大乘起信論 對治邪執

Of the five misreadings, the fourth goes deepest. Between it and the correct reading, only one relation has shifted.

The author himself has said: “All defiled mundane dharmas of birth and death exist in dependence on the Tathāgata-womb.”

The reader hears instead: all mundane dharmas such as birth and death exist within the substance of the Tathāgata-womb.

If birth and death depend upon it to exist, must they not be inside it?

The Author’s Reductio

“If the substance of the Tathāgata-womb contained deluded dharmas, it would be impossible for one who realizes it to bring delusion forever to rest.”

If delusion were truly inside the substance, realization could never bring it to rest—for delusion would be one of the substance’s own constituents.

Practice is possible precisely because delusion is not within the substance.

What, then, is within the Tathāgata-womb? “Only the various pure qualities exceeding the sands of the Ganges, inseparable, unbroken, and not different from the meaning of suchness.”

As for the defiled dharmas of the afflictions, they “exist only deludedly; their nature has never existed, and from beginningless time they have never been associated with the Tathāgata-womb.”

Never associated: they were not admitted and later cleared away. They were never inside.

Yet These Five Misreadings Do Not Belong to Outsiders

One old reading speaks without qualification: the five kinds of the view of a self in persons are “deludedly raised by beginners in the Great Vehicle within the Buddhadharma who have misunderstood the teaching. They are not raised by followers of non-Buddhist paths and the like.”

They arise within the Buddhadharma, in beginners in the Great Vehicle whose understanding of the teaching has gone awry.

This passage is therefore the treatise turning back to speak to its own readers.

Every attachment follows the same sequence: hearing a scripture say something → failing to understand that it was said to break attachment → turning it into a fixed conclusion → asking how it is countered.

Each is a mistake available only to someone who has heard half correctly.

The Other Four Each Seize One End

Taking empty space to be the nature of the Tathāgata. The scripture says the dharma-body is “like empty space.” That is a simile; the listener turns it into a definition. Yet empty space itself “exists only in contrast to form”—it is the very thing most dependent on contrast for its existence.

Taking suchness and nirvāṇa to be mere emptiness. The scripture speaks of ultimate emptiness as a negation; the listener takes the negation for the whole. The countermeasure needs only one sentence: “Understand that the substance of the dharma-body of suchness is not empty, being complete in immeasurable qualities of its own nature.”

Taking the Tathāgata-womb to contain distinctions of form and mind. The scripture says its substance is complete in all qualities, and the listener imagines them arranged inside it one by one. But completeness is spoken “solely in dependence on the meaning of suchness”; distinctions are “shown in dependence on the defiled meaning of arising and ceasing.”

Taking sentient beings to have a beginning and nirvāṇa an end. Whatever depends on something must have a first moment; whatever has a first moment must have a final one—this is an instinctive picture of time. The author closes both ends: the Tathāgata-womb has no former limit, and so ignorance has no beginning; it has no latter limit, and so nirvāṇa has no end.

No beginning, so there is no first moment of delusion to find. No end, so arrival need not be shadowed by fear of falling back.

The Attachment of the Two Vehicles: Fear and Grasping Are One Movement

“Fearing birth and death, they deludedly grasp nirvāṇa.”

They have been taught that there is no self in persons, and so still see the five aggregates as truly arising and ceasing.

The countermeasure: “Because the dharmas of the five aggregates do not arise in their own nature, neither do they cease—they are originally nirvāṇa.”

Originally nirvāṇa: there is no other nirvāṇa to seize.

The mind that fears and the mind that grasps are the two ends of one movement.

At the End, the Medicine Too Is Put Down

“Know that defiled dharmas and pure dharmas all exist in mutual dependence and have no intrinsic marks that can be spoken.”

Even the pure qualities used above as medicine are not independent things that can be held.

What, then, was the point of everything said before? The author answers: “As for why there is nevertheless speech, know that it is the Tathāgata’s skillful means. Provisional words are used to guide sentient beings, and their intent is entirely to lead one away from thought and back to suchness.”

Each of the five misreadings seizes a sentence of teaching and turns it into a thing.

The problem was never only which thing was seized. It was the seizing itself.

Composed by the Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa; translated by Paramārtha, Tripiṭaka Master of Western India, under the Liang. The Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle, from “As for countering deviant attachments” to “and does not enter true wisdom.” The figures at the head of each segment give the Taishō page, register, and line.

〔1 · All deviant attachments depend on the view of a self〕（0579c26）As for countering deviant attachments: all deviant attachments depend on the view of a self. If one departs from “self,” there are no deviant attachments.

