonds and latent tendencies (potential forms of affliction), directly heading towards Nirvana without any hindrance.' Furthermore, the sutra also says: 'If one maintains mindfulness of the body, observing the true nature of the body, this is called body mindfulness (focusing on mindfulness of the body). The observation of feelings, mind, and dharmas (all things) is the same.' These mindful observations are actually the function of wisdom. Because without wisdom, there is no mindful observation. The treatise also says: 'What is body mindfulness? It is wisdom that takes the body as its object.' The explanation for the other three mindfulnesses (mindfulness of feelings, mindfulness of mind, mindfulness of dharmas) is the same. Therefore, we know that only wisdom can be called mindfulness. Among these wisdoms, which one is called self-nature mindfulness? It should be known that only the wisdom obtained through hearing, thinking, and cultivation can be called self-nature mindfulness. Among them, the wisdom that arises with the practice of hearing, taking different meanings as its object, is called wisdom obtained through hearing. If the wisdom that arises with the practice of thinking about meanings, not relying on names and not necessarily in meditation, taking different meanings as its object, is called wisdom obtained through thinking. If, in meditation, while observing different meanings, the wisdom that does not rely on names is called wisdom obtained through cultivation. These wisdoms are also called the three mindfulnesses. Mixed mindfulness takes wisdom and other dharmas that arise simultaneously with wisdom as its essence. Because the dharmas that arise simultaneously with wisdom exist and mix with wisdom at the same time. As the sutra says: 'Monks, know that saying the gathering of good dharmas is the same as saying the four mindfulnesses (mindfulness of body, mindfulness of feelings, mindfulness of mind, mindfulness of dharmas).' Since the gathering of good dharmas is mentioned in mindfulness, it takes wisdom and many dharmas that arise simultaneously with wisdom as its essence. The treatise also says: 'The good path produced by the power of the body, including both contaminated and uncontaminated, is also called body mindfulness.' And so on. This passage summarizes that all dharmas that are in accordance with wisdom and arise simultaneously are called mindfulness. This passage does not say the path that takes the body as its object, in order to avoid the misunderstanding that it is like self-nature mindfulness, whose essence only takes the wisdom that corresponds to the path. Object-related mindfulness takes the dharmas that wisdom takes as its object as its essence. Because there is no dharma that is not taken as an object by wisdom, it should be called wisdom-abiding. Why does the sutra use different names to indicate and make different extensive explanations? There is nothing wrong with this. From the explanation of the previous three mindfulnesses, the names of mindfulness are all just wisdom. For the time being, let's explain the name of mindfulness from its self-nature, that is, among all dharmas, if there is a dharma that can abide due to the function of mindfulness, then this dharma is called mindfulness. What is this dharma? It is wisdom, not others. How do we know that the abiding of wisdom must rely on the power of mindfulness? Because with mindfulness, wisdom can become brighter. That is to say, the abiding of wisdom is due to the support of mindfulness, which is the meaning that the power of mindfulness helps to abide. Thus it is marked.
釋念住名時。唯依于慧不依余法。是故廣釋如所標名。名義相符斯有何失。若就相雜釋念住名。謂與慧俱念方得住。令念得住故慧得念住名。念住相應及俱有法。與念住相雜名相雜念住。豈不定等亦與慧俱方得安住。則應許慧體令定等。住故得定等住名。不爾此中為顯念慧。相資力勝故偏立念住名。謂慧若於身受心法。以自共相循循觀時。要念力持方得明瞭。以於此地串習記持。方能進修余未習地。是故於慧簡擇法時。念最能為堅強助伴。念于身等得安住時。要慧力持方能明記。故世尊說若有于身。住循身觀者念便住不謬。尊者無滅亦作是言。若有能于身住循身觀緣身念得住。乃至廣說。或若行者觀身等竟。無間不能觀于受等。便應追念先加行時。所有曾修受等行相。由追念故彼相現前。因此便能觀察受等。故說有念慧得增明。如是念生由先慧力。故念與慧為勝助伴。或此二法於一切時。所有功能相隨勝劣。故說二種相資最勝。若就所緣釋念住名。謂慧由念令念住故。便於慧體立念住名。念住所緣身等諸法。是念住所緣名所緣念住。故約三種釋念住名。皆顯慧強獨名念住。由此念住是慧理成。故釋與標無相違失。分別論者作如是言。念住即用念為自體。此中不應置念根故。標釋兩文俱說念故。此中不說慧住名故。彼言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 解釋『念住』（Sati-patthana，四念住）這個名稱時，僅僅依靠智慧（Prajna），不依賴其他法。因此，廣泛地解釋這個名稱，要符合所標示的含義。名稱和意義相符，這有什麼過失呢？ 如果從相雜的角度解釋『念住』這個名稱，意思是說念（Smrti）只有和智慧一起，才能安住。因為能使念安住，所以智慧才得到『念住』這個名稱。與念住相應的以及同時存在的法，與念住相互混合，稱為相雜念住。難道定（Samadhi）等等不是也要和智慧一起才能安住嗎？那麼就應該承認智慧的本體能使定等等安住，因此定等等也應該得到『定住』等等的名稱。如果不是這樣，那麼這裡是爲了彰顯念和智慧相互資助的力量強大，所以才特別建立『念住』這個名稱。意思是說，智慧如果對於身（Kaya）、受（Vedana）、心（Citta）、法（Dharma），以各自的共相和自相，循序漸進地觀察時，需要念的力量支援才能明瞭。因為在這個地方串習和記憶，才能進一步修習其他未曾習過的領域。因此，在智慧簡擇法的時候，念最能成為堅強的助手。唸對于身等等得到安住的時候，需要智慧的力量支援才能明記。所以世尊說，如果有人對於身，安住于循身觀（Kayanupassana）時，念便能安住而不謬誤。尊者無滅（Anuruddha）也這樣說，如果有人能于身安住，循身觀，緣身念得住，乃至廣說。 或者如果修行者觀察身等等之後，不能無間地觀察受等等，就應該追念先前加行時，所有曾經修習的受等等的行相。由於追念的緣故，那些行相就會顯現出來。因此就能觀察受等等。所以說有念，智慧才能增明。像這樣，唸的生起是由於先前的智慧的力量。所以念和智慧是殊勝的助伴。或者這兩種法在一切時候，所有功能相互隨順，有勝有劣。所以說這兩種法相互資助最為殊勝。 如果從所緣的角度解釋『念住』這個名稱，意思是說智慧通過念使念安住，因此就在智慧的本體上建立『念住』這個名稱。念住所緣的身等等諸法，是念住所緣，名稱為所緣念住。所以從三種角度解釋『念住』這個名稱，都是爲了彰顯智慧強大，單獨稱爲念住。由此可見，念住是智慧的道理所成就的。所以解釋和標示沒有相互違背的過失。 分別論者這樣說，念住就是用唸作為自體。這裡不應該設定念根（Smrti-indriya）的緣故。標示和解釋兩處都說了唸的緣故。這裡沒有說慧住這個名稱的緣故。他們的說法...
【English Translation】 English version When explaining the name 'Sati-patthana' (Four Foundations of Mindfulness), one relies solely on wisdom (Prajna), not on other dharmas. Therefore, a broad explanation of the name should align with the meaning it signifies. If the name and meaning correspond, what fault is there? If we explain the name 'Sati-patthana' from the perspective of intermixture, it means that mindfulness (Smrti) can only abide together with wisdom. Because it enables mindfulness to abide, wisdom receives the name 'Sati-patthana'. Dharmas that are associated with and co-existent with Sati-patthana, intermingling with it, are called intermixed Sati-patthana. Isn't it also true that Samadhi (concentration) and other factors can only abide together with wisdom? Then it should be acknowledged that the essence of wisdom enables Samadhi and other factors to abide, and therefore Samadhi and other factors should also receive names like 'Samadhi-patthana' and so on. If this is not the case, then the purpose here is to highlight the powerful mutual support between mindfulness and wisdom, which is why the name 'Sati-patthana' is specifically established. It means that when wisdom observes the body (Kaya), feelings (Vedana), mind (Citta), and dharmas (Dharma) with their respective general and specific characteristics in a progressive manner, it requires the support of mindfulness to be clear. Because of familiarity and memory in this area, one can further cultivate other areas that have not been practiced. Therefore, when wisdom discerns dharmas, mindfulness is the strongest companion. When mindfulness abides in the body and other aspects, it requires the support of wisdom to be clearly remembered. Therefore, the World Honored One said that if someone abides in the body, observing the body in accordance with the body (Kayanupassana), mindfulness will abide without error. Venerable Anuruddha also said, 'If someone can abide in the body, observing the body in accordance with the body, mindfulness based on the body will abide,' and so on. Or, if a practitioner cannot immediately observe feelings and other aspects after observing the body and other aspects, they should recall the aspects of feelings and other aspects that they had previously cultivated during the preliminary practice. Due to this recollection, those aspects will appear. Therefore, one can observe feelings and other aspects. Thus, it is said that with mindfulness, wisdom becomes brighter. In this way, the arising of mindfulness is due to the power of previous wisdom. Therefore, mindfulness and wisdom are excellent companions. Or, these two dharmas, at all times, have all their functions mutually supporting each other, with strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is said that these two dharmas are the most excellent in mutual support. If we explain the name 'Sati-patthana' from the perspective of the object of focus, it means that wisdom enables mindfulness to abide through mindfulness, and therefore the name 'Sati-patthana' is established on the essence of wisdom. The dharmas such as the body and other aspects that are the object of focus of Sati-patthana are the object of focus of Sati-patthana, and are named the object-focused Sati-patthana. Therefore, explaining the name 'Sati-patthana' from three perspectives is all to highlight the strength of wisdom, which is uniquely called Sati-patthana. From this, it can be seen that Sati-patthana is achieved through the principle of wisdom. Therefore, there is no fault of contradiction between the explanation and the designation. Those who make distinctions say that Sati-patthana uses mindfulness as its own essence. This is because the faculty of mindfulness (Smrti-indriya) should not be established here. Because both the designation and the explanation mention mindfulness. Because the name 'wisdom-patthana' is not mentioned here. Their statement...
非理。所以者何。雖於此中置念名想。而依業用已置慧根。如信定慧根雖不如次置證凈靜慮。了別諦中而由功能義已置故。標釋兩文顯說慧故。謂前已辯標念住名。依慧非余顯標慧故釋中具以循觀正知。二種慧名再說慧故。由此標釋都不相違。說念住言義如前說。前何所說。謂前所言為顯念慧相資力勝。是故偏立念住名等。又為具顯三種念住。故不於此說慧住言。謂說念言顯相雜念住。復說住言顯所緣念住。說循觀言顯自性念住。若言慧住唯局慧體。自相不捨得慧住名。此則但明自性念住。便為棄捨相雜所緣。則彼俱應不名念住然不應許。以于契經及本論中皆說三故。由此為證諸念住言。目慧非余決定成立。何緣故說三種念住。為愚行相資糧所緣。三種有情故說三種。或根勝解分位各三。機宜不同故說三種。三中相雜能斷煩惱。非二能斷太減增故。與慧雜住得相雜名。理則但應慧俱有法。可得名曰相雜念住。非慧與慧可有相雜。無有一身二慧俱故。由此知慧非相雜攝。不應唯說相雜念住。能斷煩惱理應具言。自性相雜能斷煩惱。于斷煩惱慧為首故。無如是過。斷煩惱時于慧亦立相雜名故。謂得止觀平等運道能斷煩惱。其理決定。所餘一切心心所等。有止品攝有觀品收。此平等時彼亦平等。由是一切相雜理齊。顯斷惑時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不合理。為什麼呢？雖然在這裡安立『念』（smṛti，憶念）的名詞和概念，但實際上是依仗『業用』（karma-prayoga，行為作用）已經安立了『慧根』（prajñā-indriya，智慧之根）。就像『信根』（śraddhā-indriya，信仰之根）、『定根』（samādhi-indriya，禪定之根）、『慧根』雖然不如次第安立『證凈』（prativedha-viśuddhi，證悟清凈）和『靜慮』（dhyāna，禪定），但在了別真諦的過程中，由於其功能作用，實際上已經安立了慧根。標宗和解釋兩段文字都明顯地說明了智慧的緣故。前面已經辨明了標立『念住』（smṛty-upasthāna，念住）的名稱，是依仗智慧而非其他，這顯示了標立智慧的緣故。解釋中詳細地以『循觀』（anupaśyanā，隨觀）和『正知』（samprajanya，如實知）兩種智慧的名稱再次說明智慧的緣故。由此，標宗和解釋都不相違背。說『念住』這個詞的含義如前面所說。前面說了什麼呢？前面所說的是爲了顯示『念』和『慧』相互資助的力量殊勝，所以才偏重地安立『念住』的名稱等等。又爲了完整地顯示三種念住，所以不在這裡說『慧住』這個詞。說『念』這個詞，顯示『相雜念住』（samsṛṣṭa-smṛty-upasthāna，與煩惱相雜的念住）。再說『住』這個詞，顯示『所緣念住』（ālambana-smṛty-upasthāna，以所緣為對象的念住）。說『循觀』這個詞，顯示『自性念住』（svabhāva-smṛty-upasthāna，自性上的念住）。如果說『慧住』僅僅侷限於智慧的本體，自身不捨棄而得到『慧住』的名稱，那麼這只是說明了自性念住，就等於拋棄了相雜念住和所緣念住，那麼它們都應該不被稱爲念住，這是不應該允許的。因為在契經和本論中都說了三種念住。由此可以證明，所有『念住』這個詞，都是指智慧而非其他，這是可以確定的。 因為什麼緣故要說三種念住呢？爲了愚昧的行為、資糧和所緣這三種有情，所以說了三種念住。或者根器、勝解、分位各有三種，機緣不同，所以說了三種念住。三種念住中，相雜念住能夠斷除煩惱，如果只有兩種就太少，如果增加一種就太多，所以是三種。與智慧相雜而住，得到相雜的名稱，道理上應該只有與智慧俱有的法，才可以被稱為相雜念住，而不是智慧與智慧可以相雜，因為沒有一個身體中同時存在兩種智慧。由此可知，智慧不屬於相雜念住所攝，不應該只說相雜念住能夠斷除煩惱，理應完整地說，自性念住和相雜念住能夠斷除煩惱。在斷除煩惱時，智慧是首要的，所以沒有這樣的過失。在獲得止觀平等運作的道路時，能夠斷除煩惱，這個道理是確定的。其餘一切心和心所等，有的屬於止品所攝，有的屬於觀品所收。當止觀平等時，它們也平等。因此，一切相雜的道理都是一致的，這顯示了斷除迷惑的時候。
【English Translation】 English version: It is unreasonable. Why is that? Although we establish the name and concept of 'smṛti' (念, mindfulness, recollection) here, in reality, it is relying on 'karma-prayoga' (業用, the application of action) that the 'prajñā-indriya' (慧根, the root of wisdom) has already been established. Just like 'śraddhā-indriya' (信根, the root of faith), 'samādhi-indriya' (定根, the root of concentration), and 'prajñā-indriya', although they do not establish 'prativedha-viśuddhi' (證凈, realization of purity) and 'dhyāna' (靜慮, meditation) in that order, in the process of distinguishing the true meaning, due to their functional effect, the root of wisdom has actually been established. The two sections of the thesis and explanation clearly state the reason for wisdom. It has already been clarified earlier that establishing the name of 'smṛty-upasthāna' (念住, the foundations of mindfulness) relies on wisdom and not other factors, which shows the reason for establishing wisdom. The explanation elaborately uses the names of the two types of wisdom, 'anupaśyanā' (循觀, contemplation) and 'samprajanya' (正知, clear comprehension), to explain the reason for wisdom again. Therefore, the thesis and explanation do not contradict each other. The meaning of the term 'smṛty-upasthāna' is as mentioned earlier. What was said earlier? What was said earlier was to show that the power of mutual assistance between 'smṛti' and 'prajñā' is superior, so the name of 'smṛty-upasthāna' is emphasized, and so on. Also, in order to fully show the three types of smṛty-upasthāna, the term 'prajñā-upasthāna' is not used here. The term 'smṛti' shows 'samsṛṣṭa-smṛty-upasthāna' (相雜念住, mindfulness mixed with afflictions). The term 'upasthāna' shows 'ālambana-smṛty-upasthāna' (所緣念住, mindfulness of the object). The term 'anupaśyanā' shows 'svabhāva-smṛty-upasthāna' (自性念住, mindfulness of self-nature). If it is said that 'prajñā-upasthāna' is only limited to the essence of wisdom, and the name 'prajñā-upasthāna' is obtained without abandoning itself, then this only explains the mindfulness of self-nature, which is equivalent to abandoning mindfulness mixed with afflictions and mindfulness of the object, then they should all not be called mindfulness, which should not be allowed. Because the three types of mindfulness are mentioned in both the sutras and the treatises. From this, it can be proved that all the terms 'smṛty-upasthāna' refer to wisdom and not other factors, which can be determined. For what reason are the three types of mindfulness mentioned? For the three types of sentient beings: ignorant actions, accumulation, and object, the three types of mindfulness are mentioned. Or the faculties, understanding, and divisions each have three types, and the opportunities are different, so the three types of mindfulness are mentioned. Among the three types of mindfulness, mindfulness mixed with afflictions can cut off afflictions. If there are only two types, it is too few, and if one type is added, it is too much, so there are three types. Dwelling mixed with wisdom obtains the name of being mixed. In principle, only the dharma that exists together with wisdom can be called mindfulness mixed with afflictions, rather than wisdom and wisdom can be mixed, because there are no two wisdoms existing in one body at the same time. From this, it can be known that wisdom is not included in mindfulness mixed with afflictions. It should not only be said that mindfulness mixed with afflictions can cut off afflictions. It should be said completely that mindfulness of self-nature and mindfulness mixed with afflictions can cut off afflictions. When cutting off afflictions, wisdom is the most important, so there is no such fault. When obtaining the path of equal operation of cessation and contemplation, it is certain that afflictions can be cut off. All the remaining minds and mental factors, some belong to the category of cessation, and some belong to the category of contemplation. When cessation and contemplation are equal, they are also equal. Therefore, the principles of all mixtures are consistent, which shows the time of cutting off delusion.
相雜理等。故亦于慧立相雜名。多於所成有勝能故。自性念住非。不亦能斷諸煩惱體是慧故。然名自性謂無所待。斷煩惱時必待余法故。斷煩惱位慧立相雜名。由此所言相雜念住。能斷煩惱理善成立。此中斷煩惱但由修所成。然非此中聞思無用。隨順修故如殖樹根。修所成中唯法念住能斷煩惱。緣四五蘊或緣涅槃能斷惑故。法念住中共相作意能斷煩惱。自相作意緣少分境故無此能。四念住內前之三種。唯不雜緣第四通二。然三諦智唯有雜緣能斷煩惱。唯滅諦智雖不雜緣亦斷煩惱。雜緣智內至緣三蘊。亦定無有斷惑功能。即於此中總緣一切。有漏無漏為無為等。亦定無有斷惑功能。然不雜緣少雜多雜。于斷煩惱非全無用。引發能斷故修治身器故。彼于斷惑但可能為。加行勝進二道自體。唯有處中雜緣法念住。及唯緣滅不雜法念住。亦為無間解脫道體。若斷煩惱唯法念住。則法念住為無間道。此無間道現在前時。云何能修餘三念住。若三念住非斷治攝。乘無間道于未來修。斷有頂染時應修世俗智。諸無間道中應修他心智。彼何障礙非未來修。故於此中應詳理趣。非要同治方未來修。亦非所修都無限齊。后辯修處當廣為釋。身等念住各有三種。緣內外俱有差別故。且身念住有三種中。緣自相續說名為內緣他身等說名為外。雙
緣二種說為內外。以有我愛而慢緩者。應觀內身猶如外故。或內如前緣無執受說名為外。緣他相續說為內外。待無執受及待自身得二名故。或緣根境及俱名三。或緣有情及非情數。通緣二種。差別為三。或緣有情外非情數。及發毛等差別為三。以彼皆從內身生故。離根住故具得二名。或緣有情現在名內。緣外非情三世名外。緣情去來說為內外。有情類故墮法數故。又彼未來當墮情數。正墮法數彼過去時。曾墮情數正墮法數。彼不生法是生類故。受等三種一一各三。隨其所應準前應釋。此四念住說次隨生。生復何緣次第如是。生次如是相隨順故。有情多分于諸色中好受用故。不逮勝法好受用色以何為緣。謂于受中情深欣樂。欣樂於受由心不調。心之不調由諸煩惱。心由信等可令調伏。隨觀此理四念住生。或隨所緣粗細生故。然非由此心最後觀。法中涅槃極微細故。彼想思等循觀受時。準義已能了知其相。同依心起等安危故。有餘師說。色可聚散可取可舍。相似相續不凈苦等易了知故。多分緣身生貪等故。男女展轉起貪處故。不凈觀持息念及分別界。三入修門一切多緣身為境故。修念住位應最初觀。此觀為因生輕安觸。由輕安觸引生樂受。經說身安便受樂故。如是樂受依心而生。凈心為因得解脫果。由是受等隨次而觀。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣起二種，可分為內在和外在。對於那些因我愛而變得懈怠的人，應該觀想自己的身體如同外物一樣。或者，內在如同前面所說，因為沒有執受而被稱為外在。緣于其他眾生的相續，可稱為內在和外在，因為取決於是否執受以及是否自身而得到兩種名稱。或者，緣于根、境以及兩者俱全，可分為三種。或者，緣于有情和非有情之物，普遍地緣于兩種，差別在於三種。或者，緣于有情、外在的非情之物，以及頭髮等，差別在於三種，因為它們都從內在的身體產生，並且脫離了根而存在，因此具有兩種名稱。或者，緣于有情，現在名為內在；緣于外在的非情之物，過去、現在、未來三世名為外在；緣于有情的過去和未來，可稱為內在和外在，因為是有情之類，屬於法的範疇。此外，那些未來將要墮入有情之列的，以及正在墮入法之範疇的；那些過去曾經墮入有情之列的，以及正在墮入法之範疇的；那些不生之法，是因為屬於有生之類。受、想、行三種，每一種又各有三種，根據相應的情況，應該按照前面的解釋。這四念住（Sati-patthana）的生起是依次相隨的。為什麼生起的次第是這樣的呢？因為生起的次第是這樣相互順應的。有情大多喜歡在各種色（Rupa）中享受，因此無法獲得殊勝之法。喜歡享受色是以什麼為緣由呢？是因為對於受（Vedana）有深刻的欣樂。欣樂於受，是因為心（Citta）不調伏。心的不調伏，是因為各種煩惱（Klesha）。心可以通過信等來調伏。隨著對這個道理的觀察，四念住便會生起。或者，隨著所緣的粗細而生起。然而，並非因此心最後才觀察法，因為法中的涅槃（Nirvana）極其微細。當觀察受時，想（Samjna）、思（Cetana）等，根據意義已經能夠了解其相，因為它們都依心而起，並且安危相同。有其他老師說，色可以聚集和分散，可以取捨，相似相續，不凈、苦等容易瞭解。大多緣于身體而生起貪等，男女之間輾轉生起貪慾之處。不凈觀、持息念以及分別界，這三個進入修行的門徑，大多以身體為境界。因此，在修習念住的階段，應該首先觀察身體。這種觀察是產生輕安觸（Passaddhi）的原因。由輕安觸引導產生樂受（Sukha）。經中說，身體安穩便會感受快樂。這樣，樂受依心而生，以清凈的心為因，可以得到解脫的果實。因此，受等依次被觀察。所以。
【English Translation】 English version The arising of conditions is said to be of two kinds: internal and external. For those who are slow due to attachment to self, they should contemplate the internal body as if it were external. Or, the internal is as previously described, called external because of the absence of clinging. Conditioning on the continuum of others is said to be internal and external, because it obtains two names depending on whether there is clinging or whether it is oneself. Or, conditioning on the roots, objects, and both together, it can be divided into three. Or, conditioning on sentient beings and non-sentient things, universally conditioning on two kinds, the difference being three. Or, conditioning on sentient beings, external non-sentient things, and hair, etc., the difference being three, because they all arise from the internal body and exist apart from the roots, thus possessing two names. Or, conditioning on sentient beings, the present is called internal; conditioning on external non-sentient things, the past, present, and future are called external; conditioning on the past and future of sentient beings can be called internal and external, because they are of the sentient kind and belong to the category of phenomena. Furthermore, those who will fall into the category of sentient beings in the future, and those who are currently falling into the category of phenomena; those who have fallen into the category of sentient beings in the past, and those who are currently falling into the category of phenomena; those non-arising phenomena are because they belong to the category of the living. Feeling (Vedana), perception (Samjna), and volition (Cetana), each of these three has three aspects, and should be explained according to the corresponding situation as before. The arising of these four foundations of mindfulness (Sati-patthana) is said to be sequential. Why is the sequence of arising like this? Because the sequence of arising is mutually supportive in this way. Sentient beings mostly like to enjoy various forms (Rupa), therefore they cannot attain the superior Dharma. What is the reason for liking to enjoy forms? It is because of a deep delight in feeling (Vedana). Delighting in feeling is because the mind (Citta) is not tamed. The untamed mind is because of various afflictions (Klesha). The mind can be tamed by faith, etc. As one observes this principle, the four foundations of mindfulness arise. Or, they arise according to the grossness or subtlety of the object. However, it is not because of this that the mind observes the Dharma last, because Nirvana (Nirvana) in the Dharma is extremely subtle. When observing feeling, perception (Samjna), thought (Cetana), etc., according to the meaning, one is already able to understand their characteristics, because they all arise depending on the mind and share the same safety and danger. Some other teachers say that form can be gathered and dispersed, can be taken and discarded, is similar and continuous, and is easy to understand as impure, suffering, etc. Mostly, greed, etc., arise from conditioning on the body, and it is the place where men and women give rise to desire in turn. The contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, and the analysis of the elements, these three entrances to practice mostly take the body as their object. Therefore, in the stage of practicing mindfulness, one should first observe the body. This observation is the cause of generating tranquil touch (Passaddhi). Tranquil touch leads to the generation of pleasurable feeling (Sukha). The sutras say that when the body is at ease, one will experience pleasure. In this way, pleasurable feeling arises depending on the mind, and with a pure mind as the cause, one can obtain the fruit of liberation. Therefore, feeling, etc., are observed in sequence. Therefore.
念住生如是次第。此四念住不增不減。能治凈等四顛倒故。觀身不凈治于不凈。謂凈顛倒雖凈顛倒通緣五蘊。然但觀身自性非凈便能總伏。如人已觀糞體不凈。亦不欣樂從糞所生。如是已觀身體不凈。亦不欣樂從身所生。由此觀身為不凈者。於五取蘊皆不欣樂。以有為身凈想迷者。彼方欣樂依身所生。是故觀身為不凈者。于身所起亦不欣樂。如有安住不凈觀時。雖不親觀聲等為境。而於歌等棄如糞穢。如是安住身念住時。雖不親觀受等為境。觀身自體為不凈故。終不欣樂受等三境。又雖不觀色無色境。以為不凈而於彼境。非不引生不樂行相。是故凈倒雖緣五蘊身念住成便能總伏。后三念住雖各別觀。例此應思能總伏理。觀受是苦能治于苦謂樂顛倒。謂若有法真可欣欲。是為樂義于多過患。所雜行中見有可欣殊勝功德。是名于苦謂樂顛倒。此倒必用耽受為先。以于受中深耽著著己。方於一切逼惱所依。有漏行中妄生樂想。是故觀受為苦性時。便能總伏計樂顛倒。觀心無常能治無常謂常顛倒。謂觀行者憎厭受故。于所依心見有眾多。品類差別引無常觀令現在前。便於有為不生常想。故能總伏計常顛倒。觀法無我能治無我謂我顛倒。謂有一類聞我無常。心不生喜遂作是念。誰令此心有多差別。彼即是我為遮彼計。復應諦觀除
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如是次第生起四念住。這四念住不多也不少，因為它們能對治凈顛倒、樂顛倒、常顛倒、我顛倒這四種顛倒。觀察身體是不凈的，能對治不凈顛倒，即凈顛倒。雖然凈顛倒普遍緣於五蘊（色、受、想、行、識），但僅僅觀察身體的自性是不凈的，就能總的降伏它。比如，如果一個人已經觀察過糞便的本體是不凈的，就不會喜歡從糞便中產生的東西。同樣，如果已經觀察過身體是不凈的，就不會喜歡從身體中產生的東西。因此，觀察身體為不凈的人，對於五取蘊（色取蘊、受取蘊、想取蘊、行取蘊、識取蘊）都不會喜歡。因為那些對有為之身有清凈想法而迷惑的人，才會喜歡依賴身體所產生的事物。所以，觀察身體為不凈的人，對於身體所產生的（事物）也不會喜歡。比如，當安住于不凈觀時，即使不直接觀察聲音等為對境，也會像拋棄糞便一樣拋棄歌舞等。同樣，安住于身念住時，即使不直接觀察受等為對境，因為觀察身體的自體是不凈的，最終也不會喜歡受等三種境界。又即使不觀察色界和無色界的境界為不凈，對於那些境界，並非不會引起不樂的行相。因此，凈顛倒雖然緣於五蘊，但身念住一旦成就，就能總的降伏它。后三種念住雖然各自別別觀察，但可以依此類推，思考能夠總的降伏的道理。
觀察感受是痛苦的，能對治苦顛倒，即樂顛倒。如果有什麼法是真正值得欣喜和慾望的，那就是快樂的意義。在摻雜著眾多過患的行（活動）中，看到有值得欣喜的殊勝功德，這叫做于苦謂樂顛倒。這種顛倒必定以耽溺於感受為先。因為在感受中深深地耽著，才會對於一切逼惱所依的有漏行（活動）中，妄生快樂的想法。因此，觀察感受是痛苦的本性時，就能總的降伏計樂顛倒。
觀察心是無常的，能對治無常顛倒，即常顛倒。觀察修行者因為憎惡感受的緣故，在所依的心中看到有眾多品類的差別，從而引導無常的觀察出現在眼前，便對於有為法不產生常恒的想法，所以能夠總的降伏計常顛倒。
觀察法是無我的，能對治無我顛倒，即我顛倒。有一類人聽到我說『我』是無常的，心中不生歡喜，於是產生這樣的念頭：是誰讓這個心有這麼多差別？那就是『我』。爲了遮止這種想法，應該進一步仔細觀察。
【English Translation】 English version: The arising of the four Smṛtyupasthānas (Four Establishments of Mindfulness) occurs in this order. These four Smṛtyupasthānas are neither increased nor decreased, because they can counteract the four Viparyāsas (Four Distortions) such as Śubha (Purity). Contemplating the body as impure counteracts the Aśubha Viparyāsa (Distortion of Impurity), namely the Śubha Viparyāsa. Although the Śubha Viparyāsa universally conditions the five Skandhas (Aggregates) [Rūpa (Form), Vedanā (Feeling), Saṃjñā (Perception), Saṃskāra (Mental Formations), and Vijñāna (Consciousness)], merely contemplating the Svabhāva (Intrinsic Nature) of the body as impure can generally subdue it. For example, if a person has already contemplated the substance of feces as impure, they will not delight in what arises from feces. Similarly, if one has already contemplated the body as impure, they will not delight in what arises from the body. Therefore, one who contemplates the body as impure will not delight in the five Upādānaskandhas (Aggregates of Clinging). Because those who are deluded by the notion of purity regarding the conditioned body delight in what arises dependent on the body. Therefore, one who contemplates the body as impure will not delight in what arises from the body. For example, when abiding in the Aśubha Bhāvanā (Contemplation of Impurity), even without directly observing sounds etc. as objects, one discards songs etc. as if they were filth. Similarly, when abiding in the Kāyasmṛtyupasthāna (Establishment of Mindfulness on the Body), even without directly observing feelings etc. as objects, because one contemplates the body itself as impure, one ultimately does not delight in the three realms of feeling etc. Furthermore, even without contemplating the realms of the Rūpadhātu (Form Realm) and Arūpadhātu (Formless Realm) as impure, one is not without generating an aspect of displeasure towards those realms. Therefore, although the Śubha Viparyāsa conditions the five Skandhas, once the Kāyasmṛtyupasthāna is accomplished, it can generally subdue it. Although the latter three Smṛtyupasthānas are observed separately, one should contemplate the principle of general subdual in accordance with this example.
Contemplating feelings as suffering counteracts the Duḥkha Viparyāsa (Distortion of Suffering), namely the Sukha Viparyāsa (Distortion of Happiness). If there is any Dharma (Phenomenon) that is truly worthy of joy and desire, that is the meaning of happiness. Seeing admirable and superior qualities in activities mixed with numerous faults is called the Sukha Viparyāsa, taking suffering as happiness. This distortion necessarily begins with indulgence in feelings. Because one deeply clings to feelings, one falsely generates the notion of happiness in conditioned activities that are the basis of all afflictions. Therefore, when contemplating the nature of feelings as suffering, one can generally subdue the Sukha Viparyāsa, the distortion of taking suffering as happiness.
Contemplating the mind as impermanent counteracts the Anitya Viparyāsa (Distortion of Impermanence), namely the Nitya Viparyāsa (Distortion of Permanence). Observing practitioners, because of their aversion to feelings, see numerous categories of differences in the mind on which they rely, thereby guiding the contemplation of impermanence to appear before them, and thus they do not generate the notion of permanence towards conditioned Dharmas (Phenomena), so they can generally subdue the Nitya Viparyāsa, the distortion of taking impermanence as permanence.
Contemplating Dharmas (Phenomena) as without self counteracts the Anātma Viparyāsa (Distortion of Non-Self), namely the Ātma Viparyāsa (Distortion of Self). There are some who, upon hearing that 'self' is impermanent, do not rejoice in their hearts and thus generate the thought: Who causes this mind to have so many differences? That is 'self'. To prevent this thought, one should further contemplate carefully.
三所餘。亦唯是法便於一切不起我想。故能總伏計我顛倒。或為對治段觸識思食。如次建立身等四念住。數唯有四不增不減。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之五
如是熟修不凈觀持息念。二加行已能次第引所緣不雜。身受心法念住現前。復于不雜緣法念住無間。引所緣雜法念住生。次應修總緣共相法念住。此法念住其相云何。頌曰。
彼居法念住 總觀四所緣 修無常及苦 空無我行相
論曰。雜緣法念住總有四種。二三四五蘊為境別故。唯總緣五名此所修。彼居此中修四行相。總觀一切身受心法。所謂無常苦空無我。然于修習此念住時。有餘善根能為方便。彼應次第修令現前。謂彼已熟修雜緣法念住。將欲修習此念住時。先應總緣修無我行。次觀生滅次觀緣起。以觀行者先觀諸行從因生滅。便於因果相屬觀門易趣入故。或有欲令先觀緣起。此後引起緣三義觀。此觀無間修七處善。於七處善得善巧故。能于先來諸所見境。立因果諦次第觀察。如是熟修智及定已。便能安立順現觀諦。謂欲上界苦等各別。于如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 此外，只有這種方法便於一切，不會產生『我』的想法。因此，能夠完全降伏執著于『我』的顛倒認知。或者，爲了對治段食（kabaalaahaara，指物質食物）、觸食（phassaahaara，指感官印象）、識食（viññaa.naahaara，指意識）、思食（manosañcetanahaara，指意志），依次建立身念住（kaayaanupassanaa，對身體的覺察）、受念住（vedanaanupassanaa，對感受的覺察）、心念住（cittaanupassanaa，對心的覺察）、法念住（dhammaanupassanaa，對法的覺察）這四種念住。念住的數量只有四種，不多也不少。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第六十 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之五
像這樣熟練地修習不凈觀（asubha-bhavana，觀身體不凈）和持息念（aanapaanasati，覺察呼吸）這兩種加行之後，就能依次引導所緣不雜的，也就是單一的身、受、心、法念住現前。在不雜緣法念住之後，緊接著引導所緣雜的法念住生起。接下來應該修習總緣共相的法念住。這種法念住的相是什麼樣的呢？頌曰：
彼居法念住 總觀四所緣 修無常及苦 空無我行相
論曰：雜緣法念住總共有四種，因為二蘊、三蘊、四蘊、五蘊作為所觀境界的差別。只有總緣五蘊才被稱為這種修習。修行者安住於此，修習四種行相，總觀一切身、受、心、法，也就是無常（anitya，事物變化無常的性質）、苦（duhkha，事物帶來痛苦的性質）、空（shunyata，事物沒有實體或自性的性質）、無我（anatman，事物沒有永恒不變的自我的性質）。然而，在修習這種念住時，有其他的善根可以作為方便。應該依次修習，使它們現前。也就是說，已經熟練修習雜緣法念住的人，將要修習這種念住時，首先應該總緣修習無我行，然後觀察生滅，再觀察緣起（pratitya-samutpada，事物相互依存的產生）。因為觀察者先觀察諸行從因產生和滅亡，所以更容易進入因果相屬的觀察之門。或者有人希望先觀察緣起，然後由此引起緣三義的觀察。在這種觀察之後，修習七處善（sapta-sthana-kushala，七種善巧之處）。因為對七處善獲得了善巧，所以能夠對先前所見的一切境界，建立因果諦（hetu-phala-satya，原因和結果的真理），依次觀察。像這樣熟練地修習智慧和禪定之後，就能安立順現觀諦（anulomiki-prativedha-satya，順應現觀的真理），也就是欲界和上界的苦等各自不同。對於這樣的...
【English Translation】 Furthermore, only this method is convenient for everything, not giving rise to the thought of 'I'. Therefore, it can completely subdue the inverted perception of clinging to 'I'. Or, in order to counteract nutriment of the nature of edible food (kabaalaahaara, material food), nutriment of contact (phassaahaara, sensory impressions), nutriment of consciousness (viññaa.naahaara, consciousness), and nutriment of volition (manosañcetanahaara, volition), the four foundations of mindfulness, namely mindfulness of the body (kaayaanupassanaa, awareness of the body), mindfulness of feeling (vedanaanupassanaa, awareness of feelings), mindfulness of mind (cittaanupassanaa, awareness of the mind), and mindfulness of phenomena (dhammaanupassanaa, awareness of phenomena), are established in sequence. The number of mindfulness is only four, neither increasing nor decreasing.
Shun Zheng Li Lun (Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra) Volume 60 by Sarvastivada Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra Volume 61
Composed by Venerable Zhongxian
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 6.5: Discriminating the Wise and the Noble
Having thus熟練地cultivated the contemplation of impurity (asubha-bhavana, contemplation of the impurity of the body) and mindfulness of breathing (aanapaanasati, awareness of breathing) as two preliminary practices, one can sequentially lead to the arising of the unmixed objects of mindfulness, namely the mindfulness of body, feeling, mind, and phenomena. Immediately after the unmixed mindfulness of phenomena, one leads to the arising of the mixed mindfulness of phenomena. Next, one should cultivate the mindfulness of phenomena that generally contemplates the common characteristics. What is the nature of this mindfulness of phenomena? The verse says:
Dwelling in mindfulness of phenomena, Generally contemplating the four objects, Cultivating impermanence and suffering, Emptiness and no-self as aspects.
The treatise says: The mixed mindfulness of phenomena has four types in total, due to the differences in the two, three, four, and five aggregates as objects. Only the general contemplation of the five aggregates is called this cultivation. Dwelling in this, one cultivates the four aspects, generally contemplating all body, feeling, mind, and phenomena, namely impermanence (anitya, the nature of transience), suffering (duhkha, the nature of suffering), emptiness (shunyata, the nature of emptiness or lack of inherent existence), and no-self (anatman, the nature of no permanent self). However, when cultivating this mindfulness, there are other wholesome roots that can serve as means. One should cultivate them sequentially to make them manifest. That is to say, one who has熟練地cultivated the mixed mindfulness of phenomena and is about to cultivate this mindfulness should first generally contemplate and cultivate the aspect of no-self, then observe arising and ceasing, and then observe dependent origination (pratitya-samutpada, the interdependent arising of phenomena). Because the observer first observes the arising and ceasing of actions from causes, it is easier to enter the gate of observing the relationship between cause and effect. Or some may wish to first observe dependent origination, and then from this arouse the observation of the three meanings of conditions. Immediately after this observation, cultivate the seven skillful places (sapta-sthana-kushala, seven skillful places). Because one has gained skill in the seven skillful places, one can establish the truths of cause and effect (hetu-phala-satya, the truth of cause and effect) and observe them sequentially in all the previously seen objects. Having thus熟練地cultivated wisdom and samadhi, one can establish the truths that accord with direct vision (anulomiki-prativedha-satya, truths that accord with direct vision), namely the suffering and so on of the desire realm and the upper realms are each different. Regarding such...
八隨次第觀。修未曾修十六行相。彼由聞慧於八諦中。初起如斯十六行觀。如隔薄絹睹見眾色。齊此名為聞慧圓滿。思所成慧準此應說。次於生死深生厭患。欣樂涅槃寂靜功德。此後多引厭觀現前方便勤修漸增漸勝。引起如是能順抉擇。思所成攝最勝善根。即所修總緣共相法念住。從此無間生何善根。頌曰。
從此生暖法 具觀四聖諦 修十六行相 次生頂亦然 如是二善根 皆初法后四 次忍唯法念 下中品同頂 上唯觀欲苦 一行一剎那 世第一亦然 皆慧五除得
論曰。從順抉擇勝思所成。總緣共相法念住后。有修所成順抉擇分。初善根起名為暖法。是總緣共相法念住差別。如是所起是當所修。能燒煩惱薪聖道火前相。如鉆火位初暖相生。法與暖同故名暖法。住空閑者執暖法前。已起修所成共相法念住。雖亦有此而不皆然。若有先離欲界染者。依色界攝修所成慧。厭患生死欣樂涅槃。多厭行俱作意次第。能引異類暖善根生。諸有先時未離欲染。依思所成慧引暖善根生。故彼不應作一向執。此善根起分位長故。能其觀察四聖諦境。由此具修十六行相。觀苦聖諦修四行相。一無常二苦三空四無我。觀集聖諦修四行相。一因二集三生四緣。觀滅聖諦修四行相。一滅二靜三妙四離。觀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八隨次第觀：修習先前未曾修習的十六行相（十六種觀照方式）。他通過聽聞佛法所獲得的智慧，在八聖諦（佛教的基本教義，包括苦、集、滅、道四聖諦）中，最初生起這樣的十六行觀。就像隔著薄絹觀看各種顏色一樣。到此為止，稱為聞慧圓滿。思所成慧（通過思考獲得的智慧）也應如此解釋。接下來，對於生死輪迴產生深深的厭惡，欣喜向往涅槃（佛教的最高目標，指解脫生死輪迴）的寂靜功德。此後，多次運用厭離的觀想，並以方便之法勤奮修習，逐漸增進，越來越殊勝，從而引發能夠順應抉擇（做出正確判斷）的、由思考所成就的最殊勝的善根。這就是所修習的總體上緣于共同相的法念住（專注於法的正念）。從此之後，緊接著會生起什麼樣的善根呢？頌詞說：
『從此生暖法，具觀四聖諦，修十六行相，次生頂亦然，如是二善根，皆初法后四，次忍唯法念，下中品同頂，上唯觀欲苦，一行一剎那，世第一亦然，皆慧五除得。』
論曰：從順抉擇（順應抉擇）的、由殊勝思考所成就的、總體上緣于共同相的法念住之後，會有由修習所成就的順抉擇分（趨向解脫的部分）。最初生起的善根稱為暖法（修行過程中產生的溫暖感覺，是證悟的先兆）。這是總體上緣于共同相的法念住的差別。這樣生起的暖法，是即將修習的、能夠焚燒煩惱之薪的聖道之火的前兆。就像鉆木取火時最初產生溫暖的感覺一樣。法與暖相同，所以稱為暖法。住在空閑之處的人，在執持暖法之前，已經生起了由修習所成就的共同相法念住。雖然也有這種情況，但並非所有人都如此。如果有人先前已經遠離了欲界的染污，依靠與**相應的、由修習所成就的智慧，厭惡生死輪迴，欣喜向往涅槃，多次與厭離的行蘊（構成個體經驗的五種要素之一）共同作用，次第生起，能夠引發不同型別的暖善根產生。那些先前沒有遠離欲界染污的人，依靠由思考所成就的智慧，引發暖善根產生。因此，不應該對此作一概而論的執著。這種善根生起的分位很長，因此能夠觀察四聖諦的境界。由此，具足修習十六行相。觀察苦聖諦時，修習四種行相：一、無常；二、苦；三、空；四、無我。觀察集聖諦時，修習四種行相：一、因；二、集；三、生；四、緣。觀察滅聖諦時，修習四種行相：一、滅；二、靜；三、妙；四、離。觀察道聖諦時，修習四種行相：一、道；二、如；三、行；四、出。
【English Translation】 English version The Eight Successive Contemplations: Cultivating the Sixteen Aspects (Shodasha Akara) that have not been cultivated before. Through the wisdom gained from hearing the Dharma, he initially generates these sixteen aspects of contemplation within the Four Noble Truths (Arya Satya) (the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, including the truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation). It is like seeing various colors through a thin silk. Up to this point, it is called the perfection of wisdom from hearing (Shruta-maya-prajna). The wisdom attained through thinking (Chinta-maya-prajna) should be explained similarly. Next, one develops a deep aversion to the cycle of birth and death (Samsara) and rejoices in the peaceful qualities of Nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhism, referring to liberation from the cycle of birth and death). After this, one frequently employs the contemplation of aversion and diligently cultivates with skillful means, gradually increasing and becoming more excellent, thereby giving rise to the most excellent roots of virtue accomplished through thinking, which are in accordance with making correct judgments. This is the mindfulness of Dharma (Dharma-smriti) that is cultivated, generally focused on common characteristics. What kind of virtuous roots arise immediately after this? The verse says:
'From this arises the warmth Dharma, possessing the contemplation of the Four Noble Truths, cultivating the sixteen aspects. Next arises the peak, likewise. These two virtuous roots are both initially Dharma, followed by four. Next, forbearance is only mindfulness of Dharma, the lower and middle grades are the same as the peak. The upper grade only contemplates the suffering of desire, one aspect in one instant. The highest worldly Dharma is also the same, all are wisdom, obtained by removing the five.'
The treatise says: After the mindfulness of Dharma, which is in accordance with making correct judgments, accomplished through excellent thinking, and generally focused on common characteristics, there are the parts in accordance with making correct judgments accomplished through cultivation (Bhavana). The initial arising of virtuous roots is called the warmth Dharma (Ushmagata) (a feeling of warmth in the practice, a sign of approaching enlightenment). This is a distinction of the mindfulness of Dharma that is generally focused on common characteristics. The warmth Dharma that arises in this way is a precursor to the fire of the Noble Path, which is about to be cultivated and can burn the fuel of afflictions. It is like the initial warmth that arises when drilling for fire. Dharma and warmth are the same, so it is called warmth Dharma. Those who dwell in solitude have already generated the mindfulness of Dharma focused on common characteristics accomplished through cultivation before holding onto the warmth Dharma. Although this is the case, it is not always so. If someone has previously separated from the defilements of the desire realm (Kama-dhatu), relying on the wisdom accomplished through cultivation that corresponds to **, they will abhor the cycle of birth and death and rejoice in Nirvana. Acting together with aversion many times, in sequence, they can give rise to different kinds of warmth virtuous roots. Those who have not previously separated from the defilements of the desire realm give rise to warmth virtuous roots relying on the wisdom accomplished through thinking. Therefore, one should not be rigidly attached to this. The phase in which this virtuous root arises is long, so it can observe the realm of the Four Noble Truths. Thus, it fully cultivates the sixteen aspects. When contemplating the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya), one cultivates four aspects: 1. Impermanence (Anitya); 2. Suffering (Dukkha); 3. Emptiness (Shunyata); 4. No-self (Anatma). When contemplating the Truth of the Origin (Samudaya Satya), one cultivates four aspects: 1. Cause (Hetu); 2. Accumulation (Samudaya); 3. Production (Prabhava); 4. Condition (Pratyaya). When contemplating the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya), one cultivates four aspects: 1. Cessation (Nirodha); 2. Tranquility (Shanta); 3. Excellence (Pranita); 4. Separation (Nihsarana). When contemplating the Truth of the Path (Marga Satya), one cultivates four aspects: 1. Path (Marga); 2. Suchness (Nyaya); 3. Practice (Pratipat); 4. Departure (Niryana).
道聖諦修四行相。一道二如三行四出。此相差別如后當辨。如契經說。此二癡人違越我法毗柰耶故。于中乃至亦無暖法。諸無暖者一切皆名違越正法毗柰耶不。不爾。二人資糧已備。有障法故退所應得故。言違越法毗柰耶。非諸無暖皆名違越。或此二人遇佛出世。舍所親愛歸佛出家。于古聖賢所游徑路。已得安足若勤修習必于現身逮得勝利。以彼違越法毗柰耶。于諸勝利皆悉退失。下至暖法亦不能證。是故諸有遇佛出家。同此二人不能起。暖方名違越法毗柰耶。非諸無暖皆名違越。然諸暖法雖緣四諦。而從多分說厭行俱。以起彼時蘊相多故。行者修習此暖善根。下中上品漸次增進。于佛所說苦集滅道。生隨順信觀察諸有。恒為猛盛焰所焚燒。於三寶中信為上首。有修所成順抉擇分。次善根起名為頂法。是總緣共相法念住差別。頂聲顯此是最勝處。如吉祥事至成辦時。世間說為此人至頂。謂色界攝四善根中。二是可動二不可動。可動二中下者名暖。上者名頂。動中上故。不動二中下者名忍。於四諦境極堪忍故。上者名為世第一法。世中勝故猶如醍醐閑居者言修此善品。其相至頂故名頂法。此境行相與暖法同。謂觀四諦境修十六行相。何故唯說彼緣滅道。如契經說于佛法僧生少小信是名為頂。說信佛僧顯緣道諦。信法言顯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道聖諦修四行相（四種心行）。一道、二如、三行、四出。這些行相的差別將在後面辨析。如契經所說：『這兩個愚癡的人違背了我的法和毗柰耶（戒律），因此，他們甚至連暖法（四加行位的最初階段）都無法獲得。』難道所有沒有獲得暖法的人都叫做違越正法和毗柰耶嗎？不是的。這兩個人已經具備了資糧，但因為有障礙之法，所以退失了本應獲得的成就。所以，這裡所說的違越法和毗柰耶，並非指所有沒有獲得暖法的人。或者，這兩個人如果遇到佛陀出世，捨棄所親愛的人，歸依佛陀出家，在古聖先賢所行走的道路上，已經能夠安穩立足，如果勤奮修習，必定能在今生獲得勝利。但因為他們違越了法和毗柰耶，所以對於各種勝利都完全退失，甚至連暖法都不能證得。因此，那些遇到佛陀出家，卻和這兩個人一樣不能生起暖法的人，才叫做違越法和毗柰耶。並非所有沒有獲得暖法的人都叫做違越。然而，各種暖法雖然緣於四諦（苦、集、滅、道），但從多數情況來說，是與厭行（厭離世間之行）同時生起的，因為生起暖法時，五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）的行相比較明顯。修行者修習這種暖善根，下品、中品、上品逐漸增進，對於佛陀所說的苦、集、滅、道，生起隨順的信心，觀察諸有（三有：欲有、色有、無色有）恒常被猛烈的火焰所焚燒，在三寶（佛、法、僧）中，以信為最重要的。生起修所成的順抉擇分（四加行位），下一個善根生起叫做頂法。這是總緣共相的法念住的差別。『頂』這個詞顯示這是最殊勝之處。就像吉祥的事情到了成就的時候，世間會說這個人到達了頂峰。所謂頂法，是攝取四善根（暖、頂、忍、世第一法）中，暖和頂是可動的，忍和世第一法是不可動的。可動的暖和頂中，下者叫做暖，上者叫做頂，因為在可動中是最上的。不可動的忍和世第一法中，下者叫做忍，因為對於四諦之境極其堪忍。上者叫做世第一法，因為在世間是最殊勝的，就像醍醐一樣。閑居者說修習這種善品，它的行相到達頂峰，所以叫做頂法。這個境界的行相與暖法相同，都是觀察四諦之境，修習十六行相。為什麼只說頂法緣于滅諦和道諦呢？如契經所說：『對於佛、法、僧生起少許的信心，這叫做頂法。』說信佛僧，顯示緣于道諦，信法
【English Translation】 English version The Truth of the Path is cultivated with four aspects of practice: one path, two suchnesses, three practices, and four outgoings. The differences in these aspects will be discussed later. As the sutra says, 'These two foolish people violate my Dharma and Vinaya (discipline), therefore, they cannot even attain the warmth stage (the initial stage of the four preparatory stages).' Does this mean that everyone who has not attained the warmth stage is called a violator of the correct Dharma and Vinaya? No. These two people already had the necessary accumulations, but because of obstructing factors, they lost what they should have attained. Therefore, the violation of Dharma and Vinaya mentioned here does not refer to everyone who has not attained the warmth stage. Alternatively, if these two people were to encounter a Buddha appearing in the world, renounce their loved ones, take refuge in the Buddha, and become monks, they would be able to firmly establish themselves on the path walked by the ancient sages. If they diligently practiced, they would surely attain victory in this lifetime. However, because they violated the Dharma and Vinaya, they completely lost all victories, and could not even attain the warmth stage. Therefore, those who encounter a Buddha, become monks, and are unable to generate the warmth stage, like these two people, are called violators of the Dharma and Vinaya. Not everyone who has not attained the warmth stage is called a violator. However, although the various warmth stages are based on the Four Noble Truths (suffering, origin, cessation, path), they mostly arise simultaneously with the practice of renunciation (renouncing the world). This is because when the warmth stage arises, the aspects of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) are more apparent. Practitioners cultivate this root of goodness of warmth, gradually increasing from inferior, to intermediate, to superior, generating faith that accords with the Buddha's teachings on suffering, origin, cessation, and path. They observe that all existences (the three realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm) are constantly burned by fierce flames. Among the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), faith is the most important. When the preparatory stage of liberation (one of the four preparatory stages) arises from cultivation, the next root of goodness that arises is called the peak stage. This is the difference between the mindfulness of Dharma that generally focuses on common characteristics. The word 'peak' indicates that this is the most excellent place. Just as when an auspicious event reaches completion, the world says that this person has reached the peak. The so-called peak stage is the collection of the four roots of goodness (warmth, peak, forbearance, the highest mundane Dharma), in which warmth and peak are movable, and forbearance and the highest mundane Dharma are immovable. Among the movable warmth and peak, the lower one is called warmth, and the upper one is called peak, because it is the highest among the movable. Among the immovable forbearance and the highest mundane Dharma, the lower one is called forbearance, because it is extremely tolerant of the realm of the Four Noble Truths. The upper one is called the highest mundane Dharma, because it is the most excellent in the world, like ghee. Those who live in seclusion say that cultivating this virtuous quality, its aspect reaches the peak, so it is called the peak stage. The aspect of this realm is the same as the warmth stage, which is to observe the realm of the Four Noble Truths and cultivate the sixteen aspects. Why is it only said that the peak stage is based on the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path? As the sutra says, 'Generating a little faith in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is called the peak stage.' Saying faith in the Buddha and Sangha shows that it is based on the Truth of the Path, faith in the Dharma
緣滅諦故。無如是過。此信法言已具顯緣三諦信故。如說于苦得現觀時得法證凈。乃至廣說。或由滅道于生信勝。無過失故此中偏說。或由滅道可信可求。余不可求故此不說。如是暖頂二種善根。初安足時唯法念住。后增進位四皆現前。初安足言顯以行相。最初游踐四聖諦跡。后增進言顯從此後。下中上品次第數習。諸先所得后不現前。于彼不生欽重心故。以勝加行引此善根。故已得中不生欽重。然此頂法雖緣四諦。緣三寶信多分現行。此頂善根下中上品。漸次增長至成滿時。有修所成順抉擇分。勝善根起名為忍法。是總緣共相法念住差別。於四諦理能忍可中此最勝故。又此位忍無退墮故名為忍法。世第一法雖于聖諦。亦能忍可無間必能入見道故。必無退墮而不具觀四聖諦理。此具觀故偏得忍名。故偏說此名順諦忍。此忍善根安足增進。皆法念住與前有別。此與見道漸相似故。以見道位中唯法念住故。然此忍法有下中上。下中二品與頂法同。謂具觀察四聖諦境。及能具修十六行相。上品有異唯觀欲苦。與世第一相鄰接故。由此能準暖等善根。皆時具緣三界苦等。義已成立無簡別故。忍下中上如何分別。旦下品忍具八類心。謂瑜伽師以四行相。觀欲界苦名一類心。如是次觀色無色苦。集滅道諦亦如是觀。成八類心名下品
忍。中忍減略行相所緣。謂瑜伽師以四行相。觀欲界苦乃至具足。以四行相觀欲界道。于上界道減一行相。從此名曰中品忍初。如是次第漸減漸略行相所緣。乃至極少唯以二心觀欲界苦。如苦法忍苦法智位。齊此名為中品忍滿。上忍唯觀欲界苦諦。修一行相唯一剎那。此善根起不相續故。上忍無間有修所成。初開聖道門世功德中勝。是總緣共相法念住差別。順抉擇分攝最上善根生。此即說名世第一法。此有漏故名為世間。是最勝故名。為第一。有士用力離同類因。引聖道起故名最勝。是故名為世第一法。有餘師說。此有漏故名為世間。成此必無斷善根理故名第一。彼說不然。諸有修習施戒聞等殊勝善根。亦不斷善不往惡趣。非皆可名世第一法。故彼所說非決定因。又彼自說與定相應。念住等差別名世第一法。然有得定念住差別。於後退失復斷善根如天授等。故伽他說。
乃至彼愚夫 由生長無義 損害諸白分 知于頂退墮
依天授說如是伽他。又理應然天授曾得神境通等勝功德故。由彼得定念住攝善。仍斷善根是故彼宗。世第一法亦非決定不斷善根。又成世間離欲道者亦不斷善。應名第一成彼必無斷善根故。若謂彼道非為決定。不斷善根以有退故。是則汝宗世第一法。許有退故應容斷善。以彼宗許第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 忍。中忍減少行相所緣。意思是瑜伽師以四種行相，觀察欲界之苦乃至具足。以四種行相觀察欲界之道。于上界之道減少一種行相。從此名為中品忍的開始。像這樣依次逐漸減少行相所緣，乃至極少，僅以二心觀察欲界之苦，如苦法忍、苦法智位。到此稱為中品忍圓滿。上品忍僅觀察欲界苦諦，修一行相，僅一剎那。此善根生起不相續的緣故。上品忍無間有修所成。初開聖道之門，在世間功德中殊勝。是總緣共相的法念住差別。屬於順抉擇分所攝的最上善根生起。這就叫做世第一法。此法因為是有漏的，所以稱為世間。因為是最殊勝的，所以名為第一。有士夫通過努力，脫離同類因，引導聖道生起，所以名為最勝。因此稱為世第一法。有其他老師說，此法因為是有漏的，所以稱為世間。成就此法必定沒有斷善根的道理，所以名為第一。他們的說法不對。那些修習佈施、持戒、聽聞等等殊勝善根的人，也不會斷善，也不會墮入惡趣，但並非都可以稱為世第一法。所以他們的說法不是決定的原因。而且他們自己說與定相應的念住等差別名為世第一法。然而有獲得禪定、念住差別，之後退失又斷善根的，如提婆達多(Devadatta)。所以伽陀(Gatha)說： 乃至彼愚夫，由生長無義，損害諸白分，知于頂退墮 依據提婆達多(Devadatta)所說，有這樣的伽陀(Gatha)。而且道理應當如此，提婆達多(Devadatta)曾經獲得神境通等殊勝功德的緣故。因為他獲得禪定、念住所攝的善，仍然斷了善根，因此他們的宗派認為，世第一法也不是決定不斷善根的。而且成就世間離欲道的人也不會斷善，應該名為第一，因為成就此道必定沒有斷善根的緣故。如果說那個道不是決定不斷善根的，因為有退失的緣故。那麼你們宗派的世第一法，允許有退失，應該容許斷善。因為他們的宗派允許第一
【English Translation】 English version Endurance (忍, ksanti). The intermediate endurance (中忍, madhyama-ksanti) reduces the object of focus and characteristics. This means that a yogi observes the suffering of the desire realm with four characteristics, up to their completeness. They observe the path of the desire realm with four characteristics. In the path of the upper realms, one characteristic is reduced. From this point, it is called the beginning of the intermediate endurance. In this way, gradually reducing the object of focus and characteristics, until only two minds observe the suffering of the desire realm, like the position of the endurance of the dharma of suffering (苦法忍, duhkha-dharma-ksanti) and the knowledge of the dharma of suffering (苦法智, duhkha-dharma-jnana). Up to this point, it is called the completion of the intermediate endurance. The superior endurance (上忍, adhimatra-ksanti) only observes the truth of suffering (苦諦, duhkha-satya) of the desire realm, cultivating one characteristic, for only one moment. Because this root of good arises without continuity. The superior endurance has cultivation-accomplishment without interruption. It initially opens the gate of the noble path, and is superior among worldly merits. It is a distinction of the mindfulness of dharma (法念住, dharma-smrtyupasthana) that universally focuses on shared characteristics. It belongs to the category of the part inclining towards determination (順抉擇分, anuloma) and the arising of the supreme root of good. This is called the 'World's First Dharma' (世第一法, laukikagradharma). Because it is defiled (有漏, sasrava), it is called 'worldly' (世間, laukika). Because it is the most superior, it is called 'first' (第一, agra). Because a person (士夫, purusa) uses effort to separate from similar causes and leads to the arising of the noble path, it is called the most superior. Therefore, it is called the 'World's First Dharma'. Some other teachers say that because it is defiled, it is called 'worldly'. Achieving this necessarily has no reason to sever roots of good, so it is called 'first'. Their statement is not correct. Those who cultivate superior roots of good such as generosity (佈施, dana), morality (持戒, sila), and learning (聽聞, sruta), also do not sever roots of good and do not go to evil destinies, but not all can be called the 'World's First Dharma'. Therefore, their statement is not a decisive cause. Moreover, they themselves say that the distinction of mindfulness, etc., corresponding to concentration (定, samadhi), is called the 'World's First Dharma'. However, there are those who obtain the distinction of concentration and mindfulness, and later regress and sever roots of good, such as Devadatta (提婆達多). Therefore, the Gatha (伽陀) says: Even that foolish man, due to prolonged growth without meaning, harms the white qualities, knowing he has fallen from the peak. According to what Devadatta (提婆達多) said, there is such a Gatha (伽陀). Moreover, the reason should be so, because Devadatta (提婆達多) once obtained superior merits such as supernatural powers (神境通, rddhi). Because he obtained the good encompassed by concentration and mindfulness, he still severed roots of good, therefore their school believes that the 'World's First Dharma' is also not necessarily without severing roots of good. Moreover, those who achieve the path of detachment from desire in the world also do not sever roots of good, and should be called 'first', because achieving this path necessarily has no reason to sever roots of good. If it is said that that path is not necessarily without severing roots of good, because there is regression. Then your school's 'World's First Dharma', allowing for regression, should permit severing roots of good. Because their school permits the first
一有退。如言此退亦不相違。謂此退言于教及理。皆無違故許亦無失。然彼復說此或無退。以善根中此殊勝故。如是于證理亦不成。于諸行中殊勝作意亦應不退。彼宗許此于善根中是殊勝故。非此即是世第一法。以彼教中各別說故。若謂如是世第一法一切不退。此亦非因彼于善根亦殊勝故。一切不退應名第一。故彼所言不斷善故名第一者非為善說。彼復有說此有漏故。名為世間。住等引中觀四諦故名為第一。理亦不然。已見諦者有住等引。俗智現前觀察四諦應名第一。若謂第一能入離生。又必應依異生身者。亦不應理因相等故。又諸行中殊勝作意。亦有此相應名第一又無經說此觀四諦。故彼所言定不應理。由此所說此有漏故名為世間。入離生故名為第一。于理為善。此如上忍緣欲苦諦。修一行相唯一剎那。如如減略行相所緣。如是如是漸近見諦。故世第一唯緣欲苦。修一行相唯一剎那。說無間入離生位故。此位決定無相續理。若謂於此既有處說。起世第一當入離生。應相續者亦不應理。顯入離生定由此故。謂此意顯諸欲當入正性離生。一切必應起世第一故作是說。或於此中所言起者。顯世第一未已生位。當至已生位入正性離生。不可引彼證此相續。又若相續第一不成。謂有二義可名第一。居異生身最後邊故譬如樹端。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有一種退失的情況。例如，如果說這種退失並不矛盾，意思是說這種退失的說法在教義和道理上都沒有違背，所以允許退失也沒有過失。然而，他們又說，這或許沒有退失，因為在善根中，這是殊勝的。像這樣，對於證悟真理也是不成立的。在各種修行中，殊勝的作意也應該不退失，因為他們的宗派承認這在善根中是殊勝的。但這並非就是世第一法（Skt: laukikāgradharma，指世間法中的最高者），因為他們的教義中對此有分別的說明。如果說像這樣的世第一法一切都不會退失，這也是沒有道理的，因為它在善根中也是殊勝的。一切不退失的應該被稱為第一。所以他們所說的因為不斷善根而名為第一，並不是正確的說法。他們又說，因為這是有漏的，所以名為世間；因為安住于等引（Skt: samāhita，禪定）中觀察四諦（Skt: catvāri-ārya-satyāni，苦、集、滅、道），所以名為第一。這個道理也是不成立的。已經見諦（Skt: satyadarśana，證悟真理）的人也有安住于等引的，用世俗的智慧顯現觀察四諦也應該被稱為第一。如果說第一能夠進入離生（Skt: viviktaja，遠離煩惱的境界），又必定應該依靠異生身（Skt: pṛthagjana-kāya，凡夫之身）的人，這也是不合道理的，因為原因和結果是相似的。而且在各種修行中，殊勝的作意也有這種相應，應該被稱為第一。而且沒有經典說這是觀察四諦。所以他們所說的肯定是不合道理的。由此所說，因為這是有漏的，所以名為世間；因為進入離生，所以名為第一，在道理上是好的。這就像上面的忍（Skt: kṣānti，安忍）緣于欲界的苦諦（Skt: duḥkha-satya，苦諦），修習一種行相，只有一剎那。像這樣，如果減少行相所緣，就會像這樣逐漸接近見諦。所以世第一法只緣于欲界的苦，修習一種行相，只有一剎那。說無間地進入離生的位置。這個位置決定沒有相續的道理。如果說對於此，既然有地方說，生起世第一法將進入離生，應該相續，這也是不合道理的。顯示進入離生一定由此的緣故。意思是說，這表明諸欲界眾生將進入正性離生（Skt: samyaktva-niyata，必定證悟的地位），一切必定應該生起世第一法，所以才這樣說。或者在此中所說的生起，顯示世第一法未生起的位置，將至已生起的位置，進入正性離生。不可引用它來證明此相續。又如果相續，第一就不成立。因為有兩種意義可以稱為第一：居於異生身的最後邊緣，譬如樹的頂端。
【English Translation】 English version There is a possibility of regression. For example, saying that this regression is not contradictory means that this statement of regression does not violate either the teachings or the reasoning, so allowing regression is not a fault. However, they further say that this may not regress because it is superior among the roots of virtue. Likewise, it is also not established for the realization of truth. In all practices, superior intention should also not regress, because their school admits that this is superior among the roots of virtue. However, this is not the 'World's Supreme Dharma' (Skt: laukikāgradharma, the highest of worldly dharmas), because their teachings have separate explanations for this. If it is said that such a 'World's Supreme Dharma' will never regress, this is also unreasonable, because it is also superior among the roots of virtue. Everything that does not regress should be called the 'Supreme'. Therefore, their statement that it is called the 'Supreme' because it does not cut off the roots of virtue is not a good explanation. They further say that because this is defiled (Skt: sāsrava, with outflows), it is called 'worldly'; because it abides in meditative equipoise (Skt: samāhita, meditative concentration) and contemplates the Four Noble Truths (Skt: catvāri-ārya-satyāni, the truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path), it is called the 'Supreme'. This reasoning is also not established. Those who have already seen the truth (Skt: satyadarśana, truth-seeing) also abide in meditative equipoise, and the manifestation of worldly wisdom contemplating the Four Noble Truths should also be called the 'Supreme'. If it is said that the 'Supreme' can enter liberation from birth (Skt: viviktaja, born of separation), and must rely on the body of an ordinary being (Skt: pṛthagjana-kāya, body of a common being), this is also unreasonable, because the cause and effect are similar. Moreover, in all practices, superior intention also has this correspondence and should be called the 'Supreme'. Furthermore, no sutra says that this contemplates the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, what they say is definitely unreasonable. From what has been said, because this is defiled, it is called 'worldly'; because it enters liberation from birth, it is called the 'Supreme', which is good in reason. This is like the above forbearance (Skt: kṣānti, patience) focused on the truth of suffering (Skt: duḥkha-satya, the truth of suffering) in the desire realm, practicing one aspect, only for a single moment. In this way, if the object of focus of the aspect is reduced, one will gradually approach seeing the truth. Therefore, the 'World's Supreme' only focuses on the suffering of the desire realm, practicing one aspect, only for a single moment. It is said to enter the state of liberation from birth without interruption. This state definitely has no reason for continuity. If it is said that regarding this, since there are places that say that arising the 'World's Supreme' will enter liberation from birth, it should be continuous, this is also unreasonable. It shows that entering liberation from birth is definitely due to this reason. It means that this shows that all beings in the desire realm will enter the state of being assured of enlightenment (Skt: samyaktva-niyata, fixed on the rightness), and everything must arise from the 'World's Supreme', so it is said in this way. Or, what is said here about arising shows the state where the 'World's Supreme' has not yet arisen, and will reach the state where it has already arisen, entering liberation from birth. It cannot be cited to prove this continuity. Furthermore, if it is continuous, the 'Supreme' is not established. Because there are two meanings that can be called the 'Supreme': residing at the very edge of the body of an ordinary being, like the top of a tree.
或世法中最為勝故譬如勝士。依此二理相續不成。以望后剎那前非第一故。謂前望后非最後邊。亦非最勝何名第一。由此故說開聖道門。此為最勝故名第一。尚無二心俱時而起。為初聖道等無間緣。況有多心故無相續。由此本論言唯一心。所以者何。若非一者後於前心為劣等勝。且劣非理要勝進時。入離生故等亦非理。前既有障后應爾故。后若勝者前非第一。此中有難暖善根等。亦應準彼如是推徴。暖頂忍位若多心者。後於前心為劣等勝。且劣非理非劣能入頂等位故。等亦非理前不能入后應爾故。后若勝者前非暖等。彼難不然。于暖頂忍曾不有說第一聲故。謂於此中思擇第一。彼聲為說一心多心。然第一聲唯說最勝。最勝心位可名第一。尚不說等何況劣心。暖頂忍中不言第一。何勞思擇為劣等勝。由暖等位無第一言。可得析為下中上品。有多品故可非一心。世第一法無容如是。以上上品一剎那心。能入離生可名第一。非暖頂忍能入離生。是故不應如世第一。推徴暖等唯上上品。許是第一名所顯故。謂色界繫有九善根。下下下中下上名暖。中下中中中上名頂。上下上中名忍。上上名世第一。彼又難言。如暖頂忍緣諸諦故。非唯一心世第一法。亦緣多諦寧唯一心。亦不應理。彼不了達此論宗故。夫欲設難須達論宗。知他所
許方可徴例。非我論宗許世第一。能緣多諦為例不成。又暖等中雖皆具有下中上品。曾不于彼說第一聲故。第一聲說上上品。上上品故唯一剎那。謂前三中皆有上品不說第一。故說第一唯上上品。由此第一剎那理成。對法諸師作如是說。為苦法忍等無間緣。故立一剎那名世第一法。有作是難此說不然。曾無此說故。無差別言故。異類為緣成過失故。唯一剎那不可說故。謂曾無聖教作如是說。能為苦法忍等無間緣故。立一剎那名世第一法。又諸聖教無差別言。但總相說起世第一。當入離生斯有是處。又若第一為苦法忍等無間緣。是則不應說名異類猶如暖等。謂如暖等能為頂等等無間緣。非是異類如是第一。若為苦忍等無間緣應非異類。若是異類能為苦忍等無間緣便成過失。又多物合一用方成故。若一剎那應不可宣說世第一法。能為苦忍等無間緣。唯一剎那義已成立。于如是說理應棄捨不應酬對。然彼愚類不了正宗。於此義中固為徴難。今愍彼類略復開曉。反詰彼宗與此同故。言雖無別義已成故。等無間緣許異類故。許彼理實不可說故。謂亦無聖教說念住等名世第一。及成此必無斷善根理故名第一。彼宗何故作如是言。又聖教中但總相說起世第一。當入離生義已顯成世第一法。為苦法忍等無間緣。以苦法忍是離生一分故。
說世第一無間入離生故。對法諸師為令所說易可了故。于離生位摽初剎那名苦法忍。彼宗亦許有苦法忍。以彼宗許苦法忍位有多剎那故。彼論言如世第一非唯一念。苦法忍等例亦應然。或彼宗但許于離生位有多剎那。即許初剎那以世第一為等無間。非彼一切離生剎那。可有一時俱生理故。由此彼說曾無說故。言無別故皆不應理。又我宗許異類亦作等無間緣理必應爾。以有諸法俱生相違。彼生必由互相開避。前法為后等無間緣。非俱生相違唯諸同類故。異類相望亦為此緣。由此應知若染不染。有漏無漏及界地等。同類異類心心所法。展轉容作等無間緣。既爾彼言若世第一。為苦法忍等無間緣。是則不應說名異類。如暖等者有言無義。又我不言世第一法有能說者。如何為此許世第一有多剎那。然我所宗許世第一實不可說。而說名為世第一者。如說剎那謂如剎那實不可說。為欲展轉相開示故。世間非不說為剎那。說世第一應知亦爾。然彼所言要多物合一用成者。此亦不定用有二種。一者世俗。二者勝義。即是假實世俗。一用依多物成。勝義一用依一物成。世第一法既是勝義。寧說彼一用要依多物成。以許此中實不可說。故世第一唯一剎那由此所說。為苦法忍等無間緣。立一剎那名世第一理善成立。此義已了。今復應思暖等四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 說『世第一』（laukikāgra dharma，世間最高的善法）是『無間入離生』（nirvedhabhāgīya，趣入見道的加行位）的原因。對法諸師（Abhidharmikas，論師）爲了使所說容易理解，在『離生位』（見道位）標示最初的剎那名為『苦法忍』（kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti，對苦諦的忍）。他們的宗派也承認有『苦法忍』，因為他們宗派認為『苦法忍位』有多個剎那。他們的論典說，如同『世第一』並非唯一念，『苦法忍』等也應如此。或者他們的宗派只承認在『離生位』有多個剎那，即承認最初的剎那以『世第一』為『等無間』（samanantarapratyaya，無間緣）。並非他們一切『離生』的剎那，可以一時俱生，因為理所當然。由此他們的說法，因為從未有這樣的說法，以及因為沒有區別，都不應成立。 而且我宗認為異類也可以作為『等無間緣』，道理必然如此。因為有諸法俱生而互相違背，它們的生起必定通過互相避讓。前法作為后法的『等無間緣』，並非俱生相違的只有同類，異類之間也可以為此緣。由此應該知道，無論是染污還是不染污，有漏還是無漏，以及界地等，同類異類的心心所法，輾轉可以作為『等無間緣』。既然如此，他們說如果『世第一』為『苦法忍』的『等無間緣』，那麼就不應該說名稱不同類，如同『暖』（ūṣmagata，四加行位之一）等，沒有意義。而且我不說『世第一法』有能說者，如何因此認為『世第一』有多個剎那？然而我宗認為『世第一』實際上不可說，而說名為『世第一』，如同說『剎那』，實際上不可說，爲了輾轉互相開示的緣故。世間並非不說為『剎那』，說『世第一』應該知道也是如此。然而他們所說，需要多個事物合在一起才能成就一個作用，這也不一定，作用有兩種：一是世俗，二是勝義，也就是假和實。世俗的作用依賴多個事物成就，勝義的作用依賴一個事物成就。『世第一法』既然是勝義，怎麼能說它的一個作用要依賴多個事物成就？因為承認其中實際上不可說，所以『世第一』只有一個剎那，由此所說，為『苦法忍』的『等無間緣』，立一個剎那名為『世第一』，道理才能成立。 這個意義已經明白了。現在應該思考『暖』等四加行。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said that 『Laukikāgra dharma』 (the highest mundane dharma) is the reason for 『nirvedhabhāgīya』 (the stage of preparation for entering the path of seeing) because it is 『without interval entering separation-birth』. The Abhidharmikas (teachers of Abhidharma) marked the initial moment in the 『separation-birth stage』 (the path of seeing) as 『kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti』 (the forbearance of the dharma of suffering) to make what they said easier to understand. Their school also admits that there is 『kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti』, because their school believes that the 『kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti stage』 has multiple moments. Their treatise says that just as 『Laukikāgra dharma』 is not a single thought, 『kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti』 etc. should also be the same. Or their school only admits that there are multiple moments in the 『separation-birth stage』, that is, admitting that the initial moment takes 『Laukikāgra dharma』 as 『samanantarapratyaya』 (immediately preceding condition). Not all their moments of 『separation-birth』 can arise simultaneously, because it is reasonable. Therefore, their statement, because there has never been such a statement, and because there is no difference, should not be established. Moreover, my school believes that heterogeneous things can also serve as 『samanantarapratyaya』, and the reason must be so. Because there are dharmas that arise simultaneously and contradict each other, their arising must be through mutual avoidance. The preceding dharma serves as the 『samanantarapratyaya』 for the subsequent dharma, and it is not only homogeneous things that arise simultaneously and contradict each other, but heterogeneous things can also be this condition. From this, it should be known that whether it is defiled or undefiled, with outflows or without outflows, and realms and grounds, etc., homogeneous and heterogeneous mind and mental factors can reciprocally serve as 『samanantarapratyaya』. Since this is the case, they say that if 『Laukikāgra dharma』 is the 『samanantarapratyaya』 for 『kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti』, then it should not be said that the names are heterogeneous, like 『ūṣmagata』 (heat, one of the four preparatory practices), etc., which is meaningless. Moreover, I do not say that 『Laukikāgra dharma』 has a speaker, so how can it be thought that 『Laukikāgra dharma』 has multiple moments? However, my school believes that 『Laukikāgra dharma』 is actually unspeakable, but it is called 『Laukikāgra dharma』, just like saying 『moment』, which is actually unspeakable, for the sake of mutually revealing each other. The world does not say that it is not a 『moment』, and it should be known that saying 『Laukikāgra dharma』 is also the same. However, what they say, that multiple things need to be combined to achieve one function, is not necessarily the case. There are two types of functions: one is conventional, and the other is ultimate, that is, false and real. The conventional function depends on multiple things to achieve, and the ultimate function depends on one thing to achieve. Since 『Laukikāgra dharma』 is ultimate, how can it be said that its one function depends on multiple things to achieve? Because it is admitted that it is actually unspeakable, 『Laukikāgra dharma』 has only one moment, and therefore, what is said, that it is the 『samanantarapratyaya』 for 『kṣānti-jñāna-kṣānti』, and establishing one moment as 『Laukikāgra dharma』, the reason can be established. This meaning is already understood. Now we should think about the four preparatory practices such as 『ūṣmagata』 (heat).
法以何為體。暖等自性皆慧為體若並助伴皆五蘊攝。定俱必有隨轉色故然除彼得。勿諸聖者暖等善根重現前故。然已見諦不許暖等重現在前。已見諦者加行現前成無用故。有餘師言。依異生法無容聖者身中行故。有說此二俱非過失。得雖暖等攝如異生性故。謂如異生性是不得聖法。得聖法已彼猶現行。然彼體非異生性攝。不得一切聖法方名異生性故。如是暖等得。雖是暖等體。而無聖者身中行失。俱生相續體非體故。如沙門果諸無漏得。若謂相續沙門果得亦沙門果故。非喻者則應於後勝果道中有果現前。成違宗失。以宗安立八聖者中。住勝果道時於前沙門果。許得成就遮在身行故。彼所許有違宗過。又應果向俱時現行。立八聖者便不成就。住後果向前果唯成。而不現行可立八故。謂諸後向說前位果不在身行。為遮全果在身現行故作是說。得雖是果而非全故。設后位現行無住前果失。彼應許畢竟無住果者。畢竟無全果頓現行故。又勝果道無全現行故。亦應無住勝果道。然勝果道一分現行。亦許名為住勝果道。住少分果例亦應然。若謂定中有所得道。于出定位彼道不行與果何殊。而決定說唯是住向非住果者。又住果者起有漏心。果道不行應非住果。以非全果現在前故。或應與彼復共思擇。何緣唯約聖道現行。立八聖者非約
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法以什麼為體？暖位（Kṣānti-gatāḥ，見道位，指修行者開始體驗到真理的最初階段）等的自性都是智慧為體。如果加上助伴，都屬於五蘊所攝。禪定中必然有隨之轉變的色法，所以要排除通過修習獲得的（聖道）。不要認為聖者的暖位等善根會重新出現，因為已經見諦（dṛṣṭi-satya，證悟真理）的人，不允許暖位等重新出現。對於已經見諦的人來說，再進行加行（prayoga，修行）是沒有用的。 有其他老師說，依據凡夫的法，聖者的身中不可能有暖位等行持。有人說，這兩種說法都沒有過失，因為通過修習獲得的（聖道）雖然包含暖位等，但具有凡夫的性質。就像凡夫的性質是無法獲得聖法的，但獲得聖法后，凡夫的性質仍然會顯現。然而，凡夫的性質不屬於凡夫性所攝，因為沒有獲得一切聖法才稱為凡夫性。同樣，暖位等的獲得，雖然是暖位等的本體，但不會有聖者身中行持的過失，因為俱生相續的本體不是本體。 就像沙門果（śrāmaṇya-phala，聲聞乘的四種果位：須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）的無漏獲得。如果說相續的沙門果獲得也是沙門果，那麼非比喻者就應該在後面的殊勝果道（viśeṣa-phala-mārga，指更高的果位之道）中有果位現前，這與宗義相違背。因為宗義安立八聖者（aṣṭa-ārya-pudgala，指四向四果的八種聖者）中，住在殊勝果道時，對於之前的沙門果，允許獲得成就，但遮止在身行中。所以他們所允許的有違背宗義的過失。而且，應該果向（phala-pratipannaka，趣向果位者）和果位（phala-stha，已證得果位者）同時現行，這樣安立八聖者就不成立了。住在後果位時，向前果位只是成就，而不現行，才可以安立八聖者。說後向（paścāt-pratipannaka，指趣向更高果位者）說前位果不在身行，是爲了遮止全部果位在身中現行，所以才這樣說，因為獲得雖然是果位，但並非全部果位。假設后位現行，沒有住在前果位的過失，他們應該允許畢竟沒有住在果位的人，畢竟沒有全部果位同時現行。而且，殊勝果道沒有全部現行，也應該沒有住在殊勝果道。然而，殊勝果道的一部分現行，也允許稱為住在殊勝果道。住在少部分果位，也應該如此。 如果說禪定中有所得之道，在出禪定時，那個道不行持，與果位有什麼區別？而決定說只是住在向位，而不是住在果位呢？而且，住在果位的人，生起有漏心時，果道不行持，應該不是住在果位，因為不是全部果位現在前。或者應該與他們再次共同思考，為什麼只依據聖道現行，安立八聖者，而不是依據……
【English Translation】 English version What is the substance of Dharma? The nature of 'warmth' (Kṣānti-gatāḥ, the stage of 'warmth', referring to the initial stage where a practitioner begins to experience the truth) and other qualities are all based on wisdom. If we include the accompanying factors, they are all encompassed by the five aggregates (pañca-skandha). In meditation, there must be accompanying form (rūpa) that changes accordingly, so we must exclude what is attained through practice (the Noble Path). Do not assume that the roots of goodness such as the 'warmth' stage of the Noble Ones will reappear, because those who have already seen the truth (dṛṣṭi-satya, realized the truth) are not allowed to have the 'warmth' stage reappear. For those who have already seen the truth, further effort (prayoga, practice) is useless. Some other teachers say that, according to the laws of ordinary beings, it is impossible for the 'warmth' stage and other practices to occur in the body of a Noble One. Some say that neither of these views is a fault, because what is attained through practice (the Noble Path), although it includes the 'warmth' stage, has the nature of an ordinary being. Just as the nature of an ordinary being cannot attain the Noble Dharma, but after attaining the Noble Dharma, the nature of an ordinary being still manifests. However, the nature of an ordinary being is not included in the nature of an ordinary being, because one is called an ordinary being only if one has not attained all the Noble Dharmas. Similarly, the attainment of the 'warmth' stage, although it is the essence of the 'warmth' stage, will not have the fault of occurring in the body of a Noble One, because the essence of co-emergent continuity is not the essence. Like the unconditioned attainments of the Fruits of a Śrāmaṇa (śrāmaṇya-phala, the four fruits of the Hearer Vehicle: Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner, Arhat). If it is said that the continuous attainment of the Fruit of a Śrāmaṇa is also a Fruit of a Śrāmaṇa, then those who do not use analogies should have a fruit manifest in the subsequent Superior Path of Fruition (viśeṣa-phala-mārga, referring to the path of higher fruits), which contradicts the doctrine. Because in establishing the Eight Noble Persons (aṣṭa-ārya-pudgala, referring to the eight types of noble individuals: the four who are on the path to a fruit and the four who have attained the fruit), when dwelling on the Superior Path of Fruition, the attainment of the previous Fruit of a Śrāmaṇa is allowed, but it is prohibited from being active in the body. Therefore, what they allow has the fault of contradicting the doctrine. Moreover, the one on the path to a fruit (phala-pratipannaka, one who is approaching a fruit) and the one who has attained the fruit (phala-stha, one who has attained a fruit) should manifest simultaneously, which would invalidate the establishment of the Eight Noble Persons. When dwelling on a later fruit, the previous fruit is only attained but not active, which allows for the establishment of the Eight Noble Persons. Saying that the one approaching a later fruit (paścāt-pratipannaka, one who is approaching a higher fruit) says that the fruit of the previous stage is not active in the body is to prevent the entire fruit from being active in the body, which is why they say this, because attainment, although it is a fruit, is not the entire fruit. Assuming that the later stage is active, there is no fault in not dwelling on the previous fruit; they should allow that there is ultimately no one dwelling on the fruit, because ultimately no entire fruit manifests simultaneously. Moreover, since the Superior Path of Fruition does not manifest entirely, there should also be no dwelling on the Superior Path of Fruition. However, a part of the Superior Path of Fruition manifesting is also allowed to be called dwelling on the Superior Path of Fruition. Dwelling on a small part of the fruit should also be the same. If it is said that there is a path attained in meditation, what is the difference between that path not being active when emerging from meditation and a fruit? And why is it definitively said that one is only dwelling on the path, not dwelling on the fruit? Moreover, when a person dwelling on the fruit generates defiled thoughts, the path of the fruit is not active, so should they not be dwelling on the fruit, because not the entire fruit is manifesting? Or should we reconsider with them why the Eight Noble Persons are established only based on the activity of the Noble Path, and not based on...
成就。勿住果向二聖相雜無如是失。以若住后勝果道時彼道勝故。如苾芻位雖成勤策近住律儀。而從勝故但名苾芻非勤策等。雖如是立八聖亦成。而約現行立八聖者。證知非住勝果道時。果不全現行故不名住果。由此前說于宗違害。及應果向俱時現行。二種過失彼定不免。是故前言俱生相續體非體故。聖者身中暖等諸得雖亦現起。而無暖等聖身行過故。應於此更辨。何緣暖等諸得非暖等體由此已遮。有餘師說。勿世第一有相續過故。得定非世第一體。復有別失謂暖等三位。相續故得應彼體。或不應言世第一法一剎那故得非彼體。如是所說言有理無。故應舍此攝受前說。謂暖等得如異生性理不應然。異生性體與諸聖法極相違故。暖等得體與諸聖法。都不相違如何成例。以暖等得通在聖身。異生性得則不如是。故彼所引為例不齊。又沙門果諸相續得。雖亦許為沙門果體。而無八聖位相雜失。以諸安住勝果道者。果攝所得法必定不行故。安住果者勝果道攝。諸所得法亦不成故。若爾應許如苦忍等。謂且應如苦法智忍自性是慧。若並助伴即兼俱得五蘊為性。苦法智等現在前時。彼苦法忍得不名苦法忍。不爾應有相續過故。智現行時應修忍故。忍智二體應俱行故。如是暖等俱生諸得。雖亦名為暖法等體。而頂法等現在前時。彼暖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：成就。不要執著于果和向，兩種聖道混雜，不會有這樣的過失。因為如果執著於後勝果道時，那個道更為殊勝。例如比丘（bhiksu，佛教出家男眾）的地位，即使成就了勤策（sramanera，沙彌）和近住律儀（uposatha，八關齋戒），也因為比丘的地位更勝，所以只稱為比丘，而不稱為勤策等。雖然可以這樣安立八聖道，但如果按照現行來安立八聖，就證明了不住于勝果道時，果不會完全現行，所以不稱為住果。因此，前面所說的在宗義上有所違背，以及果和向同時現行的兩種過失，他們必定無法避免。所以，前面所說的俱生相續，體性不是體性，聖者身中暖位（usmagata，四加行位的第一個階段）等諸獲得，雖然也現起，但沒有暖位等聖身行過的過失，所以應該在這裡進一步辨析。為什麼暖位等諸獲得不是暖位等的體性？因為這樣已經遮止了。有其他論師說，不要因為世第一法（laukikagradharma，四加行位的第四個階段）有相續的過失，所以獲得必定不是世第一法的體性。還有其他的過失，即暖位等三位是相續的，所以獲得應該是它們的體性。或者不應該說世第一法只有一個剎那，所以獲得不是它的體性。這樣所說的話，有道理嗎？沒有道理。所以應該捨棄這種說法，採納前面的說法。即暖位等獲得，如同異生性（prthag-janatva，凡夫的性質）一樣，道理不應該這樣。異生性的體性與諸聖法極其相違，暖位等獲得的體性與諸聖法都不相違，如何成為例子？因為暖位等獲得通於聖者之身，而異生性獲得則不是這樣。所以他們所引用的例子並不齊等。又沙門果（sramana-phala，聲聞四果）的諸相續獲得，雖然也允許是沙門果的體性，但沒有八聖位相雜的過失。因為安住于勝果道的人，果所攝的獲得法必定不行。安住于果的人，勝果道所攝的諸獲得法也不成就。如果這樣，應該允許如同苦忍（duhkha-ksanti，苦法忍）等。即應該如同苦法智忍（duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti，緣于苦諦的法智忍），自性是慧，如果加上助伴，就兼具五蘊為體性。苦法智等現在前時，那個苦法忍的獲得不稱為苦法忍。否則應該有相續的過失。因為智現行時應該修忍，忍和智二者應該同時行。如同暖位等俱生的諸獲得，雖然也名為暖法等的體性，但頂法（murdhan，四加行位的第二個階段）等現在前時，那個暖位
【English Translation】 English version: Accomplishment. Do not dwell on the fruit and the path, as there is no such fault of mixing the two noble paths. Because if one dwells on the subsequent superior fruit path, that path is superior. For example, in the position of a bhiksu (bhiksu, Buddhist monk), even if one has achieved the sramanera (sramanera, novice monk) and uposatha (uposatha, eight precepts), one is only called a bhiksu because the bhiksu's position is superior, and not a sramanera, etc. Although the eight noble paths can be established in this way, if they are established according to the present conduct, it proves that when one does not dwell on the superior fruit path, the fruit will not be fully manifested, so it is not called dwelling on the fruit. Therefore, the aforementioned contradiction in the doctrine and the two faults of the fruit and the path manifesting simultaneously are inevitable for them. Therefore, the aforementioned co-arising continuum, the nature is not the nature, the acquisitions such as the warmth stage (usmagata, the first stage of the four preparatory practices) in the body of a noble being, although they also arise, do not have the fault of the noble body conduct of the warmth stage, etc., so it should be further analyzed here. Why are the acquisitions such as the warmth stage not the nature of the warmth stage, etc.? Because this has already been prevented. Some other teachers say, do not let the mundane supreme dharma (laukikagradharma, the fourth stage of the four preparatory practices) have the fault of continuity, so the acquisition must not be the nature of the mundane supreme dharma. There is another fault, that is, the three stages such as the warmth stage are continuous, so the acquisition should be their nature. Or it should not be said that the mundane supreme dharma has only one moment, so the acquisition is not its nature. Is there any reason in what is said like this? There is no reason. Therefore, this statement should be abandoned and the previous statement should be adopted. That is, the acquisition of the warmth stage, etc., is like the nature of an ordinary being (prthag-janatva, the nature of an ordinary person), the reason should not be like this. The nature of an ordinary being is extremely contradictory to all noble dharmas, and the nature of the acquisition of the warmth stage, etc., is not contradictory to all noble dharmas, how can it become an example? Because the acquisition of the warmth stage, etc., is common to the body of a noble being, while the acquisition of the nature of an ordinary being is not like this. Therefore, the examples they cited are not equal. Also, although the continuous acquisitions of the sramana-phala (sramana-phala, the four fruits of the Hearer) are also allowed to be the nature of the sramana-phala, there is no fault of mixing the eight noble stages. Because for those who dwell on the superior fruit path, the acquired dharma included in the fruit will definitely not be practiced. For those who dwell on the fruit, the acquired dharmas included in the superior fruit path will also not be accomplished. If so, it should be allowed like the duhkha-ksanti (duhkha-ksanti, forbearance of the dharma of suffering), etc. That is, it should be like the duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti (duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti, forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering), its nature is wisdom, and if it is added with the assistants, it also has the five aggregates as its nature. When the duhkha-dharma-jnana, etc., are present, the acquisition of that duhkha-ksanti is not called duhkha-ksanti. Otherwise, there should be the fault of continuity. Because when wisdom is present, one should cultivate forbearance, and forbearance and wisdom should be practiced simultaneously. Like the co-arising acquisitions such as the warmth stage, although they are also called the nature of the warmth dharma, etc., when the peak dharma (murdhan, the second stage of the four preparatory practices), etc., is present, that warmth stage
等得不名暖等。不爾應暖等頂等為因故。及有如前所說過故。如是所說亦無深理。以暖法等性類同故。暖頂忍三位相續故。謂前已說色界所繫有九善根。分為暖等以同類故互不相違。后念起前亦無有過。又暖頂忍位相續長。體雖已滅得相續起。名為暖等斯有何失。非世第一一剎那故。彼得便非世第一體。與余善根性類同故。順抉擇分相無異故。若俱生得亦彼體者。何理能遮彼相續得。后得非故前亦應非由此極成。若並助伴皆五蘊性然除彼得。此中暖法初安足時。於三諦中隨緣何諦。法念住現在修未來四隨一行相。現在修未來四。唯修同分非不同分。緣滅諦法念住現在修未來一。隨一行相現在修未來四。非初觀蘊滅能修緣蘊道。后增進位於三諦中。隨緣何諦隨一念住。現在修未來四。隨一行相現在修未來十六。緣滅諦法念住現在修未來四。隨一行相現在修未來十六。此初安足唯修同分者。先未曾得如是種性故。于諸諦中行未廣故。后增進位與此相違。故彼能修同分異分。頂初安足於四諦中。隨緣何諦法念住。現在修未來四隨一行相。現在修未來十六。后增進位於三諦中。隨緣何諦隨一念住現在修未來四隨一行相。現在修未來十六。緣滅諦法念住。現在修未來四隨一行相。現在修未來十六。忍初安足及后增進。於四諦中隨
緣何諦法念住。現在修未來四隨一行相現在修未來十六。此依忍類總相而說差別說者略所緣時。隨略彼所緣不修彼行相。謂具緣四具修十六。若緣三二一修十二八四。世第一法緣欲苦諦。法念住現在修未來四隨一行相。現在修未來四唯同分修無緣余諦。世第一法是故唯修爾所行相。有餘師說。近見道故似見道故。唯修爾所謂苦法忍。唯緣欲苦諦修四行相。世第一亦然。已辯所生善根相體。今次應辯彼差別義。頌曰。
此順抉擇分 四皆修所成 六地二或七 依欲界身九 三女男得二 第四女亦爾 聖由失地舍 異生由命終 初二亦退舍 依本必見諦 舍已得非先 二舍性非得
論曰。此暖頂忍世第一法。四殊勝善根名順抉擇分。由下中上及上上品。分為四種如前已說。決謂決斷。擇謂簡擇決斷簡擇。謂諸聖道。以諸聖道能斷疑故。及能分別四諦相故。分謂分段即是見道是抉擇中一分攝故。暖等為緣引抉擇分。順益彼故得順彼名。故此名為順抉擇分。如是四種皆修所成。非聞思所成。遠抉擇分故此四善根皆依六地。謂四靜慮未至中間。欲界中無闕等引故。余上地亦無見道眷屬故。又無色界心不緣欲界故。欲界先應遍知斷故。於三界中彼最粗故。此四善根能感色界五蘊異熟為圓滿因。不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為何修習諦法念住（Satyadharma-smṛtyupasthāna，四念住之一，專注于真諦的觀修）。現在修習，未來修習四種隨一（指四念住中的任何一種）的行相，現在修習，未來修習十六種行相。這是依據忍類（kṣānti，對法的如實知見）的總相而說的。如果差別地來說，當所緣境簡略時，隨著所緣境的簡略，就不修習那些行相。也就是說，具足四種所緣境時，就具足修習十六種行相。如果緣於三種、兩種、一種所緣境，就修習十二種、八種、四種行相。 世第一法（laukikāgradharma，世間法中的最高階段）緣于欲界苦諦（kāmadhātu-duḥkha-satya，欲界中的苦諦）。法念住現在修習，未來修習四種隨一的行相。現在修習，未來修習四種，僅僅是同分修，沒有緣于其餘的諦。世第一法因此僅僅修習那些行相。有些論師說，因為接近見道（darśana-mārga，證悟的道路），類似於見道，所以僅僅修習那些，也就是苦法忍（duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti，對苦諦的忍）。僅僅緣于欲界苦諦，修習四種行相，世第一法也是這樣。 已經辨析了所生善根的相和體，現在接下來應該辨析它們的差別義。頌曰： 『此順抉擇分，四皆修所成，六地二或七，依欲界身九，三女男得二，第四女亦爾，聖由失地舍，異生由命終，初二亦退舍，依本必見諦，舍已得非先，二舍性非得。』 論曰：此暖位（ūṣmagata，四加行位的第一個階段）、頂位（mūrdhan，四加行位的第二個階段）、忍位（kṣānti，四加行位的第三個階段）、世第一法，這四種殊勝的善根，名為順抉擇分（anulomikī-kṣānti，順向抉擇分的智慧）。由下品、中品、上品以及上上品，分為四種，如前面已經說過的。決，是決斷的意思。擇，是簡擇的意思。決斷簡擇，指的是諸聖道（ārya-mārga，聖者的道路）。因為諸聖道能夠斷除疑惑，並且能夠分別四諦的相。分，是分段的意思，也就是見道，是抉擇中的一部分。暖等作為緣，引導抉擇分，順益於它，因此得到順彼的名字。所以這被稱為順抉擇分。像這樣的四種，都是修所成（bhāvanā-maya，通過修行而成就的），不是聞思所成（śruta-maya，通過聽聞而成就的，cintā-maya，通過思考而成就的）。遠離抉擇分，因此這四種善根都依於六地（ṣaṭ-bhūmika，六種禪定境界）。也就是四靜慮（catasraḥ dhyānāni，四種禪定）、未至定（anāgamya，未至禪定）、中間定（dhyānāntara，中間禪定）。欲界中沒有闕等引（samāpatti，等至）的緣故。其餘的上地也沒有見道的眷屬的緣故。又沒有染污心（kliṣṭa-citta，被煩惱染污的心），不緣于欲界的緣故。欲界先前應該普遍知曉斷除的緣故。在三界（trayo dhātavaḥ，欲界、色界、無色界）中，它最粗糙的緣故。這四種善根能夠感得染污的五蘊（pañca skandha，色、受、想、行、識）的異熟果（vipāka-phala，果報），作為圓滿的因，不是不……
【English Translation】 English version: Why is the mindfulness of the Truths (Satyadharma-smṛtyupasthāna) practiced? Now practicing, in the future practicing the aspects of any one of the four mindfulnesses (referring to any one of the four aspects of mindfulness). Now practicing, in the future practicing the sixteen aspects. This is spoken according to the general characteristics of the class of forbearance (kṣānti, a true understanding of the Dharma). If speaking differentially, when the object of focus is abbreviated, then as the object of focus is abbreviated, those aspects are not practiced. That is to say, when possessing the four objects of focus, all sixteen aspects are fully practiced. If focusing on three, two, or one object, then twelve, eight, or four aspects are practiced. The Worldly Highest Dharma (laukikāgradharma, the highest stage in worldly dharma) focuses on the Truth of Suffering in the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu-duḥkha-satya, the Truth of Suffering in the Desire Realm). Mindfulness of Dharma now practices, in the future practices the aspects of any one of the four mindfulnesses. Now practicing, in the future practicing the four, only practicing in the same category, without focusing on the remaining Truths. The Worldly Highest Dharma therefore only practices those aspects. Some teachers say that because it is close to the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga, the path of enlightenment), similar to the Path of Seeing, it only practices those, that is, the Forbearance of the Dharma of Suffering (duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti, forbearance towards the Truth of Suffering). Only focusing on the Truth of Suffering in the Desire Realm, practicing the four aspects, the Worldly Highest is also like this. Having already distinguished the characteristics and essence of the roots of good generated, now next should distinguish their differential meanings. The verse says: 'These are in accordance with the division of determination, all four are accomplished by cultivation, six grounds, two or seven, relying on the body of the Desire Realm, nine, three women and men attain two, the fourth woman is also like this, a saint relinquishes due to loss of ground, a common person relinquishes due to death, the first two also retreat and relinquish, relying on the original, one will certainly see the Truth, relinquishing what has been attained is not prior, the two relinquishing natures are not attained.' The treatise says: These Warmth (ūṣmagata, the first stage of the four preparatory practices), Peak (mūrdhan, the second stage of the four preparatory practices), Forbearance (kṣānti, the third stage of the four preparatory practices), and Worldly Highest Dharma, these four superior roots of good are called the Division in Accordance with Determination (anulomikī-kṣānti, wisdom in accordance with the division of determination). Divided into four types by inferior, medium, superior, and superior-superior, as previously stated. 'Determination' means decisive cutting off. 'Division' means selection. Decisive cutting off and selection refer to the Noble Paths (ārya-mārga, the paths of the noble ones). Because the Noble Paths can cut off doubts and can distinguish the aspects of the Four Noble Truths. 'Division' means segments, which is the Path of Seeing, being a part of the determination. Warmth and so on serve as conditions, guiding the Division of Determination, benefiting it, therefore obtaining the name 'in accordance with it'. Therefore, this is called the Division in Accordance with Determination. These four types are all accomplished by cultivation (bhāvanā-maya, accomplished through practice), not accomplished by hearing and thinking (śruta-maya, accomplished through hearing, cintā-maya, accomplished through thinking). Far from the Division of Determination, therefore these four roots of good all rely on the six grounds (ṣaṭ-bhūmika, six meditative states). That is, the Four Dhyanas (catasraḥ dhyānāni, the four meditative absorptions), the Unreached (anāgamya, the unreached concentration), and the Intermediate Concentration (dhyānāntara, the intermediate concentration). Because there is no deficiency of attainment (samāpatti, meditative absorption) in the Desire Realm. Also, the remaining higher grounds do not have the retinue of the Path of Seeing. Furthermore, there is no defiled mind (kliṣṭa-citta, a mind defiled by afflictions), not focusing on the Desire Realm. The Desire Realm should be universally known and abandoned beforehand. Among the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), it is the coarsest. These four roots of good can cause the ripened result (vipāka-phala, the result of karma) of the defiled five aggregates (pañca skandha, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) as a complete cause, not not...
能牽引眾同分故。極厭諸有欣圓寂故。或聲為顯二有異說。謂暖頂二。尊者妙音說。依前六及欲七地。對法諸師不許彼說。非聞思所成順抉擇分故。此四善根依欲身起。人天九處除北俱盧。唯依欲九身容入離生故。除增上忍世第一法。餘三善根三洲初起。後生天處亦續現前。所餘亦依天處初起。有餘師說。若於先時曾已修治此四加行。彼于天處皆得初起。此四善根唯依男女。前三男女俱通得二。第四女身亦得二種。勿后得男身不成暖等故。依男唯得男身善根。聖轉至餘生亦不為女故。暖頂忍位容有轉形故。二依善根展轉為因性。世第一法依女身者。能為二因女得聖已。容有轉得男身理故。依男身者但為一因。已得女身非擇滅故。聖依此地得此善根。失此地時善根方舍。失地言顯遷生上地異生。于地若失不失但失眾同分。必舍此善根聖身見道力所資故。此四善根無命終舍。寧知命終舍唯異生非聖。以本論說。卵胎中異生唯成就身不成身業故。豈不異生先依下地起暖法等。後生上地亦必定舍。暖等善根無如是失。以彼異生爾時舍善根由舍同分故。謂住死有無聖道資。舍諸善根非由上地中有等起。若諸聖者住死有中。由聖道資不捨暖等。但由上地中有等起。舍下善根舍時雖同而所由別。是故異生無失地舍。聖者必無由命終舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能牽引眾生趨向解脫，因此非常厭惡輪迴，欣求寂滅。關於『聲』（śabda，聲音）是否能顯現，存在兩種不同的說法。一種說法是，『暖位』（uṣmagata，熱位）和『頂位』（mūrdhan，頂位）可以顯現。尊者妙音（Ārya-svara）認為，這兩種位依於前六地（指欲界六天）以及欲界第七地（指人道）。對法論師（Abhidharma masters）不認可這種說法，因為它們不是通過聽聞和思維修習所獲得的『順抉擇分』（anulomikī kṣānti，隨順抉擇分）。 這四種『善根』（kuśala-mūla，功德之本）依于欲界之身而生起。在人天九處（指欲界和色界的部分天處）中，除了北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲），只有依于欲界九身（指欲界眾生的九種身形）才能進入『離生』（viviktaja，遠離煩惱的境界）。除了『增上忍』（adhimātra-kṣānti，最勝忍）和『世第一法』（laukikāgradharma，世間第一法），其餘三種善根在南贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，南贍部洲）最初生起。後來生到天界的地方，這些善根也會繼續顯現。其餘的善根也依于天界最初生起。有些論師認為，如果先前已經修習過這四種加行（指暖、頂、忍、世第一法），那麼他們在天界都可以最初生起這些善根。 這四種善根只能依于男女之身。前三種善根男女都可以獲得兩種（指欲界和色界）。第四種善根，女性也可以獲得兩種。這是爲了避免女性在死後無法獲得男身，從而無法成就暖位等。依于男身只能獲得男身的善根，因為聖者（ārya，聖人）轉生到其他生命形態時，不會變成女性。暖位、頂位和忍位可能發生轉形。兩種善根（指暖位和頂位）可以互相作為因性。依于女身而獲得『世第一法』的人，可以作為兩種因（指獲得聖果和轉為男身），因為女性在獲得聖果后，有可能轉為男身。依于男身的人只能作為一種因（指獲得聖果），因為已經獲得女身就不是『擇滅』（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）的對象了。 聖者依於此地（指欲界）獲得這些善根，失去此地時，才會捨棄這些善根。『失地』指的是遷生到上界的異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）。如果只是失去在該地的眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga，同類相分），並不會捨棄這些善根，因為聖者的身體受到見道（darśana-mārga，見道）的力量所資助。這四種善根不會因為命終而捨棄。可以知道，命終時捨棄善根的只有異生，而不是聖者。因為《本論》（指《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）中說，卵生和胎生的異生只能成就身，而不能成就身業。難道異生先前依于下地生起暖法等，後來生到上地時，不也必定捨棄暖等善根嗎？暖等善根沒有這樣的捨棄，因為那些異生在那個時候捨棄善根，是因為捨棄了同分。也就是說，住在死有（maraṇabhava，中有）中，沒有聖道資助，才會捨棄各種善根，而不是因為上地中有等生起。如果聖者住在死有中，由於聖道的資助，不會捨棄暖等善根，只是因為上地中有等生起，才會捨棄下地的善根。捨棄的時間雖然相同，但原因不同。因此，異生沒有失地而捨棄的情況，聖者絕對不會因為命終而捨棄。
【English Translation】 English version It can lead beings to liberation, therefore it deeply detests saṃsāra (cyclic existence) and yearns for nirvāṇa (cessation). Regarding whether 'śabda' (sound) can manifest, there are two different views. One view is that 'uṣmagata' (heat stage) and 'mūrdhan' (peak stage) can manifest. Ārya-svara (Noble Voice) believes that these two stages rely on the first six bhūmis (planes of existence, referring to the six heavens of the desire realm) and the seventh bhūmi of the desire realm (referring to the human realm). Abhidharma masters do not accept this view because they are not 'anulomikī kṣānti' (compliant acceptance) obtained through hearing and contemplation. These four 'kuśala-mūlas' (roots of virtue) arise based on the body of the desire realm. Among the nine abodes of humans and gods (referring to parts of the desire realm and the form realm), except for Uttarakuru (Northern Kurus), only by relying on the nine bodies of the desire realm (referring to the nine types of bodies of beings in the desire realm) can one enter 'viviktaja' (born of detachment). Except for 'adhimātra-kṣānti' (supreme endurance) and 'laukikāgradharma' (the highest mundane dharma), the remaining three roots of virtue initially arise in Jambudvīpa (Southern Continent). Later, when born in the heavens, these roots of virtue will continue to manifest. The remaining roots of virtue also initially arise in the heavens. Some masters believe that if these four preparatory practices (referring to heat, peak, endurance, and the highest mundane dharma) have been cultivated previously, then they can all initially arise in the heavens. These four roots of virtue can only rely on the bodies of men and women. The first three roots of virtue can be obtained by both men and women in two ways (referring to the desire realm and the form realm). The fourth root of virtue, the highest mundane dharma, can also be obtained by women in two ways. This is to avoid women not being able to obtain a male body after death, thereby not being able to achieve the heat stage, etc. Relying on a male body can only obtain the roots of virtue of a male body, because when an ārya (noble being) is reborn into other life forms, they will not become female. The heat, peak, and endurance stages may undergo transformation. The two roots of virtue (referring to the heat and peak stages) can be causal in nature to each other. Those who obtain the 'laukikāgradharma' (the highest mundane dharma) relying on a female body can serve as two causes (referring to obtaining the fruit of sainthood and transforming into a male body), because after a woman obtains the fruit of sainthood, it is possible to transform into a male body. Those who rely on a male body can only serve as one cause (referring to obtaining the fruit of sainthood), because having already obtained a female body is not an object of 'pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' (cessation through discernment). An ārya (noble being) obtains these roots of virtue relying on this bhūmi (plane of existence, referring to the desire realm), and only when losing this bhūmi will they abandon these roots of virtue. 'Losing the bhūmi' refers to the pṛthagjana (ordinary being) being reborn into a higher realm. If one only loses the nikāya-sabhāga (community of shared characteristics) in that bhūmi, one will not abandon these roots of virtue, because the body of the ārya is supported by the power of darśana-mārga (the path of seeing). These four roots of virtue will not be abandoned due to death. It can be known that only ordinary beings, not āryas, abandon roots of virtue at the time of death. Because the 'Mūla-śāstra' (referring to the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) says that oviparous and viviparous ordinary beings can only accomplish the body, but cannot accomplish the karma of the body. Could it be that ordinary beings previously relied on the lower bhūmi to generate the heat dharma, etc., and later, when born in the higher bhūmi, they must also abandon the heat, etc., roots of virtue? There is no such abandonment of the heat, etc., roots of virtue, because those ordinary beings abandon the roots of virtue at that time because they abandon the community of shared characteristics. That is to say, residing in the maraṇabhava (intermediate state of death), without the support of the noble path, one will abandon various roots of virtue, not because the intermediate state of the higher bhūmi arises. If āryas reside in the maraṇabhava, due to the support of the noble path, they will not abandon the heat, etc., roots of virtue, but only because the intermediate state of the higher bhūmi arises will they abandon the roots of virtue of the lower bhūmi. Although the time of abandonment is the same, the reasons are different. Therefore, ordinary beings do not have the situation of abandoning due to losing the bhūmi, and āryas will never abandon due to death.
。異生命終雖舍忍法。而定無有墮諸惡趣。得惡趣生非擇滅故。身是忍法曾所居故。能感惡趣諸業煩惱。不復能在身中行故。如師子窟雜獸不居。初二善根亦由退舍。如是退舍異生非聖。后二異生亦無退舍。依根本地起暖等善根。彼於此生必定得見諦。以根利故厭有深故。依未至中間起暖等者。於此生不必得入見諦。有餘師言。依根本定起暖等者。此生必定得至涅槃厭有深故。若先舍已後重得時。所得必非先之所舍由先舍已。後重得時亦大劬勞方得起故。于先所舍不欽敬故。如先已舍別解脫戒。後重受時得未曾得。暖等亦爾後得非先。若先已得暖等善根。經生故舍遇了分位。善說法師便生頂等。若不遇者還從本修。失退二舍非得為性。退舍必因起過而得失舍。或有由德增進得此善根有何勝利。頌曰。
暖必至涅槃 頂終不斷善 忍不墮惡趣 第一入離生
論曰。四善根中若得暖法。雖有退斷善根。造無間業墮惡趣等。而無久流轉必至涅槃故。若爾何殊順解脫分。若無障礙去見諦近。此與見道行相同故。是等引攝勝善根故。若得頂法雖有退等。而增畢竟不斷善根。觀察三寶殊勝功德為門引生凈信心故。若得頂已不斷善根。如何經說天授退頂。由彼曾起近頂善根依未得退密作是說。若得忍法雖命終舍住異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 即使異生位（指凡夫）的生命終結時捨棄了忍位之法，但由於其禪定，也不會墮入諸惡趣。之所以不會墮入惡趣，是因為並非通過『擇滅』（一種通過智慧斷滅煩惱的方式）而解脫，而是因為身體曾是忍位之法所居住的地方。雖然能感生惡趣的諸業和煩惱不再能在身體中執行，就像獅子的洞穴，其他雜類野獸無法居住一樣。最初的暖位和頂位善根，也會因為退失而捨棄，就像這樣，退舍善根的情況只發生在異生位，聖者不會發生。后兩種善根，即忍位和世第一位，異生位也不會退舍。如果依根本定（指色界初禪）而生起暖位等善根，那麼此人在這一生必定能證見真諦，因為其根器銳利，並且對輪迴有深刻的厭離。如果依未至定（指未到地定）或中間定（指中間禪）而生起暖位等善根，那麼此生不一定能證入見諦。有其他論師說，如果依根本定而生起暖位等善根，此生必定能達到涅槃，因為其對輪迴有深刻的厭離。如果先捨棄了善根，之後又重新獲得，那麼重新獲得的必定不是先前所捨棄的，因為先前已經捨棄，之後重新獲得時，需要付出極大的努力才能生起，並且對於先前所捨棄的善根沒有恭敬心。就像先前已經捨棄了別解脫戒，之後重新受戒時，得到的是未曾得到的戒體。暖位等善根也是如此，後來得到的不是先前的。如果先前已經獲得了暖位等善根，經過轉生而捨棄，遇到了具有善巧說法的法師，便會生起頂位等善根。如果沒有遇到，就還要從最初的修行開始。失和退兩種捨棄，並非以獲得為自性。退舍必定是因為生起過失而獲得，失舍或者因為功德增進而獲得。獲得這些善根有什麼殊勝的利益呢？頌文說： 『暖位必定至涅槃，頂位終究不斷善，忍位不墮諸惡趣，世第一位入離生。』 論述說：在四種善根中，如果獲得了暖位之法，即使有退失、斷善根、造作無間業而墮入惡趣等情況，也不會長期流轉，必定能達到涅槃。如果這樣，那和順解脫分（指加行位的暖、頂、忍、世第一法）有什麼區別呢？如果沒有障礙，就接近見諦，這和見道的修行相同，因為這是等引（指禪定）所攝持的殊勝善根。如果獲得了頂位之法，即使有退失等情況，但最終也不會斷絕善根，因為觀察三寶殊勝的功德，以之為門徑，能夠引生清凈的信心。如果獲得了頂位之後就不會斷絕善根，那麼經文中怎麼說提婆達多（Devadatta）退失了頂位呢？因為他曾經生起接近頂位的善根，依據未獲得而退失的情況，秘密地這樣說。如果獲得了忍位之法，即使命終捨棄，安住于異
【English Translation】 English version: Even if an ordinary being (referring to a common person) abandons the Dharma of forbearance (Kṣānti) at the end of their life, they will not fall into the evil realms due to their samādhi (meditative concentration). The reason for not falling into evil realms is not because of liberation through 'selective cessation' (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, a way to extinguish afflictions through wisdom), but because the body was once the dwelling place of the Dharma of forbearance. Although the karmas and afflictions that can cause rebirth in evil realms are no longer able to operate in the body, just as other miscellaneous beasts cannot inhabit a lion's cave. The initial heat (Uṣmagata) and peak (Mūrdhan) roots of virtue will also be abandoned due to regression. In this way, the abandonment of virtuous roots only occurs in the state of ordinary beings, not in that of sages. The latter two virtuous roots, namely forbearance (Kṣānti) and the supreme mundane Dharma (Agradharma), are not abandoned in the state of ordinary beings either. If one generates the heat etc. virtuous roots based on the fundamental dhyāna (referring to the first dhyāna of the form realm), then this person will definitely see the truth in this life, because their faculties are sharp and they have a deep aversion to saṃsāra (cyclic existence). If one generates the heat etc. based on the unarrived dhyāna (Anāgamya-samādhi) or the intermediate dhyāna (Madhyama-samādhi), then it is not certain that they will enter the vision of truth in this life. Some teachers say that if one generates the heat etc. based on the fundamental samādhi, they will definitely reach nirvāṇa (liberation) in this life because they have a deep aversion to saṃsāra. If one abandons virtuous roots first and then re-acquires them later, then what is re-acquired is definitely not what was previously abandoned, because after having abandoned them previously, it requires great effort to generate them again, and there is no reverence for the virtuous roots that were previously abandoned. Just as when one has previously abandoned the Prātimokṣa vows (individual liberation vows) and then receives them again, one obtains vows that were never obtained before. The same is true for the heat etc. virtuous roots; what is obtained later is not what was obtained before. If one has previously obtained the heat etc. virtuous roots and abandons them due to rebirth, encountering a Dharma teacher who is skilled in teaching, then the peak etc. virtuous roots will arise. If one does not encounter such a teacher, then one must start from the beginning of practice again. Loss and regression, the two types of abandonment, are not characterized by attainment. Regression is definitely obtained because of arising faults, and loss is obtained because of the increase of merit. What are the special benefits of obtaining these virtuous roots? The verse says: 'The heat stage will surely reach nirvāṇa, the peak stage will ultimately not sever virtue, the forbearance stage will not fall into the evil realms, the supreme mundane stage enters the state of detachment.' The treatise says: Among the four virtuous roots, if one obtains the Dharma of the heat stage, even if there are cases of regression, severing virtuous roots, committing the five heinous crimes (pañcānantarya) and falling into the evil realms, one will not wander for a long time and will definitely reach nirvāṇa. If so, what is the difference between this and the preparatory liberation division (Saṃmukti-bhāgīya, referring to the heat, peak, forbearance, and supreme mundane Dharmas of the stage of application)? If there are no obstacles, one is close to the vision of truth, which is the same as the practice of the path of vision, because this is a superior virtuous root that is encompassed by samādhi. If one obtains the Dharma of the peak stage, even if there are cases of regression etc., one will ultimately not sever virtuous roots, because observing the supreme qualities of the Three Jewels (Triratna), taking this as a gateway, can generate pure faith. If one does not sever virtuous roots after obtaining the peak stage, then how does the scripture say that Devadatta (Devadatta) regressed from the peak stage? Because he had previously generated virtuous roots close to the peak stage, it is said secretly based on the situation of not obtaining and regressing. If one obtains the Dharma of forbearance, even if one abandons it at the end of life, abiding in a different
生位。而增無退不造無間不墮惡趣。然頌但說不墮惡趣言。義準已知不造無間業。造無間業者必墮惡趣故。忍位無退如前已辯。得忍不墮諸惡趣者。已遠趣彼業煩惱故。得惡趣生非擇滅故。由下忍力已得一切惡趣無生。由上忍力復得少分生等無生。少分生者謂卵濕生。由此二生多愚昧故。等言為顯處身有惑處。謂無想大梵北洲。無想大梵僻見處故。北俱盧洲無現觀故。身謂扇搋等多諸煩惱故。有謂第八等聖必不受故。或謂見斷惑必不復起故。得世第一法雖住異生位。而能趣入正性離生。頌雖不言離命終舍。既無間入正性離生。義準已成無命終舍。何緣唯此能入離生。已得異生非擇滅故。能如無間道舍異生性故。此四善根各有三品。由聲聞等種性別故。隨何種性善根已生。彼可移轉向余乘不。頌曰。
轉聲聞種性 二成佛三餘 麟角佛無轉 一坐成覺故
論曰。未殖佛乘順解脫分。依聲聞種性起暖頂善根。容可轉生佛乘暖頂。是經長時方能起義。若起彼忍無向佛乘。以聲聞乘加行最久。經六十劫自果必成。菩薩專求利他事故。為欲拔濟無邊有情。弘誓莊嚴經無量劫。故往惡趣如遊園苑。若不爾者無成佛義。起忍得一切惡趣非擇滅故。起彼忍無向佛乘斷絕眾多利他事故。若時菩薩已殖佛乘順解脫分。為遮
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生位（Kṣānti-sthāna，忍位）。而增長而不退轉，不造作無間業，不墮落惡趣。然而頌文只說不墮惡趣，其含義也包括不造作無間業，因為造作無間業者必定墮落惡趣。忍位不退轉，如前文已經辨析。得到忍位者不墮落諸惡趣，是因為已經遠離趣向惡趣的業和煩惱。得到惡趣的生是非擇滅（apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，非因緣滅），因為下忍的力量已經得到一切惡趣的無生。由上忍的力量又得到少分生等的無生。少分生指的是卵生和濕生，因為這兩種生類大多愚昧。『等』字是爲了顯示處所和身有迷惑之處。處所指無想天、大梵天和北俱盧洲。無想天和大梵天是邪見之處，北俱盧洲沒有現觀。身指的是扇搋（paṇḍaka，不男）等，有很多煩惱。『有』指的是第八地等聖者必定不受生，或者指的是見斷惑必定不再生起。得到世第一法，雖然住在異生位（pṛthag-jana，凡夫位），但能夠趣入正性離生（samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti，入聖道）。頌文雖然沒有說離命終舍，但既然無間地進入正性離生，其含義也包括沒有命終舍。為什麼只有世第一法能夠進入離生？因為已經得到異生的非擇滅，能夠像無間道一樣捨棄異生性。這四善根各有三品，因為聲聞等種性的差別。無論哪一種種性的善根已經生起，它是否可以轉移轉向其他乘？頌文說： 『轉聲聞種性，二成佛三餘，麟角佛無轉，一坐成覺故。』 論曰：沒有種植佛乘的順解脫分（anulomikī kṣānti，隨順解脫忍），依靠聲聞種性生起暖位和頂位的善根，可以轉移生到佛乘的暖位和頂位。這是經過長時間才能生起的意思。如果生起忍位，則沒有趣向佛乘的可能，因為聲聞乘的加行最久，經過六十劫，自果必定成就。菩薩專心尋求利益他人的事業，爲了拔濟無邊的有情，以弘大的誓願莊嚴，經過無量劫，所以往生惡趣就像遊玩園林。如果不這樣，就沒有成佛的道理。生起忍位，得到一切惡趣的非擇滅。生起忍位，沒有趣向佛乘的可能，斷絕了眾多利益他人的事業。如果菩薩已經種植佛乘的順解脫分，爲了遮止
【English Translation】 English version: Kṣānti-sthāna (忍位, Patience-position). And increasing without regression, not creating Avīci karma, not falling into evil destinies. However, the verse only speaks of not falling into evil destinies, the meaning also includes not creating Avīci karma, because those who create Avīci karma will certainly fall into evil destinies. The Patience-position does not regress, as has been discussed earlier. Those who attain Patience do not fall into evil destinies because they have distanced themselves from the karma and afflictions that lead to evil destinies. Attaining birth in evil destinies is apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅, cessation without cause), because the power of lower Patience has already attained the non-arising of all evil destinies. By the power of higher Patience, one further attains the non-arising of a small portion of births, etc. A small portion of births refers to oviparous and moisture-born beings, because these two types of beings are mostly ignorant. The word 'etc.' is to indicate that places and bodies have deluded aspects. Places refer to the Heaven of Non-Perception, the Great Brahmā Heaven, and Uttarakuru. The Heaven of Non-Perception and the Great Brahmā Heaven are places of perverse views, and Uttarakuru has no direct perception. 'Bodies' refers to paṇḍaka (扇搋, eunuchs), etc., which have many afflictions. 'Have' refers to the fact that saints of the eighth ground, etc., will certainly not be born there, or that afflictions severed by seeing will certainly not arise again. Having attained the World's First Dharma, although dwelling in the position of a pṛthag-jana (異生位, ordinary being), one is able to enter samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti (正性離生, the stage of assurance). Although the verse does not speak of abandoning at the end of life, since one enters the stage of assurance without interruption, the meaning also includes not abandoning at the end of life. Why is it that only the World's First Dharma can enter the stage of assurance? Because one has already attained the apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha of ordinary existence, and is able to abandon ordinary existence like the path of immediate result. These four roots of goodness each have three grades, because of the differences in the nature of Śrāvakas, etc. Whichever root of goodness has already arisen, can it be transferred to another vehicle? The verse says: 『Transferring the Śrāvaka nature, two become Buddhas, three remain, Pratyekabuddhas do not transfer, because they attain enlightenment in one sitting.』 The treatise says: Having not planted the anulomikī kṣānti (順解脫分, compliant liberation patience) of the Buddha-vehicle, relying on the Śrāvaka nature to generate the roots of goodness of the Warmth and Peak positions, it is possible to transfer to the Warmth and Peak positions of the Buddha-vehicle. This means that it takes a long time to arise. If one generates the Patience position, there is no possibility of turning towards the Buddha-vehicle, because the practice of the Śrāvaka-vehicle is the longest, and after sixty kalpas, the result will certainly be achieved. Bodhisattvas are dedicated to seeking the benefit of others, and in order to deliver boundless sentient beings, they adorn themselves with great vows, passing through countless kalpas, so going to evil destinies is like strolling in a garden. If it were not so, there would be no meaning in becoming a Buddha. Generating the Patience position attains the apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha of all evil destinies. Generating the Patience position, there is no possibility of turning towards the Buddha-vehicle, cutting off many deeds that benefit others. If a Bodhisattva has already planted the anulomikī kṣānti of the Buddha-vehicle, in order to prevent
惡趣展轉堅攝施戒慧三。爾時無勞起余乘忍。故聲聞暖頂可轉向佛乘。起忍則無轉成佛義。依聲聞種性起暖頂忍三。皆可轉生獨覺乘道。非聲聞種性忍法已生。于獨覺菩提有能障義。故起彼忍亦成獨覺。此在佛外故頌言余。起獨覺乘種性暖頂。為有轉向余乘理。不然。獨覺乘總有二種。一麟角喻。二先聲聞。若先聲聞如聲聞說。麟角及佛俱不可轉。以俱一坐成菩提故。第四靜慮是不傾動。最極明利三摩地故。堪為麟角大覺所依。故彼俱依第四靜慮。從身念住至盡無生。唯於一坐能次第起。故麟角喻及佛種性。暖等善根皆不可轉。頗有初殖順解脫分。此生即能起順抉擇分耶。不爾云何。頌曰。
前順解脫分 速三生解脫 聞思成三業 殖在人三洲
論曰。順抉擇分今生起者。前生必起順解脫分。諸有創殖順解脫分。極速三生方得解脫。謂初生殖順解脫分。次產生熟第三生。起順抉擇分即入聖道。若謂第二生起順抉擇分。第三生入聖乃至得解脫。彼言便與前說相違。謂依根本地起暖等者。彼必於此生得入見諦。或彼應許極速二生。謂第二生依根本地。起暖等者彼于現生。必入聖道得解脫故。順解脫分聞思所成非修所成。諸有未殖順解脫分者。彼不能殖故。順解脫分三業為體。最勝唯是意地意業。此思願力
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：惡趣眾生通過不斷努力，可以堅定地修習佈施、持戒和智慧這三種善行。在這種情況下，無需再發起其他乘的忍位。因此，聲聞乘的暖位和頂位有可能轉向佛乘。如果發起忍位，則沒有轉向併成就佛果的道理。依據聲聞乘的種性，發起暖位、頂位和忍位這三種善根，都可以轉向獨覺乘的道路。如果不是聲聞乘的種性，忍法已經生起，對於獨覺菩提來說，具有障礙的意義。因此，發起這種忍位也能成就獨覺。這種情況發生在佛法之外，所以頌文說『余』。發起獨覺乘種性的暖位和頂位，是否有轉向其他乘的道理呢？答案是否定的。獨覺乘總共有兩種：一是麟角喻（Rhinoceros-like Solitary Buddha），二是先聲聞（Former Shravaka）。如果是先聲聞，就如同聲聞乘所說的那樣。麟角喻和佛陀都是不可轉向的，因為他們都是一次入座就成就菩提。第四禪是不動搖的，是最極明利的三摩地，因此堪能作為麟角喻大覺所依止的基礎。所以，他們都依止第四禪。從身念住（contemplation of the body）到證得盡無生智（knowledge of the exhaustion of rebirths），唯有一次入座才能次第生起。因此，麟角喻和佛的種性，暖位等善根都是不可轉向的。是否有人最初種下順解脫分（preliminary stage of liberation），此生就能發起順抉擇分（stage of decisive understanding）呢？答案是否定的。為什麼呢？頌文說： 『前順解脫分，速三生解脫，聞思成三業，殖在人三洲。』 論曰：今生能發起順抉擇分的人，前生必定已經發起順解脫分。那些最初種下順解脫分的人，最快也要經過三生才能得到解脫。也就是說，第一生種下順解脫分，第二產生熟，第三生髮起順抉擇分，就能進入聖道。如果說第二生髮起順抉擇分，第三生進入聖道乃至得到解脫，這種說法就與前面的說法相違背。前面說的是，依據根本地（foundational level of practice）發起暖位等善根的人，必定在此生就能證入見諦（path of seeing）。或者他們應該允許最快兩生，也就是說，第二生依據根本地發起暖位等善根的人，必定在現生就能證入聖道並得到解脫。順解脫分是通過聽聞和思考而成就的，不是通過修習而成就的。那些沒有種下順解脫分的人，他們不能種下順解脫分。因此，順解脫分以三業（three actions）為體。最殊勝的是意地的意業。這是思愿的力量。
【English Translation】 English version: Those in the evil realms, through continuous effort, can firmly cultivate the three virtuous practices of generosity, ethical conduct, and wisdom. In such cases, there is no need to initiate the stages of forbearance (忍, ren) of other vehicles. Therefore, the stages of warmth (暖, nuan) and peak (頂, ding) in the Shravaka (聲聞, shengwen, Hearer) vehicle have the potential to turn towards the Buddha vehicle. If the stage of forbearance is initiated, there is no reason for turning and attaining Buddhahood. Based on the Shravaka lineage, initiating the three roots of goodness—warmth, peak, and forbearance—all can turn towards the path of the Pratyekabuddha (獨覺, dujue, Solitary Realizer) vehicle. If one is not of the Shravaka lineage, and the practice of forbearance has already arisen, it has the meaning of obstructing Pratyekabuddha Bodhi (菩提, puti, enlightenment). Therefore, initiating this forbearance can also lead to becoming a Pratyekabuddha. This situation occurs outside of the Buddha's teachings, hence the verse says 'other'. If one initiates the warmth and peak stages of the Pratyekabuddha vehicle, is there a reason for turning towards other vehicles? The answer is no. There are two types of Pratyekabuddhas in general: one is the Rhinoceros-like Solitary Buddha (麟角喻, linjiao yu), and the other is the Former Shravaka (先聲聞, xian shengwen). If it is the Former Shravaka, it is as said in the Shravaka vehicle. Both the Rhinoceros-like Solitary Buddha and the Buddha are irreversible, because they both attain Bodhi in a single sitting. The fourth Dhyana (靜慮, jinglv, meditative absorption) is unshakeable and is the most extremely clear and sharp Samadhi (三摩地, sanmodi, concentration), therefore it is capable of being the basis upon which the Rhinoceros-like Solitary Buddha relies to achieve great awakening. Therefore, they both rely on the fourth Dhyana. From the contemplation of the body (身念住, shen nian zhu) to the attainment of the knowledge of the exhaustion of rebirths (盡無生, jin wu sheng), they can only arise sequentially in one sitting. Therefore, the Rhinoceros-like Solitary Buddha and the Buddha lineage, the roots of goodness such as warmth, are all irreversible. Is there anyone who initially plants the preliminary stage of liberation (順解脫分, shun jietuo fen), and in this life can initiate the stage of decisive understanding (順抉擇分, shun juezhe fen)? The answer is no. Why? The verse says: 'The previous preliminary stage of liberation, quickly liberates in three lives, accomplished through hearing and thinking as the three actions, planted in the three continents of humans.' The treatise says: Those who can initiate the stage of decisive understanding in this life must have initiated the preliminary stage of liberation in the previous life. Those who initially plant the preliminary stage of liberation will attain liberation in a maximum of three lives. That is to say, in the first life, they plant the preliminary stage of liberation, in the second life it matures, and in the third life, they initiate the stage of decisive understanding, and then they can enter the path of the noble ones. If it is said that they initiate the stage of decisive understanding in the second life, and enter the path of the noble ones and attain liberation in the third life, then this statement contradicts the previous statement. The previous statement said that those who initiate the roots of goodness such as warmth based on the foundational level of practice (根本地, genben di) will definitely attain the path of seeing (見諦, jiandi) in this life. Or they should allow a maximum of two lives, that is to say, those who initiate the roots of goodness such as warmth based on the foundational level of practice in the second life will definitely enter the path of the noble ones and attain liberation in the present life. The preliminary stage of liberation is accomplished through hearing and thinking, not through practice. Those who have not planted the preliminary stage of liberation cannot plant the preliminary stage of liberation. Therefore, the preliminary stage of liberation has the three actions (三業, san ye) as its essence. The most supreme is the mental action of the mind-ground. This is the power of thought and aspiration.
攝起身語。亦得名為順解脫分。有由少分施戒聞等。便能種殖順解脫分。謂勝意樂至誠相續。厭背生死欣樂涅槃。與此相違雖多修善。而不能殖順解脫分。由意業勝殖此善根。故唯人中三方能殖。厭離般若余處劣故。有佛出世若無佛時。俱能種殖順解脫分。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之六
已因便說順解脫分。入觀次第是正所論。于中已明諸加行道。世第一法為其後邊。應說從斯復生何道。頌曰。
世第一無間 即緣欲界苦 生無漏法忍 忍次生法智 次緣余界苦 生類忍類智 緣集滅道諦 各生四亦然 如是十六心 名聖諦現觀 此總有三種 謂見緣事別
論曰。從世第一善根無間。即緣欲界苦聖諦境有無漏攝法智忍生。此忍名為苦法智忍。寧知此忍是無漏攝。從世第一無間而生。以契經中言世第一無間入正性決定。或正性離生。爾時名越異生地故。此忍既是決定離生。一分所攝定是無漏。從世第一無間而生。說無漏言為欲簡別世第一法。所從世忍此無漏忍。以欲苦法為其所緣名苦法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 攝持身語的行為，也可以稱為順解脫分（Śunirmokṣabhāga，趨向解脫的部分）。通過少許的佈施、持戒、聽聞佛法等行為，便能種下順解脫分的種子。這指的是以殊勝的意樂、至誠的心持續不斷地厭離生死，欣樂涅槃。與此相反，即使修行再多的善行，如果不是發自內心的厭離和欣樂，也不能種下順解脫分。由於意業的力量強大，所以只有在人道中才能種下這種善根。因為在其他地方，厭離心和般若智慧都比較薄弱。無論是有佛出世還是沒有佛出世的時候，都能種下順解脫分。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第六十一 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之六
已經因為（解釋）『因』的緣故，順便說了順解脫分。進入觀行的次第才是真正要討論的內容。其中已經闡明了各種加行道，世第一法（Laukikāgradharma，世間第一法）是它的最後階段。接下來應該說從這之後又會產生什麼道。頌文說：
『世第一無間，即緣欲界苦，生無漏法忍，忍次生法智，次緣余界苦，生類忍類智，緣集滅道諦，各生四亦然，如是十六心，名聖諦現觀，此總有三種，謂見緣事別。』
論述：從世第一善根無間，立即緣取欲界苦聖諦的境界，產生屬於無漏的法智忍（Dharmajñānakṣānti）。這個忍被稱為苦法智忍（Duḥkhadharmajñānakṣānti）。憑什麼知道這個忍是屬於無漏的呢？因為它從世第一無間產生。因為契經中說，世第一無間進入正性決定，或者正性離生。那時被稱為超越異生地的階段。這個忍既然是決定離生的一部分，必定是無漏的。從世第一無間而生，說『無漏』這個詞是爲了簡別世第一法。這個無漏忍所從生的世忍，以欲界苦法作為它的所緣，所以稱為苦法忍。
【English Translation】 English version: By gathering body and speech, one can also be named as Śunirmokṣabhāga (Part of Approaching Liberation). With a small amount of giving, keeping precepts, hearing the Dharma, etc., one can plant the seeds of Śunirmokṣabhāga. This refers to continuously and sincerely detesting birth and death, and rejoicing in Nirvāṇa with superior intention and joy. Conversely, even if one cultivates many good deeds, if it does not come from a genuine sense of detachment and joy, one cannot plant the seeds of Śunirmokṣabhāga. Because the power of mental karma is strong, only in the human realm can one plant this root of goodness. Because in other places, detachment and prajñā wisdom are weak. Whether a Buddha appears in the world or not, one can plant the seeds of Śunirmokṣabhāga.
Śrī Paramārtha's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 61 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 62
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Six, Section Six: Discrimination of the Worthy and the Saints
Having spoken of Śunirmokṣabhāga because of (explaining) 'cause', the order of entering into contemplation is what is truly being discussed. Among them, the various preparatory practices have already been clarified, and Laukikāgradharma (Worldly Supreme Dharma) is its final stage. Next, it should be said what path arises from this. The verse says:
'Immediately after the Worldly Supreme, one immediately cognizes the suffering of the desire realm, giving rise to non-outflow Dharma-kṣānti, after kṣānti arises Dharma-jñāna, then cognizing the suffering of other realms, giving rise to Anvaya-kṣānti and Anvaya-jñāna, cognizing the truths of Samudaya, Nirodha, and Mārga, each giving rise to four as well, these sixteen minds are called the direct realization of the Noble Truths, these in total are of three types, namely, different in terms of seeing, object, and event.'
Treatise: Immediately after the root of goodness of the Worldly Supreme, immediately cognizing the realm of the Noble Truth of suffering of the desire realm, non-outflow Dharmajñānakṣānti arises. This kṣānti is called Duḥkhadharmajñānakṣānti (Suffering Dharma-knowledge-patience). How do we know that this kṣānti belongs to the non-outflow? Because it arises immediately after the Worldly Supreme. Because the sutra says that immediately after the Worldly Supreme, one enters into the determination of rightness, or the birth of rightness. At that time, it is called the stage of transcending the ordinary being. Since this kṣānti is part of the determination of liberation, it must be non-outflow. Arising immediately after the Worldly Supreme, the word 'non-outflow' is used to distinguish the Worldly Supreme Dharma. The kṣānti from which this non-outflow kṣānti arises takes the suffering Dharma of the desire realm as its object, so it is called Suffering Dharma-kṣānti.
忍。謂于苦法無始時來。身見所迷執我我所。今創見彼唯苦法性。忍可現前名苦法忍。此能引后苦法智生。是彼智生障之對治。故複名曰苦法智忍。經主此中作如是釋。為顯此忍是無漏故。舉后等流以為摽別。此能生法智是法智因。得法智忍名如花果樹。詳彼意謂唯說忍言。恐此有同加行忍失。此無深理。非為彼法有此法生。此法必應與彼同類如花果樹。斷對治等因果類殊。又不極成以苦法智。是無漏性非為極成。如何忍生彼同彼是無漏。又此無同加行忍失。說世第一無間生故。說此能越異生地故。非有漏忍能成此事。又如何知此苦法忍。以苦法智為等流果。若謂此忍是無漏故及前生故。理亦不然。未說此忍無漏理故。由此證知前釋為善。即此名入正性決定。亦複名入正性離生。由此是初入正性決定。亦是初入正性離生。故經說正性。所謂涅槃或正性言目諸聖道。能決趣涅槃或決了諦相故。諸聖道得決定名。至得決定說名為入。若爾何緣于無漏慧。唯初見諦得決定名。以于爾時于諸諦理。初得難毀決定見故。或於爾時望餘位道。有非一種決定相故。謂見道位剎那剎那。定間雜得忍智行相。余道不然。又見道中障治定別。以定唯斷見所斷故。余道不然。謂修位中或有雙斷見修斷惑。或唯斷修。又見道中解脫道后定起無間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 忍，指的是對於痛苦之法，從無始以來，被身見所迷惑，執著于『我』和『我所』。現在初次見到它只是苦的法性，認可這種顯現，稱為苦法忍。這種忍能引導後續的苦法智生起，是苦法智生起的障礙的對治。因此又被稱為苦法智忍。經文的作者在這裡這樣解釋，是爲了顯示這種忍是無漏的，所以舉出後續的等流作為標誌和區別。這種忍能生起法智，是法智的因。獲得法智忍的名稱，就像花果樹一樣。詳細考察他的意思，是說只說『忍』這個詞，恐怕會和加行忍混淆。這種說法沒有深刻的道理。不是因為彼法有此法生，此法就必定應該與彼法同類，就像花果樹一樣。斷除對治等因果類別不同。而且，苦法智是無漏的，這個說法並不完全成立。如何因為忍生起彼法，就認為此忍與彼法一樣是無漏的呢？而且，這裡沒有和加行忍混淆的可能，因為經中說世第一法之後無間生起此忍，說明此忍能夠超越異生地的境界，而有漏的忍是不能成就這些的。又如何知道這種苦法忍，是以苦法智為等流果呢？如果說因為這種忍是無漏的，以及因為是前生的緣故，這個理由也是不成立的，因為沒有說這種忍是無漏的道理。由此可以證明之前的解釋是好的。這種忍也叫做進入正性決定（niyāma okkanti，趣入正道），也叫做進入正性離生（sammattaniyāma okkanti，趣入正道而脫離惡道）。因此，這是初次進入正性決定，也是初次進入正性離生。所以經中說的『正性』，指的就是涅槃，或者『正性』這個詞指的是諸聖道，能夠決定趨向涅槃，或者決了諦相的緣故。諸聖道獲得了決定的名稱，到達獲得決定的狀態，就叫做『入』。如果這樣，那麼為什麼對於無漏慧，只有初次見諦才能獲得決定的名稱呢？因為在那個時候，對於諸諦的道理，初次獲得難以摧毀的決定見解的緣故。或者在那個時候，相對於其他位次的道，有一種非同一般的決定相的緣故。也就是說，在見道位，剎那剎那之間，一定間雜著獲得忍智的行相，其他的道不是這樣。而且在見道中，障礙和對治是確定的，因為一定只斷除見所斷的煩惱。其他的道不是這樣，也就是說，在修道位中，或者同時斷除見所斷和修所斷的煩惱，或者只斷除修所斷的煩惱。而且在見道中，解脫道之後，一定無間地生起。
【English Translation】 English version 'Kṣānti' (忍, forbearance) refers to, regarding the suffering dharma, from beginningless time, being deluded by the view of self, clinging to 'I' and 'mine'. Now, for the first time, seeing that it is only the nature of suffering dharma, and accepting this manifestation, it is called 'duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti' (苦法忍, forbearance towards the truth of suffering). This forbearance can lead to the subsequent arising of 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna' (苦法智, knowledge of the truth of suffering), and is the antidote to the obstacles to the arising of this knowledge. Therefore, it is also called 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti' (苦法智忍, forbearance-knowledge of the truth of suffering). The author of the scripture explains it this way to show that this forbearance is 'anāsrava' (無漏, without outflows), so he cites the subsequent 'niṣyanda' (等流, outflow) as a sign and distinction. This forbearance can give rise to 'dharma-jñāna' (法智, knowledge of the dharma), and is the cause of 'dharma-jñāna'. Obtaining the name 'dharma-jñāna-kṣānti' (法智忍, forbearance-knowledge of the dharma) is like a flowering and fruiting tree. Examining his meaning in detail, it means that only saying the word 'kṣānti' (忍, forbearance) may cause confusion with 'prayoga-mārga-kṣānti' (加行忍, forbearance of the path of application). This statement does not have profound reasoning. It is not because that dharma gives rise to this dharma that this dharma must be of the same kind as that dharma, like a flowering and fruiting tree. The categories of cause and effect, such as cutting off antidotes, are different. Moreover, it is not completely established that 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna' (苦法智, knowledge of the truth of suffering) is 'anāsrava' (無漏, without outflows). How can it be said that because forbearance gives rise to that dharma, this forbearance is the same as that dharma and is 'anāsrava' (無漏, without outflows)? Furthermore, there is no possibility of confusion with 'prayoga-mārga-kṣānti' (加行忍, forbearance of the path of application) here, because the scripture says that this forbearance arises immediately after the 'laukikāgradharma' (世第一法, the supreme mundane dharma), indicating that this forbearance can transcend the realm of 'pṛthagjana' (異生, ordinary beings), while 'sāsrava-kṣānti' (有漏忍, forbearance with outflows) cannot accomplish these things. Also, how do we know that this 'duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti' (苦法忍, forbearance towards the truth of suffering) is 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna' (苦法智, knowledge of the truth of suffering) as its 'niṣyanda-phala' (等流果, outflow result)? If it is said that because this forbearance is 'anāsrava' (無漏, without outflows), and because it is from a previous life, this reason is also not valid, because there is no reason to say that this forbearance is 'anāsrava' (無漏, without outflows). From this, it can be proved that the previous explanation is good. This forbearance is also called 'niyāma okkanti' (正性決定, entering the right path), and is also called 'sammattaniyāma okkanti' (正性離生, entering the right path and leaving the evil path). Therefore, this is the first time entering 'niyāma okkanti' (正性決定, entering the right path), and it is also the first time entering 'sammattaniyāma okkanti' (正性離生, entering the right path and leaving the evil path). Therefore, the 'rightness' mentioned in the scripture refers to 'nirvāṇa' (涅槃, cessation), or the word 'rightness' refers to the noble paths, which can determine the direction towards 'nirvāṇa' (涅槃, cessation), or determine the characteristics of the truths. The noble paths obtain the name of determination, and reaching the state of obtaining determination is called 'entering'. If so, then why is it that only the first seeing of the truth can obtain the name of determination for 'anāsrava-prajñā' (無漏慧, wisdom without outflows)? Because at that time, for the first time, an indestructible and decisive view is obtained regarding the principles of the truths. Or at that time, relative to the other stages of the path, there is an extraordinary aspect of determination. That is to say, in the stage of the path of seeing, moment by moment, the characteristics of obtaining forbearance and knowledge are definitely interspersed, which is not the case with other paths. Moreover, in the path of seeing, obstacles and antidotes are certain, because only the afflictions that are severed by seeing are definitely cut off. Other paths are not like this, that is to say, in the stage of the path of cultivation, either both the afflictions that are severed by seeing and the afflictions that are severed by cultivation are cut off simultaneously, or only the afflictions that are severed by cultivation are cut off. Moreover, in the path of seeing, after the path of liberation, it will definitely arise without interruption.
。余道不然。又見道中定是無漏。定十五念。定不起等。余道不然。故獨名定。有餘師說。于見位中決定初得八聖同分。故唯見道立決定名。煩惱名生。如契經說何謂生。具謂諸煩惱。見位初越故名離生。有說生言目根未熟。見位初越故名離生。至得離生說名為入。如本論說。世第一無間舍異生性。為世第一。為苦法智忍。為共能捨。有餘師言。唯世第一若謂此是異生法故應無舍力。此難不然。性相違故。依彼舍彼如上怨肩而害怨命。有餘師說。唯苦法忍此忍生時舍異生性。此忍滅位斷十隨眠。如燈生時能除闇障。燈至滅位燒炷盡油。若謂二能屬燈明觸。不應引喻一法二能。此難不然。如一法上生位滅位。二有性殊兩位功能亦應異故。理不應許生時有性如滅。亦不應許滅時有性如生。又非功能離於有性。離有性外別有功能。自體不成世中已辯。又見一法一剎那中有多功能。如四正斷故所立喻理非不成。然於此中所立喻意如燈據總。體雖是一實物異故功能有殊。謂有生時起功能者。有于滅位方有功能。如是一物由時別故。所有功能亦應有別。故苦法忍生時。有能捨異生性。滅時有用斷十煩惱。斯有何失。若責未來寧有作用。此先已釋。先釋者何。此于功能假說作用。定無作用於去來有。辯世相中已具思擇。有餘師說。此
二共舍如無間道解脫道故。謂世第一如無間道。與異生性成就得俱滅故。苦法智忍如解脫道。與異生性不成得俱生故。此忍無間即緣欲苦。有法智生名苦法智。于唯是苦法得決斷慧故。應知此智亦無漏攝。前無漏言遍流后故。如緣欲界苦聖諦境。有苦法忍苦法智生。如是復於法智無間。總緣余界苦聖諦境。有類智忍生名苦類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境。有類智生名苦類智。最初證知諸法真理故名法智。此後境智與前相似故得類名。是后隨前而證境義。或從前生故后得前類名。如世間言子是父類。即是從欲界苦決定覺所生。余界苦決定覺義。如緣苦諦欲界及余。生法類忍法類智四。緣餘三諦各四亦然。即緣一一有四心義。謂復於前苦類智后。次緣欲界集聖諦境。有法智忍生名集法智忍。此忍無間即緣欲集。有法智生名集法智。次緣余界集聖諦境。有類智忍生名集類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境。有類智生名集類智。次緣欲界滅聖諦境。有法智忍生名滅法智忍。此忍無間即緣欲滅。有法智生名滅法智。次緣余界滅聖諦境。有類智忍生名滅類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境。有類智生名滅類智。次緣欲界道聖諦境。有法智忍生名道法智忍。此忍無間即緣欲道。有法智生名道法智。次緣余界道聖諦境。有類智忍生名道類智忍。此忍無間即緣
此境。有類智生名道類智。如是次第有十六心。總說名為聖諦現觀。以於三界四聖諦境。次第現前如實觀故。既於三界四聖諦境。旋環紛擾作意思惟。寧不能為現觀障礙。初習業地于諸諦境。多返旋環已淳熟故。又在見道行極速故。又由不起阿世耶故。又此勢力極猛利故。必無能為此障礙者。即由此理說見道位。名為無相不可施設。住此位中相難了故。法類忍智于諸諦境。行相差別難施設故。此中上座。違越百千諸瑜伽師。依真現量證智所說。展轉傳來如大王路。諦現觀理率意。別立現觀次第。謂瑜伽師。於四諦境先以世智。如理觀察次引生忍。欲慧觀見此忍增進。作無間緣親能引生。正性決定引起聖道。光明相故此忍現前。如后聖道於四諦境。忍可欲樂簡擇觀察。推度分明如隔輕𦀛。光中觀像此位名入正性決定。後於四諦以妙抉擇。無動智見名為預流。佛說涅槃名為正性。此能定趣得決定名。故前名入正性決定。即能入位名諦順忍。此忍非在世第一前。彼謂佛說五取蘊已。復作是言若於此法。以下劣慧審察忍可名隨信行。若於此法以增上慧。審察忍可名隨法行。故依得忍建立隨信隨法行者。非依得智。又以世尊于成證凈。見諦圓滿正見者中。決定除斯隨信法行。以于集總伽他中說。二最勝二凈通達外二種。故此二種
未得聖智。此復何殊世第一法。由聖定忍與前有異。謂出世故此名為聖。無動搖故此名為定。由聖定故名為見諦。然此猶名未得聖道。若得聖道轉名預流。是故世尊告舍利子。八支聖道說名為流。若爾何緣名為聖者。由此已得聖定忍故。住此忍位為經久如。引聖道力強故非久然闕緣故。有時暫出作餘事業。非不得果可於中間有命終理。此聖定忍有何為障。雖已現行而未斷惑。智未滿故未決定故。次起苦法智名預流初心。爾時便能頓斷三結。能永斷彼舊隨界故。從此引生苦類智等。是故現觀定有八心。今詳彼宗現觀次第。違教違理前後相違。違教者何。如世尊說諸有永斷三結名為預流。彼於四聖諦中具現觀故。此經顯示二決定理。一顯非得苦智即名預流。二顯非苦智時頓斷三結。此經意說。遍知四諦名預流故。又說預流方能畢竟斷三結故。如何違理。且彼所說苦法智位即名預流。應住忍時名預流向。此預流向如預流果佛說有學。以契經說諸有學者有十八故。要得學法名有學者。故知聖忍亦名學法。忍是學法非聖道收。如是所言何大違理。又違別理。謂世尊言。是隨信行隨法行者。入正性決定越異生地。未得預流果。乃至廣說。如何許彼越異生地。而未得名成就聖道。又說八種補特伽羅。從預流向至阿羅漢。此八聖者應延
應請。應合掌禮。乃至廣說。非無聖道可廁此流。又說如所餘得聖道者故。謂契經說。若有五根增上猛利極圓滿者。名俱解脫阿羅漢果。廣說乃至。若有五根極劣鈍者。名隨信行非無聖道。可同此說。如何彼說。前後相違。謂諸道名目正見等此有二種。謂世出世。離此二外無第三道。既許聖忍是出世間。應如法智等亦聖道所攝。若不許此是聖道攝。亦應不許是出世間。許出世間非聖道攝。豈不彼說前後相違。若苦智時非預流者。善逝所說當云何通。經說。世尊告舍利子。八支聖道說名為流。於我無違何煩會釋。謂我不說初入聖道即名預流。說預流名目得初果。經亦不說得八聖道皆名預流。但說名流何違須釋。理應遍預知八諦境。聖道流者名預流故。然經摽列家家七返一間一來。欲阿羅漢五種不還十聖者已。復作是說。諸有成就佛證凈者。一切皆名見諦圓滿。正見者攝此成證凈見諦圓滿正見者中。前五聖者此處通達彼處究竟。后五聖者此處通達彼處究竟。乃至廣說。於此經中不說隨信隨法行二。有別所以謂要具足見四聖諦。方得名為見諦圓滿。及成證凈無缺減者。彼隨信行隨法行者。乃至證得道類忍時。猶得名為成就邪見。故未名得見諦圓滿及成證凈無缺減者。非於三諦得現觀時可名已成佛僧證凈。即由此證苦法智時。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應他人請求。應該合掌致敬。乃至廣泛宣說。並非沒有聖道可以混入這個行列。又如經中所說，其餘獲得聖道的人也是如此。也就是說，契經中說，如果有人五根（信、精進、念、定、慧）增上猛利，達到極圓滿的程度，就稱為俱解脫阿羅漢果。廣泛宣說乃至，如果有人五根極度低劣遲鈍，就稱為隨信行，並非沒有聖道，可以同樣這樣說。那麼，如何解釋前後說法之間的矛盾呢？ 所謂諸道，其名目如正見等，這裡有兩種，即世間和出世間。除了這兩種之外，沒有第三種道。既然承認聖忍是出世間法，就應該像法智等一樣，也被聖道所攝。如果不承認它是聖道所攝，也應該不承認它是出世間法。允許是出世間法，卻不被聖道所攝，這難道不是前後矛盾嗎？ 如果在苦智時還不是預流者，那麼善逝（佛陀）所說的話該如何解釋呢？經中說，世尊告訴舍利子，八支聖道被稱為流。對於我來說，這並沒有矛盾，何必費力解釋呢？因為我沒有說初入聖道就叫做預流，而是說預流這個名目是得到初果的人。經中也沒有說得到八聖道都叫做預流，只是說叫做流，有什麼矛盾需要解釋呢？ 理應普遍了知八諦的境界，聖道之流才叫做預流。然而，經中列舉了家家、七返、一間、一來、欲阿羅漢五種不還、十聖者之後，又這樣說，凡是成就佛證凈的人，都叫做見諦圓滿，被正見所攝。這成就證凈、見諦圓滿的正見者中，前五種聖者在此處通達，在彼處究竟；后五種聖者在此處通達，在彼處究竟，乃至廣泛宣說。 在這部經中，沒有特別提到隨信行和隨法行這兩種人，是因為要具足見到四聖諦，才能被稱為見諦圓滿，以及成就證凈沒有缺減的人。那些隨信行和隨法行的人，乃至證得道類忍時，仍然可以被稱為成就邪見，所以還不能被稱為得到見諦圓滿以及成就證凈沒有缺減的人。在對三諦（苦、集、滅）得到現觀的時候，還不能被稱為已經成就佛僧證凈。正因為如此，在苦法智時，還不能被稱為預流者。
【English Translation】 English version: Upon request. One should join palms in reverence. And so on, extensively explained. It is not that there is no noble path that can mingle in this stream. It is also said, like those others who have attained the noble path. That is to say, the sutra states, 'If someone has the five roots (faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) increasing vigorously and reaching perfect fulfillment, they are called a 'both-ways-liberated' Arhat.' Extensively explained, even to the point that 'If someone has the five roots extremely weak and dull, they are called a 'follower by faith,' not without the noble path, and can be spoken of in the same way.' How then can one explain the contradiction between these statements? Regarding the various paths, whose names are like Right View and so on, there are two kinds here: mundane and supramundane. Apart from these two, there is no third path. Since it is acknowledged that the Noble Acceptance (ariya-khanti) is supramundane, it should, like Knowledge of the Dharma (dhamma-ñana) and so on, also be included within the noble path. If it is not acknowledged that it is included within the noble path, it should also not be acknowledged that it is supramundane. To allow it to be supramundane but not included within the noble path, is this not a contradiction? If one is not a Stream-enterer (sotapanna) at the time of Knowledge of Suffering (dukkha-ñana), how can the words of the Well-Gone One (Sugata, the Buddha) be reconciled? The sutra says, 'The World-Honored One told Sariputta, the eightfold noble path is called a stream.' For me, there is no contradiction in this, so why bother to explain it? Because I did not say that one who initially enters the noble path is called a Stream-enterer, but rather that the designation 'Stream-enterer' is for one who has attained the first fruit. The sutra also does not say that all who attain the eightfold noble path are called Stream-enterers, but only that it is called a stream. What contradiction is there that needs explanation? It is reasonable that one who universally knows the realm of the eight truths, the stream of the noble path, is called a Stream-enterer. However, after the sutra lists the 'family-to-family' (kulankula), 'seven-more-times' (sattakkhattumparama), 'one-interval' (ekavici), 'once-returner' (sakadagami), the five kinds of 'desire-Arhats' (kamaraga-arahant), the 'non-returners' (anagami), and the ten noble ones, it further says, 'All who have accomplished faith in the Buddha, are all called perfect in the vision of truth, included within Right View.' Among these who have accomplished faith, perfect in the vision of truth, and possess Right View, the first five noble ones attain understanding here and reach completion there; the latter five noble ones attain understanding here and reach completion there, and so on, extensively explained. In this sutra, the 'follower by faith' (saddhanusari) and the 'follower by Dharma' (dhammanusari) are not specifically mentioned, because one must fully see the Four Noble Truths in order to be called perfect in the vision of truth, and to have accomplished faith without any deficiency. Those 'followers by faith' and 'followers by Dharma,' even when they attain Acceptance of the Dharma (dharma-khanti), can still be called as having accomplished wrong view. Therefore, they cannot yet be called as having attained perfect vision of truth and accomplished faith without any deficiency. When one attains direct perception of the three truths (suffering, origin, cessation), one cannot yet be called as having accomplished faith in the Buddha and the Sangha. Precisely because of this, at the time of Knowledge of Suffering (dukkha-ñana), one cannot yet be called a Stream-enterer.
仍未名為得預流者。由此經說諸預流者。見諦圓滿具成證凈。故彼所引如是契經。自害己宗非違他說。或此唯說于其位中。可有語言容命終者。彼隨信行隨法行者。二事俱無故此不說。理不應說隨信行者隨法行者。不成證凈。如契經說。若有于彼四種證凈一切皆無。我說彼居外異生品。此二行者許是有學。說為異生。不應正理。又此不攝在十聖者中。便無證凈等有大過失。謂佛獨覺亦不攝在十聖者中。豈可說言佛及獨覺。在成證凈見諦圓滿正見者外。若謂佛獨覺在羅漢中。二最勝經便為無用。謂彼經說有十聖者。四向四果並佛獨覺。唯佛獨覺名為最勝。雖阿羅漢亦可攝彼。而更別說以最勝故。應知此經理亦如是。非二攝在阿羅漢中。然此經中不說彼二。豈由不說故彼無證凈等。理既應許佛及獨覺。非十聖攝成證凈等。隨信法行寧不許然。又此契經。非了義說。由此經說。十種聖者皆具成就十聖道支。即八道支。謂正見等。又加正智及正解脫。余契經說。諸有學者但可成就前八道支。具成就十唯阿羅漢。此契經意應更尋求。是故定知非了義說。又預流等此處通達。當於彼處得究竟者。謂彼現身當全離欲。生色無色方般涅槃。彼住預流一來等位為十聖攝為不攝耶。若攝便違此經所說。非此經說預流果等。於此處通達彼處究
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 仍未名為得預流者（Srotapanna，須陀洹）。由此經說諸預流者，見諦（Darsana，真諦之見）圓滿具成證凈（Vaisaradyapratilabha，四不壞信）。故彼所引如是契經，自害己宗，非違他說。或此唯說于其位中，可有語言容命終者。彼隨信行（Sraddhanusarin，信隨行）隨法行（Dharmanusarin，法隨行）者，二事俱無，故此不說。理不應說隨信行者隨法行者，不成證凈。如契經說：『若有于彼四種證凈一切皆無，我說彼居外異生品。』此二行者許是有學（Saiksa，有學），說為異生，不應正理。又此不攝在十聖者中，便無證凈等有大過失。謂佛獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）亦不攝在十聖者中，豈可說言佛及獨覺，在成證凈見諦圓滿正見者外？若謂佛獨覺在羅漢（Arhat）中，二最勝經便為無用。謂彼經說有十聖者：四向四果並佛獨覺，唯佛獨覺名為最勝。雖阿羅漢亦可攝彼，而更別說以最勝故。應知此經理亦如是，非二攝在阿羅漢中。然此經中不說彼二，豈由不說故彼無證凈等？理既應許佛及獨覺，非十聖攝成證凈等，隨信法行寧不許然？又此契經，非了義說。由此經說，十種聖者皆具成就十聖道支，即八道支，謂正見等，又加正智及正解脫。余契經說，諸有學者但可成就前八道支，具成就十唯阿羅漢。此契經意應更尋求。是故定知非了義說。又預流等此處通達，當於彼處得究竟者。謂彼現身當全離欲，生色無色方般涅槃。彼住預流一來等位為十聖攝為不攝耶？若攝便違此經所說，非此經說預流果等，於此處通達彼處究
【English Translation】 English version He is still not called a 'stream-enterer' (Srotapanna). This sutra speaks of those stream-enterers who have perfected their vision of truth (Darsana) and fully attained purity of conviction (Vaisaradyapratilabha). Therefore, the sutra cited by him harms his own doctrine and does not contradict others. Or, this only speaks of those in that state who can be said to be about to die. Those who are 'faith-followers' (Sraddhanusarin) and 'dharma-followers' (Dharmanusarin) lack both of these, so this does not speak of them. It should not be said that faith-followers and dharma-followers do not attain purity of conviction. As the sutra says, 'If someone completely lacks these four kinds of purity of conviction, I say that they belong to the category of external ordinary beings.' It is not reasonable to consider these two types of practitioners as 'learners' (Saiksa) and yet call them ordinary beings. Furthermore, if they are not included among the ten noble ones, there would be a great fault in lacking purity of conviction, etc. That is to say, a 'solitary buddha' (Pratyekabuddha) is also not included among the ten noble ones. Could it be said that the Buddha and a solitary buddha are outside of those who have attained purity of conviction, perfected their vision of truth, and have right view? If it is said that the Buddha and a solitary buddha are among the Arhats, then the two most excellent sutras would be useless. That is, that sutra says that there are ten noble ones: the four paths, the four fruits, and the Buddha and a solitary buddha, with only the Buddha and a solitary buddha being called the most excellent. Although Arhats can also include them, they are mentioned separately because of their supreme excellence. It should be understood that this principle is also like this, that these two are not included among the Arhats. However, this sutra does not speak of these two. Does this mean that they lack purity of conviction, etc., simply because they are not mentioned? It should be admitted that the Buddha and a solitary buddha, although not included among the ten noble ones, possess purity of conviction, etc. Why should faith-followers and dharma-followers not be allowed to be the same? Furthermore, this sutra does not speak of ultimate meaning. This sutra says that the ten noble ones all fully possess the ten noble factors of the path, namely the eight factors of the path, such as right view, plus right knowledge and right liberation. Other sutras say that learners can only possess the first eight factors of the path, and only Arhats fully possess all ten. The meaning of this sutra should be further sought. Therefore, it is definitely known that it does not speak of ultimate meaning. Furthermore, stream-enterers, etc., attain understanding here, and will attain ultimate realization there. That is, they will completely abandon desire in their present body and attain Nirvana in the realm of form or formlessness. Are they, residing in the stage of stream-enterer or once-returner, included among the ten noble ones or not? If they are included, it would contradict what this sutra says, as this sutra does not speak of the fruit of stream-entry, etc., attaining understanding here and ultimate realization there.
竟故。若不攝者應許彼類。亦是不成證凈等者。準此應責欲阿羅漢。在有學位十中攝不。若謂隨所舉攝其餘位。則隨信法行亦在十中。此若不然彼云何爾又佛獨覺在有學位當言攝在何聖者中。不攝便應無證凈等故。此經意應更思求。由此定知非了義說。非由不說在十聖中。隨信法行無證凈等。是故不可以不說在十聖者中。便定證成隨信法行未得聖智。又此隨信隨法行者。應起聖道如余果向。謂如已得預流果等。於後進趣一來等時。未得彼果名彼果向。中間必有聖道現前。準此應知隨信法行既是預流向。應定起聖道聖果向攝無差別故。由此契經說二行者。未得預流果中間不命終。然聖道流總有二種。謂是果非果攝要至果流名預流果。此二雖得預非果流。而未得名預果流者。此若未得果中間不命終。既以果聲標所未得位。故知此二非全未預流。不爾經中應作是說。未得預流位中間不命終。何煩果聲標所未得。又若隨信隨法行者未得聖道。便應創得住見道位即名預流。爾時此名理應未得。住見道者見未凈故。要見凈已方名預流。經言預流見已清凈。為令見凈故修聖道。若離聖道無別有法能令見凈。由此見道見未凈故未名預流。然彼亦說隨信法行。能令見凈而復執彼未得聖道。非為善執。彼謂佛說若於此法。以下劣慧審察忍可
【現代漢語翻譯】 竟故（最終結論）。若不攝者應許彼類（如果不包括，就應該允許他們屬於另一類）。亦是不成證凈等者（這也無法證明清凈等）。準此應責欲阿羅漢（按照這個標準，應該責問那些想要成為阿羅漢的人），在有學位十中攝不（是否包含在有學位的十種聖者中）？若謂隨所舉攝其餘位（如果說隨著所舉的位次包含其餘位次），則隨信法行亦在十中（那麼隨信行和隨法行也應該在十種聖者中）。此若不然彼云何爾（如果不是這樣，那又該如何解釋呢）？又佛獨覺在有學位當言攝在何聖者中（佛和獨覺在有學位中，應該說包含在哪種聖者中）？不攝便應無證凈等故（如果不包含，就應該沒有清凈等功德）。此經意應更思求（這部經的含義應該進一步思考）。由此定知非了義說（由此可以確定這不是究竟的說法）。非由不說在十聖中（不是因為沒有說在十種聖者中），隨信法行無證凈等（隨信行和隨法行就沒有清凈等功德）。是故不可以不說在十聖者中（所以不能因為沒有說在十種聖者中），便定證成隨信法行未得聖智（就斷定隨信行和隨法行沒有獲得聖智）。 又此隨信隨法行者（而且這些隨信行和隨法行的人），應起聖道如余果向（應該生起聖道，就像其他的果向一樣）。謂如已得預流果等（比如已經獲得預流果等），於後進趣一來等時（在之後進步到一來果等的時候），未得彼果名彼果向（沒有獲得那個果位，就稱為那個果向）。中間必有聖道現前（中間必定有聖道顯現）。準此應知隨信法行既是預流向（按照這個標準，應該知道隨信行和隨法行既然是預流向），應定起聖道聖果向攝無差別故（就應該必定生起聖道，和聖果向沒有差別）。由此契經說二行者（因此契經說這兩種修行者），未得預流果中間不命終（沒有獲得預流果之前不會中途死亡）。然聖道流總有二種（然而聖道之流總共有兩種），謂是果非果攝要至果流名預流果（一種是果，一種是非果，一定要到達果的流才稱為預流果）。此二雖得預非果流（這兩種修行者雖然得到了預流的非果之流），而未得名預果流者（但是沒有得到預流的果之流），此若未得果中間不命終（如果他們沒有得到果，就不會中途死亡）。既以果聲標所未得位（既然用『果』這個詞來標明他們沒有得到的位次），故知此二非全未預流（就知道這兩種修行者並非完全沒有進入預流）。不爾經中應作是說（否則經中應該這樣說），未得預流位中間不命終（沒有得到預流位之前不會中途死亡）。何煩果聲標所未得（何必用『果』這個詞來標明他們沒有得到的呢）？ 又若隨信隨法行者未得聖道（而且如果隨信行和隨法行的人沒有得到聖道），便應創得住見道位即名預流（那麼他們剛開始進入見道位就應該稱為預流）。爾時此名理應未得（那時這個名稱理應還沒有得到），住見道者見未凈故（因為住在見道位的人，見解還沒有清凈）。要見凈已方名預流（一定要見解清凈之後才能稱為預流）。經言預流見已清凈（經中說預流的見解已經清凈），為令見凈故修聖道（爲了讓見解清凈才修習聖道）。若離聖道無別有法能令見凈（如果離開聖道，就沒有其他方法能夠讓見解清凈）。由此見道見未凈故未名預流（因此見道位的見解沒有清凈，所以不能稱為預流）。然彼亦說隨信法行（然而他們也說隨信行和隨法行），能令見凈而復執彼未得聖道（能夠讓見解清凈，卻又堅持他們沒有得到聖道），非為善執（這不是正確的觀點）。彼謂佛說若於此法（他們認為佛說如果對於此法），以下劣慧審察忍可（用低劣的智慧審查並認可）
【English Translation】 Ultimately. If they are not included, then they should be allowed to belong to another category. Also, it cannot be proven that they are pure, etc. According to this standard, those who aspire to be Arhats should be questioned: are they included in the ten types of noble ones in the stage of learning? If it is said that the remaining stages are included according to the stage mentioned, then those who follow faith and those who follow Dharma should also be among the ten. If this is not the case, then how should it be explained? Furthermore, where should it be said that Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) in the stage of learning are included among the noble ones? If they are not included, then they should not have the merits of purity, etc. The meaning of this sutra should be further contemplated. From this, it can be determined that this is not an ultimate teaching. It is not because they are not mentioned among the ten noble ones that those who follow faith and those who follow Dharma do not have the merits of purity, etc. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that those who follow faith and those who follow Dharma have not attained noble wisdom simply because they are not mentioned among the ten noble ones. Moreover, these followers of faith and followers of Dharma should generate the noble path, just like the paths towards other fruits. For example, having already attained the fruit of Stream-enterer, etc., when progressing towards Once-returner, etc., not having attained that fruit is called the path towards that fruit. In between, there must be the manifestation of the noble path. According to this standard, it should be known that since those who follow faith and those who follow Dharma are on the path to Stream-entry, they should definitely generate the noble path, and there is no difference from the path to the noble fruit. Therefore, the sutras say that these two types of practitioners will not die before attaining the fruit of Stream-entry. However, there are two types of streams of the noble path in total: one is the stream that leads to the fruit, and the other is the stream that does not lead to the fruit. Only the stream that necessarily leads to the fruit is called the fruit of Stream-entry. Although these two types of practitioners have attained the non-fruit stream of Stream-entry, they have not attained the fruit stream of Stream-entry. If they have not attained the fruit, they will not die in between. Since the word 'fruit' is used to indicate the stage they have not attained, it is known that these two types of practitioners have not completely failed to enter the Stream. Otherwise, the sutra should say, 'They will not die before attaining the stage of Stream-entry.' Why bother using the word 'fruit' to indicate what they have not attained? Furthermore, if those who follow faith and those who follow Dharma have not attained the noble path, then they should be called Stream-enterers as soon as they initially enter the stage of the path of seeing. At that time, this name should not yet be attained, because those who dwell in the path of seeing have not yet purified their views. Only after the views have been purified can they be called Stream-enterers. The sutra says that the views of Stream-enterers have already been purified, and they cultivate the noble path in order to purify their views. If there is no other method besides the noble path that can purify the views, then those in the path of seeing are not called Stream-enterers because their views have not been purified. However, they also say that those who follow faith and those who follow Dharma can purify their views, yet they insist that they have not attained the noble path, which is not a correct view. They believe that the Buddha said that if one examines and accepts this Dharma with inferior wisdom.
名隨信行。乃至廣說。故由忍力能令見凈非由聖道。此無至教亦無正理。證忍非聖道但率己妄情。故於彼言無勞廣遣。經唯說聖道能令見凈故。又彼所立現觀八心。法類二心用應無別。謂法智品已能具見一切諦相。於後復起類智品道。更何所為。彼作是言。且苦法智由緣內外。念住勢力之所引生。故此智生隨逐于彼了知苦相。次苦類智隨法智生。于諸行中能隨決了。與前所了相似苦相。余法類智例此應知。今詳彼言。法類二智無有少分力用差別。謂苦法智于諸行中。已能遍知一切苦相。次起類智于諸行中。更別有何應隨決了。或彼應說苦法智時。于苦相中有何未了。為隨決了生苦類智。彼許三界行苦相。無別總相思惟入正性決定。以彼宗說要總相觀三界苦法能入現觀。既爾法智已總相知。后類智生復何所用。又苦法智隨念住生。隨彼遍知三界苦相。應名類智失法智名。差別因緣不可得故。由此理證知彼所宗。極為妄立法類別相。又彼所立皆以聖教為勝所依。依何至教定知現觀。心唯有八。若不依憑至教所說。隨己所欲不審思求。見少聖言便生歡喜。由斯輕爾別立宗趣。是則所立種種宗途。皆應得成。何執唯八。謂若見說應觀一切唯法無我。是則應執一心現觀。若復見說斷諸疑網由知苦因。是則應執二心現觀。又若見說
【現代漢語翻譯】 名隨信行（名聲伴隨信仰而行）。乃至廣說（乃至廣泛地闡述）。因此，憑藉忍的力量能夠使見解清凈，而不是通過聖道。這種說法既沒有佛陀的教誨，也沒有正確的道理。認為忍不是聖道，只是順從自己的妄想。因此，對於他們的言論，無需過多辯駁。經典只說聖道能夠使見解清凈。此外，他們所建立的現觀八心，法智和類智兩種心的作用應該沒有區別。也就是說，法智品已經能夠完全見到一切諦相，之後再產生類智品的道，還有什麼用呢？ 他們這樣說：『首先，苦法智是由緣內外念住的力量所引發產生的。因此，這種智慧的產生伴隨著對苦相的了知。其次，苦類智隨著法智產生，能夠在諸行中隨之決斷，與之前所了知的相似的苦相。』其餘的法智和類智，可以依此類推。現在詳細分析他們的說法，法智和類智兩種智慧沒有絲毫力量和作用上的差別。也就是說，苦法智在諸行中，已經能夠普遍地知曉一切苦相。之後產生類智，在諸行中，還有什麼需要隨之決斷的呢？或者他們應該說，在產生苦法智時，對於苦相有什麼沒有了知的，需要通過產生苦類智來隨之決斷？ 他們認為三界的行苦相，沒有區別，通過總相思惟進入正性決定。因為他們的宗派認為，必須要總相觀察三界苦法，才能進入現觀。既然如此，法智已經總相知曉，之後產生類智還有什麼用呢？此外，苦法智隨著念住產生，隨著它普遍地知曉三界苦相，應該被稱為類智，失去法智的名稱。因為沒有可以區分的原因。由此理證可知，他們所宗的，極為虛妄地設立法智和類智的差別相。 此外，他們所建立的都以聖教作為最殊勝的依據。依據什麼至上的教誨，來確定現觀的心只有八個？如果不依據至上的教誨所說，而是隨從自己的慾望，不審慎地思考探求，見到少許聖人的言論就產生歡喜，因此輕率地另外建立宗派和旨趣。這樣一來，所建立的種種宗派和途徑，都應該能夠成立，為什麼只執著於八個？如果見到經文說應該觀察一切唯法無我，那麼就應該執著於一心現觀。如果又見到經文說斷除一切疑惑，是因為知曉苦因，那麼就應該執著於二心現觀。又如果見到經文說……
【English Translation】 』Name follows faith and practice』 (name accompanies faith and practice). And so on, extensively explained. Therefore, it is through the power of patience that one can purify their views, not through the Noble Path. This has neither the Buddha's teaching nor correct reasoning. To assert that patience is not the Noble Path is merely following one's own deluded emotions. Therefore, there is no need to extensively refute their words. The scriptures only say that the Noble Path can purify views. Furthermore, regarding their established eight minds of Abhisamaya (direct realization), the functions of the two minds, Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) and Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge), should be no different. That is to say, the Dharma-jnana-kshaanti (the patient acceptance of Dharma-jnana) already has the ability to fully see all the aspects of the Four Noble Truths. What is the purpose of generating Anvaya-jnana-kshaanti (the patient acceptance of Anvaya-jnana) of the Path afterward? They say: 'First, the Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) of suffering is produced by the power of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sati-patthana) that are related to both internal and external objects. Therefore, the arising of this wisdom accompanies the understanding of the characteristics of suffering. Second, the Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge) of suffering arises following the Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma), and it can subsequently determine the similar characteristics of suffering in all phenomena that were previously understood.' The remaining Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) and Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge) should be understood in the same way. Now, examining their words in detail, there is no difference in the slightest degree in the power and function of the two wisdoms, Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) and Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge). That is to say, the Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) of suffering already has the ability to universally know all the characteristics of suffering in all phenomena. After the arising of Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge), what else needs to be subsequently determined in all phenomena? Or they should say, when Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) of suffering arises, what aspects of suffering are not understood, requiring the generation of Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge) of suffering to subsequently determine? They believe that the characteristics of suffering in the three realms are not different, and one enters the determination of rightness through contemplating the general characteristics. Because their school believes that one must contemplate the suffering of the three realms in general to enter Abhisamaya (direct realization). Since Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) already knows the general characteristics, what is the use of generating Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge) afterward? Furthermore, Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) of suffering arises following the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sati-patthana), and as it universally knows the suffering of the three realms, it should be called Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge), losing the name of Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma). Because there is no discernible reason for the distinction. From this logical proof, it can be known that their school's establishment of the distinct characteristics of Dharma-jnana (knowledge of Dharma) and Anvaya-jnana (inferential knowledge) is extremely false. Moreover, what they establish is based on the sacred teachings as the supreme reliance. Based on what supreme teaching can it be determined that there are only eight minds in Abhisamaya (direct realization)? If one does not rely on what the supreme teachings say, but instead follows one's own desires, without careful thought and investigation, and becomes delighted upon seeing a few words of the saints, then one rashly establishes a separate school and purpose. In that case, all the various schools and paths that are established should be able to be established, so why cling only to eight? If one sees a scripture saying that one should contemplate everything as only Dharma (law) and no-self (Anatta), then one should cling to one mind of Abhisamaya (direct realization). If one sees a scripture saying that the severing of all doubts is due to knowing the cause of suffering, then one should cling to two minds of Abhisamaya (direct realization). Furthermore, if one sees a scripture saying...
法從因生。乃至廣說。是則應執三心現觀。又若見說如實知苦。乃至知道。是則應執四心現觀。又若見說如實了知集沒愛味過患出離。是則應執五心現觀。又若見說修七處善。是則應執七心現觀。如是等說其數寔多。豈可隨言起種種執擾亂聖教詃惑有情。故瑜伽師依真現量。證智所說展轉傳來。如大王路諦現觀理。雖被分析成多部異。然應方便簡偽依真。無容率己更立宗趣。如人舍宅已被焚燒。更持乾草用資猛焰。又彼所說聖忍位中。由闕緣故有時暫出作餘事業。亦不應理。以諸見道修道初心加行一故。云何知爾。更不說有別加行故。又說中間無命終故。若謂隨信隨法行者。世尊說彼應不放逸。修集諸根如余有學。應有出觀。故契經言。苾芻諦聽。何等色類。我說彼為應不放逸。廣說乃至。複次苾芻非俱解脫。非慧解脫。非身證非見至。非信勝解。應不放逸修集諸根如隨信行。廣說乃至。苾芻當知。如是色類。我說彼為應不放逸。所以者何。謂彼具壽應不放逸。修集諸根于隨順身妙臥具等亦不染著。親近承事供養善友。得漏盡故成心解脫。如是應說隨法行者。非二行者都不出觀。可有如上所說道理。又如佛告婆拖黎言。苾芻當知。置俱解脫。廣說乃至。置信勝解。若隨法行來至我所。我設告彼善來苾芻。可處泥中為我
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "『法從因生』等等，廣泛地說，那麼就應該執著於三心現觀（three-moment direct perception）。如果看到說『如實知苦』等等，直到『知道』，那麼就應該執著於四心現觀（four-moment direct perception）。如果看到說『如實了知集（samudaya, 集諦，苦之生起）的滅、愛的滋味、過患和出離』，那麼就應該執著於五心現觀（five-moment direct perception）。如果看到說『修七處善』，那麼就應該執著於七心現觀（seven-moment direct perception）。像這樣等等的說法，數量實在很多，怎麼可以隨便根據這些言論就產生種種執著，擾亂聖教，迷惑有情呢？所以瑜伽師依靠真實的現量（direct perception），證智（wisdom of realization）所說的輾轉相傳，就像大王路（major road）一樣，諦現觀（truth direct perception）的道理，雖然被分析成很多部分，各不相同，但是應該方便地鑑別虛偽，依靠真實，不能隨意地按照自己的想法另立宗趣。就像一個人的房屋已經被焚燒，再拿乾草來助長猛烈的火焰一樣。", "另外，他們所說的聖忍位（stage of holy patience）中，因為缺少因緣，有時暫時離開去作其他事業，也是不合道理的。因為見道（path of seeing）和修道（path of cultivation）的初心（initial mind）和加行（preparatory practice）是一樣的。怎麼知道是這樣的呢？因為沒有說有其他的加行。又說中間沒有命終（death）的緣故。如果說隨信行者（follower by faith）和隨法行者（follower by dharma），世尊說他們應該不放逸，修集諸根，像其他的有學（learner）一樣，應該有出觀（emerging from meditative state）。所以契經（sutra）上說：『比丘（bhiksu, 佛教出家男眾）諦聽，什麼樣的色類（category of form），我說他們應該不放逸？』廣泛地說，乃至，『再次，比丘，非俱解脫（liberated in both wisdom and concentration），非慧解脫（liberated by wisdom），非身證（body witness），非見至（arrived at the view），非信勝解（liberated by faith），應該不放逸，修集諸根，像隨信行者一樣。』廣泛地說，乃至，『比丘應當知道，像這樣的色類，我說他們應該不放逸。』為什麼呢？因為他們這些具壽（one with virtue）應該不放逸，修集諸根，對於隨順身體的妙臥具等等也不染著，親近承事供養善友（virtuous friend），因為得到漏盡（exhaustion of outflows）的緣故，成就心解脫（liberation of mind）。應該這樣說，隨法行者，不是兩種行者都不出觀，可能有如上面所說的道理。", "又如佛告訴婆拖黎（Bhaddāli）說：『比丘應當知道，放下俱解脫，廣泛地說，乃至，放下信勝解，如果隨法行者來到我這裡，我如果告訴他們「善來比丘（welcome bhiksu）」，可以在泥中為我...』", "", "", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "『Dharma arises from causes,』 and so on, speaking broadly, then one should adhere to the three-moment direct perception. If one sees it said, 『Truly knowing suffering,』 and so on, up to 『knowing,』 then one should adhere to the four-moment direct perception. If one sees it said, 『Truly understanding the cessation of samudaya (arising of suffering, the truth of origin), the allure of love, its faults, and liberation,』 then one should adhere to the five-moment direct perception. If one sees it said, 『Cultivating the seven wholesome factors,』 then one should adhere to the seven-moment direct perception. Such statements are numerous; how can one arbitrarily generate various attachments based on these words, disturbing the Holy Teaching and misleading sentient beings? Therefore, Yogis rely on genuine direct perception, transmitted through the wisdom of realization, like a major road. Although the principles of truth direct perception are analyzed into many different parts, one should skillfully discern falsehood and rely on truth, without arbitrarily establishing one's own doctrines and tenets. It is like someone whose house has already been burned down, then using dry grass to fuel the raging flames.", "Furthermore, their statement that in the stage of holy patience, due to a lack of conditions, one may temporarily leave to engage in other activities is also unreasonable. Because the initial mind and preparatory practice of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation are the same. How do we know this? Because it is not said that there are other preparatory practices. Moreover, it is said that there is no death in between. If it is said that followers by faith and followers by dharma, the World-Honored One said that they should not be negligent, cultivating their faculties, like other learners, and should emerge from meditative state. Therefore, the sutra says: 『Bhiksus, listen attentively, what kind of category of form do I say should not be negligent?』 Speaking broadly, up to, 『Again, Bhiksus, those who are not liberated in both wisdom and concentration, not liberated by wisdom, not body witnesses, not arrived at the view, not liberated by faith, should not be negligent, cultivating their faculties, like followers by faith.』 Speaking broadly, up to, 『Bhiksus, you should know that such categories of form, I say they should not be negligent.』 Why? Because these virtuous ones should not be negligent, cultivating their faculties, and should not be attached to pleasant bedding and so on that are conducive to the body, and should draw near to, attend to, and make offerings to virtuous friends, and because of attaining the exhaustion of outflows, they achieve liberation of mind. It should be said that followers by dharma, not that both types of followers do not emerge from meditative state; there may be the principles as stated above.", "Moreover, as the Buddha told Bhaddāli: 『Bhiksus, you should know, setting aside those liberated in both wisdom and concentration, speaking broadly, up to, setting aside those liberated by faith, if followers by dharma come to me, if I tell them 「Welcome Bhiksus,」 they can be in the mud for me...』" ] }
橋道。我當踐汝渡此淤泥。于意云何。彼隨法行。我將踐位舍我起不。正踐彼時有動轉不。后以言詞申勞倦不。婆拖黎曰。不也世尊。說隨信行應知亦爾。非二行者正在定中。可為世尊之所告敕。及起身業發語言理。又天神告沃揭羅言。長者當知。此俱解脫。此慧解脫。廣說乃至。此隨法行。此隨信行。此阿羅漢果。此阿羅漢向。廣說乃至。此預流果。此預流向。汝應供養深自慶幸。又契經說。若有供養一預流向。乃至廣說。由此證知隨信法行。由闕緣故有時暫出。如是所引為證不成。于彼先時立后名故。如余經說。無明所覆愛所繫縛。愚夫智者同感此身。非諸智者無明所覆感得此身。然先感身後成智者。于先非智者立后智者名。又如余經說。中般涅槃等亦於前位立后位名。中有等時得阿羅漢果。要至最後方般涅槃故。又如余經說。欲阿羅漢等此處通達。非阿羅漢等可有通達義。但說先時如是應知。說隨信行隨法行者。應不放逸。修集諸根及處泥等。皆於前位立后位名。以必當成隨信行等。于未成位預立彼名。如何得知經有此意。以前經說。謂彼具壽得漏盡故。成心解脫。非隨信行隨法行者。可得漏盡成心解脫。然於後位立前位名。以漏盡時追說前位。曾為隨信隨法行者。如是前位應不放逸。修集諸根及處泥等。后必
當成隨信法行。故於前位立后位名。如余契經。互說無失。由是前說。以諸見道修道初心加行一故。隨信隨法行無出觀理成。故彼所言于聖忍位由闕緣故。有時暫出作餘事業但率己情。又彼所言苦法智起力能頓斷三結隨界。爾時名曰預流初心。此亦不然。理不成故。謂苦法智頓斷三結舊隨界者。為生時斷為滅時斷。若生時斷。最後學心應成無學。由彼生已無煩惱故。若滅時斷。住苦法智便非預流。爾時三結隨界轉故。以契經說三結已斷方名預流。是故汝曹寧作是說。苦法智忍斷三結隨界。苦法智起成預流初心。必不應言苦法智斷。然彼所說聖定忍位未決定故。不斷煩惱智亦應言未得決定。以苦法智現在前時。未已斷疑舊隨界故。若不為與疑隨界俱。聖忍何緣言未決定。又漸現觀是上坐宗。苦法智時余疑未斷。應如聖忍未得決定。應亦未能斷諸煩惱。然彼宗說初苦智時。力能頓斷三結隨界。彼與聖道極相違故。謂最下品聖道生時。勢力已能浣濯相續。令彼三結隨界頓斷。由相續中緣無常苦空無我見都未有時。薩迦耶見戒禁取疑容相續轉故。苦法智現在前時頓斷三結。若爾便應於後后位觀余聖諦功並唐捐。彼反詰言。何不乘難此位應得阿羅漢果。豈不為斷余未斷結。此全無理。迷集等疑苦智慧滅。理不成故。謂于集等有迷
惑者。非由見苦於彼能解。以見苦相時未見彼相故。非未解彼滅迷彼疑。非苦智違集等疑故。或應苦智亦與諸餘見斷結相違。無差別因故。非常等見都未有時。于相續中諸見所斷。皆有斷義故。苦智生應皆頓斷。寧唯三結。由此彼說非應理因。彼反詰言。亦不應理。以未應得阿羅漢故。設於爾時見道所斷所有諸結皆斷盡者。亦未容得阿羅漢故。以能具見一切諦者修所斷結猶未斷故。由此或應許苦法智不能頓斷三結隨界。或復應許苦法智時頓斷一切見所斷結。如是則應於後后位觀余聖諦功並唐捐。既爾不應許漸現觀。又詳上坐所立義宗。似許預流都未見諦。以彼上座自作是說。謂最下品聖道生時。勢力已能浣濯相續。令彼三結隨界頓斷。聖道生位必在未來。然彼所宗未來未有。若聖道未有能浣濯相續。令彼三結隨界頓斷。豈不說彼未見諦位。三結隨界身中已無。便成預流都未見諦。若彼意謂聖道生時。于相續中猶有隨界。如何可說聖道生時。勢力已能浣濯相續。三結隨界猶住其身。而言已能浣濯相續。如是意趣極為難了。若複意謂聖道正生。三結隨界爾時正滅。亦不應說聖道生時。勢力已能浣濯相續。夫言正滅必是現在。聖道生時隨界有故。又彼設謂隨界滅時不能為因牽后隨界。即依此義名已浣濯。亦不應說已浣濯言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
提問者：如果不是因為見到苦諦才能理解，那是因為見到苦相的時候並沒有見到彼相的緣故嗎？如果不是因為沒有理解彼諦而迷惑，沒有斷滅彼諦而疑惑，那是因為苦智與集諦等疑惑相違背的緣故嗎？或者應該說苦智也與所有見斷的煩惱相違背，因為沒有差別的緣故嗎？如果非常見等見解從來沒有存在過，那麼在相續中所有見解所斷的煩惱，都有斷滅的意義嗎？苦智生起的時候應該全部頓斷嗎？為什麼只有三結（身見、戒禁取見、疑）？由此，他們的說法是不合理的。他們的反駁也是不合理的，因為還沒有證得阿羅漢的緣故。假設在那個時候，見道所斷的所有煩惱都斷盡了，也無法證得阿羅漢，因為能夠完全見到一切諦的修所斷煩惱還沒有斷除的緣故。由此，或者應該允許苦法智不能頓斷三結隨界，或者應該允許苦法智的時候頓斷一切見所斷的煩惱。這樣，那麼在後后的階段觀察其餘聖諦的功用就都白費了。既然這樣，就不應該允許漸次現觀。
又詳細考察上座部所建立的義理宗旨，似乎允許預流果都還沒有見到真諦。因為那些上座部自己這樣說，說最下品的聖道生起的時候，勢力已經能夠洗滌相續，使得那三結隨界頓斷。聖道生起的位置必定在未來。然而他們所宗的未來還沒有到來。如果聖道還沒有生起，就能夠洗滌相續，使得那三結隨界頓斷，難道不是說他們還沒有見到真諦的時候，三結隨界在身上已經沒有了嗎？這樣就變成了預流果都沒有見到真諦。如果他們的意思是說聖道生起的時候，在相續中還有隨界，怎麼能說聖道生起的時候，勢力已經能夠洗滌相續？三結隨界還住在他的身上，卻說已經能夠洗滌相續？這樣的意趣極為難以理解。如果又認為聖道正在生起，三結隨界爾時正在滅亡，也不應該說聖道生起的時候，勢力已經能夠洗滌相續。說正在滅亡必定是現在。聖道生起的時候隨界存在的緣故。又他們假設說隨界滅亡的時候不能作為原因牽引後面的隨界，就依據這個意義稱為已經洗滌。也不應該說已經洗滌。
【English Translation】 English version:
Questioner: If it's not because of seeing the truth of suffering that one can understand, is it because when seeing the aspect of suffering, one hasn't seen the aspect of 'that'? If it's not because of not understanding 'that' truth that one is confused, and not because of not eliminating 'that' truth that one doubts, is it because the wisdom of suffering contradicts doubts about the truth of origin (Samudaya) etc.? Or should it be said that the wisdom of suffering also contradicts all afflictions severed by view (見斷), because there is no difference in cause? If views such as the view of permanence (常見) have never existed, then in the continuum (相續), do all afflictions severed by views have the meaning of being severed? When the wisdom of suffering arises, should everything be severed instantly? Why only the three fetters (三結) (Sakkayaditthi (身見, self-view), Silabbataparamasa (戒禁取見, clinging to rites and rituals), Vicikiccha (疑, doubt))? Therefore, their statement is unreasonable. Their rebuttal is also unreasonable, because one hasn't attained Arhatship yet. Suppose at that time, all the afflictions severed by the path of seeing (見道) are completely severed, one still cannot attain Arhatship, because the afflictions severed by cultivation (修所斷) that can fully see all the truths have not yet been eliminated. Therefore, one should either allow that the wisdom of the Dharma of suffering cannot instantly sever the residual tendencies (隨界) of the three fetters, or one should allow that at the time of the wisdom of the Dharma of suffering, all afflictions severed by views are instantly severed. In that case, the effort of contemplating the remaining noble truths in later stages would be in vain. Since that's the case, one shouldn't allow gradual realization (漸現觀).
Furthermore, examining in detail the doctrinal tenets established by the Sthavira school (上座部), it seems to allow that even Stream-enterers (預流果) haven't seen the truth. Because those Sthaviras themselves say that when the lowest grade of the noble path arises, its power is already able to cleanse the continuum, causing the residual tendencies of those three fetters to be instantly severed. The position where the noble path arises must be in the future. However, the future that they uphold hasn't arrived yet. If the noble path hasn't arisen yet, it can cleanse the continuum, causing the residual tendencies of those three fetters to be instantly severed, isn't it saying that when they haven't seen the truth, the residual tendencies of the three fetters are already absent in their bodies? This would then become that even Stream-enterers haven't seen the truth. If their intention is that when the noble path arises, there are still residual tendencies in the continuum, how can it be said that when the noble path arises, its power is already able to cleanse the continuum? The residual tendencies of the three fetters still reside in his body, yet it's said that it's already able to cleanse the continuum? Such an intention is extremely difficult to understand. If it's further thought that the noble path is arising, and the residual tendencies of the three fetters are then ceasing, it shouldn't be said that when the noble path arises, its power is already able to cleanse the continuum. Saying that it's ceasing must be in the present. The residual tendencies exist when the noble path arises. Furthermore, they suppose that when the residual tendencies cease, they cannot serve as a cause to draw subsequent residual tendencies, and based on this meaning, it's called already cleansed. It shouldn't be said to be already cleansed.
但可說為正浣濯故。又前所說則成預流。都未見諦過終難免。彼於一諦理見仍未滿故。於一二三諦見未圓滿時。猶可名為見未見諦。要具見諦方名預流。以經說預流見諦圓滿故。況於一諦猶見未圓。而可名為得預流者。若謂聖道現在名生。爾時已能浣濯相續。則舊隨界是忍所斷。爾時智起彼體已無。則于自宗有相違過。又彼許忍非聖道收。如何能斷三結隨界。又現在世名為已生。說為生時不應正理。是故上座所立義宗。理或不應許漸現觀。或定應許見道諦時。方能無餘永斷三結。是則符順我對法宗。不應自言別立宗趣。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之七
如是已破上座所宗。唯執八心名諦現觀。餘部於此有作是言。諸聖諦中唯頓現觀。彼言既總理或無違。以諦現觀總有三種。其三者何。謂見緣事。唯無漏慧于諸諦境。如實覺了名見現觀。是即由見分明現前。如實而觀四諦境義。即無漏慧並余相應。同一所緣名緣現觀。是即由見等心心所法同。能取所緣四諦境義。即諸能緣並余俱有。同一事業名事現觀。是即由見等心心所法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：但是（你）只能說這是爲了正確地洗滌（煩惱）。而且，按照前面所說的，（這個人）就成了預流者（Srotapanna，須陀洹，入流者）。（如果）都沒有見到真諦，最終難以避免（墮落）。因為他對一個真諦的理解仍然不圓滿。當他對一、二、三個真諦的理解還不圓滿時，仍然可以被稱為『見未見諦』。一定要完全見到真諦，才能被稱為預流者。因為經書上說，預流者見諦圓滿。更何況對一個真諦的理解都還不圓滿，怎麼能被稱為得到了預流果呢？如果說聖道現在生起，（這個人）就能洗滌（煩惱）相續，那麼舊的隨界（Anusaya-dhatu，隨眠），就是由忍（Ksanti，忍位）所斷的。那時，智慧生起，它的本體已經不存在了。那麼，在你們自己的宗派里，就有了自相矛盾的過失。而且，你們也承認忍不是聖道所包含的，（那麼）它如何能斷除三結（Samyojana，結縛）的隨界呢？而且，現在世被稱為『已生』，說成『生時』是不合道理的。所以，上座部（Sthavira Nikaya）所建立的義理和宗旨，要麼是不應該允許漸次現觀，要麼是必須承認在見道諦時，才能完全、永斷三結。這樣才符合我對法宗（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）的觀點。不應該自己說另外建立一個宗旨。 阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論 阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十三 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯賢聖品第六之七 像這樣已經破斥了上座部（Sthavira Nikaya）的宗義，他們只執著於八心（八種心識）名為諦現觀（Satyabhisamaya，現觀四諦）。其他部派對此有這樣的說法：在諸聖諦中只有頓現觀。他們的說法既總括又合理，或許沒有違背（佛理）。因為諦現觀總共有三種。是哪三種呢？分別是見現觀、緣現觀和事現觀。只有無漏慧（Anasrava-prajna，無漏的智慧）對於諸諦的境界，如實地覺了，這叫做見現觀。這就是由見分明地現前，如實地觀察四諦的境界和意義。即無漏慧和其餘相應的（心所法），具有同一個所緣，這叫做緣現觀。這就是由見等心和心所法共同能夠取所緣的四諦境界和意義。即諸能緣和其餘俱有的（法），具有同一事業，這叫做事現觀。這就是由見等心和心所法。
【English Translation】 English version: But it can only be said that it is for the sake of properly washing away (afflictions). Moreover, according to what was said earlier, (this person) becomes a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna). If one has not seen the truth, it is ultimately difficult to avoid (falling back). Because his understanding of one truth is still incomplete. When his understanding of one, two, or three truths is not complete, he can still be called 'seeing without seeing the truth.' One must fully see the truth to be called a Stream-enterer. Because the scriptures say that a Stream-enterer has complete insight into the truth. Moreover, how can one be called having attained the fruit of Stream-entry when one's understanding of even one truth is still incomplete? If it is said that the holy path arises now, (this person) can wash away the continuum (of afflictions), then the old latent tendencies (Anusaya-dhatu) are severed by forbearance (Ksanti). At that time, when wisdom arises, its substance no longer exists. Then, in your own school, there is the fault of self-contradiction. Moreover, you also admit that forbearance is not included in the holy path, so how can it sever the latent tendencies of the three fetters (Samyojana)? Moreover, the present world is called 'already born,' it is unreasonable to call it 'the time of birth.' Therefore, the meaning and purpose established by the Sthavira Nikaya, either should not allow gradual insight, or must admit that only when seeing the truth of the path can the three fetters be completely and permanently severed. This is in accordance with my Abhidharma view. You should not claim to establish a separate doctrine. Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 62 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 63 Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order Chapter Six on Discriminating the Worthy and the Holy, Part Seven Having thus refuted the doctrine of the Sthavira Nikaya, who only cling to the eight consciousnesses as the insight into the truth (Satyabhisamaya). Other schools have said about this: Among the noble truths, there is only sudden insight. Their statement is both comprehensive and reasonable, and perhaps there is no contradiction (to the Buddha's teachings). Because there are three types of insight into the truth in total. What are the three? They are the insight of seeing, the insight of condition, and the insight of action. Only non-outflow wisdom (Anasrava-prajna) truly understands the realms of the truths, this is called the insight of seeing. That is, the four truths are clearly present through seeing, and the meaning of the four truths is truly observed. That is, non-outflow wisdom and other corresponding (mental factors) have the same object, this is called the insight of condition. That is, the mind and mental factors such as seeing can jointly grasp the objects of the four truths. That is, all the conditions and other co-existent (dharmas) have the same function, this is called the insight of action. That is, the mind and mental factors such as seeing.
並余俱有戒及生相等。于諸諦中同所作義。戒生相等是現觀因。于現觀中彼有事用。故亦于彼立現觀名。如是應知非相應法。唯一現觀除慧所餘。心心所法有二現觀。唯無漏慧具足有三。諸說名為頓現觀者。謂於一諦得現觀時。于余諦中亦得現觀。故於前說頓現觀察。應審推徴依何現觀。若言依事應贊言善。以于苦諦得現觀時。于苦具三于余唯事。謂初觀見苦聖諦時。盡煩惱故即名斷集。得擇滅故即名證滅。起對治故即名修道。以見苦位於集等三。有斷證修事現觀故。約事現觀名頓無失。若言依見應撥言非。此現觀必漸諸諦相別故。一見理無多行相故。隨彼自相一一諦中。世尊說言各各見故。如契經說。正見云何。謂聖出世無漏無取。廣說乃至。諸聖弟子以苦行相思惟于苦。以集行相思惟于集。以滅行相思惟于滅。以道行相思惟于道。無漏作意相應擇法。一見理無非一行相。故必無有別相諦中。隨其自相俱時見理。由此定應許漸現觀。若謂以一無我行相頓觀四諦。理必不然。此不應名無漏慧故。謂無漏慧于諸諦中。一一別觀方名見諦。異此應說以非我行相。思惟苦等不應說言。以苦等行相思惟苦等。又彼應說非我現觀。能治何等迷三諦惑。非謗集等惑非我觀能治以二行相都不相違。由此不應名真現觀。如迷諦惑別有四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 並且其餘的（心、心所）都具有戒和生等（的現觀）。在諸諦中，它們在所作的意義上是相同的。戒、生等是現觀的因。在現觀中，它們具有作用。因此，也在它們上面安立現觀的名稱。應當這樣理解，非相應的法，只有一種現觀，除了慧以外的其餘法。心和心所法有兩種現觀。只有無漏慧才具足三種現觀。 那些說名為頓現觀的人，是指在一個諦中獲得現觀時，在其餘的諦中也獲得現觀。因此，對於前面所說的頓現觀察，應當仔細推究是依據哪種現觀。如果說是依據事（現觀），應當讚歎說『很好』。因為在苦諦中獲得現觀時，對於苦諦具有三種（現觀），對於其餘的諦只有事（現觀）。 也就是說，最初觀見苦聖諦時，因為斷盡煩惱的緣故，就叫做斷集（諦）；因為獲得擇滅的緣故，就叫做證滅（諦）；因為生起對治的緣故，就叫做修道（諦）。因為在見苦諦的位置上，對於集等三諦，有斷、證、修的事現觀的緣故，依據事現觀而說頓現觀是沒有過失的。 如果說是依據見（現觀），應當否定說『不對』。這種現觀必定是漸次的，因為諸諦的行相是各不相同的。一個見理不可能有多種行相。隨著它們各自的自相，在每一個諦中，世尊都說各自見到。如契經所說：『正見是什麼？』是指聖者出世的無漏無取（的智慧），廣泛地說乃至，諸聖弟子以苦的行相思惟苦，以集的行相思惟集，以滅的行相思惟滅，以道的行相思惟道。無漏作意相應于擇法。 一個見理不可能不是一種行相。因此，必定沒有在不同行相的諦中，隨著它們各自的自相，同時見到真理的情況。由此必定應當允許漸現觀。如果認為以一個無我行相頓觀四諦，道理必定是不成立的。這不應該叫做無漏慧。所謂無漏慧，在諸諦中，一一分別觀察才叫做見諦。與此不同，應該說以非我行相思惟苦等，不應該說以苦等行相思惟苦等。 而且，他們應該說非我現觀，能對治什麼迷三諦的迷惑？非我觀不能對治誹謗集等（的）迷惑，因為兩種行相都不相違背。由此不應該叫做真正的現觀。如迷諦的迷惑分別有四種。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, the rest (of the mind and mental factors) all possess the precepts and arising, etc. (of direct realization). In terms of the truths, they are the same in the sense of what is done. Precepts, arising, etc., are the cause of direct realization. In direct realization, they have a function. Therefore, the name of direct realization is also established upon them. It should be understood in this way that non-corresponding dharmas have only one direct realization, except for wisdom. Mind and mental factors have two direct realizations. Only undefiled wisdom fully possesses three direct realizations. Those who speak of 'sudden direct realization' refer to the fact that when direct realization is attained in one truth, direct realization is also attained in the remaining truths. Therefore, regarding the aforementioned sudden direct observation, it should be carefully investigated based on which direct realization. If it is said to be based on the 'event' (direct realization), it should be praised as 'good'. Because when direct realization is attained in the truth of suffering, there are three (direct realizations) for the truth of suffering, and only the 'event' (direct realization) for the remaining truths. That is to say, when first seeing the noble truth of suffering, it is called the abandonment of the accumulation (truth) because of the exhaustion of afflictions; it is called the realization of cessation (truth) because of the attainment of selective cessation; it is called the cultivation of the path (truth) because of the arising of antidotes. Because in the position of seeing the truth of suffering, there is the event direct realization of abandonment, realization, and cultivation for the three truths of accumulation, etc., it is without fault to speak of sudden direct realization based on the event direct realization. If it is said to be based on 'seeing' (direct realization), it should be denied as 'incorrect'. This direct realization must be gradual because the characteristics of the truths are different from each other. One seeing of principle cannot have multiple characteristics. Following their respective self-characteristics, in each truth, the World-Honored One said that each is seen. As the sutra says: 'What is right view?' It refers to the undefiled, unattached (wisdom) of a noble one who has emerged into the world, and so on extensively, the noble disciples contemplate suffering with the characteristic of suffering, contemplate accumulation with the characteristic of accumulation, contemplate cessation with the characteristic of cessation, and contemplate the path with the characteristic of the path. Undefiled attention corresponds to the discrimination of dharmas. One seeing of principle cannot be other than one characteristic. Therefore, there must be no situation in which, in truths with different characteristics, the truth is seen simultaneously according to their respective self-characteristics. Therefore, it must be admitted that direct realization is gradual. If it is thought that the four truths are suddenly observed with one characteristic of no-self, the principle must not be established. This should not be called undefiled wisdom. So-called undefiled wisdom, in the truths, is called seeing the truth only when each is observed separately. Different from this, it should be said that suffering, etc., are contemplated with the characteristic of non-self, and it should not be said that suffering, etc., are contemplated with the characteristic of suffering, etc. Moreover, they should say, what delusion of the three truths can the direct realization of non-self counteract? The view of non-self cannot counteract the delusion of slandering accumulation, etc., because the two characteristics are not contradictory at all. Therefore, it should not be called true direct realization. Like the delusions of the truths, there are four kinds separately.
門。現觀亦應如彼有別。唯迷苦境有我執生。唯悟此生非我行相。能為對治非頓總緣。若頓總觀諸法非我。如何于諦能別了知。愛真有因滅真寂靜道真出離。若不了知如是等相何名見諦。若觀滅道如苦行相。應名邪智非如實知。是故但緣苦為非我。可名現觀非一切緣。又若見苦時斷迷道等惑。修所斷惑何不能斷。若爾于苦得現觀時。應於一切所作已辦。既非所許故理不然。若謂數修能對治道。方能漸斷修所斷惑。非治頓起可名數修。亦應要由解道等見。方能永斷迷道等惑。非解苦時名解道等。如何能斷迷道等惑。又由佛說非四諦中。總相頓觀成真現觀。故有設難。諦應如蘊。一時總觀成真現觀。若異此者法相無邊。現觀應無究竟時。者唐捐其功。如善授經佛告長者。於四聖諦非頓現觀。必漸現觀。廣說乃至。無處無容於苦聖諦未現觀已。能現觀集。如是乃至。無處無容於滅聖諦。未現觀已能現觀道。如是慶喜及一苾芻。二經所言意皆同此。二經一一各有別喻。若言我等不誦此經。理不應然。如向所引。分明顯示漸現觀經。頓現觀經不可得故。謂若汝等不誦此經。復無別經分明顯說必頓非漸。是汝所誦可為定量非撥此經。豈無分明說現觀教。是故汝等應誦此經。此經不違諸餘聖教及法性故。不可非撥。又共所誦轉法輪經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 門。現觀（Abhisamaya，證悟）也應該像這樣有所區別。只有迷惑于苦的境界，才會產生我執。只有領悟到此生並非『我』的行相，才能作為對治，而不是頓悟和總緣。如果頓悟和總觀諸法非我，如何能對四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，四聖諦）個別地了知？愛是真的原因，滅是真的寂靜，道是真的出離。如果不瞭解這些相，怎麼能稱為見諦？如果觀察滅和道如同苦的行相，應該稱為邪智，而不是如實地知曉。因此，只緣于苦為非我，可以稱為現觀，而不是緣於一切。另外，如果在見苦時斷除了迷惑于道等的煩惱，那麼修所斷的煩惱為什麼不能斷除？如果這樣，在對苦獲得現觀時，應該一切所作已辦。既然這不是所允許的，所以道理不成立。如果說通過多次修行才能對治道，才能逐漸斷除修所斷的煩惱，而不是頓然生起，可以稱為數修。也應該要通過了解道等的見解，才能永遠斷除迷惑于道等的煩惱，而不是在瞭解苦時就稱爲了解道等。如何能斷除迷惑于道等的煩惱？ 又因為佛說，並非在四諦中，總相頓觀就能成就真實的現觀，所以才會有這樣的設難：四諦應該像五蘊（pañca skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素）一樣，一時總觀就能成就真實的現觀。如果不是這樣，法的相狀是無邊的，現觀應該沒有究竟的時候，那將是徒勞無功。如同《善授經》，佛告訴長者，對於四聖諦，不是頓然現觀，必定是逐漸現觀。廣泛地說，乃至沒有地方、沒有可能在對苦聖諦沒有現觀的情況下，就能現觀集。像這樣乃至沒有地方、沒有可能在對滅聖諦沒有現觀的情況下，就能現觀道。像這樣，阿難（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）和一位比丘，兩部經所說的意思都相同。這兩部經各自都有不同的比喻。如果說我們沒有誦讀這些經，道理上是不應該的。如同前面所引用的，分明地顯示了漸現觀的經，頓現觀的經是不可得的。如果說你們沒有誦讀這部經，又沒有別的經分明地說必定是頓悟而不是漸悟，那麼你們所誦讀的就可以作為定量，而不是否定這部經。難道沒有分明地說現觀的教義嗎？因此，你們應該誦讀這部經。這部經不違背其他的聖教和法性，所以不可否定。又共同誦讀《轉法輪經》
【English Translation】 English version Gate. Abhisamaya (realization) should also be distinct like that. Only being deluded by the realm of suffering gives rise to the ego-grasping. Only realizing that this life is not the aspect of 'self' can serve as an antidote, not sudden and total contemplation. If one suddenly and totally contemplates that all dharmas are not self, how can one individually know the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni)? Craving is the true cause, cessation is the true peace, and the path is the true liberation. If one does not understand these aspects, how can it be called seeing the truth? If one observes cessation and the path as the aspect of suffering, it should be called a wrong wisdom, not knowing as it truly is. Therefore, only focusing on suffering as non-self can be called Abhisamaya, not focusing on everything. Furthermore, if one eliminates the afflictions of being deluded about the path, etc., when seeing suffering, why can't the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation be eliminated? If so, when one attains Abhisamaya of suffering, everything to be done should be accomplished. Since this is not what is allowed, the reasoning is not valid. If it is said that by repeatedly cultivating the path that can counteract, one can gradually eliminate the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation, not a sudden arising, it can be called repeated cultivation. It should also be necessary to have the understanding of the path, etc., in order to permanently eliminate the afflictions of being deluded about the path, etc., not calling it understanding the path, etc., when understanding suffering. How can one eliminate the afflictions of being deluded about the path, etc? Moreover, because the Buddha said that it is not through sudden and total contemplation of the general aspects in the Four Noble Truths that true Abhisamaya is achieved, there is such a difficulty posed: the Four Noble Truths should be like the five aggregates (pañca skandha, the five aggregates that constitute individual existence), where sudden and total contemplation at once achieves true Abhisamaya. If it is not like this, the aspects of dharmas are boundless, and Abhisamaya should have no ultimate time, which would be in vain. Like in the Good Endowment Sutra, the Buddha told the elder that for the Four Noble Truths, it is not sudden Abhisamaya, but necessarily gradual Abhisamaya. Broadly speaking, there is no place, no possibility to realize the truth of arising without having realized the truth of suffering. Likewise, there is no place, no possibility to realize the truth of the path without having realized the truth of cessation. In this way, Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) and a certain Bhiksu, the meaning of the two sutras is the same. Each of these two sutras has different metaphors. If it is said that we do not recite these sutras, it should not be the case in reason. As quoted earlier, it clearly shows the sutra of gradual Abhisamaya; the sutra of sudden Abhisamaya is not attainable. If you say that you do not recite this sutra, and there is no other sutra that clearly says it must be sudden enlightenment and not gradual, then what you recite can be taken as a fixed quantity, not denying this sutra. Is there not a clear teaching of Abhisamaya? Therefore, you should recite this sutra. This sutra does not contradict other holy teachings and the nature of dharma, so it cannot be denied. Also, the Turning the Wheel of Dharma Sutra that is commonly recited.
。說現觀中別觀四諦。如彼經說。此苦聖諦。是先未聞法。應如理思惟。廣說乃至。此道聖諦。是先未聞法。應如理思惟。不可判為初修業地。說此無間證等覺故。更不別說現觀位故。若判此為初修業地。應言何處說入真現觀時。既更無文此即現觀。故漸現觀不違教理。又應詰彼頓現觀宗。執頓現觀依何教理。具依教理。且教者何。如契經言諸聖弟子。入諦現觀故俱時斷三結。此中不見說漸次言。又契經說。于觀四諦應知慧根。此既總說觀四諦言知頓現觀。又契經說。修非常想斷諸欲貪。乃至廣說。非漸現觀唯非常想。能斷一切欲貪等結。又契經說。若斷一切疑由知薩因苦。薩是並義。此經意言遍知有取苦。並遍知苦集。顯頓現觀。又契經說。若於苦無疑。于集滅道即亦得無疑。既頓舍疑非漸現觀。如是謂教。其理者何。謂見苦時。斷所斷集。為見故斷。為不見耶。若見如何遮苦集諦俱時現觀。若不見者見苦諦時不應斷集。經說聖慧見時斷故。又如頓取五種色衣。謂如頓觀五色衣者。總取衣上五種顯色。如是總以一種行相。頓觀苦等別諦理成。又如日船燈體雖一而能頓起。種種功能聖慧亦然。其體雖一作四事業亦無有過。謂日出時一剎那頃。除冷遣闇生暖發光。船於一念舍此趣彼負重截流。燈亦一時發時破闇盡油燒炷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於現觀，分別觀察四聖諦。《彼經》中說：『此苦聖諦，是先前未曾聽聞的法，應當如理思維。』 廣泛地解說到：『此道聖諦，是先前未曾聽聞的法，應當如理思維。』 不可判定為初修業地，因為經中說證悟等覺是無間斷的，並且沒有另外說明現觀的位次。如果判定這是初修業地，就應該說在何處說明進入真實現觀的時候。既然沒有其他的經文，那麼這就是現觀。因此，漸次現觀不違背教理。而且，應該詰問那些主張頓悟現觀的宗派，他們所執持的頓悟現觀依據的是什麼教理？是否完全依據教理？先說教義是什麼？例如《契經》中說：『諸聖弟子，入諦現觀故，俱時斷三結。』 這其中沒有看到說漸次的言語。又《契經》說：『于觀四諦，應知慧根。』 這既然是總說觀察四聖諦，就意味著頓悟現觀。又《契經》說：『修非常想，斷諸欲貪。』 乃至廣說。並非漸次現觀，只有非常想，才能斷除一切欲貪等煩惱。又《契經》說：『若斷一切疑，由知薩因苦。』 『薩』是並的意思。此經的意思是說，普遍地了知有取之苦，並且普遍地了知苦集，這顯示了頓悟現觀。又《契經》說：『若於苦無疑，于集滅道，即亦得無疑。』 既然是頓然捨棄疑惑，就不是漸次現觀。這些就是所謂的教義。那麼理證是什麼呢？就是說，見到苦諦的時候，斷除所應斷的集諦，是因為見到才斷除，還是因為沒有見到呢？如果見到，如何遮止苦集二諦同時現觀？如果沒有見到，那麼在見到苦諦的時候，就不應該斷除集諦，因為經中說聖慧在見到的時候才斷除。又比如頓然取用五種顏色的衣服，就像頓然觀察五色衣服的人，總取衣服上的五種顯色。這樣，總以一種行相，頓然觀察苦等各個諦的道理就成立了。又比如太陽、船、燈，它們的本體雖然是一個，卻能頓然生起種種功能，聖慧也是這樣。它的本體雖然是一個，但同時做四種事業也沒有過失。比如太陽出來的時候，在一剎那間，就能除冷、遣暗、生暖、發光。船在一念之間，捨棄此岸，到達彼岸，負重、截流。燈也是一時發光、破除黑暗、耗盡燈油、燃燒燈芯。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding Abhisamaya (現觀), separately contemplating the Four Noble Truths. As the Sutra says: 'This Noble Truth of Suffering (苦聖諦), is a Dharma (法) previously unheard, one should contemplate it with proper reasoning.' Expounding extensively until: 'This Noble Truth of the Path (道聖諦), is a Dharma previously unheard, one should contemplate it with proper reasoning.' It cannot be judged as the ground for initial practice, because the Sutra says the realization of complete enlightenment (等覺) is uninterrupted, and there is no separate explanation of the stages of Abhisamaya. If it is judged as the ground for initial practice, then it should be said where it is explained when entering true Abhisamaya. Since there is no other scripture, then this is Abhisamaya. Therefore, gradual Abhisamaya does not contradict the teachings and reasoning. Moreover, those sects that advocate sudden Abhisamaya should be questioned, what teachings and reasoning do they rely on for their adherence to sudden Abhisamaya? Do they fully rely on teachings and reasoning? First, what are the teachings? For example, the Sutra says: 'The noble disciples, entering the Abhisamaya of the Truths (諦現觀), simultaneously sever the three bonds (三結).' In this, there is no mention of gradualness. Also, the Sutra says: 'In contemplating the Four Noble Truths (四諦), one should know the root of wisdom (慧根).' Since this is a general statement about contemplating the Four Noble Truths, it implies sudden Abhisamaya. Also, the Sutra says: 'Cultivating the thought of impermanence (非常想), sever all desires and greed (欲貪).' And so on. It is not gradual Abhisamaya, only the thought of impermanence can sever all afflictions such as desires and greed. Also, the Sutra says: 'If one severs all doubts, it is by knowing 'Sa' (薩) as the cause of suffering (苦).' 'Sa' means 'together'. The meaning of this Sutra is that universally knowing the suffering of grasping (有取之苦), and universally knowing the accumulation of suffering (苦集), this reveals sudden Abhisamaya. Also, the Sutra says: 'If one has no doubt about suffering (苦), then one will also have no doubt about the origin (集), cessation (滅), and path (道).' Since doubt is abandoned suddenly, it is not gradual Abhisamaya. These are what are called the teachings. Then what is the reasoning? It is that when seeing the Truth of Suffering, one severs the Truth of the Origin to be severed. Is it severed because of seeing, or because of not seeing? If seeing, how can one prevent the simultaneous Abhisamaya of the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin? If not seeing, then when seeing the Truth of Suffering, one should not sever the Truth of the Origin, because the Sutra says that noble wisdom severs when seeing. Also, like suddenly taking five colors of clothing, like someone suddenly observing five-colored clothing, they take all five manifest colors on the clothing. In this way, with one aspect, the principle of suddenly observing the separate Truths such as Suffering is established. Also, like the sun, a boat, and a lamp, although their essence is one, they can suddenly arise with various functions, so too is noble wisdom. Although its essence is one, there is no fault in doing four tasks simultaneously. For example, when the sun rises, in an instant, it can remove cold, dispel darkness, generate warmth, and emit light. A boat in one thought, abandons this shore, reaches the other shore, carries weight, and cuts through the current. A lamp also simultaneously emits light, dispels darkness, exhausts oil, and burns the wick.
。又斷見苦所斷惑時。若即得初果應頓觀四諦。若未得果則斷一切見斷惑時。亦應未得。差別因緣不可得故。又執于諦漸現觀者。既必定許于苦等諦。一時頓具知斷證修。亦必應許頓皆通達。如說于苦為通達遍知。乃至於道為通達修習。故約見現觀頓現觀理成。如是所言皆不成證。且彼引教說俱時聲。為證不成有別義故。見於無間亦說俱聲。如曼馱多俱時墮落。然非此說一剎那心。但說現觀故俱時斷三結。謂於四諦漸現觀故。爾時便能永斷三結。故非由此頓現觀成。或俱時聲顯俱有義。如世間說有一母驢。與其十子俱時負馱。此則顯示永斷三結。與諦現觀俱時有義。非唯于苦得現觀故。便能一時永斷三結。世間亦見有說俱聲。而不唯顯一剎那義。如說動足俱時時財。又說入城俱時富貴。引慧根教證亦不成。如信等根慧亦爾故。如契經說。於四證凈應知信根。非緣佛信即緣僧等。又如經說於四念住。應知念根非緣身念。即緣受等慧根亦爾非緣苦慧即緣集等。此言意顯於一一諦。有一慧根。故此無能證頓現觀。非常想教證亦不成。此于余諦理不能現觀故。由非常想唯以苦諦為所緣境非四諦故。若觀苦諦修非常想。爾時即名觀四諦者。苦應即四四應即苦。如是便成非所愛過。故緣一諦修非常想。必定不能現觀四諦。然詳經意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 又，如果斷除見苦所斷的迷惑時，如果立即證得初果（Sotāpanna，須陀洹），就應該頓悟四諦（catvāri ariyasaccāni，四聖諦）。如果未證得初果，那麼在斷除一切見斷惑時，也應該未證得初果，因為沒有可以得到差別的因緣。而且，如果執著於四諦漸次現觀的人，既然必定承認對於苦等諦，一時頓然具備知、斷、證、修，也必定應該承認頓然全部通達。例如經中所說，對於苦諦為通達遍知，乃至對於道諦為通達修習。所以，用見現觀、頓現觀來論證是不成立的。像這樣所說的一切都不能成為證據。 而且，他們引用經教中『俱時』的聲音，作為證據也是不成立的，因為『俱時』有別的意義。在見於無間（anantariya-samādhi，無間三昧）時也說『俱時』，例如曼馱多（Mandhātu，轉輪聖王）俱時墮落。然而，這並非說一剎那的心，只是說現觀，所以俱時斷除三結（tīṇi saṃyojanāni，三縛結），意思是由於對於四諦漸次現觀，那時便能永遠斷除三結。所以，不能由此成立頓現觀。或者，『俱時』的聲音顯示俱有的意義，就像世間所說，有一頭母驢，和它的十個兒子俱時負重。這則顯示永遠斷除三結，與諦現觀俱時具有的意義。並非僅僅對於苦諦得到現觀，便能一時永遠斷除三結。世間也見到有說『俱時』，而不唯獨顯示一剎那的意義，例如說動腳俱時時財，又說入城俱時富貴。 引用慧根（paññindriya，慧根）的經教作為證據也是不成立的，因為信等根（saddhindriya，信根）慧也是如此。例如契經所說，對於四證凈（catu vaiśāradya，四不壞信）應該知道信根，並非緣于佛的信心，就立即緣于僧等。又如經所說，對於四念住（cattāro satipaṭṭhānā，四念住）應該知道念根，並非緣于身念，就立即緣于受等。慧根也是如此，並非緣于苦慧，就立即緣于集等。這番話的意思顯示對於一一諦，有一慧根。所以，這不能證明頓現觀。 用非常想（aniccasañña，無常想）的經教作為證據也是不成立的，因為這對於其餘的諦理不能現觀。由於非常想唯獨以苦諦作為所緣境，不是四諦。如果觀察苦諦修習非常想，那時就叫做觀察四諦的人，那麼苦諦就應該等於四諦，四諦就應該等於苦諦。這樣就成了不希望出現的過失。所以，緣於一諦修習非常想，必定不能現觀四諦。然而，詳細考察經文的意思
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, if one severs the afflictions eradicated by seeing the truth of suffering, and if one immediately attains the first fruit (Sotāpanna), then one should instantaneously realize the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ariyasaccāni). If one has not attained the fruit, then when severing all afflictions eradicated by seeing, one should also not have attained the fruit, because the causal conditions for differentiation are unobtainable. Moreover, those who adhere to the gradual manifestation of the truths, since they must necessarily acknowledge that regarding the truth of suffering and so on, one instantaneously possesses knowledge, severance, realization, and cultivation, they must also necessarily acknowledge that one instantaneously comprehends all. For example, as it is said in the scriptures, regarding the truth of suffering, it is to be thoroughly known; and regarding the truth of the path, it is to be thoroughly cultivated. Therefore, reasoning based on seeing the present moment and instantaneously seeing the present moment is not established. Thus, all that has been said cannot serve as evidence. Moreover, their citation of the term 'simultaneously' from the teachings as evidence is also not established, because 'simultaneously' has a different meaning. In the case of seeing in the immediate state (anantariya-samādhi), the term 'simultaneously' is also used, such as when Mandhātu (a universal monarch) fell simultaneously. However, this does not refer to a mind in a single moment, but rather to seeing the present moment, so one simultaneously severs the three fetters (tīṇi saṃyojanāni), meaning that due to gradually seeing the present moment of the Four Noble Truths, one is then able to permanently sever the three fetters. Therefore, instantaneous seeing of the present moment is not established by this. Alternatively, the term 'simultaneously' indicates the meaning of co-existence, just as it is said in the world that there is a mother donkey who simultaneously carries a load with her ten sons. This shows the meaning of permanently severing the three fetters coexisting with seeing the present moment of the truths. It is not that merely by seeing the present moment of the truth of suffering, one is able to permanently sever the three fetters at once. It is also seen in the world that the term 'simultaneously' is used without solely indicating the meaning of a single moment, such as saying that moving the foot simultaneously brings wealth, and entering the city simultaneously brings riches. Citing the teachings on the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya) as evidence is also not established, because the faculties of faith (saddhindriya) and so on are also like this. For example, as it is said in the sutras, regarding the four assurances (catu vaiśāradya), one should know the faculty of faith, which does not arise from faith in the Buddha and immediately arise from faith in the Sangha and so on. Also, as it is said in the sutras, regarding the four foundations of mindfulness (cattāro satipaṭṭhānā), one should know the faculty of mindfulness, which does not arise from mindfulness of the body and immediately arise from mindfulness of feelings and so on. The faculty of wisdom is also like this, which does not arise from wisdom regarding suffering and immediately arise from wisdom regarding the origin and so on. The meaning of this statement is that for each truth, there is a faculty of wisdom. Therefore, this cannot prove instantaneous seeing of the present moment. Citing the teachings on the perception of impermanence (aniccasañña) as evidence is also not established, because one cannot see the present moment of the remaining truths through this. Because the perception of impermanence only takes the truth of suffering as its object, not the Four Noble Truths. If one observes the truth of suffering and cultivates the perception of impermanence, then one is called a person who observes the Four Noble Truths, then the truth of suffering should be equal to the Four Noble Truths, and the Four Noble Truths should be equal to the truth of suffering. In this way, an undesirable fault would occur. Therefore, focusing on one truth and cultivating the perception of impermanence will definitely not allow one to see the present moment of the Four Noble Truths. However, upon detailed examination of the meaning of the scriptures
。說有學者修非常想斷諸欲貪。及能蠲除順上分結。謂說修位起緣苦道。斷修所斷三界系貪。掉慢無明非說見道。如何引此證頓現觀。薩因苦教證亦不成。見次第中亦言薩故。如言薩子提婆達多。然此薩聲亦顯有義。此即顯示知有因苦。非知苦位即知苦因。或復相違行相別故。非苦行相即能知集。或復相違故知有因。苦聖諦位非即知集。此意顯苦非無有因。理必應然。由此經說知。有因苦。曾無餘經世尊于集說知言故。由此為證。知此經中非說知因但說知苦。又若見說知並因苦。即言苦集一時現觀。此既不言並知滅道。應許現觀非頓理成。又理無容頓斷疑故。謂無容見有因苦時迷滅道疑亦皆頓斷。經何故說斷一切疑。今此經中言一切者。唯顯見此所斷諸疑。謂此契經說前後際所有緣起。有情于彼愚因果故生多疑惑。謂我過去為曾有等。乘此契經作如是說。知薩因苦斷一切疑。惑此縱說斷一切疑。如何便能證唯頓斷。由此或可顯鄰近義。謂顯苦時知有因苦。便極鄰近斷一切疑。是一切疑必當斷義。如言汝等若無憤發。則為證得究竟涅槃。是故此經顯初現觀。不可引證唯頓非漸。由此已釋若於苦無疑。于集滅道亦得無疑。教以時促故定當斷。故不出觀故說亦得言。非見苦時一切疑斷。或依至果密說此言。以至果時並無疑故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有學者修習佛法，非常渴望斷除各種慾望和貪念，以及能夠清除順上分結（ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana，指色界、無色界的貪慾和驕慢）。他們認為，在修習的階段，是從認識苦諦（duḥkha-satya）開始，斷除修所斷的三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的貪慾。而掉舉（auddhatya）、驕慢（māna）和無明（avidyā）並非在見道（darśana-mārga）時斷除。那麼，如何引用這些來證明頓悟（ekakṣaṇābhisamaya）的觀點呢？ 即使引用『薩因苦教』（sa-hetuka-duḥkha-deśanā，指有因之苦的教導）也無法證明頓悟。因為在見次第（krama-darśana）的教義中，也提到了『薩』（sa，有）這個詞。例如，『薩子提婆達多』（sāputro devadattaḥ，有兒子的提婆達多），這裡的『薩』字只是表示『有』的意思。這表明，知道『有因之苦』，並不等於在認識苦諦的階段就同時認識到苦的原因（duḥkha-hetu）。 或者，苦諦和集諦（samudaya-satya）的行相（ākāra）是不同的，因此認識苦諦的行相併不能直接認識集諦。或者，因為它們是相互對立的，所以在認識苦聖諦的階段，並不能同時認識集諦。這表明苦並非沒有原因，而是必然有其原因。因此，經中說『知有因苦』。沒有其他經典中，世尊對集諦使用『知』這個詞。因此，以此為證，可知此經中並非說『知因』，而只是說『知苦』。 此外，如果經文說『知並因苦』，那麼就應該說苦集二諦是同時現觀的。既然經文沒有說同時知道滅諦（nirodha-satya）和道諦（mārga-satya），那麼就應該承認現觀並非頓悟，這個道理是成立的。 而且，在道理上，不可能頓然斷除疑惑。也就是說，不可能在認識到『有因之苦』的時候，對於滅諦和道諦的疑惑也同時斷除。那麼，經中為何說『斷一切疑』呢？ 現在，這部經中所說的『一切』，只是指見道所斷除的各種疑惑。這部契經（sūtra）講述了前後際（pūrvānta-koṭi，過去際；aparānta-koṭi，未來際）的所有緣起（pratītyasamutpāda）。有情因為對這些因果關係愚昧無知，所以產生很多疑惑，例如『我過去是否存在』等等。依據這部契經，可以這樣說：知道『薩因苦』，就能斷除一切疑惑。即使這樣說斷除一切疑惑，又如何能夠證明只能頓斷呢？ 因此，或許可以理解為一種鄰近的意義，即在認識苦諦時，知道『有因之苦』，就非常接近於斷除一切疑惑。『一切疑惑必定會被斷除』是這個意思。就像說『你們如果沒有憤怒，就能夠證得究竟涅槃』一樣。因此，這部經只是闡述了初期的現觀，不能用來證明只能頓悟，而不能漸悟。 由此已經解釋了，如果對苦諦沒有疑惑，那麼對集諦、滅諦和道諦也可能沒有疑惑。因為時間緊迫，所以必定會斷除疑惑，因此沒有必要再進行觀修，所以也可以說『並非在認識苦諦時，一切疑惑都被斷除』。或者，這是依據達到果位（phala）時的情況，秘密地這樣說的，因為達到果位時，所有的疑惑都會被斷除。
【English Translation】 English version Some scholars who cultivate diligently deeply desire to sever all desires and greed, and to eliminate the ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana (the fetters binding to the realms of form and formlessness, i.e., desire and pride). They believe that in the stage of cultivation, it begins with the recognition of duḥkha-satya (the truth of suffering), severing the greed associated with the three realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) that are severed by cultivation. However, auddhatya (restlessness), māna (pride), and avidyā (ignorance) are not severed during darśana-mārga (the path of seeing). So, how can these be cited to prove the view of ekakṣaṇābhisamaya (sudden enlightenment)? Even citing the 'sa-hetuka-duḥkha-deśanā' (teaching of suffering with a cause) cannot prove sudden enlightenment. Because in the doctrine of krama-darśana (gradual seeing), the word 'sa' (with) is also mentioned. For example, 'sāputro devadattaḥ' (Devadatta with a son), where 'sa' simply means 'with'. This indicates that knowing 'suffering with a cause' does not mean that at the stage of recognizing duḥkha-satya, one simultaneously recognizes duḥkha-hetu (the cause of suffering). Alternatively, the ākāra (aspects) of duḥkha-satya and samudaya-satya (the truth of the origin of suffering) are different, so recognizing the aspect of duḥkha-satya does not directly lead to recognizing samudaya-satya. Or, because they are contradictory, one cannot simultaneously recognize samudaya-satya at the stage of recognizing duḥkha-satya. This indicates that suffering is not without a cause, but necessarily has its cause. Therefore, the sutra says 'knowing suffering with a cause'. There is no other sutra where the Buddha uses the word 'knowing' for samudaya-satya. Therefore, using this as evidence, it can be known that this sutra does not speak of 'knowing the cause', but only of 'knowing suffering'. Furthermore, if the text says 'knowing suffering along with its cause', then it should be said that duḥkha-satya and samudaya-satya are simultaneously realized. Since the text does not say that nirodha-satya (the truth of cessation) and mārga-satya (the truth of the path) are known simultaneously, then it should be admitted that realization is not sudden, and this principle holds. Moreover, in principle, it is impossible to suddenly eliminate doubts. That is, it is impossible to simultaneously eliminate doubts about nirodha-satya and mārga-satya when recognizing 'suffering with a cause'. So, why does the sutra say 'eliminate all doubts'? Now, the 'all' mentioned in this sutra only refers to the various doubts that are eliminated by seeing the path. This sutra (sūtra) speaks of all pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) in the pūrvānta-koṭi (past extremity) and aparānta-koṭi (future extremity). Because sentient beings are ignorant of these cause-and-effect relationships, they generate many doubts, such as 'Did I exist in the past?' etc. According to this sutra, it can be said: knowing 'suffering with a cause' eliminates all doubts. Even if it is said that all doubts are eliminated, how can it prove that it can only be eliminated suddenly? Therefore, it can perhaps be understood as a meaning of proximity, that is, when recognizing duḥkha-satya, knowing 'suffering with a cause' is very close to eliminating all doubts. 'All doubts will definitely be eliminated' is the meaning. Just like saying 'If you have no anger, you will attain ultimate nirvana'. Therefore, this sutra only elucidates the initial realization and cannot be used to prove that only sudden enlightenment is possible, and not gradual enlightenment. This has already explained that if there is no doubt about duḥkha-satya, then there may also be no doubt about samudaya-satya, nirodha-satya, and mārga-satya. Because time is pressing, doubts will definitely be eliminated, so there is no need to cultivate further, so it can also be said that 'not all doubts are eliminated when recognizing duḥkha-satya'. Or, this is secretly said based on the situation when reaching the phala (fruit), because when reaching the fruit, all doubts will be eliminated.