〔2 · The view of self has two kinds〕（0579c27）This view of self has two kinds. Which two? First, the view of a self in persons; second, the view of a self in dharmas.

〔3 · The view of a self in persons has five kinds〕（0579c28）The view of a self in persons is spoken of in relation to ordinary beings, and it has five kinds. Which five?

〔4 · First attachment: taking empty space to be the nature of the Tathāgata〕（0579c29）First: hearing the scriptures say that the Tathāgata’s dharma-body is ultimately quiescent, like empty space, one does not understand that this is said in order to break attachment and takes empty space itself to be the nature of the Tathāgata.

（0580a02）How is this countered? Understand that the mark of empty space is a deluded dharma. It has no substance and is not real: it exists only in contrast to form, is a visible mark, and causes the mind to arise and cease.（0580a04）Because all dharmas of form are originally mind, there is in truth no external form; if there is no form, neither is there any mark of empty space.（0580a06）That is to say, all object-realms exist only because the mind deludedly gives rise to them. If the mind departs from deluded movement, every object-realm ceases, and the one true mind alone pervades everywhere.（0580a08）This expresses the ultimate meaning of the Tathāgata’s vast nature-wisdom; it is not like the mark of empty space.

〔5 · Second attachment: taking suchness and nirvāṇa to be mere emptiness〕（0580a09）Second: hearing the scriptures say that the substance of all mundane dharmas is ultimately empty, and that even the dharmas of nirvāṇa and suchness are ultimately empty—empty of themselves from the beginning and apart from every mark—one does not understand that this is said in order to break attachment and takes the nature of suchness and nirvāṇa to be nothing but that emptiness.

（0580a12）How is this countered? Understand that the substance of the dharma-body of suchness is not empty: it is complete in immeasurable qualities of its own nature.

〔6 · Third attachment: taking the Tathāgata-womb to contain distinctions of form and mind〕（0580a13）Third: hearing the scriptures say that the womb of the Tathāgata neither increases nor decreases and that its substance is complete in all dharmas of merit, one fails to understand and takes the Tathāgata-womb to possess distinct intrinsic marks of the dharmas of form and mind.

（0580a15）How is this countered? That statement is made solely in dependence on the meaning of suchness; as for distinctions, they are shown and spoken in dependence on the defiled meaning of arising and ceasing.

〔7 · Fourth attachment: taking the substance of the Tathāgata-womb to contain birth and death〕（0580a16）Fourth: hearing the scriptures say that all defiled mundane dharmas of birth and death exist in dependence on the Tathāgata-womb, and that no dharma is apart from suchness, one fails to understand and takes the substance of the Tathāgata-womb to contain all mundane dharmas such as birth and death.

（0580a19）How is this countered? From the beginning, the Tathāgata-womb has only the various pure qualities exceeding the sands of the Ganges, which are inseparable, unbroken, and not different from the meaning of suchness.（0580a21）The defiled dharmas of the afflictions, also exceeding the sands of the Ganges, exist only deludedly; their nature has never existed, and from beginningless time they have never been associated with the Tathāgata-womb.（0580a23）If the substance of the Tathāgata-womb contained deluded dharmas, it would be impossible for one who realizes it to bring delusion forever to rest.

〔8 · Fifth attachment: taking sentient beings to have a beginning and nirvāṇa an end〕（0580a25）Fifth: hearing the scriptures say that because of the Tathāgata-womb there is birth and death, and because of the Tathāgata-womb nirvāṇa is attained, one fails to understand and takes sentient beings to have a beginning.（0580a27）Because one sees a beginning, one further takes the nirvāṇa attained by the Tathāgata to have an end, after which the Tathāgata will again become a sentient being.

（0580a28）How is this countered? The Tathāgata-womb has no former limit, and the mark of ignorance likewise has no beginning.（0580a29）To say that sentient beings first arise somewhere beyond the three realms is a teaching found in the scriptures of non-Buddhist paths.（0580b01）Further, the Tathāgata-womb has no latter limit. The nirvāṇa attained by the buddhas accords with it and therefore likewise has no latter limit.

〔9 · The view of a self in dharmas〕（0580b03）As for the view of a self in dharmas: because those of the two vehicles have dull capacities, the Tathāgata teaches them only that there is no self in persons.（0580b04）Because this teaching is not ultimate, they see the dharmas of the five aggregates as arising and ceasing, fear birth and death, and deludedly grasp nirvāṇa.