。有作是誦。若於道無疑。于苦集滅亦得無疑。故已通其教。理亦不然。且見苦時斷所斷集。由無常等四種行相隨一現前見彼故斷。苦集二物無差別故。以約行相苦集智別。非約所緣有差別故。見苦所斷集可如是斷。見集所斷集斷則不然。以離因等四種行相。了知集諦則不能斷。以說于集為通達永斷。乃至於道為通達修習。若異此者。經但應言。集應永斷。乃至廣說。此即證成現觀非頓。然非要見方能斷集。勿修道中緣滅道智。不能永斷修所斷集。經言聖慧見時斷者。說見時能斷非見所斷法如所證修。非要由見所證修法。勿修道位苦集智起無所證修。斷亦應然。非要由見。言如頓取五種色衣。理亦不然。於一剎那分明取五。非所許故。眼識總取五色衣時。不能了別青黃等異。唯能總作顯行相轉。意識隨後次第了別。由行相速生增上慢。謂於一時頓取五色。然必無有現觀起時。不能分明了苦等異。唯於四諦總行相轉。如不明瞭總緣眼識。故不應引喻頓現觀。雖亦許有總相緣智。頓緣別相多境而起。然不能了多境別相。于真現觀為喻不成。如日船燈亦不應理。一體多業此不成故。以總日中暖觸除冷。光色遣闇暖光自類。后從前生非從一起。既無一體作四事業。故此無能喻頓現觀。又日初出無遍除遣諸冷闇能。故非頓喻燈不
成喻。類此應知盡油燒炷非別用故。船之舍趣亦無有別。負重截流各非全分。故亦無喻頓現觀能。雖有多能同依一體。而非現觀可與彼同。四行相殊互相違故。況此三喻體皆非一。如何可引證頓現觀。引得果證理亦不然。如斷上惑成應果故。如漸斷上界一切煩惱。成阿羅漢果無有過失。如是應知漸斷一切見所斷惑成預流果。又如學位同而有差別故。如預流等學位雖同。而於其中非無差別。如是第八類亦應然。又修道中亦應徴責。斷下下道所斷惑時。若即得一來應頓斷六品。若許爾者修斷不成。若未得一來后亦不應得。無別因故。餘位亦然。故彼所言無能證用。說于苦諦為通達等。不違我宗。有別義故。于苦至道為通達言。顯見道前四善根位。於四聖諦欣樂別觀。從此便能入見道位。如其次第。於四諦中正能遍知。乃至修習。此意為顯漸次現觀。如是所說豈違我宗。然通達言正顯見道。於四諦跡樂欲見者。必應先起求通達心。故此位中說為通達。或為通達即是見道。為達諦理見道生故。恐唯見諦即謂事成。顯見諦時別有所作。故次復說遍知等言。或此經應言于苦等諦由通達遍知。乃至修習顯所作事由慧故成。若不許然不應重說。通達遍知義無別故。此所引教但如其文。足能證成漸現觀義。以說于苦為通達遍知。乃至於道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 譬喻已經成立。應該知道，就像燃油和燈芯，雖然一起燃燒，但用途不同。船隻停靠的地點也各不相同。負重和截流，都不是船隻的全部功能。因此，這些譬喻都不能用來比喻頓悟的觀照能力。雖然多種能力都依賴於同一個身體，但不能說現觀與它們相同，因為四種行相（苦、集、滅、道）各不相同，而且互相違背。更何況這三個比喻的主體都不是單一的，怎麼能用來證明頓悟的觀照呢？ 用獲得果位的證成來證明頓悟的道理也是不成立的。例如，斷除上界（指色界和無色界）的迷惑，才能證得阿羅漢果位，這沒有過失。同樣，應該知道，逐漸斷除一切見所斷的迷惑，才能證得預流果位。 又比如，同樣的學道位次也有差別。例如，預流等學道位次雖然相同，但其中並非沒有差別。第八類（指八忍八智中的第八智）也應該如此。 而且，在修道過程中也可以提出質疑：在斷除下下道所斷的迷惑時，如果立即證得一來果，就應該頓斷六品（指欲界的六品思惑）。如果允許這樣，修斷就無法完成。如果還沒有證得一來果，以後也不應該證得，因為沒有其他的因緣。其他的位次也是如此。所以，他們所說的話不能作為證明。 說對於苦諦為通達等等，並不違揹我宗（指有部宗），因為有不同的含義。對於苦至道為通達的說法，是顯示見道之前的四善根位（暖位、頂位、忍位、世第一位），在四聖諦中欣樂地進行分別觀照，從此就能進入見道位，按照次第，在四諦中正確地、普遍地瞭解，乃至修習。這個意思是顯示漸次現觀。這樣說怎麼會違揹我宗呢？ 然而，通達一詞正是顯示見道。對於四諦的跡象（指四諦的行相）樂於見到的修行者，必定應該先發起求通達的心。所以在這個位次中說為通達。或者說，爲了通達，見道才會產生，因為見道是爲了通達真理而產生的。恐怕僅僅見到真諦就認為事情完成了，所以顯示見諦時還有其他的事情要做，因此接著又說遍知等詞。 或者這部經應該說：對於苦等諦，通過通達、遍知，乃至修習，顯示所做的事情是由智慧而成就的。如果不允許這樣，就不應該重複說，因為通達和遍知的意義沒有區別。這裡所引用的教證，僅僅按照它的文字，就足以證明漸次現觀的意義，因為它說對於苦諦為通達、遍知，乃至對於道諦也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version: The analogy is established. It should be understood that, like burning oil and a wick together, they have different uses. The places where ships dock are also different. Bearing weight and intercepting currents are not the entire function of a ship. Therefore, these analogies cannot be used to compare with the ability of sudden realization. Although multiple abilities rely on the same body, it cannot be said that direct perception is the same as them, because the four aspects (suffering, origin, cessation, path) are different and contradict each other. Moreover, the subjects of these three metaphors are not singular, how can they be used to prove sudden realization? Using the attainment of fruition to prove the principle of sudden realization is also untenable. For example, only by cutting off the delusions of the upper realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) can one attain the Arhat fruition, which is without fault. Similarly, it should be known that gradually cutting off all delusions that are severed by view can one attain the Stream-enterer fruition. Moreover, for example, the same stage of learning the path also has differences. For example, although the stages of learning the path such as Stream-enterer are the same, there are differences within them. The eighth category (referring to the eighth wisdom in the eight acceptances and eight wisdoms) should also be the same. Furthermore, in the process of cultivation, one can also raise questions: When cutting off the delusions that are severed by the lower and lower paths, if one immediately attains the Once-returner fruition, one should suddenly cut off the six grades (referring to the six grades of desire realm delusions). If this is allowed, the cultivation and cutting off cannot be completed. If one has not yet attained the Once-returner fruition, one should not attain it later, because there are no other causes and conditions. The other stages are also the same. Therefore, what they say cannot be used as proof. Saying that one has thorough understanding of the truth of suffering, etc., does not contradict our school (referring to the Sarvastivada school), because there are different meanings. The statement of thorough understanding from suffering to the path shows the four roots of goodness (warmth, peak, forbearance, and the highest mundane dharma) before the path of seeing, joyfully contemplating separately in the Four Noble Truths, and from this, one can enter the path of seeing, correctly and universally understanding in the Four Truths in order, and even practicing. This meaning shows gradual direct perception. How can this saying contradict our school? However, the term 'thorough understanding' precisely shows the path of seeing. For practitioners who are happy to see the signs of the Four Truths (referring to the aspects of the Four Truths), they must first generate the mind of seeking thorough understanding. Therefore, in this stage, it is said to be thorough understanding. Or, for the sake of thorough understanding, the path of seeing arises, because the path of seeing arises for the sake of thoroughly understanding the truth. Fearing that merely seeing the truth is considered the completion of the matter, it shows that there are other things to do when seeing the truth, so it is followed by the words 'universal knowledge,' etc. Or this sutra should say: For the truths of suffering, etc., through thorough understanding, universal knowledge, and even practice, it shows that what is done is accomplished by wisdom. If this is not allowed, it should not be repeated, because there is no difference in the meaning of thorough understanding and universal knowledge. The quoted teachings here, merely according to its words, are sufficient to prove the meaning of gradual direct perception, because it says that for the truth of suffering, there is thorough understanding, universal knowledge, and so on for the truth of the path.
為通達修習。分明顯說漸現觀義。若異此者不應別說。既一一別說為通達言。故四聖諦境相各別。故唯一慧體一剎那中。無容決了四別相故。如諦別相審覺了時。方能斷迷別相惑故。證知現觀非頓必漸。今正詳彼所引契經。顯由四見力成四事現觀。非顯由一見四事現觀成。不應引來證頓現觀。已辯現觀具十六心。此十六心為依何地。頌曰。
皆與世第一 同依於一地
論曰。隨世第一所依諸地。應知即此十六心依。彼依六地如先已說。謂四靜慮未至中間。何緣必有如是忍智。前後次第相雜而起。頌曰。
忍智如次第 無間解脫道
論曰。十六心中四法類忍名無間道。四法類智名解脫道。名如前說。能忍可先來未見欲苦。初念無漏慧名苦法忍。以契經中世尊自說。若於此法以下劣慧。或增上慧審察忍可。名隨信行隨法行故。應知此忍即無間道。何處說此無間道名。經說一法難可通達。名為無間心等持故。又世尊說。有苦法智有苦類智。乃至廣說。非此二智同緣三界苦等境起。如先已辯。故於苦法忍所見欲苦中。決斷解生名苦法智。前忍能斷十煩惱得。后智慧與彼離系得俱生。經說智生隨於前忍。故知后智名解脫道。從此無間忍色無色。未曾見苦第三剎那。無漏慧生名苦類忍。是見欲苦忍種類故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了通達修習，分明詳細地解說漸次顯現的觀行意義。如果不是這樣，就不應該分別解說。既然一一分別解說，是爲了通達語言文字。所以四聖諦的境界和體相各有差別。因此，唯一智慧的本體在一剎那中，無法決斷四種不同的體相。如同審察覺悟四諦各自不同的體相時，才能斷除迷惑各自體相的迷惑。由此可以證實，現觀不是頓悟，必定是漸悟。現在詳細分析他們所引用的契經，顯示是由四種見的力量成就四種事的現觀，而不是顯示由一種見成就四種事的現觀。不應該引用來證明頓悟的現觀。已經辨析了現觀具有十六心。這十六心是依于什麼地而生起的呢？頌文說： 『都與世第一，同依於一地。』 論述：隨著世第一法所依的各種地，應當知道這十六心也依于這些地。它們依於六地，如先前已經說過的，即四禪定、未至定和中間定。為什麼必定有這樣的忍和智，前後次第相雜而生起呢？頌文說： 『忍智如次第，無間解脫道。』 論述：在十六心中，四法忍和四類忍被稱為無間道，四法智和四類智被稱為解脫道。名稱如前所述。能夠忍可先前未曾見過的欲界苦，最初一念的無漏智慧稱為苦法忍。因為契經中世尊親自說：『如果對於此法，用下劣的智慧或增上的智慧審察忍可，稱為隨信行或隨法行。』應當知道此忍就是無間道。在哪裡說此無間道這個名稱呢？經中說有一種法難以通達，稱為無間心等持。又世尊說：有苦法智，有苦類智，乃至廣說。這兩種智慧不是同時緣於三界的苦等境界生起，如先前已經辨析過的。所以在苦法忍所見的欲界苦中，決斷的理解產生，稱為苦法智。先前的忍能夠斷除十種煩惱的獲得，後來的智慧與那些煩惱的離系得一同生起。經中說智慧的產生是隨著先前的忍，所以知道後來的智稱為解脫道。從此無間，在色界和無色界，未曾見過的苦的第三剎那，無漏智慧產生，稱為苦類忍。這是見欲界苦的忍的種類。
【English Translation】 English version: To thoroughly understand and practice, the meaning of gradual manifestation of insight is clearly and distinctly explained. If it were otherwise, it should not be explained separately. Since it is explained separately one by one, it is for the purpose of understanding language. Therefore, the realms and characteristics of the Four Noble Truths are different from each other. Thus, the essence of the sole wisdom cannot, in a single moment, decisively understand the four distinct characteristics. It is only when one examines and comprehends the distinct characteristics of the Four Truths that one can sever the delusions that obscure those characteristics. This proves that insight is not sudden but necessarily gradual. Now, let us examine in detail the sutras they cite, which show that the insight into the four matters is accomplished by the power of the four views, rather than showing that the insight into the four matters is accomplished by one view. It should not be cited to prove sudden insight. It has already been discussed that insight possesses sixteen minds. Upon what ground do these sixteen minds rely? The verse says: 'All are the same as the World's First, relying on one ground.' The treatise states: It should be known that these sixteen minds rely on the various grounds upon which the World's First Dharma (Lokagra-dharma) relies. They rely on six grounds, as previously stated, namely the four Dhyanas (meditative states), the Anagamya (未至 - preliminary stage before entering the first dhyana), and the Madhyana (中間 - intermediate state between the Anagamya and the first dhyana). Why must there be such Ksanti (忍 - forbearance) and Jnana (智 - wisdom), arising in a sequential and intermingled manner? The verse says: 'Forbearance and Wisdom, in order, are the Immediate and Liberation Paths.' The treatise states: Among the sixteen minds, the four Dharma-ksantis (法忍 - forbearance regarding the Dharma) and the four Anvaya-ksantis (類忍 - forbearance regarding categories) are called the Anantarya-marga (無間道 - Immediate Path), and the four Dharma-jnanas (法智 - wisdom regarding the Dharma) and the four Anvaya-jnanas (類智 - wisdom regarding categories) are called the Vimukti-marga (解脫道 - Liberation Path). The names are as previously stated. The first thought of non-outflow wisdom that can forbear the suffering of the desire realm (Kama-dhatu) that has not been seen before is called the Dharma-ksanti regarding suffering (苦法忍 - Ksanti of Suffering-Dharma). Because the World Honored One (世尊 - the Buddha) himself said in the sutras: 'If one examines and forbears this Dharma with inferior wisdom or superior wisdom, it is called following faith or following the Dharma.' It should be known that this Ksanti is the Immediate Path. Where is this name of the Immediate Path mentioned? The sutra says that there is one Dharma that is difficult to penetrate, called the Samadhi (等持 - concentration) of the Immediate Mind. Furthermore, the World Honored One said: There is Dharma-jnana regarding suffering, there is Anvaya-jnana regarding suffering, and so on, extensively. These two wisdoms do not arise simultaneously, focusing on the realms of suffering, etc., of the three realms, as previously discussed. Therefore, in the suffering of the desire realm seen by the Dharma-ksanti regarding suffering, the decisive understanding that arises is called the Dharma-jnana regarding suffering. The previous Ksanti can sever the attainment of the ten defilements, and the subsequent Jnana arises together with the detachment from those defilements. The sutra says that the arising of wisdom follows the previous Ksanti, so it is known that the subsequent Jnana is called the Liberation Path. From this immediate, in the Form Realm (Rupa-dhatu) and Formless Realm (Arupa-dhatu), the third moment of non-outflow wisdom of suffering that has not been seen before arises, called the Anvaya-ksanti regarding suffering. This is the category of Ksanti that sees the suffering of the desire realm.
。次於苦類忍所觀上苦中。決斷解生名苦類智。忍智如次斷煩惱得名無間道。離系得俱名解脫道。準前應說。于餘三諦準苦應知。故前八忍名無間道。后之八智名解脫道。復以何緣說斷對治名無間道。說離系得俱時起智名解脫道。經主釋言約斷惑得無能隔礙故名為無間道。已脫惑得與離系得。俱時起故名解脫道。若爾解脫道亦應名無間。約與離系得俱亦無能隔礙故。應作是釋。無間隔故名為無間。無間即道名無間道。是無同類道能為間隔。令于解脫道不為緣義。諸無間道唯一剎那。諸解脫道或相續故。于自所治諸煩惱得已得解脫。與彼斷得俱時起道名解脫道。自所治言欲顯何義苦類忍等諸無間道。亦與他所治離系得俱生。勿彼亦名解脫道故。若苦法忍后即有苦類忍。與前忍果斷得俱生。餘位亦然。斯有何失。若爾此位緣欲苦等。已斷疑智應不得生。許此不生復有何過。則於後修位我已知苦等。諸決定智應不得生。于苦等境中先未生智故。若於先位未有智生。后已知言便成無義。若見道位唯忍能斷惑。應與本論九結聚相違。以本論中說四法類智及修所斷為九結聚故。此不相違。以依諸忍是智眷屬密意說故。此十六心皆見諦理。一切皆說見道攝耶。頌曰。
前十五見道 見未曾見故
論曰。見未曾見四聖諦理
【現代漢語翻譯】 在苦法類忍之後，觀察上界苦諦，決斷煩惱而生起的智慧稱為苦類智。忍和智依次斷除煩惱，被稱為無間道。斷除煩惱和獲得解脫同時發生，被稱為解脫道。按照之前的說法，對於其餘三諦（集、滅、道），應該參照苦諦來理解。因此，之前的八忍被稱為無間道，之後的八智被稱為解脫道。又因為什麼緣故說斷除對治的煩惱名為無間道，說斷除煩惱和獲得解脫同時生起的智慧名為解脫道呢？ 經主解釋說，因為斷除迷惑和獲得（解脫）之間沒有間隔阻礙，所以稱為無間道。已經脫離迷惑和獲得（解脫）與離系得（解脫的獲得）同時生起，所以稱為解脫道。如果這樣，解脫道也應該被稱為無間道，因為與離系得同時生起也沒有間隔阻礙。應該這樣解釋：沒有間隔，所以稱為無間，無間即是道，名為無間道。是沒有同類道能夠作為間隔，使得對於解脫道不能作為因緣的意義。諸無間道只有唯一剎那。諸解脫道或者相續不斷。對於自己所對治的諸煩惱，獲得已得的解脫，與彼斷得同時生起的道名為解脫道。自己所對治的說法想要顯示什麼意義呢？苦法忍等諸無間道，也與他人所對治的離系得同時生起，不要讓它們也被稱為解脫道。 如果苦法忍之後立即有苦類忍，與前忍的果斷得同時生起，其餘情況也是這樣，這有什麼過失呢？如果這樣，在這個階段，緣于欲界苦等，已經斷除的疑智應該不能生起。允許這個不生起又有什麼過錯呢？那麼，在後來的修習階段，『我已知苦』等諸決定智應該不能生起，因為在苦等境界中先前沒有生起過智慧。如果在先前的階段沒有智慧生起，後來『已知』的說法就變得沒有意義。 如果在見道位只有忍能夠斷除迷惑，應該與本論的九結聚（jiu jie ju）相違背，因為本論中說四法類智（si fa lei zhi）及修所斷為九結聚的緣故。這並不相違背，因為是依靠諸忍是智慧的眷屬而密意說的緣故。這十六心（shi liu xin）都見證了真理，一切都說包含在見道中嗎？頌說： 『前十五見道，見未曾見故。』 論說：見證未曾見過的四聖諦（si sheng di）的真理。
【English Translation】 Following the duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti (苦法類忍, acceptance of suffering-dharma-knowledge) is the observation of the duhkha-satya (苦諦, truth of suffering) in the upper realms. The wisdom that arises from decisively cutting off afflictions is called duhkha-anvaya-jnana (苦類智, suffering-category-knowledge). Ksanti (忍, acceptance) and jnana (智, knowledge) successively sever afflictions and are called anantarya-marga (無間道, path of immediate consequence). The simultaneous occurrence of severing afflictions and attaining liberation is called vimukti-marga (解脫道, path of liberation). According to the previous explanation, the same should be understood for the remaining three truths (samudaya, nirodha, marga). Therefore, the previous eight ksanti are called anantarya-marga, and the subsequent eight jnana are called vimukti-marga. Furthermore, for what reason is it said that severing the afflictions to be counteracted is called anantarya-marga, and that the wisdom arising simultaneously with severing afflictions and attaining liberation is called vimukti-marga? The Sutra Master explains that because there is no obstruction between severing delusion and attaining (liberation), it is called anantarya-marga. Having escaped delusion and attained (liberation) arises simultaneously with visamyoga-prapti (離繫得, attainment of detachment), hence it is called vimukti-marga. If so, vimukti-marga should also be called anantarya, because there is no obstruction in arising simultaneously with visamyoga-prapti. It should be explained thus: without interval, it is called anantarya, anantarya is the path, named anantarya-marga. It is that no path of the same kind can serve as an interval, causing it not to be a condition for vimukti-marga. All anantarya-marga are only a single ksana (剎那, moment). All vimukti-marga are either continuous. For the afflictions that one has counteracted, having attained liberation, the path that arises simultaneously with that severance is called vimukti-marga. What meaning is intended by the term 'that one has counteracted'? The duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti and other anantarya-marga also arise simultaneously with the visamyoga-prapti that others have counteracted; lest they also be called vimukti-marga. If immediately after duhkha-dharma-ksanti there is duhkha-anvaya-ksanti, arising simultaneously with the fruit of the previous ksanti, what fault is there? If so, at this stage, the wisdom of doubt already severed, based on the kama-dhatu (欲界, desire realm) suffering and so on, should not arise. What fault is there in allowing this not to arise? Then, in the later stages of cultivation, the definitive wisdom such as 'I have already known suffering' should not arise, because wisdom has not previously arisen in the realm of suffering and so on. If wisdom has not arisen in the previous stage, then the statement 'already known' becomes meaningless. If only ksanti can sever delusions in the path of seeing, it should contradict the nine samyojana (結, fetters) aggregates in this treatise, because this treatise states that the four dharma-anvaya-jnana and what is severed by cultivation are the cause of the nine samyojana aggregates. This is not contradictory, because it is said with a hidden meaning that it relies on the ksanti being the retinue of wisdom. Do these sixteen citta (心, minds) all witness the truth, and is everything said to be included in the path of seeing? The verse says: 'The first fifteen are the path of seeing, because they see what has not been seen before.' The treatise says: They witness the truth of the Four Noble Truths (catvari-arya-satyani, 四聖諦) that have not been seen before.
名為見道。故於現觀十六心中前十五心是見道攝。道類忍位於諸諦中見圓滿故。至第十六道類智時。雖亦有一先未知諦。而無一諦先未見者。以一切忍皆見性故。由此爾時不名見道。豈不亦見曾未見諦。謂道類智見道類忍。相應俱有一念道故。諸有唯見曾未見者名為見道。爾時通見曾未曾見。故無此失。或此約諦不約剎那。非爾時觀未曾見諦。非於一諦多剎那。中未見一剎那可名未見。諦如刈畦稻唯餘一科。不可名為此畦未刈。故見未見名為見道。是見道相義善成立。故我宗說現觀後邊道類智品是修道攝。兼修異境智行相故。謂見道位唯修未來自同類境。智及行相道類智位。如余修道通修未來同異類境智及行相。故修道攝。若謂見道有種種類。如或有時唯修無漏。有時通修有漏無漏。如是應許有時唯修自同類境智及行相。有時通修同異類境智及行相。此例不然。唯修同境種種類故。若許便有太過失故。謂于見道極成剎那。唯約能修與自同境智及行相。名種種類。然道類智未來所修。如余極成修道位故。決定不可以見道中。有未來修餘種種類故。例亦更有餘種種類修。若許例然。應盡智等亦見道攝。所以者何。所立見道種種類因無差別故。謂亦可例如見道中。苦法智等亦見亦智。忍唯是見名種種類。如是應許無學位中。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名為見道（Darshana-marga）。因此，在現觀十六心中，前十五心屬於見道所攝。道類忍（Dharmânvaya-kshânti）位於諸諦中，見解圓滿。到了第十六道類智（Dharmânvaya-jnâna）時，雖然也存在先前未知的諦，但沒有一個諦是先前未曾見過的。因為一切忍都具有見的性質。因此，此時不稱為見道。難道不是也見到了曾未見過的諦嗎？即道類智見到了與道類忍相應的一念道。凡是隻見到曾未見過的，才稱為見道。而道類智此時既見到曾見過的，也見到未曾見過的，因此沒有這個過失。或者，這裡所說的是針對諦，而不是針對剎那。並非此時觀照到未曾見過的諦。並非對於一個諦的多個剎那中，未見到的一個剎那就可以稱為未見。諦就像收割田地裡的稻子，即使只剩下一棵，也不能說這塊田地沒有收割。因此，見到未見，才稱為見道。這個見道的相義能夠很好地成立。因此，我宗認為現觀後邊的道類智品屬於修道所攝。因為它兼修不同的境、智和行相。也就是說，見道位只修未來與自身同類的境、智和行相，而道類智位，像其他的修道一樣，通修未來同類和異類的境、智和行相。因此屬於修道所攝。如果認為見道有種種種類，例如有時只修無漏，有時通修有漏和無漏，那麼也應該允許有時只修與自身同類的境、智和行相，有時通修同類和異類的境、智和行相。這個例子是不成立的。因為只修同境的種類是不同的。如果允許這樣，就會有太過分的過失。也就是說，在見道極成的剎那，只是針對能修與自身同境的智和行相，才稱為種種種類。然而，道類智未來所修的，就像其他極成的修道位一樣。絕對不能因為見道中有未來修習的其他種種種類，就以此為例。如果允許這樣類比，那麼盡智（Ksaya-jnâna）等也應該屬於見道所攝。為什麼呢？因為所立的見道種種種類的原因沒有差別。也就是說，也可以像見道中，苦法智（Duhkha-dharma-jnâna）等既是見又是智，而忍只是見，這被稱為種種種類。那麼就應該允許在無學位中……
【English Translation】 English version: It is called Darshana-marga (Path of Seeing). Therefore, among the sixteen aspects of Abhisamaya (Realization), the first fifteen minds are included in Darshana-marga. Dharmânvaya-kshânti (Acceptance of the Law of Dependent Origination) is located in the Truths, with complete understanding. When it comes to the sixteenth Dharmânvaya-jnâna (Knowledge of the Law of Dependent Origination), although there is also a Truth that was previously unknown, there is not a single Truth that has not been seen before. Because all kshânti (acceptance) have the nature of seeing. Therefore, at this time, it is not called Darshana-marga. Isn't it also seeing a Truth that has never been seen before? That is, Dharmânvaya-jnâna sees the one thought of the path corresponding to Dharmânvaya-kshânti. Only those who see what has never been seen before are called Darshana-marga. At this time, Dharmânvaya-jnâna sees both what has been seen and what has not been seen, so there is no fault. Or, what is said here is about the Truths, not about the moment. It is not that at this time, one is observing a Truth that has never been seen before. It is not that among the many moments of one Truth, one moment that has not been seen can be called unseen. Truth is like harvesting rice in a field, even if only one stalk remains, it cannot be said that this field has not been harvested. Therefore, seeing the unseen is called Darshana-marga. The meaning of this characteristic of Darshana-marga can be well established. Therefore, our school says that the Dharmânvaya-jnâna aspect at the end of Abhisamaya is included in Bhavana-marga (Path of Cultivation). Because it also cultivates different objects, wisdom, and aspects. That is to say, the Darshana-marga position only cultivates the future objects, wisdom, and aspects of the same category as itself, while the Dharmânvaya-jnâna position, like other Bhavana-marga, generally cultivates the future objects, wisdom, and aspects of the same and different categories. Therefore, it is included in Bhavana-marga. If it is thought that Darshana-marga has various kinds, such as sometimes only cultivating the unconditioned, and sometimes generally cultivating the conditioned and unconditioned, then it should also be allowed that sometimes only cultivating the objects, wisdom, and aspects of the same category as oneself, and sometimes generally cultivating the objects, wisdom, and aspects of the same and different categories. This example is not valid. Because the kinds of only cultivating the same object are different. If this is allowed, there will be an excessive fault. That is to say, at the moment of the extreme accomplishment of Darshana-marga, it is only with regard to the wisdom and aspects that can cultivate the same object as oneself that it is called various kinds. However, what Dharmânvaya-jnâna cultivates in the future is like other extremely accomplished Bhavana-marga positions. It is absolutely impossible to take this as an example because there are other various kinds of future cultivation in Darshana-marga. If this analogy is allowed, then Ksaya-jnâna (Knowledge of Exhaustion) etc. should also be included in Darshana-marga. Why? Because the reason for establishing the various kinds of Darshana-marga has no difference. That is to say, it can also be like in Darshana-marga, Duhkha-dharma-jnâna (Knowledge of the Dharma of Suffering) etc. are both seeing and wisdom, while kshânti (acceptance) is only seeing, which is called various kinds. Then it should be allowed in the state of No More Learning...
無學正見亦見亦智。盡無生智唯智非見。有種種故亦見道攝。既不許然。則不應許以修同境種種類故。亦修同異境種種智行相。故先所言道類智品。兼修異境智行相故。是修道攝。理無傾動。又見道應依色無色身故。謂先離欲入離生者。道類智時證不還果。彼命終已生色無色。乃至未得阿羅漢果。成道類智無舍因故。既不許彼成就見道。故道類智是修道攝。若許生在色無色界成就見道。斯有何失。有應生彼入離生失。以見道位一一剎那。皆是所入離生性故。若謂生彼雖成不行。此但有言無行障故。若謂生彼行無用故雖成不行。如已獲得勝進道者果行無用。應生彼聖棄背聖道。以若獲得增上道時。于下劣道可生棄背。既未獲得增上聖道。生彼重起斯有何過。又于爾時現觀已滿。見道現前成無用故。謂起見道為成現觀。道類智位現觀已成。見道現前都無勝用。此現起故非見道攝。既是修道攝未得勝果道。生上二界應容現行。又道類智品已知根攝故。謂余極成修位攝道已知根攝。此道類智既許攝在已知根中。勿有一聖成二根失非極成。見道許是已知根。是故聖道若一根攝。亦應許是一道所收故。道類智是修道攝。又成彼聖者得差別名故。謂成修道補特伽羅。名信勝解或名見至。成道類智補特伽羅。亦得此名故非見道必無極成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無學（Asekha，指已證阿羅漢果位）的正見既是見，也是智。盡智（Ksayanan జ్ఞాన，斷盡煩惱的智慧）和無生智（Anuppada జ్ఞాన，不再產生煩惱的智慧）唯是智，而非見。因為有種種的緣故，也被包含在見道（Darsanamarga，初次證悟真理的道）中。既然不認可這種說法，那麼就不應該認可因為修習相同境界的種種，也修習相同或不同境界的種種智的行相。所以先前所說的道類智品（Dharmakshanti జ్ఞాన，對法忍的智慧），因為它兼修不同境界的智的行相，所以是被包含在修道（Bhavanamarga，通過修行來凈化心靈的道）中的，這個道理是不會動搖的。而且，見道應該依靠色界（Rupadhatu，有形物質存在的世界）和無色界（Arupadhatu，沒有形物質存在的世界）的身。意思是說，先離欲而進入離生的人，在道類智的時候證得不還果（Anagami，不再返回欲界的果位）。他們命終之後生到色界或無色界，乃至還沒有得到阿羅漢果（Arhat，斷盡一切煩惱的果位），成就道類智，因為沒有捨棄的原因。既然不認可他們成就見道，所以道類智是被包含在修道中的。如果認可生在色界或無色界的人成就見道，這又有什麼過失呢？會有生到那裡就進入離生的過失，因為見道位的每一個剎那，都是所進入的離生的性質。如果說生到那裡雖然成就但不修行，這只是說說而已，因為沒有修行的障礙。如果說生到那裡修行沒有用處，所以雖然成就但不修行，就像已經獲得勝進道的人，果行的作用就沒有用處一樣。應該讓生到那裡的聖者拋棄聖道，因為如果獲得增上道的時候，對於下劣的道可以產生拋棄。既然還沒有獲得增上聖道，生到那裡重新開始又有什麼過錯呢？而且在那個時候，現觀（Abhisamaya，對真理的直接體驗）已經圓滿，見道現前變得沒有用處。意思是說，生起見道是爲了成就現觀，在道類智位，現觀已經成就，見道現前都沒有殊勝的作用。因為這個現起，所以不是見道所包含的。既然是被包含在修道中，還沒有得到殊勝果道的，生到上二界（指色界和無色界）應該容許現行。而且道類智品已經被已知根（Ajnatavindriya，一種智慧能力）所包含。意思是說，其餘已經極成，被包含在修位中的道，已經被已知根所包含。這個道類智既然被允許包含在已知根中，不要讓一個聖者成就兩種根的過失，這不是極成的。見道被允許是已知根，所以聖道如果被一個根所包含，也應該被一道所收攝，所以道類智是被包含在修道中的。而且，成就那個聖者得到差別的名稱。意思是說，成就修道的補特伽羅（Pudgala，個體），名叫信勝解（Shraddhanusarin，隨信行者）或者名叫見至（Dristiprapta，以見證真理而得解脫者）。成就道類智的補特伽羅，也得到這個名稱，所以不是見道，必定沒有極成。
【English Translation】 English version The Asekha's (one who has attained the Arhat stage) right view is both seeing and wisdom. Ksayanan జ్ఞాన (wisdom of exhaustion of defilements) and Anuppada జ్ఞాన (wisdom of non-arising of defilements) are only wisdom, not seeing. Because of various reasons, it is also included in Darsanamarga (the path of seeing, the first realization of truth). Since this view is not accepted, then it should not be accepted that because of practicing various aspects of the same realm, one also practices the aspects of various wisdoms of the same or different realms. Therefore, the previously mentioned Dharmakshanti జ్ఞాన (wisdom of acceptance of Dharma), because it also cultivates the aspects of wisdom of different realms, is included in Bhavanamarga (the path of cultivation, the path of purifying the mind through practice), and this principle will not be shaken. Moreover, the path of seeing should rely on the Rupadhatu (the world of form, the world where material exists) and Arupadhatu (the world of formlessness, the world where material does not exist) bodies. It means that those who first leave desire and enter liberation, attain the Anagami (non-returning) fruit at the time of Dharmakshanti. After they die, they are born in the Rupadhatu or Arupadhatu, and until they have not attained the Arhat (one who has exhausted all defilements) fruit, they achieve Dharmakshanti, because there is no reason to abandon it. Since it is not accepted that they achieve the path of seeing, Dharmakshanti is included in the path of cultivation. If it is accepted that those born in the Rupadhatu or Arupadhatu achieve the path of seeing, what fault is there in this? There will be the fault of entering liberation as soon as they are born there, because every moment of the path of seeing is the nature of the liberation that is entered. If it is said that although they achieve it, they do not practice it, this is just talk, because there is no obstacle to practice. If it is said that practice is useless there, so although they achieve it, they do not practice it, just like those who have already attained the superior path, the fruit of practice is useless. The saints born there should abandon the holy path, because if they attain the superior path, they can abandon the inferior path. Since they have not yet attained the superior holy path, what fault is there in starting again when they are born there? Moreover, at that time, Abhisamaya (direct experience of truth) is already complete, and the path of seeing becomes useless. It means that the arising of the path of seeing is to achieve Abhisamaya. In the position of Dharmakshanti, Abhisamaya has already been achieved, and the path of seeing has no superior function at all. Because of this arising, it is not included in the path of seeing. Since it is included in the path of cultivation, those who have not yet attained the superior fruit path and are born in the upper two realms (referring to the Rupadhatu and Arupadhatu) should be allowed to practice it. Moreover, Dharmakshanti has already been included in Ajnatavindriya (a kind of wisdom ability). It means that the rest, which has already been established and is included in the position of cultivation, has already been included in Ajnatavindriya. Since this Dharmakshanti is allowed to be included in Ajnatavindriya, do not let a saint achieve the fault of two roots, which is not established. The path of seeing is allowed to be Ajnatavindriya, so if the holy path is included in one root, it should also be included in one path, so Dharmakshanti is included in the path of cultivation. Moreover, the saint who achieves that gets a different name. It means that the Pudgala (individual) who achieves the path of cultivation is called Shraddhanusarin (one who follows faith) or Dristiprapta (one who is liberated by seeing the truth). The Pudgala who achieves Dharmakshanti also gets this name, so it is not the path of seeing, and there is definitely no extreme achievement.
。成見道者得信勝解見至二名。是故一名所目聖道。應知皆是一道所收。故道類智是修道攝。又遮見道中修他心智故。謂道類智如余極成。修道所攝諸解脫道。亦有能修他心智者。然本論說見道位中。決定不能修他心智。故道類智如余修道。是修道攝。修彼智故。又成此位中有練根等故。等言為顯容相續起。命終受生舍前道等。故道類智是修道攝。非見道攝其理極成。或有欲令是見道攝。一諦現觀最後心故。如緣三諦現觀後心。謂現觀中於四聖諦。一一各有四剎那心。三最後心即見道攝。故道類智定是見道。此亦非理。道類智忍時見道已滿故。謂第十六道類智時。無一諦理未見今見。如后念故非見道攝。見道中間苦等七智。有餘諦理當應見故。未息求見阿世耶故。不可判為非見道攝。道類智忍雖有一諦未知當知。而於諸諦見已圓滿。是見道最後故得已滿名。由此中間苦等七智。見中間轉故是見道所攝非道類智。可與彼同越見相故是修所攝。或如余別應有別故。謂如三諦現觀後心。能于未來修世俗智。非緣道諦現觀後心。如是亦應許彼三智。是見道攝非道類智。又道類智是沙門果。見後邊起隔產生就。諸未來所修非定不生法。餘三類智則不如是。故應唯彼是見道攝。故彼所說如緣三諦現觀後心。此亦後心應見道攝定為非
理。若爾應言此道類智。非數習故是見道攝。謂鈍根者起修道時。要由數習。由彼聖道數習起故得修道名。此道類智設鈍根者。亦能頓起不由數習。猶如前位見道剎那。故應如前是見道攝。此亦非理。以鈍根者起盡智時亦唯頓故。與金剛喻定一加行起故。或彼應說盡智如何。由數習生非道類智。如彼盡智同類數數現在前故許修道攝。此道類智例亦應然。不應判為見道所攝。有餘師說。此道類智必不退故是見道攝。謂鈍根者于道類智。亦必無退有退修道。故定應許是見道攝。此亦不然。由忍所斷必無重起故此不退。謂道類智設許退者。必由見斷煩惱現前。設諸鈍根見斷已斷。必無重起故此不退。又無退住無間道中。若退道類智必退道類忍。然現觀忍許必無退。故道類智定無退理。又道類智以能任持見道所斷煩惱斷故。雖鈍根者亦無有退。若謂由此應見道攝。此難不然。一來果等亦應同此見道攝故。謂彼后時舍預流果。至一來等解脫道中。亦能任持見斷法斷。彼亦應是見道所攝。若謂后位亦能任持修斷法斷無斯過者。理亦不然。應二性故。或不應說以能任持見斷斷故應見道攝。彼此別因不可得故。謂有何理一來等位。俱能任持二斷法斷。但名修道非見道攝。是故不可約能任持煩惱斷故立見修道。或見法性有種種故。非由不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此觀點不合理。如果按照你的說法，道類智（Dharmakaya-jnana，對現象進行分類理解的智慧）也應該被歸類為見道（Darshana-marga，見真理之道），因為它不是通過重複練習獲得的，而是屬於見道的一部分。這是因為，對於鈍根者（mṛdv-indriya，根器遲鈍的人）來說，在開始修道時，需要通過重複練習。由於聖道（ārya-mārga，高貴的道路）是通過重複練習而產生的，所以才被稱為修道。然而，道類智即使是鈍根者，也能立即生起，不需要重複練習，就像之前見道的那一剎那一樣。因此，它應該像之前一樣被歸類為見道的一部分。但這並不合理，因為鈍根者在生起盡智（ksaya-jnana，斷滅煩惱的智慧）時，也是頓悟的，因為它是與金剛喻定（vajropama-samadhi，如金剛般堅固的禪定）的單一加行（prayoga，準備階段）同時生起的。或者他們應該解釋一下，盡智是如何通過重複練習產生的，而不是道類智。就像盡智一樣，同類的智慧不斷地出現在面前，所以被認為是修道的一部分。道類智也應該如此，不應該被判定為見道所攝。 有些論師說，道類智必定不會退轉，所以屬於見道。他們認為，鈍根者對於道類智也必定不會退轉，而修道則有退轉的可能性。因此，應該認定道類智屬於見道。但這也不對。因為由忍（ksanti，安忍）所斷的煩惱必定不會重新生起，所以道類智不會退轉。如果道類智可以退轉，那必定是由見斷（darśana-heya，見道所斷）的煩惱現前導致的。如果鈍根者已經斷除了見斷的煩惱，那麼這些煩惱必定不會重新生起，所以道類智不會退轉。此外，在無間道（anantara-marga，無間斷的道路）中也不會退轉。如果退轉了道類智，那必定會退轉道類忍（Dharmakaya-ksanti，對現象進行分類理解的安忍）。然而，現觀忍（abhisamaya-ksanti，現觀之忍）被認為是必定不會退轉的，所以道類智必定沒有退轉的道理。此外，道類智慧夠任持（dhāraṇa，保持）見道所斷的煩惱的斷滅，所以即使是鈍根者也不會退轉。如果認為由此道類智應該被歸類為見道，這個論點是不成立的，因為一來果（sakrdagamin，一來果位）等也應該因此被歸類為見道。這是因為，他們在之後捨棄預流果（srotapanna，入流果位），進入一來果等的解脫道（vimukti-marga，解脫的道路）時，也能任持見斷法的斷滅。他們也應該被歸類為見道。如果認為他們在後來的階段也能任持修斷法（bhavana-heya，修道所斷）的斷滅，那就沒有這個過失了。但這個說法也不合理，因為這會導致二種性質。或者不應該說因為能夠任持見斷的斷滅就應該被歸類為見道，因為彼此的區別原因無法找到。也就是說，有什麼道理一來果等果位，既能任持兩種斷滅的法的斷滅，但只被稱為修道而不是見道呢？因此，不能因為能夠任持煩惱的斷滅就建立見道和修道。或者因為見法的性質有種種，而不是因為不...
【English Translation】 English version: This is unreasonable. If you say that Dharmakaya-jnana (wisdom of classifying phenomena) should also be categorized as Darshana-marga (the path of seeing truth) because it is not acquired through repeated practice but belongs to the Darshana-marga, it is flawed. This is because, for mṛdv-indriya (those with dull faculties), repeated practice is necessary when starting the path of cultivation. Because the ārya-mārga (noble path) arises through repeated practice, it is called the path of cultivation. However, Dharmakaya-jnana, even for those with dull faculties, can arise immediately without repeated practice, just like the moment of Darshana-marga before. Therefore, it should be categorized as part of Darshana-marga as before. But this is not reasonable, because when dull-witted individuals generate ksaya-jnana (wisdom of extinguishing afflictions), it is also sudden, because it arises simultaneously with the single prayoga (preparatory stage) of vajropama-samadhi (diamond-like samadhi). Or they should explain how ksaya-jnana arises through repeated practice, not Dharmakaya-jnana. Just like ksaya-jnana, similar wisdom repeatedly appears before them, so it is considered part of the path of cultivation. The same should be true for Dharmakaya-jnana; it should not be judged as belonging to Darshana-marga. Some teachers say that Dharmakaya-jnana is definitely non-retrogressive, so it belongs to Darshana-marga. They believe that even for dull-witted individuals, there is definitely no regression from Dharmakaya-jnana, while there is a possibility of regression from the path of cultivation. Therefore, it should be recognized that Dharmakaya-jnana belongs to Darshana-marga. But this is also incorrect. Because the afflictions severed by ksanti (forbearance) will definitely not arise again, Dharmakaya-jnana does not regress. If Dharmakaya-jnana could regress, it would definitely be due to the manifestation of darśana-heya (afflictions to be abandoned by seeing). If dull-witted individuals have already severed the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, then these afflictions will definitely not arise again, so Dharmakaya-jnana will not regress. Furthermore, there is no regression in anantara-marga (the path of immediate succession). If Dharmakaya-jnana regresses, then Dharmakaya-ksanti (forbearance of classifying phenomena) will definitely regress. However, abhisamaya-ksanti (forbearance of direct realization) is considered to be definitely non-retrogressive, so there is definitely no reason for Dharmakaya-jnana to regress. Moreover, Dharmakaya-jnana can uphold (dhāraṇa, maintain) the severance of afflictions severed by Darshana-marga, so even dull-witted individuals will not regress. If it is argued that Dharmakaya-jnana should be categorized as Darshana-marga because of this, this argument is not valid, because sakrdagamin (once-returner) etc. should also be categorized as Darshana-marga for the same reason. This is because, later on, when they abandon srotapanna (stream-enterer) and enter the vimukti-marga (path of liberation) of sakrdagamin etc., they can also uphold the severance of dharmas to be abandoned by seeing. They should also be categorized as Darshana-marga. If it is argued that they can also uphold the severance of bhavana-heya (afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation) in later stages, then there is no fault. But this statement is also unreasonable, because it would lead to two natures. Or it should not be said that because it can uphold the severance of afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, it should be categorized as Darshana-marga, because the reasons for the difference between them cannot be found. That is, what reason is there that the stages of sakrdagamin etc. can both uphold the severance of dharmas of two severances, but are only called the path of cultivation and not Darshana-marga? Therefore, the paths of seeing and cultivation cannot be established based on the ability to uphold the severance of afflictions. Or because the nature of seeing dharmas has various aspects, not because of not...
退便見道攝。謂見諸聖有退墮者。然非聖者一切可退。見諸鈍根有退墮者。然非鈍根一切皆退。見退法性有退墮者。然非退法一切皆退。雖有從果勝果道退。而非一切皆有退理。謂漸次退非超越者。不經生退非經生者。如彼容退有不退者。此亦應然何偏固執。謂雖許有從修道退而非一切。除初剎那余修退時不必見退故。容有退初修若退亦必退見故無退理。以必定無退見道故。非不退故是見道攝。有餘師說。此由見道加行成故是見道攝。謂道類智即由見道加行所成。如余見道不應說為修道所攝。此亦非理。若期心不出第十七等心亦應同故。若謂不定故。理亦不然。雖不定有者修道攝故。謂有見道加行所生非見道攝。由此見道加行成故非決定因。又應此因有太過失。謂世第一既與見道一加行生。應見道攝。又諸解脫與無間道一加行生。應無間攝。故彼所立非定證因。有餘師言。別有至教顯道類智是見道攝。如本論說有九結聚。若道類智是修道攝。彼所斷結應名修斷。不應復立修斷結聚。或應見斷結聚唯七。然第八結。理必應是道類智斷。以解脫道與無間道同所作故。如說九根得預流果。此亦非理。教意別故。以本論中說見斷結。是諸忍斷非智斷故。又以正理證道類智。正所斷結非見所斷。以聖教中說二結聚。一見所斷。二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 退便見道攝（指包含在見道中）。這是說見到一些聖者有退轉的情況。然而，並非所有聖者都會退轉。見到一些根器遲鈍的人有退轉的情況。然而，並非所有根器遲鈍的人都會退轉。見到一些具有退法性質的人有退轉的情況。然而，並非所有具有退法性質的人都會退轉。雖然有從果位勝妙的果道退轉的情況，但並非所有情況都符合退轉的道理。這裡指的是漸次退轉，而不是超越性的退轉；是不經歷生死就退轉，而不是經歷生死才退轉。就像那些容易退轉的人中也有不退轉的人一樣，這裡也應該這樣理解，為什麼一定要固執地認為所有情況都一樣呢？ 雖然承認有從修道退轉的情況，但並非所有情況都如此。除了最初的剎那，其餘修道退轉的時候不一定能見到退轉的現象。容許有退轉最初修行的，如果退轉也必定會退轉見道，所以沒有退轉的道理。因為必定沒有退轉見道的情況，所以不是因為不退轉才被包含在見道中。有些老師說，這是由於見道的加行（指為達到見道所做的努力）成就了道類智（Dào lèi zhì，一種智慧），所以道類智被包含在見道中。就像其餘的見道不應該被說成是修道所包含的一樣。這種說法也是沒有道理的。如果期望心不出現在第十七等心中，也應該同樣看待。如果說因為不確定，這個理由也是不成立的。雖然不確定有，但屬於修道所包含的。也就是說，有些是見道的加行所生，但不屬於見道所包含的。由此可見，見道的加行成就並非決定性的原因。而且，這個原因應該有太過寬泛的過失。也就是說，世第一法（Shì dì yī fǎ，世間最高的善法）既然與見道的一個加行同時產生，就應該被包含在見道中。而且，諸多的解脫與無間道（Wú jiàn dào，一種修行道路）的一個加行同時產生，就應該被包含在無間道中。所以他們所建立的並非確定的證據。有些老師說，另有至教（Zhì jiào，佛教的最高教義）顯示道類智是見道所包含的。就像本論所說有九結聚（Jiǔ jié jù，九種煩惱的集合）一樣。如果道類智是修道所包含的，那麼它所斷除的煩惱應該被稱為修斷，不應該再設立修斷結聚。或者見斷結聚應該只有七種。然而，第八種煩惱，理應是道類智所斷除的。因為解脫道與無間道所做的事情相同。就像說九根（Jiǔ gēn，九種感官能力）可以獲得預流果（Yù liú guǒ，佛教修行的一個階段）一樣。這種說法也是沒有道理的，因為教義的含義不同。因為本論中說見斷結，是諸忍（Zhū rěn，一種智慧）所斷除的，而不是智（Zhì，智慧）所斷除的。而且用正理證明道類智，所斷除的煩惱不是見道所斷除的。因為聖教中說有兩種結聚，一種是見所斷的，另一種是……
【English Translation】 English version 'Retreat then is included in the Path of Seeing.' This refers to seeing that some sages experience regression. However, not all sages are subject to regression. Seeing that some with dull faculties experience regression, but not all with dull faculties regress. Seeing that some with the nature of regressing experience regression, but not all with the nature of regressing regress. Although there is regression from the fruit of the superior Path of Fruition, not all situations conform to the principle of regression. This refers to gradual regression, not transcendent regression; regression without experiencing rebirth, not regression after experiencing rebirth. Just as among those prone to regression, there are those who do not regress, so too should this be understood here. Why insist on the same understanding for all situations? Although it is acknowledged that there is regression from the Path of Cultivation, this is not the case in all situations. Except for the initial moment, it is not necessarily possible to see the phenomenon of regression when regressing from the Path of Cultivation. It is permissible to regress from the initial cultivation, and if there is regression, there will certainly be regression from the Path of Seeing, so there is no principle of regression. Because there is certainly no regression from the Path of Seeing, it is not included in the Path of Seeing because it does not regress. Some teachers say that this is because the preparatory practices (addition) of the Path of Seeing have accomplished the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths (Dào lèi zhì, a type of wisdom), so the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths is included in the Path of Seeing. Just as the remaining Paths of Seeing should not be said to be included in the Path of Cultivation. This statement is also unreasonable. If the expectant mind does not appear in the seventeenth mind, it should be viewed in the same way. If it is said to be because of uncertainty, this reason is also untenable. Although it is uncertain whether it exists, it is included in the Path of Cultivation. That is to say, some are produced by the preparatory practices of the Path of Seeing but are not included in the Path of Seeing. From this, it can be seen that the accomplishment of the preparatory practices of the Path of Seeing is not a decisive cause. Moreover, this cause should have the fault of being too broad. That is to say, the Highest Mundane Dharma (Shì dì yī fǎ, the highest good dharma in the world), since it arises simultaneously with one preparatory practice of the Path of Seeing, should be included in the Path of Seeing. Moreover, the various liberations arise simultaneously with one preparatory practice of the Path of No Interval (Wú jiàn dào, a path of practice), and should be included in the Path of No Interval. Therefore, what they have established is not definite evidence. Some teachers say that there is another supreme teaching (Zhì jiào, the highest teaching of Buddhism) that reveals that the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths is included in the Path of Seeing. Just as the original treatise says that there are nine aggregates of fetters (Jiǔ jié jù, a collection of nine kinds of afflictions). If the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths is included in the Path of Cultivation, then the afflictions it severs should be called 'severed by cultivation,' and there should be no further establishment of aggregates of fetters severed by cultivation. Or the aggregates of fetters severed by seeing should only be seven. However, the eighth affliction should logically be severed by the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths. Because the Path of Liberation and the Path of No Interval do the same thing. Just as it is said that the nine faculties (Jiǔ gēn, nine sensory abilities) can attain the fruit of Stream-entry (Yù liú guǒ, a stage of Buddhist practice). This statement is also unreasonable because the meaning of the teachings is different. Because the original treatise says that the fetters severed by seeing are severed by the various acceptances (Zhū rěn, a type of wisdom), not by wisdom (Zhì, wisdom). Moreover, using correct reasoning to prove the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths, the afflictions severed are not severed by the Path of Seeing. Because the sacred teachings say that there are two aggregates of fetters, one severed by seeing, and the other...
修所斷。然無漏慧有三類別。一唯是見。二唯是智。三通二種。於此三中唯是智者不能斷結。唯見斷者名見所斷。通二斷者名修所斷。不爾立名應無有義。道類智體既通智見。故彼所斷非見斷攝。然非所立九結聚名全無有義。為顯無間是解脫道助伴攝。故顯此復何用證成。本論中所說八十九有為沙門果。以無間道是沙門故。此力引生解脫道故。若無間道不斷結得。則解脫道無容得生。如臣剪除諸怨賊處。王方自在安住其中。或由智故忍有差別。故於忍所斷論者說智名。或復何勞方便通釋。此文正應說法類智忍斷。然不說者略中間言。所說九根得預流義。如辯根處已具思擇。不可由斯證道類智。如道類忍是見道攝。故見道位唯十五心。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之八
已辯見修二道生異。當依此道分位差別。建立眾聖補特伽羅。且依見道十五心位。建立眾聖有差別者。頌曰。
名隨信法行 由根鈍利別 具修惑斷一 至五向初果 斷次三向二 離八地向三
論曰。見道位中聖者有二。一隨信行。二隨法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 修所斷（bhavana-prahātavya）。然而，無漏慧（anāsrava-prajñā）有三種類別：一是唯是見（darśana），二是唯是智（jñāna），三是通二種。在這三種類別中，唯是智者不能斷結（saṃyojana）。唯見斷者名為見所斷（darśana-prahātavya）。通二斷者名為修所斷（bhavana-prahātavya）。否則，這樣立名就應該沒有意義了。道類智（dharmajñāna-kṣānti）的體性既然貫通智見，所以它所斷的並非見斷所攝。然而，並非所立的九結聚名全無意義，是爲了顯示無間道（ānantarya-mārga）是解脫道（vimukti-mārga）的助伴所攝。所以，顯示這個又有什麼用處來證明呢？本論中所說的八十九有為沙門果（śrāmaṇya-phala），因為無間道是沙門（śrāmaṇya）的緣故。這個力量能夠引生解脫道。如果無間道不斷結而得到，那麼解脫道就沒有可能產生，就像臣子剪除所有怨賊的地方，國王才能自在安住其中。或者由於智的緣故，忍（kṣānti）有差別，所以在忍所斷的論述中說智的名字。或者又何必勞煩方便通釋呢？這段文字正應該說法類智忍斷，然而不說，是省略了中間的言語。所說的九根（indriya）得到預流（srotaāpanna）的意義，如辯根處已經詳細思擇。不可以由此證明道類智，如道類忍是見道（darśana-mārga）所攝，所以見道位只有十五心。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第六十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之八
已經辨析了見道（darśana-mārga）和修道（bhāvanā-mārga）產生的不同，應當依據此道的位次差別，建立眾聖補特伽羅（pudgala）。且依據見道的十五心位，建立眾聖的差別。頌曰：
名隨信法行，由根鈍利別；具修惑斷一，至五向初果；斷次三向二，離八地向三。
論曰：見道位中的聖者有二：一隨信行（śraddhānusārin），二隨法行（dharmānusārin）。
【English Translation】 English version That which is abandoned by cultivation (bhavana-prahātavya). However, unconditioned wisdom (anāsrava-prajñā) has three categories: one is solely seeing (darśana), the second is solely knowledge (jñāna), and the third encompasses both. Among these three categories, only those with knowledge cannot sever the bonds (saṃyojana). Only that which is severed by seeing is called 'abandoned by seeing' (darśana-prahātavya). That which is severed by both is called 'abandoned by cultivation' (bhavana-prahātavya). Otherwise, establishing names in this way would be meaningless. Since the nature of knowledge of the dharma-category (dharmajñāna-kṣānti) pervades both seeing and knowledge, that which it severs is not included in that which is severed by seeing. However, it is not that the established name of the nine aggregates of bonds is entirely meaningless; it is to show that the path of immediate consequence (ānantarya-mārga) is included as an assistant to the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga). Therefore, what is the use of demonstrating this to prove it? The eighty-nine conditioned fruits of a śrāmaṇya (śrāmaṇya-phala) mentioned in this treatise are because the path of immediate consequence is a śrāmaṇya. This power can give rise to the path of liberation. If the path of immediate consequence is attained without severing the bonds, then the path of liberation cannot possibly arise, just as a king can freely dwell in a place where his ministers have eliminated all enemies. Or, because of knowledge, there are differences in forbearance (kṣānti), so the name of knowledge is mentioned in the discussion of that which is severed by forbearance. Or why bother with convenient explanations? This passage should rightly speak of the severance by knowledge of the dharma-category and forbearance, but it does not, omitting the intermediate words. The nine roots (indriya) that are spoken of attain the meaning of a stream-enterer (srotaāpanna), as has been thoroughly considered in the section on discussing the roots. One cannot use this to prove knowledge of the dharma-category, just as forbearance of the dharma-category is included in the path of seeing (darśana-mārga), so the stage of the path of seeing has only fifteen moments of thought.
Shun Zheng Li Lun of the Sarvāstivāda School, Volume 63 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun
Abhidharma Shun Zheng Li Lun, Volume 64
Composed by Venerable Zhongxian
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter Six, Part Eight: Discriminating the Worthy and the Saints
Having already distinguished the differences in the arising of the paths of seeing (darśana-mārga) and cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga), we should, based on the differences in the stages of this path, establish the various saintly individuals (pudgala). Let us first establish the differences among the saints based on the fifteen moments of thought in the path of seeing. The verse says:
Named 'Follower of Faith' and 'Follower of Dharma,' distinguished by the dullness or sharpness of their faculties; possessing one to five severances of afflictions of cultivation, directed towards the first fruit; severing the next three, directed towards the second; departing from the eight realms, directed towards the third.
The treatise says: In the stage of the path of seeing, there are two types of saints: one is the Follower of Faith (śraddhānusārin), and the other is the Follower of Dharma (dharmānusārin).
行。由根鈍利別立二名。諸鈍根名隨信行者。由先信敬力修集加行故。諸利根名隨法行者。由先樂觀察修集加行故。諸有情類種性差別。法爾先來如是安住。謂有情類若從先來。凡所施為一切事業。不樂審察能與不能。專信敬他隨他言轉。彼后修得無漏道時。在見位中名隨信行。由信隨行名隨信行。先隨信他行於義故。彼有隨信行名隨信行者。或由串習此隨信行。以成其性故名隨信行者。彼信為上首慧為隨轉故。隨法行者翻此應釋。謂有情類。若從先來凡所施為一切事業。樂審觀察能與不能。非由信他隨教理轉。彼后修得無漏道時。在見位中名隨法行。由法隨行名隨法行。先隨教法行於義故。彼有隨法行名隨法行者。或由串習此隨法行。以成其性故名隨法行者。彼慧為上首信為隨轉故。即二聖者由於修惑。具斷有殊立為三向。謂彼二聖若於先來。未以世道斷修斷惑名為具縛。或先已斷欲界一品乃至五品。至此位中名初果向。趣初果故。言初果者。謂預流果。此於一切沙門果中必初得故。若先已斷欲界六品或七八品。至此位中名第二果向。趣第二果故。第二果者。謂一來果。遍得果中此第二故。若先已離欲界九品。或先已斷初定一品。乃至具離無所有處。至此位中名第三果向。趣第三果故。第三果者。謂不還果。數準前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 行。由於根器有鈍利之別，因此設立兩種名稱。那些鈍根的人被稱為隨信行者（Suixinxingzhe），這是因為他們先前憑藉著信敬的力量修習加行道的緣故。那些利根的人被稱為隨法行者（Suifaxingzhe），這是因為他們先前樂於觀察而修習加行道的緣故。眾生的根性差別，本來就是如此安住的。也就是說，如果眾生向來，凡所作為的一切事業，不樂於審察自己能否勝任，只是專一地信敬他人，隨著他人的言語而行動，那麼他們在後來修得無漏道的時候，在見道位中就被稱為隨信行者。因為以信隨順而行，所以稱為隨信行。先前隨順信他而行於正義，所以他們具有隨信行的名稱，稱為隨信行者。或者由於串習這種隨信行，以至於形成了他的性格，所以稱為隨信行者。他們的特點是信為上首，慧為隨從而運轉。隨法行者，與此相反，應當這樣解釋。也就是說，如果眾生向來，凡所作為的一切事業，樂於審察自己能否勝任，不是因為相信他人，而是隨著教理而行動，那麼他們在後來修得無漏道的時候，在見道位中就被稱為隨法行者。因為以法隨順而行，所以稱為隨法行。先前隨順教法而行於正義，所以他們具有隨法行的名稱，稱為隨法行者。或者由於串習這種隨法行，以至於形成了他的性格，所以稱為隨法行者。他們的特點是慧為上首，信為隨從而運轉。這兩種聖者，由於在修惑的斷除上，具有不同的程度，因此設立為三種『向』（xiang，趨向于果位的修行者）。也就是說，這兩種聖者，如果先前沒有用世間道斷除修斷惑，就稱為具縛（jubo，仍然被煩惱束縛）。或者先前已經斷除了欲界一品乃至五品修惑，到達這個階段，就稱為初果向（chuguoxiang，趨向于初果的修行者），因為趨向于初果的緣故。所謂初果（chuguo），指的是預流果（yuliuguo）。這是在一切沙門果中必定首先獲得的。如果先前已經斷除了欲界六品或者七八品修惑，到達這個階段，就稱為第二果向（dierguoxiang，趨向于第二果的修行者），因為趨向于第二果的緣故。所謂第二果（dierguo），指的是一來果（yilaiguo）。在普遍獲得的果位中，這是第二種。如果先前已經斷離了欲界九品修惑，或者先前已經斷除了初禪定一品修惑，乃至完全斷離了無所有處定修惑，到達這個階段，就稱為第三果向（disanguoxiang，趨向于第三果的修行者），因為趨向于第三果的緣故。所謂第三果（disanguo），指的是不還果（buhanguo）。數量依照前面的方式類推。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, based on the difference between dull and sharp faculties, two names are established. Those with dull faculties are called 'Followers of Faith' (Suixinxingzhe), because they have previously cultivated the path of application (加行, jiaxing) through the power of faith and reverence. Those with sharp faculties are called 'Followers of Dharma' (Suifaxingzhe), because they have previously enjoyed observation and cultivated the path of application. The differences in the nature of sentient beings are naturally established in this way from the beginning. That is, if sentient beings, from the beginning, in all their undertakings, do not enjoy examining whether they are capable or not, but single-mindedly trust and revere others, following their words and actions, then when they later attain the unconditioned path, they are called 'Followers of Faith' in the stage of seeing (見道, jiandao). They are called 'Followers of Faith' because they follow and act according to faith. Because they previously followed faith in others and acted according to righteousness, they have the name 'Followers of Faith'. Or, because they have become accustomed to this following of faith, it has become their nature, hence they are called 'Followers of Faith'. Their characteristic is that faith is the leader, and wisdom follows and revolves. The 'Followers of Dharma' should be explained in the opposite way. That is, if sentient beings, from the beginning, in all their undertakings, enjoy examining whether they are capable or not, and do not act by trusting others, but follow the teachings and principles, then when they later attain the unconditioned path, they are called 'Followers of Dharma' in the stage of seeing. They are called 'Followers of Dharma' because they follow and act according to the Dharma. Because they previously followed the teachings of the Dharma and acted according to righteousness, they have the name 'Followers of Dharma'. Or, because they have become accustomed to this following of the Dharma, it has become their nature, hence they are called 'Followers of Dharma'. Their characteristic is that wisdom is the leader, and faith follows and revolves. These two types of noble ones, due to the differences in the elimination of the afflictions of cultivation (修惑, xiuhuo), are established as three 'Approachers' (向, xiang, those who are approaching the fruition). That is, if these two types of noble ones have not previously eliminated the afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation by the worldly path, they are called 'Bound Ones' (具縛, jubo, still bound by afflictions). Or, if they have previously eliminated one to five grades of afflictions of the desire realm (欲界, yujie), they are called 'Approachers to the First Fruit' (chuguoxiang, those who are approaching the first fruit) in this stage, because they are approaching the first fruit. The 'First Fruit' (chuguo) refers to the 'Stream-Enterer Fruit' (yuliuguo). This is the first fruit that must be attained among all the fruits of the renunciants (沙門, shamen). If they have previously eliminated six, seven, or eight grades of afflictions of the desire realm, they are called 'Approachers to the Second Fruit' (dierguoxiang, those who are approaching the second fruit) in this stage, because they are approaching the second fruit. The 'Second Fruit' (dierguo) refers to the 'Once-Returner Fruit' (yilaiguo). This is the second among the fruits that are universally attained. If they have previously separated from the nine grades of afflictions of the desire realm, or if they have previously eliminated one grade of afflictions of the first dhyana (初禪定, chanding), or even completely separated from the 'Sphere of Nothingness' (無所有處, wusuoyouchu), they are called 'Approachers to the Third Fruit' (disanguoxiang, those who are approaching the third fruit) in this stage, because they are approaching the third fruit. The 'Third Fruit' (disanguo) refers to the 'Non-Returner Fruit' (buhanguo). The number is inferred in the same way as before.
釋。如是隨信隨法行者。由先具縛斷惑有殊。數別各成七十三種。謂于欲界具縛為初。至斷九品以為第十。如是乃至無所有處。地地各九為七十三。諸后具縛即前離九。故后七地無別具縛。次依修道道類智時。建立眾聖有差別者。頌曰。
至第十六心 隨三向住果 名信解見至 亦由鈍利別
論曰。即前隨信隨法行者。至第十六道類智心。名為住果不復名向。隨前三向今住三果。謂前預流向今住預流果。前一來向今住一來果。前不還向今住不還果。阿羅漢果必無初得。異生無容離有頂故。見道無容斷修惑故。至住果位捨得二名。謂不復名隨信法行。轉得信解見至二名。此亦由根鈍利差別。諸鈍根者先名隨信行今名信解。由信增上力勝解顯故。諸利根者先名隨法行今名見至。由慧增上力正見顯故。何緣先時斷修所斷。欲一至五或七八品。初定一品廣說乃至。無所有處第九品惑。至第十六道類智心。但名預流一來不還果。非一來不還阿羅漢向。頌曰。
諸得果位中 未得勝果道 故未起勝道 名住果非向
論曰。依得聖道建立八聖如先已說。故得果時于勝果道必定未得。以得果心於勝果道。所對治惑非對治故。非非彼治現在前時。得彼治道如先已說。又非得果時即有勝果道。所斷煩惱離
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 釋：像這樣隨信行和隨法行的人，由於先前是否具有煩惱的束縛以及斷除煩惱的程度不同，數量上的差別各自形成了七十三種情況。這是指在欲界最初具有煩惱的束縛，到斷除九品煩惱為止，是第十種情況。像這樣乃至無所有處，每一地各有九品煩惱，總共是七十三種。那些後來才具有煩惱束縛的人，就是先前已經離開了九品煩惱的人，因此後七地沒有另外的具有煩惱束縛的情況。 接下來，依據修道時所獲得的道類智，建立聖者的差別。頌文說： 『至第十六心，隨三向住果，名信解見至，亦由鈍利別。』 論曰：就是前面所說的隨信行和隨法行的人，到達第十六道類智心時，稱為住果，不再稱為向。隨著前面的三種向，現在安住於三種果。也就是先前的預流向，現在安住于預流果；先前的一來向，現在安住於一來果；先前的不還向，現在安住于不還果。阿羅漢果一定沒有最初獲得的情況，因為異生沒有可能離開有頂天，見道沒有可能斷除修惑。到達安住果位時，捨棄和獲得兩種名稱。也就是不再稱為隨信行和隨法行，轉而獲得信解和見至兩種名稱。這兩種名稱也由於根器的鈍利而有所差別。那些鈍根的人，先前稱為隨信行，現在稱為信解，因為信的力量增強，勝解顯現的緣故。那些利根的人，先前稱為隨法行，現在稱為見至，因為慧的力量增強，正見顯現的緣故。為什麼先前斷除修所斷的煩惱，欲界一品到五品或者七八品，初禪一品，廣而言之乃至無所有處第九品煩惱，到達第十六道類智心時，只稱為預流果、一來果、不還果，而不是一來向、不還向、阿羅漢向呢？頌文說： 『諸得果位中，未得勝果道，故未起勝道，名住果非向。』 論曰：依據獲得聖道而建立八聖，如同先前已經說過的。因此獲得果位時，對於殊勝果位的道，必定沒有獲得。因為獲得果位的心，對於殊勝果位的道，所要對治的煩惱不是正在對治的煩惱。不是非彼對治現在前時，獲得彼對治道，如同先前已經說過的。又不是獲得果位時，就有了殊勝果位的道，所斷的煩惱已經遠離。
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: Those who practice according to faith (隨信行, suíxìnxíng) and those who practice according to Dharma (隨法行, suífǎxíng) differ in terms of whether they were previously bound by afflictions and the degree to which they have severed afflictions. These numerical differences result in seventy-three categories. This refers to the initial state of being bound by afflictions in the Desire Realm (欲界, Yùjiè), up to the severance of the nine categories of afflictions, which is the tenth category. Similarly, up to the Realm of Nothingness (無所有處, Wúsuǒyǒuchù), each realm has nine categories of afflictions, totaling seventy-three. Those who later become bound by afflictions are those who have previously departed from the nine categories of afflictions. Therefore, the latter seven realms do not have separate cases of being bound by afflictions. Next, based on the Path-Following Wisdom (道類智, Dàolèizhì) attained during the practice of the path, the differences among the sages are established. The verse says: 'Upon reaching the sixteenth moment of mind, according to the three stages of progress, one dwells in the fruition. They are called 'Faith-Released' (信解, Xìnjiě) and 'Vision-Attained' (見至, Jiànzhì), also distinguished by dullness and sharpness.' Commentary: Those who previously practiced according to faith and those who practiced according to Dharma, upon reaching the sixteenth moment of Path-Following Wisdom, are called 'dwelling in the fruition' and are no longer called 'progressing towards'. Following the previous three stages of progress, they now dwell in the three fruits. That is, the previous Stream-Enterer (預流, Yùliú) stage of progress now dwells in the Stream-Enterer fruit; the previous Once-Returner (一來, Yīlái) stage of progress now dwells in the Once-Returner fruit; the previous Non-Returner (不還, Bùhuán) stage of progress now dwells in the Non-Returner fruit. The Arhat (阿羅漢, Āluóhàn) fruit is certainly not attained initially, because ordinary beings cannot leave the Peak of Existence (有頂, Yǒudǐng), and the Path of Seeing (見道, Jiàndào) cannot sever the afflictions to be severed by cultivation (修惑, Xiūhuò). Upon reaching the stage of dwelling in the fruition, the two names of 'practicing according to faith/Dharma' are relinquished and the two names of 'Faith-Released' and 'Vision-Attained' are acquired. These two names also differ according to the dullness and sharpness of the faculties. Those with dull faculties were previously called 'practicing according to faith' and are now called 'Faith-Released', because the power of faith is enhanced and the understanding is manifested. Those with sharp faculties were previously called 'practicing according to Dharma' and are now called 'Vision-Attained', because the power of wisdom is enhanced and right view is manifested. Why is it that previously, when severing the afflictions to be severed by cultivation, from one to five or seven or eight categories in the Desire Realm, one category in the First Dhyana (初禪, Chūchán), and broadly speaking, up to the ninth category of afflictions in the Realm of Nothingness, upon reaching the sixteenth moment of Path-Following Wisdom, they are only called Stream-Enterer fruit, Once-Returner fruit, and Non-Returner fruit, and not Once-Returner stage of progress, Non-Returner stage of progress, or Arhat stage of progress? The verse says: 'Among those who have attained the fruit, the path to the superior fruit has not yet been attained. Therefore, the superior path has not yet arisen, and they are called dwelling in the fruit, not progressing towards.' Commentary: The establishment of the eight noble ones is based on the attainment of the noble path, as previously stated. Therefore, upon attaining the fruit, the path to the superior fruit has certainly not been attained. Because the mind that attains the fruit, with respect to the path to the superior fruit, the afflictions to be counteracted are not the afflictions being counteracted. It is not that when what is not the counteractive is present, the counteractive path is attained, as previously stated. Furthermore, it is not that upon attaining the fruit, the afflictions to be severed by the superior path have already been abandoned.
系得生。道類忍不能斷彼系得故。若道力能斷彼系得。此道引彼離系得生。可說此道能證彼滅。以得前果時未得勝果道故。住果者乃至未起勝果道時。雖先已斷修所斷惑欲一品等。但名住果不名後向。後於何時得先所斷修惑離系無漏得耶。于勝果道現前時得。為諸先斷彼修斷惑。入離生位得前果已。此生定起勝果道耶。理必應然。以本論說。聖生第四靜慮以上。無漏樂根定成就故。若不然者。諸先已離三靜慮染。后依下地得入離生。彼得果已。若生第四靜慮以上。如何可說定成樂根。理不應言。唯如是類。此生必定起勝果道。非余先斷諸下地惑。決定因緣不可得故。彼障已斷。必欣彼故。障已斷道易現前故。如是已依先具倍離。及全離欲入見諦者。十六心位立眾聖別。當約修惑辯漸次生。能對治道分位差別。頌曰。
地地失德九 下中上各三
論曰。失謂過失即所治障。德謂功德。即能治道如先已辯。欲修斷惑九品差別。上四靜慮及四無色。應知亦然。生死無非九地攝故。如所治障一一地中各有九品。諸能治道無間解脫九品亦然。失德如何各分九品。謂根本品有下中上。此三各分下中上別。由此失德各分九品。謂下下下中下上中下中中中上。上下上中上上品。應知此中下下品道。勢力能斷上上品障。如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 繫縛而生。道類忍不能斷除那些繫縛所得的緣故。如果道的力量能夠斷除那些繫縛所得的，此道引導他們脫離繫縛而生，可以說此道能夠證得那些滅盡。因為獲得前一個果位時，尚未獲得殊勝果位的道。安住于果位的人，乃至尚未生起殊勝果位的道時，雖然先前已經斷除了修所斷的迷惑，比如欲界的一品等等，但只稱為安住于果位，不稱為趨向更高果位。那麼，在什麼時候能夠獲得先前所斷的修惑的離系無漏之法呢？在殊勝果位的道現前的時候獲得。對於那些先前斷除了修所斷的迷惑，進入離生位，獲得前一個果位之後，此生必定會生起殊勝果位的道嗎？理應必然如此。因為本論說，聖者生於第四禪以上，無漏的樂根必定成就。如果不是這樣，那些先前已經脫離了三禪的染污，後來依靠下地而進入離生位的人，他們獲得果位之後，如果生於第四禪以上，如何能夠說必定成就樂根呢？理應不能這樣說。只有像這樣的人，此生必定會生起殊勝果位的道。對於其他先前斷除了下地迷惑的人，決定性的因緣是無法獲得的。因為他們的障礙已經斷除，必定欣求更高的境界。因為障礙已經斷除，道容易現前。像這樣，已經依靠先前具備的加倍離欲，以及完全離欲而進入見諦的人，在十六心位上建立各種聖者的差別，應當根據修惑來辨別漸次生起的情況，以及能對治道的不同分位。頌文說：
『地地失德九，下中上各三』
論述說：失，指的是過失，也就是所要對治的障礙。德，指的是功德，也就是能夠對治的道，如先前已經辨析過的。欲界的修所斷惑有九品差別，上四禪以及四無色界，應當知道也是這樣。生死輪迴無非被九地所攝。就像所要對治的障礙，每一地中各有九品，各種能夠對治的道，無間道和解脫道也各有九品。失和德如何各自劃分九品呢？根本品有下、中、上三品，這三品各自又分為下、中、上，由此失和德各自劃分爲九品。也就是下下品、下中品、下上品、中下品、中中品、中上品、上下品、上中品、上品。應當知道，這其中下下品的道，力量能夠斷除上上品障。像這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Born from bondage. The Path of Endurance cannot sever those acquired bondages. If the power of the Path can sever those acquired bondages, this Path leads them away from being born from bondage, and it can be said that this Path can realize those cessations. Because when obtaining the previous fruit, the superior Path of Fruit has not yet been obtained. Those who abide in the fruit, until the superior Path of Fruit arises, although they have previously severed the delusions to be abandoned by cultivation, such as one grade of the desire realm, are only called abiding in the fruit and not called progressing towards a higher fruit. Then, at what time can one obtain the non-outflow attainment of detachment from the previously severed delusions to be abandoned by cultivation? It is obtained when the superior Path of Fruit manifests. For those who have previously severed those delusions to be abandoned by cultivation, entered the stage of detachment from birth, and obtained the previous fruit, will the superior Path of Fruit definitely arise in this life? It should necessarily be so. Because the present treatise says that a sage born in the Fourth Dhyana (fourth level of meditative absorption) or above will definitely achieve the non-outflow root of joy. If not, for those who have previously detached from the defilements of the Three Dhyanas (first three levels of meditative absorption), and later rely on the lower ground to enter detachment from birth, after they obtain the fruit, if they are born in the Fourth Dhyana or above, how can it be said that they will definitely achieve the root of joy? It should not be said that only those of this kind will definitely give rise to the superior Path of Fruit in this life. For others who have previously severed the delusions of the lower grounds, a decisive cause cannot be obtained. Because their obstacles have been severed, they will definitely rejoice in the higher realm. Because the obstacles have been severed, the Path easily manifests. Like this, those who have already relied on the previously possessed double detachment from desire, and complete detachment from desire to enter the seeing of truth, establish the distinctions of various sages in the sixteen moments of the mind. One should discern the gradual arising based on the delusions to be cultivated, and the different stages of the Path that can counteract them. The verse says:
'Ground by ground, loss and virtue nine, lower, middle, and upper, each three.'
The treatise says: 'Loss' refers to faults, which are the obstacles to be treated. 'Virtue' refers to merits, which are the Paths that can treat them, as previously discussed. The delusions to be abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm have nine grades of difference. The upper four Dhyanas and the four formless realms should also be known to be the same. Samsara (cycle of birth and death) is nothing but encompassed by the nine grounds. Just like the obstacles to be treated, each ground has nine grades. The various Paths that can treat them, the Path of Immediate Succession and the Path of Liberation, also each have nine grades. How are loss and virtue each divided into nine grades? The fundamental grade has lower, middle, and upper three grades. These three grades are each divided into lower, middle, and upper. Therefore, loss and virtue are each divided into nine grades, namely, lower-lower, lower-middle, lower-upper, middle-lower, middle-middle, middle-upper, upper-lower, upper-middle, and upper-upper. It should be known that the Path of the lower-lower grade has the power to sever the obstacle of the upper-upper grade. Like this.
乃至上上品道勢力。能斷下下品障。上上品等諸能治德初未有故。此德有時上上品等失已無故。應知此中智雖勝。惑未增盛故道名下品。相續中惑雖極難斷。細隨行故障名下品。依如是理應立譬喻。如浣衣位粗垢先除。於後后時漸除細垢。謂彼粗垢于所住衣非甚堅著。少用功力以水浣洗便能遣除。細垢不然。由甚堅著所住衣故。以灰汁等及多功力方能遣除。又如粗闇小明能滅。要以大明方滅細闇。謂粗重闇才舉小明便能令滅。若細輕闇要舉大明方能令滅。失德相對理亦應然。由此可言白勝黑劣。若異此者。上上品道現在前時。方能對治下下品障。如何可言白法力勝黑法力劣。又剎那頃能治道生。于無始來展轉增益。諸堅固惑能永拔根。由此故言白勝黑劣。如時經久所集眾病。服少良藥能令頓愈。又如長時所集眾闇。一剎那頃光明能滅。已辯失德差別九品。次當依彼立聖者別。且諸有學修道位中。總亦名為信解見至。隨位復有多種差別。先應建立都。未斷者。頌曰。
未斷修斷失 住果極七返
論曰。諸住果者於一切地。修所斷失全未斷時。名為預流生。極七返。七返言顯七往返生。是人天中各七生義。極言為顯受生最多。非諸預流皆定七返。故契經說。極七返生是彼最多七返生義。經說與此義無差別。諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 乃至上上品道的力量，能夠斷除下下品的障礙。因為上上品等各種能對治的功德最初並不存在，而且這種功德有時會喪失，上上品等也會失去，所以要知道這裡智慧雖然殊勝，但煩惱沒有更加強盛，所以道被稱為下品。相續中的煩惱雖然極其難以斷除，但細微的隨行障礙被稱為下品。按照這樣的道理應該設立譬喻，就像洗衣服一樣，先去除粗糙的污垢，然後在後面的時間裡逐漸去除細微的污垢。粗糙的污垢對於所附著的衣服不是非常牢固，稍微用功用水洗滌就能去除。細微的污垢則不然，因為非常牢固地附著在衣服上，所以要用灰汁等以及更多的功力才能去除。又如粗重的黑暗，小小的光明就能滅除，要用大的光明才能滅除細微的黑暗。粗重的黑暗只要舉起小小的光明就能讓它滅除，如果是細微輕微的黑暗，就要舉起大的光明才能讓它滅除。失去功德的相對道理也應該是這樣。由此可以說白勝過黑，劣於黑。如果不是這樣，上上品道現在前的時候，才能對治下下品的障礙，怎麼能說白法的力量勝過黑法的力量，又剎那間能對治的道產生，對於無始以來輾轉增益的各種堅固的煩惱，能夠永遠拔除根本，因此說白勝過黑。就像長時間積累的各種疾病，服用少量的良藥就能立刻痊癒。又如長時間積累的各種黑暗，一個剎那間光明就能滅除。已經辨別了失去功德的差別九品，接下來應當根據它們來建立聖者的差別。而且各種有學在修道位中，總的也稱為信解見至，隨著位置的不同又有多種差別。首先應該建立都未斷者。頌說： 未斷修斷失，住果極七返 論說：各種住在果位的人，對於一切地的修所斷的失去全部沒有斷除的時候，稱為預流(Srotapanna，入流果)生，最多七次往返。七返言顯示七次往返生，是人天中各自七生的意思。極言是爲了顯示受生最多，不是各種預流都一定七次往返。所以契經說，最多七次往返生是他們最多七次往返生的意思。經書說與這個意思沒有差別。各種...
【English Translation】 Even the power of the highest of the highest path can sever the lowest of the lowest obstacles. Because the various virtues of the highest of the highest, etc., that can counteract these obstacles did not exist initially, and because these virtues sometimes are lost, and the highest of the highest, etc., are also lost, it should be known that although wisdom here is superior, afflictions have not increased greatly, so the path is called the lowest grade. Although afflictions in the continuum are extremely difficult to sever, the subtle accompanying obstacles are called the lowest grade. According to this principle, a metaphor should be established, just as in washing clothes, coarse dirt is removed first, and then gradually fine dirt is removed later. The coarse dirt is not very firmly attached to the clothes it resides on, and can be removed by washing with water with little effort. Fine dirt is not like that, because it is very firmly attached to the clothes it resides on, it can only be removed with lye, etc., and much effort. Also, just as coarse darkness can be extinguished by a small light, a large light is needed to extinguish fine darkness. Coarse darkness can be extinguished by simply raising a small light, but if it is fine and light darkness, a large light must be raised to extinguish it. The relative principle of losing virtue should also be the same. From this, it can be said that white is superior to black, and inferior to black. If it were otherwise, the highest of the highest path would only be able to counteract the lowest of the lowest obstacles when it is present. How can it be said that the power of white dharma is superior to the power of black dharma? Moreover, the path that can counteract arises in an instant, and can eradicate the roots of all the firm afflictions that have been increasing since beginningless time. Therefore, it is said that white is superior to black. Just as various diseases accumulated over a long period of time can be cured immediately by taking a small amount of good medicine. Also, just as various darknesses accumulated over a long period of time can be extinguished by light in an instant. The nine grades of differences in lost virtues have already been distinguished. Next, the differences of the noble ones should be established based on them. Moreover, various learners in the path of cultivation are generally called 'believers' and 'seers', and there are various differences depending on their position. First, those who have not severed anything at all should be established. The verse says: Not severed, cultivation severed, lost, residing in the fruit, at most seven returns. The treatise says: Those who reside in the fruit, when all the losses to be severed by cultivation in all realms have not been severed at all, are called Srotapanna (stream-enterer, the fruit of entering the stream), with at most seven returns. 'Seven returns' indicates seven returns of rebirth, meaning seven rebirths each in the realms of humans and gods. 'At most' is to show that the most rebirths are received, not that all Srotapannas necessarily have seven returns. Therefore, the sutras say that at most seven returns of rebirth is the meaning of their most seven returns of rebirth. The sutras say that there is no difference in meaning from this. Various...
無漏道總名為流。由此為因趣涅槃故。預言為顯最初至得。彼預流故說名預流。此預流名為目何義。若初得道名為預流。則預流名應目第八。若初得果名為預流。則倍離欲全離欲者。至道類智應名預流。此預流名目初得果。然倍離欲全離欲者。至道類智不名預流。約修惑斷立彼果故。預流必依遍得果者。初所得果以立名故。一來不還非定初得。唯有此果必初得故。何緣此名不目第八。未具得向果無漏道故。未具得見修無漏道故。未遍至得現觀流故。八忍八智名現觀流。道類智時皆具至得。是故第八不名預流。由此預流唯是初果。彼從此後欲人天中。各受七生應言十四。何故說彼極受七生。此責不然。七數等故如七葉樹及七處善。若謂經說見圓滿者。無處無容受第八有。不應說彼於人天趣各受七生。此亦不然。經約一趣密意說故。若謂此經非密意說。則彼亦應不受中有。若人天趣合受七生。經但應言受人天七。何緣經說天七及人。既說及言定知各七。又必應爾。飲光部經。分明別說各受七故。若依一趣密意而說。故與經說見圓滿者。無第八有言不相違。如何上流有遍沒者。彼一趣受過八生故無相違失。遮第八言依極七有。地非約上地故。謂若於此地說諸聖者極受七生。即於此地中遮第八有非色無色契經所說七返有言。非
約三界無差別說。寧應謂此遮第八言。總約三界無差別說。故此經說遮第八言。如七有言唯約欲界。密意說故無相違失。有餘謂此會釋不然。余處曾無如是說故。此中無有密說相故。謂曾無處作如是言。上流受生過於七有。可以證此遮八有經。依欲界說非約一切。又非遮止第八有經。違害所餘無別意教。必有別意故判為密意說。故此會釋不應正理。豈不遮止第八有經。與上流經極相違害。無相違害。以上流經總說上流有餘意故。謂此唯說全超半超。名為上流無遍沒故。如是會釋理定不然。余處曾無如是說故。生處定因曾不說故。謂曾無處說諸上流。唯有二種無有遍沒。又曾不說生處定因。言此上流定於色界。唯生此處彼處不生。然契經說七士趣處。舉多譬喻以顯上流。次第遍生色界諸處。觀彼經意既說上流。至道等邊無緣故滅。顯不還者於色界中。一切處生過於八有。故知定有遍沒上流。謂彼經中依六士趣各說一喻。唯于第七上流士趣說十一喻。顯彼聖者於色界中。有次第生一切處者。故彼經說如有上流乃至道邊。或水邊等無所依故即便盡滅。顯彼聖者過於此處。無生處故便般涅槃。故上流經無餘意趣。遮第八教與彼相違。即是此經密意說相。又見經說無差別言。于中非無差別意趣。如契經說。無處無容有二輪王俱時
出現。此經雖復無差別言。非不但依一四洲說。此中亦可作如是言。余處曾無如是說故。此中無有密說相故。豈即謂此會釋不然。故彼此中徒興固執。復何緣故感八有業。能障見諦非七有業。若謂聖者于欲界中。極受七生無第八故。此無因故亦同所疑。若謂齊此時相續必熟故。此亦不然。無定因故。謂有何等決定因緣。于第七生為盡諸漏。根未熟者至第八生。為盡諸漏根亦不熟。若謂聖道種類爾故。如為七步毒蛇所螫。此喻不然。壽量定者過此齊限亦得往故。又若聖道種類法然。則由道生遮第八有。寧說彼業能障見諦。謂但應言由聖道起遮第八有。不應言感第八有業能障見諦。若有已作及已增長第八有業。聖道于彼無能遮力故不得生。彼亦不應能障見諦。至第八有方般涅槃。于正理中有何違害。有餘於此作是釋言。由彼有餘七結在故。謂二下分五上分結。此亦無能證。唯七有唯貪瞋結。引七有故。又無契經說不還者受極七有。又無經說五上分結引欲界生。故彼所言無能證力。但由法爾極受七生。于中不應強申理趣。中間雖有聖道現前。餘業力持不證圓寂。唯依佛出世有別解律儀。故彼第七有若不遇佛法便在家。得阿羅漢果。既得果已必不住家。苾芻威儀法爾成就。雖不會遇前佛所說。而於余命生極厭心。不經久時便入
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使這部經文沒有明確的差別之說，也不僅僅是依據一個四大洲來講述的。在這裡也可以這樣說，因為其他地方沒有這樣說過。這裡沒有秘密宣說的跡象。難道就說這次集會的解釋不對嗎？所以彼此之間只是徒勞地堅持己見。又是什麼緣故感得八有之業，能夠障礙見諦，而不是七有之業呢？如果說聖者在欲界中最多隻受七次生死，沒有第八次，這沒有理由，也和所懷疑的一樣。如果說到了這個時候，相續必定成熟，這也是不對的，因為沒有確定的原因。有什麼樣的決定性的因緣，使得在第七次生死時漏盡，而根器未成熟的人要到第八次生死時才能漏盡，或者根器仍然不成熟呢？如果說是聖道的種類就是這樣，就像被七步蛇咬了一樣，這個比喻不對。壽命已定的人，超過這個期限也可以往生。而且，如果聖道的種類本來就是這樣，那麼由聖道生起就能遮止第八有，為什麼說那個業能夠障礙見諦呢？應該說由聖道生起遮止第八有，不應該說感得第八有的業能夠障礙見諦。如果有人已經造作並且增長了第八有的業，聖道對他們沒有遮止的力量，所以不能得生。他們也不應該能夠障礙見諦，直到第八有才般涅槃，在正理中有什麼違背呢？有些人對此作這樣的解釋，說是因為他們還有剩餘的七結存在，也就是二下分結和五上分結。這也沒有證據。只有七有，只有貪嗔結，才引生七有。而且沒有契經說不還者最多隻受七有。也沒有經文說五上分結會引生欲界。所以他們所說的話沒有證據。只是因為法爾如此，最多隻受七次生死。其中不應該強行解釋其中的道理。中間即使有聖道現前，因為其他業力的支援，也不能證得圓寂。只有依靠佛出世才有別解脫律儀。所以在第七有中，如果不遇到佛法，就在家證得阿羅漢果。既然得了果，必定不住在家。比丘的威儀自然成就。即使沒有遇到前佛所說，也會在餘生中產生極大的厭離心，不久就進入涅槃。 English version: Although this sutra does not have explicit statements of difference, it is not solely based on one Jambudvipa (four continents). One can also say here that such things are not mentioned elsewhere. There is no appearance of secret teachings here. Does this mean that the interpretation of this assembly is incorrect? Therefore, it is merely futile to insist on one's own views. Furthermore, what is the reason that the karma of the eighth existence can obstruct the seeing of truth, but not the karma of the seventh existence? If it is said that a sage in the desire realm experiences at most seven births, and there is no eighth, this has no reason and is the same as the doubt. If it is said that at this time, the continuum must mature, this is also incorrect because there is no definite cause. What kind of definitive cause is there that causes the exhaustion of outflows in the seventh birth, while those whose roots are not mature must wait until the eighth birth to exhaust their outflows, or their roots are still not mature? If it is said that the nature of the noble path is such, like being bitten by a seven-step snake, this analogy is incorrect. Those whose lifespan is fixed can also be reborn beyond this limit. Moreover, if the nature of the noble path is naturally so, then the arising of the path can prevent the eighth existence. Why say that the karma that causes the eighth existence can obstruct the seeing of truth? It should be said that the arising of the noble path prevents the eighth existence, not that the karma that causes the eighth existence can obstruct the seeing of truth. If someone has already created and increased the karma of the eighth existence, the noble path has no power to prevent them from being born. They should also not be able to obstruct the seeing of truth, and only attain Nirvana in the eighth existence. What contradiction is there in this in terms of right reason? Some people explain this by saying that they still have the remaining seven fetters, namely the two lower fetters and the five higher fetters. This also has no evidence. Only the seven existences, only the fetters of greed and hatred, lead to the seven existences. Moreover, no sutra says that a non-returner experiences at most seven existences. Nor does any sutra say that the five higher fetters lead to rebirth in the desire realm. Therefore, what they say has no evidence. It is simply because it is naturally so that one experiences at most seven births. One should not force an explanation of the reason in this. Even if the noble path appears in the middle, one cannot attain perfect tranquility because of the support of other karmic forces. Only by relying on the appearance of a Buddha is there a separate liberation discipline. Therefore, in the seventh existence, if one does not encounter the Buddha's teachings, one attains the Arhat fruit at home. Once one attains the fruit, one will definitely not stay at home. The demeanor of a Bhikshu (monk) is naturally accomplished. Even if one has not encountered the teachings of a previous Buddha, one will generate extreme aversion in the remaining life and soon enter Nirvana.
【English Translation】 Even though this sutra does not contain explicit statements of difference, it is not solely based on one Jambudvipa (four continents). One can also say here that such things are not mentioned elsewhere. There is no appearance of secret teachings here. Does this mean that the interpretation of this assembly is incorrect? Therefore, it is merely futile to insist on one's own views. Furthermore, what is the reason that the karma of the eighth existence can obstruct the seeing of truth, but not the karma of the seventh existence? If it is said that a 'sage' in the desire realm experiences at most seven births, and there is no eighth, this has no reason and is the same as the doubt. If it is said that at this time, the continuum must mature, this is also incorrect because there is no definite cause. What kind of definitive cause is there that causes the exhaustion of outflows in the seventh birth, while those whose roots are not mature must wait until the eighth birth to exhaust their outflows, or their roots are still not mature? If it is said that the nature of the noble path is such, like being bitten by a seven-step snake, this analogy is incorrect. Those whose lifespan is fixed can also be reborn beyond this limit. Moreover, if the nature of the noble path is naturally so, then the arising of the path can prevent the eighth existence. Why say that the karma that causes the eighth existence can obstruct the seeing of truth? It should be said that the arising of the noble path prevents the eighth existence, not that the karma that causes the eighth existence can obstruct the seeing of truth. If someone has already created and increased the karma of the eighth existence, the noble path has no power to prevent them from being born. They should also not be able to obstruct the seeing of truth, and only attain 'Nirvana' in the eighth existence. What contradiction is there in this in terms of right reason? Some people explain this by saying that they still have the remaining seven fetters, namely the two lower fetters and the five higher fetters. This also has no evidence. Only the seven existences, only the fetters of greed and hatred, lead to the seven existences. Moreover, no sutra says that a non-returner experiences at most seven existences. Nor does any sutra say that the five higher fetters lead to rebirth in the desire realm. Therefore, what they say has no evidence. It is simply because it is naturally so that one experiences at most seven births. One should not force an explanation of the reason in this. Even if the noble path appears in the middle, one cannot attain perfect tranquility because of the support of other karmic forces. Only by relying on the appearance of a 'Buddha' is there a separate liberation discipline. Therefore, in the seventh existence, if one does not encounter the 'Buddha's' teachings, one attains the 'Arhat' fruit at home. Once one attains the fruit, one will definitely not stay at home. The demeanor of a 'Bhikshu' (monk) is naturally accomplished. Even if one has not encountered the teachings of a previous 'Buddha', one will generate extreme aversion in the remaining life and soon enter 'Nirvana'.
圓寂。有言。彼往余道出家。理不應然。往余道者。由惡見力邪業轉故。云何彼名無退墮法。以不生長退墮業故。違彼生長業與果故。強盛善根鎮彼身故。加行意樂俱清凈故。諸有決定墮惡趣業。尚不起忍。況得預流。故有頌言。
愚作罪小亦墮惡 智為罪大亦脫苦 如團鐵小亦沉水 為缽鐵大亦能浮
經說預流作苦邊際。依何義立苦邊際名。依齊此生后更無苦。是令后苦不相續義。或苦邊際所謂涅槃。如何涅槃。可是所作除彼得障。故說作言如言作空。謂毀臺觀若於人趣得預流果。人中滿七天準應知。非聖亦有極七返生。相續成熟得涅槃義。然非決定。是故不說。已辯修惑都未斷者。名預流果極七返生。今次應辯斷位眾聖。且應建立一來向果。頌曰。
斷欲三四品 三二生家家 斷至五二向 斷六一來果
論曰。即預流者進斷修惑。若三緣具轉名家家。一由斷惑。斷欲修惑三四品故。謂惑于先異生位斷。或今預流進修位斷。二由成根。得能治彼無漏根故。謂已成就彼能治道。三品四品無漏諸根。三由受生。更受欲有三二生故。謂斷三品更受三生。若斷四品更受二生。此三二生由異生位。造作及增長感三二生業。非諸聖者于聖位中。更能新作牽後有業。以背生死向涅槃故。由此契經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
圓寂（Nirvana，指死亡）。有人說，『他往其他道出家』。這道理不應該成立。所謂『往其他道』，是因為受到錯誤見解的力量和邪惡行為的轉變所致。為什麼他們被稱為『無退墮法』呢？因為他們不增長會導致退墮的業，違背了那些增長業及其果報的行為，強大的善根鎮定在他們身上，並且修行時的意樂都是清凈的。那些已經決定要墮入惡趣的業，尚且不能生起忍耐之心，更何況能證得預流果（Sotapanna，須陀洹，初果）呢？所以有頌詞說：
『愚人作小罪，亦墮入惡道；智者為大罪，亦能脫離苦。 如同小鐵團，亦會沉入水；做成大鐵缽，亦能漂浮水面。』
經中說預流果是『苦的邊際』。依據什麼意義而立『苦的邊際』這個名稱呢？依據達到此生之後，不再有其他苦，這是使未來的苦不再相續的意義。或者，『苦的邊際』指的是涅槃（Nirvana）。如何達到涅槃呢？可以通過所作所為來去除那些障礙。所以說『作』，就像說『作空』一樣，指的是毀壞臺觀。如果在人道中證得預流果，那麼在人道中最多七次往返，在天道中也應該知道是類似的。即使不是聖者，也有最多七次往返生死，相續成熟而證得涅槃的意義。然而，這並非是絕對的，所以不說。以上已經辨析了修惑（bhāvanā-pahatabba，修所斷惑）都沒有斷除的人，被稱為證得預流果，最多七次往返生死。現在接下來應該辨析斷除煩惱的聖者。首先應該建立一來向果（Sakadagami-magga，斯陀含向）。頌詞說：
『斷欲三四品，三二生家家； 斷至五二向，斷六一來果。』
論中說，證得預流果的人進一步斷除修惑。如果三個條件具備，就轉名為家家（Ekabijin，一種子）。一是由於斷惑，斷除了欲界的修惑三品或四品。也就是說，這些煩惱在先前的異生位（凡夫位）已經斷除，或者現在在預流果的修行位斷除。二是由成就根，獲得了能夠對治這些煩惱的無漏根（anāsrava-indriya，無漏根）。也就是說，已經成就了能夠對治這些煩惱的道。三品或四品的無漏諸根。三是由受生，再次在欲界中有三次或兩次的受生。也就是說，斷除了三品煩惱，就再受三次生；如果斷除了四品煩惱，就再受兩次生。這三次或兩次的受生，是由異生位所造作和增長的，感得三次或兩次受生的業。並非是聖者在聖位中，更能新造牽引後有的業，因為他們背離生死，趨向涅槃。因此，相應的經典
【English Translation】 English version
Parinirvana (Nirvana, referring to death). Some say, 'He went forth to another path.' This reasoning should not hold. The so-called 'went forth to another path' is due to the power of wrong views and the transformation of evil deeds. Why are they called 'non-degressing in Dharma'? Because they do not increase the karma that leads to regression, they counteract the actions that increase karma and its consequences, strong roots of goodness are established in their bodies, and their intention and joy in practice are pure. Those who are destined to fall into evil realms cannot even generate patience, let alone attain the Stream-enterer fruit (Sotapanna, the first fruit). Therefore, there is a verse that says:
'Fools commit small sins, and also fall into evil paths; wise ones commit great sins, and can also escape suffering. Like a small iron ball, it will sink in water; made into a large iron bowl, it can also float on water.'
The sutras say that the Stream-enterer fruit is the 'limit of suffering.' Based on what meaning is the name 'limit of suffering' established? Based on reaching this life, there is no more suffering, which is the meaning of not continuing future suffering. Or, the 'limit of suffering' refers to Nirvana. How is Nirvana attained? It can be attained by removing those obstacles through actions. Therefore, it is said 'action,' just like saying 'making emptiness,' which refers to destroying platforms and pavilions. If one attains the Stream-enterer fruit in the human realm, then at most seven rebirths in the human realm, and it should be known that it is similar in the heavenly realm. Even those who are not sages have at most seven rebirths, continuously maturing and attaining the meaning of Nirvana. However, this is not absolute, so it is not said. The above has already distinguished that those who have not eliminated any of the afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation (bhāvanā-pahatabba) are called those who have attained the Stream-enterer fruit, with at most seven rebirths. Now, we should next distinguish the sages who have eliminated afflictions. First, we should establish the Once-Returner path (Sakadagami-magga). The verse says:
'Cutting three or four grades of desire, three or two births in family; Cutting up to five, two towards; cutting six, the Once-Returner fruit.'
The treatise says that those who have attained the Stream-enterer fruit further eliminate afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation. If three conditions are met, they are transformed into a 'family-to-family' (Ekabijin). One is due to cutting afflictions, cutting three or four grades of afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm. That is to say, these afflictions have already been cut off in the previous ordinary being state (the state of a common person), or they are now cut off in the cultivation state of the Stream-enterer fruit. Two is due to the accomplishment of roots, obtaining the non-outflow roots (anāsrava-indriya) that can counteract these afflictions. That is to say, they have already accomplished the path that can counteract these afflictions. Three or four grades of non-outflow roots. Three is due to rebirth, again having three or two rebirths in the desire realm. That is to say, cutting off three grades of afflictions, they will have three more rebirths; if they cut off four grades of afflictions, they will have two more rebirths. These three or two rebirths are due to the karma created and increased in the ordinary being state, which causes three or two rebirths. It is not that sages in the sage state can newly create karma that leads to future existence, because they turn away from birth and death and move towards Nirvana. Therefore, the corresponding sutras
說諸聖者。唯受故業更不造新。若三緣中隨闕一種。闕二全闕不名家家。何故成根。頌中不說預流果后。說進斷惑成能治彼無漏諸根。義準已成。故不具說。若爾應不說三二生言。說斷三四品義已成故。謂已進斷三四品惑。決定余有三生二生。故說家家相不圓滿。則應于頌更說等聲。方可具收家家三相。或應不說三二生言。然頌中言三二生者。以有增進于所受生。或少或無或過此故。有餘師說。亦有具足家家三緣而非家家。謂異生位先斷修惑。三品四品住見道中。但以家家生所顯故。是預流果勝進位故。非住見道有斯義故。雖三緣具不名家家。今詳彼言定不應理。非住見道具彼三緣。爾時不能修修惑對治故。要得治彼無漏諸根。方是三緣中成無漏根義。故住見道非具三緣。無具三緣非家家者。應知總有二種家家。一天家家。謂欲天趣生三二家而證圓寂。或一天處或二或三。二人家家。謂於人趣生三二家而證圓寂。或一洲處或二或三。若有七生不必滿七。非家家位中間涅槃。何類所攝攝屬七生。七中極聲顯極多故。由此已顯生未滿前。得般涅槃亦是彼攝。根最鈍者具經七生。非諸利根生定滿七。寧無斷五亦名家家。以斷五時必斷第六。非一品惑能障得果。猶如一間未越界故。即預流者進斷欲界一品修惑乃至五品。應知轉
【現代漢語翻譯】 說諸聖者（聖潔的人）。唯受故業更不造新。若三緣中隨闕一種。闕二全闕不名家家（指須陀洹果，意為『七次往返』，即最多經歷七次生死）。何故成根。頌中不說預流果（須陀洹果）后。說進斷惑成能治彼無漏諸根。義準已成。故不具說。若爾應不說三二生言。說斷三四品義已成故。謂已進斷三四品惑。決定余有三生二生。故說家家相不圓滿。則應于頌更說等聲。方可具收家家三相。或應不說三二生言。然頌中言三二生者。以有增進于所受生。或少或無或過此故。有餘師說。亦有具足家家三緣而非家家。謂異生位先斷修惑。三品四品住見道中。但以家家生所顯故。是預流果勝進位故。非住見道有斯義故。雖三緣具不名家家。今詳彼言定不應理。非住見道具彼三緣。爾時不能修修惑對治故。要得治彼無漏諸根。方是三緣中成無漏根義。故住見道非具三緣。無具三緣非家家者。應知總有二種家家。一天家家。謂欲天趣生三二家而證圓寂。或一天處或二或三。二人家家。謂於人趣生三二家而證圓寂。或一洲處或二或三。若有七生不必滿七。非家家位中間涅槃。何類所攝攝屬七生。七中極聲顯極多故。由此已顯生未滿前。得般涅槃亦是彼攝。根最鈍者具經七生。非諸利根生定滿七。寧無斷五亦名家家。以斷五時必斷第六。非一品惑能障得果。猶如一間未越界故。即預流者進斷欲界一品修惑乃至五品。應知轉 解釋說，那些聖者們，只是承受過去的業力，不再造新的惡業。如果構成『家家』果位的三種因緣缺少任何一種，缺少兩種或者完全缺少，都不能稱為『家家』。為什麼這樣才能成就聖根呢？頌文中沒有直接說預流果之後的情況，而是說通過不斷斷除煩惱，成就能夠對治這些煩惱的無漏諸根。這個含義已經包含在其中了，所以沒有詳細說明。如果這樣，那就不應該說『三生』或『二生』了，因為說斷除三品或四品煩惱的含義已經包含了。意思是說，已經不斷進步，斷除了三品或四品煩惱，就決定了還會餘下三生或二生。所以說『家家』的相狀並不圓滿。那麼應該在頌文中加上『等』字，才能完整地包含『家家』的三種相狀。或者應該不說『三生』或『二生』。然而，頌文中說『三生』或『二生』，是因為在所受的生命中會有所增進，或者減少，或者沒有，或者超過這些。有些法師說，也有具備『家家』的三種因緣，但不是『家家』的情況。比如，凡夫位先斷除了修惑的三品或四品，停留在見道中。但因為『家家』是通過生命來顯現的，這是預流果的勝進位，不是停留在見道中能有的含義。雖然三種因緣具備，也不能稱為『家家』。現在詳細考察他們的說法，一定是不合理的。因為停留在見道中不具備那三種因緣。那時不能修習修惑的對治法，必須得到能夠對治這些煩惱的無漏諸根，才能在三種因緣中成就無漏根的含義。所以停留在見道中不具備三種因緣。沒有具備三種因緣就不是『家家』。應該知道總共有兩種『家家』。一種是天家家，指在欲界天趣中經歷三家或二家而證得圓寂，或者在一個天處，或者在兩個或三個。另一種是人家家，指在人趣中經歷三家或二家而證得圓寂，或者在一個洲處，或者在兩個或三個。如果有七生，不一定滿七生。如果不是在『家家』的果位上，而是在中間就證得涅槃，屬於哪一類呢？屬於七生。七中『極』字顯示了極多。由此已經顯示，在生命未滿之前，證得般涅槃也屬於七生。根器最遲鈍的人，要經歷七生。不是所有根器銳利的人，生命一定滿七生。難道沒有斷除五品煩惱也稱為『家家』的情況嗎？因為斷除五品煩惱時，必定會斷除第六品。不是一品煩惱就能障礙證果，就像一間房子沒有越過邊界一樣。也就是說，預流果的人，進一步斷除欲界的一品修惑，乃至五品，應該知道轉變。
【English Translation】 Speaking of the noble ones (Aryas), they only receive the effects of past karma and do not create new ones. If any one of the three conditions is lacking, or if two or all three are completely lacking, it is not called 'Ekabījin' (literally 'one-seeded,' referring to a type of Stream-enterer who is reborn only once more in the realm of desire). How does it establish the root? The verse does not mention what happens after the Stream-entry (Srotāpanna) fruit. It speaks of advancing in the cutting off of defilements, thereby establishing the ability to counteract them with undefiled roots (Anāsrava-indriya). The meaning is already implied, so it is not fully explained. If that is the case, then one should not speak of 'three lives' or 'two lives,' because the meaning of cutting off three or four categories of defilements is already implied. It means that having advanced and cut off three or four categories of defilements, it is certain that there will be three or two lives remaining. Therefore, it is said that the characteristic of 'Ekabījin' is not complete. Then, the word 'etc.' should be added to the verse to fully encompass the three aspects of 'Ekabījin.' Or one should not speak of 'three lives' or 'two lives.' However, the verse speaks of 'three lives' or 'two lives' because there is progress in the lives received, either less, none, or more than these. Some teachers say that there are also cases where the three conditions of 'Ekabījin' are complete, but it is not 'Ekabījin.' This refers to the stage of an ordinary being (Pṛthagjana) who has first cut off three or four categories of defilements of cultivation (Bhāvanā-heya) and remains in the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga). But because 'Ekabījin' is manifested through lives, it is a superior stage of the Stream-entry fruit. It is not possible to have this meaning while remaining in the path of seeing. Although the three conditions are complete, it is not called 'Ekabījin.' Now, examining their words in detail, it is certainly unreasonable. Because remaining in the path of seeing does not possess those three conditions. At that time, one cannot cultivate the antidotes to the defilements of cultivation. It is necessary to obtain the undefiled roots that can counteract those defilements in order to establish the meaning of undefiled roots among the three conditions. Therefore, remaining in the path of seeing does not possess the three conditions. Not possessing the three conditions means it is not 'Ekabījin.' It should be known that there are two types of 'Ekabījin' in total. One is the 'Deva-Ekabījin,' which refers to attaining Parinirvana in the realm of desire heavens after experiencing three or two families, either in one heavenly abode, or in two or three. The other is the 'Manushya-Ekabījin,' which refers to attaining Parinirvana in the human realm after experiencing three or two families, either in one continent, or in two or three. If there are seven lives, it is not necessary to complete all seven. If one attains Nirvana in between, not in the stage of 'Ekabījin,' to which category does it belong? It belongs to the seven lives. The word 'most' in 'seven' indicates the greatest number. From this, it is already clear that attaining Parinirvana before the lives are completed also belongs to the seven lives. Those with the dullest faculties will experience seven lives. Not all those with sharp faculties will necessarily complete seven lives. Is it possible to be called 'Ekabījin' even without cutting off the fifth category of defilements? Because when cutting off the fifth category of defilements, one will certainly cut off the sixth. It is not possible for one category of defilement to obstruct the attainment of the fruit, just like a house not crossing the boundary. That is to say, a Stream-enterer further cuts off one category of defilements of cultivation in the realm of desire, up to five categories, and should know the transformation.
名一來果向。若斷第六成一來果。彼往天上一來人間而般涅槃。名一來果。過此以後更無生故。即由此義證家家中。若天家家受三生者。人間受二天上受三。受二生者人一天二。如應例釋人中家家。若謂不然。彼一來果有何異彼二生家家。彼貪瞋癡唯餘下品故。即一來果名薄貪瞋癡。已辯一來向果差別。次應建立不還向果。頌曰。
斷七或八品 一生名一間 此即第三向 斷九不還果
論曰。即一來者進斷余惑。若三緣具轉名一間。一由斷惑。斷欲界中修斷七品或八品故。二由成根。得能治彼無間解脫無漏根故。三由受生。更受欲有天或人中餘一生故。若三緣中隨闕一種。闕二全闕不名一間。成無漏根頌中不說。及應復說一生所因。準家家中如應當釋。所言間者是隙異名。調彼位中。由有一隙容一生故。未得涅槃。或此間名目間隔義。謂于彼位有餘一生。為間隔故不證圓寂。有一間者說名一間。如何有餘一品修惑能為障礙令受欲界生。名為一間。未得不還果。若斷此品便為超越欲界所繫諸業煩惱異熟等流二果地故。彼極為礙容更受生。斷六品時未越彼地。故無斷五中間受生。現身不能證一來果。即斷修惑七八品者。應知亦名不還果向。先斷三四七八品惑入見諦者。后得果時即名家家及一間不。此未名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名『一來向』（Sakadagami-pratipannaka，趣向一來果的修行者）。如果斷除了第六品煩惱，就成就了『一來果』（Sakadagami-phala，一來果的聖者）。他們往生到天界一次，再返回人間一次，然後證入『般涅槃』（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃），這被稱為『一來果』。因為此後不再有輪迴轉生。因此，可以由此推論『家家』（Kula-kula，于諸有中，每一生處，必受生者）。如果天界『家家』需要承受三生，那麼人間就需要承受二生，天界承受三生；如果承受二生，那麼就是人間一生，天界二生。應該按照適當的例子來解釋人間『家家』的情況。如果說不是這樣，那麼『一來果』與承受二生的『家家』有什麼區別呢？因為他們的貪、嗔、癡煩惱只剩下低劣的部分，所以『一來果』也被稱為『薄貪嗔癡』（tanuraga-tanudosa-tanmoha，貪嗔癡薄）。以上已經辨析了『一來向』和『一來果』的差別。接下來應該建立『不還向』（Anagami-pratipannaka，趣向不還果的修行者）和『不還果』（Anagami-phala，不還果的聖者）。頌文說： 『斷七或八品，一生名一間，此即第三向，斷九不還果。』 論曰：也就是『一來者』（Sakadagami，一來果的聖者）繼續斷除剩餘的迷惑。如果三個條件都具備，就轉名為『一間』（Antara，中般涅槃）。一是由於斷惑，斷除了欲界中修所斷的第七品或第八品煩惱；二是由於成就了根，獲得了能夠對治這些煩惱的無間解脫的無漏根；三是由於受生，還需要在欲界天或人間再承受一生。如果這三個條件中缺少任何一個，缺少兩個或者全部缺少，都不能稱為『一間』。成就無漏根在頌文中沒有說明，並且應該再次說明一生所因。應該參照『家家』的情況，按照適當的例子來解釋。所說的『間』（Antara）是『隙』（chidra）的另一種說法。在那個階段中，因為有一個空隙容許一生，所以還沒有得到涅槃。或者這個『間』（Antara）字是間隔的意思，意思是說在那個階段中，還有剩餘的一生作為間隔，所以不能證得圓滿寂滅。有一個間隔的人，就被稱為『一間』。為什麼還有剩餘的一品修惑能夠成為障礙，導致需要在欲界受生，被稱為『一間』呢？因為還沒有得到『不還果』（Anagami-phala）。如果斷除了這一品煩惱，就超越了欲界所繫縛的諸業、煩惱、異熟果和等流果這二果地。那一品煩惱是極大的障礙，容許再次受生。斷除六品煩惱時，還沒有超越那個境界，所以沒有斷除五品煩惱而在中間受生的情況。現身不能證得一來果。斷除修惑的第七品或第八品的人，應該知道也被稱為『不還果向』。先前斷除了三品、四品、七品或八品煩惱而進入見諦的人，在之後得到果位時，是否立即被稱為『家家』和『一間』呢？這還不能被稱為『家家』和『一間』。
【English Translation】 English version It is called 『Sakadagami-pratipannaka』 (the one who has entered the path of Once-Returning). If the sixth category of affliction is severed, one achieves the 『Sakadagami-phala』 (the fruit of Once-Returning). They are reborn in the heavens once, return to the human realm once, and then enter 『Parinirvana』 (complete Nirvana), which is called 『Once-Returning』. Because there will be no more rebirths after this. Therefore, it can be inferred that 『Kula-kula』 (family to family, those who must be born in each existence). If the heavenly 『Kula-kula』 needs to endure three births, then the human realm needs to endure two births, and the heavens endure three births; if enduring two births, then it is one birth in the human realm and two births in the heavens. The situation of 『Kula-kula』 in the human realm should be explained according to appropriate examples. If it is said that it is not so, then what is the difference between 『Once-Returning』 and 『Kula-kula』 who endure two births? Because their greed, hatred, and delusion only have inferior parts left, 『Once-Returning』 is also called 『tanuraga-tanudosa-tanmoha』 (thin greed, hatred, and delusion). The differences between 『Sakadagami-pratipannaka』 and 『Sakadagami-phala』 have been distinguished above. Next, the 『Anagami-pratipannaka』 (the one who has entered the path of Non-Returning) and 『Anagami-phala』 (the fruit of Non-Returning) should be established. The verse says: 『Severing the seventh or eighth category, one life is called an interval, this is the third path, severing the ninth is the fruit of Non-Returning.』 The treatise says: That is, the 『Sakadagami』 (the Once-Returning) continues to sever the remaining delusions. If three conditions are met, it is transformed into 『Antara』 (intermediate Nirvana). First, it is due to severing afflictions, severing the seventh or eighth category of afflictions that are severed by cultivation in the desire realm; second, it is due to the accomplishment of the root, obtaining the non-outflow root of uninterrupted liberation that can counteract these afflictions; third, it is due to rebirth, still needing to endure one more life in the desire realm heavens or the human realm. If any one of these three conditions is missing, missing two, or missing all, it cannot be called 『Antara』. The accomplishment of the non-outflow root is not explained in the verse, and the cause of one life should be explained again. It should be explained according to appropriate examples with reference to the situation of 『Kula-kula』. The so-called 『Antara』 is another way of saying 『chidra』 (gap). In that stage, because there is a gap allowing one life, Nirvana has not yet been obtained. Or the word 『Antara』 means interval, meaning that in that stage, there is still a remaining life as an interval, so complete extinction cannot be attained. A person with an interval is called 『Antara』. Why can the remaining one category of afflictions severed by cultivation become an obstacle, leading to the need to be reborn in the desire realm, and be called 『Antara』? Because the 『Anagami-phala』 has not yet been obtained. If this category of affliction is severed, then one transcends the two fruit grounds of the karma, afflictions, resultant fruits, and outflowing fruits bound by the desire realm. That one category of affliction is a great obstacle, allowing rebirth again. When severing the sixth category of affliction, that state has not yet been transcended, so there is no situation of severing the five categories of affliction and being reborn in the middle. The present body cannot attain the fruit of Once-Returning. It should be known that those who sever the seventh or eighth category of afflictions severed by cultivation are also called 『Anagami-pratipannaka』. Those who previously severed the three, four, seven, or eight categories of afflictions and entered the stage of seeing the truth, are they immediately called 『Kula-kula』 and 『Antara』 when they later obtain the fruit? This cannot yet be called 『Kula-kula』 and 『Antara』.
曰家家一間。未得治彼無漏根故。初得果位果道現前。爾時未修勝果道故。要至后位起勝果道。方得名曰家家一間。治彼無漏根爾時方得故。若進斷惑預流一來。方立家家一間名者。何故善逝。手箭經中說七生一來與彼同斷惑。如彼經說。云何家家。謂永斷遍知。身見等三結。極七返有應知亦然。云何一間。謂永斷遍知身見等三結。及已能薄欲貪瞋癡。一來亦爾。無相違失。不言唯故。如經所說。預流一來。謂說預流永斷三結。非所餘結彼未能斷。如說預流永斷六法。一有身見。二邊執見。三邪見。四順惡趣貪。五順惡趣瞋。六順惡趣癡。又說一來永斷三結。薄貪瞋癡不言薄慢。又不說斷邊見邪見。如預流果。非一來果不令慢薄不斷邊邪。然彼經中不言唯故。起彼治故必亦斷彼。如是所說家家一間。既不言唯進斷無失。又契經說。彼生數減定知彼望預流一來。轉更成多諸煩惱斷。以諸煩惱是生因故。即由此故知彼望前。必定已生殊勝對治。若爾何故說家家一間與七生一來所斷相似。顯此即是彼差別故。或所進斷細難覺故。或應更審求同說因。不可引斯少分密教。便決定證家家一間。與預流一來所斷惑相似。上座意謂。家家一間與七生一來。但利根有異。謂隨信行隨得預流。若成預流轉名信解。亦即名曰極七返生。諸隨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：『家家一間』（ekavīci，指預流果或一來果的聖者，最多隻會在欲界受生一次）是什麼意思？ 答：因為還沒有完全斷除無漏的根本，所以初果位（預流果）和果道顯現時，還沒有修習殊勝的果道，必須到後來的果位生起殊勝的果道，才能稱為『家家一間』，才能斷除無漏的根本。 如果說只有不斷斷除煩惱的預流（srotaāpanna，入流者）和一來（sakṛdāgāmin，一還者）才能立『家家一間』之名，那麼為什麼善逝（sugata，佛陀的稱號）在《手箭經》中說七生（saptakṛdbhavaparama，最多七次往返欲界）和一來斷除的煩惱相同呢？ 如經中所說：『什麼是家家？』是指永遠斷除遍知（parijñā）的身見（satkāyadṛṣṭi）、戒禁取見（śīlavrataparāmarśa）和疑（vicikicchā）這三種結（saṃyojana）。最多七次往返欲界也應如此理解。 『什麼是一間？』是指永遠斷除遍知（parijñā）的身見等三種結，並且已經能夠減輕欲貪（kāmarāga）、嗔恚（pratigha）和愚癡（moha）。一來果也是如此，沒有相違背的過失。因為經中沒有說『只有』。 如經中所說，預流和一來，是指預流永遠斷除三種結，而不是說其餘的結他們不能斷。如說預流永遠斷除六種法：一、有身見，二、邊執見（antagrāhadṛṣṭi），三、邪見（mithyādṛṣṭi），四、順惡趣貪，五、順惡趣嗔，六、順惡趣癡。 又說一來永遠斷除三種結，減輕貪嗔癡，但沒有說減輕慢（māna）。也沒有說斷除邊見和邪見，如預流果。不是說一來果不令慢減輕，不斷除邊見和邪見。然而經中沒有說『只有』，生起對治的緣故，必定也斷除它們。如此所說的『家家一間』，既然沒有說『只有』，不斷斷除就沒有過失。 又有契經說，他們的生數減少，必定知道他們比預流和一來，轉而更加多地斷除諸煩惱，因為諸煩惱是生（bhava）的原因。即由此可知他們比之前必定已經生起殊勝的對治。 如果這樣，為什麼說『家家一間』和『七生一來』所斷除的煩惱相似呢？這是爲了顯示這正是他們的差別。或者因為所斷除的更加細微難以察覺。或者應該更仔細地尋求相同說法的理由。不可引用這些少部分的隱秘教義，就斷定『家家一間』和預流、一來所斷除的煩惱相似。 上座（sthavira）認為，『家家一間』和『七生一來』只是利根（indriya）上有差異。隨信行（saddhānusārin）隨順獲得預流，如果成就預流，就轉名為信解（śraddhāvimukta），也即名為『極七返生』。諸隨信行...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What does 'ekavīci' (meaning a stream-enterer or once-returner who will only be reborn in the desire realm once more) mean? Answer: Because they have not yet completely eradicated the root of the unwholesome, when the first fruit (stream-entry) and the path of the fruit manifest, they have not yet cultivated the superior path of the fruit. They must arise the superior path of the fruit in later stages to be called 'ekavīci', and only then can they eradicate the root of the unwholesome. If it is said that only the stream-enterer (srotaāpanna, one who has entered the stream) and the once-returner (sakṛdāgāmin, one who returns once) who are constantly cutting off afflictions can be called 'ekavīci', then why did the Well-Gone One (sugata, an epithet of the Buddha) say in the 'Hand Arrow Sutra' that the seven-times-returner (saptakṛdbhavaparama, one who returns to the desire realm at most seven times) and the once-returner cut off the same afflictions? As the sutra says: 'What is a family-to-family?' It refers to the permanent cutting off of the three fetters (saṃyojana) of the view of self (satkāyadṛṣṭi), attachment to rites and rituals (śīlavrataparāmarśa), and doubt (vicikicchā) through pervasive knowledge (parijñā). It should be understood that the seven-times-returner is also like this. 'What is one interval?' It refers to the permanent cutting off of the three fetters such as the view of self through pervasive knowledge, and the ability to weaken desire (kāmarāga), hatred (pratigha), and delusion (moha). The once-returner is also like this, without any contradiction. Because the sutra does not say 'only'. As the sutra says, stream-enterers and once-returners refer to stream-enterers who permanently cut off the three fetters, not that they cannot cut off the remaining fetters. For example, it is said that stream-enterers permanently cut off six things: 1. the view of self, 2. the view of holding to extremes (antagrāhadṛṣṭi), 3. wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi), 4. greed that leads to bad destinies, 5. hatred that leads to bad destinies, 6. delusion that leads to bad destinies. It is also said that once-returners permanently cut off the three fetters, weakening greed, hatred, and delusion, but it is not said that they weaken pride (māna). Nor is it said that they cut off the view of holding to extremes and wrong view, like stream-enterers. It is not that once-returners do not weaken pride or cut off the view of holding to extremes and wrong view. However, the sutra does not say 'only', and because the antidote arises, they must also cut them off. As such, the 'ekavīci' that is spoken of, since it does not say 'only', there is no fault in constantly cutting off. Moreover, there is a sutra that says that their number of births decreases, and it is certain that they cut off more afflictions than stream-enterers and once-returners, because afflictions are the cause of birth (bhava). From this, it can be known that they must have already arisen superior antidotes compared to before. If so, why is it said that the afflictions cut off by 'ekavīci' and 'seven-times-returner' are similar? This is to show that this is precisely their difference. Or because what is cut off is more subtle and difficult to perceive. Or one should seek the reason for the same statement more carefully. One cannot cite these few secret teachings to conclude that the 'ekavīci' is similar to the stream-enterer and once-returner in the afflictions they cut off. The elder (sthavira) believes that 'ekavīci' and 'seven-times-returner' only differ in their faculties (indriya). The follower of faith (saddhānusārin) follows and obtains stream-entry. If they achieve stream-entry, they are renamed the liberated by faith (śraddhāvimukta), which is also called 'returning at most seven times'. All followers of faith...
法行隨得預流。若成預流轉名見至。即於此位亦名家家。由彼聖者根猛利故。生三二家便證圓寂。又即信解隨得一來。若成一來仍名信解。即於此位經於二生。即諸見至隨得一來。若成一來仍名見至。即於此位亦名一間。由彼聖者根猛利故。受一間生便證圓寂。如是安立不應正理。以極聲顯生最多故。若預流果經三二生。便般涅槃名家家者。極七返有唯經三二生便般涅槃。與家家何異。又彼既謂即預流果。若利根者生三二家便般涅槃。是家家攝。極七返有亦許中間。經三二生便證圓寂。如何執彼定是鈍根。非即鈍根可亦名利。故彼所立不應正理。又若一間由利根故。唯受一有便般涅槃。如何可說即一來果。許一來言目二生故。又彼論說不遮一來。唯于天趣有重生理。諸一間者可無是事。此非亦是一趣重生。非一來故。二生所隔立一間名。可不成故。謂不應說有一來者。唯于天趣具受二生。以說一來般涅槃故。若二生者如何可說名為一間。故彼所言可無是事。此言應理。又一來者。彼定無容許天趣中有重生理。與彼所許于天趣中。二生家家應無別故。若謂如說極七返有。據極滿者說七返言。而實于中有不滿者。如是就極立一來名。謂極一來便證圓寂。而實亦有天上重生。不來人中證圓寂者。此亦非理。前過隨故。又彼所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 依法修行隨即便能證得預流果（Srota-apanna，須陀洹，入流果）。如果成就了預流果，就轉名為見至（見道者）。在這個階段，也可以稱為家家（Kula-kula，一種預流果位）。因為這些聖者根器猛利，所以經歷三生或兩生之後便證得圓寂（Parinirvana，般涅槃）。 此外，通過信解（信隨法行）也能證得一來果（Sakrdagamin，斯陀含，一還果）。如果成就了一來果，仍然稱為信解。在這個階段，需要經歷兩生。那些見至者，也能隨即便證得一來果。如果成就了一來果，仍然稱為見至。在這個階段，也可以稱為一間（Ekantarika，一種一來果位）。因為這些聖者根器猛利，所以只受一次生便證得圓寂。 像這樣安立是不合道理的，因為極聲顯（佛教術語，指非常明顯）說最多經歷的生數。如果預流果需要經歷三生或兩生才能般涅槃，被稱為家家，那麼最多經歷七次往返（極七返有）卻只經歷三生或兩生便般涅槃，這與家家有什麼區別呢？而且他們既然說預流果中，如果利根者經歷三生或兩生便般涅槃，就屬於家家所攝，那麼最多經歷七次往返的人，也允許中間經歷三生或兩生便證得圓寂，怎麼能認為他們一定是鈍根呢？難道鈍根就不能被稱為利根嗎？所以他們所立的觀點是不合道理的。 此外，如果一間因為根器猛利，只受一次生便般涅槃，怎麼能說是一來果呢？因為一來果指的是經歷兩生。而且他們的論述並沒有否定一來果，只是說在天趣（Devaloka，天界）中可能有重複出生的現象，而一間果位的人可能沒有這種情況。但這難道不是在一個趣（Gati，道，如天道、人道等）中重複出生嗎？因為不是一來果，所以用兩生來間隔，才立名為一間，這是不成立的。也就是說，不應該說有一來果的人，只在天趣中完全經歷兩生，因為說一來果會般涅槃。如果是兩生，怎麼能說是一間呢？所以他們所說的情況可能不存在，這種說法是合理的。而且，對於一來果的人來說，他們一定不允許在天趣中有重複出生的現象，否則他們所允許的天趣中經歷兩生的家家果位就沒有區別了。 如果說，就像所說的最多經歷七次往返，是根據最多的人來說的，實際上也有不滿七次的。那麼，就像這樣，根據最多的人來立一來果的名稱，說最多一來便證得圓寂，實際上也有在天上重複出生，而不來人間便證得圓寂的人。這種說法也是不合理的，因為有之前的過失。而且他們所...
【English Translation】 English version: By practicing the Dharma, one can attain the Srota-apanna (Stream-enterer) fruit. If one achieves the Srota-apanna fruit, one is then called a 'one who has seen the truth' (Dharmānusārin). At this stage, one can also be called a Kula-kula (family-to-family, a type of Stream-enterer). Because these holy ones have sharp faculties, they attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana) after three or two rebirths. Furthermore, through faith and understanding (following the Dharma with faith), one can attain the Sakrdagamin (Once-returner) fruit. If one achieves the Sakrdagamin fruit, one is still called a 'one who has faith and understanding'. At this stage, one needs to experience two rebirths. Those who have seen the truth can also attain the Sakrdagamin fruit immediately. If one achieves the Sakrdagamin fruit, one is still called a 'one who has seen the truth'. At this stage, one can also be called an Ekantarika (one-interval, a type of Once-returner). Because these holy ones have sharp faculties, they attain Parinirvana after only one rebirth. Establishing it in this way is not reasonable, because it is very clearly stated that the maximum number of rebirths is limited. If the Srota-apanna fruit requires three or two rebirths to attain Parinirvana and is called Kula-kula, then what is the difference between this and someone who experiences a maximum of seven returns (extreme seven existences) but only experiences three or two rebirths before attaining Parinirvana? Moreover, since they say that among those with the Srota-apanna fruit, if those with sharp faculties attain Parinirvana after three or two rebirths, they are included in the Kula-kula category, then how can they consider those who experience a maximum of seven returns, but are allowed to attain Parinirvana after three or two rebirths, as necessarily having dull faculties? Can't those with dull faculties also be called sharp? Therefore, their established view is not reasonable. Furthermore, if an Ekantarika, due to sharp faculties, attains Parinirvana after only one rebirth, how can it be said to be the Sakrdagamin fruit? Because the term Sakrdagamin refers to experiencing two rebirths. Moreover, their argument does not deny the Sakrdagamin fruit, but only says that in the Devaloka (heavenly realm), there may be repeated rebirths, while this may not be the case for those with the Ekantarika fruit. But isn't this a repeated rebirth in one Gati (realm, such as the heavenly realm, human realm, etc.)? Because it is not the Sakrdagamin fruit, the name Ekantarika is established by separating it with two rebirths, which is not valid. That is to say, it should not be said that those with the Sakrdagamin fruit only fully experience two rebirths in the heavenly realm, because it is said that the Sakrdagamin fruit will attain Parinirvana. If it is two rebirths, how can it be called Ekantarika? Therefore, what they say may not exist, and this statement is reasonable. Moreover, for those with the Sakrdagamin fruit, they certainly do not allow repeated rebirths in the heavenly realm, otherwise there would be no difference between their allowed Kula-kula fruit, which experiences two rebirths in the heavenly realm. If it is said that, as it is said, experiencing a maximum of seven returns is based on the majority of people, and in reality, there are those who do not complete seven returns. Then, in this way, the name of the Sakrdagamin fruit is established based on the majority of people, saying that at most one Sakrdagamin will attain Parinirvana, but in reality, there are also those who are reborn in heaven and attain Parinirvana without coming to the human realm. This statement is also unreasonable because of the previous faults. Moreover, what they...
許鈍根一來。若於天中受一生已。不來人趣便般涅槃。與彼一間有何差別。無決定理限彼鈍根。必來人中方證圓寂。若不來者便成一間。非即鈍根可亦名利故彼所立不應正理。又彼所許違害契經。以有經中說信解性。若有獲得殊勝善根。亦說名為利根等故。謂契經說。若有五根增上猛利極圓滿者。名俱解脫阿羅漢果。若有五根漸劣漸鈍名慧解脫。乃至廣說。於此經中時解脫者。得八解脫亦名利根。若未獲得八解脫者。不時解脫亦名鈍根。若諸信解得滅盡定。亦說名為利根身證。若未獲得滅盡定者。雖是見至而名鈍根。如是一來信解性者。得勝治故轉名一間。若未獲得勝對治者。雖見至性唯名一來。如是應知家家七返。故彼所立家家一間唯是利根。其理非善。又彼部論作如是言。品別斷惑非真聖教。彼部所立家家一間。唯是利根豈真聖教。非彼上座自許己身。及我許彼是真大聖。寧謂自言是聖教攝。佛曾無處作如是言。又彼所言違余聖教。不可自謂是聖教攝。然品別斷惑非非真聖教。以薄伽梵說一來果。永斷三結薄貪瞋癡。非貪瞋癡如材木等。可由斫等令其漸薄。但可品別漸次斷之。下品為余說之為薄。又契經說。諸不還者。已無餘斷貪慾瞋恚。由此為證知一來時。猶有餘品貪瞋未斷。今至此位方斷無餘。又契經說。預
流果位已永斷一切趣惡趣貪等。由此證知一來果等。有品已斷有品未除。又已顯成得勝治故。方可建立家家一間。既彼位中得勝對治。知盡貪等與前有別。是故品別斷惑理成。隨眠品中亦已顯示。又彼論說有何因緣。于斷惑時許品別斷。唯許九品非十非千。此責不然。唯有如是九品差別對治生故。謂斷惑位一一地中。九品道生便能永斷自地所攝諸煩惱故。無勞建立若十若千。又與見修所斷同故。謂彼宗許斷煩惱時。亦有分為品別斷義。以見修道所斷諸惑許入聖時前後斷故。既許如是亦可責言。有何因緣于斷惑位許品別斷。然唯建立見修二品非三非千。彼既許然此亦應爾。又薄伽梵于契經中亦作是言。九品斷惑。前來依彼已具辯成。佛於法性自在通達。作如是說。但可信依不應于中輕為徴詰故一來果勝進道中。方建立一間非住一來果。亦預流果勝進道中。方建立家家非住預流果。如是所說理趣必然。即先成就一來果者。斷欲界惑九品盡時。舍一來名得不還果。必不還受欲界生故。此或名為五下結斷。如契經說。若有永斷五下分結名為不還。此據集斷密作是說。必無五結俱時斷理。或二或三先已斷故。理實應說於此位中斷二或三得不還果。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 阿羅漢果位已經永遠斷除了一切惡趣和貪慾等煩惱。由此可以推知，一來果等聖者，有些品類的煩惱已經斷除，有些品類的煩惱尚未斷除。而且，因為已經明顯成就了殊勝的對治力，所以才能夠建立家家、一間等果位。既然在這些果位中獲得了殊勝的對治力，就可以知道斷盡貪慾等煩惱與之前的果位有所區別。因此，按照品類來斷除煩惱的道理是成立的。在隨眠的品類中也已經顯示了這一點。此外，那部論典中說：『有什麼因緣，在斷除煩惱的時候，允許按照品類來斷除，只允許九品，而不是十品或千品？』這種責難是不對的。因為只有這樣九品差別的對治才會產生。也就是說，在斷除煩惱的階段，每一地中，九品道產生，便能夠永遠斷除該地所攝的一切煩惱。沒有必要建立十品或千品。而且，這與見道、修道所斷的煩惱是相同的。也就是說，他們的宗派允許在斷除煩惱的時候，也有分為品類來斷除的意義。因為見道、修道所斷的各種煩惱，允許在入聖的時候前後斷除。既然允許這樣，也可以責難說：『有什麼因緣，在斷除煩惱的階段，允許按照品類來斷除，然而只建立見、修二品，而不是三品或千品？』他們既然允許那樣，這裡也應該如此。而且，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在契經中也這樣說：『九品斷惑。』前面依據這些已經詳細辯論成立。佛（Buddha）對於法性自在通達，這樣說，但可以相信並依從，不應該在其中輕易地進行質疑。因此，在一來果的勝進道中，才建立一間果，而不是停留在一來果。也在預流果的勝進道中，才建立家家果，而不是停留在預流果。像這樣所說的道理必然是這樣的。也就是先成就一來果的人，斷除欲界煩惱九品盡時，捨棄一來果的名稱，得到不還果。必定不再還受欲界的生。這或許可以稱為五下分結斷。如契經所說：『如果有人永遠斷除五下分結，名為不還。』這是根據集合斷除而秘密地這樣說。必定沒有五結同時斷除的道理。或者二個或者三個先前已經斷除了。理應說在這個果位中斷除二個或三個，得到不還果。
【English Translation】 English version The state of Arhat (Arahan, one who is worthy) has permanently severed all evil destinies and defilements such as greed. From this, it can be inferred that those in the state of Sakrdagamin (Once-Returner) etc., have eliminated some categories of afflictions while others remain. Moreover, because of the evident accomplishment of superior antidotes, the stages of Ekabijin (One more birth) and Antarabhava (in between existence) can be established. Since in those stages, superior antidotes are attained, it is known that the exhaustion of greed etc., is different from the previous stages. Therefore, the principle of severing afflictions according to categories is valid. This has also been demonstrated in the categories of latent tendencies. Furthermore, that treatise states: 'What is the reason for allowing the severance of afflictions according to categories when severing afflictions, only allowing nine categories, not ten or a thousand?' This criticism is not valid. It is because only such nine categories of differentiated antidotes arise. That is to say, in the stage of severing afflictions, in each realm, the arising of the ninefold path is able to permanently sever all the afflictions contained within that realm. There is no need to establish ten or a thousand. Moreover, it is the same as what is severed by the paths of seeing and cultivation. That is to say, their school allows that when severing afflictions, there is also the meaning of severing according to categories. Because the various afflictions severed by the paths of seeing and cultivation are allowed to be severed sequentially upon entering the stage of a noble one. Since this is allowed, it can also be criticized by saying: 'What is the reason for allowing the severance of afflictions according to categories in the stage of severing afflictions, yet only establishing two categories of seeing and cultivation, not three or a thousand?' Since they allow that, it should be the same here. Moreover, the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Blessed One) also said in the sutras: 'Severing afflictions in nine categories.' The preceding discussion has already been thoroughly debated and established based on these. The Buddha (Buddha, enlightened one) is freely and thoroughly enlightened regarding the nature of reality, and speaks in this way. One should only believe and rely on it, and should not lightly question it. Therefore, in the path of progress of the Sakrdagamin (Once-Returner), the stage of Ekabijin (One more birth) is established, not remaining in the state of Sakrdagamin. Also, in the path of progress of the Srotapanna (Stream-Enterer), the stage of Kulankula (Family-to-family) is established, not remaining in the state of Srotapanna. The principle stated in this way is necessarily so. That is, one who has first attained the state of Sakrdagamin, when the nine categories of afflictions in the desire realm are exhausted, abandons the name of Sakrdagamin and attains the state of Anagamin (Non-Returner). They will certainly no longer receive birth in the desire realm. This may be called the severance of the five lower fetters. As the sutra says: 'If someone permanently severs the five lower fetters, they are called Anagamin.' This is said secretly based on the collective severance. There is certainly no principle of severing the five fetters simultaneously. Either two or three have already been severed previously. It should be said that in this stage, severing two or three attains the state of Anagamin.
阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之九
依不還位。諸契經中。以種種門建立差別。今次應辯彼差別相。頌曰。
此中生有行 無行般涅槃 上流若雜修 能往色究竟 超半超遍沒 余能往有頂 行無色有四 住此般涅槃
論曰。此不還者總說有七。且行色界差別有五。一中般涅槃。二生般涅槃。三有行般涅槃。四無行般涅槃。五者上流。此于中間般涅槃故。說此名曰中般涅槃。如是應知。此于生已。此由有行。此由無行般涅槃故名生般等。此上流故名為上流。言中般者。謂有一類補特伽羅。已於生結得非擇滅。起結不爾。彼于欲界遇逼惱緣之所逼惱。便能自勉修斷余結殊勝加行。加行未滿遇捨命緣。遂致命終由起結力。受色中有厭多苦故。乘前起道進斷余結。成阿羅漢得般涅槃。言生般者。謂有一類補特伽羅。由先具造順起生業及增長故。欲界沒已受色界生。由具勤修速進道故。生已不久成阿羅漢。盡其壽量方般涅槃。約有餘依說為生般。非才生已便般無餘。彼舍壽中無自在故。言有行般無行般者。謂有一類補特伽羅。生已多時方成無學。于中有一勇猛精進。有一稟性慢緩懈怠。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之九
依據不還果位，諸契經中以各種方式建立差別。現在應該辨析這些差別的相狀。頌文說：
『此中生有行 無行般涅槃 上流若雜修 能往色究竟 超半超遍沒 余能往有頂 行無色有四 住此般涅槃』
論述：這些不還者總共有七種。且行為上的差別有五種：一、中般涅槃；二、生般涅槃；三、有行般涅槃；四、無行般涅槃；五、上流。因為在中陰身階段般涅槃，所以稱為『中般涅槃』。應當如此理解。因為在出生后般涅槃，因為通過有行，因為通過無行而般涅槃，所以稱為『生般』等等。因為向上流轉，所以稱為『上流』。所謂『中般』，是指有一類補特伽羅（pudgalas，人），已經對生結（bhava-samyojana，導致再生的煩惱）獲得了非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧斷滅煩惱），但起結（utpatti-samyojana，產生果報的煩惱）並非如此。他們在欲界遇到逼迫惱亂的因緣所逼迫惱亂，便能自我勉勵，修習斷除剩餘煩惱的殊勝加行（prayoga，修行）。加行尚未圓滿，便遇到捨命的因緣，於是死亡，由於起結的力量，承受色界中陰身，厭惡諸多痛苦，憑藉之前的起道（utpatti-marga，生起善道的修行），進一步斷除剩餘的煩惱，成就阿羅漢（arhat，已斷盡一切煩惱的聖者），獲得般涅槃（parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。所謂『生般』，是指有一類補特伽羅，由於先前已經造作了順於生起的業，並且增長了這些業，在欲界死後，承受色界的生。由於具備勤奮修習，迅速精進于道，所以在出生后不久便成就阿羅漢，盡其壽命才般涅槃。這是就還有餘依（sopaśeṣa-nirvāṇa，仍有色身存在的涅槃）而言的『生般』，並非才出生便進入無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，沒有色身存在的涅槃），因為他們在捨棄壽命時沒有自在力。所謂『有行般』和『無行般』，是指有一類補特伽羅，出生后經過很長時間才成就無學（aśaikṣa，不再需要學習的果位）。其中有一類勇猛精進，有一類稟性緩慢懈怠。如同
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā
Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā Volume 65
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated under Imperial Order by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter Six, Section Nine: Discrimination of the Worthy and the Saints
Based on the Anāgāmin (non-returner) stage, various sūtras establish distinctions through various means. Now, we should discuss these different aspects. The verse says:
'Here, there are antarāparinirvāyin (in-between parinirvana), upapadyaparinirvāyin (birth parinirvana), sasaṃkhāraparinirvāyin (with effort parinirvana), asaṃkhāraparinirvāyin (without effort parinirvana). The ūrdhvasrotas (upstream goer), if mixed with practice, can go to Akanistha (the highest form realm). Those who transcend half, transcend all, or are submerged, the rest can go to Bhavāgra (the peak of existence). Practicing in the Arūpadhātu (formless realm) has four, residing here to attain parinirvana.'
Commentary: These non-returners are generally said to be seven. Furthermore, there are five distinctions in practice: 1. Antarāparinirvāyin; 2. Upapadyaparinirvāyin; 3. Sasaṃkhāraparinirvāyin; 4. Asaṃkhāraparinirvāyin; 5. Ūrdhvasrotas. Because they attain parinirvana in the intermediate state, they are called 'Antarāparinirvāyin'. It should be understood in this way. Because they attain parinirvana after birth, because of practice with effort, because of practice without effort, they are called 'Upapadya', etc. Because they go upstream, they are called 'Ūrdhvasrotas'. The so-called 'Antarāparinirvāyin' refers to a type of pudgala (person) who has already attained nirodha (cessation) of bhava-samyojana (fetters of existence) through pratisankhya (wisdom), but not utpatti-samyojana (fetters of arising). When they encounter distressing conditions in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), they can encourage themselves to cultivate superior prayoga (practice) to sever the remaining fetters. Before the practice is complete, they encounter the condition of death, and thus die. Due to the power of utpatti (arising), they experience the intermediate state in the Rūpadhātu (form realm), and disliking much suffering, they rely on the previous utpatti-marga (path of arising) to further sever the remaining fetters, attain arhatship (worthy one), and achieve parinirvana (complete nirvana). The so-called 'Upapadyaparinirvāyin' refers to a type of pudgala who, because they have previously created karma that accords with arising and have increased these karmas, after dying in the Kāmadhātu, experience birth in the Rūpadhātu. Because they possess diligent practice and quickly advance on the path, they attain arhatship shortly after birth and attain parinirvana after exhausting their lifespan. This is referred to as 'Upapadya' in terms of sopādhisesa-nirvāna (nirvana with remainder), not that they immediately enter nirupādhisesa-nirvāna (nirvana without remainder) upon birth, because they do not have the power to freely abandon their lifespan. The so-called 'Sasaṃkhāraparinirvāyin' and 'Asaṃkhāraparinirvāyin' refer to a type of pudgala who attains aśaikṣa (no more learning) after a long time after birth. Among them, some are courageous and diligent, while others are inherently slow and lazy. Like
次名為有行無行。謂若一類。先欲界中依不息加行。三摩地力。斷五下分結。成不還果。後生色界。經于多時還能進修前種類道成阿羅漢。名有行般。無行般者。與此相違。或色界生經多時已。依止苦行解脫余結。名有行般。以彼修習依功用道般涅槃故。與此相違名無行般。豈不中般生般現般。所依止行亦有此故。應立有行無行般名。無如是失。此義雖等而彼各有差別位故。謂中般等。雖亦定依苦行樂行解脫余結。而彼各有分位不同。對此名為不共差別。此無如是分位別故。約道不同顯其差別。如何以此例彼令同。故於此中所辯無失。由此有說二差別者。由緣有為無為聖道。如其次第得涅槃故。應知亦無餘同此失。經主所難有大過失。為已善通此義雖等。而彼各有差別位故。然有經說無行在先。亦有經中先說有行。時既無異隨說無違。有行可尊故我先說。言上流者。謂有一類補特伽羅。上流行增非初生處即證圓寂。謂欲界沒往色界生。未即于中能證圓寂。要轉生上方般涅槃。即此上流差別有二。由因及果有差別故。因差別者。此于靜慮由有雜修無雜修故。果差別者。色究竟天及有頂天為極處故。謂若於靜慮有雜修者。能往色究竟方般涅槃。雜修能感凈居果故。即此復有三種差別。全超半超遍沒異故。言全超者。謂色界
中。從一處沒往色究竟。由彼先在欲界身中。已具雜修四種靜慮。遇緣退失上三靜慮。以初靜慮愛味為緣。命終上生梵眾天處。由於先世串習勢力。復能雜修第四靜慮。從彼處沒生色究竟。以於色界十六處所。最初處沒最後處生。頓越中間。是全超義。言半超者。謂色界中從初天等。漸次而沒下至中間。能越一處方能往趣色究竟天。超而非全是半超義。言遍沒者。謂於色界愛味多故一切處生。由彼遍於四靜慮地十六處所。一一皆有下等愛味。為感生緣。從梵眾天一一處所。一生沒已至色究竟。方般涅槃。故名遍沒。由此義準初靜慮中。大梵所居非是別處。即是第二梵輔天攝。若異此者大梵所居。僻見處故。一導師故。必無聖者于中受生。遍沒半超應無差別。應知此謂二上流中。由有雜修靜慮因故。往色究竟般涅槃者。余于靜慮無雜修者。能往有頂方般涅槃。謂彼先無雜修靜慮。由於諸定愛味為緣。此沒遍生色界諸處。唯不能往五凈居天。色界命終於三無色。次第生已後生有頂方般涅槃。二上流中前是觀行后是止行。樂慧樂定有差別故。二上流者。于下地中得般涅槃。亦不違理。而言此往色究竟天及有頂天。依極處說。無不還者。于已生處受第二生。由彼于生容求勝進非等劣故。唯欲界沒往色界生。有中有中般涅槃者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：從一處死亡卻沒有直接前往色究竟天（Rupadhatu's highest heaven）。因為他們先前在欲界（Kamadhatu）的身體中，已經混合修習了四種禪定（Dhyana）。由於某種因緣，他們退失了上面的三種禪定，因為對初禪的喜愛和執著，死後便上生到梵眾天（Brahmakayika Devas）處。由於前世串習的力量，他們又能混合修習第四禪定。從那裡死亡后，才最終生到色究竟天。因為對於十六個處所，他們是最初在一個地方死亡，最後在一個地方出生，直接超越了中間的階段，這就是『全超』的含義。所謂『半超』，是指在中間階段，從初禪天等，逐漸死亡，向下到中間的某個地方，能夠超越一個處所，才能前往色究竟天。超越但並非完全超越，就是『半超』的含義。所謂『遍沒』，是指因為對禪定的喜愛和執著太深，所以在所有的地方都可能出生。因為他們對於四禪定地的十六個處所，每一個地方都有或多或少的喜愛和執著，作為感生之緣。從梵眾天每一個處所，一生死亡后才到色究竟天，最終在那裡般涅槃（Parinirvana），所以叫做『遍沒』。由此可以推斷，初禪中的大梵天（Mahabrahma）所居住的地方，並不是一個單獨的地方，而是屬於第二梵輔天（Brahmapurohita Devas）所管轄的範圍。如果不是這樣，大梵天所居住的地方，因為是偏見之處，又是一個導師，必定沒有聖者在那裡受生。『遍沒』和『半超』也應該沒有差別了。應該知道這裡所說的兩種上流者中，因為有混合修習禪定的原因，所以才能前往色究竟天般涅槃。其餘沒有混合修習禪定的人，只能前往有頂天（Akanistha）才能般涅槃。他們先前沒有混合修習禪定，因為對於各種禪定的喜愛和執著，死後會遍生於色界（Rupadhatu）的各個處所，唯獨不能前往五凈居天（Suddhavasa）。這些人死後會在三無色界（Arupadhatu）次第出生，最後才能生到有頂天般涅槃。兩種上流者中，前者是觀行者，後者是止行者，因為他們喜愛智慧和喜愛禪定有所差別。兩種上流者，在下地中得到般涅槃，也不違背道理。這裡說他們前往色究竟天和有頂天，是依據最極端的情況來說的。沒有不還果（Anagami）的聖者，會在已經出生的地方再次受生，因為他們對於生命能夠尋求殊勝的進步，而不是停留在原地或者退步。只有欲界死亡后，才會往色界出生，也有在中陰身（Antarabhava）中般涅槃的。
【English Translation】 English version: From one place they pass away without going directly to Akanistha (Rupadhatu's highest heaven). Because they previously, in their bodies in the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu), had practiced a mixture of the four Dhyanas (meditative absorptions). Due to some condition, they lose the upper three Dhyanas, and because of their attachment to and savoring of the first Dhyana, they are reborn in the Realm of Brahma's Retinue (Brahmakayika Devas). Due to the power of habitual practice from previous lives, they are again able to practice a mixture of the fourth Dhyana. From that place, they pass away and are finally born in Akanistha. Because, with respect to the sixteen places, they initially pass away in one place and are finally born in another, directly transcending the intermediate stages, this is the meaning of 'complete transcendence'. The so-called 'partial transcendence' refers to, in the intermediate stages, from the first Dhyana heaven, gradually passing away, descending to some intermediate place, being able to transcend one place in order to proceed to Akanistha. Transcending but not completely is the meaning of 'partial transcendence'. The so-called 'universal passing away' refers to, because of deep attachment to and savoring of the Dhyanas, being born in all possible places. Because they have, with respect to the sixteen places in the four Dhyana realms, a lesser or greater degree of attachment and savoring in each place, as a condition for rebirth. From each place in the Realm of Brahma's Retinue, after one lifetime and death, they reach Akanistha, and finally attain Parinirvana there, hence the name 'universal passing away'. From this, it can be inferred that the place where Mahabrahma (Great Brahma) resides in the first Dhyana is not a separate place, but is within the domain of the second Brahma's Ministers (Brahmapurohita Devas). If it were otherwise, the place where Mahabrahma resides, being a place of biased views and a single teacher, surely no sages would be born there. 'Universal passing away' and 'partial transcendence' should be no different. It should be known that among these two types of 'upstream goers', it is because of the cause of practicing a mixture of Dhyanas that they are able to go to Akanistha and attain Parinirvana. Those who do not practice a mixture of Dhyanas can only go to the Peak of Existence (Akanistha) to attain Parinirvana. They previously did not practice a mixture of Dhyanas, and because of their attachment to and savoring of the various Dhyanas, they will be born throughout the various places in the Form Realm (Rupadhatu), but they cannot go to the Pure Abodes (Suddhavasa). These individuals, after death, will be born in the three Formless Realms (Arupadhatu) in sequence, and finally be born in the Peak of Existence to attain Parinirvana. Among the two types of 'upstream goers', the former are practitioners of insight, and the latter are practitioners of tranquility, because their love of wisdom and love of meditation differ. The two types of 'upstream goers' attaining Parinirvana in a lower realm is not contrary to reason. Saying that they go to Akanistha and the Peak of Existence is based on the most extreme cases. Non-returners (Anagami) will not be reborn in a place where they have already been born, because they are able to seek superior progress in life, rather than remaining in place or regressing. Only after death in the Desire Realm will they be born in the Form Realm, and some attain Parinirvana in the intermediate state (Antarabhava).
非色界沒生色界者。以色界中無災害故。若本有位有餘障緣。不得涅槃。中有亦爾。中有薄劣非本有故。又彼若有應屬上流。中般上流應無差別。謂定無有差別因緣。可作是言。唯欲界沒。受色中有便般涅槃。得中般名非色界沒。何緣有學未離欲貪。無中有中般涅槃者。欲界中有依身微劣。于多事業無堪能故。住本有位。于欲界法尚難越度。況中有中。能越欲界至得應果。多事業者。謂越三界及永斷除二種煩惱。並得二三沙門果證。住中有位無如是能。又此有前未曾數習。九品差別煩惱治故。又不還等果非中有身得。斷增上惑所證得故。離三界染極為難故。無慾中有能般涅槃。色界中有與此皆異。故有于中得涅槃者。又此地中有得般涅槃。唯起此地中所有聖道。初靜慮地中有位中般涅槃者。唯起自地根本靜慮聖道現前。非未至中間難令現前故。在中有位依身微劣。要易起者方能現前。此五名為行色界者。行無色者差別有四。謂在欲界離色界貪。從此命終生於無色。此中差別唯有四種。謂生般等有差別故。此並前五成六不還。復有不行色無色界。即住於此能般涅槃。名現般涅槃。並前六為七。或應總立九種不還。謂現涅槃分為二種。一于先位善辯聖旨。二臨終時方能善辯。于上流內亦分二種。一行色界。二行無色。並前
四為八。足轉產生九。言轉生者。謂於前生已得預流或一來果。於今生內方得不還。前現般言唯目現世初得入聖至涅槃者。或不還者由根差別。隨其所應分成九種。或行色界五不還中。復有異門分成九種。頌曰。
行色界有九 謂三各分三 業惑根有殊 故成三九別
論曰。即行色界五種不還。總立為三各分三種。故成九種何等為三。中生上流有差別故。云何三種各分為三。中般涅槃分為三者。初起至遠近當生處。得般涅槃有差別故。生般涅槃分為三者。才生有行無行異故。此皆生已得般涅槃。是故並應名為生般。于上流中分為三者。全超半超遍沒異故。然諸三種一切皆由速非速經久得般涅槃。故分為九種。不相雜亂。如是三種九種不還。由業惑根有差別故。有速非速經久差別。且總成三由先所集。順起生后業有異故。如其次第下中上品。煩惱現行有差別故。及上中下根有異故。此三一一如其所應。亦業惑根有差別故。各有三別。故成九種。謂初二三由惑根別。各成三種非由業異。后三亦由順后受業有差別故。分成三種。故說如是行色不還。業惑根殊成三九別。若爾何故諸契經中佛唯說有七善士趣。頌曰。
立七善士趣 由上流無別 善惡行不行 有往無還故
論曰。中生各三上流
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：四即是八。足轉而產生九。所說的『轉生』，是指在前一生已經證得預流果（Srota-apanna，入流果），或一來果（Sakrdagamin，一來果），在今生才證得不還果（Anagamin，不還果）。前面所說的『現般』，只是指現世最初證得入聖道直至涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）的人。或者不還果的人由於根器的差別，根據他們各自相應的根器分成九種。或者在五種不還果的修行中，又有不同的分類方法，分成九種。頌文說： 『行向（行）有九種，即三種各自分為三種，由於業、惑、根的不同，所以形成三種九類的差別。』 論述：這行向（行）的五種不還果，總的來說可以分為三大類，每一大類又分為三種，所以形成九種。哪三大類呢？即中般涅槃（Antara-parinibbāyin，中般涅槃）、生般涅槃（Upahacca-parinibbāyin，生般涅槃）和上流般涅槃（Urdhvamsrotas，上流般涅槃），因為它們在中生、上流方面有差別。這三種又是如何各自分為三種的呢？中般涅槃分為三種，是因為從開始修行到臨終，在接近或遠離當生之處證得般涅槃有差別。生般涅槃分為三種，是因為才生、有行、無行不同。這些都是在出生后才證得般涅槃，所以都應該稱為生般。在上流中分為三種，是因為全超、半超、遍沒不同。然而這三種都是由於快速、非快速、經歷長久才證得般涅槃，所以分為九種，不會互相混淆。 像這樣，三種九類的不還果，是由於業、惑、根的差別。有快速、非快速、經歷長久的差別。總的來說，形成三大類是由於先前所積累的，順應產生後世的業力不同。如其次第，下品、中品、上品。煩惱現行有差別。以及上、中、下根器不同。這三類中的每一類，都根據它們各自相應的業、惑、根的差別，各有三種差別，所以形成九種。其中前兩種（中般涅槃和生般涅槃）是由於惑和根的差別，各自形成三種，不是由於業的差別。后三種（上流般涅槃）也是由於順應後世所受的業力有差別，所以分成三種。所以說，像這樣行向（行**）的不還果，由於業、惑、根的不同，形成三種九類的差別。如果這樣，為什麼在各種契經中，佛只說了有七善士趣呢？頌文說： 『建立七善士趣，是因為上流沒有差別，善惡行不行，有往生而沒有還來的緣故。』 論述：中生各有三種，上流...
【English Translation】 English version: Four is eight. Foot transformation generates nine. The so-called 'transformation' refers to those who have attained the Srota-apanna (stream-enterer) or Sakrdagamin (once-returner) in their previous life, and only attain Anagamin (non-returner) in this life. The aforementioned 'present Nirvana' only refers to those who initially attain the path to sainthood up to Nirvana (Nirvana) in the present life. Or, those who are non-returners are divided into nine types according to the differences in their faculties. Alternatively, within the practice of the five types of non-returners, there are different classification methods, dividing them into nine types. The verse says: 'There are nine types of paths (行), namely, three types each divided into three. Due to the differences in karma, defilements, and faculties, three types of nine distinctions are formed.' Treatise: These five types of non-returners on the path (行) can be broadly divided into three categories, each of which is further divided into three types, thus forming nine types. What are the three categories? They are Antara-parinibbāyin (intermediate Nirvana), Upahacca-parinibbāyin (dying immediately Nirvana), and Urdhvamsrotas (upstream Nirvana), because they differ in terms of intermediate birth and upstream. How are these three types each divided into three? Intermediate Nirvana is divided into three types because there are differences in attaining Nirvana from the beginning of practice to the end of life, in places close to or far from where they are born. Dying immediately Nirvana is divided into three types because of the differences between immediate birth, effortful practice, and effortless practice. These all attain Nirvana after birth, so they should all be called dying immediately Nirvana. Upstream is divided into three types because of the differences between total transcendence, partial transcendence, and complete immersion. However, these three types are all due to attaining Nirvana quickly, non-quickly, or after a long time, so they are divided into nine types, without confusion. In this way, the three types of nine non-returners are due to the differences in karma, defilements, and faculties. There are differences in quickness, non-quickness, and length of time. Generally speaking, the formation of three major categories is due to the differences in the karma accumulated in the past, which conforms to the karma that produces future lives. In order, inferior, middle, and superior. There are differences in the manifestation of defilements. And the differences in superior, middle, and inferior faculties. Each of these three categories has three differences according to their respective differences in karma, defilements, and faculties, thus forming nine types. The first two types (intermediate Nirvana and dying immediately Nirvana) are each formed into three types due to the differences in defilements and faculties, not due to the differences in karma. The latter three types (upstream Nirvana) are also divided into three types due to the differences in the karma received in accordance with future lives. Therefore, it is said that the non-returners on the path (行**) are like this, and due to the differences in karma, defilements, and faculties, three types of nine distinctions are formed. If so, why do the sutras only say that there are seven types of good people? 'Establishing seven types of good people is because there is no difference in upstream, good and evil deeds are practiced or not, there is rebirth but no return.' Treatise: Intermediate birth has three types each, upstream...
為一。經依此立七善士趣。何故前二各分為三。第三上流唯立為一。以上行故名為上流。由此義同但立為一。前之二種雖亦義同。然為其中別相難了。欲令易了故各分三。上流有三相別易了。無煩于彼更別建立。又前二別唯有爾所。易顯示故各分為三。第三上流別義多種。卒難顯示故總立一。謂初中般唯在將生。根惑品殊故分三種。第二生般唯在已生。亦根惑殊故分三種。上流通有將生已生。將生上流復有二種。謂于靜慮雜不雜修。已生上流分二亦爾。復于如是二上流中。若無雜修容生二界。若有雜修唯生一界。生一界者復分為三。全超半超遍沒異故。於半超內差別有多。由此上流別相煩廣。若一一辯難可週悉。故依等義總立上流。中生位中差別義少。易顯了故分之為六。雖彼一一亦有同義。而等第三。于上流中雖有異義。而等前二。為相影顯故唯立七。唯此已斷欲貪瞋等非善士法。及與無學大善士果極相近故。經唯說此名善士趣。非謂預流及一來者。都不可說名善士趣。佛亦說彼名善士故。如契經言。云何善士謂若成就有學正見。乃至成就有學正定。往上名趣。謂趣上果及趣上。生故唯說七。或唯此七皆能行善不行不善。余則不然。又唯此七往上界生不復還來。余則不爾。故但依此立善士趣諸在聖位曾經生者。亦有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為一。經依此立七善士趣（七種聖人的趨向）。何故前二各分為三。第三上流唯立為一。以上行故名為上流。由此義同但立為一。前之二種雖亦義同。然為其中別相難了。欲令易了故各分三。上流有三相別易了。無煩于彼更別建立。又前二別唯有爾所。易顯示故各分為三。第三上流別義多種。卒難顯示故總立一。謂初中般唯在將生。根惑品殊故分三種。第二生般唯在已生。亦根惑殊故分三種。上流通有將生已生。將生上流復有二種。謂于靜慮雜不雜修。已生上流分二亦爾。復于如是二上流中。若無雜修容生二界。若有雜修唯生一界。生一界者復分為三。全超半超遍沒異故。於半超內差別有多。由此上流別相煩廣。若一一辯難可週悉。故依等義總立上流。中生位中差別義少。易顯了故分之為六。雖彼一一亦有同義。而等第三。于上流中雖有異義。而等前二。為相影顯故唯立七。唯此已斷欲貪瞋等非善士法。及與無學大善士果極相近故。經唯說此名善士趣。非謂預流及一來者。都不可說名善士趣。佛亦說彼名善士故。如契經言。云何善士謂若成就有學正見。乃至成就有學正定。往上名趣。謂趣上果及趣上。生故唯說七。或唯此七皆能行善不行不善。余則不然。又唯此七往上界生不復還來。余則不爾。故但依此立善士趣諸在聖位曾經生者。亦有 因為只有一個涅槃的趨向。因此，經文依據此理設立了七種善士趣（七種聖人的趨向）。為什麼前兩種（指預流果和一來果）各自分為三種，而第三種上流果隻立為一種呢？因為上流果是向上行進的，所以稱為上流。由於這個意義相同，所以隻立為一種。前面的兩種果位雖然意義也相同，但是其中的差別相難以理解，爲了容易理解，所以各自分為三種。上流果有三種差別相，容易理解，所以沒有必要再另外建立。而且前兩種果位的差別只有那麼多，容易顯示，所以各自分為三種。第三種上流果的差別意義有很多種，一下子難以顯示，所以總立為一種。也就是說，初中般涅槃只存在於將要出生的階段，由於根器和煩惱的品類不同，所以分為三種。第二種生般涅槃只存在於已經出生的階段，也因為根器和煩惱的不同，所以分為三種。上流果普遍存在於將要出生和已經出生的階段。將要出生的上流果又有兩種，指的是對於禪定的修行是夾雜還是不夾雜。已經出生的上流果的分類也是這樣。而且在這兩種上流果中，如果沒有夾雜的修行，可以出生到二界（色界和無色界），如果有夾雜的修行，只能出生到一界（色界或無色界）。出生到一界的又可以分為三種，因為完全超越、超越一半和完全沉沒不同。在超越一半的裡面，差別有很多。因此上流果的差別相繁瑣而廣泛，如果一一辨別難以周全，所以依據相同的意義總立為上流果。在中生位中的差別意義很少，容易顯示，所以分為六種。雖然他們每一個也有相同的意義，但是和第三種上流果相同。在上流果中雖然有不同的意義，但是和前兩種果位相同。爲了相互映襯顯示，所以隻立為七種。只有這七種已經斷除了欲貪嗔等不是善士的法，並且和無學的大善士果位非常接近，所以經文只說這些叫做善士趣。不是說預流果和一來果都不能叫做善士趣，佛也說他們是善士。如契經所說：『什麼是善士？就是成就了有學正見，乃至成就了有學正定。』往上叫做趣，指的是趨向于上面的果位和趨向于上面的出生，所以只說七種。或者只有這七種能夠行善不行不善，其他的則不是這樣。而且只有這七種往上界出生不再回來，其他的則不是這樣。所以只依據這些設立善士趣，那些在聖位曾經出生的，也有。
【English Translation】 English version It is one. The Sutra establishes the seven Srotapannas (streams of merit) based on this. Why are the first two each divided into three, while the third, Anagami (non-returner), is established as only one? Because it goes upward, it is called Anagami (non-returner). Because of this shared meaning, it is established as one. Although the first two also share a similar meaning, the distinctions within them are difficult to discern. To make them easier to understand, each is divided into three. The Anagami (non-returner) has three distinct characteristics that are easy to understand, so there is no need to establish further distinctions for it. Moreover, the differences in the first two are only so many, and they are easy to show, so each is divided into three. The third, Anagami (non-returner), has many different meanings, which are difficult to show all at once, so it is established as one in general. That is to say, the Antara-parinibbāyin (one who attains Nibbana between one life and the next) only exists in the stage of being about to be born. Because of the differences in faculties and defilements, it is divided into three types. The Upahacca-parinibbāyin (one who attains Nibbana soon after birth) only exists in the stage of having already been born. It is also divided into three types because of the differences in faculties and defilements. The Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream) exists in both the stage of being about to be born and the stage of having already been born. The Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream) who is about to be born is further divided into two types, referring to whether the practice of dhyana (meditative absorption) is mixed or unmixed. The Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream) who has already been born is also divided into two in the same way. Furthermore, within these two types of Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream), if there is no mixed practice, they can be born in two realms (the Form Realm and the Formless Realm). If there is mixed practice, they can only be born in one realm (either the Form Realm or the Formless Realm). Those born in one realm are further divided into three types, because of the differences in completely transcending, partially transcending, and completely sinking. Within the partially transcending, there are many differences. Therefore, the distinctions of the Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream) are complex and extensive. If each were to be distinguished, it would be difficult to be comprehensive. Therefore, based on the shared meaning, the Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream) is established in general. In the intermediate birth stage, there are few differences, and it is easy to show, so it is divided into six. Although each of them also has a shared meaning, it is the same as the third, Anagami (non-returner). Although there are different meanings in the Uddhamsota (one who goes upstream), it is the same as the first two. To reflect and show each other, only seven are established. Only these seven have already cut off desires, anger, and other non-virtuous qualities, and are extremely close to the fruit of the Arhat (worthy one), the great virtuous one who is beyond learning. Therefore, the Sutra only says that these are called Srotapannas (streams of merit). It is not that the Sotapanna (stream-enterer) and the Sakadagami (once-returner) cannot be called Srotapannas (streams of merit). The Buddha also calls them Srotapannas (streams of merit). As the Sutra says, 'What is a Srotapanna (stream of merit)? It is one who has accomplished the right view of a learner, and even accomplished the right concentration of a learner.' Going upward is called a stream, referring to going towards the upper fruit and going towards the upper birth, so only seven are mentioned. Or only these seven are able to do good and not do evil, while others are not. Moreover, only these seven are born in the upper realms and do not return, while others are not. Therefore, only based on these are the Srotapannas (streams of merit) established. Those who have been born in the holy position also exist.
此等差別相耶。不爾。云何。頌曰。
經欲界生聖 不往余界生 此及往上生 無練根並退
論曰。若在聖位經欲界生。必不往生色無色界。由彼證得不還果已。定於現身般涅槃故。若於色界經生聖者。容有上生無色界義。然天帝釋作如是言。曾聞有天名色究竟。我後退落當生彼者。由彼不了對法相故。言我後者三十三天。自在異熟最後邊際。言退落者。謂於後時。若不獲得阿羅漢果。當生彼者。謂愿當生色究竟天勿生欲界。以天帝釋緣五死相極生憂苦。來歸世尊死相才除。便作是說為令喜故。又觀遮彼無多益故。佛不遮止。即此已經欲界生者。及已從此往上界生。諸聖必無練根並退。何緣不許經欲界生及上生聖者有練根並退。以曾經生於自相續。蘊積聖道極堅牢故。及得殊勝所依身故。由此彼無練根退理。前說上流雜修靜慮為因能往色究竟天。先應雜修何等靜慮。由何等位知雜修成。復為何緣雜修靜慮。頌曰。
先雜修第四 成由一念雜 為受生現樂 及遮煩惱退
論曰。諸欲雜修四靜慮者。必先雜修第四靜慮。以彼等持最堪能故。諸樂行中彼最勝故。謂彼靜慮最有堪能。現在前時。令所依止自體勢力增長廣大故。若依彼雜修靜慮。后雖退失生余天中。由於先時雜修彼力。復能依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是這些差別相嗎？不是的。那是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
『經歷欲界而生的聖者，不會往生到其他界； 這些（指經歷欲界而生的聖者）以及往上界生的聖者，都沒有練根和退轉。』
論述：如果在聖位經歷欲界而生，必定不會往生到色界或無色界。因為他們證得不還果后，必定在現世般涅槃。如果於色界或無色界經歷生死的聖者，容許有往上界生而沒有地獄生的情況。然而，天帝釋（Śakra）（諸天之王）曾這樣說：『曾聽說有天名叫色究竟（Akaniṣṭha）（色界頂端的天），我以後退落應當生到那裡。』這是因為他不瞭解對法（Abhidharma）（佛教哲學）的法相的緣故。他說『我后』，是指三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa）（欲界第二天）自在異熟的最後邊際。說『退落』，是指在以後的時間裡，如果沒有獲得阿羅漢果（Arhat）（斷盡煩惱的聖者），應當生到那裡，是希望應當生到色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha），不要生到欲界。因為天帝釋（Śakra）緣於五死相（five signs of decay）而極度憂愁痛苦，來歸依世尊（Bhagavān）（佛陀），五死相才消除，便這樣說來令自己歡喜。又因為觀察到遮止他也沒有多大益處，所以佛陀（Buddha）沒有阻止。即這些已經經歷欲界而生的聖者，以及已經從欲界往上界生的聖者，必定沒有練根和退轉。為什麼不允許經歷欲界而生的聖者以及往上界生的聖者有練根和退轉呢？因為他們曾經在自己的相續中，蘊積了極其堅牢的聖道，以及獲得了殊勝的所依之身。因此他們沒有練根退轉的道理。前面說上流（Ūrdhvasrotas）（一種阿那含）雜修靜慮（dhyāna）（禪定）作為因，能夠往生到色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha）。應該先雜修哪種靜慮（dhyāna）？由什麼等位知道雜修成就？又因為什麼緣故雜修靜慮（dhyāna）？頌文說：
『先雜修第四靜慮（dhyāna），成就由一念雜修； 爲了受生和現樂，以及遮止煩惱退轉。』
論述：諸位想要雜修四靜慮（dhyāna）的人，必定先雜修第四靜慮（dhyāna）。因為第四靜慮（dhyāna）的等持（samādhi）（禪定）最堪能。在各種樂行中，第四靜慮（dhyāna）最殊勝。說第四靜慮（dhyāna）最有堪能，是因為在現在前的時候，能令所依止的自體勢力增長廣大。如果依靠第四靜慮（dhyāna）雜修靜慮（dhyāna），以後即使退失而生到其他天中，由於先前雜修的力量，又能依靠。
【English Translation】 English version: Are these different characteristics? No. How is it then? The verse says:
'A saint born in the desire realm will not be reborn in other realms; These (referring to saints born in the desire realm) and those born in higher realms, have neither cultivation of roots nor regression.'
Commentary: If one is born in the desire realm in a saintly state, they will certainly not be reborn in the form realm or formless realm. Because after they attain the Anāgāmin (Non-Returner) fruit, they will definitely attain Parinirvana (complete nirvana) in their current life. If a saint experiences birth in the form or formless realms, it is possible for them to be born in higher realms without being born in lower realms. However, Śakra (king of the gods) once said: 'I have heard of a heaven called Akaniṣṭha (the highest heaven in the form realm), and I should be born there after I fall.' This is because he did not understand the characteristics of Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophy). He said 'after I', referring to the final boundary of the comfortable ripening of the Trāyastriṃśa (the second heaven in the desire realm). Saying 'fall' refers to the time in the future when, if he does not attain the Arhat (one who has extinguished all defilements) fruit, he should be born there, hoping to be born in Akaniṣṭha (the highest heaven in the form realm) and not in the desire realm. Because Śakra (king of the gods) was extremely worried and distressed by the five signs of decay, he came to take refuge in the Bhagavan (Buddha), and only after the five signs of decay were removed did he say this to make himself happy. Furthermore, because it was observed that preventing him would not be of much benefit, the Buddha (Buddha) did not stop him. That is, these saints who have already been born in the desire realm, and those who have already been born in higher realms from the desire realm, certainly do not have cultivation of roots or regression. Why are saints who have been born in the desire realm and those who have been born in higher realms not allowed to have cultivation of roots and regression? Because they have accumulated extremely firm holy paths in their own continuums, and have obtained superior dependent bodies. Therefore, they have no reason for cultivating roots and regressing. It was previously said that the Ūrdhvasrotas (a type of Anāgāmin) cultivates dhyāna (meditation) as a cause to be reborn in Akaniṣṭha (the highest heaven in the form realm). Which dhyāna (meditation) should be cultivated first? From what level is it known that the cultivation is accomplished? And for what reason is dhyāna (meditation) cultivated? The verse says:
'First cultivate the fourth dhyāna (meditation), accomplishment is through cultivating with one thought; For receiving birth and present pleasure, and for preventing the regression of afflictions.'
Commentary: Those who wish to cultivate the four dhyānas (meditations) must first cultivate the fourth dhyāna (meditation). Because the samādhi (meditative concentration) of the fourth dhyāna (meditation) is the most capable. Among all pleasurable practices, the fourth dhyāna (meditation) is the most superior. Saying that the fourth dhyāna (meditation) is the most capable is because when it is present, it can cause the power of the self-nature of the dependent body to increase and expand. If one relies on the fourth dhyāna (meditation) to cultivate dhyāna (meditation), even if they later regress and are born in other heavens, they can still rely on the power of the previous cultivation.
彼雜修靜慮。即由此理第四靜慮。諸樂行中最為殊勝。彼輕安樂極上妙故。誰于靜慮能雜熏修。唯諸聖者通學無學。學位唯通訊解見至。于無學位通時非時。必先三洲雜修靜慮。退生色界亦能雜修。豈不雜修諸靜慮者。必先已離三靜慮貪。如何可言雜修靜慮。通於見至而成上流。謂要人間雜修定已。後退三定生梵眾天。于彼復須離三定染。方能重起雜修靜慮。從彼沒已乃生凈居。方名上流。如先已說。非諸見至可有斯理。彼于離染必不退故。無如是失。彼從先來住見至根非所許故。謂彼先住信解種性。雜修靜慮然後退失。彼懼於后復有退時。便修練根成見至性。從欲界沒生色界中。乘前復能雜修靜慮。故六種性皆有上流。于雜修時作何方便。彼必先入第四靜慮。多念無漏相續現前。從此引生多念有漏。后復多念無漏現前。如是旋還後後漸減。乃至最後二念無漏。次引二念有漏現前。無間復生二念無漏。名雜修定加行成滿。從此以後不由功力。任運唯從一念無漏。引起一念有漏現前。無間復生一念無漏。如是有漏中間剎那前後剎那無漏雜故。名雜修定根本圓成。如是雜修第四定已。乘此勢力隨其所應。亦能雜修下三靜慮。雜修靜慮五蘊為體。然於此中諸世俗智。是四法四類八智所雜修。有餘師言。諸世俗智唯為苦集。類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他混合修習靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）。正因為這個原因，第四靜慮在所有樂行中最為殊勝。因為它具有輕安和極上妙的快樂。誰能夠混合熏修靜慮呢？只有聖者，包括有學和無學。在有學位中，只有信解和見至。在無學位中，通達有時和非時。必定先在三洲混合修習靜慮。退生者也能混合修習。難道不是混合修習諸靜慮的人，必定已經離開了對前三個靜慮的貪慾嗎？怎麼能說混合修習靜慮，通於見至而成為上流呢？意思是說，需要在人間混合修習禪定之後，退生到梵眾天。在那裡又需要離開對前三個禪定的染著，才能重新開始混合修習靜慮。從那裡去世后，才能生到凈居天，才被稱為上流。正如先前所說，對於見至者來說，不可能有這種情況，因為他們對於離染必定不會退轉，所以沒有這樣的過失。因為他們從一開始就安住于見至的根性，這是不被允許的。意思是說，他們先前安住于信解的種性，混合修習靜慮，然後退失。他們害怕以後再次退失，便修習練根，成為見至的性質。從欲界去世后，生到**中。憑藉之前的能力，又能混合修習靜慮。所以六種種性都有可能成為上流。在混合修習時，採取什麼方法呢？他們必定先進入第四靜慮，多次唸誦無漏的相續現前。從此引導產生多次唸誦有漏的相續。之後又多次唸誦無漏的相續現前。像這樣循環往復，後後的唸誦逐漸減少。乃至最後只有兩念無漏。接著引導產生兩念有漏的相續現前。無間地又產生兩念無漏。這被稱為混合修定加行圓滿。從此以後，不需要依靠功力，自然而然地從一念無漏，引起一念有漏的相續現前。無間地又產生一念無漏。像這樣有漏的中間剎那，與前後剎那的無漏混合，被稱為混合修定根本圓成。像這樣混合修習第四禪定之後，憑藉這種力量，根據情況，也能混合修習下方的三個禪定。混合修習靜慮以五蘊為體。然而，在這裡，諸世俗智，是四法四類八智所混合修習的。有其他老師說，諸世俗智僅僅是苦集類。
【English Translation】 English version: He cultivates mixed absorption (dhyāna, meditation). Precisely for this reason, the fourth absorption is the most excellent among all practices of joy. Because it possesses ease and bliss that are supremely wonderful. Who is able to cultivate mixed absorption? Only the noble ones, both learners and non-learners. Among learners, only those of faith-understanding and vision-attainment. Among non-learners, those who have mastery of timing and non-timing. They must first cultivate mixed absorption in the three continents. Those who regress can also cultivate mixed absorption. Isn't it the case that those who cultivate mixed absorption must have already abandoned greed for the first three absorptions? How can it be said that cultivating mixed absorption, accessible to vision-attainers, leads to becoming a 'superior stream'? It means that after cultivating mixed concentration in the human realm, one regresses to the Brahma-assembly heaven. There, one must again abandon attachment to the first three concentrations in order to resume cultivating mixed absorption. After passing away from there, one is born in the Pure Abodes, and only then is one called a 'superior stream,' as previously explained. Such a situation is impossible for vision-attainers, because they will certainly not regress from detachment, so there is no such fault. Because they have been abiding in the nature of vision-attainment from the beginning, this is not permissible. It means that they previously abided in the nature of faith-understanding, cultivated mixed absorption, and then regressed. Fearing further regression, they cultivate and refine their roots, becoming of the nature of vision-attainment. After passing away from the desire realm, they are born in **. Relying on their previous ability, they can again cultivate mixed absorption. Therefore, all six types of beings have the potential to become a 'superior stream.' What method is employed during mixed cultivation? They must first enter the fourth absorption, with multiple moments of the unconditioned continuum arising. From this, they induce multiple moments of the conditioned continuum. Then, multiple moments of the unconditioned continuum arise again. Repeating this cycle, the later moments gradually decrease, until finally there are only two moments of the unconditioned. Next, they induce two moments of the conditioned continuum. Immediately following, two moments of the unconditioned arise again. This is called the perfection of the preliminary practice of mixed concentration. From then on, without effort, spontaneously, one moment of the unconditioned induces one moment of the conditioned. Immediately following, one moment of the unconditioned arises again. In this way, the conditioned intermediate moment is mixed with the unconditioned moments before and after, and this is called the fundamental accomplishment of mixed concentration. After cultivating the fourth absorption in this way, relying on this power, they can also cultivate the lower three absorptions as appropriate. Mixed absorption has the five aggregates as its basis. However, in this context, worldly wisdom is mixed with the four dharmas, four kinds, and eight wisdoms. Some teachers say that worldly wisdom is only of the nature of suffering and accumulation.
智雜修彼二能緣此為境故。若爾無容多無漏智現前雜故。則不應言此由彼雜。故得自在雜修靜慮應不圓成。此不從余滅道法類。苦集法智無間而生。及無間生彼諸智故。雜修靜慮略有三緣。一為受生。二為現樂。三為遮止起煩惱退。謂不還中若諸見至。雜修靜慮為前二緣。一為受生。二為現樂。為受生者希求勝生。謂厭共生欣不共故。為現樂者欣樂勝定。謂世俗定最能資身。由此能令現法樂住。前後無漏為其助伴。若諸信解為前二緣。亦為遮防起煩惱退。謂鈍根者起二無漏。方便防護清凈等持。令味相應等持轉遠。不令凈為染等無間緣。故阿羅漢中不時解脫。但為現樂雜修靜慮。時解脫者為求現樂。亦為遮防起煩惱退。若雜修靜慮為生五凈居。何緣凈居處唯有五。頌曰。
由雜修五品 生有五凈居
論曰。由雜熏修第四靜慮。有五品故凈居唯五。何謂五品。謂下中上勝上極上。品差別故。此中初品。三心現前便得成滿。謂初無漏。次起有漏後起無漏。第二中品。六心現前方得成滿。謂二有漏為四無漏之所雜修。如是所餘隨其次第。有九十二十五念心。如應現前方得成滿。如是五品雜修為因。如次能招五凈居果。如是十五有漏無漏心。皆是先來未曾得今得。有餘師說。初五無漏是從先來未得今得。餘十皆是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果智慧夾雜著修習兩種能緣，那麼這兩種能緣就成為智慧的所緣境。如果這樣，就不會有許多無漏智慧同時現前，因為它們是夾雜的。那麼，就不應該說這種夾雜是由彼（指兩種能緣）造成的。因此，通過夾雜修習靜慮，應該不能圓滿成就。但事實並非如此，因為這種夾雜修習不是從其他的滅道法類，或者苦集法智無間地產生，以及無間地產生那些智慧而來的。夾雜修習靜慮大致有三種因緣：一是為受生，二是為現樂，三是爲了遮止生起煩惱和退失。也就是說，在不還果位中，如果是見至者，夾雜修習靜慮是爲了前兩種因緣：一是為受生，二是為現樂。為受生，是指希求殊勝的生處，因為厭惡共同的生處，欣樂不共同的生處。為現樂，是指欣樂殊勝的禪定，因為世俗禪定最能資養身體，由此能夠使現世安樂住。前後的無漏智慧是它的助伴。如果是信解者，夾雜修習靜慮是爲了前兩種因緣，也是爲了遮防生起煩惱和退失。也就是說，對於鈍根者，生起兩種無漏智慧，方便防護清凈的等持，使與味相應的等持遠離，不讓清凈成為染污的無間緣。因此，阿羅漢中不時解脫者，只是爲了現樂而夾雜修習靜慮。時解脫者，爲了求現樂，也是爲了遮防生起煩惱和退失。如果夾雜修習靜慮是爲了生五凈居天（Pañca Śuddhāvāsa，色界天的最高五層天），那麼為什麼凈居天只有五處呢？頌說： 『由雜修五品，生有五凈居。』 論說：由於夾雜熏修第四靜慮，有五品差別，所以凈居天只有五處。什麼是五品呢？就是下品、中品、上品、勝上品、極上品。由於品級的差別。這其中，初品，三心現前就能成就圓滿，即初無漏心，次起有漏心，後起無漏心。第二中品，六心現前才能成就圓滿，即二有漏心被四無漏心所夾雜修習。像這樣，其餘的品級依次類推，有九念心、十念心、二十五念心，相應地現前才能成就圓滿。像這樣，五品夾雜修習作為因，依次能夠招感五凈居天的果報。像這樣，十五個有漏無漏心，都是先前未曾得到而現在得到的。有其他論師說，最初的五個無漏心是從先前未得而現在得到的，其餘的十個都是。
【English Translation】 English version: If wisdom intermingles with the cultivation of two objects of focus, then these two objects of focus become the object of that wisdom. If that were the case, there would be no room for many undefiled wisdoms to manifest simultaneously, because they are intermingled. Then, it should not be said that this intermingling is caused by them (referring to the two objects of focus). Therefore, through intermingled cultivation of dhyāna (meditative absorption), it should not be possible to achieve complete accomplishment. But this is not the case, because this intermingled cultivation does not arise from other categories of cessation and path dharmas, or from the uninterrupted arising of the wisdom of suffering and origination, and the uninterrupted arising of those wisdoms. Intermingled cultivation of dhyāna roughly has three causes: one is for rebirth, two is for present pleasure, and three is to prevent the arising of afflictions and regression. That is to say, in the state of Anāgāmin (Non-Returner), if they are those who have attained through vision (Dṛṣṭi-prāpta), intermingled cultivation of dhyāna is for the first two causes: one is for rebirth, and two is for present pleasure. For rebirth, it refers to seeking a superior rebirth, because they detest common rebirths and delight in uncommon rebirths. For present pleasure, it refers to delighting in superior samādhi (concentration), because worldly samādhi is most capable of nourishing the body, thereby enabling dwelling in present happiness. The preceding and following undefiled wisdoms are its assistants. If they are those who have attained through faith (Śraddhā-vimukta), intermingled cultivation of dhyāna is for the first two causes, and also to prevent the arising of afflictions and regression. That is to say, for those of dull faculties, when arising two undefiled wisdoms, they skillfully protect the pure samādhi, keeping the samādhi associated with flavor far away, and not allowing purity to become the immediate cause of defilement. Therefore, among Arhats (worthy ones) who are liberated out of season, they only intermingled cultivate dhyāna for present pleasure. Those who are liberated in season, in order to seek present pleasure, also prevent the arising of afflictions and regression. If intermingled cultivation of dhyāna is for rebirth in the five Śuddhāvāsa (Pure Abodes, the highest five heavens in the Realm of Form), then why are there only five Pure Abodes? The verse says: 『Due to the five grades of intermingled cultivation, there are five Pure Abodes.』 The treatise says: Because of the five grades of difference in the intermingled cultivation of the fourth dhyāna, there are only five Pure Abodes. What are the five grades? They are the inferior grade, the middle grade, the superior grade, the surpassing superior grade, and the extremely superior grade. Due to the difference in grades. Among these, the initial grade, with three minds manifesting, can achieve complete fulfillment, namely the initial undefiled mind, followed by the arising of a defiled mind, and then the arising of an undefiled mind. The second middle grade, with six minds manifesting, can achieve complete fulfillment, namely two defiled minds being intermingled and cultivated by four undefiled minds. Like this, the remaining grades, in their respective order, have nine thought-moments, ten thought-moments, and twenty-five thought-moments, correspondingly manifesting before they can achieve complete fulfillment. Like this, the five grades of intermingled cultivation as the cause, can sequentially bring about the result of the five Pure Abodes. Like this, the fifteen defiled and undefiled minds are all previously unattained and now attained. Some other teachers say that the initial five undefiled minds are from previously unattained and now attained, and the remaining ten are all.
曾所得心。前五現前時已未來修故。有不起定雜修成滿。有要數起方得圓成。有餘師言。由信等五次第增上感五凈居。謂或有時信根增上雜修靜慮。或有乃至慧根增上雜修靜慮。隨此差別感五凈居。諸感凈居為是業力。為雜修力。若是業力雜修靜慮則為唐捐。若雜修力與品類足所說相違。如彼論說。雜修靜慮及由業故生凈居天。諸所有處等名非異生法。有說。業力感凈居天。然不唐捐。雜修靜慮以修行彼思現前故。有餘師言。是雜修力。而不違害品類足文。彼論先說雜修定者。為顯先時入彼定故。次後復說及由業故生凈居者。為顯后時即由彼力生凈居故。此中決定俱由二力。以隨闕一不生彼故。然唯有漏感彼異熟。非無漏力棄背有故。經說不還有名身證。依何勝德立身證名。頌曰。
得滅定不還 轉名為身證
論曰。有滅定得名得滅定。即不還者。若於身中。有滅定得轉名身證。謂不還者。由身證得似涅槃法。故名身證。如何說彼但名身證。以無心故。依身生故。以身俱生得勢力故。彼已滅位猶名得彼。此中經主作如是言。理實應言彼從滅定起得先未得。有識身寂靜便作是思。此滅盡定最為寂靜極似涅槃。如是證得身之靜寂故名身證。由得及智現前證得身寂靜故。今謂彼從滅定起位。雖得先未得有識身寂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 曾（ceng）所得心。前五現前時已未來修故。有不起定雜修成滿。有要數起方得圓成。有餘師言。由信等五次第增上感五凈居（jing ju，色界天之一）。謂或有時信根增上雜修靜慮（jing lv，禪定）。或有乃至慧根增上雜修靜慮。隨此差別感五凈居。諸感凈居為是業力。為雜修力。若是業力雜修靜慮則為唐捐。若雜修力與品類足所說相違。如彼論說。雜修靜慮及由業故生凈居天。諸所有處等名非異生法。有說。業力感凈居天。然不唐捐。雜修靜慮以修行彼思現前故。有餘師言。是雜修力。而不違害品類足文。彼論先說雜修定者。為顯先時入彼定故。次後復說及由業故生凈居者。為顯后時即由彼力生凈居故。此中決定俱由二力。以隨闕一不生彼故。然唯有漏感彼異熟。非無漏力棄背有故。經說不還（bu huan，阿那含）有名身證。依何勝德立身證名。頌曰。
得滅定不還 轉名為身證
論曰。有滅定得名得滅定。即不還者。若於身中。有滅定得轉名身證。謂不還者。由身證得似涅槃法。故名身證。如何說彼但名身證。以無心故。依身生故。以身俱生得勢力故。彼已滅位猶名得彼。此中經主作如是言。理實應言彼從滅定起得先未得。有識身寂靜便作是思。此滅盡定最為寂靜極似涅槃。如是證得身之靜寂故名身證。由得及智現前證得身寂靜故。今謂彼從滅定起位。雖得先未得有識身寂
【English Translation】 English version The mind that was once attained. Because the previous five senses are present, there is no future practice. There is the completion of mixed practice without arising from Samadhi (ding, concentration). There must be a certain number of arisings to achieve perfection. Some teachers say that the five Pure Abodes (jing ju) are attained by the successive increase of the five faculties of faith, etc. That is, sometimes the root of faith increases and mixed practice of Dhyana (jing lv) occurs, or even the root of wisdom increases and mixed practice of Dhyana occurs. According to this difference, the five Pure Abodes are attained. Is the attainment of the Pure Abodes due to the power of karma or the power of mixed practice? If it is the power of karma, then the mixed practice of Dhyana is in vain. If it is the power of mixed practice, it contradicts what is said in the 'Prakaranapada'. As that treatise says, 'Mixed practice of Dhyana and birth in the Pure Abodes are due to karma. All places, etc., are called non-ordinary beings.' Some say that the Pure Abodes are attained by the power of karma, but it is not in vain. Mixed practice of Dhyana is because the thought of practicing it is present. Some other teachers say that it is the power of mixed practice and does not contradict the text of the 'Prakaranapada'. That treatise first speaks of those who practice mixed Samadhi to show that they entered that Samadhi in the past. Then it says that birth in the Pure Abodes is due to karma to show that in the future, they will be born in the Pure Abodes by that power. In this case, it is definitely due to both powers, because without either, one cannot be born there. However, only the defiled can attain that Vipaka (yi shu, result), because the undefiled power abandons existence. The Sutra says that the Anagamin (bu huan, non-returner) is called 'body witness'. By what superior virtue is the name 'body witness' established? The verse says:
Having attained Nirodha-samapatti (mie ding, cessation attainment), the Non-returner, is then called 'body witness'.
The treatise says: One who has attained Nirodha-samapatti is called 'one who has attained Nirodha-samapatti', that is, the Non-returner. If one has attained Nirodha-samapatti in the body, he is then called 'body witness'. That is, the Non-returner is called 'body witness' because he has attained a state similar to Nirvana through body witness. How can it be said that he is only called 'body witness'? Because he is without mind, depends on the body for arising, and gains power through being born with the body. Even in the state of cessation, he is still called 'one who has attained it'. Here, the Sutra Master says, 'In truth, it should be said that he arises from Nirodha-samapatti and attains what he had not attained before. The conscious body is silent and then thinks, 'This Nirodha-samapatti is the most silent and very similar to Nirvana.' Thus, he attains the stillness of the body and is called 'body witness', because he attains the stillness of the body through attainment and wisdom being present.' Now, we say that when he arises from Nirodha-samapatti, although he attains the conscious body that he had not attained before, it is still
靜。而非唯彼位方得身證名。先後二時俱得名故。由此設無緣滅定智。得勢力故立身證名。是故前說于理為勝。舉後邊故唯作是言。得滅定不還轉名為身證。理實身證於八解脫。無不具足。由身證住。以滅盡定用余解脫為門。而入故得。滅定決定亦應得余解脫。如契經說。入滅定時先滅言行。乃至廣說。何緣佛說有學福田。身證不還不預其數。謂世尊告給孤獨言。長者當知。福田有二。一者有學。二者無學。有學十八。無學唯九。何等名為十八有學。謂預流向預流果。一來向一來果。不還向不還果。阿羅漢向。隨信行隨法行。信解見至。家家一間。中生有行無行上流。是名十八。何等名為九種無學。謂退法。思法。護法。安住。堪達。不動法。不退法。慧解脫。俱解脫。是名為九。理亦應說。而不說者。以佛觀見有學無學由斷及根有殊勝故。能生勝果名為福田。然諸不還所得滅定。是有漏故不可說言。自性解脫故名清凈。彼所依身猶有煩惱。未永斷故不可說言。相續解脫故名清凈。故不約成彼立有學福田。無學位中有漏功德。雖非自性解脫所收。相續解脫故名清凈。由此亦能生殊勝果。是故約定及根差別。說九應果皆名福田。或立有學依因無故。不置身證有學數中。何謂建立有學依因。謂諸無漏三學及果。滅定非學亦
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "靜。並非只有證得彼位（滅盡定）才能稱為『身證』(Kāyasākṣin，以身證得者)，因為先前和之後兩個階段都能獲得此名。因此，即使沒有以緣滅為前提的定智，也能因其強大的力量而被稱為『身證』。所以，之前的說法在理上更為優勝。因為舉了後邊的例子，所以才這樣說：獲得滅盡定且不還果位的人被稱為『身證』。實際上，『身證』完全具備八解脫。由於『身證』安住于滅盡定，並以其餘解脫為門徑而入定，所以才能獲得。因此，入滅盡定的人也必定能獲得其餘解脫，如契經所說：『入滅定時，先滅言語和行為，乃至廣說。』", "為何佛陀說有學福田(puṇyakṣetra，功德田)，『身證』不包含在其中？世尊曾告訴給孤獨長者(Anāthapiṇḍika)：『長者，當知福田有二種，一者有學，二者無學。有學有十八種，無學只有九種。何等名為十八有學？即預流向(srota-āpanna-pratipadaka，入流預備者)、預流果(srota-āpanna，入流者)，一來向(sakṛd-āgāmi-pratipadaka，一來預備者)、一來果(sakṛd-āgāmin，一來者)，不還向(anāgāmi-pratipadaka，不還預備者)、不還果(anāgāmin，不還者)，阿羅漢向(arhat-pratipadaka，阿羅漢預備者)，隨信行(śraddhānusārin，隨信仰而行者)、隨法行(dharmānusārin，隨法而行者)，信解(śraddhā-vimukta，信解脫者)、見至(dṛṣṭi-prāpta，見至者)，家家(ekavīcika，一家家者)、一間(antarā-parinirvāyin，中般涅槃者)，中生(upapadyā-parinirvāyin，生般涅槃者)有行(sasaṃskāra，有功用行者)、無行(asaṃskāra，無功用行者)上流(ūrdhvaṃsrotas，上流者)。是名十八。何等名為九種無學？謂退法(parihāṇa-dharman，退法者)、思法(cetana-dharman，思法者)、護法(anurakṣaṇa-dharman，護法者)、安住(sthiti-dharman，安住者)、堪達(prabhedana-dharman，堪達者)、不動法(akupya-dharman，不動法者)、不退法(aparihāṇa-dharman，不退法者)、慧解脫(prajñā-vimukta，慧解脫者)、俱解脫(ubhayato-vimukta，俱解脫者)。是名為九。』", "按理說也應該包括『身證』，但佛陀沒有說，是因為佛陀觀察到有學和無學在斷除煩惱和根基上有殊勝之處，能夠產生殊勝的果報，所以被稱為福田。然而，不還者所獲得的滅盡定是有漏的，不能說是自性解脫，因此不能稱為清凈。他們所依的身軀仍然有煩惱未被徹底斷除，因此不能說是相續解脫，因此不能稱為清凈。所以，不以成就這些條件來建立有學福田。無學位中的有漏功德，雖然不屬於自性解脫所包含的，但因為是相續解脫，所以可以稱為清凈。因此，也能產生殊勝的果報。所以，根據果位和根基的差別，說九種應果都可稱為福田。或者說，建立有學是依據因，所以不將『身證』置於有學之列。什麼是建立有學的依據？即諸無漏的三學(tri-śikṣā，戒定慧)和果位。滅盡定並非三學，也" ], "english_translations": [ "English version", "Silence. It is not only when one attains that state (cessation attainment) that one is called a 'Kāyasākṣin' (one who has realized it with the body), because both the prior and subsequent times can be called that. Therefore, even without the wisdom of cessation based on the extinction of conditions, it can be called 'Kāyasākṣin' because of its powerful strength. Therefore, the previous statement is superior in reason. Because the latter example was cited, it was said this way: one who attains cessation attainment and does not return is called a 'Kāyasākṣin'. In reality, the 'Kāyasākṣin' fully possesses the eight liberations. Because the 'Kāyasākṣin' abides in cessation attainment and enters the attainment through the other liberations, it can be attained. Therefore, one who enters cessation attainment must also be able to attain the other liberations, as the sutra says: 'When entering cessation attainment, speech and action are first extinguished, and so on.'", "Why did the Buddha say that the field of merit (puṇyakṣetra, field of merit) of those still learning does not include the 'Kāyasākṣin'? The World Honored One told Anāthapiṇḍika: 'Householder, know that there are two kinds of fields of merit: one is those still learning, and the other is those who have completed their learning. There are eighteen kinds of those still learning, and only nine kinds of those who have completed their learning. What are the eighteen kinds of those still learning? They are the stream-enterer path (srota-āpanna-pratipadaka, one who has entered the stream), the stream-enterer fruit (srota-āpanna, stream-enterer), the once-returner path (sakṛd-āgāmi-pratipadaka, one who is on the path to becoming a once-returner), the once-returner fruit (sakṛd-āgāmin, once-returner), the non-returner path (anāgāmi-pratipadaka, one who is on the path to becoming a non-returner), the non-returner fruit (anāgāmin, non-returner), the arhat path (arhat-pratipadaka, one who is on the path to becoming an arhat), the faith-follower (śraddhānusārin, one who follows by faith), the dharma-follower (dharmānusārin, one who follows the dharma), the faith-liberated (śraddhā-vimukta, one liberated by faith), the one who has attained the vision (dṛṣṭi-prāpta, one who has attained the vision), the one who is reborn only once more (ekavīcika, one who is reborn only once more), the one who attains nirvana in between (antarā-parinirvāyin, one who attains nirvana in between), the one who attains nirvana upon rebirth (upapadyā-parinirvāyin, one who attains nirvana upon rebirth), the one who strives with effort (sasaṃskāra, one who strives with effort), the one who strives without effort (asaṃskāra, one who strives without effort), and the one who goes upstream (ūrdhvaṃsrotas, one who goes upstream). These are the eighteen.', "'What are the nine kinds of those who have completed their learning? They are the one who is liable to fall away (parihāṇa-dharman, one who is liable to fall away), the one who is mindful (cetana-dharman, one who is mindful), the one who is protective (anurakṣaṇa-dharman, one who is protective), the one who is abiding (sthiti-dharman, one who is abiding), the one who is able to penetrate (prabhedana-dharman, one who is able to penetrate), the one who is unshakeable (akupya-dharman, one who is unshakeable), the one who is not liable to fall away (aparihāṇa-dharman, one who is not liable to fall away), the one who is liberated by wisdom (prajñā-vimukta, one who is liberated by wisdom), and the one who is liberated in both ways (ubhayato-vimukta, one who is liberated in both ways). These are the nine.'", "In principle, the 'Kāyasākṣin' should also be included, but the Buddha did not say so because the Buddha observed that those still learning and those who have completed their learning have superior qualities in terms of cutting off defilements and their roots, and are able to produce superior results, so they are called fields of merit. However, the cessation attainment attained by the non-returner is conditioned, and cannot be said to be self-liberation, so it cannot be called pure. Their body still has defilements that have not been completely cut off, so it cannot be said to be continuous liberation, so it cannot be called pure. Therefore, the field of merit of those still learning is not established by fulfilling these conditions. The conditioned merits in the state of no-more-learning, although not included in self-liberation, can be called pure because they are continuous liberation. Therefore, they can also produce superior results. Therefore, according to the difference between the fruit and the root, it is said that the nine kinds of fruits should all be called fields of merit. Or, the establishment of those still learning is based on the cause, so the 'Kāyasākṣin' is not placed among those still learning. What is the basis for establishing those still learning? That is, the three unconditioned trainings (tri-śikṣā, morality, concentration, and wisdom) and the fruits. Cessation attainment is not one of the three trainings, and also" ] }
非學果故。不約成彼說有學差別。然今於此不還位中。約無異門密說身證。若異此者不應唯說。得滅定不還轉名為身證。此義於後當更分別。若說身證兼約異門。即上所言非善答問。三無色解脫亦通無漏故。已辯不還粗相差別。若細分析數成多千。此中且依行色界五。約諸地等五門分別。謂五約地數成二十四。定地中各五種故五。約種性數成三十六。種性中各五種故五。約生處數成八十。十六處中各五種故。五約種性根數成九十。謂退法種性下中上根。有差別故數成十五。乃至不動種性亦然。五約地種性數成百二十。謂四地中各三十故。五約地種性根數成三百六十。謂四地中各九十故。五約生處種性數成四百八十。謂十六處各三十故。五約生處種性。及根數成一千四百四十。謂十六處各九十故。五約離染處種性根積數總成一萬一千九百六十不還差別。謂以離染九品不同。乘前一千四百四十。已辯第三向果差別。次應建立第四向果。頌曰。
上界修惑中 斷初定一品 至有頂八品 皆阿羅漢向 第九無間道 名金剛喻定 盡得俱盡智 成無學應果
論曰。即不還者。進斷色界及無色界修所斷惑。從斷初定一品為初。至斷有頂八品為后。應知轉名阿羅漢向。即此所說阿羅漢向中。斷有頂惑第九無
【現代漢語翻譯】 非由學習而自然獲得的果報。不依據成就彼者而說有學習上的差別。然而現在在這裡，在不還（Anagamin，不還果）的果位中，是依據沒有差異的方面秘密地宣說身證（kayasaksi，以身證得）。如果與此不同，就不應該只說獲得滅盡定（nirodha-samapatti，滅盡定）的不還者轉名為身證。這個意義在後面將會更詳細地分別解釋。如果說身證兼顧不同的方面，那麼以上所說的就不是善妙的回答。三無色解脫也通於無漏（anasrava，無漏），所以已經辨明了不還的粗略差別。如果細緻地分析，數量可以達到數千種。這裡且依據行蘊（skandha，五蘊之一），約諸地等五個方面來分別。所謂五約地，數量可以達到二十四種。因為在各個定地中各有五種。五約種性，數量可以達到三十六種。因為在各種種性中各有五種。五約生處，數量可以達到八十種。因為在十六處中各有五種。五約種性根，數量可以達到九十種。所謂退法種性（parihanadharma，退法種性）的下、中、上根有差別，所以數量達到十五種。乃至不動種性（acaladharma，不動法種性）也是這樣。五約地種性，數量可以達到一百二十種。所謂在四地中各有三十種。五約地種性根，數量可以達到三百六十種。所謂在四地中各有九十種。五約生處種性，數量可以達到四百八十種。所謂在十六處中各有三十種。五約生處種性以及根，數量可以達到一千四百四十種。所謂在十六處中各有九十種。五約離染處種性根積累的數量總共達到一萬一千九百六十種不還的差別。這是因為以離染的九品不同，乘以之前的一千四百四十種。已經辨明了第三向果的差別。接下來應該建立第四向果。頌曰： 『上界修惑中，斷初定一品，至有頂八品，皆阿羅漢向，第九無間道，名金剛喻定，盡得俱盡智，成無學應果。』 論曰：即不還者，進一步斷除色界（Rupadhatu，色界）及無色界（Arupadhatu，無色界）修所斷的惑。從斷除初禪（prathama-dhyana，初禪）的一品為開始，到斷除有頂天（abhavagra，非想非非想處天）的八品為結束，應當知道轉名為阿羅漢向（Arhattva-margga，阿羅漢向）。即此所說的阿羅漢向中，斷除有頂天的惑的第九無間道（anantarya-margga，無間道）。
【English Translation】 Not a result obtained through learning. Not based on the accomplishment of that one to say there are differences in learning. However, now here, in the state of Anagamin (Anagamin, non-returner), it is secretly proclaimed that kayasaksi (kayasaksi, body witness) is based on aspects without difference. If it were different from this, it should not be said only that the Anagamin who obtains nirodha-samapatti (nirodha-samapatti, cessation attainment) is transformed into a kayasaksi. This meaning will be further explained in detail later. If it is said that kayasaksi takes into account different aspects, then what was said above is not a good answer. The three formless liberations also lead to anasrava (anasrava, without outflows), so the rough differences of Anagamin have already been distinguished. If analyzed in detail, the number can reach thousands. Here, let's distinguish based on the skandha (skandha, aggregate), about the five aspects such as the various realms. The so-called five about the realms, the number can reach twenty-four kinds. Because there are five kinds in each meditative realm. Five about the dispositions, the number can reach thirty-six kinds. Because there are five kinds in each disposition. Five about the places of birth, the number can reach eighty kinds. Because there are five kinds in each of the sixteen places. Five about the dispositions and roots, the number can reach ninety kinds. The so-called lower, middle, and upper roots of parihanadharma (parihanadharma, declining disposition) have differences, so the number reaches fifteen kinds. And so on, the same is true for acaladharma (acaladharma, unshakeable disposition). Five about the realms and dispositions, the number can reach one hundred and twenty kinds. The so-called thirty kinds in each of the four realms. Five about the realms, dispositions, and roots, the number can reach three hundred and sixty kinds. The so-called ninety kinds in each of the four realms. Five about the places of birth and dispositions, the number can reach four hundred and eighty kinds. The so-called thirty kinds in each of the sixteen places. Five about the places of birth, dispositions, and roots, the number can reach one thousand four hundred and forty kinds. The so-called ninety kinds in each of the sixteen places. Five about the accumulated number of dispositions and roots in the places of detachment totals one thousand one hundred and ninety-six kinds of Anagamin differences. This is because the nine grades of detachment are different, multiplied by the previous one thousand four hundred and forty kinds. The differences of the third path and fruit have already been distinguished. Next, the fourth path and fruit should be established. The verse says: 'In the upper realms, among the afflictions to be cultivated, cutting off the first grade of the first dhyana, up to the eighth grade of the peak of existence, all are towards Arhatship. The ninth uninterrupted path is called the Vajra-like Samadhi. Exhausting and attaining the knowledge of exhaustion together, one becomes an Arhat, worthy of offerings.' The treatise says: That is, the non-returner further cuts off the afflictions to be cultivated in the Rupadhatu (Rupadhatu, Form Realm) and Arupadhatu (Arupadhatu, Formless Realm). Starting from cutting off the first grade of the first dhyana (prathama-dhyana, first dhyana), and ending with cutting off the eighth grade of the peak of existence (abhavagra, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception), it should be known that it is transformed into the path towards Arhatship (Arhattva-margga, path to Arhatship). That is, in this path towards Arhatship, the ninth anantarya-margga (anantarya-margga, immediate path) cuts off the afflictions of the peak of existence.
間道。亦說名為金剛喻定。此定堅銳喻若金剛。無一隨眠不能破故。先已破故不破一切。實有能破一切功能。此既能摧最細品惑。故知一切無間道中。唯此剎那名極上品。故能永斷一切隨眠。雖見道中亦有能斷有頂煩惱無漏對治。然彼九品惑可為一品斷。知彼煩惱勢力微劣。見道既為劣惑對治。知非能破一切隨眠。若有破能何礙不破。故彼不得金剛喻名。又諸隨眠中無事者易斷。見道治彼知非極上。由此不立金剛喻名。此中所明金剛喻定。能治一切有事惑中最後微微極難斷品。故知能破一切隨眠。由此力能一剎那頃。證一切惑斷無漏離系得。如是所說金剛喻定。唯與六智隨一相應。謂四類智滅道法智。緣四聖諦十六行相。通依九地義準已成。故此差別說有多種。且未至攝有五十二。謂苦集類智觀有頂苦集。作非常等因等行相。與彼相應差別成八。滅道法智觀欲滅道。作滅靜等道等行相。與彼相應差別亦八。滅類智於八地滅。一一別觀作四行相。與彼相應成三十二。道類智於八地道。一切總觀作四行相。與彼相應差別成四。以治八地類智品道。同類相因必總緣故。滅唯別緣道則不爾。于隨眠品已具成立。如未至攝有五十二。中四靜慮應知亦然。空無邊處有二十八。謂除滅道法智品八。及除觀下四地滅諦各四行相相應十六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 間道（Antarā-mārga）。也被稱為金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）。此定堅固銳利，譬如金剛（Vajra），沒有一種隨眠（Anusaya）不能被它破除。雖然先前已經破除了一些，但它並非不能破除一切，實際上它具有破除一切的功能。既然它能摧毀最細微的惑，因此可知在一切無間道中，只有這一個剎那被稱為極上品。因此它能永遠斷除一切隨眠。雖然在見道（Darśana-mārga）中也有能斷除有頂（Bhavāgra）煩惱的無漏對治（Anāsrava-pratipaksa），但那裡的九品惑可以被視為一品來斷除，可知那些煩惱勢力微弱。見道既然是對治微弱的惑，可知它不能破除一切隨眠。如果它有破除的能力，為何不破除呢？因此它不能得到金剛喻的名稱。而且，在各種隨眠中，那些無足輕重的容易斷除，見道對治它們，可知它並非極上品。因此不建立金剛喻的名稱。這裡所說的金剛喻定，能對治一切有作用的惑中最後、最微細、極難斷除的品類。因此可知它能破除一切隨眠。憑藉這種力量，它能在一剎那間，證得一切惑斷的無漏離系得（Anāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti）。 如是所說的金剛喻定，只與六智中的一種相應，即四類智（Caturvidha-jñāna）：滅道法智（Nirodha-dharma-jñāna）、道法智（Mārga-dharma-jñāna）。緣於四聖諦（Catur-ārya-satya）的十六行相（Ṣoḍaśa-ākāra），普遍依於九地（Nava-bhūmi），其意義可以推斷成立。因此這種差別有多種說法。且未至定（Anāgamya-samādhi）包含五十二種。即苦集類智（Duhkha-samudaya-jñāna）觀察有頂的苦集，作為非常等、因等行相，與它們相應的差別構成八種。滅道法智觀察欲界（Kāmadhātu）的滅道，作為滅靜等、道等行相，與它們相應的差別也構成八種。滅類智（Nirodha-jñāna）於八地的滅，一一分別觀察，作為四種行相，與它們相應構成三十二種。道類智（Mārga-jñāna）於八地的道，一切總觀，作為四種行相，與它們相應的差別構成四種。因為對治八地的類智品道，同類相因，必定總緣。滅唯有分別緣，道則不是這樣。在隨眠品中已經完全成立。如同未至定包含五十二種，中間的四禪定（Dhyāna）也應該知道是這樣。空無邊處定（Ākāśānantyāyatana）有二十八種，即除去滅道法智品八種，以及除去觀察下四地滅諦的各種四行相相應的十六種。
【English Translation】 English version: The Antarā-mārga (Intervening Path) is also known as Vajropama-samādhi (Diamond-like Concentration). This concentration is firm and sharp, like a Vajra (diamond), and there is no Anusaya (latent tendency) that it cannot destroy. Although some have been destroyed previously, it is not incapable of destroying everything; in fact, it has the function of destroying everything. Since it can destroy the most subtle afflictions, it is known that among all the Antarā-mārga, only this moment is called the supreme. Therefore, it can permanently cut off all Anusaya. Although in the Darśana-mārga (Path of Seeing) there are also Anāsrava-pratipaksa (undefiled antidotes) that can cut off the afflictions of Bhavāgra (the peak of existence), the nine categories of afflictions there can be regarded as one category to be cut off, and it is known that those afflictions are weak. Since the Darśana-mārga is the antidote to weak afflictions, it is known that it cannot destroy all Anusaya. If it had the ability to destroy, why wouldn't it destroy them? Therefore, it cannot obtain the name Vajropama. Moreover, among the various Anusaya, those that are insignificant are easy to cut off; the Darśana-mārga treats them, and it is known that it is not the supreme. Therefore, the name Vajropama is not established. The Vajropama-samādhi described here can treat the last, most subtle, and extremely difficult-to-cut-off categories among all effective afflictions. Therefore, it is known that it can destroy all Anusaya. With this power, in an instant, it can attain the Anāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti (undefiled detachment attainment) of the cutting off of all afflictions. The Vajropama-samādhi described in this way corresponds to only one of the six Jñāna (knowledges), namely the Caturvidha-jñāna (four kinds of knowledge): Nirodha-dharma-jñāna (knowledge of the cessation of Dharma), Mārga-dharma-jñāna (knowledge of the path of Dharma). It is based on the Ṣoḍaśa-ākāra (sixteen aspects) of the Catur-ārya-satya (Four Noble Truths), universally relying on the Nava-bhūmi (Nine Grounds), and its meaning can be inferred to be established. Therefore, there are many kinds of differences in this. Moreover, the Anāgamya-samādhi (Unattained Concentration) contains fifty-two kinds. That is, Duhkha-samudaya-jñāna (knowledge of suffering and its origin) observes the suffering and origin of Bhavāgra, acting as impermanent, etc., and cause, etc., aspects, and the differences corresponding to them constitute eight kinds. Nirodha-dharma-jñāna observes the cessation and path of the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), acting as cessation, tranquility, etc., and path, etc., aspects, and the differences corresponding to them also constitute eight kinds. Nirodha-jñāna (knowledge of cessation) observes the cessation of the eight grounds separately, acting as four aspects, and the differences corresponding to them constitute thirty-two kinds. Mārga-jñāna (knowledge of the path) observes the path of the eight grounds in general, acting as four aspects, and the differences corresponding to them constitute four kinds. Because the knowledge and path of the category of knowledge that treats the eight grounds are of the same kind and cause each other, they must be generally related. Cessation is only related separately, but the path is not like this. It has been completely established in the category of Anusaya. Just as the Anāgamya-samādhi contains fifty-two kinds, the four Dhyāna (meditations) in between should also be known to be like this. The Ākāśānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite space) has twenty-eight kinds, that is, excluding the eight kinds of Nirodha-dharma-jñāna, and excluding the sixteen kinds corresponding to the various four aspects of observing the cessation truth of the lower four grounds.
。以依無色必無法智。及緣下滅類智品故。緣下地道于理無遮。道必總緣前已釋故。余如前故有二十八。識無邊處有二十四。無所有處唯有二十。謂彼於前復除觀下。滅聖諦境四八行相。隨其次第準前應釋。諸有欲令三無色地。有緣下地滅類智者。彼作是說。空無邊處加前十六。識無邊處加前二十。無所有處加二十四。如是總說依無色地。金剛喻定七十二種。或復說有百三十二。有餘師說。道類智品於八地道。亦各別觀故前六地各有八十。空無邊處唯有四十。識無邊處有三十二無所有處有二十四。復有欲令滅類智品。於八地滅有別總觀。故前六地中各百六十四。空無邊處唯五十二。識無邊處有三十六。無所有處有二十四。彼俱非理。道必總緣滅唯別緣前已辯故。尊者妙音作如是說。金剛喻定總有十三。謂斷有頂見修斷惑。無間道攝十三剎那。此亦不然。以四類忍前八無間道非極上品故。此定既能斷有頂地第九品惑。能引此惑盡。得俱行盡智。令起金剛喻定。是斷惑中最後無間道所生盡智。是斷惑中最後解脫道。故說此定所引盡智。與第九品盡得俱起。或此盡言顯一切盡。謂第九品及所餘惑。皆得擇滅故名為盡。金剛喻定能引諸惑。盡得俱行盡智令起。此與一切煩惱盡得。最初俱生故名盡智。有餘師說。惑盡身中此最初
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為依靠無色界必定有法智，以及緣于地獄滅的類智品，所以緣于下地之道在理上沒有阻礙。道必定總緣，前面已經解釋過了。其餘的如同前面所說，有二十八種。識無邊處有二十四種。無所有處只有二十種，即他們在前面又去除了觀察地獄滅聖諦境的四種和八種行相。隨其次第，應該按照前面所說的解釋。 有些想要認為三無色界地有緣于地獄滅的類智的人，他們這樣說：空無邊處加上前面的十六種，識無邊處加上前面的二十種，無所有處加上二十四種。像這樣總的說來，依靠無色界的金剛喻定有七十二種。或者又說有一百三十二種。 有其他老師說，道類智品對於八地之道，也各自個別地觀察，所以前六地各有八十種。空無邊處只有四十種，識無邊處有三十二種，無所有處有二十四種。 又有想要認為滅類智品對於八地之滅有分別和總體的觀察，所以前六地中各有百六十四種，空無邊處只有五十二種，識無邊處有三十六種，無所有處有二十四種。他們這些說法都不合理，道必定總緣，滅唯獨別緣，前面已經辨析過了。 尊者妙音這樣說，金剛喻定總共有十三種，即斷除有頂（Bhavagra，三界最高處）的見修所斷之惑，是無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道，又稱無礙道，指能斷除煩惱，證入解脫的智慧之道）所攝的十三剎那。這種說法也不對，因為四類忍（Ksanti，忍）之前的八無間道不是極上品。這個定既然能夠斷除有頂地的第九品惑，能夠引此惑的滅盡，得到俱行盡智（Ksaya-jnana，盡智，知一切煩惱已盡的智慧），令生起金剛喻定，是斷惑中最後的無間道所生的盡智，是斷惑中最後的解脫道。所以說這個定所引發的盡智，與第九品惑的滅盡同時生起。或者這個『盡』字顯示一切滅盡，即第九品惑以及其餘的惑，都得到擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，擇滅，通過智慧力量，對煩惱進行選擇性的斷滅），所以名為盡。金剛喻定能夠引發諸惑的滅盡，俱行盡智令生起。這與一切煩惱的滅盡同時生起，所以名為盡智。有其他老師說，惑盡之身中，這是最初的。
【English Translation】 English version: Because relying on the Formless Realm necessarily has the Dharma-knowledge, and because of the Category-knowledge related to the cessation of the lower realm, there is no obstruction in principle to being related to the path of the lower realm. The path must be related to all in general, as explained earlier. The rest is as before, there are twenty-eight kinds. The Realm of Infinite Consciousness has twenty-four kinds. The Realm of No-thingness only has twenty kinds, that is, they further remove from the previous ones the four and eight aspects of observing the object of the cessation of the Noble Truth of the lower realm. According to the order, it should be explained according to what was said before. Some who want to believe that the three Formless Realms have Category-knowledge related to the cessation of the lower realm say this: the Realm of Infinite Space adds the previous sixteen kinds, the Realm of Infinite Consciousness adds the previous twenty kinds, and the Realm of No-thingness adds twenty-four kinds. Speaking generally like this, the Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajropama-samadhi, 金剛喻定) relying on the Formless Realm has seventy-two kinds. Or it is said that there are one hundred and thirty-two kinds. Other teachers say that the Path-Category-knowledge observes each of the paths of the eight realms separately, so the first six realms each have eighty kinds. The Realm of Infinite Space only has forty kinds, the Realm of Infinite Consciousness has thirty-two kinds, and the Realm of No-thingness has twenty-four kinds. Still others want to believe that the Cessation-Category-knowledge has separate and general observations of the cessation of the eight realms, so the first six realms each have one hundred and sixty-four kinds, the Realm of Infinite Space only has fifty-two kinds, the Realm of Infinite Consciousness has thirty-six kinds, and the Realm of No-thingness has twenty-four kinds. These statements are all unreasonable, the path must be related to all in general, and cessation is only related separately, as has been discussed before. Venerable Myoyin says this, the Vajra-like Samadhi has a total of thirteen kinds, that is, cutting off the afflictions to be severed by seeing and cultivation in the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra, the highest point of the Three Realms), which are the thirteen moments included in the Immediate Path (Anantarya-marga, the path of immediate liberation). This statement is also incorrect, because the eight Immediate Paths before the four kinds of forbearance (Ksanti, patience) are not of the highest quality. Since this samadhi can cut off the ninth grade of affliction in the Peak of Existence, and can lead to the exhaustion of this affliction, obtaining the Knowledge of Exhaustion (Ksaya-jnana, knowledge of the exhaustion of all afflictions) that arises simultaneously, causing the Vajra-like Samadhi to arise, it is the Knowledge of Exhaustion produced by the last Immediate Path in cutting off afflictions, and is the last Path of Liberation in cutting off afflictions. Therefore, it is said that the Knowledge of Exhaustion caused by this samadhi arises simultaneously with the exhaustion of the ninth grade of affliction. Or the word 'exhaustion' indicates all exhaustion, that is, the ninth grade of affliction and the remaining afflictions all obtain Cessation by Discrimination (Pratisankhya-nirodha, cessation through wisdom), so it is called exhaustion. The Vajra-like Samadhi can cause the exhaustion of all afflictions, causing the Knowledge of Exhaustion to arise simultaneously. This arises simultaneously with the exhaustion of all afflictions, so it is called Knowledge of Exhaustion. Other teachers say that in the body of exhausted afflictions, this is the first.
生故名盡智。如是盡智至已生時。便成無學阿羅漢果。已得無學應果法故。為得別果。所應修學。此無有故得無學名。豈不無學亦希別果。以無學者亦轉根故。此難不然。如先有學求得別果此不然故。謂如預流非一來等。於後獲得一來等時。舍預流等名得名一來等。皆舍別果得別果名。此則不然。退非思等於后獲得思法等時。雖舍退等名得名思法等。非舍別果得別果名。前後皆名阿羅漢故。唯舍前果得別果時。舍前果名得名別果。更無別果是所應學。故名無學前釋無過。即是行向住前果者。求別名果此無有義。既說盡智至已生時。便成無學阿羅漢果。義準盡智未已生時。前七聖者皆名有學。為得別果勤修學故。住本性位何名有學。學意未滿故。學得常隨故。何故無學名阿羅漢。諸自利行修學已成。唯應作他利益事故。如契經說。不自調伏能調伏他。無有是處。或有三種補特伽羅。謂諸異生有學無學。異生雖學戒定慧三。而猶未能如實見諦。容有舍正作邪學理。故不于彼立有學名。諸有已能如實見諦。正學無退得有學名。由此世尊為顯定義。于有學者重說學言。如契經中佛告憺怕。學所應學學所應學。我唯說此名有學者。諸已善學戒定慧三。不復學者立名無學。此是一切有學異生。所應供養故名應果。依如是義故有頌曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
因為『生』的緣故，稱為『盡智』（知道一切煩惱已盡的智慧）。當這樣的盡智生起時，就成就了無學阿羅漢果（不再需要學習的聖者果位）。因為已經獲得了無學應果之法，爲了獲得其他的果位，所應該修學的，已經沒有了，所以稱為『無學』。難道無學不會希望得到其他的果位嗎？因為無學者也會轉變根器（從鈍根變為利根）的緣故。這個詰難是不成立的。如同先前的有學者尋求獲得其他的果位，這是不可能的。例如預流（須陀洹，初果聖者）並非一來（斯陀含，二果聖者）等，在之後獲得一來等果位時，捨棄了預流等的名稱，得到了名為一來等的名稱，都是捨棄了之前的果位，得到了其他的果位名稱。這個說法是不對的。退法阿羅漢（會退轉的阿羅漢）在之後獲得思法等果位時，雖然捨棄了退法等的名稱，得到了名為思法等的名稱，但並非捨棄了之前的果位，得到了其他的果位名稱。前後都名為阿羅漢的緣故。只有捨棄了之前的果位，得到其他果位時，才捨棄之前的果位名稱，得到名為其他果位的名稱。沒有其他的果位是應該學習的，所以稱為『無學』，之前的解釋沒有過失。也就是行向于安住於之前果位的人，尋求其他的名稱和果位，這是沒有意義的。
既然說了盡智生起時，就成就了無學阿羅漢果，那麼按照這個意思，盡智還沒有生起時，之前的七位聖者（指預流向、預流果、一來向、一來果、不還向、不還果、阿羅漢向）都稱為有學（還需要學習的聖者），爲了獲得其他的果位而勤奮修學的緣故。安住于本性位，為什麼稱為有學呢？因為學習的意願還沒有滿足的緣故，因為學習的功德常常隨身的緣故。為什麼無學稱為阿羅漢（斷盡煩惱的聖者）呢？因為自利的行為修學已經完成，只應該做利益他人的事情的緣故。如同契經所說：『不自己調伏而能調伏他人，沒有這樣的道理。』或者有三種補特伽羅（人）：就是異生（凡夫）、有學、無學。異生雖然學習戒定慧三學，但仍然不能如實地見到真諦，容許有捨棄正道而作邪道的道理，所以不在他們那裡建立有學的名稱。那些已經能夠如實地見到真諦，正學沒有退失的，得到有學的名稱。因此，世尊爲了顯示定義，對於有學者，重複說了『學』這個字。如同契經中佛告訴憺怕（人名）：『學所應該學習的，學所應該學習的，我只說這樣的人名為有學者。』那些已經很好地學習了戒定慧三學，不再需要學習的人，立名為無學。這些人是一切有學和異生所應該供養的，所以稱為應果（值得供養的果位）。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說。 English version:
Because of 'birth,' it is called 'Exhaustion of Knowledge' (the wisdom that knows all afflictions are exhausted). When such Exhaustion of Knowledge arises, it accomplishes the fruit of the Non-Learner Arhat (a saint who no longer needs to learn). Because one has already attained the Dharma of the Non-Learner Worthy Fruit, there is nothing more to be learned in order to attain other fruits, so it is called 'Non-Learner.' Does the Non-Learner not hope to attain other fruits? Because the Non-Learner also transforms their faculties (from dull to sharp). This objection is not valid. It is like the previous Learner seeking to attain other fruits, which is impossible. For example, the Stream-Enterer (Srotapanna, the first fruit saint) is not a Once-Returner (Sakradagamin, the second fruit saint), etc. When they later attain the fruit of Once-Returner, etc., they abandon the name of Stream-Enterer, etc., and attain the name of Once-Returner, etc. All abandon the previous fruit and attain the name of another fruit. This statement is incorrect. The Backsliding Arhat (one who can regress from Arhatship) when later attaining the fruit of the Thoughtful Dharma, etc., although abandoning the name of Backsliding, etc., and attaining the name of Thoughtful Dharma, etc., does not abandon the previous fruit and attain the name of another fruit. Because both before and after, they are called Arhat. Only when abandoning the previous fruit and attaining another fruit, does one abandon the previous fruit name and attain the name of another fruit. There is no other fruit that needs to be learned, so it is called 'Non-Learner.' The previous explanation is without fault. That is, those who are on the path towards abiding in the previous fruit seek other names and fruits, which is meaningless.
Since it is said that when Exhaustion of Knowledge arises, it accomplishes the fruit of the Non-Learner Arhat, then according to this meaning, when Exhaustion of Knowledge has not yet arisen, the previous seven saints (referring to the path and fruit of Stream-Enterer, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and the path to Arhatship) are all called Learners (those who still need to learn), because they diligently cultivate to attain other fruits. Abiding in the state of inherent nature, why are they called Learners? Because the intention to learn has not yet been fulfilled, because the merit of learning always accompanies them. Why is the Non-Learner called Arhat (a saint who has exhausted afflictions)? Because the practice of self-benefit has been completed, and one should only do things that benefit others. As the sutra says: 'One who does not tame oneself cannot tame others; there is no such reason.' Or there are three kinds of Pudgalas (persons): namely, ordinary beings, Learners, and Non-Learners. Although ordinary beings study the three learnings of morality, concentration, and wisdom, they are still unable to see the truth as it is, and there is the possibility of abandoning the right path and taking the wrong path, so the name of Learner is not established for them. Those who have already been able to see the truth as it is, and whose right learning does not regress, attain the name of Learner. Therefore, the World Honored One, in order to show the definition, repeated the word 'learn' for the Learners. As the Buddha told Dampati (a person's name) in the sutra: 'Learn what should be learned, learn what should be learned; I only say that such a person is called a Learner.' Those who have already learned well the three learnings of morality, concentration, and wisdom, and no longer need to learn, are called Non-Learners. These people are worthy of being offered to by all Learners and ordinary beings, so they are called Worthy Fruit (a fruit worthy of offerings). According to this meaning, there is a verse that says.
【English Translation】 English version:
Because of 'birth,' it is called 'Exhaustion of Knowledge' (the wisdom that knows all afflictions are exhausted). When such Exhaustion of Knowledge arises, it accomplishes the fruit of the Non-Learner Arhat (a saint who no longer needs to learn). Because one has already attained the Dharma of the Non-Learner Worthy Fruit, there is nothing more to be learned in order to attain other fruits, so it is called 'Non-Learner.' Does the Non-Learner not hope to attain other fruits? Because the Non-Learner also transforms their faculties (from dull to sharp). This objection is not valid. It is like the previous Learner seeking to attain other fruits, which is impossible. For example, the Stream-Enterer (Srotapanna, the first fruit saint) is not a Once-Returner (Sakradagamin, the second fruit saint), etc. When they later attain the fruit of Once-Returner, etc., they abandon the name of Stream-Enterer, etc., and attain the name of Once-Returner, etc. All abandon the previous fruit and attain the name of another fruit. This statement is incorrect. The Backsliding Arhat (one who can regress from Arhatship) when later attaining the fruit of the Thoughtful Dharma, etc., although abandoning the name of Backsliding, etc., and attaining the name of Thoughtful Dharma, etc., does not abandon the previous fruit and attain the name of another fruit. Because both before and after, they are called Arhat. Only when abandoning the previous fruit and attaining another fruit, does one abandon the previous fruit name and attain the name of another fruit. There is no other fruit that needs to be learned, so it is called 'Non-Learner.' The previous explanation is without fault. That is, those who are on the path towards abiding in the previous fruit seek other names and fruits, which is meaningless.
Since it is said that when Exhaustion of Knowledge arises, it accomplishes the fruit of the Non-Learner Arhat, then according to this meaning, when Exhaustion of Knowledge has not yet arisen, the previous seven saints (referring to the path and fruit of Stream-Enterer, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and the path to Arhatship) are all called Learners (those who still need to learn), because they diligently cultivate to attain other fruits. Abiding in the state of inherent nature, why are they called Learners? Because the intention to learn has not yet been fulfilled, because the merit of learning always accompanies them. Why is the Non-Learner called Arhat (a saint who has exhausted afflictions)? Because the practice of self-benefit has been completed, and one should only do things that benefit others. As the sutra says: 'One who does not tame oneself cannot tame others; there is no such reason.' Or there are three kinds of Pudgalas (persons): namely, ordinary beings, Learners, and Non-Learners. Although ordinary beings study the three learnings of morality, concentration, and wisdom, they are still unable to see the truth as it is, and there is the possibility of abandoning the right path and taking the wrong path, so the name of Learner is not established for them. Those who have already been able to see the truth as it is, and whose right learning does not regress, attain the name of Learner. Therefore, the World Honored One, in order to show the definition, repeated the word 'learn' for the Learners. As the Buddha told Dampati (a person's name) in the sutra: 'Learn what should be learned, learn what should be learned; I only say that such a person is called a Learner.' Those who have already learned well the three learnings of morality, concentration, and wisdom, and no longer need to learn, are called Non-Learners. These people are worthy of being offered to by all Learners and ordinary beings, so they are called Worthy Fruit (a fruit worthy of offerings). According to this meaning, there is a verse that says.
。
于戒定慧三 若已善修學 畢竟離憂垢 堪為世福田
學法雲何。謂有學者無漏有為法。無學法雲何謂無學者無漏有為法。諸無為法雖是無漏。而不名為學無學法。以有得者異生等身亦成就故。若無得者都不繫屬學無學故。如是有學及無學者。總成八聖補特伽羅。行向住果各有四故。名雖有八事唯有五。謂住四果及初果向。以後三果向不離前果故。此依漸次得果者說。若倍離欲全離欲者。住見道中名為一來。不還果向非前果攝。何故盡智唯是無學。諸有學者亦自了知。我已永盡地獄等故。此前已說。前說者何。謂盡得俱方名盡智。預流等位猶有餘惑。既無盡得亦無盡智。由此契經作如是說。諸有學者成就八支。若成十支名阿羅漢。若爾何故尊者舍利子告大長者給孤獨言。汝已具成就正智正解脫。無相違失。依彼成就能往諸惡趣邪。智邪解脫。真對治道密意說故。若爾何不說有學成十支。有餘無智故心未善脫故。若爾何緣經作是說。諸有成就佛證凈者。一切皆名已得正見。乃至已得正解脫者。見圓滿者亦如是說。亦無違失。所以者何。我不說言諸有學者無有正智及正解脫。但作是說。彼不立支。不立支因如前已說。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對於戒、定、慧這三方面，如果已經很好地修習，最終就能遠離憂愁和污垢，堪稱為世間的福田。
什麼是『學法』（Śaikṣa-dharma）？指的是有學者的無漏有為法。 什麼是『無學法』（Aśaikṣa-dharma）？指的是無學者的無漏有為法。 各種無為法雖然也是無漏的，但不稱為學法或無學法，因為有得者（指凡夫）的異生等身也成就這些無為法。如果沒有得者，這些無為法就不屬於學或無學。 像這樣，有學者和無學者總共構成八聖補特伽羅（Aṣṭa-ārya-pudgala），因為行向（mārga）和住果（phala-sthita）各有四種。 名義上雖有八種，但實際上只有五種，即住於四果（srotaāpanna, sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, arhat）和初果向（srotaāpattimārga）。因為后三果向不離前面的果位。 這是依據漸次得果的人來說的。如果有人通過倍離欲或全離欲而證果，住在見道（darśanamārga）中，就稱為一來（sakṛdāgāmin）。不還果向（anāgāmi-mārga）不屬於前面的果位所攝。 為什麼盡智（kṣayajñāna）唯屬於無學？因為所有有學者也自己了知，『我已經永遠斷盡地獄等苦』。這在前面已經說過了。前面所說的是什麼？指的是盡得（kṣayaprāpti）和俱方（samudāgama）同時具備才稱為盡智。預流（srotaāpanna）等位還有剩餘的迷惑，既然沒有盡得，也就沒有盡智。 因此，契經（sūtra）這樣說：所有有學者成就八支（aṣṭāṅga），如果成就十支（daśāṅga），就稱為阿羅漢（arhat）。 如果這樣，為什麼尊者舍利子（Śāriputra）告訴大長者給孤獨（Anāthapiṇḍada）說：『你已經完全成就正智（samyag-jñāna）和正解脫（samyag-vimukti）』？這沒有相違之處，是因為依據他們能往諸惡趣的邪智邪解脫的真實對治道（satyapratipakṣamārga）的密意而說的。 如果這樣，為什麼不說有學成就十支？因為他們還有剩餘的無智，所以心沒有完全解脫。 如果這樣，為什麼經中這樣說：所有成就佛證凈（buddhe-prasāda）的人，一切都稱為已得正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi），乃至已得正解脫（samyag-vimukti）？見圓滿者（darśana-sampanna）也這樣說，也沒有違失之處。這是什麼原因呢？我不是說所有有學者沒有正智和正解脫，只是說他們不立為支。不立為支的原因，前面已經說過了。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第六十五 《大正藏》第29冊 No. 1562
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the three aspects of morality (śīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (prajñā), if one has cultivated them well, one will ultimately be free from sorrow and defilement, and be worthy of being a field of merit for the world.
What is meant by 'learning dharma' (Śaikṣa-dharma)? It refers to the unconditioned (anāsrava) conditioned (saṃskṛta) dharmas of a learner (śaikṣa). What is meant by 'non-learning dharma' (Aśaikṣa-dharma)? It refers to the unconditioned conditioned dharmas of a non-learner (aśaikṣa). Although all unconditioned dharmas are also unconditioned, they are not called learning or non-learning dharmas, because the bodies of ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) who have attained them also accomplish these unconditioned dharmas. If there were no attainers, these unconditioned dharmas would not belong to learning or non-learning. In this way, learners and non-learners together constitute the Eight Noble Individuals (Aṣṭa-ārya-pudgala), because there are four paths (mārga) and four fruits (phala-sthita). Although there are eight in name, there are actually only five, namely, abiding in the four fruits (srotaāpanna, sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, arhat) and the path to the first fruit (srotaāpattimārga). This is because the paths to the latter three fruits are not separate from the preceding fruits. This is said according to those who attain the fruits gradually. If someone attains the fruit through doubling detachment or completely detaching from desire, and abides in the path of seeing (darśanamārga), they are called a once-returner (sakṛdāgāmin). The path to the non-returner (anāgāmi-mārga) is not included in the preceding fruits. Why is the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna) only attributed to the non-learner? Because all learners also know for themselves, 'I have forever exhausted the suffering of hells, etc.' This has been said before. What was said before? It refers to the fact that the attainment of exhaustion (kṣayaprāpti) and the simultaneous arising (samudāgama) must both be present to be called the knowledge of exhaustion. Those in the stream-enterer (srotaāpanna) stage still have remaining delusions, and since they do not have the attainment of exhaustion, they also do not have the knowledge of exhaustion. Therefore, the sutra (sūtra) says: All learners accomplish eight factors (aṣṭāṅga), and if they accomplish ten factors (daśāṅga), they are called arhats (arhat). If this is the case, why did Venerable Śāriputra (Śāriputra) tell the great householder Anāthapiṇḍada (Anāthapiṇḍada): 'You have completely accomplished right knowledge (samyag-jñāna) and right liberation (samyag-vimukti)'? There is no contradiction, because it was said according to the hidden meaning of the true counteractive path (satyapratipakṣamārga) to the wrong knowledge and wrong liberation that can lead to the evil destinies. If this is the case, why not say that the learner accomplishes ten factors? Because they still have remaining ignorance, so their minds are not completely liberated. If this is the case, why does the sutra say: All those who have accomplished faith in the Buddha (buddhe-prasāda) are all called to have attained right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi), and even right liberation (samyag-vimukti)? It is also said of those who have perfected their vision (darśana-sampanna), and there is no contradiction. What is the reason for this? I am not saying that all learners do not have right knowledge and right liberation, but only that they are not established as factors. The reason for not establishing them as factors has been said before.
Shun Zheng Li Lun of the Sarvāstivāda, Volume Sixty-Five Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562
阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十
如上所言修道有二。一者有漏。二者無漏。今應思擇於此二種由何等道離何地染。頌曰。
有頂由無漏 余由二離染
論曰。有頂地中所有煩惱。唯無漏道能令永離定非有漏。所以者何。唯此力能治上地故。唯于次上近分地中。起世俗道治下地惑。有頂地惑既無上地。故無有漏能離彼染。何緣世俗道不治自地惑。是自隨眠所隨增故。非彼隨眠所隨增事。應有勢用治彼隨眠。以順生長彼煩惱故。若有勢用能治彼者。此必非彼之所隨增。以緣此時彼損減故。何緣下地起世俗道。不能對治上地隨眠。非彼隨眠所隨增故。不順生長彼煩惱故。應許能治上地隨眠。上地定非下地世俗。厭行斷道所緣境故。非厭下地能離上染。上地望下極微妙故。由此證知唯無漏力。能離有頂其理善成。餘八地中所有煩惱。通由二道能令永離。世出世道俱能離故。既通由二離八地染。各有幾種離系得耶。頌曰。
聖二離八修 各二離系得
論曰。諸有學聖用有漏道。離下八地修斷染時。能具引生二離系得。有漏無漏二種斷道。於八地中所作同故。用無漏道離彼亦然。亦以于中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十
如上所言，修道有二種：一者是有漏，二者是無漏。現在應當思考，這兩種道通過什麼方式，斷除哪個地的染污？頌文說：
『有頂由無漏，余由二離染。』
論曰：有頂地（Bhava-agra，三界最高處）中的所有煩惱，只有無漏道才能使其永遠斷除，一定不是有漏道。為什麼呢？因為只有無漏道的力量才能對治上地。只有在次上的近分地（Samantaka，指欲界和色界的中間階段）中，生起世俗道才能對治下地的迷惑。有頂地的迷惑既然沒有更高的地，所以沒有有漏道能夠斷除它的染污。為什麼世俗道不能對治自己地的迷惑呢？因為它是自己隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）所隨順增長的緣故。不是被那個隨眠所隨順增長的事物，應該有力量對治那個隨眠，因為它順著生長那個煩惱的緣故。如果有一種力量能夠對治它，那麼這個力量一定不是它所隨順增長的，因為緣著這個力量的時候，那個煩惱會損減的緣故。為什麼下地生起的世俗道，不能對治上地的隨眠呢？因為它不是那個隨眠所隨順增長的緣故，不順著生長那個煩惱的緣故，應該允許它能夠對治上地的隨眠。上地一定不是下地的世俗道所厭惡行斷道的所緣境的緣故，不是厭惡下地就能斷除上地的染污的。上地相對於下地來說極其微妙的緣故。由此可以證明只有無漏的力量，才能斷除有頂地的染污，這個道理是完全成立的。其餘的八地中的所有煩惱，都可以通過有漏道和無漏道兩種方式來永遠斷除，因為世間道和出世間道都能夠斷除的緣故。既然都可以通過兩種方式來斷除八地的染污，那麼每一種方式各能獲得幾種離系得（Visamyoga-pratilambha，斷除煩惱后獲得的解脫）呢？頌文說：
『聖二離八修，各二離系得。』
論曰：諸有學聖者用有漏道，斷除下八地修斷染的時候，能夠完全引生兩種離系得，因為有漏和無漏兩種斷道，在八地中所起的作用是相同的緣故。用無漏道斷除這些染污也是這樣，也是因為在其中...
【English Translation】 English version: Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra Volume Sixty-Six
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated under Imperial Order by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter Six, Section Ten: Discrimination of the Worthy and the Saints
As mentioned above, there are two types of paths in cultivation: one is conditioned (with outflows, sāsrava), and the other is unconditioned (without outflows, anāsrava). Now, we should consider by what means these two paths can eliminate the defilements of which realms. The verse says:
'The Peak of Existence is [abandoned] by the unconditioned; the rest are abandoned by both.'
Treatise says: All the afflictions in the Peak of Existence (Bhava-agra, the highest realm of the Three Realms) can only be permanently eliminated by the unconditioned path; it is definitely not by the conditioned path. Why? Because only this [unconditioned path] has the power to cure the higher realms. Only in the proximate concentration (samantaka, referring to the intermediate stage between the Desire Realm and the Form Realm) of the next higher realm can mundane paths arise to cure the delusions of the lower realms. Since the delusions of the Peak of Existence have no higher realm, there is no conditioned path that can eliminate its defilements. Why can't the mundane path cure the delusions of its own realm? Because it is followed and increased by its own latent tendencies (anusaya, the latent forms of afflictions). Something that is not followed and increased by that latent tendency should have the power to cure that latent tendency, because it follows and increases that affliction. If there is a power that can cure it, then this power must not be what it follows and increases, because when it is associated with this power, that affliction will be diminished. Why can't the mundane path arising in the lower realms cure the latent tendencies of the higher realms? Because it is not followed and increased by that latent tendency, and it does not follow and increase that affliction, it should be allowed to cure the latent tendencies of the higher realms. The higher realms are definitely not the objects of the path of disgust and abandonment of the mundane path of the lower realms, because it is not by being disgusted with the lower realms that one can eliminate the defilements of the higher realms. The higher realms are extremely subtle compared to the lower realms. From this, it can be proven that only the power of the unconditioned can eliminate the defilements of the Peak of Existence; this principle is well established. All the afflictions in the remaining eight realms can be permanently eliminated by both the conditioned and unconditioned paths, because both mundane and supramundane paths can eliminate them. Since the defilements of the eight realms can be eliminated by both paths, how many attainments of separation (visamyoga-pratilambha, the liberation obtained after abandoning afflictions) can be obtained by each path? The verse says:
'The noble ones abandon the eight [realms] with two [paths]; each obtains two attainments of separation.'
Treatise says: When the noble ones who are still learning use the conditioned path to abandon the defilements to be abandoned by cultivation in the lower eight realms, they can fully generate two attainments of separation, because the two paths of abandonment, conditioned and unconditioned, have the same effect in the eight realms. It is the same when using the unconditioned path to abandon these defilements, also because in it...
所作同故。由此有學離八修斷。世出世道隨一現前。各未來修世出世道。既說聖者二離八修。各能引生二離系得。準知聖者離有頂修。及見斷時用無漏道。唯引無漏離系得生。亦不未來修世俗道。與世俗道不同事故。異生離八用有漏道。唯引有漏離系得生。亦不未來修無漏道。未入聖故不說自成。有餘師言。以無漏道離下八地修斷染時。何緣知亦生有漏離系得。有舍無漏得煩惱不成故。謂有學聖以無漏道離彼染時。若不引生同治有漏離系得者。則以聖道具離八地。后依靜慮得轉根時。頓舍先來諸鈍聖道。唯得靜慮利果聖道。上惑離系應皆不成。是即還應成彼煩惱。然非所許。是故定知。諸有學聖以無漏道離下八地修斷染時。亦具引生二離系得。此證非理。所以者何。彼聖設無有漏斷得。亦不成就上地煩惱。如分離有頂得轉根時。及異生上生不成惑故。謂如分離有頂地染。后依靜慮得轉根時。無漏斷得既已頓舍。彼地離系無有漏得。而彼地惑亦不成就。又如異生生二定等。雖舍欲界等煩惱斷得。而不成就欲界等煩惱。以欲界等有漏離系得。初定等攝。唯彼能治故。若生上地此得必舍。生上地必舍下有漏善故。此二雖無煩惱斷得。而勝進故遮惑得生。彼亦應然。故證非理。由此但可作如是言。二道于中所作同故。隨一現起
【現代漢語翻譯】 所作相同之故。因此，有學位者通過修習斷除八地之煩惱。世間道和出世間道隨其中之一而現前。各自在未來修習世間道和出世間道。既然說了聖者通過修習斷除八地之煩惱，各自能夠引生兩種離系得（Visamyoga-prāpti，解脫繫縛之得）。由此可以推知，聖者斷除有頂地（Bhavāgra，三界最高處）的修惑，以及見道時使用無漏道（Anāsrava-mārga，無煩惱之道），僅僅能夠引生無漏的離系得產生。也不會在未來修習世俗道，因為與世俗道不同。異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）斷除八地之煩惱時使用有漏道（Sāsrava-mārga，有煩惱之道），僅僅能夠引生有漏的離系得產生。也不會在未來修習無漏道，因為尚未入聖，所以不說自然成就。有其他老師說，以無漏道斷除下八地的修惑時，憑什麼知道也會產生有漏的離系得呢？因為捨棄無漏得，煩惱不會重新生起。意思是說，有學的聖者以無漏道斷除那些染污時，如果不引生同類的有漏離系得，那麼以聖者的工具斷除八地后，依靠靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）獲得轉根時，一下子捨棄先前那些遲鈍的聖道，僅僅獲得靜慮的殊勝果位的聖道，那麼上界的惑的離系應該都不會成就，這樣就又應該成為那些煩惱了，然而這是不允許的。因此一定知道，諸位有學的聖者以無漏道斷除下八地的修惑時，也同時引生兩種離系得。這個論證是不合理的。為什麼呢？那位聖者即使沒有有漏的斷得，也不會成就上地的煩惱，如同斷除有頂地得轉根時，以及異生上生不會成就惑一樣。意思是說，如同斷除有頂地的染污，後來依靠靜慮獲得轉根時，無漏的斷得既然已經一下子捨棄，那個地方的離系沒有有漏的得，而那個地方的惑也不會成就。又如同異生生到二禪等，即使捨棄欲界等的煩惱斷得，也不會成就欲界等的煩惱，因為欲界等的有漏離系得，被初禪等所攝，只有那些能夠對治。如果生到上地，這個得必定捨棄，生到上地必定捨棄地獄的有漏善法。這兩種雖然沒有煩惱的斷得，但是因為勝進的緣故，遮止了惑的產生，那個也應該這樣。所以這個論證是不合理的。因此只能這樣說，兩種道在其中所作相同，隨其中之一現起。
【English Translation】 Because the actions performed are the same. Therefore, a learner (Śaikṣa) abandons the eight [lower realms] through cultivation and severance. Either the mundane path or the supramundane path manifests. Each will cultivate either the mundane or supramundane path in the future. Since it is said that a noble one abandons the eight [lower realms] through cultivation, each is able to generate two Visamyoga-prāpti (acquisitions of detachment). From this, it can be inferred that when a noble one severs the afflictions of the peak of existence (Bhavāgra, the highest realm of the three realms) through cultivation, and at the time of the path of seeing, using the Anāsrava-mārga (path without outflows), only Anāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti (acquisitions of detachment without outflows) are generated. They will also not cultivate the mundane path in the future, because it is different from the mundane path. When an ordinary being (Pṛthagjana) abandons the eight [lower realms] using the Sāsrava-mārga (path with outflows), only Sāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti (acquisitions of detachment with outflows) are generated. They will also not cultivate the Anāsrava-mārga in the future, because they have not yet entered the path of the noble ones, so it is not said to be naturally accomplished. Some other teachers say, when the Anāsrava-mārga is used to sever the afflictions of the lower eight realms through cultivation, how do we know that Sāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti are also generated? Because abandoning the Anāsrava-prāpti does not cause afflictions to arise again. This means that when a noble learner severs those defilements with the Anāsrava-mārga, if they do not generate similar Sāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti, then after severing the eight realms with the tools of a noble one, when they obtain the transformation of faculties by relying on Dhyāna (meditative absorption), they suddenly abandon the previous dull noble paths, and only obtain the noble path of the superior fruit of Dhyāna, then the detachment from the afflictions of the higher realms should not be accomplished, and they should revert to those afflictions, which is not permissible. Therefore, it must be known that when noble learners sever the afflictions of the lower eight realms through cultivation with the Anāsrava-mārga, they also generate two Visamyoga-prāpti simultaneously. This argument is unreasonable. Why? Even if that noble one does not have the Sāsrava-ccheda-prāpti (acquisition of severance with outflows), they will not accomplish the afflictions of the higher realms, just as when severing the peak of existence and obtaining the transformation of faculties, and when an ordinary being is born in a higher realm, they do not accomplish afflictions. This means that just as when severing the defilements of the peak of existence, and later obtaining the transformation of faculties by relying on Dhyāna, since the Anāsrava-ccheda-prāpti has already been suddenly abandoned, the detachment from that place does not have the Sāsrava-prāpti, but the afflictions of that place will not be accomplished. Also, just as when an ordinary being is born in the second Dhyāna etc., even if they abandon the Kleśa-ccheda-prāpti (acquisition of severance of afflictions) of the desire realm etc., they will not accomplish the afflictions of the desire realm etc., because the Sāsrava-visamyoga-prāpti of the desire realm etc. are included in the first Dhyāna etc., and only those can counteract them. If one is born in a higher realm, this acquisition must be abandoned, and one must abandon the Sāsrava-kuśala (wholesome deeds with outflows) of the lower realm when born in a higher realm. Although these two do not have the Kleśa-ccheda-prāpti, they prevent the arising of afflictions because of their superior progress, and that should be the same. Therefore, this argument is unreasonable. Therefore, it can only be said that the two paths perform the same actions, and either one manifests.
引二得生。不可說言為成斷故。已辯離染由道不同。今次應辯由地差別。由何地道離何地染。頌曰。
無漏未至道 能離一切地 餘八離自上 有漏離次下
論曰。諸無漏道通依九地。謂四靜慮未至中間及三無色。若未至攝能離欲界乃至有頂。餘八地攝隨其所應。各能離自及上地染不能離下。未離下時上道必無現在前故。諸有漏道一切唯能離次下地。非自地等自地煩惱所隨增故。勢力劣故。先已離故。諸依近分離下地染。如無間道皆近分攝。諸解脫道亦近分耶。不定。云何。頌曰。
近分離下染 初三后解脫 根本或近分 上地唯根本
論曰。諸道所依近分有八。謂四靜慮無色下邊。所離有九。謂欲八定。初三近分離下三染。第九解脫現在前時。或入根本或即近分。上五近分各離下染。第九解脫現在前時。必入根本非即近分。近分根本等舍根故。下三靜慮近分根本。受根異故。有不能入轉入異受。少艱難故。離下染時必欣上故。若受無異必入根本。諸出世道無間解脫前既已說。緣四諦境十六行相義準自成。世道緣何作何行相。頌曰。
世無間解脫 如次緣下上 作粗苦障行 及靜妙離三
論曰。世俗無間及解脫道。如次能緣下地上地。為粗苦障及靜妙離。謂諸無間
道緣自次下地。諸有漏法作粗苦等。三行相中隨一行相。若諸解脫道。緣彼次上地。諸有漏法作靜妙等。三行相中隨一行相。約容有說二道各三。非諸有情于離染位。無間解脫皆各具三。諸下地中由多掉舉寂靜微劣。故名為粗。雖大劬勞暫令掉舉勢用微劣。仍不能引美妙樂生。故名為苦有極多種災害拘礙。及能覆障。令無功能見出離方。故名為障。諸上地中不作功用掉舉微劣。故名為靜。不設劬勞掉舉微劣引生勝樂。故名為妙于下地中所有災害。能決定見心不生欣。及能越彼。故名為離。應知此中已兼顯示無間解脫。行相各三相翻而生。如其次第。謂無間道緣下為粗。解脫道中緣上為靜。余相翻起如次應知。然離染時起則不定。世俗無間及解脫道。能離下等九品染故。應知亦有九品差別。此中異生離欲界染。九無間道粗等三行。隨一現前各未來修。粗等三行八解脫道。靜等三行。隨一現前各未來修。粗等六行后解脫道現。在未來所修如前八解脫道與前別者。復修未來初靜慮攝。無邊行相。如是乃至離無所有染。無間解脫道所修應知。若諸聖者以世俗道。離欲界染九無間道。粗等三行隨一現前。各于未來修十九行。謂粗等三有漏無漏。十六聖行八解脫道。靜等三行隨一現前。各未來修二十二行。謂前十九加靜等三。后解
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道類智之後，從下地開始。所有有漏法，都視為粗、苦等，在三種行相中隨取一種行相（粗、苦、障）。如果說是解脫道，則緣于其上的地，將所有有漏法視為靜、妙等，在三種行相中隨取一種行相（靜、妙、離）。 從容許的角度來說，可以認為兩種道各有三種行相。但並非所有有情在離染位，其無間解脫都各自具備三種行相。在下地中，由於掉舉（煩躁）過多，寂靜微弱，因此稱為『粗』。即使付出很大的努力暫時使掉舉的勢頭減弱，仍然不能引生美好快樂，因此稱為『苦』，有極多種災害拘礙，並且能夠覆蓋和阻礙，使人無法看到出離的方向，因此稱為『障』。 在上地中，不作功用，掉舉微弱，因此稱為『靜』。不需付出努力，掉舉微弱，就能引生殊勝的快樂，因此稱為『妙』。對於下地中所有的災害，能夠確定地看到，心中不生欣喜，並且能夠超越它們，因此稱為『離』。應當知道，這裡已經兼帶顯示了無間解脫，行相各有三種，相互顛倒而生，按照次第，即無間道緣下地為『粗』，解脫道中緣上地為『靜』，其餘行相顛倒而起，也應依次類推。然而，離染時生起則不一定。 世俗的無間道和解脫道，能夠脫離下等九品染污，因此，應當知道也有九品差別。這裡，異生（凡夫）脫離欲界染污，九個無間道中，粗等三種行相，隨一種現前，各自在未來修習粗等三種行相；八個解脫道中，靜等三種行相，隨一種現前，各自在未來修習粗等六種行相；後來的解脫道現在，在未來所修習的，如前面的八個解脫道，與前面的區別在於，還要修習未來初禪所攝的無邊行相。像這樣，乃至脫離無所有處染，無間解脫道所修習的，應當知道。 如果聖者以世俗道脫離欲界染污，九個無間道中，粗等三種行相，隨一種現前，各自在未來修習十九種行相，即粗等三種有漏無漏，十六種聖行；八個解脫道中，靜等三種行相，隨一種現前，各自在未來修習二十二種行相，即前面的十九種加上靜等三種；後來的解脫道。
【English Translation】 English version Following the Path of Knowledge, starting from the lower realms. All contaminated dharmas (有漏法) are perceived as coarse (粗), suffering (苦), etc., selecting one of the three aspects (粗, 苦, 障 - coarse, suffering, obstacle). If it is the path of liberation (解脫道), then it is related to the higher realms, viewing all contaminated dharmas as tranquil (靜), exquisite (妙), etc., selecting one of the three aspects (靜, 妙, 離 - tranquil, exquisite, detachment). From a permissive perspective, it can be considered that each of the two paths has three aspects. However, not all sentient beings in the state of detachment (離染位) have three aspects each in their immediate liberation (無間解脫). In the lower realms, due to excessive agitation (掉舉), tranquility is weak, hence it is called 'coarse'. Even if great effort is made to temporarily weaken the momentum of agitation, it still cannot give rise to beautiful happiness, hence it is called 'suffering', with extremely many disasters and constraints, and it can cover and obstruct, preventing one from seeing the direction of liberation, hence it is called 'obstacle'. In the higher realms, without effort, agitation is weak, hence it is called 'tranquil'. Without effort, agitation is weak, and it can give rise to superior happiness, hence it is called 'exquisite'. Regarding all the disasters in the lower realms, one can see them definitively, without generating joy in the mind, and can transcend them, hence it is called 'detachment'. It should be known that this already implicitly shows immediate liberation, each aspect having three forms, arising in reverse order, in sequence, that is, the immediate path related to the lower realm is 'coarse', and in the path of liberation related to the higher realm is 'tranquil', and the remaining aspects arise in reverse order, and should be inferred accordingly. However, arising at the time of detachment is not necessarily fixed. The mundane immediate path and the path of liberation can detach from the lower nine grades of defilement, therefore, it should be known that there are also nine grades of difference. Here, an ordinary being (異生) detaches from the desire realm defilement, in the nine immediate paths, the three aspects of coarse, etc., whichever one appears, each cultivates the three aspects of coarse, etc., in the future; in the eight paths of liberation, the three aspects of tranquil, etc., whichever one appears, each cultivates the six aspects of coarse, etc., in the future; the later path of liberation is now, what is cultivated in the future, like the previous eight paths of liberation, the difference from the previous is that one must also cultivate the boundless aspects included in the future first dhyana (初禪). Like this, even detaching from the realm of nothingness (無所有處), what is cultivated by the immediate path of liberation should be known. If a sage detaches from the desire realm defilement with the mundane path, in the nine immediate paths, the three aspects of coarse, etc., whichever one appears, each cultivates nineteen aspects in the future, that is, the three aspects of coarse, etc., contaminated and uncontaminated, sixteen noble practices; in the eight paths of liberation, the three aspects of tranquil, etc., whichever one appears, each cultivates twenty-two aspects in the future, that is, the previous nineteen plus the three aspects of tranquil, etc.; the later path of liberation.
脫道現在未來所修如前。八解脫道與前別者。復修未來初靜慮攝無邊行相。離初定染九無間道。粗等三行隨一現前。各于未來修十九行。謂粗等三及唯無漏十六聖行。此十六行是下地攝。以上地邊無聖行故。后修聖行準此應知。八解脫道靜等三行隨一現前。各未來修二十二行。謂前十九加靜等三。后解脫道現在未來所修如前。八解脫道與前別者。復修未來二靜慮攝無邊行相。如是乃至離無所有染。無間解脫道所修應知。有餘師言。異生聖者離欲無間解脫道中。亦修不凈息念慈等。離余上地所修如前。初靜慮邊善根廣故修如是行。上諸定邊善根少故所修如前。又欲界中有多煩惱。為欲斷彼修多對治。上地不然故。修治少。離欲界染九無間道。未來所修粗等三行。唯緣欲界八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行。通緣欲界及初靜慮。靜等三行緣初靜慮。后解脫道未來所修。粗等三行通緣三界。靜等三行緣初靜慮。乃至有頂離初定染。九無間道未來所修。粗等三行緣初靜慮。八解脫道未來所修。粗等三行緣初二定。靜等三行緣第二定。后解脫道未來所修。粗等三行通緣三界。靜等三行緣第二定。乃至有頂離二靜慮三靜慮染。隨其所應皆準前說。離四定染九無間道。未來所修粗等三行。緣第四定八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行。緣第四定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 脫離道現在和未來所修的（內容）如前所述。八解脫道與之前（所說）的區別在於：進一步修習未來初禪所攝的無邊行相。遠離初禪染的九無間道，粗等三種行相隨一顯現，各自在未來修習十九種行相，即粗等三種以及唯無漏的十六聖行。這十六種行相是下地所攝，因為上地沒有聖行。之後修習聖行，依此類推可知。八解脫道，靜等三種行相隨一顯現，各自未來修習二十二種行相，即之前的十九種加上靜等三種。之後的解脫道，現在和未來所修的（內容）如前所述。八解脫道與之前（所說）的區別在於：進一步修習未來二禪所攝的無邊行相。像這樣乃至遠離無所有處染，無間解脫道所修的（內容）應該知道。 有其他論師說，異生（指凡夫）和聖者在遠離欲界染的無間解脫道中，也修習不凈觀、息念、慈等。遠離其餘上地（的染），所修的（內容）如前所述。初禪邊（的眾生）善根廣大，所以修習這樣的行相。上面的禪定邊（的眾生）善根少，所以所修的（內容）如前所述。而且欲界中有很多煩惱，爲了斷除這些煩惱，修習很多對治法。上地不是這樣，所以修習的對治法少。遠離欲界染的九無間道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，只緣于欲界。八解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，通緣欲界和初禪。靜等三種行相緣于初禪。之後的解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，通緣三界。靜等三種行相緣于初禪。乃至有頂（指非想非非想處天）遠離初禪染，九無間道未來所修的粗等三種行相，緣于初禪。八解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，緣于初禪和二禪。靜等三種行相緣於二禪。之後的解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，通緣三界。靜等三種行相緣於二禪。乃至有頂遠離二禪、三禪染，根據其所應，都依前述（的原則）來說明。遠離四禪染的九無間道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，緣于第四禪。八解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，緣于第四禪。
【English Translation】 English version The cultivation of the Path of Liberation in the present and future is as previously described. The difference between the Eight Paths of Liberation and the previous ones is that one further cultivates the boundless aspects included in the future First Dhyana (初禪, the first meditative absorption). The Nine Uninterrupted Paths that lead away from the defilements of the First Dhyana, with any one of the three aspects of coarseness, etc., manifesting, each cultivates nineteen aspects in the future, namely the three of coarseness, etc., and the sixteen noble aspects that are solely unconditioned. These sixteen aspects are included in the lower realms, because there are no noble aspects in the higher realms. The subsequent cultivation of the noble aspects should be understood accordingly. The Eight Paths of Liberation, with any one of the three aspects of tranquility, etc., manifesting, each cultivates twenty-two aspects in the future, namely the previous nineteen plus the three of tranquility, etc. The subsequent Path of Liberation, the cultivation in the present and future is as previously described. The difference between the Eight Paths of Liberation and the previous ones is that one further cultivates the boundless aspects included in the future Second Dhyana. Thus, it should be known what is cultivated in the Uninterrupted Path of Liberation that leads away from the defilements of the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (無所有處, the realm of nothingness). Some teachers say that in the Uninterrupted Path of Liberation that leads away from the defilements of the Desire Realm (欲界), both ordinary beings (異生, those not yet on the path) and noble ones also cultivate impurity contemplation, mindfulness of breathing, loving-kindness, etc. The cultivation to abandon the remaining higher realms is as previously described. Those in the vicinity of the First Dhyana have vast roots of virtue, so they cultivate such aspects. Those in the vicinity of the higher Dhyanas have few roots of virtue, so their cultivation is as previously described. Moreover, there are many afflictions in the Desire Realm, so in order to cut them off, many antidotes are cultivated. It is not so in the higher realms, so fewer antidotes are cultivated. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the Nine Uninterrupted Paths that lead away from the defilements of the Desire Realm, only pertain to the Desire Realm. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the Eight Paths of Liberation, pertain to both the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., pertain to the First Dhyana. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the subsequent Path of Liberation, pertain to all three realms. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., pertain to the First Dhyana. Up to the Summit of Existence (有頂, the peak of existence), when abandoning the defilements of the First Dhyana, the three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the Nine Uninterrupted Paths, pertain to the First Dhyana. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the Eight Paths of Liberation, pertain to the First and Second Dhyanas. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., pertain to the Second Dhyana. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the subsequent Path of Liberation, pertain to all three realms. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., pertain to the Second Dhyana. Up to the Summit of Existence, when abandoning the defilements of the Second and Third Dhyanas, everything should be explained according to the aforementioned principles as appropriate. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the Nine Uninterrupted Paths that lead away from the defilements of the Fourth Dhyana, pertain to the Fourth Dhyana. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the Eight Paths of Liberation, pertain to the Fourth Dhyana.
及緣空處。然非一念。以界別故。靜等三行唯緣空處。后解脫道未來所修。粗等三行靜等三行。皆緣空處乃至有頂離空處染九無間道。未來所修粗等三行。唯緣空處八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行。緣空識處靜等三行。唯緣識處后解脫道。未來所修粗等三行。靜等三行俱緣識處。乃至有頂離識處染。無所有染隨其所應皆準前說。何緣最後解脫道中。未來所修粗等三行。靜慮攝者通緣三界。無色攝者唯自上緣。諸靜慮中有遍緣智。無色根本必不下緣。故二所修所緣有別。此中一類譬喻論師。為欲顯成分別論義。作如是說。無有異生實斷煩惱。有退失故。謂若有能實斷有頂薩迦耶見必無退失。若有退失必未實斷。既許異生於下八地。諸煩惱斷可有退失。故無異生實斷煩惱。彼說非理。于有頂惑有伏無伏。皆有失故。謂諸異生於有頂惑。為許有伏許無伏耶。若許異生伏有頂惑。如伏下地諸煩惱已。彼于下地必不受生。如是既能伏有頂惑。應于有頂亦不受生。是則異生應證圓寂。若伏有頂猶生有頂。非伏下地猶生下地。是則不應。以有頂惑斷已不退例下令同。若許異生無伏有頂。以世俗道于彼無能。唯許彼能伏下地惑亦不應。以有頂地惑斷已不退例下令同。如是推徴二皆有失。故不可說彼實無斷。然彼所言見有頂攝。身見等惑斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以及緣于空無邊處（Akasanantyayatana，四無色定之一）。然而，並非僅一念之間，因為有界限的差別。『靜』等三種行相唯緣于空無邊處。之後的解脫道是未來所修習的。『粗』等三種行相，『靜』等三種行相，都緣于空無邊處，乃至有頂（Bhavagra，三界之頂）離空無邊處染的九種無間道（Anantarya-marga，能斷除煩惱的道）。未來所修習的『粗』等三種行相，唯緣于空無邊處。八種解脫道是未來所修習的『粗』等三種行相。緣于空無邊處和識無邊處（Vijnananantyayatana，四無色定之一）。『靜』等三種行相，唯緣于識無邊處。之後的解脫道是未來所修習的『粗』等三種行相，『靜』等三種行相，都緣于識無邊處，乃至有頂離識無邊處染。無所有染（Akincannyayatana，四無色定之一）隨其所應，都按照前面的說法。為何最後的解脫道中，未來所修習的『粗』等三種行相，屬於靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）所攝的，可以通緣三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）。屬於無色界所攝的，唯有自上緣。諸靜慮中有普遍緣的智慧，無色界的根本禪定必定不會向下緣。所以二者所修習的所緣是有差別的。 這裡有一類譬喻論師，爲了想要顯明成就分別論的義理，這樣說：沒有異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）真正斷除煩惱，因為有退失的緣故。如果有人能夠真正斷除有頂的薩迦耶見（Satkayadristi，有身見），必定不會退失。如果有人退失，必定沒有真正斷除。既然允許異生在下方的八地（指欲界和色界）中，諸煩惱斷除后可以退失，所以沒有異生真正斷除煩惱。他們的說法是不合理的，對於有頂的迷惑，無論是有伏還是沒有伏，都有退失的可能。對於有頂的迷惑，是允許有伏還是允許沒有伏呢？如果允許異生伏住了有頂的迷惑，如同伏住了下方的諸煩惱一樣，那麼他對於下方的諸地必定不會再受生。像這樣，既然能夠伏住有頂的迷惑，應該對於有頂也不會再受生。那麼異生應該證得圓寂（Parinirvana，涅槃）。如果伏住了有頂的迷惑，仍然會生於有頂，如同伏住了下方的迷惑，仍然會生於下方一樣，那麼就不應該用有頂的迷惑斷除后不會退失來作為例子，使下方的情況也相同。如果允許異生沒有伏住有頂的迷惑，因為世俗道對於他們沒有能力，只允許他們能夠伏住下方的迷惑，也不應該用有頂地的迷惑斷除后不會退失來作為例子，使下方的情況也相同。像這樣推究，兩種情況都有過失，所以不可以認為他們沒有真正斷除。然而他們所說的見有頂所攝的身見等迷惑斷除。
【English Translation】 English version: And also conditions pertaining to the Akasanantyayatana (sphere of infinite space, one of the four formless realms). However, it is not just a single thought, because there are distinctions in the realms. The 'calm' and other three aspects only pertain to the Akasanantyayatana. The path of liberation that follows is to be cultivated in the future. The 'coarse' and other three aspects, the 'calm' and other three aspects, all pertain to the Akasanantyayatana, up to the Bhavagra (peak of existence, the summit of the three realms) and the nine Anantarya-margas (paths of immediate consequence, which can cut off defilements) that are free from the defilement of the Akasanantyayatana. The 'coarse' and other three aspects to be cultivated in the future only pertain to the Akasanantyayatana. The eight paths of liberation are the 'coarse' and other three aspects to be cultivated in the future. They pertain to the Akasanantyayatana and the Vijnananantyayatana (sphere of infinite consciousness, one of the four formless realms). The 'calm' and other three aspects only pertain to the Vijnananantyayatana. The path of liberation that follows is the 'coarse' and other three aspects to be cultivated in the future, the 'calm' and other three aspects, all pertain to the Vijnananantyayatana, up to the Bhavagra free from the defilement of the Vijnananantyayatana. The Akincannyayatana (sphere of nothingness, one of the four formless realms) defilement, according to what is appropriate, should all be in accordance with the previous explanation. Why is it that in the final path of liberation, the 'coarse' and other three aspects to be cultivated in the future, which are included in the Dhyana (meditation), can universally pertain to the Trailokya (three realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm). Those included in the formless realm only pertain to what is above themselves. In the Dhyana there is wisdom that universally pertains, the fundamental meditation of the formless realm will certainly not pertain to what is below. Therefore, the objects of what the two cultivate are different. Here, there is a type of Sautrantika (those who uphold the sutras), in order to manifest and accomplish the meaning of the theory of distinction, say this: No Prthagjana (ordinary being, worldling) truly cuts off defilements, because there is the reason of regression. If someone is able to truly cut off the Satkayadristi (view of self, personality belief) of the Bhavagra, they will certainly not regress. If someone regresses, they have certainly not truly cut it off. Since it is allowed that ordinary beings in the lower eight grounds (referring to the desire realm and form realm), after the defilements are cut off, can regress, therefore no ordinary being truly cuts off defilements. Their statement is unreasonable, because regarding the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, whether there is suppression or no suppression, there is the possibility of regression. Regarding the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, is it allowed that there is suppression or is it allowed that there is no suppression? If it is allowed that ordinary beings suppress the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, just like suppressing the defilements of the lower grounds, then they will certainly not be reborn in the lower grounds. Like this, since they are able to suppress the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, they should also not be reborn in the Bhavagra. Then ordinary beings should attain Parinirvana (complete nirvana). If they suppress the bewilderment of the Bhavagra and still are born in the Bhavagra, just like suppressing the defilements of the lower grounds and still being born in the lower grounds, then it should not be used as an example that the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, after being cut off, will not regress, to make the situation of the lower grounds the same. If it is allowed that ordinary beings do not suppress the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, because the mundane path has no ability for them, only allowing them to be able to suppress the defilements of the lower grounds, it also should not be used as an example that the bewilderment of the Bhavagra, after being cut off, will not regress, to make the situation of the lower grounds the same. Like this, investigating, both situations have faults, so it cannot be said that they have not truly cut it off. However, what they say is that the view of self and other bewilderments included in the Bhavagra are cut off.
已無退。證知下地所有諸惑。亦應如彼斷已無退。既見異生於下地惑斷已還退。故知彼于下地諸惑實未能斷。此不應理。斷者異故謂非我等許諸異生。于有頂惑有能斷義。以斷有頂世俗道生無所依故。及即于中解脫道起無所緣故。下諸地惑異生能斷。既能斷者凡聖有殊。亦應許有退不退異。如何舉聖斷無退理。例異生斷亦令無退。又不成故。謂非我等許有頂惑斷已無退。此既不成。如何可以彼無退理例下令同。雖有頂攝薩迦耶見斷已無退。而彼不許彼地有伏如下地惑。故不可以彼斷無退。例下地惑斷無退理。無伏有伏彼此既殊。有退無退亦應許別。又道異故。謂非此道斷有頂攝薩迦耶見。即由此道諸異生類。斷下八地所有煩惱。道既有異應許惑斷。有退不退二種差別。以諸惑斷是道果故。若謂此義應生疑者。理亦不然分明說故。謂彼或作如是思惟。彼此治道既有差別便可生疑。諸異生類既有退失。為斷不斷此不應疑。世尊處處分明顯說。諸異生中有斷煩惱及離染故。謂契經說諸異生中。有斷五蓋斷樂斷苦。又契經說。嗢達洛迦遏邏摩子能斷諸欲。又契經說。昔有外仙為世導師名為妙眼。彼于欲界已得離染。又見契經分別業處。說有欲界離染外仙。由此證知道有異故。諸異生類於八地惑。雖有實斷而有退義。非道異故不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 已無退：如果證實下地（指欲界和色界）的所有煩惱，也應該像聖者一樣斷除后不再退轉。既然看到異生（指凡夫）在下地斷除煩惱后還會退轉，所以知道他們實際上並沒有斷除下地的所有煩惱。這種說法是不合理的，因為斷除煩惱的方式不同。我們並不認為異生能夠斷除有頂天（指無色界）的煩惱，因為斷除有頂天煩惱的世俗道生起時沒有所依，並且解脫道生起時也沒有所緣。下地煩惱異生能夠斷除，既然能斷除煩惱的人有凡夫和聖者之分，就應該允許有退轉和不退轉的區別。怎麼能用聖者斷除煩惱后不會退轉的道理，來類比異生斷除煩惱也應該不會退轉呢？ 而且這種類比是不成立的。我們並不認為有頂天的煩惱斷除后不會退轉，既然這種觀點不成立，怎麼可以用它來類比下地煩惱的斷除呢？雖然有頂天所攝的薩迦耶見（我見）斷除后不會退轉，但他們不承認那個地方有伏藏下地煩惱的情況。所以不能用斷除薩迦耶見后不會退轉的道理，來類比下地煩惱的斷除。沒有伏藏和有伏藏的情況既然不同，就應該允許有退轉和沒有退轉的區別。 而且斷除煩惱的道不同。異生不是用斷除有頂天所攝薩迦耶見的道，來斷除下八地（指欲界和色界）的所有煩惱。既然道不同，就應該允許煩惱斷除後有退轉和不退轉兩種差別。因為斷除煩惱是道的果實。如果認為這個道理應該讓人產生懷疑，那也是不合理的，因為世尊已經分明地說過了。他們或許會這樣想：彼此的對治道既然有差別，就可以讓人產生懷疑。異生既然有退失的情況，那麼是斷了還是沒斷呢？這不應該讓人懷疑。世尊在很多地方都分明地說過，異生中有斷除煩惱和離開染污的。 例如，契經中說，異生中有斷除五蓋（貪慾蓋、嗔恚蓋、睡眠蓋、掉舉惡作蓋、疑蓋），斷除快樂和痛苦的。又如契經中說，Udraka Ramaputra（嗢達洛迦·遏邏摩子）能夠斷除諸欲。又如契經中說，過去有一位外道仙人，作為世間的導師，名叫妙眼。他在欲界已經獲得了離染。又見契經分別業處，說有欲界離染的外道仙人。由此可以證明，因為道有不同，所以異生對於八地煩惱，雖然有真實的斷除，但也有退轉的可能。不是因為道不同，就不允許退轉。
【English Translation】 English version There is no regression: If it is proven that all afflictions in the lower realms (referring to the desire realm and the form realm) should also be like those of the noble ones, once eradicated, there should be no regression. Since it is seen that ordinary beings (referring to common people) still regress after eradicating afflictions in the lower realms, it is known that they have not actually eradicated all afflictions in the lower realms. This statement is unreasonable because the methods of eradicating afflictions are different. We do not believe that ordinary beings are capable of eradicating the afflictions of the peak of existence (referring to the formless realm), because when the worldly path that eradicates the afflictions of the peak of existence arises, it has no basis, and when the path of liberation arises, it has no object. Ordinary beings are capable of eradicating afflictions in the lower realms. Since there is a distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones in terms of who can eradicate afflictions, it should be allowed that there are differences between regression and non-regression. How can the principle that noble ones do not regress after eradicating afflictions be used to analogize that ordinary beings should also not regress after eradicating afflictions? Moreover, this analogy is not valid. We do not believe that the afflictions of the peak of existence do not regress after being eradicated. Since this view is not valid, how can it be used to analogize the eradication of afflictions in the lower realms? Although the satkayadrishti (薩迦耶見, self-view) included in the peak of existence does not regress after being eradicated, they do not admit that there is a case of concealing afflictions of the lower realms in that place. Therefore, the principle that there is no regression after eradicating satkayadrishti cannot be used to analogize the eradication of afflictions in the lower realms. Since the situations of no concealment and concealment are different, it should be allowed that there are differences between regression and no regression. Moreover, the paths of eradicating afflictions are different. Ordinary beings do not use the path of eradicating satkayadrishti included in the peak of existence to eradicate all afflictions in the lower eight realms (referring to the desire realm and the form realm). Since the paths are different, it should be allowed that there are two kinds of differences after the eradication of afflictions: regression and non-regression. Because the eradication of afflictions is the fruit of the path. If it is thought that this principle should cause doubt, that is also unreasonable, because the World Honored One has clearly stated it. They may think like this: Since there is a difference between the opposing paths, it can cause doubt. Since ordinary beings have the possibility of regression, then have they eradicated the afflictions or not? This should not cause doubt. The World Honored One has clearly stated in many places that there are ordinary beings who have eradicated afflictions and left defilement. For example, the sutras say that among ordinary beings, there are those who have eradicated the five hindrances (greed, hatred, sleepiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt), and eradicated pleasure and pain. Also, as the sutras say, Udraka Ramaputra (嗢達洛迦·遏邏摩子) was able to eradicate desires. Also, as the sutras say, in the past there was an ascetic of other paths who was a guide for the world, named Wonderful Eye. He had already attained freedom from defilement in the desire realm. Also, see the sutras distinguishing the places of karma, saying that there are ascetics of other paths who are free from defilement in the desire realm. From this, it can be proven that because the paths are different, although ordinary beings have truly eradicated the afflictions of the eight realms, there is also the possibility of regression. It is not because the paths are different that regression is not allowed.
能實斷。是故於此不應生疑。若謂此中唯不現起名斷離染。如余處說斷離染言。此亦不然。無決定因故。有大過失故。謂彼或作如是思惟。唯不現行名斷離染。如於死位亦說斷言。非正死時實有治斷。又如有說于村邑中。有諸童男或諸童女。戲聚砂土為舍為城。寶玩須臾還得離染。彼言意顯于彼境中。貪不復行非實斷離。是故此中唯不現起名斷離染。為證不成。此定不然無定因故。此中所說斷離染言。有何定因堪為誠證。唯顯煩惱暫不現行。非為顯成斷諸惑得。若謂聖者斷必無退。異生有退故知未斷。此亦不然非極成故。非聖不退是所極成。故於此中無定因證。又此所說斷離染言。若唯不行有太過失。以于余處有說聖道名斷離染。汝亦應計唯不現行如余處說。是故彼執決定非理。如何知此斷離染言。非伏現纏。是斷惑得此如聖者亦上生故。謂有學聖斷下惑得方得上生。彼此同許此異生類。亦得上生故亦應許斷下惑得。若謂道異故不同者。則已顯成異生斷退。有退無退足顯道別。何要斷伏方顯道異。由道異故令諸煩惱。伏斷差別非道異故。雖已實斷退無退殊。如是所言何理為證。又應一切善無記心。而命終者雖煩惱得。身中未斷亦得上生。所以者何。離現纏故。謂於此位善無記心現在前者。自地煩惱必不現前故名為離。
非由此故煩惱不行。與由余緣少有差別。又非別法有差別故。可令此中亦有差別。等雖不起無所遣故。謂非別法于相續中。少有所遣余無此力。可說彼法有所遣故。雖等不行而時有別。若彼意謂得此地中。伏對治者則生此地。故命終位善無記心。現在前者生自非上。以命終位善無記心。非上地攝伏對治故。此亦不然。諸依上地伏治下地諸煩惱者。為由上地業力故生。為由上地伏治道力。若由業力生上地者。但伏此地下地煩惱。必定應有感此地業。由此業力應定生此。若由道力生上地者。依此地道伏欲界惑。命終但應生於此地。則異生類欲界命終。應無乃至生有頂者。唯應得受初靜慮生。此道定能感此生故。由此未斷下地惑得。決定無能生上地者。故彼所說道既有異。便可生疑。諸異生類既有退失。為斷不斷如是所疑定不應理。由此所說由道異故。諸異生類於八地惑。雖有實斷而退理成。復有餘師說。世俗道于斷煩惱決定無能。故世尊言。要得聖慧方斷煩惱非諸異生。已得聖慧豈能斷惑。又契經說。此勝彼者。謂勝彼已彼更不生。彼若更生此非勝彼。諸異生類雖斷煩惱。而諸煩惱有時更生。是故定知彼無實斷。又契經說。若身見等未永斷時貪等未斷。要彼斷已此方斷故。又契經說。薩迦耶見戒禁取疑三法未斷。終不能斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非因為這個原因，煩惱才不會生起。即使有其他因緣，差別也很小。而且，並非因為有其他的法存在差別，才能導致這裡也存在差別。即使（煩惱）平等地不起作用，也沒有什麼可以遣除的。也就是說，並非有其他的法在相續中，稍微地有所遣除，而其他的（煩惱）沒有這種力量。可以說，因為那個法有所遣除，所以即使（煩惱）平等地不起作用，在時間上也有差別。如果他們的意思是說，在得到這個地（指色界或無色界）中的伏對治之後，才會生到這個地。因此，臨命終時，善心或無記心現在前，只會生到自己所屬的那個地，而不會生到更高的地。因為臨命終時的善心或無記心，不是上地所攝的伏對治。這種說法也是不對的。那些依靠上地來伏治下地煩惱的人，是因為上地的業力而生到上地，還是因為上地的伏治道力？如果是由於業力而生到上地，那麼僅僅是伏住了此地下地的煩惱，必定應該有能感生此地的業。由於這個業力，應該必定生到此地。如果是由於道力而生到上地，那麼依靠此地的道來伏住欲界的迷惑，臨命終時就應該只生到此地。那麼，異生類（指未證得聖果的凡夫）在欲界命終時，就不應該有生到有頂天（指非想非非想處天）的情況。應該只能得到初禪天的果報，因為這個道一定能夠感生到那裡。由此可知，沒有斷除下地迷惑的人，絕對不可能生到上地。所以，他們所說的道既然有差別，就可能會產生懷疑。既然異生類會有退失的情況，那麼（他們）是斷了還是沒有斷（煩惱）呢？像這樣的疑問，一定是不合理的。由此可知，由於道有差別，異生類對於八地（指色界和無色界的八個禪定）的迷惑，即使有實際上的斷除，但退失的道理仍然成立。 還有其他的老師說，世俗的道對於斷除煩惱，絕對沒有能力。所以世尊說，一定要得到聖慧（指無漏的智慧）才能斷除煩惱，而不是異生類。已經得到聖慧的人，怎麼可能斷不了迷惑呢？而且，契經上說，『此勝彼者』，是指勝過彼之後，彼就不會再生起。如果彼再生起，那麼此就不是勝過彼。異生類即使斷除了煩惱，但那些煩惱有時還會再生起。所以一定可以知道，他們並沒有真正地斷除煩惱。而且，契經上說，如果身見（Sakkāya-ditthi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）等沒有永遠斷除，貪等就不會斷除。一定要身見等斷除之後，貪等才能斷除。而且，契經上說，薩迦耶見（Sakkāya-ditthi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）、戒禁取（Sīlabbata-parāmāsa，執取錯誤的戒律和禁制）、疑（Vicikicchā，對佛法僧三寶的懷疑）這三種法沒有斷除，終究不能斷除。
【English Translation】 English version It is not solely because of this reason that afflictions do not arise. Even with other conditions, the difference is minimal. Furthermore, it is not due to a difference in other dharmas that a difference can also exist here. Even if (afflictions) equally do not arise, there is nothing to eliminate. That is, it is not that another dharma in the continuum slightly eliminates something, while others do not have this power. It can be said that because that dharma eliminates something, even if (afflictions) equally do not arise, there is a difference in time. If they mean that upon obtaining the antidote in this realm (referring to the Form Realm or Formless Realm), one is born in this realm. Therefore, at the moment of death, a wholesome or neutral mind preceding it will only lead to rebirth in one's own realm, not a higher one. This is because a wholesome or neutral mind at the moment of death is not an antidote included in a higher realm. This is also not correct. Those who rely on a higher realm to subdue afflictions of a lower realm, are they born in the higher realm due to the power of karma of the higher realm, or due to the power of the path of subduing in the higher realm? If one is born in the higher realm due to karma, then only the afflictions of the lower realm are subdued, and there must be karma that causes rebirth in this realm. Due to this karma, one should definitely be born in this realm. If one is born in the higher realm due to the power of the path, then relying on the path of this realm to subdue the delusions of the Desire Realm, one should only be born in this realm at the moment of death. Then, sentient beings (referring to ordinary beings who have not attained the fruit of sainthood) in the Desire Realm should not be born in the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra, referring to the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception). They should only attain the result of the First Dhyana, because this path can definitely cause rebirth there. From this, it can be known that those who have not severed the delusions of the lower realm can absolutely not be born in the higher realm. Therefore, since the path they speak of is different, doubts may arise. Since sentient beings have the possibility of regression, have they severed (afflictions) or not? Such doubts are definitely unreasonable. From this, it can be known that due to the difference in the path, even if sentient beings have actually severed the delusions of the eight realms (referring to the eight dhyanas of the Form and Formless Realms), the principle of regression still holds. There are other teachers who say that worldly paths have absolutely no ability to sever afflictions. Therefore, the World Honored One said that one must attain holy wisdom (Ariya-paññā, referring to undefiled wisdom) to sever afflictions, not ordinary beings. How can those who have already attained holy wisdom not be able to sever delusions? Moreover, the sutras say, 'This surpasses that,' meaning that after surpassing that, that will not arise again. If that arises again, then this has not surpassed that. Even if sentient beings have severed afflictions, those afflictions may arise again at times. Therefore, it can definitely be known that they have not truly severed afflictions. Moreover, the sutras say that if self-view (Sakkāya-ditthi, the view that the aggregate of the five skandhas is a real self) etc. have not been permanently severed, greed etc. will not be severed. Only after self-view etc. have been severed can greed etc. be severed. Moreover, the sutras say that if Sakkāya-ditthi (self-view, the view that the aggregate of the five skandhas is a real self), Sīlabbata-parāmāsa (clinging to rites and rituals), and Vicikicchā (doubt) have not been severed, one will ultimately not be able to sever (afflictions).
貪瞋癡故。諸異生類既未能斷有身見等。是故定知必未實斷貪等煩惱。此亦不然。贊勝者故密說有頂貪瞋癡故。謂佛世尊為贊勝者。說斷煩惱要得聖慧。以諸聖慧于斷煩惱。如理觀中最為勝故。世間亦有就勝說言。要真國王方能護國。要真善士不陷誑愚。是故此經唯約畢竟。斷煩惱道密意而說。不可由斯便能遮止。諸世俗道斷煩惱用。由此已釋此勝彼經。謂約無餘永無退失。斷惑聖道密意說故。如世間說食此食已。終無變吐名食此食。燒此物已終不復生名燒此物。非后變吐及後生者。非食非燒但約畢竟。無變生說此亦應然。若不爾者所斷煩惱。后若更生於正斷時應不名勝。雖非永勝暫勝非無。如何引斯證無實斷。有身見等未永斷時。貪瞋等三必未斷者。此於我說理亦無違。此約有頂密意說故。謂有頂地見惑先斷。后時方斷修所斷惑。此約無餘斷見惑已。后時方斷修斷惑說。既密意說不可為證。此經決定是密意說。以即於此復作是言。若於三法未已斷者。必不能斷有身見等。何謂三法。一非理作意。二習近邪道。三心下劣性。是謂為三。然必無能先斷三法。后時方斷有身見等。以見道前無彼治故。證知此經是密意說。此于先伏說已斷聲。后見道現前實斷身見等。正理論者作如是言。依世俗道亦能斷惑。以有教理分明證故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為貪、瞋、癡的緣故，各種異生（與聖者不同的眾生）還未能斷除有身見（認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的錯誤見解）等煩惱。因此，可以肯定地說，他們必定沒有真正斷除貪等煩惱。但這種說法是不對的。因為佛陀爲了讚歎殊勝者，才隱秘地說有頂天（色界最高的禪定境界）也有貪、瞋、癡。也就是說，佛世尊爲了讚歎殊勝者，才說斷除煩惱必須獲得聖慧（聖者的智慧）。因為各種聖慧在斷除煩惱的如理觀察中最為殊勝。世間也有就殊勝方面而言的說法，例如『只有真正的國王才能守護國家』，『只有真正的善士才不會陷入欺騙和愚昧』。所以，這部經只是就徹底斷除煩惱的道路而言，是隱秘的說法。不能因此就阻止世俗道斷除煩惱的作用。 由此已經解釋了這部經勝過那部經的原因，是因為這部經是就無餘（完全）、永無退失地斷除迷惑的聖道而言，是隱秘的說法。就像世間所說，『吃了這種食物后，永遠不會嘔吐，才叫吃了這種食物』，『燒了這種東西后，永遠不會再生出來，才叫燒了這種東西』。而不是指後來變吐或後來再生的情況，只是就徹底、無變化、無生起而言。這裡也應該這樣理解。如果不是這樣，那麼所斷的煩惱，如果後來又生起來，那麼在真正斷除的時候，就不應該稱為殊勝。即使不是永遠殊勝，暫時的殊勝也是存在的。怎麼能用這個來證明沒有真正斷除有身見等煩惱呢？在沒有永遠斷除有身見等煩惱的時候，貪、瞋等三毒必定沒有斷除的說法，對於我來說，在道理上也沒有違背。因為這是就『有頂地』而言，是隱秘的說法。也就是說，在有頂地，先斷除見惑（見道所斷的煩惱），之後才斷除修所斷惑（修道所斷的煩惱）。這是就無餘地斷除見惑之後，之後才斷除修所斷惑而言。既然是隱秘的說法，就不能作為證據。這部經肯定是隱秘的說法。因為就在這部經中又這樣說，『如果對於三種法沒有斷除，必定不能斷除有身見等煩惱』。什麼是三種法呢？一、不如理作意（不正確的思考方式）。二、習近邪道（親近錯誤的道路）。三、心下劣性（內心低劣的性質）。這就是三種法。然而，必定沒有能夠先斷除這三種法，之後才斷除有身見等煩惱的情況。因為在見道之前，沒有對治這三種法的手段。證明這部經是隱秘的說法。這是就先降伏煩惱，說已經斷除，之後見道現前，真正斷除有身見等煩惱而言。正理論者這樣說，依靠世俗道也能斷除迷惑，因為有教證和理證可以清楚地證明。
【English Translation】 English version: Due to greed, hatred, and delusion, various beings different from the noble ones (異生類) have not yet severed the 'belief in a self' (有身見, the false view that the five aggregates constitute a real self) and other afflictions. Therefore, it is certain that they have not truly severed afflictions such as greed. However, this is not the case. It is because the Buddha, in order to praise the superior ones, secretly said that even in the 'peak of existence' (有頂, the highest realm of form in meditative absorption) there are greed, hatred, and delusion. That is to say, the World Honored One, in order to praise the superior ones, said that severing afflictions requires attaining 'noble wisdom' (聖慧, the wisdom of the saints). This is because various noble wisdoms are the most superior in the rational observation for severing afflictions. In the world, there are also sayings that emphasize superiority, such as 'Only a true king can protect the country,' and 'Only a true virtuous person will not fall into deception and foolishness.' Therefore, this sutra only speaks of the path of completely severing afflictions, and it is a secret teaching. It cannot be used to prevent the worldly paths from severing afflictions. This has already explained why this sutra is superior to that sutra, because this sutra speaks of the noble path of severing delusions completely and without any regression, and it is a secret teaching. It is like the worldly saying, 'Eating this food and never vomiting is called eating this food,' and 'Burning this thing and never having it reborn is called burning this thing.' It does not refer to later vomiting or later rebirth, but only to complete, unchanging, and unarising situations. This should be understood in the same way. If not, then if the severed afflictions arise again later, they should not be called superior when they are truly severed. Even if it is not eternally superior, temporary superiority exists. How can this be used to prove that there is no true severance of the 'belief in a self' and other afflictions? The statement that greed, hatred, and delusion must not be severed when the 'belief in a self' and other afflictions have not been eternally severed does not contradict my reasoning. This is because it is a secret teaching about the 'peak of existence' (有頂地). That is to say, in the 'peak of existence', the afflictions severed by the path of seeing (見惑, afflictions severed by the path of insight) are severed first, and then the afflictions severed by the path of cultivation (修所斷惑, afflictions severed by the path of cultivation) are severed later. This refers to severing the afflictions severed by the path of seeing completely, and then severing the afflictions severed by the path of cultivation later. Since it is a secret teaching, it cannot be used as evidence. This sutra is definitely a secret teaching. Because in this sutra it is also said, 'If three things have not been severed, then the 'belief in a self' and other afflictions cannot be severed.' What are the three things? First, 'irrational attention' (非理作意, incorrect ways of thinking). Second, 'association with wrong paths' (習近邪道, associating with wrong paths). Third, 'inferior nature of mind' (心下劣性, the inferior nature of the mind). These are the three things. However, there is definitely no situation where these three things are severed first, and then the 'belief in a self' and other afflictions are severed later. Because before the path of seeing, there is no means to counteract these three things. This proves that this sutra is a secret teaching. This refers to first subduing the afflictions and saying that they have been severed, and then when the path of seeing appears, truly severing the 'belief in a self' and other afflictions. The 'Compendium of Logic' (正理論者) says that worldly paths can also sever delusions, because there is clear evidence from teachings and reasoning.
。且有教者。謂契經言。汝等若能永斷一法。我保汝等得不還果。一法者何。謂有身見。此經意說。先離欲者入諦現觀斷有身見。現觀滿時得不還果。非先未離欲界貪者。現觀滿時得不還果。故世俗道實能斷惑。若彼意謂。斷身見已后時漸得不還果。證依如是義密說此言。非斷身見時得不還果故。此亦非理。若依此說經亦應言得應果故。謂斷身見於后時中。亦漸次得阿羅漢果。然契經中不作是說。故知但約先離欲者。入諦現觀斷有身見。現觀滿時得不還果。密作是說亦得成證。然于聖諦現觀位中。無不得果而退出義。又彼無容更得余果。故說汝等若斷身見。我保汝等必得不還非無間得。故無有過理必應爾。以余經中世尊亦說。得第四定后入現觀得不還果。謂契經言。彼由如是尸羅圓滿。能離諸欲惡不善法。廣說乃至。具足安住第四靜慮。彼由如是等持圓滿。于苦聖諦如實見知。廣說乃至。得不還果。若謂豈不即此經言。彼由如實見知四諦。便能永斷五下分結。若彼先離欲界染時。已能實斷欲貪等結。則不應說先離欲者。今聖道起方斷彼結。非先已斷有更斷義。故所引教為證不成。此亦不然。此經意顯爾時唯得不還果故。謂諸漸次得不還者。爾時必斷五結無餘。為令了知先離欲者。入諦現觀唯得不還。故說爾時斷五下結
。此言意說便能斷盡。非謂今時能總斷五理必應爾。以見道力不能無餘斷貪瞋結。要無餘斷方證不還。由此定知先離欲者。已能實斷二下分結。為顯彼見諦唯證不還故。說彼今時斷五下結。或此意顯彼於今時。斷彼更生密作是說。謂若不入聖諦現觀。彼異生類雖斷貪瞋。后時定應還退失故。或此于遠假說近聲。如說王今從何來等。謂雖先斷貪瞋二結。而同世俗說今便斷。如王至此久離所從。而假說今從何來等。或彼三結入現觀時。所有離系得無漏得。貪瞋二結得永不生。故說爾時斷五無失。若謂雖說得第四定后入現觀得不還果。而不定說斷伏下地。如何定知彼下地惑。皆已實斷得非唯伏現纏。此不應疑。以此經說得不還故。不可說言后漸方得。先已破故。又先已說離欲異生。亦如聖者生上地故。謂唯能伏下地煩惱。便生上地非所極成。唯能實斷下地煩惱。便生上地是所極成。故於此中不應猶豫。如是名為有教證。故知世俗道亦能斷惑。言有理者。謂煩惱力能繫縛自身。令界地別故。若欲界惑得未實斷。有能往生色無色界。則諸煩惱應無功能。縛界地生令有差別。若謂未伏下地煩惱必不生上是彼功能。此亦不然。雖伏此地所有煩惱亦生此故。謂有能伏有頂煩惱。然復得生有頂地故。然依自地起世俗道。亦能制伏自地煩惱
。如不凈觀持息念等。亦伏自地現行煩惱斷煩惱得。要於此地諸煩惱中。得解脫道制伏煩惱令暫不行。工巧威儀亦有此力。況善心起而無功能。如住此間能伏八地。所有煩惱令不現行。于有頂何緣獨不能制伏。彼定應許如是理趣。若不許然諸有已離無所有染。期心不起入諦現觀。證無學者如何不伏有頂煩惱。便起斷彼聖道現前。故住此間必于有頂有伏煩惱。善方便智既不可說。不斷有頂諸煩惱得。唯由伏彼煩惱現行便不生彼。于下八地例亦應然。由此定知諸世俗道。亦斷煩惱其理極成。又應諸預流得生無色故。若伏下地即得上生。有諸異生先伏二界。后入見道現觀滿時。應得預流非不還果。三界修惑許具縛故。見道非彼斷對治故。彼住果位若致命終。決定應許生無色界。下二界惑先已伏故。若生彼已斷欲等惑成阿羅漢。便違契經。如契經言。有五聖者此處通達此處究竟。非彼聖者有決定因。要還此生方證圓寂。若謂既說極七返有故。定從彼還來此生理亦不然。此言唯約欲界人天密意說故。寧知七返約欲界說。唯約欲界修斷惑斷。立家家等名差別故。謂斷五種下分結故名不還果。于下分中欲貪瞋恚。及癡薄故名一來果。不還果向名為一間。一來果向名為家家。此既唯約欲修惑斷立差別名。故知但依欲界修惑。都未斷位立
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如不凈觀（通過觀察不凈之物來克服貪慾）和持息念（專注于呼吸）等方法，也能起到調伏自身所處層次的現行煩惱，並獲得斷除煩惱的效果。關鍵在於，在此層次的各種煩惱中，獲得解脫之道，從而制伏煩惱，使其暫時不起作用。即使是工巧技藝和威儀也能做到這一點，更何況是善心的生起，怎麼會沒有作用呢？例如，身處欲界的人，能夠制伏色界和無色界八地（指四禪八定）的所有煩惱，使其不現行。那麼，對於有頂天（色界頂端）的煩惱，為什麼就不能制伏呢？你們應該承認這樣的道理。如果不承認，那麼那些已經脫離了無所有處定（無色界第三禪定）的染著，一心想要進入見諦現觀（通過智慧直接觀察真理）的人，在證得無學果位（阿羅漢果）時，如何能夠不制伏有頂天的煩惱，從而生起斷除這些煩惱的聖道呢？因此，身處欲界的人，必定能夠制伏有頂天的煩惱。這種善巧方便的智慧是不可思議的。不能說在沒有斷除有頂天所有煩惱的情況下，僅僅通過制伏這些煩惱的現行，就能不生到有頂天。對於下方的八地，也應該同樣看待。由此可以確定，各種世俗道（非聖道的修行方法）也能斷除煩惱，這個道理是完全成立的。 此外，如果預流果（須陀洹果）的聖者能夠生到無色界，那麼就應該得出結論：只要制伏了下方的煩惱，就能生到更高的境界。有些異生（指凡夫）先制伏了欲界和色界的煩惱，之後進入見道（證得初果的階段），在現觀圓滿時，就應該證得預流果，而不是不還果（阿那含果），因為他們仍然被三界的修惑所束縛，而見道並不是斷除這些修惑的對治方法。如果這些住在果位上的聖者壽命終結，那麼就應該承認他們必定會生到無色界，因為下方的欲界和色界的煩惱已經被制伏了。如果他們生到無色界后，又斷除了欲界的煩惱，成爲了阿羅漢，那就違背了契經（佛經）。 正如契經所說：『有五種聖者，在此處通達，在此處究竟。』這些聖者並沒有決定性的原因，一定要回到欲界才能證得圓寂（涅槃）。如果你們說，既然經中說了『最多七次往返』，那麼就必定要從無色界回到欲界才能證得圓寂，這種說法也是不對的。這句話只是針對欲界的人和天人而說的。怎麼知道『七次往返』是針對欲界說的呢？只有針對欲界的修惑斷除，才能安立家家（指一來果，即斯陀含果）等名稱的差別。也就是說，斷除了五種下分結（指身見、戒禁取見、疑、貪慾、嗔恚）才能被稱為不還果。在下分結中，因為欲貪、嗔恚以及愚癡變得微薄，所以被稱為一來果。趨向不還果的聖者被稱為一間，趨向一來果的聖者被稱為家家。既然這些名稱的差別僅僅是根據欲界的修惑斷除情況而安立的，那麼就可以知道，僅僅依靠欲界的修惑，在完全沒有斷除的情況下安立。
【English Translation】 English version Practices such as impure contemplation (observing impure things to overcome greed) and mindfulness of breathing (focusing on the breath) can also subdue the manifest afflictions of one's own realm and attain the cessation of afflictions. The key is to obtain the path of liberation from the various afflictions in this realm, thereby controlling the afflictions and preventing them from arising temporarily. Even skillful crafts and dignified conduct can achieve this, let alone the arising of wholesome thoughts, how could they be without effect? For example, a person residing in the desire realm can subdue all the afflictions of the eight dhyanas (referring to the four form and four formless realms), preventing them from manifesting. Then, why can't they subdue the afflictions of the Peak of Existence (the highest realm of form), the Akaniṣṭha heaven? You should acknowledge such a principle. If you don't, then how can those who have already detached from the realm of nothingness (the third formless realm), and are single-mindedly seeking to enter the direct perception of truth (through wisdom directly observing the truth), not subdue the afflictions of the Peak of Existence when attaining the state of no-more-learning (Arhatship), thereby giving rise to the noble path that eradicates these afflictions? Therefore, a person residing in the desire realm must be able to subdue the afflictions of the Peak of Existence. This wisdom of skillful means is inconceivable. It cannot be said that without eradicating all the afflictions of the Peak of Existence, one can avoid being born in the Peak of Existence merely by subduing the manifestation of these afflictions. The same should be considered for the eight lower realms. From this, it can be determined that various mundane paths (non-noble paths of practice) can also eradicate afflictions, and this principle is completely established. Furthermore, if a Stream-enterer (Sotapanna) can be born in the formless realm, then it should be concluded that as long as one subdues the lower afflictions, one can be born in a higher realm. Some ordinary beings (referring to common people) first subdue the afflictions of the desire and form realms, and then enter the path of seeing (the stage of attaining the first fruit), and when the direct perception is complete, they should attain the fruit of Stream-enterer, not the fruit of Non-returner (Anagami), because they are still bound by the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms, and the path of seeing is not the antidote to eradicate these afflictions. If these saints residing in the fruit stage reach the end of their lives, then it should be acknowledged that they will definitely be born in the formless realm, because the afflictions of the lower desire and form realms have been subdued. If they eradicate the afflictions of the desire realm after being born in the formless realm and become Arhats, then it would contradict the sutras (Buddhist scriptures). As the sutras say: 'There are five types of saints who understand here and reach the ultimate here.' These saints do not have a definitive reason to return to the desire realm to attain Nirvana. If you say that since the sutras say 'at most seven returns', then one must return from the formless realm to the desire realm to attain Nirvana, this statement is also incorrect. This statement is only directed towards people and devas in the desire realm. How do you know that 'seven returns' is directed towards the desire realm? Only by eradicating the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm can the differences in names such as 'family to family' (referring to Once-returner, Sakadagami) be established. That is, only by eradicating the five lower fetters (referring to self-view, attachment to rites and rituals, doubt, sensual desire, and ill-will) can one be called a Non-returner. Among the lower fetters, because sensual desire, ill-will, and ignorance become weak, one is called a Once-returner. A saint tending towards the Non-returner is called 'one interval', and a saint tending towards the Once-returner is called 'family to family'. Since these differences in names are established only according to the eradication of the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm, then it can be known that they are established solely based on the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm, without any eradication at all.
七返有。若依未越此地煩惱立七返生。則知但于所未越地受七返有。故七返有非色無色。又先已離二界貪者。不應建立七返有名。以彼唯是利根攝故。極七返生鈍根攝故。又彼所說違自宗經。非彼宗經許七返有。或容有受第八生義。色無色界生處極多。于彼無容極唯七有。又彼天處滿第七生。決定無容還來生此。是則還與契經相違。故契經言。有五聖者此處通達此處究竟。又七返生非必定受。極聲唯說極多者故。預流往彼受第二生便般涅槃。亦此通達彼處究竟。定違前經。是故必無唯伏下地所有。煩惱便得上生。既諸異生有上生理。知世俗道亦能斷惑。有作是執。諸有先離欲界貪者。后入見諦道現觀時得預流果。欲貪瞋恚雖不現行。而有彼得恒隨縛故。即彼復謂道現觀時。雖必定得預流果證時極促故。諸契經中不作是言。先離欲者道現觀位證預流果。又作是說。諦現觀俱得不還者。此于無間立以俱聲。如契經說。諸有情類生無想天。后想起俱便從彼沒。復作是言。道現觀位得勝道故。離欲界貪即于爾時得不還果。如是一切前後相違。如幼稚童自室言故。謂彼若說先離欲者。道現觀時得預流果。欲貪瞋恚雖不現行。而有彼得恒隨縛故。則不應說道現觀位得勝道故。離欲界貪即于爾時得不還果。以必不可道現觀時。雙得預
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『七返有』。如果依據尚未超越此地（指欲界）煩惱而立『七返生』的說法，那麼可知僅僅在尚未超越的地域承受七次往返生死。因此，『七返有』並非指色界或無色界。而且，對於那些已經脫離色界和無色界貪慾的人，不應該建立『七返有』的名稱，因為他們僅僅屬於利根者。最多七次往返生死是針對鈍根者。此外，他們的說法違背了他們自己的宗派經典，因為他們的宗派經典並不允許『七返有』，或者容許有承受第八次生死的說法。色界和無色界的眾生出生之處極多，在那裡不可能僅僅只有七次往返生死。而且，那些天界眾生在第七次生死圓滿時，絕對不可能再回到這裡（指欲界）出生。這與契經（佛經）的說法相違背。因此，契經說：『有五位聖者在此處通達，在此處究竟。』而且，『七返生』並非必定承受，『極』字僅僅說明最多。例如，預流果聖者往生到彼處（指色界或無色界）承受第二次生死便證得般涅槃，也是在此處通達，在彼處究竟，這必定與之前的經典相違背。因此，必定不存在僅僅伏斷下地（指欲界）的所有煩惱便能得上生的說法。既然各種異生（凡夫）都有上生的道理，那麼可知世俗道也能斷除迷惑。 有人這樣認為，那些先已脫離欲界貪慾的人，在後來進入見諦道現觀時，證得預流果。雖然欲貪和瞋恚沒有現行，但是因為有它們的潛在束縛，所以仍然存在。他們又說，在道現觀時，雖然必定證得預流果，但是證果的時間非常短暫，因此在各種契經中沒有這樣說：『先已脫離欲界貪慾的人，在道現觀位證得預流果。』還有人這樣說，在諦現觀的同時證得不還果，這裡用『俱』字是爲了強調同時。例如，契經說：『有些有情眾生出生到無想天，後來想起的同時便從那裡逝去。』還有人這樣說，在道現觀位因為獲得殊勝的道力，所以脫離欲界貪慾的同時便證得不還果。像這樣一切前後矛盾，就像幼稚的孩童在自己的房間里說話一樣。如果他們說先已脫離欲界貪慾的人，在道現觀時證得預流果，雖然欲貪和瞋恚沒有現行，但是因為有它們的潛在束縛，那麼就不應該說道現觀位因為獲得殊勝的道力，所以脫離欲界貪慾的同時便證得不還果。因為絕對不可能在道現觀時同時證得預流果和不還果。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'Seven Returns Existence' (Saptakritbhava). If, based on not yet transcending the afflictions of this realm (referring to the desire realm), the concept of 'Seven Returns Birth' is established, then it is known that one only experiences seven cycles of birth and death in the realm not yet transcended. Therefore, 'Seven Returns Existence' does not refer to the form realm or the formless realm. Moreover, for those who have already detached from the desire for the form and formless realms, the name 'Seven Returns Existence' should not be established, because they belong only to those with sharp faculties. A maximum of seven cycles of birth and death is for those with dull faculties. Furthermore, their statement contradicts their own sectarian scriptures, because their sectarian scriptures do not allow for 'Seven Returns Existence,' or allow for the possibility of experiencing an eighth birth. The places of birth for beings in the form and formless realms are extremely numerous; it is impossible for there to be only seven cycles of birth and death there. Moreover, those beings in the heavens, upon completing their seventh birth, can absolutely not return to be born here (referring to the desire realm). This contradicts the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures). Therefore, the Sutras say: 'There are five types of noble ones who attain understanding here, and reach ultimate completion here.' Moreover, 'Seven Returns Birth' is not necessarily experienced; the word 'maximum' only indicates the greatest number. For example, a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) reborn in that realm (referring to the form or formless realm) attains Nirvana after experiencing a second birth, also attaining understanding here and reaching ultimate completion there, which necessarily contradicts the previous scriptures. Therefore, it is certain that the statement that one can be reborn in higher realms merely by subduing all the afflictions of the lower realm (referring to the desire realm) is incorrect. Since various ordinary beings (non-saints) have the principle of being reborn in higher realms, it is known that the mundane path can also sever delusions. Some hold the view that those who have previously detached from desire realm craving attain the fruit of Stream-entry (Srotapanna) when they later enter the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga) and directly perceive the Truth (Abhisamaya). Although desire and hatred are not manifest, they still exist because of their latent bondage. They also say that although one certainly attains the fruit of Stream-entry during the Path of Seeing, the time of attaining the fruit is very brief, so the various Sutras do not say: 'Those who have previously detached from desire realm craving attain the fruit of Stream-entry in the position of the Path of Seeing.' Others say that one attains the fruit of Non-returner (Anagamin) simultaneously with the direct perception of the Truth (Satya-abhisamaya); the word 'simultaneously' is used here to emphasize the simultaneity. For example, the Sutras say: 'Some sentient beings are born in the Non-Perception Heaven (Asanjnasattva), and upon thinking again, they pass away from there.' Others say that because one obtains superior path power in the position of the Path of Seeing, one attains the fruit of Non-returner at the same time as detaching from desire realm craving. All of this is contradictory, like a naive child speaking in their own room. If they say that those who have previously detached from desire realm craving attain the fruit of Stream-entry during the Path of Seeing, although desire and hatred are not manifest, they still exist because of their latent bondage, then they should not say that because one obtains superior path power in the position of the Path of Seeing, one attains the fruit of Non-returner at the same time as detaching from desire realm craving. Because it is absolutely impossible to attain both the fruit of Stream-entry and the fruit of Non-returner simultaneously during the Path of Seeing.
流不還果故。若後門是應舍前門。若前門是應舍後門。前後相違無俱是故。若彼意謂如上地道現在前時。必定應修下地攝道。以殊勝道現在前時能修劣故。此亦應爾道現觀位得勝道故。離欲界貪故。于爾時得不還果。此不應理。所以者何。彼宗不立有未來故。執離法外無別得故。不現行道能離欲貪。及瞋恚結理不成故。見道不能斷修斷故。二道無容俱現前故。又彼所說道現觀位得勝道者。其體是何。非於爾時有餘勝道。可正顯示為此所得。既不能說所得道相。寧說此道能離欲貪。而說爾時得不還果故。彼所說但率己情。又不應謂道現觀時。雖必定得預流果。證時極促故。諸契經中不作是言。先離欲者道現觀位證預流果。亦不應說諦現觀俱得不還者。此于無間立以俱聲。所以者何。闕一來故。預流果后必先證得一來果故。非預流無間即證不還果。契經應言先離欲者。道現觀位證預流果。諦現觀俱得一來果。從此無間方得不還。而不說然故不應理。故彼論者于正法義。背面而住經述己情。不可與其考量正理。傍論已了應辯本義。本說諸位善根相生。前既已說金剛喻定無間。必有盡智續生。盡智無間有何智起。頌曰。
不動盡智后 必起無生智 余盡或正見 此應果皆有
論曰。先不動法諸阿羅漢。盡智無
間無生智起。此智是彼本所求故。必與盡智俱時而得。謂彼求得順諸所解。若無便有入涅槃障。諸阿羅漢共得智時。即亦志求得無生智。然其盡智理應先起。是因位中先所求故。先不動法金剛定后。得無生智而未現前。盡智無間方得現起。除先不動余阿羅漢。盡智無間有盡智生。或即引生無學正見。非無生智后容退故。謂若先是時解脫性。雖于因位雙求二種。而至極果容有退故。金剛喻定正滅位中。不得無生唯得盡智。故盡智后盡智現前。或即引生無學正見。先不動法無生智後有無生智起。或無學正見此無學見。一切應果之所共有猶如盡智。故金剛定正滅位中。一切皆得無學正見。然此正見非正所求。故盡無生二智無間。或有即起或未現前。於此位中總略義者。若先不動初起盡智唯一剎那。次無生智亦一剎那或有相續。若時解脫初起盡智。或一剎那或有相續。此二所起無學正見。皆無決定剎那相續如前說。彼非正求故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯聖賢品第六之十一
如說沙門及沙門果。何謂沙門性。此果體是何。果位差別總有幾種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 在盡智（Kṣaya-jñāna，知曉煩惱已盡的智慧）之後，無生智（Anutpāda-jñāna，知曉未來不再生起的智慧）生起。此無生智是阿羅漢原本所追求的，因此必定與盡智同時獲得。也就是說，他們尋求獲得與所有已理解的法相順應的智慧。如果沒有這種智慧，就會有進入涅槃的障礙。當所有阿羅漢共同獲得智慧時，他們也會立志尋求獲得無生智。然而，盡智在道理上應該先產生，因為在因位（修行階段）中，盡智是首先被追求的。在先證得不動法（不退轉之法）的金剛定（Vajropama-samādhi，如金剛般堅固的禪定）之後，雖然獲得了無生智，但尚未顯現。在盡智無間斷地生起之後，無生智才能顯現。除了先證得不動法的阿羅漢之外，其他阿羅漢在盡智無間斷地生起之後，會有盡智再生起，或者直接引發無學正見（Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi，不再需要學習的正見）。因為無生智之後可能會退失。也就是說，如果先前是時解脫性（Samaya-vimukta，通過特定時間和因緣才能解脫），即使在因位同時尋求兩種智慧，但到達最終果位時，也可能發生退失。在金剛喻定的正滅位中，無法獲得無生智，只能獲得盡智。因此，在盡智之後，盡智會再次顯現，或者直接引發無學正見。先證得不動法的阿羅漢，在無生智之後，會有無生智生起，或者生起無學正見。這種無學正見是所有應果（Arhat，阿羅漢果）的修行者所共有的，就像盡智一樣。因此，在金剛定正滅位中，所有人都獲得無學正見。然而，這種正見並非直接追求的目標，因此在盡智和無生智之間，或者立即生起，或者尚未顯現。在這個階段中，總體的含義是：如果先前證得不動法，那麼最初生起的盡智只有一個剎那，其次生起的無生智也只有一個剎那，或者會有相續。如果是時解脫者，那麼最初生起的盡智或者只有一個剎那，或者會有相續。這兩種情況所生起的無學正見，都沒有像前面所說的那樣，有決定的剎那相續，因為無學正見並非直接追求的目標。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第六十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯聖賢品第六之十一
如經中所說沙門（Śrāmaṇa，勤息，指出家修行者）以及沙門果（Śrāmaṇaphala，沙門修行的果報）。什麼是沙門性？此果的體性是什麼？果位的差別總共有幾種？
【English Translation】 English version: After the arising of Kṣaya-jñāna (the wisdom of knowing that defilements are exhausted), Anutpāda-jñāna (the wisdom of knowing that future rebirth will not occur) arises. This Anutpāda-jñāna is what the Arhats originally sought, so it must be obtained simultaneously with Kṣaya-jñāna. That is, they seek to obtain wisdom that accords with all the dharmas they have understood. If there is no such wisdom, there will be an obstacle to entering Nirvāṇa. When all Arhats jointly obtain wisdom, they also aspire to obtain Anutpāda-jñāna. However, Kṣaya-jñāna should arise first in principle, because in the stage of cause (the stage of practice), Kṣaya-jñāna is sought first. After first attaining the Vajropama-samādhi (diamond-like samādhi) of immovable dharma (non-retrogressing dharma), although Anutpāda-jñāna is obtained, it has not yet manifested. Only after Kṣaya-jñāna arises without interruption can Anutpāda-jñāna manifest. Except for Arhats who have first attained immovable dharma, other Arhats, after Kṣaya-jñāna arises without interruption, will have Kṣaya-jñāna arise again, or directly give rise to Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi (non-learning right view). Because Anutpāda-jñāna may regress afterwards. That is, if one was previously a Samaya-vimukta (liberated by time, liberated through specific times and conditions), even if one seeks both types of wisdom simultaneously in the stage of cause, regression may occur when reaching the ultimate fruit. In the position of cessation in Vajropama-samādhi, Anutpāda-jñāna cannot be obtained, only Kṣaya-jñāna can be obtained. Therefore, after Kṣaya-jñāna, Kṣaya-jñāna will manifest again, or directly give rise to Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi. Arhats who have first attained immovable dharma, after Anutpāda-jñāna, will have Anutpāda-jñāna arise, or give rise to Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi. This Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi is shared by all Arhats, just like Kṣaya-jñāna. Therefore, in the position of cessation in Vajropama-samādhi, everyone obtains Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi. However, this right view is not the direct object of pursuit, so between Kṣaya-jñāna and Anutpāda-jñāna, it either arises immediately or has not yet manifested. In this stage, the overall meaning is: if one has previously attained immovable dharma, then the initially arising Kṣaya-jñāna is only one kṣaṇa (moment), and the subsequently arising Anutpāda-jñāna is also only one kṣaṇa, or there may be continuity. If one is a Samaya-vimukta, then the initially arising Kṣaya-jñāna is either one kṣaṇa or there may be continuity. The Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi arising from these two situations does not have a definite kṣaṇa continuity as mentioned earlier, because Aśaikṣa-samyagdṛṣṭi is not the direct object of pursuit.
Śrī Paramārtha's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 66 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
Śrī Paramārtha's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 67
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated under imperial order by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter 6.11: Distinguishing the Noble and Worthy
As it is said in the sutras about Śrāmaṇa (one who strives, referring to a monastic practitioner) and Śrāmaṇaphala (the fruits of Śrāmaṇa practice). What is the nature of Śrāmaṇa? What is the substance of this fruit? How many kinds of differences are there in the stages of the fruit?
頌曰。
凈道沙門性 有為無為果 此有八十九 解脫道及滅
論曰。言沙門者。能永息除諸界趣生生死魑魅。或能勤勵息諸過失。令永寂靜故名沙門。如薄伽梵自作是釋。以能勤勞息除。種種惡不善法雜染過失。廣說乃至。故名沙門。沙門所有名沙門性。此即沙門所修熏法。熏是排遣生臭惑義。即以無漏聖道為體非世俗道。以能無餘究竟靜息諸過失故。由此異生雖能已斷無所有處染而非真沙門。以諸過失尚有餘故。暫時靜息非究竟故。既無漏道是沙門性。通以有為無為為果。故沙門果體通有為無為。此果佛說總有四種。謂初預流后阿羅漢。道類智品。是謂有為預流果體。見斷法斷。是謂無為預流果體。道類智品或離欲界第六。無漏解脫道品。是謂有為一來果體。見斷法斷。及欲界系修所斷中前六品斷。是謂無為一來果體。道類智品。或離欲界第九無漏解脫道品。是謂有為不還果體。見斷法斷欲修斷斷。是謂無為不還果體。盡智無生智無學正見品。是謂有為阿羅漢果體。三界見修所斷法斷。是謂無為阿羅漢果體。然薄伽梵于契經中。但說無為沙門果體。如說云何名預流果。謂斷三結。乃至云何阿羅漢果。謂已永斷貪瞋癡等。豈不不還果已許永斷瞋。此亦無違釋義別故。此中意說。凈除一切煩惱垢者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 頌曰： 清凈道的沙門之性，是有為和無為的果。 這裡共有八十九種，包括解脫道和滅。
論曰：所說的『沙門』（Śrāmaṇa），能夠永遠止息並去除諸界、趣、生、生死等魑魅。或者能夠勤奮努力地止息各種過失，使之永遠寂靜，所以稱為沙門。正如薄伽梵（Bhagavat，佛）自己這樣解釋：因為能夠勤勞地止息、去除種種惡不善法、雜染過失，乃至廣說，所以稱為沙門。沙門所具有的，稱為沙門性。這即是沙門所修習的熏法，『熏』是排遣產生臭穢迷惑之義。以無漏聖道為本體，而非世俗之道。因為能夠無餘地究竟靜息各種過失。因此，異生雖然能夠斷除無所有處染，但並非真正的沙門，因為各種過失尚有剩餘，只是暫時靜息而非究竟。既然無漏道是沙門性，那麼有為和無為都可以作為它的果。所以沙門果的本體包括有為和無為。佛說這種果總共有四種，即初果預流（Srotaāpanna）到最後的阿羅漢（Arhat）。道類智品，這是有為的預流果體；見斷法斷，這是無為的預流果體。道類智品，或者離欲界第六，無漏解脫道品，這是有為的一來果（Sakrdāgāmin）體；見斷法斷，以及欲界系修所斷中的前六品斷，這是無為的一來果體。道類智品，或者離欲界第九，無漏解脫道品，這是有為的不還果（Anāgāmin）體；見斷法斷，欲修斷斷，這是無為的不還果體。盡智、無生智、無學正見品，這是有為的阿羅漢果體；三界見修所斷法斷，這是無為的阿羅漢果體。然而，薄伽梵在契經中，只說了無為的沙門果體。如經中所說：『什麼叫做預流果？』答：『斷除三種結。』乃至『什麼叫做阿羅漢果？』答：『已經永遠斷除貪、嗔、癡等。』難道不還果不是已經允許永遠斷除嗔了嗎？這也沒有違背，因為解釋的意義不同。這裡的意思是說，清凈地去除一切煩惱垢染的人。
【English Translation】 English version Verse: The nature of a Śrāmaṇa (ascetic) of pure path, is the fruit of conditioned (有為, having causes and conditions) and unconditioned (無為, without causes and conditions). Here, there are eighty-nine in total, including the path of liberation and cessation.
Treatise: The term 'Śrāmaṇa' (沙門, ascetic) refers to one who can eternally cease and eliminate all realms, destinies, births, deaths, and demonic influences. Or, one who can diligently strive to cease all faults, causing them to be eternally tranquil, is called a Śrāmaṇa. As the Bhagavat (薄伽梵, Buddha) himself explained: because one can diligently cease and eliminate various evil and unwholesome dharmas (法, teachings), defiled faults, and so on, hence one is called a Śrāmaṇa. That which a Śrāmaṇa possesses is called Śrāmaṇa-nature. This is the perfumed dharma (法, teachings) cultivated by a Śrāmaṇa; 'perfuming' means dispelling the meaning of generating foulness and delusion. It takes the unconditioned noble path as its essence, not the worldly path, because it can completely and ultimately quiet all faults. Therefore, although ordinary beings can sever the attachment to the realm of nothingness, they are not true Śrāmaṇas, because faults still remain, and the quiescence is temporary, not ultimate. Since the unconditioned path is the Śrāmaṇa-nature, both the conditioned and unconditioned can be its fruit. Therefore, the essence of the Śrāmaṇa-fruit includes both the conditioned and unconditioned. The Buddha said that there are four types of this fruit in total, from the first, Srotaāpanna (預流, stream-enterer), to the last, Arhat (阿羅漢, worthy one). The wisdom of the path category is the conditioned Srotaāpanna-fruit; the severance of dharmas (法, teachings) to be abandoned by seeing is the unconditioned Srotaāpanna-fruit. The wisdom of the path category, or the sixth unconditioned liberation path of detachment from the desire realm, is the conditioned Sakrdāgāmin (一來, once-returner) fruit; the severance of dharmas (法, teachings) to be abandoned by seeing, and the severance of the first six categories of dharmas (法, teachings) to be abandoned by cultivation within the desire realm, is the unconditioned Sakrdāgāmin fruit. The wisdom of the path category, or the ninth unconditioned liberation path of detachment from the desire realm, is the conditioned Anāgāmin (不還, non-returner) fruit; the severance of dharmas (法, teachings) to be abandoned by seeing, and the severance of dharmas (法, teachings) to be abandoned by cultivation, is the unconditioned Anāgāmin fruit. Exhaustive knowledge, non-arising knowledge, and the noble right view of the non-learner are the conditioned Arhat fruit; the severance of dharmas (法, teachings) to be abandoned by seeing and cultivation in the three realms is the unconditioned Arhat fruit. However, in the sutras, the Bhagavat only spoke of the unconditioned Śrāmaṇa-fruit. As it is said in the sutra: 'What is called the Srotaāpanna-fruit?' Answer: 'Severing the three bonds.' And 'What is called the Arhat-fruit?' Answer: 'Having eternally severed greed, hatred, delusion, etc.' Isn't it that the Anāgāmin-fruit has already been allowed to eternally sever hatred? This is not contradictory, because the meaning of the explanation is different. The meaning here is that one who purely removes all defilements of afflictions.
斷名永斷非尚有餘。煩惱垢者少無餘斷得永斷名。然余處說遍知。云何謂永斷貪。乃至廣說。此中意說。若一切種及一切斷即名永斷。一切種者謂斷自性。及斷能緣即名永斷。唯見苦斷諸法斷位見苦斷法。已斷自性未斷能緣。見集斷法已斷能緣。未斷自性非永斷故未名遍知。言一切者。謂見滅斷等十一惑中。隨一部永斷。由此具顯有九遍知。及顯異生斷非遍知所攝。譬喻者說沙門果體。唯是無為由教理故。教如前說今當辯理。以諸有為是可壞故。不可保信沙門果體。是可保信故唯無為。且教不然準前釋故。謂前處處已作是釋。非彼所引有餘意經。可能證成勝義理趣。契經雖言預流果體謂斷三結。而不言唯如四修定中現法樂住。定謂經說此是初靜慮。然實此定理亦通余。故不言唯顯有別意。此經亦爾不應固執。若謂有餘經說現法樂住通四靜慮。此不爾者。理亦不然與彼同故。謂余經說六法永斷。名為預流豈唯三結。又預流者。理實亦應有邊執見及貪等。斷此非預流果無別證因。由此彼所言不令生喜。故非由此所引契經。證唯無為是沙門果。理亦非理。若無顛倒智望無為法最可保信故。謂觀行者如實智生。能自了知我生盡等。雖是可壞法而極可保信。以能顯了無倒義故。由此定知四沙門果。其體通攝有為無為。復有至教證
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『斷名永斷非尚有餘』，意思是說，如果煩惱的垢染只是減少而沒有完全斷除，就不能稱為『永斷』。只有完全斷除，才能稱為『永斷』。然而，其他地方又說要『遍知』，那麼，如何才能稱為『永斷貪』呢？（以下省略）這裡的意思是說，如果一切種類和一切能緣都斷除了，才能稱為『永斷』。所謂『一切種類』，指的是斷除煩惱的自性；所謂『斷能緣』，指的是斷除能生起煩惱的因緣。只有在見苦所斷的諸法中，斷除了煩惱的自性，但在斷除煩惱的因緣的階段，或者在見集所斷的諸法中，斷除了煩惱的因緣，但沒有斷除煩惱的自性，都不能稱為『永斷』，因此也不能稱為『遍知』。 所謂『一切』，指的是在見滅所斷等十一種迷惑中，隨便斷除其中一部分，由此可以顯示有九種『遍知』，並且顯示異生（凡夫）所斷除的煩惱不屬於『遍知』的範疇。 譬喻者（指經量部）說，沙門果的本體唯是無為法，這是根據教證和理證。教證如前所述，現在來辯論理證。因為一切有為法都是可以壞滅的，所以不可靠；而沙門果的本體是可靠的，所以唯是無為法。 但是，教證並非如此，可以參照前面的解釋。前面已經多次解釋過，他們所引用的有其他含義的經典，不能證明勝義的道理。經典雖然說預流果的本體是斷除三結（身見、戒禁取見、疑），但並沒有說唯有如此。就像四修定中的『現法樂住』，經典說這是初禪，但實際上這種禪定也通於其他禪定，所以不能只說初禪，這顯示了經典有其他的含義。這個經典也是如此，不應該固執。 如果說，有其他經典說『現法樂住』通於四禪，這個說法不成立，因為與前面的情況相同。其他經典說，斷除六法（五下分結加上色愛、無色愛、掉舉、無明）才能稱為預流，難道只有斷除三結嗎？而且，預流者實際上也應該斷除邊執見和貪等，如果不斷除這些，就無法證明預流果有什麼不同。 因此，他們所說的話不能令人信服。所以，不能用他們所引用的經典來證明唯有無為法才是沙門果。理證也不合理。如果沒有顛倒的智慧，那麼無為法是最可靠的。但是，觀行者如實智生起，能夠自己了知『我生已盡』等，雖然這是可以壞滅的法，但卻是極其可靠的，因為它能夠顯現沒有顛倒的意義。 由此可以確定，四沙門果的本體包括有為法和無為法。還有至教可以證明。
【English Translation】 English version 『The severance named permanent severance is not still having remainder.』 This means that if the defilements of afflictions are only reduced and not completely severed, they cannot be called 『permanent severance.』 Only complete severance can be called 『permanent severance.』 However, other places say 『omniscience,』 so how can it be called 『permanent severance of greed』? (The following is omitted) The meaning here is that if all types and all conditions are severed, it can be called 『permanent severance.』 The so-called 『all types』 refers to severing the self-nature of afflictions; the so-called 『severing conditions』 refers to severing the causes and conditions that give rise to afflictions. Only in the dharmas severed by seeing suffering, severing the self-nature of afflictions, but in the stage of severing the conditions of afflictions, or in the dharmas severed by seeing origination, severing the conditions of afflictions, but not severing the self-nature of afflictions, cannot be called 『permanent severance,』 and therefore cannot be called 『omniscience.』 The so-called 『all』 refers to severing any part of the eleven confusions such as those severed by seeing cessation. From this, it can be shown that there are nine types of 『omniscience,』 and it shows that the afflictions severed by ordinary beings (mortals) do not belong to the category of 『omniscience.』 The Sautrāntikas (those who follow the sutras) say that the essence of the Śrāmaṇa fruits (the fruits of ascetic practice) is only unconditioned dharma, which is based on scriptural and logical proofs. The scriptural proofs have been mentioned earlier, and now we will discuss the logical proofs. Because all conditioned dharmas are destructible, they are unreliable; while the essence of the Śrāmaṇa fruits is reliable, so it is only unconditioned dharma. However, the scriptural proofs are not like this, and you can refer to the previous explanations. It has been explained many times before that the scriptures they cited with other meanings cannot prove the ultimate truth. Although the scriptures say that the essence of the Stream-enterer fruit is the severance of the three bonds (self-view, adherence to rites and rituals, and doubt), they do not say that it is only like this. Just like the 『present-life happiness abiding』 in the four meditative absorptions, the scriptures say that this is the first dhyāna, but in fact this dhyāna also applies to other dhyānas, so it cannot be said to be only the first dhyāna, which shows that the scriptures have other meanings. This scripture is also like this, and should not be rigidly adhered to. If it is said that other scriptures say that 『present-life happiness abiding』 applies to the four dhyānas, this statement is not valid, because it is the same as the previous situation. Other scriptures say that severing the six dharmas (the five lower fetters plus attachment to form, attachment to formlessness, restlessness, and ignorance) can be called a Stream-enterer, so is it only severing the three bonds? Moreover, a Stream-enterer should actually also sever extreme views and greed, etc. If these are not severed, there is no way to prove what is different about the Stream-enterer fruit. Therefore, what they say is not convincing. So, the scriptures they cited cannot be used to prove that only unconditioned dharma is the Śrāmaṇa fruit. The logical proof is also unreasonable. If there is no inverted wisdom, then unconditioned dharma is the most reliable. However, when the wisdom of the practitioner arises, they can know for themselves that 『birth is exhausted,』 etc. Although this is a destructible dharma, it is extremely reliable because it can reveal the meaning without inversion. From this, it can be determined that the essence of the four Śrāmaṇa fruits includes conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. There are also authoritative teachings that can prove this.
沙門果亦通有為。如契經說。根到彼岸為緣顯了。果到彼岸果到彼岸為緣顯了。補特伽羅亦到彼岸。唯依有為法立補特伽羅。補特伽羅由果顯了。故知果體亦通有為。然譬喻宗理最不可依。無為立補特伽羅。彼執無為無有體故。不應無體法為立假者因。謂彼執無為唯不轉為相。故不可依託立補特伽羅。若謂但依彼得建立。得是道故必是有為。由此應知依向果道。建立八種補特伽羅。補特伽羅既依道立。道體通向果果豈唯無為。又設劬勞求得名果。果位攝道既是所求。如何可言彼道非果。如何知道亦是所求。以契經中有伽他說。
智人居靜室 勇猛諦思惟 求八解三明 證慢掉盡故
又契經言。無相心定以解為果。解體即是盡無生智。定即沙門此即顯成。阿毗達磨說沙門果體。通有為無為。理教顯然不可傾動。然經但說果是無為。以此無為唯是果故。謂諸擇滅唯沙門果。道通沙門故略不說。或以無為法是果非有果。道通二種故略不說。或無為法離有為過。為令欣樂是故偏說。或此唯說無為果。經是有餘言不應封執。謂此唯說三結斷等。不遍說余煩惱斷故。如契經說。心速回轉精進能證無上菩提。超段食想越諸色想。沒有對想非余不然。應知此經亦復如是。如由別意唯說無為為沙門果。亦由別意說沙門果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 沙門果（Śrāmaṇaphala，修道者的果報）也同樣可以是有為法（saṃskṛta，因緣和合而成的法）。正如契經（sūtra，佛經）所說：『根到彼岸為緣顯了，果到彼岸為緣顯了。』補特伽羅（pudgala，人）也到達彼岸。唯有依靠有為法才能安立補特伽羅。補特伽羅通過果報才能顯現。因此可知果報的本體也同樣可以是有為法。然而，譬喻宗（Dārṣṭāntika，佛教部派之一）的理論最不可靠。他們用無為法（asaṃskṛta，不依賴因緣的法）來安立補特伽羅，因為他們認為無為法沒有自體。沒有自體的法不應該作為安立假名（prajñapti，假說）的因。他們認為無為法僅僅是不變異的相狀，因此不可依靠它來安立補特伽羅。如果說僅僅依靠它就能建立，那麼『得』（lābha，獲得）是道（mārga，修行之路）的緣故，必定是有為法。由此應該知道，依靠趨向果報的道，才能建立八種補特伽羅。補特伽羅既然依靠道而安立，道的本體既包括趨向果報的道，也包括果報，那麼果報怎麼能僅僅是無為法呢？ 又假設通過努力修行而獲得名為果報的果位，果位所包含的道既然是所追求的，怎麼能說那道不是果報呢？如何知道道也是所追求的呢？因為契經中有伽陀（gāthā，偈頌）說： 『智人居靜室，勇猛諦思惟，求八解三明，證慢掉盡故。』 又契經說：『無相心定以解（vimokṣa，解脫）為果。』解的本體就是盡智（kṣayajñāna，知煩惱已盡之智）和無生智（anutpādajñāna，知未來煩惱不生之智）。定（samādhi，禪定）就是沙門（śrāmaṇa，修行者）。這清楚地表明瞭阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）所說的沙門果的本體，既包括有為法，也包括無為法。這個道理和教證都非常明顯，不可動搖。然而，經典只說果是無為法，因為這種無為法僅僅是果的緣故。所謂的擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而滅除煩惱）僅僅是沙門果。道也通於沙門，所以經典略而不說。或者因為無為法是果，而不是有果，道通於兩種，所以經典略而不說。或者因為無為法遠離有為法的過患，爲了使人欣樂，所以偏重於說無為法。或者這裡僅僅說無為果，經典是有餘之言，不應該固執。這裡僅僅說了斷除三結（samyojana，身見、戒禁取見、疑），沒有普遍地說斷除其餘煩惱。正如契經所說：『心速回轉，精進能證無上菩提，超越段食想，越諸色想，沒有對想，非余不然。』應該知道這部經也是如此。正如由於別的用意，僅僅說無為法是沙門果，也由於別的用意說沙門果。
【English Translation】 English version: The Śrāmaṇaphala (fruits of asceticism) can also be saṃskṛta (conditioned phenomena). As the sūtra (scripture) says: 'The root reaches the other shore as a condition for manifestation, the fruit reaches the other shore as a condition for manifestation.' The pudgala (person) also reaches the other shore. Only by relying on saṃskṛta dharma can a pudgala be established. The pudgala is manifested through the fruit. Therefore, it is known that the essence of the fruit can also be saṃskṛta. However, the theory of the Dārṣṭāntika (a Buddhist school) is the most unreliable. They establish the pudgala with asaṃskṛta (unconditioned phenomena), because they believe that asaṃskṛta has no self-nature. A dharma without self-nature should not be the cause for establishing a prajñapti (provisional designation). They believe that asaṃskṛta is merely the aspect of non-change, therefore it cannot be relied upon to establish a pudgala. If it is said that it can be established solely by relying on it, then 'attainment' (lābha) is the cause of the mārga (path), so it must be saṃskṛta. From this, it should be known that by relying on the path leading to the fruit, eight kinds of pudgalas are established. Since the pudgala is established by relying on the path, and the essence of the path includes both the path leading to the fruit and the fruit itself, how can the fruit be merely asaṃskṛta? Furthermore, suppose one obtains the fruit position called 'fruit' through diligent practice. Since the path contained within the fruit position is what is sought, how can it be said that the path is not the fruit? How is it known that the path is also what is sought? Because there is a gāthā (verse) in the sūtra: 'The wise person dwells in a quiet room, vigorously contemplates with diligence, seeks the eight liberations and three kinds of knowledge, and thus realizes the exhaustion of pride and agitation.' Also, the sūtra says: 'The samādhi (meditative concentration) of no-sign has vimokṣa (liberation) as its fruit.' The essence of liberation is kṣayajñāna (knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements) and anutpādajñāna (knowledge of the non-arising of future defilements). Samādhi is the śrāmaṇa (ascetic). This clearly shows that the Abhidharma (doctrinal commentaries) says that the essence of the Śrāmaṇaphala includes both saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta. This principle and scriptural evidence are very clear and cannot be shaken. However, the scriptures only say that the fruit is asaṃskṛta, because this asaṃskṛta is solely the fruit. The so-called pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through discernment) is solely the Śrāmaṇaphala. The path also extends to the śrāmaṇa, so the scriptures omit it. Or because asaṃskṛta is the fruit, but not the 'having-fruit', and the path extends to both, so the scriptures omit it. Or because asaṃskṛta is free from the faults of saṃskṛta, in order to make people rejoice, it is emphasized. Or this only speaks of the asaṃskṛta fruit, and the scriptures have remaining meaning and should not be rigidly adhered to. This only speaks of the cutting off of the three saṃyojanas (fetters: self-view, clinging to rites and rituals, and doubt), and does not universally speak of the cutting off of other defilements. As the sūtra says: 'The mind quickly turns, and diligence can realize unsurpassed bodhi, transcending the thought of coarse food, transcending all thoughts of form, having no opposing thought, and not otherwise.' It should be known that this sūtra is also like this. Just as, due to a different intention, it is only said that asaṃskṛta is the Śrāmaṇaphala, it is also due to a different intention that the Śrāmaṇaphala is spoken of.
唯有四種。若廢別意直論法相。即沙門果有八十九。皆解脫道擇滅為性。謂為永斷三界煩惱。有八十九無間道起。見道所攝其數有八。法類智忍各有四故。修道所攝有八十一。九地各九無間道故。此八十九唯沙門性。此沙門性無間所生。八十九解脫道亦有為沙門果。是彼等流士用果故。即諸無間所斷惑斷。八十九諸擇滅。唯無為沙門果。是彼離系士用果故。彼能斷此得障得故。豈不沙門性。亦攝解脫道諸無間道。亦彼等流士用果故。應無間道亦是有為沙門果攝。不爾且非諸無間道。一切皆是解脫道果。雖有是者。而但可言。無間道力解脫道起。彼力能斷此起障故。彼道無間此必生故。非解脫道力引無間道起。此不能斷彼起障故。非此無間彼必生故。謂雖亦有無間而生而不皆然。及非此力謂有餘時余加行力所引起故。或有畢竟不復生故無相類失。何故契經說。沙門果非八十九唯說四耶。豈不已言經有別意。有何別意。且有釋言唯四位中。諸觀行者分明歡悅覺慧生故。謂唯四位極可信非余。設有退失未死還得故。有餘復言。唯此四位。如次能越惡趣彼因。人天趣生所顯示故。唯上中品貪等勢力。往惡趣生非下品故。或有本有二。謂欲界有頂二越有頂。二越欲界。故唯立四為沙門果。或諸煩惱總有二類。一者無記。二者不善
。初越二種后越無記。一來不還唯越不善。以惡難越故唯立四。有餘師言。非薄伽梵於八十九不現證知。然唯說四沙門果者。頌曰。
五因立四果 舍曾得勝道 集斷得八智 頓修十六行
論曰。若斷道位具足五因。佛于經中建立彼斷。及與斷得俱時而生。凈解脫道為沙門果。言五因者。一舍曾道。謂舍先得果向道故。二得勝道。謂得果攝殊勝道故。三總集斷。謂一果得總得先來所得斷故。四得八智。謂一時中總得四法四類智故。五能頓修十六行相。謂能頓修非常等故。住四果位皆具五因。餘位不然故唯說四。若唯凈道是沙門性。有漏道力所得二果。如何亦是沙門果攝。頌曰。
世道所得斷 聖所得雜故 無漏得持故 亦名沙門果
論曰。且無漏道所得擇滅。沙門果攝其理極成。得二果時諸世俗道。所得擇滅體數甚少。與多聖道所得擇滅。總一得得共成一果。是故於此以少從多。俱說名為沙門果體。謂世俗道得二果時。此果非唯以世俗道。所得擇滅為斷果性。兼以見道所得擇滅。于中相雜總成一果。同一果道得所得故。由此契經言。云何一來果。謂斷三結薄貪瞋癡。云何不還果。謂斷五下結故。世俗道所得擇滅。與無漏道所得雜故。以少從多名沙門果。又世俗道所得擇滅。無漏斷得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：初果超越兩種（有覆無記、無覆無記），二果和三果只超越不善（法）。因為惡很難超越，所以只建立四種（沙門果）。有其餘的老師說，並非薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）對於八十九種（煩惱）沒有現證知，然而只說四沙門果的原因是：偈頌說： 『五因立四果，舍曾得勝道，集斷得八智，頓修十六行。』 論曰：如果斷道位具足五種原因，佛在經中建立那種斷，以及與斷得同時而生的清凈解脫道為沙門果。所說的五種原因是指：一、捨棄曾經的道，是指捨棄先前得到的果向道；二、得到殊勝的道，是指得到果所攝的殊勝道；三、總集斷，是指一個果的獲得總能獲得先前所得的斷；四、得到八智，是指一時之中總能得到四法智和四類智；五、能夠頓修十六行相，是指能夠頓修無常等（行相）。安住於四果位都具備五種原因，其餘的位不是這樣，所以只說四果。如果只有清凈道是沙門性，有漏道力所得到的二果，如何也是沙門果所攝呢？偈頌說： 『世道所得斷，聖所得雜故，無漏得持故，亦名沙門果。』 論曰：而且無漏道所得到的擇滅（Vimutti，解脫），是沙門果所攝，這個道理非常明確。得到二果時，各種世俗道所得到的擇滅體數很少，與眾多聖道所得到的擇滅，總合在一起獲得，共同成就一個果。因此，在這裡以少從多，都說名為沙門果的體性。所謂世俗道得到二果時，這個果並非僅僅以世俗道所得到的擇滅作為斷果的性質，還兼有見道所得到的擇滅在其中相雜，總合成為一個果，同一個果道獲得所得的緣故。因此，契經說：『什麼是一來果？是斷除三結（身見、戒禁取、疑），薄貪瞋癡。』『什麼是不還果？是斷除五下結（貪、瞋、身見、戒禁取、疑）。』所以，世俗道所得到的擇滅，與無漏道所得到的（擇滅）相雜的緣故，以少從多，名為沙門果。而且世俗道所得到的擇滅，由無漏斷得（持）。
【English Translation】 English version: The first fruit transcends two kinds (covered unwholesome and uncovered unwholesome), while the second and third fruits only transcend unwholesome (dharmas). Because evil is difficult to transcend, only four (Śrāmaṇa fruits) are established. Some other teachers say that it is not that the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the World-Honored One) did not directly realize the eighty-nine (afflictions), but the reason for only speaking of the four Śrāmaṇa fruits is: The verse says: 'Five causes establish the four fruits, abandoning past attainment to gain superior paths, collectively severing and attaining eight wisdoms, instantly cultivating sixteen aspects.' Treatise says: If the stage of severance possesses five causes, the Buddha establishes that severance in the sutras, and the pure liberation path that arises simultaneously with the severance and attainment is the Śrāmaṇa fruit. The five causes refer to: First, abandoning the past path, which means abandoning the previously attained fruit-oriented path; second, attaining a superior path, which means attaining the superior path included in the fruit; third, collectively severing, which means that the attainment of one fruit collectively attains the severances previously attained; fourth, attaining eight wisdoms, which means that in one moment, one collectively attains the four Dharma wisdoms and the four category wisdoms; fifth, being able to instantly cultivate the sixteen aspects, which means being able to instantly cultivate impermanence and other (aspects). Abiding in the four fruit positions all possesses the five causes, while other positions do not, so only the four fruits are spoken of. If only the pure path is the nature of a Śrāmaṇa, how can the two fruits attained by the power of defiled paths also be included in the Śrāmaṇa fruits? The verse says: 'Severance attained by worldly paths, is mixed with that attained by noble paths, and upheld by undefiled attainment, is also named Śrāmaṇa fruit.' Treatise says: Moreover, the cessation (Vimutti, liberation) attained by the undefiled path is included in the Śrāmaṇa fruits, which is a very clear principle. When attaining the second fruit, the number of cessations attained by various worldly paths is very small, and together with the cessations attained by many noble paths, they are collectively attained, jointly accomplishing one fruit. Therefore, here, the few follow the many, and both are said to be the nature of the Śrāmaṇa fruit. When worldly paths attain the second fruit, this fruit is not only based on the cessation attained by worldly paths as the nature of the severance fruit, but also includes the cessation attained by the path of seeing mixed within it, collectively forming one fruit, because the same fruit path attains what is attained. Therefore, the sutra says: 'What is the once-returner fruit? It is the severing of the three bonds (self-view, adherence to rites and rituals, and doubt), thinning greed, hatred, and delusion.' 'What is the non-returner fruit? It is the severing of the five lower bonds (greed, hatred, self-view, adherence to rites and rituals, and doubt).' Therefore, the cessation attained by worldly paths is mixed with the (cessation) attained by undefiled paths, and because the few follow the many, it is named Śrāmaṇa fruit. Moreover, the cessation attained by worldly paths is upheld by undefiled severance and attainment.
所任持故。由此力所持退不命終故。無漏斷得印所印故。亦得名為沙門果體。如故人物王印所印。不復名為能集者物。此亦應爾故亦名沙門果。有餘師說。此滅當爲金剛喻定。真沙門果故亦得立沙門果名。此滅雖非彼離系果。是彼士用果名彼果無失。有餘復說。由此無為因沙門性增上力得。是故亦應名沙門果。以世俗道斷煩惱時。亦修治彼沙門性故。此中上座作如是言。理必應無已見諦者。用世俗道斷煩惱義。由彼能見一切有境。皆如炎猛熱鐵丸故。許世俗道觀上地法。起靜妙等欣行覺故。由此諸聖理必不應。以有攝法出離諸有。有餘復說。如有少年喜自嚴身耽欲樂凈。彼頸被系狗蛇人尸膀爛蟲蛆。臭穢難忍深生羞恥厭惡纏心。未若眾聖厭惡諸有。而說緣有靜等想生。如是所言不令生喜。故聖于有如無想定此非真過。所以者何。且彼如何許諸聖者。見諸有境如熱鐵丸。于有境中已斷樂倒。而於有漏行生此是樂覺。為欲生樂求樂緣故。又彼如何許諸聖者。厭諸有境劇厭三尸。于有境中已斷凈倒。而於有漏行生此是凈想。于極臭處如爛糞泥。女人死屍好習近故。由此彼難非真過失。若謂聖者求諸樂緣。習近女時由失正念。于斷惑位正念現前。是故不應引之為例。此亦非理違所說故。謂彼所言違如是說。聖如所見無別異行。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為（此滅）是被（無漏斷得印）所任持的緣故。又因為由此（無漏斷得印）的力量所支援，（阿羅漢）不會中途退轉而死亡的緣故。又因為是被無漏斷得印所印證的緣故，也可以被稱作沙門果的本體。就像舊物被國王的印章所印證，就不再被稱為能聚集物品的人的物品一樣。此滅也是如此，所以也被稱為沙門果。有些論師說，此滅應當是金剛喻定（vajropamasamadhi，一種堅不可摧的禪定）的真實沙門果，所以也可以被安立為沙門果之名。此滅雖然不是彼（金剛喻定）的離系果，但卻是彼（金剛喻定）的士用果，稱之為彼果也沒有過失。還有些論師說，由此無為法是由於沙門性（sramanata，出家修道者的本性）的增上力而得到的，所以也應當被稱為沙門果。因為在世俗道斷除煩惱的時候，也修治了彼沙門性的緣故。 這裡，上座（長老）這樣說：道理上一定沒有已經見諦（dṛṣṭisatya，證悟真理）的人，再用世俗道斷除煩惱的道理。因為他們能夠見到一切有境，都像熾熱的鐵丸一樣。允許世俗道觀察上地法，生起寂靜、美妙等欣樂的行相的緣故。由此，諸聖者在道理上一定不應該用有攝法出離諸有。還有些論師說，如果有個少年喜歡打扮自己，沉溺於慾望和快樂的清凈。他的脖子上被繫著狗、蛇、腐爛的人尸、膿血和蛆蟲，臭穢難忍，內心深感羞恥和厭惡。沒有像眾聖者那樣厭惡諸有的。而說緣于有境生起寂靜等想。這樣所說的話，不能令人心生歡喜。所以聖者對於有境，就像對於無想定一樣，這並非真正的過失。為什麼這樣說呢？且說他們如何允許諸聖者，見到諸有境像熾熱的鐵丸一樣，在有境中已經斷除了樂倒，卻在有漏行中生起這是快樂的感覺，爲了想要生起快樂而尋求快樂的因緣的緣故？又他們如何允許諸聖者，厭惡諸有境像厭惡三具屍體一樣，在有境中已經斷除了凈倒，卻在有漏行中生起這是清凈的想法，在極其臭穢的地方，像腐爛的糞便和泥土，女人的屍體一樣，喜歡親近的緣故？由此，他們的責難並非真正的過失。如果說聖者尋求諸樂的因緣，親近女人的時候，由於失去了正念。在斷惑的階段，正念現前，所以不應該引以為例。這也是沒有道理的，違背了他們自己所說的話。他們所說的話違背了這樣的說法：聖者如實所見，沒有別的異行。
【English Translation】 English version: Because (this cessation) is upheld by (the seal of non-outflow attainment of severance). Also, because supported by the power of this (seal of non-outflow attainment of severance), (the Arhat) will not regress and die prematurely. Also, because it is sealed by the seal of non-outflow attainment of severance, it can also be called the substance of the fruit of a Sramana (śrāmaṇa, a wandering ascetic). Just as an old object sealed by the king's seal is no longer called the object of the person who can gather objects. This cessation is also like that, so it is also called the fruit of a Sramana. Some teachers say that this cessation should be the Vajropamasamadhi (vajropamasamādhi, diamond-like concentration), the true fruit of a Sramana, so it can also be established as the name of the fruit of a Sramana. Although this cessation is not the separation result of that (Vajropamasamadhi), it is the result of the effort of that (Vajropamasamadhi), and there is no fault in calling it that fruit. Some other teachers say that this unconditioned dharma is obtained due to the increased power of Sramanata (śrāmaṇatā, the nature of a renunciate), so it should also be called the fruit of a Sramana. Because when worldly paths sever afflictions, they also cultivate that Sramanata. Here, the elder (Upadhyaya) says: In principle, there should be no one who has already seen the truth (dṛṣṭisatya, truth of vision) using worldly paths to sever afflictions. Because they can see all objects of existence as hot iron balls. It is permissible for worldly paths to observe the dharmas of higher realms, giving rise to pleasant aspects such as tranquility and subtlety. Therefore, in principle, the saints should not use conditioned dharmas to escape from all existences. Some other teachers say that if there is a young man who likes to adorn himself, indulging in desires and the purity of pleasure. His neck is tied with dogs, snakes, rotting human corpses, pus and maggots, unbearably foul, and his heart is filled with shame and disgust. Not like the saints who abhor all existences. And say that thoughts of tranquility arise from objects of existence. Such words do not bring joy. Therefore, the saints' attitude towards existence is like that towards the state of non-perception, which is not a real fault. Why is that? And how do they allow the saints to see all objects of existence as hot iron balls, having already severed the perversion of pleasure in the objects of existence, yet giving rise to the feeling that this is pleasure in conditioned actions, seeking the causes and conditions for wanting to generate pleasure? Also, how do they allow the saints to abhor all objects of existence like abhorring three corpses, having already severed the perversion of purity in the objects of existence, yet giving rise to the thought that this is purity in conditioned actions, liking to approach extremely foul places, like rotten feces and mud, and the corpses of women? Therefore, their criticism is not a real fault. If it is said that the saints seek the causes and conditions of all pleasures, and when approaching women, they lose their mindfulness. In the stage of severing afflictions, mindfulness is present, so it should not be taken as an example. This is also unreasonable, contradicting what they themselves said. What they said contradicts the statement that the saints have no different actions from what they see in reality.
又諸聖者安住正念。雖見諸行體皆是苦。而於其中亦生樂覺。如契經說。受樂受時如實了知受於樂受。若謂聖者暫時覺樂余亦應然。于上地境亦暫時觀為靜等故。非聖觀有猶如涅槃。發起畢竟靜妙離想。但思上境少靜等相。厭離下地粗動等法。世尊亦說以有出有。如說聖者以色出欲無色出色。恐謂無能出無色者。故佛重說諸有所作。諸有所思滅皆能出。又我宗說諸有聖者。以世俗道離下染時。以上世定為首觀察起靜等覺。非以上生寧可責言。如何聖者于諸有境起靜等覺。聖厭有生非有德故。又有至教證諸聖者。於世定中起靜等覺。如契經說。具壽舍利子。速往盲林入滅受想定。從定起已高聲唱言。此滅涅槃甚樂甚靜。謂彼尊者於此滅定覺樂靜故。便於涅槃起甚快樂甚寂靜覺故。從定起高聲唱言。此滅涅槃甚樂甚靜。謂滅定中滅少流轉。尚有如是樂靜二相。況涅槃中流轉總滅。或即滅定假說涅槃。以樂及靜分相似故。又佛亦說此定甚妙。謂薄伽梵說滅定已復言。此妙過六輕安。以滅定體有妙性故。可以對余挍量勝劣。又漸損減契經中言。如是四種寂靜解脫。超一切色無色所收。我說苾芻修彼定者。從彼定起必應唱言。如是定中極為寂靜。故不可說唯有頂地。善有漏定寂靜非余。若謂不應緣暫靜等。起靜等想便能斷惑。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此外，諸位聖者安住于正念之中，即使見到諸行（saṃskāra，一切有為法）的本質皆是苦，也會在其中產生快樂的感覺。正如契經所說：『感受快樂感受時，如實了知正在感受快樂感受。』如果說聖者只是暫時覺察到快樂，其他人也應該如此，因為他們對於上地境界也只是暫時觀想為寂靜等等。聖者的觀想並非像涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）那樣，發起畢竟寂靜微妙的離想，而只是思惟上地境界少許寂靜等等的相狀，從而厭離下地粗糙動搖等等的法。世尊也說過，憑藉『有』可以超出『有』。例如，經中說聖者憑藉色界（rūpadhātu，物質界）超出欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界），憑藉無色界（arūpadhātu，非物質界）超出色界。恐怕有人認為無法超出無色界，所以佛陀再次強調說，一切有所作為、有所思慮的事物，滅盡之後都能超出。而且我宗認為，諸位聖者以世俗道（lokamārga，世間道）遠離下地染污時，以上界禪定為首要，觀察生起寂靜等等的覺受，並非憑藉上界而生，怎麼能責問說，聖者如何對於諸有境界生起寂靜等等的覺受呢？聖者厭惡有生，並非厭惡有德。還有聖教證明諸位聖者在世間禪定中生起寂靜等等的覺受。例如契經中說：『具壽舍利子（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）迅速前往盲林，進入滅受想定（nirodhasamāpatti，滅盡定）。從定中起來后，高聲唱言：此滅涅槃甚樂甚靜。』意思是說，那位尊者在此滅定中覺察到快樂和寂靜，因此對於涅槃生起甚為快樂和甚為寂靜的覺受，所以從定中起來后高聲唱言：『此滅涅槃甚樂甚靜。』意思是說，在滅定中，少許的流轉止息，尚且有如此快樂和寂靜兩種相狀，更何況在涅槃中，一切流轉都完全止息呢？或者，可以將滅定假名為涅槃，因為快樂和寂靜的性質相似。而且，佛陀也說過此定甚妙。意思是說，薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）在說完滅定之後又說：『此定勝妙超過六種輕安。』因為滅定的本體具有妙性，所以可以用來與其他的禪定比較勝劣。而且，在漸損減的契經中說：『如此四種寂靜解脫，超越一切色界和無色界所攝。我說比丘修習此定者，從彼定中起來必定會唱言：如此定中極為寂靜。』所以不能說只有有頂地（abhavāgra，非想非非想處）的善有漏定（sāsravasamādhi，有漏禪定）才是寂靜的，其他的不是。如果說不應該緣于暫時的寂靜等等，生起寂靜等等的想念，就能斷除迷惑，這是錯誤的。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the noble ones abide in right mindfulness. Although they see that the nature of all conditioned things (saṃskāra) is suffering, they also experience a sense of pleasure within them. As the scripture says: 'When experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly knows that one is experiencing a pleasant feeling.' If it is said that the noble ones only temporarily perceive pleasure, others should also do so, because they also only temporarily contemplate the higher realms as being tranquil, and so on. The contemplation of the noble ones is not like Nirvāṇa (nirodha, cessation), which gives rise to the ultimate thought of tranquility and subtlety, but only contemplates the slight tranquility, etc., of the higher realms, thereby renouncing the gross and agitated dharmas of the lower realms. The World Honored One also said that one can transcend 'existence' by means of 'existence.' For example, it is said in the scriptures that the noble ones transcend the desire realm (kāmadhātu) by means of the form realm (rūpadhātu), and transcend the form realm by means of the formless realm (arūpadhātu). Fearing that someone might think that it is impossible to transcend the formless realm, the Buddha emphasized again that all things that are made and all things that are thought can be transcended by their cessation. Moreover, our school holds that when the noble ones abandon the defilements of the lower realms by means of the mundane path (lokamārga), they observe and give rise to the perception of tranquility, etc., primarily through the higher realm samādhis. It is not by being born in the higher realms, so how can one question how the noble ones give rise to the perception of tranquility, etc., in the realms of existence? The noble ones detest being born, not detesting having virtue. Furthermore, there are sacred teachings that prove that the noble ones give rise to the perception of tranquility, etc., in mundane samādhi. For example, the scripture says: 'The venerable Śāriputra (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom) quickly went to the Blind Grove and entered the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodhasamāpatti). After arising from the samādhi, he exclaimed loudly: This cessation, Nirvāṇa, is very blissful and very tranquil.' This means that the venerable one perceived bliss and tranquility in this cessation samādhi, and therefore gave rise to the perception of great bliss and great tranquility in Nirvāṇa. Therefore, after arising from the samādhi, he exclaimed loudly: 'This cessation, Nirvāṇa, is very blissful and very tranquil.' This means that in the cessation samādhi, the slight flow ceases, and there are still these two aspects of bliss and tranquility. How much more so in Nirvāṇa, where all flow completely ceases? Or, the cessation samādhi can be falsely called Nirvāṇa because the qualities of bliss and tranquility are similar. Moreover, the Buddha also said that this samādhi is very wonderful. This means that the Blessed One (Bhagavān) said after speaking of the cessation samādhi: 'This is more wonderful than the six kinds of lightness.' Because the essence of the cessation samādhi has a wonderful nature, it can be used to compare the superiority and inferiority of other samādhis. Moreover, in the scripture on gradual reduction, it is said: 'These four kinds of tranquil liberation transcend all that is contained within the form and formless realms. I say that a bhikṣu who cultivates this samādhi will surely exclaim upon arising from that samādhi: This samādhi is extremely tranquil.' Therefore, it cannot be said that only the good contaminated samādhi (sāsravasamādhi) of the peak of existence (abhavāgra) is tranquil, and not others. If it is said that one should not give rise to the thought of tranquility, etc., based on temporary tranquility, etc., and that one can thereby cut off delusion, this is wrong.
亦不然。待下地法上地便是畢竟靜故。謂初靜慮待欲界法。無或寂靜不寂靜義。豈可說言厭欲界法觀初靜慮。為靜等時非畢竟故障離欲染。又既見有自地善心。能暫思惟自地不凈。雖為自地煩惱所縛。而亦能令煩惱不起。如何觀下災橫所逼。觀上永脫下地災橫非下所縛。勝定現前而不。能斷下地惑得。故汝不應不生歡喜。然愚夫類于無想天。執為真實究竟出離。于無想定方能發起。聖者于彼不執出離。故無想定聖者不起。更以余想不能起故。由此彼喻于證無能。是故極成有學聖者。以世俗道亦能斷惑。有作是說。以契經中說四沙門果漸次而得故。知諸異生無實斷惑。此不應理。以彼經中約次第者密意說故。由此即彼契經中說。且有一類于諸行中。如理思惟。乃至廣說。理必應爾。以余經說得四定者入見諦故。不可才遇義缺減經。便興固執撥余聖教。以諸聖教有多差別。無一經中具眾義故。謂諸聖教略有二種。于義有了有不了故。又無所待有所待故。又說世俗勝義諦故。又總相說別相說故。又隨自意他意說故。又屬法相屬法教故。如是等類有無量門。有契經中雖有所說。非離余說義可顯了。且如經說于諸行中。如理思惟義猶未了。何等為行行有多種。謂契經說無明緣行。又契經說。入息出息尋伺想思名身等行。又契經說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不然。如果按照你的說法，只有下地法才能對上地法起作用，那是因為上地法是畢竟寂靜的緣故。例如，初禪需要依賴欲界法才能顯現，而欲界法有寂靜和不寂靜兩種狀態。難道可以說，厭離欲界法而觀想初禪，在觀想寂靜等狀態時，並非因為有畢竟的障礙才無法脫離欲界的染污嗎？而且，既然我們看到有自地（指自身所處的禪定層次）的善心，能夠暫時思惟自地的不凈，即使被自地的煩惱所束縛，也能讓煩惱暫時不起作用。那麼，為什麼觀想下地的災橫逼迫，觀想上地能夠永遠脫離下地的災橫，這種並非被下地所束縛，且殊勝的禪定現前，反而不能斷除下地的惑呢？所以你不應該不生歡喜。然而，愚夫之輩對於無想天（無想定的果報）執著認為是真實的究竟解脫。只有在修習無想定時，他們才會這樣認為。聖者對於無想天並不執著為解脫，所以聖者不會修習無想定，因為他們無法從中生起其他的想法。因此，用無想定來比喻斷惑的能力是無效的。所以，完全證悟的有學聖者，通過世俗道也能斷除煩惱。 有些人這樣說：因為契經中說四沙門果（須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）是漸次獲得的，所以認為凡夫俗子無法真正斷除煩惱。這種說法是不合理的，因為那部經中關於次第的說法是帶有密意的。因此，在那部契經中也說，有一類人對於諸行（一切有為法）如理思惟，乃至廣說。道理必然是這樣的，因為其他的經典中說，獲得四禪定的人能夠進入見諦（證悟真理）。不能因為遇到一部義理有所欠缺的經典，就固執己見，否定其他的聖教。因為諸多的聖教有多種差別，沒有一部經典能夠包含所有的義理。也就是說，諸多的聖教大致可以分為兩種：對於義理有了解的和沒有了解的；有所待的（需要其他條件才能理解）和無所待的；說世俗諦的和說勝義諦的；說總相的和說別相的；隨順自己意樂的和隨順他人意樂的；屬於法相的和屬於法教的。像這樣等等，有無量的門徑。有些契經中雖然有所說法，但如果脫離其他的說法，義理就無法顯明。比如，經中說『于諸行中，如理思惟』，但義理仍然沒有完全明瞭。什麼是行？行有多種，比如契經中說無明緣行（十二因緣中的行），又比如契經中說入息出息、尋伺、想思、名身等行，還有契經中說...
【English Translation】 English version It is not so. If, according to you, only lower realm dharmas can affect higher realm dharmas, it is because the higher realm is ultimately tranquil. For example, the first Dhyana (初靜慮) [First Meditation Stage] relies on the dharmas of the desire realm (欲界) to manifest. The desire realm has both tranquil and non-tranquil states. Can it be said that disliking the desire realm and contemplating the first Dhyana, while contemplating tranquility, is not because of ultimate obstacles that one cannot escape the defilements of the desire realm? Moreover, since we see that there is good intention in one's own realm (referring to the level of meditation one is in), which can temporarily contemplate the impurity of one's own realm, even if bound by the afflictions of one's own realm, it can still prevent afflictions from arising temporarily. Then, why is it that contemplating the calamities of the lower realm, and contemplating that the higher realm can forever escape the calamities of the lower realm, this kind of superior Samadhi (勝定) [Superior Concentration] that is not bound by the lower realm, cannot cut off the delusions of the lower realm when it manifests? Therefore, you should not be unhappy about this. However, foolish people cling to the Heaven of Non-Perception (無想天) [Realm of Non-Perception, a high realm in the Form Realm] as the true and ultimate liberation. Only when practicing the Non-Perception Samadhi (無想定) [Meditation of Non-Perception] do they think this way. Sages do not cling to the Heaven of Non-Perception as liberation, so sages do not practice the Non-Perception Samadhi because they cannot generate other thoughts from it. Therefore, using the Non-Perception Samadhi to illustrate the ability to cut off delusions is ineffective. Therefore, fully enlightened learners (有學聖者) [Saints who are still learning] can also cut off afflictions through worldly paths (世俗道). Some say that because the Sutras (契經) [Canonical Buddhist scriptures] say that the four fruits of the Sramanas (沙門果) [Fruits of the Ascetics: Srotaapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat] are attained gradually, they believe that ordinary people cannot truly cut off afflictions. This is unreasonable because the statement about gradual attainment in that Sutra is with hidden meaning. Therefore, in that Sutra, it also says that there are those who contemplate all phenomena (諸行) [all conditioned phenomena] with proper reasoning, and so on. The principle must be like this because other Sutras say that those who attain the four Dhyanas can enter the path of seeing the truth (見諦) [seeing the truth]. One cannot be stubborn and deny other sacred teachings just because one encounters a Sutra that is lacking in meaning. Because the many sacred teachings have many differences, no single Sutra can contain all the meanings. That is to say, the many sacred teachings can be roughly divided into two types: those that understand the meaning and those that do not; those that are dependent (require other conditions to understand) and those that are independent; those that speak of conventional truth (世俗諦) and those that speak of ultimate truth (勝義諦); those that speak of general characteristics and those that speak of specific characteristics; those that follow one's own inclinations and those that follow the inclinations of others; those that belong to the characteristics of the Dharma and those that belong to the teachings of the Dharma. Like this and so on, there are countless paths. Although some Sutras say something, the meaning cannot be clarified if separated from other statements. For example, the Sutra says 'contemplate all phenomena with proper reasoning,' but the meaning is still not completely clear. What are phenomena? There are many kinds of phenomena, such as the Sutra says ignorance conditions action (無明緣行) [action in the twelve links of dependent origination], and the Sutra says in-breath and out-breath, initial and sustained thought, thought and ideation, name and form, etc. are actions, and the Sutra says...
。欲等名行即八斷行。又契經說。諸行非常即有漏法。又契經說。一切行無常此經意說一切有為法。又說壽行此即命根。如是等行有無量種。于諸行境如理思惟。為欲界係爲色無色。為三界係爲無漏攝。為在何地分位。如何此如理言。為顯何義如何生起。何故名世復以何緣名為第一。何故所緣以行聲說。于能緣上說作意聲。以思惟名自作意故。如是等類皆可推徴。故聖教中必應有處。具釋諸法自性名等。以薄伽梵為欲攝益所化有情。觀處觀時觀根性等。種種差別隨應為說爾所法門。非一經中見有具說。故離欲說義難顯了故不應說。以契經中說四沙門果漸次而得故。知諸異生無實斷惑。如是已說依世俗道。斷修所斷得二果時。所得擇滅名沙門果。然沙門果酬沙門性。此沙門性如前已說。即此復有差別名耶。亦有云何。頌曰。
所說沙門性 亦名婆羅門 亦名為梵輪 真梵所轉故 于中唯見道 說名為法輪 由速等似輪 或具輻等故
論曰。依世俗理則諸沙門異婆羅門。如契經說。應施沙門婆羅門等。依勝義理則諸沙門即婆羅門。如契經說。此初沙門乃至第四。在正法外無真沙門及婆羅門。乃至廣說。以能遣除惡不善法。與勤止息相極相似。故沙門體即婆羅門。如說能遣除惡不善法。廣說乃至。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：想要等同於『行』這個名稱，就是八斷行（指八種斷除煩惱的修行方法）。此外，《契經》中說，諸行都是無常的，指的就是有漏法。還有《契經》說，一切行都是無常的，這裡的『行』指的是一切有為法。又說『壽行』，指的就是命根。像這樣的『行』有無量種。對於諸『行』的境界，如理思惟，辨別它是欲界所繫，還是色界、無色界所繫；是三界所繫，還是無漏所攝；它屬於哪個地（指三界九地）的分位，是如何存在的。這裡的『如理』二字，是爲了顯示什麼意義？它是如何生起的？為什麼稱之為『世』，又因為什麼緣故稱之為『第一』？為什麼所緣境用『行』這個聲音來表達？在能緣的心識上，說的是『作意』這個聲音，因為思惟的名稱就是自作意。像這些等等，都可以推究考證。所以在聖教中，必定有地方詳細解釋諸法的自性、名稱等等。因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛的稱號之一，意為『世尊』）爲了攝受利益所化度的有情眾生，觀察他們的處境、時機、根性等等種種差別，隨應為他們宣說相應的法門，而不是在一本經中全部說完。所以，離開（佛陀）想要說的真實義，很難顯現明白，因此不應該這樣說。因為《契經》中說，四沙門果（Sramana-phala，指出家修行者所證得的四種果位：須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）是漸次獲得的，所以，可以知道，凡夫異生並沒有真正斷除煩惱。像這樣，已經說了依靠世俗道，斷除修所斷的煩惱，獲得二果（指斯陀含果和阿那含果）的時候，所得到的擇滅（Pratisamkhya-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅盡狀態）稱為沙門果。然而，沙門果是酬報沙門性的。這個沙門性，如前面已經說過的。這個沙門性還有其他的差別名稱嗎？也是有的，是什麼呢？頌文說：
所說的沙門性，也叫做婆羅門（Brahmana，古印度社會中的祭司階層，此處指具有高尚德行的人），也叫做梵輪（Brahma-cakra，指清凈的佛法），因為是真正的梵天所轉動的緣故。其中唯有見道（Darsana-marga，佛教修行中的一個階段，指初次證悟真理的階段），才被稱為法輪（Dharma-cakra，佛法的象徵，代表佛法的傳播和運轉），由於它快速等同於輪子，或者因為它具有輪輻等組成部分。
論述：依據世俗的道理來說，沙門（Sramana，指出家修行者）和婆羅門是不同的。如《契經》所說，應該佈施給沙門、婆羅門等等。依據勝義的道理來說，沙門就是婆羅門。如《契經》所說，這位是第一沙門，乃至第四沙門，在正法之外，沒有真正的沙門和婆羅門，乃至廣說。因為能夠遣除惡不善法，與勤奮止息（煩惱）的狀態極其相似，所以沙門的本體就是婆羅門。如說能夠遣除惡不善法，乃至廣說。 English version: To equate the name 'conduct' with desire is the eightfold abandonment of conduct (referring to the eight practices to eliminate afflictions). Furthermore, the Sutras state that all conduct is impermanent, referring to conditioned dharmas. Also, the Sutras state that all conduct is impermanent, which means all conditioned phenomena. It also speaks of 'life conduct,' which refers to the life force. There are countless types of 'conduct' like these. Regarding the realms of these 'conducts,' contemplate them rationally, discerning whether they are related to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm; whether they are related to the three realms or included in the unconditioned; to which level of existence they belong and how they exist. What meaning does 'rational' reveal here? How does it arise? Why is it called 'world,' and for what reason is it called 'first'? Why is the object of cognition expressed with the sound 'conduct'? On the cognizing consciousness, the sound 'attention' is spoken, because the name of thought is self-attention. Such things can be investigated and verified. Therefore, in the sacred teachings, there must be places that explain in detail the nature, names, and so on of all dharmas. Because the Bhagavan (one of the titles of the Buddha, meaning 'World Honored One') wanted to benefit sentient beings who are to be transformed, observing their circumstances, timing, faculties, and other differences, he taught them the corresponding Dharma doors accordingly, rather than explaining everything in one Sutra. Therefore, apart from the true meaning that (the Buddha) wanted to convey, it is difficult to make it clear, so it should not be said like this. Because the Sutras state that the four Sramana-phala (the four fruits attained by renunciants: Srotaapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anaagamin, Arhat) are attained gradually, it can be known that ordinary beings have not truly eliminated afflictions. Thus, it has been said that relying on the conventional path, when eliminating afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation and attaining the second and third fruits (Sakrdagamin and Anaagamin), the obtained cessation through discernment (Pratisamkhya-nirodha) is called the Sramana-phala. However, the Sramana-phala is a reward for the nature of a Sramana. This nature of a Sramana has been explained earlier. Does this also have other different names? Yes, what are they? The verse says:
The nature of a Sramana that is spoken of is also called a Brahmana (the priestly class in ancient Indian society, here referring to a person with noble virtues), also called the Brahma-cakra (referring to the pure Dharma), because it is turned by the true Brahma. Among them, only the path of seeing (Darsana-marga, a stage in Buddhist practice, referring to the initial stage of realizing the truth) is called the Dharma-cakra (the symbol of the Dharma, representing the propagation and operation of the Dharma), because it is as fast as a wheel, or because it has components such as spokes.
Commentary: According to conventional reasoning, Sramanas (renunciants) and Brahmanas are different. As the Sutras say, one should give alms to Sramanas, Brahmanas, and so on. According to ultimate reasoning, Sramanas are Brahmanas. As the Sutras say, this is the first Sramana, and so on to the fourth Sramana; outside the true Dharma, there are no true Sramanas and Brahmanas, and so on. Because it can eliminate evil and unwholesome dharmas, it is extremely similar to diligently ceasing (afflictions), so the essence of a Sramana is a Brahmana. As it is said that it can eliminate evil and unwholesome dharmas, and so on.
【English Translation】 English version: To equate the name 'conduct' with desire is the eightfold abandonment of conduct (referring to the eight practices to eliminate afflictions). Furthermore, the Sutras state that all conduct is impermanent, referring to conditioned dharmas. Also, the Sutras state that all conduct is impermanent, which means all conditioned phenomena. It also speaks of 'life conduct,' which refers to the life force. There are countless types of 'conduct' like these. Regarding the realms of these 'conducts,' contemplate them rationally, discerning whether they are related to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm; whether they are related to the three realms or included in the unconditioned; to which level of existence they belong and how they exist. What meaning does 'rational' reveal here? How does it arise? Why is it called 'world,' and for what reason is it called 'first'? Why is the object of cognition expressed with the sound 'conduct'? On the cognizing consciousness, the sound 'attention' is spoken, because the name of thought is self-attention. Such things can be investigated and verified. Therefore, in the sacred teachings, there must be places that explain in detail the nature, names, and so on of all dharmas. Because the Bhagavan (one of the titles of the Buddha, meaning 'World Honored One') wanted to benefit sentient beings who are to be transformed, observing their circumstances, timing, faculties, and other differences, he taught them the corresponding Dharma doors accordingly, rather than explaining everything in one Sutra. Therefore, apart from the true meaning that (the Buddha) wanted to convey, it is difficult to make it clear, so it should not be said like this. Because the Sutras state that the four Sramana-phala (the four fruits attained by renunciants: Srotaapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anaagamin, Arhat) are attained gradually, it can be known that ordinary beings have not truly eliminated afflictions. Thus, it has been said that relying on the conventional path, when eliminating afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation and attaining the second and third fruits (Sakrdagamin and Anaagamin), the obtained cessation through discernment (Pratisamkhya-nirodha) is called the Sramana-phala. However, the Sramana-phala is a reward for the nature of a Sramana. This nature of a Sramana has been explained earlier. Does this also have other different names? Yes, what are they? The verse says:
The nature of a Sramana that is spoken of is also called a Brahmana (the priestly class in ancient Indian society, here referring to a person with noble virtues), also called the Brahma-cakra (referring to the pure Dharma), because it is turned by the true Brahma. Among them, only the path of seeing (Darsana-marga, a stage in Buddhist practice, referring to the initial stage of realizing the truth) is called the Dharma-cakra (the symbol of the Dharma, representing the propagation and operation of the Dharma), because it is as fast as a wheel, or because it has components such as spokes.
Commentary: According to conventional reasoning, Sramanas (renunciants) and Brahmanas are different. As the Sutras say, one should give alms to Sramanas, Brahmanas, and so on. According to ultimate reasoning, Sramanas are Brahmanas. As the Sutras say, this is the first Sramana, and so on to the fourth Sramana; outside the true Dharma, there are no true Sramanas and Brahmanas, and so on. Because it can eliminate evil and unwholesome dharmas, it is extremely similar to diligently ceasing (afflictions), so the essence of a Sramana is a Brahmana. As it is said that it can eliminate evil and unwholesome dharmas, and so on.
故名婆羅門。即婆羅門性亦名為梵輪。是真梵王力所轉故。佛與無上梵德相應。是故世尊獨應名梵。由契經說佛亦名梵。亦名寂靜。亦名清涼。寂默沖虛蕭然名梵。佛具此德故立梵名。既自覺悟為令他覺。轉此授彼故名梵輪。即梵輪中唯依見道。世尊有處說名法輪。以阿若多憍陳那等五苾芻眾。見道生時地空天神即傳宣告。世尊已轉正法輪故。如何見道說名為輪。以速行等似世輪故。如聖王輪旋環不息。速行舍取能伏未伏。鎮壓已伏上下回轉。見道亦爾故名法輪。謂聖王輪旋環不息。見道亦爾無中歇故。如聖王輪行用速疾。見道亦爾各一念故。如聖王輪取前舍后。見道亦爾舍苦等境取集等故。此則顯示見四聖諦。必不俱時如聖王輪。降伏未伏鎮壓已伏。見道亦爾能見未見能斷未斷。已見斷者無迷退故。如聖王輪上下回轉。見道亦爾觀上苦等已觀下苦等故。由此見道獨名法輪。尊者妙音作如是說。如世間輪有輻轂輞。八支聖道似彼名輪。謂正見正思惟正勤正念。似世輪輻。正語正業正命似轂。正定似輞故名法輪。毗婆沙師本意總說。一切聖道皆名法輪。以說三轉三道攝故。於他相續見道生時。已至轉初故名已轉。然唯見道是法輪初故說法輪。唯是見道諸天神類。即就最初言轉法輪不依二道。然諸師多說見道名法輪。以地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此被稱為婆羅門（Brahman，印度教中的最高種姓）。婆羅門之性也稱為梵輪（Brahma-cakra，梵天的輪），因為它是真正的梵天之王的力量所轉動。佛陀與無上的梵德（Brahma-guna，梵天的功德）相應，因此世尊獨自應被稱為梵（Brahma，梵天）。因為契經（Sutra，佛經）說佛陀也名為梵，也名為寂靜（Śānta，平靜），也名為清涼（Śīta，涼爽），寂默沖虛蕭然也名為梵。佛陀具備這些功德，所以立梵之名。既然自己覺悟，爲了令他人覺悟，將此（佛法）傳授給他人，所以名為梵輪。這梵輪中唯有見道（Darśana-mārga，見道）是關鍵。世尊在某些地方說名為法輪（Dharma-cakra，佛法之輪），因為阿若多·憍陳那（Ājñāta-Kauṇḍinya）等五位比丘眾（Pañcavargika，五比丘）見道生起時，地空天神（Deva，天神）便傳宣告知：世尊已經轉動正法輪。如何說見道名為輪呢？因為它具有速行等特性，類似世間的輪子。如同聖王之輪（Cakravartin-cakra，轉輪聖王的輪寶）旋轉不停，快速執行，能捨能取，能降伏未降伏的，鎮壓已降伏的，上下回轉。見道也是如此，所以名為法輪。如同聖王之輪旋轉不停，見道也是如此，沒有中止的時候。如同聖王之輪執行迅速，見道也是如此，每一念都很快。如同聖王之輪取前舍后，見道也是如此，捨棄苦等境界，取集等境界。這顯示了見到四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，四聖諦）必定不是同時發生的，如同聖王之輪。降伏未降伏的，鎮壓已降伏的，見道也是如此，能見未見的，能斷未斷的，已經見到和斷除的就不會迷惑退轉。如同聖王之輪上下回轉，見道也是如此，觀上界的苦等，也觀地獄的苦等。因此見道獨自被稱為法輪。尊者妙音（Svara-ghoṣa，妙音）這樣說：如同世間的輪子有輻（ara，輪輻）、轂（nābhi，輪轂）、輞（nemi，輪輞），八支聖道（aṣṭāṅga-mārga，八正道）類似它們，所以名為輪。正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi，正見）、正思惟（samyak-saṃkalpa，正思惟）、正勤（samyag-vyāyāma，正精進）、正念（samyak-smṛti，正念）類似輪輻。正語（samyag-vāc，正語）、正業（samyak-karmānta，正業）、正命（samyag-ājīva，正命）類似輪轂。正定（samyak-samādhi，正定）類似輪輞，所以名為法輪。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，毗婆沙師）的本意是總括地說，一切聖道都名為法輪，因為說了三轉（tri-parivarta，三轉）被三道（tri-mārga，三道）所攝持的緣故。在他人的相續中見道生起時，已經到了轉動的最初階段，所以名叫已轉。然而唯有見道是法輪的開始，所以說法輪唯是見道。諸天神類，就最初的意義而言轉法輪，不依賴於其他二道。然而許多論師都說見道名為法輪，因為地（bhūmi，地）
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is named Brahman (the highest caste in Hinduism). The nature of Brahman is also called Brahma-cakra (the wheel of Brahma), because it is turned by the power of the true Brahma-king. The Buddha corresponds to the supreme Brahma-guna (qualities of Brahma), therefore the World-Honored One alone should be called Brahma. Because the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say that the Buddha is also named Brahma, also named Śānta (peaceful), also named Śīta (cool), and the state of quietude, emptiness, and serenity is also called Brahma. The Buddha possesses these virtues, so the name Brahma is established. Since he is self-enlightened, and in order to enlighten others, he transmits this (Dharma) to others, so it is called Brahma-cakra. In this Brahma-cakra, only the Darśana-mārga (path of seeing) is key. The World-Honored One in some places says it is named Dharma-cakra (wheel of Dharma), because when Ājñāta-Kauṇḍinya and the other five Bhikṣus (Pañcavargika, the first five disciples) had the arising of the path of seeing, the Devas (gods) in the earth and sky immediately proclaimed: 'The World-Honored One has already turned the Dharma-cakra.' How is the path of seeing said to be a wheel? Because it has the characteristics of rapid movement, similar to a wheel in the world. Just as the Cakravartin-cakra (wheel of the universal monarch) rotates without stopping, moves quickly, can accept and reject, can subdue the unsubdued, suppress the subdued, and rotate up and down. The path of seeing is also like this, so it is called Dharma-cakra. Just as the wheel of the holy king rotates without stopping, the path of seeing is also like this, without ceasing. Just as the wheel of the holy king moves quickly, the path of seeing is also like this, each thought is very fast. Just as the wheel of the holy king takes the front and discards the back, the path of seeing is also like this, abandoning the realms of suffering, etc., and taking the realms of accumulation, etc. This shows that seeing the catvāri āryasatyāni (Four Noble Truths) must not happen simultaneously, just like the wheel of the holy king. Subduing the unsubdued, suppressing the subdued, the path of seeing is also like this, able to see the unseen, able to cut off the uncut off, and those who have already seen and cut off will not be confused and regress. Just as the wheel of the holy king rotates up and down, the path of seeing is also like this, observing the suffering, etc., of the upper realms, and also observing the suffering, etc., of the lower realms. Therefore, the path of seeing alone is called Dharma-cakra. Venerable Svara-ghoṣa (Wonderful Sound) said this: Just as the wheel in the world has ara (spokes), nābhi (hub), and nemi (rim), the aṣṭāṅga-mārga (Eightfold Path) is similar to them, so it is called a wheel. Samyag-dṛṣṭi (Right View), samyak-saṃkalpa (Right Thought), samyak-vyāyāma (Right Effort), and samyak-smṛti (Right Mindfulness) are similar to the spokes. Samyag-vāc (Right Speech), samyak-karmānta (Right Action), and samyak-ājīva (Right Livelihood) are similar to the hub. Samyak-samādhi (Right Concentration) is similar to the rim, so it is called Dharma-cakra. The original intention of the Vaibhāṣika (Vaibhashika master) is to say in general that all the holy paths are called Dharma-cakra, because it is said that the tri-parivarta (three turnings) are encompassed by the tri-mārga (three paths). When the path of seeing arises in the continuum of others, it has already reached the initial stage of turning, so it is called 'already turned'. However, only the path of seeing is the beginning of the Dharma-cakra, so it is said that the Dharma-cakra is only the path of seeing. The classes of Devas, in terms of the initial meaning, turn the Dharma-cakra, not relying on the other two paths. However, many masters say that the path of seeing is called Dharma-cakra, because the bhūmi (ground)
空天神唯依此說故。曾無說三道皆名法輪故。唯見道具前所說輪義故。雖諸見道皆名法輪。而憍陳那身中先轉故。經說彼見道生時名轉法輪非余不轉。憍陳那等見道生時。說名世尊轉法輪者。意顯彼等得轉法輪。本由世尊故推在佛。令所化者生尊重故。如是則說如來法輪。轉至他身故名為轉。若異此者天神應說。菩提樹下佛轉法輪。不應唱言世尊今在。婆羅痆斯國轉無上法輪。故轉授他此中名轉。有說此教名為法輪。轉至他身令解義故。此但方便非真法輪。如余雜染無勝能故。此中思擇四沙門果。何沙門果依何界得。頌曰。
三依欲后三 由上無見道 無間無緣下 無厭及經故
論曰。前三果但依欲界身。得阿羅漢果依三界身。前之二果未離欲故非依上得。理且可然。第三云何非依上得。已離欲者亦可得故。由理教故。且理云何。依上界身無見道故。非離見道已離欲者。可有超證不還果義。何緣上界身必不起見道。且依無色無容聽聞無我教故。離聞此教必定無容入見道故。又彼界生不緣下故。見道先緣欲界苦故。由此無色非見道依。依色界身無勝厭故。非離勝厭能入見道。謂欲界中有諸苦受。為生少樂多藉劬勞。人天中生壽量短促。乏財多病親友乖離。違境既多厭心增勝。若生色界與此相違。謂彼異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：空中的天神祇是根據這個說法。從來沒有說過三道都叫做法輪的說法。只是看到工具前面所說的輪的意義。雖然各種見道都可以叫做法輪。但是憍陳那（Ajñāta Kauṇḍinya，五比丘之首）的身中先轉動了。經書上說他見道產生的時候叫做轉法輪，而不是其餘的不轉動。憍陳那等人見道產生的時候。說叫做世尊轉法輪的原因。是想表明他們能夠轉法輪。根本是由於世尊的緣故，所以推在佛的身上。讓所教化的人產生尊重心的緣故。這樣就是說如來的法輪。轉到他人的身上所以叫做轉。如果不是這樣的話，天神應該說。菩提樹下佛轉法輪。不應該唱言世尊現在。在婆羅痆斯國（Varanasi，古印度城市）轉無上法輪。所以轉授給他人這裡叫做轉。有人說這個教法叫做法輪。轉到他人的身上讓他理解意義的緣故。這只是方便說法不是真正的法輪。如同其餘的雜染沒有殊勝的能力的緣故。這裡思考四沙門果（four fruits of ascetic practice）。什麼沙門果依靠什麼界得到。頌說： 三果依欲界，后三果依上界，沒有見道就無法得到。 無間道不緣地獄，因為沒有厭離心和經典。 論述：前面的三個果位只是依靠欲界的身。得到阿羅漢果（Arhat，佛教修行最高果位之一）依靠三界的身。前面的兩個果位沒有離開慾望所以不是依靠上界得到的。道理上還可以這樣說。第三個果位為什麼不是依靠上界得到的。已經離開慾望的人也可以得到啊？由於道理和教義的緣故。先說道理是什麼。依靠上界的身沒有見道的緣故。沒有離開見道已經離開慾望的人。可能有超越證得不還果（Anāgāmin，佛教修行果位之一）的意義。什麼原因上界的身必定不產生見道。先說依靠無色界（Ārūpyadhātu，佛教三界之一，無物質存在的精神領域）沒有容許聽聞無我教法的緣故。離開聽聞這個教法必定沒有容許進入見道的緣故。而且那個界產生不緣地獄的緣故。見道先緣欲界的苦的緣故。因此無色界不是見道的依靠。依靠身沒有殊勝的厭離心的緣故。沒有離開殊勝的厭離心不能進入見道。說欲界中有各種苦的感受。爲了產生少許的快樂大多借助辛勤的勞作。人天中產生壽命短促。缺乏財富多病親友分離。違背的境地很多厭離心增加殊勝。如果產生與此相反。說他們異
【English Translation】 English version: The gods in the sky only rely on this statement. There has never been a saying that the three paths are all called 'Wheel of Dharma' (Dharmacakra). It only sees the meaning of the wheel mentioned earlier in the tool. Although all the paths of seeing can be called 'Wheel of Dharma'. But Ajñāta Kauṇḍinya's (first of the five disciples of the Buddha) body turned first. The scriptures say that when his path of seeing arises, it is called 'Turning the Wheel of Dharma', not that the rest do not turn. When Ajñāta Kauṇḍinya and others' path of seeing arises. Saying it is called 'The World Honored One (Bhagavan) turning the Wheel of Dharma' is because. It is to show that they can turn the Wheel of Dharma. It is fundamentally due to the World Honored One, so it is attributed to the Buddha. To make those who are taught generate respect. In this way, it is said that the Tathagata's (title of the Buddha) Wheel of Dharma. Turning to other people's bodies is called turning. If it is not like this, the gods should say. The Buddha turned the Wheel of Dharma under the Bodhi tree. Should not chant that the World Honored One is now. Turning the unsurpassed Wheel of Dharma in Varanasi (ancient Indian city). So transferring it to others here is called turning. Some say that this teaching is called the Wheel of Dharma. Turning to other people's bodies to make them understand the meaning. This is just a convenient saying, not the real Wheel of Dharma. Like other impurities, it has no superior ability. Here, consider the four fruits of ascetic practice. What fruit of ascetic practice is obtained by relying on what realm. The verse says: The first three fruits rely on the desire realm, the last three fruits rely on the upper realm, and cannot be obtained without the path of seeing. The uninterrupted path does not rely on the lower realm, because there is no aversion and scriptures. Treatise: The first three fruits only rely on the body of the desire realm. Obtaining Arhatship (one of the highest attainments in Buddhism) relies on the body of the three realms. The first two fruits have not left desire, so they are not obtained by relying on the upper realm. The principle can still be said like this. Why is the third fruit not obtained by relying on the upper realm. People who have already left desire can also obtain it? Due to reason and doctrine. First, what is the reason. Relying on the body of the upper realm, there is no path of seeing. People who have not left the path of seeing and have already left desire. There may be the meaning of transcending and attaining the Anāgāmin (a stage of enlightenment in Buddhism). What is the reason why the body of the upper realm must not produce the path of seeing. First, relying on the Ārūpyadhātu (the formless realm in Buddhism) there is no allowance to hear the teaching of no-self. Leaving hearing this teaching, there is definitely no allowance to enter the path of seeing. Moreover, that realm arises without relying on the lower realm. The path of seeing first relies on the suffering of the desire realm. Therefore, the formless realm is not the reliance of the path of seeing. Relying on the ** body, there is no superior aversion. Without leaving the superior aversion, one cannot enter the path of seeing. Saying that in the desire realm there are various feelings of suffering. In order to generate a little happiness, most of them rely on hard work. People and gods are born with short lifespans. Lacking wealth, suffering from many diseases, and relatives and friends are separated. There are many conflicting situations, and aversion increases supremely. If ** arises, it is the opposite. Saying that they are different
生耽勝定樂。長壽無病無貧無離。違境既無厭心微劣。非厭微劣能入見道。能引見道勝厭無故。依色界身不起見道。不應言彼都無有厭。以生彼者現有厭故。如契經說。勿怖大仙彼焰必無來近此理。燒梵宮已於彼當滅。此中怖聲唯目厭體。又于余處有伽他言。
聞有長壽天 具妙色令譽 而心懷怖厭 如鹿對師子
此怖厭言顯怖即厭。即于彼處顯此義言。為厭所纏心處於厭。如契經說。爲著所纏心處於著。此亦如是先未了相。為厭所纏彼心為厭所隨縛故。后已了相雖處厭中。而不為厭之所隨縛。是謂此中怖厭別義。實怖與厭相差別者。謂矚彼相恐為衰損。心生驚怯故名為怖。若觀彼相心不欣欲。情樂棄捨故名為厭。欲界具二上界唯一。又此二體差別云何。不審察為先心驚掉名怖。若審察為先心不樂名厭。或引愚癡心怯。名怖。若引棄捨心背名厭。有餘師說。恐為衰損心欲捐舍是名為怖。欲捐舍故於彼境中。心不生欣是名為厭。今觀此經所說怖者。是恐自害被損壞義。世間亦見有如是言。但擲器來勿怖其破。由此理證上界無見道。教復云何。由契經說故。經言有五補特伽羅。此處通達彼處究竟。所謂中般乃至上流。此通達言唯目見道。是證圓寂初方便故。經既不言彼處通達。故知見道上界定無。已說學
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： （問：）如果眾生長久沉溺於殊勝的禪定之樂，長壽、無病、沒有貧困、沒有離別之苦，對於違逆之境既沒有厭惡之心，心力又微弱低下，那麼他們如何能夠進入見道（Darsanamarga）呢？ （答：）不是因為厭惡心微弱低下就不能進入見道，而是因為能夠引導見道的殊勝厭離心不存在的緣故。而且，依靠色界之身無法生起見道。但也不應說他們完全沒有厭惡之心，因為生於彼處者，實際上存在厭惡。如同契經所說：『不要害怕，大仙，那火焰一定不會靠近這裡，因為燒燬梵天宮后，它就會在那裡熄滅。』這裡所說的『害怕』，實際上指的就是厭惡的本質。 另外，在其他地方也有偈頌說： 『聽說有長壽天（Deva），具有美妙的容色和美好的名譽，但內心卻懷著恐懼和厭惡，就像鹿面對獅子一樣。』 這裡的『恐懼』和『厭惡』，表明恐懼就是厭惡。並且在那個地方也闡明了這個道理，即被厭惡所纏繞，內心就處於厭惡之中。如同契經所說：『被執著所纏繞，內心就處於執著之中。』這裡也是一樣，先前沒有如實了知諸法實相，被厭惡所纏繞，內心就被厭惡所束縛。後來已經如實了知諸法實相，即使處於厭惡之中，也不會被厭惡所束縛。這就是這裡所說的恐懼和厭惡的區別。 實際上，恐懼和厭惡的差別在於：觀察那些境界，恐怕會衰敗損失，內心產生驚慌恐懼，所以稱為『怖』（Bhaya，恐懼）。如果觀察那些境界，內心不感到欣喜，情願捨棄，所以稱為『厭』（Nirveda，厭離）。欲界（Kāmadhātu）眾生兼具二者，而上界（Urdhva-dhātu）眾生只有厭離。 那麼，這二者的體性差別又是什麼呢？不經過審察，內心驚慌動搖，稱為『怖』。如果經過審察，內心不快樂，稱為『厭』。或者說，由愚癡（Moha）所引導，內心怯懦，稱為『怖』。如果由捨棄心所引導，內心背離，稱為『厭』。有些論師說，恐怕會衰敗損失，內心想要捐棄捨離，這稱為『怖』。因為想要捐棄捨離的緣故，對於那些境界，內心不生起欣喜，這稱為『厭』。 現在觀察這部經所說的『怖』，是恐怕自己受到損害，被破壞的意思。世間也常見到這樣的說法：『只管扔東西過來，不要怕它被打碎。』 由此道理可以證明，上界沒有見道，那麼佛教的經典又該如何解釋呢？這是由於契經所說的緣故。經中說有五種補特伽羅（Pudgala，人），在此處通達真理，在彼處達到究竟解脫，即所謂的中般涅槃者（Antarāparinirvāyin）、乃至上流般涅槃者（Ūrdhvasrotas）。這裡所說的『通達』，實際上指的就是見道，因為這是趨向圓寂（Nirvana）的最初方便。既然經中沒有說『在彼處通達』，所以可知見道在上界是沒有的。以上已經說明了有學（Śaikṣa）。
【English Translation】 English version: (Question:) If beings are immersed in the bliss of superior Samadhi (concentration), enjoying longevity, freedom from illness, poverty, and separation, and they have no aversion to unfavorable circumstances and their mental faculties are weak, how can they enter the Path of Seeing (Darsanamarga)? (Answer:) It is not because of weak aversion that they cannot enter the Path of Seeing, but because the superior aversion that can lead to the Path of Seeing does not exist. Moreover, the Path of Seeing does not arise based on a body in the Form Realm. However, it should not be said that they have no aversion at all, because those born there do have aversion. As the Sutra says: 'Do not fear, great sage, that flame will certainly not come near here, because after burning the Brahma palace, it will be extinguished there.' Here, the word 'fear' actually refers to the essence of aversion. Furthermore, in other places, there is a verse that says: 'It is heard that there are long-lived Devas (gods), possessing beautiful forms and excellent reputations, but their hearts are filled with fear and aversion, like a deer facing a lion.' Here, 'fear' and 'aversion' indicate that fear is aversion. And in that place, this principle is also clarified, that being entangled by aversion, the mind is in a state of aversion. As the Sutra says: 'Being entangled by attachment, the mind is in a state of attachment.' It is the same here. Previously, not having truly understood the nature of reality, being entangled by aversion, the mind is bound by aversion. Later, having truly understood the nature of reality, even if one is in a state of aversion, one will not be bound by aversion. This is the difference between fear and aversion mentioned here. In reality, the difference between fear (Bhaya) and aversion (Nirveda) is that: observing those realms, fearing that they will decline and be lost, the mind generates panic and fear, so it is called 'fear'. If observing those realms, the mind does not feel joy and is willing to abandon them, it is called 'aversion'. Beings in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) possess both, while beings in the Upper Realms (Urdhva-dhātu) only have aversion. So, what is the difference in their nature? Without examination, the mind panics and wavers, this is called 'fear'. If after examination, the mind is not happy, this is called 'aversion'. Or, led by ignorance (Moha), the mind is timid, this is called 'fear'. If led by the mind of renunciation, the mind turns away, this is called 'aversion'. Some teachers say that fearing decline and loss, the mind wants to abandon and renounce, this is called 'fear'. Because one wants to abandon and renounce, the mind does not generate joy towards those realms, this is called 'aversion'. Now, observing the 'fear' mentioned in this Sutra, it means fearing that oneself will be harmed and destroyed. In the world, it is also common to hear such sayings: 'Just throw things over, don't be afraid of it being broken.' From this reasoning, it can be proven that there is no Path of Seeing in the Upper Realms. Then how should the Buddhist scriptures be explained? This is because of what the Sutra says. The Sutra says that there are five types of Pudgalas (persons) who understand the truth here and attain ultimate liberation there, namely the Antarāparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvana in the intermediate state), and even the Ūrdhvasrotas (one who goes upstream to Nirvana). The 'understanding' mentioned here actually refers to the Path of Seeing, because it is the initial means of approaching Nirvana. Since the Sutra does not say 'understanding there', it can be known that the Path of Seeing does not exist in the Upper Realms. The Śaikṣa (one under training) has been explained above.
位預流果等有多差別。為阿羅漢亦有多種差別相耶。亦有云何。頌曰。
阿羅漢有六 謂退至不動 前五信解生 總名時解脫 后不時解脫 此從見至生
論曰。于契經中說阿羅漢。由種性異故有六種。一者退法。二者思法。三者護法。四安住法。五堪達法。六不動法。然余經說無學有九。謂初退法后俱解脫。彼不退法此不動攝。彼二解脫通此六攝。故阿毗達磨唯說有六種。言退法者。謂彼獲得如是類根。安住此根與退緣會便退所得。無退緣者便般涅槃。或有精勤進得勝性。說彼修集此種性時。謂有一類由他緣力。方于佛法至誠歸趣。彼極少時取少分相。便乘速進奢摩他力。所持慧光入無學地。于無學地趣入相中。彼先不能審諦取故。無有恒時尊重行故。信樂寂止背勝觀故。與順退法相隨順故。數失正念遠於道器。所獲勝德容數退失。如於聖教習誦究竟。由遇散亂病逸等緣。于習誦文不能記憶名為退失先所習誦。由此譬喻應知退法。言思法者。謂有獲得如是類根。安住此根能于諸欲極多厭惡。由斯厭惡起自害思。或此類根雖性昧鈍。而多緣力之所整合。于加行中念力堅固。多住厭觀少有欣情。恒作是思勿遇病等。便於正念有所忘失。于加行中致有慢緩。由加行慢緩令我有退失。由斯籌慮起自害思
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：預流果（Srota-apanna，入流果，證悟的第一階段）等果位之間有什麼差別？阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，達到涅槃的聖者）也有多種差別相嗎？如果有，又是怎樣的呢？ 頌曰： 阿羅漢有六種，即退法阿羅漢到不動法阿羅漢。 前五種由信解而生，總稱為時解脫阿羅漢。 后一種為不時解脫阿羅漢，此從見至阿羅漢而生。 論曰：在契經中說，阿羅漢由於根性的不同，有六種。一是退法阿羅漢（退法，可能退失所得功德者），二是思法阿羅漢（思法，需思維修行才能保持功德者），三是護法阿羅漢（護法，需守護所得功德者），四是安住法阿羅漢（安住法，安住于所得功德者），五是堪達法阿羅漢（堪達法，能迅速證入更高果位者），六是不動法阿羅漢（不動法，證得后不會退轉者）。 然而，其他經典中說無學（已經完成修行的聖者）有九種，即從退法阿羅漢到俱解脫阿羅漢（俱解脫，同時獲得智慧解脫和禪定解脫者）。其中，不退法阿羅漢包含在不動法阿羅漢中，而兩種解脫（慧解脫和俱解脫）則包含在這六種阿羅漢中。因此，阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）只說有六種阿羅漢。 所謂退法阿羅漢，是指那些獲得了某種根性，安住于這種根性，但遇到退失的因緣就會退失所得功德的人。如果沒有退失的因緣，他們就會般涅槃（Parinirvana，入滅）。或者有些人精勤進修，獲得更殊勝的功德。當他們修集這種根性時，有一類人由於其他外緣的力量，才對佛法至誠歸依。他們在極短的時間內，只取少許的表相，就憑藉快速增進的奢摩他（Samatha，止禪）的力量，以奢摩他所支援的慧光進入無學地。在趣入無學地的過程中，他們先前不能審諦地觀察，也沒有恒常地尊重修行，信樂寂止而背離殊勝的觀行，與順於退法的因素相隨順，常常失去正念，遠離成道的資糧，因此所獲得的殊勝功德容易退失。比如對於聖教的習誦已經達到究竟，但由於遇到散亂、疾病、放逸等因緣，對於習誦的文句不能記憶，這就被稱為退失先前所習誦的內容。由此譬喻，應該瞭解退法阿羅漢的含義。 所謂思法阿羅漢，是指那些獲得了某種根性，安住于這種根性，能夠對各種慾望產生極大的厭惡的人。由於這種厭惡，他們會產生自我損害的想法。或者這類根性雖然遲鈍，但通過多種因緣的力量整合。在加行（修行）中，念力堅固，多安住于厭惡的觀想，少有欣喜之情，常常這樣想：不要遇到疾病等，以至於對正念有所忘失，在加行中導致懈怠緩慢。由於加行懈怠緩慢，令我有可能退失。由於這種考慮，產生自我損害的想法。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What are the differences between the stages of Srota-apanna (Stream-enterer, the first stage of enlightenment) and other stages? Are there also various differences among Arhats (one who has extinguished all defilements and attained Nirvana)? If so, what are they? Verse: There are six types of Arhats, from the Arhat who is liable to regress to the Arhat who is unshakeable. The first five arise from faith and understanding, and are collectively called 'liberated by time'. The last one is 'liberated not by time', and arises from the Arhat who has attained through insight. Treatise: In the Sutras, it is said that Arhats have six types due to differences in their faculties. The first is the 'Arhat liable to regress' (退法, one who may lose their attained merits), the second is the 'Arhat who needs to contemplate' (思法, one who needs to contemplate and practice to maintain their merits), the third is the 'Arhat who needs to protect' (護法, one who needs to guard their attained merits), the fourth is the 'Arhat who abides' (安住法, one who abides in their attained merits), the fifth is the 'Arhat who is capable of advancing' (堪達法, one who can quickly enter higher stages), and the sixth is the 'Arhat who is unshakeable' (不動法, one who does not regress after attainment). However, other scriptures say that there are nine types of non-learners (those who have completed their practice), from the Arhat liable to regress to the Arhat liberated in both ways (俱解脫, one who has attained both wisdom liberation and meditative liberation). Among them, the Arhat who does not regress is included in the Arhat who is unshakeable, and the two liberations (wisdom liberation and liberation in both ways) are included in these six types of Arhats. Therefore, the Abhidharma (論藏) only speaks of six types of Arhats. The 'Arhat liable to regress' refers to those who have obtained a certain faculty, abide in this faculty, but regress from their attainment when encountering conditions for regression. If there are no conditions for regression, they will attain Parinirvana (般涅槃, complete Nirvana). Or some people diligently cultivate and obtain more excellent merits. When they cultivate this faculty, there are those who, due to the power of external conditions, sincerely take refuge in the Buddha's teachings. In a very short time, they only grasp a small portion of the appearance and enter the stage of non-learning with the power of Samatha (奢摩他, calming meditation) that is rapidly increasing, and the light of wisdom supported by Samatha. In the process of entering the stage of non-learning, they were previously unable to observe carefully, and they did not constantly respect practice, delighting in tranquility and turning away from superior contemplation, being in accordance with the factors that lead to regression, often losing mindfulness, and being far from the resources for enlightenment, so the excellent merits they have obtained are easily lost. For example, the recitation of the sacred teachings has reached its culmination, but due to encountering conditions such as distraction, illness, and negligence, they cannot remember the sentences they have recited, which is called losing what they have previously recited. From this analogy, one should understand the meaning of the Arhat liable to regress. The 'Arhat who needs to contemplate' refers to those who have obtained a certain faculty, abide in this faculty, and are able to generate great aversion to various desires. Because of this aversion, they will have thoughts of self-harm. Or this type of faculty, although dull, is integrated through the power of various conditions. In the application (practice), the power of mindfulness is firm, they mostly abide in the contemplation of aversion, and have little joy, often thinking: do not encounter illness, etc., so that they forget mindfulness, leading to laziness and slowness in the application. Because of the laziness and slowness in the application, it is possible for me to regress. Because of this consideration, thoughts of self-harm arise.
。或由艱辛方逮勝位。觀諸財寶追求貯積。守護受用咽棄等時。無不引生種種苦惱。彼審觀已由此苦緣。身命雖存都無勝用。又觀身器是糞穢車。避危就安攝養無益。猶如牢獄丘冢穢尸。愛樂此身豈名智者。由斯觀解起自害思。復有餘師作如是說。彼類法爾稟斯種性。不顧身命耽求解脫。執刀自擬用以勵心。如說以刀扣于自頸。由斯勵己心得解脫。此類名為思法種性。言護法者。謂有一類。恒於時愛心解脫中。繫念現前專精防護。彼作是念。我且未能修習練根。達安住法但於時愛心解脫中。能不放逸精勤防護。如是種類名為護法。安住法者。謂離勝退緣雖不自防。而亦能不退。離勝加行亦不練根。多住處中故名安住。有餘師說。彼所獲德非劣非勝故名安住。堪達法者。謂性堪能好修練根速達不動。有餘師說。彼效能得一切功德故名堪達。然非一切功德之器。不動法者。謂有一類根性殊勝於行自在。于斷煩惱隨煩惱中得方便智。不為一切隨順退法之所傾動具無生智。性不怯弱獲得第一安隱住處。內分力強勝觀行攝。於一切義殷重委解。已能善取漏盡地相。不護所證故名不動。有餘復釋此六異相。謂六種性先學位中。初二闕恒時及尊重加行。然至無學思法少勤。護法唯有恒時加行。安住唯有尊重加行。堪達具二而是鈍根。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 或者因為歷經艱辛才能達到殊勝的地位。觀察那些財寶，人們追求、積攢，守護、享用，甚至丟棄的時候，無不引發種種苦惱。他們仔細觀察后，認為由於這些苦惱的緣故，即使身命存在，也沒有什麼殊勝的用處。又觀察身體如同裝滿糞便的車輛，爲了躲避危險、追求安穩而保養它，也沒有什麼益處，就像牢獄、墳墓、充滿污穢的屍體。喜愛這樣的身體，怎麼能稱得上是智者呢？由於這樣的觀察和理解，產生了自殘的想法。 還有一些其他的導師這樣說：那些人天生就具有這種稟性，不顧惜自己的身命，沉迷於求解脫。他們拿著刀，想要自刎，用這種方式來激勵自己。就像所說的，用刀抵住自己的脖子，通過這種方式激勵自己，從而獲得解脫。這類人被稱為『思法種性』（通過思考佛法而獲得解脫的根性）。 所謂『護法』（守護佛法）的人，是指有一類人，總是專注于『時愛心解脫』（在特定時間體驗到的慈愛和解脫）中，集中精力防護它。他們這樣想：我還沒有能夠修習和鍛鍊根器，達到安住於法的境界，只能在『時愛心解脫』中，不放逸地精勤防護。這樣的種類被稱為『護法』。 所謂『安住法』（安住于佛法）的人，是指遠離了導致退步的因緣，即使不刻意防護，也能夠不退步；遠離了殊勝的精進行為，也不鍛鍊根器，因為經常處於某種狀態中，所以被稱為『安住』。還有其他的導師說，他們所獲得的功德既不低劣也不殊勝，所以被稱為『安住』。 所謂『堪達法』（能夠通達佛法）的人，是指天性具有能力，喜歡修習和鍛鍊根器，能夠迅速達到不動的境界。還有其他的導師說，他們的效能能夠獲得一切功德，所以被稱為『堪達』。然而，他們並非是能夠容納一切功德的器皿。 所謂『不動法』（不為動搖的佛法）的人，是指有一類人，他們的根性非常殊勝，對於修行能夠自在，在斷除煩惱和隨煩惱的過程中，獲得了方便的智慧，不會被一切順應退步的法所動搖，具有無生智（對事物不生不滅的智慧）。他們的天性不怯懦，獲得了第一安穩的住處，內在的力量強大，被殊勝的觀行所攝持，對於一切義理都慇勤地理解和解釋，已經能夠很好地把握漏盡地（煩惱斷盡的境界）的征相，不守護自己所證得的境界，所以被稱為『不動』。 還有其他的解釋，認為這六種不同的相狀，是指六種根性在先前的學習階段中，前兩種缺少恒常和尊重的精進行為，然而到了無學階段（不再需要學習的階段），『思法』只需要少許的勤奮，『護法』唯有恒常的精進行為，『安住』唯有尊重的精進行為，『堪達』具備了兩者，但是根器比較遲鈍。
【English Translation】 English version Or, one attains a superior position only through hardship. Observing treasures, people pursue and accumulate them, guarding and enjoying them, and even discarding them, all of which inevitably give rise to various sufferings. Having carefully observed this, they believe that due to these sufferings, even if life exists, it has no superior purpose. Furthermore, observing the body as a vehicle filled with filth, maintaining it to avoid danger and seek stability is of no benefit, like a prison, a tomb, or a foul corpse. How can one who loves this body be called wise? Due to such observation and understanding, thoughts of self-harm arise. There are also other teachers who say this: those beings are naturally endowed with this disposition, disregarding their own lives and indulging in seeking liberation (moksha). They hold a knife, intending to cut their own throats, using this method to encourage themselves. As it is said, they hold a knife to their own necks, thereby encouraging themselves and attaining liberation. Such individuals are called 'Thinkers of the Dharma' (Sradha-dharma-jati) (those whose nature is to attain liberation through contemplation of the Dharma). Those who are called 'Protectors of the Dharma' (Dharma-pala) (those who protect the Dharma) refer to a class of individuals who are constantly mindful and diligently protect the 'Liberation of Loving-kindness in Time' (Samaya-citta-vimukti) (liberation of mind through loving-kindness experienced at specific times). They think: I am not yet able to cultivate and train my faculties to attain the state of abiding in the Dharma, but I can diligently protect the 'Liberation of Loving-kindness in Time' without negligence. Such individuals are called 'Protectors of the Dharma'. Those who are called 'Abiding in the Dharma' (Sthita-dharma) (those who abide in the Dharma) refer to those who, being free from the causes of regression, are able to not regress even without deliberate protection; being free from superior effort, they also do not train their faculties, and are called 'Abiding' because they often remain in a certain state. Other teachers say that the virtues they have attained are neither inferior nor superior, so they are called 'Abiding'. Those who are called 'Capable of Attaining the Dharma' (Prapta-dharma) (those who are capable of attaining the Dharma) refer to those who are naturally capable, fond of cultivating and training their faculties, and able to quickly attain the state of immovability. Other teachers say that their nature is able to attain all virtues, so they are called 'Capable of Attaining'. However, they are not vessels capable of containing all virtues. Those who are called 'Immovable Dharma' (Acala-dharma) (the unshakeable Dharma) refer to a class of individuals whose faculties are exceptionally superior, who are free in their practice, and who have attained expedient wisdom in the process of cutting off afflictions (kleshas) and secondary afflictions (upakleshas), and are not shaken by any Dharma that leads to regression, possessing the wisdom of non-origination (anutpada-jnana) (wisdom of the non-arising of things). Their nature is not timid, and they have attained the first secure abode, their inner strength is strong, and they are sustained by superior contemplation, diligently understanding and explaining all meanings, and are already able to grasp the signs of the state of exhaustion of outflows (asrava-ksaya) (the state of the exhaustion of afflictions), and do not protect what they have attained, so they are called 'Immovable'. There are also other explanations that these six different characteristics refer to six types of natures in the prior stages of learning, the first two lacking constant and respectful effort, but in the stage of no-more-learning (arhatship), 'Thinkers of the Dharma' only need a little diligence, 'Protectors of the Dharma' only have constant effort, 'Abiding' only have respectful effort, and 'Capable of Attaining' possess both, but their faculties are dull.
不動具二而是利根。有作是言。退法必退乃至堪達必達不動。若不爾者立名唐捐。彼執欲界具足有六。色無色界中唯安住不動。彼無退失自害自防。及修練根。故唯有二理實無定。然退應果唯從先來退種性退。乃至達不動唯堪達所能。立退等名約容有說。故六阿羅漢通三界皆有。六中前五從信解生。即此名為時愛心解脫。以一切時愛心解脫。故亦說名為時解脫者。謂待時處補特伽羅。資具等合時方得解脫故。以所依止功能薄劣。要待勝時方解脫故。或復一切勝定現前。要待勝時是此時義。離繫縛故名為解脫。此即待時及解脫義。略初言故如言酥瓶。不動法性說名為后。即此名為不動心解脫。彼心解脫非惑所動故。亦說名為不時解脫。以不待時得解脫故。或復勝定隨處隨時。隨所遇緣隨欲便起。離繫縛故名為解脫。即不待時及解脫義。有餘釋此二差別言。以于暫時得解脫故名時解脫。后容退故以能畢竟得解脫。故名不時解脫。后無容退故此從學位見至性生。如是所明六阿羅漢所有種性。為是先有為後方得。不定云何。頌曰。
有是先種性 有後練根得
論曰。退法種性。必是先有思法等五。亦有後得。謂有先來是思法性乃至不動。有先退法練根成思。至不動等多種差別。如理應思。
說一切有部順正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
具有退法和不動的阿羅漢是利根者。有人這樣說：『退法必定會退轉，乃至堪達（kan da，能夠達到）必定會達到不動。』如果不是這樣，那麼設立這些名稱就沒有意義了。他們認為欲界完全具備這六種阿羅漢，而在色界和無色界中，只有安住于不動的阿羅漢。他們沒有退失、自害、自防以及修練根器的可能。因此，只有兩種阿羅漢的說法實際上是不確定的。然而，退轉應果（ying guo，已經證得的果位）只是從先前的種性退轉，乃至達到不動也只是堪達所能達到的。設立退轉等名稱是就可能性而言的。因此，六種阿羅漢通於三界都有。這六種阿羅漢中，前五種是從信解（xin jie，通過信仰和理解而產生的智慧）而生，這就被稱為時愛心解脫（shi ai xin jie tuo，在特定時間才能實現的，基於愛的心的解脫）。因為在一切時間都能實現愛心解脫，所以也被稱為時解脫者（shi jie tuo zhe，需要等待時機才能解脫的人）。這是說需要等待時間、地點、補特伽羅（bu te qie luo，人）和資具等條件聚合時才能解脫。因為所依賴的功能薄弱，所以需要等待有利的時機才能解脫。或者說，一切殊勝的禪定現前，需要等待有利的時機，這就是『時』的含義。因為脫離了繫縛，所以稱為解脫。這就是等待時機和解脫的含義。因為省略了最初的詞語，就像說『酥瓶』一樣。不動的法性被稱為『后』。這就被稱為不動心解脫（bu dong xin jie tuo，不會被迷惑動搖的心的解脫）。他們的心解脫不會被迷惑所動搖，所以也被稱為不時解脫（bu shi jie tuo，不需要等待時機就能解脫）。因為不需要等待時機就能得到解脫。或者說，殊勝的禪定無論在何時何地，無論遇到什麼因緣，都能隨意生起，因為脫離了繫縛，所以稱為解脫。這就是不需要等待時機和解脫的含義。還有人解釋這兩種解脫的差別說，因為在暫時得到解脫，所以稱為時解脫，因為之後還可能退轉；因為能夠最終得到解脫，所以稱為不時解脫，因為之後沒有退轉的可能。這種解脫是從學位的見至性（jian zhi xing，通過見道獲得的性質）而生。像這樣所說明的六種阿羅漢的所有種性，是先前就有的，還是之後才獲得的？這是不確定的，為什麼呢？頌說： 『有的是先天的種性，有的是後天修練根器而得。』 論說：退法的種性，必定是先前就具有思法等五種種性，也有是後天獲得的。也就是說，有的人先前就是思法的性質，乃至不動的性質，有的人先前是退法，通過修練根器而成為思法，乃至不動等多種差別，應該如理思維。 《說一切有部順正理論》
【English Translation】 English version
Those Arhats who are subject to falling away (退法, tui fa) and those who are immovable (不動, bu dong) are of sharp faculties. Some say: 'One who is subject to falling away will surely fall away, and one who is capable of attaining (堪達, kan da) will surely attain immovability.' If this were not the case, establishing these names would be meaningless. They hold that the desire realm fully possesses all six types of Arhats, while in the form and formless realms, only those who abide in immovability exist. They have no possibility of falling away, self-harm, self-defense, or cultivating their faculties. Therefore, the assertion that there are only two types of Arhats is actually uncertain. However, falling away from the fruition (應果, ying guo) only occurs from the previous nature, and attaining immovability only occurs to the extent that one is capable of attaining. Establishing names like 'falling away' is spoken of in terms of possibility. Therefore, all six types of Arhats exist throughout the three realms. Among these six, the first five arise from faith-understanding (信解, xin jie), and this is called liberation of mind through love at times (時愛心解脫, shi ai xin jie tuo). Because liberation of mind through love is achieved at all times, it is also said to be a 'liberated one at times' (時解脫者, shi jie tuo zhe). This refers to those who must wait for the right time, place, person (補特伽羅, bu te qie luo), and resources to come together in order to be liberated. Because the supporting faculties are weak, one must wait for a favorable time to be liberated. Or, when all excellent samadhis are present, one must wait for a favorable time; this is the meaning of 'time.' Because one is freed from bondage, it is called liberation. This is the meaning of waiting for time and liberation. Because the initial words are abbreviated, like saying 'ghee jar.' The nature of immovability is called 'later.' This is called liberation of mind through immovability (不動心解脫, bu dong xin jie tuo). Their liberation of mind is not moved by delusion, so it is also called liberation without time (不時解脫, bu shi jie tuo). Because one attains liberation without waiting for time. Or, excellent samadhi arises at any place, at any time, according to whatever conditions are encountered, and as desired; because one is freed from bondage, it is called liberation. This is the meaning of not waiting for time and liberation. Others explain the difference between these two by saying that because one attains liberation temporarily, it is called liberation at times, because there is a possibility of falling away later; because one can ultimately attain liberation, it is called liberation without time, because there is no possibility of falling away later. This liberation arises from the seeing-truth nature (見至性, jian zhi xing) of the stage of learning. As explained in this way, are all the natures of the six types of Arhats pre-existing, or are they acquired later? This is uncertain. Why? The verse says: 'Some have pre-existing natures, others are acquired through cultivating their faculties later.' The treatise says: The nature of one who is subject to falling away must necessarily have the five natures of thinking-faculty etc. from the beginning, but some are also acquired later. That is to say, some are initially of the nature of thinking-faculty, and even immovability; some are initially subject to falling away, but through cultivating their faculties, they become thinking-faculty, and even immovability, and so on, with many differences. One should contemplate this reasonably. Shun Zheng Li Lun of the Sarvastivada School
理論卷第六十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十二
如是六種阿羅漢中。唯前五種容有退義。誰從何退為性為果。頌曰。
四從種性退 五從果非先
論曰。不動種性必無退理。故唯前五容有退義。于中后四有退種性。退法一種無退性理。由此種性最居下故。五種皆有從果退理。雖俱有退然並非先。謂無學位中。從退法種性修練根行轉成思等。此四皆有退性果義。退法種性雖必先得。而是退法故容退果。諸學位中從退法性。修練根行轉成思等。及得學果皆容退失。諸無學者先學位中。所住種性彼從此性必無退理。學無學道所成堅故。諸有學者先凡位中。所住種性彼從此性亦無退理。世出世道所成堅故。二先位中住思等性必無有退。此所得果此性二道所成堅故。彼從思等修練根行。轉得護等唯可退性。轉所得性進得學果亦有退義。由此種性非二道成不堅牢故。若就四果辯退果義。雖五種性皆可退果。而先所得必無有退。謂四果中先所得者。即預流等前三隨一。從此先果必無退義。是斷見惑所得果故。聖斷見惑必無退故。何緣見惑聖斷無退。以彼不緣所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 理論卷第六十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十二
如是六種阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）中，只有前五種可能存在退轉的情況。那麼，是誰從什麼方面退轉？是種性（gotra，潛在的靈性傾向）還是果位（phala，修行所證得的成就）？頌文說：
四從種性退，五從果非先。
論曰：不動種性（akopyagotra，不會退轉的種性）必定沒有退轉的道理，所以只有前五種阿羅漢可能存在退轉。其中，后四種阿羅漢存在退轉種性的情況。退法（hanadharman，容易退轉的）一種阿羅漢沒有退轉種性的道理。這是因為退法種性最為低下。五種阿羅漢都有從果位退轉的可能。雖然都有退轉，但並非退轉到先前未得的果位。也就是說，在無學位（asaiksha，已證得阿羅漢果位的階段）中，從退法種性通過修練根行（indriya，控制感官的能力）轉變成思法（cintanadharman，通過思考保持成就）等阿羅漢。這四種阿羅漢都有退轉種性和果位的可能。退法種性雖然必定是先得到的，但因為是退法，所以可能退轉果位。在諸學位（saiksha，仍在學習和修行中的階段）中，從退法種性通過修練根行轉變成思法等阿羅漢，以及證得學果（saikshaphala，須陀洹等果位）都有可能退失。諸無學者（asaiksha，已證得阿羅漢果位者）在先前學位中所住的種性，他們從此種性必定沒有退轉的道理。因為學道（saikshamarga，通往須陀洹等果位的道路）和無學道（asaikshamarga，通往阿羅漢果位的道路）所成就的果位是堅固的。諸有學者（saiksha，仍在學習和修行中的階段）在先前凡位（prthagjana，尚未進入聖道的凡夫階段）中所住的種性，他們從此種性也沒有退轉的道理。因為世間道（laukikamarga，世俗的修行道路）和出世間道（lokottaramarga，超越世俗的修行道路）所成就的果位是堅固的。在先前凡位中，安住于思法等種性必定沒有退轉。因為此種性所得的果位是由這兩種道所成就的，非常堅固。他們從思法等種性通過修練根行，轉而證得護法（anadharman，能夠守護成就）等阿羅漢，才可能退轉種性。轉而證得的種性，以及進一步證得的學果，也有退轉的可能。因為這些種性不是由兩種道所成就的，不夠堅牢。如果就四果（catvari phalani，預流果、一來果、不還果、阿羅漢果）來辨析退轉果位的含義，雖然五種阿羅漢種性都可以退轉果位，但先前所得的果位必定不會退轉。也就是說，在四果中，先前所得的果位，就是預流果（srotapanna，入流者）等前三果中的任何一個。從此先前果位必定沒有退轉的道理。因為這是斷除見惑（drshtih，錯誤的見解）所證得的果位。聖者斷除的見惑必定不會退轉。為什麼見惑被聖者斷除后不會退轉？因為他們不再執著于所……
【English Translation】 English version Chapter Sixty-Seven of the Treatise Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra
Abhidharmasamayapradipika-sastra, Volume Sixty-Eight
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter Six, Section Twelve: Discrimination of the Worthy and the Holy
Among these six types of Arhats (Arhat, a saint who has attained Nirvana), only the first five are susceptible to regression. Who regresses from what, and is it from their gotra (gotra, potential spiritual inclination) or their phala (phala, the achievement attained through practice)? The verse states:
Four regress from gotra, five from fruit, but not from what was attained first.
Commentary: The immutable gotra (akopyagotra, the unshakeable lineage) inherently cannot regress, hence only the first five are susceptible. Among them, the latter four can regress from their gotra. The hanadharman (hanadharman, prone to regression) type does not regress from their gotra, as it is the lowest. All five can regress from their fruit, but not from what was attained first. That is, in the state of no-more-learning (asaiksha, the stage of having attained Arhatship), those of the hanadharman gotra, through cultivating their indriya (indriya, the faculty of controlling the senses), transform into cintanadharman (cintanadharman, maintaining achievement through contemplation) and so on. These four can regress from both their gotra and their fruit. Although the hanadharman gotra is necessarily attained first, being prone to regression, it can regress from its fruit. In the stages of learning (saiksha, stages of learning and practice), those of the hanadharman gotra, through cultivating their indriya, transform into cintanadharman and so on, and can regress from the fruits of learning (saikshaphala, such as Srotapanna). Those who are no-more-learners (asaiksha, those who have attained Arhatship), in their previous stages of learning, do not regress from the gotra they resided in, as the path of learning (saikshamarga, the path to Srotapanna) and the path of no-more-learning (asaikshamarga, the path to Arhatship) have made it firm. Those who are learners (saiksha, those still learning and practicing), in their previous ordinary state (prthagjana, the state of an ordinary person before entering the holy path), do not regress from the gotra they resided in, as the mundane path (laukikamarga, the worldly path of practice) and the supramundane path (lokottaramarga, the path beyond the world) have made it firm. In the previous ordinary state, there is no regression from residing in the cintanadharman gotra, as the fruit attained from this gotra is made firm by these two paths. From the cintanadharman gotra, through cultivating their indriya, they transform and attain the anadharman (anadharman, able to protect achievements) and so on, and can regress from their gotra. The gotra that is transformed into, and the fruits of learning that are further attained, can also regress, as these gotras are not made firm by the two paths. If we analyze the meaning of regressing from the fruits in terms of the four fruits (catvari phalani, Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat), although all five types of Arhat gotra can regress from their fruits, they never regress from the fruit that was attained first. That is, among the four fruits, the fruit that was attained first is any one of the first three, such as Srotapanna (srotapanna, stream-enterer). There is no regression from this first fruit, as it is the fruit attained by severing the views of delusion (drshtih, wrong views). The views of delusion severed by the holy ones never regress. Why do the views of delusion, once severed by the holy ones, not regress? Because they no longer cling to what is...
執事故謂見所斷煩惱現行。無不皆由我見勢力。以彼煩惱起我見為根故。由此見惑不緣所執。以所執事都無體故。然有所緣諦為境故。彼所執事都無種子。于所緣境極乖違故。聖者相續真非我解恒所隨故。雖暫失念而必無容重執是我。以見所斷依我事生。故聖斷已必無退義。修所斷惑雖顛倒轉。而非無種有所執事。謂於色等染著憎背。高舉不了行相轉時。於色等中非無少分。凈妙怨害高下甚深。故非境中極乖違轉。由此聖者有時失念。執凈妙等相退起修斷惑。又見斷惑迷於諦理。執我等相諦理中無。理定可依聖見無退。修所斷惑迷粗事生。事變難依有失念退。又見斷惑要審慮生。聖審慮時必不起惑。修所斷惑非審慮生。聖失念時容有退義。由此無退先所得果。此中無學退法有三。一增進根。二退住學。三住自位而般涅槃。思法有四三如前說。更加一種退住退性。餘三如次有五六七。應知後後一一增故。何緣練根成思等者。退彼應果住學位時。住先退性非所退者。得思等道今已舍故。豈不學位轉成思等。得應果時。雖舍所得學思等道。而住應果思等種性此亦應然。此例不齊。以彼學道攝。彼無學道為等流果故。非無學位所舍思等。與此學道為同類因。可能引學思等種性。故應退住先所舍者。有餘於此別立證因。謂若退住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 執事者說，見所斷的煩惱（Klesha，指貪、嗔、癡等）現行，沒有不是由於我見（Atma-drishti，認為有『我』存在的錯誤觀念）的勢力。因為這些煩惱以生起我見為根本。因此，這種見惑不緣于所執之事，因為所執之事根本沒有實體。然而，它有所緣，以真諦（Satya，佛教的根本教義）為境界。那些所執之事根本沒有種子，因為與所緣的境界極其違背。聖者（Arya，證悟者）的相續中，真實的『非我』之解（Anatma，無我）恒常相隨。即使暫時失去正念，也絕不可能重新執著于『我』。因為見所斷的煩惱依『我』之事而生，所以聖者斷除后必定沒有退轉的道理。 修所斷的迷惑（Bhava-trsna，對存在的渴求），即使顛倒運轉，也不是沒有種子，沒有所執之事。例如，對於色等（Rupa，物質現象）的染著、憎恨、高舉、不了知等行相轉變時，在色等之中並非沒有少分。清凈、美妙、怨恨、損害、高下等極其深刻。因此，並非在境界中極其違背地運轉。由此，聖者有時失去正念，執著于清凈美妙等相，退轉而生起修所斷的迷惑。而且，見所斷的迷惑迷於真諦之理，執著于『我』等相，而真諦之理中沒有『我』。真理是確定的，可以依靠，聖者的見解沒有退轉。修所斷的迷惑迷於粗糙的事物而生，事物變化不定，難以依靠，所以會有失去正念而退轉的情況。而且，見所斷的迷惑需要審慎思考才能產生，聖者在審慎思考時必定不會生起迷惑。修所斷的迷惑並非審慎思考而生，聖者失去正念時，容許有退轉的可能。因此，不會退轉先前所得的果位。 這裡，無學（Arhat，阿羅漢）退法有三種：一是增進根器，二是退住于有學位，三是安住于自身果位而般涅槃（Parinirvana，入滅）。思法（指預流果、一來果、不還果）有四種，前三種與無學相同，更加一種退住于退性。其餘三種依次有五、六、七種，應當知道是後後一一增加的緣故。 為什麼練根（指從較低果位提升到較高果位）成就思等果位的人，在退彼應果（指阿羅漢果）住于有學位時，安住于先前的退性，而不是所退的果位呢？因為他們已經捨棄了思等道。難道不是有學位轉成思等果位，得到應果時，雖然捨棄了所得的有學思等道，但安住于應果的思等種性嗎？這也應該如此。這個例子並不齊等。因為有學道攝取無學道作為等流果的緣故。並非無學位所捨棄的思等道，與此有學道為同類因，可能引生有學思等種性。所以應該退住于先前所捨棄的果位。有些人對此另外建立證因，說如果退住...
【English Translation】 English version Those who manage affairs say that the afflictions (Klesha, such as greed, hatred, and delusion) severed by insight manifest because of the power of the view of self (Atma-drishti, the mistaken notion that a 'self' exists). This is because these afflictions arise with the view of self as their root. Therefore, this delusion of view does not depend on the things that are clung to, because the things that are clung to have no substance at all. However, it has an object of dependence, taking the Truth (Satya, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism) as its realm. Those things that are clung to have no seeds at all, because they are extremely contrary to the realm of dependence. In the continuum of the noble ones (Arya, enlightened beings), the true understanding of 'non-self' (Anatma, no-self) constantly accompanies them. Even if they temporarily lose mindfulness, there is absolutely no possibility of clinging to 'self' again. Because the afflictions severed by insight arise dependent on the matter of 'self', therefore, once severed by the noble ones, there is definitely no possibility of regression. The defilements severed by cultivation (Bhava-trsna, craving for existence), even if they turn around in a reversed manner, are not without seeds, not without things that are clung to. For example, when the aspects of attachment, aversion, exaltation, and non-understanding towards forms (Rupa, material phenomena) and so on transform, there is no lack of some portion within the forms and so on. Purity, beauty, resentment, harm, highness, lowness, and so on are extremely profound. Therefore, they do not turn around in a manner extremely contrary to the realm. Because of this, noble ones sometimes lose mindfulness, cling to aspects such as purity and beauty, regress, and give rise to defilements severed by cultivation. Moreover, the defilements severed by insight are deluded about the truth of reality, clinging to aspects such as 'self', while there is no 'self' in the truth of reality. Truth is definite and can be relied upon, and the views of the noble ones do not regress. The defilements severed by cultivation arise from delusion about coarse matters, and matters are impermanent and difficult to rely upon, so there are cases of losing mindfulness and regressing. Moreover, the defilements severed by insight require careful consideration to arise, and noble ones will definitely not give rise to defilements when carefully considering. The defilements severed by cultivation do not arise from careful consideration, and when noble ones lose mindfulness, there is a possibility of regression. Therefore, there is no regression from the fruits previously attained. Here, there are three types of regression for those who have nothing more to learn (Arhat, Arhats): first, increasing their faculties; second, regressing to dwelling in the state of learners; and third, dwelling in their own position and entering Parinirvana (final nirvana). There are four types of those who are in training (referring to Stream-enterers, Once-returners, and Non-returners), the first three are the same as those who have nothing more to learn, with the addition of one type: regressing to dwelling in the nature of regression. The remaining three types have five, six, and seven types respectively, and it should be known that each subsequent one increases by one. Why is it that those who have cultivated their faculties (referring to advancing from a lower fruit to a higher fruit) and achieved the fruits of those in training, when regressing from the fruit of those who have nothing more to learn (referring to the fruit of Arhats) and dwelling in the state of learners, abide in the previous nature of regression, and not in the fruit that was regressed from? Because they have already abandoned the paths of those in training. Isn't it the case that the state of learners transforms into the fruits of those in training, and when attaining the fruit of those who have nothing more to learn, although they abandon the paths of learning and training that were attained, they abide in the nature of the fruits of those who have nothing more to learn? This should also be the case. This example is not equal. Because the paths of learners encompass the paths of those who have nothing more to learn as a result of equal flow. It is not the case that the paths of training abandoned by those who have nothing more to learn are the same kind of cause as these paths of learners, and can possibly lead to the nature of the paths of learning and training. Therefore, they should regress to dwelling in the fruits that were previously abandoned. Some people establish a separate cause of proof for this, saying that if they regress to dwelling...
所退種性。得勝種性故應是進非退此非證因。若無二義可有是進非退過故。然得勝性雖可名進。而起惑故亦名為退。由此彼難於理無失。又彼退起障涅槃法。聖欣涅槃過於聖道。設得勝性退涅槃故。但應名退不應名進。然經主意作如是言。阿羅漢果亦無有退。一來不還世俗道得。容有退義引經證言。聖慧斷惑名為實斷。初后二果但由聖慧。斷惑而證故無退理。又契經言。我說有學應不放逸非阿羅漢。今詳經主非善立宗應審推徴。以世俗道得中二果。為實已拔障彼惑種。為不爾耶。若實已拔而許有退。即阿羅漢退義應成。許治道力已拔惑種而更生故。若不許彼煩惱更生如何名退。若謂所退唯道非斷理亦不然。如后當顯斷。如治道說可退故。亦不可說欲界惑生。可以上界煩惱為種勿如自界。欲界亦以彼為因故界應成一。若實未拔欲界惑種。得不還果應非不還。如契經言。我不見有一結未斷。非由彼結之所繫縛還來此間。若謂有經。說有欲結而非彼系還來此間。如安隱經此亦非理。于辯隨眠品已破彼論故。又無不拔欲界惑種而生上界。辯世俗道能斷惑中已成立故。又契經說。若實能斷五下分結成不還果。如何可言于欲界結。有未能拔得不還果。故定應許若得彼果。必已實斷障彼惑得。若不爾者斷性不成。然我於前已曾具顯。
【現代漢語翻譯】 所退種性（已經退失的種姓）。因為獲得殊勝的種姓，所以應當說是進步而不是退步，這個並非確鑿的證據。如果沒有兩種含義，可能會有說是進步而非退步的過失。然而，獲得殊勝的種姓雖然可以稱為進步，但因為生起迷惑，也可以稱為退步。因此，這種責難在道理上沒有缺失。而且，這種退步會生起障礙涅槃的法。聖者欣樂涅槃勝過欣樂聖道。假設獲得殊勝的種姓會退失涅槃，那麼就應該只稱為退步，不應該稱為進步。然而，經主的意圖是這樣說的：阿羅漢果位也沒有退失。一來果和不還果是通過世俗道獲得的，可能存在退失的含義，引用經典來證明說：聖慧斷除迷惑稱為真實的斷除。初果和二果只是通過聖慧斷除迷惑而證得，所以沒有退失的道理。又有契經說：我說有學應該不放逸，而不是阿羅漢。現在詳細考察經主的觀點，並非善於立宗，應該審慎地推究考證。通過世俗道獲得中間的二果，是已經真實地拔除了障礙這些果位的迷惑的種子，還是沒有呢？如果已經真實地拔除了，卻允許有退失，那麼阿羅漢退失的含義就應該成立。因為允許通過對治道的力量已經拔除了迷惑的種子，卻又重新生起。如果不允許這些煩惱重新生起，如何稱為退失呢？如果說所退失的只是道，而不是斷除的道理，也是不合理的。如同後面將要顯示的，斷除如同對治道一樣，是可以退失的。也不可以說欲界的迷惑生起，可以以上界的煩惱作為種子，不要像自界一樣。因為欲界也是以它為原因的，界應該成為一個。如果確實沒有拔除欲界的迷惑的種子，獲得不還果應該不是不還果。如同契經所說：我沒有見到有一個結沒有斷除，卻不由那個結的繫縛而還來此間的。如果說有經典說有欲結，但並非被它繫縛而還來此間，如同《安隱經》，這也是不合理的。在《辯隨眠品》中已經破斥了他們的論點。而且，沒有不拔除欲界的迷惑的種子而生到上界的道理，在《辯世俗道能斷惑》中已經成立了。又有契經說：如果確實能夠斷除五下分結，成就為不還果，怎麼可以說對於欲界的結，有未能拔除而獲得不還果的呢？所以必定應該允許，如果獲得了那個果位，必定已經真實地斷除了障礙那個果位的迷惑。如果不是這樣，斷除的性質就不能成立。然而，我在前面已經詳細地闡述過了。 現代漢語譯本 English version The retreated kind (the kind that has been lost). Because of obtaining a superior kind, it should be said to be progress rather than regression, which is not conclusive evidence. If there are not two meanings, there may be a fault of saying progress instead of regression. However, although obtaining a superior kind can be called progress, it can also be called regression because of arising confusion. Therefore, this accusation has no loss in reason. Moreover, this regression will give rise to the Dharma that hinders Nirvana. The saint rejoices in Nirvana more than rejoicing in the holy path. Assuming that obtaining a superior kind will lose Nirvana, then it should only be called regression, not progress. However, the intention of the sutra master is to say this: There is no regression in the Arhat fruit position. The once-returner and non-returner fruits are obtained through mundane paths, and there may be a meaning of regression, citing scriptures to prove that: Holy wisdom cutting off confusion is called real cutting off. The first and second fruits are only certified by holy wisdom cutting off confusion, so there is no reason for regression. There is also a sutra saying: I say that those who are still learning should not be negligent, not Arhats. Now, after examining the sutra master's point of view in detail, it is not good at establishing a sect, and should be carefully investigated and verified. Obtaining the middle two fruits through mundane paths, is it that the seeds of confusion that hinder these fruits have been truly removed, or not? If it has been truly removed, but regression is allowed, then the meaning of Arhat regression should be established. Because it is allowed that the power of the counteracting path has removed the seeds of confusion, but they arise again. If these afflictions are not allowed to arise again, how can it be called regression? If it is said that what is regressed is only the path, not the principle of cutting off, it is also unreasonable. As will be shown later, cutting off, like the counteracting path, can be regressed. It cannot be said that the confusion of the desire realm arises, and the afflictions of the upper realm can be used as seeds, not like one's own realm. Because the desire realm is also caused by it, the realms should become one. If the seeds of confusion in the desire realm have not been truly removed, obtaining the non-returner fruit should not be the non-returner fruit. As the sutra says: I have not seen a knot that has not been cut off, but is not bound by that knot and returns here. If it is said that there are sutras that say there are desires, but are not bound by them and return here, like the 'Anwen Sutra', this is also unreasonable. Their arguments have been refuted in the 'Debate on Latent Afflictions'. Moreover, there is no reason to be born in the upper realm without removing the seeds of confusion in the desire realm, which has been established in the 'Debate on Mundane Paths that Can Cut Off Afflictions'. There is also a sutra saying: If one can truly cut off the five lower fetters and achieve the non-returner fruit, how can it be said that one has not been able to remove the knots of the desire realm and obtain the non-returner fruit? Therefore, it must be allowed that if one obtains that fruit, one must have truly cut off the confusion that hinders that fruit. If not, the nature of cutting off cannot be established. However, I have already explained it in detail before.
【English Translation】 The retreated kind (the kind that has been lost). Because of obtaining a superior kind, it should be said to be progress rather than regression, which is not conclusive evidence. If there are not two meanings, there may be a fault of saying progress instead of regression. However, although obtaining a superior kind can be called progress, it can also be called regression because of arising confusion. Therefore, this accusation has no loss in reason. Moreover, this regression will give rise to the Dharma that hinders Nirvana. The saint rejoices in Nirvana more than rejoicing in the holy path. Assuming that obtaining a superior kind will lose Nirvana, then it should only be called regression, not progress. However, the intention of the sutra master is to say this: There is no regression in the Arhat fruit position. The once-returner and non-returner fruits are obtained through mundane paths, and there may be a meaning of regression, citing scriptures to prove that: Holy wisdom cutting off confusion is called real cutting off. The first and second fruits are only certified by holy wisdom cutting off confusion, so there is no reason for regression. There is also a sutra saying: I say that those who are still learning should not be negligent, not Arhats. Now, after examining the sutra master's point of view in detail, it is not good at establishing a sect, and should be carefully investigated and verified. Obtaining the middle two fruits through mundane paths, is it that the seeds of confusion that hinder these fruits have been truly removed, or not? If it has been truly removed, but regression is allowed, then the meaning of Arhat regression should be established. Because it is allowed that the power of the counteracting path has removed the seeds of confusion, but they arise again. If these afflictions are not allowed to arise again, how can it be called regression? If it is said that what is regressed is only the path, not the principle of cutting off, it is also unreasonable. As will be shown later, cutting off, like the counteracting path, can be regressed. It cannot be said that the confusion of the desire realm arises, and the afflictions of the upper realm can be used as seeds, not like one's own realm. Because the desire realm is also caused by it, the realms should become one. If the seeds of confusion in the desire realm have not been truly removed, obtaining the non-returner fruit should not be the non-returner fruit. As the sutra says: I have not seen a knot that has not been cut off, but is not bound by that knot and returns here. If it is said that there are sutras that say there are desires, but are not bound by them and return here, like the 'Anwen Sutra', this is also unreasonable. Their arguments have been refuted in the 'Debate on Latent Afflictions'. Moreover, there is no reason to be born in the upper realm without removing the seeds of confusion in the desire realm, which has been established in the 'Debate on Mundane Paths that Can Cut Off Afflictions'. There is also a sutra saying: If one can truly cut off the five lower fetters and achieve the non-returner fruit, how can it be said that one has not been able to remove the knots of the desire realm and obtain the non-returner fruit? Therefore, it must be allowed that if one obtains that fruit, one must have truly cut off the confusion that hinders that fruit. If not, the nature of cutting off cannot be established. However, I have already explained it in detail before.
諸沙門果亦斷為性。然引經言。聖慧斷惑名實斷者。彼未達義今詳經義。由現見有以世俗道斷八地惑。后還退失結惡趣生。如嗢達洛迦曷邏摩子等。唯無漏慧能離有頂染。離已無有復結後有生。依此故言聖慧斷惑名為實斷。非此為遮世俗道力能斷惑義。故諸阿羅漢雖有剎那生。而皆法然起如是智。我生已盡不受後有。諸佛出世正所作者。為令有情後生不續。世尊為欲顯自本意故。不稱讚世道斷惑。容於后時結後有故。唯聖慧斷能絕後生。世道無能令後生絕。故佛偏贊聖慧斷惑。若為暫斷惑諸佛出世。則諸佛出世唐捐其功。外道亦能成此事故。雖有聖道唯暫斷惑。亦有世道能永息生。然息一切生斷一切煩惱。唯聖慧力故佛偏贊。雖有聖慧斷煩惱已后還暫起。而非諸佛出世唐捐息多生故。然世尊言。我說有學應不放逸非無學者。此有別意謂見有學退向道時。由先已斷煩惱力故結後有生。如鄔陀夷契經所說。非不已斷色界諸惑。可有證得滅盡定理。經說超越有頂地時。名超滅定所超法故。如說超過一切非想非非想處。乃至廣說。非彼朋類許有聖者。以世俗道離煩惱義。必無不退滅盡定者。及不現起色界諸惑。先得滅定生色界理。要染污心方結後有。無異界識結異界生。經既說彼後生色界。故知有學有退向道。由先已斷煩惱勢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：沙門果（Śrāmaṇyaphala，修道者的果位）也是斷除煩惱的自性嗎？ 答：雖然引用經典說，聖慧（ārya-prajñā，聖者的智慧）斷除迷惑才名為真實的斷除。但他們沒有理解經文的含義。現在詳細解釋經文的含義：因為我們現在看到，有人通過世俗的禪定之道斷除了八地（指色界和無色界的八個禪定層次）的迷惑，但後來又退失了禪定，重新墮落到惡趣中。比如嗢達洛迦·曷邏摩子（Udraka Rāmaputra，一位著名的苦行者）。只有無漏慧（anāsrava-prajñā，沒有煩惱的智慧）才能脫離有頂天（Bhavāgra，三界最高的境界）的染污。一旦脫離，就不會再有結生後有的情況。因此，經典才說聖慧斷除迷惑才名為真實的斷除。這並不是說世俗的禪定之道沒有斷除迷惑的力量。 所以，即使阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得解脫的聖者）只有一剎那的生命，他們自然而然地會生起這樣的智慧：『我的生命已經終結，不會再有後有了。』諸佛（Buddha，覺悟者）出世所要做的，正是爲了讓有情眾生不再延續後有。世尊（Bhagavān，佛陀的尊稱）爲了顯示自己的本意，不讚嘆世俗之道斷除迷惑，因為世俗之道可能會在以後重新結生後有。只有聖慧的斷除才能斷絕後有，世俗之道沒有能力斷絕後有。所以佛陀偏重讚歎聖慧斷除迷惑。如果只是爲了暫時斷除迷惑，諸佛出世就白費功夫了，因為外道也能做到這一點。即使有聖道只能暫時斷除迷惑，也有世俗之道能夠永遠止息輪迴。 然而，止息一切輪迴，斷除一切煩惱，只有聖慧的力量才能做到，所以佛陀偏重讚歎聖慧。即使有聖慧斷除了煩惱之後，煩惱還會暫時生起，但這並不會讓諸佛出世止息眾多輪迴的功德白費。然而，世尊說：『我說有學（Śaikṣa，還在學習的聖者）應該不放逸，而不是無學者（Aśaikṣa，已經完成學習的聖者）。』這有特別的含義，指的是看到有學退向輪迴時，由於先前已經斷除煩惱的力量，所以會結生後有，就像《鄔陀夷契經》所說的那樣。並非沒有斷除諸惑，就可以證得滅盡定理（Nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡定）。經典說超越有頂地時，名為超越滅定，因為所超越的是滅定之法。就像經文所說，超過一切非想非非想處（Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，無所有處之上的禪定境界），乃至廣說。他們的宗派不承認有聖者，因為以世俗之道脫離煩惱的意義來說，必定沒有不退轉的滅盡定，以及不重新生起諸惑的情況。先得到滅定而生起的道理，只有染污的心才能結生後有，沒有異界的識結生異界的道理。經典既然說了他們後來會生起，所以知道有學會有退向輪迴的情況，因為先前已經斷除了煩惱的力量。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Are the Śrāmaṇyaphala (fruits of the ascetic life) also considered to be of the nature of cutting off afflictions? Answer: Although scriptures are cited saying that 'wisdom of the noble ones (ārya-prajñā) cuts off delusion and is called a real cutting off,' they have not understood the meaning. Now, I will explain the meaning of the scriptures in detail: Because we now see that some people, through worldly meditative paths, cut off the afflictions of the eight realms (referring to the eight levels of meditation in the realms of form and formlessness), but later regress and fall back into evil destinies, like Udraka Rāmaputra (a famous ascetic). Only undefiled wisdom (anāsrava-prajñā) can detach from the defilements of the peak of existence (Bhavāgra, the highest realm in the three realms). Once detached, there will be no more rebirth. Therefore, the scriptures say that 'wisdom of the noble ones cuts off delusion and is called a real cutting off.' This does not mean that worldly meditative paths have no power to cut off afflictions. Therefore, even if Arhats (liberated saints) have only a moment of life left, they naturally generate the wisdom: 'My life has ended, and there will be no more rebirths.' What the Buddhas (enlightened ones) do when they appear in the world is precisely to prevent sentient beings from continuing rebirth. The World-Honored One (Bhagavān, a respectful title for the Buddha), in order to show his original intention, does not praise worldly paths for cutting off afflictions, because worldly paths may lead to rebirth later on. Only the cutting off by noble wisdom can sever rebirth; worldly paths have no ability to sever rebirth. Therefore, the Buddha particularly praises the cutting off of delusion by noble wisdom. If it were only for temporarily cutting off delusion, the Buddhas' appearance in the world would be in vain, because non-Buddhists can also do this. Even if there are noble paths that can only temporarily cut off delusion, there are also worldly paths that can permanently stop the cycle of rebirth. However, to stop all cycles of rebirth and cut off all afflictions, only the power of noble wisdom can do it, so the Buddha particularly praises noble wisdom. Even if noble wisdom cuts off afflictions and then the afflictions temporarily arise again, this does not make the merit of the Buddhas' appearance in the world to stop numerous cycles of rebirth in vain. However, the World-Honored One said: 'I say that those who are still learning (Śaikṣa, saints who are still learning) should not be negligent, not those who have completed their learning (Aśaikṣa, saints who have completed their learning).' This has a special meaning, referring to seeing those who are still learning regress towards rebirth, because of the power of having previously cut off afflictions, they will be reborn, as stated in the Udayi Sutta. It is not possible to attain the cessation attainment (Nirodha-samāpatti) without having cut off all afflictions. The scriptures say that when transcending the peak of existence, it is called transcending the cessation attainment, because what is transcended is the dharma of cessation attainment. As the scriptures say, transcending all the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana, the meditative state above the realm of nothingness), and so on. Their sect does not acknowledge noble ones, because in terms of the meaning of being detached from afflictions through worldly paths, there is certainly no non-regressing cessation attainment, and no re-arising of afflictions. The principle of first attaining cessation and then being reborn is that only a defiled mind can lead to rebirth; there is no principle of consciousness from a different realm leading to rebirth in a different realm. Since the scriptures say that they will be reborn later, it is known that those who are still learning may regress towards rebirth, because of the power of having previously cut off afflictions.
力。結後有生其理決定。故薄伽梵勸諸有學。令不放逸非無學者。諸無學者設退起惑。無容由彼結後有生。故佛無勞勸不放逸。以諸無學于絕後有所作已辦。故佛說彼已不放逸無勞更勸。或阿羅漢約諸漏盡。亦不應勸彼令修不放逸。故彼經說諸有學者。希求無上安隱涅槃。未能得心無放逸住。故我說彼應不放逸。然彼因此修集諸根。廣說乃至。便得漏盡。諸無學者漏已盡故。無勞重勸令不放逸。設彼無學退起煩惱。勸令重斷修不放逸。還是勸有學非勸無學者。故勸學者令不放逸。不勸無學此說善通。又契經中亦說無學應不放逸。如契經說。勝己應護言無別故。此即異門勸不放逸。由彼文說與魔戰故。若謂此中但說有學。不爾亦說無學位故。謂此文中初說遠位。次說學位。后說無學。唯諸無學遍勝所勝。是故世尊唯勸守護。又此中說無執著故。唯諸煩惱立執著名。煩惱皆有執著用故。彼無煩惱名無執著。此是無學理定應然。余經說應果亦應攝護故。如余經說。諸聖弟子。心從貪等離染解脫。彼解脫蘊未滿能滿。已滿為攝護修欲勤精進。非彼無退可須攝護。若謂為彼自在現前應修加行。而攝護者令彼自在復何所用。謂彼設於無學解脫。不自在轉復有何過。若謂為得現法樂住。但于增上心所現前。應求自在寧于解脫。既于解
【現代漢語翻譯】 力（bala）：如果（煩惱）結使之後還有後有（bhava，生命），那麼（勸修不放逸）的道理是確定的。所以，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀）勸導那些有學（saikṣa，還在修學的聖者）的人，讓他們不要放逸，而不是那些無學（aśaikṣa，已經證得阿羅漢果位的聖者）的人。因為那些無學的人，即使退轉而生起迷惑，也不可能因為這些（煩惱）結使而再次產生後有。所以，佛陀不必費力勸導他們不要放逸。因為所有的無學之人，對於斷絕後有這件事，都已經做完該做的了。所以佛說他們已經不放逸了，不需要再勸導。或者，對於阿羅漢來說，就所有的煩惱都已斷盡而言，也不應該勸導他們去修習不放逸。所以那部經中說，那些有學之人，希求無上的安穩涅槃（nirvāṇa），但還沒有得到，心還沒有安住于不放逸，所以我說他們應該不放逸。然而，他們因此修集諸根（indriya），廣泛地說，乃至最終證得漏盡（āsravakṣaya）。那些無學之人，因為煩惱已經斷盡，所以不必再次勸導他們不要放逸。即使那些無學之人退轉而生起煩惱，勸導他們重新斷除煩惱，修習不放逸，那還是在勸導有學之人，而不是在勸導無學之人。所以，勸導有學之人不要放逸，不勸導無學之人，這種說法是合理的。另外，在契經（sūtra）中也說無學之人應該不放逸，比如契經中說：『勝己應護』，言語沒有差別，這也就是用不同的方式勸導不要放逸。因為那段經文說的是與魔（māra）戰鬥。如果說這裡只說了有學之人，那是不對的，因為也說了無學之位。因為這段經文中，先說的是遠位（dūrastha，凡夫位），其次說的是學位（śaikṣabhūmi，有學位），最後說的是無學（aśaikṣa，無學位）。只有那些無學之人，才能普遍地戰勝所有應該戰勝的。所以世尊（Śākyamuni）才勸導他們守護（正念）。另外，這裡還說了『無執著』，只有那些煩惱才被稱為執著，因為煩惱都有執著的作用。他們沒有煩惱，所以被稱為無執著。這是無學之人的道理，一定是這樣的。其他經中說，應果（srotaāpanna-phala，入流果）也應該攝護（正念），所以，如其他經所說，那些聖弟子（āryāḥ śrāvakaḥ），心從貪等煩惱中離染解脫，他們的解脫蘊（vimukti-skandha）如果還沒有圓滿，就努力使之圓滿，如果已經圓滿，就爲了攝護（正念）而修習欲、勤、精進。不是說他們會退轉，所以需要攝護。如果說爲了讓他們自在地顯現（神通等）而修習加行，那麼攝護（正念）又有什麼用呢？如果說他們在無學解脫（aśaikṣa-vimukti）中不能自在地運轉，又有什麼過失呢？如果說爲了得到現法樂住（dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra），只是對於增上心所（adhicitta），應該求得自在，又何必對於解脫（vimukti）求得自在呢？既然已經解脫了，就應該自在地運轉，不需要再修習加行。
【English Translation】 Bala (power): If after the kleśa (defilement) there is bhava (existence), then the reason (for advising non-negligence) is certain. Therefore, the Bhagavan (Buddha) advises those who are saikṣa (learners, those still in training) to not be negligent, not those who are aśaikṣa (non-learners, those who have attained Arhatship). Because those who are aśaikṣa, even if they regress and generate delusion, it is impossible for them to generate future existence due to these kleśas. Therefore, the Buddha does not need to laboriously advise them to not be negligent. Because all those who are aśaikṣa have already completed what needs to be done regarding the cessation of future existence. Therefore, the Buddha said that they are already not negligent and do not need further advice. Or, regarding Arhats, in terms of all the āsravas (outflows, defilements) being exhausted, they should not be advised to cultivate non-negligence. Therefore, that sutra says that those who are saikṣa, seeking the unsurpassed peace of nirvana, but have not yet attained it, and whose minds have not yet settled in non-negligence, I say that they should be non-negligent. However, they cultivate the indriyas (faculties) because of this, broadly speaking, until they attain āsravakṣaya (the exhaustion of outflows). Those who are aśaikṣa, because their defilements are already exhausted, do not need to be advised again to be non-negligent. Even if those who are aśaikṣa regress and generate defilements, advising them to cut off the defilements again and cultivate non-negligence is still advising those who are saikṣa, not those who are aśaikṣa. Therefore, advising those who are saikṣa to be non-negligent, and not advising those who are aśaikṣa, this explanation is reasonable. Furthermore, the sutras also say that those who are aśaikṣa should be non-negligent, such as the sutra that says: 'One should protect oneself by overcoming oneself,' the words are not different, this is also advising non-negligence in a different way. Because that passage speaks of fighting with Mara (the demon). If it is said that only those who are saikṣa are mentioned here, that is not correct, because the state of aśaikṣa is also mentioned. Because in this passage, first the dūrastha (distant position, the position of ordinary beings) is mentioned, then the śaikṣabhūmi (level of learners, the level of those in training), and finally the aśaikṣa (non-learner, the level of those beyond training). Only those who are aśaikṣa can universally overcome all that should be overcome. Therefore, Śākyamuni (the World Honored One) advises them to guard (mindfulness). Furthermore, it also says 'without attachment' here, only those kleśas are called attachment, because kleśas all have the function of attachment. They have no kleśas, so they are called without attachment. This is the principle of those who are aśaikṣa, it must be so. Other sutras say that the srotaāpanna-phala (stream-enterer fruit) should also be protected (mindfulness), therefore, as other sutras say, those āryāḥ śrāvakaḥ (noble disciples), whose minds are liberated from greed and other defilements, if their vimukti-skandha (aggregate of liberation) is not yet complete, they strive to complete it, and if it is already complete, they cultivate desire, diligence, and effort in order to protect (mindfulness). It is not that they will regress, so they need to be protected. If it is said that in order for them to manifest freely (supernatural powers, etc.), they should cultivate additional practices, then what is the use of protecting (mindfulness)? If it is said that they cannot freely operate in aśaikṣa-vimukti (non-learner liberation), what fault is there? If it is said that in order to obtain dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra (dwelling in happiness in the present life), one should seek freedom only for adhicitta (superior mind), why seek freedom for vimukti (liberation)? Since one is already liberated, one should operate freely and not need to cultivate additional practices.
脫為得自在加行攝護。故知容有煩惱現前退解脫義。謂阿羅漢雖頓得解脫。而為自在數修令現前此意為令解脫無退故。應經說勝己應護。無執著言顯無學位。即依此義余處復言。心未脫者當令解脫。若已解脫當善守護。若無退義已證解脫。何勞勸彼當善守護。若彼復謂諸無學者。已無惑種不應起惑。學有惑種起惑可然。不爾無學有惑種故。過去有性前已廣辯。諸後果起由過去因。拘櫞等喻其義已顯。由與煩惱相違法生。斷諸系得得離系得。依此位立煩惱斷名。非為欲令惑種無體。修習治道方名斷惑。如燈生闇滅燈滅闇還生。斷惑及退應知亦爾。然無諸惑斷皆有退起過。如執無法可生論者。無一切無皆可生過。若謂緣合果皆可生。不爾果生待眾緣故。謂非一切有煩惱種。則諸煩惱一切可生。未斷惑時現見亦有。由余緣闕惑不生故。猶如外法雖現有種。余緣闕故芽不得生。又欲難令見所斷退此如前釋。前釋者何謂彼不緣所執事故。見所斷惑無所味轉。要分別力方能引生。修所斷惑有所味轉。唯境界力即能引起。或彼應許諸阿羅漢。設無過去煩惱種子。亦有退起諸煩惱義。如有善根已無餘斷。善根無種后可還生。理實善根有無餘斷。如說如是補特伽羅。善法隱沒惡法出現。有隨俱行善根未斷。彼於後時一切悉斷。此義如前已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爲了獲得自在，需要通過修行來攝護（身心），因此可知，即使煩惱現前，也有退回解脫狀態的可能。也就是說，阿羅漢雖然已經立即獲得了（煩惱的）解脫，但爲了自在，需要反覆修行，使解脫的狀態保持，不至於退轉。正如經文所說，要勝過自己，就應該守護（自己的修行）。『無執著』表明了無學位的境界。根據這個道理，其他地方又說：『心未解脫的人，應當努力使之解脫；已經解脫的人，應當好好守護。』如果解脫沒有退轉的可能，那麼已經證得解脫的人，又何必勸他們要好好守護呢？ 如果他們又說，無學之人已經沒有了煩惱的種子，不應該再生起煩惱；有學之人有煩惱的種子，生起煩惱是可能的。但事實並非如此，無學之人也有煩惱的種子，過去已經廣泛地辯論過這個問題。各種後果的產生，都是由過去的因造成的，就像拘櫞等比喻，其中的道理已經很明顯了。由於與煩惱相反的法生起，斷除了各種束縛，獲得了脫離束縛的解脫，根據這個位置，才安立了煩惱斷除的名稱，而不是爲了讓煩惱的種子完全消失。只有通過修習對治之道，才能稱為斷惑，就像燈亮了黑暗就消失，燈滅了黑暗又會重新出現一樣，斷惑和退轉也應該這樣理解。 然而，並非所有斷除的煩惱都會有退轉的過失，就像那些認為沒有法可以產生的人一樣，會犯一切都沒有辦法產生的過失。如果說因緣聚合，果就可以產生，那也不對，因為果的產生需要眾多因緣。也就是說，並非所有有煩惱種子的人，所有的煩惱都會產生。在沒有斷除煩惱的時候，也常常可以看到，因為缺少某些因緣，煩惱就不會產生，就像外在的法，雖然有種子，但因為缺少其他因緣，芽就無法生長。 又想用見所斷的煩惱退轉來為難（我），這就像前面的解釋一樣。前面的解釋是什麼呢？就是他們不緣著所執著的事物，見所斷的煩惱就沒有滋味，無法轉動，需要分別的力量才能引發。修所斷的煩惱有所味轉，只需要境界的力量就能引起。或者他們應該允許，即使阿羅漢沒有過去的煩惱種子，也有可能退轉，重新生起煩惱，就像有些善根已經完全斷除，善根沒有種子，後來又可以重新生起一樣。但實際上，善根有完全斷除的情況，就像經文所說的那樣，有些人善法隱沒，惡法出現，這是因為有隨俱行的善根沒有斷除，他們在後來的時間裡，會將這些善根全部斷除，這個道理前面已經說過了。
【English Translation】 English version To attain freedom, one needs to protect (body and mind) through practice. Therefore, it is known that even if afflictions arise, there is a possibility of reverting to the state of liberation. That is, although an Arhat (one who has attained enlightenment) has immediately attained liberation (from afflictions), for the sake of freedom, they need to repeatedly practice to maintain the state of liberation, so as not to regress. Just as the scriptures say, to overcome oneself, one should guard (one's practice). 'Non-attachment' indicates the state of no-more-learning (無學位, Wú xuéwèi). According to this principle, it is said elsewhere: 'Those whose minds have not been liberated should strive to liberate them; those who have been liberated should guard them well.' If there is no possibility of regression from liberation, then why should those who have attained liberation be advised to guard it well? If they further say that those who have no-more-learning have no seeds of affliction and should not generate afflictions; those who are still learning have seeds of affliction and it is possible for them to generate afflictions. But this is not the case. Those who have no-more-learning also have seeds of affliction. This issue has been extensively debated in the past. The arising of various consequences is caused by past causes, just like the analogy of the kudrunga (拘櫞, Jū yuán) etc., the principle is already clear. Because the dharma (法) that is contrary to affliction arises, various bonds are severed, and liberation from bondage is attained. Based on this position, the name of the severance of affliction is established, not to make the seeds of affliction completely disappear. Only by practicing the antidote path can it be called severing afflictions, just as darkness disappears when a lamp is lit, and darkness reappears when the lamp is extinguished. The severance of afflictions and regression should also be understood in this way. However, not all severed afflictions have the fault of regression, just like those who think that no dharma can arise, they will commit the fault that everything cannot arise. If it is said that when causes and conditions come together, the result can arise, that is also incorrect, because the arising of a result requires many causes and conditions. That is, not all those who have seeds of affliction will have all afflictions arise. When afflictions have not been severed, it can often be seen that because certain causes and conditions are lacking, afflictions will not arise, just like external dharmas, although there are seeds, the sprout cannot grow because other causes and conditions are lacking. Furthermore, wanting to make it difficult (for me) by using the regression of afflictions severed by view, this is like the previous explanation. What is the previous explanation? That is, they do not rely on the things they are attached to, and the afflictions severed by view have no taste and cannot turn, and need the power of discrimination to induce them. Afflictions severed by cultivation have a taste and can turn, and only need the power of the realm to induce them. Or they should allow that even if Arhats have no past seeds of affliction, it is possible to regress and regenerate afflictions, just like some roots of virtue have been completely severed, and the roots of virtue have no seeds, but can be regenerated later. But in reality, there are cases where the roots of virtue are completely severed, just as the scriptures say, some people's good dharmas disappear and evil dharmas appear, this is because there are accompanying roots of virtue that have not been severed, and they will sever all these roots of virtue at a later time. This principle has been said before.
具抉擇。然不可以無種惑生。令諸應果皆退起惑。此於前來已具釋故。若無尊重恒時加行。及堅固道方退起故。又如汝宗異生相續。雖無無漏種而苦法忍生。如是亦應許阿羅漢。雖無惑種而有惑生。此中有言非苦法忍。雖無種子而可得生。此于余處已具徴遣。為破一類復應思擇。異生相續無漏法種。有漏無漏二俱有失。且非異生心及心所。與無漏法為種子性。未有無漏所引功能。如煩惱等種子性故。謂如彼所計于相續中。惑所引功能方名惑種。此與煩惱為能生因。若相續中善等所引。名善等種為善等因。非諸異生心等相續。已有無漏所引功能。故不應成無漏法種。若此無漏所引功能。而得名為彼法種子。如是便有太過之失。一切應成一切種故。如是無學法應成煩惱種。及諸煩惱法應成無學種便無建立染凈定相。則彼自宗計如外熏習有。善等熏習唐捐其功。由許異生心心所法。無無漏法所引功能。而得名為無漏種故。又異生類心心所中。無漏法種若是有漏。性類別故應非彼種。如何能作無漏生因。非苦種中可生甘果。諸能為種可名生因。故從有漏因唯應生有漏。寧執有漏為無漏種。無漏法種若是無漏。應異生類相續中無。或應異生畢竟非有。皆成有為無漏法故。然彼論說此心心所。雖為無漏種而體非無漏。猶如木等非火
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 需要進行抉擇。然而，不能沒有產生煩惱的可能性，以至於導致所有應得的果位都退失並重新產生煩惱。這一點在前面已經詳細解釋過了，因為如果沒有持續不斷的尊重和修行，以及堅固的道，就會退失並重新產生煩惱。又比如，按照你們宗派的觀點，凡夫的相續中，即使沒有無漏的種子，也能生起苦法忍（Khu-fa-ren，對苦諦的忍可）。那麼，也應該允許阿羅漢（A-luo-han，已證得無學果位者），即使沒有煩惱的種子，也能產生煩惱。對此，有人說，苦法忍雖然沒有種子，但可以產生。這一點已經在其他地方被駁斥過了。爲了駁斥一類觀點，應該進一步思考：凡夫的相續中，無漏法的種子，是有漏還是無漏？無論哪種情況都有過失。首先，凡夫的心和心所，不能作為無漏法的種子，因為它們沒有無漏法所引發的功能，就像煩惱等種子一樣。也就是說，按照他們所認為的，在相續中，煩惱所引發的功能才被稱為煩惱的種子，它與煩惱是能生的因果關係。如果相續中善等所引發的功能，被稱為善等種子，作為善等之因。凡夫的心等相續，並沒有無漏法所引發的功能，所以不應該成為無漏法的種子。如果這種無漏法所引發的功能，就可以被稱為該法的種子，那麼就會有太過寬泛的過失，一切都應該成為一切的種子。這樣，無學法就應該成為煩惱的種子，煩惱法也應該成為無學的種子，那就無法建立染污和清凈的確定狀態了。那麼，他們宗派所認為的，就像外在的熏習一樣，善等的熏習就白費功夫了，因為他們允許凡夫的心心所法，沒有無漏法所引發的功能，卻可以被稱為無漏的種子。此外，凡夫的心心所中，無漏法的種子如果是有漏的，因為性質類別不同，就不應該是它的種子，怎麼能作為無漏產生的因呢？苦的種子中不可能產生甘甜的果實。能夠作為種子的，才能被稱為產生的因。所以，從有漏的因只能產生有漏的果。寧可執著于有漏的法作為無漏的種子嗎？無漏法的種子如果是無漏的，那麼凡夫的相續中就不應該有，或者凡夫應該徹底不存在，因為一切都變成了有為的無漏法。然而，他們的論典中說，這個心心所，雖然是無漏的種子，但本體不是無漏的，就像木頭等不是火一樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Discernment is necessary. However, it is not possible to be without the potential for afflictions to arise, causing all deserved fruits to be lost and afflictions to arise again. This has already been explained in detail earlier, because without constant respect and practice, and a firm path, one will regress and afflictions will arise again. Furthermore, according to your school's view, even if there are no seeds of the unconditioned in the continuum of an ordinary being, the forbearance of the Dharma of Suffering (Khu-fa-ren, acceptance of the truth of suffering) can arise. Therefore, it should also be permissible for an Arhat (A-luo-han, one who has attained the fruit of no more learning), even without the seeds of afflictions, to have afflictions arise. To this, some say that the forbearance of the Dharma of Suffering, although without seeds, can arise. This has already been refuted elsewhere. To refute a certain view, one should further consider: in the continuum of an ordinary being, are the seeds of the unconditioned Dharma conditioned or unconditioned? Either way, there is fault. First, the mind and mental factors of an ordinary being cannot serve as seeds of the unconditioned Dharma, because they do not have the function induced by the unconditioned Dharma, just like the seeds of afflictions, etc. That is, according to what they believe, the function induced by afflictions in the continuum is called the seed of afflictions, which has a causal relationship with afflictions. If the function induced by virtues, etc., in the continuum is called the seed of virtues, as the cause of virtues, etc., the continuum of the mind, etc., of ordinary beings does not already have the function induced by the unconditioned Dharma, so it should not become the seed of the unconditioned Dharma. If this function induced by the unconditioned Dharma can be called the seed of that Dharma, then there would be an overly broad fault, and everything should become the seed of everything. In this way, the Dharma of no more learning should become the seed of afflictions, and the Dharma of afflictions should also become the seed of no more learning, then it would be impossible to establish the definite state of defilement and purity. Then, what their school believes, like external habituation, the habituation of virtues, etc., would be in vain, because they allow the mind and mental factors of ordinary beings, without the function induced by the unconditioned Dharma, to be called the seed of the unconditioned. Furthermore, if the seeds of the unconditioned Dharma in the mind and mental factors of ordinary beings are conditioned, because of the difference in nature, they should not be its seeds, how can they serve as the cause of the unconditioned arising? Sweet fruits cannot arise from the seeds of bitterness. Only what can serve as seeds can be called the cause of arising. Therefore, only conditioned fruits should arise from conditioned causes. Would you rather cling to conditioned Dharmas as the seeds of the unconditioned? If the seeds of the unconditioned Dharma are unconditioned, then they should not exist in the continuum of ordinary beings, or ordinary beings should not exist at all, because everything has become conditioned unconditioned Dharmas. However, their treatises say that this mind and mental factors, although they are the seeds of the unconditioned, their essence is not unconditioned, just like wood, etc., is not fire.
等性。謂如世間木為火種地為金種。而不可說木是火性地是金性。如是異生心及心所。雖是無漏種而體非無漏。彼說非理。以木等中先有火等自類種故。云何知然。由教及理。謂契經說。此木聚中有種種界。乃至廣說。又見從木可有火生。諸求火者便攝取木。以木聚中必有火界。是故說木名為火種。以于木中火界增故。非先無火得火種名。地中出金理亦應爾。謂地差別于中出金。若地無金可成金種。則求金者應隨取地。不應求取地之差別。故知地中別有金種。非無金地得金種名。是故彼言猶如木等非火等性。如是異生心及心所。雖為無漏種而體非無漏。理定不然。又彼部論言。鉆前無熱故謂所鉆木。未被鉆時熱猶未有。故知木內未被鉆位無火極微。于地等中金等亦爾。如是推度教理相違。聖說大種不相離故。理亦應爾。諸色聚中見諸大種所作業故。思大種處已廣成立。然未鉆時不覺熱者。彼聚非熱大種增故。又彼所言。許無漏法用有漏法為能生因。于教及理俱無違害。此亦不然違教理故。謂經說同類唯同類為因。無明為因故生染著。明為因故離染著生。從此善根余善根起。若於彼彼多隨尋伺。便於彼彼心多趣入。有如是等無量契經。有漏無漏其類既別。如何可說前為后因。又有漏心是惑依止。寧與自性凈法為因。違教
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 等性。他們說，就像世間的木頭是火的種子，土地是金的種子一樣。但我們不能說木頭就是火的本性，土地就是金的本性。同樣，凡夫的心和心所，雖然是無漏的種子，但其體性並非無漏。他們的這種說法是不合理的。因為在木頭等事物中，本來就存在著火等同類事物的種子。如何得知是這樣的呢？通過教證和理證。經書中說：『這堆木頭中，有種種界』，乃至廣說。又看到從木頭中可以生出火。那些尋求火的人，便會取用木頭。因為木頭中必定有火界存在。所以說木頭是火的種子，是因為木頭中的火界增多的緣故。並非是原本沒有火，才得到火種的名稱。從土地中產出金子的道理也應該如此。土地有差別，所以從中產出金子。如果土地中沒有金子，卻可以成為金子的種子，那麼尋求金子的人，就應該隨便取用土地，而不應該尋求土地的差別之處。所以知道土地中分別有金子的種子，並非是沒有金子的土地，可以得到金種的名稱。因此，他們所說的，就像木頭等事物並非火的本性一樣，凡夫的心和心所，雖然是無漏的種子，但其體性並非無漏，這個道理必定是不成立的。 此外，他們的論典中說：『鉆木之前沒有熱，所以說所鉆的木頭，在沒有被鉆的時候，熱還沒有產生。』所以知道木頭內部，在沒有被鉆的時候，沒有火的極微。在土地等事物中，金子等也是如此。像這樣推論，是與教證和理證相違背的。聖者說四大種不會互相分離。道理也應該是這樣。在各種色聚中，可以看到四大種所造作的事物。在思大種處已經廣泛地成立了這個道理。然而沒有鉆木的時候，不覺得熱，是因為那個聚集中，非熱的大種增多的緣故。 此外，他們所說的：『允許無漏法，用有漏法作為能生之因，在教證和理證上都沒有違背。』這也是不合理的，因為違背了教證和理證。經書上說，同類事物只能以同類事物為因。以無明為因，所以產生染著。以明為因，所以遠離染著而生。從此善根，其餘善根生起。如果對於彼彼事物多加尋伺，那麼心就容易趣入彼彼事物。有像這樣的無量經文。有漏和無漏，種類既然不同，怎麼可以說前者是後者的因呢？而且有漏心是煩惱的依止，怎麼能與自性清凈的法作為因呢？違背了教證。
【English Translation】 English version Equality. They say that just as wood in the world is the seed of fire, and earth is the seed of gold, we cannot say that wood is the nature of fire, and earth is the nature of gold. Similarly, the minds and mental factors of ordinary beings, although they are seeds of the unconditioned (Anasrava) , are not unconditioned in nature. Their statement is unreasonable because there are already seeds of fire and other similar things in wood and other things. How do we know this? Through scriptural and logical proofs. The sutras say, 'In this pile of wood, there are various realms,' and so on. Also, we see that fire can be produced from wood. Those who seek fire will take wood because there must be a fire realm in the wood. Therefore, wood is said to be the seed of fire because the fire realm in the wood increases. It is not that there was no fire originally, and then it gets the name of the seed of fire. The principle of producing gold from the earth should also be the same. The earth is different, so gold is produced from it. If there is no gold in the earth, but it can become the seed of gold, then those who seek gold should take any earth, and should not seek the difference of the earth. Therefore, we know that there are separate seeds of gold in the earth, and it is not that the earth without gold can get the name of the seed of gold. Therefore, what they say, like wood and other things are not the nature of fire, the minds and mental factors of ordinary beings, although they are seeds of the unconditioned, are not unconditioned in nature, this principle must not be established. In addition, their treatises say, 'Before drilling, there is no heat, so it is said that the wood being drilled, when it is not being drilled, the heat has not yet been produced.' Therefore, we know that inside the wood, when it is not being drilled, there is no ultimate particle of fire. In earth and other things, gold and other things are also the same. Such reasoning contradicts both scriptural and logical proofs. The saints say that the four great elements (Mahabhuta) do not separate from each other. The principle should also be the same. In various aggregates of form (Rupa), we can see the things created by the four great elements. The principle has been widely established in the contemplation of the great elements. However, when the wood is not drilled, we do not feel the heat because the non-heat great elements increase in that aggregate. In addition, what they say, 'Allowing the unconditioned dharma to use the conditioned dharma as the cause of production, there is no contradiction in both scriptural and logical proofs.' This is also unreasonable because it contradicts both scriptural and logical proofs. The sutras say that similar things can only be caused by similar things. Because of ignorance (Avidya) as the cause, attachment (Raga) arises. Because of knowledge (Vidya) as the cause, detachment arises. From this good root (Kusalamula), other good roots arise. If we contemplate on this and that thing, then the mind easily enters into this and that thing. There are countless sutras like this. Since the conditioned (Sasrava) and the unconditioned are different in kind, how can we say that the former is the cause of the latter? Moreover, the conditioned mind is the basis of afflictions (Klesha), how can it be the cause of the self-nature pure dharma? It contradicts the scriptural proofs.