（0580b05）How is this countered? Because the dharmas of the five aggregates do not arise in their own nature, neither do they cease—they are originally nirvāṇa.

〔10 · Ultimately departing from deluded attachment〕（0580b08）Further, as for ultimately departing from deluded attachment: know that defiled dharmas and pure dharmas exist only in dependence on one another and have no intrinsic marks that can be spoken.（0580b09）Therefore, from the beginning all dharmas are neither form nor mind, neither wisdom nor consciousness, neither existent nor nonexistent; ultimately, they have no mark that can be spoken.

〔11 · Why, then, is there still speech?〕（0580b11）As for why there is nevertheless speech, know that it is the Tathāgata’s skillful means: provisional words are used to guide sentient beings.（0580b12）Their intent is entirely to lead one away from thought and back to suchness, because thinking of any dharma causes the mind to arise and cease and prevents entry into true wisdom.

The part on explication has three divisions. The first establishes the correct meaning; the third points out the stages of the path. This middle division breaks.

And what it breaks is not a teaching of non-Buddhist paths.

One old reading makes this perfectly clear. The five kinds of the view of a self in persons are “deludedly raised by beginners in the Great Vehicle within the Buddhadharma who have misunderstood the teaching. They are not raised by followers of non-Buddhist paths and the like.” This passage is addressed to people learning the Great Vehicle from within the Buddhadharma whose understanding of the teaching has gone awry.

In other words, the treatise turns back here and speaks to its own readers.

Each attachment is presented in the same form: first, “hearing the scriptures say” a certain thing; next, because one does not know or understand, arriving at a certain conclusion; and last, the question, “How is it countered?” The treatise first gives the teaching the person actually heard, then locates the misunderstanding, and only afterward administers the medicine. Every attachment is placed at the point of having heard half correctly. Not one is an idle fancy that sprang from nowhere.

The Guiding Principle: All Deviant Attachments Depend on the View of Self

“As for countering deviant attachments: all deviant attachments depend on the view of a self. If one departs from self, there are no deviant attachments.”

The treatise does not set out to repair one view after another. It points to their common root: self. The five attachments below fasten onto five different things, but what is being treated is one and the same.

It then divides the view of a self in two: the view of a self in persons, spoken in relation to ordinary beings and presented in five kinds; and the view of a self in dharmas, spoken in relation to those of dull capacity in the two vehicles.

First Misreading: Taking Empty Space to Be the Nature of the Tathāgata

What the person hears is that the Tathāgata’s dharma-body is “ultimately quiescent, like empty space.”

Where does the error lie? “Not understanding that this is said in order to break attachment, one takes empty space to be the nature of the Tathāgata.” The scripture says like empty space to break attachment to form; the listener turns the simile into a definition.

The treatise’s countermeasure is exact: the mark of empty space is itself a deluded dharma. It “exists only in contrast to form, is a visible mark, and causes the mind to arise and cease.” Space shows up only over against form; it is not an independent thing. And “all dharmas of form are originally mind—there is in truth no external form. If there is no form, neither is there any mark of empty space.”

What appears to be the emptiest, most formless thing is in fact the thing most dependent on a contrast for its existence.

At the end, the treatise states the positive meaning: “If the mind departs from deluded movement, every object-realm ceases, and the one true mind alone pervades everywhere. This expresses the ultimate meaning of the Tathāgata’s vast nature-wisdom; it is not like the mark of empty space.” The pervasion of the dharma-body is the pervasion of wisdom, not the pervasion of a vacant nothing.

Second Misreading: Taking Suchness and Nirvāṇa to Be Mere Emptiness

What the person hears is that the substance of all mundane dharmas is ultimately empty, and that even nirvāṇa and suchness are ultimately empty, “empty of themselves from the beginning and apart from every mark.”

The same hinge turns the hearing into an attachment: “not understanding that this is said in order to break attachment,” one takes the nature of suchness and nirvāṇa to be nothing but emptiness.

The countermeasure is a single, startlingly short sentence: “Understand that the substance of the dharma-body of suchness is not empty, being complete in immeasurable qualities of its own nature.”

One sentence is enough because the medicine has already been compounded earlier. The six meanings in the passage on the substance and marks of suchness, and its teaching that suchness “is by nature complete in all qualities,” were established for just this point. The medicines used to break these attachments are the meanings already established by the preceding text.

This attachment forms a pair with the first. The first takes suchness to be empty space; the second takes it to be empty of everything. The former mistakes a simile for the substance. The latter mistakes a negating expression for the whole meaning.