且然。言違理者。若有漏法為無漏因。無漏為因應生有漏。設許何過。如從異生心心所法。引諸聖者心心所生。亦應從聖心心所法。引異生者心心所生無異因故。若謂異生善心心所。與無漏法同是善故。可與無漏為能生因。此過同前同前何過。謂同類故應互為因。如是則應聖心心所引異生類心心所生。便有聖凡更相作失。所競退義由此應成。以凈染心同有漏故。則阿羅漢有漏凈心。應得名為諸漏種子。諸漏亦是有漏性故。如是便害彼論所言。無學身中無惑種故。所斷諸惑終無退理。若阿羅漢猶有惑種。是則不應名漏盡者。又彼所言如世第一。以無漏法為士用果。既無畢竟無異生失。如是無漏法以有漏為因。亦無畢竟無異生失。此亦非理。等無間緣類異類同皆無失故。如四緣處已廣分別。然諸因緣與等無間親疏異故為例不成。若不許然緣數應減。又例便有太過之失。謂若許作等無間緣。則此亦應有因緣義。如從色界染心命終生欲界中。受生心者。既許色于欲為等無間緣。亦應許有為因緣義。若許欲界惑色界惑為因。諸聖離欲貪應有欲貪種。則諸聖道斷惑應退。便害彼說惑種無故。無退無漏道果解脫。又不應許色界惑中有欲惑種。能為欲惑等無間緣非色界惑。所以然者。以諸異生能實斷惑前已成故。惑種與彼無別體故。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 且然。如果說違背道理的情況是，有漏法（指仍然受煩惱影響的法）可以作為無漏法（指不受煩惱影響的法）的因，那麼無漏法作為因就應該產生有漏法。假設允許這種情況，會有什麼過失呢？例如，從凡夫（異生）的心和心所法（心理活動）中，可以引發聖者的心和心所生起。那麼也應該從聖者的心和心所法中，引發凡夫的心和心所生起，因為它們沒有不同的原因。如果說凡夫的善心和心所，與無漏法同樣是善的，所以可以作為無漏法的能生之因，那麼這個過失與前面相同。與前面相同的過失是什麼呢？就是因為同類，就應該互相作為因。這樣一來，就應該聖者的心和心所引發凡夫的心和心所生起，這樣就會有聖人和凡夫互相造成過失的情況，所爭論的退失之義由此就應該成立。因為清凈和染污的心都是有漏的，那麼阿羅漢（已證得解脫的聖者）的有漏清凈心，就應該可以被稱為諸漏（煩惱）的種子，因為諸漏也是有漏的性質。這樣一來，就損害了他們的論點，即無學（已證得阿羅漢果位）的身上沒有煩惱的種子，所斷除的各種煩惱終究沒有退失的道理。如果阿羅漢仍然有煩惱的種子，那麼就不應該被稱為漏盡者（煩惱已盡的人）。 而且他們所說，例如世第一法（指修行者在進入聖道之前所達到的最高境界），以無漏法作為士用果（指通過努力修行所獲得的結果），既然沒有畢竟沒有異生（凡夫）的過失，那麼無漏法以有漏法作為因，也沒有畢竟沒有異生的過失。這也是不合理的，因為等無間緣（指前後相續的心理狀態）無論是同類還是異類，都沒有過失。正如在四緣（因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）的討論中已經廣泛分別過。然而，各種因緣與等無間緣的親疏關係不同，所以不能作為例子。如果不允許這樣，緣的數量就應該減少。而且，這個例子會有太過分的過失。如果允許作為等無間緣，那麼這也應該有因緣的意義。例如，從染污心命終后，在欲界中受生的人，既然允許色法（物質現象）對於欲界（充滿慾望的世界）來說是等無間緣，也應該允許色法作為欲界的因緣。如果允許欲界的煩惱作為欲界煩惱的因，那麼諸聖者（已證得聖果的人）脫離欲貪之後，應該還有欲貪的種子，那麼諸聖道斷除煩惱就應該退失，這樣就損害了他們所說的沒有煩惱種子，所以沒有退失無漏道果解脫的說法。而且，不應該允許非煩惱（**惑）中有欲惑（欲界的煩惱）的種子，能作為欲惑的等無間緣。原因在於，因為各種凡夫能夠真正斷除煩惱之前就已經形成了，煩惱的種子與他們沒有不同的本體。如果……
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore. If statements contrary to reason are made, such as 'defiled dharmas (laws/phenomena subject to outflows of afflictions) can be the cause of undefiled dharmas (laws/phenomena free from outflows of afflictions),' then undefiled dharmas, being the cause, should produce defiled dharmas. If this is allowed, what fault would there be? For example, from the minds and mental activities of ordinary beings (異生, yisheng - different beings, unenlightened beings), the minds and mental activities of the noble ones (聖者, shengzhe - saints, enlightened beings) can arise. Then, from the minds and mental activities of the noble ones, the minds and mental activities of ordinary beings should also arise, because there is no different cause. If it is argued that the wholesome minds and mental activities of ordinary beings are similar to undefiled dharmas in being wholesome, and therefore can be the generating cause of undefiled dharmas, this fault is the same as before. What is the same fault as before? It is that, being of the same kind, they should be mutually causal. Thus, the minds and mental activities of the noble ones should give rise to the minds and mental activities of ordinary beings, and there would be the fault of the noble and the ordinary mutually causing loss. The contested meaning of regression should thus be established. Because pure and defiled minds are both defiled, the defiled pure mind of an Arhat (阿羅漢, Arhat - one who has attained liberation) should be called the seed of outflows (漏, lou - outflows, afflictions), since outflows are also of a defiled nature. This would harm their statement that there are no seeds of delusion in the body of a non-learner (無學, wuxue - one beyond learning, an Arhat), and that there is ultimately no reason for the afflictions that have been severed to regress. If an Arhat still has seeds of affliction, then they should not be called one who has exhausted the outflows (漏盡者, loujin zhe - one who has exhausted the outflows). Moreover, they say that, for example, the highest mundane dharma (世第一, shidi yi - the highest mundane dharma, the peak of mundane achievement), takes undefiled dharmas as its 'agent-result' (士用果, shiyong guo - the result of effort). Since there is ultimately no fault of not being an ordinary being, there is also ultimately no fault of undefiled dharmas taking defiled dharmas as their cause. This is also unreasonable, because there is no fault whether the immediately preceding condition (等無間緣, dengwu jian yuan - immediately preceding condition) is of the same kind or a different kind. As has been extensively discussed in the context of the four conditions (四緣, si yuan - four conditions: cause condition, immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition). However, the various causes and conditions differ in their proximity to the immediately preceding condition, so they cannot serve as examples. If this is not allowed, the number of conditions should be reduced. Moreover, this example would have the fault of being too excessive. If it is allowed to be an immediately preceding condition, then it should also have the meaning of a cause condition. For example, from dying with a defiled mind and being reborn in the desire realm (欲界, yu jie - desire realm), the mind of rebirth is received. Since it is allowed that form (色, se - form, material phenomena) is an immediately preceding condition for desire, it should also be allowed that form is a cause condition for the desire realm. If it is allowed that the afflictions of the desire realm are the cause of the afflictions of the desire realm, then the noble ones (聖者, shengzhe - saints, enlightened beings) who have abandoned desire should still have seeds of desire, and the noble paths of severing afflictions should regress, thus harming their statement that there are no seeds of affliction, so there is no regression of the undefiled path, fruit, and liberation. Moreover, it should not be allowed that in non-afflictions (惑) there are seeds of desire-afflictions (欲惑, yu huo - afflictions of the desire realm) that can be the immediately preceding condition for desire-afflictions. The reason is that, because various ordinary beings are able to truly sever afflictions before they are formed, the seeds of affliction have no different substance from them. If...
謂此如外法熏習。不爾。此彼不相似故。謂彼外法能熏所熏。二法俱時相續而住。有別味等住所熏中。經于多時相續隨轉。內法不爾寧有熏習。故彼所立世第一喻。翻成違害自所立宗。或如從無色還生色界者。雖無色種而有色生。已成異生實斷惑故。如是無學設無惑種。亦退起惑于理何違。然彼所言諸從無色生色界者。若無色種彼定不應還生於色。以無色聖者不還生色故。此亦非理不相似故。謂彼異生於有頂攝。見斷惑斷未能作證。非在彼界有于見道。所斷惑斷能作證義。必由先證見斷惑斷。後方能證修斷惑斷。由此異生生無色界。必無能越有頂地者。引彼異熟業力盡時。色種雖無必還生色故。異生類生無色時。於色未能證不生法。以彼於後必生色故。生無色聖必已先斷。有頂惑中見斷一分。于離色地修所斷時。已離彼地定感色業。即于無色決定能證。有頂地中修斷惑斷。聖從此界生彼界時。於色已能證不生法。以色於後必不生故。由此聖者后色不生。非為身中色種非有。故彼所說無色聖者。色不生故色種若無應不生色。定不應理。由此彼言異生與聖。斷若無異所得應同。理亦不然斷有異故。謂先已說異生未能斷有頂地見所斷惑。故從無色定還生下。聖此相違斷寧無異。又阿羅漢若無惑種。故無退者學有惑種。則無漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 他們說，這就像外在法（指與內心相對的事物、現象）的熏習。但並非如此，因為這兩者並不相似。所謂外在法熏習，是指能熏之法和所熏之法，兩者同時相續存在，並且有不同的味道等留在所熏的事物中，經過很長時間相續轉變。而內在法並非如此，怎麼會有熏習呢？因此，他們所建立的『世第一』的比喻，反而違背了他們自己所立的宗義。或者就像從無色界還生到色界的人，雖然沒有色界的種子，但仍然有色身產生。因為他們已經成為異生（指凡夫），實際上已經斷除了迷惑。既然如此，無學（指阿羅漢）即使沒有迷惑的種子，退轉而生起迷惑，在道理上又有什麼違背呢？然而，他們所說的那些從無色界生到色界的人，如果沒有色界的種子，他們一定不應該還生到色界，因為無色界的聖者不會還生到色界。這種說法也是沒有道理的，因為這兩者並不相似。因為那些異生屬於有頂天（指色界和無色界的最高處），他們斷除了見道所斷的迷惑，但未能證得果位。在那個境界中，沒有斷除見道所斷的迷惑而能證得果位的道理。必須先證得見道所斷的迷惑，然後才能證得修道所斷的迷惑。因此，異生生到無色界，一定沒有能夠超越有頂天的人。當他們引生的異熟業力耗盡時，即使沒有色界的種子，也一定會還生到色界。異生在生到無色界時，對於色界未能證得不生之法，因為他們之後一定會生到色界。而生到無色界的聖者，必定已經先斷除了有頂天迷惑中見道的一部分。在遠離色界修道所斷的迷惑時，已經遠離了那個境界必定感生的色業。因此，在無色界一定能夠證得有頂天的修道所斷的迷惑。聖者從這個境界生到那個境界時，對於色界已經能夠證得不生之法，因為他們之後一定不會生到色界。因此，聖者之後不會生到色界，並不是因為他們身中沒有色界的種子。所以，他們所說的無色界的聖者，因為色界不生，所以色界的種子如果不存在，就不應該生到色界，這一定是不合道理的。由此，他們說異生和聖者，斷除迷惑如果沒有區別，那麼所得的果位應該相同，這個道理也是不對的，因為斷除迷惑是有區別的。因為之前已經說過，異生未能斷除有頂天見道所斷的迷惑，所以從無色界一定會還生到地獄。聖者與此相反，斷除迷惑怎麼會沒有區別呢？此外，阿羅漢如果沒有迷惑的種子，所以不會退轉；而有學的（指還在修行的聖者）有迷惑的種子，那麼無漏
【English Translation】 They say this is like the external Dharma (referring to things and phenomena relative to the mind) being perfumed. But it is not so, because these two are not similar. The so-called external Dharma being perfumed refers to the Dharma that can perfume and the Dharma that is perfumed, both existing simultaneously and continuously, and having different tastes, etc., remaining in the perfumed thing, transforming continuously over a long period of time. But the internal Dharma is not like this, how can there be perfuming? Therefore, the analogy of 'World First' that they established contradicts their own established doctrine. Or like those who are reborn into the Form Realm from the Formless Realm, although there is no seed of the Form Realm, a form body is still produced. Because they have already become ordinary beings (referring to ordinary people), and have actually cut off delusions. Since this is the case, even if the Arhats (referring to those who have attained enlightenment) do not have the seed of delusion, what is wrong with regressing and generating delusion in principle? However, what they say about those who are born into the Form Realm from the Formless Realm, if there is no seed of the Form Realm, they should definitely not be reborn into the Form Realm, because the saints of the Formless Realm will not be reborn into the Form Realm. This statement is also unreasonable, because the two are not similar. Because those ordinary beings belong to the Peak of Existence (referring to the highest point of the Form and Formless Realms), they have cut off the delusions cut off by the Path of Seeing, but have not been able to attain the fruit. In that realm, there is no principle of being able to attain the fruit by cutting off the delusions cut off by the Path of Seeing. One must first attain the delusions cut off by the Path of Seeing, and then be able to attain the delusions cut off by the Path of Cultivation. Therefore, when ordinary beings are born into the Formless Realm, there is definitely no one who can surpass the Peak of Existence. When the force of the other-ripe karma they generate is exhausted, even if there is no seed of the Form Realm, they will definitely be reborn into the Form Realm. When ordinary beings are born into the Formless Realm, they have not been able to realize the Dharma of non-birth in the Form Realm, because they will definitely be born into the Form Realm later. The saints who are born into the Formless Realm must have already cut off a part of the delusions of the Peak of Existence in the Path of Seeing. When cultivating and cutting off the delusions in the realm away from the Form Realm, they have already left the karma of the Form Realm that must be generated in that realm. Therefore, in the Formless Realm, they can definitely realize the delusions of cultivation and cutting off in the Peak of Existence. When saints are born from this realm to that realm, they have already been able to realize the Dharma of non-birth in the Form Realm, because they will definitely not be born into the Form Realm later. Therefore, the fact that saints will not be born into the Form Realm later is not because there is no seed of the Form Realm in their bodies. Therefore, what they say about the saints of the Formless Realm, because the Form Realm is not born, so if the seed of the Form Realm does not exist, they should not be born into the Form Realm, this is definitely unreasonable. Therefore, they say that if there is no difference between ordinary beings and saints in cutting off delusions, then the fruits obtained should be the same. This principle is also incorrect, because there is a difference in cutting off delusions. Because it has been said before that ordinary beings have not been able to cut off the delusions cut off by the Path of Seeing in the Peak of Existence, so they will definitely be reborn into the lower realm from the Formless Realm. The saints are the opposite of this, how can there be no difference in cutting off delusions? In addition, if the Arhats do not have the seed of delusion, they will not regress; while those who are still learning (referring to saints who are still practicing) have the seed of delusion, then the un-leaked
道斷果退成。以學有成自界地攝。一分修斷煩惱種故。若不許然則不應說。無學無惑種。故定無有退。傍論已了。經主復言。又增一經作如是說。一法應起。謂時愛心解脫一法應證。謂不動心解脫若應果性。名為時愛心解脫者。何故於此增一經中再說應果。又曾無處說阿羅漢果。名為應起但說名應證。理亦不然由此成故。謂既說有二種解脫。則已顯成應果有退。經言。不動心解脫身作證。我決定說無因緣從此退。義準說余容有退理。經主又說。若謂有退。由經說有時愛解脫我亦許然。但應觀察彼之所退。時愛解脫為應果性為靜慮等。然彼根本靜慮等持。要待時現前故名時解脫。彼為獲得現法樂住。數希現前故名為愛。今于彼意未審了知。言靜慮等持為有漏無漏。若是無漏無學身中。無漏有為皆應果性。則為已許時愛解脫。是應果性其理極成。便違彼宗應果無退。若是有漏非為極成。若謂過同此無同理。此與不動相似說故。謂契經言不動解脫。許是無學身中無漏其理極成。契經既說時愛解脫。亦應極成許是無學身中無漏。又如不時成無漏故。謂契經說有阿羅漢。不時解脫彼此極成。不時解脫是應果性。既有經說有阿羅漢。名時解脫亦應極成。此時解脫是應果性。又如不動說作證故。謂如於不動說身作證。言不動解脫是應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 道斷果退成：通過修學，在自身所處的境界範圍內，可以達到一定的成就，這是因為通過修行斷除了一部分煩惱的種子。如果不同意這種說法，那麼就不應該說無學（Aśaikṣa，指阿羅漢）沒有煩惱的種子，因此（阿羅漢）肯定是不會退轉的。關於退轉的旁論已經結束。經論的作者又說，另外，《增一阿含經》（Ekottara Āgama）中這樣說：『一法應起』，指的是『時愛心解脫』；『一法應證』，指的是『不動心解脫』。如果說『應果』（Arhatship，阿羅漢果位）的性質被稱為『時愛心解脫』，那麼為什麼在這部《增一阿含經》中又再次提到『應果』呢？而且從來沒有說過阿羅漢果被稱為『應起』，只說被稱為『應證』。這個道理也是不成立的，因為這樣就形成了（矛盾）。既然經中說了有兩種解脫，那麼就已經明顯地表明瞭應果是有可能退轉的。經中說：『不動心解脫身作證，我決定說沒有因緣會從此退轉。』這句話的意思是說，其他的（解脫）有可能退轉。經論的作者又說，如果說（阿羅漢）會退轉，是因為經中說了有時愛解脫，我也是承認的。但是應該觀察他所退轉的是什麼，是時愛解脫的應果性質，還是靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）等。然而，根本的靜慮等持，要等待時機出現才能顯現，所以叫做『時解脫』。爲了獲得現法樂住（dṛṣṭa-dharma-sukha-vihāra，于現世感受快樂的境界），（這種靜慮等持）經常顯現，所以叫做『愛』。現在對於他的意思還不太清楚，（不知道）他說的是有漏的靜慮等持還是無漏的。如果是無漏的，那麼在無學之身中，無漏的有為法都應該是應果的性質，那麼就等於已經承認了時愛解脫是應果的性質，這個道理非常明顯，就違背了他所主張的應果不會退轉的觀點。如果是有漏的，那就不是極成（prasiddha，已經成立的）的。如果說（這種過失）和（我）的觀點相同，那是不成立的，因為這和不動解脫的說法相似。經中說不動解脫，承認是無學之身中的無漏法，這個道理非常明顯。既然經中說了時愛解脫，也應該承認是無學之身中的無漏法。又比如不時解脫成就無漏一樣。經中說有阿羅漢是不時解脫，這是彼此都認可的。不時解脫是應果的性質。既然經中說有阿羅漢名叫時解脫，也應該承認此時解脫是應果的性質。又比如不動解脫說身作證一樣。就像對於不動解脫說身作證，說不動解脫是應果
【English Translation】 English version: The attainment of the cessation of the path and the regression from the fruit: Through learning and practice, one can achieve certain accomplishments within the scope of one's own realm, because one has eliminated some of the seeds of affliction through practice. If this is not accepted, then it should not be said that an Aśaikṣa (one beyond learning, referring to an Arhat) has no seeds of affliction, therefore (Arhats) definitely do not regress. The side discussion about regression is now concluded. The author of the scripture further states, 'Moreover, the Ekottara Āgama (Augmenting by One Scripture) says this: 'One dharma should arise,' referring to 'liberation of mind with temporal affection (samayikā citta-vimukti)'; 'one dharma should be realized,' referring to 'immovable liberation of mind (asamayikā citta-vimukti)'. If the nature of Arhatship (the fruit of an Arhat) is called 'liberation of mind with temporal affection', then why is the 'fruit of an Arhat' mentioned again in this Ekottara Āgama? And it has never been said that the fruit of an Arhat is called 'should arise', but only 'should be realized'. This reasoning is also not valid, because this creates a (contradiction). Since the scripture says there are two kinds of liberation, then it has clearly shown that the fruit of an Arhat can regress. The scripture says: 'Immovable liberation of mind is witnessed by the body; I definitively say that there is no cause or condition for regression from this.' The meaning of this sentence is that other (liberations) may regress. The author of the scripture further says, 'If it is said that (Arhats) regress because the scripture speaks of liberation with temporal affection, I also acknowledge that. But it should be observed what he regresses from, whether it is the nature of the fruit of an Arhat of liberation with temporal affection, or Dhyāna (meditative absorption) and so on. However, the fundamental Dhyāna concentration must wait for the right time to appear, so it is called 'temporal liberation'. In order to attain the dṛṣṭa-dharma-sukha-vihāra (dwelling in the pleasure of the present life), (this Dhyāna concentration) often appears, so it is called 'affection'. Now, the meaning of this is not yet clear, (it is not known) whether he is talking about defiled Dhyāna concentration or undefiled. If it is undefiled, then in the body of one beyond learning, all undefiled conditioned phenomena should be the nature of the fruit of an Arhat, then it is equivalent to having already admitted that liberation with temporal affection is the nature of the fruit of an Arhat, this reasoning is very clear, and it contradicts his claim that the fruit of an Arhat does not regress. If it is defiled, then it is not prasiddha (established). If it is said that (this fault) is the same as (my) view, that is not established, because this is similar to the statement of immovable liberation. The scripture says immovable liberation, admitting that it is an undefiled phenomenon in the body of one beyond learning, this reasoning is very clear. Since the scripture says liberation with temporal affection, it should also be admitted that it is an undefiled phenomenon in the body of one beyond learning. Also, just as non-temporal liberation achieves undefilement. The scripture says that there are Arhats who are liberated non-temporally, this is mutually acknowledged. Non-temporal liberation is the nature of the fruit of an Arhat. Since the scripture says that there are Arhats called temporal liberation, it should also be admitted that this temporal liberation is the nature of the fruit of an Arhat. Also, just as immovable liberation says 'witnessed by the body'. Just like saying 'witnessed by the body' for immovable liberation, saying that immovable liberation is the fruit of an Arhat.
果性。經亦於時愛說身作證言。應時愛解脫亦是應果性。如契經說。若由如是諸行相狀。能於時愛心解脫中。身已作證後於如是。諸行相狀不能如理數數思惟。便退所證。乃至廣說。若謂由此說彼應是有漏。非由無漏諸行相狀得阿羅漢。此於後時有數思惟有不思惟。不退及退可應正理。此亦不然依類說故。謂經不說。此即是彼但約種類。言於後時有數思惟不思惟等。此中意說學無學位。同以非常等行。觀色取蘊等境。如言應服先所服湯或過同故。謂以有漏諸行相狀。證得時愛心解脫者。亦無於後以前行等數數思惟。非前所修現法樂住。加行即是后時現法樂住自體故。此所說非證有漏。由此不應作如是詰。但應觀察彼所退等。又彼所言時愛解脫。即是根本靜慮等持。其理不成。以契經說等持解脫性各別故。如契經言。為先等持后解脫。為先解脫后等持。乃至廣說。雖復有說現法樂住。即是時愛心解脫體。然不應理曾無說故。謂曾無經作如是說。時愛心解脫即現法樂住。但是童豎居自室言。若謂所言雖無經證。然有決定正理可依。謂此如彼說有退故。如說有退現法樂住。亦說有退時愛解脫。故知此彼名異義同。如是所說理趣非善。立所許等多過起故。謂我宗許于現法樂。若不動法唯有受用退。若時解脫亦有已得退。非不動
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 果性（Phalasvabhāva）。經中也常在『時愛說身作證』時提到。應時愛解脫也是應果性。如契經所說：『若由如是諸行相狀，能於時愛心解脫中，身已作證，後於如是諸行相狀不能如理數數思惟，便退所證。』乃至廣說。如果說由此說明彼應是有漏，而非由無漏諸行相狀得阿羅漢，此於後時有數思惟有不思惟，不退及退可應正理。這也是不對的，因為這是依類別而說的。經中並沒有說『此即是彼』，只是約種類而言，在後時有數思惟或不思惟等。這裡的意思是說，有學位和無學位，同樣以非常等行，觀察色取蘊等境，如同說應該服用先前所服用的湯藥，因為情況相同。如果說以有漏諸行相狀證得時愛心解脫者，也不會在之後以前行等數數思惟，因為先前所修的現法樂住的加行，就是后時現法樂住的自體。所以這所說的並非證明是有漏。因此不應該這樣詰難，而應該觀察他所退等。還有，他們所說的時愛解脫，就是根本靜慮等持，這個道理是不成立的，因為契經中說等持和解脫的性質是各自不同的。如契經所言：『為先等持后解脫，為先解脫后等持？』乃至廣說。雖然有人說現法樂住就是時愛心解脫的本體，但是這不合道理，因為從來沒有這樣說過。從來沒有經典這樣說：時愛心解脫就是現法樂住。這只是小孩子在自己房間里說的話。如果說，雖然所說沒有經典可以證明，但是有決定的正理可以依據，說此如彼，說有退失的緣故。如同說有退失現法樂住，也說有退失時愛解脫，所以知道此彼名異義同。這樣所說的道理並不好，因為立所許等過失產生。因為我宗認為，對於現法樂，若是不動法，只有受用上的退失；若是時解脫，也有已經得到的退失，而非不動。
【English Translation】 English version The nature of Fruition (Phalasvabhāva). The scriptures often mention 'witnessing with the body through temporal love' (samayavimukta). The liberation through temporal love is also the nature of fruition. As the sutras say: 'If, through such characteristics and appearances, one has witnessed with the body the liberation of the mind through temporal love, and later cannot properly and repeatedly contemplate such characteristics and appearances, then one will regress from what has been attained.' And so on. If it is said that this shows that it must be defiled (sāsrava), and not that one attains Arhatship through undefiled (anāsrava) characteristics and appearances, and that in the future, whether one contemplates repeatedly or not, non-regression and regression are both reasonable, this is also incorrect because it is spoken according to categories. The scriptures do not say 'this is that,' but only speak in terms of categories, saying that in the future there is repeated contemplation or non-contemplation, etc. The meaning here is that those with learning (śaikṣa) and those without learning (aśaikṣa) similarly observe the aggregates of form (rūpaskandha) and other objects with impermanence and other characteristics, just as it is said that one should take the same medicine that one took before, because the situation is the same. If one attains liberation of the mind through temporal love with defiled characteristics and appearances, one will not repeatedly contemplate the previous practices, because the practice of the present-life pleasure abiding (dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra) that was previously cultivated is the very nature of the present-life pleasure abiding in the future. Therefore, what is said here does not prove that it is defiled. Therefore, one should not make such a challenge, but should observe his regression, etc. Furthermore, their statement that liberation through temporal love is the fundamental meditative stabilization (dhyāna-samādhi) is not valid, because the sutras say that the nature of meditative stabilization and liberation are distinct. As the sutras say: 'Is it first meditative stabilization and then liberation, or first liberation and then meditative stabilization?' And so on. Although some say that the present-life pleasure abiding is the essence of liberation of the mind through temporal love, this is not reasonable, because it has never been said. No sutra has ever said that liberation of the mind through temporal love is the present-life pleasure abiding. This is just a child speaking in his own room. If it is said that although what is said cannot be proven by the scriptures, there is a definite valid reason to rely on, saying that this is like that, because it is said that there is regression. Just as it is said that there is regression from the present-life pleasure abiding, it is also said that there is regression from liberation through temporal love, so it is known that these are different names with the same meaning. What is said in this way is not good, because the fault of establishing what is already accepted arises. Because our school believes that for the present-life pleasure, if it is an unmoving dharma, there is only regression in terms of enjoyment; if it is temporal liberation, there is also regression from what has already been attained, and not unmoving.
法亦退自在。但餘事務無暇現前。雖暫不現前而不失自在。若異此者現法樂住。通以有漏無漏為體。並由事務不現在前。是則皆應退失自在。後於自在既求證得。應有為得未得退義。然佛遮此為得未得。說退不退法二阿羅漢故。又聖教中唯以解脫為珍貴故。此既無退應唯說有一阿羅漢。然經說余余處余類退現法樂。及有說余余處余類退時解脫。故知時解脫非現法樂住。由斯理趣應斥彼說。但是童豎居自室言。又彼應言退靜慮者。為于諸欲有離無離。若言有離則于離欲無所退失。而言退失離生喜樂豈不相違。又喬底迦如何知已。六返退失深自厭患。便執利刀自刎而死。若言無離應起煩惱。不起煩惱寧退靜慮。若謂失治不失斷果。如何當釋鄔陀夷經。又道能持所得斷果。要證得道方證斷故離勝進位舍道非斷。誰當信此違正理言。又靜慮中定自在性。離諸靜慮無別可得。故煩惱起方有退義。或自在性有何差別。勿許別有定自在性。或自在性名何所目。若有別法名自在性有前說過。前過者何。謂不現前皆退自在。后求證得便違契經。若自在性都無別法。是則應無自在退理。便應無有退法種性。又如鈍根諸阿羅漢。世俗根本靜慮等持。要待時現前故名時解脫。何緣無漏獨不許然。無漏轉應待時方起。以彼最是未曾得故。即由有退
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『法亦退自在』（即使證得了法，也會失去自在）。只是因為其他事務繁忙，沒有閑暇顧及目前的狀態。雖然暫時沒有顯現，但並沒有失去自在。如果不是這樣，那麼『現法樂住』（體驗當下法喜的境界），無論是有漏還是無漏，都以事務不顯現為體。如果因為事務不顯現就都退失自在，那麼在自在上尋求證得后，應該有得到、未得到和退失的說法。然而，佛陀否定了這種得到和未得到的說法，因為他說了退法和不退法的兩種阿羅漢。而且，聖教中只有解脫才是最珍貴的。既然這種自在沒有退失，就應該只說有一種阿羅漢。但是，經中說有人在其他地方、其他類別中退失了現法樂，也有人說在其他地方、其他類別中退失了時解脫。因此，時解脫不是現法樂住。基於這些道理，應該駁斥那種說法，那只是小孩子在自己房間里說的話。 此外，他們應該說退失禪定的人，對於各種慾望是有遠離還是沒有遠離？如果說有遠離，那麼對於離欲就沒有退失，卻說退失了離生喜樂，這豈不是自相矛盾？而且，喬底迦（Godhika）是如何知道自己六次退失，深感厭惡，便拿起刀自殺的？如果說沒有遠離，就應該生起煩惱，沒有生起煩惱，怎麼會退失禪定？如果說失去的是控制力，而不是斷除煩惱的果位，那麼又該如何解釋鄔陀夷經（Udai Sutta）？而且，道能夠保持所得的斷除煩惱的果位，要證得道才能證得斷除煩惱的果位，離開殊勝的進境而捨棄道，卻不是斷除煩惱，誰會相信這種違背正理的說法？而且，禪定中的定自在性，離開禪定就沒有其他可以得到的。因此，只有煩惱生起才會有退失的說法。或者，自在性有什麼差別？不要允許有其他的定自在性。或者，自在性是指什麼？如果有其他的法叫做自在性，那麼就有前面說過的過失。前面說的過失是什麼？就是不顯現就都退失自在，後來尋求證得就違背了契經。如果自在性都沒有其他的法，那麼就應該沒有自在退失的道理，也就不應該有退法的種性。 又比如鈍根的阿羅漢，世俗的根本禪定等持，要等待時機顯現，所以叫做時解脫。為什麼無漏的就不能這樣呢？無漏的反而應該等待時機才能生起，因為它最是未曾得到的。就是因為有退失。
【English Translation】 English version '法亦退自在' (Even if one attains the Dharma, one can lose freedom). It's just because other affairs are busy, and there is no time to take care of the current state. Although it is not manifested temporarily, it is not lost freedom. If this is not the case, then '現法樂住' (the state of experiencing the joy of the present Dharma), whether it is with outflows or without outflows, takes the non-manifestation of affairs as its body. If one loses freedom because affairs are not manifested, then after seeking to attain freedom, there should be statements of attainment, non-attainment, and loss. However, the Buddha denied this statement of attainment and non-attainment, because he spoke of the two types of Arhats who regress in Dharma and do not regress in Dharma. Moreover, in the Holy Teaching, only liberation is the most precious. Since this freedom is not lost, there should only be one type of Arhat. However, the sutras say that some people in other places and other categories lose the joy of the present Dharma, and some say that they lose liberation at times in other places and other categories. Therefore, liberation at times is not the joy of the present Dharma. Based on these reasons, that statement should be refuted; it is just a child speaking in his own room. Furthermore, they should say, for those who lose meditative concentration, is there separation from various desires or no separation? If they say there is separation, then there is no loss of separation from desires, but they say there is a loss of joy born from separation, isn't this contradictory? Moreover, how did Godhika (喬底迦) know that he had regressed six times, felt deeply disgusted, and then took a knife to kill himself? If they say there is no separation, then afflictions should arise; if afflictions do not arise, how can one lose meditative concentration? If they say what is lost is control, not the fruit of cutting off afflictions, then how should the Udai Sutta (鄔陀夷經) be explained? Moreover, the path can maintain the fruit of cutting off afflictions that has been attained; one must attain the path to attain the fruit of cutting off afflictions. Abandoning the path by leaving the superior progress is not cutting off afflictions. Who would believe this statement that violates right reason? Moreover, the self-mastery of concentration in meditative concentration cannot be obtained apart from meditative concentration. Therefore, there is only a statement of loss when afflictions arise. Or, what is the difference in self-mastery? Do not allow other self-mastery of concentration. Or, what does self-mastery refer to? If there is another Dharma called self-mastery, then there is the fault mentioned earlier. What is the fault mentioned earlier? That is, if it is not manifested, all freedom is lost, and later seeking to attain it violates the sutras. If self-mastery has no other Dharma, then there should be no reason for the loss of freedom, and there should be no nature of regressing in Dharma. Moreover, like Arhats with dull faculties, the mundane fundamental meditative concentration and equanimity must wait for the right time to manifest, so it is called liberation at times. Why can't the outflowless be like this? The outflowless should instead wait for the right time to arise, because it is the most unattained. It is because there is regression.
阿羅漢果。故增一經說二解脫。然彼所責。何故於此增一經中再說應果。今詳再說正為顯示。有退不退二種應果。然此中說時愛應起。不動應證別有所因。謂為令知時愛解脫。恒時尊重加行所持。方免退失恐退失故。應數現前故說應起。不動解脫必無退理。但證得時名辦所作。故但于彼說應證言。又時解脫亦說應證。經說于中身作證故。又經多說惑滅為應果。諸經皆言滅應作證故。然無處說阿羅漢果。名應起者以不遍故。又彼自問若時解脫非應果性。何故契經言時解脫應果。彼即自答。謂有應果根性鈍故。要待時故定方現前。若與彼相違名不時解脫。彼如是答其義不成。有學亦應如是說故。謂學亦有根鈍利別。待不待時定現前故。應得時解脫不時解脫名。然無此名故是僻執。若謂有學未解脫故。不立此名理則已成。時愛解脫是應果性。許未解脫者無解脫名故。由此彼釋喬底迦經言。喬底迦昔在學位。於時解脫極啖味故。又鈍根故數數退失。深自厭責執刀自害。由於身命無所戀惜。臨命終時得阿羅漢便般涅槃。故喬底迦亦非退失阿羅漢果。此與聖教都不相符。若在學位有時解脫。為所味者理則應成。在有學位名時解脫。然無聖教說如是言。若有學時未解脫故。不可說為時解脫者。既未解脫不應言彼學位。已得時解脫性為
所啖味。故彼釋此喬底迦經亦依僻執。然彼上座率自執言。時愛解脫以世俗道。暫伏煩惱令心離系。暫時脫故名時解脫。此是現法樂住性故。有煩惱故建立愛名。此即是貪所染事義。不動解脫以無漏道。永斷煩惱令心離系。相續轉故隨眠永盡。上座依止下劣意樂。極惡處置阿羅漢果。謂彼應果身相續中。幸有所餘不共功德。不建立為現法樂住。而立與學及諸異生。共有暫時離諸繫縛。貪所緣果法為現法樂住誰復貴重。應果身中昔暫伏除煩惱方便。為現法樂修令現前。由此善成未解脫者。決定未得時解脫性。又唯應果說有退故。謂契經說五因五緣。令時解脫阿羅漢果退失。時愛心解脫性。曾無聖教說。有學者名時解脫。及說彼遇退失因緣退時解脫。故時解脫學者未有。或何不計彼有不動解脫。又彼所執極為粗淺。謂聖教中解脫為貴。諸有學者已遍見真善。別聖教中不共勝功德。寧為世俗粗動善根。于能盡苦身起自殺加行。故此所執極不令善。有言唯厭煩惱現行。便於自身起殺加行。未斷有本執刀自殺。此釋經義極無深理。謂諸聖者極怖後有。煩惱能為後有近因。聖既見彼猛利過失。于能棄惑違後有道。若一暫退不能現行。尚應粉身況頻退者。彼自知應果由此必還證。深見煩惱現行過失。欣先所退阿羅漢果。故自殺身取阿
【現代漢語翻譯】 所嘗之味道。因此，他們對《喬底迦經》（Gotamaka Sutta）的解釋也帶有偏頗的執著。然而，那些上座部（Theravada）的長老們固執己見，認為『時愛解脫』（Samayavimutta，暫時解脫）是通過世俗之道，暫時壓制煩惱，使心獲得暫時的解脫。因為是暫時的解脫，所以稱為『時解脫』。這是一種現世安樂的境界，但因為還有煩惱存在，所以被稱為『愛』，這實際上是貪慾所染的事物。而『不動解脫』（Asamayavimutta，永久解脫）則是通過無漏之道，永遠斷除煩惱，使心獲得永久的解脫。這種解脫是持續不斷的，隨眠煩惱也徹底斷盡。 上座部長老們依據低劣的意樂，極其錯誤地看待阿羅漢果位，認為阿羅漢的身心中，還殘存著一些不共的功德，但這些功德並不被認為是現世安樂的境界，反而將與有學之人以及凡夫俗子共有的、暫時的擺脫束縛，以及貪慾所緣的果報，視為現世安樂的境界，這又有誰會看重呢？阿羅漢的身心中，過去暫時壓制和消除煩惱的方法，被認為是現世安樂的修行，並使其顯現。由此可以充分證明，尚未解脫的人，絕對沒有獲得『時解脫』的性質。 而且，只有阿羅漢才會被說有退轉的可能性，正如經中所說，有五種原因和五種條件，會導致『時解脫』的阿羅漢果位退失。而『時愛心解脫』的性質，從未有聖教經典說過有學者被稱為『時解脫』，也沒有說過他們遇到退失的因緣會退失『時解脫』。因此，『時解脫』的學者是不存在的。或者，為什麼不認為他們也有『不動解脫』呢？ 而且，他們的執著極其粗淺，因為在聖教中，解脫是最為珍貴的。那些有學之人已經普遍見證了真實的善，在聖教中，不共的殊勝功德，怎麼能與世俗的粗淺、動搖的善根相比呢？爲了徹底消除痛苦，竟然會對自身採取自殺的行為，這種執著極其不合理。有人說，僅僅因為厭惡煩惱的現行，就對自身採取自殺的行為，在沒有斷除有之根本的情況下，就執刀自殺，這種解釋經義極其缺乏深刻的道理。 要知道，聖者們極其恐懼後有（來世），而煩惱是後有的近因。聖者們既然已經看到了煩惱猛烈的過失，那麼對於能夠捨棄迷惑、違背後有之道的方法，即使只是一次暫時的退轉，不能使其現行，尚且應該粉身碎骨，更何況是頻繁退轉的人呢？他們自己知道，阿羅漢由此必定會重新證得果位，深刻地認識到煩惱現行的過失，欣然接受先前退失的阿羅漢果位，因此自殺身亡，以求證得果位。
【English Translation】 The taste that is savored. Therefore, their interpretation of the Gotamaka Sutta (喬底迦經) also relies on biased attachments. However, those Theravada (上座部) elders stubbornly adhere to their own views, believing that 'Samayavimutta' (時愛解脫, temporary liberation) is achieved through worldly paths, temporarily suppressing afflictions to allow the mind to attain temporary liberation. Because it is temporary liberation, it is called 'temporary liberation'. This is a state of present-life happiness, but because afflictions still exist, it is called 'love,' which is actually something tainted by greed. 'Asamayavimutta' (不動解脫, permanent liberation), on the other hand, is achieved through the path of non-outflow, permanently severing afflictions to allow the mind to attain permanent liberation. This liberation is continuous, and the latent afflictions are completely eradicated. The Theravada elders, based on inferior intentions, view the fruit of Arhatship (阿羅漢果位) in an extremely erroneous way, believing that some uncommon merits still remain in the body and mind of an Arhat, but these merits are not considered a state of present-life happiness. Instead, they regard the temporary liberation from bondage, which is shared by those who are still learning and ordinary people, and the karmic results that are conditioned by greed, as a state of present-life happiness. Who would value this? The methods of temporarily suppressing and eliminating afflictions in the past within the body and mind of an Arhat are considered a practice of present-life happiness and are made manifest. This fully proves that those who have not yet been liberated have definitely not attained the nature of 'temporary liberation'. Moreover, only Arhats are said to have the possibility of regression, as stated in the sutras, there are five causes and five conditions that can lead to the loss of the Arhatship of 'temporary liberation'. However, the nature of 'temporary love-mind liberation' has never been mentioned in the sacred teachings as having scholars called 'temporary liberation', nor has it been said that they would lose 'temporary liberation' when encountering the conditions for regression. Therefore, scholars of 'temporary liberation' do not exist. Or, why not consider that they also have 'permanent liberation'? Moreover, their attachment is extremely superficial, because in the sacred teachings, liberation is the most precious. Those who are still learning have already universally witnessed the true goodness. In the sacred teachings, how can uncommon and superior merits be compared to worldly, superficial, and wavering roots of goodness? To completely eliminate suffering, they would actually resort to suicide, this attachment is extremely unreasonable. Some say that merely because of aversion to the manifestation of afflictions, they resort to suicide, holding a knife to kill themselves without severing the root of existence. This interpretation of the sutras lacks profound reasoning. It should be known that the saints are extremely fearful of future existence (afterlife), and afflictions are the proximate cause of future existence. Since the saints have already seen the severe faults of afflictions, then for the methods that can abandon delusion and go against the path of future existence, even if it is only a temporary regression, unable to make it manifest, they should still shatter their bodies to pieces, let alone those who regress frequently? They themselves know that Arhats will surely re-attain the fruit of Arhatship, deeply recognizing the faults of the manifestation of afflictions, gladly accepting the previously lost fruit of Arhatship, therefore committing suicide to attain the fruit.
羅漢。諸有學者曾未證得應果妙樂。尚許厭怖煩惱現行。執刀自殺況阿羅漢過彼千倍。然唯退失阿羅漢果。有怖煩惱而自害義。自知死後惑不生故。本有學者自知命終。煩惱必行更招後有。增生死苦何容自殺。若如彼釋則喬底迦。應甚庸愚無端自殺。然魔于彼所殺身邊。求彼識者疑彼退已。住學位中而命終故。以魔方便。頌譏佛言。
云何人中尊 弟子越聖教 住余有學位 不得心命終
非佛世尊諸聖弟子。皆至無學方致命終。如何天魔獨以彼聖學位捨命譏刺世尊。以喬底迦先證無學。後退住學而致命終。故彼天魔舉以譏佛理必應爾。由彼魔言。世尊弟子越聖教故。何謂聖教謂絕後有。此頌意言。云何佛子違越所得。絕後有界應般涅槃。而還退墮續後有位而致命終。故知喬底迦非唯退靜慮。又彼所引對法藏言。欲貪隨眠由三處起。一欲貪隨眠未斷遍知故。二順彼纏法正現在前故。三于彼正起非理作意故。此于退義亦不相違。約煩惱無間生煩惱說故。非唯從煩惱無間煩惱生。如是言義如先已說。或起煩惱總有二種。一從非理作意。二從如理作意。此文且說從非理者故無有過。不應惑起皆以非理作意為先。勿有無初失善無容生過。又煩惱起必有俱生非理作意。煩惱起位即可說為隨眠未斷。此文不說諸煩惱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得最高果位的人）。那些正在學習但尚未證得應果（Arhat果位）妙樂的修行者，尚且允許厭惡和煩惱的現行，以至於會執刀自殺。更何況阿羅漢比他們超出千倍，然而（阿羅漢）僅僅是退失阿羅漢果位，因為畏懼煩惱而有自殺的可能。因為（這些阿羅漢）自己知道死後惑不會再生起。原本的修行者自己知道命終之後，煩惱必定會生起，更會招致後有（來世），增加生死之苦，怎麼能允許自殺呢？如果像他們解釋的那樣，喬底迦（Godhika，一位比丘的名字）就應該非常庸愚，無緣無故地自殺。然而天魔在他被殺的身邊，探求他的識，懷疑他已經退轉，住在有學位的階段而命終。因此天魔用方便之法，用偈頌譏諷佛陀說：
『云何人中尊，弟子越聖教，住余有學位，不得心命終。』
並非佛陀世尊的所有聖弟子，都是到達無學位（不再需要學習的果位）才命終。為什麼天魔唯獨用喬底迦聖者在有學位捨命這件事來譏刺世尊呢？因為喬底迦先證得無學位，後來退轉到有學位而命終，所以那個天魔用這件事來譏諷佛陀，道理必定是這樣的。因為那個天魔說，世尊的弟子違越了聖教的緣故。什麼是聖教呢？就是斷絕後有。這個偈頌的意思是說，為什麼佛陀的弟子違背了所證得的斷絕後有的境界，本應般涅槃（涅槃，達到解脫的境界），卻還退墮到繼續有後有的地位而命終。所以知道喬底迦並非僅僅是退失了靜慮（禪定）。而且他們所引用的對法藏（Abhidhamma Pitaka，佛教經藏之一）的說法，欲貪隨眠（Kama-raga-anusaya，對感官快樂的潛在渴望）由三個方面生起：一，欲貪隨眠未斷遍知；二，順應這些煩惱的法正在面前顯現；三，對這些顯現的事物產生不正理的作意。這與退轉的含義並不相違背，因為這是就煩惱無間斷地生起煩惱而言的。並非僅僅是從煩惱無間斷地生起煩惱。這樣的含義如先前已經說過的。或者生起煩惱總共有兩種：一是從非理作意（ayoniso manasikara，不正確的思考方式）；二是從如理作意（yoniso manasikara，正確的思考方式）。這段經文只是說了從非理作意生起煩惱的情況，所以沒有過失。不應該認為煩惱的生起都是以非理作意為先導。不要出現沒有最初的善，就無法生起過失的情況。而且煩惱生起時必定有俱生的非理作意。煩惱生起的位置就可以說是隨眠未斷。這段經文沒有說所有的煩惱。
【English Translation】 English version: Arhat (Arhat, one who has attained the highest fruit). Those who are learning but have not yet attained the wonderful bliss of Arhatship are still allowed to have aversion and afflictions manifest, to the point of taking their own lives with a knife. How much more so is an Arhat, who is a thousand times greater than them, yet only loses the Arhatship, because of fear of afflictions, and has the possibility of suicide. Because (these Arhats) know that after death, delusion will not arise again. The original practitioners know that after death, afflictions will surely arise, and they will invite future existence (rebirth), increasing the suffering of birth and death. How can suicide be allowed? If it is explained as they do, Godhika (Godhika, the name of a bhikkhu) should be very foolish, committing suicide for no reason. However, the Mara (Mara, the evil one) searched for his consciousness near his slain body, suspecting that he had regressed and died while residing in the stage of learning. Therefore, the Mara used expedient means to ridicule the Buddha with a verse:
'Why is the Honored One among men, whose disciple transgresses the holy teachings, dwells in the stage of learning, and does not die with a pure mind?'
Not all of the Buddha's holy disciples die only after reaching the stage of no-more-learning (the stage where no further learning is needed). Why does the Mara only use the fact that the holy Godhika gave up his life in the stage of learning to ridicule the World Honored One? Because Godhika first attained the stage of no-more-learning, and later regressed to the stage of learning and died, so the Mara used this to ridicule the Buddha, and the reasoning must be like this. Because the Mara said that the Buddha's disciple transgressed the holy teachings. What are the holy teachings? They are the cessation of future existence. The meaning of this verse is, why did the Buddha's disciple violate the attained realm of cessation of future existence, and should have attained Parinirvana (Nirvana, the state of liberation), but instead regressed to the position of continuing future existence and died. Therefore, it is known that Godhika did not merely lose his dhyana (meditative absorption). Moreover, the statement from the Abhidhamma Pitaka (Abhidhamma Pitaka, one of the Buddhist scriptures) that they cited, that Kama-raga-anusaya (Kama-raga-anusaya, the underlying tendency of sensual desire) arises from three sources: one, the underlying tendency of sensual desire has not been completely understood; two, the dharmas that accord with these afflictions are presently manifesting; three, one generates irrational attention to these manifesting things. This is not contradictory to the meaning of regression, because it refers to the uninterrupted arising of afflictions from afflictions. It is not merely that afflictions arise uninterruptedly from afflictions. The meaning of such words is as previously stated. Or, there are two types of arising of afflictions in general: one is from irrational attention (ayoniso manasikara, incorrect way of thinking); the other is from rational attention (yoniso manasikara, correct way of thinking). This passage only speaks of the situation where afflictions arise from irrational attention, so there is no fault. It should not be thought that the arising of afflictions is always preceded by irrational attention. Do not let there be a situation where there is no initial good, and there is no way to generate faults. Moreover, when afflictions arise, there must be co-arising irrational attention. The position where afflictions arise can be said to be where the underlying tendency has not been severed. This passage does not speak of all afflictions.
起。必以貪等未斷為先。是故此文非證彼義。又此所引對無記心現行。退宗不成違難。對染心品現行退宗。此約具因故亦無失。謂煩惱起若因緣具則有此三。然於三中隨有所闕亦有起義。如說成就十種法者生捺落迦。非於十中。隨成就一不得生彼。又如經說。三處現前能生多福。非唯有信無多福生。其例非一此中總集。煩惱生緣。言有此三非一切爾。此文意顯煩惱生時。或因力偏增。或境或加行。說由三處而起欲貪。若執要具三則言應不遍。謂緣自界可說具三。非緣余法有具三理。故對法文不違退義。通彼教已彼立理言。若阿羅漢有令煩惱畢竟不起。治道已生是則不應退起煩惱。若阿羅漢此道未生。未能永拔煩惱種故應非漏盡。若非漏盡寧可說彼名阿羅漢。此非過失是所許故。謂我宗許先退法性。智力劣故雖已斷惑。而於諸惑未證不生。若爾何緣說名為斷。此先已釋。謂與煩惱相違法生。斷諸系得得離系得說名為斷。故言斷者由治道生。拔相續中如種惑得。非要令惑畢竟不生。智力劣者復可生故。然無應果非漏盡失。已得諸漏離系得故。既許諸惑斷猶有體。忘失治道退緣現前。煩惱復生違何正理。故彼經主所立理言。于無退中無能證用。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 156
2 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第六十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十三
如是已破經主所宗。有餘師言。如見斷惑所有解脫必無退理。是無漏道所得果故。有頂地系修所斷惑。所有解脫亦無退理。彼說非理。道力異故前已說故。余無漏道所得解脫見有退故。謂見修道力用各異。見道位中以一品道斷多品惑。修道位中多品道斷多品惑故。若謂此異由煩惱力。謂見斷惑依無事轉。修道所斷依有事故。此亦不然。以世俗道斷此煩惱亦多品故。或復但應以見斷惑。依無事故斷無退理。非無漏道所得果故。若謂異生斷無事惑亦有退故。證知諸聖見斷解脫無有退者。是無漏道所得果故。則不應言以無事故。雖多品惑一品道斷。故知由道力異義成。由此見修不應為例。又前已說。前說者何。謂見斷生由審察力。修所斷惑由境力起。非諸聖者于所緣中。無片依希橫興計度。故見所斷解脫無退。諸異生類猶未見真。故於所緣容橫計度。雖有已斷下八地中。見所斷惑亦容有退。聖已見真于見所斷必無有退。然失念故於外境中。取妙等相便有染著。憎背高舉不了行轉。由此道理修斷解脫聖亦有退。故彼所言諸異生者。斷無事惑亦有退故。證知諸聖見斷解脫無有退
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第六十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十三
如是已破經主所宗。有其餘師說，如見道所斷煩惱的解脫必定沒有退失的道理，因為這是無漏道（anāsrava-mārga）所獲得的果。有頂地（abhavāgra-bhūmi）所繫的修道所斷煩惱，其解脫也沒有退失的道理。他們的說法不合理，因為道力不同，之前已經說過。其餘無漏道所獲得的解脫，可見有退失的情況。這是因為見道和修道的力用各有不同。在見道位中，用一品道斷除多品煩惱；在修道位中，用多品道斷除多品煩惱。如果說這種差異是由於煩惱的力量，即見道所斷的煩惱是依無事而轉，而修道所斷的煩惱是依有事而轉，這也是不對的，因為世俗道（laukika-mārga）斷除這種煩惱也是多品的緣故。或者應該說，僅僅因為見道所斷的煩惱是依無事而斷，所以沒有退失的道理，而不是因為這是無漏道所獲得的果。如果說異生（prthag-jana）斷除無事惑也有退失的情況，以此證明諸聖者（ārya）見道所斷的解脫沒有退失，是因為這是無漏道所獲得的果，那麼就不應該說是因為無事。雖然多品煩惱由一品道斷除，所以可知是由道力不同而成就的。由此可見，見道和修道不應該作為例子。而且之前已經說過。之前說過什麼呢？即見道所斷的煩惱是由審察力而生，修道所斷的煩惱是由對境的力量而生。不是說諸聖者在所緣境中，沒有絲毫的依靠和希求而橫生計度。所以見道所斷的解脫沒有退失。諸異生類還沒有見到真諦，所以在所緣境中容易橫生計度。即使已經斷除了下八地（aṣṭa-bhūmi）中的見道所斷煩惱，也可能有退失。聖者已經見到真諦，對於見道所斷的煩惱必定沒有退失。然而因為失唸的緣故，對外境中的美好等相產生染著，憎恨背離，高舉自傲，不能明瞭行蘊的運轉。由此道理，修道所斷的解脫，聖者也有退失。所以他們所說的諸異生斷除無事惑也有退失，以此證明諸聖者見道所斷的解脫沒有退失，是不成立的。
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Volume 69
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated under Imperial Order by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter 6.13: Discrimination of the Worthy and the Saints
Having thus refuted the tenets of the Sūtra Master, other teachers say that the liberation from afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga) is necessarily without regression, because it is the fruit obtained by the unconditioned path (anāsrava-mārga). The liberation from afflictions severed by the Path of Cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga) pertaining to the Peak of Existence (abhavāgra-bhūmi) is also without regression. Their statement is unreasonable because the power of the paths differs, as has been said before. The liberation obtained by other unconditioned paths is seen to have regression. This is because the functions of the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation are different. In the stage of the Path of Seeing, one type of path severs multiple types of afflictions; in the stage of the Path of Cultivation, multiple types of paths sever multiple types of afflictions. If it is said that this difference is due to the power of the afflictions, namely that afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing arise without a cause, while those severed by the Path of Cultivation arise with a cause, this is also incorrect, because the mundane path (laukika-mārga) also severs these afflictions with multiple types of paths. Or it should be said that merely because afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing are severed without a cause, there is no reason for regression, not because it is the fruit obtained by the unconditioned path. If it is said that ordinary beings (prthag-jana) also have regression from severing afflictions without a cause, thus proving that the liberation from afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing by the noble ones (ārya) does not have regression because it is the fruit obtained by the unconditioned path, then it should not be said that it is because of the absence of a cause. Although multiple types of afflictions are severed by one type of path, it is known that it is accomplished by the difference in the power of the paths. Therefore, the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation should not be taken as examples. Moreover, it has been said before. What was said before? Namely, afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing arise from the power of discernment, while afflictions severed by the Path of Cultivation arise from the power of the object. It is not that the noble ones, in their objects of perception, have no reliance or desire and arbitrarily generate conceptions. Therefore, the liberation from afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing does not have regression. Ordinary beings have not yet seen the truth, so they are prone to arbitrarily generate conceptions in their objects of perception. Even if they have already severed the afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing in the lower eight realms (aṣṭa-bhūmi), there may still be regression. The noble ones have already seen the truth, so they will definitely not have regression from afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing. However, due to forgetfulness, they become attached to the beautiful aspects of external objects, harbor hatred and aversion, become arrogant, and fail to understand the functioning of the aggregates of action (saṃskāra-skandha). For this reason, the liberation from afflictions severed by the Path of Cultivation also has regression for the noble ones. Therefore, their statement that ordinary beings also have regression from severing afflictions without a cause, thus proving that the liberation from afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing by the noble ones does not have regression, is not established.
者。是無漏道所得果故。理定不然。又余無漏果亦見有退故。謂彼所宗必無。聖者煩惱斷果世道所得。以彼論言聖者惑斷。是世道果理不成故。鄔陀夷經說。有聖者先得有頂定。後生色界中離退上斷無生下義。彼宗不許聖以世道伏惑。不許聖起靜等行故。聖無觀有為靜等故。非彼宗離見非常等。所有聖道能實斷惑。異生斷惑至聖位中。必無退理雙道鎮故。由此但依無漏道斷。經說先得滅受想定。后還退故生色界中是故極成。余無漏道所得斷果亦有退義。故彼所言如見斷惑解脫無退。有頂修斷解脫亦爾。是無漏道所得果故。理定不然。上座此中亦作是說。定無阿羅漢退阿羅漢果。所以者何。由理教故。云何為理。謂應果必無非理作意故。阿羅漢後心應生煩惱故。謂若應果安和位中。住等運相許退起惑。如何死時息不調順。諸根擾亂煩惱不生。若煩惱生應續後有。云何為教。謂契經說。尊者戍拏即于佛前白言大德。若有苾芻。諸漏已盡成阿羅漢。廣說乃至。能不忘失心解脫性。設有殊妙眼所識色來現在前。彼于所證心解脫中無勞防護。鬥戰喻經作如是說。諸聖弟子住無怖心。彼于爾時魔不能擾。藍薄迦經亦作是說。若漏已盡成阿羅漢。行住坐臥無不安隱。所以者何。魔不壞故。毒箭喻經亦作是說。佛告善宿。樂涅槃者所有
非想非非想結。爾時皆得永斷遍知。如斷樹根截多羅頂。無遺余故后更不生。諸辯退經咸作是說。若與弟子共相雜住。我說由斯便從先來所證。四種增上心所。現法樂住隨一有退。若由遠離獨處閑居。勇猛精勤無放逸住所得不動。心解脫身作證。我決定說無因緣從此退。又契經說。若有苾芻諸漏已盡成阿羅漢。我終不說彼阿羅漢應不放逸。所以者何。由彼具壽已不放逸。不復能為放逸事故。敘彼上座所執如是。理且非理。非理作意前已說故。前說者何。謂前已言。不應惑起皆以非理作意為先。論文且說從染生者。若諸染起必染為先。則余性心應無行義。又彼所立因義不成。與所立宗品類同故。謂染作意得非理名。彼所立因顯阿羅漢。無起染故不生煩惱。以無煩惱名阿羅漢。今欲推究阿羅漢心煩惱既無。有退生不。彼立宗曰必不退生。復立因言無起染故。既爾豈不是品類同。此不成因智者所判。又彼所說無非理言。為無已生。為無正起。如是二種俱不極成。或彼意言無惑種故。諸阿羅漢不退起惑前已廣答。種有無理故。一切種彼因有失。由此亦已遣無顛倒故。因顛倒與惑無別性故。後心起惑亦不成因。所以者何。以阿羅漢後心不是等無間緣。如何有能引余心義。趣無餘依般涅槃故。背諸生死流轉事故。一向處中任運轉故
。若於此位起煩惱者。應障諸蘊畢竟斷滅。故阿羅漢死有位中。決定無能退起煩惱。又住此位極順厭心。設於先時有煩惱者。得至此位尚斷無餘。如契經言。彼于現法多辯聖旨。或臨終時況彼先時已無煩惱。今有趣入無餘涅槃。作意現前寧方起惑。故無後心應起惑過。又言應果安和位中。住等運相許退起惑。亦不應理非所許故。謂我唯許安和位中。有順惑心方能起惑。若正堅信等運相心。能障惑生如何起惑。故彼所立遮有退理。不能證成。應果無退教亦非證。且戍拏經。于有退宗都無違損。依遮受欲說此經故。謂彼尊者獨處空閑。欻爾思惟我家巨富眷屬廣大應速歸家。坐受欲樂行施修福。佛知其念遣使命來。為現神通記說教誡。令伏令悟得成應果。成應果已作是思惟。我今應時來見善逝。此意為顯今蒙命來。勝於先時無邪思惟。作是念已復依異門。顯記自身與諸應果。有不受欲應果共相。白言大德。若有苾芻。諸漏已盡成阿羅漢。彼于爾時住於六處心得解脫。謂住出離無害遠離愛盡取盡。及不忘失心解脫性。設有殊妙眼所識色來現在前。彼于所證心解脫中無勞防護。此意顯示一切應果。由對治力之所攝持。無處無容受諸欲境。是故設有妙境現前無勞護心。是此中義或彼尊者。依自說故不應為證。非諸應果皆與戍拏根性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：若於此位起煩惱者，應障諸蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）畢竟斷滅。故阿羅漢（Arhat，已證涅槃的聖者）死有位中，決定無能退起煩惱。又住此位極順厭心。設於先時有煩惱者，得至此位尚斷無餘。如契經言，彼于現法多辯聖旨，或臨終時況彼先時已無煩惱。今有趣入無餘涅槃（nirvana，寂滅），作意現前寧方起惑。故無後心應起惑過。又言應果安和位中，住等運相許退起惑，亦不應理非所許故。謂我唯許安和位中，有順惑心方能起惑。若正堅信等運相心，能障惑生如何起惑。故彼所立遮有退理，不能證成。應果無退教亦非證。且戍拏經，于有退宗都無違損。依遮受欲說此經故。謂彼尊者獨處空閑，欻爾思惟我家巨富眷屬廣大應速歸家，坐受欲樂行施修福。佛知其念遣使命來，為現神通記說教誡，令伏令悟得成應果。成應果已作是思惟，我今應時來見善逝（Tathagata，如來）。此意為顯今蒙命來，勝於先時無邪思惟。作是念已復依異門，顯記自身與諸應果，有不受欲應果共相。白言大德，若有苾芻（bhiksu，比丘），諸漏已盡成阿羅漢，彼于爾時住於六處心得解脫。謂住出離無害遠離愛盡取盡，及不忘失心解脫性。設有殊妙眼所識色來現在前，彼于所證心解脫中無勞防護。此意顯示一切應果，由對治力之所攝持，無處無容受諸欲境。是故設有妙境現前無勞護心。是此中義或彼尊者，依自說故不應為證。非諸應果皆與戍拏根性。 English version: If one were to arise afflictions in this state, it would obstruct the complete cessation of the skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Therefore, in the intermediate state of death for an Arhat (a liberated being who has attained nirvana), there is definitely no possibility of regressing and arising afflictions. Furthermore, residing in this state is extremely conducive to a mind of renunciation. Even if one had afflictions previously, upon reaching this state, they would be completely eradicated. As the sutra says, 'He is skilled in expounding the sacred teachings in this present life, or at the time of death, how much more so if he had no afflictions before. Now, he is interested in entering nirvana without remainder, with mindfulness present, how could he possibly arise confusion?' Therefore, there is no fault of arising confusion in the subsequent mind. Furthermore, the statement that in the peaceful state of the Arhat fruit, allowing regression and the arising of afflictions while abiding in equanimity is also unreasonable because it is not what is accepted. I only allow that in the peaceful state, there is a mind inclined towards afflictions that can give rise to afflictions. If one has a mind of correct and firm faith, abiding in equanimity, which can obstruct the arising of afflictions, how can afflictions arise? Therefore, their established reasoning of denying regression cannot be proven. The teaching that the Arhat fruit does not regress is also not proven. Moreover, the Suna Sutra does not contradict the doctrine of regression at all. This sutra is spoken based on preventing the acceptance of desires. It is said that the venerable one, dwelling alone in a secluded place, suddenly thought, 'My family is wealthy and my relatives are numerous, I should quickly return home, sit and enjoy the pleasures of desire, practice giving, and cultivate merit.' The Buddha, knowing his thoughts, sent a messenger to manifest supernatural powers, give instructions and admonishments, causing him to subdue his mind, awaken, and attain the Arhat fruit. Having attained the Arhat fruit, he thought, 'I should now come to see the Tathagata (the Buddha) in due time.' This intention shows that receiving the command now is superior to having impure thoughts before. Having thought this, he again relied on a different approach to clearly record himself and all Arhats, having the common characteristic of Arhats who do not accept desires. He said, 'Venerable One, if there is a bhiksu (monk) who has exhausted all outflows and become an Arhat, at that time, he dwells in six places and attains liberation of mind. That is, dwelling in renunciation, harmlessness, detachment, the exhaustion of love, the exhaustion of grasping, and the nature of non-forgetfulness of the liberation of mind. Even if a particularly beautiful form cognized by the eye comes before him, he does not need to exert effort to protect himself in the liberation of mind he has attained.' This intention shows that all Arhats are upheld by the power of antidotes, and there is no place or room to accept the objects of desire. Therefore, even if a beautiful object appears before them, there is no need to protect the mind. This is the meaning of this. Or that venerable one, based on his own statement, should not be taken as proof. Not all Arhats have the same nature as Suna.
【English Translation】 If one were to arise afflictions in this state, it would obstruct the complete cessation of the skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Therefore, in the intermediate state of death for an Arhat (a liberated being who has attained nirvana), there is definitely no possibility of regressing and arising afflictions. Furthermore, residing in this state is extremely conducive to a mind of renunciation. Even if one had afflictions previously, upon reaching this state, they would be completely eradicated. As the sutra says, 'He is skilled in expounding the sacred teachings in this present life, or at the time of death, how much more so if he had no afflictions before. Now, he is interested in entering nirvana without remainder, with mindfulness present, how could he possibly arise confusion?' Therefore, there is no fault of arising confusion in the subsequent mind. Furthermore, the statement that in the peaceful state of the Arhat fruit, allowing regression and the arising of afflictions while abiding in equanimity is also unreasonable because it is not what is accepted. I only allow that in the peaceful state, there is a mind inclined towards afflictions that can give rise to afflictions. If one has a mind of correct and firm faith, abiding in equanimity, which can obstruct the arising of afflictions, how can afflictions arise? Therefore, their established reasoning of denying regression cannot be proven. The teaching that the Arhat fruit does not regress is also not proven. Moreover, the Suna Sutra does not contradict the doctrine of regression at all. This sutra is spoken based on preventing the acceptance of desires. It is said that the venerable one, dwelling alone in a secluded place, suddenly thought, 'My family is wealthy and my relatives are numerous, I should quickly return home, sit and enjoy the pleasures of desire, practice giving, and cultivate merit.' The Buddha, knowing his thoughts, sent a messenger to manifest supernatural powers, give instructions and admonishments, causing him to subdue his mind, awaken, and attain the Arhat fruit. Having attained the Arhat fruit, he thought, 'I should now come to see the Tathagata (the Buddha) in due time.' This intention shows that receiving the command now is superior to having impure thoughts before. Having thought this, he again relied on a different approach to clearly record himself and all Arhats, having the common characteristic of Arhats who do not accept desires. He said, 'Venerable One, if there is a bhiksu (monk) who has exhausted all outflows and become an Arhat, at that time, he dwells in six places and attains liberation of mind. That is, dwelling in renunciation, harmlessness, detachment, the exhaustion of love, the exhaustion of grasping, and the nature of non-forgetfulness of the liberation of mind. Even if a particularly beautiful form cognized by the eye comes before him, he does not need to exert effort to protect himself in the liberation of mind he has attained.' This intention shows that all Arhats are upheld by the power of antidotes, and there is no place or room to accept the objects of desire. Therefore, even if a beautiful object appears before them, there is no need to protect the mind. This is the meaning of this. Or that venerable one, based on his own statement, should not be taken as proof. Not all Arhats have the same nature as Suna.
等故。或此總依諸應果說。以彼自說差別言故。如彼自言。謂住出離無害遠離。乃至廣說。此顯若能住出離等。無勞防護。余則不然。我宗亦言恒時尊重。修加行者便能不退。如是義意毒箭喻經。世尊于中分明顯示。我后至彼當廣分別。鬥戰喻經亦不成證。此依遮止怖後有說。如余處說此亦爾故。謂此經言魔不能擾。非此經意說煩惱魔。但說欲天大自在主。以此經後作如是言。爾時彼魔忽然不現。此中意顯若般涅槃魔。則無能求其心識謂佛弟子正捨命時。多有魔來求其生識。勿彼神識越我境界。如於余處亦遮應果怖畏後有。如契經言。
已拔愛根 無愁何怖
又余經說。
如樹根未拔 苗斫斫還生 未拔愛隨眠 苦滅滅還起
又契經說。
若已見聖諦 令諸有路絕 生死本既滅 更不招後有
又一切處贊應果言。舍諸重擔盡諸有結。所以名為盡。有結者。謂結招有名為有結。諸阿羅漢于有結中。心善解脫故名為盡。是故非彼所引契經。能遮我宗應果退義。由此已釋藍薄迦經。彼皆自知不受後有。雖亦有怖退現法樂。而於威儀無不安隱。故諸應果法有智生。能自了知不受後有。觀別意說。毒箭喻經故亦不能遮有退義。若阿羅漢於三界結。一切皆得永斷遍知。如斷樹根截多
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此等等。或者這是總括地依據諸應果（Arhat果位，指已證得阿羅漢果位的人）所說的。因為他們自己說了差別之言。如他們自己所說，即安住于出離、無害、遠離等等，乃至廣說。這顯示如果能夠安住于出離等等，就不需要勞煩地防護。否則就不是這樣。我宗也說，恒時尊重、修習加行的人便能不退轉。像這樣的意義，在毒箭喻經中，世尊于其中分明地顯示。我之後到那裡當廣為分別。鬥戰喻經也不能成為證據。這是依據遮止怖畏後有（來世）而說的。如其他地方所說，這裡也是這樣。即此經說魔不能擾亂，並非此經的意思說煩惱魔，只是說欲天大自在主（Mahesvara）。因為此經後面作這樣的說法：『爾時彼魔忽然不現。』這裡的意思顯示，如果般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）的魔，則沒有能求得其心識的，即佛弟子正捨命時，多有魔來求其生識，不要讓他們的神識越過我的境界。如在其他地方也遮止應果怖畏後有。如契經所說： 『已拔愛根，無愁何怖。』 又其他經說： 『如樹根未拔，苗斫斫還生，未拔愛隨眠，苦滅滅還起。』 又契經說： 『若已見聖諦，令諸有路絕，生死本既滅，更不招後有。』 又一切處讚歎應果說：捨棄諸重擔，盡除諸有結。所以名為盡。有結者，是指結招有名為有結。諸阿羅漢于有結中，心善解脫，所以名為盡。因此，他們所引用的契經，不能遮止我宗應果退轉的意義。由此已經解釋了藍薄迦經。他們都自己知道不受後有。雖然也有怖畏退失現法樂，但對於威儀沒有不安隱。所以諸應果法有智生，能自己了知不受後有。觀察別意說，毒箭喻經也不能遮止有退轉的意義。如果阿羅漢對於三界結，一切都得到永斷遍知，如斷樹根截斷多數。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, and so on. Or this is generally spoken according to the fruits of the Arhats (Arhats, referring to those who have attained the Arhat fruit). Because they themselves spoke of differences. As they themselves said, namely abiding in renunciation, harmlessness, remoteness, and so on, even to extensive explanations. This shows that if one can abide in renunciation, etc., there is no need for laborious protection. Otherwise, it is not so. Our school also says that those who constantly respect and cultivate the practice can avoid regression. Such a meaning is clearly shown by the World Honored One in the Arrow-Poison Simile Sutra. I will later go there to explain it extensively. The War Simile Sutra cannot be used as evidence either. This is based on preventing the fear of future existence (rebirth). As it is said elsewhere, it is also like this here. That is, this sutra says that demons cannot disturb, but this sutra does not mean to say the demons of afflictions, but only says the Lord Mahesvara (Mahesvara) of the desire realm. Because this sutra later makes such a statement: 'At that time, that demon suddenly disappeared.' The meaning here shows that if it is the demon of Parinirvana (Parinirvana, complete Nirvana), then there is no one who can seek their consciousness, that is, when the Buddha's disciples are about to give up their lives, many demons come to seek their consciousness, lest their consciousness cross my boundary. As in other places, the fear of future existence is also prevented for those who have attained the fruit. As the sutra says: 'The root of love has been pulled out, what sorrow or fear is there?' And another sutra says: 'If the root of the tree is not pulled out, the sprouts will grow again when cut. If the dormant seeds of love are not pulled out, suffering will arise again when it ceases.' And the sutra says: 'If one has seen the noble truth, the paths of existence are cut off, the root of birth and death is extinguished, and no future existence is invited.' Moreover, everywhere it is praised that those who have attained the fruit say: Abandon all heavy burdens and exhaust all bonds of existence. Therefore, it is called exhaustion. The bonds of existence refer to the bonds that invite existence. The Arhats are well liberated in their hearts from the bonds of existence, so it is called exhaustion. Therefore, the sutras cited by them cannot prevent the meaning of regression for those who have attained the fruit in our school. This has already explained the Lambaka Sutra. They all know for themselves that they will not receive future existence. Although there is also fear of losing the happiness of the present life, there is no uneasiness regarding their demeanor. Therefore, the Arhats have wisdom born, and they can know for themselves that they will not receive future existence. Observing the separate meaning, the Arrow-Poison Simile Sutra also cannot prevent the meaning of regression. If the Arhats have completely and universally known the bonds of the three realms, just like cutting off the root of a tree and severing many.
羅頂。無遺余故后更不生。如何此中偏說非想。故知此說定觀別意。今當辯此起說所因。謂此經中。
佛告善宿。樂世財者若住現前為說如斯相。應言論彼心便住所說義中。亦能于中造隨法行。廣說乃至。引喻況己。具壽善宿。白世尊言。此補特伽羅于村邑等處。為欲貪結繫縛其心。廣說乃至。為說不動相應言論。不樂聽受如是廣說。樂不動者。于無所有處相應言論。不樂聽受。樂無所有處者。于非想非非想處。相應言論不樂聽受。樂非想處者。于般涅槃相應言論不樂聽受。樂涅槃者。亦于非想非非想處。相應言論不樂聽受經中如是次第廣說。非我於此作如是言。諸阿羅漢樂聞非想非非想處相應言論。心住其中造隨法行。由此于彼隨趣樂著。如何引此證阿羅漢。不于非想非非想處。為欲貪結繫縛其心。是故世尊為遮應果。貪彼生故說二喻言。我等所宗亦許此理。何容引此遮應果退。此必應遮阿羅漢果。造招非想後有行結。由此中說彼善男子。若得正解心善解脫。于所匪宜色等六處。眼見等已不隨繫住。廣說乃至。于彼境中不由尋思。隨觀而住不為貪結。隨壞其心集感後生惡不善法。乃至不集後生老死。于自如是能如實知。今詳此中所說意者。顯諸應果能如實知。於後有資糧我終不積集。然可說佛於此經中。依毒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 羅頂（最高處）。因為沒有遺余，所以之後不再產生。為什麼這裡偏偏說『非想』（非想非非想處）呢？因此可知這種說法一定有其特殊的觀察角度。現在應當辨析這種說法產生的原因。就是這部經中：
佛告訴善宿：『如果有人喜歡世俗的財富，如果他安住于眼前，就為他說與此相應的言論。他會心安住所說的義理之中，也能在其中造作隨順於法的行為。』（此處）廣泛地說明，甚至用比喻來比況自己。
具壽善宿（一位比丘的名字）稟告世尊說：『這種補特伽羅（人）在村莊等地方，因為欲貪的束縛他的心，（此處）廣泛地說明，為他說與不動相應的言論，他不樂意聽受這樣的廣泛說明。喜歡不動的人，對於與無所有處相應的言論，不樂意聽受。喜歡無所有處的人，對於與非想非非想處相應的言論，不樂意聽受。喜歡非想處的人，對於與般涅槃相應的言論不樂意聽受。喜歡涅槃的人，也對於與非想非非想處相應的言論不樂意聽受。』經中像這樣次第廣泛地說明。我沒有這樣說，說諸位阿羅漢喜歡聽聞與非想非非想處相應的言論，心安住其中，造作隨順於法的行為，因此對於那個境界隨順趣向，樂於執著。怎麼能引用這個來證明阿羅漢不會因為欲貪的束縛他的心於非想非非想處呢？所以世尊爲了遮止應果（阿羅漢果）貪戀那個境界而產生，所以說了兩個比喻。我們所宗也認可這個道理。怎麼能引用這個來遮止應果的退失呢？這必定應當遮止阿羅漢果，造作招感非想後有的行為和結縛。因此經中說，那位善男子，如果得到正確的理解，心得到善妙的解脫，對於不適宜的色等六處，眼睛看到等等之後，不會隨之被束縛安住，（此處）廣泛地說明，對於那個境界不由尋思，隨順觀察而安住，不因為貪結，隨之破壞他的心，積集感受後生的惡不善法，乃至不積集後生的老死，對於自己能夠如實地知道。
現在詳細地考察這裡所說的意思，是顯示諸位應果（阿羅漢）能夠如實地知道，對於後有的資糧我終究不會積集。然而可以說佛在這部經中，依據毒（的譬喻）
【English Translation】 English version The summit. Because there is no remainder, it will not be born again afterward. Why is 'Neither Perception nor Non-Perception' (Neither Perception nor Non-Perception) specifically mentioned here? Therefore, it can be known that this statement must have its own special perspective. Now, the reason for this statement should be analyzed. That is, in this sutra:
The Buddha told Subhuti: 'If someone likes worldly wealth, if he dwells in the present, then speak to him about the corresponding speech. He will be at peace in the meaning of what is said, and he can also create actions that follow the Dharma in it.' (Here) it is widely explained, even using metaphors to compare oneself.
The Venerable Subhuti (the name of a Bhikkhu) reported to the World Honored One: 'This person, in villages and other places, because of the bondage of desire and greed, his mind is bound, (here) widely explained, speaking to him about the speech corresponding to immobility, he is not willing to listen to such a wide explanation. Those who like immobility are not willing to listen to the speech corresponding to the realm of nothingness. Those who like the realm of nothingness are not willing to listen to the speech corresponding to the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. Those who like the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception are not willing to listen to the speech corresponding to Nirvana. Those who like Nirvana are also not willing to listen to the speech corresponding to the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception.' The sutra explains widely in this order. I did not say that the Arahants like to hear the speech corresponding to the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, their minds dwell in it, creating actions that follow the Dharma, so they follow and tend to that realm, and are happy to be attached. How can this be cited to prove that the Arahants will not have their minds bound by desire and greed in the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception? Therefore, the World Honored One said two metaphors in order to prevent the fruit of response (the fruit of Arhat) from being greedy for that realm and arising. Our sect also recognizes this principle. How can this be cited to prevent the loss of the fruit of response? This must prevent the fruit of Arhat, creating actions and bonds that attract the future existence of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. Therefore, the sutra says that if that good man obtains the correct understanding, and his mind obtains wonderful liberation, he will not be bound and dwell in the inappropriate six places such as form, after the eyes see, etc., (here) widely explained, for that realm, without thinking, he dwells in accordance with observation, and does not destroy his mind because of greed, accumulating and feeling the evil and unwholesome Dharma of future life, and even does not accumulate the old age and death of future life, and he can truly know himself.
Now, after a detailed examination of the meaning of what is said here, it is to show that the Arahants can truly know that I will never accumulate the resources for future existence. However, it can be said that the Buddha in this sutra, based on the poison (metaphor)
箭喻顯有退理。謂佛於此說如是言。如有良醫善拔毒箭。先觀毒箭入之淺深。次設方宜拔之令出。后傅妙藥令毒無餘。方告彼言咄哉善士。我已為汝拔除毒箭。令汝身內毒勢無餘。汝宜從今謹慎所忌。食所宜食時凈其瘡。若食匪宜瘡必潰漏。乃至善宿于意云何。彼蒙良醫拔箭除毒。若慎所忌唯食所宜。時凈其瘡豈不定得。無病安樂氣力增盛。由如是喻顯佛良醫。拔所化生後有毒箭。令引彼結亦盡無餘。若於匪宜色等六處。眼見等已隨系而住。廣說乃至。于彼境中由起尋思隨觀而住。煩惱潰漏因此而生。若不許然心解脫者。有何過起與潰漏同。又此經中佛自合喻言。若一類能正了知。依是病癰毒箭苦本。便住依盡無上無依。心解脫中斯有是處。住已於彼依順取法。身取心執無有是處。此經於後辯此義言。依即是身苦所依故。順取即是能益取法。以是諸惑所依執故。此中有言依即順取。如實義者依順取異。謂如次第身匪宜境。言身取者。謂眼等根取匪宜境。言心執者。謂眼等識執匪宜境。樂涅槃者多住涅槃心解脫故。于依順取身取心執無有是處。今詳此中略意趣者。謂諸應果若多安住。出離等六心解脫中。於六匪宜不隨繫住。如慎所忌煩惱不生。若不多住出離等六。於六匪宜便隨繫住。後生毒箭雖已永拔。然于眼等煩惱漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 箭喻顯示了有退失的道理。佛陀在此經中這樣說：『如有位好醫生，擅長拔除毒箭，先觀察毒箭射入的深淺，然後採取適當的方法將箭拔出，再敷上靈藥，使毒性完全消除。然後告訴那人說：「喂，好人，我已經為你拔除了毒箭，使你體內不再有毒性殘留。你從今以後應當謹慎，避免不該吃的食物，吃該吃的食物，時常保持傷口清潔。如果吃了不該吃的食物，傷口必定潰爛。」』乃至善宿，你認為如何？那人蒙受良醫拔箭除毒，如果謹慎，避免不該吃的食物，只吃該吃的食物，時常保持傷口清潔，難道不能得到無病安樂，氣力增盛嗎？ 這個比喻顯示佛陀是良醫，拔除所化眾生後有的毒箭，使引導他們的結縛也完全消除。如果對於不適宜的色等六處（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根所對的色、聲、香、味、觸、法六境），眼睛看見等等之後，就隨之執著而住，廣泛地說，對於那些境界中，由於生起尋思而隨之觀察而住，煩惱就會潰爛，因此而生。 如果不允許這樣，認為心解脫者不會有煩惱潰爛的情況，那麼會有什麼過失產生，與潰爛的情況相同？又這部經中，佛陀自己用比喻來說：『如果有一類人能夠正確地了知，依靠的是病癰毒箭這些痛苦的根本，便安住于依靠滅盡、無上無依的心解脫中，這是有可能的。』安住之後，對於那些依靠和順取之法，身取和心執，是不可能存在的。 這部經在後面辯論這個意義說，『依靠』就是身體，是痛苦所依靠的緣故。『順取』就是能夠增益的取法，因為是各種迷惑所依靠和執著的緣故。這裡面有說『依靠』就是『順取』，如實義是『依靠』和『順取』是不同的。比如按照次第，身體是不適宜的境界。說『身取』，是指眼等根（眼根等六根）取不適宜的境界。說『心執』，是指眼等識（眼識等六識）執不適宜的境界。樂於涅槃的人，多數安住于涅槃的心解脫中，所以對於依靠和順取，身取和心執，是不可能存在的。 現在詳細考察這裡面的大概意思，是指那些應果（指阿羅漢果）如果多數安住于出離等六種心解脫中，對於六種不適宜的境界不隨之執著而住，就像謹慎避免不該吃的食物一樣，煩惱就不會產生。如果不多安住于出離等六種心解脫中，對於六種不適宜的境界便會隨之執著而住，即使後生的毒箭已經被永遠拔除，然而對於眼等（眼根等六根）仍然會產生煩惱的潰漏。
【English Translation】 English version The arrow analogy reveals the principle of regression. The Buddha spoke thus: 'Suppose there is a skilled physician, adept at extracting poisoned arrows. First, he observes the depth of the arrow's penetration. Then, he employs appropriate methods to extract it completely. Afterward, he applies miraculous medicine to ensure no poison remains. Then, he tells the person, "Well, good sir, I have removed the poisoned arrow for you, ensuring no residual poison remains within you. From now on, you should be cautious, avoiding what should be avoided, eating what should be eaten, and keeping the wound clean. If you eat what should not be eaten, the wound will surely fester."' Even to Subhuti, what do you think? If that person, having been relieved of the arrow and poison by the skilled physician, is cautious, avoids what should be avoided, eats only what should be eaten, and keeps the wound clean, will he not surely attain freedom from illness, happiness, increased strength? This analogy reveals the Buddha as the skilled physician, extracting the poisoned arrows of future existence from those to be transformed, completely eliminating the bonds that lead them. If, regarding the unsuitable six sense objects (referring to the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and their corresponding objects of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma), after the eyes see, etc., one clings to them and dwells on them, broadly speaking, in those realms, due to arising thoughts, one dwells on them with contemplation, afflictions will fester and arise from this. If this is not allowed, and it is thought that those liberated in mind will not have the situation of affliction festering, then what fault will arise, the same as the situation of festering? Moreover, in this sutra, the Buddha himself uses an analogy, saying: 'If there is a class of people who can correctly understand that what they rely on is the root of suffering, such as sickness, boils, and poisoned arrows, then they dwell in the mind liberation of relying on extinction, unsurpassed and without reliance, this is possible.' After dwelling, regarding those things that are relied upon and the laws that are followed, bodily grasping and mental clinging are impossible. This sutra later argues this meaning, saying, 'Reliance' is the body, because it is what suffering relies on. 'Following' is the law that can increase benefit, because it is what various delusions rely on and cling to. Here it is said that 'reliance' is 'following', but the true meaning is that 'reliance' and 'following' are different. For example, in order, the body is an unsuitable realm. 'Bodily grasping' refers to the sense organs (eye organ, etc., the six sense organs) grasping unsuitable realms. 'Mental clinging' refers to the consciousnesses (eye consciousness, etc., the six consciousnesses) clinging to unsuitable realms. Those who delight in Nirvana mostly dwell in the mind liberation of Nirvana, so regarding reliance and following, bodily grasping and mental clinging are impossible. Now, examining in detail the general meaning here, it refers to those who have attained the fruit (referring to the Arhat fruit), if they mostly dwell in the six mind liberations of renunciation, etc., they do not cling to the six unsuitable realms, just as being cautious to avoid what should not be eaten, afflictions will not arise. If they do not mostly dwell in the six mind liberations of renunciation, etc., they will cling to the six unsuitable realms, even if the poisoned arrows of future existence have been permanently extracted, yet afflictions will still fester from the eyes, etc. (eye organ, etc., the six sense organs).
生。如犯匪宜瘡中潰漏。如是上座引此契經。但害自宗豈違他義。又彼所說諸辯退經。皆唯說退增上心所。不言解脫此亦不然。余契經中說時解脫阿羅漢。退由五因緣。不言彼退失增上心所。故喬底迦經亦說退失。時解脫性阿羅漢果。遮彼僻執如前應知。炭喻經中亦說有退阿羅漢果。如后辯成。鄔陀夷經亦說有退無漏道果。毒箭喻經亦說有退如前已辯。彼所引經唯據勝品阿羅漢說。故不成證。有釋此經。佛依自說言。與弟子相雜住故。不放逸經前對經主。已具抉擇故亦非證。是故上座立無退失阿羅漢果。理教並無。分別論師作如是說。一切聖道皆無有退。故所斷惑畢竟不生。云何知然。由教理故。教謂經說告迦葉波。若有如是眾多善法。我說彼善法無住況有退。諸阿羅漢既有如是。眾多善法故無有退。又契經言如是應果。永離垢永究竟。無明為因生諸染著。明為因故離諸染著。諸阿羅漢皆無過罪。唯盡故不造新離染無貪。已焚有種不復生長諸有萌芽。如燒油盡燈便永滅是謂為教。復立理言。非種被燒有生芽理。如是一切多同前破。少有異者今別遮遣。且彼初教為證不成。學位便應許有退故。非有學位有多善法與無學同。有學位中有成不善如異生故。必觀別意經作是說。余經說應果有退不退故。若謂說退別約世俗。亦應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生。譬如罪犯的瘡口潰爛流膿一樣。像這樣，上座引用這些契經，只是損害自己的宗派，哪裡是違背其他宗派的意義呢？而且他們所說的那些關於退失的經典，都只是說退失了增上心所（adhisīla, higher morality），並沒有說解脫。這種說法也是不對的。其他的契經中說，有時解脫的阿羅漢（arhat, one who is worthy）會因為五種因緣而退轉，但並沒有說他們退失了增上心所。所以，《喬底迦經》（Jotika Sutta）也說了退失時解脫的阿羅漢果位，這可以用來駁斥他們的偏執，就像前面應該知道的那樣。《炭喻經》（Angulimala Sutta）中也說了有退轉阿羅漢果位的情況，這在後面會辯論清楚。《鄔陀夷經》（Udayi Sutta）也說了有退轉無漏道果的情況。《毒箭喻經》（Alagaddupama Sutta）也說了有退轉的情況，這在前面已經辯論過了。他們所引用的經典只是根據殊勝的阿羅漢來說的，所以不能作為證據。有人解釋這部經說，佛陀是根據自己和弟子們混雜居住的情況來說的。《不放逸經》（Appamada Sutta）之前已經對經主進行了詳細的辨析，所以也不能作為證據。因此，上座部（Theravada）所立的阿羅漢果位不會退失的觀點，在道理和教義上都沒有依據。 分別論者（Vibhajjavādins）這樣說：一切聖道都沒有退轉，所以所斷的煩惱畢竟不會再生起。怎麼知道是這樣的呢？因為有教義和道理的緣故。教義是指經中說，告訴迦葉波（Kassapa）說：『如果有這麼多善法，我說這些善法不會停留，更何況是退轉呢？』諸位阿羅漢既然有這麼多善法，所以不會有退轉。而且契經中說：『如是應果（arahatta-phala, the fruit of arahantship），永遠遠離垢染，永遠究竟。』因為無明（avijjā, ignorance）的緣故，產生各種染著；因為明（vijjā, knowledge）的緣故，遠離各種染著。諸位阿羅漢都沒有過錯罪業，只是因為窮盡了煩惱，所以不再造作新的業，遠離了染污，沒有貪慾，已經焚燒了有（bhava, existence）的種子，不再生長各種有的萌芽，就像燒盡了油的燈就會永遠熄滅一樣，這就是所謂的教義。 又立論說：沒有種子被燒燬還能生出芽的道理。像這樣，很多內容都和前面破斥的一樣，只有少部分不同，現在分別遮止駁斥。且說他們最初的教義不能作為證據，因為有學位（sekha, one under training）也應該允許有退轉的緣故。因為有學位沒有像無學位（asekha, one beyond training）那樣多的善法，有學位中也有成就的不善法，就像異生（puthujjana, ordinary person）一樣。必須觀察其他意義，經中是這樣說的。其他的經中說應果有退轉和不退轉的緣故。如果說退轉是根據世俗諦（saṁvṛti-satya, conventional truth）來說的，也應該...
【English Translation】 English version It's like a festering, pus-filled wound on a criminal. In this way, these elders cite these sutras, but they only harm their own sect; how could they be contradicting the meaning of other sects? Moreover, those sutras they speak of regarding regression only speak of the regression of 'adhisīla' (增上心所, higher morality), not of liberation. This statement is also incorrect. Other sutras state that an 'arhat' (阿羅漢, one who is worthy) who is liberated in time can regress due to five causes, but they do not say that they regress from 'adhisīla'. Therefore, the 'Jotika Sutta' (喬底迦經) also speaks of the loss of the fruit of an 'arhat' who is liberated in time, which can be used to refute their biased views, as should be known from before. The 'Angulimala Sutta' (炭喻經) also speaks of the possibility of regressing from the fruit of an 'arhat', which will be debated clearly later. The 'Udayi Sutta' (鄔陀夷經) also speaks of the possibility of regressing from the fruit of the unconditioned path. The 'Alagaddupama Sutta' (毒箭喻經) also speaks of regression, which has been debated before. The sutras they cite are only based on superior 'arhats', so they cannot be used as evidence. Some explain this sutra by saying that the Buddha spoke based on the situation of living mixed with his disciples. The 'Appamada Sutta' (不放逸經) has already been thoroughly analyzed with the sutra master, so it cannot be used as evidence either. Therefore, the Theravada (上座部) view that the fruit of an 'arhat' cannot be lost has no basis in reason or doctrine. The 'Vibhajjavādins' (分別論者) say this: All noble paths do not regress, so the defilements that have been cut off will definitely not arise again. How do we know this is the case? Because of doctrine and reason. The doctrine refers to the sutra that says, telling 'Kassapa' (迦葉波): 'If there are so many good qualities, I say that these good qualities do not remain, let alone regress?' Since all 'arhats' have so many good qualities, they will not regress. Moreover, the sutra says: 'Thus is the fruit of 'arahantship' (應果), forever free from defilement, forever ultimate.' Because of 'avijjā' (無明, ignorance), various attachments arise; because of 'vijjā' (明, knowledge), various attachments are abandoned. All 'arhats' have no faults or sins, but because they have exhausted their defilements, they no longer create new karma, are free from defilement, have no greed, have burned the seeds of 'bhava' (有, existence), and no longer grow various sprouts of existence, just as a lamp that has burned all its oil will be extinguished forever, this is what is called doctrine. It is also argued that there is no reason for a seed that has been burned to be able to sprout. In this way, much of the content is the same as the previous refutations, with only a few differences, which are now separately prevented and refuted. Furthermore, their initial doctrine cannot be used as evidence, because those 'under training' (有學位) should also be allowed to regress. Because those 'under training' do not have as many good qualities as those 'beyond training' (無學位), and those 'under training' also achieve unwholesome qualities, just like ordinary people (異生). Other meanings must be observed, as the sutra says. Other sutras say that the fruit of 'arahantship' can regress and not regress. If it is said that regression is based on 'saṁvṛti-satya' (世俗諦, conventional truth), it should also...
據別說無退言。謂余經中說退無別。而許約別說退非余。此無退言雖無差別。理亦應許據別為言。然此經中所說義者。世尊為贊于善法中。尊重恒修所獲勝利。或意為顯正修善時。無住無退非謂恒爾。或非應果善法皆同。慧解脫等有差別故。此中唯據成就眾多勝善法者說。無有退翻此有退理在不疑。永離垢等如先已釋。先釋者何。依續後生煩惱垢等。密說無過準此應釋。盡故等言無明為因。生染著等如前無種。應無退釋彼所立理墮非理失。許後有芽必不生故。唯立喻說理不成故。或應詰問分別論師。汝許以何燒諸煩惱。彼定應答以智火燒。應復難言此不應理。智應依煩惱如火依薪故。然不應說無漏智生。以諸煩惱為所依附。又惑盡位智亦應亡。如薪盡時火隨滅故。又如薪盡必有餘灰。阿羅漢身中應有餘惑故。若謂法喻不可全同。勿畢竟無同法喻故。既爾何故不如是取。惑無燒理但少如燒故不應言法全同喻。若爾如何說斷惑。如燒薪如不更生芽不生後有故。由此于退無能遮理。正理論者作如是言。修道斷惑容有退者。此中教理上論文中。因破他宗多分已說。今為成立自所許宗。當復顯示前未說者。謂從應果亦有退義炭喻經中分明說故。如說多聞諸聖弟子。若行若住有處有時。失念故生惡不善覺。引生貪慾或瞋或癡。如是
多聞諸聖弟子。遲失正念速復還能令所退起盡沒滅離。以何為證知。此多聞諸聖弟子是阿羅漢。何勞徴問。由此經言。彼聖弟子。心於長夜隨順遠離等。如余經說。故謂此經內作如是說。如是多聞諸聖弟子。若行若住或王或親來至其前。請受財位。廣說乃至。由此多聞諸聖弟子。心於長夜隨順遠離。趣向遠離臨入遠離。隨順出離趣向出離。臨入出離隨順涅槃。趣向涅槃臨入涅槃。欣樂寂靜欣樂遠離及出離故。我說彼遍於一切順漏法。已能永吐已得清涼。又此經中先作是說。彼觀諸欲如一分炭。由此觀故於諸欲中。欲欲欲貪慾親欲愛。欲阿賴耶欲尼延底。欲耽著等不染其心。余契經中說阿羅漢。具八力等與此經同。謂余經言告舍利子。諸阿羅漢有八種力。何等為八。謂阿羅漢諸漏已盡。其心長夜隨順遠離。趣向遠離。乃至廣說。又彼經中亦作是說。彼觀諸欲如一分炭。廣說乃至。皆如此經。復作是言。彼已修習已善修習。念住正斷神足根力覺支道支。戍拏經中說阿羅漢。安住出離無害遠離。愛盡取盡及不忘失心解脫性。毒箭喻經亦作是說。
佛告善宿。樂涅槃者。所有非想非非想結。爾時皆得永斷遍知。由此證知此經所說。諸聖弟子是阿羅漢。其義決定不應生疑。經主此中作如是說。實后所說是阿羅漢。然彼乃至
於行住時。未善通達容有此事。謂有學者於行住時。由失念故容起煩惱。后成無學則無起義。前依學位故說無失。詳經主意。謂此經中先說學位后說無學。今應審察決定可依。為世尊言。為經主意。然此經內無少依希可引證成。前依學位後文方據無學位說。謂此經中先說弟子。由觀諸欲如一分炭。已令欲等不染其心。次說有時失念起惑。次復說彼速還得離。於後即說彼行住時。王等來請不受財位。由彼長夜順遠離等。乃至說彼于順漏法。已能永吐已得清涼。此經始終都不見佛。為說異法亦不見說。彼修異行別有所證。以何證知彼聖弟子。先住學位后成無學。今詳此經本為遮止。如經主等此妄計度。是故先說諸聖弟子。由觀諸欲如一分炭。能令欲等不染其心。此即顯成已證應果。次復說彼失念起惑。即已顯成應果有退。由如是理知此經中。初后二文皆說無學。又彼所說然彼乃至。於行住時未善通達容有此事。理亦不然。由此經中說彼弟子。若行若住隨覺通達。有時忘失起煩惱故。若謂不說善通達言。此亦不然。義已說故謂此經說。彼聖弟子若行若住。隨覺通達有時忘失。同諸世間心起貪憂。惡不善法豈不已說。善通達言。若通達言。顯善通達如何善通達。容更起煩惱此責不然。前已說故。謂失念故起諸煩惱。既爾即應未
善通達。不爾無忘失。唯世尊有故。若爾何故契經中言。具壽舍利子成六恒住法。應知此經說意有二。謂顯一切阿羅漢果。非皆具成六恒住法。或顯一切雖皆具成。而非皆能現前安住。若異此者。世尊不應以此為門。顯彼殊勝非苾芻眾。知舍利子聲聞眾中。智慧第一是大法將。能轉法輪而不信知是阿羅漢。須薄伽梵以諸應果。共有功德贊述勸知。又契經中說阿羅漢。不時解脫世間希有。又說若有補特伽羅。成六恒住世甚希有。由此證知非阿羅漢。于匪宜境見聞等時。一切皆能心安住舍。及能恒住正念正知。故諸應果有忘失念。由是彼說此中無有善通達言。故知前文說有學位不應正理。又若必爾有太過失。謂契經說我生已盡。不言善盡應是有學。又契經說已見聖諦。不言善見應是異生。又契經言令有路絕。不言善絕應非應果。此等既不爾知彼說不然。故通達言義必有善有餘。於此復確執言。此炭喻經定說學位。云何知然義為依故。依何等義。謂有學者許有煩惱非無學故。無學已斷諸顛倒故。惑種無故必無退理。又是聖道果所攝故。如見斷惑斷無退理。詳彼具壽以自所執邪義為依。都不欲依善逝所說契經正義。如何汝等久匿己情恒矯說言。我依經說不以對法正理為依。以對法宗有越經故。今乃顯露不顧經文。隨己妄情橫立
義理。學正理者作如是言。以義為依知說學位。豈不雖許以義為依。而稱世尊為我師者。所立義理不應違經。若與經違便非正理。若非正理為證不成。如何輒言義為依故。所言有學許有煩惱。于無學退何所相違。然此經中不說有學。唯說無學前已辯成。故知應果有失念退。經主所說義最可依。非汝隨情妄所執義。若唯有學有煩惱故。煩惱可生非無學者。世尊何故不差別說。令所化生起無謬智。知失念退學位非余。非佛世尊已超眾過。作迷謬說令眾生疑。雖此經中無差別說。準余知此說無學位。故彼所說是自室言。又彼所言無學已斷。諸顛倒等證無退因。如前已遮故無證用。由此無學有起惑退。其理極成不可傾動。上座於此復謬釋言。此炭喻經說不還位。以有學位惑垢未除。容有遇緣失念起惑。非諸無學有起惑理世尊雖說。彼於一切諸順漏法。已能永吐已得清涼。而由但言于諸順漏不言于漏。故說無失此不成釋。所以者何。諸漏亦名順漏法故。謂順漏法攝有漏盡。理不應言不攝諸漏。許此聖弟子於一切有漏。已能永吐已得清涼。而言未成阿羅漢果。曾未聞此悟教理言。或應許漏非順漏法。則與自執教理相違。又彼云何許不還者。于有頂地諸順漏法。已能永吐已得清涼。若此地中諸漏未斷。定於此地諸順漏法未得離系。許
於此法未得離系。而言於此已能永吐已得清涼。如是所言顯慧奇特。漏順漏法俱時斷故。既說于順漏已吐已清涼。則證知彼已盡諸漏。故無容釋此說不還。又彼所言此經雖說其心長夜順遠離等。余經說此名應果力。而要具八方得名為。阿羅漢力是故無過。以何為證知要具八。名應果力一一不然。此中都無教理為證。但率自意莊飾言詞。又彼如何許總具八方得名力。一一不然非彼所宗。諸阿羅漢許八種力俱時現行。故不應言總方成力。又非應果此一一法現在前時。為諸煩惱之所摧伏闕于力義。如何可計一一非力。故彼所說定不應理。又設許總方得名力。而舉一一亦摽應果。如戍拏經說。阿羅漢唯住遠離無害。出離愛盡取盡及不忘失心解脫性。毒箭喻經但作是說。樂涅槃者永斷非想非非想結。豈舉不遍便非應果。我今觀彼諸所發言。但為令他知己能語。如是且舉炭喻契經。證有應果退應果性。又說應果有二種故。如說有二阿羅漢果。一者退法二者不退。若謂唯退現法樂住。理必不然。由此經中說有二種阿羅漢故。若唯說退現法樂者。應唯有一退法應果。一切皆有現行退故。如契經說。我說由斯所證四種增上心所。現法樂住隨一有退所得。不動心解脫身作證。我決定說無因緣從此退。若謂唯約退定自在。諸契經中說為退法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於此法尚未獲得解脫，卻說對於此法已經能夠永遠吐出，已經獲得清涼。這樣說來，顯現出智慧的奇特之處，因為順著煩惱和煩惱本身的事物同時斷除的緣故。既然說了順著煩惱的事物已經吐出，已經清涼，那麼就可以證明他已經斷盡了所有的煩惱。所以沒有理由解釋說這是不還果。而且他們所說，這部經雖然說了他的心長夜順著遠離等等，其他的經典說這名為應果力（Arhan power，阿羅漢的力量）。而必須要具備八種才能被稱為阿羅漢力，所以沒有過失。用什麼來證明必須要具備八種，才能名為應果力，缺少任何一種都不行呢？這裡面都沒有教理作為證明，只是按照自己的意思來裝飾言辭。而且他們如何允許總共具備八種才能名為力，缺少任何一種就不是他們所宗的呢？諸位阿羅漢允許八種力量同時現行，所以不應該說總共才能成為力。而且並非應果的每一種法在現在面前的時候，會被諸多的煩惱所摧伏，缺少了力量的意義。怎麼可以認為每一種都不是力呢？所以他們所說的肯定是不合道理的。而且假設允許總共才能名為力，而舉出每一種也標明了應果。比如戍拏經（Asuna Sutra）說，阿羅漢只是安住在遠離無害，出離愛盡取盡以及不忘失心解脫的自性。毒箭喻經（Alagaddūpama Sutta）只是這樣說，喜歡涅槃的人永遠斷除非想非非想結。難道舉出不全面的就不是應果了嗎？我現在觀察他們所說的話，只是爲了讓別人知道自己能說會道。像這樣且舉出炭喻契經（Angāraka Sutta），證明有應果退應果的性質。又說應果有兩種，比如經中所說，有兩種阿羅漢果，一種是退法，一種是不退。如果說只有退現法樂住，道理肯定是不對的。由此經中說有兩種阿羅漢的緣故。如果只說退現法樂，應該只有一種退法應果，因為一切都有現行退的緣故。如契經所說，我說由於我所證得的四種增上心所，現法樂住，隨便哪一種有退所得，不動心解脫身作證，我決定說沒有因緣從此退。如果說只是關於退定自在，諸契經中說為退法。
【English Translation】 English version Without having attained detachment from this Dharma, they claim to have permanently expelled and attained coolness from it. Such statements reveal a remarkable wisdom, as both the defilement-prone and defilement-related factors are simultaneously severed. Since they assert that the defilement-prone aspects have been expelled and cooled, it proves that they have exhausted all defilements. Therefore, there is no room to interpret this as non-returning. Furthermore, they argue that although this sutra speaks of the mind being inclined towards detachment for a long time, other sutras refer to this as the power of an Arhat (Arhan power, the power of an Arhat). To be called an Arhat power, one must possess all eight qualities, so there is no fault. What evidence is there to show that one must possess all eight to be called an Arhat power, and that lacking any one is insufficient? There is no doctrinal or logical proof for this; it is merely embellishing words according to one's own intention. Moreover, how can they allow that possessing all eight qualities collectively constitutes power, while lacking any one does not align with their doctrine? All Arhats allow the simultaneous manifestation of eight powers, so it should not be said that they collectively form power. Furthermore, it is not the case that when each of these qualities of an Arhat is present, they are overwhelmed by afflictions, lacking the meaning of power. How can it be considered that each one is not a power? Therefore, what they say is certainly unreasonable. Even if it is allowed that collectively they are called power, mentioning each one also indicates the fruit of Arhatship. For example, the Asuna Sutra states that an Arhat dwells only in seclusion, harmlessness, detachment, cessation of craving, cessation of grasping, and non-forgetfulness of the nature of liberation of mind. The Alagaddūpama Sutta (Raft Simile Sutta) simply states that those who delight in Nirvana permanently sever the bond of neither perception nor non-perception. Does mentioning something incompletely mean it is not the fruit of Arhatship? Now, I observe that their statements are merely to let others know that they are eloquent. Thus, let us cite the Angāraka Sutta (Coal Simile Sutta) to prove that there is the nature of an Arhat who can regress. It also says that there are two types of Arhats, as the sutra states that there are two fruits of Arhatship: one who can regress and one who cannot. If it is said that only the pleasant abiding in the present life can regress, it is certainly not correct. This is because this sutra speaks of two types of Arhats. If only the pleasant abiding in the present life regresses, there should only be one type of Arhat who can regress, because everyone has the potential to regress in the present. As the sutra says, 'I say that due to the four types of heightened mental states that I have attained, the pleasant abiding in the present life, whichever one has the potential to regress, with the body as witness to the unshakeable liberation of mind, I definitively say that there is no cause to regress from this.' If it is said that it is only about the regression of mastery in concentration, the sutras refer to this as the Dharma of regression.
非諸應果皆有此退。謂于靜慮現在前中。可退自在名為退法。若餘事務無暇現前。暫不現前不失自在。雖有受用退而名不退法。是故應果有二義成。此救不然。以契經說阿羅漢果有二種故。又前已說于諸靜慮。退自在者于諸欲中。若舍遠離應起煩惱。若不捨者既于離欲無所退失。而言退失離生喜樂豈不相違。故於靜慮退失自在。理必應有煩惱現前。若阿羅漢無起煩惱。則應無有失自在定。便應一切阿羅漢果。唯有一種謂不退法。若時解脫是應果性。則二應果體不相雜。是故我說經說應果。有二種故有退理成。又說知所斷不生方便故。如契經說。我如良醫如實了知所治斷法。定有於後不生方便。由此準知所斷煩惱有更生理。故約善知能令所斷不生方便。自讚善巧我如良醫。若諸世間病癒無發則不應贊。唯此良醫善知病癒不生方便。故知斷惑有可退生。若謂此經約異生說。不爾彼說有覺支故。謂說我有內念覺支如實知有。乃至廣說。故知決定不說異生。又說應果有二智故。如說阿羅漢有盡無生智。若諸斷盡皆永不生。是則唐勞立無生智。若謂為別異生所斷。顯阿羅漢安隱第一。故依大益立無生智。此不應理。唯盡智生汝宗許已成第一安隱故。又阿羅漢皆自了知。我生已盡梵行已立。所作已辦不受後有。如是安隱豈非第一。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非所有應果（Arhat果位）都有這種退失。所謂『退法』，是指在靜慮（禪定）現前時，可以退失自在的狀態。如果因為其他事務而無暇使靜慮現前，只是暫時不現前，並不喪失自在，即使有受用（指退失後感受），也稱為『不退法』。因此，應果有兩種含義成立。這種辯解是不成立的，因為契經（佛經）中說阿羅漢果有兩種。而且前面已經說過，對於那些在靜慮中退失自在的人來說，如果在諸欲（各種慾望）中，捨棄遠離，應該會生起煩惱；如果不捨棄，既然對於離欲沒有退失，卻說退失了離生喜樂，豈不是自相矛盾？所以在靜慮中退失自在，理應有煩惱現前。如果阿羅漢沒有生起煩惱，那麼就應該沒有失去自在的禪定，那麼所有的阿羅漢果，就應該只有一種，即不退法。如果時解脫（通過特定時間修行獲得的解脫）是應果的性質，那麼兩種應果的體性就不會混雜。所以我說，經中說應果有兩種，所以有退失的道理成立。又說知道所斷的煩惱，就不會產生再次生起的方便，如契經所說：『我如良醫，如實了知所治斷法，必定在以後沒有生起的方便。』由此可以推知，所斷的煩惱有再次生起的可能性。所以，通過善於瞭解，能夠使所斷的煩惱沒有生起的方便，這是自讚善巧，說『我如良醫』。如果世間的疾病痊癒后不會復發，就不應該讚歎。只有這位良醫，善於知道疾病痊癒后不會再次生起方便。所以知道斷惑有可以退失而再次生起的可能。如果說這部經是針對異生（凡夫）說的，不是這樣的，因為其中說了有覺支（七覺支）的緣故。其中說『我有內念覺支，如實知有』，乃至廣說。所以知道決定不是說異生。又說應果有兩種智慧的緣故，如說阿羅漢有盡智和無生智。如果所有的斷盡都是永遠不會再生起，那麼設立無生智就徒勞無功了。如果說是爲了區別異生所斷的煩惱，顯示阿羅漢的安穩是第一的，所以依據大利益而設立無生智。這不應該這樣說，僅僅是盡智產生，你們宗派已經承認是第一安穩了。而且阿羅漢都知道自己『我生已盡，梵行已立，所作已辦，不受後有』，這樣的安穩難道不是第一嗎？
【English Translation】 English version Not all Arhat fruits (Arhat attainment) have this regression. 'Regression Dharma' refers to the state of being able to regress from the freedom of Samadhi (meditative absorption) when it is present. If there is no time for Samadhi to be present due to other matters, and it is only temporarily absent, the freedom is not lost. Even if there is enjoyment (referring to the feeling after regression), it is called 'Non-Regression Dharma'. Therefore, the Arhat fruit has two meanings. This defense is not valid because the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say that there are two types of Arhat fruits. Moreover, it has been said before that for those who regress from the freedom of Samadhi, if they abandon and distance themselves from desires, afflictions should arise. If they do not abandon them, since there is no regression from detachment from desires, how can it be said that the joy of detachment is lost, which is contradictory? Therefore, regressing from the freedom of Samadhi should necessarily have afflictions arising. If an Arhat does not have afflictions arising, then there should be no loss of freedom in Samadhi, and all Arhat fruits should only be of one type, namely Non-Regression Dharma. If liberation through time (liberation obtained through practice at a specific time) is the nature of the Arhat fruit, then the nature of the two types of Arhat fruits will not be mixed. Therefore, I say that the Sutras say that there are two types of Arhat fruits, so the principle of regression is established. Furthermore, it is said that knowing the afflictions to be eliminated will not produce the means for them to arise again, as the Sutras say: 'I am like a good doctor, truly knowing the methods of treatment and elimination, and there will definitely be no means for them to arise again in the future.' From this, it can be inferred that the afflictions to be eliminated have the possibility of arising again. Therefore, through skillful understanding, it is possible to prevent the afflictions to be eliminated from arising again. This is self-praise of skillfulness, saying 'I am like a good doctor.' If worldly diseases do not recur after recovery, they should not be praised. Only this good doctor is skilled in knowing that there will be no means for the disease to arise again after recovery. Therefore, it is known that the elimination of delusions can regress and arise again. If it is said that this Sutra is addressed to ordinary beings (non-saints), it is not so, because it mentions the limbs of enlightenment (seven limbs of enlightenment). It says, 'I have the limb of inner mindfulness, truly knowing that it exists,' and so on. Therefore, it is known that it is definitely not speaking of ordinary beings. Furthermore, it is said that the Arhat fruit has two types of wisdom, as it is said that an Arhat has the wisdom of exhaustion and the wisdom of non-arising. If all that is exhausted will never arise again, then establishing the wisdom of non-arising is in vain. If it is said that it is to distinguish the afflictions eliminated by ordinary beings and to show that the peace of an Arhat is the first, so the wisdom of non-arising is established based on great benefit. This should not be said, as merely the arising of the wisdom of exhaustion is already acknowledged by your school as the first peace. Moreover, Arhats all know for themselves, 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life is established, what needs to be done is done, there is no more future existence.' Is such peace not the first?
以諸異生雖得有頂三摩缽底。而有退墮乃至當生惡趣中故。唯盡智起已能自知。我都無後生更無少所作。顯阿羅漢得第一安隱其義已成。何藉無生智。雖此第一安隱已成。而諸應果更起無生智世尊具說盡無生智言。由此定知有阿羅漢。煩惱已斷恐后更生。方便勤求永不生智。故立無生智有大益理成。由此證知應果有退。
說一切有部順正理論卷第六十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十四
復以何緣諸阿羅漢等。離有頂染同不受後生。然于其中有于煩惱證不生法。而非一切。有說由根有差別故。此釋非理。以契經說退不退法根品同故。如說五根增上猛利。極圓滿故名俱解脫。然有俱解脫是退種性故。非根勝故證惑不生。若爾由何種性別故。六種種性唯應果有餘亦有耶。修習練根唯無學位。餘位亦有。頌曰。
學異生亦六 練根非見道
論曰。有學異生種性亦六。六種應果彼為先故。由所安住種性差別。故有斷惑後生不生。定於何時于所斷惑證不生法。謂得能止此類煩惱殊勝道時。若爾此不生應是擇滅非非擇滅。若是非擇滅則非擇滅應是道果。如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使其他凡夫俗子能夠獲得有頂三摩缽底（最高禪定），仍然會有退轉，甚至可能墮入惡趣。只有當盡智生起時，才能自己知道：『我已經沒有後生了，再也沒有什麼需要做的了。』這表明阿羅漢獲得了第一安穩，其意義已經成立，為什麼還需要無生智呢？雖然這第一安穩已經成立，但那些應果位的聖者仍然會生起無生智。世尊詳細地講述了盡智和無生智，由此可以確定，有些阿羅漢雖然已經斷除了煩惱，但仍然擔心煩惱再次生起，所以方便地勤奮尋求永不生起的智慧。因此，建立無生智具有很大的益處，這個道理是成立的。由此可以證明，應果位的聖者是有可能退轉的。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第六十九 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十四
又是什麼原因使得諸阿羅漢等，雖然都脫離了有頂天的染污，同樣不再受後有，但其中有些人在斷除煩惱時證得了不生法（不再產生煩惱的法），而不是所有人都能證得？有人說這是由於根器有差別。這種解釋是不合理的，因為契經中說，退法和不退法的根器品類是相同的。例如，經中說五根（信、精進、念、定、慧）增上猛利，極其圓滿，所以稱為俱解脫（同時解脫煩惱和解脫色身）。然而，有些俱解脫是屬於退轉種性的。所以，不是因為根器殊勝就能證得煩惱不生。如果不是根器殊勝的原因，那麼又是什麼種性的差別呢？六種種性（退法、思法、護法、安住法、堪達法、不動法）只有應果位才有，還是其他果位也有呢？修習練根（磨練根器）只有無學位才有，還是其他果位也有呢？頌曰：
學異生亦六 練根非見道
論曰：有學位和異生位的種性也有六種，因為六種應果位是以他們為先導的。由於所安住的種性差別，所以有斷除煩惱后不再生起和還會生起的區別。那麼，在什麼時候，對於所斷除的煩惱證得不生法呢？就是在獲得能夠止息此類煩惱的殊勝道的時候。如果是這樣，那麼這種不生法應該是擇滅（通過智慧選擇而滅除），而不是非擇滅（不通過智慧自然滅除）。如果是非擇滅，那麼非擇滅就應該是道果了，就像這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Even though other ordinary beings may attain the Samapatti (highest meditative attainment) of the Peak of Existence, they are still subject to falling away and may even be reborn in evil destinies. Only when the Exhaustion-Knowledge (盡智) arises can one know for oneself: 'I have no further rebirth; there is nothing more to be done.' This shows that the Arhat (阿羅漢) has attained the first security, and its meaning is already established. Why then is the Non-arising-Knowledge (無生智) needed? Although this first security is already established, those at the stage of 'Fruit of No-More-Learning' (應果) still generate the Non-arising-Knowledge. The World-Honored One (世尊) spoke in detail about the Exhaustion-Knowledge and the Non-arising-Knowledge. From this, it can be determined that some Arhats, although they have already severed their afflictions, still fear that afflictions may arise again. Therefore, they diligently seek the wisdom of non-arising as a means of prevention. Thus, establishing the Non-arising-Knowledge has great benefit, and this reasoning is valid. From this, it can be proven that it is possible for those at the stage of 'Fruit of No-More-Learning' to regress.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 69 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (阿毗達磨順正理論)
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 70
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra (眾賢)
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘) under Imperial Decree
Chapter 6.14: Discriminating the Worthy and the Saints
Furthermore, what is the reason that all Arhats, etc., although they are free from the defilements of the Peak of Existence and likewise do not receive further existence, yet among them, some attain the Dharma of Non-arising (不生法) when severing afflictions, but not all do? Some say that it is due to differences in faculties. This explanation is unreasonable, because the Sutras say that the faculties of those who regress and those who do not regress are of the same category. For example, the Sutras say that the five faculties (faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) are increasingly vigorous and extremely complete, so they are called 'Liberated in Both Ways' (俱解脫) [liberated from both afflictions and the physical body]. However, some of those 'Liberated in Both Ways' are of the regressing nature. Therefore, it is not because of superior faculties that one attains the non-arising of afflictions. If it is not due to superior faculties, then what is the difference in nature? Do the six kinds of natures (退法, 思法, 護法, 安住法, 堪達法, 不動法 - regressing, thinking, protecting, abiding, capable, unmoving) only exist in the 'Fruit of No-More-Learning', or do they also exist in other stages? Does the practice of refining faculties only exist in the stage of No-More-Learning, or does it also exist in other stages? The verse says:
Learners and ordinary beings also have six; Refining faculties is not in the Path of Seeing.
Commentary: The natures of those in the stage of learning (有學) and ordinary beings (異生) are also six, because the six kinds of 'Fruit of No-More-Learning' are preceded by them. Due to the difference in the nature in which they abide, there is a distinction between those who do not arise again after severing afflictions and those who still arise. Then, at what time does one attain the Dharma of Non-arising for the afflictions that have been severed? It is when one obtains the superior path that can stop such afflictions. If so, then this non-arising should be Cessation by Discrimination (擇滅), not Cessation without Discrimination (非擇滅). If it is Cessation without Discrimination, then Cessation without Discrimination should be the fruit of the path, just like this.
便與聖教相違。如說云何非果法。謂非擇滅及虛空無。此不產生擇滅失。以勝道轉非為此故。既非所為故非道果。謂勝道轉為證擇滅非非擇滅故。道轉時所證不生不名道果。如然燈者本為破闇非為盡油。而燈生時非唯破闇亦令油盡。然此油盡非本所為。是故不說名然燈果。此亦應然故無有失。故勝種性勝道生時。亦證不生然非道果。今詳由道所證不生。定不由根應皆得故。但由殊勝種性力得故。不動者惑必不生。前說無學退法有三。一增進根。二退住學。三住自位而般涅槃。思等四隨應有四五六七。非唯無學有增進根。有學異生亦有此義。唯非見道能修練根。此位無容起加行故。謂見道位速疾運轉無暇于中更修餘事。唯于信解異生位中。能修練根如無學位。如說不動退現法樂。如何不動法亦許有退義。無相違過。所以者何。頌曰。
應知退有三 已未得受用 佛唯有最後 利中后鈍三
論曰。應知諸退總有三種。一已得退。謂退已得殊勝功德。二未得退。謂未能得應得功德。三受用退。謂諸已得殊勝功德不現在前。三中前二非得為體。第三唯彼不現在前。此三退中世尊唯有一受用退。以有決定所作事業牽引其心。雖有所餘無量希有不共佛法無暇起故。除佛世尊余不動法具有未得及受用退。謂于殊勝無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 便與聖教相違。如果說什麼是『非果法』（不是道果的法），那就是『非擇滅』（非由智慧選擇而滅除煩惱的滅）以及『虛空無』（虛空沒有實體）。這兩種法不會因為修道而產生或消失。因為殊勝的道的作用不是爲了它們。既然不是道所要達成的目標，就不是道的果實。也就是說，殊勝的道的作用是爲了證得『擇滅』（通過智慧選擇而滅除煩惱的滅），而不是『非擇滅』。道起作用時所證得的不生之法，不能稱為道果。比如點燈的人，本意是爲了驅散黑暗，而不是爲了耗盡燈油。燈亮起來的時候，不僅驅散了黑暗，也使燈油耗盡。然而，燈油耗盡並不是點燈的本意。所以不能說燈油耗盡是點燈的果實。這裡的情況也應該如此，所以沒有過失。因此，殊勝的種性（根器）在殊勝的道產生時，也證得了不生之法，但這不生之法不是道果。
現在詳細分析，由道所證得的不生之法，一定不是由根（修行能力）所導致的，否則所有人都應該能夠證得。而是由殊勝的種性力量所獲得的。因此，證得『不動法』（不再退轉的境界）的人，疑惑必定不會產生。前面說過，無學（已經完成學習，不再需要學習的人）退法有三種情況：一是增進根（修行能力），二是退住于有學（還在學習的人的境界），三是安住于自己的位置而般涅槃（進入涅槃）。思等四（指四種禪定）隨應有四、五、六、七種情況。不是隻有無學才有增進根的情況，有學（還在學習的人）和異生（凡夫）也有這種情況。只有見道位（證悟真理的最初階段）不能修練根（提升修行能力），因為這個階段沒有時間進行額外的修行。也就是說，見道位快速運轉，沒有空閑在其中再修習其他事情。只有在信解異生位（對佛法有信心和理解的凡夫階段）中，才能像無學一樣修練根。如果說證得『不動』（不再退轉的境界）的人會退失『現法樂』（當下的快樂），那麼『不動法』也允許有退失的含義，這並沒有矛盾。為什麼呢？頌（偈頌）說：
應當知道退有三種，已得、未得、受用。 佛陀只有最後一種，利根、中根、鈍根三種。
論（論述）說：應當知道，所有的退失總共有三種。一是已得退（退失已獲得的功德），指退失已經獲得的殊勝功德。二是未得退（未能獲得的退失），指未能獲得應該獲得的功德。三是受用退（受用上的退失），指已經獲得的殊勝功德不能在當下顯現。這三種退失中，前兩種不是以『得』為本體。第三種只是那些功德不能在當下顯現。這三種退失中，世尊（佛陀）只有一種受用退。因為有必須完成的事業牽引著他的心，雖然還有其他無量稀有不共的佛法，但沒有時間去顯現它們。除了佛陀，其他證得『不動法』的人，具有未得退和受用退。也就是說，對於殊勝的無……
【English Translation】 English version: It would then contradict the holy teachings. For example, what is a 'non-result dharma' (a dharma that is not a result of the path)? It is 'non-selective cessation' (cessation of afflictions not achieved through wisdom) and 'the absence of space' (empty space has no substance). These two dharmas are not generated or lost through cultivation of the path. Because the function of the superior path is not for them. Since it is not the goal to be achieved by the path, it is not a fruit of the path. That is to say, the function of the superior path is to attain 'selective cessation' (cessation of afflictions through wisdom), not 'non-selective cessation'. The unarisen dharma attained when the path functions cannot be called a fruit of the path. For example, a person lighting a lamp intends to dispel darkness, not to exhaust the oil. When the lamp is lit, it not only dispels darkness but also exhausts the oil. However, the exhaustion of the oil is not the original intention of lighting the lamp. Therefore, it cannot be said that the exhaustion of the oil is a fruit of lighting the lamp. The situation here should be the same, so there is no fault. Therefore, when a superior nature (capacity) arises with a superior path, it also attains the unarisen dharma, but this unarisen dharma is not a fruit of the path.
Now, analyzing in detail, the unarisen dharma attained by the path is certainly not caused by the roots (capacity for cultivation), otherwise everyone should be able to attain it. Rather, it is obtained by the power of a superior nature. Therefore, for those who have attained 'immovability' (a state of no regression), doubts will certainly not arise. It was mentioned earlier that there are three situations for those who have completed learning (no longer needing to learn) to regress: one is to increase their roots (capacity for cultivation), the second is to regress to the state of a learner (someone still learning), and the third is to abide in their own position and enter Parinirvana (enter Nirvana). The four 'Samadhis' (meditative states) have four, five, six, or seven situations accordingly. It is not only those who have completed learning who can increase their roots; learners (those still learning) and ordinary beings also have this situation. Only the stage of the path of seeing (the initial stage of realizing the truth) cannot cultivate the roots (improve the capacity for cultivation), because there is no time for additional cultivation at this stage. That is to say, the stage of the path of seeing operates quickly, and there is no time to cultivate other things in it. Only in the stage of faith and understanding of ordinary beings (the stage of ordinary beings with faith and understanding of the Dharma) can one cultivate the roots like those who have completed learning. If it is said that those who have attained 'immovability' (a state of no regression) will lose 'present-life happiness' (happiness in the present moment), then 'immovable dharma' is also allowed to have the meaning of loss, which is not contradictory. Why? The verse says:
It should be known that there are three types of regression: already attained, not yet attained, and enjoyment. The Buddha only has the last type, with three types of faculties: sharp, medium, and dull.
The treatise says: It should be known that there are three types of regression in total. The first is regression of what has already been attained (loss of already attained merits), referring to the loss of superior merits that have already been attained. The second is regression of what has not yet been attained (loss of what has not been attained), referring to the failure to obtain the merits that should have been obtained. The third is regression of enjoyment (regression in enjoyment), referring to the inability of the superior merits that have already been attained to manifest in the present moment. Among these three types of regression, the first two are not based on 'attainment'. The third is only that those merits cannot manifest in the present moment. Among these three types of regression, the World Honored One (Buddha) only has one type of regression of enjoyment. Because there are tasks that must be completed that pull at his mind, although there are other immeasurable rare and uncommon Buddha dharmas, there is no time to manifest them. Apart from the Buddha, others who have attained 'immovable dharma' have regression of what has not yet been attained and regression of enjoyment. That is to say, for superior non-...
諍定等。應得功德未能得故有未得退。有餘事業牽引其心。已得功德無暇起故有受用退。餘五種性容具有三。亦容退失已得德故。約受用退說不動法。退現法樂無相違過。經主於此作如是言。約無退宗不應為難。如何不動退現法樂。非約靜慮退不退故。經說動法及不動法。一切應果無漏解脫。皆名不動心解脫故。然于靜慮起自在中。可有退者名為退法。不可退者名不退法。如是思等如理應思。若爾不退安住不動有何差別。皆于靜慮起自在中無退失故。非練根得名為不退。練根所得名為不動。此二所起殊勝等至。設遇退緣亦無退理。安住法者但于已住。諸勝德中能無退失。不能更引余勝德生。設復引生從彼可退。是不退等三種差別。如是建立阿羅漢果。退不退等差別不成。且約退失現法樂住。起自在性建立退法。如前種種推徴已破。不退等三有相雜失。且依彼執不退安住。二聖者相應無差別。許二俱非練根得故。已得勝德俱無退故。未得勝德俱能起故。雖言安住新起勝德。可有退理異於不退。而安住名不依彼立。安住名顯離進退故。又彼宗許安住利根。寧言有退新起勝德。若許有退應名退法。彼宗退法亦非全退。全退便應起煩惱故。所言不動由練根得。異不退法理亦不成。以彼所宗于現法樂。怖失自在故修練根。練所得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諍定等（爭論、決定等）。應得功德未能得到，因此有未得而退失的情況。因為還有其他事情牽引著心，已經得到的功德沒有時間生起，因此有受用上的退失。其餘五種根性可能具有這三種情況（未得退、受用退、已得退）。也可能退失已經得到的功德，所以從受用退的角度來說，不動法（指阿羅漢果）退失現法樂（指禪定之樂）並沒有相違背的過失。經論作者對此這樣說，從不退失的宗義來說，不應該提出這樣的疑問：如何不動法會退失現法樂呢？因為這不是從靜慮（禪定）的退與不退的角度來說的。經典中說動法和不動法，一切應果（阿羅漢果）的無漏解脫，都叫做不動心解脫。然而在靜慮生起自在的過程中，可能有退失的叫做退法，不可能退失的叫做不退法。像這樣，應該如理地思考。如果這樣，不退、安住、不動有什麼差別呢？因為都在靜慮生起自在的過程中沒有退失。不是通過修習利根得到的叫做不退，通過修習利根得到的叫做不動。這兩種所生起的殊勝等至（甚深的禪定），即使遇到退失的因緣也不會退失。安住法是指只是對於已經安住的各種殊勝功德能夠沒有退失，不能夠再引發其他的殊勝功德生起，即使引發了，也可能從那裡退失。這就是不退、安住等三種的差別。這樣建立阿羅漢果，退與不退等的差別是不成立的。暫且從退失現法樂的安住和生起自在的性質來建立退法，像前面種種推究已經破斥了。不退等三種有互相混雜的過失。暫且依照他們的觀點，不退和安住這兩種聖者相應沒有差別，因為都承認不是通過修習利根得到的。已經得到的殊勝功德都沒有退失，未得到的殊勝功德都能夠生起。雖然說安住新生的殊勝功德可能有退失的道理，不同於不退，但是安住的名稱不是依據這個建立的，安住的名稱顯示了遠離進退。而且他們的宗義承認安住是利根，怎麼能說有退失新生的殊勝功德呢？如果承認有退失，就應該叫做退法。他們的宗義中退法也不是完全退失，完全退失就應該生起煩惱了。所說的不動是通過修習利根得到的，不同於不退法，這個道理也是不成立的。因為他們所宗的是對於現法樂，因為害怕失去自在，所以修習利根，通過修習得到的。 English version Contention, determination, etc. Because the merits that should be obtained are not obtained, there is regression from what has not been obtained. Because other affairs distract the mind, and there is no time to arise the merits that have already been obtained, there is regression in enjoyment. The remaining five faculties may possess these three (regression from what has not been obtained, regression in enjoyment, regression from what has already been obtained). It is also possible to regress from the merits that have already been obtained. Therefore, from the perspective of regression in enjoyment, there is no contradiction in saying that the 'immovable dharma' (referring to the Arhat fruit) regresses from the bliss of the present dharma (referring to the bliss of samadhi). The author of the sutra says this: From the perspective of the doctrine of non-regression, one should not raise such a question: How can the immovable dharma regress from the bliss of the present dharma? Because this is not discussed from the perspective of regression or non-regression of dhyana (meditative absorption). The sutras speak of movable and immovable dharmas. All anasrava (without outflows) liberations of the Arhat fruit are called 'immovable mind liberation'. However, in the process of freely arising dhyana, those who may regress are called 'regressive dharma', and those who cannot regress are called 'non-regressive dharma'. In this way, one should contemplate and think reasonably. If so, what is the difference between non-regression, abiding, and immovability? Because there is no regression in the process of freely arising dhyana. What is not obtained through cultivating sharp faculties is called 'non-regression', and what is obtained through cultivating sharp faculties is called 'immovability'. The sublime samadhi that arises from these two, even if encountering conditions for regression, will not regress. 'Abiding dharma' refers to being able to maintain the various sublime merits that have already been abided in without regression, but not being able to generate other sublime merits. Even if they are generated, it is possible to regress from there. These are the three differences between non-regression, abiding, and immovability. Establishing the Arhat fruit in this way, the differences between regression and non-regression are not established. Let us temporarily establish 'regressive dharma' from the perspective of regressing from the abiding in the bliss of the present dharma and the nature of freely arising. The various investigations mentioned earlier have already refuted this. The three of non-regression, etc., have the fault of being mixed up. Let us temporarily rely on their view that there is no difference between the two saints corresponding to non-regression and abiding, because both admit that they are not obtained through cultivating sharp faculties. The sublime merits that have already been obtained do not regress, and the sublime merits that have not been obtained can arise. Although it is said that there may be a reason for the regression of newly arising sublime merits in abiding, which is different from non-regression, the name 'abiding' is not established based on this. The name 'abiding' shows being away from progress and regression. Moreover, their doctrine admits that abiding is a sharp faculty, so how can it be said that there is regression of newly arising sublime merits? If it is admitted that there is regression, it should be called 'regressive dharma'. In their doctrine, regressive dharma is not completely regressive either; complete regression would lead to the arising of afflictions. What is said about immovability being obtained through cultivating sharp faculties, which is different from non-regressive dharma, is also not established. Because what they uphold is the bliss of the present dharma, and because they fear losing freedom, they cultivate sharp faculties, which are obtained through cultivation.
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation 'Zheng ding deng' (Contention, determination, etc.). Because the merits that should be obtained are not obtained, there is regression from what has not been obtained. Because other affairs distract the mind, and there is no time to arise the merits that have already been obtained, there is regression in enjoyment. The remaining five faculties may possess these three (regression from what has not been obtained, regression in enjoyment, regression from what has already been obtained). It is also possible to regress from the merits that have already been obtained. Therefore, from the perspective of regression in enjoyment, there is no contradiction in saying that the 'immovable dharma' (referring to the Arhat fruit) regresses from the bliss of the present dharma (referring to the bliss of samadhi). The author of the sutra says this: From the perspective of the doctrine of non-regression, one should not raise such a question: How can the immovable dharma regress from the bliss of the present dharma? Because this is not discussed from the perspective of regression or non-regression of dhyana (meditative absorption). The sutras speak of movable and immovable dharmas. All anasrava (without outflows) liberations of the Arhat fruit are called 'immovable mind liberation'. However, in the process of freely arising dhyana, those who may regress are called 'regressive dharma', and those who cannot regress are called 'non-regressive dharma'. In this way, one should contemplate and think reasonably. If so, what is the difference between non-regression, abiding, and immovability? Because there is no regression in the process of freely arising dhyana. What is not obtained through cultivating sharp faculties is called 'non-regression', and what is obtained through cultivating sharp faculties is called 'immovability'. The sublime samadhi that arises from these two, even if encountering conditions for regression, will not regress. 'Abiding dharma' refers to being able to maintain the various sublime merits that have already been abided in without regression, but not being able to generate other sublime merits. Even if they are generated, it is possible to regress from there. These are the three differences between non-regression, abiding, and immovability. Establishing the Arhat fruit in this way, the differences between regression and non-regression are not established. Let us temporarily establish 'regressive dharma' from the perspective of regressing from the abiding in the bliss of the present dharma and the nature of freely arising. The various investigations mentioned earlier have already refuted this. The three of non-regression, etc., have the fault of being mixed up. Let us temporarily rely on their view that there is no difference between the two saints corresponding to non-regression and abiding, because both admit that they are not obtained through cultivating sharp faculties. The sublime merits that have already been obtained do not regress, and the sublime merits that have not been obtained can arise. Although it is said that there may be a reason for the regression of newly arising sublime merits in abiding, which is different from non-regression, the name 'abiding' is not established based on this. The name 'abiding' shows being away from progress and regression. Moreover, their doctrine admits that abiding is a sharp faculty, so how can it be said that there is regression of newly arising sublime merits? If it is admitted that there is regression, it should be called 'regressive dharma'. In their doctrine, regressive dharma is not completely regressive either; complete regression would lead to the arising of afflictions. What is said about immovability being obtained through cultivating sharp faculties, which is different from non-regressive dharma, is also not established. Because what they uphold is the bliss of the present dharma, and because they fear losing freedom, they cultivate sharp faculties, which are obtained through cultivation.
根為退不退。若許有退應名退法。以彼自說若於靜慮。退失自在名退法故。若許不退如由退力。立退法名如是。亦應由不退力名為不退。是則不動與不退同。如何于中固立差別。若謂本性是利根者名不退法。后修練根方成利者名不動法。為顯此別建立二名。是則應同安住堪達。彼許安住本性利根。非練根得同無退故。雖言不退能新引起。殊勝功德與安住異。理亦不然。不約新起殊勝功德立不退故。謂彼所宗言此種性。于新勝德若起不起。性利根故於現法樂。不失自在是不退相。安住亦然故應無別。堪能達故得堪達名。彼宗不言從此種性。更至別類無漏解脫。定應但許練有漏根。則定依先退法種性。修練根行轉名堪達。是則堪達亦練根成。此所成根為退不退。若許有退應名退法。若無退失應名不動。俱練根得並不退故。又不應說練有漏根。得究竟時名不動法。由此不動法是應果性故。非阿羅漢為于少劣。暫現法樂得自在故。起大加行修習練根。展轉修令至不動法。是故經主但述己情不可依憑。趣聖教理唯有對法正理可憑。悟阿羅漢退等差別。謂就應果身中所成無漏功德有勝劣異。建立六種種性差別。諸阿羅漢為得後後。轉勝轉增無漏功德。起大加行修習練根。致大劬勞可有斯理。非為世俗如腐爛尸易壞難成。下劣功德暫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：根是會退轉還是不會退轉呢？如果承認會退轉，就應該稱為『退法』（會退轉的法）。因為他們自己說，如果從靜慮中退失自在，就叫做『退法』。如果承認不會退轉，那麼就像因為退轉的力量而建立『退法』這個名稱一樣，也應該因為不退轉的力量而稱為『不退』。這樣，『不動』（不會動搖的）和『不退』（不會退轉的）就沒有區別了，為什麼要在其中強行建立差別呢？ 如果說，本性是利根的人稱為『不退法』，後來通過修習鍛鍊根器才成為利根的人稱為『不動法』，爲了顯示這種區別才建立這兩個名稱。那麼，『安住』（安住于果位）也應該和『堪達』（堪能通達）相同。他們承認安住于果位的人本性是利根，不是通過鍛鍊根器得到的，所以和不退轉相同。雖然說『不退』能夠新引起殊勝的功德，和『安住』不同，但這個道理也不成立。因為他們不是根據新引起的殊勝功德來建立『不退』的名稱的。他們所宗認為，這種種性，對於新的殊勝功德，無論生起還是不生起，因為本性是利根，所以對於現法樂（現世的快樂）不失去自在，這就是『不退』的相。『安住』也是這樣，所以應該沒有區別。 因為堪能通達，所以得到『堪達』的名稱。他們宗派不認為從這種種性，會更進一步達到別的種類的無漏解脫。必定只是承認鍛鍊有漏的根器。那麼，必定是依靠先前的退法種性，修習鍛鍊根行的，轉變名稱為『堪達』。這樣，『堪達』也是通過鍛鍊根器成就的。這種成就的根器是會退轉還是不會退轉呢？如果承認會退轉，就應該稱為『退法』。如果不會退轉，就應該稱為『不動』。都是通過鍛鍊根器得到的，並且都不會退轉。 又不應該說鍛鍊有漏的根器，在得到究竟的時候稱為『不動法』。因為這個『不動法』是應果（阿羅漢果）的性質，所以不是阿羅漢爲了對於少許低劣、暫時顯現的法樂得到自在，而發起大的加行，修習鍛鍊根器，輾轉修習使之達到不動法。所以，經主的敘述只是他自己的想法，不可以作為依據。領會聖教的道理，只有依靠對法（阿毗達磨）的正理才可以作為依據。領悟阿羅漢的退轉等差別，是就應果身中所成就的無漏功德有勝劣不同，建立六種種性的差別。諸位阿羅漢爲了得到後後更加殊勝、更加增上的無漏功德，發起大的加行，修習鍛鍊根器，付出巨大的努力，才可能有這種道理。而不是爲了世俗的，像腐爛的屍體一樣容易壞滅難以成就的，低劣的功德。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Does the root regress or not? If it is admitted that it regresses, it should be called 'regressive dharma' (dharma that regresses). Because they themselves say that if one loses freedom from dhyana, it is called 'regressive dharma'. If it is admitted that it does not regress, then just as the name 'regressive dharma' is established by the power of regression, so too should it be called 'non-regressive' by the power of non-regression. In this case, 'immovable' and 'non-regressive' are no different. Why should a distinction be forcibly established between them? If it is said that those whose nature is sharp-rooted are called 'non-regressive dharma', and those who later become sharp-rooted through cultivation and training are called 'immovable dharma', and these two names are established to show this difference. Then 'abiding' (abiding in the fruition) should also be the same as 'capable of attaining' (capable of understanding). They admit that those who abide in the fruition are sharp-rooted by nature, not obtained through training the roots, so they are the same as non-regressive. Although it is said that 'non-regression' can newly arouse superior merits and is different from 'abiding', this reasoning is also not valid. Because they do not establish the name 'non-regression' based on newly aroused superior merits. Their school believes that this kind of nature, whether new superior merits arise or not, because its nature is sharp-rooted, it does not lose freedom from the pleasure of the present dharma (present happiness), and this is the characteristic of 'non-regression'. 'Abiding' is also like this, so there should be no difference. Because of being capable of attaining, the name 'capable of attaining' is obtained. Their school does not believe that from this kind of nature, one will further reach another kind of un-leaked liberation. They must only admit to training leaky roots. Then, one must rely on the previous regressive dharma nature, cultivate and train the root practice, and change the name to 'capable of attaining'. In this case, 'capable of attaining' is also achieved through training the roots. Does this achieved root regress or not? If it is admitted that it regresses, it should be called 'regressive dharma'. If it does not regress, it should be called 'immovable'. Both are obtained through training the roots, and neither regresses. Also, it should not be said that training leaky roots and obtaining ultimate attainment is called 'immovable dharma'. Because this 'immovable dharma' is the nature of the fruition (Arhat fruit), so it is not that Arhats, in order to obtain freedom from a little inferior, temporarily manifested dharma pleasure, initiate great effort, cultivate and train the roots, and gradually cultivate them to reach immovable dharma. Therefore, the sutra master's narration is only his own idea and cannot be used as a basis. To understand the principles of the holy teachings, only relying on the right principles of Abhidharma can be used as a basis. Understanding the differences such as the regression of Arhats is to establish the differences of the six kinds of nature based on the superiority and inferiority of the un-leaked merits achieved in the body of the fruition. All Arhats, in order to obtain later and more superior and more increasing un-leaked merits, initiate great effort, cultivate and train the roots, and make great efforts, and only then can there be such a reason. It is not for the sake of worldly, like a rotten corpse that is easy to decay and difficult to achieve, inferior merits.
時現起設大劬勞。故彼所宗不可依據。諸阿羅漢既許退果為更生不。彼于退位帶惑命終應更受生。諸住果時所不作事退時作不。彼既起惑應有更為果相違事。無如是過。所以者何。頌曰。
一切從果退 必得不命終 住果所不為 暫增故不作
論曰。無從果退中間命終。退已須臾必還得故。若有壽量將臨盡者。必無退理無失念故。要有餘壽方有退理。退已不久必還證得。如契經說。苾芻當知。如是多聞諸聖弟子。退失正念速復還能。令所退起盡沒滅離。若謂不然修梵行果。應非安隱可委信處。又住果位所不應為。違果事業由暫增故。雖暫失念煩惱現行。如住果時必無作理。如高族者暫失位時。不等凡庸造鄙下業。又誰有退誰無退耶。修不凈觀入聖道者容有退失。修持息念入聖道者必無退失。尊重止觀無貪癡增。如次應知有退無退。何界何趣容有退耶。唯欲界人三洲有退。六慾天處得聖果者有說利根故無有退。以有勝智慧制伏心。令背妙境入聖道故。有說退者由闕資緣。或所依身不平等故。六慾天處二事並無。雖有鈍根隨信行性。生彼得聖亦無退理。諸有退者為起惑退。為先退已惑方現前。或有欲令由起惑退。品類足論當云何通。如彼論說。欲貪隨眠由三處起。一欲貪隨眠未斷遍知故。二順彼纏法正現
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 時常出現各種各樣的辛勤勞作，因此他們的主張不可作為依據。各位阿羅漢是否認可會從阿羅漢果位退轉，從而導致再次輪迴？如果他們在退轉的狀態下，帶著煩惱結束生命，那應該會再次受生。他們在證得果位時不會做的事情，在退轉時會做嗎？既然他們生起了煩惱，那應該會有與果位狀態相違背的行為。不會有這樣的過失。為什麼呢？頌詞說： 『一切從果位退轉，必定不會在退轉期間死亡，在果位時不會做的事情，因為只是暫時的增長，所以不會去做。』 論述：不會有從果位退轉並在中間死亡的情況，因為退轉之後很快就能恢復。如果壽命將要終結，就不會有退轉的道理，因為不會失去正念。只有還有剩餘壽命，才會有退轉的可能。退轉之後不久必定會重新證得果位。正如契經所說：『各位比丘應當知道，像這樣博學多聞的聖弟子，即使退失了正念，也能迅速恢復，使所退失的煩惱完全止息、消滅、遠離。』如果說不是這樣，那麼修習梵行的果報，就不應該是安穩可靠的。而且，在證得果位時不會做的事情，違背果位的行為，因為只是暫時的增長，即使暫時失去正念，煩惱現前，也一定不會像沒有證得果位時那樣去做。就像高貴家族的人，即使暫時失去了地位，也不會像普通人一樣去做卑賤的事情。還有，誰會退轉，誰不會退轉呢？修習不凈觀而進入聖道的人，可能會退轉；修習持息念而進入聖道的人，必定不會退轉。尊重止觀，沒有貪婪和愚癡增長的人，依次應當知道有退轉和沒有退轉。在哪個界、哪個趣，可能會有退轉呢？只有欲界的人，在南贍部洲、東勝身洲、西牛賀洲這三個洲有退轉。在六慾天處證得聖果的人，有人說因為他們根器銳利，所以沒有退轉，因為他們有強大的智慧能夠制伏內心，使內心背離美好的境界而進入聖道。也有人說會退轉，是因為缺乏資糧和助緣，或者所依賴的身體不平等。六慾天處這兩種情況都沒有。即使有根器遲鈍、隨信行性的人，生在那裡證得聖果，也不會有退轉的道理。那些會退轉的人，是因為生起煩惱而退轉，還是先退轉之後煩惱才顯現？或者有人認為是由生起煩惱而退轉。《品類足論》應該如何解釋呢？正如該論所說：『欲貪隨眠由三個地方生起：一是欲貪隨眠未斷遍知；二是順應那些煩惱的法正在顯現；』
【English Translation】 English version Constantly arising are various kinds of diligent efforts. Therefore, their doctrines cannot be relied upon. Do the Arhats acknowledge that one can regress from the Arhat fruit, leading to rebirth? If they die with afflictions in a state of regression, they should be reborn again. Do they do things in the state of regression that they would not do while dwelling in the fruit? Since they have arisen afflictions, there should be actions contrary to the state of the fruit. There is no such fault. Why? The verse says: 'All who regress from the fruit, certainly do not die in the interim. What is not done while dwelling in the fruit, is not done because of a temporary increase.' Treatise: There is no case of regressing from the fruit and dying in between, because one quickly recovers after regressing. If one's lifespan is about to end, there is no reason for regression, because there is no loss of mindfulness. Only with remaining lifespan is there a possibility of regression. After regressing, one will surely regain the fruit before long. As the sutra says: 'Monks, you should know that such learned and wise disciples, even if they lose mindfulness, quickly recover it, causing the arisen afflictions to completely cease, extinguish, and depart.' If it is not so, then the result of practicing pure conduct should not be secure and reliable. Moreover, what should not be done while dwelling in the fruit, actions contrary to the fruit, are not done because of a temporary increase. Even if one temporarily loses mindfulness and afflictions manifest, one certainly will not act as one would before attaining the fruit. Just as a person of high lineage, even if temporarily losing their position, would not engage in base activities like ordinary people. Furthermore, who regresses and who does not? Those who enter the holy path through the contemplation of impurity may regress; those who enter the holy path through mindfulness of breathing certainly do not regress. Respect for cessation and contemplation, without increase in greed and delusion, should be known accordingly as having regression and not having regression. In which realm and which destiny is regression possible? Only humans in Jambudvipa (Southern Continent), Purvavideha (Eastern Continent), and Aparagodaniya (Western Continent) regress. Those who attain the holy fruit in the six desire heavens, some say there is no regression because they have sharp faculties, because they have strong wisdom to subdue the mind, causing the mind to turn away from beautiful realms and enter the holy path. Others say there is regression because of a lack of resources and conditions, or because the body relied upon is not equal. The six desire heavens lack both of these conditions. Even those with dull faculties and faith-following nature, attaining the holy fruit there, have no reason to regress. Do those who regress do so because of arising afflictions, or do they regress first and then afflictions manifest? Or do some think that regression is caused by arising afflictions? How should the Prakaranapada (Treatise on Categories) be explained? As that treatise says: 'The latent tendency of desire arises from three places: first, the latent tendency of desire has not been completely known; second, the laws that accord with those afflictions are presently manifesting;'
在前故。三于彼正起非理作意故。乃至廣說無相違失。所以者何。煩惱現前略有二種。已斷未斷有差別故。此中偏說未斷起者。又煩惱起略有二門。染不染心無間起故。此中偏說染無間者。或煩惱起總有三緣。然煩惱生所藉不定。或有唯藉境界力生。或藉境因或兼加行。此約具者故說由三。或起惑時三緣必具。非理作意正起現前。所斷隨眠必還成故。何心無間起惑退耶。且從無學起惑退者。若起色纏無色纏退。唯從自地順退分定。相應善心無間而起。非住欲界有上地攝。無覆無記心現在前。唯除通果心。然無從彼退豈不順退分。各于自地離染時舍。如何無學者未退起惑。彼心現前理實如是。然順住分品類有三。一少順退。二少順進。三守自住。前言自地順退分定。即順住分中。少分順退者。少順退故得順退名。然此定心與守自位。多相涉故順住分攝。諸有未失順退分者。彼心無間煩惱現前。若舍彼心從順住攝。少順退者起煩惱退。故於文義無所相違。若起欲纏而退失者。從自地善無覆無記。二心無間皆容現前。諸從學位起惑退者。起色無色煩惱退時。若先全離此地染者。唯從此地順退分定。相應善心無間而起。若未全離此地染者。從此地攝善及染污。二心無間皆容現前。起欲界纏而退失者。若先全離欲界系染。從自地
善無覆無記。二心無間皆容現前。若未全離欲界染者。從欲善染無覆無記。三心無間皆容現前。若未現前獲得清凈。靜慮無色必無能起。色無色纏退失所得。彼惑從彼無間起故。但起欲纏退失所得。若現前得清凈靜慮。猶未現前得凈無色。必無能起無色纏退。起欲色纏退失所得。若已現前獲得清凈靜慮無色。通起欲色無色界纏退失所得。諸有退失先所得時。若起上纏現在前退。不失下善不成下惑。若起下纏現在前退。定失上善定成上惑。復有欲令要先退已。后時對境惑方現前。施設足論當云何釋。如彼論說無色三纏一一現起。退無色盡住色盡中。識身足論復云何釋。如彼論說。無色界系染心現前。舍無學善續有學善。退無學心住有學心。此俱不相違依覺時說故。謂先雖退而未覺知。後起惑時方自覺退。如有先誦四阿笈摩。中廢多時雖忘不覺。后誦不得方自知忘。此亦應然故無違失。住何心退後起惑耶。住欲界中無覆無記。威儀工巧異熟生心。退已后時方能起惑。然此欲界系無覆無記心。或有總違三界煩惱。此心正起無有退得三界惑義。或有但違欲色煩惱。此心正起容有退得無色惑義。或有但違欲界煩惱。此心正起容有退得二界惑義。或有不違三界煩惱。此心正起容有退得三界惑義。一切退已隨其所應。起惑前心皆如上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 善心、無覆無記心（既非善也非惡的心），這兩種心識可以無間斷地相續出現。如果還沒有完全脫離欲界的染污，那麼欲界的善心、染污心、無覆無記心，這三種心識可以無間斷地相續出現。如果還沒有實際獲得清凈的禪定，那麼一定無法生起色界和無色界的禪定。如果退失了已經獲得的色界和無色界禪定，那麼導致退失的煩惱是從色界或無色界無間斷生起的，因此只會生起欲界的煩惱，從而退失已經獲得的禪定。如果已經實際獲得清凈的禪定，但還沒有實際獲得清凈的無色界禪定，那麼一定無法生起無色界的煩惱導致退失，只會生起欲界和色界的煩惱，從而退失已經獲得的禪定。如果已經實際獲得清凈的禪定和無色界禪定，那麼可以同時生起欲界、色界和無色界的煩惱，從而退失已經獲得的禪定。當退失先前獲得的禪定時，如果生起上界的煩惱並且正在現前，那麼不會失去地獄的善心，也不會形成地獄的煩惱。如果生起地獄的煩惱並且正在現前，那麼一定會失去上界的善心，並且一定會形成上界的煩惱。 還有一種觀點認為，必須先退失禪定，然後在面對境界時，煩惱才會顯現。那麼《施設足論》（Śāsana-pāda-śāstra）應該如何解釋呢？正如該論所說，無色界的三種煩惱（指無色界的貪、嗔、癡）一一現起，導致退失無色界的禪定，停留在色界的禪定中。《識身足論》（Vijñānakāya-śāstra）又應該如何解釋呢？正如該論所說，無色界的煩惱繫縛著染污的心，捨棄無學（Aśaikṣa）的善心，繼續保持有學（Śaikṣa）的善心，退失無學的心，停留在有學的心中。這兩種說法並不矛盾，因為它們是根據覺察的時間來說的。也就是說，雖然先前已經退失了禪定，但還沒有覺察到，後來生起煩惱時才自覺已經退失。例如，有人先前背誦了四部《阿笈摩》（Āgama），中間荒廢了很長時間，雖然忘記了但沒有覺察到，後來想要背誦卻背不出來，才自己知道已經忘記了。這裡的情況也應該如此，所以沒有矛盾之處。 在什麼心識狀態下退失禪定後會生起煩惱呢？在欲界中，處於無覆無記（既非善也非惡）的威儀心、工巧心和異熟生心（Vipāka-ja citta）的狀態下，退失禪定后才能生起煩惱。然而，這種欲界系的無覆無記心，有的完全違背三界的煩惱，這種心識正在生起時，不可能退失三界的煩惱。有的只違背欲界和色界的煩惱，這種心識正在生起時，可能退失無色界的煩惱。有的只違背欲界的煩惱，這種心識正在生起時，可能退失色界和無色界的煩惱。有的不違背三界的煩惱，這種心識正在生起時，可能退失三界的煩惱。一切退失之後，根據其所應，生起煩惱之前的那個心識都如上面所說。
【English Translation】 English version A wholesome mind and a non-defiled, indeterminate mind (neither good nor bad) can both arise in uninterrupted succession. If one has not completely detached from the defilements of the desire realm, then a wholesome mind, a defiled mind, and a non-defiled, indeterminate mind of the desire realm can all arise in uninterrupted succession. If one has not actually attained pure meditative absorption, then one will certainly not be able to generate meditative absorption of the form realm and the formless realm. If one loses the meditative absorption of the form realm and the formless realm that one has already attained, then the afflictions that cause the loss arise without interruption from the form realm or the formless realm. Therefore, only afflictions of the desire realm will arise, leading to the loss of the meditative absorption that has already been attained. If one has actually attained pure meditative absorption, but has not yet actually attained pure meditative absorption of the formless realm, then one will certainly not be able to generate afflictions of the formless realm that lead to loss. Only afflictions of the desire realm and the form realm will arise, leading to the loss of the meditative absorption that has already been attained. If one has already actually attained pure meditative absorption of both the form realm and the formless realm, then afflictions of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm can all arise, leading to the loss of the meditative absorption that has already been attained. When one loses previously attained meditative absorption, if afflictions of the upper realms arise and are currently present, then one will not lose the wholesome mind of the lower realms, nor will one form afflictions of the lower realms. If afflictions of the lower realms arise and are currently present, then one will definitely lose the wholesome mind of the upper realms, and one will definitely form afflictions of the upper realms. There is also a view that one must first lose meditative absorption, and then, when facing an object, afflictions will manifest. How should the Śāsana-pāda-śāstra (《施設足論》) be explained in this case? As that treatise says, the three afflictions of the formless realm (referring to greed, hatred, and delusion in the formless realm) arise one by one, leading to the loss of meditative absorption of the formless realm, and one remains in the meditative absorption of the form realm. How should the Vijñānakāya-śāstra (《識身足論》) be explained? As that treatise says, the defiled mind is bound by the afflictions of the formless realm, one abandons the wholesome mind of the state of no more learning (Aśaikṣa), continues to maintain the wholesome mind of the state of learning (Śaikṣa), loses the mind of the state of no more learning, and remains in the mind of the state of learning. These two statements are not contradictory because they are based on the time of awareness. That is, although one had previously lost meditative absorption, one was not aware of it. Later, when afflictions arose, one became aware that one had lost it. For example, someone previously recited the four Āgamas (《阿笈摩》), but abandoned them for a long time. Although they forgot them, they were not aware of it. Later, when they wanted to recite them but could not, they realized that they had forgotten them. The situation here should be the same, so there is no contradiction. In what state of mind does one lose meditative absorption and then generate afflictions? In the desire realm, in the state of non-defiled, indeterminate (neither good nor bad) minds of deportment, skillful activities, and resultant-born minds (Vipāka-ja citta), one can lose meditative absorption and then generate afflictions. However, this non-defiled, indeterminate mind of the desire realm, some completely contradict the afflictions of the three realms. When this mind is arising, it is impossible to lose the afflictions of the three realms. Some only contradict the afflictions of the desire realm and the form realm. When this mind is arising, it is possible to lose the afflictions of the formless realm. Some only contradict the afflictions of the desire realm. When this mind is arising, it is possible to lose the afflictions of the form realm and the formless realm. Some do not contradict the afflictions of the three realms. When this mind is arising, it is possible to lose the afflictions of the three realms. After all losses, according to what is appropriate, the mind before the arising of afflictions is as described above.
說。於此二說前說為善。如上所言有練根得。今應思擇諸聖練根。有幾無間幾解脫道。用有漏道為無漏耶。依何身依何地。頌曰。
練根無學位 九無間解脫 久習故學一 無漏依人三 無學依九地 有學但依六 舍果勝果道 唯得果道故
論曰。求勝種性修練根者。無學位中轉一一性。各九無間九解脫道如得應果。所以者何。彼鈍根性由久串習。非少功力可能令轉。學無學道所成堅故。有學位中轉一一性。各一無間一解脫道。如得初果非久習故。彼加行道諸位各一。學無學位修練根時。皆漸次修後後種性。得勝種性方舍前劣。故諸無學修練根時。加行無間前八解脫。如應皆是退法等收。第九解脫是思法等。諸有學者修練根時。加行無間是退等攝。解脫道時名思法等。我所承稟諸大論師。咸言練根皆為遮遣。見修斷惑力所引發。無覆無記無知現行。故學位中修練根者。正為遮遣見惑所發。無學位中修練根者。正為遮遣修惑所發。如如斷彼能發惑時。所起無間解脫多少如是。如是斷彼所發無知現行道數亦爾。是故無學修練根時。用九無間九解脫道。學位練根二道各一。然見修惑所發無知。隨所障殊有多品類。故轉退等成思等時。諸道現前各有所遣。由此無有超得勝性。有餘師說。一切練根皆一
{ "translations": [ "說：關於這兩種說法，前一種說法更好。如上所說，存在通過修習而獲得利根的情況。現在應該思考諸聖者修習利根的情況：有多少無間道，多少解脫道？是用有漏道還是無漏道？依據什麼身，依據什麼地？頌文如下：", "", "修習利根在無學位，有九個無間道和九個解脫道；由於長久串習的緣故，有學位只有各一個。無漏道依據欲界人身、色界和無色界。無學位的修習依據九地，有學位的修習只依據六地。捨棄果位的殊勝果位之道，唯有獲得果位之道。", "", "論曰：爲了追求殊勝的種性而修習利根的人，在無學位中轉變每一種種性，各有九個無間道和九個解脫道，如同獲得相應的果位。為什麼呢？因為他們鈍根的性質，由於長久的串習，不是少許的功力就能夠使其轉變的，因為學道和無學道所成就的非常堅固。在有學位中轉變每一種種性，各有各一個無間道和一個解脫道，如同獲得初果，因為不是長久串習的緣故。他們的加行道在各個位次上都是各一個。學習無學位的人修習利根時，都是漸次修習後後的種性，獲得殊勝的種性才捨棄之前的劣性。所以諸位無學修習利根時，加行無間道和前八個解脫道，都應被歸類為退法等。第九個解脫道是思法等。諸位有學修習利根時，加行無間道被歸類為退法等，解脫道時稱為思法等。我所承稟的諸位大論師都說，修習利根都是爲了遮遣見惑和修惑的力量所引發的無覆無記的無知現行。所以有學位中修習利根的人，正是爲了遮遣見惑所引發的無知現行；無學位中修習利根的人，正是爲了遮遣修惑所引發的無知現行。像這樣斷除能夠引發惑的惑時，所生起的無間道和解脫道有多少，像這樣斷除那些惑所引發的無知現行的道數也是如此。所以無學修習利根時，用九個無間道和九個解脫道；有學位修習利根時，兩種道各一個。然而見惑和修惑所引發的無知，隨著所障礙的不同，有很多品類。所以轉變退法等成為思法等時，各種道現前時，各自有所遮遣。由此沒有超越而獲得殊勝種性的情況。有其他論師說，一切修習利根都只有一個。" ], "english_translations": [ 'It is said: Regarding these two statements, the former is better. As mentioned above, there are cases where sharp faculties (練根 liàngēn) are obtained through practice. Now, one should contemplate the sharp faculties practiced by the saints: How many uninterrupted paths (無間道 wújiàndào), how many liberation paths (解脫道 jiětuōdào)? Are defiled paths (有漏道 yǒulòudào) or undefiled paths (無漏道 wúlòudào) used? Based on what body, based on what realm (地 dì)? The verse says:', '', 'Practicing sharp faculties in the state of no-more-learning (無學位 wúxuéwèi) has nine uninterrupted paths and nine liberation paths; due to long-term habituation, the state of learning (有學位 yǒuxuéwèi) only has one each. The undefiled path relies on the human body in the desire realm (欲界 yùjiè), the form realm (色界 sèjiè), and the formless realm (無色界 wúsèjiè). The practice of the no-more-learning relies on the nine grounds (九地 jiǔdì), while the practice of the learning only relies on the six grounds. Abandoning the path of superior fruition (勝果道 shèngguǒdào) of the fruition, only the path of obtaining fruition (果道 guǒdào) is obtained.', '', 'The treatise says: Those who cultivate sharp faculties in pursuit of superior nature, in the state of no-more-learning, transforming each nature, each has nine uninterrupted paths and nine liberation paths, just like obtaining the corresponding fruition. Why? Because their dull nature, due to long-term habituation, cannot be transformed with little effort, because what is accomplished by the path of learning and the path of no-more-learning is very firm. In the state of learning, transforming each nature, each has one uninterrupted path and one liberation path, just like obtaining the first fruition, because it is not due to long-term habituation. Their path of effort (加行道 jiāxíngdào) is one in each position. Those who learn the state of no-more-learning, when cultivating sharp faculties, gradually cultivate the later natures, abandoning the previous inferior nature only after obtaining the superior nature. Therefore, when all those in the state of no-more-learning cultivate sharp faculties, the uninterrupted path of effort and the first eight liberation paths should all be categorized as regressive dharmas (退法 tuìfǎ), etc. The ninth liberation path is the dharma of reflection (思法 sīfǎ), etc. When all those in the state of learning cultivate sharp faculties, the uninterrupted path of effort is categorized as regressive dharmas, etc., and the liberation path is called the dharma of reflection, etc. All the great masters I have inherited from say that cultivating sharp faculties is all to prevent the non-cognitive (無覆無記 wúfùwújì) ignorance (無知 wúzhī) arising from the power of the afflictions of view (見惑 jiànhuò) and the afflictions of cultivation (修惑 xiūhuò). Therefore, those who cultivate sharp faculties in the state of learning are precisely to prevent the ignorance arising from the afflictions of view; those who cultivate sharp faculties in the state of no-more-learning are precisely to prevent the ignorance arising from the afflictions of cultivation. Just as when cutting off the afflictions that can cause afflictions, how many uninterrupted paths and liberation paths arise, so too is the number of paths of ignorance arising from those afflictions. Therefore, when those in the state of no-more-learning cultivate sharp faculties, they use nine uninterrupted paths and nine liberation paths; when those in the state of learning cultivate sharp faculties, each of the two paths has one. However, the ignorance arising from the afflictions of view and the afflictions of cultivation has many categories depending on what is obstructed. Therefore, when transforming regressive dharmas, etc., into dharmas of reflection, etc., each path has its own prevention when it appears. Therefore, there is no case of transcending and obtaining superior nature. Some other teachers say that all cultivation of sharp faculties has only one.' ] }
加行。無間解脫前說為善理如前故。如是無間及解脫道。一切唯是無漏性攝。聖者必無用有漏道而轉根理。以世俗法體非增上無堪能故。一切加行皆通二種。如是所說但據現行。兼未來修復有差別。謂無學位修練根時加行。未來亦通修二九無間道及八解脫。未來所修亦唯無漏。第九解脫未來修二。兼修三界所有功德。與初盡智所修同故。若有學位修練根時加行。未來亦通修二無間解脫。未來所修亦唯無漏如得初果。若爾豈不廣論相違。如廣論言從信解性修練根行。得見至時十四化心爾時亦得。寧不許學解脫道中亦于未來。修有漏道此無違失所以者何。彼論但依得俱生說。如下地道現在前時。上地化心亦說為得。謂如已離三靜慮染。依初靜慮入見諦者。亦說彼得四定化心。然理不應由下見道。現在前故修上地法。彼文但依見道與彼得俱生。說此亦應然。有餘師言。諸未來法有得。得故即說名修既彼得俱。寧不修彼。故諸有學修練根時。解脫道中亦修有漏。然非一切皆能通修。謂若預流未趣後果。修練根行解脫道中。如得果時唯修無漏。由見道得一來不還。未趣后時應知亦爾。分離有頂中間練根。解脫所修亦唯無漏。余有學位修練根時。解脫所修皆通二種。前說為善。所以者何。非彼得俱皆名修彼。勿一切法能修一切。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 加行（指爲了達到某種目的而進行的努力）。無間道（指斷除煩惱的道路）和解脫道（指獲得解脫的道路）之前的修行，可以像前面所說的那樣被認為是善理（指正確的道理）。因此，無間道和解脫道，一切都屬於無漏性（指沒有煩惱的性質）。聖者（指已經證悟的人）一定不會使用有漏道（指有煩惱的道路）來轉變根性（指人的能力），因為世俗法（指世間法）的體性不是增上（指增長）的，也沒有堪能（指能力）。一切加行都包括兩種（指有漏和無漏）。像這樣所說的只是根據現行（指現在的行為），兼顧未來修復（指未來的修行）有差別。也就是說，無學位（指阿羅漢）修練根性時的加行，未來也包括修二九無間道（指十八種無間道）和八解脫（指八種解脫）。未來所修的也只是無漏。第九解脫（指滅盡定）未來修二（指修有漏和無漏）。兼修三界（指欲界、色界、無色界）所有功德。與初盡智（指初果阿羅漢的盡智）所修相同。如果有學位（指須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含）修練根性時的加行，未來也包括修二無間解脫（指兩種無間道和解脫道）。未來所修的也只是無漏，就像得到初果（指須陀洹果）一樣。如果這樣，豈不是與《廣論》（指《菩提道次第廣論》）相違背？如《廣論》所說，從信解性（指相信佛法的人）修練根行，得到見至（指見道位）時，十四化心（指十四種變化的心）爾時也得到。難道不允許學解脫道的人也在未來修有漏道嗎？這沒有違背，為什麼呢？《廣論》只是依據得俱生（指同時得到）來說。如下地道（指下地的道路）現在前時，上地化心（指上地的變化的心）也說為得到。比如已經離開三靜慮染（指已經離開第三禪的染污），依靠初靜慮（指初禪）進入見諦（指見到真理）的人，也說他得到四定化心（指四禪的變化的心）。然而道理上不應該因為下見道（指下地的見道）現在前而修上地法（指上地的法）。那段文字只是依據見道與彼得俱生來說，這裡也應該這樣。有其他老師說，諸未來法（指未來的法）有得（指得到），得到所以就說名為修（指修行），既然彼得俱（指同時得到），難道不修彼（指不修那些法）嗎？所以諸有學（指還在學習的人）修練根性時，解脫道中也修有漏（指也修有漏的法）。然而並非一切都能通修（指都能修行）。也就是說，如果預流（指須陀洹）還沒有趣向後果（指更高的果位），修練根行解脫道中，如得果時（指得到果位時）只修無漏（指只修無漏的法）。由見道（指見道）得到一來（指斯陀含）不還（指阿那含），沒有趣向後時（指沒有趣向更高的果位時）應該知道也是這樣。分離有頂（指離開有頂天）中間練根（指在中間界修練根性），解脫所修也只是無漏（指也只是無漏的法）。其餘有學位（指除了預流、一來、不還之外的有學位）修練根性時，解脫所修都包括兩種（指有漏和無漏）。前面所說的為善（指前面所說的正確）。為什麼呢？並非彼得俱（指同時得到）都名為修（指都名為修行），不要一切法（指一切法）都能修一切（指都能修行一切法）。又
【English Translation】 English version Additional practices. Before the path of immediate liberation (Nirvana), it is said to be good reason, as before. Thus, the path of immediacy and the path of liberation are all included in the nature of non-outflow (Anasrava, meaning without defilements). Sages will certainly not use the path of outflow (Sasrava, meaning with defilements) to transform their faculties, because the substance of worldly dharma is not increasing and has no capacity. All additional practices include two types (outflow and non-outflow). What is said in this way is only based on present practice, and there are differences in future restoration. That is to say, the additional practices when a non-learner (Arhat) cultivates the roots, the future also includes cultivating the two ninetieths of the immediate path (eighteen kinds of immediate path) and the eight liberations (eight kinds of liberation). What is cultivated in the future is only non-outflow. The ninth liberation (cessation of feeling and perception) will be cultivated in the future. It also cultivates all the merits of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). It is the same as what was cultivated by the initial exhaustion of wisdom (knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements of the first Arhat). If a learner (Sravaka) cultivates the roots, the additional practices in the future also include cultivating the two immediate liberations. What is cultivated in the future is only non-outflow, just like obtaining the first fruit (Sotapanna). If so, wouldn't it contradict the Extensive Treatise (Lamrim)? As the Extensive Treatise says, from the nature of faith and understanding, cultivating the roots and obtaining the stage of seeing the truth (Darshana-marga), the fourteen transformation minds are also obtained at that time. Isn't it permissible for those who learn the path of liberation to also cultivate the path of outflow in the future? There is no contradiction in this, why? The treatise only speaks based on obtaining simultaneously. When the lower ground path manifests, the upper ground transformation mind is also said to be obtained. For example, if one has already left the defilements of the three dhyanas (three meditative states) and enters the seeing of truth based on the first dhyana, it is also said that he has obtained the four dhyana transformation minds. However, it is not reasonable to cultivate the dharma of the upper ground because the lower seeing path manifests. That text only speaks based on the seeing path and its simultaneous attainment, and this should also be the case. Some other teachers say that all future dharmas have attainment, and because of attainment, it is said to be cultivation. Since they are obtained simultaneously, wouldn't they be cultivated? Therefore, when all learners cultivate the roots, they also cultivate outflow in the path of liberation. However, not everyone can cultivate everything. That is to say, if a stream-enterer (Sotapanna) has not yet approached the subsequent fruit (higher fruit), when cultivating the roots in the path of liberation, just like when obtaining the fruit, he only cultivates non-outflow. From the seeing path, obtaining the once-returner (Sakadagami) and non-returner (Anagami), it should be known that it is also the same when not approaching the subsequent time. Separating the peak of existence (Akanistha) and cultivating the roots in the middle, what is cultivated in liberation is also only non-outflow. When other learners cultivate the roots, what is cultivated in liberation includes both types. What was said earlier is good. Why? Not everything obtained simultaneously is called cultivation, lest all dharmas can cultivate everything. Also
有學位修練根時。正為遮遣見惑所發。與斷見惑道數既同。如何所修異見道果。若余趣后中間練根。解脫道中亦修有漏。無間道位何不許然。如離染時二道等故。然無學位修練根時。道數所修如斷有頂。若有學位修練根時。道數所修如斷上界。見道所斷由彼但與鄰得果時道相似故。學無學位修練根時。加行皆通曾未曾得。無間解脫唯是未曾一切皆通。法智類智修練根者。唯三洲人唯依此身有怖退故。以何等故名為練根。調練諸根令增長故。謂道力故令根相續。舍下得中舍中得上。漸漸增勝名為練根。故練根名目轉根義。雖八解脫漸得勝根。而由本心求勝性故。未得勝性不捨前劣。如得後果方舍前向。如在聖位種性有六。能修練根于見道前。暖等加行應知亦爾。有差別者若聖位中。得勝種性必舍前劣。暖等位中修練根者。但得勝性劣性不行。名為轉根非舍劣得。無學練根通依九地。謂四靜慮未至中間及三無色。唯此九地有無漏道餘地無故。有學練根唯依六地除三無色。所以者何。以轉根者容有舍果及勝果道。所得唯果非勝果道心欣果故。無有學果無色地攝。故學練根但依六地。設許學位依無色練。根定是不還住勝果道位。無不還果無色地攝。故不依無色修練根得果。以初二果唯未至攝。不還唯通六地攝故。有說唯有住果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有學位修練根時，這主要是爲了遮遣由見惑所引發的（問題）。既然（修練根的）道數與斷見惑的道數相同，為何所修的（練根）與見道之果不同呢？如果（在）其餘趣（中）或（于）中間（位）練根，解脫道中也修有漏（法），為何在無間道位不認可（練根）呢？就像離染時二道（無間道和解脫道）相等一樣。（答：）然而，無學位修練根時，道數所修（的功用）如同斷有頂（天的煩惱）。如果有學位修練根時，道數所修（的功用）如同斷上界（的煩惱）。見道所斷（的煩惱），是因為它僅僅與鄰近獲得果位時的道相似的緣故。學（位）和無學位修練根時，加行（道）都通於曾得和未曾得（的根性）。無間道和解脫道唯是未曾得，一切都通。法智和類智修練根的人，只有三洲的人，唯有依靠此身，因為有怖畏退失的緣故。 因為什麼緣故稱為練根呢？因為調練諸根使之增長的緣故。通過道的力量，使根相續，捨棄下等的根，得到中等的根，捨棄中等的根，得到上等的根，漸漸增勝，這稱為練根。所以練根這個名稱是轉變根的意義。雖然八解脫（可以）漸次獲得殊勝的根，但由於本心追求殊勝的性質，未得到殊勝的性質，不捨棄之前的劣根，如同得到后（三）果后才捨棄之前的（預流）向（道）。如同在聖位中，種性有六種，能夠修練根（的人），在見道前的暖等加行（位）也應知是這樣。有差別的是，如果在聖位中，得到殊勝的種性必定捨棄之前的劣性，在暖等位中修練根的人，只是得到殊勝的性質，劣性不行用，這稱為轉變根，不是捨棄劣根而得到（勝根）。 無學練根通於九地，即四靜慮（四禪）、未至定、中間定以及三無色定。只有這九地有無漏道，其餘地沒有的緣故。有學練根唯依六地，除去三無色定。為什麼呢？因為轉根的人容許有捨棄果位以及殊勝果位的道。所得的唯是果，不是殊勝果位的道，（因為）心欣樂於果的緣故。無有學果為無色地所攝，所以有學練根只依六地。假設允許有學位的人依靠無色界練根，（那麼）根一定是住于不還果的殊勝果道位。（但是）沒有不還果為無色地所攝，所以不依靠無色界修練根而得果。因為初果和二果唯為未至定所攝，不還果唯通於六地所攝的緣故。有人說只有住果（才能練根）。
【English Translation】 English version When one with learning engages in root cultivation, it is primarily to dispel the delusions arising from wrong views (見惑, jianhuo). Since the stages of practice (道數, daoshu) for cultivating roots are the same as those for severing wrong views, how is it that the cultivation differs from the fruit of the path of seeing (見道果, jiandaoguo)? If one cultivates roots in other realms (余趣, yuqu) or in the intermediate state (中間, zhongjian), one also cultivates with outflows (有漏, youlou) in the path of liberation. Why is it not acknowledged in the immediate path (無間道位, wujiandaowei)? It is like how the two paths (immediate and liberation) are equal during detachment from defilements. (Answer:) However, when one without learning cultivates roots, the function of the stages of practice is like severing the afflictions of the Peak of Existence (有頂, youting). When one with learning cultivates roots, the function of the stages of practice is like severing the afflictions of the upper realms (上界, shangjie). The afflictions severed by the path of seeing are because they are only similar to the path at the time of attaining the adjacent fruit. When one with learning or without learning cultivates roots, the preliminary practices (加行, jiaxing) are accessible to both those who have attained and those who have not attained (the root nature). The immediate path and the path of liberation are only for those who have not attained, and everything is accessible. Those who cultivate roots with the wisdom of phenomena (法智, fazhi) and the wisdom of categories (類智, leizhi) are only people from the three continents, and they rely only on this body because they fear regression. For what reason is it called root cultivation (練根, liangen)? It is because of training and refining the roots to make them grow. Through the power of the path, the roots continue, abandoning the inferior roots to obtain the intermediate roots, and abandoning the intermediate roots to obtain the superior roots, gradually increasing in excellence. This is called root cultivation. Therefore, the name 'root cultivation' signifies the meaning of transforming the roots. Although the eight liberations (八解脫, bajietuo) can gradually attain superior roots, because the fundamental mind seeks a superior nature, it does not abandon the previous inferior roots until it attains the superior nature, just as one abandons the previous path of stream-entry (預流向, yuliuxiang) after attaining the fruit of stream-entry (預流果, yuliuguo). Just as in the state of sainthood, there are six types of dispositions (種性, zhongxing), those who can cultivate roots should also know that it is the same in the preliminary practices such as warmth (暖, nuan) before the path of seeing. The difference is that if one attains a superior disposition in the state of sainthood, one must abandon the previous inferior disposition. Those who cultivate roots in the stages of warmth, etc., only attain the superior nature, and the inferior nature does not function. This is called transforming the roots, not abandoning the inferior roots to obtain (the superior roots). Root cultivation for those without learning is accessible in the nine realms, namely the four dhyanas (四靜慮, sijinglv or 四禪, sichan), the Unreached Concentration (未至定, weizhiding), the Intermediate Concentration (中間定, zhongjianding), and the three formless concentrations (三無色定, sanwuseding). Only these nine realms have the path without outflows (無漏道, wuloudao), because the other realms do not have it. Root cultivation for those with learning is only based on six realms, excluding the three formless concentrations. Why? Because those who transform roots may abandon the fruit and the path of superior fruit. What is attained is only the fruit, not the path of superior fruit, because the mind delights in the fruit. There is no fruit of learning included in the formless realm, so root cultivation for those with learning is only based on six realms. Suppose it is allowed for those with learning to cultivate roots relying on the formless realm, then the root must be in the position of the path of superior fruit of non-returning (不還果, buhuanguo). (However,) there is no fruit of non-returning included in the formless realm, so one does not rely on the formless realm to cultivate roots and attain the fruit. Because the first and second fruits are only included in the Unreached Concentration, and the fruit of non-returning is only accessible in the six realms. Some say that only those who abide in the fruit (can cultivate roots).
練根。勿有舍多得少過故無如是過。以練根者心期勝果不求多故。由此學位修練根者。若住果道加行等三皆果道攝。若住勝道加行無間勝果道攝。解脫道果道攝。住無學位修練根者。加行等三唯果道攝。諸住果位修練根時。舍果得果住勝道位。修練根時舍二得果。又諸聖位修練根時。與本得果地同或異。謂初二果依地必同。彼此俱依未至地故。不還應果依地不定。或依本地或上或下。有差別者若諸不還。依下練根不得上果。阿羅漢不爾如本得果故。分斷有頂結練根得果時。雖舍彼斷不成彼結。如異生者生上七地。隨應舍下斷而不成下結。俱是進時非退時故。諸無學位補特伽羅。總有幾種由何差別。頌曰。
七聲聞二佛 差別由九根
論曰。居無學位聖者有九。謂七聲聞及二覺者。退法等五不動分二。后先別故名七聲聞。獨覺大覺名二覺者。由下下等九品根異。令無學聖成九差別。有學無學補特伽羅。一切總收無過七種。一隨信行。二隨法行。三信解。四見至。五身證。六慧解脫。七俱解脫。依何立七事別有幾。頌曰。
加行根滅定 解脫故成七 此事別唯六 三道各二故
論曰。依加行異立初二種。謂依先時隨信他語及自隨法能于所求。一切義中修加行故。立隨信行隨法行名。依根不同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 練根。不要因為害怕捨棄多而獲得少，而產生這樣的顧慮。因為修練根器的人，心懷期望獲得殊勝的果報，而不是貪求數量上的多。因此，對於在見道位修練根器的人來說，加行、無間、解脫這三個階段都屬於見道所攝。如果住在勝道（修道位），加行和無間道屬於修道，勝果道屬於見道所攝。解脫道屬於見道所攝。住在無學位修練根器的人，加行等三個階段都唯屬於見道所攝。那些住在果位修練根時，捨棄較低的果位而獲得較高的果位，住在勝道位修練根時，捨棄兩種煩惱而獲得果位。此外，各位聖者修練根時，與原本證得的果位所依的禪定地相同還是不同呢？初果和二果所依的禪定地必定相同，因為他們都依賴未至定地。不還果和阿羅漢果所依的禪定地不一定，或者依賴原本的地，或者更高或更低。有差別的情況是，如果某些不還果依較低的禪定地修練根，不能獲得較高的果位。阿羅漢則不是這樣，如同原本證得的果位一樣。在分斷有頂結（指色界、無色界頂端的煩惱）時修練根而證得果位，即使捨棄了對有頂結的斷除，也不會重新形成有頂結，如同異生者（指凡夫）生到上面的七地（指色界和無色界），相應地捨棄了對下面煩惱的斷除，也不會重新形成下面的煩惱，因為都是前進的時候，而不是退步的時候。那些無學位的補特伽羅（指達到阿羅漢果位的人），總共有幾種？由什麼差別？頌曰： 七聲聞二佛 差別由九根 論曰：住在無學位的聖者有九種，即七種聲聞和兩種覺者。退法等五種和不動法分為兩種，因為前後不同而名為七種聲聞。獨覺和佛陀名為兩種覺者。由於下下等九品根器的不同，使得無學聖者成就九種差別。有學和無學的補特伽羅，一切總括起來不超過七種。一、隨信行（Sradhanusarin），二、隨法行（Dharmanusarin），三、信解（Sraddhadhimukta），四、見至（Drstiprapta），五、身證（Kayasaksi），六、慧解脫（Prajnavimukta），七、俱解脫（Ubhayatobhagavimukta）。依據什麼而建立這七種？事別有幾種？頌曰： 加行根滅定 解脫故成七 此事別唯六 三道各二故 論曰：依據加行的不同而建立最初的兩種。即依據先前隨信他人之語以及自己隨法能夠對於所求的一切義理中修加行，因此建立隨信行和隨法行的名稱。依據根器的不同
【English Translation】 English version Cultivating Roots. There should be no such concern that one might lose much and gain little by abandoning. Because those who cultivate their roots aspire to superior results and do not seek quantity. Therefore, for those who cultivate their roots while dwelling in the Path of Seeing, the three stages of Preparation, Uninterrupted, and Liberation are all included within the Path of Seeing. If dwelling in the Superior Path (Path of Cultivation), the Preparation and Uninterrupted Paths belong to the Path of Cultivation, and the Superior Result Path belongs to the Path of Seeing. The Liberation Path belongs to the Path of Seeing. For those who cultivate their roots while dwelling in the state of No-More-Learning, the three stages of Preparation, etc., belong solely to the Path of Seeing. When those who dwell in the Fruition cultivate their roots, they abandon the lower Fruition and attain the higher Fruition. When dwelling in the Superior Path and cultivating their roots, they abandon two afflictions and attain the Fruition. Furthermore, when various sages cultivate their roots, are the meditative states they rely on the same as or different from the Fruition they originally attained? The first and second Fruitions necessarily rely on the same meditative state, because they both rely on the Undistributed Concentration. The Non-Returner and Arhat Fruitions do not necessarily rely on the same meditative state; they may rely on the original state, or a higher or lower one. The difference is that if certain Non-Returners cultivate their roots relying on a lower meditative state, they cannot attain a higher Fruition. It is not so with Arhats, as it is with the Fruition they originally attained. When severing the bonds of the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra, referring to the afflictions at the peak of the Form and Formless Realms) and cultivating roots to attain Fruition, even though they abandon the severance of those bonds, those bonds will not be re-formed, just as when ordinary beings are born into the upper seven realms (referring to the Form and Formless Realms), they correspondingly abandon the severance of the lower afflictions, but the lower afflictions will not be re-formed, because it is a time of progress, not a time of regression. How many types of individuals (Pudgala) are there in the state of No-More-Learning in total? What are the differences due to? The verse says: Seven Hearers, Two Buddhas, The difference is due to the Nine Roots. The treatise says: There are nine types of sages who dwell in the state of No-More-Learning, namely, seven types of Hearers (Sravaka) and two types of Awakened Ones. The five types of Declining Dharma, etc., and the two types of Non-Declining Dharma are named seven types of Hearers because they differ in sequence. Solitary Buddhas (Pratyekabuddha) and Great Buddhas (Buddha) are named two types of Awakened Ones. Due to the difference in the nine grades of roots, such as the lowest, the lowest middle, etc., the sages in the state of No-More-Learning achieve nine types of differences. All the individuals in the states of Learning and No-More-Learning, when taken together, do not exceed seven types. 1. Faith-follower (Sradhanusarin), 2. Dharma-follower (Dharmanusarin), 3. Faith-liberated (Sraddhadhimukta), 4. Vision-attained (Drstiprapta), 5. Body-witness (Kayasaksi), 6. Wisdom-liberated (Prajnavimukta), 7. Liberated-both-ways (Ubhayatobhagavimukta). Based on what are these seven types established? How many separate events are there? The verse says: Preparation, Root, Cessation, Concentration, Liberation, hence the seven. These separate events are only six, Because the three paths each have two. The treatise says: The first two types are established based on the difference in Preparation. That is, based on previously following the words of others with faith and oneself following the Dharma, one is able to cultivate the Preparation in all the meanings sought, hence the names Faith-follower and Dharma-follower. Based on the difference in roots,
立次二種。謂依鈍利信慧根增。如次名為信解見至。依得滅定立身證名。由身證得滅盡定故。依解脫異立后二種。謂依唯慧離煩惱障者。立慧解脫依兼得定。離解脫障者立俱解脫。此名雖七事別唯六。謂見道中有二聖者。一隨信行二隨法行。此至修道別立二名。一信解二見至。此至無學復立二名。謂時解脫不時解脫。然唯應說有二聖者。隨信隨法行有異故。即此二種隨道差別。雖立異名而無別體。如是所說補特伽羅。以根性道離染依別。諸門分析數成多千。且如最初一隨信行。根故成三謂下中上。性故成五謂退法等。道故成十五謂八忍七智。離染故成七十三。謂具縛離八地染。依身故成九。謂三洲欲天。若根性道離染依身。相乘合成一億四萬七千八百二十五種。隨法行等如理應思。如是等門差別無量。若欲委細一一分別。施功甚多所用極少。故我於此略示方隅。有智學徒應廣思擇。前說依解脫立后二種。立后二種相由何應知。頌曰。
俱由得滅定 餘名慧解脫
論曰。諸阿羅漢得滅盡定者名俱解脫。由慧定力雙解脫煩惱解脫障故。所餘未得滅盡定者名慧解脫。但由慧力于煩惱障得解脫故。何等名為解脫障體。諸阿羅漢心已解脫。而更求解脫為解脫彼障。謂于所障諸解脫中。有劣無知無覆無記。效能障解脫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
立有其次的兩種補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）。依據鈍根、利根，以及信根增長和慧根增長，依次稱為信解（Sradhadhimukta）和見至（Dristiprapta）。依據獲得滅盡定（Nirodhasamapatti）而建立身證（Kayasaksi）之名，因為通過身證而獲得滅盡定。依據解脫的差異而建立后兩種補特伽羅，即依據唯有智慧而遠離煩惱障者，建立慧解脫（Prajnavimukta）；依據兼得禪定而遠離解脫障者，建立俱解脫（Ubhayatobhagavimukta）。 雖然這些名稱有七種，但實際上只有六種。在見道（Darsanamarga）中有兩種聖者（Arya）：隨信行（Sradhanusarin）和隨法行（Dharmanusarin）。這兩種人在修道（Bhavanamarga）中分別建立兩個名稱：信解和見至。這兩種人在無學道（Asaiksamarga）中又建立兩個名稱：時解脫（Samayavimukta）和不時解脫（Asamayavimukta）。 然而，應該說只有兩種聖者，因為隨信行和隨法行有差異。這兩種人隨著道的差別而建立不同的名稱，但沒有不同的實體。像這樣所說的補特伽羅，以根性、道、離染和所依的不同，通過各種方式分析，數量可以達到數千種。例如，最初的隨信行，因為根器而分為三種，即下品、中品、上品；因為自性而分為五種，即退法（Parihanadharma）等；因為道而分為十五種，即八忍（八種忍）和七智（七種智）；因為離染而分為七十三種，即具有束縛而遠離八地之染；因為所依之身而分為九種，即三洲（南贍部洲 Jambudvipa等）的欲界天（Kama-dhatu）。 如果將根性、道、離染、所依之身相乘，則合成為一億四千七百八十二萬五千種。隨法行等也應如理思考。像這樣等門的差別是無量的。如果想要詳細地一一分別，花費的功夫很多，而作用卻極少。所以我在這裡只是略微地指示方向，有智慧的學徒應該廣泛地思考選擇。 前面說依據解脫而建立后兩種補特伽羅。建立后兩種補特伽羅的相狀應該如何理解？頌曰： 『俱由得滅定，餘名慧解脫。』 論曰：諸阿羅漢（Arhat）獲得滅盡定者，名為俱解脫，因為通過智慧和禪定的力量，雙重解脫煩惱解脫和解脫障的緣故。其餘未獲得滅盡定者，名為慧解脫，但由慧力于煩惱障得解脫的緣故。何等名為解脫障體？諸阿羅漢心已解脫，而更求解脫為解脫彼障，謂于所障諸解脫中，有劣無知無覆無記，效能障解脫。
【English Translation】 English version
There are two types of individuals (Pudgala) established in sequence, based on dull or sharp faculties, and the increase of faith or wisdom faculties. These are respectively named 'Faith-Liberated' (Sradhadhimukta) and 'Vision-Attained' (Dristiprapta). Based on attaining the Cessation Attainment (Nirodhasamapatti), the name 'Body-Witness' (Kayasaksi) is established, because one attains Cessation Attainment through body-witnessing. Based on the difference in liberation, the latter two types are established, namely, based on those who only through wisdom are separated from the afflictive obstructions, the 'Wisdom-Liberated' (Prajnavimukta) is established; and based on those who also attain concentration and are separated from the obstructions to liberation, the 'Liberated-in-Both-Ways' (Ubhayatobhagavimukta) is established. Although these names are seven, in reality there are only six. In the Path of Seeing (Darsanamarga), there are two types of noble ones (Arya): 'Faith-Follower' (Sradhanusarin) and 'Doctrine-Follower' (Dharmanusarin). These two are given two names respectively in the Path of Cultivation (Bhavanamarga): Faith-Liberated and Vision-Attained. These two are again given two names in the Path of No More Learning (Asaiksamarga): 'Liberated-in-Time' (Samayavimukta) and 'Liberated-Out-of-Time' (Asamayavimukta). However, it should be said that there are only two types of noble ones, because there is a difference between Faith-Follower and Doctrine-Follower. These two, depending on the difference in the path, are given different names, but there is no different entity. The individuals spoken of in this way, based on the difference in faculties, path, separation from defilements, and support, can be analyzed in various ways to reach thousands of types. For example, the initial Faith-Follower is divided into three types because of faculties, namely, inferior, middling, and superior; divided into five types because of nature, namely, 'Declining Dharma' (Parihanadharma) etc.; divided into fifteen types because of the path, namely, the eight acceptances (eight types of forbearance) and the seven knowledges (seven types of wisdom); divided into seventy-three types because of separation from defilements, namely, having bonds and being separated from the defilements of the eight grounds; divided into nine types because of the supporting body, namely, the desire realm heavens (Kama-dhatu) of the three continents (Jambudvipa etc.). If the faculties, path, separation from defilements, and supporting body are multiplied together, they combine to form 147,825,000 types. The Doctrine-Follower etc. should also be considered in accordance with reason. The differences in such categories are immeasurable. If one wants to meticulously distinguish each one, much effort is spent, but the effect is minimal. Therefore, I am only briefly indicating the direction here, and intelligent students should broadly contemplate and choose. It was said earlier that the latter two types of individuals are established based on liberation. How should the characteristics of establishing the latter two types be understood? The verse says: 'Liberated-in-Both-Ways is due to attaining Cessation, the remaining is named Wisdom-Liberated.' The treatise says: Those Arhats (Arhat) who attain Cessation Attainment are called Liberated-in-Both-Ways, because through the power of wisdom and concentration, they are doubly liberated from afflictive liberation and the obstruction to liberation. The remaining ones who have not attained Cessation Attainment are called Wisdom-Liberated, because they are liberated from the afflictive obstructions only through the power of wisdom. What is the entity of the obstruction to liberation? Although the minds of the Arhats are already liberated, they further seek liberation in order to liberate that obstruction, namely, among the liberations that are obstructed, there are inferior, unknowing, unhidden, and neutral qualities that can obstruct liberation.
是解脫障體。于彼彼界得離染時。雖已無餘斷而起解脫。彼不行時方名解脫彼。有餘師說。此解脫障即以于諸定不自在為體。有餘師說。此解脫障即以諸定不得為體。有餘師說。于彼加行不勤求故。不聽聞故不數習故解脫不生。即此名為解脫障體。初說應理。所以者何。必有少法力能為障。令彼于定不自在轉。若不爾者。彼有何緣于諸定中不得自在。不得定者必有所因。不可說言即因不得。自體不應還因自故。或煩惱障亦應可說。即以應果不得為性。彼既不然此云何爾。阿羅漢果亦由於加行。不勤求等故體不得生。豈便無別煩惱障體。故后三說皆不應理。又無漏心亦有從此名得解脫。由約在身及約行世說解脫故。謂要解脫解脫障時。方起在身及行世故。諸阿羅漢有名同者根亦同耶。應作四句。第一句者。慧解脫中有時解脫不時解脫。俱解脫中有二亦爾。第二句者。時解脫中有慧解脫有俱解脫。不時解脫有二亦爾。第三句者。慧解脫中二。時解脫自互相望二。不時解脫俱解脫亦爾。第四句者。慧解脫中取時解脫。俱解脫中不時解脫。展轉相望與此相違應知亦爾。如世尊說五煩惱斷。不可牽引未名滿學。學無學位各由幾因。于等位中獨稱為滿。頌曰。
有學名為滿 由根果定三 無學得滿名 但由根定二
論曰。學于學位獨得滿名。要具三因謂根果定。故見至身證獨得名為滿。少有闕者尚非滿學。況一切闕而得滿名。何等名為少有闕者。謂信解得滅定。或見至不還未得滅盡定。或見至未離欲。或信解不還未得滅盡定。何等名為一切闕者。謂信解未離欲有許少闕亦得滿名。彼作是言有有學者。但由根故亦得滿名。謂諸見至未離欲染。有有學者但由果故。亦得滿名。謂信解不還未得滅盡定。有有學者由根果故亦得滿名。謂見至不還未得滅盡定。有有學者由果定故亦得滿名。謂諸信解得滅盡定。有有學者具由三故獨得滿名。謂諸見至得滅盡定。無有學者但由定故。及根定故亦得滿名。此不可依。如何有學于諸有學勝功德中。猶未具證而許名滿故。如前說理定可依。無學位中無非果滿故不由果建立滿名。自位相望獨名滿者。要具二種謂根與定。故唯不時俱解脫者。望余無學獨得滿名。隨闕一者尚非滿無學。何況雙闕得滿無學名。何等名為隨闕一者。謂時解脫得滅盡定。或不時解脫不得滅盡定。何等名為雙闕二者。謂時解脫不得滅定。有許闕一亦得滿名。此不可依理如前說。如契經說。二阿羅漢一具三明二不退法。於前所說諸應果中。二阿羅漢何應果攝。且不退法攝在不動。然此不動差別有二。一者唯能不退應果。二者不退一
切勝德。此中第一但名不動。如思法等由練根得。仍有退失阿羅漢果。此異彼故得不動名。然于應果一切勝德。猶可退失不名不退。第二亦無退諸勝德。故經于彼立不退名。以不動中於勝功德有可退者。是故契經于不動。內立不退法具三明者。有言此攝在慧解脫。俱解脫中豈不宿住死生漏盡。三種妙智名曰三明。若具成此三名具三明者。作如是說為欲顯何。若具三明必起靜慮。三明要依靜慮發故。非慧解脫靜慮現前。蘇尸摩經分明說故。寧說慧解脫亦攝具三明。此不相違經據滿故。然有已得七解脫者。未得滅定故亦名慧解脫。依不得滅盡定體。建立慧俱二解脫故。理必應爾。以契經言有具三明非俱解脫。既有此說便決定知。有具三明非俱解脫。離慧解脫此為是何。是故所言具三明者。二解脫攝定為應理。有言非理。所以者何。彼不了達所引經故。于余契經有相違故。謂彼所引恣舉經言。有具三明非俱解脫。據遮圓滿俱解脫說。然有極下唯得最初。根本靜慮現在前者。亦說名為俱解脫故。如余經說。時迦莫迦問慶喜言。世尊處處說俱解脫。此俱解脫名何所目佛數說耶。慶喜答言。俱解脫者。謂入離欲惡不善法。有尋有伺離生喜樂。初靜慮中具足安住。及由慧故見諸漏盡。齊此方名俱解脫者。準此經說知恣舉經。據遮圓滿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 切勝德（殊勝的功德）。此中第一種名為不動（Achala，指阿羅漢果位的一種），如思法（Dharmatrāta）等通過修習根（indriya，指信、精進、念、定、慧五根）而證得。但仍有退失阿羅漢果的可能性。因此，它與真正的『不退』不同，所以被稱為『不動』。然而，對於應果（Arhatship，阿羅漢果）的一切殊勝功德來說，仍然可能退失，因此不能稱為『不退』。 第二種則不會退失任何殊勝功德。因此，經典中稱其為『不退』。因為在『不動』的果位中，對於殊勝的功德存在退失的可能性。所以，契經（Sutra，佛經）在『不動』的定義中，加入了『不退法』和『具三明』（traividya，三種智慧）的條件。 有人說，這包含在慧解脫（Prajñāvimukta，僅以智慧獲得解脫）中。在俱解脫（Ubhayatobhāga-vimukta，以禪定和智慧獲得解脫）中，難道沒有宿住隨念智（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，回憶前世的智慧）、死生智（cyuty-utpāda-jñāna，觀察眾生死生情況的智慧）和漏盡智（āsravakṣaya-jñāna，斷盡煩惱的智慧）這三種奇妙的智慧，被稱為三明嗎？如果具備這三種智慧，就被稱為『具三明』，那麼這樣說是爲了顯示什麼呢？ 如果具備三明，必定會生起靜慮（dhyāna，禪定），因為三明必須依靠靜慮才能生起。而慧解脫並不一定需要靜慮現前。《蘇尸摩經》（Suśīma Sūtra）中明確說明了這一點。寧可說慧解脫也包含具三明，這並不矛盾，因為經典是根據圓滿的情況來說的。 然而，有些人已經獲得了七種解脫（指八解脫中的前七種，即八勝處和四無色定），但尚未獲得滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，一種甚深的禪定），因此也被稱為慧解脫。這是根據未獲得滅盡定的情況，來建立慧解脫和俱解脫這兩種解脫方式的。道理必然如此。因為契經中說，『有具三明而非俱解脫者』。既然有這種說法，就明確知道，有具三明而非俱解脫的情況。如果不是慧解脫，那又是什麼呢？ 因此，所謂『具三明』，應該包含在兩種解脫（慧解脫和俱解脫）中，這才是合理的。有人說這不合理。為什麼呢？因為他們不瞭解所引用的經典。因為與其他契經相違背。他們所引用的經典說，『有具三明而非俱解脫者』，這是根據遮止圓滿的俱解脫來說的。然而，有些人即使只獲得了最初的根本靜慮（prathama-dhyāna，初禪）現前，也被稱為俱解脫。 如其他經典所說，當時迦莫迦（Kāmaka）問慶喜（Ānanda）說：『世尊處處說俱解脫，這俱解脫是指什麼呢？佛經常這樣說。』慶喜回答說：『俱解脫是指進入遠離慾望、惡和不善法的狀態，有尋有伺（vitarka-vicāra，尋和伺，禪定的兩種心理活動），從離生起的喜樂，在初靜慮中具足安住，並且因為智慧的緣故，見到諸漏（āsrava，煩惱）已盡。只有這樣才能被稱為俱解脫。』根據這部經的說法，可知之前所引用的經典，是根據遮止圓滿的俱解脫來說的。
【English Translation】 English version The Superior Virtue of Victory. Among these, the first is merely named 'Immovable' (Achala), like Dharmatrāta and others who attain it through cultivating the roots (indriya). However, there is still the possibility of falling from the Arhatship. Therefore, it is different from the true 'Non-regressing,' and is called 'Immovable.' Yet, concerning all the superior virtues of the Arhatship, it is still possible to regress, so it cannot be called 'Non-regressing.' The second does not regress from any superior virtues. Therefore, the Sutras establish the name 'Non-regressing' for it. Because in the 'Immovable' state, there is the possibility of regressing from superior merits, the Sutras include 'Non-regressing Dharma' and 'Possessing the Threefold Knowledge' (traividya) in the definition of 'Immovable.' Some say that this is included in Wisdom-Liberation (Prajñāvimukta). In Both-Ways-Liberation (Ubhayatobhāga-vimukta), aren't there the three wonderful knowledges of the Knowledge of Remembering Past Lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna), the Knowledge of Death and Rebirth (cyuty-utpāda-jñāna), and the Knowledge of the Exhaustion of Defilements (āsravakṣaya-jñāna), which are called the Threefold Knowledge? If one possesses these three knowledges, they are called 'Possessing the Threefold Knowledge,' then what is the purpose of saying this? If one possesses the Threefold Knowledge, they will certainly generate Dhyana (meditative absorption), because the Threefold Knowledge must rely on Dhyana to arise. However, Wisdom-Liberation does not necessarily require Dhyana to be present. The Suśīma Sūtra clearly states this. It is better to say that Wisdom-Liberation also includes possessing the Threefold Knowledge, which is not contradictory because the Sutras speak according to the complete situation. However, some who have already attained the seven liberations (referring to the first seven of the eight liberations, i.e., the eight victories and the four formless absorptions) have not yet attained the Cessation Attainment (nirodha-samāpatti), so they are also called Wisdom-Liberation. This is based on the situation of not attaining the Cessation Attainment to establish the two types of liberation, Wisdom-Liberation and Both-Ways-Liberation. The principle must be so. Because the Sutras say, 'There are those who possess the Threefold Knowledge but are not Both-Ways-Liberated.' Since there is this statement, it is clearly known that there are those who possess the Threefold Knowledge but are not Both-Ways-Liberated. If it is not Wisdom-Liberation, then what is it? Therefore, the so-called 'Possessing the Threefold Knowledge' should be included in the two liberations (Wisdom-Liberation and Both-Ways-Liberation), which is reasonable. Some say this is unreasonable. Why? Because they do not understand the Sutras they cite. Because it contradicts other Sutras. The Sutras they cite say, 'There are those who possess the Threefold Knowledge but are not Both-Ways-Liberated,' which is based on preventing complete Both-Ways-Liberation. However, some who have only attained the initial Fundamental Dhyana (prathama-dhyāna, the first Dhyana) present are also called Both-Ways-Liberated. As other Sutras say, at that time, Kāmaka asked Ānanda, 'The World-Honored One speaks of Both-Ways-Liberation everywhere. What does this Both-Ways-Liberation refer to? The Buddha often says this.' Ānanda replied, 'Both-Ways-Liberation refers to entering the state of being away from desire, evil, and unwholesome dharmas, with vitarka and vicāra (initial application and sustained application of thought, two mental activities in Dhyana), joy and happiness born from detachment, fully abiding in the first Dhyana, and because of wisdom, seeing that the defilements (āsrava) have been exhausted. Only then can it be called Both-Ways-Liberation.' According to this Sutra, it can be known that the previously cited Sutra is based on preventing complete Both-Ways-Liberation.
俱解脫說。即此經后復作是言。應知所餘名慧解脫。又遮慧解脫起初根本定故。次慶喜告迦莫迦。具壽當知非慧解脫。已入離欲惡不善法。有尋有伺離生喜樂。初靜慮中具足安住。然能以慧見諸漏盡。世尊說為慧解脫者。由此彼謂蘇尸摩經。且據圓滿慧解脫說。唯約已得滅盡定者立俱解脫。其理不成。故此經中意顯此義。具三明者必俱解脫。要起根本靜慮現前。方有得名具三明故。有俱解脫非具三明。謂阿羅漢得八解脫。而未能起三明現前。今詳諸經真實意趣。慧俱解脫若圓滿者其體各異。未起根本已得滅盡位懸隔故。不圓滿者二體相雜。隨說皆通不應為諍。然欲簡別令無雜者。應就滅定不得得說。以慧解脫無得滅定根本靜慮。雖不現行然于去來必成就故。由此可說具三明者。理通攝在二解脫中。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十一
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十五
廣說諸道差別無量。謂世出世見修道等。今應思擇于諸道中。略說有幾可能遍攝。頌曰。
應知一切道 略說唯有四 謂加行無間 解脫勝進道
論曰。加行道者。謂此無間無間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
關於俱解脫的說法。就像這部經後面又說：『應該知道其餘的叫做慧解脫。』又因為遮止慧解脫生起最初的根本定。接著慶喜（Ananda）告訴迦莫迦（Kāmaka）：『具壽（Ayasmant），應當知道不是慧解脫，已經進入遠離慾望、邪惡不善法的境界，有尋有伺，由遠離（煩惱）而生喜樂，在初禪中具足安住，然而能夠以智慧見到諸漏已盡。』世尊（Buddha）說這是慧解脫。由此他們認為蘇尸摩經（Susīma Sūtra），只是根據圓滿的慧解脫來說的，只針對已經獲得滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）的人才能稱為俱解脫，這個道理是不成立的。所以這部經中的意思是顯示這個道理：具有三明（tevijja）的人必定是俱解脫，一定要生起根本靜慮現前，才能有資格被稱為具有三明。有俱解脫的人不一定具有三明，比如阿羅漢（Arhat）獲得了八解脫（Asta Vimoksha），但是未能生起三明現前。現在詳細考察各部經的真實意趣，慧解脫和俱解脫如果圓滿，它們的本體是各不相同的，因為未生起根本定和已得滅盡定的地位懸殊。不圓滿的，二者本體相互混雜，隨便怎麼說都說得通，不應該為此爭論。然而想要區分清楚，使之沒有混雜，應該就滅盡定是否獲得來說。因為慧解脫沒有獲得滅盡定的根本靜慮，雖然不現行，但是在過去和未來必定成就。由此可以說具有三明的人，理論上可以包含在兩種解脫之中。 阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論 阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十一 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯賢聖品第六之十五 廣泛地說，各種道的差別有無量種，如世間道、出世間道、見道、修道等。現在應該思考在各種道中，略說有幾種可能普遍涵蓋。 頌曰： 應知一切道 略說唯有四 謂加行無間 解脫勝進道 論曰：加行道，是指此無間（道）的無間（前行）。
【English Translation】 English version
Regarding the statement of Ubhayatobhāga-vimutta (Liberated in Both Ways). Just as this sutra later says: 'It should be known that the rest is called Prajñā-vimutta (Wisdom Liberation).' Also, because it prevents the arising of the initial fundamental Samādhi (Jhāna) of Prajñā-vimutta. Then Ānanda (Ananda) told Kāmaka: 'Ayasmant, it should be known that it is not Prajñā-vimutta, having entered the state of being away from desire, evil and unwholesome dharmas, with Vitarka and Vicāra, joy and happiness born of detachment, fully abiding in the first Dhyāna, yet able to see the exhaustion of all āsravas (influxes) with wisdom.' The Buddha (Buddha) said this is Prajñā-vimutta. Therefore, they believe that the Susīma Sūtra (Susīma Sūtra) only speaks from the perspective of complete Prajñā-vimutta, and only those who have attained Nirodha-samāpatti (Cessation Attainment) can be called Ubhayatobhāga-vimutta, which is not valid. Therefore, the meaning of this sutra is to show this principle: those who possess the three Vidyās (tevijja) are certainly Ubhayatobhāga-vimutta, and the fundamental Samādhi must arise before one can be qualified to be called possessing the three Vidyās. There are Ubhayatobhāga-vimutta who do not necessarily possess the three Vidyās, such as Arhats (Arhat) who have attained the eight Vimokshas (Asta Vimoksha), but have not been able to bring forth the three Vidyās. Now, after a detailed examination of the true intent of the various sutras, if Prajñā-vimutta and Ubhayatobhāga-vimutta are complete, their entities are different, because the positions of those who have not arisen the fundamental Samādhi and those who have attained Nirodha-samāpatti are vastly different. If they are incomplete, the two entities are mixed together, and any statement is valid, so there should be no dispute about it. However, if one wants to distinguish them clearly so that there is no mixture, one should consider whether Nirodha-samāpatti has been attained. Because Prajñā-vimutta does not have the fundamental Samādhi of Nirodha-samāpatti, although it is not currently active, it will certainly be accomplished in the past and future. Therefore, it can be said that those who possess the three Vidyās can theoretically be included in the two liberations. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Volume 70 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Volume 71 Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order Chapter 6.15: Discrimination of the Wise and the Holy Speaking broadly, the differences in the various paths are immeasurable, such as mundane paths, supramundane paths, paths of seeing, paths of cultivation, etc. Now we should consider among the various paths, how many can be said to comprehensively cover them. Verse: It should be known that all paths are briefly only four: Namely, the path of application, the path of immediate succession, the path of liberation, and the path of progress. Treatise: The path of application refers to the immediate (preceding) of this path of immediate succession.
道生。無間道者。謂此能滅所應斷障。解脫道者。謂已解脫所應斷障最初所生。勝進道者。謂除無間加行解脫所餘諸道。何義名道。謂尋求依。依此尋求涅槃果故。由此一切修苦智等。無不皆為尋求涅槃。或此道名目涅槃路。三乘賢聖涉此夷途。速達二種涅槃界故。道于余處立通行名。以于諦中能善通達。復能速往涅槃城故。此有幾種依何建立。頌曰。
通行有四種 樂依本靜慮 苦依所餘地 遲速鈍利根
論曰。經說通行總有四種。一苦遲通行。二苦速通行。三樂遲通行。四樂速通行。此四通行有差別者。依地依根建立異故。云何依地建立差別。謂依根本四靜慮中。所生聖道名樂通行。任運轉故如乘船筏。任運轉者。由此地中止觀雙行無增減故。又此諸地所有等持。攝受五支四支成故。依余無色未至中間。所生聖道名苦通行。雖道非苦苦受相應。艱辛轉故亦名為苦。如依陸路乘馬等行。艱辛轉者。由此地中止觀雖俱而增減故。謂無色地觀減止增。未至中間觀增止減。又此諸地所有等持。不攝五支四支成故。有餘師說。未至地道難可成辦故立苦名。謂有先來都未得定。多起功用方得現前。此既現前為勝加行。根本靜慮易起故樂。靜慮中間同一地攝。異心品滅異心品生。極為艱辛故亦名苦。譬如以木析
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 道生（Dàoshēng）。無間道（Wújiàn dào）是指能夠滅除所應斷除的障礙。解脫道（Jiětuō dào）是指已經解脫所應斷除的障礙而最初生起的道。勝進道（Shèngjìn dào）是指除了無間道和加行道、解脫道之外的其餘諸道。為什麼稱之為『道』呢？因為它是尋求的憑藉，依靠它來尋求涅槃的果實。因此，一切修習苦智等，無不是爲了尋求涅槃。或者，這『道』的名稱就是涅槃之路，三乘的賢聖行走在這平坦的道路上，能夠迅速到達兩種涅槃的境界。道在其他地方也被稱為『通行』，因為它能夠在真諦中很好地通達，並且能夠迅速前往涅槃之城。這道有幾種？依據什麼而建立呢？頌詞說： 『通行有四種，樂依本靜慮，苦依所餘地，遲速鈍利根。』 論曰：經中說通行總共有四種：一是苦遲通行，二是苦速通行，三是樂遲通行，四是樂速通行。這四種通行之所以有差別，是因為依據地和根的不同而建立的。如何依據地來建立差別呢？依據根本四靜慮（根本四禪定）中所生起的聖道，稱為樂通行。因為它能夠任運運轉，就像乘坐船筏一樣。之所以說任運運轉，是因為在這種禪定中，止觀雙運，沒有增減。而且，這些禪定所具有的等持（Samādhi），能夠攝受五支或四支而成就。依據其餘的無色界（無色界定）、未至定（未到地定）和中間定（中間定）中所生起的聖道，稱為苦通行。雖然道本身並非苦，但與苦受相應，運轉艱難，所以也稱為苦。就像在陸地上乘坐馬匹等行走一樣，運轉艱難。之所以說運轉艱難，是因為在這種禪定中，止觀雖然都有，但有增減。無色界中，觀減少而止增加；未至定和中間定中，觀增加而止減少。還有其他論師說，未至定的道難以成就，所以稱為苦。因為有些人從來沒有得到禪定，需要付出很多努力才能使其顯現。既然這種禪定已經顯現，就作為殊勝的加行。根本靜慮容易生起，所以稱為樂。靜慮中間定與未至定屬於同一地，異心品滅，異心品生，極其艱難，所以也稱為苦。譬如用木頭劈柴一樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Daosheng. The Path of No Interval (Wujian dao) refers to that which can extinguish the obstacles that should be eliminated. The Path of Liberation (Jietuo dao) refers to the path that initially arises having already liberated the obstacles that should be eliminated. The Path of Superior Progress (Shengjin dao) refers to all the remaining paths other than the Path of No Interval, the Path of Application, and the Path of Liberation. Why is it called 'Path'? Because it is the reliance sought; relying on it, one seeks the fruit of Nirvana. Therefore, all cultivation of the wisdom of suffering, etc., is none other than seeking Nirvana. Or, this name 'Path' is the road to Nirvana; the virtuous and noble ones of the Three Vehicles traverse this smooth road and can quickly reach the two realms of Nirvana. The Path is also established elsewhere as 'Passage' because it can thoroughly penetrate the Truths and can quickly go to the city of Nirvana. How many kinds of paths are there, and upon what are they established? The verse says: 'There are four kinds of passages: pleasure relies on the fundamental Dhyana, suffering relies on the remaining realms, slow and fast depend on dull and sharp faculties.' The treatise says: The sutras say that there are four kinds of passages in total: one is the painful slow passage, two is the painful fast passage, three is the pleasant slow passage, and four is the pleasant fast passage. The differences among these four passages are established based on differences in realms and faculties. How are the differences established based on realms? The holy path arising in the fundamental four Dhyanas (fundamental four meditative states) is called the pleasant passage because it operates effortlessly, like riding a boat or raft. It is said to operate effortlessly because in these Dhyanas, cessation and contemplation operate in balance, without increase or decrease. Moreover, the Samadhi (concentration) possessed by these Dhyanas can accomplish the five or four limbs. The holy path arising in the remaining Formless Realms (formless meditative states), the Near Attainment (preliminary stage of form realm meditation), and the Intermediate State (between the first and second dhyanas) is called the painful passage. Although the path itself is not suffering, it is associated with the feeling of suffering and operates with difficulty, so it is also called suffering, like traveling on land by riding horses, etc., which is difficult. It is said to operate with difficulty because in these Dhyanas, although both cessation and contemplation are present, they increase and decrease. In the Formless Realms, contemplation decreases and cessation increases; in the Near Attainment and Intermediate State, contemplation increases and cessation decreases. Some other teachers say that the path of the Near Attainment is difficult to accomplish, so it is called suffering because some people have never attained Samadhi and need to put in a lot of effort to make it manifest. Since this Samadhi has manifested, it serves as a superior application. The fundamental Dhyana is easy to arise, so it is called pleasure. The Intermediate State of Dhyana belongs to the same realm as the Near Attainment; the cessation of one mind-moment and the arising of another is extremely difficult, so it is also called suffering, like splitting wood.
木極難。謂一地中有尋有伺。粗心品滅無尋唯伺。細心品生多用功力。諸無色定亦甚難成。故亦名苦極微細故。謂無色定行相眇然。不易測量修難成辦。又從靜慮起無色時。五蘊定滅四蘊定起。極為難辦故立苦名。云何依根建立差別。謂即苦樂二通行中。鈍根名遲利根名速。二行於境通達稽遲。說名遲通翻此名速。或遲鈍者所起通行名遲通行。速此相違。或趣涅槃有遲有速。由根鈍利如后當辯。此行五蘊四蘊為性。由依色定無色定別。而名通者顯慧勝故。如見道位雖具五蘊。以慧勝故偏立見名。如見道邊諸世俗智。金剛喻定亦以五蘊四蘊為體立智定名。然有經中說四通行。五根為性亦就勝說。慧勝中勝故立通名。為諸有情無中根者。而今但說遲速行耶。有一類言無中根者。如契經說諸利根中。唯有指鬘最為第一。諸鈍根中唯有蛇奴最為第一。此經不說別有中根故知非有。又於三道各說二故。謂見道中唯見說有。隨信法行二道差別。修道位中唯見說有。信解見至二道差別。無學道中唯見說有。時及不時二道差別。若許有中根應各說三道。若爾應與契經相違。如說。有情世間生長。有利中鈍三根差別。此不相違。依佛出世彼有情類。初中后時入道不同作是說故。初入道者如阿若多憍陳那等。后入道者如善賢等。中謂所餘。
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "木極難（mù jí nán）：指的是在一地（dì）中有尋（xún）有伺（sì）。粗心（cū xīn）品滅（pǐn miè），無尋（wú xún）唯伺（wéi sì）。細心（xì xīn）品生（pǐn shēng），多用（duō yòng）功力（gōng lì）。諸（zhū）無色定（wú sè dìng）也甚（yě shèn）難成（nán chéng），故（gù）也名（yě míng）苦極（kǔ jí），微細（wēi xì）故（gù）。謂（wèi）無色定（wú sè dìng）行相（xíng xiàng）眇然（miǎo rán），不易（bù yì）測量（cè liáng），修（xiū）難（nán）成辦（chéng bàn）。又（yòu）從（cóng）靜慮（jìng lǜ）起（qǐ）無色（wú sè）時（shí），五蘊（wǔ yùn）定滅（dìng miè），四蘊（sì yùn）定起（dìng qǐ），極為（jí wéi）難辦（nán bàn），故（gù）立（lì）苦名（kǔ míng）。", "云何（yún hé）依根（yī gēn）建立（jiàn lì）差別（chā bié）？謂（wèi）即（jí）苦樂（kǔ lè）二（èr）通行（tōng xíng）中（zhōng），鈍根（dùn gēn）名（míng）遲（chí），利根（lì gēn）名（míng）速（sù）。二（èr）行（xíng）于（yú）境（jìng）通達（tōng dá）稽遲（jī chí），說（shuō）名（míng）遲通（chí tōng），翻（fān）此（cǐ）名（míng）速（sù）。或（huò）遲鈍（chí dùn）者（zhě）所（suǒ）起（qǐ）通行（tōng xíng）名（míng）遲（chí）通行（tōng xíng），速（sù）此（cǐ）相違（xiāng wéi）。或（huò）趣（qù）涅槃（niè pán）有（yǒu）遲（chí）有（yǒu）速（sù），由（yóu）根（gēn）鈍（dùn）利（lì）如（rú）后（hòu）當（dāng）辯（biàn）。此（cǐ）行（xíng）五蘊（wǔ yùn）四蘊（sì yùn）為（wéi）性（xìng），由（yóu）依（yī）色定（sè dìng）無色定（wú sè dìng）別（bié）。而（ér）名（míng）通（tōng）者（zhě），顯（xiǎn）慧（huì）勝（shèng）故（gù）。如（rú）見道（jiàn dào）位（wèi）雖（suī）具（jù）五蘊（wǔ yùn），以（yǐ）慧（huì）勝（shèng）故（gù）偏（piān）立（lì）見名（jiàn míng）。如（rú）見道（jiàn dào）邊（biān）諸（zhū）世俗智（shì sú zhì），金剛喻定（jīn gāng yù dìng）亦（yì）以（yǐ）五蘊（wǔ yùn）四蘊（sì yùn）為（wéi）體（tǐ）立（lì）智定（zhì dìng）名（míng）。然（rán）有（yǒu）經（jīng）中（zhōng）說（shuō）四（sì）通行（tōng xíng），五根（wǔ gēn）為（wéi）性（xìng）亦（yì）就（jiù）勝（shèng）說（shuō）。慧（huì）勝（shèng）中（zhōng）勝（shèng）故（gù）立（lì）通名（tōng míng）。", "為（wèi）諸（zhū）有情（yǒu qíng）無（wú）中根（zhōng gēn）者（zhě），而（ér）今（jīn）但（dàn）說（shuō）遲速（chí sù）行（xíng）耶（yé）？有（yǒu）一類（yī lèi）言（yán）無（wú）中根（zhōng gēn）者（zhě），如（rú）契經（qì jīng）說（shuō）諸（zhū）利根（lì gēn）中（zhōng），唯（wéi）有（yǒu）指鬘（zhǐ mán）[Angulimala]最為（zuì wéi）第一（dì yī）。諸（zhū）鈍根（dùn gēn）中（zhōng）唯（wéi）有（yǒu）蛇奴（shé nú）最為（zuì wéi）第一（dì yī）。此（cǐ）經（jīng）不（bù）說（shuō）別（bié）有（yǒu）中根（zhōng gēn），故（gù）知（zhī）非（fēi）有（yǒu）。又（yòu）于（yú）三道（sān dào）各（gè）說（shuō）二（èr）故（gù）。謂（wèi）見道（jiàn dào）中（zhōng）唯（wéi）見（jiàn）說（shuō）有（yǒu），隨信（suí xìn）法行（fǎ xíng）二（èr）道（dào）差別（chā bié）。修道（xiū dào）位（wèi）中（zhōng）唯（wéi）見（jiàn）說（shuō）有（yǒu），信解（xìn jiě）見至（jiàn zhì）二（èr）道（dào）差別（chā bié）。無學道（wú xué dào）中（zhōng）唯（wéi）見（jiàn）說（shuō）有（yǒu），時（shí）及（jí）不時（bù shí）二（èr）道（dào）差別（chā bié）。若（ruò）許（xǔ）有（yǒu）中根（zhōng gēn）應（yīng）各（gè）說（shuō）三道（sān dào）。若爾（ruò ěr）應（yīng）與（yǔ）契經（qì jīng）相違（xiāng wéi）。如（rú）說（shuō）：有情（yǒu qíng）世間（shì jiān）生長（shēng zhǎng），有（yǒu）利（lì）中（zhōng）鈍（dùn）三（sān）根（gēn）差別（chā bié）。此（cǐ）不（bù）相違（xiāng wéi）。依（yī）佛（fó）出世（chū shì），彼（bǐ）有情類（yǒu qíng lèi），初（chū）中（zhōng）后（hòu）時（shí）入道（rù dào）不同（bù tóng）作（zuò）是（shì）說（shuō）故（gù）。初（chū）入道（rù dào）者（zhě）如（rú）阿若多（ā ruò duō）憍陳那（jiāo chén nà）等（děng）。后（hòu）入道（rù dào）者（zhě）如（rú）善賢（shàn xián）等（děng）。中（zhōng）謂（wèi）所餘（suǒ yú）。", "English version", '\'Wood is extremely difficult.\' This refers to a state where, within a single location, there is both \'seeking\' (尋, xún) and \'examining\' (伺, sì). When coarse mental activity ceases, there is \'no seeking, only examining\' (無尋唯伺, wú xún wéi sì). When subtle mental activity arises, much effort is required. The various formless concentrations (無色定, wú sè dìng) are also very difficult to achieve, hence they are also called \'extreme suffering\' (苦極, kǔ jí), because they are extremely subtle. This means that the characteristics of formless concentrations are subtle and difficult to measure, making them difficult to cultivate and accomplish. Furthermore, when arising from meditative absorption (靜慮, jìng lǜ) into the formless realm, the cessation of the five aggregates (五蘊, wǔ yùn) and the arising of the four aggregates is extremely difficult to manage, hence the establishment of the name \'suffering\'.', 'How are distinctions established based on the faculties (依根, yī gēn)? It is said that within the two paths of \'suffering and joy\' (苦樂, kǔ lè), the dull faculties are called \'slow\' (遲, chí), and the sharp faculties are called \'fast\' (速, sù). When the two paths are slow to penetrate the object, they are called \'slow penetration\' (遲通, chí tōng); the opposite is called \'fast\' (速, sù). Alternatively, the path arising from those who are slow and dull is called the \'slow path\' (遲通行, chí tōng xíng), and the opposite is true for the fast. Or, the approach to Nirvana (涅槃, niè pán) is either slow or fast, depending on whether the faculties are dull or sharp, as will be discussed later. This path is characterized by the five aggregates or the four aggregates, depending on whether it relies on form concentration (色定, sè dìng) or formless concentration. The term \'penetration\' (通, tōng) indicates the superiority of wisdom (慧, huì). For example, in the stage of the path of seeing (見道, jiàn dào), although all five aggregates are present, the name \'seeing\' is established due to the superiority of wisdom. Similarly, the mundane wisdoms (世俗智, shì sú zhì) near the path of seeing, and the diamond-like samadhi (金剛喻定, jīn gāng yù dìng), are also based on the five aggregates or four aggregates, and the name \'wisdom-samadhi\' (智定, zhì dìng) is established. However, some sutras speak of the four paths as being characterized by the five faculties, which is also based on the superior aspect. The name \'penetration\' is established because wisdom is superior among the superior.', 'Why is it that only the slow and fast paths are mentioned now, for sentient beings (有情, yǒu qíng) who do not have intermediate faculties (中根, zhōng gēn)? Some say that there are no intermediate faculties, as the sutras say that among those with sharp faculties, Angulimala (指鬘, zhǐ mán) is the foremost, and among those with dull faculties, Serpa (蛇奴, shé nú) is the foremost. This sutra does not mention a separate intermediate faculty, so it is known that there is none. Furthermore, two paths are mentioned for each of the three paths. That is, in the path of seeing, only \'seeing\' is said to exist, with the distinction between the path of \'following faith\' (隨信, suí xìn) and the path of \'dharma-following\' (法行, fǎ xíng). In the stage of the path of cultivation (修道, xiū dào), only \'seeing\' is said to exist, with the distinction between the path of \'faith-understanding\' (信解, xìn jiě) and the path of \'attainment of vision\' (見至, jiàn zhì). In the path of no more learning (無學道, wú xué dào), only \'seeing\' is said to exist, with the distinction between the path of \'timely\' (時, shí) and the path of \'untimely\' (不時, bù shí). If an intermediate faculty were admitted, three paths should be mentioned for each. If so, it would contradict the sutras, which say that sentient beings grow in the world with distinctions of sharp, intermediate, and dull faculties. This is not contradictory, because it is said that sentient beings enter the path at different times—early, middle, and late—depending on when the Buddha appears in the world. Those who enter the path early are like Ajnata Kaundinya (阿若多 憍陳那, ā ruò duō jiāo chén nà), and those who enter the path later are like Bhadra (善賢, shàn xián). \'Intermediate\' refers to the rest.' ] }
或據有情種解脫分有上中下故說無違。然理定應有中根者。謂隨法行一種性中。有大聲聞獨覺大覺。不可說彼根品無差。又契經中說隨法行是鈍根攝。如說。五根增上猛利。極圓滿者名俱解脫。乃至廣說。然通行中不別說有中品行者不明瞭故。於世典中亦隨明瞭。唯見顯示上下非中。由此已釋道唯二意。又彼所引根第一經。已定證成有中根者。謂既說有第一利根。知更有餘利而非極。但對鈍者說之為利。又既說有第一鈍根。知更有餘鈍而非極。但對利者說之為鈍。故應決定許有中根。經中明說有三根故。依根立道必亦有三。但不分明故唯說二。然中根性攝在二中。以利鈍中有非極故。應知通行隨此相說。唯立遲速無別處中。然上所言由根利鈍。于趣圓寂有速有遲。此據等修勤加行說。若不據等則鈍利根。趣向涅槃遲速不定。又契經說。有現法遲身壞速等四句差別。此約加行有勤不勤。不約轉根及有退說。以諸聖者若已經生。不退不轉根不生上界故。大覺獨覺到究竟。聲聞依何通行入聖。證極果大覺唯依樂速通行。謂以第四靜慮為依。由極利根入正決定。證得無上正等菩提。于獨覺中麟角喻者。如大覺說余則不定。于到究竟二聲聞中。舍利子依苦速通行。及樂速通行入聖證極果。彼依未至入正決定。依第四定得漏盡故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 或者根據有情眾生的根器，解脫的程度有上、中、下之分，所以說沒有違背（佛理）。然而，從道理上來說，一定應該有中等根器的人。也就是說，在隨法行這一種性中，有大聲聞、獨覺、大覺（佛）。不能說他們的根器品級沒有差別。而且，契經中說隨法行屬於鈍根。例如說：『五根增上，猛利，極其圓滿的，叫做俱解脫。』乃至廣說。然而，在通行中沒有特別說明有中品根器的修行者，是因為不夠明瞭。在世俗典籍中也是這樣，只顯示上等和下等，沒有中等。由此已經解釋了道只有兩種意義。而且，他們所引用的《根第一經》，已經確定證明有中等根器的人。既然說有第一利根，就知道還有其他的利根，但不是最利。只是相對於鈍根來說，才稱之為利。又既然說有第一鈍根，就知道還有其他的鈍根，但不是最鈍。只是相對於利根來說，才稱之為鈍。所以應該確定承認有中等根器。經中明確說有三種根器，根據根器建立的道也一定有三種，只是不分明，所以只說兩種。然而，中等根性包含在兩種之中，因為利鈍之中有非極端的。應該知道通行是根據這種相狀來說的，只設立遲速，沒有特別設立中等。然而，上面所說的由於根器的利鈍，在趨向圓寂（涅槃）時有快有慢，這是根據同等修行、勤奮努力來說的。如果不根據同等條件，那麼鈍根和利根趨向涅槃的快慢就不一定。而且，契經中說，有現法遲、身壞速等四句差別，這是指修行時有勤奮和不勤奮，不是指根器的轉變以及是否有退轉。因為諸位聖者如果已經證悟，就不會退轉根器，也不會生到上界。大覺（佛）、獨覺到究竟，聲聞依何種通行入聖，證得極果？大覺（佛）只依樂速通行，也就是以第四靜慮為基礎，通過極其銳利的根器進入正決定，證得無上正等菩提。在獨覺中，麟角喻的獨覺像大覺（佛）一樣，其他的就不一定了。在到達究竟的二種聲聞中，舍利子（Śāriputra）依苦速通行以及樂速通行入聖，證得極果。他依靠未至定進入正決定，依靠第四禪定得到漏盡。
【English Translation】 English version Or, according to the sentient beings' dispositions, the degree of liberation has superior, intermediate, and inferior levels, so there is no contradiction (to the Dharma). However, in principle, there should definitely be individuals with intermediate faculties. That is to say, within the lineage of those who follow the Dharma, there are great Śrāvakas (hearers), Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers), and Buddhas (greatly enlightened ones). It cannot be said that there is no difference in their faculty levels. Moreover, the sutras state that those who follow the Dharma are included among those with dull faculties. For example, it is said: 'Those whose five faculties are increasing, vigorous, and extremely complete are called Ubhayatobhāgavimukta (liberated in both ways).' and so on. However, in the general teachings, there is no specific mention of practitioners with intermediate faculties because it is not clear. It is the same in worldly texts, where only the superior and inferior are shown, not the intermediate. This has already explained the two meanings of the path. Furthermore, the 'Root First Sutra' that they cite has already definitively proven that there are individuals with intermediate faculties. Since it is said that there are those with the sharpest faculties, it is known that there are others with sharp faculties, but not the sharpest. They are only called sharp in relation to the dull. Also, since it is said that there are those with the dullest faculties, it is known that there are others with dull faculties, but not the dullest. They are only called dull in relation to the sharp. Therefore, it should be definitely acknowledged that there are intermediate faculties. The sutras clearly state that there are three types of faculties, and the path established according to the faculties must also be three, but it is not clear, so only two are mentioned. However, the nature of the intermediate faculties is included within the two, because there are non-extreme levels of sharpness and dullness. It should be known that the general teachings speak according to this aspect, only establishing slow and fast, without specifically establishing an intermediate. However, what was said above, that due to the sharpness or dullness of the faculties, there is fast or slow progress towards Parinirvana (complete quiescence), is based on equal practice and diligent effort. If it is not based on equal conditions, then the speed at which dull and sharp faculties approach Nirvana is not certain. Moreover, the sutras say that there are four distinctions, such as 'slow in this life, fast in the destruction of the body,' and so on. This refers to diligence or lack of diligence in practice, not to the transformation of faculties or whether there is regression. Because if the noble ones have already attained realization, they will not regress in their faculties, nor will they be born in the upper realms. How do Buddhas (Mahābuddha), Pratyekabuddhas (Paccekabuddha) reach the ultimate, and Śrāvakas (Sāvaka) enter the holy path and attain the ultimate fruit? Buddhas (Mahābuddha) rely only on the joyful and fast path, which is based on the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption), entering into right determination through extremely sharp faculties, and attaining Anuttarā-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled complete and perfect enlightenment). Among the Pratyekabuddhas (Paccekabuddha), the rhinoceros-horn-like Pratyekabuddhas (Khaṇagavisāṇa-kappa) are like the Buddhas (Mahābuddha), while others are not certain. Among the two types of Śrāvakas (Sāvaka) who reach the ultimate, Śāriputra (Śāriputra) enters the holy path and attains the ultimate fruit by relying on the painful and fast path and the joyful and fast path. He relies on the Anāgāmiphala (the state of 'non-returning') to enter into right determination, and attains the extinction of outflows (āsavakkhaya) by relying on the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption).