Third Misreading: Taking the Tathāgata-Womb to Contain Distinctions of Form and Mind

What the person hears is that the womb of the Tathāgata “neither increases nor decreases, and its substance is complete in all dharmas of merit.”

Where does the error lie? “Failing to understand, one takes the womb of the Tathāgata to possess distinct intrinsic marks of the dharmas of form and mind.” If its substance is said to be complete in all qualities, must those qualities be arranged inside it one by one?

The countermeasure turns on the standpoint from which a statement is made: “This is spoken solely in dependence on the meaning of suchness; distinctions are shown and spoken in dependence on the defiled meaning of arising and ceasing.”

To say that it is “complete in all qualities” is to speak in dependence on suchness. To speak of distinctions is to show them in dependence on the defiled meaning of arising and ceasing. The same matter takes different forms of statement when spoken from different meanings; the mistake is to turn those forms of statement into objects stored inside it.

This is the same principle expressed in the earlier passage on the substance and marks of suchness by the words “shown through the marks of arising and ceasing in dependence on the karmic consciousness.” Here that principle becomes a medicine for attachment.

Fourth Misreading: Taking the Substance of the Tathāgata-Womb to Contain Birth and Death

What the person hears is that “all defiled mundane dharmas of birth and death exist in dependence on the Tathāgata-womb, and no dharma is apart from suchness.”

Where does the error lie? One “takes the substance of the Tathāgata-womb to contain all mundane dharmas such as birth and death.” If birth and death depend upon it to exist, must birth and death not be inside it?

This is the deepest of the five attachments, because it comes almost word for word from something the treatise itself has said. For that reason its countermeasure is also the longest:

“From the beginning, the Tathāgata-womb has only the various pure qualities exceeding the sands of the Ganges, inseparable, unbroken, and not different from the meaning of suchness. The defiled dharmas of the afflictions, also exceeding the sands of the Ganges, exist only deludedly; their nature has never existed, and from beginningless time they have never been associated with the Tathāgata-womb.”

The Tathāgata-womb contains only pure qualities. The afflictions and defilements “exist only deludedly; their nature has never existed”; from beginningless time they have never been associated with the Tathāgata-womb.

Then the author gives a reductio, the most forceful stroke in the whole passage: “If the substance of the Tathāgata-womb contained deluded dharmas, it would be impossible for one who realizes it to bring delusion forever to rest.”

If deluded dharmas were really within its substance, realization could never bring delusion to rest—for delusion would be one of its own constituents. Practice is possible precisely because delusion is not within the substance.

Birth and death exist in dependence on the Tathāgata-womb and birth and death exist in the substance of the Tathāgata-womb: a shift of one relation turns the first into the ground that makes practice possible, and the second into a verdict that makes practice impossible.

Fifth Misreading: Taking Sentient Beings to Have a Beginning and Nirvāṇa an End

What the person hears is that “because of the Tathāgata-womb there is birth and death, and because of the Tathāgata-womb nirvāṇa is attained.”

Where does the error lie? One “takes sentient beings to have a beginning. Because one sees a beginning, one further takes the nirvāṇa attained by the Tathāgata to have an end, after which the Tathāgata will again become a sentient being.”

If birth and death depend on the Tathāgata-womb, was there a moment when sentient beings first began? And if there was a beginning, might there also be an end—might one become a buddha and afterward fall back again?

This attachment exposes an instinctive picture of time: whatever depends on something must have a first moment, and whatever has a first moment must have a final one.

The treatise closes both ends. “Because the Tathāgata-womb has no former limit, the mark of ignorance likewise has no beginning.” There is no former limit, and so ignorance is beginningless. It also draws a boundary in passing: “To say that sentient beings first arise somewhere beyond the three realms is a teaching found in the scriptures of non-Buddhist paths.”

At the other end: “The Tathāgata-womb has no latter limit. The nirvāṇa attained by the buddhas accords with it and therefore likewise has no latter limit.” There is no latter limit, and so nirvāṇa can neither end nor turn back into sentient existence.

Because there is no beginning, you need not hunt for the moment when delusion first occurred. Because there is no end, you need not fear that arrival will be followed by regression. Read together, those two statements offer the full reassurance of the passage.

The View of a Self in Dharmas: Fearing Birth and Death and Deludedly Grasping Nirvāṇa

Having finished the five kinds of the view of a self in persons, the author turns to the view of a self in dharmas in a very short passage.

“As for the view of a self in dharmas: because those of the two vehicles have dull capacities, the Tathāgata teaches them only that there is no self in persons. Because this teaching is not ultimate, they see the dharmas of the five aggregates as arising and ceasing, fear birth and death, and deludedly grasp nirvāṇa.”

They have been taught only that there is no self in persons, not yet that there is no self in dharmas. They therefore see the five aggregates as truly arising and ceasing, and this view takes affective form: fear of birth and death, and deluded grasping after nirvāṇa.

The countermeasure is likewise only one sentence: “Because the dharmas of the five aggregates do not arise in their own nature, neither do they cease—they are originally nirvāṇa.”

They are originally nirvāṇa. There is no separate nirvāṇa to be seized.

The precision of the two words fear and grasp is worth hearing. The mind that recoils and the mind that reaches are the two ends of the same movement.

The difference between this and the preceding five is also revealing. The first five are deviations in understanding; this one is a deviation lodged in feeling. Fear and grasping are not propositions but reactions of the mind. By placing this beside the five views of a self in persons, the treatise acknowledges that attachment grows not only in what the mind thinks, but also in what it fears. A person may understand every proposition and still fear birth and death, still hurry toward a secure place. This sentence is spoken to that person.

At the End, Even “Breaking” Must Be Left Behind

The author does not stop with countering attachments. He adds a passage on “ultimately departing from deluded attachment”:

“Know that defiled dharmas and pure dharmas all exist in mutual dependence and have no intrinsic marks that can be spoken. Therefore, from the beginning all dharmas are neither form nor mind, neither wisdom nor consciousness, neither existent nor nonexistent; ultimately they have no mark that can be spoken.”

Defilement and purity arise only in relation to one another. Even the pure qualities used as medicines above are not independent things that can be grasped. Thus all dharmas are neither form nor mind, neither wisdom nor consciousness, neither existent nor nonexistent.

If the passage stopped there, the reader would ask: what, then, was the point of everything just said?

The author answers: “As for why there is nevertheless speech, know that it is the Tathāgata’s skillful means. Provisional words are used to guide sentient beings, and their intent is entirely to lead one away from thought and back to suchness, because thinking of any dharma causes the mind to arise and cease and prevents entry into true wisdom.”

All speech is expedient; it has one intent—to lead away from thought and back to suchness.

That sentence shines backward over the position of the whole treatise. The one mind, the two aspects, the three greatnesses, the five consciousnesses, the six defiled minds, perfuming, and the two bodies—all of it is “provisional words used to guide sentient beings.” That does not mean these teachings are false. It means they are established for the work of guidance. The pointing finger is not the moon; without a finger, however, one may never look up.

The reason comes in the last clause: “thinking of any dharma causes the mind to arise and cease and prevents entry into true wisdom.” As long as thought fastens on a dharma, the mind remains in arising and ceasing and cannot enter true wisdom.

Now look back over the whole passage. Each of the five misreadings seizes a sentence of teaching and turns it into a thing: empty space, emptiness, an arrangement of qualities, delusion within the substance, or the two ends of time. The last movement reveals that the problem was never only which thing one seized. It was the seizing itself.

Carrying Forward—How the Commentators Read This Passage

The foregoing is the sense of this passage in itself. What follows lets the commentators’ eyes shine on it from the side—a commentary is not the treatise, only the same matter seen from another position.

Fazang’s Record of the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle divides this section in two: “Within the second, the particular treatment, there are two: first, departing through countermeasures; later, ultimately departing. Within the former there are three: first stating the number, next listing the names, and last distinguishing their marks.” That division explains why the short final passage stands on its own: particular countermeasures have done their work, and now even the standpoint of countering must be relinquished.

In explaining the view of a self in persons, Fazang gives the judgment that unlocks the passage: “As for what is called the view of a self in persons: it reckons a general mark that governs. This is deludedly raised by beginners in the Great Vehicle within the Buddhadharma who have misunderstood the teaching. It is not raised by followers of non-Buddhist paths and the like.” The sentence turns the mirror squarely toward the reader: one cannot safely file these five attachments under somebody else’s beliefs.

He associates the view of a self in dharmas, following the treatise, with those of dull capacity in the two vehicles, who reckon that dharmas each have their own intrinsic nature.

Wonhyo’s Commentary does not repeat the words of the treatise in this passage, but explains them according to the outline; the two works offer no divergent judgment here for parallel recording.

And the treatise’s own sentence still stands without need of any commentator or any stage of the path: “If one departs from self, there are no deviant attachments.”