目連唯依苦速通行。謂依未至入正決定。依無色定得漏盡故。二聖先來樂慧樂定。故證極果依色無色。許到究竟諸大聲聞。法爾唯應漸次得果。故彼入聖道皆依未至地道。亦名為菩提分法。此有幾種名義云何。頌曰。
覺分三十七 謂四念住等 覺謂盡無生 順此故名分
論曰。經說覺分有三十七。謂四念住四正斷四神足五根五力七等覺支八聖道支。盡無生智說名為覺。隨覺者別立三菩提。一聲聞菩提。二獨覺菩提。三無上菩提。無智睡眠皆永斷故。及如實知已作己事。不復作故此二名覺。三十七法順趣菩提。是故皆名菩提分法。此三十七體各別耶。不爾云何。頌曰。
此實事唯十 謂慧勤定信 念喜舍輕安 及戒尋為體
論曰。此覺分名雖三十七。實事唯十即慧勤等。謂四念住慧根慧力擇法覺支正見以慧為體。四正斷精進根精進力精進覺支正精進以勤為體。四神足定根定力定覺支正定以定為體。信根信力以信為體。念根念力念覺支正念以念為體。喜覺支以喜為體。舍覺支以行蘊攝舍為體。輕安覺支以輕安為體。正語正業正命以戒為體。正思惟以尋為體。如是覺分實事唯十。前五即是信等五根。由境等殊分為三十。更加喜舍輕安戒尋。戒分為三複總成七。並前合成三十七種。毗婆沙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 目連（Maudgalyāyana，佛陀十大弟子之一，以神通著稱）唯有依靠苦行才能快速證得果位，這是因為他依靠未至定（Upacāra-samādhi，一種接近禪定的狀態）才能真正進入正定（Samyak-samādhi，正確的禪定）。依靠無色定（Ārūpya-samāpatti，超越物質世界的禪定）才能證得漏盡（Āsravakshaya，斷絕煩惱）。二聖（指聲聞和獨覺）先前喜歡智慧和禪定，因此證得最高的果位要依靠色界定（Rūpa-samāpatti，色界天的禪定）和無色界定。允許達到究竟解脫的諸大聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的弟子），按照法則應當是逐漸證得果位。因此，他們進入聖道（Ārya-mārga，通往解脫的道路）都是依靠未至地道（Upacāra-bhūmi-mārga，接近禪定的境界）。 這也叫做菩提分法（Bodhipākṣika-dharma，幫助證悟的法）。這有多少種名稱和意義呢？頌曰： 『覺分三十七，謂四念住等，覺謂盡無生，順此故名分。』 論曰：經中說覺分有三十七種，即四念住（catvāri smṛtyupasthānāni，四種專注的修行）、四正斷（catvāri prahāṇāni，四種正確的努力）、四神足（catvāra ṛddhipādāḥ，四種神通的基礎）、五根（pañca indriyāṇi，五種能力）、五力（pañca balāni，五種力量）、七等覺支（sapta bodhyaṅgāni，七種覺悟的因素）和八聖道支（aṣṭāṅga-mārga，八正道）。 盡智（Kshayajñāna，知煩惱已盡的智慧）和無生智（Anutpādajñāna，知未來不再生煩惱的智慧）被稱為覺（Bodhi，覺悟）。隨著覺悟者的不同，設立三種菩提（覺悟）：一聲聞菩提（Śrāvakabodhi，聲聞的覺悟），二獨覺菩提（Pratyekabodhi，獨覺的覺悟），三無上菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺）。因為智慧斷除了無智的睡眠，並且如實地知道已經做了應該做的事情，不再需要再做，所以這兩種智慧被稱為覺。 三十七法順應和趨向菩提，因此都叫做菩提分法。這三十七種法，它們的體性各自不同嗎？不是的，那是怎樣的呢？頌曰： 『此實事唯十，謂慧勤定信，念喜舍輕安，及戒尋為體。』 論曰：這些覺分，名稱雖然有三十七種，但實際的體性只有十種，即智慧、勤奮等。四念住、慧根、慧力、擇法覺支（Dharma-vicaya-saṃbodhyaṅga，選擇法的覺悟因素）、正見（Samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）以智慧為體性。四正斷、精進根、精進力、精進覺支（Vīrya-saṃbodhyaṅga，精進的覺悟因素）、正精進（Samyag-vyāyāma，正確的努力）以勤奮為體性。四神足、定根、定力、定覺支（Samādhi-saṃbodhyaṅga，禪定的覺悟因素）、正定（Samyak-samādhi，正確的禪定）以禪定為體性。信根、信力以信心為體性。念根、念力、念覺支（Smṛti-saṃbodhyaṅga，正念的覺悟因素）、正念（Samyak-smṛti，正確的念）以正念為體性。喜覺支（Prīti-saṃbodhyaṅga，喜悅的覺悟因素）以喜悅為體性。舍覺支（Upekṣā-saṃbodhyaṅga，捨棄的覺悟因素）以行蘊（Saṃskāra-skandha，行蘊）所包含的舍（Upekṣā，捨棄）為體性。輕安覺支（Praśrabdhi-saṃbodhyaṅga，輕安的覺悟因素）以輕安（Praśrabdhi，輕安）為體性。正語（Samyag-vāc，正確的言語）、正業（Samyak-karmānta，正確的行為）、正命（Samyag-ājīva，正確的謀生）以戒（Śīla，戒律）為體性。正思惟（Samyak-saṃkalpa，正確的思考）以尋（Vitarka，尋）為體性。如此，覺分的實際體性只有十種。前面的五種就是信等五根。由於所緣境等不同，分為三十種。再加上喜、舍、輕安、戒、尋。戒分為三，總共成為七種。與前面的合併，成為三十七種。毗婆沙（Vibhāṣā，註釋）。
【English Translation】 English version Maudgalyāyana (one of the Buddha's ten principal disciples, known for his supernatural powers) could only quickly attain fruition by relying on ascetic practices. This is because he relied on the Upacāra-samādhi (preparatory concentration) to truly enter Samyak-samādhi (right concentration). By relying on the Ārūpya-samāpatti (formless attainments), one can attain Āsravakshaya (the extinction of outflows/defilements). The two saints (referring to Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas) previously delighted in wisdom and concentration, therefore attaining the highest fruition relies on both Rūpa-samāpatti (form attainments) and Ārūpya-samāpatti. It is permissible for the great Śrāvakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) who reach ultimate liberation to gradually attain fruition according to the Dharma. Therefore, their entry into the Ārya-mārga (noble path) all relies on the Upacāra-bhūmi-mārga (path of the preparatory stage). This is also called Bodhipākṣika-dharma (factors conducive to enlightenment). How many names and meanings does this have? The verse says: 'The thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, namely the four smṛtyupasthānāni, etc., enlightenment means the exhaustion and non-arising, conforming to this is why they are called factors.' The treatise says: The scriptures say that there are thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, namely the four smṛtyupasthānāni (four foundations of mindfulness), the four prahāṇāni (four right exertions), the four ṛddhipādāḥ (four bases of supernatural power), the pañca indriyāṇi (five faculties), the pañca balāni (five powers), the sapta bodhyaṅgāni (seven factors of enlightenment), and the aṣṭāṅga-mārga (eightfold noble path). Kshayajñāna (knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements) and Anutpādajñāna (knowledge of non-arising of future defilements) are called Bodhi (enlightenment). According to the difference in those who attain enlightenment, three types of Bodhi (enlightenment) are established: 1. Śrāvakabodhi (enlightenment of a Śrāvaka), 2. Pratyekabodhi (enlightenment of a Pratyekabuddha), 3. Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). Because wisdom cuts off the sleep of ignorance and knows truthfully that what should be done has been done, and there is no need to do it again, these two types of wisdom are called enlightenment. The thirty-seven dharmas conform to and tend towards Bodhi, therefore they are all called Bodhipākṣika-dharma. Are the natures of these thirty-seven dharmas each different? No, how is it then? The verse says: 'These actual entities are only ten, namely wisdom, diligence, concentration, faith, mindfulness, joy, equanimity, tranquility, as well as precepts and investigation.' The treatise says: Although these factors of enlightenment have thirty-seven names, the actual entities are only ten, namely wisdom, diligence, etc. The four smṛtyupasthānāni, wisdom faculty, wisdom power, Dharma-vicaya-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of discrimination of Dharma), Samyag-dṛṣṭi (right view) have wisdom as their nature. The four prahāṇāni, diligence faculty, diligence power, Vīrya-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of diligence), Samyag-vyāyāma (right effort) have diligence as their nature. The four ṛddhipādāḥ, concentration faculty, concentration power, Samādhi-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of concentration), Samyak-samādhi (right concentration) have concentration as their nature. The faith faculty and faith power have faith as their nature. The mindfulness faculty, mindfulness power, Smṛti-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of mindfulness), Samyak-smṛti (right mindfulness) have mindfulness as their nature. Prīti-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of joy) has joy as its nature. Upekṣā-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of equanimity) has Upekṣā (equanimity) contained within the Saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of mental formations) as its nature. Praśrabdhi-saṃbodhyaṅga (factor of enlightenment of tranquility) has Praśrabdhi (tranquility) as its nature. Samyag-vāc (right speech), Samyak-karmānta (right action), Samyag-ājīva (right livelihood) have Śīla (precepts) as their nature. Samyak-saṃkalpa (right thought) has Vitarka (investigation) as its nature. Thus, the actual entities of the factors of enlightenment are only ten. The previous five are the five faculties of faith, etc. Due to the difference in objects, etc., they are divided into thirty types. Adding joy, equanimity, tranquility, precepts, and investigation. Precepts are divided into three, totaling seven types. Combining with the previous ones, they become thirty-seven types. Vibhāṣā (commentary).
師說有十一。身業語業不相雜故。戒分為二餘九同前。念住等三名無別屬。如何獨說為慧勤定。頌曰。
四念住正斷 神足隨增上 說為慧勤定 實諸加行善
論曰。四念住等三品善法。體實遍攝諸加行善。然隨同品增上善根。如次說為慧勤及定。何緣于慧立念住名。慧由念力持令住故。何故說勤名為正斷。于正修習斷修位中。此勤力能斷懈怠故。或名正勝於正持策。身語意中此最勝故。何緣于定立神足名。諸靈妙德所依止故。經主此中作如是說。有餘師說。神即是定足。謂欲等彼應覺分。事有十三增欲心故。又違經說。如契經言。吾今為汝說神足等。神謂受用種種神境。分一為多乃至廣說。足謂欲等四三摩地。此中佛說定果名神。欲等所生等持名足無如是。失彼許等。持體即是神亦是神足。彼所言足謂欲等者。為顯等持有四種。故舉因顯果說欲等言。然諸等持總有二種。一于善根加行位勝。二于善根成滿位勝。前名神足后名為神。故契經言由欲增上。所得勝定名欲等持。此言即說加行位定。復言方便為斷已生惡不善法。乃至為令已生善法安住增廣。由前欲定生起于欲。發勤精進攝心持心。此說善根成滿位定攝心。謂慧持心謂定能攝持心是彼相故。復言如是欲勤精進攝心持心。乃至廣說云何欲等由欲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 師有十一類。因為身業和語業不互相混雜的緣故，戒律分為兩種，其餘九種和之前相同。四念住等等三種善法，名稱上沒有特別的歸屬。為什麼單獨說它們是慧、勤、定呢？頌詞說： 四念住、正斷（正勤）、神足（神足通），隨著增上而增加， 被稱為慧、勤、定，實際上是各種加行善法。 論中說：四念住等三種善法，實際上普遍包含各種加行善法。然而，隨著同類增上善根，依次被稱為慧、勤和定。為什麼在慧上建立念住的名稱呢？因為慧由唸的力量保持，使其安住。為什麼說勤名為正斷呢？在正確地修習斷除和修習的階段中，這種勤奮的力量能夠斷除懈怠的緣故。或者名為正勝，在於正確地堅持和鞭策。在身、語、意中，這種勤奮最為殊勝的緣故。為什麼在定上建立神足的名稱呢？因為各種靈妙的功德所依止的緣故。經主在這裡這樣說。有其他老師說，神就是定的足，指的是欲等，它們應該屬於覺分。事情有十三種，因為增加了欲心的緣故。又違背了經文的說法，如契經所說：『我現在為你們說神足等。』神指的是受用種種神通境界，從一分化為多分，乃至廣說。足指的是欲等四種三摩地（samādhi，禪定）。這裡佛陀說定的果報名為神，欲等所生的等持（samāhita，心 স্থির）名為足，沒有這樣的缺失。他們所允許的等持的體性，既是神，也是神足。他們所說的足指的是欲等，是爲了顯示等持有四種，所以舉出原因來顯示結果，說欲等。然而，各種等持總共有兩種：一種在善根的加行位上殊勝，一種在善根的成就圓滿位上殊勝。前者名為神足，後者名為神。所以契經說，由於欲的增上，所得到的殊勝的定，名為欲等持。這句話就是說加行位的定。又說，方便是爲了斷除已經生起的惡不善法，乃至爲了使已經生起的善法安住和增長。由前面的欲定生起對於欲的追求，發起勤奮精進，攝心持心。這裡說的是善根成就圓滿位的定。攝心，慧能持心，定能攝持心，這是它們的相狀的緣故。又說，像這樣欲、勤、精進攝心持心，乃至廣說，什麼是欲等，由欲...
【English Translation】 English version There are eleven kinds of teachers. Because physical and verbal actions are not mixed, precepts are divided into two, and the remaining nine are the same as before. The three good dharmas such as the Four Foundations of Mindfulness do not have specific attributions in name. Why are they exclusively referred to as wisdom, diligence, and concentration? The verse says: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness, Right Exertion (Right Diligence), and the Supernatural Powers (Psychic Abilities) increase with enhancement, and are called wisdom, diligence, and concentration, but in reality, they are various preliminary good dharmas. The treatise says: The three good dharmas such as the Four Foundations of Mindfulness actually universally encompass various preliminary good dharmas. However, following the enhancement of similar good roots, they are successively called wisdom, diligence, and concentration. Why is the name 'Foundation of Mindfulness' established on wisdom? Because wisdom is maintained by the power of mindfulness, allowing it to abide. Why is diligence called Right Exertion? Because in the stage of correctly practicing cessation and cultivation, the power of this diligence can eliminate laziness. Or it is called Right Victory, in correctly upholding and urging. Among body, speech, and mind, this diligence is the most victorious. Why is the name 'Supernatural Power' established on concentration? Because various spiritual virtues rely on it. The master of the sutra says this here. Some other teachers say that supernatural power is the foot of concentration, referring to desire, etc., which should belong to the limbs of enlightenment. There are thirteen things because the mind of desire is increased. It also contradicts the sutra, as the sutra says: 'I will now tell you about the supernatural powers, etc.' Supernatural power refers to enjoying various supernatural realms, transforming one into many, and so on. Foot refers to the four samādhis (禪定) such as desire. Here, the Buddha says that the result of concentration is called supernatural power, and the samāhita (心 स्थिर) born of desire, etc., is called foot, there is no such deficiency. The nature of samāhita that they allow is both supernatural power and the foot of supernatural power. What they say about foot referring to desire, etc., is to show that there are four kinds of samāhita, so they cite the cause to show the result, saying desire, etc. However, there are generally two kinds of samāhita: one is superior in the preliminary stage of good roots, and the other is superior in the stage of accomplishment and fulfillment of good roots. The former is called the foot of supernatural power, and the latter is called supernatural power. Therefore, the sutra says that due to the enhancement of desire, the superior concentration obtained is called desire-samāhita. This sentence refers to the concentration in the preliminary stage. It also says that the means are to eliminate evil and unwholesome dharmas that have already arisen, and even to make the good dharmas that have already arisen abide and increase. From the previous desire-concentration arises the pursuit of desire, initiating diligent effort, gathering and holding the mind. Here it refers to the concentration in the stage of accomplishment and fulfillment of good roots. Gathering the mind, wisdom can hold the mind, and concentration can gather and hold the mind, because this is their characteristic. It also says that like this, desire, diligence, effort, gathering and holding the mind, and so on, what is desire, etc., due to desire...
等持。此言為明後起欲等。是等引者修欲等持。加行成時所證果義。復言此位。若欲若勤若信若輕安若念若正智若思若舍。皆名勝行。依何修造立勝行名。依修造神故名勝行。由如是理。故次說言如是勝行。及前欲定合名欲定勝行神足。所言神足者是神所依義。以前欲定是前生定因。後起欲等是俱生定因故。勝行中不復說。定因定果定無容俱故。俱生欲等於所修定有何功能。若離俱生欲等諸法定不生故。以定於彼俱生聚中最殊勝故。說是所修起先欲定為加行者本。為求得后勝定故。由如是理彼說等持。體即是神亦是神足。故無覺分增欲心失。又彼亦無違契經過。故彼自釋此契經文。言以神聲說于神果。如遍知果說遍知聲。如是所言定為應理。由此經說云何名為趣修神足道。謂八支聖道順清凈。經說言大德。我今定說有如是神。然如是神性是下劣。諸異生類本所成法。非聖非聖性。非通非通性。不能得菩提。不能得涅槃。由是不應修此神足。是八聖道所應趣求。但為斷除能證根本靜慮定障。便為應理。雖定即神而此經說。神果變現事相名神。欲令尋粗悟入于細。兼為顯定是彼近因。故作是言無違經過。何緣信等立根力名。以增上故。難屈伏故。何緣此五先說為根后名為力。由此五法依下上品分先後故。又依可屈伏不可屈
伏故。下品信等勢用劣故。猶為所治同類屈伏。上品翻此故得力名。所說覺支為有何義。能覺悟義名為覺支。若爾覺支唯應有一。不爾念等是擇法分。皆順擇法從勝為名。或覺之支是覺支義。若爾應許覺支唯六。不爾擇法是覺亦覺支。所餘六種是覺支非覺。所說道支為有何義。尋求依義名為道支。若爾道支唯應有一。不爾。餘七是正見分皆順正見從勝為名。或道之支是道支義。若爾應許道支唯七。不爾。正見是道亦道支。所餘七種是道支非道。當言何位何覺分增。頌曰。
初業順抉擇 及修見道位 念住等七品 應知次第增
論曰。初修業位說念住增。謂此位中為息顛倒。由念勢力于身等境。自相共相能審了知。壞二種愚慧用勝故。于暖法位說正斷增。謂此位中見生死過涅槃功德。遂能勇猛發勤精進。不墜生死速趣涅槃勤用勝故。于頂法位說神足增。謂此位中能制心識。趣不退位終不匱乏。信等善根定用勝故。于忍法位說五根增。謂此位中永息惡趣。終不退墮速入離生。增上義成根義勝故。世第一位說五力增。謂此位中不為煩惱之所屈伏。力義勝故。雖忍位中亦容如是。然非決定是故不說。或此位中不為一切。余異生法之所屈伏。故於此位力義偏增。修道位中近菩提位。助覺勝故說覺支增。或此位中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，下品（根）的信等（五根：信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）因為勢力和作用較弱，仍然會被所對治的同類煩惱所屈服。上品（根）則相反，因此得名為『力』。所說的覺支（七覺支：念覺支、擇法覺支、精進覺支、喜覺支、輕安覺支、定覺支、舍覺支）有什麼意義？能夠覺悟的意義稱為覺支。如果這樣說，覺支應該只有一個才對。不是這樣的，念等（其他六覺支）是擇法（覺支）的一部分，都順應擇法（覺支），所以從殊勝的（擇法覺支）而得名。或者，覺悟的支分是覺支的意義。如果這樣說，應該允許覺支只有六個才對。不是這樣的，擇法（覺支）是覺悟也是覺支，其餘六種是覺支但不是覺悟。所說道支（八正道支：正見、正思惟、正語、正業、正命、正精進、正念、正定）有什麼意義？尋求所依的意義稱為道支。如果這樣說，道支應該只有一個才對。不是這樣的，其餘七個是正見（道支）的一部分，都順應正見（道支），所以從殊勝的（正見道支）而得名。或者，道的支分是道支的意義。如果這樣說，應該允許道支只有七個才對。不是這樣的，正見（道支）是道也是道支，其餘七種是道支但不是道。應當說在哪個位次上哪個覺分增長？頌文說： 『初業順抉擇，及修見道位，念住等七品，應知次第增。』 論述說：最初的修業位說念住（四念住：身念住、受念住、心念住、法念住）增長。意思是說，在這個位次中爲了止息顛倒，憑藉唸的力量，對於身等（四念住的）境界，自相和共相能夠審察了知，破壞兩種愚癡，慧的作用殊勝的緣故。在暖法位說正斷（四正斷：已生惡令斷滅、未生惡令不生、未生善令生起、已生善令增長）增長。意思是說，在這個位次中見到生死的過患和涅槃的功德，於是能夠勇猛地發起勤奮精進，不墜落生死，迅速趨向涅槃，勤的作用殊勝的緣故。在頂法位說神足（四神足：欲神足、勤神足、心神足、觀神足）增長。意思是說，在這個位次中能夠控制心識，趨向不退轉的位次，終究不會匱乏，信等善根的定力殊勝的緣故。在忍法位說五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）增長。意思是說，在這個位次中永遠止息惡趣，終究不會退墮，迅速進入遠離生死的境界，增上義成就，根的意義殊勝的緣故。在世第一位說五力（信力、精進力、念力、定力、慧力）增長。意思是說，在這個位次中不被煩惱所屈服，力的意義殊勝的緣故。雖然在忍位中也容許這樣，但並非是決定的，所以不說。或者說，在這個位次中不被一切其餘的異生法所屈服，所以在這個位次上力的意義特別增長。修道位中接近菩提位，幫助覺悟的作用殊勝的緣故，所以說覺支增長。或者說，在這個位次中
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the śraddhā (faith), etc. (five roots: śraddhā (faith), vīrya (effort), smṛti (mindfulness), samādhi (concentration), prajñā (wisdom)) of the inferior class are still subdued by the afflictions of the same kind because their power and function are weak. The superior class is the opposite of this, hence the name 'power'. What is the meaning of the bodhyaṅga (seven factors of enlightenment: smṛti-bodhyaṅga (mindfulness), dharma-vicaya-bodhyaṅga (investigation of phenomena), vīrya-bodhyaṅga (effort), prīti-bodhyaṅga (joy), praśrabdhi-bodhyaṅga (tranquility), samādhi-bodhyaṅga (concentration), upekṣā-bodhyaṅga (equanimity)) that are spoken of? The meaning of being able to awaken is called bodhyaṅga. If that is the case, there should only be one bodhyaṅga. It is not so, smṛti (mindfulness), etc. (the other six bodhyaṅga) are part of dharma-vicaya (investigation of phenomena), and all conform to dharma-vicaya (investigation of phenomena), so they are named after the superior (dharma-vicaya). Or, the branch of enlightenment is the meaning of bodhyaṅga. If that is the case, it should be allowed that there are only six bodhyaṅga. It is not so, dharma-vicaya (investigation of phenomena) is both enlightenment and bodhyaṅga, and the remaining six are bodhyaṅga but not enlightenment. What is the meaning of the mārgāṅga (eightfold path: samyag-dṛṣṭi (right view), samyak-saṃkalpa (right intention), samyag-vāc (right speech), samyak-karmānta (right action), samyag-ājīva (right livelihood), samyag-vyāyāma (right effort), samyak-smṛti (right mindfulness), samyak-samādhi (right concentration)) that are spoken of? The meaning of seeking reliance is called mārgāṅga. If that is the case, there should only be one mārgāṅga. It is not so, the remaining seven are part of samyag-dṛṣṭi (right view), and all conform to samyag-dṛṣṭi (right view), so they are named after the superior (samyag-dṛṣṭi). Or, the branch of the path is the meaning of mārgāṅga. If that is the case, it should be allowed that there are only seven mārgāṅga. It is not so, samyag-dṛṣṭi (right view) is both the path and mārgāṅga, and the remaining seven are mārgāṅga but not the path. When should it be said that which factor of enlightenment increases in which position? The verse says: 『In the initial practice, in accordance with the decision, and in the position of cultivating the path of seeing, the seven qualities of smṛtyupasthāna (the four foundations of mindfulness: mindfulness of body, mindfulness of feeling, mindfulness of mind, mindfulness of phenomena), etc., should be known to increase in order.』 The treatise says: In the initial stage of cultivation, it is said that smṛtyupasthāna (the four foundations of mindfulness) increases. This means that in this position, in order to stop the inversions, by the power of smṛti (mindfulness), one can thoroughly know the self-characteristics and common characteristics of the realms of the body, etc. (the four foundations of mindfulness), destroying the two kinds of ignorance, because the function of wisdom is superior. In the position of ūṣmagata (heat), it is said that samyak-pradhāna (the four right efforts: to prevent unarisen evil from arising, to abandon evil that has arisen, to generate unarisen good, to maintain good that has arisen) increases. This means that in this position, seeing the faults of birth and death and the merits of nirvāṇa, one can bravely generate diligent effort, not fall into birth and death, and quickly move towards nirvāṇa, because the function of diligence is superior. In the position of mūrdhan (peak), it is said that ṛddhipāda (the four bases of magical power: chanda-ṛddhipāda (desire), vīrya-ṛddhipāda (effort), citta-ṛddhipāda (mind), mīmāṃsā-ṛddhipāda (investigation)) increases. This means that in this position, one can control the mind and consciousness, move towards the position of non-retrogression, and will never be lacking, because the power of concentration of the roots of goodness such as śraddhā (faith) is superior. In the position of kṣānti (patience), it is said that the five roots (śraddhā (faith), vīrya (effort), smṛti (mindfulness), samādhi (concentration), prajñā (wisdom)) increase. This means that in this position, one will forever stop the evil destinies, will never regress, and will quickly enter the realm of being away from birth and death, because the meaning of increase is achieved, and the meaning of the roots is superior. In the position of laukikāgradharma (the highest mundane dharma), it is said that the five powers (śraddhā (faith), vīrya (effort), smṛti (mindfulness), samādhi (concentration), prajñā (wisdom)) increase. This means that in this position, one is not subdued by afflictions, because the meaning of power is superior. Although it is also possible in the position of kṣānti (patience), it is not definite, so it is not said. Or, in this position, one is not subdued by all the remaining mundane dharmas, so the meaning of power is particularly increased in this position. In the position of cultivation, one is close to the position of bodhi (enlightenment), and the function of helping enlightenment is superior, so it is said that the bodhyaṅga (seven factors of enlightenment) increase. Or, in this position
斷九品惑。數數覺故覺支義增。見道位中所有道義。皆具足故說道支增。謂尋求依及通往趣。二義具故說名為道。見道位中二義最勝。謂見道位聖慧初生。如實尋求諦理勝故。又於此位不起期心。能速疾行往趣勝故隨數增故。于契經中先七后八非修次第。有餘於此立次第言。行者最初由慧勢力。于身等境自相共相。如實了知導起眾善。如有目者將導眾盲。是故最初說四念住。由四念住了眾境已。于斷惡修善能發起正勤。故於第二說四正斷。由正勤力令相續中。過失損減功德增盛。于殊勝定方能修習。是故神足說在第三。勝定為依便令信等。與出世法為增上緣。由此五根說為第四。根義既立能招惡趣。惡業煩惱不能屈伏。由此五力說為第五力義既成。能如實覺四聖諦境。無疑慮故說七覺支在於第六。既如實覺四聖諦境。厭捨生死欣趣涅槃。故說道支以為第七。于中一一辯其次第。如釋。經論應正思求今此論中思擇法相。于次第理無勞煩述。今於此中應辯覺分。幾唯無漏幾有漏耶。頌曰。
七覺八道支 一向是無漏 三四五根力 皆通於二種
論曰。此中七覺八聖道支唯是無漏。唯于修道見道位中方建立故。謂修道位七覺支增鄰近菩提。謂治有頂故覺支體一向無漏。一切覺分皆助菩提。唯此獨摽覺支名者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 斷除九品煩惱（惑）。因為能多次覺悟，所以覺支的意義增長。在見道位中，所有的道義都具足，所以說道支增長。所謂的『道』，是指尋求所依和通往目標這兩個方面的意義都具備，所以在見道位中，這兩個意義最為殊勝。這是因為在見道位，聖慧初生，能夠如實地尋求真諦，非常殊勝。而且在這個階段，不會產生期望之心，能夠迅速地前往目標，所以說通往目標殊勝。隨著數量的增加，所以在契經中，先說七覺支，后說八道支，並不是修行的次第。有些人對此立次第之說，認為修行者最初憑藉智慧的力量，對於身等境界的自相和共相，如實地瞭解，從而引導產生各種善法，就像有眼睛的人引導盲人一樣。所以最初說四念住。通過四念住瞭解了各種境界之後，就能發起精進，斷除惡法，修習善法。所以在第二位說四正斷。通過正勤的力量，使相續中的過失減少，功德增盛，才能修習殊勝的禪定。所以神足通在第三位說。以殊勝的禪定為基礎，就能使信等善法，成為出世法的增上緣。因此，五根在第四位說。根的意義確立之後，能夠招致惡趣的惡業煩惱就不能夠屈服。因此，五力在第五位說。力的意義成就之後，就能夠如實地覺悟四聖諦的境界，沒有疑惑，所以說七覺支在第六位。既然如實地覺悟了四聖諦的境界，就會厭離生死，欣然趨向涅槃。所以說道支在第七位。關於其中的每一個次第，應該像經論中解釋的那樣，進行正確的思考和尋求。現在這部論中，思擇的是法的相狀，對於次第的道理，就不需要再贅述了。現在在這裡應該辨析的是，覺分中有多少是唯無漏的，有多少是有漏的呢？頌文說： 『七覺八道支，一向是無漏，三四五根力，皆通於二種。』 論述：這裡面，七覺支和八聖道支，唯是無漏的。只有在修道位和見道位中，才建立這些。在修道位，七覺支增長，接近菩提（覺悟），是治理有頂天（三界最高處）的對治法，所以覺支的體性一向是無漏的。一切覺分都幫助菩提，只有這裡特別標明覺支的名字。
【English Translation】 English version Severing the nine grades of afflictions (klesha). Because of repeatedly awakening, the meaning of the awakening factors (bodhyanga) increases. In the path of seeing (darshana-marga), all aspects of the path are complete, therefore it is said that the path factors (marga-anga) increase. The 'path' refers to having both the meaning of seeking a basis and proceeding towards a goal. In the path of seeing, these two meanings are most excellent. This is because in the path of seeing, the holy wisdom (arya-jnana) first arises, and the truthful seeking of the true principle (tattva) is excellent. Moreover, at this stage, no expectation arises, and one can quickly proceed towards the goal, so proceeding towards the goal is excellent. As the number increases, in the sutras, the seven factors of enlightenment (sapta-bodhyanga) are mentioned first, and the eightfold path (ashtanga-marga) are mentioned later, but this is not the order of practice. Some establish an order here, believing that the practitioner initially relies on the power of wisdom to truly understand the self-characteristics (svalakshana) and common characteristics (samanya-lakshana) of the body and other objects, thereby guiding the generation of various good dharmas, just as a sighted person guides the blind. Therefore, the four foundations of mindfulness (catuh-smrtyupasthana) are mentioned first. After understanding various objects through the four foundations of mindfulness, one can generate diligence to abandon evil and cultivate good. Therefore, the four right exertions (catvari samyak-pradhanani) are mentioned in the second place. Through the power of right exertion, the faults in the continuum decrease, and merits increase, and then one can cultivate excellent samadhi (concentration). Therefore, the supernatural powers (rddhi) are mentioned in the third place. Relying on excellent samadhi, faith and other good dharmas can become the dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya) for supramundane dharmas. Therefore, the five roots (panca-indriya) are mentioned in the fourth place. Once the meaning of the roots is established, the evil karma and afflictions that can lead to evil destinies cannot subdue one. Therefore, the five powers (panca-bala) are mentioned in the fifth place. Once the meaning of power is achieved, one can truly awaken to the realm of the four noble truths (catvari arya-satyani) without doubt, so the seven factors of enlightenment are said to be in the sixth place. Since one truly awakens to the realm of the four noble truths, one will be disgusted with samsara (cycle of rebirth) and joyfully move towards nirvana (liberation). Therefore, the path factors are said to be in the seventh place. Regarding the order of each of these, one should engage in correct thinking and seeking, as explained in the sutras and treatises. In this treatise, we are considering the characteristics of dharmas, so there is no need to elaborate on the principles of order. Now, here, we should analyze how many of the awakening factors are only unconditioned (anasrava), and how many are conditioned (sasrava)? The verse says: 'The seven factors of enlightenment and the eightfold path are always unconditioned; the three, four, and five roots and powers are all connected to both types.' Commentary: Here, the seven factors of enlightenment and the eightfold noble path are only unconditioned. They are only established in the path of cultivation (bhavana-marga) and the path of seeing. In the path of cultivation, the seven factors of enlightenment increase, approaching bodhi (enlightenment), and are the antidote to governing the peak of existence (bhavagra, the highest realm of the three realms), so the nature of the awakening factors is always unconditioned. All awakening factors help bodhi, but only here is the name of the awakening factor specifically marked.
以最鄰近。菩提果故由此理趣證七覺支。應知但依治有頂說。此為上首類治下地。唯于無漏立覺支名。若不許然寧不通二。或於一切菩提分中。依近菩提立覺支號。道中修道位近菩提性近菩提。唯是無漏故無漏修道方立覺支名。見道位中八道支勝故。此一向無漏性攝。雖正見等亦通有漏。然彼不得聖道支名。聖道支名目無漏故。又諸論者許覺分法。覺支后說定是無漏。若說在前便通二種。既覺支後方說道支。故八道支一向無漏。所餘通二義準已成。謂覺分中前位增者。彼於後位勢用亦增。后位增者非於前位。故毗婆沙作如是說。從初業位至盡無生念住常增。乃至廣說。此三十七何地有幾。頌曰。
初靜慮一切 未至除喜根 二靜慮除尋 三四中除二 前三無色地 除戒前二種 于欲界有頂 除覺及道支
論曰。初靜慮中具三十七。于未至地除喜覺支。于下地法猶懷疑慮。未能保信故不生喜。又未至定初現前時。未能斷除下地煩惱。后雖已斷而類同前。故起彼時皆無有喜。有說。一切近分地道。皆力勵轉故無喜義。第二靜慮除正思惟。彼靜慮中已無尋故。由契經說彼地無尋。彼上等持轉寂靜故。由此二地各三十六。第三第四靜慮中間。雙除喜尋各三十五。前三無色除戒三支。併除喜尋各三十二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以最鄰近菩提果的緣故，由此理趣證得七覺支。應當知道，這只是依據對治有頂天（Bhava-agra，三界最高處）而說的。這是以上首的覺支來對治下地的煩惱。只有在無漏（Anasrava，無煩惱）的智慧中才建立覺支的名稱。如果不同意這種說法，那麼如何解釋二者不能相通呢？或者說，在一切菩提分（Bodhipaksiya-dharma，三十七道品）中，依據接近菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）的程度來建立覺支的名稱。在道中修道位，因為接近菩提的自性，接近菩提，所以只有無漏的修道才能建立覺支的名稱。在見道位中，八道支最為殊勝，因此這八道支完全屬於無漏的範疇。雖然正見（Samyag-drsti）等也通於有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱），但它們不能得到聖道支的名稱，因為聖道支的名稱指的是無漏的智慧。此外，諸位論者認為，覺分法（bodhipaksa-dharma）在覺支之後所說的，一定是無漏的；如果說在前面，那就通於有漏和無漏兩種。既然在覺支之後才說道支，所以八道支完全是無漏的，其餘的則通於有漏和無漏兩種，這個道理已經很清楚了。也就是說，在覺分中，前位的覺支如果增長，那麼它在後位的勢力和作用也會增長；而後位的覺支如果增長，不一定在前位也增長。所以《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）這樣說：『從初業位到盡無生，念住（Smrti-upasthana，四念住）常常增長』，乃至廣說。這三十七道品在哪些地有幾種呢？頌文說： 『初禪具一切，未至除喜根，二禪除尋伺，三四中除二，前三無色地，除戒前二種，于欲界有頂，除覺及道支。』 論述：初禪（Prathama-dhyana，色界第一禪定）中具足三十七道品。在未至定（Anagamyaphala，未至禪定）中，除去喜覺支（Priti-sambojjhanga）。因為對於下地的法仍然有懷疑和顧慮，不能完全相信，所以不生起喜悅。而且，未至定初次現前的時候，不能斷除下地的煩惱；後來雖然已經斷除，但情況和之前相同，所以在生起未至定時，都沒有喜悅。有人說，一切近分地（Upacara，近分定）的道，都是用力勉強運轉的，所以沒有喜悅的意義。第二禪（Dvititya-dhyana，色界第二禪定）除去正思惟（Samyak-samkalpa），因為這個禪定中已經沒有尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）了。因為契經（Sutra，佛經）中說，這個禪定中沒有尋，所以這個禪定中的等持（Samadhi，禪定）更加寂靜。因此，這兩個禪定各有三十六道品。第三禪（Tritiya-dhyana，色界第三禪定）和第四禪（Caturtha-dhyana，色界第四禪定）中間，同時除去喜和尋，各有三十五道品。前三個無色界（Arupa-dhatu，無色界）除去戒律的三支（正語、正業、正命），併除去喜和尋，各有三十二道品。
【English Translation】 English version: By the closest proximity to the fruit of Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment), the seven factors of enlightenment (sapta bojjhanga) are attained through this rationale. It should be known that this is only spoken in relation to counteracting the peak of existence (Bhava-agra, the highest realm of the three worlds). This is using the foremost factor of enlightenment to counteract the afflictions of the lower realms. Only in uncontaminated (Anasrava, without defilements) wisdom is the name 'factor of enlightenment' established. If this is not accepted, how can the two be reconciled? Or, among all the factors of enlightenment (Bodhipaksiya-dharma, thirty-seven factors of enlightenment), the name 'factor of enlightenment' is established based on the proximity to Bodhi. In the path of cultivation, because of the proximity to the nature of Bodhi, the proximity to Bodhi, only uncontaminated cultivation establishes the name 'factor of enlightenment'. In the stage of the path of seeing, the eightfold path is most excellent, therefore these eight factors of the path are entirely within the category of uncontaminated. Although right view (Samyag-drsti) and others also extend to the contaminated (Sasrava, with defilements), they do not attain the name 'noble path factor', because the name 'noble path factor' refers to uncontaminated wisdom. Furthermore, commentators acknowledge that the factors of enlightenment (bodhipaksa-dharma) spoken after the enlightenment factors are definitely uncontaminated; if spoken before, they extend to both contaminated and uncontaminated. Since the path factors are spoken after the enlightenment factors, the eightfold path is entirely uncontaminated, and the remainder extend to both contaminated and uncontaminated, the principle is already clear. That is to say, among the enlightenment factors, if the earlier factors increase, then their power and function also increase in the later stages; but if the later factors increase, they do not necessarily increase in the earlier stages. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary) says: 'From the initial stage of practice to the exhaustion of non-arising, mindfulness (Smrti-upasthana, the four foundations of mindfulness) constantly increases,' and so on. In which realms and how many of these thirty-seven factors are present? The verse says: 『The first dhyana (Prathama-dhyana, the first meditation in the form realm) has all, the preliminary stage excludes joy, the second dhyana (Dvititya-dhyana, the second meditation in the form realm) excludes investigation, the third and fourth exclude two, the first three formless realms (Arupa-dhatu, the formless realm) exclude the three precepts and the first two, in the desire realm and the peak of existence, the enlightenment and path factors are excluded.』 Commentary: The first dhyana (Prathama-dhyana, the first meditation in the form realm) possesses all thirty-seven factors. In the preliminary stage (Anagamyaphala, the stage of approaching the first dhyana), the joy enlightenment factor (Priti-sambojjhanga) is excluded. Because there is still doubt and concern about the lower realm, there is no complete faith, so joy does not arise. Moreover, when the preliminary stage first manifests, it cannot eliminate the afflictions of the lower realm; although it is later eliminated, the situation is the same as before, so there is no joy when the preliminary stage arises. Some say that all the paths of the proximate concentration (Upacara, proximate concentration) are forcefully and strenuously applied, so there is no meaning of joy. The second dhyana (Dvititya-dhyana, the second meditation in the form realm) excludes right thought (Samyak-samkalpa), because there is no investigation (Vitarka, coarse thought) in this dhyana. Because the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) says that there is no investigation in this dhyana, the concentration (Samadhi, meditation) in this dhyana is more tranquil. Therefore, these two dhyanas each have thirty-six factors. The third dhyana (Tritiya-dhyana, the third meditation in the form realm) and the fourth dhyana (Caturtha-dhyana, the fourth meditation in the form realm) simultaneously exclude joy and investigation, each having thirty-five factors. The first three formless realms (Arupa-dhatu, the formless realm) exclude the three branches of precepts (right speech, right action, right livelihood), and exclude joy and investigation, each having thirty-two factors.
。欲界有頂除覺道支。無無漏故各二十二。如是諸地隨其所應。覺分現前少多無定。謂隨位別後必兼前。可一體上義分多種。故有多種俱時起義。唯四念住必不俱生。以約所緣分為四故。尚無二慧俱時而生。況有一時四慧並起。不可一慧約境分多。以若總緣法念住攝。必無一慧於一剎那。緣四境生四行相故。由此理趣初靜慮中。總而言之具三十七。然於一念頓現在前。極多但容有三十四。如是未至第二靜慮。極多但容有三十三。三四中間極三十二。前三無色極二十九。欲界有頂極唯十九。一切皆除三念住故。其中減者隨位應思。何故心王不立覺分。理亦攝在念住等中。彼實攝諸加行善故。然不別立如慧等者。心於雜染清凈分中。勢用均平無所偏黨。覺分唯在清凈分中。勢用增強。是故不立。有餘師說。覺分多緣諸法共相。心王多分緣自相生。是故不立。有餘復說修習覺分。本為對治一切煩惱。然諸煩惱心所非心。故能治法非心唯所。障治相翻而建立故。有說。覺分輔佐于覺覺是心所慧為體故。不可心王輔佐心所。如王不可輔佐于臣。所以心王不立覺分。有餘師說。心導世間于界趣生輪迴無絕。修習覺分為斷生死。由此心王不立覺分。有餘師說。無始時來心為眾多。煩惱雜染馳散諸境。𢤱悷難調為調伏心修習覺分。非所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 欲界有頂天（Kama-dhatu Bhavagra）除了覺道支（bodhyanga）。因為沒有無漏（anasrava）的緣故，各有二十二種。像這樣，各個地（bhumi）隨其所應。覺分（bodhyanga）的顯現，多少沒有定數。意思是說隨著位次的不同，後面必定包含前面的。可以在一個自體上，義理區分成多種。所以有多種同時生起的道理。只有四念住（smrti-upasthana）必定不會同時生起。因為按照所緣境分為四種的緣故。甚至沒有兩種智慧同時生起。何況有一個時候四種智慧一起生起。不可能一種智慧按照境界分為多種。如果總的緣法念住（dharma-smrti-upasthana）所攝。必定沒有一種智慧在一個剎那，緣四種境界生起四種行相的緣故。 由此道理，在初禪（prathama-dhyana）中。總的來說具有三十七種（菩提分法）。然而在一念之間頓然顯現。最多隻能容納三十四種。像這樣，在未至定（anagamya）和第二禪（dvitiya-dhyana）中。最多隻能容納三十三種。在第三禪（trtiya-dhyana）和第四禪（caturtha-dhyana）中間，最多三十二種。在前三個無色界（arupa-dhatu）中，最多二十九種。在欲界（kama-dhatu）和有頂天（Bhavagra）中，最多隻有十九種。一切都除去了三種念住（smrti-upasthana）的緣故。 其中減少的，隨著位次應當思考。為什麼心王（citta）不建立覺分（bodhyanga）呢？道理也包含在念住（smrti-upasthana）等之中。它實際上包含了各種加行善法（prayogakusala）。然而不單獨建立像智慧（prajna）等的原因是，心（citta）對於雜染（samklesa）和清凈（visuddhi）的部分中，勢力作用均等沒有偏頗。覺分（bodhyanga）只在清凈（visuddhi）的部分中，勢力作用增強。所以不建立。 有其他論師說。覺分（bodhyanga）大多緣諸法的共相（samanya-laksana）。心王（citta）大多緣自相生（svalaksana）。所以不建立。有其他論師又說修習覺分（bodhyanga）。本來是爲了對治一切煩惱（klesa）。然而各種煩惱（klesa）是心所（caitta）不是心（citta）。所以能對治的法不是心（citta）只是心所（caitta）。因為障礙和對治是相反的而建立的緣故。 有人說。覺分（bodhyanga）輔佐于覺（bodhi），覺（bodhi）是以心所（caitta）智慧（prajna）為體。不可心王（citta）輔佐心所（caitta）。如同國王不可以輔佐臣子。所以心王（citta）不建立覺分（bodhyanga）。有其他論師說。心（citta）引導世間在界（dhatu）趣（gati）生（jati）中輪迴沒有斷絕。修習覺分（bodhyanga）是爲了斷除生死（samsara）。因此心王（citta）不建立覺分（bodhyanga）。有其他論師說。從無始以來心（citta）被眾多的煩惱（klesa）雜染馳散到各種境界。剛強難以調伏，爲了調伏心（citta）修習覺分（bodhyanga）。不是所...
【English Translation】 English version Except for the limbs of enlightenment (bodhyanga) in the Realm of Desire's Summit (Kama-dhatu Bhavagra), each has twenty-two because there are no outflows (anasrava). Thus, in each of these grounds (bhumi), as appropriate, the manifestation of the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) is not fixed in quantity. This means that depending on the position, the later ones necessarily include the earlier ones. On one entity, the meaning can be divided into many kinds. Therefore, there is the principle of many kinds arising simultaneously. Only the four mindfulnesses (smrti-upasthana) never arise simultaneously because they are divided into four based on the object of focus. Not even two wisdoms arise simultaneously, let alone four wisdoms arising together at one time. It is impossible for one wisdom to be divided into many based on the object. If it is generally included in the mindfulness of phenomena (dharma-smrti-upasthana), then there is definitely no wisdom that, in one instant, arises with four aspects from focusing on four objects. For this reason, in the first dhyana (prathama-dhyana), generally speaking, there are thirty-seven (factors of enlightenment). However, in one moment, suddenly manifesting, at most, it can only accommodate thirty-four. Likewise, in the preliminary stage (anagamya) and the second dhyana (dvitiya-dhyana), at most, it can only accommodate thirty-three. Between the third (trtiya-dhyana) and fourth dhyanas (caturtha-dhyana), at most thirty-two. In the first three formless realms (arupa-dhatu), at most twenty-nine. In the Realm of Desire (kama-dhatu) and the Summit of Existence (Bhavagra), at most only nineteen, because all three mindfulnesses (smrti-upasthana) are removed. The reduction among them should be considered according to the position. Why is the mind-king (citta) not established as a factor of enlightenment (bodhyanga)? The principle is also included in the mindfulnesses (smrti-upasthana) and so on. It actually includes various preparatory virtuous actions (prayogakusala). However, it is not established separately like wisdom (prajna) and others because the mind (citta) has equal power and no bias in the parts of defilement (samklesa) and purification (visuddhi). The factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) only increase in power in the part of purification (visuddhi). Therefore, it is not established. Some other teachers say that the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) mostly focus on the general characteristics (samanya-laksana) of phenomena. The mind-king (citta) mostly arises from focusing on its own characteristics (svalaksana). Therefore, it is not established. Other teachers also say that cultivating the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) is originally for counteracting all afflictions (klesa). However, various afflictions (klesa) are mental factors (caitta) and not the mind (citta). Therefore, the dharma that can counteract is not the mind (citta) but only mental factors (caitta), because obstruction and counteraction are established as opposites. Some say that the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) assist enlightenment (bodhi), and enlightenment (bodhi) has the mental factor (caitta) of wisdom (prajna) as its essence. The mind-king (citta) cannot assist mental factors (caitta), just as a king cannot assist his ministers. Therefore, the mind-king (citta) does not establish the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga). Other teachers say that the mind (citta) guides the world in the realms (dhatu), destinies (gati), and births (jati) in a cycle without end. Cultivating the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) is to cut off samsara (samsara). Therefore, the mind-king (citta) does not establish the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga). Other teachers say that from beginningless time, the mind (citta) has been scattered into various realms by numerous afflictions (klesa). It is stubborn and difficult to tame. To tame the mind (citta), the factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga) are cultivated. It is not...
調伏即是能調。是故心王不立覺分。何緣諸大心所法中。唯立四法為菩提分。實總攝在念住等中。彼實攝諸加行善故。然別建立念定慧者。由此三種順清凈品。勢用增強可立覺分。想思觸欲于染分中。勢用增強故不別立。于假想觀勝解偏增。覺分唯攝順真實觀。由此勝解非覺分攝。有餘師說。至無學位勝解方增。經但立為無學支故。菩提分法有學位增。由此為因力能引起三菩提故。所以勝解非覺分攝。作意勢力能發動心。令于所緣易脫不定。覺分于境審諦觀察。令心專一與彼相違。是故作意非覺分攝。若爾寧立尋為覺分。尋于境界雖策發心。而欲令心推求至理。非令于境浮飄易脫。于諦觀察有策發能。說此力能策正見故。由此作意不可例尋。有餘師言。若染若凈初取境位。作意力增說為非理。如理作意至境相續。彼勢力微故不立為煩惱覺分。煩惱覺分要于至境。相續位中方增盛故。受于雜染清凈分中。勢用俱增故立覺分。由此流轉緣起支中立為受支。及於還滅菩提分中立喜覺支。有餘師說。受于雜染雖是增上。而與凈品作饒益事。亦有功能如旃荼羅。性雖鄙劣能與豪族作饒益事。故於靜慮為饒益支。菩提分中立覺支號。何緣三受皆通無漏。覺分唯喜非餘二耶。覺分所為行相猛利。樂舍行相遲鈍故非。有餘師言。樂舍二
受為輕安樂。行舍所覆相不明瞭。是故不立。何緣大善心所法中。唯立四法為菩提分。實亦總是念住等攝。彼實總攝加行善故。然別立信勤安舍者。由此四種順覺強故。如何此四順覺用強。發趣菩提信為上首。將修眾行信為初基。清凈果因以信為本。若無信者修趣不成。故立信根以為覺分。有餘師說。如清水珠置濁水中。水便澄潔令諸有目鑒眾色像。如是以信置心品中。能令俱生心品澄凈。由此能見四聖諦理。漸次增長成三菩提。故信最應立為覺分。勤于眾行遍能策發。令其速趣三乘菩提。若無正勤雖已發趣。中間懈廢終無所成。是故立勤以為覺分。有餘師說。無始時來所以不能。見四聖諦都由懈怠。不樂聽聞如理思惟四聖諦理。勤能治彼令樂聽聞。如理思惟四諦理故。能見四諦速證菩提。故勤亦應立為覺分。輕安息務令心調適。行舍正直令心平等。故能增長諸出世行。令其速趣三乘菩提。故立安舍以為覺分。有餘師說。無始時來惛掉亂心不見諦理。由此不證三乘菩提。輕安舍惛行舍止掉。由斯見諦速趣菩提。故此亦應立為覺分。若爾慚愧自性善攝。于眾善品得白法名。亦應立為菩提分法。彼不應立以無慚愧。唯與一切噁心相應。于散戒中為勝障礙。于見諦理為障力微。與彼相違名為慚愧。自性善攝得白法名。雖于散
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 感受輕安的快樂。『行舍』（Equanimity）所包含的相併不明顯，因此不單獨設立。為什麼在『大善心所法』（Great wholesome mental factors）中，只設立四法作為『菩提分』（Factors of Enlightenment）呢？實際上，它們都包含在『念住』（Mindfulness）等之中。因為它們實際上總攝了『加行』（application）的善。然而，特別設立『信』（Faith）、『勤』（Effort）、『安』（Tranquility）、『舍』（Equanimity）這四種，是因為這四種順應覺悟的力量強大。 為什麼說這四種順應覺悟的力量強大呢？發起趨向菩提，『信』是首要的。將要修習各種行為，『信』是最初的基礎。清凈的果和因，都以『信』為根本。如果沒有『信』，修習和趨向就不能成就。所以設立『信根』（Root of Faith）作為覺悟的組成部分。有其他老師說，就像清澈的水晶珠放在渾濁的水中，水就會變得清澈，讓有眼睛的人能夠看到各種顏色和影像。同樣，用『信』放在心品中，能夠讓俱生的心品澄凈。由此能夠見到『四聖諦』（Four Noble Truths）的道理，逐漸增長成就『三菩提』（Threefold Enlightenment）。所以『信』最應該被設立為覺悟的組成部分。 『勤』對於各種行為普遍能夠策勵發起，讓它們迅速趨向『三乘菩提』（Enlightenment of the Three Vehicles）。如果沒有正確的『勤』，即使已經發起趨向，中間懈怠廢止，最終也不會有所成就。所以設立『勤』作為覺悟的組成部分。有其他老師說，從無始以來，之所以不能見到『四聖諦』，都是因為懈怠，不樂於聽聞和如理思維『四聖諦』的道理。『勤』能夠治療這種懈怠，使人樂於聽聞和如理思維『四聖諦』的道理，因此能夠見到『四聖諦』，迅速證得菩提。所以『勤』也應該被設立為覺悟的組成部分。 『輕安』（Lightness and Ease）使身心止息勞務，使心調和適宜。『行舍』正直，使心平等。所以能夠增長各種出世間的行為，讓它們迅速趨向『三乘菩提』。所以設立『安』和『舍』作為覺悟的組成部分。有其他老師說，從無始以來，昏沉掉舉擾亂心，不能見到真諦的道理。因此不能證得『三乘菩提』。『輕安』捨棄昏沉，『行舍』止息掉舉。因此能夠見到真諦，迅速趨向菩提。所以這也應該被設立為覺悟的組成部分。 如果這樣，『慚』（Shame）和『愧』（Remorse）的自性屬於善，在各種善品中得到清白之法的名稱，也應該被設立為『菩提分法』（Factors of Enlightenment）。它們不應該被設立，因為無慚愧只與一切噁心相應，對於散亂的戒律是很大的障礙，對於見真諦的道理是微弱的障礙。與它們相反，名為慚愧，自性屬於善，得到清白之法的名稱，雖然對於散亂
【English Translation】 English version: Experiencing the joy of lightness and ease. The characteristic encompassed by 『Equanimity』 (行舍) is not clear, therefore it is not established separately. Why, among the 『Great wholesome mental factors』 (大善心所法), are only four factors established as 『Factors of Enlightenment』 (菩提分)? In reality, they are all included within 『Mindfulness』 (念住) and others. Because they actually encompass the goodness of 『application』 (加行). However, 『Faith』 (信), 『Effort』 (勤), 『Tranquility』 (安), and 『Equanimity』 (舍) are specifically established because these four are strongly conducive to enlightenment. Why are these four said to be strongly conducive to enlightenment? In initiating the path towards Bodhi, 『Faith』 is paramount. In undertaking various practices, 『Faith』 is the initial foundation. Pure results and causes are rooted in 『Faith』. Without 『Faith』, practice and progress cannot be achieved. Therefore, the 『Root of Faith』 (信根) is established as a component of enlightenment. Some other teachers say that just as a clear crystal bead placed in muddy water clarifies the water, allowing those with eyes to see various colors and images, similarly, placing 『Faith』 in the mind stream can purify the co-arising mental factors. Through this, one can see the truth of the 『Four Noble Truths』 (四聖諦), gradually growing to achieve 『Threefold Enlightenment』 (三菩提). Therefore, 『Faith』 should most certainly be established as a component of enlightenment. 『Effort』 universally encourages and initiates various practices, enabling them to swiftly progress towards 『Enlightenment of the Three Vehicles』 (三乘菩提). Without proper 『Effort』, even if one has initiated progress, laziness and abandonment in between will ultimately lead to no achievement. Therefore, 『Effort』 is established as a component of enlightenment. Some other teachers say that from beginningless time, the reason for not seeing the 『Four Noble Truths』 is entirely due to laziness, not delighting in hearing and rationally contemplating the principles of the 『Four Noble Truths』. 『Effort』 can cure this laziness, enabling one to delight in hearing and rationally contemplating the principles of the 『Four Noble Truths』, thus enabling one to see the 『Four Noble Truths』 and swiftly attain Bodhi. Therefore, 『Effort』 should also be established as a component of enlightenment. 『Lightness and Ease』 (輕安) allows the body and mind to rest from labor, making the mind harmonious and suitable. 『Equanimity』 (行舍) is upright, making the mind equal. Therefore, it can increase various transcendental practices, enabling them to swiftly progress towards 『Enlightenment of the Three Vehicles』. Therefore, 『Tranquility』 and 『Equanimity』 are established as components of enlightenment. Some other teachers say that from beginningless time, a mind disturbed by dullness and agitation cannot see the truth. Therefore, one cannot attain 『Enlightenment of the Three Vehicles』. 『Lightness and Ease』 abandons dullness, and 『Equanimity』 stops agitation. Therefore, one can see the truth and swiftly progress towards Bodhi. Therefore, this should also be established as a component of enlightenment. If so, 『Shame』 (慚) and 『Remorse』 (愧), whose nature belongs to goodness, and which receive the name of pure Dharma among various wholesome qualities, should also be established as 『Factors of Enlightenment』 (菩提分法). They should not be established because shamelessness and lack of remorse only correspond to all evil minds, and are a great obstacle to scattered precepts, and a weak obstacle to seeing the truth. In contrast to them, named shame and remorse, whose nature belongs to goodness, and which receive the name of pure Dharma, although for scattered
戒有勝功力。而於定善為助力微。菩提分中取順定善。助覺諦理故彼不立。若爾應立無貪無瞋。彼是善根自性善故亦不應立。以諸貪瞋六識相應。遍通五部是隨眠性。發粗惡業為勝加行。斷滅善根障散善強違見諦劣。翻彼故立無貪無瞋。得善根名自性善攝。于散善業功力雖強。助定善中勢用微劣。菩提分法取順定善。助覺諦理故彼不立。若爾不放逸應立為覺分。不放逸故眾行皆成。佛每勸令修不放逸。亦不應立於散位中。放逸令心馳散五欲。能違施等散善用強。非定位中此障用勝。翻對彼故立不放逸。但於五欲能防護心。令不馳散專修施等。故於散善力用雖強。助定善中勢用微劣。菩提分法取順定善。助覺諦理故彼不立。若爾不害應立覺分。害能逼惱無量有情墮三惡道。彼能治故亦不應立。害緣事生惱諸有情。障修散善不害翻此助定力微故亦不應立為覺分。有餘師說。大善法中若所治強。自性勝者立為覺分余則不然。所治強者。謂與一切染心相應。自性勝者。謂助見諦如先所說。信勤安舍具足二義。慚愧等六無具二者。謂慚等五二義並無。不放逸一種唯闕自性勝。何緣欣厭非覺分耶。理實亦是念住等攝。彼實總攝加行善故。然不別立為覺分者。由此二種行相相違。俱不遍緣四聖諦境。無一地位容恒現前。心品陜少。是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 戒律具有殊勝的功德力量，但對於禪定方面的善行，它的助力卻很微弱。菩提分法（bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā，三十七道品）選取的是順應禪定的善行，以幫助覺悟真諦，因此戒律不被列入其中。如果這樣說，那麼無貪（alobha，不貪婪）和無瞋（adosa，不嗔恨）也應該被列入。但它們是善根的自性，本身就是善的，所以也不應該被列入。因為貪婪和嗔恨與六識相應，普遍存在於五部（五種煩惱類別）之中，具有隨眠性（anusaya，潛在的煩惱），引發粗重的惡業，是殊勝的加行（payoga，積極的行動）。它們斷滅善根，障礙散亂的善行，強烈違背見諦（ditthi-sacca，對真諦的洞見），而無貪和無瞋則相反，所以才被列入。獲得善根之名，被攝屬於自性善。對於散亂的善業，它們的力量雖然強大，但在幫助禪定方面的善行中，作用卻很微弱。菩提分法選取的是順應禪定的善行，以幫助覺悟真諦，因此無貪和無瞋不被列入其中。 如果這樣說，那麼不放逸（appamada，精進）應該被列為覺分（bojjhanga，菩提分的組成部分）。因為不放逸，各種修行都能成就，佛陀也總是勸誡人們修習不放逸。但它也不應該被列入，因為它在散亂的狀態中，放逸使心馳散於五欲（pañca kāmaguṇā，色、聲、香、味、觸），能夠強烈地違背佈施等散亂的善行，但在禪定狀態中，這種障礙作用並不明顯。不放逸與放逸相反，所以才被列入。它只是能夠保護心，使其不馳散於五欲，專心修習佈施等善行。因此，對於散亂的善行，它的力量雖然強大，但在幫助禪定方面的善行中，作用卻很微弱。菩提分法選取的是順應禪定的善行，以幫助覺悟真諦，因此不放逸不被列入其中。 如果這樣說，那麼不害（avihimsa，不傷害）應該被列為覺分。因為傷害能夠逼迫惱亂無量眾生，使他們墮入三惡道（apaya-bhumi，地獄、餓鬼、畜生），而不害能夠對治傷害。但它也不應該被列入。傷害是緣於事物而生，惱亂各種有情，障礙修習散亂的善行，不害則與此相反，但它幫助禪定的力量微弱，所以也不應該被列為覺分。 有其他老師說，在大的善法中，如果所要對治的煩惱強大，並且自性殊勝，那麼就將其列為覺分，否則就不列入。所要對治的煩惱強大，是指與一切染污心相應的煩惱。自性殊勝，是指能夠幫助見諦，就像先前所說的那樣。信（saddha，信仰）、勤（viriya，精進）、安（passaddhi，輕安）、舍（upekkha，捨棄）這四種覺分，都具備這兩種含義。慚（hiri，慚愧）、愧（ottappa，羞恥）等六種覺分，都不具備這兩種含義，也就是說，慚愧等五種覺分，兩種含義都沒有。不放逸這一種覺分，只是缺少自性殊勝。為什麼欣（nandi，歡喜）和厭（arati，厭惡）不是覺分呢？實際上，它們也是念住（sati-patthana，四念住）等所攝，因為它們實際上總攝了加行善。然而，不單獨將它們列為覺分的原因是，這兩種行相相互違背，不能普遍緣於四聖諦（cattari ariya saccani，苦、集、滅、道）的境界，沒有一個地位能夠容許它們恒常現前，心品狹隘。
【English Translation】 English version Morality (sila) has superior power and strength, but its assistance to meditative goodness (samadhi-kusala) is slight. The factors of enlightenment (bodhi-pakkhiya-dhamma) are chosen to be conducive to meditative goodness, as they aid in the realization of the truth. Therefore, morality is not established as a factor of enlightenment. If that is the case, then non-greed (alobha) and non-hatred (adosa) should also be established. They are the nature of wholesome roots (kusala-mula) and are inherently good, so they should also not be established. Because greed and hatred are associated with the six consciousnesses, pervade the five categories (of afflictions), are of the nature of latent tendencies (anusaya), initiate coarse evil actions, and are superior in their active engagement (payoga). They destroy wholesome roots, obstruct scattered goodness, strongly oppose the vision of truth (ditthi-sacca), while non-greed and non-hatred are the opposite, so they are established. They obtain the name of wholesome roots and are included in inherent goodness. Although their power is strong in scattered good deeds, their influence in aiding meditative goodness is weak. The factors of enlightenment are chosen to be conducive to meditative goodness, as they aid in the realization of the truth. Therefore, non-greed and non-hatred are not established as factors of enlightenment. If that is the case, then diligence (appamada) should be established as a factor of enlightenment (bojjhanga). Because of diligence, all practices are accomplished, and the Buddha always encourages the cultivation of diligence. But it should also not be established, because in a scattered state, negligence causes the mind to wander in the five sense pleasures (pañca kāmaguṇā), and can strongly oppose scattered good deeds such as generosity. However, in a meditative state, this obstructive function is not superior. Diligence is the opposite of negligence, so it is established. It only protects the mind from wandering in the five sense pleasures, allowing one to focus on cultivating generosity and other good deeds. Therefore, although its power is strong in scattered good deeds, its influence in aiding meditative goodness is weak. The factors of enlightenment are chosen to be conducive to meditative goodness, as they aid in the realization of the truth. Therefore, diligence is not established as a factor of enlightenment. If that is the case, then non-harming (avihimsa) should be established as a factor of enlightenment. Because harming can oppress and torment countless beings, causing them to fall into the three evil realms (apaya-bhumi), while non-harming can counteract harming. But it should also not be established. Harming arises from circumstances, torments various sentient beings, and obstructs the cultivation of scattered good deeds. Non-harming is the opposite of this, but its power to aid meditation is weak, so it should also not be established as a factor of enlightenment. Some other teachers say that among great wholesome dharmas, if what is to be counteracted is strong and its nature is superior, then it is established as a factor of enlightenment; otherwise, it is not. What is to be counteracted is strong refers to afflictions that are associated with all defiled minds. Superior in nature refers to what can aid in the vision of truth, as previously stated. Faith (saddha), effort (viriya), tranquility (passaddhi), and equanimity (upekkha) possess both meanings. Shame (hiri), embarrassment (ottappa), and the other four do not possess both meanings; that is, shame and the other four lack both meanings. Diligence alone lacks superiority in nature. Why are delight (nandi) and aversion (arati) not factors of enlightenment? In reality, they are also included in mindfulness (sati-patthana), because they actually encompass all active goodness. However, the reason they are not separately established as factors of enlightenment is that these two characteristics are mutually contradictory, cannot universally focus on the realm of the Four Noble Truths (cattari ariya saccani), and no single state can allow them to be constantly present. The mental quality is narrow.
故不立。有餘師說。夫欣厭者。由慧觀境勢力引生覺分。謂能順生覺慧。義相違故不應別立。何緣尋伺二種皆容有加行善及有無漏。而於覺分一是一非。實亦俱通義如前說。然別立尋不立伺者。尋于聖道策正見強。由彼起時行相猛利。尋求諦理。有助見能立為道支。伺則不爾。以行相起極微劣故。有餘師說。二俱行時尋行相粗映蔽于伺。唯伺起位行相轉微。故覺分中不別立伺。策發正見自有正勤。何更立尋以為覺分。勤策正見有異於尋。故道支中應並建立。謂勤策彼令速進修。尋力策令速觀聖諦。何緣表業不立覺分。覺分唯是順定善法心俱無表有勝順能。表業不然。是故不立。何緣不立不相應行以為覺分。彼于助覺無別勝能。不相應故。非如無表雖不相應。而於道輪有為轂用。故於覺分不別建立。有餘師說。二無心定能滅心故與覺相違。四相及得於所相成有遷成用。此于染凈起用平等。菩提分法順凈用增故不別立。何緣不立信為覺及道支。初發趣時信用增上。已入聖位立覺道支。信于爾時勢用微劣。故不立在覺道支中。何緣于覺支立喜輕安舍。非亦立彼在道支中。彼偏順覺不順道故。云何順覺且修道中。地地各修九品勝覺。如如於諦數數覺悟。如是如是發生勝喜。由生勝喜復樂觀諦。如人掘地獲寶生喜。由生喜故復樂
更掘。故喜于覺隨順力增。要由輕安息諸事務。及由舍力令心平等。方能于境審諦覺察。故立安舍在覺支中。云何此三不順於道。速疾運轉是聖道義。此于速運少有相違。並能令心安隱住故。何緣于道立尋戒支。于覺支中非亦立彼。彼偏順道不順覺故。云何順道且見道中尋策正見。令于上下八諦境中速疾觀察。戒能為轂成見道輪。令于諦中速疾迴轉。故尋及戒俱立道支。此復云何不順於覺。且尋于諦不寂靜轉。于聖諦理尋求相故。覺已見諦安靜而轉。故尋于覺少有相違。覺是相應有所緣境。所依行相戒此相違。故於覺支不建立彼。通運名道不可為例。何緣覺分不攝聖種。分別論者許覺分攝。故彼宗建立四十一覺分。我許攝在念住等中。而不立為別覺分者。以諸覺分在家出家。俱能受行及有欣樂。聖種唯有諸出家人。受行欣樂在家有樂。必無受行故不別立。有餘師說。若許聖種總是無貪如前已釋。若許第四體即是勤。在覺分中無勞徴難。何緣證凈非覺分攝。實亦攝在念住等中。而不立為別覺分者。以諸覺分進修義增。數習方能證菩提故。四種證凈證得義增。見聖諦時漸頓得故。由此證凈非覺分攝。有餘師說。此即信戒隨應亦在覺分中攝。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十一 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 更進一步探究。因此，對於覺悟隨順的力量會增加。關鍵在於通過輕安來止息各種事務，以及通過舍的力量使內心平等。這樣才能對境審慎而真實地覺察。所以，安和舍被設立在覺支之中。為什麼這三者不順應于道呢？因為快速運轉是聖道的意義。這三者對於快速運轉略有相違背，並且能夠使內心安穩平靜。 為什麼在道支中設立尋和戒這兩個分支，而在覺支中卻沒有設立它們呢？因為尋和戒偏向于順應道，而不順應覺。如何順應道呢？因為在見道中，尋能策動正見，使其在上下八諦（苦、集、滅、道四聖諦，每一諦有見、修二個層面）的境界中快速觀察。戒能像車輪的輪轂一樣，成就見道的車輪，使其在四諦中快速回轉。所以，尋和戒都被設立為道支。這又如何不順應于覺呢？因為尋在四諦中以不寂靜的方式運轉，因為它在尋求四聖諦的真相。而覺悟則是在已經見到四諦之後，以安靜的方式運轉。所以，尋對於覺悟略有相違背。覺悟是相應于所緣境的，而所依的行相與戒相違背。所以，在覺支中不設立戒。貫通運轉名為道，不可作為類比。 為什麼覺分不包含聖種（指出家人的生活方式）呢？分別論者認為覺分包含聖種。所以他們的宗派建立了四十一覺分。我（指作者）認為聖種包含在念住等之中，而不單獨設立為覺分，是因為各種覺分在家和出家之人都可以修行和欣樂，而聖種只有出家人才能修行和欣樂。在家之人即使有欣樂，也必定不會去修行，所以不單獨設立。有其他老師說，如果認為聖種總是無貪，那麼如前文已經解釋過。如果認為第四聖種的本體就是精勤，那麼在覺分中就沒有必要再提出疑問了。 為什麼證凈（對佛法的清凈信心）不包含在覺分中呢？實際上，證凈也包含在念住等之中，而不單獨設立為覺分，是因為各種覺分增進修行的意義更強，需要多次修習才能證得菩提。而四種證凈增進證得的意義更強，在見到聖諦時，可以漸悟或頓悟。因此，證凈不包含在覺分中。有其他老師說，這種說法就像信和戒也應該相應地包含在覺分中一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Further exploration. Therefore, the power of aligning with enlightenment increases. The key lies in calming various affairs through lightness and ease (Prasrabdhi), and in equalizing the mind through the power of equanimity (Upeksha). Only then can one discern and truly perceive the object of contemplation. Therefore, Prasrabdhi and Upeksha are established within the enlightenment factors (Bojjhanga). Why are these three not in accordance with the path (Marga)? Because rapid movement is the meaning of the noble path. These three are slightly contradictory to rapid movement and can bring peace and stability to the mind. Why are seeking (Vitarka) and discipline (Sila) established as branches of the path, but not established in the enlightenment factors? Because seeking and discipline are more inclined to accord with the path and not with enlightenment. How do they accord with the path? Because in the path of seeing (Darshana-marga), seeking motivates right view (Samyag-drishti), enabling it to quickly observe the realms of the upper and lower eight truths (the Four Noble Truths - suffering, origin, cessation, path - each with aspects of seeing and cultivation). Discipline, like the hub of a wheel, completes the wheel of the path of seeing, enabling it to quickly revolve within the Four Truths. Therefore, both seeking and discipline are established as branches of the path. How do they not accord with enlightenment? Because seeking operates in the Four Truths in a non-tranquil manner, as it seeks the truth of the Four Noble Truths. Enlightenment, however, operates quietly after having seen the Four Truths. Therefore, seeking is slightly contradictory to enlightenment. Enlightenment corresponds to the object of contemplation, while the aspect of reliance contradicts discipline. Therefore, discipline is not established in the enlightenment factors. The all-encompassing operation called the path cannot be used as an analogy. Why do the enlightenment factors not include the noble lineage (Arya-vamsa, referring to the lifestyle of renunciants)? The separationists (Vaibhashikas) believe that the enlightenment factors include the noble lineage. Therefore, their school establishes forty-one enlightenment factors. I (the author) believe that the noble lineage is included in mindfulness (Smriti-upasthana) and so on, and is not separately established as an enlightenment factor, because various enlightenment factors can be practiced and enjoyed by both householders and renunciants, while the noble lineage can only be practiced and enjoyed by renunciants. Even if householders have enjoyment, they will certainly not practice it, so it is not separately established. Other teachers say that if the noble lineage is always considered non-greed (Allobha), then it has already been explained as before. If the fourth noble lineage is considered to be diligence (Virya), then there is no need to raise questions in the enlightenment factors. Why is pure faith (Prasada) not included in the enlightenment factors? In reality, pure faith is also included in mindfulness and so on, and is not separately established as an enlightenment factor, because various enlightenment factors increase the meaning of advancing in practice, and require repeated practice to attain enlightenment (Bodhi). The four kinds of pure faith increase the meaning of attainment, and can be attained gradually or suddenly when seeing the noble truths. Therefore, pure faith is not included in the enlightenment factors. Other teachers say that this statement is like saying that faith (Sraddha) and discipline (Sila) should also be included in the enlightenment factors accordingly.
阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十六
修覺分時必獲證凈。此有幾種依何位得。實體是何法有漏無漏耶。頌曰。
證凈有四種 謂佛法僧戒 見三得法戒 見道兼佛僧 法謂三諦全 菩薩獨覺道 信戒二為體 四皆唯無漏
論曰。經說證凈總有四種。一于佛證凈。二於法證凈。三于僧證凈。四聖戒證凈。且見道位見三諦時。一一唯得法戒證凈。見道諦位兼得佛僧。謂見苦時得聖愛戒及法證凈。於何等法如何而得法證凈耶。謂唯于苦達唯有法。無實有情生決定信。如是次第見集諦時。亦唯如前得二證凈。達唯集法能為苦因。無內士夫生決定信。從此無間見滅諦時。亦唯如前得二證凈。達唯滅法是真涅槃。誠可遵求生決定信。從此次後見道諦時。兼于佛僧得二證凈。于佛相續諸無學法。得佛證凈于僧相續。學無學法得僧證凈。兼言為顯見道諦時。亦得聖戒及法證凈。達唯道法是證滅因。誠可遵求生決定信。然所信法略有二種。一別二總。總通四諦別唯三諦。全菩薩獨覺道。菩薩道者唯有學法。獨覺道者通學無學。若無漏信緣別法生名不雜緣。於法證凈若無漏信。兼緣佛僧名為雜緣。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十二
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯賢聖品第六之十六
修習覺悟的階段必定獲得證凈（prasāda-vaiśāradya，清凈的信心）。這有幾種？依據哪個位階獲得？它的實體是什麼法？是有漏還是無漏？頌文說：
證凈有四種，即佛、法、僧、戒。 見道時得法、戒證凈，見道諦時兼得佛、僧證凈。 法是指完整的三諦，以及菩薩和獨覺之道。 信和戒是證凈的本體，四種證凈都唯是無漏法。
論述：經中說證凈總共有四種：一是對佛的證凈，二是對法的證凈，三是對僧的證凈，四是對聖戒的證凈。且在見道位，見到三諦時，每一次都只獲得法和戒的證凈；見到道諦時，兼得佛和僧的證凈。也就是說，見到苦諦時，獲得聖愛戒（ārya-śīla，聖者的戒律）以及法的證凈。對於什麼樣的法，如何獲得法的證凈呢？就是說，唯有在苦諦中，領悟到只有法存在，沒有真實的有情，從而產生堅定的信心。像這樣，依次見到集諦時，也像前面一樣獲得兩種證凈，領悟到只有集法才能成為苦的原因，沒有內在的主宰者，從而產生堅定的信心。從此之後，見到滅諦時，也像前面一樣獲得兩種證凈，領悟到只有滅法才是真正的涅槃，值得遵循和追求，從而產生堅定的信心。從這之後，見到道諦時，兼得對佛和僧的兩種證凈。對於佛的相續中的各種無學法（aśaikṣa-dharma，無須再學的法），獲得對佛的證凈；對於僧的相續中的各種有學法（śaikṣa-dharma，需要學習的法）和無學法，獲得對僧的證凈。『兼』字是爲了表明，在見到道諦時，也獲得聖戒和法的證凈，領悟到只有道法才是證得滅的因，值得遵循和追求，從而產生堅定的信心。然而，所信的法略有二種：一是別，二是總。總的包括四諦，別的只有三諦。完整的菩薩和獨覺之道。菩薩道只有有學法，獨覺道則包括有學法和無學法。如果無漏的信緣于別法而生，就叫做不雜緣（amiśra-ālambana，不混合的所緣）。對於法的證凈，如果無漏的信兼緣佛和僧，就叫做雜緣（miśra-ālambana，混合的所緣）。
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharmasamyuktābhidharmaśāstra
Abhidharmasamyuktābhidharmaśāstra Volume 72
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated under Imperial Order by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang
Chapter Sixteen on Discriminating the Worthy and the Saints (Ārya)
When cultivating the constituents of enlightenment, one will certainly attain pure faith (prasāda-vaiśāradya). How many kinds are there? Based on which stage is it attained? What is its substance? Is it a defiled or undefiled dharma? The verse says:
Pure faith is of four kinds: namely, in the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, and precepts. Upon seeing the three truths, one attains pure faith in the Dharma and precepts; upon seeing the Path Truth, one also attains pure faith in the Buddha and Sangha. The Dharma refers to the entirety of the three truths, as well as the paths of Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas. Faith and precepts are the substance; all four are solely undefiled.
Treatise: The scriptures say that there are four kinds of pure faith in total: first, pure faith in the Buddha; second, pure faith in the Dharma; third, pure faith in the Sangha; and fourth, pure faith in the noble precepts (ārya-śīla). Moreover, in the stage of seeing the Path, when seeing the three truths, one only attains pure faith in the Dharma and precepts each time; when seeing the Path Truth, one also attains pure faith in the Buddha and Sangha. That is to say, when seeing the Truth of Suffering, one attains the noble precepts (ārya-śīla) and pure faith in the Dharma. Regarding what kind of Dharma, how does one attain pure faith in the Dharma? It means that only in the Truth of Suffering does one realize that only dharmas exist, and there are no real sentient beings, thereby generating firm faith. In this way, when successively seeing the Truth of Accumulation, one also attains the two kinds of pure faith as before, realizing that only accumulated dharmas can be the cause of suffering, and there is no internal controller, thereby generating firm faith. From then on, when seeing the Truth of Cessation, one also attains the two kinds of pure faith as before, realizing that only the Dharma of Cessation is true Nirvana, worthy of following and seeking, thereby generating firm faith. From then on, when seeing the Truth of the Path, one also attains the two kinds of pure faith in the Buddha and Sangha. Regarding the various unconditioned dharmas (aśaikṣa-dharma) in the Buddha's continuum, one attains pure faith in the Buddha; regarding the various conditioned (śaikṣa-dharma) and unconditioned dharmas in the Sangha's continuum, one attains pure faith in the Sangha. The word 'also' is to indicate that when seeing the Truth of the Path, one also attains pure faith in the noble precepts and the Dharma, realizing that only the Dharma of the Path is the cause of attaining cessation, worthy of following and seeking, thereby generating firm faith. However, the dharmas to be believed are roughly of two kinds: one is specific, and the other is general. The general includes the Four Truths, while the specific includes only the three truths. The complete paths of Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas. The Bodhisattva path only has conditioned dharmas, while the Pratyekabuddha path includes both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. If undefiled faith arises from a specific dharma, it is called non-mixed object (amiśra-ālambana). Regarding pure faith in the Dharma, if undefiled faith also arises from the Buddha and Sangha, it is called mixed object (miśra-ālambana).
法證凈故見三諦唯得二種。見道諦時具足得四。見道諦位為于現前得佛法僧三證凈不。非皆現得。見道諦時現行總緣諸道諦故。應知現在唯有雜緣一法證凈。乘此勢力修得未來多剎那信。于中有別緣佛法僧。或有總緣二三寶者。諸別緣者名三證凈。諸總緣者法證凈攝。道類智時修八智故。亦得三諦法戒二種。道法忍等三剎那中。未來唯修道諦四種。由所信別故名有四。應知實事唯有二種。謂于佛等三種證凈以信為體。聖戒證凈以戒為體故唯有二。若七支戒實唯一者。如何覺分中實事有十一。應唯有十種或十六或多。以覺分中身語二業。說有差別及相有異。正命一種雖有別說。離身語業無別體相。依有別相前覺分中。說言實事有十一種。雖身語業一一有多。然種類同故各立一如四念住。前三證凈謂慧與信。若不雜緣隨所緣別。雖有多種而類同故。各立為一此亦應然。今證凈中依身語業聖戒相等。及契經中同說不缺。不穿等故總立為一。隨身語業類別分二。聖戒相同總立為一。故二與一無相違過。為依何義立證凈名。如實覺知四聖諦理故名為證。正信三寶及妙尸羅俱名為凈。由證得凈立證凈名。正信是心清凈相攝可名為凈。尸羅不是清凈相攝寧立凈名。此四皆是清凈相攝。離不信垢破戒垢故。又此四種唯無漏故。離垢無漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法證凈（Dharma-pratisaranata-visuddhi，對法的皈依清凈）的緣故，只能在見三諦（satya，真諦）時得到兩種證凈。在見道諦（marga-satya，道諦）時，才能具足得到四種證凈。在見道諦的階段，是否能當下獲得佛（Buddha）、法（Dharma）、僧（Sangha）三寶的證凈呢？並非都能當下獲得。因為在見道諦時，現行的是總緣一切道諦，所以應當知道當下只有雜緣一法（Dharma）的證凈。憑藉這種力量，修得未來多剎那的信心。在這些剎那中，有分別緣佛、法、僧三寶的，也有總緣二寶或三寶的。那些分別緣的，稱為三證凈；那些總緣的，屬於法證凈所攝。在道類智（marga-anvaya-jnana）時，因為修八智（asta-jnanani），也能得到三諦（satya）之法（Dharma）和戒（sila）兩種證凈。在道法忍（marga-dharma-ksanti）等三個剎那中，未來只修道諦四種證凈。由於所信的對象不同，所以名稱上有四種。應當知道，實際的事只有兩種，即對於佛等三種證凈以信為體，聖戒（arya-sila）證凈以戒為體，所以只有兩種。如果七支戒（sapta-sila）實際上只有一種，那麼為什麼覺分（bodhyanga）中的實際事物有十一種呢？應該只有十種、十六種或更多種。因為在覺分中，身（kaya）業和語（vak）業的說法有差別，並且相狀也有不同。正命（samyag-ajiva）雖然有特別的說法，但離開身語業就沒有別的體相。依據有別相的前覺分中，說實際事物有十一種。雖然身語業每一項都有多種，但種類相同，所以各立為一，就像四念住（catvari-smrtyupasthanani）。前三種證凈是指慧（prajna）與信（sraddha），如果不雜緣，就隨著所緣的對象不同而有多種，但種類相同，所以各立為一，這裡也應該這樣。現在證凈中，依據身語業的聖戒相等，以及契經（sutra）中共同說的不缺**等緣故，總立為一種。隨著身語業類別的不同分為兩種。聖戒相同，總立為一種。所以二與一沒有相違的過失。是依據什麼意義來建立證凈這個名稱的呢？如實覺知四聖諦（catvari-arya-satyani）的道理，所以名為證。正信三寶及妙尸羅（sila）都名為凈。由證得凈，所以立證凈名。正信是心清凈的相，可以名為凈。尸羅不是清凈的相，怎麼能立凈名呢？這四種都是清凈的相。因為遠離不信的垢染和破戒的垢染。而且這四種都是無漏的緣故，遠離垢染，是無漏的。
【English Translation】 English version Due to the purity of Dharma-pratisaranata-visuddhi (purity of reliance on the Dharma), one can only attain two kinds of purification when seeing the three truths (satya). When seeing the Truth of the Path (marga-satya), one can fully attain all four purifications. In the stage of seeing the Truth of the Path, does one immediately attain the purification of the Three Jewels—Buddha (Buddha), Dharma (Dharma), and Sangha (Sangha)? Not all are attained immediately. Because when seeing the Truth of the Path, what is currently active is the general contemplation of all aspects of the Truth of the Path, one should know that at present, there is only the purification of the Dharma, which is mixedly contemplated. Relying on this power, one cultivates faith in many future moments. In these moments, there are those who separately contemplate the Three Jewels—Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha—and there are those who generally contemplate two or three Jewels. Those who contemplate separately are called the three purifications; those who contemplate generally are included within the purification of the Dharma. At the time of Marga-anvaya-jnana (knowledge of conformity to the Path), because one cultivates the eight knowledges (asta-jnanani), one can also attain the Dharma of the three truths (satya) and the two kinds of purification of precepts (sila). In the three moments of Marga-dharma-ksanti (forbearance of the Dharma of the Path), etc., in the future, one only cultivates the four kinds of purification of the Truth of the Path. Because of the difference in what is believed, there are four names. One should know that in reality, there are only two kinds of things: that is, for the three kinds of purification of the Buddha, etc., faith is the essence; for the purification of Arya-sila (noble precepts), precepts are the essence, so there are only two. If the seven precepts (sapta-sila) are actually only one, then why are there eleven actual things in the limbs of enlightenment (bodhyanga)? There should only be ten, sixteen, or more kinds. Because in the limbs of enlightenment, there are differences in the description of bodily (kaya) and verbal (vak) actions, and their characteristics are also different. Right livelihood (samyag-ajiva), although there is a special description, has no separate essence or characteristic apart from bodily and verbal actions. Based on the different characteristics in the previous limbs of enlightenment, it is said that there are eleven actual things. Although each bodily and verbal action has many aspects, they are of the same kind, so each is established as one, just like the four foundations of mindfulness (catvari-smrtyupasthanani). The first three purifications refer to wisdom (prajna) and faith (sraddha). If there is no mixed contemplation, then depending on the object of contemplation, there are many kinds, but they are of the same kind, so each is established as one, and it should be the same here. Now, in the purification, based on the noble precepts, etc., of bodily and verbal actions, and because the sutras (sutra) commonly say that they are not lacking, etc., they are generally established as one kind. According to the different categories of bodily and verbal actions, they are divided into two kinds. The noble precepts are the same, and they are generally established as one kind. Therefore, there is no contradiction between two and one. Based on what meaning is the name 'purification' established? Truly knowing the principles of the Four Noble Truths (catvari-arya-satyani) is called 'purification'. Right faith in the Three Jewels and excellent precepts (sila) are both called 'purity'. Because of attaining purity through purification, the name 'purification' is established. Right faith is the aspect of the mind's purity and can be called 'purity'. Precepts are not the aspect of purity, so how can the name 'purity' be established? These four are all aspects of purity because they are free from the defilement of disbelief and the defilement of breaking precepts. Moreover, these four are all unconditioned (asamskrta), so they are free from defilement and are unconditioned.
故立凈名。此四何緣次第如是。餘三以佛為根本故。佛于正說有功能故。于彼證凈立在最初。正說功能由悟法故。于彼證凈立為第二。現觀法藏唯聖僧故。于彼證凈立為第三。觀法藏能依聖戒故。聖戒證凈立在最後。有言。佛是正說法師。是故最初立佛證凈。佛何所說愛盡涅槃。是故第二立法證凈。為誰說法為向果僧。是故第三立僧證凈。僧依聖戒而得建立。是故第四立戒證凈。有說。此四猶如導師。道路商侶及所乘乘。故說此四次第如是。經言。學位成就八支。無學位中具成就十。學位亦成正脫正智。何緣于彼不建立支。正脫正智以何為體。頌曰。
學有餘縛故 無正脫智支 解脫為無為 謂勝解惑滅 有為無學支 即二解脫蘊 正智如覺說 謂盡無生智
論曰。有學位中尚有餘縛。未解脫故無解脫支。非離少縛可名脫者。非無解脫體可立解脫智。故有學位不立二支。謂立支名依勝助用。在有學位既有餘縛。雖有解脫無勝助用。無勝解脫故彼勝智亦無。故此二支非在有學。無學已脫一切縛故。依內解脫生二智故。有勝助用理可立支。有學不然故唯成八。解脫體有二。謂有為無為。有為解脫勝解為體。無為解脫惑滅為體。前復有曰說學無學。依十聖身說名為學。依第八聖立無學名。唯有為中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此建立『凈名』（清凈之名）。這四種清凈的順序為何如此安排？因為其餘三種以佛（Buddha）為根本。佛在正法宣說方面具有功能，因此，對於佛的證凈（faith in Buddha）被放在最開始。正法宣說的功能源於對法的領悟，因此，對於法的證凈（faith in Dharma）被立為第二。現觀法藏唯有聖僧（Sangha）才能做到，因此，對於僧的證凈（faith in Sangha）被立為第三。觀法藏能夠依靠神聖的戒律，因此，聖戒的證凈（faith in precepts）被放在最後。 有人說，佛是正法宣說者，因此最先建立佛的證凈。佛所宣說的是愛盡涅槃（Nirvana），因此第二建立法的證凈。為誰說法？為趨向果位的僧眾，因此第三建立僧的證凈。僧眾依靠神聖的戒律而得以建立，因此第四建立戒的證凈。 有人說，這四種清凈就像導師、道路、商旅和所乘之物。所以說這四種清凈的順序是這樣的。經中說，有學位成就八支，無學位中具足成就十支。有學位也成就正脫和正智，為何在那裡不建立支？正脫和正智以什麼為體？頌說： 『學有餘縛故，無正脫智支，解脫為無為，謂勝解惑滅，有為無學支，即二解脫蘊，正智如覺說，謂盡無生智。』 論曰：有學位中尚有剩餘的束縛，沒有完全解脫，所以沒有解脫支。不能因為解脫了少許束縛就稱為解脫者。沒有解脫的本體，就不能建立解脫智。所以有學位不建立這兩個支。建立支的名號是依靠殊勝的助用。在有學位中，既然還有剩餘的束縛，即使有解脫，也沒有殊勝的助用。沒有殊勝的解脫，所以殊勝的智慧也沒有。所以這兩個支不在有學位中。無學位已經脫離了一切束縛，依靠內在的解脫產生兩種智慧，有殊勝的助用，所以可以建立支。有學位不是這樣，所以只成就八支。解脫的本體有兩種，即有為和無為。有為解脫以勝解為本體，無為解脫以惑滅為本體。前面又有人說，說學和無學，是依靠十聖身來說的，稱為學。依靠第八聖立無學之名。唯有有為之中
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, 'Pure Name' (Nirmala-nāma) is established. What is the reason for this sequence of these four purities? Because the other three have the Buddha (Buddha) as their root. The Buddha has the function of rightly expounding the Dharma, therefore, faith in the Buddha (Buddha-prasāda) is placed at the beginning. The function of rightly expounding the Dharma comes from the understanding of the Dharma, therefore, faith in the Dharma (Dharma-prasāda) is established as the second. Only the Holy Sangha (Ārya-saṃgha) can realize the Abhidharma-pitaka, therefore, faith in the Sangha (Saṃgha-prasāda) is established as the third. The ability to contemplate the Dharma-pitaka relies on the sacred precepts, therefore, faith in the precepts (Śīla-prasāda) is placed at the end. Some say that the Buddha is the expounder of the right Dharma, therefore, faith in the Buddha is established first. What the Buddha expounds is the extinction of love, Nirvana (Nirvāṇa), therefore, faith in the Dharma is established second. For whom is the Dharma expounded? For the Sangha who are heading towards the fruition, therefore, faith in the Sangha is established third. The Sangha is established by relying on the sacred precepts, therefore, faith in the precepts is established fourth. Some say that these four purities are like a guide, a road, merchants, and the vehicle they ride. Therefore, it is said that the sequence of these four purities is like this. The Sutra says that the stage of learning achieves eight limbs, and the stage of no-learning fully achieves ten limbs. The stage of learning also achieves right liberation and right knowledge, why are limbs not established there? What is the substance of right liberation and right knowledge? The verse says: 『Because the stage of learning has remaining bonds, there is no limb of right liberation and knowledge. Liberation is conditioned and unconditioned, referring to excellent understanding and the extinction of delusion. The conditioned limb of no-learning is the two aggregates of liberation. Right knowledge is as the awakened one said, referring to the knowledge of the extinction of suffering and the non-arising of future suffering.』 Treatise says: In the stage of learning, there are still remaining bonds, and one is not completely liberated, so there is no limb of liberation. One cannot be called liberated just because one has liberated a few bonds. Without the substance of liberation, one cannot establish the knowledge of liberation. Therefore, the stage of learning does not establish these two limbs. The name of establishing a limb relies on excellent assistance. In the stage of learning, since there are still remaining bonds, even if there is liberation, there is no excellent assistance. Without excellent liberation, there is also no excellent wisdom. Therefore, these two limbs are not in the stage of learning. The stage of no-learning has already escaped all bonds, and relies on inner liberation to generate two kinds of wisdom, and there is excellent assistance, so limbs can be established. The stage of learning is not like this, so only eight limbs are achieved. There are two kinds of substance of liberation, namely conditioned and unconditioned. Conditioned liberation has excellent understanding as its substance, and unconditioned liberation has the extinction of delusion as its substance. Someone said earlier that the stages of learning and no-learning are spoken of based on the ten holy bodies, and are called learning. The name of no-learning is established based on the eighth holy one. Only in the conditioned
無學解脫。可得建立為解脫支。惑滅無為無支用故。支攝解脫復有二種。謂時不時有差別故。有說。慧心有差別故。應知此二即解脫蘊。經主此中意作是說。非唯勝解得此蘊名。若爾是何。謂真智力能永除遣貪及瞋癡。即心離垢名解脫蘊。以何為證。如契經言。云何解脫清凈最勝。謂心從貪離染解脫。及從瞋癡離染解脫。于解脫蘊未滿為滿。已滿為攝修欲勤等。此何所證。若唯勝解是解脫蘊。經不應言。謂心從貪離染解脫。及從瞋癡離染解脫。于解脫蘊乃至廣說。由此證知即心離垢。名解脫蘊非唯勝解。此不成證。謂經亦說。云何名心清凈最勝。謂離諸欲惡不善法。乃至安住第四靜慮。于等持蘊未滿為滿。已滿為攝修欲勤等。非心離垢即名等持。差別品中已廣成立。如由欲等眾行功能。令諸等持圓滿而起。等持圓滿名心清凈。等持令心離穢濁故。非心離垢即名等持。如是亦由欲等勢力。令解脫蘊圓滿而生。解脫圓滿說心解脫。解脫令心離穢濁故。非心離垢即名解脫。故我所立不違契經。又如增上慢相應邪勝解名邪解脫。不可說此即增上慢所染污心。如是離此慢相應正勝解名正解脫。不可說此即是離慢所得凈心。又若此中即心離垢。名解脫蘊無別解脫。經不應前說心清凈最勝。清凈離垢義無別故。又此經說。解脫蘊言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無學解脫』可以被確立為『解脫支』（vimokkhaṅga，解脫的組成部分）。因為煩惱止息的『無為』（asaṅkhata，不生不滅的涅槃狀態）沒有作用和功能，所以不能成為『支』。『支』所包含的『解脫』（vimokkha，從煩惱中解脫）又有兩種，因為有時有，有時沒有的差別。有人說，這是因為智慧和心有差別。應該知道這兩種都屬於『解脫蘊』（vimokkhakkhandha，解脫之蘊）。 經部師在此處的意思是說，不只是『勝解』（adhimokkha，殊勝的理解）才能得到『解脫蘊』這個名稱。如果不是勝解，那是什麼呢？是真正的智慧力量能夠永遠去除貪、嗔、癡，也就是心遠離了污垢，這叫做『解脫蘊』。用什麼來證明呢？就像契經里所說：『什麼是解脫清凈最殊勝？』就是心從貪慾的污染中解脫，以及從嗔恚和愚癡的污染中解脫。對於『解脫蘊』，未圓滿的使其圓滿，已圓滿的就攝持修習欲、勤等。 這又能證明什麼呢？如果只有『勝解』是『解脫蘊』，經文就不應該說：『心從貪慾的污染中解脫，以及從嗔恚和愚癡的污染中解脫。對於解脫蘊』乃至廣說。由此可以證明，是心遠離了污垢，才叫做『解脫蘊』，而不是隻有『勝解』。但這不能作為證明，因為經文也說：『什麼叫做心清凈最殊勝？』就是遠離各種慾望、罪惡和不善之法，乃至安住在第四禪定中。對於『等持蘊』（samādhikkhandha，禪定之蘊），未圓滿的使其圓滿，已圓滿的就攝持修習欲、勤等。心遠離污垢並不等於『等持』，這在『差別品』中已經廣泛地成立了。 就像通過慾望等眾多行為的功能，使各種『等持』圓滿而生起，『等持』圓滿就叫做心清凈，因為『等持』使心遠離了污穢。心遠離污垢並不等於『等持』。同樣，也是通過慾望等力量，使『解脫蘊』圓滿而生。『解脫』圓滿就說心解脫，因為『解脫』使心遠離了污穢。心遠離污垢並不等於『解脫』。所以我所建立的並不違背契經。 又比如，與增上慢相應的邪『勝解』叫做邪『解脫』，不能說這就是被增上慢所染污的心。同樣，遠離這種慢的正『勝解』叫做正『解脫』，不能說這就是遠離慢所得到的清凈心。而且，如果這裡說心遠離污垢就叫做『解脫蘊』，而沒有另外的『解脫』，那麼經文就不應該先說心清凈最殊勝，因為清凈和離垢的意義沒有區別。而且這部經里說了『解脫蘊』這個詞。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-learning liberation' (asaikṣa-vimokṣa) can be established as a 'limb of liberation' (vimokkhaṅga). Because the 'unconditioned' (asaṅkhata, the uncreated state of Nirvana) of the cessation of afflictions has no function or use, it cannot be a 'limb'. The 'liberation' (vimokkha, release from afflictions) included in 'limb' is of two kinds, because of the difference between sometimes having it and sometimes not having it. Some say that this is because of the difference between wisdom and mind. It should be known that these two belong to the 'aggregate of liberation' (vimokkhakkhandha). The Sūtra Master here means to say that it is not only 'superior understanding' (adhimokkha) that can obtain the name 'aggregate of liberation'. If it is not superior understanding, then what is it? It is the power of true wisdom that can forever remove greed, hatred, and delusion, that is, the mind is free from defilements, and this is called the 'aggregate of liberation'. What is the proof? Just as the scripture says: 'What is the most excellent liberation and purity?' It is that the mind is liberated from the defilement of greed, and from the defilement of hatred and delusion. For the 'aggregate of liberation', to make the unfulfilled fulfilled, and to gather and cultivate desire, diligence, etc., for the fulfilled. What does this prove? If only 'superior understanding' is the 'aggregate of liberation', the scripture should not say: 'The mind is liberated from the defilement of greed, and from the defilement of hatred and delusion. For the aggregate of liberation' and so on. From this, it can be proved that it is the mind that is free from defilements that is called the 'aggregate of liberation', not just 'superior understanding'. But this cannot be used as proof, because the scripture also says: 'What is called the most excellent purity of mind?' It is to be free from all desires, evils, and unwholesome dharmas, and to abide in the fourth dhyana (jhāna, meditative state). For the 'aggregate of concentration' (samādhikkhandha), to make the unfulfilled fulfilled, and to gather and cultivate desire, diligence, etc., for the fulfilled. The mind being free from defilements is not the same as 'concentration', which has been widely established in the 'Chapter on Differences'. Just as through the function of many practices such as desire, various 'concentrations' are fully arisen, and the fullness of 'concentration' is called purity of mind, because 'concentration' makes the mind free from impurities. The mind being free from defilements is not the same as 'concentration'. Similarly, it is also through the power of desire, etc., that the 'aggregate of liberation' is fully born. The fullness of 'liberation' is said to be the liberation of the mind, because 'liberation' makes the mind free from impurities. The mind being free from defilements is not the same as 'liberation'. Therefore, what I have established does not contradict the scriptures. Moreover, for example, the wrong 'superior understanding' that corresponds to conceit is called wrong 'liberation', and it cannot be said that this is the mind defiled by conceit. Similarly, the right 'superior understanding' that is free from this conceit is called right 'liberation', and it cannot be said that this is the pure mind obtained from being free from conceit. Moreover, if it is said here that the mind being free from defilements is called the 'aggregate of liberation', and there is no other 'liberation', then the scripture should not first say that the purity of mind is the most excellent, because the meaning of purity and being free from defilements is no different. Moreover, this scripture speaks of the term 'aggregate of liberation'.
理實亦非唯是勝解。意取勝解及同聚法。總說名為解脫蘊故。由此彼說非唯勝解。名解脫蘊於我無違。是故所言二解脫蘊。體是勝解其理極成。如是已說正解脫體。正智體者。謂顯正見。如前覺說即盡無生。前名菩提今名正智。所言無學心解脫者。心於何位正解脫耶。為于未來現在過去。頌曰。
無學心生時 正從障解脫
論曰。如本論說。初無學心未來生時從障解脫。且應思擇本論此文。說未來言應成煩重。說生時言義已顯故。此責不然。隨問答故。謂先問者問無學心。於何世中正得解脫。是故今答言在未來。恐彼謂通未來一切。復為簡別言是生時。或但應言生時解脫。然或有謂生時是現在。為遮彼故言未來生時。現是已生非生時故。或就相續立解脫名。則一切未來皆名正解脫。若就行世立解脫名。則唯生時名正解脫。為別顯二義說未來生時。諸煩重言必顯別義。理應推究無容非撥。依如是義故有頌曰。
文于義已足 而復說余言 非無義有文 應思求別義
雖於此位諸所有蘊。皆得解脫而但說心。然不可言有缺減失。以心所等隨從心故。染凈法中心為主故。雖無有我而可於心。假說縛者脫者等故。若已說勝義已說余。或於此中如舉喻法。舉心一法令類思余。雖諸學心亦于生位從障解
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：理智和實際並非僅僅是殊勝的理解（勝解，adhimoksha，指對真理的深刻理解和確信）。這裡的『意』是指殊勝的理解以及與其相關的聚集之法。總的來說，這些被稱為解脫蘊。因此，前面所說並非僅僅是殊勝的理解，而是名為解脫蘊，這與我（指作者或宗派）的觀點沒有衝突。所以，所說的兩種解脫蘊，其本質是殊勝的理解，這個道理非常明確。像這樣已經闡述了真正的解脫的本體。真正的智慧的本體，指的是顯現正確的見解。就像前面覺悟時所說的『盡』（khaya，指煩惱的止息）和『無生』（anutpāda，指不再產生新的煩惱）。之前的名稱是菩提（bodhi，覺悟），現在的名稱是正智（samyag-jñāna，正確的智慧）。所說的無學（aśaikṣa，指已達到最高修行階段，無需再學的聖者）的心解脫，心在哪個階段才能真正解脫呢？是在未來、現在還是過去？頌文說： 『無學心生時，正從障解脫』 論述：正如本論所說，最初的無學心在未來生起時，才能從障礙中解脫。應該仔細思考本論的這段文字。說『未來』這個詞，似乎顯得重複，因為說『生時』已經能夠顯明這個意思了。這種責難是不對的，因為這是根據問答而來的。因為先前的提問者問的是無學心在哪個時期才能真正得到解脫。所以現在的回答是『在未來』。恐怕提問者認為包括未來的一切時間，所以又進一步區分說是『生時』。或者只應該說『生時解脫』。然而，或許有人認為『生時』就是現在。爲了遮止這種觀點，所以說是『未來生時』。現在是已經生起的狀態，而不是正在生起的狀態。或者可以就相續（saṃtāna，指心識的連續）的角度來建立解脫的名稱，那麼一切未來都可以稱為真正的解脫。如果就世間流轉的角度來建立解脫的名稱，那麼只有生起的那一刻才能稱為真正的解脫。爲了分別顯示這兩種含義，所以說是『未來生時』。所有重複的言語必定顯示不同的含義，理應深入研究，不能隨意否定。根據這樣的意義，所以有頌文說： 『文于義已足，而復說余言，非無義有文，應思求別義』 雖然在這個階段，所有的蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）都得到了解脫，但只說了心。然而，不能說有缺失。因為心所（caitta，心的附屬作用）等是跟隨心的。在染污和清凈的法中，心是主要的。雖然沒有我（ātman，實體性的自我），但可以就心假立束縛者、解脫者等等。如果已經說了勝義（paramārtha，究竟的真理），就已經說了其餘的。或者在這裡就像使用比喻一樣，舉出心這一法，就可以類推其他的法。雖然諸多的有學（śaikṣa，指還在學習和修行中的聖者）的心，也在生起的時候從障礙中解脫。
【English Translation】 English version: Reality and truth are not solely based on superior understanding (勝解, adhimoksha, referring to a profound understanding and conviction of the truth). The 'intention' here refers to superior understanding and the associated aggregated dharmas (法，dharma, teachings or principles). Collectively, these are called the aggregates of liberation (解脫蘊, vimokṣa-skandha). Therefore, the previous statement does not solely refer to superior understanding, but rather to what is named the aggregates of liberation, which does not conflict with my (referring to the author or sect) view. Thus, the two aggregates of liberation mentioned are essentially superior understanding, a principle that is extremely clear. In this way, the true nature of liberation has been explained. The true nature of wisdom refers to the manifestation of correct views. Just as it was said during enlightenment, 'cessation' (盡, khaya, referring to the cessation of afflictions) and 'non-arising' (無生, anutpāda, referring to the non-arising of new afflictions). The previous name was Bodhi (菩提, bodhi, enlightenment), and the current name is Correct Wisdom (正智, samyag-jñāna, correct wisdom). Regarding the liberation of the mind of the Arhat (無學, aśaikṣa, referring to a saint who has reached the highest stage of practice and no longer needs to learn), at what stage does the mind truly become liberated? Is it in the future, present, or past? The verse says: 'When the Arhat's mind arises, it is truly liberated from obstacles.' Commentary: As stated in this treatise, the initial Arhat's mind, when arising in the future, is liberated from obstacles. One should carefully consider this passage in the treatise. Saying 'future' seems redundant, as saying 'when arising' already makes the meaning clear. This criticism is incorrect because it is based on a question and answer format. Because the previous questioner asked in what period the Arhat's mind truly attains liberation, the current answer is 'in the future.' Fearing that the questioner might think it includes all of the future, it is further distinguished as 'when arising.' Or it should only be said 'liberation when arising.' However, perhaps someone might think 'when arising' is the present. To prevent this view, it is said 'future when arising.' The present is a state that has already arisen, not a state that is arising. Or one can establish the name of liberation from the perspective of the continuum (相續, saṃtāna, referring to the continuity of consciousness), then all of the future can be called true liberation. If one establishes the name of liberation from the perspective of worldly existence, then only the moment of arising can be called true liberation. To separately show these two meanings, it is said 'future when arising.' All redundant words must show different meanings, and one should study them deeply, not arbitrarily deny them. According to this meaning, there is a verse that says: 'If the text is sufficient in meaning, and yet additional words are spoken, it is not that the text is without meaning, one should contemplate and seek a separate meaning.' Although at this stage, all the aggregates (蘊, skandha, the five elements that constitute an individual, namely form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) are liberated, only the mind is mentioned. However, it cannot be said that there is a deficiency. Because mental factors (caitta, mental functions) and the like follow the mind. In defiled and pure dharmas, the mind is the main thing. Although there is no self (ātman, substantial self), one can falsely establish the bound one, the liberated one, etc., based on the mind. If the ultimate truth (paramārtha, the ultimate truth) has been spoken, then the rest has been spoken. Or here, just like using a metaphor, if the dharma of the mind is mentioned, then other dharmas can be inferred by analogy. Although the minds of many learners (śaikṣa, referring to saints who are still learning and practicing) are also liberated from obstacles at the time of arising.
脫。而論但說初無學心生時脫者。據無餘斷證解脫故。又此唯說純解脫故。此中有心是自性解脫非相續解脫。應作四句。有學無漏無學世俗。無學無漏余世俗心。如次應知四句差別。此中雖舉正生剎那。而實未來皆得解脫。與正生者生障同故。依此勢力所修未來。世俗善根亦得解脫。依凈相續彼得生故。為重顯示初無學心。未來生時從障解脫。是故本論復作是言。謂無間道現趣已滅。及解脫道現趣已生。爾時無學心名從障解脫。無間道者。謂金剛定並定眷屬。臨過去位立以現名。次後施設過去名故。趣已滅者顯在正滅。鄰次必入已滅位故。解脫道者。謂初盡智並智眷屬。臨現在位立以現名。次後施設現在名故。趣已生者顯在正生。鄰次必入已生位故。言爾時者。謂正滅生時。無學心者初盡智俱起。從障解脫者非唯煩惱障。色無色界感生果業。亦是爾時所脫障故。此業亦障阿羅漢得。由此古昔諸大論師咸作是言。業于得忍不還應果極為障礙。作如是釋本論所言。則已釋經心解脫義。道於何位令生障斷。頌曰。
道唯正滅位 能令彼障斷
論曰。唯言為顯正滅非余。如生未生道俱解脫。非滅已滅俱令障斷。寧知正滅位能斷障非余。以說道正生正從障脫故。道未生位未得解脫。道已生位已得解脫。俱不可立正解
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
關於『脫』，如果只說最初的無學心生起時才算『脫』，這是根據無餘斷證（anupadhi-sesa-nirvana，無餘涅槃）的解脫而言的。而且這裡只說了純粹的解脫。這裡面所說的心是自性解脫，不是相續解脫。應該作四句分別：有學無漏、無學世俗；無學無漏、其餘世俗心。應該像這樣依次瞭解這四句的區別。這裡雖然舉了正生（utpada，生起）的剎那（ksana，瞬間），但實際上未來都可以得到解脫，因為它和正生時的生障（jati-pratisandhi，生之障礙）相同。依靠這種勢力，所修的未來世俗善根（kusala-mula，善根）也可以得到解脫，因為依靠清凈的相續，它們可以生起。爲了著重顯示最初的無學心，在未來生起時從障礙中解脫，所以本論又這樣說：『所謂無間道（anantarya-marga，無間道）的現趣（abhisamaya，現觀）已經滅去，以及解脫道（vimukti-marga，解脫道）的現趣已經生起，這時無學心名為從障礙中解脫。』無間道，指的是金剛定（vajropama-samadhi，金剛喻定）以及定的眷屬。臨近過去位，就安立為『現』名，之後才施設過去的名字。『趣已滅』，顯示在正滅（nirodha，滅盡）的時候，因為緊接著必然進入已滅的位次。解脫道，指的是最初的盡智（ksaya-jnana，盡智）以及智的眷屬。臨近現在位，就安立為『現』名，之後才施設現在的名字。『趣已生』，顯示在正生的時候，因為緊接著必然進入已生的位次。所說的『爾時』，指的是正滅生的時候。無學心，指的是最初的盡智同時生起。『從障礙解脫』，不僅僅是煩惱障（klesa-avarana，煩惱障），色無色感生果業（karma，業）也是這時所脫離的障礙。這種業也障礙阿羅漢（arhat，阿羅漢）的獲得。因此，古代的各位大論師都這樣說：『業對於獲得忍（ksanti，忍）、不還果（anagami-phala，不還果）、應果（arhat-phala，阿羅漢果）是極大的障礙。』這樣解釋本論所說，就已經解釋了經中『心解脫』的意義。道在什麼位次能使生之障礙斷除呢？頌說：
道唯正滅位，能令彼障斷。
論說：『唯』字是爲了顯示只有正滅，而不是其餘。例如生和未生，道都解脫不了；滅和已滅，道都不能使障礙斷除。憑什麼知道正滅位能斷除障礙而不是其餘呢？因為經中說『道正生，正從障脫』。道未生的時候，沒有得到解脫；道已生的時候，已經得到解脫。都不能安立為『正解』。
【English Translation】 English version:
Regarding 'release', if we only say that 'release' occurs when the initial state of no-more-learning mind arises, this is based on the liberation of anupadhi-sesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder). Moreover, this only speaks of pure liberation. The mind mentioned here is self-nature liberation, not continuous liberation. Four distinctions should be made: learner with outflows, non-learner mundane; non-learner without outflows, other mundane minds. The differences between these four distinctions should be understood in this order. Although the moment of true arising (utpada) is mentioned here, in reality, the future can also attain liberation because it is the same as the obstacle of birth (jati-pratisandhi) at the time of true arising. Relying on this power, the future mundane roots of virtue (kusala-mula) cultivated can also attain liberation because they can arise relying on the pure continuum. To emphasize the initial state of no-more-learning mind, when it arises in the future, it is liberated from obstacles. Therefore, this treatise further states: 'That is, when the immediate path (anantarya-marga) of present activity (abhisamaya) has ceased, and the path of liberation (vimukti-marga) of present activity has arisen, at this time, the no-more-learning mind is called liberation from obstacles.' The immediate path refers to the diamond-like concentration (vajropama-samadhi) and its retinue. Approaching the past position, it is established with the name 'present', and only then is the name 'past' applied. 'Activity has ceased' indicates the time of true cessation (nirodha), because it is immediately followed by entering the position of having ceased. The path of liberation refers to the initial knowledge of exhaustion (ksaya-jnana) and its retinue. Approaching the present position, it is established with the name 'present', and only then is the name 'present' applied. 'Activity has arisen' indicates the time of true arising, because it is immediately followed by entering the position of having arisen. The 'at that time' mentioned refers to the time of true cessation and arising. The no-more-learning mind refers to the simultaneous arising of the initial knowledge of exhaustion. 'Liberation from obstacles' is not only the obstacle of afflictions (klesa-avarana), but also the karma (karma) of form and formless realms that causes rebirth, which is also the obstacle that is liberated at this time. This karma also obstructs the attainment of an arhat. Therefore, the great commentators of ancient times all said: 'Karma is a great obstacle to the attainment of acceptance (ksanti), the non-returning fruit (anagami-phala), and the arhat fruit (arhat-phala).' Explaining the statement of this treatise in this way has already explained the meaning of 'mind liberation' in the sutra. In what position does the path cause the obstacle of birth to be severed? The verse says:
The path only at the position of true cessation, can cause that obstacle to be severed.
The treatise says: The word 'only' is to show that it is only true cessation, and not the rest. For example, in arising and not-yet-arising, the path cannot liberate; in cessation and already-ceased, the path cannot cause the obstacle to be severed. How do we know that the position of true cessation can sever the obstacle and not the rest? Because the sutra says, 'The path truly arises, and truly is liberated from obstacles.' When the path has not yet arisen, it has not attained liberation; when the path has already arisen, it has already attained liberation. Neither can be established as 'true liberation'.
脫名。若道正滅時不能斷障。如何道生位得正脫名。故正滅時道能斷障。於前后位斷用定無。如何未生亦名解脫。與正生者生障同故。如世現見開水路時。近水遠水皆言離障。如是既見能斷惑道身中已生。亦應可說近心遠心皆得解脫。或如正起初無學心。有得正生名正解脫。如是彼類未來所修。無漏心等有得起故。定不生法尚得名為正得解脫。況當生者。此中所說正解脫言。顯已解脫心今正得解脫。如是所說豈不相違。已解脫言據自性解脫。今解脫言據從障解脫。所望各異何義相違。或已解脫言據本有解脫。據在身行世說今解脫言。由此所言無相違失。諸行世者皆解脫耶。不爾要勤破生障者。有餘師說。正解脫時亦得名為心已解脫。性是已舍煩惱障故理必應然。以解脫道依無煩惱相續轉故。已出障故名已解脫。今行世故名今解脫。由此所說互不相違。經說。心從貪今得解脫。此所言解脫其義云何。為是令心與貪相離。為令貪性不復緣心。心名有貪為相應故。為所緣故。為得隨故。若相應故應唯染心名得解脫。便違自宗說離貪心得解脫故。又若此法與彼相應。必定無容令此離彼。心應畢竟不解脫貪。若所緣故應染污心亦得解脫。理不應說貪相應心名為解脫。又彼貪性若緣此心。無暫不緣及余緣義。如何可說心脫彼貪。若
得隨故應有學心亦名有貪。依止貪得所隨相續而現起故。正理論者作如是言。唯離貪心今得解脫。何等名曰有貪離貪二種心相。謂心若與貪相應者名有貪心。若不相應亦不為貪。同類因者名離貪心。乃至有癡離癡亦爾。既說離貪心得解脫。即立解脫唯不染心。然不染心總有四種。謂有漏中分善無記。及無漏中分學無學。言離貪心今解脫者。今解脫有二。謂行世相續諸有漏心。一切皆有相續解脫。加行得者亦許兼有行世解脫。諸無漏心一切皆有行世解脫。無學攝者亦許兼有相續解脫。諸有說言。若心悟入清凈安住得解脫者。應知此辯行世解脫。諸有說心正善解脫者。應知此辯相續解脫。諸有說言阿羅漢果成就正智及正解脫。如是名為正解脫滿。應知此辯自性解脫。由阿羅漢二解脫滿。故說名心正善解脫。謂諸聖道皆名正性解脫。依彼名正解脫。諸阿羅漢證無缺減。故說彼心正善解脫。如是所辯二解脫中。諸染污心皆無容有。故彼不可名得解脫。外離染者可具說二。謂正解脫及邪解脫。然不可說心正解脫。由彼身中闕聖道故。亦不可言心不解脫。于當地染具足離故。又雖許彼有正解脫。不許名心正解脫者。非如聖者如理轉故。謂若諸聖於五部結。能正分析漸次而斷。是故說名心正解脫。外離染者於五部結不正分析。總以世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果隨順貪慾，就應該有求學之心，這也叫做『有貪』（Avidya，指無明、愚癡）。因為依止貪慾，貪慾所隨順的（煩惱）就會相續不斷地生起。正理論者這樣說：只有遠離貪心，現在才能得到解脫。什麼叫做『有貪』和『離貪』這兩種心相呢？如果心與貪慾相應，就叫做『有貪心』；如果不相應，也不為貪慾所染，與貪慾是同類因的，就叫做『離貪心』。乃至有癡（Moha，指愚癡）和離癡也是這樣。既然說遠離貪心才能得到解脫，那就是說解脫僅僅是不染污的心。然而不染污的心總共有四種：在有漏（Sāsrava，指有煩惱）中分為善和無記（Avyākrta，指非善非惡），以及在無漏（Anāsrava，指無煩惱）中分為有學（Śaiksa，指還在學習的聖者）和無學（Aśaiksa，指已經完成學習的阿羅漢）。 說『遠離貪心現在才能解脫』，這個『現在解脫』有兩種：一種是行世解脫（指在世俗中修行而獲得的解脫），相續諸有漏心，一切都有相續解脫（指煩惱不再相續生起）。通過加行（Prayoga，指努力修行）得到的，也允許兼有行世解脫。諸無漏心，一切都有行世解脫。無學所攝的（阿羅漢），也允許兼有相續解脫。有些人說：如果心悟入清凈安住的狀態，得到解脫，應當知道這是在說行世解脫。有些人說心真正得到解脫，應當知道這是在說相續解脫。有些人說阿羅漢果成就正智（Samyag-jñāna，指正確的智慧）和正解脫（Samyak-vimoksa，指正確的解脫），這樣叫做正解脫圓滿，應當知道這是在說自性解脫（Svabhāva-vimoksa，指本性清凈的解脫）。由於阿羅漢的兩種解脫圓滿，所以說心真正得到解脫。 所謂的諸聖道（Ārya-mārga，指八正道等），都叫做正性解脫（Samyaktva-vimoksa，指具有正性的解脫）。依靠它而名為正解脫。諸阿羅漢證得無缺減的解脫，所以說他們的心真正得到解脫。在所說的這兩種解脫中，諸染污心都沒有容身之地，所以它們不能被稱為得到解脫。外道（Tīrthika，指佛教以外的修行者）離開染污，可以具足兩種解脫，即正解脫和邪解脫（Mithyā-vimoksa，指錯誤的解脫）。然而不能說他們的心得到正解脫，因為他們的身中缺少聖道。也不能說他們的心沒有解脫，因為他們已經完全離開了當地的染污。又雖然允許他們有正解脫，但不允許稱他們的心得到正解脫，因為他們不像聖者那樣如理如法地修行。如果諸聖者對於五部結（指五種煩惱的結縛），能夠正確地分析，漸次地斷除，所以才說他們的心得到正解脫。外道離開染污，對於五部結不能正確地分析，總是以世俗的（方法來斷除）。
【English Translation】 English version: If one follows greed, one should have a learning mind, which is also called 'Avidya' (ignorance). Because by relying on greed, the (afflictions) that follow greed will arise continuously. The Sautrāntikas say: Only by being free from greed can one attain liberation now. What are the characteristics of the two types of minds, 'with greed' and 'without greed'? If the mind is associated with greed, it is called 'mind with greed'; if it is not associated and is not tainted by greed, and is of the same kind as greed, it is called 'mind without greed'. The same applies to Moha (delusion) and without delusion. Since it is said that liberation can only be attained by being free from greed, it means that liberation is only the undefiled mind. However, there are four types of undefiled minds in total: in the Sāsrava (with outflows, i.e., with afflictions), they are divided into wholesome and neutral; and in the Anāsrava (without outflows, i.e., without afflictions), they are divided into Śaiksa (under learning, i.e., the noble ones who are still learning) and Aśaiksa (beyond learning, i.e., the Arhats who have completed their learning). It is said that 'liberation can be attained now by being free from greed'. This 'now liberation' has two types: one is liberation in the world (referring to liberation attained through practice in the mundane world), and all minds with outflows have continuous liberation (referring to afflictions no longer arising continuously). Those who attain it through Prayoga (effort, i.e., diligent practice) are also allowed to have liberation in the world. All minds without outflows have liberation in the world. Those included in the Aśaiksa (Arhats) are also allowed to have continuous liberation. Some say: If the mind awakens to a state of purity and dwells in it, attaining liberation, it should be known that this is referring to liberation in the world. Some say that the mind truly attains liberation, it should be known that this is referring to continuous liberation. Some say that the fruit of Arhatship is the accomplishment of Samyag-jñāna (right knowledge) and Samyak-vimoksa (right liberation), which is called the perfection of right liberation, it should be known that this is referring to Svabhāva-vimoksa (liberation of self-nature). Because the two liberations of the Arhat are perfect, it is said that the mind truly attains liberation. The so-called Ārya-mārga (noble path, i.e., the Eightfold Path, etc.) are all called Samyaktva-vimoksa (liberation with rightness). It is named right liberation based on it. The Arhats attain liberation without deficiency, so it is said that their minds truly attain liberation. Among these two types of liberation mentioned, there is no place for defiled minds, so they cannot be called liberated. The Tīrthika (non-Buddhists) who are free from defilement can possess two types of liberation, namely right liberation and Mithyā-vimoksa (wrong liberation). However, it cannot be said that their minds attain right liberation, because they lack the noble path in their bodies. Nor can it be said that their minds are not liberated, because they have completely abandoned the defilements of that particular realm. Furthermore, although they are allowed to have right liberation, it is not allowed to say that their minds attain right liberation, because they do not practice according to the Dharma like the noble ones. If the noble ones can correctly analyze the five bonds (referring to the five fetters of affliction) and gradually eliminate them, it is said that their minds attain right liberation. The non-Buddhists who are free from defilement cannot correctly analyze the five bonds, and always use mundane (methods to eliminate them).
道俱時而斷故。雖斷結而不應名心正解脫。然許名為正解脫者。以實能斷諸邪縛故。如世尊言。貪等煩惱雜染心故令不解脫。由此證知貪等斷故。不染污心名得解脫。如濁水滅后水生時。離濁澄清名為凈水。如是與染俱行心滅。依凈相續諸心轉時。離縛而生名為解脫。未離染者不染污心。依有染身似變異轉。如雜血乳不名解脫。諸有學心雖是無漏。而由相續不清凈故。非如無學心名相續解脫。如依病眼有昧識生。眼無病時發明凈識。而無眼識自性轉過。如是煩惱所損相續。依之雖有善凈識生。由煩惱力不明利轉。離煩惱時識便明利。由彼相續順煩惱生。故能依心不名解脫。若彼相續違煩惱生。此能依心方名解脫。故離染者身相續中。不染污心所依相續。昔被貪等之所損害。今離貪等故亦名今解脫。若與貪等相應之心。必不可令解脫貪等。故依正理諸論師言。唯離貪心今得解脫。分別論者作如是言。唯有貪心今得解脫。如有垢器后除其垢。如頗胝迦由所依處。顯色差別有異色生。如是凈心貪等所染。名有貪等后還解脫。聖教亦說心本性凈。有時客塵煩惱所染。此不應理。剎那滅法如器垢除不應理故。謂垢與器俱剎那滅。不可轉有垢即成無垢器。但緣合故有垢器滅。無垢器生名器除垢。又器與垢非互為因。容可計為垢除器
在。貪心相望必互為因。如何從貪心可解脫。又道與惑有俱行過。謂彼不許實有去來。不可言心住彼解脫。若於現在有有貪心。道復現行令心解脫。豈不道惑俱時現行。過失必隨不可得離。若謂道起斷貪隨眠。說與彼俱亦無有過。執隨眠體非心相應。說何有貪心今時得解脫。又隨眠體彼執非貪。以彼自言貪是纏故。為說何等名有貪心。而言今時從貪解脫。故彼所說朋助惡宗。又彼不審思引頗胝迦喻。理實彼體無異色生。隔頗胝迦見顯色故。謂如彼體不攬他形。如是亦無攬他顯理。而共于彼見異顯色。隔彼見他所依顯故。設許彼體有異顯生。亦不應言頗胝迦寶。本體恒在有異色生。前余色俱頗胝迦滅。后與余色俱新生故。由此彼喻輕爾而立。所引至教與理相違。故應此文定非真說。且應徴詰諸有染心。云何名為本性清凈。彼言心性本是不染。若爾與染心所相應。爾時此心轉成染者。是則煩惱應轉成凈。由與清凈心體相應。此彼別因不可得故。又心性凈理無被染。先後與俱皆不成故。謂若先有自性凈心。后煩惱生方被染者。應凈心體非剎那滅。若先有惑后凈心生。被先已生惑所染者。應此惑體非剎那滅。若心與惑俱時而生。則不應言心本性凈。有時客塵煩惱所染。許心與煩惱是一時。生一果一等流一異熟法。而說心本凈煩
【現代漢語翻譯】 在（指存在這種說法）。貪心和期望相互依存，互為因果。如何才能從貪心中解脫？又說道（指修行之道）與迷惑同時發生作用。他們認為實際上沒有『去』和『來』。不能說心停留在那裡就能解脫。如果現在有貪心，道再次出現並使心解脫，難道不是說道與迷惑同時發生作用嗎？過失必定伴隨，無法擺脫。如果說道生起時能斷除貪的隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態），那麼說道與貪同時存在也沒有過失。因為他們認為隨眠的本體與心不相應，那麼說什麼有貪心的人現在能從貪心中解脫呢？而且他們認為隨眠的本體不是貪，因為他們自己說貪是纏縛。那麼請問他們所說的『有貪心』是什麼意思，又怎麼能說現在從貪心中解脫呢？所以他們所說的話是在幫助邪惡的宗派。而且他們沒有仔細思考用頗胝迦（水晶）作比喻。實際上，頗胝迦的本體並沒有產生不同的顏色，而是因為隔著頗胝迦看到了顯現的顏色。就像頗胝迦的本體不吸收其他形狀一樣，它也沒有吸收其他顏色的道理。但是人們卻在它上面看到不同的顏色，因為他們隔著頗胝迦看到了其他物體所顯現的顏色。即使承認頗胝迦的本體會產生不同的顏色，也不應該說頗胝迦寶的本體一直存在，只是產生了不同的顏色。因為之前的顏色和頗胝迦一起滅亡，之後又和新的顏色一起新生。因此，他們所用的比喻是輕率而立不住腳的。他們所引用的至理與道理相違背，所以這段文字一定不是佛陀的真實教誨。應該質問那些有染污心的人，什麼是『本性清凈』？他們說心性本來是不染污的。如果是這樣，那麼當心與染污的心所相應時，這顆心就轉變成染污的。那麼煩惱也應該轉變成清凈的，因為它與清凈的心體相應。因為這兩種轉變的原因是無法區分的。而且心性清凈的道理是無法被染污的，無論是先後還是同時都不可能。如果先有自性清凈的心，然後煩惱產生才被染污，那麼清凈的心體就不應該是剎那滅的。如果先有迷惑，然後清凈的心產生，那麼清凈的心就會被先前已經產生的迷惑所染污，那麼迷惑的本體就不應該是剎那滅的。如果心與迷惑同時產生，那麼就不應該說心本來是清凈的，只是有時被客塵煩惱所染污。他們承認心與煩惱是同時產生，產生相同的果報、相同的等流果和相同的異熟果，卻說心本來是清凈的，只是被煩惱所染污。
【English Translation】 Here (referring to the existence of this statement). Greed and expectation are interdependent and mutually causal. How can one be liberated from greed? It is also said that the Path (referring to the path of practice) and delusion operate simultaneously. They believe that there is actually no 'going' and 'coming'. It cannot be said that the mind staying there can be liberated. If there is greed now, and the Path reappears and liberates the mind, isn't it saying that the Path and delusion operate simultaneously? Faults will inevitably follow and cannot be escaped. If it is said that when the Path arises, it can cut off the latent state of greed (potential state of affliction), then there is no fault in the Path and greed coexisting. Because they believe that the essence of latent affliction is not corresponding to the mind, then what is the point of saying that a greedy person can now be liberated from greed? Moreover, they believe that the essence of latent affliction is not greed, because they themselves say that greed is an entanglement. Then, please tell me what they mean by 'greedy mind', and how can they say that they are now liberated from greed? Therefore, what they say is helping evil sects. Moreover, they did not carefully consider the analogy of using Phatika (crystal). In fact, the essence of Phatika does not produce different colors, but because the manifested color is seen through Phatika. Just as the essence of Phatika does not absorb other shapes, it also does not have the reason to absorb other colors. However, people see different colors on it because they see the colors manifested by other objects through Phatika. Even if it is admitted that the essence of Phatika will produce different colors, it should not be said that the essence of Phatika treasure always exists, but only produces different colors. Because the previous color perished with Phatika, and then it was newly born with the new color. Therefore, the analogy they used is hasty and untenable. The supreme truth they quoted contradicts the reason, so this passage must not be the true teaching of the Buddha. Those with defiled minds should be questioned, what is 'original nature purity'? They say that the nature of the mind is originally undefiled. If this is the case, then when the mind corresponds to the defiled mental states, this mind will be transformed into defiled. Then affliction should also be transformed into purity, because it corresponds to the pure mind body. Because the reasons for these two transformations are indistinguishable. Moreover, the principle of the purity of mind nature cannot be defiled, whether it is before, after, or at the same time. If there is a self-nature pure mind first, and then affliction arises to be defiled, then the pure mind body should not be momentary. If there is delusion first, and then a pure mind arises, then the pure mind will be defiled by the previously produced delusion, then the essence of delusion should not be momentary. If the mind and delusion arise simultaneously, then it should not be said that the mind is originally pure, but only sometimes defiled by the dust of affliction. They admit that the mind and affliction arise simultaneously, producing the same retribution, the same outflowing result, and the same different ripening result, but say that the mind is originally pure, but defiled by affliction.
惱為客塵。是戾正言非應理論。又於三世推徴煩惱畢竟無力能。染凈心過去未來無作用故。現在俱墮一剎那故。又若說心以凈為性。后與煩惱相應位中。轉成染者應失自性。既失自性應不名心。故不應說心本性凈。有時客塵煩惱所染。若抱愚信不敢非撥言此非經。應知此經違正理故非了義說。若爾此經依何密意。依本客性密作是說。謂本性心必是清凈。若客性心容有染污。本性心者。謂無記心。非戚非欣任運轉位。諸有情類多住此心。一切位中皆容有故。此心必凈非染污故。客性心者。謂所餘心。非諸有情多分安住。亦有諸位非皆容有。斷善根者。必無善心。無學位中必無染故。此心有染非唯凈故。如言。河水本性澄清。有時客塵坌少令濁。如是但約心相續中。住本性時說名為凈。住客性位容暫有染。此釋與教正理無違。寧雜染心本性是凈。至除染位名得解脫。豈不心起貪得所隨皆名有貪心。非但貪俱者此不應理。非心隨得可名有貪。補特伽羅可說隨得名有貪故。謂諸得起得所得法。不令屬余法但令屬有情。故諸有情由得勢力名為有戒。有貪者等心心所等法。則不然要與彼俱方名有彼。若異此者諸有貪心。亦應得名有瞋癡等。有瞋等者應名有貪。又尋得俱諸心心所。應皆可說名為有尋。則應畢竟無無尋唯伺定。又先已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 煩惱是客塵（kè chén，比喻外來的、暫時的煩惱）。認為這是正確的說法，但並非應有的理論。又從三世（sān shì，過去、現在、未來）來推究，煩惱畢竟沒有力量。因為染污的心和清凈的心，在過去和未來都沒有作用。現在也都是墮入一剎那。又如果說心以清凈為本性，後來與煩惱相應的時候，轉變成染污的，那就應該失去自性。既然失去了自性，就不應該叫做心。所以不應該說心本性清凈，有時被客塵煩惱所染污。如果抱著愚昧的信仰，不敢否定，說這不是佛經。應該知道這部經違背了正理，所以不是了義說（liǎo yì shuō，究竟的、徹底的說法）。 如果這樣，這部經是依據什麼密意（mì yì，隱藏的含義）呢？是依據本性（běn xìng，根本的性質）和客性（kè xìng，外來的性質）的密意這樣說的。所謂本性心，必定是清凈的。如果客性心，容許有染污。本性心，是指無記心（wú jì xīn，非善非惡的心）。既非悲傷也非喜悅，任其運轉的狀態。各種有情（yǒu qíng，眾生）大多安住于這種心。因為一切狀態中都容許有這種心。這種心必定清凈，不是染污的。客性心，是指其餘的心。不是各種有情大多安住的，也有各種狀態並非都容許有。斷善根（duàn shàn gēn，斷絕行善的根基）的人，必定沒有善心。無學位（wú xué wèi，修行達到最高階段）中必定沒有染污。這種心有染污，並非只有清凈。如同說，河水本性澄清，有時客塵混入少量，使之渾濁。這樣只是就心相續中，安住于本性時，說名為清凈。安住于客性狀態，容許暫時有染污。這種解釋與教義和正理沒有違背。難道雜染的心本性是清凈的，到去除染污的時候，才叫做得到解脫嗎？難道不是心生起貪慾，被貪慾所隨，都叫做有貪心嗎？並非只是與貪慾俱生才叫做有貪心，這種說法不合理。不是心隨得（suí dé，伴隨而來的）就可以叫做有貪。補特伽羅（bǔ tè qié luó，人）可以說隨得而名為有貪。所謂諸得生起，得所得法，不是令其屬於其他法，只是令其屬於有情。所以各種有情由於得的勢力，被稱為有戒（yǒu jiè，持戒）。有貪者等心心所等法，則不是這樣，要與它們俱生，才叫做有它們。如果不是這樣，各種有貪心，也應該得名有嗔癡等。有嗔等者應該得名有貪。又尋（xún，尋求）得俱生的各種心心所，應該都可以說名為有尋。那就應該畢竟沒有無尋唯伺定（wú xún wéi sì dìng，沒有尋求只有伺察的禪定）。又先前已經
【English Translation】 English version Afflictions are like guest defilements (kè chén, a metaphor for external, temporary afflictions). To consider this the correct statement, but not the theory that should be. Furthermore, examining from the Three Times (sān shì, past, present, and future), afflictions ultimately have no power. This is because defiled minds and pure minds have no function in the past and future. In the present, they all fall into a single instant. Moreover, if it is said that the mind's nature is pure, and later, when it corresponds with afflictions, it transforms into defilement, then it should lose its self-nature. Since it has lost its self-nature, it should not be called mind. Therefore, it should not be said that the mind's original nature is pure, and sometimes it is defiled by guest defilements. If one holds a foolish belief and dares not deny it, saying this is not a sutra. One should know that this sutra contradicts right reason, so it is not a definitive teaching (liǎo yì shuō, ultimate, thorough teaching). If so, upon what hidden meaning (mì yì, hidden meaning) does this sutra rely? It relies on the hidden meaning of inherent nature (běn xìng, fundamental nature) and acquired nature (kè xìng, acquired nature) to say this. The so-called inherent nature mind must be pure. If the acquired nature mind allows for defilement. The inherent nature mind refers to the non-specified mind (wú jì xīn, neither good nor evil mind). Neither sorrowful nor joyful, in a state of allowing it to operate. Various sentient beings (yǒu qíng, sentient beings) mostly abide in this mind. Because all states allow for this mind. This mind must be pure, not defiled. The acquired nature mind refers to the remaining minds. It is not that various sentient beings mostly abide in it, and there are also various states that do not all allow for it. Those who have severed their roots of goodness (duàn shàn gēn, severed the roots of performing good deeds) certainly have no good mind. In the state of no-more-learning (wú xué wèi, the highest stage of practice) there is certainly no defilement. This mind has defilement, not only purity. It is like saying that the river water is inherently clear, but sometimes guest defilements mix in a small amount, making it turbid. Thus, it is only in the mind continuum, when abiding in the inherent nature, that it is said to be pure. Abiding in the acquired nature state allows for temporary defilement. This explanation does not contradict the teachings and right reason. Could it be that the inherently defiled mind is pure, and only when the defilement is removed is it called liberation? Isn't it that when the mind arises with greed and is accompanied by greed, it is all called a greedy mind? It is not only when it arises together with greed that it is called greedy; this statement is unreasonable. It is not that the mind follows acquisition (suí dé, accompanying acquisition) that it can be called greedy. Pudgala (bǔ tè qié luó, person) can be said to be greedy by following acquisition. The so-called arising of acquisitions, the acquired dharmas, do not cause them to belong to other dharmas, but only cause them to belong to sentient beings. Therefore, various sentient beings are called possessing precepts (yǒu jiè, upholding precepts) due to the power of acquisition. The mind and mental factors of those who are greedy are not like this; they must arise together with them to be called possessing them. If it were not like this, various greedy minds should also be called possessing anger, ignorance, etc. Those who have anger, etc., should be called greedy. Furthermore, the various mind and mental factors that arise together with seeking (xún, seeking) should all be able to be called possessing seeking. Then there should ultimately be no non-seeking-only-investigation samadhi (wú xún wéi sì dìng, samadhi without seeking but only investigation). Furthermore, previously already
說先說者何。謂應有學心亦名有貪故。許亦何過。若是有貪應是所斷。非真對治不應聖者為永斷貪。修有貪心為真對治。又如佛說有尋伺言。依尋伺相應非彼得俱起。如是佛說有貪心言。唯依貪相應非貪得俱起。若爾有漏及有隨眠應唯漏相應。隨眠相應法此不必爾。以諸色等亦名有漏有隨眠故。由二有言義通多釋。謂隨增漏與漏法同。俱得名為有漏法故。若於是處隨眠隨增。及隨眠相應名有隨眠故。又諸有為法隨因緣生滅。不隨因緣本性轉變。若此法性隨因緣生。即此法性隨因緣滅。非貪勢力令不染心轉成染污。但有自性染污心起與貪相應。由貪相應得有貪號。心性是染本不由貪。故不染心本性清凈。諸染污心本性染污。此義決定不可傾動。如契經中說有三界。謂斷離滅。於前所說二解脫中此何為體。如是三界差別云何。頌曰。
無為說三界 離界唯離貪 斷界斷余結 滅界滅彼事
論曰。斷等三界即分前說。無為解脫以為自體。然三界體約假有異。若就實事則無差別。云何名為約假有異。謂離貪結名為離界。斷餘八結名為斷界。滅餘一切貪等諸結。所繫事體名為滅界。何緣三界如是差別。謂有漏法總略有三。一者能系而非能染。二者能系亦是能染。三者非二。順系染法斷此三法所證無為。如次名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：什麼是『說先說者』？ 答：這是指由於存在『有學心』（Śaikṣa-citta，指仍在學習修行之人的心）也被稱為『有貪』（sarāga，指有貪慾）的情況。如果允許這種說法，會有什麼問題呢？如果說因為有貪慾就應該被斷除，那麼『有貪心』就不是真正的對治法，聖者不應該爲了永遠斷除貪慾而修習『有貪心』作為真正的對治。此外，正如佛陀所說『有尋伺』（savitarka-savicāra，指有尋和伺的心），是依尋伺相應而生起，並非尋伺本身。同樣，佛陀說『有貪心』，只是依貪慾相應而生起，並非貪慾本身。如果這樣，有漏法（sāsrava，指有煩惱的法）和有隨眠（sānuśaya，指有潛在煩惱）的法，是否應該僅僅與漏（āsrava，指煩惱）和隨眠（anuśaya，指潛在煩惱）相應呢？不一定如此。因為諸如色法等也被稱為『有漏』和『有隨眠』。因為『有』這個詞的含義可以有多種解釋。例如，隨煩惱增長的法與煩惱法相同，都可以被稱為『有漏法』。如果在某個地方，隨眠煩惱增長，以及隨眠煩惱相應，就被稱為『有隨眠』。此外，諸有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，指因緣和合而成的法）隨因緣而生滅，其本性不會隨因緣而轉變。如果某個法的本性隨因緣而生，那麼這個法的本性也會隨因緣而滅。不是貪慾的力量使不染污的心轉變成染污，而是具有自性染污的心生起並與貪慾相應，由於與貪慾相應才被稱為『有貪』。心的本性是染污的，並非由貪慾造成。因此，不染污的心本性是清凈的，而染污的心本性是染污的。這個道理是確定的，不可動搖。正如契經中所說有三種界（dhātu，指界）：謂斷界（visaṃyoga-dhātu，指斷煩惱的界）、離界（virāga-dhātu，指離貪慾的界）、滅界（nirodha-dhātu，指滅盡煩惱的界）。在前述的兩種解脫中，這三種界是什麼？這三種界的差別是什麼呢？ 頌曰： 無為說三界，離界唯離貪， 斷界斷余結，滅界滅彼事。 論曰：斷等三種界，就是分別前述的無為解脫作為自體。然而，三種界的體性是依假立而有差異，如果就真實而言，則沒有差別。什麼是依假立而有差異呢？就是離貪結（rāga-saṃyojana，指貪慾的束縛）名為離界，斷除其餘八種結（aṣṭa saṃyojanāni，指八種束縛）名為斷界，滅除其餘一切貪等諸結所繫的事體名為滅界。為什麼這三種界有這樣的差別呢？因為有漏法總的來說有三種：一是能束縛但不能染污，二是能束縛也能染污，三是非以上兩種。斷除這三種順應束縛和染污的法所證得的無為法，依次被稱為離界、斷界、滅界。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is meant by 'the one who speaks of what comes first'? Answer: It refers to the situation where, because of the presence of a 'learner's mind' (Śaikṣa-citta, referring to the mind of someone still learning and practicing), it is also called 'having desire' (sarāga, referring to having greed). If this statement is allowed, what would be the problem? If it is said that because there is desire, it should be eliminated, then 'having a mind with desire' is not a true antidote, and the saints should not cultivate 'having a mind with desire' as a true antidote in order to permanently eliminate desire. Furthermore, just as the Buddha said 'having investigation and analysis' (savitarka-savicāra, referring to a mind with investigation and analysis), it arises in accordance with investigation and analysis, not investigation and analysis themselves. Similarly, when the Buddha said 'having a mind with desire,' it only arises in accordance with desire, not desire itself. If so, should defiled dharmas (sāsrava, referring to dharmas with afflictions) and dharmas with latent afflictions (sānuśaya, referring to having potential afflictions) only correspond to defilements (āsrava, referring to afflictions) and latent afflictions (anuśaya, referring to potential afflictions)? It is not necessarily so. Because things like form are also called 'defiled' and 'having latent afflictions.' Because the meaning of the word 'having' can have multiple explanations. For example, dharmas that increase with afflictions are the same as afflicted dharmas, and both can be called 'defiled dharmas.' If in a certain place, latent afflictions increase, and latent afflictions correspond, it is called 'having latent afflictions.' Furthermore, all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, referring to dharmas arising from causes and conditions) arise and cease according to causes and conditions, and their nature does not change according to causes and conditions. If the nature of a certain dharma arises according to causes and conditions, then the nature of this dharma will also cease according to causes and conditions. It is not the power of desire that transforms an undefiled mind into a defiled one, but rather a mind with inherent defilement arises and corresponds with desire. It is because of corresponding with desire that it is called 'having desire.' The nature of the mind is defiled, not caused by desire. Therefore, the nature of an undefiled mind is pure, while the nature of a defiled mind is defiled. This principle is certain and cannot be shaken. Just as the sutras say there are three realms (dhātu, referring to realms): namely, the detachment realm (visaṃyoga-dhātu, referring to the realm of detaching from afflictions), the dispassion realm (virāga-dhātu, referring to the realm of being free from greed), and the cessation realm (nirodha-dhātu, referring to the realm of extinguishing afflictions). Among the two liberations mentioned earlier, what are these three realms? What are the differences between these three realms? Verse: The three realms are spoken of as unconditioned; the dispassion realm is only free from greed, The detachment realm severs the remaining fetters; the cessation realm extinguishes those things. Treatise: The three realms of detachment, etc., are the respective unconditioned liberations mentioned earlier as their own nature. However, the nature of the three realms differs according to provisional establishment, but if speaking of reality, there is no difference. What is the difference according to provisional establishment? It is that being free from the fetter of greed (rāga-saṃyojana, referring to the bondage of greed) is called the dispassion realm, severing the remaining eight fetters (aṣṭa saṃyojanāni, referring to the eight bondages) is called the detachment realm, and extinguishing all the things bound by the remaining afflictions such as greed is called the cessation realm. Why do these three realms have such differences? Because defiled dharmas generally have three types: first, those that can bind but cannot defile; second, those that can bind and also defile; and third, those that are neither of the above two. The unconditioned dharma attained by severing these three types of dharmas that accord with bondage and defilement are respectively called the dispassion realm, the detachment realm, and the cessation realm.
斷等三界。有餘師說。唯斷能系別有無為斷余不爾。彼說能繫有緣八結。有緣愛結有緣餘事。斷此三種所證無為。如次名為斷等三界。有餘師說。唯斷能染別有無為斷余不爾。彼師說。愛有緣八結。有緣愛結有緣餘事。斷此三種所證無為。如次名為斷等三界。隨所繫事別得擇滅。故三說中初說為善。此中上座作如是言。但隨己情作此分別。建立聖諦涅槃等中。唯以愛為門說斷眾惑故。如契經言。云何集聖諦謂愛後有愛。乃至廣說。云何滅聖諦。謂諸愛斷離滅。云何名涅槃。謂諸愛斷離滅。若於色等已斷欲貪。我說。彼名已斷色等。一切行斷名為斷界。一切行離名為離界。一切行滅名為滅界。佛所說經皆是了義。無別意趣不應異釋。此說不然。先已說故謂我先說。若就實事如是三界體無差別。然一一體假說為三。由此無為是無相法。假立名相必待有為。謂此無為一一自體。斷八結得故名斷界。離愛結得故名離界。滅彼蘊得故名滅界隨所待異假立三名。理實無為體無三別。於一一體具三義故。雖于離愛所得義中。世尊亦言是斷是滅。然依近治唯說離聲。雖滅諸蘊所得義中。契經亦說。是斷是離。而諸經中多言蘊滅。故於此義唯說滅聲。雖斷余結所得義中。契經亦言。是離是滅。然離滅名別目前二。故於此義唯說斷聲。或此
無為隨所繫事有多種故。體實有多三界由斯體實各別。然依合立一涅槃性。故說三界展轉相即。是故經說。一切行斷名為斷界。乃至廣說。理實此經定非了義。非一切行皆是應斷。亦非皆是所應離事。然此經說。皆斷離言。故知此經待別意說。若謂余處已簡別言。諸有漏法一切應斷。此雖總說一切行言。準彼即知此唯有漏。故無此經非了義失。此不成救。筏喻經中說。無漏道亦可斷故。如言我說筏喻法門。法尚應斷何況非法。不可由此便作是言。無漏行斷亦名斷界。勿說斷界即二界體。聖道亦應是所離事。以所離事唯貪所緣。故彼所言經皆了義。無別意趣理定不然。現見此經別意說故。彼復於此異門說言。若從諸行貪愛永斷。諸行爾時皆名斷故名為斷界。如契經說。若於色等已斷欲貪。我說彼名已斷色等。若於諸行煩惱不生。諸行爾時從貪得離故名離界。即一切行不復轉時名為滅界。如是上座于斷等三。建立差別極為雜亂。如貪斷故色等名斷。如是亦應由貪離故色等名離。由貪滅故色等名滅。是則唯依貪愛永斷說斷離滅。如說於色無餘斷愛。離愛滅愛乃至廣說。故從諸行貪愛斷時。即應具成斷離滅界。無勞復計余法離滅。又于諸行煩惱不生。諸行離貪既名離界。愛余煩惱所以不生。由諸行中煩惱已斷。何緣不許亦名斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無為』（Nirvana）隨著所關聯的事物有多種，因此『體』（Dharma）實際上有多種，三界（Trailokya）因此『體』（Dharma）的實性也各自不同。然而，依據共同的『合立』（Sameness）而建立『一涅槃性』（One Nirvana-nature），所以說三界（Trailokya）輾轉相互即是。因此經書上說：『一切行斷名為斷界』，乃至廣說。但實際上，這部經書肯定不是了義經（definitive teaching）。並非一切『行』（Samskara）都是應該斷除的，也不是一切都是應該遠離的事物。然而這部經書說『皆斷離言』，所以知道這部經書是帶有特定意圖而說的。 如果說其他地方已經區分說明，『諸有漏法』（All defiled dharmas）一切都應該斷除。這雖然總的說了一切『行』（Samskara），但參照那裡就知道這裡僅僅指『有漏』（defiled）。所以沒有這部經書不是了義經（definitive teaching）的過失。這種辯解是不成立的。『筏喻經』（The Raft Sutra）中說，『無漏道』（undefiled path）也可以斷除。如經文所說：『我說筏喻法門，法尚應斷，何況非法』。不能因此就說，『無漏行斷』（undefiled conduct cessation）也叫做『斷界』（Cessation Realm）。不要說『斷界』（Cessation Realm）就是二界的『體』（Dharma）。聖道（Noble Path）也應該是所要遠離的事物。因為所要遠離的事物僅僅是貪愛所緣。所以他們所說的經書都是了義經（definitive teaching），沒有其他意圖，這種說法肯定是不對的。現在看到這部經書是帶有特定意圖而說的。 他們又用不同的方式說：如果從諸『行』（Samskara）中貪愛永遠斷除，諸『行』（Samskara）那時都叫做『斷』（Cessation），所以叫做『斷界』（Cessation Realm）。如契經（Sutra）所說：『若於色等已斷欲貪，我說彼名已斷色等』。如果對於諸『行』（Samskara）煩惱不生，諸『行』（Samskara）那時從貪愛中解脫，所以叫做『離界』（Separation Realm）。即一切『行』（Samskara）不再運轉時，叫做『滅界』（Extinction Realm）。像這樣，上座部（Sthavira school）對於『斷』（Cessation）等三者，建立的差別非常雜亂。如貪愛斷除的緣故，色等叫做『斷』（Cessation）。像這樣，也應該由於貪愛解脫的緣故，色等叫做『離』（Separation）。由於貪愛滅除的緣故，色等叫做『滅』（Extinction）。那麼就僅僅依據貪愛永遠斷除，來說『斷』（Cessation）、『離』（Separation）、『滅』（Extinction）。如經文所說：『於色無餘斷愛，離愛滅愛』，乃至廣說。所以從諸『行』（Samskara）貪愛斷除時，就應該具足成就『斷界』（Cessation Realm）、『離界』（Separation Realm）、『滅界』（Extinction Realm），無需再考慮其他法的『離』（Separation）和『滅』（Extinction）。 又對於諸『行』（Samskara）煩惱不生，諸『行』（Samskara）離開貪愛既然叫做『離界』（Separation Realm），那麼其他煩惱為什麼不生？由於諸『行』（Samskara）中煩惱已經斷除，為什麼不允許也叫做『斷』（Cessation）？
【English Translation】 English version: 『Asamskrta』 (The Unconditioned, Nirvana) has many forms depending on what it is associated with. Therefore, 『Dharma』 (The elements of existence) in reality has many forms, and the Three Realms (Trailokya) each have their own distinct reality of 『Dharma』 (The elements of existence). However, based on the common 『Sameness』, the 『One Nirvana-nature』 (Eka Nirvana-svabhava) is established, so it is said that the Three Realms (Trailokya) are mutually identical in a revolving manner. Therefore, the sutra says: 『The cessation of all Samskaras (conditioned phenomena) is called the Cessation Realm』, and so on. But in reality, this sutra is definitely not a definitive teaching (nitartha). Not all Samskaras (conditioned phenomena) should be ceased, nor are all things to be abandoned. However, this sutra says 『all cessation and abandonment』, so it is known that this sutra is spoken with a specific intention. If it is said that elsewhere it has been distinguished and explained that 『All defiled dharmas』 (Sarva sasrava dharma) should be ceased. Although this generally speaks of all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena), referring to that, it is known that this only refers to the 『defiled』 (sasrava). So there is no fault of this sutra not being a definitive teaching (nitartha). This defense is not valid. The 『Raft Sutra』 (The Raft Sutra) says that the 『undefiled path』 (anasrava marga) can also be ceased. As the sutra says: 『I speak of the Raft Dharma, even the Dharma should be ceased, let alone the non-Dharma』. One cannot therefore say that 『undefiled conduct cessation』 (anasrava caritra nirodha) is also called the 『Cessation Realm』 (Nirodha-dhatu). Do not say that the 『Cessation Realm』 (Nirodha-dhatu) is the 『Dharma』 (The elements of existence) of the two realms. The Noble Path (Arya Marga) should also be something to be abandoned. Because what is to be abandoned is only what is conditioned by craving. So what they say is that the sutras are all definitive teachings (nitartha), and there is no other intention, this statement is definitely not correct. Now it is seen that this sutra is spoken with a specific intention. They also say in a different way: If craving is permanently ceased from all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena), all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena) are then called 『cessation』 (nirodha), so it is called the 『Cessation Realm』 (Nirodha-dhatu). As the Sutra (Sutra) says: 『If desire and craving have been ceased from form, etc., I say that they are called ceased from form, etc.』. If afflictions do not arise from all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena), all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena) are then liberated from craving, so it is called the 『Separation Realm』 (Viraga-dhatu). That is, when all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena) no longer operate, it is called the 『Extinction Realm』 (Nirodha-dhatu). In this way, the Sthavira school (Sthavira school) establishes the differences between 『cessation』 (nirodha) and the other two in a very confused manner. As form, etc., are called 『cessation』 (nirodha) because of the cessation of craving. In this way, form, etc., should also be called 『separation』 (viraga) because of the liberation from craving. Because of the extinction of craving, form, etc., are called 『extinction』 (nirodha). Then it is only based on the permanent cessation of craving that 『cessation』 (nirodha), 『separation』 (viraga), and 『extinction』 (nirodha) are spoken of. As the sutra says: 『There is no remaining cessation of craving for form, liberation from craving, extinction of craving』, and so on. So when craving is ceased from all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena), the 『Cessation Realm』 (Nirodha-dhatu), 『Separation Realm』 (Viraga-dhatu), and 『Extinction Realm』 (Nirodha-dhatu) should be fully accomplished, and there is no need to consider the 『separation』 (viraga) and 『extinction』 (nirodha) of other dharmas. Also, if afflictions do not arise from all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena), and all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena) are separated from craving, since it is called the 『Separation Realm』 (Viraga-dhatu), then why do other afflictions not arise? Since afflictions have already been ceased from all 『Samskaras』 (conditioned phenomena), why is it not allowed to also be called 『cessation』 (nirodha)?
界。此不生法有離界名無滅界名斯有何理。諸不生法最應名滅。以契經言由無明滅諸行滅故。又涅槃時諸行不轉既名滅界。未涅槃時諸煩惱滅寧非滅界。要由離愛余煩惱斷。行方不轉名般涅槃。應滅界中有斷離界。如是三界應無差別。若謂此三雖複雜亂由少因故。無為界中約分位殊立三界別。何緣不許對法諸師。如前所明三界差別。若假若實俱無亂故。是故上座率自妄情謗斥我宗。言隨己見如是自愛憎揹他言。談正理時不應收采。準此已釋諸契經中。斷離滅想三相差別。或初業地我當斷想名為斷想。若離染地我正斷想名為離想。若已辦地我已斷想名為滅想。或於已受蘊重擔中。見不捨過起欲舍想名為斷想。以舍與斷名差別故。若於余蘊不復生中見勝功德。起欲求想名為滅想。不生與滅名差別故。既得離染清凈相續。于諸蘊法無所顧戀。于般涅槃見靜妙想名為離想。無戀與離名差別故。若事能厭必能離耶。不爾云何。頌曰。
厭緣苦集慧 離緣四能斷 相對互廣陜 故應成四句
論曰。唯緣苦集所起忍智。說名為厭余則不然。四諦境中所起忍智。能斷惑者皆得離名。廣陜有殊故成四句。有厭非離。謂緣苦集不令惑斷所有忍智。緣厭境故。非離染故。應知此中先離欲染。后見諦者苦集法忍。及見道中苦智
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "問：『界』（dhatu，要素）。此『不生法』（anutpada-dharma，不生之法）有『離界』（vivicadhatu，遠離界）之名，無『滅界』（nirodhadhatu，滅盡界）之名，這是什麼道理？諸不生法最應該稱為『滅』。因為契經（sutra，佛經）上說，由於無明（avidya，對事物真相的迷惑）滅，諸行（samskara，意志行為）才滅。又涅槃（nirvana，解脫）時，諸行不再流轉，就稱為『滅界』。未涅槃時，諸煩惱（klesha，精神上的痛苦）滅，難道不是『滅界』嗎？要由離愛（viraga，離貪）和其他煩惱斷除，諸行才不流轉，名為般涅槃（parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。那麼，『滅界』中應該有『斷離界』。這樣，這三個『界』應該沒有差別。", "如果說這三者雖然複雜混亂，但由於少量原因，在無為界（asamskrta-dhatu，非造作之界）中，根據分位的不同而建立三個『界』的差別。為什麼不允許對法（abhidharma，論藏）諸師，如前面所說的那樣，說明這三個『界』的差別呢？無論是假是真，都沒有混亂的緣故。所以，上座部（sthavira，原始佛教部派之一）憑自己的妄想，誹謗斥責我宗（自宗）。說隨自己的見解，這樣自愛憎恨，背離他人的言論，談論正理時不應該採納。根據這個，已經解釋了諸契經中，『斷想』（uccheda-samjna，斷滅想）、『離想』（viveka-samjna，遠離想）、『滅想』（nirodha-samjna，滅盡想）這三種相的差別。或者在初業地（adikarmika-bhumi，初修行者的階段），『我當斷』的想法名為『斷想』。如果在離染地（vitaraga-bhumi，已離貪慾的階段），『我正斷』的想法名為『離想』。如果已辦地（krita-bhumi，已完成修行的階段），『我已斷』的想法名為『滅想』。或者在已經承受的蘊（skandha，構成個體經驗的要素）的重擔中，見到不捨棄的過患，生起想要捨棄的想法，名為『斷想』。因為『舍』和『斷』名稱不同。如果在其餘的蘊不再生起中，見到殊勝的功德，生起想要追求的想法，名為『滅想』。『不生』和『滅』名稱不同。既然得到離染清凈的相續，對於諸蘊法沒有什麼顧戀，對於般涅槃見到寂靜微妙的想法，名為『離想』。『無戀』和『離』名稱不同。", "如果一件事能令人厭惡，就一定能令人遠離嗎？不是這樣的。為什麼呢？頌（偈頌）說：", "『厭惡緣于苦集之慧，遠離緣於四者能斷。相對而言互有廣狹，故應成立四句。』", "論（詳細解釋）說：唯有緣于苦（duhkha，痛苦）集（samudaya，痛苦的根源）所生起的忍智（ksanti-jnana，忍辱和智慧），才被稱為『厭惡』，其餘則不然。在四諦（catvari-arya-satyani，四聖諦）的境界中所生起的忍智，能夠斷除迷惑的，都可得到『離』的名稱。廣狹有差別，所以成立四句。有厭惡但不是遠離，是指緣于苦集但不令迷惑斷除的所有忍智。因為緣于厭惡的境界，不是因為遠離染污。應該知道，這裡是先離欲染，后見諦者（darsana-marga，見道者）的苦集法忍（duhkha-samudaya-dharma-ksanti，對苦和集之法的忍），以及見道中的苦智（duhkha-jnana，對苦的智慧）。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ], "english_translations": [ "English version:", "Q: 'Dhatu' (element). This 'anutpada-dharma' (non-arising dharma) has the name 'vivicadhatu' (separation element), but not 'nirodhadhatu' (cessation element). What is the reason for this? All non-arising dharmas should be called 'cessation' the most. Because the sutra (scripture) says that due to the cessation of ignorance (avidya, delusion about the true nature of things), the samskaras (volitional actions) cease. Also, at the time of nirvana (liberation), the samskaras no longer flow, and this is called 'cessation element'. When the kleshas (mental afflictions) cease before nirvana, isn't that also a 'cessation element'? Only when love (viraga, detachment) and other afflictions are cut off do the samskaras no longer flow, and this is called parinirvana (complete nirvana). Then, there should be a 'separation element' within the 'cessation element'. In this way, these three 'elements' should have no difference.", "If it is said that although these three are complex and confused, due to a few reasons, in the asamskrta-dhatu (unconditioned element), three 'elements' are established differently according to the difference in positions. Why not allow the Abhidharma (doctrinal commentaries) masters to explain the difference between these three 'elements' as mentioned earlier? Whether it is false or true, there is no confusion. Therefore, the Sthavira (one of the early Buddhist schools) slanders and rebukes our school (own school) based on their own delusions. Saying that following one's own views, thus loving and hating oneself, and turning away from the words of others, one should not adopt them when discussing the right principles. Based on this, the differences between the three aspects of 'uccheda-samjna' (perception of annihilation), 'viveka-samjna' (perception of separation), and 'nirodha-samjna' (perception of cessation) in the sutras have already been explained. Or, in the adikarmika-bhumi (stage of the initial practitioner), the thought 'I shall cut off' is called 'perception of cutting off'. If in the vitaraga-bhumi (stage of being free from lust), the thought 'I am cutting off' is called 'perception of separation'. If in the krita-bhumi (stage of accomplished practice), the thought 'I have cut off' is called 'perception of cessation'. Or, in the heavy burden of the skandhas (aggregates, elements that constitute individual experience) that have already been endured, seeing the fault of not abandoning, giving rise to the thought of wanting to abandon, is called 'perception of cutting off'. Because 'abandoning' and 'cutting off' have different names. If in the non-arising of the remaining skandhas, seeing the excellent merits, giving rise to the thought of wanting to seek, is called 'perception of cessation'. 'Non-arising' and 'cessation' have different names. Since one has obtained the continuous stream of purity free from defilements, one has no attachment to the dharmas of the skandhas, and seeing the peaceful and subtle thought in parinirvana is called 'perception of separation'. 'Non-attachment' and 'separation' have different names.", "If something is repulsive, does it necessarily lead to detachment? It is not so. Why?", "The verse (gatha) says:", "'Disgust arises from wisdom regarding suffering and its origin; detachment arises from the four that can sever. Relatively speaking, they are mutually broad and narrow; therefore, four possibilities should be established.'", "The treatise (commentary) says: Only the forbearance and wisdom (ksanti-jnana, patience and wisdom) that arise from suffering (duhkha, suffering) and origin (samudaya, the cause of suffering) are called 'disgust'; otherwise, it is not so. The forbearance and wisdom that arise in the realm of the Four Noble Truths (catvari-arya-satyani, the four noble truths) and can sever delusion are all given the name 'detachment'. Because the breadth and narrowness are different, four possibilities are established. There is disgust but not detachment, which refers to all the forbearance and wisdom that arise from suffering and origin but do not cause delusion to be severed. Because it arises from the realm of disgust, not because of detachment from defilement. It should be known that here, one first detaches from lust, and then the darsana-marga (one who has attained the path of seeing) has the forbearance of the dharma of suffering and origin (duhkha-samudaya-dharma-ksanti, forbearance of the dharma of suffering and origin), and the wisdom of suffering (duhkha-jnana, wisdom of suffering) in the path of seeing." ] }
集智。但名為厭緣厭境故。忍不名離惑先斷故。智不名離非斷治故。並修道中加行解脫勝進道攝。苦智集智但名為厭緣厭境故。不名為離非斷治故。有離非厭。謂緣滅道能令惑斷。所有忍智慧離染故。緣欣境故。應知此中未離欲染。入見諦者滅道法忍。及諸所有滅道類忍。並修道中無間道攝。滅智道智但名為離。是斷治故不名為厭緣欣境故。有厭亦離。謂緣苦集能令惑斷所有忍智。應知此中未離欲染。入見諦者苦集法忍。及諸所有苦集類忍。並修道中無間道攝苦智集智。有非厭離。謂緣滅道不令惑斷所有忍智。應知此中先離欲染后見諦者。滅道法忍及見道中滅智道智。並修道中加行解脫勝進道攝。滅智道智。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之一
如是已依諸道差別。建立賢聖補特伽羅。所依道中作如是說。正見正智名無學支。故於此中應審思擇。為有慧見非智。及有慧智非見。而別建立見智二支。亦有云何。頌曰。
聖慧忍非智 盡無生非見 餘二有漏慧 皆智六見性
論曰。慧有二種有漏無漏。唯無漏慧立以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 集智（Samudaya-jnana，對集諦的智慧）。但僅僅是因為它厭惡所緣和所對之境。忍（Ksanti，忍受）不被稱為『離』，因為它是斷惑之前的階段。智（Jnana，智慧）不被稱為『離』，因為它不是通過斷除煩惱來對治的。集智包含在修道中的加行道、解脫道和勝進道中。苦智（Dukkha-jnana，對苦諦的智慧）和集智僅僅是因為它們厭惡所緣和所對之境，所以不被稱為『離』，因為它們不是通過斷除煩惱來對治的。存在『離』而非『厭』的情況，即緣于滅諦（Nirodha-satya）和道諦（Marga-satya），能夠使煩惱斷除的所有忍和智，因為它們能夠脫離染污，並且緣于令人欣喜之境。應該知道，在這種情況下，尚未脫離欲染。入見諦位（見道位）者的滅法忍（Nirodha-dharma-ksanti）和道法忍（Marga-dharma-ksanti），以及所有滅類忍（Nirodha-anvaya-ksanti）和道類忍（Marga-anvaya-ksanti），都包含在修道中的無間道（Anantarya-marga）中。滅智和道智僅僅被稱為『離』，因為它們是通過斷除煩惱來對治的，所以不被稱為『厭』，因為它們不厭惡所緣和所對之境。存在『厭』也『離』的情況，即緣于苦諦和集諦，能夠使煩惱斷除的所有忍和智。應該知道，在這種情況下，尚未脫離欲染。入見諦位者的苦法忍（Dukkha-dharma-ksanti）和集法忍（Samudaya-dharma-ksanti），以及所有苦類忍（Dukkha-anvaya-ksanti）和集類忍（Samudaya-anvaya-ksanti），都包含在修道中的無間道中。苦智和集智存在非『厭』非『離』的情況，即緣于滅諦和道諦，不能使煩惱斷除的所有忍和智。應該知道，在這種情況下，先脫離欲染后見諦者，滅法忍和道法忍，以及見道中的滅智和道智，都包含在修道中的加行道、解脫道和勝進道中。滅智和道智。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十二 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十三
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之一
像這樣已經依據諸道的差別，建立了賢聖補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，人）。在所依據的道中作這樣的說明：正見（Samyag-drsti）和正智（Samyag-jnana）被稱為無學支。因此，在此處應該審慎地思考，是否有慧見而非智，以及是否有慧智而非見，而分別建立見和智這兩個支。或者，情況是怎樣的呢？頌曰：
聖慧忍非智 盡無生非見 餘二有漏慧 皆智六見性
論曰：慧有兩種，有漏（Sasrava）和無漏（Anasrava）。只有無漏慧才被建立為...
【English Translation】 English version Samudaya-jnana (Wisdom regarding the truth of origination) is merely named as 'disgust' because it is disgusted with the object and the realm it opposes. Ksanti (Forbearance) is not named 'separation' because it is the stage before the cutting off of afflictions. Jnana (Wisdom) is not named 'separation' because it does not cure by separating from non-severance. Samudaya-jnana is included in the application path, liberation path, and superior progress path in the path of cultivation. Dukkha-jnana (Wisdom regarding the truth of suffering) and Samudaya-jnana are merely named as 'disgust' because they are disgusted with the object and the realm they oppose, so they are not named 'separation' because they do not cure by separating from non-severance. There exists 'separation' but not 'disgust,' namely, all the Ksanti and Jnana that are based on Nirodha-satya (Truth of cessation) and Marga-satya (Truth of the path) that can cause the cutting off of afflictions, because they can separate from defilement and are based on a delightful realm. It should be known that in this case, one has not yet separated from the defilement of desire. Nirodha-dharma-ksanti (Forbearance of the Dharma of Cessation) and Marga-dharma-ksanti (Forbearance of the Dharma of the Path), as well as all Nirodha-anvaya-ksanti (Forbearance of the Subsequent Knowledge of Cessation) and Marga-anvaya-ksanti (Forbearance of the Subsequent Knowledge of the Path) of those who enter the stage of seeing the truth (Darshana-marga), are included in the immediate path (Anantarya-marga) in the path of cultivation. Nirodha-jnana (Wisdom of Cessation) and Marga-jnana (Wisdom of the Path) are merely named 'separation' because they cure by separating from non-severance, so they are not named 'disgust' because they are not disgusted with the object and the realm they delight in. There exists 'disgust' and also 'separation,' namely, all the Ksanti and Jnana that are based on Dukkha-satya (Truth of Suffering) and Samudaya-satya (Truth of Origination) that can cause the cutting off of afflictions. It should be known that in this case, one has not yet separated from the defilement of desire. Dukkha-dharma-ksanti (Forbearance of the Dharma of Suffering) and Samudaya-dharma-ksanti (Forbearance of the Dharma of Origination), as well as all Dukkha-anvaya-ksanti (Forbearance of the Subsequent Knowledge of Suffering) and Samudaya-anvaya-ksanti (Forbearance of the Subsequent Knowledge of Origination) of those who enter the stage of seeing the truth, are included in the immediate path in the path of cultivation. Dukkha-jnana (Wisdom of Suffering) and Samudaya-jnana (Wisdom of Origination) exist as neither 'disgust' nor 'separation,' namely, all the Ksanti and Jnana that are based on Nirodha-satya (Truth of Cessation) and Marga-satya (Truth of the Path) that cannot cause the cutting off of afflictions. It should be known that in this case, those who first separate from the defilement of desire and then see the truth, Nirodha-dharma-ksanti (Forbearance of the Dharma of Cessation) and Marga-dharma-ksanti (Forbearance of the Dharma of the Path), as well as Nirodha-jnana (Wisdom of Cessation) and Marga-jnana (Wisdom of the Path) in the path of seeing, are included in the application path, liberation path, and superior progress path in the path of cultivation. Nirodha-jnana (Wisdom of Cessation) and Marga-jnana (Wisdom of the Path).
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 72 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 73
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 7 on the Discrimination of Wisdom, Part 1
Having thus established the noble individuals (Pudgala) based on the differences in the paths, it is stated in the path on which they rely that right view (Samyag-drsti) and right wisdom (Samyag-jnana) are called the limbs of the no-more-learning stage. Therefore, it should be carefully considered here whether there is wisdom-view that is not wisdom, and whether there is wisdom-wisdom that is not view, and whether the two limbs of view and wisdom are established separately. Or, what is the situation? The verse says:
Noble wisdom-forbearance is not wisdom, Exhaustion and non-arising are not view. The remaining two defiled wisdoms are all wisdom, Six are of the nature of view.
Commentary: There are two types of wisdom: defiled (Sasrava) and undefiled (Anasrava). Only undefiled wisdom is established as...
聖名。此聖慧中八忍非智性。所以者何。非決斷性故唯決斷義是智義故。如何八忍不能決斷。自所斷疑得隨相續生故。或求見境意樂止息。加行奢緩說名為智。諸忍正起推度意樂。加行猛利故非智攝。而名見者推度性故。盡及無生二智非見性。推度意樂一向止息故。所起加行極奢緩故。而名智者決斷性故。所餘皆通智見二性。已斷自疑推度性故。謂前八忍盡無生余。有學八智無學正見。一一皆通見智性攝。豈不忍余諸無間道。亦自所治惑得隨生。無非正起推度意樂。加行猛利應非智攝。盡無生余解脫道等。此相違故皆應非見。此難不然。余無間道無自品疑得隨相續生故。又彼唯見曾所見境。非如八忍極違智故。余解脫等非全息求。所起加行非極奢緩。以皆於後有所作故。由此一切皆通二種。並具推度決斷用故。諸有漏慧皆智性攝。于中唯六亦是見性。謂五染污見世正見為六。有餘師說。能發身語五識所引。及命終時意識相應。善有漏慧亦非見性。外門轉故如能引故。勢力劣故。此亦不然。不應許故。非決定故。契經說故。謂不應許唯內門轉。方是見性勿聖慧中。外身命住非見性攝。然契經說。于外身循身觀是見性攝。亦非決定如五識身。所引意識如是性轉。以彼善等所引意識。有時亦是不善等故。由此不應所引意識同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 聖名（Ārya）：在此聖慧（聖人的智慧）中，八忍（八種無間道中的忍位）並非智性（智慧的性質）。為什麼呢？因為它們不具有決斷性。只有決斷的意義才是智慧的意義。為什麼八忍不能決斷呢？因為它們所斷除的疑惑，可能會再次相續生起。或者說，尋求見境的意樂止息，加行（修行）緩慢，這被稱為智。而諸忍正起時，推度意樂，加行猛利，所以不屬於智的範疇。但被稱為『見』，是因為其具有推度的性質。盡智（證阿羅漢果時得的智慧）和無生智（證阿羅漢果后得的智慧）兩種智慧不具有『見』的性質，因為推度意樂完全止息，所起的加行極其緩慢。但被稱為『智』，是因為其具有決斷的性質。其餘的智慧都通於智和見兩種性質。因為已經斷除了自身的疑惑，具有推度的性質。也就是說，前八忍，盡智和無生智以外的智慧，有學（指未證阿羅漢果的修行者）的八智，無學（指已證阿羅漢果的修行者）的正見，都通於見和智兩種性質。 難道不是說，忍位之後的無間道，也會使所對治的煩惱再次生起嗎？而且它們並非正起推度意樂，加行猛利，不應該屬於智的範疇嗎？盡智和無生智之後的解脫道等，如果按照這種說法，也都不應該屬於『見』的範疇了。這種疑問是不成立的。因為其餘的無間道，不會使同品類的疑惑再次相續生起。而且它們只是見到曾經見過的境界，不像八忍那樣極其違背智慧的性質。其餘的解脫道等，並非完全止息尋求，所起的加行並非極其緩慢，因為它們在之後還有所作為。因此，這一切都通於兩種性質，並且具有推度和決斷的作用。 所有有漏的智慧都屬於智性。其中只有六種也屬於見性，即五種染污見（薩迦耶見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）和世間正見。有其他論師說，能夠引發身語五識所引的，以及臨命終時意識相應的，善的有漏智慧也不屬於見性，因為它們在外門運轉，就像能夠引發（煩惱）一樣，勢力弱小。這種說法也是不對的，不應該允許這種說法，因為這並非是決定的。經典中是這樣說的，即不應該只允許內門運轉才是見性，否則聖人的智慧中，外在的身命住也不屬於見性的範疇了。然而經典中說，于外在的身體上修循身觀是屬於見性的範疇。這也不是決定的，就像五識身所引發的意識，也是這樣運轉的。因為那些善等所引發的意識，有時也是不善的。因此，不應該認為所引發的意識是相同的。
【English Translation】 English version Ārya (Noble): In this Ārya-prajñā (wisdom of the noble ones), the eight kshānti (forbearances in the eight paths of immediate result) are not of the nature of jñāna (wisdom). Why is that? Because they do not have the nature of decisive determination. Only the meaning of decisive determination is the meaning of wisdom. Why can't the eight kshānti make decisive determinations? Because the doubts they eliminate may continue to arise again. Or, the intention to seek a vision ceases, and the effort is slow, which is called jñāna. When the kshānti arise, the intention to infer, and the effort is vigorous, so they are not included in jñāna. But they are called 'seeing' because they have the nature of inference. The two jñānas, kshaya-jñāna (wisdom of exhaustion) and anutpāda-jñāna (wisdom of non-arising), do not have the nature of 'seeing' because the intention to infer completely ceases, and the effort is extremely slow. But they are called 'jñāna' because they have the nature of decisive determination. The remaining wisdoms all have both the nature of jñāna and seeing. Because they have eliminated their own doubts and have the nature of inference. That is, the first eight kshānti, the wisdoms other than kshaya-jñāna and anutpāda-jñāna, the eight jñānas of the śaikṣa (those still in training), and the right view of the aśaikṣa (those beyond training), all have both the nature of seeing and jñāna. Isn't it said that the ānāntarika-mārga (path of immediate result) after the kshānti also causes the afflictions they counteract to arise again? And they do not arise with the intention to infer, and the effort is vigorous, shouldn't they not belong to the category of jñāna? If the vimukti-mārga (path of liberation) after kshaya-jñāna and anutpāda-jñāna, etc., are considered in this way, then they should not belong to the category of 'seeing' either. This question is not valid. Because the remaining ānāntarika-mārga do not cause doubts of the same kind to arise again. And they only see the objects that have been seen before, unlike the eight kshānti, which are extremely contrary to the nature of wisdom. The remaining vimukti-mārga, etc., do not completely cease seeking, and the effort is not extremely slow, because they still have something to do afterward. Therefore, all of these have both natures and have the functions of inference and decisive determination. All contaminated wisdoms belong to the nature of jñāna. Among them, only six also belong to the nature of seeing, namely the five contaminated views (satkāya-dṛṣṭi, antagrāha-dṛṣṭi, mithyā-dṛṣṭi, dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, śīlāvrata-parāmarśa) and worldly right view. Some other teachers say that the wholesome contaminated wisdom that can cause the five consciousnesses of body and speech to arise, and the consciousness associated with the time of death, does not belong to the nature of seeing, because they operate in the external realm, just like what can cause (afflictions), and their power is weak. This statement is also incorrect, and it should not be allowed, because it is not definitive. The sūtras say that it should not only be allowed that operating in the internal realm is the nature of seeing, otherwise, in the wisdom of the noble ones, the external life of the body would not belong to the category of seeing. However, the sūtras say that observing the body externally is a category of seeing. This is also not definitive, just like the consciousness caused by the five consciousnesses also operates in this way. Because the consciousness caused by those wholesome things is sometimes unwholesome. Therefore, it should not be considered that the consciousness caused is the same.
。能引五識是無分別性。如契經說。有命終時得正見俱善心心所。故說所有意地善慧。皆見性攝於理為善。如是所說聖有漏慧。皆擇法故並慧性攝。智有幾種相別云何。頌曰。
智十總有二 有漏無漏別 有漏稱世俗 無漏名法類 世俗遍為境 法智及類智 如次欲上界 苦等諦為境
論曰。智有十種攝一切智。一世俗智。二法智。三類智。四苦智。五集智。六滅智。七道智。八他心智。九盡智。十無生智。如是十智總唯二種。有漏無漏性差別故。如是二智相別有三。謂世俗智法智類智。前有漏智總名世俗。瓶衣等物性可毀壞。顯在俗情故名世俗。此智多取世俗境故。多順世間俗事轉故。從多建立世俗智名。非無取勝義順勝義事轉。然是愛境無勝功能。息內眾惑故非無漏。或復出世引發世間得世俗名。體即無智智隨屬彼得彼智名。意顯此名目有漏智。有說。諸趣名為世俗。此智多是往諸趣因。從果為名名世俗智。有說。此智無始時來。生死身中顯現而轉。由此故立世俗智名。或諸有中隨流無絕名世俗智。以一切時隨順諸有相續轉故。或復此智於一切境。能遍映發得世俗名。獨能遍緣一切法故。后無漏智分為二種。法類二名所目別故。此二名義如前已釋。然有師釋。類謂比類以所現見事比不現
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：能引發五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的是無分別性。正如契經所說：『有眾生死時，能獲得正見以及與之相應的善心心所。』因此，所有意地的善慧，都可說是見性所攝，于理是恰當的。像這樣所說的聖者有漏慧，因為都是選擇法，所以都屬於慧性所攝。 智有幾種，它們的差別是什麼？ 頌曰： 『智有十種總括為二，即有漏和無漏的差別。 有漏的稱為世俗智，無漏的名為法智和類智。 世俗智普遍以一切為境界，法智和類智， 依次以欲界和上界，以及苦等四諦為境界。』 論曰：智有十種，總攝一切智。一是世俗智，二是法智，三是類智，四是苦智，五是集智，六是滅智，七是道智，八是他心智，九是盡智，十是無生智。這十種智總的來說只有兩種，即有漏和無漏的性質差別。這兩種智的差別有三種，即世俗智、法智和類智。前面的有漏智總稱為世俗智。瓶子、衣服等物的性質是可以毀壞的，顯現在世俗的情感中，所以稱為世俗。這種智大多取世俗的境界，大多順應世間的俗事運轉，所以從多數情況建立世俗智的名稱。並非沒有取勝義、順勝義的事情運轉，但它是愛著的境界，沒有殊勝的功能，不能止息內心的各種迷惑，所以不是無漏智。或者，出世間的智慧引發世間的智慧，從而得到世俗的名稱，其本體是無智智，智慧隨屬於它，從而得到它的智慧名稱。意思是說，這個名稱指的是有漏智。有人說，諸趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、阿修羅、天）名為世俗，這種智大多是前往諸趣的原因，從結果來命名，稱為世俗智。有人說，這種智從無始以來，就在生死輪迴的身體中顯現和運轉，因此建立世俗智的名稱。或者，在各種存在中隨波逐流、沒有止絕的，稱為世俗智，因為它在一切時侯都順應各種存在的相續運轉。或者，這種智對於一切境界，都能普遍地映照和啓發，所以得到世俗的名稱，因為它獨自能夠普遍地緣取一切法。後面的無漏智分為兩種，法智和類智這兩個名稱所指代的有所區別。這兩個名稱的含義，前面已經解釋過了。然而，有論師解釋說，類是指比類，用所現見的事物來比擬不現見的事物。
【English Translation】 English version: That which can induce the five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) is non-discriminating nature. As the sutra says, 'There are beings who, at the time of death, attain right view along with wholesome mental factors.' Therefore, all wholesome wisdom in the mental sphere can be said to be included in the seeing nature, which is reasonable. The wholesome wisdom with outflows of the saints, as it is all about selecting dharmas, is included in the nature of wisdom. How many kinds of wisdom are there, and what are their differences? Verse: 'Wisdom has ten kinds, which are generally divided into two: the difference between with outflows and without outflows. That with outflows is called mundane wisdom, and that without outflows is called dharma wisdom and analogous wisdom. Mundane wisdom universally takes everything as its object, while dharma wisdom and analogous wisdom, respectively take the desire realm and the upper realms, as well as the Four Noble Truths such as suffering, as their objects.' Treatise: There are ten kinds of wisdom, which encompass all wisdom. First is mundane wisdom, second is dharma wisdom, third is analogous wisdom, fourth is wisdom of suffering, fifth is wisdom of origination, sixth is wisdom of cessation, seventh is wisdom of the path, eighth is wisdom of others' minds, ninth is wisdom of exhaustion, and tenth is wisdom of non-arising. These ten kinds of wisdom are generally only two kinds, namely the difference in nature between with outflows and without outflows. The difference between these two kinds of wisdom is threefold, namely mundane wisdom, dharma wisdom, and analogous wisdom. The preceding wisdom with outflows is generally called mundane wisdom. The nature of things like bottles and clothes can be destroyed, and it manifests in mundane emotions, so it is called mundane. This wisdom mostly takes mundane objects, and mostly accords with mundane affairs, so the name mundane wisdom is established from the majority of cases. It is not that it does not take the ultimate meaning or accord with ultimate meaning, but it is an object of attachment and does not have the superior function of stopping inner delusions, so it is not wisdom without outflows. Or, worldly wisdom arises from supramundane wisdom, hence the name worldly wisdom. Its essence is non-wisdom wisdom, and wisdom belongs to it, hence the name of its wisdom. This means that this name refers to wisdom with outflows. Some say that the various destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, asuras, and gods) are called mundane, and this wisdom is mostly the cause of going to the various destinies, so it is named mundane wisdom from the result. Some say that this wisdom has been manifesting and operating in the body of samsara since beginningless time, hence the name mundane wisdom is established. Or, that which flows along and never ceases in various existences is called mundane wisdom, because it accords with the continuous operation of various existences at all times. Or, this wisdom can universally illuminate and inspire all objects, so it gets the name mundane, because it alone can universally grasp all dharmas. The subsequent wisdom without outflows is divided into two kinds, and the names dharma wisdom and analogous wisdom refer to different things. The meanings of these two names have already been explained earlier. However, some teachers explain that analogy refers to comparing, using what is seen to compare what is not seen.
見境。比量所攝得類智名。此釋不然。說實見故。謂非比量智可立實見名。諸契經中總說法類。若如實見苦則定見非我。於四聖諦如實見故。能如實見四聖諦故。有如是等無量契經。又聖位中等決定故。謂見跡者等決定知諸行非常。諸法非我涅槃寂靜。非真現見可與比知等是決定。謂以此類彼名為比知。彼非決定然亦有異故。由此真見與比度知。理不應言等是決定。非諸聖智有比度理。故有智者必不應言。有聖諦境比智所證。又聖應無緣滅智故。謂若類智比智攝者。則應緣滅法智亦無。以滅總非現見事故。然許現量總有三種。依根領納覺慧別故。依根現量。謂依五根現取色等五外境界。領納現量。謂受想等心心所法正現在前。覺慧現量。謂于諸法隨其所應證自共相。此中若就依根領納。說類智境非現見事。則滅法智理亦應無。滅非依根領納境故。若就覺慧則不應言。類智所緣是比智境。是故一切如理所引。實義抉擇皆現量智。類智既然故現量攝。是名二智相別成三。定心相應聖行相轉。有漏無漏二智何別。無漏于境行相明利。彼有漏智與此相違。如朅地羅余木二炭。于所燒煉勢用不同。及勝劣香能熏用別。炎鐵草火熱勢有殊。二智相望差別亦爾。或俗智後起增上慢。無漏不然故有差別。又世俗智與法類智。境有寬陜故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 見境（dṛṣṭi-gocara）。如果說類智（anvayajñāna）是由比量（anumāna）所攝，這並不合理。因為經中說的是『如實見』。也就是說，比量智不能被稱為『如實見』。在許多契經中，佛陀總括地宣說了法類（dharma）。如果能如實地見到苦，就能確定地見到『非我』。因為能如實地見到四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni）。因為能如實地見到四聖諦，所以有如此等等無量的契經。 此外，在聖位（ārya）中，這種見是等同且決定的。也就是說，見到修道跡象的人，能等同且確定地知道諸行是無常的（anitya），諸法是非我的（anātman），涅槃是寂靜的（śānta）。真實的現見（pratyakṣa）與通過比量而知的知識是等同且確定的。如果因為相似性而稱其為比知，那麼它就不是確定的，而且也有不同之處。因此，真實的見與通過比度而知的知識，在道理上不應該說是等同且確定的。因為諸聖智（āryajñāna）中沒有比度的道理。所以有智慧的人一定不應該說，聖諦的境界是由比智所證得的。 此外，聖者本不應沒有緣滅智（nirodhajñāna）。如果說類智是由比智所攝，那麼緣滅的法智（dharmajñāna）也應該不存在。因為滅總的來說不是現見的事物。然而，我們承認現量總共有三種，這是由於依根領納、覺慧的差別。依根現量，是指依靠五根（pañcendriya）現量地獲取色等五種外在境界。領納現量，是指受（vedanā）、想（saṃjñā）等心心所法（citta-caitta dharmas）正在目前顯現。覺慧現量，是指對於諸法，隨其所應地證悟自相（svalakṣaṇa）和共相（sāmānyalakṣaṇa）。 如果就依根領納來說，類智的境界不是現見的事物，那麼緣滅的法智在道理上也應該不存在，因為滅不是依根領納的境界。如果就覺慧來說，就不應該說類智所緣的是比智的境界。因此，一切如理如實地引導的，對實義的抉擇都是現量智。類智既然如此，所以屬於現量所攝。這被稱為二智的相別，成就了三種現量。 與定心相應的聖行相轉，有漏智（sāsravajñāna）和無漏智（anāsravajñāna）有什麼區別？無漏智對於境界的行相明利，而有漏智與此相反。就像朅地羅（khadira，一種樹木）和其餘木材燒成的兩種炭，在燒煉的效用上不同；又像勝妙的香和劣質的香，在薰染的效用上有所區別；又像炎鐵和草火，在熱的勢頭上有所不同。二智相互比較，差別也是如此。或者說，世俗智（saṃvṛtijñāna）之後會生起增上慢（adhimāna），而無漏智不會這樣，所以有差別。此外，世俗智與法類智，在境界的寬窄上有所不同。
【English Translation】 English version Seeing the realm (dṛṣṭi-gocara). It is said that the knowledge of analogy (anvayajñāna) is included in inference (anumāna). This explanation is not reasonable, because the scriptures speak of 'seeing things as they are'. That is to say, inferential knowledge cannot be called 'seeing things as they are'. In many sutras, the Buddha generally expounds the categories of dharma (dharma). If one can truly see suffering, one can definitely see 'non-self'. Because one can truly see the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni). Because one can truly see the Four Noble Truths, there are countless sutras like this. Moreover, in the state of sainthood (ārya), this seeing is equal and definite. That is to say, those who see the signs of the path equally and definitely know that all conditioned things are impermanent (anitya), all dharmas are non-self (anātman), and nirvana is peaceful (śānta). True direct perception (pratyakṣa) and knowledge through inference are equal and definite. If it is called inferential knowledge because of similarity, then it is not definite and there are also differences. Therefore, true seeing and knowledge through inference should not be said to be equal and definite in principle. Because there is no principle of inference in all noble wisdoms (āryajñāna). Therefore, wise people should never say that the realm of the Noble Truths is attained by inferential knowledge. Furthermore, a saint should not be without the knowledge of cessation (nirodhajñāna). If it is said that the knowledge of analogy is included in inferential knowledge, then the dharma knowledge (dharmajñāna) of cessation should also not exist. Because cessation is generally not something that is directly perceived. However, we admit that there are three types of direct perception in total, due to the differences in reliance on the senses, reception, and discerning wisdom. Direct perception based on the senses refers to directly perceiving the five external realms such as form through the five senses (pañcendriya). Receptive direct perception refers to the mental and mental factors (citta-caitta dharmas) such as feeling (vedanā) and perception (saṃjñā) that are currently manifesting. Discerning wisdom direct perception refers to realizing the self-characteristics (svalakṣaṇa) and common characteristics (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) of all dharmas as appropriate. If, in terms of reliance on the senses and reception, the realm of the knowledge of analogy is not something that is directly perceived, then the dharma knowledge of cessation should also not exist in principle, because cessation is not a realm of reliance on the senses and reception. If, in terms of discerning wisdom, it should not be said that what the knowledge of analogy perceives is the realm of inferential knowledge. Therefore, all that is guided truthfully and realistically, and the determination of the true meaning, is direct perception wisdom. Since the knowledge of analogy is like this, it is included in direct perception. This is called the distinction between the two wisdoms, achieving three types of direct perception. What is the difference between contaminated wisdom (sāsravajñāna) and uncontaminated wisdom (anāsravajñāna) when the holy characteristics associated with a concentrated mind transform? Uncontaminated wisdom is clear and sharp in its characteristics towards the realm, while contaminated wisdom is the opposite. Just like the two types of charcoal made from khadira (a type of tree) and other wood, the effects of burning are different; and like the subtle fragrance and inferior fragrance, the effects of fumigation are different; and like burning iron and burning grass, the intensity of heat is different. The difference between the two wisdoms is also like this. Or, arrogance (adhimāna) arises after conventional wisdom (saṃvṛtijñāna), but uncontaminated wisdom does not, so there is a difference. In addition, conventional wisdom and dharma knowledge of analogy differ in the breadth of their realms.
有差別。謂世俗智遍以一切有為無為為所緣境。以契經說有世俗智慧遍知苦。廣說乃至遍知虛空非擇滅。故亦有以非我行相。總緣一切法為境。以契經說諸行非常。一切法非我涅槃寂靜故。然有經說。能以正慧觀一切法為非我者。雖一切法實皆非我。而此一切聲非總目。諸法唯目苦諦所攝法盡故。次復言此能厭苦。有餘於此作是釋言。此慧實能緣一切法。然此行相本為厭果。故偏依彼說厭苦言。如為燒舍而縱於火。然火起時亦燒余物。此不應理。此經復言此道力能得清凈故。聞思二慧亦能遍緣。作一切法非我行相。此道豈能得清凈果。若謂說此能得清凈。不言即此是能清凈故無有過。理亦不然。如遮余道說此言故。如契經說。唯有此道能得清凈更無餘道。豈可於彼亦作是言。能得清凈非是能凈。故知此經說以正慧。觀一切法為非我者唯目苦諦。所攝諸法非收余法說一切聲。如言諸行皆非常苦。而非聖道是苦非常。故諸行言唯遍苦諦。此亦應爾唯觀苦境。起非我行非觀余諦。除此以外必應別有。總觀諸法非我行相。諸觀行者現所知故。謂觀行者必應先修。觀一切法非我行相。凈治身器令有堪能。依之趣入緣三義觀。若不爾者一合我相。所擾亂故應不能修。建立諸法無相雜觀。法智但緣欲界四諦。以本論說法智云何。謂緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：存在差別。因為世俗的智慧能夠普遍地以一切有為法和無為法作為所緣境。根據契經的說法，存在世俗的智慧能夠普遍地了知苦，乃至普遍地了知虛空和非擇滅（兩種無為法）。因此，也存在以『非我』的行相，總括地緣取一切法作為境界的智慧。因為契經說，諸行是無常的，一切法都是非我的，涅槃是寂靜的。然而，有的經中說，能夠以正慧觀察一切法為非我的人，雖然一切法實際上都是非我的，但這裡的『一切』並非總括所有的法，而只是指苦諦所包含的法。接下來又說，這種智慧能夠厭離苦。有些人對此解釋說，這種智慧實際上能夠緣取一切法，但這種行相的根本目的是爲了厭離苦果，所以才偏重於說『厭苦』。就像爲了燒燬房屋而放火，火起時也會燒燬其他東西一樣。這種說法是不合理的。因為這部經中又說，這種道的力量能夠獲得清凈。如果說聞慧和思慧也能普遍地緣取，並以一切法為非我的行相，那麼這種道怎麼能獲得清凈的果呢？如果說，經中只是說這種道能夠獲得清凈，並沒有說這種道本身就是能夠清凈的，所以沒有過失，這種說法也是不合理的。因為經中排除了其他的道，才說了這種道。就像契經中說，只有這條道路能夠獲得清凈，沒有其他的道路。難道可以對那條道路也說，能夠獲得清凈，但不是能夠清凈的嗎？所以要知道，這部經中說以正慧觀察一切法為非我，只是指苦諦所包含的諸法，而不是包括其他的法。就像說諸行都是無常和苦的，但聖道不是苦和無常的。所以『諸行』這個詞只是普遍地指苦諦。這裡也應該這樣理解，只是觀察苦的境界，生起非我的行相，而不是觀察其他的諦。除了這個以外，必定還應該有其他的智慧，能夠總括地觀察諸法為非我的行相。這是觀行者實際所知道的。也就是說，觀行者必定應該先修習觀察一切法為非我的行相，凈化身心，使之具有堪能性，然後才能依此進入緣取三義（無常、苦、非我）的觀修。如果不這樣，就會被一合我相所擾亂，應該就不能修習建立諸法無相雜觀。法智只是緣取欲界的四諦。因為《阿毗達摩論》中說，什麼是法智？就是緣取……
【English Translation】 English version: There is a difference. Because mundane wisdom (世俗智) can universally take all conditioned (有為) and unconditioned (無為) dharmas as its objects (所緣境). According to the sutras, there is mundane wisdom that can universally know suffering (苦), and even universally know space (虛空) and cessation through non-choice (非擇滅) [both are types of unconditioned dharmas]. Therefore, there is also wisdom that, with the aspect of 'not-self' (非我行相), comprehensively takes all dharmas as its object. Because the sutras say that all conditioned things (諸行) are impermanent (無常), all dharmas are not-self (非我), and Nirvana (涅槃) is tranquil (寂靜). However, some sutras say that those who can observe all dharmas as not-self with right wisdom (正慧), although all dharmas are actually not-self, the 'all' here does not encompass all dharmas, but only refers to the dharmas included in the truth of suffering (苦諦). Furthermore, it is said that this wisdom can be disgusted with suffering (厭苦). Some people interpret this by saying that this wisdom can actually take all dharmas as its object, but the fundamental purpose of this aspect is to be disgusted with the result of suffering, so it is emphasized that it 'disgusted with suffering'. It's like setting a fire to burn down a house, and when the fire starts, it also burns other things. This statement is unreasonable. Because this sutra also says that the power of this path (道) can attain purity (清凈). If it is said that the wisdom of hearing (聞慧) and the wisdom of thinking (思慧) can also universally take, and take all dharmas as the aspect of not-self, then how can this path attain the fruit of purity? If it is said that the sutra only says that this path can attain purity, and does not say that this path itself is capable of purifying, so there is no fault, this statement is also unreasonable. Because the sutra excludes other paths and then says this path. Just like the sutra says that only this path can attain purity, and there is no other path. Could it be said of that path that it can attain purity, but it is not capable of purifying? Therefore, it should be known that this sutra says that observing all dharmas as not-self with right wisdom only refers to the dharmas included in the truth of suffering, and does not include other dharmas. It's like saying that all conditioned things are impermanent and suffering, but the noble path (聖道) is not suffering and impermanent. Therefore, the word 'all conditioned things' only universally refers to the truth of suffering. It should be understood here in the same way, only observing the realm of suffering, arising the aspect of not-self, and not observing other truths. Apart from this, there must be other wisdom that can comprehensively observe all dharmas as the aspect of not-self. This is what practitioners actually know. That is to say, practitioners must first cultivate the aspect of observing all dharmas as not-self, purify the body and mind, and make them capable, and then they can enter the contemplation of the three meanings (impermanence, suffering, not-self) based on this. If not, they will be disturbed by the one-aggregate self-view (一合我相), and they should not be able to cultivate and establish the contemplation of dharmas without mixed characteristics (無相雜觀). Knowledge of Dharma (法智) only takes the four noble truths (四諦) of the desire realm (欲界) as its object. Because the Abhidharma says, what is Knowledge of Dharma? It is taking...
欲界系諸行無漏智。緣欲界系諸行因無漏智。緣欲界系諸行滅無漏智。緣欲界系諸行能斷道無漏智。及緣法智緣法智地。無漏智是名法智。豈不法智緣四諦境。何故復言及緣法智。緣法智地無漏智耶。此二亦緣道諦為境。以前所說緣欲界系諸行。能斷道無漏智言。不能目一切緣道法智。但說能緣能斷道故。為攝緣余加行解脫勝進道攝法智為境。及已離欲身中所起法智法忍。為境法智。復說緣法智。緣法智地言。或前所言緣斷道智。但目緣未至能對治。欲界見修所斷為境法智。為攝緣餘五地法智品。為境法智復說后二言。若爾彼文應作是說。緣欲界諸行對治無漏智。若作是說總攝能緣。一切法智品為境法智盡。以對治言目多義故。不爾應有非愛過故。謂緣色界係爲境。無漏智亦應名法智。有色界行是欲界行對治攝故。豈不所言緣欲界行能斷道智。亦有此失彼無此失。能斷道言已遮色界欲對治故。謂此依諦辯法智境。道言即顯是道諦攝。非汝所說亦有道言。故此過失在汝非我。又設許彼更置道言。亦不能攝諸法智盡法智通能治三界故。又亦應許緣類智品諸無漏智是法智攝。類智品亦為欲遠分對治。許對治言目多義故。由此本論所說無失。類智慧通緣上二界四諦。由此三智境有差別。即于如是三種智中。頌曰。
法類由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣欲界所繫諸行的無漏智，緣欲界所繫諸行之因的無漏智，緣欲界所繫諸行之滅的無漏智，緣欲界所繫諸行能斷之道的無漏智，以及緣法智、緣法智之地的無漏智，這些都稱為法智（Dharmajñāna）。難道不是法智緣於四聖諦（Four Noble Truths）之境嗎？為何又說以及緣法智、緣法智之地的無漏智呢？ 這二者也緣于道諦（Path to the Cessation of Suffering）為境。因為之前所說的緣欲界所繫諸行能斷之道的無漏智，不能涵蓋一切緣道的法智，只是說了能緣能斷之道。爲了包含緣其餘加行解脫勝進道的攝法智為境，以及已離欲身中所起的法智法忍為境的法智，所以又說緣法智、緣法智之地。 或者之前所說的緣斷道智，只是指緣未至能對治欲界見修所斷為境的法智。爲了包含緣其餘五地法智品為境的法智，所以又說了後面兩種情況。如果這樣，那段文字應該這樣說：緣欲界諸行對治的無漏智。如果這樣說，就能總攝能緣一切法智品為境的法智了，因為對治一詞包含多種含義。 不是這樣的，否則會有非愛過失。也就是說，緣係爲境的無漏智也應該稱為法智，因為有行是欲界行對治所攝。難道所說的緣欲界行能斷道智，也有這個過失嗎？它沒有這個過失，因為能斷道一詞已經遮止了**欲對治。也就是說，這是依據諦來辨別法智的境，道一詞就顯示是道諦所攝，不是你所說的也有道一詞，所以這個過失在你而不是在我。 而且，即使允許在那裡再加一個道字，也不能包含所有法智，因為法智慧通治三界。而且也應該允許緣類智品（Anvaya-jñāna）的諸無漏智是法智所攝，因為類智品也為欲遠分對治。允許對治一詞包含多種含義。因此，本論所說的沒有失誤。類智慧通緣上二界四諦。因此，這三種智的境有差別。就在這三種智中，頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version The non-outflow wisdom that cognizes the aggregates associated with the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), the non-outflow wisdom that cognizes the cause of the aggregates associated with the desire realm, the non-outflow wisdom that cognizes the cessation of the aggregates associated with the desire realm, the non-outflow wisdom that cognizes the path that can sever the aggregates associated with the desire realm, as well as the non-outflow wisdom that cognizes Dharma-jñāna (wisdom of Dharma) and the ground of Dharma-jñāna – these are called Dharma-jñāna. Does not Dharma-jñāna cognize the realm of the Four Noble Truths? Why then is it also said to cognize Dharma-jñāna and the non-outflow wisdom of the ground of Dharma-jñāna? These two also cognize the Path to the Cessation of Suffering (duḥkha-nirodha-mārga-ārya-satya) as their object. Because the previously mentioned non-outflow wisdom that cognizes the path that can sever the aggregates associated with the desire realm does not encompass all Dharma-jñāna that cognizes the path, it only speaks of the path that can be cognized and severed. In order to include Dharma-jñāna that cognizes the path of preparatory practice (prayoga), liberation (vimoksha), and progress (viśeṣa-gāmin) as its object, as well as Dharma-jñāna and Dharma-kṣānti (acceptance of Dharma) arising in the body of one who has already departed from desire, it is again said to cognize Dharma-jñāna and the ground of Dharma-jñāna. Or the previously mentioned wisdom that cognizes the path of severance only refers to Dharma-jñāna that cognizes as its object that which has not yet been attained and can counteract what is severed by the view and cultivation of the desire realm. In order to include Dharma-jñāna of the remaining five grounds as its object, it is again said to cognize the latter two. If so, that passage should say: the non-outflow wisdom that counteracts the aggregates of the desire realm. If it is said in this way, it can encompass all Dharma-jñāna that cognizes all categories of Dharma-jñāna as its object, because the term 'counteract' contains multiple meanings. It is not like that, otherwise there would be the fault of non-desirability. That is to say, the non-outflow wisdom that cognizes the -related (missing word) as its object should also be called Dharma-jñāna, because the -related (missing word) actions are included in the counteraction of the actions of the desire realm. Does not the aforementioned wisdom that cognizes the path that can sever the actions of the desire realm also have this fault? It does not have this fault, because the term 'path that can sever' has already precluded the counteraction of **-related (missing word) desire. That is to say, this is based on the Truth to distinguish the object of Dharma-jñāna, and the term 'path' immediately reveals that it is included in the Path Truth, not as you say, which also has the term 'path', so this fault is in you, not in me. Moreover, even if it were allowed to add another word 'path' there, it still could not encompass all Dharma-jñāna, because Dharma-jñāna can universally govern the three realms. Moreover, it should also be allowed that the non-outflow wisdom of the category of Anvaya-jñāna (subsequent knowledge) is included in Dharma-jñāna, because the category of Anvaya-jñāna also counteracts the distant division of desire. It is allowed that the term 'counteract' contains multiple meanings. Therefore, what is said in this treatise has no fault. Anvaya-jñāna can universally cognize the Four Noble Truths of the upper two realms. Therefore, the objects of these three types of wisdom are different. Within these three types of wisdom, the verse says:
境別 立苦等四名 皆通盡無生 初唯苦集類
論曰。法智類智由境差別。分為苦集滅道四智。何緣俗智亦緣苦等。作苦等行相而非苦等智。由彼先以苦等行相觀苦等已。后時復容觀苦等境為樂等故。又得如是世俗智已。後緣諦疑容現行故。如是六智若無學攝。非見性者名盡無生。此二初生唯苦集類。以緣苦集六種行相。緣有頂蘊為境界故。金剛喻定若緣苦集。與此境同緣滅道異。若爾豈不至教相違。如說。於盡有初智生。從此無間能自了達無違教失。此於盡言是有第七聲非境第七故。謂有煩惱無餘盡故。有初智生非此智生緣盡為境何所違害。彼言意顯有惑身中。無此智生要有惑盡。於前所說九種智中。頌曰。
法類道世俗 有成他心智 于勝地根位 去來世不知 法類不相知 聲聞麟喻佛 如次知見道 二三念一切
論曰。有法類道及世俗智。成他心智。余則不然。豈不道智離法類無。應但言三成他心智。理實如是為顯他心智。但知同類境故作是言。謂為顯成此法類智。知他無漏心心所法。是道智攝非苦集智。以無漏智決定不能。知他有漏心心所故。他身無漏心心所法細故勝故。非己有漏他心智境其理可然。何緣己身無漏他心智。不能知他有漏心心所。于有漏境無漏智生。行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 境別 立苦等四名 皆通盡無生 初唯苦集類
論曰。法智（Dharmajñāna）類智（Anvaya-jñāna）由境差別。分為苦智（duhkha-jñāna）、集智（samudaya-jñāna）、滅智（nirodha-jñāna）、道智（marga-jñāna）四智。何緣俗智（samvrti-jñāna）亦緣苦等。作苦等行相而非苦等智。由彼先以苦等行相觀苦等已。后時復容觀苦等境為樂等故。又得如是世俗智已。後緣諦疑容現行故。如是六智若無學攝。非見性者名盡智（ksaya-jñāna）無生智（anutpada-jñāna）。此二初生唯苦集類。以緣苦集六種行相。緣有頂蘊為境界故。金剛喻定（vajropamasamadhi）若緣苦集。與此境同緣滅道異。若爾豈不至教相違。如說。於盡有初智生。從此無間能自了達無違教失。此於盡言是有第七聲非境第七故。謂有煩惱無餘盡故。有初智生非此智生緣盡為境何所違害。彼言意顯有惑身中。無此智生要有惑盡。於前所說九種智中。頌曰。
法類道世俗 有成他心智 于勝地根位 去來世不知 法類不相知 聲聞麟喻佛 如次知見道 二三念一切
論曰。有法智（Dharmajñāna）、類智（Anvaya-jñāna）、道智（marga-jñāna）及世俗智（samvrti-jñāna）。成他心智（paracitta-jñāna）。余則不然。豈不道智離法類無。應但言三成他心智。理實如是為顯他心智。但知同類境故作是言。謂為顯成此法類智。知他無漏心心所法。是道智攝非苦集智。以無漏智決定不能。知他有漏心心所故。他身無漏心心所法細故勝故。非己有漏他心智境其理可然。何緣己身無漏他心智。不能知他有漏心心所。于有漏境無漏智生。行
【English Translation】 English version Distinctions of Objects: Establishing the Four Names of Suffering, etc. All Pervade Exhaustion and Non-arising; Initially, Only the Categories of Suffering and Accumulation.
Treatise: The Wisdom of Dharma (Dharmajñāna) and the Wisdom of Inference (Anvaya-jñāna) are divided into the four wisdoms of Suffering (duhkha-jñāna), Accumulation (samudaya-jñāna), Cessation (nirodha-jñāna), and Path (marga-jñāna) based on the differences in their objects. Why is it that Conventional Wisdom (samvrti-jñāna) also cognizes Suffering, etc., manifesting the characteristics of Suffering, etc., but is not the Wisdom of Suffering, etc.? Because they first observe Suffering, etc., with the characteristics of Suffering, etc., and later may observe the objects of Suffering, etc., as pleasure, etc. Moreover, having attained such Conventional Wisdom, doubts about the Truths may subsequently arise. If these six wisdoms are included within the state of No More Learning, those that are not of the nature of direct seeing are called the Wisdom of Exhaustion (ksaya-jñāna) and the Wisdom of Non-arising (anutpada-jñāna). The initial arising of these two is only within the categories of Suffering and Accumulation, because they cognize the six characteristics of Suffering and Accumulation, and their object is the aggregates of the Peak of Existence. If the Diamond-like Samadhi (vajropamasamadhi) cognizes Suffering and Accumulation, it shares the same object, but differs in cognizing Cessation and Path. If so, wouldn't this contradict the teachings? As it is said, 'In Cessation, there is the initial arising of wisdom, and from this, one can directly realize without any contradiction to the teachings.' Here, 'in Cessation' is in the seventh case of possession, not the seventh case of object. It means that because afflictions are completely exhausted, there is the initial arising of wisdom. The arising of this initial wisdom is not the same as this wisdom cognizing Cessation as its object, so there is no contradiction. That statement intends to show that in a being with afflictions, this wisdom cannot arise until the afflictions are exhausted. Among the nine wisdoms mentioned earlier, the verse says:
Dharma, Inference, Path, Conventional; Some Achieve the Wisdom of Others' Minds. Regarding Superior Grounds, Faculties, and Positions; They Do Not Know the Past, Future, or Present. Dharma and Inference Do Not Know Each Other; Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas. In Order, They Know the Path of Seeing; Two, Three, All Moments.
Treatise: Some, namely the Wisdom of Dharma (Dharmajñāna), the Wisdom of Inference (Anvaya-jñāna), the Wisdom of the Path (marga-jñāna), and Conventional Wisdom (samvrti-jñāna), achieve the Wisdom of Others' Minds (paracitta-jñāna). Others do not. Shouldn't it be said that only three achieve the Wisdom of Others' Minds, since the Wisdom of the Path cannot exist apart from the Wisdom of Dharma and the Wisdom of Inference? The truth is indeed so, but this is said to show that the Wisdom of Others' Minds only knows objects of the same category. That is, to show that this Wisdom of Dharma and Inference knows the uncontaminated mental states and mental factors of others. This is included within the Wisdom of the Path, not the Wisdom of Suffering and Accumulation, because uncontaminated wisdom certainly cannot know the contaminated mental states and mental factors of others. It is reasonable that the uncontaminated mental states and mental factors of others are subtle and superior, and therefore not the object of one's own contaminated Wisdom of Others' Minds. Why is it that one's own uncontaminated Wisdom of Others' Minds cannot know the contaminated mental states and mental factors of others? Uncontaminated wisdom arises in relation to contaminated objects.
相所緣異此智故。謂無漏智緣有漏時。必是總緣厭背行相。是故決定不能別緣他心心所成他心智。以諸聖智緣有漏時。必于所緣深生厭背。樂總棄捨不樂別觀。緣無漏時生欣樂故。既總觀已亦樂別觀。如有見聞非所愛事。總緣便舍不樂別緣。于所愛中則不如是。總見聞已亦樂別緣。是故於他有漏心等。必無聖智一一別觀。成緣有漏心無漏他心智。以他心智決定於他心心所法別別知故。豈不亦有三念住攝苦集忍智。雖有而非但緣一法緣多體故。又他心智有決定相。謂不知勝去來二世。並法類品不互相知。勝復有三。謂地根位。地謂下地智不知上地心。義唯能知自地下地。根謂信解時解脫根智。不知見至不時解脫心。位謂不還聲聞應果獨覺大覺。前前位智不知後後勝位者心。義唯能知自下根位。然他心智及所知境。根地既殊知亦有異。所知有漏心心所法。曾未曾得各有十五。謂欲四靜慮各下中上根能知。但除欲界三品曾未曾得各有十二。所知無漏及彼能知。皆除欲三各有十二。且諸有漏曾未曾得。下根所攝他心智生。隨其所應能知下地三根心品。自地下根中品亦知自地中品。上品總了自下地三。無漏下根他心智起。唯知自地下地下根。中亦知中上兼知上。何緣有漏無漏智生。知下地心多少有異。有漏三品。可一身成。無漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 相所緣異此智故（因為所緣的行相與這種智慧不同）。謂無漏智緣有漏時（意思是說，當無漏的智慧緣取有漏法時），必是總緣厭背行相（必定是總體地緣取，並且帶有厭惡背離的行相）。是故決定不能別緣他心心所成他心智（因此，絕對不可能分別緣取他人的心和心所法，從而成就他心智）。以諸聖智緣有漏時（因為所有聖者的智慧在緣取有漏法時），必于所緣深生厭背（必定對所緣的境界深深地產生厭惡背離），樂總棄捨不樂別觀（喜歡總體地捨棄，不喜歡分別觀察），緣無漏時生欣樂故（因為緣取無漏法時會產生欣喜快樂）。既總觀已亦樂別觀（既然已經總體地觀察了，也樂於分別觀察）。 如有見聞非所愛事（比如，如果看到或聽到不喜愛的事情），總緣便舍不樂別緣（就會總體地緣取並捨棄，不喜歡分別緣取）。于所愛中則不如是（對於喜愛的事物則不是這樣），總見聞已亦樂別緣（總體地看到或聽到后，也樂於分別緣取）。是故於他有漏心等（所以，對於他人的有漏心等），必無聖智一一別觀（必定沒有聖者的智慧一一分別觀察）。成緣有漏心無漏他心智（成就緣取有漏心，並且是無漏的他心智）。以他心智決定於他心心所法別別知故（因為他心智慧夠確定地、分別地知曉他人的心和心所法）。 豈不亦有三念住攝苦集忍智（難道沒有三念住所攝的苦集忍智嗎）？雖有而非但緣一法緣多體故（雖然有，但並非只緣取一種法，而是緣取多種法）。又他心智有決定相（而且，他心智有其確定的相狀），謂不知勝去來二世（即不能知曉勝過自己的過去和未來的二世），並法類品不互相知（並且法、類、品之間也不能互相知曉）。勝復有三（勝又有三種），謂地根位（即地、根、位）。地謂下地智不知上地心（地是指下地的智慧不能知曉上地的心），義唯能知自地下地（意義上只能知曉自己地和下地的）。根謂信解時解脫根智（根是指信解時解脫的根智），不知見至不時解脫心（不能知曉見至不時解脫的心）。位謂不還聲聞應果獨覺大覺（位是指不還果的聲聞、阿羅漢果、獨覺、大覺），前前位智不知後後勝位者心（前前位的智慧不能知曉後後更勝位者的心），義唯能知自下根位（意義上只能知曉自己和下位的根和位）。 然他心智及所知境（然而，他心智和所知的境界），根地既殊知亦有異（根和地既然不同，所知曉的也有差異）。所知有漏心心所法（所知的有漏心和心所法），曾未曾得各有十五（曾經得到和未曾得到的各有十五種）。謂欲四靜慮各下中上根能知（即欲界和四禪的下、中、上根所能知曉的）。但除欲界三品曾未曾得各有十二（但除去欲界的三品，曾經得到和未曾得到的各有十二種）。所知無漏及彼能知（所知的無漏法以及能知曉它們的智慧），皆除欲三各有十二（都除去欲界的三種，各有十二種）。且諸有漏曾未曾得（而且，各種有漏的曾經得到和未曾得到的），下根所攝他心智生（下根所攝的他心智產生時），隨其所應能知下地三根心品（根據情況，能夠知曉下地的三種根的心品）。自地下根中品亦知自地中品（自己地和下地的根，中品也能知曉自己地的中品）。上品總了自下地三（上品總體了知自己和下地的三種）。無漏下根他心智起（無漏的下根他心智生起時），唯知自地下地下根（只能知曉自己地和下地的下根）。中亦知中上兼知上（中根也能知曉中根，上品也能兼知上根）。 何緣有漏無漏智生（為什麼有漏和無漏的智慧產生時），知下地心多少有異（知曉下地心的多少會有差異）？有漏三品（有漏的三品），可一身成（可以在一身中成就）。無漏（無漏的）
【English Translation】 English version Because the object and characteristics apprehended are different from this wisdom. That is, when non-outflow wisdom apprehends outflow-containing dharmas, it must be a general apprehension with the characteristic of aversion and turning away. Therefore, it is definitively impossible to separately apprehend the minds and mental factors of others to achieve other-minds wisdom (Paracitta-jñāna). Because when all noble wisdoms apprehend outflow-containing dharmas, they will certainly generate deep aversion towards the apprehended object, preferring to generally abandon it and not wanting to observe it separately, because apprehending non-outflow dharmas generates joy and delight. Having observed it generally, they also delight in observing it separately. For example, if one sees or hears something unloved, one will generally apprehend and abandon it, not wanting to apprehend it separately. It is not like this with things that are loved; having generally seen or heard them, one also delights in apprehending them separately. Therefore, regarding the outflow-containing minds of others, etc., there is certainly no noble wisdom that separately observes each one. Achieving the apprehension of outflow-containing minds is non-outflow other-minds wisdom, because other-minds wisdom definitively and separately knows the minds and mental factors of others. Are there not also the Wisdom of Acceptance (kṣānti-jñāna) of Suffering and Accumulation (duhkha-samudaya) included in the Three Foundations of Mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna)? Although there are, they do not only apprehend one dharma, but apprehend multiple entities. Moreover, other-minds wisdom has a definite characteristic, namely, not knowing the superior past and future two existences, and the categories and classes of dharmas do not mutually know each other. Superiority is further threefold, namely, grounds (bhūmi), faculties (indriya), and positions (avasthā). Ground means that the wisdom of a lower ground does not know the mind of a higher ground, meaning it can only know its own ground and lower grounds. Faculty means that the faculty-wisdom of faith-understanding and liberation in season does not know the mind of one who has attained the vision and is liberated out of season. Position means the non-returner (anāgāmin) Śrāvaka, the Arhat, the Pratyekabuddha, and the Greatly Awakened One (Mahābuddha); the wisdom of the preceding positions does not know the minds of those in the subsequent superior positions, meaning it can only know its own and lower faculties and positions. However, with other-minds wisdom and the objects known, since the faculties and grounds are different, what is known is also different. The outflow-containing minds and mental factors that are known, those that have been attained and those that have not been attained each have fifteen. Namely, the lower, middle, and upper faculties of the desire realm and the four dhyānas can know them. But excluding the three classes of the desire realm, those that have been attained and those that have not been attained each have twelve. The non-outflow dharmas that are known and the wisdom that knows them, all excluding the three of the desire realm, each have twelve. Moreover, regarding the various outflow-containing dharmas that have been attained and those that have not been attained, when other-minds wisdom belonging to the lower faculty arises, according to the circumstances, it can know the mind-classes of the three faculties of the lower ground. The middle class of one's own and lower grounds also knows the middle class of one's own ground. The upper class generally understands the three of one's own and lower grounds. When non-outflow other-minds wisdom of the lower faculty arises, it only knows the lower faculty of one's own and lower grounds. The middle faculty also knows the middle faculty, and the upper faculty also knows the upper faculty. Why is it that when outflow-containing and non-outflow wisdom arise, there is a difference in the amount of knowing the minds of the lower grounds? The three classes of outflow-containing dharmas can be achieved in one body. The non-outflow
隨根立聖者別。尚無有一成二品根。況有成三故有差別。如何說一補特伽羅成九品道斷九品惑。此道差別非根有異。由因漸長后道轉增。如次能令多品惑斷。或諸種性各有九品。成一九品必不成余。故前後言無相違失。故依上地起下根心。有上根心依下地起。地根互勝必不相知。地位位根相對亦爾。此他心智不知去來。本為知能緣心心所法故。法類二品不互相知。此二如次以欲上界。全分對治為所緣故。此他心智見道中無。總觀諦理極速轉故。然皆容作他心智境。三乘聖者起此智時。中下二乘必須加行。聲聞加行或上或中。麟喻但須下品加行。佛無加行隨欲現前。若諸有情將入見道。聲聞獨覺預修加行。為欲知彼見道位心。彼諸有情入見道位。聲聞法分加行若滿。知彼見道初二念心。若為更知類分心故。別修加行至加行滿。彼已度至第十六心。雖知此心非知見道。是故說彼唯知二念。麟喻法分加行若滿。知彼見道初二念心。若為更知類分心故。別修加行至加行滿。知彼第八集類智心。有餘師言。知第十五。有說麟喻知四剎那。謂初二心第八十四。此言應理。所以者何。許從知初二念心已。唯隔五念知第八心。若復更修法分加行。經五念頃加行應成。何不許知第十四念。有餘亦說知四剎那。謂初二心第十一二。佛於一切
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 隨根器而立聖者之別。尚且沒有一種根器能成就二品，更何況成就三品，所以才有差別。如何說一個補特伽羅（pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』）能以九品道斷九品惑？這道的差別並非根器不同，而是由於因逐漸增長，後來的道也隨之增進，依次能夠使多種品類的煩惱斷除。或者各種種性各有九品，成就一種九品必定不能成就其他的。所以前後所說沒有互相違背的過失。所以依據上地生起下根的心，有上根的心依據下地生起。地和根互相殊勝必定不能互相知曉。地位和位根相對也是這樣。這種他心智不能知曉過去和未來，本來是爲了知能緣的心和心所法（citta-caitta dharmas，心和心所法，意為心理活動及其伴隨的心理因素）的緣故。法類和種類二品不能互相知曉，這二者依次以欲界和上界的全部對治作為所緣的緣故。這種他心智在見道（darśana-mārga，見道，意為證悟真理的道路）中沒有，因為總觀四諦之理非常迅速的緣故。然而都容許作為他心智的境界。三乘聖者生起這種智慧時，中下二乘必須加以行。聲聞（śrāvaka，聲聞，意為聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟者）的加行或者上或者中。麟喻（pratyekabuddha，麟喻，意為獨覺者）只需要下品加行。佛沒有加行，隨心所欲就能顯現。如果各種有情將要進入見道，聲聞和獨覺預先修習加行，爲了想知道他們見道位的心。那些有情進入見道位，聲聞法分的加行如果圓滿，就知道他們見道最初的兩個念頭的心。如果爲了更知道種類分的心，另外修習加行直到加行圓滿，他們已經度過到第十六個心。雖然知道這個心，但不是知道見道。所以說他們只知道兩個念頭。麟喻法分的加行如果圓滿，就知道他們見道最初的兩個念頭的心。如果爲了更知道種類分的心，另外修習加行直到加行圓滿，就知道他們第八個集類智的心。有其餘的老師說，知道第十五個。有說麟喻知道四個剎那，說的是最初的兩個心，第八個和第十四個。這種說法應該合理。為什麼呢？允許從知道最初兩個念頭的心之後，只間隔五個念頭就知道第八個心。如果再修習法分的加行，經過五個念頭加行應該成就，為什麼不允許知道第十四個念頭。有其餘的人也說知道四個剎那，說的是最初的兩個心，第十一和第十二個。佛對於一切
【English Translation】 English version: The distinction of sages is established according to their faculties. There isn't even a single faculty that can accomplish two grades, let alone accomplish three, hence the difference. How can it be said that one pudgala (pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'sentient being') can sever nine grades of afflictions with the nine grades of the path? This difference in the path is not due to different faculties, but because the cause gradually increases, and the subsequent path also increases accordingly, enabling the severance of multiple grades of afflictions in sequence. Or, each species has nine grades, and accomplishing one of the nine grades necessarily prevents the accomplishment of others. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the previous and subsequent statements. Therefore, based on the higher realm, a mind of lower faculty arises; and a mind of higher faculty arises based on the lower realm. The realm and faculty being mutually superior, they necessarily cannot know each other. The same is true for the relative positions of realm and faculty. This mind-reading ability cannot know the past and future, as it is originally for knowing the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta dharmas, meaning mental activities and accompanying psychological factors) that are able to cognize. The two categories of dharma and species cannot know each other, as these two respectively take the complete antidotes of the desire realm and the upper realms as their objects. This mind-reading ability is not present in the path of seeing (darśana-mārga, meaning the path of realizing the truth), because the overall contemplation of the Four Noble Truths is extremely rapid. However, they are all allowed to be the objects of mind-reading ability. When the sages of the three vehicles generate this wisdom, the middle and lower vehicles must apply effort. The effort of the śrāvaka (śrāvaka, meaning one who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) can be either superior or intermediate. The pratyekabuddha (pratyekabuddha, meaning a solitary Buddha) only needs inferior effort. The Buddha has no effort and can manifest it at will. If various sentient beings are about to enter the path of seeing, the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas practice effort in advance, in order to know the mind of their position in the path of seeing. When those sentient beings enter the path of seeing, if the effort of the śrāvaka's dharma division is complete, they know the mind of the first two moments of their path of seeing. If they want to know the mind of the species division, they separately practice effort until the effort is complete, and they have already passed to the sixteenth mind. Although they know this mind, they do not know the path of seeing. Therefore, it is said that they only know two moments. If the effort of the pratyekabuddha's dharma division is complete, they know the mind of the first two moments of their path of seeing. If they want to know the mind of the species division, they separately practice effort until the effort is complete, and they know the mind of their eighth aggregate-class wisdom. Some other teachers say that they know the fifteenth. Some say that the pratyekabuddha knows four kṣaṇas, referring to the first two minds, the eighth, and the fourteenth. This statement should be reasonable. Why? It is allowed that after knowing the mind of the first two moments, they only know the eighth mind after an interval of five moments. If they further practice the effort of the dharma division, the effort should be completed after five moments, so why not allow them to know the fourteenth moment? Some others also say that they know four kṣaṇas, referring to the first two minds, the eleventh, and the twelfth. The Buddha, regarding everything
殊勝功德。隨欲現前心自在故。於十五念能次第知。以佛世尊三無數劫。精勤修習無量資糧。故獲難思殊勝妙智。具大勢用隨欲能知。雖此智生亦知心所。然修加行本為知心。如空處等名他心智。脅尊者曰。引此智生要先知心後方知所。從初但立他心智名。引此智時修何加行。先應觀察身之顯形。所樂言音表心差別。謂彼行者初修業時。為欲審知他心差別。先審觀察自身顯形。所樂言音因何有別。遂知顯等差別由心。次複審觀他身顯等。亦由心異有差別生。由此後時離欲身意。調柔清凈引勝定生。依定發生有威德智。此智真實照見他心。如明珠中種種色縷。差別之相瞭然可得。是名修世俗他心智加行。若修無漏他心智時。以觀非常等苦智為加行。此加行位通緣色心。至成滿時緣心非色。又加行位緣自他心。至成滿時緣他非自。盡無生智二相何別。頌曰。
智於四聖諦 知我已知等 不應更知等 如次盡無生
論曰。如本論說云何盡智。謂無學位若正自知。我已知苦我已斷集。我已證滅我已修道。由此所有智見明覺。解慧光觀是名盡智。云何無生智。謂正自知我已知苦不應更知。廣說乃至。我已修道不應更修。由此所有廣說乃至是名無生智。由本意樂二智轉時。力能引起如是解智。非於無漏二智轉時。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 殊勝的功德，因為能隨心所欲地顯現，心能自在。因此，在十五個剎那間能夠次第了知。這是因為佛世尊在三大阿僧祇劫中，精勤修習無量的資糧，所以獲得了難以思議的殊勝妙智。此智具有強大的力量，能夠隨心所欲地了知。雖然此智生起時也能知曉心所，但修習加行的根本目的是爲了知曉他人的心。如同空處等，被稱為他心智。 脅尊者說：『引發此智，要先知曉心，然後才能知曉心所。從一開始就隻立他心智之名。』引發此智時，修習何種加行？首先應當觀察身體的顯形，所喜愛的言語聲音，這些都表現了心的差別。也就是說，修行者在最初修習時，爲了審慎地知曉他人心的差別，先審慎地觀察自身顯形，所喜愛的言語聲音，因何而有差別。於是知曉顯形等的差別是由心造成的。其次再審視觀察他人身體的顯形等，也是由於心不同而產生差別。由此之後，遠離慾望，身意調柔清凈，引發殊勝的禪定。依靠禪定而生起具有威德的智慧。此智真實地照見他人的心，如同在明珠中，種種顏色的絲縷，其差別的相狀清晰可見。這稱為修習世俗他心智的加行。如果修習無漏他心智時，以觀察無常等苦智作為加行。此加行位既能緣色也能緣心，到成就圓滿時，只能緣心而不能緣色。而且加行位既能緣自心也能緣他心，到成就圓滿時，只能緣他心而不能緣自心。 盡智和無生智這兩種智慧有什麼區別？頌曰： 『智於四聖諦，知我已知等，不應更知等，如次盡無生。』 論曰：如本論所說：『什麼是盡智？』是指無學位的聖者，如果正確地自己知道：『我已經知苦，我已經斷集，我已經證滅，我已經修道。』由此所擁有的智慧、見解、明覺、理解、智慧之光、觀照，這稱為盡智。『什麼是無生智？』是指正確地自己知道：『我已經知苦，不應該再知；』 廣泛地說乃至『我已經修道，不應該再修。』由此所擁有的，廣泛地說乃至，這稱為無生智。由於最初的意樂，兩種智慧運轉時，力量能夠引起這樣的理解智慧，而不是在無漏的兩種智慧運轉時。
【English Translation】 English version Superior merit, because it can manifest at will, and the mind is free. Therefore, one can know in sequence within fifteen moments. This is because the Buddha World Honored One diligently cultivated immeasurable resources for three great Asamkhya kalpas, thus obtaining inconceivable superior wisdom. This wisdom has great power and can know at will. Although this wisdom can also know mental concomitants when it arises, the fundamental purpose of cultivating the preliminary practices is to know the minds of others. Like empty places, etc., it is called the wisdom of knowing others' minds (Paracitta-jnana). The Venerable Hsieh said: 'To induce this wisdom, one must first know the mind and then know the mental concomitants. From the beginning, only the name of the wisdom of knowing others' minds is established.' When inducing this wisdom, what kind of preliminary practices should be cultivated? First, one should observe the manifestations of the body, the beloved speech and sounds, which express the differences in the mind. That is to say, when a practitioner first cultivates, in order to carefully know the differences in the minds of others, one should first carefully observe one's own manifestations, the beloved speech and sounds, and why there are differences. Thus, one knows that the differences in manifestations, etc., are caused by the mind. Secondly, one should examine and observe the manifestations of others' bodies, etc., which are also caused by differences in the mind. After this, one is free from desires, and the body and mind are tamed, pure, and induce superior samadhi. Relying on samadhi, wisdom with power arises. This wisdom truly sees the minds of others, like the various colored threads in a bright pearl, the differences of which can be clearly obtained. This is called cultivating the preliminary practices of mundane wisdom of knowing others' minds. If one cultivates the uncontaminated wisdom of knowing others' minds, one takes the wisdom of observing impermanence, etc., as the preliminary practice. This preliminary practice position can connect with both form and mind, but when it reaches completion, it can only connect with mind and not with form. Moreover, the preliminary practice position can connect with both one's own mind and the minds of others, but when it reaches completion, it can only connect with the minds of others and not with one's own mind. What is the difference between the wisdom of exhaustion (Ksaya-jnana) and the wisdom of non-arising (Anutpada-jnana)? The verse says: 'Wisdom regarding the Four Noble Truths, knowing 'I have already known,' etc., 'Should not know further,' etc., in order, are exhaustion and non-arising.' The treatise says: As the treatise says: 'What is the wisdom of exhaustion?' It refers to the Arhat (one beyond learning), if he correctly knows himself: 'I have already known suffering, I have already eradicated accumulation, I have already realized cessation, I have already cultivated the path.' All the wisdom, views, clarity, understanding, light of wisdom, and contemplation that arise from this are called the wisdom of exhaustion. 'What is the wisdom of non-arising?' It refers to correctly knowing oneself: 'I have already known suffering, I should not know it further;' broadly speaking, even 'I have already cultivated the path, I should not cultivate it further.' All that arises from this, broadly speaking, is called the wisdom of non-arising. Because of the initial intention, when the two wisdoms operate, the power can induce such understanding wisdom, but not when the two uncontaminated wisdoms operate.
作如是解無分別故。謂出二智后得智中。方作如是二類分別。此二分別二智後生。是盡無生力所引故。此二俗智是彼士用果。故舉二果表二智差別。理必應然說由此故。依為此義說由此聲。即是為此所有智義。不爾應言如是所有。諸觀行者本修行時。定起如斯要期意樂。謂我當證阿羅漢時。要應起此自審察智。故今出觀此智必生。為令此生所起之智。隨應建立盡無生名。即后智生所依止義。故言此釋理必應。然豈不二智非見性攝。如何乃言智見明等。有作是釋乘言便故。然實二智是於後時。所起見因故亦名見。謂離盡智后出觀時。必不現行審察見故。先不動姓及后練根。得不動時離無生智。后審察見亦不現行。故此見名從果而立。或如見故假立見名。如立光名現照轉故。光是色處智體非光。照用如光名光無失。如是二智實非見體。現照如見立以見名。或諸世間決解名見。如言我見齊爾所時。此日月輪當被侵蝕定故名見。此亦應然即由此因。經作是說解脫智見蘊。謂盡無生智要有解脫。此智得生以智為體名解脫智。由前因故亦得見名。故此蘊名解脫智見。何緣本論作如是言。見云何且諸智亦是見。然有見而非智。謂八忍豈不應說見外有智。如說。智外有別見耶。應知此中說亦聲故。見外有智其義已成。若謂不然彼論應說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：像這樣理解是因為沒有分別的緣故。也就是說，在生起兩種智慧，即后得智（指證得涅槃后所獲得的智慧）之後，才會有這樣的兩種分別。這兩種分別是在兩種智慧生起之後產生的，是由盡智（指斷盡煩惱的智慧）和無生智（指確認不再有煩惱生起的智慧）的力量所引導的。這兩種世俗智慧是盡智和無生智的士用果（指主要作用的結果）。因此，舉出兩種果來表明兩種智慧的差別。從道理上來說必然是這樣，所以說『由此故』。依靠這個意義，所以說『由此』這個詞，就是爲了這個而擁有的智慧的意思。否則，應該說『像這樣所有』。那些觀行者在最初修行的時候，必定會生起這樣的要期意樂（指期望和意願），即『當我證得阿羅漢果的時候，一定要生起這種自我審察的智慧』。所以現在出觀的時候，這種智慧必定會生起。爲了讓這種生起所產生的智慧，隨順地建立盡智和無生智的名稱，也就是后得智生起所依賴的意義。所以說，這樣解釋從道理上來說必然是這樣。難道不是兩種智慧不屬於見性的範疇嗎？為什麼說智慧、見、明等等？有人這樣解釋是爲了順應言語的方便。但實際上，兩種智慧是在之後生起的見的原因，所以也稱為見。也就是說，離開盡智之後出觀的時候，必定不會現行審察見。先前不動種姓（指具有證得阿羅漢果潛質的人）以及後來鍛鍊根器，得到不動的時候，離開無生智之後，審察見也不會現行。所以這個見的名稱是從結果而建立的。或者像見一樣，假立見的名稱。就像建立光明的名稱，因為光明具有顯現照耀的作用。光明是色處，智慧的本體不是光明，但照耀的作用像光明，所以稱為光明沒有過失。像這樣，兩種智慧實際上不是見的本體，但顯現照耀的作用像見，所以建立見的名稱。或者世間上的決斷和理解稱為見。就像說『我看到齊爾所的時候，這個日月輪將會被侵蝕』，因為確定所以稱為見。這裡也應該是這樣，即因為這個原因，經中這樣說解脫智見蘊。也就是說，盡智和無生智一定要有解脫。這種智慧得以生起，以智慧為本體，所以稱為解脫智。因為前面的原因，也可以得到見的名稱。所以這個蘊的名稱是解脫智見。為什麼本論中這樣說？『見是什麼？而且諸智也是見。』然而有見而不是智，即八忍（指八種忍辱）。難道不應該說見之外有智嗎？就像說『智之外有別的見嗎？』應該知道這裡說『也』這個字，見之外有智的意義已經成立。如果說不是這樣，那個論應該說。
【English Translation】 English version: Understanding it in this way is because there is no differentiation. That is to say, it is after the arising of the two wisdoms, namely the Post-Attainment Wisdom (referring to the wisdom attained after realizing Nirvana), that such two kinds of differentiations arise. These two differentiations arise after the two wisdoms, and are guided by the power of Exhaustion Wisdom (referring to the wisdom of exhausting afflictions) and Non-Arising Wisdom (referring to the wisdom of confirming that no more afflictions will arise). These two conventional wisdoms are the 'effect of effort' (the result of the main function) of Exhaustion Wisdom and Non-Arising Wisdom. Therefore, citing the two effects demonstrates the difference between the two wisdoms. Logically, it must be so, hence the saying 'therefore'. Relying on this meaning, the word 'therefore' is used, which means the wisdom possessed for this purpose. Otherwise, it should be said 'all that is like this'. Those practitioners of contemplation, when initially practicing, will certainly give rise to such an aspiration and intention, namely, 'When I attain the state of Arhat, I must give rise to this self-examining wisdom'. Therefore, when emerging from contemplation now, this wisdom will certainly arise. In order to allow this wisdom that arises to appropriately establish the names of Exhaustion Wisdom and Non-Arising Wisdom, which is the meaning upon which the Post-Attainment Wisdom relies for its arising. Therefore, it is said that this explanation is logically necessary. Isn't it the case that the two wisdoms do not belong to the category of the nature of seeing? Why then are wisdom, seeing, clarity, etc., mentioned? Some explain this as being for the convenience of language. But in reality, the two wisdoms are the cause of seeing that arises later, so they are also called seeing. That is to say, when emerging from contemplation after leaving Exhaustion Wisdom, the examining seeing will certainly not manifest. Previously, the unmoving lineage (referring to those with the potential to attain Arhatship) and later cultivating the faculties, when attaining the unmoving state, after leaving Non-Arising Wisdom, the examining seeing will also not manifest. Therefore, the name of this seeing is established from the result. Or, like seeing, the name of seeing is provisionally established. Just like establishing the name of light, because light has the function of manifesting and illuminating. Light is a sense object, the essence of wisdom is not light, but the function of illumination is like light, so calling it light is not a mistake. In this way, the two wisdoms are actually not the essence of seeing, but the function of manifesting and illuminating is like seeing, so the name of seeing is established. Or, worldly decisions and understandings are called seeing. Just like saying 'I see that at the time of Qier, this sun and moon wheel will be eroded', because it is certain, it is called seeing. It should be the same here, that is, because of this reason, the sutra says 'the aggregate of liberation wisdom and seeing'. That is to say, Exhaustion Wisdom and Non-Arising Wisdom must have liberation. This wisdom is able to arise, and its essence is wisdom, so it is called liberation wisdom. Because of the previous reason, it can also obtain the name of seeing. Therefore, the name of this aggregate is liberation wisdom and seeing. Why does the original treatise say this? 'What is seeing? And all wisdoms are also seeing.' However, there is seeing that is not wisdom, namely the Eight Forbearances (referring to the eight kinds of forbearance). Shouldn't it be said that there is wisdom outside of seeing? Just like saying 'Is there a separate seeing outside of wisdom?' It should be known that the word 'also' is used here, and the meaning of wisdom outside of seeing has already been established. If it is said that it is not so, that treatise should say.
所有智皆是見。既言亦是明知有非。謂盡無生俗智一分。然智外見分明顯說。不分明說見外智者為遮僻執。譬喻部師。說于下智立忍名想。或如前說有多種因。盡無生等亦得名見。何緣論說無生智中。復作是言我已知苦等。理但應說不復更知等。二行不應俱時轉故。若次第轉前與盡智。無差別故不應重說。應知此說意為遣疑。恐有生疑如時解脫。先起盡智后得無生。如是應許不時解脫。先起無生后得盡智。為顯一切盡智先起。故復先說已知等言。或先但言我已知等。顯時解脫唯有盡智。后復重言我已知等。顯不時解脫盡後起無生。故雖重言而無有失。無生智者何謂無生。正理師言。謂非擇滅有無生故。此智得生智托無生名無生智。滅雖常有而得非常。得彼滅時此智方轉。要由得起方名有滅。于有滅位此智方生。或無生言因彼滅得。如涅槃得亦名涅槃。經說以涅槃置在心中故。有彼得位此智方生。智托無生名無生智。有餘於此作是難言。若托無生名無生智。則無生智緣非諦法。是則所說違害自宗。無漏慧生唯緣四諦。彼不審察設此難詞。我上已言于出觀后。方起如是分別智故。或此托聲是有第七。非境第七如盡智故。或許此智緣無生得。此苦諦攝非非諦故。如是十智互相攝者。謂世俗智攝一全一少分。法類智各攝一全七
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所有智慧都是一種『見』（dṛṣṭi）。既然這樣說，也就明確知道存在不是『見』的智慧。這是指窮盡『無生智』（anuppāda-ñāṇa）的世俗智慧的一部分。然而，『智』（jñāna）之外的『見』被明確地說明，而不明確說明『見』之外的『智』，是爲了防止片面的執著，例如譬喻部（Dārṣṭāntika）的論師，他們說在下等智慧中建立『忍』（kṣānti）的名義和『想』（saṃjñā）。或者像前面所說，有多種原因，『盡』（kṣaya）、『無生』等也可以被稱為『見』。為什麼在論述『無生智』時，又說『我已經知道苦』（jānāmi kho panāhaṃ dukkhaṃ）等等？道理上應該只說『不再知道』等等，因為兩種行為不應該同時發生。如果次第發生，那麼前一個就和『盡智』（khaye-ñāṇa）沒有差別，因此不應該重複說。應該知道，這樣說是爲了消除疑惑，恐怕有人懷疑，如『時解脫』（samaya-vimutta），先產生『盡智』，后得到『無生智』；這樣就應該允許『不時解脫』（asamaya-vimutta），先產生『無生智』，后得到『盡智』。爲了顯示一切都是『盡智』先產生，所以又先說『已知』等語。或者先只說『我已經知道』等，顯示『時解脫』只有『盡智』。後來又重複說『我已經知道』等，顯示『不時解脫』是『盡智』之後產生『無生智』。所以雖然重複說，也沒有過失。『無生智』是什麼意思呢？正理師（Abhidharmikas）說，是指『非擇滅』（asaṃkhata-nirodha）有『無生』的緣故。此智得以產生，是智慧依託『無生』，所以名為『無生智』。『滅』雖然常有，但是『得』（prāpti）非常。得到那個『滅』的時候，這個智慧才運轉。一定要由『得』生起，才名為有『滅』。在有『滅』的地位，這個智慧才產生。或者『無生』是指因那個『滅』而得到，如同『涅槃得』（nirvāṇa-prāpti）也名為『涅槃』。經中說，將『涅槃』置於心中，所以有那個『得』的地位，這個智慧才產生。智慧依託『無生』，所以名為『無生智』。有些人對此提出疑問說，如果依託『無生』而名為『無生智』，那麼『無生智』所緣的就不是『諦』（satya）法。這樣所說的就違背了自己的宗義，因為無漏慧（anāsrava-prajñā）的產生只能緣於四諦（cattāri ariyasaccāni）。他們沒有審察就提出這樣的疑問。我上面已經說過，在出觀（vyutthāna）之後，才產生這樣的分別智。或者這個『托』（ālambana）是『有』（asti）的第七格，不是『境』（viṣaya）的第七格，如同『盡智』的緣故。或許這個智慧緣于『無生得』，這是『苦諦』（dukkha-sacca）所包含的，不是非『諦』的緣故。像這樣，十智（dasa-ñāṇa）互相包含的情況是，『世俗智』（saṃvṛti-jñāna）包含一個全部和一個少部分，『法智』（dharma-jñāna）和『類智』（anvaya-jñāna）各自包含一個全部和七個。
【English Translation】 English version: All wisdom is a kind of 'seeing' (dṛṣṭi). Since it is said this way, it is clearly known that there is wisdom that is not 'seeing'. This refers to a portion of mundane wisdom that exhausts 'non-arising wisdom' (anuppāda-ñāṇa). However, 'seeing' (dṛṣṭi) apart from 'wisdom' (jñāna) is explicitly stated, while 'wisdom' apart from 'seeing' is not explicitly stated, in order to prevent one-sided attachments, such as the teachers of the Dārṣṭāntika school, who say that they establish the name of 'acceptance' (kṣānti) and 'perception' (saṃjñā) in inferior wisdom. Or, as mentioned earlier, there are various reasons why 'exhaustion' (kṣaya), 'non-arising', etc., can also be called 'seeing'. Why, when discussing 'non-arising wisdom', is it also said, 'I have known suffering' (jānāmi kho panāhaṃ dukkhaṃ), etc.? Logically, it should only be said, 'I will no longer know', etc., because two actions should not occur simultaneously. If they occur sequentially, then the former is no different from 'wisdom of exhaustion' (khaye-ñāṇa), so it should not be repeated. It should be understood that this statement is to dispel doubts, lest someone suspect that, like 'liberation in time' (samaya-vimutta), 'wisdom of exhaustion' arises first, and then 'non-arising wisdom' is obtained; thus, 'liberation out of time' (asamaya-vimutta) should be allowed, where 'non-arising wisdom' arises first, and then 'wisdom of exhaustion' is obtained. To show that 'wisdom of exhaustion' arises first in all cases, the words 'I have known', etc., are stated first. Or, only 'I have known', etc., is stated first, to show that 'liberation in time' only has 'wisdom of exhaustion'. Later, 'I have known', etc., is repeated to show that 'liberation out of time' arises 'non-arising wisdom' after 'wisdom of exhaustion'. Therefore, although it is repeated, there is no fault. What does 'non-arising wisdom' mean? The Abhidharmikas say that it refers to 'unconditioned cessation' (asaṃkhata-nirodha) because there is 'non-arising'. This wisdom is able to arise because wisdom relies on 'non-arising', so it is called 'non-arising wisdom'. Although 'cessation' always exists, 'attainment' (prāpti) is not constant. When that 'cessation' is attained, this wisdom operates. It must arise from 'attainment' to be called having 'cessation'. In the state of having 'cessation', this wisdom arises. Or 'non-arising' refers to being obtained because of that 'cessation', just as 'attainment of nirvāṇa' (nirvāṇa-prāpti) is also called 'nirvāṇa'. The scriptures say that placing 'nirvāṇa' in the heart, so in the state of that 'attainment', this wisdom arises. Wisdom relies on 'non-arising', so it is called 'non-arising wisdom'. Some people raise doubts about this, saying that if it relies on 'non-arising' to be called 'non-arising wisdom', then what 'non-arising wisdom' focuses on is not 'truth' (satya). What is said in this way contradicts their own doctrine, because the arising of undefiled wisdom (anāsrava-prajñā) can only focus on the Four Noble Truths (cattāri ariyasaccāni). They raise such questions without careful consideration. I have already said above that after emerging from meditative absorption (vyutthāna), such discriminating wisdom arises. Or this 'reliance' (ālambana) is the seventh case of 'existence' (asti), not the seventh case of 'object' (viṣaya), like 'wisdom of exhaustion'. Perhaps this wisdom focuses on 'attainment of non-arising', which is included in the 'truth of suffering' (dukkha-sacca), not a non-'truth'. In this way, the mutual inclusion of the ten wisdoms (dasa-ñāṇa) is that 'conventional wisdom' (saṃvṛti-jñāna) includes one whole and a small part, and 'wisdom of dharma' (dharma-jñāna) and 'wisdom of inference' (anvaya-jñāna) each include one whole and seven.
少分。苦集滅智各攝一全四少分。道智攝一全五少分。他心智攝一全四少分。盡無生智各攝一全六少分。何緣二智建立為十。頌曰。
由自性對治 行相行相境 加行辦因圓 故建立十智
論曰。由七緣故立二為十。一自性故立世俗智。以世俗智為自性故。二對治故立法類智。全能對治欲上界故。三行相故立苦集智。此二智境體無別故。四行相境故立滅道智。此二行相境俱有別故。五加行故立他心智。非此不知他心所法。本修加行為知他心。雖成滿時亦知心所。而約加行故立他心智名。加行如前已具分別。六事辦故建立盡智。事辦身中定初生故。七因圓故立無生智。一切聖道為因生故。謂有盡智非無生智為因故生。無無生智不以盡智為因故起如上。既言法智類智全能對治欲上界法。為有少分治上欲耶。頌曰。
緣滅道法智 于修道位中 兼治上修斷 類無能治欲
論曰。修道所攝滅道法智。兼能對治上界修斷。望欲界法四諦法智。全能對治于欲見斷法智。亦為持對治故。能治所治皆得全名。望上俱缺俱名少分。何緣唯有滅道法智。兼治上界非苦集耶。所緣寂靜出離同故。謂欲上滅及能治道。展轉相望相無別故。以諸擇滅皆善皆常。一切聖道皆能出離。所緣苦集欲上不同。少多細粗上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 少分：苦集滅智各包含一個完整的部分和四個少分。道智包含一個完整的部分和五個少分。他心智包含一個完整的部分和四個少分。盡智和無生智各包含一個完整的部分和六個少分。為什麼將這兩個智建立為十個呢？頌文說： 『由自性對治，行相行相境，加行辦因圓，故建立十智。』 論述：由於七個原因，將兩個智建立為十個。第一，由於自性而建立世俗智，因為世俗智是其自性。第二，由於對治而建立法類智，因為它完全能夠對治欲界和上界。第三，由於行相而建立苦智和集智，因為這兩個智的境和體沒有區別。第四，由於行相境而建立滅智和道智，因為這兩個智的行相和境都有區別。第五，由於加行而建立他心智，不是因為此智不能知曉他心所法，而是因為最初修習加行是爲了知曉他心。雖然在成就圓滿時也能知曉心所，但根據加行而建立他心智的名稱。加行如前文已經詳細分別。第六，由於事辦而建立盡智，因為在自身中確定初果生起。第七，由於因圓而建立無生智，因為一切聖道都是其生起的原因。也就是說，有盡智，並非無生智作為原因而生起；沒有無生智，不是以盡智作為原因而生起，如上所述。既然說，法智和類智完全能夠對治欲界和上界的法，那麼是否有少分能夠對治上界和欲界呢？頌文說： 『緣滅道法智，于修道位中，兼治上修斷，類無能治欲。』 論述：修道所包含的滅智、道智和法智，兼能對治上界的修斷。對於欲界的法，四諦法智完全能夠對治欲界的見斷。法智也因為持有對治的緣故，能夠對治，因此能治和所治都得到完整的名稱。對於上界，兩者都缺少，因此都稱為少分。為什麼只有滅智、道智和法智，兼能對治上界，而不是苦智和集智呢？因為所緣的寂靜和出離相同。也就是說，欲界和上界的滅，以及能夠對治的道，輾轉相望，沒有區別。因為諸擇滅都是善的、常的，一切聖道都能出離。所緣的苦和集，欲界和上界不同，少多細粗不同。
【English Translation】 English version: Small portions: The Wisdom of Suffering (苦智, Ku Zhi), the Wisdom of Accumulation (集智, Ji Zhi), and the Wisdom of Cessation (滅智, Mie Zhi) each encompass one complete portion and four small portions. The Wisdom of the Path (道智, Dao Zhi) encompasses one complete portion and five small portions. The Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds (他心智, Ta Xin Zhi) encompasses one complete portion and four small portions. The Wisdom of Exhaustion (盡智, Jin Zhi) and the Wisdom of Non-arising (無生智, Wu Sheng Zhi) each encompass one complete portion and six small portions. Why are these two Wisdoms established as ten? The verse says: 'Due to self-nature, counteraction, characteristics, characteristic-object, application, accomplishment, and complete cause, therefore, ten Wisdoms are established.' Commentary: Due to seven reasons, two are established as ten. First, due to self-nature, the Conventional Wisdom (世俗智, Shi Su Zhi) is established, because Conventional Wisdom is its self-nature. Second, due to counteraction, the Wisdom of Dharma-Categories (法類智, Fa Lei Zhi) is established, because it is fully capable of counteracting the Desire Realm (欲界, Yu Jie) and the Upper Realms. Third, due to characteristics, the Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Accumulation are established, because the object and essence of these two Wisdoms are not different. Fourth, due to characteristic-object, the Wisdom of Cessation and the Wisdom of the Path are established, because the characteristics and object of these two Wisdoms are different. Fifth, due to application, the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds is established, not because this Wisdom cannot know the mental states of others, but because the initial practice of application is for knowing the minds of others. Although it can also know mental states when it is accomplished and complete, the name 'Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds' is established based on application. Application has been previously explained in detail. Sixth, due to accomplishment, the Wisdom of Exhaustion is established, because the determination of the initial fruit arises in oneself. Seventh, due to complete cause, the Wisdom of Non-arising is established, because all Noble Paths are the cause of its arising. That is to say, there is the Wisdom of Exhaustion, but the Wisdom of Non-arising does not arise as a cause; there is no Wisdom of Non-arising that does not arise with the Wisdom of Exhaustion as a cause, as mentioned above. Since it is said that the Wisdom of Dharma (法智, Fa Zhi) and the Wisdom of Categories (類智, Lei Zhi) are fully capable of counteracting the dharmas of the Desire Realm and the Upper Realms, is there a small portion that can counteract the Upper Realms and the Desire Realm? The verse says: 'The Wisdom of Dharma related to Cessation and the Path, within the position of cultivation, also counteracts the cultivation-severance of the Upper Realms; the Categories cannot counteract desire.' Commentary: The Wisdom of Cessation, the Wisdom of the Path, and the Wisdom of Dharma, which are included in the Path of Cultivation, also counteract the cultivation-severance of the Upper Realms. Regarding the dharmas of the Desire Realm, the Wisdom of Dharma of the Four Noble Truths is fully capable of counteracting the view-severance of the Desire Realm. The Wisdom of Dharma is also able to counteract because it holds the cause of counteraction, therefore, both the counteracting and the counteracted receive complete names. Regarding the Upper Realms, both are lacking, therefore, both are called small portions. Why is it only the Wisdom of Cessation, the Wisdom of the Path, and the Wisdom of Dharma that also counteract the Upper Realms, and not the Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Accumulation? Because the quiescence and liberation of the object are the same. That is to say, the cessation of the Desire Realm and the Upper Realms, and the Path that is able to counteract, mutually regard each other and there is no difference. Because all Selective Cessations are good and constant, and all Noble Paths are able to liberate. The Suffering and Accumulation of the object are different in the Desire Realm and the Upper Realms; there are differences in smallness, largeness, subtlety, and coarseness.
下別故。又苦集智緣所厭境。無容厭彼於此離貪。理厭此地時斷此地煩惱。若許異厭異離貪應異離貪異解脫。若許不厭色無色界。而能離彼界貪習厭。離貪理則應壞。滅道二智不緣厭境。緣下治上亦無過失。又如不凈觀及欣涅槃欲。謂不凈觀緣欲界境。唯能令心厭背欲界。欣涅槃欲現在前時。普能令心厭背三界。如是緣欲苦集智生。唯能令心離欲界染。緣欲界法滅道智生。普能令心離三界染。故許滅道法智品增。乃至得成金剛喻定。由此大聖妙善了知。依全治門立法類智。法智少分有治上能。類智必無能治欲界。要于自界所作已周。方可兼為他界所作。非諸類智己事成時。他事未成有須助義。故無類智治欲界法。豈不第十六道類智生。乘此便則能治欲界惑。將斷欲惑類智不行。設許現行由自界障所拘礙故。必無勢力能助成他。法智所作由此類智無能治欲。於此十智中誰有何行相。頌曰。
法智及類智 行相俱十六 世俗此及余 四諦智各四 他心智無漏 唯四謂緣道 有漏自相緣 俱但緣一事 盡無生十四 謂離空非我
論曰。法智類智一一具有。非常苦等十六行相。十六行相后當廣釋。世智有此及更有餘。能緣一切法自共相等故。謂世俗智或有具作十六行相。如於暖頂忍等位中。或有
不具如世第一。重三摩地及現觀邊世俗智等。或有別作非聖行相。如不凈觀息念慈等。俗智此等行相無邊。苦等四智一一各有緣自諦境四種行相。他心智中若無漏者。唯有緣道四種行相。此即道智一分攝故。若有漏者取自所緣。心心所法自相境故。如境自相行相亦爾。故此非前十六所攝。如是二種於一切時。一念但緣一事為境。謂緣心時不緣心所。緣受等時不緣想等。若爾何故薄伽梵說如實了知有貪心等。非俱時取貪等及心。如不俱時取衣及垢。有貪心等三。對心相心解脫處已辯差別。毗婆沙師作如是說。聚心者謂善心。此于所緣不馳散故。散心者謂染心。此與散動相應起故。經主謂此不順契經。經言此心云何內聚。謂心若與惛眠俱行。或內相應有止無觀。云何外散。謂心遊涉五妙欲境隨散隨流。或內相應有觀無止。西方者釋乃順契經。謂眠相應說名為聚。余染污者名為散心。而無染眠俱心通聚散失。不許眠俱染名為散心故。不審經意妄為褒貶。此彼二經意各別故。此經中說有貪等心。為令知心染凈品別。謂為如實了知諸心。黑品白品差別理趣。說有貪心離貪心等。彼經中說聚心散心。為令了知修神足障。由彼經說自審己心。勿太沉勿太舉勿內聚勿外散。謂彼行者修神足時。應自審察修神足障。此心懈怠此心掉舉。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不具足如世第一法（lokikāgra dharma，世間最高的善法）。重複修習三摩地（samādhi，禪定）以及現觀（abhisamaya，現證真理）方面的世俗智慧等等。或者有些特別的修行方法不是聖者的行為，例如不凈觀（aśubha-bhāvanā，觀想身體不潔凈）、安般念（ānāpānasati，覺知呼吸）、慈心觀（mettā-bhāvanā，修慈悲心）等等。這些世俗智慧的修行方法是無邊無際的。苦諦（duḥkha satya，苦的真理）、集諦（samudaya satya，苦的根源的真理）、滅諦（nirodha satya，苦的止息的真理）、道諦（mārga satya，通往苦的止息的道路的真理）四種智慧，每一種都有緣取自身所觀照的真諦之境的四種行相（ākāra，方面）。 在他心智（paracitta-jñāna，瞭解他人心識的智慧）中，如果是無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna，沒有煩惱的智慧），則只有緣取道諦的四種行相，因為這屬於道智（mārga-jñāna，關於道的智慧）的一部分。如果是有漏智（sāsrava-jñāna，有煩惱的智慧），則取自身所緣的心和心所法（citta-caitta dharma，心理現象）的自相（svalakṣaṇa，獨特的性質）作為境界。如同境界的自相一樣，行相也是如此。因此，這不屬於前面所說的十六種行相。像這樣兩種智慧在任何時候，一個念頭都只能緣取一件事物作為境界。也就是說，緣取心的時候不緣取心所，緣取受（vedanā，感受）等的時候不緣取想（saṃjñā，概念）等。 如果這樣，為什麼薄伽梵（Bhagavān，佛陀的尊稱）說如實了知有貪心等等呢？這是因為不能同時取貪等和心，就像不能同時取衣服和污垢一樣。有貪心等三種說法，對於心相（citta-lakṣaṇa，心的特徵）、心解脫處（citta-vimokṣa-sthāna，心解脫的地方）已經辨別了差別。 毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，說一切有部論師）這樣說：『聚心』是指善心，因為這種心對於所緣不散亂。『散心』是指染污心，因為這種心與散動相應而生起。經主（Sūtra Master，精通經藏的論師）認為這不符合契經（sūtra，佛經）。經中說：『此心如何內聚？』是指心如果與昏沉睡眠（styāna-middha，精神上的遲鈍和昏沉）俱行，或者內心相應有止（śamatha，止息妄念）而沒有觀（vipaśyanā，如實觀察）。『如何外散？』是指心遊走於五妙欲境（pañca kāmaguṇa，色、聲、香、味、觸五種感官享受）隨之散亂流蕩，或者內心相應有觀而沒有止。西方論師的解釋才符合契經，認為與睡眠相應的心叫做『聚』，其餘染污的心叫做『散心』。而沒有染污的睡眠俱行之心，既可以通於『聚』也可以通於『散』，因為他們不承認與睡眠俱行的染污心叫做『散心』。不審察經文的含義而妄加褒貶。這是因為這兩部經的含義各不相同。這部經中說有貪心等，是爲了讓人知道心的染污和清凈的品類差別，是爲了如實了知各種心的黑品（kṛṣṇa-pakṣa，不善的方面）和白品（śukla-pakṣa，善良的方面）的差別理趣，所以說有貪心、離貪心等等。那部經中說聚心和散心，是爲了讓人瞭解修習神足（ṛddhipāda，通過意志力獲得的超自然能力）的障礙。因為那部經說要自己審察自己的心，不要太沉，不要太舉，不要內聚，不要外散。也就是說，修行者在修習神足的時候，應該自己審察修習神足的障礙，這個心是懈怠的，這個心是掉舉的。
【English Translation】 English version: It does not possess the 'foremost in the world' (lokikāgra dharma), such as the worldly wisdom related to repeated samādhi (concentration) and direct realization (abhisamaya). Or there are specific practices that are not the conduct of the noble ones, such as the contemplation of impurity (aśubha-bhāvanā), mindfulness of breathing (ānāpānasati), loving-kindness meditation (mettā-bhāvanā), and so on. These worldly wisdom practices are boundless. Each of the four wisdoms of the Four Noble Truths—suffering (duḥkha satya), origin (samudaya satya), cessation (nirodha satya), and path (mārga satya)—has four aspects that take their respective truths as objects. In the knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna), if it is unconditioned wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna), it only has the four aspects that take the path as its object, because it is included in the wisdom of the path (mārga-jñāna). If it is conditioned wisdom (sāsrava-jñāna), it takes the self-nature (svalakṣaṇa) of the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta dharma) that it cognizes as its object. Just like the self-nature of the object, so are the aspects. Therefore, this is not included in the sixteen aspects mentioned earlier. Thus, these two types of wisdom, at any given moment, can only take one thing as their object. That is, when they take the mind as their object, they do not take mental factors; when they take feeling (vedanā) as their object, they do not take perception (saṃjñā), and so on. If that is the case, why did the Blessed One (Bhagavān) say that one truly knows the mind with greed, etc.? This is because one cannot simultaneously grasp greed, etc., and the mind, just as one cannot simultaneously grasp clothing and dirt. The three statements about the mind with greed, etc., have already distinguished the differences regarding the characteristics of the mind (citta-lakṣaṇa) and the place of liberation of the mind (citta-vimokṣa-sthāna). The Vaibhāṣikas (Vaibhāṣika, Sarvāstivāda school masters) say: 'Collected mind' refers to wholesome mind, because this mind does not wander from its object. 'Scattered mind' refers to defiled mind, because this mind arises in conjunction with distraction. The Sūtra Master (Sūtra Master, master of the sutras) believes that this does not accord with the sūtras. The sūtra says: 'How is this mind collected internally?' It refers to the mind that is accompanied by dullness and drowsiness (styāna-middha), or that internally corresponds to calm (śamatha) without insight (vipaśyanā). 'How is it scattered externally?' It refers to the mind that wanders in the realm of the five desirable sense objects (pañca kāmaguṇa), scattering and flowing along with them, or that internally corresponds to insight without calm. The interpretation of the Western masters accords with the sūtras, considering the mind associated with sleep to be called 'collected,' and the remaining defiled minds to be called 'scattered.' And the mind associated with sleep that is not defiled can be both 'collected' and 'scattered,' because they do not acknowledge that the defiled mind associated with sleep is called 'scattered.' They rashly praise and criticize without examining the meaning of the sūtras. This is because the meanings of these two sūtras are different. This sūtra speaks of the mind with greed, etc., in order to make known the different categories of defiled and pure minds, in order to truly know the differences between the dark side (kṛṣṇa-pakṣa) and the bright side (śukla-pakṣa) of various minds, so it speaks of the mind with greed, the mind without greed, and so on. That sūtra speaks of the collected mind and the scattered mind in order to make known the obstacles to cultivating the psychic powers (ṛddhipāda). Because that sūtra says to examine one's own mind, not too sunk, not too uplifted, not internally collected, not externally scattered. That is, when a practitioner is cultivating the psychic powers, they should examine the obstacles to cultivating the psychic powers, this mind is lazy, this mind is agitated.
心惛眠此於色等非理作意所引流散。此彼經意所為既殊。不可引彼經遮釋此經相。彼經但說修神足時。心於內外太聚散失。不欲分別心染凈相。此經所說與彼相違雖諸染心皆有怠等。為顯諸染過失差別。隨其增位立沈等心。立策等心應知翻此。故我宗釋符順契經。亦善分別諸心異相。傍論已了應述本義。如何他心智有行相所緣。而說不觀所緣行相。以不觀他心所緣行相故。謂但知彼有染等心。不知彼心所染色等。亦不知彼能緣行相。不爾他心智應亦緣色等。又亦應有能自緣失。無漏他心智應緣苦等境。是則亦應許空無相相應。既不許然知不觀二。諸他心智有決定相。謂唯能取欲色界系。及非所繫他相續中。現在同類心心所法。一實自相為所緣境。空無相不相應盡無生所不攝。不在見道無間道中余所不遮。如應容有盡無生智除空非我。各具有餘十四行相。由與出觀心轉相違。故在觀中無二行相。謂從二智出觀后時必自了知我生盡等。此中意說盡無生智雖是勝義而涉世俗。我生盡等是世俗故。空非我是勝義必涉勝義。此觀后決了知空非我。故由此二智離空非我。為有無漏。越此十六更是所餘行相攝不。頌曰。
凈無越十六 余說有論故
論曰。對法諸師有一類說。無越十六無漏行相。離此所餘不可得故。豈不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：心識昏沉、睡眠，這是由於對色等事物不如理作意所導致的散亂。此經和彼經的意圖不同，不能用彼經來解釋此經的含義。彼經只是說在修習神足的時候，心識在內外過於散亂，沒有想要分辨心識染污和清凈的相狀。此經所說的與彼經相反，雖然各種染污心都有懈怠等，爲了顯示各種染污的過失差別，根據它們增盛的程度而建立沉沒等心。建立策勵等心，應當知道是與此相反的。所以我宗的解釋符合契經，也善於分辨各種心識的差異相狀。旁論已經結束，應該敘述本義。 如何他心智具有行相和所緣，卻說不觀察所緣的行相呢？因為不觀察他人心識的所緣行相，所以說只是知道他人有染污等心，不知道他人心識所緣的色等，也不知道他人心識能緣的行相。如果不是這樣，他心智就應該也能緣色等，又應該有能緣自身的過失。無漏的他心智應該緣苦等境界，那麼也應該允許與空、無相相應。既然不允許這樣，就知道不觀察這兩種。各種他心智具有決定的相狀，就是隻能取欲界系以及非所繫的他人相續中，現在同類的心和心所法，以真實的自相作為所緣境。與空、無相不相應，不被盡智、無生智所攝，不在見道、無間道中，其餘所不遮止的，如應容有。盡智、無生智除了空、非我之外，各自具有其餘十四種行相。由於與出觀的心識運轉相反，所以在觀中沒有這兩種行相，就是從這兩種智慧出觀之後，必定自己了知『我生已盡』等。這裡的意思是說，盡智、無生智雖然是勝義諦，但也涉及世俗諦，因為『我生已盡』等是世俗諦的緣故。空、非我是勝義諦，必定涉及勝義諦。這種觀之後決定了知空、非我。所以由此兩種智慧遠離空、非我。為有無漏，超過這十六種，更是其餘行相所攝嗎？頌說： 『凈無越十六，余說有論故』 論說：對法諸師有一類說法，沒有超過十六種無漏行相的，因為離開這些其餘的不可得。難道不是嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Mental dullness and drowsiness arise from unwise attention to sense objects (色等, se deng). Since the intentions of this sutra and other sutras differ, we cannot use those sutras to interpret this one. Those sutras only discuss how, when cultivating the psychic power of accomplishment (神足, shen zu), the mind becomes too scattered internally and externally, without intending to distinguish between the characteristics of defiled and pure minds. What this sutra says contradicts that. Although all defiled minds have laziness and other qualities, in order to show the differences in the faults of various defilements, sinking and other minds are established according to their degree of increase. The establishment of exertion and other minds should be understood as the opposite of this. Therefore, our school's interpretation accords with the sutras and is also good at distinguishing the different characteristics of various minds. The digression is over; we should now describe the main meaning. How can the knowledge of others' minds (他心智, ta xin zhi) have aspects (行相, xing xiang) and objects (所緣, suo yuan), yet be said not to observe the aspects of the objects? Because it does not observe the aspects of the objects of others' minds, it is said that it only knows that others have defiled minds, etc., but does not know the sense objects, etc., that others' minds cognize, nor does it know the aspects that others' minds can cognize. If this were not the case, the knowledge of others' minds should also be able to cognize sense objects, etc., and should also have the fault of being able to cognize itself. The undefiled knowledge of others' minds should cognize suffering and other realms, and then it should also be allowed to be associated with emptiness (空, kong) and signlessness (無相, wu xiang). Since this is not allowed, it is known that these two are not observed. The various knowledges of others' minds have definite characteristics, namely, they can only take the minds and mental factors of the same type that are currently present in the continuums of others who are bound by the desire realm (欲界系, yu jie xi) and those who are not bound by it, with their real self-nature as the object. They are not associated with emptiness and signlessness, are not included in the knowledge of exhaustion (盡智, jin zhi) and the knowledge of non-arising (無生智, wu sheng zhi), are not in the path of seeing (見道, jian dao) or the path of immediate consequence (無間道, wu jian dao), and are not prohibited by the rest, as appropriate. The knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising each have the remaining fourteen aspects besides emptiness and non-self. Because they are contrary to the operation of the mind that emerges from contemplation, these two aspects are not present in contemplation, namely, after emerging from contemplation with these two wisdoms, one will certainly know for oneself 'my birth is exhausted,' etc. The meaning here is that although the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are ultimate truth, they also involve conventional truth, because 'my birth is exhausted,' etc., is conventional truth. Emptiness and non-self are ultimate truth and necessarily involve ultimate truth. After this contemplation, one definitely knows emptiness and non-self. Therefore, these two wisdoms are separated from emptiness and non-self. Is there undefiled [wisdom] that exceeds these sixteen and is included in the remaining aspects? The verse says: 'Pure [wisdom] does not exceed sixteen; others say there is a treatise on it.' The treatise says: Some teachers of Abhidharma say that there are no undefiled aspects that exceed sixteen, because nothing else can be obtained apart from these. Is it not?
有說盡無生智。必自了知我生盡等。此不相違前已說故。謂前已說無漏觀。後世俗智中作此行相非無漏智。此行相轉由盡無生引起俗智。推功于本言彼了知。故許此智離空非我。本意樂力令此二智。后必引生我生盡等。非由觀內此行相轉。令於後時起此行相。我等行相觀內雖無。而由不愚自證解脫。義言此位必已應有。我生盡等行相勢分。由先世俗行相引生。能引后時世俗行相。故離十四無盡無生。若謂此應言離十六無者。此不應理除十四餘有盡無生非極成故。謂離十四有依密說。計我生盡等為盡無生智。遮彼故說離十四無。余不極成寧對遮此。若爾既有無漏他心智。應越十六有無漏行相。謂他心智皆以一實自相為境。道等行相皆以聚集共相為境。彼此既殊知離十六。決定別有無漏行相非定許故。所難不然。謂我所宗非決定許。共相行相但緣聚集。許有受心二念住故。如觀一受體是非常。此智生時以共相行相。觀一實自相為境極成。如是寧不許無漏他心智。以共相行相緣一實自相。謂知他心是真道等。即緣一實是道等相。若謂應如受心念住。總緣三世所有受心。為非常等共相行相。無漏他心智亦總緣三世。他無漏心等為道等行相。便違自宗他心智起。唯緣現在一實自相。此亦不然加行異故。此智加行為欲知他現能緣心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『已證得無生智』的說法，必然是自己了知『我生已盡』等等。這與前面所說的並不矛盾，因為前面已經說過，這是指無漏觀之後的世俗智，在這種世俗智中產生這樣的行相，而不是無漏智。這種行相的轉變，是由『盡』和『無生』引起的世俗智。將功勞歸於根本，說他們了知。因此，允許這種智慧脫離空性，並非『我』。最初的意樂之力，使得這兩種智慧，在之後必然會引發『我生已盡』等等。這不是通過觀察內在的這種行相的轉變，而是在之後產生這種行相。『我』等等的行相，雖然在觀內沒有，但由於不愚昧，自然能證得解脫。從意義上說，在這個階段，必然已經具備了『我生已盡』等等行相的勢分，這是由先前的世俗行相所引發的，能夠引發後來的世俗行相。因此，脫離了十四種無盡和無生。如果說應該說脫離了十六種無，這是不合理的，因為除了十四種之外，其他的『盡』和『無生』並非是普遍認可的。也就是說，脫離十四種，是依據秘密的說法，將『我生已盡』等等視為『盡無生智』。爲了遮止這種觀點，所以說脫離了十四種無。其餘不被普遍認可的，又何必去遮止呢？ 如果這樣說，既然有無漏的他心智，就應該超越十六種有的無漏行相。因為他心智都是以一個真實的自相為境，而道等等的行相，都是以聚集的共相為境。既然彼此不同，就知道脫離十六種有，必定有其他的無漏行相，但這不是絕對允許的。所提出的疑問是不成立的。因為我所宗的觀點並非絕對允許，共相行相只是緣于聚集。允許有受心二念住的緣故。比如觀察一個受的本體是非常的，這種智慧產生時，以共相行相，觀察一個真實的自相為境，這是普遍認可的。這樣，為什麼不允許無漏的他心智，以共相行相緣於一個真實的自相呢？也就是說，知道他人的心是真道等等，就是緣於一個真實的是道等等的相。如果說應該像受心念住一樣，總緣於三世所有的受心，作為非常等等的共相行相，無漏的他心智也總緣於三世，他人的無漏心等等作為道等等的行相，那就違背了自己宗派的觀點，即他心智的生起，只緣于現在一個真實的自相。這也是不成立的，因為加行不同。這種智慧的加行是爲了知道他人現在能夠緣的心。
【English Translation】 English version: The statement 'having spoken exhaustively of the wisdom of non-origination' necessarily implies self-awareness of 'my birth is exhausted,' etc. This does not contradict what was previously stated, as it refers to the mundane wisdom following the uncontaminated (anāsrava) contemplation, where such characteristics arise, not within the uncontaminated wisdom itself. This transformation of characteristics is induced by the mundane wisdom arising from 'cessation' (盡, kṣaya) and 'non-origination' (無生, anutpāda). Acknowledging the fundamental cause, it is said that they understand. Therefore, this wisdom is permitted to be separate from emptiness (空性, śūnyatā) and not 'self' (我, ātman). The initial force of intention ensures that these two wisdoms will inevitably lead to 'my birth is exhausted,' etc. This is not due to the transformation of these characteristics within the contemplation, but rather the subsequent arising of these characteristics. Although the characteristics of 'self,' etc., are not present within the contemplation, due to non-ignorance, liberation is self-evident. In essence, at this stage, the potential for characteristics such as 'my birth is exhausted' must already exist, induced by previous mundane characteristics, which can induce subsequent mundane characteristics. Therefore, it is separate from the fourteen kinds of inexhaustibility and non-origination. If it is argued that it should be said to be separate from sixteen kinds of non-existence, this is unreasonable because, apart from the fourteen, the other 'cessations' and 'non-originations' are not universally accepted. That is, being separate from the fourteen is based on a secret teaching, considering 'my birth is exhausted,' etc., as the 'wisdom of cessation and non-origination.' To refute this view, it is said to be separate from the fourteen kinds of non-existence. Why refute what is not universally accepted? If this is the case, since there is uncontaminated telepathy (他心智, paracitta-jñāna), it should transcend the uncontaminated characteristics of the sixteen kinds of existence. Because telepathy always takes a single, real self-nature (自相, svalakṣaṇa) as its object, while the characteristics of the path (道, mārga), etc., always take the aggregate common nature (共相, sāmānya-lakṣaṇa) as their object. Since they are different, it is known that apart from the sixteen kinds of existence, there must be other uncontaminated characteristics, but this is not absolutely permitted. The question raised is not valid. Because my school's view does not absolutely permit the common nature characteristics to only be related to aggregates. It is permitted to have the two mindfulnesses of sensation and mind (受心二念住, vedanā-citta-smṛtyupasthāna). For example, when observing that the essence of a sensation is impermanent, when this wisdom arises, it takes a single, real self-nature as its object through the common nature characteristics, which is universally accepted. In this way, why not permit uncontaminated telepathy to relate to a single, real self-nature through the common nature characteristics? That is, knowing that another's mind is the true path, etc., is relating to a single reality that is the aspect of the path, etc. If it is argued that it should be like the mindfulnesses of sensation and mind, which generally relate to all sensations and minds of the three times as the common nature characteristics of impermanence, etc., then uncontaminated telepathy also generally relates to the uncontaminated minds of others in the three times as the characteristics of the path, etc., which would violate the view of one's own school, that is, the arising of telepathy only relates to a single, real self-nature in the present. This is also not valid because the preliminary practice (加行, prayoga) is different. The preliminary practice of this wisdom is to know the mind that others can currently relate to.
。有貪等別修非常等。念住加行為總厭背。諸有漏法由前加行勢力有殊。至成滿時現總緣別。是故無有應相例過。若謂非常非受自體。故應觀受為非常時。非緣一實自相為境。寧可引此喻他心智。則彼應許受非非常。不應于受起非常觀。如受與心其體各別。必定無有觀受為心。雖即觀受以為無常。而無一物有多體過。領納無常體無別故。如損益等非離領納。所餘行相余法亦然。若爾應與至教相違。如說。于身住循身觀應言法智。乃至廣說。又說。觀老死應言是四智俱不相違。且初所說非顯法智等。離十六行相住循身觀。觀身為身但如實觀。為非常等我先已許共相行相。亦以一實自相為境。故彼所說於我無違。后老死聲總目取蘊。觀五取蘊為非常等。是四智攝何所相違。若爾如說受樂受時。如實了知受於樂受。如何是法類世俗道智攝。此應思擇受現在時。必不了知不自緣故。亦不可說了知去來。去來不名受樂時故。而契經說。受樂受時如實了知受於樂受。故知此說別有密意。釋此密意如盡無生。謂出觀后時方起此行相。故無漏行相越十六外無。有一類言有越十六。本論說故如本論言。頗有不繫心能了別。欲界系法耶。曰能了別。謂非常故。苦故空故非我故因故集故生故緣故。有是處有是事如理所引了別。此證不成迷論意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 存在貪婪等其他不同的修行方法，例如非常觀等。通過正念和精進的修行，可以逐漸厭離輪迴。各種有漏法的產生，由於之前的精進行為的力量不同而有所差異。當修行達到圓滿時，會呈現出總體認知和個別認知。因此，不存在可以用類比來反駁的情況。如果認為『非常』不是感受的自體，因此在觀察感受為『非常』時，不應以單一的真實自相為對象。那麼，怎麼能用這個來比喻他人的心智呢？如果這樣，他們就應該承認感受不是『非常』的，不應該對感受產生『非常』的觀察。就像感受和心識的本體各不相同一樣，絕對不會有觀察感受為心識的情況。即使是觀察感受為無常，也不會出現一個事物有多個本體的過失，因為領納無常的本體沒有區別。就像損益等不是脫離領納而存在一樣，其餘的行相和其餘的法也是如此。 如果這樣，就應該與至高無上的教誨相違背。例如經文說：『于身住循身觀』，應該說是法智，乃至廣說。又說：『觀察老死，應該說是四智都包含在內。』這並不矛盾。首先，前面所說的並不是說法智等離開了十六行相而住于循身觀。觀察身體為身體，只是如實地觀察，觀察其為『非常』等。我先前已經允許了共相行相，也以單一的真實自相為對象。所以，他們所說的對我沒有違背。後面所說的老死，是總括地指五蘊。觀察五取蘊為『非常』等，是四智所包含的，有什麼相違背的呢？ 如果這樣，就像經文所說：『感受快樂感受時，如實了知感受于快樂感受。』這怎麼是法類世俗道智所包含的呢？這應該思考感受存在於現在時，必定不能了知，因為它不能自己緣自己。也不可以說了知過去和未來，因為過去和未來不稱為感受快樂的時候。而契經說：『感受快樂感受時，如實了知感受于快樂感受。』所以知道這說法另有密意。解釋這個密意就像解釋『盡』和『無生』一樣，是指在出觀之後，才產生這種行相。所以，無漏的行相不會超出十六種之外。有一類人說有超出十六種的，因為本論這樣說，例如本論說：『有沒有不被束縛的心能夠了別欲界所束縛的法呢？』回答說：『能夠了別，因為它是非常的、苦的、空的、非我的、因、集、生、緣。』有這樣的地方，有這樣的事情，這是如理所引導的了別。』這個證據不能成立，因為他們誤解了本論的意圖。
【English Translation】 English version: There exist other distinct practices besides greed, such as the contemplation of impermanence. Through mindfulness and diligent practice, one can gradually become weary of samsara (cyclic existence). The arising of various contaminated (with defilements) dharmas differs due to the varying strengths of prior diligent actions. When practice reaches fulfillment, it manifests as both general and specific cognitions. Therefore, there is no valid analogy to refute this. If one argues that 'impermanence' is not the self-nature of feeling, and thus when observing feeling as 'impermanent,' one should not take a single, real self-nature as the object, then how can this be used to compare with the mind of another? If so, they should concede that feeling is not 'impermanent,' and one should not generate the contemplation of 'impermanence' towards feeling. Just as the essence of feeling and mind are distinct, there is absolutely no instance of observing feeling as mind. Even when observing feeling as impermanent, there is no fault of one entity having multiple essences, because the essence of apprehending impermanence is not different. Just as gain and loss, etc., do not exist apart from apprehension, so too are the remaining aspects and remaining dharmas. If that were the case, it would contradict the supreme teachings. For example, the sutra says, 'Abiding in the body, contemplating the body,' it should be said to be the wisdom of dharma (Dharma-jnana), and so on. It also says, 'Observing old age and death, it should be said that all four wisdoms are included.' There is no contradiction. Firstly, what was said earlier does not mean that Dharma-jnana, etc., exist apart from the sixteen aspects while abiding in the contemplation of the body. Observing the body as the body is simply observing it as it is, observing it as 'impermanent,' etc. I have already conceded that the common characteristic aspects also take a single, real self-nature as their object. Therefore, what they said does not contradict me. The later mention of old age and death refers collectively to the five aggregates (Skandhas). Observing the five aggregates of clinging (Panca-upadanaskandha) as 'impermanent,' etc., is included within the four wisdoms; what contradiction is there? If that were the case, as the sutra says, 'When experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly knows that one is experiencing a pleasant feeling,' how is this included within the mundane path wisdom of the category of dharma (Laukika-dharma-margajnana)? One should consider that when feeling exists in the present moment, it is certainly not known, because it cannot cognize itself. Nor can it be said that it knows the past and future, because the past and future are not called the time of experiencing pleasure. But the sutra says, 'When experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly knows that one is experiencing a pleasant feeling.' Therefore, one knows that this statement has a hidden meaning. Explaining this hidden meaning is like explaining 'cessation' (Nirodha) and 'non-arising' (Anutpada), which refers to the fact that this aspect arises after emerging from meditation. Therefore, the uncontaminated aspects do not exceed the sixteen. Some people say that there are more than sixteen, because the treatise says so, for example, the treatise says, 'Is there a mind that is not bound that can discern the dharmas bound by the desire realm (Kama-dhatu)?' The answer is, 'It can discern, because it is impermanent, suffering, empty, selfless, cause, arising, birth, condition.' There is such a place, there is such a thing, this is the discernment guided by reason.' This evidence is not valid, because they misunderstood the intention of the treatise.
故。論顯不繫行相眾多。于中有緣欲界系者。依容有說有是處言有是事言。顯無顛倒即由此故余無此言。謂彼論中復作是說。頗有見斷心能了別欲界系法耶。曰能了別。謂我故我所故。斷故常故無因故無作故。損減故尊故勝故上故第一故。能清凈故能解脫故。能出離故惑故疑故猶預故。貪故瞋故慢故癡故。不如理所引了別。除此無容有餘行相。由此不說有是處言。由皆顛倒轉不言有是事。故凈行相無越十六。理教無違不可傾動。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十三 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之二
所言行相有十六者。為但名別實亦有異。何謂行相能行所行。頌曰。
行相實十六 此體唯是慧 能行有所緣 所行諸有法
論曰。有說。行相名雖十六實事唯七。緣苦諦境治四倒故名實俱四。緣三諦境。名四實一。如是說者。實亦十六所治所行相有別故。言所對治相有別者。為治常見故修非常行相。為治樂諸行故修苦行相。為治我所見故修空行相。為治我見故修非我行相。為治無因論故修因行相。為治自在等一因論故修集行相。為治轉變因常因論故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，《論》中顯示不符合實際情況的行相有很多。其中，對於那些與欲界相關的，可以依據情況說『有是處言』或『有是事言』。這表明沒有顛倒，正是因為這個原因，其他情況沒有這些說法。也就是說，在那部《論》中又這樣說：『有沒有見斷（Duan, 指通過見道斷除煩惱）的心能夠了別（Liao Bie, 辨別）與欲界相關的法呢？』回答是『能夠了別』。也就是因為『我』（Wo, 自我）的緣故，『我所』（Wo Suo, 屬於我的事物）的緣故，『斷』（Duan, 斷滅）的緣故，『常』（Chang, 永恒）的緣故，『無因』（Wu Yin, 沒有原因）的緣故，『無作』（Wu Zuo, 沒有造作）的緣故，『損減』（Sun Jian, 減少）的緣故，『尊』（Zun, 尊貴）的緣故，『勝』（Sheng, 殊勝）的緣故，『上』（Shang, 至上）的緣故，『第一』（Di Yi, 第一）的緣故，『能清凈』（Neng Qing Jing, 能夠清凈）的緣故，『能解脫』（Neng Jie Tuo, 能夠解脫）的緣故，『能出離』（Neng Chu Li, 能夠出離）的緣故，『惑』（Huo, 迷惑）的緣故，『疑』（Yi, 懷疑）的緣故，『猶豫』（You Yu, 猶豫不決）的緣故，『貪』（Tan, 貪婪）的緣故，『瞋』（Chen, 嗔恨）的緣故，『慢』（Man, 傲慢）的緣故，『癡』（Chi, 愚癡）的緣故，這些不如理的引導所產生的了別。除了這些，不可能有其他的行相。因此，不說『有是處言』，因為它們都是顛倒的，不符合實際情況，所以不說『有是事』。因此，清凈的行相不會超過十六種，在道理和教義上沒有衝突，不可動搖。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十三 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十四
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之二
所說的行相有十六種，是隻有名稱不同，還是實際上也有差異？什麼是行相的能行和所行？頌說：
行相實十六 此體唯是慧 能行有所緣 所行諸有法
論中說：有人說，行相的名稱雖然有十六種，但實際上只有七種。因為緣苦諦（Ku Di, 苦諦）的境界，對治四種顛倒，所以名稱和實際都是四種。緣三諦（San Di, 三諦）的境界，名稱是四種，實際是一種。這樣說的人認為，實際上也是十六種，所對治的和所行的行相有區別。所對治的相有區別是指：爲了對治常見（Chang Jian, 常見），所以修非常行相（Fei Chang Xing Xiang, 無常的行相）；爲了對治樂諸行（Le Zhu Xing, 快樂的諸行），所以修苦行相（Ku Xing Xiang, 痛苦的行相）；爲了對治我所見（Wo Suo Jian, 我所有的見解），所以修空行相（Kong Xing Xiang, 空性的行相）；爲了對治我見（Wo Jian, 自我的見解），所以修非我行相（Fei Wo Xing Xiang, 非自我的行相）；爲了對治無因論（Wu Yin Lun, 無因論），所以修因行相（Yin Xing Xiang, 原因的行相）；爲了對治自在等一因論（Zi Zai Deng Yi Yin Lun, 認為存在一個至高無上的原因的理論），所以修集行相（Ji Xing Xiang, 集合的行相）；爲了對治轉變因常因論（Zhuan Bian Yin Chang Yin Lun, 認為存在一個轉變的原因和一個永恒的原因的理論）
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the 'Treatise' shows that there are many aspects that do not conform to reality. Among them, for those related to the Desire Realm (Yu Jie), one can say 'there is a place for this statement' or 'there is a matter for this statement' depending on the situation. This indicates that there is no inversion, and it is for this reason that there are no such statements in other situations. That is to say, in that 'Treatise' it is further stated: 'Is there a mind that has severed views (Duan, referring to the elimination of afflictions through the path of seeing) that can discern (Liao Bie, distinguish) phenomena related to the Desire Realm?' The answer is 'It can discern.' That is, because of 'self' (Wo), because of 'what belongs to self' (Wo Suo), because of 'cessation' (Duan), because of 'permanence' (Chang), because of 'no cause' (Wu Yin), because of 'no creation' (Wu Zuo), because of 'decrease' (Sun Jian), because of 'venerable' (Zun), because of 'superior' (Sheng), because of 'supreme' (Shang), because of 'first' (Di Yi), because of 'able to purify' (Neng Qing Jing), because of 'able to liberate' (Neng Jie Tuo), because of 'able to transcend' (Neng Chu Li), because of 'delusion' (Huo), because of 'doubt' (Yi), because of 'hesitation' (You Yu), because of 'greed' (Tan), because of 'hatred' (Chen), because of 'arrogance' (Man), because of 'ignorance' (Chi), these discernments are produced by irrational guidance. Apart from these, there cannot be other aspects. Therefore, it is not said 'there is a place for this statement,' because they are all inverted and do not conform to reality, so it is not said 'there is a matter.' Therefore, pure aspects do not exceed sixteen, and there is no conflict in reason and doctrine, and it cannot be shaken.
《Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada》, Volume 73 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, 《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》, Volume 74
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 7.2 on Discriminating Wisdom
The so-called sixteen aspects, are they only different in name, or are they also different in reality? What are the acting and acted-upon aspects? The verse says:
The aspects are truly sixteen, their essence is only wisdom The acting has an object, the acted-upon are all conditioned phenomena
The treatise says: Some say that although the names of the aspects are sixteen, in reality there are only seven. Because it takes the realm of the Truth of Suffering (Ku Di) as its object and counteracts the four inversions, the name and reality are both four. Taking the realm of the Three Truths (San Di) as its object, the name is four, and the reality is one. Those who say this believe that in reality there are also sixteen, and the aspects that are counteracted and acted upon are different. The difference in the aspects that are counteracted refers to: in order to counteract the view of permanence (Chang Jian), one cultivates the aspect of impermanence (Fei Chang Xing Xiang); in order to counteract the view of pleasure in all conditioned phenomena (Le Zhu Xing), one cultivates the aspect of suffering (Ku Xing Xiang); in order to counteract the view of what belongs to self (Wo Suo Jian), one cultivates the aspect of emptiness (Kong Xing Xiang); in order to counteract the view of self (Wo Jian), one cultivates the aspect of non-self (Fei Wo Xing Xiang); in order to counteract the theory of no cause (Wu Yin Lun), one cultivates the aspect of cause (Yin Xing Xiang); in order to counteract the theory of a single cause such as Isvara (Zi Zai Deng Yi Yin Lun), one cultivates the aspect of accumulation (Ji Xing Xiang); in order to counteract the theory of a transforming cause and a permanent cause (Zhuan Bian Yin Chang Yin Lun)
修生行相。為治知為先能生論故修緣行相。為治歸自在為涅槃論。顯諸蘊永滅是涅槃。故修滅行相。為治執自體所有解脫。是雜染惑苦不正見。故修靜行相。為治執涅槃如被咒詛。遂致殄滅是弊壞論。故修妙行相。為治執解脫還退見故修離行相。為治執無解脫道。故修道行相。為治苦行是真道見。及謗真道是邪論。故修如行相。為治不修道生死自凈。及世間離染是真道。故修行行相。為治嘗遭不永離染道所誑惑。于真聖道亦不敬。故修出行相。言所行境相有別者。苦聖諦有四相。一非常二苦三空四非我。有生滅故非常。逼迫性故違聖心故苦。無主宰故空。違我相故非我。集聖諦有四相。一因二集三生四緣能生法故因。有多種故集。恒孳產故生。各別助故緣。滅聖諦有四相。一滅二靜三妙四離。息眾苦故滅。三有為相三火滅故靜有餘師說。眾苦息故靜。如說。苾芻諸行皆苦。唯有涅槃最為寂靜。善故常故妙。一切災患永解脫故極安隱故離。道聖諦有四相。一道二如三行四出。能通尋求諸法性相至解脫故道。無倒轉故如。如實趣故行有餘師說。定能趣故行。如說。此道能至清凈。余見必無至清凈理。一向趣故決能至故出。如是所治及所行境。相有別故實有十六。如是行相以慧為體豈不心心所皆名有行相。如是無慧與慧相應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 修生行相（通過修行來改善生命狀態的特徵）。爲了對治認為知見是第一位的，從而產生『（修行）能夠自然產生（解脫）』的理論，所以要修習緣起行相（觀察事物之間相互依存的特徵）。 爲了對治『迴歸自在就是涅槃』的理論，（這種理論）認為諸蘊（五蘊，即色、受、想、行、識）的永滅就是涅槃，所以要修習滅行相（認識到涅槃是煩惱止息的狀態）。 爲了對治執著于『自體』（獨立存在的自我）的解脫，這種執著是雜染、迷惑和痛苦的錯誤見解，所以要修習靜行相（認識到涅槃是寂靜的狀態）。 爲了對治認為涅槃就像被詛咒一樣，最終導致完全毀滅的錯誤理論，所以要修習妙行相（認識到涅槃是美好的狀態）。 爲了對治認為解脫還會退轉的見解，所以要修習離行相（認識到涅槃是遠離煩惱的狀態）。 爲了對治認為沒有解脫之道的見解，所以要修習道行相（認識到存在通往解脫的道路）。 爲了對治認為苦行才是真正的解脫之道，以及誹謗真正的解脫之道的邪見，所以要修習如行相（認識到真正的道路是符合真理的）。 爲了對治認為不修行生死輪迴也能自然清凈，以及認為世間的離染就是真正的解脫之道的錯誤見解，所以要修行行相（認識到修行是必要的）。 爲了對治曾經遭受不究竟的離染之道所欺騙，從而對真正的聖道也不敬重的心理，所以要修習出行相（認識到通過修行可以出離輪迴）。 所行境相（所觀照的境界的特徵）有所區別：苦聖諦有四種特徵：一、非常（anitya）：因為有生滅變化；二、苦（duhkha）：因為具有逼迫性，違背聖者的心意；三、空（sunyata）：因為沒有主宰；四、非我（anatman）：因為違背了我相。 集聖諦有四種特徵：一、因（hetu）：因為能夠產生法；二、集（samudaya）：因為有多種原因聚集；三、生（prabhava）：因為不斷產生新的事物；四、緣（pratyaya）：因為各自提供幫助。 滅聖諦有四種特徵：一、滅（nirodha）：因為止息了眾多的痛苦；二、靜（shanti）：因為三有為相（生、住、滅）的三火熄滅了。有些論師認為，因為眾多的痛苦止息了，所以是寂靜的。正如所說：『比丘們，一切行都是痛苦的，只有涅槃才是最寂靜的。』；三、妙（pranita）：因為是善的、常住的；四、離（nihsarana）：因為永遠從一切災難中解脫，極其安穩。 道聖諦有四種特徵：一、道（marga）：因為能夠通往尋求諸法性相，直至解脫；二、如（nyaya）：因為沒有顛倒；三、行（pratipatti）：因為如實地趣向。有些論師認為，因為禪定能夠趣向涅槃，所以是行。正如所說：『這條道路能夠到達清凈，其他的見解絕對沒有到達清凈的道理。』；四、出（niryana）：因為一向趣向涅槃，所以決定能夠到達。 像這樣，因為所對治的和所觀照的境界的特徵有所區別，所以實際上有十六種行相。 像這樣的行相以智慧為本體，難道不是所有的心和心所都叫做有行相嗎？像這樣，沒有智慧和與智慧相應的（心和心所）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Aspects of Cultivating Conduct'. To counteract the theory that 'knowledge comes first, and (practice) naturally arises', one cultivates the aspect of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) (observing the characteristics of interdependence between things). To counteract the theory that 'returning to freedom is Nirvana' (which) considers the permanent cessation of the skandhas (five aggregates, namely form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness) to be Nirvana, one cultivates the aspect of cessation (nirodha) (recognizing that Nirvana is the state where afflictions cease). To counteract the attachment to 'self-nature' (independent self) in liberation, which is a defiled, deluded, and painful wrong view, one cultivates the aspect of tranquility (shanti) (recognizing that Nirvana is a state of tranquility). To counteract the erroneous theory that Nirvana is like being cursed, ultimately leading to complete annihilation, one cultivates the aspect of exquisiteness (pranita) (recognizing that Nirvana is a beautiful state). To counteract the view that liberation can regress, one cultivates the aspect of detachment (nihsarana) (recognizing that Nirvana is a state of detachment from afflictions). To counteract the view that there is no path to liberation, one cultivates the aspect of the path (marga) (recognizing that there is a path to liberation). To counteract the view that ascetic practices are the true path to liberation, and the heretical view of slandering the true path to liberation, one cultivates the aspect of suchness (nyaya) (recognizing that the true path is in accordance with the truth). To counteract the erroneous view that one can naturally purify oneself from samsara without practice, and that worldly detachment is the true path to liberation, one cultivates the aspect of practice (pratipatti) (recognizing that practice is necessary). To counteract the mind that has been deceived by incomplete paths of detachment and thus disrespects the true noble path, one cultivates the aspect of departure (niryana) (recognizing that one can depart from samsara through practice). The characteristics of the objects of observation (the characteristics of the realms being contemplated) are different: The Noble Truth of Suffering (Duhkha Satya) has four characteristics: 1. Impermanence (anitya): because it has arising and ceasing; 2. Suffering (duhkha): because it has the nature of oppression, contrary to the mind of the noble ones; 3. Emptiness (sunyata): because there is no master; 4. Non-self (anatman): because it is contrary to the notion of self. The Noble Truth of the Origin (Samudaya Satya) has four characteristics: 1. Cause (hetu): because it can produce phenomena; 2. Accumulation (samudaya): because there are many causes gathered; 3. Production (prabhava): because it constantly produces new things; 4. Condition (pratyaya): because each provides assistance. The Noble Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya) has four characteristics: 1. Cessation (nirodha): because it stops numerous sufferings; 2. Tranquility (shanti): because the three fires of the three conditioned characteristics (arising, abiding, ceasing) are extinguished. Some teachers believe that it is tranquil because numerous sufferings have ceased. As it is said: 'Bhikkhus, all formations are suffering, only Nirvana is the most tranquil.'; 3. Exquisiteness (pranita): because it is good and permanent; 4. Detachment (nihsarana): because it is eternally liberated from all calamities and is extremely peaceful. The Noble Truth of the Path (Marga Satya) has four characteristics: 1. Path (marga): because it can lead to seeking the nature of all phenomena, up to liberation; 2. Suchness (nyaya): because there is no inversion; 3. Practice (pratipatti): because it truly approaches. Some teachers believe that it is practice because meditation can lead to Nirvana. As it is said: 'This path can reach purity, other views have absolutely no reason to reach purity.'; 4. Departure (niryana): because it always goes towards Nirvana, it is certain to reach it. Like this, because the characteristics of what is being counteracted and what is being observed are different, there are actually sixteen aspects. These aspects have wisdom as their essence. Aren't all minds and mental factors called having aspects? Like this, without wisdom and with wisdom corresponding (minds and mental factors).
。如何可言慧有行相非有行相。唯慧相應心等皆名有行相者。是心心所等於所緣品類相中有能取義。若依唯慧得行相名。則慧之餘心心所法。與行相等名有行相。如等漏故得有漏名。是與漏體同對治義。如是所餘心心所法。等與行相行於所緣。是俱時行無前後義。或心心所有行相者。多如已知根總名有行相。或依無間亦說有聲。如有所依故無有過。謂如心心所皆名有所依。意識相應諸心所法。與所依識亦俱時生識之所依。唯無間滅有行相理應知亦然。無間滅慧于現何能。此于現有能如無間滅意。若爾應受等得有受等名。許亦無違然非所辯。此中經主依附他宗作如是言。諸心心所取境類別。皆名行相理未必然。應思何等名心心所取境類別。若謂境相品類差別。一切能像理必不成。境有善常等眾相差別故。或諸色法亦行相收色法亦能像余相故。若謂能取境差別相。則應五識行相不成。不能取境差別相故。有分別識方能取境青非黃等差別相故。然非所許故理不成。由此我宗所釋為善。謂唯諸慧于境相中。簡擇而轉名為行相。慧及諸餘心心所法。有所緣故皆是能行。此能行名應唯目慧行相體故。余心心所既非行相寧是能行。若謂所餘名能行者。以與行相相應起故。是則慧等與受相應應名能受。雖有此語而理不然。謂慧異門稱為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如何理解『慧』（Prajna，智慧）既可以被說成『有行相』（有特徵），又可以被說成『非有行相』（無特徵）呢？只有與『慧』相應的『心』（Citta，意識）和『心所』（Caitasika，心理活動）等，才能被稱為『有行相』，這是因為這些『心』和『心所』在所緣境（Alambana，認知對像）的品類相（Prakara，狀態）中具有能取義（Grahana，領知）。如果僅僅依據『慧』才能獲得『行相』之名，那麼『慧』之外的『心』和『心所』法，與『行相』等同，才能被稱為『有行相』，就像因為與『漏』（Asrava，煩惱）相等同，才能獲得『有漏』之名一樣，這是與『漏』的本體具有相同的對治意義。就像其餘的『心』和『心所』法，與『行相』一同在所緣境上執行一樣，這是同時執行，沒有先後順序的意義。或者說，『心』和『心所』具有『行相』，就像已經知道的根（Indriya，感官）的總稱可以被稱為『有行相』一樣。或者依據無間滅（Anantaranirodha，無間滅）也可以說『有聲』，就像有所依（Nissaya，所依賴的事物）一樣，所以沒有過失。也就是說，就像『心』和『心所』都可以被稱為『有所依』一樣，與意識相應的各種『心所』法，與所依的識（Vijnana，意識）也是同時產生的，識所依賴的，只有無間滅，『有行相』的道理也應該這樣理解。無間滅的『慧』對於現在有什麼作用呢？它對於現在的作用就像無間滅的意（Manas，意根）一樣。如果這樣，那麼『受』（Vedana，感受）等也應該獲得『有受』等名稱。允許這樣說也沒有什麼違背，但這並不是我們現在要辯論的。這裡，經主（Sutrakara，經文作者）依據其他宗派的觀點，這樣說：各種『心』和『心所』取境的類別，都可以被稱為『行相』，這個道理未必是必然的。應該思考什麼才能被稱為『心』和『心所』取境的類別呢？如果說是境相（Visaya-akara，對像狀態）的品類差別，那麼一切能像（Sakara，表象）的道理必定不能成立，因為境有善、常等各種狀態的差別。或者各種色法（Rupa，物質）也可以被『行相』所包含，因為色法也能表象其他的狀態。如果說是能取境的差別相，那麼五識（Panca-vijnana，五種感官意識）的『行相』就不能成立，因為五識不能取境的差別相。只有有分別識（Savikalpa-vijnana，有分別的意識）才能取境青非黃等差別相。但這並不是被允許的，所以這個道理不能成立。因此，我宗（Svabhava-vada，自性論）所解釋的才是好的。也就是說，只有各種『慧』在境相中，簡擇（Pravicaya，選擇）而轉動，才能被稱為『行相』。『慧』以及其餘的『心』和『心所』法，因為有所緣，所以都是能行（Caritra，行為）。這個能行之名應該只指『慧』的『行相』本體。其餘的『心』和『心所』既然不是『行相』，怎麼能是能行呢？如果說其餘的被稱為能行，是因為與『行相』相應而生起，那麼『慧』等與『受』相應，應該被稱為能受。雖然有這種說法，但道理是不成立的。『慧』的異名被稱為
【English Translation】 English version: How can 'Prajna' (wisdom) be described as both 'having characteristics' (Sa-lakshana, with features) and 'not having characteristics' (Nir-lakshana, without features)? Only 'Citta' (mind, consciousness) and 'Caitasika' (mental activities) that are associated with 'Prajna' can be called 'having characteristics,' because these 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' have the meaning of grasping (Grahana, apprehension) in the category of objects (Alambana, cognitive object). If only based on 'Prajna' to obtain the name of 'characteristic,' then the 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' dharmas other than 'Prajna,' which are equal to 'characteristic,' can be called 'having characteristics,' just like obtaining the name of 'having outflows' (Sasrava) because they are equal to 'outflows' (Asrava, defilements), which has the same meaning of counteracting the 'outflows' themselves. Just like the remaining 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' dharmas operate on the object together with 'characteristic,' this is simultaneous operation, without the meaning of before and after. Or, 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' have 'characteristics,' just like the general term for the already known senses (Indriya, sense organs) can be called 'having characteristics.' Or, based on immediate cessation (Anantaranirodha, immediate cessation), it can also be said to 'have sound,' just like having a basis (Nissaya, support), so there is no fault. That is to say, just like 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' can be called 'having a basis,' the various 'Caitasika' dharmas associated with consciousness are also produced simultaneously with the supporting consciousness, and what consciousness relies on is only immediate cessation, and the principle of 'having characteristics' should also be understood in this way. What is the function of 'Prajna' of immediate cessation for the present? Its function for the present is like the mind (Manas, mind-organ) of immediate cessation. If so, then 'Vedana' (feeling) and others should also obtain names such as 'having feeling.' Allowing this is not contradictory, but this is not what we are debating now. Here, the Sutrakara (author of the Sutra), based on the views of other schools, says this: The categories of objects grasped by various 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' can all be called 'characteristics,' but this principle is not necessarily certain. What should be considered as the category of objects grasped by 'Citta' and 'Caitasika'? If it is said to be the difference in the category of object appearances (Visaya-akara, object state), then the principle of all representations (Sakara, appearance) must not be established, because objects have differences in various states such as good and permanent. Or various material forms (Rupa, matter) can also be included in 'characteristics,' because material forms can also represent other states. If it is said to be the difference in the appearance of grasping objects, then the 'characteristics' of the five consciousnesses (Panca-vijnana, five sense consciousnesses) cannot be established, because the five consciousnesses cannot grasp the difference in the appearance of objects. Only discriminative consciousness (Savikalpa-vijnana, discriminative consciousness) can grasp the difference in the appearance of objects such as blue and not yellow. But this is not allowed, so this principle cannot be established. Therefore, the explanation of our school (Svabhava-vada, Svabhava theory) is good. That is to say, only the various 'Prajna' that select (Pravicaya, selection) and move in the object appearance can be called 'characteristics.' 'Prajna' and the remaining 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' dharmas are all capable of acting (Caritra, behavior) because they have objects. This name of capable of acting should only refer to the 'characteristic' entity of 'Prajna.' Since the remaining 'Citta' and 'Caitasika' are not 'characteristics,' how can they be capable of acting? If it is said that the remaining are called capable of acting because they arise in accordance with 'characteristics,' then 'Prajna' and others should be called capable of feeling when they are in accordance with 'Vedana.' Although there is this statement, the principle is not established. The different name of 'Prajna' is called
行相。能行即是取境別名。非能行言偏為詮慧。寧以受等體非行相。便作是難應非能行。如於境中慧能簡擇。便許說慧名為能行。既于境中想能取像。識能了等寧非能行。故能行名通目取境。故應受等亦是能行。所行名通一切有法。若實若假皆所行故。由此三門體有寬陜。慧通行相能行所行。余心心所唯能所行。諸餘有法唯是所行。頌諸有言應隨除一。隨說一種義已成故。如世尊言一切法者。謂十二處唯此是有。故說諸法是所行言。已說所行唯是有法。或說有法是所行言。已說所行是一切法。諸假有法不離所依。亦隨所依諸處攝故。為攝有盡俱說無失。已辯十智行相差別。當辯性攝依他依身。頌曰。
性俗三九善 依地俗一切 他心智唯四 法六餘七九 現起所依身 他心依欲色 法智但依欲 餘八通三界
論曰。如是十智三性攝者。謂世俗通三性。餘九智唯是善。依地別者。謂世俗智通依欲界乃至有頂。他心智唯依四根本靜慮。不依近分靜慮中間。此智所緣極微細故。謂依彼地道力微劣。不能了達他相續中。現在微細心心所法。亦不依無色無此加行故。又通性故餘地非依。五通所依止觀等故。法智通以六地為依。謂未至中間四根本靜慮。不依余近分彼唯有漏故。亦不依無色此緣欲界故。所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：行相（xing xiang）。『能行』（neng xing）即是『取境』（qu jing）的別名。並非『能行』一詞僅用來詮釋智慧（hui）。難道因為受（shou）等自體不是行相，就以此為難，認為它們不是『能行』嗎？如同在境中，智慧能夠簡擇，便允許說智慧名為『能行』。既然在境中，想（xiang）能夠取像，識（shi）能夠了別等等，難道不是『能行』嗎？所以『能行』之名普遍指稱取境。因此，受等也應該是『能行』。『所行』（suo xing）之名通指一切有法（you fa），無論是真實的還是虛假的，都是『所行』。由此三門，體性有寬有窄。智慧通行相、能行、所行。其餘心（xin）和心所（xin suo）唯有能行和所行。其餘有法只是所行。頌文中的『諸有』（zhu you）一詞應該刪除一個，因為只說一種，意義已經完整。如世尊所說『一切法』（yi qie fa）者，指的是十二處（shi er chu），唯有這些是存在的。所以說『諸法是所行』，已經說明了所行唯是有法。或者說『有法是所行』，已經說明了所行是一切法。諸假有法不離所依，也隨所依的諸處所攝。爲了涵蓋所有有，所以都說沒有缺失。已經辨析了十智（shi zhi）的行相差別，接下來應當辨析性（xing）的攝屬和依他身（yi ta shen）的所依。頌曰： 『性俗三九善，依地俗一切，他心智唯四，法六餘七九，現起所依身，他心依欲色，法智但依欲，餘八通三界。』 論曰：如此十智，三性（san xing）所攝者，世俗智（shi su zhi）通於三性。其餘九智唯是善（shan）。依地（yi di）的差別是，世俗智通於依欲界（yu jie）乃至有頂（you ding）。他心智（ta xin zhi）唯依四根本靜慮（si gen ben jing lv），不依近分靜慮（jin fen jing lv）和中間靜慮（zhong jian jing lv），因為此智所緣的極微細。依于彼地的道力微弱，不能了達他人相續中現在微細的心和心所法。也不依無色界（wu se jie），因為無色界沒有這種加行。又因為通於自性，所以其他地不是所依。五通（wu tong）所依止觀等。法智（fa zhi）通以六地為依，即未至定（wei zhi ding）、中間定（zhong jian ding）和四根本靜慮。不依其餘近分定，因為其餘近分定唯有漏（you lou）。也不依無色界，因為法智緣于欲界。
【English Translation】 English version: The characteristic of action. 'That which is able to act' (Neng xing) is another name for 'grasping an object' (Qu jing). It is not that the term 'able to act' is used exclusively to explain wisdom (Hui). Is it because feeling (Shou) and others are not characteristics of action in themselves, that one should use this as a difficulty, thinking they are not 'able to act'? Just as in an object, wisdom is able to discern, it is permissible to say that wisdom is named 'able to act'. Since in an object, conception (Xiang) is able to grasp an image, consciousness (Shi) is able to distinguish and so on, are these not 'able to act'? Therefore, the name 'able to act' universally refers to grasping an object. Therefore, feeling and others should also be 'able to act'. The name 'that which is acted upon' (Suo xing) universally refers to all existing dharmas (You fa), whether real or unreal, all are 'that which is acted upon'. From these three aspects, the nature of the entity has breadth and narrowness. Wisdom pervades the characteristic of action, that which is able to act, and that which is acted upon. The remaining mind (Xin) and mental factors (Xin suo) only have that which is able to act and that which is acted upon. The remaining existing dharmas are only that which is acted upon. One of the words 'all existing' (Zhu you) in the verse should be removed, because by saying only one, the meaning is already complete. As the World Honored One said, 'all dharmas' (Yi qie fa) refers to the twelve sense bases (Shi er chu), only these exist. Therefore, saying 'dharmas are that which is acted upon' has already explained that that which is acted upon is only existing dharmas. Or saying 'existing dharmas are that which is acted upon' has already explained that that which is acted upon is all dharmas. All unreal existing dharmas are inseparable from that which they rely on, and are also included in the various sense bases that they rely on. In order to encompass all that exists, there is no fault in saying both. The differences in the characteristics of action of the ten wisdoms (Shi zhi) have already been distinguished. Next, the nature (Xing) of the affiliation and the support of the dependent body (Yi ta shen) should be distinguished. The verse says: 'Nature, mundane, three, nine, wholesome, relying on the ground, mundane, all, other-minds wisdom only four, dharma six, the rest seven, nine, the body relied upon when manifested, other-minds relies on the desire and form realms, dharma wisdom only relies on the desire realm, the remaining eight pervade the three realms.' The treatise says: These ten wisdoms, as encompassed by the three natures (San xing), mundane wisdom (Shi su zhi) pervades the three natures. The remaining nine wisdoms are only wholesome (Shan). The difference in reliance on the ground (Yi di) is that mundane wisdom pervades reliance on the desire realm (Yu jie) up to the peak of existence (You ding). Other-minds wisdom (Ta xin zhi) only relies on the four fundamental dhyanas (Si gen ben jing lv), not relying on the preliminary dhyanas (Jin fen jing lv) and intermediate dhyanas (Zhong jian jing lv), because what this wisdom focuses on is extremely subtle. The power of the path relying on those grounds is weak, unable to understand the subtle mind and mental factors now present in the continuum of others. It also does not rely on the formless realm (Wu se jie), because the formless realm does not have this kind of effort. Also, because it pervades self-nature, the other grounds are not relied upon. The five supernormal powers (Wu tong) rely on cessation and contemplation and so on. Dharma wisdom (Fa zhi) generally relies on six grounds, namely the unreached concentration (Wei zhi ding), the intermediate concentration (Zhong jian ding), and the four fundamental dhyanas. It does not rely on the remaining preliminary concentrations, because the remaining preliminary concentrations are only with outflows (You lou). It also does not rely on the formless realm, because dharma wisdom focuses on the desire realm.
餘七智九地為依。謂下三無色及前說六地總說如是。然有差別。謂此所說七種智中。類智決定依九地起。苦集滅道盡無生智。若法智攝六地為依。類智攝者通依九地。依身別者。謂他心智。依欲色界俱可現前。不依無色彼自無故。不起下地他心智者。此智隨轉色彼無容起故。法智但依欲界身起非上二界。入出此智諸有漏心唯欲有故。又法智隨轉色。所依大種唯欲系故。又此能治起破戒惑。破戒唯欲非上界故。餘八智現起通依三界身。已辯性地身當辯念住攝。頌曰。
諸智念住攝 滅智唯最後 他心智后三 餘八智通四
論曰。滅智攝在法念住中。他心智后三攝。所餘八皆通四。如是十智展轉相望。一一當言幾智為境。頌曰。
諸智互相緣 法類道各九 苦集智各二 四皆十滅非
論曰。法智慧緣九智為境除類智。類智慧緣九智為境除法智。道智慧緣九智為境。除世俗智非道攝故。苦集二智。一一能緣二智為境。謂俗他心。世俗他心盡無生智皆緣十智。滅智不緣唯以擇滅為所緣故。十智所緣總有幾法。何智幾法為所緣境。頌曰。
所緣總有十 謂三界無漏 無為各有二 俗緣十法五 類七苦集六 滅緣一道二 他心智緣三 盡無生各九
論曰。十智所緣總有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『餘七智九地為依』是指下三無色界以及前面所說的六地，總的來說是這樣。然而，其中存在差別。也就是說，這裡所說的七種智中，類智（Anumana-jnana，比量智）必定依九地而生起。苦智（Dukkha-jnana，苦智）、集智（Samudaya-jnana，集智）、滅智（Nirodha-jnana，滅智）、道智（Marga-jnana，道智）、盡智（Ksaya-jnana，盡智）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana，無生智），如果是法智（Dharma-jnana，法智）所攝，則以六地為所依；如果是類智所攝，則通依九地。依據身的不同來說，他心智（Paracitta-jnana，他心智）依欲界身和色界身都可以現前，不依無色界身，因為無色界自身沒有色身。不起下地他心智的原因是，此智隨逐於色身而轉，而下地沒有色身，所以不能生起。法智只依欲界身而生起，不依色界和無色界身，因為進入和出離此智的諸有漏心只有欲界才有。而且法智隨逐於色身而轉，所依的大種也只有欲界才有。此外，此智慧夠對治破戒的惑，而破戒的行為只存在於欲界，不在色界和無色界。其餘八種智的現起，都通依三界身。已經辨析了智的自性、地和身，下面應當辨析念住的攝屬。 頌曰： 『諸智念住攝，滅智唯最後，他心智后三，餘八智通四。』 論曰： 滅智被攝在法念住（Dharma-smrtyupasthana，法念住）中。他心智被后三種念住所攝。其餘八種智都通於四種念住。像這樣，十種智輾轉相對，每一種智應當說以幾種智為境界。 頌曰： 『諸智互相緣，法類道各九，苦集智各二，四皆十滅非。』 論曰： 法智慧夠緣九種智為境界，除了類智。類智慧夠緣九種智為境界，除了法智。道智慧夠緣九種智為境界，因為世俗智（Samvrti-jnana，世俗智）不是道所攝。苦智和集智，每一種能夠緣兩種智為境界，即世俗智和他心智。世俗智、他心智、盡智和無生智都緣十種智。滅智不緣任何智，只以擇滅（Pratisamkhya-nirodha，擇滅）為所緣。 十智所緣的總共有幾種法？什麼智以幾種法為所緣境？ 頌曰： 『所緣總有十，謂三界無漏，無為各有二，俗緣十法五，類七苦集六，滅緣一道二，他心智緣三，盡無生各九。』 論曰： 十智所緣的總共有十種法。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The remaining seven wisdoms rely on the nine grounds' refers to the three formless realms below and the six grounds mentioned earlier, generally speaking. However, there are differences. That is to say, among the seven wisdoms mentioned here, Anumana-jnana (inferential wisdom) definitely arises based on the nine grounds. Dukkha-jnana (wisdom of suffering), Samudaya-jnana (wisdom of origination), Nirodha-jnana (wisdom of cessation), Marga-jnana (wisdom of the path), Ksaya-jnana (wisdom of exhaustion), and Anutpada-jnana (wisdom of non-arising), if included in Dharma-jnana (wisdom of phenomena), then rely on the six grounds; if included in Anumana-jnana, then generally rely on the nine grounds. According to the difference in body, Paracitta-jnana (wisdom of others' minds) can manifest based on the desire realm body and the form realm body, but not based on the formless realm body, because the formless realm itself has no form. The reason why the wisdom of others' minds does not arise in the lower grounds is that this wisdom follows the form body, and the lower grounds have no form body, so it cannot arise. Dharma-jnana only arises based on the desire realm body, not based on the form realm and formless realm bodies, because the defiled minds that enter and exit this wisdom only exist in the desire realm. Moreover, Dharma-jnana follows the form body, and the fundamental elements it relies on only exist in the desire realm. In addition, this wisdom can counteract the afflictions of breaking precepts, and the act of breaking precepts only exists in the desire realm, not in the form realm and formless realm. The manifestation of the remaining eight wisdoms generally relies on the bodies of the three realms. Having distinguished the nature, ground, and body of wisdom, we should now distinguish the inclusion of mindfulness. Verse: 'All wisdoms are included in mindfulness, cessation wisdom is only the last, wisdom of others' minds is the last three, the remaining eight wisdoms generally include all four.' Treatise: Cessation wisdom is included in Dharma-smrtyupasthana (mindfulness of phenomena). Wisdom of others' minds is included in the last three mindfulnesses. The remaining eight wisdoms generally include all four mindfulnesses. In this way, the ten wisdoms are relatively related, and for each wisdom, it should be said that it takes how many wisdoms as its object. Verse: 'All wisdoms mutually condition, Dharma, Anumana, and Path each nine, Suffering and Origination each two, the four all ten, Cessation not.' Treatise: Dharma-jnana can take nine wisdoms as its object, except for Anumana-jnana. Anumana-jnana can take nine wisdoms as its object, except for Dharma-jnana. Marga-jnana can take nine wisdoms as its object, because Samvrti-jnana (conventional wisdom) is not included in the path. Suffering wisdom and origination wisdom, each can take two wisdoms as its object, namely conventional wisdom and wisdom of others' minds. Conventional wisdom, wisdom of others' minds, wisdom of exhaustion, and wisdom of non-arising all take ten wisdoms as their object. Cessation wisdom does not condition any wisdom, only taking Pratisamkhya-nirodha (cessation through discernment) as its object. How many dharmas in total are conditioned by the ten wisdoms? Which wisdom takes how many dharmas as its object? Verse: 'The conditioned is ten in total, namely the three realms and the unconditioned, each of the unconditioned has two, conventional conditions ten dharmas five, Anumana seven, Suffering and Origination six, Cessation conditions one path two, wisdom of others' minds conditions three, Exhaustion and Non-arising each nine.' Treatise: The conditioned by the ten wisdoms is ten dharmas in total.
十法。謂有為法分為八種。三界所繫無漏有為。各有相應不相應故。無為分二種善無記別故。俗智總緣十法為境。法智緣五謂欲界二。無漏道二及善無為。類智緣七謂色無色。無漏道六及善無為。苦集智各緣三界所繫六。滅智緣一謂善無為。道智緣二謂無漏道。他心智緣欲色無漏三相應法。盡無生智緣有為八。及善無為。頗有一念智緣一切法不。不爾。豈不非我觀智知一切法皆非我耶。此亦不能緣一切法。不緣何法此體是何。頌曰。
俗智除自品 總緣一切法 為非我行相 唯聞思所成
論曰。以世俗智觀一切法。為非我時猶除自品。自品謂自體相應俱有法。何故不緣自體為境。諸對法者立此因言。諸法必無待自體故。此言意顯諸法生時。隨其所應待四緣性。隨有所闕法則不生。不闕便生立為緣性。諸法無有闕自體時。故畢竟無闕不生義。寧可建立為所待緣。若謂體應如虛空等。由無障礙可立為緣。理亦不然。以虛空等望所生法。他性極成法為他緣理極成故。又由現喻顯諸智生。必不能緣自體為境。謂見刀刃指端及肩。如次不能自割觸負。又邪見他心智及念住苦智等。皆有建立不成過故。若謂如燈自他俱照智應爾者。理亦不然。燈之照體不成實故。謂顯色聚差別名燈。眼識生因說名為照。闇相違故說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十法：指的是將有為法分為八種，即三界所繫的有為法和無漏有為法，各有相應的和不相應的兩種情況。無為法分為兩種，即善和無記兩種類別。俗智總括地緣取十法作為其境界。 法智緣取五種法，即欲界的兩種（苦、集），無漏道兩種（道、滅）以及善無為。 類智緣取七種法，即色界和無色界，無漏道的六種（苦、集、滅、道、類、盡），以及善無為。 苦智和集智各自緣取三界所繫的六種法（苦、集、滅、道、類、盡）。滅智緣取一種法，即善無為。 道智緣取兩種法，即無漏道（道、滅）。他心智緣取欲界、色界和無漏界的三種相應法。 盡智和無生智緣取有為法的八種（三界所繫六種，無漏道兩種），以及善無為。 是否有一念智可以緣取一切法呢？不是的。難道非我觀智不能知曉一切法皆非我嗎？也不能緣取一切法。不緣取哪些法？此體的本質是什麼？頌文說： 『俗智除自品，總緣一切法，為非我行相，唯聞思所成。』 論述：以世俗智觀察一切法，認為是非我的時候，仍然排除自身品類。自身品類指的是自體、相應法和俱有法。為什麼不緣取自體作為境界呢？對法論者立下這樣的原因說：諸法必定不依賴於自體。這句話的意思是說，諸法產生時，根據情況依賴四種緣的性質。缺少任何一種，法則不能產生。不缺少就產生，就立為緣的性質。諸法沒有缺少自體的時候，所以畢竟沒有缺少而不產生的道理，怎麼可以建立為所依賴的緣呢？如果說自體應該像虛空等，因為沒有障礙可以立為緣，道理也不對。因為虛空等對於所生法來說，他性已經成立，法作為他緣的道理已經成立。又通過現實的比喻顯示諸智產生，必定不能緣取自體作為境界。比如看到刀刃、指端和肩膀，依次不能自己割斷、觸控和承擔。又邪見、他心智以及念住苦智等，都有建立不成功的過失。如果說像燈一樣自己和他人都能照亮，智也應該這樣，道理也不對。燈照亮自身並沒有實際成立，指的是顯色聚集的差別叫做燈，眼識產生的因叫做照亮，因為與黑暗相反而說。
【English Translation】 English version Ten Dharmas: This refers to dividing conditioned dharmas (有為法) into eight types, namely, conditioned dharmas pertaining to the Three Realms (三界所繫) and unconditioned conditioned dharmas (無漏有為法), each having corresponding and non-corresponding aspects. Unconditioned dharmas (無為法) are divided into two types: wholesome (善) and neutral (無記). Mundane wisdom (俗智) comprehensively takes these ten dharmas as its object. The Wisdom of Dharma (法智) takes five dharmas as its object: two from the Desire Realm (欲界) (suffering and origination), two unconditioned paths (無漏道) (path and cessation), and wholesome unconditioned dharma. The Wisdom of Categories (類智) takes seven dharmas as its object: the Form Realm (色界) and Formless Realm (無色界), the six unconditioned paths (suffering, origination, cessation, path, category, and exhaustion), and wholesome unconditioned dharma. The Wisdom of Suffering (苦智) and the Wisdom of Origination (集智) each take the six dharmas pertaining to the Three Realms (suffering, origination, cessation, path, category, and exhaustion). The Wisdom of Cessation (滅智) takes one dharma as its object: wholesome unconditioned dharma. The Wisdom of the Path (道智) takes two dharmas as its object: the unconditioned paths (path and cessation). The Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds (他心智) takes the three corresponding dharmas of the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and unconditioned realm. The Wisdom of Exhaustion (盡智) and the Wisdom of Non-arising (無生智) take the eight conditioned dharmas (six pertaining to the Three Realms, two unconditioned paths) and wholesome unconditioned dharma. Is there a single moment of wisdom that can take all dharmas as its object? No. Doesn't the Wisdom of Non-self Observation (非我觀智) know that all dharmas are non-self? It also cannot take all dharmas as its object. Which dharmas does it not take as its object? What is the essence of this entity? The verse says: 'Mundane wisdom excludes its own category, comprehensively takes all dharmas as its object, as the aspect of non-self, solely accomplished through hearing and thinking.' Discussion: When observing all dharmas with mundane wisdom and considering them as non-self, it still excludes its own category. Its own category refers to itself, corresponding dharmas, and co-existent dharmas. Why doesn't it take itself as its object? Those who discuss dharmas establish this reason, saying: Dharmas certainly do not depend on themselves. The meaning of this statement is that when dharmas arise, they depend on the nature of the four conditions according to the situation. If any one is missing, the dharma will not arise. If none are missing, it arises, and this is established as the nature of the condition. Dharmas do not lack themselves, so there is ultimately no reason for lacking and not arising. How can it be established as a dependent condition? If it is said that the self should be like space, etc., because there is no obstruction, it can be established as a condition, the reasoning is also incorrect. Because for the dharmas that arise from space, etc., the otherness has already been established, and the reason for dharma as the other condition has already been established. Furthermore, through real-world analogies, it is shown that the arising of wisdom certainly cannot take itself as its object. For example, seeing the edge of a knife, the tip of a finger, and the shoulder, they cannot cut, touch, and bear themselves, respectively. Furthermore, wrong views, the wisdom of knowing others' minds, and the wisdom of suffering in mindfulness, etc., all have the fault of not being able to be established. If it is said that just as a lamp illuminates both itself and others, wisdom should be like that, the reasoning is also incorrect. The lamp illuminating itself is not actually established, referring to the difference in the aggregation of visible forms called a lamp, the cause of the arising of eye consciousness is called illumination, because it is the opposite of darkness.
為能壞。瓶等障因由有此故。瓶等可了名照瓶等。除假說外無實有照能照自體。猶如鹽等唯彼自體如是轉故。又若許燈是能照故。便許自照亦能照他。如是應許闇是障故。力能自障亦能障他。火能燒故自燒燒他。彼既不然燈云何爾。若謂燈力破障瓶燈。及了瓶燈二覺闇故應俱名照。理亦不然。闇與瓶燈合不合故。謂闇瓶合可曰障瓶。今雖有瓶而覺不起。由此說闇能障瓶覺。燈生闇滅瓶顯覺生。故世說燈有照瓶用。曾無有闇與燈合時。勿不相違無相治失。故不可說闇能障燈。既無有燈不能生覺。亦不可說闇為覺障。故燈生時雖令闇滅。而不可說被照如瓶。復有何因執智知用。但如燈照非刀割等。謂見何理執智與燈。法喻冥然非與刀等故引燈喻為證力微。有作是言。智于自體不知自相共相。可知理亦不然。已辯自體不以自體為所緣故。于自自相既永不能取。則定無有以自為所緣。既非所緣寧取共相。故應於此立比量言。自相亦應為自體境。自體相故。猶如共相。或應共相非自體境。自體相故猶如自相。故緣共相理亦不成。又智現前若緣自體。應許自體亦是所依。若許自緣及自依者。則應自體能自建立。自建立故應許是常。常故應無能緣他義。又智所知應無別故。必無有智慧緣自體。若謂自共相如次能所緣。理亦不然。前已
說故。謂前已說既不自緣自相為境自體相故。亦不應緣共相為境。即由此理不緣相應。以與相應一境轉故。許緣相應者便應許自緣。亦不能緣俱有法者。以俱有法極相近故。如眼不見扶眼根色。契經亦說一剎那智。不能頓知一切法境。如契經說。無有沙門婆羅門等。於一切法頓見頓知。義準唯漸此智唯是欲色界攝。無色界中雖有此類。而緣法少非此所明。此通聞思修所成慧。皆能除自品緣一切法故。然經主說非修所成。以修所成地別緣故。若異此者應頓離染。此不應理。言修所成唯地別緣非極成故。謂我宗許靜慮地攝。修所成慧有能總緣。隨所依身自上境故。厭下欣上方能離染。此既總緣唯欣行相故。于離染無有功能故。彼所言甚為非理。已辯所緣復應思擇。誰成就幾智耶。頌曰。
異生聖見道 初念定成一 二定成三智 后四一一增 修道定成七 離欲增他心 無學鈍利根 定成九成十
論曰。諸異生位及聖見道。第一剎那定成一智。謂世俗智。第二剎那定成三智。謂加法苦。第四六十十四剎那。如次後后增類集滅道智。諸未增位成數如前。故修位中亦定成七。如是諸位若已離欲各各增一。謂他心智唯除異生生無色者。然異生位及見道中。唯可成就俗他心智。道類智時具成二種。爾時初得
不還果故。兼得無漏以成果體。余修位中皆具成二。生無色者便舍世俗。諸時解脫定成九智。謂加盡智。不時解脫定成就十。謂增無生。於何位中頓修幾智。且應思擇。何謂為修。謂習善有為令圓滿自在。非染無記者無勝愛果故。非善無為者不在相續故。又無為無果故。已辯修義本問應答。且於見道十五心中。頌曰。
見道忍智起 即彼未來修 三類智兼修 現觀邊俗智 不生自下地 苦集四滅后 自諦行相境 唯加行所得
論曰。見道位中隨起忍智。皆即彼類于未來修。然具修自諦諸行相念住。何緣見道唯同類修。所作所緣俱定別故。有說。此種性先未曾得故。唯苦集滅三類智時。能兼修未來現觀邊俗智。於一一諦現觀後邊。方能兼修故立斯號。由此餘位未能兼修。自諦所為未圓滿故。有言。若此於法智位。修應說名為現觀中俗智。經不應立現觀邊名。三位所修何勝何劣。若據相續後勝於前。因增長身起彼得故。若就界說上皆勝下。故前所修色界系者。界勝身劣后位所修。欲界系者界劣身勝。此有四句如理應思。道類智時何不修此。此智唯是見道眷屬。彼修道攝故不能修。此意說言修。七處善為種子故。見道得生故見道生時說彼為眷屬。或世俗智從無始來。於三諦中曾知斷證。未曾修道故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為不再返回果位。同時也獲得了無漏智慧，從而成就果位之體。其餘的修行階段都具備成就二者的能力。如果轉生到無色界，就會捨棄世俗。在各個時解脫的禪定中，必定成就九種智慧，也就是加上了盡智（Ksayajnana，知諸漏已盡之智）。而不時解脫的禪定，必定成就十種智慧，也就是增加了無生智（Anutpadajnana，知我生已盡之智）。在哪個階段頓悟幾種智慧呢？應該仔細思考。什麼是修？就是通過練習善良的有為法，使其圓滿自在。不是染污和無記，因為沒有殊勝的喜愛之果。不是善良的無為法，因為它不在相續之中。而且無為法沒有結果。已經辨析了修的含義，現在應該回答最初的問題。在見道的十五心中，頌文說：
『見道忍智起，即彼未來修，三類智兼修，現觀邊俗智，不生自下地，苦集四滅后，自諦行相境，唯加行所得。』
論曰：在見道位中，隨著忍智的生起，都是在未來修習同類的智慧。然而，具備修習自身真諦的各種行相念住。為什麼見道只能修習同類的智慧呢？因為所作和所緣都已確定，並且有所區別。有人說，這是因為這種種性先前從未獲得過。只有在苦、集、滅三類智慧的時候，才能兼修未來的現觀邊俗智。在每一個真諦的現觀之後，才能兼修，所以才有了這個名稱。因此，其餘的階段不能兼修，因為自身真諦的所作尚未圓滿。有人說，如果這種修習在法智位，應該被稱為現觀中俗智。經文中不應該設立現觀邊的名稱。這三個階段所修習的，哪個更殊勝，哪個更劣呢？如果根據相續來說，後面的勝過前面的，因為增長了身體，從而獲得了它們。如果就界限來說，上面都勝過下面。所以，先前所修的屬於色界者，界限勝過身體，後面的階段所修的屬於欲界者，界限劣於身體。這裡有四句話，應該如理思考。道類智的時候，為什麼不修習這個呢？這種智慧只是見道的眷屬，屬於修道所攝，所以不能修習。這個意思說的是，修習七處善作為種子，所以見道才能產生，因此見道產生的時候，說它是眷屬。或者說，世俗智從無始以來，在三個真諦中曾經知道斷證，但從未修道。
【English Translation】 English version Because of not returning to the fruit. At the same time, one obtains non-outflow wisdom, thereby accomplishing the body of the fruit. All other stages of practice possess the ability to accomplish both. If one is reborn into the Formless Realm, one will abandon the mundane. In each Samadhi of Timely Liberation, one will certainly accomplish nine wisdoms, which is to say, adding the Exhaustion Wisdom (Ksayajnana, the wisdom of knowing that all outflows are exhausted). And in the Samadhi of Untimely Liberation, one will certainly accomplish ten wisdoms, which is to say, adding the Non-arising Wisdom (Anutpadajnana, the wisdom of knowing that my birth is exhausted). In which stage does one suddenly cultivate several wisdoms? One should carefully consider. What is cultivation? It is to practice virtuous conditioned dharmas, making them complete and free. It is not defiled or neutral, because there is no supreme fruit of love. It is not virtuous unconditioned dharmas, because they are not in the continuum. Moreover, unconditioned dharmas have no result. The meaning of cultivation has been analyzed, and now the initial question should be answered. In the fifteen minds of the Path of Seeing, the verse says:
'When the forbearance and wisdom of the Path of Seeing arise, they are cultivated in the future, the three types of wisdom are cultivated together, the mundane wisdom on the edge of direct perception, not arising from the lower realms, after the Four Noble Truths of suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path, the aspects of one's own truth, are only obtained through effort.'
Treatise says: In the stage of the Path of Seeing, with the arising of forbearance and wisdom, one cultivates the same type of wisdom in the future. However, one possesses the mindfulness of cultivating various aspects of one's own truth. Why can the Path of Seeing only cultivate the same type of wisdom? Because what is done and what is objectified are both determined and different. Some say that this is because this kind of nature has never been obtained before. Only in the three types of wisdom of suffering, accumulation, and cessation can one cultivate the mundane wisdom on the edge of future direct perception. Only after the direct perception of each truth can one cultivate it together, so this name was established. Therefore, the other stages cannot cultivate it together, because what is done for one's own truth is not yet complete. Some say that if this cultivation is in the position of Dharma Wisdom, it should be called mundane wisdom in the midst of direct perception. The sutra should not establish the name of the edge of direct perception. Which of the three stages of cultivation is more superior and which is more inferior? If based on the continuum, the latter is superior to the former, because the body has increased, thereby obtaining them. If based on the realm, the upper is superior to the lower. Therefore, what was previously cultivated belongs to the Form Realm, the realm is superior to the body, and what is cultivated in the later stage belongs to the Desire Realm, the realm is inferior to the body. There are four sentences here, which should be considered reasonably. Why is this not cultivated at the time of the Wisdom of the Path? This wisdom is only a member of the Path of Seeing, and belongs to the Path of Cultivation, so it cannot be cultivated. This means that cultivating the seven virtuous places as seeds, so the Path of Seeing can arise, therefore when the Path of Seeing arises, it is said to be a member. Or, mundane wisdom has known severance and realization in the three truths from beginningless time, but has never cultivated the path.
今不修。或由今時見真道故。偽道羞避故非所修。或現觀邊方修此智。道無邊故此位不修。謂三諦中依事現觀。容一行者總得其邊。必無有能遍修道者。異根性道不能修故。于自根性雖容得修。百千分中不起一故。雖見道位未遍斷集未。遍證滅而於當位斷集證滅其事已周。道類智時迷道諦惑。諸對治道亦不遍修。以種性根有多品故。由此於三諦世尊說邊聲。如契經中說。有身苦邊有身集邊有身滅邊。曾無經說有身道邊。無能修道至邊際故。此世俗智是不生法。於一切時無容起故。此起依身定不生故。謂隨信行隨法行身。容有為依引此智起。在見道位此無容生。故此依身住不生法。依不生故此必不生。若爾依何說有修義。依得修故說名為修。謂于爾時起得自在。余緣障故體不現前。即由此因說名為得。以證彼得起自在故。以有諸法得即現前如盡智等。或有諸法先得后現前如無生智等。或有諸法得永不現前如此智等。或有諸法不得而現前如外色等。無有情數法不得而現前故。雖不生而有修義。經主此中作如是詰。既不能起得義何依故所辯修。理不成立。如古師說修義可成。彼說云何由聖道力。修世俗智于出觀后。有勝緣諦俗智現前。得此起依故名得此如得金礦名為得金。此但有言所詰等故。如何此智不現在前。言得起依說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在不修習此（世俗）智，或許是因為現在已經證見了真道（Satyadharma），虛偽之道（Mithyadharma）感到羞愧而避讓，所以此（世俗）智不是所應修習的。或者在現觀（Abhisamaya）的邊際才修習此智，因為道（Marga）是無邊無際的，所以在這個階段不修習。所謂的三諦（Trisatya）中，依據事（artha）的現觀，或許一個修行者總能得到它的邊際，但必定沒有人能夠普遍地修習道，因為不同根性（Indriya）的道不能修習。對於自己的根性，雖然容許修習，但在百千分中也難以生起一分。雖然在見道位（Darshanamarga）沒有普遍地斷除集（Samudaya），沒有普遍地證得滅（Nirodha），但在那個階段斷除集、證得滅的事情已經完備。在道類智（Marga-jñana）時，對於道諦（Marga-satya）的迷惑，以及各種對治道（Pratipakshamarga）也沒有普遍地修習，因為種性（Gotra）和根（Indriya）有多種品類。因此，對於三諦，世尊（Bhagavan）說了『邊』這個詞，如契經（Sutra）中所說：『有身苦邊（Kayaduhkhanta）』、『有身集邊（Kayasamudayanta）』、『有身滅邊（Kayanirodhanta）』，但從未有經文說『有身道邊（Kayamarganta）』，因為沒有人能夠修道至邊際。這個世俗智（Samvriti-jñana）是不生法（anutpada-dharma），在任何時候都沒有生起的可能，因為此智所依的身（kaya）必定不生。所謂隨信行（Shraddhanusarin）、隨法行（Dharmanusarin）的身，或許可以作為引發此智生起的所依。但在見道位，此智沒有生起的可能，所以此智所依的身安住于不生法。因為所依不生，所以此智必定不生。如果這樣，依據什麼來說有修習的意義呢？依據『得』（lābha）的修習，所以稱為修習。也就是說，在那個時候，生起『得』的自在，因為其他因緣的障礙，本體沒有顯現。正因為這個原因，所以稱為『得』，因為證得了那個『得』，生起自在。因為有些法是『得』即現前，如盡智（Kshayajñana）等；或者有些法是先『得』后現前，如無生智（Anutpadajñana）等；或者有些法是『得』而永遠不現前，如此智等；或者有些法是未『得』而現前，如外色（bahirvarna）等。沒有非有情數（asattva-samkhya）的法是未『得』而現前的。雖然不生起，但有修習的意義。經主（Sutrakara）在此中作這樣的詰難：既然不能生起，『得』的意義依據什麼呢？所以所辯論的修習，道理不能成立。如古師（Purvacarya）所說，修習的意義可以成立。他們的說法是：由聖道（Aryamarga）的力量，修習世俗智，在出觀（Vyutthana）之後，有殊勝的因緣，世俗智現前，得到此智生起的所依，所以名為得到此智，如得到金礦名為得到金子。這只是言語上的詰難，所以如何解釋此智不現在前？說得到生起的所依。
【English Translation】 English version: Now, this (mundane) wisdom is not cultivated, perhaps because now the true path (Satyadharma) has been realized, and the false paths (Mithyadharma) are ashamed and avoid it, so this (mundane) wisdom is not what should be cultivated. Or, this wisdom is cultivated at the edge of direct perception (Abhisamaya), because the path (Marga) is boundless, so it is not cultivated at this stage. Among the so-called three truths (Trisatya), according to the direct perception of things (artha), perhaps a practitioner can always obtain its edge, but there is definitely no one who can universally cultivate the path, because paths of different faculties (Indriya) cannot be cultivated. Although it is permissible to cultivate for one's own faculty, it is difficult to generate even one part out of a hundred thousand. Although the accumulation (Samudaya) has not been universally cut off and extinction (Nirodha) has not been universally attained in the stage of seeing the path (Darshanamarga), the matter of cutting off accumulation and attaining extinction in that stage is already complete. At the time of the knowledge of the path (Marga-jñana), the delusion of the truth of the path (Marga-satya), and the various antidotal paths (Pratipakshamarga) are also not universally cultivated, because the lineage (Gotra) and faculties (Indriya) have many categories. Therefore, regarding the three truths, the World Honored One (Bhagavan) spoke of the word 'edge', as it is said in the Sutra: 'the edge of the suffering of the body (Kayaduhkhanta)', 'the edge of the accumulation of the body (Kayasamudayanta)', 'the edge of the extinction of the body (Kayanirodhanta)', but there has never been a Sutra that says 'the edge of the path of the body (Kayamarganta)', because no one can cultivate the path to the edge. This mundane wisdom (Samvriti-jñana) is a non-arising dharma (anutpada-dharma), and there is no possibility of arising at any time, because the body (kaya) on which this wisdom depends will definitely not arise. The so-called body of the faith-follower (Shraddhanusarin) and the dharma-follower (Dharmanusarin) may be the basis for inducing the arising of this wisdom. But in the stage of seeing the path, there is no possibility of this wisdom arising, so the body on which this wisdom depends abides in the non-arising dharma. Because the basis does not arise, this wisdom will definitely not arise. If so, according to what is there a meaning of cultivation? According to the cultivation of 'attainment' (lābha), it is called cultivation. That is to say, at that time, the freedom of 'attainment' arises, but because of the obstacles of other conditions, the substance does not appear. It is precisely for this reason that it is called 'attainment', because the attainment of that 'attainment' arises freely. Because some dharmas are 'attained' and immediately appear, such as the knowledge of exhaustion (Kshayajñana), etc.; or some dharmas are 'attained' and then appear, such as the knowledge of non-arising (Anutpadajñana), etc.; or some dharmas are 'attained' and never appear, such as this wisdom, etc.; or some dharmas appear without being 'attained', such as external colors (bahirvarna), etc. There is no non-sentient number (asattva-samkhya) dharma that appears without being 'attained'. Although it does not arise, there is a meaning of cultivation. The Sutra Master (Sutrakara) raises such a question here: Since it cannot arise, what does the meaning of 'attainment' depend on? Therefore, the cultivation argued for cannot be established. As the ancient teachers (Purvacarya) said, the meaning of cultivation can be established. Their statement is: By the power of the noble path (Aryamarga), cultivate mundane wisdom, and after emerging from contemplation (Vyutthana), there is a superior condition, and mundane wisdom appears, obtaining the basis for the arising of this wisdom, so it is called obtaining this wisdom, just as obtaining a gold mine is called obtaining gold. This is just a verbal challenge, so how to explain that this wisdom does not appear now? It is said that the basis for arising is obtained.
名為得。非得此依故可名此現前。勿此所依即此體故。若謂於後位見不見功能故有差別。亦不應理。所許起依不久住故。非起依已舍有此現前時。故舍起依必不現起。后如何見能起功能。諸有起依必可現起。有起依位寧不現前。既不現前起依寧有故。彼所說既不能起得。義何依為非理詰。自許不起亦名得故。隨依何地見道現前能修未來自地下地。謂此俗智七地為依。即未至中間四靜慮欲界。若依未至見道現前。能修未來一地見道。二地俗智至依第四見道現前。能修未來六地見道。七地俗智苦集邊修。四念住攝滅邊修者。唯法念住隨於何諦現觀邊修。即以此行相緣此諦為境。謂若苦諦現觀邊修。即以緣苦四種行相。若欲界系緣欲界苦。色界系者緣上苦諦。若於集諦現觀邊修。即以緣集四種行相若欲界系緣欲界集。色界系者緣上集諦。若於滅諦現觀邊修。即以緣滅四種行相。若欲界系緣欲界滅。色界系者緣上滅諦。此世俗智唯加行得。即由見道加行得故。欲界攝者是思所成。色界攝者是修所成。非聞所成彼微劣故。智增故立智名。若並隨行以欲四蘊。色界五蘊為其自性。次於修道離染位中。頌曰。
修道初剎那 修六或七智 斷八地無間 及有欲余道 有頂八解脫 各修於七智 上無間余道 如次修六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：名為『得』（Prapti，獲得）。如果不是依靠這個『得』，就不能稱之為『現前』（Abhisamaya，現觀）。因為這個『現前』不是它所依賴的那個東西的本體。如果說因為在後面的階段，見與不見的功能不同，所以才有差別，這也是不合理的。因為你所承認的『起依』（起所依，arambana）不會長久存在。當『起依』已經捨棄時，這個『現前』就不會出現。所以，捨棄了『起依』，必定不會現起。之後如何能見到能生起的功能呢？凡是有『起依』，必定可以現起。有『起依』的階段，難道不現前嗎？既然不現前，『起依』怎麼會有呢？所以，他們所說的不能生起『得』，義理上依靠什麼來作為非理的詰難呢？因為自己承認不起作用也叫做『得』。 隨之依靠哪個地（Bhumi，層次）的見道（Darshana-marga，見道）現前，能夠修習未來自己地和下地的（世俗）智慧（Lokiya-jnana，世俗智）？ 也就是說，這個世俗智以七地為所依，即未至定（Avijata，未至）、中間定（Dhyana-antarika，中間）、四靜慮（Chatur-dhyana，四禪）、欲界（Kama-dhatu，欲界）。如果依靠未至定見道現前，能夠修習未來一地見道，二地俗智，直到依靠第四禪見道現前，能夠修習未來六地見道，七地俗智。在苦諦（Dukkha-satya，苦諦）和集諦（Samudaya-satya，集諦）的邊際修習，由四念住（Chatur-smrtyupasthana，四念住）所攝；在滅諦（Nirodha-satya，滅諦）的邊際修習，唯有法念住（Dharma-smrtyupasthana，法念住）。無論在哪個諦的現觀邊際修習，都是以這種行相緣此諦為境。也就是說，如果在苦諦的現觀邊際修習，就是以緣苦的四種行相。如果是欲界所繫的，就緣欲界的苦；如果是所繫的，就緣上界的苦諦。如果在集諦的現觀邊際修習，就是以緣集的四種行相。如果是欲界所繫的，就緣欲界的集；如果是所繫的，就緣上界的集諦。如果在滅諦的現觀邊際修習，就是以緣滅的四種行相。如果是欲界所繫的，就緣欲界的滅；如果是所繫的，就緣上界的滅諦。這個世俗智唯有通過加行（Prayoga，加行）才能獲得，也就是通過見道的加行而獲得。欲界所攝的是思所成慧（Cinta-maya-prajna，思所成）；所攝的是修所成慧（Bhavana-maya-prajna，修所成），不是聞所成慧（Shruta-maya-prajna，聞所成），因為聞所成慧微弱。因為智慧增長，所以立名為智。如果連同隨行一起，以欲界的四蘊，**五蘊作為它的自性。 接下來，在修道（Bhavana-marga，修道）的離染階段中，頌文說： 『修道初剎那，修六或七智，斷八地無間，及有欲余道。有頂八解脫，各修於七智，上無間余道，如次修六。』
【English Translation】 English version: It is called 'Prapti' (attainment). If not for this 'Prapti', it could not be called 'Abhisamaya' (realization). Because this 'Abhisamaya' is not the substance of that which it relies on. If it is said that there is a difference because the function of seeing and not seeing is different in later stages, this is also unreasonable. Because the 'arambana' (support for arising) that you admit does not last long. When the 'arambana' has been abandoned, this 'Abhisamaya' will not appear. Therefore, abandoning the 'arambana' will certainly not arise. How can one then see the function that can arise later? Wherever there is 'arambana', it can certainly arise. In the stage where there is 'arambana', does it not appear? Since it does not appear, how can there be 'arambana'? Therefore, what they say cannot give rise to 'Prapti', what does the meaning rely on as an unreasonable challenge? Because admitting that it does not arise is also called 'Prapti'. Depending on which Bhumi (level) the Darshana-marga (path of seeing) manifests, which Lokiya-jnana (mundane wisdom) can be cultivated in the future, in one's own and lower levels? That is to say, this mundane wisdom relies on seven Bhumis, namely Avijata (non-attainment), Dhyana-antarika (intermediate meditation), Chatur-dhyana (four dhyanas), and Kama-dhatu (desire realm). If the Darshana-marga manifests relying on Avijata, it can cultivate the Darshana-marga of one future Bhumi, and the mundane wisdom of two Bhumis, until the Darshana-marga manifests relying on the fourth Dhyana, it can cultivate the Darshana-marga of six future Bhumis, and the mundane wisdom of seven Bhumis. Cultivating at the edge of Dukkha-satya (truth of suffering) and Samudaya-satya (truth of origin) is encompassed by Chatur-smrtyupasthana (four foundations of mindfulness); cultivating at the edge of Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation) is only Dharma-smrtyupasthana (mindfulness of dharma). No matter which Satya is cultivated at the edge of realization, it takes this aspect as the object of this Satya. That is to say, if cultivating at the edge of realization of Dukkha-satya, it is with the four aspects of suffering. If it is related to the Kama-dhatu, it is related to the suffering of the Kama-dhatu; if it is related to , it is related to the suffering of the upper realm. If cultivating at the edge of realization of Samudaya-satya, it is with the four aspects of origin. If it is related to the Kama-dhatu, it is related to the origin of the Kama-dhatu; if it is related to , it is related to the origin of the upper realm. If cultivating at the edge of realization of Nirodha-satya, it is with the four aspects of cessation. If it is related to the Kama-dhatu, it is related to the cessation of the Kama-dhatu; if it is related to **, it is related to the cessation of the upper realm. This mundane wisdom can only be obtained through Prayoga (effort), that is, obtained through the effort of the Darshana-marga. What is encompassed by the Kama-dhatu is Cinta-maya-prajna (wisdom born of thinking); what is encompassed by ** is Bhavana-maya-prajna (wisdom born of meditation), not Shruta-maya-prajna (wisdom born of hearing), because Shruta-maya-prajna is weak. Because wisdom increases, it is named Jnana (wisdom). If together with the accompanying, the four Skandhas (aggregates) of the Kama-dhatu, the ** five Skandhas are its nature. Next, in the stage of detachment in the Bhavana-marga (path of cultivation), the verse says: 'In the first moment of the path of cultivation, cultivate six or seven wisdoms, cut off the uninterrupted of eight grounds, and have desire remaining paths. The eight liberations of the peak of existence, each cultivate seven wisdoms, the upper uninterrupted remaining paths, cultivate six in order.'
八
論曰。修道初念。謂第十六道類智時。現修二智謂道及類。名異非體。未離欲者未來修六。謂法及類苦集滅道。離欲修七。謂加他心。有頂治故不修世俗。先已離欲入聖道者。何緣見道中不修他心智。以他心智遊觀德攝。依容豫道方有修義。見道位中為觀諦理。加行極速故不能修。無間道中義亦同此。今第十六道類智時。容豫道收故修此智。斷欲修斷九無間道。八解脫道俗四法智隨應現修。斷上七地諸無間道。四類世俗滅道法智隨應現修。斷欲加行有欲勝進。俗四法類隨應現修。此上未來皆修七智。謂俗法類苦集滅道。斷有頂地前八解脫。四類二法隨應現修。此于未來亦唯修七。然除世俗加他心智。斷有頂地九無間道。四類二法隨應現修。未來修法類苦集滅道六。斷欲修斷第九解脫。俗四法智隨應現修。斷上七地諸解脫道。四類世俗滅道法智隨應現修。斷欲修斷第九勝進。斷上八地諸加行道。俗四法類隨應現修。斷上七地有頂八品。諸勝進道俗四法類。及他心智隨應現修。先所修道容現前故。此上未來皆修八智。謂俗法類四諦他心。四類不能斷欲界染。苦集二法非上對治。何緣起彼治此智未來修。若許兼修非對治者。離有頂染等應兼修世俗。此難非理。唯同對治于未來修非所許故。謂亦許有相屬故修。如見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八
論曰：修道最初的念頭，是指第十六道類智（Dānīndriya-bala，指修行道上的智慧力量）的時候。此時，顯現修習兩種智慧，即道智（Dharmānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna，觀察法的正念）和類智（Anvaya-ñāṇa，隨順智慧），雖然名稱不同，但本體是一樣的。未斷除欲界煩惱的修行者，未來會修習六種智慧，即法智（Dharma-jñāna，對法的智慧）和類智，以及苦智（Dukkha-jñāna，對苦的智慧）、集智（Samudaya-jñāna，對集的智慧）、滅智（Nirodha-jñāna，對滅的智慧）、道智（Mārga-jñāna，對道的智慧）。已斷除欲界煩惱的修行者，會修習七種智慧，加上他心智（Para-citta-jñāna，瞭解他人心意的智慧）。因為有頂地（Bhavāgra，三界最高的境界）的對治，所以不修習世俗智（Saṃvṛti-satya-jñāna，世俗諦的智慧）。
如果已經斷除欲界煩惱而進入聖道的人，為什麼在見道位（Darśana-mārga，初見真理的階段）中不修習他心智呢？因為他心智的運用在於觀察和攝受，只有在從容不迫的修行道路上才有修習的意義。在見道位中，爲了觀察四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，佛教的基本教義，包括苦、集、滅、道）的真理，修行非常迅速，所以不能修習他心智。無間道（Anantara-mārga，斷除煩惱的道路）中的情況也與此相同。現在，在第十六道類智的時候，因為是容豫道（容易修行的道路），所以修習這種智慧。
斷除欲界煩惱，修習斷惑的九無間道（navānantara-mārga，九種斷除煩惱的無間道），以及八解脫道（aṣṭavimokṣa-mārga，八種解脫的道路），世俗智、四法智（catvāri dharma-jñāna，四種關於法的智慧）隨應顯現修習。斷除上七地（saptabhūmi，指色界和無色界的七個禪定層次）的各種無間道，四類智、世俗智、滅智、道智隨應顯現修習。斷除欲界加行道（prayoga-mārga，為斷除煩惱所做的準備階段），如果有欲界的殊勝增進，世俗智、四法智、類智隨應顯現修習。此後，未來都修習七種智慧，即世俗智、法智、類智，以及苦智、集智、滅智、道智。斷除有頂地之前八解脫，四類智、二法智隨應顯現修習。此後，未來也只修習七種智慧，然而不包括世俗智和他心智。斷除有頂地的九無間道，四類智、二法智隨應顯現修習。未來修習法智、類智、苦智、集智、滅智、道智這六種智慧。斷除欲界修習斷惑的第九解脫，世俗智、四法智隨應顯現修習。斷除上七地的各種解脫道，四類智、世俗智、滅智、道智隨應顯現修習。斷除欲界修習斷惑的第九殊勝增進，斷除上八地的各種加行道，世俗智、四法智、類智隨應顯現修習。斷除上七地有頂八品（aṣṭa-prakāra，八種品類）的各種殊勝增進道，世俗智、四法智、類智，以及他心智隨應顯現修習。因為先前所修習的道容易顯現的緣故。此後，未來都修習八種智慧，即世俗智、法智、類智、四諦和他心智。
四類智不能斷除欲界染污，苦智和集智不是上界的對治法門。為什麼生起這些對治此界染污的智慧，未來還要修習呢？如果允許兼修非對治的智慧，那麼，斷除有頂地染污等，應該兼修世俗智。這種責難是不合理的。因為只允許修習相同的對治法門，這並非未來修習的本意。也就是說，也允許因為有相互關聯而修習，例如見道。
【English Translation】 English version Eight
The Treatise says: The initial thought of cultivating the path refers to the sixteenth moment of the Path of Knowledge of Kindred Minds (Dānīndriya-bala, referring to the power of wisdom on the path of practice). At this time, two kinds of wisdom are manifested and cultivated, namely the Wisdom of the Path (Dharmānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna, mindfulness of observing the Dharma) and the Wisdom of Kindred Minds (Anvaya-ñāṇa, wisdom that follows accordingly), which are different in name but the same in essence. Those who have not yet detached from the desires of the desire realm will cultivate six kinds of wisdom in the future, namely the Wisdom of Dharma (Dharma-jñāna, wisdom about the Dharma) and the Wisdom of Kindred Minds, as well as the Wisdom of Suffering (Dukkha-jñāna, wisdom about suffering), the Wisdom of Arising (Samudaya-jñāna, wisdom about the cause of suffering), the Wisdom of Cessation (Nirodha-jñāna, wisdom about the cessation of suffering), and the Wisdom of the Path (Mārga-jñāna, wisdom about the path). Those who have detached from the desires of the desire realm will cultivate seven kinds of wisdom, adding the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds (Para-citta-jñāna, wisdom of understanding the minds of others). Because of the antidote to the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra, the highest realm of the three realms), mundane wisdom (Saṃvṛti-satya-jñāna, wisdom of conventional truth) is not cultivated.
If someone has already detached from the desires of the desire realm and entered the Noble Path, why doesn't he cultivate the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds in the stage of the Path of Seeing (Darśana-mārga, the stage of first seeing the truth)? Because the use of the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds lies in observation and reception, and it only has meaning to cultivate on a leisurely path of practice. In the stage of the Path of Seeing, in order to observe the truth of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, the basic teachings of Buddhism, including suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation), the practice is very rapid, so it is not possible to cultivate the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds. The situation in the Path of No Interval (Anantara-mārga, the path of cutting off afflictions) is the same as this. Now, at the sixteenth moment of the Path of Knowledge of Kindred Minds, because it is an easy path (容豫道), this wisdom is cultivated.
To cut off the afflictions of the desire realm, cultivate the nine Paths of No Interval (navānantara-mārga, nine paths of cutting off afflictions), and the eight Paths of Liberation (aṣṭavimokṣa-mārga, eight paths of liberation), mundane wisdom, and the four Wisdoms of Dharma (catvāri dharma-jñāna, four wisdoms about the Dharma) are manifested and cultivated accordingly. To cut off the various Paths of No Interval of the upper seven realms (saptabhūmi, referring to the seven levels of meditation in the form realm and formless realm), the four Wisdoms of Kindred Minds, mundane wisdom, the Wisdom of Cessation, and the Wisdom of the Path are manifested and cultivated accordingly. To cut off the preparatory path (prayoga-mārga, the preparatory stage for cutting off afflictions) of the desire realm, if there is a superior advancement of the desire realm, mundane wisdom, the four Wisdoms of Dharma, and the Wisdom of Kindred Minds are manifested and cultivated accordingly. After this, in the future, all seven kinds of wisdom will be cultivated, namely mundane wisdom, the Wisdom of Dharma, the Wisdom of Kindred Minds, as well as the Wisdom of Suffering, the Wisdom of Arising, the Wisdom of Cessation, and the Wisdom of the Path. To cut off the first eight liberations before the Peak of Existence, the four Wisdoms of Kindred Minds and the two Wisdoms of Dharma are manifested and cultivated accordingly. After this, in the future, only seven kinds of wisdom will be cultivated, but not including mundane wisdom and the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds. To cut off the nine Paths of No Interval of the Peak of Existence, the four Wisdoms of Kindred Minds and the two Wisdoms of Dharma are manifested and cultivated accordingly. In the future, the six kinds of wisdom of the Wisdom of Dharma, the Wisdom of Kindred Minds, the Wisdom of Suffering, the Wisdom of Arising, the Wisdom of Cessation, and the Wisdom of the Path will be cultivated. To cut off the ninth liberation of cutting off afflictions in the desire realm, mundane wisdom and the four Wisdoms of Dharma are manifested and cultivated accordingly. To cut off the various Paths of Liberation of the upper seven realms, the four Wisdoms of Kindred Minds, mundane wisdom, the Wisdom of Cessation, and the Wisdom of the Path are manifested and cultivated accordingly. To cut off the ninth superior advancement of cutting off afflictions in the desire realm, to cut off the various preparatory paths of the upper eight realms, mundane wisdom, the four Wisdoms of Dharma, and the Wisdom of Kindred Minds are manifested and cultivated accordingly. To cut off the various paths of superior advancement of the eight categories (aṣṭa-prakāra, eight categories) of the Peak of Existence in the upper seven realms, mundane wisdom, the four Wisdoms of Dharma, the Wisdom of Kindred Minds, and the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds are manifested and cultivated accordingly. Because the path previously cultivated is easy to manifest. After this, in the future, all eight kinds of wisdom will be cultivated, namely mundane wisdom, the Wisdom of Dharma, the Wisdom of Kindred Minds, the Four Noble Truths, and the Wisdom of Knowing Others' Minds.
The four Wisdoms of Kindred Minds cannot cut off the defilements of the desire realm, and the Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Arising are not antidotes to the upper realms. Why do these wisdoms that counteract the defilements of this realm arise, and why will they be cultivated in the future? If it is allowed to cultivate non-antidotal wisdoms concurrently, then, to cut off the defilements of the Peak of Existence, etc., mundane wisdom should be cultivated concurrently. This accusation is unreasonable. Because only the same antidotal methods are allowed to be cultivated, this is not the intention of future cultivation. That is to say, it is also allowed to cultivate because there is a mutual relationship, such as the Path of Seeing.
道中修世俗智。或由因力相資故修。如斷欲時兼修四類。斷上染位修苦集法。若斷欲染不修類智。斷上不修苦集二法。則漸次得不還果者。應無容起類智現前。阿羅漢應無起苦集。法智先所得者皆已舍故。先未得者非所修故由約種類。若先已得為同類因。力引等流智生此智。由先彼智引故於彼智類。復能為因故此智生。因力資彼雖非同治亦未來修。次辯離染得無學位。頌曰。
無學初剎那 修九或修十 鈍利根別故 勝進道亦然
論曰。無學初念謂斷有頂。第九解脫若集類盡。隨應現修緣有頂故。勝進九十隨應現修。未來隨應修九修十。謂鈍根者唯除無生。利根亦修無生智故。次辯餘位修智多少。頌曰。
練根無間道 學六無學七 余學六七八 應八九一切 雜修通無間 學七應八九 余道學修八 應九或一切 聖起余功德 及異生諸位 所修智多少 皆如理應思
論曰。學位練根諸無間道。四法類智隨應現修。未來修六四諦法類。似見道故不修世俗。能斷障故不修他心。諸解脫道四法類智隨應現修。未離欲者未來修六四諦法類。已離欲者未來修七。謂加他心。有餘師言。解脫道位亦修世俗。諸加行道俗四法類隨應現修。未離欲者未來修七。已離欲八。謂加他心。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在修道過程中，如果修習世俗智慧，有時是由於先前業力的輔助。例如，在斷除欲界煩惱時，同時修習四類智（四諦智）。在斷除上界染污時，修習苦諦和集諦之法。如果斷除欲界染污時不修習類智，斷除上界染污時不修習苦諦和集諦二法，那麼漸次證得不還果（Anagami-fruit，不再返回欲界）的人，就不可能生起類智現前。阿羅漢（Arhat，已證最高果位者）也不可能生起苦諦和集諦之智，因為先前所得的法智都已經捨棄，而先前未得的現在又不是所修習的。這是從種類上來說的。如果先前已經獲得的法智作為同類因，其力量會引導等流智產生。由於先前彼智的引導，所以在彼智的種類中，又能作為因，所以此智得以產生。因的力量輔助彼智，即使不是同時修習，也是未來要修習的。 接下來辨析離染而證得無學位的智慧。 頌曰： 『無學初剎那，修九或修十，鈍利根別故，勝進道亦然。』 論曰： 無學位的最初一念，指的是斷除有頂天（Akanistha，色界頂層天）的煩惱。第九解脫道如果集諦和類諦已經斷盡，就隨應現前修習緣于有頂天的智慧。勝進道（Visesamarga，殊勝道）也是隨應現前修習九種或十種智慧，未來也隨應修習九種或十種智慧。所謂鈍根者，只除去無生智（Anutpada-jnana，不生智），利根者也修習無生智。 接下來辨析其餘位次修習智慧的多少。 頌曰： 『練根無間道，學六無學七，余學六七八，應八九一切，雜修通無間，學七應八九，余道學修八，應九或一切，聖起余功德，及異生諸位，所修智多少，皆如理應思。』 論曰： 在有學位（Saiksa，正在修學的聖者）練根位的諸無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道），隨應現前修習四法智和類智。未來修習六種智慧，即四諦的法智和類智。因為類似於見道（Darsana-marga，見道），所以不修習世俗智（Samvrti-satya-jnana，世俗智），因為能夠斷除障礙，所以不修習他心智（Paracitta-jnana，知他人心智）。諸解脫道（Vimukti-marga，解脫道）隨應現前修習四法智和類智。未離欲者，未來修習六種智慧，即四諦的法智和類智。已離欲者，未來修習七種智慧，即加上他心智。有其他論師認為，解脫道位也修習世俗智。諸加行道（Prayoga-marga，加行道）隨應現前修習世俗智、四法智和類智。未離欲者，未來修習七種智慧。已離欲者，未來修習八種智慧，即加上他心智。
【English Translation】 English version In the process of cultivation, if one cultivates mundane wisdom (Samvrti-satya-jnana), it is sometimes due to the assistance of previous karmic forces. For example, when eradicating desires, one simultaneously cultivates the four types of wisdom (the wisdom of the Four Noble Truths). When eradicating defilements from the higher realms, one cultivates the Dharma of suffering and accumulation. If one does not cultivate the wisdom of categories (Dharmanvaya-jnana) when eradicating desires, and does not cultivate the Dharma of suffering and accumulation when eradicating defilements from the higher realms, then it would be impossible for those who gradually attain the Anagami-fruit (Anagami-fruit, the fruit of non-returning) to generate the wisdom of categories. It would also be impossible for an Arhat (Arhat, one who has attained the highest fruit) to generate the wisdom of suffering and accumulation, because the Dharma wisdom previously attained has already been abandoned, and what was not previously attained is not being cultivated now. This is from the perspective of categories. If the Dharma wisdom previously attained serves as a cause of the same category, its power will lead to the arising of the wisdom of equal flow. Because of the guidance of that previous wisdom, it can again serve as a cause in the category of that wisdom, so this wisdom can arise. The power of the cause assists that wisdom, even if they are not cultivated simultaneously, it will be cultivated in the future. Next, we will discuss the wisdom attained by those who are free from defilements and have attained the state of no-more-learning. Verse: 'In the first moment of no-more-learning, one cultivates nine or ten, due to the difference between dull and sharp faculties, so too with the path of advancement.' Treatise: The first moment of no-more-learning refers to the eradication of the afflictions of the Akanistha heaven (Akanistha, the highest heaven in the Form Realm). If the truth of accumulation and the truth of categories have been completely eradicated in the ninth path of liberation, then one should presently cultivate the wisdom that arises from the Akanistha heaven. The path of advancement (Visesamarga) also presently cultivates nine or ten types of wisdom accordingly, and in the future, one will also cultivate nine or ten types of wisdom accordingly. Those with dull faculties only exclude the wisdom of non-arising (Anutpada-jnana), while those with sharp faculties also cultivate the wisdom of non-arising. Next, we will discuss the amount of wisdom cultivated in the remaining stages. Verse: 'In the uninterrupted path of refining the roots, the learner cultivates six, the no-more-learner seven, the remaining learners six, seven, or eight, accordingly eight, nine, or all, in the uninterrupted path of mixed cultivation, the learner seven, accordingly eight or nine, in the remaining paths the learner cultivates eight, accordingly nine or all, when the sage arises with other merits, and in the positions of ordinary beings, the amount of wisdom cultivated, all should be considered according to reason.' Treatise: In the uninterrupted paths (Anantarya-marga) of refining the roots in the stage of learning (Saiksa), one should presently cultivate the four Dharma wisdoms and the wisdom of categories accordingly. In the future, one will cultivate six types of wisdom, namely the Dharma wisdoms and the wisdom of categories of the Four Noble Truths. Because it is similar to the path of seeing (Darsana-marga), one does not cultivate mundane wisdom (Samvrti-satya-jnana), and because it can eradicate obstacles, one does not cultivate the wisdom of knowing others' minds (Paracitta-jnana). In the paths of liberation (Vimukti-marga), one should presently cultivate the four Dharma wisdoms and the wisdom of categories accordingly. Those who have not yet abandoned desire will cultivate six types of wisdom in the future, namely the Dharma wisdoms and the wisdom of categories of the Four Noble Truths. Those who have abandoned desire will cultivate seven types of wisdom in the future, namely adding the wisdom of knowing others' minds. Some other teachers believe that mundane wisdom is also cultivated in the stage of the path of liberation. In the paths of application (Prayoga-marga), one should presently cultivate mundane wisdom, the four Dharma wisdoms, and the wisdom of categories accordingly. Those who have not yet abandoned desire will cultivate seven types of wisdom in the future. Those who have abandoned desire will cultivate eight types of wisdom in the future, namely adding the wisdom of knowing others' minds.
諸勝進道若未離欲。俗四法類隨應現修未來亦七。若已離欲俗四法類及他心智。隨應現修未來亦八。無學練根諸無間道。四類二法隨應現修。未來修七四諦法類盡。不修世俗如治有頂。故五前八解脫四類二法隨應現修。未來修八四諦法類他心及盡。四第九解脫苦集類盡隨應現修。未來修九。最後解脫苦集類盡。隨應現修未來修十。諸加行道現修如學。未來修九諸勝進道。鈍者九智隨應現修未來亦九。利者十智隨應現修未來亦十。學位雜修諸無間道。四法類俗隨應現修未來修七。諸解脫道唯四法類。加行增俗諸勝進道。又加他心隨應現修未來皆八。無學雜修諸無間道現修如學。未來所修鈍八利九。諸解脫道唯四法類。加行增俗隨應現修。未來所修鈍九利十。諸勝進道與練根同。學位修通五無間道。現修俗智未來修七。宿住神境二解脫道五加行道。現修俗智他心解脫法類道俗及他心智。一切勝進並苦集滅隨應現修。此上未來皆修八智。無學修通五無間道。現修如學。未來所修鈍八利九。解脫加行現修如學。未來所修鈍九利十。諸勝進道與練根同。天眼天耳二解脫道。無記性故不名為修。聖起所餘四無量等修所成攝。有漏德時現在皆修一世俗智。有學未來未離欲七已離欲八。無學未來鈍九利十。除微微心此于未來唯修俗故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若諸位修習勝進道，但尚未離欲，則世俗四法類（指苦、集、滅、道四聖諦中的世俗諦）隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來亦修習七法類（指四聖諦法類加上法智、類智、世俗智）。若已離欲，則世俗四法類及他心智，隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來亦修習八法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智）。 無學位的練根者，在諸無間道中，四類二法（指苦法智忍、苦法智）隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來修習七法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智），四諦法類全部修習窮盡，不修習世俗智，如同修治有頂地（色界頂天）。因此，前五解脫道和第八解脫道中，四類二法隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來修習八法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智、盡智）。 第四和第九解脫道中，苦集類盡智隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來修習九法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智、盡智、無生智）。最後解脫道中，苦集類盡智隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來修習十法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智、盡智、無生智、法智、類智）。 諸加行道現前修習如學地（有學位者），未來修習九法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智、盡智、無生智）。諸勝進道，鈍根者修習九智（指四聖諦的法智、類智、世俗智），隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來亦修習九智。利根者修習十智（指四聖諦的法智、類智、世俗智、他心智），隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來亦修習十智。 有學位者雜修時，在諸無間道中，四法類和世俗智隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來修習七法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智）。諸解脫道唯修習四法類（指四聖諦法類）。加行道中增加世俗智，諸勝進道又增加他心智，隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來皆修習八法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智）。 無學位者雜修時，在諸無間道中，現前修習如學地（有學位者），未來所修，鈍根者修習八法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智、盡智），利根者修習九法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智、他心智、盡智、無生智）。諸解脫道唯修習四法類（指四聖諦法類）。加行道中增加世俗智，隨其根性相應而現前修習，未來所修，鈍根者修習九法類，利根者修習十法類。 諸勝進道與練根者相同。有學位者修習神通時，在五無間道中，現前修習世俗智，未來修習七法類（指四聖諦法類、法智、類智、世俗智）。宿住神通和神境神通二解脫道，以及五加行道，現前修習世俗智、他心智、解脫法類、道俗智及他心智。一切勝進道並苦集滅道四聖諦，隨其根性相應而現前修習。此上未來皆修習八智（指四聖諦的法智、類智）。 無學位者修習神通時，在五無間道中，現前修習如學地（有學位者）。未來所修，鈍根者修習八法類，利根者修習九法類。解脫加行道現前修習如學地（有學位者）。未來所修，鈍根者修習九法類，利根者修習十法類。諸勝進道與練根者相同。 天眼神通和天耳神通二解脫道，因其無記性，故不名為修。聖者所起的其餘四無量心等，屬於修所成攝。有漏功德生起時，現在皆修習一世俗智。有學位者未來，未離欲者修習七法類，已離欲者修習八法類。無學位者未來，鈍根者修習九法類，利根者修習十法類。除去微微心，此于未來唯修習世俗智故。
【English Translation】 English version If those progressing on the path of advancement (諸勝進道) have not yet detached from desire, then the four mundane categories (俗四法類) (referring to the mundane truth of the Four Noble Truths) are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will also cultivate seven categories (未來亦七) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge (法智), Class-knowledge (類智), and mundane knowledge (世俗智)). If they have already detached from desire, then the four mundane categories and knowledge of others' minds (他心智) are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will also cultivate eight categories (未來亦八) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, and knowledge of others' minds). Those in the stage of no-more-learning (無學) who are refining their roots (練根), in the paths of immediate consequence (無間道), manifest and cultivate two categories of the four types (四類二法) (referring to suffering Dharma-knowledge-patience (苦法智忍) and suffering Dharma-knowledge (苦法智)) according to their disposition, and in the future, they will cultivate seven categories (未來修七) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, and mundane knowledge). They completely exhaust the categories of the Four Noble Truths and do not cultivate mundane knowledge, just as they cultivate the peak of existence (有頂) (the highest heaven in the realm of form). Therefore, in the first five paths of liberation (前五解脫道) and the eighth path of liberation (第八解脫道), two categories of the four types are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will cultivate eight categories (未來修八) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, Exhaustion-knowledge (盡智)). In the fourth and ninth paths of liberation, the knowledge of the exhaustion of suffering and accumulation categories (苦集類盡智) is manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will cultivate nine categories (未來修九) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, Exhaustion-knowledge, Non-arising-knowledge (無生智)). In the final path of liberation, the knowledge of the exhaustion of suffering and accumulation categories is manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will cultivate ten categories (未來修十) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, Exhaustion-knowledge, Non-arising-knowledge, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge). The paths of application (加行道) are currently cultivated as in the stage of learning (學地) (those in the stage of learning), and in the future, they will cultivate nine categories (未來修九) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, Exhaustion-knowledge, Non-arising-knowledge). Those progressing on the path of advancement, the dull ones cultivate nine knowledges (九智) (referring to the Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, and mundane knowledge of the Four Noble Truths), which are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will also cultivate nine knowledges. The sharp ones cultivate ten knowledges (十智) (referring to the Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, and knowledge of others' minds of the Four Noble Truths), which are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will also cultivate ten knowledges. When those in the stage of learning cultivate mixed practices, in the paths of immediate consequence, the four categories of Dharma and mundane knowledge are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will cultivate seven categories (未來修七) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, and mundane knowledge). The paths of liberation only cultivate the four categories of Dharma (referring to the Four Noble Truths). In the paths of application, mundane knowledge is added, and in the paths of advancement, knowledge of others' minds is also added, which are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition, and in the future, they will all cultivate eight categories (未來皆八) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, and knowledge of others' minds). When those in the stage of no-more-learning cultivate mixed practices, in the paths of immediate consequence, they currently cultivate as in the stage of learning (those in the stage of learning). In the future, the dull ones will cultivate eight categories (鈍八) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, and Exhaustion-knowledge), and the sharp ones will cultivate nine categories (利九) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, Exhaustion-knowledge, and Non-arising-knowledge). The paths of liberation only cultivate the four categories of Dharma (referring to the Four Noble Truths). In the paths of application, mundane knowledge is added, which is manifested and cultivated according to their disposition. In the future, the dull ones will cultivate nine categories, and the sharp ones will cultivate ten categories. The paths of advancement are the same as those refining their roots. When those in the stage of learning cultivate supernormal powers, in the five paths of immediate consequence, they currently cultivate mundane knowledge, and in the future, they will cultivate seven categories (未來修七) (referring to the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-knowledge, Class-knowledge, and mundane knowledge). The two paths of liberation of the supernormal power of dwelling in past lives (宿住神通) and the supernormal power of magical abilities (神境神通), and the five paths of application, currently cultivate mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, the categories of Dharma of liberation, mundane knowledge of the path, and knowledge of others' minds. All paths of advancement and the Four Noble Truths of suffering, accumulation, extinction, and path are manifested and cultivated according to their disposition. Above this, all will cultivate eight knowledges (八智) in the future (referring to the Dharma-knowledge and Class-knowledge of the Four Noble Truths). When those in the stage of no-more-learning cultivate supernormal powers, in the five paths of immediate consequence, they currently cultivate as in the stage of learning (those in the stage of learning). In the future, the dull ones will cultivate eight categories, and the sharp ones will cultivate nine categories. The paths of application of liberation currently cultivate as in the stage of learning (those in the stage of learning). In the future, the dull ones will cultivate nine categories, and the sharp ones will cultivate ten categories. The paths of advancement are the same as those refining their roots. The two paths of liberation of the supernormal power of the divine eye (天眼神通) and the supernormal power of the divine ear (天耳神通) are not called cultivation because of their indeterminate nature (無記性). The remaining four immeasurable minds (四無量心) and so on, which are aroused by the sages, are included in what is accomplished through cultivation (修所成攝). When defiled merits arise, they currently all cultivate one mundane knowledge. In the future, those in the stage of learning who have not detached from desire will cultivate seven categories, and those who have detached from desire will cultivate eight categories. In the future, the dull ones in the stage of no-more-learning will cultivate nine categories, and the sharp ones will cultivate ten categories. Except for the subtle mind (微微心), in the future, they will only cultivate mundane knowledge.
若起所餘無漏功德靜慮攝者。四法類智隨應現修。無色攝者唯四。類智隨應現修。未來所修同前有漏。異生離染現修俗智。斷欲三定第九解脫。及依根本四靜慮定。起勝進道離染加行。未來修二。謂加他心。所餘未來唯修世俗。修五通時諸加行道。二解脫道現修俗智。一解脫道現俗。他心諸勝進道二。隨應現未來一切皆修二種。五無間道現未唯俗。依本靜慮修余功德。皆現修俗未來修二。唯順抉擇分必不修他心。以是見道近眷屬故。依餘地定修余功德。皆唯世俗現未來修。諸未來修為修幾地。諸所起得皆是修耶。頌曰。
諸道依得此 修此地有漏 為離得起此 修此下無漏 唯初盡遍修 九地有漏德 生上不修下 曾所得非修
論曰。諸道依此地及得此地時。能修未來此地有漏。謂依此地世俗聖道現在前時。未來唯修此地有漏。以有漏法系地堅牢難修余故。隨依何地離下地染。第九解脫現在前時亦修未來。所得上地根本近分。有漏功德離下地縛必得上故。聖為離此地及得此地時。並此地中諸道現起。皆能修此及下無漏。謂隨何地有漏無漏。加行等道正現在前。為欲斷除此地煩惱。未來修此及下無漏。下於上染同能治故。雖下聖道斷煩惱時。諸上地邊有能同治。然由有漏系地堅牢。未離下時未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 若由其餘無漏功德，如靜慮（dhyana，禪定）所攝持而生起，則四法類智（dharma-jñāna-ksānti，法智忍；anvaya-jñāna-ksānti，類智忍；dharma-jñāna，法智；anvaya-jñāna，類智）隨其相應而現前修習。若由無色界（arūpadhātu）所攝持，則唯有四類智隨其相應而現前修習。未來所修與前述有漏相同。異生（prthagjana，凡夫）離染時，現前修習世俗智（lokiya-jñāna，世間智），斷欲界（kāmadhātu）三定（指未至定、中間定、根本定）的第九解脫（vimoksa，解脫），以及依根本四靜慮定（catasro dhyānāni，四禪定）生起勝進道（visesa-mārga，殊勝道）的離染加行（virāga-prayoga，離欲加行），未來修習兩種，即加行道和他心智（para-citta-jñāna，知他人心智）。其餘未來唯修世俗智。修習五神通（pañcābhijñā，五種神通）時，諸加行道和二解脫道（指有學和無學解脫道）現前修習世俗智，一解脫道（指無學解脫道）現前修習世俗智。他心智的諸勝進道有兩種，隨其相應現前或未來，一切皆修習兩種。五無間道（pañca-ānantarya-mārga，五無間道）現前或未來唯修世俗智。依根本靜慮修習其餘功德，皆現前修習世俗智，未來修習兩種，唯有順抉擇分（anulomikī-kṣānti，隨順抉擇分）必定不修習他心智，因為它是見道（darśana-mārga，見道）的近親屬。依其餘地定修習其餘功德，皆唯修習世俗智，現前或未來修習。諸未來修為修習幾地？諸所生起獲得皆是修習嗎？頌曰： 諸道依得此 修此地有漏 為離得起此 修此下無漏 唯初盡遍修 九地有漏德 生上不修下 曾所得非修 論曰：諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。謂依此地世俗聖道現在前時，未來唯修此地有漏。以有漏法系地堅牢難修余故。隨依何地離下地染，第九解脫現在前時亦修未來。所得上地根本近分有漏功德離下地縛必得上故。聖為離此地及得此地時，並此地中諸道現起，皆能修此及下無漏。謂隨何地有漏無漏，加行等道正現在前。為欲斷除此地煩惱，未來修此及下無漏。下於上染同能治故。雖下聖道斷煩惱時，諸上地邊有能同治，然由有漏系地堅牢，未離下時未
【English Translation】 English version: If what arises from the remaining uncompounded merits, embraced by dhyāna (靜慮, meditation), then the four dharma-jñāna-ksānti (法類智, knowledge of dharma and its kinds) should be cultivated accordingly. If embraced by the arūpadhātu (無色界, formless realm), then only the four kinds of knowledge should be cultivated accordingly. What is cultivated in the future is the same as the aforementioned compounded. When a prthagjana (異生, ordinary being) separates from desire, they presently cultivate mundane knowledge (lokiya-jñāna, 世俗智), the ninth vimoksa (解脫, liberation) of the three samādhis (三定, concentrations) of the desire realm (referring to the unreleased samādhi, intermediate samādhi, and fundamental samādhi), and the virāga-prayoga (離染加行, detachment practice) of arising superior paths (visesa-mārga, 勝進道) based on the four fundamental dhyānas (catasro dhyānāni, 四靜慮定, four meditation states). In the future, two are cultivated: the path of practice and para-citta-jñāna (他心智, knowledge of others' minds). The remaining future only cultivates mundane knowledge. When cultivating the five abhijñās (pañcābhijñā, 五神通, five superknowledges), the paths of practice and the two paths of liberation (referring to the paths of learning and no-more-learning) presently cultivate mundane knowledge. One path of liberation (referring to the path of no-more-learning) presently cultivates mundane knowledge. The superior paths of para-citta-jñāna are of two kinds, presently or in the future, all cultivate both kinds accordingly. The five ānantarya-mārgas (pañca-ānantarya-mārga, 五無間道, five immediate paths) presently or in the future only cultivate mundane knowledge. Cultivating other merits based on the fundamental dhyāna, all presently cultivate mundane knowledge, and in the future cultivate two kinds. Only the anulomikī-kṣānti (順抉擇分, compliant discernment) certainly does not cultivate para-citta-jñāna, because it is a close relative of the darśana-mārga (見道, path of seeing). Cultivating other merits based on the samādhi of other realms, all only cultivate mundane knowledge, presently or in the future. How many realms are cultivated in the future? Are all that arise and are attained cultivated? The verse says: The paths rely on attaining this, cultivate the compounded of this realm To separate from and attain arising this, cultivate the uncompounded below this Only the initial exhaustively cultivate the compounded merits of the nine realms Arising above does not cultivate below, what was once attained is not cultivated The treatise says: The paths rely on this realm and when attaining this realm, they can cultivate the compounded of this realm in the future. That is, when the mundane and noble paths of this realm are presently before, in the future only the compounded of this realm is cultivated. Because the compounded dharma is firmly bound to the realm, it is difficult to cultivate others. Depending on which realm one separates from the defilements of the lower realm, the ninth liberation is also cultivated in the future when it is presently before. The compounded merits of the fundamental and proximate divisions of the upper realm that are attained must be attained because they are separated from the bonds of the lower realm. When the noble one separates from this realm and attains this realm, and when the paths in this realm presently arise, all can cultivate the uncompounded of this and below. That is, depending on which realm, whether compounded or uncompounded, the paths of practice and so on are presently before. In order to eliminate the afflictions of this realm, in the future cultivate the uncompounded of this and below. Because the lower is the same as the upper in treating defilements. Although the noble path below can treat the defilements of the upper realms when eliminating afflictions, because the compounded is firmly bound to the realm, it is not
能修彼。隨依何地離下地染。第九解脫現在前時亦修未來。所得上地及諸下地無漏功德隨起。此地世俗聖道現在前時。未來皆修此及下地無漏功德。唯初盡智現在前時。力能遍修九地有漏。意地所攝聞思修所成。不凈觀等無量勝功德。謂隨何地盡智現前。通修未來自上下地。何緣唯此初盡智時。力能遍修諸有漏德。創能殄滅無始時來一切善根煩惱怨故。如有摧伏國所共怨。一切俱來慶賴稱善。又煩惱縛斷無餘故。如能縛斷所縛氣通。又彼心王登自在位。一切善法起得來朝。譬如大王登祚灑頂。一切境土皆來朝貢。然此生上必不修下。謂身在欲得阿羅漢。通修三界九地善根。至生有頂唯修一地。初盡智言顯離有頂及五練根位。第九解脫道皆舍前道創得果故。于見道位三類智邊。雖亦能修自下俗智。先已說故此不復論。諸所言修唯先未得。今起今得是能所修。謂若先時未得今得。用功得者方是所修。若法先時曾得棄捨。今雖還得而非所修。非設劬勞而證得故。若於先時未得而起。極用功起勢力勝故。此方能修未來功德。若先已得今起現前。彼不能修未來功德。非多功起勢力劣故。修用止息故不能修未來。若曾得現前能修未來者。則薄伽梵得盡智時。應未具修一切功德。為具證得應更進修。便同二乘功德不滿。為唯約得說名
為修。不爾。云何。修有四種。一得修。二習修。三對治修。四除遣修。如是四修依何法立。頌曰。
立得修習修 依善有為法 依諸有漏法 立治修遣修
論曰。諸未曾得功德現前。及得未來所餘功德。新修得故皆名得修。曾得未曾功德現起。現修習故皆名習修。此二但依善有為立。未來唯得現具二修。于身等法得能治故。所治身等名對治修。故於身等得對治時。即說名為修于身等。余有漏法類亦應然。緣身等境煩惱斷故。說身等法名除遣修。故緣身等煩惱斷時。亦說名為修于身等。余有漏法例亦應然。此二但依有漏法立。故有漏善具足四修。無漏有為余有漏法。如次各具前後二修。有於此中約當修義。分別諸法具修多少。有法具四名為當修。有法具三。有法具二。有法具一。有法全無。謂善有漏未永斷時。可得可生具足四種。此未永斷故當具治遣修。以可得故當具得修。是可生故當具習修。已得可生具三除得。可得不生具三除習。已得不生及不可得。已生具二。謂治遣修。染及無記未斷亦爾。若善有漏已永斷時。可得可生具得習二。可得不生具一謂得。已得可生具一謂習。有為無漏應知亦爾。除前所說皆是全無。謂無漏法中已得不生等。若不生法不住身中。但由得故即名修者。應許擇滅亦名為修
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如何進行修行？如果不這樣，又該如何呢？修行有四種：一、得修（Prāpti-bhāvanā），二、習修（Abhyāsa-bhāvanā），三、對治修（Pratipakṣa-bhāvanā），四、除遣修（Prahāṇa-bhāvanā）。這四種修行是依據什麼法建立的呢？頌文說：
建立得修和習修，是依據善的有為法； 建立對治修和除遣修，是依據各種有漏法。
論述：各種未曾獲得的功德顯現於目前，以及獲得未來剩餘的功德，因為是新修而得，所以都稱為得修。曾經獲得的未曾顯現的功德現在顯現，因為現在修習，所以都稱為習修。這兩種修行只依據善的有為法建立。未來只有得修，現在具備兩種修行。對於身體等法，因為獲得了能對治的能力，所以被對治的身體等法被稱為對治修。因此，在對身體等法獲得對治時，就說這是在修于身體等法。其餘的有漏法也應如此類推。因為與身體等境界相關的煩惱被斷除，所以身體等法被稱為除遣修。因此，在與身體等相關的煩惱被斷除時，也說這是在修于身體等法。其餘的有漏法也應如此類推。這兩種修行只依據有漏法建立。因此，有漏的善法具備全部四種修行，無漏的有為法和其餘的有漏法，依次各自具備前後兩種修行。
有人在此處根據『當修』的意義，分別各種法所具備的修行的多少。有的法具備四種，稱為『當修』；有的法具備三種；有的法具備兩種；有的法具備一種；有的法完全沒有。所謂善的有漏法在未被永遠斷除時，可以獲得，可以產生，具備全部四種。因為未被永遠斷除，所以應當具備對治修和除遣修；因為可以獲得，所以應當具備得修；因為可以產生，所以應當具備習修。已經獲得但可以產生，具備三種，除去得修；可以獲得但不能產生，具備三種，除去習修；已經獲得但不能產生，以及不可獲得，已經產生，具備兩種，即對治修和除遣修。染污法和無記法在未斷除時也是如此。如果善的有漏法已經被永遠斷除，可以獲得，可以產生，具備得修和習修兩種；可以獲得但不能產生，具備一種，即得修；已經獲得但可以產生，具備一種，即習修。有為的無漏法也應該知道是這樣。除去前面所說的，都是完全沒有。所謂無漏法中已經獲得但不能產生等。如果不生之法不住在身體中，但因為獲得就稱為修，那麼應該允許擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）也稱為修。
【English Translation】 English version: How does one cultivate? If not, how should it be done? There are four types of cultivation: 1. Acquisition Cultivation (Prāpti-bhāvanā), 2. Habituation Cultivation (Abhyāsa-bhāvanā), 3. Antidotal Cultivation (Pratipakṣa-bhāvanā), and 4. Elimination Cultivation (Prahāṇa-bhāvanā). Upon what Dharma (law/principle) are these four cultivations established? The verse says:
Acquisition and Habituation cultivation are established, Based on wholesome conditioned Dharmas (Saṃskṛta-dharmas); Antidotal and Elimination cultivation are established, Based on all defiled Dharmas (Sāsrava-dharmas).
Treatise: When previously unobtained merits manifest, and when future remaining merits are obtained, they are all called Acquisition Cultivation because they are newly acquired through cultivation. When previously obtained but unmanifested merits now manifest, they are all called Habituation Cultivation because they are now cultivated. These two are established only based on wholesome conditioned Dharmas. The future only has Acquisition Cultivation, while the present possesses both cultivations. Because the ability to counteract is obtained for the body and other Dharmas, the body and other Dharmas that are counteracted are called Antidotal Cultivation. Therefore, when antidotes are obtained for the body and other Dharmas, it is said that one is cultivating the body and other Dharmas. The same principle should apply to other defiled Dharmas. Because afflictions related to the body and other realms are severed, the body and other Dharmas are called Elimination Cultivation. Therefore, when afflictions related to the body and other realms are severed, it is also said that one is cultivating the body and other Dharmas. The same principle should apply to other defiled Dharmas. These two are established only based on defiled Dharmas. Therefore, defiled wholesome Dharmas possess all four cultivations. Unconditioned conditioned Dharmas and other defiled Dharmas each possess the first two and the last two cultivations, respectively.
Some, based on the meaning of 'to be cultivated,' distinguish the amount of cultivation possessed by various Dharmas. Some Dharmas possess all four, called 'to be cultivated'; some possess three; some possess two; some possess one; and some possess none at all. So-called defiled wholesome Dharmas, when not yet permanently severed, can be obtained and can arise, possessing all four types. Because they are not yet permanently severed, they should possess Antidotal and Elimination Cultivation; because they can be obtained, they should possess Acquisition Cultivation; because they can arise, they should possess Habituation Cultivation. Those already obtained but can arise possess three, excluding Acquisition; those that can be obtained but cannot arise possess three, excluding Habituation; those already obtained but cannot arise, and those that cannot be obtained, and those that have already arisen, possess two, namely Antidotal and Elimination Cultivation. The same applies to defiled and neutral Dharmas when not severed. If defiled wholesome Dharmas have been permanently severed, can be obtained, and can arise, they possess Acquisition and Habituation Cultivation; those that can be obtained but cannot arise possess one, namely Acquisition; those already obtained but can arise possess one, namely Habituation. Conditioned unconditioned Dharmas should also be understood in the same way. Apart from what has been said before, all are completely without. So-called unconditioned Dharmas that have already been obtained but cannot arise, etc. If a Dharma that does not arise does not reside in the body, but is called cultivation because it is obtained, then it should be permitted that Cessation Through Discrimination (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is also called cultivation.
。無差別故。此難非理。彼同類法住身中故。謂不生法雖不住身。同類住身名修無失。又彼由得為果住故。謂未來世不生善法。由令得生表為果住。義言我等闕緣不生。非謂今時不蒙招引。擇滅異此。不可為例。又未來世不生善法。亦有因力攝益現身。擇滅不然。故無修義。又由擇滅唯是果故。謂修本為獲得勝果。滅非有果。故不應修。又由擇滅無增減故。謂可修法。依下至中依中至上。擇滅不爾。于修無用故不可修。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十四 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之三
如是已辯諸智差別。智所成德今當顯示。于中先辯佛不共德。且初成佛盡智位修不共佛法有十八種。何謂十八。頌曰。
十八不共法 謂佛十力等
論曰。佛十力四無畏三念住及大悲。如是合名為十八不共法。唯于諸佛盡智時修。余聖所無。故名不共。且佛十力差別云何。頌曰。
力處非處十 業八除滅道 定根解界九 遍趣九或十 宿住死生俗 盡六或十智 宿住死生智 依靜慮余通 贍部男佛身 于境無礙故
論曰。佛十力者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為沒有差別。所以這個責難是不合理的。因為同類的法存在於身中。意思是說，不生法雖然不住在身中，但同類的法住在身中，稱為修，沒有過失。而且，那些（不生善法）是由獲得（令得生）作為結果而住的。意思是說，未來世不生的善法，通過令其得生來表示作為結果而住。其含義是說，我們缺少因緣所以不生，不是說現在沒有受到招引。擇滅與此不同，不可作為例子。而且，未來世不生的善法，也有因的力量攝益現在的身。擇滅不是這樣。所以沒有修的意義。而且，由於擇滅僅僅是果。意思是說，修的根本是爲了獲得殊勝的果，滅不是有果的。所以不應該修。而且，由於擇滅沒有增減。意思是說，可以修的法，可以從下到中，從中到上。擇滅不是這樣。對於修沒有用處，所以不可以修。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十四 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十五
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之三
像這樣已經辨析了各種智的差別。現在應當顯示智所成就的功德。其中先辨析佛的不共功德。暫且先說成佛時在盡智位修的不共佛法有十八種。什麼是十八種呢？頌詞說：
十八不共法， 謂佛十力等。
論中說：佛的十力、四無畏、三念住以及大悲。像這樣合起來稱為十八不共法。僅僅在諸佛的盡智時修習。其餘聖者所沒有。所以稱為不共。且說佛的十力差別是什麼呢？頌詞說：
力處非處十， 業八除滅道， 定根解界九， 遍趣九或十， 宿住死生俗， 盡六或十智， 宿住死生智， 依靜慮余通， 贍部男佛身， 于境無礙故。
論中說：佛的十力是：
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no difference. Therefore, this objection is unreasonable. Because similar dharmas reside in the body. That is to say, although unarisen dharmas do not reside in the body, similar dharmas residing in the body are called cultivation, without fault. Moreover, those (unarisen good dharmas) abide by obtaining (causing to arise) as a result. That is to say, the good dharmas that will not arise in the future are expressed as abiding as a result by causing them to arise. The meaning is that we lack the conditions, so they do not arise, not that they are not being attracted now. Cessation by discrimination (擇滅, Ze Mie) is different from this and cannot be taken as an example. Moreover, the good dharmas that will not arise in the future also have the power of cause to benefit the present body. Cessation by discrimination is not like this. Therefore, there is no meaning of cultivation. Moreover, because cessation by discrimination is only a result. That is to say, the root of cultivation is to obtain a superior result, and cessation is not a result. Therefore, it should not be cultivated. Moreover, because cessation by discrimination has no increase or decrease. That is to say, the dharmas that can be cultivated can go from low to medium, and from medium to high. Cessation by discrimination is not like this. It is useless for cultivation, so it cannot be cultivated.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 74 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 75
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 7 on Discriminating Wisdom, Section 3
Having thus discriminated the differences of the various wisdoms, the merits accomplished by wisdom should now be shown. Among them, the unique merits of the Buddha should be discriminated first. For the time being, let us first say that there are eighteen kinds of unique Buddha-dharmas cultivated in the position of exhaustive wisdom at the time of becoming a Buddha. What are the eighteen kinds? The verse says:
The eighteen unshared dharmas, are the ten powers of the Buddha, etc.
The treatise says: The Buddha's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, three establishments of mindfulness, and great compassion. Combined in this way, they are called the eighteen unshared dharmas. They are only cultivated at the time of the Buddhas' exhaustive wisdom. The other sages do not have them. Therefore, they are called unshared. And what are the differences of the Buddha's ten powers? The verse says:
The ten powers are the possible and impossible, karma eight excluding cessation and the path, Concentration, roots, understanding, realms nine, pervasive destinations nine or ten, Past lives, death, birth, mundane, exhaustion six or ten wisdoms, Wisdom of past lives and death, relies on meditative absorption, the rest are common, Jambudvipa (贍部, Zhānbù), male Buddha body, is unobstructed in objects.
The treatise says: The Buddha's ten powers are:
一處非處智力具以如來十智為性。為依何義立此力名。佛于經中自作是說。苾芻諦聽。如來於處如實知處。如來於非處如實知非處。乃至廣說。知一切法自性功能理定是有。名為處智。知一切法自性功能理定非有。名非處智。此智通緣情非情境。與一切智皆不相違。恐于略說少功難悟。故復此中析出餘九。如薄伽梵多界經中自廣分別。處非處義身等惡行。感非愛果。定有是處。感可愛果。必無是處。乃至廣說。于彼經中所未說者我依余教復略分別。謂諸如來猶有誤失。諸應分別而一向記。無力無畏三念住等不共功德。必無是處諸聖猶起見所斷惑。覆罪墮惡。必無是處。造無間者現身見法墮邪性者現入正性。外道法內有真沙門。有雖受生而無有死。有不還者復欲界生。有阿羅漢更受後有。有舍二種識猶現行處。有十三界有十九蘊有第六世。有第四諦有第五。必無是處。如來所使有能遮遏。世尊使者事未究竟。正在慈定滅盡定中。隨信法行者有能為損害。北俱盧死墮惡趣中。及有中夭。必無是處。諸行不滅涅槃非常。異生有能斷有頂惑於一相續二心俱行無漏為因招異熟果。五識得與覺支相應。眠夢位中有生有死。得果退等。必無是處。有五識身無尋無伺。緣名過未離世為境。有鼻舌識有覆無記。有生上界入現觀者。有耳見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『處非處智力』（知道什麼是合理的，什麼是不合理的智慧力量，處指合理，非處指不合理）以如來十智（Tathāgata-balāni，如來的十種智慧力量）為根本性質。是依據什麼意義而建立這個『力』的名稱呢？佛陀在經典中親自這樣說：『比丘們，仔細聽。如來對於合理之處，如實地知道是合理之處；如來對於不合理之處，如實地知道是不合理之處。』乃至廣泛地說，知道一切法的自性、功能，從道理上決定是存在的，這叫做『處智』（知道合理之處的智慧）；知道一切法的自性、功能，從道理上決定是不存在的，這叫做『非處智』（知道不合理之處的智慧）。這種智慧普遍地緣于有情和非有情境界，與一切智（Sarvajñāna，佛陀的智慧）都不相違背。恐怕用簡略的說法，難以領悟其中的功用，所以又在這裡分析出其餘九種智慧。就像薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）在《多界經》中親自廣泛地分別說明。身等惡行，感得不喜愛的果報，決定有這種道理，這是合理的；感得喜愛的果報，一定沒有這種道理，這是不合理的。乃至廣泛地說。在那部經中所沒有說的，我依據其他的教義，再簡略地分別說明。例如，諸如來還有誤失，對於應該分別的事情卻一概而論，無力、無畏、三念住（Smṛtyupasthāna，三種念住）等不共功德，一定沒有這種道理，這是不合理的；諸聖者還生起見所斷的迷惑，掩蓋罪過而墮落惡道，一定沒有這種道理，這是不合理的；造作五逆罪的人，現世就能見到法則；墮入邪性的人，現世就能進入正性；外道法中存在真正的沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）；有人雖然受生，卻沒有死亡；有不還果（Anāgāmin，三果阿羅漢）的聖者，又回到欲界受生；有阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）再次接受後有；有捨棄兩種識（眼識和耳識）之後，仍然有現行之處；有十三界（dhātu，十八界的略稱），有十九蘊（skandha，五蘊的擴充），有第六世，有第四諦（satya，四聖諦），有第五，一定沒有這種道理，這是不合理的。如來所派遣的使者，有能夠阻止的；世尊的使者，事情還沒有完成；正在慈定（Maitrī-samādhi，修習慈悲的禪定）或滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡一切心識活動的禪定）中；隨信法行者，有能夠加以損害的；北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一）的人死後墮落惡趣，以及有中途夭折的，一定沒有這種道理，這是不合理的。諸行（saṃskāra，一切有為法）不滅，涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）不是恒常的；異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）有能夠斷除有頂惑（Bhavāgra，三界之頂）的；在一個相續中，兩種心同時生起；以無漏為因，招感異熟果；五識能夠與覺支（bodhyaṅga，菩提分）相應；在睡眠做夢的時候，有生有死；得到果位后又退失等等，一定沒有這種道理，這是不合理的。有五識身（pañca vijñāna kāya，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識），沒有尋伺（vitarka-vicāra，粗細的思考），緣于名（nāma，精神現象），以過去和未來為境界，脫離世間為境界；有鼻識和舌識是有覆無記（saṃvṛta-avyākṛta，被煩惱覆蓋的，無法明確判斷善惡的性質）；有生到上界（ūrdhva-bhāga，色界和無色界）的人，進入現觀（abhisamaya，現證真理）的人；有耳識和眼識
【English Translation】 English version: 'The Power of Knowing What Is Possible and What Is Impossible' (sthānāsthāna-jñāna-bala) is characterized by the ten powers of a Tathāgata (Tathāgata-balāni). Upon what meaning is this name of 'power' established? The Buddha himself said this in the scriptures: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Tathāgata truly knows what is possible as possible; the Tathāgata truly knows what is impossible as impossible.' And so on, extensively speaking. Knowing that the self-nature and function of all dharmas are definitely existent in principle is called 'knowledge of the possible' (sthāna-jñāna); knowing that the self-nature and function of all dharmas are definitely non-existent in principle is called 'knowledge of the impossible' (asthāna-jñāna). This wisdom universally relates to sentient and non-sentient realms and does not contradict all-knowing wisdom (Sarvajñāna). Fearing that its function would be difficult to understand with a brief explanation, the other nine wisdoms are analyzed here. Just as the Bhagavan (Bhagavān, the World-Honored One) personally extensively explained in the Multiverse Sutra. Evil deeds of body, etc., cause undesirable results. It is certain that this principle exists, which is possible. Causing desirable results is certainly not possible. And so on, extensively speaking. What was not said in that sutra, I will briefly explain based on other teachings. For example, that the Tathāgatas still have mistakes, that they treat matters that should be distinguished as the same, that the uncommon merits such as the powers, fearlessnesses, and three establishments of mindfulness (Smṛtyupasthāna) certainly do not exist, which is impossible; that the noble ones still give rise to delusions severed by views, cover up sins and fall into evil paths certainly do not exist, which is impossible; that those who commit the five heinous crimes can see the Dharma in this life; that those who have fallen into heterodoxy can enter orthodoxy in this life; that there are true Śrāmaṇas (Śrāmaṇa, renunciates) in non-Buddhist teachings; that some, although born, do not die; that Anāgāmins (Anāgāmin, third-stage Arhats) are born again in the desire realm; that Arhats (Arhat, enlightened beings who have extinguished all afflictions) receive future existence again; that there are places where the two consciousnesses (eye and ear consciousnesses) still manifest after being abandoned; that there are thirteen realms (dhātu, a shortened version of the eighteen realms), that there are nineteen aggregates (skandha, an expansion of the five aggregates), that there is a sixth world, that there is a fourth truth (satya, the Four Noble Truths), that there is a fifth, certainly do not exist, which is impossible. That the messengers sent by the Tathāgata can be obstructed; that the World-Honored One's messengers have not completed their tasks; that they are in the samādhi of loving-kindness (Maitrī-samādhi) or the cessation attainment (Nirodha-samāpatti); that followers of the Dharma according to faith can be harmed; that people of Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru, one of the four great continents) fall into evil realms after death, and that there are those who die prematurely, certainly do not exist, which is impossible. That the formations (saṃskāra, all conditioned phenomena) do not cease, that Nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇa, cessation) is not permanent; that ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) can sever the afflictions of the peak of existence (Bhavāgra); that two minds arise simultaneously in one continuum; that the cause is unconditioned, resulting in a ripened fruit; that the five consciousnesses can correspond to the limbs of enlightenment (bodhyaṅga); that there is birth and death during sleep and dreams; that there is regression after attaining the fruit, etc., certainly do not exist, which is impossible. That there are five aggregates of consciousness (pañca vijñāna kāya), without coarse and subtle thought (vitarka-vicāra), relating to name (nāma, mental phenomena), with the past and future as the realm, transcending the world as the realm; that there are nose and tongue consciousnesses that are obscured and indeterminate (saṃvṛta-avyākṛta); that there are those who are born in the upper realms (ūrdhva-bhāga, the form and formless realms), those who enter direct realization (abhisamaya); that there are ear and eye consciousnesses.
色有眼聞聲。舌嗅香等。必無是處。如是等類得非處名。與此相違皆名是處。豈不處智已知非處。諸非處智亦已知處。何勞雙說處非處名。雖理實然而雙說者。為欲遮止無因論故說是處名。為欲遮止惡因論故說非處名。依一智體雙說無失。寧知於一處非處力中。恐略難悟析出餘九力。以余皆有此力義故。謂如實知惡行能感可愛異熟。妙行能感非愛異熟。必無是處。與此相違定有是處又如實知順退分定能逮勝德。順勝進分能引退墮。必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知若此品根能證此果。此根未滿此界已證。必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知下劣勝解。鄙惡喜樂能逮勝德。必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知諸有情類界性各別而情契合。必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知趣生死行能證涅槃。趣涅槃行能招生死必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知前際有始必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知未斷生結死已不生。或彼已生畢竟不死。或彼不往善趣惡趣必無是處。與此相違定有是處。又如實知非理作意能得漏盡必無是處。與此相違定有是處。我于如是一一力中。略舉方隅顯處非處。若盡其事言論無窮。故應皆名處非處力。恐略難悟別立異名。二業異熟智力。八智為性除滅道智。謂善分別如是類業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『色』（Rūpa，物質）用眼睛聽聞聲音，舌頭嗅聞香味等等，絕對沒有這樣的道理。像這樣的情況，就叫做『非處』（wrong place/wrong reason）。與此相反的情況，都叫做『是處』（right place/right reason）。難道『處智』（knowledge of what is possible）不知道『非處』嗎？『非處智』（knowledge of what is impossible）也知道『是處』。為什麼還要重複說『處』和『非處』的名字呢？雖然道理上確實如此，但重複說『處』和『非處』，是爲了遮止『無因論』（doctrine of no cause），所以說『是處』；爲了遮止『惡因論』（doctrine of bad cause），所以說『非處』。依憑同一個智慧本體，同時說『處』和『非處』，並沒有過失。 怎麼知道在一個『處非處力』（power of knowing what is possible and impossible）中，因為害怕過於簡略難以理解，而分析出其餘九種力呢？因為其餘九種力都具有這種力的含義。例如，如實地知道惡行能夠感得可愛的異熟果報，妙行能夠感得非可愛的異熟果報，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道順於退步的禪定能夠獲得殊勝的功德，順於進步的禪定能夠導致退步墮落，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道如果這種品類的根器能夠證得這種果位，這種根器沒有圓滿就在這個境界證得了，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道下劣的勝解、鄙陋的喜樂能夠獲得殊勝的功德，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道各種有情眾生的界限和本性各不相同，但情感卻能契合，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道趨向生死的行為能夠證得涅槃，趨向涅槃的行為能夠招致生死，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道前際有開始，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道沒有斷除生結（bond of becoming），死亡后就不會再生，或者他們已經出生，最終不會死亡，或者他們不會前往善趣或惡趣，絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。又如實地知道不如理作意能夠得到漏盡（exhaustion of outflows），絕對沒有這樣的道理。與此相反的情況，必定有這樣的道理。我在像這樣一種種力中，略微舉出一些方面來顯示『處』和『非處』。如果窮盡所有事例，言論將無窮無盡。所以應該都叫做『處非處力』，因為害怕過於簡略難以理解，所以分別設立不同的名稱。 二、『業異熟智力』（power of knowing the results of actions），以八種智慧為體性，除了滅智（knowledge of cessation）和道智（knowledge of the path）。也就是善於分別像這樣的業。
【English Translation】 English version 『Rūpa』 (form/matter) hearing sounds with the eyes, the tongue smelling fragrances, etc., is absolutely impossible. Such situations are called 『non-place』 (wrong place/wrong reason). The opposite of this is called 『place』 (right place/right reason). Does the 『knowledge of place』 (knowledge of what is possible) not know 『non-place』? Does the 『knowledge of non-place』 (knowledge of what is impossible) also know 『place』? Why is it necessary to repeat the names 『place』 and 『non-place』? Although this is true in principle, repeating 『place』 and 『non-place』 is to prevent the 『doctrine of no cause』, so 『place』 is mentioned; to prevent the 『doctrine of bad cause』, so 『non-place』 is mentioned. Relying on the same essence of wisdom, there is no fault in speaking of 『place』 and 『non-place』 simultaneously. How do we know that within the 『power of knowing what is possible and impossible』, the other nine powers are analyzed because of the fear of being too brief and difficult to understand? Because the other nine powers all have the meaning of this power. For example, truly knowing that evil deeds can bring about desirable different-ripening results, and virtuous deeds can bring about undesirable different-ripening results, is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that meditation that leads to decline can attain superior merits, and meditation that leads to progress can lead to decline and fall, is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that if this type of faculty can attain this fruit, and this faculty is not complete but has already attained it in this realm, is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that inferior understanding and base joy can attain superior merits is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that the realms and natures of various sentient beings are different, but their emotions can be in harmony, is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that actions leading to birth and death can attain Nirvana, and actions leading to Nirvana can cause birth and death, is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that the past has a beginning is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that without cutting off the bond of becoming, one will not be reborn after death, or that they have already been born and will ultimately not die, or that they will not go to good or bad realms, is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. Also, truly knowing that irrational attention can lead to the exhaustion of outflows is absolutely impossible. The opposite of this is certainly true. In each of these powers, I briefly mention some aspects to show 『place』 and 『non-place』. If all cases were exhausted, the discussion would be endless. Therefore, they should all be called the 『power of knowing what is possible and impossible』, but different names are established separately because of the fear of being too brief and difficult to understand. 2. The 『power of knowing the results of actions』 is based on eight kinds of wisdom, except for the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path. That is, being good at distinguishing such actions.
。感如是類諸異熟果。無掛礙智名業異熟智力。或說名為自業智力。謂善分別如是類果。是自所造業力所招。非妻子等所能與奪。如是類業必招自果不可貿易。無掛礙智名自業智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛於過去未來現在。諸業法受別處別因別事別果皆如實知。乃至廣說。諸業有三法受有四。業及法受故名為業。法受或業之法故名業法。即是諸業之品類義。此顯如來於過去等。諸業品類處等差別。及所受果能如實知。此中別處者是別方所義。知于某處造如是業。當於某處此業方熟。謂知此業天等處造。此業當於人等處熟。是名如實了知別處。言別因者。是別緣義。知如是業遇此緣熟。或知此業由此緣造。是名如實了知別因。言別事者。是別物義。知如是業至成熟時。力能引生色等別物。或即知業自性不同名知別事。謂知此業此物為性。余則不然。是名如實了知別事。言果別者。是別異熟義。知如是業定感異熟果。此業不定能感異熟。此業異熟經爾所時有不爾者。此業異熟尚有所餘有無餘者。如是等類異熟差別。極細難了而能了知。是名如實了知別果。三靜慮解脫等持等至智力。四根上下智力。五種種勝解智力。六種種界智力。如是四力皆九智性。唯除滅智。謂如實知諸靜慮等自性名得。方便攝持味凈無漏。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 感受像這樣型別的各種異熟果報。沒有阻礙的智慧稱為業異熟智力，或者也稱為自業智力。意思是能夠清楚地分辨像這樣的果報，是由自己所造的業力所招感，不是妻子等其他人所能給予或剝奪的。像這樣的業必定招感自己的果報，不能交易。沒有阻礙的智慧稱為自業智力。另外，佛陀自己也宣說了這種力量的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於過去、未來、現在的一切業法和感受，在不同的處所、不同的原因、不同的事物、不同的果報，都能如實地知曉。』乃至廣說。諸業有三種，法受有四種。業和法受合稱為業法，或者說是業的法則，也就是各種業的品類。這顯示如來對於過去等的各種業的品類、處所等的差別，以及所感受的果報，都能夠如實地知曉。這裡所說的『別處』，是指不同的地方。知道在某個地方造了這樣的業，應當在某個地方這個業才會成熟。例如，知道這個業是在天等處所造的，這個業應當在人等處所成熟。這稱為如實了知別處。所說的『別因』，是指不同的因緣。知道像這樣的業遇到這個因緣才會成熟，或者知道這個業是由這個因緣所造的。這稱為如實了知別因。所說的『別事』，是指不同的事物。知道像這樣的業在成熟的時候，能夠引發產生色等不同的事物，或者直接知道業的自性不同，稱為知別事。例如，知道這個業以這個事物為自性，其他的則不是。這稱為如實了知別事。所說的『果別』，是指不同的異熟果報。知道像這樣的業必定會感受異熟果報，這個業不一定能夠感受異熟果報，這個業的異熟經過多少時間會有，不經過多少時間就沒有，這個業的異熟還有剩餘，或者沒有剩餘。像這樣型別的異熟差別，極其細微難以瞭解，而能夠了解，這稱為如實了知別果。 三、靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）解脫等持（Samadhi，三摩地）等至（Samapatti，等至）智力。 四、根上下智力。 五、種種勝解智力。 六、種種界智力。像這四種力量，都是九種智慧的性質，唯獨除了滅盡智。意思是如實地知道各種靜慮等的自性，稱為獲得。方便、攝持、味、凈、無漏。
【English Translation】 English version: To experience various Vipaka (異熟果, results of actions) fruits of this kind. Unobstructed wisdom is called Karma-Vipaka-Jnana-bala (業異熟智力, power of knowledge of karma results), or it is also called Sva-karma-jnana-bala (自業智力, power of knowledge of one's own karma). It means being able to clearly distinguish that fruits of this kind are caused by the power of one's own karma, and cannot be given or taken away by one's wife or others. Karma of this kind will definitely bring about its own results and cannot be traded. Unobstructed wisdom is called Sva-karma-jnana-bala. Furthermore, the Buddha himself also proclaimed the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha knows all the Dharma (法, teachings) and feelings of the past, future, and present, in different places, different causes, different things, and different results, as they really are.' And so on. There are three kinds of karma, and four kinds of feelings. Karma and feelings are collectively called Karma-Dharma, or the law of karma, which is the meaning of the categories of karma. This shows that the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) can truly know the differences in the categories of karma, places, etc., and the results experienced in the past, etc. The 'different places' here refer to different locations. Knowing that such karma was created in a certain place, and that this karma will mature in a certain place. For example, knowing that this karma was created in the heavens, and that this karma will mature in the human realm. This is called truly knowing different places. The 'different causes' refer to different conditions. Knowing that karma of this kind will mature when it encounters this condition, or knowing that this karma was created by this condition. This is called truly knowing different causes. The 'different things' refer to different objects. Knowing that karma of this kind, when it matures, can cause different objects such as form to arise, or directly knowing that the nature of karma itself is different is called knowing different things. For example, knowing that this karma has this thing as its nature, while others do not. This is called truly knowing different things. The 'different results' refer to different Vipaka (異熟, matured) results. Knowing that karma of this kind will definitely experience Vipaka results, that this karma may not experience Vipaka results, that the Vipaka of this karma will exist after a certain amount of time, and will not exist after a certain amount of time, that there is still a remainder of the Vipaka of this karma, or that there is no remainder. Being able to understand the differences in Vipaka of this kind, which are extremely subtle and difficult to understand, is called truly knowing different results. 3. Dhyana (靜慮, meditative absorption), Vimoksha (解脫, liberation), Samadhi (等持, concentration), Samapatti (等至, attainment) Jnana-bala (智力, power of knowledge). 4. Indriya-varavara-jnana-bala (根上下智力, power of knowledge of the superiority or inferiority of faculties). 5. Nana-adhimukti-jnana-bala (種種勝解智力, power of knowledge of various understandings). 6. Nana-dhatu-jnana-bala (種種界智力, power of knowledge of various realms). These four powers are all of the nature of nine kinds of wisdom, except for Nirodha-jnana (滅盡智, knowledge of cessation). It means truly knowing the nature of various Dhyana (靜慮, meditative absorption) etc., is called attainment. Skillful means, upholding, taste, purity, and non-outflow.
順退住進抉擇分等無掛礙智。名靜慮等智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛于靜慮解脫等持等至。雜染清凈安立皆如實知。乃至廣說。靜慮等相定品當辯。雜染謂能障證靜慮等。清凈謂即此諸法清凈。諸凈法住名為安立。或順退分名為雜染。順勝進分順抉擇分名為清凈。順住分名安立。若如實知諸有情類能逮勝德根品差別無掛礙智。名根上下智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛于有情諸根上下皆如實知。乃至廣說。此意顯佛知諸有情諸根勝劣無有謬誤。雖有中根而待勝劣。是劣勝攝故不別顯。此中根名為目何法。謂目信等斷善根者。總相續中亦有去來信等善法。或目意等。若如實知諸有情類喜樂差別無掛礙智。名種種勝解智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛于有情種種勝解皆如實知。乃至廣說。此意顯佛知諸有情喜樂種種品類差別。喜樂勝解名差別故。若如實知諸有情類。前際無始數習所成。志性隨眠及諸法性。種種差別無掛礙智。名種種界智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛於世間種種界非一界皆如實知。乃至廣說。種種界者顯各別義。非一界者顯眾多義。應知此中界與志性。隨眠法性名之差別。如是四力並緣有為。故十智中唯攝九智。七遍趣行智力。或聲顯此義有二途。若謂但緣諸能趣道。九智
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 能順著修習，退回，安住，進入抉擇分（Visesa-bhagiya，趨向解脫的部分）等，具有無掛礙的智慧，稱為靜慮等智力。佛陀自己也宣說了這種力量的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於靜慮（Dhyana，禪定），解脫（Vimoksha，從束縛中解脫），等持（Samadhi，心專注一境），等至（Samapatti，達到某種境界）的雜染、清凈、安立，都能如實地了知。』乃至廣說。靜慮等的相狀將在禪定品中辨析。雜染是指能夠障礙證得靜慮等的因素。清凈是指這些法的清凈狀態。諸凈法安住的狀態稱為安立。或者，順著退分（Hinabhagiya，退步的部分）稱為雜染，順著勝進分（Visista-bhagiya，進步的部分）、順著抉擇分稱為清凈，順著住分（Sthitabhagiya，保持的部分）稱為安立。如果能如實地了知各類有情能夠獲得殊勝功德的根器品類的差別，具有無掛礙的智慧，稱為根上下智力。佛陀自己也宣說了這種力量的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於有情的諸根的優劣高下，都能如實地了知。』乃至廣說。這表明佛陀知道各類有情的根器是殊勝還是低劣，沒有謬誤。雖然有中等根器，但是相對於殊勝和低劣而言，也屬於低劣或殊勝的範疇，所以不單獨顯示。這裡所說的中根，是指什麼法呢？是指信等，斷了善根的人，總的相續中也有過去和未來的信等善法。或者是指意等。如果能如實地了知各類有情的喜樂差別，具有無掛礙的智慧，稱為種種勝解智力。佛陀自己也宣說了這種力量的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於有情的種種勝解，都能如實地了知。』乃至廣說。這表明佛陀知道各類有情的喜樂的種種品類差別。喜樂的勝解稱為差別。如果能如實地了知各類有情，前世無數次修習所形成的，志向、習性、隨眠以及諸法的性質，種種差別，具有無掛礙的智慧，稱為種種界智力。佛陀自己也宣說了這種力量的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於世間的種種界（Dhatu，構成要素），非一界，都能如實地了知。』乃至廣說。種種界，顯示了各自不同的意義。非一界，顯示了眾多的意義。應當知道，這裡所說的界與志性、隨眠、法性，只是名稱上的差別。像這樣的四種力量，都緣于有為法，所以在十智中只包含九智。七遍趣行智力，或者聲音顯示這個意義有兩種途徑。如果說只是緣于那些能夠趨向道的法，那麼就是九智。
【English Translation】 English version: Possessing unobstructed wisdom regarding the ability to advance, retreat, abide, and enter into the Visesa-bhagiya (the part leading to liberation) etc., is called the power of wisdom regarding Dhyana (meditation) etc. The Buddha himself also described the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha truly knows the defilement, purity, and establishment of Dhyana, Vimoksha (liberation from bondage), Samadhi (concentration of mind on one object), and Samapatti (attainment of a certain state).' And so on. The characteristics of Dhyana etc. will be discussed in the section on meditation. Defilement refers to the factors that can hinder the attainment of Dhyana etc. Purity refers to the pure state of these dharmas. The state in which pure dharmas abide is called establishment. Alternatively, following the Hinabhagiya (the declining part) is called defilement, following the Visista-bhagiya (the advancing part) and following the Visesa-bhagiya is called purity, and following the Sthitabhagiya (the maintaining part) is called establishment. If one can truly know the differences in the categories of faculties of sentient beings who can attain excellent merits, possessing unobstructed wisdom, it is called the power of wisdom regarding the superiority and inferiority of faculties. The Buddha himself also described the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha truly knows the superiority and inferiority of the faculties of sentient beings.' And so on. This shows that the Buddha knows whether the faculties of sentient beings are superior or inferior, without error. Although there are intermediate faculties, they are categorized as inferior or superior in relation to the superior and inferior, so they are not shown separately. What does the term 'intermediate faculty' refer to here? It refers to faith etc., those who have severed their roots of goodness, and in the general continuum, there are also past and future good dharmas such as faith etc. Or it refers to mind etc. If one can truly know the differences in the joys and preferences of sentient beings, possessing unobstructed wisdom, it is called the power of wisdom regarding various Adhimukti (inclinations). The Buddha himself also described the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha truly knows the various Adhimukti of sentient beings.' And so on. This shows that the Buddha knows the various categories of differences in the joys and preferences of sentient beings. The Adhimukti of joys and preferences is called difference. If one can truly know the various differences in the aspirations, habits, latent tendencies, and the nature of dharmas of sentient beings, formed by countless practices in previous lives, possessing unobstructed wisdom, it is called the power of wisdom regarding various realms (Dhatu). The Buddha himself also described the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha truly knows the various realms (Dhatu) and non-single realms in the world.' And so on. 'Various realms' shows the meaning of each being different. 'Non-single realms' shows the meaning of being numerous. It should be known that the realms mentioned here are different in name only from aspirations, latent tendencies, and the nature of dharmas. These four powers are all based on conditioned dharmas, so only nine wisdoms are included in the ten wisdoms. The power of wisdom regarding the seven pervasive paths, or the sound reveals that there are two ways to understand this meaning. If it is said that it only relies on those dharmas that can lead to the path, then it is nine wisdoms.
除滅。若謂兼緣道所趣果。十智為性。謂如實知生死因果。及知盡道無掛礙智。名遍趣行智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛於一切遍趣行中皆如實知。乃至廣說。此意顯佛能如實知趣生死行趣涅槃行。趣生死中有趣地獄。乃至趣天。趣一一中復有多種。趣涅槃行有三乘別。趣一一中復有多種。依總說一遍趣行名。八宿住隨念智力。九死生智力。如是二力皆俗智性。此二力相有差別故。謂如實知自他過去宿住差別無掛礙智。名第八力。若如實知諸有情類于未來世諸有續生無掛礙智。名第九力。又佛自說此二相言。苾芻諦聽。佛於過去種種宿住一生二生。乃至廣說。佛天眼凈超過於人見諸有情。乃至廣說。廣辯此二如六通中。十漏盡智力。或聲亦顯義有二途。若謂但緣漏盡為境。六智除道苦集他心。若謂兼緣漏盡方便。十智為性。理應如是以辯相中言於盡及為盡無掛礙。智二種俱名漏盡智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛漏盡故於諸無漏心慧解脫。自現通達具證領受。能正自知我生已盡。乃至廣說。此後三力即是三通。以六通中此三殊勝。在無學位立為三明。在如來身亦名為力。神境天耳設在佛身。亦無大用故不名力。且如天眼能見有情。善惡趣中異熟差別。由此能引殊勝智生。亦正了知能感彼業。由此建立死
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 除滅。如果說兼緣道所趣的果，那麼十智為體性。也就是說，如實地了知生死因果，以及了知盡道而沒有掛礙的智慧，名為遍趣行智力。而且佛陀自己也宣說了這種智力的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於一切遍趣行中，都能如實地了知。』乃至廣說。這段話的意思是說，佛陀能夠如實地了知趣向生死的行為，以及趣向涅槃的行為。趣向生死中，有趣向地獄，乃至趣向天道。趣向每一種道中，又有多種差別。趣向涅槃的行為，有三乘的差別。趣向每一種道中，也有多種差別。依據總的說法，一遍趣行名為八宿住隨念智力（能回憶起過去世的智慧）。九死生智力（能知眾生死後生於何處的智慧）。像這樣的兩種智力，都是世俗智慧的體性。這兩種智力的相狀有差別，也就是說，如實地了知自己和他人過去宿住的差別，沒有掛礙的智慧，名為第八力。如果如實地了知諸有情在未來世的各種有續生，沒有掛礙的智慧，名為第九力。而且佛陀自己也宣說了這兩種智力的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於過去種種的宿住，一生、二生，乃至廣說。佛陀的天眼清凈，超過於人，能見到諸有情。』乃至廣說。廣泛地辨析這兩種智力，就像六神通中一樣。十漏盡智力（斷盡一切煩惱的智慧）。或者『聲』也顯示了意義有兩條途徑。如果說只是緣漏盡為境界，那麼六智中除去道智、苦智、集智和他心智。如果說兼緣漏盡的方便，那麼十智為體性。理應像這樣，在辨析相狀中說，對於盡和爲了盡沒有掛礙的智慧，這兩種都名為漏盡智力。而且佛陀自己也宣說了這種智力的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀因為漏盡的緣故，對於諸無漏的心慧解脫，自己現前通達，具足證悟領受，能夠正確地自己知道，我生已經窮盡。』乃至廣說。這後面的三種智力，就是三種神通。因為在六神通中，這三種最為殊勝，所以在無學位上，立為三明。在如來身上，也名為力。神境通和天耳通，即使在佛陀身上，也沒有大的作用，所以不名為力。且如天眼通，能夠見到有情在善惡趣中異熟的差別。由此能夠引生殊勝的智慧，也能夠正確地了知能夠感得那些業。由此建立死生智力。
【English Translation】 English version Extinction. If it is said that it also encompasses the results attained by the path, then the ten wisdoms are its nature. That is to say, truly knowing the causes and effects of birth and death, and knowing the wisdom of the path to cessation without hindrance, is called the Power of Wisdom of Universal Paths. Moreover, the Buddha himself spoke of the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha truly knows all universal paths.' And so on. The meaning of this is that the Buddha can truly know the actions that lead to birth and death, and the actions that lead to Nirvana. Among the paths leading to birth and death, there are paths leading to hell, and even to the heavens. Within each path, there are many differences. Among the paths leading to Nirvana, there are the distinctions of the Three Vehicles. Within each path, there are also many differences. According to the general explanation, the universal path is called the Eighth Power, the Power of Knowing Past Lives (being able to recall past lives). The Ninth Power is the Power of Knowing Death and Rebirth (being able to know where beings are reborn after death). These two powers are of the nature of conventional wisdom. The characteristics of these two powers are different, that is to say, truly knowing the differences between one's own and others' past lives without hindrance is called the Eighth Power. If one truly knows the various future rebirths of sentient beings without hindrance, it is called the Ninth Power. Moreover, the Buddha himself spoke of the characteristics of these two powers, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. The Buddha knows various past lives, one life, two lives, and so on.' The Buddha's divine eye is pure, surpassing that of humans, and can see all sentient beings. And so on. The extensive analysis of these two powers is like that in the Six Superknowledges. The Tenth Power is the Power of the Exhaustion of Defilements (the wisdom of completely eradicating all afflictions). Or the word 'sound' also indicates that the meaning has two paths. If it is said that it only takes the exhaustion of defilements as its object, then among the six wisdoms, the Path Wisdom, Suffering Wisdom, Accumulation Wisdom, and the Wisdom of Others' Minds are excluded. If it is said that it also encompasses the means to exhaust defilements, then the ten wisdoms are its nature. It should be said in this way, in the analysis of characteristics, that the wisdom without hindrance regarding both the exhaustion and the means to exhaustion is called the Power of the Wisdom of the Exhaustion of Defilements. Moreover, the Buddha himself spoke of the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully. Because the Buddha has exhausted the defilements, he personally understands, fully realizes, and experiences the undefiled liberation of mind and wisdom, and can correctly know for himself, 'Birth is exhausted.' And so on. These last three powers are the three superknowledges. Because among the six superknowledges, these three are the most excellent, they are established as the Three Clear Understandings in the state of no more learning. In the body of the Tathagata, they are also called powers. The superknowledge of divine abilities and the superknowledge of divine hearing, even if they are in the Buddha's body, do not have great use, so they are not called powers. For example, the superknowledge of the divine eye can see the differences in the results of sentient beings in the good and evil realms. From this, it can lead to the arising of excellent wisdom, and it can also correctly know the karma that can cause those results. From this, the Power of Knowing Death and Rebirth is established.
生智名。神境天耳無此大用。是故彼二不立為力。然不別說他心力者。義已攝在根等力中。以他根等中有心心所故。又薄伽梵具一切智。于工論等亦得自在。而於佛事齊此已成。余智于中無別勝用。是故雖有亦不別說。唯依遍覺十種所知。佛所應為皆圓滿故。何等名曰十種所知。謂諸法中因非因義。多分散地業果差別。定地功德品類不同。所化有情根解界異。所治能治因果差別。前際后際經歷不同。離染不續方便有異。但由覺此佛事已成。余設有無不致益損。故唯十種得名為力。又佛觀察所化有情。設教應機唯須十智。謂由初智觀所化生。于諸乘中堪無堪異。由第二智觀所化生。于相續中業障差別。由第三智觀所化生。于靜慮等有味無味。煩惱為障輕重差別。由知此二因亦知異熟障。由第四智觀所化生。趣清凈品功能差別。由第五智觀所化生。于證凈品加行差別。由第六智觀所化生。于證凈品稟志性別。由第七智觀所化生。諸所施為有益無益。種種差別正觀修止。由第八智觀所化生。過去世中所集差別。由第九智觀所化生。當來世中結生差別。由第十智觀所化生。所證解脫方便有異。於此十智若隨闕一。便不具足化有情事。多復無用故不增減。已辯自性依地別者。第八第九依四靜慮。餘八通依十一地起。欲四靜慮未至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名為生智。神境智和天耳智沒有這樣大的作用。因此，這二者不被立為力。然而，不單獨說明他心力，是因為其意義已經包含在根等力中，因為其他的根等中包含心和心所。此外，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）具有一切智，對於工巧明等也能夠自在運用，但對於佛事來說，達到這種程度就已經足夠了。其他的智慧在其中沒有特別殊勝的作用，因此，即使有也不單獨說明。僅僅依靠普遍覺知的十種所知，佛所應該做的事情就都圓滿了。 什麼叫做十種所知呢？就是諸法中因與非因的意義，眾多分散的業果差別，禪定地的功德品類不同，所教化的有情根器、理解的界限不同，所要調伏的、能調伏的因果差別，前世、後世經歷的不同，離染不相續的方便不同。僅僅通過覺知這些，佛事就已經完成，其他的智慧，即使有或沒有，也不會增加或減少利益損害。所以只有這十種才能被稱為力。此外，佛觀察所教化的有情，設立教法應合他們的根機，只需要這十種智慧。 通過第一種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，對於各種乘（vehicle，修行方法）是否堪能。通過第二種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，在相續中業障的差別。通過第三種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，對於靜慮等有味或無味，煩惱作為障礙的輕重差別。通過了解這兩種因，也能知道異熟障。通過第四種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，趣向清凈品的功用差別。通過第五種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，在證得清凈品的加行差別。通過第六種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，在證得清凈品時，稟賦的志向性別。通過第七種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，各種所作所為是否有益，種種差別，正確地觀察修止。通過第八種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，過去世中所積累的差別。通過第九種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，未來世中結生的差別。通過第十種智慧，觀察所教化的眾生，所證得的解脫方便不同。對於這十種智慧，如果缺少任何一種，就不能圓滿地教化有情。多了也沒有用，所以不多也不少。 已經辨別了自性，依據地來區分，第八和第九種智慧依據四靜慮（four dhyanas，四禪定）。其餘八種智慧普遍依據十一地而生起，即欲界、四靜慮和未至定。
【English Translation】 English version: It is named 'Wisdom of Birth'. The divine realm wisdom and the heavenly ear wisdom do not have such great functions. Therefore, these two are not established as powers. However, the power of knowing others' minds is not separately explained because its meaning is already included in the powers of the faculties, etc., since other faculties, etc., contain mind and mental factors. Furthermore, the Bhagavan (the Blessed One) possesses all-knowing wisdom and is also able to freely use skills and knowledge, but for the affairs of the Buddha, reaching this level is already sufficient. Other wisdoms do not have particularly superior functions in this regard, so even if they exist, they are not separately explained. Only relying on the ten knowledges of universal awareness, all the things that the Buddha should do are fulfilled. What are the ten knowledges? They are the meaning of cause and non-cause in all dharmas, the differences in the many scattered karmic results, the different categories of merits in the meditative states, the different faculties and levels of understanding of the beings to be taught, the differences in the causes and effects of what is to be tamed and what can tame, the differences in past and future experiences, and the differences in the means of separation from defilements without continuity. Merely through knowing these, the affairs of the Buddha are already accomplished, and other wisdoms, whether they exist or not, will not increase or decrease benefits or harms. Therefore, only these ten can be called powers. Furthermore, the Buddha observes the beings to be taught, establishes teachings that suit their faculties, and only needs these ten wisdoms. Through the first wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, whether they are capable of the various vehicles (paths of practice). Through the second wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the differences in karmic obstacles in their continuums. Through the third wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, whether they find savor or no savor in meditative states, etc., and the severity of afflictions as obstacles. By understanding these two causes, one can also know the matured obstacle. Through the fourth wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the differences in the functions of approaching pure qualities. Through the fifth wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the differences in the efforts to attain pure qualities. Through the sixth wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the differences in the aspirations and natures they are endowed with when attaining pure qualities. Through the seventh wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, whether their various actions are beneficial or not, the various differences, and correctly observe and cultivate cessation. Through the eighth wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the differences accumulated in past lives. Through the ninth wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the differences in rebirths in future lives. Through the tenth wisdom, observe the beings to be taught, the different means of liberation attained. If any one of these ten wisdoms is lacking, one cannot fully teach beings. More is also useless, so there is neither more nor less. Having distinguished the nature, according to the ground to distinguish, the eighth and ninth wisdoms rely on the four dhyanas (four meditative absorptions). The remaining eight wisdoms generally arise based on the eleven grounds, namely the desire realm, the four dhyanas, and the state of approaching concentration.
中間並四無色。名十一地。諸勝德地總有爾所。已辯依地。依身別者。皆依贍部男子佛身。唯此堪為力所依故。如是十智二乘亦有。何故在佛方受力名。夫受力名謂無礙轉。佛智于境無礙轉故。得名為力。余則不然。以諸二乘尚不能見諸有情相續順解脫分善。況復能知所餘深細。如舍利子舍求度人。不能觀知鷹所逐鴿。前後二際生多少等。大目乾連不能觀見。業風所引諸鬼差別。是故二乘天眼通等。觀界遠近與佛有殊。非無礙故不名為力。二乘與佛漏盡既同。彼智何緣唯佛名力。唯世尊有遍達有情。一切漏盡別相智故。謂薄伽梵于諸有情。一切漏盡品類差別。智無掛礙。二乘不然。是故力名唯屬於佛。又唯諸佛智猛利故。如何猛利。佛智力能速斷煩惱並習氣故。如強弱力補特伽羅。執利鈍刀斬截草等。諸有情類蘊相無別。佛如何觀有種種界。諸有情類蘊相雖同。而於其中非無差別。謂彼諸蘊體雖無異。而有無量品類不同。佛如量知都無掛礙。故世尊得有種種界智力。或諸如來名稱高遠。希有智慧妙用無邊。唯佛能知非余所測。于余所了無別相中。何怪如來能知別相。已辯諸佛心力方隅。當辯菩薩時亦所成身力。頌曰。
身那羅延力 或節節皆然 像等七十增 此觸處為性
論曰。佛生身力等那羅延。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 中間的四種無色定，合起來稱為十一地（指欲界、色界四禪天、以及四無色定）。所有殊勝功德的地界總共有這麼多。上面已經辨析了所依止的地界。如果從所依止的身體來區分，都是依止贍部洲（Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）男子的佛身。只有這種身體才堪能作為力量的所依。像這樣，十種智慧二乘（聲聞和緣覺）也有。為什麼只有在佛的身上才被稱為力呢？所謂被稱為力，是指沒有障礙的運轉。佛的智慧對於所觀境界沒有障礙地運轉，所以得名為力。其他的則不是這樣。因為二乘尚且不能見到所有有情相續的順解脫分善根，更何況能夠知道其餘深細的道理。比如舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）捨棄了想要度化的人，不能觀察知道老鷹所追逐的鴿子，前後兩個階段生死的多少等等。大目乾連（Mahamaudgalyayana，佛陀十大弟子之一，以神通著稱）不能觀察見到被業風所牽引的各種鬼的差別。因此，二乘的天眼通等等，觀察世界的遠近和佛有差別，因為不是沒有障礙，所以不稱為力。二乘和佛的漏盡（煩惱斷盡）既然相同，他們的智慧為什麼只有佛才被稱為力呢？只有世尊具有普遍通達有情一切漏盡的差別相的智慧。也就是說，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛的稱號之一，意為世尊）對於所有有情一切漏盡的品類差別，智慧沒有掛礙。二乘不是這樣。所以，力這個名稱只屬於佛。而且只有諸佛的智慧才猛利。如何猛利呢？佛的智慧力能夠迅速斷除煩惱以及習氣。就像強弱不同的人，拿著鋒利或遲鈍的刀斬斷草等等。所有有情蘊相沒有差別，佛如何觀察有種種界呢？所有有情蘊相雖然相同，但是在其中並非沒有差別。也就是說，這些蘊的體雖然沒有差異，但是有無量品類不同。佛如實了知，都沒有掛礙。所以世尊才具有種種界智力。或者諸如來名稱高遠，稀有智慧妙用無邊，只有佛能夠知道，不是其他人所能測度的。對於其他人所了知的沒有差別相中，如來能夠知道差別相，又有什麼奇怪的呢？上面已經辨析了諸佛心力的方方面面，下面應當辨析菩薩在修行時所成就的身力。頌說： 『身那羅延力（Narayana，印度教神祇，毗濕奴的化身） 或節節皆然 象等七十增 此觸處為性』 論說：佛生身力等同那羅延。
【English Translation】 English version: The four formless absorptions in between constitute the eleven grounds (referring to the desire realm, the four dhyana heavens of the form realm, and the four formless absorptions). All the grounds of supreme virtues amount to this much. The grounds of reliance have been discussed above. If distinguished by the bodies of reliance, they all rely on the Buddha's body of a man from Jambudvipa (the world we live in). Only this kind of body is capable of being the basis of strength. In this way, the ten kinds of wisdom are also possessed by the two vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas). Why is it that only in the Buddha is it called 'power'? What is called 'power' refers to unobstructed operation. The Buddha's wisdom operates without obstruction in relation to the objects of observation, so it is named 'power'. Others are not like this. Because the two vehicles cannot even see the roots of goodness that lead to liberation in the continuous stream of all sentient beings, let alone know the remaining profound and subtle principles. For example, Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) abandoned the person he wanted to liberate, unable to observe and know the eagle chasing the pigeon, the amount of birth and death in the two stages before and after, and so on. Mahamaudgalyayana (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his supernatural powers) could not observe and see the differences of the various ghosts driven by the winds of karma. Therefore, the supernormal powers of the two vehicles, such as the divine eye, differ from the Buddha in the distance of observation, and because they are not unobstructed, they are not called 'power'. Since the exhaustion of outflows (the complete eradication of afflictions) of the two vehicles and the Buddha is the same, why is their wisdom only called 'power' in the Buddha? Only the World Honored One has the wisdom to universally understand the distinct characteristics of the exhaustion of all outflows of sentient beings. That is to say, the Bhagavan (one of the Buddha's titles, meaning World Honored One) has unobstructed wisdom regarding the differences in the categories of the exhaustion of all outflows of all sentient beings. The two vehicles are not like this. Therefore, the name 'power' only belongs to the Buddha. Moreover, only the wisdom of the Buddhas is sharp and keen. How is it sharp and keen? The power of the Buddha's wisdom can quickly cut off afflictions and habitual tendencies. It is like people with different strengths, holding sharp or dull knives to cut grass and so on. Although the aggregates of all sentient beings have no difference in appearance, how does the Buddha observe that there are various realms? Although the aggregates of all sentient beings are the same in appearance, there are differences within them. That is to say, although the substance of these aggregates is not different, there are countless different categories. The Buddha knows them as they are, without any obstruction. Therefore, the World Honored One has the power of knowledge of various realms. Or, the names of the Tathagatas are lofty and far-reaching, and their rare wisdom and wonderful functions are boundless. Only the Buddha can know them, and others cannot fathom them. In the undifferentiated appearances known by others, what is strange about the Tathagata being able to know the differentiated appearances? The aspects of the mental powers of the Buddhas have been discussed above. Now we should discuss the physical powers accomplished by the Bodhisattvas during their practice. The verse says: 'The body has the strength of Narayana (a Hindu deity, an avatar of Vishnu), or each joint is like that. Seventy times greater than an elephant, etc., this has the nature of contact.' The treatise says: The physical strength of a Buddha at birth is equal to that of Narayana.
有餘師言。佛身支節一一皆具那羅延力。理實諸佛身力無邊猶如心力。能持無上正等菩提大功德故。大覺獨覺及轉輪王。支節相連如其次第。似龍蟠結連鎖相鉤。故三相望力有勝劣。那羅延力其量云何。十十倍增象等七力。謂凡象。香象。摩訶諾健那。缽羅塞建提。伐浪伽遮怒羅。那羅延。後後力增前前十倍。有說前六十十倍增。敵那羅延半身之力。此力一倍成那羅延。有餘師說。此量如千藹羅伐拏天象王力。此象王力其量云何。三十三天將遊戲苑。像王知已化作諸頭種種莊嚴。往天宮所。諸天眷屬數有多千。乘已騰空如持樺葉。速至戲苑隨意歡娛。天大象王力勢如是。此力千倍等那羅延。于諸說中唯多應理。如是身力觸處為性。此應總是諸觸差別。有說。唯是大種差別。有說。是造觸離七外有。有說。力是重劣者是輕。如是名為佛生身力。佛四無畏相別云何。頌曰。
四無畏如次 初十二七力
論曰。佛四無畏如經廣說。一正等覺無畏。十智為性。猶如初力。二漏永盡無畏。六十智性。如第十力。三說障法無畏。八智為性。如第二力。四說出道無畏。九十智性。如第七力。何緣諸佛無畏唯四。但由此量顯佛世尊。自他圓德俱究竟故。謂初無畏顯佛世尊自智圓德。第二無畏顯佛世尊自斷圓德。此二顯佛自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有其他老師說，佛陀身體的每一個肢節都具有那羅延力（Narayana-bala，一種強大的力量）。實際上，諸佛的身力是無邊的，就像他們的心力一樣，因為他們能夠持有無上正等菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）的巨大功德。大覺者（Buddha，佛陀），獨覺者（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）和轉輪王（Chakravartin，統治世界的理想君主），他們的肢節相連的方式各有不同，依次排列。他們的肢節連線方式類似於龍的盤繞，連鎖相鉤。因此，這三種人的力量有勝劣之分。那羅延力（Narayana-bala）的量是多少呢？它是以十倍遞增的，從象力開始，共有七種力量，分別是凡象（ordinary elephant）、香象（fragrant elephant）、摩訶諾健那（Mahanogajna）、缽羅塞建提（Bala-skandha）、伐浪伽遮怒羅（Varangaja-nura）、那羅延（Narayana）。后一種力量是前一種力量的十倍。有人說，前六種力量以十倍遞增，加起來等於那羅延（Narayana）半身的力量。這種力量的一倍就成為那羅延力（Narayana-bala）。還有其他老師說，這種力量相當於一千頭藹羅伐拏天象王（Airavata，帝釋天的坐騎）的力量。這種天象王的力量又是多少呢？三十三天（Trayastrimsa，欲界第二天）的天神們要去遊戲苑遊玩，像王知道后，化作各種頭，進行種種莊嚴，前往天宮。諸天眷屬有數千之多，乘坐象王騰空而起，就像拿著樺樹葉一樣，迅速到達戲苑，隨意歡娛。天大象王的力量就是這樣。這種力量的一千倍等於那羅延力（Narayana-bala）。在各種說法中，這種說法比較合理。這樣的身力以觸覺為特性。這應該是所有觸覺的差別。有人說，這只是大種（Mahabhuta，組成物質世界的四大元素）的差別。有人說，這是造觸（Sparsha，觸覺）離開七種外在事物而存在。有人說，力是重，劣者是輕。這就是佛陀的生身力。佛陀的四無畏（Four Fearlessnesses）有什麼區別呢？頌文說： 『四無畏如次，初十二七力』 論述：佛陀的四無畏如經中所廣說。一、正等覺無畏（Perfect Enlightenment Fearlessness），以十智為特性，就像第一種力量。二、漏永盡無畏（Extinction of Defilements Fearlessness），以六十智為特性，就像第十種力量。三、說障法無畏（Speaking of Obstructive Dharmas Fearlessness），以八智為特性，就像第二種力量。四、說出道無畏（Speaking of the Path Fearlessness），以九十智為特性，就像第七種力量。為什麼諸佛的無畏只有四種呢？只是通過這些量來顯示佛世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀）的自利和利他功德都達到了究竟。第一種無畏顯示佛世尊的自智圓滿功德，第二種無畏顯示佛世尊的自斷圓滿功德。這兩種無畏顯示了佛陀的自利。
【English Translation】 English version: Some other teachers say that each and every limb of the Buddha's body possesses Narayana-bala (Narayana-bala, a powerful strength). In reality, the physical strength of all Buddhas is boundless, just like their mental strength, because they are able to uphold the great merit of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). The Buddhas (Buddha), Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha, solitary Buddhas), and Chakravartins (Chakravartin, ideal universal monarchs) have different ways in which their limbs are connected, in sequential order. The way their limbs are connected is similar to the coiling of a dragon, linked together like a chain. Therefore, the strength of these three types of beings varies in superiority and inferiority. What is the measure of Narayana-bala (Narayana-bala)? It increases tenfold, starting from the strength of an elephant, with a total of seven strengths, namely, ordinary elephant, fragrant elephant, Mahanogajna, Bala-skandha, Varangaja-nura, and Narayana. Each subsequent strength is ten times greater than the preceding one. Some say that the first six strengths increase tenfold, and their sum equals half the strength of Narayana. One unit of this strength becomes Narayana-bala (Narayana-bala). Other teachers say that this strength is equivalent to the strength of a thousand Airavata (Airavata, Indra's mount), the king of heavenly elephants. What is the measure of this heavenly elephant king's strength? When the gods of the Trayastrimsa (Trayastrimsa, the second heaven of the desire realm) heaven are going to play in the pleasure garden, the elephant king, knowing this, transforms into various heads, adorns himself in various ways, and goes to the heavenly palace. The heavenly retinue, numbering in the thousands, rides on the elephant king and soars into the sky, as if holding birch leaves, quickly reaching the pleasure garden, enjoying themselves at will. Such is the power of the great heavenly elephant king. One thousand times this strength equals Narayana-bala (Narayana-bala). Among the various explanations, this one seems more reasonable. Such physical strength has the nature of being a touch. This should be the difference of all touches. Some say that it is only the difference of the Mahabhutas (Mahabhuta, the four great elements that constitute the material world). Some say that it is the Sparsha (Sparsha, touch) that exists apart from the seven external things. Some say that strength is heavy, and inferiority is light. This is called the physical strength of the Buddha's manifested body. What are the differences between the Buddha's Four Fearlessnesses (Four Fearlessnesses)? The verse says: 『The Four Fearlessnesses in order, the first is twelve, seven strengths.』 Commentary: The Buddha's Four Fearlessnesses are as extensively explained in the sutras. First, the Perfect Enlightenment Fearlessness (Perfect Enlightenment Fearlessness) has the nature of ten wisdoms, like the first strength. Second, the Extinction of Defilements Fearlessness (Extinction of Defilements Fearlessness) has the nature of sixty wisdoms, like the tenth strength. Third, the Speaking of Obstructive Dharmas Fearlessness (Speaking of Obstructive Dharmas Fearlessness) has the nature of eight wisdoms, like the second strength. Fourth, the Speaking of the Path Fearlessness (Speaking of the Path Fearlessness) has the nature of ninety wisdoms, like the seventh strength. Why are there only four Fearlessnesses of the Buddhas? It is only through these measures that it is shown that the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Buddha) has perfected both self-benefit and the benefit of others. The first Fearlessness shows the Buddha's perfect merit of self-wisdom, and the second Fearlessness shows the Buddha's perfect merit of self-cessation. These two Fearlessnesses show the Buddha's self-benefit.
利德滿。為顯世尊利他圓德。是故復說后二無畏。第三無畏遮行邪道。第四無畏令趍正道。謂佛處處為諸弟子。說障法令斷除即是令修斷德方便。又于處處為諸弟子。說出道令正行。即是令修智德方便。此二顯佛利他德滿。但由此四隨其所應。顯佛自他智斷圓德。至究竟故唯立四種。如何可說無畏即智。應言無畏是智所成。理實應然。但為顯示無畏以智為親近因。是故就智出無畏體。夫無畏者謂不怯懼。由有智故不怯懼他。故智得為無畏因性。唯佛四妙智是四無畏因。謂諸如來於一切法一切相妙。智是初無畏因。若諸如來一切煩惱並習氣斷妙智。是第二無畏因。唯我世尊由具此故。侵毀不戚供贊不歡。雖恒違拒而常饒益。雖加斫刺而深憐愍。雖有殊勝輔翼神通智慧技能而不傲慢。于欲離背不起瞋嫌。於樂親承不偏憐愛。雖行攝事不求輔翼。雖行訶責不願乖離。雖暫驅擯不以粗語。雖永擯黜不令墮邪。雖無所畏而不粗獷。雖常親愛而不生貪。雖顯自德不殉名利。雖顯他過不為恥辱。雖攝門徒不成自黨。雖訶邪侶不壞他朋。族望有情數來親附。但示正法不與交遊。此等皆由漏盡妙智。故此妙智為第二因。若諸如來知弟子眾。有損有益妙智。是后二無畏因。或無畏體即四妙智。怯懼名畏。此即於法無所了達。懷恐怖義。智于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 利德滿（姓名）。爲了彰顯世尊利益他人的圓滿功德，所以再次宣說後面的兩種無畏。第三種無畏是遮止修行邪道，第四種無畏是使人趨向正道。佛陀處處為弟子們宣說障礙之法，使他們斷除，這就是使他們修習斷德的方便。又在各處為弟子們宣說道，使他們正確修行，這就是使他們修習智德的方便。這兩種無畏彰顯了佛陀利益他人的功德圓滿。但憑藉這四種無畏，根據其各自所應，彰顯佛陀自身和他人的智慧、斷德圓滿，達到究竟的緣故，所以只確立這四種無畏。怎麼能說無畏就是智慧呢？應該說無畏是智慧所成就的，道理確實應該這樣。但爲了顯示無畏以智慧為親近的因，所以就從智慧中生出無畏的本體。所謂的無畏，就是不怯懦、不恐懼。因為有智慧，所以不怯懦他人。所以智慧可以作為無畏的因性。只有佛陀的四種妙智是四種無畏的因。也就是說，如來對於一切法、一切相的妙智，是第一種無畏的因。如果如來對於一切煩惱以及習氣斷除的妙智，是第二種無畏的因。只有我世尊因為具有這些，所以侵犯譭謗不憂戚，供養讚歎不歡喜。雖然經常違逆抗拒，但常常饒益；雖然加以砍斫刺傷，但深深憐憫；雖然有殊勝的輔佐、神通、智慧、技能，但不傲慢。對於遠離慾望不生起嗔恨嫌惡，對於快樂的親近承受不偏袒憐愛。雖然施行攝受之事，但不尋求輔佐；雖然施行呵責，但不希望乖離；雖然暫時驅逐，但不使用粗暴的語言；雖然永遠擯棄，但不使他墮入邪道。雖然沒有什麼可畏懼的，但不粗魯強橫；雖然常常親近愛護，但不生起貪戀；雖然彰顯自己的功德，但不追求名利；雖然揭示他人的過失，但不使他感到恥辱；雖然攝受門徒，但不結成自己的黨派；雖然呵斥邪惡的同伴，但不破壞他人的朋友。有聲望、有地位的眾生多次前來親近依附，但只向他們展示正法，不與他們交往遊玩。這些都是因為漏盡妙智的緣故，所以這種妙智是第二種因。如果如來知道弟子眾有損害、有利益的妙智，是後面兩種無畏的因。或者無畏的本體就是四種妙智。怯懦恐懼叫做畏懼，這就是對於法沒有什麼瞭解通達，懷有恐怖的含義。智慧對於
【English Translation】 English version Lideman (name). To manifest the World Honored One's perfect virtue of benefiting others, the latter two fearlessnesses are spoken again. The third fearlessness is to prevent the practice of evil paths, and the fourth fearlessness is to lead people to the right path. The Buddha speaks of the obstructing dharmas everywhere for the disciples, causing them to cut them off, which is the expedient of causing them to cultivate the virtue of cessation. Also, in various places, the Buddha speaks of the path for the disciples, causing them to practice correctly, which is the expedient of causing them to cultivate the virtue of wisdom. These two fearlessnesses manifest the Buddha's perfect virtue of benefiting others. However, relying on these four fearlessnesses, according to their respective appropriateness, the Buddha's own and others' wisdom and cessation virtues are manifested as perfect, reaching the ultimate, therefore only these four types are established. How can it be said that fearlessness is wisdom? It should be said that fearlessness is accomplished by wisdom, and the principle should indeed be so. However, in order to show that fearlessness takes wisdom as its close cause, the essence of fearlessness is derived from wisdom. What is called fearlessness is not being timid or fearful. Because of having wisdom, one is not timid of others. Therefore, wisdom can be the causal nature of fearlessness. Only the Buddha's four subtle wisdoms are the causes of the four fearlessnesses. That is to say, the Tathagata's subtle wisdom regarding all dharmas and all aspects is the cause of the first fearlessness. If the Tathagata's subtle wisdom regarding the cutting off of all afflictions and habitual tendencies is the cause of the second fearlessness. Only my World Honored One, because of possessing these, is not saddened by offenses and slanders, and not delighted by offerings and praises. Although constantly opposed and resisted, He always benefits; although subjected to cutting and stabbing, He deeply pities; although having excellent assistance, supernatural powers, wisdom, and skills, He is not arrogant. He does not arise anger or aversion towards detachment from desires, and does not show partiality or love towards joyful attendance. Although practicing the work of gathering, He does not seek assistance; although practicing rebuke, He does not wish for separation; although temporarily banishing, He does not use harsh words; although permanently expelling, He does not cause them to fall into evil paths. Although having nothing to fear, He is not rude or fierce; although constantly close and loving, He does not give rise to greed; although manifesting His own virtues, He does not sacrifice for fame and profit; although revealing others' faults, He does not cause them shame; although gathering disciples, He does not form His own party; although rebuking evil companions, He does not destroy others' friends. Sentient beings of high reputation and status repeatedly come to be close and attached, but He only shows them the right Dharma, and does not associate or play with them. All of these are due to the subtle wisdom of the exhaustion of outflows, therefore this subtle wisdom is the second cause. If the Tathagata knows the subtle wisdom of the assembly of disciples having harm and benefit, it is the cause of the latter two fearlessnesses. Or the essence of fearlessness is the four subtle wisdoms. Timidity and fear are called fear, which is not understanding or comprehending the Dharma, harboring the meaning of terror. Wisdom towards
此畏有近治能。與畏相違故名無畏。豈不非無智即是畏體。如何說智體即是無畏。此責不然。智與多法為近治故如即無疑。謂智如能近治無智。亦于怖畏有近治能。故得智名。亦名無畏。如治無智亦能治疑。故得智名。亦名決定。所治無智雖不即疑而智無疑。名二體一。如是無智雖與畏殊。而無畏名即目智體。一善能斷多惡法故。有說。無智亦攝畏體。故於此中不應為難。力與無畏有何差別。此無差別體俱智故。然于智體別義名力。復依別義立無畏名。謂不屈因說名為力。不怯懼因說名無畏。或初安立說名為力。立已不動說名無畏。或非他伏說名為力。能摧伏他說名無畏。有餘師說。譬如良醫遍達醫方。說名為力。善療眾疾。說名無畏。有說驍健。說名為力。勇悍不怯。說名無畏。如是二種義亦有別。謂成辦事義是力義。不怯憚義是無畏義。佛三念住相別云何。頌曰。
三念住念慧 緣順違俱境
論曰。佛三念住如經廣說。諸弟子眾一向恭敬能正受行。如來緣之不生歡喜。舍而安住正念正知。是謂如來第一念住。諸弟子眾唯不恭敬不正受行。如來緣之不生憂戚。舍而安住正念正知。是謂如來第二念住。諸弟子眾一類恭敬能正受行。一類不敬不正受行。如來緣之不生欣戚。舍而安住正念正知。是謂如來第三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此種畏懼有直接的對治方法。與畏懼相反，所以稱為『無畏』。難道不是因為沒有智慧就是畏懼的本體嗎？為什麼說智慧的本體就是無畏呢？這種責難是不對的。智慧與多種法有直接的對治關係，就像智慧能直接對治無智一樣，也能直接對治怖畏，所以才得到『智』的名稱，也稱為『無畏』。就像對治無智也能對治疑惑一樣，所以得到『智』的名稱，也稱為『決定』。所要對治的無智雖然不直接就是疑惑，但智慧無疑，名義上是二者合一。如此，無智雖然與畏懼不同，但『無畏』的名稱就是指智慧的本體。因為一種善能斷除多種惡法。有人說，無智也包含畏懼的本體，所以在此處不應該提出疑問。
『力』（Bala，力量）與『無畏』有什麼區別？這二者沒有區別，本體都是智慧。然而在智慧的本體上，根據不同的意義稱為『力』，又根據不同的意義建立『無畏』的名稱。所謂不屈服的原因稱為『力』，不怯懦畏懼的原因稱為『無畏』。或者最初的安立稱為『力』，安立之後不動搖稱為『無畏』。或者不被他人降伏稱為『力』，能摧伏他人稱為『無畏』。有其他老師說，譬如良醫遍通醫術，稱為『力』，善於治療各種疾病，稱為『無畏』。有人說，驍勇強健稱為『力』，勇敢不怯懦稱為『無畏』。這兩種意義也有區別，所謂成就事務的意義是『力』的意義，不怯懦畏懼的意義是『無畏』的意義。
佛陀的三念住（Smṛtyupasthāna，正念的建立）的差別是什麼？頌文說：
三念住念慧，緣順違俱境
論述：佛陀的三念住如經中所廣泛闡述的那樣。如果弟子們都一向恭敬，能夠正確地接受和修行，如來因此不生歡喜，捨棄這種歡喜而安住于正念正知，這就是如來的第一念住。如果弟子們都不恭敬，不能正確地接受和修行，如來因此不生憂愁，捨棄這種憂愁而安住于正念正知，這就是如來的第二念住。如果弟子們一部分恭敬能夠正確地接受和修行，一部分不恭敬不能正確地接受和修行，如來因此不生欣喜或憂愁，捨棄這些而安住于正念正知，這就是如來的第三念住。
【English Translation】 English version: This fear has a proximate remedy. Being the opposite of fear, it is called 'fearlessness'. Isn't it the case that the absence of wisdom is the very essence of fear? How can it be said that the essence of wisdom is fearlessness? This objection is not valid. Wisdom has a proximate remedy for many things, just as it immediately remedies ignorance. It also has a proximate remedy for dread and fear, hence it is called 'wisdom' and also 'fearlessness'. Just as curing ignorance can also cure doubt, it is called 'wisdom' and also 'certainty'. Although the ignorance to be cured is not immediately doubt, wisdom is without doubt, and the names are of one entity. Likewise, although ignorance is distinct from fear, the name 'fearlessness' directly refers to the essence of wisdom, because one good can cut off many evils. Some say that ignorance also encompasses the essence of fear, so there should be no difficulty in this.
What is the difference between 'power' (Bala) and 'fearlessness'? There is no difference, as their essence is both wisdom. However, in the essence of wisdom, 'power' is named according to a different meaning, and 'fearlessness' is established according to a different meaning. That which is the cause of not yielding is called 'power', and that which is the cause of not being timid and fearful is called 'fearlessness'. Or, the initial establishment is called 'power', and not moving after establishment is called 'fearlessness'. Or, not being subdued by others is called 'power', and being able to subdue others is called 'fearlessness'. Some other teachers say that, for example, a good doctor who is well-versed in medical knowledge is called 'power', and being good at treating various diseases is called 'fearlessness'. Some say that being brave and strong is called 'power', and being courageous and not timid is called 'fearlessness'. These two meanings are also different, in that the meaning of accomplishing affairs is the meaning of 'power', and the meaning of not being timid and fearful is the meaning of 'fearlessness'.
What are the differences in the Buddha's three Smṛtyupasthānas (foundations of mindfulness)? The verse says:
The three Smṛtyupasthānas, mindfulness and wisdom, Relate to agreeable, disagreeable, and mixed objects.
Treatise: The Buddha's three Smṛtyupasthānas are extensively explained in the sutras. If the disciples are all respectful and able to correctly receive and practice, the Tathagata does not generate joy because of this, but abandons it and dwells in right mindfulness and right knowledge. This is called the Tathagata's first Smṛtyupasthāna. If the disciples are all disrespectful and unable to correctly receive and practice, the Tathagata does not generate sorrow because of this, but abandons it and dwells in right mindfulness and right knowledge. This is called the Tathagata's second Smṛtyupasthāna. If some of the disciples are respectful and able to correctly receive and practice, and some are disrespectful and unable to correctly receive and practice, the Tathagata does not generate joy or sorrow because of this, but abandons these and dwells in right mindfulness and right knowledge. This is called the Tathagata's third Smṛtyupasthāna.
念住。雖有所化不敬受行。而佛世尊亦雨法雨。由此方便彼于余時或余有情入正法故。非前說四今復說三。可總說言念住有七。今三攝在前四中故。謂在緣外法念住攝。然此三種體通念慧。謂由安住正念正知。於三境中不生歡戚。不可見有諸大聲聞。於三境中不生歡戚。便謂此三種非佛不共法。唯佛於此並習斷故。善達有情種性別故。或弟子眾隨屬如來。有順違俱應甚歡戚。佛能不起可謂希奇。非屬諸聲聞不起非奇特。故唯在佛得不共名。諸佛大悲云何相別。頌曰。
大悲唯俗智 資糧行相境 平等上品故 異悲由八因
論曰。如來大悲俗智為性。普緣一切有情為境。作苦苦等三行相故。非無漏智有如是理。此大悲名依何義立。依五義故此立大名。一由資糧故大。謂大福德智慧資糧所成辦故。二由行相故大。謂此力能於三苦境作行相故。三由所緣故大。謂此總以三界有情為所緣故。四由平等故大。謂此等於一切有情作利樂故。五由上品故大。謂最上品更無餘悲能齊此故。有餘師說。由大加行所證得故。唯大士身所成就故。入大功德珍寶數故。能拔有情大苦惱故。立大悲名。悲與大悲有何差別。此二差別由八種因。一由自性。無瞋無礙自性異故。二由依身通余。唯佛依身異故。三由行相。一苦三苦行相
異故。四由所緣。一界三界所緣異故。五由依地。通余第四靜慮異故。六由證得。離欲有頂證得異故。又悲為先離染時得。唯離染得有差別故。七由救濟。希望事成救濟異故。八由哀愍。平等不等哀愍異故。有餘師說。諸佛大悲遠細遍隨。能普饒益。聲聞等類所起悲心。不能悲愍色無色界。佛于上界起極悲愍。心過於二乘。悲愍無間獄。已辯佛德異余有情。諸佛相望法皆等不。頌曰。
由資糧法身 利他佛相似 壽種姓量等 諸佛有差別
論曰。由三事故諸佛皆等一。由資糧等圓滿故。二由法身等成辦故。三由利他等究竟故。由壽種姓身量等殊。諸佛相望容有差別。壽異謂佛壽有短長。種異謂佛生剎帝利婆羅門種。姓異謂佛姓喬答摩迦葉波等。量異謂佛身有小大等。言顯諸佛法住久近等。如是有異。由出世時所化有情機宜別故。諸有智者思惟如來三種圓德深生愛敬。其三者何。一因圓德。二果圓德。三恩圓德。初因圓德復有四種。一無餘修。福德智慧二種資糧修無遺故。二長時修。經三大劫阿僧企耶修無倦故。三無間修。精勤勇猛剎那剎那修無廢故。四尊重修。恭敬所學無所顧惜修無慢故。次果圓德亦有四種。一智圓德。二斷圓德。三威勢圓德。四色身圓德。智圓德有四種。一無師智。二一切智。三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不同之處。四是由所緣境不同。一界（指欲界）和三界（指色界、無色界、無所有界）所緣境不同。五是由所依止的禪定地不同。普遍來說，與第四禪定不同。六是由證得的果位不同。離欲界和有頂天所證得的果位不同。而且，大悲是先於離染時獲得的。只有離染所得的果位才有差別。七是由救濟方式不同。希望事情成功后的救濟方式不同。八是由哀憫程度不同。平等和不平等的哀憫程度不同。有其他論師說，諸佛的大悲是深遠的、細緻的、普遍的、隨順眾生的，能夠普遍饒益眾生。而聲聞等所生起的悲心，不能悲憫色界和無色界眾生。佛對於上界眾生生起極大的悲憫之心，超過了二乘（聲聞、緣覺）。佛悲憫無間地獄的眾生。以上已經辨析了佛的功德與其餘有情（眾生）的不同。諸佛之間在法上是否完全相同呢？頌文說：
『由資糧法身，利他佛相似； 壽種姓量等，諸佛有差別。』
論述說：由於三種原因，諸佛是相同的。一是由資糧等的圓滿。二是由法身等的成就。三是由利他等的究竟。由於壽命、種姓、身量等的不同，諸佛之間可能存在差別。壽命不同，指的是佛的壽命有長有短。種姓不同，指的是佛出生于剎帝利（國王）或婆羅門（祭司）種姓。姓氏不同，指的是佛的姓氏有喬答摩（Gautama）、迦葉波（Kashyapa）等。身量不同，指的是佛的身軀有大小等差別。這些都顯示了諸佛住世時間的長短等差異。這些差異，是由於出世時所教化的有情（眾生）的根器和因緣不同所導致的。那些有智慧的人，思維如來的三種圓滿功德，會深深地生起愛敬之心。這三種圓滿功德是什麼呢？一是因圓德，二是果圓德，三是恩圓德。首先，因圓德又有四種：一是無餘修，福德和智慧兩種資糧修習沒有遺漏。二是長時修，經過三大阿僧祇劫（asamkhya kalpa）修習沒有厭倦。三是無間修，精勤勇猛，剎那剎那修習沒有間斷。四是尊重修，恭敬所學，不顧惜自身，修習沒有傲慢。其次，果圓德也有四種：一是智圓德，二是斷圓德，三是威勢圓德，四是色身圓德。智圓德有四種：一是無師智，二是一切智，三是……
【English Translation】 English version Differences arise. Fourth, due to the difference in the object of focus (所緣). The object of focus differs between the one realm (the desire realm) and the three realms (the form realm, the formless realm, and the realm of neither perception nor non-perception). Fifth, due to the difference in the ground of reliance. Generally, it differs from the fourth dhyana (靜慮). Sixth, due to the difference in attainment. The attainment differs between those who have detached from desire and those in the peak of existence (有頂). Moreover, great compassion is attained before detachment from defilements. Only the attainment from detachment has differences. Seventh, due to the difference in salvation. The method of salvation after hoping for success differs. Eighth, due to the difference in compassion. The degree of compassion, whether equal or unequal, differs. Some other teachers say that the great compassion of the Buddhas is far-reaching, subtle, pervasive, and adaptable, capable of universally benefiting beings. The compassion arising from Sravakas (聲聞) and others cannot have compassion for beings in the form and formless realms. The Buddha arises with extreme compassion for beings in the upper realms, surpassing the two vehicles (聲聞, 緣覺). The Buddha has compassion for beings in the Avici hell (無間獄). The differences between the Buddha's virtues and those of other sentient beings have already been discussed. Are all Buddhas equal in terms of Dharma (法)? The verse says:
'Due to the accumulation of merit and wisdom, and the Dharmakaya (法身), Buddhas are similar in benefiting others; Lifespan, lineage, and physical form, etc., are where Buddhas differ.'
The treatise says: Due to three reasons, all Buddhas are the same. First, due to the completeness of the accumulation of merit and wisdom, etc. Second, due to the accomplishment of the Dharmakaya (法身), etc. Third, due to the ultimate nature of benefiting others, etc. Due to differences in lifespan, lineage, physical form, etc., Buddhas may have differences. Lifespan differs, meaning the lifespan of Buddhas can be long or short. Lineage differs, meaning Buddhas are born into the Kshatriya (剎帝利) (royal) or Brahmin (婆羅門) (priestly) lineage. Surname differs, meaning the surnames of Buddhas are Gautama (喬答摩), Kashyapa (迦葉波), etc. Physical form differs, meaning the physical bodies of Buddhas can be large or small, etc. These indicate differences in how long the Buddhas' teachings remain in the world, etc. These differences are due to the different capacities and conditions of the sentient beings (有情) being taught at the time of their appearance in the world. Those with wisdom, contemplating the three complete virtues of the Tathagata (如來), will deeply generate love and respect. What are these three complete virtues? First is the complete virtue of cause, second is the complete virtue of effect, and third is the complete virtue of grace. First, the complete virtue of cause has four aspects: first, complete cultivation, cultivating the two accumulations of merit and wisdom without omission. Second, long-term cultivation, cultivating without weariness for three great asamkhya kalpas (阿僧企耶劫). Third, continuous cultivation, diligently and vigorously cultivating without interruption moment by moment. Fourth, respectful cultivation, respectfully learning, without sparing oneself, cultivating without arrogance. Second, the complete virtue of effect also has four aspects: first, the complete virtue of wisdom; second, the complete virtue of cessation; third, the complete virtue of power; and fourth, the complete virtue of the physical body. The complete virtue of wisdom has four aspects: first, uninstructed wisdom; second, omniscient wisdom; third, ...
一切種智。四無功用智。斷圓德有四種。一一切煩惱斷。二一切定障斷。三畢竟斷。四並習斷。威勢圓德有四種。一于外境化變住持自在威勢。二于壽量若促若延自在威勢。三于空障極遠速行。小大相入自在威勢。四令世間種種本性。法爾轉勝希奇威勢。威勢。圓德復有四種。一難化必能化。二答難必決疑。三立教必出離。四惡黨必能伏。色身圓德有四種。一具眾相。二具隨好。三具大力。四內身骨堅越金剛。外發神光逾百千日。后恩圓德亦有四種。謂令永解脫三惡趣生死。或能安置善趣三乘。總說如來圓德如是。若別分析則有無邊。唯佛世尊能知能說。要留命行經多大劫。阿僧企耶說乃可盡。如是則顯佛世尊身具有無邊。殊勝奇特因果恩德如大寶山。有諸愚夫自乏眾德。雖聞如是佛功德山及所說法。不能信重。諸有智者聞說如斯。生信重心徹于骨髓。彼由一念極信重心。轉滅無邊不定惡業。攝受殊勝人天涅槃。故說如來出現於世。為諸智者無上福田。依之引生不空可愛殊勝速疾究竟果故。如薄伽梵自說。頌曰。
若於佛福田 能殖少分善 初獲勝善趣 后必得涅槃
已說如來不共功德。共功德今當辯。頌曰。
復有餘佛法 共余聖異生 謂無諍愿智 無礙解等德
論曰。世尊復有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一切種智（sarva-jñāna，對一切事物和現象的徹底理解）。四無功用智（catura-anābhogajñāna，無需努力就能自然產生的四種智慧）。斷圓德有四種：一、一切煩惱斷（sarvakleśaprahāṇa，斷除所有煩惱）；二、一切定障斷（sarvasamādhyāvaranaprahāṇa，斷除所有禪定障礙）；三、畢竟斷（atyantaprahāṇa，徹底斷除）；四、並習斷（sānusayam prahāṇa，連同習氣一起斷除）。 威勢圓德有四種：一、于外境化變住持自在威勢（bāhyaviṣayavikaraṇasthitivasavartitva，對外境變化、住持的自在力量）；二、于壽量若促若延自在威勢（āyuḥpratyāharaṇādhānavaśavartitva，對壽命長短的自在力量）；三、于空障極遠速行，小大相入自在威勢（ākāśāvaraṇātītasīghragamanāṇutvamahatvānupraveśavaśavartitva，超越空間障礙，極速飛行，大小互入的自在力量）；四、令世間種種本性，法爾轉勝希奇威勢（lokānām svabhāva-dharmatā-atiśaya-utpādana-āścarya-prabhāva，使世間種種本性自然轉為殊勝的稀有力量）。 威勢圓德復有四種：一、難化必能化（durdamyānām damayitṛtva，能調伏難調伏者）；二、答難必決疑（praśnavyākaranasamśayacchedakatva，回答問題，決斷疑惑）；三、立教必出離（śāsanāsthāpananiḥsaraṇatva，建立教法，使人出離）；四、惡黨必能伏（pāpakānām nigrahakatva，能降伏邪惡勢力）。 色身圓德有四種：一、具眾相（anekalakṣaṇasamanvāgata，具足眾多妙相）；二、具隨好（anuvyañjanasamanvāgata，具足眾多隨形好）；三、具大力（mahābala，具足大力）；四、內身骨堅越金剛，外發神光逾百千日（vajropamakāyasthāman, bāhyaprakāśita-anekasūryasahasraprabha，內身骨骼堅固勝過金剛，外發神光勝過百千個太陽）。 后恩圓德亦有四種，謂令永解脫三惡趣生死（trayāṇām apāyānām atyantanistaranahetutva，使眾生永遠解脫三惡道輪迴）；或能安置善趣三乘（sugati-triyānapratiṣṭhāpanatva，或能安置眾生於善道和三乘之中）。總說如來圓德如是，若別分析則有無邊，唯佛世尊能知能說。要留命行經多大劫，阿僧企耶（asaṃkhyeya，無數）說乃可盡。如是則顯佛世尊身具有無邊殊勝奇特因果恩德如大寶山。有諸愚夫自乏眾德，雖聞如是佛功德山及所說法，不能信重。諸有智者聞說如斯，生信重心徹于骨髓。彼由一念極信重心，轉滅無邊不定惡業，攝受殊勝人天涅槃。故說如來出現於世，為諸智者無上福田，依之引生不空可愛殊勝速疾究竟果故。如薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）自說。頌曰： 『若於佛福田，能殖少分善，初獲勝善趣，后必得涅槃。』 已說如來不共功德，共功德今當辯。頌曰： 『復有餘佛法，共余聖異生，謂無諍愿智，無礙解等德。』 論曰。世尊復有
【English Translation】 English version Sarva-jñāna (all-knowing wisdom). Catura-anābhogajñāna (four kinds of wisdom that arise naturally without effort). There are four kinds of perfect virtues of cessation: 1. Sarvakleśaprahāṇa (cessation of all afflictions); 2. Sarvasamādhyāvaranaprahāṇa (cessation of all obstacles to samādhi); 3. Atyantaprahāṇa (ultimate cessation); 4. Sānusayam prahāṇa (cessation together with latent tendencies). There are four kinds of perfect virtues of power: 1. Bāhyaviṣayavikaraṇasthitivasavartitva (the power to freely transform and maintain external objects); 2. Āyuḥpratyāharaṇādhānavaśavartitva (the power to freely shorten or lengthen lifespan); 3. Ākāśāvaraṇātītasīghragamanāṇutvamahatvānupraveśavaśavartitva (the power to swiftly travel through space without obstruction, and to freely enter into the small and large); 4. Lokānām svabhāva-dharmatā-atiśaya-utpādana-āścarya-prabhāva (the power to miraculously transform the inherent nature of the world into something superior). There are also four kinds of perfect virtues of power: 1. Durdamyānām damayitṛtva (the ability to tame the untamable); 2. Praśnavyākaranasamśayacchedakatva (the ability to answer questions and resolve doubts); 3. Śāsanāsthāpananiḥsaraṇatva (the ability to establish teachings that lead to liberation); 4. Pāpakānām nigrahakatva (the ability to subdue evil forces). There are four kinds of perfect virtues of the physical body: 1. Anekalakṣaṇasamanvāgata (endowed with numerous major marks); 2. Anuvyañjanasamanvāgata (endowed with numerous minor marks); 3. Mahābala (endowed with great strength); 4. Vajropamakāyasthāman, bāhyaprakāśita-anekasūryasahasraprabha (the inner body is as strong as diamond, and the outer body emits light brighter than thousands of suns). There are also four kinds of perfect virtues of subsequent grace, namely, trayāṇām apāyānām atyantanistaranahetutva (causing beings to be permanently liberated from the cycle of the three evil realms); sugati-triyānapratiṣṭhāpanatva (or being able to establish beings in the good realms and the three vehicles). In general, the perfect virtues of the Tathāgata are like this. If analyzed separately, they are infinite, and only the Buddha, the World Honored One, can know and speak of them. It would take many great kalpas, as many as asaṃkhyeya (countless), to describe them all. Thus, it is evident that the body of the Buddha, the World Honored One, possesses infinite, supremely excellent, unique causes, effects, and virtues, like a great treasure mountain. Some foolish people, lacking in virtues themselves, do not believe or respect the mountain of Buddha's virtues and the teachings spoken, even when they hear of them. Those who are wise, upon hearing of this, generate a deep faith that penetrates to their very bones. Through this single moment of profound faith, they transform and extinguish boundless, uncertain evil karma, and attain the supreme states of humans, devas, and nirvāṇa. Therefore, it is said that the Tathāgata appears in the world as an unsurpassed field of merit for the wise, upon which they rely to generate unfailing, beloved, supreme, swift, and ultimate results. As the Bhagavān (Blessed One) himself said in verse: 『If one plants even a small amount of virtue in the field of merit that is the Buddha, one will first obtain a superior, good rebirth, and later, one will surely attain nirvāṇa.』 The uncommon virtues of the Tathāgata have been described. Now, the common virtues will be discussed. In verse: 『There are also other Buddha-dharmas that are shared with other noble beings and ordinary beings, such as the wisdom of non-contention, unobstructed knowledge, and other virtues.』 Treatise: The World Honored One also has
無量功德。與余聖者及異生共。謂無諍愿智無礙解通。靜慮無色等至等持。無量解脫勝處遍處等。隨其所應。謂前三門唯共余聖。通靜慮等亦共異生。雖佛身中一切功德。行相清凈殊勝自在。與聲聞等功德有殊。然依類同說名為共。且共余聖。三功德中。無諍云何。頌曰。
無諍世俗智 后靜慮不動 三洲緣未生 欲界有事惑
論曰。有阿羅漢憶昔多生。受雜類身發自他惑。由斯相續受非愛果。便作是念。有煩惱身緣之起惑。尚招苦果。況離煩惱具勝德身。思已發生如是相智。由此方便令他有情。不緣己身生貪瞋等。此皆但以俗智為性。緣他未來修斷惑故。非無漏智此行相轉。若無諍體是智所攝。如何說習無諍等持。此不相違一相應品。有多功德隨說一故。如一山中有種種物。隨舉一種以標山名。理應無諍。是智所攝護他相續。當來惑生巧便為先事方成故。然一切諍總有三種。蘊言煩惱有差別故。蘊諍謂死。言諍謂鬥。煩惱諍謂百八煩惱。由此俗智力。能止息煩惱諍故得無諍名。此智但依第四靜慮違苦因故。第四靜慮樂通行中最為勝故。不動應果能起非余。余尚不能自防起惑。況能止息他身煩惱。此唯依止三洲人身。非北及余性猛利故。緣欲未起有事惑生。勿令他惑緣我生故。諸無事惑不可遮防。內
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：無量功德（asamānasāmānya-guṇa）。與其餘聖者（ārya）及異生（pṛthagjana）共有。指的是無諍（araṇa）愿智（praṇidhijñāna）、無礙解（pratisaṃvidā）、神通（abhijñā）。靜慮（dhyāna）、無色等至（ārūpya-samāpatti）、等持（samādhi）。無量解脫（apramāṇa-vimokṣa）、勝處（abhibhāyatana）、遍處（kṛtsnāyatana）等。隨其所應。前面三種（無諍、愿智、無礙解）只與其餘聖者共有，神通、靜慮等也與異生共有。雖然佛身中一切功德，行相清凈殊勝自在，與聲聞（śrāvaka）等功德有差別，但依種類相同，說名為共有。且說與其餘聖者共有。三種功德中，無諍是什麼？頌文說：
『無諍世俗智，后靜慮不動，三洲緣未生，欲界有事惑。』
論述：有阿羅漢（arhat）憶起過去多生，受雜類之身，生起自身和他人的煩惱。因此相續不斷地承受不喜歡的果報。於是這樣想：有煩惱的身緣起煩惱，尚且招致苦果，何況是遠離煩惱、具有殊勝功德的身？思考後，生起這樣的智慧。由此方便，使其他有情（sattva）不緣自己的身體生起貪（rāga）、嗔（dveṣa）等煩惱。這些都只是以世俗智（saṃvṛti-satya-jñāna）為體性，因為緣他人的未來，修斷煩惱的緣故。不是無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna）以此行相運轉。如果無諍的體性是智慧所攝，如何說修習無諍等持？這並不矛盾，因為一個相應的品類，有很多功德，只是隨說其中一種罷了。就像一座山中有各種各樣的東西，隨便舉出一種來標示山的名字。理應如此，無諍是智慧所攝，以保護他人相續，防止未來煩惱生起為先，事情才能成功。然而一切諍，總共有三種，蘊（skandha）諍、言（vacana）諍、煩惱（kleśa）諍，因為蘊、言、煩惱有差別。蘊諍指的是死亡，言諍指的是爭鬥，煩惱諍指的是一百零八種煩惱。因此，世俗智的力量，能夠止息煩惱諍，所以得到無諍的名稱。這種智慧只依第四靜慮（caturtha-dhyāna），因為違背苦因的緣故。第四靜慮在樂通行中最為殊勝。只有不動果（āniñjya-phala）才能生起，其餘果位不能。其餘果位尚且不能自己防止生起煩惱，何況能夠止息他人身上的煩惱。這隻能依止三洲（trayo dvīpāḥ）的人身，因為北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）及其他地方的人，性情猛利。緣欲界（kāmadhātu）未生起的有事惑（saṃkleśa），防止其他煩惱緣我而生起。那些無事惑（akliṣṭa）是無法遮防的，因為是內在的。
【English Translation】 English version: Immeasurable merits (asamānasāmānya-guṇa). Shared with other noble ones (ārya) and ordinary beings (pṛthagjana). These refer to non-conflict (araṇa), wisdom of aspiration (praṇidhijñāna), unimpeded understanding (pratisaṃvidā), and superknowledges (abhijñā). Also, meditative absorption (dhyāna), formless attainments (ārūpya-samāpatti), concentration (samādhi). Immeasurable liberations (apramāṇa-vimokṣa), mastery of spheres (abhibhāyatana), and totalities (kṛtsnāyatana), etc. As appropriate. The first three (non-conflict, wisdom of aspiration, unimpeded understanding) are shared only with other noble ones, while superknowledges, meditative absorption, etc., are also shared with ordinary beings. Although all the merits in the Buddha's body are pure in nature, supremely excellent, and self-mastered, they differ from the merits of the Śrāvakas (śrāvaka), yet they are called shared because they are of the same kind. Let's discuss what is shared with other noble ones. Among the three merits, what is non-conflict? The verse says:
'Non-conflict is mundane wisdom, followed by the immovability of the fourth meditative absorption, concerning the unarisen afflictions of the desire realm in the three continents.'
Commentary: There are Arhats (arhat) who recall their past lives, having experienced various kinds of bodies, and generating afflictions for themselves and others. Because of this, they continuously experience undesirable results. They then think: 'Having a body with afflictions causes the arising of afflictions, which leads to suffering. How much more so for a body that is free from afflictions and possesses supreme merits?' After contemplating this, they generate such wisdom. Through this means, they prevent other sentient beings (sattva) from generating greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), etc., towards their own bodies. All of this is based on mundane wisdom (saṃvṛti-satya-jñāna), because it concerns the future of others and the practice of abandoning afflictions. It is not the unconditioned wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna) that operates in this way. If the nature of non-conflict is encompassed by wisdom, how can it be said that one cultivates the concentration of non-conflict? This is not contradictory, because one corresponding category has many merits, and only one is mentioned. Just as a mountain contains various things, and one is chosen to represent the mountain's name. It should be understood that non-conflict is encompassed by wisdom, with the protection of others' continuums and the prevention of future afflictions as the primary concern, so that things can be accomplished. However, all conflicts are generally of three types: aggregates (skandha) conflict, speech (vacana) conflict, and afflictions (kleśa) conflict, because aggregates, speech, and afflictions are different. Aggregates conflict refers to death, speech conflict refers to disputes, and afflictions conflict refers to the one hundred and eight afflictions. Therefore, the power of mundane wisdom can stop afflictions conflict, so it is called non-conflict. This wisdom only relies on the fourth meditative absorption (caturtha-dhyāna), because it opposes the cause of suffering. The fourth meditative absorption is the most excellent among the pleasant practices. Only the fruit of immovability (āniñjya-phala) can arise from it; other fruits cannot. Other fruits cannot even prevent themselves from generating afflictions, let alone stop the afflictions of others. This only relies on the human bodies of the three continents (trayo dvīpāḥ), because the people of Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru) and other places are fierce in nature. It concerns the unarisen afflictions of the desire realm (kāmadhātu), preventing other afflictions from arising in relation to oneself. Those non-afflicted (akliṣṭa) are impossible to prevent, because they are internal.
起隨應總緣境故。已辯無諍。愿智云何。頌曰。
愿智慧遍緣 余如無諍說
論曰。以愿為先引妙智起。如願而了故名愿智。此智自性地種性身與無諍同。但所緣別。以一切法為所緣故。如何愿智慧知未來。審觀過現而比知故。如觀稼穡有盛有微。比知其田有良有薄。若爾何故立愿智名。有學異生亦能知故。不爾所知定不定故。而聞傳說諸大聲聞。記未來事有不定者。非起愿智有此謬知。餘俗智觀所記別故。惑彼所記無不定失。但觀於始不觀終故。如先降雨未至地間。為羅怙羅之所承棄。先所懷孕其實是男。彼於後時轉形成女。王舍城鬼初戰得勝。后為廣嚴諸鬼摧伏。人慾相伐鬼先戰故。或實愿智方見未來。然加行時先起比智。觀過現世準度未來。引愿智生方能真見。即由此故能知無色。謂先觀彼因行等流。有比智生引真愿智。或觀欲色死生時心。比度而知所生從處。引生愿智方能實知。或比智知亦無有失。以證比智所緣必同。若比不知如何能證。是則愿智應不可言。力能遍緣三界三世。不時解脫諸阿羅漢。欲于彼境正了知時。先作要期愿我知彼。后入邊際第四靜慮。以為加行。從此無間。如先願力引正智起。于所期境皆如實知。邊際定言如后當釋。此愿智力能知過去。與宿住智差別云何。愿智通知自相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『起隨應總緣境故。已辯無諍。愿智云何？』意思是說，愿智隨著相應的總相而緣取境界，這已經討論過無諍智了。那麼，愿智又是怎樣的呢？
『頌曰：愿智慧遍緣，余如無諍說。』
『論曰：以愿為先引妙智起。如願而了故名愿智。』意思是說，以發願作為先導，引發殊妙的智慧生起，如所發之愿而明瞭知曉，所以稱為愿智。這種智慧的自性、地、種性、身與無諍智相同，只是所緣不同，因為它以一切法作為所緣。『如何愿智慧知未來？』愿智如何能夠知曉未來呢？『審觀過現而比知故。』因為它審慎地觀察過去和現在，然後進行比較推知。『如觀稼穡有盛有微，比知其田有良有薄。』就像觀察莊稼有茂盛有衰弱，從而比較推知田地有好有壞一樣。『若爾何故立愿智名？有學異生亦能知故。』如果這樣，為什麼還要建立愿智這個名稱呢？因為有學的凡夫也能知曉啊。『不爾所知定不定故。』不是這樣的，因為他們所知的事情有確定和不確定的。『而聞傳說諸大聲聞，記未來事有不定者。』而且聽說諸位大聲聞，記述未來之事也有不確定的。『非起愿智有此謬知。餘俗智觀所記別故。』這不是因為生起愿智而有這種錯誤的認知，而是因為用其他的世俗智慧觀察所記述的事情有所差別。『惑彼所記無不定失，但觀於始不觀終故。』或許他們所記述的事情並沒有不確定的錯誤，只是因為他們只觀察了開始，而沒有觀察到最終的結果。『如先降雨未至地間，為羅怙羅（Rahula）之所承棄。』就像先前降雨還沒有到達地面的時候，就被羅怙羅（Rahula）承接並丟棄了。『先所懷孕其實是男，彼於後時轉形成女。』先前所懷的孕其實是男孩，但她在後來的時間裡轉變形成了女孩。『王舍城鬼初戰得勝，后為廣嚴諸鬼摧伏。』王舍城的鬼最初戰鬥得勝，後來被廣嚴城的眾多鬼摧毀。『人慾相伐鬼先戰故。』因為人要互相攻打，所以鬼先戰鬥。『或實愿智方見未來，然加行時先起比智。』或許確實是愿智才能真正見到未來，然而在加行的時候，先要生起比智。『觀過現世準度未來，引愿智生方能真見。』觀察過去和現在的世事，以此來推度未來，引發愿智生起，才能真正見到。『即由此故能知無色。』正因為如此，才能知曉無色界的事情。『謂先觀彼因行等流，有比智生引真愿智。』就是說，先觀察無色界眾生的因行等流，有比智生起，才能引發真正的愿智。『或觀欲色死生時心，比度而知所生從處。』或者觀察欲界和色界眾生死生時候的心，比較推度而知曉他們所生的地方。『引生愿智方能實知。』引發愿智生起，才能真實地知曉。『或比智知亦無有失，以證比智所緣必同。』或者比智的知曉也沒有錯誤，因為已經證明比智所緣取的境界必定相同。『若比不知如何能證？』如果比智不能知曉，又如何能夠證明呢？『是則愿智應不可言。』這樣說來，愿智就應該是不可言說的了。
『力能遍緣三界三世，不時解脫諸阿羅漢。』愿智的力量能夠普遍緣取三界和三世，那些不時解脫的阿羅漢。『欲于彼境正了知時，先作要期愿我知彼。』想要對那些境界正確地了知的時候，先要約定，希望我能知曉那些境界。『后入邊際第四靜慮，以為加行。』然後進入邊際的第四禪定，作為加行。『從此無間，如先願力引正智起，于所期境皆如實知。』從此沒有間隔，就像先前的願力引導正確的智慧生起，對於所期望的境界都能如實地知曉。『邊際定言如后當釋。』關於邊際定的說法，將在後面解釋。
『此愿智力能知過去，與宿住智差別云何？』這種愿智的力量能夠知曉過去，與宿住智（Purvanivasanusmrti-jnana）有什麼差別呢？『愿智通知自相。』愿智慧夠普遍地知曉自相。
【English Translation】 English version 『Because it arises following the general characteristics of the object. We have already discussed non-contention. What about the Wisdom of Aspiration (Pranidhi-jnana)?』 This means that the Wisdom of Aspiration arises following the corresponding general characteristics and apprehends the object. This has already been discussed in the context of the Wisdom of Non-Contention.
『Verse: The Wisdom of Aspiration can universally apprehend; the rest is as described for Non-Contention.』
『Treatise: It initiates the arising of wondrous wisdom with aspiration as the precursor. Because it understands according to the aspiration, it is called the Wisdom of Aspiration.』 This means that it initiates the arising of wondrous wisdom with aspiration as the precursor. Because it understands according to the aspiration, it is called the Wisdom of Aspiration. The nature, ground, lineage, and body of this wisdom are the same as those of the Wisdom of Non-Contention, but the object apprehended is different, because it apprehends all dharmas. 『How can the Wisdom of Aspiration know the future?』 How can the Wisdom of Aspiration know the future? 『Because it carefully observes the past and present and compares and knows.』 Because it carefully observes the past and present and then compares and infers. 『Like observing crops that are flourishing or weak, comparing and knowing that the fields are good or poor.』 Just as observing crops that are flourishing or weak allows one to compare and know that the fields are good or poor. 『If so, why establish the name Wisdom of Aspiration? Because learners and ordinary beings can also know.』 If so, why establish the name Wisdom of Aspiration? Because learners and ordinary beings can also know. 『It is not so, because what they know is definite or indefinite.』 It is not so, because what they know is either definite or indefinite. 『And it is heard in legends that great Sravakas (hearers), when recording future events, have uncertainties.』 Moreover, it is heard in legends that great Sravakas (hearers), when recording future events, have uncertainties. 『It is not that arising from the Wisdom of Aspiration has this erroneous knowledge; it is because other mundane wisdom observes and records differently.』 It is not that arising from the Wisdom of Aspiration has this erroneous knowledge; it is because other mundane wisdom observes and records differently. 『Perhaps their records have no indefinite errors, but they only observe the beginning and not the end.』 Perhaps their records have no indefinite errors, but they only observe the beginning and not the end. 『Like when rain first falls but has not yet reached the ground, it is intercepted and discarded by Rahula (Rahula).』 Like when rain first falls but has not yet reached the ground, it is intercepted and discarded by Rahula (Rahula). 『The pregnancy was initially a boy, but later transformed into a girl.』 The pregnancy was initially a boy, but later transformed into a girl. 『The ghosts of Rajagrha (Rajagrha) initially won the battle, but were later defeated by the ghosts of Vaisali (Vaisali).』 The ghosts of Rajagrha (Rajagrha) initially won the battle, but were later defeated by the ghosts of Vaisali (Vaisali). 『Because humans want to attack each other, the ghosts fight first.』 Because humans want to attack each other, the ghosts fight first. 『Or truly, the Wisdom of Aspiration sees the future, but during the preparatory practice, comparative wisdom arises first.』 Or truly, the Wisdom of Aspiration sees the future, but during the preparatory practice, comparative wisdom arises first. 『Observing the past and present, inferring the future, leading to the arising of the Wisdom of Aspiration, then one can truly see.』 Observing the past and present, inferring the future, leading to the arising of the Wisdom of Aspiration, then one can truly see. 『Precisely because of this, one can know the formless realm.』 Precisely because of this, one can know the formless realm. 『That is, first observing the causal actions and outflows of those beings, comparative wisdom arises, leading to true Wisdom of Aspiration.』 That is, first observing the causal actions and outflows of those beings, comparative wisdom arises, leading to true Wisdom of Aspiration. 『Or observing the minds at the time of death and birth in the desire and form realms, comparing and knowing where they will be born from.』 Or observing the minds at the time of death and birth in the desire and form realms, comparing and knowing where they will be born from. 『Leading to the arising of the Wisdom of Aspiration, then one can truly know.』 Leading to the arising of the Wisdom of Aspiration, then one can truly know. 『Or the knowledge of comparative wisdom is also without error, because it is proven that the objects apprehended by comparative wisdom are necessarily the same.』 Or the knowledge of comparative wisdom is also without error, because it is proven that the objects apprehended by comparative wisdom are necessarily the same. 『If comparative wisdom cannot know, how can it prove?』 If comparative wisdom cannot know, how can it prove? 『Then the Wisdom of Aspiration should be inexpressible.』 Then the Wisdom of Aspiration should be inexpressible.
『The power is able to universally apprehend the three realms and three times, the Arhats (Arhats) who are liberated not in time.』 The power of the Wisdom of Aspiration is able to universally apprehend the three realms and three times, the Arhats (Arhats) who are liberated not in time. 『When wanting to correctly understand those realms, first make a vow, wishing to know them.』 When wanting to correctly understand those realms, first make a vow, wishing to know them. 『Then enter the fourth dhyana (dhyana) at the boundary, as a preparatory practice.』 Then enter the fourth dhyana (dhyana) at the boundary, as a preparatory practice. 『From this without interval, like the previous power of aspiration leading to the arising of correct wisdom, one knows all the desired realms as they truly are.』 From this without interval, like the previous power of aspiration leading to the arising of correct wisdom, one knows all the desired realms as they truly are. 『The statement about the boundary samadhi (samadhi) will be explained later.』 The statement about the boundary samadhi (samadhi) will be explained later.
『This power of the Wisdom of Aspiration can know the past; what is the difference from the Wisdom of Knowing Past Lives (Purvanivasanusmrti-jnana)?』 This power of the Wisdom of Aspiration can know the past; what is the difference from the Wisdom of Knowing Past Lives (Purvanivasanusmrti-jnana)? 『The Wisdom of Aspiration universally knows the self-characteristics.』 The Wisdom of Aspiration universally knows the self-characteristics.
共相。諸宿住智知共非余。知共相中亦有差別。愿智明瞭宿住不然。于現所緣對他心智。辯差別相如理應思。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之四
已辯愿智。無礙解云何。頌曰。
無癡解有四 謂法義詞辯 名義言說道 無退智為性 法詞唯俗智 五二地為依 義十六辯九 皆依一切地 但得必具四 余如無諍說
論曰。諸無礙解總說有四。一法無礙解。二義無礙解。三詞無礙解。四辯無礙解。此四總說如其次第。以緣名義言及說道。不可退轉智為自性。謂無退智緣能詮法。名句文身立為第一。趣所詮義說之為名。即是表召法自性義。辯所詮義說之為句。即是辯了法差別義。不待義聲獨能為覺。生所依託說之為文。即是迦遮吒多波等。理應有覺不待義聲。此覺不應無所緣境。此所緣境說之為文。文謂不能親目于義。但與名句為詮義依。此三能持諸所詮義。及軌生解。故名為法。即三自性說之為身。自性體身名差別故。三與聲義極相鄰雜。為境生覺別相難知。故說身言顯有別體。若無退智緣一切法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 共相（共同的特徵）。諸宿住智（知曉過去世的智慧）知共非余（瞭解共同的特徵，而不是其他的）。知共相中亦有差別（即使在瞭解共同特徵中，也存在差異）。愿智（希望的智慧）明瞭宿住不然（對於過去世的清晰瞭解並非如此）。于現所緣（對於現在所緣之境）對他心智（瞭解他人內心的智慧）。辯差別相如理應思（應該如理如實地思考辨別這些不同的特徵）。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十五 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十六
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯智品第七之四
已辯愿智（已經討論了希望的智慧）。無礙解（無礙的理解）云何（是什麼）？頌曰（偈頌說）：
無癡解有四 謂法義詞辯 名義言說道 無退智為性 法詞唯俗智 五二地為依 義十六辯九 皆依一切地 但得必具四 余如無諍說
論曰（論述說）。諸無礙解（所有的無礙解）總說有四（總的來說有四種）。一法無礙解（對法的無礙理解）。二義無礙解（對意義的無礙理解）。三詞無礙解（對詞語的無礙理解）。四辯無礙解（對辯才的無礙理解）。此四總說如其次第（這四種總的來說按照順序）。以緣名義言及說道（以所緣為名、義、言語和說道）。不可退轉智為自性（以不可退轉的智慧為自性）。謂無退智緣能詮法（即不可退轉的智慧緣于能表達的法）。名句文身立為第一（名、句、文的身作為第一）。趣所詮義說之為名（指向所表達的意義，稱之為名）。即是表召法自性義（即是表達和指稱法自身性質的意義）。辯所詮義說之為句（辨別所表達的意義，稱之為句）。即是辯了法差別義（即是辨別和了解法的差別意義）。不待義聲獨能為覺（不依賴意義的聲音，獨自能夠產生覺悟）。生所依託說之為文（產生所依賴的，稱之為文）。即是迦遮吒多波等（即是迦、遮、吒、多、波等）。理應有覺不待義聲（理應有覺悟不依賴意義的聲音）。此覺不應無所緣境（此覺悟不應該沒有所緣之境）。此所緣境說之為文（此所緣之境稱之為文）。文謂不能親目于義（文是指不能直接指向意義）。但與名句為詮義依（但是與名和句一起作為表達意義的依據）。此三能持諸所詮義（這三者能夠保持所有表達的意義）。及軌生解（以及引導產生理解）。故名為法（所以稱之為法）。即三自性說之為身（即這三種自性稱之為身）。自性體身名差別故（因為自性、體和身，名稱不同）。三與聲義極相鄰雜（這三者與聲音和意義極其相鄰和混雜）。為境生覺別相難知（作為所緣之境產生覺悟，其區別的相難以知曉）。故說身言顯有別體（所以說身，是爲了顯示有不同的體性）。若無退智緣一切法（如果不可退轉的智慧緣於一切法）。
【English Translation】 English version The common characteristic. The wisdom of knowing past lives (wisdom that knows past lives) knows the common, not the other (understands the common characteristics, not others). Even in knowing the common characteristics, there are differences. The wish-fulfilling wisdom (wisdom of wishes) clearly understands that past lives are not like that (the clear understanding of past lives is not like that). For the present object of perception (regarding the present object of perception), the wisdom of knowing others' minds (wisdom that understands the minds of others). One should think and discern the different characteristics as they truly are.
Treatise on the Correct Doctrine of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 75 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 76
Composed by Venerable Samghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 7 on Discernment: Section 4
Having discussed the wisdom of wishes (having discussed the wisdom of wishes). What is unobstructed understanding (what is unobstructed understanding)? The verse says:
Unobstructed understanding has four, namely, the law, meaning, words, and eloquence. Names, meanings, speech, and explanation, with non-retrogressive wisdom as their nature. The law and words are only worldly wisdom, relying on the fifth and second grounds. Meaning is sixteen, eloquence is nine, all relying on all grounds. But obtaining it necessarily possesses four, the rest is as explained in non-contention.
The treatise says (the treatise states). All unobstructed understandings (all unobstructed understandings) are generally said to be four (generally speaking, there are four types). First, unobstructed understanding of the law (unobstructed understanding of the law). Second, unobstructed understanding of meaning (unobstructed understanding of meaning). Third, unobstructed understanding of words (unobstructed understanding of words). Fourth, unobstructed understanding of eloquence (unobstructed understanding of eloquence). These four are generally said to be in order (these four, generally speaking, are in order). Taking names, meanings, speech, and explanation as objects of perception (taking names, meanings, speech, and explanation as objects of perception). Irreversible wisdom is their nature (irreversible wisdom is their nature). That is, irreversible wisdom is related to the law that can be expressed (that is, irreversible wisdom is related to the law that can be expressed). The body of name, sentence, and phrase is established as the first (the body of name, sentence, and phrase is established as the first). Directing to the meaning to be expressed is called 'name' (directing to the meaning to be expressed is called 'name'). That is, expressing and summoning the meaning of the self-nature of the law (that is, expressing and summoning the meaning of the self-nature of the law). Discriminating the meaning to be expressed is called 'sentence' (discriminating the meaning to be expressed is called 'sentence'). That is, discriminating and understanding the different meanings of the law (that is, discriminating and understanding the different meanings of the law). Not relying on the sound of meaning, it can independently produce awareness (not relying on the sound of meaning, it can independently produce awareness). That which is relied upon for arising is called 'phrase' (that which is relied upon for arising is called 'phrase'). That is, 'ka', 'cha', 'ta', 'da', 'pa', etc. (that is, 'ka', 'cha', 'ta', 'da', 'pa', etc.). It is reasonable to have awareness without relying on the sound of meaning (it is reasonable to have awareness without relying on the sound of meaning). This awareness should not be without an object of perception (this awareness should not be without an object of perception). This object of perception is called 'phrase' (this object of perception is called 'phrase'). 'Phrase' means it cannot directly point to the meaning (phrase means it cannot directly point to the meaning). But together with name and sentence, it serves as the basis for expressing meaning (but together with name and sentence, it serves as the basis for expressing meaning). These three can maintain all the meanings to be expressed (these three can maintain all the meanings to be expressed). And guide the arising of understanding (and guide the arising of understanding). Therefore, it is called 'law' (therefore, it is called 'law'). That is, the self-nature of these three is called 'body' (that is, the self-nature of these three is called 'body'). Because the names of self-nature, substance, and body are different (because the names of self-nature, substance, and body are different). These three are extremely adjacent and mixed with sound and meaning (these three are extremely adjacent and mixed with sound and meaning). As an object of perception, the arising of awareness and the distinction of characteristics are difficult to know (as an object of perception, the arising of awareness and the distinction of characteristics are difficult to know). Therefore, saying 'body' is to show that there is a different nature (therefore, saying 'body' is to show that there is a different nature). If irreversible wisdom is related to all laws (if irreversible wisdom is related to all laws).
。所有勝義立為第二。義即諸法自相共相。雖名身等亦是義攝。而非勝義。有多想故。謂有如義有不如義。有有義有無義。有依假轉。有依實轉。了此無間。或於后時諸所度量名為勝義。為欲顯示義無礙解。所緣之境非語及名。故此所緣說為勝義。謂此但取依語起名。名所顯義非取泛爾。心之所行說名為義。若無退智緣諸方域。俗聖言詞立為第三。即能了知世語典語。于諸方域種種差別。若無退智緣應正理無滯礙說。及緣自在定慧二道。立為第四。即于文義能正宣揚。無滯言詞說名為辯。及諸所有已得功德。不由加行任運現前自在功能。亦名為辯。此能起辯立以辯名。了辯及因智名辯無礙解。即前所說能正宣揚。善應物機不違勝義。所有言說名應正理。即前所說無滯言詞。不待處時及有情等。辯析自在。名無滯礙。即上所言已得功德。不由加行任運現前。名為自在定慧二道。又能所詮相符會智。名初二無礙解。謂達此名屬如是義。及達此義有如是名。名能所詮相符會智。達時作等加行言詞。名第三無礙解。達所樂言說及自在道因。名第四無礙解。又色等六所知謂義。即此善等有為無為。色非色等差別謂法。即詮此二言說謂詞。三智即前三無礙解。即緣三種無掛礙智。名第四無礙解。又達世俗勝義二諦。名初二無礙解。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所有勝義（paramārtha，究竟真實）被立為第二種無礙解。勝義指的是諸法的自相（svalakṣaṇa，自身獨有的特性）和共相（sāmānyalakṣaṇa，與其他事物共有的特性）。雖然名身等也屬於勝義所包含的範圍，但並非真正的勝義，因為其中包含多種概念性的想法。這些想法包括『如義』（符合實際的意義）、『不如義』（不符合實際的意義）、『有義』（有意義）、『無義』（無意義）、『依假轉』（依賴於虛假概念而轉變）和『依實轉』（依賴於真實存在而轉變）。瞭解這些概念之後，或者在之後所進行的度量和衡量，被稱為勝義。爲了顯示義無礙解所緣的境界並非語言和名稱，因此將此所緣稱為勝義。也就是說，它僅僅取依附於語言而產生的名稱，以及名稱所顯示的意義，而不是泛泛地取心識所行之處，這被稱為義。如果具備無退智（apratihatajñāna，無礙之智），能夠緣于各個方域的俗語和聖語，這被立為第三種無礙解。也就是說，能夠了解世俗語言和經典語言，以及各個方域的種種差別。如果具備無退智，能夠緣于應理之說而無滯礙地說，以及緣于自在的定和慧兩種道路，這被立為第四種無礙解。也就是說，能夠正確地宣揚文句和意義，無滯礙地表達言詞，這被稱為辯。以及所有已經獲得的功德，不需要通過額外的努力，自然而然地顯現出來的自在功能，也被稱為辯。這種能夠引發辯才的能力，被立為辯。瞭解辯才及其原因的智慧，被稱為辯無礙解。也就是前面所說的能夠正確宣揚，善於應合衆生的根機，不違背勝義的言說，被稱為應理之說。也就是前面所說的無滯礙的言詞，不依賴於處所、時間以及有情等等，辯析自在，被稱為無滯礙。也就是上面所說的已經獲得的功德，不需要通過額外的努力，自然而然地顯現出來，被稱為自在的定和慧兩種道路。另外，能詮（abhidheya，能表達者）和所詮（abhidhāna，被表達者）相互符合的智慧，被稱為初二種無礙解。也就是說，通達這個名稱屬於這樣的意義，以及通達這個意義有這樣的名稱，名稱和能詮相互符合的智慧。通達時間、作者等加行言詞，被稱為第三種無礙解。通達所喜愛的言說以及自在道的因，被稱為第四種無礙解。另外，色等六種所知被稱為義。也就是善等有為法和無為法，色法和非色法等的差別被稱為法。也就是詮釋這兩者的言說被稱為詞。這三種智慧就是前三種無礙解。緣于這三種沒有掛礙的智慧，被稱為第四種無礙解。另外，通達世俗諦（saṃvṛtisatya，世俗諦）和勝義諦（paramārthasatya，勝義諦）這二諦，被稱為初二種無礙解。
【English Translation】 English version: All ultimate meanings (paramārtha) are established as the second unimpeded eloquence. Meaning refers to the self-characteristics (svalakṣaṇa) and common characteristics (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) of all dharmas. Although name, body, and so on are also included in meaning, they are not ultimate meanings because they involve multiple conceptual thoughts. These thoughts include 'meaningful as it is' (yathārtha), 'not meaningful as it is' (ayathārtha), 'having meaning' (sārtha), 'without meaning' (nirartha), 'transforming based on the false' (mithyāpravṛtti), and 'transforming based on the real' (tathyapravṛtti). Understanding these without interruption, or the measurements and assessments made later, are called ultimate meanings. To show that the object of the unimpeded eloquence of meaning is not language and name, this object is called ultimate meaning. That is, it only takes the name arising from language and the meaning revealed by the name, not generally what the mind engages in, which is called meaning. If one possesses unobstructed wisdom (apratihatajñāna) to perceive the common and sacred languages of various regions, this is established as the third unimpeded eloquence. That is, being able to understand worldly language and scriptural language, and the various differences in various regions. If one possesses unobstructed wisdom, being able to speak without hindrance based on reasoned speech, and being able to perceive the two paths of self-mastery, concentration and wisdom, this is established as the fourth unimpeded eloquence. That is, being able to correctly proclaim sentences and meanings, expressing words without hindrance, is called eloquence. And all the merits already attained, the self-mastery functions that naturally manifest without additional effort, are also called eloquence. This ability to initiate eloquence is established as eloquence. The wisdom that understands eloquence and its causes is called the unimpeded eloquence of eloquence. That is, the aforementioned ability to correctly proclaim, skillfully adapting to beings' capacities, and speech that does not contradict ultimate meaning, is called reasoned speech. That is, the aforementioned unobstructed words, not dependent on place, time, and sentient beings, the freedom to analyze, is called unobstructed. That is, the merits already attained mentioned above, naturally manifesting without additional effort, are called the two paths of self-mastery, concentration and wisdom. Furthermore, the wisdom that matches the expresser (abhidheya) and the expressed (abhidhāna) is called the first two unimpeded eloquences. That is, understanding that this name belongs to such a meaning, and understanding that this meaning has such a name, the wisdom that matches the name and the expresser. Understanding the verbal expressions of time, author, and other actions is called the third unimpeded eloquence. Understanding the cause of the desired speech and the path of self-mastery is called the fourth unimpeded eloquence. Furthermore, the six knowables such as form are called meaning. That is, the differences between conditioned and unconditioned dharmas such as good, form and non-form, are called dharma. That is, the speech that explains these two is called word. These three wisdoms are the first three unimpeded eloquences. The wisdom that perceives these three unobstructed wisdoms is called the fourth unimpeded eloquence. Furthermore, understanding the two truths, conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya) and ultimate truth (paramārthasatya), is called the first two unimpeded eloquences.
此即行者自利圓德。能善宣說如是二諦。名第三無礙解。於此善巧問答難通。名第四無礙解。此即行者利他圓德。有說愚癡猶預散亂。是于宣辯有滯礙因。由解脫此三得現法樂住。及由此故利他行成。此智名為辯無礙解。若得如是定能宣說。符會正理無滯言詞。及得現前自在功德。又于名等勝義言詞。無滯說中各得善巧。如次建立四無礙解。前三善巧說名為因。由境不同故有差別。第四名果能說無滯。又由四分別他事成。謂巧于文了達于義。妙閑聲韻定慧自在。故無礙解建立有四。此即總說無礙解體。兼顯四種所緣差別。契經略舉此數及名。諸對法中廣顯其相。又經列此先義后法。諸對法中先法后義。此為顯示二智生時。或義因名。或名因義。故經與論作差別說。謂聽法者先分別名。既正知名次尋其義。正知義已欲為他說。次必應求無滯說智。依此次第故名在先。然此四中義智最勝。余是助伴故義在先。謂于義中若正了達。次應方便尋究其名。既已知名欲為他說。次應于說求巧便智。是故此四次第如是。辯無礙解若緣說時。何異第三詞無礙解。第三了達訓釋言詞。如有變礙故名色等。此達應理無滯礙說。有說詞詮諸法自性。辯能顯示諸法差別。有說於法直說名詞。展轉無滯分析名辯。緣此二種三四有別。四中法詞俗智
為性。非無漏智緣名身等。及世言詞事境界故。法無礙解通依五地。謂依欲界四本靜慮。上地中無名身等故。彼不別緣下名等故。詞無礙解唯依二地。謂依欲界初本靜慮。上諸地中無尋伺故。彼地必無自語言故。此因非理。所以者何。非發語智名無礙解。勿無礙解定中無故。由此不應作如是說。無尋伺故上地中無。無斯過失。因義異故。何謂因義。謂此意言尋伺二法能發語故。相不寂靜自性粗動。上無此故寂靜微細。詞無礙解緣外言詞。亦不寂靜粗動類攝。是故此解上地中無。初靜慮中亦有尋伺。故於定內亦有此解。由此極成但依二地。義無礙解十六智性。謂若諸法皆名為義。則十智性。若唯涅槃名為義者則六智性。謂俗法類滅盡無生。辯無礙解九智為性。謂唯除滅緣說道故。此二通依一切地起。謂依欲界乃至有頂。辯無礙解于說道中。許隨緣一皆得起故。通依諸地。亦無有失。然于其中但緣說者。唯依二地與第三同。有說盡無生非無礙解攝。以無礙解是見性故。彼說第二或四或八。第四唯七。準上應知。此四應知如四聖種。隨得一種必具得四。非不具四可名為得。隨欲現起或具不具。有餘師言。有不具得無理得一必令得四。有說此四無礙解生。如次串習算計佛語。聲明因明為前加行。若於四處未得善巧。必不能生無
礙解故。理實一切無礙解生。唯學佛語能為加行。要待前生久習名等。四種善巧今乃能修。無礙解名釋有多義。謂于彼彼境領悟無礙名無礙解。或於彼彼境決斷無礙名無礙解。或於彼彼境正說無礙名無礙解。有餘師說。缽剌底是助聲目現前義。如缽剌底日火蝩來。是日火蝩現前來義。三目無倒毗陀目智。此言意顯于境現前。無顛倒智名無礙解。四無礙解三乘俱得。何故經說唯我世尊。獨名成就四無礙解。無相違失。經自釋故。謂彼經言唯佛無謬。成就無上故作是說。聲聞獨覺自分境中。智無退故名無礙解。諸佛世尊於一切法。圓滿知故名無礙解。有餘師說。無別第四即依前三總集建立。此說非理。緣法義詞與緣說道智相別故。此四依地自性所緣。與無諍別。前來已辯種性依身如無諍說。謂不動種性依三洲人身。如是所說無諍智等。頌曰。
六依邊際得 邊際六后定 遍順至究竟 佛余加行得
論曰。無諍愿智四無礙解。六種皆依邊際定得。邊際定力所引發故。邊際靜慮體有六種。前六除詞餘五少分。及除此外復更有餘。加行所得上品靜慮。名邊際定。故成六種。詞無礙解雖依彼得。而體非彼靜慮所攝。邊際名但依第四靜慮故。此一切地遍所隨順故。增至究竟故得邊際名。由此不應亦通餘地。云何此名
遍所隨順。謂正修學此靜慮時。從初靜慮次第順入乃至有頂。復從有頂次第逆入至初靜慮。從初靜慮次第順入。展轉乃至第四靜慮。名一切地遍所隨順。云何此名增至究竟。謂專修習第四靜慮。從下至中從中至上。如是三品復各分三。上上品生名至究竟。如是靜慮得邊際名。此中三乘非無差別。而各于自得究竟名。此中邊名顯無越義。勝無越此故名為邊際言。為顯類義極義。如說四際及實際言。如是二言顯此靜慮。是最勝類定中最極。殊勝功德多此引生。樂通行中此最勝故。有言無諍體即是悲。哀愍有情修無諍故。趣入無諍以悲為門。如何異悲別有自體。此說非理。不決定故。謂修無諍非定由悲。于諸有情拔苦行相。但為令彼煩惱不生。寂靜思惟為門而入。設許決定以悲為門。亦不可言以悲為體。勿慧由定發體即是定故。若住無諍能息他惑。則應世尊不住無諍氣噓。指鬘等緣佛生惑故。實非無諍恒現在前。以佛世尊具無量德。隨時所欲起一現前。寧一切時偏住無諍。佛于聖住多住于空。先由此門入離生故。能引舍故。極微妙故。最難修故。是不共故。佛于梵住多住于悲。最能濟拔有情苦故。無諍不然。故多不起。世尊對彼具壽善現。饒益他志雖勝無邊。而不恒時住無諍者。為欲永拔彼煩惱故。初縱令起後方調伏。如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 遍所隨順（指在所有禪定境界中都能隨意出入）。指的是在正確修習這種靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）時，能從初禪開始，依次進入二禪、三禪、四禪，乃至進入有頂天（Akanistha，色界頂層）。又能從有頂天開始，依次逆向進入四禪、三禪、二禪，直至初禪。再從初禪開始，依次順向進入二禪、三禪，最終到達第四禪。這被稱為在一切地（所有禪定境界）都能隨意出入。 這種靜慮如何達到增至究竟的程度？指的是專心修習第四禪，從下品修到中品，再從中品修到上品。這樣，下、中、上三品又各自細分為下下品、下中品、下上品，中下品、中中品、中上品，上下品、上中品、上上品。達到上上品時，就稱為達到究竟。這樣的靜慮就獲得了邊際（最高境界）的名稱。這裡，聲聞乘（Sravakayana，小乘）、緣覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayana，中乘）和菩薩乘（Bodhisattvayana，大乘）並非沒有差別，而是各自在自己的道路上獲得究竟的名稱。這裡的『邊』字，顯示了沒有超越的含義。因為沒有勝過它的，所以稱為邊際。說『四際』（過去際、現在際、未來際、實際）和『實際』，是爲了顯示種類和極端的含義。這兩個詞顯示這種靜慮是最殊勝的，是禪定中最極端的。許多殊勝的功德都是由此引發的。在樂通行（容易進入的禪定）中，這種靜慮是最殊勝的。 有人說，無諍（Arana，無諍三昧）的本體就是悲（Karuna，慈悲）。因為哀憐有情眾生而修習無諍。趣入無諍是以悲為門徑。如果這樣，無諍與悲有什麼不同，為何要說無諍有其獨立的本體？這種說法是不合理的，因為不確定。修習無諍並非一定要通過悲。對於有情眾生拔除痛苦的行為，僅僅是爲了讓他們不生起煩惱，通過寂靜的思惟作為門徑而進入無諍。即使承認一定要以悲為門徑，也不能說無諍的本體就是悲。否則，智慧由禪定而生，難道智慧的本體就是禪定嗎？如果安住于無諍就能平息他人的迷惑，那麼世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）就不應該在不住于無諍的時候，因為氣噓而被指鬘（Angulimala，殺人狂魔）等人迷惑。實際上，無諍並非恒常在佛陀面前顯現。因為佛世尊具足無量的功德，隨時可以隨自己的意願顯現其中一種。又何必一切時候都偏安於無諍呢？佛陀在聖住（聖者的住所）中，更多地安住于空（Sunyata，空性）。因為首先通過這個門徑進入遠離生死的境界。因為空能引導捨棄，極其微妙，最難修習，是不共的（不與凡夫共有）。佛陀在梵住（清凈的住所）中，更多地安住于悲。因為悲最能救濟有情眾生的痛苦，而無諍並非如此，所以佛陀不常顯現無諍。世尊對於具壽善現（Subhuti，須菩提），雖然饒益他人的意願勝過無邊，但也不會恒常安住于無諍，這是爲了永遠拔除他們的煩惱。起初縱容他們生起煩惱，之後再調伏他們。就像這樣。
【English Translation】 English version 『Universally compliant』 refers to being able to freely enter and exit all meditative states. It means that when correctly practicing this Dhyana (meditative absorption), one can start from the first Dhyana, sequentially enter the second, third, and fourth Dhyanas, and even reach the Akanistha heaven (the highest realm of the Form Realm). Conversely, one can start from the Akanistha heaven and sequentially regress through the fourth, third, and second Dhyanas, back to the first Dhyana. Then, starting from the first Dhyana again, one can sequentially progress through the second and third Dhyanas, finally reaching the fourth Dhyana. This is called being 『universally compliant』 in all realms (all meditative states). How does this Dhyana reach the state of 『increasing to the ultimate』? It refers to focusing on practicing the fourth Dhyana, progressing from the inferior level to the intermediate level, and from the intermediate level to the superior level. In this way, each of the three levels (inferior, intermediate, and superior) is further divided into three sub-levels: inferior-inferior, inferior-intermediate, inferior-superior, intermediate-inferior, intermediate-intermediate, intermediate-superior, superior-inferior, superior-intermediate, and superior-superior. When one reaches the superior-superior level, it is called reaching the ultimate. Such a Dhyana then obtains the name 『boundary』 (the highest state). Here, the Sravakayana (Hearer Vehicle), Pratyekabuddhayana (Solitary Realizer Vehicle), and Bodhisattvayana (Bodhisattva Vehicle) are not without differences, but each attains the name of 『ultimate』 on their own path. The word 『boundary』 here signifies the meaning of 『no surpassing』. Because there is nothing superior to it, it is called 『boundary』. Saying 『four boundaries』 (past boundary, present boundary, future boundary, and actual boundary) and 『actual boundary』 is to show the meaning of category and extreme. These two terms show that this Dhyana is the most supreme and the most extreme among all meditations. Many supreme merits are generated from this. Among the 『easy to enter』 meditations, this Dhyana is the most supreme. Some say that the essence of Arana (Non-Contention Samadhi) is Karuna (compassion). Because one cultivates non-contention out of compassion for sentient beings. Entering non-contention is through the gateway of compassion. If so, how is non-contention different from compassion, and why say that non-contention has its own independent essence? This statement is unreasonable because it is not definitive. Cultivating non-contention does not necessarily have to be through compassion. The act of relieving the suffering of sentient beings is merely to prevent them from generating afflictions, entering non-contention through the gateway of peaceful contemplation. Even if one admits that it must be through the gateway of compassion, one cannot say that the essence of non-contention is compassion. Otherwise, if wisdom arises from meditation, does that mean the essence of wisdom is meditation? If abiding in non-contention can pacify the delusions of others, then the World-Honored One (Sakyamuni Buddha) should not have been deluded by Angulimala (a mass murderer) and others when not abiding in non-contention due to the exhalation of breath. In reality, non-contention is not constantly present before the Buddha. Because the Buddha possesses immeasurable merits, he can manifest any one of them at will. Why then should he always abide in non-contention? The Buddha dwells more in Sunyata (emptiness) among the abodes of the noble ones. Because he first entered the state of detachment from birth and death through this gateway. Because emptiness can lead to abandonment, is extremely subtle, is the most difficult to cultivate, and is uncommon (not shared with ordinary beings). The Buddha dwells more in compassion among the Brahma-viharas (pure abodes). Because compassion is the most capable of saving sentient beings from suffering, while non-contention is not, so the Buddha does not often manifest non-contention. The World-Honored One, for the venerable Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha), although the intention to benefit others is infinitely superior, does not constantly abide in non-contention, this is in order to permanently eradicate their afflictions. Initially, he allows them to generate afflictions, and then he subdues them. Like this.
可謂真實哀愍。愿智為先方起無諍。非起愿智無諍為先。謂要先知諸有情類。由我安住如是威儀。煩惱便生。余則不爾。然後方起無諍現前。愿智無緣由無諍起。雖俱邊際靜慮為先。加行有殊得有差別。有說此二展轉相攝。理不應然。行相別故。謂別行相為息他惑。起別行相爲了所知。若加行中為息他惑。后從定起他惑不生。如是即名無諍事辦。若加行位為知所了。後起定時了所知境。如是名曰愿智事成。行相既殊如何相攝。如是所說無諍智等。除佛余聖唯加行得。非離染得。非皆得故唯佛於此。亦離染得。諸佛功德初盡智時。由離染故一切頓得。后時隨欲能引現前不由加行。以佛世尊於一切法自在轉故。已辯前三唯共余聖德。于亦共凡德且應辯通。頌曰。
通六謂神境 天眼耳他心 宿住漏盡通 解脫道慧攝 四俗他心五 漏盡通如力 五依四靜慮 自下地為境 聲聞麟喻佛 二三千無數 未曾由加行 曾修離染得 念住初三身 他心三餘四 天眼耳無記 餘四通唯善
論曰。通有六種。一神境智證通。二天眼智證通。三天耳智證通。四他心智證通。五宿住隨念智證通。六漏盡智證通。雖六通中第六唯聖。然其前五異生亦得。依總相說亦共異生。如是六通解脫道攝。慧為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這可稱為真實的哀愍。希望以愿智為先，才能發起無諍（aranā，不爭論）。不是發起愿智，無諍就成為先決條件。而是要先知道各種有情眾生，因為我安住于這樣的威儀，煩惱就會產生，否則就不會。然後才能發起無諍現前。愿智沒有因緣，無諍無法生起。雖然都以邊際靜慮為先，但加行（prayoga，修行）不同，所得的成就也有差別。有人說這二者互相包含，理應不是這樣。因為行相不同。一種是為息滅他人的迷惑而起的行相，另一種是爲了瞭解所知而起的行相。如果在加行中是爲了息滅他人的迷惑，之後從禪定中起來，他人的迷惑就不會產生。這樣就叫做無諍事辦。如果在加行位是爲了瞭解所了知的境界，之後從禪定中起來時，就能瞭解所知的境界。這就叫做愿智事成。行相既然不同，如何互相包含？像這樣所說的無諍智等，除了佛陀以外，其餘的聖者只能通過加行獲得，不能通過離染獲得。不是所有聖者都能獲得，只有佛陀才能通過離染獲得。諸佛的功德在初盡智時，因為離染的緣故，一切功德都能頓然獲得。之後隨心所欲地能引發顯現，不需要通過加行。因為佛陀世尊對於一切法都能自在運轉。前面已經辨析了前三種是與其餘聖者共有的功德，對於也與凡夫共有的功德，接下來應當辨析神通。頌文說： 『通有六種，即神境（ṛddhi，神通）智證通、天眼（divyacakṣus，天眼）智證通、天耳（divyaśrotra，天耳）智證通、他心（paracitta，他心）智證通、宿住（pūrvanivāsānusmṛti，宿住）隨念智證通、漏盡（āsravakṣaya，漏盡）智證通。解脫道慧所攝。四種是世俗的，他心通是五種，漏盡通如力（bala，力量）一樣。五種依靠四靜慮（dhyāna，禪定），以下面的地為境界。聲聞（śrāvaka，聲聞）、麟喻（pratyekabuddha，獨覺佛）、佛陀，分別是二千、三千、無數。未曾通過加行，曾經通過修習離染獲得。念住（smṛtyupasthāna，念住）是最初的三種身，他心通是三種，其餘的是四種。天眼、天耳是無記（avyākṛta，不確定），其餘四通唯有善。』 論述說：神通有六種。第一是神境智證通，第二是天眼智證通，第三是天耳智證通，第四是他心智證通，第五是宿住隨念智證通，第六是漏盡智證通。雖然六種神通中第六種只有聖者才能獲得，但是前面的五種異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）也能獲得。依據總相來說，也是與異生共有的。像這樣六種神通為解脫道所攝，是智慧。
【English Translation】 English version: This can be called true compassion. It is hoped that 'wish-wisdom' (praṇidhijñāna) should come first, then 'non-contention' (aranā, non-dispute) can arise. It is not that initiating 'wish-wisdom' makes 'non-contention' a prerequisite. Rather, one must first know that sentient beings of various kinds will generate afflictions if I remain in such a posture, but not otherwise. Only then can 'non-contention' arise. Without the cause of 'wish-wisdom', 'non-contention' cannot arise. Although both are preceded by 'ultimate meditative stabilization' (bhava-agra-dhyāna), differences in 'application' (prayoga, practice) lead to differences in attainment. Some say that these two mutually encompass each other, but this should not be the case, because their aspects are different. One aspect is to quell the delusions of others, while the other is to understand what is to be known. If, in the 'application', one aims to quell the delusions of others, then after arising from meditation, the delusions of others will not arise. This is called the accomplishment of 'non-contention'. If, in the 'application' stage, one aims to understand the knowable realm, then upon arising from meditation, one can understand the knowable realm. This is called the accomplishment of 'wish-wisdom'. Since the aspects are different, how can they encompass each other? The 'non-contention wisdom' and so on, as described, can only be attained by saints other than the Buddha through 'application', not through 'separation from defilements'. Not all saints can attain them; only the Buddha can attain them through 'separation from defilements'. The merits of the Buddhas, at the time of the initial 'wisdom of exhaustion' (kṣayajñāna), are all attained instantly due to 'separation from defilements'. Later, they can be manifested at will without 'application', because the World-Honored Buddha has mastery over all dharmas. The preceding three, which are shared with other saints, have already been discussed. Regarding the merits that are also shared with ordinary beings, the 'supernormal powers' (abhijñā) should now be discussed. The verse says: 『The six supernormal powers are: 'supernormal power of magical display' (ṛddhi, magical power), 'wisdom of the divine eye' (divyacakṣus, divine eye), 'wisdom of the divine ear' (divyaśrotra, divine ear), 'wisdom of knowing others' minds' (paracitta, other minds), 'wisdom of recollecting past lives' (pūrvanivāsānusmṛti, past lives), and 'wisdom of the exhaustion of outflows' (āsravakṣaya, exhaustion of outflows), encompassed by the wisdom of the path of liberation. Four are mundane, 'knowledge of others' minds' is five, and 'knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows' is like 'power' (bala, strength). Five rely on the four 'meditative stabilizations' (dhyāna, meditation), with the lower realm as their object. 'Hearers' (śrāvaka, disciple), 'Solitary Buddhas' (pratyekabuddha, solitary realizer), and Buddhas have two thousand, three thousand, and countless respectively. Never through 'application', but once attained through cultivation and 'separation from defilements'. 'Mindfulness' (smṛtyupasthāna, mindfulness) is the first three bodies, 'knowledge of others' minds' is three, and the rest are four. 'Divine eye' and 'divine ear' are 'unspecified' (avyākṛta, indeterminate), while the other four supernormal powers are only virtuous.』 The treatise says: There are six kinds of supernormal powers. The first is the 'supernormal power of magical display', the second is the 'divine eye', the third is the 'divine ear', the fourth is the 'knowledge of others' minds', the fifth is the 'recollection of past lives', and the sixth is the 'exhaustion of outflows'. Although the sixth supernormal power is only attained by saints, the preceding five can also be attained by ordinary beings (pṛthagjana, common people). Generally speaking, they are also shared with ordinary beings. These six supernormal powers are encompassed by the path of liberation and are wisdom.
自性如沙門果。解脫道言顯出障義。勝進道中亦容有故。如是通慧無間道無。此位定遮他心智故。勿阿羅漢舍無間道。即名亦舍漏盡通故。品類足說。善慧是通二應非通。無記性故。義各別故。此彼無違。彼說所知及所通法。舉諸智慧為能知通。以顯所知及所通法。雖諸智慧皆能知通。而且說善勝遍緣故。所知所通雖無廣陜。而能知外有別能通。故說所知已復說所通法。此所辯通唯勝定果。通無記慧。與彼何違。又彼但言通謂善慧。不言唯善。故亦無違。如說能知謂諸善智。豈惡無記皆非智攝。彼此通別應作四句。有彼非此。謂除四通所餘善慧。有此非彼。謂解脫道二無記慧。有彼亦此。謂即四通。有非彼此。謂除前說。除他心漏盡。餘四俗智攝。西方諸師說。宿住通六智。謂俗法類及苦集道。俗智慧了過去俗事。余隨所應各緣自境。然觀經意唯俗智攝。如說隨憶無量宿住。謂或一生乃至廣說。非無漏智此行相轉。他心通五智攝。謂法類道世俗他心。漏盡通如力說。謂或六或十智。由此已顯漏盡智通。依一切地緣一切境。前之五通依四靜慮不依無色。近分中間彼無五通所依定故。要攝支定是五通依。非漏盡通亦不依彼。諸地皆能緣漏盡故。不待觀色為加行故。前三通境無色不能緣。由此三通但別緣色。故修他心通色為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自性（svabhāva）就像沙門果（śrāmaṇaphala，證得沙門果位的修行者）。解脫道（vimokṣamārga）的言論是爲了彰顯去除障礙的意義。在勝進道（viśeṣa-mārga）中也可能存在（障礙）。像這樣，在無間道（anantarya-mārga）中則沒有（障礙），因為這個階段能夠確定地遮蔽他心智（para-citta-jñāna）。不要認為阿羅漢（arhat）會捨棄無間道，因為這相當於捨棄了漏盡通（āsravakṣaya-jñāna）。 《品類足論》（Dharmaskandha）中說，善慧（kuśala-mati）是通（abhijñā），那麼二種無記慧（avyākṛta-mati）就不應是通，因為它們是無記性的。意義各自不同。這與彼論沒有衝突，彼論說的是所知（jñeya）和所通法（abhijñeya-dharma），舉出各種智慧作為能知通（jñātṛ-abhijñā），是爲了彰顯所知和所通法。雖然各種智慧都能知通，但還是說了善（kuśala）、勝（praṇīta）、遍緣（sarvatra-gāmin），因為它們更殊勝。所知和所通法雖然沒有廣狹之分，但能知外境的智慧有不同的能通作用，所以說了所知之後又說所通法。這裡所辨析的通，僅僅是殊勝禪定的果報。通如果是無記慧，與彼論有什麼衝突呢？而且彼論只是說通是指善慧，並沒有說唯有善慧才是通，所以也沒有衝突。就像說能知是指各種善智，難道惡（akuśala）和無記（avyākṛta）就都不屬於智的範疇了嗎？ 彼此通別應該作四句區分：有彼非此，指的是除了四通（catasro 'bhijñāḥ）之外的其餘善慧。有此非彼，指的是解脫道的兩種無記慧。有彼亦此，指的是這四通本身。有非彼此，指的是除了前面所說的，除了他心通和漏盡通之外，其餘四種世俗智（laukika-jñāna）所攝的智慧。 西方諸師說，宿住通（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-abhijñā）包含六智，即世俗智（saṃvṛti-jñāna）、法智（dharma-jñāna）、類智（anvaya-jñāna）以及苦智（duḥkha-jñāna）、集智（samudaya-jñāna）、道智（mārga-jñāna）。世俗智慧夠了解過去的世俗之事，其餘的智慧各自緣自己的境界。然而，觀察經文的意思，宿住通僅僅是世俗智所攝。如經文所說，隨憶無量宿住，指的是或者一生，乃至更廣。無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna）不會以這種行相運轉。 他心通（para-citta-jñāna-abhijñā）包含五智，即法智、類智、道智、世俗智和他心智。漏盡通（āsravakṣaya-jñāna-abhijñā）如《發智論》（Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra）所說，或者包含六智，或者包含十智。由此已經顯明，漏盡智通（āsravakṣaya-jñāna-abhijñā）依於一切地（sarva-bhūmi），緣於一切境（sarva-ālambana）。前面的五通（pañca-abhijñā）依於四靜慮（catasro dhyānaḥ），不依于無色界（ārūpya-dhātu），因為近分定（upa-cāra-samādhi）和中間定（dhyānāntara-samādhi）中沒有五通所依的禪定。必須是攝支定（saṃgraha-aṅga-samādhi）才是五通所依，漏盡通也不依於它們，因為一切地都能緣漏盡。不需要以觀色（rūpa）作為加行（prayoga），前三通（tṛīṇi abhijñā）的境界無色界不能緣，因此這三種通只能個別地緣色（rūpa），所以修習他心通要以色為...
【English Translation】 English version Self-nature (svabhāva) is like the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa (śrāmaṇaphala, a practitioner who has attained the fruit of Śrāmaṇa). The discourse on the path of liberation (vimokṣamārga) is to highlight the meaning of removing obstacles. In the path of superior progress (viśeṣa-mārga), there may also be (obstacles). As such, in the path of immediate consequence (anantarya-mārga), there are no (obstacles), because this stage can definitely obscure the knowledge of others' minds (para-citta-jñāna). Do not think that an Arhat (arhat) would abandon the path of immediate consequence, because this is equivalent to abandoning the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows (āsravakṣaya-jñāna). The Dharmaskandha states that wholesome wisdom (kuśala-mati) is a super-knowledge (abhijñā), then the two kinds of indeterminate wisdom (avyākṛta-mati) should not be super-knowledge, because they are indeterminate in nature. The meanings are different from each other. This does not conflict with that treatise, which speaks of the knowable (jñeya) and the knowable-dharma (abhijñeya-dharma), citing various wisdoms as the knower-super-knowledge (jñātṛ-abhijñā), in order to highlight the knowable and the knowable-dharma. Although various wisdoms can know super-knowledge, it still speaks of wholesome (kuśala), excellent (praṇīta), and all-pervading (sarvatra-gāmin), because they are more superior. Although the knowable and the knowable-dharma do not have broad or narrow distinctions, the wisdom that can know external realms has different functions of super-knowledge, so after speaking of the knowable, it also speaks of the knowable-dharma. The super-knowledge analyzed here is merely the result of superior samādhi. If super-knowledge is indeterminate wisdom, what conflict is there with that treatise? Moreover, that treatise only says that super-knowledge refers to wholesome wisdom, and does not say that only wholesome wisdom is super-knowledge, so there is no conflict either. Just as it is said that the knower refers to various wholesome wisdoms, does that mean that unwholesome (akuśala) and indeterminate (avyākṛta) are not included in the category of wisdom? The distinctions between them should be made with four categories: There is that which is not this, referring to the remaining wholesome wisdoms other than the four super-knowledges (catasro 'bhijñāḥ). There is this which is not that, referring to the two indeterminate wisdoms of the path of liberation. There is that which is also this, referring to the four super-knowledges themselves. There is neither this nor that, referring to what was said earlier, excluding the knowledge of others' minds and the exhaustion of outflows, the wisdoms included in the remaining four mundane knowledges (laukika-jñāna). Western teachers say that the super-knowledge of remembering past lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-abhijñā) includes six wisdoms, namely conventional wisdom (saṃvṛti-jñāna), dharma-wisdom (dharma-jñāna), inferential wisdom (anvaya-jñāna), and the wisdoms of suffering (duḥkha-jñāna), origin (samudaya-jñāna), and path (mārga-jñāna). Conventional wisdom can understand past mundane events, and the remaining wisdoms each cognize their own realms. However, observing the meaning of the scriptures, the super-knowledge of remembering past lives is only included in conventional wisdom. As the scriptures say, remembering countless past lives, referring to one life or even more broadly. Non-outflow wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna) does not operate in this way. The super-knowledge of knowing others' minds (para-citta-jñāna-abhijñā) includes five wisdoms, namely dharma-wisdom, inferential wisdom, path-wisdom, conventional wisdom, and the wisdom of others' minds. The super-knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows (āsravakṣaya-jñāna-abhijñā), as stated in the Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra, either includes six wisdoms or ten wisdoms. From this, it has already been shown that the super-knowledge of the wisdom of the exhaustion of outflows (āsravakṣaya-jñāna-abhijñā) relies on all planes (sarva-bhūmi) and cognizes all objects (sarva-ālambana). The preceding five super-knowledges (pañca-abhijñā) rely on the four dhyānas (catasro dhyānaḥ), and do not rely on the formless realm (ārūpya-dhātu), because there is no samādhi on which the five super-knowledges rely in the access concentration (upa-cāra-samādhi) and intermediate concentration (dhyānāntara-samādhi). It must be a samādhi that includes the limbs (saṃgraha-aṅga-samādhi) for the five super-knowledges to rely on, and the super-knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows does not rely on them either, because all planes can cognize the exhaustion of outflows. It does not need to observe form (rūpa) as a preliminary practice (prayoga), the realm of the preceding three super-knowledges (tṛīṇi abhijñā) cannot be cognized by the formless realm, therefore these three super-knowledges can only individually cognize form (rūpa), so cultivating the super-knowledge of knowing others' minds requires form as...
門。故修宿住通漸次憶念。分位差別方得成滿。于加行中必觀色故。依無色地無如是能。若爾中間及五近分。亦容緣色應有五通。不爾由前所說因故。謂攝支定是五通依。若不攝支等持劣故。又彼止觀隨一減故。若爾何緣有漏盡通。樂苦遲速地皆能盡漏。故五是別修殊勝功德。要殊勝地方能發起。若宿住通不依無色。應不能憶無色界事。契經何故說佛世尊無上法中。言佛能憶過去有色無色等事。此是決定比智所知。非宿住通。故無有失。謂諸外道。若見有情慾色命終不知生處。執有情類死已斷滅。見生欲色不知所從。便執有情本無而有。聲聞獨覺見彼命終。二萬劫中不見所在。便謂彼歿生於空處。而彼或生上不盡壽命終。如是乃至八萬劫中不見所在。便謂彼歿生於非想非非想處。而或生下地經二三生等。見生欲色時謂所從亦爾。世尊觀彼死時生時。如實比知所生從處。有盡壽量。有中夭者。雖亦比知非不決定。故與余聖比知有別。修神境等前三通時。思輕光聲以為加行。成已自在隨所欲為。諸有欲修他心通者。先審觀己身心二相。前後變異展轉相隨。后複審觀他身心相。由此加行漸次得成。成已不觀自心諸色。於他心等能如實知。諸有欲修宿住通者。先自審察次前滅心。漸覆逆觀此生分位。前前差別至結生心。乃至能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，修習宿住隨念神通需要循序漸進，通過對不同階段的細緻憶念，才能圓滿成就。在加行階段，必須觀想色法，因為依于無色界無法做到這一點。如果這樣，那麼中間禪和五近分定也容許緣於色法，應該也有五神通才對。並非如此，這是因為前面所說的原因。也就是說，攝持禪支的禪定才是五神通所依賴的基礎。如果不攝持禪支，等持的力量就弱。而且，止觀兩者中缺少任何一個都不行。如果這樣，為什麼有漏盡通呢？無論在樂受、苦受、遲緩或快速的境界中，都能斷盡煩惱。所以，五神通是特別修習的殊勝功德，必須在殊勝的地方才能發起。如果宿住隨念神通不依賴於色法，那麼應該不能憶念無色界的事情。為什麼契經中說佛世尊在無上法中，說佛能夠憶念過去的有色界和無色界的事情呢？這是通過決定的比量智慧所知，不是宿住隨念神通，所以沒有過失。也就是說，那些外道，如果看到有情在欲界或色界死亡，卻不知道他們會生到哪裡，就認為有情死後就斷滅了。看到有情生在欲界或色界，卻不知道他們從哪裡來，就認為有情本來沒有而突然有了。聲聞和獨覺看到有情死亡，在兩萬劫中都找不到他們的去處，就認為他們死後生到了空無之處。而他們或許生到了上面的境界，但壽命未盡就死了。像這樣，甚至在八萬劫中都找不到他們的去處，就認為他們死後生到了非想非非想處。而他們或許生到了下面的境界，經過兩三生等等。看到有情生在欲界或色界時，也認為他們是從那裡來的。世尊觀察他們死亡時和出生時的情況，如實地比量得知他們所生的地方和所從來的地方，以及壽命的長短。有的是盡壽而終，有的是中途夭折。雖然也是比量得知，但並非不確定，所以與其他的聖者相比，佛的比量智慧有所不同。修習神境通等前三種神通時，以思惟輕、光、聲作為加行。成就之後，就能自在地隨心所欲。那些想要修習他心通的人，先要仔細觀察自己身心的兩種現象，前後變化，互相隨順。然後，再仔細觀察他人的身心現象。通過這樣的加行，就能逐漸成就他心通。成就之後，即使不觀察自己的心和色法，也能如實地知道他人的心念等等。那些想要修習宿住隨念神通的人，先要自己審察上次前一刻滅去的心，逐漸逆向觀察此生的各個階段，前一個階段與前一個階段的差別，直到結生心，乃至能夠...
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the cultivation of the faculty of knowing past lives (宿住通, Sùzhù tōng) requires a gradual and sequential process of recollection, with careful attention to the distinctions between different stages, in order to achieve complete fulfillment. In the preliminary practices (加行, jiāxíng), it is necessary to contemplate form (色, sè), as this is not possible when relying on the formless realms (無色界, Wúsè jiè). If this were not the case, then the intermediate dhyana (中間, zhōngjiān) and the five proximate concentrations (五近分, wǔ jìnfēn) would also allow for the contemplation of form, and one should also possess the five supernormal faculties (五通, wǔ tōng). However, this is not the case, due to the reasons mentioned earlier. That is to say, the concentration that holds the limbs of dhyana (攝支定, shè zhī dìng) is the basis upon which the five supernormal faculties rely. If the limbs of dhyana are not held, the power of concentration (等持, děngchí) is weak. Moreover, either cessation (止, zhǐ) or contemplation (觀, guān) would be diminished. If this is so, then why is there the faculty of the exhaustion of outflows (有漏盡通, yǒu lòujìn tōng)? In states of pleasure, pain, slowness, or quickness, one can exhaust the outflows. Therefore, the five supernormal faculties are special and superior merits that are cultivated, and they can only be aroused in superior places. If the faculty of knowing past lives did not rely on form, then one should not be able to recall formless matters. Why does the sutra (契經, qìjīng) say that the World-Honored One (佛世尊, Fó Shìzūn) in the unsurpassed Dharma (無上法, wúshàng fǎ) said that the Buddha (佛, Fó) is able to recall past matters of form and formlessness? This is known through decisive inferential wisdom (比智, bǐzhì), not through the faculty of knowing past lives, so there is no fault. That is to say, those non-Buddhists (外道, wàidào), if they see sentient beings (有情, yǒuqíng) die in the desire realm (欲界, yùjiè) or form realm (色界, sèjiè) but do not know where they will be reborn, then they believe that sentient beings are annihilated after death. Seeing sentient beings born in the desire realm or form realm but not knowing where they came from, they believe that sentient beings originally did not exist but suddenly came into being. Hearers (聲聞, shēngwén) and solitary realizers (獨覺, dújué) see sentient beings die and cannot find their whereabouts for twenty thousand kalpas (劫, jié), so they believe that they are born in empty places after death. And they may be born in higher realms, but die before their lifespan is exhausted. Like this, even for eighty thousand kalpas they cannot find their whereabouts, so they believe that they are born in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (非想非非想處, fēixiǎngfēifēixiǎng chù). And they may be born in lower realms, passing through two or three lives, etc. When they see sentient beings born in the desire realm or form realm, they also believe that they came from there. The World-Honored One observes the circumstances of their death and birth, and truthfully infers the place where they are born and the place from which they came, as well as the length of their lifespan. Some live out their full lifespan, while others die prematurely. Although it is also known through inference, it is not uncertain, so compared to other sages, the Buddha's inferential wisdom is different. When cultivating the faculty of magical powers (神境通, shénjìng tōng) and the first three supernormal faculties, one uses the contemplation of lightness, light, and sound as preliminary practices. After achieving it, one can freely do as one wishes. Those who wish to cultivate the faculty of knowing the minds of others (他心通, tāxīn tōng) should first carefully observe the two aspects of their own body and mind, their changes before and after, and how they follow each other. Then, carefully observe the body and mind of others. Through such preliminary practices, one can gradually achieve the faculty of knowing the minds of others. After achieving it, even without observing one's own mind and form, one can truthfully know the thoughts of others, etc. Those who wish to cultivate the faculty of knowing past lives should first examine their own previous moment of mind that has ceased, and gradually observe in reverse the various stages of this life, the differences between each previous stage, until the moment of conception (結生心, jiéshēng xīn), and even be able to...
憶知中有前一念。名自宿住加行已成。為憶念他加行亦爾。此通初起唯次第知。串習成時亦能超憶諸所憶事。要曾領受憶凈居者。昔曾聞故從無色歿來生此者。依他相續初起此通。所餘亦依自相續起。如是五通境唯自下。且如神境隨依何地。于自下地行化自在。于上不然。勢力劣故。餘四亦爾。隨其所應。是故無能取無色界他心宿住為二通境。即此五通於世界境。作用廣陜諸聖不同。謂大聲聞麟喻大覺不極作意。如次能於一二三千諸世界境。起行化等自在作用。若極作意如次能於二千三千無數世界。如是五通若有殊勝勢用猛利。從無始來曾未得者由加行得。若曾串習無勝勢用。及彼種類由離染得。若起現前皆由加行。佛於一切皆離染得。隨欲現前不由加行。三乘聖者後有異生。通得曾得未曾得者。所餘異生唯得曾得。約四念住辯六通者。約境約體二義有殊。有說二通即天眼耳。所餘四種以慧為性。彼說眼耳通是身念住境。餘四皆是法念住境。然實六種皆慧為性。經說皆能了達境故。由此皆是法念住境。若約體辯則六通中。前三唯身。但緣色故。謂神境通緣外四處。天眼緣色。天耳緣聲。若爾何緣說死生智知有情類。由現身中成身語意諸惡行等。非天眼通能知此事。有別勝智是通眷屬。依聖身起能如是知。是天眼通力所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 憶知過去生中的前一念，名為『自宿住加行已成』（通過自身努力已經成就宿住通）。爲了憶念其他（眾生）的過去生，也需要類似的加行。這種神通最初生起時，只能按順序知道過去的事情。如果經過反覆練習，就能超越順序，回憶起所有想回憶的事情。但必須曾經領受過憶念，並且是凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa）的眾生。或者過去曾經聽聞過佛法，從無色界（Arūpaloka）死後投生到這個世界的人，才能依靠他人的相續（心識流）最初生起這種神通。其餘的人則依靠自己的相續生起。 像這樣，五神通的境界都只能在自己之下。比如神境通（Abhijñā），無論依靠哪個禪定之地，都能在低於自己的地方隨意變化。但在高於自己的地方就不能，因為力量不足。其餘四種神通也是如此，根據各自的情況而定。因此，沒有人能夠把無想（Asañjñā）和他心通（Paracitta-jñāna）、宿住通（Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna）作為二通的境界。 這五神通在世界境界中的作用範圍，諸位聖者各不相同。比如大聲聞（Śrāvaka）、麟喻（Pratyekabuddha）、大覺（Buddha），不特別用心作意，就能依次在一千、兩千、三千個世界境界中，發起變化等自在作用。如果特別用心作意，就能依次在兩千、三千、無數個世界中起作用。像這樣，五神通如果具有殊勝、猛利的作用，是從無始以來從未獲得過的，那麼就需要通過加行才能獲得。如果曾經串習過，但沒有殊勝的作用，或者屬於同類的神通，那麼就可以通過遠離煩惱而獲得。如果想要讓神通顯現，都需要通過加行。佛陀對一切神通都是通過遠離煩惱而獲得的，可以隨心所欲地顯現，不需要加行。三乘（Triyāna）的聖者，以及後來獲得神通的凡夫，可以獲得曾經獲得過的神通，也可以獲得從未獲得過的神通。其餘的凡夫只能獲得曾經獲得過的神通。 關於四念住（catuḥ-smṛtyupasthāna）與六神通的關係，從境界和體性兩個方面來看，存在差異。有人說，天眼通（divyacakṣus）和天耳通（divya-śrotra）就是兩種念住，其餘四種神通以智慧為體性。他們認為，眼耳通是身念住（kāya-smṛtyupasthāna）的境界，其餘四種是法念住（dharma-smṛtyupasthāna）的境界。然而，實際上六種神通都以智慧為體性，因為經典中說它們都能了達境界。因此，它們都是法念住的境界。如果從體性上辨析，六神通中，前三種唯屬於身，因為它們只緣於色法。神境通緣于外面的四處（地、水、火、風），天眼通緣於色，天耳通緣于聲。如果這樣，為什麼說死生智（cyutyupapāda-jñāna）能夠知道有情眾生的死亡和投生呢？因為它能知道有情在現世中所造的身語意惡行等。這不是天眼通能夠知道的。這是因為有另一種殊勝的智慧，是神通的眷屬，依靠聖者的身體而生起，才能這樣知道。這是天眼通的力量所致。
【English Translation】 English version Recollecting the immediately preceding thought in a past life is called 'self-acquired accomplishment of the practice of dwelling in the past' (Svasukhavihāra-abhyāsa-siddhi). Similarly, to recollect the past lives of others, a similar practice is required. When this supernormal power (Abhijñā) first arises, one can only know past events sequentially. If one practices repeatedly, one can transcend the sequence and recall all the things one wants to recall. However, one must have previously experienced recollection and be a being of the Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa). Or, those who have heard the Dharma in the past and are reborn into this world after dying in the Formless Realm (Arūpaloka) can initially generate this supernormal power by relying on the continuum (mindstream) of others. The rest arise relying on their own continuum. Thus, the scope of the five supernormal powers is only below oneself. For example, with the supernormal power of magical display (Abhijñā), no matter which meditative state one relies on, one can freely transform in places below oneself. But one cannot do so in places above oneself because one's power is insufficient. The other four supernormal powers are also like this, depending on their respective circumstances. Therefore, no one can take the realm of non-perception (Asañjñā) as the object of both telepathy (Paracitta-jñāna) and the knowledge of past lives (Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna). The scope of these five supernormal powers in the realm of the world varies among the noble ones. For example, great Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka), Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha), and Buddhas (Buddha), without special effort, can, in sequence, initiate transformations and other free actions in one thousand, two thousand, and three thousand world realms. If they make a special effort, they can act in two thousand, three thousand, and countless worlds in sequence. Thus, if the five supernormal powers have superior and powerful effects, and have never been obtained since beginningless time, then they must be obtained through practice. If one has practiced them before, but they do not have superior effects, or if they belong to the same category of supernormal powers, then they can be obtained by abandoning defilements. If one wants to manifest supernormal powers, one needs to practice. The Buddha (Buddha) obtains all supernormal powers by abandoning defilements and can manifest them at will without practice. The noble ones of the Three Vehicles (Triyāna), as well as ordinary beings who later obtain supernormal powers, can obtain supernormal powers that they have obtained before, and they can also obtain supernormal powers that they have never obtained before. Other ordinary beings can only obtain supernormal powers that they have obtained before. Regarding the relationship between the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (catuḥ-smṛtyupasthāna) and the Six Supernormal Powers, there are differences from the perspectives of both object and nature. Some say that the divine eye (divyacakṣus) and the divine ear (divya-śrotra) are two of the mindfulnesses, and the other four supernormal powers are of the nature of wisdom. They believe that the divine eye and ear are the objects of mindfulness of the body (kāya-smṛtyupasthāna), and the other four are the objects of mindfulness of the Dharma (dharma-smṛtyupasthāna). However, in reality, all six supernormal powers are of the nature of wisdom because the scriptures say that they can all understand objects. Therefore, they are all objects of mindfulness of the Dharma. If we analyze from the perspective of nature, among the six supernormal powers, the first three belong only to the body because they only perceive form. The supernormal power of magical display perceives the four external elements (earth, water, fire, wind), the divine eye perceives form, and the divine ear perceives sound. If so, why is it said that the knowledge of death and rebirth (cyutyupapāda-jñāna) can know the death and rebirth of sentient beings? It is because it can know the evil deeds of body, speech, and mind that sentient beings have committed in this life. This is not something that the divine eye can know. This is because there is another superior wisdom, which is an attribute of the supernormal power, that arises relying on the body of the noble one, and can know in this way. This is due to the power of the divine eye.
引故。與通合立死生智名。他心智通三念住攝。謂受心法緣心等故。宿住漏盡經主欲令一一皆通四念住攝。通緣五蘊一切境故。而實宿住法念住攝。雖契經說念曾領受苦樂等事。是憶前生苦樂等受所領眾具。即是雜緣法念住攝。漏盡如力或法或四。不應定言四念住攝。若約善等分別六通。有餘師言。六皆是善而實眼耳唯無記性。余之四通一向是善。經主於此作是釋言。天眼耳通無記性攝。是眼耳識相應慧故。若爾寧說依四靜慮。隨根說故。亦無有失。謂所依止眼耳二根。由四靜慮力所引起即彼地攝。故依四地通依根故說依四言。或此依通無間道說。通無間道依四地故。此釋不然。六通皆是解脫道攝。眼耳二識是解脫道。理不成故。應作是說。四靜慮中有定相應。勝無記慧。能引自地勝大種果。此慧現前便引自地天眼天耳。令現在前為所依根發眼耳識。故眼耳二識相應慧非通。但可說言是通所引。如契經說無學三明。彼於六通以何為性。頌曰。
第五二六明 治三際愚故 后真二假說 學有闇非明
論曰。言三明者。一宿住智證明。二死生智證明。三漏盡智證明。如其次第。以無學位。攝第五二六通為其自性。六中三種獨名明者。如次對治三際愚故。謂宿住智通治前際愚。死生智通治后際愚。漏盡智通
治中際愚。是故此三獨標明號。又宿住通憶念前際自他苦事。死生智通觀察后際他身苦事。由此厭背生死眾苦。起漏盡通觀涅槃樂。故唯三種偏立為明。又此三通如次能捨常斷有見故立為明。又此能除有有情法三種愚故。偏立為明。有餘師言。宿住能見過去諸蘊。展轉相因次第傳來都無作者。由此能引空解脫門。死生能觀有情生死。下上旋轉猶如灌輪。故不希求三有果報。由此能引無愿解脫門。厭離為門歸無相法。故起漏盡無相解脫門。是故三通獨標明號。此三皆名無學明者。俱在無學身中起故。于中最後容有是真通無漏故。餘二假說體唯非學非無學故。由此最後得無學名。自性相續皆無學故。前之二種得無學名。但由相續不由自性。如施設論作如是言。有等持相應無覆無記慧。不由善故及無漏故得立聖名。由聖身中此可得故。說名為聖。此亦應爾。故名無學。有學身中有愚闇故。雖有前二不立為明。雖有暫時伏滅愚闇。后還被蔽。不可立明。要暗永無。方名明故。契經中說示導有三。彼於六通以何為性。頌曰。
第一四六導 教誡導為尊 定由通所成 引利樂果故
論曰。三示導者。一神變示導。二記心示導。三教誡示導。如其次第。以六通中第一四六。為其自性。唯此三種引所化生。令初發心最
為勝故。能示能導立示導名。三示導中教誡最勝。定由通所成故。定引利樂果故。謂前二導咒等亦能。不但由通故非決定。如有咒術名健馱梨。持此便能騰空自在。或有藥草具勝功能。若服若持飛行自在。復有咒術名伊剎尼。持此便能知他心念。或由觀相聽彼言音。亦能了知他心所念。教誡示導。除漏盡通。余不能為。故是決定。或前二導外道亦能。第三不然。故名決定。又前二導有但令他暫時迴心。不能引得畢竟利益及安樂果。教誡示導亦定令他引當利益及安樂果。以能如實方便說故。由此教誡最勝非余。神境二言為目何義。頌曰。
神體謂等持 境二謂行化 行三意勢佛 運身勝解通 化二謂欲色 四二外處性 此各有二種 謂似自他身
論曰。神名所目唯勝等持。由此能為神變事故。而契經說。神果名神。意為舉粗以顯細故。又顯勝等持是彼近因故。然神變事體實非神。此廣如前覺分中辨。諸神變事說名為境。此有二種。謂行及化。行復三種。一者運身。謂乘空行猶如飛鳥。二者勝解。謂極遠方作近思惟便能速至。若於極遠色究竟天。作近思惟即便能至。本無來去。何謂速行。此實亦行但由近解。行極速故得勝解名。或世尊言。靜慮境界不思議故。唯佛能了。三者意勢。謂極遠方舉心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爲了殊勝的緣故，能夠展示和引導，因此稱為『示導』。三種示導中，教誡最為殊勝，因為它由神通所成就，並且能帶來利益和快樂的果報。前兩種引導，如咒語等，也能做到，但並非完全依靠神通，因此不是決定性的。例如，有一種咒術名為健馱梨（Gandhari，咒語名），持誦此咒便能騰空自在。或者有些藥草具有殊勝的功能，服用或攜帶便能飛行自在。還有一種咒術名為伊剎尼（Ikshani，咒語名），持誦此咒便能知曉他人的心念。或者通過觀察面相、聽取言語，也能瞭解他人的想法。而教誡示導，除了漏盡神通（神通的一種，指斷絕一切煩惱的神通）之外，其他都無法做到，因此是決定性的。或者說，前兩種引導外道也能做到，但第三種（教誡示導）則不然，因此稱為決定性的。此外，前兩種引導有時只能使他人暫時回心轉意，不能引導獲得究竟的利益和安樂果報。而教誡示導一定能引導他人獲得未來的利益和安樂果報，因為它能如實地以方便法進行宣說。因此，教誡最為殊勝，其他則不然。 『神境』二字指的是什麼含義？頌文說： 『神體指的是等持（Samadhi，禪定），境二指的是行和化。行有三種，意勢、佛的運身、勝解通。化有兩種，指的是欲界和色界。四和二指的是外處之性。這些各有兩種，指的是相似的自身和他身。』 論述說：『神』所指的是殊勝的等持，因為憑藉它可以進行神變之事。而契經上說，『神』的果報稱為『神』，意在舉粗顯細，也顯示殊勝的等持是它的近因。然而，神變之事體實際上並非『神』，這在前面的覺分中已經辨析過了。各種神變之事被稱為『境』，這有兩種，即『行』和『化』。『行』又有三種：一是運身，指在空中行走，猶如飛鳥；二是勝解，指將極遠的地方當作近處來思惟，便能迅速到達。如果對極遠的他化自在天（色究竟天）作近處思惟，便能到達。本來沒有來去，為何說是快速行走呢？這實際上也是行走，但由於近解，行走極快，因此得名勝解。或者世尊說，靜慮的境界不可思議，只有佛才能了知。三是意勢，指在極遠的地方舉心動念。
【English Translation】 English version For the sake of superiority, being able to show and guide is called 'demonstration and guidance'. Among the three demonstrations and guidances, instruction is the most superior, because it is accomplished by supernormal powers and can bring the fruit of benefit and happiness. The first two guidances, such as mantras, can also do this, but they do not rely entirely on supernormal powers, so they are not decisive. For example, there is a mantra called Gandhari (name of a mantra), by reciting this mantra, one can rise into the air freely. Or some medicinal herbs have superior functions, taking or carrying them allows one to fly freely. There is also a mantra called Ikshani (name of a mantra), by reciting this mantra, one can know the thoughts of others. Or by observing facial features and listening to speech, one can also understand the thoughts of others. However, instructional guidance cannot be done by anything other than the exhaustion of outflows supernormal power (a type of supernormal power that refers to the supernormal power of cutting off all afflictions), so it is decisive. Or, the first two guidances can be done by non-Buddhists, but not the third (instructional guidance), so it is called decisive. In addition, the first two guidances can sometimes only make others temporarily change their minds, and cannot guide them to obtain ultimate benefit and happiness. Instructional guidance can definitely guide others to obtain future benefit and happiness, because it can speak truthfully with skillful means. Therefore, instruction is the most superior, and others are not. What do the two words 'supernormal realm' refer to? The verse says: 'Supernormal body refers to Samadhi (meditative concentration), the two realms refer to movement and transformation. There are three types of movement: mental power, the Buddha's movement of the body, and the supernormal power of superior understanding. There are two types of transformation, referring to the desire realm and the form realm. Four and two refer to the nature of external places. Each of these has two types, referring to similar self-bodies and other-bodies.' The treatise says: 'Supernormal' refers to superior Samadhi, because it can be used to perform supernormal transformations. And the sutras say that the fruit of 'supernormal' is called 'supernormal', intending to show the subtle by mentioning the coarse, and also showing that superior Samadhi is its proximate cause. However, the substance of supernormal transformation is actually not 'supernormal', which has been analyzed in the previous section on the factors of enlightenment. Various supernormal transformations are called 'realms', which have two types, namely 'movement' and 'transformation'. 'Movement' has three types: first, moving the body, which refers to walking in the air like a bird; second, superior understanding, which refers to thinking of a very distant place as a nearby place, and being able to reach it quickly. If one thinks of the extremely distant Akanistha Heaven (form realm heaven) as a nearby place, one can reach it. Originally there is no coming and going, so why is it called fast walking? This is actually also walking, but because of the understanding of nearness, the walking is extremely fast, so it is named superior understanding. Or the World Honored One said that the realm of meditative concentration is inconceivable, and only the Buddha can understand it. Third, mental power, which refers to raising thoughts in a very distant place.
緣時。身即能至。此勢如意得意勢名。如心取境頃至色究竟故。於此三中意勢唯佛。運身勝解亦通余乘。謂我世尊神通迅速。隨方遠近舉心即至。由此世尊作如是說。諸佛境界不可思議。如日舒光蘊流亦爾。能頓至遠故說為行。若謂不然此沒彼出。中間既斷行義應無。或佛威神不思議故。舉心即至不可測量。故意勢行唯世尊有。勝解兼余聖運身並異生。化復二種。謂欲色界。若欲界化外四處除聲。若色界化唯二謂色觸。以色界中無香味故。此二界化各有二種。謂屬自身他身別故。身在欲界化有四種。在色亦然。故總成八。雖生在色作欲界化。而無色界成香味失。化作自身唯二處故。有說亦化四如衣等不成。非神境通能起化事。要此通果諸能化心。此能化心有幾何相。頌曰。
能化心十四 定果二至五 如所依定得 從凈自生二 化事由自地 語通由自下 化身與化主 語必俱非佛 先立愿留身 後起余心語 有死留堅體 余說無留義 初多心一化 成滿此相違 修得無記攝 余得通三性
論曰。能變化心總有十四。謂依根本四靜慮生。初靜慮生唯有二種。一欲界攝。二初靜慮。第二第三第四靜慮。如其次第有三四五。無上依下。下地劣故。上下地系一靜慮果。所依行等地有
勝劣。一地繫上下靜慮果。地雖等所依行勝劣。下繫上果下果上系。如次地劣勝所依行勝劣如得靜慮化心亦然。果與所依俱時得故。然得靜慮總有三時。離染受生加行異故。謂離下染得上靜慮時。亦得此定所引化心果。從上地歿生色界時。及由加行起勝功德。但有新得所依靜慮。亦兼得彼所引化心。依欲界身得阿羅漢。及練根位得應果時。十四化心一時總得。乃至身在第四靜慮。得阿羅漢得五化心。無從化心直出觀義。此從凈定及自類生。能無間生自類凈定故唯從二生二非余。唯自地化心起自地化事。化所發語由自下心。謂欲初定化唯自地心語。上化起語由初定心。彼地自無起表心故。若生欲界第二定等。化事轉時如何起表。非威儀路工巧處心。依異界身而可現起。彼必依止自界身故。此無有過。引彼界攝大種現前為所依故。謂引色界大種現前。與欲界身密合而住。依之起彼能發表心。無定地表心依散地身過。或起依定能發表心。如依定生天眼耳識。若一化主起多化身。要化主語時諸化身方語。言音詮表一切皆同。故有伽他作如是說。
一化主語時 諸所化皆語 一化主若默 諸所化亦然
此但說余。佛則不爾。諸佛定力最自在故。與所化語容不俱時。言音所詮亦容有別。若上三地所化語時。初定表
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 勝劣。初禪與二禪等靜慮的果報。雖然地相同，但所依之行有勝劣之分。下地繫縛上地之果，下地之果繫縛上地。如此，地的劣勝取決於所依之行的勝劣，如獲得靜慮所引發的化心也是如此。果與所依同時獲得。然而，獲得靜慮總共有三種情況。由於離染、受生、加行不同。即離開下地之染而獲得上地靜慮時。也獲得此定所引發的化心果。從上地死亡而生到下地時，以及通過加行而生起殊勝功德時。只有新獲得的所依靜慮。也兼得其所引發的化心。依欲界身獲得阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證入涅槃的聖者），以及在練根位獲得應果時。十四種化心一時全部獲得。乃至身在第四靜慮。獲得阿羅漢時，得五種化心。沒有從化心直接進入觀想的情況。這是從凈定以及自類而生。能夠無間地生起自類的凈定，所以唯從二者而生，不是從其他而生。只有自地的化心才能發起自地的化事。化身所發出的語言由自下地的心所控制。即欲界和初禪的化身只能使用自地的心語。上地的化身發起語言由初禪的心所控制。因為彼地自身沒有發起表業的心。如果生到欲界、第二禪等。化事轉變時如何發起表業？非威儀路、工巧處的心。依異界之身而可以顯現生起。因為它們必定依止自界之身。這沒有過失。因為引導彼界所攝的大種現前作為所依。即引導欲界的大種現前。與欲界之身緊密結合而住。依此而生起彼能發表業的心。沒有定地表業的心依散地之身的過失。或者生起依定能發表業的心。如依定而生起天眼、天耳識。如果一個化主生起多個化身。要化主說話時，所有化身才說話。言語的音調和表達的一切都相同。所以有伽他（Gatha，佛經中的偈頌）這樣說： 一化主語時 諸所化皆語 一化主若默 諸所化亦然 這只是說其他的化身。佛則不是這樣。諸佛的定力最為自在。與所化身的語言可以不同時。言語所表達的內容也容許有差別。如果上三地所化身說話時，初禪的表業...
【English Translation】 English version Superiority and Inferiority. The first dhyana (Jhāna, a state of profound meditation) and the second dhyana, etc., are the fruits of tranquil contemplation. Although the grounds are the same, the practices they rely on have superior and inferior aspects. The lower ground binds the fruit of the higher ground, and the fruit of the lower ground binds the higher ground. Thus, the superiority or inferiority of the ground depends on the superiority or inferiority of the practices it relies on, just as it is with the transformation-mind (化心) produced by obtaining dhyana. The fruit and what it relies on are obtained simultaneously. However, there are generally three instances of obtaining dhyana, due to differences in detachment from desire, rebirth, and effort. That is, when one leaves the defilements of a lower ground and obtains the dhyana of a higher ground, one also obtains the fruit of the transformation-mind produced by this samadhi. When one dies from a higher ground and is reborn in a lower ground, and when one generates superior merits through effort, there is only the newly obtained dhyana that is relied upon. One also obtains the transformation-mind that it produces. When one attains Arhatship (阿羅漢, a saint who has extinguished all afflictions and entered Nirvana) relying on a desire-realm body, and when one obtains the fruit of non-returning in the stage of training the roots, all fourteen transformation-minds are obtained at once. Even when the body is in the fourth dhyana, one obtains five transformation-minds when attaining Arhatship. There is no meaning of directly entering contemplation from a transformation-mind. This arises from pure samadhi and from its own kind. It can generate pure samadhi of its own kind without interruption, so it arises only from these two, not from others. Only the transformation-mind of one's own ground can initiate transformation-activities of one's own ground. The speech emitted by a transformation-body is controlled by the mind of the ground below it. That is, the transformation-bodies of the desire realm and the first dhyana can only use the mind-speech of their own ground. The speech initiated by the transformation-bodies of higher grounds is controlled by the mind of the first dhyana, because those grounds themselves do not have minds that initiate expression. If one is born in the desire realm, the second dhyana, etc., how does one initiate expression when transformation-activities change? The minds of deportment, skillful activities, etc., cannot manifest and arise relying on a body of a different realm, because they must rely on the body of their own realm. There is no fault in this, because one guides the great elements (大種) included in that realm to appear as what is relied upon. That is, one guides the great elements of the desire realm to appear, closely combining and dwelling with the body of the desire realm, and relying on this, one generates the mind that can express activities. There is no fault of the mind of expression of the dhyana ground relying on the body of the scattered ground. Or one generates the mind that can express activities relying on samadhi, like generating the divine eye and divine ear consciousness relying on samadhi. If one transformation-master generates multiple transformation-bodies, all the transformation-bodies speak only when the transformation-master speaks. The tone and expression of the speech are all the same. Therefore, there is a Gatha (伽他, verses in Buddhist scriptures) that says: When one transformation-master speaks, all the transformed speak. When one transformation-master is silent, all the transformed are also silent. This only refers to other transformation-bodies. It is not like this with the Buddhas. The samadhi power of the Buddhas is the most unconstrained. The speech of the transformation-bodies and the Buddhas may not be simultaneous. The content expressed by the speech may also be different. If the transformation-bodies of the upper three grounds speak, the expression of the first dhyana...
心現前發者。此心起位已出化心。應無化身化如何語。由先願力留所化身。後起余心發語表業。故無化語闕所依過。非唯化主命現在時。能留化身令久時住。亦有令住至命終后。即如尊者大迦葉波。留骨鎖身至慈尊世。唯堅實體可得久留。異此飲光應留肉等。有餘師說。願力留身必無有能令至死後。聖大迦葉留骨鎖身。由諸天神持令久住。初習業者由多化心。要附所依起一化事。習成滿者由一化心。能不附所依起眾多化事。總有二類能變化心。一修所成。二生得等。所起化果亦如彼說。修所成化攝處如前。不能化為有情身故。生所得等。于欲界中化為九處。色界化七依不離根。言化九等理實無有能化作根。修果無心餘化容有。修果起表由化主心。余容自心起身語表。修果飲食若為資身。必在化主身中消化。若為餘事吞金石等。或即住彼化事身中。或隨所宜置在別處。余化飲食隨住所依。修果化心唯無記性。余通三性。謂善惡等。如天龍等能變化心。彼亦能為自他身化。天眼耳言為目何義。為目慧體。為目色根。若慧不應名天眼耳。若色根者不應名通。此前已說前何所說。謂說根本四靜慮中。有定相應勝無記慧。名為天眼及天耳通。此所引生勝大種果名天眼耳。其體是何。頌曰。
天眼耳謂根 即定地凈色 恒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果心識已經顯現並開始運作，那麼這個心識的起始位置就已經超越了化生之心（Nirmanacitta，指由禪定力變現的心識）。這樣說來，應該沒有化身了，又如何能說話呢？這是因為先前的願力留下了所化之身（Nirmanakaya，指由佛或菩薩爲了度化眾生而變現的身體）。之後，生起其餘的心識，發起語言來表達行為。因此，不存在沒有所依（Alambana，指化身）而無法說話的過失。並非只有化身之主（Nirmanakaya-svami，指擁有化身的人）在世的時候，才能讓化身長久存在。也有能讓化身住留到生命終結之後的例子。例如，尊者大迦葉波（Mahakasyapa）就留下了骨鎖之身，一直到慈氏佛（Maitreya Buddha）出世。只有堅固的實體才能長久留存。否則，飲光（Kasyapa的別稱）應該留下肉身等。有些論師說，願力留下的身體一定無法存留到死後。聖大迦葉（Mahakasyapa）留下骨鎖之身，是由諸天神護持，使其長久住世。初學者由於有許多化生之心，需要依附所依才能發起一件化生之事。修行成就圓滿的人，憑藉一個化生之心，就能不依附所依而發起眾多化生之事。總共有兩類能夠變化的心識：一是通過修行成就的，二是生來就具有的等等。所產生的化生果報也像他們所說的那樣。通過修行成就的化生所攝的處所如前所述，因為它不能化為有情之身。生來就具有的等等，在欲界中可以化為九處。化生七依（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、末那識）不離根。說化生九等，實際上沒有能化作根的。修行的果報沒有心識，其餘的化生可以有。修行的果報發起表達，由化身之主的心識所致。其餘的可以由自身的心識發起身語表達。修行的果報如果是爲了資養身體，必定在化身之主的身體中消化。如果是爲了其他事情，比如吞食金石等，或者就留在那個化生之事的身體中，或者根據需要放置在別處。其餘化生的飲食，隨其所依之處而定。修行果報的化生之心只有無記性（Upeksa，不善不惡的性質），其餘的通於三性，即善、惡等。比如天龍等能夠變化的心識，他們也能為自己或他人化身。天眼、天耳的『天』字是什麼意思？是爲了說明智慧的本體，還是爲了說明色根？如果是智慧，就不應該稱為『天眼』、『天耳』。如果是色根，就不應該稱為『通』。這之前已經說過了，之前說了什麼？是說在根本四靜慮（Catvari-dhyanani，指色界四禪定）中，有與禪定相應的殊勝無記慧，稱為天眼和天耳通。由此所產生的殊勝大種果報，就叫做天眼、天耳。它們的本體是什麼？頌曰： 天眼耳謂根，即定地凈色，恒
【English Translation】 English version: If a mind has already manifested and begun to function, then the starting point of this mind has already surpassed the Nirmanacitta (mind produced by meditative power). In that case, there should be no Nirmanakaya (body produced by transformation), so how can it speak? This is because the previous vow power leaves behind the Nirmanakaya (body transformed by a Buddha or Bodhisattva to liberate beings). Afterward, other minds arise, initiating speech to express actions. Therefore, there is no fault of being unable to speak without an Alambana (support, referring to the transformed body). It is not only when the Nirmanakaya-svami (the owner of the transformed body) is alive that the transformed body can remain for a long time. There are also cases where the transformed body can remain until after the end of life. For example, the Venerable Mahakasyapa left behind his bone-locked body until the appearance of Maitreya Buddha. Only solid entities can remain for a long time. Otherwise, Kasyapa (also known as 'Drinker of Light') should have left behind his flesh, etc. Some teachers say that a body left behind by vow power certainly cannot remain after death. The fact that the Holy Mahakasyapa left behind his bone-locked body is due to the protection of the gods, who caused it to remain for a long time. Beginners, because they have many Nirmanacittas, need to rely on a support to initiate a single transformation event. Those who have achieved complete mastery through practice can, with a single Nirmanacitta, initiate many transformation events without relying on a support. In general, there are two types of minds capable of transformation: one achieved through practice, and the other acquired by birth, etc. The resulting transformation fruits are also as they say. The places encompassed by transformations achieved through practice are as previously stated, because it cannot transform into sentient beings. Those acquired by birth, etc., can transform into nine places in the desire realm. The transformation of the seven supports (referring to eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, and Manas consciousness) does not leave the root. Saying that it transforms into nine, in reality, there is no ability to transform into roots. The fruit of practice has no mind; other transformations can have it. The expression initiated by the fruit of practice is caused by the mind of the Nirmanakaya-svami. Others can initiate bodily and verbal expressions from their own minds. If the food of the fruit of practice is for nourishing the body, it must be digested in the body of the Nirmanakaya-svami. If it is for other things, such as swallowing gold and stones, it either remains in the body of that transformation event or is placed elsewhere as appropriate. The food of other transformations depends on where it relies. The mind of transformation of the fruit of practice is only of the nature of Upeksa (neutrality, neither good nor bad); the rest are connected to the three natures, namely good, evil, etc. For example, the minds capable of transformation of devas and dragons can also transform for themselves or others. What does the word 'heavenly' in 'heavenly eye' and 'heavenly ear' mean? Is it to explain the essence of wisdom, or to explain the sense organ? If it is wisdom, it should not be called 'heavenly eye' or 'heavenly ear'. If it is a sense organ, it should not be called 'supernatural power'. This has been said before; what was said before? It was said that in the fundamental four Dhyanas (referring to the four meditative states of the form realm), there is superior neutral wisdom corresponding to Dhyana, which is called heavenly eye and heavenly ear supernatural powers. The superior Mahabhuta (great element) fruit produced from this is called heavenly eye and heavenly ear. What is their essence? The verse says: The heavenly eye and ear are called roots, which are pure colors of the Dhyana grounds, constantly
同分無缺 取障細遠等
論曰。此體即是天眼耳根。謂緣聲光為加行故。依四靜慮于眼耳邊。引起彼地微妙大種。所造凈色眼耳二根。見色聞聲名天眼耳。如是眼耳何故名天。體即是天。定地攝故。極清凈故。立以天名。由此經言。天眼耳者無有皮肉筋纏血涂。唯妙大種所造凈色。然天眼耳種類有三。一修得天。即如前說。二者生得。謂生天中。三者似天。謂生余趣由勝業等之所引生。能遠見聞似天眼耳。如藏臣寶菩薩輪王。諸龍鬼神及中有等。修得眼耳過現當生恒是同分。以至現在必與識俱。能見聞故處所必具無翳無缺。如生色界一切有情。能隨所應取彼障隔。極細遠等諸方色聲。故於此中有如是頌。
肉眼于諸方 被障細遠色 無能見功用 天眼見無遺
前說化心修余得異。神境等五各有異耶。亦有。云何。頌曰。
神境五修生 咒藥業成故 他心修生咒 又加占相成 三修生業成 除修皆三性 人唯無生得 地獄初能知
論曰。神境智類總有五種。一修得。二生得。三咒成。四藥成。五業成。曼馱多王及中有等。諸神境智是業成攝。有餘師說。神境有四。即前行三變化為一。言變化者。如契經言。分一為多。乃至廣說。他心智類總有四種。前三如上加占相成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 同分無缺，取障細遠等
論曰：此體的本質就是天眼（Divyacakṣus，能看見超自然事物的眼睛）和天耳（Divyaśrotra，能聽見超自然聲音的耳朵）。也就是說，通過對聲音和光線的專注修行，依靠四禪定（catuḥ-dhyāna，佛教中的四種禪定境界），在眼和耳的部位，生起該禪定境界的微妙大種（mahābhūta，構成物質世界的基本元素），從而產生清凈的色（rūpa，物質）所造的眼根和耳根，能見色和聞聲，這就被稱為天眼和天耳。那麼，這樣的眼和耳為什麼被稱為『天』呢？因為它們的本質就是『天』，屬於禪定境界所攝，極其清凈，所以被賦予『天』的名稱。因此，經中說，天眼和天耳沒有皮肉筋纏和血涂，只有微妙大種所造的清凈色。然而，天眼和天耳的種類有三種：一是修得天眼耳，即如前面所說；二是生得天眼耳，即生於天界者自然具有；三是似天眼耳，即生於其他道趣（gati，生命輪迴的去處）的有情，由於殊勝的業力等原因而生起，能遠見遠聞，類似於天眼天耳，例如藏臣（大臣）寶菩薩（Bodhisattva，佛教中發願成佛的聖者）、轉輪王（cakravartin，擁有統治世界的理想明君）、諸龍（Nāga，印度神話中的蛇神）、鬼神以及中陰身（antarābhava，死亡到再次投胎之間的過渡狀態）等。
修得的天眼天耳，無論過去、現在還是未來，恒常是同分（sabhāga，同類）。因為直到現在，它必定與識（vijñāna，意識）俱在，能夠見聞，處所必定具備，沒有遮蔽，沒有殘缺。如同生得的天眼天耳一樣，一切有情都能根據情況，取彼障隔，極其細微、遙遠等諸方的色和聲。因此，對此有這樣的頌文：
『肉眼對於諸方，被障細遠色，無能見功用，天眼見無遺。』
前面說化心（nirmāṇa-citta，變化出來的意識）是修余所得的異類，那麼神境（ṛddhi，神通）等五種神通，各自也有不同嗎？也有不同。是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
『神境五修生，咒藥業成故，他心修生咒，又加占相成，三修生業成，除修皆三性，人唯無生得，地獄初能知。』
論曰：神境智（ṛddhi-jñāna，關於神通的智慧）的種類總共有五種：一是修得，二是生得，三是咒成，四是藥成，五是業成。曼馱多王（Mandhātṛ，古印度傳說中的轉輪王）以及中陰身等所具有的神境智，屬於業成所攝。有其他論師說，神境有四種，即將前面的三種神通和變化合為一種。所謂變化，如契經所說：『分一為多，乃至廣說。』他心智（para-citta-jñāna，瞭解他人心思的智慧）的種類總共有四種，前三種如上所述，再加上佔相而成。
【English Translation】 English version Same Category, Without Defect, Taking Away Obstacles, Subtle and Distant, etc.
Treatise says: This entity is precisely the divine eye (Divyacakṣus, eye that can see supernatural things) and the divine ear (Divyaśrotra, ear that can hear supernatural sounds). That is to say, through focused practice on sounds and lights, relying on the four dhyānas (catuḥ-dhyāna, the four meditative states in Buddhism), at the locations of the eyes and ears, arise the subtle mahābhūtas (mahābhūta, the basic elements constituting the material world) of that dhyāna realm, thereby producing the pure rūpa (rūpa, matter) created eye and ear faculties, capable of seeing forms and hearing sounds, which are then called the divine eye and divine ear. So, why are such eyes and ears called 'divine'? Because their essence is 'divine,' belonging to the realm of dhyāna, and are extremely pure, hence given the name 'divine.' Therefore, the sutra says that the divine eye and divine ear have no skin, flesh, sinews, or blood, but only the pure rūpa created by the subtle mahābhūtas. However, there are three types of divine eyes and ears: first, those obtained through cultivation, as mentioned earlier; second, those obtained at birth, naturally possessed by those born in the heavens; and third, those similar to divine eyes and ears, arising in sentient beings born in other destinies (gati, realms of rebirth) due to superior karma and other causes, capable of seeing and hearing far away, resembling divine eyes and ears, such as the minister-treasure Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, a being who has vowed to achieve Buddhahood), the cakravartin (cakravartin, an ideal monarch who rules the world), the Nāgas (Nāga, serpent deities in Indian mythology), ghosts, spirits, and the intermediate state (antarābhava, the transitional state between death and rebirth), etc.
The divine eyes and ears obtained through cultivation, whether in the past, present, or future, are always of the same category (sabhāga, of the same kind). Because until the present, they are certainly accompanied by consciousness (vijñāna, awareness), capable of seeing and hearing, the location must be complete, without obstruction, without defect. Like the divine eyes and ears obtained at birth, all sentient beings can, according to circumstances, take away obstacles, and perceive colors and sounds from extremely subtle, distant, and other directions. Therefore, there is such a verse about this:
'The physical eye, in all directions, is obstructed by subtle and distant colors, unable to see effectively; the divine eye sees without omission.'
Earlier, it was said that the created mind (nirmāṇa-citta, a mind created through magical power) is a different kind obtained through other practices. Are the five supernormal powers (ṛddhi, supernatural abilities), such as divine powers, also different from each other? They are also different. How so? The verse says:
'Divine powers are fivefold, obtained through cultivation, birth, mantras, medicine, and karma; mind-reading is obtained through cultivation, birth, and mantras, plus divination; the three are obtained through cultivation, birth, and karma; except for cultivation, all are of three natures; humans only lack those obtained at birth; hell-beings can know initially.'
Treatise says: There are five types of knowledge of divine powers (ṛddhi-jñāna, knowledge about supernormal abilities) in total: first, obtained through cultivation; second, obtained at birth; third, achieved through mantras; fourth, achieved through medicine; and fifth, achieved through karma. The divine powers possessed by King Mandhātṛ (Mandhātṛ, a legendary cakravartin in ancient India) and intermediate beings, etc., belong to those achieved through karma. Some other teachers say that there are four types of divine powers, combining the previous three supernormal powers and transformation into one. Transformation, as the sutra says: 'Dividing one into many, and so on.' There are four types of mind-reading knowledge (para-citta-jñāna, knowledge of others' minds) in total, the first three as mentioned above, plus achievement through divination.
。餘三各三。謂修生業。除修所得皆通善等。非定果故不得通名。人中都無生所得者。余皆容有。隨其所應本性生念業所成攝。人由先業能憶過去。于地獄趣初受生時。唯以生得他心宿住知他心等。及過去生苦受逼已更無知義。彼憶過去以何證知。如契經言。彼自憶念。我等過去曾聞他說諸欲過失。而不厭離。故於今時。受斯劇苦。彼唯能憶次前一生。余趣隨應恒有知義。傍生知過去。如䗍聲狗等鬼知過去。如有頌言。
我昔集眾財 以法或非法 他今受富樂 我獨受貧苦
天知過去。如有頌言。
我施逝多林 蒙大法王住 賢聖僧受用 故我心歡喜
又契經說。諸生天者初生必起三種念言。我從何歿今生何處。乘何業故來生此間。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十六 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十七
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之一
如是已辯諸智差別。次當分別智所依定。唯諸靜慮能具為依。故於此中先辯靜慮。或於先辯共功德中。已辯智所成無諍等功德。余所成德今次當辯。于中先辯所依止定。且諸定內靜慮云何。頌曰。
靜慮四各二 于中生已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：其餘三種（生得、念得、業得）各有三種。這指的是修習而產生的行業。除了通過修習獲得的，其餘都普遍與善等相關。因為不是固定的結果，所以不能普遍地稱為『果』。在人道中，完全沒有生來就獲得的。其餘各道都可能存在，根據其相應的本性、生得、念得、行業所攝。人由於先前的行業能夠回憶過去。在地獄道最初受生時，僅僅憑藉生得的他心智、宿住智來了解他人的心和過去的事情，以及過去生中所受的痛苦逼迫，除此之外就沒有其他的知覺了。他們回憶過去憑藉什麼來證明呢？就像契經上所說：『他們自己回憶說，我們過去曾經聽別人說各種慾望的過失，卻不厭惡遠離，所以現在才遭受這樣的劇烈痛苦。』他們只能回憶起緊挨著的前一生。其餘各道根據情況，通常都有知覺的能力。傍生道能夠知道過去，比如螞蟻、狗等。鬼道能夠知道過去，就像頌中所說： 『我過去積聚眾多財富，用合法或非法的方式，現在他人享受富裕快樂，我獨自遭受貧窮困苦。』 天道能夠知道過去，就像頌中所說： 『我佈施逝多林（Jetavana，祇陀林），蒙受大法王（佛陀）居住，賢聖僧眾受用，所以我內心歡喜。』 又契經上說，那些生到天界的人，剛出生時必定會產生三種念頭：『我從哪裡死亡，現在生到哪裡？憑藉什麼業力，來到這裡？』 《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十六 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》 《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十七 尊者眾賢造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 辯定品第八之一 像這樣已經辨析了各種智慧的差別，接下來應當分別智慧所依賴的禪定。只有各種靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）能夠完全作為所依賴的基礎。因此在這裡首先辨析靜慮。或者在先前辨析共同功德時，已經辨析了智慧所成就的無諍等功德。其餘所成就的功德現在接下來應當辨析。其中首先辨析所依賴的禪定。那麼在各種禪定中，靜慮是怎樣的呢？頌詞說： 靜慮有四種，每種各有兩種，在其中出生后
【English Translation】 English version: The remaining three (born-with, mind-obtained, karma-obtained) each have three. This refers to the activities that arise from cultivation. Except for those obtained through cultivation, the rest are generally related to goodness, etc. Because they are not fixed results, they cannot be universally called 'fruits'. In the human realm, there is completely no one who obtains them by birth. The remaining realms may all have them, according to their corresponding nature, born-with, mind-obtained, and karma-obtained. People are able to recall the past due to their previous karma. When first born in the hell realm, they only rely on the born-with mind-reading ability (他心智, tāxīnzhì) and the ability to know past lives (宿住智, sùzhùzhì) to understand the minds of others and past events, as well as the suffering they experienced in past lives. Beyond that, they have no other awareness. How do they prove their recollection of the past? As the sutra says: 'They themselves recall that in the past, we heard others speak of the faults of various desires, but we did not厭離 (yànlí,厭惡遠離,厭惡並遠離) them. Therefore, we now endure such intense suffering.' They can only recall the immediately preceding life. The remaining realms usually have the ability to know, according to the circumstances. Beings in the animal realm can know the past, such as ants and dogs. Ghosts can know the past, as the verse says: 'In the past, I accumulated much wealth, through lawful or unlawful means. Now others enjoy wealth and happiness, while I alone suffer poverty and hardship.' The heavenly realm can know the past, as the verse says: 'I donated Jetavana (逝多林, Shìduōlín), and was blessed by the great Dharma King (大法王, Dàfǎwáng) to reside there. The virtuous Sangha (賢聖僧, xiánshèngsēng) benefited from it, so my heart is joyful.' Furthermore, the sutra says that those who are born in the heavens will inevitably have three thoughts when they are first born: 'From where did I die, and where am I born now? By what karma did I come to be born here?' 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》Volume 76 by the Sarvāstivāda School Taishō Tripiṭaka Volume 29, No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》 《Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra》Volume 77 Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree Chapter 8, Section 1: Discriminating Determinations Having thus discriminated the differences in wisdom, we should next discriminate the samādhi (定, dìng, concentration) upon which wisdom relies. Only the various dhyānas (靜慮, jìnglǜ, meditative absorptions) can fully serve as the basis of reliance. Therefore, we will first discriminate the dhyānas here. Or, in the previous discrimination of common merits, we have already discriminated the merits of non-contention, etc., which are achieved by wisdom. The remaining merits that are achieved should now be discriminated. Among them, we will first discriminate the samādhi upon which they rely. So, among the various samādhis, what is dhyāna like? The verse says: There are four dhyānas, each with two aspects. Having been born within them
說 定謂善一境 並伴五蘊性 初具伺喜樂 后漸離前支
論曰。一切功德多依靜慮。故應先辯靜慮差別。此總有四種。謂初二三四。豈諸靜慮無如慈等不共名想。而今但說初等四數建立別名。此中非無不共名想。然無唯遍攝一地名。以諸靜慮各有二種。謂定及生有差別故。諸生靜慮如先已說。謂第四八前三各三。無有別名總詮一地。諸定靜慮總相無別。謂此四體總而言之。皆善性攝。心一境性以善等持為自性故。若並助伴五蘊為性。此二既同難知差別。相雖無別而地有異。為顯地異就數標名。故說為初乃至第四。此中經主自興問答。何名一境性。謂專一所緣。彼答非理。眼意二識若同一所緣應名一境性。故於此處應求別理。謂若依止一所依根。專一所緣名一境性。豈不一念無易所緣。應一切心中皆有一境性。理實皆有。一一剎那。心心所法一境轉故。然非一切皆得定名。以於此中說一境性。但為顯示由勝等持。令善心心所相續而轉故。若爾即心依一根轉。引緣自境余心續生。此即名為心一境性。應離心外無別等持。此難不然。前已說故。謂先廣辯心所法中。已辯等持離心別有。謂若心體即三摩地。令心作等亦應無別。差別因緣不可得故。如是等難具顯如前。故非即心名三摩地。依何義故立靜慮名。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 說： 『定』指的是善的單一境界，以及伴隨它的五蘊的性質。 最初的禪定具備尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（vicara，精細的思考）、喜（priti，喜悅）和樂（sukha，快樂）的特徵，隨後的禪定逐漸捨棄前面的支分。
論曰：一切功德大多依賴於靜慮（dhyana，禪定）。因此，應該首先辨別靜慮的差別。總共有四種靜慮，即初禪、二禪、三禪和四禪。難道這些靜慮沒有像慈心禪等不共的名稱和想法嗎？為什麼現在只用初、二、三、四這四個數字來建立不同的名稱呢？ 這裡並非沒有不共的名稱和想法，而是沒有能夠普遍涵蓋一個禪定地的名稱。因為每個靜慮都有兩種，即禪定本身和由禪定所生的果報，二者之間存在差別。由禪定所生的果報，如先前已經說過的，即第四禪、第八禪以及前三禪各自的三種果報，沒有能夠總括一個禪定地的特別名稱。 禪定本身的靜慮，其總相沒有差別。總的來說，這四種禪定的本體都屬於善的範疇，心專注于單一境界，以善的等持（samadhi，專注）為自性。如果加上助伴，則以五蘊為性質。這兩種情況既然相同，就難以區分差別。 雖然相上沒有差別，但地（bhumi，層次）上存在差異。爲了顯示地的差異，就用數字來標明名稱，所以說初禪乃至第四禪。這裡，經的作者自己提出問題和解答：什麼叫做『一境性』？指的是專注于單一所緣（alambana，對像）。 他的回答不合理。如果眼識和意識專注于同一個所緣，也應該叫做『一境性』。因此，在這裡應該尋求其他的解釋。也就是說，如果依賴於同一個所依根（indriya，感覺器官），專注于單一所緣，就叫做『一境性』。難道不是一念之間沒有改變的所緣嗎？那麼，一切心中都應該有一境性。 實際上，一切心中都有一境性。因為每一個剎那，心和心所法都專注于同一個境界。然而，並非一切都能夠獲得禪定的名稱。因為在這裡說『一境性』，只是爲了顯示由殊勝的等持，使善的心和心所法相續不斷地運轉。如果這樣，那麼心依賴於一個根而運轉，引導和攀緣自己的境界，其餘的心相續產生，這就叫做心的一境性。那麼，應該在心之外沒有其他的等持。 這個責難是不成立的。因為先前已經說過，在廣泛辨別心所法中，已經辨別出等持是獨立於心而存在的。如果心的本體就是三摩地（samadhi，等持），那麼使心達到等的狀態也應該沒有差別，因為沒有可以區分的因緣。像這樣的責難，先前已經詳細地說明過了。所以，不能說心就是三摩地。 根據什麼意義而建立靜慮的名稱呢？ 由...
【English Translation】 Statement: 『Samadhi (定)』 refers to the single realm of goodness, along with the nature of the five skandhas (五蘊) that accompany it. The initial dhyana (靜慮) possesses the characteristics of vitarka (尋, initial application of thought), vicara (伺, sustained application of thought), priti (喜, joy), and sukha (樂, happiness). Subsequent dhyanas gradually abandon the preceding factors.
Treatise states: All merits mostly rely on dhyana (靜慮, meditative absorption). Therefore, the distinctions of dhyana should be discussed first. There are four types in total: the first, second, third, and fourth. Are there no unique names and concepts for these dhyanas, such as loving-kindness meditation (慈心禪)? Why are only the numbers one to four used to establish distinct names? It is not that there are no unique names and concepts, but rather that there is no single name that universally encompasses a dhyana-bhumi (地, level of meditative attainment). This is because each dhyana has two aspects: the dhyana itself and the resultant rebirth (生) from the dhyana, and there is a difference between the two. The resultant rebirths from dhyana, as previously mentioned, are the fourth dhyana, the eighth dhyana, and the three results of each of the first three dhyanas. There is no special name that encompasses a single dhyana-bhumi. The dhyanas themselves, in their general characteristics, have no difference. Generally speaking, the essence of these four dhyanas all belong to the category of goodness. The mind is focused on a single object, with wholesome samadhi (等持, concentration) as its nature. If accompanied by associated mental factors, it has the nature of the five skandhas. Since these two are the same, it is difficult to distinguish the difference. Although there is no difference in appearance, there is a difference in bhumi (地, level). In order to show the difference in bhumi, numbers are used to indicate the names, so it is said to be the first dhyana up to the fourth dhyana. Here, the author of the sutra raises and answers the question himself: What is meant by 『one-pointedness (一境性)』? It refers to focusing on a single alambana (所緣, object of focus). His answer is unreasonable. If eye-consciousness and mind-consciousness are focused on the same object, they should also be called 『one-pointedness』. Therefore, another explanation should be sought here. That is, if relying on the same indriya (所依根, sense faculty), focusing on a single object is called 『one-pointedness』. Isn't it that there is no change of object in a single moment of thought? Then, all minds should have one-pointedness. In reality, all minds have one-pointedness. Because in every moment, the mind and mental factors are focused on the same object. However, not everything can obtain the name of dhyana. Because saying 『one-pointedness』 here is only to show that by the superior samadhi, the wholesome mind and mental factors continuously operate. If so, then the mind relies on one root to operate, guiding and clinging to its own realm, and the remaining minds are continuously produced. This is called one-pointedness of mind. Then, there should be no other samadhi outside of the mind. This accusation is not valid. Because it has been said before that in the extensive discrimination of mental factors, it has been distinguished that samadhi exists independently of the mind. If the essence of the mind is samadhi, then making the mind reach a state of equanimity should also have no difference, because there is no cause to distinguish it. Such accusations have been explained in detail before. Therefore, it cannot be said that the mind is samadhi. According to what meaning is the name dhyana established? Due to...
依此寂靜方能審慮故。審慮即是實了知義。如說心在定能如實了知。審慮義中置地界故。此論宗審慮定以慧為體。依訓釋理此是凝寂。思度境處得靜慮名。定令慧生。無濁亂故。有說此定持勝遍緣。如理思惟故名靜慮。勝言簡欲界。遍緣簡無色。如理思惟。簡異顛倒。能持此定。是妙等持。此妙等持名為靜慮。此言顯示止觀均行。無倒等持方名靜慮。若爾染污寧得此名。由彼亦能邪審慮故。于相似處亦立此名。如世間言朽敗種等。故無一切名靜慮失。若善性攝心一境性。並伴立為四靜慮者。依何相立初二三四。具伺喜樂建立為初。謂若位中善一境性。具與尋伺喜樂相應。如是等持名初靜慮。頌中但說與伺相應。已顯與尋亦相應義。以若有伺與喜樂俱。必無與尋不相應故。為顯第二除伺建立。故頌但說具伺非尋。異此應言具尋喜樂。舉尋有伺不說自成。漸離前支立二三四。離伺有二離二有樂。具離三種如其次第。故一境性分為四種。已辯靜慮。無色云何。頌曰。
無色亦如是 四蘊離下地 並上三近分 總名除色想 無色謂無色 后色起從心 空無邊等三 名從加行立 非想非非想 昧劣故立名
論曰。此與靜慮數自性同。謂四各二生如前說。即世品說。由生有四。定無色體總而言之。亦
善性攝。心一境性依此故說亦如是言。然助伴中此除色蘊。無色無有隨轉色故。雖一境性並伴無差。離下地生故分四種。謂若已離第四靜慮。生立空無邊處。乃至已離無所有處生立非想非非想處。離名何義。謂由此道解脫下地惑。是離下染義。即此四根本並上三近分。總說名為除去色想。空處近分未得此名。緣下地色起色想故。非緣下色想可立除色名。若爾何緣大種蘊說。除去色想是第四定。彼緣欲界住自身中所有諸色。漸除去故非無色界。可有此想是除色想。前加行故立根本名。亦無有失。依何義故立無色名。魯波言顯可變示義。依可變示說名為色。阿言即顯能制約義。為欲顯示生死海中亦有暫時制約色處。依制約義說名為無。由彼界中制約變示。依無色義名阿魯波。或此阿言兼顯極義。雖于余界亦有不可變示法。而無色界是不可變示中極無。在此在彼所依諸色故。或此阿言兼顯有義。為遮此界唯是色無故。說阿言顯有無色。謂世亦有唯是遮言。亦見有能遮而兼表。如何顯此非但是遮。故說阿言具顯遮表。若異此者應說𧙃聲。或此界中都無有色。理應建立𧙃魯波名。然此名為阿魯波者。𧙃魯波體名阿魯波。聲雖短長而義無別。有言彼色微故亦名無。如物黃微亦名無黃物。如是所說。但有虛言。色相於彼不可說故。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 善性攝（涵蓋）。心一境性（專注一境的心）依此故說，也是這樣說的。然而在助伴（輔助因素）中，這排除了色蘊（物質的集合）。因為無色界沒有隨之轉變的色法。雖然一境性和伴隨的因素沒有差別，但因為遠離下地而分為四種。也就是如果已經離開了第四禪，而生於空無邊處（認為一切皆為空無邊際的禪定），乃至已經離開了無所有處（認為一無所有的禪定），而生於非想非非想處（既非有想也非無想的禪定）。 『離』是什麼意思？意思是，通過這種道（修行），可以解脫下地的迷惑，這是遠離下染的含義。這四個根本定（空無邊處定、識無邊處定、無所有處定、非想非非想處定）加上上面的三個近分定（未至定、中間定、有分定），總稱為除去色想。空處近分定沒有得到這個名稱，因為它緣于下地的色法而生起色想。不是緣于下地的色想，就可以稱為除去色想。如果這樣，為什麼在大種蘊（四大元素）中說，除去色想是第四禪？因為他們緣于欲界（充滿慾望的境界）住在自身中的所有色法，逐漸除去，所以並非沒有根據。可以有這種想法，是除去色想。因為之前的加行（準備階段），所以建立根本定的名稱，也沒有什麼缺失。 依據什麼意義建立無色之名？『魯波』（Rūpa）這個詞顯示了可以改變和顯示的意義。依據可以改變和顯示，稱為色。『阿』（A）這個詞顯示了能夠制約的意義。爲了顯示在生死海中也有暫時制約色之處，依據制約的意義，稱為無。由於那個境界中制約改變和顯示。依據無色的意義，稱為阿魯波（Arūpa）。或者這個『阿』字兼顯示極端的意義。雖然在其他境界也有不可改變和顯示的法，但沒有像這樣不可改變和顯示到極端的程度。因為在此處和彼處所依賴的各種色法。 或者這個『阿』字兼顯示有的意義。爲了遮止這個境界唯是色無，所以說『阿』字顯示有無色。世間也有僅僅是遮止的說法，也看到有能夠遮止而兼表述的。如何顯示這不僅僅是遮止？所以說『阿』字具有顯示遮止和表述的雙重含義。如果不是這樣，應該說𧙃聲（否定詞）。或者這個境界中都沒有色，理應建立𧙃魯波（否定色）的名字。然而這個名字是阿魯波，𧙃魯波的體性名為阿魯波。聲音雖然有長短，但意義沒有區別。有人說，那裡的色法微細，也可以稱為無。如同物體黃色很微弱，也可以稱為無黃物。像這樣所說的，只是虛言。因為色相在那裡不可說。
【English Translation】 English version Goodness encompasses. The state of one-pointedness of mind is spoken of in this way because of this. However, among the assisting factors, this excludes the aggregate of form (Rūpa-skandha). Because in the formless realms, there is no form that transforms along with it. Although one-pointedness and its accompanying factors are no different, they are divided into four types because they are apart from the lower realms. That is, if one has already departed from the Fourth Dhyana (fourth meditative state), and is born in the Ākāśānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite space), up to having departed from the Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana (sphere of neither perception nor non-perception). What does 'departure' (離) mean? It means that through this path (of practice), one can be liberated from the delusions of the lower realms, which is the meaning of departing from lower defilements. These four fundamental Dhyanas (sphere of infinite space, sphere of infinite consciousness, sphere of nothingness, sphere of neither perception nor non-perception) together with the three proximate concentrations (preliminary concentration, intermediate concentration, and the concentration of existence) above, are collectively called the removal of the perception of form. The proximate concentration of the sphere of space has not obtained this name, because it arises from the perception of form of the lower realms. It is not the perception of form of the lower realms that can be called the removal of the perception of form. If so, why is it said in the aggregate of the great elements (Mahābhūta), that the removal of the perception of form is the Fourth Dhyana? Because they dwell in the realm of desire (Kāmadhātu) and gradually remove all the forms within themselves, so it is not without basis. It is possible to have this thought, which is the removal of the perception of form. Because of the previous preparatory practices, the name of the fundamental Dhyana is established, and there is no loss. According to what meaning is the name 'formless' (Arūpa) established? The word 'Rūpa' shows the meaning of being able to change and display. Based on being able to change and display, it is called form. The word 'A' shows the meaning of being able to restrain. In order to show that in the sea of Samsara (cycle of birth and death) there are also places where form is temporarily restrained, based on the meaning of restraint, it is called 'without'. Because in that realm, change and display are restrained. Based on the meaning of formlessness, it is called Arūpa. Or this word 'A' also shows the meaning of extreme. Although in other realms there are also dharmas that cannot be changed and displayed, there is nothing that cannot be changed and displayed to such an extreme extent. Because of the various forms that are relied upon here and there. Or this word 'A' also shows the meaning of existence. In order to prevent this realm from being only without form, it is said that the word 'A' shows the existence of formlessness. In the world, there are also statements that are only negations, and it is also seen that there are those that can negate and also express. How to show that this is not just negation? Therefore, it is said that the word 'A' has the dual meaning of showing negation and expression. If it were not so, one should say 𧙃 sound (negative word). Or there is no form in this realm, and the name 𧙃Rūpa (negation of form) should be established. However, this name is Arūpa, and the nature of 𧙃Rūpa is called Arūpa. Although the sounds are long and short, the meanings are not different. Some say that the form there is subtle, and it can also be called without. Just as an object with very faint yellow can also be called a non-yellow object. What is said in this way is just empty words. Because the characteristics of form cannot be spoken of there.
不可說彼有身語律儀。身語體既無。律儀不成故。若許彼界有身有語。如何乃許彼界色微。若彼界中身量小故。則傍生趣應有無色。有蟲至微不可見故。若謂彼界身極清妙故。則中有色界應名無色。若謂彼身清妙中極。應唯有頂得無色名。如定生身有勝劣故。又生靜慮所有色身。由定功能漸漸殊勝。上地望下清妙轉增。非下地根所能取故。與彼何異不名無色。若見有名不如義故。及見有名通二義故。不可如名定執義者。則無色界有色無色。應審尋求教理為證。有執彼界決定有色。經說壽暖識和合而轉故。既許彼界壽識非無。理應有暖。暖即是色。又說名色與識相依。如二蘆束相依住故。既許彼界識體非無。是則亦應許有名色。又世尊說。四識住故。既許彼界有能住識。必應許有所住色等。如世尊言。若說離色乃至離行識有去來。此但有言。乃至廣說。如是謂教亦有正理。若彼界中都無有色。彼沒生下色從何生。或阿羅漢蘊相續斷。應許后時蘊還相續。由斯教理彼色非無。此證不然。不審思故且初二教。如余契經。約欲色界密意而說。如說。名色緣生六處。及六觸處名為士夫。豈許彼經通說三界。但依容有作如是說。若謂此經言無簡別不應異釋。理亦不然。無簡別言有義異故。即如曏者所引二經。又外物中應有壽識。彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不可說彼界有身語律儀（Vow of body and speech）。因為身語的體性既然不存在，律儀也無法成立。如果承認彼界有身有語，又怎麼能認為彼界只有極微小的色質呢？如果說彼界身體量很小，那麼傍生道（Animals）就應該有無色界了，因為有些蟲類極其微小，無法看見。如果說彼界的身體非常清凈微妙，那麼中有（Antarabhava, intermediate state between death and rebirth）應該被稱為無色界。如果說彼身的清凈微妙達到了極致，那麼只有有頂天（Akanistha, the highest of the form realm）才能被稱為無色界。就像禪定所生的身體有勝劣之分一樣，又如生於靜慮（Dhyana, meditative absorption）的所有色身，由於禪定的力量而逐漸殊勝，上地看下地，清凈微妙程度逐漸增加，下地的根識無法感知，這與無色界有什麼不同，為什麼不被稱為無色界呢？如果認為只是名稱不符合實際，或者認為一個名稱可以通用於兩種含義，就不能像執著名稱一樣來確定其含義，那麼無色界（Arupa-dhatu, formless realm）和有色界（Rupa-dhatu, form realm）的區分就沒有意義了，應該審慎地尋求教理作為證據。 有人認為彼界決定是有色的，因為經中說壽（Ayus, life force）、暖（Usma, warmth）、識（Vijnana, consciousness）和合而運轉。既然承認彼界壽和識不是沒有，那麼理應有暖，暖就是色。又說名色（Nama-rupa, name and form）與識相互依存，就像兩束蘆葦相互依靠一樣。既然承認彼界識體不是沒有，那麼也應該承認有名色。又世尊說，四識住（Four stations of consciousness）。既然承認彼界有能住的識，必定應該有所住的色等。如世尊所說：『如果說離開色乃至離開行蘊（Samskara-skandha, aggregate of mental formations），識有去來，這只是說說而已。』乃至廣說。這樣的說法既有教證也有正理。如果彼界中完全沒有色，那麼從彼界死亡后，生到地獄時，色從何而來？或者阿羅漢（Arhat, one who has attained Nirvana）的蘊相續斷滅后，應該允許後來蘊再次相續。因此，根據教理，彼界的色不是沒有的。 這種論證是不對的，因為沒有審慎思考。且最初的兩個教證，如其他契經一樣，是就欲界（Kama-dhatu, desire realm）的密意而說的。如說：『名色緣生六處（Six sense bases），以及六觸處（Six sense contacts）稱為士夫（Purusha, person）。』難道允許這部經通說三界（Three realms）嗎？只是依據容許的情況作這樣的說法。如果認為這部經的語言沒有簡別，不應該作不同的解釋，這個道理也是不成立的，因為沒有簡別的語言也有含義不同的情況。就像前面引用的兩部經一樣。此外，外物中也應該有壽和識。
【English Translation】 English version It cannot be said that there are bodily and verbal vows (Vow of body and speech) in that realm. Since the nature of body and speech does not exist, the vows cannot be established. If it is admitted that there are body and speech in that realm, how can it be considered that there are only extremely minute forms in that realm? If it is said that the body size in that realm is very small, then the animal realm (Animals) should have the formless realm, because some insects are extremely small and cannot be seen. If it is said that the body in that realm is very pure and subtle, then the intermediate state (Antarabhava, intermediate state between death and rebirth) should be called the formless realm. If it is said that the purity and subtlety of that body has reached the extreme, then only Akanistha (the highest of the form realm) can be called the formless realm. Just as the bodies born from meditative absorption (Dhyana, meditative absorption) have superior and inferior distinctions, and all the form bodies born in meditative absorption gradually become superior due to the power of meditative absorption, and the purity and subtlety gradually increase from the upper realm looking down to the lower realm, and the root consciousness of the lower realm cannot perceive it, what is the difference between this and the formless realm, and why is it not called the formless realm? If it is thought that the name does not match the reality, or that a name can be used for two meanings, then one cannot determine its meaning by clinging to the name, then the distinction between the formless realm (Arupa-dhatu, formless realm) and the form realm (Rupa-dhatu, form realm) is meaningless, and one should carefully seek teachings and reasoning as evidence. Some people think that that realm definitely has form, because the sutra says that life force (Ayus, life force), warmth (Usma, warmth), and consciousness (Vijnana, consciousness) combine and operate. Since it is admitted that life force and consciousness are not absent in that realm, then there should be warmth, and warmth is form. It is also said that name and form (Nama-rupa, name and form) depend on consciousness, just like two bundles of reeds rely on each other. Since it is admitted that the substance of consciousness is not absent in that realm, then name and form should also be admitted. Also, the World Honored One said, the four stations of consciousness (Four stations of consciousness). Since it is admitted that there is consciousness that can abide in that realm, there must be form and so on that can be abided in. As the World Honored One said: 'If it is said that consciousness comes and goes apart from form, or even apart from the aggregate of mental formations (Samskara-skandha, aggregate of mental formations), this is just talk.' And so on. Such a statement has both scriptural evidence and correct reasoning. If there is no form at all in that realm, then after dying from that realm, where does the form come from when born into the lower realm? Or after the aggregates of an Arhat (Arhat, one who has attained Nirvana) are cut off, it should be allowed for the aggregates to continue again later. Therefore, according to teachings and reasoning, the form of that realm is not absent. This argument is incorrect because it has not been carefully considered. And the first two teachings, like other sutras, are spoken with the intention of the desire realm (Kama-dhatu, desire realm). As it is said: 'Name and form give rise to the six sense bases (Six sense bases), and the six sense contacts (Six sense contacts) are called a person (Purusha, person).' Is it allowed for this sutra to speak of the three realms (Three realms) in general? It is just making such a statement based on permissible circumstances. If it is thought that the language of this sutra has no distinction and should not be interpreted differently, this reasoning is also not valid, because language without distinction also has different meanings. Just like the two sutras quoted earlier. In addition, there should also be life force and consciousness in external objects.
有暖觸及名色故。如此經言雖無簡別而許外暖離壽識生。及外名色不依識轉。如是經言。雖無簡別。應許無色壽識離暖。唯名與識展轉相依。又識住經亦不成證。此經意說。總離四種識有去來。無有是處。不言隨離一識則無去來。故識住經言總意別。如世尊說。五無間等經謂契經言。造五無間者。次生必墮㮈落迦中。豈隨闕一無容墮彼。又說地動由四種因。雖無簡別言應作差別解。又說有情由四食住。豈色無色住亦由段食耶。準彼諸經應通此教。若謂經說有一類天超段食故。又說彼天喜為食故。彼無段食。契經亦說。無色有情。故不應言彼界有色。若謂色少得無色名。如食少鹽名無鹽者。亦不應理。以契經言一切色想皆超越故。由此彼所引諸阿笈摩。不能證成無色界有色。彼所立理亦不成證。以彼界中雖都無色后沒生下色從心生。現見世間色非色法。亦有展轉相依起故。謂心異故色差別生。色根有別識生便異。故從無色將生下時。順色生心相續而住。由彼勢力引下色生。然不可言唯從彼起。亦以先世色俱行心相續為緣。久已滅色為自種子。今色方起。許同類因通過現故。諸阿羅漢般涅槃已。諸蘊相續。無餘斷故。現無少分諸蘊生緣。不可例同從無色沒。故所立理為證不成。又無色界決定無色。契經說彼出離色故。謂契
經言。出離諸色名無色界。若彼界中猶有色者。寧說出離。若謂余經說有不能出有。故知此經定有餘意。此亦非理。彼契經中遮遍永出密意說故。有餘於此作是釋言。出離色經意作是說。欲界系法色界中無。色界系法無色界無。非無色中全無有色。但遮色界說出離言。或此契經意作是說。由色界系智出離欲界系惑。無色界系智出離色界系惑。非無色中全無有色。但遮色惑說出離言。又若經言出離諸色名無色界。即謂彼界都無有色。如是無色出離色界非色法故。彼界亦應無非色法。或如有非色。色法亦應有。非無色中有色界系色及非色。然經但說出離色言。故知不依總出色界名為無色。唯依離色說無色言。又如色界出離諸欲。諸欲種類色界都無。非色界中無色種類。如是無色界出離諸色。諸色種類無色界都無。非無色界中無無色種類。又如滅界出離有為。滅界都無諸有為法。如是無色界既出離諸色。亦應諸色彼界都無。又無色中決定無色。契經說彼除色想故。謂無色界斷緣色貪。故說名為除去色想。若許彼界猶有諸色。于彼界色既未離貪。不應說為除去色想。雖有餘部作如是言。非約色身言彼有色。以契經說離色染時。心於五界已得離染。唯于識界未得離染。故知無色定無色身。然有無漏隨心轉色。此但有虛言。彼無大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 經中說，『出離一切色法名為無色界』（Arupaloka）。如果那個界中仍然有色法存在，怎麼能說是出離呢？如果說其他的經中說有不能出離有，所以知道這部經一定有其他的含義。這種說法也是不合理的。因為那些契經中遮止普遍和永遠的出離，是帶有密意的說法。還有一些人這樣解釋說，『出離色法』的經文意思是說，欲界所繫（Kamadhatu）的法在無色界中沒有，色界所繫（Rupadhatu）的法在無色界中沒有。並不是說無色界中完全沒有色法，只是遮止色界，才說『出離』。或者這部契經的意思是說，通過色界所繫的智慧，出離欲界所繫的迷惑；通過無色界所繫的智慧，出離色界所繫的迷惑。並不是說無色界中完全沒有色法，只是遮止色界的迷惑，才說『出離』。 又如果經中說，『出離一切色法名為無色界』，那就是說那個界中完全沒有色法。這樣，無色界既然出離了色法，不是色法的原因，那個界也應該沒有不是色法的法。或者就像有不是苦的法，苦的法也應該有。不是無色界中沒有色界所繫的色法和不是色法，但是經中只說了出離色法，所以知道不是依據完全出離色界才名為無色界，只是依據離開色法才說無色界。 又比如色界出離一切慾望，各種慾望的種類在色界中都沒有。不是說色界中沒有無色的種類。這樣，無色界出離一切色法，各種色法的種類在無色界中都沒有。不是說無色界中沒有無色種類。 又比如滅盡界出離有為法，滅盡界中完全沒有各種有為法。這樣，無色界既然出離了各種色法，也應該各種色法在那個界中都沒有。 而且無色界中決定沒有色法，契經中說那裡除去了色想。意思是說，無色界斷除了對色法的貪愛，所以說名為除去色想。如果允許那個界中仍然有各種色法，對於那個界的色法既然沒有離開貪愛，不應該說為除去色想。雖然有一些部派這樣說，不是指色身說那裡有色法，因為契經中說離開色染的時候，心對於五界已經得到了離染，只有對於識界沒有得到離染。所以知道無色界一定沒有色身。然而有無漏的隨心所轉的色法。這只是虛妄的說法，那裡沒有大的意義。
【English Translation】 English version The sutra says, 'Leaving all forms is called the Formless Realm' (Arupaloka). If there are still forms in that realm, how can it be called leaving? If it is said that other sutras say that one cannot leave existence, then it is known that this sutra must have other meanings. This statement is also unreasonable because those sutras that prohibit universal and eternal departure are spoken with a hidden meaning. Some people interpret it this way, saying that the sutra 'leaving forms' means that the laws related to the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu) are not in the Formless Realm, and the laws related to the Form Realm (Rupadhatu) are not in the Formless Realm. It is not that there are no forms at all in the Formless Realm, but only the Form Realm is prevented, so it is called 'leaving'. Or the meaning of this sutra is that through the wisdom related to the Form Realm, one leaves the confusion related to the Desire Realm; through the wisdom related to the Formless Realm, one leaves the confusion related to the Form Realm. It is not that there are no forms at all in the Formless Realm, but only the confusion of the Form Realm is prevented, so it is called 'leaving'. Also, if the sutra says, 'Leaving all forms is called the Formless Realm', then that means there are no forms at all in that realm. In this way, since the Formless Realm has left forms, which are not the cause of form, that realm should also have no laws that are not forms. Or, just as there are laws that are not suffering, there should also be laws that are suffering. It is not that there are no forms related to the Form Realm and non-forms in the Formless Realm, but the sutra only speaks of leaving forms, so it is known that it is not based on completely leaving the Form Realm that it is called the Formless Realm, but only based on leaving forms that it is called the Formless Realm. Also, just as the Form Realm leaves all desires, there are no kinds of desires in the Form Realm. It is not that there are no formless kinds in the Form Realm. In this way, the Formless Realm leaves all forms, and there are no kinds of forms in the Formless Realm. It is not that there are no formless kinds in the Formless Realm. Also, just as the Realm of Extinction leaves conditioned phenomena, there are no conditioned phenomena in the Realm of Extinction. In this way, since the Formless Realm has left all forms, there should also be no forms in that realm. Moreover, there are definitely no forms in the Formless Realm, and the sutra says that the perception of form is removed there. It means that the Formless Realm has cut off the craving for forms, so it is called removing the perception of form. If it is allowed that there are still various forms in that realm, since there is no departure from craving for the forms of that realm, it should not be said to have removed the perception of form. Although some schools say that it is not referring to the physical body when saying that there are forms there, because the sutra says that when leaving the defilement of form, the mind has already attained detachment from the five realms, and only has not attained detachment from the realm of consciousness. So it is known that the Formless Realm definitely has no physical body. However, there are undefiled forms that follow the mind. This is just a false statement, and there is no great meaning there.
種故。非無大種可有造色。無漏律儀隨身生處。所有大種為能生因。有漏造色則不如是。勿有界地相雜過故。無漏不然。隨身大造。彼無身故。無無漏色。又隨轉色彼界定無。以契經言彼有受類乃至識類。不言有色。若有色者應作是說。彼有色類如靜慮中。又無色界決定無色。以契經言無色解脫。最為寂靜超諸色故。非無色界有不超色。為簡異彼說超色言。但為顯成諸無色地。乃至細色亦決定無。是故說彼超過諸色。若謂所說超諸色言。依超粗色密意說者。此亦非理。說一切故。謂契經說。無色有情一切色想皆超越故。乃至廣說。若謂無色實有色者。彼色自相定應可知。如何可言超色想等。故無色界細色亦無。教理極成不可傾動。如是已釋無色總名。何故別名空無邊等。且前三種名從加行。修加行位思無邊空。及無邊識無所有故。若由勝解思惟無邊。空加行所成。名空無邊處。謂若有法雖與色俱。而其自體不依屬色。諸有於色求出離者。必應最初思惟彼法。謂虛空體雖與色俱。而待色無方得顯了。外法所攝其相無邊。思惟彼時易能離色。故加行位思惟虛空。成時隨應亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名。有餘師說。初離色地創違色故假立空名。有餘復言。諸觀行者由解脫色。即於此地受等蘊中。多住空想。依此建立空無邊名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種子的原因。如果不存在『大種』（Mahabhuta，四大元素），就不可能有『造色』（Rupa，色所造）。無漏的『律儀』（Samvara，戒律）隨著身體產生的地方，其所有的大種是能產生的原因。有漏的造色則不是這樣，因為會有『界地相雜』的過失。無漏則不然，隨著身體而產生的大種，因為彼處沒有身體的緣故。也沒有無漏的色。而且，隨著轉生的色，在彼界是絕對沒有的。因為契經上說，彼處有受蘊、想蘊、行蘊乃至識蘊，沒有說有色蘊。如果有色蘊的話，應該這樣說：彼處有色蘊，就像在靜慮中一樣。而且，在（Arupadhatu，無色界）中，絕對沒有色。因為契經上說，無色解脫是最為寂靜的，超越了所有的色。如果不是無，就不會有超越色。爲了簡別于彼，所以說『超越色』。只是爲了顯示成就諸無色地。乃至細微的色也絕對沒有。所以說彼處超過了所有的色。如果說所說的『超越諸色』，是依據超越粗色的密意而說的，這也是不合理的，因為說的是一切。所謂契經上說，無色有情超越了一切色想，乃至廣說。如果說無色界實際上有色，那麼彼色的自相一定應該是可以知道的。怎麼能說超越色想等等呢？所以無**中，細微的色也沒有。教義和道理都非常明確，不可動搖。像這樣已經解釋了無色總的名稱。為什麼要有空無邊處等等別的名稱呢？而且前三種名稱是從加行而來的。在修加行的階段，思惟無邊虛空，以及無邊識，無所有。如果由勝解思惟無邊虛空，加行所成就的，就叫做空無邊處。也就是說，如果有一種法，雖然與色俱在，但是它的自體不依屬於色。那些對於色求出離的人，必定應該最初思惟那種法。也就是說，虛空的體性雖然與色俱在，但是要等待色沒有了才能顯現。外法所攝，它的相是無邊的。思惟彼時，容易離開色。所以在加行位思惟虛空。成就時，也隨之緣于其他法。但是從加行建立這個名稱。有其他論師說，最初離開色地，開始違背色，所以假立空名。還有人說，那些觀行者，由於解脫了色，就在此地的受蘊等蘊中，多住在空想中。依據這個建立了空無邊處的名稱。
【English Translation】 English version The cause of the seed. If there are no 'Mahabhutas' (great elements), there can be no 'Rupa' (form produced by the elements). The undefiled 'Samvara' (discipline) that arises with the body, its Mahabhutas are the cause of production. Defiled Rupa is not like that, because there would be the fault of 'mixed realms'. The undefiled is not like that; the Mahabhutas that arise with the body, because there is no body there. There is also no undefiled form. Moreover, the form that arises with rebirth is absolutely not in that realm. Because the sutras say that there are aggregates of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness there, but do not say that there is an aggregate of form. If there were an aggregate of form, it should be said: there is an aggregate of form there, just like in the dhyanas. Moreover, in the 'Arupadhatu' (formless realm), there is absolutely no form. Because the sutras say that formless liberation is the most tranquil, surpassing all forms. If it were not the Arupadhatu, it would not surpass form. To distinguish it from that, it is said 'surpassing form'. It is only to show the accomplishment of the formless realms. Even subtle form is absolutely not there. Therefore, it is said that it surpasses all forms. If it is said that the 'surpassing all forms' is spoken with the hidden meaning of surpassing coarse forms, this is also unreasonable, because it speaks of everything. The sutras say that formless beings surpass all perceptions of form, and so on. If it is said that there is actually form in the formless realm, then the self-nature of that form should definitely be knowable. How can it be said to surpass perceptions of form, etc.? Therefore, in the Arupadhatu, there is no subtle form either. The teachings and reasoning are extremely clear and cannot be shaken. Thus, the general name of the formless realm has been explained. Why are there other names such as the Sphere of Infinite Space, etc.? Moreover, the first three names come from the preparatory practice. In the stage of practicing the preparatory practice, one contemplates infinite space, as well as infinite consciousness, and nothingness. If one contemplates infinite space with superior understanding, what is accomplished by the preparatory practice is called the Sphere of Infinite Space. That is to say, if there is a dharma that, although it exists together with form, its self-nature does not depend on form. Those who seek liberation from form must first contemplate that dharma. That is to say, the nature of space, although it exists together with form, can only be revealed when form is gone. It is included in external dharmas, and its appearance is infinite. When contemplating it, it is easy to leave form. Therefore, one contemplates space in the preparatory practice stage. When it is accomplished, it also depends on other dharmas. But this name is established from the preparatory practice. Other teachers say that one initially leaves the realm of form and begins to oppose form, so the name of emptiness is falsely established. Others say that those who practice contemplation, because they are liberated from form, dwell mostly in the perception of emptiness in the aggregates of feeling, etc., in this realm. Based on this, the name of the Sphere of Infinite Space is established.
。若由勝解思惟無邊識加行所成。名識無邊處。謂于純凈六種識身。能了別中善取相已。安住勝解。由假想力思惟觀察無邊識相。由此加行為先所成。隨其所應亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名。有餘師言。由意樂故及等流故。建立此名。謂瑜伽師將入此定。先起意樂緣無邊識。從此定出起此等流識相。最為可欣樂故。將入已出俱緣識境。若由勝解舍一切所有加行所成。名無所有處。謂見無邊行相粗動。為欲厭舍起此加行。是故此處名最勝舍。以於此中不復樂作無邊行相。心於所緣舍諸所有。寂然住故。由想昧劣立第四名。謂此地中想不明勝。如無想故得非想名。而想非全無故名非非想。此地猶有昧劣想故。此言顯示有頂地想。非如下七地故得非想名。非如三無心故名非非想。豈不有頂加行位中。諸瑜伽師。亦作是念。諸想如病如箭如癰。無想天中如癡如闇。唯有非想非非想天。與上相違寂靜美妙。寧此不就加行立名。理實應然。以觀行者必先厭想。及無想故。然或有問行者何緣修加行時作如是念。必應舉此為酬問因。故說立名由想昧劣。此四無色皆言處者。以是諸有生長處故。謂此四處為有無有。生長種種業煩惱故。為破妄計彼是涅槃。故佛說為生長有處。已辯無色。等至云何。頌曰。
此本等至八 前七各有三
謂味凈無漏 後味凈二種 味謂愛相應 凈謂世間善 此即所味著 無漏謂出世
論曰。此上所辯靜慮無色。根本等至總有八種。于中前七各具有三。有頂等至唯有二種。此地昧劣無無漏故。初味等至謂愛相應。愛能味著故名為味。彼相應故此得味名。愛相應言依自性說。此以等持為自性故。若並助伴應作是言。愛俱品法名味等至。此但取愛一果品法。凈等至名目世善定。離惑垢故與無貪等。諸白凈法共相應故。此是善故與味有殊。是有漏故與無漏別。此即是前所味著境。此無間滅彼味定生。緣過去凈深生味著。爾時雖名出所味定。于能味定得名為入。諸從定出總有五種。一出地。二出剎那。三出行相。四出所緣。五出種類。從初靜慮入第二等。名為出地。于同一地行相所緣。相續轉位前念無間入於後念。名出剎那。從無常行相入苦行相等。名出行相。從緣色蘊入緣受等。名出所緣。從有漏入無漏。從不染污入染污等。名出種類。依出種類此中說言。從所味出入能味定。豈不二言更相違反。能味是愛非所入定。所入是定不名能味。如何可言入能味定。無相違過。現見相應隨舉一名說俱品故。如勸長者作意記別。互相雜故俱得二名。由愛相應等持名味。等持力故愛得定名。故無二言更相違過。有說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『味』指的是與愛慾相應的狀態，是染污不凈的；『凈』指的是世間的善法。 這指的是所貪著的對象。『無漏』指的是超越世間的智慧。
論：以上所辨析的四靜慮和四無色定，根本等至共有八種。其中前七種各自具有三種（味凈定、凈定、無漏定），有頂等至只有兩種（凈定、無漏定），因為此地的定力昧劣，沒有無漏定。 初靜慮的『味』等至，指的是與愛慾相應的禪定。愛慾能夠使人貪著，所以稱為『味』。因為禪定與愛慾相應，所以得到『味』的名稱。說『愛相應』是依據自性而言，因為此禪定的自性是等持（專注）。如果連同助伴一起說，應該說：與愛慾同類的法稱為『味』等至。這裡只取愛慾這一果報中的同類法。 『凈』等至，指的是世間的善定。因為它遠離了煩惱的垢染，與無貪等清凈的法相應。因為它是善的，所以與『味』有所不同；因為是有漏的，所以與『無漏』有所區別。這也就是前面所貪著的境界。此境界滅后，彼『味』定生起，對過去的清凈境界深深地產生貪著。這時，雖然名為『出所味定』，但對於能產生貪著的定，可以稱為『入』。 從禪定中出來，總共有五種：一、出地；二、出剎那；三、出行相；四、出所緣；五、出種類。從初靜慮進入第二靜慮等，名為『出地』。在同一地中，行相和所緣相續轉變，前一念無間地進入后一念，名為『出剎那』。從無常的行相進入苦的行相等，名為『出行相』。從緣色蘊進入緣受蘊等，名為『出所緣』。從有漏進入無漏，從不染污進入染污等，名為『出種類』。依據『出種類』，這裡說：從所貪著的境界出來，進入能產生貪著的定。難道這兩種說法不是互相矛盾嗎？能產生貪著的是愛慾，不是所進入的定；所進入的是定，不是能產生貪著的愛慾。怎麼能說進入能產生貪著的定呢？ 沒有互相矛盾的過失。現在可以看到，相應的事物可以隨意舉出一個名稱來說明同類的法。比如勸說長者作意去記住差別，因為互相混雜，所以可以同時得到兩個名稱。因為等持與愛慾相應，所以等持名為『味』；因為等持的力量，所以愛慾得到定的名稱。所以這兩種說法沒有互相矛盾的過失。有人說：
【English Translation】 English version 『Taste』 (味, wei) refers to the state corresponding to desire and attachment, which is impure and defiled; 『Purity』 (凈, jing) refers to worldly wholesome dharmas (法, dharma). This refers to the object of craving. 『Non-outflow』 (無漏, wu lou) refers to wisdom that transcends the world.
Treatise: The four Dhyanas (靜慮, jing lv) and four Formless Absorptions (無色定, wu se ding) discussed above have a total of eight fundamental Samapattis (等至, deng zhi). Among them, the first seven each have three types (Taste-Purity Samapatti, Purity Samapatti, Non-outflow Samapatti), while the Samapatti of the Peak of Existence (有頂, you ding) has only two types (Purity Samapatti, Non-outflow Samapatti), because the Samadhi (定, ding) power of this realm is weak and does not have Non-outflow Samapatti. The 『Taste』 Samapatti of the first Dhyana refers to the Samadhi corresponding to desire. Desire can cause people to crave, so it is called 『Taste』. Because the Samadhi corresponds to desire, it gets the name 『Taste』. Saying 『corresponding to desire』 is based on its nature, because the nature of this Samadhi is Equanimity (等持, deng chi) [focused concentration]. If we include the assistants, we should say: Dharmas of the same category as desire are called 『Taste』 Samapatti. Here, we only take the dharmas of the same category in the retribution of desire. 『Purity』 Samapatti refers to worldly wholesome Samadhi. Because it is free from the defilement of afflictions, it corresponds to non-greed and other pure dharmas. Because it is wholesome, it is different from 『Taste』; because it is with outflows, it is different from 『Non-outflow』. This is the object of craving mentioned earlier. After this realm ceases, that 『Taste』 Samadhi arises, deeply craving the past pure realm. At this time, although it is called 『exiting the Taste-object Samadhi』, it can be called 『entering』 the Samadhi that produces craving. There are five types of exiting Samadhi: 1. Exiting the Ground; 2. Exiting the Moment; 3. Exiting the Aspect; 4. Exiting the Object; 5. Exiting the Category. Entering the second Dhyana from the first Dhyana is called 『Exiting the Ground』. In the same ground, the aspects and objects of focus continuously change, and the previous moment enters the next moment without interruption, which is called 『Exiting the Moment』. Entering the aspect of suffering from the aspect of impermanence is called 『Exiting the Aspect』. Entering the realm of feeling from the realm of form is called 『Exiting the Object』. Entering the non-outflow from the outflow, and entering the defiled from the undefiled, is called 『Exiting the Category』. According to 『Exiting the Category』, it is said here: exiting the craved object and entering the Samadhi that produces craving. Aren't these two statements contradictory? What produces craving is desire, not the Samadhi that is entered; what is entered is Samadhi, not the desire that produces craving. How can it be said to enter the Samadhi that produces craving? There is no fault of contradiction. It can be seen that corresponding things can arbitrarily use one name to explain dharmas of the same category. For example, advising an elder to intentionally remember the differences, because they are mixed together, they can get two names at the same time. Because Equanimity corresponds to desire, Equanimity is called 『Taste』; because of the power of Equanimity, desire gets the name of Samadhi. So these two statements do not have the fault of contradiction. Some say:
定愛相續現前。諸后剎那緣前為境。所味即是前滅剎那。後生剎那說名能味。此能味愛現在前時。緣過去境不緣現在。自性相應及俱有法。以必不觀自性等故。不緣未來未曾領故。于所緣境專注不移。方名為定。愛相應定亦專一境。故得定名。余惑相應則不如是。謂余煩惱于自所緣。不能令心專注如愛。故三摩地若與愛俱。專注一緣與善相似。無漏定者。謂出世定。愛不緣故非所味著。如是所說八等至中。靜慮攝支非諸無色。以諸無色極寂靜故。謂瑜伽師樂修善品。若於廣大功德聚中。別建立支精勤修習。若諸無色寂靜增故。心心所法昧劣而轉。是故於彼不建立支。或彼地中等持偏勝。非一偏勝可立支名。要多法增方名支故。由此靜慮獨得立支。定慧均行多法增故。由此近分亦不立支。色近分中唯慧增故。有餘師說。若諸地中有別心所。無餘斷滅方於此地立支非余。初靜慮中憂苦斷滅。第二靜慮尋伺無餘。第三滅喜。第四斷樂。無色地中雖總漸滅。而無隨地無餘斷滅。此釋未能遣他疑問。何緣唯此方建立支。是故應如前釋為善。於四靜慮各有幾支。頌曰。
靜慮初五支 尋伺喜樂定 第二有四支 內凈喜樂定 第三具五支 舍念慧樂定 第四有四支 舍念中受定
論曰。唯凈無漏四靜慮中。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『定』（Samadhi）與『愛』（Tanha）相續不斷地顯現於目前。各個後續的剎那以之前的剎那為所緣境。被體驗到的就是前一個滅去的剎那。后一個生起的剎那被稱為能體驗者。當這個能體驗的『愛』顯現於目前時，它緣於過去的境，而不是現在的境。『愛』的自性相應法和俱有法，必定不會觀察自性等等。它不緣于未來，因為未來未曾被領受過。對於所緣境專注不移，才可稱為『定』。與『愛』相應的『定』也專注于單一的境，因此得名為『定』。其他的煩惱則不是這樣。也就是說，其他的煩惱對於它們所緣的境，不能像『愛』一樣使心專注。因此，如果『三摩地』（Samadhi）與『愛』俱生，專注于單一的所緣境，就與善法相似。無漏的『定』，指的是出世間的『定』。因為『愛』不緣於它，所以它不是被『愛』所味著的。 像這樣所說的八種等至（Samapatti）中，只有靜慮（Dhyana）包含支分，而無色定（Arupadhatu）不包含。因為無色定極其寂靜。也就是說，瑜伽師（Yogi）樂於修習善法，如果對於廣大的功德聚集之中，特別建立支分，精勤修習。如果諸無色定因為寂靜而增強，心和心所法就會變得遲鈍而運轉。因此，在無色定中不建立支分。或者在那個地界中，等持（Samahita）過於偏勝，不是單一的偏勝可以被立為支分，必須是多種法增盛才能稱為支分。因此，只有靜慮才能單獨地被立為支分，因為定和慧均等執行，多種法增盛。因此，近分定（Upacara-samadhi）也不能被立為支分，因為在色界近分定中只有慧增盛。有其他老師說，如果在各個地界中有特別的心所，沒有其他的斷滅，才能在這個地界建立支分，而不是其他的。在初禪（Prathama Dhyana）中，憂和苦斷滅。在第二禪（Dvitiya Dhyana）中，尋（Vitarka）和伺（Vicara）沒有剩餘。第三禪（Tritiya Dhyana）滅除喜（Priti）。第四禪（Caturtha Dhyana）斷除樂（Sukha）。在無色界中，雖然總體上是逐漸滅除，但是沒有隨著地界的不同而無餘地斷滅。這種解釋未能消除他人的疑問，為什麼只有這些禪定才能建立支分？因此，應該像前面的解釋那樣才是好的。在四禪中，各有幾個支分？頌曰： 靜慮初五支 尋伺喜樂定 第二有四支 內凈喜樂定 第三具五支 舍念慧樂定 第四有四支 舍念中受定 論曰：只有清凈無漏的四靜慮中。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Samadhi' (concentration) and 'Tanha' (craving) arise in continuous succession. Each subsequent moment takes the preceding moment as its object. What is tasted is the preceding moment that has ceased. The subsequent moment that arises is called the taster. When this tasting 'craving' is present, it is directed towards the past object, not the present. The intrinsic nature and co-existent dharmas of 'craving' certainly do not observe its own nature, etc. It does not focus on the future because the future has not been experienced. Only when one's attention is focused and unwavering on the object can it be called 'Samadhi'. 'Samadhi' associated with 'craving' also focuses on a single object, hence it is called 'Samadhi'. Other afflictions are not like this. That is, other afflictions cannot make the mind as focused as 'craving' on their respective objects. Therefore, if 'Samadhi' arises together with 'craving', focusing on a single object, it is similar to wholesome dharma. Unstained 'Samadhi' refers to supramundane 'Samadhi'. Because 'craving' does not focus on it, it is not tasted or clung to. Among the eight Samapattis (attainments) mentioned, only the Dhyanas (meditative absorptions) contain limbs, while the Arupadhatu (formless realms) do not. This is because the formless realms are extremely tranquil. That is, yogis delight in cultivating wholesome qualities. If limbs are specifically established and diligently cultivated within the vast accumulation of merits, and if the formless realms become enhanced due to tranquility, the mind and mental factors will become dull and operate weakly. Therefore, limbs are not established in the formless realms. Or, in those realms, Samahita (equanimity) is excessively predominant. A single predominance cannot be established as a limb; it requires the increase of multiple dharmas to be called a limb. Therefore, only Dhyana is uniquely established as a limb because concentration and wisdom operate equally, and multiple dharmas increase. Therefore, Upacara-samadhi (access concentration) also cannot be established as a limb because only wisdom increases in the access concentration of the form realm. Some other teachers say that if there are special mental factors in each realm, without other cessations, limbs can be established in that realm, but not in others. In the First Dhyana (Prathama Dhyana), sorrow and suffering cease. In the Second Dhyana (Dvitiya Dhyana), Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought) are without remainder. The Third Dhyana (Tritiya Dhyana) extinguishes Priti (joy). The Fourth Dhyana (Caturtha Dhyana) cuts off Sukha (pleasure). In the formless realms, although there is a gradual cessation overall, there is no complete cessation that varies with the realm. This explanation fails to eliminate others' doubts. Why can only these Dhyanas establish limbs? Therefore, it should be as explained earlier to be good. How many limbs are there in each of the four Dhyanas? The verse says: The First Dhyana has five limbs: Vitarka, Vicara, Priti, Sukha, and Samadhi. The Second Dhyana has four limbs: Inner Purity, Priti, Sukha, and Samadhi. The Third Dhyana has five limbs: Upeksha (equanimity), Mindfulness, Wisdom, Sukha, and Samadhi. The Fourth Dhyana has four limbs: Upeksha, Mindfulness, Neutral Feeling, and Samadhi. The treatise says: Only in the pure and unstained four Dhyanas.
初具五支。一尋。二伺。三喜。四樂。五心一境性。心一境性是定異名。定與等持體同名異。故言定者即勝等持。此中說為心一境性。第二靜慮唯有四支。一內等凈。二喜。三樂。四心一境性。第三靜慮具有五支。一行舍。二正念。三正慧。四受樂。五心一境性。第四靜慮唯有四支。一行舍清凈。二念清凈。三非苦樂受。四心一境性。何緣初三支各具五。第二第四唯各四支。各唯爾所堪立支故。或由欲界多諸惡法及妙五欲難斷難捨。第二靜慮有重地喜。其相動踴喜中之極。引五部愛難捨難斷。為對治彼故初三各五支。初三不然故余各四。或為隨順超等至法。謂最初起超等至時。入異類難入同類易。然超等至初起位中。或從初入三。或從二入四。故二第四各唯四支。初及第三各具有五。後起則易故上無支。靜慮支名既有十八。于中實事總有幾種。頌曰。
此實事十一 初二樂輕安 內凈即信根 喜即是喜受
論曰。此支實事唯有十一。謂初五支即五實事。第二靜慮三支如前。增內凈支足前為六。第三靜慮等持如前。增餘四支足前為十。第四靜慮三支如前。增非苦樂支足前為十一。何緣心等非靜慮支。此應準前菩提分辯。有異彼者今略分別。受中立三非憂苦者。憂苦唯是欲界攝故。三受隨地為利益支。順
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 初禪具有五支：一、尋（Vitarka，對對象的粗略思考）。二、伺（Vicara，對對象的細緻考察）。三、喜（Priti，因離欲而生的喜悅）。四、樂（Sukha，由喜悅帶來的快樂）。五、心一境性（Ekaggata，專注）。心一境性是定的另一種說法。定與等持（Samadhi）本體相同，名稱不同。所以說『定』就是殊勝的等持。這裡說的是心一境性。 第二禪只有四支：一、內等凈（Adhyatma-samprasada，內心的平靜和確信）。二、喜。三、樂。四、心一境性。 第三禪具有五支：一、行舍（Upeksa，對快樂的捨棄）。二、正念（Smrti，正確的覺知）。三、正慧（Samprajanya，正確的智慧）。四、受樂（Sukha，感受快樂）。五、心一境性。 第四禪只有四支：一、行舍清凈（Upeksa-parisuddhi，舍的清凈）。二、念清凈（Smrti-parisuddhi，唸的清凈）。三、非苦樂受（Aduhkha-asukha-vedana，既非痛苦也非快樂的感受）。四、心一境性。 為什麼初禪、二禪、三禪各有五支，而第二禪、第四禪卻只有四支呢？因為它們各自只能建立這麼多支。或者因為欲界有許多惡法，以及美妙的五欲難以斷除和捨棄。第二禪有強烈的喜，其相狀是激動和極度的喜悅，會引發五部愛（對五蘊的執著），難以捨棄和斷除。爲了對治這些，所以初禪、三禪各有五支。初禪、三禪沒有這些問題，所以其餘的各有四支。或者爲了隨順超越等至（Samapatti）的法則。意思是最初發起超越等至時，進入不同類別的禪定很難，進入同類別的禪定容易。然而，在超越等至的初起階段，或者從初禪進入三禪，或者從二禪進入四禪。所以第二禪、第四禪各自只有四支，初禪和第三禪各自具有五支。後來再進入禪定就容易了，所以更高的禪定就沒有支了。 靜慮（Dhyana）的支共有十八個名稱，其中實際的事物總共有幾種呢？頌說： 『此實事十一，初二樂輕安，內凈即信根，喜即是喜受。』 論說：這些支的實際事物只有十一種。初禪的五支就是五種實際事物。第二禪的三支和前面一樣。增加內凈支，總共是六種。第三禪的等持和前面一樣。增加其餘四支，總共是十種。第四禪的三支和前面一樣。增加非苦樂支，總共是十一種。為什麼心等不是靜慮的支呢？這應該參照前面菩提分（Bodhipaksika-dharmas）的辨析。如果有與菩提分不同的地方，現在簡略地分別說明。在感受中建立三種，沒有憂苦，因為憂苦只是欲界所攝。三種感受隨著不同的禪定境界成為利益之支，順應禪定。
【English Translation】 English version: The first Dhyana (meditative absorption) possesses five factors: 1. Vitarka (initial application of thought, gross thought about the object). 2. Vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle pondering of the object). 3. Priti (joy, rapture born of detachment). 4. Sukha (happiness, pleasure arising from joy). 5. Ekaggata (one-pointedness of mind, concentration). Ekaggata is another term for Samadhi (concentration). Samadhi and equanimity (Upeksa) are the same in essence but different in name. Therefore, 'Samadhi' is said to be superior equanimity. Here, it is referred to as one-pointedness of mind. The second Dhyana has only four factors: 1. Adhyatma-samprasada (inner tranquility and conviction). 2. Priti. 3. Sukha. 4. Ekaggata. The third Dhyana possesses five factors: 1. Upeksa (equanimity, abandonment of joy). 2. Smrti (mindfulness, correct awareness). 3. Samprajanya (clear comprehension, correct wisdom). 4. Sukha (experiencing happiness). 5. Ekaggata. The fourth Dhyana has only four factors: 1. Upeksa-parisuddhi (purity of equanimity). 2. Smrti-parisuddhi (purity of mindfulness). 3. Aduhkha-asukha-vedana (neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling). 4. Ekaggata. Why do the first, second, and third Dhyanas each have five factors, while the second and fourth Dhyanas only have four factors each? Because they are each only capable of establishing that many factors. Or, because the desire realm has many evil dharmas (qualities) and the wonderful five desires are difficult to cut off and abandon. The second Dhyana has intense joy, its characteristic being agitation and extreme joy, which can give rise to the five clinging aggregates (Skandhas), which are difficult to abandon and cut off. In order to counteract these, the first and third Dhyanas each have five factors. The first and third Dhyanas do not have these problems, so the others each have four factors. Or, in order to accord with the laws of transcending Samapatti (attainments). Meaning that when initially arising to transcend Samapatti, it is difficult to enter different categories of Dhyana, and easy to enter the same category of Dhyana. However, in the initial stage of arising to transcend Samapatti, one either enters the third Dhyana from the first Dhyana, or enters the fourth Dhyana from the second Dhyana. Therefore, the second and fourth Dhyanas each only have four factors, and the first and third Dhyanas each have five factors. Later, entering Dhyana becomes easier, so the higher Dhyanas do not have factors. The factors of Dhyana have eighteen names, but how many actual realities are there in total? The verse says: 'These realities are eleven, the first two are happiness and tranquility, inner purity is the root of faith, joy is the feeling of joy.' The treatise says: These factors have only eleven actual realities. The five factors of the first Dhyana are five actual realities. The three factors of the second Dhyana are the same as before. Adding the factor of inner purity, there are a total of six. The equanimity of the third Dhyana is the same as before. Adding the remaining four factors, there are a total of ten. The three factors of the fourth Dhyana are the same as before. Adding the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, there are a total of eleven. Why are mind and so on not factors of Dhyana? This should be compared to the analysis of the Bodhipaksika-dharmas (factors of enlightenment) mentioned earlier. If there are differences from the Bodhipaksika-dharmas, they will now be briefly explained separately. Establishing three types of feeling, without sorrow and suffering, because sorrow and suffering are only included in the desire realm. The three types of feeling, according to the different Dhyana realms, become factors of benefit, according with Dhyana.
定用強故皆支攝。何緣精進非靜慮支。諸靜慮支順自地勝。精進順上故不立支。或靜慮支適分安樂。精進求勝策勵疲苦。尋伺二種能助等持。制策於心令離粗細。對治欲惡故並立支。何緣無表非靜慮支。諸靜慮支助定住境。彼不緣境故不立支。故靜慮支隨地差別。雖有十八。而於實事種類中求應唯九種。然受相異故分十一。由此故說有是初支。非第二支。應作四句。第一句謂尋伺。第二句謂內凈。第三句謂喜樂等持。第四句謂除前余法。余支相對如理應思。此中支名為目何義。目顯成義。何所顯成。謂顯成此是初靜慮。乃至此是第四靜慮。或此支名目隨順義。如拘櫞等名為飲支。謂十八支各順自地。或資具義說名為支。如祠祀支即牛馬等。謂尋伺等展轉相資。毗婆沙師顯靜慮地等持最勝。故作是說。三摩地是靜慮亦靜慮支。尋伺等是靜慮支非靜慮。寧知靜慮地等持最勝耶。以契經中作如是說。於四靜慮應知定根。然于相成及相防護。義相似故作如是言。如四支軍。亦無有失。如王與眾雖互相資。而於其中王最為勝。豈不三定樂體是同。則靜慮支應無十一。第三定樂以受為體。初二靜慮樂即輕安。故靜慮支實有十一。輕安行舍遍四靜慮。何緣初二唯立輕安。后二地中唯立行舍。以此于彼偏隨順故。謂欲界中有諸惡法。初
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『定用強故皆支攝』：因為禪定（Dhyana）的作用強大，所以（尋伺等）都被它所統攝。 『何緣精進非靜慮支』：為什麼精進（Viriya）不是禪定的支分呢？ 『諸靜慮支順自地勝。精進順上故不立支』：因為各個禪定的支分順應各自地界的殊勝之處，而精進是順應更高地界的，所以不被立為支分。 『或靜慮支適分安樂。精進求勝策勵疲苦』：或者說，禪定的支分帶來適度的安樂，而精進是爲了追求殊勝，策勵身心，會帶來疲憊和辛苦。 『尋伺二種能助等持。制策於心令離粗細。對治欲惡故並立支』：尋（Vitarka）和伺（Vicara）這兩種作用能夠幫助等持（Samadhi），控制和策勵內心，使之遠離粗重的和細微的念頭，並且能夠對治慾望和惡念，所以被並立為支分。 『何緣無表非靜慮支』：為什麼無表色（Avijnapti-rupa）不是禪定的支分呢？ 『諸靜慮支助定住境。彼不緣境故不立支』：因為各個禪定的支分幫助禪定安住于所緣境，而無表色不緣境，所以不被立為支分。 『故靜慮支隨地差別。雖有十八。而於實事種類中求應唯九種。然受相異故分十一』：所以，禪定的支分隨著地界的差別而不同，雖然有十八種，但如果從實際事物的種類來說，應該只有九種。然而，因為感受（Vedana）的相狀不同，所以分為十一種。 『由此故說有是初支。非第二支。應作四句。第一句謂尋伺。第二句謂內凈。第三句謂喜樂等持。第四句謂除前余法。余支相對如理應思』：因此，對於『有的是初禪的支分，不是第二禪的支分』，應該作四句分別。第一句是指尋和伺，第二句是指內凈（Adhyatma-samprasada），第三句是指喜（Priti）、樂（Sukha）和等持，第四句是指除了前面所說的以外的其他法。其餘的支分相對而言，也應該如理作意。 『此中支名為目何義。目顯成義。何所顯成。謂顯成此是初靜慮。乃至此是第四靜慮。或此支名目隨順義。如拘櫞等名為飲支。謂十八支各順自地。或資具義說名為支。如祠祀支即牛馬等。謂尋伺等展轉相資』：這裡，『支』這個名稱是什麼意思呢？『支』是顯示和成就的意思。顯示和成就什麼呢？就是顯示和成就『這是初禪』，乃至『這是第四禪』。或者，『支』這個名稱是隨順的意思，就像拘櫞等被稱為飲支一樣，意思是十八支各自隨順自己的地界。或者，『支』是資具的意思，就像祭祀的資具就是牛馬等一樣，意思是尋和伺等互相資助。 『毗婆沙師顯靜慮地等持最勝。故作是說。三摩地是靜慮亦靜慮支。尋伺等是靜慮支非靜慮。寧知靜慮地等持最勝耶。以契經中作如是說。於四靜慮應知定根。然于相成及相防護。義相似故作如是言。如四支軍。亦無有失。如王與眾雖互相資。而於其中王最為勝』：毗婆沙師爲了顯示禪定地中的等持最為殊勝，所以這樣說：『三摩地（Samadhi）是禪定，也是禪定的支分，而尋和伺等是禪定的支分，但不是禪定本身。』憑什麼知道禪定地中的等持最為殊勝呢？因為契經中這樣說：『對於四禪，應該知道定根。』然而，因為在相互成就和相互防護的意義上相似，所以才這樣說，就像四種軍隊一樣，也沒有缺失。就像國王和民眾雖然互相資助，但在其中國王最為殊勝。 『豈不三定樂體是同。則靜慮支應無十一。第三定樂以受為體。初二靜慮樂即輕安。故靜慮支實有十一』：難道不是第三禪的樂受和初二禪的樂受本體相同嗎？那麼禪定的支分就不應該有十一種。第三禪的樂受以感受為本體，而初二禪的樂受就是輕安（Prasrabdhi）。所以禪定的支分實際上有十一種。 『輕安行舍遍四靜慮。何緣初二唯立輕安。后二地中唯立行舍。以此于彼偏隨順故。謂欲界中有諸惡法。初』：輕安和行舍（Upeksha）遍及四禪。為什麼初禪和二禪只安立輕安，而後二禪中只安立行舍呢？因為這樣更隨順於它們。因為欲界中有各種惡法，初
【English Translation】 English version 『定用強故皆支攝』 (Dhyana's strength encompasses all): Because Dhyana (meditative absorption) is powerful, all (such as Vitarka and Vicara) are encompassed by it. 『何緣精進非靜慮支』 (Why is Viriya not a limb of Dhyana?): Why is Viriya (effort/energy) not a limb of Dhyana? 『諸靜慮支順自地勝。精進順上故不立支』 (Dhyana limbs accord with their own realm's excellence; Viriya accords with higher realms, hence not a limb): Because the limbs of each Dhyana accord with the excellence of their respective realms, while Viriya accords with higher realms, it is not established as a limb. 『或靜慮支適分安樂。精進求勝策勵疲苦』 (Dhyana limbs bring moderate ease; Viriya seeks excellence, urging effort and fatigue): Alternatively, the limbs of Dhyana bring moderate ease, while Viriya seeks excellence, urging effort and causing fatigue. 『尋伺二種能助等持。制策於心令離粗細。對治欲惡故並立支』 (Vitarka and Vicara aid Samadhi, control the mind, separate from coarse and subtle, counteract desire and evil, hence established as limbs): Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought) aid Samadhi (concentration), control and urge the mind, separating it from coarse and subtle thoughts, and counteract desire and evil, hence they are established as limbs. 『何緣無表非靜慮支』 (Why is Avijnapti-rupa not a limb of Dhyana?): Why is Avijnapti-rupa (non-manifesting matter) not a limb of Dhyana? 『諸靜慮支助定住境。彼不緣境故不立支』 (Dhyana limbs aid concentration on an object; it does not cognize an object, hence not a limb): Because the limbs of each Dhyana aid concentration in abiding on an object, while Avijnapti-rupa does not cognize an object, it is not established as a limb. 『故靜慮支隨地差別。雖有十八。而於實事種類中求應唯九種。然受相異故分十一』 (Dhyana limbs differ by realm, though eighteen, in reality only nine kinds; but due to different aspects of Vedana, divided into eleven): Therefore, the limbs of Dhyana differ according to the realm. Although there are eighteen, in terms of the kinds of actual things, there should only be nine. However, because the aspects of Vedana (feeling) are different, they are divided into eleven. 『由此故說有是初支。非第二支。應作四句。第一句謂尋伺。第二句謂內凈。第三句謂喜樂等持。第四句謂除前余法。余支相對如理應思』 (Hence, 'some are limbs of the first Dhyana, not the second'; should be analyzed in four categories: Vitarka and Vicara; Adhyatma-samprasada; Priti, Sukha, and Samadhi; remaining factors): Therefore, regarding 'some are limbs of the first Dhyana, not the second,' it should be analyzed in four categories: the first refers to Vitarka and Vicara, the second refers to Adhyatma-samprasada (inner clarity), the third refers to Priti (joy), Sukha (happiness), and Samadhi, and the fourth refers to the remaining factors besides those mentioned before. The remaining limbs should be contemplated accordingly. 『此中支名為目何義。目顯成義。何所顯成。謂顯成此是初靜慮。乃至此是第四靜慮。或此支名目隨順義。如拘櫞等名為飲支。謂十八支各順自地。或資具義說名為支。如祠祀支即牛馬等。謂尋伺等展轉相資』 (What is the meaning of 'limb'? It signifies manifestation and accomplishment; manifesting and accomplishing the first to fourth Dhyanas; or 'limb' means accordance, like 'drinking limb'; or 'limb' means requisite, like sacrificial requisites): Here, what is the meaning of the term 'limb'? 'Limb' signifies manifestation and accomplishment. Manifesting and accomplishing what? Manifesting and accomplishing 'this is the first Dhyana,' up to 'this is the fourth Dhyana.' Alternatively, the term 'limb' means accordance, like 'Kujangala' (a type of tree) and other things are called 'drinking limbs,' meaning the eighteen limbs each accord with their own realm. Or, 'limb' means requisite, like the requisites for sacrifice are oxen and horses, meaning Vitarka and Vicara, etc., mutually support each other. 『毗婆沙師顯靜慮地等持最勝。故作是說。三摩地是靜慮亦靜慮支。尋伺等是靜慮支非靜慮。寧知靜慮地等持最勝耶。以契經中作如是說。於四靜慮應知定根。然于相成及相防護。義相似故作如是言。如四支軍。亦無有失。如王與眾雖互相資。而於其中王最為勝』 (Vaibhashikas show Samadhi is supreme in Dhyana realms, hence Samadhi is Dhyana and a Dhyana limb; Vitarka etc. are Dhyana limbs but not Dhyana; Samadhi is supreme because the sutras say to know the root of concentration in the four Dhyanas; like a four-part army or a king and his subjects): The Vaibhashika masters, to show that Samadhi is the most excellent in the Dhyana realms, say this: 'Samadhi is Dhyana and also a limb of Dhyana, while Vitarka and Vicara, etc., are limbs of Dhyana but not Dhyana itself.' How do we know that Samadhi is the most excellent in the Dhyana realms? Because the sutras say this: 'Regarding the four Dhyanas, one should know the root of concentration.' However, because they are similar in the sense of mutual accomplishment and mutual protection, it is said like a four-part army, there is also no deficiency. Like a king and his subjects, although they mutually support each other, the king is the most excellent among them. 『豈不三定樂體是同。則靜慮支應無十一。第三定樂以受為體。初二靜慮樂即輕安。故靜慮支實有十一』 (Isn't the nature of happiness in the third Dhyana the same? Then there shouldn't be eleven Dhyana limbs. The happiness of the third Dhyana is Vedana; the happiness of the first two Dhyanas is Prasrabdhi; hence there are eleven Dhyana limbs): Isn't the nature of happiness in the third Dhyana the same as the happiness in the first two Dhyanas? Then there shouldn't be eleven Dhyana limbs. The happiness of the third Dhyana has Vedana as its nature, while the happiness of the first two Dhyanas is Prasrabdhi (tranquility). Therefore, there are actually eleven Dhyana limbs. 『輕安行舍遍四靜慮。何緣初二唯立輕安。后二地中唯立行舍。以此于彼偏隨順故。謂欲界中有諸惡法。初』 (Prasrabdhi and Upeksha pervade the four Dhyanas; why only Prasrabdhi in the first two, and only Upeksha in the latter two? Because they accord with them; the desire realm has evil dharmas): Prasrabdhi and Upeksha (equanimity) pervade the four Dhyanas. Why are only Prasrabdhi established in the first and second Dhyanas, and only Upeksha in the latter two? Because this is more in accordance with them. Because the desire realm has various evil dharmas, the first
靜慮地有尋伺想。能逼惱心猶如毒箭。初二離彼故輕安增。第二靜慮喜極動涌。第三靜慮樂受極增。二俱能為愛勝生處。三四棄彼故行舍增。或欲及初有色根識。所引粗重甚於餘地。初二離彼故輕安增。三四地中離粗重遠。寂靜轉勝故行舍增。謂輕安樂如初舍擔。若更易地氣分微薄。故唯初二建立輕安。三四地中任運而轉。寂靜轉勝故立行舍。或初二定有輕安緣。喜與輕安為勝緣故。如契經說。喜故輕安。三四定中無喜緣故。輕安微劣。不立為支。行舍輕安互相覆蔽。若處有一第二便無。輕安治沈其相飄舉。行舍治掉其相寂止。故安與舍互相覆蔽。何理為證知三樂支。二是輕安第三是受。已說于彼偏隨順故。謂第三定樂非輕安。安非彼支。次前已說。初二定樂必非樂受。是身心受俱非理故。謂初二樂必非身受。正在定中無五識故亦非心受。應即喜故要離喜愛。餘地心悅方可異前立為樂受。喜即喜受。於一心中二受俱行。不應理故。若謂喜樂更互現起。無斯過者。理亦不然。說具五支及四支故。若謂五四約容有說。不必俱行。亦不應理。應有有尋無伺定故。然經但說有三等持。有尋有伺乃至廣說。若靜慮支非必俱起。何緣不說有有尋無伺定。又于欲界初靜慮中。亦應具有三三摩地。是則違害契經所言。經主此中假引他說
。謂定無有心受樂根。三靜慮中說樂支者。皆是身受所攝樂故。若爾便害契經所說。如契經說。云何樂根。謂順樂觸力所引生身心樂受。實無違害。有餘於此增益心言。餘部經中唯說身故。何緣不謂餘部契經。有餘于彼削除心字。以契經說第二定等。無餘識身心一趣故。若固說彼有身受樂。與理相違。如后當辯。雖第三定所立樂支。契經說為身所受樂。然不能證彼地樂根非心受攝。亦說離生喜是身所證故。豈可由此便執喜根非心受攝。又非色法亦見說身。謂六觸身六受身等。若謂無色說名為身。無有身前不標名者。此非決定無色界中說身見故。又見於彼說身壞故。又說彼身下劣生故。又見經說此非汝身。亦非余身。謂六觸處故。又色身前亦標別名故。如契經說。所有色身。故身前名有無不定。故知於此說意為身。此說身名為有何德。為顯彼樂受自內所證故。謂彼地樂非所依緣。所能顯了唯自內證。此則顯彼樂受中極。亦見於自說以身聲如說。由身證甘露界。則是自證甘露界義。或為顯示如是樂受。相似先時由身所證。非似下地心所證者。為欲簡別下心所證。故說彼為身所受樂。或為顯示一切樂根。無不依止依色身識。由此已顯輕安樂中亦有依止依非色識。則說彼樂一切地有。由是理趣此契經中。不分明說為意身所受樂
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "他們說，在禪定中沒有心識感受快樂的樂根（sukha-indriya，快樂的感官能力）。在第三禪定中提到的『樂支』，都是由身體感受所包含的快樂。如果這樣說，就違背了契經（sutra，佛經）。", "正如契經所說：什麼是樂根？是指由順適的觸覺力量所引發的身心快樂感受。實際上並沒有違背。有些人在此處增加了『心』這個字，因為其他經典中只說了『身』。為什麼不認為其他部的契經中，有些人刪除了『心』字呢？因為契經中說，在第二禪定等等中，沒有其他的識，身心是一致的。", "如果固執地說那裡有身體感受的快樂，就與道理相違背，這將在後面辯論。雖然第三禪定所建立的樂支，契經說是身體所感受的快樂，但這不能證明那個地方的樂根不是由心識感受所包含的。也說離生喜（vivekaja-priti，由遠離慾望而生的喜悅）是身體所證得的。難道可以因此就認為喜根（priti-indriya，喜悅的感官能力）不是由心識感受所包含的嗎？而且，非色法（arupa-dharma，沒有形體的法）也看到說是『身』，比如六觸身（sat-sparsha-kaya，六種接觸的身體），六受身（sat-vedana-kaya，六種感受的身體）等等。", "如果說在無色界（arupa-dhatu，沒有物質的世界）中說名為『身』，在沒有『身』之前沒有標明名稱的。這並非是決定性的，因為在無色界中說了身見（satkayadrishti，認為五蘊為真實自我的邪見）。又看到在那裡說了『身壞』。又說那裡的『身』是下劣的生。又看到經中說『這不是你的身，也不是其他的身』，指的是六觸處（sat-sparshayatana，六種接觸的場所）。而且，在色身（rupa-kaya，物質的身體）之前也標明了別的名稱。如契經說：所有色身。所以『身』前面的名稱有無不定。所以知道在這裡說『意』為『身』。", "這裡說『身』這個名稱有什麼好處呢？爲了顯示那裡的快樂感受是自己內心所證得的。也就是說，那個地方的快樂不是所依賴的因緣所能顯現的，唯有自己內心才能證得。這就顯示了那裡的快樂感受是最高的。也看到在自己身上說了『身』這個詞，如說：由身證甘露界（amrita-dhatu，不生不滅的境界），就是自己證得甘露界的意思。或者爲了顯示這樣的快樂感受，相似於先前由身體所證得的，不像地獄由心識所證得的。爲了想要區別于地獄心識所證得的，所以說那是身體所感受的快樂。或者爲了顯示一切樂根，沒有不依賴於色身識的。由此已經顯示了輕安樂（prasrabdhi-sukha，身心輕快安樂）中也有依賴於非色識的。那麼就說那個快樂在一切地都有。由於這個道理，這個契經中，沒有明確地說是由意或身所感受的快樂。", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "They say that in dhyana (meditative state) there is no sukha-indriya (faculty of pleasure) that is mentally experiencing pleasure. The 'limb of pleasure' mentioned in the third dhyana is all pleasure contained by bodily sensation. If this is the case, it contradicts the sutras (scriptures).", "As the sutra says: What is sukha-indriya? It refers to the bodily and mental pleasure sensation produced by the power of agreeable contact. In reality, there is no contradiction. Some people add the word 'mental' here, because other scriptures only mention 'body'. Why not consider that in other parts of the sutras, some people have deleted the word 'mental'? Because the sutras say that in the second dhyana, etc., there is no other consciousness, and body and mind are one.", "If one insists that there is bodily pleasure there, it contradicts reason, which will be debated later. Although the limb of pleasure established in the third dhyana is said in the sutras to be pleasure experienced by the body, this cannot prove that the sukha-indriya in that place is not contained by mental experience. It is also said that vivekaja-priti (joy born of detachment) is attained by the body. Can it be concluded from this that priti-indriya (faculty of joy) is not contained by mental experience? Moreover, arupa-dharma (formless phenomena) is also seen to be called 'body', such as sat-sparsha-kaya (body of six contacts), sat-vedana-kaya (body of six sensations), etc.", "If it is said that in the arupa-dhatu (formless realm) it is called 'body', and there is no name marked before 'body'. This is not definitive, because in the arupa-dhatu, satkayadrishti (the false view of considering the five aggregates as a real self) is mentioned. It is also seen that 'body destruction' is mentioned there. It is also said that the 'body' there is of inferior birth. It is also seen that the sutra says 'This is not your body, nor is it another body', referring to the sat-sparshayatana (six places of contact). Moreover, other names are also marked before rupa-kaya (material body). As the sutra says: all material bodies. Therefore, the presence or absence of names before 'body' is uncertain. Therefore, it is known that 'mind' is referred to as 'body' here.", "What is the benefit of saying the name 'body' here? To show that the pleasure sensation there is attained by one's own inner experience. That is to say, the pleasure in that place cannot be manifested by the dependent conditions, but only by one's own inner experience. This shows that the pleasure sensation there is the highest. It is also seen that the word 'body' is used on oneself, as in the saying: 'By body, one attains the amrita-dhatu (realm of immortality)', which means that one attains the amrita-dhatu oneself. Or to show that such a pleasure sensation is similar to that previously attained by the body, unlike that attained by the mind in the lower realms. In order to distinguish it from that attained by the mind in the lower realms, it is said that it is pleasure experienced by the body. Or to show that all sukha-indriya depend on the rupa-kaya-vijnana (consciousness of the material body). From this, it has been shown that there is also dependence on arupa-vijnana (formless consciousness) in prasrabdhi-sukha (ease and bliss). Then it is said that that pleasure exists in all realms. For this reason, this sutra does not explicitly say whether the pleasure is experienced by the mind or the body." ] }
。又若說意言有非受過故。謂若說為意所受樂。便謂此樂是境界受。然此不顯第三定樂。為意所緣名境界受。但為顯此能領相應。自所隨觸名自性受。是故於此不說意言。然為遣疑不總相說。若但總說所受樂者。便疑此樂受為境為現前。若標身言便無此惑。由有此德故應說身。又有樂根是心受攝。以經言我說入第三靜慮。具足住修習樂。又說修習此樂受時。於樂隨增貪隨眠斷。不可說此是身受樂。故不可說三靜慮中所有樂支皆身受攝。定應信有心受樂根。又如何知初二定樂。是身受樂非心輕安。第四靜慮輕安倍增。而不說彼有樂支故。此前已說。前說者何。輕安於彼不隨順故。又此輕安能生於樂。猶如樂境亦得樂名。故有樂地方得名樂。彼地無樂不得樂名。若爾第三定輕安應名樂。不爾。已說不隨順故。后二靜慮所有輕安。體雖勝前而相昧劣。由前所說多種因緣。是故輕安在彼非樂。若初二樂即是輕安。便與契經有相違過。如契經說。若於爾時諸聖弟子。于離生喜身作證具足住。彼于爾時已斷五法。修習五法皆得圓滿。廣說乃至。何等名為所修五法。一欣。二喜。三輕安。四樂。五三摩地。此經輕安與樂別說。若輕安即樂如何說有五。無違經過。由此經中所說樂言是樂根故。非此經內立靜慮支。總說能修初定五法。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 又或者說，如果認為『意』（manas，第六意識）所感受的沒有過失。如果說快樂是『意』所感受的，那麼就會認為這種快樂是『境界受』（gocaravedanā，對境感受）。然而，這並沒有明確地說明第三禪定的快樂。被稱為『境界受』是因為它是『意』所緣的對象。這裡只是爲了說明這種能夠領受相應的，自身所隨順的觸覺，被稱為『自性受』（svabhāva-vedanā，自身感受）。因此，在這裡沒有提到『意』。然而，爲了消除疑慮，不能籠統地概括地說。如果只是籠統地說所感受的快樂，就會懷疑這種快樂是來自『境界』還是『現前』（pratyakṣa，直接體驗）。如果標明是『身』（kāya，身體）的感受，就不會有這種疑惑。因為有這種功德，所以應該說是『身』。還有，『樂根』（sukhendriya，快樂的根源）是屬於『心受』（cittavedanā，心的感受）的範疇。因為經書上說：『我說進入第三禪定，具足安住並修習快樂。』又說，在修習這種快樂感受的時候，對於快樂的貪慾隨眠（rāgānusaya，貪慾的潛在傾向）會被斷除。不能說這是身體所感受的快樂。所以，不能說第三禪定中所有的快樂成分都是身體所感受的。應該相信有心所感受的『樂根』。 又如何得知初禪和二禪的快樂是身體所感受的快樂，而不是心的輕安（praśrabdhi，身心輕快安適）呢？因為第四禪定的輕安更加增盛，卻沒有說那裡有快樂的成分。這之前已經說過了。之前說了什麼呢？因為輕安在那裡並不隨順快樂。而且，這種輕安能夠產生快樂，就像快樂的境界也能被稱為快樂一樣。所以，有快樂的地方才能被稱為快樂，沒有快樂的地方就不能被稱為快樂。如果這樣，那麼第三禪定的輕安應該被稱為快樂嗎？不是的。已經說過了，因為輕安不隨順快樂。后兩個禪定中的輕安，雖然本體比前面的更勝，但表現得更加不明顯。由於前面所說的多種原因，所以輕安在那裡不是快樂。如果初禪和二禪的快樂就是輕安，那麼就與契經（sūtra，佛經）有相違背的過失。比如契經上說：『如果在這個時候，各位聖弟子，對於由遠離（煩惱）而生的喜悅，以身體來作證，具足安住。』他們在這個時候已經斷除了五種法，修習五種法都得到了圓滿。』廣泛地說乃至，『什麼叫做所修習的五種法呢？一是欣（muditā，隨喜），二是喜（prīti，喜悅），三是輕安，四是樂（sukha，快樂），五是三摩地（samādhi，禪定）。』這部經中，輕安和快樂是分別說的。如果輕安就是快樂，怎麼能說有五種呢？沒有相違背的過失。因為這部經中所說的『樂』，是『樂根』的緣故。不是在這部經內建立禪定的支分。總的說來，是能夠修習初禪的五種法。又
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, it might be argued that there is no fault in saying that 『manas』 (mind, the sixth consciousness) experiences. If it is said that pleasure is experienced by 『manas,』 then it would be considered that this pleasure is 『gocaravedanā』 (object-related feeling). However, this does not clearly explain the pleasure of the third Dhyana (meditative state). It is called 『gocaravedanā』 because it is the object cognized by 『manas.』 Here, it is only to explain that this ability to perceive the corresponding, what follows itself, is called 『svabhāva-vedanā』 (self-nature feeling). Therefore, 『manas』 is not mentioned here. However, in order to dispel doubts, it cannot be generally summarized. If only the experienced pleasure is generally spoken of, then it would be doubted whether this pleasure comes from 『gocara』 (object) or 『pratyakṣa』 (direct experience). If it is indicated that it is a feeling of 『kāya』 (body), then there will be no such doubt. Because of this merit, it should be said to be 『kāya.』 Also, 『sukhendriya』 (the root of pleasure) belongs to the category of 『cittavedanā』 (feeling of the mind). Because the sutra says: 『I say entering the third Dhyana, fully abiding and cultivating pleasure.』 It also says that when cultivating this feeling of pleasure, the latent tendency of greed (rāgānusaya) towards pleasure will be cut off. It cannot be said that this is the pleasure felt by the body. Therefore, it cannot be said that all the pleasure components in the third Dhyana are felt by the body. It should be believed that there is 『sukhendriya』 felt by the mind. Moreover, how do we know that the pleasure of the first and second Dhyanas is the pleasure felt by the body, and not the 『praśrabdhi』 (tranquility, ease of body and mind) of the mind? Because the tranquility of the fourth Dhyana is even more enhanced, but it is not said that there is a pleasure component there. This has been said before. What was said before? Because tranquility does not accord with pleasure there. Moreover, this tranquility can generate pleasure, just as the object of pleasure can also be called pleasure. Therefore, a place with pleasure can be called pleasure, and a place without pleasure cannot be called pleasure. If so, should the tranquility of the third Dhyana be called pleasure? No. It has been said that tranquility does not accord with pleasure. The tranquility in the latter two Dhyanas, although its essence is superior to the previous ones, is expressed more obscurely. Due to the various reasons mentioned earlier, tranquility is not pleasure there. If the pleasure of the first and second Dhyanas is tranquility, then there would be a fault of contradicting the sutra. For example, the sutra says: 『If at this time, the noble disciples, with their bodies, bear witness to and fully abide in the joy born of detachment (from afflictions).』 At this time, they have already cut off five dharmas and have perfected the cultivation of five dharmas.』 Broadly speaking, 『What are the five dharmas to be cultivated? One is muditā (sympathetic joy), two is prīti (joy), three is praśrabdhi (tranquility), four is sukha (pleasure), and five is samādhi (concentration).』 In this sutra, tranquility and pleasure are spoken of separately. If tranquility is pleasure, how can it be said that there are five? There is no contradiction. Because the 『pleasure』 mentioned in this sutra is the 『sukhendriya.』 It is not to establish the limbs of Dhyana within this sutra. Generally speaking, it is the five dharmas that can cultivate the first Dhyana. Also
我宗不說輕安即樂根。但說輕安是樂因故。于初二定立為樂支。如此所言于義何失。以於一切佛聖教中。非唯樂受說名為樂。見有餘法亦名樂故。謂契經言。樂有三種。一者斷樂。二者離樂。三者滅樂。又契經言。樂有五種。一出家樂。二遠離樂。三寂靜樂。四菩提樂。五涅槃樂。有如是等眾多契經。所說樂名目種種法。是故若說初二靜慮樂根為支。便違正理。若說初二所有樂支即是輕安。無所違害。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十七 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之二
我宗定說。初二靜慮樂根為支。違何正理。汝執身受方有樂根。非諸定中可起身識。豈不與此正理相違。此亦無違。以我宗許正在定位。由勝定力起順樂受。妙輕安風遍觸于身發身識故。如是救義未離前失。但起身識非在定故。謂我宗亦許正在定位。有離生喜樂所引極微遍在身中。如團中膩力能對治諸煩惱品。身之粗重攝益於身。亦說名為無惱害樂。然不許此在定位中。能觸動身發生身識。此等持果如是生時。有力能令等持堅住。故此妙觸起不唐捐。若此位中容起身識。外散亂故應壞等持。若謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：我宗派並不認為輕安就是樂的根本，而是說輕安是產生快樂的原因。因此，在初禪和二禪中，將樂立為禪支。這樣說在義理上有什麼過失呢？因為在一切佛陀的聖教中，不僅僅是快樂的感受才被稱為樂，可以看到還有其他的法也被稱為樂。比如，契經中說，樂有三種：一是斷樂，二是離樂，三是滅樂。又有契經說，樂有五種：一是出家樂，二是遠離樂，三是寂靜樂，四是菩提樂（bodhi-loka，覺悟之樂），五是涅槃樂（nirvana-loka，寂滅之樂）。像這樣眾多的契經，所說的樂，名稱指代種種不同的法。因此，如果說初禪和二禪的樂根是禪支，就違背了正理。如果說初禪和二禪中所有的樂支就是輕安，就沒有什麼違背之處。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十七 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十八
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之二
我宗派確定地說，初禪和二禪的樂根是禪支，這違反了什麼正理呢？你認為只有身體的感受才會有樂根，在禪定中不可能產生身識。這難道不是與正理相違背嗎？這也沒有什麼相違背的。因為我宗派允許在禪定中，通過殊勝的定力產生順應快樂感受的妙輕安之風，普遍地觸及身體，從而產生身識。像這樣的辯解並沒有脫離之前的過失，因為產生身識並不是在禪定之中。我們宗派也允許在禪定中，有由離生喜樂所引發的極微遍佈在身體中，就像麵團中的油脂一樣，能夠對治各種煩惱。身體的粗重能夠攝益身體，也可以說是無惱害樂。但是不允許這種樂在禪定中觸動身體，從而產生身識。這種等持（samadhi，禪定）的果報在產生的時候，有力量能夠使等持堅固住持，因此這種微妙的觸覺產生不是沒有意義的。如果在這個禪定狀態中允許產生身識，因為向外散亂的緣故，應該會破壞等持。如果說：
【English Translation】 English version: Our school does not say that pliancy (prasrabdhi) itself is the root of pleasure, but rather that pliancy is the cause of pleasure. Therefore, in the first and second dhyanas (jhana, meditative states), pleasure is established as a limb of dhyana. What fault is there in this statement in terms of meaning? Because in all the Buddha's teachings, not only the feeling of pleasure is called pleasure, but it can be seen that other dharmas (teachings, phenomena) are also called pleasure. For example, the sutras (scriptures) say that there are three kinds of pleasure: one is the pleasure of cessation (nirodha-sukha), the second is the pleasure of detachment (viveka-sukha), and the third is the pleasure of extinction (nirvana-sukha). Also, the sutras say that there are five kinds of pleasure: one is the pleasure of leaving home (pravrajya-sukha), the second is the pleasure of seclusion (vivikta-sukha), the third is the pleasure of tranquility (upasama-sukha), the fourth is the pleasure of enlightenment (bodhi-sukha), and the fifth is the pleasure of nirvana (nirvana-sukha). There are many such sutras where the name 'pleasure' refers to various different dharmas. Therefore, if it is said that the root of pleasure in the first and second dhyanas is a limb of dhyana, it would contradict right reason. If it is said that all the limbs of pleasure in the first and second dhyanas are pliancy, there is no contradiction.
Treatise on the Correct Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 77 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 29, No. 1562, Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra
Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, Volume 78
Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Chapter 8, Part 2: Determining
Our school definitively says that the root of pleasure in the first and second dhyanas is a limb of dhyana. What right reason does this violate? You maintain that only bodily feeling can have a root of pleasure, and that body consciousness cannot arise in the dhyanas. Does this not contradict right reason? This is also not contradictory. Because our school allows that in the state of dhyana, through the power of superior dhyana, a subtle wind of pliancy arises that accords with the feeling of pleasure, universally touching the body and thus giving rise to body consciousness. Such a defense has not escaped the previous fault, because the arising of body consciousness is not within the dhyana. Our school also allows that in the state of dhyana, extremely subtle particles caused by joy and pleasure born of detachment pervade the body, like the oiliness in dough, which can counteract various afflictions. The grossness of the body can benefit the body, and this can also be called pleasure without affliction. However, it is not allowed that this pleasure can move the body in the state of dhyana, thus giving rise to body consciousness. When the result of this samadhi (meditative concentration) arises, it has the power to make the samadhi firm and abiding. Therefore, the arising of this subtle touch is not meaningless. If it is allowed that body consciousness can arise in this state, then because of external distraction, the samadhi should be destroyed. If it is said:
此風從勝定起。引內身樂順起等持。故身識生無壞定失。亦不應理。雖順等持而身識生便非定故。正在定位有與定相違。不定識生如何不壞定。縱順定故非永退失。然散心生寧非出定。非起順定加行散心。已得名為正住定位。是故身識現在前時。理應名為已從定出。既爾寧說是靜慮支。又此樂生應名定刺。由此樂受身識俱生。間雜定心令不續故。又以欲界身根為依。理不應生色界觸識。故不可說身在欲界。身識俱受領色界中靜慮所生妙輕安觸。若謂此觸依內起故。容依欲身發生彼識。此但有語無理教故。謂何理教證依欲身取色輕安非所餘觸。故彼所執違越理教。唯對法宗所說無失。上座於此作如是言。如何得知輕安名樂。無少聖教於輕安體立以樂名。又見於此余說名樂。于義無益故。若輕安體應說輕安名。非說輕安有無樂過。經說輕安是樂因故。如契經說。心喜故身輕安。輕安故身受樂。是故知樂非即輕安。破此同前經主所引。然彼所說。若是輕安體應說輕安名。此說非理。為避靜慮支不易說過故。勿說初靜慮離生喜輕安。又此義中輕安名樂。于義有益。下苦所惱。為令欣求上地生故。謂一切地皆有輕安。如何令知上地皆樂。發勤精進離下地染。故於輕安體假立以樂名。於此義中深成有益。雖輕安樂遍一切地。而今于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『此風從勝定起』的說法不成立。如果說『引內身樂順起等持』（引導內在身體的快樂順應生起等持），那麼身體的意識生起就不會破壞禪定，也不會失去禪定，這也是不合道理的。即使順應等持，身體的意識生起就不是禪定了。正在禪定的時候，有與禪定相違背的、不定的意識生起，怎麼能不破壞禪定呢？縱然順應禪定，不會永遠退失，但散亂心生起，難道不是出定了嗎？如果不是生起順應禪定的加行散心，就已經可以稱為『正住定位』了。所以，身體的意識現在前的時候，理應名為已經從禪定中出來。既然如此，怎麼能說是靜慮支（禪定的組成部分）呢？ 而且，這種快樂的生起應該叫做『定刺』（禪定的障礙）。因為這種樂受和身體的意識一同生起，間雜在禪定心中，使禪定心不能持續。而且，以欲界的身根為所依，按道理不應該生起觸識。所以，不能說身體在欲界，身體的意識一同領受中靜慮所生的微妙輕安觸。如果說這種觸依內在生起，容許依欲界之身發生這種意識，這只是有說法，沒有道理和教證。憑什麼道理和教證證明依欲界之身取色輕安，而不是其餘的觸呢？所以，他們的執著違背了道理和教證。只有對法宗（Abhidharma）所說沒有過失。 上座部（Theravada）對此這樣說：『怎麼知道輕安叫做樂呢？沒有一點聖教在輕安的本體上立以樂名。又看到在這裡其餘的說法叫做樂，對於意義沒有益處。如果輕安的本體應該說輕安名，不要說輕安有無樂的過失。』經上說輕安是樂的原因，如契經說：『心喜故身輕安，輕安故身受樂。』所以知道樂不是即輕安。 駁斥這種說法如同前面經主所引用的。然而他們所說，『如果是輕安的本體應該說輕安名』，這種說法沒有道理。爲了避免靜慮支不易說的過失。不要說初靜慮（初禪）離生喜輕安。而且，這個意義中輕安叫做樂，對於意義有益。下地的痛苦所惱，爲了令欣求上地生起。說一切地都有輕安，如何令知上地皆樂？發勤精進離開下地染。所以在輕安的本體上假立以樂名。在這個意義中深深地成為有益。雖然輕安樂遍一切地，而現在於
【English Translation】 English version: The statement 'This wind arises from superior concentration' is untenable. If it is said that 'guiding the inner bodily pleasure arises in accordance with equanimity (samatha)', then the arising of bodily consciousness would not disrupt the concentration, nor would it lead to the loss of concentration, which is also unreasonable. Even if it is in accordance with equanimity, the arising of bodily consciousness is not concentration. While in concentration, if there is the arising of indeterminate consciousness that contradicts the concentration, how can it not disrupt the concentration? Even if it is in accordance with concentration and does not lead to permanent loss, wouldn't the arising of a distracted mind be considered exiting the concentration? If it is not the distracted mind of preliminary practice that arises in accordance with concentration, then it can already be called 'dwelling in correct concentration'. Therefore, when bodily consciousness is present, it should be called having already emerged from concentration. Since this is the case, how can it be said to be a limb of dhyana (meditative absorption)? Moreover, the arising of this pleasure should be called a 'thorn of concentration' (定刺). Because this feeling of pleasure and bodily consciousness arise together, intermingling with the mind of concentration, causing the mind of concentration not to continue. Furthermore, based on the body faculty of the desire realm, it is not reasonable for tactile consciousness to arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the body is in the desire realm, and that bodily consciousness together experiences the subtle ease and comfort (輕安, prashrabdhi) touch arising from the dhyana in the middle. If it is said that this touch arises internally, allowing this consciousness to arise based on the body of the desire realm, this is merely a statement without reason or scriptural proof. What reason or scriptural proof demonstrates that taking ease and comfort of form based on the body of the desire realm is not the remaining touch? Therefore, their adherence contradicts reason and scriptural proof. Only what is said by the Abhidharma (對法宗) school is without fault. The Theravada (上座部) school says this about it: 'How do we know that ease and comfort is called pleasure? There is not a single sacred teaching that establishes the name of pleasure on the essence of ease and comfort. Also, seeing that other statements here are called pleasure is of no benefit to the meaning. If the essence of ease and comfort should be called the name of ease and comfort, do not say that ease and comfort has the fault of lacking pleasure.' The sutras say that ease and comfort is the cause of pleasure, as the sutras say: 'Because the mind is joyful, the body is at ease and comfort; because the body is at ease and comfort, the body experiences pleasure.' Therefore, we know that pleasure is not the same as ease and comfort. Refuting this statement is like what was quoted earlier by the sutra master. However, what they said, 'If it is the essence of ease and comfort, it should be called the name of ease and comfort,' this statement is unreasonable. In order to avoid the fault of the limb of dhyana being difficult to explain. Do not say that the first dhyana (初禪) is born of joy and ease and comfort. Moreover, in this meaning, ease and comfort is called pleasure, which is beneficial to the meaning. The suffering of the lower realms is troubling, in order to make people desire the arising of the upper realms. Saying that all realms have ease and comfort, how do we let people know that the upper realms are all pleasurable? Generate diligence and effort to leave the defilements of the lower realms. Therefore, the name of pleasure is falsely established on the essence of ease and comfort. In this meaning, it becomes deeply beneficial. Although ease and comfort and pleasure pervade all realms, but now in
此靜慮支中。唯樂果因方說名樂。第二靜慮雖無樂根。而說彼輕安為樂果因者。以樂根喜根俱說名樂故。言輕安故身受樂者。彌證輕安得名為樂。以輕安起能治身中惛沈品粗重性。令身輕妙安隱受樂。除此樂外必定無餘。是尸羅等次第所得。故對法宗所說無過。今應思擇。第三定中。意地悅受既得喜相。應名為喜。何故名樂。此名為樂亦有所因。以諸喜根不寂靜故。謂喜動涌擾亂定心。如水波濤涌泛漂激。初二靜慮意地悅受。有如是相故得喜名。第三定中此心悅受。其相沉靜轉得樂名。故此定中舍用增上。棄捨喜故立行舍支。第四定中復棄捨樂。故彼行捨得名清凈。何緣念慧諸地皆有。而念唯在上二靜慮。慧在第三定方得立為支。隨其所應偏隨順故。謂喜與樂於三有中。是諸有情極所耽味。第三靜慮所味中極。有生死中最勝樂故。理應立慧觀察厭舍。若無慧者自地善根尚不能成。況進求勝。為治如是自地過失。第三靜慮立慧為支。餘地不然故不立慧。第二靜慮有最勝喜。輕躁嬈亂如邏剎私。第三定中有最勝樂。如天妙欲極為難捨。第三四定由行舍支。隨其所應。雖已棄捨而恐退起立念遮防。餘地不然故不立念。然第三念勢用堅強。非唯助舍亦能助慧。通能防備自他地失。第四不爾。無自失故。由此第四不立慧支。或初
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在此靜慮支（禪定的組成部分）中，只有樂果的因才被稱為樂。第二靜慮（第二禪）雖然沒有樂根，但說那裡的輕安是樂果的因，是因為樂根和喜根都可以被稱作樂。說因為輕安的緣故身體感受到快樂，更加證明了輕安可以被稱作樂。因為輕安生起能夠去除身體中的昏沉和粗重，使身體輕盈美妙，安穩地感受快樂。除了這種樂之外，必定沒有其他的樂，是尸羅（戒律）等次第所得的。所以對法宗所說沒有過失。現在應該思考，在第三禪中，意地的悅受既然得到了喜的表象，應該被稱為喜，為什麼稱為樂呢？這被稱為樂也是有原因的，因為各種喜根不寂靜的緣故。喜會動盪涌起，擾亂禪定的心，就像水中的波濤涌動氾濫衝擊。初禪和二禪意地的悅受，有這樣的表象，所以得到喜的名稱。第三禪中，這種心的悅受，它的表象沉靜，轉而得到樂的名稱。所以在這個禪定中，舍的作用增強，因為捨棄了喜，所以建立行舍支。第四禪中又捨棄了樂，所以那裡的行捨得到清凈的名稱。為什麼念和慧在各個地都有，而念只在上二禪中，慧在第三禪才能被立為支呢？這是因為它們各自偏向隨順的緣故。喜和樂在三有（欲有、色有、無色有）中，是各種有情極度貪戀的。第三禪所體驗的快樂是其中最極端的，因為有生死中最殊勝的快樂。所以理應建立慧來觀察厭離捨棄。如果沒有慧，自己禪定的善根尚且不能成就，更何況是進步追求更殊勝的境界。爲了治理像這樣自己禪定的過失，第三禪建立慧為支。其他的禪定不是這樣，所以不建立慧。第二禪有最殊勝的喜，輕浮躁動擾亂，像羅剎私（惡鬼）。第三禪中有最殊勝的樂，像天上的美妙慾望，極難捨棄。第三禪和第四禪由於行舍支，根據情況，雖然已經捨棄了，但恐怕退轉生起，所以建立念來遮擋防備。其他的禪定不是這樣，所以不建立念。然而第三禪的念，勢力作用堅強，不僅僅幫助舍，也能幫助慧，能夠全面地防備自己和他人的過失。第四禪不是這樣，沒有自己的過失。因此第四禪不建立慧支。或許最初
【English Translation】 English version Within this jhāna (meditative absorption) limb of tranquilization, only the cause of the pleasant result is referred to as 'pleasure'. Although the second jhāna lacks the feeling of pleasure, its prasrabdhi (tranquility) is said to be the cause of the pleasant result because both the feeling of pleasure and the feeling of joy are referred to as 'pleasure'. Saying that the body experiences pleasure because of prasrabdhi further proves that prasrabdhi can be called 'pleasure'. This is because the arising of prasrabdhi can counteract the dullness and coarseness in the body, making the body light, subtle, peaceful, and able to experience pleasure. Apart from this pleasure, there is definitely no other pleasure, which is obtained sequentially through śīla (moral conduct) and so on. Therefore, what the Abhidharma school says is not wrong. Now, it should be considered that in the third jhāna, since the mental feeling of satisfaction has obtained the appearance of joy, it should be called joy. Why is it called pleasure? This is also called pleasure for a reason, because the various feelings of joy are not tranquil. Joy is agitated, surging, and disturbs the mind in samādhi (concentration), like waves in the water surging, overflowing, and impacting. The mental feeling of satisfaction in the first and second jhānas has such an appearance, so it obtains the name of joy. In the third jhāna, this mental feeling of satisfaction, its appearance is calm and quiet, and it turns to obtain the name of pleasure. Therefore, in this jhāna, the function of equanimity is enhanced. Because joy is abandoned, the limb of equanimity is established. In the fourth jhāna, pleasure is also abandoned, so that equanimity obtains the name of purity. Why do mindfulness and wisdom exist in all levels, but mindfulness only exists in the upper two jhānas, and wisdom can only be established as a limb in the third jhāna? This is because they each tend to be in accordance with what is appropriate. Joy and pleasure in the three realms of existence (kāmadhātu, rūpadhātu, arūpadhātu) are what all sentient beings are extremely attached to. The pleasure experienced in the third jhāna is the most extreme of these, because there is the most supreme pleasure in saṃsāra (cyclic existence). Therefore, it is reasonable to establish wisdom to observe, renounce, and abandon. If there is no wisdom, even the roots of virtue of one's own jhāna cannot be accomplished, let alone progress to seek a more supreme state. In order to remedy such faults of one's own jhāna, the third jhāna establishes wisdom as a limb. Other jhānas are not like this, so they do not establish wisdom. The second jhāna has the most supreme joy, which is light, restless, and disturbing, like a rākṣasa (demon). The third jhāna has the most supreme pleasure, like the wonderful desires of the gods, which are extremely difficult to abandon. The third and fourth jhānas, due to the limb of equanimity, although they have already abandoned them as appropriate, they are afraid of regression and arising, so they establish mindfulness to block and prevent them. Other jhānas are not like this, so they do not establish mindfulness. However, the power of mindfulness in the third jhāna is strong, not only helping equanimity but also helping wisdom, and it can comprehensively prevent the faults of oneself and others. The fourth jhāna is not like this, because it has no faults of its own. Therefore, the fourth jhāna does not establish the limb of wisdom. Perhaps initially
二定尋喜飄動。雖有念慧防照用微。第四定中二舍所蔽。順無明故慧用不增。故慧唯三。念通上二。或第三定樂過甚微。不立慧支。無能照察。若不照察則無厭求自地過患上地功德。然下尋喜上色過粗。雖照厭求未為奇特。故餘三地。慧不立支。以第三定中樂過難。覺故佛說聖者應說。應知由此定中慧用。最勝能知細過故立。為支雖第四邊慧亦能了。而但總相未為奇特。謂彼與樂系地不同。是離染道總觀下過。非如自慧同一繫縛。能別觀失方謂希奇。故自立支。上慧不爾。又諸已得第三靜慮。于第四邊非皆自在。故於將離樂受染時。彼慧無容立為支體。故唯三定立慧為支。然正了時及初已離。皆應防守須立念支。何故輕安立為支體。以初二定輕安用增。觸前所無殊勝位故。由此勢用精勤不捨。能令相續有所堪能。能助等持令牽勝德有殊勝用故立為支。內等凈名為目何法。目尋伺息于定心堅。有說先時尋伺鼓動令心於境不甚堅牢。今于所緣方能一趣。故說內等凈目于定心堅。彼顯此名目殊勝定。則內等凈應無別物。第二靜慮應唯三支。彼釋但應朋友信受。無正教理堪為證故。非無聖教說有四支。言有三支依何聖教。故內等凈體即信根。謂若證得第二靜慮。則于定地。亦可離中有深信生。名內等凈。故雖諸地皆有信根而可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二禪定中尋（Vitarka，粗分別念）和喜（Priti，愉悅）交織。即使有正念和智慧（Prajna，洞察力）來防護和照察，其作用也很微弱。在第四禪定（Fourth Dhyana）中，兩種舍（Upeksha，舍受和舍念）遮蔽了智慧。由於順應無明（Avidya，無知），智慧的作用無法增長。因此，智慧只在前三個禪定中起作用。正念則貫穿於前兩個禪定。或者說，在第三禪定中，快樂（Sukha，樂受）過於強烈和微妙，無法建立智慧支（Prajna-anga，智慧的組成部分），因為無法進行照察。如果不能照察，就無法厭離自身禪定的過患，也無法欣求更高禪定的功德。然而，下方的尋和喜，以及上方的色界（Rupa-dhatu，色界）過於粗糙。即使照察和厭離，也不算特別。因此，其餘三個禪定中，智慧不被立為支。因為在第三禪定中，快樂過於難以察覺，所以佛陀說聖者應該說，應該知道由此禪定中智慧的作用最為殊勝，能夠知曉細微的過患，因此被立為支。雖然第四禪定邊緣的智慧也能了知，但只是總相，並不特別。因為第四禪定的智慧與樂受繫縛的禪定不同，是對地獄過患的總觀，不像自身的智慧一樣，與繫縛在一起，能夠分別觀察過失，才顯得稀奇。因此，第三禪定單獨被立為支。而上方的智慧則不然。而且，已經獲得第三禪定的人，對於第四禪定邊緣並非都能自在。因此，在即將脫離樂受的染污時，那時的智慧無法被立為支體。所以只有三個禪定設立智慧為支。然而，在真正了知的時候，以及最初已經脫離的時候，都應該防守，需要設立正念支（Smriti-anga，正念的組成部分）。 為什麼輕安（Prasrabdhi，身心輕快安適）被立為支體？因為在初禪和二禪中，輕安的作用增強，接觸到之前沒有的殊勝境界。由此勢用，精勤不捨，能夠令相續有所堪能，能夠幫助等持（Samadhi，禪定），令牽引殊勝功德有殊勝的作用，因此被立為支。內等凈（Adhyatma-samprasada，內心平靜和確信）是指什麼？是指尋伺（Vitarka-vicara，粗細分別念）止息，禪定之心堅定。有人說，先前尋伺的鼓動，令心對於境界不甚牢固。現在對於所緣境，才能一心趣向。所以說內等凈是指禪定之心堅定。他們認為這個名稱是指殊勝的禪定，那麼內等凈應該沒有別的體性。第二禪定應該只有三個支。他們的解釋只應該被朋友信任和接受，沒有正確的教理可以作為證明。並非沒有聖教說有四個支。如果說有三個支，是依據什麼聖教？所以內等凈的體性就是信根（Sraddha-indriya，信的力量）。也就是說，如果證得了第二禪定，那麼對於禪定之地，也可以從中生起深刻的信心，名為內等凈。所以雖然各個禪定都有信根，但可以...
【English Translation】 English version In the second Dhyana (meditative absorption), Vitarka (initial application of thought, coarse thought) and Priti (joy, rapture) are intertwined. Even with the presence of Prajna (wisdom, insight) to protect and illuminate, its function is weak. In the Fourth Dhyana, two Upeksha (equanimity, neutral feeling and neutral thought) obscure the wisdom. Due to conforming to Avidya (ignorance), the function of wisdom cannot increase. Therefore, wisdom only functions in the first three Dhyanas. Smriti (mindfulness) pervades the first two Dhyanas. Alternatively, in the Third Dhyana, Sukha (happiness, pleasure) is too intense and subtle to establish Prajna-anga (limb of wisdom), because there is no ability to observe. If there is no observation, there is no aversion to the faults of one's own Dhyana, nor aspiration for the merits of higher Dhyanas. However, the lower Vitarka and Priti, and the upper Rupa-dhatu (form realm) are too coarse. Even if there is observation and aversion, it is not particularly special. Therefore, in the remaining three realms, wisdom is not established as a limb. Because in the Third Dhyana, happiness is too difficult to perceive, the Buddha said that the sages should say that the function of wisdom in this Dhyana is the most excellent, capable of knowing subtle faults, therefore it is established as a limb. Although the wisdom at the edge of the Fourth Dhyana can also know, it is only a general characteristic and not special. Because the wisdom of the Fourth Dhyana is different from the Dhyanas bound by pleasure, it is a general observation of the faults of the lower realms, unlike one's own wisdom, which is bound together and can separately observe faults, which is considered rare. Therefore, the Third Dhyana is established as a limb alone. The wisdom above is not like this. Moreover, those who have already attained the Third Dhyana are not all free in the edge of the Fourth Dhyana. Therefore, when about to leave the defilement of pleasure, the wisdom at that time cannot be established as a limb. Therefore, only three Dhyanas establish wisdom as a limb. However, at the time of true understanding, and at the beginning of having already left, one should defend, and the Smriti-anga (limb of mindfulness) needs to be established. Why is Prasrabdhi (tranquility, ease of body and mind) established as a limb? Because in the First and Second Dhyanas, the function of tranquility increases, contacting a superior state that was not there before. Due to this power, diligence is not abandoned, which can make the continuum capable, can help Samadhi (meditative concentration), and make the attraction of superior merits have a superior function, therefore it is established as a limb. What does Adhyatma-samprasada (inner tranquility and confidence) refer to? It refers to the cessation of Vitarka-vicara (coarse and subtle thought), and the firmness of the mind in Dhyana. Some say that the agitation of Vitarka and Vicara previously made the mind not very firm towards the object. Now, towards the object of focus, one can single-mindedly approach. Therefore, it is said that Adhyatma-samprasada refers to the firmness of the mind in Dhyana. They believe that this name refers to a superior Dhyana, then Adhyatma-samprasada should have no other nature. The Second Dhyana should only have three limbs. Their explanation should only be trusted and accepted by friends, and there is no correct teaching that can be used as proof. It is not that there is no sacred teaching that says there are four limbs. If it is said that there are three limbs, what sacred teaching is it based on? Therefore, the nature of Adhyatma-samprasada is the Sraddha-indriya (power of faith). That is to say, if one attains the Second Dhyana, then for the place of Dhyana, one can also generate deep faith from it, which is called Adhyatma-samprasada. Therefore, although all Dhyanas have the power of faith, it can...
立支。唯第二定以今創信諸定地法。與散地法俱可離故。又初靜慮尋伺識身。如熱淤泥信不明凈。后二靜慮行舍用增。映奪信根故無內凈。謂由警覺信力方增。舍此相違故能映奪。信是凈相故立凈名。如清水珠令心凈故。內心平等為緣故生。由此信根名內等凈。或第二定所有功德。平等為緣引生此凈。由此建立內等凈名。非唯尋伺靜息為體。此等皆是心所攝故。如受想思別有實體。有餘部說。喜非喜受。喜是行蘊心所法攝。三定中樂皆是喜受。故喜喜受其體各異。非三定樂可名喜受。二阿笈摩分明證故。如辯顛倒契經中說。漸無餘滅憂等五根。第三定中無餘滅喜。于第四定無餘滅樂。又余經說。第四靜慮。斷樂斷苦先喜憂沒。故第三定必無喜根。由此喜受是喜非樂。如先所說八等至中。前七各三第八有二。諸染污定如何知有。此由契經及論說故。謂契經說。凈無漏定已。猶言世尊未說一切定。故知有餘染定未說。本論亦說。于諸靜慮。自地一切隨眠隨增。由此等文知有染定。故說靜慮總有二種。由定及生有差別故。定復有二。謂染不染。不染復二種。謂凈及無漏。無漏復二。謂學無學。如是差別理有眾多。染靜慮中為有支不。有。非一切。何定無何。頌曰。
染如次從初 無喜樂內凈 正念慧舍念 余說無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 立支（Sthavira）。只有第二禪定（Dhyana）以『今創信』（newly generated faith）作為諸禪定地之法。與散地之法都可以分離的緣故。又，初禪的尋（Vitarka）、伺（Vicara）是識別之身，就像熱的淤泥一樣，信心不明顯清凈。后兩個禪定中，行舍（Upeksha）的作用增加，掩蓋了信根（Śraddhendriya），所以沒有內凈（Adhyātma-prasāda）。因為通過警覺，信的力量才增強，捨棄與此相反的狀態，所以能夠掩蓋信根。信是清凈的相，所以建立『凈』這個名稱，就像清水珠使心清凈一樣。內心平等作為因緣而生起，因此信根被稱為『內等凈』。或者，第二禪定所具有的功德，以平等為因緣而引生這種清凈，因此建立『內等凈』這個名稱。並非只有尋伺的靜止才是它的本體，這些都是心所（Caitasika）所攝，就像受（Vedanā）、想（Saṃjñā）、思（Cetanā）一樣，各有實體。有餘部（a section of Sarvāstivāda）說，喜（prīti）不是喜受（sukha）。喜是行蘊（Saṃskāra-skandha）所攝的心所法。三個禪定中的樂（sukha）都是喜受，所以喜和喜受的體性各自不同。不是三個禪定中的樂可以稱為喜受，因為兩個阿笈摩（Āgama，聖典）分明地證明了這一點。如《辯顛倒契經》（Viparyāsa-sūtra）中所說，逐漸無餘地滅除憂等五根。第三禪定中無餘地滅除喜。在第四禪定中無餘地滅除樂。又有經典說，第四靜慮（Dhyana），斷樂斷苦，先前的喜憂都消失了。所以第三禪定必定沒有喜根。因此，喜受是喜，不是樂。如先前所說的八等至（Samāpatti）中，前七個各有三種，第八個有兩種。如何知道有染污的禪定？這是由於契經和論典所說的緣故。契經中說，在清凈無漏的禪定之後，仍然說世尊沒有說一切禪定，所以知道還有其餘染污的禪定沒有說。本論也說，在諸靜慮中，自地的一切隨眠（Anuśaya）都隨之增長。由此等文知道有染污的禪定。所以說禪定總共有兩種，由於禪定和生（bhava）有差別。禪定又有兩種，即染污和不染污。不染污的又有兩種，即清凈和無漏。無漏的又有兩種，即有學和無學。像這樣的差別，道理有很多。在染污的靜慮中，是否有支？有，但不是一切都有。什麼禪定沒有什麼？頌說：
染污的禪定依次從初禪開始，沒有喜、樂、內凈、正念、慧、舍、念。其餘的（論師）說沒有。
【English Translation】 English version Sthavira. Only the Second Dhyana has 'newly generated faith' as a Dharma of the Dhyana-bhumi, because it can be separated from the Dharma of the scattered ground. Furthermore, in the First Dhyana, Vitarka and Vicara are the body of recognition, like hot mud, faith is not clear and pure. In the latter two Dhyanas, Upeksha increases in function, overshadowing the Śraddhendriya, so there is no Adhyātma-prasāda. Because through alertness, the power of faith increases, abandoning the state contrary to this, it can overshadow the Śraddhendriya. Faith is a pure aspect, so the name 'pure' is established, just as a clear water bead purifies the mind. Equanimity of the inner mind arises as a condition, therefore the Śraddhendriya is called 'inner equanimity purity'. Or, the merits possessed by the Second Dhyana, with equanimity as a condition, give rise to this purity, therefore the name 'inner equanimity purity' is established. It is not only the cessation of Vitarka and Vicara that is its essence; these are all included in Caitasika, just like Vedanā, Saṃjñā, and Cetanā, each having its own entity. A section of Sarvāstivāda says that prīti is not sukha. Prīti is a mental Dharma included in the Saṃskāra-skandha. The sukha in the three Dhyanas is all sukha, so the nature of prīti and sukha are different from each other. The sukha in the three Dhyanas cannot be called sukha, because the two Āgamas clearly prove this. As stated in the Viparyāsa-sūtra, the five roots of sorrow, etc., are gradually and completely extinguished. In the Third Dhyana, prīti is completely extinguished without remainder. In the Fourth Dhyana, sukha is completely extinguished without remainder. Also, another sutra says that in the Fourth Dhyana, sukha and duhkha are cut off, and the previous prīti and sorrow disappear. Therefore, the Third Dhyana must not have the root of prīti. Therefore, sukha is prīti, not sukha. As previously stated, among the eight Samāpattis, the first seven each have three types, and the eighth has two types. How do we know that there are defiled Dhyanas? This is because of what is said in the sutras and treatises. The sutra says that after the pure and undefiled Dhyanas, it is still said that the World-Honored One has not spoken of all Dhyanas, so we know that there are other defiled Dhyanas that have not been spoken of. The treatise also says that in all the Dhyanas, all the Anuśayas of their own ground increase accordingly. From these texts, we know that there are defiled Dhyanas. Therefore, it is said that there are two types of Dhyana in total, due to the difference between Dhyana and bhava. There are also two types of Dhyana, namely defiled and undefiled. There are also two types of undefiled, namely pure and undefiled. There are also two types of undefiled, namely those with learning and those without learning. There are many reasons for such differences. In defiled Dhyana, are there limbs? Yes, but not all of them. What Dhyana does not have what? The verse says:
Defiled Dhyana, in order from the first Dhyana, lacks prīti, sukha, Adhyātma-prasāda, right mindfulness, prajñā, upeksha, and smṛti. The rest (of the masters) say it lacks.
安舍
論曰。且有一類隨相說言。初染中無離生喜樂。非離煩惱而得生故。雖染污定亦喜相應。非因離生故非支攝。此不唯說離欲生喜。亦說因離自地染生。以契經中先作是說。離諸欲惡不善法已。復作是言。離生喜樂。此中重說離生言者。為顯亦有喜離自地惑生。為顯喜支唯是善性。故薄伽梵與樂合說。輕安相應必是善故。由此染定必無喜支。故初染支唯有三種。第二染中無內等凈。彼為煩惱所擾濁故。雖諸世間說有染信。而不信攝故不立支。樂是輕安唯善性攝。例同初定故不重遮。故此染支唯有二種。第二染定許有喜支。初染中無以何為證。以初定喜說從離生。第二中無離生言。故第三染中無正念慧。彼為染樂所迷亂故。染污定中雖有念慧。而得失念不正慧名。故此二支染中非有。行舍唯是大善法攝。例同第四故此不遮。故此染支唯有二種。第四染中無舍念凈。彼為煩惱所染污故。由此第四染唯二支。有餘師說。初二染定但無輕安。后二染中但無行舍。大善攝故。彼說染中喜信念慧。皆是支攝。皆通染故。契經中說。三定有動第四不動。依何義說。頌曰。
第四名不動 離八災患故 八者謂尋伺 四受入出息
論曰。下三靜慮名有動者有災患故。第四靜慮名不動者無災患故。災患有八。其
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 安舍
論曰。且有一類隨相說言。初禪（Dhyana，禪那）中沒有因遠離（離生）而產生的喜樂（喜，Priti）。因為這種喜樂不是通過遠離煩惱而產生的。雖然染污定（染污定，Klista-samadhi）也與喜相應，但因為它不是因遠離而生，所以不屬於禪支（支，Anga）所攝。這裡不僅說了遠離慾望（離欲）而生喜，也說了因遠離自地（自地）的染污而生喜。因為契經（契經，Sutra）中先這樣說：『遠離諸欲、惡不善法之後』，又說：『離生喜樂』。這裡重複說『離生』，是爲了顯示也有喜是因遠離自地惑（惑，Klesha）而生。爲了顯示喜支（喜支）唯是善性（善性，Kusala），所以薄伽梵（薄伽梵，Bhagavan，世尊）與樂（樂，Sukha）合說。輕安（輕安，Prasrabdhi）相應必定是善的。由此可知，染污定中必定沒有喜支。所以初禪的禪支只有三種。
第二禪中沒有內等凈（內等凈，Adhyatma-samprasada）。因為第二禪被煩惱所擾濁。雖然世間上有人說有染污的信（信，Sraddha），但因為不屬於信支（信支），所以不立為禪支。樂是輕安，唯是善性所攝，與初禪的情況相同，所以不再重複遮止。所以第二禪的禪支只有兩種。第二禪定許有喜支，那麼用什麼來證明初禪中沒有喜支呢？因為初禪的喜說是從遠離而生，而第二禪中沒有『離生』的說法。
第三禪中沒有正念慧（正念慧，Smrti-samprajanya）。因為第三禪被染污的樂所迷惑擾亂。染污定中雖然有念慧，但得到的是失念（失念，Musta-smrti）和不正慧（不正慧，Asamprajanya）之名。所以這兩種禪支在染污定中是沒有的。行舍（行舍，Upeksa）唯是大善法所攝，與第四禪的情況相同，所以這裡不遮止。所以第三禪的禪支只有兩種。
第四禪中沒有舍（舍，Upeksa）、念（念，Smrti）、凈（凈，Parisuddhi）。因為第四禪被煩惱所染污。由此可知，第四禪的染污定只有兩種禪支。有其他老師說，初禪和第二禪定中只有輕安不存在，后兩禪定中只有行舍不存在，因為行舍是大善法所攝。他們說染污定中的喜、信、念、慧都是禪支所攝，因為它們都通於染污。
契經中說，三禪有動，第四禪不動，這是依據什麼意義說的呢？頌曰：
第四名不動，離八災患故。 八者謂尋伺，四受入出息。
論曰。下三靜慮（靜慮，Dhyana）名為有動，因為有災患。第四靜慮名為不動，因為沒有災患。災患有八，它們是：
【English Translation】 English version Anusaya (Latent Tendencies)
The treatise states: There is a certain school that follows the characteristics and says that in the first Dhyana (禪那, meditation), there is no joy and pleasure (喜, Priti) born of detachment (離生). This is because this joy and pleasure are not produced by detachment from afflictions. Although the defiled Samadhi (染污定, Klista-samadhi) is also associated with joy, it is not included in the limbs (支, Anga) because it is not born of detachment. Here, it is not only said that joy is born of detachment from desires (離欲), but also that joy is born of detachment from the defilements of one's own realm (自地). Because the Sutra (契經, Sutra) first says: 'Having detached from all desires, evil and unwholesome dharmas,' and then says: 'Joy and pleasure born of detachment.' The repetition of 'born of detachment' here is to show that there is also joy born of detachment from the afflictions (惑, Klesha) of one's own realm. To show that the limb of joy (喜支) is only of wholesome nature (善性, Kusala), the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, Bhagavan, the World-Honored One) speaks of it together with pleasure (樂, Sukha). Prasrabdhi (輕安, Prasrabdhi, mental pliancy) is certainly wholesome when associated with it. From this, it can be known that there is certainly no limb of joy in the defiled Samadhi. Therefore, there are only three limbs in the first Dhyana.
In the second Dhyana, there is no Adhyatma-samprasada (內等凈, inner purity). This is because the second Dhyana is disturbed and turbid by afflictions. Although some in the world say that there is defiled faith (信, Sraddha), it is not established as a limb because it is not included in the limb of faith (信支). Pleasure is Prasrabdhi, which is only included in the wholesome nature, the same as in the first Dhyana, so it is not repeatedly prohibited. Therefore, there are only two limbs in the second Dhyana. It is admitted that there is a limb of joy in the second Dhyana, so what is the proof that there is no limb of joy in the first Dhyana? Because the joy of the first Dhyana is said to be born of detachment, but there is no mention of 'born of detachment' in the second Dhyana.
In the third Dhyana, there is no Smrti-samprajanya (正念慧, mindfulness and clear comprehension). This is because the third Dhyana is confused and disturbed by defiled pleasure. Although there is mindfulness and comprehension in the defiled Samadhi, it is given the name of Musta-smrti (失念, loss of mindfulness) and Asamprajanya (不正慧, non-comprehension). Therefore, these two limbs are not present in the defiled Samadhi. Upeksa (行舍, equanimity) is only included in the great wholesome dharma, the same as in the fourth Dhyana, so it is not prohibited here. Therefore, there are only two limbs in the third Dhyana.
In the fourth Dhyana, there is no Upeksa (舍, equanimity), Smrti (念, mindfulness), and Parisuddhi (凈, purity). This is because the fourth Dhyana is defiled by afflictions. From this, it can be known that there are only two limbs in the defiled Samadhi of the fourth Dhyana. Some other teachers say that only Prasrabdhi does not exist in the first and second Dhyanas, and only Upeksa does not exist in the latter two Dhyanas, because Upeksa is included in the great wholesome dharma. They say that joy, faith, mindfulness, and comprehension in the defiled Samadhi are all included in the limbs, because they all pertain to defilement.
The Sutra says that the three Dhyanas are moving, and the fourth Dhyana is unmoving. According to what meaning is this said? The verse says:
The fourth is called unmoving, because it is free from eight calamities. The eight are called initial thought and sustained thought, four sensations, inhalation and exhalation.
The treatise states: The lower three Dhyanas are called moving because they have calamities. The fourth Dhyana is called unmoving because it has no calamities. There are eight calamities, they are:
八者何。尋伺四受入息出息。此八災患第四都無故。佛世尊說為不動。然經唯說第四靜慮。不為尋伺喜樂動者。經密意說論依法相。以薄伽梵有處說言。斷樂斷苦先喜憂沒。具足安住第四靜慮。又說彼定身行俱滅。入息出息名為身行。故知此定非唯獨免。尋伺喜樂四動災患。有餘師說。第四靜慮如密室燈。照而無動故名不動。喻經說故尋伺何過。而求靜息此能令心於定境界。雖恒繫念而不寂靜。如樹枝條依莖而住。與風合故動搖不息。諸瑜伽師雖不願樂。于境行相心速易脫。而尋伺力令彼馳流。故於定中尋伺有過。喜樂於定亦能鼓動。唯此四種與定相應。而能動心故經偏說。然實二息憂苦二受。亦能鼓動故論說八。尋伺二法既有此過。不應說在靜慮支中。經但應言尋伺寂靜。何容亦說有尋有伺為顯尋伺。雖定相應而於定中。能為災患不說不了。故定應說或此于定。初作資糧作欲惡尋遠分治故。後於勝定方為災患。故說尋伺功不唐捐。舍有行儀方便法爾。設是所舍初必應依。如欲渡河先依船筏。后至彼岸理應總舍。故契經言依色出欲。依無色出色依道出無色。若得涅槃亦出聖道。此二容有與一心俱。如勝劣風與一枝合。若此二業謂能鼓動。如何說此與定相應。粗淺定心尋伺所策。方能出離欲界粗染。故此得與初定相應。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第八種是什麼？是尋（Vitarka，粗分別）伺（Vicara，細分別）、四種感受（苦、樂、喜、憂）、入息（吸氣）和出息（呼氣）。這八種災患在第四禪定中完全沒有，所以佛世尊說它是『不動』。然而，經典只說了第四禪定不被尋伺、喜樂所動。這是因為經典是密意之說，而論典是依法相來解釋的。因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在某些地方說過：『斷樂斷苦，先前的喜憂都已消失，具足安住于第四禪定。』又說彼定中身行（kaya-sankhara）也滅除了，入息出息被稱為身行。所以可知此定不僅僅是免除了尋伺喜樂這四種動搖的災患。 有其他論師說，第四禪定就像密室中的燈，照亮而沒有動搖，所以稱為『不動』。如果用比喻來說，尋伺有什麼過錯呢？為什麼要尋求靜止呢？因為尋伺能使心在禪定的境界中，雖然恒常繫念，卻不能寂靜。就像樹的枝條依附在樹幹上，與風結合就會動搖不停。瑜伽師們雖然不願意，但心很容易從境界中脫離，而尋伺的力量會使它馳流。所以在禪定中，尋伺是有過錯的。喜樂在禪定中也能鼓動（心）。只有這四種（尋伺喜樂）與禪定相應，並且能夠動搖心，所以經典特別說了這四種。但實際上，兩種氣息（入息出息）、憂苦兩種感受，也能鼓動（心），所以論典說了八種。尋伺這兩種法既然有這樣的過錯，就不應該說它們在禪定的支分中。經典應該只說尋伺寂靜，怎麼能說『有尋有伺』呢？這是爲了顯示尋伺雖然與禪定相應，但在禪定中能成為災患，不說就不能瞭解。所以禪定應該這樣說。或者說，尋伺在最初是作為禪定的資糧，作為遠離惡欲之尋的初步治理，所以在後來的殊勝禪定中才成為災患。所以說尋伺的功用不是白費的，捨棄它是有其行儀和方便的，本來就應該這樣。就像要渡河，先要依靠船筏，到達彼岸后理應全部捨棄。所以契經說：『依色界出離欲界，依無色界出離色界，如果證得涅槃，也要出離聖道。』這兩種（尋伺和定）有可能與一心同時存在，就像強風和弱風與同一樹枝結合一樣。如果說這兩種（尋伺）是能鼓動（心）的，那又怎麼說它們與禪定相應呢？粗淺的定心被尋伺所策動，才能出離欲界的粗染。所以這才能與初禪相應。
【English Translation】 English version What are the eight? They are Vitarka (initial application of thought, gross investigation), Vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle investigation), the four feelings (suffering, pleasure, joy, equanimity), inhalation, and exhalation. These eight afflictions are completely absent in the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption), therefore the Buddha Bhagavan (the Blessed One) said it is 'immovable'. However, the Sutras (discourses) only state that the fourth Dhyana is not moved by Vitarka, Vicara, joy, and pleasure. This is because the Sutras speak with a hidden meaning, while the Shastras (treatises) explain according to the characteristics of the Dharmas (teachings). Because the Bhagavan said in some places: 'Having abandoned pleasure and pain, with the previous joy and sorrow having ceased, one abides fully in the fourth Dhyana.' It is also said that in that Samadhi (concentration), bodily activity (kaya-sankhara) is also extinguished, and inhalation and exhalation are called bodily activity. Therefore, it is known that this Samadhi is not only free from the four afflictions of Vitarka, Vicara, joy, and pleasure that cause agitation. Some other teachers say that the fourth Dhyana is like a lamp in a closed room, illuminating without moving, therefore it is called 'immovable'. If we use an analogy, what is the fault of Vitarka and Vicara? Why seek stillness? Because Vitarka and Vicara can cause the mind to be unable to be still in the state of Samadhi, even though it is constantly focused. It is like the branches of a tree attached to the trunk, which shake constantly when combined with the wind. Although Yogis (practitioners of Yoga) are unwilling, the mind easily escapes from the state, and the power of Vitarka and Vicara causes it to wander. Therefore, in Samadhi, Vitarka and Vicara are faulty. Joy and pleasure can also agitate (the mind) in Samadhi. Only these four (Vitarka, Vicara, joy, and pleasure) are in accordance with Samadhi and can agitate the mind, so the Sutras specifically mention these four. But in reality, the two breaths (inhalation and exhalation) and the two feelings of sorrow and suffering can also agitate (the mind), so the Shastras mention eight. Since these two Dharmas of Vitarka and Vicara have such faults, they should not be said to be in the limbs of Samadhi. The Sutras should only say that Vitarka and Vicara are still, how can they say 'with Vitarka and Vicara'? This is to show that although Vitarka and Vicara are in accordance with Samadhi, they can become afflictions in Samadhi, and if it is not said, it cannot be understood. Therefore, Samadhi should be spoken of in this way. Or it can be said that Vitarka and Vicara are initially the provisions for Samadhi, as a preliminary treatment for distancing oneself from evil desires, so they become afflictions in later, superior Samadhi. Therefore, it is said that the function of Vitarka and Vicara is not in vain, and there is a proper procedure and means for abandoning them, which is how it should be. Just as when crossing a river, one must first rely on a boat, and after reaching the other shore, one should abandon it completely. Therefore, the Sutras say: 'Relying on the realm of form, one departs from the realm of desire; relying on the formless realm, one departs from the realm of form; if one attains Nirvana (liberation), one must also depart from the Noble Path.' These two (Vitarka/Vicara and Samadhi) can possibly exist simultaneously with one mind, just as strong and weak winds combine with the same branch. If it is said that these two (Vitarka/Vicara) are capable of agitating (the mind), then how can it be said that they are in accordance with Samadhi? A shallow mind in Samadhi, driven by Vitarka and Vicara, can depart from the gross defilements of the desire realm. Therefore, this can be in accordance with the first Dhyana.
由此相應未為清凈。如燈與日俱見色緣。燈細暗俱照不明瞭。日光離暗照用分明。如是應知初靜慮定。雖作自事而尋伺俱。未照而無動如第四靜慮。若尋在定能動亂心無漏定俱亦為災患。何緣建立為一道支。已說彼能策正見故。行者于定未串習時。不能了知此為災患。故於此地不欲厭舍。若已串習便能覺知。初靜慮中有此災患。如水澄凈便有池中。潛下蟲魚能為濁亂。行者既見初靜慮中。尋伺二法能為動亂。便於一地總生厭舍。謂此粗淺理應舍故。于初靜慮尋伺既然。于上地中喜等亦爾。如定靜慮諸受差別生亦爾不。不爾云何。頌曰。
生靜慮從初 有喜樂舍受 及喜舍樂舍 唯舍受如次
論曰。生靜慮中初有三受。一者喜受意識相應。二者樂受三識相應。三者舍受四識相應。第二有二。謂喜與舍意識相應。無有樂受無餘識故。心悅粗故。第三有二。謂樂與舍意識相應。第四有一。謂唯舍受意識相應。是謂定生受有差別。上三靜慮無三識身及無尋伺。如何生彼能見聞觸及起表業。非生彼地無眼識等。但非彼系所以者何。頌曰。
生上三靜慮 起三識表心 皆初靜慮攝 唯無覆無記
論曰。生上三地起三識身。及發表心皆初定系。生上起下如起化心。故能見聞觸及發表。此四唯是無覆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，相應的（禪定）還未達到清凈的境界。就像燈和太陽同時照亮物體，燈光微弱且昏暗，照物不清晰；而日光遠離黑暗，照物的作用就非常分明。應該這樣理解初禪（初靜慮定）：雖然它能起到自身的作用，但尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的觀察）同時存在，還不能像第四禪（第四靜慮）那樣，沒有尋伺的擾動。如果在禪定中尋伺活動強烈，會擾亂心神，即使是無漏的禪定也會因此受到損害。那麼，為什麼還要將尋伺建立為禪定的一支（一道支）呢？因為已經說過，尋伺能夠策發正見。修行者在禪定方面還不夠熟練時，不能認識到尋伺是禪定的災患，因此在這個階段不想厭離捨棄尋伺。如果已經熟練，就能覺察到初禪中存在尋伺這個災患，就像水澄清后，池塘中潛藏的蟲魚仍然會攪渾水一樣。修行者一旦發現初禪中的尋伺兩種心所會造成擾動，就會對整個初禪生起厭離捨棄之心，認為這種粗淺的境界理應捨棄。對於初禪的尋伺是這樣，對於更高禪定中的喜（Priti，喜悅）等感受也是如此。那麼，禪定中各種感受的差別，其生起也是這樣嗎？不是的。為什麼呢？頌文說： 『生靜慮從初，有喜樂舍受，及喜舍樂舍，唯舍受如次。』 論曰：在禪定中生起，初禪有三種感受：一是喜受，與意識相應；二是樂受，與前五識中的三種識（眼識、耳識、身識）相應；三是舍受，與四種識（眼識、耳識、身識、意識）相應。第二禪有兩種感受，即喜和舍，與意識相應，沒有樂受，因為沒有其餘的識。這是因為第二禪的心悅感受比較粗糙。第三禪有兩種感受，即樂和舍，與意識相應。第四禪只有一種感受，即舍受，與意識相應。這就是禪定中生起的感受的差別。上三禪（二禪、三禪、四禪）沒有前五識中的三種識（眼識、耳識、身識），也沒有尋伺，那麼如何能見、聞、觸，以及發起表業（身語的表達行為）呢？並非生於這些禪定中就沒有眼識等，只是這些識不屬於這些禪定所繫縛。為什麼呢？頌文說： 『生上三靜慮，起三識表心，皆初靜慮攝，唯無覆無記。』 論曰：生於上三禪中，所生起的三種識身（眼識、耳識、身識）以及表達的心，都屬於初禪所攝。就像從上面的禪定生起下面的心一樣，如同化生出來的心。因此能夠見、聞、觸以及表達。這四種都只是無覆無記（既不善也不惡，且不遮蔽實性的心）。
【English Translation】 English version Accordingly, the corresponding (meditative state) is not yet pure. It is like when a lamp and the sun both illuminate an object, the lamp's light is weak and dim, and its illumination is unclear; while the sunlight is far from darkness, and its illuminating function is very distinct. It should be understood that the first Dhyana (first meditative absorption, 初靜慮定) , although it can perform its own function, Vitarka (粗略的思考) and Vicara (細緻的觀察) exist simultaneously, and it cannot be like the fourth Dhyana (第四靜慮), which is without the disturbance of Vitarka and Vicara. If Vitarka and Vicara are strong in meditation, they will disturb the mind, and even undefiled meditation will be damaged as a result. So, why is Vitarka and Vicara established as a branch of meditation (一道支)? Because it has been said that Vitarka and Vicara can prompt right view. When practitioners are not yet proficient in meditation, they cannot recognize that Vitarka and Vicara are a calamity for meditation, so at this stage they do not want to be disgusted and abandon Vitarka and Vicara. If they are already proficient, they can perceive that there is the calamity of Vitarka and Vicara in the first Dhyana, just as when the water is clear, the insects and fish lurking in the pond will still stir up the water. Once practitioners discover that the two mental factors of Vitarka and Vicara in the first Dhyana can cause disturbance, they will generate disgust and abandonment for the entire first Dhyana, thinking that this shallow state should be abandoned. It is like this for Vitarka and Vicara in the first Dhyana, and it is also like this for Priti (喜悅) and other feelings in higher Dhyanas. Then, are the differences in feelings that arise in meditation also like this? No. Why? The verse says: 'Born from the first Dhyana, there are feelings of joy, pleasure, and equanimity, and joy, equanimity, pleasure, equanimity, only equanimity in order.' The treatise says: Arising in meditation, the first Dhyana has three kinds of feelings: first, the feeling of joy, which corresponds to consciousness; second, the feeling of pleasure, which corresponds to three of the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and body consciousness); and third, the feeling of equanimity, which corresponds to four consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, body consciousness, and consciousness). The second Dhyana has two feelings, namely joy and equanimity, which correspond to consciousness, and there is no feeling of pleasure, because there are no other consciousnesses. This is because the feeling of joy in the second Dhyana is relatively coarse. The third Dhyana has two feelings, namely pleasure and equanimity, which correspond to consciousness. The fourth Dhyana has only one feeling, namely equanimity, which corresponds to consciousness. These are the differences in feelings that arise in meditation. The upper three Dhyanas (second Dhyana, third Dhyana, fourth Dhyana) do not have three of the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and body consciousness), nor do they have Vitarka and Vicara, so how can they see, hear, touch, and initiate expressive actions (physical and verbal expressions)? It is not that there are no eye consciousnesses, etc., in those Dhyanas, but that these consciousnesses are not bound by those Dhyanas. Why? The verse says: 'Born in the upper three Dhyanas, the three consciousnesses and expressive mind arise, all included in the first Dhyana, only obscured and indeterminate.' The treatise says: Born in the upper three Dhyanas, the three consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and body consciousness) and the expressive mind that arise all belong to the first Dhyana. It is like the mind arising from the upper Dhyana, like a mind that is transformed. Therefore, it is possible to see, hear, touch, and express. These four are only obscured and indeterminate (neither good nor evil, and do not obscure reality).
無記。不起下染已離染故。不起下善以下劣故。如是別釋靜慮事已。凈等等至初得云何。頌曰。
全不成而得 凈由離染生 無漏由離染 染由生及退
論曰。八本等至隨其所應。若全不成而獲得者。諸凈等至由二因緣。一由離染。謂在下地離下染時。二由受生。謂從上地生自地時。下七皆然有頂不爾。唯由離染無上地故。無從上地于彼受生。此中但說本等至者。以諸近分未離染時。有全不成由加行得。遮何故說全不成言。為遮已成更得少分。如由加行得凈本等至。及由退故得彼順退分。即依此義作是問言。頗有凈定由離染得。由離染舍。由退得。由退舍。由生得。由生舍耶。曰有。謂順退分。且初靜慮順退分攝。離欲染時得。離自染時舍退。離自染得退。離欲染舍。從上生自得。從自生下舍。餘地所攝應如理思。無漏但由離染故得。謂聖離下染得上地無漏。此亦但據全不成者。若先已成余時亦得。謂盡智位得無學道。于練根時得學無學。余加行及退皆如理應思。雖有由入正性離生。獲得根本無漏等至。而非決定。以次第者爾時未得根本定故。此中但論決定得者。聖離下染必定獲得。上地根本無漏定故。染由受生及退故得。謂上地沒生下地時得下地染。及於此地離染退時得此地染。無由離染及加行得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無記（無法歸類為善或不善）。不起下染，因為已經離開了染污。不起下善，因為以下劣。（此處解釋了靜慮的各個方面。）那麼，清凈的等持（Samāpatti，禪定）最初是如何獲得的呢？頌文說：
完全未成就而得，清凈由離染而生，無漏由離染，染由生及退。
論曰：八種根本等至（八種禪定），根據情況，如果完全未成就而獲得，那麼清凈的等至由兩種因緣：一是由離染，即在下地離開下地染污時；二是由受生，即從上地生到自地時。下七地都是這樣，有頂天（Bhavāgra）不是這樣，因為只有離染，沒有更高的地，所以無法從上地受生到那裡。這裡只說根本等至，因為在近分定（Upacāra-samādhi）未離染時，有完全未成就而通過加行（努力）獲得的。為什麼要說『完全未成就』呢？是爲了排除已經成就而又獲得少分的情況，比如通過加行獲得清凈的根本等至，以及因為退失而獲得順退分（Bhāgīya）。
根據這個意義，提出這樣的問題：是否有一種清凈的禪定，由離染而得，由離染而舍，由退而得，由退而舍，由生而得，由生而舍？答：有。即順退分。比如，初禪的順退分，在離開欲界染時獲得，在離開自身染時捨棄；退失時，離開自身染而得，退失時，離開欲界染而捨棄；從上地生到自地時獲得，從自地生到下地時捨棄。其餘各地的順退分，應該按照這個道理來思考。無漏（Anāsrava，無煩惱）的禪定只由離染而得，即聖者離開下地染污而獲得上地無漏。這也只是針對完全未成就的情況。如果先前已經成就，其他時候也可以獲得，比如在盡智位（證得一切法盡的智慧）獲得無學道（Arhatship），在練根時獲得學道（Srotaāpanna, Sakrdāgāmin, Anāgāmin）和無學道。其餘的加行和退失，都應該按照道理來思考。雖然有通過入正性離生（入聖道）而獲得根本無漏等至，但並非決定如此，因為次第修行者那時還沒有獲得根本定。這裡只討論決定獲得的情況，聖者離開下地染污必定獲得上地根本無漏定。
染污由受生和退失而得，即從上地死亡而生到下地時，獲得下地的染污；以及在此地離開染污而退失時，獲得此地的染污。沒有由離染和加行而得的情況。
【English Translation】 English version: Indeterminate (Avyākrta, neither good nor bad). It does not arise from lower defilements because it has already departed from defilements. It does not arise from lower goodness because it is inferior. Having explained the aspects of Dhyāna (meditative absorption) in this way, how is pure Samāpatti (attainments) initially obtained? The verse says:
Obtained entirely unaccomplished, purity arises from detachment, non-outflow arises from detachment, defilement arises from birth and regression.
Commentary: The eight fundamental Samāpattis (eight levels of meditative absorption), according to the circumstances, if obtained entirely unaccomplished, then pure Samāpatti arises from two causes: one is from detachment, that is, when one departs from lower defilements in a lower realm; the other is from rebirth, that is, when one is born from a higher realm to one's own realm. The lower seven realms are like this, but not Bhavāgra (the peak of existence), because it only has detachment, and there is no higher realm, so it cannot be reborn there from a higher realm. Here, only the fundamental Samāpattis are mentioned, because when the Upacāra-samādhi (access concentration) has not departed from defilements, there are those that are obtained entirely unaccomplished through effort (application). Why is it said 'entirely unaccomplished'? It is to exclude the situation where it is already accomplished and then obtains a small portion, such as obtaining pure fundamental Samāpatti through effort, and obtaining the regressive portion (Bhāgīya) due to regression.
Based on this meaning, the question is asked: Is there a pure Samādhi (meditative concentration) that is obtained by detachment, abandoned by detachment, obtained by regression, abandoned by regression, obtained by birth, abandoned by birth? The answer is: Yes. That is, the regressive portion. For example, the regressive portion of the first Dhyāna, is obtained when departing from the desire realm defilements, and abandoned when departing from its own defilements; when regressing, it is obtained by departing from its own defilements, and when regressing, it is abandoned by departing from the desire realm defilements; when born from a higher realm to one's own realm, it is obtained, and when born from one's own realm to a lower realm, it is abandoned. The regressive portions of the other realms should be considered according to this principle. Anāsrava (without outflows, free from defilements) Samādhi is only obtained by detachment, that is, a noble one departs from lower realm defilements and obtains higher realm Anāsrava. This is also only in the case of being entirely unaccomplished. If it was previously accomplished, it can also be obtained at other times, such as obtaining Arhatship (the state of no more learning) in the position of the exhaustion of knowledge (knowledge of the exhaustion of all defilements), and obtaining the paths of Srotaāpanna (stream-enterer), Sakrdāgāmin (once-returner), and Anāgāmin (non-returner), and Arhatship when sharpening the faculties. The remaining efforts and regressions should all be considered according to the principle. Although there are those who obtain fundamental Anāsrava Samāpatti by entering the rightness of separation from birth (entering the path of the noble ones), it is not necessarily so, because those who practice in sequence have not yet obtained fundamental Samādhi at that time. Here, only the cases of definite attainment are discussed, a noble one departing from lower realm defilements will definitely obtain higher realm fundamental Anāsrava Samādhi.
Defilement is obtained by rebirth and regression, that is, when dying from a higher realm and being born into a lower realm, one obtains the defilements of the lower realm; and when departing from defilements in this realm and regressing, one obtains the defilements of this realm. There is no case of obtaining it by detachment or effort.
。如是二時能捨染故。何等至無間有幾等至生。頌曰。
無漏次生善 上下至第三 凈次生亦然 兼生自地染 染生自凈染 並下一地凈 死凈生一切 染生自下染
論曰。無漏次生。自上下善。善言具攝凈及無漏。極相違故必不生染。然于上下各至第三。遠故無能超生第四。故於無漏七等至中。從初靜慮無間生六。謂自二三各凈無漏。無所有處無間生七。謂自下六上地唯凈。第二靜慮無間生八。謂自上六並下地二。識無邊處無間生九。謂自下六並上地三。第三四空無間生十。謂上下八並自地二。類智無間能生無色。法智不然依緣別故。從凈等至所生亦然。而各兼生自地染污。故有頂凈無間生六。謂自凈染下凈無漏。從初靜慮無間生七。無所有八第二定九。識處生十餘生十一。從染等至生自凈染。並生次下一地凈定。謂為自地煩惱所逼。于下凈定亦生尊重故有從染生。次下凈極相違故不生無漏。若於染凈能正了知。可能從染轉生下凈。是則此凈還從凈生。以正了知是凈攝故。非諸染污能正了知。如何彼能從染生凈。先願力故謂先愿言。寧得下凈不須上染。先愿勢力隨相續轉故。后從染生下凈定。如先立愿方趣睡眠。至所期時便能覺悟。如是所說凈染生染。但約在定凈及染說。若生凈染生染不
【現代漢語翻譯】 如是，這兩種情況都能捨棄染污。何種等至（Samāpatti，禪定）之後會生起無間等至？又有幾種等至會生起？頌文說：
『無漏次生善，上下至第三，凈次生亦然，兼生自地染，染生自凈染，並下一地凈，死凈生一切，染生自下染。』
論曰：無漏等至之後，會生起自地和上下地的善法（包括凈和無漏）。因為無漏與染污是極端相反的，所以必定不會生起染污。然而，對於上下地，各自最多隻能生起到第三禪。因為距離太遠，無法超越而生起第四禪。因此，在七種無漏等至中，從初禪（初靜慮）無間生起六種等至，即自地的兩種（凈和無漏），以及第二禪和第三禪的兩種（凈和無漏）。從無所有處（無所有處）無間生起七種等至，即自地以下的六種（四禪和二無色定），以及上方一地的凈定。從第二禪（第二靜慮）無間生起八種等至，即上方六種（三禪和三無色定），以及下方二種（初禪的凈和無漏）。從識無邊處（識無邊處）無間生起九種等至，即下方六種（四禪和二無色定），以及上方三種（空無邊處，無所有處，非想非非想處）。從第三和第四空無色定（第三四空）無間生起十種等至，即上下八種（四禪和四無色定），以及自地的兩種（凈和無漏）。類智（類智）無間能生起無色定，法智（法智）則不然，因為所依和所緣不同。
從凈等至所生的情況也是如此，但各自兼生自地的染污。因此，從有頂天（有頂凈）的凈等至無間生起六種等至，即自地的凈和染，以及下方的凈和無漏。從初禪（初靜慮）無間生起七種等至，從無所有處（無所有）生起八種，從識無邊處（識處）生起九種，其餘的生起十一種。
從染等至生起自地的凈和染，並生起次下一地的凈定。這是因為被自地的煩惱所逼迫，對於下方的凈定也會生起尊重之心，所以會有從染生起凈的情況。因為染污和無漏是極端相反的，所以不會生起無漏。如果對於染和凈能夠正確了知，可能從染轉而生起下方的凈定，那麼這種凈定還是從凈定生起的，因為正確了知屬於凈的範疇。並非所有染污都能正確了知，如何能從染生起凈呢？這是因為先前的願力，即先前發願說：『寧願得到下方的凈定，也不需要上方的染定。』先前的願力會隨著相續流轉，所以後來會從染生起下方的凈定，就像先立下願望才去睡眠，到了預定的時間就能覺悟一樣。如此所說的凈生染和染生染，只是就處於定中的凈和染來說的。如果生起凈染，生起染不...
【English Translation】 Thus, both of these times can abandon defilements. What Samāpatti (attainment, meditative absorption) arises immediately after which, and how many Samāpattis arise?
The verse says:
'Unleaked arises next to good, up and down to the third, pure arises likewise, also arises self-ground defilement, defilement arises self-pure defilement, and next lower ground pure, death pure arises all, defilement arises self-lower defilement.'
Treatise says: After unleaked Samāpatti, good (including pure and unleaked) arises from self-ground and upper and lower grounds. Because unleaked and defilement are extremely contradictory, defilement will certainly not arise. However, for upper and lower grounds, each can only arise up to the third dhyana (meditative state). Because the distance is too far, it cannot transcend and arise the fourth. Therefore, among the seven unleaked Samāpattis, from the first dhyana (first meditative absorption), six Samāpattis arise immediately, namely the two of self-ground (pure and unleaked), and the two of the second and third dhyanas (pure and unleaked). From the Station of No-thingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana) seven Samāpattis arise immediately, namely the six below self-ground (four dhyanas and two formless attainments), and the pure attainment of the upper ground only. From the second dhyana (second meditative absorption), eight Samāpattis arise immediately, namely the six above (three dhyanas and three formless attainments), and the two below (pure and unleaked of the first dhyana). From the Station of Consciousness-without-Limit (Vijñānānantyāyatana), nine Samāpattis arise immediately, namely the six below (four dhyanas and two formless attainments), and the three above (Station of Infinity of Space, Station of No-thingness, Neither Perception nor Non-Perception). From the third and fourth formless attainments (third four empty), ten Samāpattis arise immediately, namely the eight above and below (four dhyanas and four formless attainments), and the two of self-ground (pure and unleaked). Class wisdom (Jāti-jñāna) can immediately arise formless attainments, but Dharma wisdom (Dharma-jñāna) cannot, because the reliance and object are different.
The same is true for what arises from pure Samāpatti, but each also arises defilement of self-ground. Therefore, from the pure Samāpatti of the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana), six Samāpattis arise immediately, namely the pure and defiled of self-ground, and the pure and unleaked below. From the first dhyana (first meditative absorption), seven Samāpattis arise immediately, from the Station of No-thingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana) eight arise, from the Station of Consciousness-without-Limit (Vijñānānantyāyatana) nine arise, and the rest arise eleven.
From defiled Samāpatti, the pure and defiled of self-ground arise, and the pure attainment of the next lower ground also arises. This is because being oppressed by the afflictions of self-ground, respect arises for the pure attainment below, so there is a case of pure arising from defilement. Because defilement and unleaked are extremely contradictory, unleaked will not arise. If one can correctly know defilement and pure, it is possible to transform from defilement and arise the pure attainment below, then this pure attainment still arises from pure attainment, because correct knowledge belongs to the category of pure. Not all defilements can correctly know, how can pure arise from defilement? This is because of previous vows, that is, previously vowing: 'I would rather obtain the pure attainment below than need the defiled attainment above.' The power of previous vows will flow with the continuum, so later the pure attainment below will arise from defilement, just like making a vow before going to sleep, and being able to wake up at the scheduled time. What is said in this way about pure arising defilement and defilement arising defilement is only about pure and defilement in meditation. If pure defilement arises, defilement arises not...
然。謂命終時從生得凈。一一無間生一切染。若從生染一一無間。能生自地一切。下染不生上者未離下故。所言從凈生無漏者。為一切種皆能生耶。不爾云何。頌曰。
凈定有四種 謂即順退分 順住順勝進 順抉擇分攝 如次順煩惱 自上地無漏 互相望如次 生二三三一
論曰。諸凈等至總有四種。一順退分攝。二順住分攝。三順勝進分攝。四順抉擇分攝。地各有四有頂唯三。由彼更無上地可趣。故彼地無有順勝進分攝。於此四中唯第四分能生無漏。所以者何。由此四種有如是相。順退分能順煩惱。順住分能順自地。順勝進分能順上地。順抉擇分能順無漏。故諸無漏唯從此生。有餘師言。順退分者住彼可退。順住分者住彼不退。亦不升進。順勝進分者住彼能升進。順抉擇分者住彼起聖道。有言住彼順通達諦。由此無間能入離生。應知此中決定義者。謂諸聖道必此無間生。非此無間必能生聖道。若異此者是則應說。唯世第一法名順抉擇分。有餘師言。順退分者。與諸煩惱下上相雜。染凈展轉現在前故。順住分者。能以種種粗等行相。棄背下地靜等行相攝受自地。順勝進分者。觀自地過上地功德。順抉擇分者。如暖頂忍世第一法。無漏無間何分現前。有說通三除順退分。理實唯二謂后二種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 是的。所謂命終時從凈心而生，每一個染污念頭都會無間斷地產生一切染污。如果從染污心而生，每一個染污念頭也都會無間斷地產生自身境界的一切染污。低層次的染污不能產生高層次的染污，是因為還沒有脫離低層次的緣故。所說的從清凈心產生無漏智慧，是說一切種類都能產生嗎？不是的，那是怎麼回事呢？頌詞說：
『清凈禪定有四種，即是順退分（能導致退步的禪定）、順住分（能保持現狀的禪定）、順勝進分（能提升的禪定）、順抉擇分（能導向決定的禪定）所攝。 依次是順應煩惱、自身以上境界的無漏智慧。 互相觀待，依次產生二、三、三、一。』
論述：各種清凈的等至（禪定）總共有四種。第一種是順退分所攝，第二種是順住分所攝，第三種是順勝進分所攝，第四種是順抉擇分所攝。各個地都有這四種，除了有頂天只有三種，因為有頂天沒有更高的境界可以趨向，所以那個境界沒有順勝進分所攝。在這四種禪定中，只有第四種能產生無漏智慧。為什麼呢？因為這四種禪定有這樣的特性：順退分能順應煩惱，順住分能順應自身境界，順勝進分能順應更高境界，順抉擇分能順應無漏智慧。所以各種無漏智慧只能從順抉擇分產生。
有其他論師說，順退分是指安住於此可能退步，順住分是指安住於此不會退步，也不會提升，順勝進分是指安住於此能夠提升，順抉擇分是指安住於此能夠生起聖道。也有人說安住於此能夠順應通達真諦，因此無間斷地能夠進入脫離生死的境界。應該知道這裡所說的『決定』，是指各種聖道必定從此無間斷地產生，而不是說從此無間斷地產生就必定是聖道。如果不是這樣，那就應該說只有世第一法才叫做順抉擇分。
有其他論師說，順退分是指與各種煩惱、下層和上層的境界相互混雜，染污和清凈交替出現。順住分是指能夠以各種粗重的行相，捨棄下層境界的寂靜等行相，而攝取自身境界的行相。順勝進分是指觀察自身境界的過失和上層境界的功德。順抉擇分是指像暖位、頂位、忍位、世第一法這些，無漏智慧無間斷地在哪個位現前？有人說通於三種，除了順退分。但實際上只有兩種，就是後面的兩種（順勝進分和順抉擇分）。
【English Translation】 Yes. It is said that at the time of death, one is born from a pure mind, and each impure thought arises without interruption, producing all defilements. If born from an impure mind, each impure thought also arises without interruption, producing all the defilements of its own realm. Lower-level defilements cannot produce higher-level defilements because one has not yet detached from the lower level. When it is said that stainless wisdom arises from a pure mind, does it mean that all types can produce it? No, how is it then? The verse says:
'Pure Samadhi (concentration) has four types, namely, those pertaining to the regressive (shun tui fen), the stable (shun zhu fen), the progressive (shun sheng jin fen), and the decisive (shun jue ze fen).' 'In order, they accord with afflictions, stainless wisdom above one's own realm. Relatively speaking, they produce two, three, three, and one in order.'
Treatise: There are four types of pure samadhi in total. The first is included in the regressive, the second in the stable, the third in the progressive, and the fourth in the decisive. Each realm has these four, except for the Peak of Existence (youting) which has only three, because that realm has no higher realm to aspire to, so that realm does not include the progressive. Among these four types of samadhi, only the fourth can produce stainless wisdom. Why? Because these four types have such characteristics: the regressive accords with afflictions, the stable accords with one's own realm, the progressive accords with a higher realm, and the decisive accords with stainless wisdom. Therefore, all stainless wisdom arises only from the decisive.
Some other teachers say that the regressive means that dwelling in it can lead to regression, the stable means that dwelling in it does not lead to regression, nor does it lead to advancement, the progressive means that dwelling in it can lead to advancement, and the decisive means that dwelling in it can give rise to the holy path. Some also say that dwelling in it accords with penetrating the truth, therefore, without interruption, one can enter the realm of liberation from birth and death. It should be known that the 'decisive' here refers to the fact that various holy paths will certainly arise from this without interruption, but it does not mean that arising from this without interruption is necessarily a holy path. If it were not so, then it should be said that only the World's First Dharma (shi di yi fa) is called the decisive.
Some other teachers say that the regressive means that it is mixed with various afflictions, lower and upper realms, and defilement and purity alternate. The stable means that it can, with various coarse characteristics, abandon the tranquility and other characteristics of the lower realm and embrace the characteristics of its own realm. The progressive means that it observes the faults of its own realm and the merits of the upper realm. The decisive refers to the stages like the Warmth Stage (nuan wei), Peak Stage (ding wei), Forbearance Stage (ren wei), and the World's First Dharma, in which stage does stainless wisdom arise without interruption? Some say it applies to all three except for the regressive. But in reality, it is only the latter two (the progressive and the decisive).
諸有修習超等至等。唯順抉擇最堅勝故。諸瑜伽師作如是說。若觀行者于自地定。不善通達不恒安住。于上地定不能欣求。數數現行順下地想。彼之等持名順退分。或由自地離染退得名順退分。成就此定補特伽羅名為退者。如成牛行說名為牛。兇勃難回說名牛行。于自地定耽著不捨。于上地定不能欣求。彼之等持名順住分。于自地定雖能多住而不耽著。于上地定欣樂。牽引彼之等持。名順勝進分。于自上定皆不耽著多住厭想。為欲令斷彼之等持。名順抉擇分。諸有安住順退分者。于廣大果心多繫縛。諸有安住順住分者。數住自定不能上求。諸有安住順勝進者。能展轉求所餘勝定。然勝進分總有二種。一者自地殊勝功德。二者上地殊勝功德。若能牽引彼名順勝進分。此有二類或厭或欣。諸有安住順抉擇者。樂斷諸有樂修無漏。是名安住四分者別。若順煩惱名順退分。諸阿羅漢寧有退理。非彼猶有順退分定。可令現行離染舍故。雖有此難而實無違。謂順住中有順退者。亦得建立順退分名。從彼有退如先已說。此四相望互相生者。初能生二謂順退住。第二生三除順抉擇。第三生三除順退分。第四生一謂自非余。有說亦生順勝進分。如上所言凈及無漏。皆能上下超至第三。行者如何修超等至。加行成滿差別云何。頌曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：那些修習超越三摩地（Samadhi，等至，指專注或冥想的狀態）的人，唯一遵循抉擇（決斷和選擇）才是最堅定和殊勝的。瑜伽師們這樣說：如果觀行者對於自己所處的禪定境界，不能很好地通達，不能持續安住，對於更高層次的禪定境界就不能生起欣求之心，並且常常現行與較低層次境界相應的想法，那麼他的這種等持（專注狀態）就叫做順退分（退步分）。或者因為從自己所處的禪定境界離染而退失，也可以叫做順退分。成就這種禪定的人被稱為『退者』，就像說成牛的行為就叫做牛一樣，兇猛頑固難以馴服就叫做牛行。如果對於自己所處的禪定境界貪戀執著，不肯捨棄，對於更高層次的禪定境界不能生起欣求之心，那麼他的這種等持就叫做順住分（停留分）。如果對於自己所處的禪定境界雖然能夠長時間安住，但是不貪戀執著，並且對於更高層次的禪定境界生起欣樂之心，能夠被更高層次的境界所牽引，那麼他的這種等持就叫做順勝進分（進步分）。如果對於自己所處的禪定境界和更高層次的禪定境界都不貪戀執著，並且常常生起厭離的想法，爲了想要斷除這些境界，那麼他的這種等持就叫做順抉擇分（抉擇分）。那些安住于順退分的人，常常被廣大的果報之心所束縛。那些安住于順住分的人，只是安住于自己所處的禪定境界，不能向上追求。那些安住于順勝進分的人，能夠輾轉尋求其餘更殊勝的禪定境界。然而，勝進分總共有兩種：一種是自己所處境界的殊勝功德，另一種是更高層次境界的殊勝功德。如果能夠被這些功德所牽引，就叫做順勝進分。這又有兩種情況：或者因為厭離，或者因為欣樂。那些安住于順抉擇分的人，樂於斷除各種有漏之法，樂於修習無漏之法。這就是安住於四種分位的區別。如果順應煩惱，就叫做順退分。阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟的聖者）難道會有退步的道理嗎？他們不會再有順退分的禪定現行，因為他們已經離染並且捨棄了。雖然有這樣的疑問，但是實際上並沒有矛盾。也就是說，在順住分中也有順退的情況，也可以建立順退分的名字，因為從那裡會有退失，就像先前已經說過的。這四種分位相互觀待，互相產生：最初的順退分和順住分能夠產生第二種，也就是順住分，除了順抉擇分。第二種順住分能夠產生三種，除了順退分。第三種順勝進分能夠產生三種，除了順退分。第四種順抉擇分只產生自己，而不是其他的。有人說，順抉擇分也能產生順勝進分。就像上面所說的，清凈之法和無漏之法，都能夠向上或向下超越到第三種分位。修行者如何修習超越三摩地？加行（修行前的準備）成就和圓滿的差別是什麼？頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version: Those who cultivate the superior Samadhi (concentration, meditative state), only following the discernment (decision and choice) is the most firm and excellent. The Yogis say this: If a practitioner is not well-versed in their own Samadhi state, cannot dwell in it constantly, and cannot generate a desire for higher Samadhi states, and frequently manifests thoughts corresponding to lower states, then their Samadhi is called 'Downward-moving Division' (regression). Or, because of detachment and regression from their own Samadhi state, it can also be called 'Downward-moving Division'. A person who achieves this Samadhi is called a 'Regressor', just as the behavior of a bull is called 'bullish', and being fierce, stubborn, and difficult to tame is called 'bull-like behavior'. If one is attached to and clings to their own Samadhi state, unwilling to abandon it, and cannot generate a desire for higher Samadhi states, then their Samadhi is called 'Stationary Division' (stagnation). If one can dwell in their own Samadhi state for a long time without attachment, and generates a desire for higher Samadhi states, being drawn by higher states, then their Samadhi is called 'Progressive Division' (advancement). If one is not attached to their own Samadhi state or higher Samadhi states, and frequently generates thoughts of aversion, wanting to eliminate these states, then their Samadhi is called 'Discriminative Division' (resolution). Those who dwell in the Downward-moving Division are often bound by vast minds of karmic results. Those who dwell in the Stationary Division only dwell in their own Samadhi state and cannot seek higher. Those who dwell in the Progressive Division can seek other more excellent Samadhi states in turn. However, there are two types of Progressive Division in total: one is the excellent merit of one's own state, and the other is the excellent merit of higher states. If one can be drawn by these merits, it is called Progressive Division. There are two situations: either because of aversion or because of joy. Those who dwell in the Discriminative Division are happy to eliminate various defiled dharmas and are happy to cultivate undefiled dharmas. This is the difference between dwelling in the four divisions. If it accords with afflictions, it is called Downward-moving Division. Would Arhats (enlightened beings) have a reason to regress? They will no longer have the Downward-moving Samadhi manifest, because they have already detached and abandoned it. Although there is such a question, there is actually no contradiction. That is to say, there is also a situation of regression in the Stationary Division, and the name Downward-moving Division can also be established, because there will be regression from there, as has been said before. These four divisions are mutually dependent and generate each other: the initial Downward-moving Division and Stationary Division can generate the second, which is the Stationary Division, except for the Discriminative Division. The second Stationary Division can generate three, except for the Downward-moving Division. The third Progressive Division can generate three, except for the Downward-moving Division. The fourth Discriminative Division only generates itself, not others. Some say that the Discriminative Division can also generate the Progressive Division. As mentioned above, pure dharmas and undefiled dharmas can transcend upward or downward to the third division. How does a practitioner cultivate the transcendent Samadhi? What are the differences between the accomplishment and perfection of preparatory practices? The verse says:
二類定順逆 均間次及超 至間超為成 三洲利無學
論曰。本善等至分為二類。一者有漏。二者無漏。往上名順還下名逆。同類名均異類名間。相鄰名次越一名超。謂觀行者修超定時。先於有漏八地等至。順逆均次現前數習。次於無漏七地等至。順逆均次現前數習。次於有漏無漏等至。順逆間次現前數習。次於有漏順逆均超現前數習。次於無漏順逆均超現前數習。是名修習超加行滿。後於有漏無漏等至。順逆間超名超定成。此中超者謂頓超二。一者超地。二者超法。唯能超一故至第三。遠故無能超入第四。修超等至唯欲三洲除北俱盧。然通男女不時解脫諸阿羅漢。要得無諍妙愿智等。邊際定者能超非余。定自在故無煩惱故。時解脫者雖無煩惱。定不自在。諸見至者雖定自在有餘煩惱。故皆不能修超等至。勝解作意不能無間。修超等至勢力劣故。此諸等至依何身起。頌曰。
諸定依自下 非上無用故 唯生有頂聖 起下盡余惑
論曰。諸等至起依自下身。依上地身無容起下。上地起下無所用故。自有勝定故下勢力劣故。已棄捨故可厭毀故。總相雖然若委細說。聖生有頂必起無漏無所有處。為儘自地所餘煩惱。自無聖道欣樂起故。唯無所有最鄰近故。起彼現前盡余煩惱。離無漏道必無有能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二類定有順行和逆行兩種，也有均行、間行、次行和超行。 達到間行和超行的狀態，超定才能成就，三洲（指欲界人所居住的東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）的阿羅漢能從中獲益。
論述：根本的禪定可以分為兩類：一是有漏（saāsrava）的，二是無漏（anāsrava）的。向上修習稱為順行，向下修習稱為逆行。同類禪定稱為均行，不同類禪定稱為間行。相鄰的禪定稱為次行，超越一個禪定稱為超行。也就是說，觀行者修習超定時，先在有漏的八地等至中，按照順、逆、均、次的順序依次現前並數數修習。然後在無漏的七地等至中，按照順、逆、均、次的順序依次現前並數數修習。接著在有漏和無漏的等至中，按照順、逆、間、次的順序依次現前並數數修習。再在有漏的順行、逆行、均行、超行中依次現前並數數修習。最後在無漏的順行、逆行、均行、超行中依次現前並數數修習。這稱為修習超加行圓滿。之後在有漏和無漏的等至中，按照順、逆、間、超的順序進行修習，稱為超定成就。這裡所說的『超』，是指頓超兩種：一是超地，二是超法。只能超一種，所以達到第三種。因為距離遙遠，所以無法超入第四種。修習超等至只在欲界三洲，不包括北俱盧洲。然而，無論是男是女，凡是不時解脫的阿羅漢，必須獲得無諍（aranā）、妙愿智（pranidhijnana）等，才能修習邊際定，其他人則不能。因為他們有定的自在，沒有煩惱。時解脫者雖然沒有煩惱，但定不自在。諸見至者雖然定自在，但還有剩餘的煩惱。所以都不能修習超等至。勝解作意不能無間斷地修習超等至，因為他們的勢力弱。這些等至依何身而起呢？頌說：
『諸定依自下，非上無用故，唯生有頂聖，起下盡余惑。』
論述：各種等至的生起依賴於自身之下的身體。依賴於上地之身，無法生起下地的等至，因為上地生起下地沒有用處。因為自身有更殊勝的禪定，下地的勢力弱，已經被捨棄，可以厭惡和毀壞。總的來說是這樣，如果詳細地說，聖者生於有頂天（abhavāgra），必定生起無漏的無所有處（ākiṃcanyāyatana），爲了斷儘自地所剩餘的煩惱。因為自身沒有聖道，所以欣樂生起。只有無所有處最鄰近，生起它才能斷盡剩餘的煩惱。離開無漏道，必定沒有能力。
【English Translation】 English version There are two types of fixed order: direct and reverse, as well as even, intermediate, successive, and surpassing. Reaching the state of intermediate and surpassing, the surpassing samādhi is achieved, and the Arhats of the three continents (referring to the East Videha, Jambudvipa, and West Godaniya where desire realm beings reside) can benefit from it.
Treatise: Fundamental samādhi can be divided into two categories: one is with outflows (saāsrava), and the other is without outflows (anāsrava). Practicing upwards is called direct, and practicing downwards is called reverse. Samādhi of the same type is called even, and samādhi of different types is called intermediate. Adjacent samādhi is called successive, and surpassing one samādhi is called surpassing. That is to say, when a practitioner cultivates surpassing samādhi, they first sequentially manifest and repeatedly practice the eight grounds of samādhi with outflows in the order of direct, reverse, even, and successive. Then, they sequentially manifest and repeatedly practice the seven grounds of samādhi without outflows in the order of direct, reverse, even, and successive. Next, they sequentially manifest and repeatedly practice the samādhi with and without outflows in the order of direct, reverse, intermediate, and successive. Then, they sequentially manifest and repeatedly practice the direct, reverse, even, and surpassing samādhi with outflows. Finally, they sequentially manifest and repeatedly practice the direct, reverse, even, and surpassing samādhi without outflows. This is called the completion of cultivating surpassing application. Afterwards, cultivating the samādhi with and without outflows in the order of direct, reverse, intermediate, and surpassing is called the achievement of surpassing samādhi. The 'surpassing' here refers to the sudden surpassing of two things: one is surpassing the ground, and the other is surpassing the dharma. One can only surpass one, so it reaches the third. Because the distance is far, it is impossible to surpass into the fourth. Cultivating surpassing samādhi only occurs in the three continents of the desire realm, excluding Uttarakuru. However, whether male or female, all Arhats who are not liberated in time must obtain non-contention (aranā), the wisdom of excellent aspiration (pranidhijnana), etc., to cultivate the marginal samādhi; others cannot. Because they have the freedom of samādhi and no afflictions. Those liberated in time, although without afflictions, do not have the freedom of samādhi. Those who have attained the view, although they have the freedom of samādhi, still have remaining afflictions. Therefore, they cannot cultivate surpassing samādhi. The resolve and attention cannot cultivate surpassing samādhi without interruption because their power is weak. Upon what body do these samādhi arise? The verse says:
'All samādhi rely on the body below oneself, because it is useless above. Only a sage born in the Peak of Existence arises from below to exhaust the remaining delusions.'
Treatise: The arising of various samādhi depends on the body below oneself. Relying on the body of the higher ground, it is impossible to arise from the lower ground, because it is useless for the higher ground to arise from the lower ground. Because one has more excellent samādhi, the power of the lower ground is weak, it has been abandoned, and it can be loathed and destroyed. This is the general explanation, but if we speak in detail, a sage born in the Peak of Existence (abhavāgra) will certainly arise from the formless realm of no-thing-ness (ākiṃcanyāyatana) without outflows in order to exhaust the remaining afflictions of their own ground. Because they do not have the holy path themselves, they rejoice in arising. Only the realm of no-thing-ness is the closest, and arising from it can exhaust the remaining afflictions. Without the path without outflows, there is certainly no ability.
。斷彼余惑成阿羅漢。是故有頂無漏無所有處依九地身。有漏無所有處依八地身。有漏無漏識無邊處依七地身。空無邊處依六地身。乃至初定依二地身謂自及欲。若成就依有漏如起無漏。一切依九地身。諸等至中誰緣何境。頌曰。
味定緣自系 凈無漏遍緣 根本善無色 不緣下有漏
論曰。味定但緣自地有漏法。以有漏法是所繫事故。所繫言顯是三有攝。不緣無漏法愛行相轉故。若愛無漏應非煩惱。不緣上地法愛界地別故。不緣下地法已離彼貪故。凈及無漏俱能遍緣。自上下地有為無為皆為境故。有差別者無記無為非無漏境。唯于有法說能遍緣。無非所緣前已說故。根本地攝善無色定。不緣下地諸有漏法。以下地法不寂靜故。本善無色極寂靜故。由此理故經于無色。皆言超越一切下地。于諸靜慮不如是說。以本無色不緣下系。是故於下說超越言。諸靜慮中有遍緣智。故於下地不言超越。既說超越色想等言。故知但依超所緣說。若此超越為顯離系。應說超一切非唯色想等。又靜慮中應言超越。自上地法無不能緣。雖亦能緣下地無漏。而但緣類不緣法品。以但能緣目全治故。法非全治如先已說。又法品道于無色界。雖能對治是客非主。亦不能緣下地法滅。既遮無色根本緣下。義準近分有緣下能。彼無間
道必緣下故。味凈無漏三等至中。何等力能斷諸煩惱。頌曰。
無漏能斷惑 及諸凈近分
論曰。諸無漏定皆能斷惑。本凈尚無能況諸染能斷。謂本凈定不能斷下已離染故。不能斷上以勝己故。不能斷自與自地惑同一縛故。又自於自非對治故。若凈近分亦能斷惑。以皆能斷次下地故。中間攝凈亦不能斷。近分有幾何受相應。于味等三為皆具不。頌曰。
近分八舍凈 初亦聖或三
論曰。諸近分定亦有八種。與八根本為入門故。一切唯一舍受相應。作功用轉故未離下怖故。此八近分皆凈定攝。唯初近分亦通無漏。皆無有味離染道故。上七近分無無漏者。于自地法不厭背故。唯初近分通無漏者。于自地法能厭背故。此地極鄰近多災患界故。以諸欲貪由尋伺起。此地猶有尋伺隨故。若爾何緣毗婆沙說。諸近分地有結生心。非無染心有結生理。故應近分有味相應。今於此中遮有定染。不遮生染故不相違。或有餘師作如是說。初近分定亦有定染。未起根本亦貪此故。由此未至具有三種。中間靜慮與諸近分。為無別義為亦有殊。義亦有殊謂諸近分。是離染道入根本因中間不然。復有別義。頌曰。
中靜慮無尋 具三唯舍受
論曰。初本近分尋伺相應。上七定中皆無尋伺。唯中靜慮有伺無尋。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：道路必定從下開始攀緣的緣故。在『味凈無漏三等至』（指有味禪定、清凈禪定和無漏禪定這三種等至）中，哪一種力量能夠斷除各種煩惱？頌文說： 『無漏能斷惑，及諸凈近分。』 論述：各種無漏禪定都能夠斷除煩惱。原本清凈的禪定尚且沒有能力斷除煩惱，更何況是那些染污的禪定呢？這是因為原本清凈的禪定不能斷除下方的煩惱，因為它已經離開了對下方煩惱的染著；也不能斷除上方的煩惱，因為它不如上方的禪定殊勝；也不能斷除自身的煩惱，因為它與自身所處的層次的煩惱是同一種束縛。而且，自身對於自身來說，不是對治之法。如果清凈的近分定也能斷除煩惱，因為它都能夠斷除次一級的下方的煩惱的緣故。『中間』所攝的清凈禪定也不能斷除煩惱。 近分定有多少種與感受相應？對於『味等三』（有味禪定等三種）來說，是都具備嗎？頌文說： 『近分八舍凈，初亦聖或三。』 論述：各種近分定也有八種，因為它們是進入八種根本定的入門。一切近分定都只與舍受相應，因為它們在作功用運轉，還沒有脫離對下方的怖畏的緣故。這八種近分定都屬於清凈禪定所攝。只有最初的近分定也通於無漏，因為它們都沒有有味，是離染的道路的緣故。上面的七種近分定沒有無漏的，因為它們對於自身所處的層次的法沒有厭惡背離。只有最初的近分定通於無漏，因為它對於自身所處的層次的法能夠厭惡背離。這個層次極其鄰近多災多患的欲界的緣故。因為各種欲貪由尋伺生起，這個層次仍然有尋伺跟隨的緣故。如果這樣，那麼為什麼《毗婆沙》中說，各種近分地有結生心呢？沒有染污的心是沒有結生之理的。所以應該說近分定有與有味相應的。現在在這裡遮止的是有禪定染污，不是遮止生染，所以不相違背。或者有其他老師這樣說，最初的近分定也有禪定染污，因為還沒有生起根本定的時候也貪著這個近分定的緣故。由此，未至定具有三種。『中間靜慮』（指位於初禪和二禪之間的禪定）與各種近分定，是沒有區別，還是也有不同？意義上也有不同，各種近分定，是脫離染污的道路，是進入根本定的原因，而『中間』不是這樣。還有其他區別。頌文說： 『中靜慮無尋，具三唯舍受。』 論述：最初的根本定和近分定與尋伺相應，上面的七種禪定中都沒有尋伺。只有『中間靜慮』有伺無尋。
【English Translation】 English version: The path must arise from the lower stages. Among the 'Taste-Pure-Non-Outflow Three Samadhis' (referring to the three Samadhis of Taste Samadhi, Pure Samadhi, and Non-Outflow Samadhi), which power can sever all afflictions? The verse says: 'Non-outflow can sever afflictions, and all pure access concentrations.' Treatise: All non-outflow Samadhis can sever afflictions. If the originally pure Samadhi does not have the ability, how much less can the defiled Samadhis? This is because the originally pure Samadhi cannot sever the lower afflictions, because it has already departed from attachment to the lower afflictions; it also cannot sever the higher afflictions, because it is not as superior as the higher Samadhi; it also cannot sever its own afflictions, because it and the afflictions of its own level are the same kind of bondage. Moreover, oneself is not an antidote to oneself. If the pure access concentration can also sever afflictions, it is because it can sever the afflictions of the next lower level. The pure Samadhi included in the 'Intermediate' cannot sever afflictions. How many kinds of feelings are associated with access concentration? For the 'Taste and other three' (the three kinds of Taste Samadhi, etc.), are they all present? The verse says: 'Access concentration has eight, abandoning purity; the first is also noble or three.' Treatise: There are also eight kinds of access concentration, because they are the entrance to the eight fundamental Samadhis. All access concentrations are only associated with neutral feeling, because they are operating with effort and have not yet escaped the fear of the lower realms. These eight access concentrations are all included in pure Samadhi. Only the first access concentration also extends to non-outflow, because they have no taste and are the path of detachment. The upper seven access concentrations do not have non-outflow, because they do not have aversion to the dharmas of their own level. Only the first access concentration extends to non-outflow, because it can have aversion to the dharmas of its own level. This level is extremely close to the desire realm, which is full of disasters. Because all desires arise from seeking and investigation, this level still has seeking and investigation following it. If so, then why does the 'Vibhasha' say that there are rebirth minds in the various access concentration grounds? There is no principle of rebirth with a non-defiled mind. Therefore, it should be said that access concentration has association with taste. What is being prevented here is the defilement of Samadhi, not the prevention of rebirth defilement, so there is no contradiction. Or other teachers say that the first access concentration also has Samadhi defilement, because when the fundamental Samadhi has not yet arisen, they are also attached to this access concentration. Therefore, the 'Unreached Samadhi' has three kinds. Is there no difference between the 'Intermediate Dhyana' (referring to the Samadhi between the first and second Dhyanas) and the various access concentrations, or are there also differences? There are also differences in meaning. The various access concentrations are the path of detachment and the cause of entering the fundamental Samadhi, while the 'Intermediate' is not like this. There are other differences. The verse says: 'Intermediate Dhyana has no seeking, possessing three, only neutral feeling.' Treatise: The first fundamental Samadhi and access concentration are associated with seeking and investigation, and there is no seeking and investigation in the upper seven Samadhis. Only the 'Intermediate Dhyana' has investigation but no seeking.
故彼勝初未及第二。依此義故立中間名。由此上無中間靜慮。一地升降無如此故。謂中間定初靜慮攝而有差別。謂此減尋上立中間。減何成異故中間定初有上無。豈不契經說七依定。寧知別有未至中間。由有契經及正理故且有未至。如契經言諸有未能入初定等。具足安住而由聖慧。于現法中得諸漏盡。若無未至聖慧依何。又蘇使摩契經中說。有慧解脫者不得根本定。豈不依定成慧解脫。由此證知有未至定有中間定。如契經說有尋伺等三三摩地。經說初定與尋伺俱。第二等中尋伺皆息。若無中靜慮誰有伺無尋。以心心所漸次息故。理應有定有伺無尋。又大梵王是世界主。離中間定誰為勝因。由此證知有中間定。然佛不數說有未至中間。以二即初靜慮攝故。說初靜慮即已說彼。唯初近分名未至者。為欲簡別余近分故。非此近分乘先定起。又非住此已起愛味。依如是義立未至名。非上定邊亦名未至。皆乘先定勢力引生。及住彼時已起味故。毗婆沙者作如是說。未至本地立未至名。是本地德未現前義。此中間定具味等三。以別系屬一生處故。謂極修習中間定者。未來當在大梵處生。故亦具三如根本定。非根本地起愛貪彼。如所味有別能味亦別故。此有勝德可愛味故。無漏定生亦漸減故。此亦一向舍受相應。無三識身故無樂受。
無喜受者已不共初。然于初貪未能離故。又由自勉功用轉故。由此說為苦通行攝。非憂苦者已出欲故。由此一向舍受相應。此定能招大梵處果。多修習者為大梵故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十八 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第七十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之三
已辯等至云何等持。經說等持總有三種。一有尋有伺三摩地。二無尋唯伺三摩地。三無尋無伺三摩地。如是三種相別云何。頌曰。
初下有尋伺 中唯伺上無
論曰。前來因事屢辯此三。今於此中略顯別相。有尋有伺三摩地者。謂與尋伺相應等持。此初靜慮及未至攝。無尋唯伺三摩地者。謂唯與伺相應等持。此即中間靜慮地攝。無尋無伺三摩地者。謂非尋伺相應等持。此從第二靜慮近分。乃至非想非非想攝。契經復說三種等持。一空三摩地。二無愿三摩地。三無相三摩地。如是三種相別云何。頌曰。
空謂空非我 無相謂滅四 無愿謂餘十 諦行相相應 此通凈無漏 無漏三脫門
論曰。空三摩地謂空非我。二種行相相應等持。故說空等持近治有身見。身見亦有二行相故。謂空行相近治我所見。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無喜受者』（Upeksha-vedana）已經不與初禪共存。然而，由於最初的貪慾未能斷離的緣故。又由於自我勉勵的功用轉變的緣故。因此，（無喜受）被說為屬於『苦通行』（Dukkha Patipada）。而非『憂苦者』（Domanassa）已經出離欲界。因此，（無喜受）一概與『舍受』（Upeksha-vedana）相應。此禪定能夠招感『大梵處』（Mahabrahma）的果報。因為多加修習者是爲了成為『大梵』（Mahabrahma）的緣故。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十八 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第七十九
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之三
已經辨析了『等至』（Samapatti），什麼是『等持』（Samadhi）呢？經中說『等持』總共有三種：一、『有尋有伺三摩地』（Savitarka-savicara-samadhi），二、『無尋唯伺三摩地』（Avitarka-vicara-matra-samadhi），三、『無尋無伺三摩地』（Avitarka-avicara-samadhi）。這三種『等持』的差別是什麼呢？頌曰：
初禪之下有尋伺，中間唯有伺，上界則無尋無伺。
論曰：前面因為某些事情屢次辨析這三種『等持』。現在在這裡簡略地顯示它們的差別相。『有尋有伺三摩地』是指與『尋』（Vitarka）、『伺』（Vicara）相應的『等持』。這包括了初禪和未至定。『無尋唯伺三摩地』是指僅僅與『伺』相應的『等持』。這指的是中間禪。『無尋無伺三摩地』是指不與『尋』、『伺』相應的『等持』。這從第二禪的近分定，乃至非想非非想處定。契經中又說了三種『等持』：一、『空三摩地』（Sunyata-samadhi），二、『無愿三摩地』（Apranihita-samadhi），三、『無相三摩地』（Animitta-samadhi）。這三種『等持』的差別是什麼呢？頌曰：
空謂空與非我，無相謂滅及第四禪，無愿謂其餘十種，與四諦的行相相應。 此三摩地通於清凈與無漏，無漏三摩地是三解脫門。
論曰：『空三摩地』是指與『空』（Sunyata）、『非我』（Anatman）這兩種行相相應的『等持』。因此說『空等持』能夠近似地對治『有身見』（Satkayadristi）。『有身見』也有兩種行相的緣故。『空』的行相能夠近似地對治『我所見』（Atmiya-dristi）。
【English Translation】 English version The 'Upeksha-vedana' (neutral feeling) no longer coexists with the first Dhyana (meditative absorption). However, it is because the initial greed has not been abandoned. Also, it is due to the transformation of the effort of self-exertion. Therefore, it (Upeksha-vedana) is said to belong to the 'Dukkha Patipada' (painful path). Those who are 'Domanassa' (afflicted with sorrow) have already left the desire realm. Therefore, (Upeksha-vedana) is always associated with 'Upeksha-vedana' (neutral feeling). This Samadhi (concentration) can bring about the result of 'Mahabrahma' (Great Brahma). Because those who practice diligently do so to become 'Mahabrahma' (Great Brahma).
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》 Volume 78 by the Sarvastivada School Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29, No. 1562 《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》
《Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra》 Volume 79
Composed by Venerable Sanghabhadra
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 8.3: Analysis of Determination
Having analyzed 'Samapatti' (attainment), what is 'Samadhi' (concentration)? The Sutras say that there are three types of 'Samadhi' in total: 1. 'Savitarka-savicara-samadhi' (Samadhi with initial and sustained application), 2. 'Avitarka-vicara-matra-samadhi' (Samadhi without initial application but with sustained application only), 3. 'Avitarka-avicara-samadhi' (Samadhi without initial and sustained application). What are the differences between these three types of 'Samadhi'? The verse says:
Below the first Dhyana, there are initial and sustained application; in the middle, there is only sustained application; in the upper realms, there is neither initial nor sustained application.
Commentary: Previously, these three types of 'Samadhi' have been repeatedly analyzed due to certain matters. Now, here, their differences are briefly shown. 'Savitarka-savicara-samadhi' refers to 'Samadhi' that is associated with 'Vitarka' (initial application) and 'Vicara' (sustained application). This includes the first Dhyana and the preliminary stage. 'Avitarka-vicara-matra-samadhi' refers to 'Samadhi' that is only associated with 'Vicara' (sustained application). This refers to the intermediate Dhyana. 'Avitarka-avicara-samadhi' refers to 'Samadhi' that is not associated with 'Vitarka' (initial application) and 'Vicara' (sustained application). This is from the near-access concentration of the second Dhyana up to the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. The Sutras also mention three types of 'Samadhi': 1. 'Sunyata-samadhi' (emptiness Samadhi), 2. 'Apranihita-samadhi' (signlessness Samadhi), 3. 'Animitta-samadhi' (wishlessness Samadhi). What are the differences between these three types of 'Samadhi'? The verse says:
'Emptiness' refers to emptiness and non-self; 'signlessness' refers to cessation and the fourth Dhyana; 'wishlessness' refers to the remaining ten, corresponding to the aspects of the Four Noble Truths. These Samadhis are common to pure and non-outflow states; the non-outflow Samadhi is the three doors to liberation.
Commentary: 'Sunyata-samadhi' refers to 'Samadhi' that is associated with the two aspects of 'Sunyata' (emptiness) and 'Anatman' (non-self). Therefore, it is said that 'Sunyata-samadhi' can approximately counteract 'Satkayadristi' (the view of a real self). This is because 'Satkayadristi' also has two aspects. The aspect of 'emptiness' can approximately counteract 'Atmiya-dristi' (the view of self-ownership).
非我行相近治我見。觀法非我名非我行相。觀此中無我名空行相。由此空行相近治我所見。以此中都無我。故此法非我所。豈不空行相即非我行相。知此非我此中無我。二種行相竟有何別。非無差別言此中無我。不能顯我畢竟無體故。謂此但顯彼此互無。不能顯成畢竟無我。以有體法亦互無故。若言此法非我便顯。我畢竟無以一切法。法相等故。由此若修非我行相便治我見。修空行相治我所見。如何無別無相三摩地。謂緣滅諦四種行相相應等持。涅槃離諸相故名無相。緣彼三摩地得無相名。相略有十。謂色等五男女二種三有為相。或復相者是因異名。涅槃無因故名無相。或相謂世蘊上中下。涅槃異彼故名無相。無愿三摩地。謂緣余諦十種行相相應等持。十行相者。謂苦非常因集生緣道如行出。如是空等三三摩地。三摩地相雖無差別。而依對治意樂所緣。如其次第建立三種。由意樂故不願三有。理且可然有過患故。寧由意樂不願聖道。以諸聖道依屬有故。若爾何用修習聖道。以是涅槃能趣因故。非離聖道有得涅槃。為求涅槃故修聖道。道如船筏必應舍故。亦由意樂不願聖道。故緣道行相亦得無愿名。以本期心厭有為故。空非我相非所厭舍。以與涅槃相相似故。由此二行相雖緣可厭法。不取可厭相不得無愿名。此三等持通
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以『非我』的行相（anātma-lakṣaṇa，無我的特徵）來對治『我見』（ātma-dṛṣṭi，認為有實在的我的錯誤見解）。觀察諸法『非我』，這被稱為『非我』的行相。觀察此中無我，這被稱為『空』的行相（śūnya-lakṣaṇa，認識到事物空性的特徵）。通過修習『空』的行相，可以對治『我所見』（mamata-dṛṣṭi，認為事物屬於我的錯誤見解）。因為在這其中根本沒有『我』，所以這些法不是『我所』。難道『空』的行相不就是『非我』的行相嗎？知道『非我』和『此中無我』，這兩種行相究竟有什麼區別？並非沒有差別，說『此中無我』，不能夠顯示『我』畢竟沒有實體。這樣說只是顯示彼此互相不存在，不能夠顯示成就畢竟無我，因為有實體的法也互相不存在。如果說『此法非我』，便能顯示『我』畢竟不存在，因為一切法都是法相等的緣故。因此，如果修習『非我』的行相，便能對治『我見』；修習『空』的行相，便能對治『我所見』。 什麼是『無相三摩地』（animitta-samādhi，不執著于任何表象的禪定）？是指緣于滅諦（nirodha-satya，苦滅的真理）的四種行相（ākāra，方面或特徵）相應的等持（samādhi，禪定）。涅槃（nirvāṇa，解脫）遠離諸相，所以稱為『無相』。緣于涅槃的這種三摩地，因此得到『無相』的名稱。相，略有十種，即色等五種（色聲香味觸五種感官對像），男女兩種，以及三種有為相（生住滅）。或者，『相』是『因』的另一種說法。涅槃沒有因，所以稱為『無相』。或者，『相』是指世間的蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素）的上中下。涅槃與這些不同，所以稱為『無相』。 什麼是『無愿三摩地』（apraṇihita-samādhi，不希求任何事物的禪定）？是指緣于其餘諦（苦集道諦）的十種行相相應的等持。這十種行相是：苦、非常、因、集、生、緣、道、如、行、出。像這樣，空等三種三摩地，三摩地的相雖然沒有差別，但是依據對治、意樂（āśaya，意圖或傾向）、所緣（ālambana，禪定的對象），如其次第建立三種。由於意樂的緣故，不願三有（bhava，存在），這個道理還可以理解，因為三有有過患的緣故。難道由於意樂而不願聖道（ārya-mārga，通往解脫的道路）嗎？因為諸聖道依屬於有為法（saṃskṛta，有條件的或構造的事物）的緣故。如果這樣，那又何必修習聖道呢？因為聖道是涅槃的能趣因（hetu，原因）的緣故。不離開聖道，就沒有得到涅槃的可能。爲了求得涅槃，所以修習聖道。道如同船筏，最終應當捨棄，也是由於意樂不願聖道。所以緣于道的行相，也得到『無愿』的名稱，因為原本的期望是厭離有為法。空和非我相不是所厭惡和捨棄的，因為它與涅槃的相相似。因此，這兩種行相雖然緣于可厭惡的法，但不取可厭惡的相，所以不能得到『無愿』的名稱。這三種等持是共通的。
【English Translation】 English version By the aspect of 『non-self』 (anātma-lakṣaṇa, characteristic of no-self) one overcomes the view of 『self』 (ātma-dṛṣṭi, the erroneous view of a real self). Observing phenomena as 『non-self』 is called the aspect of 『non-self』. Observing that there is no self in this is called the aspect of 『emptiness』 (śūnya-lakṣaṇa, characteristic of recognizing the emptiness of things). By cultivating the aspect of 『emptiness』, one overcomes the view of 『what belongs to self』 (mamata-dṛṣṭi, the erroneous view that things belong to oneself). Because there is fundamentally no 『self』 in this, these dharmas are not 『what belongs to self』. Is not the aspect of 『emptiness』 precisely the aspect of 『non-self』? Knowing 『non-self』 and 『no self in this』, what difference is there between these two aspects? It is not that there is no difference; saying 『no self in this』 cannot show that the 『self』 ultimately has no substance. Saying this only shows that they mutually do not exist, and cannot show the accomplishment of ultimately no self, because dharmas that have substance also mutually do not exist. If it is said that 『this dharma is not self』, then it shows that 『self』 ultimately does not exist, because all dharmas are equal in their dharma-nature. Therefore, if one cultivates the aspect of 『non-self』, one can overcome the view of 『self』; cultivating the aspect of 『emptiness』 overcomes the view of 『what belongs to self』. What is 『signless samādhi』 (animitta-samādhi, concentration without clinging to any appearances)? It refers to the concentration that corresponds to the four aspects (ākāra, aspects or characteristics) of the cessation of suffering (nirodha-satya, the truth of the cessation of suffering). Nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa, liberation) is free from all signs, therefore it is called 『signless』. This samādhi that is based on Nirvāṇa, therefore, obtains the name 『signless』. Signs are briefly of ten kinds, namely the five senses (the five sensory objects of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch), the two genders (male and female), and the three conditioned characteristics (arising, abiding, ceasing). Or, 『sign』 is another way of saying 『cause』. Nirvāṇa has no cause, therefore it is called 『signless』. Or, 『sign』 refers to the upper, middle, and lower of the worldly aggregates (skandha, the elements that constitute an individual). Nirvāṇa is different from these, therefore it is called 『signless』. What is 『wishless samādhi』 (apraṇihita-samādhi, concentration without desiring anything)? It refers to the concentration that corresponds to the ten aspects of the remaining truths (the truths of suffering, origin, and the path). These ten aspects are: suffering, impermanent, cause, origin, arising, condition, path, suchness, practice, and deliverance. Like this, the three samādhis of emptiness, etc., although the characteristics of the samādhis are not different, are established in three ways according to the antidote, intention (āśaya, intention or inclination), and object of focus (ālambana, the object of meditation). Because of intention, not desiring the three realms of existence (bhava, existence) is understandable, because the three realms of existence have faults. Is it because of intention that one does not desire the noble path (ārya-mārga, the path to liberation)? Because the noble paths depend on conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta, conditioned or constructed things). If so, then why cultivate the noble path? Because the noble path is the cause (hetu, reason) that leads to Nirvāṇa. Without leaving the noble path, there is no possibility of attaining Nirvāṇa. In order to seek Nirvāṇa, one cultivates the noble path. The path is like a raft, which should ultimately be abandoned, and it is also because of the intention of not desiring the noble path. Therefore, the aspect of the path also obtains the name 『wishless』, because the original expectation is to be disgusted with conditioned phenomena. Emptiness and the aspect of non-self are not what is detested and abandoned, because it is similar to the aspect of Nirvāṇa. Therefore, although these two aspects are based on detestable phenomena, they do not take on the aspect of detestability, so they cannot obtain the name 『wishless』. These three concentrations are common.
凈無漏。世出世間等持攝故。世間攝故通十一地。出世攝者唯通九地。上七定邊無勝德故。于中無漏者名三解脫門能與涅槃為入門故。非諸有漏法是真解脫門。性住世間違解脫故。三三摩地緣境別者。若有漏空緣一切法。若無漏空唯緣苦諦。無愿能緣苦集道諦。無相唯緣滅諦為境。三三摩地念住別者。無相唯法余皆通四。契經復說三重等持。一空空三摩地。二無愿無愿三摩地。三無相無相三摩地。如是三種相別云何。頌曰。
重二緣無學 取空非常相 後緣無相定 非擇滅為靜 有漏人不時 離上七近分
論曰。此三等持緣前空等。取空等相故立空空等名。空空等持緣前無學空三摩地。取彼空相空相順厭勝非我故。謂彼先起無學等持。於五取蘊思惟空相。從此後起殊勝善根相應等持。緣前無學空三摩地。思惟空相於空取空故名空空。如燒死屍以杖迴轉。尸既盡已杖亦應燒。如是由空燒煩惱已。復起空定厭舍前空重空等持。空行相後起即復還與空行相相應。唯此最能順厭舍故。非我行相則不如是。見無我者于諸有為法。起厭背心不如見空故。諸有已見諸法無我。而於諸有猶生樂者。以于諸行中不審見空故。由此空定雖二行相俱。而但名空不說為非我。空于厭舍極隨順故。無愿無愿緣前無學。無愿等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『凈無漏』（清凈且無煩惱）。因為其包含世間和出世間的等持（專注）。世間等持包含十一地（三界九地加上無色界之上的有頂天和非想非非想處天），出世間等持只包含九地（從欲界到無所有處天）。因為上七定（色界四禪和無色界三禪）的境界沒有殊勝的功德。其中，『無漏』被稱為三解脫門（空解脫門、無相解脫門、無愿解脫門），因為它能引導進入涅槃（寂滅）之門。而那些有煩惱的法不是真正的解脫門，因為它們與安住於世間的本性相違背。 三種三摩地（空三摩地、無愿三摩地、無相三摩地）所緣的境界不同。有漏的空三摩地緣於一切法，而無漏的空三摩地只緣于苦諦（四聖諦之一）。無愿三摩地能緣于苦諦、集諦（四聖諦之一）和道諦（四聖諦之一）。無相三摩地只緣于滅諦（四聖諦之一）作為其境界。 三種三摩地在念住（四念住）上的區別是：無相三摩地只與法念住相應，其餘兩種三摩地與四念住都相應。《契經》中還說了三重等持：一是空空三摩地，二是無愿無愿三摩地，三是無相無相三摩地。這三種等持的差別是什麼呢？頌曰： 『重二緣無學，取空非常相，後緣無相定，非擇滅為靜，有漏人不時，離上七近分。』 論曰：這三種等持緣於之前的空等，並取空等的相狀，所以立名為空空等。空空等持緣於之前的無學（阿羅漢）空三摩地，取其空相，因為空相順應厭離和勝非我。也就是說，先發起無學的等持，對五取蘊（色、受、想、行、識）思惟空相。從此之後，發起殊勝的善根相應的等持，緣於之前的無學空三摩地，思惟空相，對於空取空，所以名為空空。就像燒死屍後用木杖撥動，屍體燒盡后木杖也應該燒掉一樣。同樣，通過空燒掉煩惱后，再次生起空定，厭舍之前的空，這就是重空等持。空行相之後生起，立即又與空行相相應，因為只有這樣才能最順應厭舍。而非我行相則不如這樣。見到無我的人，對於諸有為法（因緣和合而成的法）生起厭背之心不如見到空。有些已經見到諸法無我，但對於諸有仍然生起樂著的人，是因為在諸行中沒有審察地見到空。因此，空定雖然空和非我兩種行相都有，但只稱為空，而不說為非我，因為空對於厭舍最為隨順。無愿無愿緣於之前的無學無愿等。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Pure and without outflows' (Nirupadrava). Because it encompasses Samadhi (concentration) of both worldly and supramundane realms. Worldly Samadhi includes the eleven grounds (the nine grounds of the three realms plus the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception and the Peak of Existence above the Formless Realm), while supramundane Samadhi includes only the nine grounds (from the Desire Realm to the Realm of Nothingness). This is because the upper seven Dhyanas (the four Dhyanas of the Form Realm and the three Dhyanas of the Formless Realm) do not possess superior merits. Among them, 'without outflows' is called the Three Doors of Liberation (Emptiness, Signlessness, and Wishlessness), because it can lead to the door of Nirvana (cessation). Those dharmas with outflows are not true doors of liberation, because their nature of abiding in the world contradicts liberation. The three Samadhis (Emptiness Samadhi, Wishlessness Samadhi, Signlessness Samadhi) differ in the objects they focus on. The Emptiness Samadhi with outflows focuses on all dharmas, while the Emptiness Samadhi without outflows focuses only on the Truth of Suffering (one of the Four Noble Truths). Wishlessness Samadhi can focus on the Truth of Suffering, the Truth of the Cause of Suffering (one of the Four Noble Truths), and the Truth of the Path (one of the Four Noble Truths). Signlessness Samadhi only focuses on the Truth of Cessation (one of the Four Noble Truths) as its object. The difference between the three Samadhis in terms of Mindfulness (the Four Foundations of Mindfulness) is: Signlessness Samadhi only corresponds to Dharma Mindfulness, while the other two Samadhis correspond to all four. The Sutras also speak of three levels of Samadhi: first, Emptiness of Emptiness Samadhi; second, Wishlessness of Wishlessness Samadhi; and third, Signlessness of Signlessness Samadhi. What are the differences between these three types of Samadhi? The verse says: 'The double two conditions the non-learner, takes the sign of emptiness and impermanence, the latter conditions the signless Samadhi, unconditioned cessation as stillness, the person with outflows does not timely, leave the upper seven near-divisions.' The treatise says: These three Samadhis condition the previous emptiness, etc., and take the characteristics of emptiness, etc., hence the names Emptiness of Emptiness, etc. Emptiness of Emptiness Samadhi conditions the previous non-learner (Arhat) Emptiness Samadhi, taking its characteristic of emptiness, because the characteristic of emptiness accords with aversion and the victory over non-self. That is to say, first, the non-learner Samadhi arises, contemplating the characteristic of emptiness in the five aggregates of clinging (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness). After this, a superior root of goodness arises, corresponding to Samadhi, conditioning the previous non-learner Emptiness Samadhi, contemplating the characteristic of emptiness, taking emptiness in emptiness, hence the name Emptiness of Emptiness. Just as after burning a corpse, one stirs it with a wooden stick, and after the corpse is burned, the stick should also be burned. Similarly, after burning away afflictions through emptiness, one again arises in Emptiness Samadhi, disliking and abandoning the previous emptiness, this is the double emptiness Samadhi. After the aspect of emptiness arises, it immediately corresponds again with the aspect of emptiness, because only in this way can it most accord with aversion and abandonment. The aspect of non-self is not like this. Those who see no-self, when they arise aversion towards conditioned dharmas, it is not as good as seeing emptiness. Some who have already seen no-self in all dharmas, but still arise attachment to existence, is because they have not thoroughly seen emptiness in all actions. Therefore, although Emptiness Samadhi has both aspects of emptiness and non-self, it is only called emptiness, and not called non-self, because emptiness is most in accordance with aversion and abandonment. Wishlessness of Wishlessness conditions the previous non-learner Wishlessness, etc.
持取非常相。謂彼先起無學等持。於五取蘊中思惟非常相。從此後起殊勝善根。相應等持緣前無學。無愿三摩地思惟非常相。于無願不願名無愿無愿。舉喻顯示如前應知。重無愿等持非常行。相後起即復還與非常行相相應。唯此可能緣厭道故。非苦行相能緣聖道。聖道非苦趣苦滅故。苦法不能趣苦寂滅。亦非因等四能緣聖道。以聖道不能令苦續故。非道等四者此厭舍道故。非欣行相能為厭舍。豈不如無願不願聖道。而作道等四此亦應然。此例不然。無愿正厭有兼于聖道起不願心故。謂前無愿正厭于有。聖道依有故兼不願。雖望意樂說不願道。而於聖道非正憎厭。故亦能作道等四種。無愿無愿正憎厭道。故以非常觀道過失。道等行相無容厭道。是故於此不作彼四。若道非常故可厭者。應于聖道作苦行相有彼相故。如契經言。諸非常即是苦非諸聖道。可有苦相安立諦理相各別故。謂依別相立苦諦名。聖道如何亦有苦相。又契經中簡別說故。如契經說略說一切五取蘊苦。若道非常故有苦相應但說蘊。既言取蘊方是苦攝。由此證知聖道非苦。若謂譬如觀集為苦。諦相雖別而見非倒。以五取蘊通苦集故。如是應知觀道為苦。諦相雖別見亦非倒。以無漏蘊通苦道故。由此不壞安立諦理。此亦非理。且定不應觀集為苦見非顛倒。以五
取蘊因性名集。果性名苦其性各異。若觀因為果必觀果為因。差別因緣不可得故。則是倒見非諦觀攝。寧為不壞安立諦理。是則應無苦集智異。或應苦道智如苦集智。所緣無別故共立遍知。謂彼既言苦集同體。觀集為苦非顛倒見。二智境同故不別立遍知。如是應言苦道同體。觀道為苦非顛倒見。二智境同故不別立遍知。既不許然道寧是苦。又道與苦事各別故。謂契經說無漏五根。于去來今能斷眾苦。又說道能斷以生為本苦。又契經說道應修習苦應永斷故道非苦。若謂經言法如船筏亦應斷者。理亦不然。經不說法治所斷故。謂于先時修聖道法所作已辦。更不應修依應舍義說名應斷。非治所斷與苦不同。或經中法聲目契經等法。應斷言顯得旨忘詮。或經所言法尚應斷。顯已與果無用因法。可舍名斷如順住分。非如苦性道亦可斷。是故苦道其體各異。又若經言諸非常即是苦。即言聖道亦有苦相。經次亦言諸是苦即非我。應執涅槃非非我性。或應亦許是苦非常。許則定應非涅槃性。若謂但言諸是苦皆非我。不言非我皆是苦。何不亦言諸是苦皆非常。不言非常皆是苦。若謂非常體即是苦。苦即非我但名有異。則空無愿應無差別。以許非我即苦等故。若謂經言苦即非我。許一切苦皆非我性。此經既說非常即苦。應許非常皆是苦性。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 取蘊因性名集（samudaya，苦之生起因），果性名苦（duhkha，痛苦），其性質各異。如果觀察因為果，必定觀察果為因，因為差別因緣不可得。這樣就是顛倒見，不屬於如實觀察。寧可不破壞地安立諦理，這樣就應該沒有苦集智的差別。或者應該苦道智如同苦集智，因為所緣沒有差別，所以共同安立遍知。他們既然說苦集同體，觀察集為苦不是顛倒見，二智境界相同，所以不另外安立遍知。這樣就應該說苦道同體，觀察道為苦不是顛倒見，二智境界相同，所以不另外安立遍知。既然不允許這樣，道怎麼能是苦呢？而且道與苦的事用各不相同，因為契經說無漏五根，對於過去、未來、現在能斷除眾苦。又說道能斷除以生為根本的苦。又契經說道應該修習，苦應該永遠斷除，所以道不是苦。如果說經上說『法如船筏也應該捨棄』，道理也不對。經上沒有說法是應該被對治斷除的。因為在先前修習聖道法，所作已辦，更不應該修習，依據應該捨棄的意義說名為應該斷除，不是對治所斷，與苦不同。或者經中的『法』是指契經等法，『應斷』的言語顯示了領會宗旨而忘記言詮。或者經上所說『法尚應斷』，顯示已經與果無關的因法，可以捨棄名為斷，如順住分，不像苦性，道也可以斷。所以苦道其體各異。又如果經上說『諸非常即是苦』，那麼聖道也有苦相。經文接著說『諸是苦即非我』，應該執著涅槃不是非我性。或者應該也允許是苦非常，允許了就必定不是涅槃性。如果說只說『諸是苦皆非我』，不說『非我皆是苦』，為什麼不說『諸是苦皆非常』，不說『非常皆是苦』？如果說非常體性就是苦，苦就是非我，只是名稱有異，那麼空（sunyata，空性）、無愿（apranihita，無愿）應該沒有差別，因為允許非我就是苦等等。如果說經上說『苦即非我』，允許一切苦皆是非我性，此經既然說『非常即苦』，應該允許非常皆是苦性。
【English Translation】 English version Taking the aggregates as the cause is called Samudaya (集, the origin of suffering), and the result is called Duhkha (苦, suffering), their natures being different. If one observes the cause as the result, one must observe the result as the cause, because the differentiated causes and conditions are unobtainable. This is a reversed view and not included in true observation. Rather, to establish the true principle without destroying it, there should be no difference between the wisdom of Samudaya and Duhkha. Or the wisdom of the path (道, marga) to suffering should be like the wisdom of the origin of suffering, because what is cognized is not different, so they jointly establish pervasive knowledge. Since they say that the origin of suffering and suffering are of the same substance, observing the origin of suffering as suffering is not a reversed view, and the realms of the two wisdoms are the same, so pervasive knowledge is not separately established. Thus, it should be said that the path to suffering and suffering are of the same substance, and observing the path as suffering is not a reversed view, and the realms of the two wisdoms are the same, so pervasive knowledge is not separately established. Since this is not allowed, how can the path be suffering? Moreover, the functions of the path and suffering are different, because the sutras say that the five undefiled roots can cut off all suffering in the past, present, and future. It is also said that the path can cut off suffering rooted in birth. Also, the sutras say that the path should be cultivated and suffering should be permanently cut off, so the path is not suffering. If it is said that the sutra says 'the Dharma (法, dharma) is like a raft and should also be abandoned,' the reasoning is also incorrect. The sutra does not say that the Dharma is to be treated as something to be eliminated. Because in the past, the practice of the holy Dharma has been completed, and it should no longer be practiced. It is said to be abandoned according to the meaning of what should be abandoned, not what is to be treated and eliminated, which is different from suffering. Or the 'Dharma' in the sutra refers to sutras and other Dharmas. The words 'should be abandoned' show understanding the purpose and forgetting the words. Or the sutra says 'even the Dharma should be abandoned,' showing that the causal Dharma that is no longer useful for the result can be abandoned, such as the sequential abiding factors, not like the nature of suffering, the path can also be abandoned. Therefore, the path and suffering are different in nature. Also, if the sutra says 'all that is impermanent is suffering,' then the holy path also has the aspect of suffering. The sutra then says 'all that is suffering is not self,' one should hold that Nirvana (涅槃, nirvana) is not non-self. Or it should also be allowed that it is suffering and impermanent, and if allowed, it must not be Nirvana. If it is said that only 'all that is suffering is not self' is said, not 'all that is non-self is suffering,' why not also say 'all that is suffering is impermanent,' not 'all that is impermanent is suffering'? If it is said that the nature of impermanence is suffering, and suffering is non-self, only the names are different, then emptiness (sunyata, 空性) and wishlessness (apranihita, 無愿) should have no difference, because it is allowed that non-self is suffering, etc. If it is said that the sutra says 'suffering is non-self,' allowing that all suffering is non-self, since this sutra says 'impermanence is suffering,' it should be allowed that all impermanence is suffering.
理實如是以此經中。所言非常不說道故。為依何法說非常言。以諸愚夫於五取蘊。執為常等起四顛倒。為破彼執說非常言。乘此復言非常即苦。此言意顯有漏非常。皆是苦性苦皆非我。非說一切非常非我。理必應爾。以契經中於計常境說非常故。或於此中言非常者。非唯帶生滅要命終受生。謂諸愚夫計人天樂。故經依彼有粗非常。說即是苦如三惡趣。以何為證知此經中。非常等言唯依有漏。由此經后復作是說。色受等諸法非我故。非常。豈可涅槃亦非常性。故知此經唯約聖慧。四種行相緣苦諦說。若謂聖道非常故應苦。寧不許道無漏故非苦。若謂於樂計為苦見。如何但言見滅斷者。于滅謂苦其過重故。謂見涅槃以為苦者。極能增長樂生死心。見道不然是故偏說。如病厭藥易可療治。若厭病癒難為救療。或諸聖道依苦而轉。故見為苦過非甚重。由此論中略而不說。有餘說故義不相違。又契經言。若於喜樂如實知樂。我定說彼於四諦理。如實現觀故知有為非全是苦。由此于道可觀非常。成重無愿必不觀苦。無相無相即緣無學無相三摩地。非擇滅為境。以無漏法無擇滅故。但取靜相非滅妙離。謂彼先起無學等持。于擇滅中思惟靜相。從此後起殊勝善根相應等持。即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境。思惟靜相於無相滅。復觀為無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 理實如是，因此經中，所說『非常』，不是沒有理由的。那麼，是依據什麼法說『非常』呢？因為那些愚昧的人，對於五取蘊（色、受、想、行、識五種聚合，是產生執著的根源），執著為常等，生起四種顛倒（常、樂、我、凈），爲了破除他們的執著，所以說『非常』。接著又說『非常即苦』，這句話的意思是說，有漏的『非常』，都是苦的性質，苦都是『非我』。並不是說一切『非常』都是『非我』，道理必然是這樣。因為契經中，對於被認為是常的境界，才說『非常』的緣故。或者在這裡說『非常』，不僅僅是指有生滅、要命終受生的事物，而是指那些愚昧的人所認為的人天之樂。所以經文依據他們所執著的粗糙的『非常』，說那就是苦，就像三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）一樣。 用什麼來證明，知道這部經中，『非常』等詞語，僅僅是依據有漏法呢？因為這部經後面又這樣說：『色、受等諸法，因為非我，所以非常。』難道涅槃（佛教修行的最終目標，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）也是『非常』的性質嗎？所以知道這部經僅僅是就聖慧（聖人的智慧）的四種行相（苦、空、無常、無我），緣于苦諦（佛教四聖諦之一，指世間充滿痛苦的真理）而說的。如果說聖道（通往涅槃的道路）因為『非常』所以應該是苦，難道不應該承認道因為是無漏（沒有煩惱）所以不是苦嗎？如果說對於快樂產生苦的見解，為什麼只說見到滅斷的人呢？因為對於滅（指涅槃）認為是苦，過失更加嚴重。認為涅槃是苦的人，極容易增長貪戀生死的念頭。而認為道是苦則不然，所以偏重於說這一點。就像生病了厭惡藥物，還容易治療；如果厭惡疾病，就難以救治了。或者諸聖道是依據苦而轉的，所以認為道是苦，過失不是特別嚴重。因此論中省略了這一點，因為有其他的說法，意義上並不矛盾。 而且契經中說：『如果對於喜樂，如實地知道是樂，我一定說他對於四諦的道理，如實地觀察。』所以知道有為法（由因緣和合而成的法）並非全是苦。因此對於道，可以觀察『非常』，成就重無愿（對世間沒有愿求），必定不會觀察為苦。無相，無相，就是緣于無學（指阿羅漢果位，已無須再修學）的無相三摩地（禪定的一種），以非擇滅（通過智慧力量，使煩惱永不生起的滅）為境界。因為無漏法沒有擇滅的緣故。只是取其靜止的相狀，而不是滅、妙、離。意思是說，他們先發起無學的等持（禪定），在擇滅中思維靜止的相狀，從此之後，生起殊勝的善根相應的等持，就是緣于無學的無相三摩地，以非擇滅為境界，思維靜止的相狀，又將無相觀為無。
【English Translation】 English version The reason why 'impermanence' is mentioned in this sutra is based on reality. So, based on what Dharma (teachings, principles) is 'impermanence' discussed? It is because ignorant people cling to the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - the five aggregates that constitute a person and are the source of attachment) as permanent, giving rise to the four inversions (permanence, pleasure, self, purity). To break their attachment, 'impermanence' is taught. Furthermore, it is said, 'impermanence is suffering.' This means that conditioned impermanence is of the nature of suffering, and suffering is 'non-self.' It is not that all 'impermanence' is 'non-self,' which must be the case. Because in the sutras, 'impermanence' is spoken of in the context of what is considered permanent. Or, when 'impermanence' is mentioned here, it does not only refer to things that are born, die, and are reborn, but also to the pleasures of humans and gods that ignorant people cling to. Therefore, the sutra, based on their coarse 'impermanence,' says that it is suffering, like the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals). What is the proof that the words 'impermanence' in this sutra only refer to conditioned phenomena? Because later in this sutra, it is said: 'Form, feeling, etc., are impermanent because they are non-self.' Is Nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death) also of the nature of 'impermanence'? Therefore, it is known that this sutra is only spoken in relation to the four aspects of noble wisdom (suffering, emptiness, impermanence, non-self) concerning the truth of suffering (one of the Four Noble Truths, the truth that the world is full of suffering). If it is said that the Noble Path (the path to Nirvana) should be suffering because it is 'impermanent,' shouldn't it be acknowledged that the Path is not suffering because it is unconditioned (free from defilements)? If one develops a view of suffering towards pleasure, why only mention those who see cessation? Because considering cessation (Nirvana) as suffering is a greater fault. Those who see Nirvana as suffering are extremely likely to increase their attachment to birth and death. But seeing the Path as suffering is not the same, so this is emphasized. It is like being sick and disliking medicine, which is still easy to treat; but disliking the illness itself is difficult to cure. Or, the Noble Paths operate based on suffering, so seeing the Path as suffering is not a particularly serious fault. Therefore, this is omitted in the treatise, because there are other explanations that do not contradict the meaning. Moreover, the sutra says: 'If one truly knows joy as joy, I will certainly say that he truly observes the principles of the Four Noble Truths.' Therefore, it is known that conditioned phenomena (phenomena arising from causes and conditions) are not entirely suffering. Therefore, one can observe 'impermanence' in the Path, achieving great desirelessness (no desire for the world), and will certainly not observe it as suffering. Signlessness, signlessness, is to focus on the signless Samadhi (a type of meditation) of the No-More-Learning (referring to the state of Arhatship, where no further learning is needed), with cessation through non-choice (cessation achieved through wisdom, where afflictions never arise again) as the object. Because unconditioned dharmas do not have cessation through choice. It only takes the aspect of stillness, not cessation, subtlety, and detachment. This means that they first initiate the equanimity of the No-More-Learning, contemplating the aspect of stillness in cessation through choice. From this, they generate equanimity corresponding to superior roots of virtue, which is to focus on the signless Samadhi of the No-More-Learning, taking cessation through non-choice as the object, contemplating the aspect of stillness, and again viewing signlessness as nothing.
相名無相無相。舉喻顯示如前應知重無相等持。靜行相後起即復還。與靜行相相應。唯此能觀非擇滅故。非妙行相境無記故非離行相。以雖證得彼非擇滅。猶縛隨故非滅行相。以非擇滅非永解脫一切苦故。又若觀滅濫非常故。所言靜者惟顯止息。故非擇滅得有靜相。以修聖道經久劬勞。于彼息中便生樂想。故重無相取靜非余。重三等持唯是有漏。以于聖道生厭舍故。非無漏定厭舍聖道。二緣聖道取空非常。理可名為厭舍聖道。無相無相但緣無為作靜行相。何名厭道此欣無學無相等持。不轉之因故名厭道。謂彼定起義作是言。無相等持不生為善。此既欣贊聖道不生。如何不名厭舍聖道。前無相定非此所緣。如何此名無相無相。或應許此定不緣非擇滅。但緣無學無相不生。此亦不然準前釋故。謂緣無相定非擇滅。此非擇滅亦離諸相。緣無相無相故得無相無相名。緣無相境作靜行相。是故此定從境立名。唯三洲人能起此定通依男女。以依女身亦能自在。延促壽故唯無學位。以有學者但欣聖道未能厭故。此亦非一切唯不時解脫。以時解脫愛聖道故。依十一地除上七邊。以上七邊無勝德故。若在欲界從未至攝聖道後起。若在有頂無所有攝聖道後生。余皆自地聖道後起就總類說。此從法類苦滅四智無間而生。若就別說欲界攝者非類
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "『相名無相無相』（指第三重無相三摩地，即在之前的無相三摩地基礎上，進一步修習無相觀），其含義是指對無相的無相。應該像前面解釋的那樣，通過比喻來理解，強調它持有『無相』的特質。", "『靜行相後起即復還』（指在無相三摩地之後生起的靜行相，會立即返回到之前的狀態），這是因為它與『靜行相』相應。只有這種三摩地能夠觀察到『非擇滅』（nirodha-apratisankhya，不通過智慧選擇而自然達到的滅盡狀態），所以稱為『靜行相』。因為它不是『妙行相』（pranita-gocarah，殊勝的境界），並且其境界是『無記』（avyakrta，不可言說的），所以不是『離行相』（vivikta-gocarah，遠離煩惱的境界）。", "即使證得了『非擇滅』，仍然受到隨眠煩惱的束縛，所以不是『滅行相』（nirodha-gocarah，滅盡煩惱的境界）。因為『非擇滅』並非能永遠解脫一切痛苦。而且，如果觀察『滅』，容易與『非常』（anitya，無常）的觀念混淆。這裡所說的『靜』，只是爲了顯示止息的狀態。因此，『非擇滅』可以具有『靜相』。因為修習聖道需要長久的努力，所以在這種止息的狀態中，會產生快樂的想法。因此，三重無相三摩地取『靜』而非其他。", "三重三摩地（指空無邊處定、識無邊處定、無所有處定）只有有漏（sasrava，有煩惱）的性質，因為會對聖道產生厭倦和捨棄。無漏（anasrava，無煩惱）的禪定不會厭倦和捨棄聖道。這兩種禪定因為以聖道為緣，認為空和無常，所以可以被認為是厭倦和捨棄聖道。無相和無相三摩地只是以無為法（asamskrta-dharma，不生不滅的法）為緣，作為『靜行相』。為什麼說厭倦聖道呢？這是因為欣求無學（asaiksa，無須再學的阿羅漢果位）和無相等持（無相三摩地）。", "因為是不轉之因，所以稱為厭道。意思是說，當這種禪定生起時，會這樣想：『不生起無相等持是最好的』。既然欣求讚歎聖道不生起，怎麼能說不是厭倦和捨棄聖道呢？之前的無相禪定不是這種禪定所緣的，怎麼能說這種禪定是無相無相呢？或者應該允許這種禪定不緣非擇滅，只是緣無學無相不生。這樣說也是不對的，按照前面的解釋。意思是說，緣無相禪定和非擇滅，這種非擇滅也遠離諸相。因為緣無相的無相，所以得到無相無相的名稱。緣無相的境界，作為靜行相。所以這種禪定是從境界來命名的。", "只有三洲的人（東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）能夠生起這種禪定，普遍依賴男女。因為依靠女身也能自在地延長和縮短壽命。只有無學位的聖者才能生起這種禪定，因為有學位的聖者只是欣求聖道，還不能厭倦。這也不是絕對的，只有不時解脫的阿羅漢才能生起這種禪定，因為時解脫的阿羅漢喜愛聖道。依賴十一地（指欲界、未至定、中間定、四禪天、四空天），除去上面的七邊地（無想天、空無邊處天等七種）。因為上面的七邊地沒有殊勝的功德。如果在欲界，是從未至定所攝的聖道之後生起。如果在有頂天（非想非非想處天），是從無所有處定所攝的聖道之後生起。其餘的都是從自地的聖道之後生起，這是就總的類別來說的。這種禪定是從法類智、苦類智、滅類智、道類智四種智慧的無間生起。如果就個別來說，欲界所攝的不是類智。", "", "english_translations": [ "English version", "『Samjna-nasanajnakhya-samjna』 (referring to the third anijnata-samjnata-samadhi, which is further practicing the contemplation of non-perception based on the previous anijnata-samadhi), its meaning refers to the non-perception of non-perception. It should be understood through metaphors as explained earlier, emphasizing that it holds the characteristic of 『non-perception』.", "『After the tranquil conduct aspect arises, it immediately returns』 (referring to the tranquil conduct aspect that arises after the anijnata-samadhi, it will immediately return to the previous state), this is because it corresponds to the 『tranquil conduct aspect』. Only this samadhi can observe 『nirodha-apratisankhya』 (cessation attained naturally without the choice of wisdom), so it is called 『tranquil conduct aspect』. Because it is not a 『pranita-gocarah』 (sublime realm), and its realm is 『avyakrta』 (inexpressible), so it is not a 『vivikta-gocarah』 (realm of detachment).", "Even if 『nirodha-apratisankhya』 is attained, one is still bound by latent afflictions, so it is not a 『nirodha-gocarah』 (realm of cessation of afflictions). Because 『nirodha-apratisankhya』 does not permanently liberate from all suffering. Moreover, if one contemplates 『cessation』, it is easy to confuse it with the concept of 『anitya』 (impermanence). The 『tranquility』 mentioned here is only to show the state of cessation. Therefore, 『nirodha-apratisankhya』 can have the 『aspect of tranquility』. Because the practice of the Noble Path requires long-term effort, in this state of cessation, a feeling of happiness arises. Therefore, the triple anijnata-samadhi takes 『tranquility』 rather than other aspects.", "The triple samadhi (referring to the samadhi of the sphere of infinite space, the sphere of infinite consciousness, and the sphere of nothingness) only has the nature of being 『sasrava』 (with afflictions), because it will produce weariness and abandonment towards the Noble Path. 『Anasrava』 (without afflictions) samadhi will not be weary of and abandon the Noble Path. These two samadhis, because they take the Noble Path as their object, considering emptiness and impermanence, can be considered as being weary of and abandoning the Noble Path. Anijnata and anijnata-samadhi only take 『asamskrta-dharma』 (unconditioned dharma) as their object, as the 『tranquil conduct aspect』. Why is it said to be weary of the Noble Path? This is because it seeks 『asaiksa』 (the state of Arhatship where there is no more learning) and anijnata-samadhi.", "Because it is the cause of non-transformation, it is called weary of the Path. It means that when this samadhi arises, it will think: 『It is best not to arise anijnata-samadhi』. Since it seeks and praises the non-arising of the Noble Path, how can it be said that it is not weary of and abandoning the Noble Path? The previous anijnata-samadhi is not the object of this samadhi, how can it be said that this samadhi is anijnata-samjna? Or it should be allowed that this samadhi does not take nirodha-apratisankhya as its object, but only takes the non-arising of asaiksa-anijnata as its object. It is also incorrect to say this, according to the previous explanation. It means that it takes anijnata-samadhi and nirodha-apratisankhya as its object, and this nirodha-apratisankhya is also far from all aspects. Because it takes the non-perception of non-perception as its object, it gets the name of anijnata-samjna. It takes the realm of non-perception as the tranquil conduct aspect. Therefore, this samadhi is named from the realm.", "Only people from the three continents (Purvavideha, Jambudvipa, Aparagodaniya) can generate this samadhi, universally relying on men and women. Because relying on the female body can also freely prolong and shorten life. Only saints in the state of no more learning can generate this samadhi, because saints in the state of learning only seek the Noble Path and cannot be weary of it. This is not absolute either, only Arhats who are liberated out of time can generate this samadhi, because Arhats who are liberated in time love the Noble Path. It depends on the eleven grounds (referring to the desire realm, the unreached concentration, the intermediate concentration, the four dhyana heavens, and the four formless heavens), removing the upper seven borderlands (the heaven of non-perception, the heaven of infinite space, etc.). Because the upper seven borderlands do not have superior merits. If it is in the desire realm, it arises after the Noble Path included in the unreached concentration. If it is in the peak of existence (the heaven of neither perception nor non-perception), it arises after the Noble Path included in the sphere of nothingness. The rest all arise after the Noble Path of their own ground, this is in terms of the general category. This samadhi arises without interval from the four wisdoms of dharma-knowledge, suffering-knowledge, cessation-knowledge, and path-knowledge. If it is in terms of individuals, what is included in the desire realm is not class-knowledge." ] }
後生。上界攝者非法後起。前二非滅後起。第三非苦後生。余行相後起此定故。應得此者皆盡智時由離染得。後由加行方起現前。唯我世尊不由加行。順趣解脫起此現前。于道尚厭豈欣諸有。此後亦起聖道現前。然厭道故非無間起。欲界攝者是思所成。余修所成依定起故。契經復說四修等持。一為住現法樂修三摩地。二為得勝知見修三摩地。三為得分別慧修三摩地。四為諸漏永盡修三摩地。如是四種相別云何。頌曰。
為得現法樂 修諸善靜慮 為得勝知見 修凈天眼通 為得分別慧 修諸加行善 為得諸漏盡 脩金剛喻定
論曰。如契經說有修等持。若習若修若多所作。得現樂住乃至廣說。善言通攝凈及無漏。修諸善靜慮得住現法樂。而經但說初靜慮者。于中樂想最增盛故。謂超欲界眾多過失。故於此中樂想增盛。如游砂磧熱渴疲勞。創飲濁水亦生勝樂。或聖道樂此具有故。謂具一切菩提分法。四沙門果九斷遍知三界對治。又諸定首諸定樂因。是故偏說。豈不經說如是苾芻。住此先受離生喜樂。後生梵眾受樂同此。何故不言住后法樂。詳此唯說現法樂者。為令棄捨樂現欲樂。說現定樂令其欣樂。或現樂住是后樂依。但說所依能依已顯。如契經說。先住此間入諸等至後方生彼。或現法樂三乘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 後生：上界所攝的禪定，非法之後才生起。前兩種禪定不是滅盡之後才生起，第三種禪定不是苦受滅盡之後才生起。其餘的行相是在此禪定之後才生起，這是確定的。應該獲得這些禪定的人，都是在獲得盡智（Jnana-ksaya，斷盡煩惱的智慧）時，通過遠離染污而獲得。之後通過加行（prayoga，為達到目的而作的努力）才開始顯現。只有我的世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀）不是通過加行，而是順應解脫而使這些禪定顯現。對於輪迴的道路尚且厭惡，又怎麼會欣喜于諸有（bhava，存在）呢？此後也會有聖道（arya-marga，達到解脫的道路）的顯現，但因為厭惡道路的緣故，不是無間地生起。欲界所攝的禪定是思所成（citta-maya，由思考產生的），其餘的禪定是修所成（bhavana-maya，由修行產生的），因為它們依賴於禪定而生起。契經（sutra，佛經）中又說了四種修習等持（samadhi，禪定）。第一種是爲了安住于現法樂而修習三摩地（samadhi，禪定）。第二種是爲了獲得殊勝的知見而修習三摩地。第三種是爲了獲得分別慧而修習三摩地。第四種是爲了諸漏（asrava，煩惱）永遠斷盡而修習三摩地。這四種禪定在相狀上的區別是什麼呢？頌文說： 『爲了獲得現法樂，修習各種善的靜慮（dhyana，禪定）；爲了獲得殊勝的知見，修習清凈的天眼通（divya-cakshus-abhijna，超人的視覺能力）；爲了獲得分別慧，修習各種加行善；爲了獲得諸漏斷盡，修習金剛喻定（vajropama-samadhi，如金剛般堅不可摧的禪定）。』 論曰：如契經所說，有修習等持，如果習、如果修、如果多所作，就能獲得安住于現法樂，乃至廣說。善，這個詞語可以通攝清凈和無漏。修習各種善的靜慮，可以獲得安住于現法樂。而經典中只說了初靜慮（prathama-dhyana，初禪），是因為在初禪中，快樂的想法最為增盛。這是因為超越了欲界的眾多過失，所以在此禪定中快樂的想法增盛。就像在沙漠中行走，又熱又渴又疲勞，剛喝到渾濁的水也會產生極大的快樂。或者是因為聖道的快樂在此禪定中都具備，也就是說，具備了一切菩提分法（bodhipaksika-dharma，通往覺悟的要素），四沙門果（sramana-phala，修道者的四種果位），九斷遍知（nava-prajna，九種斷除煩惱的智慧），三界對治（traidhatuka-pratipaksa，對治三界的修行方法）。而且初禪是各種禪定的首要，是各種禪定快樂的原因，所以偏重於說初禪。難道經典中沒有說，這樣的比丘（bhiksu，佛教僧侶）安住於此，先感受到離生喜樂（vivekaja-priti-sukha，由遠離煩惱而產生的喜悅），之後生到梵眾天（brahma-parisadya，色界天），感受到的快樂與此相同嗎？為什麼不說安住於後得法樂（pascat-labdha-dharma-sukha，證悟后獲得的快樂）呢？詳細分析，這裡只說現法樂，是爲了讓人們捨棄追求現世的慾望之樂，而欣樂於現前的禪定之樂。或者說，安住于現法樂是獲得后得之樂的基礎，只說基礎，能依的果樂就已經顯現了。如契經所說，先安住於此間，進入各種等至（samapatti，禪定），之後才生到彼處。或者說，現法樂是三乘（triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）
【English Translation】 English version: Later born: The samadhi (samadhi, meditative state) included in the upper realms arises after the non-law. The first two do not arise after cessation, and the third does not arise after the cessation of suffering. The remaining aspects arise after this samadhi, which is certain. Those who should attain these samadhis attain them at the time of attaining Jnana-ksaya (Jnana-ksaya, wisdom of exhausting afflictions) by separating from defilement. Afterwards, they begin to manifest through prayoga (prayoga, effort made to achieve a goal). Only my Bhagavan (Bhagavan, Buddha) does not manifest these samadhis through prayoga, but in accordance with liberation. Since he is still disgusted with the path of samsara, how can he be pleased with the various bhava (bhava, existence)? After this, the arya-marga (arya-marga, the path to liberation) will also arise, but because of disgust with the path, it does not arise without interruption. The samadhi included in the desire realm is citta-maya (citta-maya, produced by thought), and the remaining samadhis are bhavana-maya (bhavana-maya, produced by cultivation), because they depend on samadhi to arise. The sutra (sutra, Buddhist scripture) also speaks of four types of samadhi. The first is to cultivate samadhi in order to abide in the pleasure of the present dharma. The second is to cultivate samadhi in order to obtain superior knowledge and vision. The third is to cultivate samadhi in order to obtain discriminating wisdom. The fourth is to cultivate samadhi in order to permanently exhaust the asrava (asrava, afflictions). What are the differences in the characteristics of these four types of samadhi? The verse says: 'To obtain the pleasure of the present dharma, cultivate various good dhyana (dhyana, meditation); to obtain superior knowledge and vision, cultivate pure divya-cakshus-abhijna (divya-cakshus-abhijna, superhuman vision); to obtain discriminating wisdom, cultivate various good prayoga; to obtain the exhaustion of afflictions, cultivate vajropama-samadhi (vajropama-samadhi, diamond-like samadhi).' The treatise says: As the sutra says, there is the cultivation of samadhi, if practiced, if cultivated, if done much, one can obtain abiding in the pleasure of the present dharma, and so on. The word 'good' encompasses both pure and non-leaking. Cultivating various good dhyanas can obtain abiding in the pleasure of the present dharma. But the scripture only speaks of prathama-dhyana (prathama-dhyana, the first dhyana), because in the first dhyana, the thought of pleasure is most abundant. This is because it transcends the many faults of the desire realm, so the thought of pleasure is abundant in this samadhi. Just like walking in the desert, hot, thirsty, and tired, even drinking turbid water will produce great pleasure. Or because the pleasure of the holy path is present in this samadhi, that is, it possesses all the bodhipaksika-dharma (bodhipaksika-dharma, factors leading to enlightenment), the four sramana-phala (sramana-phala, four fruits of the ascetic), the nava-prajna (nava-prajna, nine wisdoms of cutting off afflictions), and the traidhatuka-pratipaksa (traidhatuka-pratipaksa, methods of counteracting the three realms). Moreover, the first dhyana is the foremost of all samadhis and the cause of pleasure in all samadhis, so it is emphasized. Does the scripture not say that such a bhiksu (bhiksu, Buddhist monk) abides in this, first experiencing vivekaja-priti-sukha (vivekaja-priti-sukha, joy born of detachment), and then being born in Brahma-parisadya (brahma-parisadya, heaven of the form realm), experiencing the same pleasure? Why not say abiding in pascat-labdha-dharma-sukha (pascat-labdha-dharma-sukha, pleasure obtained after enlightenment)? Upon detailed analysis, it only speaks of the pleasure of the present dharma in order to make people abandon the pursuit of the pleasure of desire in the present world and rejoice in the pleasure of the present samadhi. Or, abiding in the pleasure of the present dharma is the basis for obtaining the pleasure of the future, and only the basis is mentioned, the dependent fruit is already manifest. As the sutra says, one first abides here, enters various samapatti (samapatti, meditative attainments), and then is born there. Or, the pleasure of the present dharma is the three vehicles (triyana, Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana).
皆住。后樂不定是故不說。謂或退墮或上受生或般涅槃便不住故。雖諸靜慮即現法樂。依近分故說為得。言修近分力得根本故。或即依現樂說為得言。如言石子體故無有過。有說此定佛依自說。如說菩薩居贍部林。起初世間似無漏定。能引一切有情共樂。由此不說后法樂住。即由此故亦但說初。菩薩爾時唯得初故。若依諸定修天眼通。便能獲得殊勝知見。此依何義立知見名。本靜慮中有遍照智。此遍照故立以見名。見體即知故名知見。眼根名見世所極成。為簡異彼以知標見。或即此見決斷所緣。故名為知即亦名見。謂本靜慮是樂行道。不多劬勞而現前故。不劬勞故其體堅牢。由體堅牢故用決定。用決定故立以知名。見義如前故名知見。為知為見修此等持。即是為求決定照義。此亦善逝依自而說。謂為顯佛以天眼通。觀諸有情死生險難。方為拔濟起靜慮等。故為知見修天眼通。有餘師言。為欲勝伏諸隨煩惱起勝知見。起此勝知見不離光明想。此光明想引天眼通。由天眼通得勝知見。若修三界諸加行善。及無漏善得分別慧。謂從欲界乃至有頂。諸聞思修所成善法。及餘一切無漏有為。總說名為加行善法。修此善法能引慧生。于諸境中差別而轉。故言修此得分別慧。如說善逝住二尋思。能如實知諸受起等。此顯修善得分別慧
。說加行言為簡生得。非修習生得得未曾得故。若脩金剛喻定便得諸漏永盡。謂若修習第四靜慮。金剛喻定並隨轉法。便能獲得諸漏永盡。第四靜慮佛依自說。無上菩提依此得故。金剛喻定頓證漏盡。引盡智生是故偏說。有說一切有頂斷治。第四靜慮皆此所攝。此經所說若習若修。若多所作義差別者。為欲顯示習修得修所治。更遠如其次第如是。已辯所依止定。當辯依定所起功德。諸功德中先辯無量。頌曰。
無量有四種 對治瞋等故 慈悲無瞋性 喜喜舍無貪 此行相如次 與樂及拔苦 欣慰有情等 緣欲界有情 喜初二靜慮 餘六或五十 不能斷諸惑 人起定成三
論曰。無量有四。一慈二悲三喜四舍。言無量者無量有情為所緣故。此四能引無量福故。無量愛果此為因故。有說此能違無量戲論故。貪等諸惑皆名戲論。何緣無量四無增減。對治四種多行障故。如契經說。若習若修若多所作慈能斷瞋。悲能斷害。喜斷不欣慰。舍斷欲貪瞋故唯有四。瞋謂心所。欲殺有情慾惱有情心所名害。耽著境界于諸善品。不樂住因名不欣慰。于妙欲境起染欣樂。情無厭足名為欲貪。此中慈悲無瞋為性。若爾此二有何差別。性雖無別然慈能治。殺有情瞋歡行相轉。悲是對治惱有情瞋戚行相轉。是謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於加行道的言論是爲了簡化初生就獲得的智慧。因為不是通過修習而獲得的，所以才能獲得未曾獲得的智慧。如果修習金剛喻定（Vajra-like Samadhi，一種堅不可摧的禪定），就能永遠斷除所有煩惱。也就是說，如果修習第四靜慮（Fourth Dhyana，禪定的第四個階段）和金剛喻定以及隨之而來的法，就能獲得所有煩惱的徹底斷除。第四靜慮是佛陀親自宣說的，因為無上菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）依此而得。金剛喻定能迅速證得煩惱的斷盡，並引發盡智（Jnana of Exhaustion，斷盡煩惱的智慧）的生起，因此特別強調它。有人說，一切有頂天（highest realm of existence）的斷除對治，都包含在第四靜慮之中。此經所說的『習』、『修』、『多所作』，意義上的差別在於，爲了顯示通過習、修而獲得的對治，以及更深遠的對治，次第就是這樣。 已經辨析了所依止的禪定，接下來應當辨析依禪定所產生的功德。在各種功德中，首先辨析四無量心（Four Immeasurables）。頌曰： 『無量有四種，對治瞋等故，慈悲無瞋性，喜喜舍無貪，此行相如次，與樂及拔苦，欣慰有情等，緣欲界有情，喜初二靜慮，餘六或五十，不能斷諸惑，人起定成三。』 論曰：無量有四種：一慈（Metta，愿眾生快樂），二悲（Karuna，愿眾生離苦），三喜（Mudita，對眾生的快樂感到歡喜），四舍（Upeksha，平等心）。稱為『無量』，是因為以無量有情為所緣。這四種能引生無量的福德，因為無量的愛果以此為因。有人說，這能違背無量的戲論（Prapancha，虛妄分別）。貪等各種煩惱都稱為戲論。為什麼無量心只有四種，不多也不少？爲了對治四種多行的障礙。如契經所說，如果習、修、多所作慈心，能斷除瞋恚；悲心能斷除損害；喜心能斷除不欣慰；舍心能斷除欲貪和瞋恚，所以只有四種。瞋恚是指心所（Citta，心理活動），想要殺害有情、惱亂有情的心所名為損害。耽著于境界，對於各種善品，不樂於安住的原因名為不欣慰。對於美妙的欲境，產生染污的欣樂，情意沒有厭足，名為欲貪。其中，慈悲以無瞋為自性。如果這樣，這二者有什麼差別？雖然自性沒有差別，但慈能對治殺害有情的瞋恚，以歡喜的行相轉變；悲是對治惱亂有情的瞋恚，以戚容的行相轉變。這就是所謂的差別。
【English Translation】 English version: The discourse on preparatory practices is to simplify the wisdom that is born naturally. Because it is not obtained through practice, it is possible to obtain wisdom that has not been obtained before. If one practices the Vajra-like Samadhi (a diamond-like concentration), one can permanently eliminate all afflictions. That is, if one practices the Fourth Dhyana (the fourth stage of meditation) and the Vajra-like Samadhi, along with the associated dharmas, one can achieve the complete eradication of all afflictions. The Fourth Dhyana is personally taught by the Buddha, because Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment) is attained through it. The Vajra-like Samadhi can quickly realize the exhaustion of afflictions and give rise to the Jnana of Exhaustion (wisdom of the exhaustion of afflictions), hence its special emphasis. Some say that the eradication of all afflictions in the highest realm of existence (highest realm of existence) is included in the Fourth Dhyana. The differences in meaning between 'habituation,' 'practice,' and 'much activity' as mentioned in this sutra are to show the antidotes obtained through habituation and practice, and the more profound antidotes, in that order. Having analyzed the samadhi on which one relies, we should next analyze the merits arising from the samadhi. Among the various merits, we first analyze the Four Immeasurables (Four Immeasurables). The verse says: 'The Immeasurables are of four kinds, for counteracting anger and so on; loving-kindness and compassion are of non-anger nature; joy is joy, equanimity is non-greed; these characteristics, in order, are giving happiness and removing suffering, delighting in sentient beings, relating to sentient beings in the desire realm; joy is in the first two dhyanas, the remaining six or fifty; they cannot sever the afflictions; when a person arises, the samadhi becomes three.' The treatise says: The Immeasurables are of four kinds: first, Metta (loving-kindness, wishing beings happiness); second, Karuna (compassion, wishing beings freedom from suffering); third, Mudita (joy, rejoicing in the happiness of beings); fourth, Upeksha (equanimity, impartiality). They are called 'Immeasurables' because they take immeasurable sentient beings as their object. These four can generate immeasurable merit, because immeasurable fruits of love have this as their cause. Some say that this can counteract immeasurable Prapancha (conceptual proliferation). Various afflictions such as greed are called Prapancha. Why are there only four Immeasurables, no more and no less? To counteract the four kinds of frequently occurring obstacles. As the sutra says, if one habituates, practices, and engages much in loving-kindness, one can eliminate anger; compassion can eliminate harm; joy can eliminate non-delight; equanimity can eliminate desire and anger, so there are only four. Anger refers to Citta (mental activity), the mental activity of wanting to kill sentient beings or disturb sentient beings is called harm. Attachment to objects, and the reason for not delighting in dwelling in various virtuous qualities is called non-delight. Arising defiled delight in beautiful objects of desire, and the mind not being satisfied, is called desire. Among these, loving-kindness and compassion have non-anger as their nature. If so, what is the difference between these two? Although the nature is not different, loving-kindness can counteract the anger of killing sentient beings, transforming with a joyful demeanor; compassion is to counteract the anger of disturbing sentient beings, transforming with a sorrowful demeanor. This is the so-called difference.
差別。如苦與樂領納。雖同而損益殊故。體有別苦樂體別如先已辯。慈悲二種差別亦然。有作是言。悲是不害近治害故理實如是。但害似瞋似瞋名說。悲之行相亦似無瞋立無瞋名實是不害。諸古師說。喜即喜受何緣觀行者爾時喜受生。若緣與樂與慈無異。若緣拔苦應與悲同。又契經言。欣故生喜喜即喜受如先已辯。此喜行相與彼欣同。喜故生喜義有何異。若言下上義有異者。輕安與樂義亦應然。差別因緣不可得故。又違本論云何名喜。謂喜喜相應受想行識等。此中意顯喜俱品法。喜增上故總立喜名。非受受俱其理決定。若喜即喜受何言與受俱。若言對法以理為量應如無過。誦本論文此亦不然。理為量論要有經證方可定文。若與經違理必可壞。不應隨意輒改論文。是故此喜定非喜受。以欣為體或即無貪。謂別有貪是噁心所。于有情類作是思惟。云何當令諸所有樂。彼不能得皆屬於我。喜能治彼故是無貪。此與喜根必俱行故。三地可得如悔憂俱。喜亦無貪分明相者。於他盛事心不貪著。知他獲得深生欣慰。心熱對治說名為喜。故知此喜亦無貪性。舍無量體唯是無貪。此與第三有差別者。離愛恚想等緣有情。如創入林等生樹覺。平等行因說名為舍。若舍無量亦能治瞋。寧唯無貪與慈何異。又許此舍正治欲貪。與不凈觀有何差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 苦與樂的感受，雖然都是感受，但苦是減損，樂是增益，所以它們的體性是有差別的。苦和樂的體性差別，如同之前已經辨析過的那樣。慈和悲這兩種（無量心）的差別也是如此。有些人這樣說：『悲是不損害，因為悲能就近調伏損害。』道理確實是這樣。但是，損害類似於嗔恨，因為類似於嗔恨，所以才說悲是不損害。悲的行相也類似於沒有嗔恨，所以才立名為無嗔恨，實際上是不損害。一些古老的論師說：『喜就是喜受（快樂的感受），為什麼觀行者在那個時候會生起喜受呢？』如果所緣的是給予快樂，那麼就與慈無異；如果所緣的是拔除痛苦，那麼就應該與悲相同。而且，《契經》上說：『因為欣悅而生喜，喜就是喜受。』如同之前已經辨析過的那樣。這種喜的行相與那種欣悅相同。『因為喜而生喜』，這又有什麼不同呢？如果說上下（層次）的意義有差別，那麼輕安與快樂的意義也應該如此，因為找不到差別的因緣。而且，這違背了本論（《阿毗達摩》），『什麼叫做喜？』答：『就是喜以及與喜相應的受、想、行、識等等。』這裡的意思是顯示喜俱生的品類法，因為喜增上的緣故，總立名為喜，並非受以及與受俱生的法，這個道理是決定的。如果喜就是喜受，為什麼說『與受俱生』呢？如果說（我們）是對法，以理為衡量標準，應該像沒有過失那樣。誦讀本論的論文，這樣也是不行的，因為以理為衡量標準的論，必須要有經文的證明才能確定經文。如果與經文相違背，那麼理必定是可以被破壞的，不應該隨意更改論文。所以，這種喜一定不是喜受，而是以欣悅為體性，或者就是無貪。所謂的別有貪，是噁心所，對於有情眾生作這樣的思惟：『怎麼樣才能讓所有快樂都屬於我，讓他們不能得到？』喜能夠對治那種貪，所以是無貪。這種喜與喜根必定俱行，在三地（欲界、色界、無色界）可以得到，如同悔和憂一樣。喜也是無貪，分明相是：對於他人興盛的事情，心中不貪著，知道他人獲得（利益）而深深地感到欣慰。心熱惱的對治，說名為喜。所以知道這種喜也是無貪的體性。舍無量的體性唯獨是無貪。這種舍與第三禪的舍有差別，是遠離愛和嗔恨的想法等，緣于有情眾生，如同剛進入森林等，產生樹木的覺知。平等行（對待眾生）的因，說名為舍。如果舍無量也能對治嗔恨，為什麼僅僅是無貪？與慈又有什麼不同？又允許這種舍能夠真正對治欲貪，與不凈觀又有什麼差別？
【English Translation】 English version The feelings of suffering and happiness, although both are feelings, suffering is diminishing, and happiness is increasing, so their natures are different. The difference between the nature of suffering and happiness is as previously analyzed. The difference between these two (immeasurable minds) of loving-kindness and compassion is also the same. Some people say: 'Compassion is non-harming because compassion can subdue harm nearby.' The principle is indeed like this. However, harm is similar to anger, and because it is similar to anger, it is said that compassion is non-harming. The characteristic of compassion is also similar to non-anger, so it is named non-anger, but in reality, it is non-harming. Some ancient teachers say: 'Joy is the feeling of joy (pleasant feeling), why does the practitioner generate the feeling of joy at that time?' If what is contemplated is giving happiness, then it is no different from loving-kindness; if what is contemplated is removing suffering, then it should be the same as compassion. Moreover, the Agama Sutra says: 'Because of delight, joy arises, and joy is the feeling of joy.' As previously analyzed. This characteristic of joy is the same as that delight. 'Because of joy, joy arises,' what is the difference? If it is said that there is a difference in the meaning of upper and lower (levels), then the meaning of tranquility and happiness should also be the same, because the cause of the difference cannot be found. Moreover, this contradicts the original treatise (Abhidharma), 'What is called joy?' Answer: 'It is joy and the feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness that are associated with joy, etc.' The meaning here is to show the categories of phenomena that arise together with joy. Because joy is increasing, it is generally named joy, not feeling and the phenomena that arise together with feeling, this principle is definite. If joy is the feeling of joy, why say 'arises together with feeling'? If it is said that (we) are Abhidharma, and take reason as the standard of measurement, it should be like there is no fault. Reciting the text of the original treatise, this is also not possible, because a treatise that takes reason as the standard of measurement must have the proof of the sutras to determine the sutras. If it contradicts the sutras, then the reason must be able to be destroyed, and the text of the treatise should not be changed arbitrarily. Therefore, this joy is definitely not the feeling of joy, but is based on delight, or it is non-greed. The so-called separate greed is an evil mental factor, thinking like this about sentient beings: 'How can I make all happiness belong to me, so that they cannot get it?' Joy can counteract that greed, so it is non-greed. This joy must arise together with the root of joy, and can be obtained in the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), just like regret and sorrow. Joy is also non-greed, the clear characteristic is: for the prosperous things of others, the mind is not greedy, knowing that others have obtained (benefits) and feeling deeply gratified. The antidote to mental heat is called joy. So know that this joy is also the nature of non-greed. The nature of equanimity is only non-greed. This equanimity is different from the equanimity of the third dhyana, it is to be away from thoughts of love and hatred, etc., based on sentient beings, like just entering the forest, etc., producing the awareness of trees. The cause of equal practice (treating sentient beings), is called equanimity. If immeasurable equanimity can also counteract hatred, why is it only non-greed? What is the difference between it and loving-kindness? Also, allowing this equanimity to truly counteract desire-greed, what is the difference between it and the contemplation of impurity?
別。且舍與慈有差別者。慈能對治瞋所引瞋無瞋為體。舍能對治貪所引瞋無貪為體。豈不如舍無貪為性。亦能對治貪所引瞋。如是許慈無瞋為性。亦應能治瞋所引貪。此難不然。行相違故謂舍行相。雙違貪瞋舍親非親差別相故。從此愛恚俱不生故。即由此故舍唯無貪。正能治貪兼治瞋故。慈之行相違瞋非貪。于諸有情與樂轉故。由此慈舍雖俱違瞋。而慈順貪舍能違害。是故此二極有差別。或修舍者治非處瞋。慈治處瞋故有差別。不凈與舍如次能治。淫貪余貪故有差別。此四無量非損益他。何緣唯善非無記性。能近對治貪瞋等故。愛非愛相不能引故。力能令心自在轉故。慈等體相已略分別。此阿世耶有差別者。觀有情類如己謂慈。樂有情類離苦謂悲。於他興盛欣慰謂喜。于親怨相不思謂舍。又不觀他有損有益。等觀一切如友謂慈。于遭苦者哀愍謂悲。由勝解力想有情類。得益離損欣慰謂喜。于有情相等觀謂舍。此四行相有差別者。云何當令諸有情類得如是樂。如是思惟入慈等至。云何當令諸有情類離如是苦。如是思惟入悲等至。諸有情類得樂離苦豈不快哉。如是思惟入喜等至。諸有情類平等平等無有親怨。如是思惟入舍等至。如是所愿竟無有成豈不唐捐。修定功力能伏瞋等寧謂唐捐。應是顛倒何能伏惑。愿得樂等寧謂顛
倒。謂此不言已得樂等。但由勝解愿諸有情當得樂等。能伏諸惑故修此四功不唐捐。于定蘊中說四行相六何令等。具如前說。言如是思惟入某等至者。此言若就等無間緣。慈等應無無間生理。別別思惟所引起故。若俱生者入言相違。初業位中別加行引。至成滿位亦有俱生。定蘊就初說入無過。且慈無量愿得何樂。有說愿得第三定樂。諸受樂中此最勝故。若自未證由聞故知。有說愿得涅槃妙樂。于諸樂中此最勝故。有說愿得阿羅漢樂。此已解脫諸煩惱故。初修業者未證此樂。未現證故不能運心。但緣己身隨所證樂。及他所證現可知者。愿諸有情同證此樂。故但緣現如理所生。無染污樂愿他同受。若於所受已舍苾芻。設未獲得真實對治。亦處空閑受遠離樂。力能映奪天帝等喜。如五樂等伽他中說又住遠離勤修善者。定有善得唸唸恒流。如大海水遍滿相續。喜輕安樂由此引生。以無吝心緣如是樂。愿諸含識一切同受。有餘受勝學無學樂。如何觀劣以授於他。不于當來還招劣果。若謂不欲以此與勝。便違遍緣有情為境。但由無吝福資所依。實不能令他得樂故。如有貧者以己所受粗弊資具。召施富人雖諸富人不求此惠。而彼施者亦無有失。表自敬心無所吝故。此亦如是故無有失。如於良田殖一細種。后所得果多而復大。如半核娑
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『倒』，是指不直接說自己已經獲得快樂等等，而是通過殊勝的理解，發願所有眾生都能獲得快樂等等。因為能夠降伏各種煩惱，所以修習這四種功德不會白費。在『定蘊』（Dhyana Skandha）中，關於四種行相和六種『何令』等等的說法，都如前面所說。說到『如是思惟入某等至者』，如果從『等無間緣』（Samanantarapratyaya，等無間緣，又稱次第緣，指意識生滅之間，前念為后念開闢道路的因緣關係）的角度來看，慈心等等就不應該有無間斷的生起，因為它們是由分別思惟所引起的。如果是俱生的，那麼『入』這個詞就矛盾了。在初學階段，需要通過額外的努力來引導，即使到了成就圓滿的階段，也會有俱生的。『定蘊』是從初學的角度來說的，所以說『入』沒有過失。而且，慈無量心（無量心，梵文：apramāṇa，佛教術語，又稱四梵住）所希望得到的到底是什麼樣的快樂呢？有人說，希望得到第三禪的快樂，因為在各種快樂中，這種快樂是最殊勝的。如果自己沒有證得，可以通過聽聞而得知。有人說，希望得到涅槃的妙樂，因為在各種快樂中，這種快樂是最殊勝的。有人說，希望得到阿羅漢的快樂，因為阿羅漢已經解脫了所有的煩惱。初學者還沒有證得這種快樂，因為沒有親身證得，所以無法用心去緣。只能緣自己所證得的快樂，以及他人所證得的、現在可以知道的快樂，愿所有眾生都能一同證得這種快樂。所以，只能緣現在如理所生的、沒有染污的快樂，愿他人一同享受。如果對於所受的快樂已經捨棄的比丘，即使沒有獲得真實的對治，也能處在空閑的地方，享受遠離的快樂，這種快樂的力量能夠勝過天帝的喜悅，就像『五樂』（Pañca-kāmaguṇa，五妙欲）的伽陀（Gāthā，偈頌）中所說的那樣。而且，住在遠離的地方，勤奮修習善法的人，一定會有善的獲得，唸唸不斷地流淌，就像大海的水一樣，遍滿相續。喜悅和輕安的快樂由此而生。以沒有吝嗇的心，緣這種快樂，愿所有有情眾生都能一同享受。如果還有比這更殊勝的、有學和無學的快樂，為什麼要觀想低劣的快樂而給予他人呢？難道不怕將來還會招致低劣的果報嗎？如果說不想把這種快樂給予殊勝的人，那就違背了遍緣有情眾生為境界的原則。但由於沒有吝嗇的福德資糧作為依靠，實際上並不能讓他人得到快樂。就像一個貧窮的人，用自己所受用的粗陋的資具，去召請佈施給富人，即使富人不求這種恩惠，但佈施者也沒有什麼損失，因為這表達了自己的敬意，沒有吝嗇。這裡也是如此，所以沒有什麼損失。就像在良田里種植一顆細小的種子，後來得到的果實卻又多又大，就像半個核娑（Khajoora，棗椰樹）一樣。
【English Translation】 English version 『Dao』 (倒), which means not directly stating that one has already attained joy, etc., but rather, through superior understanding, wishing that all sentient beings may attain joy, etc. Because it can subdue all afflictions, cultivating these four merits is not in vain. In the 『Dhyana Skandha』 (定蘊, Aggregate of Concentration), the statements regarding the four aspects and the six 『He Ling』 (何令, What Causes) etc., are as previously stated. When it says 『Such contemplation enters a certain Samāpatti』 (等至, meditative absorption), if viewed from the perspective of 『Samanantarapratyaya』 (等無間緣, the immediately preceding condition, referring to the causal relationship where the preceding thought paves the way for the subsequent thought), then loving-kindness (慈心, Maitrī) etc., should not arise without interruption, because they are caused by separate contemplations. If they are co-arisen, then the word 『enters』 is contradictory. In the initial stage of practice, it requires additional effort to guide, and even in the stage of complete accomplishment, there will be co-arisen ones. The 『Dhyana Skandha』 speaks from the perspective of the initial stage of practice, so there is no fault in saying 『enters』. Moreover, what kind of joy does immeasurable loving-kindness (慈無量心, Apramāṇa) wish to attain? Some say it wishes to attain the joy of the third Dhyana, because among all joys, this is the most superior. If one has not attained it oneself, one can know it through hearing. Some say it wishes to attain the wonderful joy of Nirvana (涅槃), because among all joys, this is the most superior. Some say it wishes to attain the joy of an Arhat (阿羅漢), because an Arhat has liberated from all afflictions. A beginner has not yet attained this joy, because they have not personally attained it, so they cannot use their mind to focus on it. They can only focus on the joy they have attained, and the joy that others have attained and can be known now, wishing that all sentient beings can attain this joy together. Therefore, they can only focus on the undefiled joy that arises from the present, wishing that others can enjoy it together. If a Bhikṣu (比丘, monk) has already abandoned the joy they have received, even if they have not attained the true antidote, they can still be in a secluded place, enjoying the joy of detachment, the power of which can surpass the joy of the Deva King (天帝), as stated in the Gāthā (伽陀, verse) of the 『Five Pleasures』 (五樂, Pañca-kāmaguṇa). Moreover, those who live in seclusion and diligently cultivate virtue will surely have virtuous attainments, constantly flowing like the water of the ocean, continuously filling. Joy and ease arise from this. With a non-stingy mind, focusing on this joy, wishing that all sentient beings can enjoy it together. If there is a more superior joy, the joy of those with learning and those without learning, why contemplate inferior joy and give it to others? Are you not afraid of incurring inferior consequences in the future? If you say you do not want to give this joy to superior beings, then you are violating the principle of universally focusing on sentient beings as the object. But because there is no stinginess in the accumulation of merit as a basis, it cannot actually make others attain joy. Just like a poor person uses their own coarse provisions to invite and give to a rich person, even if the rich person does not seek this favor, the giver has no loss, because it expresses their respect and there is no stinginess. It is the same here, so there is no loss. Just like planting a small seed in fertile land, the fruit obtained later is abundant and large, like half a Khajoora (核娑, date palm).
諸瓜瓠等。故非觀劣以授於他。便於當來還招劣果。皆緣欲界有情為境。能治緣彼瞋等障故。謂于欲界有怨親中。三聚有情能生瞋等。于中有舍怨親等相。便能伏除瞋等煩惱。是故此境唯欲有情。必不能緣色無色界。大悲體是無癡善根。由此力能通緣三界。若四無量唯緣有情。何故經言。思一方等此由勝解。總緣器中一切有情故無有失。此四通在欲色界系。以契經說無量能招梵釋輪王殊勝果故。品類足論依修所成。說七智知色界修斷。及彼遍行隨眠隨增。有餘師言。此四無量加行通欲本唯色界。此四無量依地別者。若喜即喜受唯是修所成。彼應說喜唯初二定。以于餘地無喜根故。若喜異喜受亦通思所成。彼應說喜通依七地。與樂舍受亦相應故。有餘說。喜唯喜受俱。彼則應言喜通三地。或應如頌唯二非余。慈悲舍三通依六地。謂四靜慮未至中間。或有欲令唯依五地。謂除未至是容豫德。已離欲者方能起故。有說此四唯欲及初得無量名。餘地不爾。經說無量名梵住故。又說修無量生梵世故。又說招梵釋輪王果故。有說隨應通依十地。謂欲四本近分中間。若悲亦依下三靜慮。如何得與喜樂相應。悲緣苦有情戚行相轉故。此如無漏厭作意生。是故通依下三靜慮。彼真實作意能順生欣。喜樂相應可無有過。此勝解作意不順生欣
。如何可言與彼相似。疑是戚性不順生欣。如何許疑喜樂俱起。勝解作意應與彼同。然此于欣極相隨順。力能引生真作意故。疑則不爾極違真故。彼尚相應此寧不許。此勝解作意理應違欣。有歡戚處中行相別故。悲既戚行相轉應非喜樂相應。勿二行相俱時轉故。若爾應不許與舍受相應。舍受處中行相轉故。既非不許舍受相應。與喜樂俱理定應許。勿全不與受相應故。雖言此四能治瞋等。而不能斷諸煩惱。得勝解作意相應起故。真實作意方能斷惑。又此唯緣有情境故。緣法作意方能斷惑。又此唯緣現在境故。通緣三世或緣非世方能斷惑。又解脫道此可得故。要無間道方能斷惑。有作是說。有漏根本靜慮攝故。此因有失。不應說三依六地故。未至中間此應無故。經何故說此斷瞋等。亦不相違。斷有二故。或由此力引斷道故。謂伏瞋等引斷道生。是故經中說斷瞋等。若爾何故契經中說。由善修慈住不還果。此中聖道以慈名說。如於余處說想名等。或依聖者先得慈心。后數修行得離欲說。或依為得修所成慈。精進修行得離欲說。有說此四依欲色身。無色不緣怨親等故。修此必應先緣彼故。如實義者。唯依欲身於欲界中唯人能起。若喜非喜受成一必具四。若喜即喜受成一定成三。生第三定等唯不成喜故。依何義故契經中說。修四
【現代漢語翻譯】 如何能說它與喜樂相似呢？如果懷疑是由於親近的習性不順而產生，又如何能允許懷疑、喜和樂同時生起呢？勝解作意（adhimokṣa-citta，勝解心）應該與喜樂相同。然而，勝解作意與欣（悅）極其隨順，因為它有力量引導產生真實的作意。懷疑則不然，因為它與真實作意極其相違背。既然勝解作意尚且能與喜樂相應，又怎麼能不允許它與欣相應呢？勝解作意在道理上應該與欣相違背，因為在有歡喜和憂戚的地方，它的行相是不同的。悲既是憂戚的行相，轉變后應該不與喜樂相應，因為憂戚和喜樂兩種行相不能同時生起。如果這樣，那麼應該不允許悲與舍受相應，因為舍受的行相是處中的。既然沒有不允許悲與舍受相應，那麼悲與喜樂同時生起在道理上就應該允許，因為悲並非完全不與受相應。雖然說這四種作意能夠調伏嗔恚等煩惱，但不能斷除諸煩惱，因為它們是與勝解作意相應生起的。只有真實的作意才能斷除迷惑。而且，這四種作意只緣有情境界，只有緣法的作意才能斷除迷惑。此外，這四種作意只緣現在境界，只有通緣三世或者緣非世的作意才能斷除迷惑。而且，解脫道可以通過這四種作意獲得，只有無間道才能斷除迷惑。有人這樣說，這四種作意屬於有漏根本靜慮所攝，這個因是不成立的。不應該說這四種作意依於六地，因為未至定和中間定中應該沒有這四種作意。經典中為什麼說這四種作意能斷除嗔恚等煩惱呢？這也不相違背，因為斷除有兩種。或者通過這四種作意的力量引導斷除之道，也就是說，通過調伏嗔恚等煩惱，引導斷除之道產生。因此，經典中說這四種作意能斷除嗔恚等煩惱。如果這樣，為什麼契經中說，通過善修慈心，可以證得不還果（anāgāmin，不還者）呢？這裡聖道是以慈心的名義來說的，就像在其他地方說想念等名義一樣。或者依據聖者先獲得慈心，然後多次修行而證得離欲果位來說的。或者依據爲了獲得修所成慈心，精進修行而證得離欲果位來說的。有人說這四種作意依于欲界色身，因為無色界不緣怨親等，修習這四種作意必定應該先緣怨親等。如實的意義是，這四種作意只依于欲界色身，在欲界中只有人才能生起。如果喜和非喜的受成為一體，必定具備四種作意。如果喜即是喜受成為一體，一定成就三種作意。因為生起第三禪定等時，唯獨不能成就喜。依據什麼意義，契經中說，修習四種作意 現代漢語譯本 English version
【English Translation】 How can it be said to be similar to joy and pleasure? If doubt arises from the unsuitability of familiar habits, how can doubt, joy, and pleasure be allowed to arise simultaneously? Adhimokṣa-citta (勝解心, decisive cognition) should be the same as joy and pleasure. However, adhimokṣa-citta is extremely compliant with satisfaction (欣), because it has the power to guide the generation of true intention. Doubt is not like that, because it is extremely contrary to the truth. Since adhimokṣa-citta can still be compatible with joy and pleasure, how can it not be allowed to be compatible with satisfaction? Adhimokṣa-citta should be contrary to satisfaction in principle, because its characteristics are different in places where there is joy and sorrow. Since sorrow is the characteristic of sadness, its transformation should not be compatible with joy and pleasure, because the two characteristics of sadness and joy cannot arise simultaneously. If so, then it should not be allowed to be compatible with neutral feeling (舍受, upekṣā), because the characteristic of neutral feeling is being in the middle. Since it is not forbidden for sorrow to be compatible with neutral feeling, it should be allowed in principle for sorrow to arise simultaneously with joy and pleasure, because sorrow is not completely incompatible with feeling. Although it is said that these four mental activities can subdue anger and other afflictions, they cannot cut off all afflictions, because they arise in accordance with adhimokṣa-citta. Only true intention can cut off delusion. Moreover, these four mental activities only focus on sentient beings, only intention that focuses on the Dharma can cut off delusion. In addition, these four mental activities only focus on the present, only intention that focuses on the three times or on the non-worldly can cut off delusion. Moreover, the path of liberation can be obtained through these four mental activities, only the path of no interval can cut off delusion. Some say that these four mental activities are included in the fundamental meditative absorptions that are tainted, this cause is not established. It should not be said that these four mental activities rely on the six grounds, because these four mental activities should not exist in the preliminary concentration and the intermediate concentration. Why do the scriptures say that these four mental activities can cut off anger and other afflictions? This is not contradictory either, because there are two types of cutting off. Or, through the power of these four mental activities, the path of cutting off is guided, that is, by subduing anger and other afflictions, the path of cutting off is guided to arise. Therefore, the scriptures say that these four mental activities can cut off anger and other afflictions. If so, why do the sutras say that by cultivating loving-kindness (慈心, maitrī) well, one can attain the fruit of non-returning (anāgāmin, 不還者)? Here, the noble path is spoken of in the name of loving-kindness, just as in other places the name of thought is spoken of. Or, it is said based on the fact that the noble one first obtains loving-kindness, and then cultivates it many times to attain the fruit of detachment from desire. Or, it is said based on the fact that in order to obtain loving-kindness cultivated through practice, one diligently cultivates and attains the fruit of detachment from desire. Some say that these four mental activities rely on the physical body of the desire realm, because the formless realm does not focus on enemies and relatives, and the cultivation of these four mental activities must first focus on enemies and relatives. The true meaning is that these four mental activities only rely on the physical body of the desire realm, and only humans in the desire realm can generate them. If the feeling of joy and non-joy become one, it must have four mental activities. If joy, that is, the feeling of joy, becomes one, it will definitely accomplish three mental activities. Because when the third dhyana (禪定, meditative state) and so on arise, only joy cannot be accomplished. Based on what meaning do the sutras say that cultivating the four mental activities
無量慈極至遍凈。悲極至空無邊處。喜極至識無邊處。舍極至無所有處。云何色界法能招無色果。又四靜慮無不有慈。何緣修慈唯極遍凈。有餘於此倦于思尋。仰推慈尊當解此義。傳聞具壽迦多衍尼子。曾以此義問設摩達多。彼尊尋思便入寂定。至明清旦欲為解釋。時衍尼子復入寂定。時未會遇各般涅槃。由此迄今無能釋者。毗婆沙者作是釋言。應知此經依相似說。謂樂受法與慈相似。慈作與樂行相轉故樂至遍凈。上地皆無故說修慈極于遍凈。求離苦法與悲相似。悲作拔苦行相轉故。色身能作粗苦生因。有身便有斷首等故。空處近分厭離色身。故說修悲極于空處。輕安樂法與喜相似。喜作安樂行相轉故。識無邊處輕安樂增。緣自無邊識為門故。無邊識相極增安樂。故說修喜極于識處。能棄捨法與舍相似。舍作棄捨行相轉故。無所有處由近分中。棄捨無邊行相成滿。是故說修舍極無所有處。有言此經依相順說。謂從慈定起欣等流順第三定。從第三定起欲等流。亦順慈定如是乃至。舍無所有起欲等流展轉相順。此不顯理但有虛言。或應于中更求深趣。有言此經就意樂說。謂樂慈者樂第三定。乃至樂舍者樂無所有處。此亦無理由何證知。是故應如前釋為善。初欲引起四無量時。先於有情分為三品。所謂親友處中怨仇。三各分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無量的慈心修到極致，可以到達遍凈天（Subhakinha）。悲心修到極致，可以到達空無邊處天（Akasanancayatana）。喜心修到極致，可以到達識無邊處天（Vijnananancayatana）。舍心修到極致，可以到達無所有處天（Akincannayatana）。 什麼法能夠招感無色界的果報？而且四禪（靜慮）沒有不包含慈心的，為什麼修慈心只是到達遍凈天？有人對此感到困惑，難以思索，希望慈尊（佛陀）能夠解釋這個道理。 傳說具壽迦多衍尼子（Katyayaniputra）曾經用這個問題請教設摩達多（Sthavira Smadatta）。那位尊者思考後便進入寂定，直到第二天清晨想要解釋時，衍尼子又進入了寂定。當時他們沒有相遇，各自般涅槃（Parinirvana）了。因此直到現在，沒有人能夠解釋這個問題。 毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）這樣解釋說：應該知道這部經是依據相似性來說的。也就是說，樂受的法與慈心相似，因為慈心所起的作用是給予快樂，所以到達遍凈天。因為更高的境界沒有樂受，所以說修慈心到達遍凈天是極致。 尋求脫離痛苦的法與悲心相似，因為悲心所起的作用是拔除痛苦。色身（Rupakaya）能夠產生粗重的痛苦，因為有身體就會有斷頭等事。空無邊處天接近於厭離色身，所以說修悲心到達空無邊處天是極致。 輕安快樂的法與喜心相似，因為喜心所起的作用是帶來安樂。識無邊處天輕安快樂增長，因為以自身無邊的識為門徑，無邊識的相貌極其增長安樂，所以說修喜心到達識無邊處天是極致。 能夠棄捨的法與舍心相似，因為舍心所起的作用是棄捨。無所有處天由於近分定中，棄捨無邊的行相成就圓滿，所以說修舍心到達無所有處天是極致。 有人說這部經是依據相順性來說的。也就是說，從慈定（慈心禪定）生起欣樂等流，順應第三禪（第三靜慮）；從第三禪生起欲等流，也順應慈定，像這樣乃至舍無所有處生起欲等流，輾轉相順。這種說法不顯明道理，只是空話。 或許應該在其中尋求更深的趣味。有人說這部經是就意樂來說的。也就是說，樂於慈心的人樂於第三禪，乃至樂於舍心的人樂於無所有處天。這種說法也沒有理由，憑什麼知道呢？ 所以應該像前面的解釋那樣才是好的。最初想要引起四無量心（Caturapramana）時，先將有情分為三類，也就是親友、中人和怨仇，各自分開。
【English Translation】 English version Limitless loving-kindness (Metta) cultivated to the extreme reaches Subhakinha (Pure Radiance Realm). Limitless compassion (Karuna) cultivated to the extreme reaches Akasanancayatana (Space Infinity Realm). Limitless joy (Mudita) cultivated to the extreme reaches Vijnananancayatana (Consciousness Infinity Realm). Limitless equanimity (Upekkha) cultivated to the extreme reaches Akincannayatana (Nothingness Realm). What Dharma can bring about the formless realm (Arupa) result? Moreover, all four Dhyanas (meditative absorptions) contain loving-kindness. Why does cultivating loving-kindness only reach Subhakinha? Some are perplexed by this and weary of pondering it, hoping that the Blessed One (Buddha) can explain this meaning. It is said that the venerable Katyayaniputra once asked Sthavira Smadatta about this meaning. That venerable one pondered and entered into stillness (Samadhi), intending to explain it the next morning. At that time, Katyayaniputra also entered into stillness. They did not meet and each attained Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). Therefore, until now, no one has been able to explain it. The Vaibhashika (commentator) explains it this way: It should be understood that this sutra speaks according to similarity. That is, the Dharma of pleasurable feeling is similar to loving-kindness, because the function of loving-kindness is to give happiness, so it reaches Subhakinha. Because the higher realms do not have pleasurable feeling, it is said that cultivating loving-kindness to Subhakinha is the extreme. The Dharma of seeking to escape suffering is similar to compassion, because the function of compassion is to remove suffering. The physical body (Rupakaya) can produce gross suffering, because having a body leads to things like decapitation. The Space Infinity Realm is close to disliking the physical body, so it is said that cultivating compassion to the Space Infinity Realm is the extreme. The Dharma of ease and joy is similar to joy, because the function of joy is to bring about happiness. The Consciousness Infinity Realm increases ease and joy, because it takes one's own infinite consciousness as its gateway. The appearance of infinite consciousness greatly increases happiness, so it is said that cultivating joy to the Consciousness Infinity Realm is the extreme. The Dharma of being able to renounce is similar to equanimity, because the function of equanimity is to renounce. The Nothingness Realm, due to the near-absorption (Upacara Samadhi), achieves the complete fulfillment of renouncing infinite appearances. Therefore, it is said that cultivating equanimity to the Nothingness Realm is the extreme. Some say that this sutra speaks according to sequential harmony. That is, from the loving-kindness Samadhi (loving-kindness meditative absorption) arises the outflow of delight, which accords with the third Dhyana (third meditative absorption); from the third Dhyana arises the outflow of desire, which also accords with the loving-kindness Samadhi, and so on until from the Nothingness Realm arises the outflow of desire, sequentially harmonizing. This explanation does not reveal the truth, it is just empty words. Perhaps one should seek a deeper meaning within it. Some say that this sutra speaks in terms of intention. That is, those who delight in loving-kindness delight in the third Dhyana, and so on until those who delight in equanimity delight in the Nothingness Realm. This explanation also has no reason; how can it be known? Therefore, it should be as the previous explanation is good. When first wanting to arouse the four immeasurables (Caturapramana), first divide sentient beings into three categories, namely, friends, neutral persons, and enemies, separating each.
三謂上中下。上親友者。謂生法身賴彼重恩舍便難住。中親友者。謂財法交極相親愛。下親友者。謂唯財交亦相親愛。上處中者。謂于自昔曾不見聞。中處中者。謂雖見聞而不交往。下處中者。謂雖交往而離恩怨。上怨仇者。謂奪名譽命及親友。中怨仇者。謂奪己身命緣資具。下怨仇者。謂奪親友命緣資具。于諸有情。分品別已。初修慈者。先於上親發起清凈與樂勝解。若由無始數習所成。惡阿世耶令心剛強。少遭逼惱便懷深恨。緣此還息與樂勝解。復應策勵思其重恩。于彼復生與樂意樂。數習力故恨意永亡。與樂勝解相續無替此既成已。于中下親亦漸次修如是勝解。于親三品既得等心。次總于處中下中上怨所。漸次修習與樂意樂。乃至最後于上怨親。得平等心都無升降。齊此名曰修慈成滿。修悲及喜例此應說。謂觀三苦遍逼有情。不應于中復加以苦。但應如已勤加濟拔。漸次修習欲濟拔心。乃至怨親等無升降。齊此名曰修悲成滿想。諸有情得樂離苦。深生欣慰如己無差。齊此名曰修喜成滿。初修舍者。先舍處中非先舍怨親恚愛難捨故。又處中品順舍力增于中如前。先舍上品次舍中下及與怨親。從下至中從中至上。先舍怨者以親難捨故。如契經說。貪難斷非瞋如是漸次修習。于舍至上親友等上處中。普于有情舍差別相
。齊此名曰修舍成滿。若於有情樂求功德。彼于慈等能速修成。非於有情樂求過者。以斷善者有德可錄。麟喻獨覺有失可取。先福罪果現可見故。
說一切有部順正理論卷第七十九 大正藏第 29 冊 No. 1562 阿毗達磨順正理論
阿毗達磨順正理論卷第八十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之四
已辯無量。次辯解脫。頌曰。
解脫有八種 前三無貪性 二二一一定 四無色定善 滅受想解脫 微微無間生 由自地凈心 及下無漏出 三境欲可見 四境類品道 自上苦集滅 非擇滅虛空
論曰。解脫有八。一內有色想觀外色解脫。二內無色想觀外色解脫。三凈解脫身作證具足住。四無色定為次四解脫。滅受想定為第八解脫。八中前三無貪為性近治貪故。然契經中說。想觀者想觀增故。如宿住念除去色想。三中初二不凈相轉。作青瘀等諸行相故。第三解脫清凈相轉。作凈光鮮行相轉故。三並助伴皆五蘊性。初二解脫一一通依初二靜慮。能治欲界初靜慮中顯色貪故。初二通攝近分中間。五地皆能起初二故。欲及初定有顯色貪。由眼識身所引起故為解脫彼。初二定中建立初二不凈解脫。二三定中眼識無故。亦無所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，這被稱為修舍成滿。如果對於有情眾生，樂於尋求功德，那麼他們對於慈心等等，能夠迅速修成，而不是對於有情眾生，樂於尋求過失的人。因為斷除善根的人，也有功德可以記錄；如同麟喻獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師友教導，獨自悟道的聖者），也有缺失可以借鑑。因為先前的福報和罪惡的果報，現在是能夠清楚看見的。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第七十九 大正藏第29冊 No. 1562 《阿毗達磨順正理論》
《阿毗達磨順正理論》卷第八十
尊者眾賢造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
辯定品第八之四
已經辨析了無量法，接下來辨析解脫。頌文說：
解脫有八種 前三無貪性 二二一一定 四無色定善 滅受想解脫 微微無間生 由自地凈心 及下無漏出 三境欲可見 四境類品道 自上苦集滅 非擇滅虛空
論述：解脫有八種。第一種是內有色想觀外色解脫。第二種是內無色想觀外色解脫。第三種是凈解脫身作證具足住。第四到第七種是無色定（Arūpa-samāpatti）為次四解脫。第八種是滅受想定（Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha）為第八解脫。八種解脫中，前三種以無貪為自性，因為能近似地對治貪慾。然而契經中說，想觀是由於想念和觀察的增長。如同憶念過去，除去色想。三種解脫中，初二種是不凈相的轉變，呈現青瘀等各種行相。第三種解脫是清凈相的轉變，呈現凈光鮮明的行相。三種解脫及其助伴，都屬於五蘊的自性。初二種解脫，都通於依靠初禪和二禪。能夠對治欲界和初禪中的顯色貪。初二種解脫，也通攝近分定（Upacāra-samādhi）和中間定（Antarā-samādhi）。因為五地都能生起初二種解脫。欲界和初禪有顯色貪，由眼識身所引起，爲了解脫這些，所以在初二種禪定中建立初二種不凈解脫。二禪和三禪中沒有眼識，因此也沒有所貪。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, this is called 'cultivating abandonment to completion'. If beings delight in seeking merit, they can quickly cultivate loving-kindness, etc., but not if they delight in seeking faults in beings. Because even those who have severed their roots of goodness have merit that can be recorded; like the Pratyekabuddha (one who attains enlightenment independently without a teacher), there are shortcomings that can be learned from. Because the fruits of past blessings and sins are clearly visible now.
Shun Zheng Li Lun of Sarvāstivāda, Volume 79 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 29 No. 1562 Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra
Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra Volume 80
Composed by Venerable Master Zhongxian
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Chapter 8, Part 4: Discriminating Determinations
Having discussed the immeasurable, next we discuss liberation. The verse says:
'Liberation has eight types, the first three are of non-greed nature' 'Two, two, one are fixed in concentration, the four are good formless concentrations' 'Liberation from cessation of feeling and perception, arises subtly and without interruption' 'Arises from pure mind of its own ground, and from lower uncontaminated' 'Three have visible objects of desire, four have objects of category, type, and path' 'From above, suffering, accumulation, cessation, non-selective cessation, and space'
Treatise: There are eight types of liberation. The first is liberation by contemplating external forms with internal form perception. The second is liberation by contemplating external forms with internal formless perception. The third is liberation by realizing and abiding in the purity liberation through the body. The fourth to seventh are the four formless concentrations (Arūpa-samāpatti) as the next four liberations. The eighth is the cessation of feeling and perception (Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha) as the eighth liberation. Among the eight, the first three have non-greed as their nature, because they closely counteract greed. However, the sutras say that contemplation arises from the increase of thought and observation. Like recollecting past lives, removing form perception. Among the three, the first two are transformations of impure appearances, manifesting as livid and other aspects. The third liberation is a transformation of pure appearances, manifesting as pure, bright, and fresh aspects. The three, along with their associates, are all of the nature of the five aggregates. The first two liberations both rely on the first and second dhyanas. They can counteract the greed for visible forms in the desire realm and the first dhyana. The first two liberations also encompass the access concentration (Upacāra-samādhi) and the intermediate concentration (Antarā-samādhi). Because the five grounds can all give rise to the first two liberations. The desire realm and the first dhyana have greed for visible forms, which are caused by the body of eye consciousness. In order to liberate from these, the first two impure liberations are established in the first two dhyanas. Because there is no eye consciousness in the second and third dhyanas, there is also nothing to be greedy for.
引緣顯色貪故。三四定中無不凈解脫。初二解脫相似善根。雖欲界中亦容得有。而為欲界貪所𣣋雜。故不建立二解脫名。三四定中雖亦得有。去所治遠勢力微劣。又樂凈伏故不得名第三解脫。依后靜慮離八災患心澄凈故。第四並近分立后靜慮名。相似善根下地雖有。非增上故不名解脫。欲界欲貪所𣣋雜故。初二定中不凈伏故。第三定中樂所迷故。又並八災所擾亂故。次四解脫如其次第。以四無色定善為性。非無記染非解脫故。亦非散善性羸劣故。彼散善者如命終心。有說余時亦有散善。唯生得善無聞思故。諸近分地九無間道。八解脫道亦非解脫。不背下地故緣下道雜故。又未全脫下地染故。契經說彼超過下故。有說近分諸解脫道。亦名解脫背下地故。然于余處唯說根本者。以近分中非全解脫故。第八解脫即滅盡定。厭背受想而起此故。或總厭背有所緣故。然上座言。即諸有情相續分位名滅盡定。此亦非理前已廣辯。此滅盡定實有體故。又不可說此定有心。曾不見有心無受想思故。無容於此越路而行。如說此中受想等滅寂靜安樂。阿羅漢等乃有如是殊勝解脫。非無義本相續及心。可說名為安樂寂靜。阿羅漢等殊勝解脫如何計度。有一類心無有所緣離行相轉。有所緣者理必有觸。若許有觸寧無受果。應言何礙受等不生。故
滅定中無有心。理非迷正理才覽經文。便能會通聖教深趣。識非永滅言不離身。如病未永除暫息亦名有。微微心后此定現前。前對想心已名微細。此更微細故曰微微。次如是心入滅盡定。謂有頂地心有三品。即想微細及微微心。由上中下品類別故。要下品后滅定現前。故次微微入滅盡定。從滅定出或起有頂凈定心。或即能起無所有處無漏心。如是入心唯是有漏。通從有漏無漏心出。八中前三唯以欲界色處為境。有差別者二取不凈。一取凈相。既諸色中亦有凈界。總觀為不凈寧非顛倒攝。如於苦法計樂成倒。謂諸行中亦有苦雜。一向計樂成顛倒故。第三取凈為難亦爾。此非過失是所許故。謂亦許此是倒思惟。若爾如何性非不善。此是離染所得果故。既不稱實何能違染。令順生貪作意遠故。如未離欲于凈不凈。思惟凈相能順生貪。非此凈中見於凈相。不顛倒故可善性攝。如是離欲于凈不凈。思惟不凈能遠離貪。非此凈中見不凈相。是顛倒故不善性攝。亦應例釋不凈見凈。或此非謂顛倒思惟。諸不凈法總有二種。一者自體。二者相雜。諸清凈法雜不凈故亦名不凈。世所極成故此思惟不名顛倒。不凈雜凈例亦應爾。然觀行者初修觀時。非亦于凈界取不凈相。但于不凈界取不凈相。令心極厭惡違逆行相轉。后漸增廣違逆行相。普
于欲界色處境中。總起厭心不生貪染。若於純凈界色界色聚中。勝解無能取不凈相。既唯欲界諸色聚中。勝解方能取不凈相。故知欲界諸色聚中。決定亦有不凈界性。既如不凈作不凈解。如何可言是顛倒性。第三取凈例此應知。此于所緣既如實轉。如何說是勝解作意。由勝解力此于境生。故說此為勝解作意。即由此故得解脫名。勝解解脫義相鄰故。或於少事由勝。解力漸漸增益觀名勝解作意。謂于少凈漸增益觀。因此便生無量貪染。此既生已心於所緣。遂被拘執不自在轉。于少不凈漸增益觀。與前相違增諸善本。如觀樂受為壞苦性。雜苦相故觀之為苦。能伏煩惱不名顛倒。如是凈界與不凈雜。亦可於中觀為不凈不名顛倒。能遠離貪緣凈解脫。應知亦爾。觀未成滿但得名為勝解作意。后成滿時離染果故引聖道故。亦得名為真實作意。如是已辯初三所緣。次四解脫。各以自上苦集滅諦。及一切地類智品道彼非擇滅。及與虛空為所緣境。無色解脫棄背下地。故並不緣下地苦集行相。別者初二不凈。第三唯凈俱非十六。無色解脫攝本定故。所作行相十六。或非念住俱者。初三解脫身念住俱。次四解脫通四念住。智相應者。初三第七唯世俗智。第四五六八智。相應根相應者。初二解脫喜舍相應。次五解脫唯舍相應。世差別者。皆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在欲界色處境中，完全生起厭惡之心，不生起貪戀染著。如果在純凈的色界色蘊（rupa-skandha，構成物質存在的五蘊之一）中，以殊勝的理解認為沒有可取的不凈之相。既然只有在欲界的各種色蘊中，殊勝的理解才能取不凈之相，因此可知欲界的各種色蘊中，必定也有不凈的性質。既然如實地認為不凈就是不凈，怎麼能說是顛倒的性質呢？第三種取凈的觀想，也應該依此類推來理解。這種觀想在所緣境上如實地運作，怎麼能說是勝解作意（adhimoksha-manaskara，通過勝解力產生的作意）呢？由於勝解的力量，這種觀想才在所緣境上產生，所以說這是勝解作意。正因為如此，才得到解脫的名稱，因為勝解和解脫的意義相近。或者對於小事，由於勝解的力量，逐漸增加觀想，稱為勝解作意。例如對於少許的凈相，逐漸增加觀想，因此就產生無量的貪戀染著。這種貪戀產生后，心對於所緣境，就被拘禁執著，不能自在地運作。對於少許的不凈相，逐漸增加觀想，與前面相反，能增長各種善的根本。例如觀樂受為壞苦的性質，因為樂受夾雜著苦的相狀，所以觀它為苦，能降伏煩惱，不稱為顛倒。像這樣，凈界與不凈界混雜在一起，也可以在其中觀為不凈，不稱為顛倒。能夠遠離貪戀，因觀凈而解脫，也應該這樣理解。觀想尚未成就圓滿時，只能稱為勝解作意。後來成就圓滿時，因為能帶來離染的果報，能引導聖道，也可以稱為真實作意。 像這樣，已經辨析了前三種所緣境。接下來四種解脫，各自以自身之上的苦諦、集諦、滅諦，以及一切地（bhumi，禪定境界）的類智品道（包括類智和道智），以及彼非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧力量達到的滅盡），以及虛空為所緣境。無色界的解脫，捨棄了下地的境界，所以不緣下地的苦集行相。區別在於，前兩種不凈觀，第三種唯有凈觀，都不涉及十六行相（shodasha-akara，觀四聖諦的十六種行相）。無色界的解脫，因為包含根本定（mula-dhyana，四種根本禪定），所以所作的行相是十六種。或者與非念住（smrtyupasthana，四念住）同時存在。前三種解脫與身念住同時存在，后四種解脫則與四念住都可能同時存在。在與智慧相應方面，前三種和第七種解脫只與世俗智相應，第四、五、六、八種解脫與出世俗智相應。在與根相應方面，前兩種解脫與喜根和舍根相應，后五種解脫只與舍根相應。在世間差別方面，都是世間法。
【English Translation】 English version Within the realm of desire, in the sphere of form, one completely generates a sense of revulsion, not giving rise to greed or attachment. If, in the realm of pure form aggregates (rupa-skandha, one of the five aggregates constituting material existence), one understands with superior insight that there is no impure aspect to be grasped, and since it is only within the various form aggregates of the desire realm that superior insight can grasp the impure aspect, it is known that within the various form aggregates of the desire realm, there is definitely also the nature of impurity. Since one truly understands that impurity is impurity, how can it be said to be of a reversed nature? The third contemplation of purity should be understood in the same way. Since this contemplation operates truthfully on the object of contemplation, how can it be said to be 'adhimoksha-manaskara' (attention through superior insight)? Because of the power of superior insight, this contemplation arises in relation to the object, so it is called 'adhimoksha-manaskara'. It is precisely because of this that one obtains the name of liberation, because the meanings of superior insight and liberation are closely related. Or, regarding small matters, due to the power of superior insight, one gradually increases contemplation, which is called 'adhimoksha-manaskara'. For example, regarding a small amount of purity, one gradually increases contemplation, and therefore limitless greed and attachment arise. Once this greed has arisen, the mind is confined and attached to the object of contemplation, unable to operate freely. Regarding a small amount of impurity, gradually increasing contemplation, contrary to the previous, increases the roots of all good. For example, contemplating pleasurable feelings as being of the nature of suffering from decay, because pleasurable feelings are mixed with aspects of suffering, so one contemplates them as suffering, which can subdue afflictions and is not called reversed. In this way, since the realm of purity and the realm of impurity are mixed together, one can also contemplate impurity within them, which is not called reversed. Being able to distance oneself from greed and being liberated through contemplating purity should also be understood in this way. When contemplation has not yet been accomplished and perfected, it can only be called 'adhimoksha-manaskara'. Later, when it is accomplished and perfected, because it can bring the result of detachment and can guide the noble path, it can also be called true attention. In this way, the first three objects of contemplation have been distinguished. Next, the four liberations each take as their object of contemplation the truths of suffering, origin, and cessation above themselves, as well as the knowledge of categories and the path of all realms (including knowledge of categories and knowledge of the path), as well as 'pratisankhya-nirodha' (cessation through the power of wisdom), and space. The liberation of the formless realm abandons the realms below, so it does not contemplate the aspects of suffering and origin of the realms below. The difference is that the first two contemplations of impurity, and the third contemplation of purity alone, do not involve the sixteen aspects (shodasha-akara, the sixteen aspects of contemplating the Four Noble Truths). The liberation of the formless realm, because it includes the fundamental meditation (mula-dhyana, the four fundamental meditations), the aspects that are made are sixteen. Or it exists simultaneously with non-mindfulness (smrtyupasthana, the four foundations of mindfulness). The first three liberations exist simultaneously with mindfulness of the body, while the latter four liberations can exist simultaneously with all four foundations of mindfulness. Regarding correspondence with wisdom, the first three and the seventh liberation correspond only with mundane wisdom, while the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth liberations correspond with supramundane wisdom. Regarding correspondence with roots, the first two liberations correspond with the roots of joy and equanimity, while the latter five liberations correspond only with the root of equanimity. Regarding the difference in realms, all are mundane.
通三世。緣世別者。初三解脫已生可生。各緣自世不生緣三。次四解脫緣三非世。三性別者。皆唯善性。緣性別者。初三解脫通緣三性。次四解脫緣善無記。學等別者。初三后二唯是俱非。中三解脫皆通三種。緣學等者。初三解脫但緣俱非。四緣三種。見斷等者。初三后二唯修所斷。中三有漏修斷余非。緣見斷等者。初三緣修斷。次四解脫各通緣三。緣自身等者。初緣自他身。次二緣他。四緣三種。得差別者。第八第三唯未曾得。餘六通二。通二謂聖內法異生外法。異生唯是曾得。經言有色觀諸色者。為顯何義。非未除色能如實通此經深義。然諸先聖傳授釋言。未能伏除緣內色想是有色義。云何知然。第二解脫差別說故。謂于第二既作是言。內無色想觀外諸色。故知初解脫未除內色想。由此論者建立最初。名內有色想觀外色解脫。謂觀行者如害怨。尸雖已離欲貪。而為令堅固以不凈行相。復觀外諸色。由於外色數觀察故。于內色中亦生厭想。如樂凈者頸繫狗尸。極懷羞慚深生厭惡。如是觀外不凈相已。方內色身亦是不凈觀心凈故見內身中。三十六物不凈充滿。觀如篋中眾色類物。名初解脫極成滿位。此成滿位解脫何法。謂心於色不樂。憎背訶毀厭惡遮止欲貪。即解脫欲貪是無貪性故。若謂說觀故應是慧者。理必不然。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 通達過去、現在、未來三世。就所緣的世別來說，最初的三種解脫（已生、可生）各自緣于自身所處的世，不緣于其他三世。接下來的四種解脫緣於三世（過去、現在、未來），而非特定的世。就性質來說，三種解脫都只是善性。就所緣的性質來說，最初的三種解脫普遍緣於三種性質（善、惡、無記）。接下來的四種解脫緣于善和無記。就見道、修道等階段來說，最初的三種和最後的兩種解脫只是非學非無學。中間的三種解脫普遍通於三種（有學、無學、非學非無學）。就所緣的見道、修道等來說，最初的三種解脫只緣于非學非無學。后四種解脫緣於三種（有學、無學、非學非無學）。就所緣的自身等來說，最初的解脫緣于自身和他人之身。接下來的兩種解脫緣於他人之身。后四種解脫緣於三種（自身、他人身、非身）。就獲得的差別來說，第八種和第三種解脫只是未曾獲得。其餘六種解脫通於兩種（曾得、未曾得）。通於兩種是指聖者的內在法和異生的外在法。異生只是曾得。經典上說『有色觀諸色』，是爲了顯示什麼意義呢？如果未能去除色慾，就不能如實通達這部經的深奧含義。然而，過去的聖賢傳授解釋說，未能伏除緣于內在色想就是『有色』的含義。如何得知是這樣呢？因為第二種解脫的差別是這樣說的。對於第二種解脫，既然這樣說『內在沒有色想，觀外在的各種色』，所以知道最初的解脫沒有去除內在的色想。因此，論者建立最初的解脫，名為『內有色想觀外色解脫』。意思是說，觀行者就像要殺死怨敵一樣，即使屍體已經脫離了欲貪，爲了使這種狀態更加堅固，就以不凈的行相，再次觀察外在的各種色。由於對外在的色進行觀察，所以在內在的色中也產生厭惡的想法。就像喜歡乾淨的人脖子上繫著狗的屍體，感到非常羞愧，深深地厭惡。像這樣觀察外在的不凈之相后，才知道內在的色身也是不凈的，觀想內心清凈，看到內在的身體中，三十六種不凈之物充滿。觀想就像箱子里裝著各種顏色的東西。這叫做最初解脫的極成滿位。這個成滿位的解脫是什麼法呢？就是內心對於色不喜樂，憎恨背離，呵斥譭謗，厭惡阻止欲貪。也就是解脫了欲貪，這就是無貪的性質。如果說因為是『觀』，所以應該是智慧，那麼道理一定不是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version Penetrating the three times (past, present, and future). Regarding the distinction of the world (saṃsāra) that is the object of contemplation: the first three liberations (already arisen, capable of arising) each contemplate their own world and do not contemplate the other three. The next four liberations contemplate the three times, not a specific world. Regarding the distinction of nature (svabhāva): all three are only of a wholesome (kuśala) nature. Regarding the distinction of the nature of the object of contemplation: the first three liberations universally contemplate the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). The next four liberations contemplate wholesome and neutral. Regarding the stages of learning (śaikṣa) and so on: the first three and the last two are only neither learners nor non-learners. The middle three liberations universally encompass the three (learners, non-learners, and neither learners nor non-learners). Regarding the object of contemplation being learning and so on: the first three liberations only contemplate neither learners nor non-learners. The latter four contemplate the three (learners, non-learners, and neither learners nor non-learners). Regarding the object of contemplation being oneself and so on: the first contemplates oneself and others. The next two contemplate others. The latter four contemplate the three (oneself, others, and neither self nor other). Regarding the difference in attainment: the eighth and third are only unattained. The remaining six encompass two. Encompassing two refers to the inner dharma of the noble ones and the outer dharma of ordinary beings. Ordinary beings are only attained. The scripture says 'One who has form contemplates forms,' what meaning does it reveal? If one has not removed the desire for form, one cannot truly understand the profound meaning of this scripture. However, the past sages transmitted and explained that not being able to subdue and remove the thought of internal form is the meaning of 'having form.' How is it known to be so? Because the difference in the second liberation is explained in this way. Regarding the second, since it is said 'internally without the thought of form, contemplating external forms,' therefore it is known that the initial liberation has not removed the internal thought of form. Therefore, the commentators establish the initial liberation as 'internally having the thought of form, contemplating the liberation of external forms.' It means that the practitioner, like one who wants to kill an enemy, even if the corpse has already been separated from desire and greed, in order to make this state more firm, again contemplates external forms with the aspect of impurity. Because of observing external forms, a feeling of disgust also arises in internal forms. It is like a person who likes cleanliness having the corpse of a dog tied around their neck, feeling extremely ashamed and deeply disgusted. Having observed the external aspect of impurity in this way, one then knows that the internal body of form is also impure, contemplating that the mind is pure, seeing that within the internal body, the thirty-six impure substances are full. Contemplating it like various colored objects in a box. This is called the extremely accomplished stage of the initial liberation. What dharma is liberated in this accomplished stage? It is that the mind does not delight in form, hating, turning away, scolding, reviling, detesting, and preventing desire and greed. That is, liberating from desire and greed, which is the nature of non-greed (alobha). If it is said that because it is 'contemplation,' it should be wisdom (prajñā), then that reasoning is certainly not so.
近治欲貪故體若是慧應近治癡既近治貪故無貪性。修觀行者從此後時。漸復遣除緣內色想。謂以勝解想自命終。輿載遺身置棄屍處。種種禽獸爭共食啖。須臾身盡唯見禽獸。或於是處以火焚燒。乃至遺灰風所飄鼓。須臾身盡唯見空界。或想自身如酥鹽等。為火水等之所融消。乃至身無唯見火等。名內無色想觀外色解脫此勝解力除色想故。雖緣身起而不見身。既已遣除緣內色想。心相續轉無別事業。勝輕安樂任運現前。於此位中數數修習。緣色處境厭背行相。是名第二解脫成滿。亦如第一解脫欲貪。雖于先時修不凈想。已得解脫緣色慾貪。而無始來我愛難遣。若觀身有仍恐退生。故后復修內無色想。厭惡色觀清凈過前。行者爾時依初靜慮。得此二觀深生味著。為欲令此轉增進故。入第二靜慮復修二解脫。復修二法次第如前。何緣此中厭逆色想。可得說與喜受相應。地力使然如苦集智。或由觀見所習善根。至成滿時故應生喜。既於色想已得解脫。雖游厭觀而不妨喜。次復進入第三靜慮。妙樂迷故心便奢侈。由此不能修諸解脫。但起解脫相似善根。此靜慮中地力法爾。事欣厭觀俱不能成。從此進修第四靜慮。舍增上故心漸澄凈。諸不凈想無復增上。故彼不名初二解脫。但可名曰相似善根。彼瑜伽師久觀不凈。厭惡轉故令心沈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 近治欲貪故體若是慧（智慧），應近治癡（愚癡）。既近治貪故，則無貪性。修習觀行的人，從此以後，逐漸遣除緣于內在色想的執著。也就是以勝解想（殊勝的理解）想像自己已經命終，用車輛運載遺體，放置在棄屍之處，各種禽獸爭相啄食。不久身體就被吃盡，只能看見禽獸。或者在這個地方用火焚燒，乃至遺留下來的灰燼被風吹散。不久身體就完全消失，只能看見空曠的虛空。或者想像自身如同酥油、鹽等，被火、水等融化消解。乃至身體完全消失，只能看見火等。這稱為內在無色想，觀外色解脫，這是因為勝解的力量能夠去除色想。雖然緣于身體而生起，卻不見身體。既然已經遣除了緣于內在色想的執著，心相續的流轉就沒有其他的干擾，殊勝的輕安和快樂自然而然地顯現。在這個階段中，反覆修習，對於色處境界生起厭惡的行相，這稱為第二解脫的圓滿成就。也如同第一解脫欲貪一樣，雖然在先前修習不凈想，已經解脫了對於**貪的執著，但是無始以來對於自我的愛難以去除。如果觀察身體仍然存在，仍然會擔心退轉而重新產生執著，所以之後再次修習內在無色想，厭惡對於色相的觀察，比之前更加清凈。修行者在這個時候，依靠初禪，得到這兩種觀想，深深地產生味著。爲了讓這種味著能夠更加增進，進入第二禪，再次修習兩種解脫。再次修習這兩種方法，次第如同之前一樣。為什麼在這裡厭逆色想，可以說與喜受相應呢？這是因為地力的作用，如同苦集智一樣。或者由於觀見所習的善根，到了圓滿成就的時候，所以應該產生喜悅。既然對於色想已經得到了解脫，即使遊走于厭惡的觀想之中，也不會妨礙喜悅。接下來進入第三禪，因為美妙的快樂而迷惑，心就變得奢侈放縱。因此不能修習各種解脫，只能生起與解脫相似的善根。在這個禪定中，地力的作用就是這樣，欣喜和厭惡的觀想都不能成就。從這裡進一步修習第四禪，因為捨棄了增上的緣故，心逐漸澄凈。各種不凈的觀想不再增上，所以它們不能被稱為初二解脫，只能被稱為相似的善根。那位瑜伽師長久地觀察不凈，因為厭惡的轉變而使心沉靜。
【English Translation】 English version If the entity that subdues desire and greed is wisdom, then one should subdue ignorance. Since it subdues greed, it has no greedy nature. The practitioner of contemplation, from this time onward, gradually eliminates attachment to internal form-thoughts. That is, with superior understanding (勝解想, shèng jiě xiǎng), imagine oneself having died, the corpse carried on a vehicle and placed in a charnel ground, where various birds and beasts compete to devour it. Soon the body is consumed, and only the birds and beasts are visible. Or, in that place, it is burned by fire, until even the remaining ashes are scattered by the wind. Soon the body is completely gone, and only empty space is visible. Or imagine oneself as ghee or salt, melted and dissolved by fire or water. Until the body is gone, and only fire, etc., is visible. This is called internal formlessness, contemplating external form for liberation. This is because the power of superior understanding can remove form-thoughts. Although arising from the body, the body is not seen. Having eliminated attachment to internal form-thoughts, the mind's continuous flow has no other distractions, and superior ease and joy naturally arise. In this state, repeatedly practice, cultivating an attitude of aversion towards the realm of form, which is called the complete fulfillment of the second liberation. Just as with the first liberation from desire and greed, although one has previously practiced impure contemplation and has been liberated from attachment to **greed, the love of self from beginningless time is difficult to remove. If one observes the body as still existing, there is still fear of regression and rebirth, so one practices internal formlessness again, detesting the observation of form, which is purer than before. At this time, the practitioner, relying on the first dhyana (靜慮, jìng lǜ), attains these two contemplations and develops a deep attachment to them. In order to further enhance this attachment, one enters the second dhyana and practices the two liberations again. The order of practicing these two methods is the same as before. Why is it that aversion to form-thoughts here can be said to correspond to the feeling of joy? This is due to the power of the ground, like the wisdom of suffering and its origin. Or it is because the roots of goodness cultivated through contemplation, when they reach complete fulfillment, should give rise to joy. Since one has already attained liberation from form-thoughts, even while wandering in the contemplation of aversion, it does not hinder joy. Next, one enters the third dhyana, and because of the intoxication with subtle pleasure, the mind becomes extravagant and unrestrained. Therefore, one cannot practice the various liberations, but can only generate roots of goodness similar to liberation. In this dhyana, the power of the ground is such that neither joyful nor aversive contemplation can be achieved. From here, one further practices the fourth dhyana, and because of the abandonment of increase, the mind gradually becomes clear and pure. The various impure contemplations no longer increase, so they cannot be called the first two liberations, but can only be called similar roots of goodness. That yogi (瑜伽師, yú jiā shī) has long contemplated impurity, and the transformation of aversion causes the mind to become calm.
戚。為欲策發令暫生歡。或為暫解久修勞倦。或為自審驗不凈觀堪能。故彼復依第四靜慮。于欲界色起凈勝解。先取寶衣花等凈相。由勝解力漸廣思惟。遍於所緣作凈行相。如契經說。彼於後時。應取少凈相總思惟諸色。此雖策心而不掉舉。雖觀凈相而不起貪。既知善根勢力增上。次復于境略聚其心。於一所緣觀凈而住此位。名曰凈解脫滿。能究竟舍不凈想故。此凈解脫亦如第二內無色想觀外諸色。然有差別謂所依地所治行相有差別故。內外道身共不共故。通曾未曾得。唯未曾得故少用功而得。多用功得故。又凈解脫觀順貪相而貪不生。第二解脫觀違貪相得貪不起。餘五解脫應知。如前思不相應無色處釋。何緣唯說內無色想。除內色想不說外耶。得初靜慮時外想已除故。謂得初靜慮外色想已除。第四靜慮中更無勞除遣。諸功德法漸次得故。又外色想易可遣除。故除彼時未立解脫。或外色想空處方除。故於此中但說除內。此中所說內無色想。為但遮色想別目余想耶。若謂此言但遮色想。此言無用說觀外色。無內色想義已成故。若謂此言別目余想。應說此想為何所緣。此非唯遮以別說故。為緣何法緣虛空界。若非不凈行相轉者。如何可名第二解脫。此無過失。彼加行故。謂此中言內無色想。是第二加行名。第二解脫多因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：為什麼（修行者）要爲了策勵自己，暫時生起歡喜心？或者爲了暫時解除長期修行的疲勞倦怠？或者爲了自己審查是否能夠堪忍不凈觀？ 答：所以他們再次依靠第四禪定，對於欲界（kāmadhātu）的色（rūpa）產生清凈的殊勝理解。首先選取寶衣、花朵等清凈的表象（nimitta）。通過殊勝理解的力量，逐漸擴充套件思維，在所緣境上進行清凈的修行。正如契經所說，他們在之後的時間，應當選取少量的清凈表象，總括地思維所有的色。 這種做法雖然策勵內心，但不會導致掉舉（uddhacca）。雖然觀察清凈的表象，但不會生起貪慾（rāga）。既然知道善根（kuśalamūla）的力量增長，接下來再次在境界上略微聚集心念，在一個所緣境上觀察清凈並安住於此。這個階段，被稱為『凈解脫滿』，能夠徹底捨棄不凈想。 這種凈解脫，也像第二解脫那樣，在內心沒有色想的情況下，觀察外面的諸色。但存在差別，即所依賴的地（bhūmi）、所對治的行相（ākāra）存在差別。內外道（bāhyaka-mārga）的身（kāya）共同與不共同存在差別。以及是否曾經獲得（通曾未曾得）。因為僅僅是未曾獲得，所以少用功就能獲得；因為需要多用功才能獲得。 此外，凈解脫觀察順應貪慾的表象，但貪慾不會生起。第二解脫觀察違背貪慾的表象，從而貪慾不會生起。其餘五種解脫，應當知道，如同前面解釋不相應行（cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra）和無色處（arūpadhātu）時所說。 問：為什麼只說『內無色想』，而不說『外』呢？ 答：因為在獲得初禪（prathama-dhyāna）時，外面的色想已經被去除。也就是說，在獲得初禪時，外面的色想已經被去除，在第四禪中，不再需要費力去除。因為諸功德法是逐漸獲得的。 而且，外面的色想容易去除，所以在去除它們的時候，沒有建立解脫。或者說，外面的色想在空無邊處（ākāśānantyāyatana）才被去除，所以在這裡只說去除內色想。 這裡所說的『內無色想』，僅僅是遮止色想，還是另外標示其他的想呢？ 如果認為這句話僅僅是遮止色想，那麼這句話就沒有用處，因為說了『觀外色』，『沒有內色想』的意義已經成立。 如果認為這句話是另外標示其他的想，那麼應當說這種想以什麼為所緣境？ 這並非僅僅是遮止，因為是另外標示的緣故。以什麼法為所緣境？以虛空界（ākāśadhātu）為所緣境。 如果不是以不凈行相（aśubha-ākāra）轉變，如何可以稱為第二解脫？ 這沒有過失，因為有加行（prayoga）的緣故。也就是說，這裡所說的『內無色想』，是第二解脫的加行名稱。第二解脫有很多因緣。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Why do practitioners temporarily generate joy to encourage themselves, or to temporarily relieve the fatigue of long-term practice, or to examine whether they can endure the contemplation of impurity (aśubha)? Answer: Therefore, they rely again on the fourth dhyāna (fourth meditative absorption), and generate a pure and superior understanding of rūpa (form) in the kāmadhātu (desire realm). First, they take pure signs (nimitta) such as precious clothes and flowers. Through the power of superior understanding, they gradually expand their thinking and engage in pure practice on the object of focus. As the sutras say, later they should take a small pure sign and think about all forms in general. Although this practice encourages the mind, it does not lead to uddhacca (restlessness). Although observing pure signs, it does not generate rāga (greed). Since they know that the power of kuśalamūla (wholesome roots) is increasing, they then slightly gather their minds on the object and abide in the contemplation of purity on one object of focus. This stage is called 'full purification liberation', which can completely abandon impure thoughts. This purification liberation is also like the second liberation, observing external forms when there is no internal form thought. However, there are differences, namely, the ground (bhūmi) on which it relies and the characteristics (ākāra) it counteracts are different. The bodies (kāya) of internal and external paths (bāhyaka-mārga) are common and uncommon. And whether it has been obtained before (通曾未曾得). Because it has only been obtained before, it can be obtained with less effort; because it requires more effort to obtain. Furthermore, purification liberation observes signs that accord with greed, but greed does not arise. The second liberation observes signs that oppose greed, so greed does not arise. The remaining five liberations should be understood as explained earlier when discussing cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra (non-associated formations) and arūpadhātu (formless realms). Question: Why is only 'internal formless thought' mentioned, and not 'external'? Answer: Because when the prathama-dhyāna (first dhyāna) is attained, external form thoughts have already been removed. That is, when the first dhyāna is attained, external form thoughts have already been removed, and in the fourth dhyāna, there is no need to laboriously remove them. Because meritorious dharmas are gradually attained. Moreover, external form thoughts are easy to remove, so no liberation is established when they are removed. Or rather, external form thoughts are removed only in the ākāśānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite space), so only the removal of internal form thoughts is mentioned here. Does 'internal formless thought' mentioned here merely prevent form thoughts, or does it separately indicate other thoughts? If it is thought that this statement merely prevents form thoughts, then this statement is useless, because the meaning of 'no internal form thoughts' has already been established by saying 'observing external forms'. If it is thought that this statement separately indicates other thoughts, then it should be said what is the object of focus of this thought? This is not merely prevention, because it is separately indicated. What dharma is the object of focus? The ākāśadhātu (space element) is the object of focus. If it does not transform with aśubha-ākāra (impure aspect), how can it be called the second liberation? This is not a fault, because there is prayoga (effort). That is, 'internal formless thought' mentioned here is the name of the effort for the second liberation. The second liberation has many causes and conditions.
故。得解脫名。謂已解脫此方生故。或此力能引解脫故。或是種種解脫性故。或與解脫勝解俱故。此諸解脫依男女身。聖者異生皆能修起。唯滅盡定但依聖身。于聖身中通學無學。經說滅定超諸有頂。如何可說亦依學身。此雖有頂自地所攝。然如上地法超余方得故。如超一切第四定貪。方入根本空無邊處。至超一切無所有貪。入本非想非非想處。如是超越諸有頂貪。方可得入滅受想定。謂有頂貪若斷未斷。要應總伏方入此定。故雖自地而名超越。或諸有學已離有頂。見所斷故名為超越。或有頂法總有二種。有心無心位差別故。超有心故名為超越。或隨所應說超無過。唯第三八說身證者。舉二邊際類顯所餘。色解脫中凈為邊際。于諸無色滅定為邊。或此各在一界邊故。或唯此二種唯內道得故。唯未曾得故。多功用得故。盡大種造色心心所法故。有說第三初于身色以勝解力。取清凈相后漸遣除解脫成滿緣身解脫此為究竟。故偏於此立身證名。滅定無心唯依身住。故亦于彼立身證名就勝故。然理實皆爾依通有理。有契經言何名身證。謂八解脫。此八解脫何有情起。若於所緣恒求對治。是貪愛行樂修多道。如是有情能起解脫。行者何為修解脫等。為令煩惱轉更遠故。為于等至得自在故。既得自在便能引發。無諍等德及聖神通。
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，（這些定）被稱為『解脫』（vimoksha）。這是因為已經從這個世界的束縛中解脫出來。或者，這種力量能夠引導解脫。或者，是因為它們具有各種各樣的解脫性質。或者，是因為它們與對解脫的殊勝理解同時存在。這些解脫的修習，可以依據男性或女性之身，聖者（arya，已證悟者）或凡夫（prthagjana，未證悟者）都能發起。只有滅盡定（nirodha-samapatti）只能依據聖者之身。在聖者之中，包括有學（saiksha，仍在學習的聖者）和無學（asaiksha，已完成學習的聖者）。 經中說滅盡定超越了諸有頂天（bhavagra，三界最高處）。怎麼能說它也依賴於有學之身呢？雖然滅盡定屬於有頂天這一層次，但就像上地之法超越其他地方而獲得一樣。例如，超越一切第四禪定的貪慾，才能進入根本的空無邊處定（akasanantyayatana）。直到超越一切無所有貪，才能進入根本的非想非非想處定（nevasannanasannayatana）。同樣，超越諸有頂天的貪慾，才能進入滅受想定（nirodha-samapatti）。也就是說，無論有頂天的貪慾是否已斷，都應該完全降伏它，才能進入此定。因此，雖然屬於同一層次，卻被稱為『超越』。 或者，一些有學者已經脫離了有頂天，因為他們已經斷除了見所斷煩惱（darshana-heya）。因此被稱為『超越』。或者，有頂天的法總共有兩種：有心位和無心位的差別。超越有心位，因此被稱為『超越』。或者，可以根據具體情況說『超越』，這沒有過失。只有第三解脫和第八解脫被稱為『身證』（kayasakshi），這是舉出兩個極端例子來顯示其餘的解脫。在色解脫中，『凈』（shubha）是其邊際。在諸無色定中，滅盡定是其邊際。或者，這是因為它們各自在一界的邊際。或者，只有這兩種解脫只有內道（佛教）才能獲得。只有未曾獲得過的人才能獲得。需要付出很多努力才能獲得。窮盡了大種所造的色法和心心所法。 有人說，第三解脫最初通過殊勝的勝解力，在身體的顏色上取清凈之相，然後逐漸去除，解脫才得以圓滿，緣于身體的解脫是究竟的。因此，特別在此處設立『身證』之名。滅盡定是無心狀態，唯有依靠身體才能安住。因此，也在那裡設立『身證』之名，這是就殊勝之處而言。然而，實際上，所有解脫都依賴於神通，這是有道理的。有契經說：『什麼叫做身證？』答：『就是八解脫。』這八解脫是什麼樣的有情才能生起呢？如果對於所緣境經常尋求對治，是貪愛重的行者，喜歡修習多種道。這樣的有情才能生起解脫。修行者為什麼要修習解脫等法呢？爲了使煩惱越來越遠離。爲了在等至（samapatti，禪定）中獲得自在。既然獲得了自在，便能引發無諍（aranadhatu）等功德以及聖神通（arya-riddhi）。
【English Translation】 Therefore, they are called 'liberations' (vimoksha). This is because one has already been liberated from the bondage of this realm. Or, this power can lead to liberation. Or, it is because they possess various kinds of liberating qualities. Or, it is because they exist simultaneously with a superior understanding of liberation. The practice of these liberations can be undertaken based on the body of a male or female, by both noble ones (arya) and ordinary beings (prthagjana). Only the cessation attainment (nirodha-samapatti) can only be based on the body of a noble one. Among the noble ones, this includes both learners (saiksha) and non-learners (asaiksha). The sutras say that the cessation attainment transcends all the Peak of Existence realms (bhavagra, the highest realm of the Three Realms). How can it be said that it also relies on the body of a learner? Although the cessation attainment belongs to the level of the Peak of Existence, it is like the dharma of a higher realm being obtained by transcending other places. For example, one must transcend all craving for the fourth dhyana to enter the fundamental realm of the Infinity of Space (akasanantyayatana). Until one transcends all craving for nothingness, one can enter the fundamental realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (nevasannanasannayatana). Similarly, one must transcend the craving for all the Peak of Existence realms in order to enter the attainment of cessation of feeling and perception (nirodha-samapatti). That is, whether the craving for the Peak of Existence has been cut off or not, one should completely subdue it in order to enter this attainment. Therefore, although belonging to the same level, it is called 'transcendence'. Or, some learners have already detached from the Peak of Existence, because they have cut off the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing (darshana-heya). Therefore, it is called 'transcendence'. Or, there are two kinds of dharmas in the Peak of Existence: the difference between the state with mind and the state without mind. Transcending the state with mind, therefore it is called 'transcendence'. Or, one can say 'transcendence' according to the specific situation, and there is no fault in this. Only the third liberation and the eighth liberation are called 'body witness' (kayasakshi), and these are two extreme examples to show the remaining liberations. In the form liberations, 'purity' (shubha) is its boundary. In the formless attainments, the cessation attainment is its boundary. Or, this is because they are each at the boundary of a realm. Or, only these two kinds of liberation can only be obtained by the inner path (Buddhism). Only those who have never obtained it can obtain it. It takes a lot of effort to obtain. Exhausting the form and mental factors created by the great elements. Some say that the third liberation initially takes the aspect of purity on the color of the body through the superior power of conviction, and then gradually removes it, and the liberation is perfected, and the liberation based on the body is ultimate. Therefore, the name 'body witness' is specially established here. The cessation attainment is a state without mind, and one can only abide by relying on the body. Therefore, the name 'body witness' is also established there, which is in terms of the superior aspect. However, in reality, all liberations rely on supernormal powers, which is reasonable. There is a sutra that says: 'What is called body witness?' Answer: 'It is the eight liberations.' What kind of sentient beings can generate these eight liberations? If one constantly seeks antidotes for the objects of attachment, is a practitioner with strong attachment, and likes to practice various paths. Such sentient beings can generate liberation. Why do practitioners practice liberation and other dharmas? In order to make afflictions more and more distant. In order to gain freedom in samapatti (meditative absorption). Since one has gained freedom, one can induce the merits of non-contention (aranadhatu) and the noble supernormal powers (arya-riddhi).
由此便能轉變諸境。起留舍等種種事業。已辯解脫次辯勝處。頌曰。
勝處有八種 二如初解脫 次二如第二 后四如第三
論曰。勝處有八。內有色想觀外色少。若好若惡於此諸色勝知勝見。有如是想是名為初。內有色想觀外色多。廣說乃至。是名第二內無色想觀外色少。廣說乃至。是名第三內無色想觀外色多。廣說乃至。是名第四內無色想觀外色。青青顯青現青光。譬如烏莫迦花。或如婆羅痆斯深染青衣於此諸色。勝知勝見有如是想。是名第五內無色想觀外色。黃黃顯黃現黃光。譬如羯尼迦花。或如婆羅痆斯。深染黃衣廣說乃至。是名第六內無色想觀外色。赤赤顯赤現赤光。譬如槃豆時縛迦花。或如婆羅痆斯。深染赤衣廣說乃至。是名第七內無色想觀外色。白白顯白現白光。譬如烏沙斯星。或如婆羅痆斯。極鮮白衣廣說乃至。是名第八能制伏境。故名勝處。謂雖一切所緣色境。清凈光華美妙具足。而善根力悉能映蔽。譬如仆隸雖服珍奇。而為其主之所映蔽。或於是處轉變自在。不隨起惑故名勝處。勝於處故立勝處名。或此善根即名為處處能勝。故立勝處名。少謂所緣或自在少與此相反說名為多。好惡色言顯劣勝色。有說於好能不起貪。于惡不瞋故名為勝。若爾勝處體應具無貪瞋。故於此中有別意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由此便能轉變諸境。發起留住、捨棄等種種事業。已經辨析了解脫，接下來辨析勝處。頌文說：
『勝處有八種，二如初解脫，次二如第二，后四如第三。』
論述：勝處共有八種。內心有色想，觀外面的少量顏色，無論是好的還是壞的，對於這些顏色能夠勝知勝見。有這樣的想法，這被稱為第一勝處。內心有色想，觀外面的大量顏色，（內容）廣泛地說乃至（勝知勝見），這被稱為第二勝處。內心沒有色想，觀外面的少量顏色，（內容）廣泛地說乃至（勝知勝見），這被稱為第三勝處。內心沒有色想，觀外面的大量顏色，（內容）廣泛地說乃至（勝知勝見），這被稱為第四勝處。內心沒有色想，觀外面的顏色，青色顯現青色，呈現青色光芒，譬如烏莫迦花（Utpala，青蓮花），或者像婆羅痆斯（Varanasi，古印度城市名）深染的青色衣服，對於這些顏色，能夠勝知勝見，有這樣的想法，這被稱為第五勝處。內心沒有色想，觀外面的顏色，黃色顯現黃色，呈現黃色光芒，譬如羯尼迦花（Karnikara，黃色花），或者像婆羅痆斯（Varanasi）深染的黃色衣服，（內容）廣泛地說乃至（勝知勝見），這被稱為第六勝處。內心沒有色想，觀外面的顏色，紅色顯現紅色，呈現紅色光芒，譬如槃豆時縛迦花（Bandhujivaka，紅色花），或者像婆羅痆斯（Varanasi）深染的紅色衣服，（內容）廣泛地說乃至（勝知勝見），這被稱為第七勝處。內心沒有色想，觀外面的顏色，白色顯現白色，呈現白色光芒，譬如烏沙斯星（Usas，晨星），或者像婆羅痆斯（Varanasi）極鮮艷的白色衣服，（內容）廣泛地說乃至（勝知勝見），這被稱為第八勝處。能夠制伏境界，所以叫做勝處。即使一切所緣的色境，清凈光華，美好具足，而善根的力量完全能夠遮蔽它。譬如僕人即使穿著珍奇的服飾，也被他的主人所遮蔽。或者在這些地方轉變自在，不隨煩惱而起，所以叫做勝處。勝於處所，所以立名為勝處。或者這種善根就叫做處所，處所能夠勝過，所以立名為勝處。少量是指所緣或者自在較少，與此相反就叫做多。好惡色是指顯現低劣或殊勝的顏色。有人說對於好的顏色不起貪心，對於壞的顏色不生嗔恨，所以叫做勝。如果這樣，勝處的體性應該具備無貪和無嗔。所以在這裡面有別的意義。
【English Translation】 English version Thus, one can transform all realms, initiating various activities such as abiding, relinquishing, and so on. Having discussed the liberations, next we discuss the mastery spheres (勝處, Shengchu). The verse says:
'The mastery spheres are of eight kinds, the first two are like the first liberation, the next two are like the second, and the last four are like the third.'
Treatise: There are eight mastery spheres. Internally having a perception of form, one contemplates external colors that are few. Whether good or bad, one has superior knowledge and vision of these colors. Having such a thought, this is called the first. Internally having a perception of form, one contemplates external colors that are many, extensively speaking, and so on. This is called the second. Internally having no perception of form, one contemplates external colors that are few, extensively speaking, and so on. This is called the third. Internally having no perception of form, one contemplates external colors that are many, extensively speaking, and so on. This is called the fourth. Internally having no perception of form, one contemplates external color, blue appearing blue, manifesting blue, with blue light, like an Utpala (烏莫迦花, Qinglianhua, blue lotus) flower, or like a Varanasi (婆羅痆斯, Gǔ Yìndù chéngshì míng, ancient Indian city name) deeply dyed blue cloth. Regarding these colors, one has superior knowledge and vision, having such a thought, this is called the fifth. Internally having no perception of form, one contemplates external color, yellow appearing yellow, manifesting yellow, with yellow light, like a Karnikara (羯尼迦花, Huangse hua, yellow flower), or like a Varanasi (婆羅痆斯) deeply dyed yellow cloth, extensively speaking, and so on. This is called the sixth. Internally having no perception of form, one contemplates external color, red appearing red, manifesting red, with red light, like a Bandhujivaka (槃豆時縛迦花, Hongse hua, red flower), or like a Varanasi (婆羅痆斯) deeply dyed red cloth, extensively speaking, and so on. This is called the seventh. Internally having no perception of form, one contemplates external color, white appearing white, manifesting white, with white light, like the Usas (烏沙斯星, Chenxing, morning star), or like a Varanasi (婆羅痆斯) extremely bright white cloth, extensively speaking, and so on. This is called the eighth. Being able to subdue realms, therefore it is called mastery sphere. Although all perceived color realms are pure, radiant, beautiful, and complete, the power of good roots is fully capable of overshadowing them. For example, a servant, even if wearing precious and rare garments, is overshadowed by his master. Or, in these places, one is free to transform and does not arise with afflictions, therefore it is called mastery sphere. Being superior to the place, therefore it is named mastery sphere. Or, these good roots are called places, places that are able to overcome, therefore it is named mastery sphere. Few means that what is perceived or freedom is few; the opposite of this is called many. Good and bad colors refer to manifesting inferior or superior colors. Some say that one does not arise with greed for good colors, and does not arise with anger for bad colors, therefore it is called mastery. If so, the nature of the mastery sphere should possess non-greed and non-anger. Therefore, there is a different meaning here.
趣。謂不凈行相總觀好惡色。如觀惡色好色亦然。總取不凈心自在轉。何勞復觀惡色不凈。由曾見凈起諸煩惱。以顛倒覺曾見凈故。今如實見為治昔貪。故於惡色亦觀不凈。初觀此境名為勝知。后觀成時名為勝見。能自了達我於此中。有勝知勝見名有如是想。此四勝處自性地等。如次同前初二解脫。謂初二勝處是初解脫果。次二勝處是第二果。彼為資糧能入此故。總觀不凈能制伏己。復於此境觀凈制伏。謂即乘前內無色想。別觀青等四顯色相。所言青者謂花等青。言青顯者謂衣等青青現青光。顯前二種所有青相。純深無雜非如青邊。所發青影及孔雀尾金剛等青。然青光言顯青鮮潔。非如日等外發光明。或為顯成青色顯著。舉花衣喻。顯加行中取彼為門入勝處觀。非於觀內見似此色。烏莫迦花花中青勝俱生青內舉此為門。婆羅痆斯善於染色。和合青內舉此為門。非加行中但取此二。非皆有故不舉珠寶。若處空閑先取花相。若居聚落先取衣青。青觀既然黃等亦爾。然于夜分先取白星。晝則取衣余皆如上。于晴夜分烏沙斯星。諸白色中最為勝故。此四勝處自性地等。應知如前第三解脫。以凈解脫為此四因。彼為資糧能入此故。前三解脫于諸色中。但能總取不凈凈相。今八勝處於諸色中。分別少多青等異相。故前解脫但於色中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『趣』，指的是以不凈的行相總括地觀察美好和醜陋的顏色。如同觀察醜陋的顏色一樣，觀察美好的顏色也是如此。總括地把握不凈，內心自在地運轉。又何必再觀察醜陋顏色的不凈呢？因為曾經見過清凈之物而生起各種煩惱，由於顛倒的覺知曾經見過清凈之物。現在如實地觀察是爲了對治過去的貪慾，所以在醜陋的顏色中也觀察不凈。最初觀察這個境界稱為『勝知』（對事物本質的深刻了解），後來觀察成就時稱為『勝見』（對事物本質的透徹領悟）。能夠自己了達『我於此中，有勝知勝見』，名為有如是想。這四種勝處（通過觀想勝妙之境以提升禪定力的方法），其自性、地等，依次與前面的初二解脫（通過去除慾望和不凈觀想獲得的解脫）相同。也就是說，最初的兩種勝處是初解脫的果，接下來的兩種勝處是第二果。它們是進入這些境界的資糧。 總括地觀察不凈能夠制伏自己，又於此境界觀察清凈以制伏自己。也就是憑藉前面內在的無色想，分別觀察青、黃等四種顯色之相。所說的『青』，指的是花等的青色。所說的『青顯』，指的是衣服等呈現青色、顯現青光。顯現前兩種所有的青相，純粹、深邃、沒有雜質，不像青色的邊緣所發出的青影，以及孔雀尾巴、金剛等的青色。然而，『青光』指的是青色的鮮潔，不像太陽等向外發出的光明。或者爲了顯現青色顯著，用花和衣服來比喻。表明在加行（修行前的準備階段）中，選取它們作為進入勝處觀的門徑，而不是在觀想中看到類似這樣的顏色。烏莫迦花（一種藍色或青色的花）在花中青色最為殊勝，在俱生青（與生俱來的青色）中，選取它作為門徑。婆羅痆斯（古印度城市，以染色聞名）善於染色，在和合青（混合而成的青色）中，選取它作為門徑。並非在加行中只選取這兩種，因為並非所有地方都有，所以不舉珠寶為例。如果處在空閑的地方，先選取花相；如果居住在聚落，先選取衣服的青色。青色的觀想既然如此，黃色等也是一樣。然而在夜晚，先選取白星；白天則選取衣服，其餘都和上面一樣。在晴朗的夜晚，烏沙斯星（啟明星）在各種白色中最為殊勝。這四種勝處的自性、地等，應當知道和前面的第三解脫（通過觀想光明和清凈獲得的解脫）相同。以清凈解脫作為這四種勝處的原因，它們是進入這些境界的資糧。前面的三種解脫在各種顏色中，只能總括地把握不凈和清凈之相，現在的八勝處在各種顏色中，分別少多、青等不同的相狀。所以前面的解脫只是在顏色中。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'interest' (趣), it refers to the comprehensive observation of both beautiful and ugly colors through the aspect of impurity. Just as one observes ugly colors, so too does one observe beautiful colors. Comprehensively grasping impurity, the mind operates freely. Why then further observe the impurity of ugly colors? Because various afflictions arise from having seen purity, due to the inverted perception of having seen purity. Now, observing truthfully is to counteract past greed, so one also observes impurity in ugly colors. Initially observing this realm is called 'superior knowledge' (勝知, profound understanding of the essence of things), and later, when the observation is accomplished, it is called 'superior vision' (勝見, thorough comprehension of the essence of things). Being able to realize 'I have superior knowledge and superior vision in this,' is called having such a thought. These four kinds of superior abodes (勝處, methods to enhance meditative power through contemplation of sublime realms), their nature, ground, etc., are sequentially the same as the preceding first two liberations (解脫, liberation achieved through the removal of desires and impure contemplation). That is to say, the first two superior abodes are the fruit of the first liberation, and the next two superior abodes are the second fruit. They are the resources for entering these realms. Comprehensively observing impurity can subdue oneself, and again, observing purity in this realm subdues oneself. That is, relying on the preceding internal formless thought, one separately observes the aspects of the four manifest colors, such as blue and yellow. What is called 'blue' refers to the blue of flowers, etc. What is called 'manifest blue' refers to clothes, etc., that exhibit blue color and manifest blue light. It manifests the blue aspect of the preceding two kinds, pure, deep, and without impurities, unlike the blue shadow emitted from the edge of blue, or the blue of peacock tails, diamonds, etc. However, 'blue light' refers to the freshness and purity of blue, unlike the external light emitted by the sun, etc. Or, to manifest the prominence of the blue color, flowers and clothes are used as metaphors. It indicates that in the preliminary practice (加行, preparatory stage of practice), one selects them as the gateway to enter the contemplation of superior abodes, rather than seeing similar colors in the contemplation itself. The Umoka flower (烏莫迦花, a blue or cyan flower) is the most superior blue among flowers; in innate blue (俱生青, blue that is inherent), it is selected as the gateway. Varanasi (婆羅痆斯, an ancient Indian city famous for dyeing) is skilled in dyeing; in combined blue (和合青, blue that is mixed), it is selected as the gateway. It is not that only these two are selected in the preliminary practice, because not all places have them, so jewels are not mentioned as examples. If one is in a secluded place, one first selects the flower aspect; if one lives in a settlement, one first selects the blue of clothes. Since the contemplation of blue is like this, so too are yellow, etc. However, at night, one first selects the white star; during the day, one selects clothes, and the rest is the same as above. On a clear night, the Ushas star (烏沙斯星, morning star) is the most superior among all white colors. The nature, ground, etc., of these four superior abodes should be known to be the same as the preceding third liberation (解脫, liberation achieved through contemplation of light and purity). Taking pure liberation as the cause of these four superior abodes, they are the resources for entering these realms. The preceding three liberations can only comprehensively grasp the aspects of impurity and purity in various colors, while the current eight superior abodes separately distinguish the different aspects of more or less, blue, etc., in various colors. Therefore, the preceding liberations are only in colors.
。棄背欲貪及不凈想。今八勝處能于所緣。分折制伏令隨心轉。由此證知第三解脫。總取凈相故立一名。八勝處中后四勝處。差別取故分為四種。若凈解脫亦差別緣。取凈性同立為一者。后四勝處應亦立一。差別因緣不可得故。已辯勝處次辯遍處。頌曰。
遍處有十種 八如凈解脫 后二凈無色 緣自地四蘊
論曰。遍處有十。謂周遍觀地水火風青黃赤白。及空與識二無邊處。經於此處皆言一想。上下及傍無二無量。於一切處無間無隙。周遍思惟故名遍處。遍於處故立遍處名。或此善根即名為處。行相遍故立遍處名。此中地等顯示所緣。所說遍言顯示行相。行相雖等而所緣別是故遍處分為十種。經言一者顯此等至。思惟一類境相現前。想言顯是勝解作意。若異此者應言一知。上下傍言顯意流轉。言無二者顯。無間隙。無量言顯勝解無邊。由勝等持磨瑩力故。令觀行者心自在生。能于所緣周遍觀察。何故唯十得遍處名。此上更無遍行相故。唯第四定空識無邊。可得說有無邊行相。前八遍處如凈解脫。自性皆是無貪善根。若並助伴皆五蘊性。后四勝處加行引生。故與彼同如凈解脫。又如凈解脫依第四靜慮。及緣欲界色處為境。如何地等亦名色處。地地界等有差別故。顯形名地等如先已說。故說地等遍處不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 捨棄背離慾望和不凈的觀想。現在的八勝處能夠對所緣境，進行分析、折服、控制，使其隨心所欲地轉變。由此可以證實第三解脫，因為總的來說是取凈相，所以立為一個名稱。八勝處中后四個勝處，因為差別地取境，所以分為四種。如果凈解脫也是差別地緣取，因為取凈的性質相同而立為一種，那麼后四個勝處也應該立為一種。因為沒有可以區分的因緣。已經辨析了勝處，接下來辨析遍處。頌文說：
『遍處有十種，八如凈解脫，后二凈無色，緣自地四蘊。』
論述說：遍處有十種，即周遍地觀想地、水、火、風、青、黃、赤、白，以及空無邊處和識無邊處。經典中對於這些都說『一想』，上下及旁邊沒有第二個，沒有限量，在一切處沒有間隔沒有空隙，周遍地思惟，所以叫做遍處。因為周遍于處所，所以立名為遍處。或者說，這種善根就叫做處所，因為行相周遍，所以立名為遍處。這裡面地等顯示的是所緣境，所說的『遍』字顯示的是行相。行相雖然相同，但是所緣境不同，因此遍處分為十種。經典中說『一』，顯示這種等至，思惟同一類境相顯現於前。『想』字顯示的是勝解作意。如果不是這樣，就應該說『一知』。『上下傍』顯示意念的流轉。『無二』顯示沒有間隔空隙。『無量』顯示勝解沒有邊際。由於殊勝的等持磨練的力量，使得觀行者內心自在生起，能夠對所緣境周遍地觀察。為什麼只有這十種才能得到遍處的名稱？因為這之上再沒有周遍的行相了。只有第四禪定、空無邊處、識無邊處，可以說有無邊的行相。前八個遍處和凈解脫一樣，自性都是無貪的善根。如果加上助伴，都是五蘊的性質。后四個勝處是由於加行而產生的，所以和它們相同，就像凈解脫一樣。又像凈解脫依靠第四靜慮，並且緣取欲界的色處作為境界，為什麼地等也叫做色處呢？因為地、地界等有差別，顯現形狀叫做地等，就像之前已經說過的。所以說地等遍處不...
【English Translation】 English version Abandoning and turning away from desire and impure thoughts. Now, the eight victories are able to analyze, subdue, and control the objects of focus, making them transform according to one's will. From this, it can be verified that the third liberation, in general, takes the aspect of purity, hence establishing one name. Among the eight victories, the latter four victories are divided into four types because they take objects with differences. If the pure liberations also take objects with differences, and because they take the same nature of purity, they are established as one, then the latter four victories should also be established as one. Because there is no distinguishable cause and condition. Having discussed the victories, next we discuss the all-encompassing.
'The all-encompassing has ten types, eight like pure liberation, the latter two pure formless, conditioned by the four aggregates of their own plane.'
The treatise says: The all-encompassing has ten types, namely, the all-encompassing contemplation of earth, water, fire, wind, blue, yellow, red, white, and the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness. In the sutras, these are all referred to as 'one thought,' without a second above, below, or to the side, without limit, without gaps or spaces in all places, contemplating pervasively, hence called all-encompassing. Because it pervades the place, it is named all-encompassing. Or it is said that this root of goodness is called the place, because its aspect is pervasive, it is named all-encompassing. Here, earth and so on indicate the objects of focus, and the word 'pervasive' indicates the aspect. Although the aspects are the same, the objects of focus are different, therefore the all-encompassing is divided into ten types. The sutra says 'one,' indicating this samadhi (concentration), contemplating the same kind of object appearing before one. The word 'thought' indicates the resolve and attention. If it were not so, it should be said 'one knowing.' 'Above, below, and to the side' indicate the flow of thought. 'Without a second' indicates without gaps or spaces. 'Without limit' indicates the resolve is without boundary. Due to the power of excellent samadhi, the practitioner's mind arises freely, able to observe the object of focus pervasively. Why only these ten can obtain the name of all-encompassing? Because there is no more pervasive aspect above this. Only the fourth dhyana (meditative absorption), the sphere of infinite space, and the sphere of infinite consciousness can be said to have limitless aspects. The first eight all-encompassing are like pure liberation, their nature is all non-greed good roots. If including the assistants, they are all of the nature of the five aggregates. The latter four victories are produced by additional practices, so they are the same as them, just like pure liberation. Also, like pure liberation relying on the fourth dhyana, and taking the realm of desire's form as the object, why are earth and so on also called form? Because earth, earth element, and so on have differences, manifesting shape is called earth and so on, just as has been said before. Therefore, it is said that the earth and so on all-encompassing do not...
言地界等。故前八種但緣色處。風與風界既無差別。如何可言亦緣色處。此難非理。以諸世間亦說黑風團風等故。由此前八緣色理成。后二遍處如次空識二。凈無色為其自性。各緣自地四蘊為境。此解脫等三門功德。為由何得。依何身起。頌曰。
滅定如先辯 余皆通二得 無色依三界 余唯人趣起
論曰。第八解脫如先已辯。以即是前滅盡定故。余解脫等通由二得。謂由離染及加行得。以有曾習未曾習故。前八遍處初修習時。皆以眼識為其加行。空處遍處初修亦爾。以初必緣空界色故。由勝解力后成滿時。通緣自地四蘊為境。識處遍處初修習時。但以意識為其加行。以初必緣識為境故。由勝解力后成滿時。亦緣自地四蘊為境。四無色解脫二無色遍處。一一通依三界身起。然其初起多依下地。依自下地皆容後起。唯無所有亦依上地。所餘一切依欲界身。唯在人中三洲除北。余慧力劣無聖教故。治欲貪故上二界無。有說初起唯依人趣。要由教力所引起故。人中有教天趣中無。設有著樂不能初起。故人初起退生欲天。由宿習力有後起義。復以何緣第三靜慮。有通無量等無解脫等耶。無解脫緣前已具辯。解脫無故勝處亦無。解脫為門入勝處故。勝處無故遍處亦無。勝處為門入遍處故。又第三定耽著妙樂。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 言地界等（地界的含義是堅固性）。故前八種（指前八種解脫）但緣色處（指色界）。風與風界既無差別，如何可言亦緣色處？此難非理。以諸世間亦說黑風、團風等故。由此前八緣色理成。后二遍處如次空識二（指空無邊處和識無邊處），凈無色為其自性，各緣自地四蘊為境。此解脫等三門功德，為由何得？依何身起？ 頌曰： 滅定如先辯， 余皆通二得 無色依三界， 余唯人趣起 論曰：第八解脫如先已辯，以即是前滅盡定故。余解脫等通由二得，謂由離染及加行得。以有曾習未曾習故。前八遍處初修習時，皆以眼識為其加行。空處遍處初修亦爾，以初必緣空界色故。由勝解力后成滿時，通緣自地四蘊為境。識處遍處初修習時，但以意識為其加行，以初必緣識為境故。由勝解力后成滿時，亦緣自地四蘊為境。四無色解脫、二無色遍處，一一通依三界身起。然其初起多依下地，依自下地皆容後起，唯無所有亦依上地。所餘一切依欲界身，唯在人中三洲除北，余慧力劣無聖教故。治欲貪故上二界無。有說初起唯依人趣，要由教力所引起故。人中有教天趣中無。設有著樂不能初起，故人初起退生欲天，由宿習力有後起義。復以何緣第三靜慮，有通無量等無解脫等耶？無解脫緣前已具辯。解脫無故勝處亦無，解脫為門入勝處故。勝處無故遍處亦無，勝處為門入遍處故。又第三定耽著妙樂，于
【English Translation】 English version Speaking of earth element etc. Therefore, the first eight (referring to the first eight liberations) only perceive the 'rupa-ayatana' (rupa-ayatana: the sphere of form). If there is no difference between wind and the wind element, how can it be said that it also perceives the 'rupa-ayatana'? This difficulty is unreasonable, because in the world, people also speak of 'black wind', 'whirlwind', etc. Therefore, the principle that the first eight perceive form is established. The latter two 'kasina' (kasina: all-encompassing meditation) are, in order, the 'akasa' (akasa: space) and 'vijnana' (vijnana: consciousness) 'kasina'. Pure formlessness is their nature, each perceiving the four 'skandhas' (skandhas: aggregates) of their own realm as their object. These merits of the three doors of liberation, etc., how are they obtained? Upon what body do they arise? The verse says: Extinction attainment is explained as before, the rest are obtained through two means. The formless depends on the three realms, the rest only arise in the human realm. The treatise says: The eighth liberation has been explained as before, because it is the 'nirodha-samapatti' (nirodha-samapatti: cessation attainment) mentioned earlier. The remaining liberations, etc., are generally obtained through two means, namely, through detachment and through effort. This is because some have practiced before and some have not. When the first eight 'kasina' are first practiced, they all use eye consciousness as their effort. The 'akasa-kasina' is also the same when first practiced, because it must initially perceive the form of the space element. Through the power of strong understanding, when it is later completed, it generally perceives the four 'skandhas' of its own realm as its object. When the 'vijnana-kasina' is first practiced, it only uses mind consciousness as its effort, because it must initially perceive consciousness as its object. Through the power of strong understanding, when it is later completed, it also perceives the four 'skandhas' of its own realm as its object. The four formless liberations and the two formless 'kasina' all generally arise depending on the bodies of the three realms. However, their initial arising mostly depends on the lower realm. Depending on one's own lower realm, later arising is possible, only the 'akincannyayatana' (akincannyayatana: sphere of nothingness) also depends on the upper realm. All the rest depend on the body of the desire realm, only in the human realm, in the three continents excluding the north, because the remaining wisdom is weak and there is no holy teaching. Because of curing desire and greed, the upper two realms do not have it. Some say that the initial arising only depends on the human realm, because it must be caused by the power of teaching. There is teaching in the human realm, but not in the heavenly realms. If one is attached to pleasure, one cannot initially arise it, therefore, when a person initially arises it and regresses to be born in the desire heavens, there is a later arising due to the power of past habits. Furthermore, for what reason does the third 'dhyana' (dhyana: meditative absorption) have the 'unlimited' etc., but not the liberations etc.? The reason for the absence of liberation has already been fully explained. Because there is no liberation, there are also no superior abodes, because liberation is the door to enter the superior abodes. Because there are no superior abodes, there are also no 'kasina', because the superior abodes are the door to enter the 'kasina'. Furthermore, the third 'dhyana' is attached to wonderful pleasure, and
生死中此樂勝故。不能發起解脫等三。此三皆欲背生死故。通無量等隨順於樂。故依此定亦能修起。此解脫等三門功德。若隨得一得一切不。此不皆爾。其義云何。得后必前前非必后。謂得遍處必具得三。得勝處者必得解脫。遍處不定或得或無。若得解脫餘二不定。以入遍處勝處為門。解脫為門入勝處故。此解脫等差別云何。唯能棄背名為解脫。兼析所緣名為勝處。加無邊解得遍處名。此三善根漸次修故。有餘師說。此三善根由下中上故有差別。謂能棄捨勝伏所緣。行相無邊有劣勝故。有餘師說。解脫唯因遍處唯果勝處通二。今應思擇上二界中。說者既無何緣起定。頌曰。
二界由因業 能起無色定 色界起靜慮 亦由法爾力
論曰。生上二界總由三緣。能進引生色無色定。一由因力。謂于先時近。及數修為起因故。二由業力。謂先曾造感上地生順后受業。彼業異熟將起現前。勢力能令進起彼定。以若未離下地煩惱。必定無容生上地故。三法爾力。謂器世界將欲壞時。下地有情法爾能起上地靜慮。以於此位所有善法。由法爾力皆增盛故。諸有生在上二界中起無色定。由因業力非法爾力。無雲等天不為三災之所壞故。生在色界起靜慮時。由上二緣及法爾力。若生欲界起上定時。一一應知加由教力。由教
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：生死之中，這種快樂更為殊勝，因此不能發起解脫等三種功德。這三種功德都想要背離生死。通無量等禪定隨順於這種快樂，所以依靠這種禪定也能修起解脫等三種法門功德。如果隨順得到其中一種，是否就能得到全部呢？並非如此。其中的含義是什麼呢？得到後者必定先得到前者，但得到前者不一定得到後者。例如，得到遍處定必定具備得到勝處定和解脫定。得到勝處定必定得到解脫定，但遍處定則不一定，有時得到有時沒有。如果得到解脫定，其餘兩種則不一定，因為入遍處定和勝處定是以解脫為門徑，而解脫定是以入勝處定為門徑。這解脫、勝處等禪定有什麼差別呢？僅僅能夠棄背（生死）的稱為解脫定（vimoksha）。兼顧分析所緣境的稱為勝處定（abhibhayatana）。加上無邊際的理解，就得到遍處定（krtsna）。這三種善根是漸次修習的緣故。有些老師說，這三種善根由於下、中、上三種根器而有差別，即能夠棄捨，勝伏所緣境，行相無邊際，有劣勝的差別。有些老師說，解脫定是因，遍處定是果，勝處定通於因果。現在應該思考，在上二界（色界、無色界）中，說法者既然沒有，憑藉什麼因緣才能生起禪定？頌文說： 『二界由因業，能起無色定，起靜慮，亦由法爾力。』 論述說：生於上二界，總共有三種因緣，能夠增進並引發色界和無色界的禪定。一是因力，即在先前的時間裡，接近並多次修習作為生起的因緣。二是業力，即先前曾經造作感得上地生的順后受業，那種業的異熟果報將要顯現，其勢力能夠令其增進並生起那種禪定。因為如果還沒有脫離下地的煩惱，必定沒有容身之處可以生到上地。三是法爾力，即器世界將要壞滅的時候，下地的有情自然而然地能夠生起上地的靜慮。因為在這個位置上，所有的善法，由於法爾力都增盛的緣故。那些生在上二界中而生起無色定的人，是由於因和業的力量，而不是法爾力。因為無雲等天不會被三種災難所破壞。生在**而生起靜慮的時候，是由於以上兩種因緣以及法爾力。如果生在欲界而生起上定時，應該知道還要加上教力。由於教
【English Translation】 English version: Because this joy in the cycle of birth and death is superior, it cannot initiate the three liberations (解脫, vimoksha) and so on. These three all desire to turn away from birth and death. Samadhi (三昧, sanadhi) such as 'unlimited' accords with this joy, so relying on this samadhi, one can also cultivate and initiate the merits of these three doors of liberation. If one attains one of these, does one attain all? This is not always the case. What is the meaning of this? Attaining the latter necessarily precedes attaining the former, but attaining the former does not necessarily lead to attaining the latter. For example, attaining the 'all-encompassing' (遍處, krtsna) necessarily entails having attained the three. Attaining the 'superior place' (勝處, abhibhayatana) necessarily entails attaining liberation, but the 'all-encompassing' is not certain; sometimes it is attained, sometimes not. If one attains liberation, the other two are not certain, because entering the 'all-encompassing' and 'superior place' takes liberation as its gateway, while liberation takes entering the 'superior place' as its gateway. What is the difference between these liberations and so on? Only being able to abandon and turn away is called liberation. Also analyzing the object of focus is called 'superior place'. Adding boundless understanding is called 'all-encompassing'. These three roots of goodness are cultivated gradually, so some teachers say that these three roots of goodness differ due to the lower, middle, and upper capacities, namely, being able to abandon, overcome the object of focus, and the characteristics being boundless, having inferior and superior differences. Some teachers say that liberation is the cause, the 'all-encompassing' is the result, and the 'superior place' is common to both cause and result. Now we should consider, in the upper two realms (色界, rupa-dhatu and 無色界, arupa-dhatu), since there is no speaker, what conditions give rise to samadhi? The verse says: 『The two realms, due to cause and karma, can initiate formless samadhi. Initiating dhyana (靜慮, dhyana) is also due to the power of dharma.』 The treatise says: Being born in the upper two realms is generally due to three conditions, which can advance and induce the samadhi of the form and formless realms. First, the power of cause, namely, in the past, being close to and repeatedly cultivating as the cause of arising. Second, the power of karma, namely, having previously created karma that leads to being born in the upper realms, the ripening of that karma is about to manifest, and its power can cause one to advance and arise in that samadhi. Because if one has not yet separated from the afflictions of the lower realms, there is definitely no room to be born in the upper realms. Third, the power of dharma, namely, when the world is about to be destroyed, beings in the lower realms naturally can arise in the dhyana of the upper realms. Because in this position, all good dharmas increase due to the power of dharma. Those who are born in the upper two realms and arise in formless samadhi do so due to the power of cause and karma, not the power of dharma. Because the heavens without clouds and so on are not destroyed by the three calamities. When one is born in ** and arises in dhyana, it is due to the above two conditions and the power of dharma. If one is born in the desire realm (欲界, kama-dhatu) and arises in upper samadhi, one should know that it is also due to the power of teaching. Due to teaching
力者。謂人三洲。天亦聞教微故不說。前來分別諸勝法門。皆為弘持世尊正法。何謂正法當住幾時。頌曰。
佛正法有二 謂教證為體 有持說行者 此便住世間
論曰。世尊正法體有二種。一教二證。教謂契經調伏對法。證謂三乘諸無漏道。若證正法住在世間。此所弘持教法亦住理必應爾。現見東方證法衰微教多隱沒。北方證法猶增盛故。世尊正教流佈尚多。由此如來無上智境眾聖棲宅。阿毗達磨無倒實義此國盛行。非東方等所能傳習。二中教法多分依止。持者說者得住世間。證正法住唯依行者。然非行者唯證法依。教法亦應依行者。故謂有無倒修行法者。能令證法久住世間。證法住時教法亦住。故教法住由持說行。但由行者令證法住。故佛正法隨此三人。住爾所時便住於世。阿毗達磨此論所依。此攝彼中真實要義。彼論中義釋有多途。今此論中依何理釋。頌曰。
迦濕彌羅議理成 我多依彼釋對法 少有貶量為我失 判法正理在牟尼
論曰。迦濕彌羅國毗婆沙師議。阿毗達磨理善成立。我多依彼釋對法宗。經主此中述己本意。言依此國諸善逝子。議對法理大毗婆沙。發起正勤如理觀察。為令正法久住世間。饒益有情故造斯論。多言顯示少有異途。謂形像色去來世等。然諸法性廣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有能力的人，指的是贍部洲、勝身洲、牛貨洲這三個洲的人。天界沒有聽聞到精妙的教法，所以沒有提及。前面分別闡述的各種殊勝法門，都是爲了弘揚和護持世尊的正法。什麼是正法？它應當住世多久？頌詞說：
『佛的正法有兩種，即教法和證法為體。有受持、講說和修行的人，正法便能住世間。』
論中說：世尊的正法，其體有兩種：一是教法，二是證法。教法指的是契經（Sutra，佛經）、調伏（Vinaya，戒律）、對法（Abhidharma，論藏）。證法指的是三乘（Three Vehicles，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的各種無漏道（Anasrava-marga，超越煩惱的修行道路）。如果證的正法住在世間，那麼弘揚和護持的教法也必然住世。現在看到東方證法衰微，教法大多隱沒。北方證法仍然增盛，所以世尊的正教流佈還很多。因此，如來無上的智慧境界，眾多聖賢的居所，阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）沒有顛倒的真實義理，在這個國家盛行，不是東方等地所能傳習的。教法在二者中，大部分依賴於受持者和講說者才能住世，而證正法住世，只依賴於修行者。然而，不是修行者只依賴於證法，教法也應該依賴於修行者。所以說，有不顛倒地修行佛法的人，能使證法長久住世。證法住世時，教法也住世。所以教法住世，依靠受持、講說和修行。但證法住世，依靠修行者。所以佛的正法隨著這三種人，住世多久，便能住世多久。阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）是這部論所依據的，它概括了阿毗達磨中的真實要義。阿毗達磨中的義理，解釋有很多途徑，現在這部論中，依據什麼道理來解釋？頌詞說：
『迦濕彌羅（Kashmir）的議理已經成立，我大多依據他們來解釋對法（Abhidharma）。少有貶低衡量是我的過失，判決法義正理在於牟尼（Muni，釋迦牟尼佛）。』
論中說：迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，說一切有部論師）認為，阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）的義理已經很好地成立了。我大多依據他們來解釋對法（Abhidharma）的宗義。經部師（Sautrantika，經量部論師）在這裡陳述自己的本意，說依據這個國家的各位善逝之子（Sugata-putra，佛子），討論對法（Abhidharma）的義理，大毗婆沙（Mahavibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）。發起精進，如理觀察，爲了使正法長久住世，饒益有情眾生，所以造這部論。『多』字顯示有少部分不同的途徑，比如形像色、過去未來世等。然而諸法的法性廣大。
【English Translation】 English version: The capable ones refer to the people of Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, the continent where we live), Purvavideha (Purvavideha, the East Videha continent), and Godaniya (Godaniya, the West Godaniya continent). The heavens did not hear the subtle teachings, so they are not mentioned. The various excellent Dharma gates previously explained are all for propagating and upholding the Proper Dharma of the World Honored One. What is the Proper Dharma? How long should it abide in the world? The verse says:
'The Buddha's Proper Dharma has two aspects, namely the Teaching and the Realization as its essence. If there are those who uphold, speak, and practice it, then it will abide in the world.'
The treatise says: The essence of the World Honored One's Proper Dharma has two kinds: the Teaching and the Realization. The Teaching refers to the Sutras (Sutra, discourses of the Buddha), the Vinaya (Vinaya, monastic discipline), and the Abhidharma (Abhidharma, philosophical treatises). The Realization refers to the various non-outflow paths (Anasrava-marga, paths of practice free from defilements) of the Three Vehicles (Three Vehicles, Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle). If the Realization of the Proper Dharma abides in the world, then the Teaching that is propagated and upheld will also abide, which is necessarily the case. Now we see that in the East, the Realization of the Dharma is declining, and the Teachings are mostly hidden. In the North, the Realization of the Dharma is still increasing, so the World Honored One's Proper Teachings are still widely spread. Therefore, the unsurpassed wisdom realm of the Tathagata (Tathagata, the Buddha), the dwelling place of many sages, and the non-inverted true meaning of the Abhidharma (Abhidharma, philosophical treatises) are flourishing in this country, which cannot be transmitted and practiced by the East and other places. Among the two, the Teaching mostly relies on those who uphold and speak it to abide in the world, while the Realization of the Proper Dharma only relies on practitioners to abide in the world. However, it is not that practitioners only rely on the Realization of the Dharma; the Teaching should also rely on practitioners. Therefore, it is said that those who practice the Dharma without inversion can enable the Realization of the Dharma to abide in the world for a long time. When the Realization of the Dharma abides in the world, the Teaching also abides. Therefore, the Teaching abides by relying on upholding, speaking, and practicing. But the Realization of the Dharma abides by relying on practitioners. Therefore, the Buddha's Proper Dharma abides in the world for as long as these three types of people abide.
The Abhidharma (Abhidharma, philosophical treatises) is what this treatise relies on, and it summarizes the true essence of the Abhidharma. There are many ways to interpret the meaning of the Abhidharma, but what principle does this treatise rely on to interpret it? The verse says:
'The reasoning of Kashmir (Kashmir) has been established, and I mostly rely on them to interpret the Abhidharma (Abhidharma). If there is any belittling or measuring, it is my fault, and the judgment of the Proper Dharma lies with the Muni (Muni, Shakyamuni Buddha).'
The treatise says: The Vaibhashikas (Vaibhashika, Sarvastivada school) of Kashmir (Kashmir) believe that the meaning of the Abhidharma (Abhidharma, philosophical treatises) has been well established. I mostly rely on them to interpret the tenets of the Abhidharma. The Sautrantika (Sautrantika, Sutra school) here states his own intention, saying that he relies on the sons of the Sugata (Sugata-putra, sons of the Buddha) of this country to discuss the meaning of the Abhidharma, the Mahavibhasa (Mahavibhasa, Great Commentary on the Abhidharma). He initiates diligence, observes according to the principles, and creates this treatise in order to make the Proper Dharma abide in the world for a long time and benefit sentient beings. The word 'mostly' indicates that there are a few different paths, such as the form and color of images, the past and future worlds, etc. However, the nature of all dharmas is vast.
大甚深。如實說者甚為難遇。自惟覺慧極為微劣。不能勤求如實說者。故於廣論所立理中。少有貶量為我過失。諸法正理廣大甚深。要昔曾於無量佛所。親近修習真智資糧。方于智境一切無惑。麟喻獨覺尚於法相不能決判。況諸聲聞彼所證法隨他教故。由此決判諸法正理。唯在真實大牟尼尊。是故定知阿毗達磨。真是佛說應隨信受。無倒修行勤求解脫。
說一切有部順正理論卷第八十
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 至為深奧的佛法啊！能夠如實宣說的人實在難以遇到。我自認為覺悟的智慧極為微弱淺薄，不能努力尋求如實宣說佛法的人。所以在《廣論》所建立的道理中，稍微有所貶低衡量，都是我的過失。諸法的正理廣大而深奧，要過去曾在無量佛所，親近修習真實的智慧資糧，才能對於智慧的境界一切沒有疑惑。如同麒麟一般的獨覺，尚且對於法的體相不能決斷判斷，更何況是那些聲聞眾，他們所證悟的法是隨順其他教法的緣故。由此可以決斷判斷諸法正理的，唯有真實的偉大牟尼（Muni，指釋迦牟尼佛）世尊。因此應當確定地知道阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏），真是佛所說，應當隨順信受，沒有顛倒地修行，勤奮地求解脫。
《說一切有部順正理論》卷第八十 English version: Profound indeed is the Dharma! Those who can speak truthfully about it are extremely rare to encounter. I consider my own awakened wisdom to be extremely weak and shallow, unable to diligently seek out those who can speak truthfully about the Dharma. Therefore, any slight disparagement or evaluation of the principles established in the Great Treatise is my fault. The true principles of all dharmas are vast and profound; one must have, in the past, been close to and cultivated the resources of true wisdom in the presence of immeasurable Buddhas to be without any doubt in the realm of wisdom. Even a Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, Solitary Realizer) like a unicorn cannot definitively judge the characteristics of dharmas, let alone the Shravakas (Shravakas, Hearers), whose Dharma they realize follows the teachings of others. Therefore, the definitive judgment of the true principles of all dharmas lies only with the truly great Muni (Muni, Sage, referring to Shakyamuni Buddha). Thus, one should know for certain that the Abhidharma (Abhidharma, collection of treatises) is truly spoken by the Buddha, and one should follow it with faith, practice without inversion, and diligently seek liberation.
Treatise on Following the Right Principle of the Sarvastivada School, Volume 80
【English Translation】 Profound indeed is the Dharma! Those who can speak truthfully about it are extremely rare to encounter. I consider my own awakened wisdom to be extremely weak and shallow, unable to diligently seek out those who can speak truthfully about the Dharma. Therefore, any slight disparagement or evaluation of the principles established in the 'Great Treatise' is my fault. The true principles of all dharmas are vast and profound; one must have, in the past, been close to and cultivated the resources of true wisdom in the presence of immeasurable Buddhas to be without any doubt in the realm of wisdom. Even a Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, Solitary Realizer) like a unicorn cannot definitively judge the characteristics of dharmas, let alone the Shravakas (Shravakas, Hearers), whose Dharma they realize follows the teachings of others. Therefore, the definitive judgment of the true principles of all dharmas lies only with the truly great Muni (Muni, Sage, referring to Shakyamuni Buddha). Thus, one should know for certain that the Abhidharma (Abhidharma, collection of treatises) is truly spoken by the Buddha, and one should follow it with faith, practice without inversion, and diligently seek liberation. 'Treatise on Following the Right Principle of the Sarvastivada School', Volume 80